ML20029D356

Update of 1991 Decommissioning Cost for Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station

ML20029D356
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	03/31/1994
From:	TLG ENGINEERING, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML20029D355	List: ML20029D353 ML20029D356
References
S11-25-003, S11-25-3, NUDOCS 9405050200
Download: ML20029D356 (17)

Text

F Document S11-25-003 l

1 l

Update of the 1991 Decommissioning Cost for the Rancho Seco Nudear Generating Station l

l l

l 1

i 1

Prepared for Sacnunento Munidpal Utility District I

i 1

l Prepared by TLG Engineering, Inc.

March,1994 940505o200 940428 PDR ADOCK 05000312

(.

P PDR

l l

Document S11-25-003 Update of the 1991 Decommissioning Cmt for the Rancho Seco Nudear Generating Station BACKGROUND TLG Engineering, Inc. (TLG) prepared a decommissioning study for the Sacramento Municipal Utility District (the District) in April of 1991. The study was relied upon in assessing the financial liability associated with decommissioning the shutdown Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (RSNGS) and as a supplement to the Decommissioning Plan (DP) prepared by the District in accordance with Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations.

The 1991 study reported a cost of approximately $327.5 million for the SAFSTOR alternative (includes plant safe storage, deferred decontamination and dismantling),

plus spent fuel storage and non radiological site restoration. Decommissioning was assumed to be initiated on January 1,1993 following an expected approval of the DP by the NRC. Given the ongoing preparations and lead time available to ready the plant for protective storage, initial SAFSTOR activities are estimated to be accomplished within 12 months. The existing spent fuel storage facility will remain active until January 1998, when the last assembly will be moved into dry storage, otherwise, the plant will remain in some form of protective storage until preparations are initiated for deferred decontamination and license termination.

Once the fuel has been transferred to dry storage, the facility is "hm twd" to minimize the on-site commitment for the District. The facility will remain in this state of dormancy for approximately 9 years, after which the District willinitiate deferred decontamination, i.e. removal of unacceptable levels of radioactivity. Upon conclusion of the decontamination process, the District with NRC concurrence, can terminate the operating license and proceed with restoration of the site.

2

Document S11-25-003 INTRODUCTION In accordance with the District's need to maintain a current estimate of its i

I decommissioning funding requirements TLG, under the direction of the District, has revised its 1991 decommissioning estimate for the SAFSTOR alternative. The timing of the update allowed TLG to incorporate current economic conditions within the estimate. As such, the new estimate reflects, in many instances, escalation over a two year period.

The current estimate, summarized in Table 1, is approximately $415.216 million in 1993 dollars. Based on a comparison of the cost reported in the 1991 study, in 1993 dollars, the current estimate represents an increase of 19.5%. As described later, i

much of the increase can be attributed to the escalation seen in the projected cost for low-level radioactive waste disposal at the regional disposal site.

METHODOLOGY and APPROACH _

l l

TLG used the same basic methodology for updating the decommissioning costs for the 1991 RSNGS cost estimate. The following approach was used in generating the 1993 l

estimate.

f l

1.

TLG used the same software (version) for developing the decommissioning cost l

estimate. Revisions to the data files were restrict d to changes that were compatible with the software.

2.

The site inventory was held constant, i.e., the index of plant components and atructural material generated in support of the 1991 study was used without modification.

3.

The decommissioning organization, originally developed by the District for the 1991 study, was used as a basis for developing staffing costs. TLG updated 1

3 i

Documcut S1123 003 personnel salaries based upon information provided by the District. The overhead costs were also revised and reflect the current cost of both direct and indirect corporate expenses. No positions were added or deleted.

4.

The schedule developed for the 1991 estimate of $327.5 million (cessation of plant operations in 1989, followed by a 240.6 month decommissioning period) was retained.

5.

The spent fuel disposition scenario, developed in the 1991 study, was not modified for the 1993 estimate. The Department of Energy (DOE) continues to pursue a solution to the problem of ultimate disposition of spent nuclear fuel. The construction of the RSNGS ISFSI is on schedule. As such, the scenario outlined in 1991 by District remains a reasonable basis for estimating decommissioning costs.

6.

Rates and benefits for craft labor were provided by the District for use within the estimate.

7.

Equipment and material costs, used to develop unit costs for decontamination and removal a ctivities, were updated using the 51st Edition, (1993) RS. Means Building Construction Cmt Data.

8.

Miscellaneous non labor costs were escalated at an annual rate of 3%.

9.

Transportation costs were revised to reflect tha latest published tariffs from Tri-State Motor Transport Company.

