ML19347D254
| ML19347D254 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | San Onofre  |
| Issue date: | 10/31/1979 |
| From: | NUS CORP. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML13302A498 | List: |
| References | |
| 3382, NUDOCS 8103110678 | |
| Download: ML19347D254 (22) | |
Text
j.__ -..C.~-____._J_-,
.- ._________a__,-- _ ___ _ _ _..._ ., _ _
l
.i -
Ef3 l
0 l
1 DECOMMISSIONING COSTS SAN ONOFRE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION
,f
- UNITS 2 & 3 i .
- z, .
~
FOR s 6, Southern California Edison Company
[ Rosemead, California .
h e '
NUS Report 3382 NUS Job 5215 t
- 4 By NUS CORPORATION I Sherman Oaks, California -
c 1-e
! OCTOBER 1979 i
1 I'
)
' ' "" 11
.. o e re NUS CCAPCAATION t.
-. . . . . m. _._ ~ -_..._ ~ -.._._...--.- .._ __._...~.. . _. _ .. - - . - . - _ _
e
.t Table of Contents i
Page i'
4 1
I. INTRODUCTION 2.
. II.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS - UNITS 2 & 3 .
4 111. DISCUSSION - UNITS 2 & 3 A. . General 5 B. License Requirements
- C. Insurance 7
' * - D. Non-Manual Labor 9 E. Estimate Qualifications 10 F. Decommissioning Activities I
i e, l
l . .
1 r
I
( i p
NUS COAPCAATION
}. s
List of Tables I
Title P_ag Number 17
.- Tatle 1 Account Classification Summary - Units 2 & 3
- 13 Table 2 Scrap and Salvage Value Decommissioning Cost 19 Table 3 Summary - FERC List of Figures
( ,
Page Number Title t ,
6 i'
Figure 1 Project Schedule Decommissioning Staff 8 Figure 2 Decommissioning Activities 11 7'
Figure 3 i
>~
5-di NUS CCAPO:iATION
l
- , \
I. INTRODUCTION In late 1976 NUS completed a decommissioning study for Unit I at the At the request of SCE a proposal dated March 13, Nuclear Generating Station.
f 1979 v/as submitted for a scope of work which f Unit 1.
included a similar stu a oiraate for Units 2 & 3, and an update of the earlier estimate or The study for Units 2 & 3 wasThis approached as a fresh effort, beginnin report presents the results of the assignment of personnel to the plant site.
decommissioning cost study.
f f'
t -
e t
s s
/
1 NUS COAPORATION m --e,,
.. ~ ~ . . - . . . - . ... -. . .
- II.
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS - UNITS 2 & 3 NUS has prepared and presents herewith an evcluulon of the dispositions that can
' be applied to San Onofre Units 2 & 3 and which are associated with
- decommissioning them at the end of plant economic life.
The costs of decommissioning have been estimated and are also presented. The cost estimates are presented in 1979 dollars, and schedules indicating the timing of expenditures are included in this report. The estimates are based primarily on the cost of labor and services in the local area. SCE site and home office salary costs l
are averaged with respect to make up of the work force and include fringes and overheads, but do not include corporate administrative and general expense nor employee benefits. A contingency of 15% is provided.
Of the three basic decommissioning options generally considered technically viable in the industry (minimum decommissioning, entombment and removal) only minimum decommissioning ard removal were considered. This is consistent with the approach taken earlier with Unit 1. Both the high cost of installing and ultimately removing entombment facilities and the uncertainty of future regulatory requirements preclude consideration of entombment as a viable alternative. Furthermore, the ongoing costs of site staff and property insurance, as well as the value of the site, override any cost savings attributable to decay of
- induceu radioactivity.
The cost estimstes presented herein were prepa red on a site specific basis. NUS personnel were on site for an extended period of time, and the estimate reflects local labor costs, SCE's normal mode of contracting for services, the degrees of difficulty of removal of various portions of the plant and the availability of plant drawings and quantities at the plant site.
Other decommissioning related costs were also developed and included in the estimates. These include such items as radioactive waste disposal, indemnification, major remote tooling procurement, and subcontracts.
2 NUS CCAPCAATION
This evaluation considers the San Onofre plant on the basis of regulatory requirements and the equipment and facilities design in existence in early 1979.
Future modifications must be treated separately. ..
The decommissioning option addressed herein contemplates plant shutdown, i followed by decontamination, fuel shipping, removal of all radioactive material, razing and removal of remaining structures and facilities, and restoration of the
- site to essentially pre-construction condition, including extensive backfilling where necessary, allowing unrestricted use. Licenses would be terminated.
This option is considered achievable in the current and prospective future of nuclear plant decommissioning. The concepts of remote sectioning and removal of irradiated reactor components and full scale primary and secondary decontamination have been demonstrated, and will be further developed in the
. future.
