ML20031A465

Testimony of AA Weinstein Re Contention 9 on Decommissioning.Related Correspondence

ML20031A465
Person / Time
Site:	Susquehanna
Issue date:	09/15/1981
From:	Weinstein A ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC., PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20031A420	List: ML20031A419 ML20031A423 ML20031A430 ML20031A437 ML20031A443 ML20031A447 ML20031A453 ML20031A457 ML20031A461 ML20031A465
References
NUDOCS 8109230543
Download: ML20031A465 (52)

Text

i l

/

4

/'

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA g.

gggggg NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION LEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of

)

)

PENNSYLVANIA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY

)

)

and

)

Docket Nos. 50-387

)

50-388 ALLEGHENY ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE, INC. )

)

(Susquehanna Steam Electric Station, )

Units 1 and 2)

)

cn a

9 t

DOCXtygg

!l L'ermo 19 l-.

SEP I 7198tl > 5 S, {'

1I% see:g,q

/

~

a Sr.I;icg APPLICANTS' TESTIMONY OF

- ;5 g

ALBERT A. WEINSTEIN g

ON CONTENTION 9 (DECOMMISSIONING)

~

September 15, 1981 8 1 0 9 2 3 0 5 4 3 8 1 0 9 1 5

PDR ADOCK 05000387 T

PDR1

-. - ~ -..

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 1

1.

INTRODUCTION 5

2.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSONS 5

3.

PNL - B ASED ES'ITMATES 8

3.1 INSPOSAL OF NEUTRON-ACTIVATED MATERIAL 11 3.2 INSPOSAL OF CONTAMINATED MATERIALS 12 3.3.

INSPOSAL OF PROCESS RAI10 ACTIVE WASTE 14 3.4.

LABOR 15

3. 5.

ENERGY 15 3.6.

SPECIAL *iOOLS AND EQUIPMEN'T 16 3.7 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPLIES 16 3.8.

SPECIALTY CONTRACTORS 17 3,9.

NUCLEAR INSURANCE 17 3.10.

LICENSE FEES 17 1

3.11.

ACCESS HATCHES 17 3.12.

OTHER POSSIBLE COSTS 20 COMPARISON WITH ACTUAL DECOMMISSONING EXPERlNCE 4.

22 4.1 SITE AND FACILITY PREPARATION 4.2 DECONTAMINATION AND REMOVAL OF P1PB(G 22 AND EQUIPMENT 25 4.3 REMOVAL OF REACTOR INTERNALS 25 4.4 REMOVAL OF REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEI.

26 4.5 REMOVAL OF BELOGICAL SED.LD AND CONCRETE 27

4. 6 SHIPMENT AND IXSPOSAL OF RAIIOACTIVE WASTE 27

4.7 NUCLEAR INSURANCE

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION TABLE CF CONTENTS Cont.

Pagg 4.8 LICENSE FEES 27 4.9 OTHER POSSELE COS*1b 27 5.

ADJUSTMENT 07 ESTIMATES 28 5.1 ADJUSTMENT OF PNL-BASED ESTIMATE 28 5.2 ADJUSTMENT OF EXPERIENCE-BASED ESTIMATE Z8 5.3 ADJUSTED ES'IIMATE FOR SSES 29 6.

ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF DECOMMISSDNING 29 l

6.1 SAFE STORAGE FOLLOWED BY DEF2RRED DISMANTIEMENT 29 6.2 ENTOMBMENT 33 7.

ENVRONMENTAL IMPACT 36 7.1 SBORT-TERM LOCAL HIGHWAY USAGE 36

'.2 LAND COMMITMENT 37 7.3 COMMirMENT OF RESOURCES 37 40 7.4 RAIIOLOGCAL DOSES 7.5 NONRAIXOLOGICAL IFFLUENT 41 7.6 SOCIAL /ECONOMICIMPACT OF PLANT 41 DECOMMISSENING 42 7.7 AESTHETICS 43 APP 3NDIX 1: DESIGN COMPARISONS

.,en

.--.,,..-n.,.-,

,,..--,,,..,---.w,w,.--

.w-.

-,.,,..-,.n..,--,n.--,~~_...,-

...--.,--,----r

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION TABLE & CONTEN"IS

]

TABLES PAGE TABLE 1 Decommissioned Units - Ratings Greater Than 10 MW(t) 3 TABLE 2 Summary of Susquehanna Decommissioning Cost Estimates:

Single Unit Decommissioning versus Concurrent Decommissioning of Both Units (Millions of 1980 dollars) 6 TABLE 3 Comparison of PNL Cest Estimates for WNP-2 (early-1978 dollars) with Estimates for SSES (two units,1980 dollars)-

in millicais of dollars (immediate dismantlement).

7 TABLE 4 Adjustment of Elk R.ar and BONUS Costs to SSES 23 TABLE 5 Comparison of PNL Cest Estimates for WNP 2 (early-1978 dollars) with Estimates for SSES (two units,1980 dollars)-

Preparations for Safe Storage (millions of dollars).

31 i

l TABLE 6 Comparison of PNL Cost Estimates for WNP-2 (early-1978 dollars) with Estinaates for SSES ( 2 units,1980 dollars)-

Dismantlement Deferred 50 Years (millions of &llars).

32 1

TABLE 7 Comparison of Costs for Entombment: PNL Estimates (1978 dollars) versus Estimate for Two SSES Units (1980 dollars)- Entombment Scenario 2 l

(No Removal of Reactor Internals) $ millions.

35 TABLE 8 Total Number of Shipments for Various 38 Decommisaicning Modes TABLE 9 Long-Term Land Commitment f a Each 38

(

Decommissioning M ode l

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION 1.

INTRODUCTION The Susquehanna Steam Electric Station (SSES) is a two-unit nuclear-electric generat-Each unit consists of ing station under construction in Luzerne County, Pennsylvania.

a General Electr.c Boiling Water Reactor BWR/4 product line with an 1100 megawatt electric (MW(e)) nominal rating. Rated core power is 3293 megawatts thermal (MW(t)).

The SSES will be licensed to operate for a period of 40 years from the date of issuance of the construction permits.

For purposes of this study, it is assumed that the operating licenses will terminate at the end of the 40 year period, although PP&L can request license renewal. At the time raperating license termination is requested, PPkL must submit a decommissioning plan to NRC.

Reactors decommissioned to date have us.4 the foHowing decommissioning modes or variations thereof:

Imtnediate dismantlement: removal of fuel, followed by decontamina-o tion and removal of aH radioactive comoonents Saf e storage followed by deferred dismantlement: removal of fuel, then o

controHed access for a period of time to aHow radioactivity decay, followed by removal of all radioactive components o

Entombm ent: decontamination, then placing of all radioactive compo-nents in a monolitMc structure. Access is controHed untS radioactivity has decayed to safelevels Immediate dismantlement, taken as the reference case for this study, respresents the Using this upper bound cost for decommissioning large nuclear reactor f acilities conservative estimate is appropriate in a cost-benefit context because it envelopes the reasonaWe range of costs.

Considerable experience exists in decommissioning nuclear reactor f acilities, although this experience has typcally been with sman reactors Qess than 200 megawatts th-mal). To date dee:tsmmissioning has been performed on 14 reactors with ratings greater than 10 megawatts thermal. Of these 14 plants,10 were power production units while 4 were principally test f acilities. TaNe I summarizes the decommissioning experience at these units. About 50 research reactors have also been decommissioned,

.g.

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION typically by dismantlement. From Table 1 it can be seen that the amount of work done at each unit varied considerably. Thirteen of the fourteen units listed in Table I have opted for some form of safe storage. Only Elk River has performed immediate dism antlem ent.

Under contract to NRC, Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL), operated by Battelle Memorial Institute, recently completed a comprehendve study of the methods and costs of decommissioning a reference BWR (NUREG/CR-0672: " Technology, Safety, and Cost of Decommissioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station" June, 1980). PNL's approach was to develop detaile work plans baseu on the specific design of the reference plant, and expected levels of activation and contamination based on typical BWR operating experience. Labor, design, and supervision manpower require-ments were estimated for 6 contamination and removal of activated and contaminated equipment and piping. Requirements for equipment, energy, supplies, and specialty contract labor were estimated for these tasks. Casks, transportation, and disposal costs were calculated based on the expected quantities of radioactive material.

Finally, nuclear insurance and licensing fees were estimated to derive a total estimated cost for decommissioning by immediate dismantlement. PNL also estimated costs for alternr.te modes of decommissioning.

Until the recent completion of the PNL studies it was my practice to estimate decommissioning costs for large power reactors by extrapolating costs experienced in previous decommissionings (Elk River and BONUS), and this tge of analysis has been performed for SSES. Because the PNL report employs a detailed task-by-task project analysis of probable decommissioning methods, it is also a valuable tool in estimating decommissioning costs.

SSES decommissioning costs have thus been entimated by adjusting PNL cost estimates for specific SSES design and current comp >nent costs.

Each approach to decommissioning cost estimating has limitations. The limitation of FNL's method is that it is a hypothetical study. The limitation of the extrapolation-of-experience method is that the size extrapolaticas is a f actor of about 50.

By examining both approaches a range of costs can be projected within which SSES may reasonsbly be expected to f all.

l l

TsW e 1: Decommissioned Units, Rating Greater Than 10 MW(t)

Date Plant g

Power Decors aiesioniadr Com pleted Cast Hallam Sodium Graphite 75 MWiel Removed all fuel and sodium. Removed some piping 1969 84,Z07,000 and some components. Encased reactor in isolation structwo.

CVTR Heavy W at er -

65 MWit)

Removed fwl and heavy water. Decontaminated some 1964 E50,000 Pnsewe Tube seens. Sealed up reactor area.

BONUS Boiling Water 50 MW(t)

Removed fuel. Decoatassinated plant. Removed some 1971 81,613,000 components. Encased reactor in isolation structwe.

Pothfinder Boiling Water -

54.5 Removed fuel. Decoataminated plant. Removed some 1%9 B,700,000 Integral Superheat MWie) pi; sag and components. Sealed reactor in place.

Reused twMne with fossil boilers.

Elk River Boiling water 22.5 Disasantled to below grade. A!! radioactive 1974 86,615,000 M W(e) components sWpped to inarial site.

Piqua Organic Cooled 11.4 Reinoved fuel. Removed all piping enternal to 1967 E,000,000 e moderated MWie) biological sWeld. SWp components off-site.

Encased reactor in isolation structwo.

