ML20149E397

Forwards Re Updated Decommissioning Cost Estimate for Rancho Seco & Attached Rept by Tlg Engineering,Inc. W/Svc List

ML20149E397
Person / Time
Site:	Rancho Seco
Issue date:	05/10/1994
From:	Baxter T SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, SHAW, PITTMAN, POTTS & TROWBRIDGE
To:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#294-15065 DCOM, NUDOCS 9405310080
Download: ML20149E397 (21)

Text

,.

,a

,  ; . , 7 .. , -;

• (/5dd6 l L DOCKETED SHAW, PITTMAN, PoTTs & TROWBRIDd@NRC a pant =rnsmo sucwoiNo poortssio=AL commonarioNs 2300 N STREET, N. W. .

p- Y gLam/ cast E ., WASHINGTON, D. C, 20037 W 18 P 4 :07. .... o,,ic,

. 49 Fes3 (Swawcaw wsw) isos ranu entoit onivt -

.- wcLeam, visessma maior .' l TrLeewowc -P,03) ?eo teoo '

f' (202) se3-soso

)FacsswiLE -

(202)663 8007 THOM AS A. BAXTER, P C.

i Charles Bechhoefer, Esq.

Dr. Richard F. Cole Mr. Thomas P.-Murphy Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory' Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 1;

In the Matter of Sacramento Municipal Utility District (Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station)

Docket No. 50-312-DCOM  ;

Gentlemen:

i Please find enclosed a. copy of District l'etter.MPC&D 94-035,. '

April 28, 1994,-Updated Decommissioning Cost Estimate'for Rancho Seco, and the~ attached report by TLG Engineering, Inc.

.. Respectfully submitted,-

Thomas'A; Baxter, Counsel for Licensee Enclosures ,

cc: Service list (w/ encl.)

I M 0124:044 TAB.94 '

< 6

}

l' 4

9405310080 940510 PDR- ADOCK 05000312 0S9 j

DOCKETED USHRC.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION L '94 M"" 18 P4 :07 L Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

~

r-In.the Matter of ) Docket No~. 50-312-DCOM

)

L SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTILITY ) (Decommissioning Plan)

L DISTRICT )

l- )

(Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating ) ASLBP No. 92-663-02-DCOM Station) )

SERVICE LIST Administrative Judge Office of the Secretary Charles Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman Attn: Docketing and Service Branch Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Adjudicatory File Administrative Judge Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Dr. Richard F. Cole U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

-Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Washington, D.C. 20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Office of Commission Appellate Adjudication L Administrative Judge- U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Mr. Thomas D. Murphy Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board .

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission James P. McGranery, Jr., Esquire l Washington, D.C. 20555 1255 23rd Street, N.W.

l Suite 750 l Mitzi A. Young, Esquire Washington, D.C. 20037 Office of'the General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dana S. Appling, Esquire General Counsel Sacramento Municipal Utility Dist.

P. O. Box 15830 Sacramento, CA 95813 l

l l

l l

l i

(

w -

'h . ,

f

$SMUD SACRAMENTO MUNICIPAL UTIUTY DISTRICT ~_? P. O. Box 15830, Sacramento CA 95852-1830,(916) 452 32 AN ELECTRIC SYSTEM SERVING THE HEART OF CALIFORN MPC&D 94-035 April 28,1994 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555 Docket No. 50-312 Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station License No. DPR-54 UPDATED DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIM ATE FOR RANCIIO SECO Attention: Seymour Weiss In a letter dated March 23,1994, we informed you that we have completed our annual review and update of the Decommissioning Cost Study for the Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station. Enclosed is a copy of the updred Decommissioning Cost Study, which was prepared for SMUD by TLG Engineering, Inc. Ple.tse note, all costs are in 1993 dollars.

In our March 23rd letter, we indicated that our Board of Directors has increased the decommissioning liability for Rancho Seco from $281 million (1991 dollars) to $344 million (1993 dollars). The primary reason for the difference is the projected increase in disposal costs for Low Level Radioactive Waste (LLRW). The TLG report updates the estimated cost of LLRW disposal at Ward Valley to $415 per cubic foot. We have adopted this base cost, but have not included any contingency for LLRW disposal at this time.

Rancho Seco stalTis currently preparing a recommendation to the Board to adjust our annual contribution to the Decommissioning Trust Fund. We will notify the NRCafter the Board has approved the revised annual contribution.

(7 / i ;~ l' _ !* 17 m 101

rru v v miv i ij RANCHO SECo AUCLEAR GENERATING STATION C 14440 Twin Cities Road, Herald, CA 95638 9799;(209) 333-2935

7...

i; }

f '!LY. l 1

i. S. Weiss MPC&D 94-035 Members of your stalT with questions requiring additional information or clarif'ication may )

contact Ken Miller at (916)452-3211, extension 4513.

Sincerely,

/

\ 7 Steve Redeker Manager, Plant Closure and Decommissioning ec: K. Perkins, NRC, Walnut Crmk L.J. Callan, NRC, Arlington Enclosure

, f- Doctanent S11-25-003 ,

I Update of the 1991 Decommissioning Cost fcr the Rancho Seco Nudear Generating Station Prepared for Sacramento Municipal Utility Distrid i

. Prepared by TLG Engineering, Inc. .

~

March,1994 t

6 f/ _e '-

^ '

p g v a vJ Lic?L'A ./__

.. . .~ . ._ - . -.

y

• l

. .. a

'.: Doannent S11-25-003 -

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

TLG Engineering, Inc. (TLG) prepared a decommissioning study for the Sacramento -

Municipal Utility District (the District) in April of 1991. The study was relied upon ,

in assessing the financial liability associated with decommissioning the shutdown  !

Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (RSNGS) and as a supplement to the Decommissioning Plan (DP) prepared by the District in accordance with Nucle'ar Regulatory Commission (NRC) regulations.

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

plus spent fuel storage and non radiological site restoration. Decommissioning was assumed to be initiated on January 1,1993 following an expected approval'of the DP ,

by the NRC. Given the ongoing preparations and lead time available to ready the .

plant for protective storage, initial SAFSTOR activities are estimated to be accomplished within 12 months. The existing spent fuel storage facility will remain active until January 1998, when the last assembly will be moved into dry storage, -

otherwise, the plant will remain in some form of protective storage until preparations l are initiated for' deferred decontamination and license termination.

Once the fuel has been transferred to dry storage, the facility is " hardened" to minimize the on site commitment for the District. The facility will remain in this-  ;

state of dormancy for approximately 9 years, after which the District willinitiate l deferred decontamination, i.e. removal of unacceptable levels of radioactivity. ' Upon -

conclusion of the decontamination process, the District with NRC concurrence, can- q terminate the operating license and proceed with restoration of the site.-

2

- - -e--y-, , ,- , ,, e

s.

, Document S11-25403 1

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

The current estimate, summarized in Table 1, is approximately $415.216 million in 1993 dollars. Based on a comparison of the cost reported in the 1991 study, in 1993 dollars, the current estimate represents an increase of 19.5%. As described later, much of the increase can be attributed to the escalation seen in the projected cost for low-level radioactive waste disposal at the regional disposal site.

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

1. TLG used the same software (version) for developing the decommissioning cost estimate. Revisions to the data files were restricted to changes that were compatible with the software.

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

3. The decommissioning organization, originally developed by the District for the 1991 study, was used as a basis for developing staffing costs. TLG updated 3

.n Document S11-25403 personnel salaries based upon information provided by the District. The overhead costs were also revised and reflect the current cost of both direct and indirect corporate expenses. No positions were added or deleted.

