ML17102B069: Difference between revisions
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
# | {{Adams | ||
| number = ML17102B069 | |||
| issue date = 03/31/2017 | |||
| title = Decommissioning Funding Report for Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 | |||
| author name = Halpin E D | |||
| author affiliation = Pacific Gas & Electric Co | |||
| addressee name = | |||
| addressee affiliation = NRC/Document Control Desk, NRC/NRR | |||
| docket = 05000275, 05000323 | |||
| license number = DPR-080, DPR-082 | |||
| contact person = | |||
| case reference number = DCL-17-022 | |||
| document type = Decommissioning Funding Plan DKTs 30, 40, 50, 70, Letter | |||
| page count = 206 | |||
}} | |||
=Text= | |||
{{#Wiki_filter:Pacific Gas and Electric Company'"' | |||
March 31, 2017 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer P.O. Box 56 Avila Beach, CA 93424 605.545.4100 E-Mail: EIHB@pge.com U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATIN: Document Control Desk | |||
* Washington, DC 20555-0001 10 CFR 50.75(f) Docket No. 50-275, OL-DPR-80 Docket No. 50-323, OL-DPR-82 Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 Decommissioning Funding Report for Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Dear Commissioners and Staff: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is submitting the decommissioning funding report for Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP), Units 1 and 2, pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(f). | |||
Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 At the end of calendar year 2016, the market values of the DCPP Units 1 (3411 MWt) and 2 (3411 MWt) decommissioning trust fund were $1,201.6 million and $1,571.0 million, respectively. | |||
PG&E currently has more funds in the DCPP, Units 1 and 2, decommissioning trust fund than required to meet the minimum NRC decommissioning amount of $620.2 million (2017 dollars) for each unit that was calculated pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(c). | |||
PG&E continues to fund the trust through collections for additional costs beyond those required in 10 CFR | |||
* 50.75(c). | |||
Supporting Cost Estimates TLG Services, Inc. prepared a site-specific decommissioning cost estimate that PG&E submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in the 2015 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding (NDCTP) on March 1, 2016. Based on site-specific cost estimates prepared by TLG Services, Inc., PG&E estimates that the decommissioning costs are about $1,297.0 million for DCPP Unit 1 and $1,276.4 million for Unit 2 in 2017 dollars. These costs do not include site restoration of the facilities | |||
($671.2 million) or spent fuel management costs after shutdown of Units 1 and 2 ($837.5 million). | |||
To assure that sufficient funds will be available for decommissioning, PG&E has established separate external sinking trust fund accounts for DCPP, Units 1 and 2. A member of the STARS Alliance Callaway | |||
* Diablo Canyon | |||
* Palo Verde | |||
* Wolf Creek Document Control Desk March 31, 2017 Page2 Supporting Enclosures PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Enclosures 1-6 provide supporting documentation for this report. Enclosure 1 provides decommissioning funding status information* | |||
in a format suggested by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the NRC. Enclosure 2 provides information on the escalation of the required decommissioning funding amounts from 1986 dollars to 2017 dollars. As required by 10 CFR 50.75(c)(2), and using NUREG-1577, "Standard Review Plan on Power Reactor Licensee Financial Qualifications and Decommissioning Funding Assurance,'' | |||
Revision 1, and NUREG-1307, "Report on Waste Burial Charges," Revision 16, the information includes escalation factors for energy, labor, and waste burial costs. NUREG-1307, Revision 16, assumes for plants that have no disposal site available within their designated low-level waste (LLW) compact, that the cost for disposal of Class A LLW is the same as that for the Clive, Utah disposal faqility and for Class B and C LLW is the same as that for the Andrews County, Texas disposal facility including accounting for out-of-compact fees. The State of Texas limits the total non-compact waste disposed at the compact waste facility (CWF) in Andrews County, Texas for out-of-compact generators to 30 percent of licensed capacity. | |||
DCPP does not have a disposal site available within its designated Southwestern LLW Compact. NUREG-1307, Revision 16, states that, given these considerations, licensees may want to set aside additional decommissioning trust funds to avoid significant future shortfalls in funding and potential enforcement actions. Based on the limited number of CWFs currently available and the potential for limited to no availability at the Texas CWF for DCPP LLW disposal when PG&E begins LLW disposal associated with decommissioning, PG&E has used the formula, coefficients, and adjustment factors from NUREG-1307 Revision 16 in our cost analyses, with the exception of the burial/disposition factor. As allowed per NUREG-1307, Revision 16, PG&E used a burial/disposition adjustment factor higher than the burial/disposition adjustment factor provided iri NUREG-1307, Revision 16, for plants that have no disposal site available within their designated LLW Compact. To avoid significant future shortfalls in funding and potential enforcement actions, PG&E used the burial/disposition adjustment factor for compact-affiliated disposal for the South Carolina site. The specific decommissioning cost estimate results in a total cost estimate of no less than the amount estimated by using the parameters presented in NUREG-1307, Revision 16, while accounting for the potential future shortfall in disposal capacity at the CWF in Andrews County, Texas. Enclosure 3 is the 2015 DCPP Appendix C1, Table C.,1 for Unit 1 and 2015 DCPP Appendix C2, Table C-2 for Unit 2 from the TLG Services, Inc. decommissioning cost estimate report prepared in March 2016 for DCPP Units 1 and 2. PG&E then adjusted the TLG Services, Inc. cost estimate to reflect the costs in 2017 dollars per the NDCTP submitted on March 1, 2016, to the CPUC by applying the escalation factors included in the submittal. | |||
The report provides cost estimates for decommissioning of both nuclear A member of the STARS Alliance Callaway | |||
* Diablo Canyon | |||
* Palo Verde | |||
* Wolf Creek Document Control Desk March 31, 2017 Page3 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 and non-nuclear facilities, including the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). Enclosure 4 is a cash flow for the total decommissioning of DCPP that identifies the monies for NRC scope (removal of radiological contamination), site restoration (including nonradiological work), and the spent fuel management based on the TLG Services, Inc. 2015 Cost Estimate by unit. Enclosure 5 contains the TLG Services, Inc. decommissioning cost estimate report prepared in March 2016 for DCPP Unit 1 and Unit 2. The report provides cost estimates for the decommissioning of the nuclear, non-nuclear facilities, and spent fuel management, including operation and decommissioning of the ISFSI in 2014 dollars. Enclosure 6 contains the variance of the 2016 forecast, as submitted in Enclosure 3 of PG&E Letter DCL-15-044, "Decommissioning Funding Report for Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2," dated March 31, 2015, to the actual expenditures for 2016. PG&E makes no new or revised regulatory commitments (as defined by NEI 99-04) in this letter. Should you have any questions, please contact Mrs. Brooke Winterton at (805) 549-0368. | |||
Sincerely, Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President, Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer cc: Diablo Distribution cc/encl: Kriss M. Kennedy, NRC Region IV Administrator Balwant K. Singal, NRR Senior Project Manager INPO A member of the STARS Alliance Callaway | |||
* Diablo Canyon | |||
* Palo Verde | |||
* Wolf Creek | |||
> Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 NRC Decommissioning Funding Status Report Diablo Canyon Power Plant-Units 1 (3411 MWt) and 2 (3411 MWt) | |||
Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Page 1of4 I NRC Decommissioning Funding Status Report ! | |||
* Diablo Canyon Power Plant -Units 1 (3411 MWt) & 2 (3411 MWt) As provided in 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1), each power reactor licensee is required to report to the NRC on a calendar year basis, beginning on March 31, 1999, and every | |||
* 2 years thereafter, on the status of its decommissioning funding for each reactor or share of reactor it owns. | |||
* Note that Items 3, 4, and 8 are data included in PG&E's Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding (NDCTP) filed with the California Public Utilities . Commission (CPUC) on March 1, 2016. PG&E does not anticipate a decision on this filing until mid-2017. | |||
* 1. The minimum decommissioning fund estimate, pursuant to 10 CFR 50. 75 (b) and(tj 1 * $ in Millions _Yalue in January 2017 dollars Unit 1 $ 620.2 Unit 2 $ 620.2 2. The amount accumulated at the end of the calendar year preceding the date of the report for items included in 10 CFR 50.75 (b) and (c). (Alternatively, the total amount accumulated at the end of the calendar year preceding .the date of the report can be reported here if the cover letter transmitting the report provides the total estimate and indicates what portion of \that estimate is for items not included | |||
* in 10 CFR 50.75 (b) and (c)). Market Value (December 2016 dollars) $ in Millions Unit 1 $1,201.6 Unit 2 $1,571.0 1 *The NRC formulas in section 10 CFR 50.75(c) include only those decommissioning costs incurred by licensees to remove a facility or site safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to levels that permit: (1) release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license; or (2) release of the property under restricted conditions and termination of the license. The cost of dismantling or demolishing nonradiological systems and structures is not included in the NRC decommissioning cost estimates. | |||
The costs of managing and storing spent fuel on site until transfer to DOE are not included in the cost formulas. | |||
Enclosure 1 | |||
* PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Page 2 of 4 3. A schedule of the annual amounts remaining to be collected include items beyond those required in 10 CFR 50.75 (b) and (c). (The cover letter transmitting the report provides a total cost estimate and indicates the portions of that estimate for items that are not included in 10 CFR 50.75 (b) and (c)) $ in Millions Amount Remaining | |||
$953:7 Unit 1 Annual Collection 2017-2024 Unit 2 Annual Collection 2017-2025 | |||
$62.225 $53.200 4. The assumptions used regarding escalation in decommissioning cost, rates of earnings on decommissioning funds (anticipates that the portfolio of each trust will be gradually converted to a more conservative all income portfolio beginning in 2024 for Unit 1 and Unit 2), and rates of other factors used in funding projections; Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 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 4.49 percent 4.48 percent 4.45 percent 4.42 percent 4.38 percent 4.34 percent 4.29 percent 4.24 percent 4.18 percent 4.08 percent 3.99 percent 3.90 percent 3.82 percent 3.74 percent 3.67 percent 3.60 percent 3.54 percent 3.48 percent 3.42 percent 3.36 percent 3.31 percent 3.26 percent 3.22 percent 3.17 percent 3.13 percent 3.09 percent 3.05 percent 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052-2059 Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 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 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Page 3\of 4 3.01 percent ' 2.98 percent 2.95 percent 2.91 percent 2.88 percent 2.85 percent 2.83 percent 2.80 percent 77 percent 4.51 percent 4.48 percent 4.45 percent 4.41 percent 4.37 percent 4.32 percent 4.27 percent 4.22 percent 4.17 percent 4.10 percent 4.00 percent 3.92 percent 3.83 percent 3. 75 percent 3.68 percent 3.61 percent 3.55 percent 3.48 percent 3.43 percent 3.37 percent 3.32 percent 3.27 percent 3.22 percent 3.18 percent 3.13 percent 3.09 percent 3. 05 percent 3.02 percent 2.98 percent 2.95 percent 2.92 percent 2.88 percent 2.85 percent 2.83 percent 2051 2052-2059 . Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Page 4of4 2.80 percent 2.77 percent 5. Any contracts upon which the licensee is relying pursuant to 1 O CFR 50.75(e)(1)(v). | |||
NONE 6. Any modifications to a licensee's current method providing financial assyrance occurring since the last submitted report. NONE .1. Any material changes to trust agreements. | |||
'NONE 8. CPUC Submittal in 2017 Dollars in Millions Total Unit 1 (Decommission 2024) $ 1,817.5 Scope Excluded from NRC calculations | |||
$ 105.1 Spent Fuel Management | |||
$ 415.4 Total NRC Decommissioning Costs $ 1.,297.0 Total Unit 2 .(Decommission 2025) $ 2,264.6 Scope Excluded from NRC calculations | |||
$ 566.1 Spent Fuel Management | |||
$ 422.1 Total NRC Decommissioning Costs $ 1,276.4 2017 Decommissioning Estimate Unit 1 (1 page) 2017 Decommissioning-Estimate Unit 2 (1 page) Composite Escalation (1 page) \ Development of E Component (8 pages) Development of L Component (10 pages) Development of B Component , (1 page) Enclosure 2 | |||
* PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 2017 Decommissioning Estimate Unit 1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Estimate of Decommission Costs for Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Unit 1 in 2015 January 1986 Estimate Escalated to 1999 Escalated to 2000 Escalated to 2001 Escalated to 2002 Escalated to 2003 Escalated to 2004 Escalated to 2005 Escalated to 2006 Escalated to 2007 Escalated to 2008 Escalated to 2009 Escalated to 2010 Escalated to 2011 Escalated to 2012 Escalated to 2013 Escalated to 2014 Escalated to 2015 Escalated' to 2016 Escalated to 2017 DCPP PWR {millions) | |||
$105 $118.2 {Table 2.1 in NUREG 1307 Revision 10 has no value for 1999 Burial) {No Submittal Required) | |||
$333.8 ($396.7 in 2001 Submittal) (No Submittal Required) | |||
$347.5 ($404.8 in 2003 Submittal) | |||
{No Submittal Required) | |||
$403.5 ($427.2 in 2005 Submittal) | |||
{No Submittal Required) | |||
$494.2 ($494.8 in 2007 Submittal) (No Submittal Required) | |||
$539.7 ($679.5 in 2009 Submittal) | |||
{No Submittal Required) | |||
$588.1 ($546.1 5 in 2011 Submittal) | |||
{No Submittal Required) | |||
$620.2 ($643.0 in 2013 Submittal) (No Submittal Required) | |||
$623.4 ($646.2 in 2015 Submittal) | |||
{No Submittal Required) | |||
$620.2 Based on 10 CFR 50.75 {c), "Table of Minimum Amounts" {January 1986 dollars). | |||
PWR Greater than or equal to 3400 MWt = $105 million per unit between 1200 MWt and 3400 MWt {for PWR less than 1200 MWt, use P=1200 MWt $75+0.0088P) | |||
Page 1 of 1 2017 Decommissioning Estimate Unit 2 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Estimate of Decommission Costs for Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Unit 2 in 2017 January 1986 Estimate Escalated to 1999 Escalated to 2000 Escalated to 2001 Escalated to 2002 Escalated to 2003 Escalated to 2004 Escalated to 2005 Escalated to 2006 Escalated to 2007 Escalated to 2008 Escalated to 2009 Escalated to 2010 Escalated to 2011 Escalated to 2012 Escalated to 2013 Escalated to 2014 Escalated to 2015 Escalated to 2016 Escalated to 2017 DCPP PWR (millions) | |||
$105 $118.2 (Table 2.1 in NU REG 1307 Revision 1 O has no value for 1999 Burial) (No Submittal Required) | |||
$333.8 ($396.7 iri 2001 Submittal) (No Submittal Required) | |||
$347.5 ($404.8 in 2003 Submittal) (No Submittal Required) | |||
$403.5 ($427.2 in 2005 Submittal) (No Submittal Required) | |||
$494.2 ($494.8 in 2007 Submittal) (No Submittal Required) | |||
$539.7 ($720.9 in 2009 Submittal) (No Submittal Required) | |||
$588.1 ($546.5 in 2011 Submittal) (No Submittal Required) | |||
$620.2 ($643.0 in 2013 Submittal) (No Submittal Required) | |||
$623.4 (646.2 in 2015 Submittal) (No Submittal Required) | |||
$620.2 Based on 10.CFR 50.75 (c), "Table of Minimum Amounts" (January 1986 dollars). | |||
PWR Greater than or equal to 3400 MWt = $105 million per unit between 1200 MWt and 3400 MWt (for PWR less than 1200 MWt, use P=1200 MWt $75+0.0088P) | |||
Page 1of1 / l Composite Escalation Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculating Overall Escalation Rate PWR Jan-86 Jan-99 Jan..QO Jan..01 Jan-02 Jan..03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan..06 Jan..07 Jan-OB Jan..09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Weight (1) L (Labor) 1.0000 1.5624 1.6370 0.9365 0.9733 1.0122 1.0445 1.0846 2.0600 2.1218 2.1939 2.2536 2.2784 2.3175 2.3711 2.4061 2.4638 2.5235 2.5812 2.6492 0.65 E (Energy) 1.0000 0.8499 1.0297 1.1850 0.9909 1.2027 1.2164 1.4656 1.8306 1.7950 2.3262 1.7850 2.0766 2.3145 2.6030 2.5667 2.6162 2.2076 1.7624 1.8705 0.13 B(Burial) 1.0000 0.0000 10.8039 10.9840 11.1633 11.3433 13.0733 13.3951 13.7247 14.0626 15.0364 15.6505 16.2646 17.2446 18.2247 18.2247 18.2247 18.2247 18.2247 17.9148 0.22 (1) From NUREG 1307, Revision 16, Report on Waste Burial Charges, Section 3.1, Page a, where A, 8, and Care the fractions of the total 1986 dollar costs that are attributable to labor (0.64), energy (0.14), and burial (0.22), respectively, and sum to 1.0. PWR Combined Escalation Rate for. Jan-86 Jan-99 Jan..QO Jan..01 Jan..02. Jan..03 Jan..04 Jan..05 Jan..06 Jan..07 Jan..08 Jan..09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 JanC15 Jan-16 Jan-17 1.0000 1.1260 3.5748 3.1793 3.2174 3.3098 3.7132 3.8425 4.5964 4.7063 5.0364 5.1400 5.3291 5.6011 5.8890 5.9071 5.9510 5.9367 5.9163 5.9064 Page 1of1 J Development of E Component Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.3 Using Regional Indices Series ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 02/21/2017) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
REBASED TO 1986 = 100 Jan-86 Feb-86 Mar-86 Apr-86 May-86 Jun-86 Jul-86 Aug-86 Sep-86 Oct-86 Nov-86 Dec-86 Jan-87 Feb-87 Mar-87 Apr-87 May-87 Jun-87 Jul-87 Aug-87 Sep-87 Oct-87 Nov-87 Dec-87 Jan-88 Feb-88 Mar-88 Apr-88 May-88 Jun-88 Jul-88 Aug-88 Sep-88 Oct-88 Nov-88 Dec-88 Jan-89 Feb-89 Mar-89 Apr-89 May-89 Jun-89 Jul-89 Aug-89 Sep-89 Oct-89 PPI for Fuels & Related Products (1982 = 100) (P) = Industrial Energy Power 114.2 115.0 114.4 113.7 114.1 115.3 116.2 116.3 116.3 113.0 112.7 112.3 110.3 109.8 110.2 109.9 111.8 113.9 116.2 115.7 115.5 111.0 109.2 109.6 108.8 109.0 109.0 109.1 108.9 117.2 118.2 118.3 118.5 114.2 109.2 110.5 112.0 112.0 112.3 112.4 113.6 119.8 122.2 122.4 122.5 117.2 PPI for Light Fuel Oils (1982 = 100) (F) = Light Fuel Oils 82.0 62.4 51.3 49.8 47.0 44.7 36.4 40.1 46.3 43.1 43.5 45.6 51.4 53.1 49.7 52.0 53.3 55.1 56.3 59.4 56.8 59.3 61.2 58.1 54.8 51.5 49.7 53.3 54.3 50.6 46.9 46.8 45.9 42.3 47.2 50.6 54.9 54.0 57.3 61.5 57.5 53.3 52.7 53.5 59.3 64.0 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils (1986 = 100) (1986 = 100) (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils PWR wt = 0.58 PWR wt = 0.42 1.0000 1.0000 1.0070 0.7610 1.0018 0.6256 0.9956 0.6073 0.9991 0.5732 1.0096 0.5451 1.0175 0.4439 1.0184 0.4890 1.0184 0.5646 0.9895 0.5256 0.9869 0.5305 0.9834 0.5561 0.9658 0.6268 0.9615 0.6476 0.9650 0.6061 0.9623 0.6341 0.9790 0.6500 0.9974 0.6720 1.0175 0.6866 1.0131 0.7244 1.0114 0.6927 0.9720 0.7232 0.9562 0.7463 0.9597 0.7085 0.9527 0.6683 0.9545 0.6280 0.9545 0.6061 0.9553 0.6500 0.9536 0.6622 1.0263 0.6171 1.0350 0.5720 1.0359 0.5707 1.0377 0.5598 1.0000 0.5159 0.9562 0.5756 0.9676 0.6171 0.9807 0.6695 0.9807 0.6585 0.9834 0.6988 0.9842 0.7500 0.9947 0.7012 1.0490 0.6500 1.0701 0.6427 1.0718 0.6524 1.0727 0.7232 1.0263 0.7805 Page 1 of 8 Energy Escalation Factor (E) forPWR (Diablo Canyon) 1.0000 0.9037 0.8438 0.8325 0.8202 0.8145 0.7766 0.7961 0.8278 0.7947 0.7952 0.8039 0.8235 0.8296 0.8142 0.8245 0.8408 0.8607 0.8785 0.8919 0.8775 0.8675 0.8681 0.8542 0.8333 0.8174 0.8082 0.8271 0.8312 0.8544 0.8405 0.8405 0.8369 0.7967 0.7964 0.8204 0.8500 0.8454 0.8638 0.8859 0.8715 0.8814 0.8906 0.8957 0.9259 0.9230 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of E Component Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.3 Using Regional Indices Series ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 02/21/2017) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100) (1982=100) | |||
(1986 = 100) (1986 = 100) (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils Nov-89 113.5 64.4 0.9939 0.7854 Dec-89 114.2 68.1 1.0000 0.8305 Jan-90 114.9 85.3 1.0061 1.0402 Feb-90 115.0 59.4 1.0070 0.7244 Mar-90 115.4 60.4 1.0105 0.7366 Apr-90 115.1 61.0 1.0079 0.7439 May-90 117.0 58.4 1.0245 0.7122 Jun-90 123.9 53.0 1.0849 0.6463 Jul-90 124.4 51.6 1.0893 0.6293 Aug-90 124.6 72.3 1.0911 0.8817 Sep-90 125.0 87.3 1.0946 1.0646 Oct-90 121.2 104.8 1.0613 1.2780 Nov-90 120.2 98.9 1.0525 1.2061 Dec-90 118.9 89.3 1.0412 1.0890 Jan-91 124.2 82.9 1.0876 1.0110 Feb-91 124.3 74.3 1.0884 0.9061 Mar-91 124.3 61.6 1.0884 0.7512 Apr-91 124.7 60.0 1.0919 0.7317 May-91 128.2 59.6 1.1226 0.7268 Jun-91 132.6 57.6 1.1611 0.7024 Jul-91 134.5 58.1 1.1778 0.7085 Aug-91 133.8 62.1 1.1716 0.7573 Sep-91 133.8 65.4 1.1716 0.7976 Oct-91 128.3 67.6 1.1235 0.8244 Nov-91 123.1 71.0 1.0779 0.8659 Dec-91 125.1 62.2 1.0954 0.7585 Jan-92 125.9 54.4 1.1025 0.6634 Feb-92 125.3 57.3 1.0972 0.6988 Mar-92 125.8 56.0 1.1016 0.6829 Apr-92 124.8 59.0 1.0928 0.7195 May-92 128.5 62.1 1.1252 0.7573 Jun-92 134.8 65.4 1.1804 0.7976 Jul-92 135.6 64".6 1.1874 0.7878 Aug-92 135.1 63.3 1.1830 0.7720 Sep-92 135.9 65.6 1.1900 0.8000 Oct-92 131.2 68.2 1.1489 0.8317 Nov-92 125.5 64.2 1.0989 0.7829 Dec-92 126.7 59.4 1.1095 0.7244 Jan-93 127.1 59.0 1.1130 0.7195 Feb-93 126.4 60.4 1.1068 0.7366 Mar-93 126.7 63.2 1.1095 0.7707 Apr-93 126.8 62.4 1.1103 0.7610 May-93 127.5 62.6 1.1165 0.7634 Jun-93 136.9 60.8 1.1988 0.7415 Jul-93 137.1 57.0 1.2005 0.6951 Aug-93 137.2 54.4 1.2014 0.6634 Sep-93 137.6 59.3 1.2049 0.7232 Oct-93 131.9 65.4 1.1550 0.7976 Page 2 of 8 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for PWR (Diablo Canyon) 0.9063 0.9288 1.0205 0.8883 0.8955 0.8970 0.8933 0.9007 0.8961 1.0031 1.0820 1.1523 1.1170 1.0613 1.0554 1.0119 0.9468 0.9406 0.9564 0.9685 0.9807 0.9976 1.0145 0.9979 0.9889 0.9539 0.9181 0.9299 . 0.9257 0.9360 0.9707 1.0196 1.0196 1.0104 1.0262 1.0157 0.9662 0.9477 0.9477 0.9513 0.9672 0.9636 0.9682 1.0067 0.9883 0.9754 1.0026 1.0049 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of E Component Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.3 Using Regional Indices Series ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 02/21/2017) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100) (1982=100) | |||
(1986 = 100) (1986 = 100) (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils Nov-93 126.3 61.6 1.1060 0.7512 Dec-93 126.0 51.4 1.1033 0.6268 Jan-94 126.2 51.5 1.1051 0.6280 Feb-94 125.9 57.5 1.1025 0.7012 Mar-94 125.8 56.2 1.1016 0.6854 Apr-94 125.4 54.7 1.0981 0.6671 May-94 126.0 54.7 1.1033 0.6671 Jun-94 133.5 54.1 1.1690 0.6598 Jul-94 134.5 56.3 1.1778 0.6866 Aug-94 134.5 57.5 1.1778 0.7012 Sep-94 134.9 57.7 1.1813 0.7037 Oct-94 129.1 57.7 1.1305 0.7037 Nov-94 127.0 58.8 1.1121 0.7171 Dec-94 127.4 54.7 1.1156 0.6671 Jan-95 127.6 54.7 1.1173 0.6671 Feb-95 128.0 53.3 1.1208 0.6500 Mar-95 128.3 54.3 1.1235 0.6622 Apr-95 126.4 57.1 1.1068 0.6963 May-95 130.2 59.1 1.1401 0.7207 Jun-95 135.3 55.8 1.1848 0.6805 Jul-95 136.6 53.5 1.1961 0.6524 Aug-95 136.5 55.6 1.1953 0.6780 Sep-95 133.7 58.2 1.1708 0.7098 Oct-95 131.4 .57.8 1.1506 0.7049 Nov-95 127.6 59.5 1.1173 0.7256 Dec-95 127.7 60.6 1.1182 0.7390 Jan-96 127.9 62.6 1.1200 0.7634 Feb-96 127.1 59.7 1.1130 0.7280 Mar-96 127.8 63.5 1.1191 0.7744 Apr-96 129.1 74.7 1.1305 0.9110 May-96 135.0 72.0 1.1821 0.8780 Jun-96 137.5 62.8 1.2040 0.7659 Jul-96 136.0 64.3 1.1909 0.7841 Aug-96 136.2 66.5 1.1926 0.8110 Sep-96 136.2 73.4 1.1926 0.8951 Oct-96 131.2 79.7 1.1489 0.9720 Nov-96 127.1 76.5 1.1130 0.9329 Dec-96 127.7 76.1 1.1182 0.9280 Jan-97 128.3 73.7 1.1235 0.8988 Feb-97 128.1 72.3 1.1217 0.8817 Mar-97 128.2 65.2 1.1226 0.7951 Apr-97 127.3 65.3 1.1147 0.7963 May-97 129.7 64.2 1.1357 0.7829 Jun-97 135.1 60.8 1.1830 0.7415 Jul-97 135.9 57.8 1.1900 0.7049 Aug-97 134.7 61.5 1.1795 0.7500 Sep-97 136.0 60.4 1.1909 0.7366 Oct-97 130.1 64.8 1.1392 0.7902 Page 3 of 8 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for PWR (Diablo Canyon) 0.9570 0.9032 0.9047 0.9339 0.9268 0.9171 0.9201 0.9551 0.9715 0.9776 0.9807 0.9512 0.9462 0.9272 0.9282 0.9231 0.9297 0.9344 0.9640 0.9730 0.9678 0.9780 0.9771 0.9634 0.9528 0.9590 0.9702 0.9513 0.9743 1.0383 1.0544 1.0200 1.0201 1.0323 1.0677 1.0746 1.0373 1.0383 1.0291 1.0209 0.9851 0.9810 0.9876 0.9976 0.9863 0.9991 1.0001 0.9927 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of E Component Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.3 Using Regional Indices Series ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 02/21/2017) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100) (1982 = 100) (1986=100) | |||
(1986=100) (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils Nov-97 127.9 . 65.8 1.1200 0.8024 Dec-97 128.3 59.4 1.1235 0.7244 Jan-98 127.4 54.1 1.1156 0.6598 Feb-98. 127.2 52.0 1.1138 0.6341 Mar-98 126.7 48.3 1.1095 0.5890 AP,r-98 126.4 50.2 1.1068 0.6122 May-98 129.2 50.0 1.1313 0.6098 Jun-98 133.8 46.3 1.1716 0.5646 Jul-98 134.8 45.0 1.1804 0.5488 Aug-98 135.2 44.0 1.1839 0.5366 Sep-98 135.2 48.3 1.1839 0.5890 Oct-98 130.4 47.4 1.1419 0.5780 Nov-98 127.6 46.2 1.1173 0.5634 Dec-98 126.6 38.8 1.1086 0.4732 Jan-99 126.1 40.9 1.1042 0.4988 Feb-99 125.5 38.2 1.0989 0.4659 Mar-99 125.5 42.8 1.0989 0.5220 Apr-99 125.2 52.5 1.0963 0.6402 May-99 127.4 52.6 1.1156 0.6415 Jun-99 131.0 52.4 1.1471 0.6390 Jul-99 133.9 58.7 1.1725 0.7159 Aug-99 133.9 63 1.1725 0:7683 Sep-99 134.1 67.6 1.1743 0.8244 Oct-99 129.5 65.5 1.1340 0.7988 Nov-99 127.5 71.3 1.1165 0.8695 Dec-99 126.5 72.9 1.1077 0.8890 Jan-OD 126.8* 75.3 1.1103 0.9183 Feb-DO 126.7 87.9 1.1095 1.0720 Mar-DO 126.7 89.7 1.1095 1.0939 Apr-DO 126.8 83.1 1.1103 1.0134 May-DO 128.6 82.9 1.1261 1.0110 Jun-DO 133.6 86.2 1.1699 1.0512 Jul-DO 136.2 88.7 1.1926 1.0817 Aug-DO 137.4 91.6 1.2032 1.1171 Sep-DO 137.8 110.1 1.2067 1.3427 Oct-DO 134.1 108.6 1.1743 1.3244 Nov-DO 130.9 108.4 1.1462 1.3220 Dec-DO 132.7 100.6 1.1620 1.2268 Jan-01 136.4 96.1 1.1944 1.1720 Feb-01 136.4 91.6 1.1944 1.1171 Mar-01 136.5 83.1 1.1953 1.0134 Apr-01 135.1 86.2 1.1830 1.0512 May-01 136.2 94.2 1.1926 1.1488 Jun-01 148.4 90.2 1.2995 1.1000 Jul-01 .149.5 81.3 1.3091 0.9915 Aug-01 148.9 83.2 1.3039 1.0146 Sep-01 148.2 93 1.2977 1.1341 Oct-01 143.8 76.8 1.2592 0.9366 Page 4 of 8 Energy Escalation Factor (E) forPWR (Diablo Canyon) 0.9866 0.9559 0.9241 0.9124 0.8909 0.8991 0.9123 0.9167 0.9151 0.9120 0.9340 0.9051 0.8847 0.8417 0.8499 0.8330 0.8566 0.9048 0.9165 0.9337 0.9807 1.0027 1.0273 0.9932 1.0127 1.0159 1.0297 1.0937 1.1029 1.0696 1.0777 1.1200 1.1461 1.1670 1.2638 1.2373 1.2200 1.1892 1.1850 1.1619 1.1189 1.1277 1.1742 1.2157 1.1757 1.1824 1.2290 1.1237 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of E Component Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.3 Using Regional Indices Series ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 02/21/2017) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100) (1982 = 100) (1986=100) | |||
(1986 = 100} (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils Nov-01 137.3 70.5 1.2023 0.8598 Dec-01 136.9 56.6 1.1988 0.6902 Jan-02 136.3 58.3 1.1935 0.7110 Feb-02 135.4 59.6 1.1856 0.7268 Mar-02 135.7 69.1 1.1883 0.8427 Apr-02 135.4 76.4 1.1856 0.9317 May-02 137.9 75 1.2075 0.9146 Jun-02 143.6 71.4 1.2574 0.8707 Jul-02 144.9 75.5 1.2688 0.9207 Aug-02 145.0 77.9 1.2697 0.9500 Sep-02 145.8 89.5 1.2767 1.0915 Oct-02 140.0 95.1 1.2259 1.1598 Nov-02 139.5 82.8 1.2215 1.0098 Dec-02 139.6 84.6 1.2224 1.0317 Jan-03 140.3 95.7 1.2285 1.1671 Feb-03 140.6 120.4 1.2312 1.4683 Mar-03 143.3 128.9 1.2548 1.5720 Apr-03 144.3 98.3 1.2636 1.1988 May-03 145.1 85.5 1.2706 1.0427 Jun-03 148.3 87.2 1.2986 1.0634 Jul-03 151.6 90.1 1.3275 1.0988 Aug-03 151.3 94.1 1.3249 1.1476 Sep-03 152.0 88.2 1.3310 1.0756 Oct-03 147.4 97.8 1.2907 1.1927 Nov-03 142.7 93.0 1.2496 1.1341 Dec-03 142.9 95.8 1.2513 . 1.1683 Jan-04 143.1 106.8 1.2531 1.3024 Feb-04 143.1 100.8 1.2531 1.2293 Mar-04 143.1 107.8 1.2531 1.3146 Apr-04 143.1 115.2 1.2531 1.4049 May-04 144.2 116 1.2627 1.4146 Jun-04 152.4 111.5 1.3345 1.3598 Jul-04 152.2 119.3 1.3327 1.4549 Aug-04 154.0 131.1 1.3485 1.5988 Sep-04 154.0 136.8 1.3485 1.6683 Oct-04 145.8 161.7 1.2767 1.9720 Nov-04 144.9 153.6 1.2688 1.8732 Dec-04 146.2 133.8 1.2802 1.6317 Jan-05 148.9 138.5 1.3039 1.6890 Feb-05 148.0 146 1.2960 1.7805 Mar-05 148.1 169.4 1.2968 2.0659 Apr-05 148.7 170.9 1.3021 2.0841 May-05 151.1 165.3 1.3231 2.0159 Jun-05 159.7 180.6 1.3984 2.2024 Jul-05 162.1 186.2 1.4194 2.2707 Aug-05 162.5 194.5 1.4229 2.3720 Sep-05. 162.8 209.9 1.4256 2.5598 Oct-05 159.5 252.0 1.3967 3.0732 Page 5 of 8 Energy Escalation Factor (E) forPWR (Diablo Canyon) 1.0584 0.9852 0.9909 0.9929 1.0431 1.0790 1.0845 1.0950 1.1226 1.1354 1.1989 1.1981 1.1326 1.1423 1.2027 1.3308 1.3880 1.2364 1.1749 1.1998 1.2314 1.2504 1.2237 1.2495 1.2011 1.2164 1.27.38 1.2431 1.2789 1.3168 1.3265 1.3451 1.3840 1.4536 1.4828 1.5687 1.5227 1.4278 1.4656 1.4995 1.6198 1.6306 1.6141 1.7361 1.7770 1.8215 1.9019 2.1008 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of E Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of E Component Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.3 Using Regional Indices Series ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 02/21/2017) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982.= 100) (1982 = 100) (1966=100) | |||
(1966 = 100) (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils Nov-09 166.0 207.6 1.6287 2.5341 Dec-09 186.0 197.5 1.6287 2.4085 Jan-10 186.3 220.7 1.6313 2.6915 Feb-10 186.1 200.2 1.6296 2.4415 Mar-10 169.0 217.0 1.6550 2.6463 Apr-10 188.6 231.5 1.6532 2.6232 May-10 192.0 226.0 1.6813 2.7561 Jun-1 o 197.6 212.4 1.7320 2.5902 Jul-10 199.8 209.3 1.7496 2.5524 Aug-10 200.8 221.4 1.7563 2.7000 Sep-10 200.0 220.0 1.7513 2.6829 Oct-10 194.6 235.6 1.7040 2.8756 Nov-1 o 190.9 245.3 1.6716 2.9915 Dec-10 191.4 250.0 1.6760 3.0488 Jan-11 193.1 260.4 1.6909 3.1756 Feb-11 194.4 276.8 1.7023 3.4000 Mar-11 195.0 307.5 1.7075 3.7500 Apr-11 194.1 325.1 1.6996 3.9646 May-11 196.9 315.1 1.7242 3.8427 Jun-11 205.7 316.9 1.8012 3.8646 Jul-11 215.3 311.5 1.8653 3.7986 Aug-11 216.6 296.9 1.8967 3.6207 Sep-11 215.6 306.5 1.8897 3.7376 Oct-11 206.6 299.6 1.8091 3.6537 Nov-11 204.0 322.7 1.7663 3.9354 Dec-11 204.4 301.0 1.7698 3.6707 Jan-12 201.1 308.6 1.7609 3.7659 Feb-12 200.3 316.5 1.7539 3.8598 Mar-12 199.8 330.8 1.7496 4.0341 Apr-12 198.1 327.1 1.7347 3.9890 May-12 201.5 315.6 1.7644 3.6488 Jun-12 207.7 284.6 1.6187 3.4707 Jul-12 221.5 267.9 1.9396 3.5110 Aug-12 222.1 313.4 1.9448 3.8220 Sep-12 222.8 330.4 1.9510 4.0293 Oct-12 214.1 334.1 1.8748 4.0744 Nov-12 212.3 311.6 1.8590 3.8000 Dec-12 213.8 303.3 1.8722 3.6986 Jan-13 199.2 303.6 1.7443 3.7024 Feb-13 199.4 327.7 1.7461 3.9963 Mar-13 199.0 308.7 1.7426 3.7646 Apr-13 198.6 303.9 1.7408 3.7061 May-13 203.5 296.4 1.7820 3.6146 Jun-13 211.9 294.9 1.8555 3.5963 Jul-13 211.4 300.4 1.8511 3.6634 Aug-13 210.4 307.4 1.8424 3.7488 Sep-13 210.3 315.3 1.8415 3.8451 Oct-13 201.2 306.6 1.7618 3.7415 Page 7 of 8 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for PWR "(Diablo Canyon) 2.0090 1.9562 2.0766 1.9706 2.0714 2.1446 2.1327 2.0925 2.0868 2.1538 2.1426 2.1961 2.2260 2.2526 2.3145 2.4153 2.5654 2.6509 2.6139 2.6679 2.6890 2.6208 2.6659 2.5838 2.6889 2.5798 2.6030 2.6384 2.7091 2.6615 2.6399 2.5126 2.5996 2.7332 2.6239 2.7966 2.6742 2.6393 2.5667 2.6912 2.5916 2.5662 2.5517 2.5867 2.6123 2.6431 2.6830 2.5933 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of E Component Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.3 Using Regional Indices Series ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 02/21/2017) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PP! for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100) (1982 = 100) (1986 = 100) (1986 = 100) (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils Nov-13 199.0 295.3 1.7426 3.6012 Dec-13 200.5 302.9 1.7557 3.6939 Jan-14 215.1 297.5 1.8835 3.6280 Feb-14 214.4 309.1 1.8774 3.7695 Mar-14 214.8 306.5 1.8809 3.7378 Apr-14 210.8 306.7 1.8459 3.7402 May-14 215.2 304.4 1.8844 3.7122 Jun-14 224.0 296.5 1.9615 3.6159 | |||
* Jul-14 227.5 295.3 1.9921 3.6012 Aug-14 227.7 293.9 1.9939 3.5841 Sep-14 225.1 291.0 1.9711 3.5488 Oct-14 217.0 271.4 1.9002 3.3098 Nov-14 210.7 260.9 1.8450 3.1817 Dec-14 213.9 218.9 1.8730 2.6695 Jan-15 222.4 173.6 1.9475 2.1171 Feb-15 221.1 184.3 1.9361 2.2476 Mar-15 218.2 185.7 1.9107 2.2646 Apr-15 213.3. 178.2 1.8678 2.1732 May-15 217.0 196.6 1.9002 2.3976 Jun-15 237.2 193.4 2.0771 2.3585 Jul-15 237.3 187.0 2.0779 2.2805 Aug-15 236.8 180.4 2.0736 2.2000 Sep-15 234.2 163.1 2.0508 1.9890 Oct-15 218.2 165.3 1.9107 2.0159 Nov-15 213.4 159.7 1.8687 1.9476 Dec-15 214.8 131.1 1.8809 1.5988 Jan-16 205.3 114.4 1.7977 1.3951 Feb-16 204.3 107.7 1.7890 1.3134 \ Mar-16 204.5 113.8 1.7907 1.3878 Apr-16 202.4 116.8 1.7723 1.4244 May-16 206.3 137.8 1.8065 1.6805 Jun-16 220.4 149.4 1.9299 1.8220 Jul-16 226.2 152.2 1.9807 .. 1.8561 Aug-16 227.3 143.5 1.9904 1.7500 Sep-16 228.1 155.5 1.9974 1.8963 Oct-16 216.2 152.8 1.8932 1.8634 Nov-16 210.7 151.6 1.8450 1.8488 Dec-16 215.0 152.0 1.8827 1.8537 Oct 16 through Dec 16 are Preliminary Values from PPI Indices Based on Base Year 2000 being the indice values Dec 1999, Jan 2017 base will be Dec 2016 Page 8 of 8 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for PWR (Diablo Canyon) 2.5232 2.5697 2.6162 2.6721 2.6608 2.6415 2.6521 2.6563 2.6679 2.6618 2.6337 2.4922 2.4064 2.2076 2.0187 2.0669 2.0593 1.9960 2.1091 2.1953 2.1630 2.1267 2.0248 1.9549 1.9018 1.7624 1.6286 1.5892 1.6215 1.6262 1.7536 1.8846 1.9284 1.8894 1.9549 1.8807 1.8466 1.8705 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 . Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100) | |||
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 Jan-86 Feb-86 Mar-86 90.8 1.01114 Apr-86 May-86 Jun-86 91.2 1.01559 Jul-86 Aug-86 Sep-86 91.6 1.02004 Oct-86 Nov-86 Dec-86 92.5 1.03007 Jan-87 Feb-87 Mar-87 92.6 1.03118 Apr-87 May-87 Jun-87 93.7 1.04343 Jul-87 Aug-87 Sep-87 94.1 1.04788 Oct-87 Nov-87 Dec-87 95.4 1.06236 Jan-88 Feb-88 Mar-88 96.3 1.07238 Apr-88 May-88 Jun-88 97 ' 1.08018 | |||
* Jul-88 Aug-88 Sep-88 97.7 1.08797 Oct-88 Nov-88 Dec-88 98.8 1.10022 Jan-89 Feb-89 Mar-89 100 1.11359 Apr-89 Page1of10 Development of L Component . Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 | |||
*Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100) | |||
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 May-89 Jun-89 101 1.12472 Jul-89 Aug-89 Sep-89 101.8 1.13363 Oct-89 Nov-89 Dec-89 103.3 1.15033 Jan-90 Feb-90 Mar-90 104.5 1.16370 Apr-90 May-90 Jun-90 105.6 1.17595 Jul-90 Aug-90 Sep-90 106.3 1.18374 Oct-90 Nov-90 Dec-90 107.5 1.19710 Jan-91 Feb-91 Mar-91 108.9 1.21269 Apr-91 May-91 Jun-91 110 1.22494 Jul-91 Aug-91 Sep-91 110.9 1.23497 Oct-91 Nov-91 Dec-91 111.9 1.24610 Jan-92 Feb-92 Mar-92 112.9 1.25724 Apr-92 May-92 Jun-92 114.1 1.27060 Jul-92 Aug-92 Page 2of10 Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100) | |||
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 Sep-92 114.9 1.27951 Oct-92 Nov-92 Dec-92 116.2 1.29399 Jan-93 Feb-93 Mar-93 116.4 1.29621 Apr-93 May-93 Jun-93 117.8 1.31180 Jul-93 Aug-93 Sep-93 118.1 1.31514 Oct-93 Nov-93 ' Dec-93 | |||
* 119.4 1.32962 Jan-94 Feb-94 Mar-94 120.5 1.34187 Apr-94 May-94 Jun-94 121.3 1.35078 Jul-94 Aug-94 Sep-94 121.7 1.35523 Oct-94 Nov-94 Dec-94 122.6 1.36526 Jan-95 Feb-95 Mar-95 123.4 1.37416 Apr-95 May-95 Jun-95 123.9 1.37973 Jul-95 Aug-95 Sep-95 125 1.39198 Oct-95 Nov-95 Dec-95 125.9 1.40200 Page 3of10 Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100) | |||
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 Jan-96 Feb-96 Mar-96 127.3 1.41759 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 128.3 1.42873 Jul-96 Aug-96 Sep-96 128.9 1.43541 Oct-96 Nov-96 Dec-96 130.3 1.45100 Jan-97 Feb-97 Mar-97 131.4 1.46325 Apr-97 May-97 Jun-97 132.5 1.47550 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 133.4 1.48552 Oct-97 Nov-97 Dec-97 135.2 1.50557 Jan-98 Feb-98 Mar-98 136.6 1.52116 Apr-98 May-98 Jun-98 138.5 1.54232 Jul-98 Aug-98 Sep-98 140 1.55902 Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 140.3 1.56236 Jan-99 Feb-99 Mar-99 142.1 1.58241 Apr-99 Page 4of10 Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100) | |||
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 May-99 Jun-99 143.3 1.59577 Jul-99 Aug-99 . Sep-99 144.7 1.61136 Oct-99 Nov-99 Dec-99 147 1.63697 Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 148.8 1.65702 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 150.8 1.67929 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 151.8 1.69042 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00 84.1 0.93653 Jan-01 Feb-01 Mar-01 85 0.94655 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 85.9 0.95657 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 86.9 0.96771 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 87.4 0.97327 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 88.5 0.98552 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 89.1 0.99220 Jul-02 Aug-02 Page 5of10 Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 -Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of02/21/2017) | |||
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100) | |||
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 Sep-02 89.8 1.00000 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 90.9 1.01225 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 90.9 1.01225 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 92 1.02450 Jul-03 Aug-03 I ,, Sep-03 93.2 1.03786 \ Oct-03 Nov-03 -Dec-03 93.8 1.04454 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 95.3 1.06125 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 \.. 96.2 1.07127 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 96.9 1.07906 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 97.4 1.08463 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 98.4 1.09577 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 99.3 1.10579 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 99.7 1.11024 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Note 1 100 2.06000 Page 6of10 Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU2010000000240l (as of02/21/2017) | |||
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100) | |||
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 100.6 2.07236 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 101.8 2.09708 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 102.5 2.11150 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 103 2.12180 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 104.2 2.14652 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 104.9 2.16094 Jul-07 | |||
* Aug-07 Sep-07 105.7 2.17742 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 106.5 2.19390 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 107.8 2.22068 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 108.4 2.23304 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 109.3 2.25158 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 109.4 2.25364 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 109.9 2.26394 Apr-09 Page 7of10 | |||
* Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307; Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100) | |||
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 May-09 Jun-09 110 2.26600 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 110.3 2.27218 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 110.6 2.27836 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10. 111.3 2.29278 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 111.7 2.30102 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 112.3 2.31338 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 112.5 2.31750 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 113.5 2.33810 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 114.3 2.35458 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 114.6 2.36076 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 115.1 2.37106 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 115.7 2.38342 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 116.3 2.39578 Jul-12 Aug-12 Page 8of10 Development of L Component Enclosure 2 -PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100) | |||
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 Sep-12 116.8 2.40608 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 116.8 2.40608 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 117.6 2.42256 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 118.5 2.44110 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 119.2 2.45552 ! Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 119.6 2.46376 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 120.1 2.47406 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 120.9 2.49054 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 121.9 2.51114 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 122.5 2.52350 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 123.1 2.53586 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 123.8 2.55028 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 124.6 2.56676 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 125.3 2.58118 Page 9of10 _J Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using"Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017) | |||
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100) | |||
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 126.2 2.59972 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 127.2 2.62032 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 127.9 2.63474 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 128.6 2.64916 Page 10of10 Development of Burial Escalation Developed from NUREG-1307, Revision 16 Development of B Component | |||
*Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Table 2.1 "VALUES OF B SUB-X AS A FUNCTION OF LLW BURIAL SITE AND YEAR" (Summary for non-Atlantic Compact) 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Revised to Bx Values for Generic LLW Disposal Site (Assumed to be same as that provided for the Atlantic Compact for lack of a better alternative at this time. PWR PWR Burial Costs Restated to (South Carolina) 1986 = 100 1.678 1.0000 2.007 1.1961 2.494 1.4863 11.408 6.7986 11.873 7.0757 12.824 7'.6424 12.771 7.6108 15.852 9.4470 15.886 9.4672 0.0000 18.129 10.8039 0.0000 18.732 11.1633 19.034 11.3433 21.937 13.0733 22.477 13.3951 23.030 13.7247 23.597 14.0626 25.231 15.0364 26.262 15.6505 27.292 16.2646 28.937 17.2446 30.581 18.2247 30.581 18.2247 30.581 18.2247 30.581 18.2247 30.581 18.2247 30.061 17.9148 Table 2.1 Note (e): Bx values for the generic site are assumed to be the same as that provided for the Atlantic Compact for lack of a better alternative at this time. Note (f): Effective with NUREG-1307, Revision 8 (Reference3) an alternative disposal option was introduced in which the bulk of the LLW is assumed to be dispositioned by waste vendors and/or disposed of at a non-compact disposal facility. | |||
Note (g): Effective with NUREG1307, Revision 15, the nomenclature for the two disposal options, referred to as "Direct Disposal" and "Direct Disposal with Vendors" in previous revisions of NUREG-1307, is changed to "Compact-Affiliated Disposal. | |||
Facility Only" and "Combination of Comapct-Affiliated and Non-Compact Disposal Facilities" to better describe the options. Note (h): 2013 has no information in NUREG-1307 Revision 15. 2013 is an estimate that is calculated by applying the percent change between 2010 and 2012 and adding to the 2012 base. Note (i): 2015 The NRC has issued Regulatory Issue Summary 2014-12, "Decommissioning Fund Status Report Calculations Update to Low-Level Waste Burial Charge Information," to inform licensees that they may use low-level waste burial charge data contained in Revision 15 of NUREG-1307, Report on Waste Burial Charges: Changes in Decommissioning Waste Disposal Costs at Low-Level Waste Burial Facilities, dated January 2013, when preparing their periodic decommissioning fund status report .. Note 0): Effective with NUREG-1307, Revision 15, the nomenclature for the two disposal options, referred to as "Direct Disposal" and "Direct Disposal with Vendors" in previous revisions of NUREG-1307, was changed to "Compact-Affiliated Disposal Facility Only" and "Combination of Compact-Affiliated and Non-Compact Disposal Facilities" to better describe these options. Note (k): As allowed per NUREG-1307, Revision 16, PG&E used a burial/disposition adjustment factor higher than the burial/disposition adjustment factor provided in NUREG-1307, Revision 16, for plants that have no disposal site available within their designated LLW Compact. To avoid significant future shortfalls in funding and potential enforcement actions, PG&E used the burial/disposition adjustment factor for compact-affiliated disposal for the South Carolina Site." Page 1 of 1 Appendix C-1 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 1 Decon Decommissioning Cost Estimate (9 pages) Appendix C-2 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 Decon Decommissioning Cost Estimate (9 pages) Enclosure 3 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 | |||
\ | |||
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Enclosure 3 Decommissioning Cost Analysis PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page 1 of 9 Table C-1 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Off-Site LLRW Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Other Total Total Contractor PG&E Contractor PG&E Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other PERIOD 1a -Shutdown through Transition Period 1 a Direct Decommissioning Activities 1a.1.1 Prepare preliminary decommissioning cost 245 245 245 263 1a.1.2 Notification of Cessation of Operations a 1a.1.3 Remove fuel & source material n/a 1a.1.4 Notification of Permanent Defueling a 1a.1.5 Deactivate plant systems & process waste a 1a.1.6 Prepare and submit PSDAR 377 377 377 405 1a.1.7 Review plant dwgs & specs. 866 866 866 932 1a.1.8 Perform detailed rad survey a 1a.1.9 Estimate by-product inventory 188 188 188 203 1a.1.10 End product description 188 188 188 203 1a.1.11 Detailed by-product inventory 245 245 245 263 1a.1.12 Define major work sequence 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,520 1a.1.13 Perform SER and EA 584 584 584 628 1a.1.14 Perform Site-Specific Cost Study 942 942 942 1,013 1a.1.15 Prepare/submit License Termination Plan 771 771 771 830 1a.1.16 Receive NRG approval of termination plan a Activity Specifications 1a.1.17.1 Plant & temporary facilities 927 927 927 997 1a.1.17.2 Plant systems 785 785 785 845 1a.1.17.3 NSSS Decontamination Flush 94 94 94 101 1a.1.17.4 Reactor internals 1,337 1,337 1,337 1,439 1a.1.17.5 Reactor vessel 1,224 1,224 1,224 1,317 1a.1.17.6 Biological shield 94 94 94 101 1a.1.17.7 Steam generators 588 588 588 632 1a.1.17.8 Reinforced concrete 301 301 301 324 1a.1.17.9 Main Turbine 75 75 75 81 1 a.1.17.10 Main Condensers 75 75 75 81 1a.1.17.11 Plant structures | |||
& buildings 588 588 588 632 1a.1.17.12 Waste management 866 866 866 932 1a.1.17.13 Facility&sitecloseout 169 169 169 182 1a.1.17 Total 7,124 7,124 Planning & Site Preparations 1a.1.18 Prepare dismantling sequence 452 452 452 486 1a.1.19 Plant prep. & temp. svces 3,644 3,644 3,280 364 o 3,530 380 o 1a.1.20 Design water clean-up system 264 264 264 284 1a.1.21 Rigging/Cont. | |||
Cntrl Envlps/tooling/etc. | |||
2,794 2,794 2,514 279 2,706 292 1a.1.22 Procure casks/liners | |||
& containers 232 232 232 249 1a.1 Subtotal Period 1 a Activity Costs . 20,328 20,328 Period 1 a Additional Costs 1a.2.1 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 26,314 26,314 19,735 6,578 21,240 6,865 1a.2.2 Disposal of Contaminated Tools & Equipment 250 125 3,849 4,225 23 227 3,849 125 25 237 4,456 131 1a.2 Subtotal Period 1 a Additional Costs 250 125 3,849 26,314 30,538 Period 1 a Collateral Costs 1a.3.1 Environmental Permits and Fees 1,153 1,153 1,153 1,207 1a.3.2 GTCC Storage Permitting (PG&E Labor) 3,996 3,996 3,996 4,351 1a.3.3 GTCC Storage Permitting (Contractor) 619 619 619 667 1a.3 Subtotal Period 1 a Collateral Costs 5,769 5,769 "Period 1 a Period-Dependent Costs 1a.4.1 Insurance 1,294 1,294 1,294 1,355 1a.4.2 Property taxes 203 203 203 212 1a.4.3 Health physics supplies 714 714 714 745 1 a.4.4 Heavy equipment rental 689 689 689 719 1a.4.5 Disposal of DAW g!'!nerated 16 5 22 43 14 22 5 .2 15 26 5 1a.4.6 Plant energy budget 3,324 3,324 3,324 3,480 1a.4.7 NRG Fees 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,413 1a.4.8 Emergency Planning Fees 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,198 1a.4.9 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 963 963 963 1,008 1a.4.10 ISFSI Operating Costs 664 664 664 695 1a.4.11 Severance Related Costs 50,701 50,701 50,701 55,204 1a.4.12 Security Staff Cost 27,673 27,673 27,673 30,131 1a.4.13 Utility Staff Cost 45,392 45,392 45,392 49,423 1a.4 Subtotal Period 1 a Period-Dependent Costs 1,402 16 5 22 132,709 134,153 1a.O TOTAL PERIOD 1a COST 1,402 266 130 3,871 185,118 190,788 TLG Services, Inc. I J Diablo Canyon Power Plant Enclosure 3 Decommissioning Cost Analysis PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page 2 of 9 Table C-1 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Off-Site LLRW Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Contractor PG&E Contractor PG&E Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other PERIOD 1 b -Decommissioning Preparations Period 1 b Decommissioning Activities Detailed Work Procedures 1b.1.1.1 Plant systems 891 891 891 959 1b.1.1.2 NSSS Decontamination Flush 188 188 188 203 1b.1.1.3 Reactor internals 471 471 471 507 1b.1.1.4 Remaining buildings 254 254 254 274 1b.1.1.5 CRD cooling assembly 188 188 188 203 1b.1.1.6 CRD housings & ICI tubes 188 188 188 203 1b.1.1.7 lncore instrumentation 188 188 188 203 1b.1.1.8 Reactor vessel 684 684 684 736 1b.1.1.9 Facility closeout 226 226 226 243 1b.1.1.10 Missile shields 85 85 85 91 1b.1.1.11 Biological shield 226 226 226 243 1b.1.1.12 Steam generators 866 866 866 932 1b.1.1.13 Reinforced concrete 188 188 188 203 1b.1.1.14 Main Turbine 294 294 294 316 1b.1.1.15 Main Condensers 294 294 294 316 1b.1.1.16 Auxiliary building 514 514 514 553 1b.1.1.17 Re.actor building 514 514 514 553 1b.1.1 Total 6,261 6,261 1b.1.2 Decon primary loop 1,367 1,367 250 1,118 269 1,166 1b.1 Subtotal Period 1 b Activity Costs 1,367 6,261 7,628 Period 1 b Additional Costs 1b.2.1 Site Characterization 7,481 7,481 4,645 2,837 0 4,999 2,960 0 1b.2.2 Hazardous Waste Management 264 264 264 276 1b.2.3 Mixed Waste Management 349 349 349 365 1b.2 Subtotal Period 1 b Additional Costs 8,093 8,093 Period 1 b Collateral Costs 1b.3.1 Decon equipment* | |||
1,144 1,144 1,144 1,194 1b.3.2 DOC staff relocation expenses 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,916 1b.3.3 Process decommissioning water waste 79 37 66 205 386 4 112 205 66 4 117 237 69 1b.3.4 Process decommissioning chemical flush waste 4 108 305 7,852 8,269 12 100 7,852 305 13 104 9,090 319 1b.3.5 Small tool allowance 3 3 3 3 1b.3.6 Pipe cutting equipment 1,336 1,336 1,336 1,394 1b.3.7 Decon rig 1,943 1,943 1,943 2,028 1b.3.8 Environmental Permits and Fees 572 572 572 599 1b.3.9 GTCC Storage Permitting (PG&E Labor) 269 269 269 293 1b.3.10 GTCC Storage Permitting (Contractor) 623 623 623 671 1b.3 Subtotal Period 1 b Collateral Costs 3,170 1,339 145 370 8,057 3,244 16,326 Period 1 b Period-Dependent Costs 1b.4.1 Decon supplies 39 39 39 40 1b.4.2 Insurance 642 642 642 672 1b.4.3 Property taxes 101 101 101 105 1b.4.4 Health physics supplies 396 396 396 414 1b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 341 341 341 356 1b.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 9 3 13 25 8 13 3 9 15 3 1b.4.7 Plant energy budget 3,297 3,297 3,297 3,451 1b.4.8 NRG Fees 391 391 391 410 1 b.4.9 Emergency Planning Fees 568 568 568 594 1b.4.10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 477 477 477 500 1b.4.11 ISFSI Operating Costs 329 329 329 345 1b.4.12 Severance Related Costs 2,981 2,981 2,981 3,246 1b.4.13 Security Staff Cost 12,839 12,839 12,839 13,979 1b.4.14 DOC Staff Cost 8,558 8,558 8,558 9,210 1b.4.15 Utility Staff Cost 22,638 22,638 22,638 24,649 1 b.4 Subtotal Period 1 b Period-Dependent Costs 39 738 9 3 13 52,821 53,622 1b.O TOTAL PERIOD 1b COST 4,576 2,077 -154 373 8,070 70,419 85,670 PERIOD 1 TOTALS 4,576 3,479 420 503 11,942 255,537 276,458 PERIOD 2a -Large Component Removal Period 2a Direct Decommissioning Activities Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 2a.1.1.1 Reactor Coolant Piping 670 491 55 46 1,604 2,865 1,122 93 1,604 46 1,208 97 1,856 48 2a.1.1.2 Pressurizer Quench Tank 71 50 8 7 225 362 121 9 225 7 130 9 261 7 TLG Services, Inc. ---------- | |||
Diabla: Canyon Power Plant Enclosure 3 Decommissioning Cost Analysis PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1 ,"Page 3 of 9 Table C-1 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Off-Site LLRW Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Contractor PG&E Contractor PG&E Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other 2a.1.1.3 Reactor Coolant Pumps & Motors 263 178 182 258 1,943 2,823 491 131 1,943 258 529 137 2,249 270 2a.1.1.4 Pressurizer | |||
' 91 100 605 159 1,010 1,966 247 550 1,010 159 265 574 1,169 167 2a.1.1.5 Steam Generators 863 4,521 3,702 2,471 17,238 28,795 3,136 5,951 17,238 2,471 3,375 6,211 19,955 2,586 2a.1.1.6 Retired Steam Generator Units 2,627 2,407 17,238 22,272 1,085 1,542 17,238 2,407 1,168 1,609 19,955 2,520 2a.1.1.7 CRDMs/ICls/Service Structure Removal 355 516 281 43 897 2,092 870 282 897 43 937 295 1,038 45 2a.1.1.8 Reactor Vessel Internals 369 15,437 13,707 2,721 50,684 434 83,352 8,260 21,687 50,684 2,721 8,889 22,633 58,674 2,848 2a.1.1.9 Reactor Vessel 276 11,685 3,847 1,165 5,952 434 23,358 8,166 8,076 5,952 1,165 8,789 8,428 6,890 1,219 2a.1.1 Totals 2,958 32,979 25,015. 9,276 96,789 867 167,885 Removal of Major Equipment 2a.1.2 Main Turbine/Generator 257 257 255 2 275 2 2a.1.3 Main Condensers 846 846 815 31 877 32 Cascading Costs from Clean Building Demolition 2a.1.4.1 *Reactor 1,533 1,533 991 542 , 1,067 566 2a.1.4.2 Containment Penetration Area 95 95 59 35 64 37 2a.1.4.3 Fuel Handling 249 249 147 102 158 107 2a.1.4 Totals 1,877 1,877 Disposal of Plant ,Systems 2a.1.5.1 Auxiliary Steam 187 187 181 6 195 6 2a.1.5.2 Auxiliary Steam (RCA) 377 47 19 690 1,133 332 92 690 19 357 96 798 20 2a.1.5.3 Condensate System 860 860 835 25 899 27 2a. 1.5.4 Condensate System (Insulated) 356 356 349 7 376 8 2a.1.5.5 Containment Spray 343 138 57 2,044 2,583 327 154 2,044 57 352 161 2,366 60 2a.1.5.6 Extraction Steam & Heater Drip 332 332 322 10 347 11 2a.1.5.7 Feedwater System 58 58 57 1 61 1 2a.1.5.8 Feedwater System (Insulated) 213 213 207 6 223 6 2a.1.5.9 Feedwater System (RCA Insulated) 174 39 16 570 798 161 51 570 16 174 53 660 17 2a.1.5.10 Feedwater System (RCA) 8 2 1 30 41 8 3 30 1 8 3 35 1 2a.1.5.11 Lube Oil Distribution | |||
& Purification 146 146 141 5 151 6 2a.1.5.12 Nitrogen & Hydrogen 25 25 24 1 26 1 2a.1.5.13 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (Insulated) 1 1 1 0 1 0 2a.1.5.14 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (RCA Insulated) 8 0 0 6 14 7 1 6 0 8 1 7 0 2a.1.5.15 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (RCA) 151 7 3 110 271 133 26 110 3 143 27 127 3 2a.1.5.16 Oily Water Separator | |||
& TB Sump 51 12 5 180 247 44 19 180 5 47 20 208 5 2a.1.5.17 Saltwater System 241 241 239 2 257 2 2a.1.5.18 Turbine Steam Supply 960 960 935 25 1,006 26 2a.1.5.19 Turbine Steam Supply (RCA) 1,183 291 121 4,293 5,888 1,096 378 4,293 121 1,179 394 4,970 126 2a.1.5.20 Turbine and Generator 102 102 100 2 107 2 2a.1.5.21 Turbine and Generator | |||
{Insulated) 34 34 32 1 35 1 2a.1.5 Totals 5,811 536 223 7,922 14,491 2a.1.6 Scaffolding in support of decommissioning 3,063 17 5 34 3,119 1,473 1,607 34 5 1,585 1,677 40 5 2a.1 Subtotal Period 2a Activity Costs 2,958 44,833 25,568 9,504 104,746 867 188,476 Period 2a Additional Costs 2a.2.1 Remedial Action Surveys 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,794 2a.2.2 Retired Reactor Head 301 98 2,057 2,456 164 137 2,057 98 176 143 2,381 103 2a.2.3 PG&E RPV Staff Support Team 7,407 7,407 5,239 2,168 5,639 2,360 2a.2.4 DOC RPV Staff Support Team 7,136 7,136 7,136 7,681 2a.2 Subtotal Period 2a Additional Costs 301 98 2,057 22,943 25,399 Period 2a Collateral Costs 2a.3.1 Process decommissioning water waste 118 57 102 319 597 6 170 319 102 7 177 369 107 2a.3.2 Process decommissioning chemical flush waste 2a.3.3 Small tool allowance 362 362 362 378 2a.3.4 Environmental Permits and Fees 3,940 3,940 3,940 4,124 2a.3.5 GTCC Storage Permitting (PG&E Labor) 2,800 2,800 2,800 3,048 2a.3.6 GTCC Storage Permitting (Contractor) 3,133 3,133 3,133 3,372 2a.3 Subtotal Period 2a Collateral Costs 118 362 57 102 319 9,872 10,831 Period 2a Period-Dependent Costs 2a.4.1 Decon supplies 267 267 267 278 2a.4.2 Insurance 1,988 1,988 1,988 2,082 2a.4.3 Property taxes 693 693 693 726 2a.4.4 Health physics supplies 4,792 4,792 4,792 5,001 2a.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 9,041 9,041 9,041 9,435 2a.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 143 43 204 390 13 130 204 43 14 136 236 45 2a.4.7 Plant energy budget 10,789 10,789 10,789 11,294 2a.4.8 NRC Fees 2,445 2,445 2,445 2,560 2a.4.9 Emergency Planning Fees 2,792 2,792 2,792 2,923 2a.4.10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 3,288 3,288 3,288 3,443 2a.4.11 ISFSI Operating Costs 2,269 2,269 2,269 2,375 TLG SeNices, Inc. | |||
--------Diablo Canyon Power Plant Enclosure 3 Decommissioning Cost Analysis PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page 4 of 9 Table C-1 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Off-Site LLRW Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Contractor PG&E Contractor PG&E Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other 2a.4.12 Severance Related Costs 11,089 11,089 11,089 12,074 2a.4.13 Spent Fuel Storage Canisters/Overpacks 2,263 2,263 2,263 2,369 2a.4.14 Security Staff Cost 80,898 80,898 80,898 88,082 2a.4.15 DOC Staff Cost 94,381 94,381 94,381 101,576 2a.4.16 Utility Staff Cost 140,745 140,745 140,745 153,244 2a.4 Subtotal Period 2a Period-Dependent Costs. 267 13,833 143 43 204 353,641 368,131 2a.O TOTAL PERIOD 2a COST 3,343 59,029 26,070 9,747 107,325 387,324 592,838 PERIOD 2b -Site Decontamination Period 2b Direct Decommissioning Activities Disposal of Plant Systems 2b.1.1.1 Capital Additions 85-2002 (clean) 230 230 225 6 242 6 2b.1.1.2 Capital Additions 85-2002 (contaminated) 665 43 19 671 1,398 621 88 671 19 669 91 776 20 2b.1.1.3 Chemical & Volume Control 1,576 1,708 169 74 2,617 6,143 2,857 595 2,617 74 3,075 621 3,029 77 2b.1.1.4 Chemical & Volume Control (Insulated) 579 637 30 13 464 1,723 1,093 154 464 13 1,176 160 537 14 2b.1.1.5 Component Cooling Water 248 248 241 7 259 7 2b.1.1.6 Component Cooling Water (RCA) 844 170 71 2,514 3,599 763 252 2,514 71 821 263 2,910 74 2b.1.1.7 Compressed Air 220 220 214 6 230 6 2b.1.1.8 Compressed Air (Insulated) 8 8 8 0 8 0 2b.1.1.9 Compressed Air (RCA Insulated) 40 2 1 30 73 35 6 30 1 38 7 35 1 2b.1.1.10 Compressed Air (RCA) 731 39 16 572 1,358 649 121 572 16 698 126 662 17 2b.1.1.11 Diesel Engine-Generator 227 227 222 6 238 6 2b.1.1.12 Diesel Engine-Generator (Insulated) 14 14 14 1 15 1 2b.1.1.13 Electrical (Clean) 2,705 2,705 2,638 67 2,839 70 2b.1.1.14 Electrical (Contaminated) 863 99 43 1,526 2,531 813 150 1,526 43 875 156 1,766 45 2b.1.1.15 Electrical (Decontaminated) 4,228 4,228 4,178 50 4,496 52 2b.1.1.16 Fire Protection 538 141 61 2,182 2,922 506 174 2,182 61 544 181 2,526 64 2b.1.1.17 Gaseous Radwaste 121 6 3 98 228 104 23 98 3 112 24 114 3 2b.1.1.18 HVAC (Clean Insulated) 35 35 35 0 38 0 2b.1.1.19 HVAC (Clean) 463 463 461 2 496 2 2b.1.1.20 HVAC (Contaminated Insulated) 435 56 25 873 1,389 374 117 873 25 403 123 1,011 26 2b.1.1.21 HVAC (Contaminated) 1,934 282 123 4,364 6,703 1,691 525 4,364 123 1,820 548 5,051 128 2b.1.1.22 Liquid Radwaste 1,046 1,088 94 41 1,456 3,725 1,961 267 1,456 41 2,110 279 1,685 43 2b.1.1.23 Liquid Radwaste (Insulated) 123 118 6 3 91 340 216 31 91 3 232 32 105 3 2b.1.1.24 Make-up Water 457 457 442 15 476 16 2b.1.1.25 Make-up Water (Insulated) 41 41 40 2 43 2 2b.1.1.26 Make-up Water (RCA Insulated) 60 5 2 79 148 53 13 79 2 57 13 92 2 2b.1.1.27 Make-up Water (RCA) 322 30 13 450 815 279 73 450 13 301 76 521 13 2b.1.1.28 Miscellaneous Reactor Coolant 37 191 10 4 151 393 204 34 151 4 220 35 175 4 2b.1.1.29 Nuclear Steam Supply Sampling 256 11 5 164 436 251 15 164 5 271 16 190 5 2b.1.1.30 Nuclear Steam Supply Sampling (Insulated 78 1 1 21 100 76 3 21 1 82 3 24 1 2b.1.1.31 Residual Heat Removal 579 467 141 61 2,176 3,424 579 607 2,176 61 623 634 2,519 64 2b.1.1.32 Safety Injection 179 18 8 285 491 171 26 285 8 184 27 330 8 2b.1.1.33 Safety Injection (Insulated) 9 1 0 11 21 8 2 11 0 9 2 13 0 2b.1.1.34 Safety Injection (RCA Insulated) 57 7 3 102 169 50 14 102 3 54 14 118 3 2b.1.1.35 Safetilnjection (RCA) 478 62 26 919 1,485 418 122 919 26 450 127 1,064 27 2b.1.1.36 Service Cooling Water 149 149 144 5 155 5 2b.1.1.37 Service Cooling Water (RCA) 41 5 2 75 123 36 10 75 2 39 10 87 2 2b.1.1 Totals 3,941 20,885 1,430 615 21,891 48,763 2b.1.2 Scaffolding in support of decommissioning 3,829 . 21 6 43 3,899 1,841 2,009 43 6 1,981 2,097 50 7 Decontamination of Site Buildings 2b.1.3.1 *Reactor 1,687 3,581 1,294 6,445 34,468 47,475 4,393 2,169 34,468 6,445 4,727 2,263 39,901 6,748 2b.1.3.2 Capital Additions 85-2004 58 40 8 3 115 224 92 14 115 3 99 15 133 3 2b.1.3.3 Containment Penetration Area 575 306 28 32 445 1,386 787 122 445 32 847 127 516 34 2b.1.3 Totals 2,319 3,927 1,330 6,481 35,029 49,085 2b.1 Subtotal Period 2b Activity Costs 6,260 28,641 2,781 7,103 56,963 101,748 Period 2b Additional Costs 2b.2.1 Remedial Action Surveys 1,441 1,441 1,441 1,509 2b.2 Subtotal Period 2b Additional Costs 1,441 1,441 Period 2b Collateral Costs 2b.3.1 Process decommissioning water waste 229 112 199 621 1,160 12 329 621 . 199 13 343 718 208 2b.3.2 Process decommissioning chemical flush waste 6 177 501 1,824 2,509 19 164 1,824 501 21 171 2,112 525 2b.3.3 Small tool allowance 486 486 486 507 2b.3.4 Environmental Pe_rmits and Fees 676 676 676 708 2b.3 Subtotal Period 2b Collateral Costs 235 486 289 700 2,445 676 4,831 Period 2b Period-Dependent Costs TLG Services, Inc. ----------------- | |||
------- | |||
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Enclosure 3 Decommissioning Cost Analysis PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page 5 of 9 Table C-1 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Off-Site LLRW Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Contractor PG&E Contractor PG&E Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other 2b.4.1 Decon supplies 953 953 953 995 2b.4.2 Insurance 341 341 341 357 2b.4.3 Property taxes 119 119 119 125 2b.4.4 Health P,hysics supplies 2,605 2,605 2,605 2,719 2b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 1,536 1,536 1,536 1,603 2b.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 80 24 113 217 7 73 113 24 8 76 131 25 2b.4.7 Plant energy budget 1,462 1,462 1,462 1,530 2b.4.8 NRC Fees 420 420 420 439 2b.4.9 Emergency Planning Fees 479 479 479 502 2b.4.10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 564 564 564 591 2b.4.11 Liquid Radwaste Processing Equipment/Services 134 134 134 140 2b.4.12 ISFSI Operating Costs 389 389 389 408 2b.4.13 Severance Related Costs 10,905 10,905 10,905 11,873 2b.4.14 Spent Fuel Storage Canisters/Overpacks 774 774 774 810 2b.4.15 Security Staff Cost 13,478 13,478 13,478 14,674 2b.4.16 DOC Staff Cost 8,392 8,392 8,392 9,032 2b.4.17 Utility Staff Cost 13,058 13,058 13,058 14,218 2b.4 Subtotal Period 2b Period-Dependent Costs 953 4,141 80 24 113 50,514 55,825 2b.O TOTAL PERIOD 2b COST 7,448 33,267 3,150 7,827 59,521 52,632 163,846 PERIOD 2c -Spent fuel delay prior to SFP decon Period 2c Direct Decommissioning Activities 2c.1 Subtotal Period 2c Activity Costs Period 2c Additional Costs No additional costs in this period 2c.2 Subtotal Period 2c Additional Costs Period 2c Collateral Costs 2c.3.1 Spent Fuel Transfer-Pool to ISFSI 49,231 49,231 12,308 36,923 (0) 13,246 38,534 (0) 2c.3.2 Environmental Permits and Fees 5,197 5,197 5,197 5,441 2c.3 Subtotal Period 2c Collateral Costs 54,428 54,428 Period 2c Period-Dependent Costs 2c.4.1 Insurance 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,746 2c.4.2 Property taxes 914 914 914 957 2c.4.3 Health physics supplies 1,166 1,166 1,166 1,217 2c.4.4 Disposal of DAW generated 45 13 63 121 4 40 63 13 4 42 73 14 2c.4.5 Plant energy budget 11,236 11,236 11,236 11,763 2c.4.6 NRC Fees 2,812 2,812 2,812 2,944 2c.4.7 Emergency Planning Fees 3,684 3,684 3,684 3,856 2c.4.8 Liquid Radwaste Processing Equipment/Services 1,027 1,027 1,027 1,076 2C.4.9 ISFSI Operating Costs 2,993 2,993 2,993 3,134 2c.4.10 Spent Fuel Storage Canisters/Overpacks 57,473 57,473 57,473 60,168 2c.4.11 Security Staff Cost 103,273 103,273 103,273 112,444 2c.4.12 Utility Staff Cost 16,468 16,468 16,468 17,931 2c.4 Subtotal Period 2c Period-Dependent Costs 1,166 45 13 63 202,504 203,791 2c.O TOTAL PERIOD 2c COST 1,166 45 13 63 256,932 258,219 PERIOD 2d -Decontamination Following Wet Fuel Storage Period 2d Direct Decommissioning Activities 2d.1.1 Remove spent fuel racks 1,032 80 186 41 1,447 2,786 1,050 248 1,447 41 1,130 259 1,675 43 Disposal of Plant Systems 2d.1.2.1 Electrical (Contaminated) | |||
-FHB 251 15 7 233 505 234 32 233 7 252 34 269 7 2d.1.2.2 Electrical (Decontaminated) | |||
-FHB 1,561 144 60 2,130 3,895 1,413 292 2,130 60 1,521 305 2,466 63 2d.1.2.3 Fire Protection (RCA) 340 31 13 465 849 296 76 465 13 318 79 538 14 2d.1.2.4 HVAC (Contaminated) | |||
-FHB 460 64 28 997 1,550 400 124 997 28 431 130 1,154 29 2d.1.2.5 Spent Fuel Pit Cooling 130 53 23 817 1,022 126 56 817 23 136 59 946 24 2d.1.2.6 Spent Fuel Pit Cooling -FHB 181 57 25 876 1,138 173 64 876 25 186 67 1,014 26 2d.1.2 Totals 2,922 365 155 5,517 8,959 Decontamination of Site Buildings 2d.1.3.1 Fuel Handling 1,450 1,220 68 47 633 3,418 2,543 195 633 47 2,737 204 733 49 2d.1.3 Totals 1,450 1,220 68 47 633 3,418 2d.1.4 Scaffolding in support of decommissioning 766 4 9 780 368 402 9 396 419 10 2d.1 Subtotal Period 2d Activity Costs 2,482 4,988 623 244 7,606 15,943 Period 2d Additional Costs TLG Services, Inc. | |||
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Enclosure 3 Decommissioning Cost Analysis PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page 6 of 9 Table C-1 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Off-Site LLRW Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Contractor PG&E Contractor PG&E Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other 2d.2.1 License Termination Survey Planning 1,208 1,208 1,012 196 0 1,089 205 0 2d.2.2 Remedial Action Surveys 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,185 2d.2 Subtotal Period 2d Additional Costs 2,340 2,340 Period 2d Collateral Costs 2d.3.1 Process decommissioning water waste 77 40 72 225 414 4 113 225 72 5 118 260 75 2d.3.2 Process decommissioning chemical flush waste 2d.3.3 Small tool allowance 100 100 100 104 2d.3.4 Decommissioning Equipment Disposition 171 63 350 585 16 156 350 63 . 17 163 406 66 2d.3.5 Environmental Permits and Fees 531 531 531 556 2d.3 Subtotal Period 2d Collateral Costs 77 100 212 135 575 531 1,629 Period 2d Period-Dependent Costs 2d.4.1 Decon supplies 287 287 287 300 2d.4.2 Insurance 268 268 268 280 2d.4.3 Property taxes .93 93 93 98 2d.4.4 Health physics supplies 714 714 714 745 2d.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 1,206 1,206 1,206 1,258 2d.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 34 10 48 92 3 31 48 10 3 32 56 11 2d.4.7 Plant energy budget 612 612 612 641 2d.4.8 NRG Fees 280 280 280 293 2d.4.9 Emergency Planning Fees 188 188 188 197 2d.4.10 Spent Fuel Transfer* | |||
ISFSI to DOE 480 480 480 503 2d.4.11 Liquid Radwaste Processing Equipment/Services 210 210 210 220 2d.4.12 ISFSI Operating Costs 306 306 306 320 2d.4.13 Severance Related Costs 8,329 8,329 8,329 9,068 2d.4.14 Security Staff Cost 1,657 1,657 1,657 1,804 2d.4.15 DOC Staff Cost 4,420 4,420 4.420 4,757 2d.4.16 Utility Staff Cost 6,170 6,170 6,170 6,718 2d.4 Subtotal Period 2d Period-Dependent Costs 287 | |||
* 1,920 34 10 48 23,013 25,312 2d.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2d COST 2,846 7,007 869 389 8,229 25,884 45,225 PERIOD 2e | |||
* Delay before License Termination Period 2e Direct Decommissioning Activities | |||
/No direct activities in this period 2e.1 Subtotal Period 2e Activity Costs Period 2e Additional Costs No additional costs in this period 2e.2 Subtotal Period 2e Additional Costs Period 2e. Collateral Costs 2e.3.1 Environmental Permits and Fees 948 948 948 992 2e.3 Subtotal Period 2e Collateral Costs 948 948 Period 2e Period-Dependent Costs 2e.4.1 Insurance 427 427 427 447 2e.4.2 Property taxes 167 167 167 175 2e.4.3 Health physics supplies 105 105 105 110 2e.4.4 Disposal of DAW generated 2 3 6 0 2 3 0 2 3 2e.4.5 Plant energy budget 2e.4.6 NRG Fees *, 238 238 238 250 2e.4.7 Emergency Planning Fees 336 336 336 352 2e.4.8 Spent Fuel Transfer* | |||
ISFSI to DOE 1,333 1,333 1,333 1,396 2e.4.9 ISFSI Operating Costs 546 546 546 571 2e.4.10 Security Staff Cost 3,462 3,462 3,462 3,770 2e.4.11 Utility Staff Cost 1,289 1,289 1,289 1,403 2e.4 Subtotal Period 2e Period-Dependent Costs 105 2 3 7,798 7,909 2e.O TOTAL PERIOD 2e COST 105 2 3 8,746 8,857 PERIOD 2f. License Termination Period ?f Direct Decommissioning Activities 2f.1.1 ORISE confirmatory survey 262 262 209 52 (0) 225 55 (0) 2f.1.2 Terminate license a 2f.1 Subtotal Period 2f Activity Costs 262 262 Period 2f Additional Costs 2f.2.1 License Termination Survey 13,951 13,951 13,755 196 0 14,803 205 0 2f.2 Subtotal Period 2f Additional Costs 13,951 13,951 Period 2f Collateral Costs .-----TLG Services, Inc. | |||