Santon Pneswised Water 23.5 Safe storage (mothballed). Removed fuel. Welded 1973 2,500,000 (test f acility)

MW(t) security enciaswe.

l SEFOR Sodium Cooled 20 MW(t)

Saf e..orage (mothballed). Removed fuel. Walded 1973 UnavailaWe Fast reactor security encloswe.

(teet f acility)

Fermi Sodium Cooled 200 MW(t) Sale storage (mothballe.). Removed fuel. Locked 1975 36,950,000 d

Fast reactor doore and security fence.

GE EVESR Boiling Water 17 MW(t)

Safe storage (mothballed). Removed fue!.

1968 UnavailaWe (test f acility)

Continuous security.

Peach Gas Cooled 115 MW(t) Sale storage 6 mothballed). Removed fuel.

1976 UnavailaWe Bottom 1 Giaphite Moderated Contianous security force.

l l

l.

Tame la Decommiastamed Ualts Rattap Geseter Than 10 MW(t),(CoatJ Date Coussleted Cost Plant h

Power Decometeoloning VBWR Baillag W ater 50 MW(t) 5efe storage with eteam plant conversion.

1965 Unavailable Remowed Iuel. Ccetinuous security Iorce with locked doore.

Destingbouse Tank Reactor 60 MW(t)

Safe storage 6 mothballed). Remo*6d fuel.

1974 Uma vellable Test Reactor (teet Iacility)

Cettmaous security force with locked doors.

SRE Graphite Moderated 30 M'.F(t)

Sate atorage 6eothballed)in 1968. Removed fuel.

1960 UsavailaWe Solhen Cooled Plaming and preparation for dismanttias started la 1974.

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION 2.

SUMMARY

AND CONCLUSK)NS Applying the PNL-based methodology to the SSES configuration, the estimated costs (in 1980 dollars) of decommissionirg the SSES by immediate dismantlement are $ 89 million for a single unit, and $176 million for both units done concurrently, as set forth in Section 3 below.

Applying the Elk River / BONUS-based methodology to the SSES configuration, the estimated costs (in 1980 dollars) of decommissioning the SSES by imm ediate dismantlement are $108 million for a single unit, and $215 million for both units done concurrently, am set forthin Section 4 below.

To establish an estimate for the SSES, the PNL-based estimate was then adjusted to include an added contingency on the site disposal charges for contaminated material and process radioactive waste and the Elk River / BONUS-based estimate was adjusted to reflect a reduction in the changes developed using verylarge scaling f actors. These adjtstments are discussed in Section 5 below. With these adjtstments the estimated costs (in 1980 dollars) of immediate dismantlement of the SSES is $96 million for a single unit, and $191 million for both units done concurrently; These costs are summ arized in Table 2.

The estimated costs (in 1980 dollars) for safe storage followed by dismantlement in 50 years of both SSES units is $176 million, as set forth in Section 6.1 below. The estimated cost (in 1980 dollars) for entombment of both SSES units and including 100 years surveillance is $135 million, as set forth in Section 6.2 below.

3.

PNL-BASED ESTIMATES The reference plant design used for the PNL study was the Washington Public Power Supply System Nuclear Project Number 2 (WNP-2).

A generic site located in the midwestern U.S. was assumed for site-location-related costs.

The design of the WNP-2 tmit is very simHar to an SSES unit. The WNP-2 unit is a 3,323 MW(t) BWR/5, MarkII containment desi gn.

The two designs are compared in AppendixI, and a i

l summary comparism of PNL and SSES costs is provided in Table 3.

The foHowing 1

sections detail the cost comparisons by task.

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION Table 2 Summary of Susquehanna Decommissioning Cost Estimates:

Single Unit Decommissioning Versus Concurrent Decommissioning of Both Units (Millions of 1980 dollars)

Single Unit Both Units Together Disposal of radioactive mat erials 24.640 49.279 Fuel Channel Disposal 1.041 2.082 Staff labor:

laborers, craf ts 14.700 29.400 nonm anual field personnel

- engineering 6.039 9.058 Energy

6. 83 9 13.679 Special tools & equipment 2.339 3.518 Misallaneous supplies 2.183 4.365 Specialty contractors

- explosives, radwaste, 0.418 0.757 environmental monitoring Nuclear inswance 0.968 1.742 License fees 0.051

0. 073 Subtotal 59.218 113.953 25% Contingency

14. 805 28.488 Total 74.023 142.441 l

Other Possible Costs:

Spent fuel shipmmit

2. 975

5. %0 Facility demolition and

13. 801

• 30.668 site restoration Deep geologic disposal of highly actitiated materials 1.092 2.183 Subtotal 17.868 38.801 25% Contingency 4.467 9.700 Total 22.335 48.501 Grand Total 96.358 190.942

~

• In a single unit decommissioning (first of two) only one reactor building, one twbine building, one cooling tower and perhaps, some minor auxiliary structures could be demolished.

Demolition of the radwaste building and diesel building which are common to both units, and site restoration would have to wait for decommissioning of the second unit.

A

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION Table 3 Comparison of PNL Cost Estimates for WNP-2 (early-78 dollars) with Estimates for SSES (two units,1980 dollars)- in millions of dollars (immediate dismantlement).

Cost Category WNP-2 (1 unit)

SSES (I unit)

SSES (2 units)

Disposal of radioactive materials neutron-activated 2.300 3.72 5 7.451 contaminated

4. 907 11.732 23.463 process waste 1,469 3.152 6.303 Staff labor

17. El 20.740 38.458 Energy

3. 51 3 6.83 9 13.679 Special tools and equipment 2.016 2.339

3. 518 Miscellaneous supplies 1.859 2.183 4.365 Speciality contractors 0.356 0.418 0.757 Nuclear insurance 0.800 0.968 1.742 License fees 0.051 0.51 0.073 Subtot al 34.838 52.147 99.809 25% Contingency 8.710 13.037 24.952 Total 43.548 65.184 124.761 Other possible costs Spent fuel shipment 3.738 2.975 5.950 Facility demolition & site restoration 13.244 13.801

• 30.668 Deep geologic disposagf highly activated materials 0.848 1.092 2.183 Fuel channel disposal (shallow burial) 0.61 7 1.041 2.082 l

l Subtotal 18.497 18.009 4t +.,

25% Contingency

4. 6?.4 4.72 7 10.221 Total 23.121 23.636 51.104 Grand Total 66.669 88.820 175.865 (a)

Diff erence between geologic and shallow land disposal

( *)

In a single unit decommissioning (first of two) only one reactor building, one turM ne building, one cooling tower and perhaps, some minor auxiliary structures could be demolished.

Demolition of the radwaste buiding and diesel bunding which are common to both units, and site restoration would have to wait for decommissioning of the second unit.

_7

- - - -. -... - - - - - - - ~ - - - - - -

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION i

l 3.1 Disposal of Neutron-Activated Material 3.1.1 Reactor Components The following components are disposed of as neutrort-activated material: fuel support pieces, control rods, top fuel guide, core support plate, core shroud, and parts of the steam separator, irr core instrun:entation, centrol rod guide tubes, jet pum p asemblies, reactor vezel wall, and sacrifidal shield.

PNL estimates a total of 526,730 kg of neutron-activated material at WNP-2, contained in 8,051 cubic feet of dia. posed volume. Based on design comparisons (mainly differences in thicknesses of the reactor vessel ad sacrificial shield), one unit of SSES will contain 477,610 kg of neutron-activated material, containedin 7,592 cubic feet of disposed volume.

For ease of <nmparison, the neutron-activated material has been broken into three classes tres than 1 microcurie per gram,1-70 microcuries per gram, and greater than 70 microcuries per grarc. The following table compares PNL volume estimates for i

WNP-2 with volume estimates for one SSES unit in each of these three categories (cebic f eet):

<1 uCi/g 1-70 p Ci/g

>70 u C1/g Total WNP-2 3178 812 4061 8051 SSES(one unit) 2754 777 4061 7592 For the less than 1 microcurie per gram class waste, the next table compares PNL estimates for neutron-activated material handling and disposal costs with estimates for a utility in the northeastern United States shipping to a Western disposal site (dollars per cubic foot):

PNL SSES

($ 1978)

($ 1980)

Container cost 26.43 3.20 Transportation 8.46 7

Disposal site charges 4.76 9_

Total s39.65 19.2 PNL estimated the cost for shielded containers for da disposal of lower activity mat erial. Because this low-activity material need not be shielded,it may be shipped

____-8___________,_

m

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION in low cost standard shipping containers, at a cost of $24 per standard 55 gallon drum.

Larger containers would reduce the cubic foot charge even further.

PNL transportation estimates are for overweight truck shipments to a disposal site located 500 miles from the ref erenced site. Transportation cost estimates for SSES are for legal weight shipments from the Northeast U.S. to a Western disposal site.

Because the material will be cut into manageable sizes at the site, there is no need for overweight vehicle use. PNL used a September,1977 Nuclear Enpacering Co. (NECO) price list for Beatty, Nevada to determine disposal site charges. Disposal site charges for SSES estimating are derived from the November,1980 NECO price list for Hanford and Beatty. In the less than 1 microcurie per gram categefy, total SSES costs (two eits, in 1980 dollars) would be $106,000.

The next table compares PNL estimates with my estimates for SSES for disposal of mid-activity (1-70 microcuries per gram) neutron-activated waste (dollars pc cubic foot):

PNL($ 1978)

SSES ($ 1980)

Container, transportation, and cask rental 175.02 200 Disposal site charges 44.61 99 Total Z19.96 299 My estimstes for container, transportation, and cask cost are based on experience of a utility in the northeast U.S. shipping waste in this range of activity to a Western site.

Estimates range from $80 - $200 per cubic foot over the range of 1-70 microcuries per

(

gram, and the higher number has been assumed. Disposal site charges wer.s calculated by escalating the price list used by PNL (Table M.5-1) to the November,1980 NECO price list.

1 In the 1-70 microcurie per gram range, total SSES costs (two units,1980 dollars) will f

be $465,000.

9

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION The next table compares PNL estimates with my estimates for SSES for disposal of neutron-activated materials in the activity range greater than 70 micmcuries per gram (dollars per cubic foot):

PNL ($1978)

SSES ($ 1980)

Container, transportation and cask rental 235.31 269 Disposal site charges 256.09 578 Total 491.40 847 This category includes a very wide range of activities (from 130-200,000 micmeuries per gram), whereas higher-activity reactor operating wastes are rarely much above the lower end of this range. For this reason, current operating reactor waste disposal costs have not been used to calculate SSES decommissioning waste disposal costs in this category, but instead the PNL cost estimates have been escalated. Container, transportation, and cask costs are escalated at the same rate (200/175.02 = 1.143) applied between the PNL and SSES estimates for the 1-70 microcuries per gram case (this implicitly accounts for escalation and changes in transportation distance).

