ML19312E900
| ML19312E900 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Monticello, Prairie Island  |
| Issue date: | 09/28/1979 |
| From: | NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19312E898 | List: |
| References | |
| FRN-43FR10370, RULE-PR-30, RULE-PR-40, RULE-PR-50, RULE-PR-70, TASK-FP-902-1, TASK-OS 81A0622, 81A622, 81A622-R1, NUDOCS 8006180108 | |
| Download: ML19312E900 (48) | |
Text
'. ,..
O -- NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
DOCUMENT NO. 81A0622 REV.1 PAGE 1 nF DECCW.ISSICNING STUDY OFTE MONTICELLO h"JCIZAR GENERATING PLANT -
Prepared for the KORIERN STATES POWER COMPANY By
( .
NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES 5
?
i e'
L, -
Project Acolication Procerad By '
5149-100 N
[ Cate
.#~of m - 9-28-79 A'P P R O V A L S' ~ /
TITLE / CEPT. SIGNATURE I DATE g
,re4.ct Mr. N' / ~2P"7f L- .. ,. , + .. + . ll W %& 9-ae- n M7Y._ Enc. SuOt. Se r" rices
- Presiden:, NES Division <M
["*M-((
s s; eu a a vis *04 S/ ?S 8006180108
DOCUMENT NO. S1A0622 I NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES,INC. PAGE 2 op 48
(
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1
P i 1.
SUMMARY
3
- 2. END PRODUCT DESCRIPTION 5
^
! 2.1 Introduction 5 l 2.2 Prompt Removal / Dismantling 5 )
I, 2.3 Safe Storage Entombment 6 2.4 Delayed Removal / Dismantling 9 2.4.1 Safe Storage Entombment 9 2.4.2 Dormancy 9 i
- l 2.4.3 Delayed Removal / Dismantling 11
- 3. COST ESTIMATES 13 3.1 Primary Decommissioning Alternatives 13 i
i 3.2 Combination Alternatives 13 j 3.2.1 Safe Storage Entombment-Delaye; Removal / Dismantling 13 1 i
% 4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATES . 41
- 5. REFERENCES 47 L'
REVISION LOG 48 9
'g .
s
\
l 4
- Femu o NES 206 5/79
~
l DOCUMENT NO. 81A0622 i NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES IN PAGE 3 op 48 1
1
- 1.
SUMMARY
f This report provides cost and schedule estimates of the prompt removal / dismantling, safe ,
1 i- storage entombment, and delayed removal / dismantling (after safe storage entombment) e alternatives for the decommissioning of the Monticello Nuclear Generating Plant. The i
! estimated cost of each of these' decommissioning modes is presented in 1979 dollars. l Interest and escalation have not been applied to these estimates and consequently a direct cost comparison can not be made for alternatives that occur at different times. Northern States Power Company will account for these financial aspects in the economic evaluations it will perform in planning for the recovery of Monticello decommissioning costs.
.i l
Prompt removal / dismantling implies that radioactive materials are removed from the site
- ,- and all buildings and facilities dismantled immediately after shutdown. The dismantling, shipment and burial of activated and contaminated systems is more costly than dismantling of non-activated /non-contaminated systems. This is due to the fact that hig".iy radioactive 1 components must be removed by remote cutting, shipped, and buried'under stringent and costly requirements. The time period required to dismantle the plant at shutdown, remove
(
waste and restore the site, is 69 m.nths.
The safe storage entombment alternative consists of sealing the radioactive components and structures within an entombment barrier at shutdown. Site maintenance costs are provided I for security intrusion monitoring equipment, insurance, and facility maintenance to ensure
( entombment integrity. Safe storage entombment activities require 34 months for comple-tion.
i USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.86 defines safe storage entombment as an open-ended alterna-tive with no provision for ultimate disposal. The period required for radioactive materials k to decay to unrestricted access levels is generally too long to favor safe storage entombment as a viable permanent alternative for power reactors.
'e o
(.
~
f'
- cmu a NES 208 5/79 s
e -w m -e
DOCUMENT NO. SIA0622 i NUCLEAR ENERGY SEAVICES INC PAGE O CF 08
, 1 Delayed removal / dismantling consists of safe storage entombment at shutdown, and plant disassembly and disposal af ter a dormancy period. Fer this study, a dormancy period of 100 t
years was considered for cost evaluation. Dormancy periods of 30 years and 52 years are discussed generally (i.e. no detailed cost estimates have been developed for these dormancy periods).
I Af ter 30 years dormancy, the occupational exposure for dismantling radioactive piping and j systems would be reduced which would reduce the total personnel exposure. However, there would be no significant reduction in dismantling costs. Af ter 52 years dormancy, Monticello
[! contaminated piping and components would decay to unrestricted access levels. Af ter 100 years dormancy, the radioactive materials within the reactor vessel would have decayed sufficiently to permit removal without sophisticated remote underwater cutting techniques.
( Therefore, dismantling af ter 52 to 100 years of dormancy is less costly (in 1979 dollars) than prompt dismantling.
I, The cost estimates for each Monticello decommissioning mode considered are summarized I below. All costs are in 1979 dollars and include a 25% contingency.
l l .,
i,
SUMMARY
OF MONTICELLO DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATES (In 1979 Dollars, including 25% Contingency) l 1
l* Prompt Removal / Dismantling $54,609,000.00 Safe Storage Entombment $14,548,000.00 Safe Storage Entombment-Delay Dismantling 100 Year Dormancy $49,634,000.00 l t l b
v i
o ronu .e ues :oe un ,
DOCUMENT NO. 81A0622 1 NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES. IN PAGE 5 OF 48
- 2. END PRODUCT DESCRIPTION
2.1 INTRODUCTION
j' The initial phase of decommissioning activities after plant shutdown would be performed by
! the existing operating plant staff. Th,*se activities wwld include removal of all fuel and
_ source material from the vessel and storage racks for off-tite disposal, in accordance with
{ existing plant technical specifications and procedures. Plant work areas would be cleaned of surface contamination, as required, and all liquid and solid wastes would be removed, f Concurrent with these activities, Northern States Power t.c!d request a possession-only license and submit a Decommissioning Plan (Dismantlenant Plan) to the NRC for approva!
7 in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.86 (Ref.11).
i !
2.2 PROMPT REMOVAL / DISMANTLING Prompt rersoval/ dismantling consists of remo@ct from the site all fuel assemblies, f
radioactive fluids and waste, and in accordance with an NRC approved Decommissioning
]
{ Plan, all other materials, structures, and components having activities above accepted j
('
unrestricted activity levels. The site may then be released for unrestricted use with no l 7 requirements for a license. The remainder of the reactor facility may then be dismantled and shipped for disposal.
(
I Prompt dismantling of the entire facility requires that activated components such as vessel N
internals and associated piping systems must be remotely segmented using equipment such
- as an arc-saw. The segments must be packaged, shipped, and buried in accordance with
(. Regulatory Guide 1.86, DOT 49CFR173-189 (References 11 and 12, respectively) and in
', accordance with the burial facility's license. For this cost estimate, all buildings and structures (reactor, turbine, radwaste, etc.) are removed from the site to three feet below
( '
grade. Nonecntaminated concrete rubble may be used on-site for fill of building cavities below grade. When all radioactive material has been removed, the site may be restored to e its natural contour, landscaped and released for unrestricted use.
, Prompt removal / dismantling of the entire facility is an irreversible process in which the plant would never again be used for the generation of electricity. Therefore, there are no ongoing environmental obligations or financial burdens that must be borne by the utility after dismantling as there are with the safe storage entombment mode of decommissioning.
s sceu o NES 206 $/79 ,
t ,.
NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. DOCUMENT NO. 31A0622 PAGE 6 05 48 i
f i 2.3 SAFE STORAGE ENTOMBMENT Safe storage entombment consists of removing spent fuel and residual operating wastes,
- decontaminating or removing contaminated material and equipment outside the entombment
(
boundary, and constructing an entombment barrier within the reactor building.
The entombment boundary proposed for use at the Monticello site is within the reactor building to limit the plant areas requiring controlled access. The boundary consists of the reactor primary containment (drywell, suppression chamber, bioshield, and adjacent reactor i building structural concrete as shown in Figures 1 and 2). The structural barriers at this I boundary contain the radioactive reactor vessel and internals, reactor coolant system piping
! within the drywell, iricore instrumentation system, and other miscellanecus components. All 7
openings in this boundary, including the fuel pool and service pool, and equipment and access 1
hatches would be sealed with 2 foot thick reinforced concrete slabs to prevent personnel I
entry.
r-t All remaining contaminated systems external to the safe storage entombment boundary
( would be decontaminated or removed for off-site burial in controlled burial grounds. This
(
l .f would include contaminated systems in the radwaste, recombiner, gas storage, and turbine
, buildings and the underground gas holdup line. Noncontaminated systems in all buildings would be drained, de-energized and secured in place, t
' All systems required during the dormancy period such as fire protection, lighting, radiation L ',
and intrusion monitoring would be prepared for continued use. All external doors and r hatches of the buildings on-site would be locked closed. All other accesses to plant buildings
( would be secured to prevent unauthorized entry, but would be accessible for periodic inspections.
g A final radiation survey would be performed of all plant buildings and grounds outside the safe storage entombment barrier to ensure that there is no radioactive contamination above U unrestricted access levels.