The removal costs associated with decommissioning of both units are estimated to be $164,217,000 and the value of salvageable items and scrap are estimated at
$24,308,000, yielding a net estimated decommissioning cost of $139,909,000.
l l
+ The amount of this total allocated to Unit 2 is estimated to be $64,908,000. This is Jess than half the total because shared facilities such as the fuel handling building,
. control building and intake and discharge st ucture remain with Unit 3.
' These costs are in 1979 dollars, and are exclusive of site security, operations,
! nuclear indemnification and property insurance. This is the same basis on which the earlier Unit I study was presented. These additional costs have been l
separately estimated and are also presented in this report.
l 9
The difference between our present estimate of $64,908,000 for Unit 2, and the
$~ June 8,1979 preliminary estimate of $64,000,000 is that we tried to be careful in f
the preliminary approximation not to overestimate t.he cost.
i I
3 NUS CCAPCAATON L_
~ .
Ill. DISCUSSION - UNITS 2 & 3 A. General The decommissioning of nuclear reactors in the United States has substantial i historical precedence. Over sixty small reactor facilities (excluding many very t
' ' small research tools and military application reactors) have been shut down and L
- decommissioned by the modes discussed herein. Further, it can be expected that a i number of generating facilities .of a size approaching San Onofre will be refurbished or decommissioned before San Onofre. Thus, the sophisticated i
ie technologies which are necessary and have been demonstrated in the past for this d type of service will be further develop ed in the future.
lt can be expected that three major factors will affect future power plant
{ decommissioning.
- 1. The cost of decommissioning wi'.1 be a signific:nt factor in future decommissioning of facilities basen on current experience and projections.
Recovery of these expenditures over the operating lifetime of San Onofre would be a means of providing ior decommissioning costs, along with the 4
other costs associated with the cost of service.
?
- 2. Entombment of facilities will be difficult to justify, due to socio-political l
and technical factors. This is due to the fact that the entombed structures may not meet future regulatory requirements for long-term disposal. Also, the value of the property makes it uneconomical.
i .
- 3. Maintaining low personnel exposure during decommissioning is a prime consideration in the decommissioning effort.' Removal of the components of a primary system dictates that radiation fields of more than ~ several millirem / hour must be avoided. In order to achieve this goal, a full scale L
equipment decontamination is planned. As a practical consideration, this must be performed at the end of life while the operating crew and service systems are intact and the in-plant facilities to support such an activity exist. Any future updates of decommissioning costs will reflect the impact of developments in such technologies.
4 NUS COAPCAATION
B. License Requirements The steps a licensee will go through to achieve the complete release from all USNRC Part 50 and Part 30 license requirements are as follows:
Prior to shutting the plant down for the last time, the licensee can obtain a Part 50 possession only license which permits him to possess but not operate the reactor
- past the time it is finally shut down. At the outset of the time this license
-' amendment is in force, the license requirements concerning manning, qualifications, surveillance, etc., will be the same as the operating license. As work progresses (defueling, fuel shipping, removal of sources and reduction of the radiation control areas), the requirements decrease. This is usually accommodated l through a set of revised Technical Specifications which automatically permit certain changes at the completion of certain milestones and USNRC inspections.
Ultimately, for a minimum decommissioning, the licensee could qualify for and change the license to a Pcrt 30 possession only license, which would either be administered by the USNRC or the state if the plant was located in an agreement state. As a practical fara, the continuity in licensing, the size of the facility and the scope suggest that there is a significant advantage in staying in Part 50 status under the authority of the USNRC.
All decommissioning activities necessary to place the facility in its final status (be it minimum decammissioning or complete removal) are described in a ,ocument prepared by the utility called the " decommissioning plan." This document discusses j the objectives of the decommissioning, plans and schedules and other salient safety i - considerations. The USNRC, in approving the plan, will establish " hold points" and at the time the plan is accepted and a decommissioning authorization is issued, the l
plan becomes the working document. Typically, compliance inspections continue during decommissioning. A schedule showing major milestones is included as Figure 1.
5 NUS COAPOA ATION L_ _
F l.
t t . . . . ._. . .. . ... . . _
e '*,
{
- 3. 7, $
h- ,c h i 4
. . _ . - - . _ ._ l W_ *3 .. .. .
-o 5 =
Et2 + 3 3.3 e.
e 4
'o .
E '. ve .{
&.# 4 t . _ . . . _ _._ . . . . . _ . _
p5 y1 og om i %-
o EV we t g i ew _ . . _ . .. . . . _ . _ _
a
- v. +8]
g _ f g ._ _ . . _ .. . - -.
y'
- - _ r i __ _ _ _ _. . . . - -
Ist
- * *
- 4 f
,p
_ _ _ . _ I g..___ . . . . . . .. .. ___
.__ q y_._.___.-__.._. _ ._ __ . _ _ . . _ _ _
.mm. h C -n-_ _ . _ . _ - . . _
r . . . . . . . _ . . . . - -.
