ML100960464

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 - Submittal of Decommissioning Funding Status Report

ML100960464
Person / Time
Site:	Three Mile Island
Issue date:	03/29/2010
From:	Hagan J J GPU Nuclear
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
bANOVAC k (415-5114)
References
TMI-10-011
Download: ML100960464 (162)

Text

C CEPU NUCLEAR GPU Nuclear, Inc.Three Mile Island Nuclear Station Route 441 South Post Office Box 480 Middletown, PA 17057-0480 Tel 717-948-8461 March 29, 2010 TMI-10-011 10 CFR 50.75 ATTN: Document Control Desk United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555-0001

SUBJECT:

Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Docket No. 50-320, License No. DPR-73 Decommissioning Funding Status Report for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1), GPU Nuclear, Inc. is submitting the attached Decommissioning Funding Status Report for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 for the year ending December 31, 2009. Enclosures A and B provide site-specific decommissioning analyses which support the Decommissioning Funding Status Report.There are no regulatory commitments contained in this letter. If there are any questions, or if additional information is required, please contact Mr. Thomas A. Lentz, Manager -FirstEnergy Nuclear Operating Company Fleet Licensing, at (330) 761-6071.Sincerely, Joseph J. Hagan President and Chi luclear Officer

Attachment:

Decommissioning Funding Status Report Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 As of December 31, 2009 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 TMI-10-011 Page 2

Enclosures:

A. Decommissioning Cost Analysis for Three Mile Island Unit 2, dated January 2009 B. Financial Escalation Analysis for the Decommissioning of Three Mile Island Unit 2, dated May 2009 cc: NRC Region I Administrator NRC Project Manager NRC Resident Inspector Attachment TMI-10-01 1 Decommissioning Funding Status Report Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 As of December 31, 2009 Page 1 of 11 1. Decommissioning fund estimate, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(b) and (c) is based upon a site specific decommissioning cost study, Decommissioning Cost Analysis for Three Mile Island Unit 2, dated January 2009 (Enclosure A) and escalated to 2009 dollars: Radiological Non-Radiological FirstEnergy Consolidated

$836,859,007

$ 31,766,234

$868,625-241

2. The amount accumulated in external trust funds at December 31, 2009: Metropolitan Edison Company Pennsylvania Electric Company Jersey Central Power & Light Company FirstEnergy Corp. Consolidated

$266,915,947 142,819,184 167,090,965

$576,826,096

3. A schedule of the annual amounts remaining to be collected from ratepayers is attached as Schedule 1.4. The assumptions used regarding rates of escalation in decommissioning cost, rates of earnings on decommissioning funds, and other factors used in funding projections for Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2: Consolidated Ownership Interest in Unit"Real" Rate of Return Rate of Escalation Year of Site Restoration Completion SAFSTOR/Dormancy Period Year of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1 Operating License Termination 100%2.00%2.81%2054 2014-2043 2034 FirstEnergy Corp. plans on synchronizing the decommissioning of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 with the decommissioning of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 1.5. There are no contracts upon which the owners/licensees are relying pursuant to* 10 CFR 50.75(e)(1)(v).

6. There are no modifications to the licensee's current method of providing financial assurance since the last submitted report.

Attachment TMI-1Q0-011 Page 2 of 11 7. There were no amendments to the Trust Agreements for the above-mentioned owners of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2.8. Schedules 2 through 4 each contains an analysis of funding earnings and withdrawals for the three owners of Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2; Metropolitan Edison Company, Pennsylvania Electric Company, and Jersey Central Power & Light Company;respectively.

Schedule 5 contains a consolidated analysis for FirstEnergy Corp.9. Mathematical rounding was performed during the development of the supporting calculations.

Attachment TMI-10-01 1 Page 3 of 11 Schedule 1 Schedule of Annual Amounts Remaining to be Collected as of December 31, 2009 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Annual Amounts to be Collected Jersey Central Pennsylvania Power & Light ny Electric Company Company 1 Metropolitan Year Edison Compa FirstEnergy Corp.Consolidated 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Total 2,848,008 1,206,046 4,054,046 2,848,008 1,206,046 4,054,046 Note 1: On February 19, 2010 the Jersey Central Power & Light Company filed a request with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to reduce the Nuclear Decommissioning Cost charge to zero by June 1, 2010. If approved, Jersey Central Power & Light Company is expected to collect $1,206,046 in 2010 with no further deposits anticipated.

Attachment TMI-10-011 Page 4 of 11 Schedule 2 Metropolitan Edison Company 1 Reflects 50% ownership in Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Pre Tax After -Tax Equivalent Estimated Weighted Average Net Investment Rate 2.00%Estimated Escalation Rate 2.81%Estimated AfterTax Rate of Return 4.81% 6.03%Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 Non- Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 Beginning Balance Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 266,915,947 282,671,098 296,267,578 310,518,049 325,453,967 341,108,303 357,515,612 374,712,113 392,735,766 411,626,356 431,425,584 452,177,154 473,926,875 496,722,758 520,615,123 545,656,710 571,902,798 599,411,323 628,243,007 658,461,496 690,133,494 723,328,915 758,121,036 794,586,657 832,806,276 871,551,512 911,556,165 953,425,824 997,258,057 1,043,140,450 1,091,169,521 1,141,440,664 1,194,071,679 1,249,168,216 1,243,901,552 1,193,984,569 Deposits 2,848,000 Total Earnings 12,907,151 13,596,480 14,250,471 14,935,918 15,654,336 16,407,309 17,196,501 18,023,653 18,890,590 19,799,228 20,751,571 21,749,721 22,795,883 23,892,365 25,041,587 26,246,088 27,508,525 28,831,685 30,218,489 31,671,998 33,195,421 34,792,121 36,465,622 38,219,618 39,997,737 41,833,653 43,755,159 45,766,733 47,872,394 50,076,571 52,383,643 54,799,015 57,327,537 57,085,836 54,795,017 51,542,328 85,510,095 181,405,852 266,915,947 Withdrawals 2 (1,252,500)

(1,829,000)

(1,885,500)

(1,934,500)

(1,990,000)

(2,047,500)

(2,112,500)

(2,168,000)

(2,231,000)

(62,352,500)

(104,712,000)

(122,418,500)

Ending Balance 282,671,098 296,267,578 310,518,049 325,453,967 341,108,303 357,515,612 374,712,113 392,735,766 411,626,356 431,425,584 452,177,154 473,926,875 496,722,758 520,615,123 545,656,710 571,902,798 599,411,323 628,243,007 658,461,496 690,133,494 723,328,915 758,121,036 794,586,657 832,806,276 871,551,512 911,556,165 953,425,824 997,258,057 1,043,140,450 1,091,169,521 1,141,440,664 1,194,071,679 1,249,168,216 1,243,901,552 1,193,984,569 1,123,108,397 Attachment TMI-10-011 Page 5 of 11 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 1,123,108,397 1,044,972,362 959,107,256 864,629,840 774,450,355 681,946,113 581,048,940 486,398,517 452,903,942 47,956,465 44,015,895 39,680,083 35,541,515 31,296,258 26,665,828 22,322,077 20,784,925 20,292,016 (126,092,500)

(129,881,000)

(134,157,500)

(125,721,000)

(123,800,500)

(127,563,000)

(116,972,500)

(54,279,500)

(31,032,500) 1,044,972,362 959,107,256 864,629,840 774,450,355 681,946,113 581,048,940 486,398,517 452,903,942 442,163,458 Note 1: Mathematical rounding was performed during the development of the supporting calculations.

Note 2: The withdrawals are Metropolitan Edison Company's share of the decommissioning expenditures contained in the Financial Escalation Analysis for the Decommissioning of Three Mile Island Unit 2, dated May 2009 (Enclosure B), Table 6. The expenditures are assumed to be made at beginning of the year.

Attachment TMI-10-011 Page 6 of 11 Schedule 3 Pennsylvania Electric Company 1 Reflects 25% ownership in Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Estimated Weighted Average Net Investment Rate Estimated Escalation Rate Estimated AfterTax Rate of Return Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 Non-Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 After -Tax 2.00%2.81%4.81%Pre Tax Equivalent 6.03%Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Beginning Balance 142,819,184 149,688,787 156;888,817 164,435,170 172,344,501 180,634,272 189,322,780 198,429,206 207,973,651 217,977,183 228,461,886 239,450,902 250,968,491 263,040,075 275,692,303 288,953,103 302,851,747 317,418,916 332,686,766 348,688,999 365,460,940 383,039,611 401,463,817 420,774,226 441,013,467 461,569,842 482,812,864 505,048,066 528,327,103 552,696,777 578,208,500 604,913,273 632,873,461 662,145,519 661,318,891 638,254,006 Deposits Total Earnings 6,869,603 7,200,031 7,546,352 7,909,332 8,289,771 8,688,508 9,106,426 9,544,445 10,003,533 10,484,703 10,989,017 11,517,588 12,071,584 12,652,228 13,260,800 13,898,644 14,567,169 15,267,850 16,002,233 16,771,941 17,578,671 18,424,205 19,310,410 20,239,240 21,182,625 22,157,522 23,177,952 24,246,287 25,364,674 26,535,473 27,761,023 29,044,188 30,387,558 30,349,622 29,291,115 27,755,853 24,935,151 117,884,033 142,819,184 Withdrawals 2 (626,250)(914,500)(942,750)(967,250)(995,000)(1,023,750)

(1,056,250)

(1,084,000)

(1,115,500)

(31,176,250)

(52,356,000)

(61,209,250)

Ending Balance 149,688,787 156,888,817 164,435,170 172,344,501 180,634,272 189,322,780 198,429,206 207,973,651 217,977,183 228,461,886 239,450,902 250,968,491 263,040,075 275,692,303 288,953,103 302,851,747 317,418,916 332,686,766 348,688,999 365,460,940 383,039,611 401,463,817 420,774,226 441,013,467 461,569,842 482,812,864 505,048,066 528,327,103 552,696,777 578,208,500 604,913,273 632,873,461 662,145,519 661,318,891 638,254,006 604,800,609 Attachment TMI-10-011 Page 7 of 11 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 604,800,609 567,812,744 527,060,399 482,106,766 439,412,011 395,670,077 347,852,417 303,284,680 289,427,501 26,058,385 24,188,155 22,125,117 20,165,745 18,158,316 15,963,841 13,918,513 13,282,571 13,175,131 (63,046,250)

(64,940,500)

(67,078,750)

(62,860,500)

(61,900,250)

(63,781,500)

(58,486,250)

(27,139,750)

(15,516,250) 567,812,744 527,060,399 482,106,766 439,412,011 395,670,077 347,852,417 303,284,680 289,427,501 287,086,382 Note 1: Mathematical rounding was performed during the development of the supporting calculations.

Note 2: The withdrawals are Pennsylvania Electric Company's share of the decommissioning expenditures contained in Enclosure B, Table 6. The expenditures are assumed to be made at beginning of the year.

Attachment TMI-10-01 1 Page 8 of 11 Schedule 4 Jersey Central Power &Light Company'Reflects 25% ownership in Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 Estimated Weighted Average Net Investment Rate Estimated Escalation Rate Estimated AfterTax Rate of Return Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 Non-Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 After -Tax 2.00%2.81%4.81%Pre Tax Equivalent 6.03%Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Beginning Balance 167,090,965 176,363,092 184,846,157 193,737,257 203,056,019 212,823,013 223,059,800 233,788,977 245,034,226 256,820,373 269,173,433 282,120,675 295,690,679 309,913,401 324,820,235 340,444,089 356,819,449 373,982,465 391,971,021 410,824,827 430,585,502 451,296,664 473,004,034 495,755,528 519,601,369 543,937,822 569,142,744 595,530,413 623,161,652 652,092,868 682,385,542 714,101,231 747,313,360 782,089,977 787,032,677 770,014,625 Depos its2 1,206,046 Total Earnings 8,066,081 8,483,065 8,891,100 9,318,762 9,766,995 10,236,787 10,729,176 11,245,250 11,786,146 12,353,060 12,947,242 13,570,004 14,222,722 14,906,835 15,623,853 16,375,361 17,163,016 17,988,557 18,853,806 19,760,674 20,711,163 21,707,370 22,751,494 23,845,841 24,962,703 26,119,422 27,330,420 28,598,488 29,926,216 31,316,425 32,771,939 34,296,129 35,892,117 36,118,950 35,337,948 34,093,539 65,464,397 101,626,568 167,090,965 Withdrawals 3 Ending Balance 176,363,092 184,846,157 193,737,257 203,056,019 212,823,013 223,059,800 233,788,977 245,034,226 256,820,373 269,173,433 282,120,675 295,690,679 309,913,401 324,820,235 340,444,089 356,819,449 373,982,465 391,971,021 410,824,827 430,585,502 451,296,664 473,004,034 495,755,528 519,601,369 543,937,822 569,142,744 595,530,413 623,161,652 652,092,868 682,385,542 714,101,231 747,313,360 782,089,977 787,032,677 770,014,625 742,898,914 (626,250)(914,500)(942,750)(967,250)(995,000)(1,023,750)

(1,056,250)

(1,084,000)

(1,115,500)

(31,176,250)

(52,356,000)

(61,209,250)

Attachment TMI-10-011 Page 9 of 11 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2d53 2054 742,898,914 712,553,577 678,763,266 641,106,541 606,059,676 570,333,494 530,917,145 495,154,821 490,526,596 32,700,913 31,150,189 29,422,025 27,813,635 26,174,068 24,365,151 22,723,926 22,511,525 22,847,998 (63,046,250)

(64,940,500)

(67,078,750)

(62,860,500)

(61,900,250)

(63,781,500)

(58,486,250)

(27,139,750)

(15,516,250) 712,553,577 678,763,266 641,106,541 606,059,676 570,333,494 530,917,145 495,154,821 490,526,596 497,858,344 Note 1: Mathematical rounding was performed during the development of the supporting calculations.

Note 2: On February 19, 2010 the Jersey Central Power & Light Company filed a request with the New Jersey Board of Public Utilities to reduce the Nuclear Decommissioning Cost charge to zero by June 1, 2010. If approved, Jersey Central Power & Light Company is expected to collect $1,206,046 in 2010 with no further deposits anticipated.

Note 3: The withdrawals are Jersey Central Power & Light Company's share of the decommissioning expenditures contained in Enclosure B, Table 6. The expenditures are assumed to be made at beginning of the year.

Attachment TMI-10-011 Page 10 of 11 Schedule 5 FirstEnergy Corp. Consolidated 1 Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit 2 After -Tax Estimated Weighted Average Net Investment Rate 2.00%Estimated Escalation Rate 2.81%Estimated AfterTax Rate of Return 4.81%Pre Tax Equivalent 6.03%Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 Non-Qualified Trust Balance on December 31, 2009 Total Earnings 175,909,643 400,916,453 575,826,096 Withdrawals 3 Beginning Balance Year 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 Deposits 2 4,054,046 Ending Balance 576,826,096 608,722,977 638,002,552 668,690,475 700,854,487 734,565,588 769,898,192 806,930,295 845,743,643 886,423,912 929,060,902 973,748,731 1,020,586,045 1,069,676,234 1,121,127,661 1,175,053,902 1,231,573,994 1,290,812,703 1,352,900,794 1,417,975,323 1,486,179,936 1,557,665,191 1,632,588,886 1,711,116,412 1,793,421,111 1,877,059,176 1,963,511,773 2,054,004,304 2,148,746,812 2,247,930,095 2,351,763,564 2,460,455,168 2,574,258,500 2,693,403,712 2,692,253,120 2,602,253,201 27,842,835 29,279,575 30,687,923 32,164,012 33,711,101 35,332,605 37,032,103 38,813,347 40,680,269 42,636,990 44,687,829 46,837,314 49,090,189 51,451,427 53,926,240 56,520,093 59,238,709 62,088,091 65,074,528 68,204,613 71,485,255 74,923,696 78,527,525 82,304,699 86,143,065 90,110,597 94,263,531 98,611,508 103,163,284 107,928,468 112,916,605 118,139,332 123,607,212 123,554,408 119,424,081 113,391,719 608,722,977 638,002,552 668,690,475 700,854,487 734,565,588 769,898,192 806,930,295 845,743,643 886,423,912 929,060,902 973,748,731 1,020,586,045 1,069,676,234 1,121,127,661 1,175,053,902 1,231,573,994 1,290,812,703 1,352,900,794 1,417,975,323 1,486,179,936 1,557,665,191 1,632,588,886 1,711,116,412 1,793,421,111 1,877,059,176 1,963,511,773 2,054,004,304 2,148,746,812 2,247,930,095 2,351,763,564 2,460,455,168 2,574,258,500 2,693,403,712 2,692,253,120 2,602,253,201 2,470,807,920 (2,505,000)

(3,658,000)

(3,771,000)

(3,869,000)

(3,980,000)

(4,095,000)

(4,225,000)

(4,336,000)

(4,462,000)

(124,705,000)

(209,424,000)

(244,837,000)

Attachment TMI-10-011 Page 11 of 11 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2,470,807,920 2,325,338,683 2,164,930,921 1,987,843,147 1,819,922,042 1,647,949,684 1,459,818,503 1,284,838,019 1,232,858,040 106,715,762 99,354,238 91,227,226 83,520,895 75,628,642 66,994,819 58,964,516 56,579,021 56,315,145 (252,185,000)

(259,762,000)

(268,315,000)

(251,442,000)

(247,601,000)

(255,126,000)

(233,945,000)

(108,559,000)

(62,065,000) 2,325,338,683 2,164,930,921 1,987,843,147 1,819,922,042 1,647,949,684 1,459,818,503 1,284,838,019 1,232,858,040 1,227,108,185 Note 1: Mathematical rounding was performed during the development of the supporting calculations.

Note 2: Reflects the scheduled Metropolitan Edison Company and anticipated Jersey Central Power & Light Company deposits for 2010.Note 3: The withdrawals are the decommissioning expenditures contained in Enclosure B, Table 6. The expenditures are assumed to be made at beginning of the year.

Enclosure A TMI-10-011 Decommissioning Cost Analysis for Three Mile Island Unit 2 January 2009 (127 Pages Follow)

Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 DECOMMISSIONING COST ANALYSIS for THREE MILE ISLAND UNIT 2 prepared for FirstEnergy Corporation prepared by TLG Services, Inc.Bridgewater, Connecticut January 2009 Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Page ii of xvi APPROVALS Project Manager Project Engineer Technical Manager Quality Assurance Manager FrancisW.

seym&Mark S.t46t h on William A. Cloutier, Jr.J ephý J. lffer Date Date 01 /Z7 I Date Date/TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page iii of xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE EXECUTIVE SUM MARY ...................................................................................

vii-xvi 1. INTRODU CTION .....................................................................................................

1-1 1.1 Objectives of Study ...........................................................................................

1-1 1.2 Site Description

.................................................................................................

1-2 1.3 Regulatory Guidance ........................................................................................

1-4 1.3.1 Nuclear W aste Policy Act ...............................

1-5 1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive W aste Acts ......................................................

1-6 1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Term ination ....................................

1-7 2. DECOM M ISSIONING ALTERNATIVES

..............................................................

2-1 2.1 DELAYED DECON ..........................................................................................

2-2 2.1.1 Period 2 -Dorm ancy ..............................................................................

2-2 2.1.2 Period 3 -Preparations

.........................................................................

2-3 2.1.3 Period 4 -Decom m issioning Operations

..............................................

2-4 2.1.4 Period 5 -Site Restoration

....................................................................

2-8 2.2 CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR ..................................................................................

2-8 2.3 HARDENED SAFSTOR ...................................................................................

2-9 3. COST ESTIM ATE .....................................................................................................

3-1 3.1 Basis of Estim ate ..............................................................................................

3-1 3.2 M ethodology

......................................................................................................

3-1 3.3 Im pact of Decom m issioning M ultiple Reactor Units .....................................

3-3 3.4 Financial Com ponents of the Cost M odel .......................................................

3-4 3.4.1 Contingency

...........................................................................................

3-4 3.4.2 Financial Risk ........................................................................................

3-7 3.5 Site-Specific Considerations

.............................................................................

3-8 3.5.1 Spent Fuel M anagem ent .......................................................................

3-8 3.5.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Com ponents ...........................................

3-9 3.5.3 Steam Generators

................................................................................

3-10 3.5.4 Other Prim ary System Com ponents ..................................................

3-11 3.5.5 Other Systems Known to Contain High Levels of Radioactivity

..... 3-12 3.5.6 Reactor Building Structures Decontam ination .................................

3.13 3.5.7 Dem olition of Other Contaminated Structures

................................

3-14 3.5.8 M ain Turbine and-Condenser

.............................................................

3-14 3.5.9 Transportation M ethods .....................................................................

3-14 3.5.10 Low-Level Radioactive W aste Disposal .............................................

3-15 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page iv of xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE 3.5.11 Additional Decom m issioning Facilities

.............................................

3-16 3.5.12 Rem ediation of Soil and Underground Piping .................................

3-16 3.5.13 Site Conditions Following Decom m issioning

....................................

3-16 3.6 Assumptions

....................................................................................................

3-17 3.6.1 Estim ating Basis .................................................................................

3-17 3.6.2 Labor Costs ..........................................................................................

3-18 3.6.3 Design Conditions

................................................................................

3-18 3.6.4 General .................................................................................................

3-19 3.7 Cost Estim ate Sum m ary ...............................................................................

3-20 4. SCHEDULE ESTIM ATE ........................................................................................

4-1 4.1 Schedule Estim ate Assum ptions .....................................................................

4-1 4.2 Project Schedule ................................................................................................

4-2 5. RADIOACTIVE W ASTES ........................................................................................

5-1 6. RESULTS .................................................................................................................

6-1 7. REFERENCES

..........................................................................................................

7-1 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page v of xvi TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTION PAGE TABLES Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Delayed DECON .................

xiv Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Custodial SAFSTOR ...... xv Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Hardened SAFSTOR ..........

xvi 1.1 Inventory of Spent Fuel, Auxiliary and Fuel Handling Buildings

................

1-9 1.2 Inventory of Spent Fuel, Reactor Building ...................................................

1-11 1.3 Inventory of Spent Fuel, Reactor Coolant System .......................................

1-12 3.1 Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures, Delayed DECON .........................

3-21 3.2 Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures, Custodial SAFSTOR ...................

3-22 3.3 Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures, Hardened SAFSTOR ...................

3-24 5.1 TM I-2 W aste Stream s Sum m ary .....................................................................

5-3 5.2 Decommissioning Waste Summary, Delayed DECON ...................................

5-4 5.3 Decommissioning Waste Summary, Custodial SAFSTOR .............................

5-5 5.4 Decommissioning Waste Summary, Hardened SAFSTOR ............................

5-6 6.1 Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Delayed DECON .................

6-3 6.2 Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Custodial SAFSTOR ...........

6-4 6.3 Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Hardened SAFSTOR ..........

6-5 FIGURES 4.1 A ctivity Schedule ..............................................................................................

4-3 4.2 Decommissioning Timeline, Delayed DECON ................................................

4-5 4.3 Decommissioning Timeline, Custodial SAFSTOR ..........................................

4-6 4.4 Decommissioning Timeline, Hardened SAFSTOR .........................................

4-7 APPENDICES A. U nit Cost Factor Developm ent ........................................................................

A-I B .U nit Cost Factor Listing .................................................................................

B -1 C. Detailed Cost Analysis, Delayed DECON ......................................................

C-1 D. Detailed Cost Analysis, Custodial SAFSTOR .................................................

D- 1 E. Detailed Cost Analysis, Hardened SAFSTOR ...............................................

E-1 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Page vi of xvi REVISION LOG No. CRA o. Date Item Revised [ Reason for Revision 0 01-27-09 Original Issue TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page vii of xvi EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report presents estimates of the cost to decommission the Three Mile Island, Unit 2 nuclear unit (TMI-2) for the selected decommissioning scenarios following the scheduled cessation of plant operations at the adjacent Unit 1 reactor. This analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information, originally developed in an evaluation for the GPU Nuclear Corporation in 1995-96,[1]

and first updated in 2003 for FirstEnergy.

1 2 1 The analysis has been further updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of the nuclear unit and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects.

The updated estimates are designed to provide the FirstEnergy Corporation with sufficient information to assess its financial obligations, as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear unit.The decommissioning of TMI-2 is a continuation of the decontamination efforts started in the 1980s, following its accident.

The ultimate goal of the decommissioning is to remove the radioactive material from the site that would preclude its release for unrestricted use.The estimates are based on numerous fundamental assumptions, including regulatory requirements, project contingencies, radioactive waste disposal options, and site remediation requirements.

The estimates also include the dismantling of non-essential structures and limited restoration of the site.Alternatives and Regulations The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) provided initial decommissioning requirements in its rule adopted on June 27, 1988.[31 In this rule, the NRC set forth financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear power facilities.

The regulations addressed planning needs, timing, funding methods, and environmental review requirements for decommissioning.

The rule also defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC: DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB.DECON is defined as "the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are 1 "Decommissioning Cost Estimate for the Three Mile Island, Unit 2," Document No. G01-1196-003, TLG Services, Inc., February 1996.2 "Decommissioning Cost Estimate for Three Mile Island Unit 2," Document No. F07-1476-002, TLG Services, Inc., September 2004.3 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 Volume 53, Number 123 (p 24018 et seq.), June 27, 1988.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page viii of xvi removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations."[

4]SAFSTOR is 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."[5 1 Decommissioning is to be completed within 60 years, although longer time periods will be considered when necessary to protect public health and safety.ENTOMB is defined as "the alternative in which radioactive contaminants 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."[1 6 As with the SAFSTOR alternative, decommissioning is currently required to be completed Within 60 years.The 60-year restriction has limited the practicality of the ENTOMB alternative at commercial reactors that generate significant amounts of long-lived radioactive material.

In 1997, the Commission directed its staff to re-evaluate this alternative and identify the technical requirements and regulatory actions that would be necessary for entombment to become a viable option. The resulting evaluation provided several recommendations, however, rulemaking has been deferred pending the completion of additional research studies, e.g., on engineered barriers.In 1996, the NRC published revisions to the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plants to clarify ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and. uniformity in the decommissioning process. [71 The amendments allow for greater public participation and better define the transition process from operations to decommissioning.

Regulatory Guide 1.184, issued in July 2000, further described the methods and procedures acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing the requirements of the 1996 revised rule relating to the initial activities and major phases of the decommissioning process. The costs and schedules presented in this analysis follow the general guidance and processes described in the amended regulations.

4 Ibid. Page FR24022, Column 3.5 Ibid 6 Ibid. Page FR24023, Column 2.7 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 2, 50, and 51, "Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 61, (p 39278 et seq.), July 29, 1996.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page ix of xvi Decommissioning Scenarios Three decommissioning scenarios were evaluated for the nuclear unit. In all cases, there was some consideration of the decommissioning activities planned at the adjacent Unit 1. However, the scenarios selected are representative of alternatives available to the owner and are defined as follows: 1. Delayed DECON: One of the decommissioning alternatives for Unit 1 is to defer decommissioning until the spent fuel has been removed from the site.[8 I This scenario assumes that the decontamination and dismantling activities at TMI-2 are synchronized with the adjacent unit such that the licenses for both units are terminated concurrently.

2. Custodial SAFSTOR: In the second scenario, TMI-1 is placed into long-term storage. TMI-2 remains in storage until such time that decommissioning activities can be coordinated with Unit 1. As with the first scenario, termination of the licenses is coordinated.

3. Hardened SAFSTOR: This scenario assumes that Unit 1 is promptly decommissioned when it ceases operations in 2034. In coordination with the Unit 1 activities, the TMI-2 reactor building is reconfigured for long-term, passive storage. Site structures and facilities, with the exception of the reactor building, are decontaminated and dismantled.

The reactor building and its contents are secured and the site is reconfigured for monitored surveillance.

Decontamination and final dismantling of the reactor building is deferred for approximately 100 years (from Unit 1 shutdown).

The scenarios assume that Exelon Generation will be successful in extending the operating license at the adjacent Unit 1 to 2034.[91 The scenarios are also based upon the premise that decommissioning work at Unit 2 would not begin prior to final shutdown of Unit 1 in 2034, consistent with the agreement between Exelon and FirstEnergy.

Methodology The methodology used to develop the estimates described within this document follows the basic approach originally presented in the cost estimating guidelines

[10] developed by the Atomic Industrial Forum (now Nuclear Energy Institute).

This reference describes a unit factor method for determining decommissioning activity costs. The 8 Timelines for the Unit 1 decommissioning scenarios are included in Section 4 of this report.9 Application for TMI-1 license renewal received by the NRC on January 8, 2008 10 T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page x of xvi unit factors used in this analysis incorporate site-specific costs and the latest available information on worker productivity in decommissioning.

An activity duration critical path is used to determine the total decommissioning program schedule.

The schedule is relied upon in calculating the carrying costs, which include program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental, and support services such as quality control and security.

This systematic approach for assembling decommissioning estimates ensures a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the resulting cost estimate.Contingency Consistent with cost estimating practice, contingencies are applied to the decontamination and dismantling costs developed 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." 1 1 1 1 The cost elements in the estimates 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 analysis, does not account for price escalation and inflation in the cost of decommissioning over the time intervals identified for each scenario.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. Inclusion of contingency is necessary to provide assurance that sufficient funding will be available to accomplish the intended tasks.Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal The contaminated and activated material generated in the decontamination and dismantling of a commercial nuclear reactor is classified as low-level (radioactive) waste, although not all of the waste is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal.

With the passage of the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" in 1980,[121 and its Amendments of 1985, [13] the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders.Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, p. 239.12 "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980," Public Law 96-573, 1980.13 "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, 1986.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page xi of xvi Until recently, there were two facilities available to FirstEnergy for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated by TMI-2. As of July 1, 2008, however, the facility in Barnwell, South Carolina was closed to generators outside the Atlantic Compact (comprised of the states of Connecticut, New Jersey and South Carolina).

This leaves the facility in Clive, Utah, operated by EnergySolutions, as the only available destination for low-level radioactive waste requiring controlled disposal.EnergySolutions does not have a license to dispose of the more highly radioactive waste (Class B and C as defined by 10 CFR §61) generated in the decontamination and dismantling of the reactor vessel. In the interim (at least until new waste disposal options become available) and for purposes of this analysis, waste disposal costs for this material are based upon the last available Non-Atlantic Compact tariff for disposal at the Barnwell site.Waste exceeding Class C limits (limited to material closest to the reactor core, or material contaminated with spent fuel debris from the March 1979 accident) is generally not suitable for shallow-land disposal.

This material is packaged in the same multipurpose canisters used for spent fuel storage/transport and designated for geologic disposal.A significant portion of the metallic waste generated during decommissioning may only be potentially contaminated by radioactive materials.

This waste can be surveyed on site or shipped off site to licensed facilities for further analysis, for processing and/or for conditioning/recovery.

Reduction in the volume of low-level radioactive waste requiring disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility can be accomplished through a variety of methods, including analyses and surveys or decontamination to eliminate the portion of waste that does not require disposal as radioactive waste, compaction, incineration or metal melt. The estimates reflect the savings from waste recovery/volume reduction.

Fuel-Bearing Waste Management There will be some wastes generated in the decommissioning of TMI-2 that are not suitable for shallow land burial and therefore cannot be shipped for disposal to EnergySolutions.

This material, primarily associated with systems and structures contaminated with fuel debris, requires greater isolation from the environment.

For estimating purposes, a geologic waste repository, or some interim storage facility, is assumed to be available for the disposal of this material.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page xii of xvi Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act"[1 4 1 (NWPA) in 1982, assigning the federal government's long-standing responsibility for disposal of the spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the DOE. The NWPA provided that DOE would enter into contracts with utilities in which DOE would promise to take the utilities' spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste and utilities would pay the cost of the disposition services for that material.

The NWPA, along with the individual contracts with the utilities, specified that the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998.Since the original legislation, the DOE has announced several delays in the program schedule.

By January 1998, the DOE had failed to accept any spent fuel or high level waste, as required by the NWPA and utility contracts.

Delays continue and, as a result, generators have initiated legal action against the DOE in an attempt to obtain compensation for DOE's breach of contract.Operation of DOE's yet-to-be constructed repository is contingent upon the review and approval of the facility's license application by the NRC and the successful resolution of pending litigation.

The DOE submitted its license application to the NRC on June 3, 2008, seeking authorization to construct the repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada.Assuming a timely review and adequate funding, the DOE expects that receipt of fuel could begin as early as 2020.[15]The estimates for TMI-2 assume the timely removal of waste designated for geologic disposal, without the need for on site interim storage (once containerized).

Site Restoration The efficient removal of the contaminated materials at the site may result in damage to many of the site structures.

Blasting, coring, drilling, and the other decontamination activities will substantially damage power block structures, potentially weakening the footings and structural supports.

Prompt demolition once the license is terminated 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 is more efficient and less costly than if the process were deferred.

Experience at shutdown generating stations has shown that plant facilities quickly degrade without maintenance, adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public and the demolition work force. Consequently, this 14 "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," DOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, 1982 15 "Project Decision Schedule", DOE/RW-0604, U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, January 2009 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page xiii of xvi analysis assumes that non-essential site structures within the restricted access area are removed. The site is then backfilled, graded and stabilized.

Summary The costs to decommission TMI-2 are evaluated for three decommissioning scenarios.

Regardless of the timing of the decommissioning activities, the estimates assume the eventual removal of all the contaminated and activated plant components and structural materials, such that the facility operator may then have unrestricted use of the site with no further requirement for an license.The scenarios analyzed for the purpose of generating the estimates are described in Section 2. The assumptions are presented in Section 3, along with schedules of annual expenditures.

The major cost contributors are identified in Section 6, with detailed activity costs, waste volumes, and associated manpower requirements delineated in Appendices C, D, and E. Cost summaries for the various scenarios are provided at the end of this section for the major cost components.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Page xiv of xvi DELAYED DECON COST

SUMMARY

DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)Cost Element Total Decontamination 31,577 Packaging 17,232 Transportation 20,609 Waste Disposal 173,363 Off-site Waste Processing 10,217 Program Management

[2] 371,633 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 17,868 Energy 13,769 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 12,996 Property Taxes Miscellaneous Equipment 23,169 Site O&M 2,929 Total [3] 844,884 Cost Element NRC License Termination 813,986 Site Restoration 30,898 Total [31 844,884[1] Includes dormancy costs following TMI-1 shutdown in 2034[21 Includes engineering and security costs[31 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Page xv of xvi CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR COST

SUMMARY

DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)Cost Element Total Decontamination 31,532_P a k a g n g --1 .............................................

...... .... ........ .... .............

.............

..........

.1 7 ,47.6.. ...Packagn 17,476 Transportation 20,807 Waste Disposal 173,544 Off-site Waste Processing 10,363 Program Management

[21 401,769 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 40,727 Energy 24,931 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 12,996 Property Taxes Miscellaneous Equipment 30,133 Site O&M 2,936 Total [3] 922,772 Cost Element License Termination 891,874 Site Restoration 30,898 Total [31 922,772 Ill Includes dormancy costs following TMI-1 shutdown in 2034[2] Includes engineering and security costs[31 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Page xvi of xvi HARDENED SAFSTOR COST

SUMMARY

DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)Cost Element Total Decontamination 32,560 Removal 163,304 Packaging 17,312 Transportation 21,039 Waste Disposal 1.75,045 Off-site Waste Processing

.11,393 Program Management

[21 528,931 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 65,915 Energy 39,412 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 13,528 Property Taxes Miscellaneous Equpment 34,950 Site O&M 4,598 Off-site monitoring

& security services 46,406 Total [3] 1,154,392 Cost Element License Termination 1,108,156 Site Restoration 46,236 Total [31 1,154,392[1] Includes dormancy costs following TMI-1 shutdown in 2034[21 Includes engineering and security costs[31 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page I of 12 1. INTRODUCTION This report presents estimates of the cost to decommission the Three Mile Island Unit 2 nuclear unit (TMI-2) for the scenarios described in Section 2. This analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information, originally developed in an evaluation for the GPU Nuclear Corporation in 1995-96 [1]*, and first updated in 2003 for FirstEnergy Corporation

[2]. The analysis is designed to provide the FirstEnergy Corporation with sufficient information to assess its financial obligations, as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear unit. It is not a detailed engineering document, but a financial analysis prepared in advance of the detailed engineering that will be required to carry out the decommissioning.

