ML20205F599
| ML20205F599 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Humboldt Bay |
| Issue date: | 04/12/1997 |
| From: | Palmer C, Seymore F TLG ENGINEERING, INC. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20205F584 | List: |
| References | |
| P01-1238-004, P1-1238-4, NUDOCS 9904060328 | |
| Download: ML20205F599 (97) | |
Text
I DCL-99-038 l
l
.I i
l l
t Decommissioning Cost Estimate for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 l
Prepared by TLG Services, Inc.
l-9904060328 990331 ~
PDR ADOCK 05000133 I
PDR _
i
)
Document No. P01-1238-004 DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE for the HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT 3 N
)
2015 SAFSTOR j
prepared for PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY December,1997 prepared by
-(
TLG Services, Inc.
Bridgewater, Connecticut
HumboldtB yPowerPlant Unit 3
. Document P01-1238-00.4, Rev. O Decommissioning Cost Estimate Pageliofx
(~
\\
s i
APPROVALS l
/
97 Project Manager ou/>>
m,,'s e
Datie ' '
W. Siym t
r
,, w
,, /
/
/
Technical Manager rancis W. Se'@~
Dalte '
~
MM!4/ww&"
/4/+'97
/
Quality Assurance Manager Carolyd A. Palmer Date l
l
(
Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decomminstoning Cost Estimate Pagelii ofx j
I
[T TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION - PAGE EXE CUTIVE
SUMMARY
........................................................................................ vi-x 1.
IN TRO D U CTIO N...................................................................................................
1.1 Obj ective of S tu dy............................................................................................. 1 - 1 1.2 Site Descrip tion................................................................................................. 1-1
- 1. 3 Re gulatory Guidan ce..................................................................................... 1 -2 1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act..................................................................... 1 -4 1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act...................1-5 2.
SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES................................................... 2-1 2.1 Safe Storage and Pre-Decommissioning........................................................ 2-2 2.2 Period 3 - Prep arations................................................................................. 2 -2 2.2.1 Engineerin g and Plannmg.................................................................... 2-2 2.2.2 Site Prep arations................................................................................... 2-3 2.3 Period 4 - Decommissioning Operations & License Termination............... 2-4 2.4 Final Site Survey - License Termin ation....................................................... 2-6 2.4.1 NRC Criteria for Decommissionin g....................................................... 2-7 2.4.2 NRC Decommissioning Process and Survey Procedures.................... 2-8 2.5 Period 5 - Site Restoration............................................................................... 2 9 3.
C OST E STIMATE........................................................................................
3.1 B asis of E s tim ate..............................................................................................
- 3. 2 Me th od olo gy................................................................................................
3.3 ' Financial Components of the Cost Model...................................................... 3-3 3. 3.1 C on tin gency........................................................................................
3.3.2 Fin an cial Risk......................................................................................... 3-8 3.4 Site-Sp ecific Considerations......................................................................... 3-9 3.4.1 Sp ent Fuel Disposition............................................................................ 3-9 3.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components.......................................... 3 9 3.4.3 Main Turbine and Condenser............................................................ 3-10 3.4.4 Transp ortation Methods...................................................................... 3-10 3.4.5 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal and Recycle....................... 3-10 3.4.6 Discharge Piping and Canal............................................................... 3-11 3.4.7 Coordination with Units 1 and 2...................................................... 3-11 3.4.8 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning................................ 3-12 3. 5 Assump ti on s.....................................................................................
3.6 Cos t Estim ate S umm ary.............................................................................. 3 - 17
(
)
Humboldt By Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page 10 ofx g.
i i
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
SECTION-PAGE 4.'
S CHED ULE ESTIMATE..................................................................................
4.1 Schedule Estim ate Assumptions.................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Proj ect Sch edule................................................................................................ 4 i
J 5.
RADIO ACTIVE WASTES....................................................................................... 5 6.
O CCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE.............................................................................. 6-1 7.
RESULTS..................................................................................................................7-1 8.
RE FE RE N C ES.............................................................................
TABLES l
3.1 Summ ary of Decommissionin g Costs........................................................... 3-19 3.1 Summary of Decommissioning Costs Excluding CPUC Disallowances...... 3 20 5.1 Decommissioning Radieactive Waste Burial Volumes.................................. 5 4 7.1 Summ ary of D ecommissionin g Costs............................................................. 7-2 FIGURES 1.1 Layout of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Site and Surrounding Area........1-G 1.2 Schematic Diagram of the RPV and Internal Components...........................1-7 1.3 S ection al View Throu gh the C aisson.............................................................. 1 -8 3.1 Low Level Radioactive Waste Processing Flow Chart................................. 3-21 4.1 Decommissionin g Activity Schedule............................................................... 4-3 4.2 -
D ecommission i n g Tim eline............................................................................ 4-7 APPENDICES A. Unit Cost Factor D evelopment.................................................................................... A-1 B. Unit C o st Factor Lis tin g......................................................................................... B -
C. D etaile d Co st An alysis........................................................................................ C-D. Work DifEculty Factor Adjustments.........................................................................D-1
Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page v ofx REVISION LOG iRef@Nok sORA. Nod
- EDstsi 3 Item;Ressedj fReasonfo#ReMaisen
. s.
0 12/4/97 Originalissue t
Humboldt Bry Power Pirnt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0,
Decommiestoning Cost Estimate Page vi ofx f
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
A site specific cost study was performed for the decommissioning of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 (HBPP3) for the Paci6c Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) by TLG Services, Inc. This SAFSTOR estimate includes a comprehensive cost and schedule estimate for completing the decommissioning of HBPP3 based on outlined work areas of the olant. Man-power and activity durations were developed and are reflected within the project schedule along with other associated site programs. The projected costs to decommission MBPP3 is estimated to be approximately $166.6 nullion (1997 dollars). The total ccsts for the California Public Utility Commission (CPUC) disallowances are $655,654. The major cost contributors to the :,verall decommissioning cotts are labo c, site remediation and radioactive waste disposal, and other (e.g., engineenag, undistributed costs). The costs are based on several key assumptions, including regulatory requirements, estimating; methodology, contingency requirements,lowlevel radioactive waste disposal availability, and site restoration requirements. A complete discussion of the assumptions used in this estimate is presented in Section 4.
A detailed breakdown of these major cost contributors to the decommissioning cost estimate is reported in Section 7 of this document. Schedules of armual expenditures are provided in Section 4, and detailed cost, waste volume, and man hour schedules are provided in Appendix C. Costs are reported in 1997 dollars.
Alternatives and Rezulations The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provided general decommissioning guidance in the rule adopted on June 27, 1988 1 In this rule the NRC set forth technical at.d financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear facilities. The regulations addr~ sed planmng needs, timing, funding methods, and environmental review requirements for decommissioning.
The rule also defined three decomivissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC - DECON, SAFSTOR and Eh f0MB.
DECON was defined as "the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a facility and site contauung radioactive conta.* inants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be 1 sed for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of U.S. Code of Federal Regulatis... atle 10, Parts 30,40,50,51,70 and 72 " General 2
Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register %'
se 53, Number 123 (p 24018+), June 27,1988.
Humboldt Bly Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1138-004, Rev. 0
' Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page vli ofx
(
operations." 2 SAFSTOR was defined as 'the alternative in which the nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to be safely stored and - subsequently decontaminated (deferred
~ decontamination) to levels that permit release for unrestricted use." a l
ENTOMB was defined as "the alternative in which radioactive contammants are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as
)
concrete; the entombed structure is appropriately maintained and continued surveillance is carried out until the radioactive material decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property." 4 In 1996, the NRC published revisions to the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plants to clanfy ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and uniformity in the decommissioning process. The amendments allow for greater public participation and better define the transition process from operations to decommissioning. The costs and schedules presented in this estimate follow the general guidance and sequence in the amended regulations.
Methodology The methodology used to develop the decommissioning cost estimates for HBPP3 follows the basic approach originally presentetiin the Guidelines.5 This reference describes a unit cost factor method for estimating decommissioning activity costs. The unit cost factors used in this study reflect site-specific costs, as well as the latest available information about worker productivity in decommissioning.
The data obtained from the Shippingport Station Decommissioning Project, completed in 1989, i
as well as from TLG's involvement in the decommissioning planning and engineering for the Shoreham, Yankee Rowe, Trojan, Rancho Seco, Pathfinder, and Cintichem reactor facilities,is reflected within this estimate.
An activity duration critical path is used to determme the total decommissioning program schedule required for calculating the carrymg costs which include program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental, quality assurance, and security. This systematic approach for assembling decommissioning estimates 8
Ibid. Page FR24022, Column 3.
8 lbid.
Ihid. Page FR24023, Column 2.
4 i
T.S. LaGuardia et al., " Guidelines for Producing Commercia Nuclear Power Plant 5
Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP 036, May 19f 6.
Humboldt BryPowerPirnt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decomminstoning Cost Estimate Page vill ofx 1
has ensured a high degree of con 2dence in the reliability of the resulting costs.
This study assumes that PG&E's primary contractor is aheady experienced in the
' techniques and technology of nuclear power plant decommissioning, and therefore performs all work (both field activities and project management) in an optimally efficient manner.. Therefore, this study does not attempt to quantify any cost impact for any increase in efficiency from experience gained in decommissioning other plants in the past.
Continrency Consistent with industry practice, contingencies are applied to the decontammation and dismantling costs developed as, " specific provision for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope,. particularly important where previous cxperience relating estimates and actual costs has shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur "8 The cost elements in this estimate are based on ideal conditions; therefore, the types of unforeseeable events that are almost certain to occur in decommissioning, based on industry experience, are addressed through a percentage contingency applied on a line-item basis. This contingency factor is a nearly universal element in all large-scale construction and demolition projects. It should be noted that contingency, as used in this estimate, does not account for price escalation and inflation in the cost of decomunssioning over the remaining SAFSTOR period.
The use and role of contingency within decommissioning estimates is not a safety factor issue. Safety factors provide additional security and address situations that may never occur. Contingency funds, by contrast, are expected to be fully expended throughout the program. Application of contingency on a line-item basis is l
necessary to provide assurance that sufficient funding will be available to accomplish the intended tasks.
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disoosal The contaminated and activated material generated in the decontammation and dismantling of a commercial nuclear reactor is classified as low-level radioactive waste, although not all of the material is suitable for " shallow-land" disposal. With the passage of the " Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act" in 1980, and its i
Amendments of 1985, the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders.
Consequently, low-level radioactive waste generated in the decontamination and dismantling of HBPP3 Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, American Association of Cost Engi.
neers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, p. 239.
L l
Humboldt Bzy P6w:rPl:nt Unit 3 pocument P01-H38-004, Rev. 0 Decommiseloning Cost Estimate Page lx ofx l
l j
is assumed to be destined for the future Southwest Compact disposal site planned for l
Ward Valley, California.
This site is assumed to be available to support decommissioning operations.
A base disposal charge of $509 per cubic foot was assumed for estimating purposes for the Ward Valley site.
Contaminated material was also routed off site to waste recovery vendors for additional processing and volume reduction. Costs for waste
. conditioning are based upon representative market prices for the vendors providing l
these services.
High-Level Waste Congress passed the " Nuclear Waste Policy Act" in 1982, assigning the responsibility for disposal of spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the Department of Energy (DOE). This legislation also created a Nuclear Waste L
Fund to cover the cost of the progra:n, which is funded by the sale of electricity from PG&E and an estimated equivalent for assemblies irradiated prior to April,1983. The target date for startup of the federal Waste Management System was originally 1998.
After several delays, DOE estimates that the geologic repository will not be j
operational until sometime between the years 2010 and 2015. For the basis of this cost study, PG&E has assumed that the high-level waste repository or some interim storage facility will be operational by 2010. The backlog of spent fuel in the national l
inventory, and slow progress in the development of a waste transportation system, make it necessary to include spent fuel storage in the cost and schedule of commercial reactor decommissioning.
Site Restoration l
The efficient removal of the contaminated materials and verification that residual radionuclide concentrations are below the NRC limits will result in substantial i
damage to many of the site structures. Blasting, coring, dnlhng, scarification l
(surface removal), and the other decontamination activities will substantially damage power block structures, potentially weakening the footings and structural l
supports.
Prompt demolition after license termination is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option. It is unreasonable to anticipate that these structures would be repaired and preserved after the radiological contamination is removed. The cost to' dismantle site structures with a work force already mobilized on site is more efficient and less costly than if the process is deferred. Experience at shutdown generating stations has shown that plant facilities quickly degrade without continual maintenanc.e, adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public, as well as to the demolition work force.
e
HumboldtBryPowerPirnt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. O Decommiseloning Cost Estimate Page x ofx i
This study assumes that site structures not associated with Units 1 and 2 will be
. removed to a nominal depth of three feet below the local grade level. The site will then be gr:ded and landscaped.
4 4
x
Humboldt BayPower Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 1, Page 1 of 8
(
- 1. INTRODUCTION This decommissioning cost analysis is designed to provide the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) with sufficient-information to prepare the financial plannmg documents for decommissioning, as required by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). It is not a detailed engineering document, but a cost estimate prepared in advance of the detailed engineering preparations required to carry out the decomnussioning of the Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 (HBPP3).
1.1 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY The objective of the study is to prepare a comprehensive estimate of the cost, a detailed schedule of the associated activities, and the resulting volume oflow-level radioactive waste generated in decommissioning HBPP3.
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION The HBPP3 is located approximately four miles southwest of Eureka, California.
The site consists of approximately 143 acres located on the mainland shore of Humboldt Bay. Figure 1.1 shows the layout of the site and the surrounding area. The adjacent units are fossil-fired and are not considered in the scope of this study, except where noted.
The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) for HBPP3 consists of a single cycle, natural circulation, boiling water reactor and the associated control and s'upport f
systems. Figure 1.2 shows a schematic diagram of the reactor pressure vessel and internal components. The generating unit had a rated core thermal power of 220 MWth (thermal) with a corresponding net electrical output of 65 MWe (electric).
The NSSS is located within the " primary containment structure." The primary containment is located mostly below grade and consists of a drywell vessel and a suppression chamber. Both the drywell and the suppression chamber area are located within a reinforced concrete caisson. The drywell vessel is centrally located in the caisson and serves as the primary containment vessel. The suppression chamber is constructed of reinforced concrete, lined with carbon steel plate. Six vent pipes connect the drywell to a common ring header at the top of the suppression chamber. Downcomers drop from the ring header and terminate below the normal water level of the suppression pool. As a system, the drywell, suppression chamber, and interconnecting piping were designed to
(
reduce the pressure increase in the event of a local process system piping failure.
HumSidt B:yPowerPirnt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommlisioning Cost Estimate Section 1, Page 2 of 8 i
Figure 1.3, a sectional view through the caisson, depicts the gener:u arrauement of the reactor vessel, drywell, and pressure suppression chamber, as well as the associated concrete structure.
Heat produced in the reactor was converted to electrical energy by the turbine-generator system. This system converted the thermal energy of steam produced in the reacMr vesselinto mechanical shaft power' and then into electrical energy.
The unit's turbine-generator consists of a tandem, compound, double flow, condensing turbine, directly connected to a 13,800V,3 phase,60 cycle, hydrogen-cooled, synchronous generator. The turbine consists of a single flow high pressure section and a double flow, low pressure section with a crossover pipe connecting the two sections. The turbine is operated in a closed feedwater cycle which condenses the steam; the condensate /feedwater is returned to the reactor vessel. Heat rejected in the main condenser was removed by the Circulating Water System (CWS). The CWS was designed to circulate the flow of water required to remove the heat load from the main condenser and other auxiliary equipment and to discharge it to the Bay through the discharge pipes and a canal.
Commercial operation for the HBPP3 began in August of 1963 and continued until July of 1976, at which time the unit was permanently shut down after approximately 13 years of operation. The plant has been maintained in safe-storage since that time. For the purposes of this study it was assumed that the plant will remain in safe-storage until 2015, at which time delayed dismantling activities would commence.
1.3 REGULATORY GUIDANCE-The Nuclear Regulatory Cornminion (NRC or Commission) provided decomnussioning guidance in the rule
" General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," (Ref.1) published and adopted on June 27, 1988. This rule amended NRC regulations to set forth technical and financial criteria for decommissioninglicensed nuclear facilities. The regulation addressed decommissioning plannmg needs, tuning, funding methods, and environmental review requirements. The intent of the rule was to ensure that decommissioning would be accomplished in a safe and timely manner and that adequate licensee funds would be available for this purpose. Subsequent to the rule, the NRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.159, " Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors," (Ref. 2) which provided guidance to the licensees of nuchar facilities on methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the requirements of the rule. The regulatory guide addressed the funding requirements and provided guidance on the content and form of the financial assurance mechanisms indicated in the rule amendments.
Humboldt B$y Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0.
l Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 1, Page 3 of 8 l
3 i
l l
The rule defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC: DECON, SAFSTOR and ENTOMB.
l DECON was defined by the rule as "the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations."
SAFSTOR was defined as "the alternative in which the nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontammated (deferred decontamination) to levels that perndt release for unrestricted use."
ENTOMB was defined as "the alternative in which radioactive contammants are encased in a structurally long-lived material, j
such as concrete; the entombed structure is appropriately l
maintained and continued surveillance is carried out until the radioactive material decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property."
f The rule placed limits on the time allowed to complete the decommissioning process. For SAFSTOR, the process is restricted in overall duration to 60 years unless it can be shown that a longer duration is necessary to protect public j
health and safety. The guidelines for ENTOMB are similar, providing the NRC l
with both sufficient leverage and flexibility to ensure that these deferred options are only used in situations where it is reasonable and consistent with the definition of decommissioning. Consequently, with the new restrictions, the SAFSTOR and ENTOMB options are no longer decommissioning alternatives in themselves, as neither terminates the license for the site. At the conclusion of a 60 year dormancy period (or longer for ENTOMB if the NRC approves such a l
case), the site would still require significant remediation to meet the definition of unrestricted release and license termmation. Further, the NRC does not believe that ENTOMB is generally a viable option for a power reactor due to the long-lived nature of the radionuclides involved.
When the decommissioning regulations were adopted in 1988, it was assumed that the majority oflicensees would decommission at the end of the operating license life. Since that time, several licensees had permanently and prematurely ceased operations without having submitted a decommissioning plan. In addition, these licensees requested exemptions from certain operating
Humboldt B:yPowerPl:nt IJnit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 1, Page 4 of 8
(
requirements as being unnecessary once the reactor is defueled. Each case has been handled individually without clearly defined generic requirements. The NRC amended the decommissioning regulations in 1996 to clanfy ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and uniformity in the decommissioning process (Ref. 3). The new amendments allow for greater public participation and better define the transition process from i
operations to decommissioning.
Under the revised regulations, licensees would submit written certification to the NRC within 30 days after the decision was made to cease operations.
Certification would also be required once fuel had been permanently removed
{
from the reactor vessel. Submittal of these notices would entitle the licensee to a fee reduction and eliminate the obligation to follow certain requirements needed 1
only during operation of the reactor. Within two years of submitting notice of permanent cessation of operations, the licensee would be required to submit a Post Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) to the NRC. This i
report would describe the planned decomnussioning activities, the associated sequence and schedule, and an estimate of expected costs. Prior to completing decommissioning, the licensee would be required to submit an application to the
)
NRC to terminate the license, along with a license termination plan.
{
1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act i
Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act in 1982 (Ref. 4), assigning the I
responsibility for disposal of spent nuclear fuel from the commercial generating plants to the Department ~~ Energy (DOE). Two permanent disposal facilities were envisioned as well as a interim facility. To recover the cost of permanent spent fuel disposal, this legislation created a Nuclear Waste Fund through which money was to be collecced from the consumers of the electricity generated by commercial nuclear power plants. The date targeted for startup of the federal Waste Management System was 1998.