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Index Activity Description 2f.3.1 2f.3.2 2f.3 DOC staff relocation expenses Environmental Permits and Fees Subtotal Period 2f Collateral Costs Period 2f Period-Dependent Costs 2f.4.1 Insurance 2f.4.2 Property taxes 2f.4.3 Health physics supplies 2f.4.4 Disposal of DAW generated 2f.4.5 Plant energy budget 2f.4.6 NRG Fees 2f.4.7 Emergency Planning Fees 2f.4 .. 8 Spent Fuel Transfer -ISFSI to DOE 2f.4.9 ISFSI Operating Costs 2f.4.10 Security Staff Cost 2f.4.11 DOC Staff Cost 2f.4.12 Utility Staff Cost 2f.4 Subtotal Period 2f Period-Dependent Costs 2f.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2fCOST PERIOD 2 TOTALS PERIOD 3b -Site Restoration Period 3b Direct Decommissioning Activities Demolition of Remaining Site Buildings 3b.1.1.1 *Reactor 3b.1.1.2 Capital Additions 85-2004 3b.1.1.3 Containment Penetration Area 3b.1.1.4 Miscellaneous 3b.1.1.5 Turbine 3b.1.1.6 Turbine Pedestal 3b.1.1.7 Fuel Handling 3b.1.1 Totals Site Closeout Activities 3b.1.2 Grade & landscape site 3b.1.3 Final report to NRG 3b.1 Subtotal Period 3b Activity Costs Period 3b Additional Costs 3b.2.1 Concrete Crushing 3b.2.2 Cofferdam Construction and Teardown 3b.2.3 Soil I Sediment Control Plant Area 3b.2.4 Miscellaneous Construction Debris (out of state disposal) 3b.2.5 Scrap Metal Transportation (out of state) 3b.2.6 FSS Manager 3b.2 Subtotal Period 3b Additional Costs Period 3b Collateral Costs 3b.3.1 Small tool allowance 3b.3 Subtotal Period 3b Collateral Costs Period 3b Period-Dependent Costs 3b.4.1 Insurance 3b.4.2 Property taxes 3b.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 3b.4.4 Plant energy budget 3b.4.5 NRG ISFSI* Fees 3b.4.6 Emergency Planning Fees 3b.4.7 Spent Fuel Transfer-ISFSI to DOE 3b.4.8 ISFSI Operating Costs 3b.4.9 Security Staff Cost 3b.4.10 DOC Staff Cost 3b.4.11 Utility Staff Cost 3b.4 Subtotal Period 3b Period-Dependent Costs 3b.O TOTAL PERIOD 3b COST PERIOD 3c -Fuel Storage Operations/Shipping Period 3c Direct Decommissioning Activities TLG Services, Inc. Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) De con Cost 13,637 Removal Cost 929 929 929 101,505 8,731 388 887 37 4,734 1,705 2,403 18,886 2,839 21,725 555 581 1,620 2,755 253 253 9,218 9,218 33,951 Packaging Costs 9 9 9 30,144 Transport Costs 3 3 3 17,980 Off-Site Processing Costs LLRW Disposal Costs 12 12 12 175,153 Other Costs 1,780 869 2,649 391 153 501 521 308 1,219 500 3,521 6,162 6,977 20,253 37,114 768,631 294 294 3 7,131 6,044 756 13,933 643 502 823 359 1,012 4,018 1,645 11,566 18,387 9,955 48,911 63,138 Total Total Contractor PG&E Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal 1,780 1,780 869 2,649 391 153 929 929 24 8 12 501 521 308 1,219 500 3,521 3,521 6,162 6,162 6,977 6,977 21,206 38,067 1,107,050 8,731 5,660 3,071 388 270 118 887 554 333 37 22 15 4,734 3,276 1,458 1,705 953 752 2,403 1,416 988 18,886 2,839 383 2,456 294 294 22,019 557 168 387 581 260 321 1,620 776 844 7,131 6,044 756 756 16,688 253 253 253 643 502 9,218 9,218 823 359 1,012 4,018 1,645 11,566 11,566 18,387 18,387 9,955 9,955 58,129 97,088 Other 869 391 153 3 501 521 308 1,219 500 3 7,131 6,044 643 502 823 359 1,012 4,018 1,645 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Enclosure 3 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page 7 of 9 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Contractor Labor 1,916 6,632 6,091 291 596 24 3,525 1,026 1,524 412 316 180 280 835 814 19,789 Eqp&Mat 970 8 3,205 124 348 16 1,522 785 1,031 2,563 404 335 881 264 9,620 PG&E Labor 3,834 7,596 12,593 10,839 Disposal 14 Other 910 410 160 3 524 545 322 1,276 524 3 7,465 6,327 673 526 862 376 1,060 4,207 1,722 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Enclosure 3 Decommissioning Cost Analysis PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page_B of 9 Table C-1 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Off-Site LLRW Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Contractor PG&E Contractor PG&E Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other No direct activities in this period 3c.1 Subtotal Period 3c Activity Costs Period 3c Additional Costs No additional costs in this period 3c.2 Subtotal Period 3c Additional Costs Period 3c Collateral Costs 3c.3 Subtotal Period 3c Collateral Costs Period 3c Period-Dependent Costs 3c.4.1 Insurance 5,876 5,876 5,876 6,152 3c.4.2 Property taxes 4,589 4,589 4,589 4,805 3c.4.3 Plant energy budget 3c.4.4 NRC ISFSI Fees 4,697 4,697 4,697 4,917 3c.4.5 Emergency Planning Fees 9,246 9,246 9,246 9,679 3c.4.6 Spent Fuel Transfer -ISFSI to DOE 37,101 37,101 37,101 38,841 3c.4.7 ISFSI Operating Costs 15,026 15,026 15,026 15,731 3c.4.8 Security Staff Cost 80,154 80,154 80,154 87,272 3c.4.9 Utility Staff Cost 18,436 18,436 18,436 20,074 3c.4 Subtotal Period 3c Period-Dependent Costs 175,126 175,126 3c.O TOTAL PERIOD 3c COST 175,126 175, 126 PERIOD 3d -GTCC shipping Period 3d Direct Decommissioning Activities Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 3d.1.1.1 Vessel & Internals GTCC Disposal 2,861 11,570 14,431 2,861 11,570 2,986 12,112 3d.1.1 Totals 2,861 11,570 14,431 3d.1 Subtotal Period 3d Activity Costs 2,861 11,570 14,431 Period 3d Additional Costs No additional costs in this period 3d.2 Subtotal Period 3d Additional Costs Period 3d Collateral Costs 3d.3 Subtotal Period 3d Collateral Costs Period 3d Period-Dependent Costs 3d.4.1 Insurance 12 12 12 13 3d.4.2 Property taxes 9 9 9 10 3d.4.3 Plant energy budget 3d.4.4 ISFSI Operating Costs 31 31 31 32 3d.4.5 Security Staff Cost 165 165 165 180 3d.4.6 Utility Staff Cost 38 38 38 41 3d.4 Subtotal Period 3d Period-Dependent Costs 255 255 3d.O TOTAL PERIOD 3d COST 2,861 11,570 255 14,686 PERIOD 3e -ISFSI Decontamination Period 3e Direct Decommissioning Activities No direct activities in this period 3e.1 Subtotal Period 3eActivity Costs Period 3e Additional Costs 3e.2.1 License Termination ISFSI 165 10 18 666 1,490 2,349 44 131 666 1,509 47 136 771 1,579 3e.2 Subtotal Period 3e Additional Costs 165 10 18 666 1,490 2,349 Period 3e Collateral Costs 3e.3 Subtotal Period 3e Collateral Costs Period 3e Period-Dependent Costs 3e.4.1 Insurance 107 107 107 112 3e.4.2 Property taxes 80 80 80 84 3e.4.3 Plant energy budget 3e.4.4 Security Staff Cost 191 191 191 208 3e.4.5 Utility Staff Cost 250 250 250 272 3e.4 Subtotal Period 3e Period-Dependent Costs 628 628 3e.O TOTAL PERIOD 3e COST 165 10 18 666 2,118 2,976 PERIOD 3f -ISFSI Site Restoration TLG Services, Inc. | |||
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Index Activity Description Period 3f Direct Decommissioning Activities No direct activities in this period 3f.1 Subtotal Period 3f Activity Costs Period 3f Additional Costs 3f.2.1 Demolition and Site Restoration ISFSI 3f.2.2 Soil I Sediment Control ISFSI Area 3f.2 Subtotal Period 3f Additional Costs Period 3f Collateral Costs 3f.3.1 Smail tool allowance 3f.3 Subtotal Period 3f Collateral Costs Period 3f Period-Dependent Costs 3f.4.1 Insurance 3f.4.2 Properiy taxes 3f.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 3f.4.4 Plant energy budget 3f.4.5 Security Staff Cost 3f.4.6 Utility Staff Cost 3f.4 Subtotal Period 3f Period-Dependent Costs 3f.O TOTAL PERIOD 3f COST PERIOD 3 TOTALS TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION TLG Services, Inc. Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Esti_mate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) Off-Site Dec on Removal Packaging Transport Processing Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs | |||
------1,994 ----25 ----2,019 ----30 ----30 --------------69 -------------------69 ----2,118 ----36,234 2,871 18 -18,214 141,218 33,435 18,502 -LLRW Disposal Costs --------- | |||
-----12,236 199,331 Other Total Total Contractor Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat ---------------3,339 -5,333 1,583 411 --25 12 13 3,339 -5,359 --------30 -30 , -----------34 ---69 -69 28 -33 -93 --93 --188 -256 ----3,527 -5,645 ----244,163 -295,522 ----1,268,331 | |||
-1,679,030 324,340 156,089 PG&E Labor Disposal Other --------------------3,339 -----------------------------34 -----28 33 --93 --------------------713,655 187,761 297,185 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Enclosure 3 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page 9 of 9 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Contractor Labor 1,704 13 349,067 Eqp&Mat 429 14 31 72 162,899 PG&E Labor 36 101 777,032 Disposal 217,356 Other 3,496 35 29 311,119 L Diablo Canyon Power Plant -Unit 1 Decommissioning Cash Flow Estimated in 2017 Dollars (1 page) Diablo Canyon Power Plant -Unit 2 Decommissioning Cash Flow Estimated in 2017 Dollars (1 page) Enclosure 4 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Year 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 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 TOTAL NOTES: 1) 2) NRCScope (Radiological) | |||
$250,623 $9,489,525 | |||
$11,071,864 | |||
$8,287,484 | |||
$8,169,522 | |||
$17,828,330 | |||
$12,718,892 | |||
$7,047,544 | |||
$7,947,139 | |||
$149,791,131 | |||
$183,575,330 | |||
$184,491, 740 $184,997,197 | |||
$210,817,604 | |||
$108,971!,938 | |||
$20,294,496 | |||
$20,350,097 | |||
$20,294,496 | |||
$34,191,926 | |||
$37,147,569 | |||
$39,894, 774 $456,142 $456,142 $157,463 $0 $0 $0 $0 | |||
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,098,364 | |||
$3,208,945 | |||
$1,297,013,277. | |||
Diablo Canyon Power Plant -Unit 1 Decommissioning Cash Flow (Note 1) Estimated in 2017 Dollars Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel (Non-Radiological) | |||
Management Total $250,623 $69,010 $9,558,535 | |||
$30,990 $11,102,855 | |||
$8,287,484 | |||
$8,169,522 | |||
$17,828,330 | |||
$12, 718,892 $7,047,544 | |||
$150,557 $476,916 $8,574,612 | |||
$1,185,391 | |||
$2,901,241 | |||
$153,877, 763 $1,840,504 | |||
$3,135,747 | |||
$188,551,580 | |||
$1,486,006 | |||
$3,252,038 | |||
$189,229, 784 $1,490,077 | |||
$3,260,948 | |||
$189,748,222 | |||
$5,326,510 | |||
$3,427,366 | |||
$219,571,480 | |||
$5,489,406 | |||
$28,617,184 | |||
$143,085,527 | |||
$0 $40,854,564 | |||
$61,149,060 | |||
$0 $40,966,494 | |||
$61,316,591 | |||
$0 $40,854,564 | |||
$61,149,060 | |||
$0 $34,502,881 | |||
$68,694,807 | |||
$0 $2,641,874 | |||
$39,789,443 | |||
$4,354,982 | |||
$3,532,902 | |||
$47,782,658 | |||
$33,116,011 | |||
$8,197,161 | |||
$41,769,314 | |||
$33,116,011 | |||
$8,197,161 | |||
$41,769,314 | |||
$11,431,828 | |||
$8,255,387 | |||
$19,844,678 | |||
$0 $8,308,785 | |||
$8,308,785 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,308,785 $8,308,785 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,308,785 | |||
$8,308,785 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,308,785 | |||
$8,308,785 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,308,785 | |||
$8,308,785 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,286,083 | |||
$8,286,083 | |||
$0 $8,308,785 | |||
$8,308,785 | |||
$0 $8,176,076 | |||
$23,274,440 | |||
$5,959,990 | |||
$0 $9,168,935 | |||
$105,047,275 | |||
$415,394,454 | |||
$1,817,455,006 Enclosure 4 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Cummulative Decommissioning Estimate $250,623 $9,809,158 | |||
$20,912,012 | |||
$29,199,496 | |||
$37,369,018 | |||
$55,197,348 | |||
$67,916,240 | |||
$7 4,963, 784 $83,538,396 | |||
$237,416,159 | |||
$425,967,740 | |||
$615,197,524 | |||
$804,945,746 | |||
$1,024,517,226 | |||
$1,167,602, 753 $1,228, 751,813 $1,290,068,404 | |||
$1,351,217,464 | |||
$1,419,912,271 | |||
$1,459, 701, 714 $1,507,484,372 | |||
$1,549,253,687 | |||
$1,591,023,001 | |||
$1,610,867,679 | |||
$1,619,176,464 | |||
$1,627,462,546 | |||
$1,635, 748,629 $1,644,034,712 | |||
$1,652,343,497 | |||
$1,660,629,580 | |||
$1,668,915,663 | |||
$1,677,201,746 | |||
$1,685,510,530 | |||
$1,693, 796,613 $1, 702,082,696 | |||
$1,710,368,779 | |||
$1,718,677,564 | |||
$1,726,963,647 | |||
$1,735,249,730 | |||
$1,743,535,813 | |||
$1, 751,844,597 | |||
$1,760,130,680 | |||
$1, 768,416, 763 $1,776,702,846 | |||
$1,785,011,630 | |||
$1,808,286,070 | |||
$1,817,455,006 Trust Account Funding $1,iOl,582,914 Market Value Cash Flow is based on construction of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) and assumes Department of Energy (DOE) Used Fuel Repository opens in 2028. Trust Account Value of $1,201.6 million Market Value as of 12/31/16. | |||
Page 1of1 _J Enclosure 4 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Diablo Canyon Power Plant.:. Unit 2 Decommissioning Cash Flow (Note 1) Estimated in 2017 Dollars Cummulative NRCScope Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel Decommissioning Trust Account Year (Radiological) (Non-Radiological) | |||
Management Total Estimate Funding I 2016 $241,031 $241,031 $241,031 2017 $9,524,814 | |||
$69,010 $9,593,823 | |||
$9,834,854 2018 $11,080,044 | |||
$30,990 $11,111,034 | |||
$20,945,888 2019 $8,287,484 | |||
$8,287,484 | |||
$29,233,37! | |||
2020 $8,169,522 | |||
$8,169,522 | |||
$37,402,893 2021 $17,828,330 | |||
$17,828,330 | |||
$55,231,223 2022 $12, 718,892 $12, 718,892 $67,950,115 2023 $7,047,544 | |||
$7,047,544 | |||
$74,997,659 2024 $7,125,147 | |||
$7,125,147 | |||
$82,122,806 2025 $34,639,417 | |||
$137,736 $1,019,160 | |||
$35, 796,313 $117,919,119 2026 $114,860, 760 $639,314 $2,906,199 | |||
$118,406,272 | |||
$236,325,392 2027 $179,013,274 | |||
$1,464,672 | |||
$3,496,283 | |||
$183,974,229 | |||
$420,299,621 2028 $185,192,365 | |||
$1,531,514 | |||
$3,606,375 | |||
$190,330,254 | |||
$610,629,875 2029 $184,686,375 | |||
$1,527,330 | |||
$3,596,521 | |||
$189,810,226 | |||
$800,440,101 2030 $220,404,389 | |||
$8,259,371 | |||
$2,795,270 | |||
$231,459,030 | |||
$1,031,899,131 2031 .$57,583,521 | |||
$1,566,465 | |||
$36,590,997 | |||
$95, 740,983 $1,127,640,114 2032 $26,271,695 | |||
$0 $42,875,009 | |||
$69,146,703 | |||
.$1,196,786,817 2033 $26,199,914 | |||
$0 $42, 757,864 $68,957,778 | |||
$1,265, 744,595 2034 $26,199,914 | |||
$0 $42,757,864 | |||
$68,957,778 | |||
$1,334, 702,373 2035 $59,342,012 | |||
$0 $28,754,357 | |||
$88,096,369 | |||
$1,422, 798, 742 2036 $60,709,855 | |||
$30,739,547 | |||
$3,584,129 | |||
$95,033,531 | |||
$1,517,832,273 | |||
$1,570,994, 710 Market Value 2037 $383,855 $219,998, 721 $8,215,581 | |||
$228,598,157 | |||
$1, 746,430,431 2038 . $383,855 $219,998,721 | |||
$8,215,581 | |||
$228,598,157 | |||
$1,975 ,028,588 2039 $129,354 $74,136,555 | |||
$8,272,569 | |||
$82,538,478 | |||
$2,057,567,066 2040 $0 $0 $8,32t,278 | |||
$8,324,278 | |||
$2,065,891,344 2041 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2,074,192,878 2042 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2,082,494,411 2043 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2,090, 795,945 2044 $0 $0 $8,324,278 | |||
$8,324,278 | |||
$2,099,120,223 2045 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2,107,421,756 2046 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2,115,723,290 2047 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2,124,024,824 2048 $0 $0 $8,324,278 | |||
$8,324,278 | |||
$2,132,349,101 2049 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2,140,650,635 2050 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2,148,952,168 2051 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2,157,253,702 2052 $0 $0 $8,324,278 $8,324,278 | |||
$2,165,577,980 2053 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2,173,879,513 2054 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2,182,181,047 2055 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2, 190,482,581 2056 $0 $0 $8,324,278 | |||
$8,324,278 | |||
$2,198,806,858 2057 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2,207,108,392 2058 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2,215,409,926 2059 $0 $0 $8,301,534 | |||
$8,301,534 | |||
$2,223, 711,459 2060 $0 $0 $8,324,278 | |||
$8,324,278 | |||
$2,232,035, 737 2061 $15,130,548 | |||
$0 $8,191,330 | |||
$23,321,878 | |||
$2,255,357,615 2062 $3,218,242 | |||
$5,971,551 | |||
$0 $9,189,794 | |||
$2,264,54 7,409 TOTAL $1,276,372,152 | |||
$566,071,499 | |||
$422,103, 757 $2,264,547,409 NOTES: 1) Cash Flow is based on construction of ISFSI and assumes DOE Used Fuel Repository opens in 2028. 2) Trust Account Value of $1,571.0 million Market Value as of 12/31/16. | |||
Page 1of1 l Pacific Gas and Electric Company Chapter 2 Attachment A Enclosure 5 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 2016 TLG Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 Decommissioning Cost Study ( ( | |||
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CHAPTER 2 ATTACHMENT A 2016 TLG DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 DECOMMISSIONING COST STUDY Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 DECOMMISSIONING COST ANALYSIS for the DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT ----------.---*--* -* --*--------------1 I " I I .I prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company prepared by TLG Services, Inc. Bridgewater, Connecticut February 2016 2-AtchA-1 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Project Manager Project Engineer Technical Manager TLG Services, Inc. APPROVALS Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page ii <?.f xxi f!ftft£ Date 2-AtchA-2 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page iii of xxi PAGE EXECUTIVE | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
................................................................................... | |||
vii-xxi 1. INTRODUCTION | |||
..................................................................................................... | |||
1-1 1.1 Objectives of Study ........................................................................................... | |||
1-1 1.2 Site Description | |||
................................................................................................. | |||
1-1 1.3 Regulatory Guidance ........................................................................................ | |||
1-3 1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act ..................................................................... | |||
1-5 1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Acts ...................................................... | |||
1-8 1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Termination | |||
................................... | |||
1-9 1.3.4 California Governor Moratorium on Disposing of Decommissioned Materials | |||
................................................................. | |||
1-10 2. DECOMlY.ITSSIONING ALTERNATIVES | |||
.............................................................. | |||
2-1 2.1 DE CON .............................................................................................................. | |||
2-2 2.1.1 Period 1 -Preparations | |||
......................................................................... | |||
2-2 2.1.2 Period 2 -Decommissioning Operations | |||
............................................. | |||
2-4 2.1.3 Period 3 -Site Restoration | |||
.................................................................... | |||
2-8 2.1.4 ISFSI Operations and Decommissioning | |||
............................................ | |||
2-9 2.2 SAFSTOR .......................................................................................................... | |||
2-9 2.2.1 Period 1 -Preparations | |||
....................................................................... | |||
2-10 2.2.2 Period 2 -Dormancy ............................................................... ............ | |||
2-11 2.2.3 Periods 3 and 4 -Delayed Decommissioning | |||
.................................... | |||
2-12 2.2.4 Period 5 -Site Restoration | |||
.................................................................. | |||
2-13 3. COST ESTIMATES | |||
.................................................................................................. | |||
3-1 3.1 Basis of Estimates | |||
............................................................................................ | |||
3-1 3.2 Methodology | |||
...................................................................................................... | |||
3-2 3.3 Impact of Decommissioning Multiple Reactor Units ..................................... | |||
3-4 3.4 Financial Components of the Cost Model.. ..................................................... | |||
3-5 3.4.1 Contingency | |||
........................................................................................... | |||
3-5 3.4.2 Financial Risk ........................................................................................ | |||
3-7 3.5 Site-Specific Considerations | |||
............................................................................ | |||
3-8 3.5.1 Spent Fuel Management | |||
...................................................................... | |||
3-8 3.5.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components | |||
......................................... | |||
3-11 3.5.3 Primary System Components | |||
............................................................. | |||
3-13 3.5.4 Main Turbine and Condenser | |||
............................................................ | |||
3-14 3.5.5 Retired Components | |||
............................................................................. | |||
3-14 3.5.6 Transportation Methods ..................................................................... | |||
3-14 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-3 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) | |||
Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page iv of xxi PAGE 3.5.7 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal.. | |||
........................................... | |||
3-15 3.5.8 Site Restoration Following License Termination | |||
............................. | |||
3-16 3.6 Assumptions | |||
.................................................................................................... | |||
3-17 3.6.1 Estimating Basis ................................................................................. | |||
3-17 3.6.2 Labor Costs .......................................................................................... | |||
3-17 3.6.3 Design Conditions | |||
............................................................................... | |||
3-18 3.6.4 General ...................................................................................... | |||
* ........... | |||
3-19 3. 7 Cost Estimate Summary ........................................................................ | |||
: ...... 3-23 4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ........................................................................................ | |||
4-1 4.1 Schedule Estimate Assumptions | |||
..................................................................... | |||
4-1 4.2 Project Schedule ................................................................................................ | |||
4-2 5. RADIOACTIVE WASTES ........................................................................................ | |||
5-1 6. RESULTS ........................... | |||
: ..................................................................................... | |||
6-1 7. REFERENCES | |||
.......................................................................................................... | |||
7-1 TABLES DE CON Cost Summary Decommissioning Cost Elements*********************:******* | |||
xx SAFSTOR Cost Summary Decommissioning Cost Elements ........................ | |||
xxi 3.1 DECON :Alternative, Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures, Unit 1 ....... 3-25 3.2 DE CON Alternative, Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures, Unit 2 ....... 3-27 3.3 SAFSTOR Alternative, Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures, Unit 1. ... 3-29 3.4 SAFSTOR Alternative, Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures, Unit 2 .... 3-31 5.1 DECON Alternative, Decommissioning Waste Summary, Unit 1. ................. | |||
5-4 5.2 DECON Alternative, Decommissioning-Waste Summary, Unit 2 ................. | |||
5-5 5.3 SAFSTOR Alternative, Decommissioning Waste Summary, Unit 1 ............. | |||
5-6 5.4 SAFSTOR Alternative, Decommissioning Waste Summary, Unit 2 ............. | |||
5-7 6.1 DECON Alternative Decommissioning Cost Elements, Unit 1 ..................... | |||
6-4 6.2 DECON Alternative Decommissioning Cost Elements, Unit 2 ..................... | |||
6-5 6.3 SAFSTOR Alternative Decommissioning Cost Elements, Unit 1. ................. | |||
6-6 6.4 SAFSTOR Alternative Decommis,s_ioning Cost Elements, Unit 2 .................. | |||
6-7 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-4 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) | |||
FIGURES | |||
* Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page v ofxxi PAGE 1.1 Diablo Canyon Power Plant General Plan .................................................... | |||
1-11 1.2 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Aerial View ...................................................... | |||
1-12 1.3 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Reactor Building Section ........... | |||
: ..................... | |||
1-13 4.1 Activity Schedule -DE CON ............................................................................. | |||
4-3 4.2 DECON Alternative Decommissioning Timeline ........................................... | |||
4-5 4.3 SAFSTOR Alternative Decommissioning Timeline ........................................ | |||
4-6 APPENDICES A. Unit Cost Factor Development | |||
............................................................................. | |||
A-1 B. Unit Cost Factor Listing ...................................................................................... | |||
B-1 C. Detailed Cost Analysis, DECON ........................................................................... | |||
C-1 D. Detailed Cost Analysis, SAFSTOR ...................................................................... | |||
D-1 E. | |||
* ISFSI License Termination Estimate .................................................................. | |||
E-1 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-5 l Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis REVISION LOG No. Date Item Revised 0 02/24/2016 n/a TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-6 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page vi of xxi Reason for Revision Original Issue I '\ I I Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis EXECUTIVE | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page vii of xxi This report presents estimates of the cost to decommission the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon) for the selected decommissioning scenarios following the scheduled cessation of plant operations. | |||
The estimates are designed to provide the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) with the information to assess its current decommissioning liability, as it relates to Diablo Canyon. The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information from an evaluation prepared in 2012,[IJ updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of the nuclear plant and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects. | |||
The costs are based on several key assumptions in areas of regulation, component characterization, high-level radioactive waste management, low-level radioactive waste disposal, performance uncertainties* (contingency) and site restoration requirements. | |||
The plant inventory, the basis for the decontamination and dismantling requirements and cost, and the decommissioning waste streams, were reviewed for this analysis. | |||
Significant "physical" changes were limited to some additional security modifications made to the station in the past three year interval. | |||
The estimate was also revised to reflect the following significant changes from the previous evaluation: | |||
o Consistent with PG&E's interpretation of the California governor's executive order on the moratorium on dispot?ing of decommissioned materials in the State of California[ | |||
2 l, costs to account for transporting and disposing of decommissioned materials to an out-of-state disposal facility have been added. o PG&E's experience segmenting the Humboldt Bay Unit 3 reactor and industry experience segmenting the Zion Nuclear Station reactor vessels have been incorporated into the estimate. | |||
o Permitting costs associated with constructing a Greater-Than-Class-C storage pad, as well as other expected permitting expenses and environmental fees have been incorporated into the estimate. | |||
o Maintaining security staff levels near operating staff levels while spent fuel is stored in the spent fuel pools was re-affirmed. | |||
The cost associated with maintaining these staff levels has been incorporated into the estimate. "Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant," Document PO 1-1648-001, Rev. 0, TLG Services, Inc., December 2012. 2 California governor Executive Order D-62-02. Decommissioned materials are materials that meet US NRC release criteria, but have low residual levels of radioactivity. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-7 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page viii of xxi o Cost impact of a delay in DOE's start of spent fuel pickup from commercial generators from 2024 to 2028. o Complying with expected re-licensing requirements after the ISFSI license is renewed. The analysis is not a detailed engineering evaluation, but an estimate prepared in . advance of the detailed engineering required to carry out the decommissioning of the nuclear units. It may also not reflect the actual plan to decommission Diablo Canyon; the plan may differ from the assumptions made in this analysis based on facts that exist at the time of decommissioning. | |||
The costs to decommission Diablo Canyon for the scenarios evaluated are tabulated at the end of this section. Costs are reported in 2014 dollars and include monies anticipated to be spent for radiological remediation and operating license termination, spent fuel management, and site restoration activities. | |||
A complete discussion of the assumptions relied upon in this analysis is provided in Section 3, along with schedules of annual expenditures for each scenario. | |||
A sequence of significant project activities is provided in Section 4 with a timeline for each scenario. | |||
Detailed cost reports used to generate the summary tables contained within this document are provided in Appendices C through E. Consistent with the 2012 analysis, the current cost estimates assume that the shutdown of the nuclear units are scheduled and pre-planned events (e.g., there is no delay in transitioning the plant and workforce from operations or in obtaining regulatory relief from operating requirements, etc.). The estimates include the continued operation of the Fuel Handling Buildings as interim wet fuel storage facilities for approximately ten years after operations cease. [3J During this time period, it is assumed that the spent fuel residing in the pools will be transferred to an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) located on the site. The ISFSI will remain operational until the DOE is able to complete the transfer of the fuel to a federal facility (e.g., a monitored retrievable storage facility)J4J DOE has breached its obligations to remove fuel from reactor sites, and has also failed to provide the plant owner with information about how it will ultimately perform. In 3 The current Part 72 ISFSI license does not allow dry cask storage of spent fuel with burnups above 62 GWD/metric ton. It is assumed that PG&E can amend the Part 72 license to store the higher burn up fuel, but that as a condition of the amendment it will require longer decay times (10 years) before storing the spent fuel in the casks. 4 Projected expenditures for spent fuel management identified in the cost analyses do not consider the outcome of the litigation with the DOE with regard to the delays incurred by PG&E in the timely removal of spent fuel from the site. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-8 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page ix of xxi the absence of information about how DOE will perform, and for purposes of this analysis only, it is assumed that DOE will accept already-canistered fuel. (It is | |||
* recognized that the canisters may not be licensed or licensable for transportation when DOE performs.) | |||
If this assumption is incorrect, it is assumed that DOE will have liability for costs incurred to transfer the fuel to DOE-supplied containers. | |||
Alternatives and Regulations The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provided general decommissioning requirements in a rule adopted on June 27, 1988. [5J In this rule, the NRC set forth technical and financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear 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 removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations."[6] | |||
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."[7J Decommissioning is required 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."[SJ As with the SAFSTOR alternative, decommissioning is currently required to be 5 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 6 Ibid. Page FR24022, Column 3 7 Ibid. B Ibid. Page FR24023, Column 2 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-9 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Pagexofxxi completed within 60 years, although longer time periods will also be considered when necessary to protect public health and safety. The 60-year restriction has limited the practicality for 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 processJ9J The amendments allowed 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 that relate to initial activities and major phases of the decommissioning process. The costs and schedules presented in this analysis follow the general guidance and process described in the amended regulations. | |||
The format and content of the estimate is also consistent with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.202, issued in February 2005JIOJ In 2011, the NRC published amended regulations to improve decommissioning planning and thereby reduce the likelihood that any current operating facility will become a legacy site.llll The amended regulations require licensees to conduct their operations to minimize the introduction of residual radioactivity into the site, which includes the site's subsurface soil and groundwater. | |||
Licensees also may be required to perform site surveys to determine whether residual radioactivity is present in subsurface areas and to keep records of these surveys with records important for decommissioning. | |||
The amended regulations require licensees to report additional details in their decommissioning cost estimate as well as requiring additional financial 9 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 10 "Standard Format and Content of Decommissioning Cost Estimates of Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.202, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 2005 11 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72, "Decommissioning Planning," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 76, (p 35512 et seq.), June 17, 2011 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-10 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xi of xxi reporting and assurances. | |||
These additional details are included m this analysis, including the ISFSI decommissioning estimate (Appendix E). Decommissioning Scenarios Two basic decommissioning scenarios are evaluated for the two nuclear units. The scenarios selected are representative of alternatives available to the owner and are defined as follows: DECON: Units 1and2 are currently expected to cease operations in November 2024 and August 2025, respectively. | |||
Spent fuel remaining in the spent fuel storage pools after a minim.um. | |||
cooling period of 10 years is transferred to the ISFSI for interim. storage. This scenario assumes that decommissioning activities at the two units begin soon after unit shutdown and are sequenced and integrated so as to minimize the total duration of the physical dismantling processes. | |||
Any residual spent fuel is transferred to the ISFSI so as to facilitate decontamination and dismantling activities within the fuel handing buildings. | |||
Decommissioning of the station and subsequent demolition of the structures is completed by 2039. Spent fuel storage operations continue at the site until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete, assumed to be in the year 2061. The ISFSI is then decommissioned and dismantled. | |||
SAFSTOR: Units 1 and 2 are currently expected to cease operations in November 2024 and August 2025, respectively. | |||
The units are placed into storage in this scenario. | |||
The start of field decommissioning is deferred to the end of the fuel storage period. Spent fuel remaining in the spent fuel storage pools after a minim.um. | |||
cooling period of 10 years is transferred to the ISFSI for interim. storage. As with the DECON scenario, decommissioning activities at the two units are sequenced and integrated so as to minimize the total duration of the physical dismantling processes. | |||
Spent fuel storage operations continue at the site until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete, assumed to be in the year 2061. Methodology The methodology used to develop the estimates follows the basic approach originally presented in the cost estimating guidelines | |||
[1 2 1 developed by the Atomic Industrial Forum. (now Nuclear Energy Institute). | |||
This reference describes a unit cost factor method for estimating decommissioning activity costs. The unit cost factors used in this 12 T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-11 | |||
/ Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xii of xxi analysis incorporate site-specific costs and the latest available information about worker productivity in decommissioning. | |||
An activity duration critical path is used to determine the total decommissioning program schedule. | |||
This is required for calculating the carrying costs, which include program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental, quality assurance, and security. | |||
This systematic approach for assembling decommissioning estimates ensures a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the resulting costs. The estimates also reflect lessons learned from previously completed decommissioning projects, including TLG's involvement in the Shippingport Station decommissioning, completed in 1989, and the decommissioning of the Cintichem reactor, hot cells and associated facilities, completed in 1997. In addition, the planning and experience associated with the Pathfinder, Shoreham, Rancho Seco, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Humboldt Bay-3, Connecticut Yankee, San Onofre, Vermont Yankee, and Zion nuclear units have provided additional insight into the process, the regulatory aspects, and technical challenges of decommissioning commercial nuclear units. 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."l 13 l 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, is based on a preliminary technical position [14] to reflect the California Public Utilities Commission's desire* for owners to conservatively establish an appropriate contingency factor for inclusion in the decommissioning revenue requirements. | |||
13 Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, p. 239. 14 "Technical Position Paper for Establishing an Appropriate Contingency Factor for Inclusion in the Decominissioning Revenue Requirements", Study Number: DECON-POS-H002, Revision A, Status: Preliminary (provided by PG&E). TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-12 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xiii of xxi Contingency funds are expected to be fully expended throughout the program. As such, 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 generally classified as low-level radioactive waste, although not all of the material is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal. | |||
With the passage of the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act" in 198Q,l15J and its Amendments of 1985,[16] | |||
the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition oflow-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders. With the exception of Texas, no new compact facilities have been successfully sited, licensed, and constructed. | |||
The Texas Compact disposal facility is now operational and waste is being accepted from generators within the Compact by the operator, Waste Control Specialists (WCS). The facility is also able to accept limited quantities of Compact waste. Disposition of the various waste streams produced by the decommissioning process considered all options and services currently available to PG&E. The majority of the low-level radioactive waste designated for direct disposal (Class Al17J) can be sent to Energy Solutions' facility in Clive, Utah. Therefore, disposal costs for Class A waste were based upon PG&E's current-contract rates with EnergySolutions. | |||
This facility is not licensed to receive the higher activity portion (Classes B and C) of the decommissioning waste stream. The WCS facility is able to receive the Class B and C waste. As such, for this analysis, Class B and C waste was assumed to be shipped to the WCS facility and disposal costs for the waste using this facility were based upon PG&E current-contract rates. The dismantling of the components residing closest to the reactor core generates radioactive waste that may be considered unsuitable for shallow-land disposal (i.e., level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the NRC for Class. C radioactive waste (Greater Than Class C, or GTCC)). The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned the federal government the responsibility for the disposal of this material. | |||
The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such waste. However, to date, 15 "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980," Public Law 96-573, 1980 16 ''Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, 1986 11 Waste is classified in accordance with U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61.55 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-13 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xiv of xxi the federal government has not identified a cost for disposing of GTCC or a schedule for acceptance. | |||
For purposes of this analysis only, the GTCC radioactive waste is assumed to be packaged and disposed of in a similar manner as high-level waste and at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel. The GTCC is packaged in the same canisters used for spent fuel and either stored on site or shipped directly to a DOE facility as it is generated (depending upon the timing of the decommissioning and whether the spent fuel has been removed from the site prior to the start of decommissioning). | |||
High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act"[ISJ (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. It was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998; however, to date no progress in the removal of spent fuel from commercial generating sites has been made. Today, the country is at an impasse on high-level waste disposal, even with the License Application for a geologic repository submitted by the DOE to the NRC in 2008. The current administration has cut the budget for the repository program while promising to "conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle ... and make recommendations for a new plan."[19] | |||
Towards this goal, the administration appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (Blue Ribbon Commission) to make recommendations for a new plan for nuclear waste disposal. | |||
The Blue Ribbon Commission's charter includes a requirement that it consider "[o]ptions for safe storage of used nuclear fuel while final disposition pathways are selected and deployed."l20J On January 26, 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission issued its "Report to the Secretary of Energy'' containing a number of recommendations on nuclear waste disposal. | |||
Two of the recommendations that may impact decommissioning planning are: 18 "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," DO E's Office of Civilian Radioactive l\1anagement, 1982 19 Charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, "Objectives and Scope of Activities," http://www.brc.gov/index.php?q=vage/charter TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-14 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xv of xxi o "[T]he United States [should] establish a program that leads to the timely development of one or more consolidated storage facilities"[211 o "[T]he United States should undertake an integrated nuclear waste management program that leads to the timely development of one or more permanent deep geological facilities for the safe disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste."[22] | |||
In January 2013, the DOE issued the "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste," in response to the recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Commission and as "a framework for moving toward a sustainable program to deploy an integrated system capable of transporting, storing, and disposing of used nuclear fuel..."[23] "With the appropriate authorizations from Congress, the Administration currently plans to implement a program over the next 10 years that: o Sites, designs and licenses, constructs and begins operations of a pilot interim storage facility by 2021 with an initial focus on accepting used nuclear fuel from shut-down reactor sites; o Advances toward the siting and licensing of a larger interim storage facility to be available by 2025 that will have sufficient capacity to provide flexibility in the waste management system and allows for acceptance of enough used nuclear fuel to reduce expected government liabilities; and o Makes demonstrable progress on the siting and characterization of repository sites to facilitate the availability of a geologic repository by 2048."[2 4] The NRC's review of DOE's license application to construct a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain was suspended in 2011 when the Administration significantly reduced the budget for completing that work. However, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a writ of mandamus (in August 2013)[25] | |||
2 1 "Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy," http://www.brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc finalreport jan2012.pdf, p. 32, January 2012 22 Ibid., p.27 23 "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste," U.S. DOE, January 11, 2013 24 Ibid., p.2 25 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Of Columbia Circuit, In Re: Aiken County, et al, Aug. 2013,http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/BAEOCF34F762EBD985257BC6004DE B18/$file/ll-1271-1451347.pdf TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-15 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xvi of xxi ordering NRC to comply with federal law and resume its review of DOE's Yucca Mountain repository license application to the extent allowed by previously appropriated funding for the review. That review is now complete with the publication of the five-volume safety evaluation report. A supplement to DOE's environmental impact statement and an adjudicatory hearing on the contentions filed by interested parties must be completed before a licensing decision can be made. A federal appeals court has ruled that DOE's obligation to take possession of spent nuclear fuel is unconditional and cannot be excused either by the absence of a repository or by a claim of unavoidable delay. Completion of the decommissioning process is dependent upon the DOE's ability to remove spent fuel from the site in a timely manner. DOE's repository program had assumed that spent fuel allocations would be accepted for disposal from the nation's commercial nuclear plants, with limited exceptions, in the order (the "queue") in which it was discharged from the reactor.[2 61 PG&E's current spent fuel management plan for the Diablo Canyon spent fuel is based in general upon: 1) a 2028 start date for DOE initiating transfer of commercial spent fuel to a federal facility (not necessarily a final repository), and 2) expectations for spent fuel receipt by the DOE for the Diablo Canyon fuel. The DOE's generator allocation/receipt schedules are based upon the oldest fuel receiving the highest priority. | |||
Assuming a maximum rate of transfer of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU)/year, the spent fuel is completely removed from the site by the end of 2061 for a 2025 station shutdown. | |||
Different DOE acceptance schedules may result in different completion dates. The NRC requires that licensees establish a program to manage and provide funding for the caretaking of all irradiated fuel at the reactor site until title of the fuel is transferred to the DOE. [27] Interim storage of the fuel, until the DOE has completed the transfer, will be in the fuel handling building's storage pool as well as at an on-site 26 In 2008, the DOE issued a report to Congress in which it concluded that it did not have authority, under present law, to accept spent nuclear fuel for interim storage from decommissioned commercial nuclear power reactor sites. However, the Blue Ribbon Commission, in its final report, noted that: "[A]ccepting spent fuel according to the OFF [Oldest Fuel First] priority ranking instead of giving priority to shutdown reactor sites could greatly reduce the cost savings that could be achieved through consolidated storage if priority could be given to accepting spent fuel from shutdown reactor sites before accepting fuel from still-operating plants . . . . . The magnitude of the cost savings that could be achieved by giving priority to shutdown sites appears to be large enough (i.e., in the billions of dollars) to warrant DOE exercising its right under the Standard Contract to move this fuel first." For planning purposes only, this estimate does not assume that Diablo Canyon, as a permanently shutdown plant, will receive priority; the fuel removal schedule assumed in this estimate is based upon DOE acceptance of fuel according to the "Oldest Fuel First",priority ranking. 27 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50 -Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, Subpart 54 (bb), "Conditions of Licenses" TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-16 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xvii of xxi ISFSI. For purposes of tl?is analysis, it is assumed that DOE will accept canistered fuel. An ISFSI, which is independently licens*ed and operated, will remain operational after the cessation of plant operations. | |||
For the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios, the facility is projected to have the capacity to accommodate the inventory of spent fuel residing in the plant's storage pools at the conclusion of the required cooling period. Once emptied, the spent fuel pool facilities can be either decontaminated and dismantled or prepared for long-term storage. For cost estimating purposes, the spent fuel scenario developed for Diablo Canyon assumed that the DOE would initiate spent fuel receipt in the year 2028. DOE's generator allocation/receipt schedules are based upon the oldest fuel receiving the highest priority. | |||
The information available on the projected rate of transfer and the backlogged national queue indicates that Diablo Canyon fuel would not be eligible for pickup until 2035. Supplemental dry cask spent nuclear fuel storage in the form **of an ISFSI is assumed to be expanded following cessation of plant operations to accommodate the assemblies in the plant's wet storage pools. By relocating the fuel to the ISFSI, the wet storage pools may be secured and decommissioning of the nuclear units may proceed. Costs are included within the estimates to expand the ISFSI to accommodate the residual spent fuel inventories after pool operations cease and for the long-term caretaking of spent fuel at the site through the year 2061. The PG&E position is that the DOE has a contractual obligation to accept Diablo Canyon's fuel earlier than the projections set out above consistent with its contract commitments. | |||
No assumption made in this study should be interpreted to be with this claim. However, including the cost of storing spent fuel in this study is appropriate to ensure the availability of sufficient decommissioning funds at the end of the station's life if the DOE has not met its obligation. | |||
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 can substantially damage power block structures, potentially weakening the footings and structural supports. | |||
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 is deferred. | |||
Consequently, this study assumes that site structures included within this analysis are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below the local grade level wherever possible. | |||
The site is then graded and stabilized. | |||
The debris and scrap metal TLG Services, Inc. . 2-AtchA-17 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xviii of xxi produced during site restoration activities is designated as "decommissioned material" and transported to an out-of-state facility. | |||
Summary The estimates to decommission Diablo Canyon assume the removal of all contaminated and activated plant components and structural materials such that the owner may then have unrestricted use of the site with no further requirements for an operating license. Low-level radioactive waste, other than GTCC waste, is sent to a licensed radioactive waste disposal facility. | |||
Decommissioned materials are sent to an out-of-state disposal facility. | |||
Decommissioning is accomplished within the 60-year period required by current NRC regulations. | |||
In the interim, the spent fuel remains in storage at the site until such time that the transfer to a DOE facility is complete. | |||
Once emptied, the storage facility can also be decommissioned. | |||
Both the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios are described in Section 2. The bases of the estimates and 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 and D. The major cost components for all scenarios are also identified in the cost summary provided at the end of this section. The cost elements in the estimates for all the decommissioning alternatives are assigned to one of three subcategories: | |||
NRC License Termination (radiological remediation), Spent Fuel Management, and Site Restoration. | |||
The subcategory "NRC License Termination" is used to accumulate costs that are consistent with "decommissioning" as defined by the NRC in its financial assurance regulations (i.e., 10 CFR §50. 75). The cost reported for this subcategory is generally sufficient to terminate the unit's operating license, recognizing that there may be some additional cost impact from spent fuel management. | |||
The "Spent Fuel Management" subcategory contains costs associated with the containerization and transfer of spent fuel from the wet storage pool to a DOE transport cask or to the ISFSI for interim storage, as well as the transfer of the spent fuel in storage at the ISFSI to the DOE. Costs are included for the operation of the storage pool and the management of the ISFSI until such time that the transfer is complete. | |||
It does not include any spent fuel management expenses incurred prior to the cessation of plant operations, nor does it include any costs related to the final disposal of the spent fuel. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-18 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xix of xxi "Site Restoration" is used to capture costs associated with the dismantling and demolition of buildings and facilities demonstrated to be free from contamination. | |||
This includes structures never exposed to radioactive materials, as well as those facilities that have been decontaminated to appropriate levels. Structures are removed to a depth of three feet and backfilled to conform to local grade. It should be noted that the costs assigned to these subcategories are allocations. | |||
Delegation of cost elements is for the purposes of comparison (e.g., with NRC financial guidelines) or to permit specific financial treatment (e.g., Asset Retirement Obligation determinations). | |||
In reality, there can be considerable interaction between the activities in the three subcategories. | |||
For example, an owner may decide to remove contaminated structures early in the project to improve access to highly contaminated facilities or plant components. | |||
In these instances, the non-contaminated removal costs could be reassigned from Site Restoration to an NRC License Termination support activity. | |||
However, in general, the allocations represent a reasonable accounting of those costs that can be expected to be incurred for the specific subcomponents of the total estimated program cost, if executed as described. | |||
As noted within this document, the estimates were developed and costs are presented in 2014 dollars. As such, the estimates do not reflect the escalation of costs (due to inflationary and market forces) over the remaining operating life of the plant or during the decommissioning period. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-19 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xx of xxi DECON COST | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2014 dollars) Cost Element Unit 1 Unit2 Decontamination 18,214 21,549 Removal 141,218 319,210 Packaging 33,435 32,500 Transportation 31,679 294,378 Waste Disposal 199,331 178,340 Program Management | |||
[IJ 473,419 491,299 >---" Security 338,910 348,555 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 26,314 17,577 Spent Fuel Management | |||
[2J 213,527 193,784 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 36,956 32,862 Energy 32,071 31,910 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 33,875 37,509 Property Taxes 7,658 7,503 Severance 84,005 84,169 Miscellaneous Equipment 8,421 9,026 Total [3J 1,679,030 2,100,172 Cost Element License Termination 1,190,754 1,172,913 Spent Fuel Management 389,775 395,217 Site Restoration 98,501 532,042 Total [3J 1,679,030 2,100,172 | |||
[ll Includes engineering costs r 2 1 Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [3J Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-20 Total 39,763 460,428 65,934 326,057 377,671 964,718 687,465 43,890 407,311 69,817 63,981 71,384 15,161 168,174 17,447 3,779,202 2,363,667 784,992 630,543 3,779,202 Diablo Canyon Power Plant . Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xxi of xxi SAFSTOR COST | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2014 dollars) Cost Element Unit 1 Unit2 Decontamination 14,403 21,401 Removal 143,288 319,891 Packaging 23,554 22,581 Transportation 29,063 292,279 Waste Disposal 182,273 160,224 Program Management | |||
[lJ 604,377 439,612 Security 377,878 386,029 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 26,459 17,615 Spent Fuel Management | |||
[21 214,610 194,121 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 53,180 50,493 Energy 37,842 37,721 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 34,831 42,625 Property Taxes 9,548 9,373 Severance 84,470 84,353 Miscellaneous Equipment 15,685 16,419 Total 31 1,851,460 2,094,736 Cost Element License Termination 1,128,923 1,048,860 Spent Fuel Management 623,759 512,851 Site Restoration 98,778 533,025 Total [31 1,851,460 2,094,736 | |||
[1 1 Includes engineering costs [2 1 Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [3] Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-21 Total 35,804 463,179 46,135 321,341 342,497 1,043,988 763,907 44,074 408,730 103,673 75,562 77,455 18,921 168,823 32,104 3,946,195 2,177,783 1,136,610 631,802 3,946,195 r;---Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 1. INTRODUCTION Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 1of13 This report presents estimates of the cost to decommission the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon) for the selected decommissioning scenarios following the scheduled cessation of plant operations. | |||
The estimates are designed to provide Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) with the information to assess its current decommissioning liability, as it relates to Diablo Canyon. The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information from an earlier evaluation prepared in 2012[1]* updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of the nuclear plant and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects. | |||
The costs are based on several key assumptions in areas of regulation, component characterization, high-level radioactive waste management, low-level radioactive waste disposal, performance uncertainties (contingency) and site restoration requirements. | |||
The analysis is not a detailed engineering evaluation, but estimates prepared in advance of the detailed engineering required to carry out the decommissioning of the nuclear units. It may also not reflect the actual plan to decommission Diablo Canyon; the plan may differ from the assumptions made in this analysis based on facts that exist at the time of decommissioning. | |||
===1.1 OBJECTIVES=== | |||
OF STUDY The objectives of this study are to prepare comprehensive estimates of the costs to decommission Diablo Canyon based on the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios, to provide a sequence or schedule for the associated activities, and to develop waste stream projections from the decontamination and dismantling activities. | |||
For the purposes of this study, the shutdown dates are based on the expiration of the current operating licenses, or 2 November 2024 for Unit 1, and 26 August 2025 for Unit 2. 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION Diablo Canyon is located on the central California coast in San Luis Obispo County, approximately 12 miles west southwest of the City of San Luis Obispo. The plant, comprised of two nuclear units, is located on a 750-acre site adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, roughly equidistant from San Francisco and Los Angeles. References provided in Section 7 of the document TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-22 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 2 of 13 The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) consists of a pressurized water reactor and a four-loop Reactor Coolant System. The systems were supplied by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation. | |||
Units 1and2 each have a license rating of 3411 MWt, with corresponding net electrical outputs 1131 and 1156 megawatts (electric), respectively, with the reactors at rated power. The Reactor Coolant System is comprised of the reactor vessel and four heat transfer loops, each containing a vertical U-tube type steam generator, and a single-stage centrifugal reactor coolant pump. In addition, the system includes an electrically heated pressurizer, a pressurizer relief tank, and interconnected piping. The system is housed within a "containment structure," a seismic Category I reinforced-concrete dry structure. | |||
It consists of an upright cylinder topped with a hemispherical dome, supported on a reinforced concrete foundation mat, which is keyed into the bedrock. A welded steel liner plate anchored to the inside face of the containment serves as a leak-tight membrane. | |||
The liner on top of the foundation mat is protected by a two-foot thick concrete fill mat, which supports the containment internals and forms the floor of the containment. | |||
The lower portion of the containment cylindrical wall has additional embedded wide flange steel beams between elevations 88 ft. 2 in. and 108 ft. 2 in. (mean sea level). Heat produced in the reactor is converted to electrical energy by the Steam and Power Conversion Systems. A turbine-generator system converts the thermal energy of steam produced in the steam generators into mechanical shaft power and then into electrical energy. The plant's turbine-generators are each tandem compound, four element units. They consist of one high-pressure double-flow and three low-pressure double-flow elements driving a direct-coupled generator at 1800 rpm. The turbines are operated in a closed feedwater cycle that condenses the steam; the heated feedwater is returned to the steam generators. | |||
Heat rejected in the main condensers is removed by the Circulating Water System (CWS). The circulating water system provides the heat sink required for removal of waste heat in the power plant's thermal cycle. The system has the principal function of removing heat by absorbing this energy in the main condenser. | |||
Condenser circulating water is water from the Pacific Ocean. Each unit is served by two circulating water pumps at the intake structure. | |||
From this structure seawater is pumped through two circulating water conduits to the condenser inlet water boxes. The water is returned to the ocean at Diablo Cove through an outfall at the water's edge. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-23 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 1.3 REGULATORY GUIDANCE Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 3 of 13 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) provided iriitial decommissioning requirements in its rule "General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," issued in June 1988J 2 l 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,''l3J 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 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, while the SAFSTOR and EN.TOMB alternatives defer the process. The rule also placed limits on the time allowed to complete the decommissioning process. For all alternatives, 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. At the conclusion of a 60-year dormancy period (or longer if the NRC approves such a case), the site would still require significant remediation to meet the unrestricted release limits for license termination. | |||
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 rulemaking permitting the controlled release of a site,l 4 l the NRC did re-evaluated the alternative. | |||
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. | |||
The staff also found that additional rulemaking would be needed before this option could be treated as a generic alternative. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-24 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 4 of 13 The NRC had considered rulemaking to alter the 60-year time for completing decommissioning and to clarify the use of engineered barriers for reactor entombments.l 5 l However, the NRC's staff has subsequently recommended that rulemaking be deferred, based upon several factors (e.g., no licensee has committed to pursuing the entombment option, the unresolved issues associated with the disposition of greater-than-Class C material (GTCC), and the NRC's current priorities), at least until after the additional research studies are complete. | |||
The Commission concurred with the staffs recommendation. | |||
In 1996, the NRC published revisions to the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plantsJ6J When the decommissioning regulations were adopted in 1988, it was assumed that the majority of licensees would decommission at the end of the facility's operating 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 amendments allow for greater public participation and better define* the transition process from operations to decommissioning. | |||
Under the revised regulations, licensees will submit written certification to the NRC within 30 days after the decision to cease operations. | |||
Certification will also be required once the fuel is permanently removed from the reactor vessel. Submittal of these notices, along with related changes to Technical Specifications, entitle the licensee to a fee reduction and eliminate the obligation to follow certain requirements needed only during operation of the reactor. Within two years of submitting notice of permanent cessation of operations, the licensee is required to submit a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) to the NRC. The PSDAR describes the planned decommissioning activities, the . associated sequence and schedule, and an estimate of expected costs. Prior to completing decommissioning, the licensee is required to submit an application to the NRC to terminate the license, which will include a license termination plan (LTP). In 2011, the NRC published amended regulations to improve decommissioning planning and thereby reduce the likelihood that any current operating facility will become a legacy site.l 7 l The amended regulations require licensees to | |||
* conduct their operations to minimize the introduction of residual radioactivity into the site, which includes. | |||
the site's subsurface soil and groundwater. | |||
Licensees also may be required to perform site surveys to determine whether TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-25 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 5 of 13 residual radioactivity is present in subsurface areas and to keep of these surveys with records important for decommissioning. | |||
The amended regulations require licensees to report additional details in their decommissioning cost estimate as well as requiring additional financial reporting and assurances. | |||
The additional details, including a decommissioning estimate for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), are included in this study. 1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act"[SJ (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. It was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998; however, to date no progress in the removal of spent fuel from commercial generating sites has been made. Today, the country is at an impasse on high-level waste disposal, even with the License Application for a geologic repository submitted by the DOE to the NRC in 2008. The current administration has cut the budget for the repository program while promising to "conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle ... and make recommendations for a new plan." Towards this goal, the administration appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (Blue Ribbon Commission) to make recommendations for a new plan for nuclear waste disposal. | |||
The Blue Ribbon Commission's charter includes a requirement that it consider "[o]ptions for safe storage of used nuclear fuel while final disposition pathways are selected and deployed."[91 On January 26, 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission issued its "Report to the Secretary of Energy'' containing a number of recommendations on nuclear waste disposal. | |||
Two of the recommendations that may impact decommissioning planning are: o "[T]he United States [should] establish a program that leads to the timely development of one or more consolidated storage facilities" o "[T]he United States should undertake an integrated nuclear waste management program that leads to the timely development of one or more permanent deep geological facilities for the safe disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste."[IOJ TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-26 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 6 of 13 In January 2013, the DOE issued the "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste," in response to the recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Commission and as "a framework for moving toward a sustainable program to deploy an integrated system capable of transporting, storing, and disposing of used nuclear fuel..." [11] "With the appropriate authorizations from Congress, the Administration currently plans to implement a program over the next 10 years that: o Sites, designs and licenses, constructs and begins operations of a pilot interim storage facility by 2021 with an initial focus on accepting used nuclear fuel from shut-down reactor sites; o Advances toward the siting and licensing of a larger interim storage facility to be available by 2025 that will have sufficient capacity to provide flexibility in the waste management system and allows for acceptance of enough used nuclear fuel to reduce expected government liabilities; and o Makes demonstrable progress on the siting and characterization of repository sites to facilitate the availability of a geologic repository by 2048." The NRC's review of DOE's license application to construct a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain was suspended in 2011 when the Administration significantly reduced the budget for completing that work. However, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a writ of mandamus (in August 2013)[1 21 ordering NRC to comply with federal law and resume its review of DOE's Yucca Mountain repository license application to the extent allowed by previously appropriated funding for the review. That review is now complete with the publication of the five-volume safety evaluation report. A supplement to DOE's environmental impact statement and an adjudicatory hearing on the contentions filed by interested parties must be completed before a licensing decision can be made. Completion of the decommissioning process is dependent upon the DO E's ability to remove spent fuel from the site in a timely manner. DOE's repository program assumes that spent fuel allocations will be accepted for disposal from the nation's commercial nuclear plants, with limited exceptions, in the order (the "queue") in which it was discharged from the reactorJ13J PG&E's current spent fuel management plan for the Diablo Canyon spent fuel is based in general upon: 1) a 2028 start date for DOE TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-27 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 7 of 13 initiating transfer of commercial spent fuel to a federal facility (not necessarily a final repository), and 2) expectations for spent fuel receipt by the DOE for the Diablo Canyon fuel. The DOE's generator allocation/receipt schedules are based upon the oldest fuel receiving the | |||
* highest priority. | |||
The information available on the projected rate of transfer and the backlogged national queue indicates that the oldest Diablo Canyon fuel would not be eligible for pickup until 2035. Assuming a maximum rate of transfer of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU)/year, the spent fuel is completely removed from the site by year end 2061 for a 2025 station shutdown. | |||