1.1 OBJECTIVES

OF STUDY The objective of this study was to prepare estimates of the cost, schedule, and waste volumes generated to decommission TMI-2, including all areas affected by the March 1979 accident.Three decommissioning scenarios were evaluated for TMI-2. In each scenario decommissioning activities are coordinated with the adjacent operating unit (TMI-1 or Unit 1). The scenarios assume that Exelon Generation will be successful in extending the Unit 1 operating license to 2034. The three scenarios are also based upon the premise that decommissioning work at Unit 2 would not begin prior to final shutdown of Unit 1 in 2034, consistent with the agreement between Exelon and FirstEnergy.

The base scenario assumes that TMI-1 is decommissioned following the removal of spent fuel from the site. The decommissioning program for TMI-2 runs concurrently with the TMI-1 decommissioning effort and concludes with the termination of both licenses.

This scenario is subsequently referred to as"Delayed DECON." The second scenario assumes that TMI-1 is placed into safe-storage with decommissioning deferred 60 years. TMI-2 remains in storage with decommissioning deferred until it can be sequenced with TMI-1. This scenario is subsequently referred to as "Custodial SAFSTOR." The final scenario assumes that TMI-1 is promptly decommissioned upon the scheduled cessation of operations in 2034. The reactor building at TMI-2 is modified for long-term, passive storage with all other Unit 2 facilities

.Annotated references for citations in Sections 1-6 are provided in Section 7.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 2 of 12 decontaminated and dismantled.

Remediation of the reactor building is deferred for a period of approximately 100 years at which time it is decontaminated and dismantled.

This scenario is subsequently referred to as"Hardened SAFSTOR." 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION TMI-2 is located on the northern-most section of Three Mile Island near the east shore of the Susquehanna River in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania.

The station is comprised of two pressurized water reactors.

This study specifically addresses the decommissioning requirements for Unit 2, although the timing of each scenario is dependent upon the associated activities at the adjacent unit.The nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) consists of a pressurized water reactor rated at a core thermal power level of 2772 MWth with a corresponding turbine-generator gross output of 959 MWe. The NSSS consists of the reactor with two independent primary coolant loops, each containing two reactor coolant pumps and a steam generator.

An electrically heated pressurizer and connecting piping complete the system. The system is housed within a steel-lined, post-tensioned concrete structure (reactor building) in the shape of a right, vertical cylinder with a hemispherical dome and a flat, reinforced concrete basemat. A welded steel liner plate, anchored to the inside face of the reactor building, serves as a leak-tight membrane.Heat produced in the reactor was converted to electrical energy by the turbine generator system. This system converted the thermal energy of the steam into mechanical shaft power and then into electrical energy. The turbine-generator is a tandem-compound design, consisting of one double-flow, high pressure turbine and two double-flow, low-pressure turbines driving a directly coupled generator at 1800 rpm. The turbine operated in a closed feedwater cycle where steam was condensed, feedwater heated, and ultimately returned to the steam generators.

Heat rejected in the main condensers was removed by the condenser circulating and river water systems.The condenser circulating water was cooled in two hyperbolic natural draft cooling towers located to the east of the station. The towers provided the heat sink required for removal of waste heat in the power plant's thermal cycle.Cooling tower blowdown was discharged to the Susquehanna River.TMI-2's operating license was issued on February 8, 1978, with commercial operation declared on December 30, 1978. On March 28, 1979, the unit experienced an accident initiated by interruption of secondary feedwater flow.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 3 of 12 The steam generator boiled dry, resulting in the reduction of primary-to-secondary heat exchange.

This caused an increase in the primary coolant temperature, creating a surge into the pressurizer, and an increase in system pressure.

The pilot operated relief valve (PORV) opened to relieve the pressure, but failed to close when the pressure decreased.

The reactor coolant pumps were turned off and a core heat-up began as the water level decreased to uncover the top of the core. The melting temperature of the zircaloy fuel cladding was exceeded, resulting in relocation of the molten zircaloy and some liquefied fuel to the lower core regions, solidifying near the coolant interface.

Based on the end-state core and core support assembly configuration and supporting analysis of the degraded core heat-up, it is believed that as the crust failed, molten core material migrated to the lower internals.

The majority of the molten material flowed down through the region of the southeastern assemblies and into the core bypass region. A portion of the molten core material flowed around the bypass region and migrated down into the lower internals and lower head region. Limited damage to the core support assembly occurred as the core material flowed to the lower plenum. It is estimated that about 17 -20 tons of material relocated to the lower internals and lower head region. Several in-core instrument guide tubes were melted but overall vessel integrity was maintained throughout the accident.As a result of this accident, small quantities of core debris and fission products were transported through the RCS and the reactor building.

as a result of the coolant flow through the PORV and the makeup and purification system (MU&P) during the accident.

In addition, a small quantity of core debris was transported to the auxiliary and fuel handling buildings (AFHB) via the MU&P. Further spread of the debris also occurred as part of the post-accident water processing cleanup activities.

GPU Nuclear conducted a substantial program to defuel the reactor vessel and decontaminate the facility.

As a result, TMI-2 has been placed in a safe, inherently stable condition suitable for long-term management, and any threat to the public health and safety has been eliminated.

Fuel and core material removed in the defueling has been shipped off site. The current long-term management condition is termed Post-Defueling Monitored Storage (PDMS).The costs for maintaining TMI-2 in this state until the onset of Unit 2 decommissioning is accrued in a separate nuclear liability account by FirstEnergy and therefore is not included in the cost estimates in this analysis.Substantial contaminated areas still exist under the PDMS, as well as trace quantities of spent nuclear fuel (SNF). Several cubicles in the auxiliary and fuel handling buildings remain locked, and the basement of the reactor building has been uninhabitable since the accident.

The quantity of fuel TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 4 of 12 remaining at TMI-2 is a small fraction of the initial fuel load; approximately 99% was successfully removed in the defueling.

Additionally large quantities of radioactive fission products were released into various systems and structures.

Most of this radioactivity was removed as part of the waste processing activities during the TMI-2 Clean-up Program which concluded with entry into Post-Defueling Monitored Storage in December 1993.Significant quantities of radioactive fission products were removed from the reactor coolant system in preparation for the PDMS. However, the remaining 1% of the fuel and the remaining fission products pose unique problems in completing the decommissioning of TMI-2. A summary of the quantity and suspected location of the remaining fuel debris is provided in Tables 1.1 through 1.3.1.3 REGULATORY GUIDANCE The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) provided initial decommissioning requirements in its rule "General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," issued in June 1988 [3]. This rule set forth financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear power facilities.

The regulation addressed decommissioning planning needs, timing, 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 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,"[41 which provided additional guidance to the licensees of nuclear facilities on the-financial 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.The rule defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC: DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB. The DECON alternative, the option evaluated for this analysis, assumes that any contaminated or activated portion of the plant's systems, structures, and facilities are removed or decontaminated to levels that permit the site to be released for unrestricted use shortly after the cessation of plant operations.

The rule also 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 health and safety. The guidelines for ENTOMB are similar, providing the NRC 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 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 5 of 12 decommissioning.

At the conclusion of a 60-year dormancy period (or longer for ENTOMB if the NRC approves such a case), the site would still require significant remediation to meet the. unrestricted release limits for license termination.

To use a decommissioning scenario in which the license has not been terminated within 60 years of the final shutdown date, FirstEnergy will need Commission approval pursuant to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) for completion of decommissioning beyond 60 years.The ENTOMB alternative has not been viewed as a viable option for power reactors due to the significant time required to isolate the long-lived radionuclides for decay to permissible levels. However, with recent rulemaking permitting the controlled release of a site, the NRC has re-evaluated this alternative.[

5 I The resulting feasibility study, based upon an assessment by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, concluded that the method did have conditional merit for some, if not most, reactors.[

6 I However, the staff also found that additional rulemaking would be needed before this option could be treated as a generic alternative.

Rulemaking has been deferred pending the completion of additional research studies, e.g., on engineered barriers.However, this study assumes that the ENTOMB alternative is a viable option for TMI-2 and that a storage period of 100 years would be acceptable.

The NRC published revisions to the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plants in 1996.171 When the regulations were adopted in 1988, it was assumed that the majority of licensees would decommission at the end of the facility's licensed life. Since that time, several licensees permanently and prematurely ceased operations.

Exemptions from certain operating requirements were required once the reactor was defueled to facilitate the decommissioning.

Each case was handled individually, without clearly defined generic requirements.

The NRC amended the decommissioning regulations in 1996 to clarify ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and uniformity in the decommissioning process. The new amendments allow for greater public participation and better define the transition process from operations to decommissioning.

1.3.1 Nuclear

Waste Policy Act Congress passed the Nuclear Waste Policy Act[8] (NWPA) in 1982, assigning the responsibility for disposal of the spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Two permanent disposal facilities and an interim storage facility were envisioned.

To recover the cost, the legislation created a Nuclear Waste Fund through which money is collected from the sale of electricity generated by the power plants. The NWPA, along with the TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 6 of 12 individual disposal contracts with the utilities, specified that the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998.Since the original legislation, the DOE has announced several delays in the program schedule.

By January 1998, the DOE had failed to accept any spent fuel or high level waste, as required by the NWPA and utility contracts.

Delays continue and, as a result, generators have initiated legal action against the DOE in an attempt to obtain compensation for DOE's breach of contract.Operation of DOE's yet-to-be constructed repository is contingent upon the review and approval of the facility's license application by the NRC and the successful resolution of pending litigation.

The DOE submitted its license application to the NRC on June 3, 2008, seeking authorization to construct the repository at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. Assuming a timely review and adequate funding, the DOE expects that receipt of fuel could begin as early as 2020.[91 The estimates for TMI-2 assume the timely removal of waste designated for geologic disposal, without the need for interim on site storage (once containerized).

1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Acts The contaminated and activated material generated in the decontamination 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.

Congress passed the"Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" in 1980,[110 declaring the states as being ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-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 for implementation.

After little progress, the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985,"[11]

extended the implementation schedule, with specific milestones and stiff sanctions for non-compliance.

However, to date, no new compact facilities have been successfully sited, licensed, and constructed.

Until recently, there were two facilities available to FirstEnergy for the disposal of low-level radioactive waste generated by TMI-2. As of July 1, 2008, however, the facility in Barnwell, South Carolina was closed to generators outside the Atlantic Compact (comprised of the states of TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 7 of 12 Connecticut, New Jersey and South Carolina).

This leaves the facility in Clive, Utah, operated by EnergySolutions, as the only available destination for low-level radioactive waste requiring controlled disposal.EnergySolutions does not have a license to dispose of the more highly radioactive waste (Class B and C as defined by 10 CFR §61) generated in the dismantling of the reactor vessel. In the interim (at least until new waste disposal options become available) and for purposes of this analysis, waste disposal costs for this material are based upon the last available Non-Atlantic Compact tariff for disposal at the Barnwell site.Material exceeding Class C limits (limited to material closest to the reactor core, or material contaminated with spent fuel debris) is generally not suitable for shallow-land disposal.

This material is packaged in the same multipurpose canisters used for spent fuel storage/transport and designated for geologic disposal.A significant portion of the metallic waste generated during decommissioning may only be potentially contaminated by radioactive materials.

This waste can be surveyed on site or shipped off site to licensed facilities for further analysis, for processing and/or for conditioning/recovery.

Reduction in the volume of low-level radioactive waste requiring disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility can be accomplished through a variety of methods, including analyses and surveys or decontamination to eliminate the portion of waste that does not require disposal as radioactive waste, compaction, incineration or metal melt. The estimates reflect the savings from waste recovery/volume reduction.

1.3.3 Radiological

Criteria for License Termination In 1997, the NRC published Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination,"[1 2] amending 10 CFR §20. This subpart provides radiological criteria for releasing a facility for unrestricted use. The regulation states that the site can be released for unrestricted use if radioactivity levels are such that the average member of a critical group would not receive a Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) in excess of 25 millirem per year, and provided that residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).The decommissioning estimates for TMI-2 assume that the site will be remediated to a residual level consistent with the NRC-prescribed level." TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 1, Page 8 of 12 It should be noted that the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) differ on the amount of residual radioactivity considered acceptable in site remediation.

The EPA has two limits that apply to radioactive materials.

An EPA limit of 15 millirem per year is derived from criteria established by the Comprehensive.

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).[

1 3 1 An additional limit of 4 millirem per year, as defined in 40 CFR §141.16, is applied to drinking water.[1 4]On October 9, 2002, the NRC signed an agreement with the EPA on the radiological decommissioning and decontamination of NRC-licensed sites. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) [151 provides that EPA will defer exercise of authority under CERCLA for the majority of facilities decommissioned under NRC authority.

The MOU also includes provisions for NRC and EPA consultation for certain sites when, at the time of license termination, (1) groundwater contamination exceeds EPA-permitted levels; (2) NRC contemplates restricted release of the site; and/or (3) residual radioactive soil concentrations exceed levels defined in the MOU.The MOU does not impose any new requirements on NRC licensees and should reduce the involvement of the EPA with NRC licensees who are decommissioning.

Most sites are expected to meet the NRC criteria for unrestricted use, and the NRC believes that only a few sites will have groundwater or soil contamination in excess of the levels specified in the MOU that trigger consultation with the EPA. However, if there are other hazardous materials on the site, the EPA may be involved inthe cleanup. As such, the possibility of dual regulation remains for certain licensees.

The present study does not include any costs for this occurrence.

TLG Services, Inc.

Section 1, Pages 9, 10, 11, and 12 are redacted as they contain sensitive unclassified non-safeguards information.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 1 of 10 2. DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES Detailed cost estimates were developed to decommission TMI-2 for three scenarios.

Although the alternatives differ with respect to technique, process, cost, and schedule, they attain the same result: the ultimate release of the site for unrestricted use.Three decommissioning scenarios were evaluated for the nuclear unit. The scenarios assume that Exelon Generation will be successful in extending the operating license for Unit 1 to 2034. The scenarios are defined as follows: 1. Delayed DECON: One of the decommissioning alternatives for Unit 1 is to defer decommissioning until the spent fuel has been removed from the site.This scenario assumes that the decontamination and dismantling activities at TMI-2 are synchronized with the adjacent unit such that the licenses for both units are terminated concurrently.

2. Custodial SAFSTOR: In the second scenario, TMI-1 is placed into long-term storage. TMI-2 remains in storage until such time that decommissioning activities can be coordinated with Unit 1. As with the first scenario, termination of the licenses is coordinated.

3. Hardened SAFSTOR: This scenario assumes that Unit 1 is promptly decommissioned when it ceases operations in 2034. In coordination with the Unit 1 activities, the TMI-2 reactor building is reconfigured for long-term, passive storage. Site structures and facilities, with the exception of the reactor building, are decontaminated and dismantled.

The reactor building and its contents are secured and the site is reconfigured for monitored surveillance.

Decontamination and final dismantling of the reactor building is deferred for approximately 100 years (from Unit 1 shutdown).

For each of the three scenarios described above, dormancy costs are accrued from the cessation of TMI-1 operations.

This means that the current PDMS costs are not included within the reported decommissioning costs.The following sections describe the basic activities associated with each alternative.

The first two scenarios are essentially identical.

The technical assumptions are unchanged with the only difference in the second scenario being the delay in start of decommissioning expenditures and the additional storage cost during the delay period. The third scenario reduces the controlled area to the reactor building, similar to that envisioned for an entombment alternative, without the extensive engineered barriers.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 2 of 10 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 conceptual approach that the NRC has described in its regulations divides decommissioning into three phases. The initial phase addresses the transition of reactor operations (i.e., power production) to facility de-activation and closure. The second phase encompasses activities during the storage period or during major decommissioning activities, or a combination of the two. The third phase pertains to the activities involved in license termination.

The decommissioning estimates developed for TMI-2 are also divided into phases or periods; however, demarcation of the phases is based upon major milestones within the project or significant changes in the projected expenditures.

2.1 DELAYED

DECON The TMI-2 plant has effectively been placed in a SAFSTOR condition since the completion of the spent fuel removal activities and beginning of the PDMS.However, the engineering and planning requirements for completing the decommissioning process are similar to those for a DECON alternative.

Unit 2 decommissioning operations are integrated with Unit l's spent fuel transfer campaign such that the licenses are terminated concurrently.

2.1.1 Period

2 -Dormancy The dormancy costs included in this estimate are limited to monitoring activities only. Although TMI-2 has been in a dormant condition since entry into Post-Defueling Monitored Storage in December 1993, this estimate only includes those costs for maintaining the unit subsequent to the currently scheduled cessation of operations at Unit 1 in April of 2034 (i.e., current costs are not included).

Security during the dormancy period is conducted primarily to prevent unauthorized entry and to protect the public from the consequences of its own actions. Security is provided by fences, sensors, alarms, and other surveillance equipment.

Fire and radiation alarms are also monitored.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 3 of 10 2.1'.2 Period 3 -Preparations Preparations include the planning for the removal of the remaining fuel-bearing components, decontamination of the structures and the dismantling of the remaining equipment and facilities.

Typically, the process is described within a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) or a Decommissioning Plan (DP). Although the exact format and content of the decommissioning planning document has not been identified, as a minimum Technical Specification 3.2.1.1 requires NRC approval prior to removal of greater than 42 kilograms of fuel from the reactor vessel. Thus in addition to the planning document, changes may be required to the existing technical specifications prior to the start of major decommissioning activities.

Engineering and Planning The decommissioning program outlined in the PSDAR or DP will be designed to accomplish the required tasks within the ALARA guidelines (as defined in 10 CFR §20) for protection of personnel from exposure to radiation hazards. It will also address the continued protection of the health and safety of the public and the environment during the dismantling activity.

Consequently, with the development of the decommissioning plan, activity specifications, cost-benefit and safety analyses, and work packages and procedures, would be assembled to support the proposed decontamination and dismantling activities.

The estimate assumes that FirstEnergy will provide project oversight.

However, the majority of the professional, managerial, technical and administrative support staff will be provided by a decommissioning operations contractor (DOC).Site Preparations In preparation for active decommissioning, the following activities are initiated:

Characterization of the site and surrounding environs.

This includes radiation surveys of the reactor building including:

the basement and elevator block wall area, areas surrounding major components (including the reactor vessel and its internals, steam generators), internal piping, and primary shield cores. Surveys of the auxiliary and fuel handling building with emphasis on areas with known and potential alpha contamination and know fission TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 4 of 10 products.

Surveys and sample analysis will also be performed on exterior buildings, land areas surrounding the facility, subsurface soil and groundwater.

• Specification of transport and disposal requirements for highly radioactive waste and/or hazardous waste, including shielding and waste stabilization.

• Development of procedures for occupational exposure control, control and release of liquid and gaseous effluent, processing of radwaste (including dry-active waste, resins, filter media, metallic and non-metallic components generated in decommissioning), site security and emergency programs, and industrial safety.2.1.3 Period 4 -Decommissioning Operations This period includes the physical decommissioning activities associated with the removal and disposal of contaminated and highly radioactive components and structures, including the successful termination of the license. Significant decommissioning activities in this phase include:* Construction of temporary facilities and/or modification of existing facilities to support dismantling activities.

This may include a centralized processing area to facilitate equipment removal and component preparations for off-site disposal." Refurbishment of the containment air control envelope building located outside the reactor building equipment hatch. A prefabricated metal containment building located on the 305' level of the reactor building will be required for the handling of highly contaminated material being removed from the basement or the operating deck elevations." Modification of the containment structure to facilitate handling of large equipment.

This will include an evaluation to determine whether a temporary crane should be installed or whether the existing polar crane should be refurbished (the reactor vessel head will be the heaviest lift under the current removal scenario with the in-situ segmentation of the reactor vessel and steam generators)." Reconfiguration and modification of site structures and facilities as needed to support decommissioning operations.

This may include the upgrading of roads and rail facilities (on- and off-site) to facilitate hauling and transport.

Modifications may also be required to the refueling area of the building to support the segmentation of the reactor vessel internals and component extraction.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 5 of 10" Design and fabrication of temporary and permanent shielding to support removal and transportation activities, construction of contamination control envelopes, and the procurement of specialty tooling.* Procurement (lease or purchase) of shipping canisters, cask liners, and industrial packages.* Decontamination of components and structures as required to control (minimize) worker exposure.* Decontamination of the reactor building so as to reduce working area dose rates and improve working conditions.

The reactor building basement is known to be highly contaminated and will require remote operations and tooling for the initial decontamination effort.* Inventory, decontamination and removal of legacy equipment inventory left over from the defueling campaign.* Installation of a water processing system to filter and treat water from the reactor coolant system and fuel handling pool.* Removal of piping and components no longer essential to support decommissioning operations.

• Removal of control rod drive housings and the head service structure from reactor vessel head. Segmentation of the vessel closure head." Segmentation of the upper internals assemblies.

The plenum is currently stored in the fuel transfer canal. Segmentation will maximize the loading of the shielded transport casks, i.e., by weight and activity.

The operations are conducted under water using remotely operated tooling and contamination controls.* Disassembly and segmentation of the remaining reactor internals, including the core former and lower core support assembly.

All internals components below the top of the fuel are expected to exceed Class C disposal requirements due to fuel contamination.

As such, the segments will be packaged in modified fuel storage canisters for geologic disposal.* Segmentation of the reactor vessel. A shielded platform is installed for segmentation as cutting operations are performed in-air using remotely operated equipment within a contamination control envelope.

The water level is maintained just below the cut to minimize the working area dose rates. Segments are transferred in-TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 6 of 10 air to containers that are stored under water, for example, in an isolated area of the refueling canal.* Removal of the steam generators and pressurizer for material recovery and controlled disposal.

Due to the high internal and external radioactivity, these components can not serve as their own shipping containers.

The steam generators are assumed to be segmented in-place.

The pressurizer is assumed to be cut in half and shipped in a sealed and shielded shipping and burial container.

Steel shielding will be added, as necessary, to those external areas of the package to meet transportation limits and regulations.

• Removal of free standing concrete structures in the reactor building.* Removal of the remaining internal structures within the reactor building including:

the polar crane, inner pools and wall liners, biological shield, D-rings, floors and walls.At least two years prior to the anticipated date of license termination, a License Termination Plan (LTP) is required.

Submitted as a supplement to the FSAR or its equivalent, the plan must include: a site characterization, description of the remaining dismantling activities, plans for site remediation, procedures for the final radiation survey, designation of the end use of the site, an updated cost estimate to complete the decommissioning, and any associated environmental concerns.

The NRC will notice the receipt of the plan, make the plan available for public comment, and schedule a local hearing. LTP approval will be subject to any conditions and limitations as deemed appropriate by the Commission.

The licensee may then commence with the final remediation of site facilities and services, including: " Removal of remaining plant systems and associated components as they become nonessential to the decommissioning program or worker health and safety (e.g., waste collection and treatment systems, electrical power and ventilation systems)." Processing of the structural material in the reactor, auxiliary and fuel handling buildings.

Approximately 90% of the concrete removed at this stage is assumed to meet free release criteria.

The remainder is sent to a waste processor.

The free-released concrete is available as fill. Excess concrete and scrap metals are disposed of in an industrial landfill.* Removal of contaminated yard piping and any contaminated soil.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 7 of 10* Transfer of greater-than-Class C (GTCC) material to the DOE.* Surveys of the decontaminated areas not designated for complete removal and disposal.Remediation and removal of the contaminated equipment and material from the auxiliary and fuel buildings and any other contaminated facility.

Certain areas in the auxiliary and spent fuel handling buildings contain very high contamination and radiation levels and will require additional resource and increased radiological protection to complete the decontamination.

Radiation and contamination controls will be utilized until residual levels indicate that the structures and equipment can be released for unrestricted access and conventional demolition.

This activity may necessitate the dismantling and disposition of most of the systems and components (both clean and contaminated) located within these buildings.

This activity facilitates surface decontamination and subsequent verification surveys required prior to obtaining release for demolition.

Material that is designated as scrap or general disposal (survey and release) is transferred to a designed waste processing vendor for a confirmatory survey and, if permitted, released for unrestricted disposition.

Contaminated material is characterized and segregated for additional off-site processing (disassembly, chemical cleaning, volume reduction, and waste treatment), and/or packaged for controlled disposal at a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.Incorporated into the LTP is the Final Survey Plan. This plan identifies the radiological surveys to be performed once the decontamination activities are completed and is developed using the guidance provided in the "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)."[171 This document incorporates the statistical approaches to survey design and data interpretation used by the EPA. It also identifies state-of-the-art, commercially available instrumentation and procedures for conducting radiological surveys. Use of this guidance ensures that the surveys are conducted in a manner that provides a high degree of confidence that applicable 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 information, performs an independent confirmation of radiological site conditions, and makes a determination on final termination of the license.The NRC will terminate the license if it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with the LTP, and that TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 8 of 10 the terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release.2.1.4 Period 5 -Site Restoration Following completion of decommissioning operations, site restoration activities will begin. Efficient 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 remaining structures.

Prompt dismantling of remaining site structures 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 than if the process were deferred.

Site facilities quickly degrade without maintenance, adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public as well as to future workers. Abandonment creates a breeding ground for vermin infestation as well as other biological hazards.This cost study presumes that non-essential structures and site facilities are dismantled as a continuation of the decommissioning activity.Foundations and exterior walls are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade. The three-foot depth allows for the placement of gravel for drainage, as well as topsoil, so that vegetation can be established for erosion control. Site areas affected by the dismantling activities are restored and the plant area graded as required to prevent ponding and inhibit the refloating of subsurface materials.

Concrete rubble produced by demolition activities is processed to remove rebar and miscellaneous embedments.

The processed material is then used, on site to backfill voids. Excess materials are trucked to an off-site area for disposal as construction debris.2.2 CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR The decontamination and dismantling activities in this scenario are identical to those described in Section 2.1 for Delayed DECON. However, the start of active decommissioning is deferred to coordinate with the timing of the Unit 1 SAFSTOR scenario.

As such, the duration of the dormancy period is significantly longer and the storage costs correspondingly greater.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 2, Page 9 of 10 While it is expected that radiation dose levels will decrease over the duration of the longer dormancy period, the nature of radionuclides involved and the difficulties in working in plant areas contaminated with these radionuclides will require similar operational and radiological controls to those envisioned for earlier scenario.

As such, there have been no changes incorporated into the costs to perform the field decommissioning activities identified in Section 2.1 for this scenario.2.3 HARDENED SAFSTOR This scenario is similar to what has been generally described as the ENTOMB option. The NRC has defined the ENTOMB option as "the alternative in which radioactive contaminants 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." As with the SAFSTOR alternative, decommissioning is currently required to be completed within 60 years. However, durations of up to 100 years may be considered where there are demonstrated benefits to the safety and health of the public.This option reduces the long-term radiological footprint on the site by contracting the controlled area to the reactor building.

Contamination outside this area is removed in the early stages of Hardened SAFSTOR decommissioning, concurrent with the decommissioning of Unit 1. Removal activities are performed in a similar fashion to their counterparts in the Delayed DECON scenario.

Upon completion of the process, the reactor building is sealed with appropriate security and monitoring measures installed.

As in the Delayed DECON and Custodial SAFSTOR dormancies, the purpose of the dormancy period is to isolate the contamination on site, and to protect the public from the consequences of their own actions. The difference between the Hardened SAFSTOR dormancy and the other two scenarios is that generally the site is uninhabited; security and radiation monitoring are performed remotely.Following the end of the Hardened SAFSTOR dormancy period, the reactor building and its contents are removed and disposed of in a similar fashion as discussed in the Delayed DECON scenario.

Following the termination of the license and the limited restoration of the affected area, the site is available for unrestricted, alternative use.While it is expected that radiation dose levels will decrease over the dormancy period, the nature of radionuclides involved and the difficulties in working in TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601.002, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 10 of 10 plant areas contaminated with these radionuclides will require similar operational and radiological controls to those envisioned for earlier scenario.As such, there have been no changes incorporated into the costs to perform the field decommissioning activities identified in Section 2.1 for this scenario.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 1 of 27 3. COST ESTIMATE The cost estimates prepared for decommissioning TMI-2 consider the radiological status, unique conditions of the site, including the NSSS, power generation systems, support services, site buildings, and ancillary facilities.

The basis of the estimates, including the sources of information relied upon, the estimating methodology employed, site-specific considerations, and other pertinent assumptions, is described in this section.3.1 BASIS OF ESTIMATE The estimates rely upon site-specific, technical information originally developed in an evaluation prepared for the GPU Nuclear Corporation in 1995-96, and updated for FirstEnergy in 2003. The information was reviewed for the current analysis and updated as deemed appropriate.

The site-specific considerations and assumptions used in the previous evaluation were also revisited.

Modifications were incorporated where new information was available or experience from ongoing decommissioning programs provided viable alternatives or improved processes.

Some of the technical assumptions that were used are due to the unique nature and characteristics of the plant as a result of the March 1979 accident.Following the accident, TMI-2 was defueled and extensive decontamination activities were performed.

This successfully removed approximately 99% of the original fuel and resulting fuel debris. Removal of the residual 1% was neither cost effective nor warranted due to the high radiation fields in the reactor building and adjoining auxiliary and fuel handling buildings.

The remaining equipment and components containing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) will be removed, sealed and/or encapsulated in preparation for disposal during the decommissioning program.3.2 METHODOLOGY The methodology used to develop the estimates follows the basic approach originally presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study report, "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates,"[

1 81 and the DOE "Decommissioning Handbook."[

1 9 1 These documents present a unit factor method for estimating decommissioning activity costs, which simplifies the estimating calculations.

Unit factors for concrete removal ($/cubic yard), steel removal ($/ton), and cutting costs ($/inch)were developed using local labor rates. The activity-dependent costs were estimated with the item quantities (cubic yards and tons), developed from TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 2 of 27 plant drawings and inventory documents.

Removal rates and material costs for the conventional disposition of components and structures relied upon information available in the industry publication, "Building Construction Cost Data," published by R.S. Means.[2 0]This analysis reflects lessons learned from TLG's involvement in the Shippingport Station Decommissioning Project, completed in 1989, as well as the decommissioning of the Cintichem reactor, hot cells, and associated facilities, completed in 1997. In addition, the planning and engineering for the Pathfinder, Shoreham, Rancho Seco, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Humboldt Bay-3, Oyster Creek, Connecticut Yankee, and San Onofre-1 nuclear units have provided additional insight into the process, the regulatory aspects, and the technical challenges of decommissioning commercial nuclear units.The unit factor method provides a demonstrable basis for establishing reliable cost estimates.

The detail provided in the unit factors, including activity duration, labor costs (by craft), and equipment and consumable costs, ensures that essential elements have not been omitted. Appendix A presents the detailed development of a typical unit factor. Appendix B provides the values contained within one set of factors developed for this analysis.Work Difficulty Factors TLG has historically applied work difficulty adjustment factors (WDFs) to account for the inefficiencies in working in a power plant environment and increase the time required to perform the activity.

WDFs were assigned to each unique set of unit factors, commensurate with the inefficiencies associated with working in confined, hazardous environments.

The WDF sets were developed considering the extremely difficult working conditions associated with working in high radiation areas and in areas with high alpha particle contamination.

The same work difficulty factor sets were used for all three scenarios.

This assumption was based upon the relatively high levels of long-lived radioactivity that exists today plus the high levels of alpha contamination.

The factors and their associated range of values were developed in conjunction with the AIF/NESP-036 study. The application of the factors is discussed in more detail in that publication.

Given the radiological status of some areas at TMI-2, the range of the WDF's was increased.

The ranges used for the WDFs are identified in the following table.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 3 of 27 Work Difficulty Factors Other Fuel/Aux Reactor NSSS Power Block Buildings Building Components Access 20% 40% 30% 40%Respiratory Protection 0-25% 200% 50% 200%Radiation/ALARA 10-25% 40% 40% 100%Protective Clothing 0-30% 50% 50% 50%Work Break 8.33% 8.33% 8.33% 8.33%Scheduling Program Durations The unit factors, adjusted by the WDFs as described above, are applied against the inventory of materials to be removed in the radiologically controlled areas.As shown above, higher WDF's sets were assigned to systems located in the reactor building and to systems which contain SNF and/or high levels of radioactive materials.

The resulting man-hours, or crew-hours, are used in the development of the decommissioning program schedule, using resource loading and event sequencing considerations.

The scheduling of conventional removal and dismantling activities are based upon productivity information available from the "Building Construction Cost Data" publication.

An activity duration critical path is used to determine the total decommissioning program schedule.

The schedule is relied upon in calculating the carrying costs, which include program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental, and support services such as quality control and security.

This systematic approach for assembling decommissioning estimates ensures a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the resulting cost estimate.3.3 IMPACT OF DECOMMISSIONING MULTIPLE REACTOR UNITS In estimating the near simultaneous decommissioning of two co-located reactor units there can be opportunities to achieve economies of scale, by sharing costs between units, and coordinating the sequence of work activities.

There will also be schedule constraints, particularly where there are requirements for specialty equipment and staff, or practical limitations on when final status surveys can take place. A summary of the principal impacts are listed below.Consistent with the agreement between FirstEnergy and Exelon regarding the timing of decommissioning activities at TMI-2, it is TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 4 of 27 assumed that decommissioning at TMI-2 will begin in 2034. Under the terms of this agreement, decommissioning activities at Unit 2 cannot begin while Unit 1 is still in commercial operation.

The decommissioning scenarios used in this analysis are structured to integrate to the extent possible with a Unit 1 decommissioning scenario.* Since the security program for the site is likely to be an integrated approach, the security guard force is assumed to be shared to varying degrees between the units, depending upon the level of activities at each unit. This reduces the security costs for the decommissioning estimates for both units on site.* The final radiological survey schedule is also affected by a two-unit decommissioning schedule.

It would be considered impractical to try to complete the final status survey of Unit 1, while Unit 2 still has ongoing radiological remediation work and waste handling in process. As such, this analysis has structured the decommissioning scenarios for Unit 2 to coordinate the final status survey for the station.3.4 FINANCIAL COMPONENTS OF THE COST MODEL TLG's proprietary decommissioning cost model, DECCER, produces a number of distinct cost elements.

These direct expenditures, however, do not comprise the total cost to accomplish the project goal, i.e., license termination and site restoration.

Inherent in any cost estimate that does not rely on historical data is the inability to specify the precise source of costs imposed by factors such as tool breakage, accidents, illnesses, weather delays, and labor stoppages.

In the DECCER cost model, contingency fulfills this role. 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 funds to cover these types of expenses.3.4.1 Contingency The activity-and period-dependent costs are combined to develop the total decommissioning cost. A contingency is then applied on a line-item basis, using one or more of the contingency types listed in the AIF/NESP-036 study. "Contingencies" are defined in the American Association of Cost Engineers "Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook"[

2 1 1 as "specific provision for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope; particularly important where previous TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 5 of 27 experience relating estimates and actual costs has shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur." The cost elements in this analysis are based upon ideal conditions and maximum efficiency; therefore, consistent with industry practice, a contingency factor has been applied. In the AIF/NESP-036 study, the types of unforeseeable events that are likely to occur in decommissioning are discussed and guidelines are provided for percentage contingency in each category.

It should be noted that contingency, as used in this analysis, does not account for price escalation and inflation in the cost of decommissioning over the time intervals identified for each scenario.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 are expected to be fully expended throughout the program. They also provide assurance that sufficient funding is available to accomplish the intended tasks. 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.For example, the most technologically challenging task in decommissioning a commercial nuclear station is the disposition of the reactor vessel and internal components, highly radioactive following the accident.

The disposition of these components forms the basis of the critical path (schedule) for decommissioning operations.

Cost and schedule are interdependent, and any deviation in schedule has a significant impact on cost for performing a specific activity.Disposition of the reactor vessel internals involves the underwater cutting of complex components that are highly radioactive.

Costs are based upon optimum segmentation, handling, and packaging scenarios.

The schedule is primarily dependent upon the turnaround time for the heavily shielded shipping casks, including preparation, loading, and decontamination of the containers for transport.

The number of casks required is a function of the pieces generated in the segmentation activity, a value calculated on optimum performance of the tooling employed in cutting the various subassemblies.

The expected optimization, however, may not be achieved, resulting in delays and additional program costs. For this reason, contingency must be included to mitigate the consequences of the expected inefficiencies inherent in this complex activity, along with related concerns associated with the TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 6 of 27 operation of highly specialized tooling, field conditions, and water clarity.Contingency funds are an integral part of the total cost to complete the decommissioning process. Exclusion of this component puts at risk a successful completion of the intended tasks and, potentially, subsequent related activities.