('
s s
8Clau e NES 206 Si?9
81A0622 ,
I NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES,INC. DOCUM ENT NO.
PAGE 7
OF 40 l
(-
(
f
( - - . .
I f-(. .
i 1
3 Drfer-Separator '." ',
- f. Pool
\. E
,c Spent.
- l i
.. Fuel <.
.' 1 .
?, . il 4 Pool -
.,,... . - ;s- .
._ . S.
.... =. . . .
( * *- '
RPV ' d5 f
, / .: . ,
I '.~ -
Y ]'.
> '.. , . - <..c...,.. . , ,
./ * .
7 _
1
< 5.
~
t i i r
.3 :mm-.
L;.- - .-
% r- -
s .- '
- f. k t- ,.
". 'b'.'
r .
, ' . i
' =
3 .A e ,? '
'b
~
7 ,
. I '.
1 .
r:, . . . .....c., : ..-
. ... 9
. . .. ; 'e , ,
o .e. ..r . . ' *. , - . ~, ,.
..~'*y.'
' ~' * ..
} , ;. '.- 1.- ,. . - . ,,,-.,/'. '*
. . J, - ' ,7 .i ,.
i I =
2 ft. thick reinforce.d concrete
[.. constructed as enem'mant barrier I
FIGURE 1 t REACICR BUILDING SECTION l 5 s
l pomu e aves 20s sn*
. ~
OoOy6 $ $, u
{h. $m D mm O$ EO. i
( $
" gr-gm
~
n . s
)
T ph e _
l i c h _
l k
ut c .
} qa rt l
l f
Ei l ea nt s I f n l
i s .r
^, l l kk o S n t a a T v
-; N\ \\\\\ g l E
e
- \
g N\
\'
N \
r e N _
, N \\ n ot N
ir
\ so i N np _
\
\ ep _
N \ Tu S
N e d _
\ g ud
-
- N \\ a r
t n SA N \ N\ o t
- Ns -
S
- /l Nl o . N _
- o g
a r
o Neo uP F
t n
ph i c ut qa EI l t h X S c e r
- t p e
< l t a S ei eI t r R u er
- Ft 'r a l cb wu n ot ea X
HV cn e
dm
- eb cm ro ot r
\ n f n i
o i
ne
, \\\\\' t es r a ra o n
- \ \ t i kd al a m ce
\ \ ro e a it
\ ao r t n
h c _
\ pP e
dA a o t u r
\ \ S e lee c . t e ae
- g g t s
( \ \ ra I
a D f n
\ er Vr r o
\ yo P o l 2 c
\ \ rt Rt e A DS S n
\ h n -
o j
\ \ s r
h c
\\
\
\
\ P e
t a \ \ _
{
l I _
\ \
p
\ \\
- i o \ \
\g \ \N \ \ \
- g
\
( y t
k E:E
>n ?:i5 E
g r, UC 1 u
,O
. d!j lt'*in w y '*~ f" s, j ):
INNN NU m g 'y* * *' ,8 *
^ f - .
- j
DOCUMENT NO. 81A0622 I NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES. IN PAGE 9 OF 48
(
2.4 DELAYED REMOVAL / DISMANTLING 2.4.1 Safe Storage Entombment I
The reactor would first be entombed at shutdown as described in Section 2.3.
1 1
2.4.2 Dormancy A dormancy period of 30 years would allow the contamination in reactor auxiliary i
systems to decay to lower (although still radioactive) levels, and would permit delayed dismantling at reduced occupational exposure. In addition, a recent r decommissioning study prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs as reported in
+
NUREG/CP-0008 (" Boiling Water Reactnr," by Richard L Smith, p.137 Ref.13) 7 states the volume of radioactive waste for burial is essentially unchanged af ter
( approximately 30 years of dormancy. This study linplies that a facility would have to be entombed for approximately 50 years for any significant reduction in waste
[
l' volume or disposal costs to be realized. Dismantling of the reactor vessel and internaI's af ter 30 years of dormancy must still be performed using sophisticated p- remote tooling. None of the contaminated systems would decay during a 30 year I
dormancy to 0.4 mR/hr* at I cm exposure rate (selected as criterion for
. unrestricted use or access based on the precedent set for earlier decommissioning programs and used as the criterion in the AIF Study). It should be noted that the NRC recently proposed a guideline for unrestricted release of decommissioned l facilities of 5 mrem / year absorbed dose to any individual. NUREG/CP-0008, page 273 explains that this dose assumes an individual resides in the facility three years 7
after facility decommissioning for 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> per year in an average field of 0.005 g mR/hr (one-half natural background). This level of radioactivity begins to approach the lower limits of detectability (0.0025 - 0.005 mR/hr). The 0.4 mR/hr at I cm assumed in this study for calculational purposes, is measured at the component. If the 0.4 mR/hr at I cm is applied to the same pathways analysis used r for the NRC guideline of 5 mrem / year, the annual exposure rate would be lower L than 5 mrem / year. Exposure rate is approximately inversely proportional to distance for large components, and
- For the purpose of this discussion,1 mR/hr exposure rate is approximately equal to 1 mrem /hr assorbed cose rate.
9
.o - . s - m, l - - - - - . - . . - - - - . . -
i I
1 l
I DOCUMENT NO. 81A0622 i NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES I?J PAGE 9 OF 48 l
f j 2.4 DELAYED REMOVAL / DISMANTLING 2.4.1 Safe Storage Entombment j i :
The reactor would first be entombed at shutdown as described in Section 2.3.
1 j
! 2.4.2 Dormancy A dormancy period of 30 years would allow the contamination in reactor auxiliary I
systems to decay to lower (although still radioactive) levels, and would permit celayed dismantling at reduced occupational exposure. In addition, a recent
(~ decommissioning study prepared by Battelle Pacific Northwest Labs as reported in NUREG/CP-0008 (" Boiling Water Reactor," by Richard I. Smith, p.137 Ref.13)
,. states the volume of radioactive waste for burial is essentially unchanged af ter approximately 30 years of dormancy. This study implies that a facility would have to be entombed for approximately 50 years for any significant reduction in waste volume or disposal costs to be realized. Dismantling of the reactor vessel and I
internals af ter 30 years of dormancy trust still be performed using sophisticated
( remote tooling. None of the contaminated systems would decay during a 30 year dormancy to 0.4 mR/hr* at I cm exposure rate (selected as criterion for
, . unrestricted use or access based on the precedent set for earlier decommissioning j programs and used as the criterion in the AIF Study). It should be ncted that the NRC recently proposed a guideline for unrestricted release of decommissioned
,' facilities of 5 mrem / year absorbed dose to any individual. NUREG/CP-0008, page 273 explains that this dose assumes an individual resides in the facility three years 7
af ter facility decommissioning for 2000 hours0.0231 days <br />0.556 hours <br />0.00331 weeks <br />7.61e-4 months <br /> per year in an average field of 0.005 t mR/hr (one-half natural background). This level of radioactivity begins to approach the lower limits of detectability (0.0025 - 0.005 mR/hr). The 0.4 mR/hr I
at I cm assumed in this study for calculational purposes, is measured at the component. If the 0.4 mR/hr at I cm is applied to the same pathways analysis used for the NRC guideline of 5 mrem / year, the annual exposure rate would be lower L than 5 mrem / year. Exposure rate is approximately inversely proportional to distance for large components, and
- For the purpose of this discussion, I mR/hr exposure rate is approximately equal to I mrem /hr absorbed dose rate.
t i
sopma e NES 206 Sn* ,
l l
l l
DOCUMENT NO. 81 A0622 l NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES.IN PAGE 10 op 43 i
( inversely proportional to distance squared for small components. At a habitable I distance of 100 cm from the component, the field would be at least two orders of
- magnitude lower (0.004 mR/hr) than at I cm. Therefore the 0.4 mR/hr at I cm
(
assumed in the study is approximately the same as the proposed NRC guideline. If an additional three years decay were allowed prior to occupancy (as in the NRC
[~ analysis), the 2000 hr/ year dose would be approximately 4 mrem / year.
e A dormancy period of 52 years would allow the highest level contaminated system (the reactor water cleanup system) to decay to unrestricted access ievels (0.4 mR/hr at I cm). All other contaminated systems are assumed to have decayed to r
unrestricted access levels at this time. Dismantling of the reactor vessel and internals must still be performed by remote tooling.
