TMI-10-011, Submittal of Decommissioning Funding Status Report

From kanterella
(Redirected from ML100960464)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Submittal of Decommissioning Funding Status Report
ML100960464
Person / Time
Site: Three Mile Island Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 03/29/2010
From: Hagan J
GPU Nuclear
To:
Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
bANOVAC k (415-5114)
References
TMI-10-011
Download: ML100960464 (162)
v • d • e


Text

GPU Nuclear, Inc.

C CEPU Three Mile Island Nuclear Station NUCLEAR Route 441 South Post Office Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057-0480 Tel 717-948-8461 March 29, 2010 TMI-10-011 10 CFR 50.75 ATTN: Document Control Desk United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Docket No. 50-320, License No. DPR-73 Decommissioning Funding Status Report for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1), GPU Nuclear, Inc. is submitting the attached Decommissioning Funding Status Report for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 for the year ending December 31, 2009. Enclosures A and B provide site-specific decommissioning analyses which support the Decommissioning Funding Status Report.

There are no regulatory commitments contained in this letter. If there are any questions, or if additional information is required, please contact Mr. Thomas A. Lentz, Manager -

FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Fleet Licensing, at (330) 761-6071.

Sincerely, Joseph J. Hagan President and Chi luclear Officer

Attachment:

Decommissioning Funding Status Report Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 As of December 31, 2009

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 TMI-10-011 Page 2

Enclosures:

A. Decommissioning Cost Analysis for Three Mile Island Unit 2, dated January 2009 B. FinancialEscalation Analysis for the Decommissioning of Three Mile Island Unit 2, dated May 2009 cc: NRC Region I Administrator NRC Project Manager NRC Resident Inspector

Attachment TMI-10-01 1 Decommissioning Funding Status Report Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 As of December 31, 2009 Page 1 of 11

1. Decommissioning fund estimate, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(b) and (c) is based upon a site specific decommissioning cost study, Decommissioning Cost Analysis for Three Mile Island Unit 2, dated January 2009 (Enclosure A) and escalated to 2009 dollars:

Radiological $836,859,007 Non-Radiological $ 31,766,234 FirstEnergy Consolidated $868,625-241

2. The amount accumulated in external trust funds at December 31, 2009:

Metropolitan Edison Company $266,915,947 Pennsylvania Electric Company 142,819,184 Jersey Central Power & Light Company 167,090,965 FirstEnergy Corp. Consolidated $576,826,096

3. A schedule of the annual amounts remaining to be collected from ratepayers is attached as Schedule 1.
4. The assumptions used regarding rates of escalation in decommissioning cost, rates of earnings on decommissioning funds, and other factors used in funding projections for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2:

Consolidated Ownership Interest in Unit 100%

"Real" Rate of Return 2.00%

Rate of Escalation 2.81%

Year of Site Restoration Completion 2054 SAFSTOR/Dormancy Period 2014-2043 Year of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 2034 Operating License Termination FirstEnergy Corp. plans on synchronizing the decommissioning of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 with the decommissioning of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1.

5. There are no contracts upon which the owners/licensees are relying pursuant to
  • 10 CFR 50.75(e)(1)(v).
6. There are no modifications to the licensee's current method of providing financial assurance since the last submitted report.

Attachment TMI-1Q0-011 Page 2 of 11

7. There were no amendments to the Trust Agreements for the above-mentioned owners of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2.
8. Schedules 2 through 4 each contains an analysis of funding earnings and withdrawals for the three owners of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2; Metropolitan Edison Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, and Jersey Central Power & Light Company; respectively. Schedule 5 contains a consolidated analysis for FirstEnergy Corp.
9. Mathematical rounding was performed during the development of the supporting calculations.

Attachment TMI-10-01 1 Page 3 of 11 Schedule 1 Schedule of Annual Amounts Remaining to be Collected as of December 31, 2009 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Annual Amounts to be Collected Jersey Central Metropolitan Pennsylvania Power & Light FirstEnergy Corp.

Year Edison Compa ny Electric Company Company1 Consolidated 2010 2,848,008 1,206,046 4,054,046 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Total 2,848,008 1,206,046 4,054,046 Note 1: On February 19, 2010 the Jersey Central Power & Light Company filed a request with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to reduce the Nuclear Decommissioning Cost charge to zero by June 1, 2010. If approved, Jersey Central Power & Light Company is expected to collect $1,206,046 in 2010 with no further deposits anticipated.

Attachment TMI-10-011 Page 4 of 11 Schedule 2 Metropolitan Edison Company1 Reflects 50% ownership in Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Pre Tax After - Tax Equivalent Estimated Weighted Average Net Investment Rate 2.00%

Estimated Escalation Rate 2.81%

Estimated AfterTax Rate of Return 4.81% 6.03%

Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 85,510,095 Non- Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 181,405,852 Total 266,915,947 Beginning 2 Ending Year Balance Deposits Earnings Withdrawals Balance 2010 266,915,947 2,848,000 12,907,151 282,671,098 2011 282,671,098 13,596,480 296,267,578 2012 296,267,578 14,250,471 310,518,049 2013 310,518,049 14,935,918 325,453,967 2014 325,453,967 15,654,336 341,108,303 2015 341,108,303 16,407,309 357,515,612 2016 357,515,612 17,196,501 374,712,113 2017 374,712,113 18,023,653 392,735,766 2018 392,735,766 18,890,590 411,626,356 2019 411,626,356 19,799,228 431,425,584 2020 431,425,584 20,751,571 452,177,154 2021 452,177,154 21,749,721 473,926,875 2022 473,926,875 22,795,883 496,722,758 2023 496,722,758 23,892,365 520,615,123 2024 520,615,123 25,041,587 545,656,710 2025 545,656,710 26,246,088 571,902,798 2026 571,902,798 27,508,525 599,411,323 2027 599,411,323 28,831,685 628,243,007 2028 628,243,007 30,218,489 658,461,496 2029 658,461,496 31,671,998 690,133,494 2030 690,133,494 33,195,421 723,328,915 2031 723,328,915 34,792,121 758,121,036 2032 758,121,036 36,465,622 794,586,657 2033 794,586,657 38,219,618 832,806,276 2034 832,806,276 39,997,737 (1,252,500) 871,551,512 2035 871,551,512 41,833,653 (1,829,000) 911,556,165 2036 911,556,165 43,755,159 (1,885,500) 953,425,824 2037 953,425,824 45,766,733 (1,934,500) 997,258,057 2038 997,258,057 47,872,394 (1,990,000) 1,043,140,450 2039 1,043,140,450 50,076,571 (2,047,500) 1,091,169,521 2040 1,091,169,521 52,383,643 (2,112,500) 1,141,440,664 2041 1,141,440,664 54,799,015 (2,168,000) 1,194,071,679 2042 1,194,071,679 57,327,537 (2,231,000) 1,249,168,216 2043 1,249,168,216 57,085,836 (62,352,500) 1,243,901,552 2044 1,243,901,552 54,795,017 (104,712,000) 1,193,984,569 2045 1,193,984,569 51,542,328 (122,418,500) 1,123,108,397

Attachment TMI-10-011 Page 5 of 11 2046 1,123,108,397 47,956,465 (126,092,500) 1,044,972,362 2047 1,044,972,362 44,015,895 (129,881,000) 959,107,256 2048 959,107,256 39,680,083 (134,157,500) 864,629,840 2049 864,629,840 35,541,515 (125,721,000) 774,450,355 2050 774,450,355 31,296,258 (123,800,500) 681,946,113 2051 681,946,113 26,665,828 (127,563,000) 581,048,940 2052 581,048,940 22,322,077 (116,972,500) 486,398,517 2053 486,398,517 20,784,925 (54,279,500) 452,903,942 2054 452,903,942 20,292,016 (31,032,500) 442,163,458 Note 1: Mathematical rounding was performed during the development of the supporting calculations.

Note 2: The withdrawals are Metropolitan Edison Company's share of the decommissioning expenditures contained in the FinancialEscalationAnalysis for the Decommissioning of Three Mile Island Unit 2, dated May 2009 (Enclosure B), Table 6. The expenditures are assumed to be made at beginning of the year.

Attachment TMI-10-011 Page 6 of 11 Schedule 3 Pennsylvania Electric Company1 Reflects 25% ownership in Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Pre Tax After - Tax Equivalent Estimated Weighted Average Net Investment Rate 2.00%

Estimated Escalation Rate 2.81%

Estimated AfterTax Rate of Return 4.81% 6.03%

Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 24,935,151 Non-Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 117,884,033 Total 142,819,184 Beginning 2 Ending Year Balance Deposits Earnings Withdrawals Balance 2010 142,819,184 6,869,603 149,688,787 2011 149,688,787 7,200,031 156,888,817 2012 156;888,817 7,546,352 164,435,170 2013 164,435,170 7,909,332 172,344,501 2014 172,344,501 8,289,771 180,634,272 2015 180,634,272 8,688,508 189,322,780 2016 189,322,780 9,106,426 198,429,206 2017 198,429,206 9,544,445 207,973,651 2018 207,973,651 10,003,533 217,977,183 2019 217,977,183 10,484,703 228,461,886 2020 228,461,886 10,989,017 239,450,902 2021 239,450,902 11,517,588 250,968,491 2022 250,968,491 12,071,584 263,040,075 2023 263,040,075 12,652,228 275,692,303 2024 275,692,303 13,260,800 288,953,103 2025 288,953,103 13,898,644 302,851,747 2026 302,851,747 14,567,169 317,418,916 2027 317,418,916 15,267,850 332,686,766 2028 332,686,766 16,002,233 348,688,999 2029 348,688,999 16,771,941 365,460,940 2030 365,460,940 17,578,671 383,039,611 2031 383,039,611 18,424,205 401,463,817 2032 401,463,817 19,310,410 420,774,226 2033 420,774,226 20,239,240 441,013,467 2034 441,013,467 21,182,625 (626,250) 461,569,842 2035 461,569,842 22,157,522 (914,500) 482,812,864 2036 482,812,864 23,177,952 (942,750) 505,048,066 2037 505,048,066 24,246,287 (967,250) 528,327,103 2038 528,327,103 25,364,674 (995,000) 552,696,777 2039 552,696,777 26,535,473 (1,023,750) 578,208,500 2040 578,208,500 27,761,023 (1,056,250) 604,913,273 2041 604,913,273 29,044,188 (1,084,000) 632,873,461 2042 632,873,461 30,387,558 (1,115,500) 662,145,519 2043 662,145,519 30,349,622 (31,176,250) 661,318,891 2044 661,318,891 29,291,115 (52,356,000) 638,254,006 2045 638,254,006 27,755,853 (61,209,250) 604,800,609

Attachment TMI-10-011 Page 7 of 11 2046 604,800,609 26,058,385 (63,046,250) 567,812,744 2047 567,812,744 24,188,155 (64,940,500) 527,060,399 2048 527,060,399 22,125,117 (67,078,750) 482,106,766 2049 482,106,766 20,165,745 (62,860,500) 439,412,011 2050 439,412,011 18,158,316 (61,900,250) 395,670,077 2051 395,670,077 15,963,841 (63,781,500) 347,852,417 2052 347,852,417 13,918,513 (58,486,250) 303,284,680 2053 303,284,680 13,282,571 (27,139,750) 289,427,501 2054 289,427,501 13,175,131 (15,516,250) 287,086,382 Note 1: Mathematical rounding was performed during the development of the supporting calculations.

Note 2: The withdrawals are Pennsylvania Electric Company's share of the decommissioning expenditures contained in Enclosure B, Table 6. The expenditures are assumed to be made at beginning of the year.

Attachment TMI-10-01 1 Page 8 of 11 Schedule 4 Jersey Central Power &Light Company' Reflects 25% ownership in Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 After - Tax Pre Tax Equivalent Estimated Weighted Average Net Investment Rate 2.00%

Estimated Escalation Rate 2.81%

Estimated AfterTax Rate of Return 4.81% 6.03%

Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 65,464,397 Non-Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 101,626,568 Total 167,090,965 Beginning 3 Ending Year Balance Depos its2 Earnings Withdrawals Balance 2010 167,090,965 1,206,046 8,066,081 176,363,092 2011 176,363,092 8,483,065 184,846,157 2012 184,846,157 8,891,100 193,737,257 2013 193,737,257 9,318,762 203,056,019 2014 203,056,019 9,766,995 212,823,013 2015 212,823,013 10,236,787 223,059,800 2016 223,059,800 10,729,176 233,788,977 2017 233,788,977 11,245,250 245,034,226 2018 245,034,226 11,786,146 256,820,373 2019 256,820,373 12,353,060 269,173,433 2020 269,173,433 12,947,242 282,120,675 2021 282,120,675 13,570,004 295,690,679 2022 295,690,679 14,222,722 309,913,401 2023 309,913,401 14,906,835 324,820,235 2024 324,820,235 15,623,853 340,444,089 2025 340,444,089 16,375,361 356,819,449 2026 356,819,449 17,163,016 373,982,465 2027 373,982,465 17,988,557 391,971,021 2028 391,971,021 18,853,806 410,824,827 2029 410,824,827 19,760,674 430,585,502 2030 430,585,502 20,711,163 451,296,664 2031 451,296,664 21,707,370 473,004,034 2032 473,004,034 22,751,494 495,755,528 2033 495,755,528 23,845,841 519,601,369 2034 519,601,369 24,962,703 (626,250) 543,937,822 2035 543,937,822 26,119,422 (914,500) 569,142,744 2036 569,142,744 27,330,420 (942,750) 595,530,413 2037 595,530,413 28,598,488 (967,250) 623,161,652 2038 623,161,652 29,926,216 (995,000) 652,092,868 2039 652,092,868 31,316,425 (1,023,750) 682,385,542 2040 682,385,542 32,771,939 (1,056,250) 714,101,231 2041 714,101,231 34,296,129 (1,084,000) 747,313,360 2042 747,313,360 35,892,117 (1,115,500) 782,089,977 2043 782,089,977 36,118,950 (31,176,250) 787,032,677 2044 787,032,677 35,337,948 (52,356,000) 770,014,625 2045 770,014,625 34,093,539 (61,209,250) 742,898,914

Attachment TMI-10-011 Page 9 of 11 2046 742,898,914 32,700,913 (63,046,250) 712,553,577 2047 712,553,577 31,150,189 (64,940,500) 678,763,266 2048 678,763,266 29,422,025 (67,078,750) 641,106,541 2049 641,106,541 27,813,635 (62,860,500) 606,059,676 2050 606,059,676 26,174,068 (61,900,250) 570,333,494 2051 570,333,494 24,365,151 (63,781,500) 530,917,145 2052 530,917,145 22,723,926 (58,486,250) 495,154,821 2d53 495,154,821 22,511,525 (27,139,750) 490,526,596 2054 490,526,596 22,847,998 (15,516,250) 497,858,344 Note 1: Mathematical rounding was performed during the development of the supporting calculations.

Note 2: On February 19, 2010 the Jersey Central Power & Light Company filed a request with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to reduce the Nuclear Decommissioning Cost charge to zero by June 1, 2010. If approved, Jersey Central Power & Light Company is expected to collect $1,206,046 in 2010 with no further deposits anticipated.

Note 3: The withdrawals are Jersey Central Power & Light Company's share of the decommissioning expenditures contained in Enclosure B, Table 6. The expenditures are assumed to be made at beginning of the year.

Attachment TMI-10-011 Page 10 of 11 Schedule 5 FirstEnergy Corp. Consolidated1 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Pre Tax After - Tax Equivalent Estimated Weighted Average Net Investment Rate 2.00%

Estimated Escalation Rate 2.81%

Estimated AfterTax Rate of Return 4.81% 6.03%

Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 175,909,643 Non-Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 400,916,453 Total 575,826,096 Beginning 3 Ending 2

Year Balance Deposits Earnings Withdrawals Balance 2010 576,826,096 4,054,046 27,842,835 608,722,977 2011 608,722,977 29,279,575 638,002,552 2012 638,002,552 30,687,923 668,690,475 2013 668,690,475 32,164,012 700,854,487 2014 700,854,487 33,711,101 734,565,588 2015 734,565,588 35,332,605 769,898,192 2016 769,898,192 37,032,103 806,930,295 2017 806,930,295 38,813,347 845,743,643 2018 845,743,643 40,680,269 886,423,912 2019 886,423,912 42,636,990 929,060,902 2020 929,060,902 44,687,829 973,748,731 2021 973,748,731 46,837,314 1,020,586,045 2022 1,020,586,045 49,090,189 1,069,676,234 2023 1,069,676,234 51,451,427 1,121,127,661 2024 1,121,127,661 53,926,240 1,175,053,902 2025 1,175,053,902 56,520,093 1,231,573,994 2026 1,231,573,994 59,238,709 1,290,812,703 2027 1,290,812,703 62,088,091 1,352,900,794 2028 1,352,900,794 65,074,528 1,417,975,323 2029 1,417,975,323 68,204,613 1,486,179,936 2030 1,486,179,936 71,485,255 1,557,665,191 2031 1,557,665,191 74,923,696 1,632,588,886 2032 1,632,588,886 78,527,525 1,711,116,412 2033 1,711,116,412 82,304,699 1,793,421,111 2034 1,793,421,111 86,143,065 (2,505,000) 1,877,059,176 2035 1,877,059,176 90,110,597 (3,658,000) 1,963,511,773 2036 1,963,511,773 94,263,531 (3,771,000) 2,054,004,304 2037 2,054,004,304 98,611,508 (3,869,000) 2,148,746,812 2038 2,148,746,812 103,163,284 (3,980,000) 2,247,930,095 2039 2,247,930,095 107,928,468 (4,095,000) 2,351,763,564 2040 2,351,763,564 112,916,605 (4,225,000) 2,460,455,168 2041 2,460,455,168 118,139,332 (4,336,000) 2,574,258,500 2042 2,574,258,500 123,607,212 (4,462,000) 2,693,403,712 2043 2,693,403,712 123,554,408 (124,705,000) 2,692,253,120 2044 2,692,253,120 119,424,081 (209,424,000) 2,602,253,201 2045 2,602,253,201 113,391,719 (244,837,000) 2,470,807,920

Attachment TMI-10-011 Page 11 of 11 2046 2,470,807,920 106,715,762 (252,185,000) 2,325,338,683 2047 2,325,338,683 99,354,238 (259,762,000) 2,164,930,921 2048 2,164,930,921 91,227,226 (268,315,000) 1,987,843,147 2049 1,987,843,147 83,520,895 (251,442,000) 1,819,922,042 2050 1,819,922,042 75,628,642 (247,601,000) 1,647,949,684 2051 1,647,949,684 66,994,819 (255,126,000) 1,459,818,503 2052 1,459,818,503 58,964,516 (233,945,000) 1,284,838,019 2053 1,284,838,019 56,579,021 (108,559,000) 1,232,858,040 2054 1,232,858,040 56,315,145 (62,065,000) 1,227,108,185 Note 1: Mathematical rounding was performed during the development of the supporting calculations.

Note 2: Reflects the scheduled Metropolitan Edison Company and anticipated Jersey Central Power & Light Company deposits for 2010.

Note 3: The withdrawals are the decommissioning expenditures contained in Enclosure B, Table 6. The expenditures are assumed to be made at beginning of the year.

Enclosure A TMI-10-011 Decommissioning Cost Analysis for Three Mile Island Unit 2 January 2009 (127 Pages Follow)

Document F07-1601-002,Rev. 0 DECOMMISSIONING COST ANALYSIS for THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 preparedfor FirstEnergy Corporation prepared by TLG Services, Inc.

Bridgewater, Connecticut January 2009

Three Mile Island Unit 2 DocumentF07-1601-002,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Page ii of xvi APPROVALS Project Manager FrancisW. seym& Date Project Engineer Mark S.t46t h on Date Technical Manager 01 /Z7 I William A. Cloutier, Jr. Date Quality Assurance Manager J ephý J. lffer Date/

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Page iii of xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUM MARY ................................................................................... vii-xvi

1. INTRODU CTION ..................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Objectives of Study ........................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Site Description ................................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 Regulatory Guidance ........................................................................................ 1-4 1.3.1 Nuclear W aste Policy Act ............................... 1-5 1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive W aste Acts ...................................................... 1-6 1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Term ination .................................... 1-7
2. DECOM M ISSIONING ALTERNATIVES .............................................................. 2-1 2.1 DELAYED DECON .......................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.1 Period 2 - Dorm ancy .............................................................................. 2-2 2.1.2 Period 3 - Preparations ......................................................................... 2-3 2.1.3 Period 4 - Decom missioning Operations .............................................. 2-4 2.1.4 Period 5 - Site Restoration .................................................................... 2-8 2.2 CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR .................................................................................. 2-8 2.3 HARDENED SAFSTOR ................................................................................... 2-9
3. COST ESTIM ATE ..................................................................................................... 3-1 3.1 Basis of Estim ate .............................................................................................. 3-1 3.2 M ethodology ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Im pact of Decom missioning M ultiple Reactor Units ..................................... 3-3 3.4 Financial Components of the Cost M odel ....................................................... 3-4 3.4.1 Contingency ........................................................................................... 3-4 3.4.2 Financial Risk ........................................................................................ 3-7 3.5 Site-Specific Considerations ............................................................................. 3-8 3.5.1 Spent Fuel M anagem ent ....................................................................... 3-8 3.5.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Com ponents ........................................... 3-9 3.5.3 Steam Generators ................................................................................ 3-10 3.5.4 Other Prim ary System Com ponents .................................................. 3-11 3.5.5 Other Systems Known to Contain High Levels of Radioactivity ..... 3-12 3.5.6 Reactor Building Structures Decontam ination ................................. 3.13 3.5.7 Dem olition of Other Contaminated Structures ................................ 3-14 3.5.8 M ain Turbine and-Condenser ............................................................. 3-14 3.5.9 Transportation M ethods ..................................................................... 3-14 3.5.10 Low-Level Radioactive W aste Disposal ............................................. 3-15 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Page iv of xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE 3.5.11 Additional Decom missioning Facilities ............................................. 3-16 3.5.12 Rem ediation of Soil and Underground Piping ................................. 3-16 3.5.13 Site Conditions Following Decom m issioning .................................... 3-16 3.6 Assumptions .................................................................................................... 3-17 3.6.1 Estim ating Basis ................................................................................. 3-17 3.6.2 Labor Costs .......................................................................................... 3-18 3.6.3 Design Conditions ................................................................................ 3-18 3.6.4 General ................................................................................................. 3-19 3.7 Cost Estim ate Sum m ary ............................................................................... 3-20

4. SCHEDULE ESTIM ATE ........................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Schedule Estim ate Assum ptions ..................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Project Schedule ................................................................................................ 4-2
5. RADIOACTIVE W ASTES ........................................................................................ 5-1
6. RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 6-1
7. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 7-1 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Page v of xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE TABLES Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Delayed DECON ................. xiv Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Custodial SAFSTOR ...... xv Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Hardened SAFSTOR .......... xvi 1.1 Inventory of Spent Fuel, Auxiliary and Fuel Handling Buildings ................ 1-9 1.2 Inventory of Spent Fuel, Reactor Building ................................................... 1-11 1.3 Inventory of Spent Fuel, Reactor Coolant System ....................................... 1-12 3.1 Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures, Delayed DECON ......................... 3-21 3.2 Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures, Custodial SAFSTOR ................... 3-22 3.3 Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures, Hardened SAFSTOR ................... 3-24 5.1 TM I-2 W aste Stream s Sum m ary ..................................................................... 5-3 5.2 Decommissioning Waste Summary, Delayed DECON ................................... 5-4 5.3 Decommissioning Waste Summary, Custodial SAFSTOR ............................. 5-5 5.4 Decommissioning Waste Summary, Hardened SAFSTOR ............................ 5-6 6.1 Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Delayed DECON ................. 6-3 6.2 Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Custodial SAFSTOR ........... 6-4 6.3 Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Hardened SAFSTOR .......... 6-5 FIGURES 4.1 Activity Schedule .............................................................................................. 4-3 4.2 Decommissioning Timeline, Delayed DECON ................................................ 4-5 4.3 Decommissioning Timeline, Custodial SAFSTOR .......................................... 4-6 4.4 Decommissioning Timeline, Hardened SAFSTOR ......................................... 4-7 APPENDICES A. U nit Cost Factor Developm ent ........................................................................ A-I B. U nit Cost Factor Listing ................................................................................. B -1 C. Detailed Cost Analysis, Delayed DECON ...................................................... C-1 D. Detailed Cost Analysis, Custodial SAFSTOR ................................................. D- 1 E. Detailed Cost Analysis, Hardened SAFSTOR ............................................... E-1 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 DocumentF07-1601-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page vi of xvi REVISION LOG No. CRA o. Date Item Revised [ Reason for Revision 0 01-27-09 Original Issue TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Page vii of xvi EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report presents estimates of the cost to decommission the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 nuclear unit (TMI-2) for the selected decommissioning scenarios following the scheduled cessation of plant operations at the adjacent Unit 1 reactor. This analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information, originally developed in an evaluation for the GPU Nuclear Corporation in 1995-96,[1] and first updated in 2003 for FirstEnergy.1 2 1 The analysis has been further updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of the nuclear unit and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects. The updated estimates are designed to provide the FirstEnergy Corporation with sufficient information to assess its financial obligations, as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear unit.

The decommissioning of TMI-2 is a continuation of the decontamination efforts started in the 1980s, following its accident. The ultimate goal of the decommissioning is to remove the radioactive material from the site that would preclude its release for unrestricted use.

The estimates are based on numerous fundamental assumptions, including regulatory requirements, project contingencies, radioactive waste disposal options, and site remediation requirements. The estimates also include the dismantling of non-essential structures and limited restoration of the site.

Alternatives and Regulations The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) provided initial decommissioning requirements in its rule adopted on June 27, 1988.[31 In this rule, the NRC set forth financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear power facilities.

The regulations addressed planning needs, timing, funding methods, and environmental review requirements for decommissioning. The rule also defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC: DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB.

DECON is defined as "the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are 1 "Decommissioning Cost Estimate for the Three Mile Island, Unit 2," Document No. G01-1196-003, TLG Services, Inc., February 1996.

2 "Decommissioning Cost Estimate for Three Mile Island Unit 2," Document No. F07-1476-002, TLG Services, Inc., September 2004.

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page viii of xvi removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be 4

released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations."[ ]

SAFSTOR is defined as "the alternative in which the nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination) to levels that permit release for unrestricted use."[51 Decommissioning is to be completed within 60 years, although longer time periods will be considered when necessary to protect public health and safety.

ENTOMB is defined as "the alternative in which radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete; the entombed structure, is appropriately maintained and continued surveillance is carried out until the radioactive material decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property."[16 As with the SAFSTOR alternative, decommissioning is currently required to be completed Within 60 years.

The 60-year restriction has limited the practicality of the ENTOMB alternative at commercial reactors that generate significant amounts of long-lived radioactive material. In 1997, the Commission directed its staff to re-evaluate this alternative and identify the technical requirements and regulatory actions that would be necessary for entombment to become a viable option. The resulting evaluation provided several recommendations, however, rulemaking has been deferred pending the completion of additional research studies, e.g., on engineered barriers.

In 1996, the NRC published revisions to the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plants to clarify ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and. uniformity in the decommissioning process. [71 The amendments allow for greater public participation and better define the transition process from operations to decommissioning.

Regulatory Guide 1.184, issued in July 2000, further described the methods and procedures acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing the requirements of the 1996 revised rule relating to the initial activities and major phases of the decommissioning process. The costs and schedules presented in this analysis follow the general guidance and processes described in the amended regulations.

4 Ibid. Page FR24022, Column 3.

5 Ibid 6 Ibid. Page FR24023, Column 2.

7 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 2, 50, and 51, "Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 61, (p 39278 et seq.), July 29, 1996.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Page ix of xvi Decommissioning Scenarios Three decommissioning scenarios were evaluated for the nuclear unit. In all cases, there was some consideration of the decommissioning activities planned at the adjacent Unit 1. However, the scenarios selected are representative of alternatives available to the owner and are defined as follows:

1. Delayed DECON: One of the decommissioning alternatives for Unit 1 is to defer decommissioning until the spent fuel has been removed from the site.[8I This scenario assumes that the decontamination and dismantling activities at TMI-2 are synchronized with the adjacent unit such that the licenses for both units are terminated concurrently.
2. Custodial SAFSTOR: In the second scenario, TMI-1 is placed into long-term storage. TMI-2 remains in storage until such time that decommissioning activities can be coordinated with Unit 1. As with the first scenario, termination of the licenses is coordinated.
3. Hardened SAFSTOR: This scenario assumes that Unit 1 is promptly decommissioned when it ceases operations in 2034. In coordination with the Unit 1 activities, the TMI-2 reactor building is reconfigured for long-term, passive storage. Site structures and facilities, with the exception of the reactor building, are decontaminated and dismantled. The reactor building and its contents are secured and the site is reconfigured for monitored surveillance.

Decontamination and final dismantling of the reactor building is deferred for approximately 100 years (from Unit 1 shutdown).

The scenarios assume that Exelon Generation will be successful in extending the operating license at the adjacent Unit 1 to 2034.[91 The scenarios are also based upon the premise that decommissioning work at Unit 2 would not begin prior to final shutdown of Unit 1 in 2034, consistent with the agreement between Exelon and FirstEnergy.

Methodology The methodology used to develop the estimates described within this document follows the basic approach originally presented in the cost estimating guidelines [10] developed by the Atomic Industrial Forum (now Nuclear Energy Institute). This reference describes a unit factor method for determining decommissioning activity costs. The 8 Timelines for the Unit 1 decommissioning scenarios are included in Section 4 of this report.

9 Application for TMI-1 license renewal received by the NRC on January 8, 2008 10 T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Page x of xvi unit factors used in this analysis incorporate site-specific costs and the latest available information on worker productivity in decommissioning.

An activity duration critical path is used to determine the total decommissioning program schedule. The schedule is relied upon in calculating the carrying costs, which include program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental, and support services such as quality control and security. This systematic approach for assembling decommissioning estimates ensures a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the resulting cost estimate.

Contingency Consistent with cost estimating practice, contingencies are applied to the decontamination and dismantling costs developed as "specific provision for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope, particularly important where previous experience relating estimates and actual costs has shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur."1 1 1 1 The cost elements in the estimates are based on ideal conditions; therefore, the types of unforeseeable events that are almost certain to occur in decommissioning, based on industry experience, are addressed through a percentage contingency applied on a 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 time intervals identified for each scenario.

The use and role of contingency within decommissioning estimates is not a safety factor issue. Safety factors provide additional security and address situations that may never occur. Contingency funds, by contrast, are expected to be fully expended throughout the program. Inclusion of contingency is necessary to provide assurance that sufficient funding will be available to accomplish the intended tasks.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal The contaminated and activated material generated in the decontamination and dismantling of a commercial nuclear reactor is classified as low-level (radioactive) waste, although not all of the waste is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal. With the passage of the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" in 1980,[121 and its Amendments of 1985, [13] the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders.

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

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

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Page xi of xvi Until recently, there were two facilities available to FirstEnergy for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated by TMI-2. As of July 1, 2008, however, the facility in Barnwell, South Carolina was closed to generators outside the Atlantic Compact (comprised of the states of Connecticut, New Jersey and South Carolina).

This leaves the facility in Clive, Utah, operated by EnergySolutions, as the only available destination for low-level radioactive waste requiring controlled disposal.

EnergySolutions does not have a license to dispose of the more highly radioactive waste (Class B and C as defined by 10 CFR §61) generated in the decontamination and dismantling of the reactor vessel. In the interim (at least until new waste disposal options become available) and for purposes of this analysis, waste disposal costs for this material are based upon the last available Non-Atlantic Compact tariff for disposal at the Barnwell site.

Waste exceeding Class C limits (limited to material closest to the reactor core, or material contaminated with spent fuel debris from the March 1979 accident) 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.

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

Fuel-Bearing Waste Management There will be some wastes generated in the decommissioning of TMI-2 that are not suitable for shallow land burial and therefore cannot be shipped for disposal to EnergySolutions. This material, primarily associated with systems and structures contaminated with fuel debris, requires greater isolation from the environment. For estimating purposes, a geologic waste repository, or some interim storage facility, is assumed to be available for the disposal of this material.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Pagexii of xvi Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act"[141 (NWPA) in 1982, assigning the federal government's long-standing responsibility for disposal of the spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the DOE. The NWPA provided that DOE would enter into contracts with utilities in which DOE would promise to take the utilities' spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste and utilities would pay the cost of the disposition services for that material. The NWPA, along with the individual contracts with the utilities, specified that the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998.

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

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

Assuming a timely review and adequate funding, the DOE expects that receipt of fuel could begin as early as 2020.[15]

The estimates for TMI-2 assume the timely removal of waste designated for geologic disposal, without the need for on site interim storage (once containerized).

Site Restoration The efficient removal of the contaminated materials at the site may result in damage to many of the site structures. Blasting, coring, drilling, and the other decontamination activities will substantially damage power block structures, potentially weakening the footings and structural supports. Prompt demolition once the license is terminated is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option. It is unreasonable to anticipate that these structures would be repaired and preserved after the radiological contamination is removed. The cost to dismantle site structures with a work force already mobilized is more efficient and less costly than if the process were deferred. Experience at shutdown generating stations has shown that plant facilities quickly degrade without maintenance, adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public and the demolition work force. Consequently, this 14 "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, 1982 15 "Project Decision Schedule", DOE/RW-0604, U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, January 2009 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Page xiii of xvi analysis assumes that non-essential site structures within the restricted access area are removed. The site is then backfilled, graded and stabilized.

Summary The costs to decommission TMI-2 are evaluated for three decommissioning scenarios.

Regardless of the timing of the decommissioning activities, the estimates assume the eventual removal of all the contaminated and activated plant components and structural materials, such that the facility operator may then have unrestricted use of the site with no further requirement for an license.

The scenarios analyzed for the purpose of generating the estimates are described in Section 2. The assumptions are presented in Section 3, along with schedules of annual expenditures. The major cost contributors are identified in Section 6, with detailed activity costs, waste volumes, and associated manpower requirements delineated in Appendices C, D, and E. Cost summaries for the various scenarios are provided at the end of this section for the major cost components.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Page xiv of xvi DELAYED DECON COST

SUMMARY

DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Cost Element Total Decontamination 31,577 Packaging 17,232 Transportation 20,609 Waste Disposal 173,363 Off-site Waste Processing 10,217 Program Management [2] 371,633 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 17,868 Energy 13,769 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 12,996 Property Taxes Miscellaneous Equipment 23,169 Site O&M 2,929 Total [3] 844,884 Cost Element NRC License Termination 813,986 Site Restoration 30,898 Total [31 844,884

[1] Includes dormancy costs following TMI-1 shutdown in 2034

[21 Includes engineering and security costs

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

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Pagexv of xvi CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR COST

SUMMARY

DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Cost Element Total Decontamination 31,532

_P a k a-g- n1g............................................. .1 7 ,47.6..

Packagn 17,476 Transportation 20,807 Waste Disposal 173,544 Off-site Waste Processing 10,363 Program Management [21 401,769 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 40,727 Energy 24,931 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 12,996 Property Taxes Miscellaneous Equipment 30,133 Site O&M 2,936 Total [3] 922,772 Cost Element License Termination 891,874 Site Restoration 30,898 Total [31 922,772 Ill Includes dormancy costs following TMI-1 shutdown in 2034

[2] Includes engineering and security costs

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

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Page xvi of xvi HARDENED SAFSTOR COST

SUMMARY

DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Cost Element Total Decontamination 32,560 Removal 163,304 Packaging 17,312 Transportation 21,039 Waste Disposal 1.75,045 Off-site Waste Processing .11,393 Program Management [21 528,931 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 65,915 Energy 39,412 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 13,528 Property Taxes Miscellaneous Equpment 34,950 Site O&M 4,598 Off-site monitoring & security services 46,406 Total [3] 1,154,392 Cost Element License Termination 1,108,156 Site Restoration 46,236 Total [31 1,154,392

[1] Includes dormancy costs following TMI-1 shutdown in 2034

[21 Includes engineering and security costs

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

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page I of 12

1. INTRODUCTION This report presents estimates of the cost to decommission the Three Mile Island Unit 2 nuclear unit (TMI-2) for the scenarios described in Section 2. This analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information, originally developed in an evaluation for the GPU Nuclear Corporation in 1995-96 [1]*, and first updated in 2003 for FirstEnergy Corporation [2]. The analysis is designed to provide the FirstEnergy Corporation with sufficient information to assess its financial obligations, as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear unit. It is not a detailed engineering document, but a financial analysis prepared in advance of the detailed engineering that will be required to carry out the decommissioning.