Disparal site charges are escalated to reflect price list changes as above.

In the greater than 70 microcuries per gram range, total SSES costs (two units,1980 donars) will be $6,880,000.

Adding the three categories, total neutron-activated material disposal charges for SSES (1980 donars) will be $7,451,000.

3.1.2 Fuel Channels PNL assumes that fuel channels will be shipped with spent fuel and treats the separate shipment of fuel channels and dispo,

'haRow land burial as an "other possible cost". Although fuel channels may or may not a shipped with spent fuel,it appears realistic to assume that they will be disposed of separately for the foHowing reasons:

If fuel reprocessing is occurring when decommissioning t.akes place, o

the fuel channels will be disposed of separately. _ _ _ _

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION The majority of schemes investigated for the long term disposal of o

spent fuel do not include storage af the fuel channel with the spent fuel.

Because of these reasons, and 1,ecause inclusion of this cost as a separate item is a conservative (more costly) asumption, fuel channel disposal charges have been included in the base cost of decommissioning the SSES.

Cost adjustments were applied to PNL's estimates for fuel channel disposal to account for escalation of transportation and disposal costs to 1980 (this methodology is similar to that used in radioactive waste disposal descriptions above). Disposal site charges are escalated to reflect differences between the September,1977 NECO price list used by PNL and the November,1980 NECO price list, and container, cask, and transportation costs are escalated in a manner identical to that used for neutron-activated material to yield the fo!!owing comparative costs (2,050 cubic feet burial volume):

PNL($ 1978)

SSES ($ 1980)

Container, cask, and transportation 352,470 451,110 Handling surcharge 47,700 83,341 Burial 5,430 17,786 Liner surcharge 165,890 387,943 Curie strcharge 45,650 100,551 Total (one unit) 617,140 1,040,731 l

3.2 Disposal cf Contaminated Materials PNL estimates a total contaminated mat-rial disposal volume for WNP-Z of 608,100 cubic f eet. This includes piping, equipment, and some ccmcrete from the primary containment, reactor building, turHne building, and the radwaste and control building.

To adapt PNL estimates to SSES, adjustments were required in volumes of the reactor vessel wall, sacrificial shield, core cnoling and spray systems, feedwater heaters, and _

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION feedwater pumps. Making these adjustments to PNL estimates (which are given.in Table L3-4 of the PNL report) yields an SSES total contaminated material disposal j

volume of 613,900 cubic feet (one unit).

i The following table compares PNL averags cost estimates for containers, transporta-tion, handling, and burial of contaminated waste with current estimates for SSES (dollars / cubic feet):

PNL($ 1978)

SSES ($ 1980) i Containers 2.75 3.2 Transportation 2.55 7

Handling 0.12 0.21 Burial 2.65 8.70 3

Total ($/ft )

8.07 19.11 Volume (f t )

608,100 613,900 (per unit)

Total Cost ($)

4.907 M 23.463M (Z units)

Container costs were estimated at $24 per 55 gallon (7.5 cubic feet) drum. Transpor-tation costs were estimated from recent low-level radioactive waste cost estimates for a Northeastern utility ship}ing to a Western disposal site. Handling and burial costs were e6calated proportionally to changes between the disposal site operator price list used by PNL (Table M.5-1) and the November,1980 NECO price list.

3.3.

Disposal of Process Radioactive Waste l

A third categwy of radioactive waste identified by PNL is process waste. Process waste is subdivided into two categorie: dry and wet. Dry waste consists of plastic, rag, and anticontamination clothing.

Wet waste includes residue from chemical decontamination and contaminated water, rad includes concentrator bottoms, filter sludges, and spent resins. Because the designs of WNP-2 and SSES are very similar and result in nearly identical volumes of contaminated piping, PNL estimates of quantities l

of wet and dry process waste have been used.

PNL assumes that dry waste is compacted by a factor of 5 and packaged in 55 gallen drums which cost $20 each. PNL asumes most of the dry waste will require shielding, 1.

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION but this assumption would appear to be excessively conservative, based on reactor experience. The following is a comparison of PNL estimates for WNP-2 with the estimates for SSES (dollars per cubic foot):

PNL($ 1978)

SSES ($ 1980)

Containers 2.69 3.2 Casks 2.99 0

Transportation 6.90 7

Handling 1.19 0

Burial 2.75 9

3 Total ($/ft )

1 6. 52 19.2 Using the PNL estimate of 23,943 cubic f eet for dry waste volume for one unit, SSES costs (two units,1980 dollars) will be $919,000.

The table below compares PNL's cost estimate for disposal of wet waste with the estimate for SSES (dollars per cubic foot):

PNL($ 1978)

SSES ($ 1980)

Containers and materials, cask rental, and transportation 31. 62 81.20 Handling, burial, and Liner surcharge 5.72 12.44 Total 37.34 93.64 The estimate for SSES container, materials, cask rental, and transportation is based on recent cost data for solidification of evaporator bottoms and shipment to a Western disposal site. Disposal site charges were derived by a price list escalation as discussed earlier. The major contributions to the increase in SSES cost estimates over PNL estin ates are the asumption of a Western disposal site and a substantial escalation in disposal site charges from 1972 price lists. Using the PNL estimate of 28,746 cubic feet of wet waste for one unit, the wet waste disposal cost for SSES (two units,1980 dollars)is estimated to be $5,384,000. -. - _

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION Total SSES process radioactive waste disposal costs (1980 dollars) thus are 36.303 million for two units.

3. 4.

Labor Two adjustments have been made to PNL data to arrive at estimates for labor costs at SSES in 1980 donars: adjustments in manhour estimates based on differences in design between SSES and WNP-2, and adjustments in labor rates based on current data provided by PP&L.

Removal of reactor building equipment (Item 25, Table L3-7 of the PNL report) will require about 15% more labor for SSES than for WNP-2, ince SSES has four additional low pressure pumps ir. the core spray and injection systems. Removal of equipment in the urbine building (Item 10 of Table L3-7) will require 7% more labor at SSES, due to the presence of an additional feedpump and two additional feedwr.tcr heaters. These two adjustments result in an increase in the total dedicated manhaurs of 0.345%

Actual PP&L labor rates as of October,1980, compare with rates used by PNL for selected categories as folic.,s (thousands of donars per manyear, including overhead and profit):

PNL PP&L Escalation Rate Laborer 25.9 25.6 0.99 Craf t labor 27.1 30.0-36.2 1.22 ( Avg.)

Engineering (II 43.8 70.0 1.60 Nonm anual field personnel 20.3-23.2 26.0 1.20 ( Avg.)

PNL's estimates of manning requirements in each of the above categories may be determined (Table L2-3 of PNL report) approximately as follows:

Laborer 17 %

Craf t labor 38%

Engineer 23 %

Noam anual field personnel 22 %

(1)

The PP&L estimate is for architect-engineer services, which are currently estimated by PP&L at $35/ hour and may be weighted toward senior design pers<mnel. In practice it may be that less senior personnel could be used to efect some cost savings.

i J

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION Weighing the escalation rates in each category, increasing labor rates by 0.345% to account for the additional woex required at SSES over WNP-2, and de-escalating III PP&L's October, 1980 costs to January,1980 at 10% per annum gives a labor escalation f actor of 1.181. Hence, the estimate for the staff labor component of SSES decom missioning is: ($17.561 million) (1.181) = $20.740 million for a single unit.

For decommissioning of the second unit, a substantial savings in engineering labor is likely, as the engineering aspects of the two units will be very similar. A 50% savings on engineering labor for the second unit has been assumed, yielding a staff labor cost for both units of $38.458 million.

3. 5.

Energy PNL estimates a total of 106,400 MWh of electricity and 3,849,000 gallons of auxiliary l

boiler fuel oil (mainly to produ:e steam for the radwaste evaporators) will be used l

during immediate dismantlement of the reference plant. Since an SSES unit design is so close to the WNP-2 reference design, these estimates have been used for SSES.

March,1980 PP&L electricity costs were 3.26c,/kwh, and October,1980 PP&L fuel oil costs were $1.101 per ganon.

Based on U.S. Department of Energy figures (

escalators of 26% per annum for electricity and 27% per annum for fuel oil were used to give a January,1980-based cost of 3.1$/kwh and $0.92 per gaHon, resulting in a total SSES energy coat of $13.679 million for two units.

3. 6.

Special Tools and Equipment PNL has identified (Table L1-1) several hundred special tools and equipment required for dismantlement, based cm a task-by-task analysis of the immediate dismantlement j

schedule (spares are included in this list). Equipment ranges from simple items such as scaffolds and front-end loaders, to complex remote machinery such as an underwater manipulator (this manipulator accounts for about half the total cost of special tools (1)

Labor escalation is based on historical data from SMSC Escalation Handbook.

Since decommissioning is not covered by a specific SIC code, an average of eight industries was used.

(2)

Monthly Energy Review, DOE /EIA-0035 (80/11) November, 1980.

U.S.

Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.

The fuel-oil escalation is based on July,1979 - July,1980 figures; electricity escalation is based on August,1979 -August, les > figures.

s

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION and equipment). Other majcr items included in these estimates are: torches, saws, mobile decontamination units, high presure water jets, lifts, special ventuation systems, spallers, and other special tools. Accepting PNUs estimates in this area, and escalating cost figures a total of 16%(I' from 1978 to 1980 gives an SSES estimate of

$2.339 million for or.e unit.

With proper planniug, the $1.160 million (escalated) remote manipulator may be used l

for both units. The estimate for special tools and equipment for two units is $3.518 million.

3.7.

Miscellaneous Supplies Miscellaneous supplies include expendables such as filters, anticontamination clothing, cleaning agents and materials, tools, resins, and decontamination chemicals.

[

PNL assumes use of targe quantities of EDTA /citrox acid in a 5 weight-percent concentration, at a cost of $6.34 per kg of acid. Because the piping and equipment being decontaminated will not be seed again, a harsher acid might be preferred. This would not make an appreciable difference in cost, however. For example, a 10%

solution of phosphoric acid used in place of a 5% solution of EDTA /citrox acid would result in a cost increase of $69,000, negligible in the context cf this study.