[' i 1
A dormancy period of approximately 100 years is estimated to provide sufficient time for the radioactive vessel internals to decay to levels low enough to permit 7
l
( manual removal. Specifically, the most nighly activated top guide would decay to a contact exposure rate of approximately 300 mR/hr (exclusive of Ni-59 (approxi-mately 30 mR/hr); and niobium 94, which may not be present). This reduced radiation level would eliminate the need for special remote-operated underwater
(' cutting tools, necessary for dismantling r.t reactor shutdown, to segment and i/ remove internals and vessel segments. Local supplementary shielding may be 7
required for removal of vessel internals. A 100 year dormancy period is estimated to be sufficient to allow contamination in reactor auxiliary systems (primarily cobalt 60) to decay to unrestricted access levels (0.4mR/hr at I cm). The decay I process would eliminate the need for decontamination of any systems.
L.
p For safe storage entombrnent there would be no need for a full-time physical m su-curity guard force during the dormancy period, since all radioactive material is contained within the entombment barrier. For the purpose of this study, it is f'
considered that periodic inspections would be made in accordance with USNRC
~
Regulatory Guide 1.36 (Ref.11) as described below.
(
1 e
, 80fw e NES205 5/79
DOCUMENT NO. _f! A0622 I NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES. IN PAGE II 0F 48 i
i' A dormancy pe-lod would require monitoring or intrusion and radiation detectors.
The alarms for these detectors would be installed in either an adjacent manned utility-owned facility, or in local law enforcement agency facilities. These monitors must be inspected and maintained periodically.
I The plant buildings and grounds must be maintained to ensure the integrity of the perimeter fence and access doors to the plant buildings. These physical barriers would be inspected quarterly in accordance with USNRC Regulatory Guide 1.36.
I A facility radiation survey would be performed at least quarterly to verify that radioactive materials were being contained within the' entombment barriers.
1 i An environmental radiation survey would be performed at least semiannually to verify compliance with all environmental protective requirements.
(
2.4.3 Delayed Removal / Dismantling l At the end of a dormancy period, the d.ismantling and removal phase of the decommissioning program would be initiated. In general, all remaining radioactive r structures, systems and components would be removed and shipped to controlled burial sites. The remaining non-radioactive systems and components would be removed and scrapped. All structures would be demolished to a level of 3 feet below grade and non-contaminated concrete would be used on-site for fill. The disposition of specific structures, systems and components are discussed below.
F~
(. Access barriers installed or constructed for the entombment alternative must be removed. The concrete entombment barrier over the vessel, fuel pool and service f.
pool must be dismantled by controlled blasting.
!~
All non-contaminated piping, valves, pumps and electrical equipment would be removed from the reactor building and either salvaged or sold for scrap. The r overhead crane would be the last piece of equipment to be dismantled within the
_ reactor building. The structural steel top of the reactor building would be removed by wrecking ball, torch cutting, and mechanical disassembly. The remaining concrete would be removed by controlled blasting.
s 8 0 8u e w t3 2CS S/M
OCWEU NO. M AM I NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICE 9;!NC. PAGE 12 op 48 i
f, Concurrent with removal of the components in the reactor building, systems non-essential to the dismantling activities may be removed from the control, radwaste, 1
recombiner, gas storage and turbine buildings. Circulating water pumps, tuks and piping would be removed and scrapped. The systems essential to disman+. ling (and which have been maintained during dormancy) such as lighting and ventilation l would be secured and removed from each building when they are no longer required
, to support dismantling. Structural steel would be cut into shippable lengths and sold for scrap. Concrete floors, walls and roofs would be removed and used as fill for the building cavities below grade level. Local sand or soil may be used to fill i the remaining foundation cavities to grade level. The site would be graded as required to conform to the surrounding site contour, l
A final radiation survey would be performed to ensure there is no radiation in excess of unrestricted access levels. Upon approval of the final survey, the
[
USNRC would terminate .he possession-only license and , return the site to unrestricted use.
(
(
i e
('
(
(
L t
( .
V L
i l
PCap e NES 236 b?*
DOCUMENT NO. 81 A0622 NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES. INC.
PAGE I3 OF 48
(
~
- 3. COST ESTIMATES The basis for the cost estimates was the AIF/NESP-009 study report, "An Engineering Evaluation of Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Alternatives" by W.3. Manion and F T.S. LaGuardia (Ref.1). The cost estimates are summarized on Table 3.1. The assumptions made concerning the size of Monticello relative to the AIF study reference plant, labor c rates in Monticello, Minnesota, shipping distance for waste disposal, cost impacts af ter a 100 year dormancy period, and insurance provisions are listed in Table 3.2. The unit cost f actors used in the estimate for the Me,nticello plant are in 1979 dollars and are adjusted to reflect the labor cost in the vicinity of the plant. A list of the cost factors used in this study is shown on Table 3.3.
e 3.1 PRIMARY DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES The cost estimates for the primary decommissioning alternctive of Prompt Removal / Dis-maatling and Safe Storage Entombment are summarized in Table 3.1,.with and without a 25% contingency. The costs for each major activity are presented in Tables 3.4 and 3.5.
Table 3.6 lists the notes referenced in the cost tables to explain key elements of specific 5
work activities.
f
, 3.2 COMBINATION A1.TERNATIVE The cost estimate for the Safe Storage Entombment-Delayed Removal / Dismantling combin-ation decommissioning mode is shown graphically in Figure 3. It is also summarized in Table
. 3.1 (with and without contingency). Dismantling after 30 year and 52 year dormancy periods
( are discussed generally in the following section. Dismantling cost advantages and estimated L costs following 100 years of dormancy are discussed in detail, i*
3.2.1 Safe Storage Entombment-Delayed Removal / Dismantling The curves plotted on Figure 3 graphically represent the costs of various decommissioning alternatives at any point in time. Figure 3 is usefulin represent-ing the times at which reductions in decommissioning costs occur due to technical f simplification. The most significant cost reduction breakpoint at 100 years has L been calculated and plotted on Figure 3. Cost reductions at 30 years and 52 years have not been ca'culated for this report, but their approximate magnitudes are generally discussed in the following paragraphs.
eC an* **st5 208 t/79
\
DOCUMENT NO. 31A0622 l NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES,INC. PAGE I4 OF 48
, Safe storage entombment with a 30 year dormancy period prior to removal-
, disrrantling does not provide a decommissioning cost advantage from decay of radionuclide inventory. Radiation levels on reactor piping and components would be too high at plant shutdown to decay during the 30 year dormancy to the assumed i
unrestricted release criteria of 0.4 mR/hr at I cm. None of the contaminated systems would decay to unrestricted access levels and would therefore require shipping to and burial at a controlled burial site with the associated undistributed I overhead costs. Accordingly, there would be no significant dismantling cast reductions from delaying dismantling for 30 years. The 30-year delayed _dismantl-ing costs would be greater than the prompt dismantling cost (in 1979 dollars) ;
r because of the annual maintenance and surveillance cost of $94,400 for 30 years, !
\ ana the additional expense of entombing the facility at shutdown.
( The first removal-dismantling cost reduction (not calculated for this report and, therefore, not shown on Figure 3)is expected to occur at 52 years based on the AIF study results when the system with the highest contamination level decays to assumed unrestricted access levels (0.4 mR/hr at 1 cm) and does not have to be decontaminated, shipped and buried. The cor trolling Monticello system in this case t is the reactor coolant recirculating system which has an estimated in'tial contact surface exposure rate of 385 mR/hr primarily from Cobalt-60 contamination. It takes 52 years for the Cobalt-60 in this system to decay to 0.4 mR/hr, at which time a dismantling cost reduction is possible. This reduction results from the I
reduction of decontamination, shipping and burir.1 costs, and from simplified concrete removal using conventional removal techniques at a lower crst ($95/yd p- ve $.'55/yM). These reductions are associated with critical path activities, and
( .ccordingly reduced period dependent undistributed costs are also included.
I" The second removal / dismantling cost reductica occurs at approximately 100 years.
The 100 year cost reduction is estimated to be approximately a factor of 3 larger )
F than the 32 year cost reduction discussed above. At this time, costs change due to l
( the simplified removal of the vessel and internals and reduced burial and shipping -l l
{ costs. Simplified removal is possible because the most radioactive internals (top '
guide) would have; decayed to a contact dose rate of approximately 300 mR/hr*.
+ Arbitrarily selected as the criteria for which manual removal is considered feasible.
t 80mga e sets 20s 3/79
.. O w
l l
l l
1 DOCUMENT NO. SIA0622 l NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES,INC. PAGE 15 op 48 The following items would decrease in cost as a result of approximately 100 years Co-60 decay:
Cost Decrease item (without contingency) )
l
- l. Vessel remote tooling $ 837,600.00 t
- 2. Internals cutting (includes $ 3,547,200.00
,- shipping, burial)
- 3. Vessel cutting (includes $ 291,400.00
shipping, burial)
- 4. Decontamination $ 561,200.00
- 5. Contaminated concrete removal $ 524,400.00
- 6. Shipping (piping, compenents $ 3,585,100.00
( structures)
- 7. Burial (piping, components, $ 3,595,200.00 structures) .