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY The objective of this study was to prepare estimates of the cost, schedule, and waste volumes generated to decommission TMI-2, including all areas affected by the March 1979 accident.

Three decommissioning scenarios were evaluated for TMI-2. In each scenario decommissioning activities are coordinated with the adjacent operating unit (TMI-1 or Unit 1). The scenarios assume that Exelon Generation will be successful in extending the Unit 1 operating license to 2034. The three scenarios are also based upon the premise that decommissioning work at Unit 2 would not begin prior to final shutdown of Unit 1 in 2034, consistent with the agreement between Exelon and FirstEnergy.

The base scenario assumes that TMI-1 is decommissioned following the removal of spent fuel from the site. The decommissioning program for TMI-2 runs concurrently with the TMI-1 decommissioning effort and concludes with the termination of both licenses. This scenario is subsequently referred to as "Delayed DECON."

The second scenario assumes that TMI-1 is placed into safe-storage with decommissioning deferred 60 years. TMI-2 remains in storage with decommissioning deferred until it can be sequenced with TMI-1. This scenario is subsequently referred to as "Custodial SAFSTOR."

The final scenario assumes that TMI-1 is promptly decommissioned upon the scheduled cessation of operations in 2034. The reactor building at TMI-2 is modified for long-term, passive storage with all other Unit 2 facilities

. Annotated references for citations in Sections 1-6 are provided in Section 7.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 1, Page 2 of 12 decontaminated and dismantled. Remediation of the reactor building is deferred for a period of approximately 100 years at which time it is decontaminated and dismantled. This scenario is subsequently referred to as "Hardened SAFSTOR."

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION TMI-2 is located on the northern-most section of Three Mile Island near the east shore of the Susquehanna River in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania. The station is comprised of two pressurized water reactors. This study specifically addresses the decommissioning requirements for Unit 2, although the timing of each scenario is dependent upon the associated activities at the adjacent unit.

The nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) consists of a pressurized water reactor rated at a core thermal power level of 2772 MWth with a corresponding turbine-generator gross output of 959 MWe. The NSSS consists of the reactor with two independent primary coolant loops, each containing two reactor coolant pumps and a steam generator. An electrically heated pressurizer and connecting piping complete the system. The system is housed within a steel-lined, post-tensioned concrete structure (reactor building) in the shape of a right, vertical cylinder with a hemispherical dome and a flat, reinforced concrete basemat. A welded steel liner plate, anchored to the inside face of the reactor building, serves as a leak-tight membrane.

Heat produced in the reactor was converted to electrical energy by the turbine generator system. This system converted the thermal energy of the steam into mechanical shaft power and then into electrical energy. The turbine-generator is a tandem-compound design, consisting of one double-flow, high pressure turbine and two double-flow, low-pressure turbines driving a directly coupled generator at 1800 rpm. The turbine operated in a closed feedwater cycle where steam was condensed, feedwater heated, and ultimately returned to the steam generators. Heat rejected in the main condensers was removed by the condenser circulating and river water systems.

The condenser circulating water was cooled in two hyperbolic natural draft cooling towers located to the east of the station. The towers provided the heat sink required for removal of waste heat in the power plant's thermal cycle.

Cooling tower blowdown was discharged to the Susquehanna River.

TMI-2's operating license was issued on February 8, 1978, with commercial operation declared on December 30, 1978. On March 28, 1979, the unit experienced an accident initiated by interruption of secondary feedwater flow.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Section 1, Page 3 of 12 The steam generator boiled dry, resulting in the reduction of primary-to-secondary heat exchange. This caused an increase in the primary coolant temperature, creating a surge into the pressurizer, and an increase in system pressure. The pilot operated relief valve (PORV) opened to relieve the pressure, but failed to close when the pressure decreased. The reactor coolant pumps were turned off and a core heat-up began as the water level decreased to uncover the top of the core. The melting temperature of the zircaloy fuel cladding was exceeded, resulting in relocation of the molten zircaloy and some liquefied fuel to the lower core regions, solidifying near the coolant interface.

Based on the end-state core and core support assembly configuration and supporting analysis of the degraded core heat-up, it is believed that as the crust failed, molten core material migrated to the lower internals. The majority of the molten material flowed down through the region of the southeastern assemblies and into the core bypass region. A portion of the molten core material flowed around the bypass region and migrated down into the lower internals and lower head region. Limited damage to the core support assembly occurred as the core material flowed to the lower plenum. It is estimated that about 17 - 20 tons of material relocated to the lower internals and lower head region. Several in-core instrument guide tubes were melted but overall vessel integrity was maintained throughout the accident.

As a result of this accident, small quantities of core debris and fission products were transported through the RCS and the reactor building. as a result of the coolant flow through the PORV and the makeup and purification system (MU&P) during the accident. In addition, a small quantity of core debris was transported to the auxiliary and fuel handling buildings (AFHB) via the MU&P. Further spread of the debris also occurred as part of the post-accident water processing cleanup activities.

GPU Nuclear conducted a substantial program to defuel the reactor vessel and decontaminate the facility. As a result, TMI-2 has been placed in a safe, inherently stable condition suitable for long-term management, and any threat to the public health and safety has been eliminated. Fuel and core material removed in the defueling has been shipped off site. The current long-term management condition is termed Post-Defueling Monitored Storage (PDMS).

The costs for maintaining TMI-2 in this state until the onset of Unit 2 decommissioning is accrued in a separate nuclear liability account by FirstEnergy and therefore is not included in the cost estimates in this analysis.

Substantial contaminated areas still exist under the PDMS, as well as trace quantities of spent nuclear fuel (SNF). Several cubicles in the auxiliary and fuel handling buildings remain locked, and the basement of the reactor building has been uninhabitable since the accident. The quantity of fuel TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 4 of 12 remaining at TMI-2 is a small fraction of the initial fuel load; approximately 99% was successfully removed in the defueling. Additionally large quantities of radioactive fission products were released into various systems and structures. Most of this radioactivity was removed as part of the waste processing activities during the TMI-2 Clean-up Program which concluded with entry into Post-Defueling Monitored Storage in December 1993.

Significant quantities of radioactive fission products were removed from the reactor coolant system in preparation for the PDMS. However, the remaining 1% of the fuel and the remaining fission products pose unique problems in completing the decommissioning of TMI-2. A summary of the quantity and suspected location of the remaining fuel debris is provided in Tables 1.1 through 1.3.

1.3 REGULATORY GUIDANCE The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) provided initial decommissioning requirements in its rule "General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," issued in June 1988 [3]. This rule set forth financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear power facilities.

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

Subsequent to the rule, the NRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.159, "Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors,"[41 which provided additional guidance to the licensees of nuclear facilities on the

-financial methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the requirements of the rule. The regulatory guide addressed the funding requirements and provided 'guidance on the content and form of the financial assurance mechanisms indicated in the rule.

The rule defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC: DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB. The DECON alternative, the option evaluated for this analysis, assumes that any contaminated or activated portion of the plant's systems, structures, and facilities are removed or decontaminated to levels that permit the site to be released for unrestricted use shortly after the cessation of plant operations. The rule also placed limits on the time allowed to complete the decommissioning process. For SAFSTOR, the process is restricted in overall duration to 60 years, unless it can be shown that a longer duration is necessary to protect public health and safety. The guidelines for ENTOMB are similar, providing the NRC with both sufficient leverage and flexibility to ensure that these deferred options are only used in situations where it is reasonable and consistent with the definition of TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 1, Page 5 of 12 decommissioning. At the conclusion of a 60-year dormancy period (or longer for ENTOMB if the NRC approves such a case), the site would still require significant remediation to meet the. unrestricted release limits for license termination. To use a decommissioning scenario in which the license has not been terminated within 60 years of the final shutdown date, FirstEnergy will need Commission approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years.

The ENTOMB alternative has not been viewed as a viable option for power reactors due to the significant time required to isolate the long-lived radionuclides for decay to permissible levels. However, with recent rulemaking permitting the controlled release of a site, the NRC has re-evaluated this alternative.[5I The resulting feasibility study, based upon an assessment by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, concluded that the method did have conditional merit for some, if not most, reactors.[6I However, the staff also found that additional rulemaking would be needed before this option could be treated as a generic alternative. Rulemaking has been deferred pending the completion of additional research studies, e.g., on engineered barriers.

However, this study assumes that the ENTOMB alternative is a viable option for TMI-2 and that a storage period of 100 years would be acceptable.

The NRC published revisions to the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plants in 1996.171 When the regulations were adopted in 1988, it was assumed that the majority of licensees would decommission at the end of the facility's licensed life. Since that time, several licensees permanently and prematurely ceased operations. Exemptions from certain operating requirements were required once the reactor was defueled to facilitate the decommissioning. Each case was handled individually, without clearly defined generic requirements. The NRC amended the decommissioning regulations in 1996 to clarify ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and uniformity in the decommissioning process. The new amendments allow for greater public participation and better define the transition process from operations to decommissioning.

1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act[8] (NWPA) in 1982, assigning the responsibility for disposal of the spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Two permanent disposal facilities and an interim storage facility were envisioned. To recover the cost, the legislation created a Nuclear Waste Fund through which money is collected from the sale of electricity generated by the power plants. The NWPA, along with the TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 1, Page 6 of 12 individual disposal contracts with the utilities, specified that the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998.

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

Operation of DOE's yet-to-be constructed repository is contingent upon the review and approval of the facility's license application by the NRC and the successful resolution of pending litigation. The DOE submitted its license application to the NRC on June 3, 2008, seeking authorization to construct the repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Assuming a timely review and adequate funding, the DOE expects that receipt of fuel could begin as early as 2020.[91 The estimates for TMI-2 assume the timely removal of waste designated for geologic disposal, without the need for interim on site storage (once containerized).

1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Acts The contaminated and activated material generated in the decontamination and dismantling of a commercial nuclear reactor is classified as low-level (radioactive) waste, although not all of the material is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal. Congress passed the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" in 1980,[110 declaring the states as being ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders. The federal law encouraged the formation of regional groups or compacts to implement this objective safely, efficiently, and economically, and set a target date of 1986 for implementation. After little progress, the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985,"[11] extended the implementation schedule, with specific milestones and stiff sanctions for non-compliance. However, to date, no new compact facilities have been successfully sited, licensed, and constructed.

Until recently, there were two facilities available to FirstEnergy for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated by TMI-2. As of July 1, 2008, however, the facility in Barnwell, South Carolina was closed to generators outside the Atlantic Compact (comprised of the states of TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 7 of 12 Connecticut, New Jersey and South Carolina). This leaves the facility in Clive, Utah, operated by EnergySolutions, as the only available destination for low-level radioactive waste requiring controlled disposal.

EnergySolutions does not have a license to dispose of the more highly radioactive waste (Class B and C as defined by 10 CFR §61) generated in the dismantling of the reactor vessel. In the interim (at least until new waste disposal options become available) and for purposes of this analysis, waste disposal costs for this material are based upon the last available Non-Atlantic Compact tariff for disposal at the Barnwell site.

Material exceeding Class C limits (limited to material closest to the reactor core, or material contaminated with spent fuel debris) 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.

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

1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Termination In 1997, the NRC published Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination,"[1 2] amending 10 CFR §20. This subpart provides radiological criteria for releasing a facility for unrestricted use. The regulation states that the site can be released for unrestricted use if radioactivity levels are such that the average member of a critical group would not receive a Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) in excess of 25 millirem per year, and provided that residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).

The decommissioning estimates for TMI-2 assume that the site will be remediated to a residual level consistent with the NRC-prescribed level."

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 1, Page 8 of 12 It should be noted that the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) differ on the amount of residual radioactivity considered acceptable in site remediation. The EPA has two limits that apply to radioactive materials. An EPA limit of 15 millirem per year is derived from criteria established by the Comprehensive. Environmental 13 Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).[ 1 An additional limit of 4 millirem per year, as defined in 40 CFR §141.16, 14 is applied to drinking water.[ ]

On October 9, 2002, the NRC signed an agreement with the EPA on the radiological decommissioning and decontamination of NRC-licensed sites. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) [151 provides that EPA will defer exercise of authority under CERCLA for the majority of facilities decommissioned under NRC authority. The MOU also includes provisions for NRC and EPA consultation for certain sites when, at the time of license termination, (1) groundwater contamination exceeds EPA-permitted levels; (2) NRC contemplates restricted release of the site; and/or (3) residual radioactive soil concentrations exceed levels defined in the MOU.

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Section 1, Pages 9, 10, 11, and 12 are redacted as they contain sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 1 of 10

2. DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES Detailed cost estimates were developed to decommission TMI-2 for three scenarios.

Although the alternatives differ with respect to technique, process, cost, and schedule, they attain the same result: the ultimate release of the site for unrestricted use.

Three decommissioning scenarios were evaluated for the nuclear unit. The scenarios assume that Exelon Generation will be successful in extending the operating license for Unit 1 to 2034. The scenarios are defined as follows:

1. Delayed DECON: One of the decommissioning alternatives for Unit 1 is to defer decommissioning until the spent fuel has been removed from the site.

This scenario assumes that the decontamination and dismantling activities at TMI-2 are synchronized with the adjacent unit such that the licenses for both units are terminated concurrently.

2. Custodial SAFSTOR: In the second scenario, TMI-1 is placed into long-term storage. TMI-2 remains in storage until such time that decommissioning activities can be coordinated with Unit 1. As with the first scenario, termination of the licenses is coordinated.
3. Hardened SAFSTOR: This scenario assumes that Unit 1 is promptly decommissioned when it ceases operations in 2034. In coordination with the Unit 1 activities, the TMI-2 reactor building is reconfigured for long-term, passive storage. Site structures and facilities, with the exception of the reactor building, are decontaminated and dismantled. The reactor building and its contents are secured and the site is reconfigured for monitored surveillance. Decontamination and final dismantling of the reactor building is deferred for approximately 100 years (from Unit 1 shutdown).

For each of the three scenarios described above, dormancy costs are accrued from the cessation of TMI-1 operations. This means that the current PDMS costs are not included within the reported decommissioning costs.

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

The first two scenarios are essentially identical. The technical assumptions are unchanged with the only difference in the second scenario being the delay in start of decommissioning expenditures and the additional storage cost during the delay period. The third scenario reduces the controlled area to the reactor building, similar to that envisioned for an entombment alternative, without the extensive engineered barriers.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 2, Page 2 of 10 Although detailed procedures for each activity identified are not provided, and the actual sequence of work may vary, the activity descriptions provide a basis not only for estimating but also for the expected scope of work, i.e., engineering and planning at the time of decommissioning.

The conceptual approach that the NRC has described in its regulations divides decommissioning into three phases. The initial phase addresses the transition of reactor operations (i.e., power production) to facility de-activation and closure. The second phase encompasses activities during the storage period or during major decommissioning activities, or a combination of the two. The third phase pertains to the activities involved in license termination.

The decommissioning estimates developed for TMI-2 are also divided into phases or periods; however, demarcation of the phases is based upon major milestones within the project or significant changes in the projected expenditures.

2.1 DELAYED DECON The TMI-2 plant has effectively been placed in a SAFSTOR condition since the completion of the spent fuel removal activities and beginning of the PDMS.

However, the engineering and planning requirements for completing the decommissioning process are similar to those for a DECON alternative. Unit 2 decommissioning operations are integrated with Unit l's spent fuel transfer campaign such that the licenses are terminated concurrently.

2.1.1 Period 2 - Dormancy The dormancy costs included in this estimate are limited to monitoring activities only. Although TMI-2 has been in a dormant condition since entry into Post-Defueling Monitored Storage in December 1993, this estimate only includes those costs for maintaining the unit subsequent to the currently scheduled cessation of operations at Unit 1 in April of 2034 (i.e., current costs are not included).

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 2, Page 3 of 10 2.1'.2 Period 3 - Preparations Preparations include the planning for the removal of the remaining fuel-bearing components, decontamination of the structures and the dismantling of the remaining equipment and facilities. Typically, the process is described within a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) or a Decommissioning Plan (DP). Although the exact format and content of the decommissioning planning document has not been identified, as a minimum Technical Specification 3.2.1.1 requires NRC approval prior to removal of greater than 42 kilograms of fuel from the reactor vessel. Thus in addition to the planning document, changes may be required to the existing technical specifications prior to the start of major decommissioning activities.

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

The estimate assumes that FirstEnergy will provide project oversight.

However, the majority of the professional, managerial, technical and administrative support staff will be provided by a decommissioning operations contractor (DOC).

Site Preparations In preparation for active decommissioning, the following activities are initiated:

Characterization of the site and surrounding environs. This includes radiation surveys of the reactor building including: the basement and elevator block wall area, areas surrounding major components (including the reactor vessel and its internals, steam generators), internal piping, and primary shield cores. Surveys of the auxiliary and fuel handling building with emphasis on areas with known and potential alpha contamination and know fission TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 4 of 10 products. Surveys and sample analysis will also be performed on exterior buildings, land areas surrounding the facility, subsurface soil and groundwater.

  • Specification of transport and disposal requirements for highly radioactive waste and/or hazardous waste, including shielding and waste stabilization.
  • Development of procedures for occupational exposure control, control and release of liquid and gaseous effluent, processing of radwaste (including dry-active waste, resins, filter media, metallic and non-metallic components generated in decommissioning), site security and emergency programs, and industrial safety.

2.1.3 Period 4 - Decommissioning Operations This period includes the physical decommissioning activities associated with the removal and disposal of contaminated and highly radioactive components and structures, including the successful termination of the license. Significant decommissioning activities in this phase include:

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

" Refurbishment of the containment air control envelope building located outside the reactor building equipment hatch. A prefabricated metal containment building located on the 305' level of the reactor building will be required for the handling of highly contaminated material being removed from the basement or the operating deck elevations.

" Modification of the containment structure to facilitate handling of large equipment. This will include an evaluation to determine whether a temporary crane should be installed or whether the existing polar crane should be refurbished (the reactor vessel head will be the heaviest lift under the current removal scenario with the in-situ segmentation of the reactor vessel and steam generators).

" Reconfiguration and modification of site structures and facilities as needed to support decommissioning operations. This may include the upgrading of roads and rail facilities (on- and off-site) to facilitate hauling and transport. Modifications may also be required to the refueling area of the building to support the segmentation of the reactor vessel internals and component extraction.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 2, Page 5 of 10

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

  • Procurement (lease or purchase) of shipping canisters, cask liners, and industrial packages.
  • Decontamination of components and structures as required to control (minimize) worker exposure.
  • Decontamination of the reactor building so as to reduce working area dose rates and improve working conditions. The reactor building basement is known to be highly contaminated and will require remote operations and tooling for the initial decontamination effort.
  • Inventory, decontamination and removal of legacy equipment inventory left over from the defueling campaign.
  • Installation of a water processing system to filter and treat water from the reactor coolant system and fuel handling pool.
  • Removal of piping and components no longer essential to support decommissioning operations.
  • Removal of control rod drive housings and the head service structure from reactor vessel head. Segmentation of the vessel closure head.

" Segmentation of the upper internals assemblies. The plenum is currently stored in the fuel transfer canal. Segmentation will maximize the loading of the shielded transport casks, i.e., by weight and activity. The operations are conducted under water using remotely operated tooling and contamination controls.

  • Disassembly and segmentation of the remaining reactor internals, including the core former and lower core support assembly. All internals components below the top of the fuel are expected to exceed Class C disposal requirements due to fuel contamination. As such, the segments will be packaged in modified fuel storage canisters for geologic disposal.
  • Segmentation of the reactor vessel. A shielded platform is installed for segmentation as cutting operations are performed in-air using remotely operated equipment within a contamination control envelope. The water level is maintained just below the cut to minimize the working area dose rates. Segments are transferred in-TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 2, Page 6 of 10 air to containers that are stored under water, for example, in an isolated area of the refueling canal.

  • Removal of the steam generators and pressurizer for material recovery and controlled disposal. Due to the high internal and external radioactivity, these components can not serve as their own shipping containers. The steam generators are assumed to be segmented in-place. The pressurizer is assumed to be cut in half and shipped in a sealed and shielded shipping and burial container.

Steel shielding will be added, as necessary, to those external areas of the package to meet transportation limits and regulations.

  • Removal of free standing concrete structures in the reactor building.
  • Removal of the remaining internal structures within the reactor building including: the polar crane, inner pools and wall liners, biological shield, D-rings, floors and walls.

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

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

" Processing of the structural material in the reactor, auxiliary and fuel handling buildings. Approximately 90% of the concrete removed at this stage is assumed to meet free release criteria. The remainder is sent to a waste processor. The free-released concrete is available as fill. Excess concrete and scrap metals are disposed of in an industrial landfill.

  • Removal of contaminated yard piping and any contaminated soil.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 2, Page 7 of 10

  • Transfer of greater-than-Class C (GTCC) material to the DOE.
  • Surveys of the decontaminated areas not designated for complete removal and disposal.

Remediation and removal of the contaminated equipment and material from the auxiliary and fuel buildings and any other contaminated facility. Certain areas in the auxiliary and spent fuel handling buildings contain very high contamination and radiation levels and will require additional resource and increased radiological protection to complete the decontamination. Radiation and contamination controls will be utilized until residual levels indicate that the structures and equipment can be released for unrestricted access and conventional demolition. This activity may necessitate the dismantling and disposition of most of the systems and components (both clean and contaminated) located within these buildings. This activity facilitates surface decontamination and subsequent verification surveys required prior to obtaining release for demolition.

Material that is designated as scrap or general disposal (survey and release) is transferred to a designed waste processing vendor for a confirmatory survey and, if permitted, released for unrestricted disposition. Contaminated material is characterized and segregated for additional off-site processing (disassembly, chemical cleaning, volume reduction, and waste treatment), and/or packaged for controlled disposal at a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.

Incorporated into the LTP is the Final Survey Plan. This plan identifies the radiological surveys to be performed once the decontamination activities are completed and is developed using the guidance provided in the "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)."[171 This document incorporates the statistical approaches to survey design and data interpretation used by the EPA. It also identifies state-of-the-art, commercially available instrumentation and procedures for conducting radiological surveys. Use of this guidance ensures that the surveys are conducted in a manner that provides a high degree of confidence that applicable NRC criteria are satisfied. Once the survey is complete, the results are provided to the NRC in a format that can be verified. The NRC then reviews and evaluates the information, performs an independent confirmation of radiological site conditions, and makes a determination on final termination of the license.

The NRC will terminate the license if it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with the LTP, and that TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 8 of 10 the terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release.

2.1.4 Period 5 - Site Restoration Following completion of decommissioning operations, site restoration activities will begin. Efficient removal of the contaminated materials and verification that residual radionuclide concentrations are below the NRC limits will result in substantial damage to many of the remaining structures. Prompt dismantling of remaining site structures is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option. It is unreasonable to anticipate that these structures would be repaired and preserved after the radiological contamination is removed. The cost to dismantle site structures with a work force already mobilized on site is more efficient than if the process were deferred. Site facilities quickly degrade without maintenance, adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public as well as to future workers. Abandonment creates a breeding ground for vermin infestation as well as other biological hazards.

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

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

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

2.2 CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR The decontamination and dismantling activities in this scenario are identical to those described in Section 2.1 for Delayed DECON. However, the start of active decommissioning is deferred to coordinate with the timing of the Unit 1 SAFSTOR scenario. As such, the duration of the dormancy period is significantly longer and the storage costs correspondingly greater.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 2, Page 9 of 10 While it is expected that radiation dose levels will decrease over the duration of the longer dormancy period, the nature of radionuclides involved and the difficulties in working in plant areas contaminated with these radionuclides will require similar operational and radiological controls to those envisioned for earlier scenario. As such, there have been no changes incorporated into the costs to perform the field decommissioning activities identified in Section 2.1 for this scenario.

2.3 HARDENED SAFSTOR This scenario is similar to what has been generally described as the ENTOMB option. The NRC has defined the ENTOMB option 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." As with the SAFSTOR alternative, decommissioning is currently required to be completed within 60 years. However, durations of up to 100 years may be considered where there are demonstrated benefits to the safety and health of the public.

This option reduces the long-term radiological footprint on the site by contracting the controlled area to the reactor building. Contamination outside this area is removed in the early stages of Hardened SAFSTOR decommissioning, concurrent with the decommissioning of Unit 1. Removal activities are performed in a similar fashion to their counterparts in the Delayed DECON scenario. Upon completion of the process, the reactor building is sealed with appropriate security and monitoring measures installed.

As in the Delayed DECON and Custodial SAFSTOR dormancies, the purpose of the dormancy period is to isolate the contamination on site, and to protect the public from the consequences of their own actions. The difference between the Hardened SAFSTOR dormancy and the other two scenarios is that generally the site is uninhabited; security and radiation monitoring are performed remotely.

Following the end of the Hardened SAFSTOR dormancy period, the reactor building and its contents are removed and disposed of in a similar fashion as discussed in the Delayed DECON scenario. Following the termination of the license and the limited restoration of the affected area, the site is available for unrestricted, alternative use.

While it is expected that radiation dose levels will decrease over the dormancy period, the nature of radionuclides involved and the difficulties in working in TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601.002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 2, Page 10 of 10 plant areas contaminated with these radionuclides will require similar operational and radiological controls to those envisioned for earlier scenario.

As such, there have been no changes incorporated into the costs to perform the field decommissioning activities identified in Section 2.1 for this scenario.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 1 of 27

3. COST ESTIMATE The cost estimates prepared for decommissioning TMI-2 consider the radiological status, unique conditions of the site, including the NSSS, power generation systems, support services, site buildings, and ancillary facilities. The basis of the estimates, including the sources of information relied upon, the estimating methodology employed, site-specific considerations, and other pertinent assumptions, is described in this section.

3.1 BASIS OF ESTIMATE The estimates rely upon site-specific, technical information originally developed in an evaluation prepared for the GPU Nuclear Corporation in 1995-96, and updated for FirstEnergy in 2003. The information was reviewed for the current analysis and updated as deemed appropriate. The site-specific considerations and assumptions used in the previous evaluation were also revisited. Modifications were incorporated where new information was available or experience from ongoing decommissioning programs provided viable alternatives or improved processes.

Some of the technical assumptions that were used are due to the unique nature and characteristics of the plant as a result of the March 1979 accident.

Following the accident, TMI-2 was defueled and extensive decontamination activities were performed. This successfully removed approximately 99% of the original fuel and resulting fuel debris. Removal of the residual 1% was neither cost effective nor warranted due to the high radiation fields in the reactor building and adjoining auxiliary and fuel handling buildings. The remaining equipment and components containing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) will be removed, sealed and/or encapsulated in preparation for disposal during the decommissioning program.

3.2 METHODOLOGY The methodology used to develop the estimates follows the basic approach originally presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study report, "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates,"[181 and the DOE "Decommissioning Handbook."[ 191 These documents present a unit factor method for estimating decommissioning activity costs, which simplifies the estimating calculations. Unit factors for concrete removal ($/cubic yard), steel removal ($/ton), and cutting costs ($/inch) were developed using local labor rates. The activity-dependent costs were estimated with the item quantities (cubic yards and tons), developed from TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 2 of 27 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 20 Data," published by R.S. Means.[ ]

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

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

Work Difficulty Factors TLG has historically applied work difficulty adjustment factors (WDFs) to account for the inefficiencies in working in a power plant environment and increase the time required to perform the activity. WDFs were assigned to each unique set of unit factors, commensurate with the inefficiencies associated with working in confined, hazardous environments. The WDF sets were developed considering the extremely difficult working conditions associated with working in high radiation areas and in areas with high alpha particle contamination. The same work difficulty factor sets were used for all three scenarios. This assumption was based upon the relatively high levels of long-lived radioactivity that exists today plus the high levels of alpha contamination.

The factors and their associated range of values were developed in conjunction with the AIF/NESP-036 study. The application of the factors is discussed in more detail in that publication. Given the radiological status of some areas at TMI-2, the range of the WDF's was increased. The ranges used for the WDFs are identified in the following table.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 3 of 27 Work Difficulty Factors Other Fuel/Aux Reactor NSSS Power Block Buildings Building Components Access 20% 40% 30% 40%

Respiratory Protection 0-25% 200% 50% 200%

Radiation/ALARA 10-25% 40% 40% 100%

Protective Clothing 0-30% 50% 50% 50%

Work Break 8.33% 8.33% 8.33% 8.33%

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

As shown above, higher WDF's sets were assigned to systems located in the reactor building and to systems which contain SNF and/or high levels of radioactive materials. The resulting man-hours, or crew-hours, are used in the development of the decommissioning program schedule, using resource loading and event sequencing considerations. The scheduling of conventional removal and dismantling activities are based upon productivity information available from the "Building Construction Cost Data" publication.

An activity duration critical path is used to determine the total decommissioning program schedule. The schedule is relied upon in calculating the carrying costs, which include program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental, and support services such as quality control and security. This systematic approach for assembling decommissioning estimates ensures a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the resulting cost estimate.

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

Consistent with the agreement between FirstEnergy and Exelon regarding the timing of decommissioning activities at TMI-2, it is TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 4 of 27 assumed that decommissioning at TMI-2 will begin in 2034. Under the terms of this agreement, decommissioning activities at Unit 2 cannot begin while Unit 1 is still in commercial operation. The decommissioning scenarios used in this analysis are structured to integrate to the extent possible with a Unit 1 decommissioning scenario.

  • Since the security program for the site is likely to be an integrated approach, the security guard force is assumed to be shared to varying degrees between the units, depending upon the level of activities at each unit. This reduces the security costs for the decommissioning estimates for both units on site.
  • The final radiological survey schedule is also affected by a two-unit decommissioning schedule. It would be considered impractical to try to complete the final status survey of Unit 1, while Unit 2 still has ongoing radiological remediation work and waste handling in process. As such, this analysis has structured the decommissioning scenarios for Unit 2 to coordinate the final status survey for the station.

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

Inherent in any cost estimate that does not rely on historical data is the inability to specify the precise source of costs imposed by factors such as tool breakage, accidents, illnesses, weather delays, and labor stoppages. In the DECCER cost model, contingency fulfills this role. Contingency is added to each line item to account for costs that are difficult or impossible to develop analytically. Such costs are historically inevitable over the duration of a job of this magnitude; therefore, this cost analysis includes funds to cover these types of expenses.

3.4.1 Contingency The activity- and period-dependent costs are combined to develop the total decommissioning cost. A contingency is then applied on a line-item basis, using one or more of the contingency types listed in the AIF/NESP-036 study. "Contingencies" are defined in the American Association of Cost Engineers "Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook"[2 11 as "specific provision for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope; particularly important where previous TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 5 of 27 experience relating estimates and actual costs has shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur." The cost elements in this analysis are based upon ideal conditions and maximum efficiency; therefore, consistent with industry practice, a contingency factor has been applied. In the AIF/NESP-036 study, the types of unforeseeable events that are likely to occur in decommissioning are discussed and guidelines are provided for percentage contingency in each category. It should be noted that contingency, as used in this analysis, does not account for price escalation and inflation in the cost of decommissioning over the time intervals identified for each scenario.

The use and role of contingency within decommissioning estimates is not a "safety factor issue." Safety factors provide additional security and address situations that may never occur. Contingency funds are expected to be fully expended throughout the program. They also provide assurance that sufficient funding is available to accomplish the intended tasks. An estimate without contingency, or from which contingency has been removed, can disrupt the orderly progression of events and jeopardize a successful conclusion to the decommissioning process.

For example, the most technologically challenging task in decommissioning a commercial nuclear station is the disposition of the reactor vessel and internal components, highly radioactive following the accident. The disposition of these components forms the basis of the critical path (schedule) for decommissioning operations. Cost and schedule are interdependent, and any deviation in schedule has a significant impact on cost for performing a specific activity.

Disposition of the reactor vessel internals involves the underwater cutting of complex components that are highly radioactive. Costs are based upon optimum segmentation, handling, and packaging scenarios.

The schedule is primarily dependent upon the turnaround time for the heavily shielded shipping casks, including preparation, loading, and decontamination of the containers for transport. The number of casks required is a function of the pieces generated in the segmentation activity, a value calculated on optimum performance of the tooling employed in cutting the various subassemblies. The expected optimization, however, may not be achieved, resulting in delays and additional program costs. For this reason, contingency must be included to mitigate the consequences of the expected inefficiencies inherent in this complex activity, along with related concerns associated with the TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 6 of 27 operation of highly specialized tooling, field conditions, and water clarity.

Contingency funds are an integral part of the total cost to complete the decommissioning process. Exclusion of this component puts at risk a successful completion of the intended tasks and, potentially, subsequent related activities. For this study, TLG examined the major activity-related problems (decontamination, segmentation, equipment handling, packaging, transport, and waste disposal) that necessitate a contingency. Individual activity contingencies ranged from 10% to 75%,

depending on the degree of difficulty judged to be appropriate from TLG's actual decommissioning experience. The contingency values used in this study are as follows:

Decontamination 50%

Contaminated Component Removal 25%

Contaminated Component Packaging 10%

Contaminated Component Transport 15%

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 25%

Reactor Segmentation 75%

NSSS Component Removal 25%

Reactor Waste Packaging 25%

Reactor Waste Transport 25%

Reactor Vessel Component Disposal 50%

GTCC Disposal 15%

Non-Radioactive Component Removal 15%

Heavy Equipment and Tooling 15%

Supplies 25%

Engineering 15%

Energy 15%

Characterization and Termination Surveys 30%

Construction 15%

Taxes and Fees 10%

Insurance 10%

Staffing 15%

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 end of each estimate. For example, the composite contingency value reported for the Delayed DECON alternative is 19.5%. Values for the TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 7 of 27 other alternatives are delineated within the detailed cost tables in Appendix D and E.

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

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

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

  • Delays in approval of the decommissioning plan due to intervention, public participation in local community meetings, legal challenges, and national and local hearings.
  • Changes in the project 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, e.g., the start and rate of acceptance of spent fuel by the DOE.

" Pricing changes for basic inputs, such as labor, energy, materials, and burial. Some of these inputs may vary slightly, e.g. -10% to

+20%; burial could vary from -50% to +200% or more.

It has been TLG's experience that the results of a risk analysis, when compared with the base case estimate for decommissioning, indicate that the chances of the base decommissioning estimate's being too high is a low probability, and the chances that the estimate is too low is a higher probability. This is mostly due to the pricing uncertainty for low-level radioactive waste burial, and to a lesser extent due to schedule increases from changes in plant conditions and to pricing variations in TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 8 of 27 the cost of labor (both craft and staff). This cost study, however, does not include any additional costs for financial risk since there is insufficient historical data from which to project future liabilities.

Consequently, the areas of uncertainty or risk should be revisited periodically and addressed through repeated revisions or updates of the base estimate.

3.5 SITE-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS There are a number of site-specific considerations that affect the method for dismantling and removal of equipment from the site and the degree of restoration required. The cost impact of the considerations identified below is included in this cost study. Unless otherwise noted, these assumptions are applicable to all three scenarios.

3.5.1 Spent Fuel Management The cost to dispose of spent fuel generated from plant operations is not reflected within the estimates to decommission the TMI-2 site. The majority of the spent fuel was removed during the TMI-2 Clean-up Program's reactor vessel defueling effort which concluded in January 1990. Title to the spent fuel that was removed was transferred to the DOE.

The remainder of the fuel (about 1%) is dispersed within the primary system and to a lesser extent in other systems and structures. This residual material will be removed as radioactive waste and is included in the waste disposal volumes discussed in Section 5.