I For SSES cx>st estimating, PNL's cost estimates for miscellaneous supplies were asumed and escalated to 1980 at a total of 17.4%I, giving a total cost of $4.365 million for two units.

3. 8.

Specialty Contractors This category includes cont: factors to perform explosives, temporary radwaste han-i dling, and environmental monitoring wwk. PNUs estimate of $0.356 million has been escalated at a total of 17.4%(2) to arrive at the SSES estimate of 40.418 million for one unit (1980 donars). Since environmental monitoring work is for the site and not the specific unit, I have assumed this part of the work to cost 50% as much for the second unit as for the first. This gives a two-unit cost of $0.757 million (1980 donars) j for specialty contractors.

(1)

Escalation based on f abricated metal products industry; data from SMSC Escalation Fsndbook.

j (2)

Escalation based on average of three industries:

chemicals and allied i

products,industrialinorganic chemicals, and fabricated m etal products.

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION 3.9.

Nuclear Insurance PNL assumed a policy of $125 million carrieC through the dismantlement period at a total cost of $0.800 million. This has been escalated at 10% per annum (I' to arrive at an SSES estimate of $0.968 million for one unit (1980 dollars). A 20% savings on insurance has been asumed for the second unit, since the time of risk es.posure is reduced by simultaneous decommissionings. Total insurance cost for two units is estimated to be $1.742 million.

3.10.

License Fees It is assumed that the follcwing license fees will be required. Fees are derived from current iee schedules in 10CFR170 (which have not changed from PNL estimates):

First Second(

Unit Unit Facility License Amendment to Possession Only

$12,300 400 i

(Class 4)

Facility License Amendment to Terminate

$12,300 400 (Class 4) l AnaualInspection (four years at $650 per year)

$ 2,600 2,600 SafeguardInspection (two years at $11,800

$23,600 19,000 per year)

Subtotals (1980 doliars)

$50,800 22,400 Total, two units (1980 dollars)

$73,200 3.11.

Access Hatches PNL analysis assumes that existing access hatches are suffident to allow equipment l

removal. This is reasonable in view of PNL's assumed method of on-site equipment I

cutting to fit standard size shipping containers. In the decommissioning of the Elk River reactor plant additional access openings were cut. It may be the case that SSES will utilize additional access openings for equipment removal, in the interest of speeding the paucess and reducing occupational radiation exposure.

Although the creation of additiccal access hatches would be a cost increase, it would be offset by a corresponding decrease in decommissioning costs. For this reason, no additional cost for this task has been assumed.

3.12.

Other Possible Costs The cost information presented in sections above is conservative. That is, when a range of possible costs was likely, the higher cost was used. For example, waste j

(1)

A 10% insurance escalation is assumed to be reasonable.

(2)

Fees for second unit when filed simultaneously with first unit.. -.-.

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION disposal by shipment to a Western disposal site was assumed. This is based on present volume limitations at the Barnwell disposal site. The waste disposal site situation will likely be much diff erent in 40 years when SSES is decommissioned.

Since the availability of sites closer to SSES at that time is likely, the assumption of use of the Western site is a conservative one.

The costs given above should be viewed as "reasonaNe but conservative" estimates of 1980-based cost for decommissioning SSES. There are additional poss!Ne costs which are unlikely to be incurred, or, if incurred, might be charged to accounts other than decommissioning. These have been grouped as "other possiNe costs" and are presented below. These "other possible costs" should be treated in the spirit of "not likely but in the event that..." for purposes of determining decommission'ng costs sensitivities to changes in decommissioning and waste dispescl methods or ac nunting methods.

a.

Spent Fuel Shipment Spent fuel shipment is most logically treated as an operating cost. It could be argued, however, that some final spent fuel shipment is a decommissioning cost, since it is shipped before achieving full burnup PNL includes shipment of the entire core as an "other possiNe cos,t."

If spent fuel shipment is included as a decommissioning cost, only three-fourths of the core should be so treated, since one-fourth of the core has achieved full burnup and can be considered an operating cost.

Three-fourths of the core consists of 573 fuel assemblies containing 119 metric tons of uranium (MTU). The estimated cost for shipping BWR fuel 800 one-way straightline miles (the approximate distance to Morris, Illinois) is

$25,000 per MTU by truck, for a total three-fourths core cost of $2 975 million, or $5.950 million for two units (1980 dollars).

b.

Facility Demolition and Site Restoration Once all radioactive materials 1 ave been removed from the SSES site, it would be suitable for uncontrolled use for an alternate purpose. Although PP&L could possibly use the location for a new power generation f acility, demolition of all structures has been assumed in keeping with developing an upper bound estimate for decommissioning. - - - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION The following comparison of PNL cost estimates for WNP-2 and my estimates for SSES is based on comparativ-building volumes (except cooling towers, which are based on surf ace area-see Appendix 1), and a total of 16.4%(I}

j escalation. Units are millions of dollars.

PNL ($ 1978)

SSES ($1980,2 Units)

Reactor building 5.169 12.300 TurMne building 3.364 6.558 Radwaste building 1.923 1.279 Diesel building 0.445 0.518 Cooling towers 1.252 8.743 Other structures

0. 68 1 0.793 Site restoration 0.410 0.477 Total 13.244 30.668 Site restoration costs are asumed to be the same as for PNL (esceJated).

c.

Deep Geological Disposal PNL estimates radionuclide inventeries of activated materials by treating three reference cases:

neutron-activated stainless steel, neutron-activated carbon steel, and neutron-activated concrete. PNL states the opinion that the large initial radioactivity, the long half-life of Ni-59 and Nb-94, and the biological hazard of C-14 may require geological disposal of highly activated materials (shroud head plate, fuel support pieces, control rods, in-core instruments, jet pump assemblies, top fuel guide, core support plate, core shroud, and fuct channels). The steam separator risers, the control rod guide tubes, the reactor vessel, and the sacrificid shield are considered to be mildly activated and to require only shallow land disposal.

It is uncertain how highly activated components will be disposed of in 40 years.

The chemically stable form of these materials (structural reactor metals) should qualify them for intermediate-depth burial in a land disposal facility, but there is enough regulatory uncertainty to jur,tify considering the possibility of geological disposal of these components.

(1)

Escalation based on average of eight industries from SMSC Escalation Hand-book

. -19

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION PNL's estimate has been used as a basis for the additional cost of packaging, transportation, ani geological disposal of highly activated waste for SSES decommissioning. After escalating by a f actor of 1.287( ' total SSES costs in 1980 dollars would be $2.183 million for two units.

4.

COMPARISON WITH ACTUAL DECOMMISSDNING EXPERIENCE Of the 14 reactors with ratings greater than 10 megawatts thermal that have been decommissioned to date, only Elk River was decommissioned by immediate dismantle-ment. The Elk River reactor was a boiling water reactor with a net electrical rating of about 22 megawatts. It was completely dismantled in the period 1971 through 1974.

The total cost of dismantlement was about $6 million with approximately $2 million spent in each of the three years (1972,1973, and 1974). On the average then, Elk River dismantling costs were in 1973 dollars. Data is available for Elk River giving the cost of each task in the dismantling operation. Within each task, costs are broken down into labor, equipment, overheads, etc. General overheMs, such as planning, supervision, and radiation monitoring are lumped together and distributed among the tas ks. As a result of this, the overhead costs it: each task contain a portion of the general overheads.

In a few cases, where a particular operation was not performed at Elk River, cost data from the decommissioning of the BONUS reactor were used. BONUS was a 50 MW(t) boiling water reactor with integral superheat. Decommiss!oning was by entombment.

Costs by tasks are available for BONUS as they are for Elk River. Most of the BONUS work was done in Pur.rto Rico in 1969 and it was therefore necessary to adjust these costs to 1973 U.S. averages to be comparable with Elk River.

U.S. labor costs increased about 30% from 1969 to 1973.III Labor in Puerto Rico is cheaper than in the U.S. but meaningful statistical data could not be obtained.

Therefore, it was conservatively assumed that 1973 U.S. costs would be double the BONUS costs in 1969 Elk River and BONL5 were prototype decommissioning operations. Costs for planning, engineering, supervision, and tool development were probably higher than they will be for later similar decommissioning.

It is likely that the SSES units will be decommissioned af ter swch experience in these types of operations has been gained and the methods are routine since over forty five nuclear sites will have units ready for (1)

Escalation based on mining industry figures from SMSC's Escalation Handbook

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION decommissioning before SSES completes its operating life under its ; resent license.

Therefore, estimates based on Elk River and BONUS can be regarded as quite conservative but also quite useful, as such estimates are based on actual experience.

To escalate mid-1973 costs to Jrnuary,1980, an escalation f actor of 1.78 was used.

For radioactive waste disposal costs, an escalation f actor of 3.75 was used, based on an escalation f actor of 1.50 from mid-1973 to January,1978,III and a f actor of 2.5 increase from January,1978 to January,1980, based on comparative price lists.

In tasks where actual cost data was scaled to produce costs for SSES, (Tasks 1-5, Tame

4) no contingency was applied to the estimates. Where PNL-based estimates were used to produce costs for SSES (Tasks 6,7,8,9,11,12 Tame 4) a 25% contingency was applied.

The dismantling operation was divided into eight tasks. These tasks generally conform to the task definitions for Elk River in order to anow cost extrapolations. The tasks were as follows:

o Site and f acility preparation, consisting of opening access hatches in buildings and bringing in temporary power o

Removal of spent fuel o

Decontamination and removal of piping and equipment. It was assumed that aH nuclear plant systems would be decontaminated, cut up, and shipped to an approved burial ground. This task includes all work up to, but not including actual preparation for shipment.

o Removal of reactor internals by cutting into pieces suitable for shipment o

Removal of reactor vessel by cutting the vessel and head into pieces suitaMe for shipment o

Removal of Mological shield and breaking it up so that it may be put in drums cr Was for shipment (1)

SMSC Escalation IIandbook, average of 10 industries cm

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION Shipment and burial of radioactive waste, including preparation for ship-o ment and shipment and D. *al of an the waste generated in the above tasks.

o Demolition Table 4 summarizes SSES 2-unit decommissioning cost estimates based on Elk River and BONUS experience. The foRowing sections discuss these cost estimates.

4.1.

Site and Facility Preparation It is assumed that adequate security, office, shop, contamination control, and laundry f acilities win already be present at the site. Preparation would consist of providing temporary electric service and access hatches for equipment removal.