After pursuing a national site selection process, the Act was amended in 1987 to
)
designate Yucca Mountain, Nevada, as the only site to be evaluated for geologic disposal of high-level waste. Also in 1987, DOE announced a five-year delay in the opening date for the repository, from 1998 to 2003. Two years later, in 1989, an additional 7-year delay was announced, primarily due to problems in obtaining the required permits from the state of Nevada to perform the required characterization of the site. DOE has projected additional delays as a result of proposed Congressional reductions in appropriations for the program.
i i
Utilities have responded to this impasse by initiating legal action and constructing supplemental storage as a means of maintaining operating
I Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004 Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 1, Page 5 of 8
. margins. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit recently confirmed l
DOE's statutory obligation to provide spent fuel disposal beginning in 1998, regardless of whether the agency has an operating repository. However, since the agency is not currently in default, the court declined to prescribe " remedies" in the likely event DOE fails to uphold its obligation.
For purposes of the decommissioning cost estimate, DOE is assumed to initiate spent fuel acceptance from HBPP3 startmg in the year 2010. The rate of acceptance from HBPP3 is based upon the " Acceptance Priority Ranking &
Annual Capacity Report" (Ref. 5) issued by the DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. Based upon this publication and a 2010 start l
date, the transfer can be completed by the year 2015.
1.3.2 Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act Congress passed the " Low-Level Radioactive Disposal Act" in 1980, declaring the l
states as being ultimately responsible for the disposition oflow-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders. The federal law encouraged the formation of regional groups or compacts to implement this objective safely, efficiently and economically, and set a target date of 1986. With little progress, l
the " Amendments Act" of 1985 (Ref. 6) extended the target, with specific milestones and stiff sanctions for non-compliance. However, more than 10 years later, no new sites have been developed and even the most advanced program is far behind schedule.
The low-level radioactive waste generated in the decontamination and l
dismantling of HBPP3 is destined for the Southwest Compact's future disposal facility in Ward Valley, California. This study assumes that this facility will be l
operational and supporting decommissioning operations by the time of l
decommissioning.
For purposes of constructing the decommissioning cost estimate, a base burial rate of $509 per cubic foot was used for low-level radioactive waste disposal l
within the Southwest Compact.
The value is consistent with projections developed by the site operator, US Ecology.
. HumboldtB:yPowerPl:nt Uni 1 5,cument P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommiseloning Cost Esti.T.a*
Section 1, Page Scf 8
('
FIGURs 1.1 1
LAYOUT OF THE HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT SITE AND SURROUNDING AREA j
b g
x
- =
u........
u,
===.....
- .=,.p.=~~
- y 5
- ;, p -
r:::' ~,. :. w ~
o
- Y
" "" ~= Y Y===,...,
u
- .f
,,,, a.
_ u
/g
=.r......
i !
]
Il
.'t"
, )'
s:::::::::! ~~1frfr'1 e=
J 11=tm% cf
/.
...r.r.:g "
g6 6L h
,,gg
.u.....
/
y r y
....... E
)\\._.
s'\\ '>
~~
.m.
f
/
/,
t
I i
Humboldt Bay Power.Pl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 1, Page 7 of 8 FIGURE 1.2 SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM OF THE REACTOR PRESSURE VESSEL AND INTERNAL COMPONENTS s tw mi l
s
,~
,y
-x
- m..,a, m enna l
y =-~
% = =. ).:
I anum /
M *axmasts /^M~
/ W-s Ema9n,a c p,
~~--.,as
- rimas=1 %
G:
y) n~=a /_y
\\
=fra--~m
~
Y s-r
_s n.
E m
n.
i f
in w /[
' [jj
~
s'
//
M/
_, / /
{3 %5%
d:
i
- g_f, g
~~
'~~ m.
i
- ,~..
'N-cae 4
- -,a,
(
l go 3
~
P 8-2 w...,
, Q
~ ~_
o R*
' M.
- C"
~
prd es.mr
Humboldt B:y Power Pl:nt Unit 3 Document P011238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 1, Page 8 cf 8 i
FIGURE 1.3 SECTIONAL VIEWTHROUGH THE CAISSON HF.AT EXCHANGERS CRANE REFUELING BLDO.
"'j "WA x
RESIN JIS CRANE EMERGENCY STORAGE
-~~
\\a CONDENSER Pol 8ON L
TANK %
..- TANK N" PLUG "
I
- 1.,
1-s it "w"
.g,;
FUEL
'ti
- ?.'-
}.y POOL
..Q! n
\\ ': _$ 0
~
N
~87YI o. E.$
I h
l10'D0BDil?
1 / [f b'
CASK BHUTDOWN HEAT
- M kb
)
(
f[- l
}
LOADING PIT EXCHANGERS y.
d y;;P.'M'.0%j t*~"{
a g
~~
N SUPPRES SION %
-- Dh ACTIVE CORE ZONE CHAMBER jl*m=m
.'.mm:mm 5.".
- .g; k
~
N, S C R AM D U M P T A N K --,.
y
}
V o
- q d &
- Q
_.4
' 'j" * 'N G r>;., *.f CORE SPRAY PUMPS NO.1 &2
,.3,.
'..t lf/.E.:',k' s
1lLU CT. REACTOR CLEAN-UP s;
PUMP DISCH.
REDT 1
HumbbidtBayPowerPlant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. O Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 2, Page 1 of10 1
- 2. SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES The following sections describe the basic activities associated with the decontamination and disassembly of the plant. Although detailed procedures for each activity identified are not provided, and the actual sequence of work may vary, the activity descriptions provide a basis not only for estimating, but also for the expected scope of work, i.e.,
engineering and planning at the time of decommissioning.
The operation, shut down, and safe-storage of the nuclear unit are described in detailin the decommissioning plan, "SAFSTOR Decommissioning Plan for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No. 3" (Ref. 7). The activities and associated costs expended to date are therefore not repeated here. This study specificaHy addresses those activities and costs associated with the conclusion of the safe-storage period and the subsequent deconunissioning process.
The NRC defines SAFSTOR as "the alternative in which the nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination) to a level that permits release for unrestricted use." The decommissioning scenario evaluated in this study I
presumes that decommissioning will commence' after all spent fuel has been transferred to the DOE, The decommissioning plan prepared by PG&E primarily addressed the activitics and tasks related to preparing and maintaming the facility in safe storage. The document will be revised (updated) prior to initiating decommissioning activities in the year 2015.
With the requirements enacted through the recently issued regulations, it is likely that PG&E will be required to prepare a new PSDAR and a license termination plan rather than amend its decommissioning plan.
The current NRC regulations address decommissioning in three phases. The current plant status (safe-storage) is addressed in Phase II. This phase is applicable to the dormancy phases of the deferred decommissioning alternatives. Phase III pertains to the activities involved in license termmation. The ternunation plan contains a site characterization, (i.e., location, type and amount of radioactivity), a description of any remaming dismantling activities to be accomplished, plans for site remediation, detailed plans for a final radiation survey, and any planned use of the site. An updated cost to complete is required, along with the reporting of any new or altered environmental consequences.
The TLG cost estimating methodology subdivides the decommissioning project into periods, based upon major milestones in the project. Continuing Phase II expenses are
Humboldt BryPowerPirnt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 2, Page 2 of10 t
i not addressed in this study, except where noted. Phase III, addressing the activities associated with license termmation, is subdivided into Periods.3 and 4 in the cost estimate. Period 5 addresses those activities envisioned for site restoration.
2.1 SAFE-STORAGE AND PRE-DECOMMISSIONING Current site activities include preventive and corrective maintenance on essential systems and site services, area lighting, general building maintenance, heating and ventilation,- routine radiological inspections of contammated
- structures, maintenance of structural integrity, and a site environmental and radiation monitoring program.
1 Since the two adjoining fossil units are operational and site resources can be shared, the staff dedicated to Unit 3 is mimmal. Consequently, to support decommissioning operations, PG&E will have to secure additional resources, internally from the corporate organization or through external sources, e.g.,
contractors.
The cost to maintain HBPP3 in its current configuration is not addressed in this study. The disassembly of the stack and other equipment due to personnel safety issues may also be scheduled during this perioi Removal of these items will also eliminate any safety concerns that may have been associated with risks of continual wet fuel storage.
2.2 PERIOD 3 - PREPARATIONS 1
In anticipation of decommissioning, preparations are undertaken to provide a smooth transition from safe storage. The organization required to plan and manage the intended decommissioning activities is assumed to be assembled from available utility staff and outside resources, as required.
2.2.1 Er~
. and Planning 1
Current regulations require the preparation of a license termination plan. The plan is required at lcast two years prior to the anticipated date of license termination. The ple must include a site characterization, description of the remaimng dismantling activities, plans for site remediation, procedures for the final radiation survey, designation of any reusa of the site, an updated cost estimate to complete the decommissioning, and any associated environmental concerns. The NRC will note the receipt of the plan and make the plan available for public comment. A local hearing may also be scheduled. Plan approval will be subject to conditions and limitations as deemed appropriate by the NRC.
t
p.
Humboldt Bry Power Pirnt Unit 3.
Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 2, Page Sof10
' (
s l
l Much of the information needed in preparing this submittal can be also used to develop the detailed engineering plans and procedures needed to support Period 4 activities. This work includes, but is not limited to:
1.
Site preparation plans for the proposed decomnussioning activities.
2.
Detailed. procedures and sequences for removal of systems and components.
3.
Evaluation of the disposition alternatives for the highly activated reactor vessel andinternal components.
4.
Options for decontamination of structures and plant systems.
1 5.
Design / procurement and testing of tooling and equipment.
6.
Identification / selection of specialty contractors.
7.
Procedures for removal and disposition of radioactive materials.
8.
Configuration control to minimize conflicts with simultaneous tasks.
2.2.2 Site Preoarations In preparation for the actual decommissioning., the following activities are typicallyinitiated.
1.
Preparation of site support and storage facilities, as required.
2.
Characterization of the site to determine remediation requirements.
3.
Processing of residualliquid and solid waste inventories.
4.
Radiation surveys of work areas, major components and structures (including the drywell); sampling ofinternal piping and primary shield cores.
5.
Correlation of survey data to packaging and transportation criteria.
6.
Procurement of waste containers, including specialty containers for the disposition of highly activated and hazardous materials. The types of containers needed to support decommissioning operations include strong-Lm.
Humboldt B:y Power Pirnt Unit 3 Document P01-1138-004, Rev. 0
- Decommiseloning Cost Estimate.
Section 2, Page 4 of10 i
tight steel boxes and drums, shielded transport casks, high integrity containers, etc.
7.
Procedure development for occupational exposure control, control and release of liquid and gaseous' effluent, processing of radwaste including DAW, resins, filter media, metallic and non-metallic components generated in decommissioning, site security and emergency programs, andindustrial safety.
2.3 PERIOD 4 - DECOMMISSIONING OPERATIONS & LICENSE TERMINATION Significant decommissioning activities in this phase include:
1.
Construction of temporary facilities and modification of existing storage facilities to support the dismantling activities.
These may include additional changing rooms and contaminated laundry facilities for increased work force, establishment of laydown areas to facilitate equipment removal and preparation for off site transfer, upgrading roads to facilitate hauling and transportation, and modifications to the Refueling Building to facilitate access oflarge/ heavy equipment.
2.
Design and fabrication of temporary shielding and contamination control envelopes in support of removal and transportation activities; spectfy/ procure specialty tooling and remotely operated equipment.
Modify the spent fuel pool to support segmentation activities and prepare
. rigging for segmentation and extraction of heavy components.
3.
Decontamination of components and piping systems as required to control (minimize) worker exposure. Removal, packaging, and disposal of all piping and components that are no longer essential to support decomnussioning operations. Although the initial radiation levels due to "Co have decreased during the dormancy period, the internal components of the reactor vessel will still exhibit sufficiently high radiation dose rates to require remote sectioning under water due to the presence oflong-lived radionuclides such as 84Nb and 58Ni. Portions of the biological shield will still be radioactive due to the presence of activated trace elements with long half-lives (m2Eu and 54Eu). Decontamination will require controlled removal and disposal. It is assumed that radioactive corrosion products on inner surfaces of piping and components will not have decayed to levels that will permit unrestricted use or allow conventional removal. These systems and components are surveyed as they are removed and disposed ofin accordance with the established release criteria.
Humboldt BryPower Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 2, Page 5 of10 f
4.
Removal of the reactor vessel closure head. The head may be a candidate for decontamination; however, for estimating purposes it is assumed to be disposed of as low-level radioactive waste. Segmentation of the head may be desirable to increase packaging efficiency and mmimize its disposal volume.
5.
Removal and segmenting of the steam dryer, core spray piping, feedwater sparger and chimney, as required, for transport.
Component segmentation may be performed in the reactor vessel, however, relocation to the spent fuel pool would allow greater control with respect to water clarity and provide greater flexibility in packaging, i.e., homogenization of the waste forms. Material meeting Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 61 " Class C" criteria or less can be routed for off-site disposal at a commercial shallow-laad waste disposal facility.
(All subsequent references to the Title 10 of the Code will be by section number only,i.e. g61).
6.
Disassembly / segmentation of remammg reactor internals, including the core shroud, core support assembly, control rod guide tube and other miscellaneous components. These operations will probably be confined to the reactor vessel due to the higher activation levels of the components.
Material meeting g61 " Class C" criteria or less can be routed for off site disposal at a commercial shallow land waste disposal facility.
7.
Placement of material classified as Greater-than-Class C (GTCC) in a dry storage canister in a design acceptable for transfer to the DOE. The canister would then be transfered to DOE's geological repository.
8.
Segmentation / sectioning of the reactor vessel, placing segments into shielded containers. The operation is performed remotely, in air, using a shielded work platform and a contamination control envelope. Sections are placed in liners and stored in the spent fuel pool. The liners are loaded into shielded transport casks for disposal at a commercial shallow-land waste disposal facility.
9.
Removal of control rod drive housings from reactor vessel lower head and packaging for controlled disposal.
The lower head may be highly contammated from the swarf generated from-in-vessel segmentation activities. It may be advantageous to relocate the head to the spent fuel pool for additional processing and preparation of this component for
Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 2, Page 6of10 disposal. This will also significantly lower the working radiation levels within the drywell and allow disassembly work to proceed.
10.
Removal of systems and associated components as they become non-essential to the vessel removal operation, related ' decommissioning activities or worker health and safety (e.g., waste collection and processing systems, electrical and ventilation systems, etc.).
11.
Removal of steel drywell liner and the steel vent pipes connecting the drywell to the supprossion chamber.
Contaminated surfaces can be designated for decontamination while activated portions are packaged for direct disposal. This activity would also include the removal of activated concrete from behind the drywell steel and packaging the material for direct dimosal.
12.
Decontamination and removal of the suppression chamber steel.
Disposition as appropriate.
13.
Removal of contaminated equipment and material from the Radwaste Treatment and Refueling Buildings. Decontammate the structures, e.g.,
scarifying concrete surfaces, until residual levels of contammation are acceptable for unrestricted release.
14.
Decontamination of remaining contaminat.'d site buildings and facilities.
Package and dispose of all remaining low level radioactive waste, including soil along with any remaining hazardous and toxic materials.
15.
Removal of remauung components, equipment, and plant services in support of the area release survey (s).
Material removed in the decontammation and dismantling of HBPP3 will be routed to an on site central processing area. Material certified to be free of contammation will be released for unrestricted use and or uncontrolled disposal.
Contammated material will be characterized and segregated for additional on-site decontamination, off-site processing (disassembly, chemical cleaning, volume reduction, waste treatment, etc.) and/or packaged for controlled disposal at the regional low-level radioactive waste disposa'. facility.
2.4 FINAL SITE SURVEY - LICENSE TERMINATION Incorporated into the License Termination Plan, the Final Survey Plan details the radiological surveys to be performed once the decontamination activities are completed. Until recently the Final Survey Plan was developed using the guidance provided in NUREGeCR-5849, " Manual for Conducting
)
HumboldtBry Potser Plant Unit 3 D:cument P01-1238-004, Rev. 0
' Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 2, Page 7of10 i
.(
Radiological Surveys in Support of License Termmation." This is in the processs. of ~ being replaced by the Multi-Agency Radiation and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIN). These documents delineate the statistical approaches to survey design and data interpretation acceptable to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the NRC. They also identify state-of-the-art, commercially available, instrumentation and procedures for conducting radiological surveys. Use of these guidelines ensure that survey design and implementation are conducted in a manner that provides a high degree of confidence that NRC criteria are satisfied. Once the survey is complete, the results are provided to the NRC in a format that can be verified. The NRC then reviews and evaluates the infennation, performs an independent confirmation of radiological site conditions, and makes a determination on final termination of the license.
The NRC will terminate the license ifit determines that the site remediation has been performed in accordance with the License Termination Plan and the Final Survey Plan, and that appropriate documentation has been presented to demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release. Once all applicable requirements are satisfied, the NRC can terminate the g50 license.
. 2.4.1 NRC Criteria for Decommissionine i
NRC's requirements for decommissioning and license termination are contained in 30.36, g40.42, 50.82, g70.38, and 72.54.
However, these regulations do -not provide generally applicable radiological criteria for decommissioning as, historically, radiological data unique to specific sites has been utilized for site release determination. The NRC's current (12/96) position on residual contamination criteria, site characterization, and other related decommissioning issues is outlined in a NRC document entitled
" Action Plan to Ensure Timely Cleanup of Site Decommissioning Management Plan Sites," which was published in the Federal Register on April 6,1993 (57 FR 13389). Through rulemaking, the NRC has established the decommissioning criteria to be an annual dose of 25 mrem above natural background to the maximally exposed individual from all exposure pathways (i.e. direct radiation, inhalation and ingestion).
1
HumNidtB:yPowerPirnt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 2, Page 8 of10
.I Other Regulations and Standards Aeolicable to Decommissionine g190, " Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operation"
. limits radiation doses to members of the public from radioactive materials introduced into the. general environment as the
. result of operations that are part of the nuclear fuel cycle.
g20 " Standards for Protection Against Radiation" - regulates the receipt, possession, use, transfer, and disposal oflicensed material by any licensee in such a manner that the total dose to an individual does not exceed the radiation protection standards. According to 10 CFR 20.1001, the total dose to an individual includes doses from licensed and unlicensed radioactive material and from radiation sources other than background radiation. In addition, the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1301 apply to NRC licensed facilities during decommissioning and when the facility is operational.
This regulation prohibits licensees from releasing radioactive materials to an unrestricted area in concentrations that exceed the limits speci6ed in gPart 20 or that exceed limits otherwise authorized in an NRC license.
g50 Appendix I - provides numerical guidance for keeping radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents released to unrestricted areas "as low as reasonably achievable" during normal operations of a nuclear power reactor.
2.4.2 NRC Decommissionine Process and Survey Procedures NRC licensees are required to conduct radiation surveys of the premises where the licensed activities were conducted and submit a report describing
)
the survey results. The survey process follows requirements contained in g30.36, g40.42, g50.82, g70.38, and g72.54 which pertain to the i
decommissioning of a site and termination of a license. This process leads to the unrestricted release of a site. However, some of these requirements, may i
not be necessary if an alternate method of release can be demonstrated.
Basically, the current decommissioning process is comprised of the following steps:
- 1) Site characterization;
(
- 2) Development and submission of PSDAR;
Humboldt BayPowerPlant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 2, Page 9 of10
- 3) NRC review of PSDAR;
- 4) Performance of decommissioning actions described in the PSDAR;
- 5) Performance of termination survey and submittal of the termination survey report;
- 6) NRC performance and documentation of confirmatory survey; and
- 7) NRC termination oflicense.
Criteria for residual contamination, occupational exposure, and radiation concentration levels are designed to ensure that radioactivity is reduced to a level that permits unrestricted release of the site. The NRC has developed a rule, " Radiological Criteria for Decommissioning," to address release criteria.
This rule, along with NUREG-1500, " Working Draft Regulatory Guide on Release Criteria for Decommissioning: NRC Staffs Draft for Comment,"
would be incorporated into the site release criteria, as appropriate.
In addition, any state or federal regulations regarding release criteria (e.g.,
definitions of" background") would be included in the criteria.
2.5 PERIOD 5 -SITE RESTORATION Following completion of decommissioning operations, site restoration activities may begin. EfHeient removal of the contaminated materials and verification that residual radionuclide concentrations are below the NRC limits will result in substantial damage to many of the structures. Blasting, coring, dnlling, scarification (surface removal), and the other decontamination activities will substantially damage power block structures, including the Refueling, Radwaste Treatment, and Turbine Buildings.
Verifying that subsurface radionuclide concentrations meet NRC site release requirements may require reuoval of grade slabs and lower floors, potentially weakening footings and structural supports. This will be necessary for those facilities and plant areas where historical records indicate the potential for radionuclides having been present in the soil, where system failures have been recorded, or where it is required to confirm that subsurface process and drain lines were not breached over the operating life of the unit.
Prompt dismantling of site structures is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option. It is unreasonable to anticipate that these structures would l' repaired and preserved after the radiological contamination is 1'he cost to dismantle site structures, with a workforce already removeu
Humboldt B::yPow:rPl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommiseloning Cost Estimate Section 2, Page lo of10 i
mobilized on site, is more efficient and less costly than if the process is deferred. : Site facilities quickly degrade without continual maintenance, adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public as well as to future workers.
This cost study presumes that nonessential structures and site facilities will be dismantled as a continuation of the decommiuioning activity.
All Unit 3 building foundations and subgrade structures not required to support Units 1
. and 2 are removed to three feet below grade. Site areas affected by the dismantling activities are cleaned and the plant area graded as required to prevent ponding and inhibit the refloating of subsurface materials. Activities include:
Demolition of the remaming portions of the Refueling Buil' ding. Internal floors (and walls if above grade) are removed from the lower levels upward, using controlled blasting techniques. Concrete rubble and clean fill produced by demolition activities may be used to backfill below-grade voids. Suitable materials can be used on site for fill; otherwise, the rubble is trucked off site for disposal or reuse elsewhere.
i Removal of remaining. buildings, including the Radwaste Treatment,
+
Turbine, Contaminated Equipment Storage, New Off Gas Vault and Solid Waste Vault Buildings, and other site structures using conventional demolition techniques.
(
I
m Humboldt Bry PowerPlant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Costa stimate -
Section 3, Page 1 of 21
(
- 3. COSTESTIMATE i
'A site-specific cost estimate was prepared for decommissioning HBPP3. The estimate
)
accounts for the unique features of the site, including the nuclear boiler, electric power generating systems, structures, and supporting facilities. The basis of the estimate and its sources ofinformation,' methodology, site-specific considerations, assumptions and total costs are described in this section.
3.1 BASIS OF ESTIMATE F
The estimate was developed using work areas as the incremental unit. Each 1
accessible area was visually inspected. An inventory and the attributes of each area were documented. Specific consideration included material accessibility and egress, radiological conditions, and physical limitations for staging work crews.
Drawings and other plant documentation were used to plan and schedule activities in high radiation areas and areas currently inaccessible due to the plant's configuration. The unit factors, used in developing equipment and component removal costs, were adjusted for the working conditions determmed for each area.
Adaptation of the unit factors was accomplished by the manipulation of the duration adjustment variables or." Work Difficulty Factors" (WDF).
Low-level radioactive waste generated in the decontammation and dismantling of HBPP3 is assumed to be destined to the Southwest Compact's future disposal facility in Ward Valley, California.
The waste stream is assumed to be conditioned to the maximum extent possible, e.g., through decontammation, volume reduction, incineration, metal melt, etc., so as to avoid the high cost of direct disposal.
Spent fuelis assumed to be transferred to the DOE before the commencoment of final decommissioning activities. This allows decontamination and dismantling activities to proceed on the Refueling Building without the current constraint to maintain spent fuel storage pool systems and services active as well as to elimmate any safety issues for dismantling activities in the vicinity of the pool.
HBPP3 structures and facilities will be remediated, dismantled, and demonstrated to be free of contamination. Site restoration is the most prudent action considering the destructive nature of the decontamination processes and 4
the availability of a mobilized and trained work force.
Humboldt B:y Power Pl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page S cf 21 i.
PG&E, as licensee, will oversee the decommissioning operations. The plant staff will be augmented Mth the resources necessary to ensure a safe and efficient operation.
This organization will supervise the decontamination and 1
dismantling of the nuclear unit. Oversight will continue,in a reduced capacity, during site restoration and beyond, if dictated by the management of the spent fuel.
3.2 METHODOLOGY The methodology used to develop this cost estimate follows the basic approach originally advanced by the Atomic Industrial Forum (now Nuclear Energy
' Institute)in their program to develop a standardized model for decommissioning cost estimates. The results of this program were published as AIF/NESP-036,
" Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," (Ref. 8). This document presents a unit factor method for estimating direct activity costs, simphfymg the estimating process. Unit factors for the removal of equipment, concrete, steel, etc., were constructed from the labor cost information provided by PG&E. The direct activity, or activity-deoendent, cost can then be estimated using the plant inventory developed for each work area.
i Appendix A presents the detailed development of a typical site-specinc unit cost factor. Wage rates were provided by PG&E, while equipment and consumables were esthnated from industry cost guides. Appendix B provides the values contained within one set of factors developed for the HBPP3 analysis.
The unit factors used in this study reflect the latest available data concerning worker productivity during decomnussioning, including field experience from the Shippingport Station Decommissioning Project completed in 1989, as well as from TLG's involvement in the decommissioning planning and engineering for the Shoreham, Yankee Rowe, Trojan, Rancho Seco, Pathfinder, and Cintichem reactor facilities.
The unit cost factor method provides a demonstrable basis for establishing reliable cost estimates. The detail available in the unit cost factors for activity time, labor costs (by craft), and equipment and consumable costs provides assurance that cost elements have not been ordtted. These detailed unit cost factors, coupled with the plant-spec;Sc irnentory of piping, components and structures, provide a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the cost estimates.
(
Humboldt BayPower Pl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0
- Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page S of 21
(
Work Difficulty Factors Work Difficult Factors (WDFs) were assigned to each area, commensurate with the inefficiencies associated with working in confined, hazardous environments.
The ranges used for the WDFs are as follows:
Access Factor - 0% to 40%
Respiratory Protection Factor - 0% to 50%
Radiation /ALARA Factor- 0% to 100%
Protective Clothing Factor - 0% to 30%
Work Break Factor - 8.33%
These factors and their associated range of values were developed in conjunction i
with the Atomic Industrial Forum's Guideline Study. The factors (and their suggested application) are discussed in more detail in that publication. The WDF assigned to each work area is delineated in Appendix D.
Scheduline or Program Durations An area by-area activity duration critical path was used to develop the total i
decommissioning program schedule. The program schedule is used to determine the oeriod denendent costs for program management, admuustration, field engineering, equipment rental, contracted services, etc. The study relies upon regional, or site-specific salary and wage rates for the personnel associated with theintended program.
3.3 FINANCIAL COMPONENTS OF THE COST MODEL TLG's cest modelis composed of a multitude of distinct cost line items, calculated using the anit cost factor methodology described earlier. Period dependent and collateral costs are added to produce a comprehensive accounting of the-identified e:cpenditures. However, the resulting costs in and of themselves do not comprise the total cost to accomplish the project goal oflicense termination.
Inherent in any cost estimate that does not rely on historical data is the inability to spectfy the precise source of costs imposed by factors such as tool breakage, accidents, illness, weather delays, labor stoppages, etc. Contingency fulfills this role in TLG's cost model. Contingency is added to each line item to account for costs that are difficult or impossible to develop analytically. Such costs are historically inevitable over the duration of a job of this magnitude; therefore, this cost analysis includes monies to cover these types of expenses,
(
u.
I
. Humboldt B:y Power Pirnt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0
. Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 4 of 21
(
3.3.1 Cor.tingency The activity-and period dependent costs are combined to develop the total decommissioning costs. A contingency is then applied on a line item basis, using one or more of the contingency types listed in Chapter 13 of the AIF/NESP 036 Guidelines Study. This reference also identifies the types of unforeseeable events that are likely to occur in decommissioning and provides guidelines for.
the application of contingency.
" Contingencies" are defined in the American Association of Cost Engineers
" Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook" (Ref. 9) as " specific provision for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope; particularly important where previous experience relating estimates and actual costs has shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur."
The cost elements h1 this estimate are based upon ideal conditions and maximum efficiency; therefore, consistent with industry practice, a contingency factor has been applied. It should be noted that contingency, as used in this estimate, does not account for price escalation and ir.flation in the cc, 3f decommissioning over the program duration.
The use and role of contingency within deconunissioning estimates is not a
" safety factor issue." Safety factors provide anditional security and address situations that may never occur. Contingency funds are expected to be fully expended throughout the program.
They als, provide assurance that sufficient funding is available to accomplish the imended tasks. Some of the rationale for (and need to incorporate) contingency within any estiniate is offered in the following discussion. An estimate without contingency, or from which contingency has been removed, can disrupt the orderly progression of events and jeopardize a successful conclusion to the decommissioning process.
The most technologically challenging task in decommissioning a nuclear generating unit will be the disposition of the reactor vessel and internal components, which have become highly radioactive after a lifetime of exposure to radiation produced in the core. The disposition of these highly radioactive components forms the basis for the critical path (schedule) for decommissioning operations. Cost and schedule are interdependent and any deviation in schedule he.s a significant impact on cost for performing a specific activity.
Disposition of the reactor vessel internal components involves the underwater cutting of complex components that are highly radioactive. Costs are based upon optimum segmentation, handling, and packaging scenarios.
Humboldt Bay PowerPlant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. O Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 5 of 21
'I.
l The schedule is primarily dependent upon the turnaround time for the l
heavily shielded shipping casks, including preparation, loading and l
decontamination of the containers for transport.
The number of casks required is a function of the pieces generated in the segmentation activity, a l
value calculated on optimum performance of the tooling employed in cutting l
the various subassemblies. The risk and uncertainties associated with this I
task are that the expected optimization may not be achieved, resulting in delays and additional program costs. For this reason, contingency must be l
included to mitigate the consequences of the expected inefficiencies inherent l
in this complex activity, along with related concerns associated with specialty tooling modifications and repairs, field changes, discontinuities in the coordination of plant services, system failure, water clarity, lighting, computer-controlled cutting software corrections, etc. Experience in i
decommissioning other plants in the past has shown that many of these problem areas have occurred during, and in support of, the segmentation process. Contingency dollars are an integral part of the total cost to complete j
this task. Exclusion of tb!s component puts at risk a successful completion of j
the intended tasks and, potentially, follow-on related activities.
l l
The following list is a composite of some of the activities, assembled from i
past decommissioning programs,in which contingency dollars were needed to respond to, compensate for, and/or provide adequate funding of decontamination and dismantling tasks:
Incomplete or Changed Conditions:
Unavailable / incomplete operational history which led to a
l recentanunation of a work area, because a sealed cubicle (incorrectly identified as being non-contaminated) was breached without controls.
Surface coatings covering contamination which, due to an incomplete characterization, required additional cost and time to remediate.
Additional decontamination, controlled removal, and disposition of f
previously undetected (although at some
- sites, suspected) l contamination due to access gained to formerly inaccessible areas and components.
Unrecorded construction modifications, facility
- upgrades, maintenance, enhancements, etc., which precipitated scheduling delays, more costly removal scenarios, additional costs (e.g., for re-1 l
Hum 6oldt BryPowerPirnt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decomminoloning Cost Estimate Section 5, Page 6 ofEl
{
engineering, shoring,. struc, ural modifications), and compromised worker safety.
. Adverse Working Conditions:
. L;wer than expected productivity due to high temperature environments, resulting in a change in the working hours (shifting to cooler periods of the day) and additional manpower.
Confined space, low-oxygen environments where supplied air was necessary and additional safety precautions prolonged the time required to perform required tasks.
Maintenance, Repairs and Modifications Facility refurbishment required to support site operations, including those needed to provide new site services, as well as to maintain the integrity of existing structures.
' Damage control, repair, and maintenance from birds' nesting and fouling of equipment and controls.
Building modification, i.e., re-supporting of floors to enhance loading capacity for heavily shielded casks.
Roadway upgrades on site to handle heavier and wider loads; roadway rerouting, excavatior., and reconstr uction.
Requests for additional safety margins by a vendor.
Requests to analyze accident scenarios beyond those defined by the removal scenarios (requested by the NRC to comply with " total scope of regulation").
Additional collection of site runoff and processing of such due to disturbance of natural site contours and drainage.
Concrete coring for removal of embedments and internal conduit, piping, and other potentisily contaminated material not originally identified as being contaminated.
t
r Humb' ldt B:y PowerPirnt Unit 3 '
Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 o
l l
Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 7of 21 L
(
i l
i ModiScations required to respond to higher than expected worker e
exposure, water clarity, water disassociation, and hydrogen generation from high temperature cutting operations.
Additional waste containers needed to accommodate cutting l'
particulates (fines), inefficient waste geometries and excess material.
Inbor Turnover of personnel, e.g., craft and health physics. Replacement of labor is costly, involving addinonal training, badging, medical exams, and associated processing procedures. Recruitment costs are incurred for more experienced personnel and can include relocation and living expense compensation.
Additional personnel required to comply with NRC mandates and requests.
Replacement of personnel due to non qualification and/or incomplete certification (e.g., welders).
i Schedule Schedule slippage due to a conflict in required resources i e., the licensee was ferced into a delay until prior (non-licensee) commitments of outside resources were resolved.
Rejection of material by NRC inspectors, requiring refabrication and causing program delays in activities required to be completed prior to decommissioning operations.
Weather Weather-related delays in the construction of facilities required to support site operations (with compensation for delayed mobilization made to vendor).
Frozen crane hydraulics prior to a major lift.
l Destruction of an exterior asbestos containment enclosure due to
(
violent winds.
I 1
1
Humboldt B:yPower Plznt Unit 3 bocument P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 8 cf 21 1
(
The cost modelincorporates considerations for items such as those described
)
above, generating contingency dollars (at varying percentages of total line-item cost) svith every activity.
3.3.2 FinancialRisk i
In addition to the routine uncertainties that contingency addresses, another cost element that is necessary to consider when answering the question of decommissioning cost relates to other types and levels of uncertainties. These consist of changes in work scope, pricing, job performance and other variations that could conceivably, but not necessarily, occur. Consideration of i:nch items may be necessary to address the question concerning how costly the decommissioning project could become, within a range of probabilities. TLG considers these types of costs under the broad term %ancial risk." This cost study, however, does not add any additional costs to the estimate for financial risk. Financial risk is typically addressed through a probability analysis using a Monte Carlo-type simulation program. The output of stich a simulation typically includes a curve and range of probabilities for various cost estimates.
Included within the category of financial risk are:
Delays in approval of the decommissioning (or license termination) plan due to intervention, public participation in local community meetings, legal challenges, state and local hearings, etc.
Changes in the project work scope # rom the baseline estimate, involving the discovery of unexpected levels of contaminants, contamination in places not previously expected, contaminated soil previously undiscovered (either radioactive or hazardous material contamination), variations in plant inventory or configuration not indicated by the as-built drawings.
Regulatory changes, e.g., affecting worker health and safety, site release criteria, waste transportation, and disposal.
Policy decisions altering federal and state commitments, e.g., in the ability to accommodate certain waste forms for disposition, or in the timetable for such.
Pricing changes for basic inputs, such as labor, energy, materials, and burial. Some of these inputs may vary slightly, e.g. -10% to +20%;
burial could vary from -50% to +200% or more.
Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3
- Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommisaloning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 9 of 21 i
(-
L It has been TLG's experience that the results of a risk analysis, when compared with the base case estimate for decommissioning, indicate that the chances of the base decommissioning estimate's being too high is a low probability, and the chances that the estimate is too low is a much higher probability. This is mostly due to the pricing uncertainty for burial, and to a lesser extent due to schedule increases from changes in plant conditions, and to pricing variations in the cost oflabor (both craft and staff). TLG did not perform a risk analysis for HBPP3 and therefore the cost estimate in this report does not include any increase in decommissioning costs as a result of any perceived risk.
3.4 SITE SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS There are a number of site-specific considerations that affect the method for dismantling and removal of equipment from the site and the degree of restoration required. The cost impact of the considerations identified below is includedin this cost study.
3.4.1 Soent Fuel Disnosition There are currently 390 spent fuel bundles stored in the spent fuel pool. The transfer of the fuel assemblies to DOE is assumed to be completed by the year 2015, prior to the start of decommissioning. Costs have been added for crane i
upgrades to facilitate the removal of this fuel from the pool.
3.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Comnonents The reactor pressure vessel and reactor internal components are assumed to be I
segmented for disposal in shielded transportation casks. Segmentation of the i
lower activated components is performed in the spent fuel storage pool to the extent practicable. The highly activated components can be maximum disassembled in the vessel as long as water clarity is sufficiently maintained.
The vessel is segmented in place, using a mast-mounted cutter. Transportation cask specifications and Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations will i
dictate segmentation and packaging methodology.
l The' dismantling of reactor internal components at HBPP3 will generate radioactive waste 3enerally unsuitable for shallow land disposal (GTCC).
Although 'the material is not classified as high-level waste, DOE has indicated it will accept title to this waste for disposal at the future high-level waste repository. However, the DOE bas not yet established an acceptance criteria or a disposition schedule for this material, and numerous questions L
l~
Humlioldt B:yPower Pirnt Unit 3 Document P01-1138-004, Rev. 0 Decommincioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 10 of El I
remain as to the ultimate. disposal cost and waste form requirements. As such, for purposes of this study, the GTCC waste has been packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel.
Main steam and feedwater piping is cut from the reactor vessel once the water level in the vessel (used for personnel shielding during dismantling and cutting operations in and around the vessel)is dropped below the nozzles. The piping is boxed and shipped by shielded van.
3.4.3 Main Turbine and Condenser The main turbine is dismantled using conventional maintenance procedures.
The turbine rotors and shafts are removed to a laydown area'. The lower turbine casings are removed from their anchors by controlled demolition.
The main condensers are also disassembled and moved to a laydown area.
Each compocat is surveyed and designated for either decontamination, volume reducunn, conventional disposal or controlled disposal. Components are packaged and readied for transport in accordance with the intended disposition.
3.4.4 Transnortation Methods For the purposes of the cost estimate, it was assumed that the low-level radioactive waste produced and destined for controlled disposal will be moved overland by truck or shielded van to iha regional burial facility. The destination selected as the basis for the estimate of tran.,portation costs was Needles, California. Transportation of the waste to a recycling center was assumed to be inclusive of the composite processing charge.
3.4.5 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal and Recycle The burial cost for disposal at the future regional radioactive waste disposal facility was based upon projections available from US Ecology, the site developer and intended operator. An average cost of disposal of $509 per cubic foot was usedin this estimate.
To the greatest extent practical, non-compactable low-level radioactive waste is conditioned to reduce the volume of material requmng controlled disposal.
Material from which the contamination is removed can be released as scrap, requiring no further cost consideration. The remaming material is processed for g
volume reduction and packaged for controlled disposal as radioactive waste.
Material / waste recovery and recycling are assumed to be performed off site at a
o
< H= mbbidt Bry Power Pl:.nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 11 of 21 l
(
i licensed processing center. Processing costs for metallic waste are reported in the cost estimate as "Other" costs for Plant Systems and Structures. Unit costs for processing metallic components ranged from $1 to $3 per pound, depending upon the handling and pretreatment involved as well as the conditioning envisioned to be required.
- Compe.ctable dry-active waste (DAW), such as booties, glove liners, respirator filter cartridges, shipping containers, radiological controls survey materials, etc.
will be assumed to be drummed and compacted to 10% of their original volume.
Figure 3.1 illustrates the processes of handling and treating the waste once the material has been removed to a central processing area.
3.4.6 Discharre Pining and Canal The discharge piping will be excavated and removed. The lower portion of the pipe's interior surface will be scarified. This is assumed to be sufficient to remove the contamination and releate the pipe.. A portion of the soil surrounding the pipe has been considered to be contaminated and will be remediated.
The wetted surface of the discharge canal will be removed to remediate any i
suspected contamination. Because the canalis needed to support the continued operation of Units 1 and 2, remediation of the canal will be performed in stages l
with portions isolated from both the discharge from the operating units as well as the bay. The isolated portion will then be drained. The surface of the canal will then be removed to a specified' depth. Once confirmed to be free of contamination, the surface will be relined and the remediated portion of the canal will be placed back into use. Remediation would then be repeated on the l
other half of the canal.
3.4.7 Coordination with Units 1 and 2 The need to remediate the yard drainage system has been identified. This will l
require the excavation and removal of the entire drainage network. A portion of i
the excavated soilis also assumed to require remediation and is designated for controlled disposal. The essential portions of the drainage system will be replaced (Units 1 and 2). This cost is included within the decommissioning cost for Unit 3.
Because of the possibility of cross-contamination, radiological surveys of Units 1 and 2 will need to be conducted. The surveys will be coordinated with any planned outages or maintenance for either unit. Decontamination, as required, will be conducted to meet site release criteria.
t
Humboldt BayPower Pl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 3
Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 12 of 21
)
1
(
3,4.8 Site Conditiqus Following Decommissioning It is assumed that the Unit 3 structures and site facilities will be dismantled
. Aowing their decontamination. Structures would be removed to a nominal depth of 3 feet below grade. The voids would be backfilled with clean debris and capped with soil. The site.would then be regraded to conform to the adjacent landscape. Vegetation would be established to inhibit erosion. The canals would remain for use by the operating units; however, non-essential structures could be removed. The switchyard will remain in place, as will the site access road.
3.5 ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions were used in developing the decommissioning cost estimate for HBPP3.
Estimatine B_ asis 1.
The estimate is performed in accordance with the methodology described in the Atomic Industrial Forum - National Environmental Studies Project report AIF/NESP-036, " Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decomnussioning Cost Estimates."
2.
Decommissioning costs are reported in the year of projected expenditure; however, the values are provided in 1997 dollars for the current estimate.
Costs are not inflated or escalated over the period of performance.
3.
Plant drawings, equipment and structural specifications, including construction details, were provided by PG&E. The inventorviag of plant equipment was performed by TLG personnel.
Labor Costs 1.
The craft labor required to decontaminate and dismantle the nuclear unit will be acquired through standard site contracting practices. The current
" cost" oflabor at the site is used as an estimating basis.
2.
Utility staffing requirements will vary with the level of effort associated with the various phases of the project.
Once the decommissioning program commences, only those staff positions necessary to support the decommissioning program are included. There are no costs reflected within the estimate for the transition of the maintenance organization to l
i l
Humboldt B:yPower Pl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommiseloning Cost Estimate.
Section 3, Page 13 of 21 decommissioning, e.g.,
separation packages, retrainmg, severance, incentives, etc.
3.
PG&E, as licensee, will oversee the decommissioning operations. Site security, radiological controls and overall site administration during decommissioning and dismantling will be provided by PG&E.
This -
organization will be supplemented with the expertise necessary to ensure i
that the intended _ program is completed safely and successfully.
Engineering, field supervision, health physics and waste processing support are assumed to be conducted by contracted personnel 4.
Costs for site admimstration, operations, construction and maintenance personnel are based upon current PG&E salary information, for the positionsidentified by TLG.
5.
Engineering services for such items as writing activity specifications, detailed procedures, and work procedures are assumed to be provided by.
contractors.
Desien Conditions 1.
Any fuel cladding failure that occurred during the lifetime of the plant is assumed to have released fission products at su3iciently low levels that the buildup of quantities of long-lived isotopes (e.g. cesium 137, strontium-90, or transuranics) has been prevented from reaching levels exceeding those which permit the major NSSS components to be shipped i
under current DOT regulations and to be buried within the requirements ofg61.
2.
The estimated curie content of the vessel and internal components at final shutdown was derived from an activation analysis specifically performed to support the decemmissioning planning for HBPP3. The results of this activation analysis appear in TLG document number P01-1238-003 "The Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Reactor Vessel, Internal Components, and Concrete Shield Wall Radionuclide Inventory."
' 3.
Segmentation of the reactor vessel internal components will produce a limited quantity of activated material in which radionuclide inventories will exceed Class C quantities, as defined by gG1. The GTCC materialis generally not suitable for shallow land disposal and will most likely be disposed of as high level waste in the DOE's deep geological repository
(
(unless an alternative solution is approved by the NRC). The cost of
Humboldt BayPowerPicnt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decomminoloning Coat Estimate Section 3, Page 14 of 21
(
l J
. disposal,.unlike that for the spent fuel, is not addressed by DOE's 1 null / kwhr surcharge. As such, the disposal cost for GTCC presumes the packaging of this materialin canisters similar to those used for spent fuel and disposed of at an equivalent cost.
4.
Control blades are removed and disposed of by PG&E along with the vesselinternal components.
Transoortation 1.
Contaminated piping, components, and structural material other than the highly activated reactor vessel and internal components will qualify as LSA-I, II or III or SCO-I or II, as described in 49 CFR Part 173. The contaminated material will be packaged in Industrial Packages (IPI, II or i
III) for transport unless demonstrated to qualify as their own shipping containers. The reactor vessel and internal components are expected to be transported in accordance with g71, as Type B. It is conceivable that the reactor, due to its limited specific activity, could qualify as IEA II or III.
However, the high radiation levels on the outer surface would require that additional shielding be incorporated with the packaging so as to attenuate the dose to levels acceptable for transport under 173.
Material requiring controlled disposal is assumed to be routed to the future Southwest Compact disposal facility near Needles, California.
Contaminated metallic waste will be routed to a recovery / recycling facility for decontamination and volume reduction.
Transportation costs to Needles, California are based upon published tanffs from Tri-State Motor Transit. Truck transport assumes a maxunum normal road weight limit of 80,000 pounds for all shipments with the exception of the overweight shielded casks.
2.
Transport of the highly activated metal, produced in the segmentation of the reactor vessel and internal components, will be by shielded truck cask.
Cask shipments may exceed 95,000 pounds, including vessel segment (s),
supplementary shielding, cask tie downs and tractor trailer. The i
maximum curies per shipment assumed permissible is based upon the license limits of available shielded shipping casks. The number and curie content of vessel segments are selected to meet these limits.
3.
The number of cask shipments out of the Refueling Building is expected to average one every two weeks. Non-cask shipments will be limited to i
(
one per week.
{
4 1J
F Humboldt B:y PowerPlant Unit 3
. Document P01-1238-004, Rev, 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 15 of 21 i
Soent Fuel 1.
The cost to remove and dispose of the spent fuel from the site is.not reflected within the estimate to decommission HBPP3, other than the cost to upgrade the building crane to facilitate fuel removal from the pool.
Ultimate disposition of the spent fuelis the province of the DOE's Waste Management System, as defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act.
2.
The spent fuelis assumed to be transferred from the fuel pool to the DOE by 2015, so as not to interfere with the decommissioning process.
General 1.
The existing plant equipment is obsolete and suitable for scrap as deadweight quantities only.
No equipment is salvageable as used equipment.
2.
Scrap generated during decommissioning is not included as a salvar credit line item in this study for two reasons: (1) the scrap value merely 1
offsets the associated site removal and scrap processing costs, and (2) a relatively low value of scrap exists in the market. Scrap precessing and site removal costs are not included in the estimate.
3.
PG&E provides for the electrical power required to demolish the plant.
Replacement power costs are used to estimate the cost of consumption during decommissioning.
l 4.
PG&E will remove allitems of furniture, tools, mobile equipment such as forklifts, trucks, bulldozers, other sunilar mobile equipment, and other such items of personal property owned by PG&E that will be easily l
removed without the use of special equipment at no cost or credit to the project.
j 5.
Existing warehouses will remain for use by PG&E and its subcontractors.
l The warehouses may be dismantled as they become unnecessary to the decommissioning program.
6.
PG&E will perfor:n the following activities at no cost or credit to the project:
l
Humboldt B:y Power Pl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 16 of 21 e
Fuel oil tanks will be emptied. Tanks will be cleaned by flushing or steam cleaning as required prior to disposal.
Acid and caustic tanks will be emptied.
Lubricating and transformer oils will be drained and removed from site by a waste disposalvendor.
7.
For the purpose of this cost estimate, the decommissioning activities are assumed to be performed in accordance with the current regulations.
8.
The study follows the principles of ALARA through the use of work duration adjustment factors, which incorporate such items as radiological protection instruction, mock-up training, the use of respiratory protection and personnel protective clothing.
These items lengthen a task's duration, which increases the costs and lengthens the overall schedule.
ALARA planning is considered in the costs for engineering and planmng, and in the development of activity specifications and detailed procedures.
Changes to g20 worker exposure limits may impact the decommissioning cost and projects schedule.
9.
Nuclear liability insurance provides coverage for damage or injuries due to radiation ' exposure from equipment, material, etc. used during decommissioning. Nuclear liability insurance is phased out upon final decontamination of the site.
Current nuclear liability and property insurance premiums are adjusted to reflect the increased activity bring the decomnussioning program.
10.
Nuclear property insurance for the site will continue throughout the decommissioning period. Nuclear property insurance will cease upon termination of the g50 license.
11.
The perimeter fence and in-plant security barriers will be moved as appropriate to conform with the Site Security Plan in force at the various stages in the project.
12.
The existing electrical switchyard will remain after decommissioning in support of the utility's electrical transmission and distribution system.
13.
Underground concrete pipe will be decontaminated and abandoned.
Underground steel pipe will bc removed completely, surveyed for contammation, removed from the sita, and disposed of as clean scrap.
Electrical manholes are backfilled with suitable earthen material and i
abandoned.
l
Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 17of 21
(
14.
All site vestiges are assumed to be removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade level, with the non-contaminated subgrade foundations remaining in place. Holes will be drilled in each of the foundation basemats to allow for natural drainage. Building foundations will be backfilled with clean demolition debris, and the site will be graded and landscaped. All areas affected by dismantling activities will be cleaned up, covered with loam, and seeded.
15.
Contaminated metallic waste will be sent off site to a waste recovery / recycling vendor.
16.
This study assumes a quantity of mixed waste for disposal; this waste is all combustible and was processed at rates provided liy PG&E. The residue from incineration is sent to Ward Valley for disposal as radioactive waste. Any contammeted lead is assumed to be sent to an off site recycle vendor where is will be recycled.
17.
Clean asbestos is disposed of in a local landfill authorized to bury asbestos. Contaminated asbestos is buried as radioactive waste.
3.6 COST ESTIMATE
SUMMARY
A summary of the decommissioning costs and annual expenditures is provided in Table 3.1. Table 3.2 is a summary of annual expenditures omitting those costs disallowed by the CPUC. Table 7.1 provides a breakdown of those same radiological costs into the components of decontamination, removal, packaging, transportation, waste disposal, project management (stafHng), and other. The costs were extracted from the detailed report in Appendix C, which provides a detailed listing of activities and associated costs for the decommissioning scenario. The following should be considered when reviewing this table:
"Decon," as used in the headings of these tables, refers to decontamination activities as opposed to the NRC term DECON, which refers to the prompt removal decommissioning scenario.
" Total," as used in the headings of there tables, is the sum of Decon, Remove, Pack, Ship, Bury, and Contiegency, as well as other Miscellaneous items not listed (such as engineering and preparations).
The subtotal for the aforementioned major cost categories does not include contingency, which is reported in a separate column.
Humboldt Bry Power Pirnt Unit 3 Document P01-1138-004, Rev. 0 Decommiseloning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 18 of 21
(
"Other" includes different types of costs which vary by the associated line item and do not readily fallinto one of the other categories. For instance, in systems removal and structures decontanunation, the "Other" cost consists of the off-site recycling costs for low level radioactive waste. The "Other" cost is strictly in most of the engineering preparatory activities.
However, "Other" also includes the utility stamng, taxes, insurance, plant energy budgets, and regulatory fees.
r HumboldtBayPowerPlant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 19 of 21
(
TABLE 3.1 HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT 3
SUMMARY
OF DECOMMISSIONING COSTS (1997 DoHars)1 Equipment &
Contractor Year PG&E Labor Materials Labor Burial Other Yearly Totals 5,210,847 997,000 1,496,000 11,359,217 1997 3,655,370 2,255,523 2,740 4,110 3,575,949 1998 1,313,576 1999 2000 2001 2002 2G03 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 496,759 248,379 248,379 2013 498,124 2014 249,062 249,062 2015 8,493,890 1,975,547 7,158,818 107,167 1,014,955 18,750,378 2016 9,285,951 5,734,899 6,591,892 10,389,583 2,309,305 34,311,630 2017 9,862,517 9,595,578 7,569,208 21,028,517 3,632,133 51,687,953 2018 8,698 611 8,115,722 7,393,685 16,538,352 2,676,122 43,422,493 2019 1,203,387 699,121 524,671 32,617 2,459.796 42,513,303 26,618,309 37,202,086 49,063,359 11,165,242 166,562.299
- 1. Columns may not add due to rounding
I:
Humboldt B:yPower Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 20 of 21 i
TABLE 3.2 l
HUMBOLDT BAY POWER PLANT UNIT 3
SUMMARY
OF COSTS EXCLUDING CPUC DISALLOWANCES l
(1997 Dollars)1 1
Equipment &
Contractor Year PG&E Labor Materials Labor Burial Other Yearly Totals 5,210,847 997,260 1,495,890 11,359,367 1997 3,655,370 2,255,523 2,740 4,110 3,575,949 l
1998 1,313,576 1999 2000 f
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 496,759 248,379 248,379 2013 498,124 249,062 249,062 2014 2015 8,493,890 1,975,547 7,158,818 107,167 1,014,955 18,750,378 2016 9,285,951 5,729,865 6,546,587 10,377,157 2,309,305 34,248,865 2017 9,862,517 9,585,335 7,477,019 21,003,233 3,632,133 51,560,236 2018 8,698,611 8,042,202 7,222,984 16,518,467 2,676,122 43,158,386 2019 1,203,387 618,695 404,032 32,617 2,258,731 42,513,303 26,449,086 36,773,251 49,006,024 11,165,132 165,906,795
- 1. Columns may not add due to rounding i
r 1
HumboldtB:yPowerPl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 3, Page 21 of 21
(
FIGURE 3.1 LOW LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE PROCESSING FLOW CHART P
NM M w een.
uWn DehnSe8F edtabte ter can Buene rosyseas LLW potenteAy suesMe tur respe8n8
,r c=*==>
s,s uWte "I
rese=ury woneri reeveler i
64 1
wonear musal my Cmemesneed set YY.
NK/
U j
,r inse,ere.g., e, i
ef metanal l
l t
1,
,r Y
m and other malenal debne 1
(
GAete meAnig af metenes masenal
,P 1
tr ir ir T 1 tr 1r I
Qeen serne Qeen seres Shp meellrgets
$Np LLWle Spee LLWte released tum eassesed by of LLW metalte bunal eMe tem twel sne tem este rosyceng vende end user fecycler pasnt eMe
\\
t
i Humboldt B:yPower Picnt Unit 3 Document P01-1138-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 4, Page 1 of 7 1
- 4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATE j
i
' he schedule for the decommissioning scenario considered in this study follows the T
sequence presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study, with minor changes to reflect recent experience and site-specific constraints.
Figure 4.1 presents a schedule for the decommissioning alternative; the assumptions supporting this schedule are listed in Section 4.1.
The key activities listed in the schedule do not reflect a one-to-one correspondence with those activities in the Appendix C cost table, but reflect dividing some activities for clarity and combining others for convenience. Alegend defining the schedule nomenclature and depictions is also included. The schedule was prepared using the "Microsoft Project for Windows" computer software (Ref.10).
4.1 SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS The schedule estimate reflects the results of a precedence network developed for the site decommissioning activities, i.e., a PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) Software Package. The durations used in the precedence network reflect the actual man hour estimates calculated for each area. The maxtmum number of work crews were determined for each area to determine the total duration based on specific area WDFs.
The schedule was then assembled, connecting a logical path of work areas with consideration of work crew availability and material access / egress. The following assumptions were made in the development of the decommissioning schedule.
Spent fuel will be completely transferred to the DOE by 2015. Major decommissioning activities will not begin before that time.
All work (except vessel ant nuntals removal) is penormed during an 8-hour workday,5 days per week, wii no overtime. There are eleven paid holidays per year.
Vessel and internals removal activities are performed by using separate crews for different activities working on different shifts, with a corresponding backshift charge for the second shift.
Multiple crews work parallel activities to the maximum extent possible, consistent with: optimum efEciency; adequate access for cutting, removal and laydown space; and with the stringent safety measures necessary during demolition of heavy components and structures.
Humboldt BryPowerPl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decomminoloning Cost Estimate Section 4, Page 2 of 7
(-
For removal of plant systems by area, the areas with the longest removal
, durations on the critical path are considered to determine the duration.
l 4.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE The period-dependent costs presented in the cost table in Appendix C are based upon -the durations developed in the decomnussioning project schedule.
Durations are established between several milestones in each project period; these durations are used to establish a critical path for the entire project. In turn, the critical path duration for each period is used as the basis for determining the total costs for these period-dependent items.
A project timeline for the decommissioning alternative is included in this section as Figure 4.2.
i i
\\
Humboldt B:y Power Pl:nt Unit 3 D:cument P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 i
Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 4, Page 3 of 7
(
FIGURE 4.1 1
1 DECOMISSIONING ACTIVITY SCHEDULE ID Task Name 2016 l 2016 l 2017 l 2018 l 2019 l 2020 l 2021 l 2022 l 2023 1
RB1 1 Emerg. Condenser Rrnvl
}
2 Period 3 Preparations l
3 RB2-1 Supp. Pool Cooler g
4 TB1-1 Main Turbine 6
HMS1 1 Hot Mach Shop
{
t HMS1-2 Hot Mach Shop-Cal Fac l
7 HMSP Hot Mach Shop Embedded g
3 HMS DECON g
9 YD1-4 Discharge Canal / Pipe
[
.j j
10 TB3-1 Rx Feed / Lube Oil 11 TB4-1 PipeTunnel g
12 Reactor Vessel Removal l
l 13 RB1-6 RPV/ Cavity 14 RB12 Spent Fuel Pool g
16 RB1-3 Cask Washdown/ Shipping g
16 RB2-2 Manlift 0
17 RB2-3 CRD Hyd Filters y
18 ' TB4-2 Pipe Gallery 19 RB2-4 Supp Pool Access g
20 RB2-5 CRD Piping
]
21 TBS-1 An/ Cat / Resin Tanks
]
j g
22 TB4 DECON 23 RB2-6 CRD Tnp Accum.
24 TB3-2 Propane Erg Gen g'
Task l
j Milestone CriticalTask l l
Hum $ldt B:y Power Pirnt. Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 4, Page 4 of 7 I
FIGURE 4.1 DECOMISSIONING ACTIVITY SCHEDULE (Continued)
ID Task Name 2016 l 2016 l 2017 l 2018 l 2019 l 2020 l 2021 j 2022 l 2023 26 TB3-3 2400/480V. Xfmts l
26 TBS-2 Condens/Demins 0
27 RB2 7 REDT/ Caisson Sumo
]
28 TB6-1 Air Ejector / Gland Seal y
29 TBSDECON g
30 TBS-2 Cond 8 Vac Pumps y
31 RB2-8 Supp. Pool North 32 RB2-9 Supp. Pool South 33 RB3-1 Cleanup Hx 0
34 TB7-1 Main Control Room y
36 TB6 DECON l
36 RB3-2 New Fuel Storage g
37 TB7 5 Demin Control Panel y
38 TB7-2 Instr Repair / Count Room 0
39 RB4-1 Shutdown Hx y
40 RB1-4 Fuel Pool /CRD Hyd Pumps
]
41 TB7-3 Locker Room /Decon l
42 TB7-4 Hot Laboratory l
43 RB4-2 TBDT/ Floor drain pumps 0-44 RB1-6 Liquid Poison / Resin Tank 46 TB12 Main Gen / Exciter house y
46 TB2-2 Seal Oil / Exciter Swgr y
47 YD1-1 Main Transformers l,
48 TB7 DECON l-Task l
-l Milestone CnticalTask l l
Humboldt B:yPowerPl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decomm*issioning Cost Estimate Section 4,Page 5 of 7 FIGURE 4.1 l
)
DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITY SCHEDULE 1
(Continued)
I
)
ID Task Name 2016 l 2016 l 2017 l 2018 l 2019 l 2020 l 2021 l 2022 l 2023 40 YD1-2 CCW Hx/ Pumps g
i 50 TB1-3 Hydrogen Yard g
61 YDI-3 CCW Retum Tank l.
l 52 RW1-1 Concentrator Pumps
]
53 RWi-2 Waste Rec / Hold Tanks 0
54 RW1-3 Radweste Demineralizer j
g 66 RW1-4 Concentrated Weste Tank g
54 RWi-5 Rosin Disposal Tank g
57 RWP Radweste Bldg Embedded Pipe g
68 TB2-1 Main Condenser jl 50 YD1-5 Intake Structure g
$0 YD2-4 Cond/Demin Storage Tank g
81 RW1 DECON 0
82 YD2-5 Plant Exhaust Fans 83 RBP Refuel Bldg Embedded Pipe
]
64 RB1DECON
]
65 YD2 DECON g
86 RB2 DECON 87 RB3 DECON g
88 RB4 DECON g
89 TBP Turb Bldg Embedded Pipe 70 TB1DECON g
71 TB2 DECON
{
72 YDP Yard Pipe / Embedded y
Task l'
l Milestone CriticalTask l l
r Humbbidt B:y PowerPl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1288-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 4, Page Gef 7 FIGURE 4.1 DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITY SCHEDULE (Continued)
ID Task Name 2016 l 2016 l 2017 l 2018 l 2019 l 2020 l 2021 l 2022 l 2023 73 TB3 DECON
.l 74 SURVEY 76 Refuelinterior Demohtion 0
78 Turtung Buldng interior Demoldion l
77 New Off Gas Vault Int Demolition 78 Redweste interior Demohhon l
79 Radweste Extenor Demontion l
30 Radweste Backfill l
81 Offgas Exterior Demolition l
82 Offgas Backfill B3 Turtune Building Extenor Demontion g'
S4 Turbine Building Backfin
[
86 Refuel Extenor Demohbon l
86 Refuel Backfill 87 Project Office ll 38 Landscape site 0
39 end Task l-l Milestone CritcalTask l l
Hum $oldt B:yPowerPl:nt Unit 3 Documerit P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 l
Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 4,Page 7of 7 1
(
FIGURE 4.2
)
i DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE l
Wet Fuel Storage l
id2 Period 4 Period 5 3
it' NSSS Post NSSS Survey 2015 2016 2017 2018 2018 2019 Jan July April July Oct April 1
I l
l l
i i
F
-HumboldtB:yPowerPl nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. O Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 5, Page 1 of 4 l
l j.
i L
- 5. RADIOACTIVE WASTES l
l
'The goal of the decommissioning program is the removal of all radioactive material from the site which would restrict its future use or termination of the NRC license. This i
currently requires the remediation of all radioactive material at the site in excess of applicable legal limits. Under the Atomic Energy Act (Ref.11), the NRC is responsible 4
for protecting the public from sources of ionizing radiation. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations delineates the production, utilization, and disposal of radioactive materials and processes. In particular, g61 controls the burial oflow level radioactive material and g71 defines radioactive material.
The radioactive waste volumes generated during the various decommissioning activities at the site are shown by line activity in the cost table in Appendix C. Waste volume summaries, shown in Table 5.1, are quantified consistent with g61 classifications. The volumes are calculated based on the gross container dimensions or, for components serving as their own waste container. The volume is calculated based upon the displaced value of the component.
Contaminated piping, components and structural material, other than the highly activated reactor vessel and internal components will qualify as LSA-I, II or III or SCO-I or II, as described in 49 CFR Part 173 (Ref.12). The contaminated material will be packaged in Industrial Packages (IP I, II or III) for transport unless demonstrated to qualify as their own shipping containers. The reactor vessel and internal components are expected to be transported in accordance with g71, as Type B. It is conceivable that the reactor, due to its limited specific activity, could qualify as LSA II or III. However, the high radiation levels on the outer surface would require that additional shielding be incorporated with the packaging so as to attenuate the dose to levels acceptable for transport under gl73.
For this study, commercially available steel containers are presumed to be used fer the disposal of piping, small components, and concrete. Larger components can serve as their own containers with proper closure of all openings, access ways, penetrations, etc.
The reactor vessel and internals will be shipped in reusable shielded truck casks with disposable liners. In calculating disposal costs, the burial fees are applied against the liner volume, as well as the special handling requirements of the payload. Packaging efHeiencies are lower for the highly activated materials where high concentrations of gamma-emitting radionuclides limit the capacity of the shipping canisters.
i The waste volume generated in the decontammation and dismantling of the nuclear t
units is primarily generated during Period 4 of the decommissioning process.
1 i
. HumboldtBayPowerPicnt Unit 3.
Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommiseloning Cost Estimate
- Section 5, Page 2 of 4 I
(
Contaminated and activated material will be characterized on site with a significant volume routed for additional processing.
L' ow-level radioactive waste is destined for final disposal at the future Ward Valley site located in Needles, California. For cost estimating purposes, this facility was assumed to be located 860 miles from the site. Disposal costs at this facility were calculated with
. a base burial fee of approximately $509 per cubic foot.
The majority of systems'and components in the Refueling and Radwaste Buildings are significantly contaminated. The components and piping in these areas will be sent to an off-site facility for processing. Once at this facility the components will l
be characterized.
Contaminated material will be subjected to a series of I
- decontamination methods in an attempt to remove detectable contamination and allow release of the material as clean scrap. This process is priced at $1.50 per pound of material.
Success will vary with geometry and configuration of the component. Material not achieving free release status will be volume reduced using currently available methods (supercompaction, segmentation, etc.), at the cost of an additional $1.00/lb. This additional processing will achieve an additional 10%
reduction of material. It is assumed that a packaging density of 75 pounds per cubic foot can be achieved after processing.
]
Contaminated areas outside the Refueling and Radwaste Buildings are expected to be mildly contaminated. These components and equipment are assumed to be candidates for metal melt, at a cost of $1.95 per pound.
For materials located within the Refueling and Radwaste Buildings a free release rate of 75% is assumed to be achieved. For the materials outside of these buildings a free release rate of 95% is assumed. The material that is not able to be released is designated for controlled disposal in containers with an overall packing density of 75 pounds per cubic foot.
The drywell (Area RB1-6) is highly contaminated. It is assumed that this material has radiation and contamination levels in excess of what is acceptable for off-site processing. This material will be processed on site by the waste processing group, by. any volume reduction process that ALARA will permit (most likely some segmentation). A packing efficiency of 50 lbs/fts will be achieved for this material and will be shipped directly to Ward Valley.
Building structural steel removed from contaminated areas is also an exception to 1
I the above processing methods. It is assumed that a majority of this material can meet the free release criteria after some decontamination processes. It is assumed that this material will be shipped to the process facility where it will be processed for $1.00/lb and a free release rate of approximately 95% will be achieved.
I
HumboldtBryPowerPirnt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommiseloning Cost Estimate Section 5, Page 3 of 4 i
Compactable DAW, such as booties, glove liners, respirator filter cartridges, shipping containers, radiological controls survey materials, etc. are assumed to be drummed and compacted to 10% of their original volume. This is the mmimum practical volume to which low-level radioactive waste can be compacted to reduce costs.
Noncompactable (metallic) radioactive waste generated from removal of the plant equipment is assumed to be sent to an off-site vendor for recycling as a means of reducing the ultimate disposal volume.
Considering typical plant conditions and
-industry experience, the inventory of contammated material at the HBPP3 was segregated based on the likelihood of volume reduction and decontamination for radiological free release. The burial volumes reported in Table 6.1 reflect the savings resulting from reprocessing and recycling.
Off site processing of non-compactable metallic waste was estimated on a per pound basis, based on industry experience, and appears as an "other" cost in the detailed decommissioning cost tables in Appendix C.
I l
Humbbidt B:yPowerPl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1338-004, Rev. O Decommiseloning Cost Estimate Section 5, Page 4 of 4 I
J TABLE 5.1 DECOMMISSIONING RADIOACTIVE WASTE BURIAL VOLUMES Waste Volume 8 Classi (Cubic feet)
A 74,780 B
620 C
.36
>C 22 Total 75,558 Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 of the i
Code of Federal Regulations, Part 61.55 Columns may not add due to rounding.
8 t
i
__~________________;
Humboldt Bry PowerPirnt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. O Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 6, Page 1 of1 i
(
- 6. OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE
]
Astimates of occupational radiation exposure were developed by TLG from the hours expended removing contaminated components and in the decontamination of site structures. These estimates are scoping in nature and are performed to provide an upper boundary to the exposure limits for comparison with NRC maximum dose limitations. Changes in the total occupational exposure estimates do not impact the cost model used by TLG.
The estimates are used to determine where exposure reduction or control efforts are most effective.
Worker dose is calculated as the product of the direct personnel hours expended in radiation fields and the average area dose rate estimated for each dec.ommissioning task. The calculation assumes that:
Only those personnel directly involved in the decontamination, removal, and packaging activities, as well as associated health physics personnel, are consideredin the exposure calculation. Casual exposures to the supervisory and plant staff are not included in the estimate.
Personnel exposure to radiation is minimized by utilizing shielding and remote handling techniques and avoiding higher radiation fields when personnel presence is not necessary.
Careful, prompt accounting of accumulated radiation exposure is maintained to rapidly identify tasks causing excessive dose accumulation by workers so that corrective action can be taken.
Cesium-137 is the primary contributor to radiation exposure.
It should be noted that the radiation exposure rates used to calculate the exposures shown in Appendix C are based on optimum conditions; external factors could cause the expected exposure rates to vary significantly at the time of decommissioning.
Humbo' ldt Bay PowerPisnt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decornmissioning Cost Estimate Section 7, Page 1 of 2 t
i 7.RESULTS The. projected cost to decommission the station, startmg m the year 2015, is
$166,562,449 in 1997 dollars, which includes $655,654 for the CPUC's disallowances.
~The costs reflect the site-specific features of the HBPP3, the local cost of labor, the DOE's schedule for spent fuel receipt, and a projected cost for low-level radioactive waste disposal-at the regional compact site.
Analyses of the major activities contributing to the total cost for each of the decommissioning alternatives are provided -
in Table 7.1.
Staffing, including management, security, and health physics combine with the removallabor cost to represent the majority of the costs to decommission a nuclear station. This is a direct result of the labor-intensive nature of the decommissioning process, as well as the management controls required to ensure a safe and successful program. Low-level radioactive waste disposal (burial) represents the next largest cost component. These costs are indicative of the expense incurred in siting, developing, and licensing new disposal facilities. Packaging and transportation costs are most sensitive to the waste volume-generated in the decontamination and dismantling process, the volume reduction achieved, transport regulations for low-level radioactive waste, and the final destination (i.e., distance to the disposal site). "Mber" includes incidentals, such as engineering costs, insurance, and fees.
This study prevides an estimate for decommissioning the site under current requirements based on present day costs and available technology. Individual costs associated with decommissioning activities have increased at rates greater than that of general inflation. For example, there has been significant volatility in the issues and policies surrounding waste disposal, i.e., access and cost oflow-level radioactive waste disposal has been unpredictable causing the disposal rates to escalate faster than inflation (over the past ten years). The government's high level waste program has experienced a series of delays, which have impeded the prompt decommissioning of the commercial reactors retired to date. Waste disposal has become the primary driver in the escalation of decommissioning costs. It is therefore appropriate that this cost estimate be reviewed periodically.
f HumboldtB yPowerPl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 7, Page 2 of 2
(
TABLE 7.1
SUMMARY
OF DECOMMISSIONING COSTS Costs 97$
Percent of Work Category (thousands)1 Total Costst UNIT 3 Decontamination 1,953 1.17 Removal 22,547 13.54 Packaging 1,608 0.97 Shipping 851 0.51 LLRW Burial 12,595 7.56 Site and Soil Remediation LLRW Lurial 26,201 15.73 Site Staffing 32,647 19.60 Waste Recycling 3,810 2.29 Insurance 1,203 0.72 Non-radiological Demolition 1,401 0.84 Contingency 27,676 16.62 Security Guard Cost 1,401 0.84 License Termiaation Survey 5,404 3.24 Pre-Decommissioning Expenditures 14,935 8.97 14Q 4
Remammg Costs 2 12.330 Total
$166,562 100.00 CPUC Disallowances Removal 485 73.60 Packaging 2
0.30 Shipping 3
0.46 LLRW Burial 46 6.98 Site Staffing 0
0.00 Waste Recycling 30 4.55 Contingency 93 14.,11 Total
$656 100.00 1.
Columns may not add due to rounding.
2.
Remaining costs include engineering & preparations, undistributed costs, NRC Fees, EP Fees and Maintenance Costs, etc.
1
. Humboldt B:y Power Pirnt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Pn. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 8, Page 1 of1
- 8. REFERENCES 1.
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72,
" General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Voirme 53, Number 123 (p 24018+),
June 27,1988.
2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.159, " Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors," February,1995.
I 3.
U.S.
Code of Federal Regulations, Titla 10, Parts 2,
50 and 51,
" Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors ' Nuclear Regulatory Comnussion, Federal Register Volume 61 (p39278+), July 29,1996.
4.
" Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management,1982.
i 5.
DOE /RW-0457, Acceptance Priority Ranking and Annual Capacity Report, U.S.
Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, March,1995.
6.
" Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, January 15,1986.
- 7.
SAFSTOR Decommissioning Plan for the Humboldt Bay Power Plant, Unit No.
3, July 1984.
1 8.
T.S. LaGuardia et al., " Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May,1986.
9.
Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, p. 239, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York.
10.
"Microsoft Project for Windows," Version 3.0, Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA,1993.
11.
" Atomic Energy Act" of 1954," (68 Stat. 919).
12.
U.S. Department of Transportation, Section 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, " Transportation," Parts 173 through 178,1996.
E HumboldtB yPowerPlant Unit 3
. Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Appendix A, Page 1 of 4
.(
APPENDIXA UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT f
l Humboldt B:y Power Pirnt Unit 3 Document P011238-004, Rev. 0 Decomminoloning Cost Estimate Appendix A, Page 2 of 4 '
{.
APPENDIXA UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
' Example:
Unit Factor for Removal of Contaminat<
aeat Exchanger < 3,000 lbs.
1 1.
SCOPE Heat exchangers weighing < 3,000 lbs. will be removed in one piece using a crane or small heist. They will be disconnected from the inlet and outlet piping. The heat exchanger will be sent to the packing area.
2.
CALCULATIONS Act Activity Activity Critical ID Description Duration Duration a
Removeinsulation 60 (b) 60 60 b
Mount pipe cutters 20 (b) c Installcontamination controls d-Disconnectinlet and outletlines 60 60 e
Cap openings 20 (d) f Rig for removal 30 30 g
Unbolt from mounts 30 30 h
Remove contamination controls 15 15 i
Remove, wrap in plastic, send to packing area 60
-60 Totals (Activity / Critical) 355 255 Duration adjustment (s):
+ Respiratory protection adjustment (25% of critical duration) 64
+ Radiation /ALARA adjustment (20% of critical duration)
_5_1 Adjusted work duration 370
+ Protective clothing adjustment (30% of adjusted duration)
_111 Productive work duration 481
+ Work break adjustment (8.33 % of productive duration) 40 Totalwork duration min 521 min
- Total duration = 8.683 hr ***
l
r HumtioldtB yPowerPicnt Unit 3 Document P01-1138-004, Rev. 0
. Decommiseloning Cost Estimate Appendix A, Page 3 of 4 I
APPENDlXA (continued) 3.-
LABOR REQUIRED Crew Number Duration Rate Cost (br)
($/hr)
Laborers 3.00 8.683
$S1.83
$829.14 Craftsmen 2.00 8.683
$39.19
$680.57 Foreman 1.00 8.683
$41.31
$358.69 l
General Foreman 0.25 8.683
$43.38
$94.17 Fire Watch 0.05 8.683
$31.83
$13.82 Health Physics Technician 1.00 8.683
$34.14
$296.44 Totallabor cost
$2,272.83 4.
EQUIPMENT & CONSUMABLES COSTS Equipment Costs '
none Consumable.WMaterials Costs
-Blotting paper 50 @ $0.48 sq ft {2}
$24.00
-Plastic sheets / bags 50 @ $0.11/sq ft {3}
$5.50
-Gas torch consumables 1 @ $8.06/hr x 1 hr {1}
$8.06 i
Subtotal cost of equipment and materials
$37.56 Overhead & profit ou equipment and materials @ 17.250%
$6.48 Total costs, equipment & material
$44.04 TOTAL COST Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <2000 pounds:
$2,316.87 Totallabor cost:
$2,272.83 Total equipment / material costs:
$44.04 Total adjusted exposure man-hours incurred:
35.798 Total craft labor man-hours required per unit:
63.386 1
HumbbidtBayPowerPlant Unit 3
. Document P01-1238-004, Rev. O Decommissioning Cost Estimate Appendix A, Page 4 of 4 6
APPENDIXA (continued) 5.
NOTES AND REFERENCES 1.
Duraticns are shown in minutes. The integrated duration accounts for those activities that can be performed in conjuncdon with other activities, indicated by the alpha designator of the concurrent activity. This results in an overall decrease in the sequenced duration.
2.
Work difficulty factors were developed in conjunction with the AIF program to standardize decommissioning cost studies and are delineated in the " Guidelines" study (Ref. 8, Vol.1, Ch. 5).
3.
Adjusted for regional material costs for Eureka, CA.
4.