Repository Availability There will be some wastes generated in the decommissioning of TMI-2 that are not suitable for shallow land burial and therefore cannot be shipped for disposal to either Barnwell or EnergySolutions. This material, primarily associated with systems and structures contaminated with fuel debris, requires greater isolation from the environment. For estimating purposes, a high-level waste repository, or some off site interim storage facility, is assumed to be available by 2020 for the disposal of this material. This timetable is consistent with the Project Decision Schedule released by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Management in January 2009.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 9 of 27 3.5.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components The majority of the reactor internal components have already been removed as a result of the accident recovery effort in the 1980's. These components are currently being stored within the reactor building. This estimate assumes that these components are segmented and shipped in shielded, reusable transportation casks commensurate with the start of major reactor vessel removal activities, e.g., Period 4A of the Delayed DECON scenario.

The reactor pressure vessel and remaining internal components (essentially the core barrel, core former, thermal shield, and flow distributor) are segmented and packaged for disposal in shielded, reusable transportation casks. Segmentation of the remaining internal components is performed in the refueling canal, where a turntable and remote cutter are installed. The vessel is segmented in place, using a mast-mounted cutter supported off the lower head and directed from a shielded work platform installed overhead in the reactor cavity.

Transportation cask specifications and transportation regulations will dictate segmentation and packaging methodology.

It is anticipated that all neutron-activated components in the reactor vessel and internals would meet existing disposal requirements as delineated in 10 CFR §61, due to the short operating history. However, the fission products and transuranic material present on all surfaces in the vessel and internals are expected to exceed Class C limits, in particular for those components located below the top of the core. The reactor vessel and the upper portions of the internals are assumed to meet Class A limits following decontamination.

The dismantling of the reactor internals will generate radioactive waste considered unsuitable for shallow land disposal, i.e., GTCC. Although the material is not classified as high-level waste, the DOE has indicated it will accept this waste for disposal at the future high-level waste repository.[2 2] However, the DOE has not been forthcoming with an acceptance criteria or disposition schedule for this material, and numerous questions remain as to the ultimate disposal cost and waste form requirements. As such, for purposes of this study, the GTCC has been packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost of $25,000 per cubic foot. It is also assumed that the DOE will accept the GTCC material in a timely manner so as not to affect the TMI-2 decommissioning schedule. No additional costs are included for the temporary storage of GTCC material.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 10 of 27 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, its location on the Columbia River simplified the transportation analysis since:

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

  • there were no man-made or natural terrain features between the plant site and the disposal location that could produce a large drop, and

" transport speeds were very low, limited by the overland transport vehicle and the river barge.

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

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

It is not known whether this option will be available for TMI-2. Future viability of this option will depend upon the ultimate location of the disposal site, as well as the disposal site licensee's ability to accept highly radioactive packages and effectively isolate them from the environment. Consequently, the study assumes the reactor vessel will require segmentation, as a bounding condition.

3.5.3 Steam Generators With the high levels of radioactivity and contamination both in the reactor building and within the steam generators, this estimate assumes that the steam generators will be segmented in place instead of one piece removal.

The removal sequence assumed for the estimate is as follows:

Remove the upper steam generator channel head by wire sawing the shell and tubes immediately below the upper tube sheet.

Segment and decontaminate the upper channel head in the fuel transfer pool.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 11 of27

  • Remove the steam generator tubing and associated shroud and support plates.

" Segment and decontaminate the lower channel head in the fuel transfer pool.

The steam generator tubing is packaged and shipped and buried as Class B waste. Steam generator tube support plates, shrouds, and shell plates are transported and buried as Class A waste. The estimate assumes that the steam generator channel heads will be decontaminated using a combination of machining and ultra high pressure (UHP) water sprays such that the components can be shipped and buried as Class A waste.

Waste that is generated as a result of the machining and normal filtering of the water in the steam generators and the fuel transfer pool is assumed to be highly radioactive and is packaged and transferred to the DOE as GTCC waste.

3.5.4 Other Primary System Components The following discussion deals with the decontamination, removal and disposition of the pressurizer, reactor coolant piping, reactor coolant pumps and motors, and the core flood tanks.

A combination of in-place decontamination, and remote decontamination of components in the fuel transfer pool was assumed in the estimate.

The pressurizer and the core flood tanks are decontaminated in-place using UHP. Once decontaminated, the pressurizer is cut in half, removed from the reactor building, grouted, and packaged in a shielded container for rail shipment and burial as Class A waste. The core flood tanks are assumed to be segmented, packaged and shipped as Class A waste.

Hot leg piping is accessed by cutting a hole in the core barrel. A combination of underwater remote retrieval and vacuuming is used to remove fuel and fission product material. Hot and cold leg piping and TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 12 of 27 fittings are removed and placed in the fuel transfer pool for additional decontamination. Hydrolasing is used to remove radioactive materials.

Removed material is collected using filters and demineralizers, packaged, and transferred to the DOE as GTCC material.

Decontaminated piping is packaged, shipped and buried as Class A waste.

The reactor coolant pump motors are removed intact and placed in shielded containers for rail transport and burial as Class A material.

Reactor coolant pumps are disassembled and placed in the fuel transfer pool for decontamination. Pump components are decontaminated using UHP to remove the majority of the radioactive material. Following decontamination, the components are packaged in shielded containers for rail transport and buried as Class A material. Material removed as a result of the decontamination process is collected using filters and shipped as GTCC material. The estimates also assume that process water used for reactor coolant system decontamination and in the fuel transfer pool is processed using cesium/strontium preferential cation demineralizers. The resin waste is processed and buried as Class C radioactive waste.

3.5.5 Other Systems Known to Contain High Levels of Radioactivity Systems in the reactor building and portions of systems in the auxiliary and fuel handling buildings are known to contain high levels of radioactivity and potentially spent fuel material from the accident. The estimates recognize the difficulty in removing these components by increasing the work difficulty factors associated with removal of these systems. The estimates also assume that these components will be packaged for direct disposal (no recycling). The disposal costs of these waste streams were also adjusted, as appropriate, to include curie surcharges commensurate with the higher radioactivity levels.

These systems and components will be decontaminated with UHP sprays to removal fuel solids and sludge from fuel bearing components in the fuel and auxiliary buildings. Solids and sludge resulting from the UHP process will be transferred to the reactor building to be packaged in canisters used for NSSS decontamination.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 13 of 27 3.5.6 Reactor Building Structures Decontamination Significant radioactive contamination exists throughout the TMI-2 reactor building. This contamination is due to fission products ( 9 0Sr and 137Cs in particular) released from the failed fuel. The radiation levels are not expected to decrease significantly from current levels due to the long half lives of these elements. The dispersion of spent fuel within the reactor building includes alpha-decaying isotopes in addition to the beta and gamma radiation normally encountered during decommissioning.

These unusual conditions require additional controls and more engineered decommissioning methods to perform the structure decontamination and demolition.

Based upon these conditions, the estimates assume that the entire interior structure of the reactor building is removed and disposed as potentially contaminated material.

The lower elevations of the reactor building are highly contaminated..

Significant activity has been absorbed in the concrete block walls, in the four foot thick D-ring concrete walls, and on the lower level concrete floors. Initial decontamination of this area (Period 4A) is assumed to be performed using remotely-operated machines (Brokk or equivalent).

Surface material will be bulk removed from the concrete walls, packaged in shielded casks and, on average concentration, buried as Class B waste (i.e., most of the debris mass will be Class A, but there will be hot spots ranging to Class C or GTCC).

Once the highly contaminated surfaces are decontaminated, free standing concrete walls will be removed (in Period 4B using more conventional means) and shipped to a waste processor as radioactive waste.

The upper portion of the containment inner steel liner and the entire polar crane will be removed using conventional radioactive demolition techniques (in Period 4B) and packaged, shipped and buried as radioactive waste. Following liner removal, the outer reactor building concrete walls will be removed using hydraulic excavation hammers.

This remaining reactor building structural material will be surveyed on site, with 90% of the concrete volume assumed to meet free release criteria. The remaining 10% is sent to a waste processor. The free released concrete is acceptable for use as fill. Excess material and scrap metals will be sent to an industrial landfill.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 14 of 27 3.5.7 Demolition of Other Contaminated Structures Significant contamination exists within the auxiliary and fuel buildings.

Similar to the reactor building, locations within these buildings will require special engineered methods to safely decontaminate and dispose of the structures.

The estimate assumes that the entire auxiliary and fuel building structures (all walls and floors down to the footings) will be removed and the resultant structural material monitored and processed with the same criteria as the reactor building.

Selected areas of the buildings will require remote operated machines and dedicated engineered ventilation systems and enclosures to allow decontamination and material removal.

3.5.8 Main Turbine and Condenser The main turbine will be dismantled using conventional maintenance procedures. The remaining turbine internals will be removed to a laydown area. The lower turbine casings will be removed from their anchors by controlled demolition. This study recognizes that one of the low pressure turbine rotors has already been removed from the site. The main condensers will also be 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 will be packaged and readied for transport in accordance with the intended disposition.

3.5.9 Transportation Methods Contaminated piping, components, and structural material other than the highly contaminated reactor coolant system components and reactor building structures will qualify as LSA-I, II or III or Surface Contaminated Object, SCO-I or II, as described in Title 49.[231 The contaminated material will be packaged in Industrial Packages (IP-1, IP-2 or IP-3, as defined in subpart 173.411) for transport unless demonstrated to qualify as their own shipping containers. It is anticipated that the reactor vessel, due to its limited operating lifetime, will qualify as LSA II or III, once the reactor internals and remaining fuel debris is removed. The reactor vessel internal components are TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 15 of 27 expected to be transported to the DOE's geologic repository in spent fuel casks by rail.

Waste resulting from filtering and demineralization of the reactor coolant system, and processing the fuel transfer pool water is assumed to require shipment in shielded truck casks. Transport of other highly radioactive waste such as reactor coolant system components, and waste from the decontamination of the reactor building basement are by shielded truck cask. Truck cask shipments may exceed 95,000 pounds, including payload, supplementary shielding, cask tie-downs, and tractor-trailer. The maximum level of activity per shipment assumed permissible was based upon the license limits of the available shielded transport casks. The segmentation scheme for the vessel and internal segments is designed to meet these limits.

The transport of large intact components, e.g., large heat exchangers and other oversized components are by a combination of truck, rail, and/or multi-wheeled transporter.

Truck transportation costs are estimated using published tariffs from 24 Tri-State Motor Transit.[ 1 The low-level radioactive waste requiring controlled disposal will be sent to the EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah. Memphis, Tennessee, is used as the destination for off-site processing. Bulk material shipped off site to the waste processor or to EnergySolutions is primarily moved via gondola railcars.

3.5.10 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal To the greatest extent practical, metallic material generated in the decontamination and dismantling processes is treated to reduce the total volume requiring controlled disposal. The treated material, meeting the regulatory and/or site release criterion, is released as scrap, requiring no further cost consideration. Conditioning and recovery of the waste stream is performed off site at a licensed processing center.

Very low-level radioactive waste, e.g., structural steel and contaminated concrete, is sent to a waste processing facility. More highly contaminated and activated material is sent to EnergySolutions.

Disposal fees are based upon current charges for operating waste. Since EnergySolutions does not currently have a license to handle and dispose of Class B and C wastes, Barnwell rates were used as a surrogate.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 16 of 27 Surcharges were added for the highly activated components, e.g.,

generated in the segmentation of the reactor vessel. A nominal fee of

$25,000 per cubic foot was assumed for the disposal of GTCC material at a federal repository.

The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) is currently storing waste from the TMI-2 defueling operation.

Costs have been included in this estimate to pay INEEL for the final disposal of this waste; the timing of when this payment occurs will be dependent upon the. DOE's schedule for cleanup of INEEL. This estimate assumes that the payment occurs during Period 4 of each cost scenario.

This study assumes that most of the concrete resulting from the demolition of the reactor, auxiliary and fuel handling buildings can be surveyed and released on site for fill of below grade voids, or shipped off site to a local construction debris landfill. Should there be restrictions to this approach; the cost impact on the decommissioning program could become quite large, potentially up to tens of millions of-dollars.

3.5.11 Additional Decommissioning Facilities Additional specialized facilities are required in support of the decommissioning. These include refurbishment of the containment air control envelope building located outside the reactor building equipment hatch, and the contamination control cubicle located outside the other personnel airlock, for reactor building radiological control and access.

Construction of a prefabricated metal enclosure at 305 elevation within the reactor building for the handling of highly-contaminated material. A radioactive waste packaging and processing facility will also be required (Note that such a facility already exists on site, but will require refurbishment).

3.5.12 Remediation of Soil and Underground Piping The estimates include the cost to remove certain underground piping.

An allowance is also included for the removal, packaging, transportation and disposal of approximately 49,000 cubic feet of contaminated soil.

3.5.13 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning The NRC will terminate (or amend) the site licenses if it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with the license TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 17 of 27 termination plan, and that the termination survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release. The NRC's involvement in the decommissioning process will end at this point. Building codes and environmental regulations will dictate the next step in the decommissioning process, as well as the owner's own future plans for the site.

Non-essential structures or buildings severely damaged in decontamination process are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade. Concrete rubble generated from demolition activities is processed and made available as clean fill. The excavations will be regraded such that the power block area will have a final contour consistent with adjacent surroundings.

This estimate assumes the reactor, auxiliary, fuel buildings will be removed completely, i.e., to their foundations and basemats. Concrete from these buildings will be surveyed on-site using conventional monitoring equipment; concrete which meets the release criteria will be disposed of either on site as fill, or in an off-site landfill.

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

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

All costs are reported in 2008 dollars.

No costs have been included for the preparation of an environmental impact statement, should it be required.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 18 of 27 3.6.2 Labor Costs The craft labor required to decontaminate and dismantle the nuclear units will be acquired through standard site contracting practices. The current cost of labor at the site is used as an estimating basis. Costs for site administration, operations, construction, and maintenance personnel are based upon average salary information provided by FirstEnergy or from comparable industry information.

FirstEnergy will provide limited oversight support staff in the areas of overall management, licensing, radiological and industrial safety and engineering. It will also hire a DOC to provide the balance of the professional, management, administrative and physical staff.

This study assumes that there is some sharing of security staffing positions with the adjacent Unit 1. This has the effect of slightly lowering site security costs.

The staffing levels for the Hardened SAFSTOR scenario were adjusted (reduced) during decommissioning periods to reflect the two phase approach.

3.6.3 Design Conditions Fuel cladding failure as a result of the accident will most likely prevent shipment of untreated major NSSS components under current transportation regulations and disposal requirements. Therefore, this estimate assumes that aggressive mechanical decontamination of reactor coolant system components is required prior to shipment.

The curie contents of the vessel and internals are activation products derived from those listed in NUREG/CR-3474.[ 25 1 Actual estimates are derived from the curie/gram values contained therein and adjusted for the different mass of the TMI-2 components, the 95 effective full-power days, and different periods of decay. Additional short-lived isotopes were derived from CR-0130 [26] and CR-0672 [271 and benchmarked to the long-lived values from CR-3474. The activation products present in the reactor vessel base metal are assumed to be the controlling factor in their disposal, following surface decontamination of fuel debris.

Reactor vessel internals whose elevation in the reactor places them at or below the original top of the fuel assemblies are assumed to be both sufficiently geometrically complex to preclude effective decontamination TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 19 of 27 and contaminated with spent fuel so as to require disposal as GTCC material.

Control elements and incore detector assemblies are assumed to have been removed with the damaged fuel.

Activation of the reactor building structure and the biological shield is considered minimal due to the short operating life of TMI-2.

3.6.4 General Transition Activities Existing warehouses will be cleared of non-essential material and remain for use by FirstEnergy and its subcontractors. The plant's operating staff will perform the following activities at no additional cost or credit to the project during the transition period (FirstEnergy staff will be augmented as necessary, either by direct hiring, or by subcontracting to fulfill the staff requirements):

  • Drain and collect lubricating oils for recycle and/or sale.
  • Process defueling waste inventories, i.e., the estimates include costs for the removal of lead shielding and spent fuel handling equipment that has remains in the reactor building.

Scrap and Salvage Material located within the radiation controlled area, and not shipped for direct disposal, is sent off-site for survey and release.

Furniture, tools, mobile equipment such as forklifts, trucks, bulldozers, and other property owned by FirstEnergy (and outside the radiation controlled area) is removed at no cost or credit to the decommissioning project. Disposition may include relocation to other facilities. Spare parts are also available for alternative use.

Energy For estimating purposes, the plant is assumed to be de-energized, with the exception of those facilities associated with long term dormancy.

Replacement power costs are used for the cost of energy consumption TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 20 of 27 during decommissioning for tooling, lighting, ventilation, and essential services.

Insurance Costs for continuing coverage (nuclear liability and property insurance) during dormancy and decommissioning are included and based upon current operating premiums. Reductions in premiums, throughout the decommissioning process, are based upon the guidance and the limits for coverage defined in the NRC's proposed rulemaking "Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors."[28] The NRC's financial protection requirements are based on various reactor configurations.

Taxes Property taxes are not included.

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

3.7 COST ESTIMATE

SUMMARY

A schedule of expenditures for each scenario is provided in Tables 3.1 through 3.3. Decommissioning costs are reported in the year of projected expenditure; however, the values are provided in thousands of 2008 dollars. Costs are not inflated, escalated, or discounted over the period of expenditure. The annual expenditures are based upon the detailed activity costs reported in Appendices C through E, along with the schedule discussed in Section 4.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 21 of 27 TABLE 3.1 DELAYED DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2008 dollars)

Equipment &

Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 2034 494 107 192 16 520 1,329 2035 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2036 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2037- 1 702 15 ___ 27 ----- 23-- - " 73 -" 1,887 8.................................7021 2.. 3 23

.... 7 0 2 1.

........1522 ..............................................

.............. 273 2 7 3 ....... 23 27 .... ................ 738 7.............................................

.... 1,887

... 1...

2039 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2040 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2041 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2042 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2043 31,716 677 898 23 10,800 44,115 2044 51,597 4,640 1,273 7,108 9,305 73,921 2 0 45..........................................

4.5.........143..,..5

.............. 15.3 3............

..1 1 ... ..... ..1...........

, 2 6.9 .............

8.4..1...1............89

.09.... .......................................

12,188 ............. . ........................

8.0..1....

2046 45,143 11,531 1,269 18,909 12,188 89,041 2047 45,143 11,531 1,269 18,909 12,188 89,041 2048 45,2671 11,563 1,273 18,961 12,222 89,285 2049 43,9741 10,862 1,049 17,392 7,787 81,064 2050 43,436 10,554 948 16,695 5,762 77,394 2051 43,436 10,554 948 16,695 5,762 77,394 2052 37,583 9,027 835 13,589 7,715 68,749 2053 16,425 4,596 264 1,062 8,983 31,330 2054 12,424 4,178 95 1,329 45. 18,070 1 467,3981 102,5661 13,7691 149,7771 111,3741 844,8841 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 22 of 27 TABLE 3.2 CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2008 dollars)

Equipment &

Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 2034 494 . . 107 . ._16 192 520 .. 1,329 2035 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2036 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2037. 702.. 152 273 23.738.1, 2037 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2038 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2039 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2040 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 r 2041 2042 2043 702 7021 702F 152 152, 152 273 273 2731 23 23 23 738 738 738 1,887 1,887 1,887

" 2044 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2045 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2046 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2047 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2048 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2049 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2050 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2051 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2052 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2053 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2054 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2055 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2056 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2057 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2058 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2059 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2060 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2061 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2062 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2063 702 152- 273- 23 .- 738 1,887 2064 704 15211 2741 23 740 1,893

..70,21 2065 .................... 1521-. 2731 2 3L

... 7381_ 1,887 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 23 of 27 TABLE 3.2 (continued)

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

Equipment &

Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 2066 702 152[ 273 23 738 1,887 2067 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2068 704[ 152 274 23 740, 1,893 2069 702, 152i 273_ 231 738, 1,8871 2070 1521 2731 2 738, 1,8871 2071 7021 152! 273i 23! 738 1,887 2072 704 152 2743 23 740 1,893 2073 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2074 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2075 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2076 704 152 274 23 7401 1,893 2077 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2078 702 152 273 23 7381 1,887 2079 702 152 273 23 7381 1,887 2080 7041 152 274.1 23170 1,893 2081 - 02 152 273! 2-31 .......... 7381 1,887 t.............. ...........................

................. .1.1-2082 702 1521 - 2731 23! 731 1,8 2-083 702 1 21....

J5 273&3 738 __ 1,887 2084 46,403 921 1,188 23 15,460 63,994 2085 50,241 7,653 1,269 12,464 7,917 79,544 2086 45,159 11,490 1,269 18,724 12,136 88,777 2087 45,159 11,490 1,269 18,724 12,136 88,777 2088 45,282 11,521 1,273 18,775 12,169 89,020 2089 45,159 11,490 1,269 18,724 12,136 88,777 2090 43,506 10,582 963 16,741 6,045 77,837 2091 43,425 10,538 948, 16 ,6 4 51 5,747 77,302 209. .. ....... ..........

4 .a. ..

4... ................................

6 .. ......... .......................................

.. 1........................

5 7.6 3... ......

2.. ...1............

5...

2093 29,060 6,799 6711 9,085' 10,3901 56,005 2094 19,154 5,9491 2191 1,681 4,778] 31,782 2095 6,577 2,2121 501 7041 24] 9,567 497,569 108,767 24,931ý 150,1051 141,401 922,772 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 24 of 27 TABLE 3.3 HARDENED SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2008 dollars)

Equipment &

Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 2034~..........

...... 2,392 107

........................................................................ 192L .......

. .................................................................. 16

.... ....... 5-20"...........

... 3,22C 2035 18,234 487 672: 23 3,220 22,635 2036 39,361 2,743 1,2731 3,206 5,316 51,899 2037 37,118 6,934 9811 11,145 5,325 61,503 2038 37,084 7,120 948} 11,519 5,612 62,282 2039 37,084 7,120 9481 11,519 5,612 62,282 2040 28,830 5,508 7431 7,645 9,142 51,868 2041 17,943 5,334 239] 1,410 8,684 33,61C 2042 9,082 3,057 2311 977 2,152 15,499 2043

.......... 21-46 2731......... .....................-l0 0 1,135. 1,654 2044 247 0 2741 0 1,138 1,659 2045 246. 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2046 246 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2047 246 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2048 247 0 274 0 1,138 1,659 2049 246 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2050 246 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2051 246 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2052 247 0 274 0 1,138 1,659 2053 246 0 273, 0 1,135 1,654 2054 246 01 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2055 246 01 273 0 1,135 1,654 2056 247 0 2741 0 1,138 1,659 2057 246 0 273i 0 1,135 1,654 2058 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2059 246 0 273, 0 1,135 1,654 2060 247 0 2741 0 1,138 1,659 2061 246 0 2731 0- 1,135 -- 1,654 2062 2461 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2063 246 0 27.[ 0 _ 1,35_ 1,654 2064 2471-- 01 2741 0 1,38 1,659 2065 .....246£ 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 25 of 27 TABLE 3.3 (continued)

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

Equipment &

Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 2066 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2067 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2068 1 247 0 2741 0 1,138 1,659 2069 246 0 273. 0 1,135 1,654 2070 246 0. 2731. 0 1,135 1,654 2071 246 0 273i 0 1,135 1,654 2072 247 0 -......... 274 0 1,138 1,659 2073 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2074 246 0 2731. 0 1,135 1,654 2075 246 0 273; 0 1,135 1,654 2076 247 0 274, 0 1,138 1,659 2077 246 0 273i 0 1,135 1,654 2078 246 0 273i 0 1,135 1,654 2079 246 0 273: 0 1,135 1,654 2080 247 01 274.i 0 1,138 1,659 2081 1 246 01 273' 0 1,135 1,654 2082 20.83 ............

I 246 246 0 273i 0 1,135 1,654

............. 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 0.......................... 2 4 .......... ..........................................................

2 . . ..............

1 -. 16...5 4 1 2084 247 0 2741 0 1,138 1,659 2085 246 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2086 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2087 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2088 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2089 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2090 246 0 2734 0 1,135 1,654 2091 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2092 246 0 273! 0 1,135 1,654 2093 2467 __.... 0. 273 0 1,135 1,654 2094 246 0 273, 0 1,135 1,654 2095 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2097 246 0. 2731 0 1,135 1,654 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 26 of 27 TABLE 3.3 (continued)

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

Equipment &

Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 2098 246 0 273. 0 1,135 1,654 2099 246 0 273! 0 1,135 1,654 21009 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2101 2-0------. . 0. 1,1 .3.5 -273 1...4...............

............... 654 2102 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2103 246 0 27311 0 1,135 1,654 2104 247 0 274i 0 1,138 1,659 2105 246 0 273ý 0 1,135 1,654 2107 246 0 273: 0 1,135 1,654 2108 2109 247 246 0 274i 2L73 0 0 1,138 1,135 1,654 1,659

......1 ......... ..........

2.................................

4 _.................................

C........................

. . 2 7 * ...................... 0...............

.1 .5............ ..........

...f 5 21101 2111 246 0 273; 273; 00 1,135 1,135 1,654 2112 247 0 2743 0 1,138 1,659 2113 246 0 273. 0 1,135 1,654 2114 246 0 273: 0 1,135 1,654 2115 246 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2116 247 0 2743 0 1,138 1,659 2117 ... . 24.6 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2118 246 1,132 1,654 2119 246 0i 273. 0 1,135 1,654 2120 247 01 2743 0 1,138 1,659 2121 246 0 273: 0 1,135 1,654 2122 246 0 273i 0 1,135 1,654 2123 37,396 870 1,1491 20 14,891 54,326 2124 40,894 6,709 1,2731 6,282 7,479 62,637 2125 37,525 10,791 1,269! 14,701 11,185 75,472 2 1 27.............................

3... . .....

5 . .......... .-....... .. 17.

. 26 .....

............ 1 4, 7.0..1.......

. 75.7...2...

7...

2 2127 37,5251 10,791, 1,269i 14,7011 11,185 75,472 2128. S1,821 1,273' 14,742 1...1,2 16 75,679 2129 36,089 7,120 966i 11,596 4,340 60.111 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 3, Page 27 of 27 TABLE 3.3 (continued)

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

Equipment &

Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total I 625,0681 117,039t 39,412i 153,3151 219,558[ 1,154,392 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 4, Page I of 7

4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATE The schedules for the decommissioning scenarios considered in this study follow the sequence presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study, with minor changes to reflect recent experience and site-specific constraints.

A schedule or sequence of activities is presented in Figure 4.1 through 4.3 for the three decommissioning scenarios. The key activities listed in the schedule do not reflect a one-to-one correspondence with those activities in the cost tables, but reflect dividing some activities for clarity and combining others for convenience. The schedule was prepared using the "Microsoft Project 2003" computer software.i2 91 4.1 SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS The schedule reflects the results of a precedence network developed for the site decommissioning activities, i.e., a PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) Software Package. The work activity durations used in the precedence network reflect the actual man-hour estimates from the cost tables, adjusted by stretching certain activities over their slack range and shifting the start and end dates of others. The following assumptions were made in the development of the decommissioning schedule:

0 The dormancy period for each scenario begins on the TMI-1 shutdown date of April 19, 2034. The decommissioning preparation period for each scenario begins on the TMI-1 operating license termination date.

  • For the Custodial SAFSTOR scenario, onset of delayed decommissioning activities is commensurate with the termination of the TMI-1 operating license, following its 60 year SAFSTOR scenario. Therefore, the custodial dormancy period ends, and delayed decommissioning activities begin at TMI-2 in 2084.
  • For the Hardened SAFSTOR scenario, final site restoration is completed 100 years after termination of the TMI-1 operating license.
  • All work (except vessel and internals removal and some of the decontamination of NSSS components in the refueling canal) is per-formed during an 8-hour workday, 5 days per week, with no overtime.

There are eleven paid holidays per year.

Steam generator removal activities are performed on multiple shifts with limited parallel work on the A and B steam generators.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 4, Page 2 of 7

  • Reactor and internals removal activities are performed by using separate crews for different activities working on different shifts, with a corresponding backshift charge for the second shift.
  • Multiple crews work parallel activities to the maximum extent possible, consistent with optimum efficiency, adequate access for cutting, removal and laydown space, and with the stringent safety measures necessary during demolition of heavy components and structures.
  • For all scenarios, reactor building basement decontamination using remote equipment will occur prior to the start of reactor coolant system component removal.

4.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE The period-dependent costs presented in the detailed cost tables are based upon the durations developed in the schedule for decommissioning TMI-2. Durations are established between several milestones in each project period; these durations are used to establish a critical path for the entire project. In turn, the critical path duration for each period is used as the basis for determining the period-dependent costs.

Project timelines are provided in Figures 4.4 through 4.6.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 4, Page 3 of 7 FIGURE 4.1 DELAYED DECON ACTIVITY SCHEDULE Task Name .9. 1 31 51 7 9 11 1 31l 5 11 19 21 TMI Unit 2

T i-Unit 1 Shutdown Period 2c Dormancy Period 3a Reactivate Site Period b- Decommissioning Preparations Prep*.Itcm.
:or f!loye 0 NEC0N Period 4a Unit 2 Large component removal DFeon.,Minate Re&-tor Bldg Lower Levels Decontaminate Reactor Bldg Upper Levels Remove PZR, RCP's & RCS Piping (In Parallel)

Decontaminate NSSS Components W990 ASteam Generator Removal

.-Pýe-', insatiolnl i vp, liftis,"liugs MV Loading S/G tubes in transfer cannister Remove support plates &shrouds Clean secondary side, cut & remove shell wall Remove lower channel head assembly B Steam Generator Removal 2'

Rlmove insu*ation Y-Y:

Erect 1ot0frl riAtOomr in'otoi tempr supfpcrts -ACFH lifting luvc COt &remove uppor clerhnnel eoad Y-.

Cut &remove SIG tubes a..*ii St, :r,,, in ',ronsoer non.nister Remove support pla.tes &shrouds Censecondary side, cut & remove shell wall Remove lower channel head assembly Reactor Vessel Removal Prepao.rTtions for Reortor r l reonoval PRoactor pressuire noeire rernnoval Period 4b Unit 2,. Site Decontamination (Reactor Building)

D.Rih, & osh.eil dremoýral Reahetr B*d: -Liner remno'i.a Roeartor B2d &Bosernat Demolition Underground piping & soil remediation TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 4, Page 4 of 7 FIGURE 4.1 (continued)

DELAYED DECON ACTIVITY SCHEDULE Task Name .2 1 3 5 k[9 11 13 15117 119 21 Period 4b Unit 2 Site Decontamination