For this study, TLG examined the major activity-related problems (decontamination, segmentation, equipment handling, packaging, transport, and waste disposal) that necessitate a contingency.

Individual activity contingencies ranged from 10% to 75%, depending on the degree of difficulty judged to be appropriate from TLG's actual decommissioning experience.

The contingency values used in this study are as follows: Decontamination 50%Contaminated Component Removal 25%Contaminated Component Packaging 10%Contaminated Component Transport 15%Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 25%Reactor Segmentation 75%NSSS Component Removal 25%Reactor Waste Packaging 25%Reactor Waste Transport 25%Reactor Vessel Component Disposal 50%GTCC Disposal 15%Non-Radioactive Component Removal 15%Heavy Equipment and Tooling 15%Supplies 25%Engineering 15%Energy 15%Characterization and Termination Surveys 30%Construction 15%Taxes and Fees 10%Insurance 10%Staffing 15%The contingency values are applied to the appropriate components of the estimates on a line item basis. A composite value is then reported at the end of each estimate.

For example, the composite contingency value reported for the Delayed DECON alternative is 19.5%. Values for the TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 7 of 27 other alternatives are delineated within the detailed cost tables in Appendix D and E.3.4.2 Financial Risk In addition to the routine uncertainties addressed by contingency, another cost element that is sometimes necessary to consider when bounding decommissioning costs relates to uncertainty, or risk.Examples can include changes in work scope, pricing, job performance, and other variations that could conceivably, but not necessarily, occur.Consideration is sometimes necessary to generate a level of confidence in the estimate, within a range of probabilities.

TLG considers these types of costs under the broad term "financial risk." Included within the category of financial risk are:* Delays in approval of the decommissioning plan due to intervention, public participation in local community meetings, legal challenges, and national and local hearings.* Changes in the project work scope from 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 national commitments, e.g., in the ability to accommodate certain waste forms for disposition or in the timetable for such, e.g., the start and rate of acceptance of spent fuel by the DOE." 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.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 higher probability.

This is mostly due to the pricing uncertainty for low-level radioactive waste burial, and to a lesser extent due to schedule increases from changes in plant conditions and to pricing variations in TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 8 of 27 the cost of labor (both craft and staff). This cost study, however, does not include any additional costs for financial risk since there is insufficient historical data from which to project future liabilities.

Consequently, the areas of uncertainty or risk should be revisited periodically and addressed through repeated revisions or updates of the base estimate.3.5 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 included in this cost study. Unless otherwise noted, these assumptions are applicable to all three scenarios.

3.5.1 Spent

Fuel Management The cost to dispose of spent fuel generated from plant operations is not reflected within the estimates to decommission the TMI-2 site. The majority of the spent fuel was removed during the TMI-2 Clean-up Program's reactor vessel defueling effort which concluded in January 1990. Title to the spent fuel that was removed was transferred to the DOE.The remainder of the fuel (about 1%) is dispersed within the primary system and to a lesser extent in other systems and structures.

This residual material will be removed as radioactive waste and is included in the waste disposal volumes discussed in Section 5.Repository Availability There will be some wastes generated in the decommissioning of TMI-2 that are not suitable for shallow land burial and therefore cannot be shipped for disposal to either Barnwell or EnergySolutions.

This material, primarily associated with systems and structures contaminated with fuel debris, requires greater isolation from the environment.

For estimating purposes, a high-level waste repository, or some off site interim storage facility, is assumed to be available by 2020 for the disposal of this material.

This timetable is consistent with the Project Decision Schedule released by the Office of Civilian Radioactive Management in January 2009.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 9 of 27 3.5.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components The majority of the reactor internal components have already been removed as a result of the accident recovery effort in the 1980's. These components are currently being stored within the reactor building.

This estimate assumes that these components are segmented and shipped in shielded, reusable transportation casks commensurate with the start of major reactor vessel removal activities, e.g., Period 4A of the Delayed DECON scenario.The reactor pressure vessel and remaining internal components (essentially the core barrel, core former, thermal shield, and flow distributor) are segmented and packaged for disposal in shielded, reusable transportation casks. Segmentation of the remaining internal components is performed in the refueling canal, where a turntable and remote cutter are installed.

The vessel is segmented in place, using a mast-mounted cutter supported off the lower head and directed from a shielded work platform installed overhead in the reactor cavity.Transportation cask specifications and transportation regulations will dictate segmentation and packaging methodology.

It is anticipated that all neutron-activated components in the reactor vessel and internals would meet existing disposal requirements as delineated in 10 CFR §61, due to the short operating history. However, the fission products and transuranic material present on all surfaces in the vessel and internals are expected to exceed Class C limits, in particular for those components located below the top of the core. The reactor vessel and the upper portions of the internals are assumed to meet Class A limits following decontamination.

The dismantling of the reactor internals will generate radioactive waste considered unsuitable for shallow land disposal, i.e., GTCC. Although the material is not classified as high-level waste, the DOE has indicated it will accept this waste for disposal at the future high-level waste repository.[

2 2] However, the DOE has not been forthcoming with an acceptance criteria or disposition schedule for this material, and numerous questions remain as to the ultimate disposal cost and waste form requirements.

As such, for purposes of this study, the GTCC has been packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost of $25,000 per cubic foot. It is also assumed that the DOE will accept the GTCC material in a timely manner so as not to affect the TMI-2 decommissioning schedule.

No additional costs are included for the temporary storage of GTCC material.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 10 of 27 Intact disposal of the reactor vessel and internal components can provide savings in cost and worker exposure by eliminating the complex segmentation requirements, isolation of the GTCC material, and transport/storage of the resulting waste packages.

Portland General Electric (PGE) was able to dispose of the Trojan reactor as an intact package. However, its location on the Columbia River simplified the transportation analysis since: the reactor package could be secured to the transport vehicle for the entire journey, i.e., the package was not lifted during transport,* there were no man-made or natural terrain features between the plant site and the disposal location that could produce a large drop, and" transport speeds were very low, limited by the overland transport vehicle and the river barge.As a member of the Northwest Compact, PGE had a site available for disposal of the package -the US Ecology facility in Washington State.The characteristics of this arid site proved favorable in demonstrating compliance with land disposal regulations.

It is not known whether this option will be available for TMI-2. Future viability of this option will depend upon the ultimate location of the disposal site, as well as the disposal site licensee's ability to accept highly radioactive packages and effectively isolate them from the environment.

Consequently, the study assumes the reactor vessel will require segmentation, as a bounding condition.

3.5.3 Steam

Generators With the high levels of radioactivity and contamination both in the reactor building and within the steam generators, this estimate assumes that the steam generators will be segmented in place instead of one piece removal.The removal sequence assumed for the estimate is as follows: Remove the upper steam generator channel head by wire sawing the shell and tubes immediately below the upper tube sheet.Segment and decontaminate the upper channel head in the fuel transfer pool.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 11 of27* Install a steam generator work platform to allow in-place underwater segmentation of the steam generator internals.

• Remove the steam generator tubing and associated shroud and support plates.* Remove the steam generator cylindrical shell.* Remove the lower steam generator channel head." Segment and decontaminate the lower channel head in the fuel transfer pool.The steam generator tubing is packaged and shipped and buried as Class B waste. Steam generator tube support plates, shrouds, and shell plates are transported and buried as Class A waste. The estimate assumes that the steam generator channel heads will be decontaminated using a combination of machining and ultra high pressure (UHP) water sprays such that the components can be shipped and buried as Class A waste.Waste that is generated as a result of the machining and normal filtering of the water in the steam generators and the fuel transfer pool is assumed to be highly radioactive and is packaged and transferred to the DOE as GTCC waste.3.5.4 Other Primary System Components The following discussion deals with the decontamination, removal and disposition of the pressurizer, reactor coolant piping, reactor coolant pumps and motors, and the core flood tanks.A combination of in-place decontamination, and remote decontamination of components in the fuel transfer pool was assumed in the estimate.The pressurizer and the core flood tanks are decontaminated in-place using UHP. Once decontaminated, the pressurizer is cut in half, removed from the reactor building, grouted, and packaged in a shielded container for rail shipment and burial as Class A waste. The core flood tanks are assumed to be segmented, packaged and shipped as Class A waste.Hot leg piping is accessed by cutting a hole in the core barrel. A combination of underwater remote retrieval and vacuuming is used to remove fuel and fission product material.

Hot and cold leg piping and TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 12 of 27 fittings are removed and placed in the fuel transfer pool for additional decontamination.

Hydrolasing is used to remove radioactive materials.

Removed material is collected using filters and demineralizers, packaged, and transferred to the DOE as GTCC material.Decontaminated piping is packaged, shipped and buried as Class A waste.The reactor coolant pump motors are removed intact and placed in shielded containers for rail transport and burial as Class A material.Reactor coolant pumps are disassembled and placed in the fuel transfer pool for decontamination.

Pump components are decontaminated using UHP to remove the majority of the radioactive material.

Following decontamination, the components are packaged in shielded containers for rail transport and buried as Class A material.

Material removed as a result of the decontamination process is collected using filters and shipped as GTCC material.

The estimates also assume that process water used for reactor coolant system decontamination and in the fuel transfer pool is processed using cesium/strontium preferential cation demineralizers.

The resin waste is processed and buried as Class C radioactive waste.3.5.5 Other Systems Known to Contain High Levels of Radioactivity Systems in the reactor building and portions of systems in the auxiliary and fuel handling buildings are known to contain high levels of radioactivity and potentially spent fuel material from the accident.

The estimates recognize the difficulty in removing these components by increasing the work difficulty factors associated with removal of these systems. The estimates also assume that these components will be packaged for direct disposal (no recycling).

The disposal costs of these waste streams were also adjusted, as appropriate, to include curie surcharges commensurate with the higher radioactivity levels.These systems and components will be decontaminated with UHP sprays to removal fuel solids and sludge from fuel bearing components in the fuel and auxiliary buildings.

Solids and sludge resulting from the UHP process will be transferred to the reactor building to be packaged in canisters used for NSSS decontamination.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 13 of 27 3.5.6 Reactor Building Structures Decontamination Significant radioactive contamination exists throughout the TMI-2 reactor building.

This contamination is due to fission products (9 0 Sr and 1 3 7 Cs in particular) released from the failed fuel. The radiation levels are not expected to decrease significantly from current levels due to the long half lives of these elements.

The dispersion of spent fuel within the reactor building includes alpha-decaying isotopes in addition to the beta and gamma radiation normally encountered during decommissioning.

These unusual conditions require additional controls and more engineered decommissioning methods to perform the structure decontamination and demolition.

Based upon these conditions, the estimates assume that the entire interior structure of the reactor building is removed and disposed as potentially contaminated material.The lower elevations of the reactor building are highly contaminated..

Significant activity has been absorbed in the concrete block walls, in the four foot thick D-ring concrete walls, and on the lower level concrete floors. Initial decontamination of this area (Period 4A) is assumed to be performed using remotely-operated machines (Brokk or equivalent).

Surface material will be bulk removed from the concrete walls, packaged in shielded casks and, on average concentration, buried as Class B waste (i.e., most of the debris mass will be Class A, but there will be hot spots ranging to Class C or GTCC).Once the highly contaminated surfaces are decontaminated, free standing concrete walls will be removed (in Period 4B using more conventional means) and shipped to a waste processor as radioactive waste.The upper portion of the containment inner steel liner and the entire polar crane will be removed using conventional radioactive demolition techniques (in Period 4B) and packaged, shipped and buried as radioactive waste. Following liner removal, the outer reactor building concrete walls will be removed using hydraulic excavation hammers.This remaining reactor building structural material will be surveyed on site, with 90% of the concrete volume assumed to meet free release criteria.

The remaining 10% is sent to a waste processor.

The free released concrete is acceptable for use as fill. Excess material and scrap metals will be sent to an industrial landfill.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 14 of 27 3.5.7 Demolition of Other Contaminated Structures Significant contamination exists within the auxiliary and fuel buildings.

Similar to the reactor building, locations within these buildings will require special engineered methods to safely decontaminate and dispose of the structures.

The estimate assumes that the entire auxiliary and fuel building structures (all walls and floors down to the footings) will be removed and the resultant structural material monitored and processed with the same criteria as the reactor building.Selected areas of the buildings will require remote operated machines and dedicated engineered ventilation systems and enclosures to allow decontamination and material removal.3.5.8 Main Turbine and Condenser The main turbine will be dismantled using conventional maintenance procedures.

The remaining turbine internals will be removed to a laydown area. The lower turbine casings will be removed from their anchors by controlled demolition.

This study recognizes that one of the low pressure turbine rotors has already been removed from the site. The main condensers will also be disassembled and moved to a laydown area.Material is then prepared for transportation to an off-site recycling facility where it will be surveyed and designated for either decontamination or volume reduction, conventional disposal, or controlled disposal.

Components will be packaged and readied for transport in accordance with the intended disposition.

3.5.9 Transportation

Methods Contaminated piping, components, and structural material other than the highly contaminated reactor coolant system components and reactor building structures will qualify as LSA-I, II or III or Surface Contaminated Object, SCO-I or II, as described in Title 49.[231 The contaminated material will be packaged in Industrial Packages (IP-1, IP-2 or IP-3, as defined in subpart 173.411) for transport unless demonstrated to qualify as their own shipping containers.

It is anticipated that the reactor vessel, due to its limited operating lifetime, will qualify as LSA II or III, once the reactor internals and remaining fuel debris is removed. The reactor vessel internal components are TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 15 of 27 expected to be transported to the DOE's geologic repository in spent fuel casks by rail.Waste resulting from filtering and demineralization of the reactor coolant system, and processing the fuel transfer pool water is assumed to require shipment in shielded truck casks. Transport of other highly radioactive waste such as reactor coolant system components, and waste from the decontamination of the reactor building basement are by shielded truck cask. Truck cask shipments may exceed 95,000 pounds, including payload, supplementary shielding, cask tie-downs, and tractor-trailer. The maximum level of activity per shipment assumed permissible was based upon the license limits of the available shielded transport casks. The segmentation scheme for the vessel and internal segments is designed to meet these limits.The transport of large intact components, e.g., large heat exchangers and other oversized components are by a combination of truck, rail, and/or multi-wheeled transporter.

Truck transportation costs are estimated using published tariffs from Tri-State Motor Transit.[2 4 1 The low-level radioactive waste requiring controlled disposal will be sent to the EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah. Memphis, Tennessee, is used as the destination for off-site processing.

Bulk material shipped off site to the waste processor or to EnergySolutions is primarily moved via gondola railcars.3.5.10 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal To the greatest extent practical, metallic material generated in the decontamination and dismantling processes is treated to reduce the total volume requiring controlled disposal.

The treated material, meeting the regulatory and/or site release criterion, is released as scrap, requiring no further cost consideration.

Conditioning and recovery of the waste stream is performed off site at a licensed processing center.Very low-level radioactive waste, e.g., structural steel and contaminated concrete, is sent to a waste processing facility.

More highly contaminated and activated material is sent to EnergySolutions.

Disposal fees are based upon current charges for operating waste. Since EnergySolutions does not currently have a license to handle and dispose of Class B and C wastes, Barnwell rates were used as a surrogate.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 16 of 27 Surcharges were added for the highly activated components, e.g., generated in the segmentation of the reactor vessel. A nominal fee of$25,000 per cubic foot was assumed for the disposal of GTCC material at a federal repository.

The Idaho National Engineering and Environmental Laboratory (INEEL) is currently storing waste from the TMI-2 defueling operation.

Costs have been included in this estimate to pay INEEL for the final disposal of this waste; the timing of when this payment occurs will be dependent upon the. DOE's schedule for cleanup of INEEL. This estimate assumes that the payment occurs during Period 4 of each cost scenario.This study assumes that most of the concrete resulting from the demolition of the reactor, auxiliary and fuel handling buildings can be surveyed and released on site for fill of below grade voids, or shipped off site to a local construction debris landfill.

Should there be restrictions to this approach; the cost impact on the decommissioning program could become quite large, potentially up to tens of millions of-dollars.

3.5.11 Additional Decommissioning Facilities Additional specialized facilities are required in support of the decommissioning.

These include refurbishment of the containment air control envelope building located outside the reactor building equipment hatch, and the contamination control cubicle located outside the other personnel airlock, for reactor building radiological control and access.Construction of a prefabricated metal enclosure at 305 elevation within the reactor building for the handling of highly-contaminated material.

A radioactive waste packaging and processing facility will also be required (Note that such a facility already exists on site, but will require refurbishment).

3.5.12 Remediation of Soil and Underground Piping The estimates include the cost to remove certain underground piping.An allowance is also included for the removal, packaging, transportation and disposal of approximately 49,000 cubic feet of contaminated soil.3.5.13 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning The NRC will terminate (or amend) the site licenses if it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with the license TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 17 of 27 termination plan, and that the termination survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release. The NRC's involvement in the decommissioning process will end at this point. Building codes and environmental regulations will dictate the next step in the decommissioning process, as well as the owner's own future plans for the site.Non-essential structures or buildings severely damaged in decontamination process are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade. Concrete rubble generated from demolition activities is processed and made available as clean fill. The excavations will be regraded such that the power block area will have a final contour consistent with adjacent surroundings.

This estimate assumes the reactor, auxiliary, fuel buildings will be removed completely, i.e., to their foundations and basemats.

Concrete from these buildings will be surveyed on-site using conventional monitoring equipment; concrete which meets the release criteria will be disposed of either on site as fill, or in an off-site landfill.3.6 ASSUMPTIONS The following are the major assumptions made in the development of the estimates for decommissioning the site.3.6.1 Estimating Basis The study follows the principles of ALARA through the use of work duration adjustment factors. These factors address the impact of activities such as radiological protection instruction, mock-up training, and the use of respiratory protection and protective clothing.

The factors lengthen a task's duration, increasing costs and lengthening the overall schedule.

ALARA planning is considered in the costs for engineering and planning, and in the development of activity specifications and detailed procedures.

Changes to worker exposure limits may impact the decommissioning cost and project schedule.All costs are reported in 2008 dollars.No costs have been included for the preparation of an environmental impact statement, should it be required.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 18 of 27 3.6.2 Labor Costs The craft labor required to decontaminate and dismantle the nuclear units will be acquired through standard site contracting practices.

The current cost of labor at the site is used as an estimating basis. Costs for site administration, operations, construction, and maintenance personnel are based upon average salary information provided by FirstEnergy or from comparable industry information.

FirstEnergy will provide limited oversight support staff in the areas of overall management, licensing, radiological and industrial safety and engineering.

It will also hire a DOC to provide the balance of the professional, management, administrative and physical staff.This study assumes that there is some sharing of security staffing positions with the adjacent Unit 1. This has the effect of slightly lowering site security costs.The staffing levels for the Hardened SAFSTOR scenario were adjusted (reduced) during decommissioning periods to reflect the two phase approach.3.6.3 Design Conditions Fuel cladding failure as a result of the accident will most likely prevent shipment of untreated major NSSS components under current transportation regulations and disposal requirements.

Therefore, this estimate assumes that aggressive mechanical decontamination of reactor coolant system components is required prior to shipment.The curie contents of the vessel and internals are activation products derived from those listed in NUREG/CR-3474.[

2 5 1 Actual estimates are derived from the curie/gram values contained therein and adjusted for the different mass of the TMI-2 components, the 95 effective full-power days, and different periods of decay. Additional short-lived isotopes were derived from CR-0130 [26] and CR-0672 [271 and benchmarked to the long-lived values from CR-3474. The activation products present in the reactor vessel base metal are assumed to be the controlling factor in their disposal, following surface decontamination of fuel debris.Reactor vessel internals whose elevation in the reactor places them at or below the original top of the fuel assemblies are assumed to be both sufficiently geometrically complex to preclude effective decontamination TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 19 of 27 and contaminated with spent fuel so as to require disposal as GTCC material.Control elements and incore detector assemblies are assumed to have been removed with the damaged fuel.Activation of the reactor building structure and the biological shield is considered minimal due to the short operating life of TMI-2.3.6.4 General Transition Activities Existing warehouses will be cleared of non-essential material and remain for use by FirstEnergy and its subcontractors.

The plant's operating staff will perform the following activities at no additional cost or credit to the project during the transition period (FirstEnergy staff will be augmented as necessary, either by direct hiring, or by subcontracting to fulfill the staff requirements):

• Drain and collect lubricating oils for recycle and/or sale.* Process defueling waste inventories, i.e., the estimates include costs for the removal of lead shielding and spent fuel handling equipment that has remains in the reactor building.Scrap and Salvage Material located within the radiation controlled area, and not shipped for direct disposal, is sent off-site for survey and release.Furniture, tools, mobile equipment such as forklifts, trucks, bulldozers, and other property owned by FirstEnergy (and outside the radiation controlled area) is removed at no cost or credit to the decommissioning project. Disposition may include relocation to other facilities.

Spare parts are also available for alternative use.Energy For estimating purposes, the plant is assumed to be de-energized, with the exception of those facilities associated with long term dormancy.Replacement power costs are used for the cost of energy consumption TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 20 of 27 during decommissioning for tooling, lighting, ventilation, and essential services.Insurance Costs for continuing coverage (nuclear liability and property insurance) during dormancy and decommissioning are included and based upon current operating premiums.

Reductions in premiums, throughout the decommissioning process, are based upon the guidance and the limits for coverage defined in the NRC's proposed rulemaking "Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors."[

2 8] The NRC's financial protection requirements are based on various reactor configurations.

Taxes Property taxes are not included.Site Modifications The perimeter fence and in-plant security barriers will be moved, as appropriate, to conform to the Site Security Plan in force during the various stages of the project.3.7 COST ESTIMATE

SUMMARY

A schedule of expenditures for each scenario is provided in Tables 3.1 through 3.3. Decommissioning costs are reported in the year of projected expenditure; however, the values are provided in thousands of 2008 dollars. Costs are not inflated, escalated, or discounted over the period of expenditure.

The annual expenditures are based upon the detailed activity costs reported in Appendices C through E, along with the schedule discussed in Section 4.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 21 of 27 TABLE 3.1 DELAYED DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2008 dollars)Equipment

&Materials Year Labor Energy Burial Other Total 2034 494 107 192 16 520 1,329 2035 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2036 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2037- 1 702 15 ___ 27 23 73 1,887 ----- -- -" -" 23 7021 152 273 23 738 1,887.... ..2 3 8 .. .. .. .....................

.. .... 7 0 2 1. ...............

...... ..... ..... ........ ..............

2 ..............................................

2 7 3 ....... ........................................

... 27 .... ... .................

... .. ... ...7.............................................

.. .1...2039 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2040 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2041 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2042 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2043 31,716 677 898 23 10,800 44,115 2044 51,597 4,640 1,273 7,108 9,305 73,921..................

2 0 4 5..........................................

4. 5 .........

..............

1 43..,..5 .3 ..1 ............

15 3 1 ... 1...........

..... .. , 2 6.9 .............

..................................

8.4..1...1............89

.0 9 ....1 2 , 1 8 8 .......................................

8.0..1....

.............

.........................

......2046 45,143 11,531 1,269 18,909 12,188 89,041 2047 45,143 11,531 1,269 18,909 12,188 89,041 2048 45,2671 11,563 1,273 18,961 12,222 89,285 2049 43,9741 10,862 1,049 17,392 7,787 81,064 2050 43,436 10,554 948 16,695 5,762 77,394 2051 43,436 10,554 948 16,695 5,762 77,394 2052 37,583 9,027 835 13,589 7,715 68,749 2053 16,425 4,596 264 1,062 8,983 31,330 2054 12,424 4,178 95 1,329 45. 18,070 1 467,3981 102,5661 13,7691 149,7771 111,3741 844,8841 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 22 of 27 TABLE 3.2 CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2008 dollars)Equipment

&Materials Energy Burial Year Labor Other Total 2034 494 107 192 ...._16 520 .. 1,329 2035 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2036 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2037. 702.. 152 273 23.738.1, 2037 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2038 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2039 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2040 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2041 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 r 2042 7021 152, 273 23 738 1,887 2043 702F 152 2731 23 738 1,887" 2044 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2045 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2046 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2047 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2048 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2049 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2050 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2051 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2052 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2053 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2054 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2055 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2056 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2057 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2058 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2059 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2060 704 152 274 23 740 1,893 2061 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2062 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2063 702 152- 273- 23 .-738 1,887 2064 704 15211 2741 23 740 1,893 2065 ....................

..70,21 1 521-. 2731 ..... ... 2 3L 7381_ 1,887 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 23 of 27 TABLE 3.2 (continued)

CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2008 dollars)Equipment

&Materials Year Labor Energy Burial Other Total 2066 702 152[ 273 23 738 1,887 2067 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2068 704[ 152 274 23 740, 1,893 2069 702, 152i 273_ 231 738, 1,8871 2070 1521 2731 2 738, 1,8871 2071 7021 152! 273i 23! 738 1,887 2072 704 152 2743 23 740 1,893 2073 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2074 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2075 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2076 704 152 274 23 7401 1,893 2077 702 152 273 23 738 1,887 2078 702 152 273 23 7381 1,887 2079 702 152 273 23 7381 1,887 2080 7041 152 274.1 23170 1,893 2081 -02 152 273! 2-31 ..........

7381 1,887 t..............

...........................

.................

.1.1- ...............

.--2082 702 1521 -2731 23! 731 1,8 2-083 702 1 J5 21.... 273&3 738 __ 1,887 2084 46,403 921 1,188 23 15,460 63,994 2085 50,241 7,653 1,269 12,464 7,917 79,544 2086 45,159 11,490 1,269 18,724 12,136 88,777 2087 45,159 11,490 1,269 18,724 12,136 88,777 2088 45,282 11,521 1,273 18,775 12,169 89,020 2089 45,159 11,490 1,269 18,724 12,136 88,777 2090 43,506 10,582 963 16,741 6,045 77,837 2091 43,425 10,538 948, 1 6 , 6 4 51 5,747 77,302.....................

2 0 9 ... ....... ..........

..... .........

4 .a .4 ... ................................

.. 6 .. .........

.......................................

..........................

1 ..... ....... ...................

......................

5 ....7.6 ..3... ...............

...... ....... 2 ..5... ..... ... 1............

2093 29,060 6,799 6711 9,085' 10,3901 56,005 2094 19,154 5,9491 2191 1,681 4,778] 31,782 2095 6,577 2,2121 501 7041 24] 9,567 497,569 108,767 24,931ý 150,1051 141,401 922,772 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 24 of 27 TABLE 3.3 HARDENED SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2008 dollars)Equipment

&Materials Year Labor Energy Burial Other Total..........

...... ........................................................................

...................................................................

....... .........

.............

.. ... ....... ....2034~ 2,392 107 192L 16 5-20"...........

3,22C 2035 18,234 487 672: 23 3,220 22,635 2036 39,361 2,743 1,2731 3,206 5,316 51,899 2037 37,118 6,934 9811 11,145 5,325 61,503 2038 37,084 7,120 948} 11,519 5,612 62,282 2039 37,084 7,120 9481 11,519 5,612 62,282 2040 28,830 5,508 7431 7,645 9,142 51,868 2041 17,943 5,334 239] 1,410 8,684 33,61C 2042 9,082 3,057 2311 977 2,152 15,499..........

2043 .....................

21-46 -l0 2731.........

0 1,135. 1,654 2044 247 0 2741 0 1,138 1,659 2045 246. 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2046 246 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2047 246 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2048 247 0 274 0 1,138 1,659 2049 246 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2050 246 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2051 246 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2052 247 0 274 0 1,138 1,659 2053 246 0 273, 0 1,135 1,654 2054 246 01 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2055 246 01 273 0 1,135 1,654 2056 247 0 2741 0 1,138 1,659 2057 246 0 273i 0 1,135 1,654 2058 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2059 246 0 273, 0 1,135 1,654 2060 247 0 2741 0 1,138 1,659 2061 246 0 2731 0- 1,135 --1,654 2062 2461 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2063 246 0 27.[ 0 _ 1,35_ 1,654 2064 2471-- 01 2741 0 1,38 1,659 2065.....246£0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 25 of 27 TABLE 3.3 (continued)

HARDENED SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2008 dollars)Equipment

&Materials Year Labor Energy Burial Other Total 2066 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2067 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2068 1 247 0 2741 0 1,138 1,659 2069 246 0 273. 0 1,135 1,654 2070 246 0. 2731. 0 1,135 1,654 2071 246 0 273i 0 1,135 1,654 2072 247 0 -.........

274 0 1,138 1,659 2073 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2074 246 0 2731. 0 1,135 1,654 2075 246 0 273; 0 1,135 1,654 2076 247 0 274, 0 1,138 1,659 2077 246 0 273i 0 1,135 1,654 2078 246 0 273i 0 1,135 1,654 2079 246 0 273: 0 1,135 1,654 2080 247 01 274.i 0 1,138 1,659 2081 1 246 01 273' 0 1,135 1,654 2082 I 246 0 273i 0 1,135 1,654.............

20.83 ............

246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654.................-..

0..........................

2 4 ...... .... ..........................................................

........................

...................................

.. ... .............

.2 ...............

..... ........ ...................

........................

---...........................................

....................

................................................

1 -.16...5 4 1 2084 247 0 2741 0 1,138 1,659 2085 246 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2086 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2087 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2088 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2089 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2090 246 0 2734 0 1,135 1,654 2091 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2092 246 0 273! 0 1,135 1,654 2093 2467 __.... 0. 273 0 1,135 1,654 2094 246 0 273, 0 1,135 1,654 2095 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2097 246 0. 2731 0 1,135 1,654 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 26 of 27 TABLE 3.3 (continued)

HARDENED SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2008 dollars)Equipment

&Materials Year Labor Energy Burial Other Total 2098 246 0 273. 0 1,135 1,654 2099 246 0 273! 0 1,135 1,654 21009 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2101 2-0------.

-273 .0. 1,1 .3.5 ...............

1...4...............

654 2102 246 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2103 246 0 27311 0 1,135 1,654 2104 247 0 274i 0 1,138 1,659 2105 246 0 273ý 0 1,135 1,654 2107 246 0 273: 0 1,135 1,654 2108 247 0 274i 0 1,138 1,659 2109 246 0 2L73 0 1,135 1,654.... ...... 1 ..... .... .... ...2 4 _ .................................

... .................................

C ........................

.....................

2 7 ......................

.0 ..........................

..1 .5............

...............

..........

... f 5 21101 246 0 273; 0 1,135 1,654 2111 246 0 273; 0 1,135 1,654 2112 247 0 2743 0 1,138 1,659 2113 246 0 273. 0 1,135 1,654 2114 246 0 273: 0 1,135 1,654 2115 246 0 273 0 1,135 1,654 2116 247 0 2743 0 1,138 1,659 2117 ... .24.6 0 2731 0 1,135 1,654 2118 246 1,132 1,654 2119 246 0i 273. 0 1,135 1,654 2120 247 01 2743 0 1,138 1,659 2121 246 0 273: 0 1,135 1,654 2122 246 0 273i 0 1,135 1,654 2123 37,396 870 1,1491 20 14,891 54,326 2124 40,894 6,709 1,2731 6,282 7,479 62,637 2125 37,525 10,791 1,269! 14,701 11,185 75,472 2 1 2 7.............................

3. ...5 ..... ...........

.-.......

.. ..................................................

.2 6 ..... ............

.. 1 4 , 7 .0.. 1 ....... ...............................

7 5.7...2...

.............................................

17. ...7 2 2127 37,5251 10,791, 1,269i 14,7011 11,185 75,472 2128.2129 36,089 S1,821 7,120 1,273'966i 14,742 11,596 1...1,2 16 4,340 75,679 60.111 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 27 of 27 TABLE 3.3 (continued)

HARDENED SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2008 dollars)Equipment

&Materials Year Labor Energy Burial Other Total I 625,0681 117,039t 39,412i 153,3151 219,558[ 1,154,392 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 4, Page I of 7 4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATE The schedules for the decommissioning scenarios considered in this study follow the sequence presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study, with minor changes to reflect recent experience and site-specific constraints.

A schedule or sequence of activities is presented in Figure 4.1 through 4.3 for the three decommissioning scenarios.

The key activities listed in the schedule do not reflect a one-to-one correspondence with those activities in the cost tables, but reflect dividing some activities for clarity and combining others for convenience.

The schedule was prepared using the "Microsoft Project 2003" computer software.i 2 9 1 4.1 SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS The schedule 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 work activity durations used in the precedence network reflect the actual man-hour estimates from the cost tables, adjusted by stretching certain activities over their slack range and shifting the start and end dates of others. The following assumptions were made in the development of the decommissioning schedule: 0 The dormancy period for each scenario begins on the TMI-1 shutdown date of April 19, 2034. The decommissioning preparation period for each scenario begins on the TMI-1 operating license termination date.* For the Custodial SAFSTOR scenario, onset of delayed decommissioning activities is commensurate with the termination of the TMI-1 operating license, following its 60 year SAFSTOR scenario.

Therefore, the custodial dormancy period ends, and delayed decommissioning activities begin at TMI-2 in 2084.* For the Hardened SAFSTOR scenario, final site restoration is completed 100 years after termination of the TMI-1 operating license.* All work (except vessel and internals removal and some of the decontamination of NSSS components in the refueling canal) is per-formed during an 8-hour workday, 5 days per week, with no overtime.There are eleven paid holidays per year.Steam generator removal activities are performed on multiple shifts with limited parallel work on the A and B steam generators.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 4, Page 2 of 7* Reactor 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 efficiency, adequate access for cutting, removal and laydown space, and with the stringent safety measures necessary during demolition of heavy components and structures.

• For all scenarios, reactor building basement decontamination using remote equipment will occur prior to the start of reactor coolant system component removal.4.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE The period-dependent costs presented in the detailed cost tables are based upon the durations developed in the schedule for decommissioning TMI-2. 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 period-dependent costs.Project timelines are provided in Figures 4.4 through 4.6.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 3 of 7 FIGURE 4.1 DELAYED DECON ACTIVITY SCHEDULE Task Name TMI Unit 2 Unit 1 Shutdown Period 2c Dormancy Period 3a Reactivate Site Period b- Decommissioning Preparations

or f!loye 0 NEC0N Period 4a Unit 2 Large component removal DFeon.,Minate Re&-tor Bldg Lower Levels Decontaminate Reactor Bldg Upper Levels Remove PZR, RCP's & RCS Piping (In Parallel)Decontaminate NSSS Components A Steam Generator Removal.-Pýe -', insatiolnl i vp, liftis," liugs Loading S/G tubes in transfer cannister Remove support plates & shrouds Clean secondary side, cut & remove shell wall Remove lower channel head assembly B Steam Generator Removal Rlmove

.9.1 1 1 3 5 7 9 11 1 31 5 l 5 11 19;T i-W990 MV 2'Y-Y: Y-.21 Erect 1ot0frl riAtOomr in'otoi tempr supfpcrts -A CFH lifting luvc COt & remove uppor clerhnnel eoad Cut & remove SIG tubest, S :r, ,, in ',ro nsoer non.nister Remove support pla.tes & shrouds Censecondary side, cut & remove shell wall Remove lower channel head assembly Reactor Vessel Removal Prepao.rTtions for Reortor r l reonoval PRoactor pressuire noeire rernnoval Period 4b Unit 2,. Site Decontamination (Reactor Building)D.Rih, & osh.eil d remoýral Reahetr -Liner remno'i.a Roeartor B2d & Bosernat Demolition Underground piping & soil remediation TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 4 of 7 FIGURE 4.1 (continued)

DELAYED DECON ACTIVITY SCHEDULE Task Name .2 1 3 5 k [ 9 11 13 15 117 1 19 21 Period 4b Unit 2 Site Decontamination (Reactor Building)

, 5ean.or B& , 1Jinlr rniov--i eat mr Der olition Underground piping & soil remediation Period 4e Unit 2- License termination

....................

~ ~~ ~~~~~ ; ; .: -,: , ; -. ................

..... ... .. .............................................................

..NRC reviewn Part 50 license terminated a DPeriod 5 Unit 2 -pSite Restoration

[ Decommiiissioning rompletec TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 5 of 7 FIGURE 4.2 DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE DELAYED DECON (not to scale)TMI-1 (Shutdown April 19, 2034)Spent Fuel Storage Period 1 Period 2 Transition and Dormancy Preparations Period 3 Delayed Preparations Period 4 Decommissioni]Period 5 Site estoration R 07/2053 04/2034 10/2035 07/2047 12/2048 07/2055 Storage Pool Empty 12/2048 TMI-2 Period 3 Transition and Preparations Period 4 Decommissioning Period 5 Site Restoration

..........