At Elk River, temporary electric service was instaRed for $7,500.

Applying 1.78 escalation f actor and a 2.0 scaling component, it is estimated that this would cost

$26,700 for one SSES unit.

At Elk River one floor opening and one opening in the containment wall were cut to aRow equipment acces. As discussed earlier in this report, it is unlikely that this will be required at SSES. However, to key this section consistent with an extrapolation of Elk River experience, it is assumed that such costs will be incurred. At Elk River the two hatches were each about 12 ft by 15 f t and cost about $10,000 each. If SSES requires two larger hatches (20 ft by 20 ft), the escalated cost will be $78,500 per unit.

4.2.

Decontamination and Removal of Piping and Equipment At Elk River, several years elapsed between the f acility shutdown and start of decommissioning. For this reason, little decontamination was required. However, at BONUS essentially aR nuclear systems were decontaminated, and therefore, BONUS more closely resembled the likely requirements of SSES than did Elk River. Systems decontaminated at BONUS consisted of approximately li,000 linear ieet of piping with associated equipment.

The BONUS costs (adjusted al escalated to 1973) were tor development of methods and $319,000 for acu.a decontamination. The

___._____________-!E-

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION Table 4: Adjustment of Elk River and BONUS Costs to SSES I4I Elk River Scaling Escalation 2-Unit SSES Task (SK)

Factor Factor Adiustment (SM) 1.

Inst. tem p. elect. service 7.5 2.0 1.78 2.0 0.053 Access hatches 20.0 2.2 1.78 2.0 0.1 57 2.

Decontamination

- Methods developa ent 71.0 1.0 1.78 1.0 0.126

- Decontaminate 319.0 2.4 1.78 2.0 2.72 6 Removal of cont. egmt 167.0 63.78 1.78 2.0 37.918 Removal of cont. piping 167. 0 55.21 1.78 2.0 32.823 3.

Reactor internals removal

- Site work 323.0 25.5(5) 1.78 2.0 29.322

- Eng./ plan 463.0 1.0 1.78 1.0 0.82 4 4.

Remove rx vessel

- On-site work 389.0 18.86(5) 1.78 2.0 26.118

- Eng./ planning 675.0 1.0 1.78 1.0 1.202 5.

Concrete removal

- Activated 889.2 0.1283 1.78 2.0 0.406

- Contr.ninated 118.6 3.03 1.78 2.0 1.279 6.

Ship / bury radwaste (3)

(3)

(3) 37.217 7.

Nuclear Insurance 1.742 8.

License Fees

0. M3 Subtotal 171.986 25% Contingency, Items 6,7,8 only 9.758 Total 181.744 Other Possible Costs 9.

Spent fuel shipment (1) 5.950 10.

Demolition of site structures 21.014 11.

Deep geologic disposal (3) 2.183 12.

Fuel channel disposal (3) 2.082 Subtotal 31.229 25% Contingency, Items 9,11,12 2.554 Total 33.783 Grand Total (1 unit) 107.677 Grand Total (Two units) 215.527 (1) Current costs used, no scaleup from Elk River (See Sec. 3.12a.)

(2) BONUS mots, adjusted to 1973 (3) PNL adjusted costs used (4) Two units, $1980 (5) Adjusted for final SSES estimate, (See l

Section 5.2).

23-

____ _ _..____._._-- _ _._, _. _.. _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _. ~

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION nuclear portion of an SSES unit requiring decontamination will contain about 36,000 f eet of piping with associated equipment. The foHowing SSES systems are asumed to be decontaminated (Table H.5-2 of the PNL report):

reactor water recirculation system, reactor water cleanup system, rendual heat removal system, low presure core spray system, high pressure core spray system, fuel pool cooling and cleanup system, condensate filter demineralizer system, and radioactive portions of the Based on a equipment drain, floor drain, miscellaneous and process waste systems.

l it was estimated that SSES comparison of these systems with the systems at BONUS has 2.4 times the piping length that was decontaminated at BONUS. Scaling directly l

and escalating to 1980, the estimated cost of system decontamination for one SSES unit uould be $1.363 million. While some co ' savings may be possible in decontami-

{

nating a second unit (use of common pumping, mixing, and control equipment), for a two-unit cost conservatism the single unit cost has been doubled to arrive at estimate of $2.726 million.

The methods development costs for SSES have been estimated by escalating BONUS costs and asuming, since the units are identical, that this cost ($126,000) win cover both units.

At Elk River approximately 110,000 pounds of piping, 250,000 pounds of major were removed for a cost of l

equipment, and all the associated minor equipment

$334,000 (excluding reactor vessel and internals, biological shield, and concrete, which was for are dealt with as separate items).

Approximately one-half of this cost removal of equipment and one-half was for removal of piping. Hence, the unit costs become $1.52 per pound for pi ing and $.67 per pound for equipment.

l Quantities of contaminated SSES equipment and piping are obtained by adjusting Table L3-4 of the PNL report to reflect design differences between WNP-2 and an SSES unit. A total of 15,945,215 pounds of tanks and equipment and 6,073,562 pounds These numbers of piping will be removed as contaminated material from SSES.

exclude the reactor vessel, internals, biological shield, and contaminated concrete.

Scaling directly by weight and escalating from 1973 to 1980, the cost of removing piping and equipment from both SSES units would be $70.741 million (1980 dolla Adding the cost for decontamination and removal gives a total tweunit cost for this This number is much higher than one would expect based on task of $73.593 million.

information presented in the PNL report. It is possible that this reflects a large t

i f

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION margin of error introduced in attempting to scale up small operations to large scale operations. Large-scale operations carry with them commensurate economies of scale and efficiency of work planning. To account for this, an adjtstment in scaling f actor can be made (See Section 5.2).

4.3.

Removal of ReactorInternals The Elk River reactorinternals removal costs were as foHows:

Equipment and power 3 20,800 Labor S 86,000 Tool development

$318,600 Engineering and supervision

$359,700 l

Total

$785,100 Of the engineering and supervision costs approximately 40% represer.t engineering, design and planning, and the remaining 60% represent on-site supervision, radiation control and monitoring, etc. If on-site supervision is added to equipment and power and labor, the total fer on-site workis $322,600. Off-site workis $462,500.

The Elk River internals weighed 21,370 pounds. The reactor internals of an SSES unit wi2 weigh 545,054 pounds, or 25.5 times as much as the Elk River internals. The escalated estimated cost of on-site wwk, asuming that the on-site work cost is proportional to the weight of the internals, is $14.661 million per unit, or $29.322 million for two units (1980 dollars). For the final SSES estimate, a reduction in the scaling factor was made to determine che on-site costs (See Section 5.2).

It is reasonable to expect that engineering, design, planr.ing, ar.d tool development cost for the removal of reactor internals would be about the same for a large two-unit plant as for a small plant. Escalated off-site co.t for the SSES units would th.as be 30.824 million.

4.4.

Removal of Reactor Presrure Vessel The Elk River presure vessel removal costs were as foRows:

Equipment and power

$ 24,600 Labor 3 106,200 Tool development

$ 503,200 -. -..-

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPOFIATION Engineering and supervision S 429,600 Total

$1,064,000 Anocating on-site and o'f-site costs in a manner identical to that used in the above section gives total Elk Rimr on-site costs of $389,000, and off-site costs of $675,000.

The Elk River reactor vessel weighed 79,000 pounds. An SSES unit reactor vessel will weight about 1,490,000 pounds.

Assuming that on-site costs are proportional to weight, and off-site effort is about the same between the two SESS units and Elk River gives a total 1980 escalated cost for pressure vessel removal of $27.320 million. For the final SSES estimate, a reduction in the scaling iactor was made to determine the on-site costs (See Section 5.2).

4.5 Removal of Biological Shield and Concrete At Elk River, 840 cuMc yards of biological shield and concrete floorir.g were removed for approximately $1,008,000.

Approximately 600 cubic yards of this was in the Mological shield, with the remaining 240 cuMc yards in floors. Separate costs were not reported for the shield and the floors, but it is known that the shield was considerably more expensive per cuHe yard to remove than was the flooring.

Assunning that the incremental shield cost was three times that of the flooring, the costs were $1,482 per cuMc yard for the shield and $494 per cuMc yard for the flooring.

The neutron-activated portion of the biological shield of an SSES unit would contain approximately 77 cuMc yards of concrete, and an other contaminated concrete would amount to '"47 cubic yards. The escalated remoral costs for the chfeld f om both units would be about 30.406 million and for the other contaminated concrete about $1..79 million for a total of $1.685 million.

It should be noted that the contaminated concrete volumes from an SSES unit are quite sman compared with the Elk River plant (consdering the f act that an SSES unit is substantially larger), and this is due to the assumption tnat very efficient concrete spalling techniques are used to separate the contaminated con rete from nonco:stami-nated concrete. Of course, in the event complete f acility demolition is undertaken, additional costs would be incurred. Demolition is covered as a contingency later in this section.

-W_

l i

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION

4. 6.

Shipment and Disposal of Radioactive Waste The main value in scaling up the actual decommist.oning experience at Elk River is to compare actual experience versus predicted experience for site-related tasks. Since 1980 incremental costs for shipment and disposal of radioactive waste are well-known without relying on Elk River experience, I have simply used a PNL-based cost, as determined in Sec. 3, for these tasks ($37.217 millicm).

4. 7.

Nuclear Insurance l

The insurance costs are assumed to be the same as those presented in Section 3.9 a.bove, 30.968 million (1980 donars) for one unit, and $1.742 million (1980 dollars) for two units.

4.8.

License Fees The license fees are assinned to M the same a those presented in Section 3.10 above,

$50,800 (1980 donars) for one unit, and $73,200 (1980 donars) for two units when fHed sim ultaneously.

4.9.

Other Possible Costs Four additional possible costs are considered: spent fuel shipment, demolition of site structures, deep geologic disposal of highly activated materials, and separate burial of fuel channels, It was sho wn earlier in this report (Section 3.12.a) that shipment of three-fourths of the spent fuel from SSES win cost $5.950 million for two units. The availability of current day costs makes it unnecessary to escalate the Elk River costs.