, (Reactor Building) 5ean.or B& , 1Jinlr rniov--i eat Der mr olition Underground piping &soil remediation Period 4e Unit~~ ~ termination 2- License . ......................................................................

~~~~~ ..

NRC Verificatio*nd reviewn Part 50 license terminateda 5 Unit 2 -

DPeriod Restoration pSite

[ Decommiiissioning rompletec TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 4, Page 5 of 7 FIGURE 4.2 DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE DELAYED DECON (not to scale)

TMI-1 (Shutdown April 19, 2034)

Spent Fuel Storage Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Transition and Dormancy Delayed Decommissioni]n* Site Preparations Preparations R estoration 04/2034 10/2035 07/2047 12/2048 07/2053 07/2055 Storage Pool Empty 12/2048 TMI-2 Period 3 Period 5 Transition and Period 4 Site Preparations Decommissioning Restoration 05/2043 05/2044 11/2044 11/2047 04/2049 07/2053 07/2054 NSSS Removal RPV Removal RX Bldg Removal TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 4, Page 6 of 7 FIGURE 4.3 DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR (not to scale)

TMI-1 (Shutdown April 19, 2034)

Spent Fuel Storage Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Transition and Dormancy Delayed Decommissioning Site Preparations Preparations Restoration 0....4..... .........................................

Ie a a 1....

04/2034 10/2035 05/2088 11/2089 04/2094 04/2096 Storage Pool Empty 11/2039 ISFSI Empty 12/2048 TMI-2 Period 3 Period 5 Transition and Period 4 Site Preparations Decommissioning Restoration 02/2084 04/2085 01/2090 04/2094 04/2095 RX Bldg Removal TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 4, Page 7 of 7 FIGURE 4.4 DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE HARDENED SAFSTOR (not to scale)

TMI-1 (Shutdown April 19, 2034)

Pool and ISFSI Operations ISFSI Operations Period 1 Period 3 Transition and Period 2 ISFSI ISFSI Site Preparations Decommissioning Operations D&D Restoration 04/2034 10/2035 05/2041 05/2043 12/2048 07/2049 Storage Pool Empty 11/2039 TMI-2 Period 5 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Interim Site Dormancy Transition and Decommissioning (excluding Reactor Building) Restoration Preparations 04/20 34 08/2 035 02/2037 05/2041 05/2042

[Period 6 - Hardened SAFSTOR Dormancy 80 Years]

Period 7 Period 9 Period 8 Reactivate Site Site Decommissioning (Reactor Building)

Restoration 02 /2123 08/2124 01/2129 04/2133 04/2 134 Reactor Building Removal TLG Services, Inc.

""'w \

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 5, Page 1 of 6

5. RADIOACTIVE WASTES The objectives of the decommissioning process are the removal of all radioactive material from the site that would restrict its future use and the termination of the NRC license. This currently requires the remediation of all radioactive material at the site in excess of applicable legal limits. Under the Atomic Energy Act,[301 the NRC is responsible for protecting the public from sources of ionizing radiation. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations delineates the production, utilization, and disposal of radioactive materials and processes. In particular, §71 defines radioactive material as it pertains to packaging and transportation and §61 specifies its disposition.

Most of the materials being transported for controlled burial are categorized as Low Specific Activity (LSA) or Surface Contaminated Object (SCO) materials containing Type A quantities, as defined in 49 CFR §173-178. Shipping containers are required to be Industrial Packages (IP-1, IP-2 or IP-3, as defined in subpart 173.411). For this study, commercially available steel containers are presumed to be used for the disposal of piping, small components, and concrete. Larger components can serve as their own containers, with proper closure of all openings, access ways, and penetrations.

Table 5.1 summarizes the categories of radioactive waste streams, the disposal rate, and the conditions which applied to each category.

The volumes of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities at the site is shown on a line-item basis in Appendices C, D, and E and summarized in Tables 5.2 through 5.4. The quantified waste volume summaries shown in these tables are consistent with §61 classifications. The volumes are calculated based on the exterior dimensions for containerized material and on the displaced volume of components serving as their own waste containers.

The reactor vessel, internals, other reactor coolant system components, and certain structural materials are categorized as large quantity shipments and, accordingly, will be shipped in reusable, shielded truck casks with disposable liners or LSA boxes shipped within shielded vans. In calculating disposal costs, the burial fees are applied against the liner volume, as well as the special handling requirements of the payload.

Most of the waste generated by the decommissioning process appears to be Class C or less, based upon the available information regarding the amount of fission products and transuranics present in the buildings, and the quantities of building materials assumed shipped as radioactive waste. This basis should be reexamined if TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 5, Page 2 of 6 additional characterization information becomes available in the future regarding the quantities of fission products and transuranics in more localized surveys.

No process system containing/handling radioactive substances at the time of decommissioning is presumed to meet material release criteria by decay alone, i.e.,

systems radioactive in 2008 will still be radioactive over the time period during which the decommissioning is accomplished, due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides. While the dose rates decrease with time, radionuclides such as 137Cs will still control the disposition requirements.

The waste material generated in the decontamination and dismantling of TMJ-2 is primarily generated during Period 4 of the defined alternatives.

For purposes of constructing the estimates, the rate schedule for the Barnwell facility was used as a proxy for Class B and Class C waste. This schedule was used to estimate the disposal fees for plant components and concrete which are considered highly radioactive (unsuitable for processing or recovery).

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 5, Page 3 of 6 TABLE 5.1 TMI-2 WASTE STREAMS

SUMMARY

DELAYED DECON CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR CATEGORY HARDENED SAFSTOR Greater Than Class C (GTCC), Selected RPV Internals and filters generated during RCS decon

($25,000/CF) activities.

Primary Waste, Class C, ($7.02/LB) Demineralizer resins generated during RCS decon activities, (Barnwell non-Atlantic compact rate) block wall from basement dose reduction.

plus applicable administrative fees, millicurie surcharges and dose rate multipliers Primary Waste, Class B, ($7.02/LB) Systems in the reactor building, concrete and liner from (Barnwell non-Atlantic compact rate) basement dose reduction, segmented S/G tubing, process of plus applicable administrative fees, liquid waste.

millicurie surcharges and dose rate multipliers Primary Waste, Class A, ($2.5 1/LB) All other systems components.

Containerized (EnergySolutions)

Secondary Waste, Class A, ($2.5 1/LB) Spent fuel racks, turbine, condenser, scaffolding, siding &

Containerized (EnergySolutions) roofing, cranes and structural steel.

Tertiary Waste, Class A, ($0.54/LB) Contaminated soil, concrete scabble & rubble, concrete block.

Bulk sent for processing at Tennessee (excluding RB basement).

Tertiary Waste, DAW ($2.24/LB) All dry active waste (DAW)

Processed Waste (off-site) ($2.26[LB) Systems designated for recycling.

sent to Tennessee Construction Debris Exterior reactor, auxiliary and fuel handling building concrete

($12.00 /CY) and structural steel (not including scabble and drill & spall concrete rubble) not utilized for backfill.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 5, Page 4 of 6 TABLE 5.2 DELAYED DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

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

Geologic Repository Spent Fuel GTCC 1,200 163,010

_______ ___ _Equivalent Primary waste stream Barnwell(Proxy) C 3,364 269,715 Barnwell Proxy) B 24,592 1,973,477 EnergySolutions A 60,582 5,714,532 Secondary waste stream EnergySolutions A 96,658 7,995,398

.Tertiary waste stream Concrete EnergySolutions A 409,295 48,472,479 Soil EnergySolutions A 48,992 3,723,414 DAW EnergySolutions A 18,239 365,508 Survey & Release 3,704,137 Processed Waste (Off- Recycling Site) Vendors 76,325 6,584,431 Total[2 1 I 1 739,246 78,966,101

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

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

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 5, Page 5 of 6 TABLE 5.3 CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

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

Geologic Repository Spent Fuel GTCC 1,200 163,010 Equivalent Primary waste stream Barnwell(Proxy) C 3,364 269,715 Barn well(Proxy) B 24,400 1,949,242 EnergySolutions A 59,939 5,654,169 Secondary waste stream EnergySolutions A 96,658 7,995,398 Tertiary waste stream Concrete EnergySolutions A 409,295 48,472,479 Soil _ EnergySolutions A ... 48,992 3,723,414 DAW EnergySolutions A 34,723 695,822 Survey & Release _ 3,704,137 Processed Waste (Off- Recycling Site) Vendors 76,967 6,640,692 Total[21 1 755,537 79,268,078 Ill Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55

[2] Columns may not add due to rounding.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 5, Page 6 of 6 TABLE 5.4 HARDENED SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

Waste Volume Weight Waste Cost Basis Class [1] (cubic feet____ _ (pounds)

Geologic Repository_ spent Fuel GTCC 1,200 163,010 Equivalent Primary waste stream Barnwell(Proxy) C 3,364 269,715 BarnwellProxY) B 24,649 1,980,721 EnergySolutions A 65,525 6,153,144 Secondary waste stream EnergySolutions A 91,096 7,496,622

.Tertiary waste stream Concrete EnerglySolutions A 409,295 48,472,479 Soil EnergySolutions A 48,992 3,723,414 DAW _ EnergySolutions A 16,779 336,239 Survey & Release 3,704,137 Processed Waste (Off- Recycling

_Sie_ Vendors 83,317 6,941,950 2

Total[ 1 744,217 79,241,430

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

[2]

Columns may not add due to rounding.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page 1 of 5

6. RESULTS The analysis to estimate the costs to decommission TMI-2 relied upon the site-specific, technical information developed for previous analyses prepared in 1995-96 and 2004. While not an engineering study, the estimates provide FirstEnergy with sufficient information to assess its financial obligations, as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear station.

The estimates described in this report are based on numerous fundamental assumptions, including regulatory requirements, project contingencies, radioactive waste disposal options, and site remediation requirements. The decommissioning scenarios assume that the remainder of the spent fuel (less than 1%), which is dispersed throughout the reactor coolant and support systems, is packaged, shipped and buried as radioactive waste. Some of the waste that is generated is assumed to be GTCC. This waste is assumed to be transferred to the DOE at the time that it is processed and collected during the decommissioning. No costs have been included for the temporary storage of GTCC material.

The cost projected to decommission TMI-2, i.e., by the Delayed DECON alternative, is estimated to be $884 million. The majority of this cost (approximately 96%) is associated with the physical decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear unit so that the license can be terminated. The remaining 4% is for the demolition of the designated structures and limited restoration of the site. The costs for the deferred decommission alternatives, Custodial SAFSTOR and Hardened SAFSTOR, are estimated at $923 million and $1,154 million, respectively.

The primary cost contributors, identified in Tables 6.1 through 6.3, are either labor-related or associated with the management and disposition of the radioactive waste.

Program management is the largest single contributor to the overall cost. The magnitude of the expense is a function of both the size of the organization required to manage the decommissioning, as well as the duration of the program. It is assumed, for purposes of this analysis, that FirstEnergy will oversee the decommissioning program, using a DOC to manage the decommissioning labor force and the associated subcontractors. The size and composition of the management organization varies with the decommissioning phase and associated site activities.

However, once the license is terminated, the staff is substantially reduced for the conventional demolition and restoration of the site.

The cost for waste disposal includes only those costs associated with the controlled disposition of the radioactive waste generated from decontamination and dismantling activities, including plant equipment and components, structural material, filters, resins and dry-active waste. As described in Section 5, disposal of TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 6, Page 2 of 5 the lower level material, including concrete 'and structural steel, is at the EnergySolutions facility. The more highly radioactive waste is sent to the EnergySolutions facility but using surrogate Barnwell waste burial rates. Highly contaminated components, requiring additional isolation from the environment, are packaged for geologic disposal. The cost of geologic disposal is assumed to be

$25,000 per cubic foot.

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

Decontamination and packaging costs also have a large labor component that is based upon prevailing union wages. Non-radiological demolition is a natural extension of the decommissioning process. The methods employed in decontamination and dismantling are generally destructive and indiscriminate in inflicting collateral damage. With a work force mobilized to support decommissioning operations, non-radiological demolition can be an integrated activity and a logical expansion of the work being performed in the process of terminating the license.

The reported cost for transport includes the tariffs and surcharges associated with moving large components and/or overweight shielded casks overland, as well as the general expense, e.g., labor and fuel, of transporting material to the destinations identified in this report. I License termination survey costs are associated with the labor intensive and complex activity of verifying that contamination has been removed from the 'site to the levels specified by the regulating agency. This process involves a systematic survey of all remaining plant surface areas and surrounding environs, sampling, isotopic analysis, and documentation of the findings. The status of any plant components and materials not removed in the decommissioning process will also require confirmation and will add to the expense of surveying the facilities alone.

Due to the complete removal of the reactor, auxiliary and fuel buildings, the final termination survey effort is reduced.

The remaining costs include allocations for heavy equipment and temporary services, as well as for other expenses such as regulatory fees and the premiums for nuclear insurance.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page 3 of 5 TABLE 6.1 DELAYED DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Cost Element Total I[] Percentage Decontamination 31,577 3.7 Removal 149,523 17.7 Packaging 17,232 2.0 Transportation 20,609 2.4 Waste Disposal 173,363 20.5 Off-site Waste Processing 10,217 1.2 Program Management [21 371,633 44.0 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 17,868 2.1 Energy 13,769 1.6 Characterization and Lice nsing Surveys 12,996 1.5 Property Taxes _ _

Miscellaneous Equipment 23,169 2.7 Site O&M 2,929 0.3 Total 131 844,884 100 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 813,986 96.3 Site Restoration 30,898 3.7 Total t31 844,884 100

[1] Includes dormancy costs following TMI-1 shutdown in 2034 12] Includes engineering and security costs

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

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page 4 of 5 TABLE 6.2 CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Cost Element Total [1] Percentage Decontamination 31,532 3.4 Removal 155,559 16.9 P. a c kaging ........... 17,476 1.9 Transportation 20,807 2.3 Waste Disposal 173,544 18.8 Off-site Waste Processing 10,363 1.1 Program Management2 401,769 43.5 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 40,727 4.4

,Energy 24,931 2.7 Characterization and LicensingSurveys 12,996 1.4 Property Taxes Miscellaneous Equipment 30,133 3.3 Site O&M 2,936 0.3 Total [31 922,772 100 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 891,874 96.7 Site Restoration 30,898 3.3 Total [3] 922,772 100 P1] Includes dormancy costs following TMI-1 shutdown in 2034 121 Includes engineering and security costs

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

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page 5 of 5 TABLE 6.3 HARDENED SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)

SCost Element Total [I] p(ercentage Decontamination 32,560 Removal 163,304 14.2 Pakgng 17,312 Transportation 21,039 1.8 Waste Disposal __ __

175,045 15.2 Off-site Waste Processing_ 11,393 1.0 Program Management [2] 528,931 45.8 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 65,915 5.7 Energy 39,412 3.42......

Characterization and Licensing Surveys 1.2 Property Taxes Miscellaneous Equipment 34,950_[ 3.0 Site O&M 4,598 0.4 Off-site monitoring & security§ervyices 46,406 4.0 Total [31 1,154,392 100 Cost Element W Total Percentage License Termination _ 1,108,156 f 96.0

~Site Restoration

  • S rR a~st~ n. . . . . . . * .....................i4.0

_____-___46,236

°.

Total [3] 1,154,392 100 W' Includes dormancy costs following TMI-1 shutdown in 2034

[21 Includes engineering and security costs

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

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 7 Page I of 3

7. REFERENCES
1. "Decommissioning Cost Estimate for the Three Mile Island, Unit 2," Document No. G01-1196-003, TLG Services, Inc., February 1996.
2. "Decommissioning Cost Estimate for Three Mile Island Unit 2," Document No.

F07-1476-002, TLG Services, Inc., September 2004.

3. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 30, 40, 50, 5,1, 70 and 72, "General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 53, Number 123 (p 24018 et seq.), June 27, 1988.
4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.159, "Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors," October 2003.
5. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination."
6. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 20 and 50, "Entombment Options for Power Reactors," Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register Volume 66, Number 200, October 16, 2001.
7. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 2, 50 and 51, "Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 61 (p 39278 et seq.), July 29, 1996.
8. "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, 1982.
9. "Project Decision Schedule," DOE/RW-0604, U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, January 2009
10. "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act," Public Law 96-573, 1980.
11. "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, January 15, 1986.
12. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination," Federal Register, Volume 62, Number 139 (p 39058 et seq.), July 21, 1997.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 7 Page 2 of 3

7. REFERENCES (continued)
13. "Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination," EPA Memorandum OSWER No. 9200.4-18, August 22, 1997.
14. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 141.16, "Maximum contaminant levels for beta particle and photon radioactivity from man-made radionuclides in community water systems."
15. "Memorandum of Understanding Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Consultation and Finality on Decommissioning and Decontamination of Contaminated Sites," OSWER 9295.8-06a, October 9, 2002.
16. Three Mile Island Unit 2 Post Defueling Monitored Storage Safety Analysis Report, 1995 Update, Chapter 4 (Fuel), GPU Nuclear Corporation 1995.
17. "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM),"

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

18. T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986.
19. W.J. Manion and T.S. LaGuardia, "Decommissioning Handbook," U.S.

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

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

Kingston, Massachusetts.

21. Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, p. 239, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, 1984.
22. "Strategy for Management and Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste," Federal Register Volume 60, Number 48 (p 13424 et seq.),

March 1995. '

23. U.S. Department of Transportation, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, "Transportation," Parts 173 through 178, 1996.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Section 7 Page 3 of 3

7. REFERENCES (continued)
24. Tri-State Motor Transit Company, published tariffs, Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), Docket No. MC-109397 and Supplements, 2000.
25. 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.
26. 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

27. 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.
28. "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.
29. "Microsoft Project 2003," Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, 2003.
30. "Atomic Energy Act of 1954," (68 Stat. 919).

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix A, Page I of 4 APPENDIX A UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix A, Page 2 of 4 APPENDIX A UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT Example: Unit Factor for Removal of Contaminated Heat Exchanger < 3,000 lbs.

1. SCOPE Heat exchangers weighing < 3,000 lbs. will be removed in one piece using a crane or small hoist. They will be disconnected from the inlet and outlet piping. The heat exchanger will be sent to the waste processing area.
2. CALCULATIONS Activity Critical Act Activity Duration Duration ID Description (minutes) (minutes)*

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

+ Respiratory protection adjustment (25% of critical duration) 64

+ Radiation/ALARA adjustment (25% of critical duration) 64 Adjusted work duration 383

+ Protective clothing adjustment (30% of adjusted duration) 115 Productive work duration 498

+ Work break adjustment (8.33 % of productive duration) 42 Total work duration (minutes) 540

  • Total duration = 9.000 hr *
  • alpha designators indicate activities that can be performed in parallel TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix A, Page 3 of 4 APPENDIX A (continued)

3. LABOR REQUIRED Duration Rate Crew Number (hours) ($/hr) Cost Laborers 3.00 9.000 $30.00 $810.00 Craftsmen 2.00 9.000 $51.30 $923.40 Foreman 1.00 9.000 $51.86 $466.74 General Foreman 0.25 9.000 $53.58 $120.56 Fire Watch 0.05 9.000 $30.00 $13.50 Health Physics Technician 1.00 9.000 $56.94 $512.46 Total Labor Cost $2,846.66
4. EQUIPMENT & CONSUMABLES COSTS Equipment Costs none Consumables/Materials Costs

-Blotting paper 50 @ $0.42 sq ft (1) $21.00

-Plastic sheets/bags 50 @ $0.13/sq ft {2} $6.50

-Gas torch consumables 1 @ $7.51/hr x 1 hr (3} $7.51 Subtotal cost of equipment and materials

$35.01 Overhead & profit on equipment and materials @ 16.00 % $5.61 Total costs, equipment & material $40.61 TOTAL COST:

Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <3000 pounds: $2,887.27 Total labor cost: $2,846.66 Total equipment/material costs: $40.61 Total craft labor man-hours required per unit: 65.700 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix A, Page 4 of4

5. NOTES AND REFERENCES

" Work difficulty factors were developed in conjunction with the Atomic Industrial Forum's (now NEI) program to standardize nuclear decommissioning cost estimates and are delineated in Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986.

" References for equipment & consumables costs:

1. McMaster-Carr, Item 7193T88, Spill Control
2. R.S. Means (2008) Division 01 56, Section 13.60-0200, page 20
3. R.S. Means (2008) Division 01 54 33, Section 40-6360, Reference-10 o Material and consumable costs were adjusted using the regional indices for Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page I of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (SAFSTOR: Power Block Structures Only)

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix B, Page 2 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor CostfUnit($)

Removal of clean instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot 0.62 Removal of clean pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot 5.34 Removal of clean pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot 7.61 Removal of clean pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot 16.92 Removal of clean pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot 30.28 Removal of clean pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot 39.32 Removal of clean pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 57.62 Removal of clean pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 68.84 Removal of clean valve >2 to 4 inches 113.78 Removal of clean valve >4 to 8 inches 169.15 Removal of clean valve >8 to 14 inches 302.80 Removal of clean valve >14 to 20 inches 393.25 Removal of clean valve >20 to 36 inches 576.15 Removal of clean valve >36 inches 688.39 Removal of clean pipe hanger for small bore piping 37.80 Removal of clean pipe hanger for large bore piping 117.76 Removal of clean pump, <300 pound 283.50 Removal of clean pump, 300-1000 pound 762.50 Removal of clean pump, 1000-10,000 pound 2,672.60 Removal of clean pump, >10,000 pound 5,161.87 Removal of clean pump motor, 300-1000 pound 327.82 Removal of clean pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound 1,115.80 Removal of clean pump motor, >10,000 pound 2,508.47 Removal of clean heat exchanger <3000 pound 1,516.48 Removal of clean heat exchanger >3000 pound 3,804.14 Removal of clean feedwater heater/deaerator 10,148.73 Removal of clean moisture separator/reheater 20,337.86 Removal of clean tank, <300 gallons 365.17 Removal of clean tank, 300-3000 gallon 1,148.64 Removal of clean tank, >3000 gallons, $/square foot surface area 9.13 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 3 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of clean electrical equipment, <300 pound 160.69 Removal of clean electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound 529.54 Removal of clean electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 1,050.78 Removal of clean electrical equipment, >10,000 pound 2,406.52 Removal of clean electrical transformer < 30 tons 1,699.37 Removal of clean electrical transformer > 30 tons 4,813.04 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, <100 kW 1,708.77 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, 100 kW to 1 MW 3,811.42 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, >1 MW 7,888.82 Removal of clean electrical cable tray, $/linear foot 14.38 Removal of clean electrical conduit, $/linear foot 6.14 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, <300 pound 160.69 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound 529.54 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 1,050.78 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound 2,406.52 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, <300 pound 160.69 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 529.54 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 1,050.78 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound 2,406.52 Removal of clean HVAC ductwork, $/pound 0.67 Removal of contaminated instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot 1.06 Removal of contaminated pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot 13.85 Removal of contaminated pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot 23.46 Removal of contaminated pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot 39.71 Removal of contaminated pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot 76.16 Removal of contaminated pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot 91.81 Removal of contaminated pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 126.73 Removal of contaminated pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 150.74 Removal of contaminated valve >2 to 4 inches 304.23 Removal of contaminated valve >4 to 8 inches 367.24 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix B, Page 4 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of contaminated valve >8 to 14 inches 729.72 Removal of contaminated valve >14 to 20 inches 928.69 Removal of contaminated valve >20 to 36 inches 1,235.45 Removal of contaminated valve >36 inches 1,475.48 Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for small bore piping 83.39 Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for large bore piping 253.26 Removal of contaminated pump, <300 pound 639.19 Removal of contaminated pump, 300-1000 pound 1,498.52 Removal of contaminated pump, 1000-10,000 pound 4,830.53 Removal of contaminated pump, >10,000 pound 11,739.69 Removal of contaminated pump motor, 300-1000 pound 639.50 Removal of contaminated pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound 1,958.32 Removal of contaminated pump motor, >10,000 pound 4,421.38 Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <3000 pound 2,887.27 Removal of contaminated heat exchanger >3000 pound 8,349.65 Removal of contaminated tank, <300 gallons 1,066.44 Removal of contaminated tank, >300 gallons, $/square foot 21.61 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, <300 pound 505.94 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,217.16 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 2,337.49 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, >10,000 pound 4,674.84 Removal of contaminated electrical cable tray, $/linear foot 24.65 Removal of contaminated electrical conduit, $/linear foot 11.29 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, <300 pound C 569.61 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,376.79 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 2,648.42 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound 4,674.84 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, <300 pound 569.61 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,376.79 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 2,648.42 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning CostAnalysis Appendix B, Page 5 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound 4,674.84 Removal of contaminated HVAC ductwork, $/pound 1.48 Removal/plasma arc cut of contaminated thin metal components, $/linear in. 2.72 Additional decontamination of surface by washing, $/square foot 5.31 Additional decontamination of surfaces by hydrolasing, $/square foot 26.40 Decontamination rig hook up and flush, $/ 250 foot length 4,810.78 Chemical flush of components/systems, $/gallon 11.83 Removal of clean standard reinforced concrete, $/cubic yard 140.45 Removal of grade slab concrete, $/cubic yard 177.35 Removal of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard 326.87 Removal of sections of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard 998.43 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard 216.26 Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard 1,423.72 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard 273.74 Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard 1,878.06 Removal heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar & steel embedments, $/cubic yard 420.76 Removal of below-grade suspended floors, $/cubic yard 326.87 Removal of clean monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard 847.33 Removal of contaminated monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard 1,421.22 Removal of clean foundation concrete, $/cubic yard 673.53 Removal of contaminated foundation concrete, $/cubic yard 1,322.33 Explosive demolition of bulk concrete, $/cubic yard 29.71 Removal of clean hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 122.23 Removal of contaminated hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 216.68 Removal of clean solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 122.23 Removal of contaminated solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 216.68 Backfill of below-grade voids, $/cubic yard 22.02 Removal of subterranean tunnels/voids, $/linear foot 128.88 Placement of concrete for below-grade voids, $/cubic yard 113.22 Excavation of clean material, $/cubic yard 2.86 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 6 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Excavation of contaminated material, $/cubic yard 28.24 Removal of clean concrete rubble (tipping fee included), $/cubic yard 19.96 Removal of contaminated concrete rubble, $/cubic yard 18.94 Removal of building by volume, $/cubic foot 0.29 Removal of clean building metal siding, $/square foot 1.51 Removal of contaminated building metal siding, $/square foot 2.68 Removal of standard asphalt roofing, $/square foot 2.39 Removal of transite panels, $/square foot 2.40 Scarifying contaminated concrete surfaces (drill & spall), $/square foot 9.52 Scabbling contaminated concrete f]oors, $/square foot 5.21 Scabbling contaminated concrete walls, $/square foot 13.72 Scabbling contaminated ceilings, $/square foot 46.69 Scabbling structural steel, $/square foot 4.65 Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail < 10 ton capacity 781.37 Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail < 10 ton capacity 1,336.78 Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail >10-50 ton capacity 1,877.31 Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail >10-50 ton capacity 3,191.88 Removal of polar crane > 50 ton capacity 6,691.52 Removal of gantry crane > 50 ton capacity 27,076.64 Removal of structural steel, $/pound 0.22 Removal of clean steel floor grating, $/square foot 5.45 Removal of contaminated steel floor grating, $/square foot 9.66 Removal of clean free standing steel liner, $/square foot 13.86 Removal of contaminated free standing steel liner, $/square foot 25.13 Removal of clean concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot 6.85 Removal of contaminated concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot 29.21 Placement of scaffolding in clean areas, $/square foot 14.17 Placement of scaffolding in contaminated areas, $/square foot 19.05 Landscaping with topsoil, $/acre 19,640.68 Cost of CPC B-88 LSA box & preparation for use 1,423.98 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 DocumentF07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix B, Page 7 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Cost of CPC B-25 LSA box & preparation for use 1,262.41 Cost of CPC B-12V 12 gauge LSA box & preparation for use 1,237.46 Cost of CPC B-144 LSA box & preparation for use 7,231.69 Cost of LSA drum & preparation for use 151.13 Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8 120A cask (resins) 6,014.50 Decontamination of surfaces with vacuuming, $/square foot 0.81 TLG Services, Inc.