The NRC requires that licensees establish a program to manage and provide funding for the caretaking of all irradiated fuel at the reactor site until title of the fuel is transferred to the DOEJ 1 4l Interim storage of the fuel, until the DOE has completed the transfer, will be in the fuel handling buildings' storage pool as well as at an on-site ISFSI. The ISFSI will remain operational until the DOE is able to complete the transfer of the fuel to a federal facility (e.g., a monitored retrievable storage facility). | |||
DOE has breached its obligations to remove fuel from reactor sites, and has also failed to provide the plant owner with information about how it will ultimately perform. In the absence of information about how DOE will perform, and for purposes of this analysis only, it is assumed that DOE will accept already-canistered fuel. (It is recognized that the canisters may not be licensed or licensable for transportation when DOE performs.) | |||
If this assumption is incorrect, it is assumed that DOE will have liability for costs incurred to transfer the fuel to DOE-supplied containers. | |||
The ISFSI is* assumed to be expanded following cessation of plant operations to accommodate the assemblies in the plant's wet storage pools. By relocating the fuel to the ISFSI, the wet storage pools may be secured and decommissioning of the nuclear units may proceed. Costs are included within the estimates to expand the ISFSI to accommodate the residual spent fuel inventories after pool operations cease and for the long-term caretaking of spent fuel at the site through the year 2061. The PG&E position is that the DOE has a contractual obligation to accept Diablo Canyon's fuel earlier than the projections set out above consistent with its contract commitments. | |||
No assumption made in this study should be interpreted to be inconsistent with this claim. However, including the cost of storing spent fuel in this study is appropriate to ensure the availability of sufficient decommissioning funds at the end of the station's life if the DOE has not met its obligation. | |||
The cost for the interim storage TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-28 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 8 of 13 of spent fuel has been calculated and is separately presented as "Spent Fuel Management" expenditures in this report. 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. | |||
With the passage of the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" in 1980,l 15 l and its Amendments of 1985,[16] | |||
the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders. With the exception of Texas, no new compact facilities have been successfully sited, licensed, and constructed. | |||
The Texas Compact disposal facility is now operational and waste is being accepted from generators within the Compact by the operator, Waste Control Specialists (WCS). The facility is also able to accept limited quantities of non-Compact waste. Disposition of the various waste streams produced by the decommissioning process considered all options and services currently available to PG&E. The majority of the low-level radioactive waste designated for direct disposal (Class Al17l) can be sent to EnergySolutions' facility in Clive, Utah. Therefore, disposal costs for Class A waste were based upon PG&E's current Diablo Canyon contract-based costs associated with the EnergySolutions facility. | |||
This facility is not licensed to receive the higher activity portion (Classes B and C) of the decommissioning waste stream. The WCS facility is able to receive the Class Band C waste. As such, for this analysis, Class B and C waste was assumed to be shipped to the WCS facility. | |||
Disposal costs for this waste were also based upon PG&E's current contract-based costs associated with the WCS facility. | |||
The dismantling of the components residing closest to the reactor core generates radioactive waste that may be considered unsuitable for shallow-land disposal (i.e., low-level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the NRC for Class C radioactive waste (GTCC)). The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned the federal government the responsibility for the disposal of this material. | |||
The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such waste. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-29 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 9 of 13 However, to date, the federal government has not identified a cost for disposing of GTCC or a schedule for acceptance. | |||
For purposes of this analysis only, the GTCC radioactive waste is assumed to be packaged and disposed of in a similar manner as high-level waste and at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel. The GTCC is packaged in the same canisters used for spent fuel and either stored on site or shipped directly to a DOE facility as it is generated (depending upon the timing of the decommissioning and whether the spent fuel has been removed from the site prior to the start of decommissioning). | |||
====1.3.3 Radiological==== | |||
Criteria for License Termination In 1997, the NRC published Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination," [IS] amending 10 CFR Part 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 assume that the Diablo Canyon site will be remediated to a residual level consistent with the NRC-prescribed level. 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)J19J An additional and separate limit of 4 millirem per year, as defined in 40 CFR §141.16, is applied to drinking water. [20] 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 (M0U)[21J 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, {l) groundwater contamination exceeds permitted levels; (2) NRC contemplates restricted release of the site; TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-30 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 10 of 13 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 in the cleanup. As such, the possibility of dual regulation remains for certain licensees. | |||
The present study does not include any costs for this occurrence. | |||
====1.3.4 California==== | |||
Governor Moratorium on Disposing of Decommissioned Materials The Governor of the State of California, Executive Order D-62-02, orders a moratorium " ... on the disposal of decommissioned materials into Class III landfills and unclassified waste management units, as described in title 27, sections 20260 and 20230, of the California Code of Regulations". | |||
The order defines "decommissioned materials," as materials with low residual levels of radioactivity (below Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission release levels) that, upon decommissioning of a licensed site, may presently be released with no restrictions upon their use. The order concludes that without regulations these decommissioned materials | |||
:tnay not be released with no restrictions upon their use. As such, in the absence of California regulations on decommissioned materials, it is PG&E's position that the decommissioning plan for decommissioned materials | |||
* should be based on transport and disposal to an out-of-state licensed facility. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-31 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 11of13 ' BO ARY TLG Services, Inc. FIGURE 1.1 DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT GENERAL PLAN .l'le*C't' ..st!ISS I Qil U N£ !CMO I D M.IL U PACI F IC figure -loc at i o n in di cate d w i t h ar r ow OCEAN 2-AtchA-32 SI TE BOUli 0 B O O 1200 1 6 0 0 SCALE I N fE ET Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis FIGURE 1.2 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 12 of 13 DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT AERIAL VIEW (Imagery date August 2013, from Google Earth) TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-33 l_ Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis FIGURE 1.3 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 13 of 13 DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SECTION TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-34 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 1of13 2. DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES Detailed cost estimates were developed to decommission Diablo Canyon based upon the approved DECON and SAFSTOR decommissioning alternatives. | |||
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. This study does not address the cost to dispose of the spent fuel residing at the site; such costs are funded through a surcharge on electrical generation. | |||
However, the study does estimate the costs incurred with the interim on-site storage of the fuel pending shipment by the DOE to an off-site disposal facility. | |||
The scenarios selected are representative of alternatives available to the owner and are defined as follows: DECON: Units 1and2 are currently expected to cease operations in November 2024 and August 2025, respectively. | |||
Spent fuel remaining in the spent fuel storage pools after a minimum cooling period of 10 years is transferred to the ISFSI for interim storage. This scenario assumes that decommissioning activities at the two units begin soon after unit shutdown and are sequenced and integrated so as to minimize the total duration of the physical dismantling processes. | |||
Any residual spent fuel is transferred to the ISFSI so as to facilitate decontamination and dismantling activities within the fuel handing buildings. | |||
Decommissioning of the station and subsequent demolition of the structures is completed by 2039. Spent fuel storage operations continue at the site until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete, assumed to be in the year 2061. The ISFSI is then decommissioned and dismantled. | |||
SAFSTOR: Units 1 and 2 are currently expected to cease operations in November 2024 and August 2025, respectively. | |||
The units are placed into safe-storage in this scenario. | |||
The start of field decommissioning is deferred to the end of the fuel storage period. Spent fuel remaining in the spent fuel storage pools after a minimum cooling period of 10 years is transferred to the ISFSI for interim storage. As with the DE CON scenario, decommissioning activities at the two units are sequenced and integrated so as to minimize the total duration of the physical dismantling processes. | |||
Spent fuel storage operations continue at the site until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete, assumed to be in the year 2061. ;' The following sections describe the basic activities associated with each base case alternative (DECON and SAFSTOR). | |||
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. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-35 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 2 of 13 The conceptual approach that the NRC has described in its regulations divides decommissioning into three phases. The initial phase commences with the effective date of permanent cess*ation of operations and involves the transition of both plant and licensee from reactor operations (i.e., power production) to facility de-activation and closure. During the first phase, notification is to be provided to the NRC certifying the permanent cessation of operations and the removal of fuel from the reactor vessel. The licensee is then prohibited from reactor operation. | |||
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 Diablo Canyon 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 DECON=== | |||
The DECON alternative, as defined by the NRC, is "the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations." This study does not address the cost to dispose of the spent fuel residing at the site; such costs are funded through a surcharge on electrical generation; However, the study does estimate the costs incurred with the interim on-site storage of the fuel pending shipment by the DOE to an off-site disposal facility. | |||
====2.1.1 Period==== | |||
1 -Preparations In anticipation of the cessation of plant operations, detailed preparations are undertaken to provide a smooth transition from plant operations to site decommissioning. | |||
Through implementation of a staffing transition plan, the organization required to manage the intended decommissioning activities is assembled from available plant staff and outside resources. | |||
Preparations include the planning for permanent defueling of the reactor, revision of technical specifications applicable to the operating conditions and requirements, a characterization of the facility and major components, and the development of the PSDAR. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-36 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Engineering and Planning Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 3 of 13 The PSDAR, required prior to or within two years of permanent cessation of operations, provides a description of the licensee's planned decommissioning activities, a timetable, and the associated financial requirements of the intended decommissioning program. Upon receipt of the PSDAR, the NRC will make the document available to the public for comment in a local hearing to be held in the vicinity of the reactor site. Ninety days following submittal and NRC receipt of the PSDAR, the licensee may begin to perform major decommissioning activities under modified 10 CFR §50.59 procedure, i.e., without specific NRC approval. | |||
Major activities are defined as any activity that results in permanent removal of major radioactive components, permanently modifies the structure of the containment, or results in dismantling components (for shipment) containing GTCC, as defined by 10 CFR §61. Major components are further defined as comprising the reactor vessel and internals, large bore reactor coolant system piping, and other large components that are radioactive. | |||
The NRC includes the following additional criteria for use of the §50.59 process in decommissioning. | |||
The proposed activity must not: o foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use, o significantly increase decommissioning costs, o cause any significant environmental impact, or o violate the terms of the licensee's existing license Existing operational technical specifications are reviewed and modified to reflect plant conditions and the safety concerns associated with permanent cessation of operations. | |||
The environmental impact associated with the planned decommissioning activities is Typically, a licensee will not be allowed to proceed if the consequences of a particular decommissioning activity are greater than that bounded by previously evaluated environmental assessments or impact statements. | |||
In this instance, the licensee would have to submit a license amendment for the specific activity and update the environmental report. The decommissioning program outlined in the PSDAR 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 PSDAR, activity specifications, cost-benefit and safety analyses, work packages, and TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-37 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 4 of 13 procedures, would be assembled to support the proposed decontamination and dismantling activities. | |||
Site Preparations Following final plant shutdown, and in preparation for actual decommissioning activities, the following activities are initiated: | |||
o Characterization of the site and surrounding environs. | |||
This includes radiation surveys of work areas, major components (including the reactor vessel and internals), internal piping, and biological shield cores. o Isolation of the spent fuel storage pool and fuel handling systems. This allows decommissioning operations to be performed in plant areas to the greatest extent, with minimum impact to the project schedule. | |||
The fuel will be transferred from the spent fuel pools once it decays to the point that it. meets the heat load criteria of the spent fuel casks. It is therefore assumed that the fuel pools will remain operational for a minimum of ten years following the cessation of plant operations. | |||
o Specification of transport and disposal requirements for activated materials and/or hazardous materials, including shielding and waste stabilization. | |||
o 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 metallic components generated in decommissioning), site security and emergency programs, arid industrial safety. 2.1.2 Period 2 -Decommissioning Operations This period includes the physical decommissioning activities associated with the removal and disposal of contaminated and activated components and structures, including the successful release of the site from the 10 CFR §50 operating license, exclusive of the ISFSI. Significant decommissioning activities in this phase include: o Construction of temporary facilities and/or modification of existing facilities to support dismantling activities. | |||
For example, this will include a centralized processing area to facilitate equipment removal and component preparations for off-site disposal. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-38 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 5 of 13 o Reconfiguration and modification of site structures and facilities as needed to support decommissioning operations. | |||
This will include the upgrading of roads (on-and off-site) to facilitate hauling and transport. | |||
Modifications will be required to the containment structure to facilitate access of large/heavy equipment. | |||
Modifications will also be required to the refueling area of the reactor building to support the segmentation of the reactor vessel internals and component extraction. | |||
o Transfer of the spent fuel from the storage pool to the ISFSI pad for interim storage. o 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. o Procurement (lease or purchase) of shipping canisters, cask liners, and industrial packages. | |||
o Decontamination of components and piping systems as required to control (minimize) worker exposure. | |||
o Removal of piping and components no longer to support decommissioning operations. | |||
o Removal of control rod drive housings and the head service structure from reactor vessel head. Segmentation of the vessel closure head. o Removal and segmentation of the upper internals assemblies. | |||
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. | |||
o Disassembly and segmentation of the remaining reactor internals, including the core former and lower core support assembly. | |||
Some material is expected to exceed Class C disposal requirements. | |||
As such, the segments will be packaged in modified fuel storage canisters for geologic disposal. | |||
o 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-air to containers that are stored under water, for example, in an isolated area of the refueling canal. o Removal of the activated portions of the concrete biological shield and accessible contaminated concrete surfaces. | |||
If dictated by the steam TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-39 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 6 of 13 generator and pressurizer removal scenarios, those portions of the associated cubicles necessary for access and component extraction are removed. o Removal of the steam generators and pressurizer for controlled disposal. | |||
The generators will be moved to an on-site processing center, the steam domes removed and segmented for transportation and disposal. | |||
The lower shell and tube bundle will be packaged as a piece container for direct disposal. | |||
These components can serve as their own disposal containers provided that all penetrations are properly sealed and steel shielding added, as necessary, to those external areas of the package to meet transportation limits and regulations. | |||
o Expansion of the ISFSI .and transfer of the spent fuel from the storage pools to the DOE and ISFSI pad for interim storage. Spent fuel storage operations continue throughout the active decommissioning period. Fuel transfer to the DOE is expected to begin in 2035 and to be completed by the end of the year 2061. At least two years prior to the anticipated date of license termination, an LTP is required. | |||
Submitted as a supplement to the Final Safety Analysis Report (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: | |||
o 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). | |||
o Removal of the steel liners from refueling canal, disposing of the activated and contaminated sections as radioactive waste. Removal of activated/ | |||
contaminated concrete (all concrete inside the containment liner). o Surveys of the decontaminated areas of the containment structure. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-40 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 7 of 13 o Remediation and removal of the contaminated equipment and material from the auxiliary building, fuel handling buildings, and any other contaminated facility. | |||
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. | |||
o Routing of material removed in the decontamination and dismantling to a central processing area. Contaminated material is characterized and segregated for packaging and disposal at a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility. | |||
Material that meets the US NRC release criteria, but may contain residual radioactivity is classified as decommissioned material and will be transported, and disposed of at an out-of-state 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)."[22] | |||
This document incorporates the statistical approaches to survey design and data interpretation used by the EPA. It also identifies 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 the requested change to the operating licenses (that would release the property, exclusive of the ISFSI, for unrestricted use). The NRC terminates the operating licenses if it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with the LTP, and that the terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-41 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 2.1.3 Period 3 -Site Restoration Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 8 of 13 Following completion of decommissioning operations, site restoration activities can 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 t11;e structures. | |||
Although performed in a controlled, safe manner, blasting, coring, drilling, scarification (surface removal), and the other decontamination activities will substantially degrade power block structures including the . reactor and auxiliary buildings. | |||
Under certain circumstances, verifying that subsurface radionuclide concentrations meet NRC site release requirements will require removal of grade slabs and lower floors, potentially weakening footings and structural supports. | |||
This removal activity will be necessary for those facilities and plant areas where historical records indicate the potential for radionuclides having been present in the soil, where system failures have been recorded, or where it is required to confirm that subsurface process and drain lines were not breached over the operating life of the station. It is not currently anticipated 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 is deferred. | |||
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. Non-contaminated concrete rubble produced by demolition activities is processed on-site to remove reinforcing steel and miscellaneous embedments. | |||
The processed rubble is then transported and disposed of at an out-of-state waste disposal facility. | |||
The removed rebar, plus non-contaminated steel, copper, and other metals are transported to an out-of-state scrap dealer. Below grade voids are backfilled with clean imported fill to provide a reasonably uniform site contour (i.e., no large localized on site depressions). | |||
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. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-42 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 2.1.4 ISFSI Operations and Decommissioning Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 9 of 13 For purposes only of this estimate, transfer of spent fuel to a DOE repository or interim facility is assumed to be exclusively from the ISFSI once the fuel pools have been emptied and the fuel handling buildings released for decommissioning. | |||
If this assumption is incorrect, it is assumed that DOE will have liability for costs incurred to transfer the fuel to DOE-supplied containers and to dispose of existing containers. | |||
The ISFSI will continue to operate under a separate and independent license (10 CFR §72) following the termination of the §50 operating licenses. | |||
Completion of the decommissioning process is dependent upon the DOE's ability to remove spent fuel from the site in a manner timely enough to complete license termination activi_ties within 60 years of unit shut down. This analysis assumes that the last of the spent fuel will be removed from the site within approximately 36 years of the station shutdown or year 2061. At the conclusion of the spent fuel transfer process, the ISFSI will be decommissioned. | |||
The Commission will terminate the §72 license when it determines that the remediation of the ISFSI has been performed in accordance with an ISFSI license termination plan and that the final radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release. Once the requirements are satisfied, the NRC can terminate the license for the ISFSI. The ISFSI is based upon the currently licensed facility that uses purpose canisters and concrete overpacks for pad storage. For purposes of this cost analysis, it is assumed that once the inner canisters containing the spent fuel assemblies have been removed, any required decontamination performed on the storage overpack (some minor neutron activation is assumed), and the license for the facility terminated, the concrete overpacks can be dismantled using conventional techniques for the demolition of reinforced concrete. | |||
Demolished concrete (decommissioned material) is packaged and transported to an out-of-state waste disposal facility. | |||
The concrete storage pad is then removed and the area regraded. | |||
===2.2 SAFSTOR=== | |||
The NRC defines SAFSTOR as "the alternative in which the nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination) to levels TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-43 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 10 of 13 that permit release for unrestricted use." The facility is left intact (during the dormancy period), with structures maintained in a sound condition. | |||
Systems that are not required to support the spent fuel pool or site surveillance and security are drained, de-energized, and secured. Minimal cleaning/removal of loose contamination and/or fixation and sealing of remaining contamination are performed. | |||
Access to contaminated areas is secured to provide controlled access for inspection and maintenance. | |||
The engineering and planning requirements for physical dismantling activities are similar to those for the DECON alternative. | |||
Site preparations for physical dismantling are also similar to those for the DECON alternative, with the exception of certain activities, such as spent fuel pool operations and maintenance, and chemical decontamination of primary systems. Decommissioning operations are assumed to begin once the transfer of the spent fuel to the DOE is completed (in year 2062). 2.2.1 Period 1 -Preparations Preparations for long-term storage include the planning for permanent defueling of the reactor, revision of technical specifications appropriate to the operating conditions and requirements, a characterization of the facility and major components, and the development of the PSDAR. The process of placing the plant in safe-storage includes, but is not limited to, the following activities: | |||
o Isolation of the spent fuel storage services and fuel handling systems so that safe-storage operations may commence on the balance of the plant. This activity may be carried out by plant personnel in accordance with existing operating technical specifications. | |||
Activities are scheduled around the fuel handling systems to the greatest extent possible. | |||
o Transferring the spent fuel from the storage pools to the ISFSI for interim storage, following the minimum required cooling period in the spent fuel pools. o Draining and de-energizing of the non-contaminated systems not required to support continued site operations or maintenance. | |||
o Disposing of contaminated filter elements and resin beds not required for processing wastes from layup activities for future operations. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-44 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 11of13 o Draining of the reactor vessel, .with the internals left in place and the vessel head secured. o Draining and de-energizing non-essential, contaminated systems with decontamination as required for future maintenance and inspection. | |||
o Preparing lighting and alarm systems whose continued use is required; de-energizing portions of fire protection, electric power, and HVAC systems whose continued use is not required. | |||
o Cleaning of the loose surface contamination from building access pathways. | |||
o Performing an interim radiation survey of plant, posting warmng signs where appropriate. | |||
o Erecting physical barriers and/or securing all access to radioactive or contaminated areas, except as required for inspection and maintenance. | |||
o Installing security and surveillance monitoring equipment and relocating security fence around secured structures, as required. | |||
====2.2.2 Period==== | |||
2 -Dormancy The second phase identified by the NRC in its rule addresses licensed activities during a storage period and is applicable to the dormancy phases of the deferred decommissioning alternatives. | |||
Dormancy activities include a 24-hour security force, preventive and corrective maintenance on security systems, area lighting, general building maintenance, heating and ventilation of buildings, routine radiological inspections of contaminated structures, maintenance of structural integrity, and a site environmental and radiation monitoring program. Resident maintenance personnel perform equipment maintenance, inspection activities, routine services to maintain safe conditions, adequate lighting, heating, and ventilation, and periodic preventive maintenance on essential site services. | |||
An environmental surveillance program is carried out during the dormancy period to ensure that releases of radioactive material to the environment are prevented or detected and controlled. | |||
Appropriate emergency procedures are established and initiated for potential releases that exceed prescribed limits. The environmental surveillance program constitutes an abbreviated version of the program in effect during normal plant operations. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-45 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 12 of 13 Security during the dormancy period _is conducted primarily to prevent unauthorized entry and to protect the public from the consequences of its own actions. The security fence, sensors, alarms, and other surveillance equipment provide security. | |||
Fire and radiation alarms are also monitored and maintained. | |||
Consistent with the DECON scenario, the spent fuel storage pools are emptied within approximately 10 years of the cessation of operations. | |||
The transfer of the spent fuel to the DOE takes place during the dormancy period until completed in 2061. Once emptied, the ISFSI is decommissioned along with the power block structures in Period 4. 2.2.3 Periods 3 and 4 -Delayed Decommissioning Prior to the commencement of decommissioning operations, preparations are undertaken to reactivate site services and prepare for decommissioning. | |||
Preparations include engineering and planning, a detailed site characterization, and the assembly of a decommissioning management organization. | |||
Final planning for activities and the writing of activity specifications and detailed procedures are also initiated at this time. Much of the work in developing a termination plan is relevant to the development of the detailed engineering plans and procedures. | |||
The activities associated with this phase and the follow-on decontamination and dismantling processes are detailed in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. The primary difference between the sequences anticipated for the DE CON and this deferred scenario is the absence, in the latter, of any constraint on the availability of the fuel storage facilities for decommissioning. | |||
Variations in the length of the dormancy period are expected to have little effect upon the quantities of radioactive wastes generated from system and structure removal operations. | |||
Given the levels of radioactivity and spectrum of radionuclides expected from forty years of plant operation, no plant process system identified as being contaminated upon final shutdown will become releasable due to the decay period alone, i.e., there is no significant reduction in the waste generated from the decommissioning activities. | |||
The delay in decommissioning also yields lower working area radiation levels. As such, the estimate for this delayed scenario incorporates reduced ALARA controls for the SAFSTOR's lower occupational exposure potential. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-46 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 13 of 13 Although the initial radiation levels due to 60Co will decrease during the dormancy period, the internal components of the reactor vessel will still exhibit sufficiently high radiation dose rates to require remote sectioning under water due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides such as 94Nb, 59Ni, and 63Ni. Therefore, the dismantling procedures described for the DE CON alternative would still be employed during this scenario. | |||
Portions of the biological shield will still be radioactive due to the presence of activated trace elements with longer half-lives (152Eu and 154Eu). Decontamination will require controlled removal and disposal. | |||
It is assumed that radioactive corrosion products on inner surfaces of piping and components will not have decayed to levels that will permit unrestricted use or allow conventional removal. These systems and components will be surveyed as they are removed and disposed of in accordance with the existing radioactive release criteria. | |||
====2.2.4 Period==== | |||
5 -Site Restoration Following completion of decommissioning operations, site-restoration activities begin. Dismantling, as a continuation of the decommissioning process is a cost-effective option, as described in Section 2.1.3. The basis for the dismantling cost is consistent with that described for DECON, presuming the removal of structures and site facilities to a nominal depth of three feet below grade and the limited restoration of the site. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-47 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis ' 3. COST ESTIMATES Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 1 of 32 The cost estimates prepared for decommissioning Diablo Canyon consider the unique features of the site, including the nuclear steam supply system, electric power generating systems, structures, and supporting 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 ESTIMATES The estimates were developed using site-specific, technical information extracted from the 2012 and previous estimates. | |||
This 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. | |||
The following are the significant changes associated with the plant configuration or radiological status that have been incorporated into the current estimate. | |||
o Removing and disposing of materials associated with recently installed security measures, particularly physical barriers, were incorporated into the estimate. | |||
The following are the significant changes associated with other aspects of the current estimate. | |||
o Consistent with PG&E's interpretation of the California governor's executive order on the moratorium on disposing of decommissioned materials in the State of California[ | |||
2 3l, costs to account for transporting and disposing of decommissioned materials to an out-of-state disposal facility have been added. o PG&E's experience segmenting the Humboldt Bay Unit 3 reactor and industry experience segmenting the Zion Nuclear Station reactor vessels have been incorporated into the estimate. | |||
o Permitting costs associated with constructing a Greater-Than-Class-C storage pad, as well as other expected permitting expenses and environmental fees have been incorporated into the estimate. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-48 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 2 of 32 0 Maintaining security staff levels near operating staff levels while spent fuel is stored in the spent fuel pools was re-affirmed. | |||
The cost associated with maintaining these staff levels has been incorporated into the estimate. | |||
* Cost impact of a delay in DOE's start of spent fuel pickup from commercial generators from 2024 to 2028. | |||
* Complying with expected re-licensing requirements after the ISFSI license is renewed. 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,"[24] | |||
and the DOE "Decommissioning Handbook."[25] | |||
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) are developed using local labor rates. The activity-dependent costs are estimated with the item quantities (cubic yards and tons), developed from plant drawings and inventory documents. | |||
Removal rates and material costs for the conventional disposition of components and structures rely upon information available in the industry publication, "Building Construction Cost Data," published by R.S. Means. [261 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 .. 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 experience associated with the Pathfinder, Shoreham, Rancho Seco, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Humboldt Bay-3, Connecticut Yankee, San Onofre, Vermont Yankee, and Zion nuclear units have provided additional insight into the process, the regulatory aspects, and technical challenges of decommissioning commercial nuclear units. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-49 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Work Difficulty Factors Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 3 of 32 TLG has historically applied work difficulty adjustment factors (WDFs) to account for the inefficiencies in working in a power plant environment. | |||
WDFs are assigned to each unique set of unit factors, commensurate with the inefficiencies associated with working in confined, hazardous environments. | |||
The ranges used for the WDFs are as follows: o Access Factor o Respiratory Protection Factor (l) Radiation/ALARA Factor o Protective Clothing Factor o Work Break Factor 10% to 20% 10% to 50% 10% to 37% 10% to 30% 8.33% 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 m?re detail in that publication. | |||
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 radiological controlled areas. The resulting labor-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 is based upon productivity information available from the "Building Construction Cost Data" publication. | |||
In the DECON alternative, dismantling of the fuel handing systems and decontamination of the spent fuel pool is also dependent upon the timetable for the transfer of the spent fuel assemblies from the pool to the ISFSI. 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 costs. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-50 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 4 of 32 3.3 IMPACT OF DECOMMISSIONING MULTIPLE REACTOR UNITS In estimating the near simultaneous decommissioning of two co-located reactor unit's 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. For purposes of the estimate, Units 1 and 2 are assumed to be essentially identical. | |||
Common facilities have been assigned to Unit 2. A summary of the principal impacts are listed below. (I} The sequence of work generally follows the principal that the work is done at Unit 1 first, followed by similar work at Unit 2. This permits the experience gained at Unit 1 to be applied by the workforce at the second unit. It should be noted however, that the estimate generally does not consider productivity improvements at the second unit, since there is little documented experience with decommissioning two units simultaneously. | |||
The work associated with developing activity specifications and procedures can be considered essentially identical between the two units, therefore the second unit costs are assumed to be a fraction of the first 43%). o Segmenting the reactor vessel and internals will require the use of special equipment. | |||
Thermal cutting equipment and equipment spare parts will be shared between the two reactors. | |||
The decommissioning project will be scheduled such that Unit 2's reactor internals and vessel are segmented in sequence with the activities at Unit 1. o Some program management and support costs, particularly costs associated with the more senior positions, can be avoided with two reactors undergoing decommissioning simultaneously. | |||
As a result, the estimate is based on a "lead'' unit that includes these senior positions, and a "second" unit that excludes these positions. | |||
The designation as lead is based on the unit undertaking the most complex tasks (for instance vessel segmentation) or performing tasks for the first time. o 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, the transfer of the spent fuel from the storage pools and subsequent decontamination of the spent fuel pool areas is coordinated so as to synchronize the final status survey for the station. c The final demolition of buildings at Units 1and2 are considered to take place concurrently. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-51 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 5 of o Unit 1, as the first unit to enter decommissioning, incurs the majority of site characterization costs. o Shared systems and common structures are generally assigned to Unit 2. o Station costs such as ISFSI operating costs, emergency response fees, regulatory agency fees, and insurance are generally allocated on an equal basis between the two units. 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, spent fuel management and site restoration. | |||
====3.4.1 Contingency==== | |||
The activity-and period-dependent costs are combined to develop the total dycommissioning 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"[27J as "specific provision for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope; particularly important where previous experience relating estimates and actual costs has shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur." The cost elements in this analysis are based upon ideal conditions and maximum efficiency; therefore, consistent with industry practice, contingency is included. | |||
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, includes a contingency target based on a preliminary technical position [281 to reflect the California Public Utilities Commission's desire for owners to conservatively establish an appropriate contingency factor for inclusion in the decommissioning revenue requirements. | |||
Contingency Based on AIF Guidelines As stated in the AIF study 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 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-52 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 6 of 32 the maJor activity-related problems (decontamination, segmentation, equipment handling, packaging, transport, and waste disposal) that necessitate a contingency. | |||
Individual activity contingencies i*anged from 10% to 50%, 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: o Decontamination 50% o Contaminated Component Removal 25% o Contaminated Component Packaging 10% e Contaminated Component Transport 15% o Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 25% o Reactor Segmentation* | |||
35% o NSSS Component Removal 25% o Reactor Waste Packaging 25% o Reactor Waste Transport 25% o Reactor Vessel Component Disposal 50% o GTCC Disposal 15% o Non-Radioactive Component Removal 15% o Heavy Equipment and Tooling 15% o Supplies 25% e Engineering 15% e Energy 15% a Characterization and Termination Surveys 30% o Construction 15% o Taxes and NRC Fees 10% o Insurance 10% '-o Staffing 15% o Breakwater Removal 25% o ISFSI Decommissioning (license termination) 25% o Spent Fuel Storage (Dry) Systems 15% o Spent Fuel Transfer Costs 15% o GTCC Pad Permitting 15% o Environmental Permits and Fees 15% o Decommissioned Materials (Transport and Disposal) 15% | |||
* Reactor Segmentation Contingency has been reduced from AIF Guidelines level (75%) to 35% since substantial industry experience (and corresponding increased cost) has been incorporated into the current estimate. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-53 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-J.719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 7 of 32 The contingency values are applied to the appropriate components of the estimates on a line item basis. The composite contingency value (excluding additional contingency described in the Preliminary Technical Position) for the DECON alternative is approximately 17.4%. The value for the SAFSTOR alternative is approximately 17.0%. Appendix E, the ISFSI decommissioning calculation, uses a flat 25% contingency added at the end of the calculation. | |||
Contingency Based on Preliminary Technical Position In addition to the contingency based on the AIF guidelines, additional contingency was added to reflect the California Public Utilities Commission desire for owners to conservatively establish an appropriate contingency factor for inclusion in the decommissioning revenue requirements. | |||
Based on the previously referenced technical position, additional contingency was added to reflect an overall project contingency of 25% (both scenarios). | |||
This contingency was incorporated on a line item basis, with each line item receiving a pro-rated share of the increase. | |||
The nominal increase in contingency to achieve an overall contingency rate of 25% is 40%. 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: o Transition activities and costs: ancillary expenses associated with eliminating 50% to 80% of the site labor force shortly after the cessation of plant operations, added cost for worker separation packages throughout the decommissioning program, national or company-mandated retraining, and retention incentives for key personnel. | |||
Q Delays in approval of the decommissioning plan due to intervention, public participation in local community meetings, legal challenges, and national and local hearings. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-54 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis DocumentPOl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 8 of 32 a 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. | |||
o Regulatory changes, for example, affecting worker health and safety, site release criteria, waste transportation, and disposal. | |||
I I | |||
* Policy decisions altering national commitments in the ability to I accommodate certain waste forms for disposition, or in the timetable for such, or the start and rate of acceptance of spent fuel by the DOE. | |||
* Pricing changes for basic inputs such as labor, energy, materials, and waste disposal. | |||
This cost study does not add any additional costs to the estimate for financial risk, since there is'insufficient historical data from which to project future liabilities. | |||
Consequently, the areas of uncertainty or risk are revisited periodically and addressed through repeated revisions or updates of the base estimates. | |||
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. 3.5.1 Spent Fuel Management The cost to dispose the spent fuel generated from plant operations is not reflected within the estimates to decommission Diablo Canyon site. Ultimate disposition of the spent fuel is within the province of the DOE's Waste Management System, as defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. As such, the disposal cost is financed by a surcharge paid into the DOE's waste fund during operations. | |||
On November 19, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the Secretary of the Department of Energy to suspend collecting annual fees for nuclear waste disposal from nuclear power plant operators until the DOE has cond.ucted a legally adequate fee assessment. | |||
Prior to this suspension, the disposal cost was financed by a 1 mill/kWhr surcharge paid*into the DOE's waste fund during operations. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-55 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 9 of 32 The total inventory of assemblies that will require handling during decommissioning is based upon the following assumptions. | |||
The DOE's generator allocation/receipt schedules are based upon the oldest fuel receiving the highest priority. | |||
For purposes of this analysis, acceptance of Diablo Canyon spent fuel by the DOE is expected to be complete by 2061 to permit license termination within approximately 36 years of station shut down. The first assemblies removed from the Diablo Canyon site are projected to be in year 2035. The estimates incorporate a minimum cooling period of approximately 10 years for the spent fuel that resides in the storage pools when operations cease. The current Part. 72 ISFSI license does not allow dry cask storage of spent fuel with burnups above 62 GWD/metric ton. It is assumed that PG&E can amend the Part 72 license to store the higher burnup fuel, but that as a condition of the amendment it rwill require longer decay times (10 years) before storing the spent fuel in the casks. In both scenarios, any residual fuel remaining in the pool after the 10-year period is relocated to the ISFSI to await transfer to a DOE facility. | |||
Operation and maintenance costs for the spent fuel pool and the ISFSI are included within the estimates and address the cost for staffing the facility, as well as security, insurance, and licensing fees. The estimates include the costs to purchase, load, and transfer the multi-purpose spent fuel storage canisters (MPCs) from the pool to the ISFSI. Costs are also provided for transfer of the MPCs to the DOE from the ISFSI (although it is acknowledged that this may not occur and that the fuel in the MPCs may have to be repackaged at DOE expense). | |||
Canister Design A multi-purpose storage canister (HOLTEC HI-STORM lOOSA system), with a 32-fuel assemblies capacity, is assumed for future canister and overpack acquisitions. | |||
The overpack in use at Diablo Canyon is uniquely configured with additional support steel for seismic considerations. | |||
A unit cost of $1,230,000 is used for pricing the internal multi-purpose canister (MPC) and concrete overpack. | |||
Canister Loading and Transfer An average cost of $1,053,600 per canister is used for the labor and consumables to load/transport the spent fuel from the pools to the ISFSI pad, based upon Diablo Canyon operating experience. | |||
The same cost, $1.053 million per canister, is used to estimate the cost to transfer the fuel TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-56 | |||
----------------------------------- | |||
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 10 of 32 from the spent fuel pools to the DOE. For estimating purposes, 50% of the pool to DOE cost is used to estimate the cost to transfer the fuel from the ISFSI to the DOE. Operations and Maintenance Annual costs (excluding labor) of $1.58 million and $1.09 million are used for operation and maintenance of the spent fuel pools and the ISFSI, respectively. | |||
The ISFSI cost reflects additional costs associated with inspection and aging mitigation likely to be required as a result ,of the ISFSI license renewal. ISFSI and GTCC Pad and Decommissioning | |||
* At the . time of decommissioning it is expected that there will be 138 emptied concrete I steel HI-STORM 100 SA overpacks, and 8 similar GTCC emptied concrete I steel overpacks located on the ISFSI and GTCC pads, respectively. | |||
The nominal weight of each overpack is 135 tons, comprised of 45 tons of steel and 90 tons of concrete. | |||
From a perspective of complying with the US NRC release criteria, the estimate is based on seven overpacks per unit (quantity necessary to manage the final core offload) having some level of steel liner neutron-induced activation as a result of the long-term storage of the fuel, i.e., to levels exceeding release limits. The steel liners in these activated overpacks are assumed to be removed and disposed of as radioactive material. | |||
The remaining material, including the concrete pads and embedments up to a depth of three feet below grade are designated as decommissioned material. | |||
The cost to demolish this material, as well as package and transport it to an out-of-state waste disposal is included in the estimates. | |||
In accordance with the specific requirements of 10 CFR §72.30 for the ISFSI work scope, the cost estimate for decommissioning the ISFSI reflects: | |||
: 1) the cost of an independent contractor performing the decommissioning activities; | |||
: 2) an adequate contingency factor; and 3) the cost of meeting the criteria for unrestricted use. The decommissioning cost for the ISFSI is identified as a separate line item in the Unit 1and2 cost tables in Appendices C and D, and as stand-alone table in Appendix E. GTCC The dismantling of the reactor internals generates radioactive waste considered unsuitable for shallow land disposal (i.e., low-level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-57 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 11 of 32 established by the NRC for Class C radioactive waste (GTCC)). The Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned the federal government the responsibility for the disposal of this material. | |||
The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such waste. Although there are strong arguments that GTCC waste is covered by the spent fuel contact with DOE and the fees being paid pursuant to that contract, DOE has taken the position that GTCC waste is not covered by that contract or its fees and that utilities, including PG&E, will have to pay an additional fee for the disposal of their GTCC waste. However, to date, the federal government has not identified a cost I for disposing of GTCC or a schedule for acceptance. | |||
As such, the GTCC radioactive waste has been packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel. For purposes of this study, GTCC is packaged in a canister similar to those used to store spent fuel. The cost of the canister is estimated to be approximately 50% of the spent fuel canister due to design differences. | |||
Disposal costs are based upon a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel. It is not anticipated that the DOE would accept this waste prior to completing the transfer of spent fuel. Therefore, until such time the DOE is ready to accept GTCC waste, it is reasonable to assume that this material would remain in storage with the spent fuel in the ISFSI at the Diablo Canyon site (for the DECON alternative). | |||
In the SAFSTOR scenario, the GTCC material is shipped directly to a DOE facility as it is generated since the fuel will have been removed from the site prior to the start of decommissioning and the ISFSI deactivated. | |||
The cost to dispose of GTCC material is based on the equivalent cost to dispose of spent fuel (weight basis). The details for estimating this value is provided in Section 5 of this analysis. | |||
====3.5.2 Reactor==== | |||
Vessel and Internal Components The reactor pressure vessel and internal components are segmented for disposal in shielded, reusable transportation casks. Segmentation 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 dictate the segmentation and packaging methodology. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-58 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 12 of 32 Intact disposal of reactor vessel shells has been successfully demonstrated at several of the sites that have been decommissioned. | |||
Access to navigable waterways has allowed these large packages to be transported to the Barnwell disposal site with minimal overland travel. Intact disposal of the reactor vessel and internal components as a single package 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 (including the internals). | |||
However, its location on the Columbia River simplified the transportation analysis since: ' o the reactor package could be secured to the transport vehicle for the entire journey, i.e., the package was not lifted during transport, o there were no man-made or natural terrain features between the plant site and the disposal location that could produce a large drop, and o 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 when the Diablo Canyon plant ceases operation. | |||
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 that the reactor vessel will require segmentation, as a bounding condition. | |||
====3.5.3 Primary==== | |||
System Components In the DECON scenario, the reactor coolant system components are assumed to be decontaminated using chemical agents prior to the start of dismantling operations. | |||
This type of decontamination can be expected to have a significant ALARA impact, since in this scenario the removal work is done within the first few years of shutdown. | |||
A decontamination factor (average reduction) of 10 is assumed for the process. Disposal of the decontamination solution effluent is included within the estimate as a TLG Semices, Inc. 2-AtchA-59 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document.POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 13 of 32 "process liquid waste" charge. In the SAFSTOR scenarios, radionuclide decay is expected to provide the same benefit and, therefore, a chemical decontamination is not included. | |||
The following discussion deals with the removal and disposition of the steam generators, but the techniques involved are also applicable to other large components, such as heat exchangers, component coolers, and the pressurizer. | |||
The steam generators' size and weight, as well as their location within the reactor building, will ultimately determine the removal strategy. | |||
A trolley crane is set up for the removal of the generators. | |||
It can also be used to move portions of the steam generator cubicle walls and floor slabs from the reactor building to a location where they can be decontaminated and transported to the material handling area. Interferences within the work area, such as grating, piping, and other components are removed to create sufficient laydown space for processing these large components. | |||
The generators are rigged for removal, disconnected from the surrounding piping and supports, and maneuvered into the open area where they are lowered onto a dolly. Each generator is rotated into the horizontal position for extraction from the containment and placed onto a multi-wheeled vehicle for.transport to an on-site processing and storage area. The generators are disassembled on-site with the outer shell and lightly contaminated subassemblies designated for segmentation and direct disposal. | |||
The more highly contaminated tube sheet and tube bundle contained within the steam generator lower shell are packaged as a piece container for direct disposal. | |||
Disposal costs are based upon the displaced volume and weight of the units. Reactor coolant piping is cut from the reactor vessel once the water level in the vessel (used for personnel shielding during dismantling and cutting operations in and around the vessel) is dropped below the nozzle zone. The piping is boxed and transported by shielded van. The reactor coolant pumps and motors are lifted out intact, packaged, and transported for processing and/or disposal. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-60 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 3.5.4 Main Turbine and Condenser Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 14 of 32 The main turbine is dismantled using conventional maintenance procedures. | |||
The turbine rotors and shafts are removed to a laydown area. The lower turbine casings are removed from their anchors by controlled demolition. | |||
The main condensers are also disassembled and moved to a laydown area. Material is then surveyed and prepared for transportation to an off-site scrap facility. | |||
====3.5.5 Retired==== | |||
Components Both Diablo Canyon units have replaced their original sets of steam generators and reactor closure heads; these retired components are stored on site within a concrete protective structure. | |||
The cost for transportation and disposal of these items has been included in this analysis. | |||
====3.5.6 Transportation==== | |||
Methods Contaminated piping, components, and structural material other than the highly activated reactor vessel and internal components will qualify as LSA-I, II or III or Surface Contaminated Object, SCO-I or II, as described in Title 49. [29] 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. | |||
The reactor vessel and internal components are expected to be transported in accordance with 10 CFR Part 71, in Type B containers. | |||
It is conceivable that the reactor, due to its limited specific activity, could qualify as LSA II or III. However, the high radiation levels on the outer surface would require that additional shielding be incorporated within the packaging so as to attenuate the dose to levels acceptable for transport. | |||
Any fuel cladding failure that occurred during the lifetime of the plant is assumed to have released fission products at sufficiently low levels that the buildup of quantities of long-lived isotopes (e.g., l37Cs, 90Sr, or transuranics) has been prevented from reaching levels exceeding those that permit the major reactor components to be shipped under current transportation regulations and disposal requirements. | |||
Transport of the highly activated metal, produced in the segmentation of the reactor vessel and internal components, will be by shielded truck cask. Cask shipments may exceed 95,000 pounds, including vessel segment(s), supplementary shielding, cask tie-downs, and tractor-trailer. | |||
The maximum level of activity per shipment assumed permissible was based TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-61 L __ Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 15 of 32 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 oflarge intact components (e.g., large heat exchangers and other oversized components) will be by a combination of truck, rail, and/or multi-wheeled transporter. | |||
Transportation costs for Class A radioactive material requiring controlled disposal are based upon the mileage to the EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah. Transportation costs for the higher activity Class B and C radioactive material are based upon the mileage to the WCS facility in Andrews County, Texas. The transportation cost for the GTCC material is assumed to be contained within the disposal cost. Truck transport costs were developed from published tariffs from Tri-State Motor Transit. [30J 3.5.7 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal The mass of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities at the site is shown on a line-item basis in the detailed Appendices C and D, and summarized in Section 5. The quantified waste summaries shown in these tables are consistent with 10 CFR Part 61 classifications. | |||
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. | |||
The volumes are calculated based on the exterior package dimensions for containerized material or a specific calculation for components serving as their own waste containers. | |||
The more highly activated reactor components will be shipped in reusable, shielded truck casks with disposable liners. In calculating disposal costs, the disposal fees are applied against the liner yolume, as well as the special handling requirements of the payload. Packaging efficiencies are lower for the highly activated materials (greater than Class A waste), where high concentrations of gamma-emitting radionuclides limit the capacity of the shipping canisters. | |||
Class A Waste For the purpose of this analysis, the Energy Solutions' facility is used as the disposal site for the majority of the radioactive waste (Class A). The disposal costs for Class A low-level radioactive waste are based on current Diablo Canyon contracted rates between PG&E and EnergySolutions in TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-62 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 16 of 32 year 2014 dollars. A complete explanation of the basis for Class A waste disposal is provided in Section 5 of this analysis. | |||
Class B and C Waste For purposes of this analysis, the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) Andrews County, TX facility is used as the disposal site for the higher radioactivity waste (Class B and C). The disposal costs for Class B and C | |||
* low-level radioactive waste are based on current Diablo Canyon contracted rates between PG&E and WCS in year 2014 dollars. A complete explanation of the basis for class B and C waste disposal is provided in Section 5 of this an.alysis. | |||
3.5.8 Site Restoration Following License Termination The NRC will amend or terminate the site license if it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with the license termination plan, and that the terminal radiation 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 owner's own future plans for the site. Only existing site structures are considered in the cost. It is assumed that the electrical switchyard.s remain after Diablo Canyon is decommissioned. | |||
Structures are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade. The voids are backfilled with clean fill and capped with soil. The site is then re-graded to conform to the adjacent landscape. | |||
Vegetation is established to inhibit erosion. These "non-radiological costs" are included in the total cost of decommissioning. | |||
Concrete rubble and scrap metal (considered decommissioned material) generated from demolition activities is processed and transported via a combination of local truck and long-distance railway transport to an site out-of-state waste facility or out-of-state scrap dealer. Concrete rubble also incurs a disposal charge. Clean fill is brought on site to backfill below grade voids as needed. The excavations will be regraded such that the power block area will have a final contour consistent with adjacent surroundings. | |||
The estimates do not assume the remediation of any significant volume of contaminated soil. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-63 L __ Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 3.6 ASSUMPTIONS Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 17 of 32 The following are the major assumptions made m the development of the estimates for decommissioning the site. 3.6.1 Estimating Basis Decommissioning costs are reported in the year ofprojected expenditure; however, the values are provided in 2014 dollars. Costs are not inflated, escalated, or discounted over the periods of performance. | |||
The estimates were developed using site-specific and technical information extracted from the 2012 estimates. | |||
This 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. | |||
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. | |||
*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 PG&E. PG&E will hire a Decommissioning Operations Contractor (DOC) to manage the decommissioning. | |||
The owner will provide site security, radiological health and safety, quality assurance and overall site administration during the decommissioning and demolition phases. Contract personnel will provide engineering services (e.g., for preparing TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-64 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 18 of 32 the activity specifications, work procedures, activation, and structural analyses) under the direction of PG&E. Personnel costs are based upon average salary information provided by PG&E. Overhead costs are included for site and corporate support, reduced commensurate with the staffing of the project. Security is maintained close to operational levels while fuel is stored in the spent fuel pool. Security is reduced substantially once all spent fuel has been relocated to the ISFSI. Staffing levels are assigned for each unit by sub-period and functional area. This estimate was updated to reflect PG&E's experience at Humboldt Bay Unit 3 and industry experience at Zion. This experience has resulted in an increase in the Utility and DOC staff needed to support the reactor and large component decommissioning activities (Sub-Period 2a in the estimate). | |||
Economies of a multi-unit decommissioning are recognized by establishing a primary and a secondary staff level. The unit assigned the primary staff will include common supervisory positions and positions that may be shared across both units. The types of positions and staffing levels are adjusted based upon the type of activity occurring in each period. 3.6.3 Design Conditions Any fuel cladding failure that occurred during the lifetime of the plant is assumed to have released fission products at sufficiently low levels that the buildup of quantities of fong-lived isotopes (e.g., 137Cs, 90Sr, or transuranics) has been prevented from reaching levels exceeding those that permit the major NSSS components to be shipped under current transportation regulations and disposal requirements. | |||
The curie contents of the vessel and internals at final shutdown are derived from those listed in NUREG/CR-3474J31J Actual estimates are derived from the curie/gram values contained therein and adjusted for the different mass of the Diablo Canyon components, projected operating life, and different periods of decay. Additional short-lived isotopes were derived from NUREG/CR-0130l32J and NUREG/CR-0672,l33J and benchmarked to the long-lived values from NUREG/CR-3474. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-65 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis DocumentPOl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 19 of 32 It is anticipated that there may be control element assemblies (CEAs) in the spent fuel pool at the cessation of operations, including those CEAs from the final core. This analysis assumes that the CEAs can be disposed of along with the spent fuel at no additional cost. Neutron activation of the containment building structure is assumed to be confined to the biological shield. 3.6.4 General Transition Activities Existing warehouses are cleared of non-essential material and remain for use by PG&E and its subcontractors. | |||
The plant's operating staff performs the following activities at no additional cost or credit to the project during the transition period: o Drain and collect fuel oils, lubricating oils, and transformer oils for recycle and/or sale. o Drain and collect acids, caustics, and other chemical stores for recycle and/or sale. o Process operating waste inventories. | |||
Disposal of operating wastes (e.g., filtration media, resins) during this initial period is not considered a decommissioning expense; however, the estimates do include the disposition of a small volume of material currently being stored in the spent fuel pool (as described in Section 5). Decommissioned Materials Consistent with PG&E's interpretation of the California governor's executive on the moratorium on disposing of decommissioned materials in the State of California (Executive Order D-62-02), costs to account for transporting and disposing of decommissioned materials to an out-of-state disposal facility have been included in this estimate. | |||