.................................................

.............................

...............................

...... ....... ........................................

...........................

............................

..............

............................

05/2043 05/2044 11/2044 11/2047 04/2049 07/2053 07/2054 NSSS Removal RPV Removal RX Bldg Removal TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 6 of 7 FIGURE 4.3 DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR (not to scale)TMI-1 (Shutdown April 19, 2034)Spent Fuel Storage Period 1 Transition and Preparations 0 ....4..... Ie a a ...............

1....04/2034 10/2035 Period 2 Dormancy.........................................

Period 3 Delayed Preparations Period 4 Period 5 Decommissioning Site Restoration 05/2088 11/2089 04/2094 04/2096 Storage Pool Empty 11/2039 ISFSI Empty 12/2048 TMI-2 Period 3 Transition and Preparations 02/2084 Period 4 Decommissioning Period 5 Site Restoration 04/2095 04/2085 01/2090 04/2094 RX Bldg Removal TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 7 of 7 FIGURE 4.4 DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE HARDENED SAFSTOR (not to scale)TMI-1 (Shutdown April 19, 2034)Pool and ISFSI Operations ISFSI Operations Period 1 Transition and Preparations Period 2 Decommissioning Period 3 Site Restoration ISFSI Operations ISFSI D&D................

... ...................

.... ..........................................................................

..........................

......... ............................

..12/2048 07/2049 04/2034 10/2035 05/2041 05/2043 Storage Pool Empty 11/2039 TMI-2 04/20 Period 5 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Interim Site Dormancy Transition and Decommissioning (excluding Reactor Building)

Restoration Preparations 34 08/2 035 02/2037 05/2041 05/2042[Period 6 -Hardened SAFSTOR Dormancy 80 Years]Period 7 Reactivate Site Period 8 Decommissioning (Reactor Building)Period 9 Site Restoration

/2123 08/2124 01/2129 04/2133 04/2 Reactor Building Removal 02 134 TLG Services, Inc.

""'w \Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 5, Page 1 of 6 5. RADIOACTIVE WASTES The objectives of the decommissioning process are the removal of all radioactive material from the site that would restrict its future use and the termination of the NRC license. This currently requires the remediation of all radioactive material at the site in excess of applicable legal limits. Under the Atomic Energy Act,[3 0 1 the NRC is responsible 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, §71 defines radioactive material as it pertains to packaging and transportation and §61 specifies its disposition.

Most of the materials being transported for controlled burial are categorized as Low Specific Activity (LSA) or Surface Contaminated Object (SCO) materials containing Type A quantities, as defined in 49 CFR §173-178.

Shipping containers are required to be Industrial Packages (IP-1, IP-2 or IP-3, as defined in subpart 173.411).

For this study, commercially available steel containers are presumed to be used for the disposal of piping, small components, and concrete.

Larger components can serve as their own containers, with proper closure of all openings, access ways, and penetrations.

Table 5.1 summarizes the categories of radioactive waste streams, the disposal rate, and the conditions which applied to each category.The volumes of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities at the site is shown on a line-item basis in Appendices C, D, and E and summarized in Tables 5.2 through 5.4. The quantified waste volume summaries shown in these tables are consistent with §61 classifications.

The volumes are calculated based on the exterior dimensions for containerized material and on the displaced volume of components serving as their own waste containers.

The reactor vessel, internals, other reactor coolant system components, and certain structural materials are categorized as large quantity shipments and, accordingly, will be shipped in reusable, shielded truck casks with disposable liners or LSA boxes shipped within shielded vans. In calculating disposal costs, the burial fees are applied against the liner volume, as well as the special handling requirements of the payload.Most of the waste generated by the decommissioning process appears to be Class C or less, based upon the available information regarding the amount of fission products and transuranics present in the buildings, and the quantities of building materials assumed shipped as radioactive waste. This basis should be reexamined if TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 5, Page 2 of 6 additional characterization information becomes available in the future regarding the quantities of fission products and transuranics in more localized surveys.No process system containing/handling radioactive substances at the time of decommissioning is presumed to meet material release criteria by decay alone, i.e., systems radioactive in 2008 will still be radioactive over the time period during which the decommissioning is accomplished, due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides.

While the dose rates decrease with time, radionuclides such as 1 3 7 Cs will still control the disposition requirements.

The waste material generated in the decontamination and dismantling of TMJ-2 is primarily generated during Period 4 of the defined alternatives.

For purposes of constructing the estimates, the rate schedule for the Barnwell facility was used as a proxy for Class B and Class C waste. This schedule was used to estimate the disposal fees for plant components and concrete which are considered highly radioactive (unsuitable for processing or recovery).

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 3 of 6 TABLE 5.1 TMI-2 WASTE STREAMS

SUMMARY

DELAYED DECON CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR CATEGORY HARDENED SAFSTOR Greater Than Class C (GTCC), Selected RPV Internals and filters generated during RCS decon ($25,000/CF) activities.

Primary Waste, Class C, ($7.02/LB)

Demineralizer resins generated during RCS decon activities, (Barnwell non-Atlantic compact rate) block wall from basement dose reduction.

plus applicable administrative fees, millicurie surcharges and dose rate multipliers Primary Waste, Class B, ($7.02/LB)

Systems in the reactor building, concrete and liner from (Barnwell non-Atlantic compact rate) basement dose reduction, segmented S/G tubing, process of plus applicable administrative fees, liquid waste.millicurie surcharges and dose rate multipliers Primary Waste, Class A, ($2.5 1/LB) All other systems components.

Containerized (EnergySolutions)

Secondary Waste, Class A, ($2.5 1/LB) Spent fuel racks, turbine, condenser, scaffolding, siding &Containerized (EnergySolutions) roofing, cranes and structural steel.Tertiary Waste, Class A, ($0.54/LB)

Contaminated soil, concrete scabble & rubble, concrete block.Bulk sent for processing at Tennessee (excluding RB basement).

Tertiary Waste, DAW ($2.24/LB)

All dry active waste (DAW)Processed Waste (off-site)

($2.26[LB)

Systems designated for recycling.

sent to Tennessee Construction Debris Exterior reactor, auxiliary and fuel handling building concrete ($12.00 /CY) and structural steel (not including scabble and drill & spall concrete rubble) not utilized for backfill.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 4 of 6 TABLE 5.2 DELAYED DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

Waste Volume Weight Waste Cost Basis Class [1] cubic feet) (pounds)Geologic Repository Spent Fuel GTCC 1,200 163,010_______ ___ _Equivalent Primary waste stream Barnwell(Proxy)

C 3,364 269,715 Barnwell Proxy) B 24,592 1,973,477 EnergySolutions A 60,582 5,714,532 Secondary waste stream EnergySolutions A 96,658 7,995,398.Tertiary waste stream Concrete EnergySolutions A 409,295 48,472,479 Soil EnergySolutions A 48,992 3,723,414 DAW EnergySolutions A 18,239 365,508 Survey & Release 3,704,137 Processed Waste (Off- Recycling Site) Vendors 76,325 6,584,431 Total[2 1 I 1 739,246 78,966,101

[1][2]Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 5 of 6 TABLE 5.3 CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

Waste Volume Weight Waste Cost Basis Class [1] (cubic feet) (pounds)Geologic Repository Spent Fuel GTCC 1,200 163,010 Equivalent Primary waste stream Barnwell(Proxy)

C 3,364 269,715 Barn well(Proxy)

B 24,400 1,949,242 EnergySolutions A 59,939 5,654,169 Secondary waste stream EnergySolutions A 96,658 7,995,398 Tertiary waste stream Concrete EnergySolutions A 409,295 48,472,479 Soil _ EnergySolutions A ...48,992 3,723,414 DAW EnergySolutions A 34,723 695,822 Survey & Release _ 3,704,137 Processed Waste (Off- Recycling Site) Vendors 76,967 6,640,692 Total[2 1 1 755,537 79,268,078 Ill Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55[2] Columns may not add due to rounding.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 6 of 6 TABLE 5.4 HARDENED SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

Waste Volume Weight Waste Cost Basis Class [1] (cubic feet____ _ (pounds)Geologic Repository_

spent Fuel GTCC 1,200 163,010 Equivalent Primary waste stream Barnwell(Proxy)

C 3,364 269,715 BarnwellProxY)

B 24,649 1,980,721 EnergySolutions A 65,525 6,153,144 Secondary waste stream EnergySolutions A 91,096 7,496,622.Tertiary waste stream Concrete EnerglySolutions A 409,295 48,472,479 Soil EnergySolutions A 48,992 3,723,414 DAW _ EnergySolutions A 16,779 336,239 Survey & Release 3,704,137 Processed Waste (Off- Recycling_Sie_ Vendors 83,317 6,941,950 Total[2 1 744,217 79,241,430

[1][2]Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55 Columns may not add due to rounding.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page 1 of 5 6. RESULTS The analysis to estimate the costs to decommission TMI-2 relied upon the site-specific, technical information developed for previous analyses prepared in 1995-96 and 2004. While not an engineering study, the estimates provide FirstEnergy with sufficient information to assess its financial obligations, as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear station.The estimates described in this report are based on numerous fundamental assumptions, including regulatory requirements, project contingencies, radioactive waste disposal options, and site remediation requirements.

The decommissioning scenarios assume that the remainder of the spent fuel (less than 1%), which is dispersed throughout the reactor coolant and support systems, is packaged, shipped and buried as radioactive waste. Some of the waste that is generated is assumed to be GTCC. This waste is assumed to be transferred to the DOE at the time that it is processed and collected during the decommissioning.

No costs have been included for the temporary storage of GTCC material.The cost projected to decommission TMI-2, i.e., by the Delayed DECON alternative, is estimated to be $884 million. The majority of this cost (approximately 96%) is associated with the physical decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear unit so that the license can be terminated.

The remaining 4% is for the demolition of the designated structures and limited restoration of the site. The costs for the deferred decommission alternatives, Custodial SAFSTOR and Hardened SAFSTOR, are estimated at $923 million and $1,154 million, respectively.

The primary cost contributors, identified in Tables 6.1 through 6.3, are either labor-related or associated with the management and disposition of the radioactive waste.Program management is the largest single contributor to the overall cost. The magnitude of the expense is a function of both the size of the organization required to manage the decommissioning, as well as the duration of the program. It is assumed, for purposes of this analysis, that FirstEnergy will oversee the decommissioning program, using a DOC to manage the decommissioning labor force and the associated subcontractors.

The size and composition of the management organization varies with the decommissioning phase and associated site activities.

However, once the license is terminated, the staff is substantially reduced for the conventional demolition and restoration of the site.The cost for waste disposal includes only those costs associated with the controlled disposition of the radioactive waste generated from decontamination and dismantling activities, including plant equipment and components, structural material, filters, resins and dry-active waste. As described in Section 5, disposal of TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page 2 of 5 the lower level material, including concrete 'and structural steel, is at the EnergySolutions facility.

The more highly radioactive waste is sent to the EnergySolutions facility but using surrogate Barnwell waste burial rates. Highly contaminated components, requiring additional isolation from the environment, are packaged for geologic disposal.

The cost of geologic disposal is assumed to be$25,000 per cubic foot.Removal costs reflect the labor-intensive nature of the decommissioning process, as well as the management controls required to ensure a safe and successful program.Decontamination and packaging costs also have a large labor component that is based upon prevailing union wages. Non-radiological demolition is a natural extension of the decommissioning process. The methods employed in decontamination and dismantling are generally destructive and indiscriminate in inflicting collateral damage. With a work force mobilized to support decommissioning operations, non-radiological demolition can be an integrated activity and a logical expansion of the work being performed in the process of terminating the license.The reported cost for transport includes the tariffs and surcharges associated with moving large components and/or overweight shielded casks overland, as well as the general expense, e.g., labor and fuel, of transporting material to the destinations identified in this report. I License termination survey costs are associated with the labor intensive and complex activity of verifying that contamination has been removed from the 'site to the levels specified by the regulating agency. This process involves a systematic survey of all remaining plant surface areas and surrounding environs, sampling, isotopic analysis, and documentation of the findings.

The status of any plant components and materials not removed in the decommissioning process will also require confirmation and will add to the expense of surveying the facilities alone.Due to the complete removal of the reactor, auxiliary and fuel buildings, the final termination survey effort is reduced.The remaining costs include allocations for heavy equipment and temporary services, as well as for other expenses such as regulatory fees and the premiums for nuclear insurance.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 3 of 5 TABLE 6.1 DELAYED DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)Cost Element Total I[] Percentage Decontamination 31,577 3.7 Removal 149,523 17.7 Packaging 17,232 2.0 Transportation 20,609 2.4 Waste Disposal 173,363 20.5 Off-site Waste Processing 10,217 1.2 Program Management

[21 371,633 44.0 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 17,868 2.1 Energy 13,769 1.6 Characterization and Lice nsing Surveys 12,996 1.5 Property Taxes _ _Miscellaneous Equipment 23,169 2.7 Site O&M 2,929 0.3 Total 131 844,884 100 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 813,986 96.3 Site Restoration 30,898 3.7 Total t31 844,884 100[1] Includes dormancy costs following TMI-1 shutdown in 2034 12] Includes engineering and security costs[8] Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 4 of 5 TABLE 6.2 CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)Cost Element Total [1] Percentage Decontamination 31,532 3.4 Removal 155,559 16.9.P a c kaging ...........

17,476 1.9 Transportation 20,807 2.3 Waste Disposal 173,544 18.8 Off-site Waste Processing 10,363 1.1 Program Management2 401,769 43.5 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 40,727 4.4 ,Energy 24,931 2.7 Characterization and LicensingSurveys 12,996 1.4 Property Taxes Miscellaneous Equipment 30,133 3.3 Site O&M 2,936 0.3 Total [31 922,772 100 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 891,874 96.7 Site Restoration 30,898 3.3 Total [3] 922,772 100 P1] Includes dormancy costs following TMI-1 shutdown in 2034 121 Includes engineering and security costs[3] Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 5 of 5 TABLE 6.3 HARDENED SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2008 dollars)SCost Element Decontamination Removal Pakgng Transportation Waste Disposal __ __Off-site Waste Processing_

Program Management

[2]Insurance and Regulatory Fees Energy Characterization and Licensing Surveys Property Taxes Total [I] p(32,560 163,304 17,312 21,039 175,045 11,393 528,931 65,915 39,412 34,950_[4,598 46,406 1,154,392 ercentage 14.2 1.8 15.2 1.0 45.8 5.7 3.4......................

2 ... ...1.2 3.0 0.4 4.0 100 Miscellaneous Equipment Site O&M Off-site monitoring

& security§ervyices Total [31 Cost Element W Total Percentage License Termination

_ 1,108,156 f 96.0~Site Restoration

_____-___46,236 i4.0R ~ s t r a ~ n ..............

... ......................

...............

.... .....................

............

................

°.Total [3] 1,154,392 100 W' Includes dormancy costs following TMI-1 shutdown in 2034[21 Includes engineering and security costs[31 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 7 Page I of 3 7. REFERENCES

1. "Decommissioning Cost Estimate for the Three Mile Island, Unit 2," Document No. G01-1196-003, TLG Services, Inc., February 1996.2. "Decommissioning Cost Estimate for Three Mile Island Unit 2," Document No.F07-1476-002, TLG Services, Inc., September 2004.3. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 30, 40, 50, 5,1, 70 and 72,"General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 53, Number 123 (p 24018 et seq.), June 27, 1988.4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.159, "Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors," October 2003.5. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination." 6. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 20 and 50, "Entombment Options for Power Reactors," Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, Federal Register Volume 66, Number 200, October 16, 2001.7. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 2, 50 and 51,"Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 61 (p 39278 et seq.), July 29, 1996.8. "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, 1982.9. "Project Decision Schedule," DOE/RW-0604, U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, January 2009 10. "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act," Public Law 96-573, 1980.11. "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, January 15, 1986.12. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination," Federal Register, Volume 62, Number 139 (p 39058 et seq.), July 21, 1997.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 7 Page 2 of 3 7. REFERENCES (continued)

13. "Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination," EPA Memorandum OSWER No. 9200.4-18, August 22, 1997.14. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 141.16, "Maximum contaminant levels for beta particle and photon radioactivity from man-made radionuclides in community water systems." 15. "Memorandum of Understanding Between the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

Consultation and Finality on Decommissioning and Decontamination of Contaminated Sites," OSWER 9295.8-06a, October 9, 2002.16. Three Mile Island Unit 2 Post Defueling Monitored Storage Safety Analysis Report, 1995 Update, Chapter 4 (Fuel), GPU Nuclear Corporation 1995.17. "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)," NUREG/CR-1575, Rev. 1, EPA 402-R-97-016, Rev. 1, August 2000.18. T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986.19. W.J. Manion and T.S. LaGuardia, "Decommissioning Handbook," U.S.Department of Energy, DOE/EV/10128-1, November 1980.20. "Building Construction Cost Data 2008," Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Kingston, Massachusetts.

21. Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, p. 239, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, 1984.22. "Strategy for Management and Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste," Federal Register Volume 60, Number 48 (p 13424 et seq.), March 1995. '23. U.S. Department of Transportation, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations,"Transportation," Parts 173 through 178, 1996.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 7 Page 3 of 3 7. REFERENCES (continued)

24. Tri-State Motor Transit Company, published tariffs, Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), Docket No. MC-109397 and Supplements, 2000.25. J.C. Evans et al., "Long-Lived Activation Products in Reactor Materials" NUREG/CR-3474, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

August 1984.26. R.I. Smith, G.J. Konzek, W.E. Kennedy, Jr., "Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station," NUREG/CR-0130 and addenda, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

June 1978 27. H.D. Oak, et al., "Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station," NUREG/CR-0672 and addenda, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

June 1980.28. "Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors," 10 CFR Parts 50 and 140, Federal Register Notice, Vol. 62, No. 210, October 30, 1997.29. "Microsoft Project 2003," Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, 2003.30. "Atomic Energy Act of 1954," (68 Stat. 919).TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix A, Page I of 4 APPENDIX A UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix A, Page 2 of 4 APPENDIX A UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT Example: Unit Factor for Removal of Contaminated Heat Exchanger

< 3,000 lbs.1. SCOPE Heat exchangers weighing < 3,000 lbs. will be removed in one piece using a crane or small hoist. They will be disconnected from the inlet and outlet piping. The heat exchanger will be sent to the waste processing area.2. CALCULATIONS Activity Critical Act Activity Duration Duration ID Description (minutes) (minutes)*

a Remove insulation 60 (b)b Mount pipe cutters 60 60 c Install contamination controls 20 (b)d Disconnect inlet and outlet lines 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 Remove, wrap, send to waste processing area 60 60 Totals (Activity/Critical) 355 255 Duration adjustment(s):

+ Respiratory protection adjustment (25% of critical duration) 64+ Radiation/ALARA adjustment (25% of critical duration) 64 Adjusted work duration 383+ Protective clothing adjustment (30% of adjusted duration) 115 Productive work duration 498+ Work break adjustment (8.33 % of productive duration) 42 Total work duration (minutes) 540* Total duration = 9.000 hr ** alpha designators indicate activities that can be performed in parallel TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix A, Page 3 of 4 APPENDIX A (continued)

3. LABOR REQUIRED Duration (hours)Rate ($/hr)Crew Number Cost Laborers 3.00 9.000 $30.00 $810.00 Craftsmen 2.00 9.000 $51.30 $923.40 Foreman 1.00 9.000 $51.86 $466.74 General Foreman 0.25 9.000 $53.58 $120.56 Fire Watch 0.05 9.000 $30.00 $13.50 Health Physics Technician 1.00 9.000 $56.94 $512.46 Total Labor Cost 4. EQUIPMENT

& CONSUMABLES COSTS Equipment Costs Consumables/Materials Costs-Blotting paper 50 @ $0.42 sq ft (1)-Plastic sheets/bags 50 @ $0.13/sq ft {2}-Gas torch consumables 1 @ $7.51/hr x 1 hr (3}Subtotal cost of equipment and materials Overhead & profit on equipment and materials

@ 16.00 %Total costs, equipment

& material TOTAL COST: Removal of contaminated heat exchanger

<3000 pounds:$2,846.66 none$21.00$6.50$7.51$35.01$5.61$40.61 Total labor cost: Total equipment/material costs: Total craft labor man-hours required per unit:$2,887.27$2,846.66$40.61 65.700 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix A, Page 4 of 4 5. NOTES AND REFERENCES" Work difficulty factors were developed in conjunction with the Atomic Industrial Forum's (now NEI) program to standardize nuclear decommissioning cost estimates and are delineated in Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986." References for equipment

& consumables costs: 1. McMaster-Carr, Item 7193T88, Spill Control 2. R.S. Means (2008) Division 01 56, Section 13.60-0200, page 20 3. R.S. Means (2008) Division 01 54 33, Section 40-6360, Reference-10 o Material and consumable costs were adjusted using the regional indices for Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page I of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (SAFSTOR:

Power Block Structures Only)TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 2 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)Unit Cost Factor CostfUnit($)

Removal of clean instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot 0.62 Removal of clean pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot 5.34 Removal of clean pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot 7.61 Removal of clean pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot 16.92 Removal of clean pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot 30.28 Removal of clean pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot 39.32 Removal of clean pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 57.62 Removal of clean pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 68.84 Removal of clean valve >2 to 4 inches 113.78 Removal of clean valve >4 to 8 inches 169.15 Removal of clean valve >8 to 14 inches 302.80 Removal of clean valve >14 to 20 inches 393.25 Removal of clean valve >20 to 36 inches 576.15 Removal of clean valve >36 inches 688.39 Removal of clean pipe hanger for small bore piping 37.80 Removal of clean pipe hanger for large bore piping 117.76 Removal of clean pump, <300 pound 283.50 Removal of clean pump, 300-1000 pound 762.50 Removal of clean pump, 1000-10,000 pound 2,672.60 Removal of clean pump, >10,000 pound 5,161.87 Removal of clean pump motor, 300-1000 pound 327.82 Removal of clean pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound 1,115.80 Removal of clean pump motor, >10,000 pound 2,508.47 Removal of clean heat exchanger

<3000 pound 1,516.48 Removal of clean heat exchanger

>3000 pound 3,804.14 Removal of clean feedwater heater/deaerator 10,148.73 Removal of clean moisture separator/reheater 20,337.86 Removal of clean tank, <300 gallons 365.17 Removal of clean tank, 300-3000 gallon 1,148.64 Removal of clean tank, >3000 gallons, $/square foot surface area 9.13 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 3 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of clean electrical equipment, <300 pound 160.69 Removal of clean electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound 529.54 Removal of clean electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 1,050.78 Removal of clean electrical equipment, >10,000 pound 2,406.52 Removal of clean electrical transformer

< 30 tons 1,699.37 Removal of clean electrical transformer

> 30 tons 4,813.04 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, <100 kW 1,708.77 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, 100 kW to 1 MW 3,811.42 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, >1 MW 7,888.82 Removal of clean electrical cable tray, $/linear foot 14.38 Removal of clean electrical conduit, $/linear foot 6.14 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, <300 pound 160.69 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound 529.54 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 1,050.78 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound 2,406.52 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, <300 pound 160.69 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 529.54 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 1,050.78 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound 2,406.52 Removal of clean HVAC ductwork, $/pound 0.67 Removal of contaminated instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot 1.06 Removal of contaminated pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot 13.85 Removal of contaminated pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot 23.46 Removal of contaminated pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot 39.71 Removal of contaminated pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot 76.16 Removal of contaminated pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot 91.81 Removal of contaminated pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 126.73 Removal of contaminated pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 150.74 Removal of contaminated valve >2 to 4 inches 304.23 Removal of contaminated valve >4 to 8 inches 367.24 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 4 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of contaminated valve >8 to 14 inches 729.72 Removal of contaminated valve >14 to 20 inches 928.69 Removal of contaminated valve >20 to 36 inches 1,235.45 Removal of contaminated valve >36 inches 1,475.48 Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for small bore piping 83.39 Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for large bore piping 253.26 Removal of contaminated pump, <300 pound 639.19 Removal of contaminated pump, 300-1000 pound 1,498.52 Removal of contaminated pump, 1000-10,000 pound 4,830.53 Removal of contaminated pump, >10,000 pound 11,739.69 Removal of contaminated pump motor, 300-1000 pound 639.50 Removal of contaminated pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound 1,958.32 Removal of contaminated pump motor, >10,000 pound 4,421.38 Removal of contaminated heat exchanger

<3000 pound 2,887.27 Removal of contaminated heat exchanger

>3000 pound 8,349.65 Removal of contaminated tank, <300 gallons 1,066.44 Removal of contaminated tank, >300 gallons, $/square foot 21.61 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, <300 pound 505.94 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,217.16 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 2,337.49 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, >10,000 pound 4,674.84 Removal of contaminated electrical cable tray, $/linear foot 24.65 Removal of contaminated electrical conduit, $/linear foot 11.29 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, <300 pound C 569.61 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,376.79 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 2,648.42 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound 4,674.84 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, <300 pound 569.61 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,376.79 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 2,648.42 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 5 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound 4,674.84 Removal of contaminated HVAC ductwork, $/pound 1.48 Removal/plasma arc cut of contaminated thin metal components, $/linear in. 2.72 Additional decontamination of surface by washing, $/square foot 5.31 Additional decontamination of surfaces by hydrolasing, $/square foot 26.40 Decontamination rig hook up and flush, $/ 250 foot length 4,810.78 Chemical flush of components/systems, $/gallon 11.83 Removal of clean standard reinforced concrete, $/cubic yard 140.45 Removal of grade slab concrete, $/cubic yard 177.35 Removal of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard 326.87 Removal of sections of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard 998.43 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard 216.26 Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard 1,423.72 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard 273.74 Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard 1,878.06 Removal heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar & steel embedments, $/cubic yard 420.76 Removal of below-grade suspended floors, $/cubic yard 326.87 Removal of clean monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard 847.33 Removal of contaminated monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard 1,421.22 Removal of clean foundation concrete, $/cubic yard 673.53 Removal of contaminated foundation concrete, $/cubic yard 1,322.33 Explosive demolition of bulk concrete, $/cubic yard 29.71 Removal of clean hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 122.23 Removal of contaminated hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 216.68 Removal of clean solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 122.23 Removal of contaminated solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 216.68 Backfill of below-grade voids, $/cubic yard 22.02 Removal of subterranean tunnels/voids, $/linear foot 128.88 Placement of concrete for below-grade voids, $/cubic yard 113.22 Excavation of clean material, $/cubic yard 2.86 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 6 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Excavation of contaminated material, $/cubic yard 28.24 Removal of clean concrete rubble (tipping fee included), $/cubic yard 19.96 Removal of contaminated concrete rubble, $/cubic yard 18.94 Removal of building by volume, $/cubic foot 0.29 Removal of clean building metal siding, $/square foot 1.51 Removal of contaminated building metal siding, $/square foot 2.68 Removal of standard asphalt roofing, $/square foot 2.39 Removal of transite panels, $/square foot 2.40 Scarifying contaminated concrete surfaces (drill & spall), $/square foot 9.52 Scabbling contaminated concrete f]oors, $/square foot 5.21 Scabbling contaminated concrete walls, $/square foot 13.72 Scabbling contaminated ceilings, $/square foot 46.69 Scabbling structural steel, $/square foot 4.65 Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail

< 10 ton capacity 781.37 Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail

< 10 ton capacity 1,336.78 Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail

>10-50 ton capacity 1,877.31 Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail

>10-50 ton capacity 3,191.88 Removal of polar crane > 50 ton capacity 6,691.52 Removal of gantry crane > 50 ton capacity 27,076.64 Removal of structural steel, $/pound 0.22 Removal of clean steel floor grating, $/square foot 5.45 Removal of contaminated steel floor grating, $/square foot 9.66 Removal of clean free standing steel liner, $/square foot 13.86 Removal of contaminated free standing steel liner, $/square foot 25.13 Removal of clean concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot 6.85 Removal of contaminated concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot 29.21 Placement of scaffolding in clean areas, $/square foot 14.17 Placement of scaffolding in contaminated areas, $/square foot 19.05 Landscaping with topsoil, $/acre 19,640.68 Cost of CPC B-88 LSA box & preparation for use 1,423.98 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 7 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Cost of CPC B-25 LSA box & preparation for use Cost of CPC B-12V 12 gauge LSA box & preparation for use Cost of CPC B-144 LSA box & preparation for use Cost of LSA drum & preparation for use Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8 120A cask (resins)Decontamination of surfaces with vacuuming, $/square foot 1,262.41 1,237.46 7,231.69 151.13 6,014.50 0.81 TLG Services, Inc.

ww!w, Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 1 of 9 APPENDIX C DETAILED COST ANALYSIS DELAYED DECON TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Ileand Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 2 of 9 Appendix C Three Mile Island Unit 2 Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)hOt-Ste LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Prsesd Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Activity Decor Removal Packaging Transport Procossing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Coons Costs Costs Coots Continenc Costs Costs Costs Cost. Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feel Wt.. Lbs. Manhours Manhours PERIOD 2s -SAFSTOR Dormancy during TMI-1 Decommissioning Period 2c Direct Decomrmissioning Activities 2c.1.1 Quarterly Inspection 2c. .2 Serronnual environmental survey 2c.f.3 Prepare reports 2c. 1.4 Btunrious roof reptacermnt 20.s.5 Maintenance supplies 2c.r Subtotal Period 2c Activity Costs Period 2c Penod-Dependent Costs 2c.4.1 Insurance 2c.4.2 Property taxes 2c.43 Health physics supplies 2c.4.4 Disposul of SAW generated 2c.4.5 Plant onergy budget 2c.4. NRC Fees 2c.4.7 Security Staff Cost 2c.4.8 Utilty Staff Cost 2c.4 Subtotal Period 2c Pedod-Oependent Costs 2c.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2c COST PERIOD 2 TOTALS PERIOD 3a -Reactivate Site Following SAFSTOR Dormancy Period 3a Direct Decommissioning Actciitoes 3a.1.1 Prepare preliminary decommissioning cost 3a.f.2 P epare and submit PSAR 3a.f.3 Review plant dwgs & specs.3a.1.4 Perform detailed rod survey 3..1.5 Estimate by-product inventory 3a.1.6 End product descnpticn 3a. .7 Detailed by-product inventory 3a.1.8 Define major work sequence 3a.f.9 Perfotm SER and EA 3a.1.10 Perform Sife-Specific Cost Study 3ar.1t Prepare/submit License Terrmination Plan 3a.t1.12 Receive NRC approval of termination plan Acti"ty Specifications 3a.1.13.1 Re-acdivate plant & temporary tacilsies 3af.f 3.2 Plant systems 3a1.f1 3.3 Reactor internmals 3a.1.13.4 Reator vessel 3a.1. 3.5 Biological shield 3a.1.13.6 Steam generators 3a.1.13. 7 Reinforced concrete 3a.1.13.8 Turbine &cndenser 3a,1.13.9 Plant structores

& buildings 3a.1.13 10 Waste management 3a.f.13.11 Facilty & site closeout 3a.1.13 Total Planning & SDe Prepanatioss 3a.1.14 Prepare dismanting sequence 3a.t.15 Plant prep. & temp. awces a 206 31 237 237 1.142 171 1,313 1,313 1.348 202 1,550 1,550 1.065 ---52 54 1,065 52 54 3,968 397 4,364 4.364 266 1,331 1.331 165 -54 325 326-2,158 324 2,482 2.482 659 66 725 725 3,592 539 4,131 4.131 1.943 291 2,234 2,234 165 12,319 1.937 15,592 15,592--~3,672 ----~3,672 --73,593 902 111,384--18,943 73,593 902 130.327-1,065 52 54 -165 13,667 2.,39 17,142 17,142 ---3,672 73,593 902 130,327 73,593 902 130,327 1,065 52 54 165 13,667 2,139 17,142 17,142-223 33 256 256 914 137 1.051 1,051 1,051 158 1,209 1,209 1,143 171 1,314 1,314 229 34 263 263 594 69 683 683 1,714 257 1,971 1.971 7.129 1,069 8,199 8,199 1.143 171 1,314 1.314 1.872 281 2,153 2.153 1,263 189 1,452 1,307 952 143 1,0695 985 1,622 243 1,666 1,866 1,114 167 1,281 1,261 57 9 66 66 1.426 214 1,640 1,640 366 55 420 210 9 1 14 105 -356 53 410 205 2,102 315 2,418 2,418 103 15 118 59 9.453 1.418 10,871 10.037 3,672 1,950 8,000 9,200 10,000 2,000 5,200 15.000 62,400 10,900 16.384 11,055 8,333 14.200 9.750 500 12.480 3,200 800 3,120 18,400 900 82.738 145 109 210 105 205 59 834 548 82 631 631 2.419 363 2,782 2.782-4,600 TLG Secricee, foe.

to P 8-0~2r 00'00 a-i F2 Wi-1 O Ul'Ut, Ocol 8 ~L.~1~ El 028 000 do CC*88 C ii p.08 I IC CU.2 4 fr'2 00....a2 ýN 0 NOO~a 0 NON~ 0 .0 0 ...N.N .O. a. .ONI A 0 ONNON NN CONON OINC NNN0NON INNO 000~4 00 a a ha C C 0 C 0 N CE 0~88 C'0o Co C~1/480 8u~0~ 0 C 0 ooC 0 ,-0.0 28 000.0 ~OWOO 0-~ C 0 0 ON 0-U a'-o'N 0 C ON 8cao O~N 8<.~ ~a8a a-- C 0 0 .CaIxoozooOno F~.2 E 2 ,_2 i8 E.0 0.0 om 0~~~~ý 0 000 2 ~

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Anlysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 4 of 9 Appendix C Three Mile Island Unit 2 Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Offt-Ste LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Actioity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lie. Term. Management Restoration Volote Class A Con. B Clans C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor oIndex Activitr Description Cost Coot Costs Costs Colst Costs Costs Contineens Cos Conts Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet CU. Feelt _V., Lbsn. Manhour Manhouro Period 3b Collateral Costs (continued) 3b.3.4 Pipe cutting equipment 3b.3 Subtotal Period 3b Colltatral Costs Period 3b Perod-Dependent Costs 3b.4.1 Decon supplies 3b.4.2 Insurarce 3b.4.3 Property taxes 3b4.4 Health physics supplies 3b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 3b.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 3b.4.7 Plant energy budget 3b.4.8 NRC Fees 3b.4.9 Ste O&M 3b.4.10 Radmwste Processing Equipment/Services 3b04.11 Security Staff Cost 3b.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 3b.4,13 Utiliy Staff Cost 3b.4 Subtotal Period 3b Penriod-Dependent Costs 3b.0 TOTAL PERIOD 31b COST PERIOD 3 TOTALS PERIOD 4a -Large Component Removal Period 4a Direct Decommissioning Activies Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 4a.1.1.1 Reactor Coolant Piping 4:.1.1.2 Pressurizer Relief Tank 4a.1.t.3 Reactor Coolant Pumps & Motors 4a.1.1.4 Pressurizer 4a...1.S Steam Generators 4a.1.1.6 CRDMsdClsISerice Strcture Removal 4a.1.1.7 Reactor Vessel Intamels 4a.1.1.8 Vessel & Internals GTCC Disposal 4a.1.1.9 Reactor Vessel 4e.1.l Totals Removal ot Major Equipment 4a.1.2 Main Turbine/Generator 4a.1.3 Main Condensers Disposal of Plant Systems 4a.1.4.1 Decay Heat Closed Cooling Water 4a.1.4.2 Decoy Heat Renoval (RCA)4a.1.4.3 Decoy Heal Reoual (Yard)4a.1.4.4 Demineralded Water (RCA)4a.1.4.5 Domestic Waler (Clean)4a.1.4.6 Domestic Water (RCA)4a.t.4.7 Electrical (Clean)4a.1.4.8 Emergency Feedoter (RCA)4u.t.4.9 Fire Protection (Clean)4a.1.4.10 Fire Protection (RCA)4a. .4.11 Gaseous Waste Disposal System (RCA)4a.1 .4.12 HVAC -Auxiliary Building 4a.1 .4.13 HVAC -Control Bulding 4a.1.4.14 HVAC -Miscellaneous

-957 667 974 21 407 175 143 1,100 1,100 1.113 413 3,167 3,167-5 26 26 240 24 264 264 102 509 509 26 201 201 g -3 18 18 559 84 643 643 476 48 523 523 127 19 146 146 190 29 219 219 908 136 1,045 1,045 12,322 1,848 14,171 14,171 1.262 189 1,451 1,451 4 16,085 2,513 19,216 19,216 3.814 24,059 5,280 37,162 36,141 205 205 1,021 5,234 21 582 3 3 688 2,756 217 348 588 3,571 223 354 -3,832 83.399 14,287 106,355 104,500 -1,855 5,638 4,107 50 28,152 171,363 13,214 4.107 50 212,729 1,661,309 26.412 272,780 1,669,412 26.512 788,269 89,877 6,773 -20,849 732 1.124,474 31,482 462,726 4,152 2,396.266 145,795 47,869 1,830 174,220 20.147 1,385 831 t42,496 ---906,490 29.147 1,395 831 5,455,267 249.057 2,789 55 224 8 32 1.169 1,306 6 6.362 31 51 120 3,332-8,676 214 21.152 15 3 876 708 767 147 4.245 1.290 8.051 37 5 197 199 1.769 56 446 463 3.173 701 146 9.554 3,090 17.396 336 473 249 20.777 -2.129 249 54.602 487 272 86 43 621 1,116 82 41 596 266 1,298 1,298 50 244 244 2,798 14,595 14,595 1.199 6,502 6,502 6,281 32,575 32,575 135 757 757 4.006 12,870 12.870 3,117 23,893 23,893 8,047 20,855 20,855 25,900 113,589 113,589 176 1,198 1,198 383 2,218 2.218 220 1,386 1.386 195 1,117 1,117 18 146 -55 301 301 1 7 -8 43 43 1 10 -29 165 165 7 57 -18 96 96 66 356 356 182 990 990 43 286 286 4 34 -188 10,752 2,144 23,268 6,863 1,454 -1,377 9,722 50,002 6,883 6,106 274,750 5,956 5.860 263,690 25,162 246 175 127 123 6 18 57 50 41 170 493 54 30 23 34 5 I 3 2 3 70 69-11 10 27 3 10 611 217 230 413 50 57 6 9 37 31 13 19 52 53 158 122 163 11 6,656 963-2,511 1,833 146 ---547 255 7-63 38 10 --407 140 57 --146 86 568 255 1,725 540-1,780 47 34 --356,612 5,630 266,361 4,172-2,863 45,089 2,746-148 5,963 396 S -191 29,058 1.280 1.167 13,657 933 44,078 3.949 118,524 11,067 76,530 1,130-666 TLG Services, Inc.