ww!w, Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix C, Page 1 of 9 APPENDIX C DETAILED COST ANALYSIS DELAYED DECON TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Ileand Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix C, Page 2 of 9 Appendix C Three Mile Island Unit 2 Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars) hOt-Ste LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Prsesd Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Activity Decor Removal Packaging Transport Procossing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A ClassB Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Coons Costs Costs Coots Continenc Costs Costs Costs Cost. Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feel Wt.. Lbs. Manhours Manhours PERIOD2s - SAFSTOR Dormancy during TMI-1Decommissioning Period 2c DirectDecomrmissioningActivities 2c.1.1 Quarterly Inspection 2c. .2 Serronnual environmental survey 2c.f.3 Prepare reports a 2c.1.4 Btunrious roofreptacermnt 206 31 237 237 20.s.5 Maintenance supplies 1.142 171 1,313 1,313 2c.r Subtotal Period 2c ActivityCosts 1.348 202 1,550 1,550 Period 2c Penod-Dependent Costs 2c.4.1 Insurance 3,968 397 4,364 4.364 2c.4.2 Property taxes 2c.43 Health physics supplies 1.065 - - 266 1,331 1.331 2c.4.4 2c.4.5 Disposul of SAW generated Plant onergybudget

- 52 54 165 2,158 54 324 325 2,482 326 2.482

- - ~3,672 - - 73,593 902 2c.4. NRC Fees 659 66 725 725 2c.4.7 Security Staff Cost 3,592 539 4,131 4.131 111,384 2c.4.8 Utilty Staff Cost - - 18,943 2c.4 Subtotal Period 2c Pedod-Oependent Costs 1,065 52 54 165 1.943 12,319 291 1.937 2,234 15,592 2,234 15,592 - - ~3,672 - - 73,593 902 130.327 2c.0 TOTALPERIOD2c COST - 1,065 52 54 - 165 13,667 2.,39 17,142 17,142 - - - 3,672 73,593 902 130,327 PERIOD2 TOTALS 1,065 52 54 165 13,667 2,139 17,142 17,142 3,672 73,593 902 130,327 PERIOD3a -Reactivate Site Following SAFSTOR Dormancy Period 3a DirectDecommissioning Actciitoes 3a.1.1 Prepare preliminarydecommissioning cost - 223 33 256 256 1,950 3a.f.2 P epare and submit PSAR 914 137 1.051 1,051 8,000 3a.f.3 Review plant dwgs &specs. 1,051 158 1,209 1,209 9,200 3a.1.4 Perform detailed rod survey 3..1.5 Estimate by-productinventory 1,143 171 1,314 1,314 10,000 3a.1.6 End product descnpticn 229 34 263 263 2,000 3a. .7 Detailedby-product inventory 594 69 683 683 5,200 3a.1.8 Define major work sequence 1,714 257 1,971 1.971 15.000 3a.f.9 Perfotm SER and EA 7.129 1,069 8,199 8,199 62,400 3a.1.10 Perform Sife-SpecificCost Study 1.143 171 1,314 1.314 10,900 3ar.1t Prepare/submit License TerrminationPlan 1.872 281 2,153 2.153 16.384 3a.t1.12 Receive NRC approval of terminationplan Acti"ty Specifications 3a.1.13.1 Re-acdivateplant & temporary tacilsies 1,263 189 1,452 1,307 145 11,055 3af.f 3.2 Plant systems 952 143 1,0695 985 109 8,333 3a1.f13.3 Reactor internmals 1,622 243 1,666 1,866 14.200 3a.1.13.4 Reator vessel 1,114 167 1,281 1,261 9.750 3a.1. 3.5 Biological shield 57 9 66 66 500 3a.1.13.6 Steam generators 1.426 214 1,640 1,640 12.480 3a.1.13.7 Reinforced concrete 366 55 420 210 210 3,200 3a.1.13.8 Turbine &cndenser 91 14 105 - 105 800 3a,1.13.9 Plant structores &buildings 356 53 410 205 205 3,120 3a.1.13 10 Waste management 2,102 315 2,418 2,418 18,400 3a.f.13.11 Facilty &site closeout 103 15 118 59 59 900 3a.1.13 Total 9.453 1.418 10,871 10.037 834 82.738 Planning & SDe Prepanatioss 3a.1.14 Prepare dismanting sequence 548 82 631 631 - 4,600 3a.t.15 Plant prep. & temp. awces 2.419 363 2,782 2.782 TLG Secricee, foe.

~2r 00' 00 to a-i F2 . . .

Wi ONI P

8

-1 O

Ul

'Ut, Ocol .

8 ~L.

~1 A

~ El 028 000 do a2

ý CC

  • 88 0 ONNON NN CONON C

-0 OINC NNN0NON INNO ii 000~

4 p.08 N 0 NOO~a 0 I NON~ 0 0 .0. . .N.N.O. a.

IC CU

.2 C . C*

0 C C0 CE0 N 2

.2

~

-~ C 0 0 C*

4 0 U a'-o' ON 0-E

,_2 88 C'0o N 0 C ON Co C~1/480 8cao 8<.~ O~N

~a8a i8 0 om E 0.0 8u~0~

0 C

0 a-- C ooC ,

0 00 -0.0 28 0F~

fr' 000.0 ~OWOO 0 .CaIxoozooOno 0~~~~ý 000 0 ~ 2 a a 2 00 ha

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Anlysis Appendix C, Page 4 of 9 Appendix C Three Mile Island Unit 2 Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Offt-Ste LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Actioity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lie. Term. Management Restoration Volote Class A Con. B Clans C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor oIndex Activitr Description Cost Coot Costs Costs Colst Costs Costs Contineens Cos Conts Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet CU. Feelt _V., Lbsn. Manhour Manhouro Period 3b Collateral Costs (continued) 3b.3.4 Pipe cutting equipment - 957 - 143 1,100 1,100 3b.3 Subtotal Period 3b Colltatral Costs 667 974 1.113 413 3,167 3,167 Period 3b Perod-Dependent Costs 3b.4.1 Decon supplies 21 - 5 26 26 3b.4.2 Insurarce 240 24 264 264 3b.4.3 Property taxes 3b4.4 Health physics supplies 407 102 509 509 3b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 175 - 26 201 201 3b.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated 3 g - 3 18 18 205 4,107 50 3b.4.7 Plant energy budget 559 84 643 643 3b.4.8 NRC Fees 476 48 523 523 3b.4.9 Ste O&M 127 19 146 146 3b.4.10 Radmwste Processing Equipment/Services 190 29 219 219 3b04.11 Security StaffCost 908 136 1,045 1,045 28,152 3b.4.12 DOCStaff Cost 12,322 1,848 14,171 14,171 171,363 3b.4,13 Utiliy Staff Cost 1.262 189 1,451 1,451 13,214 3b.4 Subtotal Period 3b Penriod-DependentCosts 21 582 3 3 4 16,085 2,513 19,216 19,216 205 4.107 50 212,729 3b.0 TOTALPERIOD31bCOST 688 2,756 217 348 3.814 24,059 5,280 37,162 36,141 1,021 5,234 1,661,309 26.412 272,780 PERIOD3 TOTALS 588 3,571 223 354 - 3,832 83.399 14,287 106,355 104,500 - 1,855 5,638 1,669,412 26.512 788,269 PERIOD 4a - Large Component Removal Period 4a Direct DecommissioningActivies Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 4a.1.1.1 Reactor Coolant Piping 55 224 15 37 701 266 1,298 1,298 89,877 6,773 -

4:.1.1.2 Pressurizer Relief Tank 3 5 50 244 244 8 32 146 188 20,849 732 4a.1.t.3 Reactor Coolant Pumps & Motors 1.169 876 197 9.554 2,798 14,595 14,595 10,752 1.124,474 31,482 4a.1.1.4 Pressurizer 1,306 708 199 3,090 1.199 6,502 6,502 2,144 462,726 4,152 4a...1.S Steam Generators 6.362 6 767 1.769 17.396 6,281 32,575 32,575 23,268 6,863 2,396.266 145,795 4a.1.1.6 CRDMsdClsISerice Strcture Removal 31 51 147 56 336 135 757 757 1,454 - 47,869 1,830 4a.1.1.7 Reactor Vessel Intamels 120 3,332 4.245 446 473 249 4.006 12,870 12.870 1,377 174,220 20.147 1,385 4a.1.1.8 Vessel & Internals GTCC Disposal 20.777 - 3,117 23,893 23,893 831 t42,496 - -

4a.1.1.9 Reactor Vessel - 8,676 1.290 463 2.129 249 8,047 20,855 20,855 9,722 - 906,490 29.147 1,395 4e.1.l Totals 214 21.152 8.051 3.173 54.602 487 25,900 113,589 113,589 50,002 6,883 831 5,455,267 249.057 2,789 Removal ot Major Equipment 4a.1.2 Main Turbine/Generator 272 86 43 621 176 1,198 1,198 6,106 274,750 5,956 4a.1.3 Main Condensers 1,116 82 41 596 383 2,218 2.218 5.860 263,690 25,162 Disposal of Plant Systems 4a.1.4.1 Decay Heat Closed CoolingWater 246 23 70 611 217 220 1,386 1.386 6,656 963 356,612 5,630 4a.1.4.2 Decoy Heat Renoval (RCA) 175 34 69 230 413 195 1,117 1,117 - 2,511 1,833 266,361 4,172 4a.1.4.3 Decoy Heal Reoual (Yard) 127 -11 18 146 - 146 - - - 2,863 4a.1.4.4 Demineralded Water (RCA) 123 5 50 57 55 301 301 - 547 255 45,089 2,746 4a.1.4.5 Domestic Waler (Clean) 6 1 7 - 7 - 148 4a.1.4.6 DomesticWater (RCA) 18 I 6 9 8 43 43 - 63 38 5,963 396 4a.t.4.7 Electrical(Clean) 1 10 - 10 - S- 191 4a.1.4.8 Emergency Feedoter(RCA) 57 3 10 27 37 31 29 165 165 - 407 140 29,058 1.280 4u.t.4.9 Fire Protection (Clean) 50 7 57 - 57 - - 1.167 4a.1.4.10 Fire Protection (RCA) 41 2 3 13 19 18 96 96 146 86 13,657 933 4a. .4.11 Gaseous Waste Disposal System (RCA) 170 10 52 53 66 356 356 568 255 44,078 3.949 4a.1 .4.12 HVAC- AuxiliaryBuilding 493 158 122 182 990 990 1,725 540 118,524 11,067 4a.1 .4.13 HVAC- Control Bulding 54 3 163 11 43 286 286 - 1,780 47 76,530 1,130 4a.1.4.14 HVAC- Miscellaneous 30 4 34 - 34 - - - 666 TLG Services, Inc.

TAhra Mile Ie1-ofe Unit 2 Doeooe.t F07-It1601-02, Roe..it Deeoa-iaioi.iriog Cost A-oayr.a Apjrrealief C, Pargc5of9 Appendix C Three Mile Island Unit 2 Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Surial Volumes Burial I Utility and Aotivity Deoon Renoval Packaging Transport Prooessing Disposal Other Total Total Li. Teem. Management Restoration Volume Clats A Clat B Class C GTCC processed Craft Contraotor Incde Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Cott Cotta Costs. Costs Contingency Costs Cost- Cost. Cost. Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt,, Lbs. Manhourt Manhours Disposal of Plant Systems (continued) 4a.1.4.15 HVAC- Setvice Building 71 2 7 94 7 35 216 216 1 029 29 44.397 1,434 4a.1.4.16 HydrogenPurge - Rad Monitoring 17 0 0 0 1 5 24 24 - 4 6 644 413 4a.1.4.17 Industrial Waste Treatment System 204 31 234 - 234 - - - 4.899 4a.1.4.18 Instrument Air (RCA) 101 5 8 25 47 42 - 271 228 228 207 29,566 2.251 4a01.4.19 IntermediateClosed CoolingWater (RCA) 83 9 19 52 118 62 343 343 568 524 70,092 1.i87 4a.1 .4.20 Main Condensate (RCA) 164 6 29 376 25 114 734 734 4.101 149 176,316 4.077 4a.1.4.21 Main Reheat & Steam (RCA) 54 3 9 59 37 33 195 195 643 164 40,843 1.217 4a.1.4.22 Nucloar Servies Closed Cycle Cooling 760 100 220 1,182 1,081 680 4,022 4.022 - 12.877 5.304 953,442 17.230 4a.1.4.23 Nuclear Serice s Rer Water (Clean) 72 11 83 83 - - - 1.764 4a.1.4.24 Nuclear Setices RiverWater RCA) 1,043 49 108 403 629 500 2 731 2,731 4,392 2.792 428,769 24,882 4a.1.4.25 Reactor Building NormalCooling (Clean) 13 2 14 - 14 - 298 4a.1.4.26 Reactor BuildingNorrmalCooling (RCA) 241 21 50 160 305 170 948 948 1,739 1,356 192,214 5,711 4a.1.4.27 SG Secondary Side Vents & Drains 61 3 4 35 25 128 128 - 154 13,769 1.413 4a.1.4.28 Sampling Nudear System 194 10 14 - 110 79 4Q7 407 5-30 43,764 4,528 4a.1.4.29 Sewage Treatment Plant (RCA) 4 0 3 1 2 10 10 35 3 1.651 62 4a.1.4.30 Station Service Air 199 7 8 13 59 68 355 355 139 263 29,187 4.806 4a.1.4.31 Sump Systems (RCA) 116 3 5 15 34 41 215 215 161 152 20,117 2.753 4a 1.4.32 Turbine Plant Sample (RCA) 15 1 1 6 5 6 34 34 61 22 4,469 328 4a.1.4 Totals .5,031 304 693 3,710 3.423 2.753 15,914 15.329 506 40,423 15,811 3,005,161 116.309 4a.1.5 Scaffolding insupportofdecomrissioning 1,092 12 7 82 11 290 1.495 1.495 40,656 28.124

- 804 50 6 4a.1 Subtotal Period 4a Act"ty Costs 214 28,664 8.534 3,957 - 831 9,039,526 424.608 5.009 58,036 497 29.502 134.414 133.828 586 53.192 65,663 6.883 2.789 Period 4a AdditionalCosts 4a.2.1 Reactor BuildingBasement Dose Reduction - 17 118 3.270 14,806 4,208 22.418 22,418 9,225 22,017 - 1.217.965 282 -

4a.2.2 Containment Basement Liner Remroval 113 236 551 1,477 504 2,8 1 2,881 - 129,709 2,286 3,756 4a.2.3 Reactor BuildingSNF & HOT Systenm Removl - 51 246 761 - 232 1.290 1,290 4 1,002 - 76.912 318 4a.2.4 Fuel Handling I AuxiliarySNF & HOT Systems Removal 1,836 1,607 117 422 5.676 2564 12,224 12.224 40 666,018 72,761 4a.2.5 NSSS Component Surface Decontamination 7,518 - 808 33 8,230 3,759 20.348 , 20.348 329 19,751 46,920 4a.2.6 Core Flood Tanks Removal 63 398 53 68 872 1,716 - 124,165 10.059

- 364 1,818 1.818 4a.2.7 FHABAX-004Decontamination - 140 171 831 1,661 343 644 3,791 3.791 3,380 226.566 4.638 4a.2.8 Legacy waste stored at [NEEL - - - 590 89 679 679 4a.2 Subtotal Period 4a Addiional Costs 9,417 2.275 1.554 5,422 33,483 933 12.364 695449 65.449 10,580 17,363 02.017 369 2,463,066 137,264 Period 4a Collateral Costs 4a.3.1 Process liquid waste 14 - 5 39 186 60 305 305 124 - - 15,632 33 40.3.2 Small tool allowance - 359 54 413 372 41 4a.3 Subtotal Period 4a Collateral Costs 14 359 5 39 186 114 716 676 41 124 15,632 33 Period 4a Peitod-Dependent Costs 4a.4.1 Decon supplies 181 - - 45 226 226 4a.4.2 Insurance - 2,104 210 2,314 2,314 4:.4.3 Property taxes 4.4.4 Health physics supplies 5.694 1,424 7,118 7,118 4:.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 9,151 - - - 1,373 10,524 10,524 4a.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated - 112 118 356 - 1i8 703 703 7,942 159,158 1.950 4a.4.7 Plant energy budget - - - 4,901 735 5,637 5,637 4a.4.8 NRC Fees 3,068 307 3,375 3,375 40.4.9 Site O&M 1,110 166 1.276 1.276 4a.4.10 Radwaste Processing EquipmentServices 1.666 250 1,916 1.916 4a.4. 1 Security Staff Cost 7.724 1.159 8.83 8.883 239,352 4a.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 121,888 18.283 140.171 140.171 1,719,186 40.4.13 Utliy Staff Cost 11,058 1.859 12,717 12.717 115,786 40.4 Subtotal Period 4a Period-Dependent Costs 181 14845 112 118 356 153,520 25,729 154.859 194.59 7,942 . 159,158 1,950 2,074.324 40.0 TOTALPERIOD4a COST 9,827 46.143 10.205 9.536 5,009 92,061 154,950 67.708 395.439 394.813 627 53.192 84,385 24.370 2,017 1,200 11,677,600 563.855 2,077.114 TLGServesic, ls.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Deeonnissioning Cost Analysis Appendix C, Page 6 sf9 Appendix C Three Mile Island Unit 2 Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Ott-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial Utilityand I Index Activity Activits Description Deoon Cost Removal t

Packaging Costs Transport Costs Processing Costs Disposal Costs Other Costs Total Continue-n Total Costs Lic. Terrr.

Costs Management Costs Restoration Costs Volume Cu. Feet Class A Cu. Feet Class B CuoFeet Class C Co, Feet DTCC Cu. Feet Processed Wt. Lbs.

Craft Manhours Contractor Manhours PERIOD4b - Site Decontamination Disposal of Plant Systems 4b.1.2,1 Decay Heat Removal(RB) 209 20 32 249 121 631 631 - - , 1,108 99,380 4,941 4ib. .2.2 Electrical(Contaminated - RB) 39 2 38 - 26 17 87 87 - - 116 10,435 893 4b.1.2.3 Eloctrical(Contaminate - RCA) 259 8 5O0 33 154 992 992 5,443 145 234,039 5,743 4b.1.2.4 Feedwaetn (RB) 5 to - -

34 77 30 154 154 341 30,612 804 4b*1.2.5 Fire Protection (RB) 17 1 13 8 41 41 58 5,171 407 4b t .2.6 FuelHandling (RB) 4 0 4 2 11 11 19 1,669 86 26 912 4b.1.2,7 FuelHandling (RCA) 280 13 205 127 651 651 81,790 6,260

- - 9 4b.1.2.8 Gaseous Waste Disposal System (RB) 3 2 1 7 7 790 76 0

4b.1.2.9 HVAC- Fuel Handling Building 206 261 101 42 79 443 443 1.097 185 61,125 4.568 4R 4b.1.2.10 HVAC- Reactor Building 730 - 662 365 1,866 1,886 - 2,941 263,784 16,426 4b.1.2.11 Instrument Air (RB) 23 12 55 9 46 48 4,966 545 4b.1.2.12 Intermediate Closed CoolingWater (RB) 69 59 4t1 34 175 175 263 23,572 1,604 4ib.t.2,13 Nitrogen for Nuclear Radwaste Sys (RB) 20 11 49 7 5 25 25 4,378 170 4b.1.2.14 Nuclear Services RBrerWater (RB) 77 128 12 55 285 285 568 50,919 1,826 4b.1.2.15 OTSG Chemical Cleaning System 16 16 8 43 43 70 6,260 372 4c.1.2.16 Sewage Treatment Plant (Clean) 8 - -1 DOl 1 9 - so 4b.1.2.17 Spent Fuel Cooling 346 16 41 204 150 787 787 452 907 99,713 8,157 4b.1.2,1t Spent Fuot Cooling )RB) 21 1 17 S - 77

- t24 10 52 52 6,934 462 4b.1.2.19 Sump Systems (RB) 31 2 15 75 75 - - 108 9,645 744 27 642 1,785 4b.1.2 Totals 2,380 333 1,191 6,404 6.395 9 6,991 7,930 995,182 54,302 is 17 123 17 4b.1.3 Scaffolding in support of decomrssioning 1,638 436 2,242 2,242 1.206 75 60,988 42,187 Decontamination of Site Buildings

- 9,454 4b.1.4.1 Reactor 8,756 3.760 1,091 7,972 32,245 32,245 - 42,223 3,766,363 261,037 4b.1.4.2 Auxiliary 428 808 70 30 307

- 1,341 530 2.341 2.341 323 4,989 485,601 26.400 4b.t.4.3 BWST& CST Tank Pads - 153 348 540 3.259 3,259 - 24,827 2,482,650 3,623 4b.t14.4 Control & Seorvce 20 6 t 0 5 13 49 49 2 97 9,763 566 4b.1.4,5 Control BuildingArea 78 41 8 23 30 64 265 265 249 545 64,320 2,552 61 74 390 4b.1.4.6 Fuel Handling 599 875 2,4DB 651 2,767 2,767 603 3,075 361,010 30.801 a - 71 4b..1.4.7 Turbine 59 3 31 96 96 - 25 2.532 1,452 1.579 126 11,529 4b.1.4 Totals 9,940 5.64R 9,B01 41,022 41,022 1,377 76,281 7,172,239 326,431 1,731 2,684 891 13M31 41b.1 Subtotal Period 4b ActicityCosts 9,940 9,664 11,427 49,668 49,659 9 9,574 84,286 8,228,408 422,920 Perod 4b AdddinoalCosts 4b.2.1 Bioshield& D-RingRemocal - 4,951 668 1,080 - Mf096 3,991 20.786 20,786 155.795 18,695,440 60,693 4b.2.2 RB Extedor Concrete & BasematRemoval 7,946 228 368 3,443 - 2,926 14,913 14,913 53,132 6,375,849 120,240 4b.2.3 Underground Piping& YardSoil 641 105 1,416 2.011 250 923 5,345 5.345 48,992 3,723,414 8.942 -

t4.2.4 Process NSSS decon & segmentation iquid inventory 72 779 281 3,874 770 1,133 6,130 6.130 1,347 158,780 -

4b.2.5 AuxiliaryBuildingTotal Removal 7.739 324 689 6,453 - 3,684 11.888 18,888 99,586 11,950,340 113,205 -

4b.2.6 Fuel Handling BuildingTotal Removal 5,416 72 477 - 4,447 - 2.545 73.213 12,957 12,957 68,634 8,236,080 41.2.7 On-site survey & release ofconcrete 2.227 555 307 - 1,500 911 5.499 5,499 24.581 4b.2.8 Detueling fuel canister racks 308 64 - - 1,964 -

22 20 796 255 1.465 1,465 23,256 317,086 41.2,9 License Ternmiation Survey Planning - - - 1,393 418 1,811 1,811 S - - 12,480 41b.2 Subtotal Period it AdditionalCosts 22 28,941 1,777 4,929 307 31,119 3,913 16 785 87.793 87,793 449,395 1,347 49,456,980 402,838 13,259 Period 4b Collateral Costs 4b.3.1 Process liquid wlsto 24 - 8 70 273 91 466 466 222 27,9609 58 4b.3.2 Smalltool atocance 518 - 78 595 595 4b.3.3 Decommissioning EquipmentDisposiion - g90 62 610 84 131 977 977 6.000 373 - 303,507 739 4b.3 Subtotal Period 41 Collateral Costs 24 518 96 132 610 357 380 2 038 2.038 6,000 373 222 331,475 798 Period 46 Peoiod-DependentCosts 4b.4.1 Decon supplies 887 - - 222 1,109 1,109 4b.4.2 Insurance 1,657 166 1,823 1,823 TLG Serviee, l[e.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 D-oedn F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix C, Page 7sf9 Appendix C Three Mile Island Unit 2 Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Ot-dile LLRW NRC Spent Fuel SiKe Processed Burial Volumes Burial Utility nd Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Proeessing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Teem. Management -Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor tndex Activity Descripion Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs costs Costs Cu. Fent Cu. eet Cu. Fent Cu. Feet Cu. FFet VA., Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period 4b Perod-Depndpent Costs (continued) 40.4.3 Property taxes 4b.4.4 Health physics supplies - 6,953 8,691 8.69 1 4b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 5.773 - 866 6,639 6,639 48.4.6 Disposal ot DAWgenerated 80 85 256 - 85 506 506 5,713 114.486 1,403 40.4.7 Plant energy budget - 2.883 432 3,315 3,315 4b.4.8 NRC Fees 1.918 192 2,110 2,110 4b.4.9 Site O&M 874 131 1,005 1,005 40.4.10 Radwoste Processing Equipment/Senices 1.312 197 1,509 1.509 4b.4.11 Security Staff Cost 4.327 649 4.977 4.977 134,122 4Hb.12 DOC Staff Cost 77.889 11,683 89,573 89,573 1.109,166 4b.4.13 UtilityStaff Cost 8,712 1.307 10.018 10.018 91,214 4b.4 Subtotal Period 4b Perinod-DependentCosts 887 12,725 80 85 256 99.573 17,668 131,275 131,275 5,713 114,486 1.403 1.334,501 4b.0 TOTALPERIOD4b COST 10,873 51.849 3,685 7,829 1.808 45,063 103,487 46,180 270,774 270.765 15,574 539,767 222 1,347 58,131.350 827,958 1,347.760 PERIOD 4e - License Termination Period 4e Direct Decomrrmissoning Acivities 4a.1.1 ORISE confirmatorysurvey 155 46 201 201 4e.l.2 Terminate license 4e.l Subtotal Period 4e ActivityCosts 155 46 201 201 Period 4e AdditionalCosts 4e.21 License Termination Survey - 8,228 2,468 10,696 10,696 161,279 6,240 4e.2 Subtotal Period 4e AdditionalCosts 8,228 2,468 10,696 10,696 161,279 6,240 Period 4e Collateral Costs 4e.3.1 DOC staff relocation expenses 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 4e.3 . Subtotal Period 4e Collateral Costs 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 Period 4e Period-Dependent Costs 4e.4.1 Insurance 333 33 366 366 4e.4.2 Prpeny taxes 4H.4.3 Heahthphysics supplies 1,387 347 1,734 1.734 4e.4.4 Disposal of DAWgenerated 14 4 27 27 302 6.061 74 4e.4.5 Plant energy budget 220 33 253 253 4e.4.6 NRC Fees 446 45 490 490 4e.4.7 Site O&M 187 28 215 215 4e.4.8 Security Staff Cost 378 57 434 434 11.700 4ed4.9 DOC Staff Cost 4.712 707 5,419 5,419 61,230 4e.4.t0 UliltyStaff Cost 1.387 1.500 225 1,725 1,725 14,820 4e,4 Subtotal Period 4e Period-Dependent Costs 4 4 14 7,776 1,479 10,664 10,664 302 6,061 74 87,750

- 1.387 4te.0 TOTALPERIODHeCOST 2 1,387 4 4 4,161 22,842 14 17,272 22,842 302 6,061 181,353 93.990 PERIOD4 TOTALS 20,700 ff9,278 13,894 17,370 6,816 137,138 275,708 118,049 689,055 688,419 636 68,766 624,455 24,592 3.364 1.200 69,814.820 1,553,166 3.518,864 PERIOD5b - Site Restoration Period 5b Direct Decommissioning Activites Demolitionof Remaining Sie Buildings Se.1.1.1 Air Intake Tunnel 141 21 162 162 2,297 50.1.1.2 Circulating Walor Chlorinator 64 10 74 74 1,131 Ss.1.1.3 Circulating Water intake Flume 56 8 64 64 915 5b.1.1.4 Circulating Water Pumphouse 164 25 189 189 3.205 So.1,1,5 Coagulator 48 7 55 - 55 937 5b.t.1.6 Control & Sterice 2.935 440 3,376 169 3,207 41,685 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Deeommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix C, Page 8 of9 Appendix C Three Mile Island Unit 2 Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Ott-Sd. LLRW NRC Spent Fucl Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utilityand Aetioity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lie.Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor tIndex Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Fent Cu. Fent Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours Demolltion ofRemaining SbteBuildings(continued) 5b.1.1.7 ControlBuilding Area 783 118 901 901 - 10,051 5b.1.1.8 CoolingTowers 729 109 839 039 11.813 5b.1.1.9 Emergency Diesel Generator 1,151 173 1.324 1,324 15,920 5b1.1 .10 Main s Aux Transformsr Foundations 76 11 87 87 1,387 5b.1,1.11 Mechanical Draft CoolingTowers 75 86 1,074 5b.1.1.12 Miscellaneous YardFoundations 17 3 20 20 284 5b.1.1.13 RiverWater Pumphouse 1,632 245 1,876 1,876 21,756 5b.1.1.14 Turbine 1.423 213 1,636 1,636 26.857 5o.1.1.15 Turbine Generator Pedestal 646 97 743 743 8,464 5b.t.1 Totals 99.40 1,491 11.431 169 11.263 148,057 Site Closeout Activities 8b.1.2 Grade & landscape site 135 20 155 - 155 770 -

5b.1.3 Final reportto NRC 356 53 410 410 - - 3.120 10,075 356 148,828 3.120 5b.1 Subtotal Period SbActlotyCosts 1,565 11.997 579 11,418 Period 5b Additonal Costs 5b.2.1 RiverWater Pump House Cofferdam 186 - 8 - 28 214 214 2,116 5b.2.2 Concrete Processing 292 - 45 345 345 7 - 1,785 5b.2.3 Survey & Relnase of scrap materials 815 61 2,068 1 401 3,346 3,346 5- 7,55 3,704,137 7,408 5b.2.4 BackfillSite 422 - 63 485 1,405 - - 4,544 5b.2 Subtotal Period SbAddoionalCosts 900 815 59 2,068 1 537 4,389 3,346 - 1,043 7,550 - 3.704.137 15.853 Period 5b Collateral Costs 5b.3.1 Small tool allowance 101 s1 116 116 5b.3 Subtotal Period 5b Collateral Costs 101 15 116 116 Period 5b Period-Dependent Costs 5b.4.1 Insurance 5b.4.2 Pmpertytaxes 5b.4.3 Heavyequipment rental 2,211 - 332 2,543 2,543 5b.4.4 Plant energy budget -

S 147 22 169 169 -

5b.4.5 Security Staff Cost a4 13 97 97 2,607 5b.4.6 DOC Staff Cost -.423 1,413 10.037 10,837 116800 5b.4.7 UtIl*yStaff Cost - 1,899 285 2,184 2,104 20,336 5b.4 Subtotal Period 5b PenodSDependentCosts 2,211 - - - 11,554 2,065 15.0 15,839.

15,830 139,743 5b.0 TOTALPERIOD sb COST 13,287 815 69 2.068 11,911 4,182 32.332 3,925 28,407 7.559 3,704,137 164,681 142,863 PERIOD5 TOTALS 13,287 815 09 2,068 11,011 4.182 32,332 3.925 28,407 7.559 3,704,137 164,681 142.863 TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION 21,388 117,303 14,984 17,846 8,884 141,135 384,686 138,658 844,884 813.986 30,898 76,325 633,766 24,592 3,364 1,200 75,261,950 1,745,261 4,580,323 TL3 Seroi-e, les.

Th-o Mile Iacused Unitl 2 Docureoors F07-1601.002, Rau. 0 DeommisnsiuoninrigCost Anaolysis Apipaonsa/C, Piage 9 f9A Appendix C Three Mile Island Unit 2 Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Butial Volumes Burial/ Utilityn Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic.Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor I Activity Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet CU. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet WtL,Lbs. Manhours Manhours

  • Indec Acuty Ltescinption Cost C C C.: a TOTALCOST TO DECOMMISSION WITH19.63%CONTINGENCY: $844,884 thousands of 2008 dollars TOTALNRC LICENSE TERMINATION COST IS 96.34%OR $8t3,986 thousands ot 2009 dollars NON-NUCLEARDEMOLITION COST IS 3.66% OR: $30,898 thousands of 2009 dollars TOTALLOW-LEVELRADIOACTIVE WASTEVOLUMEBURIED(EXCLUDINGGTCC): 601,721 cubic feet TOTALGREATERTHANCLASS C RADWASTEVOLUMEGENERATED: 1,200 cubic fent TOTAL SCRAP METALREMOVED: 29,694 tons TOTALCRAFT LABORREOUIREMENTS: 1,745,261 tan-hours End Notes:

nla - indicates that this activitynot charged as decommissioning expense.

indicates that this activityperformed by decommnssicningstaff.

0- indicates that this value is cos than 0.5 cut s non-uero.

a cell containing -- " indicates a zero value TLG Ser-ice., l-.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07.1601-002,Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix D, Page 1 of 9 APPENDIX D DETAILED COST ANALYSIS CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR TLG Services, Inc.

Theee MileIsan U.0oS I~ 2 Dacooeeeo F07-1601-0082, Rev. 0 Do ioiaigCost Annifyei. Appendixe D, Page 2 of 8 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial / Utility and I Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor I oltY Cost Cost Costs Cost. Costs Cost C Cost, Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhout I j Index A Uescription rtlwty PERIOD 2c - SAFSTORDormancy during TMI-1Decommissioning Period 2c Direct DecomnnissioningActc*ties 20.1.1 Quarterty Inspection 2c.1.2 Semi-annual enviroonmental survey 2c.1.3 Prepare rnports a 2c.1.4 Situminousmofreplacement 1,132 170 1,301 1,301 2c.1.5 Maintenance supplies 6,263 939 7.202 7,202 2c.1 Subtotal Period 2c ActivityCosts 7,394 1,109 8,503 8,503 Peiod 2c Period-Dependent Costs 2c.4.1 Insurance 21.765 2.177 23.942 23,942 2c,4.2 Property taxes 2c.4.3 Health physics supplies 5.843 - - 1,461 7,304 7.304 2c.4.4 Disposal of DAWgenerated - 283 298 903 - 299 1,783 1,783 20.146 403.707 4.946 2c.4.5 Plant energy budget

  • 11,840 1,776 13,616 13,616 2c.4.6 NRC Fees 3,615 361 3.976 3,976 2c.4.7 SecurrtyStaff Cost 19,703 2.955 22,659 22,659 611,016 2,4.8 Utilty Staff Cost - 10,656 1,598 12.255 12,255 S - - 103,914 2c 4 Subtotal Period 2c Period-Dependent Costs 5,843 283 298 903 67,580 10,627 85,534 85,534 20,146 403.707 4,946 714.930 2c.0 TOTALPERIOD 2c COST 5,843 283 298 903 74.974 11,737 94,038 94.038 20,146 403,707 4,946 714,930 PERIOD2 TOTALS 5.643 283 298 903 74,974 11,737 94,038 94.038 20,146 403,707 4,946 714,930 PERIOD 3a - Reactivate Site Following SAFSTOR Dormancy Penod 3a Direct Decommissioning Actiities 3a.1.1 Prepare preliminarydecommissioningcost 223 33 256 256 1,950 3:. 1.2 Prepare and submyt PSDAR 914 137 1.051 1,051 8,000 3a 1.3 Review plant dwgs & specs. 1,051 158 1,209 1,209 9,200 3a. 1.4 Perform detailed tad survey 3a .1.5 Estimate by-product inventory 1,143 171 1.314 1,314 10,000 3a.1.6 End product description 229 34 263 263 2,000 3:.1.7 Detailed by-product inventory 594 89 683 683 5,200 3 .1.8 Define major work sequence 1.714 257 1.971 1.971 15.000 3a.1.9 Perform SER and EA 7,129 1,069 8.199 8,199 62.400 3a.1.10 Perform Site-Specific Coot Study 1,143 171 1,314 1,314 10.,00 3a11.11 Preparelsubmg License TerminationPlan 1,872 281 2.153 2,153 16,384 3a 1.12 Recenve NRC approval of terminationplan Actvity Specifications 3:.j.13.1 Re-activate plant & temporary faciltiles 1.263 189 1.452 1,307 145 - - 11.055 3a.1.13.2 Plant systems 952 143 1.095 985 109 8,333 3o.1.13.3 Reactor internals 1.622 243 1.866 1.866 - 14,200 3a.1.1 3.4 Reactor vessel 1.114 167 1.281 1,281 9,750 3a.1.13.5 Biologicalshield 57 5 66 66 500 3a.1.13.6 Steam generators 1426 214 1,640 1.640 - 12.480 3a.1.1 37 Reinlfrcedconcre 366 55 420 210 210 3,200 3a.1.1 3.8 Turbine &condenser 91 14 105 - 105 3a 1.12.9 Plant structures 9 buildings 356 53 410 205 205 3,120 3a.1.13.10 Waste management 2,102 315 2.418 2.418 18,400 3a.1.13.11 Facility& sfte closeout 15 118 59 59 90O 30.1.13 Total 93