Decommissioned materials, as used in the context of this analysis are defined as materials that meet the US NRC release criteria but contain low residual levels of radioactivity that currently may not be placed into California Class III landfills or unclassified waste management units. Demolished concrete and scrap steel are categorized as decommissioned materials in this analysis. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-66 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 20 of 32 Cost for disposing of decommissioned materials include local handling and packaging costs, cost for truck transport via public highway to a railhead in San Luis Obispo, and rail transport to an out-of-state location (Utah for concrete, Nevada for scrap steel). This cost is included in the Appendices C and D cost tables line items labeled: o Backfill Structures | |||
& Concrete Removal (out of state disposal) o Breakwater Demolition and Removal (out of state disposal) o Disposition of Mobile Barriers (out of state disposal) o Miscellaneous Construction Debris (out of state disposal) o Scrap Metal Transportation (out of state); and o Demolition and Site Restoration ISFSI GTCC Pad The existing ISFSI pad is expected to be at capacity at the time of station shutdown with all spent fuel offloaded to the ISFSI. Due to the physical layout of the ISFSI pad it is impractical to expand the pad to support the addition of GTCC storage casks. In order to store GTCC material generated during decommissioning, costs for permitting and constructing a GTCC Storage Pad have been included. | |||
The cost for design, permitting and reviews is estimated at $18.8 million. The cost for construction is estimated at $5 million. Environmental Permits and Fees The estimate reflects PG&E's determination that there will be substantive Environmental Permits and Fees required and costs incurred between the time of station shutdown and Part 50 licenses termination. | |||
The annual amount budgeted between shutdown and license termination is $1.9 million I year (DECON scenario). | |||
A similar amount was included in the SAFSTOR scenario. | |||
The projected .costs are consistent with costs identified in the SONGS 2 and 3 Site-Specific Decommissioning Estimate [34J submitted to the NRC in 2014. Scrap and Salvage The existing plant equipment is considered obsolete and suitable for scrap as deadweight quantities only. PG&E will make economically reasonable efforts to salvage equipment following final plant shutdown. | |||
However, dismantling techniques assumed by TLG for equipment in this analysis TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-67 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 21of32 are not consistent with removal techniques required for salvage (resale) of equipment. | |||
Experience has indicated that some buyers wanted equipment stripped down to very specific requirements before they would consider purchase. | |||
This required expensive rework after the equipment had been removed from its installed location. | |||
Since placing a salvage value on this machinery and equipment would be speculative, and the value would be small in comparison to the overall decommissioning expenses, this analysis does not attempt to quantify the value that an owner may realize based upon those efforts. It is assumed, for purposes of this analysis, that metallic scrap generated in the dismantling process would be considered decommissioned material that requires out-of-state transport. | |||
The dismantling techniques assumed in the decommissioning estimates do not include the additional cost for size reduction and preparation to meet "furnace ready'' conditions. | |||
For example, the recovery of copper from electrical cabling may require the removal and disposition of any contaminated | |||
* insulation, an added expense. With a volatile market, the potential profit margin in scrap recovery is highly speculative, regardless of the ability to free release this material. | |||
This assumption is an implicit recognition of scrap value in the disposal of clean metallic waste at no additional cost to the project. Furniture, tools, mobile. equipment such as forklifts, trucks, bulldozers, and other property is removed at no cost or credit to the decommissioning project. Disposition may include relocation to other facilities. | |||
Spare parts are also made available for alternative use. Energy For estimating purposes, the plant is assumed to be substantially energized, with the exception of those facilities necessary to support dismantling activities and spent fuel storage. Replacement power costs | |||
* are used to calculate the cost of energy consumed during decommissioning for tooling, lighting, ventilation, and essential services. | |||
The purchase price of electricity is based on the average PG&E's 2014 price for utility bundled retail sales to industrial customers. | |||
The average price in 2014 was 14.22 cents I kWh. Emergency Planning FEMA fees associated with emergency planning are assumed to continue for approximately 18 months following the cessation of operations. | |||
At this time, the fees are discontinued, based upon the anticipated condition of TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-68 | |||
_J Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 22 of 32 the spent fuel. Annual state fees are* assumed to be reduced by 50% at time of shutdown and remain at those levels until spent fuel has been transferred to dry storage. After spent fuel is in dry storage state fees are estimated to be reduced to 25% of operating levels until spent fuel has been removed from the station. Insurance Costs for continuing coverage (nuclear liability and property insurance) following cessation of plant operations and during 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."[35] | |||
The NRC's financial protection requirements are based on various reactor (and spent fuel) configurations. | |||
Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) and Internals Segmentation This estimate was updated to reflect PG&E's experience with i*eactor and internals segmentation at Humboldt Bay Unit 3 and industry experience at Zion. This experience has resulted in an increase in the time to segment and package the reactor and internals (Sub-Period 2a in the estimate), an increase in the Utility and DOC staff needed during this sub-period (included in Utility and DOC Staff cost elements), an increase in the level of PG&E and DOC staff necessary to directly support the work (identified as "PG&E RPV Staff Support Team" and "DOC RPV Staff Support Team"), and an increase in the estimated amount of equipment and spares necessary to perform the segmentation (included in the cost table line items labeled "reactor vessel" and "reactor vessel internals". | |||
A reduction in reactor vessel segmentation (Removal) contingency from 75% to 35% was incorporated to reflect the addition of this industry experience, and cost of the equipment and spares necessary to perform the segmentation. | |||
The estimate was also revised to reflect difference in mass between the Unit 1 and Unit 2* reactor internals. | |||
Unit 1 has a somewhat massive thermal shield along the core elevation, whereas Unit 2 has a less massive series of neutron pad assemblies along the core elevation. | |||
The thermal shield has a greater mass (76,500 pounds) than the neutron pad assemblies (23,000 pounds). TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-69 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Taxes Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 23 of 32 Property taxes (land) are included for all decommissioning periods. 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== | |||
Schedules of expenditures for the DE CON and SAFSTOR scenarios are provided in Tables 3.1 through 3.4. The tables delineate the cost contributors by year of expenditures as well as cost contributor (e.g., labor, materials, and waste disposal). ,Additional tables in Appendices C and D provide detailed costs elements. | |||
The cost elements are also assigned to one of three subcategories: "License Termination,'' "Spent Fuel Management,'' | |||
and "Site Restoration." The subcategory "License Termination'' | |||
is used to accumulate costs that are consistent with "decommissioning" as defined by the NRC in its financial assurance regulations (i.e., 10 CFR §50. 75). The cost reported for this subcategory is generally sufficient to terminate the plant's operating license, recognizing that spent fuel management represents an additional cost liability that will interact with the license termination effort. The "Spent Fuel Management" subcategory contains costs associated with the containerization and transfer of spent fuel from the pools to the DOE and the transfer of casks from the ISFSI to the DOE. Costs are also included for the operations of the pools and manageme:r:it of the ISFSI until such time that the transfer of all fuel from this facility to an off-site location (e.g., geologic repository) is complete. "Site Restoration" is used to capture costs associated with the dismantling and demolition of buildings and facilities demonstrated to be free from contamination. | |||
This includes structures never exposed to radioactive materials, as well as those facilities that have been decontaminated to appropriate levels. Structures are removed to a depth of three feet and backfilled to conform to local grade. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-70 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 24 of 32 As discussed in Section 3.4.1, it is not anticipated that the DOE will accept the GTCC waste prior to completing the transfer of spent fuel. Therefore, the cost of GTCC disposal is shown in the final year of ISFSI operation (for the DECON alternative). | |||
While designated for disposal at the geologic repository along with the spent fuel, GTCC waste is still classified as low-level radioactive waste and, as such, included as a "License Termination" expense. Decommissioning costs are reported in 2014 dollars. Costs are not inflated, escalated, or discounted over the period of expenditure (or projected lifetime of the plant). The schedules are based upon the detailed activity costs reported in Appendices C and D, along with the timeline presented in Section 4. The ISFSI decommissioning cost estimate is provided in a table format m Appendix E. This appendix is provided to support required US NRC filings. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-71 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis DocumentPOl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 25 of 32 Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 TABLE 3.1 DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 1 (thousands, 2014 dollars) PG&E Labor 21,002 119,598 72,400 69,575 69,766 68,119 38,931 26,569 26,641 26,569 27,971 14,456 12,322 8,689 8,689 5,853 4,370 4,358 4,358 4,358 4,370 4,358 4,358 4,358 4,370 4,358 4,358 4,358 4,370 4,358 Equipment | |||
& Contractor Materials Labor 1,457 6,586 10,517 40,814 17,296 42,746 16,495 41,811 16,541 41,925 18,396 47,764 13,597 23,432 8,460 2,732 8,484 2,739 8,460 2,732 8,603 6,589 2,851 7,752 2,274 23,668 8,162 13,394 8,162 13,394 2,818 4,624 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LLRW Disposal Other Total 636 1,681 31,362 5,910 10,985 187,824 26,395 14,434 173,271 31,414 14,230 173,525 31,500 14,269 174,000 49,277 16,960 200,516 33,664 21,319 130,943 14 19,520 57,295 14 19,573 57,452 14 19,520 57,295 2,951 17,914 64,028 5,293 6,308 36,660 13 6,215 44,491 0 8,956 39,201 0 8,956 39,201 0 5,307 18,601 0 3,392 7,762 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,392 7,762 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,392 7,762 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,392 7,762 0 3,383 7,740 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-72 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 26 of 32 TABLE 3.1 (continued) | |||
DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 1 (thousands, 2014 dollars) PG&E Equipment | |||
& Contractor LLRW Year Labor Materials Labor Disposal Other Total 2054 4,358 0 0 0 3,383 7,740 2055 4,358 0 0 0 3,383 7,740 2056 4,370 0 0 0 3,392 7,762 2057 4,358 0 0 0 3,383 7,740 2058 4,358 0 0 0 3,383 7,740 2059 4,358 0 0 0 3,383 7,740 2060 4,370 0 0 0 3,392 7,762 2061 4,358 2,861 0 0 14,848 22,066 2062 567 653 1,639 666 5,096 8,621 Total I 713,655 156,089 324,340 187,761 297,185 1,679,030 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-73 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 27 of 32 Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 .2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 TABLE 3.2 DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 2 (thousands, 2014 dollars) PG&E Labor 42,905 101,899 68,437 69,374 69,184 66,579 42,012 37,800 . 37,696 37,696 41,465 17,044 8,710 8,710 5,830 4,378 4,366 4,366 4,366 4,378 4,366 4,366 4,366 4,378 4,366 4,366 4,366 4,378 4,366 4,366 Equipment | |||
& Contractor Materials Labor 2,330 9,426 9,790 27,036 17,998 40,977 18,453 43,415 18,403 43,296 19,330 53,125 8,972 10,491 7,066 2,254 7,046 2,248 7,046 2,248 7,980 11,924 13,124 49,794 75,661 119,926 75,661 119,926 25,497 40,413 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LLRW Disposal Other Total 1,361 3,452 59,475 8,243 11,518 158,485 27,142 14,477 169,030 29,060 14,493 174,794 28,981 14,453 174,317 54,562 17,630 211,226 9,522 17,501 . 88,497 16 17,359 64,493 15 17,311 64,317 15 17,311 64,317 5,451 14,784 81,604 1,713 6,884 88,558 0 10,588 214,884 0 10,588 214,884 0 5,815 77,555 0 3,398 7,776 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,398 7,776 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,398 7,776 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,398 7,776 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,389 7,755 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-74 owerPlant Diablo Canyon P, Decommission in g Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 28 of 32 TABLE 3.2 (continued) | |||
DECON ALTERNATIVE | |||
*SCH EDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 2 (thousands, 2014 dollars) PG& E Equipment | |||
& Contractor LLRW Year Lab or Materials Labor Disposal Other Total 2055 4, 366 0 0 0 3,389 7,755 2056 4, 378 0 0 0 3,398 7,776 2057 4, 366 0 0 0 3,389 7,755 2058 4, 366 0 0 0 3,389 7,755 2059 4, 366 0 0 0 3,389 7,755 2060 4, 378 0 0 0 3,398 7,776 2061 4, 366 2,869 0 0 14,876 22,111 2062 568 655 1,643 668 5,108 8,641 I Total I 752,0 34 317,881 578,140 166,748 285,369 2,100,172 TLG Services, In c. 2-'AtchA-75 I | |||
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 3.3 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 29 of 32 SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES; UNIT 1 (thousands, 2014 dollars) Equipment | |||
& Contractor LLRW Year PG&E Labor Materials Labor Disposal Other Total 2024 20,458 1,388 4,497 642 1,689 28,673 2025 116,037 9,383 24,985 3,733 10,712 164,851 2026 67,890 5,852 3,519 1,141 12,146 90,548 2027 36,157 4,856 1,455 9 12,556 55,033 2028 36,256 4,870 1,459 9 12,591 55,184 2029 36,157 4,856 1,455 9 12,556 55,033 2030 36,157 4,856 1,455 9 12,556 55,033 2031 36,157 4,856 1,455 9 12,556 55,033 2032 36,256 4,870 1,459 9 12,591 55,184 2033 36,157 4,856 1,455 9 12,556 55,033 2034 31,592 4,113 1,216 8 11,164 48,092 2035 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2036 8,409 333 0 4 4,099 12,846 2037 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2038 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2039 8,386 332 0 4 I 4,088 12,811 2040 8,409 333 0 4 4,099 12,846 2041 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2042 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2043 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2044 8,409 333 0 4 4,099 12,846 2045 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2046 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2047 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2048 8,409 333 0 4 4,099 12,846 2049 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2050 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2051 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2052 8,409 333 0 4 4,099 12,846 2053 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-76 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 30 of 32 TABLE 3.3 (continued) | |||
SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 1 (thousands, 2014 dollars) Year 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 PG&E Labor 8,386 8,386 8,409 8,386 8,386 8,386 8,409 8,386 29,475 33,803 38,260 38,155 24,111 10,329 6,659 5,508 4,289 . 2,961 Total I 909,418 I TLG Services, Inc. Equipment | |||
& Contractor Materials Labor 332 0 332 0 333 0 332 0 332 0 332 0 333 0 332 0 4,842 24,283 12,283 34,589 18,198 37,588 18,148 37,485 15,212 39,236 6,429 17,651 916 15,819 6,913 17,271 8,361 13,999 5,772 9,665 160,812 292,002 2-AtchA-77 LLRW Disposal Other Total 4 4,088 12,811 4 . 4,088 12,811 4 4,099 12,846 4 4,088 12,811 4 4,088 12,811 4 4,088 12,811 4 4,099 12,846 4 4,088 12,811 19 4,487 63,106 17,982 9,584 108,242 36,140 14,667 144,853 36,041 14,627 144,458 50,426 14,844 143,830 24,321 6,893 65,623 11 1,076 24,481 3 6,031 35,726 0 7,243 33,893 0 5,001 23,400 170,639 318,588 1,851,460 | |||
/ Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 31 of 32 TABLE 3.4 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 2 (thousands, 2014 dollars). | |||
Equipment | |||
& Contractor LLRW Year PG&E Labor Materials Labor Disposal Other Total 2025 41,550 2,169 5,902 1,365 3,459 54,446 2026 106,578 9,402 17,134 3,681 11,884 148,680 2027 45,846 4,247 1,823 531 8,035 60,482 2028 29,765 4,038 1,198 7 5,512 40,520 2029 29,683 4,027 1,194 7 5,497 40,410 2030 29,683 4,027 1,194 7 5,497 40,410 2031 29,683 4,027 1,194 7 5,497 40,410 2032 29,765 4,038 1,198 7 5,512 40,520 2033 29,683 4,027 1,194 7 5,497 40,410 2034 29,683 4,027 1,194 7 5,497 40,410 2035 21,225 2,727 777 6 5,626 30,361 2036 5,579 320 4 4 5,881 11,787 2037 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2038 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2039 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2040 5,579 320 4 4 5,881 11,787 2041 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2042 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2043 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2044 5,579 320 4 4 5,881 11,787 2045 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2046 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2047 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2048 5,579 320 4 4 5,881 11,787 2049 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2050 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2051 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2052 5,579 320 4 4 5,881 11,787 2053 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2054 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-78 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 32 of 32 TABLE 3.4 (continued) | |||
SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 2 (thousands, 2014 dollars) Year 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 PG&E Labor 5,564 5,579 5,564 5,564 5,564 5,579 5,564 2,006 22,352 31,504 40,483 40,040 28,047 18,373 5,501 4,283 2,957 Total I 763,457 TLG Services, Inc. Equipment | |||
& Contractor Materials Labor 319 4 320 4 319 4 319 4 319 4 320 4 319 4 319 4 4,799 16,381 13,382 29,759 20,301 39,540 20,085 39,650 14,248 42,615 7,665 41,126 60,188 103,406 76,008 120,736 52,477 83,358 324,526 550,674 2-AtchA-79 LLRW Disposal Other Total 4 5,865 11,755 4 5,881 11,787 4 5,865 11,755 4 5,865 11,755 4 5,865 11,755 4 5,881 11,787 4 5,865 11,755 4 1,323 3,655 18 4,428 47,978 16,245 9,724 100,614 , 32,382 14,885 147,591 32,725 14,823 147,324 42,032 13,152 140,094 19,470 6,810 93,444 3 7,246 176,344 0 8,853 209,880 0 6,112 144,904 148,606 307,474 2,094,736 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATE Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 1 of 6 The schedules for the decommissioning scenarios considered in this study follow the sequences presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study, with minor changes to reflect recent experience and site-specific constraints. | |||
In addition, the scheduling has been revised to reflect the spent fuel management plan described in Section 3.5.1. A schedule or sequence of activities for the DECON alternative from shutdown to ISFSI site restoration is presented in Figure 4.1. The scheduling sequence is based on the fuel being removed from the spent fuel pools within ten years. 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 combining others for convenience. | |||
The schedule was prepared using the "Microsoft Project Professional" computer softwareJ36J | |||
===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 table, 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: | |||
o The spent fuel pools are isolated until such time that all spent fuel has been discharged from the spent fuel pools to the DOE. Decontamination and dismantling of the storage pools is initiated once the transfer of spent fuel is complete (DECON option). o All work (except vessel and internals removal) is performed during an 8-hour workday, 5 days per week, with no overtime. | |||
e 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. o 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. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-80 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 2 of 6 o For plant systems removal, the systems with the longest removal durations in areas on the critical path are considered to determine the duration of the activity. | |||
===4.2 PROJECT=== | |||
SCHEDULE The period-dependent costs presented in the detailed cost tables are based upon the durations developed in the schedules for decommissioning. | |||
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. A second critical path is shown for the spent fuel storage period, which determines the release of the fuel handling area of the auxiliary building for final decontamination. | |||
*Project timelines are for the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios are provided in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 with milestone dates based on the 2024 and 2025 shutdown dates for Units 1 and 2, respectively. | |||
The fuel pools are emptied approximately ten years after shutdown, while ISFSI operations continue until the DOE can complete the transfer of assemblies to its geologic repository. | |||
Deferred decommissioning in the SAFSTOR scenarios is assumed to commence so that the physical dismantling takes place immediately after all spent fuel has been removed from the site. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-81 Diablo Can y on Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Anal y sis Document POl-1719-001 , R ev. 0 Sec t ion 4 , Pag e 3 of 6 FIGURE 4.1 ACTIVITY SCHEDULE -DECON _;_; Diablo C anyo n t:lli1 I Shutdo ... Oat* l P triod b Shutdon Throufh Traiuition Cemfitiie of permanu t ttmnon of opmtJnO! !Uhmitted | |||
-!...i F uel storage pool opennons 5 Dty fuel nongeopennons 6 R eco ali g u n plant J] P rep are amrity *pttlfiranons I P tr fo rm *it* chmcterizarion -PS D:IR 1 u bmitted 10 Writte n ttrti6cate of permane n t re moral of fuel submitted Ir Site 1pecifit de<O:nmmiozung ro.t emmm !ubmitted 11 DOC !ta fh 3obihud ll P eriod l b P r e p aralioM ...,.,...., Fuel sto n ge pool 0pt11tions ll R ecoaligur e p lan t (con t inued) If' l>ty fut! !tO!lg! OptllODlll lfi Prepare dt tailed nrk pro<tdum U Deco n:'i" --u-i L<ol&te iptn t fuel pool ""F' P eri od 21 Larfe Compont nt Rtmo v al F uel !t o11,ge pool openrions D ry fuelstonge opentions ll P repmtio n for rea<ro r msel re moral 'Ti Rea<r o r m!El & in t ernals lS Rel!lllllln g l&rge :'iSSS components dispo!lnon 7'* __.D :'i oo'f'-'E n rial !)'!!Elll! | |||
Main t utbin g enento r T Main conden.<er T !.irelL" t*rminatim> | |||
p1an !Ulimined | |||
...,.,...., 2 b D e con t llllin atlo n ( .. et fue l) ...!., F uel !tonge pool opennons D ry fu el !t onge ope11tiom n R*more S)"!l!Jll! | |||
no t suppornng | |||
.-!I fut! !tO!lg! Decon buildings DOI suppomng nt fu*l !IO!lfe Liotnse ttrmination plan 1ppt01*ed | |||
..:_, P eri od pent F uel D e l ay Prior t o S pen t F u e l P oo l D eco n ll F u*l uo r age poo l openrions | |||
"'i'1 D ry fu*l stonge openrions 2 d De co n taminatio n fo ll o.-in f wtt fue l Dty fut! Stong e opentions Re mow remaining sy!leJZll Deco n .-er fut! >tong* uu P triod 2e D ela y before wse termination II 0.lay b.fore littn.<e t tl'll!lllltio n 754 lo C anyon t: lli t 2 Shutdo.-n D a t e :l uguit 26 , | |||
___. P tri od la S hu i do n Throufh T raasltlon ll Cenifirate of permanen t tt<..!lhon of opelllwns | |||
!ubmmed F uel1 1 orag e pooloperarions l! Dty fue l sto11,ge ope11rions ll R.co ali gurt p lan t Si"" PNpare actirity specifications Iii Pt rf orm !ite chm<r*rizanon 551 PS DAR *mit t.d T Ce n ifitt t e of permuen1 ttmoral of fuel subnut fd SJ' it e *pe<ifit de<Olllml!!iontoJ | |||
'°"' tsttm11e *ubnnned T OOC!tlf!mobiliz.d TLG Services, Inc. | |||
* 11 * ----* * * | |||
* n * * * * * | |||
* I | |||
* r-i * ---2-AtchA-82 | |||
* * * | |||
* I | |||
* fl * | |||
* n | |||
* Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 4 of 6 FIGURE 4.1 (continued) | |||
ACTIVITY SCHEDULE -DECON lb DtcO!lllllissioninf P reparatiollS Fuel !iorage pool op!rttioll! | |||
6l Re<<>nfigure plant (continutd) T Drr fuel !lortgHpmtioM g-i Pttpare dttailed mrk De<<>nXs.§ | |||
-;;-; lsol.tte spent fuel pool 16 P eriod 2a l.arfe Compone n t Removal Fuel storage pool opentiolll Dry fuel !lortge opentions | |||
.!_, Pttpuanon for rmtor rt!..<tl rttnOl*al | |||
.!-, Reactor 1-.!..<tl S:: interoals 71 Remaining l.trgt XSSS romponents di..<po!tbon Xon .. s..<tntial 3J'lfm> ll lliin nuWie/genmto r 111 lliinrondell$tr w!ISf tennillatiGn pl.tn submmed 2b Det0ntamlnation ( .. et fuel) 71 Fuel !lOrtge pool opentioll! Drr fuel stortge operttioll! R em01-. system> oot su pponin g .-et fuel stortge -!-1 De<<>n buildings not supponin1 wet fuel !lortge Llten..<t tenmnation pl.tn appm-.d Period !c pent Fuel De by P rior to pent Fuel Poo!Det0n F utl storage pool openrio111 Dry fut! Stonge openboll! | |||
2d Unit! Det0ntamlnation FollowinfWtl Fuel Drr fuel ltorage opentioll! | |||
11 RemOl"f ttml!lllllg sr*tem> .!.i Dtrouet srorageam | |||
..!_, Period tlUntt 1and2 License Terminat i on Dry fuel l!Ortge opertlioll! | |||
flllllSiteSllrl"e; XRC m in* S:: ap p m"ll 9l Pan 00 litense t erminated 3 b Unit l and ! Site R estoration | |||
!I D ry fuel !lortgt operttioll! | |||
:!j Bwlding demolition!, baoifill and ludmping 91 l.tnd..<<1 . TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-83 n * * * * * | |||
* I -I --* liil | |||
* ri * | |||
* I Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 5 of 6 Unit 1 FIGURE 4.2 DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE (not to scale) (Shutdown November 2, 2024) ' ' Pool and ISFSI Operations ISFSI Operations Period 2 Period 3 Site Period 1 Transition and Preparations Decommissioning Restoration ISFSI Operations ISFSI D&D 11/2024 Unit 2 P2a I P2bl 09/2029 05/2030 05/ 2026 11/2036 Storage Pools Empty Unit 1 -11 / 2034 Unit 2 -08 / 2035 (Shutdown August 26, 2025) Period 2 Site 05 / 2039 12 I 2061 07 I 2062 Period 3 Period 1 Transition and Preparations Decommissioning Restoration ISFSI Operations ISFSI D&D P2a I P2b I 03/2030 02/2031 08 I 2025 02/ 2027 11I2036 05 / 2039 12 I 2061 07 I 2062 P2a represents the* sub-period during which the reactor, reactor internals, and other large NSSS components are removed. P2b represents the sub-period during which the remaining radioactive materials are removed (excluding wet spent fuel storage facilities). | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-84 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost AnalY,sis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 6 of 6 Unit 1 FIGURE 4.3 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE (not to scale) (Shutdown November 2, 2024) Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Delayed Period 5 Site Period 1 Transition and Preparations Dormancy Preparations Decommissioning Restoration 11I2024 05/ 2026 .. 01I2062 Unit 1 Pool Empty 11 I 2034 07 I 2063 Dry Spent Fuel Storage Unit 2 (Shutdown August 26, 2025) Period 1 Period 2 Transition and ISFSIEmpty 12 I 2061 Period 3 Delayed 03 I 2069 09 I 2071 Period 4 Period 5 Site Preparations Dormancy Preparations Decommissioning Restoration 08/ 2025 02 I 2027 TLG Services, Inc. 01I2063 Unit 2 Pool Empty 08 I 2035 2-AtchA-85 07 I 2064 03 I 2069 09 I 2071 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 1 of 7 5. RADIOACTIVEWASTES 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, [37] 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, Part 71 defines radioactive material as it pertains to transportation and Part 61 specifies its disposition. | |||
Most of the materials being transported for controlled Disposal are categorized as Low Specific Activity (LSA) or Surface Contaminated Object (SCO) materials | |||
\ containing Type A quantities, as defined in 49 CFR Parts 173-178. Shipping containers are required to be Industrial Packages (IP-1, IP-2 or IP-3, as defined in 10 CFR §173.411). | |||
For this study, commercially available steel containers are presumed to be used for the disposal of piping, small components, and limited quantities of concrete. | |||
Larger components can serve as their own containers, with proper closure of all openings, access ways, and penetrations. | |||
Material that is expected to meet requirements for transport in bulk, such as the majority of contaminated concrete, is disposed of without its' packaging. | |||
The waste material produced in the decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear plants is primarily generated during Period 2 of DE CON and Period 4 of SAFSTOR. The. volumes of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities at the site are shown on a line-item basis in Appendices C and D, and summarized in Tables 5.1 through 5.4. The quantified waste volume summaries shown in these tables are consistent with Part 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 and internals are categorized as large quantity shipments and, accordingly, will be shipped in reusable, shielded truck casks with disposable liners. In calculating disposal costs, the disposal fees are applied against the liner volume, as well as the special handling requirements of the payload. Packaging efficiencies can be lower for the highly activated materials (greater than Type A quantity waste), where high concentrations of gamma-emitting radionuclides limit the capacity of the shipping canisters. | |||
No process system containing/handling radioactive substances at shutdown is presumed to meet material release criteria by decay alone (i.e., systems radioactive at shutdown will still be radioactive over the time period during which the TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-86 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 2 of 7 decommissioning is accomplished, due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides). | |||
While the dose rates decrease with time, radionuclides such as 137Cs will still control the disposition requirements. | |||
Disposal costs are based on the following: | |||
Class A Waste For the purpose of this analysis, the EnergySolutions' facility is used as the disposal site for radioactive waste (Class A). The disposal costs for Class A low-level radioactive waste are based on current Diablo Canyon contracted rates between PG&E and EnergySolutions in year 2014 dollars. The resulting 2014 rates, using this approach, results in disposal costs of: o $304 per cubic foot for' Large Component waste (components disposed of essentially intact) o $277 per cubic for Containerized waste (components that are segmented and placed into steel shipping containers) o * $62 per cubic foot for "Bulk" waste (high density was such as contaminated concrete) 0 $39 per cubic foot for medium density "Bulk waste o $27 per cubic foot for low density waste (paper and plastics) o $62,188 per cask ($518 per cubic foot for a 120 cubic foot cask) for higher activity Class A waste requiring cask shipments (some resins and filters and some segments of the reactor and internals). | |||
Class B and C Waste For purposes of this analysis, the WCS Andrews County, TX facility is used as the disposal site for the higher activity radioactive waste (Class B and C). The disposal costs for Class B and C low-level radioactive waste are based on current Diablo Canyon contracted rates between PG&E and WCS in year 2014 dollars. The resulting 2014 rates, using this approach, results in a disposal costs of: o Class B non-irradiated hardware waste (including High Activity Fee) -The Class B non-irradiated hardware base rate is $2,885 per cubic foot. The high activity fee reflects a surcharge for waste with higher curie contents); | |||
after application of this surcharge the rate is $6,520 per cubic foot. o Class B irradiated hardware waste -$10,500 per cubic foot (the curie content of this waste is not considered large enough to warrant High Activity or Carbon-14 fees). TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-87 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 3 of 7 o Class C irradiated hardware waste -$10,500 per cubic foot (base rate). The high activity and Carbon-14 fees are a substantial contributor to cost increases above the base rate. The average rate for irradiated hardware with high activity and Carbon-14 fees included ranges from a low average of $19,335 per cubic foot (Unit 2 -SAFSTOR) to a high average of $23,561 per cubic foot (Unit 1 -DECON scenario). | |||
The average changes depending on the mass of the reactor internals (there are differences between Units 1and2), and the amount of radioactive decay c (SAFSTOR scenario is based on a greater amount of radioactive decay). GTCC Waste The volume and cost to dispose of GTCC material is developed using the following method: o A projection of the amount of electricity delivered from the station through the end of currently licensed life is calculated. | |||
Using a rate of 1 mill per kWhr (DOE standard contract rate) this is converted to a total spent fuel disposal cost for the station. * <> An estimate of the total weight of spent fuel generated through the end of currently licensed life is calculated . ., An average disposal cost for the spent fuel (per pound) is calculated by dividing the total spent fuel disposal cost the total spent fuel mass. This calculation results in the cost per pound used for disposal ($111 per pound). o This average disposal cost is applied against the total mass of GTCC material to estimate the GTCC disposal cost. o The reported disposal volume is calculated by assuming that GTCC waste is placed in a canister equivalent in size to a spent fuel canister (nominal 360 cubic feet, each) and loading these canisters with up to 23, 100 pounds of waste. The reported disposal mass is the mass of the GTCC material plus the mass of the spent fuel canister. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-88 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 5.1 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 4 of 7 DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
, UNIT 1 Waste Volume Weight Waste Cost Basis Class 1 1 1 (cubic feet) (pounds) . Low-Level Radioactive Energy Solutions Waste (near-surface Large Component A 101,249 8,511,621 disposal) | |||
Energy Solutions Containerized A 150,150 8,670,091 Energy Solutions Bulk A 322,760 32,275,569 Energy Solutions Medium Density A 8,960 397,906 Energy Solutions DAW A 13,117 262,341 Energy Solutions Class A Cask A 6,953 630,618 WCS (other than irradiated hardware) | |||
B 887 94,531 WCS (irradiated hardware) | |||
B 963 109,091 WCS (irradiated hardware) c 785 112,154 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel _(geologic repository) | |||
Equivalent GTCC* 1,649 330,307 Total 1 2 1 607,474 51,394,230 | |||
[l] Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55 [2] Columns may not add due to rounding. | |||
* GTCC unpackaged mass is 85,510 lbs. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-89 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 5.2 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 5 of 7 DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
, UNIT 2 Waste Volume Weight Waste Cost Basis Class [lJ (cubic feet) (pounds) L6w-Level Radioactive Energy Solutions Waste (near-surface Large Component A 101,249 8,492,999 disposal) | |||
Energy Solutions Containerized A 139,621 8,017,074 Energy Solutions Bulk A 329,078 32,907,367 Energy Solutions Medium Density A 11,761 517,442 Energy Solutions DAW A 14,857 297,133 Energy Solutions CiassA Cask A 7,031 635,327 WCS (other than irradiated hardware) | |||
B 887 94,531 WCS (irradiated hardware) | |||
B 963 109,091 WCS (irradiated hardware) c 393 52,080 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel (geologic repository) | |||
Equivalent GTCC* 1,649 330,307 Total [2 l 607,490 51,453,351 | |||
[1) Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55 [2) Columns may not add due to rounding. | |||
* GTCC unpackaged mass is 85,510 lbs. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-90 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 5.3 Document P01-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 6 of 7 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
, UNIT 1 Waste Volume Weight Waste Cost Basis Class [1 1 (cubic feet) (pounds) Low-Level Radioactive Energy Solutions Waste (near-surface Large Component A 106,396 8,987,727 disposal) | |||
Energy Solutions Containerized A 148,691 8,514,573 Energy Solutions Bulk A 322,095 32,209,011 Energy Solutions Medium Density A 8,960 397,906 Energy Solutions DAW A 15,511 310,219 Energy Solutions Class A Cask A 3,142 214,949 WCS (other than irradiated hardware) | |||
B --WCS (irradiated hardware) | |||
B 501 44,300 WCS (irradiated hardware) c 798 111,490 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel (geologic repository) | |||
Equivalent GTCC 1,649 330,307 Total [2 1 607,742 51,120,484 | |||
[l] Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55 [2] Columns may not add due to rounding. | |||
* GTCC unpackaged mass is 85,510 lbs. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-91 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 5.4 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 7 of 7 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE | |||
==SUMMARY== | |||
, UNIT 2 Waste Volume Weight Waste Cost Basis Class [IJ (cubic feet) (pounds) Low-Level Radioactive Energy Solutions Waste (near-surface Large Component A 106,396 8,987,727 disposal) | |||
Energy Solutions Containerized A 138,340 7,880,533 Energy Solutions Bulk A 326,832 32,682,782 Energy Solutions Medium Density A 11,761 517,442 Energy Solutions | |||
\ DAW 'A 15,913 318,268 Energy Solutions Class A Cask A 3,244 221,109 WCS (other than irradiated hardware) | |||
B --WCS (irradiated hardware) | |||
B 501 44,300 WCS (irradiated hardware) c 406 51,416 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel (geologic repository) | |||
Equivalent GTCC* 1;649 330,307 Total [2 1 605,044 51,033,885 | |||
[l] Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55 [2] Columns may not add due to rounding. | |||
* GTCC unpackaged mass is 85,510 lbs. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-92 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 6. RESULTS Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 1 of 7 The analysis to estimate the costs to decommission Diablo Canyon relied upon the site-specific, technical information extracted from the 2012 and previous estimates. | |||
This 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 incorpqrated where new information was available or experience from ongoing decommissioning programs provided viable alternatives or improved processes. | |||
While not an engineering study, the estimates provide PG&E with sufficient information to assess their 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, low-level radioactive waste disposal practices, high-level radioactive waste management options, and site restoration requirements. | |||
The decommissioning scenarios assume continued operation of the station's spent fuel pools for a minimum of ten years following the cessation of operations for continued cooling of the assemblies. | |||
The cost projected to promptly decommission (DECON) Diablo Canyon is estimated to be $3, 779.2 million. The majority of this cost (approximately 62.5%) is associated with the physical decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear plant so that the operating license can be terminated. | |||
Another 20.8% is associated with the management, interim storage, and eventual transfer of the spent fuel. The remaining 16.7% is for the demolition of the designated structures and limited restoration of the site. The cost projected for deferred decommissioning (SAFSTOR). | |||
is estimated to be $3,946.2 million. The majority of this cost (approximately 55.2%) is associated with placing the plant in storage, ongoing caretaking of the plant during dormancy, and the eventual physical decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear plant so that the operating license can 'be terminated. | |||
Another 28.8% is associated with the management, interim storage, and eventual transfer of the spent fuel. .The remaining 16.0% is for the demolition of the designated structures and limited restoration of the site. The primary cost contributors, identified in Tables 6.1 through 6.4, are either 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. The size and composition of the management organization varies with the decommissioning-phase TLG Services, Inc. . 2-AtchA-93 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 2 of 7 and associated site activities. | |||
However, once the operating licenses are terminated, the staff is substantially reduced for the conventional demolition and restoration of the site, and th'e long-term care of the spent fuel (for the DE CON alternative). | |||
As described in this report, the spent fuel pools will remain operational for a minimum of ten years following the cessation of operations. | |||
The pools will be isolated and independent spent fuel islands created. This will allow decommissioning operations to proceed in and around the pool areas. Over the ten-year period, the spent fuel will be packaged into multi-purpose canisters for transfer to the ISFSI. Spent fuel stored in the ISFSI is assumed to be transferred to the DOE in order to support license termination within 60 years of shut down. The cost for waste disposal includes those costs associated with the controlled disposition of the low-level 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, disposition of the majority of the low-level radioactive material requiring controlled disposal is at the Energy Solutions' facility. | |||
Highly activated. | |||
components, requiring additional isolation from the environment (GTCC), are packaged for geologic disposal. | |||
The cost of geologic disposal is based upon a cost equivalent for spent fuel. Decontamination and removal* costs reflect the labor-intensive nature of the decommissioning process, as well as the management controls requj.red to ensure a safe and successful program. Non-radiological demolition is a natural extension of the decommissioning process. 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 operating license. Prompt demolition reduces future liabilities and can be more cost effective than deferral, due to the deterioration of the facilities (and therefore the working conditions) with time. 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. For purposes of this analysis, low-level radioactive waste is primarily moved via public highway by truck. Bulk shipments of decommissioned materials are moved by a combination of truck and railway. Decontamination is used to reduce the plant's radiation fields and minimize worker exposure. | |||
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 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-94 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 3 of 7 specified by the NRC. 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 ofany 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. 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. | |||
While site operating costs are greatly reduced following the final cessation of plant operations, certain administrative functions do need to be maintained either at a basic functional or regulatory level. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-95 Diablo Canyon Ppwer Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 6.1 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 4 of 7 DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS, UNIT 1 (thousands of 2014 dollars) Cost Element Total Percentage Decontamination 18,214 1.1 Removal . 141,218 8.4 Packaging 33,435 2.0 Transportation 31,679 1.9 Waste Disposal 199;331 11.9 Program Management | |||
[IJ 473,419 28.2 Security 338,910 20.2 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 26,314 1.6 Spent Fuel Management | |||
[2 l 213,527 12.7 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 36,956 2.2 Energy 32,071 1.9 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 33,875 2.0 Property Taxes 7,658 0.5 Severance 84,005 5.0 Miscellaneous Equipment 8,421 0.5 Total [3 l 1,679,030 100.0 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 1,190,754 70.9 Spent Fuel Management 389,775 23.2 Site Restoration 98,501 5.9 Total [3J 1,679,030 100.0 r11 Includes engineering costs f 2 l Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer costs/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [31 Columns may n,ot add due to rounding | |||
* TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-96 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 6.2 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 5 of 7 DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS, UNIT 2 (thousands of 2014 dollars) Cost Element Total Percentage Decontamination 21,549 1.0 Removal 319,210 15.2 Packaging 32,500 1.5 Transportation 294,378 14.0 Waste Disposal 178,340 8.5 Program Management | |||
[IJ 491,299 23.4 Security 348,555 16.6 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 17,577 0.8 Spent Fuel Management | |||
[2J 193, 784 9.2 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 32,862 1.6 Energy 31,910 1.5 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 37,509 1.8 Property Taxes 7,503 0.4 Severance 84,169 4.0 Miscellaneous Equipment 9,026 0.4 Total [3J 2,100,172 100.0 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 1,172,913 55.8 Spent Fuel Management 395,217 18.8 Site Restoration 532,042 25.3 Total l 3 J 2,100,172 100.0 111 Includes engineering costs 1 2 1 Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer costs/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [3J Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-97 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 6.3 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 6 of 7 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS, UNIT 1 (thousands of 2014 dollars) Cost Element Total Percentage Decontamination 14,403 0.8 Removal 143,288 7.7 Packaging 23,554 1.3 Transportation 29,063 1.6 Waste Disposal 182,273 9.8 Program Management | |||
[IJ 604,377 32.6 Security 377,878 20.4 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 26,459 1.4 Spent Fuel Management | |||
[2] 214,610 11.6 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 53,180 2.9 Energy 37,842 2.0 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 34,831 1.9 Property Taxes 9,548 0.5 Severance 84,470 4.6 MiscellaneouS" Equipment 15,685 0.8 Total [3 l 1,851,460 | |||
* 100.0 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 1,128,923 ( 61.0 Spent Fuel Management 623,759 33.7 Site Restoration 98,778 5.3 Total [3] 1,851,460 100.0 [1J Includes engineering costs [2J Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer costs/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [3] Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-98 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 6.4 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 7 of 7 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS, UNIT 2 (thousands of 2014 dollars) Cost Element Total Percentage Decontamination 21,401 1.0 Removal 319,891 15.3 Packaging 22,581 1.1 Transportation 292,279 14.0 Waste Disposal 160,224 7.6 Program Management | |||
[IJ 439,612 21.0 Security 386,029 18.4 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 17,615 0.8 Spent Fuel Management | |||
[2J 194,121 9.3 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 50,493 2.4 Energy 37, 721 1.8 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 42,625 2.0 Property Taxes 9,373 0.4 Severance 84,353 4.0 Miscellaneous Equipment 16,419 0.8 Total [3J 2,094,736 100.0 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 1,048,860 50.1 Spent Fuel Management 512,851 24.5 Site Restoration 533,025 25.4 *Total [3J 2,094,736 100.0 [ll Includes engineering costs [2 1 Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer costs/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [3J Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-99 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 7. REFERENCES Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 1 of 4 1. "Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant," Document POl-1648-001, TLG Services, Inc., December 2012. 2. 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, 53 Fed. Reg. 24018, June 27, 1988. 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.159, "Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors," Rev. 2, October 2011. 4. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination." 5. | |||
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 20 and 50, "Entombment Options for Power Reactors," Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 66 Fed. Reg. 52551, October 16, 2001. 6. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 2, 50 and 51, "Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 61 Fed. Reg. 39278, July 29, 1996. 7. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72, "Decommissioning Planning," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 76, (p 35512 et seq.), June 17, 2011. 8. "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982," 42 U.S. Code 10101, et seq. | |||
: 9. Charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, "Objectives and Scope of Activities" http://www.brc.gov/index.php?q=page/charter | |||
: 10. "Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy," http://www.brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc finalreport jan2012.pdf, p. 27, 32, January 2012. 11. "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and Level Radioactive Waste," U.S. DOE, January 11, 2013. 12. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Of Columbia Circuit, In Re: Aiken County, et al, Aug. 2013, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/BAEOCF34F762EBD9852 57BC6004DEB18/$file/11-1271-1451347.pdf TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-100 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 7. REFERENCES (continued) | |||
Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 2 of 4 13. In 2008, the DOE issued a report to Congress in which it concluded that it did not have authority, under present law, to accept spent nuclear fuel for interim storage from decommissioned commercial nuclear power reactor sites. However, the Blue Ribbon Commission, in its final report, noted that: "[A]ccepting spent fuel according to the OFF [Oldest Fuel First] priority ranking instead of giving priority to shutdown reactor sites could greatly reduce the cost savings that could be achieved through consolidated storage if priority could be given to accepting spent fuel from shutdown reactor sites before accepting fuel from still-operating plants ..... The magnitude of the cost savings that could be achieved by giving priority to shutdown sites appears to be large enough (i.e., in the billions of dollars) to warrant DOE exercising its right under the Standard Contract to move this fuel first." For planning purposes only, this estimate does not assume that Vogtle, as a permanently shutdown plant, will receive priority; the fuel removal schedule assumed in this estimate is based upon DOE acceptance of fuel according to the "Oldest Fuel First" priority ranking. The plant owner will seek the most expeditious means of removing fuel from the site when DOE commences performance. | |||
: 14. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Subpart 54 (bb), "Conditions of Licenses." 15. "Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act," Public Law 96-573, 1980. 16. "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, | |||
* 1986. 17. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61.55 "Waste Classification." 18. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "Final Rule, Radiological Criteria for License Termination," 62 Fed. Reg. 39058, July 21, 1997. 19. "Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination," EPA Memorandum OSWER No. 9200.4-18, August 22, 1997. 20. 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." TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-1 01 I I Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 3 of 4 7. REFERENCES (continued) | |||
: 21. "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. 22. "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)," NUREG/CR-1575, Rev. 1, EPA 402-R-97-016, Rev. 1, August 2000. 23. Governor State of California, Executive Order D-62-02, Moratorium on the Disposal of Decommissioned Materials. | |||
: 24. T.S. LaGuardia,et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986. 25. W.J. Manion and T.S. LaGuardia, "Decommissioning Handbook," U.S. 26. 27. 28. '* 29. 30. 31. 32. Department of Energy, DOE/EV/10128-1, November 1980. "Building Construction Cost Data 2014," Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Kingston, Massachusetts. | |||
Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, p. 239, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, 1984. "Technical Position Paper for Establishing an Appropriate Contingency Factor for Inclusion in the Decommissioning Revenue Requirements", Study Number: DECON-POS-H002, Revision A, Status: Preliminary (provided by PG&E). U.S. Department of Transportation, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, "Transportation," Parts 173 through 178. Tri-State Motor Transit Company, published tariffs, Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), Docket No. MC-427719 Rules Tariff, March 2004, Radioactive Materials Tariff, August 2011. :J.C. Evans et al., "Long-Lived Activation Products in Reactor Materials" NUREG/CR-34 7 4, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 1984 . . 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. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-102 ) \ | |||
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 7. REFERENCES (continued) | |||
Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 4 of 4 33. 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. 34. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, Site Specific Decommissioning Cost Estimate, submitted to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory . Commission on September 23, 2014 (NRC ADAMS -ML14269A034). | |||
: 35. "Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors," 10 CFR Parts 50 and 140, Proposed Rule, 62 Fed. Reg. 58690, October 30, 1997. 36. "Microsoft Project Professional 2013," Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA. 37. "Atomic Energy Act of 1954," (68 Stat. 919). TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-103 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis APPENDIX A Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix A, Page 1 of 4 UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-104 | |||
\ .. __J Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 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 processmg area. 2. CALCULATIONS Act Activity ID Description Activity Duration (minutes) a Remove insulation b Moµnt pipe cutters c Install contamination controls d Disconnect inlet and outlet lines e Cap openings f Rig for removal g Unbolt from mounts h Remove contamination controls 1 Remove, wrap, send to waste processing area Totals (Activity/Critical) | |||
Duration adjustment(s): | |||
+ Respiratory protection (50% of critical duration) | |||
+ Radiation/ALARA adjustment (37.1% of critical duration) | |||
Adjusted work duration + Protective clothing adjustment (30% of adjusted duration) | |||
Productive work duration + Work break adjustment (8.33 % of productive duration) | |||
Total work duration (minutes) | |||
***Total duration::::: | |||
11.217 hr*** 60 60 20 60 20 30 30 15 60 355 | |||
* alpha designators indicate activities that can be performed in parallel TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-105 Critical Duration (minutes)* (b) 60 (b) 60 (d) 30 30 15 _fil! 255 128 95 478 143 621 673 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 3. | |||
* LABOR REQUIRED Crew Laborers Craftsmen Foreman General Foreman Fire Watch Health Physics Technician Total Labor Cost APPENDIX A (continued) | |||
Number 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.25 0.05 1.00 Duration (hours) 11.217 11.217 11.217 11.217 11.217 11.217 4. EQUIPMENT | |||
& CONSUMABLES COSTS Equipment Costs Consumables/Materials Costs -Universal Sorbent 50@ $0.63 sq. ft. *{1} Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix A,, Page 3 of 4 Rate ($/hr) $58.50 *$73.82 $77.97 $82.70 $58.50 $80.71 Cost $1,968.58 | |||
$1,656.08 | |||
$874.59 $231.91 $32.81 1$905.32 $5,669.29 none -Tarpaulins (7.5 mils, oil resistant, fire retardant) 50@ $0.28/sq. | |||
ft. {2} $31.50 $14.00 $19.89 -Gas torch consumables 1@ $19.89/hr. x 1 hr. {3} Subtotal cost of equipment and materials Overhead & profit on equipment and materials | |||
@ 17 .25 % Total costs, equipment | |||
& material TOTAL COST: Removal of contaminated heat exchanger | |||
<3000 pounds: Total labor cost: Total equipment/material costs: Total craft labor man-hours required per unit: TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-106 | |||
$65.39 $11.28 $76.67 $5,745.96 | |||
$5,669.29 | |||
$76.67 81.88 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 5. NOTES AND REFERENCES Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix A, Page 4 of 4 o 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. o References for equipment | |||
& consumables costs: 1. www.mcmaster.com online catalog, McMaster Carr Spill Control (7193T88) | |||
: 2. R.S. Means (2011) Division 01 56, Section 13.60-0600, page 20 3. R.S. Means (2011) Division 015433, Section 40-6360, page 664 o Material and consumable costs were adjusted using the regional indices for San Luis Obispo, California. | |||
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-107 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis APPENDIXB Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 1 of 7 UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (DECON: Power Block Structures Only) TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-108 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 2 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Removal of clean instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe > 14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean valve >2 to 4 inches Removal of clean valve >4 to 8 inches Removal of clean valve >8 to 14 inches Removal of clean valve > 14 to 20 inches Removal of clean valve >20 to 36 inches Removal of clean valve >36 inches Removal of clean pipe hanger for small bore piping Removal of clean pipe hanger for large bore piping Removal of clean pump, <300 pound Removal of clean pump, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean pump, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean pump, > 10,000 pound Removal of clean pump motor; 300-1000 pound Removal of clean pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean pump motor, >10,000 pound Removal of clean heat exchanger | |||
<3000 pound Removal of clean heat exchanger | |||
>3000 pound Removal of clean feedwater heater/deaerator Removal of clean moisture separator/reheater Removal of clean tank, <300 gallons Removal of clean tank, 300-3000 gallon Removal of clean tank, >3000 gallons, $/square foot surface area TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-1 09 Cost/Unit($) | |||
0.64 6.83 9.71 18.80 36.38 47.32 69.62 82.71 125.09 187.99 363.81 473.25 696.24 827.12 43.11 153.78 317.69 876.55 3,467.44 6,708.09 366.40 1,440.67 3,241.51 1,863.57 4,694.16 13,221.06 27,164.50 408.58 1,287.26 10.76 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 3 of 7 APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Unit Cost Factor Removal of clean electrical equipment, <300 pound Removal of clean electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean electrical equipment, > 10,000 pound Removal of clean electrical transformer | |||
< 30 tons Removal of clean electrical transformer | |||
> 30 tons Removal of clean standby diesel generator, <100 kW Removal of clean standby diesel generator, 100 kW to 1 MW Removal of clean standby diesel generator, > 1 MW Removal of clean electriGal cable tray, $/linear foot Removal of clean electrical conduit, $/linear foot Removal of clean mechanical equipment, <300 pound Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean mechanical equipment, > 10,000 I Removal of clean HV AC equipment, <300 pound Removal of clean HV AC equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean HV AC equipment, > 10,000 pound Removal of clean HV AC ductwork, $/pound Removal of contaminated instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $,/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe > 14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated valve >2 to 4 inches Removal of contaminated valve >4 to 8 inche's TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-110 Cost/Unit($) | |||
172.18 596.53 1,193.05 2,833.62 1,967.92 5,667.24 2,010.05 4,486.57 9,288.11 16.19 7.07 172.18 596.53 1,193.05 2,833.62 208.20 716.77 1,428.53 2,833.62 0.67 2.12 27.60 48.06 76.99 151.04 182.02 252.93 299.41 596.47 713.66 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 4 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Removal of contaminated valve >8 to 14 inches Removal of contaminated valve > 14 to 20 inches Removal of contaminated valve >20 to 36 inches Removal of contaminated valve >36 inches Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for small bore piping Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for large bore piping Removal of contaminated pump, <300 pound Removal of contaminated pump, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated pump, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated pump, > 10,000 pound Removal of contaminated pump motor, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated pump motor, > 10,000 pound Removal of contaminated heat exchanger | |||
<3000 pound Removal of contaminated heat exchanger | |||
>3000 pound Removal of contaminated tank, <300 gallons Removal of contaminated tank, >300 gallons, $/square foot Removal of contammated electrical equipment, <300 pound Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, > 10,000 pound Removal of contaminated electrical cable tray, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated electrical conduit, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, <300 pound Removal of contaminated mechanical' equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, > 10,000 pound Removal of contaminated HV AC equipment, <300 pound Removal of contaminated HV AC equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated HV AC equipment, 1000-10, 000 pound TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-111 Cost/Unit($) | |||
1,457.10 1,855.89 2,475.96 2,940.80 196.57 627.04 1,271.73 2,912.20 9,419.98 22,949.80 1,224.80 3,820.36 8,577.08 5,745.96 16,620.69 2,109.59 41.10 992.28 2,374.42 4,571.64 8,896.21 47.99 22.33 1,104.56 2,624.64 5,045.24 8,896.21 1,104.56 2,624.64 5,045.24 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 5 of 7 APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($) | |||
Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, > 10,000 pound Removal of contaminated HVAC ductwork, $/pound Removal/plasma arc cut of contaminated thin metal components, $/linear in. Additional decontamination of surface by washing, $/square foot Additional decontamination of surfaces by hydrolasing, $/square foot Decontamination rig hook up and flush, $/ 250 foot length Chemical flush of components/systems, $/gallon Removal of clean standard reinforced concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of grade slab concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard Removal of sections of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard Reniova:l of contaminated.heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar & steel embedments, $/cubic yard Removal of below-grade suspended floors, $/cubic yard Removal of clean monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard Removal of clean foundation concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated foundation concrete, $/cubic yard Explosive demolition of bulk concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of clean hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Removal of clean solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard | |||
* I Removal of contaminated solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Backfill of below-grade voids, $/cubic yard Removal of subterranean tunnels/voids, $/linear foot Placement of concrete for below-grade voids, $/cubic yard Excavation of clean material, $/cubic yard TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-112 8,896.21 2.88 5.18 10.82 46.25 9,363.44 20.36 176.00 236.02 458.27 1,369.56 294.72 2,746.44 372.62 3,635.61 567.86 458.27 1,148.84 2,741.24 902.94 2,553.97 39.04 127.04 450.03 127.04 450.03 36.27 146.14 139.00 3.78 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 6 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Excavation of contaminated material, $/cubic yard Removal of clean concrete rubble (tipping fee included), $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated concrete rubble, $/cubic yard Removal of building by volume, $/cubic foot Removal of clean building metal siding, $/square foot Removal of contaminated building metal siding, $/square foot Removal of standard asphalt roofing, $/square foot Removal of transite panels, $/square foot Scarifying contaminated concrete surfaces (drill & spall), $/square foot Scabbling contaminated concrete floors, $/square foot Scabbling contaminated concrete walls, $/square foot Scabbling contaminated ceilings, $/square foot Scabbling structural steel, $/square foot Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail< | |||
10 ton capacity Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail< | |||
10 ton capacity Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail> | |||
10-50 ton capacity Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail> | |||
10-50 ton capacity Removal of polar crane > 50 ton capacity Removal of gantry crane > 50 ton capacity Removal of structural steel, $/pound Removal of clean steel floor grating, $/square foot Removal of contaminated steel floor grating, $/square foot Removal of clean free standing steel liner, $/square foot Removal of contaminated free standing steel liner, $/square foot Removal of clean concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot Removal of contaminated concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot Placement of scaffolding in clean areas, $/square foot Placement of scaffolding in contaminated areas, $/square foot Landscaping with topsoil, $/acre Cost of CPC B-88 LSA box & preparation for use TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-113 Cost/Unit($) | |||
52.86 28.80 33.74 0.38 1.69 6.08 2.99 2.70 16.23 10.18 27.24 93.82 8.28 830.25 2,454.05 1,992.60 5,888.73 8,320.63 35,420.29 0.26 5.97 17.93 16.14 48.13 8.07 56.11 17.60 31.95 26,800.29 2,212.44 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 7 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Cost of CPC B-25 LSA box & preparatfon 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 ofLSA drum & preparation for use Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8 120A cask (resins) Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8 120A cask (filters) | |||
Decontamination of surfaces with vacuuming, $/square foot TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-114 Cost/Unit($) | |||
2,025.85 1,655.88 11,184.40 230.65 13,296.62 9,629.75 1.02 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis APPENDIXC Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 1 of 21 DETAILED COST ANALYSIS DE CON Tables C-1 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1 ................................................................... | |||
2 C-2 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 2 ................................................................. | |||
12 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-115 l\J :T 1> O> Diablo Canyon Power Pla11t Deconuninfoninz Co*t AnalJ"*i* | |||
Activity Jude.. Actlvlt ' OHC:rl tlon PERIOD h-Sh utd own t h rouib Tr1u11ltlon Period la Direcc DecommiM.io oin g Acch*iti e* l a.I.I Prepare prelimi nary deoommi&l!ioning coel l a.1.2 Notification o r Ceesalion o r O pe r atiODI la.US kf: mov e (u c ( & IO U l'Ce mater ia l ln.1.4 Noc m ention or Pennaoent Ocfuelinp: | |||
la.1.5 De3e li\*n te plant. systems & JlroeefM Ja.l.6 Prepare and s ubmi t PSDAR l u.1.7 Re\*iew plant. dw gs & 11pecs. lo.1.8 Perb n1 detailed rad surw i y la.1.0 E:11timm.c b y-produ ct inn!ul ory ltd.1 0 Eud product description I n.I.II Dclailcdby-µroduct im*e 11tory ln.1.12 Define nlajorwurk sc queoce la.1.1 3 Pe r form SER mu\ EA In.I.I<! Perfonn Site.Specific Col!l Study ln.1.1 5 Prepnre/s ubmit Li cense TenniMtkln Plan la.l.I G Receh*e NRC approvnl c.r t.e nrun11 tion plan Activity Specifications la.1.17.1 Pl11nl &tem1>0rnryfacilities ln.1.1 7.2 Planl"]'Mem11 111.1.1 7.3 NSSB Deco ntamin a tion Flu1h 111.1.17.4 React: c.r interna l s la.1.1 7.i.i Reacic.r\'Cll8e) ln.l.17.6 Biological i.-b il!l d l a.1.1 7.7 Steam generaton l a.1.17.8 Rei n kin:ed COO('re l e ln.1.1 7.\f la. 1.1 7.10 Co n de n!9C'rs la.1.17.11Plant1tructuro1&bui l ding' la.1.17.1 2 Wa 1te maoag (>m e ot la. I. 17.1 3 l'ao.."ilit.y | |||
& s i1 e clueoou l 111.1.1 7 T of1.1 l P l trnning & Site PrepRrations In.I.I S Prep:tre dismnntHn g l!CQUe n ce Jn.l.IO P lant. prep. & t emp. B\'OOl'I l a.l.20 De11ign wet.er dean-up sy1W m la.1.2 1 Rigg:i n gf{))nf.. | |||
Cntr l Emlp1/tooling/e1c. lu.1.22 Procure ensksllinen | |||
& co ntnin ers la.I S ubt oht l Per i od l o Adivit.y Cott i.I Period la Addilio11n l Cost.& I R.2.1 Sµe n L Fuel P1X.1l l eolntio11 l a.2.2 Disp!'.188 1 o f Conta m inated Toole & | |||
J a.2 Subtotal Period la Additional C<.8 1.!! Period l a Co U alera l Coel8 l a.3.1 J-:uviron m e n t.nl Perm ii.. a nd F ee1 l a.3.2 GTCC Swagc Pennittilll'. (PG&E L.abo r 1 1 a3.3 GTOC Slol'age Permitting (Contractor) l a.3 Sub!ulnl P eriod la Coll11te r n l C-osts TLG &1*vicn, Inc. Off-Site Remov11l P11ck11.inc TrRDsport Pro<'eulnc C..t c. .. Costs Co1t1 c. ... 211) 1 03 219 1 03 Tab l e C-1 Diab l o Canyo n Unit 1 DECON D eco mmi ssio nin g Cost Esti mat e (T h o u san d s of20 1 4 Do ll a r s) LLRW NRC Disposal Other Total Tot11l Uc.Tenn. eo. .. Cotls Conlin enc Coit! eo. .. 202 43 2*1 6 240 . n/o . 3!0 67 377 3 77 71 3 163 8(16 '"" " IM "" 188 1'8 1 56 "" 1 88 1'8 202 1 3 2 1 5 245 1 , 1 63 200 1.4 1 2 1.412 481 103 58* 584 77 5 I GG £M2 042 630 136 771 771 763 164 027 83< .... 1 39 ,.. 708 78 17 9, 1 .. 1 , 101 2 36 1 ,33 7 1 ,33 7 1 , 008 216 1 , 224 1 , 224 78 17 94 9 4 *18' 104 ... ... 248 63 ilO I 15 1 62 13 " 62 1 3 " 484 1 04 ... 294 713 1 63 1166 866 1 40 30 169 86 5 , 860 1 , 209 7 , 1 24 6 , 273 372 80 4 62 452 3, 000 6 44 3 ,6*14 3,644 217 *17 264 ''"' 2 , 300 *If.I-I 2.794 2.794 1 9 1 *II 232 232 IG.730 3, 602 20.3 28 J9 ,.f77 21 , 00-4 *.GOO 26.3 14 26 ,3 14 2 , 835 1 , 068 4 , 225 4 , 225 2 , 835 2 1 , 664 5 , 718 '°*""" 36 , 538 9*9 ''" 1 , 1[)3 1 , 1 53 3.200 700 3, 996 3,996 5!0 1 00 01 9 619 4 , i40 1 ,01 9 5,769 5 , 769 Spent Fuel Site Processed Burhi.l Vo lum es M11n111ement Restor11tlon Volume C h utA C IH sB C IHs C Costs c. ... C u. F ee l C u.Feet Cu. Feet C\1. Feet 03 78 1 61 " " 21J.I " 861 861 l(*, 245 10.2'5 GTCC Cu. Ff!f!t Document PDl-17 1 9-00 1 , Re v. 0 Appendix C, Pa/le :!of 21 Burial/ UtUity11ad ProcHsed Curt Con h*11c t or Wt., Lbs. M1111houn M*nhoun I.JOO 2.000 4 , 600 l , OfA.1 1 , 000 1 , 300 7.600 3.1 00 oOOO 4.000 4 , 920 4 , 167 500 7 , 1 00 11,500 500 3 , 12U 1 , 600 400 400 3 , 120 4 , 600 000 37 , 827 2,400 1 , 400 t280 n.15a G24.9 45 3 17 C1 2UU5 3 17 N :T :p--.J Diablo Ctm,Yort Power Plant Decommiuionin1 Co*t Anal>**ia Activity In des Actlvt t De sc rl tl on Period la Period-Df'pendent. | |||