- g. _
w . _ _ - . . _ . . . . _ .
p- e _
l 7 L _ ._ . _ _ . _ . . .
t g._ . . - . _ - . _- . _ . . . _
- y. .
~. .. ,
f
- n .. .... _ _ ... _ . . .
.r, _;
g.._.-_..__-- ._ _. __._ _ .
. 3
-) *ly' -
O .
h._. _
UN. ) l
- I ta' <f M .-
O )tw.
g ; . - _
~
r j - _ _ .
.i__...__
M) egg g: ., 9._._ _ __ _ . . _ _ _ _a _
-- o , ._ . . j _% _
{ tg jg _ - ' D _ _ _6 Ot_ j _.
g
.M . _ _ . . . . . _ . . 3._
g ig I w _ _ _ . . _ . . _ . . . _ _
t s l N _ l-g-g _ . _ _
_!.4 _
__ i i _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
y_ . __. . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . . _ _ . _ _
. . i- -g -t . .___.
e
_ _ _ . . _ _ _ _..... _. g I ..
a - ...__..___.
. _ _ . _ _..... - - _ E . l '. .
C_ -_ i
. . _.I..l_......._.. _
i 1
w* : -
1 I j l li
- ll i t. l ; }'
} .
'N n EN n . N n yN n J N n
] l e .NLn. N I W' e. > >> > > E'
- >. - ; ; z C %- -.
r I' i . . z 3 4 =. z 3 3
%. e z 33
. . e, z .
-3 O 2
w 3 3 3 3 3 0
$ ,I 2e 8
W s
I *
- j- , h C 0 'fI'Cu
- C '** an e t I C w w g lb c e y& ., oz.n
_ ,2*C' e .* ,
t e
to IOr z .- C >
f -a U <
SUtE Oi5' ill" . e 3 i' , +
3 ,E d Z
- I e. 2 O lD
- c e o E~u r s.
- 4 2 yz a ; z-
,o
.u 2 u 2
2 m
t..t,.D e o A.y e e o ; .g .m N
Io
- 5 ' y II 5' 5h z y * & ?.
e z ' w b t.$ wl2 2_ >- - 5 c -
J
!c.
i t 2 v 4
- r*fj ) - p o,3
. v o
- w 3 2 Z E 4 2 O I w
- .O
'2 i O 4 "Z w
o
- 3 l J, { ,a 2
. ev L_M
- p rwaC 2 ; 3_ 3, -
Jw e o>v 3uo .o., = 2 .- -
=
u < ; Ws ow ._.e zz. eoe e o. . wi i is a =c
' , . ' Is O 'iA e s,
- I ,
3
- [
{.*
N F ,
e p r
- ? I 6A; 8 {C fI ~ l E
! l"'
8 \
{~ ( y.
y
- C. Insurance 4
The indemnification requirements for decommissioning sites can be greatly
- reduced. Typically in the past, for an independent single unit generating facility placed in Part 50 possession only status, at the time minimum decommissioning is
. completed the total pool liability indemnification carried is about $10,000,000.
( This assumes no fuel is stored on site. For a minimum decommissioning mode, the licensee would keep a relatively large insurance policy in force for a long period of time (until the containment vessel was completely decommissioned, and all fuel was off site, for example). If fuelis stored on site, the full nuclear indemnification pool insurance would be maintained as required by law. Property insurance, while
~
it is an expense item, is included as a separate item in the report.
Non-Manual Labor D. .
' The labor commitment projections shown in Figure 2 are based on the following mix of non-manual resources in each of the categories:
- 1) : SCE site staff. This effort peaks at 110 field non-manual personnel and is made up as follows:
Security Force - day shif t 10
- night shif ts 8 Health Physics - day shif t 3
-- night shif ts .
Supervision of craf t labor 50 I - Warehousing, tool room, etc. 10 Clerical and support 10 Documents and records - 7 Inspection and Q.A. 10 110 2)1 SCE home office staff. This effort begins with two professionals during the pre-decommissioning phase, preparing .the decommissioning plans, schedules 7
NUS CCAPCAATICN p.
- e + .- _ , , , _ . . ,
$.LL,?3 ew a m m .
= ' '" .. o~o,u u.. . , . 3 FIGURE 2 ,,..,
~ ' " "c ""'5 5 ' "
PROJECT SCHEDULE YEAR *S YEAR *6 YEAR *T YEAR-3 YEAR 2 YEAR l YEAR +1 YEAR +2 .T.E AR + 3.l YE .- AR* 4 .. . .. . _ YEAR *8,YE AR,*, 9 NO ACT IVIT Y DESCitiPif 0,N - , ..
l . ,. .- -i . j cj l ..l ;
3-
}!