!1.453 1 1.41' 10.871 10.037 834 82.738 Planning & Site Preparations 3a.1.14 Prepare dismantling sequence 548 82 631 631 - 4,800 30.1.15 Plant prep. &temp. svces 2,419 363 2,782 2,782 TLG Services, 1-.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Do.u.ent F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DD.em isioining Cost Analysis Appendix D, Page3 of 9 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Uff-srte LUZO NRC; Spent Fuel Si Processed Buria1 Volumes Burial t -theiy ano Acf,,t SIll*dLVL n - Y

  • 5I ~ Decon Cost Cast Rerooal Cast Cost Packaging Costs cost, Transport Costs Cast, Processing Costs ctstu; Disposal Costs costs Other Costs Cast.

legal Coontioenco C

Total Costs Lic.Term.

Coors Costs Management Costs Cast.

Restoration Costs Cost, Volurre Co.Feet Cu Feet Class A CusFsar Cu Feet Class 8 Co. Fet Cu Feet Class C C.Fset Cu Feet GTCC Cu.Feet Cu Feet Processed me-the-bs Wt. Lbs Craft Contractor Manhoous Mashoars Manhours Manhoum 3a.1.16 Design materclean-up system 640 96 736 736 5,600 3a.1.17 RiggingtCont.Cotd Envtpsfoclingtetc. 2,048 307 2,355 2,355 3..olls Procure casksginers &containers 281 42 323 323 2,460 3a.1 Subtotal Period 3a AcntirryCosts 31,399 4,710 36,109 35,275 834 235,732 Period 3a AdditionalCosts 3a.2.1 RailroadTrack Refurbishment 300 45 345 345 3a.2.2 EquipmentAirlockRefurbishment 1,180 177 1.357 1.357 3e.2.3 RB Polar Crane Refurbishment 5,890 884 6,774 6,774 3a.2.4 RB Cask Handling System 1,180 177 1,357 1,357 3a.2 Subtotal Period 3a AdditionalCosts 8.550 1,283 9,833 9,833 Period 3a Peniod-Dependent Costs 3a.4.1 Insurance 437 44 481 481 3:.4.2 Propertytaxes 3a.4.3 Healthphysics topples 469 117 586 586 3a.4.4 Heavyequipment rental 346 52 397 397 3a.4.5 Disposal of DAWgenerated 6 36 36 4G4 8,103 3a.4.6 Plant energy budget 1,104 166 1.269 1,269 3a.4.7 NRC Fees 938 94 1,032 1.032 3a.4.8 Site O&M 250 37 287 287 3a.4.9 Security StaffCost 2,104 316 2.419 2.419 65,179 3a.4.10 DOC Staff Cost 12.380 1.857 14,238 14.238 198.143 3a.4.11 UtLility StaffCost 2,490 374 2.864 2,864 26,071 3a.4 Subtotal Period 3a Period-Dependent Costs 815 18 1R.703 3,062 23,609 23,609 404 8,103 99 289.393 3a.. TOTALPERIOD3a COST 815 18 59,652 9,054 69,551 68716 - 834 404 8.103 99 525,125 PERIOD 3b - Decommissioning Preparations Period 3b Direct DecommissioningActivties Detailed Work Procedures 3b.1.1.1 Plant systems 1,091 162 1,244 1,119 124 9,466 3b.1.l.2 Reaclcr internals 571 86 657 657 5.000 3b.1.t.3 Remaining buildings 154 23 177 44 133 1,350 3b. 1..4 CRD coolingassembly 171 26 197 197 t ,500

31. 11.5 Reactor vessel 622 93 715 715 5,445 3bD1ols6 Facildycloseo.t 137 21 158 79 79 1.200 3b.1.1.7 Missile shields 51 450 8 59 59 3h.1.1 .8 Biologicalshield 137 21 158 158 1,200 31.1.1 .9 Steam generatcrs 2,102 315 2.418 2,418 18,400 3b,1.1.10 Reinford concrete 229 34 263 131 131 2,000 3b.1.1 .11 Turbine &condensers 356 53 410 - 410 3,120 3b.1.1.12 Auciliarybuilding 624 94 717 646 72 5,460 3b.1.1.13 Reactor building 624 94 717 646 72 5,460 3b.1.1 Total 6.861 1.029 7.890 6,869 1,021 60.051 3b.1 Subtotal Period 31 ActautlyCosts - 6,861 1.029 7,890 6,869 1.021 60,051 Period 3b AdditionalCosts 31.21 Lead Sheilding Disposal 664 179 254 3,205 - 1,023 5,326 5,326 2,511 1,418,084 14,333 31.2.2 Stored Defueling EquipmentDisposiion 537 35 90 600 " 301 1,563 1.563 2.518 239.118 12,029 3b.2 Subtotal Penrod3b AdditionalCosts 1,200 215 344 3,805 1,324 6,889 6,689 5.029 1,6577202 26.362 Period 3b Collateral Costs 3b.3.1 Decun equipment - 100 767 767 3b*3.2 DOC staff relocation expenses 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 3bD.3D Small tool allomance 17 - 3 20 20 TLGSercies, Ine.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Dsvumunent F07.1601-002, Rev. 0 Deeosuissioning Cost Anlysis Appendix D, Page 4 f89 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Off-Sit LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Buriao Volumes Burial I Utility and A

Aciity Decon Removal Packaging Transport 2nde- Activit Description Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Continsencv otss Costs Costo Costs Cu. Fast Co P Co.Fos

.eFt Cu. Fet Co. Feet Wt.. Lbs. Manhour Manhours Period 3b Collateral Costs lcontinued) 31.3.4 Pipe cuting equipment - 967 - 143 1.100 1,100 3b.3 Subtotal Period 30 Collateral Costs 667 974 1,113 413 3,167 3,167 Period 30 Period-Dependent Costs 3b.4.1 Decon supplies 21 5 26 26 3b.4.2 Insurance 240 24 264 264 3b.4.3 Property taxes 3b.4.4 Hearth physics suppies 407 102 509 509 3b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 175 20 201 201 3b.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated - 9 - 3 18 18 205 4,107 50 3b.4.7 Plant energy budget 559 84 643 643 3b.4.8 NRC Fees 476 48 523 523 3b.4.9 Sits O&M 127 19 146 146 3b.4.10 Radwoste Processing EquipmenttServices 190 29 219 219 3b.4.11 Secrity Staff Cost 1,066 160 1.226 1,226 33,036 3b.4.12 DOCStaff Cost 12.322 1.848 14,171 14,171 171.363 3b.4.13 UtilIpStff Cost 1,262 1.451 1,451 13,214 189 3b.4 Subtotal Period 30 Period-Dependent Costs 21 582 3 3 9 16.243 2.537 19,398 19,398 205 4,107 50 217.613 36.0 TOTALPERIOD 30 COST 688 2,756 217 348 3,814 24.217 5.304 37,3"4 38.323 1,021 5,234 1,661,309 26,412 277,664 PERIOD3 TOTALS 688 3,571 223 354 3,832 83.869 14.358 106.895 105,039 1,855 5.638 1,669,412 26,512 802,789 PERIOD 4a - Large Component Removal Pedod 4a Direct DecommissioningActiviles Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 4..1.1.1 Reactor Coolant Piping 55 224 15 28 104 351 - 192 968 968 048 548 95,775 6.773 -

4a. .1.2 Pressurvur Retef Tank 8 32 3 4 24 73 35 178 178 94 94 20.849 732 4a.t.1.3 Reactor Coolant Pumps & Motors - 1,169 876 197 - 9,554 2,798 14,595 14.599 - 10,752 1,124,474 31.482 4a.1.1.4 Pressurier 1.306 708 199 3.090 1.199 6.502 6,502 462,726 4,152 4a.1.1.5 Steam Generators - 6.362 767 1,769 17,396 6,281 32,575 32,575 23,268 6,883 2.396,266 145,795 4a.1.t.6 CRDMsdCrsroSerce Structure Removal 31 51 147 56 336 135 757 757 -

1.454 47,869 1,830 4a.1.1.7 Reactor Vessel Intemars 120 3.332 4.245 "6 473 249 4,006 12.870 12.870 1,377 174,220 29,147 1,395 4a.1.1.8 Vessel & Internals GTCC Disposal 20,777 - - 3.117 23.893 23,893 831 142,496 4a.1.1.9 Reactor Vessel - 8,676 1.290 463 2.129 249 8,047 20.855 20.855 9,722 - 986,490 29,147 1,395 4a.1.1 Totals 214 21,152 Bt51 3,162 127 54,178 497 25,811 113,193 113,193 642 49,359 6,883 831 5,451,165 249.057 2,789 Removal of MajorEquipment 4a.1.2 MainTursine/Generator 272 86 43 621 176 1,198 1,198 6.106 274,750 5,956 4u.1.3 MainCondensers 1,116 82 41 596 383 2.218 2,218 5.860 263,690 25,162 Disposal of Plant Systems 4a.1.4.1 Decay Heat Clused CoolingWater 246 23 70 611 217 220 1.386 1,386 6,656 963 356,612 5,630 4a.1.4.2 Decay Heat Removal (RCA) 175 34 69 230 413 195 1.117 1,117 2.511 1.833 266,361 4,172 4a.1.4.3 Decay Heat Removal (Yard) 127 19 146 - 146 - 2,863 4a.1.4.4 Deminerolzed Water (RCA) 123 5 11 50 57 55 301 301 547 255 2,746

-7 45.089 4a.1.4.5 Domestic Water (Clean) 6 1 7 - - 148 4o.1.4.6 Domestc Water (RCA) 18 1 1 6 9 8 43 43 63 38 5,993 396 4a.1.4.7 Electrical(Clean) - 9 1 10 -

10 191 4a.1.4.8 Emergency Pesdtater (RCA) 57 3 7 37 31 29 165 1r5 407 140 29.058 1,280 4a.1.4.9 Fire Protection (Clean) 50 7 57 - 57 - 1t167 4a.1.4.10 Fire Protection (RCA) 41 2 3 13 19 18 96 96 146 86 13,657 933 4a.1.4.11 Gaseous Waste Disposal System (RCA) 170 5 10 52 53 66 356 356 568 255 44,078 3,949 4a.1.4.12 HVAC- Auxilary Building 493 9 26 158 122 182 990 990 1,725 540 118,524 11.067 4a.1.4.13 HVAC- ControlBuilding 54 3 13 163 11 43 286 286 1.780. 47 76.530 1,130 4a.1.4.14 HVAC- Miscellaneous 30 4 34 - 34 - - 666 TLG Serviee, 1.

TAh-e Mile Ilaeo.d Undt 2 DoceaocecdF07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decombmissionin~g Cost Auaafy-i- Appeodin D, Prig, 5 of9 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Oft-Sde LLW NRC SpentFoet S rocessed PSit BaralVolumes BanalI Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lc. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs costs Costs costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt, Lbs. Manhours Manhoursu Disposal of Plant Systems (continued) 4a.1.4.15 HVAC- Seoice Building 71 2 7 94 7 35 216 216 1,029 29 44,397 1,434 5 0 5 1 5 24 24 4 6 644 413 4a.1.4.16 HydrogenPurge - Red Monitoring 17 31 234 - - 4,6899 4a.1.4.17 IndustrialWaste Treatment System 204 234 5 8 25 47 42 228 228 271 207 29.566 2,251 4a.1.4.18 Instrument Air (RCA) 101 9 19 52 118 62 343 343 568 524 70,092 1,887 4a.1.4. 1 Internediete Closed CoolingWater (RCA) 83 6 29 376 25 114 734 734 4a101 149 176.316 4,077 4a.1.4.20 Main Condensate (RCA) 1584 3 9 59 37 33 195 195 643 164 40,843 1,217 4a.1.4.2t Main Reheat& Steam (RCA) 54 6801 4.022 4,022 12,877 5,304 953,442 17,230 4a.1.4.22 NuIclearSerices Closed Cycl Codling 760 100 220 1,182 1.081 83 - 83 - 1.764 4a.1.d.23 Nuclear Serncen RiverWater (Clean) 72 11c 49 108 403 629 - 500 2,731 2,731 4.392 2,792 428,769 24,882 4a.1.4.24 Nuclear Services RiverWater RCA) 1.043 2 14 - 14 - 298 4a.1.4.25 Reactor BuildingNormalCooling (Clean) 13 21 50 160 305 170 948 948 1,739 1.356 192.214 5,711 40.1.4.26 Reactor BuildingNormalCooling (RCA) 241 3 4 - 35 25 128 128 154 13.769 1,413 4a.1.4.27 SG Secondary Side Vents & Drains 61 10 14 - 110 79 407 , 407 - 530 43,764 4,528 4a.1.4.28 Sampling Nuclear System 194 0 3 1 2 10 10 35 3 1.651 82 4a.t.4.29 Sewage Teatment Plant (RCA) 4 7 8 13 59 68 355 355 139 263 29,187 4,836 4e.t.4.30 Station Service Air 199 3 5 15 34 41 215 215 161 152 20,117 2 753 4a.1.4.31 Sump Systems (RCA) 116 1 t 6 5 6 34 34 61 22 4,489 328 4:.1.4.32 Turbine Plant Sample (RCA) 15 4a.1.4 Totals 5.031 304 693 3,710 3,423 2.753 15,914 15,329 586 40,423 15.811 3.005,161 116.309 12 7 82 11 - 290 1.495 1.495 40.658 28.124 4a.1.5 Scaffoldingin support o1decommissioning 1.092 804 50 6, -

57,612 497 29.414 134,017 133.432 586 53,834 65,221 6.83 - 831 9,035,424 424.608 2.789 4a.1 Subtotal Period4a ActivityCosts 214 28.664 8.534 3,946 5.136 Period 4a AdditionalCosts 4a.2.1 Reactor BuildingBasement Dose Reduction - 17 118 3,270 14.806 4,208 22.418 22,418 9,225 2,017 1,217,965 282 4a.2.2 Containment Basement Liner Removal 113 236 551 1.477 504 2.881 2.881 3,756 129,709 2.286 4a2.3 Reactor BuildingSNF & HOT Systems Removal - - 51 246 761 232 1,290 1.290 - 1t002 76,912 318 4a.2.4 Fuel Handling/Auxiliary SNF & HOT SystemT Removal 1.836 1,607 117 422 5.676 2,564 12,224 12,224 8,864 40 6668018 72.761 4a.2.5 NSSS Component Surface Decontamination 7,518 - 808 33 8,230 3,759 20,348 .20,348 329 19,751 46,920 4a.2.6 Core Flood Tanks Removal 63 398 53 68 872 - 364 1,818 1.818 1,716 - 124,165 10,059 4a.2.7 FHABAX-004Decontamination - 140 171 831 1,661 343 644 3,791 3,791 - 3,380 228,566 4,638 4a.2.8 Legacy waste stored at INEEL - - - - - 590 89 679 679 9,417 2,275 1,554 5,422 33.483 933 12,364 69,449 65,449 10,580 17.363 2.017 369 2,463,086 137,264 4a.2 Subtotal Petiod 4a AdditionalCosts Period 4a Collateral Costs

- 6.144 13 4a.3.1 P . -oIssliquid waste 3 - 1 15 120 34 172 172 -- 49 41.3.2 Sinan tool alloentnce - 359 54 413 372 41 1 15 120 87 585 544 41 49 6.144 13 4..3 Subtotal Pedod 4a Collateral Costs 3 359 Period 4a Peid-Depeondent Costs 40.4.1 Decon supplies 182 45 227 227 4a.4.2 Insurance - 2,113 211 2,324 2.324 40.4.3 Property taxes -

41.4.4 Health physics supplies 5,703 1,426 7,129 7,129 4A.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 9,190 1,379 10,569 10,569 40.4.6 Disposal o1DAWgenerated 112 118 356 118 704 704 7,950 159,314 1,952 4a.4.7 Plentoenergybudget 4,922 738 5,661 5,661 40.4.8 NRC Fees 3,082 308 3,390 3,390 4a.4.9 Site O&M 1,114 167 1,281 1,281 4a.4.10 Radvaste Processing EquipmentSevices 1,673 291 1,924 1,924 7.965 1.195 9,160 9.160 246.805 40.4.11 Secucty Start Cost 122.414 18,362 140,776 140,776 1,726.610 4e.4.12 DOCStaff Cost 11.106 1.666 12.772 12.772 116,286 40.4.13 Utlity Stall Cost 112 118 356 154,390 25,866 195,917 195,917 159,314 1,952 2,089,701 4a.4 Subtotal Period 4a Period-Dependent Costs 182 14.893 7,950 9,816 46,192 10,201 9,501 5.136 91,571 155.820 67,731 395,968 395,342 627 53.834 83,751 24,295 2,017 1.200 11,663,970 563.837 2.092.490 4a.0 TOTALPERIOD4a COST TLG Sepieres, Ine.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Coast Anualysis Appendix D, Page 6 of 9 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Oftf-ite LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial/ Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lc. Term. Managemest Restoration Volume Claos A Class B Claos C GTCC Prossed Craft Contractor Inde. Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Cots Costs Contle ens Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours PERIOD 4b - Site Decontamination Disposal of Plant Systemr 4b.1.2.1 Decay Heat Removal (RB) 209 20 32 249 121 631 631 - - 1,108 99,380 4,941 4b.1.2.2 Electrical(Contaminated - RB) 39 2 3 26 17 87 67 - - 116 10.435 893 4b.1.2.3 Electrical(Contaminatsd - RCA) 259 8 38 500 33 154 992 992 5,443 145 234,039 5,743 41.1.2.4 Feedmwter(RB) 34 5 10 - 77 30 154 154 - 341 30.612 804 4b1 .2.5 FireProtection (RB) 17 1 2 13 58 8 41 41 5,171 407 41.1.2.6 Fuel Handling(RB) 4 0 1 4 2 11 t1 19 1.669 86

41. 1.2.7 Fuel Hardling (RCA) 280 13 26 205 127 651 851 912 81.790 6,260 4b. 1.2.8 Gaseous Waste Disposal System (RB) 3 0 0 2 1 7 7 - - 9 790 76 4b.1.2.9 HVAC-Fuel Handling Building 206 4 12 101 42 79 443 443 1.097 185 61.125 4.588 4b.1.2.10 HVAC- Reactor Buiding 730 44 85 - 62 365 1.886 1,886 - 2,941 263,784 16.426 4b.1.2.11 lnstnrmstaAir(RB) 23 1 2 12 9 48 48 55 4,966 545 4b.t.2.12 IntermediateClosed CoolingWater (RB) 69 5 8 59 34 175 175 263 23,572 1,604 4b.1.2.13 Nitrogen tor Nuclear RodorasteSys (RB) 7 1 1 11 5 25 25 49 4,378 170 4b.t.2.14 Nuclear Services River Water (RB) 77 9 1t 128 568 55 285 285 50,919 1,826 4b.1.2.15 OTSGCremical Cleaning System 16 1 2 16 8 43 43 70 6,260 372 4b.1.2.16 Seoage Treatreent Plant (Clean) 8 - - 1 9 - - 180 4b.1.2.17 Spent Futl Cooling 348 16 29 41 204 150 787 787 452 907 99.713 8,157 4b.1.2.18 Spent Fuel Cooling (RS) 21 1 2 17 10 52 52 - - 77 6,934 482 4b.1.2.19 Sump Systems (RB) 31 2 3 S 324 15 75 75 - 108 9,645 744 4b.1.2 Totals 2,380 133 273 642 1.785 1.191 6.404 6.395 9 6,991 7,930 995,182 54,302 4b.1.3 Scaffolding insupport ofdecommissioning - 1,638 18 11 123 17 436 2,242 2,242 1,206 75 60,988 42.187 Decontaminationof Sie Buildings 4b.1.4.1 Reactor 8,756 3,760 1.091 1,212 - 9,454 7,972 32.245 32,245 - 42,223 3,766,363 261,037 4b.1.4.2 Auxiliary 428 808 70 168 30 307 530 2.341 2341 323 4,989 485.601 26,400 4b.1,4,3 BWST& CST Tank Pads - 153 348 878 1,341 540 3,259 3,259 - 24,827 2,482,650 3,623 4b.1.4.4 Control & Service 20 6 1 3 0 5 13 49 49 2 97 9.763 566 4b.1.4.5 Control BuildingArea 78 41 8 21 23 30 64 265 265 249 545 64,320 2,552 4b.1.4.6 Fuel Handling 599 875 61 117 74 390 651 2.767 2J767 803 3.575 361,010 30.801 4b.1.4,7 Turbine 59 3 0 1 - 1 31 96 96 - 25 2,532 1,452 4b.5.4 Totals 9,940 5,646 1,579 2.400 126 11.529 9,801 41,022 41,022 1,377 76,281 7.172,239 326.431 4b.1 Subtotal Penod 41 ActivityCosts 9,940 9,664 1,731 2,604 891 13,331 - 11,427 49.668 49,659 - 9 9.574 04,286 - - - 8,228,408 422.920 Penod 45 AdditionalCosts 4b5Z, Bioshield& D-RingRemoval 4.951 668 1,080 0t,096 3.991 20,786 20,786 155,795 18,695,440 60,693 4b52.2 RB ExteriorConcrete & Basemat Removal 7,948 228 368 3,443 - 2,926 14,913 14.913 53,132 6,375,849 120,240 41.2.3 Underground Piping & Yard Soil 641 105 1,416 2.011 250 923 5,345 5,345 48,992 - 3,723,414 8,942 41,2.4 Process NSSS decon & segmentation liquid inventory - 72 281 3,874 770 1,133 6,130 6,130 1.347 158,780 - 779 45.2.5 AuxiliaryBuildingTotal Removal 7.739 324 689 6,453 - 3,684 18,888 18,688 99,586 - 11,950,340 113,205 4b52.6 Fuel Handling BuildingTotal Removal 5,416 72 477 - 4.447 - 2,545 12,957 12,957 68,634 8,236,080 73,213 4b.2.7 On-site surmey& release of concrete 2.227 - 555 307 - 1.500 911 5.499 5,499 - 24,581 4b.2.8 Defuelingfuel canister racks 22 20 308 64 - 796 - 255 1,465 1,465 23,256 317,086 1,964 4b.2.9 License Termination Surey Planning - - 1,393 418 1.811 1,811 12,480 40.2 Subtotal Period 45 AdditionalCosts 22 28,941 1,777 4.929 307 31,119 3,913 16,785 87,793 87,793 449.395 1,347 49,456,980 402,838 13,259 Penod 45 Collateral Costs 46b3 1 Process liquid waste 5 - 2 33 - 169 - 50 260 260 105 13,222 28 45b3.2 Small tool allouwance 518 78 595 595 46.3.3 DecommissioningEquipment Dispostion - - 90 62 610 64 131 977 977 6,000 373 - 303,507 739 4b.3 Subtotal Period 4b Collateral Costs 5 518 92 95 650 253 259 1,832 1,832 6.000 373 105 316,729 767 Period 4b Pesod-Dependent Costs 4b.4.1 Decon supplies 887 - 222 1.109 1,109 4b.4.2 Insurance 1,659 166 1,824 1,824 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DeeacommissioningCost Anclysis Appendix D, Page 7 of 9 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Ott-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Buial Volumes Burial Ittility ael Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Li,. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Cenractor Index ActivityDesicription Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Ceoe tests Contieecy ts Costs Costs Coste Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Peer Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt. Lbs. Manhours Machours Period 4b Perlod-Oependent Costs (continued) 4b.4.3 Property taxes 4b.4,4 Health physics supplies 6,954 1,738 8692 8,592 4bi4.5 Heavy equipment rental 5,777 867 6.644 6,644 4b*4.6 Disposal oa DAWgenerated 80 85 256 - 85 506 506 5.714 114,508 1,403 4b.4.7 Plant energy budget - 2,885 433 3.318 3,318 4b.4.8 NRC Fees 1,920 192 2.111 2,111 4b.i49 Site O&M 875 131 1.006 1,006 4b,4.10 Radwaste Processing Equipment/Services 1,313 197 1.510 1,510 4b.4.11 Security Staff Cost 4,331 650 4,981 4,981 134.227 41.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 77.950 11,693 89,643 89.643 1,110,034 4b.4.13 UtilityStaff Cost 8,719 1,308 10.026 10.026 91,286 4b.4 Subtotal Period 41,Period-Dependent Costs 887 12,731 80 85 256 99,651 17,680 131,371 131,371 5,714 114,508 1.403 1.335,547 4b,0 TOTALPERIOD4b COST 10,855 51,854 3,680 7,792 1,808 44,960 103,564 46151 270,664 270.655 9 15,574 539.768 105 1,347 58,116,630 827,928 1,348,806 PERIOD4e - LacenseTserrieasio Period is Direct DecommissioningAdctiies 4e.1.1 ORISE confirmatorysurvey 155 46 201 201 4:Ac1.2 Terminate license 4c.t Subtotal Pedod 4e ActivityCosts 155 46 201 201 Period 4e AdditionalCosts 4e.2.1 License Termination Survey 8,228 2.468 10,696 10,696 161,279 6,240 4e.2 Subtotal Period 4e AdditionalCosts 8,228 2,468 10,696 10.696 161,279 6,240 Period 4e Collateral Costs 4e.3.1 DOCstaffrelocation expenses 1.113 167 1,280 1,280 4e.3 Subtotal Peaod 4e Collateral Costs 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 Perdod4s Period-Oependent Costs 4e.4.1 Insurance 334 33 368 368 4e.4.2 Propertytaxes 4e.4.3 Health physics supplies 1,389 347 1,736 1,736 4e.4.4 Disposalof DAWgenerated 4 4 14 5 27 27 304 6,083 75 4Ae..5 Plant energy budget 221 33 254 254 4e.4.6 NRCFees 447 45 492 492 4e.4i7 Site O&M 188 28 216 216 4e.4'.8 Securiy Staff Cost 379 57 436 436 11,743 4e.4it9 DOCStaff Cost 4,730 709 5.439 5,439 61,454 4e.4,10 UtilityStaff Cost - - -- 1,56W 226 1.731 1,731 14,874 4e.4 Subtotal Period 4e Period-Dependent Costs 1.389 4 4 14 7,804 1.483 10,698 10.698 304 6,083 75 88,071 4e.0 TOTALPERIOD4e COST 1,389 4 4 14 17.300 4.165 223876 22,876 3G4 6,083 161.354 94,311 PERIOD4 TOTALS 20.671 99,434 13,885 17.298 6,943 136,545 276.685 118,048 689,508 636 69,408 623.823 686,873 24.400 3,364 1,200 69,786,680 1,553,118 3,535,607 PERIODSb,- DSitResteratien Period 5b Direct DecommissioningActivities Demoliton of Remaining Site iuddings Sb.1.1.1 Air Intake Tunnel 141 21 162 162 2,297 5b.1.1.2 CirculatingWater Chlornator 64 10 74 74 1,131 5b.1.1.3 Ciculating Water Intake Flumes 56 8 64 64 915 5b. 1.1.4 CirculatingWater Pumphouss 164 25 189 189 3,205 5b.1.1.5 Coagulator 48 7 55 55 937 5b. 1.1.6 Control & Service 2.935 440 3,376 169 3,207 41,665 TLG Services, Ie.

Three Mile island Unit 2 Docunsent F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decormissioning Cost Analynis Appendix D, Page 8 f9 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

O-Shte LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial/ Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor lndoe Activty Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Coetle.enc Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Co. Feet Cs.Peet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Mantlse- Manhours Demolition of RemainingSite Buildings(continued) 5.t.t1.7 Control BuildingArea 783 118 901 901 10,651 5b.1.1.8 CoolingTow-es 729 109 839 839 11,813 Sb t.1.9 Emergency Diesel Generator 1,151 173 1.324 1,324 15,920 5b 1.1.t Mao &hun Trensfo.e-r Foundations 76 11 87 87 1,387 5b 1.1.11 Mechanical DraftCooling Towers 75 11 86 86 1,074 5b.1.1.12 MiscellaneousYard Foundations 17 3 20 20 284 5b1.1t.13 RiverWater Pumpnouse 1,632 245 1.876 1,876 21,756 5b.1.1.14 Turbine 1,423 213 1,636 1,636 26.557 5b.1 1.15 Turbine Generator Pedestal 646 97 743 743 8,464 5b.1.1 Totals 9,940 1.491 11,431 169 11,263 148,057 Ste Closeout Activities 5b1,2 Grade & landscape ste 135 - 20 155 - 155 770 -

sobi,3 Final reportto NRC 356 53 410 410 3,120 5bl Subtotal Period SbActivityCosts 10,075 356 1,565 11,997 579 11,418 148.828 3,120 Penod sb AdditionalCosts 5b.2.1 RiverWater Pump House Cofferdam 186 28 214 214 2,116 5b2.2 Concrete Processing 292 - 8 45 345 345 - 1,785 5b.2.3 Survey&Release of scrap materials - 815 61 2,068 401 3,346 3,346 7,5559 3,704,137 7,408 5b.2,4 Backitl1Sne 422 - - 63 485 - 485 - - 4.544 5b.2 Subtotal Period 5b AdditionalCosts 900 815 69 2,068 537 4,389 3,346 1,043 7.559 3.704,137 15,853 Pedod 5b Collateral Costs Sb.3.1 Small tool allowance 101 15 116 116 5b.3 Subtotal Period sb Collateral Costs 101 15 116 116 Period 5b Period-Dependent Costs 5b.4.1 Insurance 5b.4.2 Property taxes 5b.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 2,211 - 332 2.543 2.543 5b.4.4 Plant energy budget 147 22 169 169 5b.4.5 Security Staff Cost 84 13 97 97 2,607 5b.4.6 DOC Staff Cost 9,423 1,413 10,837 10.837 116,800 5.4.7 UtilrtyStaff Cost 1,899 285 2,184 2,184 20,336 5b.4 Subtotal Penod 5b Period-Dependent Costs 2,211 11,554 2,065 15,830 - 15,8306 139,743 5b.O TOTALPERIOD SoCOST 13,267 815 69 2,068 11,911 4,182 32,332 3,925 28.407 7,559 3,704.137 164,681 142,863 PERIOD 5 TOTALS 13,287 815 69 2,068 6 11,911 4,182 32,332 3,925 28.407 7,559 3,704,137 164,681 142,863 TOTALCOSTTODECOMMISSION 21,359 122,136 15,206 18,018 9.011 141,280 447,439 148,324 922,772 891,874 - 30.898 76,967 649,607 24.400 3.364 1,200 75,563,940 1,749.257 5,196,189 TLG Services, In.

The-o Mile blaatned Unit 2 Doeuneont F07.1601-002, Rev. 0 Dxooee- oiooi-ig Cool Aneuayoio Appendix D, Page 9 of 9 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Sitl Processed Burial Volunmes Burial, Utilityand Activty Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Voiueo Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Actici Descrition CoSt Cool Costs Cost, Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Fot Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt. Lbs. Manhoot, Monhoou, TOTALCOST TO DECOMMISSIONWITH19.15% CONTINGENCY: $922,772 thousands of 2008 dollars TOTALNRCLICENSE TERMINATION COST IS 96.65% OR $891,874 thousands of 2008 dollars MON-NUCLEAR DEMOLITION COST IS 3.35% OR: S30,898 th..osanods .1 2008 dollars TOTALLOW-LEVELRADIOACTIVE WASTEVOLUMEBURIED(EXCLUDINGGTCC): 677,370 cubic feet TOTALGREATERTHANCLASS C RADWASTEVOLUMEGENERATED 1,200 cubic feet TOTALSCRAP METALREMOVED: 29,694 tons TOTALCRAFTLABORREQUIREMENTS: 1,749,257 man-hours End Notes:

r/a - indicates that this activitynot charged as decommissioning expense.

a- indicates 1hatthis actbrityperformed by decommissioning staff.

0 - inoicates thot this value is less than 0.5 but asnon-eno.

a cell containing -" indicates a zero value TLG Service, Ibe.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002,Rev. 0 DecommissioningCost Analysis Appendix E, Page 1 of 12 APPENDIX E DETAILED COST ANALYSIS HARDENED SAFSTOR TLG Services, Inc.

Thr-ee Mile filousd Unit 2 Docsuesest F07-1601-002, Rec. 0 D.-monseoei-ei-ig CootA-aayeie Apjpsedid E, Page 2 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

SActivity Ott-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial Utility and Decon Removal Packaging Transport Procesing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Teem. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Crft Contractor Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contin e-v C Co Costs Costs Costs Cr. Fent C. Fet C_. Feet Co. Feet Co. Feet Wt_. Lsb. Manhou- Manhrou PERIOD 2c - SAFSTORDormancy during TMI-1 Decommissioning Period 2c DirectDecotmissioning Activties 2c.1.1 QuarterlyInspecton 2c.1.2 Semni-annualenvirornmentalsurvey 2c.1.3 Prepare reports 2c,1.4 Btunmirous mooreplacement 30 4 34 34 2c .1.5 Maintenance supplies 164 25 189 189 2c.1 Subtotal Period 2c Actity Costs 194 29 223 223 Period 2c Period-Oependent Costs 2c.4.1 Insurance 570 57 627 627 2c.4.2 Propertytaxes 2c.4.3 Heaothphysics supplies 153 38 191 191 2c.4.4 Disposal o1DAWgenerated 24 - 8 47 47 527 10,567 129 2c.4,5 Plant enorgy budget 310 46 356 356 2c.4.6 NRC Fees 95 9 104 104 2c.4,7 Security Staff Cost 3,572 536 4,108 4.108 110,677 2c.4.8 UtilityStaffCost - 279 42 321 321 - 2,720 2c.4 Subtotal Period 2c Period-Dependent Costs 153 6 24 4,825 737 5.753 5.753 527 10.567 129 113,397 2c.0 TOTALPERIOD 2c COST 153 24 5,019 766 5.976 5,976 527 10.567 129 113,397 PERIOD2 TOTALS 153 24 5,019 766 5.976 5.976 527 10.567 129 113.397 PERIOD 3a - Reactivate Site Following SAFSTOR Dormancy Period 3a DirectDecomnissioning Actiwties 30.1.1 Prepare preliminary decommissioning cost 223 33 256 256 1.950 3a.1.2 Prepare and submit PSDAR 914 137 1,051 1.051 - - 9.000 3a.1.3 Review plant dogs & specs. 526 79 604 604 4.600 3a.t14 Perform detaled rid survey 3a.t.5 Estimate by-product inventory 1,143 171 1,314 1,314 10.000 3a.1.6 End product description 229 34 263 263 2.000 3.1.7 Detailed by-product inventory 297 45 342 342 2,600 3a.1.8 Define major work sequence 857 129 985 985 7,500 3a.1.9 Perfotm SER and EA 7,129 1.069 8,199 8.199 62,400 3a..1.10 Perforv Site-Speafic Cost Study 571 86 657 657 5,000 30.1.11 Preparelsubmdt License Termination Plan 936 140 1,076 1.076 8,192 3a.1.12 Receive NRC approval of termination plan ActivitySpecifications 3:.1.13.1 Re-activate plant & temporary facilities 1.263 189 1.452 1.307 145 11.055 3-.1.13.2 Plant systems 952 143 1.095 985 109 8.333 30.1.13.3 Reintorced concrete 366 55 420 210 210 3,200 30.1.13.4 Turbine & condenser 91 14 105 - 105 800 3a.1.13.5 Plantstructures & buitdings 356 53 410 205 205 3,120 30.1.13.6 Waste management 2.102 2.4t8 2,410 315 19,400 30.1.13.7 Facility& site closeout 103 15 8t 59 59 900 3 .1.13 Total 5,234 705 6,019 5,184 834 45808 Planning & Site Preparations 30.1.14 Prepare dismantling sequence 548 82 631 631 4,800 3a.1.15 Plant prep. & temp. svces 2,419 363 2.782 2,792 30.1.16 Design water clean-up system 640 96 736 736 5,600 3a.1.17 Rigging/Cot. Chtr Envlpshtooling/etc. 2,048 307 2.355 2355 3a.1.16 Procure casksrliners S cotlainers 281 42 323 323 2,460 3a.1 Subtotal Period 30 ActivityCosts 23.993 3,599 27,592 26,758 834 170,910 TLG Services, In-.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Dosument F07.1601.002,Rev. 0 D-eeomissioningCost Annlyei Appendix E, Page 3 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

I Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utilityand Attity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Li,. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Proeassed Craft Contractor Cost Cost Costs Costa Costs Costs Costs Cootinoenco Costs Costs Coto Coot, Cu Feet C,. Fet Cr seet C, Fet Cu Fet me Lbs. Manhouoom nhu I d ex Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Cost. Costs Contingency C am cost. Costs costs Cu Feet Cu Feel Cu Feet Cu Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Mantrours M-nhours Period 3a Period-Dependent Costs 3a.4.1 Insurance 437 44 481 481 3a.4.2 Property taxes 3a.4.3 Health physics supplies 469 117 586 586 3a.4.4 Heavy equipment rental 346 - - 52 397 397 3a.4.5 Disposal of DAWgenerated 6 6 t 18 6 36 36 404 8,103 99 3a.4.6 Plant energy budget 1,104 166 1,269 1.269 3a.4.7 NRC Foes 938 94 1,032 1,032 3a.4.8 Soe O&M 250 37 287 287 3a.4.9 Securty Staff Cost 2.739 411 3,150 3,150 84,080 3a.4.10 DOC Staff Cost 10.452 1,568 12,020 12.020 160,600 3a.4.11 UtilityStaff Cost - - 2,490 374 2,064 2864 26,071 3a.4 Subtotal Perod 3a Period-Dependent Costs 815 6 6 18 18.410 2,868 22,122 22.122 404 8,103 99 271,539 3a.0 TOTALPERIOD 3a COST 815 0 6 ts 42,403 6,467 49,714 48.880 B34 404 5,103 99 442,450 PERIOD3b - Decommissioning Preparations Period 3b DirectDecommissioning Activities DetailedWork Procedures 3b.1.1.1 Plant systems 1'081 162 1,244 1,119 124 - 9,4r6 3b..t1.2 Remainingbuildings 154 23 177 44 133 1,350 3b.1.1.3 Facilitycloseout 137 21 158 79 79 1,200 3b.1.1.4 Reintorcedconcrete 229 34 263 131 131 2.000 3b.t.1.5 Turbine & condensers 356 53 410 - 410 3,120 3b.1.1.6 Auxiliarybuilding 624 94 717 646 72 5.460 3b.1.1 Total 2.582 387 2.969 2.020 949 22,596 3b.1 Subtotal Period 3b Actiity Costs 2,582 387 2,969 2.020 949 - - - - 22,696 Period 3b Addtional Costs 3b.2.1 Lead SheildingDisposal 664 179 254 3,205 1,023 5,326 5.326 - 2 -511 1.411,084 14,333 3b.2 Subtotal Pedod 3b Addnional Costs 664 179 254 3.205 1,023 5,326 5.326 2,511 1.418,084 14,333 Period 3b Collateral Costs 3b.3.1 Decon equipment 667 100 767 767 3b.3.2 DOC staff relocation expenses 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 3b.3.3 Smrut tool allownce 1 11 11

- 957 3b.3.4 Pipe cutting equipment 143 1,100 1.100 3b.3 Subtotal Period 3b Collateral Costs 667 966 1,113 412 3,159 3.159 Period 3b Perod-Dependent Costs 3b.4.1 Decon supplies 21 - - 5 26 26 3b.4.2 Insurance 240 24 204 264 3b.4.3 Property taxes 3b.4.4 Hearth physics supplies 330 82 412 412 3b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 175 - 26 201 201 3b.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated 3 3 9 - 3 18 18 205 4,107 50 3b.4.7 Plant energy budget 559 14 643 643 3b.4.8 NRC Fees 476 48 523 523 3b.4.9 SOe O&M 127 19 146 146 3b.4.10 Radwaste Processing EquipmentrServices 190 29 219 219 3b.4.11 Security Staff Cost 1,388 208 1,596 1,596 43,015 3b.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 9,411 1,412 10,822 10,822 129,500 30.4.13 Utlity Staff Cost 1,262 189 1,451 1,451 13,214 3b.4 Subtotal Period 3b Period-Deperdent Costs 21 505 3 3 9 13653 2,129 16.323 16,323 205 4,107 50 105,729 3b.0 TOTALPERIOD3b COST 688 2.135 102 257 3.214 17,347 3,952 27,775 26,826 949 - 2,716 - - 1.422.191 14,303 208,325 TLG Ser-i-es, Ind.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Re.. 0 DecomissionisngCost Analysis Appendix E, Page 4 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands sf 2008 dollars)

I Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Sit. Prooeosed Burial Volumes Burial I Utilityand Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Activity Cost Cost Costs Costs Coons Costs Costs Contioosnco Costs Costs Costs Costs Cs. Feat Cu. Fear Co. Fest Cu. teet Co. tFst Wt.+Iho. Mushours Manhoors I dex ........ - ..",-,

Co she cost. Cu Fi= Cu 'Feet Cu Feet Cu Feet Cu Feel Wt Lb. Manhours Manhours Cast Cost costs cost. Costs Costs Costs Contingency PERIOD3 TOTALS 688 2,950 188 263 3,232 59,750 10,418 77,490 75 7G6 1,783 - 3,120 1,430,294 14,483 650,775 PERIOD4b - Site Decontamination outside of Reactor Building Disposal of Plant Systems 4b.1.2.1 Decoy Heat Closed CoolingWater " 246 70 611 217 220 1,386 1,386 - 6,656 963 356,612 5,630 -

4bh1t2.2 Decay HootRemoval )RCA( 175 69 230 413 195 1,117 1,117 - 2,511 1,833 266,361 4,172

4. 1.2.3 Decay HootRemoval )Yard) 127 - -