Goe l:& l a.4.1 ln e ur a n ce J a.4.2 Prop N 1yta:o;-e8 l a.4.3 H et1 lth1>bys kf!eupplie s l t1.4.4 H eavy e qu i pm ent 1tnlal l a . .Ui o f D A W gene ra ted ln..&.G Pl a nt. e n e r gy budget la .. 1.7 NRC la..&.8 E mergem .. 'Y Pleoning Fees l a.4.9 Spent Fuel P oo l O&M l a.UO I SFS I Ope r ating Coe!h l a.4.11 $e\*e ran oo Related Cos t.& l a.4.12 Sta lT Coal l a.4.1 3 Utilit}' SUilT Co&t l a.4 S ubt ota l Per i od I a P e ri od-Depe nd e nt Col:ltl!! | |||
la.O TO TAL PERIOD la COST PERIOD lb -D eeo mmi11i on lnr PrepuaUons P e riod l b Direct Dea.mmis11iouing Ac linli e.'1 Detaifo d W o rk P roce dure* l b.I.LI Plant l!!YS l t" W S l b.1.1.2 N SSS Deconl.a minali o o F lu e h l b.1.1.3 Reactor in le rnal it lb.l.1.4 Re:ma i ningbui l dinge Jb.1.1.6 CRD coo l ing alll!t'mb l y l b.1.1.6 CR D h o usin gs & I C I tube11 l b.1.1.7 l.11 curei n 11 1rum e nl.a 1i o n lb.1.1.8 Reacto rv ef!61!.I lb.l.1.9 FacilityclO@IOOut lb.J.1.10 t.li ll.'l il e11 hi e ld s lb.I.I.II Bio l ogic11\sb)e ld lb.J.J.12 St e am gcn e r a t o n lb.1.1.13 Re infore e J concrete lh.1.1.M t.l ainTurbine ib.1.1.IO Uain Co nden aen Jb.1.1.1 6 Aux ili i.ry building Jb.i.1.1 7 Reacto r buildin g lb.LI T ot al l b.1.2 Deco n primal')' l oo p lb.I Subtot a l Pe ri od lb Ad.iv i ty Cost.ii Period lb .i\ddi tio na l Coete l b.2.1 Site C h arncte riwti o n l b.2.2 H aza r dous Wa s te M.anagemenl l h.2.3 Mi!Le d Wast e ;\lanag eme nt lb.2 S ublolal Period lb Additional Cc.P ts Period l b U.llat era l Coe 1 .. l b.3.1 Deoon equipn1enl lb.3.2 DOC etaffrelocation expenses l h.3.3 Proce11e decom mi ssio nin g water W[l9te Jh.3.4 Prooeu deeon1 mis eio ning che mi ca l flu s h w aste lb.3.5 Sm alt t no l 1dlowarn:e lb.3.6 P ipe cu l ting equipme n t. lb.3.7 Decon ri g lb.3.8 Envinmmeota l Per mi t..s a nd Foo s Jb.3.9 G T CC St oroge P e rmill ing L abo r) Jb.3.J O GTCC S t o r11 ge Pennitting (Contracto r) lb.3 S u b t ot al Pf'riod lb Co llat e ral C-Oll l s TLG &,.vicn , lnc. Off-Site D eeo n Rem o val P ackagi ng Tl"an.'lport ProceHln r eo .. Coot Co.'11.'J Co1t s Co.'Jt9 G26 607 I.I 1 , 003 " 1 , 093 2 33 1 07 797 797 942 <6 32 &I 2 94 25 1 J , 1 00 1 , 6"0 2 ,6 90 1 , 10 3 127 306 Table C-1 Diablo Canyo n Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) LLRW NBC 01.'Jposlll Ot h e r Toh.I Tota l Lie.Term. Costs Co.'Jh Co 11th1 e nc Costs eo. .. 1 , 1 32 1 62 1 , 29 4 1 , 294 17 7 25 203 203 , .. 7 14 714 122 689 """ 16 4 3 13 2 , 7 3 7 087 3,32 4 3,32 4 1 , 1 8 1 , . .,, 1 ,300 1,300 1 , 00 1 14 3 1 , 1.J 5 792 170 003 5 47 117 6"4 4 1 , 741 8 , 960 50 , 701 50 , 701 22.783 4.800 27 , 6 7 3 27.673 37.3 70 8.022 45 , 392 4 5,392 JG 1 00 , 462 23 , 565 1 3 4 , 153 1 3 1.382 2 , 85 1 l ii2 , 6 1 0 33,895 1 90 , 7 88 18 7 , 1 00 7 34 1 68 891 802 1 50 33 1 88 188 388 83 4 71 471 209 45 25 4 6 4 1 5G 33 1 88 188 1 05 33 1 88 188 1 56 33 188 1 88 003 1 21 .... 084 1 86 4 0 226 11 3 70 15 85 "" 1 86 4 0 226 226 71 3 1 53 86G 8G6 1 5G 33 188 94 2,12 52 294 242 52 2\H 423 9 1 514 '"" 423 91 51 4 463 6 , 1 54 1.1 00 6.26 1 5.083 570 1 , 367 1 , 36 7 5.1 54 1 , 67 7 7 , 628 6 , 4i>l 5 , 234 2.2 47 7 , 48 1 7 ,.J81 217 47 264 264 287 62 349 349 5,738 2.35 6 8.003 8.003 2 02 1 , 144 l,U4 l ,*1 65 3 15 1 ,780 1 , 780 1 51 1 03 386 386 5 , i83 2 , 138 8 , 269 8,200 1 3 ""' 1 , 336 1 , 336 3*1 3 1 ,9 4 3 1 ,9 4 8 47 1 IO I 672 5 72 2 21 47 269 269 51 3 11 0 623 623 5 ,98 4 2 , 6 7 0 3,59 7 1 6,326 16 ,326 Spent Fue l Sit e ProceHed BuriR I VolumH M11narement Restoration Volume Cla.'l.'IA C lusB c 1.,, c Costs eo ... Cu.Feet C u. F ee t Cu. Fe e t C u. F e et G IO 1.1.1 5 963 """ 2 , 771 610 2.771 85 1 1 0.855 8 9 191 11 3 94 294 '°' 51 51 1 , 177 1.177 291 88 7 29 1 887 GT CC C u. Fe et D oc ument PO l-17l!J..OO I , R ev. 0 Appendix C , Pa1e 3 of 21 Buri*I/ Utility and Proce.'l.'led C raft Contra c tor Wt. Lbs. M*nhoun Manhoun 1 2,190 20 302 , 008 4 2 3 , 400 1 2.1 00 20 726 , 308 G37 , 1 30 33 7 800.06 1 4 , 7 33 1 , 000 2,500 1 ,300 1 , 000 1 , 000 1 , 000 3,630 1 , 200 400 1 ,200 4 ,000 1 ,000 1 , 560 1 , 5GO 2 , 730 2 , 730 33.2 4 3 1 , 067 1.067 33 , 243 2G , OOO 9.412 25.000 0, 41 2 17 , 471 57 9-1 ,63 1 1 66 112 , 002 223 N :l> 0 ::::r '.!: CX> Oioblo Con,10n P ower Plant D ec:on m1W io nin1 Cost A nul y*i* Activity lud u: Actlvlt De sc rl >tlon Pe rkxt lb J>eriod.()ppeodeot Coeu 1 lb.4.1 Decun 1 uppl ies lb.4.2 l n*W"*ntt lb.<1.3 l'roperty t 11u1 lb.<1.4 Hellitb pbyak:. auppliM tb.4.6 H el'IY}' eq u ipment renla l ib.4.G Di1pou l oC DA\\' gene r ated lb . .&.7 Plant ene r gr bu*t ib.4.8 NRC F'eet 1b.rn Emergency Ph111ning Fl-ea l h.4.10 Spe nt Fu el Pool O&J.1 lb.<1.11 t srn r Ope rali11 g Cos t s lb.ol.12 Sern r anc:t: Related Coat1 l b.4.1 3 Secu r ity Ste fT Gi.t l b.4 1-4 DOCSt.a fT Coiit l b.4.16 Utilit}' Sc.afl'Coat l b.I Sublola l Period lb Period-Dependent Co.ta l b.O TOTAL PERIOD lb COS T PERIOD 1 TOTALS PERIOD Z. -lAr*e Co mpon e u t Runoval Pe r iod 2a Dired. Decom m iss i o nin g Aclh'itit>8 Nuelel'lr Siemn Supply Sy1 t em Remwa l 2a.1.l.I Re8cto r Ux>lnnl Pip1nr 2a.l.l.2 Prt-Muriu-r Quench Tank 211.1.1.3 Reftctor Cuo l11n1 PwniJ8 & M oton 211.l.l.4 Pre..,uriu-r 2*.1.1.6 Sr eam GelK" ratOl'f 2a.l.l.6 JU.1 ired Steam Gern.*rator Unit.a 2a.J.l.7 CROl\bn C J.&:rvk-e S t rur:t.ure Rt>mul'a l 211.l.l.8 Reacto r Ve1eel l.nterna\!1 21'1.1.l.9 RellCto rV elll!I 2a.l.1 "°"'" Hemovn l o f Major 1<:quipn1enl 28.l.2 Turbi.11 e/Gene r alo r 28.l.3 l.l ttb1Conden!lf!l'1I Cnscadinr 0... fr om Clean Building Demo l ilion 211.IA.I '"'-* 2*.1.4.2 Co nlllinmenL Penetration Area 2a.l.4.3 J<'uel Hudlin& 2a.14 T oe.11 Dit1KJU1 I of Sy11tem1 2a.l.6.I A u%ilia11*St.eam 2a l.6.2 A u xi li aJ1' Sieam 2a 1.6 3 Coode n 11o11 t a &'y1tem 2a 1.6*1 Condenaate Sr1tem (l11 1 ul ated) 2a.l.6.6 Contai nm ent Spray 2a.l.6.6 Exiroctkm Sleam & H ealer Drip 2a.l.6.7 Feedwa1 e r S)'!lem 2a.l.6.8 J<'eedwa l er Sy11tcm (ln1ulated) 2a..l.6.9 Fet'dwater SrMem (RC A ln!lu l fltP<i} :?a.l.6.1 0 Fttdwaler Syttem (RCA) 2a.l.6.1 1 Lu be Oil Di1l r ib u tion & Pu n fkalion 2a.l.6.12 N11ropn & H y d ruren 21'1.1.6.13 | |||
& 11, ,v droeen (ln8ulat ed) 2a.l.5.l-4 Ni l rotien & (RCA l n1ulatetl) 2a.l.5.Hi N ii f\llf\'11 & H y d rofl'.en (RCA) 211.1.6.1 6 O il y Wii!er &>1 1amt<>r & TO Swnp 2t l.l.6.17 Sa ltw n l e r Sys t e m 2a.t.6.18 Turbin t* St.ca m S uppl y 2a.l.6.1 9 Turbint* Steam S uppl y (RCA) nG Servicn, I nc. O rf.Si t e Decon RenK1v*I P11cit.rinr TraDJpor1 Procenlnr | |||
: c. .. Co o< Cotti Coo u Com 29 292 281 29 073 3, 416 1 , 876 1 36 307 3,4 16 2,768 367 ... ""' 361 .. .. .. 37 8 1 63 1 3 1 169 213 63 ,. 630 1 3 1 503 3 , 330 3, 239 2.034 2,298 1 , 982 207 380 2'0 .. 216 1 0 , 286 1 0 ,00 5 2,0(H I G I 1 , 186 2 , 83'1 808 1 , no1 22 , 386 1 9,-400 7 , JOO 2 1 2 600 1.262 78 206 1 , 645 16' m " 1 8 708 293 262 121 " 2i4 .. li6 1 28 34 13 8 2 1 20 20 Ill | |||
* 38 to 198 790 871 26<1 .. Tab l e C-1 D i ablo Ca_u yo n Unit 1 DECON D eco mmi ss i o ning Cost Est i mat e (ThouHnds o f 20 14 Do llar s) U.R W NHC Spent Fuel Obpon J Other Total To t*l Uc.Term. M*n*fement c.. .. Co91s Co n tlu e n c c. ... Costs Cos ts 1 0 ,. 39 '6 1 80 ... 642 88 1 3 I OI I OI 1 04 """ 300 00 3 11 3 11 10 ' " " 2 , 7 1 4 ... 3,2fJ7 a,201 3'2 *10 39 1 30 1 197 71 ""' 668 393 84 477 477 27 1 "" 329 329 2.4!S4 627 2.08 1 2,08 1 10.670 2.269 1 2,839 1 2.839 7 , 040 1.6 1 2 8.568 ..... 18 , 638 4 , 001 22 , 688 22 , 638 10 43 , 674 9 ,-427 G3,6 22 62 , 2*18 1.374 0,9.U 67 , 1 37 1 7 , 065 86670 83.118 1 ,3 74 &795 200,7 47 00 , 900 2iG , 468 270,28-4 4 , 1 46 1 , 181 *** 2,866 2 , 866 1 66 1 04 362 302 1 ,-431 7 3 7 2,823 2 , 82 3 744 ... l ,"6() 1 ,1166 12 , 696 6,993 28 ,796 28 , 796 1 2 , 696 6,298 22 , 272 22 , 272 66 1 683 2 , 002 2 , 002 29,646 367 30 , 860 83 , 362 88 ,3 62 """' 367 7 , 894 28 ,8 68 28 ,3&6 62.087 714 63,719 I G7,886 167 ,686 ... 267 11 0 Sitt 271 1.633 1 , 633 17 96 .. u 2'9 2-t9 3ll2 1 , 677 J,Sn 33 187 608 21)() 1 , 1 33 1 , 1 33 162 800 6.1 3'6 1 , 608 6W 2,683 2,683 09 332 to "" 38 213 '"' 204 7ll8 71J8 22 II 41 41 26 l*W 26 I 4 . .. 14 8 1 70 27 1 27 1 1 32 63 2"7 247 4 3 2*11 17 0 000 3, 1 62 1 ,00 1 0,388 '*'"" Site Proces.ed Burial Vo lum e!! Huloratlon Vo lu me C h1HA C l usB C I HsC OT CC c.. .. C u. F ee l C u. F ee t C u. Feel Cu.Feet C u. F ee t ... ... 1 , 1 77 ... 887 2,0'l8 11 , CiOO 887 2,2i6 321! 4 , 701 2 , 4*13 41 , 7 1 2 4 1 ,03 1 3, 881 t ,878 003 786 0, 420 1 07 ,0 71 003 780 267 *** 187 1 ,836 800 ... 6 , 4.4 1 332 .. 21 3 1, 6 17 811 146 " 1 6 2112 478 2 .. 1 000 1 1 , 428 D ocu ment PO l-111 9-00 1 , Re v. 0 Appendi x C , Pa1e 4 o f 2 1 Burl*I/ Utlllty*nd Proceu1ed C rRft Co ntr*c tor Wt. Lbs. M*nho\ln M*nhoun 7 ,0 fN " 142 , 2 1-t 63,09 1 210.004 7 , 00< " 4 1 6.300 119 ,0&l 26 , 30 1 468 ,966 700 , 22 1 26,638 1 , 259 ,0 16 200 , 153 I0 , 1 38 30,667 1 , 073 77-4 , 000 '*""' 1 00 306 , 214 2,366 ... 3.360 , 761 23,233 1 , 750 3 , 1 26,629 I0 , 800 1 , 1 26 1 46, 494 7 , 9'76 404 ,'11 3 33, 1 67 1 , 469 003,382 33, 1 67 1 , 4li9 9 , 300,00 2 1 26,487 6,830 3,033 0.8i6 11 , 896 70< 1.7-46 1 ... 3 46 2.3 IO 111.86!.! | |||
3,7 14 1 0 , 67 1 4 ,aGi 331 , 619 3,631 4 , 162 708 2 , 666 92,470 1 , 793 4 , 867 86 1 , 817 3 1 6 17 037 77 1 7 , 803 l ,*163 20, 1 38 4;7 2 , fr.!G 11 ,966 GOG , GOO 1 2 , 203 Dioblo Con,o n Power Planl Decommia.ionin1 Co*I Analy.I* Activ ity lndu: Actlvlt'' D tte rl Io n Di*puewl o( Plant System* (l'On l inlW!dj 2*. 1.6.20 Turbinr 11nd °"Dl'.ralor 2a.1.6.21 Turbine *11d Geoeralor (lwulat.ed) 211.l.6 Total* 2-.1.G ScatrolcUne in 1uppon. oC decomm1A1toninJ Subtctal. | |||
Pe:riod 211 kf.i,*lty Coeu Period 2a Add 1 tio1uil Co.ta 2o.2. I Re n1 e d i1t l AcHo n Sun*ey1 2a.2.2 Retire d He11ctor H ea d 211.2.3 PG&J.; RPV St..t1fTSuJJport TellD'I 2a.2..I DOC RJlV Staff Support. Team 211 2 Subtot.al Period 211 AdtlitKina l Coe t 1 Period 2a C<;Ual e ral Co.U 211.3. I Proceu decommiNioning wnt e r wul.e 2a.3.2 Proceu deoommiNionin1 chemical flu1h waN.e 2a.3.3 Small tool 11J1llowance 2a.3..t Emirorunental Permh.a and F't:fl 211.3.11 GTCC St.<<¥ Permitting (PG&E Labor) 2a.3.6 GTCC Storage Permitting (Cont rM:t or) 2a.3 Subtotal Pf'riod 211 Col lateral Cash Perkid 2a Period-Dependen l <Oat" 211.4.1 Decon 1mpp l iH 211.4.2 lntlU'lllJ(!e 211.4.3 Property l*XH 211.4.4 Heall h phyeiCll flupplieto 2111.4.ll H eavy equipmenL renl*I 2a.4.G Dil!poaal of DAW renerated 2a.4. 7 Plan! 1H1ergr bud,el 2a.4.8 NRC Fee1 2a.ol.9 Emel'gt1ncy P1anoing Feet1 2aA.10 Spent. Pw1 O&M 2a.4. l I ISFS I Opcr111.inlf Cofit1 h..6.12 Se\'e r ance l te l 11led Co81.1 2a .. I. 13 Spent CanietenK.>\'f:rpticlr:11 2*. l.14 Security Sta ff Cos t 211..t. 1 6 DOC Slaff Coel 2o . .J. JG Utili t y So1rr C'olL 2aA Sublofol Period 2a Period-Dependent Coeh 211.0 TOTAL Pt:RIOD 2a COST PER I O D 2b-S ite Decontamination Period 2b Direct. DeconmiHk.ning Actirit.ie. | |||
Di111)0MI of P lant Sy1t.etn.1 2 1.. I. I I Capita l AddiUorui 85-2002 (clean) 2b 1.1.2 Capita l Add 1 Uo 1 ui 80-2002 {rontaminated) 2b.l. l.3 C hem k:al & Volume Cootrof 2b.l. l.4 Chmik:fl l & Vo l ume Control (tnsuJated) 2b.l.l.5 CooiponentCooli n gWate r 2b. I. I.6 Canponent Coolin& W11ter (RCA) 2b.J.l.7 CcmprenedAfr 2b. 1.1.8 Ccmpreued Air (lntula t ed) 2b. I. 1.9 ConprelM'ld Ai r (RCA ln 11ula led) 2b.l.J.I O Com 1 1reslledAi r (RCA} 2b.l.l.ll Die9el Engioo-Generator 2b.I. 1.12 Oie9el E11Jine-Geoo r a1or l l ntula l ed) 2b.1.l.1 3 tClt>anJ 2b. I. L 1 4 Ele<:1r i eal (Conlaminated) 2b. I. I. IO Eklctr i ad (Deoo n1.a111illllled) 2b.l.l.IB Fire Prolecti o n 2b.l.l.1 7 Go&eou11 Radw11ete TLG Serv icH , In c. Decon eo .. l , i2.a 6 9 1 96 196 1 , 900 918 338 Rem o val Tu as port Cos t Cos t s Costs 84 28 "'"" 2 , 2 6G 3 1 , 679 3,630 7,443 1 0.973 tl , 960 100 400 1 ,268 ... 204 622 181 6 29 ... 167 12 2 , 227 636 3 , 481 300 .. 1 6 1 9 ,930 263 263 12 6 126 20.3 78 38 ... 26 149 2 .. .. 1 23 G 1 83 """' 6 1 81 84 .. 7 , 688 16 6 1 11 .. 1 13 O ff...S lt e Proceuln1 Costs Tab l e C-1 Diablo C any o n Un.it 1 DECON Decommi ss i oning Cost Estimat e (Tho u sa nd* o( 20 1 4 Do ll ars) LLRW Disposal CottJ 0 , 1131> 26 G8 , 4--li 1.6 15 1 , 516 "'" 235 150 150 70.34 7 '"' 1 , 927 342 1 , 852 22 421 1 , 12 4 1 ,007 72 Othe r Co!tt 71< 5 , 8 77 6 , 006 5.876 17 , 860 3.213 2 , 306 2.(i79 8 , 128 1 , 7 39 006 8 , 882 2 , 1"9 2,443 2 , 707 1 , 8C8 9 , 100 l ,BGa 66 , 60 1 7i , 702 11 6 , 873 291.664 3 18.246 Total Co nli n encv 18 G ... ...... 2.623 . ., 1 , 300 6,()00 109 ., 600 ... ... 1 , 067 70 249 87 1 , 263 1 , 008 ,. 1 , 007 ... """ 681 401 1 ,0GO 400 M , 2<J6 1 6.670 24 872 66.097 1 3 1.239 ... 36 1 1 , 83 1 ... " ... .. 19 30 1 40 3 .,. 640 747 "' .... Total Cosu 102 34 14 , 491 3, 11 9 188 , 476 8 , 400 2 , 4 00 7 , 407 7 , 1 36 211 , 309 "'" 362 U'1l 2,800 3 , 1 33 10,831 267 1 , 988 693 """ 9 , 041 -10 , 789 2 , 445 2,71!2 '""" 2,209 11 ,08!) 2,263 80 , 898 94 , 361 140 , 745 368 , 1 3 1 OO'l , 838 "'' 1 , 398 6 , 143 l , i23 248 ..... 220 | |||
* 73 1,358 227 14 2 , 70{; 2 , 63 1 4 , 228 2,922 228 N R C Lie. Term. Coso 1 0,9 7 6 3, 11 9 183 , 868 8AOO 2 , 400 7 , 407 7 , 1 36 211 , 300 3:16 3 , 940 zeoo 3, 1 33 1 0 , 7116 267 1 , 088 .... 4 , i1f2 fl , 041 ""' 10 , 780 2 ,.14(i 1 1 ,089 80 , 698 0-1.36 1 140.746 367 , 449 677.601 1 , 3"" 6 , 143 1 , 723 3, 000 73 1 , 358 2 , 63 1 2,922 228 Spent Fuel Mllnafement Cotti 2 , 792 3,288 2,269 2,2(;3 1 0 , 613 J0.6 1 3 102 34 3 , 61 6 4 , 61!! 3G .. .. 4.72*1 22\l | |||
* l*l 2 , 705 4 , 228 C u. F ee l C u. Fee l C u. Feet Cu. Feet C u. F ee l 21 , 087 .. , 6 , ()72 6(172 *53 4 03 ..... 1 40.616 1.78£i ..... 1 , 236 6 , 692 .. 1 , 622 4 , 061 *.006 2G2 786 786 Documen t POl-111'-00I , R ev. 0 AppendU C, Pa1 e 5 o f 21 B ur ial I Proce11ed Wt. Lb s. | |||
29 ,3 2 3 I0 , 681 , 000 822 ,<142 27.1 70 27.17 0 111 , 698 111.Ml8 II \.4 2300 1 08 , 806 424 , 620 76 , 243 407,837 4 , 883 112.770 3l'J3,970 16 ,{15J 1 , 244 422 67 , 001 16 , 818 2 3 7 , 569 71.016 2,008 73,114 .. .. 182 182 310,94 3 2 , 830 B , 756 21,664 10 , 766 3,078 8 , 0 14 2 , 744 98 393 i , 1 99 2 , 760 178 32 , 770 S , 666 49 , 641 Ci , 4 00 1 ,IGG Utili ty .ud Co n trACtor Manh o u r.11 '" 69 , 808 01 , 69 1 llil.637 OCI0 , 24 1 7 1 2.67 1 1 , 308 , 922 2.030.736 3., 089 , 102 | |||
"' 0 Diablo Co n y<m Pow e r Plant D eco mmiH io nin1 Coa t Anal J'lli11 A c t iv ity ln d e.x Actl v it\* D esc d l i o n Di8JJUflal oC P l 1:1ni Sys 1 e m 1 (cun l ioued) 2b. l.l.1 8 l lVAC (Cle11 n lns ul 11t.ed) 2b.l.l.1 9 1-IVAC(Clea n) 2b.J. l.20 H\I AC (Con l aminated J 119 ul m.ed) 2b.l.l.2 1 H\IAC(Ux!Utmin11ted) 2 b. I. l.22 Li q uid Ju.d waste 2b. I. l.23 Li qu id Ju.dwHte (]nsu l ated) 2b.l.l.24 2 b. I. l.25 M 11 k e-u p W 11te r (lt 1M u l a l e d) 2b. l. l.26 M ti k e-u p W at.e r (R CA ln 1 u l 11t fl d) 2 b. I. i.27 Mu ke-u1 l W 1:tt.e r (R CA) 2b. l. l.28 Mi acel l n n ro u 1 Re 11 ctor Oio lant 2b. I. l.29 N u clea r S l eam Su p p l y Sampl i ng 2b. I. l.30 N u cl ea r Sleam S u pply S am pl i ng (l nsuluted 2b. I. l.3 1 Reaid u a l H eat Remui*al 2b.1.l.3 2 Snrety Injectio n 2b.1. l.33 Snrets Injection | |||
(]naulat.ed) 2b. l.1.J.t Safot>* lnjecuo n (RCA l neulated) 2b. I. l.35 Sarety I11jec::t.10 n (RCA) 2b. I. l.3G Sel"\'ice Coo li ni Waler 2L.1.1.37 Sel"\*ioe Coo li ng Watt:r (RCA) 2b.l.l Tot1:t l s 2b. l.2 Sc aff o ld i n g in l!Up port of derommiuioni n g Dero n tmni u a l io n o f S i l:e Bu ild in gs 2b.l.3.I *RellClor 2 b. l.3.2 Ca p i t11 I Addi ti o lllll 8 0-2004 2b. l.3.3 Cootuinnw nt Pent'tra1ion Area 2b.l.J Toi els 2b.I Sub l otal Pe r kKI 2b Activit.y Co&.-11 Pe ri od 2b Addiuomd f'...o&UI 2b.2. I Remt.>dia l Action S u rn*ya 2 b.2 Sublot11\ Pe r kN:l 2b A J di l fo n a l CoM.,, Pe r i o d 2b Cos t* 2 b.J. I P rncen t1 eco m m iuio n i n g w ate r w 1 1 ete 2b.3.2 P rown d eco mm issioning c h e m i ca l O u1 h w aste 2 b.3.3 S n 11 dl too l a ll owance 2b.3 . .J En\*ironme n t11 I Penn i l.fl and Feeti 2b.3 SubloCa l Pe r tod 2b CoUai.eral Chit.fl Period 2b P e r iod.Dependent Coa l s 2b.4. I Demo s upp l ieii 2 b..l.2 I n s ur ance 2 bA.3 Prorie r tyt..ue9 2b . .J.4 li ea l tb phy*it.,. | |||
s u pp l ies 2 b.4.5 M e1wy eq ui p m e n t rental 2 L.4.6 Di.s 1 io.n l o f DA W genera t ed 2 L.4.7 Pl a nL c r it: r ip*l.ud 1ie 1 2 b.4.8 NRC t'oo1 2 b.4.9 Plmin i n g Fees 2 b.4. I O Spe nt Fue l P oo l O&M 2bA. I l L i q uid l tatl w 1t1le Process in g Equip m e n t&l"\*i ef!ll 2b.4.1 2 JSF'SI Opero l i n g "2 b.4.1 3 SenirRnce Rr l ated Coeh 2b.4. I-& Spe n t Fu el Sto r age C...nislers.Ovt"rpacks 2b.4. l 5 Secu r ity S111 fT f'..<111 t 2b.4.1 6 DOCS111 1T Co.t 2 b.4.1 7 2b.4 Sub l ola l Pe r kK.I 2L Per i od-Depe n dent Cu.i l l! 2b.O TO T AL 2 b OOS T TLG &1-v i c n , In c. Tab l e C-1 D i ab l o C a n y o n U n.i t 1 DECON D ec ommi ss i o n ing Cost E s t i m a t e (T h o u sa nd s o f201 4 Do ll ar s) O ff-S it e LLRW O e<10 n R emov*I Pft c k*ri n f Tr 1Wspo rt Procenl n f Dls p o JAI Cost Coa t Cos t s Co sts Co1 ts Cost.s 610 72 22 338 2,297 983 34 336 1 ,362 3,649 13 3 137 702 702 29 36 1 62 1 1 , 425 801 87 3i6 34 *16 237 J.1 1 1 88 67 ,., 132 * " 362 12 3 30 16, 1 66 2,820 2 , 637 30 225 2,8\.12 2 1 ,8 77 400 1 , 919 l , 2Gl'i 3, 18 3 26,460 49 247 " 6 5 27 12 3 lG I * .. 1 , 251 18 1 , 132 2 6 2 ,-433 98 '" 253 70 70 2,765 20 IO I " 2 2 10 ' 4 0 60 7 0 21 007 5,JOO 3 2'1 6,3J6 5.M8 1 64 41 3 20 643 3, 214 1 ,0 72 6 7 59 33 2 Ill 12 1 15 1 , 603 210 | |||
* 75 677 '5 16 , 123 32 25,386 85 32S 26, 7 99 "' 1 ,3-1-1 1.80 1 83 83 43,838 Ot h e l" Cos h 1 ,009 1 ,009 M7 667 200 104 1.203 367 "° ... 110 3 21 8 , U78 637 11.096 6,llOO 1 0, 7 6 1 4 1 ,65 7 43,223 T o till Co nt lu e n c 6 82 306 J , 7 J G 1 , 126 10 7 8 1 7 " 21 0 1 08 11 3 26 966 126 ' *13 380 26 32 1 2,420 1 ,024 12 , 030 6 7 17 1 2,544 26,98 7 "' '33 """ 694 86 11 9 l , IU7 25 1 " " 686 271 "' 2'8 53 60 1 00 " 69 l , fl27 1 37 2,382 1 , 483 2,308 10 , 1 10 37 , 637 To t 11.I Cos ts 36 .. , 1 , 389 6,703 3,726 '"' *II J.18 B I G 303 '36 1 00 3.424 491 21 1 69 1.48 5 1 49 12 3 48 , 763 3,899 47 , 4i5 224. 1 ,386 49,086 10 1 , 7*18 1 , 4*11 1 , 4*11 1 , 1 60 2 ,500 *186 676 4 , 8 3 1 91>3 341 11 9 2.005 1.636 217 l ,4G2 ''° 479 ''" 134 389 10 , 906 774 1 3,478 8 ,392 1 3,008 56,825 1 63 , 846 N H C S penl F u e l Lk. Te rm. M 11.n ftfe 1n e n t Co su Co sts 1 , 389 G,703 | |||
'"' 1*1 8 816 303 436 1 00 3,42 4 491 21 1 00 1 , 4 85 1!!3 30,737 3,8!1£1 47 , 475 224 1 ,386 49 ,086 92,722 1 , 441 1 , 4"1 1 , 1 00 2,500 486 676 4 , 8 3 1 053 3 41 11 9 2.606 1 , 536 217 1.402 420 134 10 , 000 1 3, 478 8 ,3'12 1 3,058 63, 6 1& 1 52,6 1 3 479 664 389 2,207 2,207 S h e Proc e sse d B urhd Vo l um e!I R es 1 or 11.tl o n V o lum e C l n u A C l a.u B C la ss C OT C C Cos ts C u. P ee l C u. Fee t C u. Feet C u. F e e l C u. F ee t 467 41 14 9 9,026 9,026 9,026 2,324 11 ,6 1 5 3,8 74 241 212 1 , 1 00 402 436 116 6 , 793 750 30 272 2 ,-147 200 68 , 270 816 349,938 320 2 , I ZIJ 36 2 , 387 4 11 , 472 882 1 ,.1 00 2 , 34 1 3.1 0'.! S,!02 4 1 6 ,f H G D oc um e n t PO l-1 1 1 9-00 1 , R ev. 0 A p p end ix C , Pa Jle G of 2 1 Bur ia l I Proce ss ed W t., Lbs. 1 41 ,63 1 707 , 889 2$,13 7 l.J , 7 1 8 1 2,800 73 , 076 24,489 26 , 67 1 3 , 362 363.0 70 46.248 1 , 8 41 IG ,5 7 1 1 4 9.1 39 12 , 1 59 3,55 1 , 368 36,653 33.233, 450 1 8 ,6 71 l i2 , 7 93 33.424 , 910 37.0 12 , 930 52 , 000 1 56,622 208.42 1 62.046 62 , 0-1 6 37.283,400 Cr 11£t Milltl h OUl"!I 476 6,0 IG 4, 102 1 8 , 472 1 1:1 , 782 2 , 1 00 6 ,6 1 1 5 21 50*1 3.1 39 2 , 1 58 2 , 700 824 ti.036 1.852 "' 068 4,656 1 , 856 251 ,64 8 2 1 ,023 43 , 339 847 7 ,3 62 6 1 ,63 7 3 24 , 1 08 12 , 187 12 , 187 1 72 27 3 IO I I OI 336,842 U 1 lllty 1 111d Co 111 r 11 c t or &hn h o un 1&2 , 246 60,034 122 ,&17 34 1 , 1 77 3 4 1,17i | |||
"' ;!: (") ::T !: "' Diablo Conyo" Power Pl o rat D l!co mmiu ionin1 Cod A nol yel* Actl\llt)' | |||
1.nde..x Aetl\1 11\' Desel'i tl o n PERIOD :?.c-S pe n t fuel delay pl'i o r 1 0 SFP d eco n Period 2c Direc:t IA-cotnntiMkmini Activities Period 2cCollateral Coll* 2e.3.I Spe n t Pue l TraoaJl.'r | |||
* Pool t o ISFSI 2e.3.2 Environm e n t.ad Pe m litl and Feet 2c.3 Sub t o t a l Pertod 2e Co l h 1 tc r al COtllt Period 2c P e ri od-Depen d en l. Coet.e 2c.4.I ln*ur H n lll!! 2c.4.2 P roi>erty t oxe1 2c.4.3 H ea llhp by1ic11 up p li e1 2c.4.4 Oispogal o ( DAW ge n eraled 2c.4.5 P l ant e nergr budget 2c.4.6 l\.'RCJo*ces 2c.U Enle.J'geney Pla n ning Fee1 '.lc.4.8 Llqu 1d Radwa11.e Proce11.i n g Equipmenl.1Sern ee1 2c.4.9 I SF'SI Ope r aliog Cos t a 2e.4.10 Spent Skirnge Can i 1lera.Overpackl 2c.4.IJ Secur i ty Sta rr C:O.t 2c.4.1 2 U t i li tySta ff Cciet 2<.4 S ub tOfa l Period 2c Periotl*Dependeot Coet& 2".0 TOTA L 2c OOS T PERIOD 2d-Decont*mln11tlon FollowlnrW e t F 1..1 e l S t o nr e Period 2d Direct Deromm i Hioning Ad1vitic9 2d.l.l Remove epe.n t fo c i r acU of P l ant Sy&te m t 2d.l.2.I Elec:trial l (C'..o otrunirmted) | |||
* F H B 2d.l.2.2 Electrie111 J (Dttontarninaled) | |||
* FHB 2d.i.2.3 Fire Protect.ion (RCA) 2d.l.2 . .f. H VAC (Cont.am i natt'\I) | |||
* F H il 2d.J.2.6 Spent Puc l Pit Coo lin g 2 d.l.2.6 Spe n t f.'u cl Pit CooJi n g | |||
* 2 d.l.2 T ot11 l a Derontamin11 t ion of Site B u ildi n gs 2d.l.8.J Fuel ll1:1 n dling 2d.l.3 T ota l s 2d.l.<I Scaffoldini in 1upport. o r deoomm.iuiooing 2d.l Sub t otal P er iod 2d Actidl1* Cf.dtt Period 2 d . .\dd i tiona l Co.la 2d.2.I L W'.en9fl Tem1.i nn lion Surv ey Pl:.nming 2d.2.2 Re m c d in l .-'\ctkm S u n*ey1 2 d.2 S u btota l P r.riod 2d A d di li ooa l Co.L t P e r i od 2 d Col l a t crn l Cottt 2d.3.I Pmceu dccommi.Mion i n g water w 11e1.t> 2 d.3.2 Proceu dl'commiHio n ing c h em i ca l flu sh WHle 2d.3.3 Sm11 1l 1 ooJ 11.llowance 2d.3.4 Decoin m i9"'io n ing Equ.ipment Di.'\lposition 2d.3.5 Envimnm.-ntal PcrmiLt a n d 2d.3 Subtota l Period 2d Cu U a1 e r aJ Cosu Pe r iod 2d Period*Depemlent 2d.4.I Deoon 1upp l ies 2 d.4.2 IH ur l'l n l'f! 2d.4.3 Propt'r t ytaxe1 2d.4.4 H e" lthp by1k1!1u 1 1 vli e' 2 d.4.5 n'nL a l 2d.4.6 Diapo1tt l o r DA W 1wnert1ted TLG &1'Vi c a, lr*c. O ff-S it e D econ Ren10"*l P 11.ekar in r Tr11.nsport Proee H hlf eo .. eo .. Cos ts eo ... Cos u 809 39 II ... 39 II 809 39 II 602 "' 1 63 33 1 86 13 1 , 1 49 126 49 200 28 II 339 06 23 9C .JG 1 9 1 3 3 00 20 2, 1 52 319 128 845 800 60 .. 845 890 60 38 664 1.-14 7 3.674 5'5 20 1 " 35 59 82 1 00 52 45 82 1 86 112 212 C.26 003 30 Tabl e C-1 Diab l o Ca uyon Uuit l DECON D eco mmi ss ioning Cost Est i mat e (Thousands oC20 14 Dollar s) LLRW N R C Dbpo511.J Ot h e r To till Total Li e. Terin. Co so Costs Co nlin e n e Co s t s Costs 40 , 63 1 8,700 *19 , 2 3 1 U79 9 1 8 5,197 5, 107 4-1 ,800 9,6 18 64,428 5, 1 97 2 , 29i'i 328 2.623 2.623 800 11 4 9 14 0 14 307 1 , 1 66 1 , 1 00 47 25 12 1 1 2 1 9 , 200 1 , 986 1 1 , 236 1 1 , 236 *400 36! 2 , 812 2 , 8 1 2 3 , 222 ''" 3 , 684 846 182 1 , 027 1 , 027 2 , 464 629 2.993 47 ,3 1 7 10 , IG7 U7.'7 3 Sl>,02 2 1 8 ,250 1 03,273 61,636 13 ,668 2 ,9 10 16 , 4G8 8 ,234 47 1 67,234 36,60 1 203,79 1 79,770 4 7 2 1 2 , 044 45 , 220 258 , 21U 84 , 007 1 , 066 863 2,786 2,786 171 130 006 006 1,069 1 , 00 1 3 , 895 3,896 342 218 849 849 7 3* 31)7 1 ,6&0 1 ,660 602 200 1,022 1,022 646 "-"' 1 , 1 38 1,138 4 ,063 2 , 297 8,969 8,950 400 1.11 0 3.418 3.4 1 8 400 1 , l lO 3 , 418 3 , HS 2()5 780 780 5 , 602 4 ,<175 15 , 943 15 , 943 845 363 1.208 1 ,2()8 792 3*1 0 1 , 132 1 , 1 32 1.637 703 2.3.\0 2,J.10 1 65 1 09 414 41'1 18 1 00 1 00 208 125 "'' 085 437 94 531 031 423 437 "° 1 , IL<>9 1 , 629 76 287 287 234 " 268 268 82 12 ., "' 1 88 714 71< 21 3 1 ,200 1 ,200 .. 1 9 92 92 Spen t. Fue l Site Proce!t!ted B u rh1.l Vo lum e!t M 1 m111ement Restoration Vo l um e C J 11.ssA C l as s B C l assC Co si s eo ... C u.F e et C u. F ee t C u. Fe e t C u. F e et 49 , 2 3 1 .f.9 , 23 1 1.732 3.684 2,003 67,473 51 , 636 8 , 2 34 1 2.f., 02 1 1 , 732 1 73,25 1 J , 7 32 3 , 862 8 1 9 6,670 1,287 2,664 2 , 174 2 ,3 32 1-1 , 686 3 , 326 3 , 320 163 22 , 025 319 6,667 6 , 986 1 ,3 21 OT C C C u.F ee t D ocumen t POl-1 1 19-00 1 , R e v. 0 App l!n di:c C, Pug#! 1o f 2 1 Burial/ Utility a nd Processed Cl'11.ft Co ntr actor Wt. Lb s. M an h o u n Manh o un 8-1 , 637 ,.,. 1 , 170 , 300 1 60,400 34 , 637 5G 1,320 , 700 34,637 w 1 ,32 0 , 700 234 , 773 966 3 7 , 72 1 2,492 345,663 15 , 063 76 , 37J 161 , 76 3 4 ,376 1 3 2 , 6 11 1 ,40 1 1 42 , IOJ 1 ,923 806 , 02 4 28,562 2*1-8,).12 23.647 248.142 23.047 7 , 33 1 4.20& 1.385.200 67 , 278 G.240 9 , 567 9 ,00 7 6,240 1 9 , 1 42 62 300 , 000 .. 3 1 9 , 1 42 100 ZC , 4 1 2 43 | |||
"-' ::r :p "-' "-' Diablo Ca n yon Po wer Plant Deconm1ilf9ionin,R Co*t Arwly*i* Acti vity I ndex Ac tl v lt D ese rt 1tlo11 Pt:riod 2d Period-Dependent Co81.11 {ooo tinued) 2d.4.7 Pltinl energy b ud get 2d.<l.8 N R C fo'eee 2d.<1.!t t:mcrlfl!ncy Plrmning Feea 2d.4.IO Spent fo'ue l Transfer | |||
* ISFSI lo DOE 2d.4.ll Liquid R.ti dw 111le ProcesAing Equipm entJSe n*k:e1 2d.4.12 ISFSI Opc r nting Co8r.. 2d.4.1 3 Se\*er11 noe Rel&t.ed Cot!lfl 2d.4.l-1 Security Staff Cos t 2d.4.1 6 DOCStu IT Co&t 2d.4.1 6 UtilityStHITCOllt 2d.4 Subtoeol Period 2d Period.De11endent Cotil 1 2d.O TO TAL PERIOD 2d OOST PERIOD 3e -De lay before License Termination Period 2e Direct. l)ea,utmisaionmg Act.iviUea Period 2e Co llnt era l Co8t1 2e.3.I Ell\irorunental Permit.II and Ftoet 2e.3 Subtotal Period 2e C>lla1 e ral f'AJ11t1 Period 2 e Period-Depend e nt Coa t s 2e.4.1 ln 1u r n n ('(' 2f".4.2 1'1'(>µ1*rt y t axe1 2e.4.3 H eu lth phy 11icii 1u11plieti 2e.4.4 Di1Po@al or DAW 2e.4.6 Planr energy budget 2e.4.6 NRCl-'001 2e.4.7 Emt>rgt:ncy Pl11uning Footi 2e.4.8 Spent Tram1rer | |||
* ISF'SI to OOE 2e.4.9 ISl''S I Ope r at ing Coe t-8 2e.4.JO Sec urity Sta IT Cc.t 2e.4.ll U tilily Slt1 1T Coe t 2e.4 Subl-Ot.al Period 2f' Period-Dependent Co.it-8 2e.O P*;muo 2e OO ST PERIOD 2C-Llce11H Termlnation Period 2r Direct 2f.Ll OR I SEoonfinnot.ory 1un*ey 2f.l.2 Terrninolelioenae 2f.I Sub t ota l Period 2f Acth"i t y COits Peri(.(I 2f Addi tion a l Co!l l* 2(2.J L icem1e Tem1im1tioo Survey 21'.2 S ub tota l Period 2f Additional Cost.II Pe r iod 2fC>llat.eral Co.ii. 2 f.3.I DOC t i n ff r docatk..u el'.pell!Ml!! | |||
2f.3.2 Endrom n c ul.al Permit.11 ond Fees 2f.3 S u b l otal Pe r i o d 2fCollate r al C09 t9 Tabl e C-1 D i ablo Ca ny o n Unit 1 DECON De co mmi ss ioning Cost Estimate (Th o u sands 0(20 14 Dollars) O ff-Site LLRW Decon Remov11 I P11ck*ci1t1' Tr Ansport Procenlnl' Dlsposlll Co11t Co!lt Co1t!I Co1tJ Co1u Co!l ls 212 1.6 1 8 30 3/i 1 , 703 6.274 760 3 21 6.06 1 78 78 78 Otbel:' Co!lfJ "" 240 IGO 306 1 7' 262 6,867 1 ,364 3 , 639 6 , 07D 1 8 , 989 21.063 780 780 37< 146 209 294 1 ,006 ... 2,860 1 ,00 1 G,480 7,260 IS.1 1 83 9 , 76 1 &, 76 1 1..1 66 715 2 , 1 81 Tot.U Co ntl11 e n c 1 08 35 24 .. 37 " 1 , 472 293 78 1 1 , 000 4 , 620 I0 ,0-t 3 1 67 lGi 63 " 28 I 30 '2 236 96 612 228 1 ,8 47 1 ,5 14 79 79 4 , 190 4.190 315 154 ... Totll1 Co!ll!I .., 280 1 88 ''° 210 300 8 ,329 1 ,667 4.420 6.170 26 , 3 1 2 46,:.126 9-18 948 '27 I07 1 06 6 238 336 l ,333 048 3 , 402 1 , 289 7 ,009 8 ,857 "'' . 262 1 3,96 1 1 3.95 1 1 ,780 8GO 2,(H9 N H C S p e nt Fue l Site Lie. Tel'ut. M11n11f'em e nt Ret10l'Atl o11 Coii t.1 Co!l l l Co!ll!I Cl2 280 1 88 ""' 210 306 8 ,329 1 ,66 7 4 , 420 6.1 70 2*1 , 338 "" "4.26 1 974 9 18 ... 427 1 67 100 6 238 330 1 ,333 646 3 ,.in2 1 , 289 6,C9 4 2,215 G,0 12 2 , 216 262 262 1 3,9.5 1 1 3.95 1 1 , 7/JO 8GO 2,649 Proce!l!led B ul'i fl l Vo l umes Volum e C I Hs A C l an 8 C J.,, C OTCC Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet C u. F ee t Cu. Feet 1 ,32 1 30.33 2 82 82 D ocu m en t POJ-1719-001, Re v. 0 Appendix C, Pa,Re 8 of 2 1 Buria l I Proeened Wt., Lbs. 26 , 4 1 2 1.700.822 1 ,838 1 ,638 1 , C39 Craft Ma11houn 67,00D Utllltyand Co ntr 11ctor 11.tanhouu 16 , 800 35,0 40 611,080 I 00 , 92U 116 , 1 60 36,103 1 2,000 48 , 103 -18 ,!0 3 126 , 393 3.120 1 26.393 3.120 | |||
"' ::T f: "' "' Diablo Ca n ,on Po we r Planl D eco mmi-.lo nin6 Co.I Anub .. i* Activity lndu Actlvi t v D ffe rl tlo n Period 2f Period-Of.pendent (Joe(.e 2(4.l lnaura!IC\" 2f.4.2 2r.4.3 Health pby11n 1upplies 2[4.4 Oiapoaal ol DAW gene.rated 2r.4.6 Pl.nt e nergy budget 2r.u NRC Pee1 2(4.7 Planniag 2tU Spent. Fuel Transrer -I SFS I to OOE 2(.4.9 ISPSI Opm*ting Collt.1 2 (.4.1 0 Sec urit y S t affC.-...t 2 r.4.11 DOCSUJffCoet 2(.4.12 Ut ilit y Sta rr Colt 2f.4 S u blota l Period 2f Period-Dependent Colu 2'0 TOTAL PERI O D 2 r OOST PERIOD j TOTALS PERIOD 3b -Site Rutor*don Period 3b Direct. n.ia.run1uionrng i\d.i,*itiel Demolition ofRemainirll'. | |||
Sit e Buildinp 3b.l.l.I *Rewtor 3b.l.l.2 C 11t1it.-I Additiona 86-2004 3b.t.J.3 Coutainmtnt. | |||
P e nelrall()ll An-11 ab.J.1.4 AU-lbm e ou1 3b.l.l.15 Turbine 3b.l.l.6 Turbine Pedellal 8b.J.l.7 Fuel llandlirll'. | |||
3 b.l.I To:Ol t Sit e Cloeeout ActMtft 3b.l.2 Grade & lamhcapP lite 3b.l.3 Pinal report lo NRC 3 b.I S u bl.Ol.3 1 Pe ri od 3 b Ai.1.ivit.y Colt.a P e ri o d 3 b ;\d dili o n&I Cotil! 3 b.2.1 CoMret.eC ru 11b i11 g U b.2.2 ColTerditm Co n 1truct.ion | |||
&nd TeMdown 3b.2.3 Soi l I Sediment Control Plant Area 3 b.2.4 1\likellaneou1 Conatruction Deb.U (outof11.ate di1poeal) 3 b.2.6 Scrttp Mel.al Tramportttlion (ou' of.1tate) 3 b.2.6 FSS Mnn11ger 3 b.2 Subtot.al Period 3b Additiona l Coltt Pf.riod 3b Collateral C<lltJo 3b.3.I Small tool aJlow3noe 3 b.3 S ubt o4*a l Period 3b Colkller31 eo.u Period 3b Period.Dependent Coatt 3b4.I l ne.uranoe 3b.4.2 Pf"Oliel1ytaxes 3 b.4.3 He11Y)* equipment. | |||
rental 3b.4.4 Plttn1 e ners:>* budget 3b.U NR C ISFSI FeH 3 b.4.6 Emef'll'Dc:y Planning Fees 3b.4.i Spent Tran1fer | |||
* ISl-'$1 t o OOE Sb.U I SFSI Operati ag C.0.11 3 b.4.9 Secunty s1,.rr Coet 3 b.4.I O IX>C S1a rr eo.t 3b.4.ll Utilily 3b.4 Sublotal Period 3b Penod*Ot>pendcn t Coete 3b.O TOTAL PERIOD 3b OOST TLG &rvicn, ln c. O IT-Site Remov*I Pa c bslns Tr1tnsport ProceH ln s ""'' ""'' Co1h eo ... eo ... .... .... .. , 8.181 7 5 , 300 2 3.942 14.4 06 7 , 188 320 730 31 3 , 8U7 1,404 15 ,&19 2 , 337 17 , 88G ... 1 478 1.33-1 Z2G8 ""' 208 7 , 689 7 , 589 27 , 96 1 Tab l e C-1 Diab l o C an yo n Un.it 1 DECON De co mmi ss ioning Cost Estimate (T hou sa nd s 0£2014 Dollars) LLRW N K C Dlspos.U Other Tot al Tot al lJe. Term. Manasement c.. .. Cos l J Conli n enc Cos t s Cot ts Com .., ** ... 39 1 13' 1 9 ... J M 245 929 929 * " " m 99 J;()J J;()J ... .. ... ... 200 .. ... "" 1 , 004 ... 1 , 219 1.219 "' .. J;()() 600 2 , 800 622 3.62 1 3 , 62 1 6 , 073 1,(189 6 , 162 6 , 162 5.7<< 1.2 33 6 , 977 6 , 977 1 6.746 3.758 21 , 200 19.1 78 2.027 28 , 869 8.496 38 , 067 aG,089 2 , (1'.!7 120.303 G30 , 7 0 4 23 4 , 118 1.1 07 060 902.0 1 3 191 , 287 l ,&1 3 8 , 7 3 1 ** 388 ,., 887 7 3 7 837 4 , 7 3 4 30 1 1 , 7 06 "" 2,403 3, 388 1 8 , 886 W2 2 , 839 242 " "" ,,,. "' 3 , 891 22,01 9 294 .. M7 10 3 ... ... 1 , 620 6 , 870 1 , 260 7 , 1 3 1 4.97 6 1.068 6 , 0-14 6 22 '" 7 06 7 06 11 , 471 :1 , 94 9 16 , 688 706 *1 5 , .. .. 2113 r& 81 G J 3 643 "'° .. 002 602 1 , 629 9 , 2 18 678 ... 82 3 ... ** ... 35!1 ... 1 27 1 , 0 1 2 l , 012 710 4,018 4 , 0 18 ..... 201 1 , 646 1 , 645 9 , 622 2 , 044 11 , 006 '°' 8 , 790 16 , 1 37 18 , 387 8 , 1 00 1 , 769 &, 966 0 1 , 001 40 , 397 1 0 , 14 3 68 , 1 29 '°' 18,96 1 62, 1 10 1 7 , 0'.l8 117 , 088 1 , 000 1 8,96 1 Site P roc eHed Burl1t l Vo lum C9 BHtor1tllon V o lum e C la HA C lauB Clll3sC OTCC Com C u.Feet C u. F<<t C u. Fee t Cu.Feet C u. Feet .... 33 7 .. , 1 3,760 689 ,9 12 003 785 8 , 73 1 """ 887 3 7 4 , 73..f J ,700 ..... 1 8 , 886 2,JJJ9 2 1 , 726 .. 7 ... 1.620 7.1 3 1 6 , 044 1 5.932 ... ... 9 , 2 18 82 3 2 , 776 1 8 , 387 7 , 06-1 39 , 168 77 , 0'i8 Document POJ.J719-00J , R ev. 0 Appendi.Y C, Pu6e 9o f 21 Burial/ UtUltyand Procuted C l"llft Co ntr,.cto r Wt. Lbs. lh ub oun lh n.hou n 6 , 73-4 JI 37,32 1 46 , 760 60 , 1 07 6 , 734 IH , 1 79 6.7 3 4 1213 , 404 147 , 299 60.199.630 841 , 286 6 , 002 , 1>41 67 , 9 1 4 3,672 G , r& 2'9 38 , 803 11 , 300 1 6, 700 14 4 , 961 4 , 687 '*'""' 149,538 '*""" 1 ,0 71 4.004 I0 , 271 6 , 1>18 16,247 6 , 1>18 1 22,582 136 , Sill 87 , llH 346,671 1 66 , 784 863 , 371) | |||
"' :::,-'.!" "' ,t> Diablo C t rnyon Pow e r Pla 11t Der:om m iHio ni na Coat An a l y*i* Activi t y l n d u: Acti vlt\* D escr l li on PERIOD k -F u e l S t oraj'e O perati o n s/S hlpp l n l' P eriod Sc Din!ci Deeom m iMiooing Acti v i ti es P eriod 3c Co l.J 11te r al Cue1a &.3 S u b l ot.a l Pe ri od 3c Co lla te r itl Cueta P e ri cx l 3c Pe riod-De pe n de n t Coet.11 3cA.J l oHr a n ce 3c..l.2 P roi>c rt.y la 11e11 3c.4.3 Plimt c oorgy hml ge l 3c.4.4 NRC l.SFS I F ee* & .. 1.6 E m ergency P l a nni ng f ees 3c..&.6 Spe n t 'l'n m e J e r | |||
* I SFSI to DO E Sc..t.7 I S f S I O p ew t i n r Coets Sc..t.8 Sec ur ity S t a!l'Coe t 3c A.9 Utili t y St.a lf Coet &A S u blc.la l Period 3c:: P eriOO.Depe n denl Costa &.O TOTAL P ERIOD 3c:: COS T P ERIO D a d -OTC C s hl p p in f P t" riod 3d Oi reci Deroi nm in 1 o n in g Aet.i v il iee N u clen r Ste1t m S u1 1 pl y Sys l l'n l I L.>m cn*n l 3d.l.l.1 Vetll!l'I & l n t.e r oa l s GTCC Di!!PoSll l 3d.l.I To1.a l 1 3d.I S u b l ulll l P e n u d 3d Act 1\*i t y C',<;aet* 3d.3 S ulitol al P f'r iod 3d Ui ll u t e r a l C-Oeh P e r i od 3d P t>r iod-De!J('ndt-nt Cueu 3d . .f..1 l nA u rance 3d.4.2 Prope rl y l a.1::e11 3d A.3 P l a n t t"ne r g y hut.I ge l 3d.4.4 I S F S I Opera ting C-Oli l s 3d A.5 Sec urit y S t 8 ff Co!i t 3d.4.6 U ti li ty S lllff eo.t. 3d.4 Su btot al P e ri od :"sd P e r iod-Depe nd e n t Coe11 3d.O TO T AL P ER I O D 3d 0061' PERI OD le* I SFS l Dc co ntamlu a tl on Period 3e Direct Decommi1111ioo in g Actfr ili es Pe ri od 3e A d di t i o n a l Coet.1 3e.2.I L iai n!IC T e n11i nn l100 I Slo"S I 3e.2 S u btot ril P e riod 3e Ad diti o n a l Coell P e r i od 3e Co ll at.ern l Co&t P .... S u b t o t.n l P e r i o d 3e Co lb1tcrn l ""°"'* Pe r iod 3e P e riotl*Depe nd e nt Costs 3e.4.J JeA.2 Prope r1 y l&Jte& 3e.4.3 P l a n 1.f'oer w*b u tlge 1 36.4.4 Secu r ity S t a ff Coe l 3'>.4.6 U111i 1 ySta lT Cc.et 3e.4 S u b l oln l P e ri od 3e Pe r i<xl-Depe nd e n t Cal l 11 3'".0 TOT A L P E RIOD 3e COS'l' T LG Inc. O ff-S it e Oeco 11 Rem o v a l P1 u*karJ11r Tr11n 9 port Proceu l n r Cool Cool Cos t s Co*" Coou 2 , 1 07 2 , 1 07 2,I0 7 2.107 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 13 1 2 1 1 3 Ta bl e C-1 D i ab l o Ca n yo n U ni t 1 DECON D e commissio nin g Co s t Est im at e (T h ousand s o{ 2 014 D olla r s) LLR W N R C Obp o u l Othec T o tal T o ta l Uc. T e rm. Co sl s Cos ts Co n t in e n c* Co s t.11 "°'" 6.1*11 7 36 6 , 8 7 6 .,a , 0 1 0 675 .,1 , 689 *1.1 09 688 .f., 697 8.088 1 , 167 9 , 2 4 6 30.M6 6 , 656 3 7.IO I 12 , 3 71 2,655 1 5 , 026 66.&89 l.f., 166 80 , IM 1 6 , 1 78 3 , 268 1 8 ,.f.30 1 46 , 436 29.690 1 75.1 2U l.f.6,4315 29 , 690 176,126 9,6 2 6 2 , 799 l.f.,43 1 1 .. , 43 1 9,626 2,799 14 , 4 31 1 4,43 1 9,626 2,7ll9 1 4, 4 3 1 1 4,43 1 I i 1 2 8 9 26 3 1 1'16 2\) 1 66 3 1 7 ,. 2 1 1 " 255 9.626 211 2.8 43 l.f., G86 1 4 , 43 1 <00 1 ,096 6 1 9 U 4 9 2.3 4 9 <OO 1 ,098 619 2 , 3 4 9 2 , 3*1 9 79 2 8 1 07 107 "' 2 1 80 80 l<I 60 1 9 1 19 1 UM 66 260 260 *1 62 1 66 628 028 '"' 1.r.oo 784 2,if76 2 , 076 S p e11 t.Fue l Sit e Proc ene d M11n11rem e nt R Htoratlo n Vo l um e C l a HA Co st s Co m C u.F e et C u. F eet 5 , 8 76 4 , 589 .f., 697 9 , 2 4 (1 37.IO I 1 6.026 80.1 04 18.4 36 176.1 26 1 75, 1 2(1 1 2 3 1 16 5 38 200 206 J ,777 1 ,777 1 ,777 llu r h d V o l ume' C la n B C J u sC O T CC C u. Feet C u. F e e t C u. F ee t 1 ,6<19 1 ,6<19 1 , 649 1.6*19 D oc u m e n t P01-11 1 9-00 1 , Re v. 0 App e n d i x C , Poa e J O of 2 1 Bu r l*I/ U t llit y and P rocessed C urt Co 11t r 11 ct or Wt., Lbs. M a nh o u n 82lUIOO 169.49 7 £185.297 !Rl5 , 297 3'0,307 330,307 330 , 307 1 ,700 32 8 2.028 330.307 2 , 028 1 06.17 0 7.000 388 1 08, 1 70 7,00G 388 1 ,00 1 1 ,00 1 3,803 1 08, 1 70 7 , 006 4, l lf l Diablo Canyon PowerPlou l Dt!com m luion i n1 Co*t AnulJ .. i* Activity lndu Actlvltv Descri tlon PERIOD ar -ISFSI Site Restoration Period SfDin!ci Decomnti..aiuninf Activitie* | |||
Pt!riod s r Addi1iunal Cost* 3 f.2.I Ot>molition | |||
&nd Site Refilortllion I SFSI 3 f.2.2 Soil/SedimeotCootro llS PS I 3(2 Subcotal Pe r kxl 3 f Addi l iona l C-oe11 Pe riod 3 C Co llot.era1 CoiJu J f.3.1 S nrnll too l allowonce 3 f.3 Subt.o1al P&ri oc l a r C.O lla t.e r1J.l Ch!t.1 Period 3 ( Period-Dependc nL Coats 3 f.4.l l o*uranoe 3 14.:.t 3!4.3 H eavy eq u ip 1n e nt. re nt:r.1 3 1'.4.4 Pla nt er.erg)* Lud get 3f.4.6 Secu rilJ' St.a fT Cott 3 f.4.6 Utili t;S1a rr n.at 3 f.4 Subwu l Period 3( P eriod-Dependent n.t* ato TOTALPERIOD3 f 00ST PER.IOD 3 TOTALS TOTAL COST TO DE CO lDUSSJON TAL COST TO OECOMAOSSIO WITH U.06"l> AL NR C LI CENSE TERMJNATION OOST IS 70.1 1'i OR: C..t ll , H7 Remova l Coot 1 , 642 21 l,663 ,. " " 57 1 ,7 44 29,8 1 6 107 , 890 TALLOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME DURJED (EXCLUDING OTCC): AL GREATER THAN Cl.ASS C RADWASTE VOLUAtE OENERATID: | |||
AL SCRAP M.ETAL REMOVED: AL CRAFT LABOR R.E UJREMENI'S: | |||
E11dNole1: nla | |||
* indic&t e. th a t Lbhl ad:Mty nc;t charted as deeommit&ioning expeo!ll!. 11. i ndicates thtit this 9Cl.iv1ty performed by dttommiuiooing 11.aO'. 0 *i n dicates thot this na lue 11 leu than 0.5 but i1 non-uro. a ce ll contain.inc* | |||
.* indic.ule. | |||
a uro ,*a lue TLG &rvice*, Inc. Tab l e C-1 D ia bl o Canyo n U n it 1 DECON Deco m miss i o nin g Cost Est im ate (fhousanda of 20 1 4 Do ll ars) P11ckafi111 Transport Costs Costs O ff-Site ProceHl n f Cos l.s LLRW Oiapo!!lal eo. .. Other eo,,, 2,7.1{1 23 27 76 156 2.906 2 , 11 6 13 1 0,016 202 , 22 1 16 ,<114 14.8'13 1.19.11 4 1 ,041,671 S l , 871.030 OUltln o r 201.f dollars tl.,190,764 th o usandJ or 2014 dollars 1389.776 thouuods o r 201.f doll.rs 198,GOI thousa11d1 o f 2014 dollus 606,824 C11blc Feet 1.649 Cubic Feet. 49.707 Tons I 06I 7!5 M*n-h ours Tot Ill Co ntln enc 912 I 0'7 *I " * | |||
* 10 " llOO 6 1 ,3 41 aaa .. u1 Total c. ... M33 20 6,369 :JO :JO " 69 28 33 "" , .. 6,646 296 , 622 1.671,010 NKC Uc.Tenn. Costs 18 ,467 1 , 190,76.f Spent Fue l Man111ement Costs 1 94,342 189,77G Site B es tor11 1 tlo n c. ... '*""" 20 6 , 369 30 30 ,, 69 :18 33 !J3 200 6, 646 82 ,723 N.60 1 Document PO J-l1 l!J..OOJ, Rev. 0 Appendix C , Pa1e II of 2 1 Proces1ed Volume C I Hs A Cius 8 C l aH C GT CC C u. F eet Cu. Feet C u. Feet Cu. Feet C u. Feet Burld/ Procened Wt., Lbs. 1 ,777 1.649 "38,477 &63,189 , .... 1.6.fl 6 1., 194.ZIO 20 ,.143 ..... 23 , 0 11 23,0 11 195 ,800 l,06a , 72G UtUityand Contr11ctor Ma11houn 80 340 "' 1 , 1 33 1 , 213 1 , 346, 1 09 7,667,666 | |||
"' :::,-::=-"' CJ) Diablo Ca n ycm Po wer Pla rit Decommiuionin1 Cost Analy*i* Actl\*lty I nd ex A c tivity De9cri d o n PERIOD lit-Shutdown thr o u sh Transition Period l a Direct Dewmrn i 111"o n in g Act il*h:ie!ll I n.I.I Pre p tire p re limi nary d eoom m illl!!ioning fXl8l 1 11.1.2 Not ifi catio n o£Cessatio o o rf)peratiooa 1 a.1.a Retno\*e ru e] & ao u rce m a teria l l a.1..t Not ifi c at io n o r Pe rm ane n t D e J u t:l ing l n.1.5 Deact in t t e plant sys t e m* & P l'OC'lN "''"IA! l a.1.6 P rep are 1to<l 1i ubm it PS D A R l a.1.7 Ri l*i c w pl a n t d w gs & SJ!eCll. l a.1.8 Pe rfom1 de t a iled rml a un*cy l n.1.9 EBt irufll£h y-prod uct.inl'e 11 lory l a.LIO E nd pro.Ju d de K ripti o n l a.I.II De l a i le d b y-prod uci.in re n lo r y l n.1.1 2 De fin e m ajo r work 8C qu e n c,-e Ja.1.1 3 P c r ro m1 u m! E..t,. l a.1.14 Pe rfom1 S i te-Sp e(;Hi c Cost St ud y l a.1.1 5 P re p areh rnhtnit Li ce n se T c nnin a l io n P l a n l a.1.1 6 R ece h*c NRC a p p rov al of l e nnin aLlo n p l an Acti v ity Specifica t ions J a.1.1 7.1 P l a ol &.t.pmpora l'}* r aci h1 it-, l a.1.1 7.2 P l a nl iiyMe m 11 l a.1.1 7.3 NSSS Drco ntruni natio n F l u" h l a.1.1 7.4 1 1e8Clor int erM I., 111.1.1 7.6 Reactorves!'lf' I lr 1.l.1 7.6 Biological11 h iekl l a.1.1 7.7 S l eamge n e r a l or9 l a.1.1 7.8 Rei nfo rce d oonc re le Ja.1.1 7.9 M11 i11 T urb i n e l n.1.1 7.10 M iti n Cc.n dense r f!. l a.1.1 7.11 Plan t. " tru c1 u ret1 & bu il d ings l a.1.1 7.1 2 Wa!!o l e man age n1 e n1 la.1.1 7.1 3 Faci lit y&!!o it edoeoeo u1 J a.1.1 7 T o l81 Pl a nnin g & Sit e Prcpar at.io llll J a.1.1 8 P re p n re di 11 m a ntling se qu e n ce lit.LI O Pl n nl.pr e p. &t e mp. 8\'CC6 1 11.1.20 De1 i gn w a ler ele an-up eyale m 111.1.2 1 R iggi n gl\Jo n t. Cn lrl Eo\*lp aft.oo lin gletc. l a.1.2 2 P rocureetu1 ka/l in c ra&oo nt.n i n e re 1 11.I Sublol n l Pe ri od l a A ctivity Coeh Period l a Additio na l Coalll l n.2.1 Spent Jo'ue l Pool ho l ntio n l a.2.2 Dispoe:t l o r Co n ta mi nated T oob & l-:qui1)me nl l a.2 Subl.olal Period l a Ad d iLl ona l Cc.At-& Perk>d laCol l a t era l Coe t a la.3 1 Em*irouine n t.-i l Pe rm il9 and F'ee1 l a.3.2 G T CX::: S t o r age Pe nn iUing (PG&E Labor) l a.3.3 G T OO S t o r age Pe rmitti ng (Co n t r ACto r) l a.3 Su b t ota l Pe r io d l a Co ll atera l f'..oe t1 Pe ri od l a P e rio d-Drpe n de n t. Cosl.s l a.4.1 l n s ur a n ef' lo.*1.2 ProiK'rt y t a x e1 l a.4.3 H ea lth p hy11ic111 up1 1 li e1 l a.4.'I 1-!cavyeq u i pm e nl.l't!nt a l l a.4.5 D ispo11a l o r DA\\' geoe rnt ed l itA.0 P l n nl e ner gy bud get l a.4.7 N ll CF'ee!!I la.4.8 E me r ge n cy Plan n ing Ft'('! ]H ,4.9 Spent l''ud Poo l O&M ln.4.10 I S F SJ 0 1 1e r alfo g <'-<A!!l.s TLG Servi.cH, In c. Removal Pa c U.-lns Tnt n 5 Por1 eo.t Co ot "°'"' "°'" 219 10.1 219 103 4 95 667 13 Tabl e C-2 Diab l o Ca n yo n Unit 2 DECON D ec ommi ss ioning Cost Es timat e (T h ousa nd s o f 2014 Dollars) Off.Site LLRW NRC P roc e u lns Dbpo,a l Ot h er To t 11.I Total Lie. Term. eo, t , eo,,, Co 1t1 Co nlin en c Co9 tl c. ... 8G 19 106 1 06 . nl* . 1 33 2!l 162 1 62 :m 66 372 372 66 " 8 1 81 66 14 8 1 81 "" 10 105 1 05 498 108 606 606 '°" *1* 200 2[)0 .,., 72 <O* 4 0-1 272 59 33 1 33 1 326 71 39 7 358 277 00 33 7 303 33 7 *10 40 4i l 1 02 673 673 43 1 .. "' 626 33 7 40 .. 207 " 262 202 1 66 23 1 21! 65 27 | |||
* 32 27 | |||
* 32 207 ... 2G2 12 6 306 66 372 37:! GO " " 36 2.5 1 0 5'15 3,0M 2 , 6'.)0 1 60 36 104 1 9.1 3.000 651 3 , 65 1 :i,66 1 03 20 11 8 11 3 2.300 *1 00 2.700 2.700 82 18 09 99 1 0.19.t 2 , 2 1 2 1 2.407 12 , 042 1 4.442 3 , 1 3-4 17577 17.577 2.836 1 , 079 t 236 *1 , 236 2.836 IU-42 4.214 2 1.8 1 3 2 1.81 3 9 49 ""' 1.1 56 1 , 1 65 3 , 389 7M 1 , 12 4 4 , 12.t 1 ,57 1 341 1.9 1 2 1 , 9 1 2 5 ,90'J 1 , 282 1.1 92 7 , 192 1.1 32 1 6< 1 , 200 1.200 1 77 20 '""' 203 17 0 67 4 6 74 12a 61'0 600 15 * ** 4 0 2.737 ... 3 ,3 3 1 3, 33 1 834 1 21 054 ""' 1 ,001 1 46 1.14 6 792 17 2 .... G47 11 9 666 Spe nt Fue:I Si te Proce9sed Burial Volumes )flllla1ement Re9lor11.tio11 Vo l ume C l auA C la ssB c 1.,,c Cos ts Co st s C u. F e el C u. F ee t C u. F ee t C u. Feel .., " 65 32 32 1 26 "" 365 306 I0.245 I0 , 245 666 1 , 1*16 00< ... GT CC Cu. F ee t Documen* POl-1119-001, Rev. 0 Appendix C , Po.re l!of 21 Bu ri al/ Ut ili ty llJld ProceHed c .. n Co ntract o r Wt., Lb ,. J\.la.nh o un Man h o urs 6'6 866 1 , 009 *1 28 4 28 566 3.2IO 1 , 32 7 2 , 1 4 0 1 , 753 2 , 1 00 1 , 783 214 3.039 2 , i 8 2 "' 1 ,336 ... 171 171 1 ,33 5 1 ,"69 385 16 , 1 00 1.0 2 7 690 526 3 1.&36 GH946 317 62-1.045 317 11 ,200 1 8 | |||
"' -::1" 1> "' ..... Diablo Can yo n Power Pion I De co nunln lo nin1 Co.t Anoly*i* Activity l nde.x Actlvlt De1i c rl li o n P11:riod la Period*lkpc.nden1 | |||
.Cos11 (lvntinued) la.4.11 Se ,-e r anre Re l ated Cai l* l a.4.12 &c::urityS.11trCo.1 la.4.1 3 Utilit)' su.rr Coat Subtotal Period la Period-Oepc.nde.nt Cott* l a.O TCYrAL PEJU O D la C{JST PERIOD lb-D eeo mntlHl o n l n1 Pr e paration* Pr.Mod lb Direct Oecom m iH i o ni ng Aci.il'it i e* Deut il e d W ork Proce d ure* lb.I.I.I Pl 11D t ty1lem* lb.1.1.2 NSSS Drecontominatio n J'lua h lb.l.1.3 Reactof'inlernol1 lb.I.IA Remain.ing huilding1 Jb.1.1.6 CROcooling11188embly lb.1.1.G CRO houetnp & I CI tube.I lb.I 1.7 lnt:l'.ftl i utnnnenlaCJon lb 118 Reactwvcael Jb.1.1.9 Facili l y c&o.eout lb.I.I.JO Miuikla h ield* lb.I.I.I I BiokJcictole b te lJ Jb.1.1.1 2 S t t-a m gener"ton l b.1.1.1 3 HeinrottedOOl\Crf'le l b.1.1.1 4 Main Turbine lb.l.J.16 MainCondienl!lf'n l b.I.I.IS Auxiluuy buildiov l b.1.1.17 Reector bu1kho1 l b.I.I Total l b.1.2 °"-vn p r ima r y lwp l b.I S u blotal Period lb Actm1y Colt* Pe r iod l b Addil.iono l | |||
l b.2.1 SiteC h 1m 1 cte r iw li oo l b.2.2 llo 2 ar do u a W flll t e Ma n 11gtome n t l h.2.3 rt l ix e d\\'09tcl.l o n ogeme n t l b.2 S u b t ota l Pe r iod l b Ad d itio n 11 I OltlU Period l b Co ll a t era l Coe l* lb.3.1 Oeoo n equipme1 1t i b.3.2 DOC 1tafl' cxpenaet lb.3.3 Proa!'l1decomminiooiog11 | |||
*ate r wa11t.c lb.3..4 ProoeH deeommlMioningehemical R uth wlllle lb.35 Smal l loo! t\lklw1nce Jb.3.8 Pipe c uUina cquipmenl l b.3.7 °""""rig l b3.8 Enviroomeol.a. | |||
1 Permit* and Fee1 lb.39 GTCC Storawe Pemutling (PG&E Labor) l b3 J O GTCC Stor* Pennittinv (Cont r acto r) l b3 S u btota l Pe r iod lb Co ll ale r a l Coate Pe r k>d l b Perk>d-Ot!pe n deo1 C09t* l b.4.1 Deron tuppliel l b.U l n11uranct l b.4.3 Proper1ytatt11 t b.4.4 Health phy1k9 1upplie9 lb.4.6 llellJV)' equipment rentl'll l b.4.6 0ial)Otl81o r DAWgeqera 1 ed l b.4.7 Plim l t'DellO' budger l b.4.8 NRCF11Jet l b.Ht Emergency P l a n n i ng ree, l b.4.1 0 Spe n t Pool Poo l O&M TLG ,5e,.v i c u , In c. RemovaJ Cn.t Cno t 1 ,00 2 l ,00 2 i97 7£17 ... .. 2 1 , 100 1 , 000 2 ,&90 1.I03 29 2611 28 1 Tab l e C-2 Diablo Ca n yo n Unit 2 DECON D eco mmi ss ioning Cost Es timat e (Thousands o( 2014 Dollars) OCI-Slte ILRW Pa c lultfnl Tr11n s por1 Pr oc e H IDI DlspoH I Ot h er Tot11 I Tota l en. .. Co!il!I Co!ltl Co!l t S Cno u Co 11tln e n c Cos tt 46 , 9*i3 9,970 66,9 1 3 21.316 4 , 620 26 ,9 41 29 , 883 ..... 3G.3C8 " lo 104.362 22,7 3 1 128 , 186 232 107 2,850 134 , 908 30, 4 39 100697 "' ll8 38' 00 " 81 100 "' 202 00 19 100 00 " 81 00 14 81 .. .. 81 "' 62 293 80 17 97 30 6 "' 80 17 97 ""' 00 372 00 14 " Ill* 22 126 1 0*1 22 126 1 81 31! 220 1 81 "' 220 2.206 "" 2 , 086 677 1.374 2 , 200 1 , 00< ..... 2 , 238 971 3,200 217 .., "'' 287 C2 3.19 2.742 1 , 08 1 3, 823 201 1 , 1*17 IA66 318 1.784 " 6 1 151 llM 888 94 ,., 6.783 2161 8 292 I ""' 1.330 347 1.91 7 471 102 "' '°' 16.1 867 613 1 33 7'6 127 000 6 , 934 3,25-1 3.763 17 , 0iG 10 ,. 561 81 642 88 13 IOI ., ''" 61 .. , 6 23 2,7 1 4 ""' 3,300 23 1 33 "" 497 72 068 393 .. 478 NRC Spent Fuel Si t e Procet!Jt'!d Ll c. Term. *tan*Jemenl Restor11ti o u V o l um e C l aHA ""'" Co st!J ""'" C u. F ee t C u. F ee t 66,9 1 3 26 ,9 41 30,308 126 , 409 2,776 ""' IGG,"6G 2,776 ... 10 , 810 ... 38 " "" 27 82 8 1 8 1 81 293 48 48 "' 97 372 ** ** 1 26 120 llJ8 " llJ8 " 2 , 180 ... 1 ,3 74 3 , 66< ... 3,209 264 3*IO 3.823 1 , 147 1 , 781 388 291 8.29'.l 3 1.339 1.9.(7 "' 867 740 17 , 076 29 1 39 642 IOI '"" 342 " 322 '*""" "" 008 478 Burial Volumes C lassB Clau C GT CC C u. F ee t C u. F ee t C u. F eet 887 887 D oc ument PO l-1719-001 , Rev. 0 Appen d ix C , Pa1e 13 of 2 1 Burial/ Utlllty and Proce n ed C r.Ct Co utr11 c t o r Wt. Lb s. M a nh o un Manh o u u 286,';86 3 4G,279 11 , 200 18 C33,0 14 636,2 44 336 CG4,680 2.026 .,. 1 , 070 678 ,,. .,. 428 1.564 614 193 ... 1 ,009 '28 008 ... 1 , 168 1.168 14 , 228 1 , 007 1 ,00 7 14 ,2 28 10 , COO 4,025 1 0 ,600 4 ,025 17.471 57 94.53 1 1 66 1 1 2,00'.l 223 6,439 II Diablo C an yo n Pow e r Plout D eco mmi1J1Jionin1 Co.a Anal.r*i* Act ivity lnd ex Actlvlt De sc ri t l on Pe r iod lb Period*Dependent Co!l1*11ron linu ed) l b.4.11 l b.4.1 2 Sec urit y S l a lf Coet Jb.4.1 3 rx:x:: Sta lf Coet Jb.4.Jo& Utili t ySta lT Cost. lb.-' Subl.Ol.al P e r iod l b Period.Dependent Coe t s lb.O TOTAl.P l<;R.I O D l b COS T PERIOD 1 TOTALS PERIOD 211.. Lar&e Co mpon e nt Removal Period 2a Direct Decom ru iu i o ni nK Ac!frities Nucleu r Steam S uppl y Systen1 Re ru0\"8 1 2a.l.l.I Reacto 1 Cool8 n l Pipi n 11 2a.1.l.2 Preuurize r QueocbTruik 2a.l.l.3 lkactorCoola nt.flum ps&.Mot.or8 2a.l.l.4 Preu uri ze r 2a.l.l.6 SteamGenera l ofl!I 2a.l.1.6 Ju.tired S t ea m Gent>rat o r U n its 2n. I. l.7 C RDf\11n C l s/Se rv ice Str uct u re Ren101*a l 2 n.l.l.8 Re.actor\" eue l l n t e rna l 8 2i:t.1.J.11 Uetteto r\*e11te l 2a.1.I Tol ri l ll Remova l o r Majo r Equi pm e nt 2a. l.2 Main Tur b io e!Cene rat o r 2a.l.3 ?\lain C.C,ndeMt'n C a!!a!d.iog Croo.1 C lean Bu ildin g Deruo l i1Mx 1 2a.1.4.I *RelllClor 2a.l.4.2 A uxil iary 211.1.4.3 Cu ntainm ent Penr*lr ation Are a 2a.l.4.4 Radwaslt> | |||
Storage 211.1.4.5 Fue l H o ndlin g 2a.l.-1 To1.a l 8 Dit1po11alofPlan l Sy11t.emt1 2 a.l.5.I A u x iliarySt ea m 2a. l.6.2 A u xi liary S1.P.a n1 (RCA) 2a.J.6.3 B uil ding Service* (Non.P owe r Bloc k) 2a.l.5.4 Co ndeo&lllle. System 2a. l.5.5 Conde n lllte S)*11 t e m On1u la ted) 2a. l.6.6 Cont.ai no1en t Spr ay 2a.l.5.7 E:rtrncdon Steam & H eat.e r D rip 2a.l.5.8 F eed wal t'r 2a. l.6.9 F eedwate r System (lo111laled) 2a. l.6.1 0 fo'eedwat.e. | |||
r Syste m (R C A ln s ula t.ed) 2a. l.6. I l F eed wat.er Syst.e 1 n (RCA) 2a. l.5.1 2 NS8S Sr:.mp l i n g 2a. l.5.1 3 NSS S Sr:.m1 1lln g (ln s ul r:.1.ed) 2n. l.5.14 N ilrogcn & H y dn)£en 2a.l.6.1 6 N i1.rogen&.llydrogen(lmulatt'd) 2a.l.6.1 6 Nitroge n&. H y dnl(en (RCA Insul a t ed) 2a.l.6.17 Ni trogen & H yd roge n (RCA) 2n. l.6.18 O il y W a t e r Se par11t or & TB Sum p 2a.1.5.1 9 S11ltwa l e r Sys t e m 2a. l.6.20 Turbioe Steft m Supp l y 2a. l.5.2 I T urb ine S I.ea rn Supp l y (RCAJ 2n.l.5.22 Turbi ne find Genern t o r 2a.l.5.2 3 Turb ine and Ge n era t or (l m*ufotcd) 2a.J.6 Tot ale 2n. l.6 Sca f fo ld ing in a uppurt. of dec-ommiH i u nin ir 2a.l Sub t.ota l P1*r iod 211 A ctfrity Costs TLG &,.vice., In c. D eco n C:O.t 20 3 , 416 300 " 1 63 53 503 20 7 186 1 6 1 1 ,69 4 l , Gff4 R e mova l P*ckal'inf Tran spo rt Cos t Cosu Co5 l s 661 1 , 663 2 , 7 1 6 001 37 13 1 70 3 , 330 ""' 10 , 11 2 7 ,6 1 2 22,033 212 696 1 ,262 762 " 97 206 2 , 4 05 70 1.1 3 7 6*1 5 286 238 240 70 1 08 121 | |||
* 1 66 ... 20 I | |||
* IOO 30 188 794 ... 85 20 4,357 4, 4 24 3 4 , 1 27 1 34 366 .. 7 1&9 .... 3, 239 2 , 298 246 f.1 , 706 2,639 18 ,790 20 1 17 33 266 458 1 9,281 ''" -1 1-1 38 6 213 114 2 , 03.t 1 ,982 35 1 ,609 8fAI 6 , 7 8 8 .. 13 1 0< 1 rn G,977 Table C-2 Diablo C anyon U nit 2 DECON D eco mmi ss ionin g Cost Est imat e (Thousand s 0!2014 Dollars) 00'..S lt e LLRW Pr ocen lnf Di spoH I Coi l s Cos tJ 6,9-1 8 8 , 703 1.1 81 100 1 , 4 3 1 760 12 , 696 12.696 66 1 18 , 920 3, 469 6 1 ,00!J 260 1.4 53 ... 22 8 7 72 .. 3,3!0 6 , 710 56 07 , 734 Ot h er Cosu 27 1 I 0.5i0 """' 14.8 1 9 36 , 1 00 4 3 , aas 33' 334 668 Tota l Co uth1 e n c 59 2,29< 1 ,083 3, 216 7 , G99 1 3 , 696 4-1.037 856 )()6 745 4 2 5 7 , 0iO 6 , 36 4 660 23,009 7, 818 46,011 46 IO I 27 4 1 60 17 21 46 622 11 l>l 2 140 6 2 638 52 " 37 202 IO 93 21 4 0 3 .. ... " 172 1 , 080 18 3,300 1,627 61,726 To tal Cost* 330 1 2 , 8G4 6 , 075 1 8.036 4 3 , 431 68 , 388 237 ,986 2.874 363 2.83 1 l , W! 28 , 872 22.330 2 , 008 63.8 3 4 22.8 00 1 47J163 267 8<8 1 ,5 36 928 90 11 8 2/iO 2.927 !JG 11(;7 9 785 3'8 2492 292 .. 200 786 " 35 4 70 24 I 13 200 17 1 221! 966 6 , 149 103 "' 14.074 6, 14 8 17 2 , 206 NR C S 1>ent Fu e l Li e. Tertn. Manag e m e nt Cos t* Coils 1 2 , 86<1 6 , 076 18 , 036 1 2 , 056 00 , 607 232.963 2.87 4 363 2 , 83 1 1 , 869 28.8 72 22 , 330 2 , 098 63,83 4 22 , 890 1 47 , 953 1.036 1128 90 11 8 260 2,9"2 7 11(;7 2.49"l 786 " 36' 70 13 200 17 1 6 , 14 9 1 0,900 6, 14 8 I G7 , 928 1 ,377 1 ,8 77 .1 , 1 53 S it e R e, t o r*ti ou Cos ts ''" 870 257 848 06 9 7 8 5 "' 292 .. 205 229 900 1 03 30 3 , 1 7*1 4 , 279 .. | |||
C u. Fe e t C 11. F e el C u. F ee t C u. F ee t C u. Fe e t 322 lH3 1 1.-'23 2.276 329 -1 , 701 2 , 4 43 41.71 2 4 1 , 0.1 1 3, 881 1 , 878 9 , 4 20 107.67 1 00 3 5 , 26 1 1 , 502 70 316 30 l*I 2GO 3 17 11 , 9EH 20 , 636 1 , 444 1 29.700 887 887 393 003 393 393 D oc um en r POJ.J119-001 , R ev. 0 Appendix C , Pa1e U o f 21 Burl*I I Proce,,ed Wt. lb ,. G.43& 1 1 8.H I 71'.l-'.686 200.1 53 36.65 7 774.900 286 , 592 3,360,76 1 3 , 1 25.629 14 6, 4!M 34-1.339 003 , 382 0,287.&"'6 65.0 1 2 320.0 48 f.1 1.654 4 , 81!":1 1 9.1 7 3 1 , 85:.! 834 1 6.841 1 9.303 729 , 177 1.267,6 1 2 64.977 IO.G I 0 , 400 C raft Ma11h o u r1 II 11 , 000 12.32.5 I0.1 38 1 , 073 """' 2,J(;G 23.233 I0 , 800 7 , 9 7 6 30, 8 33 30, 8 33 1 2 1 , 8 2 0 3 , 033 !:1 , 875 11 , 89C. 'i ,064 7 04 9 1 8 1 , 7 4 6 22 , 3 1 7 1 , 1 70 1 , 008 1 00 9.716 4.253 3420 3.625 1.038 2 , M7 1 ,G95 81 2, 4 00 7 11 300 16 73 1 ,39 1 400 2, 1 m 1 2 , 007 1 2 , 4<1 2 1,260 378 133.726 25G.63 4 U tlll 1y*n d Co ntra c t o r M*nh o u u 14 2 , 2 14 4G , 643 1 7 1 , G9 1 300.4.19 378 , 7 (1 1 1.0-1 3 , 282 100 938 1 ,760 1 , 1 25 1 , 365 1 ,3% 6 , 6 44 G,64 4 | |||
"' :::T :!: "' <O Diab l o Ca n,yon P ower Plartt D f!!co nuniffionin1 Co*t An al)'9i* Act i v ity lnd e.x Actlvltv De.11crl lio n Pe r tod 2* Additiorui. | |||
I ec.a. 2-.2.1 Remedia l Act loo Su n*eys 2 *. 2.2 Rel ittd Reactor H ead 2 *. 2.3 PG&:E RPV Sc a ff Support T ea m 211-2.4 IX)C RPV St*ff Support TelllD 2*.2 Subtotal Period 2a Addition al Cost.a Period 2* Collate r11l Co.LA 2 11.3.1 Prooe11 dewmmi&aioning | |||
"''Ille r wast e 211.3.2 Prooeu dooommiMio n ing che 111 k:o l n118h wa1t.e 2a.S.S Smoll loo l 11Uowr1oce 211.3.-1 Enl'iro n m e nu.I Pen:n i ll 1md Feet 2a.3.6 GTCX:: | |||
P e n uilling (PG&E Labor) 2a.3.G GT CX:: St o rage Pe m1i tliug (Co ntr tteto r) 2a.3 S u bl.olal P e riod 2a Co llnter11 I Co!lll Period 2a Pe r iod-Dependt:nt Cu!:ll lla..&.I Decon t u ppliu 2L-l.2 IHuranoe 2it.43 Prqien.ytaxee 2*-4.4 H ea lth physkt *Upplie1 2a.4.6 HeftV)' eqWplll('n t reuliil 2a.4.6 Ois poM l o r DA W iienerated 2it.4.7 Planl t'net10*budgt>f 2a.4.8 N R C F eH 2u A.ll Emergency Planning F ees 2a A.1 0 S11t"nt lo'uel Pool O&M 2 ..... 11 I SFSI Ope r a t iug Coel* 2a.4.1 2 $e\-erHce RelatOO Ule l* 2*.4.13 Spent. Fuel Stor11p C.ni11*ent/Qverpf11Cb 211.ol.14 Securi1y S 1 a tr eh!1 2 ..... 1 u 2* .... HI Ut iUly StatrClist 2a.4 Sublol a l P eriod 2* Period-Depe nde-nt Cc.sis 2 a.O TOTA L PERI OD 2a CXIST PE RI O D 2 b. Si t e O eeo 111a1n i 11ati o11 P e riod 2b Diroct Acth-itie1 Di11poe.11I of Pinnt S y1 t cnu 2 b.l.1.I C apit.fll Additions (l,""le t10) 2b.l.l.2 Capiull Addilionl 86-2002 (oontam.ineted) 2b.l.l.3 Chemiad 5' Volume Control 2b.l.l.4 Chemica l It Volume Control (Jng ulated) 2b.l.l.6 Qmpooen t Cc.dintf W at.e r 2b.l.l.6 Component Cc.ding W ate r (RCA) 2b.l.l.7 Ct.-npreued Aif 2 b.l.l.8 Compno:ued An (ltllulated) 2L.I.1.9 Can 1 1 reued An (R CA l n1ulatedJ 2 b.I LI O Cunpreued Air (RCA) 2b l.l.ll Dte11el Engine-Generrilor 2b.J.l.l.2 DM:te l (lmrnfat t'd) 2b.l.l.1 3 Electrica l (Clean) 2b.l.l.14 EMlct r ic8 1 (Co nt am inat ed) 2b.l.1.15 E\ocuica l (RC * .\J 2b.l.l.1 6 2b.l.l.17 G119t'OUs Radw*ste 2b.1.J.J8 HVA C (CleA n Jruu.lated) 2b.l.l.1 9 H\'AC{Clerin) 2b.l.l.20 HVA C{Coo tamina1 e d lHulnt ed) 2b.l.l.21 H VAC (U mtamin*led) 2b.Ll.2 2 Liqui d Ra dw Hte 2b.1.l.23 Liquid Ua dw Hte <ln!!u l ated) 2b.l.l.24 Lube Oil Dillribul io u & Purifi c at.K.o 2b.l.l.25 1\1 11ke-up\Vat t'r 2b.l.J.26 Writ e r (l11 1 ul ated) TLG In c. Remov*I C..* C..* 72 3 21 72 3 21 177 3 , 400 6 , 715 177 1 0,116 1 ,9 4 3 44 ,662 467 ... 8'9 1090 807 "" 1116 600 123 * ,. ""' 14 3 3 3 , 257 362 1 ,963 374 1 36 " *38 241 1 , 073 380 4 59 81 .. 1 3 2 2 M " Table C-2 Diablo C any o n Unit 2 DECON Decommi ss i oning Cost Es tima te (fhouHnd s o{ 2 014 Dollar s) O ff.Site u.RW P*c kA1b11 Tr.n 1port Proceu io a Dbpoul Ot her Tolll l Tot*I C..u Costl Coi l* Co1 1 1 Costs Co ntln e o c Costs *, 302 7.003 2G3 81 1 ,6 15 003 2,462 G,008 1 ,3 23 7 , 422 5 , 875 1 , 275 7 , 1 00 ""' 81 1 ,5 1 6 17 ,276 5 , 603 U.C37 ., ... 24' I G7 62' 70 300 2.926 ... 3,00 1 1 7 22 "' 2 , 006 I A l 8 308 1.7 26 " 88 "' G.06 7 1 ,"53 8 597 .. "' l.C.00 227 1 ,700 .. , 7 9 .,._ 1 , 230 '"'"" 1 , 457 8172 1 32 37 157 .. <1 0 8.0 1 3 1 ,730 !l,762 1 ,3"3 19' 1,637 2 , 2().1 319 2 ,5 23 2.442 ... :?,973 1 , 686 306 2 , 00 1 6 , 008 1 , 30 1 7 , 297 ..... "' 30<8 c.8.33 1 1 2 , 659 ,...,, 70, 1 00 16 , 2 1 3 86 , 3 1 3 1 07.38 1 23 ,303 1 30,686 1 82 37 1 6 7 2S2, 112 69,307 332 , 037 19 , 728 7 , 18 2 59,CS I 286 , 122 118 , 090 637 , 278 1 0 1 """ .. 22 ... 443 1 , 710 1 27 62 1 , 653 1.636 ..... " 1 0 3 17 ... 1 690 ,13 "' 149 .. .. ... '"' M 83 27 14 9 8 2 ,. '° 76 30 II ... 30* l , 3!l8 31 17' I | |||
* 70 7 3,003 41 17 MO 336 1 ,2"6 ,,. 2 , 3811 122 .. I .... 737 2,866 .. 0 183 118 ... * ** .. ... 34 14 ... , .. 0 8 9 1 7 3 71 2 , 250 1 ,242 4.808 ., 23 7 42 "' 2,MG 3 33 *1 1 68 29 ""' .. 3 11 ' 30 NRC Spent Fuel Site Proce.Hed Lie. Term. ll an*ge m e n t R mitorat l o 11 Vo lu r.ne C l*u A C..u Coll i.!J c.. .. Cu. Feet C u.Feet 7 , 003 2 , 462 6 , 072 7 , 422 7 , 1 60 2.&, C37 5.072 62< .172 36 1 311 3.00 1 2.006 1 , 72 6 8.368 "" 472 "' 1 , 700 ""' 63 """' 8 , 1 72 41 0 ..... 9,702 J.637 2 , li23 2 , 973 2 , 05 1 7,297 3,043 70 , llS!I 86,3 1 3 1 30.68li 321.386 I0,689 G3 *,llGI> C.2 2 ,30<J 1 0.689 4,880 1 41 , 148 008 1.7JO .... ..... 5.976 , ... 1 , 1, 6 '" .... 6 , 009 ... 8 ,. .. 1 ,'911 1.0 1 9 "' | |||
* 3,003 ..... 1 , 962 2 , 389 2 , 860 5 , 726 ... 600 .. "" ""' 1 ,60!> 4.8118 8.1 32 2,380 2.G83 1 68 1 20 1 60 8 11 30 B ur l*I Volume s C l u!I B C l u!IC GTCC C u. F ee t Cu. Feet Cu. Feet 963 303 D ocu ment P0/./1/J..00 1 , Re v. 0 Appendix C , Pu1 e IS of 2 1 Burl*I/ Utility *nd Proce ued Cr aft Co olr ac tor Wt. Lbs. !lihnh o 11" M a nh oun 6',008 322 442 2 ,098 '° 611 , 803 9 1 ,69-4 322, 4-12 00 , 166 161 ,63 7 28.292 D2 28 ,W'J 92 117.005 1 91 800 , Sl)i 642,867 1 ,206,367 11 7.006 1 9 1 2,648,6 7 2 11 ,07 8 , 2l:IO 322,983 2 , 800, 7 62 7 , 040 1 68.006 6 , 600 36 ... 1 37 24 672 69.872 9920 2 , 1164 408.30.& 8,:.118 1 , 881 .. | |||
<00 98,G62 7 , 238 2.069 *18 <17 ,9 18 118 , 983 4 ,00 1 27,956 348 , 902 6, 1 .. 9 40 , 200 1 ,833 002 7 , 019 li7.832 3, 075 496.632 J S,888 1 63 , 638 11 ,3 1 2 7.330 1 ,002 1 ,00 4 3,79 4 87C | |||
"' :i> ff ::::r '.!: "' 0 Di a bl o C an)'On P o w er Pfa rit D eco mmi .. io nin g Co** Ana l y*i* Ac tklt y lnd u A c tl vl t v De , er i tl o n Di,posa l of P i n nt Sy11 1 e m 1 ll'Ontinued) 2b .. l.l.27 W111e r (R CA lne.u l 8.ted) 2b.l.l.28 M11ke-up Wn t c r fRCA) 2b .. J .. l .. ?9 M ec henic*I De.pllJ'lment Eq u i p ment 2b.l.l.30 Mi1eellan eo m1 Rencto r Coolant. 2b.J.1.31 Nuc l ear $le8m S up p l y Samp l ing ::!b.l.l.32 Nuclea r Slc t un SllJ>p}y Swnp li Dg H nsuloted ::!b.1.1.33 Rc.:iid u al ll e 11t Re m o\'" 11 1 2 11..l.l.34 Sa f e t y l njed.ion 2b.l.l.36 Snfoty lnjcctio n (l ns u l uted) 2 h.1.1.36 Safe l y lu ject.io n (H CA ln s uh1t ed) 2b.J..l.3 7 Sa f ely l u,icrtion | |||
<R C .. .\) 2b.l.l.38 Sel'\*lce Coo lin g Wate r 2h.J.l.39 SeM*ice Coo lin g Wnte r (R CA) 2h.l.l.40 Sewer Sy1le 1 n 2b.l.I T otat1 2b.l.2 Scrurolding in 1 up1>0r1. ol dccu:run ias ioninj!: Dec:ontam i nat ion tJ (6 il e llu il dinge 2b.l.3.I *React.o r 2b.l.3.2 Aux ili ary 2b.l.3.3 Cn pit11 I Addi t ion* 86-2004 2b.l.3.4 Conta i n m e n t Pe n ei r ati!J n An-;i 2 b.i.3.li H1.1 dw 8S t eS t (l r 1.1g e 2b.l.3 Tot 11 1!1 2b.I Sub1(Jfal Pr r iod 2b Act i vity Costs P e r iod 2b Add1t1ona l Cu!ott ::!b.2.l Remedi11l .Actiou SuM*e y 1 2b.2 Subtotal Pe r iod 2b Addition11I C-OM..t P e ri od 2b Collater11 I Coe t 11 2h.3.J Prooeu 1le<u u m i uioning l\'f:l l er 2h.3.2 Proc-!111 d eoo mmiuioning c ht"mica l fl 11 11 h "2b.3.3 S m a lJ loo lH llo w a n ce 2b.3.4 E n vi ronm e n la l Pe nn it.s an d F cea ::!b.3 S u b t oW I Pe r i01 l 2b Co ll n t ern l Coet.& P e r iod 2 b P e riod.Depende n t Costa 2b.4.J Deoon 11up1>l ie1 2b.4.2 l nsurunt-e 2b.4.3 Prq:iertytaxet: | |||
2h.4.4 H e11 l th phy1iai 11upplie11 2h.4.5 H e11vy eq u ipme n t rcn l a l ::!b.4.6 Disix--1 o r DAW ge oe rnU!d 2b.O Pl8nt ene r gy bu d get 2bA.8 NRCFee1 2b.4.9 Em e rgency Plt111 n i n g J.'eet 2 h.4.I O S pe u l J.'uc l Poo l O&M 2b.4.ll Liq u i d Ra dw n1te P roocsti u g Equ i\>m e n t.J6e n*i oo11 2b.4.12 I SPS I Ope r;i tin g Cos t* 2b.4.1 3 Sc\*ernnce Re l a t ed Coit t 1 2b.4.14 Secu r i t y St11 IT Cos t 2b.4.1 5 DOC Sta.IT Cost 2b.4.I EI Ut ili1 y S l 11 IT C<.J t 2b.4 Sub l otnl P e r iod 2b P e riod*Dept>n d e nt C<.6 1!-2b.O TO TAL PERJOO 2b CUST TLG &rv ien, l n e. R e 1 nov AI Tr11n,port C..t eo .. Co*" Cos t! 33 . I G6 23 I 22 14 6 22 I I 0 I 0 326 3 1 3 12 2 60 128 16 6 I 30 6 323 .. " , .. 37 ** 1.914 14.335 1.078 436 6,6'0 12 083 2 , G37 1 , 132 1.36 9 773 02 02 4:!4 17 6 10 1 9 336 22 6 25 27 66 * " 3, 1 20 3,870 1 ,23 1 5 , 453 0 , 033 23 , 741 2,360 5,000 1'3 104 17 6 3 136 362 ""' 1-11.: i 4 36 2-1 1 537 1.389 2 , 3 1 2 2.003 92 26 1 ,389 .j ,3 1 5 92 20 6 , 668 28 , 493 2.683 8 ,'63 T abl e C-2 Di a b l o Ca n yo n U nit 2 D EC O N D eco mmi ss i o nin g C os t Es timat e (Th o u sa nd s o f 2 014 Do llar s) rf-S il l'l LL RW N"RC P roe eni n r Dbpo,11.I O th er Tot11 I To l*I Lie.T e r m .. Cos t' Co sts Cos t s Co nli n e n c Cos t! "°'" 62 3 1 12 1 121 292 17 1 06 1 06 1 0 2 11 2 Ill *103 .J03 1 6 " 63 53 7 6 " 23 1 , 1>8 4 l)Q(I 8,3-1 3 8 , 3 4 3 200 12 6 ., .. , .. 8 6 21) 21) 76 42 164 1 6*1 67 1 3 72 l.4'12 l , 4 42 31 17 6 74 42 162 162 II 00 1 3.87 3 I0.789 42.-124 33,066 70 2.034 7 , 686 7 , 686 25 , 386 1 2 , 1 62 47 , 607 "7 , 007 69 1 1 , 6 41 U I S 4 ,6 1 8 Ill '23 1.1 71 1 , 17 1 328 462 l.89 1 1 ,39 1 36 46 1 66 1 66 26 ,500 1 4,623 5 4.8 53 M , 803 40 , 493 ::!7 , 4 48 10 4.003 00 , 147 6"3 2 , 2tH 2 , WI l."'8 693 2.291 2.21J I 488 333 1 ,243 1 , 243 1 , 180 627 2,200 2,200 96 63 1 63 1 692 19 1 1.073 1 ,078 l , GGS ''" 1 , J.1 6 6 , 066 6,066 60 2 1 , 81l2 1 , 892 *17 3 68 6'I 6 41 166 " 1 8!1 189 836 3.1 48 3, 148 '36 2438 2,438 110 59 287 267 1.006 414 2.320 2.320 *106 59 463 463 004 96 700 736 160 8913 174 38 2 1 2 2 1::! 508 11 0 6 1 8 9.100 1 , 988 11 , 148 11.148 1 7.677 3, 81 4 2 1 ,39 1 21,39 1 rn.633 3,3 7 1 18 , 9CM 1 8.00 4 23 , 400 6,099 28 ,596 28,596 11 0 70 , 797 17 ,0 7 3 03,81.).'} | |||
U l ,5 29 42 , 27 1 73 , 2 77 4 6 , 368 200 , 11 3 1 96,022 Sp e nt F u e l Site P rocess e d B u rl*I V o lum e' M11.n*(e m e 11t R e ,t o r11.l io 11 Volum e C l*H A c 1.,,u c 1.,, c G TC C Cos ts Cos ts C u.Fe e t C u. F ee t C u. F ee t C u. F ee t C u. F ee t 1 86 1 ,0UG 406 60 ,. 6,726 767 "" 27(1 2 ,*127 17 6 260 GO 8 , 81 6 50 , 1 36 1 , 80 5 349.938 G,804 1 ,:JOO 2 , IW 000 JG0 , 784 8 , 81G 4 1 2 , 720 942 1 , 28 1 2 , 223 4.006 760 ... 6 1 8 2 , 274 4 , 006 2,274 8 , 81 6 419.0*I S D ocu m e nl POl-1 1 1 9--001 , R ev. 0 App e ,.d ix C, P a jfe l lio/ 21 B ur i*I/ U t.Hlt y *nd Proceue d C raf t Co n t r R c t o r W t. Lb.s .. M a 11h o 11 r 1 M 1 rnh o u n 11 , 366 "' 64.346 2,2 1 0 1 9 24.7 6 1 2,226 280 1.528 120 3-18,913 6 , 4 1>8 46.1 09 1.792 1.826 76 1 6..133 617 1 47.800 4 , 277 2, 1 8ti 16.400 606 7*1G 3.060.638 222.884 81.221 <<.703 33, 2 33.4C.O 4 3.3 40 582.052 28 , 093 11 7.11 8 8 , 1 1 3 7 ,36 2 M , 1 5 4 ll(J7 3 4 , 1 00.500 87 , 7 6*1 3 7 , 29 7.420 366,35 1 lff , 300 19 ,306 G6 , 1)20 184 1 00.538 240 1 03.058 *12:! 81.806 '" 24 1 , 174 l*IJ ,.j ll 2 6 2 , 48.'l 8 1.8 00 1 3*1 640,069 37 , 572.380 3 70 , 2 1 4 G<t6.Cl69 | |||
"' ::r 1> w Diabl o C an yo n P owe r Plat1I D ecom miul o nin1 Cost Analpl* Activ ity l ndu Actlvlt De sc ri Ion PERIOD 2e-Spent fu e l delay prior to SFP d eoo n Periotl2c0il'fd Dflc:onuniuionin1 Actintte& | |||
Period 2c Collateral Colt* 2c.3.I Spent Fue l Tranarer | |||
* Pool LO I SFSI 2c.3.2 Environ1nent*I Permiu and Fees 2c.3 Sublotfl l Perkill 2c Collate ral C.:.U Pe r iod 2c P e riod-Dependent Co.I.a 2c.4.I l n9u r a n ce 2e..t.2 P roi ier1.y 1 axe1 2e.4.3 Hea l th pby 8ic81 uppli t'I 2c..S.4 Di*posal of D AW generated 2 c.'l.6 Pla nt ene r gy budget k4.6 NRC Feet 2c.4.7 Emervency Plannin1 Feee 2c.<l.8 Spent Tran1fer. | |||
I SFS I to IX)lo; 2c.4.9 Liquid Radwa\WI J>roceM.ing f,qWpmenlJSen | |||
*ice1 2c.l.10 ISFSI Operalin1 Co.ti 2c.4.l I Spent Fuel Storage C.ni.tersKNerp.::b 2c..4.12 Security StafTCoat 2c..4.1 3 Utility S t11ff Coet 2<.4 S ubtotal Period 2c Pt'dod*Depe n tko n t Coei.. 2<.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2c OOS'r PERI OD !d-Decontamloation Fo llo"*lnrW e t Fue l PerKlll 2d Dtcommiuioning Activitiet 2d.l.I Remwe spent fuel r acb Di8JKl8lll cA Plaot S y1ter:n1 2d.l.2.I Elect r ica l {Co nlnminl!l tMI} | |||
* FH B 2d.l.2..2 Eled r iclll l (R CAJ-Fl-m 2d.l.l.3 Fire Prot.ictklo (RCA) 2d.J.2.4 HVA C(Co ntnmin11h'tl). | |||
FHB 2 d.l.:U Spe n t Fuel Pit Cooli n g 2 d.l.2.G Spe n t F u e l P it Cooli n g. nm 2 d.1.2 T otals Decontrun innr.Mln or Site Bu.ildinge 2d.l.3.I fo'ue l Handling 2d.l.3 Total1 2d.l.4 Scaffnldinr in 1upport. oC decommi11ioning 2d.I Subtot.al Period 2d Adiril1* eo.t1 Period 2d Addi t ionnl Co.ti 2d.2.I LicenMl TermiMLkMt Survey P l anniug 2d.2.2 Remedi:.I At.-tion Sun-..y1 2d.2 Subkll&I Pe r kid 2d Additio u n l C.0.1 1 Period 2d CoU&te r al Coeui 2d.3.I Process dea.m.miNioning | |||
"'ttte r waM.e 2d.3.2 Procet111 UtoraxiuniHkming | |||
('hemica( n u.b W88le 2d.3.3 Smalllooll!lllowaoce 2d.3.4 Decommiuioning Equipment Dli!poeition 2d...3.6 En\*irontnf'nt.a.1 and Feee 2d.3 Subtotal Pt"riotl 2d Co lllll e r tt l Coel* Period 2d Pe r iod*De!'l(:. | |||
n dent CM!la 2d.4.I Decon euppliet 2tl.U In s ur ance 2d.4.3 Prq)Cny taxe1 2d.4.4 ll ea hhp hyeic*aupplit>e 2 d.4.Ci 1-l ettvy equip m e nt ren 1.tt l TLG &1-vicn, I nc. Remo val Padustnr Transpai:1 C..* Co** eo. .. Costs 078 '3 12 078 '3 12 978 43 12 602 .. Ul 3 83 Ill 3 68 1 ,. 29 266 "' " 2'0 37 " 00 47 19 133 "" 21 1 , 627 '"" IOI 8'6 8119 00 38 *** 899 60 .. 1106 1 , 4-17 | |||
... 17 6 .. 36 00 78 100 " ** 78 185 Ill 212 628 ,.,,, Tabl e C...2 Diab l o C anyon Unit 2 DE C ON D eco mmi ssion.ing Cost Es tima te (T b o u sa 1 1d* 0(20 14 Dollar*) Orf-S il e LLR W Procenlnl' Obpasa l Ot h e r Tot11 I Total Cos l s Cosu Cos t s Co11 tin C U C Costs 33.22 1 7 , 210 -U71 027 6 , 198 37.-IO"l 8 , 1 00 46 , 628 2.200 33 1 2.622 71l6 "' 014 ... 1.38 1 61 27 1 33 9.233 2 , 004 11 237 1.080 2-1<4 l , 004 3.2 17 ... 3.682 867 188 1.006 84-1 183 1 , cm 2,400 .... 2.004 38 , 783 8 , 417 47 , 200 98 , 076 21 , 284 119 369 4 1.267 8 , 966 60 , 22.2 " 199 ,6 26 43,102 243.711 " 237.0 1 7 61,239 289 ,339 1 , 006 873 2, 700 IOI 78 ''" 918 096 2,297 4G9 27 4 1 , 002 <t i G 267 1 , 004 GOO 266 1 , 007 656 297 1 , 1 66 3,227 1 , 778 6,88G 466 1 , 1 22 3.430 ... 1 , 1 22 3.4 30 ,. ''" 1 1537 4.773 """ 14.640 8'6 367 1.2 1 2 792 , .. 1.1 36 l ,B37 711 2.3 48 1 66 116 .,. 17 .. 258 1 26 087 '37 .. ..,., 423 '37 ... 1.627 77 288 "'' ... 268 82 12 93 1 9 1 710 216 1.206 KRC Spen t Fuel Si l e Procened Llc. T e r 1 n. lilana1ement Vo lun ie C l aHA eo. .. Costs eo. .. C u. F eet C u. Feet 40 ,-13 1 6 , 198 6 , 1{18 40 ,43 1 2,622 ll l*I l , 331 1 33 1.002 11 , 23 7 1.93-1 3 , 682 l.06G 1 , 0'l7 ..... ....... 69,680 26 , 11 1 25 , 111 103,""' 1 39 , 722 1 , 902 100 , 187 1 80 , 1 63 1 , 002 """' 3,802 36 1 366 2,297 3,3 17 J.()62 l ,GOC 1 , 034 1 , 719 1.o: n 2,200 1 , 1 66 2,367 6,886 ll.003 3,430 3.325 3.*l30 3.326 1.1537 36 1 14.B40 10 , 20"J 1 , 212 1 , 1 3Ci 2 , 348 ,,. 3 18 ... 087 a.ea1 ""' 1 , 627 ..... ,.. 268 93 719 Buria l Vo l umes C lanB C ius C GTCC Cu. F eet Cu. F eet Cu.Feet O oc urnenl PaJ.J1J J..OO J , RflV. D A ppend ix C, Pa*e 11 o f !l Buria l/ U tilit y *nd Procened C raft Con t i:: 11 cto r Wt. Lbs. Mau h o u rs Man h o u n 38.042 62 J ,:W0 , 724 *150 ,3 77 38 , 042 62 1.800 , 1 01 38.042 62 1.800 , 1 0 1 234.77 3 ... 2222& 1 , 498 201.1 80 8,927 3,643 104 ,76 7 3,086 13-to79 1 , 4IO l*l*l , 266 1 ,&2 1 7 1 0 , 8.t!) '°*""" 248.142 23 , 547 248.14 2 23 , 647 1 6.2 4-4 8.94 1 l.2!0007 63..837 6 , 240 0 , 007 il.667 GJ!IO 19 , 1 00 62 300.000 .. 31D, I OO "" | |||
I\) :i> 0 :::T !: w I\) Diablo CPnyon Power P l ant DecommiHionin1 Co*t Analy*i* A c t i vity lnd e.x AcUvlt De!lcri tlon Pt:riod 2d Per iod-Dependeni. | |||
Q.ieu (l'Uolinued) 2d.4.6 D11 1 1)()Nlll o r DAW geoer11ted 2d..f.7 Plant ene rgy budge.I 2d..f.8 NRC 2d.4.9 Planning Fee11 2d.4.1 0 Spent Fuel Tran1fer - | |||
to DOE :.!d.4.11 l,i(1m d Radwasle Procening Equipm e nL/Sen*i ces 2d.4.12 I SFS I Ope ra I ing Cost* 2d.4.1 3 $e\*er1H-.ce Relt1led Co!lh 2 d.4.J.I Security Ste ff Co6t 2 d . .f.1 5 DOC Stt 1 1T Co81 2 d.4.1 6 SlaffCo!ll 2d.4 Subtoln l Period 2d P e riod-Depen de n t Coet.1 2d.O TOTAL PERI OD 2d L"OST PERIOD 2r-U ce111e Termln*tion Period 2f Direct Decomin1saioni..n1 2r.1.1 OR I SE oonfirmatory 1 un*ey 2(1.2 Temunal e licen11e 2r.1 Subl o l!d Period 2f Acth*itr Cuit1 Pe ri od 2f Add ili om al Cos l 1 2£.2.1 Li cense Trm1i1111tio11 Surve y 2r.2 Subtolf1 l l'l!riod 2f Additiona l ('All!h Period 2f Ulllat.e r a l O>elll 2r.3.1 lX>Cslt1ffrelc.cationeXpeOJ1oes 2 r.3.2 Environme ntal Perm.it.1111 nd Fee!il 2f.3 Sub l ofal Pe r il.xi 2fColl11le r 11I CoEo.ll! P t r kid 2£ Perkod-Oependent Costs 2[4.1 ID.!luram:e 2(4.2 ProiK'rtyt11xe1 2t.f.3 Heidt h phy1ic1 1u ppli e1 2(4A Di JJl)Qlt1 l of D AW ge ntrztt.ed 2(.4.5 P l 1mle!K!r l(\'hud goct 2[4.6 N R CFces 2f.4.7 Emergency Plann i ng Ftte 2(.4.8 Spent Fuel Tr1rn1for | |||
* I SFSI to 2(A.9 ISFSI Ope 1ntm g Cc.t.s 2U.IO Secu rit y 61.t1C!'C.O.t 2(.4.11 OOC StafTCost 2(4.12 Uti l ity Stall'C'091. | |||
2[4 Subtoenl Pe r k>d 2rPeriod-Depende n t Cosl8 2r.o TOTAL PER I OD 2 r oo sT PERIOD 2 TOTALS PERIOD 3 b -Site R e1 t on ll o n Pe r iod 3b Dired Dcoommiseiooing Ac1i\*iti1?' | |||
Demolitio n of Hemaininit Sit.e Building& | |||
3b.l.l.1 *Reactor 3b.l.1.2 AdminiJ1Jtr111ioo 3b.l.l.3 Auxilinry Sb.l.1.4 Ca p i l.al Addi ti o111 86-2004 3b.l.l.5 C hem k:a l Storfllftl Jb.1.1.6 Chlorinnti(Jfl. | |||
Jb.l.1.7 Circ ulfll i11g Wate r Tunnele 3b.l.l.8 Co ld Mt1Chine Shop 3b.l.l.9 (A)mmunkntion 3b.l.l.IO Oo 11 ck!nMte Sup11ort S b.1.1.11 Co nt ainment l'PDCl r ni.ion Area 3b.l.l.1 2 TLG &,.vice*, In c. Remo v lll Co.t Co** 212 1 , 620 1.703 IU88 00 4 904 004 I0,214 80, 1 24 7, 188 1,100 ..... 4 ,6 27 ' 10 1 , 214 42'i ' 926 736 fl.)7 Tab le C-2 Diablo Ca n yo n Unit 2 DECON Decomm i ss i oni n g Cost Estimate (T h ousand s 0£20 1 4 Dollars) O rt.S it e LLRW Pacbj'lni Tr11nsport Pr oceH in f D l!po111l Ot her Tot11 l T ot al COlltll Collt9 Co9t9 Coll II ColltS Co11t h 1 enc Co!ll 4() 11 ... 26 120 00 4 109 613 168 " 193 1 6" " 188 GJ.I 13a i.f8 17 3 37 210 252 00 300 8.061 1 , 7.10 0.8 10 1.77 1 .... 2, 1 56 0.266 1 , 141) 6.4 12 8..190 1 , 842 10.332 *IO II 48 2578 1 6,066 33.666 701! ""' 5.244 27.856 1 1.296 52.293 183 1* 262 18 3 79 202 16.JIJ'j 6,697 2 1.7fl6 1 6.IW 6,597 21,700 1 , 466 318 1 , 784 7 1 6 1 66 870 2.18 1 473 2 , 65 4 S<2 50 392 1 3' 19 16.1 32'7 1 ,28 1 " .1 1 2 89 li02 302 14 3*1 6 269 "" """ 1.004 218 1.222 412 89 ''" 2.8911 629 3.528 6.0 7 3 1 , 1 0 1 6.174 5.74-1 1 , 2 47 6.900 1 6.592 385 7 2137 1 34.154 11.006 4 6.083 23, 171 1 3.968 I07 ,2 2G 658,425 237,087 1.1 31 , 100 1 ,560 8 , 748 200 1 , 400 1 ,5 1 6 8.002 1 , 004 5 , 63 1 I 6 2 12 264 1 , 478 "' 020 I G 20 1 1,127 158 886 216 1 ,2 1 4 !<R C Spent Fuel Sit e Procened U c.TertlL MllDafem e n t Rator11.tlon Vol u me C la H A eo ... Co1t9 Co1t1 C u.Feet C u.F ee t l2U 1 , 781 613 1 93 188 1.18 2 1 0 300 0.810 2.1 00 6.412 10 ,33 2 82,.127 1.242 1.78 1 fil.060 U42 27.068 262 262 2 1 ,7ll6 21,700 1 , 784 87 0 2.664 39'l 1 6.1 1.2 8 1 24 33 7 002 3 4 6 ""' 1 , 222 ''" 3,52 8 6, 17-1 6 , 000 19 , 339 2,031 337 44 ,002 2 ,03 1 337 92 1 ,6 20 100 , 21ID 1 3 , 197 500,398 8 , H8 1 , 400 8 ,00 2 6 ,63 1 6 12 1 , 478 020 | |||
* 1 ,127 889 1 , 21*1 B url*I Vo l um es C l 11"B C l usC GTCC Cu. Feet C u. Feet Cu. Feet 003 393 D ocu m e nt POJ-111 9-00 1 , R ev. 0 App e ndi x C, Pa1e /So/2 1 Bu ri*! I U tlll ty*nd Proce11ed C raft Co ntn c t or Wt. Lbs. Ma11h o 11r1 M a n h ours 36,629 "' 22 , 800 48.000 9 J.G80 35.629 58 1 62.480 UiG4.746 636 1 3 1 0.S,720 200 , 4G8 3, 120 200,-468 3 , 120 6,734 II 37.32 1 46 , 700 G0.1 07 6.734 II 144.179 G.7 3-1 200.470 147 , 299 li0,200.180 962.351 s.001.9.m 87,9 1 4 1 0,368 64,"71 47 , 403 49 "" 1 2,194 3,780 " 9,300 G,(;G!j 8 ,3 2 1 N :t> 0 ::::T !: w w Dioblo Canyon PowerPlonl Decommi.*ioning Co*t Anol.r*i* | |||
Activity Jn du Acdvl t Oon Demolilko n of RemainiDlt' Site Buildi.np (a:.a lioued J 3b.1.l.1 3 Fabric".atioo Shop 8b.l.l.1'4 Fire Pwnp H ou.e Sb.1.1.1 6 Hn.ardou1 WAIU! Storage i-'acilit)" 3b.l.l.I G lota bStrucu.ire 3b.l.l.1 7 A l aintenftnce Shop 3b.l.l.18 ,_l iteelleneous Structure1 3b.l.1.19 Nl'O Perminte nt Wa reho u se 3b.1.1.20 Po ud 1 a b.1.1.2 1 P o rtubl e J.'ire P un1 11 & F ue l Ca rt. 3 b.l.l.22 Pre tre n tm en t 3 b.J.l.23 ROOwost e Ston ge 3 b.J.l.2* Radwa1te Sto r ttge F ac ilit y (Add it io m1l) 3 b.l.l.20 Rotor Warehou 11e J b.l.l.26 Sec uri t y 3 b.l.l.Z7 Secu rity Buildi u p (addi l ic m a l) 3 b.l.l.28 Sec:u ri ty Mod1f'icnU ons (2010 kl 20 1 0) 3b.l.l.29 SimuJatur 3 b.I 1.30 Ste11m Generator Storage F aci hly 3b.l l.31 T eif.pbone Te.rminaJ 3 b 1.132 Turbi ne 3b.l.l.33 Turb11w Pedelt11 I 3b.l.J.J.4 Vehicl e ,_l11 i nle.n 11nce 3b.l.1.36 W H t e. W ate r H o ldmf & Tre111.me o t Facility Jb.1.1.36 Fuel H an dling Sb.I.I T oto l s Si t eC!oetoo u1..o\di 1*itit-t Sb.1.2 G rade & landlcape 1 it e 3 b.l.3 Finalreport.ru N R C 3 b.1 Subt otal Prriod Sb Additiorutl aw. 3b.2.I Backfill Structures | |||
& Concrete Remv.*al fou l of state. di&p<11af) 3b.2.2 Breakwa rrr Oemoli l ion and Remonl (ou t of &l ate. di11poMI) | |||
S b.2.3 Coflertlam Con1 1 ruc1 ion and T eardow n 3 b.2.4 ConcrNe C ru s h i ng Jb.2.6 Ois11088lor Ca l be 1t.o1 Sidiog :Jb.2.(1 Oi.e J)l)di t.io n o r Mobil e Bn rri erw (out oC s t11 te t li&JlOlll l) 3b.2.7 Soi l I Sedim e nt Qm trol Plant Are a 3 h.2.8 t.li-lla noo u* Constr u ction Debrie (o ut o (e la te 1U1p o1111 l) 3b.2.9 Scr np Met11 I Ttaruiportotion (o u r. ol ttate) 3b.2.IO FSS }.l anager 3b.2 Subt.ota! | |||