TAhra Mile Ie1-ofe Unit 2 Deeoa-iaioi.iriog Cost A-oayr.a Doeooe.t F07-It1601-02, Roe.. it Apjrrealief C, Pargc 5of9 Appendix C Three Mile Island Unit 2 Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Surial Volumes Burial I Utility and Aotivity Deoon Renoval Packaging Transport Prooessing Disposal Other Total Total Li. Teem. Management Restoration Volume Clats A Clat B Class C GTCC processed Craft Contraotor Incde Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Cott Cotta Costs. Costs Contingency Costs Cost- Cost. Cost. Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt,, Lbs. Manhourt Manhours Disposal of Plant Systems (continued) 4a.1.4.15 HVAC -Setvice Building 71 4a.1.4.16 Hydrogen Purge -Rad Monitoring 17 4a.1.4.17 Industrial Waste Treatment System 204 4a.1.4.18 Instrument Air (RCA) 101 4a01.4.19 Intermediate Closed Cooling Water (RCA) 83 4a.1 .4.20 Main Condensate (RCA) 164 4a.1.4.21 Main Reheat & Steam (RCA) 54 4a.1.4.22 Nucloar Servies Closed Cycle Cooling 760 4a.1.4.23 Nuclear Serice s Rer Water (Clean) 72 4a.1.4.24 Nuclear Setices RiverWater RCA) 1,043 4a.1.4.25 Reactor Building Normal Cooling (Clean) 13 4a.1.4.26 Reactor Building Norrmal Cooling (RCA) 241 4a.1.4.27 SG Secondary Side Vents & Drains 61 4a.1.4.28 Sampling Nudear System 194 4a.1.4.29 Sewage Treatment Plant (RCA) 4 4a.1.4.30 Station Service Air 199 4a.1.4.31 Sump Systems (RCA) 116 4a 1.4.32 Turbine Plant Sample (RCA) 15 4a.1.4 Totals .5,031 4a.1.5 Scaffolding in supportofdecomrissioning 1,092 4a.1 Subtotal Period 4a Act"ty Costs 214 28,664 Period 4a Additional Costs 4a.2.1 Reactor Building Basement Dose Reduction

-17 4a.2.2 Containment Basement Liner Remroval 113 4a.2.3 Reactor Building SNF & HOT Systenm Removl -4a.2.4 Fuel Handling I Auxiliary SNF & HOT Systems Removal 1,836 1,607 4a.2.5 NSSS Component Surface Decontamination 7,518 -4a.2.6 Core Flood Tanks Removal 63 398 4a.2.7 FHAB AX-004 Decontamination

-140 4a.2.8 Legacy waste stored at [NEEL --4a.2 Subtotal Period 4a Addiional Costs 9,417 2.275 Period 4a Collateral Costs 4a.3.1 Process liquid waste 14 -40.3.2 Small tool allowance

-359 4a.3 Subtotal Period 4a Collateral Costs 14 359 Period 4a Peitod-Dependent Costs 4a.4.1 Decon supplies 181 -4a.4.2 Insurance

-4:.4.3 Property taxes 4.4.4 Health physics supplies 5.694 4:.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 9,151 4a.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated

-4a.4.7 Plant energy budget 4a.4.8 NRC Fees 40.4.9 Site O&M 4a.4.10 Radwaste Processing EquipmentServices 4a.4. 1 Security Staff Cost 4a.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 40.4.13 Utliy Staff Cost 40.4 Subtotal Period 4a Period-Dependent Costs 181 14845 40.0 TOTAL PERIOD4a COST 9,827 46.143 2 7 0 0 5 8 9 19 6 29 3 9 100 220 49 108 21 50 3 4 10 14 0 7 8 3 5 1 1 304 693 12 7 8.534 3,957 118 3.270 236 551 51 246 117 422 808 33 53 68 171 831 1.554 5,422 94 7 0 1 25 47 52 118 376 25 59 37 1,182 1,081 403 629 160 305 35-110 3 1 13 59 15 34 6 5 3,710 3.423 82 11 5.009 58,036 497 35 216 216 5 24 24 31 234 -42 228 228 62 343 343 114 734 734 33 195 195 680 4,022 4.022 11 83 -500 2 731 2,731 2 14 -170 948 948 25 128 128 79 4Q7 407 2 10 10 68 355 355 41 215 215 6 34 34 2.753 15,914 15.329 290 1.495 1.495 29.502 134.414 133.828 1 029 29-4 6 234 ---271 207 568 524 4.101 149 643 164-12.877 5.304 83 --4,392 2.792 14 -1,739 1,356-154 5- 30 35 3 139 263 161 152 61 22 506 40,423 15,811-804 50 6 586 53.192 65,663 6.883 44.397 1,434 644 413-4.899 29,566 2.251 70,092 1.i87 176,316 4.077 40,843 1.217 953,442 17.230-1.764 428,769 24,882-298 192,214 5,711 13,769 1.413 43,764 4,528 1.651 62 29,187 4.806 20,117 2.753 4,469 328 3,005,161 116.309 40,656 28.124-831 9,039,526 424.608 2.789 2,017 -1.217.965 282 --129,709 2,286-76.912 318 40 666,018 72,761 329 19,751 46,920-124,165 10.059 226.566 4.638 2.017 369 2,463,066 137,264--15,632 33 15,632 33 14,806 4,208 22.418 22,418 1,477 504 2,8 1 2,881 761 -232 1.290 1,290 5.676 2564 12,224 12.224 8,230 3,759 20.348 , 20.348 872 -364 1,818 1.818 1,661 343 644 3,791 3.791-590 89 679 679 33,483 933 12.364 695449 65.449 9,225 2 3,756 4 1,002 1,716 3,380 10,580 17,363 0 5 39 186 5 39 186 60 305 305 54 413 372 114 716 676 41 41 124 124-45 226 226 2,104 210 2,314 2,314 1,424 7,118 7,118---1,373 10,524 10,524 112 118 356 -1i8 703 703---4,901 735 5,637 5,637 3,068 307 3,375 3,375 1,110 166 1.276 1.276 1.666 250 1,916 1.916 7.724 1.159 8.83 8.883 121,888 18.283 140.171 140.171 11,058 1.859 12,717 12.717 112 118 356 153,520 25,729 154.859 194.59 10.205 9.536 5,009 92,061 154,950 67.708 395.439 394.813 7,942 159,158 1.950 239,352 1,719,186 115,786 7,942 .159,158 1,950 2,074.324 627 53.192 84,385 24.370 2,017 1,200 11,677,600 563.855 2,077.114 TLGServesic, ls.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Deeonnissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 6 sf9 Appendix C Three Mile Island Unit 2 Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)I Activity Index Activits Description Ott-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial Utility and Deoon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Terrr. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C DTCC Processed Craft Contractor Cost t Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Continue-n Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cuo Feet Co, Feet Cu. Feet Wt. Lbs. Manhours Manhours PERIOD 4b -Site Decontamination Disposal of Plant Systems 4b.1.2,1 Decay Heat Removal (RB)4ib. .2.2 Electrical (Contaminated

-RB)4b.1.2.3 Eloctrical (Contaminate

-RCA)4b.1.2.4 Feedwaetn (RB)4b*1.2.5 Fire Protection (RB)4b t .2.6 Fuel Handling (RB)4b.1.2,7 Fuel Handling (RCA)4b.1.2.8 Gaseous Waste Disposal System (RB)4b.1.2.9 HVAC -Fuel Handling Building 4b.1.2.10 HVAC -Reactor Building 4b.1.2.11 Instrument Air (RB)4b.1.2.12 Intermediate Closed Cooling Water (RB)4ib.t.2,13 Nitrogen for Nuclear Radwaste Sys (RB)4b.1.2.14 Nuclear Services RBrer Water (RB)4b.1.2.15 OTSG Chemical Cleaning System 4c.1.2.16 Sewage Treatment Plant (Clean)4b.1.2.17 Spent Fuel Cooling 4b.1.2,1t Spent Fuot Cooling )RB)4b.1.2.19 Sump Systems (RB)4b.1.2 Totals 4b.1.3 Scaffolding in support of decomrssioning Decontamination of Site Buildings 4b.1.4.1 Reactor 4b.1.4.2 Auxiliary 4b.t.4.3 BWST & CST Tank Pads 4b.t14.4 Control & Seorvce 4b.1.4,5 Control Building Area 4b.1.4.6 Fuel Handling 4b..1.4.7 Turbine 4b.1.4 Totals 41b.1 Subtotal Period 4b Acticity Costs Perod 4b Adddinoal Costs 4b.2.1 Bioshield

& D-Ring Remocal 4b.2.2 RB Extedor Concrete & Basemat Removal 4b.2.3 Underground Piping & Yard Soil t4.2.4 Process NSSS decon & segmentation iquid inventory 4b.2.5 Auxiliary Building Total Removal 4b.2.6 Fuel Handling Building Total Removal 41.2.7 On-site survey & release of concrete 4b.2.8 Detueling fuel canister racks 41.2,9 License Ternmiation Survey Planning 41b.2 Subtotal Period it Additional Costs Period 4b Collateral Costs 4b.3.1 Process liquid wlsto 4b.3.2 Small tool atocance 4b.3.3 Decommissioning Equipment Disposiion 4b.3 Subtotal Period 41 Collateral Costs Period 46 Peoiod-Dependent Costs 4b.4.1 Decon supplies 4b.4.2 Insurance 209 39 259 34 17 4 280 3 206 730 23 69 7 77 16 8 346 21 31 2,380 1,638 8,756 3.760 428 808-153 20 6 78 41 599 875 59 3 9,940 5.64R 9,940 9,664-4,951 7,946 641 7.739 5,416 2.227 22 20 22 28,941 20 2 8 5 1 0 13 DOl 0 4R 4t 1 16 1 2 333 is 1,091 70 348 t 8 61 a 1.579 1,731 668 228 105 72 324 72 308 1,777 32 38 to 26 1 26 20 12 27 17 2,4DB 2,684 249-26 5O0 33-77 13 4 205 2 101 42-662 12 59 11 128 16 41 204 17-t24 642 1,785 123 17-9,454 30 307-1,341 0 5 23 30 74 390-71 126 11,529 891 13M31 121 631 631 17 87 87 154 992 992 30 154 154 8 41 41 2 11 11 127 651 651 1 7 7 79 443 443 365 1,866 1,886 9 46 48 34 175 175 5 25 25 55 285 285 8 43 43 1 9 -150 787 787 10 52 52 15 75 75 1,191 6,404 6.395 436 2,242 2,242 7,972 32,245 32,245 530 2.341 2.341 540 3.259 3,259 13 49 49 64 265 265 651 2,767 2,767 31 96 96 9,B01 41,022 41,022 11,427 49,668 49,659--, 1,108--116 5,443 145-341 58 19 912--9 1.097 185-2,941 55 263 49 568 70 452 907 S -108 9 6,991 7,930 1.206 75-42,223 323 4,989-24,827 2 97 249 545 603 3,075-25 1,377 76,281 9 9,574 84,286 99,380 4,941 10,435 893 234,039 5,743 30,612 804 5,171 407 1,669 86 81,790 6,260 790 76 61,125 4.568 263,784 16,426 4,966 545 23,572 1,604 4,378 170 50,919 1,826 6,260 372--1 so 99,713 8,157 6,934 462 9,645 744 995,182 54,302 60,988 42,187 3,766,363 261,037 485,601 26.400 2,482,650 3,623 9,763 566 64,320 2,552 361,010 30.801 2.532 1,452 7,172,239 326,431 8,228,408 422,920 1,080 -Mf096 3,991 20.786 20,786 368 3,443 -2,926 14,913 14,913 1,416 2.011 250 923 5,345 5.345 281 3,874 770 1,133 6,130 6.130 689 6,453 -3,684 11.888 18,888 477 -4,447 -2.545 12,957 12,957 555 307 -1,500 911 5.499 5,499 64 -796 -255 1.465 1,465---1,393 418 1,811 1,811 4,929 307 31,119 3,913 16 785 87.793 87,793 155.795 53,132 48,992 99,586 68,634 23,256 449,395 1,347 1,347 18,695,440 60,693 6,375,849 120,240 3,723,414 8.942 -158,780 -779 11,950,340 113,205 -8,236,080 73.213 24.581 317,086 1,964 -S --12,480 49,456,980 402,838 13,259 24 -8 518 --g90 24 518 96 70 62 132 273 610 84 610 357 91 466 466 78 595 595 131 977 977 380 2 038 2.038 222 27,9609 58 6.000 373 -303,507 739 6,000 373 222 331,475 798 887 --222 1,109 1,109 1,657 166 1,823 1,823 TLG Serviee, l[e.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis D-oedn F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 7sf9 Appendix C Three Mile Island Unit 2 Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Ot-dile LLRW NRC Spent Fuel SiKe Processed Burial Volumes Burial Utility nd Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Proeessing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Teem. Management -Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor tndex Activity Descripion Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs costs Costs Cu. Fent Cu. eet Cu. Fent Cu. Feet Cu. FFet VA., Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period 4b Perod-Depndpent Costs (continued) 40.4.3 Property taxes 4b.4.4 Health physics supplies 4b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 48.4.6 Disposal ot DAW generated 40.4.7 Plant energy budget 4b.4.8 NRC Fees 4b.4.9 Site O&M 40.4.10 Radwoste Processing Equipment/Senices 4b.4.11 Security Staff Cost 4Hb.12 DOC Staff Cost 4b.4.13 Utility Staff Cost 4b.4 Subtotal Period 4b Perinod-Dependent Costs 4b.0 TOTAL PERIOD 4b COST PERIOD 4e -License Termination Period 4e Direct Decomrrmissoning Acivities 4a.1.1 ORISE confirmatory survey 4e.l.2 Terminate license 4e.l Subtotal Period 4e Activity Costs Period 4e Additional Costs 4e.21 License Termination Survey 4e.2 Subtotal Period 4e Additional Costs Period 4e Collateral Costs 4e.3.1 DOC staff relocation expenses 4e.3 .Subtotal Period 4e Collateral Costs Period 4e Period-Dependent Costs 4e.4.1 Insurance 4e.4.2 Prpeny taxes 4H.4.3 Heahth physics supplies 4e.4.4 Disposal of DAW generated 4e.4.5 Plant energy budget 4e.4.6 NRC Fees 4e.4.7 Site O&M 4e.4.8 Security Staff Cost 4ed4.9 DOC Staff Cost 4e.4.t0 Ulilty Staff Cost 4e,4 Subtotal Period 4e Period-Dependent Costs 4te.0 TOTAL PERIOD He COST PERIOD 4 TOTALS PERIOD 5b -Site Restoration Period 5b Direct Decommissioning Activites Demolition of Remaining Sie Buildings Se.1.1.1 Air Intake Tunnel 50.1.1.2 Circulating Walor Chlorinator Ss.1.1.3 Circulating Water intake Flume 5b.1.1.4 Circulating Water Pumphouse So.1,1,5 Coagulator 5b.t.1.6 Control & Sterice-6,953 5.773 887 12,725 10,873 51.849 80 85-866 256 2.883 432 1.918 192 874 131 1.312 197 4.327 649 77.889 11,683 8,712 1.307 256 99.573 17,668 1.808 45,063 103,487 46,180 8,691 6,639 506 3,315 2,110 1,005 1,509 4.977 89,573 10.018 131,275 270,774 8.69 1 6,639 506 3,315 2,110 1,005 1.509 4.977 89,573 10.018 131,275 270.765 15,574 80 85 3,685 7,829 5,713 5,713 539,767 222 1,347 114.486 1,403 114,486 1.403 58,131.350 827,958 134,122 1.109,166 91,214 1.334,501 1,347.760 155 46 201 201 155 46 201 201-8,228 2,468 10,696 10,696 8,228 2,468 10,696 10,696 161,279 6,240 161,279 6,240 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 1,387 1.387-1.387 2 1,387 20,700 ff9,278 14 14 14 6,816 137,138 333 220 446 187 378 4.712 1.500 7,776 17,272 275,708 33 366 347 1,734 4 27 33 253 45 490 28 215 57 434 707 5,419 225 1,725 1,479 10,664 4,161 22,842 118,049 689,055 366 1.734 27 253 490 215 434 5,419 1,725 10,664 22,842 688,419 302 302 302 636 68,766 624,455 6.061 6,061 6,061 24,592 3.364 1.200 69,814.820 74 74 181,353 1,553,166 11.700 61,230 14,820 87,750 93.990 3.518,864 4 4 13,894 4 4 17,370 141 64 56 164 48 2.935 21 162 10 74 8 64 25 189 7 55 -440 3,376 169 162 74 64 189 55 3,207 2,297 1,131 915 3.205 937 41,685 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Deeommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 8 of9 Appendix C Three Mile Island Unit 2 Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Ott-Sd. LLRW NRC Spent Fucl Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Aetioity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lie. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor tIndex Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Fent Cu. Fent Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours Demolltion of Remaining Sbte Buildings (continued) 5b.1.1.7 Control Building Area 5b.1.1.8 Cooling Towers 5b.1.1.9 Emergency Diesel Generator 5b1.1 .10 Main s Aux Transformsr Foundations 5b.1,1.11 Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers 5b.1.1.12 Miscellaneous Yard Foundations 5b.1.1.13 River Water Pumphouse 5b.1.1.14 Turbine 5o.1.1.15 Turbine Generator Pedestal 5b.t.1 Totals Site Closeout Activities 8b.1.2 Grade & landscape site 5b.1.3 Final report to NRC 5b.1 Subtotal Period Sb Actloty Costs Period 5b Additonal Costs 5b.2.1 River Water Pump House Cofferdam 5b.2.2 Concrete Processing 5b.2.3 Survey & Relnase of scrap materials 5b.2.4 Backfill Site 5b.2 Subtotal Period Sb Addoional Costs Period 5b Collateral Costs 5b.3.1 Small tool allowance 5b.3 Subtotal Period 5b Collateral Costs Period 5b Period-Dependent Costs 5b.4.1 Insurance 5b.4.2 Pmperty taxes 5b.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 5b.4.4 Plant energy budget 5b.4.5 Security Staff Cost 5b.4.6 DOC Staff Cost 5b.4.7 Staff Cost 5b.4 Subtotal Period 5b PenodSDependent Costs 5b.0 TOTAL PERIOD sb COST PERIOD 5 TOTALS TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION 783 729 1,151 76 75 17 1,632 1.423 646 99.40 118 901 109 839 173 1.324 11 87 3 20 245 1,876 213 1,636 97 743 1,491 11.431 901 039 1,324 87 86 20 1,876 1,636 743 11.263-10,051 11.813 15,920 1,387 1,074 284 21,756 26.857 8,464 148,057 169 135 10,075 356 356 20 155 -155 53 410 410 -1,565 11.997 579 11,418 770 --3.120 148,828 3.120 186 292 422 900 101 101-8 -815 61 2,068 815 59 2,068 28 214-45 345 1 401 3,346-63 485 1 537 4,389 s1 116 15 116 3,346 3,346 214 345 7 5- 7,55 1,405 --1,043 7,550 2,116-1,785 3,704,137 7,408-4,544-3.704.137 15.853 116 116 2,211 -S -147 a4-.423--1,899 2,211 ---11,554 13,287 815 69 2.068 11,911 13,287 815 09 2,068 11,011 21,388 117,303 14,984 17,846 8,884 141,135 384,686 332 2,543 2,543 22 169 169 -13 97 97 2,607 1,413 10.037 10,837 116800 285 2,184 2,104 20,336 2,065 15.0 15,830 15,839. 139,743 4,182 32.332 3,925 28,407 7.559 3,704,137 164,681 142,863 4.182 32,332 3.925 28,407 7.559 3,704,137 164,681 142.863 138,658 844,884 813.986 30,898 76,325 633,766 24,592 3,364 1,200 75,261,950 1,745,261 4,580,323 TL3 Seroi-e, les.

Th-o Mile Iacused Unitl 2 Deommisnsiuoninrig Cost Anaolysis Docureoors F07-1601.002, Rau. 0 Apipaonsa/

C, Piage 9 f9A Appendix C Three Mile Island Unit 2 Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)I Activity Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Butial Volumes Burial/ Utilityn Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet CU. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet WtL, Lbs. Manhours Manhours* Indec Acuty Lt escinption Cost C C C.: a TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION WITH 19.63% CONTINGENCY:

$844,884 thousands of 2008 dollars TOTAL NRC LICENSE TERMINATION COST IS 96.34% OR $8t3,986 thousands ot 2009 dollars NON-NUCLEAR DEMOLITION COST IS 3.66% OR: $30,898 thousands of 2009 dollars TOTAL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BURIED (EXCLUDING GTCC): 601,721 cubic feet TOTAL GREATER THAN CLASS C RADWASTE VOLUME GENERATED:

1,200 cubic fent TOTAL SCRAP METAL REMOVED: 29,694 tons TOTAL CRAFT LABOR REOUIREMENTS:

1,745,261 tan-hours End Notes: nla -indicates that this activity not charged as decommissioning expense.,- indicates that this activity performed by decommnssicning staff.0- indicates that this value is cos than 0.5 cut s non-uero.a cell containing

--" indicates a zero value TLG Ser-ice., l-.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07.1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 1 of 9 APPENDIX D DETAILED COST ANALYSIS CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR TLG Services, Inc.

Theee MileIsan U.0oS I~ 2 Do ioiaigCost Annifyei.Dacooeeeo F07-1601-0082, Rev. 0 Appendixe D, Page 2 of 8 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)I oltY Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial / Utility and I Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Cost Cost Costs Cost. Costs Cost C Cost, Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhout I j Index A rtlwty Uescription PERIOD 2c -SAFSTOR Dormancy during TMI-1 Decommissioning Period 2c Direct Decomnnissioning 20.1.1 Quarterty Inspection 2c.1.2 Semi-annual enviroonmental survey 2c.1.3 Prepare rnports 2c.1.4 Situminous mof replacement 2c.1.5 Maintenance supplies 2c.1 Subtotal Period 2c Activity Costs Peiod 2c Period-Dependent Costs 2c.4.1 Insurance 2c,4.2 Property taxes 2c.4.3 Health physics supplies 2c.4.4 Disposal of DAW generated 2c.4.5 Plant energy budget 2c.4.6 NRC Fees 2c.4.7 Securrty Staff Cost 2,4.8 Utilty Staff Cost 2c 4 Subtotal Period 2c Period-Dependent Costs 2c.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2c COST PERIOD 2 TOTALS PERIOD 3a -Reactivate Site Following SAFSTOR Dormancy Penod 3a Direct Decommissioning Actiities 3a.1.1 Prepare preliminary decommissioning cost 3:. 1.2 Prepare and submyt PSDAR 3a 1.3 Review plant dwgs & specs.3a. 1.4 Perform detailed tad survey 3a .1.5 Estimate by-product inventory 3a.1.6 End product description 3:.1.7 Detailed by-product inventory 3 .1.8 Define major work sequence 3a.1.9 Perform SER and EA 3a.1.10 Perform Site-Specific Coot Study 3a11.11 Preparelsubmg License Termination Plan 3a 1.12 Recenve NRC approval of termination plan Actvity Specifications 3:.j.13.1 Re-activate plant & temporary faciltiles 3a.1.13.2 Plant systems 3o.1.13.3 Reactor internals 3a.1.1 3.4 Reactor vessel 3a.1.13.5 Biological shield 3a.1.13.6 Steam generators 3a.1.1 37 Reinlfrcedconcre 3a.1.1 3.8 Turbine &condenser 3a 1.12.9 Plant structures 9 buildings 3a.1.13.10 Waste management 3a. 1.13.11 Facility & sfte closeout 30.1.13 Total Planning & Site Preparations 3a.1.14 Prepare dismantling sequence 30.1.15 Plant prep. &temp. svces a 1,132 170 1,301 1,301 6,263 939 7.202 7,202 7,394 1,109 8,503 8,503 5.843 ---283 298 5,843 283 298 5,843 283 298 5.643 283 298 21.765 903 -* 11,840 3,615 19,703-10,656 903 67,580 2.177 23.942 23,942 1,461 7,304 7.304 299 1,783 1,783 1,776 13,616 13,616 361 3.976 3,976 2.955 22,659 22,659 1,598 12.255 12,255 10,627 85,534 85,534 20.146 20,146 20,146 20,146 403.707 4.946 611,016 S --103,914 403.707 4,946 714.930 403,707 4,946 714,930 403,707 4,946 714,930 903 74.974 11,737 94,038 94.038 903 74,974 11,737 94,038 94.038 223 914 1,051 1,143 229 594 1.714 7,129 1,143 1,872 1.263 952 1.622 1.114 57 1426 366 91 356 2,102 1 93!1.453 33 256 256 137 1.051 1,051 158 1,209 1,209 171 1.314 1,314 34 263 263 89 683 683 257 1.971 1.971 1,069 8.199 8,199 171 1,314 1,314 281 2.153 2,153 1,950 8,000 9,200 10,000 2,000 5,200 15.000 62.400 10.,00 16,384 189 1.452 1,307 145 143 1.095 985 109 243 1.866 1.866 -167 1.281 1,281 5 66 66 214 1,640 1.640 -55 420 210 210 14 105 -105 53 410 205 205 315 2.418 2.418 15 118 59 59 1.41' 10.871 10.037 834--11.055 8,333 14,200 9,750 500 12.480 3,200 3,120 18,400 90O 82.738 548 82 631 631 2,419 363 2,782 2,782-4,800 TLG Services, 1-.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 DD.em isioining Cost Analysis Do.u.ent F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page3 of 9 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Acf,,t Uff-srte LUZO NRC; Spent Fuel Si Processed Buria1 Volumes Burial t -theiy ano Decon Rerooal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other legal Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volurre Class A Class 8 Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Cost Cast Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Coontioenco Costs Coors Costs Costs Co.Feet CusFsar Co. Fet C.Fset Cu.Feet me-the-bs Manhoous MashoarsdLVL ~n -...... Y Cast Cost cost, Cast, ctstu; costs Cast. C Costs Cast. Cost, Cu Feet Cu Feet Cu Feet Cu Feet Cu Feet Wt. Lbs Manhours Manhoum 3a.1.16 Design mater clean-up system 3a.1.17 RiggingtCont.

Cotd Envtpsfoclingtetc.

3..olls Procure casksginers

& containers 3a.1 Subtotal Period 3a Acntirry Costs Period 3a Additional Costs 3a.2.1 Railroad Track Refurbishment 3a.2.2 Equipment Airlock Refurbishment 3e.2.3 RB Polar Crane Refurbishment 3a.2.4 RB Cask Handling System 3a.2 Subtotal Period 3a Additional Costs Period 3a Peniod-Dependent Costs 3a.4.1 Insurance 3:.4.2 Property taxes 3a.4.3 Health physics topples 3a.4.4 Heavy equipment rental 3a.4.5 Disposal of DAW generated 3a.4.6 Plant energy budget 3a.4.7 NRC Fees 3a.4.8 Site O&M 3a.4.9 Security Staff Cost 3a.4.10 DOC Staff Cost 3a.4.11 UtLility Staff Cost 3a.4 Subtotal Period 3a Period-Dependent Costs 3a.. TOTAL PERIOD 3a COST PERIOD 3b -Decommissioning Preparations Period 3b Direct Decommissioning Activties Detailed Work Procedures 3b.1.1.1 Plant systems 3b.1.l.2 Reaclcr internals 3b.1.t.3 Remaining buildings 3b. 1..4 CRD coolingassembly

31. 11.5 Reactor vessel 3bD 1ols6 Facildy closeo.t 3b.1.1.7 Missile shields 3h.1.1 .8 Biological shield 31.1.1 .9 Steam generatcrs 3b,1.1.10 Reinford concrete 3b.1.1 .11 Turbine &condensers 3b.1.1.12 Auciliary building 3b.1.1.13 Reactor building 3b.1.1 Total 3b.1 Subtotal Period 31 Actautly Costs Period 3b Additional Costs 31.21 Lead Sheilding Disposal 31.2.2 Stored Defueling Equipment Disposiion 3b.2 Subtotal Penrod 3b Additional Costs Period 3b Collateral Costs 3b.3.1 Decun equipment 3b*3.2 DOC staff relocation expenses 3bD.3D Small tool allomance 640 2,048 281 31,399 300 1,180 5,890 1,180 8.550 96 736 736 307 2,355 2,355 42 323 323 4,710 36,109 35,275 45 345 345 177 1.357 1.357 884 6,774 6,774 177 1,357 1,357 1,283 9,833 9,833 44 481 481 117 586 586 52 397 397 6 36 36 166 1.269 1,269 94 1,032 1.032 37 287 287 316 2.419 2.419 1.857 14,238 14.238 374 2.864 2,864 3,062 23,609 23,609 834 5,600 2,460 235,732 469 346 815 815 437 1,104 938 250 2,104 12.380 2,490 18 1R.703 4G4 8,103 404 8,103 65,179 198.143 26,071 99 289.393 18 59,652 9,054 69,551 68716 -834 404 8.103 99 525,125 1,091 571 154 171 622 137 51 137 2,102 229 356 624 624 6.861 162 1,244 1,119 86 657 657 23 177 44 26 197 197 93 715 715 21 158 79 8 59 59 21 158 158 315 2.418 2,418 34 263 131 53 410 -94 717 646 94 717 646 1.029 7.890 6,869 124 133 79 131 410 72 72 1,021 1.021 9,466 5.000 1,350 t ,500 5,445 1.200 450 1,200 18,400 2,000 3,120 5,460 5,460 60.051 60,051-6,861 1.029 7,890 6,869 3,205 -1,023 5,326 5,326 600 " 301 1,563 1.563 3,805 1,324 6,889 6,689 664 179 254 537 35 90 1,200 215 344 2,511 2.518 5.029 1,418,084 14,333 239.118 12,029 1, 6577202 26.362 17-100 767 767 1,113 167 1,280 1,280-3 20 20 TLGSercies, Ine.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Deeosuissioning Cost Anlysis Dsvumunent F07.1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 4 f89 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Off-Sit LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Buriao Volumes Burial I Utility and Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Continsencv ots s Costs Costo Costs Cu. Fast Co P .eFt Co.Fos Cu. Fet Co. Feet Wt.. Lbs. Manhour Manhours A Aciity 2nde- Activit Description Period 3b Collateral Costs lcontinued) 31.3.4 Pipe cuting equipment 3b.3 Subtotal Period 30 Collateral Costs Period 30 Period-Dependent Costs 3b.4.1 Decon supplies 3b.4.2 Insurance 3b.4.3 Property taxes 3b.4.4 Hearth physics suppies 3b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 3b.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 3b.4.7 Plant energy budget 3b.4.8 NRC Fees 3b.4.9 Sits O&M 3b.4.10 Radwoste Processing EquipmenttServices 3b.4.11 Secrity Staff Cost 3b.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 3b.4.13 UtilIp Stff Cost 3b.4 Subtotal Period 30 Period-Dependent Costs 36.0 TOTAL PERIOD 30 COST PERIOD 3 TOTALS PERIOD 4a -Large Component Removal Pedod 4a Direct Decommissioning Activiles Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 4..1.1.1 Reactor Coolant Piping 4a. .1.2 Pressurvur Retef Tank 4a.t.1.3 Reactor Coolant Pumps & Motors 4a.1.1.4 Pressurier 4a.1.1.5 Steam Generators 4a.1.t.6 CRDMsdCrsroSer ce Structure Removal 4a.1.1.7 Reactor Vessel Intemars 4a.1.1.8 Vessel & Internals GTCC Disposal 4a.1.1.9 Reactor Vessel 4a.1.1 Totals Removal of Major Equipment 4a.1.2 Main Tursine/Generator 4u.1.3 Main Condensers Disposal of Plant Systems 4a.1.4.1 Decay Heat Clused Cooling Water 4a.1.4.2 Decay Heat Removal (RCA)4a.1.4.3 Decay Heat Removal (Yard)4a.1.4.4 Deminerolzed Water (RCA)4a.1.4.5 Domestic Water (Clean)4o.1.4.6 Domestc Water (RCA)4a.1.4.7 Electrical (Clean)4a.1.4.8 Emergency Pesdtater (RCA)4a.1.4.9 Fire Protection (Clean)4a.1.4.10 Fire Protection (RCA)4a.1.4.11 Gaseous Waste Disposal System (RCA)4a.1.4.12 HVAC -Auxilary Building 4a.1.4.13 HVAC -Control Building 4a.1.4.14 HVAC -Miscellaneous

-967 667 974-143 1.100 1,100 1,113 413 3,167 3,167 21 407 175 21 582 3 3 688 2,756 217 348 688 3,571 223 354 55 224 15 28 8 32 3 4-1,169 876 197 1.306 708 199-6.362 767 1,769 31 51 147 56 120 3.332 4.245 "6-8,676 1.290 463 214 21,152 Bt51 3,162 240-9 -559 476 127 190 1,066 12.322 1,262 9 16.243 3,814 24.217 3,832 83.869 104 351 -24 73-9,554 3.090 17,396 336 473 249 20,777 --2.129 249 127 54,178 497 5 26 26 24 264 264 102 509 509 20 201 201 3 18 18 84 643 643 48 523 523 19 146 146 29 219 219 160 1.226 1,226 1.848 14,171 14,171 189 1.451 1,451 2.537 19,398 19,398 5.304 37,3"4 38.323 14.358 106.895 105,039 192 968 968 35 178 178 2,798 14,595 14.599 1.199 6.502 6,502 6,281 32,575 32,575 135 757 757 4,006 12.870 12.870 3.117 23.893 23,893 8,047 20.855 20.855 25,811 113,193 113,193 205 205 5,234 5.638 1,021 1,855 4,107 50 33,036 171.363 13,214 4,107 50 217.613 1,661,309 26,412 277,664 1,669,412 26,512 802,789 95,775 6.773 -20.849 732 1,124,474 31.482 462,726 4,152 2.396,266 145,795 47,869 1,830 174,220 29,147 1,395 831 142,496-986,490 29,147 1,395 831 5,451,165 249.057 2,789 048 548 94 94-10,752 23,268 6,883 1.454 -1,377 9,722 642 49,359 6,883 272 86 43 621 1,116 82 41 596 176 1,198 1,198 383 2.218 2,218 6.106 5.860 274,750 5,956 263,690 25,162 246 175 127 123 6 18-9 57 50 41 170 493 54 30 23 70 34 69 5 11 1 1 3 7 2 3 5 10 9 26 3 13 611 217 230 413 50 57 6 9 37 31 13 19 52 53 158 122 163 11 220 1.386 1,386 195 1.117 1,117 19 146 -55 301 301 1 7 -8 43 43 1 10 29 165 1r5 7 57 -18 96 96 66 356 356 182 990 990 43 286 286 4 34 -146-7 10 57 34 6,656 963 2.511 1.833 547 255 63 38 407 140 146 86 568 255 1,725 540 1.780. 47 356,612 5,630 266,361 4,172-2,863 45.089 2,746-148 5,993 396-191 29.058 1,280-1t167 13,657 933 44,078 3,949 118,524 11.067 76.530 1,130--666 TLG Serviee, 1.