19 1t6 - 146 - 2,863 4b.1.2.4 DeminenalieedWater (RCA( 123 50 57 55 301 301 - 547 255 45,089 2,746 4b. .2.5 DomesticWater (Clean) 6 1 7 - 7 - 148 4b.1.2.6 DomesticWater (RCA) 18 6 9 8 43 43 63 38 5,993 396 4b.t .2.7 Electical (Clean) - g 1 10 - 10 - 191 38 4b.1.2.8 Electrical(Contaminated - RCA) 259 500 33 154 992 992 5,443 145 234,039 5,743 4b.f.2.9 Emergency Feedwater (RCA) 57 7 37 31 29 165 165 - 407 140 29,058 1,2801 4b.1.2.10 FineProtecton (Clean) 50 - -

3 7 57 57 1,167 4b.1.2.f1 Fire Protection (RCA) 41 13 19 18 96 96 146 86 13,657 933 4b.1.2.12 Fuel Handling (RCA) 280 26 - 205 127 651 651 - 912 81,790 6,260 4b.1.2.13 Gaseous Waste Disposal System (RCA) 170 10 52 53 66 356 356 568 255 44,078 3,949 4b.1.2.14 HVAC- AuxiliaryBuilding 493 26 158 122 182 990 990 1,725 540 118,524 11,067 4b.1.2.15 HVAC- Control Building 54 13 163 11 43 286 284 1,780 47 76,530 1,130 4b.t.2.1 6 HVAC- Fuel Handling Building 206 12 101 42 79 443 443 ,i97

,- 185 61,125 4,588 4b.1.2.17 HVAC- Miscellaneous 30 4 34 - 34 - - - 666 4b.t.2.g8 HVAC- Service Building 71 7 94 7 35 216 216 1,434 1,029 29 44,397 4b.f12. 19 HydrogenPurge - Rod Monitoring 17 O 0 1 5 24 24 - 4 6 644 413 4b.1.2.20 Industrial Waste Treatment System 204 31 234 - 234 - - - 4,B899 4b.1.2.21 Instrument Air (RCA) 101 8 25 47 42 228 228 - 271 207 29,566 2,251 4b.1.2.22 Intermediate Closed CoolingWater (RCA) 83 19 52 118 62 343 343 568 524 70.092 1,887 41.1.2.23 Main Condensate (RCA) 184 29 376 25 114 734 734 4,101 149 176,316 4,077 4b.1,2.24 Main Reheat &Steam (RCA) 54 9 59 37 33 195 195 643 164 40,843 1,217 4b.1.2.25 Nuclear Setvices Closed Cycle Coeling 760 220 1,182 1,081 680 4,022 ,4,022 12.877 5,304 953,442 17,230 4b.1.2.26 Nuclear Services RiverWater (Clean) 72 11 83 . 83 - - 1,764 4b.t.2.27 Nuclear Services RiverWater (RCA) 1,043 108 403 629 500 2,731 2.731 - 4,392 2,792 428,769 24,882 4b.1.2.28 Reactor Building NormalCooling (Clean) 13 2 14 - 14 - - - - 298 4b.1.2.29 Reactor Building NormalCooling (RCA) 241 50 160 305 170 948 948 1,739 1,356 - . - 192,214 5.711 4b.1.2.30 Sampling Nuclear System 194 14 - 110 79 407 407 - 530 43,764 4,528 4b.1.2.31 Sewage Treatment Plant (Clear) 1 9 - 9 - - 18D 1-4b.1.2.32 Sewage Treatment Plant (RCA) 4 0 3 1 2 1t0 ft 35 3 f,651.

1 82 4b.1.2.33 Spent Fuel Cooling 346 29 41 204 150 787 787 452 907 99,713 8,157 199 8 41b..2.34 Station ServiceAir 13 59 68 355 355 139 263 25,587 4,806 4b.1.2.35 Sump Systems (RCA) 116 5 15 34 41 215 215 161 152 2,753 195 2 20,117 4b,1.2.36 Turbine Plant Sample (RCA) 1 6 5 6 34 34 - 61 22 4,489 328 4b.1.2 Totals 6,070 795 4,352 3,872 3,240 18,669 18,074 594 47,414 17,806 3,468,059 139,824 4b1:.3 Scaffolding insupport of decommissioning 2,420 14 159 22 639 3,277 3,277 - 1,563 97 79,050 62,338 Decontamination of Site Buildings 4b.1.4.1 Auxilary 428 808 168 30 307 530 2,341 2,341 323 4,989 485,601 26,400 4b.1.4.2 BWST& CST Tank Pads - 153 878 - 1,341 540 3,259 3,259 - 24,827 2,482,650 3,623 4be .4,3 Control &Service 20 6 3 O 5 13 49 49 2 97 9,763 566 4b. 1.4.4 Control BuildingArea 78 41 21 23 30 64 265 265 249 545 64,320 2,552 4b.1.4.5 Fuel Handling 599 875 117 74 390 651 2,767 2,767 803 3,575 361.010 30.801 45.1.4.6 Turbine 59 3 1 - 1 96 96 -

.31 25 2.532 1.452 4b.1.4 Totals 1,184 1,886 1,188 126 2.075 1,828 8,777 8,777 1-

,377 34,058 3,405,875 65,394 4h.1 Subtotal Period 4b ActivityCosts 1 1r 11 0376 1.997 4,637 5.969 - 5,707 30,723 30,128 594 50,354 51,961 " 6,952,985 267,555 Period 4b AdditionalCosts 4b.2.1 Underground Piping & YardSoil 641 105 1,416 - 2.011 250 923 5,345 5.345 - - 48,992 3,723,414 8,942 4b.2.2 Main Turbine/Generator 272 86 43 637 - - 179 1,217 1.217 - 6,106 - - 274,750 5,956 TLG Serties, Ioc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Doewo-nen F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appensdix E, Page 5 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

NRC Spent Foci Site Processed hrarlotVolornes Buriil/ Utilry oand Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Ot-itn Processing [LRW Disposal Other Tots! Total Li. Term. Management Restoration Volume Clos A Class 8 Class C GTCC Praocssed Craft Contractor index Activit Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costn Costs Costs Contingency Costs Coant, Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet CuoFeet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Mt.,Lbs. Mnshoors Manhours Period 4b AdditonalCosts (continued) 4b.2.3 Main Condensers 1,116 82 41 612 - 385 2,236 2,236 5,860 - 263.690 25,162 4b.2.4 AuxiliaryBuildingTotal Removal 7,739 324 689 - 6453 3,684 18,888 18,888 - 99,586 11,950,340 113,205 4b.2.5 Fuel Handling BuiFding Total Removal 5,416 72 477 - 4,447 - 2,545 12.957 12,957 68,634 8,236,060 73,213 46.2.6 FHABAX-004Decontamination - 140 171 831 1,661 343 644 3,791 3,791 - 3,380 - 228,566 4,638 4b.2.7 Fuel Handling / AuxiliarySNF & HOTSystems Removal 1.836 1,607 117 422 5,676 - 2,564 12,224 12,224 8,864 - 40 666,018 72761 4b.2.8 On-site survey & release of concrete - 1,692 - 330 183 - 1,500 725 4.430 4,430 - 18681 4b.2.9 Legacy waste stored at INEEL - - - - - - 590 89 679 679 4b.2.10 Defuelingfuel canister racks 22 20 308 64 796 - 255 1,465 1,465 23,256 317,086 1,964 4b.2.11 License Termination Survey Planning - - - - - 1,393 418 1.811 1,811 - - - 12,480 4b.2 Subtotal Period 4b AdditionalCosts 1,858 18.643 1,264 4,314 1,432 21,045 4.076 12,410 65.040 65,040 11.966 249.332 3,380 40 25,659,940 324.522 12.480 Period 41 Collateral Costs 4b.3.1 Ptocess liquid wasle 40 - 13 93 337 120 604 664 - - 295 37.168 77 4b.3.2 Small tool atlosnce 370 - - - 56 426 426 4b.3.3 DecommissioningEquipment Disposition - 90 62 610 64 131 977 977 6.000 373 - 303,507 739 4b.3 Subtotal Penod 46 Collateral Costs 40 370 103 155 610 422 306 2,067 2,007 6,000 373 295 340,675 817 Period 4b Period-Dependent Costs 4b.4.1 Decon scplies 171 857 857 4b.4.2 Insurance - - 1,684 169 1,854 1.854 4b.4.3 Propery taxes 4b.4.4 Health physics supplies 5,479 1,370 6,849 6.849 4b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 5,872 - - 681 6,753 6,753 4b.4.8 Disposal of DAWgenerated - 68 71 216 - 72 427 427 4,824 96,665 1,184B 4b.4.7 Plant enargy budget - 2,533 440 3,373 3,373 4b.4.8 NRC Fees 1,951 195 2.146 2,146 4b.4.9 See O" M 889 133 1.022 1,022 46.4.10 Radwaste Ptocessing EquipmentServices 1,335 200 1.535 1.535 4b.4.11 SecmrityStat Cost 8,235 1,235 9,470 9,470 255.198 4b.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 69,051 10,358 79,409 79,409 950,126 4b.4.13 UtilityStaff Cost 8,862 1,329 10.191 10,191 92,786 4b.4 Subtotal Permid4b Peaid-Dependent Costs 685 11,352 68 71 216 94,942 16,553 123,887 123,887 4,824 96,665 1,184 1,298,109 4b.0 TOTALPERIOD 46COST 3,768 40,741 2.287 6.537 6,679 27,651 99,018 34,976 221,657 221,062 594 69,320 306,490 3,675 40 33,050,260 594.079 1,310,589 PERIOD 4e - Interim Site Release (excludes Reactor Building)

Period 4e Direct Decommissioning Activities 4e,1.1 ORIS5 confimotory soEey 155 46 201 201 4e.t.2 Terminate license 4e.1 Subtotal Petiod 4e Actiity Costs 155 46 201 201 Period 4e AdditionalCosts 4e.2.1 License Termination Sosvny 8,228 24568 10,696 10,696 161,279 6,240 4e.2 Subtotal Period 4e Addiional Costs 8,228 2468 10.696 10.696 161.279 6,240 Period 4e Collateral Costs 4e.3.1 DOCstaff relocation expenses 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 4e.3 Subtotal Period 4, Collateral Costs 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 Period 4e Patod-Dependent Costs 4e.4,1 Insurance 334 33 368 368 4a.4.2 Property taxes 4a,4.3 Heafth physics supplies 1,389 347 1,736 1,736 4e,4.4 Disposal of DAWgenerated 14 - 5 27 27 304 6,083 75 4e,4.5 Plant energy budget 221 33 254 254 4e.4.6 NRC Fees 447 45 492 492 4e,4.7 Sae O&M 188 28 216 216 TLG Servicis, In-.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Docent F07-1601-002, Re.. 0 Deeoniss-iningCost Analysis Appendis E, Page 6 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Off-Sits LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Prosessed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Decon Removal Packaging Transport Procensing Disposal Other Total Total Lis. Tenm. Management Restoration Volume Class A Clans 8 Class C GTCC Proessed Craft Controotor A traty Cost Cost Costs Cost Costs Costs Costs Continaency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Pest Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Fest Wt., Lbs. Manhourt Manthours I I"dex Period 4e Period-Oependent Costs (contnued) 4e.4.8 Security Staff Cost 897 135 1,031 1.031 27,791 4e.4.9 DOG Staff Cost 4.637 695 5,332 5,332 59,889 4e.4.1n Utility Staff Cost - - - 1.506 226 1,731 1.731 S - - 14,874 4e.4 Subtotal Period 4e Psriod-Dependent Costs 1,389 4 4 14 8,229 1,547 11.187 1,1187 304 6,083 75 102,554 4e.D TOTALPERIOD4o COST 1,389 4 4 14 17,725 4,229 23.365 23.365 304 6,083 161.354 108,794 PERIOD4 TOTALS 3,768 42,129 2.291 6.542 6,679 27.665 116,743 39,204 245.021 244,427 594 68,320 306.794 3,675 40 33.056,35D 755,432 1,419,384 PERIOD 5b- Site Restoration (excludes Reactor Building)

Period 5b Direct Decommissioning Actiuties Demolitornof Remaining Site Buildings 5b,1.1.1 Air Intake Tunnel - 141 21 162 162 2,297 5b.1.1.2 CircuiatingWater Chlorinator 64 10 74 74 1,131 5s.t.1.3 CircuiatingWoste Intake Flume 56 8 64 64 915 5b.1.1..4 CirculatingWaote Pumphouse 164 25 1889 189 3,205 5b.1.1.5 Coagulator 48 7 55 - 55 937 5b.1.1.6 Control & Sernice 2,935 440 3,376 169 3,207 41,665 Sb.1.1.7 Contol Biuiing Area 783 118 901 - 901 10.651 5b.1.1.8 CoolingToaers 729 109 839 839 11,813 5b.1.1.9 Emergency Diesel Generator 1,151 173 1,324 1,324 15,920 5b.1.1.10 Main & As Transformer Foundations 76 11 87 87 1,387 5b.1.1.11 Mechanical Draft CoolingToaers 75 11 86 86 1,074 5b.1.1.12 Miscellaneous Yard Foundations 17 3 20 20 284 5b.1.1.13 RiverWater Pumphouse 1.632 245 1,876 1,876 21.756 5b.1.1.14 Turbine 1,423 213 1,636 1.636 26,557 5b.1.1.15 Turbine Generator Pedestal 646 97 743 743 8,464 5b.t.1 Totals 9,940 1,491 11.431 169 11,263 148,057 Site Closeout Activities 5b.1.2 Grade & landscape site 135 - 20 155 - 155 770 -

5b.1.3 Final report to NRC 356 53 410 410 - S - 3.120 51.1 Subtotal Penod 5b ActivityCosts 10,075 356 1,565 11,997 579 11,418 148.828 3.120 Period 5b AdditionalCosts 5b.2.1 RiverWater Pump House Cofferdam 186 28 214 214 2,116 5b.2.2 Concrete Processing 292 8 - 45 345 345 - 1,785 5b.2.3 Survey & Release of scrap materials 815 61 2,068 401 3,346 3348 7,559 3,704,137 7,408 5b.2.4 RB fencing and securty system 3,175 461 3,531 3,531 5b.2.5 Bockflusite (excluding RB) 353 53 406 406 - 3,799 5b.2 Subtotli Pesod 5 AdditionalCosts 831 815 69 2,068 3,071 987 7,840 6876 964 7,559 3.704,137 15,108 Period 5b Collateral Costs 5b.3.1 Small toiolollsance 101 15 116 116 - - -

6b.3 Subtotal Period 5b Collateral Costs 101 15 116 116 - -

Period 5b Period-Dependent Costs 5b.4.1 Insurance 5b.4.2 Property taxes 5b64.3 Heavyequipment rental 2,211 332 2,543 2,543

.5b.44 Plant energybudget 147 22 169 169 51,4.5 Scuiy Staff Cost 1,136 170 1,306 1,306 35,207 5b.4.6 DOG Staff Cost 7,990 1.198 9,188 8,t88 100,114 5b.4.7 UtilityStaff Cost 1,899 285 2,184 2,104 20,336 5b.4 Subtotal Penod 5b Period-Oependent Costs 2,211 11.172 2,008 15,391 15,391 155,657 TL4GServices, lose.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Docunsent F07.1601-002, Rev. 0 DecomnnissioningCost Analysis Appendix E, Page 7 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumesa Burial I Utilityand Activity Da,con Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Uc. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Activity Desrition C ost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Continoency Costas Costs Cost Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhouo Manhours 5b.0 TOTALPERIOD 5b COST 13,218 815 69 2,068 14f600 4.575 35,343 7.455 27,888 7.559 3,704,137 163.936 158,777 PERIOD 5 TOTALS 13,218 815 69 2,068 14,600 4,575 35,343 7.455 27,888 7.559 3,704,137 163,936 158,777 PERIOD6c - Hardened SAFSTOR Dormancy Period 6c Direct Decommissioning Activities 6c1.1 Quorterly Inspection a Ac 1.2 Semi-annual environmentalsurvey 6v.1.3 Prepare reports 6c.1.4 Rduminousroof replacement 6c.1.5 Masnterance supplies 6c.1 Subtotal Period 6c ActivityCosts Period 6c Collateral Costs Sc.3.1 Offtoe Monitoring& Security Services 40,353 6,053 46,406 46,406 6c.3 Subtotal Period 6c Collateral Costs 40,353 6,053 46,406 46,406 Period 6c Penod-Depndent Costs 6c.4.t Insurance

  • 35.282 3,528 38,810 38.810 6c.4.2 Property taxes 6c.4.3 Plant energy budget 19.193 2,879 22,072 22.072 6c.4.4 NRC Fees 5,859 586 6,445 6.445 6c.4.5 UtilityStaff Cost 17,274 2.591 19.865 19.865 168,446 6c.4 Subtotal Period 6c Period-Oependent Costs 77,608 9,584 87.192 87,192 168,446 6o.D TOTALPERIOD6c COST 117.961 15,637 133.598 133,598 168,446 PERIOD6 TOTALS 117,961 15.637 133,598 133,598 168,446 PERIOD 7a - Reactivate Site Following Hardened SAFSTOR Dormancy Period 7a Direct DecommissioningActndties 7a.f.1 Prepare preliminarydecommissioning cost 223 33 256 256 1,950 7a.1.2 Prtport and submntPSDAR 914 137 1,051 1,051 8,000 7a.1.3 Review plant dogs & specs. 526 79 604 604 4,600 7Y.1.4 Perform detailed rtd survey 7a 1.5 Estimate by-productinventory 229 34 263 263 2,000 7o.1.6 End product descripton 229 34 263 263 2,000 7a.1.7 Detailed by-productinventory 297 45 342 342 2,600 7a.1.8 Define major wort sequence 857 129 985 985 7,500 7a.t.9 Perform SER and EA 7,129 1,069 8,189 8.199 62,400 7a. 1.10 Perform Srte-SpecaficCost Study 571 86 657 657 52.200 7f. f.1 Preparetsubrrat License Termination Plan 1,404 211 1,614 1,614 - 12,288 7a.1.12 Receive NRC approval ofterrhinaiton plan a Activty Specificabons 7a.f.1t3.1 Re-activote plant & temporary facilities 1.263 189 1,452 1.307 145 11,055 7ao.f.3.2 Reactor inteorals 1,622 243 1.866 1,866 14.200 7a.A.13.3 Reactor vessel 1,114 167 1.281 1,281 9.750 7o..f 3.4 Biologicalshield 57 9 86 66 500 7o.1.13.5 Steam generniors 1,426 214 1,640 1,640 12,480 7a.1. 3.6 Reinforcedcoooretn 366 55 420 210 210 3,200 7a. 1.t13.7 Waste management 2 2,102 315 2,418 2,418 18,400 7o.1.13.8 Facility& she closeout 103 15 118 59 59 900 7a.1.13 Total 8,053 1,208 9,261 8,846 415 70,485 TLG Se-rvices, Inc.

Three AefilIsland Unit 2 Dcumnt F07-1601-002, RPe. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix E, Page 8 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Off-Ste LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial / Utilityand Actieity Den Remosal Packaging Transport Procesning Disposal Other Total Total Lis. Term. Management Restoration Volumee Class 0 Clans B Claes C GTCC Processed Craft Ccntrastor Index Activit Description Cst Cont Costs CostsCsts Contin ens Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet CU. Feet Cu. Feet C. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhoans Manhours Planning &Site Preparatons 7a.1.14 Prepare dismanting sequence 548 82 631 631 4,800 7a.1.15 Plant prep. &temp. scs 2,419 363 2,782 2.782 7a.1.16 Design water clean-up system 640 96 736 736 5,600 7a.1.17 Rigging/Cont,Cntd Envlpsttoolinogetc. 2,048 307 2,355 2,355 7a.I1r8 Procure casksiliners &containers 281 42 323 323 2,460 7a.1 Subtotal Pedod 7a ActivityCosts 26367 3,955 30,322 29,907 415 191.683 Period 7a AdditionalCosts 7a.2.1 RailroadTrack Refurbishment 300 45 345 345 7a.2.2 EquipmentAidock Refurbishment 1.180 177 1,357 1,357 7a.2.3 RB Polar Crane Refurbishment 5,890 884 6,774 6,774 7a.2.4 RB Cask Handling System 1.180 177 1,357 1,357 7..2 Subtotal Period 7a AdditicnalCosts 8,550 1,283 9,833 9,833 Period 7a Period-Oependent Costs 7a.4.1 Insurance 437 44 481 481 7a.4.2 Propertytaxes 7a.4.3 Healthphysics supplies 469 117 586 586 7a.4.4 Heavyequipment rental 346 - - 52 397 397 7a.4.5 Disposal of DAWgenerated 6 6 18 - 6 36 36 404 8,103 99 7a.4.6 Plant energy budget 1,104 166 1,269 1,269 7a.4,7 NRCFees 938 94 1,032 1.032 7a.4.8 Site O&M 250 37 287 287 7a.4.5 Secutty Staff Cost 2,104 316 2,419 2.419 65,179 7a.4.10 SOCStaff Cost 10452 1,568 12,020 12,020 160,600 7a.4.11 Utilty Staff Cost 2490 374 2,864 2.864 26,071 7a.4 Subtotal Period 7a Period-Dependent Costs 815 6 6 18 17.774 2.773 21.391 21,391 404 8,103 99 251,850 7a.0 TOTALPERIOD7i COST 815 6 6 18 52,691 8.010 61,546 61,131 415 404 6,103 99 443,533 PERIOD 7b - Decommissioning Preparations Period 71 Direct DecomrmssioningAcrE/ies Detailed Work Procedures 7b.1.1.1 Reactor itaemals 571 86 657 657 - - 5.000 7b.1.1.2 CRD coolingassembly 171 26 197 197 1,500 7b.t.1.3 Reactor vessel 622 93 715 715 5.445 7b.1.1.4 Facilitycdoseout 137 21 158 78 79 1.200 7b.1.1 .5 Missileshields 51 8 59 59 450 7b.t.t.6 Biologiealshield 137 21 158 158 1,200 7b.1.1.7 Stoam generates 2,102 315 2,418 2,418 18,400 7b.t.t.8 Reinforcedconcrene 229 34 263 131 131 2.000 7b.1.1.9 Reactor euilding 564 94 717 646 72 5,460 7b.1.1 Total 4645 697 5,342 5,060 282 40,655 7b.1 Subtotal Period 7b ActinityCosts 4,645 697 5,342 5,060 - 40,655

- 282 -

Period 7b AdditionalCosts 7b.2.1 RB DefuelingEquipment Disposition 537 35 90 600 301 1,563 1,563 2,518 239.118 12,029 -

7b.2 Subtotal Period 7b AdditionalCosts 537 35 90 600 301 1,563 1.563 2,518 239.118 12,029 -

Period 7b Coltateral Costs 7b.3.t Deconequipment 667 100 787 767 7b.3.2 DOCstaff relocation expenses 1,113 167 1.280 1,280 7b.3.3 Seat tool atowasnce 8 1 9 9 7b.3.4 Pipecutting equipment 957 143 1,100 1,100 7b.3 Subtotal Penod 70 Collateral Costs 667 964 1,113 412 3,156 3,156 TLGSereices, Inc.

Three Mile Moland Univ 2 Docament F07-1601.002, Re.. 0 Deosmmisasining Cost Analysis Appendix E, Page 9 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Ott-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utilitysod Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Prosessing Disposal Other Total Total Lis. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Cost Costs. Costs Cents tontingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet WL. Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period 7b Perod-Dependent Costs 7b.4.1 Decon supplies 21 - 5 26 26 7b.4A2 Insurance 240 24 264 264 7b.4.3 Property lases 7b.4.4 Health physics supplies 315 79 394 394 7b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 175 26 201 201 7b.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated 3 - 9 - 3 205 4,107 50 18 18 7b.4.7 Plant energy budget 559 84 643 643 7b.4.8 NRC Fees 476 48 523 523 7b.4.9 Ste OM 127 19 146 146 7b.4.10 Redwaste Processing Equipment/Services 190 29 219 219 7b.4.11 Secunty Staff Cost 1,066 33.036 160 1.226 1.226 7b.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 10,189 1,528 11.717 11,717 142.820 7b.4.13 Utltty Staff Cost 1,262 189 13,214 1.451 1.451 7b.4 Subtotal Period 7b Period-Dependent Costs 21 490 9 14,109 2,194 4.107 50 189,070 16,829 16,829 205 3B 93 609 19,867 7b.0 TOTALPERIOD 7b COST 688 1,991 3,603 26.890 26,608 282 2,723 243,225 12,079 229.725 93 627 72,558 PERIOD7 TOTALS 6088 2,806 44 11.613 88.436 d7.739 697 3,127 251,328 12.179 673,258 PERIOD Ba- Large Component Removal Period ta DirectDecommissioning Activities Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 8a.1.1.1 Reactor Coolant Piping 55 224 15 23 155 175 156 603 803 93,724 6,773 -

42 15 822 274

.1.1t.2 Pressurizer Relief Tank 8 32 3 3 22 125 125 169 19 20,849 732

- 9 ,554 6a.1.1.3 Reactor Coolant Pumps & Motors 1,169 876 197 2.798 14,595 14.595 - 10,752 1,124,474 31,482 8.t.1 .4 Pressurdar 1,3306 708 199 3,090 1.199 6.502 6,502 2,14" 462,726 4,152 175396 8a.t.1.5 Steam Generators - 6,362 767 1.769 6.281 32.575 32,575 23,268 6,883 2,396,266 145,795 8a.t.1.6 CRDMsttClsJSerice Structure Removal 31 51 147 56 336 135 757 757 1,454 - 47,869 1,830 8a1.1.7 Reactor Vessel Internals 120 3,332 4,245 446 473 249 4,058 12,870 12,870 1,377 174,220 29,147 1,395 8a.t.1.8 Vessel & Internals GTCC Disposal 20,777 - 3,117 23,893 23,893 831 142,496 - -

463 8a..1.R Reactor Vesset 8,676 1,290 2,129 249 8,047 20,055 20,855 9,722 - 986,490 29,147 1.395 8a.1.1 Totals 214 21,152 8,051 3,155 198 53,944 497 25.762 112.975 112,975 991 49,010 6,803 031 5,449,114 249,057 2.789 8a.1.2 Scaffoldinginsupport of decommissioning - 375 3 2 t8 3 - 90 490 4BB 179 11 - - 9.038 9,668 -

8a.1 Subtotal Period 8a ActiunyCosts 214 21,528 8,053 3,157 216 53,947 497 25,860 113,473 113,473 1,170 49,021 6,083 831 5.458,152 258,725 2,789 Period BaAdditionalCosts 8a.2.1 Reactor BuildingBasement Dose Reduction - 17 118 3,270 - 14,806 - 4,208 22.418 22,418 9,225 2,017 1,217,965 282 1a.2.2 Containment Basement Liner Removal 113 236 551 1,477 504 2,B81 2.,81 3,756 - 129,709 2,286 B.a,23 Reactor BuildingSNF & HOTSystems Removal - - 51 246 761 232 1.290 1,290 1.002 - 76,912 318 ga.2.4 NSSS Component Surface Decontamination 7,518 - 80B 33 8,230 3,759 20,348 20,348 329 19,751 46,920 8a.2.5 Core Flood Tonks Removal 63 398 53 6 872 364 1,818 1,B18 1.716 - - 124,165 10,059 8a.2 Subtotal Period 8a AdditionalCosts 7,8t1 528 12865 4,169 26,146 9,067 4B,756 48,756 1,716 13,913 2,017 329 1,568,502 59,865 Period BaCollateral Costs 8a.3.1 Process liquid vaste 1 - 2 11 108 30 152 152 36 - 4.505 51 8a.3.2 Small tost allowance - 208 - - 31 240 216 24 8a.3 Subtotal Penod 8a Collateral Costs 1 208 2 11 108 61 392 368 24 36 4,505 51 Period Ba Period-Dependent Costs Ba.41 DOoonsupplies 45 226 226 8a.4.2 Insurance 2.101 210 2,311 2311 8a.4.3 Property aes 8A44 Heath physics supplies 4,128 1,032 5,180 5.160 8a.4.5 Heavyequipment rental 9,140 1.371 10.511 1 9,511 TLiG Servicee, In.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rae. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis AppenedixE, Page 10 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Off-site LL- NRC Spent Fuel Sit. Processed Busal Volumes Budal I Utility and Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic.Tem. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class 0 Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor IActivity, Index .- sny ..- poom Cost Cost Costs, Cast Co." Costs Costs Confinqency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Fees Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours I Period BaPeriod-Dependent Costs (continued)

Sa.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated 80 84 254 - 84 502 502 5,674 113.697 1,393 8a.4.7 Plant energy budget - 4,895 734 5,630 5,630 8a.4.8 NRC Fees 3,065 306 3,371 3,371 8a.4.9 Site O&M 1.108 166 1,274 1.274 8a.4.10 Radmaste Processing Equipment/Services 1,664 250 1.913 1,913 Ba.4.11 Security Staff Cost 9,331 1.400 10,730 10,730 289,107 8a.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 102.446 15,367 117,B12 117,812 1,458,025 8a.4.13 UtilityStaff Cost 11,045 1.657 12,702 12,702 115,643 Ba.4 Subtotal Period 8a Period-Dependent Costs 181 13,268 80 84 254 135,654 22.622 172,143 172.143 5,674 113.697 1,393 1,862,775 8a.0 TOTALPERIODBaCOST 7.978 35,532 9,400 7,421 216 R0,455 136,151 57.610 334,764 334,740 24 1,170 56,411 20,902 2.017 1.160 7,144,856 320,034 1,865,565 PERIOD8b - Site Decontamination (Reactor Building)

Period 8b Direct DecommissioningActivities Disposal of Plant Systems 8b.1.1.1 Decay Heot R-e.ol (RB) 209 20 32 698 233 1,192 1,192 - - 1,108 99,380 4,941 Bb.t11.2 Electrical(Contaminated - RB) 39 2 3 73 29 146 146 - - 116 10,435 893 8b.1,.3 Feedwater (RB) 34 5 10 215 64 327 327 341 30,612 804 8b.1.t.4 Fire Protection (RB) 17 1 2 36 14 70 70 58 5.171 407 8b.1.1.5 Fuel Handling (RB) 4 0 1 12 4 20 20 19 86 1,669

b. 1.1.6 Gaseous Waste Disposal System (RB) O 0 6 2 12 9 3 12 790 76 85.1.1.7 HVAC- Reactor Building 730 44 86 1.852 663 3,374 3,374 2,941 263,784 16,426 Bb.1.1.g nsttrumentAir (RB) 23 1 2 35 15 76 76 55 4,966 545 Bb.1.1.9 InitermediateClosed CoolingWater (RB) 69 5 6 165 60 308 308 263 23.572 1,604 Bb.1.1.10 Nitrogen for Nuclear Radwaste Sys (Rs) 7 1 1 31 10 50 50 49 4,378 170 8b.1.1.1 1 Nuclear Services RiverWater (RB) 77 9 17 357 112 572 572 568 50.919 1.826 8b.1,1.12 OTSG Chemical Cleaning System 16 1 2 44 15 79 79 70 6,260 372 8b.1.1.13 SG Secondary Side Vents & Drains 61 3 4 97 40 205 205 - - 154 13.769 1,413 8b.1.1.14 Spent Fuel Cooling(RB) 21 1 2 49 - l 91 91 - - 77 6,934 482 8b.1.-.15 Sump Systers (RB) 31 2 3 68 25 130 130 108 9,645 744 8b.1.1 Totals 1,341 96 173 3,737 1,305 6,653 6,653 5.935 532,204 30,788 8b.1.2 Scaffoldingin support of decommissioning 186 4 2 27 4 52 276 276 268 17 13,557 4,784 Decontamination of Site Buildings

- 42,223 8b.1.3.1 Reactor 8,756 3,760 1,091 1,212 9.454 7.972 32,245 32,245 3,766,363 261,037 81.1.3 Totals 8,756 3,760 1,091 1,212 9,454 7,972 32,245 32,245 - 42,223 3,766,363 261,037 8b.1 Subtotal Period 8b ActivityCosts 8,756 5,287 1,192 1,388 27 13,194 9,330 39,173 39,173 268 48,175 4,312,204 296,609 Period 8b AdditionalCosts 8b.2.1 gioshield & D-RingRemoval 4,951 668 1,080 10,096 3,991 20,786 20,786 - 155,795 18,695,440 60,693 8b.2.2 RB EateriorConcrete & BasemlaRemoval 7,948 228 368 3,443 - 2,926 14,913 14,913 53,132 6,375,849 120,240 -

8b.2.3 Process NSSS decon & segmentation liquid inventory 72 281 3,874 770 1,133 6,130 6,130 1.347 158,780 - 779 8B.2.4 On-site survey& releose ofconcrete 534 - 555 307 - 1,500 488 3,384 3.384 5,900 -

8b.2e5 License Termination Survey Planning - - 204 61 266 266 - 520 S -

8b.2 Subtotal Period 8B AdditionalCosts 13.434 969 2,283 307 17,412 2,475 8,599 45,479 45,479 208.927 1,347 25.230,070 186,833 1,299 Period BbCosateral Costs 8b.3.1 Process liquidwaste 3 - 1 23 141 40 208 208 73 9,172 19 8b.3.2 Srwa tool allowanse 302 45 347 347 8b.3.3 Decommissioning Equipment Diposp-os - 90 62 610 B4 131 977 977 6,000 373 303,507 739 Sb.3 Subtotal Period 8b Collateral Costs 3 302 91 85 610 225 216 1,531 1.531 5.000 373 73 312.679 758 TLG Servies, Inc.

Three Mile stasnd Unit 2 D-.-W F07-1601-002, Re.. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis App-di,, E, Pge 11 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

SActivfty Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic.Teem. Management Restoration Volume Clans A Class B Class C GTCC Peoessed Craft Contractor Index Activity' Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Cons Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Fent Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet RWt. bse. Manhours Manhoures Period 8b Period-Dependent Costs 8W4.1 Decon supplies 347 87 434 434 8b.4.2 Insurance 1,655 165 1,820 1,820 8b.4.3 Property taxes 8b4.4 Health physics supplies 4,750 1,188 5,938 5,938 8b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 5,764 885 6,628 6.628 8b.4.6 Disposal of DAWgenerated 55 58 176 58 348 348 3,828 78.723 965 8b.43 Ptant energy budget - 2,879 432 3,310 3.310 8b.4.8 NRC Fees 1,915 192 2,107 2,107 8b.4.9 See O&M 873 131 1,004 . 1,004 8b.4.10 Radwaste Processing Equipment/Ser*oes 1,310 197 1.507 1,507 8b.4.11 Secunty Staff Cost 7,348 1,102 8,450 8,450 227,679 8b,4.12 DOCStaff Cost 68,669 10.300 78,969 78,868 969,000 8b.4.13 UWityStaff Cost 8,698 1,305 10,003 10,003 91,071 8b.4 Subtotal Period 8b Period-Dependent Costs 347 10,514 55 58 - 176 93.346 16,021 120,517 120.517 - 3,928 78,723 965 1 287,750 8b.0 TOTALPERIOD8b COST 9,105 29537 2.307 3,814 944 31,007 95.821 34,165 206,700 206,700 6.268 261,404 73 1.347 29,933,680 485.165 1 289,049 PERIOD 8e - License Termination Period 8e Direct DecommissioningActivities 8e.1.1 ORISE confirmatorysurvey 155 46 201 201 8e.t.2 Terminate license 8e. t Subtotal Period 8e Actiity Costs 155 46 201 201 Period be AdditonalCosts 8e.2.1 License Termination Survey 271 81 353 353 1,455 520 8e.2 Subtotal Period 8e AdditionalCosts 271 81 353 353 520 1,455 Period 8e Collateral Costs 8e.3.1 DOCstaffrelocation expenses 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 8e.3 Subtotal Perod ReCollateral Costs 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 Period 8e Period-Dependent Costs 8e,.41 Insurance -- - - 334 33 368 368 8e.4.2 Propertytaxes 8e.4.3 Healthphysics supplies 361 90 452 452 8e.4.4 Disposal of DAWgenerated 4 4 14 - 5 27 27 304 6,083 75 8e.4.5 Plant energy budget 221 33 254 254 8e.4.6 NRC Fees 447 45 492 492 8e.4.7 SteOEM 188 28 216 216 8e.4.8 Secunty Staff Cost 606 91 897 697 18,789 8e.4.9 DOCStaff Cost 4,637 695 5,332 5,332 59,889 8e.4.10 UtilityStaffCost S- - 1,506 226 1,731 1,731 14,874 8e.4 Subtotal Period 8e Period-Dependent Costs 4 4 - 14 7,939 1,247 9.569 9,569 304 6.083 75 93,551 361 8e.0 TOTALPERIODDe COST 4 4 14 9,478 1,541 11,403 11,403 304 - - - 6,083 1,530 94,071 PERIOD 8 TOTALS 17,083 65,430 11.712 11,239 1,160 111,476 241,451 93.317 552,868 552,844 24 7438 318,118 20,975 3,364 1,160 37,084,620 806729 3,248,685 PERIOD 9b - Site Restoration Period 9b Direct Decommissioning Activties Soe Cleseout Acuvities 8b.1.2 Grade & landscape site 135 - 20 155 - 155 - . . - - 770 -

9b8..3 Final report to NRC 356 03 410 410 S- - 3.120 981 Subtotal Period 9b Acti Costs 135 356 74 565 410 155 770 3.120 TLG Services, 1e.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Docesnt F07-1601-002, Res. 0 Deeommisiosio g Cost Analysis Appendix CE,Page 12 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)

Off-Site LLRW NRC Sport Fuol Site Proososed Burial Volumes surial Utilityand Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Pr.sessing Disposal Other Total Total Lie. Tenm. Management Restoration Voluoe Class A Class 8 Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contrastor Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Cost, Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Foot Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cuo Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period 9b AdditionalCosts 9b.2.1 BackfillSite [RB) 59 10 so 80 745 9b.2 Subtotal Period 9b AdditionalCosts 69 10 80 80 745

-~ - o 5 Period 9b Collateral Costs -~ - o t 1b.3.1 Small tool allowance 9b.3 Subtotal Period 9b Collateral Costs -

I -

Period 9b Period-Dependent Costs 9b.4.1 Insurance 9b.4.2 Property taxes 9b.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 2,211 - 332 2,543 2,543 9b.4.4 Plant energy budget - 147 22 169 169 9b.4.5 Socunty Staff Cost 808 121 929 929 25,029 gb.4.6 DOC Staff Cost 7,990 1,198 9,188 9,188 100,114 9b.4,7 UtilityStaff Cost - 1,899 285 2.184 2,184 20,336 gb.4 Subtotal Period 9b Period-Dependent Costs 2.211 - 10.844 1,958 15.014 15.014 - 145,479 Sb.0 TOTALPERIOD9b COST 2.416 11,201 2,043 15.660 410 15,250 1,515 14.5599 PERIODS TOTALS 2,416 11,201 2,043 15,660 410 15.250 1,515 14,599 TOTALCOST TO DECOMMISSIONthrough Hardened SAFSTOR 22,227 129,102 15,057 18,220 9.907 143,024 639,282 177,573 1,154,392 1,108.155 46,236 83,317 631,687 24.649 3,364 1,200 75,537,295 1,754,402 6.581,320 TOTALCOST TO DECOMMISSIONWITHt.18t%CONTI lGENCY: 1,154,392 thousands of 2008 dollars TOTALNRC LICENSE TERMINATION COST IS 95.99% OR 1,108,155 thousands of 2008 dollars NON-NUCLEARDEMOLITION COST IS 4.01 % OR: 46,236 thousand, of 2008 dollars TOTALLOW-LEVELRADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUMEBURIED(EXCLUDINGGTCC): 659,700 cubic feet TOTALGREATER THANCLASS C RADWASTEVOLUMEGENERATED: 1,200 cubic feet TOTALSCRAP METALREMOVED: 27,271 tons TOTALCRAFT LABORREOUIREMENTS: 1,754,403 man-hours End Notes:

n1a- indicates that this aocluty not charged as decomnissioning expense.

a -4indites that this activity performed by decommissioningstaff.

0 - indicates that this value isless than 0.5 but is non-zer.

a cell containing "- " indicates a zero value TLG Sersiee, Ins.

Enclosure B TMI-10-011 FinancialEscalationAnalysis for the Decommissioning of Three Mile Island Unit 2 May 2009 (23 Pages Follow)

Doctiment F.074601-004, Rev, 0 FINANCIAL ESCALATION..ANALYSIS for the, DECOMMISSIONING OF THREE MILE ISLAND, UNIT 2

!preparedý for FirstEnergy Corporation prepared by TLG Services, Inc.

Bridgewater, Coinecticut May2009

,77tree Mile Island Unit 2 1)omument F07-1601-004, Rev. 0 FinaneialEscalation,Analysis; Page.2.of 23 APPROVALS Project mallager C

m~ata'`k 4fiir~ ol 1),

17C Thi~ca I Mana11;ger

__ V I~~.'

(4tu di ty ii a icefy iASSLI-11 a i gei' TLG Services,ý ite

'i/w]lee Mlile~slaln~dlUini 2 Docmttument F07-1601-004, Rev..,O "FinancialEscalation.Analysis Page3 of 23 REVISION LOG No. CRA No. Date Item* Revised Reason' for Revision 0 05-07-2009 Original IssTue TLG Services, Inc,