- 8. Undistributed costs $ 5,306,600.00 TOTA 1. DECREASE $18,248,400.00 f
This reduces dismantling costs (immediately f allowing entombment) from $48.4* million to
$25.6** million (af ter 100 years decay). Tne total cost for Safe Storage Entombment-i Delayed Removal / Dismantling af ter 100 years of dormancy is $49.6 million in 1979 dollars L (including a 25% contingency).
- This is calculated (including 25% contingency) as follows (see page 16 for definitions of
. component numbers): 48,458,800 = (43,687,300 - 4,153,300 - 809,900 + 42,900XI.25)
- This number is calculated (including 25% contingency) as follows (see page 16 for definitions of component numbers):
m 25,648,300 = (43,687,300 - 4,:.53,300 - 809,900 + 42,900 - 18,248,400)(1.25)
S 80mw s was gas sng
DOCUMENT NO. 81A0622 I NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES,INC. PAGE 16 op 48 1
The calculation used to determine costs of safe storage entombment-delayed dismantling f
(af ter 100 years of dormancy)is shown below:
t 1. Cost to entomb the plant at shutdown (from Table 3.5) +11,638,500.00*
r
', 2. olus 100 years of dormancy costs (from Table 3.5) +7,550,000.00* *
- 3. Plus delayed dismantling cost (which is calculated as follows from -
numbers in Tables 3.4,3.5 and page 15):
Prompt removal dismantling estimated I. cost +43,687,300.00 r - Minus prompt removal / dismantling pre-decommissioning -4,153,300.00
(
- Minus dismantling cost of items removed
- to accomplish safe storage entombment -809,900.00 -
4,
- Plus cost to remove concrete constructed
- lish entombment +42,900.00 (452 ydto #
- x accopp$95/yd
= $42,900) s Minus dismantling cost reductions due r- to 100 years of dormancy -18,248,400.00 DELAYED DISMANTLING COST $20,518,600.00 +20,518,600.00*++
$39,707,100.00 25% for Contingency +9,926,900.00 i $49,634,000.00 t
I
- Entombment cost with 25% contingency = $14,548,000.00 w ..
- . Dormancy cost with 25% contingency = $ 9,437,500.00
- Delayed dismantling cost with 25% contingency = $25,648,300.00 g
L I
l 8opM e NES 206 $/79
1 1
= . l l
l DOCUMENT NO. SIA0622 l NUCLEAR ENERGY SFRVICES. IN PAGE 17 OF 'd i
The calculation just performed can be carrin.3 out to give an approximate cost of safe l storage entombment-delayed dismantling after 30 years of dormancy as shown below:
l
- 1. Cost to entomb the plant at shutdown I (from Table 3.5) $11,638,500.00 l l
- 2. Plus 30 years of dormancy costs (from Table 3.5) 2,265,000.00
' I
- 3. Plus delayed dismantling cost (which is calculated as follows -
from numbers in Tables 3.4 and 3.5): )
Prompt removal dismantling estimated x:ost +43,687,300.00 F -
Minus prompt removal / dismantling
(
predecommissioning -4,153,300.00
- Minus dismantling cost of items f
removed to accomplish safe storage
( entombment -809,900.00 '
i
- Plus cost to remove cencrete construgted to acgomplish entombment +42,900.00 (452 yd x $95/yd = 542,900)
~
Minus dismantling cost reduction
'. due to 30 years of dormancy = 0.00+
f Delayed Dismantling Cost $3*,767,000.00 38,767,000.00**
l-
$52,670,500.00 Plus 25% for contingency +13,167,600.00 t $65,838,100.00 t This 30 year delayed dismantling calculation assumes that there will be no dismantling cost
[ reduction due to 30 years of dormancy. Actually, the dismantling cost reduction after 30 years of dormancy will be greater than zero by some number which is relatively small 7
( compared to the total cost of this decommissioning combination (see page 14 for more details).
?
- The precise calculation at the 30 year cost reduction was not performed for this report.
- Approximate delayed dismantling cost with 25% contingency = $48,458,300.
t 20mu a NES 200 $/79
e DOCUMENT NO. SI A0622 i NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES. IN PAGE 18 OF 48 f*
. TABLE 3.1
SUMMARY
OF MONTICELLO DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATES
- t r
(
Description Estimated Cost 25% Contingency Total Cost r-Prompt Removal / Dismantling $43,637,300.00 $10,921,700.00 $34,60'9,000.00 (from Table 3.4) r
(
Entombment 11,638,500.00 2,909,300.00 14,548,000.00 r- (from Table 3.5) t Dormancy af ter Entombment 75,500.00 18,900.00 94,400.00 f per Year (from Table 3.5)
(
Entombment / Dismantling 39,707,100.00 9,926,900.00 49,634,000.00 After 100 Years Delay
'- (per calc. on p.16) r r
('
- Costs are in 1979 dollars; assumptions and bases of estimate are listed on Table 3.2 r
- i. -
f l
l l i 1
t u r
4 8099
- NE S 205 Si?' ,
! .~ , s --
s, p-, m g .
.~ , , , ,- . - , . . , ,
=
h
= NOTES ,
gg O 1) Costs shown are in 1979 dollars and include 25s contingency mC "O
3
~
- 2) The " Delayed Removal / Dismantling" curve di ff ers f rom the prompt itemoval/
Dismantling cost total of table 3.1 because of adjustments made to eliminate duplicated pre-decommissioning and c<1uipment, removal costs and to account for g :D remova? of the entombment barriers when dismantling follows safe storage gg entombment (see calculations on pg.16 for details) . gm
- D D
m m
Safe storage entonaxnent & delayed removal / dismantling 72.4 y 70 - - I
~
f 60 - O
^ *n d --
49.6 m w
" # * ! "*'" "9 50 -
0 '*-- 4 0. 4 Delayed removal-dismantling d 4g,4[ )i m
g P Cost reduction due to 40 -
j 100-year delay in a dismantling 30 - l 25.6
- s. 4 -> 8 20 -
14.5 Safe storage Entombment & Maintenance *z 10 - -
km V
g, o l l l l l B l lWh 20 40 60 00 100 120 140 l" TIME (years)
SAFE S'IORAGE ENTOMBMENT- g DELAYED REMOVAL / DISMANTLING CONDINATION ?
DOCUMENT NO SIA0622 I NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES. IN PAGE M OF M TABLE 3.2
,_ ASSUMPTIONS USED IN DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE 1 FOR MONTICELLO NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT l
r 1. Plant piping and component quantities are approximately the same as the reference BWR plant in the AIF Study. Adjustments for volumes of concrete and steel were made per data and drawings of the Monticello Plant.
[' 2. Contract labor costs were estimated from rates provided by Northern States Power .
Company for Minnesota (St. Cloud region). - 1 7
- 3. Consultant rates were estimated at $45/hr (vs $30/hr in the AIF study).
! 4. Salaried employee and craft labor rates used in the study were increased by 27% over those used in the AIF Study (to account for escalation from 1975 to 1979 and regional
[ variation).
- 5. Raw material and capital equipment costs were increased by 69% and 38% respective-7 ly, over those used in the AIF Study (for escalation and regional variation).
l i
- 6. All costs shown are in 1979 dollars.
I' 7. Shipping costs were based on a 1487 mile trip to the Hanford, WA burial grounds (one
( way). The Hanford f acility was used as the basis for burial costs.
- 8. No decontamination wov'd be required during dismantling after a 100 year dormancy i period. !
l
- 9. Disposal of the reactor vessel and internals after a 100 year dormancy period would l still require controlled burial as either low specific activity (LSA) or large quantity i' radioactive material. Estimated cost for burial of the vessel and internals after 100 years decay is approximately 10% of the cost to bury these components if dismantled at shutdown.
i l s 10. Contaminated piping and components would decay to unrestricted access levels durmg a 100 year dormancy period. l r '
- 11. Propecty insurance during decommissioning includes liability for equipment and plant terap value during decommissioning. Following decommissionir.g, no property insur-ar.ce is carried. Builders risk insurance is included in subcontract labor costs.
- 12. Scrap value credit (based on value of metal being melted down and reused) is included in the cost estimate calculations. Scrap value of non-contaminated metal is considered to cancel the cost for its rernoval from on-site laydown areas by decommissioning contractors.
u
~
No equipment salvage value (based on resale as used equipment) is considered in the j estimates since salvage values can not be predicted with reasonable accuracy. This !
, assumption is conservative.
i sC W e Nf3 206 5/79
~-
i l
l
~
DOCUMENT NO. 81A0622 NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES. INC.
PAGE 21 op 48
- 13. The costs shown in Table 3.4 are based on segmenting the reactor vessel and internals f.
into the maximum size that can be shipped without exceeding roadweight limits for a loaded tractor trailer (includes payload, shielding, cask and tie-downs) and the 60,000 F curie per shipment burial limit at the Hanford burial site.
(
- 14. It is assumed that the intake and discharge canals are graded level with the
,- surrounding area. If fill is trucked in from off-site, this would result in an additional t removal cost of $500,700.00.
i
" 15. The costs of all required safety analyses and safety measures for the protection of the
,~
general public, the environment, and decommissioning workers (as presently _ identified by NRC Regulatory Guide 1.86) are included in all of the cost estimates, i'
( The costs for compliance with all applicable regulatory requirements are also included in these estimates. The applicable regulatory requirements are:
r 10 CFR 20 " Standards for Protection Against Radiation".