- Ili t
i e
l: ' ,l - ,,
UNIT SHUT 0 owns l.
' O I! '8 II -
UNIT 2
- o !
UNtT 3 ! I i
i ll* i l ,
. s. g l
. - . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . , . . . , l ,
SCE $1TE $TAFF l l }l - 41 41 SS , Ito llo ? 69 l 1, 69 69 e . S,S I, g g MEN S , 1,0 3,0 . .
138,000 610,000 n 2,000 MANH00nS 10,000 20,C00 60,00C 11 000 2 0,00 2 0.000 130,000 130,00,0 82.gou l
al I E I
il I -l , l e ! *
- - "- , , ' ' ! i* , l i~e ,
[ l f ;
g SCE HOME OFFICE ST AFF , ,, _ j j ,
S S 5
! S S S S S ,
MEN 2 2 2 . S ,
i
--. l l s 10,000 , 10,000 10,000 10,000 60,000 10,000 10,000 4,000 4,000 4,000; 10,000 10,000 MANHoun,s '
- 8 -
i e .
'l , ,
ll 2 -
i , , . .
I t 1 >l - [ ;
, l.
- ' lj
,< , I CONSULTANT STAFF l jl t *1 1 , ,
' .2;4 , ,
MEN 2 iS, S i 25 12 l 2 ;! i j 2 i, 2 t, ,
2 4,000l 4,000 C,000 4,000 l 4,000 4,000 4,000 40,000 IO,00Q 4,000 4,000 4,0,00 , ,
MANHouns gl , .
i i g ,
i ,
l '
i i i , i . .
t , i l l, i, i l
, , , l
, j j , j
-- .. . .. . . . . . . _ . . lf i *
}
. . . ~ - .- .
, l
and other licensing related documents with assistance from the consultant. It then peaks at f*ve professionals during decommissioning, engaged primarily in licensing related activities such as reports to NRC, and tracking of plans and schedules, with a lower level of consultant assistance.
- 3) Consultant Staff. This effort peaks at five professionals during pre-decommissioning, furnishing fairly heavy licensing, planning and procedure preparation assistance to SCE, and then drops to two professionals during decommissioning, when a lower level of assistance is estimated to be required.
f'
. E. Estimate Qualifications
+
The cost estimates prepared as part of this work are NUS' best cost estimates and include 15% contingency. All costs are in 1979 dollars. A summary second-level '
breakdown of the estimate, showing expenditures by year, is given in Table 1. As shown in Figure 1, shutdown of the first unit occurs at the beginning of year 1.
Average costs for SCE site non-manual and home office engineering personnel were furnished by SCE, as were unit costs for contractor labor. Consultant non-manua!
costs were estimated by NUS.
Contractor labor costs were estimated on the basis of using a single craf t (laborers) for the removal work. This is reasonable for demolition work at the current time.
Should this change in the future, or should the size of the job result in new labor negotiations for use of other craf ts, this would increase the cost of the labor content of the estimate considerably. Quantities used as a basis for the estimate were obtained from the Summary Quantity Comparison - Forecast 9, and from the Station Manua! - Equipment Data, Vol. 3 and 4 We have also considered the probable salvage value of plant components with high capital costs and which wculd be maintained up to the end of plant economic life.
It was concluded. that even in the extreme cases (reactor coolant pump drive motors, as an example), 'the equipment would have a very limited salvage value based on te potential market, and compared to the cost of removal. The same holds true for the turbine generator and condensers.
9 NUS COAPCA ATCN
-m
Nonetheless, some value will be recoverable from these and other components, and Table 2 summarizes these estimated values. Table 3 summarizes the decommissioning and salvage estimates by FERC accounts.
F. Decommissioning Activities See i Pre-decommissioning, defueling and fuel shipping are common to all options.
Figure 1. SCE site and home office costs, and consultant costs have been included for these items. The contract costs for fuel shipping have not been included, on the basis that they are a normal plant operating expense. A milestone schedule relating the significant project tasks, is shown in Figure 3.
During the pre-decommissioning period no significant decommissioning activities except .some area decontamination and waste processing will be undertaken.
Shipping of cool spent fuel will be going on on a routine basis, and virtually all shared plant systems will remain in service.