References:
- 1. R.S. Means (1997) Division 016 Section 420-6360 pg 19
- 2. McMaster Carr Ed.103
- 3. R.S. Means (1997) Division 015 Section 602-0200 pg 13 i
HumboldtBayPowerPl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Appendix B, Page 1 of 8
(
l APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (DECON: Power Block Structures Only)
Humboldt Bry Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Appendix B, Page 2 of 8
(
APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)
Unit Cost Factor Cost / Unit ($)
Removal of deau uistrument and sampling tubing, $/ linear foot
$0.34 Removal of dean pipe 0.25 to,2 inches diameter, $/ linear foot
$4.30 Removal of clean pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/ linear foot
$5.22 Removal of dean pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/ linear foot
$10.07 Removal of dean pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/ linear foot
$19.56 Removal of dean pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/ linear foot
$25.40 Removal of dean pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/ linear foot
$37.38 Removal of clean pipe >36 inches diameter, $/ linear foot
$44.42 Removal of dean valves >2 to 4 inches
$53.83 Removal of clean valves >4 to 8 inches
$100.74 Removal of clean valves >8 to 14 inches
$195.62 Removal of dean valves >14 to 20 inches
$254.01 Removal of dean valves >20 to 36 inches
$373.78 Removal of clean valves >36 inches
$444.24 Removal of dean piping / electrical structural steel, pound
$1.63 Removal of clean pipe hangers for small bore piping
$22.48 Removal of clean pipe hangers for large bore piping
$81.69 Removal of clean pumps, <300 pound
$167.74 Removal of clean pumps, 300-1000 pound
$464.23 Removal of dean pumps, 1000-10,000 pound
$1,851.20 Removal of dean pumps, >10,000 pound
$3,568.30 Removal of clean pump motors,300-1000 pound
$196.19 Removal of clean pump motors, 1000-10,000 pound
$772.32 Removal of clean pump motors, >10,000 pound
$1,737.70 Removal of clean turbine-driven pumps < 10,000 pound
$2,137.26
\\
Humlioldt Bay Power Plant' Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Appendix B, Page 3 of 8
[
APPENDIX B (continued)
Unit Cost Factor Cost / Unit ($)
Removal of dean turbine-driven pumps > 10,000 pounds
$4,776.26 Removal of dean heat exchanger <3000 pound
$995.72 Removal of dean heat exchanger >3000 pound
$2,503.56 Removal of dean feedwater heater /deaerator
$7,063.69 Removal of dean moisture separator / reheater
$14,530.01 Ren oval of dean tanks, <300 gallons
$217.87 Removal of dean tanke,300-3000 gallon
$688.16 Removal of dean tanks, >3000 gallons, $/ square foot surface area
$5.72 Removal of dean electrical ec tipment, <300 pound
$ 92.44 Removal of dean electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound
$319.41 Removal of dean electrical equipment,1000-10,000 pound
$638.85 Removal of dean electrical equipment, >10,000 pound
$1,514.72 Removal of dean electrical transformers < 30 tons
$1,051.96 F moval of dean electrical transformers > 30 tons
$3,029.45 hemoval of dean standby diesel-generator, <100 kW
$1,074.49 Removal of clean standby diesel generator,100 kW to 1 MW
$2,398.31 Removal of dean standby diesel-generator, >1 MW
$4,964.98 Removal of dean fluorescent light fixture
$38.59 Removal of dean incandescent light fixture
$19.26 Removal of clean electrical cable tray, $/ linear foot
$8.64
- Removal of clean electrical conduit, $/ linear foot
$3.77 Removal of dean mechanical equipment, <300 pound
$92.44 Removal of dean mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound
$319.41 Removal of dean mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound
$638.85 Removal of dean mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound
$1,514.72
\\
r Humboldt Bay Power Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rn 9 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Appendix B, Page 4 of 8 APPENDIX B (continued)
Unit Cost Factor Cost / Unit ($)
Removal of clean HVAC equipment, <300 pound
$92.44 Removal of dean HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound
$319.41 Removal of clean HVAC equipment,1000-10,000 pound
$638.85 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound
$1,514.71 Removal of clean HVAC ductwork, $/ pound
$0.67 Removai uf contaminated instrument and sampling tubing, $/ linear foot
$0.84
- Removal of contaminated pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/ linear foot
$21.64 Removal of contaminated pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/ linear foot
$37.87 Removal of contammated pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/ linear foot
$60.98 Removal of contaminated pipe >8 to 14 inc es diameter, $/ linear foot
$121.04 h
Removal of contaminated pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/ linear foot
$146.23 Removal of contaminated pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/ linear foot
$204.70 Removal of contaminated pipe >36 inches diameter, $/ linear foot
$244.00
- Removal of contaminated valves >2 to 4 inches
$183.93 Removal of contaminated valves >4 to 8 inches
$297.8~)
Removal of contaminated valves >8 to 14 inches
$605.20 Removal of contaminated valves >14 to 20 inches
$770.45 Removal of contaminated valves >20 to 36 inches
$1,023.51 Removal of contaminated valves >36 inches
$1,220.01 Removal of contaminated pipe hangers for small bore piping
$66.36 Removal of contammated pipe hangers for large bore piping
$218.67
- Removal of contaminated piping / electrical structural steel, pound
$3.45 Removal of contaminated pumps, <300 pound
$511.67 Removal of contammated pumps, 300-1000 pound
$ 1,183.29 Removal of contaminated pumps, 1000-10,000 pound
$3,949.81
)
i L
.q Humboldt B:yPow:r Plant Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Appendix B, Page 5 of 8
'j
.l ie
{
j I
APPENDIX B (continued) i Unit Cost Factor Cost / Unit ($)
Removal of contaminated pumps, >10,000 pound
$9,566.03 Removal of contaminated pump motors, 300 1000 pound
$514.15 Removal of contaminated pump motors, 1000-10,000 pound
$1,603.55 Removal of contammated pump motors, >10,000 pound
$3,622.16 Removal of contaminated turbine-driven pumps < 10,000 pounds
$4,708.88 Removal of contaminated turbine-driven pumps > 10,000 pounds
$10,753.65 Removal of :ontaminated heat exchanger <3000 pound
$2,316.87 Removal of contaminated heat exchanger >3000 pound
$6,702.3 's Removal of contaminated feedwater heater /deaerator
$17,001.61 Removal of contammated moisture separator / reheater
$37,076.44 Removal of contaminated seismic structural supports, pound
$1.74 Removal of contammated tanks, <300 gallons
$858.84 Removal of contaminated tanks, >300 gallons, $/ square foot
$16.95 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, <300 pound
$394.58 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound
$943.28 1
Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound
$1,815.77 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, >10,000 pound
$3,641.81 Removal of contammated fluorescent light fixture
$178.29 Removal of contammated incandescent light fixture
$108.99 Removal of contaminated electrical cable tray, $/ linear foot
$28.87 Removal of contaminated electrical conduit, $/ linear foot
$37.03 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, <300 pound
$448.88 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound
$1,071.31 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment,1000-10,000 pound
$2,065.15 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound
$3,641.81 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, <300 pound
$448.88 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound
$1,071.31 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 100010,000 pound
$2,065.15 t
Removal of contammated HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound
$3,641.81 Removal of contammated HVAC ductwork, $/pcund
$1.86
n Humboldt BayP6werPlant Unit 3 Document P01-1239-004, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Estimate Appendix B, Page 6 of 8 i
APPENDIX B (continued)
Unit Cost Factor Cost / Unit ($)
Removal / plasma arc cut of contaminated thin metal components, $/ linear in.
$2.13 Additional decontamination of surface by washing, $/ square foot
$4.66 Additional decontamination of surfaces by hydrolasing, $/ square foot
$19.05 Decontamination rig hook-up and flush
$3,788.54 Chemical flush of components / systems, $/ gallon
$9.46 Systems contaminated work area set up
$1,799.13 Systems installation of contammation controls
$19,045.66 Systems contaminated work are tear down
$755.49 Removal of contaminated buried pipe 0 to 2 inches dia. $/ linear foot
$89.81 Removal of contammated buried pipe >2 to 4 inches dia. $/ linear foot
$92.24 Removal of contaminated buried pipe >4 to 8 inches dia., $/ linear foot
$94.69 Removal of contammated buried pipe >8 to 14 inches dia., $/ linear foot
$97.12 Removal of clean standard reinforced concrete, $/ cubic yard
$311.84 Removal of grade slab concrete, $/ cubic yard
$171.22 Removal of clean concrete floors, $/ cubic yard
$227.00 Removal of sections of clean concrete floors, $/ cubic yard
$723.45 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/ cubic yard
$173.04 Removal of contammated heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/ cubic yard
$1,183.87 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/ cubic yard
$220.20 Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/ cubic yard
$1,568.09 Removal heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar & steel embedments, $/cu yd
$324.81 Removal of below grade suspended floors, $/ square foot
$227.00 Removal of clean monolithic concrete structures, $/ cubic yard
$629.55 Removal of contammated monolithic concrete structures, $/cu yd
$1,182.14 Removal of clean foundation concrete, $/ cubic yard
$494.11 Removal of contaminated foundation concrete, $/ cubic yard
$1,100.86 Explosive demolition of bulk concrete, $/ cubic yard
$24.36 Removal of clean hollow masonry block wall, $/ cubic yard
$68.77 Removal of contaminated hollow masonry block wall, $/ cubic yard
$169.38 Removal of clean solid masonry block wall, $/ cubic yard
$68.77
k l
Humboldt Bry PowerPl:nt Unit 3 pocument P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 r
Decommiseloning Cost Estimate Appendix B, Page 7 of 8 i
l L
l l
APPENDIX B (continued)
Unit Cost Factor Cost / Unit ($)
Removal of contaminated solid masonry block wall, $/ cubic yard
$169.38 Backfill of below-grade voids, $/ cubic yard
$17.00 Removal of subterranean tunnels / voids, $/ linear foot
$109.49 Placement of concrete for below grade voids, $/ cubic yard
$82.08 Excavation of dean material, $/ cubic yard
$2.81 Excavation of contaminated material, $/ cubic yard
$5.59 Encavation of submerged concrete rubble, $/ cubic yard
$9.84 Removal of dean concrete rubble, $/ cubic yard
$70.81 Removal of contaminated concrete rubble, $/ cubic yard
$19.42 Removal of building by volume, $/ cubic foot
$0.21 Removal of dean building metal siding, $/ square foot
$1.12 Removal of contaminated building metal siding, $/ square foot
$2.75 Removal of standard asphalt roofing, $/ square foot
$1.61 Removal of transite panels, $/ square foot
$1.58 Scarifying contaminated concrete surfaces (drill & spall)
$8.63 Scabbling contaminated concrete floore, $/ square foot
$1.25 Scabbling contaminated concrete walls, $/ square foot
$4.97 j
Scabbling contaminated ceilings, $/ square foot
$49.72 Scabbling structural steel, $/ square foot
$4.12 Removal of dean overhead cranes / monorails < 10 ton capacity
$442.93 Removal of contammated overbead cranes / monorails < 10 ton capacity
$991.38 Removal of dean overhead cranes / monorails >10 50 ton capacity
$1,063.04 Removal of contaminated overhead cranes / monorails >10-50 ton capacity
$2,374.57 Removal of polar cranes > 50 ton capacity, each
$4,432.56 Removal of gantry cranes > 50 ton capacity, each
$18,934.02 Removal of dean structural steel, $/ pound
$0.26 RemovLl of contaminated structural steel, $/ pound
$0.55 Removal of dean steel floor grating, $/ square foot
$2.43 Removal of contammated steel floor grating, $/ square foot
$5.71 Removal of dean free-standing steelliner, $/ square foot
$8.58 i
~
Humboldt Bay Power Pl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-U38-004, Rev. 0 Decommiseloning Cost Estimate Appendix B, Page 8 of 8
(
APPENDIX B (continued)
Unit Cost Factor Cost / Unit ($)
Removal of contaminated free-standing steel liner, $/ square foot
$19.72 Removal of clean concrete-anchored steel liner, $/ square foot
$22.75
$4.29 Removal of contaminated concrete-anchored steel liner, $/ square foot Placement of scaffolding in clean areas, $/ square foot
$4.53 Placement of scaffolding in contaminated areas, $/ square foot
$8.84 Concrete wall sawing, linear foot of cut
$19.98 Diamond wire cutting, concrete 1 to 2 foot thick, $/ square foot
$284.94 Diamond wire cutting, concrete 3 to 6 foot thick, $/ square foot
$576.63 Removal of piping / mechanical penetrations
$1,193.68 Structures contaminated work area set up
$1,799.13 Structures installation of contamination controls
$19,045.66 Structures contaminated work area tear down
$755.49 Landscaping w/o topsoil, $/ acre
$2,815.44 Cost of CPC B-88 IEA box & preparation for use
$886.82 3
Cost of CPC B 25 LSA box & preparation for use
$831.86 1
Cost of CPC B-12V 12 gauge IEA box & preparation for use
$735.95 1
- Cost of CPC B 144 LSA box & preparation for use
$4,135.79 Cost of LSA drum & preparation for use
$98.09 Cost of cask liner for CNSI 14-195 cask
$8,687.99 Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8-120A cask (resins)
$8,731.96 Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8-120A cask (filters)
$8,731.96 Decontammation of surfaces with vacuuming, $/ square foot
$0.52 1
s a
i Humbodit B:y Power Pl:nt Unit 3 Document P01-1238-004, Rev. 0 Dec:mmissi:ning Cost Estimate Appendix C, Page 1 cf 9
(
APPENDIX C DETAILED COST ANALYSIS I
I i
1
4 beeLefdt hop 9%rer firsnet t:n6e 2 Desument VFH224 00A Reec. 0 Deromesaaesening Chad Kessmeese
.tependu C. 3 e/ #
IASLE C Huase0DLT SAT Powsa PLANT UMT 3 AREA.8Y4REA 13flMA73 (Thousands of 19e7 descre) l Cean
'[
t Anthrdy Demos Post ther Sory cener Canegney Total Lee Tone Cesen A CF G CF C CF sC CF Wenaswo empoewe l W
ensueg 8,
W 1997 1398 149J6 14936 14915 Teses 14936 1463$
14935 PlasoO 3 l
Rohield Ash shng Sass Crane 1000 1000 1000 Total.
1000 1000 t000 i
Ptfh00 3 i Sde cher
_. _. ewwey ea6 103 Ted 784
% Renere plov tege & specs 346
$2 307 397 3 Perseem astewed red awwey 4 Endprechet..
76 11 88 88 8 Deemed ty.produid -,
563 63 047 647 se 14 912 1t2 0 Dew me,er eera sequenos F Peterm BEA ane EA 233 36 26f 261 O mepererever.w tasonee f.
Men 3r5 88 431 43' O Recove PseC aparere of pien 307 48 353 353 Aste#y spoo#8-*===
10 t Re.ecoveso pont & semperevy hadmee M3 83 836 872 64 10 2 Mens eyetems 313 47 369 323 as to V Reecler eWemele 6 33 30 812 012 to 4 Asocesrveneel see 73 SE 1 361 10 6 Seentsnelshed 38 4
43 43 10 4 testense eeneiersheheelere 75 t1 36 SS 10 F penseroes cenersee 120 10 138 8e et 10 4 Twkme & eendeneer 313 47 360 Me 10 0 Preeews suppresse en egnaefwe 150 23 173 173 to to Prenwy 129 14 130 138 50 ti ment eerueewee a n sense 234 36 aos tas 13s 1012 Wesse management 346 62 307 397 1013 s ssey & ses esseenal se 10 78 30 30 e
10 Tetsi 3347 602 3849 3607 342 meaning 4 Sne Properosione u
11 pees.ere eem.e.nmas.r
. tao l
27 207 207 ta aer -
.m.
e
.0 e
13 Design solo sanon-up syseern 108 16 121 121 14 AgesqCCEsheehnggle 600 F6 Gas See q
18 #vecere eseesvanere a esseeviers DJ 14 105 100 l
o
.r i
i i
l I
rf -
e e
a el** M ** M PI'***V*ie2 Doremens Pec-Iste. del Rees e
. Os*8 Ee8h8e depends C, A of 9 TAaLE C HUedSCOLT SAY 70ueER PLANT UNIT 3 AREA 4YdREA E871 ELATE f7heesende of 9897 dauerel I
CesA
-l Asesuser Gesen Remove poet
141 Pieni eyehmes 368 53 408 387 41 I9 2 Vesem hood it 3
21 21
.14 3 Reacter eiesmese 300 45 3e5 -
348 te e Remewung tunewge 101 16 110.
29 87 14 6 CRO teuemge 4 IC6 tAes 78 91 as as 10 6 tneare 78 11 se as 16 7 Aenevelprunery 190 23 173 e73 10 3 RerJer venees 272 et 313 313 to 9 Feeder elesecut 30 14 104 62 82 RJ 10 Seeriasei ssusse 90 14 104 104 et 11 Rerdernes eenwees 76 11 as 43 43 9612 TWtme A te ll eemolute separecers e esheesers.
313 47 380 350 ISO 23 173 173 1614 Redeseletuadmg 200
$t 236 212 24 1318 Reseter tuseng '
2474 _ c 371 _
. 20e8 f 2574 270 -
E 18 feesi - ' -
208 31 235 212 24 17 Ameessosremovespseerem 278.
6 2
822 201
' 1912 1942 1026 7922 8
- 18 RCRA meses nwnous proyam 3
30 0 33 to 30 00 0 Of 18 named seese esmoves psepam 0 02 9 E0 0 00 0 63 6 53
. 0 14 0 44 0 09 1
Subestal Pened 3 Aether Cases.; '
- 378 1
- 13 '
'3.
T 922 - 19028. '1est '
312538 :. 11087 " 8P1 ' " te25 :
7902 8
persed a Unsheethened Ceses 1 DOC essN polesehen esponse '
736 114 64 914 9 Insuranee 384 35 423 423 3 posean anymes suppaes 300 of 337 SJ7 4 88eevy elpagment marief 264 43 326 328.
8 Deposer of DAW generseed 34 1
130 as 1se, see 255 895 1
9 Ptere energy toeget 80 13 103 108 -
f edtC7oes 70 7
77 77 -
G 50sSeeunty See 83 640 840 Butsees uneseptuted Cease Pened 3 i 1 1340 -
'. 24 l
? 1 --
130 1100 ' ' y 805
- 2000 T. 3000 K
' 265 3 C ses
-1 teeff Cases -
Bees Cass
' 11202 1980 12ss2 12002 TOTAL 9981100 3 CoeT,
1830 as
. 3 '. ees $3:38, s 3fes '
anass 37776
- est.. i 13eu es7e f
('
e l
l t
l i
i I
u.,ms o a., re.eee re v.a o Deonmasseening Cost Kenmesse ca.,me., eewam noe.
- Appends C, d of 8 TABLE C HUMBOOLT SAF POWEA PLANT Uf8tf 3 AREA 4f 4AEA OSTledAft fThousands of 1997 dealers)
I CmA
]
Actsvay Oseen Remove pect shey eury other centeney fesel Lee ferm eteen A ct e cF c c8 oc cF mana. ore tipsewee !
PERIOOO 20 Remove opens has reeks e3 7
2 1
216 212 110 820 a20 424 1871 7
21 Fem Peel Cloenup 300 45 348 346 750 Numasar Saoem Seppsy eyeese Removal 22 9 CROhes &ICis Remows 21 20 34 7
30s 119 530 SOS 732 1089 1
22 2 Rosalet vseems laternees 12 2207 430 68 480 2023 5211
$211 393 130 22 10247 18 22 2 Reactor vesnes to este 41 00 400 3022 0858 0858 70s 12297 to 22 Telefe -
40 -
8746 404 924. 1270 8766 14468 14496 1951 138 22 23833 30 Rosseems of tager Reutament 23 amen Furemecanereer 80 30 5
Ste 253 147 1954 1066 1013 1768 2
34 Wee Censensera 197 11 6
630 190 243 1201 1201 1237 563 3
tempeees se riene sysieme 26 I HM841 28 1
2 26 20 18 101 101 de 764 0 05 282 HMS14 4
0 08 B 18 2
2 2
9 3
3 100 0 01 26 3 MUSP 3
0 67 6 72 4
7 3
10 18 0
se 0 00 29 4 OTb1 15 4
tt it 428 265OfS2 12 3
16 is sit l
25 0 Of 84 20 6
25 25 834 25 7 0fbe 12 15 16 311 288 0755 8
2 11 11 Joe 258OTE6 2
0 2
2 as 25 to RSt-1 27 8
8 123 54 de 240 266 340 719 0 43 2 Sit #014 13 0 40 1
12 12 0
47 47 23 340 0 43 24 f2 R014 11 0 17 0 30 6
4 8
25 25 to 20e 6 00 2513 R994 48 2
44 26 26 946 145 M
1108 2
26 to R914 87 2
9 61 32 35 191 191 100 1805 1
25 to RB14 220 21 8
Set 208 1960 1056 1986 Side 20 2S t0 RB2 0 68 2
2 47 22 20 154 1st s2 14?s 0 46 2617 R92-2 61 5
8 140 74 85 360 350 2e4 1845 0 44 2510 R82 3 06 1
2 33 it 24 128 12s a5 1460 0 13 2510 Ru2-4 23 0 48 0 50 13 9
to 52 S2 25 803 0 08 25 20 RS24 80 7
10 101 30 66 467 467 3'2 22Y2 1
28 21 Rik24 138 2
3 54 23 66 245 28S 125 3000 2
26 22 RS2-7 130 4
5 100 as 57 353 363 204 36a0 J6 23 R824 997 13 19 364 147 150 079 679 140 3242 8
20 24 RS24 117 13 10 344 1st 968 079 s't 740 3282 8
29 29 RS11 38 2
3 52 27 27 149 140 tot 1933 la 25 25 R8%2 6
1 1
18 7
6 36 35 29 176 0 it 26 27 R04-1 27 3
4 84 30 34 190 100 163 744 S
25 2a ns44 17 0 73 9
21 to 11 a2 e2 41 468 1
2S29 AS61 di 1
3 32 27 23 127 127 63 1047 0 07 25 38 RSP 223 9 14 0 40 4
4 67 249 2s0 e
6834 0 38 at31RW11 134 3
5 Os 42 53 337 337 16e 36 M 6
29 32 ftW14 107 3
5 at 41 50 300 300 172 290s 2
26 34 Rw14 2
0 08 S to 2
1 1
e s
4 e2 0 01 25N RW14 21 1
2 35 21 1F to Og 70
$62 2
i i
i 1
1 l
i i
1 f
I l
e e
Neembeten Boy M Pionne UnN $
Derenneene 908-82J6 004, new, 0
-D Caos Eno6nense Appendse c, g eq p TWE C MUase00LT BAY POUWEA PLANT U$67 4 AREA 4T4MA E0fittAft f*heeseenes er tup? 4enere!
I
. Depoem et Pione Syeessas ;
Telef Las Terus Clean A CF 9 CF C CF eC CF "- " eseessnesus l Cres Astleny Oeses honeses past ehde Sawy ' coher
- Enessene j 253 SW14 28 1
2 32 id 17 92 92 82 802,
2 25 le AW14 47 1
8
. 42 2B
.77 150 100 02 1237 4 00 283?HW17 17 44S 1
13 8
8 44 44
. 2e 427 0 03 283SHW14 8
8 00 0 19 8
1 2
il 11 5
130 0 03 2$3eNW14 8
0 08 0 00 2
1 1
7-7 3
ft e st 28 40 NWP 78 0 03 0 12 1
1 12 93 83 -
2 2064 0 14 26 et TBS-1 40 4
7 122 00 62 2M 294 23e 1352 0 14 -
29 42 7514 4
2 ft it
' 230 0 02 25 43 7914 24 2
3 3B 26 20 f t2 112 71 824 0 04 28 44 732 1 2 tG 21 31 -
371 307 200 1146 1946 724 8812
- 0 25 46 ft24 68 3
8 41 52 35 207 207 100 1647 0 to 28457s&1 279 it 27 346 277 /
201 1135 1130 9 72 7M8 2
2S 47 7934 14 4
18 14 383 9 62 tsee Teaa 3
0 01 6 02 6 28 9 24 2
11 - ' 11 0 34 210 0 00 26 de T941
, 277 11 17 133 172 132 741 741 25s 7521 to 71 3
9 24 67 N
106 128 47 1422 O 10 al10 7842 '
28611961 Se 3
3.
Sa 23 23 fas las 35 1540 0M i
28 52 TitL2 30 2
2 27 23 20 112 112 62 1010 1
28 43 YSS t di 3
$2 51 32 183 '
153 tot 101E 4 49 18 54 Tes-2 50 4
5 53 94 43 240 240
$63 1332 9
35 98 T87-1 es 2
e 35 e7 41 237 237 et 23t4 6 07 I
25 90 Y574 18 1
6 7
18 6
40 48 14 382 0 02 2s s7 Ts74 0
0 4e i
4 v2 s
si si 7
20s o 02 28 44 7814 0
0 03 6 19 1
2 2
to to 2.
158 0 01 28 0s 7974 ft 1
2 11 22 11 87 et 22 607 0 02 '
2000 TB74 5
38 1
9 12 29 17 90 00 24 att.
0 03 I
. De17ef 7 a2 a
40 40 es3 0 04 25 82 ftp 407 0 OS 1
3 7
83 400 440 10898 9 71
' 25 83 YARD 4
1 6
4 107 0 01 25se VD11 23 8
24 2e 531 O et 25eS VD1-2 44 4
7 100 71 de 27e 27e tse tiet t ot al G8 vDt4 8
1 1
5 9
8 27 27 10 103 0 01 2547 VD2 4 30 2
8 25 52 2B ide 14e es 1001 0 05 2S58 VD24 140 6
13 82 137 79 ese 468 19e 3464 02S 25 de YD24 70 0
to.
44 et of 2M 284 e5 2004 1
2S 76 TCP 90 19 21 114 100 GE SJG 636 222 15e4 0 19
" 28 isenes -
4200 ; -
212 /. 303..' 4461 2002 ' - 2530 ~
44787.' 14797.
0077 (
113871 100 28 Erest eeseoseng ter eyelesne asmosef 113 0 21 6 Se 12 28 35 tes 185 25 2224 l
i i
i
e e
e r
. NumbeMe Se reeer 90enes Un6s &
Decomean 9eMsasses nee. 0 D*eemmhnomening Cent EetimeGe Aryennile C,0 of 9 -
1.AE C letJede00LY SAT PowsA PLANT UNIT 3 J
AntAav4asAtsfueAft -
ff - " of 1957 denoral I
crea Asewter cemen manieve Peek snap sury other cenanney feed ue Term Cimen A CF G CF C CF eC CF " " - -
Esseewe at see pendinge 27 9 44AAS.
5 O B2 0 57 51 98 73 73 10t 02 0 02 27 2
- Ret 97 87 44 27 2422 4
f 45 3246 3246 -
478e 2302 0 40 273 902 408 SN 10 0
tot 200 634 2278 2270 985 27083 0
27 4 9e83 10 2
1 0 82 58 4
21 98 06 111 280 0 23 27 6 "RR4 -
0 2
. 0 00 0 56 to 4
18 83 83 es 207
' 0 18 2? S 9tW1
' 23 0.52 4
3 340 0 93 75 358 366 400 4M 4 30 27 7 'fti 3
1 Det 0 31 28 2
9 48 45 88 M
- 0 02 27 8 'fa2 20 OM 2
1 120 2
43 198 100 248 417 8 02 27 s tua 4
0 40 0 70 0 44 44 O s2 13 sa sa as a0 0 00 27 W *fB4 0
8 1
0 e2 43 6
20 127 127 164 255 0 04 2711
- TBS 4
0 67 8 41 37 12 SE 86 74 83 2' 12 *Tes 4
0 01 0 37 M
to de de as se 0 00 2713 "T07 4
1 0et 82 18 87 87 123 e6 0 00 2714 *VD1 4
0 80 0 37 33 18 de 4e es 79 0 02 2714 *YD2 628
' 533.
73 '
es ', 4030 i.- 224 ' : 152s 7172... 7172
- Foss 320e0 7
29 8
3 265 80 375 876 80s 842 0 05
-- 27 Tenew 1s umany miense..
ewwey 6404 ett a216 5215 1
29 CRAU
., awwey 105 16 122 122 j
4-30 Termanchpasence q
11 Deses and Remoselo intene and Decharge l
Ported O Addleonel Coele 187 1487 421 IM 13274 3864 16337 19347 25876 102964 10 l
32 C
- a los Aweswet 4
178 110 9000 2512 12713 12713 19467 8 74 0 01 33 0ischarge Pgung 23 27$
54 33 3018 st?
4217 - 4217 6029 1984 0 21 j
34 Asperemoniof Dreiroendcatchteams 44 7
so 60
]
suseeim Pened 4 Anaver Ceees M '-
. see
- 13:10 -
.. saae '
ret. 27Mt.,1 es20 1 esse.
Gasse assee.
72540 v 13s
' 22 2eis2s 17e Portes 4 tan,dienrehu.end.C.o.one p.
Doc
. e.e 1.
3 Desen..
061 Os 743 748 3 Desen suppene 275 Se 343 343 4 Psessee Equid aeste' M
47 02 316 127 020
$20
$20 SS 2
5 inewonee
- 771 77 see see G Meesh phyesse tupphes 1253 313 iles 1888 j
r wee.,4.e,ai.e eenis S EmesIsef ~~
2me.
as 2ne 2ar 272 tes 26 191 172 IS 0 P$e culmag...
714 107 42t 821 10 Deposal of DAW generosse 34 1
107 53 20s.
2ee ses 1968 2
It e
.t, Dieseeeen '
S 3
tot 270 74 e43 e43 572 778 9
12 Plant enwgy budgel 110 17 62r 114 13 13 8dRC Fees 211 21 232 232
]
14 See Seewdy 846 127 971 071 15 LutW 7
. le 1450 219 18 76 1878 Busteles Uneekiteeed Caste Pened 4
' 904 5292 08 67 004 3e67 1799 12707 12404 304 000 420 1927 5
I I
1
c; e
NwnseUn Ses Me enen sinar e awomaan Pen ms.ood, an e Deswassueehndag coes gef4mese -
Appendas C, rof a TAaLE C HUM 800LT SAY power PLANT UINT 5 AMEA4Y AAEA ESflMATE (Theesense of TM7 deserst l
Cast
[
AseMer Oesoa memove Pest Sher Sury Other Centeney Total us Term Clean A CF S CF C CF eC CF elesenere Easeewe l Ste# Cease uhur ke8 Coat 19647 22400 224e0 -
TITAL PGA100 4 tens
. totes te73 See. antes ' 33s34 1sest -
11FF30 ; 117433
. See. 734e0 ' $80 13e 32 383788 1ae I
1 PEmm0 9 Comesmien afitemennene see Suedmes at 1 Relueene Sahane 430 406 ess 5642 38 2 C - - agwoment senesse sweeae e
t 7
7 104 SS 3 Fuel Posi Trepus Aemowel 70 10 00 00 e00 as 4 hel 14eenme Bhop 4 Castrahee tusene 19 3
22 22 298 35 S Seen Os Gas Vous 2M 39 298 2ee 2500 35 8 Reeneste Tresement Oudene 133 20 153 153 1702 30 F Sehe Weste Veuil 4
9 eI at 8 Tweene Busihng 434
$5 400 esil M
35 9 Vee amusewee
' 46 7
83 53 see
. 36 fetels..
~' 1401.
- 210 ~
1811
- 80
, test 17904.
Bete Clemmens Asmustee k
38 Socide See S8 e
G7 SF 264 3F Orode 4 enenespe ese 20 4
32 32 125 3e foeiroso4 m twaC 117 18
. 135.
135 SuttelelPensel Acevey Cools -
.' 1487 :-
117 4 c. 941 e < 1648
'i 216 P 1630.
P 14294 Ported 8 Undleirtheded Coets t'
eented 311 47 358 368 4e 6
52 42 2 Nesvy.
3 0mee lsel eermionee 18 2
17 17 8 Plett energy bisdget 4
1 7
7 Swhoseel Luisemeuesd Coste Pened 8 =
328 -
. 54 88 '
. 4M
$2 - - 382 Stolt Costs SteeCast :
1890 285 2183 1964 tie ftTAL Ptat00 6 1812 3000
- ese Aest 2233 323e 14304 l
j votAL Coer re ctCommiseen 13-
- seen,
- wee es, mra niu aan wasa2 - w33n - aise wm - am ne s3 33 73e we l
4 l
I f
i
l I
kmbeMt guer keer mas caso a sene==4ssenmas reed Emma Dorumean pen-ssuees noe. e Appenas e, a et a TA8LE C HUMSOOLT SAY POWER PLANT UMT 3 AmeA4vmeA esTWAft
\\
rNweende et m7 dausret I
Cad l
'see A,pe wy ces nemoe.
past an.e eu,y oener comeasy Teem Lie venis cieen A cp a ce e er oc cf -
-a
)
1 I
f0TaL COST TO DECOMMISSION WITH 19 93% Contmgener 8 166.562.449 TOTt1 NRC UCENSE TERMINATION COST 18 9809%
$ 163,377.147 NON NUCLEAR DEMOUTION COST l8 1 91%
OR 3.185,302 TOTCA RADWA$TE VOLUME BURIED 75.557 Culne Feel 70Tc4 BCRAP METAL REMOVEO 653 Tons
)
TOTC1 CRAFT LABOR REQUIREMENTS 310,720 Man hours
,OTm.ER. _ _ T _.e.E
_R_
i 4
i l
1 1
l
T 3
i
, e m
L e
1 I
u.,~
~,
.e-
.n Sheendesdesessig Cost Eatsissete Appesides C, Pe.e f et 9 TABLE C HUM 80LDT SAT Por#ER puuef Uedt 2
/
cruc Cost oisakowANcts rraeusene e mt oene,ei Aervery Demon Demove Pent Shop tusy Other Consenery Tosef Lee Tenn Clean A CF S CF C CF oC CP Mendeure E.
o.e.eem m pieai s,sie.no
,11 Cloen Sesesuse Moessehane 11
+
2 13 13 310
+
- 13 C seente Modecahone 42 0 31 e se e
to is es sa se is t oss 0 is 13 08 G,e 9
ee Modecumene 23 3
35 21 17 35 100 toe es 0 27 i
s.
1.eo.
1 Teie 3
Ae
=
=
m i.7 ia 7
0.
unseMbuted Coste 9 Smasticlesomenee 71 to 78 71 0
3 Desposel ef 0AW eenerated 0 38 0 01 2
1 3
3 4
11 0 02 ausesses uneembuled Caste 71 0 38 O ct 1 07 11 at 73 e
a 19 e
on. nee.e.. - >ee e e
31 Ns*Of One vous 259 89 290 296 2.000 3 2 Seene Meescem 68 0
87 87 1.3e4 l
2 Tetess 317 44 385
+
386 4.004 4
TOTAL C081 T0 0Ecomms35m 488 8
3 48 30 63 ese 275 aos et s.cas e.s?
I I
TOTA CO6I TO Q4COaAb5 SON WITr4 164 Canista,ney Se54 C64 TOTAL NRC LICENSE FERMINAftDN COST 6 0747% OR 8270.271
-aA. o.mmO,e Co.1,.
2 - c,,
l 1014L a A.rE mum..u
.4 C..
TOTAL SCAAP METAL REMED (2 Tone 7CTCk CRAFT LA80ft REQUIREMEN18 0.960 hhews TUfAL P8Jt00NNEL RADIAtt0N EAPosuftE 0 87 MeMiem I
s I
o Dec mmire:l ning Ctct Ectim te in 1999 D:ll:rs Enclosura 5 DCL-99-038 HBL-99-004 l
. Minimum Decommissioning Fund Estimate Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(o) and (c)
Ref. PWR -
Ref. BWR
($ in millions)
($ in millions) 1986 Estimate 210 114.8 Escalated to 1999 673.3 352.7-i l
l Page1
Ccmporita E2cilition Enclosuro 5 DCL-99-038 HBL-99-004 Calculating Overall Escalation Rate Combined Escalation Rate BWR Jan-86 Jan-99 Weight Jan-86 Jan-99 L (Labor) 1.0000 1.5504 0.65 1.0000 3.0720 E (Energy) 1.0000 0.6360 0.13 B (Burial) 1.0000 9.0070 0.22 I
Combined Escalation Rate PWR Jan-8S Jan-99 Weight Jan-86 Jan-99 L (Labor) 1.0000 1.5504 0.65 1.0000 3.2060
'E (Energy) 1.0000 0.8540 0.13 8 (Burial) l 1.0000 9.4875 0.22 f
Page 2
58430 e00 r
u99 so99 lc L L-nCB EDH s
1 32448762271 1 9631 632989371 1 8475369292288 E
77323951 681 62401 926246257590035356721 35 R )o 6752550861 94 62586585702231 0245096330488 yWl 33204667453394 4008 1 76843787 1 40466600535 mP a b
04321 792990221 2467 9786531 8 8 8 8 8 8 8.8 8.00 2 3 5 4 8 8. 1 1 8 8. 8 8 8 39925 468 r i 9 8 8. 8. 8 7 7 8. 1 7 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8. 8 8. 0 OfoD 00000000000000000000 000c00000 00000000
(
)E(
ro tca F
no ita lac
)
s 1
E M
227493883594692889247391 5296881 27954245 R-6221 537905607336990891 072221 85270499437 y
51 61 987934 389666768936331 2221 47621 60628 gW #-
72671 50825441 8956205046336091 8797371 243 eB 1 1 96571 6335078024696896708221 7762694360 r
nr i 8 7. 6.0 6 5.6 6 6 6 6 7.0 6.1 7.1 7 7 7. 1 7 7. 0 7 6. 1 J 7 6 6 6 6 6 6.7. 1 1 8 ot 000 00000000 0000000000 000000000000000 Ef (
72 s14 0
00 t
0 eu t
F h
)
g 0t 0h =
=1 61 71 22441 8391 8651 5931 1 73985531 2641 32785 iL ls g
761 720236892694695461583874394 961975355671 371 i4t r i 1 v w 9531 1 9065408501 35200 0977 850558 tn oO=L 0 1 622368886 0 271 09577 989 0 6
027353942066764 8 =RR 66074 4865556666 6 6. 1 9 2 46 7.J 7 6. 6 6 665555.05 6. 6 6. 0 352403 78 0620 61 7751 1 656 f
e I
le 6 5.5.4 4 5.0 n
P u9)WW
- 7. 0 0
1 F 0
000000 000000 00 0CO0000 000000 000 o
PF(
BP
(
p mo re C
0 w
E 0
oP 3
1 f
e
=
w25 o
38 g
6 a
t 8
P 00 n
9 &*
l0 e
1 m
O e "r a
s
)i p
Tl 0 rt o
dup 1 0 s l
EF u=
= 1 51 24239925391 47433549725662976231 71 6638 052231 889664774 871 387 1 7 1 66452205 1 03363 e
dt 4 de=inwv 07 01 653348384939351 392974 4 336096 267732 v
S r 71 5997 8896351 4287731 1 65244552557 670034 e
A o ta8 sRR 009901 1 1 8836666791 1 1 6
f 7 5 9 9 9.9.9.0 15 5 5 5 9.0 0.0. 0 9999.99 333 568888 B
D le9)WW 0 0 9.9.0 0.0.0 9 9 9. 9. 9 9 9 9 9 0 0. 0.9 9.0 EPI 1 P 1 1 001 1 1 1 0000000001 1 1 00 0000 1 1 1 000000 RPR(
(BP is l
O leu t
F h
)
ig 0
t 2 4.3. 8 7 1 4 1 3.1 5641 1231 3 4 8. 3 2 1 8. 5. 7. 3 3 6.9.8.9 3. 2 6.9 54 3.5 l
0h r is g
8 21 9 4 46063351 39 5 L
1 3569691 841 93406652704 71 oO=iL 654 4344444554 555555655545554444455 56 2
f 2
8 =
C PI le 9) u 1 F PF((
ega P,
re C
w x
o id P
n y
e g
p r
p en r
&h0 A. to E
8 c) l a9 a
L
)
n 9
e i
ioF/
r 2
r 0 t 1
991 9 2.2 3 5.2.2.5 2 2 3 4 s
o3 F
u 2_5 4 1 1 3 2 3. 3. 3 1 3 3. 8 2 9 8. 9. 2 7 5 1 26800 s n/
uP1 1
1 ivi d = d 4
4345666 2209091 3655 1 1 998 987888490 22 1
1 1
1 1 1 1 et o o ta8 =
f r
a e
n 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 01 01 1 1 1 1 000 001 1 1 1 1 01 1 1 2l 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rl f
as c
t le9) 7 s (a PPR(P 1
0 E s
(
31 y e
- gic Gr d e n E ni REl Uf a 4 o n P
o nig e o 342334456677897889901 1 223434455677889089 ci e 1 4703692581 4703692592581 47 03692581 47 0469 nteh R 4 44555566677 788889990001 1 1 22223334 4 45555 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 22222222222222222222 r ug ech 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333 f
l eas RCU I
~
584 r -
30 e04 u99 eo99 d L-L nCB EDH s
51 71 61 858761 38777241 87852458256463337957 E R) 64578490504042939336950M7781 9 58456400966 4 456802843573701 93023880 34 66488908767553 sWb i
1 1 055368089930631 271 51 6068071 78389539990 sP b
7 8 9 9 2 2 0 2 2 8 8 8 8 9 8.0. 0. 1 9090851 651 44 51 1 1 1 8 8 8. 8 9 9 9. 9. 0 8. 0 0 1 0.0.0.9.9 9 9. 9.95 8 8 9 0 9.09 9 9.9.9 9.02 2 9.0 a
- 0. 0. 0 i
1 roD 000000001 0 0001 1 1 1 1 1 1 000000 0
0000 1 1 1 Ef
(
)E
(
r toc a
F n
to i
a lac
)
s 1
E M
88388268287999626951 71 256897026366341 1 5 R
377951 279981 21 785971 938653509 3291 1 731 79 y
77985034335602091 705075894641 603 4239694 1
gW^-
81 0837392994 4752780888847762' 34640951 576 1 1 1 7.8 8 8.8 0 7.1 8 7.7 7. 0 14033638908439.021 644 2772421 1 01 5C91 8 8. 9 8. 1 1 J 8 8 8.0369704888 reB 6
- 0. 0. 9.8. 8 8 8. E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 83 nr t 000000001 000000 1 1 o -
1 1 00000 0
Ef 0 72 ls 7. 4 i00 O
leu ht
)
F g
0t l 0h = = 25391 868495251 87 4984682799771 947587271 51 Us igW4126641 8378 68438094 60349279202331 63531 721 1 605 r i 1 v0 0 43424591 3276000901 78453548548953589 tn bO=L 22305002632691 48690651 62877258392977 71 6
e t
l 8 = Rt 1 I
e W
6 6. 1 1 7 8. 0.7 3 4 17. 7 7.6 6 8.0 2 2 0.0 9.1 3 2 0 0 5 9 8 8.1 6.0 6 7 7. 1 1 7 4528834 42867081 0 656681 5987 0
0 1 1 J 1 7. 1 0 n
Pu 9)WV 0 1 F 0000001 0000001 1 1 1 1 0 000000 000 000000 o
PF((BP p
mo re C
0 w
E 0
o 4
1 P
e f
=
y38 g
o g
6 25 a
r t.