At Elk River the cost of demolition of nonradioactive reinforced concrete structures was $60 per cu'aic yard for concrete above grade and $200 per cubic yard for concrete below grade. It is asumed for SSES that uncontaminated concrete below grade wotdd not be removed. The inventory of reinforced concrete above grade in both SSES units is as foHows (volumes are based on PNL data for WNP-2, adjust,i for SSES building sizes):

Reactor buildings and containments 82,184 cubic yard Turbine building 68,312 Radwaste bullding 14,477 Other buildings 9,756 Cooling towers 22,032 Total _

g 196.761 (2 Units)

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION Using Elk River costs gives an escalated estimated cmst of $21.014 million for two SESS units (1980 dollars) and 39.204 for one unit (done first).*

For t -

deep geologic disposal case, and for separate fuel.:hannel disposal, PNL-adjusted costs of $2.183 millicm and $2.032 million, respectively, are used.

5.

ADJUSTMENT OF ESTIMATES 5.1 Adjustment of PNL-Based Estimate The subject of waste disposalis currently under regulatory review and disposal charges are stsceptiNe to regulatcry developments. As a matter of judgment, an added 100%

contingency has been applied to the site disposal charges for both contaminated material and process radioactive waste.

Contingency on the disposal costs for neutron-activated material has been accounted for in the subcategory-Deep Geologic Disposal of Highly Activated Matedals,in the category of Other PossiNe Costs. With l

this added contingency, the adjusted cost in 1980 dollars of decommissioning both units

(

of the SSES by immediate dismantlement is $191 million.

5.2 Adjustment of Experience-Based Estimate Within this estimate there are several very large scaling f actors utilized to develop the SSES decommissicming cests. These scaling f actors, all of which exceed a f actor of 15 as can be seen in TaNe 4, are usedin producing the SSES costs for the:

1 removal of contaminated pi ing, l

i removal of contaminated equipment, site work associated with removal of the reactor interrals, and site work associated with removal of the reactor vesseh l

l l

I believe it prudent that the SSES costs for these items be adjusted to reflect the f act that these tash were being performed at Elk River for the first time. The unit costs of first-time pilot-scale work generallyinclude charges not indicative of the unit costs that would be incurred in a large scale repetitive operation. Therefore, for the specific cases cited above, a 25% reduction was appUrd to the base cost of each. The adjusted cost in 1980 dollars of decommissioning both units of the SSES by immediate dismantlements is $184 millicn.

• In a single unit decommissioning (first of two) only one reactor building, one turNne building, one cooling tower wi perhaps, some minor auxiliary structures could be demolished.

Demolition of the radwaste building and diesel building, which are common to both units, would have to wait for decommissioning of the second unit.

1

^

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION l

5.3 Adjusted Estimate for SSES Although the decommissioning costs obtained in Sections 5.1 and 5.2 above were l

obtained by application of two different methodologies, they are within 4% of each i

other. For conservatism, the higher of the two, $191 million, has been established as I

the cost (in 1980 dollars) of decommissioning by immediate dismantlement both units i

of the SSES.

6.

ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF DECOMMISSI)NING 6.1 Saf e Storage Followed By Def erred Dismantlement The advantage of placing a unit in safe storage, and dismantling it at a latter date, is that this method of decommissioning allows radioactive decay and thereby reduces occupational radiation exposure and costs of eventual dismantlement.

Delay of dismantlement expenditures further reduces the cost as discussed below in this section. Counter-balancing these advantages 's the cost of placing the f acility into a esf e storage mode, and the requirement for annual expenditu-es to maintain the f acilityin a safe condition.

Many scenarios are possible for safe storage.

The following reference case is addressed by PNL in Appendix J of NUREG/CR-0672:

o The reactor and fuel storage pools are defueled.

l o

Contaminated water from plant systems is drained and processed.

o Contaminated systems are decontaminated, and the resultant waste is tr eated.

Radiation surveys are performed, and a work plan is Irepared.

e Radioactive material from all areas which are to be released for uncontroHod access is decontaminated, stabilized, and/or removed to the reactor building.

o Tte reactor building accesses are scaled as required to control or prevent access.

f THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION PNL cost estimates for preparation for safe storage (early 1978 dollars) are given in the identical categories used for immediate dismantlement and are shown on Table 5.

To calculate costs for SSES (1980 dollars) adjustments were made to each of PNL's costs to the same ratio determined by the detailed analysis in the main body of this report for immediate dismantiement (Table 3). For e:cample, PNL estimates $1.216 million fr-r osal of radioactive materials during preparation for safe storage. This is mainly process waste. For immediate dismantlement, PNL estimated $1.469 million j

fcr process waste disposal, and this was adjusted to $6.303 million for the SSES immediate dismantlement case (1980 dollars). Hence, the estimated cost for disposal of process radioactive waste in preparation for safe storage for two SSES units is:

(1.216)

(6.303) = $5.217 million l

(1.469)

Dismantlemert costs, are a function of time elapsed af ter reactor shutr'--m, since the radioactivity continues to decay. As radioactive decay occurs, some material will decay to levels allowing unrestricted release. Also. worx plans will be simpler as shielding requirements decrease. I have examined 50-year deferral, to take advantage of the significant decay that occurs to the 50-year point. At this point in time, the activat ed corrosion products in the piping systems and on the non-activat ed components should have decayed sufficiently to permit unrestricted use of those m aterials.

As in the case of preparation for safe storage, the PNL costs for deferred dismantle-ment have been adjusted to reflect detailed adjustments made in the main body of the report for immediate dismantlement. Table 6 shows the results.

PNL did not include categories for deep geologic disposal of highly activated material, nor for f acility demolition and site restoration, as it did for immediate dismantlement.

Thet,e costs were included for SSES. For deep geologic disposal, activated material quantities and costs were assumed to be the same as for immediate dismantlement.

This is because geologic disposal would likely be required based on Icmg half-lives of activated materials. Likewise, f acility demolition and site restoration were assumed to cost the same, regardless of when it occurs.

Annual maintenance, security, and environmental monitoring will be required during safe shutdown. PNL estimates this cost at 30.075 milli an per year, for a total of

$3.600 minion for 48 years (annual costs do not start for two years, as the first two years are spent in preparation for safe shutdown). Based cm a labor escalation of 1.181 (Section 3.4), SSES costs would be $4.252 million for the 48 years (1980 dollars). The second unit would require less laboro as many of these tasks are cAte-ctdb. The crw.m3

1 THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION Table 5 Comparison of PNL Cost Estimates for WNP-2 (early-1978 dollars) with Estimates for SSES (two units,1980 dollars)- Preparations for Saf a !!orage (millions of dollars).

Cost Category PNL (1 Unit)

SESS (2 Units)

Disposal of radioactive process waste 1.216 5.217 Staff labor 11.254 24.646 Energy 2.122 8.249 Special tools and equipment 0.351 0.613 Miscellaneous supplies 1.361 3.196 Specialty contractors 0.196 0.417 Nuclear insurance 0.500

1. 089 Limnse f ees

0. 03 8 0.076 Subtotal 17.038 43.503 25% Contingency 4.260 10.876 TOTAL 21.298 54.379 Other Possibte Costs Spent fuel shipment 3.788 5.950 Fuel channel disposal (shallow burial) 0.617_

2.082 Subtotal 4.405 8.032 25% Contingency 1.101_

2.008 TOTAL 5.506 10.040 l

GRAND TOTAL 64.419 nn.

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION Table 6 Compariscus of PNL Cost Estimates for WNP-2 (early-1978 dollars) with Estimates for SSES (two units,1980 dollars)- Dismantlement Def erred 50 Years (millions of dollars).

Cost Category WNP-7 (1-Unit)

SSES (2-Units)

Disposal of radioactive material 2.300 7.451 Neutron activated 0.043 0.206 Contaminated 0.204 0.875 Process waste 14.210 31.119 Staff labor

1. 47 9 5.749 Energy 1.72 8 3.015 Special tools and equipment 0.590 1.385 Miscellaneous supplies 0.168 0.357 Specialty contractors 0.400 0.871 Nuclear insurance 0.020 0.040 License f ees 21.142 51.068 Subtotal 5.286 12.767 25% Contingency 26.428 63.835 TOTAL Other Possible Costs Facility demolition and site restoration (a) 30.668 Deep geologic disposal of highly 2.183 activated material (b)

(a) _

32.851 Subtotal 8.213 25% Contingency 41.064 TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 104.899 (a)

Not included in PNL estimates; calculated.f or SSES per text.

(b)

Diff erence between geologic and shallow land burial. -

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION unit was assumed to cost $2.126 million (50% o' fimt-unit cost), for a total of $6.378 minion for the two units.

Adding these three components (initial preparations, annual costs, and deferred dism antlem ent), total costs for SSES deferred dismantlement after 50 years is

$175.696 million (two units,1980 dollars). Deferred expenditures will further decrease the effective costs. If a 2% time value of money (in excess of inflation) is asumed, the effective expenditure for deferred dismantlement would be:

64.419 + 6.378 (30.673) + 104.899 (0.38654) = $109.043 million, l

48 where 30.673 is the 48-year present-value f actor at 2% per annum for an annual return, and 0.38654 is the present worth iactor at 2% per annum for an expenditure l

1 l

af ter 48 years.

6.2 Entombm ent Entombm ent would entail removal of all fuel assemNies, radioactive fluids, and radioactive wastes, and encasement of radioactive components within an on-site structure sufficiently durable to retain the radioactivity until it decays to levels acceptaWe for unrestricted release. The unit would retain a possession only license, and a security and monitoring iorce would be retained.

PNL addresses two entombment options: one with the reactor internals removed, and one with the internals left in place. The second option is the least expensive. Since entombment represents a minimutn-effort alternative for decommissioning, the second option (reactor internals lef t in place) was assumed to determine the cost of what appears to Le the minimum level cf effort possiNe for decommissioning. PNL raises a question regarding the regulatory acceptability of the second option, due to the presence of certain leg-lived radioisotopes in the reactor internals (primarily Nickel 59 and Niobium 94). This question is beyond the scope of this cost study, and the second option as been taken as a reference entombment method for purposes of cost estimating.

PNL postulates sealing the biological shield and using this as the entombment structure. Scaling would be with welded plates and permanently grouted concrete plugs. Since the biological shield of the referenced PNL plant (WNP-2) is similar to the biological shield for an SSES unit, the entombment structures would also be

~m

i 3

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION similar.

Major steps in entombment of an SSES unit would be:

o Defuel the reactor and fuel storage pool.

o Drain and process contaminated water from plant systems.

o Decontaminat e contaminated liquid systems and treat the resultant waste.

o Perform radiological surveys and prepare work plans to optimize deci-sions regarding which equipment and piping is placed in the entombment structure and which is shipped to disposal.