TAh-e Mile Ilaeo.d Undt 2 Decombmissionin~g Cost Auaafy-i-Doceaocecd F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appeodin D, Prig, 5 of9 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Oft-Sde LLW NRC Spent Foet S PSit rocessed Baral Volumes Banal I Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lc. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs costs Costs costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt, Lbs. Manhours Manhoursu Disposal of Plant Systems (continued) 4a.1.4.15 HVAC -Seoice Building 71 4a.1.4.16 Hydrogen Purge -Red Monitoring 17 4a.1.4.17 Industrial Waste Treatment System 204 4a.1.4.18 Instrument Air (RCA) 101 4a.1.4. 1 Internediete Closed Cooling Water (RCA) 83 4a.1.4.20 Main Condensate (RCA) 1584 4a.1.4.2t Main Reheat& Steam (RCA) 54 4a.1.4.22 NuIclear Serices Closed Cycl Codling 760 4a.1.d.23 Nuclear Serncen River Water (Clean) 72 4a.1.4.24 Nuclear Services River Water RCA) 1.043 4a.1.4.25 Reactor Building Normal Cooling (Clean) 13 40.1.4.26 Reactor Building Normal Cooling (RCA) 241 4a.1.4.27 SG Secondary Side Vents & Drains 61 4a.1.4.28 Sampling N uclear System 194 4a.t.4.29 Sewage Teatment Plant (RCA) 4 4e.t.4.30 Station Service Air 199 4a.1.4.31 Sump Systems (RCA) 116 4:.1.4.32 Turbine Plant Sample (RCA) 15 4a.1.4 Totals 5.031 4a.1.5 Scaffolding in support o1 decommissioning 1.092 4a.1 Subtotal Period 4a Activity Costs 214 28.664 Period 4a Additional Costs 4a.2.1 Reactor Building Basement Dose Reduction

-17 4a.2.2 Containment Basement Liner Removal 113 4a2.3 Reactor Building SNF & HOT Systems Removal --4a.2.4 Fuel Handling /Auxiliary SNF & HOT SystemT Removal 1.836 1,607 4a.2.5 NSSS Component Surface Decontamination 7,518 -4a.2.6 Core Flood Tanks Removal 63 398 4a.2.7 FHAB AX-004 Decontamination

-140 4a.2.8 Legacy waste stored at INEEL --4a.2 Subtotal Petiod 4a Additional Costs 9,417 2,275 Period 4a Collateral Costs 4a.3.1 P .-oIss liquid waste 3 -41.3.2 Sinan tool alloentnce

-359 4..3 Subtotal Pedod 4a Collateral Costs 3 359 Period 4a Peid-Depeondent Costs 40.4.1 Decon supplies 182 4a.4.2 Insurance

-40.4.3 Property taxes -41.4.4 Health physics supplies 5,703 4A.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 9,190 40.4.6 Disposal o1 DAW generated 4a.4.7 Plentoenergy budget 40.4.8 NRC Fees 4a.4.9 Site O&M 4a.4.10 Radvaste Processing EquipmentSevices 40.4.11 Secucty Start Cost 4e.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 40.4.13 Utlity Stall Cost 4a.4 Subtotal Period 4a Period-Dependent Costs 182 14.893 2 7 94 7 5 0 5 1 5 8 25 47 9 19 52 118 6 29 376 25 3 9 59 37 100 220 1,182 1.081 49 108 403 629 21 50 160 305 3 4 -35 10 14 -110 0 3 1 7 8 13 59 3 5 15 34 1 t 6 5 304 693 3,710 3,423 12 7 82 11 8.534 3,946 5.136 57,612 35 216 216 5 24 24 31 234 -42 228 228 62 343 343 114 734 734 33 195 195 6801 4.022 4,022 11c 83 --500 2,731 2,731 2 14 -170 948 948 25 128 128 79 407 , 407 2 10 10 68 355 355 41 215 215 6 34 34 2.753 15,914 15,329-290 1.495 1.495 497 29.414 134,017 133.432 234 83 14 586 586 1,029 29 4 6 271 207 568 524 4a101 149 643 164 12,877 5,304 4.392 2,792 1,739 1.356 154-530 35 3 139 263 161 152 61 22 40,423 15.811 804 50 6, -53,834 65,221 6.83 -44,397 1,434 644 413-4,6899 29.566 2,251 70,092 1,887 176.316 4,077 40,843 1,217 953,442 17,230-1.764 428,769 24,882-298 192.214 5,711 13.769 1,413 43,764 4,528 1.651 82 29,187 4,836 20,117 2 753 4,489 328 3.005,161 116.309 40.658 28.124 831 9,035,424 424.608 2.789 118 3,270 14.806 4,208 22.418 22,418 236 551 1.477 504 2.881 2.881 51 246 761 232 1,290 1.290 117 422 5.676 2,564 12,224 12,224 808 33 8,230 3,759 20,348 .20,348 53 68 872 -364 1,818 1.818 171 831 1,661 343 644 3,791 3,791---590 89 679 679 1,554 5,422 33.483 933 12,364 69,449 65,449 9,225 2,017 3,756-1t002 8,864 1,716-3,380 10,580 17.363 2.017 1 15 120 1 15 120 112 118 356 112 118 356 34 172 172 54 413 372 87 585 544-- 49 41 41 49 1,217,965 282 129,709 2.286 76,912 318 40 6668018 72.761 329 19,751 46,920-124,165 10,059 228,566 4,638 369 2,463,086 137,264-6.144 13 6.144 13 159,314 1,952 246.805 1,726.610 116,286 159,314 1,952 2,089,701 2,113 4,922 3,082 1,114 1,673 7.965 122.414 11.106 154,390 45 227 227 211 2,324 2.324 1,426 7,129 7,129 1,379 10,569 10,569 118 704 704 738 5,661 5,661 308 3,390 3,390 167 1,281 1,281 291 1,924 1,924 1.195 9,160 9.160 18,362 140,776 140,776 1.666 12.772 12.772 25,866 195,917 195,917 67,731 395,968 395,342 7,950 7,950 4a.0 TOTAL PERIOD 4a COST 9,816 46,192 10,201 9,501 5.136 91,571 155.820 627 53.834 83,751 24,295 2,017 1.200 11,663,970 563.837 2.092.490 TLG Sepieres, Ine.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Coast Anualysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 6 of 9 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Oftf-ite LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial/ Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lc. Term. Managemest Restoration Volume Claos A Class B Claos C GTCC Prossed Craft Contractor Inde. Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Cots Costs Contle ens Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours PERIOD 4b -Site Decontamination Disposal of Plant Systemr 4b.1.2.1 Decay Heat Removal (RB)4b.1.2.2 Electrical (Contaminated

-RB)4b.1.2.3 Electrical (Contaminatsd

-RCA)41.1.2.4 Feedmwter (RB)4b1 .2.5 Fire Protection (RB)41.1.2.6 Fuel Handling (RB)41. 1.2.7 Fuel Hardling (RCA)4b. 1.2.8 Gaseous Waste Disposal System (RB)4b.1.2.9 HVAC -Fuel Handling Building 4b.1.2.10 HVAC -Reactor Buiding 4b.1.2.11 lnstnrmsta Air (RB)4b.t.2.12 Intermediate Closed Cooling Water (RB)4b.1.2.13 Nitrogen tor Nuclear Rodoraste Sys (RB)4b.t.2.14 Nuclear Services River Water (RB)4b.1.2.15 OTSG Cremical Cleaning System 4b.1.2.16 Seoage Treatreent Plant (Clean)4b.1.2.17 Spent Futl Cooling 4b.1.2.18 Spent Fuel Cooling (RS)4b.1.2.19 Sump Systems (RB)4b.1.2 Totals 209 20 32 39 2 3 259 8 38 34 5 10 17 1 2 4 0 1 280 13 26 3 0 0 206 4 12 730 44 85 23 1 2 69 5 8 7 1 1 77 9 1t 16 1 2 8 --348 16 29 21 1 2 31 2 3 2,380 133 273 249 26 500 33-77 13 4 205 2 101 42-62 12 59 11 128 16 41 204 17 S 324 642 1.785 121 631 631 17 87 67 154 992 992 30 154 154 8 41 41 2 11 t1 127 651 851 1 7 7 79 443 443 365 1.886 1,886 9 48 48 34 175 175 5 25 25 55 285 285 8 43 43 1 9 -150 787 787 10 52 52 15 75 75 1.191 6.404 6.395 436 2,242 2,242 7,972 32.245 32,245 530 2.341 2341 540 3,259 3,259 13 49 49 64 265 265 651 2.767 2J767 31 96 96 9,801 41,022 41,022--1,108--116 5,443 145-341 58 19 912--9 1.097 185-2,941 55 263 49 568 70 452 907--77-108 9 6,991 7,930 1,206 75-42,223 323 4,989-24,827 2 97 249 545 803 3.575-25 1,377 76,281 99,380 4,941 10.435 893 234,039 5,743 30.612 804 5,171 407 1.669 86 81.790 6,260 790 76 61.125 4.588 263,784 16.426 4,966 545 23,572 1,604 4,378 170 50,919 1,826 6,260 372-180 99.713 8,157 6,934 482 9,645 744 995,182 54,302 60,988 42.187 4b.1.3 Scaffolding in support of decommissioning

-1,638 18 11 123 17 Decontamination of Sie Buildings 4b.1.4.1 Reactor 4b.1.4.2 Auxiliary 4b.1,4,3 BWST & CST Tank Pads 4b.1.4.4 Control & Service 4b.1.4.5 Control Building Area 4b.1.4.6 Fuel Handling 4b.1.4,7 Turbine 4b.5.4 Totals 4b.1 Subtotal Penod 41 Activity Costs Penod 45 Additional Costs 4b5Z, Bioshield

& D-Ring Removal 4b52.2 RB Exterior Concrete & Basemat Removal 41.2.3 Underground Piping & Yard Soil 41,2.4 Process NSSS decon & segmentation liquid inventory 45.2.5 Auxiliary Building Total Removal 4b52.6 Fuel Handling Building Total Removal 4b.2.7 On-site surmey & release of concrete 4b.2.8 Defueling fuel canister racks 4b.2.9 License Termination Surey Planning 40.2 Subtotal Period 45 Additional Costs 8,756 3,760 1.091 1,212 428 808 70 168-153 348 878 20 6 1 3 78 41 8 21 599 875 61 117 59 3 0 1 9,940 5,646 1,579 2.400-9,454 30 307 1,341 0 5 23 30 74 390-1 126 11.529 3,766,363 261,037 485.601 26,400 2,482,650 3,623 9.763 566 64,320 2,552 361,010 30.801 2,532 1,452 7.172,239 326.431 9,940 9,664 1,731 2,604 891 13,331 -11,427 49.668 49,659 -9 9.574 04,286 ---8,228,408 422.920 4.951 668 1,080 7,948 228 368 641 105 1,416-72 281 7.739 324 689 5,416 72 477 2.227 -555 22 20 308 64 22 28,941 1,777 4.929 0t,096 3,443 -2.011 250 3,874 770 6,453 --4.447 -307 -1.500-796 ---1,393 307 31,119 3,913-169 -610 64 650 253 3.991 20,786 20,786 2,926 14,913 14.913 923 5,345 5,345 1,133 6,130 6,130 3,684 18,888 18,688 2,545 12,957 12,957 911 5.499 5,499 255 1,465 1,465 418 1.811 1,811 16,785 87,793 87,793 50 260 260 78 595 595 131 977 977 259 1,832 1,832 155,795 53,132 48,992 99,586 68,634 23,256 449.395 18,695,440 60,693 6,375,849 120,240-3,723,414 8,942 1.347 158,780 --11,950,340 113,205 8,236,080 73,213-24,581 317,086 1,964 1,347 49,456,980 402,838 779 12,480 13,259 Penod 45 Collateral Costs 46b3 1 Process liquid waste 5 -45b3.2 Small tool allouwance 518 46.3.3 Decommissioning Equipment Dispostion

--4b.3 Subtotal Period 4b Collateral Costs 5 518 2 33 90 62 92 95 105 6,000 373 -6.000 373 105 13,222 28 303,507 739 316,729 767 Period 4b Pesod-Dependent Costs 4b.4.1 Decon supplies 4b.4.2 Insurance 887-222 1.109 1,109 1,659 166 1,824 1,824 TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Deeacommissioning Cost Anclysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 7 of 9 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Activity Index Activity Desicription Period 4b Perlod-Oependent Costs (continued) 4b.4.3 Property taxes 4b.4,4 Health physics supplies 4bi4.5 Heavy equipment rental 4b*4.6 Disposal oa DAW generated 4b.4.7 Plant energy budget 4b.4.8 NRC Fees 4b.i49 Site O&M 4b,4.10 Radwaste Processing Equipment/Services 4b.4.11 Security Staff Cost 41.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 4b.4.13 Utility Staff Cost 4b.4 Subtotal Period 41, Period-Dependent Costs 4b,0 TOTAL PERIOD 4b COST PERIOD 4e -Lacense Tserrieasio Period is Direct Decommissioning Adctiies 4e.1.1 ORISE confirmatory survey 4:Ac1.2 Terminate license 4c.t Subtotal Pedod 4e Activity Costs Period 4e Additional Costs 4e.2.1 License Termination Survey 4e.2 Subtotal Period 4e Additional Costs Period 4e Collateral Costs 4e.3.1 DOC staff relocation expenses 4e.3 Subtotal Peaod 4e Collateral Costs Perdod 4s Period-Oependent Costs 4e.4.1 Insurance 4e.4.2 Property taxes 4e.4.3 Health physics supplies 4e.4.4 Disposal of DAW generated 4Ae..5 Plant energy budget 4e.4.6 NRC Fees 4e.4i7 Site O&M 4e.4'.8 Securiy Staff Cost 4e.4it9 DOC Staff Cost 4e.4,10 Utility Staff Cost 4e.4 Subtotal Period 4e Period-Dependent Costs 4e.0 TOTAL PERIOD 4e COST PERIOD 4 TOTALS PERIOD Sb,- DSit Resteratien Period 5b Direct Decommissioning Activities Demoliton of Remaining Site iuddings Sb.1.1.1 Air Intake Tunnel 5b.1.1.2 Circulating Water Chlornator 5b.1.1.3 Ciculating Water Intake Flumes 5b. 1.1.4 Circulating Water Pumphouss 5b.1.1.5 Coagulator 5b. 1.1.6 Control & Service Ott-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Buial Volumes Burial Ittility ael Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Li,. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Cenractor Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Ceoe tests Contieecy ts Costs Costs Coste Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Peer Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt. Lbs. Manhours Machours 6,954 5,777 80 85 256 --2,885 1,920 875 1,313 4,331 77.950 8,719 256 99,651 1,808 44,960 103,564 1,738 8692 867 6.644 85 506 433 3.318 192 2.111 131 1.006 197 1.510 650 4,981 11,693 89,643 1,308 10.026 17,680 131,371 46151 270,664 8,592 6,644 506 3,318 2,111 1,006 1,510 4,981 89.643 10.026 131,371 270.655 5.714 5,714 9 15,574 539.768 105 1,347 114,508 1,403 134.227 1,110,034 91,286 114,508 1.403 1.335,547 58,116,630 827,928 1,348,806 887 12,731 80 10,855 51,854 3,680 85 7,792 155 46 201 201 155 46 201 201 8,228 2.468 10,696 10,696 8,228 2,468 10,696 10.696 1.113 167 1,280 1,280 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 161,279 6,240 161,279 6,240 1,389 1.389 1,389 20.671 99,434 334 4 4 14 221 447 188 379 4,730---- 1,56W 4 4 14 7,804 4 4 14 17.300 13,885 17.298 6,943 136,545 276.685 33 368 368 347 1,736 1,736 5 27 27 33 254 254 45 492 492 28 216 216 57 436 436 709 5.439 5,439 226 1.731 1,731 1.483 10,698 10.698 4.165 223876 22,876 118,048 689,508 686,873 304 304 3G4 636 69,408 623.823 6,083 75 6,083 75 6,083 161.354 3,364 1,200 69,786,680 1,553,118 11,743 61,454 14,874 88,071 94,311 3,535,607 24.400 141 64 56 164 48 2.935 21 162 10 74 8 64 25 189 7 55 440 3,376 162 74 64 189 55 3,207 2,297 1,131 915 3,205 937 41,665 169 TLG Services, Ie.

Three Mile island Unit 2 Decormissioning Cost Analynis Docunsent F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 8 f9 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)O-Shte LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial/ Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor lndoe Activty Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Coetle.enc Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Co. Feet Cs.Peet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Mantlse- Manhours Demolition of Remaining Site Buildings (continued) 5.t.t1.7 Control Building Area 5b.1.1.8 Cooling Tow-es Sb t.1.9 Emergency Diesel Generator 5b 1.1.t Mao & hun Trensfo.e-r Foundations 5b 1.1.11 Mechanical Draft Cooling Towers 5b.1.1.12 Miscellaneous Yard Foundations 5b1.1t.13 River Water Pumpnouse 5b.1.1.14 Turbine 5b.1 1.15 Turbine Generator Pedestal 5b.1.1 Totals Ste Closeout Activities 5b1,2 Grade & landscape ste sobi,3 Final report to NRC 5bl Subtotal Period Sb Activity Costs Penod sb Additional Costs 5b.2.1 River Water Pump House Cofferdam 5b2.2 Concrete Processing 5b.2.3 Survey & Release of scrap materials 5b.2,4 Backitl1 Sne 5b.2 Subtotal Period 5b Additional Costs Pedod 5b Collateral Costs Sb.3.1 Small tool allowance 5b.3 Subtotal Period sb Collateral Costs Period 5b Period-Dependent Costs 5b.4.1 Insurance 5b.4.2 Property taxes 5b.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 5b.4.4 Plant energy budget 5b.4.5 Security Staff Cost 5b.4.6 DOC Staff Cost 5.4.7 Utilrty Staff Cost 5b.4 Subtotal Penod 5b Period-Dependent Costs 5b.O TOTAL PERIOD So COST PERIOD 5 TOTALS TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION 783 729 1,151 76 75 17 1,632 1,423 646 9,940 118 901 109 839 173 1.324 11 87 11 86 3 20 245 1.876 213 1,636 97 743 1.491 11,431 901 839 1,324 87 86 20 1,876 1,636 743 11,263 10,651 11,813 15,920 1,387 1,074 284 21,756 26.557 8,464 148,057 169 135 10,075-20 155 -356 53 410 410 356 1,565 11,997 579 155 11,418 770 --3,120 148.828 3,120 186 292 815 61 2,068 422 --900 815 69 2,068 28 214 45 345 401 3,346 3,346 63 485 -537 4,389 3,346 214 345 7,5559 485 -1,043 7.559 2,116-1,785 3,704,137 7,408-4.544 3.704,137 15,853 101 101 15 116 15 116 116 116 2,211 2,211 13,267 815 69 2,068-332 2.543 147 22 169 84 13 97 9,423 1,413 10,837 1,899 285 2,184 11,554 2,065 15,830 -11,911 4,182 32,332 3,925 2.543 169 97 10.837 2,184 15,830 6 28.407 7,559 28.407 7,559 2,607 116,800 20,336 139,743 3,704.137 164,681 142,863 3,704,137 164,681 142,863 13,287 815 69 2,068 6 11,911 4,182 32,332 3,925 21,359 122,136 15,206 18,018 9.011 141,280 447,439 148,324 922,772 891,874 -30.898 76,967 649,607 24.400 3.364 1,200 75,563,940 1,749.257 5,196,189 TLG Services, In.

The-o Mile blaatned Unit 2 Dxooee- oiooi-ig Cool Aneuayoio Doeuneont F07.1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 9 of 9 Appendix D Three Mile Island Unit 2 Custodial SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Sitl Processed Burial Volunmes Burial, Utility and Activty Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Voiueo Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Index Actici Descrition CoSt Cool Costs Cost, Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Fot Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt. Lbs. Manhoot, Monhoou, TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION WITH 19.15% CONTINGENCY:

$922,772 thousands of 2008 dollars TOTAL NRC LICENSE TERMINATION COST IS 96.65% OR $891,874 thousands of 2008 dollars MON-NUCLEAR DEMOLITION COST IS 3.35% OR: S30,898 th..osanods

.1 2008 dollars TOTAL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BURIED (EXCLUDING GTCC): 677,370 cubic feet TOTAL GREATER THAN CLASS C RADWASTE VOLUME GENERATED 1,200 cubic feet TOTAL SCRAP METAL REMOVED: 29,694 tons TOTAL CRAFT LABOR REQUIREMENTS:

1,749,257 man-hours End Notes: r/a -indicates that this activity not charged as decommissioning expense.a- indicates 1hat this actbrity performed by decommissioning staff.0 -inoicates thot this value is less than 0.5 but as non-eno.a cell containing

-" indicates a zero value TLG Service, Ibe.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix E, Page 1 of 12 APPENDIX E DETAILED COST ANALYSIS HARDENED SAFSTOR TLG Services, Inc.

Thr-ee Mile filousd Unit 2 D.-monseoei-ei-ig Coot A-aayeie Docsuesest F07-1601-002, Rec. 0 Apjpsedid E, Page 2 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)SActivity Index Activity Description PERIOD 2c -SAFSTOR Dormancy during TMI-1 Decommissioning Period 2c Direct Decotmissioning Activties 2c.1.1 Quarterly Inspecton 2c.1.2 Semni-annual envirornmental survey 2c.1.3 Prepare reports 2c,1.4 Btunmirous moo replacement 2c .1.5 Maintenance supplies 2c.1 Subtotal Period 2c Actity Costs Period 2c Period-Oependent Costs 2c.4.1 Insurance 2c.4.2 Property taxes 2c.4.3 Heaoth physics supplies 2c.4.4 Disposal o1 DAW generated 2c.4,5 Plant enorgy budget 2c.4.6 NRC Fees 2c.4,7 Security Staff Cost 2c.4.8 Utility Staff Cost 2c.4 Subtotal Period 2c Period-Dependent Costs 2c.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2c COST PERIOD 2 TOTALS PERIOD 3a -Reactivate Site Following SAFSTOR Dormancy Period 3a Direct Decomnissioning Actiwties 30.1.1 Prepare preliminary decommissioning cost 3a.1.2 Prepare and submit PSDAR 3a.1.3 Review plant dogs & specs.3a.t14 Perform detaled rid survey 3a.t.5 Estimate by-product inventory 3a.1.6 End product description

3.1.7 Detailed

by-product inventory 3a.1.8 Define major work sequence 3a.1.9 Perfotm SER and EA 3a..1.10 Perforv Site-Speafic Cost Study 30.1.11 Preparelsubmdt License Termination Plan 3a.1.12 Receive NRC approval of termination plan Activity Specifications 3:.1.13.1 Re-activate plant & temporary facilities 3-.1.13.2 Plant systems 30.1.13.3 Reintorced concrete 30.1.13.4 Turbine & condenser 3a.1.13.5 Plantstructures

& buitdings 30.1.13.6 Waste management 30.1.13.7 Facility & site closeout 3 .1.13 Total Planning & Site Preparations 30.1.14 Prepare dismantling sequence 3a.1.15 Plant prep. & temp. svces 30.1.16 Design water clean-up system 3a.1.17 Rigging/Cot.

Chtr Envlpshtooling/etc.

3a.1.16 Procure casksrliners S cotlainers 3a.1 Subtotal Period 30 Activity Costs Ott-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial Utility and Decon Removal Packaging Transport Procesing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Teem. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Crft Contractor Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contin e-v C Co Costs Costs Costs Cr. Fent C. Fet C_. Feet Co. Feet Co. Feet Wt_. Lsb. Manhou- Manhrou 30 4 34 34 164 25 189 189 194 29 223 223 153 153 153 153 6 570 24 -310 95 3,572-279 24 4,825 24 5,019 24 5,019 223 914 526 1,143 229 297 857 7,129 571 936 1.263 952 366 91 356 2.102 103 5,234 57 627 627 38 191 191 8 47 47 46 356 356 9 104 104 536 4,108 4.108 42 321 321 737 5.753 5.753 766 5.976 5,976 766 5.976 5.976 33 256 256 137 1,051 1.051 79 604 604 171 1,314 1,314 34 263 263 45 342 342 129 985 985 1.069 8,199 8.199 86 657 657 140 1,076 1.076 189 1.452 1.307 143 1.095 985 55 420 210 14 105 -53 410 205 315 2.4t8 2,410 15 8t 59 705 6,019 5,184 527 10,567 10.567 10.567 10.567 129 110,677-2,720 129 113,397 129 113,397 129 113.397 527 527 527 1.950--9.000 4.600 10.000 2.000 2,600 7,500 62,400 5,000 8,192 11.055 8.333 3,200 800 3,120 19,400 900 45808 145 109 210 105 205 59 834 834 548 82 631 631 2,419 363 2.782 2,792 640 96 736 736 2,048 307 2.355 2355 281 42 323 323 23.993 3,599 27,592 26,758 4,800 5,600 2,460 170,910 TLG Services, In-.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 D-eeomissioning Cost Annlyei Dosument F07.1601.002, Rev. 0 Appendix E, Page 3 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)I Attity Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Li,. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Proeassed Craft Contractor Cost Cost Costs Costa Costs Costs Costs Cootinoenco Costs Costs Coto Coot, Cu Feet C,. Fet Cr seet C, Fet Cu Fet me Lbs. Manhouoom nhu I d ex Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Cost. Costs Contingency C am cost. Costs costs Cu Feet Cu Feel Cu Feet Cu Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Mantrours M-nhours Period 3a Period-Dependent Costs 3a.4.1 Insurance 3a.4.2 Property taxes 3a.4.3 Health physics supplies 3a.4.4 Heavy equipment rental 3a.4.5 Disposal of DAW generated 3a.4.6 Plant energy budget 3a.4.7 NRC Foes 3a.4.8 Soe O&M 3a.4.9 Securty Staff Cost 3a.4.10 DOC Staff Cost 3a.4.11 Utility Staff Cost 3a.4 Subtotal Perod 3a Period-Dependent Costs 3a.0 TOTAL PERIOD 3a COST PERIOD 3b -Decommissioning Preparations Period 3b Direct Decommissioning Activities Detailed Work Procedures 3b.1.1.1 Plant systems 3b..t1.2 Remaining buildings 3b.1.1.3 Facility closeout 3b.1.1.4 Reintorced concrete 3b.t.1.5 Turbine & condensers 3b.1.1.6 Auxiliary building 3b.1.1 Total 3b.1 Subtotal Period 3b Actiity Costs 469 346 815 437 44 481 481 117 586 586--52 397 397 6 6 18 t 6 36 36 1,104 166 1,269 1.269 938 94 1,032 1,032 250 37 287 287 2.739 411 3,150 3,150 10.452 1,568 12,020 12.020--2,490 374 2,064 2864 6 6 18 1 8.410 2,868 22,122 22.122 815 0 6 ts 42,403 6,467 49,714 48.880 404 404 B34 404 124 -133 79 131 410 72 949 949 -----2 -511 2,511 8,103 99 84,080 160,600 26,071 8,103 99 271,539 5,103 99 442,450 1'081 154 137 229 356 624 2.582 162 1,244 1,119 23 177 44 21 158 79 34 263 131 53 410 -94 717 646 387 2.969 2.020 9,4r6 1,350 1,200 2.000 3,120 5.460 22,596 22,696 2,582 387 2,969 2.020 Period 3b Addtional Costs 3b.2.1 Lead Sheilding Disposal 664 3b.2 Subtotal Pedod 3b Addnional Costs 664 179 254 179 254 3,205 3.205 Period 3b Collateral Costs 3b.3.1 Decon equipment 3b.3.2 DOC staff relocation expenses 3b.3.3 Smrut tool allownce 3b.3.4 Pipe cutting equipment 3b.3 Subtotal Period 3b Collateral Costs Period 3b Perod-Dependent Costs 3b.4.1 Decon supplies 3b.4.2 Insurance 3b.4.3 Property taxes 3b.4.4 Hearth physics supplies 3b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 3b.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 3b.4.7 Plant energy budget 3b.4.8 NRC Fees 3b.4.9 SOe O&M 3b.4.10 Radwaste Processing EquipmentrServices 3b.4.11 Security Staff Cost 3b.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 30.4.13 Utlity Staff Cost 3b.4 Subtotal Period 3b Period-Deperdent Costs 3b.0 TOTAL PERIOD 3b COST 667-957 667 966 21 -330 175 21 505 1,113 1,113 1,023 5,326 5.326 1,023 5,326 5.326 100 767 767 167 1,280 1,280 1 11 11 143 1,100 1.100 412 3,159 3.159 1.411,084 14,333 1.418,084 14,333 3 3-5 26 26 240 24 204 264 82 412 412-26 201 201 9 -3 18 18 559 14 643 643 476 48 523 523 127 19 146 146 190 29 219 219 1,388 208 1,596 1,596 9,411 1,412 10,822 10,822 1,262 189 1,451 1,451 9 13653 2,129 16.323 16,323 3.214 17,347 3,952 27,775 26,826 205 205 4,107 50 43,015 129,500 13,214 4,107 50 105,729 3 3 688 2.135 102 257 949 -2,716 --1.422.191 14,303 208,325 TLG Ser-i-es, Ind.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decomissionisng Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Re.. 0 Appendix E, Page 4 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands sf 2008 dollars)I Activity Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Sit. Prooeosed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Cost Cost Costs Costs Coons Costs Costs Contioosnco Costs Costs Costs Costs Cs. Feat Cu. Fear Co. Fest Cu. teet Co. tFst Wt.+ Iho. Mushours Manhoors I d ex ........ -..",-, Cast Cost costs cost. Costs Costs Costs Contingency Co she cost. Cu Fi= Cu 'Feet Cu Feet Cu Feet Cu Feel Wt Lb. Manhours Manhours PERIOD 3 TOTALS PERIOD 4b -Site Decontamination outside of Reactor Building Disposal of Plant Systems 4b.1.2.1 Decoy Heat Closed Cooling Water 4bh1t2.2 Decay Hoot Removal )RCA(4. 1.2.3 Decay Hoot Removal )Yard)4b.1.2.4 Deminenalieed Water (RCA(4b. .2.5 Domestic Water (Clean)4b.1.2.6 Domestic Water (RCA)4b.t .2.7 Electical (Clean)4b.1.2.8 Electrical (Contaminated

-RCA)4b.f.2.9 Emergency Feedwater (RCA)4b.1.2.10 Fine Protecton (Clean)4b.1.2.f1 Fire Protection (RCA)4b.1.2.12 Fuel Handling (RCA)4b.1.2.13 Gaseous Waste Disposal System (RCA)4b.1.2.14 HVAC -Auxiliary Building 4b.1.2.15 HVAC -Control Building 4b.t.2.1 6 HVAC -Fuel Handling Building 4b.1.2.17 HVAC -Miscellaneous 4b.t.2.g8 HVAC -Service Building 4b.f12. 19 Hydrogen Purge -Rod Monitoring 4b.1.2.20 Industrial Waste Treatment System 4b.1.2.21 Instrument Air (RCA)4b.1.2.22 Intermediate Closed Cooling Water (RCA)41.1.2.23 Main Condensate (RCA)4b.1,2.24 Main Reheat & Steam (RCA)4b.1.2.25 Nuclear Setvices Closed Cycle Coeling 4b.1.2.26 Nuclear Services River Water (Clean)4b.t.2.27 Nuclear Services River Water (RCA)4b.1.2.28 Reactor Building Normal Cooling (Clean)4b.1.2.29 Reactor Building Normal Cooling (RCA)4b.1.2.30 Sampling Nuclear System 4b.1.2.31 Sewage Treatment Plant (Clear)4b.1.2.32 Sewage Treatment Plant (RCA)4b.1.2.33 Spent Fuel Cooling 41b..2.34 Station Service Air 4b.1.2.35 Sump Systems (RCA)4b,1.2.36 Turbine Plant Sample (RCA)4b.1.2 Totals 4b1:.3 Scaffolding in support of decommissioning Decontamination of Site Buildings 4b.1.4.1 Auxilary 4b.1.4.2 BWST & CST Tank Pads 4be .4,3 Control & Service 4b. 1.4.4 Control Building Area 4b.1.4.5 Fuel Handling 45.1.4.6 Turbine 4b.1.4 Totals 4h.1 Subtotal Period 4b Activity Costs Period 4b Additional Costs 4b.2.1 Underground Piping & Yard Soil 4b.2.2 Main Turbine/Generator 688 2,950 188 263 3,232 59,750 10,418 77,490 75 7G6" 246 175 127 123 6 18-g 259 57 50 41 280 170 493 54 206 30 71 17 204 101 83 184 54 760 72 1,043 13 241 194 4 346 199 116 195 6,070 2,420 428 808-153 20 6 78 41 599 875 59 3 1,184 1,886 1 1r 11 0376 70 69 38 7 3 26 10 26 13 12 7 O 8 19 29 9 220 108 50 14 0 29 8 5 1 795 14 168 878 3 21 117 1 1,188 1.997 611 217 230 413 50 57 6 9 500 33 37 31 13 19-205 52 53 158 122 163 11 101 42 94 7 0 1 25 47 52 118 376 25 59 37 1,182 1,081 403 629 160 305-110 3 1 41 204 13 59 15 34 6 5 4,352 3,872 159 22 30 307-1,341 O 5 23 30 74 390-1 126 2.075 4,637 5.969 -220 1,386 1,386 195 1,117 1,117 19 1t6 -55 301 301 1 7 -8 43 43 1 10 -154 992 992 29 165 165 7 57 18 96 96 127 651 651 66 356 356 182 990 990 43 286 284 79 443 443 4 34 -35 216 216 5 24 24 31 234 -42 228 228 62 343 343 114 734 734 33 195 195 680 4,022 ,4,022 11 83 .500 2,731 2.731 2 14 -170 948 948 79 407 407 1 9 -2 1t0 ft 150 787 787 68 355 355 41 215 215 6 34 34 3,240 18,669 18,074 639 3,277 3,277 530 2,341 2,341 540 3,259 3,259 13 49 49 64 265 265 651 2,767 2,767.31 96 96 1,828 8,777 8,777 5,707 30,723 30,128 923 5,345 5.345 179 1,217 1.217 1,783 -3,120-6,656 963-2,511 1,833 146 ---547 255 7 63 38 10 5,443 145-407 140 57 -146 86-912 568 255 1,725 540 1,780 47 ,- ,i97 185 34 --1,029 29-4 6 234 ---271 207 568 524 4,101 149 643 164 12.877 5,304 83 --4,392 2,792 14 --1,739 1,356-530 9 --35 3 452 907 139 263 161 152-61 22 594 47,414 17,806-1,563 97 323 4,989-24,827 2 97 249 545 803 3,575-25 1- ,377 34,058 594 50,354 51,961 "--48,992-6,106 -1,430,294 14,483 650,775 356,612 5,630 -266,361 4,172-2,863 45,089 2,746-148 5,993 396-191 234,039 5,743 29,058 1,2801-1,167 13,657 933 81,790 6,260 44,078 3,949 118,524 11,067 76,530 1,130 61,125 4,588-666 44,397 1,434 644 413-4,B899 29,566 2,251 70.092 1,887 176,316 4,077 40,843 1,217 953,442 17,230-1,764 428,769 24,882--298-.-192,214 5.711 43,764 4,528 1- 18D 1 f,651. 82 99,713 8,157 25,587 4,806 2 20,117 2,753 4,489 328 3,468,059 139,824 79,050 62,338 485,601 26,400 2,482,650 3,623 9,763 566 64,320 2,552 361.010 30.801 2.532 1.452 3,405,875 65,394 6,952,985 267,555 3,723,414 8,942-274,750 5,956 641 105 1,416 -2.011 250 272 86 43 637 --TLG Serties, Ioc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Doewo-nen F07-1601-002, Rev. 0 Appensdix E, Page 5 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Ot-itn [LRW NRC Spent Foci Site Processed hrarlotVolornes Buriil/ Utilry oand Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Tots! Total Li. Term. Management Restoration Volume Clos A Class 8 Class C GTCC Praocssed Craft Contractor index Activit Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costn Costs Costs Contingency Costs Coant, Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cuo Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Mt., Lbs. Mnshoors Manhours Period 4b Additonal Costs (continued) 4b.2.3 Main Condensers 1,116 82 41 612 -4b.2.4 Auxiliary Building Total Removal 7,739 324 689 -6453 4b.2.5 Fuel Handling BuiFding Total Removal 5,416 72 477 -4,447 -46.2.6 FHAB AX-004 Decontamination

-140 171 831 1,661 343 4b.2.7 Fuel Handling / Auxiliary SNF & HOT Systems Removal 1.836 1,607 117 422 5,676 -4b.2.8 On-site survey & release of concrete -1,692 -330 183 -1,500 4b.2.9 Legacy waste stored at INEEL ------590 4b.2.10 Defueling fuel canister racks 22 20 308 64 796 -4b.2.11 License Termination Survey Planning -----1,393 4b.2 Subtotal Period 4b Additional Costs 1,858 18.643 1,264 4,314 1,432 21,045 4.076 Period 41 Collateral Costs 4b.3.1 Ptocess liquid wasle 4b.3.2 Small tool atlosnce 4b.3.3 Decommissioning Equipment Disposition 4b.3 Subtotal Penod 46 Collateral Costs Period 4b Period-Dependent Costs 4b.4.1 Decon scplies 4b.4.2 Insurance 4b.4.3 Propery taxes 4b.4.4 Health physics supplies 4b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 4b.4.8 Disposal of DAW generated 4b.4.7 Plant enargy budget 4b.4.8 NRC Fees 4b.4.9 See O" M 46.4.10 Radwaste Ptocessing EquipmentServices 4b.4.11 Secmrity Stat Cost 4b.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 4b.4.13 Utility Staff Cost 4b.4 Subtotal Permid 4b Peaid-Dependent Costs 4b.0 TOTAL PERIOD 46 COST PERIOD 4e -Interim Site Release (excludes Reactor Building)Period 4e Direct Decommissioning Activities 4e,1.1 ORIS5 confimotory soEey 4e.t.2 Terminate license 4e.1 Subtotal Petiod 4e Actiity Costs Period 4e Additional Costs 4e.2.1 License Termination Sosvny 4e.2 Subtotal Period 4e Addiional Costs Period 4e Collateral Costs 4e.3.1 DOC staff relocation expenses 4e.3 Subtotal Period 4, Collateral Costs Period 4e Patod-Dependent Costs 4e.4,1 Insurance 4a.4.2 Property taxes 4a,4.3 Heafth physics supplies 4e,4.4 Disposal of DAW generated 4e,4.5 Plant energy budget 4e.4.6 NRC Fees 4e,4.7 Sae O&M 40 -13 93 337 370 ----90 62 610 64 40 370 103 155 610 422 385 2,236 2,236 3,684 18,888 18,888 2,545 12.957 12,957 644 3,791 3,791 2,564 12,224 12,224 725 4.430 4,430 89 679 679 255 1,465 1,465 418 1.811 1,811 12,410 65.040 65,040 120 604 664 56 426 426 131 977 977 306 2,067 2,007 171 857 857 169 1,854 1.854 1,370 6,849 6.849 681 6,753 6,753 72 427 427 440 3,373 3,373 195 2.146 2,146 133 1.022 1,022 200 1.535 1.535 1,235 9,470 9,470 10,358 79,409 79,409 1,329 10.191 10,191 16,553 123,887 123,887 34,976 221,657 221,062 5,860 --99,586 68,634-3,380 8,864 -23,256 11.966 249.332 3,380--295 6.000 373 -6,000 373 295 263.690 25,162 11,950,340 113,205 8,236,060 73,213-228,566 4,638 40 666,018 72761-18681 317,086 1,964---12,480 40 25,659,940 324.522 12.480 37.168 77 303,507 739 340,675 817 5,479 5,872 ---68 71 685 11,352 68 71--1,684 216 --2,533 1,951 889 1,335 8,235 69,051 8,862 216 94,942 4,824 4,824 594 69,320 306,490 3,675 96,665 1,184 B 255.198 950,126 92,786 96,665 1,184 1,298,109 40 33,050,260 594.079 1,310,589 3,768 40,741 2.287 6.537 6,679 27,651 99,018 155 46 201 201 155 46 201 201 8,228 24568 10,696 10,696 8,228 2468 10.696 10.696 161,279 6,240 161.279 6,240 1,113 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 167 1,280 1,280 1,389 334 33 368 368 347 1,736 1,736 14 -5 27 27 221 33 254 254 447 45 492 492 188 28 216 216 304 6,083 75 TLG Servicis, In-.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Deeoniss-ining Cost Analysis Docent F07-1601-002, Re.. 0 Appendis E, Page 6 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)A traty Off-Sits LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Prosessed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Decon Removal Packaging Transport Procensing Disposal Other Total Total Lis. Tenm. Management Restoration Volume Class A Clans 8 Class C GTCC Proessed Craft Controotor Cost Cost Costs Cost Costs Costs Costs Continaency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Pest Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Fest Wt., Lbs. Manhourt Manthours I I"d ex Period 4e Period-Oependent Costs (contnued) 4e.4.8 Security Staff Cost 4e.4.9 DOG Staff Cost 4e.4.1n Utility Staff Cost 4e.4 Subtotal Period 4e Psriod-Dependent Costs 4e.D TOTAL PERIOD 4o COST PERIOD 4 TOTALS PERIOD 5b -Site Restoration (excludes Reactor Building)Period 5b Direct Decommissioning Actiuties Demolitorn of Remaining Site Buildings 5b,1.1.1 Air Intake Tunnel 5b.1.1.2 Circuiating Water Chlorinator 5s.t.1.3 Circuiating Woste Intake Flume 5b.1.1..4 Circulating Waote Pumphouse 5b.1.1.5 Coagulator 5b.1.1.6 Control & Sernice Sb.1.1.7 Contol Biuiing Area 5b.1.1.8 Cooling Toaers 5b.1.1.9 Emergency Diesel Generator 5b.1.1.10 Main & As Transformer Foundations 5b.1.1.11 Mechanical Draft Cooling Toaers 5b.1.1.12 Miscellaneous Yard Foundations 5b.1.1.13 River Water Pumphouse 5b.1.1.14 Turbine 5b.1.1.15 Turbine Generator Pedestal 5b.t.1 Totals Site Closeout Activities 5b.1.2 Grade & landscape site 5b.1.3 Final report to NRC 51.1 Subtotal Penod 5b Activity Costs Period 5b Additional Costs 5b.2.1 River Water Pump House Cofferdam 5b.2.2 Concrete Processing 5b.2.3 Survey & Release of scrap materials 5b.2.4 RB fencing and securty system 5b.2.5 Bockflu site (excluding RB)5b.2 Subtotli Pesod 5 Additional Costs Period 5b Collateral Costs 5b.3.1 Small toi olollsance 6b.3 Subtotal Period 5b Collateral Costs Period 5b Period-Dependent Costs 5b.4.1 Insurance 5b.4.2 Property taxes 5b64.3 Heavy equipment rental.5b.44 Plant energy budget 51,4.5 Scuiy Staff Cost 5b.4.6 DOG Staff Cost 5b.4.7 Utility Staff Cost 5b.4 Subtotal Penod 5b Period-Oependent Costs 1,389 1,389 3,768 42,129-141 64 56 164 48 2,935 783 729 1,151 76 75 17 1.632 1,423 646 9,940 135 10,075 186 292 353 831 897 135 1,031 1.031 4.637 695 5,332 5,332---1.506 226 1,731 1.731 4 4 14 8,229 1,547 11.187 1,1187 4 4 14 17,725 4,229 23.365 23.365 2.291 6.542 6,679 27.665 116,743 39,204 245.021 244,427 304 304 594 68,320 306.794 3,675 27,791 59,889 S --14,874 6,083 75 102,554 6,083 161.354 108,794 40 33.056,35D 755,432 1,419,384 21 162 162 10 74 74 8 64 64 25 1889 189 7 55 -55 440 3,376 169 3,207 118 901 -901 109 839 839 173 1,324 1,324 11 87 87 11 86 86 3 20 20 245 1,876 1,876 213 1,636 1.636 97 743 743 1,491 11.431 169 11,263-20 155 -155 356 53 410 410 -356 1,565 11,997 579 11,418 2,297 1,131 915 3,205 937 41,665 10.651 11,813 15,920 1,387 1,074 284 21.756 26,557 8,464 148,057 770 -S -3.120 148.828 3.120 815 815 8 -61 2,068 69 2,068 3,175 3,071 28 214 45 345 401 3,346 461 3,531 53 406 987 7,840 15 116 15 116 3348 3,531 6876 214 345 406 964 7,559 7,559 2,116-1,785 3,704,137 7,408-3,799 3.704,137 15,108 101 101 116 ---116 --2,211 2,211 147 1,136 7,990 1,899 11.172 332 2,543 22 169 170 1,306 1.198 9,188 285 2,184 2,008 15,391 2,543 169 1,306 8,t88 2,104 15,391 35,207 100,114 20,336 155,657 TL4G Services, lose.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decomnnissioning Cost Analysis Docunsent F07.1601-002, Rev. 0 Appendix E, Page 7 of 12 Activity Da Index Activity Desrition C 5b.0 TOTAL PERIOD 5b COST PERIOD 5 TOTALS PERIOD 6c -Hardened SAFSTOR Dormancy Period 6c Direct Decommissioning Activities 6c1.1 Quorterly Inspection Ac 1.2 Semi-annual environmental survey 6v.1.3 Prepare reports 6c.1.4 Rduminous roof replacement 6c.1.5 Masnterance supplies 6c.1 Subtotal Period 6c Activity Costs Period 6c Collateral Costs Sc.3.1 Offtoe Monitoring

& Security Services 6c.3 Subtotal Period 6c Collateral Costs Period 6c Penod-Depndent Costs 6c.4.t Insurance

• 6c.4.2 Property taxes 6c.4.3 Plant energy budget 6c.4.4 NRC Fees 6c.4.5 Utility Staff Cost 6c.4 Subtotal Period 6c Period-Oependent Costs 6o.D TOTAL PERIOD 6c COST PERIOD 6 TOTALS PERIOD 7a -Reactivate Site Following Hardened SAFSTOR Dormancy Period 7a Direct Decommissioning Actndties 7a.f.1 Prepare preliminary decommissioning cost 7a.1.2 Prtport and submnt PSDAR 7a.1.3 Review plant dogs & specs.7Y.1.4 Perform detailed rtd survey 7a 1.5 Estimate by-product inventory 7o.1.6 End product descripton 7a.1.7 Detailed by-product inventory 7a.1.8 Define major wort sequence 7a.t.9 Perform SER and EA 7a. 1.10 Perform Srte-Specafic Cost Study 7f. f.1 Preparetsubrrat License Termination Plan 7a.1.12 Receive NRC approval ofterrhinaiton plan Activty Specificabons 7a.f.1t3.1 Re-activote plant & temporary facilities 7ao.f.3.2 Reactor inteorals 7a.A.13.3 Reactor vessel 7o..f 3.4 Biological shield 7o.1.13.5 Steam generniors 7a.1. 3.6 Reinforcedcoooretn 7a. 1.t13.7 Waste management 7o.1.13.8 Facility & she closeout 7a.1.13 Total Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumesa Burial I Utility and ,con Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Uc. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor ost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Continoency Costas Costs Cost Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhouo Manhours 13,218 815 69 2,068 14f600 4.575 35,343 7.455 27,888 7.559 3,704,137 163.936 158,777 13,218 815 69 2,068 14,600 4,575 35,343 7.455 27,888 7.559 3,704,137 163,936 158,777 a 40,353 6,053 46,406 46,406 40,353 6,053 46,406 46,406 35.282 19.193 5,859 17,274 77,608 117.961 117,961 223 914 526 229 229 297 857 7,129 571 1,404 1.263 1,622 1,114 57 1,426 366 2 2,102 103 8,053 3,528 38,810 38.810 2,879 22,072 22.072 586 6,445 6.445 2.591 19.865 19.865 9,584 87.192 87,192 15,637 133.598 133,598 15.637 133,598 133,598 33 256 256 137 1,051 1,051 79 604 604 34 263 263 34 263 263 45 342 342 129 985 985 1,069 8,189 8.199 86 657 657 211 1,614 1,614 a 189 1,452 1.307 243 1.866 1,866 167 1.281 1,281 9 86 66 214 1,640 1,640 55 420 210 315 2,418 2,418 15 118 59 1,208 9,261 8,846 168,446 168,446 168,446 168,446 1,950 8,000 4,600 2,000 2,000 2,600 7,500 62,400 52.200-12,288 145 210 59 415 11,055 14.200 9.750 500 12,480 3,200 18,400 900 70,485 TLG Se-rvices, Inc.

Three Aefil Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Dcumnt F07-1601-002, RPe. 0 Appendix E, Page 8 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Off-Ste LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial / Utility and Actieity Den Remosal Packaging Transport Procesning Disposal Other Total Total Lis. Term. Management Restoration Volumee Class 0 Clans B Claes C GTCC Processed Craft Ccntrastor Index Activit Description Cst Cont Costs CostsCsts Contin ens Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet CU. Feet Cu. Feet C. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhoans Manhours Planning & Site Preparatons 7a.1.14 Prepare dismanting sequence 7a. 1.15 Plant prep. & temp. scs 7a.1.16 Design water clean-up system 7a.1.17 Rigging/Cont, Cntd Envlpsttoolinogetc.

7a.I1r8 Procure casksiliners

& containers 7a.1 Subtotal Pedod 7a Activity Costs Period 7a Additional Costs 7a.2.1 Railroad Track Refurbishment 7a.2.2 Equipment Aidock Refurbishment 7a.2.3 RB Polar Crane Refurbishment 7a.2.4 RB Cask Handling System 7..2 Subtotal Period 7a Additicnal Costs Period 7a Period-Oependent Costs 7a.4.1 Insurance 7a.4.2 Property taxes 7a.4.3 Health physics supplies 7a.4.4 Heavy equipment rental 7a.4.5 Disposal of DAW generated 7a.4.6 Plant energy budget 7a.4,7 NRC Fees 7a.4.8 Site O&M 7a.4.5 Secutty Staff Cost 7a.4.10 SOC Staff Cost 7a.4.11 Utilty Staff Cost 7a.4 Subtotal Period 7a Period-Dependent Costs 7a.0 TOTAL PERIOD 7i COST PERIOD 7b -Decommissioning Preparations Period 71 Direct Decomrmssioning AcrE/ies Detailed Work Procedures 7b.1.1.1 Reactor itaemals 7b.1.1.2 CRD cooling assembly 7b.t.1.3 Reactor vessel 7b.1.1.4 Facility cdoseout 7b.1.1 .5 Missile shields 7b.t.t.6 Biologieal shield 7b.1.1.7 Stoam generates 7b.t.t.8 Reinforced concrene 7b.1.1.9 Reactor euilding 7b.1.1 Total 7b.1 Subtotal Period 7b Actinity Costs Period 7b Additional Costs 7b.2. 1 RB Defueling Equipment Disposition 7b.2 Subtotal Period 7b Additional Costs Period 7b Coltateral Costs 7b.3.t Decon equipment 7b.3.2 DOC staff relocation expenses 7b.3.3 Seat tool atowasnce 7b.3.4 Pipe cutting equipment 7b.3 Subtotal Penod 70 Collateral Costs 548 82 631 631 2,419 363 2,782 2.782 640 96 736 736 2,048 307 2,355 2,355 281 42 323 323 26367 3,955 30,322 29,907 415 4,800 5,600 2,460 191.683 300 1.180 5,890 1.180 8,550 469 346 --6 6 815 6 6 815 6 6 437 18 -1,104 938 250 2,104 10452 2490 18 17.774 18 52,691 45 345 345 177 1,357 1,357 884 6,774 6,774 177 1,357 1,357 1,283 9,833 9,833 44 481 481 117 586 586 52 397 397 6 36 36 166 1,269 1,269 94 1,032 1.032 37 287 287 316 2,419 2.419 1,568 12,020 12,020 374 2,864 2.864 2.773 21.391 21,391 8.010 61,546 61,131 404 404 415 404 8,103 99 65,179 160,600 26,071 8,103 99 251,850 6,103 99 443,533--5.000 1,500 5.445 1.200 450 1,200 18,400 2.000 5,460 40,655--40,655 239.118 12,029 -239.118 12,029 -571 86 657 657 171 26 197 197 622 93 715 715 137 21 158 78 51 8 59 59 137 21 158 158 2,102 315 2,418 2,418 229 34 263 131 564 94 717 646 4645 697 5,342 5,060 4,645 697 5,342 5,060 79 131 72 282-282 537 35 90 537 35 90 600 600 667 8 957 667 964 1,113 1,113 301 1,563 1,563 301 1,563 1.563 100 787 767 167 1.280 1,280 1 9 9 143 1,100 1,100 412 3,156 3,156 2,518 2,518 TLGSereices, Inc.

Three Mile Moland Univ 2 Deosmmisasining Cost Analysis Docament F07-1601.002, Re.. 0 Appendix E, Page 9 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Ott-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility sod Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Prosessing Disposal Other Total Total Lis. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Cost .Costs Costs Cents tontingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet WL. Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period 7b Perod-Dependent Costs 7b.4.1 Decon supplies 7b.4A2 Insurance 7b.4.3 Property lases 7b.4.4 Health physics supplies 7b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 7b.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 7b.4.7 Plant energy budget 7b.4.8 NRC Fees 7b.4.9 Ste OM 7b.4.10 Redwaste Processing Equipment/Services 7b.4.11 Secunty Staff Cost 7b.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 7b.4.13 Utltty Staff Cost 7b.4 Subtotal Period 7b Period-Dependent Costs 7b.0 TOTAL PERIOD 7b COST PERIOD 7 TOTALS PERIOD Ba -Large Component Removal Period ta Direct Decommissioning Activities Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 8a.1.1.1 Reactor Coolant Piping:.1.1t.2 Pressurizer Relief Tank 6a.1.1.3 Reactor Coolant Pumps & Motors 8.t.1 .4 Pressurdar 8a.t.1.5 Steam Generators 8a.t.1.6 CRDMsttClsJSerice Structure Removal 8a1.1.7 Reactor Vessel Internals 8a.t.1.8 Vessel & Internals GTCC Disposal 8a..1.R Reactor Vesset 8a.1.1 Totals 8a.1.2 Scaffolding in support of decommissioning 8a.1 Subtotal Period 8a Actiuny Costs Period Ba Additional Costs 8a.2.1 Reactor Building Basement Dose Reduction 1a.2.2 Containment Basement Liner Removal B.a,23 Reactor Building SNF & HOT Systems Removal ga.2.4 NSSS Component Surface Decontamination 8a.2.5 Core Flood Tonks Removal 8a.2 Subtotal Period 8a Additional Costs Period Ba Collateral Costs 8a.3.1 Process liquid vaste 8a.3.2 Small tost allowance 8a.3 Subtotal Penod 8a Collateral Costs Period Ba Period-Dependent Costs Ba.41 DOoon supplies 8a.4.2 Insurance 8a.4.3 Property aes 8A44 Heath physics supplies 8a.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 21 -315 175 21 490 688 1,991 6088 2,806 3 3B 44 93 93 55 224 15 8 32 3 1,169 876 1,3306 708-6,362 767 31 51 147 120 3,332 4,245 8,676 1,290 214 21,152 8,051-375 3 214 21,528 8,053-17 118 113 236--51 7,518 -80B 63 398 53 7,8t1 528 12865 23 3 197 199 1.769 56 446 463 3,155 2 3,157 3,270 551 246 33 6 4,169 240-9 -559 476 127 190 1,066 10,189 1,262 9 14,109 609 19,867 627 72,558 155 175 42 15-9 ,554 3,090 175396 336 473 249 20,777 -2,129 249 198 53,944 497 t8 3 -216 53,947 497-14,806 -1,477 761 8,230 872 26,146 108 108 2.101 5 26 26 24 264 264 79 394 394 26 201 201 3 18 18 84 643 643 48 523 523 19 146 146 29 219 219 160 1.226 1.226 1,528 11.717 11,717 189 1.451 1.451 2,194 16,829 16,829 3,603 26.890 26,608 11.613 88.436 d7.739 156 603 803 22 125 125 2.798 14,595 14.595 1.199 6.502 6,502 6.281 32.575 32,575 135 757 757 4,058 12,870 12,870 3,117 23,893 23,893 8,047 20,055 20,855 25.762 112.975 112,975 90 490 4BB 25,860 113,473 113,473 4,208 22.418 22,418 504 2,B81 2.,81 232 1.290 1,290 3,759 20,348 20,348 364 1,818 1,B18 9,067 4B,756 48,756 30 152 152 31 240 216 61 392 368 45 226 226 210 2,311 2311 1,032 5,180 5.160 1.371 10.511 1 9,511 282 697 205 205 2,723 3,127 4,107 50 33.036 142.820 13,214 4.107 50 189,070 243,225 12,079 229.725 251,328 12.179 673,258 93,724 6,773 -20,849 732 1,124,474 31,482 462,726 4,152 2,396,266 145,795 47,869 1,830 174,220 29,147 1,395 831 142,496 ---986,490 29,147 1.395 031 5,449,114 249,057 2.789-9.038 9,668 -831 5.458,152 258,725 2,789 822 274 169 19-10,752 2,14" 23,268 6,883 1,454 -1,377 9,722 991 49,010 6,803 179 11 -1,170 49,021 6,083 9,225 2,017 3,756 -1.002 1.716 -1,716 13,913 2,017 1,217,965 282 129,709 2,286-76,912 318 329 19,751 46,920-124,165 10,059 329 1,568,502 59,865-4.505 51 4,505 51 1 -2 11-208 --1 208 2 11 24 24 36 36 4,128 9,140 TLiG Servicee, In.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document F07-1601-002, Rae. 0 AppenedixE, Page 10 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)IActivity, Off-site LL-Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total NRC Spent Fuel Sit. Processed Busal Volumes Budal I Utility and Total Lic. Tem. Management Restoration Volume Class A Class 0 Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Fees Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours I Index .-sny ..-poom Cost Cost Costs, Cast Co." Costs Costs Confinqency Period Ba Period-Dependent Costs (continued)

Sa.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 8a.4.7 Plant energy budget 8a.4.8 NRC Fees 8a.4.9 Site O&M 8a.4.10 Radmaste Processing Equipment/Services Ba.4.11 Security Staff Cost 8a.4.12 DOC Staff Cost 8a.4.13 Utility Staff Cost Ba.4 Subtotal Period 8a Period-Dependent Costs 8a.0 TOTAL PERIOD Ba COST PERIOD 8b -Site Decontamination (Reactor Building)Period 8b Direct Decommissioning Activities Disposal of Plant Systems 8b.1.1.1 Decay Heot R-e.ol (RB)Bb.t11.2 Electrical (Contaminated

-RB)8b.1,.3 Feedwater (RB)8b.1.t.4 Fire Protection (RB)8b.1.1.5 Fuel Handling (RB)b. 1.1.6 Gaseous Waste Disposal System (RB)85.1.1.7 HVAC -Reactor Building Bb.1.1.g nsttrument Air (RB)Bb.1.1.9 Initermediate Closed Cooling Water (RB)Bb.1.1.10 Nitrogen for Nuclear Radwaste Sys (Rs)8b.1.1.1 1 Nuclear Services River Water (RB)8b.1,1.12 OTSG Chemical Cleaning System 8b.1.1.13 SG Secondary Side Vents & Drains 8b.1.1.14 Spent Fuel Cooling (RB)8b.1.-.15 Sump Systers (RB)8b.1.1 Totals 8b.1.2 Scaffolding in support of decommissioning Decontamination of Site Buildings 8b.1.3.1 Reactor 81.1.3 Totals 8b.1 Subtotal Period 8b Activity Costs Period 8b Additional Costs 8b.2.1 gioshield

& D-Ring Removal 8b.2.2 RB Eaterior Concrete & Basemla Removal 8b.2.3 Process NSSS decon & segmentation liquid inventory 8B.2.4 On-site survey& releose of concrete 8b.2e5 License Termination Survey Planning 8b.2 Subtotal Period 8B Additional Costs Period Bb Cosateral Costs 8b.3.1 Process liquid waste 8b.3.2 Srwa tool allowanse 8b.3.3 Decommissioning Equipment Diposp-os Sb.3 Subtotal Period 8b Collateral Costs 181 13,268 80 84 254 --4,895 3,065 1.108 1,664 9,331 102.446 11,045 254 135,654 84 502 502 734 5,630 5,630 306 3,371 3,371 166 1,274 1.274 250 1.913 1,913 1.400 10,730 10,730 15,367 117,B12 117,812 1.657 12,702 12,702 22.622 172,143 172.143 5,674 5,674 113.697 1,393 289,107 1,458,025 115,643 113.697 1,393 1,862,775 80 84 7.978 35,532 9,400 7,421 216 R0,455 136,151 57.610 334,764 334,740 24 1,170 56,411 20,902 2.017 1.160 7,144,856 320,034 1,865,565 209 39 34 17 4 3 730 23 69 7 77 16 61 21 31 1,341 20 32 2 3 5 10 1 2 0 1 O 0 44 86 1 2 5 6 1 1 9 17 1 2 3 4 1 2 2 3 96 173 698 233 1,192 1,192 73 29 146 146 215 64 327 327 36 14 70 70 12 4 20 20 6 2 12 12 1.852 663 3,374 3,374 35 15 76 76 165 60 308 308 31 10 50 50 357 112 572 572 44 15 79 79 97 40 205 205 49 -l 91 91 68 25 130 130 3,737 1,305 6,653 6,653 4 52 276 276 9.454 7.972 32,245 32,245 9,454 7,972 32,245 32,245--1,108--116 341 58 19 9 2,941 55 263 49 568 70--154--77 108 5.935 268 17-42,223-42,223 268 48,175 99,380 4,941 10,435 893 30,612 804 5.171 407 1,669 86 790 76 263,784 16,426 4,966 545 23.572 1,604 4,378 170 50.919 1.826 6,260 372 13.769 1,413 6,934 482 9,645 744 532,204 30,788 13,557 4,784 3,766,363 261,037 3,766,363 261,037 4,312,204 296,609 18,695,440 60,693 6,375,849 120,240 -158,780 -779 5,900 -S --520 25.230,070 186,833 1,299 186 4 2 27 8,756 3,760 1,091 1,212 8,756 3,760 1,091 1,212 8,756 5,287 1,192 1,388 27 13,194 4,951 7,948 534 13.434 668 1,080 228 368 72 281-555 969 2,283 10,096 3,443 -3,874 770 307 -1,500--204 307 17,412 2,475 9,330 39,173 39,173 3,991 20,786 20,786 2,926 14,913 14,913 1,133 6,130 6,130 488 3,384 3.384 61 266 266 8,599 45,479 45,479 40 208 208 45 347 347 131 977 977 216 1,531 1.531-155,795 53,132 208.927 1.347 1,347 3 -1 23 141 302-90 62 610 B4 3 302 91 85 610 225 73 6,000 373 5.000 373 73 9,172 19 303,507 739 312.679 758 TLG Servies, Inc.

Three Mile stasnd Unit 2 Decommissioning Cost Analysis D-.-W F07-1601-002, Re.. 0 App-di,, E, Pge 11 of 12 SActivfty Index Activity' Description Period 8b Period-Dependent Costs 8W4.1 Decon supplies 8b.4.2 Insurance 8b.4.3 Property taxes 8b4.4 Health physics supplies 8b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 8b.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 8b.43 Ptant energy budget 8b.4.8 NRC Fees 8b.4.9 See O&M 8b.4.10 Radwaste Processing 8b.4.11 Secunty Staff Cost 8b,4.12 DOC Staff Cost 8b.4.13 UWity Staff Cost 8b.4 Subtotal Period 8b Period-Dependent Costs 8b.0 TOTAL PERIOD 8b COST PERIOD 8e -License Termination Period 8e Direct Decommissioning Activities 8e.1.1 ORISE confirmatory survey 8e.t.2 Terminate license 8e. t Subtotal Period 8e Actiity Costs Period be Additonal Costs 8e.2.1 License Termination Survey 8e.2 Subtotal Period 8e Additional Costs Period 8e Collateral Costs 8e.3.1 DOC staff relocation expenses 8e.3 Subtotal Perod Re Collateral Costs Period 8e Period-Dependent Costs 8e,.41 Insurance 8e.4.2 Property taxes 8e.4.3 Health physics supplies 8e.4.4 Disposal of DAW generated 8e.4.5 Plant energy budget 8e.4.6 NRC Fees 8e.4.7 Ste OEM 8e.4.8 Secunty Staff Cost 8e.4.9 DOC Staff Cost 8e.4.10 Utility Staff Cost 8e.4 Subtotal Period 8e Period-Dependent Costs 8e.0 TOTAL PERIOD De COST PERIOD 8 TOTALS PERIOD 9b -Site Restoration Period 9b Direct Decommissioning Activties Soe Cleseout Acuvities 8b.1.2 Grade & landscape site 9b8..3 Final report to NRC 981 Subtotal Period 9b Acti Costs Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Off-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Teem. Management Restoration Volume Clans A Class B Class C GTCC Peoessed Craft Contractor Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Cons Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Fent Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet RWt. bse. Manhours Manhoures 347 4,750 5,764 55 58 1,655 176-2,879 1,915 873 1,310 7,348 68,669 8,698-176 93.346 944 31,007 95.821 87 434 434 165 1,820 1,820 1,188 5,938 5,938 885 6,628 6.628 58 348 348 432 3,310 3.310 192 2,107 2,107 131 1,004 .1,004 197 1.507 1,507 1,102 8,450 8,450 10.300 78,969 78,868 1,305 10,003 10,003 16,021 120,517 120.517 34,165 206,700 206,700 3,828-3,928 6.268 261,404 73 1.347 78.723 965 227,679 969,000 91,071 78,723 965 1 287,750 29,933,680 485.165 1 289,049 347 10,514 55 58 9,105 29537 2.307 3,814 155 46 201 201 155 46 201 201 271 81 353 353 271 81 353 353 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 1,113 167 1,280 1,280 1,455 520 1,455 520 361----334 4 4 14 -221 447 188 606 4,637 S- -1,506 4 4 -14 7,939 4 4 14 9,478.712 11,239 1,160 111,476 241,451 33 368 368 90 452 452 5 27 27 33 254 254 45 492 492 28 216 216 91 897 697 695 5,332 5,332 226 1,731 1,731 1,247 9.569 9,569 1,541 11,403 11,403 93.317 552,868 552,844 361 17,083 65,430 11 135 135 304 6,083 75 18,789 59,889 14,874 304 6.083 75 93,551 304 ---6,083 1,530 94,071 24 7438 318,118 20,975 3,364 1,160 37,084,620 806729 3,248,685 155 -..--770 -S- -3.120 155 770 3.120-20 155 -356 03 410 410 356 74 565 410 TLG Services, 1e.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Deeommisiosio g Cost Analysis Docesnt F07-1601-002, Res. 0 Appendix CE, Page 12 of 12 Appendix E Three Mile Island Unit 2 Hardened SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2008 dollars)Off-Site LLRW NRC Sport Fuol Site Proososed Burial Volumes surial Utility and Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Pr.sessing Disposal Other Total Total Lie. Tenm. Management Restoration Voluoe Class A Class 8 Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contrastor Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Cost, Costs Costs Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Cu. Foot Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cuo Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours Manhours Period 9b Additional Costs 9b.2.1 Backfill Site [RB)9b.2 Subtotal Period 9b Additional Costs Period 9b Collateral Costs 1b.3.1 Small tool allowance 9b.3 Subtotal Period 9b Collateral Costs Period 9b Period-Dependent Costs 9b.4.1 Insurance 9b.4.2 Property taxes 9b.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 9b.4.4 Plant energy budget 9b.4.5 Socunty Staff Cost gb.4.6 DOC Staff Cost 9b.4,7 Utility Staff Cost gb.4 Subtotal Period 9b Period-Dependent Costs Sb.0 TOTAL PERIOD 9b COST PERIOD S TOTALS TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION through Hardened SAFSTOR 59 69 10 so 10 80-~ -o 5-~ -o t 80 80 745 745 I --2,211 -332 2,543-147 22 169 808 121 929 7,990 1,198 9,188-1,899 285 2.184 2.211 10.844 -1,958 15.014 2.416 11,201 2,043 15.660 410 2,416 11,201 2,043 15,660 410 22,227 129,102 15,057 18,220 9.907 143,024 639,282 177,573 1,154,392 1,108.155 2,543 169 929 25,029 9,188 100,114 2,184 20,336 15.014 -145,479 15,250 1,515 14.5599 15.250 1,515 14,599 46,236 83,317 631,687 24.649 3,364 1,200 75,537,295 1,754,402 6.581,320 TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION WITH t.18t%CONTI lGENCY: 1,154,392 thousands of 2008 dollars TOTAL NRC LICENSE TERMINATION COST IS 95.99% OR 1,108,155 thousands of 2008 dollars NON-NUCLEAR DEMOLITION COST IS 4.01 % OR: 46,236 thousand, of 2008 dollars TOTAL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BURIED (EXCLUDING GTCC): 659,700 cubic feet TOTAL GREATER THAN CLASS C RADWASTE VOLUME GENERATED:

1,200 cubic feet TOTAL SCRAP METAL REMOVED: 27,271 tons TOTAL CRAFT LABOR REOUIREMENTS:

1,754,403 man-hours End Notes: n1a -indicates that this aocluty not charged as decomnissioning expense.a -4indites that this activity performed by decommissioning staff.0 -indicates that this value isless than 0.5 but is non-zer.a cell containing

"- " indicates a zero value TLG Sersiee, Ins.

Enclosure B TMI-10-011 Financial Escalation Analysis for the Decommissioning of Three Mile Island Unit 2 May 2009 (23 Pages Follow)

Doctiment F.074601-004, Rev, 0 FINANCIAL ESCALATION..ANALYSIS for the, DECOMMISSIONING OF THREE MILE ISLAND, UNIT 2!p reparedý for FirstEnergy Corporation prepared by TLG Services, Inc.Bridgewater, Coinecticut May2009

,77tree Mile Island Unit 2 Finaneial Escalation, Analysis;1)omument F07-1601-004, Rev. 0 Page.2. of 23 APPROVALS Project mallager C Thi~ca I Mana11;ger (4tu di ty iASSLI-11 ii a icefy a i gei'm~ata'`k 4fiir~ ol__ V I~~.'1), 17C TLG Services,ý ite

'i/w]lee Mlile~slaln~dlUini 2"Financial Escalation.

Analysis Docmttument F07-1601-004, Rev..,O Page 3 of 23 REVISION LOG No. CRA No. Date Item* Revised Reason' for Revision 0 05-07-2009 Original IssTue TLG Services, Inc, Thriee Mile Island Unit 2 Fri anciai&E seaiaition Analysis: Document F07-1601-O04, Rev. 0.lPage 4 of 23 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE IN T I O D U C T IO N ........................................................................................

.................

5 TABLES 1. Escalation Sumnm ary, ........ o ..........

10.............................................................

..... ...Schedule.:of Anmiila Exn)endlitures (2008 dollars, 2. Delayed DECON) ...........................................

11 3 .C ustodial S A F S T O R ...........

.......................................................................

..12 el. H a rd ene d S A F S T O R ...........................................................................................

14 5. Escalation Bases ............

...................................

17 Schedule of Annual Expenditures (escalated dollars)6. D elayed D E C O N ,.;. ..................................................................................