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

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

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

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

1

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

l

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

I

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

4 1

, Document S11-25-003-i l

being developed at the Ward Valley site in Needles, California. Waste classified as Greater than Class C was disposed of as Class C material with l additional surcharges, consistent with the 1991 estimate.

SPENT FUEL DISPOSITION l

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

one (21) modules were projected for use in the study. The disposition of these modules is included within the estimate as well as the initial cost to construct the  ;

modules.

The complete inventory of assemblies may be removed from the site by the end of 2010. The cost of spent fuel storage after 2010 will be funded as an operational expense by the District. This scenario has not been modified for the 1993 update to j the cost estimate. DOE appears to be making every effort possible to meet its  !

obligations under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA). The ability of DOE to expeditiously receive RSNGS spent fuel will enable the District to proceed with decommissioning However, DOE's progress should continue to be monitored. l LOW-LEVEL RADIOAQTLV. E WASTE DISPOSAL I

There is an ongoing need to re assess the cost for low level radioactive waste (LLRW)  ;

disposal. The 1991 estimate relied upon a minimum disposal rate of $179 per cubic foot. This was based upon a preliminary projection provided by the District and the State of California, supplemented by the rate structure from the U.S. Ecology 5

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

Waste disposal projections for the regional facility being sited in California are being driven by rising development costs, environmental and licensing issue' s, administrative expenses as well as the rate of return on investment, operating and perpetuity expenses. The resulting disposal fee will be passed through to the-generators, placing a significant fraction of the cost to remediate a waste generating site beyond the control of the licensee.

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

Comparative costs are summarized in Table 1. Annual expenditures are provided in-Table 2 for the current estimate, with the detailed cost report provided as Table 3.

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

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

packaging costs. ]i Transportation costs decreased as fuel surcharges, in place two years ago, have been reduced. No change was made to either the destination or the shipping distance-assumed in the 1991 estimate.

Burial costs increased substantially as additional information became available on .

the disposal cost expected at the new regional disposal facility. The minimum cost 6 .

o.

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

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

increase in disposal costs over the 1991 estimate.

Staffing costs also increased over the two year period as a result of increases in overhead costs. The organizations developed for the 1991 estimate were not changed, however, the District did provide updated salaries and overhead expenses which were, in most cases, higher than those previously used. Since neither the organizations nor the decommissioning schedule for the project were modified, the 16.5% increase seen over the two year period is a direct result of the rise in staff management costs.

SUMMARY

and CONCLUSIONS The 1993 costs reported in the following tables were generated as an update to the l

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

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

7

X'

- Dcctanent S11-25-003 TABLE 1-COMPARISON OF DECOABIISSIONING COS'IS (Thousands of Dollars) 1991 Est. in Work Category 1991 1993 $ 1993 Decontamination 3,575 3,792 3,706 Removal 64,387 68,308 65,014 Packaging 2,328 2,470 2,479 Shipping 2,823 2,995 2,795 Radioactive waste disposal (off site) 36,710 38,946' 84,110 .

Decom: . ..isioning Staffs 115,279 122,299 134,240 Other 48,697 51,663 52,793 ,

1 Contingency 53.723 56.995- 70,07Q l i

TOTAL 327,522 347,468 415,216

-]

l i

8-

i ..

.e

- e ,. '

, _l

~

_ TABLE 2 Cash Flow Analysis '

+

' Phase 1- Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phase 6 Phase 7 Total Custodial .SAFSTOR Hardened Hardened Prep for Deferred Site-SAFSTOR Dormancy SAFSTOR Dormancy Decon Decon Restore 1993. S40,139- 540,139 1994 $557 - $11,902 '512,459 ,

1995 . 512,067 -S12,067 1996 S12,067 S12,06s 1997- S207 S13,682 .S13,889 1998 $230 $2,764 S2,994 1

1999 S2,810 S2,810 2000 S2,810 S2,810 l 2001 S2,810 S2,810 2002 .S2,810 S2,810 2003 S2,810 S2,810 2004 S2,810 S2,810

, 2005 S2,810 S2,810 2006' S2,810 52,810 2007 S792 S17,342 S18,134

2008 S18,749 S17,513 S36,262 2009 .$78,387 578,387

'2010' '$78,387- $78,387 2011-- S37,541 516,569' S54,110- -y

' 2012 S31,797 S31,797 -

2013 $2,041 S2,041 2 ,

C- '

kCM

--$40,696 S13,912-

-S36,243 526,040' S36,091- S211,827.. S50,406 S415,216.- .

h t

2.