As much contaminat-d equipment as possible will be placed in the entombment structure.

o Remove contaminated equipment to the entombment structure or ship off-site.

o Decontaminate and/or stabilize remaining radioactive materials from all l

areas outside the entombment structure, to allow unrestricted access.

o Seal entombment structure As with the case of sa'e storage followed by deferred dismantlement, PNL cost estimates have been adjusted to reflected differences between the PNL reference case and both SSES units. This is shown in Table 7.

An entombed reactor would require continued surveillance and maintenance of the entombment structure until such time as it may be released for unrestricted use. PNL estimates these continuing costs at $40,000 per year. This PNL estimate has been adjusted to account for 1980 PP&L labor rates and two SSES units to yield $71,000 per year (see Section 6.1). At what time the security force may be released will depend upon regulations in effect at the time for unrestricted release of radioactive materials contained within a structure. For cost estimating purposes it has been assumed to be 100 years, for a total of 57.1 million for continued surveillance.

-3 4-

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION Table 7 Comparison of Cests for Entombment: PNL Estimates (1978 dollars) versus Estimate for Two SSES Units (1980 dollars)- Entombment Scenario 2 (No Removal of Reactor Internals) $ millions.

Cost Category PNL SESS Disposal of radioactive materials Neutron-activated 0

0 Contaminated m aterials 1.992

9. 52 5 Process radioactive waste 1.469 6.303 Staff labor 16.999 37.227 3.775 14.674 Energy Special tools and equipment 0.866 1.511 Miscellaneous supplies 1.859 4.365 Speciality contractors 0.172 0.366 Nuclear insurance 0.800 1.742 License fees 0.039 0.078 Subtotal 27.971 75.791 25% Contingency 6.993 18.948 Total 34.964 94.73 9 Other Possible Ccats Spent fuel shipment 3.788 5.950 Facility demolition / site restoration 8.059 18.662 Deep geologie disposal of highly activated materials 0

0 Fuel channel disposal (shallow burial) 0.617

2. 082 Subtotal 12.464 26.694 22% Contingency 3.116 6.674 Total 15.580 33.368 7.100 Surveillance (100 years) f GRAND TOTAL 135.207 35

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION Total costs for entombment of an SSES unit are: $128.107 million + $7.1 million =

$135.207 million.

As with the case of safe storage foHowed by deferred dismantlement, def erred expenditures will reduce the eff ective cost, though in this The case not by much, since only the annual surveillance costs will be deferred.

eff ective cost for entombment of an SSES unit, followed by 100 years of surveillance, would be $131.111 million, using a 2% per annum time value of money.

l 7.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACT The environmental impacts associated with decommissioning SSES depend on how the f acility is decommissioned. The impacts can be separated into short-term or-Img-term considerations, with short-term impacts being primarily the actual operations conducted in the decommissioning process, and Img-term impacts being the reddual conditions pertaining af ter the completion of decommissioning. The effects examined include local highway use, land commitment, resources commitment, radiological a

implications, nonradiological pollution, social / economic impact, and aesthetics.

The approximate time frames for completion of decommissioning the SSES f acility by each of the primary modes previously discussed are estimated to be:

l Dismantlement 3-4 years Preparation for safe storage 2-3 years i

Entombm ent 3-4 years A discussim of pertinent environmental impacts for each of these three primary approaches follows.

7.1 Short-term Local Highway U sage Table 8 is an estimate of the number of truck shipments to and from the SSES site that The types of will be required to complete each of the decommissioning modes.

shipment included in each of these estimates, as applicable to each decommissioning mode, include spent fuel (IM cores), neutron-activated materials, contaminated mate-The weights and volumes to be shipped are those developed rials, and process waste.

These in NUREG/CR-0672, adjusted for SSES design per Appendix 1 of this report.

l

-3 6

i THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION estimates include where appropriate the cost of r,htelding and packaging requirements.

The overallimpact on local highways due to these shipments should be minimal since the overall volume of traffic is small. Some shipments may require overweight trucks to improve transportation efficiency by optimizing shielding-to weight ratios. Based on a six-day work week and three-year period of shipment, dismantlement will require an average of four shipments per day. Preparation for safe storage (two years) will require an average of two shipments per day. The entombment mode (three years) will require an average of two shipments per day. The estimates in Table 8 are based on weight-optimized loads.

7.2 Land Commitment Land commitment for a decommissioned plant is based on the isolation and control of those areas containing rendual radioactive material. The duration of post-decommis-l sioning land commitment denends on the specific nature and amount of the residual radioactive isotopes. Estimates of the land commitment at waste burial f acilities for i

the SSES facility and the concommitant need are shown in Table 9 for the three l'

decommissioning modes. There are at present no regulations specifically defining requirem ents to release a site to unrestricted use.

PNL developed a proposed methodology for determining acceptability for unrestricted use, based on an annual dose of 50 mrem to the maximum exposed individual. PNL's assumed methodology for dismantlement results in a site which can be released for unrestricted use. For safe storage and entombment it has been assumed that land area immediately adjacent to l

the major structures is restricted (peruneter fence 100 feet from buildings).

7.3 Commitment of Resources Varying amounts of some or all of the following materials will be required to complete the three decommissioning approaches discussed in this report:

Water Decontantination chemicals, resins, and explosives 1

Concrete (structural, as a solidifying agent for concentrated liquid radwaste, and as a combination shipping cask / shielding material, i.e., steel, lead, and concrete).

-3 7-

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION Table 8 Total Number of Shipments for Various Decommissioning Modes Number of Estimated Shipm ents Expected Mode Decommissioning Period (2 Units)

Dismantlement 3-4 years 3364 Preparation for safe storage 2-3 years 1210 Entombm ent 3-4 years 2034 Table 9 Long-Term Land Commitment for Each Decommissioning Mode Mode At SSES Site At Waste Burial Facility Dismantlement / Removal 0 acres 8.7 acres 23.2 acres 0.5 acres Saf e storage Entombm ent 23.2 acres 3.9 acres 1

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION Shipping cask liners (steel) and shielding material (steel, lead, and concrete) l l

Structural materials (steel plate, rebar, wood, etc.)

l Land fill and topsoil Grass seed, iertilizer, etc.

Filters, clothing, plastic, rags i

These commitments in all instances are relatively small when compared to resource l

commitments during construction or plant operation.

The cost impact of these resource commitments has already been considered in earlier sections of this report.

l Water usage for the dismantlement case is estimated to be 10 million gaHons for the entire decommissioning operation as compared to the usage of millions of gallons per day during normal plant operation.

Methods of decontamination and the decontamination agents to be used will be selected based on current experience at the time SSES is decommissioned. Therefore, although it is difficult to stimate the exact volume of chemical compositions used, some indication of the quantities and materials can be derived from the PNL report.

l l

PNL estimates that 520,000 gallons of 5 wt% EDTA /Citrox,36,000 gallons of 10 wt%

(

phosphoric acid, and 6,600 ganons of 50 wt% sodium hydroxide win be used for immediate dismantlement. Other decontamination agents such as detergents, radiac wash and acetone, and surf ace contamination fixing agents such as paints and epoxies will be used as required.

Structural mncrete commitments will be the greatest for entombment. However, the need for concrete even in the entombment case is small. This is because a BWR may use the biological shield wall as the entombment structure boundary. The only need for reinforced concrete is to provide plugs for sealing access hatches. Iess than 100 cubic yards of concrete would be used for this purpose. Concrete may also be used as a solidificatim agent for wet waste (alternatives are bitumen or polymers). AH three j

decommissioning modes are estimated to produce 58,000 cubic feet of wet process waste for the two SSES units. In one process used today approximately 400 pounds of

-3 9-

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION dry concrete mixture are used to produce each 55 gallon drum (7.5 cubic feet) of solidified liquid radwaste, or a total of 3.1 million pounds of dry mix. It should be noted that by the time SSES is decommissioned, other methods of waste treatment which do not use concrete as a solidification agent may be in routine use. The use of concrete as shipping cask / integral cask shielding material will depend on a cost / benefit evaluation at the time of decommission %.

A 100 cubic foot bdk dipping container wodd container a minimum of 8,500 pounds of concrete (2.5 cubic yards). Containers containing upwards to 40,000 pounds of concrete (10 cubic yards) are also possible, depending on shielding requirements. A 40,000 pound,100 cubic fcot prefabricated concrete shipping cask would provide # 11.5 inches of concrete shield-ing.

The type of shipping cask liners used during the SSES decommissioning will depend on materials availability and ecst at the time of decommissioning. Steel, lead, plywood, and prefabricated concrete are all in use at present. The quantity of liners required j

will depend on the size of the shipping containers and casks used at the time of l

decommissioning.

I In this evaluation the net surplus or deficit of fill material for final site contouring has been ignored. The reason for this is:

o Once decontaminated, site structures may be usable for other perposes or simplyleft standing.

If all structtres are demolished, the above-grade structural m.terial may o

l be used as fill. If more orless fillis needed, the site may be recontoured rather than moving fill on-or off-site.

Landscaping and contouring of the land to something less than an crbitrary grade elevation may be acceptable from an environmental point of view. Enough grass seed and fertilizer to restore approximately 24 acres will be required for the dismantle-ment / removal approach, with approximately 175 pounds of seed and 1,500 pounds of dry fertilizer required per acre.

7.4.

Radiological Doses Both occupational exposure and exposure to the general public are factors in decommissioning. Based on the PNL estimates, occupational exposure is estimated to cCO-.

l l

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION be 3,690 m an-rems for dismantlement of both SSES units, 770 man-rems for preparation for safe storage followed by 50 years of care, with 6 man-rems additional for dismantlement af ter 50 years of decay, and 3,1c man-rems for entombment. PNL l

obtained exposure estimates by examining in detail the planned tasks and applying the radiation field associated with each task to the manhours required to perform the task.

Sources of exposure to the general public arise from gaseous and liquid effluent release, direct radiatfor from the plant and direct radiation due to transportation of spent fuel and radioactive waste to reprocessing f acilities or burial f acilities. It is l

expected that the volume of radioactive effluent released during decommissioning activities will be significantly less than during plant operation. PNL estimates that for the maximum-exposed individual, the 50-year radiation dose egaivalents to the

-5 lung from routine releases from a angle unit are:

4.1 x 10 rem for immediate dismantlement, 3.1 x 10-6 rem from preparations for safe storage, and less than

-5

(

3.8 x 10 rem for entornbment.