.I.. .8 7. Custodial SAFSTOR .....................................

19 8 .-1aarden ed S A F ST O R ................

.....................

........ m ......- ... ......................

.. 2 1 TLG,8ervices, Inc.

"I'Iwee Mile Islnd Unit 2 FPo0-160o14h, Rev. 0 FiatCIial.

scahitiouAnalysis Pagei' of 23 INTRODUCTION This report presents ftie results of an escalation of the1 costs to decommission the Three Mile Is landl Unit 2 (TMI-2) to the jprojected.

year, oft expenditure.

Financial r~~~ ~ autdfr MI:-sched ules are provided for lthe three: deconmimss'ioning scenarios eval uat0ed for TM-.2. The sebnarios assuume that, Exelbon, Genciiation (thee Owner. and operator of the adjacent Unit 1) wiill be successful -in, extending thl operating I-ccns~e for Unit. 1 (TMI- 1) to 2034. The TMI-2 decommissioning scenarios are def'ned as follows: 1 Delayed DECON: Oine of' the decommissioning alternatives for Unit 1 is to defer decommissioning until the spent fuel has been removed from the site.This scenario assumes that the decontamination and dismantling activities at TmI-2 are synchronized with the adjacent unit such that the licenses for both units are terminated concurrently.

2,. Custodial SAFSTOR: In the second scenario, TMI.I71 is placed inito long-terih storage. TMI-2 remains in storage until. such time that decommissioning activities can be coordinated

\Vith Unit 1. ,As with the, first Scenario, termination of the.licenses i's coordin'ated..

3. Hardened SAFSTOR: This scenario assumes that Unit 1 is promptly decommissioned when it ceases operations in 2034. In coordination with the Unit 1 activities, the TMI-2 reactor building is reconfigured for long-term, passive storage. Site structures and facilities, with the exception of the reactor building, are, deeontaaminated and dismantled.

The reactor building and its contents aire secu.ed and the site is reconfigured fo-r monitored 7SurIPVeillance.

Decontaminilation and final diis3mantling of' the reactor building is deferred 'for approximately-100 years (fr'onii Uniiit I shutdown).

For each of the three scenarios described above, .dorinancy costs are.accrued from the 6ees'ation.

ofTMI- 1 Operations in 2034. This mieans that the current PDMS costs are not included within the reported decommissioning costs.Background The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provided initial decommissioning requirements in its rule adopted on June 2.7, 1988. In this rule, the NR.C set forth financial criteria for decommnission!ing licensed nuclear .power facilities.

As part of the prTcess to demonstrate financial assurance, licensees must adjust the estimate of' the cost of decominissioning their plants; in dollars. of the current. year (10 CFR§50.75). To- facilitate the process, :and. provide .unifoi~mity ini reijorting, thei NRC T'LG Services, hec; Three Mile Island Unit 2 DoAume(t F07.1601.004, Rev. 0 Financial EsLalation, Analysis Page 6 (f23 ,pereiodically reissues NUREG-.13071 "Repot on Waste Burial Charges." T]his document develops the basis for the escalation.of waste disposal costs (since 1-986).and idefiti:fies the hpjMopriate indices foi, the labor- and energy .cost con 6nents.While tihe burial index is burial site-specific, labor escalation is tied, to the Employment Cost Index published by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) and energy to the Producer Price Index.For purposes of escalation, the NRC divides its reference costs for decommissioning into categories of labor, energy, and burial. TLG also allocates its costs, for decommissioning into categories, with the, NRC's labor category further subdivided into "labor"' and "equipmient and matevriails.

and :an "oýher" category added for miscellaneious fees, taxes and 'other unique or. onet~ime expe.,nditures.

The Financial Accounting Stanidards Board (FASB) issued a. Statement of Financial Accounting Standards, No. 143 (FAS 143) in 2001. The Stagtement acddessed financial accounting and reporting for obligations associated with the retirement, of tangible long-lived assets and the associated asset reti'rement costs.TLC, has prepared ARO liability assessments (partial or total) for several major nuclear plant owners. The assessments follow the process outlined in FAS 143 and have been reviewed and deemed acceptable by the owner's financial auditors.FAS 143 allows for estimating the fair value 'of anl ARO liability by using an expected, present value technique.

FAS 143 states in paragraph.

8: I'f a present value technique is used to estimate fair value, estimates of'ftlU.tre cash flows, used in that technique shall be consistent wlth the objectPive ofimeasuring f.ir value." PLG develops future cash flows by escalating four of the&cost; categories (labor, equipment and materials, energy and other) with indices provided by 11IS Global Insight (IHS Global Insight is a privately held company which acquired Global Insight in 2008. The combined company includes well-known businesses such as Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA), Jane's Information Group, and I-S Herold; it also includes the former companies known as DRI (Data Resources, Inc.) and WEFA (Wh-arton Econometric; Forecasting:

Associates)).

For this analysis, the escalation rate for Burial had been established through an: agreement, between FirstEnergy and EnergySolutionis, the disposal servi'ce promidcer.-Since the, timefrafi0e " of decominisioning, typically exceeds that of the pu.)bished indices, for years beyond the published index, the inflation factor is determined using a "moving-average" method, averaging the most recen't 25 years of indices to determine the future year index.TLG Services, Ine.

Thee MileIsland Unit 2 1) oeumenlJ 7- 160 1-O'J, l}eu. 0 Financial Escalation Analysis Page 7 0f 23 Assutmptions and Methodology The baseline estimates (in 2008 dollars) werle extracted from the 'PLG cost estimatell and are presented in Table 1. The scenarios analyzed were based upon the. end dates coinciding-withadjacent Unit 11 and. its decomniissioning scenarios.

A single-viaiie effective escalation r"ate (coinpositel value) is also identified for each ,decommlissioning scenario for TMII-2. The resultsfareealso provided ;in Ttabie Vii.'Decommissioning costs were divided intoý the five :escalation -categories, for which future rate of inflation factors were established.

The five categories are: Labor Wages, fringes and benefits for craft, salaries and benefits for professional workers, clerical, administrative, service, contract workers, as well as for certain trades Equipni.ent

&

Heavy equipment,, specialty tooling,.

packaging, small tools, construction ma'terials, col-ns umibles, rental!Pquipment and temporary construction facili ties (trailers)

Eitergy Electrical Power purchases. (as 'a large industrial customer) to support site operations Burial Costs for the processing of' low-level radioactive waste as well as for the controlled disposal of material that cannot be recovered (released for unrestricted use)Other Site operating costs (not. already accounted for), for-example, taxes, fees, and costs fori specialized services and project support. -actiVities

'(may incide. unspecified contributions froi'1 .labor, equipment and materials, and transportation), and payments for on'e-time, disposal services (e. g., .Greater-tha n-Class C, or GTCC- waste), Escalation As previously noted, escalation factors for the cost categories (exclusive of Burial)were obtained from IlHS Global Insight. Forecast data for labor, equipment/

materials, energy, and gene'ral inflation were available through 2034. in order to extrapolate beyond the available Global insight data, TLG c:alcilated a 25-year'"Decommin sii s... ....i 11,g Cost, Ai, hlysiis for Three i dU iUnit.2," D10u meint No. 1F07- 16o01-o002.,'lL(I'Services, Ine. .Roy. 0., January 2009.TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Document F07-160.1-004, Rev. 0 Fin an cia l Escalation Analysis Page 8 of 23 moving average inflation factor to.extend the Global Insigh', hibdcices .through 2134 t'rhe endidi .i t.: of the Hairdened SAF STOR. decommissio~fi ilg.scenario.

Index Selection Table 5 identifies the Global Insight forecast data sets used for the four cost.categories (exclusive of Burial). Consistent with the NRC's guidance, TLG escalates the labor component, of its decommissioning cost; estimates using an Employment Cost Index (ECI) and the eneirgy cost with a Producer Price 1.ncdex (PP.I).Use of the Consumer Price Index (CPI)for general services, site ýopeirating costs and one.ime expenditures is consistent With the. initent of the index (the measure of the average, change, in prices, over, time of goods and services).

The decommissioning process is labor intensive, with labor representing more than half of the total cost. The estimates for TMI-2 include the cost: of the craft, labor performing field activities, the field supervision and support services, project, management, administration, security, and costs for specialty contractors.

The Employment Cost: Index (fCI) is a qluarterly measure of changes in labor costs. It is one of the principal economic indicators used by the Fcederal Reserve Bank, The index shows changes in wages and salaries andc benefit; costs, as .well as, chainges in.total conmpensation The ECIPCTNS index, provided by (]'lobbl Insigh-rt, is aq yearly estinAte of ch'ange in the cost of labor, defined as compensationl Iper miployee hour worked.. The self-employed, ownlers-manageis, ;and! unpaid f.imily wor kers are excluded from coveriage.

The. ECI is designed as a fixed-weight index at the qccupational level, thus eliminating:

the, effects of emipldy.iiient shifts among occupations.

Both components of compensation, wages/salaries', aetd benefits, a'e covered.Elguipment and material costs in the decommissioning estimates include small tools and consumables as well as the heavy construction eqctuipment, involved in the dismantling, demolition and movement of materials ar'ound. the site. The Producer Price Indexes (PPI). measures monthly average changes: in selling p.rices, received by dcomestic ,piodcucers for their, outputV Most of the intformaiti'on used, ini the PPI 'is obtafined by sampling of industiries in the iiinii g, and' manufacturing-sectors.

of the e.ono~my.

The indexes reflect price trends ýfor a constant set of goods and Siervices representingthe total output. of an industry..

TLG's analysis uses.a Consumer Price Ilndex to project future expenditures. "Other" costs in the decommissioning estimates include such items as licensing fees, taxes, special services (for example, a fee for the geologic disposal of GTCCG waste), as well as labor-intensive activities such as radiological surveys that include costs for off-TLG Services, Inc.

Thr'e ee iRaslan&M1Unt 2 Doeimienli F07-1,601-'004, Rev. 0 IFba imicialtEscaladion Alu taksisj Pege 9,(f 23 site analytical services, The CPI measures changes in the prices of goods and services.

It is therefore more representative of the non-labor cost elements included in the decommissioning estima tes.The. EnergySoluitions Life-of-Plant Disposal Agreement. that..CPI wi. l be used f.orthe escalation in :disposal charges;There ..witl be some wastes generated in the decbminissionin of T4 M -2 that are jnot suitable foi shallow: lInd btirial and therefore cannot be shipped for disposaj to EnergySolutions.

'l'his material, primuarily associated with systems aind structures contaminated with fuel debris, requires greater isolation from the environment.

For estimating puriposes, a geologic waste repository, or some interim storage facility, is assumed to be available for the disposal of this material, The estimates for TMI-2 assume the timely removal of waste designated for geologic disposal, witliout the need for on site interim storage. (once containerized).

Order ofOperations The process to escalate the decommissioning .eStimatesi was d6ndticted in the following sequence;* Source information was extracted from the latest decommissioning cost analyses (reproduced in Tables 2 through 4).* The schedules of expenditures are presented in the following five categories:

Labor, Equipment

& Materials, Energy, Waste Burial & Recycling, and Other.The appropriate escalation index for each of the five escalation categories was identified, as summarized, in Table 5.'The, index values were applied againmst elacdh :of. the, unescalated schedules of tocalculate a.: schedule of ffutiu revalue (Tables 6 through 8).* An effective single value annual escalation rate was.tdetermined (Table. 1).Results The total estimated escalated expenditure of dollars for each scenario through the completion of decommissioning for TMI-2, as well as the composite annual escalation rate, is presented in Table 1.TLG S'ervices, Ine.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Financial Escalation Analysis Docuinent F07-1601-004, Rev. 0 Page 10 of 23 TABLE I ESCALATION

SUMMARY

(nillions:0of do]ilars)Baseline Cost (2008 $)Esscalatedl Valute (escalated

~Effective Escalation Rate Scenario Start End Dclayed DECON 2034 Custodial SAFSTOR 20:34 2054, 8!44.88 2,552,,87 2.810%2095 ,922.77 9,()95.70 2.945%HIardened SAFSTOR 2034 2134: i 1,54.39 25,304.88:3.014%TLG Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Financial Escalation Analysis Document F07-1601-004, Rev. 0 Page 11 of 23 TABLE .2 SCHEDULE OF.ANNUAL, EXPENDI)IURES DELAYED DECON (t-housands, 2008 dollar's)Eq ui pmient &"Ye:illr i~nhor Energy 13u116i1 Other Tottail 203,1 2035 2036 2(037 2038 2039 2041l2042 20q48 2045 204t6 2(),17 204,8 20,19 2050 2052 2053, 2054..494 702 704 702 702 7(02'704 702 ,531,7516)

'51,597 ,15 143 45, 143 45.143 ,15.207 43,974'1 413,43(3.37,583 1(3......i107 152 152 152 152 152 1 52.152 677 4,6410 11,1531 LI.531 1 1,531 11,563 10,862 I 0.554 1(1554.4,596 4,Al78 192 273 274 273 273 273ý2721 273: 273, 898 1.273 1.2619 1,269 1,2713 1,049 94's" 9418 264 95: 12 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 2 ý3 23 7,1.08 1,8,909 18.909 118.9(19 18,961 17,392 ,16,095 16,695 13,589.1,002s 1,329 520 738 7.,10 738 738 738 74MO 738 9,305 12,188 12.188 12. 188 12"222 7.787 5:702.5,762'7,71'5.8,945',15 1.329 1.887 1,893 1.887!,.89:3.1.887[;887 441, 115 73,921 89,041 89.0,1 I 89.0411 89,285 81,0601 77,394 77,394 18,070'467,398 1025-666.13;769, 149,777.1.1 1371 84/'JLG Services, Inc, DTimee Aile Island Unit 2 Financial Escalation Analysis Doeumnent F07-1601-004,.

Rev. 0 Page 12 of 231 TABLE 3'SCHEDULE OF A NNUAL EXPENDITURES CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR (thousands, 2008 dollars)ll~iuipment.

&Yomei, Labor EInergy R1uria ()thel" Tooll 20:34 20:35 2036, 2037 2038 2039 20440 2041 20,12 2013 20411-2(),15 20,10 20,17 2048 20,19 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 20(59 20(00;20(;1 20(32 2063 2064 2065 494 702 704 702 702 702 7(14 702 702.702 704 702 702 702 701 702 702 702.710 702.702 ,70,2 704 702, 702 702 704 702 702 702 704 702.107 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152ý152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152, 152 1.52 152ý'152'152 152 I52 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 192 273 2741 273 273 273 2741 273 2737 27:3 274 273 273 273 274 273 273 2173 274.273 273 273 273 273 271 273 273 273 274 273 16 23 23 23 23 23.23.423 23 23.213 23 23 23 23 23 23, 2-3.23.23243 23 23 2 3-23 23 23 23.23 23 520 738 7,10 738 7:38 7,40 738 7,38 738 740 738 738 738 7138 738 7T38 738 7410 738'7,38 7,40'7:18 7:38 7:38 738 738 738 740 738 1,329.1,887 1,893 1,887 1,887 1.8,87 1,8.93 1.887ý1.8871 1,887 1.893.1.887 1.887 1,887 1.893 1,887 1.887 1 .887.1-,893 ,1,887 1,887 1,887 1.893:1,887 1,887 1,893 1.887 1,887 1.887 1.893 1.887 TLG Services, lite.

ThreeMile, Island Uniit 2 Financial Escalation.

Analysis, Document F07-1601-004, Rev. 0 Page 13 of 23 TABLE 3 (continued)

'SCHEDULE-OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR (thousands, 2008 collars)*FXuipiiien

('&M\a ternias Year Labor Energy.Burial Other ik l l'2066 20609 2070 2071 2072 20773 207d1 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080, 2081 21082, 2083: 2084 20,85 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2092 2093 2094 2095 702 702 704 702 702 702 70,1 702 702 702 704 702 702 702 702 702 16 :5012,11 45,159 45, 159 4. 282 45,159 43.506 4-3,125 413,54,i 29,060:6.577 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 921 7,1653 11.490 11,4(90 11.521 11,490(10,j82 10,5:38 10,567 6,799 5,9049 2,12 273, 273 274 273 273 27:3 274 273 273 273 274 273 273ý273 2741 273 273 27-3°11 88: 1,.269 1,269 1,269 1.273 1,2(19 9(3 948 950 671 21.9 50 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 23 12, 164 18,721[8.724 18.775 18.724 1(,7,11 1(3, (34 5 16,690 9,085.1,681, 704 7*38 738 7,40 738 7:38 740 738 738 738 740 738 7:38 738 7,10 738 738 738 ,15;1,(6 ,7,917 12,136 12. 136 12,169 12.1 :I;G,.04.5 5',747 5,763 10,390 41.778 24 1,887 1,887 1,893 1.887 1.887 1,887 1.893 1,887 1,887 1,887 1 893 1.887 1,887 1.887.1 1,887 1,887 1,887 63;994 79,5J344 88,777 88,777 89,.(20)88,777 77,837 77,302 77.51,4.56,005).31,782.9,567 497J5.9 i08,767.24.93 11 150.10"5.1I.L 0Y 922,772 TlG Services, Ince.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Financial Escalation Analysis Document F07-41601-004, Rev. 0 Page 14 of 23 TABLE 4 SCHED)ULE OF ANNUAL EIXPENI)ITURES HARDENED SA FSTOR (thousands, 2008 dollars)Equipmuent

&Ma terialIs Year L,abor Energy Burial (0)11hw Tolal 2031 2035.20(37 20:38 2039 24,10 20,11 2042 20413 20)44 2045 20)-1 2047 2(:),18 2049 20501 2051 2052.2053 205'I 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2(062 2063 206I.'20a5.206R 2067 2068 2;392 1821,4,8 37,084 28*830 17,943 9,082 2416 2,17 2,1 G 2,16 246 24.7 246 246 2417 246 246 2,16 2,17 2,1 (24(;246 247 246:2'1'(3 247 246 2,16'2,1'6 247 107.487 2,743 (,93,1 7.120 7-,1:26.,508 5.334 3.057 0 0 0 10 (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (I)0 0 (1 0 192 672 1,273 981.948 948.743 239 2:31 273 274 273 273 273 27:1 273'27-'ý:273 274;273 273 273 274 273 273 27:3 27,1 27:3 27:3 273.273 273 2743[.6 23, 3,206 1145, 11,5 19.11,519 7.645 1.4110 977 0 (0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (3 (1 0 0 0 0 0 0 520 31,22(0 5,316 5:)325 5.6G12 9.,142 8,684 2,152 1,135 1.138 I,135 1.135 1.135 1,138 L:.1.35.1, F:35 1,135 1.135 1,135 1,135 1.138 1.135 1, 135 1.135 1.138 1,135.I1 [8)1, 135 11 138 1,1:35..1.135 1.138 3,22G 22,635.51,899 6i 1,50)3 62,282.62,282 51,.868 33,610 I5,,'I 99 1.65,1 1.659 1,6-54 1.6541 1.6541 1,659 1 65,1 1 ,61-5 1.I .65 1,654I 1 G-5,1 1.659 1.65,1 1.654 1,6541 1,659 1,6541 1.651 1.651 TL3654 1 6-5 4 TLG Services, Inc.

Tliree;Mi~elsland Unit 2 Financia7 Escalation Analyis ,Documtent FO7-60"-0O4, lRev. 0 Page 15 of 23 TABLE 4 (continued)

SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES HARDENED SAFSTOR (th@bisands, 2008Adollars)

EI(1 U1)1IU()flt

&Labor Enwlggy Burial (I)t~her:Total.2069 2070 207 I 2072 2073 20741 2075 2076, 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 20,92 209)3 2094 2095 209(i 2097 2098 2099 2100 21 0!2102 2103 246 24(3 247 2,17 2416 246 247 247 246ý246 240 247 246 2,16 246 247 240 246 246 247 24'6 24(3 247 246 2,16 2]03 2476 246 2416 246 2416 2' 6 246G 273 273 273 274 273 27,3 273 27,1 273'273 273 274 273 273 273 274 273 273 273 274t 273 273 273.274, 273 273, 273 274 273 273 27 3 27:3 27:3 273 273 1,135*1 ,.135 1.135 1,1,38 1.135 1,113::-5 1. 135 1.138 135 1,138 1. 3.5 1,135 I, 1t:36 1,138 i.135 135 1,135 1 , 135 1,11131 1,135 1,1:38 1, 35 1,135 1,135 1, 1:35 1, 135 1,1:35 1,654 1,654 1.059 1,654I.1 G54.1,654 1,654 1,659 1.6:'59 1,0354 I.(35,1 1,6591 1,6541 1,(359 135).1 ,(35,1 I M59, 1.654)1 ,651 1,,65o.4 i;65,1 1 6G5,1 1!65 I 1.65,1 I.654!1 65 1 TLG ,Services, Inc.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Financial Escalation.

Analysis Dimi.wnent F07-1601-004, Rev. 0 Page 16 of 23'TABLE 4 (continued)

SCHEDULE.OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES HARDENED SAAFSTOOR (thousands, 2,008 dollairs)Equipment

&MiaV tol iils Yenr la bor Eilorgv Blulpial Othier To tal 21 0,1 2105 2106 2107 21 708 21109 ,211.0 2112 2]13 2114 2115 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2122 2123, 2124 2 12,5 2126 21.27 2128 2129 2 1:30 21:31 2132 2133 2131 2,17 246 246 246 2,17 246-246 247 246 2246 247 2,17 2,16 217 2,46 247G 110,894 37'525'37,525 37!( 628'36.089 3(,00 I 36,001 25.270 12,575 3,823 0 0)0 0 0 0 0 0 6,09 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,809 407 200'8703 101:79]10,791 1:0,791 10,821 7,120 6.89 6 4,072 2.008 80:3 274 273 273 273 2741 273 273.273 274.273 273 273, 274 273 273 273 274 273 273 1,1 49 11,I273 1,269 ,1,2(39.1,269 1278 9118 9418 675 22(.)51 (0 0 0 0 0 0 (1 0'(.)0 0 0 0 0 C)0 20 14,701 14.70A, 14,742 1 i:.56) o.11,407 11,407 (,292 7 0 l]X138 1.135 1,135 t. 135 I, 135 1. 138 1.135 1, 13I5 1,135 1.138 1- 135 1.135 1.135 1.138 1,135 1.135 1,135 1.138 1,1335 1,1.35 14,891)1,M: 5'1..I8M 11-185.1,1, 2 85 11,216ý ,3410 3.922 3,922 3,61511 650 (7 1I 6 FI11 1,6,5,1 1,654 1, 65 4 1.65`4 L.6541 I1,659 1.654 1,65,1 1,659 1,65,4 1,6 54 54,326 62,6:37 75,5472 7, 5, 472 W).,-17 2 751,679 (01 I I 5 9.17:3 59,173 3 9,1 ) 3 ,I,676i (j25196.8 117.039 39412 15:3;:315 219,558 1,1541,392 TJLG Services, Inc.

ThV reeMileCIsla it d Unit 2 Financial"Escalation Analysis Doctineni F,'71.60,1-004,Rev.

0 Page .17 of 23 TABLE 5 ESCALATION BASES Cost Category Escalation Sourcei Labor Equipmnent Lind M~aterials Energy Global Insight Forecast Database, Emp loylen t cost index, total p-rivate compensation (ECIPCTNS)

Global Insight Forecast Database, Producer Price Index, Machinery

& Equipment (WPIP 11)Global Insight Forecast Database, Producer Price Index, Fuels and Related Products and Power (NWPIP05)Global. Insight Forecast Database,, Consumer vprice index., services (CUSASNS)EnergySolutions Life-of-Plant agreement specifies the use of CPI; therefore Global Insight Forecast Database, Consumer prvice index, All Urban All Itemst (CPI)Other Low-Level Rad ioactive Waste Processing/Disposal"l. Z.Services, Ic, Three Mile Island Unit 2 Financial Escalation Analysis Document P07-1601-004, Rev. 0 Page 18 of 23 TABLE 6 SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPE ND I TURES 1DELAYEDU DECON (thousands, escalated dollars)INlatorials Year Labor Energy Burial Othe-,r lolal 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 20,10 20,11 20,12 2043 20+1,1 20,15 2046 2047 2048 2049 205(6.2051 2(052 205:M 2054 1,095 1 60 1 1,660 1 709 1,765 1,822 1 887 1,944 2,008 93.731 157,499 1,12.331 1147,012 151,847 157.274 157,809 161,00)1166 309 i,18,634 67,095 52, 41, I 084 154: 154 154 156.155 156 697 4.785 11,923 11,953 11,983 S2,0,46..].1..3,1.;

11.0501 11,077'9,498 4,1,848 4,418: 186 268 272 276 281 285 291 295 300 1,003 1,4451 1,460 1,549 1,515 1.295 1,189 1,209.1,083, 348*127 3,3 49 50 5 2 53,.55 5 6 58 Go 61 19.788 54, 189 55,777 57,4il 59 256 55 1916 55'. 274 56 8,J93 17 3;833 4.9,39 1,084 1 .5841 J1.635 1,678 1.728 1.778 1.835 1.8M4 1.939 29,21 3 25,905 34.928 35,9.52 37,005 38 194, 25 018 19,078 27.:16:3 32,<1:3.I166 2 505 3,771 3. 869 3.980 4.095 4,225 4,336 4.162 124,705 209.1,241 244,887 252,185 259.762 268,315 251 ,112 247 01 25, 126 233 945 1086559 62 06;l:618,,159 106,967 16,172 ,171.498 339,772 2,552,867'TLG ServiCes, Inc.

Three Alile Island unit 2 Financial Esca hllon. Analysis D iK UJ'eilt: F 7.1601.004, R v. 0 Page 19 of 23 TABLE 7 SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR (thousands, escalateddidollars).F"( -Jkl ip l -n nt Yeal.LabOr EinIrgy Burial Otih-er.1,oh l, 203,1 2035 2086(2037 20:38 2039 20,10 204 1 20,12 20:13 20,1.4 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050)2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2060 2000 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2009 1,(0195 1,6041 t, 660()1,7(19 1,765 1,822 1,887 1.94-4, 2.008 2,(Y.71, 2,212 2,285 2,360 2.,115 2.518 2.601 2,687 2,783 2,866 2,960 3, (5)8 3,A W{' )3,261 3,4-79 3,710 8.832.11(099 41.222-1,360`,1,503 4,630 31,803 108 153 15,1 154, 15,1 155 15(;15r5 156 156(157 157 157 I 518 159 159 159 159 160 160.16.1 161 162 162 I 68 164 163 16,4 16,1 165 165 166 166 167 167 186 268 272 276 281 285 291 295:305 3,11 321 326 333 3:37 34:3 3,19 356 36,7 373 380 385 391 3)8 ,10,6 418 ,125 ,133'139 4147 ,15,1 463 ,169 331 49 5()52 53 55 56 58 61ý6:3 (65 (7 69 71 73 75 77 80 82 84, 87 89 92.95 P,7 10 103 10 W 109 113 116 119 123 126 130 1,084 1.5841 1,635 1,678 1,728 1,778 1,835 1,884 1,9 39 2;060.2115 2:2,1i0 2,312 2,374 2.4413 2,515 2,596 2,66,'1 2,7412 2ý823 2,2;91.3 F3078:32168.3,27(1 3.:35.7 3.,455 3.556 3,(37 I:3,768 3,878 3,992 4.120}4,229 2,505:3.158 3.771 3,869 3,980*1((95 41,225 4.335 4.462 1,1592 41739 ,1.865 5.007 5.1541 5.319 5.A1 I 5.621 5,787 5,97,4 (3,133 6.314,'6 501.671 1 6.891 J.095-7,305 7, '),12 7,74 5 7,975 8.21:3 8,480 8.710 8,969 91.2:37 95.109 9,798 TLG Services, Inc.

Dimee Mile Island Unit 2 Financial Escalation.

Analysis Document F07-1661-004, Rev. 0 Page 20 of'23 TABLE 7 ý(con ti nu e0d)SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENDI'TU, RES CUSTODIAL SAFSTOR (tihousands, escalated:

dollars)h((tuipmenI, &.\la (erin. s Year Labor Energy 13 Lu i aI Orther To otvd 2070 2071 2072 2073 207']2075 2076 20.77 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 2083 2084 2085 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 2091 2(092 2093 209,1 2095 ,I96 I 5, 12,1 5,306.,t644 5 .829 6 ,03 -6.21 8 6;,122 6.033 6,869 7,075 7,307 7.547 515,,133 576.367 535,058.552,607 572,297 589.4,52 586,5,)5 604.6, 9 626. 162 4,31.586 293.804 104,196 167 168 168 1618 169 169 17.0 171 172 172 172 173 1,049 8,74:3 13,160 13;'194 13,263 1:3.260 142,14 12,223 12.287 7,926 G,95F3 2,591 ,77'185 195 502.5110 5419 529 536: 545 55,1: 565 573 582 592 2,617 2,8412 2,8,90!2,9ý38.1.995:3,037 2,342,'2,344 ,2,390 1,714 570 132 134 138 1'12 1459.150.1541',59 17.3 179 184 189 195 201 11:3 :391 175,325 1800,463 186,.259 191,1ý9.4 175,962 180, 070 10,131 19,833 8.54-1 ,1.353 1,181 I .624 ,1,747 1 :886 5,029 5191.328 5:826 5.981 6,156 6 336 13(.6,604 72,025 120.723 123 921 63 )532 62.175 64. 172 1 19;09,1 56.366 288 1(0,092 I 0.391 I(07:36 11 028 11,359 1.1.701 1.2,086 12..I 36 12J790 13.176 13.611 13,98,1 S1,~1.07 14,84'2 655.9d11 773,369 84(1 070 866, 168 895',5:8:920(8(6,i

ý84( .384141 890,865 377,526 115,752 6, 178.039 124.982 47,04(, 1,526,1438 1,21 H,.25,1 9,095.758 TLG Services, Ine.

Three Mile Island Unit 2 Finan cial Esciikition.

AinalySis.

Documenit F07.1601-004, Rev. 0 Page 21;of,23 TABLES SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL U RES HARDENED SAFSTOR (thousands, escalated dollars)Equipment.

&Mlhaterials Yen ar Labor Ene, rgy Bu'rial Other TotnI 2034., 2035 2016 2037 2038 2039 20,10 2041 20,12 204:3 20441 2045 20,10 2047 2048.2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 205(;2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 ,2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 90W393 , 93, 254;.96 302 77.325 ,19.703 25.985 727 753 776 801.827 8EM 883 912 9,12 975 1,005 1,038 1,072 1.I 10 1,1113 1.18 I 1,219 1.263 1:30(1 E.343 1,387 1,437 1,480 L528 1.578 1,635 1,6841 1'08.-49 2,773 7,0298 7,234.7.2:52 5,624).460:3.137 0 0 0 0: 0 0 0 0'0 0 0 0 0 0'0-0'0 0:.0'0 186'658.1,26-1 99.1 973 990 790 258 253 305:311 316 321 326.333: 337 3.,13 3,19 356 1!61:367:373 380:385 39 ]398'106'11 I'118 1125'133 ,139 4,17, 4541 46:3 ,169 33-I9 7.08 il 25, 319 26,967 27, 757 18,962 3.6()0 2,568 0 0 0 0 0 0, 0.0 0 0 0 0 (1 0 0 0 0 0.0 1)! .08'I 6.91l 1I 1748.12, 112 1,3.1:3.8 1'352:3 22 674 22,171 3.07(0 3,168-. 252 31348:3557 3(35 5.1 3.758 3;868 ,1,098 41.218 d,,181 4(600 4t.734 4,873 5,030 5,163 5 6.4 5,965 5 7.95 6, 14.0 6,337 6,5 05 6,709 4,9,78.5 115, 719 135..873.14"1,567 145,821 125'.374 81,191 37,600 4,102 4,233 4.3,14(4,470 4.600 ,1:.746 5,013 5,32-3 5,622 5,786 5,971 6,128 6.367 6,1191 6,698 6(.875 7ý.282 1516 7.714 7 910 8; 172 8,436 8, 65)8 TLG Services, Inc.

VTrei? M'ile Msand Uliji 2 Fbinan ciali Escalaition.

Analysis Document FO,7-.1601.004,,Rev.

0 Page 22 of 23 TABLE 8 (continued)

SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENND ITU RES HARDENED SAFSTOR (thousandsi escalated:

dollars)T!ip~' i;n Nftciatti s Labor En6rgy BuriAlý001(w Total 2075 2076 2077 2078 2079 2080 2081 2082 20883 208,1 2086 2087 2088 2089 2090 209 1 2092 209:3 2094 2095 2098 2099 2:1 oo)21,01 2102 2103 2104 2105 2106 2107 2108 2109 21.10.2,0,13 2,116 2, t18 2,251 2.325 2.4108 2,480 2.56 2,740 2.822 2,914" 3,010 3.1 .7 3.211 3.316 3-126 3.517 3,653 3.77/3 3,897 1 035 11,56 1 293 4,,)7.,71720 4,884I 5,2241 5,381 5,557 5,7410 5,944 6, 122 6.323 519 529 5:36 5,15 5541 565 573 582 592 604 6(12 622 633 645 654 6(35 676 689 699 710 722 736 7,17 759 772 785'798 811 825 841 852 867 881 898 911 926 77.35 7,984 8.195 8,435 8,682 8, 96 1 9,1,I!9 9:,1(38 91746 10:059 t0,32ý5 10,628 10,939 11,290 11,590 11,929 12,279 12,673 1.3.009 13.390 13.782 1 1,(302 1 0310.15,,,170 ,I 5,92-3'"i 6,39(11 16870 ,17,36,4 17,922 18.397 18.93I(19,491 20,.1.7 20,649 21,255 10.297 10,629 10,911 11.231 11,562 11,934 12.25.1 ,12,612 12,983 1.3A402 1 3.759 14 164 4414582 15,053'15,454 15.9 I0 10.379 1(G,909 17,36 1 17.873 18.1I01 18,997 19,505 20;081 20,675 21,287, 2 1.917 22,505 23:233 23.98,7 2,1,630 25: '360 26,111 26.959 27.683 2A850,4'J.Jc Services, hie, Three Mile Island, Unit 2 Financial ,sesalaf ion'-Anal.ysis Document P07-'1601-004, Rev. 0 Plage '23 of 23 TABLE 8 (continued)

SCHEDULE OF ANNUAL EXPENDITURES HARDENED SAFSTOR (thousands, escalated dollars)Equipment

&A a tcrals ,Labor I'),urgY Burial Ol.hr 2!11:2:1.12',2112!2 .I I ',I 2114 21,15 2116 2117 2118 2119 2120 2121 2,122 2123 2124 2125 2126 2127 2128 2129 2130 21 1 2132 2 1-33 21341 6 531 7.1911 7 430 7.695 7, 926 8.18(;8,1451 8,756 9,018 9.31 'd 1A62.4(63 1.651.7,18 1:5 6 5 351, 1,616ý692 1669,71 9 1,729.211 1712,877 1,761.762 1.822, 614 1,321:330 079.07:73 21 3.200 0 0 0 0 (1 0 (0 0 o 0 0.1,093 8,4'19 13;6241 1:3,658 13,693 13,765 9,080 8,817 8.839 5,232 2,067 1.037 941I ,973 P89 1,006 1,026 1.0,10 1,0)57 1,075 1,0916 1. 111 1.'1;3o 4,829 ,5,4 3.7 5,5:13:5,609 5,':,(99.5,810 4,472 ,t,546 3,292 1,09)25 5 0 1)0 0 0 (1 0 0 0 0 5,113 176,2171 424.575.137, 016: 449,820.464,209 375,907 380,596 391,747 222.412 2,40 1*)2 1.877 22,580 23.178 24,556 25,3,15 26,016 26G,7 7.8 2 7-5G) 37 27:5(63 28.4,18 29,202 30,0518 105,912 323 :032 332;197 3,12 240 353;23.2 14(0(079 130,858 1311.(91 1 1.1,12 2:3,660 (1 2934 9.30.30.3 31,!17 32,041,I 32,993.3,1066 931,)82 36,02 I 37.)92:38,300 39.33 1 401,5.01 1,874,840 2;05 0 I,7731 2 332 095 2A405,469 2,481J 71.2.566.287 2 2,13.028 2,289,50,1 2:362.,48 1.663.408 706,733 214.493 18.053.083.

139.057 107,9 15 3.435.776 3.568,548 25,30,1.379 LG Services, Inc.