ML20133A074

Partial Response to FOIA Request for Three Categories of Documents Re Proposed Rule, Decommissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities. Listed Documents Forwarded. Documents Also in Pdr. Search for Addl Records Continuing

ML20133A074
Person / Time
Issue date:	05/09/1985
From:	Felton J NRC OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATION (ADM)
To:	Van Eaton J SPIEGEL & MCDIARMID
Shared Package
ML20133A077	List: ML20133A074 ML20133A255
References
FOIA-EAT85-270 NUDOCS 8507200008
Download: ML20133A074 (2)

Text

. #-

%g UNITED 8 TATE 8

[ NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5 WASHINGTON, D. C. 20066 k*...* Qh MAY 0 91985 Joseph Van Eaton, Esquire Spiegel & McDiamid 1350 New York Avenue, NW IN RESPONSE REFER Washington, DC 20005-4798 TO F01A-85-270

Dear Mr. Van Eaton:

This is in partial response to your letter dated April 12, 1985, in which you requested, pursuant to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), three categories of documents concerning the proposed rule published on February 11, 1985, by the NRC entitled "Decomissioning Criteria for Nuclear Facilities" (50 FR 5600).

We are placing the following documents in the NRC Public Document Room (PDR),

1717 H Street, NW, Washington, DC 20555, for your inspection and copying:

1. In response to Category 1, which requests materials other than NUREG reports related to NRC setting a value of $100 million for the cost of decommissioning, a letter from R. I. Smith, PNL, to C. Feldman, NRC, dated May 15, 1984.

2. In response to Category 2, which requests materials related to escalation of decomissioning costs, a memorandum to the file from the decommissioning staff and a handwritten calculation dated April 23, 1985.

3. In response to Category 3, which requests materials related to work performed or advice given by outside consultants (other than listed in the references of the proposed rule), a document entitled "The Impact of NRC Estimates of Decommissioning Costs on Ratepayers and the Regulatory Process," dated May 14, 1984."

You may obtain access to these records by presenting a copy of this letter to the PDR staff or by requesting PDR folder F01A-85-270 under your name.

There is no charge for inspecting records maintained at the PDR. We are enclosing a copy of a notice that provides charges and procedures for obtaining copies of records from the PDR.

)

l 8507200008 850509 l

EA -270 PDR

. ev The search for and review of additional records subject to your F0IA request have not been completed. We will notify you upon completion of the search and review.

Sincerely, J. M. Felton, Director Division of Rules and Records Office of Administration

Enclosure:

As stated l

1

9 Qliatielle 9,  %. p.4. . s. '. . r m an .

e e . p ..

May ll, 1964 a.i m.i.,c,i*4tm:

3. ,,. . a m . w.

Dr. Carl Folhan Chemical Engineerlag Branch -

Divisten of feelmooring Technology

, U.S. Ilvelear hogulatory cuentssion

, , . __1fashington, D.C. 20555 --- .----.---. .- -- - - - . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Dear Dr. Folhan In response to your recent request, I have perforised a limited-scope reestimation of the cost of DECON for the reference FWR and SWR power stations.

The principal categories reevaluated were staff labor, vaste disposal, and energy costs, since these three categories constitute about 855 of the total cost.

,,n. . . . . . . . ... .i ..

a.W. .. . . . . . . . .; . .

..~

. . a: . ' " -

- ' ' ' ' ~.

Disposal costs were reestimated in detail, using the January15, 1984 schedule of Charges from U.S. Ecology. Inc., and the January 1964 hriff

~. from Trl-State Motor Transit Co. Labor costs were escalated. based - -

.. January-1964 Mardy-Whitman Index of Peblic Utt'11ty donstructice"Onsts, and coergy costs pubitcatlan Prodwere escalated based on a mational averses vales frem the .

e ;e. ,; +-.gw;wv:gcer Prlos

. V-2 sedgf3ndeussotaggedW.no

^ ~ " ERJ Sapiirtisiit* '", , ', , , , , '

The costs of DE00N for the reference Ptm and BF. porer stationn estinztM tr. mi) cost IW dollars. ars smtrited in Table 1, broken down into major categories.

These costs include a 255 contingency. The prime

- - - contractor's incremental cost is based on the development.ef -tha additional -

cost issociatied tilth the st111ty hirlag a contractor to be the prias contractor, as given in Section 6 of IENtEG/(R-0130 ADDENDUN. The mobiliza-tion /demobillaation value is escalated from the value given in the reference.

The pre-DECXM engineerlag es+1aate is estimated based on the work done Shippleeport by Burns and hoe en preparing for decommissioning the reactor. ,,

-4g!e - -

. The unge scales osed in the referanos stedles were based en finettle IIortheast#Nasford data.

I have a 195 comparison of constrecties unge '

scales at Manford and at Oak Ridge ahtch abows the labor costs areams tak R14e to to only about SIE that of Emmford. 1hes, staff labor and contracter servtces costs emeld be reduced by about 59 II1111on and $17 9tlillen place la for thethe E ^J.FWR ast.and SWR respectively for doccumissioning actleas takin U.S. sto stplficantly higher than at Manford..It ta enlikely that labor costs

_wn~~

O I~'74 0 V Wl -

//

. ... e.

Ste) 3!, 3911 Page three i T

analysis of this offeet has been carried out, as yet, since this would reqvtre a significain effort on ser part.

The cost of transporting redtonctive materials to a dtsposal site is such a san 11 (* 55) fractlen of the total SECON cost that wide verlattens in transport costs would have a relatively minor tapact en the total DECON Cost.

J hope the information given above is adequate for your prposes. If you have questions about any of this information er need additional information on this topic, please call me.

Sincerely, A c. vrm Righard 1. Smith

.- .:. Stati Engineer.... .- is .- '&. s.- .+' '- . ' <- .- ".C RIS:tsn

,,s om y.9.ry <.. o.:t:,. .

'..,G .

,.ee n.a ~.e iO +.a -<.e.'..:^> :"s- - - ~ . <- -

"'*h*

1

{

l

.g .

\

_:w

~

h i

l

__ - - - ___. --- .__ .- _ _ _ -_ __. . - _ - _ - _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _