ML23221A356

Request for Additional Information - Enclosure

ML23221A356
Person / Time
Site:	07000398
Issue date:	09/12/2023
From:	NRC/NMSS/DFM/FFLB
To:	US Dept of Commerce, National Institute of Standards & Technology (NIST)
Shared Package
ML23221A355	List: ML23221A356 ML23221A357
References
Download: ML23221A356 (7)

Text

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION DOCKET NO.: 70-398 LICENSE NO.: SNM-362 LICENSEE: DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF STANDARDS AND TECHNOLOGY LICENSING ACTION: 2022 TRIENNIAL UPDATE TO DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING PLAN AND DECOMMISSIONING COSTS ESTIMATE The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has identified the following information that is still needed to complete its technical review of the submittal. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) should provide this information within 30 days from the date of this communication.

(1) Justify key assumptions in the 2023 decommissioning cost estimate (DCE)

Regulatory basis:

The requirements in 10 CFR 30.35(e)(1)(ii) and 10 CFR 70.25(e)(1)(ii) state that a DFP must contain "identification of and justification for using the key assumptions contained in the DCE." In addition, the guidance in NUREG-1757, Vol. 3, Rev. 1, Appendix A, section A.3.1 states that "a decommissioning estimate should contain a substantial level of detail, consistent with the guidance presented in this section, to allow the NRC to fully evaluate the adequacy of the estimate" and that "the labor estimates, material costs, and other factors of the cost estimate should have a clear and reasonable basis."

Issue

Description:

The 2023 DCE does not provide an adequate basis for the following costs:

a. Waste Packaging, Shipping, and Disposal Costs The 2023 DCE does not provide an adequate basis for some waste packaging, shipping, and disposal costs. It does not clearly state the units of measurement for each unit cost contained in Table 3.14(c), Waste Disposal Costs, in Appendix A and Appendix B. The table provides both disposal volume and mass but does not specify whether the unit cost is per cubic foot or per pound. When attempting to confirm the total values presented in the table, it seemed that the unit cost was applied per pound to some line items, and per cubic foot to other line items. Additionally, while costs for disposal of sealed sources is included in Table 3.14(c) in Appendix A, packing and shipping costs for sealed sources are not included in Table 3.14(a), Packing Material Costs, and (b), Shipping Costs, respectively. In the 2016 decommissioning funding plan (DFP) submission, packing and shipping costs for sealed sources were included, and the 2023 DCE does not provide any explanation for why these costs were omitted.

b. Labor Costs The 2023 DCE states that [w]orker mean nationwide salaries are taken from the Bureau of Labor Statistics [(BLS)] and are adjusted to account for the cost of fringe benefits. A Enclosure

75% multiplier is also added to account for profit to the contractor performing the decommissioning work. Workers who are not local hires are paid the average government per diem rate of $299 daily for the Gaithersburg area (2023 DCE, Page 19). However, the DCE does not specify the specific fringe rate used and the salaries before they are adjusted for the cost of fringe benefits.

c. Miscellaneous Non-Labor Costs Several miscellaneous non-labor costs that were included in previous DCEs, are not included in the 2023 DCE. Specifically, security costs are no longer included in Table 3.17 in Appendix A, and shielding and support costs are no longer included in Table 3.17 in Appendix B. The DCE provides no justification for why these costs were omitted.

Request:

To confirm that the unit costs were correctly applied and to ensure adequate funding for decommissioning is available, provide additional information about the following:

a. The unit costs used in calculating waste disposal costs, and specifically state the units of measurement for each unit cost. In addition, provide justification for the exclusion of packing and shipping of sealed sources costs in the 2023 DCE, or otherwise revise the 2023 DCE to include these costs.

b. Additional detail for the 2023 DCE on the basis for labor costs, including the fringe rate used and the base salaries before adjusting for the cost of fringe benefits.

c. Justification for the removal of the miscellaneous non-labor costs (i.e., security, shielding and support), or otherwise revise the 2023 DCE to include these costs.

(2) Include the radioactive waste expected to be generated by the addition of H Wing ventilation in the cost estimate Regulatory Basis:

The requirements in 10 CFR 30.35(e)(2) and 10 CFR 70.25(e)(2) state that a DFP must be resubmitted with adjustments as necessary to account for changes in costs and the extent of contamination. In addition, the guidance in NUREG-1757, Vol. 3, Rev. 1, Appendix A, Section A.3.1.1 states that the facility description included in the DFP should include an estimate of the volume of contaminated material, including that in the subsurface.

Issue

Description:

The 2023 DCE states that the addition of H Wing ventilation provided a significant impact to the DCE cost as it will generate approximately 5,000 ft3 of radioactive waste to process and ship (2023 DCE, Page 15). However, Table 3.14 in Appendix A does not appear to account for the disposal of this radioactive waste.

Request:

Include the cost for processing, shipping, and disposal of the additional radioactive waste that the addition of H Wing ventilation caused to the 2023 DCE, or otherwise justify why it was not included in Table 3.14 of Appendix A.

2

(3) Submit certification of financial assurance Regulatory Basis:

The regulations in 10 CFR 30.35(e)(1)(iv) and 10 CFR 70.25(e)(1)(iv) each require that a DFP include a certification by the licensee that financial assurance for decommissioning has been provided in the amount of the cost estimate for decommissioning. In the certification of financial assurance, the licensee certifies that it has obtained financial assurance in the appropriate amount and provides the details needed to verify that the amount is accurate under NRC regulations. Required information includes the license type and the types and amounts of materials authorized by the license.

Issue

Description:

The 2022 DFP submission did not include a certification of financial assurance reviewed.

Request:

Submit a certification of financial assurance consistent with the model language provided in NUREG-1757, Vol. 3, Rev. 1, Appendix A, Section A.2.4.

(4) Additional comments/issues

1. Disposition of customer-owned inventory The 2023 DCE states that [o]nly sources belonging to NIST are included in this estimate; it is assumed all other sources will be returned to the customer (2023 DCE, Page 9).

However, during the review of NISTs 2019 DFP (ML19269B774), in response to a request for additional information (RAI, ML20065H161), NIST stated that NIST carefully reviewed the number of sources used in previous calculations and has confirmed that NIST's worst-case scenario assumption was, in fact, applied in NIST's previous submittals. NIST acknowledges that previous submittals indicated that customer-owned sources would be returned to the customer. However, NIST's practice has been to prepare the DCE assuming a worst-case scenario, under which NIST is responsible for the entire inventory, whether it is customer-owned or not. Furthermore, NIST has an active waste disposal contract to permit the disposition of unsealed sources (i.e., Dry Active Waste (DAW)) that is already funded and available. In summary, NIST ensures that the disposition of customer-owned inventory is covered in the DCE and is not dependent on agreements or contracts, and that the DCE reflects NIST's assumption of the obligation to pay for dispositioning of the sources (NIST 2019 Response to RAIs, Page 1 - 2).

The language contained in the 2023 DCE appears to conflict with NISTs 2019 RAI responses. NIST will need to clarify if the 2023 DCE assumes a worst-case scenario and if it includes funding for all inventory, including customer inventory.

2. Calculation errors contained within tables 3.11, 3.13, and 3.14 in Appendix B, and Table 3.13 and 3.14 in Appendix A.

Appendix A, Facility Laboratory Cost Estimating Worksheets, and Appendix B, Accelerator Component and Area Cost Estimating Worksheets, to the 2023 DCE contain several calculation errors that may impact the availability of needed funding for decommissioning. The errors and their impacts are described below.

3

Table 3.11 and Table 3.13 in Appendix B: The Planning and Preparation row of Table 3.11 uses incorrect values from Table 3.6. Rather than using the total number of workdays required for planning and preparation, the values for a single activity are used.

When these values are then used in Table 3.13 to calculate total labor costs for planning and preparation, the cost is significantly lower than it should be. The total labor cost for the Planning and Preparation row of Table 3.13 appears to be approximately $287,820, which is about $237,000 more than the $50,990 value presented in Table 3.13.

Table 3.13 in Appendix A: The values presented in the second and third rows in this table, representing labor costs for decontamination and dismantling of radioactive facility components, and restoration of contaminated areas on facility grounds, respectively, do not appear to be correct. The table below presents the differences between the two sets of values. The revised amounts were calculated by multiplying the total number of workdays for each labor category and task from Table 3.11 by the total cost per workday from Table 3.12.

4

Difference between Table 3.13 (Appendix A) and Corrected Amounts - Decontamination and/or Dismantling of Radioactive Facility Components Radiation Radiation HP Labor Category Project Mgr Supervisor Shipper Workers Workers Clerical Total Technician (Craftsmen) (Non-skilled)

Amounts presented

$101,936 $184,953 $332,653 $34,854 $35,201 $31,522 $28,029 $749,148 in Table 3.13 (A)

Corrected Amounts

$102,301 $184,820 $333,133 $35,255 $35,159 $31,485 $28,178 $750,330 (B)

Difference (A - B) ($365) $133 ($480) ($401) $42 $37 ($149) ($1,182)

Difference between Table 3.13 (Appendix A) and Corrected Amounts - Restoration of Contaminated Areas on Facility Grounds Radiation Radiation HP Labor Category Project Mgr Supervisor Shipper Workers Workers Clerical Total Technician (Craftsmen) (Non-skilled)

Amounts presented

$480 $863 $1,551 $431 $536 $480 $132 $4,473 in Table 3.13 (A)

Corrected

$0 $1,068 $1,920 $0 $663 $594 $0 $4,246 Amounts(B)

Difference (A - B) $480 ($205) ($369) $431 ($127) ($114) $132 $227 5

a. Table 3.14(a) in Appendix B: The first row in Table 3.14(a), which represents packaging costs for DAW waste, contains a minor miscalculation. Specifically, 5 containers which cost $2,000 each, have a total cost of $9,573 instead of $10,000.

b. Table 3.14(b) in Appendix A and Appendix B: There appear to be minor miscalculations for total packaging and shipping costs in Table 3.14(a) and (b). Specifically, the table below presents the differences between the amounts contained in the DCE and corrected amounts.

Difference between Table 3.14(b) (Appendix A) and Corrected Amounts Waste Type DAW Metal Concrete Total Inputs from Table 3.14(b) (Appendix A)

Number of Truckloads (A) 1 2.5 0.5 4 Unit Cost ($/mile/truckload) (B) $4.25 $4.25 $4.25 Surcharges ($/mile) (C) $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 Distance Shipped (miles) (D) 525 525 525 Total Cost Calculations Total Shipping Costs in DCE (E) $3,019 $7,547 $1,509 $12,075 Total Shipping Costs Calculated by ICF

$3,347 $8,367 $1,673 $13,387 (F = A

• B

• C

• D)

Difference in Total Shipping Costs

$328 $820 $164 $1,312 (F - E)

Difference between Table 3.14(b) (Appendix B) and Corrected Amounts Waste Type DAW Metal Lead Concrete Total Inputs from Table 3.14(b) (Appendix B)

Number of Truckloads (A) 1 5 1.2 18.8 26 Unit Cost ($/mile/truckload) (B) $4.25 $4.25 $4.25 $4.25 Surcharges ($/mile) (C) $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 $1.50 Distance Shipped (miles) (D) 525 1677 1677 1677 Total Cost Calculations Total Shipping Costs in DCE (E) $3,019 $48,214 $11,571 $181.284 $244,088 Total Shipping Costs corrected (F =

$3,347 $53,454 $12,829 $200,988 $270,619 A

• B

• C

• D)

Difference in Total Shipping

$328 $5,240 $1,258 $200,807 $26,531 Costs (F - E) 6

Together, these calculation errors result in the total DCE being underestimated by approximately $266,000, which represents about 3.5% of the total DCE. To ensure the availability of needed funding for decommissioning, please correct these errors.

7