Immediate minimum decommissioning is also common to all eptions. The activities taking place at this time are summarized as follows for either unit:
~
A. Primary System
- 1. Defuel and replace vessel head
- 2. Process refueling and primary water
- 3. Prepare for decontamination
- 4. Decontaminate primary system
- 5. Process and dispose of decontamination solutions B. Containment
- 1. Remove salvagable equipment
- 2. Removal all sources which can be disconnected
- 3. Drain fluid systems
- 4. Remove oils and lubricants
- 5. Prept.re sumps, monitors and air locks
- 6. Install security gates
- 7. Conduct radiation survey and fire survey
- 8. Install access control 10 N!JS CORPCP A~riCN
~
3EES- CCF fos VAT ON PROJECT SCHEDULE FIGURE 3 50'JsAN SCE E vN n r a s PnOJECT DE COMut S$lONINO PAGE I0F 3 v vtAna vtAn7 vt An e vt An e ACTivlTY DESCmPTION vt An i vt An 2 vt An 3 vt An 4 sa-,t.Aww n Sa s =* - a sus === amm er we ursue me-w me um am so-muu w sur ausr sum: m .or er sus: mer NO i: sse . . - - - - . ~ . . - . an. v sur-su v -s .w-w s 3.c m w w s.: sw- e at --um UNI 2 f mat sHufonwN 0
()
4tNIT 3 FIN AL $HUIDOWN O PfitM AnV $Y$itM DECOMMIS% TONING i
- 2 -
3 ci : stMovt Hf AD, Of filtL, fitPL ACE HE AD J- O fr-O I 42 PttOf't $$ Hil tsf t LNG & PHtMAltV W Alt a Ck C 1
A3 tit retN PftiMAlly Systt M ' <> O O A4
$ HIP $Pt Ni itsf t .
Pl2 O
2l ,')C h3 d y
1 I l 1' )
M f? l
(.S.
_ _ E._MO'#t ALL . . .M. .ADIOAClivt
. . . . _ . f tOtD$ &
w AsiE Ffutu $tII f 080 MINIMtsu DECOMM l
NMf N t iMMt ps A t t ot COMM
. t.o,. CO.
. . N t_A. .. - . .
le t Hf WOt 7,At V Afi Allt i f.f ttitP. . CLO$t *l
,2 3 F Ht t f t stif #< i ~) C 3 I
H7 ft8 MO #E At t Ot%rDNN Sf)tHtCES , ) {
H C2 ) (,1 i ')
g H1 Oft AtN Fl8HO SV%st.MS '
48 4 8ef f M)VE fHl $ 4 (HIIHlf: ant 1 f ') # i
. _ _ _ i l; 3 14 PHt P. SHYPS. MONe tf hts P Allt (OCES C .
8 4 l lQ ;)
t*3 ,
. .IN5fA
. . .t.(..%s .r,s. eps I y 8, A 1I $ , . . . .
g
'J l l
- 7 . f O_No,uC_t t tNat H AtH .A.. f_,TON 5. tHIVt v -
i 1, = = = - e f*ll IN$ f At t A*Cf 5% f"UNittOL l l .
C Aum. & F UL L fit DG IMMt u. DECOvM. l
' ~
Cl
~
St e: P # 6NAL f ut L AS$t uistits t 2 w y ( .3-# ,
r2 5t'IP CONinot g40D rtsesfin
( , _2Q pl3 ; l r3 DN AIN F8't = _ .L .Sf 0ft ACE PitOL re pe rng ft Arus Anis e INE Hs ,'
r t, Oft AIN f ttHu %Yhtt MS (? !f
'A HI Movt Ott5 AND LHultsCANTS CI l l D'
I f- ') !
cv <f ..nt f ut t POot
. ~ _ . - . . _ .
l j g O Att Sv5 & nt D4 IMMf D DICOMM NOft$
ACTivifv LINE ACilvlTits PtHTAinlNG TO A SPECTIC UNIT HAvt THE UNIT NUMBER SHOwN Ah0VE
re . FIGURE 3 cmo wim -
k """'" S EN ONOF4.E tr3sf 5 7 sn 3 PROJECT SCHEDULE' Pt Ase PLANT DECOMui$ $ son,,,o PAGE 2 0F 3
. g = .a- - r v -- w s . -i r se so w ar-sa w- -se n. rw ..- -
3-p res w my.E.A y w,R=r3
- - e-r -em -= e s = = . -e.
m w =,s
( z l Dt 8'EMOVf At t ' ALVAGAlttE GOUlP. 4 1
- ' l l '. .
07 PetG & 9aP ' A L V AG Ant E f 00lP. C ) t I
i f
t est AP.f pre vtstit utSPOSAL - l !*
g l
- 2 3 ' ,
(1 Rest & CAP PntMARY PIPE ENO4 Sl l l I
- 2
""'y s 3 m l
= J l (7 CtJi fNIO f1NAL $ IN10 $t CilONS 3I '[ I I 2 ' -
C .)
e? reis ese Aritut vs sstL ONto SIClif>NS 2
'l I I - - i 1lw , i 84 $H ' l
_,'P
- ladit'IN At$ f.b Vt%%I
... . . -. L SicilONS 1 ,,
l l s
-{
S '-I
(* **t&t%% 1N A$11 & lisMO /E IlktP. $YS e
t 5f F Aw t;(N 4 PftlMAltV SYS Itt MOVAL 89 tet' g CAPPittMAnv FOwPONENI$ M" 2""*
- " D "3'*" -""*"YI
(.