---.---.1,'.~._-.- _ . _ _ _ - - - _ - - - _ - - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . - - ~ - _ _ - _ . - - _ . - 12_______--.

.. ,, .. . . ~ . u n. a +

.a. '

a ,

Document S11-25 003 TABLE 3 -

Detailed Cast Report 11188  !! Is ganas gs 3 ja En!!!agggg EEIRA gg a 3: **8!$2gg13

,_ 25358 ji 5 58 IIlll senes II I en s El illll il i Il ll1lll ss asssa as a se mansanxlelslsl 4

If 125!! s 3 N

~-

. e e . a 8 b 3I g 33333 g5 *****gm sanse as 3*gs smygs*IB5B hbj 5

$} m g Ejl I

)

!? 2 53 * *

" 2 5

- as j is i

eaa:o eaa i 1

l i

1 i

-! 4

, ; j {f I l} 3 l ii Ili' i i 1. : a r tin u ii .

L I!l'lnll!

. n a h n llai hu!lN I

!8 j

o

} () .--

~

~*

De=nt S1125-003  !

l 1

TABLE 3 i Decaned cwt Regre '

(am't)

]j I I 2 I 1[$I3"7895 ~8 3 E E !

I

,I 1

t y y

=a ag33ggg3 g g, l

a s .s .s,s ,:

., .s s . s s s ..

..a a 1

I J.  ;

I 5

- I

• l l

1 -l 2 - - ,

1i i  !

el -g ***ageagggg **

1 lg 3

g gg ** ** *

,jf i i

, ,3 aj e

i -s y gj m .. .

l a

1

- -- i 7 ,

I n I  !

i

!I-i i

i i

= I ,

i -.

1

.  !- I 3 J, a * ;I

. I g g .

i 3- ,

j ,i l1 3 "3 -

.i I '

p li I lilll ; ls((, .

}  ! Il 1:

s ,j I

I li i i , 1 1.1- 1.  ! 1, ! .

i;  : ::= ::= :: ::

11 -

m . ,

p

• Dommment S11-25-003 TABLE 3 Detailed Cast Report (can't)

!!!!!!! !a5 Si!!!sti j ra JJ - - -

assilii s .i

...i1113 . .m

.i .n. .i .s .i .n.s . . i 1

e e e . ..

I 5 5

• 8 9 l

9, g3 l8 Riff 9 j l ***8!sagggg gg _;

_blg E

E i

i s s = . a E}!

3 5 2 1 5 g3 . . . . .

1 5

I J I-

. 'I 1 r <

g j' . g- ,.

1- 1 i i

I 1i'1 i y

I il 11 i  ! 'l

!I! iIbIll!!)l!!!,ili}!

1 I  !!l L!Il!!;

::  ::::::=  : :::::::g;  ::::

12-

Domment S11-25-003 TABLE 3 Detailed Cost Report (om't) jj E!!!!

- - ai ax agsgi gg

.C.C.C.l.l C.g 1

i 13 8

jg g g i

sji at n

i 5

I i

1 i

i

'i

[ 's 11l..js:iii 1

1 3

[ 4. l;

.i.

j r I I J !! 11 1.!is! Il it 1111.iill!1 h!,11'ilil.ij1111.II i il.

i==== =========r-  ;;;;;  ;;;i;;;;;::::::: ==

13

'i Document S11-25-003 TABLE 3 Detailed Cast Report (con't) 1 li} 11  !! !