10.

A burial rate of $415 per cubic foot was used as a basis in estimating disposal costs for the low level radioactive waste generated in the decommissioning of RSNGS. The disposal charge was provided by the District and represents the latest available information on the Southwestern Compact's burial facility 4

Document S11-25-003 being developed at the Ward Valley site in Needles, California.

Waste classified as Greater than Class C was disposed of as Class C material with additional surcharges, consistent with the 1991 estimate.

SPENT FUEL DISPOSITION The 1991 cost study addressed the post-operation activity of spent fuel storage as a potential constraint on the decommissioning process. Spent fuel assemblies were assumed to remain in the spent fuel pool until 1998 during which time the assemblies would be transferred to an alternative storage location on site. Spent fuel was assumed to be placed in spent fuel dry cask storage modules such that decommissioning operations could proceed with minimum impact, i.e., all fuel is transferred to the dry cask storage compound within 9 years of shutdown. Twenty-one (21) modules were projected for use in the study. The disposition of these l

modules is included within the estimate as well as the initial cost to construct the modules.

The complete inventory of assemblies may be removed from the site by the end of 2010. The cost of spent fuel storage after 2010 will be funded as an operational expense by the District. This scenario has not been modified for the 1993 update to the cost estimate. DOE appears to be making every effort pcssible to meet its obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). The ability of DOE to expeditiously receive RSNGS spent fuel will enable the District to proceed with I

decommissioning. However, DOE's progress should continue to be monitored.

LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSAL There is an ongoing need to re-assess the cost for low. level radioactive waste (LLRW) disposal. The 1991 estimate relied upon a minimum disposal rate of $179 per cubic foot. This was based upon a preliminary projection provided by the District and the State of California, supplemented by the rate structure from the U.S. Ecology 5

Document S11-25-003 disposal facility at Hanford, Washington. The latest base disposal cost projected for the Ward Valley facility, available to the District, is $415 per cubic foot.

Waste disposal projections for the regional facility being sited in California are being driven by rising development costs, environmental and licensing issues, administrative expenses as well as the rate of return on investment, operating and perpetuity expenses.

The resulting disposal fee will be passed through to the generators, placing a significant fraction of the cost to remediate a waste generating site beyond the control of the licensee.

1993 COST PROJECTION AND COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS The cost to decommission RSNGS (including safe storage, decontamination and dismantling), plus spent fuel storage and non-radiological site restoration is estimated to be $415.216 million, in 1993 dollars. This compares to a 1991 estimate of $347.468 million, in 1993 dollars. The 1993 update includes $70.1 million in contingency.

Comparative costs are summarized in Table 1. Annual expenditures are provided in 4

3 Table 2 for the current estimate, with the detailed cost report provided as Table 3.

l The 19.5% increase in the total cost can be attributed to the escalation of costs in two l

areas, LLRW disposal and program management (i.e., utility and contractor staffing costs). As seen in Table 1, a comparison of the individual cost elements between the two estimates identifies only marginal increases in decontamination, removal and packaging costs.

Transportation costs decreased as fuel surcharges, in place two years ago, have been reduced. No change was made to either the destination or the shipping distance

^

assumed in the 1991 estimate.

Burial costs increased subaantially as additional information became available on the disposal cost expected at the new regional disposal facility. The minimum cost 6

Docurnent S11-25-003 identified in 1991 of $179 to dispose of a cubic foot of LLRW is now projected to be

$415. This differential of $236 per cubic foot was applied to the 200,000 cubic feet of LLRW produced in the decommissioning of RSNGS, resulting in the almost 130%

increase in disposal costs over the 1991 estimate.

Staffing costs also increased over the two year period as a result of increases in overhead costs. The organizations developed for the 1991 estimate were not changed, however, the District did provide updated salaries and overhead expenses which were, in most cases, higher than those previously used.

Since neither the organizations nor the decommissioning schedule for the project were modified, the 16.5% increase seen over the two year period is a direct result of the rise in staff management costs.

SUMMARY

and CONCLUSIONS The 1993 costs reported in the following tables were generated as an update to the 1991 decommissioning estimate for RSNGS. TLG revised the 1991 estimate using current information, where available, and escalation factors in those instances where 1993 data was not, as yet, accessible. TLG employed the same software used in preparing the 1991 estimtte and as such there is no difference in the cost estimating methodology between the two estimates. The resulting estimate, $415 million, represented an approximate 19.5% increase over that cost projected in 1991 in 1993 dollars for plant safe storage, spent fuel storage, decontamination and dismantlement, and non-radiological site restoration.