l sp eNST At t LIIIING Df fltllen 3
a3
- set a v sent & He wove. PulvAsty COMP. (? -2 ~}-
ea sot
- PnivArty tutelP. 4 PirING hf $t1E 3 C l2 >
og ras r. v. ntv0 VAL 6904 ES TF MPOft AltitY 3 H
N sA ne wmse. tie stNG tif ftstirst & fitwrit sess,t Paint cove rig ( : C O' Cs'NT A' Nun N g & r, v. PsPsNG sttw) vat 2 3 set vovs uts%st* SHtt tu, F AN5 & CAftti C I fW Go l3 nt rmyt if114 ADI Alf D HID Art & CtWC. C'2 , O 3 Gv f ; 2I I L is s GS ** vit as At t roN t Av. tusitP & CisNC. 2 l I j-l ,3 Ga e s,vo ve rt s AN t speep & PietNG O 3 2
r.*
no welvs CON t AIN%tt N f V8 %%t t t INI fl D ~3N I
re N e A Nur N i 4 et r AN b#
GA ... M, .,s
.d--;
re N. ..t o g in s;nAns
=
6e . Et 'f **Jgi Asty I't ANI & AtlX tle 90 sat 3 2
we e s, vo.,s vestin G8 N & A18X SYSI L MS T4 C" ?
se t ens uttvs rtitr* Wilt , f3st u F e e p &
2 3 l "* I l "* I
$1(AM $v$10MS l i
NOTE ACf 6Vifl($ Pf f4f A'NING TO A :iPf teraC UNIT HAVE THE tsNil NUMnf R SnowN AnOVE ACTIVITY ttNE
. I c g
/d
. . 6 3 e f e s
- - o l
.: 5 l ja u 3
1 w e E u e
- t I
W '
iO
'. t ; *o i u.i sc ,
L EF ('
j <
w 'l ,'.
- v i
1 06 l'
,)
- - 0C I I
- A "I o ooc o
_ l .l l . c-
.I w
"t r> -
1 w . I, .. .j',
- c,
__) ; .
o rp ~
--) __
s o i - <> a W y . -
-) I .g 'E .-
O ;I o 0 a
._ m_ 5
. . , cn # ,
r
.. , t,i _.
g -
) 'a
== -_ $
OQ
$*E
>t I
N N
e g .
< . -> 'i d o ~
O a4
& ~d-N $ 5 O, . ?- p
,=
n-a')
a% ~
t,s } d (
Y.
- l. ,
t,aa
_ il .
x
,u .
<a Y $
i i ie i i E 1
i ; sl ! ,
lE j t p'C sw
- > H = -*5 =
e se
. 2. ]. > : .
O- "
i z C' .e * :
g 5 ;
.E,,C2,3'>l$5*
- d -[
i
. I 3 : @l e. ; 4; s = 'g Y s :.,
e > .a
= l, 3 l5 o z-C lj , g hl g
e g ; = ss;, g ; I 5 g ;, s
,e ., jl 9 hg. z:3
<g ! s 'i c e
- < -w =- 3a =.s 5,s ce i *
. [ ,;e 2: 7 C 06 C (*
- k i 9:$ "l! e 3 =f 3,
=
ee ! .'! dl s= c-E
- . ! kfEl
=- e; E o $2,> tw a m 2 -
3 91. * ;
'-7 lts o!v ' E 8 -E i B;.1~!!,. - <E. Cl w =$ !
r.< -
- =.$. 5 . w . z., . -
c:g 8 ,2 $ :eg . * ! = -
s '
-02 $ o,' "I
<- 3 b..5l" G =,- !Ig w, ; ' .j' R i s: = ; .=i d; 2' iJE'* 5:11ul5 s imi=1
=
3;$ c,i-;9 i1 . e>=e- : ;
'w g ei v.: ., C i *'
- z.;z't ;
>- l, s* E,c'-- a .s st 3; < 4% '
< r r i ., : 17 w _
_. .S
.- < *; c ,
z z'-.'i' ;I c [ e t e. s ': ' 5 2 't=,,:ul<,*f:
s
- s:e'- 2 C c.1 g,l;iz!.- -
t .
i 5: j<. <2., <l j g .: .'.l* . .
S :< gw'- e < -
a y
. .A,4 -
>,e - >t- > > -
> c,C g g w> j t,i t,<> . e
. ey t> >-
c i, 2 o3 4, -> <u c;
.4'Ce os*O O e < s ss
=lc.
sinis;- u - .x ,<, e6 s w,:
< c, .s. : s 5e 1 4 e w
a 4,s w a, l gw C
w E
w a s
wl l j ls c- 2 E
- - - w E = =
ug E -legelw Elu u eg s . g l g
a
' * ~ **
', ",,* R !Q ',' *,
O * $. $ " . ,.~ -__ _ , - - _ , , ,
z., ?_ .