[ 10 CFR 30 " Rules of General Applicability to Licensing of Byproducts Materials".
10 CFR 40," Licensing of Source Material".
[
t 10 CFR 50," Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities".
10 CFR 51," Licensing and Regulatory Policy and Procedures for Environmental Protection".
10 CFR 70," Domestic Licensing of Special Nuclear Material".
29 CFR 1910," Occupational Safety and Health Standards".
[- 49 CFR 170-189," Department of Transportation Regulations Governing the Transport of Hazardous Materials.
(~
L F
L L
F L
L I
L t
e 80RM
- 8vt3 206 S/79
I \
p* \
e q+)%+ ,$r.4h
'\\\\ IMAGE EVALUATION '! NNNN TEST TARGET (MT-3) f I.0 l$E8B1 5
l# m EE m
l,l h, hN '
'8
.' l.25 '
1.4 l 1.6 , ,
- l. ,
s.i :
- l 1
6" MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART l
- ///// l / , + ,
- ll// 1 D/' -
44/% 4
'S 4[96'
$7777, ; .
3 tk%8; 4y i n k . _ _ __m_m. _m ,_1._m _m_ _
l y
m- --
s ,
3 ,
3
\ '\
s*t%,, s V
A
. NV//
l MAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3)
$<4l ;i ll (
i 1.0 l}Nm ll 15 m u Ua Willag
"' \'
l.8
'I.25 1.4 i.6 -,
l 8 .
MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CF.d:.i -
\
t
, gyp$fff i
/fA' fff4g
- Wpii h '4%f 8y
<;^ . : j i L - - -.. .= s ,_ L ,_ .
NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. DOCUMENT NO.
22 48 PAGE OF I
(
TABLE 3.3 COST FACTOR SQ01ARY r
i Reactor Vessel Removals Cost Factor Remote Arc Saw Cutting 2
" thin" S19/ inch cut t steel sections (0-2")
( -
Ramote are Saw Cutting " thick" S11/ inch 2 cut I steel sections (2"+)
Remote Removal of Items With $590/ bolt Tack Welded Bolts Manual Flame Cutting 0-2" Steel SO.34/ inch cut Sections Demolition of site Sim2ctures p Heavily Reinforced Activated / S355/yd 3 I Contam4nated concrete Heavy Fotmaations $538/yd3 3
Con +=4n= ant Structure & Other Heavily S95/yd Reinforced Seismically Designed Concrete j- Structures l Scarfing of C7ncrete Floors and Walls $5/ft2 I' Heavily Reinforced Non-Seismically 532/yd 3 b Designed Concrete
~
Concrete Buildings (non-seismic: ecemon S13/yd 3 g g g) ecumercial constructions lightly reinforced) .
Concrete Block Sl.08/ft 2 gfy,,, ,r,,)
u b
i L.
i L
i 8Cmu e NES 20E am
DOCUMENT NO.
NUCLEAR ENERGY SEF OES. INC.
23 48 PAGE nF 4
TABI.E 3.3 (CO!C 'D)
COST FACTOR
SUMMARY
I_
Demolition of Site Structures (cont'd) : Cost Factor
['~
i Concreta Wall's (not reinforced) 10.21/ft3 Structural Steel $97/ ten sted Buildings (non-seismic, cczunon Sil.14/yd3 (of b1dg. vol.)
m-cial construdtion)
Built Up Roofing $48/1000 ft 2 r Comoonent Removals j
t Set Up for Removal of PWR Steam N/A t[ ' Generator 1
PWR Steam Generator N/A F Pipe 0-6* ,( Saw"ing) $69/ cut l
Pipe 6" + (Torch Cutting) S129/ cut i
( Valves fo* + (Terch Cutting) $63/ cut Pumps 0-300 pounds $109/ pump
{
-Pumps 300-5000 pounds $229/pu=p Pumps 5000.+ pounds S1910/ pump Heat F.xchangers 0-3000 pounds $327/ exchanger f' 5980/ exchanger Heat Exchangers 3000 + pounds
. Filters $207/ filter 4
$207/ ion exchanger L. Ion Exchangers
" Tanks'0-1000 gailens $207/ tank Tanks 1000-10,000 gallons 3322/ tank
(. "'anks 10,000 + gallens S.SS/ inch cut i_
now .wes ses sm 3
DOCUMENT NO. 81W22 NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
24 48
- PAGE np TABLE 7. ? (CON
- D)
'CCST FACIOR SIDOCdtY l_
Ccznoonent Removal (cont' d) : Cost Factg
- ~
I Electrical Consoles, Pane 1s and $97/ item
{ Components O-300 pounds
- Electrical Consoles, Panels and $202/ item Components 300-1000 Electrical Consoles, Panels 'and $299/ item
" Components ,'1000 + potinda Cable Trays $34/ cut j l
Conduit $64/100 ft.
Feedwater Heaters $1212/ heater Misc. Process Equipment 0-300 $109/ea. item ,
I.
~ pounds Misc. Process Equipment $229/ item f
{' 300-5000 pounds Kisc. Process Equipment 5000 + pounds $1910/iten l L '
Shipeinq of Wasta Materials (to Hanford, WA)1 One Way Trip by Truck (0-45,000 lb. payload $1963/ trip two drivers, LSA material)
~
Round Trip by Truck (0-45,000 lb. payload $3658/ trip
_ Two drivers: LSA material) r- Round Trip by Truck'. (50,000 lb.' - 70,000 lb. 37198ftrip payloads cask shipment, thro drivers: includes l- overweight permits)
[ . Cask Rental (7 days). S875/ shipment L
Rail Shipping (one Way) $8.50/(100 lb.)
I .
[ Steel Liner (and containar) Fa$rication $216/(100 lb.)
(includes labor and materials)
I Lead and Steel Linar, Fabrication 3141/(100 lb.}
L (1:nciodes taber and materiais) .
I L
r *1\
t ponu. ss2:ssne
- DOCUMENT NO. .81A0622 NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES. INC.
PAGE OF TABLE 3.3 (CONT'D)
COSI FACM R
SUMMARY
~
Shipping of waste Materials (Cot 'd) Ccst Factor Wooden Box'es:
4' x 4' x 8' $169/ea.
6' x 8' x 12' $393/ea.
, 8' x 8' x 12' $520/eas
._ .6' x 8' x 24' 3822/ea.
8' x 8'-x 24' $906/ea. .
l 12' x 12' x 24' $1531/ea. :
Burial (At Hanford, MA.) j General Sulk Buria"L Rate , $4.75/ft3 Weight Surcharge (10,000 lb. and greater) S50 + S.01 (weight ib. over 10,000 lb.)
Curie Surcharge (for 100 or more C1) 3375 +3.05 (Ci over C1 300 C1)
Cask HanM14ng (min.) $250/ cask D'e'conenmination & Wasta Processings Tanks and Large Internal volume S4.50/ft 2 C & nts Hock-Up Decontamination Rig $179/ hook-up i
. Surface Wipedown $1.34/ft 2 l Decontamination Finshing Rig $55,100/ea.
1
. Evaporation 4 SolidficAtion of liW S.22/ gal.
Wastas lusing 42 fuel oil & cement)
L 8
~
PomM e sets 2m 8/79
8 0622 NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES,INC. DOCUMENT NO.
26 48 PAGE OF TABLE 3.3 (CONT'D)
COST FACTOR
SUMMARY
Miscellaneous Activities Vacuum Crying $1133/ vacuum pump rsed 3ack Filling S.90/yd 3 Grading $1.48/yd 3 Landscaping 5765/ acre l
l 9
6
~
eosu e ses zes sin
NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. wecNI NU. U'"-*
48 PAGE OF _
TABLE 3.4 COST SIM'.AP2 FOR PROPJT RI.% OVAL /
DISMANTLING CF MONTIFFf.TA DECCN-TAMINATION FIMOVAL SHIPPINO BURIAL TO*AL MAJOR ACTIVITY NE Pre-decommissionine Period
- 1. Remove fuel and in-core source material.
__ 2. Clean plant areas a and process all liquid and solid wastes.
55,100 3. Review p1' ant draw-ings.
22,800 4. Perform detailed radiation survey.
8,40 5. Estimate residual by-product inven-tory 22,500 6. Prepare and submit possession-only
- license application with revised tech-nical specifica-
- dons.
5,400 - 7. Prepare end product discription.
31,800 8. Perform detailed calculations of by-product inven-tory 7,200 9. Define major se-r quence of work activities.
16,200
- r. 10. Perform safety
, analysis of the a dismantling oper-a* dons 1~
m
- m P
l FomW e NES 208 LM
r NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. DOCUMENT NO. BlAo622
~
28 46 PAGE OF TABLE 3.4 COST
SUMMARY
.FOR PROMPT REMOVAL /
DISMANTLING OF MONTICELID DECON-TAMINATION REMOVAL SRIPPING BURIAL TOTAL FATOR ACTIVITY NOTES r.