Uncertainties in both high and low-level radioactive waste disposal will continue to produce changes in the future funding requirements for decommissioning. Periodic reviews and evaluations provide a necessary monitoring function and should continue over the decommissioning period.

t 7

e Docunent S11-25-003 TABLE 1 COMPAlUSON OF DECOMMISSIONING COSTS (Thousands of Dollars) 1991 Est. in Work Category 1991 1993 $

1993 l

l i

Decontamination 3,575 3,792 3,706 Removal 64,387 68,308 65,014

\\

l Packaging 2,328 2,470 2,479 Shipping 2,823 2,995 2,795 Radioactive waste disposal (off site) 30,710 38,946 84,110 Decommissioning Staffs 115,279 122,299 134,240 Other 48,697 51,663 52,793 Contingency 53.723 56.995 70.079 TOTAL 327,522 347,468 415,216 8

?

l TABLE 2 Cash Flow Analysis Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Phase 7 Total Custodial SAFSTOR Hardened Hardened Prep for Deferred Site SAFSTOR Dormancy SAFSTOR Dormancy Decon Decon Restore I

1993 S40,139 S40,139 1994 S557 S11,902 S12,459 1995

$12,067 S12,067 1996 S12,067 S12,067 1997 S207 S13,682 S13,889 1998 S230 S2,764 S2,994 l

1999 S2,810 S2,810 2000 S2,810 S2,810 i

2001 S2,810 S2,810 2002 S2,810 S2,810 2003 S2,810 S2,810 l

2004 S2,810 S2,810

{

2005 S2,810 S2,810 2006 S2,810

$2,810

)

2007 S792 S17,342 S18,134 l

2008 S18,749 S17,513 S36,262 l

2009 S78,387 S78,387 I

2010 i

S78,387 S78,387 2011 S37,541 S16,569 S54,110 i

2012 S31,797 S31,797 j

f 2013 S2,041 S2,041 g5 l

1 1

• ~*

Y eo m

S40,696 536,243 S13,912 S26,040 S36,091 S211,827 S50,406 S415,216 h

1 l

l 5

Doctanent S1125 003 TABLE 3 Detailed Cost Report 1

11888 1

a gs gaans as g ga sagggagggg 33 sanan st =

a=

sesse is a ga mangaaggar t,

.l.i.f.ti

.i.f i

IeI 18881.ff

,I If IIIIIIIIII

=

==

===x

s I

a lI

[5s!!

8 s

b

=

=

c 8%

sjg stran es =

• r=

==== ga a*g

=wess=ssse

!Ji 3

}a -}

3 s

e Ei I

uei

=

t i

E s

e i

ga g:

z saass eaa s

J f

4 I

3 l

8

'l f ' f' 3I I

l l1 ~:lg j -

k

$ I i

Ij I

[l'll

}I i.I I1 i l' I

I r '-

F i

{t j }*-

1

'8 I I Iab..!I fI! }

} Aff 55 l}. f f, , } ]f'5 3

::= ::::::: ;;;;;; ;; ;;;;

10

e ~ I COST EST!tEATE FOR SAFstOROELAYED DesalANTUNG. Ranche Sese heeleer Generselag Station peas see, tesos mes6 I Ceeguay Taas M Desan Rosese Podese 5s p hay tem Ca ven Suas tems 46 Ame " ^ 8 Caes u Phase t menne teme ner 1t213 it ses tiset st2ses TOT AL f*tM t Cost eur Cusseem $M 570R 315 2e!2 35 21 M4 beS$3 82 8 east JS if Fe% 30,143 $4B ees L rwheE I Cesenem epston - _ tinsummas asemaneameo Ceeemt 18 Qwment ^ e 29 Someumme assey a 29 peupon sayees a ee sensa sht saa sepame 38 5 es% se not se ses esers sien sm se empsed d

ssae mons 5

t I 54 30 S E 1 347en 313 373 d re rr ^b4 a s,. m m g ..e. ti es. .t M Se aflC mWFees 925 alse% $t98 $*01 se e Recannassa ssie fwatones 127 Iles% 332 3 30 % l 138 Ses shd 79'S 15 90 % St.tef BB, tet .e4 cs W e Cee. ,e t ,3 e sp. ,e,4 ,,t e., o Coe mm Comment d 34 Does 15 2 I 182 31775 95 0 te1 2 15 ess se ese 33s 2e3 PleE $ Peepapesefus4hapeutee SMeTOR 9e Prepee Usesme - tar eteremnes WSTM 28 Nsee- ^ SMSTOR Sporeksesan 21 pne - eWtuman a 22 Fazer ed ses erniser a 30 PeupesLayne Wee Pueseesse 18 pane - eekenes O b e 32 Faser shoemas 8 enemmuy p a g te comessestomandspama aenermenos e paa 58 !>me appetadsom h a ct ae noeudsease sne mannen mis Fadense h a1 aseme name a C G3