13
Auxiliary and Fuel Handling Building C. ,,
- 1. Ship final fuel assemblies
- 2. Ship control rod clusters
- 3. Drain fuel storage pool
- 4. Decontaminate racks and liners
., Drain fluid systems
- 6. Remove oils and lubricants
- 7. Secure pool D. All Systems and Buildings
- 1. Remove all salagable equipment
- 2. Package and ship all salvagable equipment A thorough primary system decontamination is planned in order to reduce the steam generator and primary loop contact dose rates to less than approximately ten millirem /hr. Full scale decontamination is cost effective because a small well trained group can be used, rather than a large work force if larger dose rates have to be tolerated. The plant staff, which will still be available at the completion of defueling would provide the logical support for this activity, and the primary system will still be serviceable.
Removal of radioactive material and equipment will proceed from the most highly radioactive sources in descending order of activity through the less radioctive components and structures. The most highly radioactive components and structures, as a result of neutron activation during operation, will be in the core area. Other major sources will then be removed and disposed of.
~ This is different' from simply reversing the installation procedure because these components, such as the reactor pressure vessel and steam generators, will be too radioactive to handle without adding extensive shields that would increase the weight excessively. Ut is estimated that a steam generator shielded for legal shipment would weigh between 1300 and 2000 tons). All of the major components, therefore, have to be decontaminated and shipped by barge, or remotely sectioned-
. and loaded into shielded shipping containers for transport to licensed - disposal facilities.'
.14 NUS COAPOA A' DON
The costs for disposal of these materials were estimated on the basis that the burial site would be on the existing Hanford reservation at Richland, Washington.
The estimated costs include packaging, shipping, burial and surcharge costs where applicable.
I Following the removal of the major equipment (typically the NSSS and reactor internals), the concrete shielding in the area of the reactor core will be manually
- removed.
The remaining " low-level" material will be surface contamination. This can be removed by washing, leaching, or, in the case of sumps and lower floors, chipping away several inches of surface concrete. It is important to note, however, that all surf aces must be accessible to smear testing for contamination. This means that pipes and ducts that cannot be entered must be removed.
3 Af ter completion of the above activities and comprehensive surveys, the contain-ment would be declared " clean", and would be released as a controlled-access area.
As in the case for all of the facilities, the normal hazards (falling into cpenings or being hit be a falling object) would remain. Should the plant remain in this status for a long period, sand or other fill might be brought in to prevent such accidents.
The facilities in the auxiliary and fuel-handling buildings (as well as contaminated piping connecting the two buildings and containments) would be removed in much the same manner, keeping the essential equipment in service.
Af ter the removal of all radioactive materials and contamination from surfaces, these facilities would also be released. As for the containment, ordinary industrial hazards would be eliminated by demolition, removal, or filling with sand. The site would then be comprehensively surveyed for residual contamination by SCE and the NRC, and finally released for unrestricted use. If any further " nuclear" use were made of the site, it would be under a new license.
All remaining plant structures including power lines, towers, fences, macadam roadways, and parking facilities would be removed and buried in a Iandfill. For the purposes of this option, it is assumed that the landfil! would have to be licensed by 15 N1:S CCppCPNrCN
e I
7 the State, and that it would be in the Japanese Mesa area. Removal would proceed on the basis of the following outline:
- 1. Removing of all aboveground structures to at least 6 feet below grade.
- 2. Removing of the intake discharge structure and collapsing the conduits
- . to the turbine building.
. ~ 3. Co!!apsing of all subterranean voids more than 6 feet below grade.
4 Removing of buried pipe down to 20 feet below grade.
4
. Af ter removal of all structures in accordance with the above list, the site would be restored by filling all remaining holes; essential grading, planting, and replacement of rock, as required to prevent erosion and to protect the coastline, would complete the effort.
b 4
4 1
16 NUS COPPCFt TICN P 7 $ ~b'M-' W y $ w t- PM se-- y v FTfT-y yc- 4 g- W4-t *TT y ---MT - # er
- W
f Table 3 San Onofre Nuclear Cenerating Station. Unit No. 2 6 3 .