11,300 11. ge go ment plan to NRC for approval r
1,800 12. Receive possession erily license -
deactivate reactor
't, i=plement revised technical- specifica-tions
- 13. Receive dismantle-
, ment order; ecm:mence dismantling removal program 182,500 Sub-Total Pre-Decommis-
. sioning work activities Undistributed costs, Removal / Dismantling ,
1 17,300 Project Management 17,300 Engineering QA s
3,814,700 Utility staff during b
, Pre-Decommissioning period
. 121,500 Decrwnnissiong staff c start up ,
' 3,970,800 Sub-Total Undistributed costs
(. 4,153,300 Total Pre-Decommission-ing Period Cost r-y Decomissionine Period
(, 1,088,600 14. Prepare act m ty specifications for l
.- dismantling U 21,600 15. Prepare integrated dismantlement se-quence.
s 1
DO M EM NO. NM
- NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
J '
29 48 u J . PAGE OF TABLE 3.4 I COST
SUMMARY
FOR PROMPT REMOVAL /
4 DISMANTLING OF MONTICELLO DECON-
'(- TAMINATION RENW SHIPPING BURIAL hT.S TOTAL MA2,OR ACTIVITY
- 16. Perform plant 310,700 Ireparation and construct temporary facilities 9,000 17. Design temporary liquid waste clean up system 1,047,000 18. Design' t, procure cutting squipment for vessel and r
internals removal 115,500 19. Procure contamin-
, ation control enve-lope and special equipment
( --
9,000 20. Obtain contracts for cask liners and shipping containers i "'29,400 21. Prepare detailed I
work procedures for dismantling
[ activities 1
35,200 22. Install tempora."f
,r liquid waste
{/ cleanup system 148,000 1,855,800 1,789,600 2,290,400 6,133,800 23. Remove and dispose *
! of non-essential s systems
'~
1,600 2,200 8,700 11,400 23,900 24. Decentaminate, cut, ship, and bury dry b well head 1,400 1,400 25. Decentaminate expos-b ed surfaces of i
. reactor vessel head I
- 1. 2,300 196,100 17,400 215,800 26. Cut, load, ship,,and
. hury the reactor vessel head
~
romme e N8s 206 Sf7e e- - - - -
y
DOCUMENT NO. sla0622 NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
o 8 PAGE CF TABLE .3. 4 COST
SUMMARY
FOR PROMPT F.EMOVA!/
DISMANTLING CF MONTICELI4 DECON-TAMINATION REMOVAL SHIPPING BURIAL PJ 'AL PA70R ACTIVI"Y NOTES 429,600 2,603,200 865,100 3,897,900 27. Cut, ship, and burf vessel internals
,612,800 921,700 70,500 1,605,000 28. Cut, ship, and bury v
reactor vessel 230,500 1,564,700 371,500 651,000 2,817,700 29. Drain, decennminate f
, r'emove, and dispose of essential syste=s i .
184,500 31,000 41,000 306,500 30. Remove reactor r- shield wall t'
6,300 31. 'Perfor= radiation survey 120,100 195,300 315,700 32. Remove drfwell
& pool liner steel, i
k '
9,300 4,700 14,000 33. Remove reactor ~
. building cranes
! 92,800 92,800 34. Remove reactor l building structural
,. steel 1,882,600 1,313,700 571,200 3,767,500 l f 35. Remove reactor and auxiliarf building
[^ concrete walls &
(/ floors
- 36. Remove r maining buildings b '
713,400 713,400 a. Curbine buildiag k- 324,800 20,600 30,200 -
375,600 lding 13,900 13,900 c. HPCI building 68,200 68,200 d. Standby Diesel
.- Generator Buildir g 1
1 75,200 75,200 e. Control and '
Administration 67,100 67,100 f. Intake and dis-charge structure:
sonu
- NEs 205 S/79
DOCUMENT NO. 81A0622 NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
31 48 PAGE nF ..
4 TABLE 3.4
, COST
SUMMARY
FCR PROMPT REMCVAL/ .
DISMANTLING OF MONTICELLO DECON-TAINATION REMOVAL SHIPPING . BURIAL TUI*AL _
MAJOR ACTIVITY %OTES 150,300 150,300 - g. Cooling towers 157,000 157,000 h. Cooling tower tunnels i
189,800 189,800 1. Intake and Dis-charge Canals 106,800 196,800 j. Misc. Structures g F
6,300 37. Perform a final radiation survey 117,400 117,400 38. Backfill building foundations 9,400 39. Grade and land-I~ . scape site k .
27,000 40. Prepare and submit a final dismantling program report and request termination of the possession-only license includ- !
ing survey results. ;
r 1,800 41. ' Terminate possess-ion-only license L and return site to unrestricted use.
I m
561',200 8,901,200 7,306,100 4,548,200 24,793,500 Sub-Total Removal / Dis-mantling Work Activities l
Removal / Dismantling
- ( Undistributed Costs:
j 414,700 258,000 706,500 Process liquid waste gen- 1 erated by decontamination h
- , 8,810,200' Dece=missioning staff d (through Activitj'31) i l i. l l 619,200 Deco =missioning staff d l (after Activity 31)
'69,100 Health Physics Supplies 72,200 recontamination Rig and supplies oc % e was os wts I
= 1
-- l
.i NUCt.E.AR ENERGY SERVCES, INC. DOCUMENT NO. a 12 Y "
32 48
, PAGE nF ,
TABLE 3.4 I.
COST
SUMMARY
FOR PRCMPT REMOVAL /
DISMANTLING CF MONTICELLO DECON-TAMINATION REMOVAL SHIPPING . BURIAL TCmd, MAJOR AC"fIVITY 'E m 1,033,600 Heavy Equipment 1
6,000 Equipment for pipe (i cutting I.
457,200 Security Force 73,700 Nuclear Insurance 864,000 Engineering Consultants
(
1,559,700 Project Administration
' & Engineering QA ,
F 414,700 258,000 14,710,500 Sub-Total Undistributed costs:
(
561,200 8,901,200 7,720,800 ;,806,200 43,687,300 Total Estimated Decom-r missioning Costs:
Removal / Dismantling.
( 54,609,000 Total Decommissioning l
( Costs (including 25% l contingency): Removal /
.. Dismantling.
i L
u L
~
h; nonu e uns toe ane
_j
gy 81A0622 NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. DOCUMENT NO. ,
33 48 I PAGE nF ,
1 TABLE 3.5 g COST
SUMMARY
FOR SAFE STORAGE ENTOMB E."T OF MONTICELLO
<' DECON-TAMINATION REMOVr'd, SHIPPING BURIAL TOTAL MAJOR ACTIVITY 'UO'"F.S Pre-decommissioninc period
-- 1. Remove fuel and a i
incore source material
-- 2. Clean plant areas a )
and process all
]
(
liquid and solid wastes _
I 55,100 3. Review plant drawings r-22,800 4. Perform detail radiation survey - l r
g 8,400 5. Estimate residual by-product inventory I
f' 22,500 6. Prepare and submit l t possession-enly license application
, with revised tech-I nical specifications :
1.- 1 5,400 7. Prepare end product I
description i
I 31,800 8. Perform detailed
' calculations c' by-product inventory
. 5,400 9. Define major sequence i
I of work activities 16,200 10. Perform safety anal- ,
[- ysis of the entomb- '
I ment operations l L i 118,80.0 11. Prepare a safety
['
analysis of the end ;
{_ ' product, including '
seismic analysis I
9,000 L2. Prnpare and submit
(
Safe Storage Entemb- 1
~
ment Plan to NRC fcr i
, approval.
(
i POmu e asEs 208 G/78 i
I i
NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. DOCWEMO.
W 34 48 j PAGE nF ,
3 TABLE 3.5.
' COST
SUMMARY
FOR SAFE STORAGE EN'ICMBFINT
- OF MONTICEI.LO
/ DECON-TAMINATION REMOVAL SHIPPING BURIAL 'NYfAL MAJOR ACTIVITY 3E 1,800 13. Receive possession i
' only license; de-activate reactor:
implement revised
[ technical specifica-s tions. NRC review of Safe Storage En-
[ tombment Plan and issue of Safe Storage Entombment Order.
297,200 SUB-TOTAL PRE-DECOMMIS-SIONING WORK ACTIVITIES', ,
SAFE S'ICRAGE ENTOMBMENT I UNDISTRIBUTED COSTS, t ENTOMBMENT r
25,800 Project Management t 25,800 Engineering Quality .
Assurance i I 3,814,700 Utility Staff b i 1 I 121,500 Decommissioning e r- Staff Startup 3,987,800 SUB-TCTAL UNDISTRIBUTED l 4
COSTS I
1
- . 4,285,000-TCTAL PPE-DECOMMISSIONING PERIOD COST, SAFE STORAGE EN'IUMBMENT 144,000 Mccmissionine Period
- 14. Prepara activity
(~ .