Documcnt S11-25-003 \\ l TABLE 3 oceaned Cat Report (con't) !!s!!I: gg s:ss agg gai 33 gasggge a g =a=sangi a s , \\.. .n..a..a.s .i e. .i.n..u..s a..i. 1 5 5

• E s

li = a B *i i. .as -,.n i. Jg i mi l 3 ! !]p y 5 = n i g; x 8 1 I l = 1 1 I i 1 1 i .I j i I = i ji j j1 j i I i i l 11 I iii I' ii IIil_11 i' !>1 11 II; lit I I il - I b! H fin v. 1 n, i 1 11 1

==

= ::=- 12

4 i Document S11-25-003 TABLE 3 (cm't) E!!!! 3"! 5g5g! Eg L' ] 6 i i 1 A s li i r i i_ll all 1 52 l h e E 1 i 1 b i i i I !!!f I l]l . l))! 1111 f a{llidh!! Ihth lill nil!!!il 11 i i 1

= =

=========n sa;;;;;;;::::::: 13

~m e COST ESTise ATE FOR $AFSTOfuDELAVED DSeIANiuleG. Rancho 5ese Neslear Genereeleg hellae (W3 east leses weht Caegnesy tes armer Desee Reseene Peesse 3, hay Tener Cuve

ser, tHee 164==

"^ s Case se naam pe iam messee r 2m3 2m nem mee s2. ors ae

una,

-emne e 32e 32s a set se2 sett se cepend er -seen.see 22 e 122e 52st see fue 2 mem 33te stssr ea er s me, e see is es% s2s sZie to estC ase EP Fees tsF3 2s es% 333 stes? as rireen ee 6 Stee ts ees str2 st ms Paese s tag doc mee Ces tens usey sees Ces ts em s2.s24 sie 3e iets ts seg s242 31 ene fors peese s Cost 27t2 22 e Ine 30etz e a res 2 tr ees ss.zes sm eet reiner a I .. e _.e. e._ 221 .t t. n,. m2 4. s.ee t ,, ses st.e 3,.,2 g i oes== me= some sres= ne=em. a N 17 1 messes Cesame Pome 13 in 14 3 Sm PSF se 32M 2 2s tm s200 see? 47 2 preenste Reser Tee 2 s4 3 1 te 20e 13 1227 9 24 ees es2 s2s1 Wief 17 3 Asester Casame#wes 4 eimer 19 3e 48 se 4882 eeJr et2 173s 1 24 em st.2es so.se2 17 4 Prees,ere e s2 6 21 1914 1e03 tie 1225 1 It set DeFs st3Fe h it s see. - [ m Issa se sto stan tseer toss mas 1st mast stres ste est W tr e me tawase memeen 24 et n a en su 72 tens e s 2r% sne 91172 tr r me.es ween.ne.a e tsa im m rez m2e same see news u slept steer savst i tr e me.en wesen in 2ssa t3r ses sist sie 2 77 taas to seem stees se.e2e to e aanmema.nemerosy e um um rw75 e a ap% sees st2se Obwous dhe symme se t eme-y ees 23 a to sto ts ers 33 32e ts2 amany m tse tse m urt uses an sta2 te a caenseg Cessee mmes tis its te2 mes

• s oom

$17 st3e 19 4 Ceehie ser s iet See 113 3?ee ts eet Fs sim te s Comemom reesseg 0eeserseer tes e 204 2M tot 4F7e ts ee% sti 3235 $*r ter es noe ts am s22 stee tel Ceesse Remesme tale PS se 341t es2s M2 2eePe Ps Mim st,te stres ( te s Deser ttee 8huneem 819 143 31 St2s 75t3 set tease 29 24 ess stJs4 se sef i te e h a $desse 4 21 1821 3 set 2Det ts ees afs3 35,174

1. te

. C eas - m m .m 3ra ts ers m st.2 p, l

1.,1

,se - m = ne

res, nem s.

sm 19 12 esmermen Sed os 25 21 13 aos ff set 33 sM ta ts etP emesyTaense 217 21F 20s sm2 ts es% 333 s25e to 14 parocasem adeus M g,,a e4 53 144 ts e9% 316 374 e oss mec a,se., mme, as e2 n est sus el sm32 2 are% stm seers N is to tascesawyteeg g N M 32 e3e is ost 5 set ,s t, t.eC _ e, et ,m ts am se 3,e M 4 1

Document S11-25-003 TABLE 3 Detailed Cmt Report (con't) SEsis!!Banni!!!!!!!!!!!!EEEER8!!! E!!a 5 JJ zs s sanggg3gggaga55E8!{!!{gaggangg355 gli ! HEi! W ' l$$$$$ llc $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$l5El$$$ Cll I ,, eeczereemaressereamzemerceseze*am ana e amnm ..a ..~ I 1 !!I!!I!!!!!III;gasi!Ilinii!!!ill' HER I j a.s cgya

===s258 8 8*E858 E R I N 55 858

• I 59:

3 ~ 3-si a 8" margeg3gggesayggeggaggg=suas3ggga ggg g* gg3g e. j (( !!5 ! 5 i 8 llI y es g,1 e a-- g 5 I 8 g sa eae a e g ae g ) i 25*S8EEEEE88: EEE5!!!!AE"88: 8?EEE 5"E I 2 inn s; 3 ( 8 1 4 j lit j ' II,lilllill!!D!lf l!'g.,11 ] o II;(-])..i] i g jiij! ii ij 11. ). us 34 ji 1 111isiliaillnillil.!!!!!,11)). l 113 1 ...........=,...............s 23SF223 2222 2323SSRSSERSS S2 52SSSS 3

1. 1. R EN 15

Document S11-25-003 TABLE 3 Detailed Cost EcIxrt (con't) au= gangli si isa s ni i =**gieg= gigs =ssesgg ses u a ga m = 33 !a! stir g a: a as !g iigaus!=a=sa=== sages .s.i.s.s.s.s.ss.s .s.s a .s.s.s.a.s.ss.s.ss.a.s.s.tas.s.s.s.s.s.s.s.s s si !!!gi!!'s!!!!aissing e = i si !!lE8 E ~ 8' 8!!!!* a a 3 E i li 3 ei j3)jg 1!!!siman 1: ; =s si anginna n=r==-aassa 3 0 =1! 3 g sj! I i ~ = 5 I 8 5 a = 2 E!II l 85 jll!I5 *yagam-a=5:g3 i E i e a f. I ] I g ifff(;[11i!']if'le li i l l p 1(i !!j i ! }d -lJl I sill ] 1.1 - H e m i li lll l illliflivl lui i I ii a I ,llja ljil; Jil_ll'.! ] .=.. =x ...==....===- 16

l 1 4 e COST Estias ATE FOR 5AESTOROELAYED 0fSIB4NTLNG. Ranche Sese Meelear Generatlag Sason (tN3 tot 1o005 west I Ce re. r

ased, one memen eessano s,

a., Yes cu ya

suo, u=.

une. C ca m 2i co g r a => tur nw

== u ses sm s2.u. ] 28 22 Cut lysse Oweta= PDe 114 HG 1323 1$ 00% S17 9133 28 23 Cesdung emer tyese 296 290 ti 4HO 15 00 % 343 33 3 29 24 e5 Fe.my l Leu teess esmen 1230 121e es 18W7 19 00 % stel 31,471 26 26 Ory Case steege Casseune 529 S28 tes 8887 19 SPs $79 sect 28 28 $ae Sanstaes 2914 2954 Git 232M 1S Op% $422 31230 29 27 Genehe 8 DieseE Fuss Sen=. mass 3 3 34 15 ges se 33 snea----a h 27 Ramsee lheses 60B 188 23B5 15 W% 325 Sies n mese g lesesepe ens 1205 1200 tes2 t$geg stet 31.3 3 25 Fme sepen se eftC ti$ 1130 % BIS $175 Poisse I thmestised Coas te auwame tes eggD% SIS Stes iS Deessy eedomes smed 9570 1879 nes% 34sg 32,3m 39 kaat te smensue 165 MS 5 00 % $3 3104 n 8. 8 me e m m 3 W pense 7 mefung coc ess Ces esa is es% st.ns3 912,t37 t usay sia# Com 1954 it geg 32g3 gg gge h J co 70 Tat PHASE I C05 N20e est 8 128 41534 0 t$e42 421270 8 il Fes se72 totos owe 70TAL COST TO DECm 1?os eSet4 24?e 2735 santa 3e5132 T3me 2S00 1 92F718 483 19 30 % 75g79 4t%2tg t t bass 8M G74 O C 4 CG - -. _ = - = - -= - - - _ _ -}}