. Minimum Decemulssioning, le==edi at e memoval FPC account Classification Susseary. 19 79 Dollars 8thousandel
-1 2. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Total Account -3 -2 1 331 596 629 390 397 365 290 265 252 3.799 SCE Site Decommiseloping 321 33 59 166 643 sho 9.193 1.526 965 965 See 723 1 abor 322 80 144 402 an4 1.447 43 30 36 543 5 9 24 47 B5 to 57 57 52 323 43 40 33 29 28 415 324 4 7 le 37 65 65 43 46 45 29 29 20 23 20 19 296 3Z5 2 5 12 25 5 14 8 9 6 5 5 ~~ 74 6
I.115 - l'.125 ~T.655 ~56 9 'T4 )66 Misc. I 1 3 Il Subtotals 175 ^2E 7 15 7 15A T )56 T 115 V 56 1.500 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 499 55 55 40 40
$CE Staff Labor 6 321 2e C6msultants 352 152 352 352 352 352 352 352 352 4.421 322 249 502 502 4 4 4 52 4 4 4 4 4 4 323 4 6' 6 12 147 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 324 7- 16 16 8 8 8 8 100 11 e e e e e 325 6 Il 2 2 2 7 26 4 4 2 2 2 2 2 Mlac. -
ill T144 subtotal Il4 ~1H 4 ~593. - 7 15 415 ~416 ~ 418 7 10 75 75 7 15 82$ S25 2,998 5.362 9,075 3,900 9;900 9.075 3,261 51.111 Craft Labor 321 - - -
572 8.867 322 - - - 143 143 Sol 930 1.573 1.716 1;716 1.573 3 30 20 33 36 36 33 12 166 323 - - - 3 19 19 66 123 209 228 220 209 76 1.177 324 - - -
120 120 130 325 - - - 10 10 3s 65 110 40, 620,
- - - - - - - 3 3 MI e. - -
- ubtotals - - - 1 566
- C655 W565 C565 IU565 TU5T5 1T5'55 TE155 C566 7D65 Subcantrocts: - 2.500 Manipulator 322 - - - - - - 2.500 - - - -
FJ 2.695 2.695 - - - - - - 5.390 Q Decontamination 322 - - -
100 165 439 1.007 1.007 040 140 140 4.041 Weste Disposal 321 - - - -
30.066 322 - - - 646 3 e30 3.292 4.145 - 957 - - -
447 3.348 1.564 1.564 670 - - - - 5.556 Denovel Costs - 321 - - -
392 392 160 - - -
1.400 For Salvage 322 - - - 182 336 -
- 402 1.206 1.407 1.407 603 - - - -
5.025 323 - -
- 489
- - 19 117 137 137 59 - -
324 -
- 25 956 Meternal & F>3ulpment - 7 725 154 6 077 - - - - -
B15 " 145 N -il,.Mi
- 11I6&C 12,2A3 1)h12 16~555 All D 61 I T33 subental - - - 19 Cnntingency - 154 ,21.420 Total Deccennissioning Cnst 419 819 1.219 14.734 22.952 20.025 18.990 15.425 15.757 14.303 12.550 5.500 164.217 SCE Site labor - in & M 125 225 625 1.250 2.250 2.375 1.500 1.500 1.375 1.125 1.000 945 14.295 and Securityi 100 100 100 to 10 10 10 10 10 760 Nuclear Indemnification -
300 100 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 2 700 Property Insurance TOTAL COST: Til !!614 17811- TC164 25352 T D 66 15365 IE215 IE341 T D 18 IE345 D &1 le' D H 2
C UI O
O D
TJ O
11 b
d O
2
t I
TABLE 2 ,
SCRAP AND SALVAGE VALUE >
II)
$ 1979 ltem and FERC Account Number i
- 1. Turbine Generators and Associated Equipment 323 (turbine generator) 1,700,500 Account S19,000 324 (electrical)
- 2. Main Condenser 323 (turbine generator) 915,000 Account ,
5
- 3. Major Pump Drive Motors 320 (electrical) 2,660,000 Account
' 4 . Transformers, Switchgear 635,000 Account 324 (electrical) 520,000 Account 325 (miscellaneous)
- 5.
Miscellaneous Tanks, Structural Steel and Scrap Steel (2) 322 (reactor) 2,474,500 ;
Account 2.380.000
- Account ' 323 (turbine generator)
$12,154,000-Total: !
t 1
(1) Values are per unit.
(2) Based on 7 cents /lb., FOB site, in movable sizes.
.L
'l IS-NUS CCAOCA ATiCN
, . , ~
_.m _ . _m... , _ . _ _ , _..._... ,___.- ____ .._ .-.
TABLE 3 DECOPS.ISSIONING COST SUMSARY' a
i Removal Cost Removal Cost Units 2 & 3 Unit 2 1 .
Account $1,000 % $1,000_ J 47 29,796 45 321 66,673 35 47,586 33 23,750 322 11 7,898 12 323 15,797 7 10,4Hir6 fife 7 4,684 324 2 812 1 325 2,046 139 - 70 -
Misc. S67,010 100 S142,797 100
$ 21,420 $10,052 CoNEingency -15%
Salvage per unit Unit 2 or 3 Account $1,000_ %
321 21 322 2,475 4,995 41
.323 34 324 4,164 520 4 325 -
Misc. -
lW 512,154 19 NUS CCPPCAATION