8 e00 P
9 s
n u
1 t
E c
O &u Tlsd)l a
e o0 i W
r t
r 0 dup 1 s=
= 67348771 3581 89781 69661 1 421 8998372862951 2 u
43S0628 1 0081 31 6793564449252263459781 891 EF d = dWtw70 u8263 605859305251 544951 76649441 522330 S r e
n 49 91 729 07074491 4 1 21 7881 21 71 1 37527 1 95073 e
Ao ta8 =Rt 9 4 7 7 0.0.9 6I 01 028899654 0 0 0 0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0. 0.0.0.0 18889267772790900.2888 f
BI D
EPe9)WVW 9 0. 0. 0.1 1
1 1 1 1 1 0.0 1 01 t
1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 P 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 (BP RPR(
s l
i O
le u
t F
h
)
ig 0t l 0h 5.3 1 5.3 4 4 1 3446 453 6. 3 3 8.9.3. 9. 3.6.0 6 6 1 1 467 24355691 463 1
1 r i 1 g 73239 6 s
48590 8
1 27489241 6 978257 247 2543 LoO=U 55555 66856 5
578098876 555666 655 6666 2
1 f
8 =
2 I le9)
C Pu 1 F PF( (
ega P,
re C
w a
o d
P n
y e
g p
r p
e o
ts' n
At r
E 8 c)
&c l
9 u
a a
n 9
lsd)ir ioF/
o0 e
2 r 0 t
- 6. 8. 2. 4.5.2.5.2 9 5 4 1 79.462 s
5 2 2 9.2.3 3.1 2. 6 5.8. h 8 3 5 5 5 5 4 8 4 5 5 831 1 9. 3.8.8.5 8. 6 1 s n/
uP1 o3 F
u 1
1 ivi d = d 392227344 55 344 1 0844448243 1
1 1
f r
n 1 1 2221 1 1 1 1 1 222 221 22222333 22222222333 etao oe 2I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rl f
t as I
la8 =
ca Pe9) 7 s(
P 1
PR(
0 E s
(
31 y e
- gic Gr d e n EnI REl Uf an No o nig 9001 22334534 45567788 90899001 22334 5455667 e o cie 2692581 4703692581 470379250 2581 4703692581 ntaR 66677788899990001 1 1 22223334 4 455566667778 el 222222222222233333333333333333333 3333333 r ug 3333333333333333333333333333333333333333 e
n f lc i eas RCU
S8430 er00- -
u99 so 9-9 lc L L-nCB EDH a
1 7292723246761 6864831 96281 91 783588984424 E R) 25221 29080547769236501 61 61 7 1 28326673301 5 y
6667731 61 7245891 79701 1 46621 2207499701 489 gW o 2?6771 73858524 634 367051 701 67839432687328 ePd 00.09 9.9.9 9 9.9.0. 9. 9 0 0 9 9. 9.9. 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9. 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9. 0 99999 r
1 4 4566608700500321 257785 4 2222367 977 655 i
1 nrD e
1 0000001 001 1 00G00000000000000000 00000 Ef
(
)E(
ro tca F
no it a
lac
)
s 7
4326529865529794634323537661 438481 21 5778 4,
E 051 304321 4C5670260901 8520223398d87908903 R
766907636631 9984 750248585892622 i1 4 4 77372 yN
- g. 4 94 5201 8 1 4 61 73726731 6769031 70088 u76795756 r
8051 1 24444 1 3339866791 1 00775691 1 01 2 eB 6 8 9 8 8 8 8. 8. 8 8 8 8 7.8.08 3 8 8.7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 8 8.8 8 7 7 7 7 7 8 7 7. 09778888 nro 0000000000000 000000000000000000000 0000 Ef C 72 ls74 i00 O
leu F
th
)
ig 0t 80231779252653251 1 299263365299333551 2299651 4 ls0h = =
r i 1 igt t 0 8371 621 7622 426775 825577761943 L
34 5762 n
foO=L ww 794557 9 44 1 41 51 801 3007 51 66000 3
407 850 26M 57 t
0 1 22960031 5337 5680577960337 77 283429 6
387777777 e
I l 8 = RR 3 7 6 6 4 9 6 2 9 7 2 2 7 6.6.f 6 6.086658777766 001 66 69 1
6677.00077 3
- 8. 7.0 6677.0 6 6.0 667 e
n Pu 9)WW BP a
1 F 00 0000000000 00 00O00 00000 000D0000 0
o PF((
p mo re C
0 w
E 0
o 1
P 5
e f
=
y o
g g
38 6
25 a
r t
8 e00 P
n 9
e H
n 1
E la m
O i p
Tls
) r
- 0 i e
t l
dud 1 u= t 1 645985367200952757 7205567883468064751 31 o
0 s
= 829763732451 41 47923 4 72881 34781 835471 3384 e
EF dt d =
nww0894264 34 754 9993045030772405384 61 71 27632 v
S r 08691 0906801 4 453521 839771 C25703004 650078 e
Ao te 6i B I la8 = RR9 4 901 1 01 1 900050000090677831 1 1 221 4 899751 1 f
D EPe9)WW1 1 0. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2221 1 1 1 1 1 01 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 P 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RPR((BP s
0 l0eu h
)F t
ig 0t ls0h
- 6. 2. 2 4 594246857 4 3 4.6.4 5 5 2 7 7 1 3 5 7 7 8 7 7 3.3. 1 1 8 5 6. 2 8 5 6 5849 03220 4951 1 1 76444677784434795358790 L
i 1 ig rO=L 6665 66666 55665555555555555555555555556 o
2 f
8 =
2 I
le C
Pu 9) 1 F PF((
e ga P,
re C
w i
o x
d P
n y
e g
p r
p e
r s
n A, to 8 c)
& t E
sd)l cu a9 a
lem0 i n
9 0 r F/
b 2
s n/
uP1 t
- 9. 2.5.7 1 47 8.5.9. 1 2.69326 2.9 8.4 6 5 5 5 9 1 746283423.657467 su o3 F
2 2
ivi d = d 51 567666767771 6 6555 34? 49 77 86056631 77 1
1 1
1 f
et ro e n
332222222333332 2222 33332 22 22 33333322 Rho I
2I 1 1
- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 f ta8
- as c
le9) 7 s (a P
1 P 0 E s PR(
(
3 ye 1
gic
- r Ge dn E nI REl Uf an No o e
mig 889901 9001 1 2334456455667889901 9001 1 2334 4 c &e 4 7 037026 92581 4703692581 4703603592581 47 03 n
A. R 8899900001 1 1 22233334 4455566677778889 9900 e
33333 4 4 44 4 4 44 4 4 4 4444 4444 4 4 1 4 44 4 4 4 4 44 4 4 55 g
33333333333333333333333333' J333333333333 re n
d ki e as RCU
(
T G8430 s0C w9S 99 eCB L-L EDH s
4 7 642564596493561 296464 5865381 1 1 54497 E
1 91 8490485 4 491 595651 85053678291 245326 R )o 22324903653309095521 06681 380261 0091 39 ygWl 01 4859227 478905077 69026542091 65248283 b
757300.10 0. 0. 0. 0. 0.0 0. 3 S 9 9 9 9.0. 9 9 9 9 9 8 8. 0 3673322888989098521 9991 1 1 3984 5 1
Pu r
3 9 9.0.1 e
99998888 nraD 0001 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0000001 0000000 00000000 Ef (
)E
(
ro tca F
ne ta lac
)
s t
1 81 6945921 4799461 26761 787541 235532641 E
d 277 4839554385046704871 4 79726240643885 Rro 4561 96675637 490303670551 54797244 88689 ygWb 563676783241 067C4 41 81 076 44859495538 45 r B m 41 467961 7753 F 688 4 e
u 8 8 8.05 9 9. 3 8 8 9 0 9.3 9 9. 08 8 8. 0 0 4 7 8 8 1 7. 7 1 1 7. 064022066.17 1
820623 8.88.0 0 66 Efn r H(
000 000001 0000 00 000 0000000 000 00 o
72 s 7. 4 e
00 O
le t
u h
)F ig 0t 0h = = 5996946621 798721 738554996645648541 793 G
igt t
1 4374 547 25247 024267 843354295376 26348 L srO=L ww4 049081 91 99087 1 394 8 7524471 1
01 761 505506 t
0 60229492944697882 3870854051 2891 5621 4 n
o 6
e I l 8 = RR6271 7681 89984 0 39015381 n
Pu 9)W W 1 7 0 3 8.1 7 8 8. 3 3 9. 09 7 3 2 8 8. 1 7 1 7. 1 7.1 8.0 6 6 5. 6 6.5. 006555.038554579 f
e 4
1 F 00 000000000 000000 000 000000 00 000 o
PF((BP p
mo re C
0 w
E 0
o 1
P 6
e f
=
y o
g38 g
6 15 a
r t
8 e00 P
n 9
n l
e 1
E m
O h
a s
)
p Tt e~0 i 0 r o
dup 1 ts=
= 5693783442648621 7281 39587573995881 227 r
u 698732944691 61 91 21 1 5926683584 28883668 l
EF e
d = dA4 920 41 086682247577009829 4584636388344 5 v
S r e
Ao te n F e91 9024 02281 831 245307099353901 1 0331 665 6I 1 38099941 1 2221 3891 931 21 1 01 37888 1 1 1 a8 = RR1 1 f
D B I 1
1 1 1 1 71 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 le9)WW1 EP 1 P 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 RPR(
BP
(
s t
O l
eu h
)F t
ig 0t 0h
- 6. 1 5 7 72 8. 3 5 4.7 5 1 7.3 2.3. 2 8 8 5 4 8 8 4 1 2 3.2 50 3 5 4 3.2.8 2 4 5
44 s
L i 1 ig 2934 246396632554071 04594 80 6
87590 l
oO=L 6567 66677777766665666655 45 4
44434 r
2 f
2 t l 8 =
C Pue9) 1 F PF((
ega P,
re C
w x
o
?
P M.
yg re r
s n
o E
a0 8 c)
.t a9 s
s
)i ioF9 le 0 s 91 81 55362.221 7. 3. 1 2.3.7 1 9.7 3 n
r t
2 61 934274288224554 s n/
uP1 u 3
o3 F
ivi d
d 7779 7
661 7788879554 0787766934559777 et o o te=i 1
1 1
a n
2222 3
3332222222333 3222222233332222 f
r 2
1 1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Rlas t la8 s f
ca Pe9 P R ( P) 7 s(
1 0 E s
(
31 yegc
- r Ge 3 r
E nt REl a
Uf n No o nig e o 5656677899001 20t 1 22344556756677899001 ci e 692581 4703703692581 4703692581 47036036 ntaR 001 1 1 2223334 4 4 455566677778889990001 1 1 el 5555555555555555555555555555555666666 r ug 3333333333333333333333333333333333333 ec in feas l
D:;velopment of L C mp:n:nt DCL-99-038 HBL-99-004 Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 8, Appendix C, Page C.2 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor Using Regional Indices (as of 3/2/99)
' Employment Cost Indust West Region
- Private Industry (1989=100)
Jan-86 90.3 1.00000 Feb-86 Mar-86 Apr-86
' 90.8 1.00554 May-86 Jun-86 Jul-86 91.2 1.00997 Aug-86 Sep-86 Oct-86 91.6 1.01440 Nov-86 Dec Jan-87 92.5 1.02436 Feb-87 Mar-87 Apr-87 92.6 1.02547 May-87 Jun-87 Jul-87 93.7 1.03765 Aug-87 Sep-87 Oct-87 94.1 1.04208 Nov-87 Dec-87 Jan-88 95.4 1.05648 Feb-88 Mar-88 Apr-88 96.3 1.06645 May-88 Jun-88 Jul-88 97 1.07420 Aug-88 i
Sep-88 Oct-88 97.7 1.08195 Nov-88 Dec-88 Jan-89 98.8 1.09413 Feb-89 Mar-89 Page 7
DevIlopment of L C:mp:n:nt Enclosuro 5 DCL-99-038 HBL-99-004 Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 8, Appendix C, Page C.2 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor j
Using RegionalIndices (as of 3/2/99)
Employment Cost Indust West Region l
' Private industry (1989=100)
Apr-89 100 1.10742 May-89 Jun-89 Jul-89 101 1,11849 Aug-89 Sep-89 Oct-89 101.8 1.12735 Nov-89 Dec-89 Jan-90 103.3 1.14396 Feb-90 Mar 90 Apr-90 104.5 1.15725 May-90 Jun-90 Jul-90 105.6 1.16944 Aug-90 Sep-90 Oct-90 106.3 1.17719 Nov-90 Dec-90 Jan-91 107.5 1,19048 Feb-91 Mar-91 Apr 91 108.9 1.20598 May-91 Jun-91 Jub91 110 1.21816 Aug-91 Sep-91 Oct-91 110.9 1.22813 Nov-91 Dec-91 Jan-92 111.9 1.23920 Feb-92 Mar-92 Apr-92 112.9 1.25028 May-92
' Jun-92 1
Page 8
p-Dev:lopment cf L C:mpontnt l-DCL-99-038 HBL-99-004 l
Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 8, Appendix C, Page C.2 I
Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor Using RegionalIndices (as of 3/2/99)
Ernployment Cost indust West Region Private industry (1989=100)
Jul 114.1 1.26357 Aug-92 Sep-92 Oct-92 114.9
'1.27243 Nov-92 Dec-92 Jan-93 116.2 1.28682 Feb-93 Mar 93 Apr-93 116.4 1.28904 May-93 Jun-93 Jul-93 117.8 1.30454 Aug-93 Sep-93 Oct-93 118.1 1.30786 Nov-93 Dec-93 Jan-94 119.4 1.32226 Feb-94 Mar-94 Apr-94 120.5 1.33444 May-94 Jun-94 Jul-94 121.3 1.34330 Aug-94 Sep-94 Oct-94 121.7 1.34773 Nov-94 Dec.94 Jan-95 122.6 1.35770 Feb-95 Mar-95 Apr-95 123.4 1.36656 May-95 Jun-95 Jul-95 123.9 1.37209 Aug-95 i'
Sep-95 Page 9
~-
(:
Devri::pn' ant cf L Ccmp:ntnt DCL-99-038 HBL-99-004 Referenca NUREG-1307, Revision 8, Appendix C, Pe;c C.2 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor Using RegionalIndices (as of 3/2/99)
Employment Cost indust West Region Private Industry (1989'100)
Oct-95 125 1.38427 Nov-95 t
Dec-95 Jan 96 126.9 1.39424 Feb-96 Mar-96 Apr-96 127.3 1.40975 May-96 Jun-96 Jul-96 128.3 1.42082 Aug-96 Sep-96 Oct-96 128.9 1.42746 Nov-96 Dec-96 Jan 97 130.3 1.44297 Feb-97 Mar-97 Apr-97 131.4 1.45515 May-97 Jun-97 Jul-97 132.5 1.46733 Aug-97 Sep-97 Oct-97 133.4 1.47730 Nov-97 Dec-97 Jan-98 135.2 1.49723 Feb-98 Mar Apr-98 136.6 1.51274 May-98 Jun-98 Jul-98 138.5 1.53378 Aug-98 Sep-98 Oct-98 140 1.55039 Nov 93 Dec-98 Page 10
-~
Devr.l:pment cf L Compon:nt Enclosura 5 DCL-99-038 HBL-99-004 Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 8, Appendix C. Page C.2 j
Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor Using RegionalIndices (as of 3/2/99)
)
i Employment Cost Indust West Region Private Industry j
(1989=100)
Jan-99 140 1.56039 (Jan 99 is preliminary.)
)
i i
\\
i I
Page 11
58430 er 00 us99 lo99 cLL nCB EDH o0 t
0 0
1 3
6748025 d1 0
6 6
8520777 t
e 0
9 8
9741 468 n
a=
0 1
4 7066444 t
e Rt 6 1
1 1
6777999 s8 n
We9 o
PR1 p
moC B
2 1
f o0 e
o 0
0 0
5 6229230 g
t d1 0
3 2
3 458457 a
t e
0 7
1 4774630 P
n a=
0 1
5 0266890 t
e Rt 6 1
1 1
6666889 m
We9 a
s8 p
BR1 o
le e
v g
)
n e
a a
D li h
n c
so t r s a8 7
4 8341 260 oC7 0
9 072758 2 e
C 6
0 4
4887889 h
l h
t 1
2 2
1 1 22555 Rat iu 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 g
WuS iy r o n
PB(
lp pae.
ys
)
b a a
b n
d i
e89 l
t so n
t r
la9 s a1 1
1 4429780 u1 o
oC6 3
6 3947346 c e i
C 5
8 3
4 7.0 3890 lah ta la l
h 1
1 2
991 0334 ct Rat u
c 1 1 1 1 s o i o WuS i t r
sE l
BB(
s8 i9 a
h 9
T ir 1
u
.d B
d n f
e a t
o a7 tn m9 e
i9 t
m 678 901 23456789 s1 88889999999999 e n p
99 999999999999 l
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ise o
e e
9 w v
9t e
9 e D
1 b e