Period 3b Additional Coelf; Period 3b Co U ate.r ti l Coelf; 3b.3.I Small tool aJlowance 3b.3 Subtotal Period 3b Collateral Co.ti Period 3b Co&l9 3 b.4 I l na u rance 3 b.U Propert y t a:te1 3b4.3 H eAV)" eq u i pmttnt ren t a l 3b.4.'4 Plant l"Perg:r bu dge t 3b.4.6 NRC I SFSI F eet 3b.4.6 EmerK'l!ncy Planning Feet 3b.O Spent Pue.I Tranefor -ISJ.'SI t o DOE 3b.'4.8 I SJ.'S I 0,iera l in g Col t.9 SbA.9 Secu rit y Sta ll'Coet. 3b.4.1 0 IX)C Sta IT Coet 3 b.4.ll U t i lil yS t a lT Coet 3 b.4 S ubtot a l Period Sb Period-Dependent. Coet1 3 b.O TOTA L PERI OD 3 b OOST TLG Ser-vice.a, lr u:. Decon Removal Pa c brlnr Transport Coo* Coot eo.u Cotti 129 6 .. 6 , G.>6 "'" G8 1 , 468 2 I II 1 , 89 2 63 002 36 7 " &36 '4-14 OG8 3 6 , 008 1 ,'40'4 37 " 1 ,9 79 47,0 1 5 2.337 .. 9 , 362 24,700 73,G67 .,. 1 ,"73 1'8 1 , 3.3*1 101 , 810 1.1 00 1 , 1 00 7 , 089 7 , 689 I G9,Ul l Table C-2 Diab l o Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommi ss ioning Cost Estimate (Tho u unds o f2014 Do ll ars) Oft-S it e LLRW R C Processinr DlspoHI Other Tot*I Total U c. Ter1n. Cos ts Co11t1 Co1t1 Cout ln e nc Co111 c. ... 28 167 "' 1 , 227 G.882 116 IBO 16 83 310 1 , 787 a 2 " *Ill 2.302 II ** 1 96 1.008 80 m L2 70 :JOO 1.1 38 ll6 6'1 210 1 , 1 78 I 3 1 , 282 7 , 1 00 306 1 , 700 *1 6 30 429 2.'108 1 0,200 67,!?18 WI 2.8 .. 4 l lM 22 "" "" llM 10 , 7 33 60 , 188 1 26 '44 , 417 1.(, 999 8'4 , 117 I G8 , C l 3 B3,233 306,003 1 04 682 321 1 , 80 1 4 2 1 0 1 -1 72 ""' 770 "" 1 ,623 5.870 1 , 27 4 7.1 4'4 7.837 1 ,70 1 9.1138 6'2 1 36 767 767 228.26 1 82 , 286 412.368 767 .., 1412 "' 1.412 603 81 .... .. 0 ** l\03 1.8 47 9.236 67 8 1 47 8 26 "' .. 300 ... 128 1 , 0 1'4 3 , 308 7 18 """' 1.36< 2!l< 1 ,6 48 9.629 2 , 068 ll ,008 1 5 , 1 37 3 , 286 18 , t 23 8 , 1 00 1 , 779 9 , 97'4 (0) .w,.1 00 1 0 , 266 68 , 2<19 0 268.769 1 03,627 632.207 883 Spent F uel S it e ProcesHd llanaaement RHloratl ou Volume C l 11111A Cost*s eo. .. Cu.Feet C 11.Feet "' 62 C , 882 '80 .. 1 , 787 3 ' 13 2 , 002 *.. 1 , 008 .., 70 1 , 1 88 6'1 1 , 1 78 3 i , 1 90 1 , i09 4 6 30 2,408 67 , 2 18 2 , 8 .. 4 00 , 002 8'4 , 117 300,003 082 1 , 80 1 612 779 1 ,623 7 , 1*1<1 ..... 411 , 600 1 ,.(1 2 I.Hi 6" 600 9 , 23G 82 6 300 1 , 0 1'4 "°"' 1 , 648 8,81'4 2 , 783 18 , 423 1 ,996 7 , 9 7\1 I St,OCM 3\t , 246 l!i ,00'4 &1 2.320 Burl*I Volumes C la nB C l anC GTCC C u. F ee t C u. Fee t Cu. Feet D ocumen t POJ-JTJ!J..001, R ev. 0 Appendix C, Page 19of :!I Burl*I/ Utility and Proc:eHed Cra f1 Con lr.ctor Wt. Lbs. Ma.nh o ur s Mo1h o un 1 , 223 .. 400 4G , 3G 4 3 , U4 C73 1 4 , 003 " 14 1 08 17 , 86 4 662 li.938 39 44 722 9 , 62 7 '4 , 191 8 , 888 28 67 , 74'4 11 , 300 ''" 238 16,760 439,079 (,687 008 443 , 600 6G8 3 1 , H8 29'4,'408 4 ,00 4 ..... 1 , 4-1 5 1 0,2 7 1 6 , 1 48 347 , 936 6.148 122 , 686 1 36,89 1 87 ,197 346 , 7 7*1 79 1 ,6()1 3!>2,fiOO | |||
,,., :; '.(> w .,. Diablo Canyon Power Plant DecommiMioning Co*t Analy11i11 A c ti vity l ndex A ctlv l t De1cri tlon PER IOD k *Fue l S t o r.fe O per11.tlonSISblppln* | |||
Period 3c Dirvct Acth*itie9 p.,riod 3c Co ll 11ter11 I C<.91-11 3c.3 Sublotal Period 3c Co U ate r u l Cos l 1 P e ri o d 3c Period.l)ependentCo.u ac .. u In s uran ce 3c..l.2 Propertytaxea 3c..l.3 P I Mt eoo rgy b udgP.l 3c.4A NRC I S FSI 3c.4.6 Eme r gency P l anning Fee. 3c.4.6 Spent F ue l 1'tan11Cr. | |||
IS F"S I w DO E 3c.4.7 I SF'SI Opera 1 in1 Coats 3c.4.8 Sec u r it y Sta lJ Cusl 3d.9 Utih t ySi.a lT Cc.et 3c..I Subtotal Peri od 3c Period.Dependent Co.t.11 3c.O TOTAL PERI OD 3c OOST PER I OD 3 d *OTC C 9 hl pplnr P e r iod 3d Dif1'CI. Dt>commiHioning A c livitiea N ucl enr Steam S up p l y H e m on d 3d.1.1.1 Vt'fl!K'I & Int l'rn a l.!i GTOO ad.I.I 3d.I Sublolal P er i od 3d Acfo*ity Cos t s P e ri o d 3d Col.lrtt.cral U.. Sd.3 SubtoM I Period 3d Co ll m rnl Q:,,, t.e P e r iod 3d Period-Depemknt Coe t-ll Sd.4.J Insurance 3d.4.2 PropP.ny t11 xe1 3d.4.3 P l ant e ll(*rg)' budget 3 d.4.4 I SFS I Qr.e r n tin g Co!lh &l.4.5 Sec uri Ly S talJ COll l 3d A.6 Ut ilit y S latT Coet Sd.4 Sublola\ P e r iod 3d Pe r iod.l)epe m:km l Gusts 3d.O TOTAL P ERI OD 3d Q)S'J' PE RIOD 3e. I SFSl Decontamln11tlon Period 3e Direct Detun m1 uiio nin g A ctivities Period 3e Additional Costt 3e.2.J L ice n se T e nnimition I S FS I 3e.2 Subtol.t1I Period 3e Addit10nal | |||
!Ae ls P e riod 3e Co ll ate r a l Coli1: s 3e.3 S u blOl.a.I P e ri o d 3ci Co l h1 1 11 ral Co at a Pe ri od 3e Pe ri od*Depeodeot Co8 1 s 3e.4.I 3e.4.2 Proilt'nytaxes 3e.4.3 P l s nr. e nergy budget 3e.4.4 Secu ri ty Sta ff Co.i t 3e.4.6 U1ili t y S t a fT Co8 1 .... S u btOl.aJ Period 31' Pe r iod*Depe n dent Co8l.ll 3o.O TOT AL PERIOD ae COS" r TLG &rvicn , In c. R e 111 ova l Pac kac"ln* C:O.t Co*t eo. .. 2 ,!07 2 , 107 2 , I07 2.!0 7 121 121 1 21 Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Esti mat e (Thousands 0!20 14 Dollau) O rr.S ite ll.RW Tr1m1port Pr ocessi nr Dbpo111l Ot her Tota l Tot1tl Cost! Cos t! Co!l l!I Co1tt Co ntln e n c Costt 5.1 43 7.14 5.887 *1.0 1 6 581 *1.507 4.11 1 095 4.705 8 00 1 l.1 71 0.262 30"6 6.63 1 37.186 12.3 7 6 2.686 1 600 1 00.013 H.326 803"9 1 5.1 84 3.295 1 8.470 14 5.488 30.028 1 76 , 6 1 6 1 45 , 488 J0.028 1 76 , 6 1 6 9.626 2 , 829 1 4 , 462 9 , 520 2 , 829 1 4 , 462 9.520 2 , 829 1 4 ,"62 11 12 ' " 6 31 1 36 29 1 00 31 38 2 11 "' 256 9.620 211 2.8 7.f 1 4.7 1 8 1 3 4 90 1.098 026 2 , 300 13 400 1.006 62tl 2 , 3W 7D 28 1 07 60 21 80 '" 6 1 11!2 184 66 200 *1 02 1 6 7 '"' 1 3 4"'1 1."60 798 2,980 !<RC S 1 1ent Fu e l Site Proces-d Ll c. T erm. Ptl1Wag eme 11t R H t or11 tl on Vo lum e C l1111A Co lt* Cost! Cus t s C u.Feet C u. F ee t 5 , 887 4 , 507 .f.7 00 0.262 37 , 186 16 , 061 80.339 18 , 470 17 6.616 176.616 1 4 , 4 62 1 4 , 462 1 4 , 462 " | |||
* 3 1 1 66 38 200 1 4 , 462 256 2 , 300 1 , 777 '*""' 1 , 7 77 107 80 192 "" .,. 2.98Ci 1 , 777 Burial V o l umes C l*ssB C l nt C GTCC C u. F ee t Cu. Feet C u. F ee t 1 , 649 1.649 1.649 1.640 Document POJ.J119-00 I , R ev. 0 Appendix C, Page 20of 2 1 Burial! Uti li ty and Processe d Cr aft Con tra ctor Wt. Lb!I. Man h ours M11nhours 826 , 100 1 59 , 665 086.665 985 , GOS 3.10 , 30 7 330 , 30 7 330.30 7 1 ,700 3 28 2 , 028 330.30 7 2.028 1 08.17 0 7.000 388 108 , 170 7.000 3ll8 1.00 1 1 , 90 1 3,803 1 08 , l iO 7.006 4,19 1 Diablo Can)'OH Pomer Plant Decon11nidionin1 Co*t AnaiJ'*i* Ac1ivl 1y A ct l vh v Descrl tt o n PERIOD 1£-ISFSI S ite R u toraLk>n P eriod 3 r 0irecl Decomm 1 11ion..in1Act 1 vi t it-t 3r A ddi 1 ion al eo.1 .. 3f.2. I De moht lOCI. Md S ite RH tor&Lion ISFS I 3 r.2.2 A.rea Soi l/Sed un e nt Cont rol I S FS I 3 f.2 S u b t.olal P e r io d a f * .a.rldit kl n a l Co.ti P e r iod 3 f Co U a t eral CoWi 3 f.3.I S n rn ll loo l a ll ow m1 ce 3 f.3 Su btotu l P e r iod 3 f Col l at.e ml Cloti lll P c r kxl 3 f P e riOO-Oe pe n dent Co.lll 3 L4.I ln a ur a Dai Prot:ie.ri)' t rui: ea 3 f.4.3 H eav)* eq u ipm ut r ul a l 3 f.4.4 P lant ene r1y bud tet 3 f.U.i Seairity Stal!'Coe t 3 f.4.6 U tilil)" Staff CoM. 3 L4 S u htc.la l Per k.cl 3 f P eriod-Or pen dent eo.t.. 3 (.0 TOTAL pf;RI O D 3 f OO ST PERIOD 3 TOTALS TOTAL COST TO DE CO llMlSSION "°'' 13,610 Tab l e C-2 Diablo Ca nyon Unit 2 DE CON Decomm i ss ion_ing Cost Estimate (Thousand& of2014 Do ll ar s) O ff-Site ILRW Remova l Pa c U..lnl' THnsport ProceH ID I' DbpoH I Other Costs Cos t CosLt Co stt Cos tt Co sts 1 ,&42 21 1 , 663 ,. ,. 67 6 7 1 , 74 4 1 6 1 , 77 6 2, l lU 244,916 H.8.51 2 , 7 4 9 2 , 74 0 23 27 7 6 '"' 2.906 1 3 1 0 , 0 1 6 4 18 , 9 34 14 , 186 128.0U 1,156 , 806 u.100 , 11 1 lh o unndt o r 2014 dollars Sl.1 7J ,llH thoun.nd 1 o r 201-1 dollars '3116.117 thou*ands o r 2 014 dollars $H 2 ,G42 thouund s or 2 014 dollars 963 * "67 | |||
* 12 | |||
* 6 J7 ... 1 , 007 138 , 228 420 ,!5 1 Tota l "°'" 6 3 4 4 u ..... .. 30 3' 00 "' 33 93 257 ..... 7 3 U l8 1 2 , 1 00,171 AL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BUR I ED (EXCLUDING OTCC): 606 ,840 Cubi c F e et AL GREATE R THAN CLASS C RADWAb'TE VOUJA-1E GENERATED: UIREMENTS: End Notea: nfa | |||
* i nd 9calff lh.., t 1 h i1 actM t y not. di a l'j'l'!d M decom nn ukming eJq>t_n.r. 11. ind K:attt that t hi* .et.i\*1ty pef forme d by deconu n iNionl n r s 1 11 fT. 0 -ln dica tu that thi* l'alue it leel th a n 0.6 bul i* non-tt ro. a ce U co n ta in i n1 '"*'" ln c h ca t H a zero v a l lH'l TLG &r u icn , Inc. 1 , 649 Cubi c Feet 78 , 197 T o u t l,iK 293 Man-b o uu NR C Spe nt Fuel Ll c. Te r m. Manal'ement Cos ts Costs 1 8.330 194 , 7i 6 1 , 1 71,11 11 195.!17 Site Restora ti on "°'" 6 ,S U ,. 6 , 369 30 "' 3' 00 2 8 33 93 "' ..... ti 17 ,97 G 5 H.o.u Document POI-1719-00 1 , R ev. 0 Appendi x C, Paze 2 1 o f 2 1 | |||
-..,.c"" 1 .. p::::!:d C u , F ee t C u. Feet C u. F ee t C u. F ee t C u. Fe e t Wt. Lb 1. C rllft MAnhoun 1 , 777 1 , 860 ... 20 ,-1-13 2 , 668 23,0 11 23 , 0 1 1 1 , 64 9 438.4 77 8 2 1 ,G l i l,6411 61 , 463.140 1,796.2 91 U tllil 1 and Con tr" c tor M*nh o un JJO 3'9 ,.. 1.1 33 1 , 2 1 3 1 , 346.678 7,llH.900 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis APPENDIXD Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 1of21 DETAILED COST ANALYSIS SAFSTOR Tables D-1 Diablo Canyon Power Plant , Unit 1 ................................................................... | |||
2 D-2 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 2 ................................................... | |||
.............. 12 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-136 | |||
""' :::J" :i=-w ..... Diublo Ca n yon Power Plant D eco nuni.aa lo n i n1 Coa t Anal y ai* Ac ti v it y A c tlvlt De!ll e r l tl o n PEBJOD l a -S hu tdown tbroulh Trandd o n Ill Direct Ol!c:ommi98ioning Activitaet 1111.l.I SAFSTOR 11ilf' ebarl!lcie ri ulion turvey 111.l.2 P,..,pa.re prelimi n ary decornmiMioning ro.t. l*.1.3 Nolificalion o r Ceu&tio o oCOperation* | |||
l a.1.-1 Remm*e f ue l & llOUrct ma t.er-ill.I l a.1.6 Nol ifi et1 l ion o f P e m1 a n ent De fu eli n g l a.1.6 Deact.h*ole pluut 1ys 1.em 11 & prooeu .,,,,.,le hi.1.7 P re p Kre and s ubmit PSD A R 1 11.l.8 Revi e 11* ))lunt dwg s & 8 1>CC8. h i.1.9 P e rlhm1 del a iled rad s un*e y la.LI O Estim a t e b ,-.p rod u ct. in\'e n to r y l s.I.II Endprodu ct d c11e ript io n l a.1.1 2 De t a i led by.product i nv e n l.ory l a.1.1 3 De fi ne major wo rk 1e<1ue o ce l a.1.14 Perl'o rm SER r.n x l EA l a.1.1 6 Perbtn S 1 i.e.SpeclfieColt Study Act 1 n t y Spedflcatk>o. | |||
l*.1.1 6.1 Ptt pa r"I' pla ol 1 m d fiw:il 1l ie1 l'o r SAFSTO R l*.1.1 6.2 P l 1.1 ot 1ylle m 1 l a.1.1 6.3 P l fl ol 1 t ructu re s11 nd b ui ldi n p l a.1.1 6.4 W M l f' m an11ge ment l a.1.1 6.6 1''11e i l i1 y a nd si t e donnan<")' | |||
1 11.l.16 T""'I Detailed Work Prooedures 1 11.1.1 7.I ptantll)..tem* | |||
lt.1.1 7..2 Fad li ty cloiooou l &: dorm11D<-') | |||
' 1 11.1.1 7 Tota l l a.1.1 8 Procure nc u um dr ying -'YS l e m l a.1.1 9 D r ain/de-cnergiR noi1<0 o t. l)'tte m s 111.1.20 Drain &t dr)* NSSS \11.1.2 1 D r11in/de-eoe rit: iuron l.1 1min a ted sysl.e m 1 111.1.22 Decoo/11ee u re co nt.amine led l)'tlem t la.I P e r iod l a Act ivit y C08 1.5 Pe riod la Arldit io nal Co.u l a.2.1 Spe nt Fu e l P ool 1 80latlo n l a.2.2 0i 8P(l5ll l o( Co nt a min ated T oolt &: Eq uipm e n t. 111.2 Su btota l Period h t Additional Coeu Period l aCo lla tera l C.,.u l s.3.1 En ,*ironme n lal PenniU a n d F ee1 IL3 S u btota l Pe r iod l a Collatem l Cc..sl..t Period l a Period-Depe n de n l. Cc.ta J a.4.1 h u1 ur a!le'! l a.4.2 Pr<ipe rt y l axu l a .... 3 ll ea lthp hy1tc.1 u11 p l ie1 l a.4.4 H ein')' eq uipm e n t. re o tn l l ll..1.6 Ditposa l o( D AW gene r a t ed 1 1'1 .... 6 Plt1 nt energy l a.4.7 NKC F-l a.4.8 Pbtonin1 io'ee. 1 11 .... 9 Spe.n 1 f'u e l Pool O&:M l a.4.1 0 I SJo"S I ()pe r a lio gCuit.s 1 1'1.4.ll Seve r atxe Hell'l t ed Co.t s 1 11 .... 1 2 Sec ur i l y S u.ff Coe t 111.4.1 3 Ut ili t J'Stft!l'Coe t 111..I S ubt otn l Perk.d l a P e ri od*Dcpe nd ent Cuii t 1 l a.O TOTA L PERI O D la COST TLG &1"Vicn, I nc. O rf.S it e R emov al Paeli:a1ln1 T ran spo rt Proeesa ln l eo .. Co o< Cool> eo. .. C..u 219 1 03 219 1 03 ,,. '67 " 1.093 " 1 , 093 233 I07 Table D-1 Diablo Cauyon Unit 1 SAFSTOR Decommi ss ioning Cost Estimate (Thousands 0£2014 Dollars) RW N K C Disposal O um Total T o t111 l Lie.Term. Co11h Cosu Co 11tln ru e Co*l* eo ... 600 ""' 8G& ... 202 .. "" 2-I C . of* 310 GO 379 379 202 *I& 246 2*1 6 1 6& 3-1 1 89 1 89 1 6& 31 1 89 1 89 2 3" " ''" 1 66 ,. 189 1 89 '8 1 1 00 1587 1587 "' 1 72 9'7 9<7 76,'J 1 00 9"2 932 .... 14 3 789 789 *8 4 107 ''" "" 310 69 3;9 379 310 89 379 379 2 , 61 3 "" 3,00 H 3 , 00it 1 83 " ,,. "' 1 86 " 227 227 370 82 41>1 " I 1 6 1 9 .. 6, 1 85 1 , 197 7,002 7,G62 2 1.66 4 4.700 26.460 26 ,*Mt 2.836 I.IO I 4.2M UM 2.836 2 1.66-1 6 , 897 00 , 717 30 , 717 9*9 '10 1 , 1 00 l , 1 60 949 210 l , 1 60 1.160 1 , 132 1 07 l ,"'9 1 , 200 177 26 20 1 20 1 1 9 1 720 720 1 26 892 692 1 6 * ** ** 2 , 737 006 3 , 342 3 , 342 1 , 18 1 1 74 1 , 366 1 ,36' 1 , 00 1 148 1 , 1 40 ?92 17& 008 ... , 12 1 868 4 1 , 7" 1 9,240 W,982 60,982 22 , 783 6,043 27,826 27,826 37 , 370 8 , 273 4 5,0 4 3 *1 5,6*3 1 8 1 09 , 462 2*1 , 302 1 3*1 , 89 1 1 32 , 1 00 2,86 1 1 38 , 239 3 1 , 007 1 74,429 1 7 1 , 646 Spen t F u el Site Processe d B urial Man11.,.eme11t Re1toratlon V o lume ClauA C la u B C I H!llC GTCC "°"" Co11 11 Cu. Fe e t Cu.Feet C u.Fu: t C u. Feet C u. Ffft I0 , 2*6 1 0 , 246 8 1 0 1 , 1*9 968 668 2,785 6 1 0 2,786 1 0,81>6 D ocumen t PDl-111 9-001 , R ev. 0 Appendix D , Pa1e ! o f Burial Utility an d Proe e Hfld Cra ft Con tr acto r Wt., U,.. Manhoun M11nh o un 1.300 2.000 1.300 1.000 1 000 I 600 1.000 &, 000 *.112<l .a, 1 a; 3.1 20 2.000 2 , 000 16 ,!..'07 .. .. 1 , 200 100 36 , 8 00 62*.U46 3 1 7 62*.9 1 6 317 1 2,100 20 302 , 006 4 23.400 1 2 , lfJO '° 720.308 637, 1 3ti 33 7 762, 1 98 | |||
"' ::T 1> w °' Oiablo Ca nyon. Pow e r Plrrn l D ecom miH io nin 1 Co*t Anal.)'9i* Activity Index Actlvitv Des c rl lion PERIOD lb-SAFSTOR Limited DEOON Activities Period lb Dtrect DK-ommiMiooing Activiliel Il<<onlrunirutlioo or Site Buildings l b.I.I.I *Reacto r lb.1.1.2 Co n t.a.inme n l Pcnelration Area J h.1.1.3 F'uel H 11nd l i n g lb.I.I Tot al 1 lb.I S uhl.ol a l Pe r iod lb Co..ta P e riod l b Ad di tiona l lb.2.1 l ftt1,0rdou 1 W1t11te M onagt" m ent lb.2.2 Mixed\\'tu1te Mauagement l b.4! S ub total Pe r iod lb AtkJ it ional Cot t* P er.00 J b Co ll ate r al Cc.au lb.3.1 Deu,.nequipment lb.3.2 P!'OOeMdecc.mm.iuioningw&te rwa11l e l b.3.3 Pn.ooeN deoooJ.miNIOlling tbem1ca\ nu th Wtl&le l b.3.4 SmaU tool allowance l b.3.6 Em*ironmen l al Penni 1 1 a n d Fres l b.3 S u btotal Period lb Collatt" r al Gotts Pt>riod lb Pe r iod-Dt>pe n de n! COll t1 lb.4.1 l b.4.2 l u ur 11111(:'e lb..&.3 Property l8xee l b.4.4 llt>n l th phy!!lic:e 1 upplte. l b.4.6 lle11vy equipment. rental l b.4.6 DiepcJ1NlofDAWgent"rated lb.4.7 P l ant energy bu.I lb.4.8 NRC f(-lb A.9 E rn e rgti-ncy Pl annini;i ft'tt9 lb.4.1 0 Spent t'ut'I Poo l O&: M l b.'1.11 !Sft'SJ Opert1 ling Co.il8 l b.4.1 2 Se\*erH o ce Reh1t e d Coste lh..1.1 3 Sec uril y St.&IT Coe t lb .. 1.1.1 Uti lityS ta ft Coi!t lb..J S u btotal Period lb Period*De11endent C'Olltl lb.O TCffAL PE RIOD lb COb'T PER I O D le -Preparations (or SAFSTOR Dorman cy Period le Direct Dcrommi1ttonmg | |||
* .\dh:it;e1 l e.I.I Prepare 1 u pport. eq uip ment 1£.r 1toragre lc.1.2 ln11all conlainmeot 1 1re11ure equal. line* l e.1.3 In terim 1 un*ey prior to dormancy l e.1.4 Securf! building aooeMee: lc.1.5 Prepare & s ul.llnit interim 11llKl'1 le.I S u btota l P e r iod l e .o\t.1h*i1y Cos t s Period I r: Col lat t>ral Co8ta le.3.1 !>l'()Cffll der:omrni11toning wnter w a11 1 e l e.S.2 P'roceM derommiukming chemical flu sh le.3.3 Sma ll t oo l ttUowimce | |||
\c.3.4 Em*ironmental Penn.ill a nd Fee11 l c.3 S ub h:.tal P f'r iod le Co ll ate r al D>>t1 TLG &1vicn , In c. O fr..S lt e Rr:mova l P*clr:*sl n s Tran.9Por1 P r oce11 lns c. .. Co" c. ... Co sts ""'" 1 ,0 1 5 28.J 7 3 1 2.030 2 ,(00 ... 168 Ill 1 85 ,. 1 ,100 Ill 1 85 8-1 7 , .. 143 .,, I06 3,9 77 <<I 1 20 188 llO I " "" 1 95 1 37 230 190 1 37 230 Tab l e D-1 D ia bl o C an yo n Unit 1 SAFSTO R D eco mmi ss i o nin g Cost Es timat e (T h o u sa nd s 0!2 014 Do ll ars) LLRW NHC Dbpo9*1 Dthe* Tot*I T ot e l U c.Term. Cotti eo,u Co 11tln e n c eo ,o c. ... i-49 1,7GI J ,76 1 210 ... 49-1 ... 1,270 1 , 270 1 .. 1 08 3,628 3 , 02 8 1.498 3 , 628 3 , 02 8 "' ** * ** 2611 287 6 1 3/H 36 1 50 1 "' 616 GIG 200 1 , 1 61 1 , 1 6 1 "' ... 1 , 336 1 , 336 8 " *12 ,,. ., 292 "" 617 ,,. .,,. 2,82 1 2,82 1 "' 1 , 100 1 , 1 60 286 42 327 327 ... 1 " " "' 361 31ll 32 176 176 II 8 29 29 690 1 03 ... , .., 174 20 ""' 200 262 37 ""' 200 .. 2 4*1 1 38 31 I G8 l'28 73 ''" 4 0 1 6,373 1 , 1 80 U,602 6,6(i2 9 , 4 11) 2,086 11 ,00-1 11 , 60-1 II 16 , 0CU 1.l::J I 22 , 3 1 6 2 1.6 1 3 628 17.647 6.377 29.27{1 28.677 Il l 6 12 612 II "" "" 733 32*1 1 ,06 7 1 , 057 . 00 20 11 0 11 0 823 467 1 , 343 1 ,843 .... .,, 1 , 666 1 , 6115 I 0 23 1 6 1 283 283 641 23 1 ""' 1 ,9 4'1 1 ,{144 Spent Fue l Site Proceued Burial ltbnasement R e store tl o n Vo l u m e CIHsA Cl1U1B C l 11nC Co.to Co s11 C u. F e et C u. F ee t C u. Feet C u. F eet ... 008 "' 200 , .. 1 68 702 *112 702 1 , 410 1 ,23 7 1 ,:237 OT CC C u. F ee.t Document PO l-111 9-00 1 , R ev. 0 Append i x D, PuMe 3o f 2 1 llurh1 I Utility a nd Proceued C urt Co ntr a c t or Wt .* Lbs. Man h o un Manb o un 1 3 , 156 3,9 1 7 9,8 1 6 26.888 26.888 l'i9,867 rnr. 60,867 1 00 8 , 2-14 " 72 , 28(; 1 00,720 8 , 2.J.I " l'i 0.006 68 , 11 2 27.006 179.006 3.000 700 8 , L-17 ,., 1 2.247 683 74 ,2 U'> 2'1 7 4 , 210 241 | |||
"' :::r "' <D Diablo Canyon Power Planl DecommWionin1 Co*t Anul y*i* Activity lnde:m: Actlvlt Oe!l c ri tion P e r iod l e Pe r iod-Depe n deo1. Coeu1 k.'4.1 ln e ur ance le.'4.2 Prcperty taxes le.'4.3 Heal lh pby1ica1u p p l ie8 lc.'4.4 Hea\')' equipmen l rent.a l lc.'4.0 DilPOlal o( DAW p;ene r 11ted lc.4.6 P\ll n t energy bu dget lc.4.7 NRCFeeai lc.4.8 E n1 ergency P l an n ing Feee lc.4.9 Fu el Poo l O&M l c.'4.1 0 I S P S I Oper uting Coe 1.11 l c.4.11 Se\*e r a n ce l te l o ted Co.ih l c.'4.1 2 Sec uri1 y SUi fl'Coet l e.'4.1 3 U tili trStafl'Coe:t l e.4 Suhlota l Period l e Period-Dependent Coet1 l cO TOTAL PER I OD lcOOST PERIOD 1 TOT AlS PERIOD 2a. SAF&1'0R Dormancy with W e t Spent Fue l Storare Period 2a Direct. Decu11 m i111ioning Activities 2 11.1.l Quarte r ly l nel)t'ctio n 21 1.1.2 Sem i-a nnul'll e m*iro nn w n w.l 1urvey 2n.l.3 Prepttre re 1 10 rt 1 211.l.4 1li 1.u m i1 m u 1 roo r rep h lC'l'.Dll'llt 2a.l.5 M ain t e n ance eup p lie1 211.I SubWl.11! Period 211 .Ad 1 vity Co!lt* Pe r iod 2a Additiona l Ccet1 2a.2.l Sevt>r aoee IWLated Cul!t* 2a.2 Subtotal Pe r lc..d 2ll A ddi tiona l Cost* Period 2a C>llate r al Coeta 2a.3.1 Spen t F ue l Ttan11fur | |||
*Poo l t o ISFSI 2a.3.2 Em*1ro nm en t a l Per m ite and F eee 2a.3 Su b l-0 l a l P eriod2aC oll a l ere l Coe l 11 Pe r iod 2a P e r iod-Depe n de n t C'o8t.a 2a . .t.I ln a u ranit"e 2n..l.2 Property l llJ:ee 21'1.4.3 H ea ltb pby1ica1 u pp l ie9 2a.4.4 Diepolllll of DAW 28.4.5 Pl.811 t e n ergy budi;cl 2a.4.6 NRC F ee. 21A.7 E m ergenc)' P l anning fee1 2a.4.8 Spe n t F u e l Pool O&."d 2a.4.9 I Sl<'S I Operat i ng Coat.a 2aA.IO Spe nt F u e l Slorage Cania l en.Ornrpacb 2a.4.l l Secu r ity Sla ff Coat 2a.4.1 2 U tilit r S t a rr Uoe t 2a.4 Pe r iod 2a P e ri od-Depe u de nl. Cof;U 21t.O TOT A L P E HI OO 2a OOST PERIOD l!b* SAFSTOR Domum e y with Dl"y Spent Fuel Storare Period 2b Direc t Decommi&11ioning | |||
/\divi t ie!I 2b.l.I Quarte r ly Jn epec:tio n 2b.l.2 Semi-annua l e n\*i rc.nme n tn l 11urvey 2b.l.3 Preparerepo rl 1 2h.l.4 B ilu m i no u e roof replace m en t 2b.l.6 Maintena o cee up p l iel! 2 b.I Su bt ota l Pericd 2b Ac t U.S I* Per iuJ 2h Ui lla1 cr11: I <'A1S t 1 2b.3 S u b t-OC11 I Pe r iod 2 b <'..ol l mc r a l Coe t a TLG &,.vices , In c. Off-Sit e Remov11 I Pa c k11JlnJ T r an s port ProceHl n J Co" eo .. eo ... eo, ,, eo ... 1 88 1 36 32 7 196 886 "o 231 4 , 173 2 , 418 493 526 1.849 46 13 1 , 849 46 13 1,849 ,. 13 Tab l e D-1 Diab l o Canyon Unit 1 SAFSTOR Decommi s sio n ing Cost Est i mate (T h ousand s of2014 Dollar s) LLRW NRC Disposal Oth e r Tota l Tot Ill Lie. Term. Co sts Cos ts Co ntln en c Cost1 Cos t s 276 " 317 317 " * '° 00 70 268 268 31 IG9 IG9 1 0 10 6"7 "" .,. .,. 168 " 1 93 198 24-1 3G 260 1 93 .. '"" 133 "' 1 63 1 6,227 3.692 1 9.8 10 1 9.8Ht G.1 97 1.1 5 1 6.3 4 8 6.348 9.11 2 2 , 017 ll , 1 29 1 1 , 1 29 32 , 262 7 , 1 90 39 , 787 39 , J (lfl 6'45 33 , 3 1 7 8.1 6 1 4 3,575 42 , 800 4.026 189.203 *I G, 4'45 247 , 283 243 , 1 17 1 , 1 82 436 1 , 618 1 , 6 1 8 1 , 1 82 436 1 , 6 1 8 1.618 I0 , 86*1 2,<06 13 , 268 1 3,2 68 10 , 864 2 , 405 13 , 268 13 , 268 40 ,53 1 8 , 972 49.003 8 , 079 1 , 788 9 , 867 9,867 4 8,009 I0 , 76 1 59,370 9,86 7 4 , 333 63ll *l , 972 .ol , 277 U i!O 223 1.7 33 1 , 733 .. ., 2.632 2.63 2 00 30 14' 14' ..... I.OJI 5,689 2 , 8H 2,462 363 2.826 2 , 826 6 , 08-l 696 6.982 6 , 743 1 ,*t93 8 , 236 4 , 653 1 , 930 5 , 683 49.817 1 1 , 028 60 , 8"4 1 62,000 36 , 081 199.0 71 9 , 8 32 1 7 , 280 95,340 1 6,82 1 '5 32 1 ,310 70,779 394,002 4 1 , 008 55 38 1 ,965 84 , 380 468 ,309 66,762 3,776 1 , 393 0 , 169 0 , 169 3,776 1 , 393 5 , 169 ii,\G{J Spent Fuel Sit e ProceHed Burial Voluane.9 Mana&"ernent Re1tou 1 llo n Vo l ume C l as:. A C l a.HB Cl11uC Co.to Co 111 C u.Fee t C u.F ee t Cu. F ee t Cu. F e et 1<9 260 236 1 63 679 149 679 1 , 386 4 , 166 13 ,660 49 ,503 .t9 , C.03 695 2 , 045 2.8-U S,98 2 8 , 236 5 , 663 60,844 1 89 , 239 7 8 , 519 363 , 0'14 2 , 0*1 6 402 , 647 2 ,0 46 OTC C Cu. F ee t Document PO l-1119-001 , R e v. 0 Appendi.xD, Page 4 of 21 Burh1 I/ Utilltya11d Processed curt Co ntract o r Wt .* Lb s. Manh o ur 1 Manh o 1 1 rs um 69.92D 1 00.240 2 , 972 17 3 169 77.1 88 1 2..193 17 3.752 782 , 4 36 39.926 1 , 114 , 956 40.000 67 2 , 23 1 , 700 86 1 , 931 40 , 900 67 3,083.637 40 , 900 67 3 , 083 ,63 7 | |||
"-' :l> n ::::r 1> .!>. 0 D i obl o C un yo n P owe r Plan t D e conunin io ninz Co*t Anal y*i* Actl v il.y ln dex Actlvlt Descl'i tlo 11 Period 2b Prri00-Depend1.*nt Co.1.e 2b.4.J ln 1ur11 1 ice 2b.4.2 P roperty I Rire. 2b.4.3 1-l en.l lh phyeice sup pl ies 2b.M Oiapogal of DAW 2b.4.6 Plant e n e rgy budget 2b.4.6 NRC F eet 2b..l.7 J.:mergencyPlenningFeee 2b . .t8 Spent Fu e l Transfer. | |||
I SFS I to DOE 2b .. UI 181-'S I Operi:ttingCoiiLA 2b.4.10 Security StnITCoet 2h.4.J I Utility StaITCoe 1 2b.4 Sublotal Period 2 b Period.Dependenl Costs 2b.O TOTAL PERIOD 2b OOST PER IO D 2 TO T ALS PERI O D 3a-R eactl v*t e S le e F o ll o w l n r SAFSTO R Do nnan cy Period 3a Direct D erorw ni11 io ning Activities | |||
:Jtt.1.1 Prepare pn>limmary deromm i saioning roet 3 a.1.2 l levklw 11le11tdwg1&spee11. 3a.l.3 P e r form d eta ilt*d r11 d 1 une1* JR.!.4 E n d product dc 11Cr i11 t io n 3a.l.6 Detailed b y*1 lrodt1ci inventor y 3a.l.6 Define major work 3a.l.7 P e r l"o rm S ER and EA 3a.l.8 Perform Si1 e-Speci[ic Coet Stud y 38.1.9 Preparehubmil License Tem1inatiou Plan 3a.LIO Receive NRC eppnn*a\ o f termin a l io n pion Acth*itySpeci fi cntion11 3 a.1.11.l Re-itetivale planl & lemporary f acilitiea 38.1.11.2 Ph.ml 1y&1e nt1 311.1.1 1.3 Reoct.of"inlern11l1 3A.l.ll.4 ReActor\*esse l 3 a.1.ll.5 B i o l 0l(ict1l 1hield 311.J.Jl.6 SwnmgenerBWNI aa.1.11.7 Reinforced concrete 38.1.1 1.8 Main Turbine 38.1.11.9 Main Condcneers 311.1.11.10 Plunl11 ruct ure 1& building& | |||
38.1.1 1.11 Wu1temllllagemeut 3a.1.ll.12 F acili t y&.si t ecloeeou t 3a.l.ll Tota l Planning & Site Prep:m*tion* | |||
3a.l.12 Pre11arediamantlingsequence 3a.l.1 3 Plantr1re 1).&temp.11Vce11 3a.l.H De11ign wat e r clean-up 8}"11.f:'m 3a.l.15 Ritiging.IC<.mt. C n tr l Ell\*l p Bft ooliug/elc. 3a.J.IO Procure ca1 kalli n e r 1 & co ntainer* 3".I Subtotal P e r iod 3a Act.ivi l y f'...os!s Period 3R Ad d il i cma l Come 38.2.1 S 1 t.r Characteriz11 1 kon 3a.2 S ubt ota l Prriod 3a Addi I ione l Coet!! Pe r iod Sa Co llat er aJ Co.11 3".3 S ublot a l Pl'ri!Jd 3e Col l ate r a l Period 3a P\'riOO*Dl!'pe ndt>nt Coel.ll 3a.4.I lnsur 1 m ce 3a.4.2 Properl)' t10.:e1 38.4.3 llenl t h p h y1ics11 uppl ies 3RA.4 H ea\'Y equi111uen l rent.a l 3a.4.6 Dispoea l o f D A W T L G Sel'"vice1 , I nc. orr-s it e Deeo n R e m ova l P11.c k aJ1 n r T ran spo rt P r oeeul n r c. .. c. .. Co9ts c. ... C..u 2 , 772 68 19 2.772 68 19 2.772 68 19 *1.622 114 32 '"' 06 7 12 Tab l e D-1 Diab l o C an y on Unit 1 SAFSTOR Deco mmi ss i o nin g Co s t E s tima te (T h o u sa n d s o f 20 14 Dollars) LLRW NR C D isposa l O th er Tot*I To t11.I Li e.Ter m. Cos t s Costs Con t l n euc Costt Costs 12 , 363 1 , 823 1"', 176 13 , 664 4 , 824 712 5 , 63G 0, 63G 1 , 023 3, 795 3, 796 *1 44 2 11 2 11 7 , 4 39 1 , 647 9 , 006 9 , 0llG """ 1 , 1 0 7 8,609 9,718 1 ,-1 3.f 11 , 163 36 , 3-19 8 , CM7 H.300 14 , 8G3 3 , 2<.JO 1 8 , 16 1 103.874 22 , 095 12'\868 3 1 , 407 82.779 18.325 10 1.104 M.73 3 81 279 , 702 60.4 4 6 3-1 3.088 1 26.0-11 81 283 , 4 78 61 , 830 3-18 , 267 1 3 1 , 2 1 0 1 30 000 , 443 146 , 220 816.666 196 , 972 202 4 6 246 2*16 7 1 3 l58 871 871 . 166 3*1 1** 18 9 202 " 240 24(1 1 , 10 3 207 1 ,<120 1 , 4.20 481 106 587 587 776 1 72 947 947 630 141 ii6 776 1 , 1 43 203 1 , 3<.)6 1 , 2r..G 646 1 43 789 710 1 , 101 244 1 , 340 1 , 346 1,00ll 223 1 , 231 1 , 23 1 7 8 17 ., .. 481 107 69 1 69 1 2*1 8' "" 303 16 1 ., l*I "' 62 " 7 6 484 1 07 6111 296 713 1 58 871 871 l*lO 31 170 86 6 , 1 67 1 , 366 7 , 533 6 ,63 1 372 82 464 "' 3 , 000 004 3 , 004 3 , 004 217 4 8 20& 26& 2,300 509 2,809 2,800 19 1 42 233 233 1 6 , 5 7 3 3 , 669 20,2 41 19,339 5 , 234 2 , 3 17 7 , 66 1 7 , 661 U , 234 2 , 3 17 7 , 561 7 ,66 1 4 38 66 ro3 003 1 77 2 6 20*1 2<"1 100 627 627 126 692 otn 14 8 3G 3C Spe ntl''u e l S lt.e P r oees , e d B u rill1 Vo lum e9 M anR (e m e nt RHto r a t lo n Vo l um e C l auA C l usB C l 11 uC c.. .. Co1 t 1 Cu. F eet Cu.Feet C u. F ee t C u. F eet "' 3.00* 1 1 , 1 63 .f-1 , 396 18 , 1 6*1 95 ,*1 62 -17.371 217 , 047 3 , 004 217.047 3.004 6 1 9 , 59-1 6 , 0.f9 "" 79 16 1 ,. 76 296 86 902 902 6 14 G T CC C u. Feet D oc u m ent P0 1*1119-00I , R ev. 0 App e ndi x D, P a g e 5 of 2 1 H url1"1/ U tilit y and Proeesn d C r aft Co ntr ac t o r Wt .* lbs. Man h ours M1 m h o 11 n G0 , 088 .. 1, 3.15.786 007.I M ll0,088 "" 2.2.J2.93f.I ll0.088 .. 2.2 4 2.039 1 00.98 7 1 66 6.3 26.676 1.:JOO 4,600 l.tlOO 1.300 7 , 600 3.1 00 6 , 000 4.096 7.370 4 , 167 7 , 100 C , 500 500 3 , 120 1.600 100 ... 3.120 1.600 000 39777 2.*100 1 , M.(I 1.230 72 , 7 00 25.000 it,412 25 , 000 9,4 12 1 0 , 287 17 | |||
"' :J" t> .,,. Diab lo Cun)'On Power Pla,.t DeconuniMloning Co*t Anu l y*i* Activity In d ell Actlvlt Dese r t lion Period 3" Pt>notl-Dependeot Collt.& toon1 i nlM!dJ 3" . .f.6 Plant energy | |||
: a. .... 7 NRCFee. 311.4.8 Securi l)' SoiffCoM 3'1.4.9 Utility Starr Coet .... Subtot.a l Period 3a P e riod-Of:pendenl eo.t.a "'" TO'T'AL PERIOD &i COST PERIOD Sb* Decomnliulonlnc P r epnatlon1 J>r:.riod 3b Direct DecornmiMk>ning Acti vit ie1 | |||
* Detailed Work l)rore d ure1 3b.l.l.I Pla11Ll)*tteru1 3b.l.U! Reactor internal* | |||
3b.1.J.3 Remaining buiWing1 3b.l.l.-I Jb.1.u; CRD bou.1np & !C l tube* 3b.l.l.6 lnoore il\91.rumenlalion 3b.l.l.7 Reactor\'ettel 3b.l.l.8 Facility cbloout 3b.l.l.9 Miniie1hie l tl1 Jb.1.1.1 0 3b.l.l.11 S1eam J b.1.1.12 Rein r orced oo n cre l c J b.1.1.1 8 M11in 'l'urbine 3 b.J.1.14 Main Co n dcnMn Jb.1.1.Ui Auuli*u*y building 3b.l.l.16 Re111."lorbuildin1 Sb.I.I Toh! ab.I S ub tcic.I Period 3b A.ct.ivily Co&l1 Period 3b CoUat e ral Cc.el* 3b.3.I Dtlcon equipment 3b.3.2 3b.:t 3 Pipe culling equipment 3b.3 S uhl:o t a l P e riod 3b Col l ater11I Cot ti Period 3b Period-Depend e n t Coet.11 3b.4.I Deroo lll l\Jl h et 3b.4.2 ln11ur111)Ce 3b.4.3 Propert)' | |||
l*xe& ab.4.4 Health pbyliai 1upplieil 3b.4.6 Hein")' equipment rent.Al 3b.4.6 Disp<11a l ol W gen e:raled 3b..i.7 Plti.nl e nrf'ID' budfet 3 b.U NR C Fcet 3b.HI Secur it}* Sl.tl tr Coet 3b.4.J O DOC Starr Co.t J b.4.11 Utilitr S 1 arr eo.1 3 b . .f Subtot.o l Period 3b Period-Depemlent Uollll 3 b.O TaTA L l'EltlOD 3b COST PER I OD a TOTALS Ofl-Slte Removal Packastnc Transport Proceu ln c Cool Co" Com eo. ... eo." 1,(lU 12 1,(126 12 ... 1 , 100 942 1 , 1 00 29 '"' , .. 29 537 971 1 , 637 97 1 2 , 662 ,. Ta bl e D-1 Diablo Canyon U nit 1 SAFSTO R Decomm..is s i o ning Cost Estimate (T h o u H nda oC20 14 Do ll ars) LLRW NRC Obposal Oum Tot*I Total Uc.Term. Costs Cost1 Co ntln enc Cot t s Com 2 , 737 006 3 , a.2 3, 342 3 78 w "" '34 .... "'" 1 , 1 66 1 , IM 23, 187 28, l'U 9 28, 9 19 " "*""" 0 ,30 7 36, 31 3 36,3 1 3 J.J *19 , 669 12 ,383 63, 100 G2,2 0-1 73' 162 800 807 388 .. "' 473 209 .. 266 ** 1 66 34 , .. , .. 11 5 6 34 189 189 , .. 34 18 9 180 003 12 6 687 687 1 86 " 227 11 4 70 1 6 .. .. ,.., " 227 227 71 3 1 68 871 871 '" 3'1 189 0 6 242 " 295 242 64 2"6 423 ., , 6 1 7 ... 423 ** 617 ... ..... 1 , 107 6 , 106 4 , tr22 ..... 1 , 107 6 , 106 4 , 922 ... 1 , 161 1 , 1 6 1 1 , 406 ... 1 , 790 1 , 700 , .. 1 , 34*1 1 , 344 1.406 77C -1,28.1 4,28-1 11 ,. 3 9 ... 38 293 29 3 .. 13 102 "'' "' 3'6 3 16 .. .., 3-17 * " " 1 ,3 72 ,.,. 1 , 67 6 1 , 67 6 100 28 218 218 "' 1 06 579 679 G , 66 1 1 , 460 8 , 00 1 8 , 001 11 , 0:16 2 , 673 14 , 1 99 14 , 1 00 20,600 4,682 25 , 821 26 , 821 27,0'l l 6 , 1566 36,2 11 36 , 027 22 76 , 600 18 , 948 99 , 318 97 , 230 S)M'nt}" u el S ile Processed B uri al Vo lum e;, ltbn11Sement Rertou 1ll o n Vo l um e Clan A ClanB C l a ssC "°'" Cot t i C u. Fe et C u.Fut C u. Feet C u. Feet 614 002 6 11 00 l!l2 '" ., 296 , .. " 62 l,lM l , IM 2!'2 292 1 , 184 ""' 2 , 006 1100 OTCC C u. Feet D ocument POl-1119-001 , Rn'. 0 Appendix D, Page 60/ :!l Bu ri al/ U tilit y and Processed Cr art Co ntract or Wt.,Lb1. Manhoun '&hnhoun 1 3, 00G 268 , 62D I0 , 287 17 271 , (,64 10 , 287 2&, 017 363 , 779 47 33 2600 1.300 1.000 1.000 1 , 000 3, 630 1 , 200 *150 1.200 *.1100 1.000 1 , 000 1 , 600 2 , 730 82243 3 2.2"3 5.834 1 0 6.636 68 , 600 1:19 , 669 5 , 834 1 0 19-1 , 764 5 , 834 10 227 , 007 16 , 121 25.026 i>80 , 786 N :::,-:/" .,,.. N Diablo Canyon Power Plant D eco mm iHionin11 Co.a Analy*i* Ac tivit y l ndu Actlvltv Descrh>tlo n PERIOD .. a* Llirre Co mponent Remova l Period 411 Dtrect OecorumiNioninr Adi-fi t in Nudt*ar Steam Supplf Syal.em Reruovl!l l 4a. J. J. I Reactor Coo lant Pip1n1 48.1.1.2 PreNurize rqu enc hT8nlt 4a.J.l.3 ReactorCoo lantP11mJ)6&Moc.on 48.l.l..I Pre1111 uri ze r 4a.l.l.fi Sleani Gt: 1'6rttl o1"11 4a. l.l.6 ffclired Stewn Ce 11 er1t1..0 r Uni!.$ 411..1.1.7 CHO i\ll 1 fl G l 1&n*ioo Structure R e ruovol 4 11.l.l.8 ReltCtcrVuael ln lf!rn 1 d J 4a.l.1.9 Ve..el &: l nlernol* (.,''T CC Di*poaa l 4 a.1.1.IO Reacto r Veuel 41.l.l Total1 JU.11KN:d o fM 1'JQf' E11uipment 4 a. l.2 M11m Turbine iUe neralor 4a.l.3 Main Co nden Joe n CMea tling Coe 11 from Ckit1 n Building 0.1.4.1 *Re acto r 4 a. l.4.2 Co nUiirun enl P e nctrt1tioo Arett 4 o. l.4.3 Han dli n g 4t1.l.4 Tc1tt1 l 1 Dlllposal of Plflnt Sy11em1 4a.l.6.I Aux:ililu)'Sl!!tlm 4a. l.6.2 S 1 e1un tRCA' 4a. l.6.3 Con dcnNJl.e Sy1tem 48. l.6.4 Con den&al.e 6y11em (lmula1ed) 4t1. l.6.6 Con tamm e nl Sp r ay 48. l.6.6 E:x 1rACt10n St ea m&. ll e t1l t>r Drip 4t1.l.6.7 F eedwt1te r6 y11 em 4t1. I .6.8 Fe.odwl!lt e r Syalt'ru (l n 1 ulateJ) 4o. l.6.9 F'u-t>dwr1t e r Sy1 l e m (R CA Jnsuln ted) 4a. l.6. IO Syatem <R CA) 4t1. I .6. I I Lube Oi l Di*trihuti o n & P urir lClltion 4a.l.6.1 2 NitrD(re n&l-I J drutten 4&.1.6.13 4a.l.6.14 N ltl"OIJt"n | |||
& 1-l ydrove n (R CA In s ul ated) 4t1.l.6.l 6 Ni trogen&l-l r d l'OC'!n(RCA) 48.1.6.1 6 Oily Wat.crSeparator&TBSump 48.1.6.17 Salt.,,ot1l.er6y* | |||
t e ru 4a.l.6.18 Turbi ne S1.e111n S upply 4a. l.0.1 9 Turbi ne Steam Supply {RCA) 4a.l.6.io Turbine and OenemWr 4.a.1.6.2 I Turbine an d Generator ti n 1 ulaled) 4a.l.6 T nt.4 11 4a. l .6 Sca ffoldtnll in ll Ul lJl(lr l o r deooinmiui c.ning 4a.I S ub total Period 4a A c tivily Co.1 1 P e riod *IA Additional Q:,i,i,, 4a.2.J Re m edi11 I Action Survey1 *l a.2.2 Retire d Reac\Ot" ll e lld *l it.2.S PG&E RPV S l llfTS up port Teo.m 4a.2.4 IX>C RPV Stt1!f Support T e am 4a.2 Subu.o l P1m o d 4t1 Addi l ional Col u P e riod 4a Col h1l e r a l Cul t 1 4A.3.J Jll'OCl'lll d ceo mmi llll ioning 111*ate r wa 1 h 1 4a.3.2 Pl'\.ll'f'N d ecom m1 n lvning cbl'mi ca l nu 11 h wm 1 te *la.3.3 SmAll tool olkiw1H IOI! *IA.3 S ulitotal Period *ht Cul lnl er nl Co8 1.11 TLG &rvicn, l" c. Tab l e D-1 Dinb l o Ca nyon Unit 1 SAFSTOR D eco mmi ss i o ning Cost Estimate (T h o u sa nd s o f2014 Dollars) O U.S i te -LLRW Deco n Removal Pacta.inr Tran.sport Proceulnr Disposal Cost Coit Co.tu Cosu Cotts Co1 ts 83 "" II 107 ... 1 04 393 393 : m 38 ll G 70 3.330 ,.. 0*118 U.9 1 8 20.545 2 1 2 ... 1 , 262 7 8 206 1.546 1** 278 708 293 262 "' .. 17 0 1 28 G 1 20 20 Ill ,. l llll 700 871 84 28 4 , l\8G 2 , 1 00 29.784 230 230 .. 7 87 370 2.260 :uoo 2'6 7.188 1.646 14 , 003 " 1.21 34 2 1 0 2l il *l<l9 " 1 4 , 6 7 6 263 263 27 4 l llll 11 0 1982 1: os2 26 l.I0 5 210 6 , 7 36 1 6 *17 la I 99 183 6 , 923 81 81 " " 1 , 181 I I>; l ,.f 3 1 760* 1 2,696 1 2.696 06 1 2 4 ,672 9.625 2 , 90 1 66 , 677 l508 1 , 506 420 22 I 8 1 1 32 3.1 62 *.836 " 72 , 437 l , 6 1 6 1 , 6 1 6 42 " Other "°'" 243 l!-1 3 ..., ..., 4 , 703 '*""' 4 , 11 3 1 3 , 086 Tota l Con tlna: enc ... .. <7 "' 2 7 9 17 .. 34 2 34 """ 1 6 7 .. 677 61 II 39 210 II 27 6 *I 72 66 41 176 1 , 0-48 19 | |||
* 3 , 527 82*1 64,000 2 , 082 6 1 6 946 9!0 4 ,663 26 63 78 Tot.al "°'" 2,21JG JO I 2,520 1 ,702 27 , 12 0 22 , 382 1.763 68.0 40 11.63 1 18, 3 71 1 5 7.025 268 .. I 1 ,6 4 2 .. 26 1 1 , 888 188 1 , 14 2 866 368 2 , 003 ... 68 2 14 800 " 1'7 2 6 I 14 273 "" "' ... 6 , 936 1 03 ** 14.60 1 3 , 007 177 ,689 6 , 780 2 , 474 6 , 2 1 4 6,0'.l 3 1 9 , 4 1:1 7 *7 29 1 ""' NRC ___ | |||
Li e. Teml. l!Ian1treme nt Cosu Cosu 3(11 2 , 520 1 , 702 27 , 12 0 22 ,:}82 1.763 68 , 0 IO 11 , 63 1 18 , 3 71 1 67.026 1 , 642 .. "' 1 , 888 1 ,1 .. 2 2,603 llOO *" 14 273 262 6, 936 11 , 000 17 3 , 0 .. 6 6 , 786 2 , 4 7 4 6 , 2 14 6 , 02 3 1 11 , 4 97 "' :!6 2 ... S li ii*-*----Pniceued___ -u u-ri1tTVo l u1n e5 Rettonllon Vo l ume C ius A C l u1 B C lt1u C GTCC Co*I* Cu. Feel Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet C u. Feet 208 85 1 188 ... ,.. 3: l< 68 2 14 147 26 242 ... 1 00 .. 3.636 2 , 270 '"' 4 , 70 1 2.4-1 3 *11.7 1 2 -1 1.03 1 3.88 1 2 , 632 9.63 1 J06 , 4:V J 1 , 836 II 1 , 6 17 80 " 202 .,. II 4t8 2 1.067 ... 00 1 798 1 , 6 49 60 1 708 1.649 D oc um e nt POJ./119-0 01 , Rev. 0 App1:11dixD, Pa1e 1of!J Bu rlt1I/ ProcH!ted C raft Wt .* u, ,. Manhoun 200 , 1 63 36 , 66 7 714 , 000 267.066 3.3li0 , 76 1 3 , 1 2 6 , (;29 1 46 , 49.f 402.868 330.307 063.812 9 , 667 , 685 111862 33 1 , 619 02, 4 70 *1 , 867 03 7 1 7 , 803 29 , 138 691'609 1.285 , 206 29,323 6 , G l*I ... 2,796 l , NH 20.008 ICl.800 5.232 2 1 633 21.63;1 90.114 3, 033 0 , 87& 11 , 6 96 70 4 I.H O 14.3*1 6 2.3 1 0 3,i l .. I0.67 1 4.367 3.63 1 4.IG2 706 2,066 1 , 703 llG 1.817 3 1 6 17 77 1..1 63 !50 1 2028 11.906 12.:.!03 1.244 *1 2"J 6 7.026 16.049 UliifiY4'-1iti Co nt rac t or Ma.nh o u ni 80 700 1.126 1.1 26 003 ... ... , 4,644 1 30 , 1 76 ''" 71)(! 1 , 649 1 0 , 972 , 11 0 200.3 4 0 6.067 29 29 6 , 072 6 , 072 8 2 82 322, 442 322 , 442 4 , 8fl5 4 , 895 66 , 8.'.16 2.000 &8 , 033 1 6 1 6 .. 41.862 6 ... 1 86 1 06088 | |||
,._, :::T J> "' D i ablo Con10 n Pow e r Pl ant D e co mminloning Co*t Anal.)'Si* | |||
Acti v it y l od e s. A c tlv l t D ese rl tl o n Period 4111 PE'r.00.Depe-ndt>nLCoet. | |||
<ta..4.1 Deooo 1 upph e1 4a.4.2 lnaur aDl'f! 4e.4.3 Prope rt y tau. 4A.4.4 H ealt h pby1icl 1 upp lie1 .. ,.,..&, 6 H U\")' equipment rentel ... ..&.6 Dil{>OU I of DAW generated 4a..6.7 PlanLenergybudget 4a..t.8 NRCFee9 4 11 , l.IJ Liquid fUtdw111le Equipment./Servk:leS 4tt..l.I O Sec uri1ySt11 rr Cost. 41! .... J I D OC Sta ff Chi t 4 a .... 1 2 Utili t y S l a ff Cos t "8.*I Su b l.otal P e r iod 411 P e riod-Depe n dent Coal.I 4a.O TOTAL PER I OD -la OO&'T PERI O D .. b. S it e D eco nt .. mln*t lon Period 4b Di r ect Deo:immi111ionlng Actirilies | |||
*l b.I.I Rell"IO\*e 1pe nl f ue l racke 0 111pc.M I of PIAnt S y9lem1 4b.l.2.I Capi tal Additio n* st;..200'.l (d eft n) 4b.l.2.2 Ca pit a l A dd i l k>n1 86-2002 (ro n la m ina l ed) 4b.l.2.3 Chemica l & \" olunw Con t rol 4b.1.2.4 & Volume Co ntrol (ln!!-ul a ted J .. b.1.2.6 Cornpont'n l Cooling Wtt1 e r .. b.J.2.6 Componen t Cooli ng W11t e r (RCA) 4b.1..2.7 funpreaaed Air 4b.l.2.8 Canpre-1 Air On1ule1ed) 4b.l.2.9 Com pl'\'Mt'd Ai r (RCA l ruuhtted) 4b.l.2.IO Com p reeeed Ai r {RCA) .. b.J.2.11 EnJioe-GenerDl:or | |||
.. b.1.2.1 2 Dtelel Engine-Gent>ralor On 1 ulat ed) *l b.1.2.1 3 Elect.ri c al (Clean) *l b.1.2.1 4 Elect.ric11l (Co n tam i nated) 4b.l.2.1 5 Elect r i c a l (Co n tam in otcd) | |||
* P I-IB 4b.l.2.1 6 E l ect ri ca l {Deco n taminale d) 4 b.l.2.17 E l ectricn l {Deoo n t.a n 1i n ttt.e d) | |||
* f'H B 4 b.l.2.1 8 Fire Protoo t km 4b.1.2.l9 Fire Prot.ection (RC.A.) 4b.l.2.20 Gn1P.O u1 Rad11*&1Jlc 4b.l.2.21 IW AC (Oe an ln1ulated) 4b.l.2.22 HVA CCClee.n) 4b.l.2.23 !IV AC (Coa lamin11ted IDAulated) 4b.l.2.24 llVA C (Con tamin ated) 4b.l.2.2 6 H V A C (Con tam inated)* FIJB 4b.J.2.26 Uquid R.3dwaate 4b.l.2.27 Uquid Radv.*aate (huul:Ked) 4b.l.2.28 Make..upW& | |||
te.r .. b.1.2.29 Make.up Wat e r Ont ul ated) 4b.l.2.30 Make-u p \Vo t e r (RCA ln a u l ated) 4b.l.2.31 M11ke-upWl!ter(R(".,A) 4b.l.2.32 M111tt ll a n eo u 1 Reactor Coolant 4b.l.2.33 Nudear St e am Sup1Jlv Sampling 4b.l.2.34 Nuclea r S t ea m Supply Sampling On1ula1ed 4b.1.2.36 Re&id u a l H eat Removal 4b.l.2.36 Sarety l zUectiort 4b.l.2.3 7 Sarety l njeclioo Onaulllted) 4b.l.2.38 Sa&!)' l n jeelion (RCA l n tulttted) 4b.l.2.39 Sarety ID jec tion (R CA) 4b.l.2..&0 Se r vk.'f' Coo ling W ill e r <tb.1.2.4 1 Servke Coo ling W11 1 e r (R CA) 4b.l.2.42 Spen t F uel P i l Coo li n g *l b.1.2.4 3 Spen t f'u e l Pi t Cc.o li n g *!<'J IB 4 b.l.2 Tutttl s TLG Sen.i i c n , I n c. f..S it e o ... n R e mo v*I P*e k*stns Transpo rt P r-oces1 in1 eo .. eo .. eo ... c.. .. C..u 1 57 2.800 6 , 967 96 27 157 8.766 06 27 ... 38.789 14 , 94 3 6,0-IG ... "' 1 03 33 190 *1 36 38 1 6 1.1 36 148 6 1 "" 26 II '°" 6Z2 149 .. 181 6 .. 2 I 638 3< 13 18'i 12 2 , 227 6 7 3 "' 36 W 1 '" 6 3 , 4 8 1 1.M O 1 26 40 *"" 12 3 "' 2llO 28 II " | |||
* 2 29 881 288 49 20 J.280 247 IO I ""' .. " 726 ., 34 79 ' 376 " 4 G * ' 237 27 IO 1 26 0 3 168 4 6 1 I 0 300 123 liO 11 0 1 6 7 6 I 0 42 6 ' 352 .. 21 12 3 30 4 ' .. <6 1 9 1 20 00 20 17 , 6 1 3 1 ,5 7 0 634 T abl e D-1 Di a bl o Canyon U ni t 1 SAFSTO R D eco mm is s i o nin g Cos t Es tim ate (T h o u sa n d s o{ 20 1 4 Do ll ar s) LL RW N K C S put F u el Disposal Other T o t*I Total U c.Term. lhn*s: e me n t eo ... Co s u Co ntln c u e Cosu eo ... "°'" .. 216 216 1 , 392 206 ..... 1 , 698 ... " 667 00 1 1 , 037 3, 84f j M-1'3 1 ,3 19 7 , 27 6 7 , 276 113 62 "" 297 i , 1 (18 1 ,5 7 .. 8 , 682 8,682 1 , 600 '" 1 , 804 1 , 804 1 , 026 227 1 , 263 12 63 ..... 673 3, 1 59 3 , 1 59 66 , 486 1 2.604 68 , 000 08.000 8 1 , 682 18 , 000 09.6 4 1 09.6 4 1 11 3 152.316 36 , 933 197 , 408 197 , 362 7 .. , IU8 Hl6 , 887 91.063 394.983 300.26 .. 1 ,066 ... 2 , 7 14 '..1 , 7 14 " 23' 494 362 1 , 336 1 , 336 1 , 927 1 , 1 66 '*""' 4 , 430 '"" :roo 1 , 005 1 , 005 ** ... 1 , 802 ... , 8 , 628 3 , 628 40 22 1 I ' " 1 9 " 78 "' 362 ..... ..... .. 2'9 3 14 493 2.720 1 , 1 24 6<7 2 ,"'6 2, 4 66 1 71 128 4 81 45.1 770 4 , 25 1 1 , 569 1 ,03 2 3 , 0 26 3 , 026 1 , 60 7 773 2 , 00 1 2 , 00 1 342 226 866 866 72 "' 220 ''° | |||
* 36 , , ... 6<3 366 1 ,360 1 ,366 3, 2 14 1.7 17 6,666 6 .... 73 1 "" l , 5 1 6 1 , 5 1 5 1 , 072 G83 '*""" 2600 67 .. 208 208 83 460 ' 42 69 "' 14 9 14 9 33 2 216 8 22 8 22 Il l 00 336 339 121 1 09 412 412 .. " "" ** 1 , 008 '"' 2 , 820 2 , 820 %10 '" 476 47 6 ' ' 21 2 1 7 6 " 17 0 1 70 677 "" 1 , 497 l , 4 f17 27 1 00 65 33 1 2*1 1 24 002 , .. 1 , 0 1 7 1 , 0 17 *** 21'4 1 , 1 29 1 , 1 29 20 , 1 87 1 3 , 222 63 , 226 44 , l liO S h e P r-oc e.n ed B u rial V o lumes Re tto r*tl o n V o l ume C b ss A C lassB C I H!!C Co t ti C u. Fe et C u. Feet C u. F eet C u. F ee t l5C -t,2 18 "' 4 , 218 4.729 1 30 , 647 50 1 ,, .... 3,862 232 1 ,786 6,00l> 1 , 236 !?49 6,692 "' ' "" 1 , 622 229 14 2 , 720 4 , 06 1 6 IO 4 , 2fi l 6 , 670 6 , 800 1 , 23 7 ,., 36 466 2.32 4 11.6 1 6 2 , 65-1 3 , 871 '..I.f l 400 ., "' 1 , 100 402 "' .. 5, 793 769 80 "' 2., 44 7 1 00 '""' 2, 1 74 2 ,332 O , O'i6 72 , 065 GT CC C u. F ee t l.G 40 Docu m e nt PD l-1 1 1 j.0 0 1 , Re v. 0 Appendix D , Pa6e 8 o f :!I ll ur h d/ U ll li t y*n d f'roeeH cd C r aft Co nt r*ctor Wl ** Lb t. M*nh o un M 1t nh o i1n ... '"' 3G.G4J 52 3.1 23 1)2 8.l<tO 84.36G '"' 1.486900 1 1 , 383 , 81 0 2 69.427 1.008.00 1 234,?;3 000 2.830 1 08 , 808 5.963 424 , 520 1 6.520 75 ,243 6,600 3 , 0 78 407 , 837 8 , 6 14 2 , 744 "" ..... 393 92 , 770 7.1 99 2 , 760 1 78 32 , 770 247 , 4!".19 i.74G 37 , 72 1 2,200 4 9,54 1 3-1 6,563 1 5,003 36a , 9'i0 6.6 J G 75.373 3.808 1 0.963 1.0.fO .,. 6.0 1 6 l.U, 63 1 a656 707.889 J G.046 1 6 1.763 a796 236,137 9.848 1 4 , 718 1 , 0-1 2 5 , 6 1 4 621 1 2 , 8 00 69 4 73,0'iG 3.1 39 24 , 489 1 , 787 26,671 2,436 | |||
,, .. 363,0 70 4 , 438 46 , 248 ..... UMJ 80 16 , 67 1 ... 14 9 , 1 3f t 4.666 J , 81ie 1 2 , 1 69 400 1 3 2 ,5 1 1 1 , 208 1 42 , 1 03 1 , 724 4 , 44 G,392 244 , 4 96 N :,-:p .,,.. .,,.. Diablo C on.}'On P ow e r Plant D eco mmiMllo n in1 Co il Anal y ai* Acti v it y lnd ex Act l vitv D ese rt l i on 4b.t.3 &:*f'Jolding in 1upport. Q( dt>a.ommieeiorUng l>eroo.t.un inab.1a of Srte Buildinp <lb.1.4.1 ... """ .ib.1.4.2 C.pi l a l 80-2004 4b.l.4.3 Containment Penetration An!a .fb.l . .J.4 Fuel Handling .fb.1...i Tolal 1 4b.1 Sublolnl P er iod -l bActiv i tyCot!t e Period 4b Additiounl Costs 4b.2.l Li oe n tM T e nninalion S u rv e y Plannin11 4b.2.2 Remcdi11I Act.ion Swv ey1 4b.2.3 Llce.1111e T e rminulion ISFSI 4bJ! Su l ,tLoLaJ Period *lb Addi I iuna\ Coett PerKKl*ib Col la teralO...t. | |||
4b.3.I Proce.. deo::mrruMtoning wute 4b.3.2 Prooe. decomminming chemical Outh w**te 4b.3.3 S mall tool allowanct' 4b.3.<I Decunmiuioning Equipment D1tPQ11itton 4b.3 Subtotal Period 4b Collatera l Cotti P e riod 4b Perio1J.Dcpendenl Coe1-1 4b.4.I Deax. 1 upph e9 "4b.4.2 ln turancf' 4b.4.3 Property I 11SH 4b.4."4 H ealt h phy,K:S1u11plie1 4b.4.6 ll emy equipment n>nlal 4b.4.6 Dispoea l of DA W vne rat ed 4b .... 7 Plaotene:rgybudget 4b.4.8 NRC J.'ees 4b .. t.9 Liquid Riid11*u1e Procets mg Equlpmen1/Sern | |||
: ie1 4b."4.IO Securily Sl.-ffeo..t | |||
*l b.4.11 IX>C 61arr QJl r. *lb.4.12 Utili t r St.-IT Co8 l 4b.4 S u h l-Ola l Ptiriod *l b Period-Dependent CoAIJI 4b.O TOTA L PER I OD .tb CO&'T P ERI OD <l e -De l1 y Uc:e n se T e n11in*t km Period 4e Dtrect Decommi11klo.ing Ac:tiv it iet! Penod 4e Coll1t1.e r al Cott.a 4<.3 S ub trui l Period 4eCol lauraJ Co.ts Pe r wid -l e Penod-Depe n de nl Cr.st.t 4eA.I ln1ur3ntti 4e.4.2 Propertr 4e.-l.3 H ea lth pby1ia 1upphe1 4e.4.4 Di1po111ol o( D A W gene rated 4 e.4.5 Pluoten<'rgJ | |||
'budget 4 e.4.6 NRC f en .ite.4.i St'curitySlflffCo!c. | |||
4e.4..8 Uti htyS1 a 1T C.OS t .... Subtotal 4e Period-Dependent .... TOT AL PERIOD 4e COST TLG &rvice*, I nc. O U-S it e Rir:m ov111 I Pac lt at ln l' Tran s port Process In t eo .. Co" "°'" "°'" "°'" 3, 299 22 l , Olli ""' 1 , 132 6,300 .. 2G 7 a ""' 17 0 " ,, 75.'l "" 60 " 2 , 007 3 , 689 1 , 221 6,364 2.64 I 24.660 2.976 6 , 038 1 2 1 " 121 IJ 15 " 37 431 100 " 1 6 431 172 ** 003 2 , 376 2 , 612 86 " ooa -1 ,981:1 .. 2*1 MOO 30,20 1 3,2*1 1 6 , 1(1 6 .. .. .. Tabl e D-1 Diab l o Canyon Unit l SAFSTOR Decommi ss i oning Cost E s timat e (Th o u sa nd s o( 2014 Dollars) LLRW N H C D l!pos a l 0th .. T ot a l To t a l Llc.T ir:rm. Cos t s "°'" Con l i n enc "°'" "°'" 38 1 , 236 4 , 001 4 , 00 1 26 , 38C 1 2,-471 ...... '8 , 068 BO .. 216 216 3 1 0 106 1 , 229 1 , 229 '4 3 1 , 0IO 3,04-1 3 ,0.U 2'.i , 22-1 1 3,90 1 62,647 62,6-17 -1 7 , 6H 29 , 207 113 , 087 104.0Jl 8*6 37.1 1 , 220 1.220 2.063 9'J2 a , ooti a , 006 4 00 l , GGO 800 3 , 001 3 , 00 1 4 00 ..... 2.1 06 7 , 226 7 , 226 1 03 GO 236 236 .. 626 626 258 1 29 <i6!l <i6!l 361 280 1 ,35.'l 1 ,35.'l 333 1 , 230 1 , 230 Ol7 91 708 700 216 32 "' 247 877 3 , 263 :l , 263 6 78 3 , 1 00 3 , 1 00 1 03 .. 269 , .. 2 , 486 660 3 , 036 73 1 1 08 839 839 ... 101 ... ... 1 , 14 6 '"' 1 , 300 1 , 39!1 1 2,208 2 , 702 14 , 9IO 14 , 9!0 18 ,633 4 , 10 3 22,m!G 22,63G 103 36,:.iatl Q,784 62,2 77 62,277 ..i8 ,"61) *Kl , 877 1 1 , 1 3 1 17 3.942 1(14 , 866 181 27 206 206 36 1 32 1 32 7 , .. 36 297 297 ... 2 1 3 1 , 178 1 , 178 1 , 3 1 6 291 1 , 007 1 , 607 Z , 7 1 9 607 3 , 428 3 ,-428 2 , 719 607 3 , 428 3 , 428 Spent Fuel S il e P rocess ed Burial V o l um es lt1.a n111ern en t Reno ratl o n Vo lum e Cla n A C l*ss B C hu 1sC O T CC "°'" Co*** Cu. F eet Cu. Fee t C u. Feel Cu. F eet Cu. Ftt.t 977 3 49 , 938 3 20 1 , 638 M6 , 0..i7 9.(176 1 32 , 8 3 1 1.777 I 777 200 6 , 667 6 , 666 3 , 6>0 3 , 830 Q,076 1 1 0 , 306 1 02 102 IU2 D oc ument POl-1119-001 , R n*. 0 D, Pait: 9of 21 ll url111l/ U t ilily and Proceu ed c ,o11 Co ntra cto r Wt., Lbs. M 1n h o 1'rs M1 nh o 11 r.1 '3.98* 2 3.924 33 , 2 33, 460 44,00 3 1 8 , Sil 762 113,Gf.IO G , 14 0 2IO , C84 20 , 266 38,606 , 400 72,00CJ 38.33 1.640 3-1 1.HI G.2<10 2G l 71 108.1 70 7.006 *119 1 1 08 , 1 70 32.1n I0431 11 , 971 39 300 , 000 .. 3 11 , 971 127 76 , 600 1 26 1 5 , 786 118.700 2 12.1 00 76 , WJ l:lfi :J"6 , C64 :iS,828.aoo 373,8/:l 367.086 2 , 032 1 3.286 14 , 880 2 , 032 28 , 1 66 2 , 032 28 , 1 66 N :::r 1> .j>. "' D iab l o C on ,10n P ow e r P la11t D e co nuni u ion i nz C o*t A nul.f9 i* Ac ti v it y Ind es: A c tivity De sc r i tlo n P ERIOD 4f -U ce n5e Termln11tl o n Pt>r iod 4fD i rect DecommWioniOf Acth-i l ie1 4(.1.l ORJS E co n firmftlory 1ul'\o*ey .f.f.1.2 T erm in alelicenae 4f.l Subt.ot.ft l Period 4 f Actfrity L"oett Period 4 f Additio na l Golt. 4[2.1 L ice n ll6 Te rm inali o n Survey "' S ub toto l P e r iod .If Addilio n al Coate P eriod <lf C'.0 U ote r 1 d Coet.1 4£.3.l DOC sta ff relocation expen11e1 41.3 Subl.ola l P e r iod 4f Colla t era l Coet.e Period 4f Period-DepeDdenl Colt. 414.I ln 1 u ranoe 4[4.2 Prq>ert}'tau t 4 (.4.3 ll en lth ph ytk:81 upplie1 4 f.4.4 Di!ipOl,B I o r DAW generated 4 (.4.5 Plauttmert0* | |||
b u dget 4[4.6 NRCFee1 4'.4.7 Secu r i t y Cott 4 f.4.8 DOC Sta ff Colt 4£.4.9 Ut ili t y S 1 1: t1T Coe 1 4 C.4 S u b tota l P ti-r iod 4 ( P eriod-Dt>p e nd e n l. *1£.0 TOTAL PERIOD 4CO)ST PERIOD 4 TOTAlS PE RI O D :lb-Site R nt o r ation Pe r iod 5b Oirec l Dc-comn1iMioning Adivilie! | |||
De m o l i t io n or Re m ai n ing S i 1.i Bui l ding11 Db.I.I.I *Rencl-O r 6 b.l.l.2 C11 pi tn l A d difo n 11 85-200 4 6 b.l.l.3 P eool r 1ttk>n Area O b.I.I A Mi 11ee ll a n eo u s 6b.l.l.6 Tur b i ne 6 b.l.l.6 Tu rb i ne Pede9l11 l Uh.L l.7 F u e l Han dl ing Ob.I.I TotaJ. Site Ckieeout Acti v iti et 6b.l.2 G r ade &: la n dit'npe 1ite 6b.l.3 Fina l report t.o NRC 5b.1 Subl.ol.al Pe r kxl 6b Activit1* Colla Period 5 b A d di t ionn l Coats ob.2.1 CoDCre l e Cr u t hin j!: 5b.2.2 Co ff er d am Const ru ct)o n a n d T e a rd O\l*n 50.2.3 So il I Se d i n1 e nt Co n t rol P i o n I Areli 5b.2.4 Demol i Uo n 11n d S i te Rt-t!l-O r atio n IS FS I 6b.2.6 Mi&ee ll a n oo u s Cone t ruction Deb ri 1 (o u t o r 11te l e d1spoeal) 5b.2.6 S<-r a 1 1 M e l a! T r a n tpo rl at i on (out of 11.0lf') Gb.2.7 FSSManager | |||
.. S u btotal P e riod 5b Addi t kmal Coe1-1 P e riod 5b Collute r al Col t 11 Ob.3.1 SmnJJ t oo l allot1*ance Ub.3 S u btotal P e r iod 5b Col l ateral Costs T L G Se 1-v i cu, I n c. Off-S it e Deco n R em o v 11 I P A c kflr ln r T n nsµo rt P r oe eas ln r Co" Co" Cos u Co!lts Co m 683 G83 683 4 , 1 10 69,700 18 , UJ6 1 2 , 2 1 3 7 , 1 88 320 7:l0 3 1 3.897 1 . ..04 1.979 1 5.649 2.337 17.886 "' *1 78 1 ,366 1.642 S,93 1 232 232 Tab l e D-1 Diab l o Ca n y on Uui t 1 S AFS T OR De c ommi ss i o n ing C o s t Es tima te (T h o u sa nd s o ( 2 01 4 Do llar s) LLRW N K C S p e nt F u e l D bp o n l Ot her T o t a l Tot.al Li e.Te nn. 1th n ft(e m e nt Co!it5 Co!l ts Co n t ln e u c Co sts eo ... Co U!I 183 81 204 2G4 1 83 81 264 26*1 9 , 76 1 .J ,32 1 1 4 , 082 1 4,082 9 , 761 *1 , 32 1 1 4 , 082 J.1 , 082 1.466 324 1.700 1.700 1.4 66 3 24 1 , 7 00 1 , 71JO 1 34 20 1 63 1 63 262 936 935 G 24 24 412 .. 601 604 ... 67 623 623 713 1 68 876 870 6,073 1 , 1 23 6, 1 96 6, 1 96 0,462 1 , 207 0 , 069 6,6{;9 1 2 , 2 4 0 2,923 1 6 , 864 16 , 86 4 23,6.f.8 7 , 000 3 2 , 000 32 , 000 1 22,589 233,132 144 ,3 41 604,362 000,M8 1 ,69 1 8 , 179 71 "'" 162 892 7 37 """ 4 , 760 3 11 1.7 1 5 *138 2.4 1 7 3.442 18.99 1 "' 2.864 242 .. ""' 295 "' *l , 013 22 , 1 40 296 1 02 660 100 684 300 1 ,656 2 , 749 009 4 ,999 0,870 1 , 300 7 , 1 70 4 , 976 1 , 1 0 1 6 , 077 622 1 38 780 760 1 4 , 220 3,656 :!1 , 806 700 61 284 o l ,., Sit e P rocesse d B u ria l V o l um es R esto n tl o u V o l um e C l auA C l a 5 sB C IA u C GT CC Co sts C u.Fe e t C u.Fe e t C u. F ee t C u. F ee t C u.F ee t 336 336 3U 1 3,806 680 , 289 60 1 roll 1 ,649 8.779 39 1 802 37 ol.760 1.7 1 6 2A l 7 18.00 1 2.864 218<15 600 ... 1,656 4 ,91'9 7 , 170 6 , 077 21.0"6 , .. 28* D oc um en t PO l-111 9-0 0 1 , Re v. 0 App e ndi x D , Pa 1 e l O o f 2 1 H url ll l/ U t lll t y 11n d f>roc es H d C r11 f t Co nt r act o r Wt., Lb s. Ma nh o u n M11 nb o 11 n l 21J.300 3.120 1 26.393 3.1 20 6,698 11 9 , 82 1 46.760 GIJ,00< 6 , 6<J 8 11 11 3,636 8,1198 1 26 , 404 l l0 ,666 00 , 220 , 940 769,707 2,009067 67 ,9 1 4 3,672 6.563 2 4 9 38.GOO 11.300 16.760 14.f..95 1 Hi87 1.500 149.638 1.560 1 , 9 71 4,f>C H 12.839 20,443 .. 6, 1 48 39 , 267 5 , 228 Diablo Canyon Power Plr:mt Deconw1i .. ionin1 Co.t Ana l y*i* Activit y J udea Acti v ity De9 c rl Perkld 6b "'°nod*Depe n dt-nt Coe$s 6b.4.I ln*uunire 6b.4.2 Propert1* 1iu:e. 6b.4.3 He&\'Y equipment ft"Dt.1111 6b.4.4 Plante n er'llJ'b u dgel Ob.*1.6 Stic: u rilySt.ll ff COltt 6b.a DOC Sts rr Coet 6b A.7 Uti lil.yS t a ff Cos t Ion 6bA Su!Jlol.11 1 Pe r iod 6b Pe n od.l.)f:pe u de n t Collt.1 li b.O TO'l'AL P E RI O D O h cmr r PERIOD 6 TOTALS TOTAL CO ST TO DEOOMMISSION n-. Rll".mov111I Co ot Co ot 7 ,'"9 7.580 21l6.18 29.638 9.2.69 109.109 '.AL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACT I VE WASTE V O LUlt.E BURIED (EX C LUDING GTCC); OT AL O RF.ATER THAN C LASS C RADWASTE VOLUME G ENERATE[); | |||
E nd Nole1. oftt | |||
* m dh:ate1 lha1. lh it RL1.h d t y nol.c h a r ged H 1 1£.cun m lJ1111Q n111 g upente. l:l | |||
* i ndi cD1e11 lh at th.i i nc1ivily 11e r fu rm e d b y d l'\."'Otllmifl8iuning 0 | |||
* i ndi c 11l cJ1 th a t thi 1 va lu e i1 le!.8 thnn 0.6 bu t h1 I W ll*'l.t'ru. 11 oo ll C1JO t ain inJ***i ntl ic t1t e111:7.t'toY a lu c TLG &,.vic n , ln c. P*c bslns eo.o 1 8.819 Table D-1 Diab l o Canyo n Un it 1 SAFSTOR Deco m missioning Cost Estimate (T h ousa n d* 0(20 1 4 Dollars) on.su e LLRW NH C Tr*n,Vort Proceulns DbpoHI Othe. To1*l T o t Ill U c.Term. C..u C..u Co st' Co st' Co nlin e n c c.. .. eo, o .... .. ... l , C80 9,"'9 6 78 150 828 2.3&3 619 15.13 7 3,361 , ..... 6 , 366 1 , I07 7,762 2*1,06 8 7 , 171 3 0.7 1 3 11 , 8 9<1 83 , 0 .. 2 l , OW 39.4 1*1 l*l.800 83.942 1.000 11.7 76 128.771 UOU82: 1 70 , 844 l , 861, 4 80 1,11 8, 92.3 Sl.831.<180 Sl , 118 , 923 thouHod 1 o f 20U dollsn '821 , 749 lh o uund* nf !014 dollan SH.77 8 t h o uHud1 0 ( !0 1 4 do ll an 608 , 09 .. C ub ic f ee t 1,8.&9 C ub ic F ee t 49 , 70 7 T o n i 1.0 11.81 8 Man-h o u n Spent F u el Sile Procesaed Buri111 l Vo l ume!! ltlana1"emenl Rest o rati o n Volume C ius A ClaHB Cltt.n C c.. .. Co*ls C u. Fee t Cu.Fe et C u. Fe e t C u. F ee t '°' 9200 828 2.8G I 1 8.488 7.7(12 00.7 1 3 82.887 82.887 8H.7H 98.7 7 8 804 , 79-t *** 798 GT CC C u. Feet 1 , 649 Documen t POl-J7 l g..0 01 , Rev. 0 Appendix D , Pa,1e 11 o f !I Burl111 l/ Utllity111n d Proc e!i nd Craft Co nt'l'"tt c tor W t .. Lb,. M*nhours Manb o un 32 , 28G 1 3'.}891 67 , 1 64 200.33 1 1 88.7 96 2<13.1 20 1 88700 243.1 20 6 1 , 1 2 0 , .. 80 1.013.818 9 , S8 6, 40.4 N :::,-1" .,,. ..... Diablo Can.10n Power Pforit D eco mmiuionin1 Co*t Analy.i* Act ivity Ta d u AcUvil De9 c rl tlon PER I OD 1'1 | |||
* Shu1down t h l'O\l(h Tr111n1ill on Period I* Direct Decomm1Mioning Acl1nl1e1 l*.1.1 SAFS'T(JR 1ite charad.l!'riution 1un-ey 1 *. 1.2 Prepare prdiminaJ') | |||
* dttocn.miuion.ing coet. la.1.3 Notification of Ceuation ol'OiM!rndons la.IA Remove r ue l & souroe m11teria l 1 11.l.6 Nolificado n of Permanenl | |||
[)dueling lD.1.6 lk:lld i\'ltl.e 1 1 l11nt 1y1 1 e m 1 & prooeN Wt1sl.e lo.1.7 Prepnre and 1ub1 n il PSDAR l tt.1.8 p l nnt ;lwp & spec1. l a.1.0 P e r fonu detailed r ad aurve)' l a.I.lo Estinlflle by-productio\*entorr l a.I.II End product dellt!ription J a.1.12 Oet.niledhJ.i | |||
*J>rnduct.in\*enlor) | |||
* l a.1.13 Deline major work .eque1K'e l a.1.1'4 Perfi:.rm SER and EA l a.1.15 Per'""1u Site-Specific Co.t Stulb* Act.ivitySpecifica t ions l*.J.16.1 Prepnre pllUll and l°acllitifti for SAFSTOR 1 11.l.16.2 PIAol1yttem1 l a.l.16.3 Plant atructutt* | |||
and building* | |||
l a.1.1 6.4 W1111ema n age m c nl l n.1.1 6.6 Jo'acilily und ai 1 e OOnnaocy l a.J.16 Tot*a l la.L.17.1 Pillot 1yll.f'm1 l a.1.17.2 F'.Olit7 elo.i!eout | |||
& donnancy la.1.17 Tot.i la.1.18 Procure v1tCUum drying l)'tllem la.I.lit Drllin/de-eneryiz e non<0nt.. | |||
1ystem1 la.1.20 Drain&dry NSSS la.1.21 Drain/Ue-f.nergiie contami na ted 1y1t('m1 l a.1.22 Decon/!le('Un!I oo nl.ami n tt l ed 1y1tem.t I n.I Sublou.I Per i Ol'l l a Activity C08u Period l a Ad d ition11 I Colt.II 111.2.1 Spent Pool h 1o lati on l a.2.2 Dil)>09al ofContan1 1 nated Tools & Jo;qulpment l a.2 Subt.otal Period l a Additional Co.ts Period le Collate r al Calta 111.3.1 Enrironmental Permiu 11od Fen la.3 Subt.olM Period la Collttleral Co.ta Period l a Period-Depeadenl Co.ta l a.4.1 ln auranoe l 11*U Pn'.lfll',lrtylaxeti l a.4.3 H e11 lth phyak:s 1 uppli e* 1 11.4.4 H e11vy equipment reul*I lll.4.5 Dispw11 I o r DAW geoera 1 ed l a.4.6 Plant eoe rgy budgt>t l a.4.7 NRCFf!ff la.4.8 Emergency Planning Feea la.4.9 S1wnl J.'uel Pool O&M l a.4.1 0 ISFSI Opera l ing C.:.1a la.4.11 Sel-e r ance Re l ated C.0.11 la.4.1 2 Secu rit y Sta ff Co.:.lf!t lll.4.1 3 Utility Sta ff Coll Ja.4 Subt(l(a\ | |||
Pl!riod l a Period-Depende nt Cc:.8t11 l a.O TO T AL P ER I OD l a OOS T TLG Servicn, In c. Removal Packll&'lnr Tr*n9port C:O.t Co*t C:O.u Coou 219 1 03 219 10 3 ... ''" 13 1 ,002 13 1 ,062 232 I07 Tab l e D-2 Diab l o Ca n yo n Unit 2 SAFSTO R Decommi ss i oning Cost Estimat e (Thousands of 20 14 Dollars) CI-Si l e Ll.RW NRC Procen ln r Dbpoul Ot h e r Tol111I Total Llc. Tenn. Co9t.I eo ,., Co1u Co utl11 e n c Co1 t 1 C:O.u GOO "" 803 """ 86 1 9 106 106 . olo . 1 33 ,. 1 62 162 .. 1 9 1 06 100 . "' 16 81 8 1 06 16 81 8 1 J OO 22 I" "' "' " 81 81 200 .. 251 251 332 73 ... .... 326 72 ""' """ 277 6 1 !137 337 207 .. 203 2i>3 1 33 29 162 162 1 33 29 1 62 1 62 1 , 075 , .. 1 , 312 l , 3 1 2 "' 17 96 .. 80 17 117 ., I08 " 193 193 . 2,082 7"7 3 , 7tl8 ll , 768 J.1.4-4.2 3 , 173 17.6 1 6 17 , 616 2.835 1 , 093 uro 4 , 2ro 2 , 836 14..142 *1.266 2 1.866 21.866 949 209 .... 1 , 168 949 209 1.168 1.168 100 1 , 298 1 , 2911 177 "' 203 203 181 GiG 676 "' 69 1 60 1 1 6 8 40 "' 2.737 00 1 3.338 3.838 .... 122 IY ... 966 1 , 001 147 1 , 148 702 "' 907 .. , 120 007 415 , 943 1 0 , 093 66 , 036 '6 , 036 2 1 , 3 1 6 4 , 680 26 , 006 26 ,&98 29,883 6 , 060 36,448 88.448 " I0-&, 362 23 , 010 128,40U 1 26 , 68*1 2,860 1 22.736 28,27 1 I M,2W 11>2,476 Spent Fu e l S it e Proceued Bu rl*I V o lum es J.lan*iiement Rest o rati on V o lum e C l*n A CltH' B Cl*uC GTCC Co!t l!J eo. .. Cu. Feet C u. F ee t Cu. F ee l C u. Feet Cu. Feet 1 0.246 10 , 246 060 1 , 148 007 667 2.78 1 ... 2 , 78 1 1 0.8 1 0 Docu m e nt P01*1 1 1!1-00 I , R ev. 0 D , Po1e /lo/ 11 Buri*I f Utility *nd Proce H ed C raf t Co atr llCtor Wt. Lb 1. Man h ours Mu\h o ur 1 666 806 006 '28 '28 642 "" 1.327 2.uo 2 , 1 00 1 , 783 1 , 330 ... 856 6,036 006 .,. 1,020 43 1 6 , 36 1 62-1.946 317 624.046 317 11 , 200 1 8 286,786 346 , 229 11 , 299 1 8 633,0 1 4 oaG.2<14 330 648 , 376 N :i> n ::;,-CX> Diab l o Co n yon Power Plant D ecommiHionin6 Co*t Analy*i* Actlvil)' | |||
lnd e.x Act I v i De1crl lion PER I OD lb-SAFSTO R UmJted DE CON Activities Period lb Dtrecc DeoommlANoning Decootaminllllion of Bu..ildinp l b.I.I.I *Reacto r l b.1.1.2 Auii.li*ry lb.1.1.3 C11 p i t11\ Addition* | |||
86-200-t lb.1.1..1 Conta inm e nt P e n e trati o n Arel! l h.1.1.6 Fuel llPndling l b.I.I T ota l* lb.I 6ub 1 o11.1l Period I b Al..'livity Co.1 1 Perie.cl lb Ad ditio u.&1 C<'8U l b.2.1 Haurdctus Wute Meoegemeot J b.2.2 Mixed Wq(.e MllD llp!me ul l b.2 Subtot1l Penod lb Ad di tton11l Co.ta Period lb c.olla t era l Cost* lb 3.I Deco u equipment l b.3.2 Proce11 decomminiooing | |||
'11*ater w allte lb.3.3 Prooen deeommiMk>nin1 ehe m ical nu 1 h lb.3.4 S mull 1 oo l 1 dlowa nce l b.3.6 Env1ronmenl1'1 P e rm ii* and Feet1 lb.3 S ubl oho l P eriod lb Co l la t em l Co.1 1 Period lb Ptriod*Dt'pende ot Cosl.& JbA.I Deron 1upp l iel lb.4.2 ln111re ooe lb.-t.3 Prqier1ytsxes lb.-tA Heelth pby111C11 suppl.ie9 lb.-t.6 H e11vy eq ui pment renta l lb.U D11pueal ur DAW lf\"De r a t eJ lb.4.7 Pl11.n 1 e ne.rio*budae1 lbA.8 NRC Ft>t>I lb.4.9 Emerge n cy l'lt1nmng t't"es S 1)tl nL Fuel Pool O&M Jb . ..i.11 ISJ-'S I O perating Cos t& lb.*1.12 Sec urity 8 111.IT CO&t lh.U3 U tilit l* Sta rr Co!!it Subtotal Period lb Period-Depe n dent Costs lb.O TOTAL PERIOD l b OOST PER.IOD J c-Prep1ratl o ns for SAFSTOR Oorm.a.u cy PeriOO k Direct. Oeoommiaio o ing Ad.ivitie. | |||
le.I.I Prepare 1 up p o rt equipment f or l!Wl°ll:IJ'! | |||
l c.1.2 TostnU co ntainm e nt preu u re equa l.111 1'!'.11 l c.J.3 Int eri m 1 urv fl)* p11br to donn uncy l c.1.4 Sec ure building acce1ees lc.1.6 Prep11re & 1 u bmi t interim f'elKJrl le.I Subtotal Period le Act 1 v i11* Coel* Period l c Collete ral C.0.111 lc.3.1 Procest decom m iuk.n i n g: walt>r Wll!!te l c.3.2 ProceH deoonuninkming chemical flu 11h w111te l c.3.3 Smell lool alk.wullN! | |||
lc.3A En vim1m e 11t 11 I Pe rmi t.I! 11nd Fees l c.3 S u bloln l Pe.r kld k Co llat e ral C'..os11 Pe r iod l e P e rkMJ.J)cpe nd e nt Cos t!I l c.4.1 In s uran ce l c.4.2 P rope r1ytn xet lc.4.3 H ca lthphy 1ic911 uppli e1 TLG Services , In c. Removal Pa c k.afinf Tr11 n 1port "°'' "°'' eo.u Cosh 1,015 1 , 160 372 ,.. 731 3,6"3 3 , 663 .., 172 121 202 .. 1 , 114 .. 121 202 1 ,-468 ... 14 3 16 1 , 468 601 16 6, 1 36 661 1 00 '"' 601 " 663 196 1 3 7 23() 1"6 1 37 ... 181 Ta bl e D-2 D i a bl o Ca n yo n U n it 2 SAFSTOR Deco m miss i o n ing Cost Es tim ate (T b o u aan d a 0 (20 1 4 Do ll ara) Off-Slee LLRW N"RC Proctu l nf Dbposa l Other Total Tola) Uc. Term. Co1 1t Co111 Coit* Co llUn e n c Cost* c. ... '" 1 , 700 1 , 769 8'2 1 00'1 1 , 00'1 273 6.u'i 6<6 ""' .192 492 636 1.266 1.266 2,60 1 (i , 1 6 4 6 , ID*I 2 , 60 1 6.1 6-4 6 , 1 6-t 217 .. ... 2G6 287 "" 360 350 '°' 111 6 1 6 G 1 6 207 1 , 14 0 1 , 149 ... 396 I A 6"4 1 ,"54 1 3 13 73 239 ., 21!2 292 ... 2311 ... 2 , 008 2,008 638 2.t.00 2,006 286 42 3 27 327 ... " " 131 *1"" ""' 3 1 17' 17* 19 1 0 ** ** GOO 152 . ., 841 1 1 7 17 1 36 1 .. 262 3 7 289 200 " "' 1'18 "" ""' 6.373 1 , 180 6 , 663 6,00.'.I 7.6a2 1 , 656 0.18 7 D.1 87 1 9 11.63 2 3 , 873 20 ,6 1 3 19.812 683 1 6.3 7 6 7 , 263 30.260 29 , 1>49 110 .., G l2 11 "" 63 733 1.066 1 , 065 . 3() *17 " 772 452 l.17i 1.777 641 ... 1.662 1 , 602 I 6 231 61 282 282 6 41 23 1 WO 1 , ll*K> l , H<tO 276 *IO 316 31 6 .. 6 .. .. GG 247 2-47 Spe n l }"ue l Sile Proce,,ed Buria l Vo l umes )bnafement Re1torad on Volume C l as1A Cb"B ClauC GTCC Co1u Cos u C u. Feet C u.Feet Cu. F ee t C u. F eet C u. Feet 1 , 088 1 , 088 696 286 2.M 1 68 70 1 696 701 1.783 1 , 237 1 , 237 Document PO l-1 11 9.0 01 , Rev. 0 Append i x D , PaKe 1 3 o f !!I Burial/ U llll ty *n d Procened C r.Ut Coo t1 r111 c tor Wt. Lb1. Manh o 11r1 Mu1hou r 1 1 3, 166 1 6 , 86 1 6 , 1 00 8 , 9 1 7 0 , 81 6 4 7 , 8&8 47.BliB 66 , 200 212 66.200 212 1 3, 892 2 3 72 , 28G 87 , 260 1 3.89'.l 23 150.66-t 70.181 '8.003 159 , 564 3 , 000 7 00 8 , 6-t7 266 12 , 247 266 74 , 2 1 6 241 74 , 216 2 41 Oiablo Ca n yo n Power Plant DecommWloninR Co*t Anal:y*i* | |||
Act i vi ty l ndu A ct iv i ty De1cri tlon Period le F't:riod*Dependr-ut Co.ti (continued) l c.4.4 Heavy equipment re ntal l c.*.5 D*poeal of DAW gt'aerated 11'.4.<: Pbm t ener113* bu dp t l c.4.7 NRCFee1 l c.4.8 Jo:me.rgeney P lan ning Fee1 l c.4.9 Spent Fuel Pool 0&..>..1 l c.4.1 0 IS FS I ()pe raling Co.t s l c.4.11 Senmmcellt! | |||
l 11tl!dCo8t. | |||
l c.4.12 Spent Pu e l Stor11ge Ct nilll c r sKh*erp11Cka l c.4.13 Secu rit y S111 rr Co.t l c.4.14 \llilityStt1ff C.O.t lc.4 S u bt.otril P e ri o d J c Pc riod-Dcpendenl C'oet. l c O TO T AL PERJOD l e CO ST PERIO D 1 TOTAIS PE RI OD 2a-SAFSTOR Dormancy wit h We t Spen t Fuel Sto r*r e Pe r iod 2a Direct Decommiu 1 onin1 Adi\*1tiu 2*.1.1 Q u a rt e rlylnapectaon 211. 1.2 Semi-rmn u 11 I e nvironment a l 1 un ey 211.l.3 Prtoparereports 2a. I .4 Biluminou* | |||
roof re p!M:emen l 2 n.l.5 211.l Sub 1 o411 I Period 211 Acti vity Co9 t 1 Pe r iod 2a Additional Coats 2a.2.1 Se\'t!rHcfl Rela t f.'d Cu.111 211.2 Sublot.al PerMxl 2* Additk>nal er..t.. Period 2a Coll*teral Coe 1*s 2a.3. I Spent Jo'uel 'hana!er | |||
* P ool t o I SFS I 211.3.2 Envirownent.11 1 Pennits and Fen 2a.3 Sub t-ota l Pt>r iod 2a Co ll 11tera l Costs P e r iod 2a Period-Depend e n t Coe t 1 2n..l.I l n t ur&n Cfj 2a .... 2 Proper l y t.ax e1 2 11.4.3 H ea!Lh phy sic* 1 up p li es 211.4.-1 Oi1po1alofD A W1f!nuated 2a.4.6 Plani ene rgy budget 2*.4.6 NRC F ees 2*.4.7 E mergency Plan.nine F ee1 b.4.8 Spent Fuel ISF'S I to DOE 2a.4.9 Spent Fuel Pool O&:..\I 2a..l.1 0 ISFSI ()pe r a t inr Coll.I 2a.4. ll Stturi t y SMffC:O.t 2aA.12 U 1ilit)-*Sta lf'C<.l 2a.4 Subtota l Period 2a P eriod-Dependen t Co.I.I 2'0 TOTAL PERI OD 2a <DS T PERIOD 2b-SAFSTO R Do 1TI1 a n cy with Dry Spe nt F u e l Sto r 11re Period 2b Direct Deoommi111ionin1 2b.l.I Qua rl er\)'ln&peetion 2b.1.2 Semi-an11u11l en v irotlJJtt'nt11 l | |||
2b. J.3 Prepare ttporU 2b. l.4 B 1 t um ioou1 ru.l rep l ncement 2b.l.6 2 b. I Sub l t11n l Pe r i o d 2b .Activ it y Coetll Pe r iOO 2b Co ll ateral Coii 1*1 2 b.3 Subtotn l Peri o d 2b Co ll alern l Chi t a TLG &,.vicn , In c. o ..... Coo t 1 95 6 , 331 Remo v al P*<'kArlnr T raM port Cn1 l Cos t* Colt.9 1 38 3 1 9 877 140 231 ... 1,622 30 II 1.622 II l , 622 .. II Tabl e D-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 SAFSTOR D ec ommi ssio ning Cost Estimat e (T houund a o f 2014 Dollars) N R C S pent Fue l O ff.-S it e Pr O<'en lnr (;Q1h Other Co1t1 Tota l Con lin e n c To t al Co*t* Lie. T e rm. lbn*r*ment 645 .t.078 t6 4 6 007 '" "' 1 00 "'' u;,703 2.000 IU97 7 , 287 3 2 3'8 33.36 1 17J..172 ,.. 1 , 18 2 1.2!1 7 , 514 7.514 33 , 221 8 , 079 41.800 -U33 J ,!!10 4.608 2 282 6.08-1 .. , 6.7'3 *.063 17 3.983 26 , 600 230 , 693 280 , 728 1 22 3.963 3.780 30 2 1'7 17 3G " 29 a*oo li-19 1 , 1 42 1 ,60 1 7 , 1 58 8 , llO <13.634 433 "' 1 , 661 1 , 65 1 7,298 1 , 776 9,073 ... 22 1 *** " 1 , 023 33 1 891 191 I '81 1 , 022 38 , 22 1 5 , 62 4 60.:159 6 1 ,.12 4 27 1 , 3-4 1 l ,"'8 100 1 0 *** 1 30 280 236 1 03 I0.1 63 3 , 0IO 0 , 339 8.887 30.843 """° 220.006 . '" 1 , 6 1 0 1 , 00.1 ff 164 Y , 164 40 , 520 9 , 853 60 ,3 73 4 , 0U7 1 , 73 1 2.2 1 6 121 5.68 1 2.693 6976 1068 .... 6.675 212.206 31 , 2%3 282 , 670 343.8 70 . 14 9 ..... 6.1 53 Co1t9 1 6& 1 0 814 1 00 19.l lia 6.3.'ID 8 , 887 36 , 11 5 39 , 832 22 1 , 800 ... 1 , 6 1 5 1 , 003 lt.1 64 lt , 1 64 9 , 853 9,853 *1 , 273 1 ,73 1 2.2 1 6 121 2 , 8*0 2.003 9.002 1 , 406 30 , 843 5 1 ,623 ... 6 , 004 5 , 1 03 200 "'' 1 63 3 , Cl-19 3.7 27 3 , 727 7 , 210 ..0 , 520 <I0 , 520 69 4 2.8-40 6 , 976 1 , 068 8 , 225 5 , 675 202 , 6*2 23 , 817 20 1 , 82 7 292.347 S it e R nto r*tl o u ""'" .. C u. Feet C u. F ee t Cu. F ee t C u. F eet C u. Feet 138 1 38 1,375 1 3.007 1 , 717 1.717 1 , 7 1 7 D oc ument POl*l T J J-001, R ev. 0 Ap p e 11J ix 0 , Pa6* U o f :!l Buri*! I Procened Wt. Lbs. 2.765 2.700 76.97 1 79'l.300 3t340 3-1 , 34(1 3.1 ,340 C r aft Man h o ura 12 , 4 93 60 , 92 1 58 "' .. Utility and Co nlr*c t o r Man h o urs 00.929 84 , 42 3 154.36 1 1 5 4 , 60 1 962 , 631 2 , 39 1 , 265 ""'"" 2.675,2 4 2 2.676,2 4 2 | |||
"' :i> 0 ::::T (J'J 0 D i a b lo C a n yo n Pow e r P l a"t De co nm1i**i o nh 11 Co*t Anal y*i* A c tivi t y ln d u A c tl v l tv Deller! li o n Period 2b Pe riod*Depe ndt-11 1. °'9 1 9 2b.4.I l m1urnnce 2b.4.2 Pl'QJlf'r1Y taxet 2b.4.3 H efllt h 11bytict 1 u pp li t>1 2b.4.4 Diripoea l of DAW itenerated 2b.-U Plant energ y budget 2b.-1.6 NR C J.'ee1 2b A.7 Emergt?ncy Pllmning F eee 21.1.-1.8 Spent Fuel w DOE 2b.Uf I SFSI Ope rnting Cost.1 2 b.4.1 0 Spent F u e l 2b..S.l l Socu r it y St.o(f'Coiit 2b.4.1 2 Ulilit.yStaffCo&t. | |||
2b.4 Subtotal Period 2b Period-Dependent Coett 2b.O TOTAL 2b COST PERIOD 2c-SAFSTO R Dorm a n cy witb o u1 S pe nt F u el S t orare Period 2 c Direct Dcooinmis.ionmit Activ i t i es 2 c.l.I Quarter l y lm lJM!Clit.o n 2c.l.2 Sem i*nnnufll l'nviro n m e nl.a l e un-e y 2 e.l.3 2c.JA Bitumi u ou t roof re 1 1 l acemelll 2c.l.fi ll h11 nt em in oe11 u 1 1 1 1 l ice 2c.1 Subtnh*I P e riotl 2c Act i vity Coroh Ptriotl2eCollateralC.OS111 2c.3 Sub t otal Pe.nod 2c Co ll a t ern l Costt Pf: r iod 2e Period-0.-.pen d en l Co9t11 2c.4.l ln t ur ence 2c.4.2 P rope r1 y t axea 2c.4.3 H ealthp h yaic1aup11 li ee 2c .... 4 DiriJlOllR I of DAW jft':nera ted 2c.4.6 Plant. e ne rgy 2c.4.G NRC J.'1"1*a 2c.-1.7 Sec ur i ty St11ITC0!!t 2c.".8 Utility Sta ff Goet "'" Subtotal P e riod 2e P e ri od-Depe ndent Cotilll "'-0 TO T AL PER I OD 2c COST PERI O D 2 TO TALS PERI O D 3a -R eactlv*l e S i t e F o Uow l nJ SAFSTO R Do r m*n cy Pe riod S a Dired. Deanmi.Mio oi nit Actil-itiet 3a.l.I Prepare prelimuu1t) | |||
* d eoommiuio nin g et11 t 3a.l.2 R e, , e..,*plant dwg1 &!lpe.Cll. | |||
3a.l.3 Perforin deta iled r a d 1 urv er 3a.l.4 Eudpro.Juctde ac rip t i o 1:1 3a.l.6 Dela i ledby-11roductin1 | |||
*euto ry 3a.l.6 De fin e n 1ajor work ac que oce 3a.l.7 Pt>r fi>rm SER and EA 31t.l.8 PerM-m Site.Specific Coat St udy 3a.l.9 Pre parelll ubmit Llfl'nee Tenninalion Plan 3a.l.JO Rtte iv e NRC *11 prov al of t ermination plan Act.iYit y Spec i fiea t io1111 3a.l.Jl.1 Re-ectiv.Mepla nt&l empo r 11.ryfacilitie* | |||
311.l.ll.2 Pinnt 1yMe 1n 1 311.l.ll.3 Re acto r intern11.I! | |||
311..1.1 1.4 Reacto r v eNe l 38.1.ll.6 BiolQti:ic n l s h ie ld 3 o.l.11.6 S 1 ea m ge n era l o r s 311..1.1 1.7 Reinfon:edcoucre l t> 3a.J.J l.8 fll11i11Tu r bine T L Q Se r vicH, fo e. Tab l e D-2 D i a bl o C a nyo n Unit 2 SAFSTO R Deco mmi ss i o nin g Co s t E s t i m a te (T h o u sa nd s o f 20 1 4 Do ll ar!J) Off-Sit e LL RW N R C S1 1 e nt F u e l D eco n R e m ov al T r ftn!po rl Pwc:ess lnJ Dbpo J R I Ot h e r eo,u T ot"I Co nlin e n c Li e. T e rm. Man*1eme n t {;o, t Co!r l CoJts Cott5 Co5 1 5 Co5 1 S Costs CoJts ll , fl83 l , 7 Sli 1 3.738 13 , 2'42 400 4.G79 686 0 ,'6G 6 , 361> 2 , 42& 888 3 ,3 13 3, 3 1 3 " J G 68 37 178 178 i , 2J G 1 , 686 8 , 80'.l 8 , 802 G , 7 4 .. """ 7.732 7 , 7J2 9 ,-127 1 , 381 I0 , 808 1 0,808 35.-182 7.795 4 3.277 -13 , 277 1 1.-118 3 , lt>S 1 7 , 586 1 7 , 586 38.783 8 , 620 47 , 304 47 , 30 4 l(Jl.474 22 , 292 1 2 3.700 29 ,{14:.! 93.824 1881 7 4.1 3 .. 22.061 22 , 96 1 2.425 67 1 6 G8 2 .. 53.227 30 481{1 91 , 52-1 2 1 3, 294 2.42 5 57 J G 68 262.811 5-1 , 695 309 , 0 72 OO , G78 21 3, 294 6 J 6 6 J 39 51 J OO J OO l*M 62 J 96 I06 438 .. '°' 602 1 77 26 203 203 92 "' 126 126 J 7 7 "' GG 334 33< 24 0 "' 282 282 93 1 205 \, l ali 1 , 136 71-1 157 870 870 ., 2.780 683 3..100 3,.1 60 92 2.923 630 M M 3 , 066 4 , 1 39 98 28 117 G36.482 11 6 , 66 4 667.497 151.866 005.6 .. 1 8G J 9 J06 J06 306 67 3 72 372 . 06 15 8J 81 86 1 9 J06 JOO *1 96 J I)!) 607 007 206 46 20J 261 33 2 7 3 406 406 272 60 332 332 489 J07 697 637 277 O J 33 7 304 47 J JO< 676 676 -1:11 90 626 626 33 7 40 40 20 7 " 263 263 J GG " J 3G 65 27 G 32 S it e Resto rati o n Cost' 00 34 60 3' Proc e!lle d B ur ial V o lum H \'o l u m e C h 1H A C l u 5 B C l ass C G T CC Cu. Feet Cu. F eet Cu. F ee t C u. Feet C u. Feet 2.1133 2.533 OG 96 96 4.3 46 D oc um e n t PO J-1 11 9-0 01 , R ev. 0 Appe11d i x D , Pa 1e 15 o f 2 1 B u r i a l/ Processe d Wt. Lbs. 60 , GOO 60.00J 50.00G J.921 1 , 021 1.92 1 SG.92 7 Cr Aft Prh uh o u n 83 ., 83 J'2 Utilit y and Co nt r 11 c t o r M11nh o u n 1 ,::IOS.:.!&O 220 , 000 1 626.260 1.6 26 , 250 W,rot.i 1:1 , a.1 a 2 1 , 379 21.379 4.222.870 66G J , llGll 428 060 3 , 210 1 , 327 2 , M O 1 , 7 53 3 , 154 1 , 783 3 , 031l 2 , 782 "' 1 , 33(; ... 17 1 N l> <> :T 1> Diablo Canyo n Power Plant D eco mmioionin1 Co.t AnalJ11i* | |||
Ac ti v i ty l n du Actlvlt Al.1i*1ty SpeeirJCaliun* (eont1nued) 3a.l.ll.9 Alam Condenser1 Sa.1.11.1 0 Planl 8lructures | |||
&. bu1lding1 Sa.I.II.II WMlt-management 3 11.J.Jl.12 Fac1lily&aitecloeeout 3 a.l.ll r ... 1 P lannin s & Site Preparation* | |||
3a.l.12 Prepare d i1m11nt l inr .equence 311.1.13 Plantprep.&.temp.1 wc:ea 3a.\.1 4 ))efiign water denn-up De1c rl tlo n 3a.1.IU Risgh ig..COn t. C ntrl En\'Jp.tlooling/etc. | |||
3a.l.1 8 Procurect11skalli o er1&00111.8iner1 3a.1 Subtotal P e riod 3a Ad.ivity Co.I.I Period Sn Additionnl Costs Sa.2.1 Site CbAracterization 3a.2 Subtotal P eriod 3a Additk.na l Cc.eta Period 3a Q.lla1era l C.ll "' Subtotal Perk.cl 8.a Collateral Co.ti Peri o d 38 Period-Dependent Co.11 3a.<1.I ln*urance 3111.<1.2 Prope11 y t axee 3.n.4.3 He1dth phy1ia s uppl ies Sa ....... l-l eev)' equi)Jlrn'Dl ren1al a. .... 5 Di*poeal or DAW gene r lMed 3 a.4.6 Planl.eMrm*budlo!f 3a.<l.7 N R C J.'en 38.4.8 Securit7 StaffC...t 3.11.U UtilityStatru..t | |||
.... Subtotal Period Sa Periud-Dependent Cost1 3 ft.0 TOTAL 31 O)S'f PERJOD l b-Decomrulnl o ntn r Prepantlon 1 Pe r i od 3b Direct Decom1ni11ioning Acti\'itie1 Detai led W o r k Prucedurea S b.I.I.I Plnnt1y1tenu 8b.l.l.2 Relld.o r internal* | |||
3b.l.l.3 Remaining buildiop 3 b.l.IA C RD roolior .-0 1b ly 3 b.l.l.5 CRD bou.inp & I CJ tubes Sb.l.1.6 l n ciore i n 9trwut.ntation 3b.l.l.7 ab.1.1.8 Facility doteout 3b.l.l.9 AU*ilfl*h6eld1 3 b.1.l.IO Biolotriea l 1h6eld 3b.1.l.H Steam generatc.n Sb.J.1.12 Re 1 nfoMed conerete 3b.l.l.I S Main Turbin!' 3 b.l.l.14 Main Cb ndena,r,r1 3b.t.l.16 A uxili ary bu1ldmg 3b.l.l.1 6 Reactor building Sb.I.I Total ab.I Subtolal Period Sb Activity Cmts Period S b Colla t t" ral U.l* 3b.3.I Deco n equipmenl 3 b.3.2 DOC '1 11fTrelocAtio n expe n eee. 3 b.3.8 Pipe culli n g equipment 3b.3 Sublola\ P eriod 3b Co ll 11tern l Cc.i.11 TLG Su'Vicn, l n-c. Remova l Pa c tu..inr Tran9port C..* eo .. C..u Co90 "'' ''" II 1.002 II 1.002 II "" 1 , 100 942 1 , 1 00 Tab l e D-2 Diablo C auyon Uuit 2 SAFSTO R Decom.mi ss ioning Cost Estimate (T housand s o( 2014 Dollars) IT.S it e LLRW NR C ProceHlnl 01,posa l Ot h er To tal Total Uc. Term. Co1t5 Cos t s Co1t1 Cou tln enc Co9tl C..u 27 | |||
* 32 ""' .. 263 126 ''" G7 372 372 .. 13 73 "' 2 , G.tO ..., 3, 220 2 , 834 1 66 " , .. '°' 3.000 ... MOO 3.600 "" "' 11 3 1 13 2.800 '°" 2.806 2.806 82 18 100 1 00 I0.1 26 2.224 12.3*19 1 1 , 963 6.234 2.300 7.6/W 7.53-1 6.2 S 4 2 ,300 '*""' 7 ,53 4 .,. .. "" "" 1 77 26 203 "" '"' "" ''" '" 00 1 00 1 13 7 34 3*1 2.7S7 00 1 3.338 3, 338 332 "' 381 ""' 946 ""' 1 , 164 1.164 l i.880 3, 818 21 , Hl8 21.1 98 13 22 ,0 10 6 , 06i 28,006 28.000 13 37 , 369 9,680 <17 , 978 47 , 002 "' 69 ,., "' 166 36 "" 202 00 20 1 00 27 .. 16 81 81 .. 16 81 81 .. " 81 8 1 "' 113 ,., ''" 80 17 97 ** 30 1 "' "' 80 17 97 91 ,.. 6'I 3 72 372 .. , . 81 *O '°' 23 1 26 1 0* 23 '"' 181 "' 221 1 00 181 "' 221 109 2 , J.40 <liO :!, 610 2 , 10 , 1 2 , 1.t() <70 2 , 6 1 0 2 , 104 207 1 , 149 1 , 149 l.4GG '22 1 , 787 1 , 787 242 1 ,3 42 1 ,342 1 , 466 i71 4 ,27 8 *l ,2 78 Spe nt Fuel Site Procen e d Management Rnt o r1ltl o n Vo lum e C l a1.tA C lu9 B Clau C GTCC Cosb eo. .. C u.Feet C t1. F ee t Cu. F ee t C u. Feet C u. Feet 32 126 ,. 366 386 .. , .. , """ .. , 38 8> 19 *IO 1 26 1 26 22 22 """ GOO D oc ument POJ-J 1 J 9-00J , R ev. 0 D , Pa1e 16 of !J Burl*I/ Procened Craft Wt., Lbs. M*nhours 25 , 000 25 , 000 9 , 8 1 3 1 6 9 , Gl3 1 6 \J , 6 1 3 2 6,0 16 U111ityand Co ntu cto r M an h o urs 171 1 , 336 1 , 969 ,.. 17 ,0'l4 1 , 027 ... 628 31.1 17 &, 412 9.412 1 3,036 200 , 229 2 1 3,26 4 263 , 793 2.026 1.070 678 ,,. '28 ,,. 1 , 66*1 "' 103 ,,. 1.009 <128 ... ... 1 , Hl8 1 , 168 1 3 , 800 01 "' D i ablo C an yo n Pow e r Pla nt De co mmiltsioninll C o*f A11a l.r*is Activity lnd u: A ct lvlt D esc d tl o n Period 3 b Period-Dependenl Cos t 1 3 b.4.l l>l'lron 1uppUe. 3 b.4.2 l n!-ura nct> 3 b.4.3 PJ"Ol)('ny taxe1 3 b.4.4 H et1 l t b11hy sic11 upplie s 3b.4.5 He t1vy 1M1 ui pm e nt rent.fl( 3 b.4.6 Dis posa l o rO ,\W genera1ed 3 b.-1.7 P I Hnt e ne r (O' b u d ge t 3 b.*l.8 N R C F ees 3b.4.9 Secu r ity Sta ff Co.t 3 h.4.IO DOCStalTCotit 3 b.4. J I Utility Slt1 fT Co8t 3b.4 S u btota l P e riod S b PcrioJ-Dependent Coats 3b.O TOTAL 3h COS T PERIOD 3 TO T AlS PERIOD .f a* La rJ" e Co mpon e nt Remova l P e riod 4a Direct Decommitie1c..nin1t Acth"ilie1 N u cle t1 r Ste11m Supply SJ*B l l'm Remornl 4a.l.l.l React.orC'-00 l anl Piping 4a.l.l.2 PIV!s ur i-wrQ u e n c hT a11k 4a.l.l.3 H e act or<Alo l a n l Pum1)S&Motort. .fa.1.1.ol Pre N urlle r 4a.l. l.5 Steam Gc u e rat o r 1 *ta.t.1.6 Re 1 iredS1 ea m Gl'ne.ratorU n it 1 4a.l.L7 C RDM 9'JC l1t/Se rv iceS 1 r ucture Rel'DO\'al 4n.l.1.8 RE'&etor\"eMel l otern t1 I* *l.'1.1.1.9 V-.1 & loterrud 1 GTCX: Dispw.nl 4a. I. I. IO He3Ct.Cor | |||