- -  ! it!![ill 1 3!!!!!!!!!!55E355

[Ig5HE 3E E asassegggarmass=*

i'

,, [ lagingas I ,

CCCCCI anzans CC C ss :

C fCEll$CC G lllCCEEIICCCCCill a azzstana a saseesxzsessesze

--- ,.== - ,, -

1 I I E!!!lIll i Sillilill!i3!!gsI saggga gagogo ae I

a j

.j ,

3 e a s more3=As as s

e. -

Haing! g; j g saggyn13 g anseaegfina=as3==

ti II e  !  !!v!!sti it El~I na I i

,j E - - s - szg ga sa a E

a = s-

... 3, .

j i. i ii i .a.i. is . a.i - q s -=-angg l

I i l 1 -

! f fi iril{I, t ,,!!,i ! - l ui o ii!1iiii.l.I!llI!!l{,!, f,

'l r i i it ,,

= =====  ;;;;; r; ;

i  ;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;.

14

y L,

i Doatment S11-25-003 i

TABLE 3 Detailed Cost Report (con't) -

33 asagst3gassgs!!gagg!!gissanagg!!!

xx .

_rg! I ggan 2=

===grassin*amassa!g! gsmas==ganas .ggi a tsgg

', ICIEC$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$CCllllIlllll ssezasas*zesssessamxsassssesassam Ill i maa- e 'llti aman s ~

- ,, ..a - - - --- -

i

, singviirigvisi:iisisariisiinnit:5 gai  :

aos c;gg man 3g5= a s gsus E E I l 1 1 g , s as === n aa -

sus s al 3 i

B *ly E

a==garatin"8'SE3't!E*I!***3Riss gig a* nzag i lji 5

!jlI

! I i II 3!5 ! 8 i 8 i!I i-52 gj a s --- - -

u-* 3 E

I sa sas a s g an= g 1

a=ssasagasss:asusavisasos==seman s=

8 " III IE 3 l

I llif1:!a 1:

!alI* .

l '

l

lli 1 l11111]:]331;.;al11[;11!!3lia,}s..I.If[lli..l 11 ] llillill!!!!1ll;,

lii I ]

::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::- saa na ==== 1 15

4 M

ba=nt S11-25-003 TABLE 3 Detailed Cast Report .

(con't) jj  !!!!I!I!! j', ! II I!  !!!!III*IIIII*III!II 5IEIllIII II a E.

II Eg ((gggggsgaggassiS!HE IEEIIIIII enanmasas II Ex-ss II El ma IEEEIEEEEEElllilllli essesisessnesessesse I

I l EI  ! .lllgI!l'IIIII"IIE'aE i

, i si ]!]E8*E 'I as a33g3:

ljWr i 58  !!!IEjEl] [] j 85 EI {lllIEE*Iagsa-meggg3 l} g{ 3 EI H

' 5 gj! I

. =j i' 8 i

% I E

8

! i

{!IE [ 85 gg][III*gsgsn-negggg i

,I > s' I

f r iill!!!!!!! !!h l! !{!!!,

.====,,,,

i!  ! t 16

. Dm-nt S11-25-003 TABLE 3 Detailed Cast Report (can't) >

j j asaa!Ig= -  !):  !!!!  !! ! ;.

HEE!sga aga agas !g g ;

4

....... -,e .... .. ..

3 y

g ==sa gg I

li 9"

{ , i!Eisi' III fins l! j j a I ij! s !

Ijl I

• 2 ,

IJ E

j ' I i . i- .i i, i ; -

j

, I

• J i

-i 9

1 .

i !!. l' i s i i

, 3 l* "  :

11,1 l-

]jl!

~

[3 l -l a .:1 )'

3 1- - i ass s}!1 1 Il i fi !

a. : aaa  ::::~

17 ,

, , - . . . - - . . . -