~
specifications *for I
entombment
(.
16,200
. 15. Prepare integrated I safe storage entomb-86.,400 **" * * *" *
- 16. Prepare detailec work j
procedures for safe
- storage entombment
. cperations
. 9,000 17. Procure equipment
. . . for vacuum drying of resetur vessel
- l l
Pow e Mas 2cs w7e
W
- DOCUMENT NO* 81A0622 NUCt. EAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. ~
'$ 35 48
] PAGE np TABLE 3.5 CCST St".O!ARY FOR SAFE STORAGE ENTCM3 MENT
' CF MCNTICELLO
, DECON-TAMINATION REMOV'J.,
, SHIPPINO . BURIAL ':OTAL MAJOR ACTIVITY , NOTE!
5,800 18. Procure cask & con-tainer linings; obtair shipping cask con-tainer pezmits.
-- 19. Drain, de-energi- a and secure non-contaminated systems._*
- 20. Drain reactor vessel a r
. =
}
809,900' 21. Drain, decontaminate, de-energize and -
secure or remove the con taminated systems.
(
6,400 2'2. Prepare lighting,
( fire protection,
( ventilation and alarm systems for
- 7. post decom:aissioning use.
40,000 23. Construct entomb-ment structure 6,400 24. Install reactor containment pressure a
equalization line.
j 73,300 25. l Decontaminate J floors and walls 6,300 26. Perform radiation l
[- survey u
- 27. Secure building a access f I i
L. 9.,000 28. Prepare and submit final report . -
t.o 1
em 8
7 Pomed e NES 20E Sf78 v
h NUCt. EAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. DOCUMcNT NO.
81A0622 36 48 j PAGE 3p TABI.E 3.5 COST
SUMMARY
FOR SAFE STCFAGE ENTOMBMENT I
- OF MONTICELIC DECON-TA"lNATION REMOVAL SMTPPING BURIAL TOTAL FA70R ACTIVITY NOTES 1,212,700 SUB-ICTAL DECOMMISSIONING
' WORK ACTIVITIES SAFE STORAGE ENTOMBMENT UNDISTRIBUTED COSTS, SAFE STORAGE ENTOMSMENT 706,500 Process liquid wastes generated by decontam-ination l
(
4,276,800 Decommissioning staff 46,900 Health physics supplies
(
( 72,200 Decontamination rig and ;
4 - Other decontamina* ion equipment ,
j l
f~ 42,200 Equipment for pipe l cutting & hoists g
215,900 Security Force l 347,300 Engineering consultants r 190,500 Project Quality Assurance 190,500 Project Administration 52,000 Nuclear Insurance & Proper -
.y Insurance t
4
- 5',140,800 ' SUS-TOTAL UNDISTRIBL*IED
- COSTS, SAFE' STORAGE
[ IN'"nwMENT
/ 11,638,500 TOTAL ESTIMATED DECOM-MISSIONING COSTS, SAFE f . SICRAGE ENTCMBMENT
!-- 14,548,000 ICTAL DEOOMMISSIONING COSTS, SAFE STORAGE E! COMB. VENT (including 254 censingency) i somu was 2cs ar7s
81A0622 NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. DOCUMENT NO.
/ 37 48 PAGE nF .
TABLE 3.5 COST
SUMMARY
FOR SAFE S"CPAGE ENTCf'EMENT CF MCNTICELLO DECON-TAMINATION RE W 4 MF.U P'NG BURIAL TCY"AL MATOR AC*IVITY M PCST DECCMMISSIONING DORMANCY COST ( ANNt1AL) 17,100 29. Perform quarterly inspections defined in Regulatory Guide
, 1.86.
12,700 30. Perform semi-annual environmental survey 18,300 31. Prepare _ reports de-fined in Regulatory Guide 1.86
(
48,100- SUB-TOTAL POST-DECOMMIS-SIONING WORK ACTIVITIES DORMANCY t
k UNDISTRIBUTED COSTS (per ;
year) , DORMANCY '
f~ ,
t 1,000 Health Physics l
[ 1,000 Nuclear Insurance' I 25,400 Maintenance Allowane.
L.
27,400 SUB-TOTAL UNDISTRIBUTED r COSTS, DORMANCY 75,500 TOTAL ESTIMATED ANNUAL COST FOR DORMANCY PERICD L
94,400 TOTAL ANNUAL COST FOR DCRMANCY (including 25% contingency)
I L
(
L i l
- sonu .=ss :es w s
- DOCUMENT NO. RIA0622 I NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES,INC. PAGE 38 OF 48 TABLE 3.6 DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE NO TES
- a. This activity would be performed by the utility staff. The cost is included in the
- undistributed cost category.
- b. During pre-decommissioning, the utility staff consists of the plant operations staff and utility craf t labor (such as mechanics, health physics technicians, maintenance personnel) to be used during decommissioning.
- c. Decommissioning staff startup consists of the administrative staff contracted to perform the decommissioning. This would include a project superintendent, adminis-trative personnel, health physics technicians, clerks, and craf t labor.
I d. DecommissiEning staff (after Activity 31) for dismantling represents a reduced
. dismantling workforce because of the reduced work activity.
I
- e. Nonessential systems are:
(
(~ Control Rod Drive Hydraulics
- Reactor Core Isolation Cooling Low Pressure Coolant injection High Pressnre Coolant injection Standby Liquid Control System I Containment Nitrogen Inerting
' Containment Atmosphere Control r Standby Gas Treatment j
. Tu bine Generator Main Condenser and Gas Removal Turbine Bypass Moisture Separator and Feedwater Heater l f Circulating Water I- Condensate Cleanup Fuel Pool Cooling and Cleanup 7
t Fuel Handling (including new and spent fuel racks)
(
[
{
i 80mu a NES 208 Sn9
- /
- w w
DOCUMENT NO. 81 A0622 I NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES. IN PAGE 39 OF 43 9
TABLE 3.6 (Cont'd)
Turbine Building Closed Cooling Water i
Control Room Chilled Water
, Standby AC Power Supply l DC Power Hydrogen Recombiner System
- f. Essential Systems are:
( Reactor Water Recirculation Residual Heat Removal
{ Condensate Storage Facilities Electric Power I Instrumentation and Control .
Service Air System
- Reactor Building Closed Cooling Water
- i. Station Service Water Makeup Water Treatment Potable Water Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning f' Fire Protection Gaseous Radwaste l Liquid Radwaste Solid Radwaste Personnel Decontamination l
\
t l
a
- g
.I .
l I
,~
i
(
80mu o Ng3 20s 5/79
. i l
1 l
l DOCUMENT NO. SI A0622 l NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES,INC. PAGE 40 op 48 l
TABI.E 3.6 (Cont'd)
- g. Misc. Structures include the following:
Off-gas Stack Recombiner Building Gas Storage and Compressor Building Spare Parts Building Warehouse New Warehouse
~
RPV Concrete Plug Storage Building r Machine Shop Boiler Building Stand-by Diesel Pumphouse Transformer Pit Area f Condensate Storage Area
( Discharge Retention Basin .
l- New Guardhouse Old Gt.ardhouse 7
Emergency Generator Building;
- h. The total includes processing (i.e., oil fueled evaporation of liquid wastes and solidification in cement) which is not considered a decontamination or removal cost, e and is therefore, not tallied in any of the other table columns. Therefore, the total
._ activity cost is greater than the sum of the shipping and burial costs shown.
t h.
l t -l 1
i L
I
(
i l
roaw ..ar m sm
s DOCUMENT NO. 31 A0622 i NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES IN dur PAGE 4I og 43 v'
- 4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATES
~
The schedule for each major activity in the prompt removal / dismantling program is shown or Table 4.1.a. Table 4.1.b lists the estimated schedule for delayed dismantling after 100
, years of dormancy. The duration of entombment activities is shown in Table 4.2.
I e-(
( .
i f
(
(
(
L b6 1
(
i
(
L r
I, m
a p e ne a N E S 205 S/79
DOCUMENT NO. .ED06M I NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES. IN PAGE 4'
' _O F 40 TABLE 4.1.a SCREDULE CF MONTICELLO
- PROMPT REMOVAL / DISMANTLING ACTIVITIES r !
, Activity Act ivity Schedule, Months *
,. 1. Remove fuel and in-core source material 6-6h
- 2. Decontaminate plant areas and process 0 - 6I all liquid and solid wastes j f j
- 3. Review plant drastings 0-1 ,
,. 4. Perform detailed radiatiora survey 1-3 i
- 5. Estimata residuti by-product inventory 1h - 2h
( 6. Prepare and submit possession-only 1h - 4 license application with revised technical specifications f-
- 7. Prepare end-product description 2h-3 t
- 8. Perform detailed calculations of 2h-5 i' by-produce inventory.
3-5
- 9. Define major sequence of work activities.
l 10. Perform safety analysis of the 4 h- 6h dismantling operations 1
- 11. Prepare and sulznit dismantling plan .6-9 l to NRC for approval 5
- 12. Receive possession-only license 6h-7h u deactivate reacters implament revised technical specifications i .