\*eue l 4a.l.J Tot n l* Removal or M.Jo r Equi1)1n e nt 4a.l.2 Tutbin e1Ue nerator .ia.L.3 Cal!Ca di ng Cot.ti fr o m C lean Bu il ding De m o l iti<l n 4a.1.4.1 *R ette t o r la.1.-1.2 A uxl l iary *lo.l.4.3 Cot1 t ni nruc.nt P e.n c.l rot ioo A rea *la.l.4.4 RadwaeleSWrage 4a.1.4.5 Fuel H a 11tUing .. a.I... T ot.a l* Di9Jl(>lla l of P l ant Sy*tem1 .Sa.1.5.J AuxiliaryStet1.m fa.1.5.2 Auxiliary S tea m (RCA) *la.J.5.3 Comle n ante Sy s l e m 4a. l .5.4 Coude n s::i l e Srs l t m (l mrn l oted) 4a. l.5.5 Contai nru e.nt S p ray *l a.1.5.6 E:xt.r oct.icm S lt!tun & H e t1!.e.r Drip 4a.l.5.7 F'l'Cdw11 l.e r S y s te1n *111.1.5.8 F ee dwt1t.e r Sy tle m (ln1ulat f'd) 4a. 1.6.9 Peedwat c.r S)"Sl-t>m | |||
{RCA I n s u l ated) 4a.1.6. I O Foodw a l e.r Syll.C m (RCA) 4a.J . .5.ll NSSSSampling 4a. l.5.12 NSSS San 1 plin 1 (ln11ulated} | |||
4a. Ui.1 3 N ilrog.!n & H ydroti:e n 4a. l.5. l4 N it rowi n & H y drogen (ln1ul11t.ed) 4a.l.5.1 5 N i truge n & H y d l'(Jg'l<n (RCA l nn l fll ed) 4a.1.5.1 6 N i t roge n & H ydroge n (R C A> 4o. l.6. !7 O i ly W 11 1 e r &>11arnto r & T B Su mp 4o.J.6.1 8 Sa lt wa l e r 4o. l.5.19 Tu rb in e Ste11 m S u pp l y *l a. l.G.20 Turbin (" St.en m S u pply lRCA) T LG &,.v i ce., I nc. Tab l e D-2 Diablo Ca n yon Unit 2 SA.FSTOR De c ommis s i o nin g Cost Estimate (Tho u H nd s 0£2014 Dollars) O ff.S il e l.LRW NR C S p ent }" u e l D eco n R e mov a l Pa c k**lnf Tran s port Pr oce uinf Disposa l O ther Co!U Tott1l Co utit1 e n e T o ta l Costs U c. Term.. a.111.na a em e nt Co!i t Cost Cosu Costs Costs Cos t s 29 971 971 8 3 9 00 II !0 7 " 77 2 36 284 610 I GIO 327 33 11 6 70 3 , 330 335 1:1 , 2 44 6 , 744 20 , 197 2 12 coo 1 , 262 7 62 78 9 7 200 2.405 79 14 3 646 286 238 240 70 1 08 121 8 147 '3 20 I 9 1 06 31 188 7 94 ... 17 4 8 7 87 3 70 2 , 260 2 , 260 246 6 , 709 l,452 1 3,609 20 11 7 33 2 266 27 U)ti 11 0 1 , 982 1 , 982 26 7 0 1 210 6 , 24 1 4 6 1 3 104 20 1.1 8 1 1 60 1 , 4 3 1 700 12 , 696 1 2 , 600 60 1 13 , f.lfJ4 9 , 620 2 , 00 1 "6 , 000 200 1 , 4 53 41 6 22 8 7 8 72 .. 3,3 1 0 206 89 1.372 1 67 4 74 4.5 4(1 8.714 1 66 11 19.2 1 6 66.586 220 220 44 0 II 37 1 3 86 . ., 4 301 24 104 09 7 l,{'14 3 , GM .t.796 14.376 626 8 1 649 387 6 , 711 6 , 41 3 438 1 7 , 836 2,093 6 , 238 4 0 , 471 46 '"' 27i 1 67 17 21 46 628 17 148 142 63 646 "' 1 6 3 7 204 II 87 ,. | |||
* 0 3 66 4& 41 174 1 , 699 39 293 I O'J 3 21 3 47 1 9 1 , 673 IOI 678 6 , 637 I0.62 8 19.72iJ 266 1 7 74.69 4 2 , 292 30 1 2 , 5 16 l ,091l 27.07 4 22.a.1 1.74 9 48 , 87 1 1 1.6 1 8 17 , 7 6G 1 36 , 22.j 258 849 1 , 5.W 930 .. 118 260 2033 llG ... 787 340 2.*199 293 86 200 7 87 41 331 72 " I 1 3 25 1 17 3 229 008 6 , 1 68 Co9 lJ 39 293 I O'J 3 21 347 1 9 1 , 673 1 9 1 678 6.5J 7 10 , 6 28 19 , 7 20 26 , 11 1 73.703 2,292 30 1 2 , 5 1l'i 1 ,600 :fi , 074 22 , a.1 1 , 7 .. 9 48 , 8 7 1 11 , 6 18 17,766 1 36 , 2 24 1.6.fO 980 95 118 260 2.933 787 41 33 1 72 1 3 26 1 17 3 G , 168 Sit e Ret to utl o n Cost! 802 258 8'9 96 7 87 340 293 86 2Q6 " 229 ... Process e d Bu ri a l V o lum es V o l um e C l a 11 A C l a H B C l a ss C G T CC C u. F eet C u. F eet C u. F e.e t C u. Fee t Cu. F ed 2 , 276 aw 4 , 701 2 , 4.f3 41 , 71 2 41.0: H 3 , 881 2 , 532 9 , 63 1 1 08 ,"36 003 G , 20 1 1 , 602 w 316 "" " 280 3 1 7 I I.BG-I 00 1 1.649 00 1 406 1.649 D oc um e 11I PD 1*1 1 1 9-00 1 , R ev. 0 Appelldi x D , PuJl e 11 of 2 1 B ur ia l/ Proce ss ed Wt. Lb!. 5.3 1 6 6.3 1 6 5.3 1 5 l-&.9 27 260 , 1 63 30.557 774 , 900 26 7.000 3 , 300, 76 1 3 , 12 5,629 14 5 , 4lM 342.784 330 , 307 963 , 812 9 , 09 7 , 6 1 1 55.0 1 2 320.048 9 1.664 4.819 1 9 , 17 3 1.80 2 834 15 , 841 19.300 729.1 7'i C rt1ft M a nh o un 2.5.02 4 6,6 14 600 2 , 706 1 ,50 1 "'"""' 1 0 , 800 5 , 232 l if , 200 19 , 200 85,44' 3 , 0 3 3 !), 875 1 1 , 8 96 7 , 0S4 701 6 18 1.746 223 1 7 1 , 17 9 1 ,008 9,7 1 0 4 , 25 3 3.4 2 0 3 , 625 1 , 038 2,5-17 1 , 695 8 1 2 , 1 58 642 300 1 6 7 3 1 ,3f H 4 1 7 2 , 770 1 2,007 12 ,.f42 Utlll1yand Co n tr 11 c t o r Manh o uu 6 , 636 1 2.874 1 00 , 389 14 9.799 103.500 4 1 7 , 39 2 80 700 1 , 12 6 1 , 12 6 000 <.880 --1 Diablo C on;J'O n Power Plant D eco mm ia.ion in g Co*t Anal.y*i* Activity l ndu Actlvhv De.scri do n DilJIOIJlll c;f Plan! Sy11em1 (l'(lll l inued) .. a.1.6.2 1 TurbineaodGenerator "a.1.6.22 Turbine ud Geoer11 1oc (luulaced) 4a.l.6 Total* 4a. l.6 6caffoldmg ifi 1 Uppor1. o( decomcruHioning 4a.I Sublolal Period .ja tJogu Period 4a Ad di tio n al Co6ts 4tt.2.I Re med i a l Action Su n*ey1 411.2.2 Hetlredlk11ctAJ r l-lcacl 4a.2.3 PG&Jo: HP V Sla ff S up po r t 't'e&m 4a.2.4 DOC RPV Sta ff S up port Team 4a.2 S u hwc,oJ P eriod 4a AddiUonul | |||
<hill Period 43 Co U ateral Colt* *l a.3.1 Prooe99 deoon11niMioning wAter ll'Mle -la.3.2 Prooeu tlecumniNiorung chemical Ou sh wa1t.e 4a.3.3 Smalltool11i&owaDCfl | |||
*la 3 Subtotal Pe r iod 4a Co llateral Costa Pt:rKid .ja Period*Dependcnl C.0.11 4 111.4. I Decon supp h ee *l a.4.2 ln!lu ronoe .fa.4.3 Propf'rt Y l llXH 4a.4.4 H e.I t h pby11icl l!IUJ'll l k-1 4a.4.6 lleflV)' equipmeul nm I.al 4a.4.6 411.4.7 Plant eoerg)' budget 4a.4.8 NRC fee1 4a.4.U Liquid RadwMte Procet11 1 ng Equipment&n | |||
*K:e1 4a.<f.10 SeocurilyStnffU..t .ja.4.11 [)(X:S 1aff Cc>>t 4n.4.1 2 Ut ility St .. tr Cost 4a.4 Sub<<>tnl Pl'riod 4a PerioJ-IA-pendenl Coel.8 b.O TOTAL PEIU OD 4a OOST PER I OD 4b-Site Oeco nt an d11*Uon Pe riod 4b Direct Deoommi11kming lu:twilie. | |||
*lb.I.I Re.n10\'e1pe.ntfoe lr ocb DilJlOlll] | |||
ol Plaut Syllem* 4b. l.2. I Bu 1 kUng Se."icn (Non.Powe r mock) lb.1.2.2 Cnp ital Addition* | |||
86-2002 (Ocen) *l b.1.2.3 Cnpita l Additioo1 86-200'1 (ctllltaminated) -lb.1.2.1 C hem6cnl&VolumeControl | |||
.. b. J.2.6 Che mic8.I &. Volume Conlrol (l mufoted) 4b.l.2.G C'.crupc.neuc.Cooliu.a:Wat.er 4b. l.2. 7 C.C.npooent Cooling \Vat er (RCA) 4b 1.2.8 CuopreHed Ai r 4b.l.2.9 Com 1 1reued Air Ooeulttted} | |||
4b. I .2. IO Comprefled Air (RCA ln s ul a led) 4b.1.2.11 Q.mpre..ed Air (RCA) <fb.J.2.1.2 DM!tlel Engine-Geoe.r 111tor .jb.1..2.1 3 Oieeel En&]DC'-f'..enerfllor 4b.1.2.J4 E1ec:trica l (Ck-1U 1) 4b.1.2.l ii Elenrica l (Co ntam i n11ted) 4b. l.2.1 6 Eledrica l (Contaminated)- | |||
FHB .ib.J.2.1 7 Eledrial l (RCA) 4b.l.2.1 8 ElectriCl'l l (Rr'..A)-FH B 4b.l.2.19 FireProt*'dion 4b. l.2.20 fire Protect.ion | |||
*lb.I.2.21 Cneeou9 Rl'l d wasle 4b.J.2.22 H\IAC(Cka o l nsulnted) | |||
*lb.1.2.23 I WAC (lJl.,a n) TLG Se1-vicn, Inc. Coot "' 142 0 14 Removal Pa c tA&"ir 1 1 T r flnspor1 Co.st Co.su Costs 80 26 4 ,328 4 , 260 2S8 268 2,731 6,372 8 , 103 40 , 4*19 .. 7 437 ... 397 108 000 1 23 G 29 636 I<S 3 3,2li7 328 100 1 , 003 681 384 200 12 l.! 41 438 468 1 .. , 000 263 IOI 101 1 .. , 373 163 64 127 " 14 9 2 ,. " 8 " 122 38 17> 6,429 81 8 1 " 16 28 28 5,M*I 33 22 62 1 0 1 14 17 3 20 00 " | |||
* Ta bl e D-2 D ia bl o Ca n yo n U ni t 2 SAFSTO R D eco mm iss i o n i n g Cost Es tim ate (T h o u sa nd s 0 (20 1 4 Do ll ar.s) NRC Spen t F u e l O'..S it e P roceu ln1 Cos e s LLR W Ol.1po1t1 l Coses O t her eo ... To t fl l Co n tln e n c Tota l Cost* Lie. Te r m. &1 1m aa:e.menl 6,710 66 61,766 1.610 urn; 43 121 121 63,.J.1 3 1 , 000 009 1 , 663 3 17 1 , 854 " 448 540 1 01 9 18 1 , 684 4S9 1 83 "" 4 269 *1 1 13 1 2.623 1 ,266 438 6 , 410 1.033 .,. 2 ,336 C.1.881 'i8 , 257 J.j2.63li 1 66,500 1 9 ' 3,40 1 1 , 683 4<'>,183 1 , 1164 6 11 038 904 *1 3 1 6 67 81 62 18' .. 1 ,000 1 , 180 .. 1 , 400 1 61 :!03 613 11 ,397 li ,192 33,410 83 , 00 1 2 100 429 ... 2"7 43 933 27 1 20 ... 31 715 327 76 "' 602 7 4 9 278 11 6 | |||
* 96 103 30 14 , 076 6 , 93 1 1 60 , 272 6.1 06 2 , 470 6 , 200 6 , (116 187 97 .. 316 "' 1 94 1.439 002 3,73 1 6 , 662 3 18 7819 1 , 184 1 , 1 29 2,800 63,278 \16,449 1 84,44 1 363 , 023 2.707 * ... 1 , 6-lO 3, 812 1 , 0 1 6 241 3 , 004 1 50 8 76 1 ,403 "' 4 3 , 972 1 , 262 287 2,394 2.80 .. 2,881) 1 ,066 4 ... 00 634 Co9 u Costs J0 ,00-l 6 , 93 1 IM , 092 6,106 2.470 5.200 5.0 1 6 1 8797 .. 283 381 19' l , 439 4 6 1 3 , 731 G , G62 3 16 78U:I J , 1 84 1.1 29 2,860 63 , 278 96 , 449 1 84 ,39 1 2 , 707 1 ,640 3.8 12 1 ,0 1 6 3 , 69-1 76 1.403 1 , 262 287 2 ,30-t 2.889 1 , 066 ... Site R"to r .. eio n C..** 100 30 3, 172 4 ,279 31 31 4 ,00 1 | |||
* 669 2*11 1 60 8 17' 4 3,072 2,3fl4 60 6"*1 Docume11 I P OJ-J 1 J J..OO J , Rev. 0 Appendix D , Page lB o f :!l P==d .. | |||
Bu r l*I/ Processed w e. Lbs. C u. Fe.et Cu. Feet C u. F e.e t C u. Feet Cu. Feet 20 , C36 1.-14-1 1 00,6 1 6 l'i.072 5,072 82 82 4 , .. 96 (.10 , 1 66 3,M2 2 , 625 6 , 976 1 , 14 6 ..... 80 1 , 619 1 ,90 2 366 3 , 3 1 7 6,726 1 ,600 GOO 00 1 601 1 , 2L7.6 1 2 Gl,977 1 , 610 1 0 , 020, 1 00 322.-142 3 22.442 89.9 16 89 ,9 16 1.G*lfJ 1 1 ,33 7,300 23-t7i3 1 63906 361 1 37 00 , 872 6 , 193 90 , 002 118 , 983 22.229 202, 1 80 348 , 002 1 03.3 49 .0.203 Cr.C t 1 , 200 378 63,323 33 , 007 217 , 092 51,21H 2,098 53 362 16 10 147 1 47 270 , 007 ... 107 7 , 0-IO 5 , 777 1 3,445 6,26.t 2,981 8 , 218 1 , 88 1 .. 400 7,238 2,049 48 47 ,9 1 8 4 , 1189 1 , 340 27 ,!IM 8 , 1127 6,2fl4 3,643 1 ,644 662 7 , 019 U t llltyand Contnctor M*nh o urs 4,860 40 41.862 6 4.1 86 1 06.0 88 32,143 478 ,286 879 , 429 1 ,389, 867 U S00,825 Dia b lo C un yo n P ower P la ut D eco mmi Hion in Jl Co*f An u l y*i* A cti vit y 1.nde.x A c U vitv Dellcr i lion Dillpo11al o r Pl ant Sya 1 em1 (ronti nu ed) 4b.l.2.2<1 HVA C (Coulamina l ed lmi uhn ed) 4b.l.2.2G I WAC(Contamin11ted) | |||
' 4b.l.2.2S HVAC(Contaminnted | |||
). FHB 4b. l.2.2 7 Liquid RM.lwaat.e -lb.1.2.28 Liquid RadwHte (ln 1ulated) -l b.1.2.29 Lube Oil Di 1t r1bu t.k m &. P ur ificalio n 4b. J.2.30 Water l b.1.2.3 1 Make.up W 1tter (ln 11 uh1ted) -tb. 1.2.32 M ake.up W 11l e r (I WA I u s u l ut ed) 4 b. l.2.33 \Vo t e r (R CA) 4b. J.2.34 M ec harucal De 11artn1ent E<1u i pm ent 4 b. l.2.35 Mi&ee l lnoooua Re ac tor Coo l 1:1 nt 4b. l.2.36 Nuc l eur Sleam Su pp ly Samp lin g 4 b. l.2.37 Nuclear Sl u m Su pply Samp lin g (lna u lated *l b.1.2.38 Residua l H en t Remoo.*al -t b.1.2.39 Safot3* Luject.ion 4b.l.2.-IO S:ifot)' I Qjection(l n a ul:iled) 4b. l.2.41 SaJ'ety In jection (RCA ln1u l:ited) 4b. l.2.42 Sal"ety (RCA) 4b. l.2.43 Se n*i ce Coci lin 1 W11ltl r 4b. l.2.4 4 Sen*iCt' Coo lin g Wnter (RCA) 4b. l.2.45 Se"*c r Syr.t.e lfl Ex 11 a n 1io n *l b.1.2.46 Sp e nl F ue l Pit Co0Hn1 4b.i.2.47 Sp e nlfu e l PilCool i ng.fll B 4b.l.2 Tut1d 1 4L.1.3 Sca lJ o ldin g in aupport or decomm.iSt1io1.1ing Dero nl a m ii1atio n o r S i te Buildinp 4b.l.4.1 *Reactor 4b.l.4.2 A u J:.iliary 4b. l.-l.3 Capital Addit)l.)m 85-2004 4b. J.4.4 f'...oo t a inm t>nt Pen c lr ativn Area 4 b. l..t.6 Radwn!l l e S l oragt* 4b.l.4.G FuelHandling 4b.l.4 T otn l a 4 b.1 Sublol u l Per i o d 4b Activi ty 0:.91.1 P e r iod 4b 1 W dition&I Coet.a 4b.2. I Licc n te Te n11 im 1 tion S urv ey Pl anning <lb.2.2 Remedial .<\ctkin Su n"ey11 , l b.2.3 LiceD..!le Tt>r m i n 11 ti on ISFSI 4b.2 Sublot a l Period 4b Add i tional Co@.11 Period 4b Co ll:i te r al Cosl.8 4 b.3.I Proce H dcoon1m i1111ioning l\'ater Wll!l l e 4 b.3.2 Prores a decoolmiuio n ing che m ica l au llh waat.e 4b.3.3 Sma ll t oo l a ll owance 4b.3.4 Deoouuniu i o nin g Equipment Di aIJ(J@i l i on 4b.3 Sub l oln l Pt*ri OO 4b Co ll t1 t e ral Co!l t.ii Pe r iod 4b P er kJd.Depe n d e nt ClH C.a 4h.4.I De a: m a u p p li u 4b.4.2 l naura n ce 4 b.4.3 Property tax.e* 4b.4.4 H ea l th ph)'1k:I 1u ppli e<< 4 b.4.0 H eavy eq u ip m e nt renta l -lb.4.6 Dilpoe..*do r DA Wgen e r:iUld 4b . .f.7 Planl eoe.rgy budget 4b . .f.8 NRC Feea 4b.4.9 Liquid lliidw1t5te Equipment.1SeniN'1 4 b.4.IO Secu r i t y Sw.fT Coet 4b.4.11 lX>CSta fT Coe l 4b.4.12 U tilil>' S l ll fT Coet *l b.<I S ub l otal Period 4 b P e riod*De11 e nd e n c Co!i c a 4b.O TOTAL PERIOD 4b ms*r TLG &rvice*, ln c. D econ R emov al Pa c k 111i 11 1 Tra n spor l Co!it Co!l t Co!lts Costs 1 , 0 1 6 1 , 210 386 ""' 6 7ii 3 3,008 4 ,2 1 3 " I.MO 1 , ii*IO G , 768 2 1 7 004 216 "' *IO 132 205 " 33 1 66 I 1 30 20 8 281 1 16 | |||
* 39 323 144 37 *1 9 87 1 20 1 5,320 6,376 2 , 748 56 1 12 3 170 *16 746 -6 ,393 26, 1 56 12 1 12 1 .. , 46 1 2 , 733 3 , 2 32 G , OOG 32 , 703 173 37 57 3 | |||
* 23 122 16 I 6 G4 47 00 1 ,33 1 1 , 1 32 .. 9 24 3 .. 1 , 284 2,827 1 00 173 103 103 3 , 1 1 1 14 71 10 23 I I 0 00 19 21 ''" 6,300 7 3 14 22 13 13 39 " "' 29 29 6.171 T abl e D-2 Diab l o Ca n yo n U n it 2 SAF STOR D ec o m mi ss i o n ing C os t E s t i ma te (T h o u sa nd s o ( 20 14 D o ll a rs) ff.S it e I.LBW N R C S 1 1en t Fu e l S it e ProceHi n r D lspo1al Ot h e r Cos ta T o t11 I Coi 1U11 e nc T otal Costs Lie. Te r m. Ma o age m e 11 t Restora ti o n Cos u Cosu "' 2 ,2 60 476 7'2 33 G2 ''" 11 2 1 6 7 1.684 209 8 75 6 71 74 """ ... 1 7, 1 00 84 26.386 8 17 .. 310 27 443 26 , 877 4 6, 1 27 *100 400 11 0 , .. 368 123 123 46 , 1 08 846 2.678 I.GOO 4.ft83 763 200 3.07& 628 GOJ 1 , 4 1 3 22 , 899 33,0 48 62,66Ci 67.638 200 1 , 2 1 8 262 437 28 29 06 32 173 0 9 1 IJ 6 712 12 2 | |||
* 43 377 32 42 II 206 "" 11 , 12 5 2 ,3 75 12 , 3 7 6 1 ,3 41 367 402 33 1,003 16 , 622 29,863 3 71 1 , 1 3..J 803 2 ,30 7 IO I 128 2"3 -112 39 1.00 1 71 0 67 6 76 92 124 3 1 0 6,00 1 7 , 260 1 0 , 984 -1 8 , 4*17 ... 4 ,6 76 1 ,004 1 ,6 75 1 06 16 1 3 11 30 "'"' 2 3*1G G I 22 27-18 400 19 1 66 1 , 4<17 17 6 1 63 00 1 , 027 J,J.11 41'.i.422 8.11!11 47 , 003 3 , 860 .... 1 , 22& 121 3.03G 1>7,200 11 4,226 1 , 217 3, 710 2,000 7.922 1162 ... 1.401 2.I04 .,. ... 3 733 39*12 "'' 3.702 710 686 1 , 724 27 ,930 40 , 308 86 , 4 0 1 209.900 Co!i ts Costs Cos t s ... 4 ,6 76 1 , 004 1 ,f.i 71'.i I OG 12 2 663 346 G I 22 2 , 748 469 1 9 !BG l , H7 1 63 1 ,0 27 1 , 1 41 36,57 8 8 , 119'1 41,&63 3,860 ... 1 ,2 26 1 21 3,03G 67,200 101'.i,38 1 1.217 3 , 710 2,996 7.9 22 2&1 1162 ... 1 , 4 01 2 , 1 0*1 876 305 3.733 394 2 323 3.71>2 719 686 1.72*1 27 , 930 40.306 86.<IO I 20 1.1 06 IG l 3 11 ao 17 G GO 8 , 844 8.84-1 P r oceHe d B u ri a l Vo l umes Vo lum e C l11 H A C l 11H 8 C i us C GTC C Cu. Fee t C u. F ee t C u. Fee t Cu. F ee t C u. F eet 1 , 606 8 , 1 32 1 , 719 2.('83 12 0 1 66 1 , 066 406 69 25 5 , 726 767 3(1 270 2,427 ,.. 2,200 2 , 367 6 1 , 799 2, 1 00 34{1,ll38 6,6 1 3 1 , 0<17 1 , 838 476 2,951 36 1 ,863 4 29.68 1 1 , 777 1 , 777 211 G,007 6,878 *l.G!\3 *l ,6f J3 4 42.928 D oc u m en t P 0 1-111 9-001 , Rev. 0 A pp e n d i x D , Pa Jle 19 o f 21 B uria l/ Prouu ed W t. Lbs. 97 , 832 495 , 632 1 0-4.707 1 63,638 7,330 11.355 &4.346 24.76 1 3.666 1.628 3 48.913 -IG.1 00 1.826 UJ.433 147 , 899 16 ,409 134 , 0i!l 144, 205 3,700 , 486 9 7 , 466 33 , 233.400 462.994 9 1 , 174 14 3,66 7 42.1 64 2JO , G84 184 , 1 20 38,282.840 1 08.170 108 , 1 70 12 , 676 J00.000 3 1 2.6 7 5 9 1.856 91.856 38 , 700.040 C r aft Ma.n h o u u 2,660 6,697 """ 1 , 004 3 , 794 876 4 41 2 , 210 1 9 1 ,8 47 252 1 08 4.0 45 l , GO I ll8 Gl7 4,277 2 , 1 86 W6 7'16 1 ,266 1 ,72 1 2 1 4,8&3 H , 004 23 ,3 19 6 ,7&. &, 1 39 002 20.261) 10 1 , 986 367,447 31 , 1 6 1 7 ,000 38 , 1 67 41 .. 120 1 60 1 60 *1 06.883 U t il it y and Co n trftcto r M1ui h oun 6,240 4 , 1 9 1 10 , 4 3 1 1 9,636 209.42 3 368,83 4 61J7, 79:J 608.224 Dioblo Can,o n P owerP l a11 1 Df!:con1111inionin1t C o*l An.a l y.i* Act ivity lndu. Actlvltv De.!icri d o n PERIOD 4C-UcenHI Termina ti on Pe r klt.I 4f Direct Deoomm1Mioning | |||
* .\ct1vitie9 4(.1.1 ORISE ronfirma1ory 1urny 4tl.2 Tenn.inate l ioenee . 1 r.1 Subl.ola l Pukid 4 f Actinty Co.ta P e riod 4 r Additiona l Co.a 1r.2.1 Liom11e Tem1 in*Uon Su rv ey 4 f.2 Sub l.ota l Pe ri od 4r Ad d ition 11I Coet1 P er i o d4r C.O ll ntc r a l Colill .. r.s.1 DOC1 taff re.locll t ionexpe n 11e1 *1[3 Su b wta 1 P eriod 4fCol l ale r a l Coeta Perioll 4C Period-Dependent O:iet.1 d.4.1 !DJJu.raoori .U.4.2 Property taxe1 4r.4.3 H eal th ph)*1ict 1upplte. <tf..fi.4 Dis)>09a l c.CDAW gene r ated *IC.4.6 P l ant ene:l"VJ' b u d&-et .. r. ... 6 NRCJ.'t'etl 4 f.4.7 Sec u rity S t a rr eo.t *lr.4.8 DOC S1.a 0' Coat 4 r.4.9 U lil i 1 yS t tt ff Co.t 4(... S u b 1 o1n l Period d f't>riod-Dependen t Co9t1 4(.0 TOTAL P E R I OD 4fOJST PERJOD 4 TOTALS PERIOD 6b-Sil e Res to rallon Period 6b Di r ed DecoomuMioniD( Ad.ilitle!I Demolitio n o r Remaini n g Sile B uilJ inp C.h.1.1.J *Rell\.1.o r 6b. I. l.2 At lm i ni u ral io n 6 h.l.l.3 A u x ilit 1ry 6 b.l. l.4 Ca pi la l Addili on1 8&.20().1 G b.1.1.6 Cbe m ictl l StQr11ge 6b. LI .6 C h lori n atio n 6b.l.1.7 Cin:-ul at in gWalerTun.nele 6b.1. l.8 Cold Machine Shop 6b , J.J.9 Comm un ication 6 b. I. l. IO Conde n ut& Poli*hi n gfT ec hnic::a.l Support 6b. I 1.1 1 Penetrntilin Atta 6 b.J.1.12 Dilc: h a r veStructutt 6 b.1. l.1 3 f3brk:ation Shop &ld 1.14 Pin Pump l foWMe 6b. I. l.16 ll na r do u 1 W*11.e St.omt1e Facilitr 6b 1.1.1 6 Int ake 8t r uet.u re 6 b I. I 1 7 M 1t i11 Le n 11nce SIM;p 6b. l.1.18 ll li 1re ll aneo u 1 S1ruc1 u rn 6b.l.l.1 9 NPO PennHe n t W*ttbo u.e 6 b.l.l.20 Pond* 6b.l.l.2 1 Portr.blePireP u mp&fo'ue l Cart 6b.J.1.22 Pre l re11t.111 ent 6b.l.l.23 IUidwt111tPStorav 6b. I. l.2 4 Rad w aa l e Storage P acill l y (Additiona l) 6b, 1.1.26 Rotor Warehou ee 6 b. l. l.20 Sec uri ty 6 11.1.1.27 Sec u rity B u i l di n p (Addi 1i o o al) C.li.1.1.28 Stt u.r i t y Modi fi i::ntiom (2010 lo 20 1 5) fib.1.1.29 Gb.1.1.00 S t ea m f' .... m e rat o r S l o r age fo'aci lit y 6 1,,.1.1.3 1 T e)e pb o neT e rm i n a l fi b.J.l.32 Turbi ll{' TLG &rvicn , fo e. Remo v al Pa c kA1h11 T ran 9pol'l C..t Co** C..u "°'" 002 902 90Z 6 , 282 74,065 17 , 492 1 1 , 7 00 7 , 1 88 1 , 1 60 6 ,{186 4 , 627 ' IO l , 2t.t m ' 926 7 30 997 1 29 ' " ..... ... .. 1 ,'68 2 I " 1 , 892 63 902 007 67 93' ... ... a 6 , 908 Table D-2 Diablo Ca n yo n Unit 2 SAFSTO R D eco mmi ssio nin g Cost Es tim ate (T h o u sand s o( 20 14 Dolla r s) O IT-Slte u.RW NRC Procenl o l Dltpo!a l Other Tota l Total Uc. Term. Cos o Co!t9 Co 11tt Co nlin e n c Co 9 t!I "°'" 183 80 2G3 203 . 183 80 26J 263 1 5.100 G,678 21.877 2 1 , 877 l t'>.100 6 ,0 78 2 1.877 2 1.877 I *1 66 3 22 1.787 1 , 787 IA66 "' 1.787 1 , 787 ... 20 1 53 1 03 330 1 ,233 1 ,233 ' ,. 2 1 .., 91 603 603 302 .. 3'7 "" 7 1 3 1 67 800 869 6,073 l , IJ.t 6, 1 87 6, 1 87 6,4C.2 1 , 198 6 , 6"' ..... 1 2,087 2,95£1 1 6,006 1 6,006 28 , 93'4 1 0,030 39 , 894 39.89-t 100 ,66 1 262 , 171 142 , 477 613.766 000 , 50 1 \,6 79 8 , 767 263 1..i oa 1 ,63 0 8 , 152 1 1 , 0 1 6 6,6'13 I 6 2 " 1.481 .. . .. I 6 200 ""' 1 00 89 1 '19 U1 1 6 ,. 1'7 7 " 1 , 242 6 , 89'7 87 *1 81 1 6 83 32.'.l 1 , 791 0 3 0 * * " 416 " ** I ... 1 , 1 00 8 1 448 1 3 70 200 1 , 14 1 .. . .. 213 1 , 1 8 1 I 1 , 298 7 , 200 Spe nt Fue l Site Buria l V o lu mes llaoa1ement Resto r .. t l o o V o lu me C J.s,A Cl*" B c1.,, c "°''' "°'" C u. Feet C u. F e e t C u. F ee t C u. Feet 33ll ... 336 13 , 206 ..... ,. 60 1 400 8 ,7G 7 1 , 40;J 8 ,62 1 6,6.13 6 " 1 , 48 1 '" 6 1129 891 1.716 167 7 " 6,897 '8 1 83 l ,79 1 3 2 1 3 2,307 o* 1 , 1 00 448 70 1 , 1 4 1 6'12 1 , 1 8 1 *I i , 200 GTC C C u , F e et J.6 4& Documenl POl-1119-001 , R ni. 0 Append i x D , Pa1tf!: :!O o f :!I B ur ia l/ U tilit y and Proceued Cra f t Contra c tor WI. Lb s. Manh o un Manh o un 200,468 8 , 120 200 , 468 3,12(J ..... " 9,82 1 "6 , 1W 50,00 4 6 , 608 " 11 3 ,036 6,6YEI 200,479 1 16 ,606 60 , 139,630 876 , 969 2.226,706 67,9 14 1 0 , 368 64 ,.7 1 47, 4 03 1 6 .. 1 2 , 1 9 4 3,78S .. 9300 ..... 8.3 21 1 ,223 "" '"' 46,364 3.4 44 673 1 4 ,093 " " 1 08 l i.86 4 002 9 , 938 3,li44 722 9,627 4 ,H H 8,888 ,. 57, 74 4 | |||
"' ::::r 1" 01 m Diablo Ca n yo n P owe r Plant D eco mmiHi o ninlf Co*I Anul yai* Act iv ity lndu A c tl v lt ne,cri tlon Demo l.ilioo o r RemRi oi ng Site Bu ild ine11 (eootioued J 6b.l.l.3;1 Turbin e Pedeeta l 6b.l.l.34 Ve hi cle M 1ti n1 e n aoce Ob.Ll.35 W 1U t e Water !fo ldi ng & Treatment Facility 5b.l.J.3G Fu e l H an dling Sb.I.I T ota l e Site Cl0800Ut Acti..-itiell 5 b.l.2 Gr a de & h:rnd 11e1:1µe 1 il.e C.b.1.3 FinHlre1>0 rtto N R C 5 b.I Sublotul Peri o d 5 b Acl.i\'ity Period 5b Addil.ionsl Colt.a 5 b.2.1 Backfill St ructu res & Concrete RemO\'ol (o ut o r e t ete di e1)0lal) O b , 2.2 Bren kw ste r De m ol it ion a nd RenKl'l'l'l i {o u t of e ln te di 11po11 11I) 5 b , 2.3 CofT en larn Co n s tructi o n and Teardown 5 b.2.4 Concrete Cr u 1hing 5 b.2.0 0 1 11po11a l ofGa l Le!llol S iding 6 b.2l> 0 1 1po11i ti o 11 c.f'-I OO U e Barrier* (o u t of et.ate d11poea l) C.h.2.7 Sol l /Sed iment Co nt rol Plant Area f.h.2.8 Demo ht k>n a nd Site Re1tomtibn ISFSI 5 b.2.9 '-l i9Cll'Jlaneu u 11 Co mtruction Debri1 (out o f e t ate tli 1po68]) 5b.2.IO Scr a J J M t!t.11 l 'l'r11n 11po rt11t ion (o ut of1111 u e1 5 b.2.ll FSSM11nagf' r 5 b.2 Sllblota l Pl'rio d 6 b Add ili onal Coe t-11 Period 5b Co ll a l Nlll 5 b.3.I Smell 100 1 11 llow&nC'I' 6b.3 Sublotal P e riod 6b C.o ll ate r a l Co:!!t.!! Period 6b P eriod-Dependent Coe te 5 b.4.I ln 1 u r 11DCe 6 b A.2 C.b.4.3 HtlttY)"e quipm en trenlel 6b.4.4 ene rlQ' budge! 6b.4.5 Sec urit y St.11fl'Cooet 6b.4.(l OOCSll'l lT Co!!L 5 b.U U tility S 1.a1T Col t 6 b .. 1 S ubtot ,u l P e ri o d 5 h P er iod.De1>e ndcnt Coe t e li b.O TO TA L PER I OD O b OOST PERIOD 6 TOTALS TOT AL COST TO DECOMMISS I ON l'OT COST TO DE CO M!.USS I ONW ITH 2.6.03** CONT INGEN C Y: AL NB C LICENSE TERMINATION COST I S 60.0 N OR: PENT FUEL MANAGEMENT COST IS 14.48" OR: ON.NUCLEAR DEMO Ll'fl ON COST I S 26.46% OR: Deeo11 Removllll | |||
"°'' eo .. 1 ,404 37 24 1 , 079 .. 7.0 1 5 2 , 337 M.l ,3fi2 24 , 700 7 3.615 7 .,. l , 47 3 1 68 1.:lU 1 , 642 !0 3,<17 3 1 , 18<1 1 , 184 7,c.89 7 , 680 1 6 1 , 598 1 6 1 , 508 13 , 684 244,911 AL LOW.J..EVEL RADIOACTIVE W ASTE VOLUHE BURlED (EXCLUD I NG OTCC): AL GREATER TitAN C J.ASS C RADWA5I'E VOLUUE GENERATED: | |||
End Notee: n/a | |||
* i ndicat e" I h11t 1hi" activity not c h arged n& d cco mmi Hio nin g expe n se. a* i nd iC(ltefJ that. thi e Pct.h*ily pt>rfornMid by decommi Mi i o nin g 11t&IT. 0 -indkate s th 11t. thi 11 \'nlue i t leu than 0.6 but is non*ze ru. itct>lloonloining | |||
"-" i ndi r nt ee 11wrovalue TLG &1-vicu , I n c. Packlllalna | |||
"°'" 1 8, 11 4 Tab l e D-2 Diab l o Ca nyon Un i t 2 SAFSTOR De co mmis s i o n ing Cost Est i mat e (T h o u aa nd s 0 (2014 Dollars) Off.S i t e llRW N R C T r11n ,port Pll,)CH!ll D* Dl!!po!111I O ther Tot11I Total Lie. Term. Co!ih Co!ih Co!ll9 Co11t1 Co ntin enc Co!tll Co!lt!I """ 1 ,7 1 8 .. 00 '35 2 , 4 1 3 I0 , 3 28 57 , 3-t 4 5 1 3 2.800 10< "' 1 26 12 6 1 04 I0 , 860 00.320 126 4<1.417 1 5.18 4 8 4 301 1 68.6 1 3 6-t , 0 11 3062 81 I05 6113 3 2 0 1.806 "' 93 '" 472 141 780 298 l.G.S2 2 , 749 60 4 i, 995 5.8 70 1 , 290 7.1 60 7, 8 3 7 1 , 722 9 , G59 622 13 7 759 709 23 1.0 10 83 ,90 7 4 1 8 ,300 709 260 l , H4 200 1 , 44<1 4'0 6< 60< 1 ,00 7 9,256 678 ).19 827 2.3 4 3 0 1 0 2,8"8 1 5 , 137 3 , 3 26 1 8,*163 G,35() 1 , 396 7.76 1 2-1,1)53 7 , 11 7 a9 , 668 26G.06G 102, 1-1 9 519.8 1 3 ... 200.006 102.149 5 1 9.8 1 3 886 12,306 11 3.776 1.272.766 419.290 2.094,738 1,048,MO U.094, 738 thou 1an d 1 o r 20 14 dollan Sl , 048 ,88 0 t h ouund' of 2014 doll*n UU , 8U tbou1and*or 20 14 doll*" '633,026 th o u 1an d 1 o f 20 U dollar. 803,394 C ubi c F<<t 1,849 Cub i e F ee t 78 , 297 To n' 1 777 688 Man.ho urs S11eotFue l S it e Proce ,,ed Bu ri a l Vo l ume' !ol11n*ten1ent R estor*tl ou Vo l um e Cl11s,A C lo sB C lu, c eo,ts ""'" Cu. Feet C u.Feet C u. F ee t C u. F<<t 1 ,7 1 3 " 30 2,413 57 , 8 4*1 ""'° 00 , 194 84 , 30 1 306 , 28 1 6113 1.805 '" 780 1 ,66 2 4.995 7 , 1 60 9,559 *117.63 1 1 ,44 4 1 , 444 '°' El , 256 827 2,808 18 , otG3 7,75 1 00 , 6 58 5 1 8.928 5 1 8 , 928 611.86 1 6U,Oali 602.488 001 466 GTCC C u.F eet UWD D oc um e nl P01*1 1 1 9-00 l , R ev. 0 Appendix D , Pu 1e 2 1 o f 21 Buria l I Utlli1y111nd Proce,sed Cr11ft Co otr11 ctor WI. Lbs. Ma.n h oun M1111houn 11 ,300 367 , .. 1 6,'i60 *1 3!J , 079 4.587 6G8 443 ,G66 668 3 1.448 ,.. '°" U.l04 6.35!> l , HO 1 2.839 20 ,*M3 110 0, 148 3 70 ,9*1G 1', 228 3"l , 28G 1 36,89 1 G7, 1 5 4 236 , M I 81<1.61 1 2*12 , 227 814 , 6 1 1 242.227 6 1.033.880 1,777 ,668 8.070, 724 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Anal y sis APPENDIXE Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix E, Page 1 of 2 ISFSI LICENSE TERMINATION ESTIMATE TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-157 N I .-(") ::::r I ...... <J"1 CXl Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Description Decommissioning Co ntra c tor P l a nnin l" (characterization specs and procedur es) Decontamination (activated di s Dosition) | |||
Li cense T ermination (radiolocical survevs) Subtota l S upp ort in g Costs NRC and NRC Contractor Fees and Costs In surance Proo ertv Taxe s S ec uri ty PG&E StaIT Subtotal Tota l (w/o co ntin l!e n cy) Total (w/25% co ntinsr e n cv) Removal Costs 243 24 3 243 303 Table E Diablo Caynon Power Plant ISFSI Decommi ssioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2014 dollars) Packaging Trallsport LLRW. Other Di s posal Costs Costs Costs Costs 423 15 27 981 55 1 557 15 27 981 2 036 160 1 58 11 8 282 36 8 1084 15 27 981 3,!l9 18 34 1,226 3,89 9 Total Costs 423 1 ,32 0 1 557 3 3 00 160 1 58 118 282 368 1084 4 ,38 4 5,480 Th e npplication of co ntin gency is consistent with the eva luation criteria r efere nc e d by the NRC in NUREG-1757 | |||
("Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Financial Assurance , R ecor dkeeping , and Timeliness," U.S. NRC's Office of Nuc l ear Material Safety and Safeguards , NUREG-1757, Vol. 3, Rev. 1 , February 2012). Note: The costs shown in this Appendix will differ from va lu es in Appendices C and D costs tables due. Thes e two appendices include n add itio nal continge n cyto achieve an overall project contingency of 25'!-o. TLG Services, Inc. B u ria l Vo lum e C l ass A (c ubi c feet) 3,555 3,55 5 3,555 Document POl-1719-001 , Rev. 0 Appendix E, Page 2 of 2 Person-Hours NRC/NRC Contractor Li censee Co ntra c tor Man h o ur s 1264 852 1189 5 14 011 776 3 803 3,8 0 3 7 606 776 14 , 011 7 , 606 776 Variance of the 2016 Forecast Enclosure 6 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Estimated Costs: Enclosu r e 6 PG&E Letter DCL-17 -022 Page 1 of 1 Forecast of 2016 per PG&E Letter DCL-15-044 , Enclosure 4 , dated March 31 , 2015, in 2015 dollars: Unit 1: NRC Scope (Radiolog i cal) Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel Management Unit 2: NRC Scope (Radiological) | |||
Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel Management Actual Costs: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Actual 2016 Incurred Costs, provided in Enclosure 4 of this letter, reflects the actuals for 2016 in nominal dollars. Unit 1: NRC Scope (Radiological) | |||
Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel Management Unit 2: NRC Scope (Radiological) | |||
Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel Management Variance: (Unfavorable) | |||
Unit 1: NRC Scope (Radiological) | |||
Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel Management Unit 1: NRC Scope (Radiological) | |||
Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel Management | |||
$250 , 623 $0 $0 $241 , 031 $0 $0 -$250 , 623 $0 $0 -$241 , 031 $0 $0 Decommissioning costs were overspent in 2016 primarily due to PG&E's decision not to extend the operating license and began the planning process for decommissioning the two units. The costs for plann i ng the decommissioning commenced in 2016.}} | |||
Revision as of 07:37, 16 March 2019
| ML17102B069 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Diablo Canyon  |
| Issue date: | 03/31/2017 |
| From: | Halpin E D Pacific Gas & Electric Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| DCL-17-022 | |
| Download: ML17102B069 (206) | |
Text
Pacific Gas and Electric Company'"'
March 31, 2017 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer P.O. Box 56 Avila Beach, CA 93424 605.545.4100 E-Mail: EIHB@pge.com U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATIN: Document Control Desk
- Washington, DC 20555-0001 10 CFR 50.75(f) Docket No. 50-275, OL-DPR-80 Docket No. 50-323, OL-DPR-82 Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 Decommissioning Funding Report for Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 Dear Commissioners and Staff: Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) is submitting the decommissioning funding report for Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP), Units 1 and 2, pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(f).
Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2 At the end of calendar year 2016, the market values of the DCPP Units 1 (3411 MWt) and 2 (3411 MWt) decommissioning trust fund were $1,201.6 million and $1,571.0 million, respectively.
PG&E currently has more funds in the DCPP, Units 1 and 2, decommissioning trust fund than required to meet the minimum NRC decommissioning amount of $620.2 million (2017 dollars) for each unit that was calculated pursuant to the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(c).
PG&E continues to fund the trust through collections for additional costs beyond those required in 10 CFR
- 50.75(c).
Supporting Cost Estimates TLG Services, Inc. prepared a site-specific decommissioning cost estimate that PG&E submitted to the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) in the 2015 Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding (NDCTP) on March 1, 2016. Based on site-specific cost estimates prepared by TLG Services, Inc., PG&E estimates that the decommissioning costs are about $1,297.0 million for DCPP Unit 1 and $1,276.4 million for Unit 2 in 2017 dollars. These costs do not include site restoration of the facilities
($671.2 million) or spent fuel management costs after shutdown of Units 1 and 2 ($837.5 million).
To assure that sufficient funds will be available for decommissioning, PG&E has established separate external sinking trust fund accounts for DCPP, Units 1 and 2. A member of the STARS Alliance Callaway
- Diablo Canyon
- Palo Verde
- Wolf Creek Document Control Desk March 31, 2017 Page2 Supporting Enclosures PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Enclosures 1-6 provide supporting documentation for this report. Enclosure 1 provides decommissioning funding status information*
in a format suggested by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the NRC. Enclosure 2 provides information on the escalation of the required decommissioning funding amounts from 1986 dollars to 2017 dollars. As required by 10 CFR 50.75(c)(2), and using NUREG-1577, "Standard Review Plan on Power Reactor Licensee Financial Qualifications and Decommissioning Funding Assurance,
Revision 1, and NUREG-1307, "Report on Waste Burial Charges," Revision 16, the information includes escalation factors for energy, labor, and waste burial costs. NUREG-1307, Revision 16, assumes for plants that have no disposal site available within their designated low-level waste (LLW) compact, that the cost for disposal of Class A LLW is the same as that for the Clive, Utah disposal faqility and for Class B and C LLW is the same as that for the Andrews County, Texas disposal facility including accounting for out-of-compact fees. The State of Texas limits the total non-compact waste disposed at the compact waste facility (CWF) in Andrews County, Texas for out-of-compact generators to 30 percent of licensed capacity.
DCPP does not have a disposal site available within its designated Southwestern LLW Compact. NUREG-1307, Revision 16, states that, given these considerations, licensees may want to set aside additional decommissioning trust funds to avoid significant future shortfalls in funding and potential enforcement actions. Based on the limited number of CWFs currently available and the potential for limited to no availability at the Texas CWF for DCPP LLW disposal when PG&E begins LLW disposal associated with decommissioning, PG&E has used the formula, coefficients, and adjustment factors from NUREG-1307 Revision 16 in our cost analyses, with the exception of the burial/disposition factor. As allowed per NUREG-1307, Revision 16, PG&E used a burial/disposition adjustment factor higher than the burial/disposition adjustment factor provided iri NUREG-1307, Revision 16, for plants that have no disposal site available within their designated LLW Compact. To avoid significant future shortfalls in funding and potential enforcement actions, PG&E used the burial/disposition adjustment factor for compact-affiliated disposal for the South Carolina site. The specific decommissioning cost estimate results in a total cost estimate of no less than the amount estimated by using the parameters presented in NUREG-1307, Revision 16, while accounting for the potential future shortfall in disposal capacity at the CWF in Andrews County, Texas. Enclosure 3 is the 2015 DCPP Appendix C1, Table C.,1 for Unit 1 and 2015 DCPP Appendix C2, Table C-2 for Unit 2 from the TLG Services, Inc. decommissioning cost estimate report prepared in March 2016 for DCPP Units 1 and 2. PG&E then adjusted the TLG Services, Inc. cost estimate to reflect the costs in 2017 dollars per the NDCTP submitted on March 1, 2016, to the CPUC by applying the escalation factors included in the submittal.
The report provides cost estimates for decommissioning of both nuclear A member of the STARS Alliance Callaway
- Diablo Canyon
- Palo Verde
- Wolf Creek Document Control Desk March 31, 2017 Page3 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 and non-nuclear facilities, including the Diablo Canyon Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI). Enclosure 4 is a cash flow for the total decommissioning of DCPP that identifies the monies for NRC scope (removal of radiological contamination), site restoration (including nonradiological work), and the spent fuel management based on the TLG Services, Inc. 2015 Cost Estimate by unit. Enclosure 5 contains the TLG Services, Inc. decommissioning cost estimate report prepared in March 2016 for DCPP Unit 1 and Unit 2. The report provides cost estimates for the decommissioning of the nuclear, non-nuclear facilities, and spent fuel management, including operation and decommissioning of the ISFSI in 2014 dollars. Enclosure 6 contains the variance of the 2016 forecast, as submitted in Enclosure 3 of PG&E Letter DCL-15-044, "Decommissioning Funding Report for Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Units 1 and 2," dated March 31, 2015, to the actual expenditures for 2016. PG&E makes no new or revised regulatory commitments (as defined by NEI 99-04) in this letter. Should you have any questions, please contact Mrs. Brooke Winterton at (805) 549-0368.
Sincerely, Edward D. Halpin Senior Vice President, Generation and Chief Nuclear Officer cc: Diablo Distribution cc/encl: Kriss M. Kennedy, NRC Region IV Administrator Balwant K. Singal, NRR Senior Project Manager INPO A member of the STARS Alliance Callaway
- Diablo Canyon
- Palo Verde
- Wolf Creek
> Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 NRC Decommissioning Funding Status Report Diablo Canyon Power Plant-Units 1 (3411 MWt) and 2 (3411 MWt)
Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Page 1of4 I NRC Decommissioning Funding Status Report !
- Diablo Canyon Power Plant -Units 1 (3411 MWt) & 2 (3411 MWt) As provided in 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1), each power reactor licensee is required to report to the NRC on a calendar year basis, beginning on March 31, 1999, and every
- 2 years thereafter, on the status of its decommissioning funding for each reactor or share of reactor it owns.
- Note that Items 3, 4, and 8 are data included in PG&E's Nuclear Decommissioning Cost Triennial Proceeding (NDCTP) filed with the California Public Utilities . Commission (CPUC) on March 1, 2016. PG&E does not anticipate a decision on this filing until mid-2017.
- 1. The minimum decommissioning fund estimate, pursuant to 10 CFR 50. 75 (b) and(tj 1 * $ in Millions _Yalue in January 2017 dollars Unit 1 $ 620.2 Unit 2 $ 620.2 2. The amount accumulated at the end of the calendar year preceding the date of the report for items included in 10 CFR 50.75 (b) and (c). (Alternatively, the total amount accumulated at the end of the calendar year preceding .the date of the report can be reported here if the cover letter transmitting the report provides the total estimate and indicates what portion of \that estimate is for items not included
- in 10 CFR 50.75 (b) and (c)). Market Value (December 2016 dollars) $ in Millions Unit 1 $1,201.6 Unit 2 $1,571.0 1 *The NRC formulas in section 10 CFR 50.75(c) include only those decommissioning costs incurred by licensees to remove a facility or site safely from service and reduce residual radioactivity to levels that permit: (1) release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license; or (2) release of the property under restricted conditions and termination of the license. The cost of dismantling or demolishing nonradiological systems and structures is not included in the NRC decommissioning cost estimates.
The costs of managing and storing spent fuel on site until transfer to DOE are not included in the cost formulas.
Enclosure 1
- PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Page 2 of 4 3. A schedule of the annual amounts remaining to be collected include items beyond those required in 10 CFR 50.75 (b) and (c). (The cover letter transmitting the report provides a total cost estimate and indicates the portions of that estimate for items that are not included in 10 CFR 50.75 (b) and (c)) $ in Millions Amount Remaining
$953:7 Unit 1 Annual Collection 2017-2024 Unit 2 Annual Collection 2017-2025
$62.225 $53.200 4. The assumptions used regarding escalation in decommissioning cost, rates of earnings on decommissioning funds (anticipates that the portfolio of each trust will be gradually converted to a more conservative all income portfolio beginning in 2024 for Unit 1 and Unit 2), and rates of other factors used in funding projections; Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 1 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 4.49 percent 4.48 percent 4.45 percent 4.42 percent 4.38 percent 4.34 percent 4.29 percent 4.24 percent 4.18 percent 4.08 percent 3.99 percent 3.90 percent 3.82 percent 3.74 percent 3.67 percent 3.60 percent 3.54 percent 3.48 percent 3.42 percent 3.36 percent 3.31 percent 3.26 percent 3.22 percent 3.17 percent 3.13 percent 3.09 percent 3.05 percent 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052-2059 Rate of Return on Qualified Trust Unit 2 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 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Page 3\of 4 3.01 percent ' 2.98 percent 2.95 percent 2.91 percent 2.88 percent 2.85 percent 2.83 percent 2.80 percent 77 percent 4.51 percent 4.48 percent 4.45 percent 4.41 percent 4.37 percent 4.32 percent 4.27 percent 4.22 percent 4.17 percent 4.10 percent 4.00 percent 3.92 percent 3.83 percent 3. 75 percent 3.68 percent 3.61 percent 3.55 percent 3.48 percent 3.43 percent 3.37 percent 3.32 percent 3.27 percent 3.22 percent 3.18 percent 3.13 percent 3.09 percent 3. 05 percent 3.02 percent 2.98 percent 2.95 percent 2.92 percent 2.88 percent 2.85 percent 2.83 percent 2051 2052-2059 . Enclosure 1 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Page 4of4 2.80 percent 2.77 percent 5. Any contracts upon which the licensee is relying pursuant to 1 O CFR 50.75(e)(1)(v).
NONE 6. Any modifications to a licensee's current method providing financial assyrance occurring since the last submitted report. NONE .1. Any material changes to trust agreements.
'NONE 8. CPUC Submittal in 2017 Dollars in Millions Total Unit 1 (Decommission 2024) $ 1,817.5 Scope Excluded from NRC calculations
$ 105.1 Spent Fuel Management
$ 415.4 Total NRC Decommissioning Costs $ 1.,297.0 Total Unit 2 .(Decommission 2025) $ 2,264.6 Scope Excluded from NRC calculations
$ 566.1 Spent Fuel Management
$ 422.1 Total NRC Decommissioning Costs $ 1,276.4 2017 Decommissioning Estimate Unit 1 (1 page) 2017 Decommissioning-Estimate Unit 2 (1 page) Composite Escalation (1 page) \ Development of E Component (8 pages) Development of L Component (10 pages) Development of B Component , (1 page) Enclosure 2
- PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 2017 Decommissioning Estimate Unit 1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Estimate of Decommission Costs for Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Unit 1 in 2015 January 1986 Estimate Escalated to 1999 Escalated to 2000 Escalated to 2001 Escalated to 2002 Escalated to 2003 Escalated to 2004 Escalated to 2005 Escalated to 2006 Escalated to 2007 Escalated to 2008 Escalated to 2009 Escalated to 2010 Escalated to 2011 Escalated to 2012 Escalated to 2013 Escalated to 2014 Escalated to 2015 Escalated' to 2016 Escalated to 2017 DCPP PWR {millions)
$105 $118.2 {Table 2.1 in NUREG 1307 Revision 10 has no value for 1999 Burial) {No Submittal Required)
$333.8 ($396.7 in 2001 Submittal) (No Submittal Required)
$347.5 ($404.8 in 2003 Submittal)
{No Submittal Required)
$403.5 ($427.2 in 2005 Submittal)
{No Submittal Required)
$494.2 ($494.8 in 2007 Submittal) (No Submittal Required)
$539.7 ($679.5 in 2009 Submittal)
{No Submittal Required)
$588.1 ($546.1 5 in 2011 Submittal)
{No Submittal Required)
$620.2 ($643.0 in 2013 Submittal) (No Submittal Required)
$623.4 ($646.2 in 2015 Submittal)
{No Submittal Required)
$620.2 Based on 10 CFR 50.75 {c), "Table of Minimum Amounts" {January 1986 dollars).
PWR Greater than or equal to 3400 MWt = $105 million per unit between 1200 MWt and 3400 MWt {for PWR less than 1200 MWt, use P=1200 MWt $75+0.0088P)
Page 1 of 1 2017 Decommissioning Estimate Unit 2 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Nuclear Regulatory Commission Estimate of Decommission Costs for Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) Diablo Canyon Power Plant (DCPP) Unit 2 in 2017 January 1986 Estimate Escalated to 1999 Escalated to 2000 Escalated to 2001 Escalated to 2002 Escalated to 2003 Escalated to 2004 Escalated to 2005 Escalated to 2006 Escalated to 2007 Escalated to 2008 Escalated to 2009 Escalated to 2010 Escalated to 2011 Escalated to 2012 Escalated to 2013 Escalated to 2014 Escalated to 2015 Escalated to 2016 Escalated to 2017 DCPP PWR (millions)
$105 $118.2 (Table 2.1 in NU REG 1307 Revision 1 O has no value for 1999 Burial) (No Submittal Required)
$333.8 ($396.7 iri 2001 Submittal) (No Submittal Required)
$347.5 ($404.8 in 2003 Submittal) (No Submittal Required)
$403.5 ($427.2 in 2005 Submittal) (No Submittal Required)
$494.2 ($494.8 in 2007 Submittal) (No Submittal Required)
$539.7 ($720.9 in 2009 Submittal) (No Submittal Required)
$588.1 ($546.5 in 2011 Submittal) (No Submittal Required)
$620.2 ($643.0 in 2013 Submittal) (No Submittal Required)
$623.4 (646.2 in 2015 Submittal) (No Submittal Required)
$620.2 Based on 10.CFR 50.75 (c), "Table of Minimum Amounts" (January 1986 dollars).
PWR Greater than or equal to 3400 MWt = $105 million per unit between 1200 MWt and 3400 MWt (for PWR less than 1200 MWt, use P=1200 MWt $75+0.0088P)
Page 1of1 / l Composite Escalation Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculating Overall Escalation Rate PWR Jan-86 Jan-99 Jan..QO Jan..01 Jan-02 Jan..03 Jan-04 Jan-05 Jan..06 Jan..07 Jan-OB Jan..09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 Jan-15 Jan-16 Jan-17 Weight (1) L (Labor) 1.0000 1.5624 1.6370 0.9365 0.9733 1.0122 1.0445 1.0846 2.0600 2.1218 2.1939 2.2536 2.2784 2.3175 2.3711 2.4061 2.4638 2.5235 2.5812 2.6492 0.65 E (Energy) 1.0000 0.8499 1.0297 1.1850 0.9909 1.2027 1.2164 1.4656 1.8306 1.7950 2.3262 1.7850 2.0766 2.3145 2.6030 2.5667 2.6162 2.2076 1.7624 1.8705 0.13 B(Burial) 1.0000 0.0000 10.8039 10.9840 11.1633 11.3433 13.0733 13.3951 13.7247 14.0626 15.0364 15.6505 16.2646 17.2446 18.2247 18.2247 18.2247 18.2247 18.2247 17.9148 0.22 (1) From NUREG 1307, Revision 16, Report on Waste Burial Charges, Section 3.1, Page a, where A, 8, and Care the fractions of the total 1986 dollar costs that are attributable to labor (0.64), energy (0.14), and burial (0.22), respectively, and sum to 1.0. PWR Combined Escalation Rate for. Jan-86 Jan-99 Jan..QO Jan..01 Jan..02. Jan..03 Jan..04 Jan..05 Jan..06 Jan..07 Jan..08 Jan..09 Jan-10 Jan-11 Jan-12 Jan-13 Jan-14 JanC15 Jan-16 Jan-17 1.0000 1.1260 3.5748 3.1793 3.2174 3.3098 3.7132 3.8425 4.5964 4.7063 5.0364 5.1400 5.3291 5.6011 5.8890 5.9071 5.9510 5.9367 5.9163 5.9064 Page 1of1 J Development of E Component Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.3 Using Regional Indices Series ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 02/21/2017) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 02/21/2017)
REBASED TO 1986 = 100 Jan-86 Feb-86 Mar-86 Apr-86 May-86 Jun-86 Jul-86 Aug-86 Sep-86 Oct-86 Nov-86 Dec-86 Jan-87 Feb-87 Mar-87 Apr-87 May-87 Jun-87 Jul-87 Aug-87 Sep-87 Oct-87 Nov-87 Dec-87 Jan-88 Feb-88 Mar-88 Apr-88 May-88 Jun-88 Jul-88 Aug-88 Sep-88 Oct-88 Nov-88 Dec-88 Jan-89 Feb-89 Mar-89 Apr-89 May-89 Jun-89 Jul-89 Aug-89 Sep-89 Oct-89 PPI for Fuels & Related Products (1982 = 100) (P) = Industrial Energy Power 114.2 115.0 114.4 113.7 114.1 115.3 116.2 116.3 116.3 113.0 112.7 112.3 110.3 109.8 110.2 109.9 111.8 113.9 116.2 115.7 115.5 111.0 109.2 109.6 108.8 109.0 109.0 109.1 108.9 117.2 118.2 118.3 118.5 114.2 109.2 110.5 112.0 112.0 112.3 112.4 113.6 119.8 122.2 122.4 122.5 117.2 PPI for Light Fuel Oils (1982 = 100) (F) = Light Fuel Oils 82.0 62.4 51.3 49.8 47.0 44.7 36.4 40.1 46.3 43.1 43.5 45.6 51.4 53.1 49.7 52.0 53.3 55.1 56.3 59.4 56.8 59.3 61.2 58.1 54.8 51.5 49.7 53.3 54.3 50.6 46.9 46.8 45.9 42.3 47.2 50.6 54.9 54.0 57.3 61.5 57.5 53.3 52.7 53.5 59.3 64.0 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils (1986 = 100) (1986 = 100) (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils PWR wt = 0.58 PWR wt = 0.42 1.0000 1.0000 1.0070 0.7610 1.0018 0.6256 0.9956 0.6073 0.9991 0.5732 1.0096 0.5451 1.0175 0.4439 1.0184 0.4890 1.0184 0.5646 0.9895 0.5256 0.9869 0.5305 0.9834 0.5561 0.9658 0.6268 0.9615 0.6476 0.9650 0.6061 0.9623 0.6341 0.9790 0.6500 0.9974 0.6720 1.0175 0.6866 1.0131 0.7244 1.0114 0.6927 0.9720 0.7232 0.9562 0.7463 0.9597 0.7085 0.9527 0.6683 0.9545 0.6280 0.9545 0.6061 0.9553 0.6500 0.9536 0.6622 1.0263 0.6171 1.0350 0.5720 1.0359 0.5707 1.0377 0.5598 1.0000 0.5159 0.9562 0.5756 0.9676 0.6171 0.9807 0.6695 0.9807 0.6585 0.9834 0.6988 0.9842 0.7500 0.9947 0.7012 1.0490 0.6500 1.0701 0.6427 1.0718 0.6524 1.0727 0.7232 1.0263 0.7805 Page 1 of 8 Energy Escalation Factor (E) forPWR (Diablo Canyon) 1.0000 0.9037 0.8438 0.8325 0.8202 0.8145 0.7766 0.7961 0.8278 0.7947 0.7952 0.8039 0.8235 0.8296 0.8142 0.8245 0.8408 0.8607 0.8785 0.8919 0.8775 0.8675 0.8681 0.8542 0.8333 0.8174 0.8082 0.8271 0.8312 0.8544 0.8405 0.8405 0.8369 0.7967 0.7964 0.8204 0.8500 0.8454 0.8638 0.8859 0.8715 0.8814 0.8906 0.8957 0.9259 0.9230 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of E Component Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.3 Using Regional Indices Series ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 02/21/2017) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 02/21/2017)
REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100) (1982=100)
(1986 = 100) (1986 = 100) (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils Nov-89 113.5 64.4 0.9939 0.7854 Dec-89 114.2 68.1 1.0000 0.8305 Jan-90 114.9 85.3 1.0061 1.0402 Feb-90 115.0 59.4 1.0070 0.7244 Mar-90 115.4 60.4 1.0105 0.7366 Apr-90 115.1 61.0 1.0079 0.7439 May-90 117.0 58.4 1.0245 0.7122 Jun-90 123.9 53.0 1.0849 0.6463 Jul-90 124.4 51.6 1.0893 0.6293 Aug-90 124.6 72.3 1.0911 0.8817 Sep-90 125.0 87.3 1.0946 1.0646 Oct-90 121.2 104.8 1.0613 1.2780 Nov-90 120.2 98.9 1.0525 1.2061 Dec-90 118.9 89.3 1.0412 1.0890 Jan-91 124.2 82.9 1.0876 1.0110 Feb-91 124.3 74.3 1.0884 0.9061 Mar-91 124.3 61.6 1.0884 0.7512 Apr-91 124.7 60.0 1.0919 0.7317 May-91 128.2 59.6 1.1226 0.7268 Jun-91 132.6 57.6 1.1611 0.7024 Jul-91 134.5 58.1 1.1778 0.7085 Aug-91 133.8 62.1 1.1716 0.7573 Sep-91 133.8 65.4 1.1716 0.7976 Oct-91 128.3 67.6 1.1235 0.8244 Nov-91 123.1 71.0 1.0779 0.8659 Dec-91 125.1 62.2 1.0954 0.7585 Jan-92 125.9 54.4 1.1025 0.6634 Feb-92 125.3 57.3 1.0972 0.6988 Mar-92 125.8 56.0 1.1016 0.6829 Apr-92 124.8 59.0 1.0928 0.7195 May-92 128.5 62.1 1.1252 0.7573 Jun-92 134.8 65.4 1.1804 0.7976 Jul-92 135.6 64".6 1.1874 0.7878 Aug-92 135.1 63.3 1.1830 0.7720 Sep-92 135.9 65.6 1.1900 0.8000 Oct-92 131.2 68.2 1.1489 0.8317 Nov-92 125.5 64.2 1.0989 0.7829 Dec-92 126.7 59.4 1.1095 0.7244 Jan-93 127.1 59.0 1.1130 0.7195 Feb-93 126.4 60.4 1.1068 0.7366 Mar-93 126.7 63.2 1.1095 0.7707 Apr-93 126.8 62.4 1.1103 0.7610 May-93 127.5 62.6 1.1165 0.7634 Jun-93 136.9 60.8 1.1988 0.7415 Jul-93 137.1 57.0 1.2005 0.6951 Aug-93 137.2 54.4 1.2014 0.6634 Sep-93 137.6 59.3 1.2049 0.7232 Oct-93 131.9 65.4 1.1550 0.7976 Page 2 of 8 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for PWR (Diablo Canyon) 0.9063 0.9288 1.0205 0.8883 0.8955 0.8970 0.8933 0.9007 0.8961 1.0031 1.0820 1.1523 1.1170 1.0613 1.0554 1.0119 0.9468 0.9406 0.9564 0.9685 0.9807 0.9976 1.0145 0.9979 0.9889 0.9539 0.9181 0.9299 . 0.9257 0.9360 0.9707 1.0196 1.0196 1.0104 1.0262 1.0157 0.9662 0.9477 0.9477 0.9513 0.9672 0.9636 0.9682 1.0067 0.9883 0.9754 1.0026 1.0049 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of E Component Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.3 Using Regional Indices Series ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 02/21/2017) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 02/21/2017)
REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100) (1982=100)
(1986 = 100) (1986 = 100) (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils Nov-93 126.3 61.6 1.1060 0.7512 Dec-93 126.0 51.4 1.1033 0.6268 Jan-94 126.2 51.5 1.1051 0.6280 Feb-94 125.9 57.5 1.1025 0.7012 Mar-94 125.8 56.2 1.1016 0.6854 Apr-94 125.4 54.7 1.0981 0.6671 May-94 126.0 54.7 1.1033 0.6671 Jun-94 133.5 54.1 1.1690 0.6598 Jul-94 134.5 56.3 1.1778 0.6866 Aug-94 134.5 57.5 1.1778 0.7012 Sep-94 134.9 57.7 1.1813 0.7037 Oct-94 129.1 57.7 1.1305 0.7037 Nov-94 127.0 58.8 1.1121 0.7171 Dec-94 127.4 54.7 1.1156 0.6671 Jan-95 127.6 54.7 1.1173 0.6671 Feb-95 128.0 53.3 1.1208 0.6500 Mar-95 128.3 54.3 1.1235 0.6622 Apr-95 126.4 57.1 1.1068 0.6963 May-95 130.2 59.1 1.1401 0.7207 Jun-95 135.3 55.8 1.1848 0.6805 Jul-95 136.6 53.5 1.1961 0.6524 Aug-95 136.5 55.6 1.1953 0.6780 Sep-95 133.7 58.2 1.1708 0.7098 Oct-95 131.4 .57.8 1.1506 0.7049 Nov-95 127.6 59.5 1.1173 0.7256 Dec-95 127.7 60.6 1.1182 0.7390 Jan-96 127.9 62.6 1.1200 0.7634 Feb-96 127.1 59.7 1.1130 0.7280 Mar-96 127.8 63.5 1.1191 0.7744 Apr-96 129.1 74.7 1.1305 0.9110 May-96 135.0 72.0 1.1821 0.8780 Jun-96 137.5 62.8 1.2040 0.7659 Jul-96 136.0 64.3 1.1909 0.7841 Aug-96 136.2 66.5 1.1926 0.8110 Sep-96 136.2 73.4 1.1926 0.8951 Oct-96 131.2 79.7 1.1489 0.9720 Nov-96 127.1 76.5 1.1130 0.9329 Dec-96 127.7 76.1 1.1182 0.9280 Jan-97 128.3 73.7 1.1235 0.8988 Feb-97 128.1 72.3 1.1217 0.8817 Mar-97 128.2 65.2 1.1226 0.7951 Apr-97 127.3 65.3 1.1147 0.7963 May-97 129.7 64.2 1.1357 0.7829 Jun-97 135.1 60.8 1.1830 0.7415 Jul-97 135.9 57.8 1.1900 0.7049 Aug-97 134.7 61.5 1.1795 0.7500 Sep-97 136.0 60.4 1.1909 0.7366 Oct-97 130.1 64.8 1.1392 0.7902 Page 3 of 8 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for PWR (Diablo Canyon) 0.9570 0.9032 0.9047 0.9339 0.9268 0.9171 0.9201 0.9551 0.9715 0.9776 0.9807 0.9512 0.9462 0.9272 0.9282 0.9231 0.9297 0.9344 0.9640 0.9730 0.9678 0.9780 0.9771 0.9634 0.9528 0.9590 0.9702 0.9513 0.9743 1.0383 1.0544 1.0200 1.0201 1.0323 1.0677 1.0746 1.0373 1.0383 1.0291 1.0209 0.9851 0.9810 0.9876 0.9976 0.9863 0.9991 1.0001 0.9927 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of E Component Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.3 Using Regional Indices Series ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 02/21/2017) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 02/21/2017)
REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100) (1982 = 100) (1986=100)
(1986=100) (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils Nov-97 127.9 . 65.8 1.1200 0.8024 Dec-97 128.3 59.4 1.1235 0.7244 Jan-98 127.4 54.1 1.1156 0.6598 Feb-98. 127.2 52.0 1.1138 0.6341 Mar-98 126.7 48.3 1.1095 0.5890 AP,r-98 126.4 50.2 1.1068 0.6122 May-98 129.2 50.0 1.1313 0.6098 Jun-98 133.8 46.3 1.1716 0.5646 Jul-98 134.8 45.0 1.1804 0.5488 Aug-98 135.2 44.0 1.1839 0.5366 Sep-98 135.2 48.3 1.1839 0.5890 Oct-98 130.4 47.4 1.1419 0.5780 Nov-98 127.6 46.2 1.1173 0.5634 Dec-98 126.6 38.8 1.1086 0.4732 Jan-99 126.1 40.9 1.1042 0.4988 Feb-99 125.5 38.2 1.0989 0.4659 Mar-99 125.5 42.8 1.0989 0.5220 Apr-99 125.2 52.5 1.0963 0.6402 May-99 127.4 52.6 1.1156 0.6415 Jun-99 131.0 52.4 1.1471 0.6390 Jul-99 133.9 58.7 1.1725 0.7159 Aug-99 133.9 63 1.1725 0:7683 Sep-99 134.1 67.6 1.1743 0.8244 Oct-99 129.5 65.5 1.1340 0.7988 Nov-99 127.5 71.3 1.1165 0.8695 Dec-99 126.5 72.9 1.1077 0.8890 Jan-OD 126.8* 75.3 1.1103 0.9183 Feb-DO 126.7 87.9 1.1095 1.0720 Mar-DO 126.7 89.7 1.1095 1.0939 Apr-DO 126.8 83.1 1.1103 1.0134 May-DO 128.6 82.9 1.1261 1.0110 Jun-DO 133.6 86.2 1.1699 1.0512 Jul-DO 136.2 88.7 1.1926 1.0817 Aug-DO 137.4 91.6 1.2032 1.1171 Sep-DO 137.8 110.1 1.2067 1.3427 Oct-DO 134.1 108.6 1.1743 1.3244 Nov-DO 130.9 108.4 1.1462 1.3220 Dec-DO 132.7 100.6 1.1620 1.2268 Jan-01 136.4 96.1 1.1944 1.1720 Feb-01 136.4 91.6 1.1944 1.1171 Mar-01 136.5 83.1 1.1953 1.0134 Apr-01 135.1 86.2 1.1830 1.0512 May-01 136.2 94.2 1.1926 1.1488 Jun-01 148.4 90.2 1.2995 1.1000 Jul-01 .149.5 81.3 1.3091 0.9915 Aug-01 148.9 83.2 1.3039 1.0146 Sep-01 148.2 93 1.2977 1.1341 Oct-01 143.8 76.8 1.2592 0.9366 Page 4 of 8 Energy Escalation Factor (E) forPWR (Diablo Canyon) 0.9866 0.9559 0.9241 0.9124 0.8909 0.8991 0.9123 0.9167 0.9151 0.9120 0.9340 0.9051 0.8847 0.8417 0.8499 0.8330 0.8566 0.9048 0.9165 0.9337 0.9807 1.0027 1.0273 0.9932 1.0127 1.0159 1.0297 1.0937 1.1029 1.0696 1.0777 1.1200 1.1461 1.1670 1.2638 1.2373 1.2200 1.1892 1.1850 1.1619 1.1189 1.1277 1.1742 1.2157 1.1757 1.1824 1.2290 1.1237 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of E Component Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.3 Using Regional Indices Series ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 02/21/2017) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 02/21/2017)
REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100) (1982 = 100) (1986=100)
(1986 = 100} (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils Nov-01 137.3 70.5 1.2023 0.8598 Dec-01 136.9 56.6 1.1988 0.6902 Jan-02 136.3 58.3 1.1935 0.7110 Feb-02 135.4 59.6 1.1856 0.7268 Mar-02 135.7 69.1 1.1883 0.8427 Apr-02 135.4 76.4 1.1856 0.9317 May-02 137.9 75 1.2075 0.9146 Jun-02 143.6 71.4 1.2574 0.8707 Jul-02 144.9 75.5 1.2688 0.9207 Aug-02 145.0 77.9 1.2697 0.9500 Sep-02 145.8 89.5 1.2767 1.0915 Oct-02 140.0 95.1 1.2259 1.1598 Nov-02 139.5 82.8 1.2215 1.0098 Dec-02 139.6 84.6 1.2224 1.0317 Jan-03 140.3 95.7 1.2285 1.1671 Feb-03 140.6 120.4 1.2312 1.4683 Mar-03 143.3 128.9 1.2548 1.5720 Apr-03 144.3 98.3 1.2636 1.1988 May-03 145.1 85.5 1.2706 1.0427 Jun-03 148.3 87.2 1.2986 1.0634 Jul-03 151.6 90.1 1.3275 1.0988 Aug-03 151.3 94.1 1.3249 1.1476 Sep-03 152.0 88.2 1.3310 1.0756 Oct-03 147.4 97.8 1.2907 1.1927 Nov-03 142.7 93.0 1.2496 1.1341 Dec-03 142.9 95.8 1.2513 . 1.1683 Jan-04 143.1 106.8 1.2531 1.3024 Feb-04 143.1 100.8 1.2531 1.2293 Mar-04 143.1 107.8 1.2531 1.3146 Apr-04 143.1 115.2 1.2531 1.4049 May-04 144.2 116 1.2627 1.4146 Jun-04 152.4 111.5 1.3345 1.3598 Jul-04 152.2 119.3 1.3327 1.4549 Aug-04 154.0 131.1 1.3485 1.5988 Sep-04 154.0 136.8 1.3485 1.6683 Oct-04 145.8 161.7 1.2767 1.9720 Nov-04 144.9 153.6 1.2688 1.8732 Dec-04 146.2 133.8 1.2802 1.6317 Jan-05 148.9 138.5 1.3039 1.6890 Feb-05 148.0 146 1.2960 1.7805 Mar-05 148.1 169.4 1.2968 2.0659 Apr-05 148.7 170.9 1.3021 2.0841 May-05 151.1 165.3 1.3231 2.0159 Jun-05 159.7 180.6 1.3984 2.2024 Jul-05 162.1 186.2 1.4194 2.2707 Aug-05 162.5 194.5 1.4229 2.3720 Sep-05. 162.8 209.9 1.4256 2.5598 Oct-05 159.5 252.0 1.3967 3.0732 Page 5 of 8 Energy Escalation Factor (E) forPWR (Diablo Canyon) 1.0584 0.9852 0.9909 0.9929 1.0431 1.0790 1.0845 1.0950 1.1226 1.1354 1.1989 1.1981 1.1326 1.1423 1.2027 1.3308 1.3880 1.2364 1.1749 1.1998 1.2314 1.2504 1.2237 1.2495 1.2011 1.2164 1.27.38 1.2431 1.2789 1.3168 1.3265 1.3451 1.3840 1.4536 1.4828 1.5687 1.5227 1.4278 1.4656 1.4995 1.6198 1.6306 1.6141 1.7361 1.7770 1.8215 1.9019 2.1008 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of E Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of E Component Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.3 Using Regional Indices Series ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 02/21/2017) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 02/21/2017)
REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982.= 100) (1982 = 100) (1966=100)
(1966 = 100) (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils Nov-09 166.0 207.6 1.6287 2.5341 Dec-09 186.0 197.5 1.6287 2.4085 Jan-10 186.3 220.7 1.6313 2.6915 Feb-10 186.1 200.2 1.6296 2.4415 Mar-10 169.0 217.0 1.6550 2.6463 Apr-10 188.6 231.5 1.6532 2.6232 May-10 192.0 226.0 1.6813 2.7561 Jun-1 o 197.6 212.4 1.7320 2.5902 Jul-10 199.8 209.3 1.7496 2.5524 Aug-10 200.8 221.4 1.7563 2.7000 Sep-10 200.0 220.0 1.7513 2.6829 Oct-10 194.6 235.6 1.7040 2.8756 Nov-1 o 190.9 245.3 1.6716 2.9915 Dec-10 191.4 250.0 1.6760 3.0488 Jan-11 193.1 260.4 1.6909 3.1756 Feb-11 194.4 276.8 1.7023 3.4000 Mar-11 195.0 307.5 1.7075 3.7500 Apr-11 194.1 325.1 1.6996 3.9646 May-11 196.9 315.1 1.7242 3.8427 Jun-11 205.7 316.9 1.8012 3.8646 Jul-11 215.3 311.5 1.8653 3.7986 Aug-11 216.6 296.9 1.8967 3.6207 Sep-11 215.6 306.5 1.8897 3.7376 Oct-11 206.6 299.6 1.8091 3.6537 Nov-11 204.0 322.7 1.7663 3.9354 Dec-11 204.4 301.0 1.7698 3.6707 Jan-12 201.1 308.6 1.7609 3.7659 Feb-12 200.3 316.5 1.7539 3.8598 Mar-12 199.8 330.8 1.7496 4.0341 Apr-12 198.1 327.1 1.7347 3.9890 May-12 201.5 315.6 1.7644 3.6488 Jun-12 207.7 284.6 1.6187 3.4707 Jul-12 221.5 267.9 1.9396 3.5110 Aug-12 222.1 313.4 1.9448 3.8220 Sep-12 222.8 330.4 1.9510 4.0293 Oct-12 214.1 334.1 1.8748 4.0744 Nov-12 212.3 311.6 1.8590 3.8000 Dec-12 213.8 303.3 1.8722 3.6986 Jan-13 199.2 303.6 1.7443 3.7024 Feb-13 199.4 327.7 1.7461 3.9963 Mar-13 199.0 308.7 1.7426 3.7646 Apr-13 198.6 303.9 1.7408 3.7061 May-13 203.5 296.4 1.7820 3.6146 Jun-13 211.9 294.9 1.8555 3.5963 Jul-13 211.4 300.4 1.8511 3.6634 Aug-13 210.4 307.4 1.8424 3.7488 Sep-13 210.3 315.3 1.8415 3.8451 Oct-13 201.2 306.6 1.7618 3.7415 Page 7 of 8 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for PWR "(Diablo Canyon) 2.0090 1.9562 2.0766 1.9706 2.0714 2.1446 2.1327 2.0925 2.0868 2.1538 2.1426 2.1961 2.2260 2.2526 2.3145 2.4153 2.5654 2.6509 2.6139 2.6679 2.6890 2.6208 2.6659 2.5838 2.6889 2.5798 2.6030 2.6384 2.7091 2.6615 2.6399 2.5126 2.5996 2.7332 2.6239 2.7966 2.6742 2.6393 2.5667 2.6912 2.5916 2.5662 2.5517 2.5867 2.6123 2.6431 2.6830 2.5933 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of E Component Calculation of Energy Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.3 Using Regional Indices Series ID: WPU0573 Light Fuel Oils (as of 02/21/2017) and WPU0543 Industrial Electric Power (as of 02/21/2017)
REBASED TO 1986 = 100 PPI for Fuels & PPI for Light PPI for Fuels & PP! for Light Related Products Fuel Oils Related Products Fuel Oils (1982 = 100) (1982 = 100) (1986 = 100) (1986 = 100) (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils (P) = Industrial Energy Power (F) = Light Fuel Oils Nov-13 199.0 295.3 1.7426 3.6012 Dec-13 200.5 302.9 1.7557 3.6939 Jan-14 215.1 297.5 1.8835 3.6280 Feb-14 214.4 309.1 1.8774 3.7695 Mar-14 214.8 306.5 1.8809 3.7378 Apr-14 210.8 306.7 1.8459 3.7402 May-14 215.2 304.4 1.8844 3.7122 Jun-14 224.0 296.5 1.9615 3.6159
- Jul-14 227.5 295.3 1.9921 3.6012 Aug-14 227.7 293.9 1.9939 3.5841 Sep-14 225.1 291.0 1.9711 3.5488 Oct-14 217.0 271.4 1.9002 3.3098 Nov-14 210.7 260.9 1.8450 3.1817 Dec-14 213.9 218.9 1.8730 2.6695 Jan-15 222.4 173.6 1.9475 2.1171 Feb-15 221.1 184.3 1.9361 2.2476 Mar-15 218.2 185.7 1.9107 2.2646 Apr-15 213.3. 178.2 1.8678 2.1732 May-15 217.0 196.6 1.9002 2.3976 Jun-15 237.2 193.4 2.0771 2.3585 Jul-15 237.3 187.0 2.0779 2.2805 Aug-15 236.8 180.4 2.0736 2.2000 Sep-15 234.2 163.1 2.0508 1.9890 Oct-15 218.2 165.3 1.9107 2.0159 Nov-15 213.4 159.7 1.8687 1.9476 Dec-15 214.8 131.1 1.8809 1.5988 Jan-16 205.3 114.4 1.7977 1.3951 Feb-16 204.3 107.7 1.7890 1.3134 \ Mar-16 204.5 113.8 1.7907 1.3878 Apr-16 202.4 116.8 1.7723 1.4244 May-16 206.3 137.8 1.8065 1.6805 Jun-16 220.4 149.4 1.9299 1.8220 Jul-16 226.2 152.2 1.9807 .. 1.8561 Aug-16 227.3 143.5 1.9904 1.7500 Sep-16 228.1 155.5 1.9974 1.8963 Oct-16 216.2 152.8 1.8932 1.8634 Nov-16 210.7 151.6 1.8450 1.8488 Dec-16 215.0 152.0 1.8827 1.8537 Oct 16 through Dec 16 are Preliminary Values from PPI Indices Based on Base Year 2000 being the indice values Dec 1999, Jan 2017 base will be Dec 2016 Page 8 of 8 Energy Escalation Factor (E) for PWR (Diablo Canyon) 2.5232 2.5697 2.6162 2.6721 2.6608 2.6415 2.6521 2.6563 2.6679 2.6618 2.6337 2.4922 2.4064 2.2076 2.0187 2.0669 2.0593 1.9960 2.1091 2.1953 2.1630 2.1267 2.0248 1.9549 1.9018 1.7624 1.6286 1.5892 1.6215 1.6262 1.7536 1.8846 1.9284 1.8894 1.9549 1.8807 1.8466 1.8705 Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 . Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017)
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 Jan-86 Feb-86 Mar-86 90.8 1.01114 Apr-86 May-86 Jun-86 91.2 1.01559 Jul-86 Aug-86 Sep-86 91.6 1.02004 Oct-86 Nov-86 Dec-86 92.5 1.03007 Jan-87 Feb-87 Mar-87 92.6 1.03118 Apr-87 May-87 Jun-87 93.7 1.04343 Jul-87 Aug-87 Sep-87 94.1 1.04788 Oct-87 Nov-87 Dec-87 95.4 1.06236 Jan-88 Feb-88 Mar-88 96.3 1.07238 Apr-88 May-88 Jun-88 97 ' 1.08018
- Jul-88 Aug-88 Sep-88 97.7 1.08797 Oct-88 Nov-88 Dec-88 98.8 1.10022 Jan-89 Feb-89 Mar-89 100 1.11359 Apr-89 Page1of10 Development of L Component . Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022
- Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017)
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 May-89 Jun-89 101 1.12472 Jul-89 Aug-89 Sep-89 101.8 1.13363 Oct-89 Nov-89 Dec-89 103.3 1.15033 Jan-90 Feb-90 Mar-90 104.5 1.16370 Apr-90 May-90 Jun-90 105.6 1.17595 Jul-90 Aug-90 Sep-90 106.3 1.18374 Oct-90 Nov-90 Dec-90 107.5 1.19710 Jan-91 Feb-91 Mar-91 108.9 1.21269 Apr-91 May-91 Jun-91 110 1.22494 Jul-91 Aug-91 Sep-91 110.9 1.23497 Oct-91 Nov-91 Dec-91 111.9 1.24610 Jan-92 Feb-92 Mar-92 112.9 1.25724 Apr-92 May-92 Jun-92 114.1 1.27060 Jul-92 Aug-92 Page 2of10 Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017)
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 Sep-92 114.9 1.27951 Oct-92 Nov-92 Dec-92 116.2 1.29399 Jan-93 Feb-93 Mar-93 116.4 1.29621 Apr-93 May-93 Jun-93 117.8 1.31180 Jul-93 Aug-93 Sep-93 118.1 1.31514 Oct-93 Nov-93 ' Dec-93
- 119.4 1.32962 Jan-94 Feb-94 Mar-94 120.5 1.34187 Apr-94 May-94 Jun-94 121.3 1.35078 Jul-94 Aug-94 Sep-94 121.7 1.35523 Oct-94 Nov-94 Dec-94 122.6 1.36526 Jan-95 Feb-95 Mar-95 123.4 1.37416 Apr-95 May-95 Jun-95 123.9 1.37973 Jul-95 Aug-95 Sep-95 125 1.39198 Oct-95 Nov-95 Dec-95 125.9 1.40200 Page 3of10 Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017)
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NUREG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 Jan-96 Feb-96 Mar-96 127.3 1.41759 Apr-96 May-96 Jun-96 128.3 1.42873 Jul-96 Aug-96 Sep-96 128.9 1.43541 Oct-96 Nov-96 Dec-96 130.3 1.45100 Jan-97 Feb-97 Mar-97 131.4 1.46325 Apr-97 May-97 Jun-97 132.5 1.47550 Jul-97 Aug-97 Sep-97 133.4 1.48552 Oct-97 Nov-97 Dec-97 135.2 1.50557 Jan-98 Feb-98 Mar-98 136.6 1.52116 Apr-98 May-98 Jun-98 138.5 1.54232 Jul-98 Aug-98 Sep-98 140 1.55902 Oct-98 Nov-98 Dec-98 140.3 1.56236 Jan-99 Feb-99 Mar-99 142.1 1.58241 Apr-99 Page 4of10 Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017)
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 May-99 Jun-99 143.3 1.59577 Jul-99 Aug-99 . Sep-99 144.7 1.61136 Oct-99 Nov-99 Dec-99 147 1.63697 Jan-00 Feb-00 Mar-00 148.8 1.65702 Apr-00 May-00 Jun-00 150.8 1.67929 Jul-00 Aug-00 Sep-00 151.8 1.69042 Oct-00 Nov-00 Dec-00 84.1 0.93653 Jan-01 Feb-01 Mar-01 85 0.94655 Apr-01 May-01 Jun-01 85.9 0.95657 Jul-01 Aug-01 Sep-01 86.9 0.96771 Oct-01 Nov-01 Dec-01 87.4 0.97327 Jan-02 Feb-02 Mar-02 88.5 0.98552 Apr-02 May-02 Jun-02 89.1 0.99220 Jul-02 Aug-02 Page 5of10 Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor-Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 -Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of02/21/2017)
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 Sep-02 89.8 1.00000 Oct-02 Nov-02 Dec-02 90.9 1.01225 Jan-03 Feb-03 Mar-03 90.9 1.01225 Apr-03 May-03 Jun-03 92 1.02450 Jul-03 Aug-03 I ,, Sep-03 93.2 1.03786 \ Oct-03 Nov-03 -Dec-03 93.8 1.04454 Jan-04 Feb-04 Mar-04 95.3 1.06125 Apr-04 May-04 Jun-04 \.. 96.2 1.07127 Jul-04 Aug-04 Sep-04 96.9 1.07906 Oct-04 Nov-04 Dec-04 97.4 1.08463 Jan-05 Feb-05 Mar-05 98.4 1.09577 Apr-05 May-05 Jun-05 99.3 1.10579 Jul-05 Aug-05 Sep-05 99.7 1.11024 Oct-05 Nov-05 Dec-05 Note 1 100 2.06000 Page 6of10 Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU2010000000240l (as of02/21/2017)
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 Jan-06 Feb-06 Mar-06 100.6 2.07236 Apr-06 May-06 Jun-06 101.8 2.09708 Jul-06 Aug-06 Sep-06 102.5 2.11150 Oct-06 Nov-06 Dec-06 103 2.12180 Jan-07 Feb-07 Mar-07 104.2 2.14652 Apr-07 May-07 Jun-07 104.9 2.16094 Jul-07
- Aug-07 Sep-07 105.7 2.17742 Oct-07 Nov-07 Dec-07 106.5 2.19390 Jan-08 Feb-08 Mar-08 107.8 2.22068 Apr-08 May-08 Jun-08 108.4 2.23304 Jul-08 Aug-08 Sep-08 109.3 2.25158 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 109.4 2.25364 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 109.9 2.26394 Apr-09 Page 7of10
- Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017)
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307; Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 May-09 Jun-09 110 2.26600 Jul-09 Aug-09 Sep-09 110.3 2.27218 Oct-09 Nov-09 Dec-09 110.6 2.27836 Jan-10 Feb-10 Mar-10. 111.3 2.29278 Apr-10 May-10 Jun-10 111.7 2.30102 Jul-10 Aug-10 Sep-10 112.3 2.31338 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 112.5 2.31750 Jan-11 Feb-11 Mar-11 113.5 2.33810 Apr-11 May-11 Jun-11 114.3 2.35458 Jul-11 Aug-11 Sep-11 114.6 2.36076 Oct-11 Nov-11 Dec-11 115.1 2.37106 Jan-12 Feb-12 Mar-12 115.7 2.38342 Apr-12 May-12 Jun-12 116.3 2.39578 Jul-12 Aug-12 Page 8of10 Development of L Component Enclosure 2 -PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017)
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 Sep-12 116.8 2.40608 Oct-12 Nov-12 Dec-12 116.8 2.40608 Jan-13 Feb-13 Mar-13 117.6 2.42256 Apr-13 May-13 Jun-13 118.5 2.44110 Jul-13 Aug-13 Sep-13 119.2 2.45552 ! Oct-13 Nov-13 Dec-13 119.6 2.46376 Jan-14 Feb-14 Mar-14 120.1 2.47406 Apr-14 May-14 Jun-14 120.9 2.49054 Jul-14 Aug-14 Sep-14 121.9 2.51114 Oct-14 Nov-14 Dec-14 122.5 2.52350 Jan-15 Feb-15 Mar-15 123.1 2.53586 Apr-15 May-15 Jun-15 123.8 2.55028 Jul-15 Aug-15 Sep-15 124.6 2.56676 Oct-15 Nov-15 Dec-15 125.3 2.58118 Page 9of10 _J Development of L Component Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Calculation of Labor Escalation Factor -Reference NUREG-1307, Revision 16, Section 3.2 Using"Regional Indices Series ID: CIU20100000002401 (as of 02/21/2017)
January 1986 adjusted to reflect NU REG 1307, Revision 16, Scaling Factor for West Labor (Page 11) Note 1: The Base Labor factor was re-indexed in December 2005, at which time the index was reset to 100. Employment Cost lndust West Region Labor Private Industry Escalation (1989=100)
Factor Dec-85 89.8 1.00000 Jan-16 Feb-16 Mar-16 126.2 2.59972 Apr-16 May-16 Jun-16 127.2 2.62032 Jul-16 Aug-16 Sep-16 127.9 2.63474 Oct-16 Nov-16 Dec-16 128.6 2.64916 Page 10of10 Development of Burial Escalation Developed from NUREG-1307, Revision 16 Development of B Component
- Enclosure 2 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Table 2.1 "VALUES OF B SUB-X AS A FUNCTION OF LLW BURIAL SITE AND YEAR" (Summary for non-Atlantic Compact) 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Revised to Bx Values for Generic LLW Disposal Site (Assumed to be same as that provided for the Atlantic Compact for lack of a better alternative at this time. PWR PWR Burial Costs Restated to (South Carolina) 1986 = 100 1.678 1.0000 2.007 1.1961 2.494 1.4863 11.408 6.7986 11.873 7.0757 12.824 7'.6424 12.771 7.6108 15.852 9.4470 15.886 9.4672 0.0000 18.129 10.8039 0.0000 18.732 11.1633 19.034 11.3433 21.937 13.0733 22.477 13.3951 23.030 13.7247 23.597 14.0626 25.231 15.0364 26.262 15.6505 27.292 16.2646 28.937 17.2446 30.581 18.2247 30.581 18.2247 30.581 18.2247 30.581 18.2247 30.581 18.2247 30.061 17.9148 Table 2.1 Note (e): Bx values for the generic site are assumed to be the same as that provided for the Atlantic Compact for lack of a better alternative at this time. Note (f): Effective with NUREG-1307, Revision 8 (Reference3) an alternative disposal option was introduced in which the bulk of the LLW is assumed to be dispositioned by waste vendors and/or disposed of at a non-compact disposal facility.
Note (g): Effective with NUREG1307, Revision 15, the nomenclature for the two disposal options, referred to as "Direct Disposal" and "Direct Disposal with Vendors" in previous revisions of NUREG-1307, is changed to "Compact-Affiliated Disposal.
Facility Only" and "Combination of Comapct-Affiliated and Non-Compact Disposal Facilities" to better describe the options. Note (h): 2013 has no information in NUREG-1307 Revision 15. 2013 is an estimate that is calculated by applying the percent change between 2010 and 2012 and adding to the 2012 base. Note (i): 2015 The NRC has issued Regulatory Issue Summary 2014-12, "Decommissioning Fund Status Report Calculations Update to Low-Level Waste Burial Charge Information," to inform licensees that they may use low-level waste burial charge data contained in Revision 15 of NUREG-1307, Report on Waste Burial Charges: Changes in Decommissioning Waste Disposal Costs at Low-Level Waste Burial Facilities, dated January 2013, when preparing their periodic decommissioning fund status report .. Note 0): Effective with NUREG-1307, Revision 15, the nomenclature for the two disposal options, referred to as "Direct Disposal" and "Direct Disposal with Vendors" in previous revisions of NUREG-1307, was changed to "Compact-Affiliated Disposal Facility Only" and "Combination of Compact-Affiliated and Non-Compact Disposal Facilities" to better describe these options. Note (k): As allowed per NUREG-1307, Revision 16, PG&E used a burial/disposition adjustment factor higher than the burial/disposition adjustment factor provided in NUREG-1307, Revision 16, for plants that have no disposal site available within their designated LLW Compact. To avoid significant future shortfalls in funding and potential enforcement actions, PG&E used the burial/disposition adjustment factor for compact-affiliated disposal for the South Carolina Site." Page 1 of 1 Appendix C-1 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 1 Decon Decommissioning Cost Estimate (9 pages) Appendix C-2 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Unit 2 Decon Decommissioning Cost Estimate (9 pages) Enclosure 3 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022
\
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Enclosure 3 Decommissioning Cost Analysis PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page 1 of 9 Table C-1 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Off-Site LLRW Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Other Total Total Contractor PG&E Contractor PG&E Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other PERIOD 1a -Shutdown through Transition Period 1 a Direct Decommissioning Activities 1a.1.1 Prepare preliminary decommissioning cost 245 245 245 263 1a.1.2 Notification of Cessation of Operations a 1a.1.3 Remove fuel & source material n/a 1a.1.4 Notification of Permanent Defueling a 1a.1.5 Deactivate plant systems & process waste a 1a.1.6 Prepare and submit PSDAR 377 377 377 405 1a.1.7 Review plant dwgs & specs. 866 866 866 932 1a.1.8 Perform detailed rad survey a 1a.1.9 Estimate by-product inventory 188 188 188 203 1a.1.10 End product description 188 188 188 203 1a.1.11 Detailed by-product inventory 245 245 245 263 1a.1.12 Define major work sequence 1,412 1,412 1,412 1,520 1a.1.13 Perform SER and EA 584 584 584 628 1a.1.14 Perform Site-Specific Cost Study 942 942 942 1,013 1a.1.15 Prepare/submit License Termination Plan 771 771 771 830 1a.1.16 Receive NRG approval of termination plan a Activity Specifications 1a.1.17.1 Plant & temporary facilities 927 927 927 997 1a.1.17.2 Plant systems 785 785 785 845 1a.1.17.3 NSSS Decontamination Flush 94 94 94 101 1a.1.17.4 Reactor internals 1,337 1,337 1,337 1,439 1a.1.17.5 Reactor vessel 1,224 1,224 1,224 1,317 1a.1.17.6 Biological shield 94 94 94 101 1a.1.17.7 Steam generators 588 588 588 632 1a.1.17.8 Reinforced concrete 301 301 301 324 1a.1.17.9 Main Turbine 75 75 75 81 1 a.1.17.10 Main Condensers 75 75 75 81 1a.1.17.11 Plant structures
& buildings 588 588 588 632 1a.1.17.12 Waste management 866 866 866 932 1a.1.17.13 Facility&sitecloseout 169 169 169 182 1a.1.17 Total 7,124 7,124 Planning & Site Preparations 1a.1.18 Prepare dismantling sequence 452 452 452 486 1a.1.19 Plant prep. & temp. svces 3,644 3,644 3,280 364 o 3,530 380 o 1a.1.20 Design water clean-up system 264 264 264 284 1a.1.21 Rigging/Cont.
Cntrl Envlps/tooling/etc.