Population doses for a population of 3.5 million

-4 within a 50 mile radius of the site are 0.05 man-rem,3 x 10 man-rem, and 0.04 man-rem, respectively.

7.5 Nonrausological Effluent Gaseous effluent will be created primarily during met 4 catting and controlled blasting operations.

These efduents will be monitored thauughout decommissioning and released in compliance with the appropriate regulations governing non-radiological l

releases and releases of partir.ulate dust, metal and chemical vapors, etc.

Liquid effluents produced during decommissioning will be monitored and released in compliance with the appropriate regulations governing nonradiolopcal liquid effluent release. Among nonradiological liquid effluent characteristics controlled will be: pH, total suspended solids, total suspended oil and grease, total suspended metals (i.e.,

copper, iron, etc.) and pres-nce of polychlorinated biphenyls (no discharge allowed).

l 7.6 Social /EconomicImpact of Plant Decommissioning It is expected that a peak work force of about 250 people will be required for concurrently decommissioning by dismantlement both SSES units. A work force of this size should not materially aff ect local conditions, either by its presence or absence.

Some of the decommissicming jobs will have been held by operating plant personnel transferred to the decommissioning staff and some by local and non-local contractor

t THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION personnel. Thus some of the staff may not leaw the area af ter decommissioning has been completed.

The net impact to the local economy should not be of major significance and may be minimal depending on the number of former plant personnel that remain in the area.

7.7 Aesthetics For a safe slutdown or entombed plant there will be no basic change in appearance from fully operational to fully decommisdoned except for the absence of cooling tower plumes. Remc 21 of various nonradioactive plant cortponents and buildings can be routinely accomplished and would be in addition to the decommisioning effort outlined in this study. For dismantlement the site will be returned to a reusable state.

\\

S THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION Appendix 1: Design Comparisons This appendix describes the similarities and diferences between the reference plant for the PNL study (Washington Public Power Supply Systems WNP-2 plant at Richland, Washington) and the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. Differences between WhP-2 and an SSES unit are small. Both are BWRs of approximately the same size, utilizing a Mark H containment design with similar dimensions. The major differences (which are detailed in this appendix) are as follows:

o They are located in different geographic regions of the country with different labor rates, energy costs, and transportation distances to disposal sites. The PNL study assumed a nonspecific generic Midwestern site.

mwers, whereas WNP-2 o

SSES utilizes natural draf t hyperbolic coolira utilizes mechanical draft cooling towers.

SSES is a BWR/4 product line, whereas WNP-2 is a BWR/5 product line.

o This makes some difference in the design of the core cooling systems.

WNP-2 is a single unit, whereas SSES is a two-unit site.

o 1.

Site Factors, Caling Towers, Buildings The following table compares the sites, cooling towers, and buildings of a single l

l SSES unit with the PNL reference plant.

t _

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION PNL SSES Site location Nonspecific midwest Pennsylvania Unit size, MW(t) rated 3323 3293/ unit Cooling water makeup river river Cooling towers

- Type mechanical draf t natural draf t hyperballt

- Num ber 6

1/ unit

- Height (f t) 60 540

- Dlameter (f t) 200 420 (base)

- Materials concrete concrete Site size (acres) 1175 1075 b 3 Building volumes (10 it )

Both Units

- Reactor buildings 4.5 9.2

- Turbine building 8.0 13.4

- Radwaste building 3.5 2.0

- Diesel building 0.6 0.6

- Total 16.6 25.2 Three significant differences stand out in the category of site, cooling towers, and buildings: cooling tower design, building volumes, and geographic location.

SSES utilizes a much different cooling tower design than WNP-2. The only effect this has on decommissioning costs is cost of demolition. PNL estimated cooling tower demolition costs at $1.252 million. A single SSES tower has a surf ace area on the l

order of three times as great as the six WNP-2 towers, and as a rough estimate the demolition costs may be proportional to the ratio of surf ace areas. This will result in l

a total cost for demolition of both towers of $8.743 million (1980 dollars).

The demolition costs of buildings are assumed to be proportional to tolume. Details of l

SSES cost estimating for demolition is contained in Section 3.12 of this report.

Site geographical f actors affecting the cost of decommissioning include: labor rates, power costs, and cost of transportation of radioactive materials. At the present time

r THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION there is no significant difference in the charges imposed by the three operating waste j

disposal sites, so geographical impact on waste disposal costs is limited to transpor-tatim. Detailed cost calculations for labor, energy, and waste disposal are contained in the body of this report.

2.

Reactor Containraent and Shielding The following table compares the reactor containment and shielding designs of the two i

plants.

PNL SSES (1 Unit)

Sacrifidal shield thickness 2'

19" Primary containment (biological shield) thickness 5'6 "

6' Primary containment liner thickness 3/4 1/2" 1/4" Foundation mat thicknese 16' 79" l

l Both units employ a Mark H containment design of simiar dimensions. The WNP-2 unit has a free-standing steel primary containment vessel,3/4"-1M" thick. Sarrounding the steel vesselis a cc-. crete biological shield. An SSES unit uses a concrete primary containment which also serves as a biological shield. The SSES containment is lined with 1/4" steel. Within the containments of both units is a dry wen area, separated from a sgpressim pool and suppression chamber by a dry well floor. Downcomer vents provide communication between the &y well and the suppressim pool. In both designs a steel and concrete sacrifidal shield starounds the lower two-thirds of the reactor vessel.

The WNP-2 unit diff ers further in that the bottom head of the containment is ellipsoidal rather than flat as at SSES, and the steel vessel is supported by two concentric skirts resting on the foundation mat. The void between the foundation mat and the bottom head is fired with concrete. The bottom head is lined with reinforced concrete. The SSES bottom head design is simpler, consisting of the lined fotadation l

m at. Figure C.2-1 of NUREG/CR-0672 and Figure 1.2-24 of the SSES FSAR may be compared for reierence.

The PNL study assumes complete ranoval of the sacrifidal shield and packaging for disposal as radioactive waste. Some of the sacrifidal shield is treated as neutron-activated weste, the remainder as contaminated waste.

The sacrifidal shield is n

I j

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION removed by cutting the steel skin with an oxyacetylene torch, then blasting the concrete. The SSES sacrificial shield is slightly thinner than WNP-2. This results in a negligible (less than 1%) diff erence in costs of disassemWy (which are assumed to be proportional to the fourf ace area) but a 13% savings in transportation and disposal costs for the SSES sacrificial shield (these costs are assumed to be proportional to volume).

The details of labor and disposal costs for the sacrificial shield are contained in the main body of this report.

The steel containmer't interior will be decontaminated with water jets, and PNL assumes that this is sufficient to clear the steel for unrestricted sr.lvage. Hence, the diff erence in thickness of containment steel between the two units is of marginal Were the steel to be cut for radioactive disposal, cost estimates for consequence.

WNP-2 and SSES would increase, but SSES would incur a smaller increase.

PNL assumes that exposed concrete within primary containment would be contami-nated and will require spalling to a depth of 2 inches. Hence, diff erences in mat or waP thickness are only of concern for final salvage operations and win then be of only minor concern (especially since the below-grade foundation will likely be lef t in place).

3.

Reactor Vessel and Internals: Core Cooling Systems The f oHowing table compares the reactor vessels and the core cooling systems for the two units.

PNL SSES (1 Unit)

Reactor vessel I

-Inside diameter 20'11" 20'11" 72'11" 72'11"

-Inside height

- Material SS-clad CS SS-clad CS p

l

- Clad thickness 1/8" 1/8"

- Minimum wall thickness 6.73" 6.19" Number of fuel assemblies 764 764 l

l l

1 w*

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION 4

l PNL SSES (1 Unit)

Recirculation system

- Loops 2

2

- Flow control flow control valve variable speed pump

-Isolation valves 2/ pump 2/ pump

- Jet pumps 20 20 l

i Low pressure (LP) core spray I loop, I pump 2 loops,4 pumps High pressure (RIP) core spray I loop,1 pump none i

LP core injection f.RHR) 3 loops,3 pumps, 2 loops,4 pumps 2 heat exchangers 2 heat exchangers HP core injection none 1 loop, I pump Reactor core isolation cooling (HP) 1 loop,1 pump 1 loop, I pump Total HP pumps 2

2 Total LP pumps 4

8 Total heat exchangers 2

2 Loops 6

6 SSES and WNP-2 have reactor vessels of identical internal dimension and materials, although the SSES wall is slightly thinner.

Both have identical numbers of fuel assemblies, control rods, and recirculation loops, although slight differences exist in i

recirculation system design (SSES has no flow control valves).

The main difference between the BWR/4 product line (SSES) and the BWR/5 product line (WNP-2) is in the core cooling system designs. While there are major differences in core cooling system designs, these tend to balance each other. SSES has ten core cooling pumps (two high pressure and eight low pressure) and two Residual Heat Removal (RHR) system heat exchangers, contained in six separate loops, while WNP-2 has six pumps (two high presstre and four low presstre) and two RHR heat exchangers contained in six separate loops. Reactor vessel internals are essentially identical between the two units: Compare Figure 5.3-1 of the SSES FSAR and Figure C.3-1 of NUREG/CR-0672. '

THE S. M. STOLLER CORPORATION The differences in core cooling system designs will result in some differences in labor costs to remove the systems and waste transportation and disposal costs. These costs are calculated in the body of this report.

4.

Main Steam, Condensate, and Feedwater The following table compares the main steam, condensate, and feedwater design between the two units.

WNP-2 SSES (1 Unit)

Steam lines 4

4 Moisture separators 2 (reheat) 2 (nonreheat)

Condensate pumps 3

4 Condensate booster pumps 3

0 Feedwater pumps (turbine-driven) 2 3

LP feedwa+.er heaters 14 18 HP feedwater heaters 2

0 Both WNP-2 and SSES have tandem compound 1800 RPM turbines with one high f

pressure and three low pressure elements. It may be seen from the above table that, for purposes of estimating decommissioning effort, differences between the two plants are small and tend to offset each other. For example, WNP-2 has two more low presure pumps, but an SSES unit has an additional feedwater pump; an SSES unit has four more LP heaters, but no HP heaters.

The differences in the secondary plant design will translate to diff erences in labor l

manhours to remove the contaminated equipment and additional pipng, and the cost of transportation and disposal of the contaminated equipment. These costs are detailed in the main body of the report.

l l

k a