. 13. NRC review of dismantling plan and 9-12 issue of dismantling order
- 14. Prepare activity specifications 2-14 l f for dismantling
- t. l 1
i 15. Prepare integrated dismantling 12-14 l sequence
'Tirwe since reactor shutdown (months) .
nonu . =ts ::s sne l
O DOCUMENT NO.
I NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES,INC. PAGE OF TABLE 4.1.a (Cont'd)
Activity Schedule, Months * ,
- 16. Perform plant preparation and construct 0-12 ter:porary facilities e
- 17. Design water clean-up system 11-12
, 18. Design and procure remote cutting 6-13 1 equipment for vessel and internals t removal
- 19. Procure contarination control 10-13 envelope and special equipment -
- 20. Cbtain contracts fer casks , liners, 11g - 13 add shipping containers.
- 21. Prepare detailed work procedures 7-15
- for dismantling activities
- 22. Install water clean-up system 12-13 I 23. Drain, decontaminate, remove and . 8-19 m dispose of non-essential systems.
r 24. Decontaminate, cut, ship and bury 11 - 12 drywell head s
- 25. Decontaminate exposed surfaces of 12 -12h reactor vessel head
- 26. Cut, load, ship and bury the reactor 12 - 14
( vessel he'ad i' 12-28
- 27. Cut, ship and bury vessel internals
- 28. Cut,. ship and bury reactor vessel 28-46
- 29. Drain, deccntaminate, remove and 35-61 dispose of essential systems.
'- 30. Remove reacter shield wall 46-50 I 31. Perform radiation survey prior to 50 - 50 '
- s. opening secondary containment i
- 32. Remove drywell and torus steel 50 h - 64
' Time since reactor shutdown (months) romu = Nas :os sn*
8 30622 DOCUMENT NO.
I NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES. IN PAGE OF TABLE 4.1.a (Cont'd)
Activity Schedule, Months *
- 16. Perform plant preparation and construct 0-12 temporary facilities 4
- 17. Design water clean-up system 11-12
,.. 18. Design and procure remote cutting 6-13 equipment for vessel and internals i removal e 19. Procure conta- M ation control 10-13 envelope and special equi;nent -
- 20. Obtain centracts for casks, liners, lig - 13 add shipping containers.
- 21. Prepare detailed work procedures 7-15
- for dismantling activities -
- 22. Install water clean-up system 12-13 I 23. Drain, decontaminate, remove and' . 8-19
. dispose of non-essential systems.
r 24. Decentaminate, cut, ship and bury 11g - 12 drywell head s
- 25. Decentaminate exposed surfaces of 12 -12h l reactor vessel head t
- 26. Cut, load, ship and bury the reactor 12 h - 14h r
vessel he'ad
- 27. Cut, ship and bury vessel internals 12-28
- 28. Cut,, ship and bury reactor vessel 28-46
- 29. Drain, decerttaminate, remove and 35-61 dispose of essential systems.
L 30. Ramove reactor shield wall 46-50.
I' 31. Perform radiation survey prior to 50 - 50V'
- m. opening secondary containment
- 32. Remove drywell and torus steel 50 h - 64 L
- Time since reactor shutdown (months) i 8c8tnA e NES 205 S/79 j
o
- 81A0622 DOCUM ENT NO*
l NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES,INC. PAGE OF TABLE 4.1.a (Cont'd)
Activity Schedule, Menths*
- 33. Remove reactor building crane 53 h - Sh -
- 34. Remove reactor building structural steel Si;h - 54 h
- 35. Remove reactor building concrete 54 -64
{ (walls and floors) l
- 36. Remove other plant buildings 4G-66
- 37. Perform final radiation survey 66 - 66 h t .-
- 38. Backfill foundations 66 h - 68 h r
- 39. Grade and landscape 67-69
- 40. Prepare and submit final report to NRC: 64-69 receive termination of possession-only license 1
s r
i .
L TABLE 4.1.b r Schedule of Monticello Delayed Removal / Dismantling Activities i
(
I Activities Activity Schedule , Months **
t
- 1. thru 13. (activities
( are same as those identified '
i *or prompt dismantling) O s
- 14. thru project completion ,
(activities are same as those j m identified for prompt disuntling) 0-23 i
- Tim since reactor shutdown (months)
'- ** Time since completion of 100 ye'ars of dormancy (months)
I.
s l
1 l
l = caw = =ts 2os sne
. . O, e l
l l
l 81A0622 l DOCUMENT NO.
l NUCLEAR EN"dRGY SERVICES,INC.
PAGE 45 OF 48 l 1
1 TABLE 4.2 SCHEDULE OF MONTICELID SAFE
< STORAGE ENTOMBMENT ACTIVITIES Activities Activity Schedule, Months *
- 1. Ramove fuel and in-ccro source material o - 6h
- 2. Clea.n plant areas and process all 0 - 6h
_1guid and solid wastes e
- 3. Paview plant drawings 0-1
- 4. Perform detail radiation survey 1-3
( 5. Estimate residual by-product inventory 1 -2 h
- 6. Prepare and submit possession-only 1h - 4
< license application with revised t:chnical specifications I 7. Prepare e:nd-product description 2h-4 L
- 8. Perform detailed calculations of 2 -5
< by-product inventory l
- 9. Define major sequence of work activities 3 -5 f 10. Perform safety analysis of the ent
- ent 4h-6h
( operations j 11. Prepare a safety analysis of end-product 3 -6 i
- 12. Prepare and submit Entembment Plan to NRC 6-9 for approval I
t 13. Receive possession-only licenses deactivate 6h - 12 reactors implement revised technical specifications
- 14. Prepare activity specifications Ih - 14 for entembment f'
L 15. Prepare integrated entembment 11 h - 14 sequence
- 16. Prepare detailed work procedures 8-12
'- for entcx:1 ment operations r
( *Cime since reactor shutdown (months) l 1
l ,
1
. =cau . 4ts ros sn*
1
e *= e.
O DOCUMENT NO.
I NUCt. EAR ENERGY SERVICES,INC. PAGE OF I
TABLE 4.2 (Cont'd)
Activity Schedule, Months *
- 17. Procure equipment for vacuum 6-12 drying of reactor vessel
, 18. Procure cask and container 11 h - 13 l linings: obtain shipp cask / container permits r 19. Drain, de-energize and secure non- 9-13 contaminated systers
- 20. Dry react.r vessel 13-14
- 21. Drain, decontaminate, de-energize and 12-29 secure or remove the contaminated systems
- 22. Prepare lighting, fire protection and 29 - 30%
alarm systems for post decor:ctissioning i 23. Construct enter.Weent structure -
14-15 l
- 24. Instnll reactor containment 29 h - 30
(- pressure equalization line l
- 25. Decentaminate floors and walls 27-29 i 26. Perform radiation survey 30-31 4
s
. 27. Secure building access 30-31
(~
l 28. Prepare and submit final report 31-34 to NPC 1 i
i L DCP&WCY l
- 1. Provide mnntenance and surveillance of the site Unspecified L
, ,
- Time since reactor shutdown (months) i w
l l ;
l
(
e ecut = Nas 2es s/n
NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC. DOCUMENT NO. SIA0622 PAGE 47 OF 4R i
- 5. REFERENCES
(
!. W.J. Manion and T.S. LaGuardia, "An Engineering Evaluation of Nuclear Power Reactor Decommissioning Alternatives," AIF/NESP-009, November 1976.
- 2. " Producer Prices and Price Indexes," April 1979, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of i Labor Statistics.
r
- 3. " Employment and Earnings," April 1979, U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.
i
- 4. " Building Construction Cost Data 1979," Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Duxbury, Massachusetts.
p.
(
- 5. " Building Construction Cost Data 1975," Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Duxbury, Massachusetts. -
1 F 6. "1978 Dodge Guide," McGraw-Hill Information Systems Company, New York, New l York, i
[ 7. " Iron Age Magazine," August 20,1979 issue.
I 8. NECO burial cost information for the Hanford burial site.
L i 9. Tri-State Motor Transit Co., Joplin, Missouri.
t
- 10. NES D.O.E. Decommissioning Handbook (currently in preparation).
i, L U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.86," Termination of Operat-1.1.
( ing Licenses for Nuclear Reactors".
. 12. Department of Transportation, Section 49 of Cod of Federal Regulations, entitled
( " Transportation," Parts 173 and 189.
- 13. Smith, R.I., NUREG/CP-0008, " Boiling Water Reactors".
80#ta e NES 206 b/79
1 DOCUMENT NO. 81A0622 NUCLEAR ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
"^o" '*~
o' ^*
REVISION LOG l
"'[*l u DATE )$,E DESCRIPTION APPROVAL .
1 2/18/80 At! CRA 1298 - Major Revision; g j renu:2ered all pages f.
F k
r-( -'
I r
I
['
(
l r
i.
i .
II L
. 1
~
l 1
I f
L i l
I i
f i I l
- l r
l h
- se=ar = was 20s sns