Thriee Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-O04, Rev. 0 Fri anciai&EseaiaitionAnalysis: .lPage4 of 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE IN T I O D U CT IO N ........................................................................................ ................. 5 TABLES

1. Escalation Sumnm ary,........ o .......... ..... ... 10....................................

Schedule.:of Anmiila Exn)endlitures (2008 dollars,

2. Delayed DECON) ........................................... 11
3. C ustodial S A F S TO R ........... ....................................................................... . . 12 el. H a rd ene d S A F S T O R ........................................................................................... 14
5. Escalation Bases ............ ................................... 17 Schedule of Annual Expenditures (escalated dollars)
6. Delayed D EC O N ,.;. .................................................................................. . I..

.8

7. Custodial SAFSTOR ..................................... 19
8. -1aardened S A F ST O R ................ ..................... ........m......- . .. ...................... .. 2 1 TLG,8ervices, Inc.

"I'Iwee Mile Islnd Unit 2 Docu*en* FPo0-160o14h, Rev. 0 FiatCIial. scahitiouAnalysis Pagei'of 23 INTRODUCTION This report presents ftie results of an escalation of the1costs to decommission the Three Mile Is landl Unit 2 (TMI-2) autdfr~ Financial r~~~ to the jprojected. year, oft expenditure. MI:-

sched ules are provided for lthe three: deconmimss'ioning scenarios eval uat0ed for TM-

.2. The sebnarios assuume that, Exelbon, Genciiation (thee Owner. and operator of the adjacent Unit 1) wiill be successful -in, extending thl operating I-ccns~e for Unit. 1 (TMI- 1) to 2034. The TMI-2 decommissioning scenarios are def'ned as follows:

1 Delayed DECON: Oine of' the decommissioning alternatives for Unit 1 is to defer decommissioning until the spent fuel has been removed from the site.

This scenario assumes that the decontamination and dismantling activities at TmI-2 are synchronized with the adjacent unit such that the licenses for both units are terminated concurrently.

2,. Custodial SAFSTOR: In the second scenario, TMI.I71 is placed inito long-terih storage. TMI-2 remains in storage until. such time that decommissioning activities can be coordinated \Vith Unit 1. ,As with the, first Scenario, termination of the.licenses i's coordin'ated..

3. Hardened SAFSTOR: This scenario assumes that Unit 1 is promptly decommissioned when it ceases operations in 2034. In coordination with the Unit 1 activities, the TMI-2 reactor building is reconfigured for long-term, passive storage. Site structures and facilities, with the exception of the reactor building, are, deeontaaminated and dismantled. The reactor building and its contents aire secu.ed and the site is reconfigured fo-r monitored 7SurIPVeillance. Decontaminilation and final diis3mantling of' the reactor building is deferred 'for approximately- 100 years (fr'onii Uniiit I shutdown).

For each of the three scenarios described above, .dorinancy costs are.accrued from the 6ees'ation. ofTMI- 1 Operations in 2034. This mieans that the current PDMS costs are not included within the reported decommissioning costs.

Background

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provided initial decommissioning requirements in its rule adopted on June 2.7, 1988. In this rule, the NR.C set forth financial criteria for decommnission!ing licensed nuclear .power facilities. As part of the prTcess to demonstrate financial assurance, licensees must adjust the estimate of' the cost of decominissioning their plants; in dollars. of the current. year (10 CFR

§50.75). To- facilitate the process, :and. provide .unifoi~mity ini reijorting, thei NRC T'LG Services, hec;

Three Mile Island Unit 2 DoAume(t F07.1601.004, Rev. 0 FinancialEsLalation,Analysis Page 6 (f23

,pereiodically reissues NUREG-.13071 "Repot on Waste Burial Charges." T]his document develops the basis for the escalation.of waste disposal costs (since 1-986).

and idefiti:fies the hpjMopriate indices foi, the labor- and energy .cost con 6nents.

While tihe burial index is burial site-specific, labor escalation is tied, to the Employment Cost Index published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and energy to the Producer Price Index.

For purposes of escalation, the NRC divides its reference costs for decommissioning into categories of labor, energy, and burial. TLG also allocates its costs, for decommissioning into categories, with the, NRC's labor category further subdivided into "labor"' and "equipmient and matevriails. and :an "oýher" category added for miscellaneious fees, taxes and 'other unique or. onet~ime expe.,nditures.

The Financial Accounting Stanidards Board (FASB) issued a. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards, No. 143 (FAS 143) in 2001. The Stagtement acddessed financial accounting and reporting for obligations associated with the retirement, of tangible long-lived assets and the associated asset reti'rement costs.

TLC, has prepared ARO liability assessments (partial or total) for several major nuclear plant owners. The assessments follow the process outlined in FAS 143 and have been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the owner's financial auditors.

FAS 143 allows for estimating the fair value 'of anl ARO liability by using an expected, present value technique. FAS 143 states in paragraph. 8: I'f a present value technique is used to estimate fair value, estimates of'ftlU.tre cash flows, used in that technique shall be consistent wlth the objectPive ofimeasuring f.ir value."

PLG develops future cash flows by escalating four of the&cost; categories (labor, equipment and materials, energy and other) with indices provided by 11IS Global Insight (IHS Global Insight is a privately held company which acquired Global Insight in 2008. The combined company includes well-known businesses such as Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), Jane's Information Group, and I-S Herold; it also includes the former companies known as DRI (Data Resources, Inc.) and WEFA (Wh-arton Econometric; Forecasting: Associates)). For this analysis, the escalation rate for Burial had been established through an: agreement, between FirstEnergy and EnergySolutionis, the disposal servi'ce promidcer.

-Since the, timefrafi0e of" decominisioning, typically exceeds that of the pu.)bished indices, for years beyond the published index, the inflation factor is determined using a "moving-average" method, averaging the most recen't 25 years of indices to determine the future year index.

TLG Services, Ine.

Thee MileIsland Unit 2 1)oeumenlJ 7- 160 1-O'J, l}eu. 0 FinancialEscalationAnalysis Page 7 0f 23 Assutmptions and Methodology The baseline estimates (in 2008 dollars) werle extracted from the 'PLG cost estimatell and are presented in Table 1. The scenarios analyzed were based upon the. end dates coinciding-withadjacent Unit 11 and. its decomniissioning scenarios. A single-viaiie effective escalation r"ate (coinpositel value) is also identified for each

,decommlissioning scenario for TMII-2. The resultsfareealso provided ;in Ttabie Vii.

'Decommissioning costs were divided intoý the five :escalation -categories, for which future rate of inflation factors were established. The five categories are:

Labor Wages, fringes and benefits for craft, salaries and benefits for professional workers, clerical, administrative, service, contract workers, as well as for certain trades Equipni.ent & M*taerial Heavy equipment,, specialty tooling,. packaging, small tools, construction ma'terials, col-ns umibles, rental

!Pquipment and temporary construction facili ties (trailers)

Eitergy Electrical Power purchases. (as 'a large industrial customer) to support site operations Burial Costs for the processing of' low-level radioactive waste as well as for the controlled disposal of material that cannot be recovered (released for unrestricted use)

Other Site operating costs (not. already accounted for), for

-example, taxes, fees, and costs fori specialized services and project support. -actiVities '(may incide. unspecified contributions froi'1 .labor, equipment and materials, and transportation), and payments for on'e-time, disposal services (e. g., .Greater-tha n-Class C, or GTCC- waste),

Escalation As previously noted, escalation factors for the cost categories (exclusive of Burial) were obtained from IlHS Global Insight. Forecast data for labor, equipment/

materials, energy, and gene'ral inflation were available through 2034. in order to extrapolate beyond the available Global insight data, TLG c:alcilated a 25-year

'"Decommin s...

sii i 11,g Cost,

.... Ai, hlysiis for Three Mlileb*,i dU iUnit.2," D10u meint No. 1F07- 16o01-o002.,

'lL(I'Services, Ine. .Roy. 0., January 2009.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-160.1-004, Rev. 0 Finan cia l EscalationAnalysis Page 8 of 23 moving average inflation factor to.extend the Global Insigh', hibdcices .through 2134 t'rhe endidi .i t.: of the Hairdened SAF STOR. decommissio~fi ilg.scenario.

Index Selection Table 5 identifies the Global Insight forecast data sets used for the four cost.

categories (exclusive of Burial). Consistent with the NRC's guidance, TLG escalates the labor component, of its decommissioning cost; estimates using an Employment Cost Index (ECI) and the eneirgy cost compon*ent with a Producer Price 1.ncdex (PP.I).

Use of the Consumer Price Index (CPI)for general services, site ýopeirating costs and one.ime expenditures is consistent With the. initent of the index (the measure of the average, change, in prices, over,time of goods and services).

The decommissioning process is labor intensive, with labor representing more than half of the total cost. The estimates for TMI-2 include the cost: of the craft, labor performing field activities, the field supervision and support services, project, management, administration, security, and costs for specialty contractors. The Employment Cost: Index (fCI) is a qluarterly measure of changes in labor costs. It is one of the principal economic indicators used by the Fcederal Reserve Bank, The index shows changes in wages and salaries andc benefit; costs, as .well as, chainges in.

total conmpensation The ECIPCTNS index, provided by (]'lobbl Insigh-rt, is aqyearly estinAte of ch'ange in the cost of labor, defined as compensationl Iper miployee hour worked.. The self-employed, ownlers-manageis, ;and! unpaid f.imily wor kers are excluded from coveriage. The. ECI is designed as a fixed-weight index at the qccupational level, thus eliminating: the, effects of emipldy.iiient shifts among occupations. Both components of compensation, wages/salaries', aetd benefits, a'e covered.

Elguipment and material costs in the decommissioning estimates include small tools and consumables as well as the heavy construction eqctuipment, involved in the dismantling, demolition and movement of materials ar'ound. the site. The Producer Price Indexes (PPI). measures monthly average changes: in selling p.rices, received by dcomestic ,piodcucers for their, outputV Most of the intformaiti'on used, ini the PPI 'is obtafined by sampling of industiries in the iiinii g, and' manufacturing-sectors. of the e.ono~my. The indexes reflect price trends ýfor a constant set of goods and Siervices representingthe total output. of an industry..

TLG's analysis uses.a Consumer Price Ilndex to project future expenditures. "Other" costs in the decommissioning estimates include such items as licensing fees, taxes, special services (for example, a fee for the geologic disposal of GTCCG waste), as well as labor-intensive activities such as radiological surveys that include costs for off-TLG Services, Inc.

Thr'eee iRaslan&M1Unt 2 Doeimienli F07-1,601-'004, Rev. 0 imicialtEscaladionAlu taksisj IFba Pege 9,(f 23 site analytical services, The CPI measures changes in the prices of goods and services. It is therefore more representative of the non-labor cost elements included in the decommissioning estima tes.

The. EnergySoluitions Life-of-Plant Disposal Agreement. sp*eciies, that..CPI wi. l be used f.orthe escalation in :disposal charges; There.. witl be some wastes generated in the decbminissionin of T4 M -2 that are jnot suitable foi shallow: lInd btirial and therefore cannot be shipped for disposaj to EnergySolutions. 'l'his material, primuarily associated with systems aind structures contaminated with fuel debris, requires greater isolation from the environment. For estimating puriposes, a geologic waste repository, or some interim storage facility, is assumed to be available for the disposal of this material, The estimates for TMI-2 assume the timely removal of waste designated for geologic disposal, witliout the need for on site interim storage. (once containerized).

Order ofOperations The process to escalate the decommissioning .eStimatesi was d6ndticted in the following sequence;

  • Source information was extracted from the latest decommissioning cost analyses (reproduced in Tables 2 through 4).
  • The schedules of expenditures are presented in the following five categories:

Labor, Equipment & Materials, Energy, Waste Burial & Recycling, and Other.

The appropriate escalation index for each of the five escalation categories was identified, as summarized, in Table 5.

'The, index values were applied againmst elacdh :of. the, unescalated schedules of expenclit*resI tocalculate a.: schedule of ffutiu revalue (Tables 6 through 8).

  • An effective single value annual escalation rate was.tdetermined (Table. 1).

Results The total estimated escalated expenditure of dollars for each scenario through the completion of decommissioning for TMI-2, as well as the composite annual escalation rate, is presented in Table 1.

TLG S'ervices, Ine.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Docuinent F07-1601-004, Rev. 0 FinancialEscalationAnalysis Page 10 of 23 TABLE I ESCALATION

SUMMARY

(nillions:0of do]ilars)

Baseline Esscalatedl Effective Cost Valute Escalation Scenario Start End (2008 $) (escalated ~ Rate Dclayed DECON 2034 2054, 8!44.88 2,552,,87 2.810%

Custodial SAFSTOR 20:34 2095 ,922.77 9,()95.70 2.945%

HIardened SAFSTOR 2034 2134: i 1,54.39 25,304.88 :3.014%

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-004,Rev. 0 FinancialEscalationAnalysis Page 11 of 23 TABLE .2 SCHEDULE OF.ANNUAL, EXPENDI)IURES DELAYED DECON (t-housands, 2008 dollar's)

Eq ui pmient &

"Ye:illr i~nhor Energy 13u116i1 Other Tottail 203,1 494 107 192 12 520 1.329 2035 702 152 273 23 738 1.887 2036 704 152 274 23 7.,10 1,893 2(037 152 273 23 738 1*887 702 2038 702 152 273 23 738 2039 7(02 273ý 23 738 1.887

'704  !,.89:3 152 2721 23 74MO 2041l 152 273:

702 23 738 .1.887 2042 .152 273, 2 ý3 [;887 20q48 677 898 23 441, 115

'51,597

,531,7516) 4,6410 1.273 7,1.08 9,305 73,921 2045 ,15 143 1,8,909 12,188 89,041 204t6 1.2619 89.0,1 I 45, 143 11,1531 LI.531 1,269 18.909 12.188 2(),17 45.143 1 1,531 118.9(19 12. 188 89.0411 204,8 1,2713 20,19 ,15.207 11,563 18,961 12"222 89,285 43,974 10,862 1,049 17,392 7.787 81,0601

'1 3*430( 94's" 2050 I 0.554 ,16,095 5:702 77,394 413,43(3 1(1554.

2052 9418 16,695 .5,762 77,394

.37,583 9,027*

13,589. '7,71'5 1(3......i 2053, 4,596 264 1,002s .8,945 2054..

12:,424* 1,329 ',15 4,Al78 95: 18,070

'467,398 1025-666 .13;769, 149,777 .1.11371 84

/

'JLG Services, Inc,

DTimee Aile Island Unit 2 Doeumnent F07-1601-004,. Rev. 0 FinancialEscalationAnalysis Page 12 of 231 TABLE 3' SCHEDULE OF A NNUAL EXPENDITURES CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR (thousands, 2008 dollars) ll~iuipment. &

Yomei, Labor EInergy R1uria ()thel" Tooll 20:34 494 .107 192 16 520 1,329 20:35 702 152 273 23 738 .1,887 2036, 704 152 2741 23 7,10 1,893 2037 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2038 702 152 273 23 7:38 1,887 2039 702 152 273 23 1.8,87 2741 7,40 20440 7(14 152 .23. 738 1,8.93 2041 702 152 273 423 1.887 7,38 20,12 702 152 2737 23 738 ý1.8871 2013 .702 152ý 27:3 23. 740 1,887 20411- 704 152 274 213 738 1.893.

2(),15 702 152 273 23 738 1.887 20,10 702 152 273 23 738 1.887 20,17 702 152 273 23 7138 1,887 2048 701 152 274 23 738 1.893 20,19 702 152 273 23 7T38 1,887 2050 702 152 273 738 1.887 2051 702 152, 2173 23, 1.887 2052 .710 152 274. 2-3 7410 .1-,893 2053 702 1.52 273 .23 ,1,887

.23 738 2054 .702 152ý 273 1,887 2:3* '7,38 2055 ,70,2 '152 273 243 1,887 2056 704 '152 273 7,40 1.893 2057 702, 23 '7:18 :1,887 152 7:38 2058 702 273 23 1,887 702 I52 7:38 20(59 152 23- 1,893 20(00; 704 152 271 23 20(;1 702 152 273 23 738 1.887 20(32 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2063 702 152 273 23. 738 1.887 2064 704 152 274 23 740 1.893 2065 702 152 273 23 738 1.887 TLG Services, lite.

ThreeMile,Island Uniit 2 Document F07-1601-004,Rev. 0 FinancialEscalation.Analysis, Page 13 of 23 TABLE 3 (continued)

'SCHEDULE-OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR (thousands, 2008 collars)

  • FXuipiiien ('&

Year Labor M\a ternias Energy .Burial Other ik l l

'2066 702 152 273, 23 7*38 1,887 1,887 702 152 273 23 704 274 23 738 7,40 1,893 20609 702 152 273 23 738 1.887 2070 702 152 273 23 7:38 1.887 2071 702 152 27:3 23 740 1,887 2072 70,1 152 274 23 1.893 20773 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 207d1 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2075 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2076 704 152 274 23 740 1 893 2077 702 152 273 23 738 1.887 2078 702 152 273 23 7:38 1,887 2079 702 152 ý273 23 738 1.887 2080, 152 2741 23 7,10

.1,89}*!

2081 702 152 152 273 23 738 1,887 21082, 702 273 23 738 1,887 2083: 152 27-3 23 738 1,887 2084 16t{403* °11 88: 23 ,15;1,(6 63;994 921 20,85 :5012,11 7,1653 1,.269 12, 164 ,7,917 79,5J344 2086 45,159 11.490 1,269 18,721 12,136 88,777 2087 45, 159 11,4(90 1,269 [8.724 12. 136 88,777 2088 4. 282 11.521 1.273 18.775 12,169 89,.(20) 2089 45,159 11,490( 1,2(19 18.724 12.1 :I; 88,777 2090 43.506 10,j82 9(3 1(,7,11 G,.04.5 77,837 2091 4-3,125 10,5:38 948 1(3, (34 5 5',747 77,302 2092 413,54,i 10,567 950 16,690 5,763 77.51,4

.56,005) 2093 29,060 6,799 671 9,085 10,390 2094 5,9049 21.9 .1,681, 41.778 .31,782

6.577 24 .9,567 2095 2,12 50 704 497J5.9 i08,767 .24.93 11 150.10"5 .1I.L 0Y 922,772 TlG Services, Ince.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-41601-004, Rev. 0 FinancialEscalation Analysis Page 14 of 23 TABLE 4 SCHED)ULE OF ANNUAL EIXPENI)ITURES HARDENED SA FSTOR (thousands, 2008 dollars)

Equipmuent &

Year L,abor Ma terialIs Energy Burial (0)11hw Tolal 2031 2;392 107. 192 [.6 520 3,22G 2035. 1821,4,8 487 672 23, 31,22(0 22,635 20(37 2,743 1,273 3,206 5,316 .51,899

(,93,1 981. 5:)325 20:38 1145, 6i 1,50)3 37,084 7.120 948 11,5 19 5.6G12 62,282 2039 7-,1:26 .11,519 .62,282 948.

24,10 28*830 .,508 743 7.645 9.,142 51,.868 20,11 17,943 5.334 239 1.4110 8,684 33,610 2042 9,082 3.057 2:31 977 2,152 I5,,'I 99 20413 2416 0 273 0 1,135 1.65,1 20)44 2,17 0 274 (0 1.138 1.659 2045 2,1 G 273 I,135 1,6-54 20)-1 2,16 273 0 1.135 1.6541 246 (0 2047 273 0 1.135 1.6541 10 2(:),18 24.7 0 27:1 0 1,138 1,659 2049 273 0 L:.1.35 1 65,1 246 '27-'ý .1,F:35 20501 246 0 1,61-51 2051 0 :273 0 1,135 2052. 2417 274; 246 00 0 1.135 2053 273 .I.65 1,654I 246 0 1,135 205'I 273 0 2,16 0 1 G-5,1 2055 273 (3 1,135 2056 2,17 274 1.138 1.659 0

2057 2,1 ( 273 (1 1.135 1.65,1 0

2058 24(; 273 0 1, 135 1.654 246 (I) 0 1.135 2059 247 27:3 1,6541 2060 0 246 27,1 1.138 1,659 2061 27:3 1,135 1,6541 2(062 0 27:3 .I1[8) 1.651 2063 :2'1'(3 1, 135 247 0 206I. 273. 11138 1.651 246

'20a5 (1 1,1:35.

2,16 273 0 TL3654

.206R 0 273 0 .1.135 1 6-5 4 2067 '2,1'6 2743 0 2068 247 1.138 TLG Services, Inc.

Tliree;Mi~elslandUnit 2 ,Documtent FO7-60"-0O4, lRev. 0 Financia7EscalationAnalyis Page 15 of 23 TABLE 4 (continued)

SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES HARDENED SAFSTOR (th@bisands, 2008Adollars)

EI(1 U1)1IU()flt &

Labor Enwlggy Burial (I)t~her :Total.

2069 246 273 1,135* 1,654 2070 24(3 273 1,.135 1,654 207 I 247 273 1.135 2072 2,17 274 1,1,38 1.059 2073 2416 273 1.135 20741 27,3 1,113::-5 246 1. 135 1,654I 2075 273 .1 G54 2076, 247 27,1 1.138 .1,654 2077 273' 1,654 2078 273 135 2079 247 273 1,659 246ý 2080 246 274 1,0354 2081 273 I.(35,1 1.6:'59 2082 240 273 246 247 273 1,138 2084 274 1,(359 2,16 1. 3.5 2085 273 1,6591 2086 246 273 1,135 135) 1,6541 2087 273 I, 1t:36 .1,(35,1 247 274t 2088 240 1,138 2089 246 273 i.135 1,651 2090 I M59, 1,,65o.4 247 246 273 1,135 2091 24'6 273.

i;65,1 20,92 274, 1 , 135 24(3 209)3 273 135 1,135 6G5,1 11.654) 1,1:38 2094 2,16 247 273, 1!65 I 1,11131 2095 246 273 209(i 2476 274 1, 35 2097 2]03 246 273 1,135 1.65,1 2098 2416 273 2099 27 3 1,135 2100 246 27:3 1, 1:35 21 0! 2416 27:3 I.654!

1, 135 2102 2' 6 273 1,1:35 1 65 1 2103 246G 273 TLG ,Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Dimi.wnent F07-1601-004,Rev. 0 FinancialEscalation.Analysis Page 16 of 23

'TABLE 4 (continued)

SCHEDULE.OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES HARDENED SAAFSTOOR (thousands, 2,008 dollairs)

Equipment &

Yenr la bor MiaVtol iils Eilorgv Blulpial Othier To tal 21 0,1 2,17 0) 274 (0 l]X138 2105 246 0 273 0 1.135 1,6,5,1 0 1,135 1I6 FI11 2106 246 273 0 t. 135 2107 246 273 0 I, 135 0 1.138 21 708 2,17 2741 0 1,654 0

21109 246 0 273 (1 1.135

,211.0 1,65 4 273. 0 1, 13I5 1.65`4 L.6541

-246 273 1,135 2112 247 274. '(.)

1.138 I1,659 246 273 0 1- 135 2]13 0 2114 0 273 1.135 2115 2246 273, 1.135 1,6*54 247 0 2116 2,17 274 0 1.138 1.654 00 2117 2,16 00 273 1,135 2118 273 0 1.135 1,65,1 00 6,09 273 0 1,135 2119 217 0 2120 274 C) 1.138 1,659 2121 2,46 247G 273 0 1,1335 (01 II 1,65,4 1,6 54 2122 273 1,1.35 2123, 1,149 20 14,891) 54,326 6,809 11,I273 110,894 62,6:37 2124 101:79] 1,M: 5 75,5472 2 12,5 37'525 1,269 14,701 10,791 ,1,2(39. '1..I8M 7,5, 472 2126 407 1,269 21.27 '37,525 1:0,791 14.70A,11-185 W).,-17 2 10,821 200' .1,1, 2 85 2128 37!(628 1278 14,742 11,216 751,679 8703 7,120 ý ,3410 2129 '36.089 1 i:.56) o 2 1:30 3(,00 I 9118 .11,407 3.922 5 9.17:3 6.89 6 21:31 36,001 9418 11,407 3,922 59,173 4,072 3 9,1 ) 3 2132 25.270 675 (,292 3,61511 2133 12,575 2.008 22(.) 7 650 2131 3,823 80:3 51 0 (7 ,I,676i (j25196.8 117.039 39412 15:3;:315 219,558 1,1541,392 TJLG Services, Inc.

ThVreeMileCIsla it d Unit 2 Doctineni F,'71.60,1-004,Rev. 0 Financial"EscalationAnalysis Page.17 of 23 TABLE 5 ESCALATION BASES Cost Category Escalation Sourcei Labor Global Insight Forecast Database, Emp loylen t cost index, total p-rivate compensation (ECIPCTNS)

Equipmnent Lind M~aterials Global Insight Forecast Database, Producer Price Index, Machinery & Equipment (WPIP 11)

Energy Global Insight Forecast Database, Producer Price Index, Fuels and Related Products and Power (NWPIP05)

Other Global. Insight Forecast Database,, Consumer vprice index., services (CUSASNS)

Low-Level Rad ioactive Waste EnergySolutions Life-of-Plant agreement Processing/Disposal specifies the use of CPI; therefore Global Insight Forecast Database, Consumer prvice index, All Urban All Itemst (CPI)

Z.Services, Ic, "l.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document P07-1601-004, Rev. 0 FinancialEscalationAnalysis Page 18 of 23 TABLE 6 SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPE ND ITURES 1DELAYEDU DECON (thousands, escalated dollars)

Year Labor INlatorials Energy Burial Othe-,r lolal 2034 1,095 186 268 3,3 1,084 2 505 2035 1 60 1 I 084 49 1.5841 154:

2036 1,660 154 272 50 J1.635 3,771 2037 1 709 276 52 1,678 3. 869 154 2038 1,765 281 53, 1.728 3.980

.55 1.778 4.095 2039 1,822 156. 285 20,10 1 887 155 291 56 1.835 4,225 20,11 1,944 156 295 58 1.8M4 4,336 20,12 2,008 300 Go 1.939 4.162 2043 93.731 697 1,003 61 29,21 3 124,705 20+1,1 157,499 4.785 1,4451 19.788 25,905 209.1,241 20,15 1,12.331 11,923 1,460 54, 189 34.928 244,887 2046 1147,012 11,953 1,549 55,777 35,9.52 252,185 2047 151,847 11,983 57,4il 37,005 259.762 1,515 2048 157.274 S2,0,46. 59 256 38 194, 268,315 2049 157,809 .].1..3,1.; 1.295 55 1916 25 018 251 ,112 205(6 161,00) 11.0501 55'. 274 1,189 19,078 247 01

.2051 1166 309 11,077' 1,209 56 8,J93 25, 126 2(052 i,18,634 9,498 .1,083, 17 666* 27.:16:3 233 945 205:M 67,095 4,1,848 348 3;833 32,<1:3. 1086559 2054 52, 41, 4,418: *127 4.9,39 I166 62 06; l:618,,159 106,967 16,172 ,171.498 339,772 2,552,867

'TLG ServiCes, Inc.

Three Alile Island unit 2 DiK UJ'eilt: F 7.1601.004, R v. 0 FinancialEscahllon.Analysis Page 19 of 23 TABLE 7 SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR (thousands, escalateddidollars)

.F"(

-Jkl -n ipl nt Yeal. LabOr EinIrgy Burial Otih-er .1,oh l, 203,1 1,(0195 108 186 331 1,084 2,505 2035 1,6041 153 268 49 1.5841 :3.158 2086( t, 660() 15,1 272 5() 1,635 3.771 2037 1,7(19 154, 276 52 1,678 3,869 20:38 1,765 15,1 281 53 1,728 3,980 2039 1,822 155 285 55 1,778 *1((95 20,10 1,887 15(; 291 56 1,835 41,225 4.335 204 1 1.94-4, 15r5 295 58 1,884 20,12 2.008 156 1,9 39 4.462 20:13 156( :305 61 1,1592 2,(Y.71, 20,1.4 157 3,11 ý6:3 2;060 41739 2045 2,212 157 (65 .2115 ,1.865 2046 2,285 157 321 (7 5.007 2:2,1i0 2047 2,360 I 518 326 69 5.1541 2048 2.,115 159 333 71 2,312 5.319 2049 2.518 159 3:37 73 2,374 5.A1 I 2050) 2.601 159 34:3 75 2.4413 5.621 2051 2,687 159 3,19 77 2,515 5,787 2052 2,783 160 356 80 2,596 5,97,4 2053 2,866 160. 82 2,66,'1 (3,133 2054 2,960 16.1 36,7 84, 2,7412 6.314, 2055 3, (5)8 373 161 87 2ý823 '6 501.

2056 3,A W{' ) 89 2,2;91.3 671 1 162 380 2057 3,261 162 385 92. 6.891 F3078 2058 I 68 391 95 J.095 3,4-79 P,7 :32168 2060 3)8 -7,305 10 .3,27(1 7,'),12 164 ,10,6 2000 2061 3,710 3.:35.7 163 103 7,74 5 8.832 3.,455 2062 31,803 16,4 418 10W 7,975 2063 16,1 ,125 109 3.556 8.21:3 2064 .11(099 165 ,133 113 3,(37 I 8,480 2065 41.222 165 '139 116 :3,768 8.710 2066 -1,360` 166 4147 119 3,878 8,969

,1,503 3,992 2067 4,630 166 ,15,1 123 91.2:37 2068 167 463 126 4.120} 95.109 2009 167 ,169 130 4,229 9,798 TLG Services, Inc.

Dimee Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1661-004, Rev. 0 FinancialEscalation.Analysis Page 20 of'23 TABLE 7 ý(con ti nu e0d)

SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENDI'TU,RES CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR (tihousands, escalated: dollars) h((tuipmenI, &.

Year Labor \la (erin. s Energy 13 Lu i aI Orther Tootvd 2070 ,I96 I 167 ,77 134 ,1.353 1(0,092 2071 5, 12,1 168 '185 138 1,181 I 0.391 2072 168 195 1'12 I .624 I(07:36 5,306 2073 1618 502. ,1,747 11 028 207'] .,t644 169 5110 .150 1:886 11,359 1459

.1541 2075 5 .829 169 5419 5,029 1.1.701 2076 6 ,03 - 529

',59 5191 1.2,086 17.0 20.77 6.21 8 536: .328 12..I 36 2078 6;,122 171 545 12J790 2079 6.033 55,1: 17.3 13.176 2080 6,869 172 565 179 5:826 13.611 2081 7,075 172 573 184 5.981 13,98,1 2082 7,307 172 582 189 6,156 S1,~1.07 2083 7.547 173 592 195 6 336 14,84'2 2084 515,,133 1,049 2,617 201 13(.6,604 655.9d11 2085 576.367 8,74:3 2,8412 11:3 :391 72,025 773,369 2086 535,058 13,160 2,8,90 175,325 84(1 070 2087 .552,607 13;'194 !2,9ý38. 1800,463 866, 168 2088 572,297 13,263 1.995 186,.259 120.723 895',5:8 2089 589.4,52 1:3.260 :3,037 191,1ý9.4 123 921 :920(8(6,i 2090 586,5,)5 142,14 2,342, 175,962 63 )532 ý84( .384 2091 604.6, 9 12,223 '2,344 180, 070 62.175 8*1 141 2(092 626. 162 12.287 ,2,390 64. 172 890,865 2093 4,31.586 7,926 1,714 10,131 1 19;09,1 664*448 209,1 293.804 G,95F3 570 19,833 56.366 377,526 2095 104,196 2,591 132 8.54-1 288 115,752 6, 178.039 124.982 47,04(, 1,526,1438 1,21H,.25,1 9,095.758 TLG Services, Ine.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Documenit F07.1601-004, Rev. 0 Financial Esciikition. AinalySis.

Page21;of,23 TABLES SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPEAD* U RES HARDENED SAFSTOR (thousands, escalated dollars)

Equipment. &

Yenar Labor Mlhaterials Ene,rgy Bu'rial Other TotnI 2034.,

2035 1'08. 186' 33-  ! .08'I 6,709

-49 658 I9 6.91l 4,9,78.5 115, 719 2016 :92*849 2,773 .1,26-1 7.08 il 1I1748.

2037 90W393 7,0298 99.1 25, 319 12, 112 135..873 2038 ,93, 254; 7,234. 26,967 1,3.1:3.8 973 .14"1,567 2039 .96 302 7.2:52 990 27, 757 1'352:3 145,821 20,10 77.325 5,624 790 18,962 22 674 125'.374 2041 ,19.703 ).460 258 3.6()0 22,171 81,191 20,12 25.985 :3.137 253 2,568 37,600 204:3 727 305 0 3.07(0 4,102 20441 753 :311 0 3,168 4,233 0

2045 776 0 316 0 -. 252 4.3,14(

20,10 801. 0 321 0 31348 4,470 2047 827 326 0 4.600

.333: ,1:.746 2048. 8EM 0: 0, :3557 2049 883 0 337 0 3(355.1 2050 3.,13 3.758 5,013 912 0 .0 2051 9,12 3,19 3;868 0

2052 975 356 0 5,32-3 0' 1!61 2053 1,005 0 ,1,098 2054 1,038 :367 0 41.218 5,622 2055 1,072 0 :373 5,786 205(; 1.I 10 0 380 0 d,,181 5,971 2057 1,1113 0 :385 4(600 6,128 2058 1.18 I 39 ] 4t.734 6.367 0 (1 2059 1,219 398 4,873 6,1191 2060 1.263 0 '106 5,030 6,698 2061 1:30(1 '11 I 0 5,163 6(.875

'00 2062 E.343 -0 '118

,2063 1,387 1125 0 7ý.282

'0 2064 1,437 '133 5 6.4 1516 2065 1,480 0: ,139 0

5,965 5 7.95 7.714 2066 L528 0 7 910

.0 4,17, 2067 1.578 4541 0. 6, 14.0

'0 8; 172 2068 1,635 46:3 0 6,337 8,436 2069 1,6841 ,169 1) 6,5 05 8, 65)8 TLG Services, Inc.

VTrei? M'ile Msand Uliji 2 Document FO,7-.1601.004,,Rev. 0 Fbinan ciali Escalaition.Analysis Page22 of 23 TABLE 8 (continued)

SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENND ITU RES HARDENED SAFSTOR (thousandsi escalated: dollars)

T!ip~'i;n Labor Nftciatti s En6rgy BuriAl ý001(w Total 2075 .2,0,13 519 77.35 10.297 2076 2,116 529 7,984 10,629 2077 2, t18 5:36 8.195 10,911 2078 2,251 5,15 8,435 11.231 2079 2.325 5541 8,682 11,562 2080 2.4108 565 8, 96 1 11,934 2081 2,480 573 9,1,I!9 12.25.1 2082 2.56 582 9:,1(38 ,12,612 20883 592 91746 12,983 208,1 2,740 604 10:059 1.3A402 2.822 6(12 t0,32ý5 13.759 2086 2,914" 622 10,628 14 164 2087 3,010 633 10,939 4414582 2088 3.1 .7 645 11,290 15,053 2089 3.211 654 11,590 '15,454 2090 3.316 6(35 11,929 15.9 I0 209 1 3-126 676 12,279 10.379 2092 3.517 689 12,673 1(G,909 209:3 3,653 699 1.3.009 17,36 1 2094 3.77/3 710 13.390 17.873 2095 3,897 722 13.782 18.1I01 1 035 736 1*1,225 18,997 11,56 7,17 1 1,(302 19,505 2098 1 293 759 1 0310. 20;081 2099 772 15,,,170 20,675 2:1 oo) 4,,)7. 785 ,I5,92-3' 21,287, "i6,39(11 21,01 ,71720 '798 2 1.917 2102 4,884I 811 16870 22,505 2103 825 ,17,36,4 23:233 2104 5,2241 841 17,922 23.98,7 2105 5,381 852 18.397 2,1,630 2106 5,557 867 18.93I( 25:'360 2107 5,7410 881 19,491 26,111 2108 5,944 898 20,.1.7 26.959 2109 6, 122 911 20,649 27.683 21.10 6.323 926 21,255 2A850,4

'J.Jc Services, hie,

Three Mile Island,Unit 2 Document P07-'1601-004, Rev. 0 Financial ,sesalaf ion'-Anal.ysis Plage '23 of 23 TABLE 8 (continued)

SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES HARDENED SAFSTOR (thousands, escalated dollars)

Equipment &

,Labor Aa tcrals I'),urgY Burial Ol.hr 2!11 6 531 0 941I 0 2 1.877 2934 9

2:1.12'

,2112!

0 1) 22,580 .30.30.3 2 .I I ',I (1 ,973 0 23.178 31,!17 0

2114 7.1911 P89 0 23.*857 32,041,I 21,15 7 430 0 1,006 24,556 32,993 0(1 .3,1066 2116 7.695 1,026 25,3,15

( 26,016 2117 7, 926 00 1.0,10 0 931,)82 2118 8.18(; o 1,0)57 226G,7 7.8 7-5G)37 36,02 I 0 27:5(63 37.)92 2119 8,1451 0 1,075 1,0916 0 :38,300 2120 8,756 28.4,18 2121 9,018 1. 111 29,202 39.331 2,122 9.31 'd 0. 1.'1;3o 0 30,0518 401,5.01 2123 1A62.4(63 1,093 4,829 5,113 105,912 1,874,840 2124 1.651.7,18 8,4'19 ,5,4 3.7 176,2171 209*853 2;05 0 I,7731 2125 1:5 6 5 351, 13;6241 5,5:13 424.575 323 :032 2 332 095 2126 1,616ý692 1:3,658 :5,609 .137,016: 332;197 2A405,469 2127 1669,71 9 13,693 5,':,(99. 449,820 3,12 240 2,481J 71.

2128 1,729.211 13,765 5,810 .464,209 353;23.2 2.566.287 2129 1712,877 9,080 4,,18*1 375,907 14(0(079 2 2,13.028 2130 1,761.762 8,817 4,472 380,596 130,858 2,289,50,1 21 1 1.822, 614 8.839 ,t,546 391,747 1311.(91 2:362.,48 2132 1,321:330 5,232 3,292 222.412 1 1.1,12 1.663.408 2 1-33 079.07:73 2,067 1,09) 2,40 2:3,660 706,733 21341 21 3.200 1.037 25 5 1*) (1 214.493 18.053.083. 139.057 107,9 15 3.435.776 3.568,548 25,30,1.379 LG Services, Inc.

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=TMI-10-011,_Submittal_of_Decommissioning_Funding_Status_Report&oldid=2558803"