2,794 2,794 2,514 279 2,706 292 1a.1.22 Procure casks/liners
& containers 232 232 232 249 1a.1 Subtotal Period 1 a Activity Costs . 20,328 20,328 Period 1 a Additional Costs 1a.2.1 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 26,314 26,314 19,735 6,578 21,240 6,865 1a.2.2 Disposal of Contaminated Tools & Equipment 250 125 3,849 4,225 23 227 3,849 125 25 237 4,456 131 1a.2 Subtotal Period 1 a Additional Costs 250 125 3,849 26,314 30,538 Period 1 a Collateral Costs 1a.3.1 Environmental Permits and Fees 1,153 1,153 1,153 1,207 1a.3.2 GTCC Storage Permitting (PG&E Labor) 3,996 3,996 3,996 4,351 1a.3.3 GTCC Storage Permitting (Contractor) 619 619 619 667 1a.3 Subtotal Period 1 a Collateral Costs 5,769 5,769 "Period 1 a Period-Dependent Costs 1a.4.1 Insurance 1,294 1,294 1,294 1,355 1a.4.2 Property taxes 203 203 203 212 1a.4.3 Health physics supplies 714 714 714 745 1 a.4.4 Heavy equipment rental 689 689 689 719 1a.4.5 Disposal of DAW g!'!nerated 16 5 22 43 14 22 5 .2 15 26 5 1a.4.6 Plant energy budget 3,324 3,324 3,324 3,480 1a.4.7 NRG Fees 1,350 1,350 1,350 1,413 1a.4.8 Emergency Planning Fees 1,145 1,145 1,145 1,198 1a.4.9 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 963 963 963 1,008 1a.4.10 ISFSI Operating Costs 664 664 664 695 1a.4.11 Severance Related Costs 50,701 50,701 50,701 55,204 1a.4.12 Security Staff Cost 27,673 27,673 27,673 30,131 1a.4.13 Utility Staff Cost 45,392 45,392 45,392 49,423 1a.4 Subtotal Period 1 a Period-Dependent Costs 1,402 16 5 22 132,709 134,153 1a.O TOTAL PERIOD 1a COST 1,402 266 130 3,871 185,118 190,788 TLG Services, Inc. I J Diablo Canyon Power Plant Enclosure 3 Decommissioning Cost Analysis PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page 2 of 9 Table C-1 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Off-Site LLRW Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Contractor PG&E Contractor PG&E Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other PERIOD 1 b -Decommissioning Preparations Period 1 b Decommissioning Activities Detailed Work Procedures 1b.1.1.1 Plant systems 891 891 891 959 1b.1.1.2 NSSS Decontamination Flush 188 188 188 203 1b.1.1.3 Reactor internals 471 471 471 507 1b.1.1.4 Remaining buildings 254 254 254 274 1b.1.1.5 CRD cooling assembly 188 188 188 203 1b.1.1.6 CRD housings & ICI tubes 188 188 188 203 1b.1.1.7 lncore instrumentation 188 188 188 203 1b.1.1.8 Reactor vessel 684 684 684 736 1b.1.1.9 Facility closeout 226 226 226 243 1b.1.1.10 Missile shields 85 85 85 91 1b.1.1.11 Biological shield 226 226 226 243 1b.1.1.12 Steam generators 866 866 866 932 1b.1.1.13 Reinforced concrete 188 188 188 203 1b.1.1.14 Main Turbine 294 294 294 316 1b.1.1.15 Main Condensers 294 294 294 316 1b.1.1.16 Auxiliary building 514 514 514 553 1b.1.1.17 Re.actor building 514 514 514 553 1b.1.1 Total 6,261 6,261 1b.1.2 Decon primary loop 1,367 1,367 250 1,118 269 1,166 1b.1 Subtotal Period 1 b Activity Costs 1,367 6,261 7,628 Period 1 b Additional Costs 1b.2.1 Site Characterization 7,481 7,481 4,645 2,837 0 4,999 2,960 0 1b.2.2 Hazardous Waste Management 264 264 264 276 1b.2.3 Mixed Waste Management 349 349 349 365 1b.2 Subtotal Period 1 b Additional Costs 8,093 8,093 Period 1 b Collateral Costs 1b.3.1 Decon equipment*
1,144 1,144 1,144 1,194 1b.3.2 DOC staff relocation expenses 1,780 1,780 1,780 1,916 1b.3.3 Process decommissioning water waste 79 37 66 205 386 4 112 205 66 4 117 237 69 1b.3.4 Process decommissioning chemical flush waste 4 108 305 7,852 8,269 12 100 7,852 305 13 104 9,090 319 1b.3.5 Small tool allowance 3 3 3 3 1b.3.6 Pipe cutting equipment 1,336 1,336 1,336 1,394 1b.3.7 Decon rig 1,943 1,943 1,943 2,028 1b.3.8 Environmental Permits and Fees 572 572 572 599 1b.3.9 GTCC Storage Permitting (PG&E Labor) 269 269 269 293 1b.3.10 GTCC Storage Permitting (Contractor) 623 623 623 671 1b.3 Subtotal Period 1 b Collateral Costs 3,170 1,339 145 370 8,057 3,244 16,326 Period 1 b Period-Dependent Costs 1b.4.1 Decon supplies 39 39 39 40 1b.4.2 Insurance 642 642 642 672 1b.4.3 Property taxes 101 101 101 105 1b.4.4 Health physics supplies 396 396 396 414 1b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 341 341 341 356 1b.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 9 3 13 25 8 13 3 9 15 3 1b.4.7 Plant energy budget 3,297 3,297 3,297 3,451 1b.4.8 NRG Fees 391 391 391 410 1 b.4.9 Emergency Planning Fees 568 568 568 594 1b.4.10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 477 477 477 500 1b.4.11 ISFSI Operating Costs 329 329 329 345 1b.4.12 Severance Related Costs 2,981 2,981 2,981 3,246 1b.4.13 Security Staff Cost 12,839 12,839 12,839 13,979 1b.4.14 DOC Staff Cost 8,558 8,558 8,558 9,210 1b.4.15 Utility Staff Cost 22,638 22,638 22,638 24,649 1 b.4 Subtotal Period 1 b Period-Dependent Costs 39 738 9 3 13 52,821 53,622 1b.O TOTAL PERIOD 1b COST 4,576 2,077 -154 373 8,070 70,419 85,670 PERIOD 1 TOTALS 4,576 3,479 420 503 11,942 255,537 276,458 PERIOD 2a -Large Component Removal Period 2a Direct Decommissioning Activities Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 2a.1.1.1 Reactor Coolant Piping 670 491 55 46 1,604 2,865 1,122 93 1,604 46 1,208 97 1,856 48 2a.1.1.2 Pressurizer Quench Tank 71 50 8 7 225 362 121 9 225 7 130 9 261 7 TLG Services, Inc. ----------
Diabla: Canyon Power Plant Enclosure 3 Decommissioning Cost Analysis PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1 ,"Page 3 of 9 Table C-1 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Off-Site LLRW Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Contractor PG&E Contractor PG&E Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other 2a.1.1.3 Reactor Coolant Pumps & Motors 263 178 182 258 1,943 2,823 491 131 1,943 258 529 137 2,249 270 2a.1.1.4 Pressurizer
' 91 100 605 159 1,010 1,966 247 550 1,010 159 265 574 1,169 167 2a.1.1.5 Steam Generators 863 4,521 3,702 2,471 17,238 28,795 3,136 5,951 17,238 2,471 3,375 6,211 19,955 2,586 2a.1.1.6 Retired Steam Generator Units 2,627 2,407 17,238 22,272 1,085 1,542 17,238 2,407 1,168 1,609 19,955 2,520 2a.1.1.7 CRDMs/ICls/Service Structure Removal 355 516 281 43 897 2,092 870 282 897 43 937 295 1,038 45 2a.1.1.8 Reactor Vessel Internals 369 15,437 13,707 2,721 50,684 434 83,352 8,260 21,687 50,684 2,721 8,889 22,633 58,674 2,848 2a.1.1.9 Reactor Vessel 276 11,685 3,847 1,165 5,952 434 23,358 8,166 8,076 5,952 1,165 8,789 8,428 6,890 1,219 2a.1.1 Totals 2,958 32,979 25,015. 9,276 96,789 867 167,885 Removal of Major Equipment 2a.1.2 Main Turbine/Generator 257 257 255 2 275 2 2a.1.3 Main Condensers 846 846 815 31 877 32 Cascading Costs from Clean Building Demolition 2a.1.4.1 *Reactor 1,533 1,533 991 542 , 1,067 566 2a.1.4.2 Containment Penetration Area 95 95 59 35 64 37 2a.1.4.3 Fuel Handling 249 249 147 102 158 107 2a.1.4 Totals 1,877 1,877 Disposal of Plant ,Systems 2a.1.5.1 Auxiliary Steam 187 187 181 6 195 6 2a.1.5.2 Auxiliary Steam (RCA) 377 47 19 690 1,133 332 92 690 19 357 96 798 20 2a.1.5.3 Condensate System 860 860 835 25 899 27 2a. 1.5.4 Condensate System (Insulated) 356 356 349 7 376 8 2a.1.5.5 Containment Spray 343 138 57 2,044 2,583 327 154 2,044 57 352 161 2,366 60 2a.1.5.6 Extraction Steam & Heater Drip 332 332 322 10 347 11 2a.1.5.7 Feedwater System 58 58 57 1 61 1 2a.1.5.8 Feedwater System (Insulated) 213 213 207 6 223 6 2a.1.5.9 Feedwater System (RCA Insulated) 174 39 16 570 798 161 51 570 16 174 53 660 17 2a.1.5.10 Feedwater System (RCA) 8 2 1 30 41 8 3 30 1 8 3 35 1 2a.1.5.11 Lube Oil Distribution
& Purification 146 146 141 5 151 6 2a.1.5.12 Nitrogen & Hydrogen 25 25 24 1 26 1 2a.1.5.13 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (Insulated) 1 1 1 0 1 0 2a.1.5.14 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (RCA Insulated) 8 0 0 6 14 7 1 6 0 8 1 7 0 2a.1.5.15 Nitrogen & Hydrogen (RCA) 151 7 3 110 271 133 26 110 3 143 27 127 3 2a.1.5.16 Oily Water Separator
& TB Sump 51 12 5 180 247 44 19 180 5 47 20 208 5 2a.1.5.17 Saltwater System 241 241 239 2 257 2 2a.1.5.18 Turbine Steam Supply 960 960 935 25 1,006 26 2a.1.5.19 Turbine Steam Supply (RCA) 1,183 291 121 4,293 5,888 1,096 378 4,293 121 1,179 394 4,970 126 2a.1.5.20 Turbine and Generator 102 102 100 2 107 2 2a.1.5.21 Turbine and Generator
{Insulated) 34 34 32 1 35 1 2a.1.5 Totals 5,811 536 223 7,922 14,491 2a.1.6 Scaffolding in support of decommissioning 3,063 17 5 34 3,119 1,473 1,607 34 5 1,585 1,677 40 5 2a.1 Subtotal Period 2a Activity Costs 2,958 44,833 25,568 9,504 104,746 867 188,476 Period 2a Additional Costs 2a.2.1 Remedial Action Surveys 8,400 8,400 8,400 8,794 2a.2.2 Retired Reactor Head 301 98 2,057 2,456 164 137 2,057 98 176 143 2,381 103 2a.2.3 PG&E RPV Staff Support Team 7,407 7,407 5,239 2,168 5,639 2,360 2a.2.4 DOC RPV Staff Support Team 7,136 7,136 7,136 7,681 2a.2 Subtotal Period 2a Additional Costs 301 98 2,057 22,943 25,399 Period 2a Collateral Costs 2a.3.1 Process decommissioning water waste 118 57 102 319 597 6 170 319 102 7 177 369 107 2a.3.2 Process decommissioning chemical flush waste 2a.3.3 Small tool allowance 362 362 362 378 2a.3.4 Environmental Permits and Fees 3,940 3,940 3,940 4,124 2a.3.5 GTCC Storage Permitting (PG&E Labor) 2,800 2,800 2,800 3,048 2a.3.6 GTCC Storage Permitting (Contractor) 3,133 3,133 3,133 3,372 2a.3 Subtotal Period 2a Collateral Costs 118 362 57 102 319 9,872 10,831 Period 2a Period-Dependent Costs 2a.4.1 Decon supplies 267 267 267 278 2a.4.2 Insurance 1,988 1,988 1,988 2,082 2a.4.3 Property taxes 693 693 693 726 2a.4.4 Health physics supplies 4,792 4,792 4,792 5,001 2a.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 9,041 9,041 9,041 9,435 2a.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 143 43 204 390 13 130 204 43 14 136 236 45 2a.4.7 Plant energy budget 10,789 10,789 10,789 11,294 2a.4.8 NRC Fees 2,445 2,445 2,445 2,560 2a.4.9 Emergency Planning Fees 2,792 2,792 2,792 2,923 2a.4.10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 3,288 3,288 3,288 3,443 2a.4.11 ISFSI Operating Costs 2,269 2,269 2,269 2,375 TLG SeNices, Inc.
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Enclosure 3 Decommissioning Cost Analysis PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page 4 of 9 Table C-1 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Off-Site LLRW Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Contractor PG&E Contractor PG&E Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other 2a.4.12 Severance Related Costs 11,089 11,089 11,089 12,074 2a.4.13 Spent Fuel Storage Canisters/Overpacks 2,263 2,263 2,263 2,369 2a.4.14 Security Staff Cost 80,898 80,898 80,898 88,082 2a.4.15 DOC Staff Cost 94,381 94,381 94,381 101,576 2a.4.16 Utility Staff Cost 140,745 140,745 140,745 153,244 2a.4 Subtotal Period 2a Period-Dependent Costs. 267 13,833 143 43 204 353,641 368,131 2a.O TOTAL PERIOD 2a COST 3,343 59,029 26,070 9,747 107,325 387,324 592,838 PERIOD 2b -Site Decontamination Period 2b Direct Decommissioning Activities Disposal of Plant Systems 2b.1.1.1 Capital Additions 85-2002 (clean) 230 230 225 6 242 6 2b.1.1.2 Capital Additions 85-2002 (contaminated) 665 43 19 671 1,398 621 88 671 19 669 91 776 20 2b.1.1.3 Chemical & Volume Control 1,576 1,708 169 74 2,617 6,143 2,857 595 2,617 74 3,075 621 3,029 77 2b.1.1.4 Chemical & Volume Control (Insulated) 579 637 30 13 464 1,723 1,093 154 464 13 1,176 160 537 14 2b.1.1.5 Component Cooling Water 248 248 241 7 259 7 2b.1.1.6 Component Cooling Water (RCA) 844 170 71 2,514 3,599 763 252 2,514 71 821 263 2,910 74 2b.1.1.7 Compressed Air 220 220 214 6 230 6 2b.1.1.8 Compressed Air (Insulated) 8 8 8 0 8 0 2b.1.1.9 Compressed Air (RCA Insulated) 40 2 1 30 73 35 6 30 1 38 7 35 1 2b.1.1.10 Compressed Air (RCA) 731 39 16 572 1,358 649 121 572 16 698 126 662 17 2b.1.1.11 Diesel Engine-Generator 227 227 222 6 238 6 2b.1.1.12 Diesel Engine-Generator (Insulated) 14 14 14 1 15 1 2b.1.1.13 Electrical (Clean) 2,705 2,705 2,638 67 2,839 70 2b.1.1.14 Electrical (Contaminated) 863 99 43 1,526 2,531 813 150 1,526 43 875 156 1,766 45 2b.1.1.15 Electrical (Decontaminated) 4,228 4,228 4,178 50 4,496 52 2b.1.1.16 Fire Protection 538 141 61 2,182 2,922 506 174 2,182 61 544 181 2,526 64 2b.1.1.17 Gaseous Radwaste 121 6 3 98 228 104 23 98 3 112 24 114 3 2b.1.1.18 HVAC (Clean Insulated) 35 35 35 0 38 0 2b.1.1.19 HVAC (Clean) 463 463 461 2 496 2 2b.1.1.20 HVAC (Contaminated Insulated) 435 56 25 873 1,389 374 117 873 25 403 123 1,011 26 2b.1.1.21 HVAC (Contaminated) 1,934 282 123 4,364 6,703 1,691 525 4,364 123 1,820 548 5,051 128 2b.1.1.22 Liquid Radwaste 1,046 1,088 94 41 1,456 3,725 1,961 267 1,456 41 2,110 279 1,685 43 2b.1.1.23 Liquid Radwaste (Insulated) 123 118 6 3 91 340 216 31 91 3 232 32 105 3 2b.1.1.24 Make-up Water 457 457 442 15 476 16 2b.1.1.25 Make-up Water (Insulated) 41 41 40 2 43 2 2b.1.1.26 Make-up Water (RCA Insulated) 60 5 2 79 148 53 13 79 2 57 13 92 2 2b.1.1.27 Make-up Water (RCA) 322 30 13 450 815 279 73 450 13 301 76 521 13 2b.1.1.28 Miscellaneous Reactor Coolant 37 191 10 4 151 393 204 34 151 4 220 35 175 4 2b.1.1.29 Nuclear Steam Supply Sampling 256 11 5 164 436 251 15 164 5 271 16 190 5 2b.1.1.30 Nuclear Steam Supply Sampling (Insulated 78 1 1 21 100 76 3 21 1 82 3 24 1 2b.1.1.31 Residual Heat Removal 579 467 141 61 2,176 3,424 579 607 2,176 61 623 634 2,519 64 2b.1.1.32 Safety Injection 179 18 8 285 491 171 26 285 8 184 27 330 8 2b.1.1.33 Safety Injection (Insulated) 9 1 0 11 21 8 2 11 0 9 2 13 0 2b.1.1.34 Safety Injection (RCA Insulated) 57 7 3 102 169 50 14 102 3 54 14 118 3 2b.1.1.35 Safetilnjection (RCA) 478 62 26 919 1,485 418 122 919 26 450 127 1,064 27 2b.1.1.36 Service Cooling Water 149 149 144 5 155 5 2b.1.1.37 Service Cooling Water (RCA) 41 5 2 75 123 36 10 75 2 39 10 87 2 2b.1.1 Totals 3,941 20,885 1,430 615 21,891 48,763 2b.1.2 Scaffolding in support of decommissioning 3,829 . 21 6 43 3,899 1,841 2,009 43 6 1,981 2,097 50 7 Decontamination of Site Buildings 2b.1.3.1 *Reactor 1,687 3,581 1,294 6,445 34,468 47,475 4,393 2,169 34,468 6,445 4,727 2,263 39,901 6,748 2b.1.3.2 Capital Additions 85-2004 58 40 8 3 115 224 92 14 115 3 99 15 133 3 2b.1.3.3 Containment Penetration Area 575 306 28 32 445 1,386 787 122 445 32 847 127 516 34 2b.1.3 Totals 2,319 3,927 1,330 6,481 35,029 49,085 2b.1 Subtotal Period 2b Activity Costs 6,260 28,641 2,781 7,103 56,963 101,748 Period 2b Additional Costs 2b.2.1 Remedial Action Surveys 1,441 1,441 1,441 1,509 2b.2 Subtotal Period 2b Additional Costs 1,441 1,441 Period 2b Collateral Costs 2b.3.1 Process decommissioning water waste 229 112 199 621 1,160 12 329 621 . 199 13 343 718 208 2b.3.2 Process decommissioning chemical flush waste 6 177 501 1,824 2,509 19 164 1,824 501 21 171 2,112 525 2b.3.3 Small tool allowance 486 486 486 507 2b.3.4 Environmental Pe_rmits and Fees 676 676 676 708 2b.3 Subtotal Period 2b Collateral Costs 235 486 289 700 2,445 676 4,831 Period 2b Period-Dependent Costs TLG Services, Inc. -----------------
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Enclosure 3 Decommissioning Cost Analysis PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page 5 of 9 Table C-1 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Off-Site LLRW Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Contractor PG&E Contractor PG&E Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other 2b.4.1 Decon supplies 953 953 953 995 2b.4.2 Insurance 341 341 341 357 2b.4.3 Property taxes 119 119 119 125 2b.4.4 Health P,hysics supplies 2,605 2,605 2,605 2,719 2b.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 1,536 1,536 1,536 1,603 2b.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 80 24 113 217 7 73 113 24 8 76 131 25 2b.4.7 Plant energy budget 1,462 1,462 1,462 1,530 2b.4.8 NRC Fees 420 420 420 439 2b.4.9 Emergency Planning Fees 479 479 479 502 2b.4.10 Spent Fuel Pool O&M 564 564 564 591 2b.4.11 Liquid Radwaste Processing Equipment/Services 134 134 134 140 2b.4.12 ISFSI Operating Costs 389 389 389 408 2b.4.13 Severance Related Costs 10,905 10,905 10,905 11,873 2b.4.14 Spent Fuel Storage Canisters/Overpacks 774 774 774 810 2b.4.15 Security Staff Cost 13,478 13,478 13,478 14,674 2b.4.16 DOC Staff Cost 8,392 8,392 8,392 9,032 2b.4.17 Utility Staff Cost 13,058 13,058 13,058 14,218 2b.4 Subtotal Period 2b Period-Dependent Costs 953 4,141 80 24 113 50,514 55,825 2b.O TOTAL PERIOD 2b COST 7,448 33,267 3,150 7,827 59,521 52,632 163,846 PERIOD 2c -Spent fuel delay prior to SFP decon Period 2c Direct Decommissioning Activities 2c.1 Subtotal Period 2c Activity Costs Period 2c Additional Costs No additional costs in this period 2c.2 Subtotal Period 2c Additional Costs Period 2c Collateral Costs 2c.3.1 Spent Fuel Transfer-Pool to ISFSI 49,231 49,231 12,308 36,923 (0) 13,246 38,534 (0) 2c.3.2 Environmental Permits and Fees 5,197 5,197 5,197 5,441 2c.3 Subtotal Period 2c Collateral Costs 54,428 54,428 Period 2c Period-Dependent Costs 2c.4.1 Insurance 2,623 2,623 2,623 2,746 2c.4.2 Property taxes 914 914 914 957 2c.4.3 Health physics supplies 1,166 1,166 1,166 1,217 2c.4.4 Disposal of DAW generated 45 13 63 121 4 40 63 13 4 42 73 14 2c.4.5 Plant energy budget 11,236 11,236 11,236 11,763 2c.4.6 NRC Fees 2,812 2,812 2,812 2,944 2c.4.7 Emergency Planning Fees 3,684 3,684 3,684 3,856 2c.4.8 Liquid Radwaste Processing Equipment/Services 1,027 1,027 1,027 1,076 2C.4.9 ISFSI Operating Costs 2,993 2,993 2,993 3,134 2c.4.10 Spent Fuel Storage Canisters/Overpacks 57,473 57,473 57,473 60,168 2c.4.11 Security Staff Cost 103,273 103,273 103,273 112,444 2c.4.12 Utility Staff Cost 16,468 16,468 16,468 17,931 2c.4 Subtotal Period 2c Period-Dependent Costs 1,166 45 13 63 202,504 203,791 2c.O TOTAL PERIOD 2c COST 1,166 45 13 63 256,932 258,219 PERIOD 2d -Decontamination Following Wet Fuel Storage Period 2d Direct Decommissioning Activities 2d.1.1 Remove spent fuel racks 1,032 80 186 41 1,447 2,786 1,050 248 1,447 41 1,130 259 1,675 43 Disposal of Plant Systems 2d.1.2.1 Electrical (Contaminated)
-FHB 251 15 7 233 505 234 32 233 7 252 34 269 7 2d.1.2.2 Electrical (Decontaminated)
-FHB 1,561 144 60 2,130 3,895 1,413 292 2,130 60 1,521 305 2,466 63 2d.1.2.3 Fire Protection (RCA) 340 31 13 465 849 296 76 465 13 318 79 538 14 2d.1.2.4 HVAC (Contaminated)
-FHB 460 64 28 997 1,550 400 124 997 28 431 130 1,154 29 2d.1.2.5 Spent Fuel Pit Cooling 130 53 23 817 1,022 126 56 817 23 136 59 946 24 2d.1.2.6 Spent Fuel Pit Cooling -FHB 181 57 25 876 1,138 173 64 876 25 186 67 1,014 26 2d.1.2 Totals 2,922 365 155 5,517 8,959 Decontamination of Site Buildings 2d.1.3.1 Fuel Handling 1,450 1,220 68 47 633 3,418 2,543 195 633 47 2,737 204 733 49 2d.1.3 Totals 1,450 1,220 68 47 633 3,418 2d.1.4 Scaffolding in support of decommissioning 766 4 9 780 368 402 9 396 419 10 2d.1 Subtotal Period 2d Activity Costs 2,482 4,988 623 244 7,606 15,943 Period 2d Additional Costs TLG Services, Inc.
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Enclosure 3 Decommissioning Cost Analysis PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page 6 of 9 Table C-1 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Off-Site LLRW Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Contractor PG&E Contractor PG&E Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other 2d.2.1 License Termination Survey Planning 1,208 1,208 1,012 196 0 1,089 205 0 2d.2.2 Remedial Action Surveys 1,132 1,132 1,132 1,185 2d.2 Subtotal Period 2d Additional Costs 2,340 2,340 Period 2d Collateral Costs 2d.3.1 Process decommissioning water waste 77 40 72 225 414 4 113 225 72 5 118 260 75 2d.3.2 Process decommissioning chemical flush waste 2d.3.3 Small tool allowance 100 100 100 104 2d.3.4 Decommissioning Equipment Disposition 171 63 350 585 16 156 350 63 . 17 163 406 66 2d.3.5 Environmental Permits and Fees 531 531 531 556 2d.3 Subtotal Period 2d Collateral Costs 77 100 212 135 575 531 1,629 Period 2d Period-Dependent Costs 2d.4.1 Decon supplies 287 287 287 300 2d.4.2 Insurance 268 268 268 280 2d.4.3 Property taxes .93 93 93 98 2d.4.4 Health physics supplies 714 714 714 745 2d.4.5 Heavy equipment rental 1,206 1,206 1,206 1,258 2d.4.6 Disposal of DAW generated 34 10 48 92 3 31 48 10 3 32 56 11 2d.4.7 Plant energy budget 612 612 612 641 2d.4.8 NRG Fees 280 280 280 293 2d.4.9 Emergency Planning Fees 188 188 188 197 2d.4.10 Spent Fuel Transfer*
ISFSI to DOE 480 480 480 503 2d.4.11 Liquid Radwaste Processing Equipment/Services 210 210 210 220 2d.4.12 ISFSI Operating Costs 306 306 306 320 2d.4.13 Severance Related Costs 8,329 8,329 8,329 9,068 2d.4.14 Security Staff Cost 1,657 1,657 1,657 1,804 2d.4.15 DOC Staff Cost 4,420 4,420 4.420 4,757 2d.4.16 Utility Staff Cost 6,170 6,170 6,170 6,718 2d.4 Subtotal Period 2d Period-Dependent Costs 287
- 1,920 34 10 48 23,013 25,312 2d.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2d COST 2,846 7,007 869 389 8,229 25,884 45,225 PERIOD 2e
- Delay before License Termination Period 2e Direct Decommissioning Activities
/No direct activities in this period 2e.1 Subtotal Period 2e Activity Costs Period 2e Additional Costs No additional costs in this period 2e.2 Subtotal Period 2e Additional Costs Period 2e. Collateral Costs 2e.3.1 Environmental Permits and Fees 948 948 948 992 2e.3 Subtotal Period 2e Collateral Costs 948 948 Period 2e Period-Dependent Costs 2e.4.1 Insurance 427 427 427 447 2e.4.2 Property taxes 167 167 167 175 2e.4.3 Health physics supplies 105 105 105 110 2e.4.4 Disposal of DAW generated 2 3 6 0 2 3 0 2 3 2e.4.5 Plant energy budget 2e.4.6 NRG Fees *, 238 238 238 250 2e.4.7 Emergency Planning Fees 336 336 336 352 2e.4.8 Spent Fuel Transfer*
ISFSI to DOE 1,333 1,333 1,333 1,396 2e.4.9 ISFSI Operating Costs 546 546 546 571 2e.4.10 Security Staff Cost 3,462 3,462 3,462 3,770 2e.4.11 Utility Staff Cost 1,289 1,289 1,289 1,403 2e.4 Subtotal Period 2e Period-Dependent Costs 105 2 3 7,798 7,909 2e.O TOTAL PERIOD 2e COST 105 2 3 8,746 8,857 PERIOD 2f. License Termination Period ?f Direct Decommissioning Activities 2f.1.1 ORISE confirmatory survey 262 262 209 52 (0) 225 55 (0) 2f.1.2 Terminate license a 2f.1 Subtotal Period 2f Activity Costs 262 262 Period 2f Additional Costs 2f.2.1 License Termination Survey 13,951 13,951 13,755 196 0 14,803 205 0 2f.2 Subtotal Period 2f Additional Costs 13,951 13,951 Period 2f Collateral Costs .-----TLG Services, Inc.
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Index Activity Description 2f.3.1 2f.3.2 2f.3 DOC staff relocation expenses Environmental Permits and Fees Subtotal Period 2f Collateral Costs Period 2f Period-Dependent Costs 2f.4.1 Insurance 2f.4.2 Property taxes 2f.4.3 Health physics supplies 2f.4.4 Disposal of DAW generated 2f.4.5 Plant energy budget 2f.4.6 NRG Fees 2f.4.7 Emergency Planning Fees 2f.4 .. 8 Spent Fuel Transfer -ISFSI to DOE 2f.4.9 ISFSI Operating Costs 2f.4.10 Security Staff Cost 2f.4.11 DOC Staff Cost 2f.4.12 Utility Staff Cost 2f.4 Subtotal Period 2f Period-Dependent Costs 2f.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2fCOST PERIOD 2 TOTALS PERIOD 3b -Site Restoration Period 3b Direct Decommissioning Activities Demolition of Remaining Site Buildings 3b.1.1.1 *Reactor 3b.1.1.2 Capital Additions 85-2004 3b.1.1.3 Containment Penetration Area 3b.1.1.4 Miscellaneous 3b.1.1.5 Turbine 3b.1.1.6 Turbine Pedestal 3b.1.1.7 Fuel Handling 3b.1.1 Totals Site Closeout Activities 3b.1.2 Grade & landscape site 3b.1.3 Final report to NRG 3b.1 Subtotal Period 3b Activity Costs Period 3b Additional Costs 3b.2.1 Concrete Crushing 3b.2.2 Cofferdam Construction and Teardown 3b.2.3 Soil I Sediment Control Plant Area 3b.2.4 Miscellaneous Construction Debris (out of state disposal) 3b.2.5 Scrap Metal Transportation (out of state) 3b.2.6 FSS Manager 3b.2 Subtotal Period 3b Additional Costs Period 3b Collateral Costs 3b.3.1 Small tool allowance 3b.3 Subtotal Period 3b Collateral Costs Period 3b Period-Dependent Costs 3b.4.1 Insurance 3b.4.2 Property taxes 3b.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 3b.4.4 Plant energy budget 3b.4.5 NRG ISFSI* Fees 3b.4.6 Emergency Planning Fees 3b.4.7 Spent Fuel Transfer-ISFSI to DOE 3b.4.8 ISFSI Operating Costs 3b.4.9 Security Staff Cost 3b.4.10 DOC Staff Cost 3b.4.11 Utility Staff Cost 3b.4 Subtotal Period 3b Period-Dependent Costs 3b.O TOTAL PERIOD 3b COST PERIOD 3c -Fuel Storage Operations/Shipping Period 3c Direct Decommissioning Activities TLG Services, Inc. Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) De con Cost 13,637 Removal Cost 929 929 929 101,505 8,731 388 887 37 4,734 1,705 2,403 18,886 2,839 21,725 555 581 1,620 2,755 253 253 9,218 9,218 33,951 Packaging Costs 9 9 9 30,144 Transport Costs 3 3 3 17,980 Off-Site Processing Costs LLRW Disposal Costs 12 12 12 175,153 Other Costs 1,780 869 2,649 391 153 501 521 308 1,219 500 3,521 6,162 6,977 20,253 37,114 768,631 294 294 3 7,131 6,044 756 13,933 643 502 823 359 1,012 4,018 1,645 11,566 18,387 9,955 48,911 63,138 Total Total Contractor PG&E Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal 1,780 1,780 869 2,649 391 153 929 929 24 8 12 501 521 308 1,219 500 3,521 3,521 6,162 6,162 6,977 6,977 21,206 38,067 1,107,050 8,731 5,660 3,071 388 270 118 887 554 333 37 22 15 4,734 3,276 1,458 1,705 953 752 2,403 1,416 988 18,886 2,839 383 2,456 294 294 22,019 557 168 387 581 260 321 1,620 776 844 7,131 6,044 756 756 16,688 253 253 253 643 502 9,218 9,218 823 359 1,012 4,018 1,645 11,566 11,566 18,387 18,387 9,955 9,955 58,129 97,088 Other 869 391 153 3 501 521 308 1,219 500 3 7,131 6,044 643 502 823 359 1,012 4,018 1,645 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Enclosure 3 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page 7 of 9 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Contractor Labor 1,916 6,632 6,091 291 596 24 3,525 1,026 1,524 412 316 180 280 835 814 19,789 Eqp&Mat 970 8 3,205 124 348 16 1,522 785 1,031 2,563 404 335 881 264 9,620 PG&E Labor 3,834 7,596 12,593 10,839 Disposal 14 Other 910 410 160 3 524 545 322 1,276 524 3 7,465 6,327 673 526 862 376 1,060 4,207 1,722 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Enclosure 3 Decommissioning Cost Analysis PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page_B of 9 Table C-1 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Off-Site LLRW Activity Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Contractor PG&E Contractor PG&E Index Activity Description Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other Labor Eqp&Mat Labor Disposal Other No direct activities in this period 3c.1 Subtotal Period 3c Activity Costs Period 3c Additional Costs No additional costs in this period 3c.2 Subtotal Period 3c Additional Costs Period 3c Collateral Costs 3c.3 Subtotal Period 3c Collateral Costs Period 3c Period-Dependent Costs 3c.4.1 Insurance 5,876 5,876 5,876 6,152 3c.4.2 Property taxes 4,589 4,589 4,589 4,805 3c.4.3 Plant energy budget 3c.4.4 NRC ISFSI Fees 4,697 4,697 4,697 4,917 3c.4.5 Emergency Planning Fees 9,246 9,246 9,246 9,679 3c.4.6 Spent Fuel Transfer -ISFSI to DOE 37,101 37,101 37,101 38,841 3c.4.7 ISFSI Operating Costs 15,026 15,026 15,026 15,731 3c.4.8 Security Staff Cost 80,154 80,154 80,154 87,272 3c.4.9 Utility Staff Cost 18,436 18,436 18,436 20,074 3c.4 Subtotal Period 3c Period-Dependent Costs 175,126 175,126 3c.O TOTAL PERIOD 3c COST 175,126 175, 126 PERIOD 3d -GTCC shipping Period 3d Direct Decommissioning Activities Nuclear Steam Supply System Removal 3d.1.1.1 Vessel & Internals GTCC Disposal 2,861 11,570 14,431 2,861 11,570 2,986 12,112 3d.1.1 Totals 2,861 11,570 14,431 3d.1 Subtotal Period 3d Activity Costs 2,861 11,570 14,431 Period 3d Additional Costs No additional costs in this period 3d.2 Subtotal Period 3d Additional Costs Period 3d Collateral Costs 3d.3 Subtotal Period 3d Collateral Costs Period 3d Period-Dependent Costs 3d.4.1 Insurance 12 12 12 13 3d.4.2 Property taxes 9 9 9 10 3d.4.3 Plant energy budget 3d.4.4 ISFSI Operating Costs 31 31 31 32 3d.4.5 Security Staff Cost 165 165 165 180 3d.4.6 Utility Staff Cost 38 38 38 41 3d.4 Subtotal Period 3d Period-Dependent Costs 255 255 3d.O TOTAL PERIOD 3d COST 2,861 11,570 255 14,686 PERIOD 3e -ISFSI Decontamination Period 3e Direct Decommissioning Activities No direct activities in this period 3e.1 Subtotal Period 3eActivity Costs Period 3e Additional Costs 3e.2.1 License Termination ISFSI 165 10 18 666 1,490 2,349 44 131 666 1,509 47 136 771 1,579 3e.2 Subtotal Period 3e Additional Costs 165 10 18 666 1,490 2,349 Period 3e Collateral Costs 3e.3 Subtotal Period 3e Collateral Costs Period 3e Period-Dependent Costs 3e.4.1 Insurance 107 107 107 112 3e.4.2 Property taxes 80 80 80 84 3e.4.3 Plant energy budget 3e.4.4 Security Staff Cost 191 191 191 208 3e.4.5 Utility Staff Cost 250 250 250 272 3e.4 Subtotal Period 3e Period-Dependent Costs 628 628 3e.O TOTAL PERIOD 3e COST 165 10 18 666 2,118 2,976 PERIOD 3f -ISFSI Site Restoration TLG Services, Inc.
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Index Activity Description Period 3f Direct Decommissioning Activities No direct activities in this period 3f.1 Subtotal Period 3f Activity Costs Period 3f Additional Costs 3f.2.1 Demolition and Site Restoration ISFSI 3f.2.2 Soil I Sediment Control ISFSI Area 3f.2 Subtotal Period 3f Additional Costs Period 3f Collateral Costs 3f.3.1 Smail tool allowance 3f.3 Subtotal Period 3f Collateral Costs Period 3f Period-Dependent Costs 3f.4.1 Insurance 3f.4.2 Properiy taxes 3f.4.3 Heavy equipment rental 3f.4.4 Plant energy budget 3f.4.5 Security Staff Cost 3f.4.6 Utility Staff Cost 3f.4 Subtotal Period 3f Period-Dependent Costs 3f.O TOTAL PERIOD 3f COST PERIOD 3 TOTALS TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION TLG Services, Inc. Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Esti_mate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) Off-Site Dec on Removal Packaging Transport Processing Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs
1,994 ----25 ----2,019 ----30 ----30 --------------69 -------------------69 ----2,118 ----36,234 2,871 18 -18,214 141,218 33,435 18,502 -LLRW Disposal Costs ---------
12,236 199,331 Other Total Total Contractor Costs Contingency Costs Labor Eqp&Mat ---------------3,339 -5,333 1,583 411 --25 12 13 3,339 -5,359 --------30 -30 , -----------34 ---69 -69 28 -33 -93 --93 --188 -256 ----3,527 -5,645 ----244,163 -295,522 ----1,268,331
-1,679,030 324,340 156,089 PG&E Labor Disposal Other --------------------3,339 -----------------------------34 -----28 33 --93 --------------------713,655 187,761 297,185 Table C-1 Diablo Canyon Unit 1 Enclosure 3 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Apendix C1, Page 9 of 9 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2017 Dollars) Contractor Labor 1,704 13 349,067 Eqp&Mat 429 14 31 72 162,899 PG&E Labor 36 101 777,032 Disposal 217,356 Other 3,496 35 29 311,119 L Diablo Canyon Power Plant -Unit 1 Decommissioning Cash Flow Estimated in 2017 Dollars (1 page) Diablo Canyon Power Plant -Unit 2 Decommissioning Cash Flow Estimated in 2017 Dollars (1 page) Enclosure 4 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Year 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 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 TOTAL NOTES: 1) 2) NRCScope (Radiological)
$250,623 $9,489,525
$11,071,864
$8,287,484
$8,169,522
$17,828,330
$12,718,892
$7,047,544
$7,947,139
$149,791,131
$183,575,330
$184,491, 740 $184,997,197
$210,817,604
$108,971!,938
$20,294,496
$20,350,097
$20,294,496
$34,191,926
$37,147,569
$39,894, 774 $456,142 $456,142 $157,463 $0 $0 $0 $0
$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,098,364
$3,208,945
$1,297,013,277.
Diablo Canyon Power Plant -Unit 1 Decommissioning Cash Flow (Note 1) Estimated in 2017 Dollars Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel (Non-Radiological)
Management Total $250,623 $69,010 $9,558,535
$30,990 $11,102,855
$8,287,484
$8,169,522
$17,828,330
$12, 718,892 $7,047,544
$150,557 $476,916 $8,574,612
$1,185,391
$2,901,241
$153,877, 763 $1,840,504
$3,135,747
$188,551,580
$1,486,006
$3,252,038
$189,229, 784 $1,490,077
$3,260,948
$189,748,222
$5,326,510
$3,427,366
$219,571,480
$5,489,406
$28,617,184
$143,085,527
$0 $40,854,564
$61,149,060
$0 $40,966,494
$61,316,591
$0 $40,854,564
$61,149,060
$0 $34,502,881
$68,694,807
$0 $2,641,874
$39,789,443
$4,354,982
$3,532,902
$47,782,658
$33,116,011
$8,197,161
$41,769,314
$33,116,011
$8,197,161
$41,769,314
$11,431,828
$8,255,387
$19,844,678
$0 $8,308,785
$8,308,785
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,308,785 $8,308,785
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,308,785
$8,308,785
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,308,785
$8,308,785
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,308,785
$8,308,785
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,286,083
$8,286,083
$0 $8,308,785
$8,308,785
$0 $8,176,076
$23,274,440
$5,959,990
$0 $9,168,935
$105,047,275
$415,394,454
$1,817,455,006 Enclosure 4 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Cummulative Decommissioning Estimate $250,623 $9,809,158
$20,912,012
$29,199,496
$37,369,018
$55,197,348
$67,916,240
$7 4,963, 784 $83,538,396
$237,416,159
$425,967,740
$615,197,524
$804,945,746
$1,024,517,226
$1,167,602, 753 $1,228, 751,813 $1,290,068,404
$1,351,217,464
$1,419,912,271
$1,459, 701, 714 $1,507,484,372
$1,549,253,687
$1,591,023,001
$1,610,867,679
$1,619,176,464
$1,627,462,546
$1,635, 748,629 $1,644,034,712
$1,652,343,497
$1,660,629,580
$1,668,915,663
$1,677,201,746
$1,685,510,530
$1,693, 796,613 $1, 702,082,696
$1,710,368,779
$1,718,677,564
$1,726,963,647
$1,735,249,730
$1,743,535,813
$1, 751,844,597
$1,760,130,680
$1, 768,416, 763 $1,776,702,846
$1,785,011,630
$1,808,286,070
$1,817,455,006 Trust Account Funding $1,iOl,582,914 Market Value Cash Flow is based on construction of Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) and assumes Department of Energy (DOE) Used Fuel Repository opens in 2028. Trust Account Value of $1,201.6 million Market Value as of 12/31/16.
Page 1of1 _J Enclosure 4 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Diablo Canyon Power Plant.:. Unit 2 Decommissioning Cash Flow (Note 1) Estimated in 2017 Dollars Cummulative NRCScope Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel Decommissioning Trust Account Year (Radiological) (Non-Radiological)
Management Total Estimate Funding I 2016 $241,031 $241,031 $241,031 2017 $9,524,814
$69,010 $9,593,823
$9,834,854 2018 $11,080,044
$30,990 $11,111,034
$20,945,888 2019 $8,287,484
$8,287,484
$29,233,37!
2020 $8,169,522
$8,169,522
$37,402,893 2021 $17,828,330
$17,828,330
$55,231,223 2022 $12, 718,892 $12, 718,892 $67,950,115 2023 $7,047,544
$7,047,544
$74,997,659 2024 $7,125,147
$7,125,147
$82,122,806 2025 $34,639,417
$137,736 $1,019,160
$35, 796,313 $117,919,119 2026 $114,860, 760 $639,314 $2,906,199
$118,406,272
$236,325,392 2027 $179,013,274
$1,464,672
$3,496,283
$183,974,229
$420,299,621 2028 $185,192,365
$1,531,514
$3,606,375
$190,330,254
$610,629,875 2029 $184,686,375
$1,527,330
$3,596,521
$189,810,226
$800,440,101 2030 $220,404,389
$8,259,371
$2,795,270
$231,459,030
$1,031,899,131 2031 .$57,583,521
$1,566,465
$36,590,997
$95, 740,983 $1,127,640,114 2032 $26,271,695
$0 $42,875,009
$69,146,703
.$1,196,786,817 2033 $26,199,914
$0 $42, 757,864 $68,957,778
$1,265, 744,595 2034 $26,199,914
$0 $42,757,864
$68,957,778
$1,334, 702,373 2035 $59,342,012
$0 $28,754,357
$88,096,369
$1,422, 798, 742 2036 $60,709,855
$30,739,547
$3,584,129
$95,033,531
$1,517,832,273
$1,570,994, 710 Market Value 2037 $383,855 $219,998, 721 $8,215,581
$228,598,157
$1, 746,430,431 2038 . $383,855 $219,998,721
$8,215,581
$228,598,157
$1,975 ,028,588 2039 $129,354 $74,136,555
$8,272,569
$82,538,478
$2,057,567,066 2040 $0 $0 $8,32t,278
$8,324,278
$2,065,891,344 2041 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2,074,192,878 2042 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2,082,494,411 2043 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2,090, 795,945 2044 $0 $0 $8,324,278
$8,324,278
$2,099,120,223 2045 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2,107,421,756 2046 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2,115,723,290 2047 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2,124,024,824 2048 $0 $0 $8,324,278
$8,324,278
$2,132,349,101 2049 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2,140,650,635 2050 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2,148,952,168 2051 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2,157,253,702 2052 $0 $0 $8,324,278 $8,324,278
$2,165,577,980 2053 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2,173,879,513 2054 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2,182,181,047 2055 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2, 190,482,581 2056 $0 $0 $8,324,278
$8,324,278
$2,198,806,858 2057 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2,207,108,392 2058 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2,215,409,926 2059 $0 $0 $8,301,534
$8,301,534
$2,223, 711,459 2060 $0 $0 $8,324,278
$8,324,278
$2,232,035, 737 2061 $15,130,548
$0 $8,191,330
$23,321,878
$2,255,357,615 2062 $3,218,242
$5,971,551
$0 $9,189,794
$2,264,54 7,409 TOTAL $1,276,372,152
$566,071,499
$422,103, 757 $2,264,547,409 NOTES: 1) Cash Flow is based on construction of ISFSI and assumes DOE Used Fuel Repository opens in 2028. 2) Trust Account Value of $1,571.0 million Market Value as of 12/31/16.
Page 1of1 l Pacific Gas and Electric Company Chapter 2 Attachment A Enclosure 5 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 2016 TLG Diablo Canyon Units 1 & 2 Decommissioning Cost Study ( (
PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY CHAPTER 2 ATTACHMENT A 2016 TLG DIABLO CANYON UNITS 1 & 2 DECOMMISSIONING COST STUDY Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 DECOMMISSIONING COST ANALYSIS for the DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT ----------.---*--* -* --*--------------1 I " I I .I prepared for Pacific Gas and Electric Company prepared by TLG Services, Inc. Bridgewater, Connecticut February 2016 2-AtchA-1 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Project Manager Project Engineer Technical Manager TLG Services, Inc. APPROVALS Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page ii <?.f xxi f!ftft£ Date 2-AtchA-2 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page iii of xxi PAGE EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
...................................................................................
vii-xxi 1. INTRODUCTION
.....................................................................................................
1-1 1.1 Objectives of Study ...........................................................................................
1-1 1.2 Site Description
.................................................................................................
1-1 1.3 Regulatory Guidance ........................................................................................
1-3 1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act .....................................................................
1-5 1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Acts ......................................................
1-8 1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Termination
...................................
1-9 1.3.4 California Governor Moratorium on Disposing of Decommissioned Materials
.................................................................
1-10 2. DECOMlY.ITSSIONING ALTERNATIVES
..............................................................
2-1 2.1 DE CON ..............................................................................................................
2-2 2.1.1 Period 1 -Preparations
.........................................................................
2-2 2.1.2 Period 2 -Decommissioning Operations
.............................................
2-4 2.1.3 Period 3 -Site Restoration
....................................................................
2-8 2.1.4 ISFSI Operations and Decommissioning
............................................
2-9 2.2 SAFSTOR ..........................................................................................................
2-9 2.2.1 Period 1 -Preparations
.......................................................................
2-10 2.2.2 Period 2 -Dormancy ............................................................... ............
2-11 2.2.3 Periods 3 and 4 -Delayed Decommissioning
....................................
2-12 2.2.4 Period 5 -Site Restoration
..................................................................
2-13 3. COST ESTIMATES
..................................................................................................
3-1 3.1 Basis of Estimates
............................................................................................
3-1 3.2 Methodology
......................................................................................................
3-2 3.3 Impact of Decommissioning Multiple Reactor Units .....................................
3-4 3.4 Financial Components of the Cost Model.. .....................................................
3-5 3.4.1 Contingency
...........................................................................................
3-5 3.4.2 Financial Risk ........................................................................................
3-7 3.5 Site-Specific Considerations
............................................................................
3-8 3.5.1 Spent Fuel Management
......................................................................
3-8 3.5.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components
.........................................
3-11 3.5.3 Primary System Components
.............................................................
3-13 3.5.4 Main Turbine and Condenser
............................................................
3-14 3.5.5 Retired Components
.............................................................................
3-14 3.5.6 Transportation Methods .....................................................................
3-14 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-3 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page iv of xxi PAGE 3.5.7 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal..
...........................................
3-15 3.5.8 Site Restoration Following License Termination
.............................
3-16 3.6 Assumptions
....................................................................................................
3-17 3.6.1 Estimating Basis .................................................................................
3-17 3.6.2 Labor Costs ..........................................................................................
3-17 3.6.3 Design Conditions
...............................................................................
3-18 3.6.4 General ......................................................................................
- ...........
3-19 3. 7 Cost Estimate Summary ........................................................................
- ...... 3-23 4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ........................................................................................
4-1 4.1 Schedule Estimate Assumptions
.....................................................................
4-1 4.2 Project Schedule ................................................................................................
4-2 5. RADIOACTIVE WASTES ........................................................................................
5-1 6. RESULTS ...........................
- .....................................................................................
6-1 7. REFERENCES
..........................................................................................................
7-1 TABLES DE CON Cost Summary Decommissioning Cost Elements*********************:*******
xx SAFSTOR Cost Summary Decommissioning Cost Elements ........................
xxi 3.1 DECON :Alternative, Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures, Unit 1 ....... 3-25 3.2 DE CON Alternative, Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures, Unit 2 ....... 3-27 3.3 SAFSTOR Alternative, Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures, Unit 1. ... 3-29 3.4 SAFSTOR Alternative, Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures, Unit 2 .... 3-31 5.1 DECON Alternative, Decommissioning Waste Summary, Unit 1. .................
5-4 5.2 DECON Alternative, Decommissioning-Waste Summary, Unit 2 .................
5-5 5.3 SAFSTOR Alternative, Decommissioning Waste Summary, Unit 1 .............
5-6 5.4 SAFSTOR Alternative, Decommissioning Waste Summary, Unit 2 .............
5-7 6.1 DECON Alternative Decommissioning Cost Elements, Unit 1 .....................
6-4 6.2 DECON Alternative Decommissioning Cost Elements, Unit 2 .....................
6-5 6.3 SAFSTOR Alternative Decommissioning Cost Elements, Unit 1. .................
6-6 6.4 SAFSTOR Alternative Decommis,s_ioning Cost Elements, Unit 2 ..................
6-7 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-4 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
FIGURES
- Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page v ofxxi PAGE 1.1 Diablo Canyon Power Plant General Plan ....................................................
1-11 1.2 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Aerial View ......................................................
1-12 1.3 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Reactor Building Section ...........
- .....................
1-13 4.1 Activity Schedule -DE CON .............................................................................
4-3 4.2 DECON Alternative Decommissioning Timeline ...........................................
4-5 4.3 SAFSTOR Alternative Decommissioning Timeline ........................................
4-6 APPENDICES A. Unit Cost Factor Development
.............................................................................
A-1 B. Unit Cost Factor Listing ......................................................................................
B-1 C. Detailed Cost Analysis, DECON ...........................................................................
C-1 D. Detailed Cost Analysis, SAFSTOR ......................................................................
D-1 E.
- ISFSI License Termination Estimate ..................................................................
E-1 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-5 l Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis REVISION LOG No. Date Item Revised 0 02/24/2016 n/a TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-6 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page vi of xxi Reason for Revision Original Issue I '\ I I Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page vii of xxi This report presents estimates of the cost to decommission the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon) for the selected decommissioning scenarios following the scheduled cessation of plant operations.
The estimates are designed to provide the Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) with the information to assess its current decommissioning liability, as it relates to Diablo Canyon. The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information from an evaluation prepared in 2012,[IJ updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of the nuclear plant and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects.
The costs are based on several key assumptions in areas of regulation, component characterization, high-level radioactive waste management, low-level radioactive waste disposal, performance uncertainties* (contingency) and site restoration requirements.
The plant inventory, the basis for the decontamination and dismantling requirements and cost, and the decommissioning waste streams, were reviewed for this analysis.
Significant "physical" changes were limited to some additional security modifications made to the station in the past three year interval.
The estimate was also revised to reflect the following significant changes from the previous evaluation:
o Consistent with PG&E's interpretation of the California governor's executive order on the moratorium on dispot?ing of decommissioned materials in the State of California[
2 l, costs to account for transporting and disposing of decommissioned materials to an out-of-state disposal facility have been added. o PG&E's experience segmenting the Humboldt Bay Unit 3 reactor and industry experience segmenting the Zion Nuclear Station reactor vessels have been incorporated into the estimate.
o Permitting costs associated with constructing a Greater-Than-Class-C storage pad, as well as other expected permitting expenses and environmental fees have been incorporated into the estimate.
o Maintaining security staff levels near operating staff levels while spent fuel is stored in the spent fuel pools was re-affirmed.
The cost associated with maintaining these staff levels has been incorporated into the estimate. "Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant," Document PO 1-1648-001, Rev. 0, TLG Services, Inc., December 2012. 2 California governor Executive Order D-62-02. Decommissioned materials are materials that meet US NRC release criteria, but have low residual levels of radioactivity.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-7 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page viii of xxi o Cost impact of a delay in DOE's start of spent fuel pickup from commercial generators from 2024 to 2028. o Complying with expected re-licensing requirements after the ISFSI license is renewed. The analysis is not a detailed engineering evaluation, but an estimate prepared in . advance of the detailed engineering required to carry out the decommissioning of the nuclear units. It may also not reflect the actual plan to decommission Diablo Canyon; the plan may differ from the assumptions made in this analysis based on facts that exist at the time of decommissioning.
The costs to decommission Diablo Canyon for the scenarios evaluated are tabulated at the end of this section. Costs are reported in 2014 dollars and include monies anticipated to be spent for radiological remediation and operating license termination, spent fuel management, and site restoration activities.
A complete discussion of the assumptions relied upon in this analysis is provided in Section 3, along with schedules of annual expenditures for each scenario.
A sequence of significant project activities is provided in Section 4 with a timeline for each scenario.
Detailed cost reports used to generate the summary tables contained within this document are provided in Appendices C through E. Consistent with the 2012 analysis, the current cost estimates assume that the shutdown of the nuclear units are scheduled and pre-planned events (e.g., there is no delay in transitioning the plant and workforce from operations or in obtaining regulatory relief from operating requirements, etc.). The estimates include the continued operation of the Fuel Handling Buildings as interim wet fuel storage facilities for approximately ten years after operations cease. [3J During this time period, it is assumed that the spent fuel residing in the pools will be transferred to an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) located on the site. The ISFSI will remain operational until the DOE is able to complete the transfer of the fuel to a federal facility (e.g., a monitored retrievable storage facility)J4J DOE has breached its obligations to remove fuel from reactor sites, and has also failed to provide the plant owner with information about how it will ultimately perform. In 3 The current Part 72 ISFSI license does not allow dry cask storage of spent fuel with burnups above 62 GWD/metric ton. It is assumed that PG&E can amend the Part 72 license to store the higher burn up fuel, but that as a condition of the amendment it will require longer decay times (10 years) before storing the spent fuel in the casks. 4 Projected expenditures for spent fuel management identified in the cost analyses do not consider the outcome of the litigation with the DOE with regard to the delays incurred by PG&E in the timely removal of spent fuel from the site. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-8 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page ix of xxi the absence of information about how DOE will perform, and for purposes of this analysis only, it is assumed that DOE will accept already-canistered fuel. (It is
- recognized that the canisters may not be licensed or licensable for transportation when DOE performs.)
If this assumption is incorrect, it is assumed that DOE will have liability for costs incurred to transfer the fuel to DOE-supplied containers.
Alternatives and Regulations The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provided general decommissioning requirements in a rule adopted on June 27, 1988. [5J In this rule, the NRC set forth technical and financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear 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 removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations."[6]
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."[7J Decommissioning is required 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."[SJ As with the SAFSTOR alternative, decommissioning is currently required to be 5 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 6 Ibid. Page FR24022, Column 3 7 Ibid. B Ibid. Page FR24023, Column 2 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-9 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Pagexofxxi completed within 60 years, although longer time periods will also be considered when necessary to protect public health and safety. The 60-year restriction has limited the practicality for 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 processJ9J The amendments allowed 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 that relate to initial activities and major phases of the decommissioning process. The costs and schedules presented in this analysis follow the general guidance and process described in the amended regulations.
The format and content of the estimate is also consistent with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.202, issued in February 2005JIOJ In 2011, the NRC published amended regulations to improve decommissioning planning and thereby reduce the likelihood that any current operating facility will become a legacy site.llll The amended regulations require licensees to conduct their operations to minimize the introduction of residual radioactivity into the site, which includes the site's subsurface soil and groundwater.
Licensees also may be required to perform site surveys to determine whether residual radioactivity is present in subsurface areas and to keep records of these surveys with records important for decommissioning.
The amended regulations require licensees to report additional details in their decommissioning cost estimate as well as requiring additional financial 9 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 10 "Standard Format and Content of Decommissioning Cost Estimates of Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.202, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 2005 11 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72, "Decommissioning Planning," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 76, (p 35512 et seq.), June 17, 2011 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-10 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xi of xxi reporting and assurances.
These additional details are included m this analysis, including the ISFSI decommissioning estimate (Appendix E). Decommissioning Scenarios Two basic decommissioning scenarios are evaluated for the two nuclear units. The scenarios selected are representative of alternatives available to the owner and are defined as follows: DECON: Units 1and2 are currently expected to cease operations in November 2024 and August 2025, respectively.
Spent fuel remaining in the spent fuel storage pools after a minim.um.
cooling period of 10 years is transferred to the ISFSI for interim. storage. This scenario assumes that decommissioning activities at the two units begin soon after unit shutdown and are sequenced and integrated so as to minimize the total duration of the physical dismantling processes.
Any residual spent fuel is transferred to the ISFSI so as to facilitate decontamination and dismantling activities within the fuel handing buildings.
Decommissioning of the station and subsequent demolition of the structures is completed by 2039. Spent fuel storage operations continue at the site until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete, assumed to be in the year 2061. The ISFSI is then decommissioned and dismantled.
SAFSTOR: Units 1 and 2 are currently expected to cease operations in November 2024 and August 2025, respectively.
The units are placed into storage in this scenario.
The start of field decommissioning is deferred to the end of the fuel storage period. Spent fuel remaining in the spent fuel storage pools after a minim.um.
cooling period of 10 years is transferred to the ISFSI for interim. storage. As with the DECON scenario, decommissioning activities at the two units are sequenced and integrated so as to minimize the total duration of the physical dismantling processes.
Spent fuel storage operations continue at the site until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete, assumed to be in the year 2061. Methodology The methodology used to develop the estimates follows the basic approach originally presented in the cost estimating guidelines
[1 2 1 developed by the Atomic Industrial Forum. (now Nuclear Energy Institute).
This reference describes a unit cost factor method for estimating decommissioning activity costs. The unit cost factors used in this 12 T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-11
/ Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xii of xxi analysis incorporate site-specific costs and the latest available information about worker productivity in decommissioning.
An activity duration critical path is used to determine the total decommissioning program schedule.
This is required for calculating the carrying costs, which include program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental, quality assurance, and security.
This systematic approach for assembling decommissioning estimates ensures a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the resulting costs. The estimates also reflect lessons learned from previously completed decommissioning projects, including TLG's involvement in the Shippingport Station decommissioning, completed in 1989, and the decommissioning of the Cintichem reactor, hot cells and associated facilities, completed in 1997. In addition, the planning and experience associated with the Pathfinder, Shoreham, Rancho Seco, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Humboldt Bay-3, Connecticut Yankee, San Onofre, Vermont Yankee, and Zion nuclear units have provided additional insight into the process, the regulatory aspects, and technical challenges of decommissioning commercial nuclear units. 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."l 13 l 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, is based on a preliminary technical position [14] to reflect the California Public Utilities Commission's desire* for owners to conservatively establish an appropriate contingency factor for inclusion in the decommissioning revenue requirements.
13 Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, p. 239. 14 "Technical Position Paper for Establishing an Appropriate Contingency Factor for Inclusion in the Decominissioning Revenue Requirements", Study Number: DECON-POS-H002, Revision A, Status: Preliminary (provided by PG&E). TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-12 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xiii of xxi Contingency funds are expected to be fully expended throughout the program. As such, 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 generally classified as low-level radioactive waste, although not all of the material is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal.
With the passage of the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act" in 198Q,l15J and its Amendments of 1985,[16]
the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition oflow-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders. With the exception of Texas, no new compact facilities have been successfully sited, licensed, and constructed.
The Texas Compact disposal facility is now operational and waste is being accepted from generators within the Compact by the operator, Waste Control Specialists (WCS). The facility is also able to accept limited quantities of Compact waste. Disposition of the various waste streams produced by the decommissioning process considered all options and services currently available to PG&E. The majority of the low-level radioactive waste designated for direct disposal (Class Al17J) can be sent to Energy Solutions' facility in Clive, Utah. Therefore, disposal costs for Class A waste were based upon PG&E's current-contract rates with EnergySolutions.
This facility is not licensed to receive the higher activity portion (Classes B and C) of the decommissioning waste stream. The WCS facility is able to receive the Class B and C waste. As such, for this analysis, Class B and C waste was assumed to be shipped to the WCS facility and disposal costs for the waste using this facility were based upon PG&E current-contract rates. The dismantling of the components residing closest to the reactor core generates radioactive waste that may be considered unsuitable for shallow-land disposal (i.e., level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the NRC for Class. C radioactive waste (Greater Than Class C, or GTCC)). The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned the federal government the responsibility for the disposal of this material.
The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such waste. However, to date, 15 "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980," Public Law 96-573, 1980 16 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, 1986 11 Waste is classified in accordance with U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61.55 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-13 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xiv of xxi the federal government has not identified a cost for disposing of GTCC or a schedule for acceptance.
For purposes of this analysis only, the GTCC radioactive waste is assumed to be packaged and disposed of in a similar manner as high-level waste and at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel. The GTCC is packaged in the same canisters used for spent fuel and either stored on site or shipped directly to a DOE facility as it is generated (depending upon the timing of the decommissioning and whether the spent fuel has been removed from the site prior to the start of decommissioning).
High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act"[ISJ (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. It was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998; however, to date no progress in the removal of spent fuel from commercial generating sites has been made. Today, the country is at an impasse on high-level waste disposal, even with the License Application for a geologic repository submitted by the DOE to the NRC in 2008. The current administration has cut the budget for the repository program while promising to "conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle ... and make recommendations for a new plan."[19]
Towards this goal, the administration appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (Blue Ribbon Commission) to make recommendations for a new plan for nuclear waste disposal.
The Blue Ribbon Commission's charter includes a requirement that it consider "[o]ptions for safe storage of used nuclear fuel while final disposition pathways are selected and deployed."l20J On January 26, 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission issued its "Report to the Secretary of Energy containing a number of recommendations on nuclear waste disposal.
Two of the recommendations that may impact decommissioning planning are: 18 "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," DO E's Office of Civilian Radioactive l\1anagement, 1982 19 Charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, "Objectives and Scope of Activities," http://www.brc.gov/index.php?q=vage/charter TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-14 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xv of xxi o "[T]he United States [should] establish a program that leads to the timely development of one or more consolidated storage facilities"[211 o "[T]he United States should undertake an integrated nuclear waste management program that leads to the timely development of one or more permanent deep geological facilities for the safe disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste."[22]
In January 2013, the DOE issued the "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste," in response to the recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Commission and as "a framework for moving toward a sustainable program to deploy an integrated system capable of transporting, storing, and disposing of used nuclear fuel..."[23] "With the appropriate authorizations from Congress, the Administration currently plans to implement a program over the next 10 years that: o Sites, designs and licenses, constructs and begins operations of a pilot interim storage facility by 2021 with an initial focus on accepting used nuclear fuel from shut-down reactor sites; o Advances toward the siting and licensing of a larger interim storage facility to be available by 2025 that will have sufficient capacity to provide flexibility in the waste management system and allows for acceptance of enough used nuclear fuel to reduce expected government liabilities; and o Makes demonstrable progress on the siting and characterization of repository sites to facilitate the availability of a geologic repository by 2048."[2 4] The NRC's review of DOE's license application to construct a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain was suspended in 2011 when the Administration significantly reduced the budget for completing that work. However, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a writ of mandamus (in August 2013)[25]
2 1 "Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy," http://www.brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc finalreport jan2012.pdf, p. 32, January 2012 22 Ibid., p.27 23 "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste," U.S. DOE, January 11, 2013 24 Ibid., p.2 25 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Of Columbia Circuit, In Re: Aiken County, et al, Aug. 2013,http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/BAEOCF34F762EBD985257BC6004DE B18/$file/ll-1271-1451347.pdf TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-15 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xvi of xxi ordering NRC to comply with federal law and resume its review of DOE's Yucca Mountain repository license application to the extent allowed by previously appropriated funding for the review. That review is now complete with the publication of the five-volume safety evaluation report. A supplement to DOE's environmental impact statement and an adjudicatory hearing on the contentions filed by interested parties must be completed before a licensing decision can be made. A federal appeals court has ruled that DOE's obligation to take possession of spent nuclear fuel is unconditional and cannot be excused either by the absence of a repository or by a claim of unavoidable delay. Completion of the decommissioning process is dependent upon the DOE's ability to remove spent fuel from the site in a timely manner. DOE's repository program had assumed that spent fuel allocations would be accepted for disposal from the nation's commercial nuclear plants, with limited exceptions, in the order (the "queue") in which it was discharged from the reactor.[2 61 PG&E's current spent fuel management plan for the Diablo Canyon spent fuel is based in general upon: 1) a 2028 start date for DOE initiating transfer of commercial spent fuel to a federal facility (not necessarily a final repository), and 2) expectations for spent fuel receipt by the DOE for the Diablo Canyon fuel. The DOE's generator allocation/receipt schedules are based upon the oldest fuel receiving the highest priority.
Assuming a maximum rate of transfer of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU)/year, the spent fuel is completely removed from the site by the end of 2061 for a 2025 station shutdown.
Different DOE acceptance schedules may result in different completion dates. The NRC requires that licensees establish a program to manage and provide funding for the caretaking of all irradiated fuel at the reactor site until title of the fuel is transferred to the DOE. [27] Interim storage of the fuel, until the DOE has completed the transfer, will be in the fuel handling building's storage pool as well as at an on-site 26 In 2008, the DOE issued a report to Congress in which it concluded that it did not have authority, under present law, to accept spent nuclear fuel for interim storage from decommissioned commercial nuclear power reactor sites. However, the Blue Ribbon Commission, in its final report, noted that: "[A]ccepting spent fuel according to the OFF [Oldest Fuel First] priority ranking instead of giving priority to shutdown reactor sites could greatly reduce the cost savings that could be achieved through consolidated storage if priority could be given to accepting spent fuel from shutdown reactor sites before accepting fuel from still-operating plants . . . . . The magnitude of the cost savings that could be achieved by giving priority to shutdown sites appears to be large enough (i.e., in the billions of dollars) to warrant DOE exercising its right under the Standard Contract to move this fuel first." For planning purposes only, this estimate does not assume that Diablo Canyon, as a permanently shutdown plant, will receive priority; the fuel removal schedule assumed in this estimate is based upon DOE acceptance of fuel according to the "Oldest Fuel First",priority ranking. 27 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50 -Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, Subpart 54 (bb), "Conditions of Licenses" TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-16 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xvii of xxi ISFSI. For purposes of tl?is analysis, it is assumed that DOE will accept canistered fuel. An ISFSI, which is independently licens*ed and operated, will remain operational after the cessation of plant operations.
For the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios, the facility is projected to have the capacity to accommodate the inventory of spent fuel residing in the plant's storage pools at the conclusion of the required cooling period. Once emptied, the spent fuel pool facilities can be either decontaminated and dismantled or prepared for long-term storage. For cost estimating purposes, the spent fuel scenario developed for Diablo Canyon assumed that the DOE would initiate spent fuel receipt in the year 2028. DOE's generator allocation/receipt schedules are based upon the oldest fuel receiving the highest priority.
The information available on the projected rate of transfer and the backlogged national queue indicates that Diablo Canyon fuel would not be eligible for pickup until 2035. Supplemental dry cask spent nuclear fuel storage in the form **of an ISFSI is assumed to be expanded following cessation of plant operations to accommodate the assemblies in the plant's wet storage pools. By relocating the fuel to the ISFSI, the wet storage pools may be secured and decommissioning of the nuclear units may proceed. Costs are included within the estimates to expand the ISFSI to accommodate the residual spent fuel inventories after pool operations cease and for the long-term caretaking of spent fuel at the site through the year 2061. The PG&E position is that the DOE has a contractual obligation to accept Diablo Canyon's fuel earlier than the projections set out above consistent with its contract commitments.
No assumption made in this study should be interpreted to be with this claim. However, including the cost of storing spent fuel in this study is appropriate to ensure the availability of sufficient decommissioning funds at the end of the station's life if the DOE has not met its obligation.
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 can substantially damage power block structures, potentially weakening the footings and structural supports.
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 is deferred.
Consequently, this study assumes that site structures included within this analysis are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below the local grade level wherever possible.
The site is then graded and stabilized.
The debris and scrap metal TLG Services, Inc. . 2-AtchA-17 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xviii of xxi produced during site restoration activities is designated as "decommissioned material" and transported to an out-of-state facility.
Summary The estimates to decommission Diablo Canyon assume the removal of all contaminated and activated plant components and structural materials such that the owner may then have unrestricted use of the site with no further requirements for an operating license. Low-level radioactive waste, other than GTCC waste, is sent to a licensed radioactive waste disposal facility.
Decommissioned materials are sent to an out-of-state disposal facility.
Decommissioning is accomplished within the 60-year period required by current NRC regulations.
In the interim, the spent fuel remains in storage at the site until such time that the transfer to a DOE facility is complete.
Once emptied, the storage facility can also be decommissioned.
Both the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios are described in Section 2. The bases of the estimates and 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 and D. The major cost components for all scenarios are also identified in the cost summary provided at the end of this section. The cost elements in the estimates for all the decommissioning alternatives are assigned to one of three subcategories:
NRC License Termination (radiological remediation), Spent Fuel Management, and Site Restoration.
The subcategory "NRC License Termination" is used to accumulate costs that are consistent with "decommissioning" as defined by the NRC in its financial assurance regulations (i.e., 10 CFR §50. 75). The cost reported for this subcategory is generally sufficient to terminate the unit's operating license, recognizing that there may be some additional cost impact from spent fuel management.
The "Spent Fuel Management" subcategory contains costs associated with the containerization and transfer of spent fuel from the wet storage pool to a DOE transport cask or to the ISFSI for interim storage, as well as the transfer of the spent fuel in storage at the ISFSI to the DOE. Costs are included for the operation of the storage pool and the management of the ISFSI until such time that the transfer is complete.
It does not include any spent fuel management expenses incurred prior to the cessation of plant operations, nor does it include any costs related to the final disposal of the spent fuel. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-18 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xix of xxi "Site Restoration" is used to capture costs associated with the dismantling and demolition of buildings and facilities demonstrated to be free from contamination.
This includes structures never exposed to radioactive materials, as well as those facilities that have been decontaminated to appropriate levels. Structures are removed to a depth of three feet and backfilled to conform to local grade. It should be noted that the costs assigned to these subcategories are allocations.
Delegation of cost elements is for the purposes of comparison (e.g., with NRC financial guidelines) or to permit specific financial treatment (e.g., Asset Retirement Obligation determinations).
In reality, there can be considerable interaction between the activities in the three subcategories.
For example, an owner may decide to remove contaminated structures early in the project to improve access to highly contaminated facilities or plant components.
In these instances, the non-contaminated removal costs could be reassigned from Site Restoration to an NRC License Termination support activity.
However, in general, the allocations represent a reasonable accounting of those costs that can be expected to be incurred for the specific subcomponents of the total estimated program cost, if executed as described.
As noted within this document, the estimates were developed and costs are presented in 2014 dollars. As such, the estimates do not reflect the escalation of costs (due to inflationary and market forces) over the remaining operating life of the plant or during the decommissioning period. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-19 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xx of xxi DECON COST
SUMMARY
DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2014 dollars) Cost Element Unit 1 Unit2 Decontamination 18,214 21,549 Removal 141,218 319,210 Packaging 33,435 32,500 Transportation 31,679 294,378 Waste Disposal 199,331 178,340 Program Management
[IJ 473,419 491,299 >---" Security 338,910 348,555 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 26,314 17,577 Spent Fuel Management
[2J 213,527 193,784 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 36,956 32,862 Energy 32,071 31,910 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 33,875 37,509 Property Taxes 7,658 7,503 Severance 84,005 84,169 Miscellaneous Equipment 8,421 9,026 Total [3J 1,679,030 2,100,172 Cost Element License Termination 1,190,754 1,172,913 Spent Fuel Management 389,775 395,217 Site Restoration 98,501 532,042 Total [3J 1,679,030 2,100,172
[ll Includes engineering costs r 2 1 Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [3J Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-20 Total 39,763 460,428 65,934 326,057 377,671 964,718 687,465 43,890 407,311 69,817 63,981 71,384 15,161 168,174 17,447 3,779,202 2,363,667 784,992 630,543 3,779,202 Diablo Canyon Power Plant . Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Page xxi of xxi SAFSTOR COST
SUMMARY
DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (thousands of 2014 dollars) Cost Element Unit 1 Unit2 Decontamination 14,403 21,401 Removal 143,288 319,891 Packaging 23,554 22,581 Transportation 29,063 292,279 Waste Disposal 182,273 160,224 Program Management
[lJ 604,377 439,612 Security 377,878 386,029 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 26,459 17,615 Spent Fuel Management
[21 214,610 194,121 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 53,180 50,493 Energy 37,842 37,721 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 34,831 42,625 Property Taxes 9,548 9,373 Severance 84,470 84,353 Miscellaneous Equipment 15,685 16,419 Total 31 1,851,460 2,094,736 Cost Element License Termination 1,128,923 1,048,860 Spent Fuel Management 623,759 512,851 Site Restoration 98,778 533,025 Total [31 1,851,460 2,094,736
[1 1 Includes engineering costs [2 1 Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [3] Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-21 Total 35,804 463,179 46,135 321,341 342,497 1,043,988 763,907 44,074 408,730 103,673 75,562 77,455 18,921 168,823 32,104 3,946,195 2,177,783 1,136,610 631,802 3,946,195 r;---Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 1. INTRODUCTION Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 1of13 This report presents estimates of the cost to decommission the Diablo Canyon Power Plant (Diablo Canyon) for the selected decommissioning scenarios following the scheduled cessation of plant operations.
The estimates are designed to provide Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) with the information to assess its current decommissioning liability, as it relates to Diablo Canyon. The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information from an earlier evaluation prepared in 2012[1]* updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of the nuclear plant and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects.
The costs are based on several key assumptions in areas of regulation, component characterization, high-level radioactive waste management, low-level radioactive waste disposal, performance uncertainties (contingency) and site restoration requirements.
The analysis is not a detailed engineering evaluation, but estimates prepared in advance of the detailed engineering required to carry out the decommissioning of the nuclear units. It may also not reflect the actual plan to decommission Diablo Canyon; the plan may differ from the assumptions made in this analysis based on facts that exist at the time of decommissioning.
1.1 OBJECTIVES
OF STUDY The objectives of this study are to prepare comprehensive estimates of the costs to decommission Diablo Canyon based on the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios, to provide a sequence or schedule for the associated activities, and to develop waste stream projections from the decontamination and dismantling activities.
For the purposes of this study, the shutdown dates are based on the expiration of the current operating licenses, or 2 November 2024 for Unit 1, and 26 August 2025 for Unit 2. 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION Diablo Canyon is located on the central California coast in San Luis Obispo County, approximately 12 miles west southwest of the City of San Luis Obispo. The plant, comprised of two nuclear units, is located on a 750-acre site adjacent to the Pacific Ocean, roughly equidistant from San Francisco and Los Angeles. References provided in Section 7 of the document TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-22 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 2 of 13 The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) consists of a pressurized water reactor and a four-loop Reactor Coolant System. The systems were supplied by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation.
Units 1and2 each have a license rating of 3411 MWt, with corresponding net electrical outputs 1131 and 1156 megawatts (electric), respectively, with the reactors at rated power. The Reactor Coolant System is comprised of the reactor vessel and four heat transfer loops, each containing a vertical U-tube type steam generator, and a single-stage centrifugal reactor coolant pump. In addition, the system includes an electrically heated pressurizer, a pressurizer relief tank, and interconnected piping. The system is housed within a "containment structure," a seismic Category I reinforced-concrete dry structure.
It consists of an upright cylinder topped with a hemispherical dome, supported on a reinforced concrete foundation mat, which is keyed into the bedrock. A welded steel liner plate anchored to the inside face of the containment serves as a leak-tight membrane.
The liner on top of the foundation mat is protected by a two-foot thick concrete fill mat, which supports the containment internals and forms the floor of the containment.
The lower portion of the containment cylindrical wall has additional embedded wide flange steel beams between elevations 88 ft. 2 in. and 108 ft. 2 in. (mean sea level). Heat produced in the reactor is converted to electrical energy by the Steam and Power Conversion Systems. A turbine-generator system converts the thermal energy of steam produced in the steam generators into mechanical shaft power and then into electrical energy. The plant's turbine-generators are each tandem compound, four element units. They consist of one high-pressure double-flow and three low-pressure double-flow elements driving a direct-coupled generator at 1800 rpm. The turbines are operated in a closed feedwater cycle that condenses the steam; the heated feedwater is returned to the steam generators.
Heat rejected in the main condensers is removed by the Circulating Water System (CWS). The circulating water system provides the heat sink required for removal of waste heat in the power plant's thermal cycle. The system has the principal function of removing heat by absorbing this energy in the main condenser.
Condenser circulating water is water from the Pacific Ocean. Each unit is served by two circulating water pumps at the intake structure.
From this structure seawater is pumped through two circulating water conduits to the condenser inlet water boxes. The water is returned to the ocean at Diablo Cove through an outfall at the water's edge. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-23 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 1.3 REGULATORY GUIDANCE Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 3 of 13 The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) provided iriitial decommissioning requirements in its rule "General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," issued in June 1988J 2 l 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,l3J 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 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, while the SAFSTOR and EN.TOMB alternatives defer the process. The rule also placed limits on the time allowed to complete the decommissioning process. For all alternatives, 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. At the conclusion of a 60-year dormancy period (or longer if the NRC approves such a case), the site would still require significant remediation to meet the unrestricted release limits for license termination.
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 rulemaking permitting the controlled release of a site,l 4 l the NRC did re-evaluated the alternative.
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.
The staff also found that additional rulemaking would be needed before this option could be treated as a generic alternative.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-24 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 4 of 13 The NRC had considered rulemaking to alter the 60-year time for completing decommissioning and to clarify the use of engineered barriers for reactor entombments.l 5 l However, the NRC's staff has subsequently recommended that rulemaking be deferred, based upon several factors (e.g., no licensee has committed to pursuing the entombment option, the unresolved issues associated with the disposition of greater-than-Class C material (GTCC), and the NRC's current priorities), at least until after the additional research studies are complete.
The Commission concurred with the staffs recommendation.
In 1996, the NRC published revisions to the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plantsJ6J When the decommissioning regulations were adopted in 1988, it was assumed that the majority of licensees would decommission at the end of the facility's operating 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 amendments allow for greater public participation and better define* the transition process from operations to decommissioning.
Under the revised regulations, licensees will submit written certification to the NRC within 30 days after the decision to cease operations.
Certification will also be required once the fuel is permanently removed from the reactor vessel. Submittal of these notices, along with related changes to Technical Specifications, entitle the licensee to a fee reduction and eliminate the obligation to follow certain requirements needed only during operation of the reactor. Within two years of submitting notice of permanent cessation of operations, the licensee is required to submit a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) to the NRC. The PSDAR describes the planned decommissioning activities, the . associated sequence and schedule, and an estimate of expected costs. Prior to completing decommissioning, the licensee is required to submit an application to the NRC to terminate the license, which will include a license termination plan (LTP). In 2011, the NRC published amended regulations to improve decommissioning planning and thereby reduce the likelihood that any current operating facility will become a legacy site.l 7 l The amended regulations require licensees to
- conduct their operations to minimize the introduction of residual radioactivity into the site, which includes.
the site's subsurface soil and groundwater.
Licensees also may be required to perform site surveys to determine whether TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-25 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 5 of 13 residual radioactivity is present in subsurface areas and to keep of these surveys with records important for decommissioning.
The amended regulations require licensees to report additional details in their decommissioning cost estimate as well as requiring additional financial reporting and assurances.
The additional details, including a decommissioning estimate for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), are included in this study. 1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act"[SJ (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. It was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998; however, to date no progress in the removal of spent fuel from commercial generating sites has been made. Today, the country is at an impasse on high-level waste disposal, even with the License Application for a geologic repository submitted by the DOE to the NRC in 2008. The current administration has cut the budget for the repository program while promising to "conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle ... and make recommendations for a new plan." Towards this goal, the administration appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (Blue Ribbon Commission) to make recommendations for a new plan for nuclear waste disposal.
The Blue Ribbon Commission's charter includes a requirement that it consider "[o]ptions for safe storage of used nuclear fuel while final disposition pathways are selected and deployed."[91 On January 26, 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission issued its "Report to the Secretary of Energy containing a number of recommendations on nuclear waste disposal.
Two of the recommendations that may impact decommissioning planning are: o "[T]he United States [should] establish a program that leads to the timely development of one or more consolidated storage facilities" o "[T]he United States should undertake an integrated nuclear waste management program that leads to the timely development of one or more permanent deep geological facilities for the safe disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste."[IOJ TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-26 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 6 of 13 In January 2013, the DOE issued the "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste," in response to the recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Commission and as "a framework for moving toward a sustainable program to deploy an integrated system capable of transporting, storing, and disposing of used nuclear fuel..." [11] "With the appropriate authorizations from Congress, the Administration currently plans to implement a program over the next 10 years that: o Sites, designs and licenses, constructs and begins operations of a pilot interim storage facility by 2021 with an initial focus on accepting used nuclear fuel from shut-down reactor sites; o Advances toward the siting and licensing of a larger interim storage facility to be available by 2025 that will have sufficient capacity to provide flexibility in the waste management system and allows for acceptance of enough used nuclear fuel to reduce expected government liabilities; and o Makes demonstrable progress on the siting and characterization of repository sites to facilitate the availability of a geologic repository by 2048." The NRC's review of DOE's license application to construct a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain was suspended in 2011 when the Administration significantly reduced the budget for completing that work. However, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a writ of mandamus (in August 2013)[1 21 ordering NRC to comply with federal law and resume its review of DOE's Yucca Mountain repository license application to the extent allowed by previously appropriated funding for the review. That review is now complete with the publication of the five-volume safety evaluation report. A supplement to DOE's environmental impact statement and an adjudicatory hearing on the contentions filed by interested parties must be completed before a licensing decision can be made. Completion of the decommissioning process is dependent upon the DO E's ability to remove spent fuel from the site in a timely manner. DOE's repository program assumes that spent fuel allocations will be accepted for disposal from the nation's commercial nuclear plants, with limited exceptions, in the order (the "queue") in which it was discharged from the reactorJ13J PG&E's current spent fuel management plan for the Diablo Canyon spent fuel is based in general upon: 1) a 2028 start date for DOE TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-27 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 7 of 13 initiating transfer of commercial spent fuel to a federal facility (not necessarily a final repository), and 2) expectations for spent fuel receipt by the DOE for the Diablo Canyon fuel. The DOE's generator allocation/receipt schedules are based upon the oldest fuel receiving the
- highest priority.
The information available on the projected rate of transfer and the backlogged national queue indicates that the oldest Diablo Canyon fuel would not be eligible for pickup until 2035. Assuming a maximum rate of transfer of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU)/year, the spent fuel is completely removed from the site by year end 2061 for a 2025 station shutdown.
The NRC requires that licensees establish a program to manage and provide funding for the caretaking of all irradiated fuel at the reactor site until title of the fuel is transferred to the DOEJ 1 4l Interim storage of the fuel, until the DOE has completed the transfer, will be in the fuel handling buildings' storage pool as well as at an on-site ISFSI. The ISFSI will remain operational until the DOE is able to complete the transfer of the fuel to a federal facility (e.g., a monitored retrievable storage facility).
DOE has breached its obligations to remove fuel from reactor sites, and has also failed to provide the plant owner with information about how it will ultimately perform. In the absence of information about how DOE will perform, and for purposes of this analysis only, it is assumed that DOE will accept already-canistered fuel. (It is recognized that the canisters may not be licensed or licensable for transportation when DOE performs.)
If this assumption is incorrect, it is assumed that DOE will have liability for costs incurred to transfer the fuel to DOE-supplied containers.
The ISFSI is* assumed to be expanded following cessation of plant operations to accommodate the assemblies in the plant's wet storage pools. By relocating the fuel to the ISFSI, the wet storage pools may be secured and decommissioning of the nuclear units may proceed. Costs are included within the estimates to expand the ISFSI to accommodate the residual spent fuel inventories after pool operations cease and for the long-term caretaking of spent fuel at the site through the year 2061. The PG&E position is that the DOE has a contractual obligation to accept Diablo Canyon's fuel earlier than the projections set out above consistent with its contract commitments.
No assumption made in this study should be interpreted to be inconsistent with this claim. However, including the cost of storing spent fuel in this study is appropriate to ensure the availability of sufficient decommissioning funds at the end of the station's life if the DOE has not met its obligation.
The cost for the interim storage TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-28 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 8 of 13 of spent fuel has been calculated and is separately presented as "Spent Fuel Management" expenditures in this report. 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.
With the passage of the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" in 1980,l 15 l and its Amendments of 1985,[16]
the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders. With the exception of Texas, no new compact facilities have been successfully sited, licensed, and constructed.
The Texas Compact disposal facility is now operational and waste is being accepted from generators within the Compact by the operator, Waste Control Specialists (WCS). The facility is also able to accept limited quantities of non-Compact waste. Disposition of the various waste streams produced by the decommissioning process considered all options and services currently available to PG&E. The majority of the low-level radioactive waste designated for direct disposal (Class Al17l) can be sent to EnergySolutions' facility in Clive, Utah. Therefore, disposal costs for Class A waste were based upon PG&E's current Diablo Canyon contract-based costs associated with the EnergySolutions facility.
This facility is not licensed to receive the higher activity portion (Classes B and C) of the decommissioning waste stream. The WCS facility is able to receive the Class Band C waste. As such, for this analysis, Class B and C waste was assumed to be shipped to the WCS facility.
Disposal costs for this waste were also based upon PG&E's current contract-based costs associated with the WCS facility.
The dismantling of the components residing closest to the reactor core generates radioactive waste that may be considered unsuitable for shallow-land disposal (i.e., low-level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the NRC for Class C radioactive waste (GTCC)). The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned the federal government the responsibility for the disposal of this material.
The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such waste. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-29 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 9 of 13 However, to date, the federal government has not identified a cost for disposing of GTCC or a schedule for acceptance.
For purposes of this analysis only, the GTCC radioactive waste is assumed to be packaged and disposed of in a similar manner as high-level waste and at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel. The GTCC is packaged in the same canisters used for spent fuel and either stored on site or shipped directly to a DOE facility as it is generated (depending upon the timing of the decommissioning and whether the spent fuel has been removed from the site prior to the start of decommissioning).
1.3.3 Radiological
Criteria for License Termination In 1997, the NRC published Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination," [IS] amending 10 CFR Part 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 assume that the Diablo Canyon site will be remediated to a residual level consistent with the NRC-prescribed level. 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)J19J An additional and separate limit of 4 millirem per year, as defined in 40 CFR §141.16, is applied to drinking water. [20] 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 (M0U)[21J 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, {l) groundwater contamination exceeds permitted levels; (2) NRC contemplates restricted release of the site; TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-30 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 10 of 13 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 in the cleanup. As such, the possibility of dual regulation remains for certain licensees.
The present study does not include any costs for this occurrence.
1.3.4 California
Governor Moratorium on Disposing of Decommissioned Materials The Governor of the State of California, Executive Order D-62-02, orders a moratorium " ... on the disposal of decommissioned materials into Class III landfills and unclassified waste management units, as described in title 27, sections 20260 and 20230, of the California Code of Regulations".
The order defines "decommissioned materials," as materials with low residual levels of radioactivity (below Federal Nuclear Regulatory Commission release levels) that, upon decommissioning of a licensed site, may presently be released with no restrictions upon their use. The order concludes that without regulations these decommissioned materials
- tnay not be released with no restrictions upon their use. As such, in the absence of California regulations on decommissioned materials, it is PG&E's position that the decommissioning plan for decommissioned materials
- should be based on transport and disposal to an out-of-state licensed facility.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-31 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 11of13 ' BO ARY TLG Services, Inc. FIGURE 1.1 DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT GENERAL PLAN .l'le*C't' ..st!ISS I Qil U N£ !CMO I D M.IL U PACI F IC figure -loc at i o n in di cate d w i t h ar r ow OCEAN 2-AtchA-32 SI TE BOUli 0 B O O 1200 1 6 0 0 SCALE I N fE ET Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis FIGURE 1.2 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 12 of 13 DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT AERIAL VIEW (Imagery date August 2013, from Google Earth) TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-33 l_ Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis FIGURE 1.3 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 13 of 13 DIABLO CANYON POWER PLANT REACTOR BUILDING SECTION TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-34 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 1of13 2. DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES Detailed cost estimates were developed to decommission Diablo Canyon based upon the approved DECON and SAFSTOR decommissioning alternatives.
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. This study does not address the cost to dispose of the spent fuel residing at the site; such costs are funded through a surcharge on electrical generation.
However, the study does estimate the costs incurred with the interim on-site storage of the fuel pending shipment by the DOE to an off-site disposal facility.
The scenarios selected are representative of alternatives available to the owner and are defined as follows: DECON: Units 1and2 are currently expected to cease operations in November 2024 and August 2025, respectively.
Spent fuel remaining in the spent fuel storage pools after a minimum cooling period of 10 years is transferred to the ISFSI for interim storage. This scenario assumes that decommissioning activities at the two units begin soon after unit shutdown and are sequenced and integrated so as to minimize the total duration of the physical dismantling processes.
Any residual spent fuel is transferred to the ISFSI so as to facilitate decontamination and dismantling activities within the fuel handing buildings.
Decommissioning of the station and subsequent demolition of the structures is completed by 2039. Spent fuel storage operations continue at the site until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete, assumed to be in the year 2061. The ISFSI is then decommissioned and dismantled.
SAFSTOR: Units 1 and 2 are currently expected to cease operations in November 2024 and August 2025, respectively.
The units are placed into safe-storage in this scenario.
The start of field decommissioning is deferred to the end of the fuel storage period. Spent fuel remaining in the spent fuel storage pools after a minimum cooling period of 10 years is transferred to the ISFSI for interim storage. As with the DE CON scenario, decommissioning activities at the two units are sequenced and integrated so as to minimize the total duration of the physical dismantling processes.
Spent fuel storage operations continue at the site until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete, assumed to be in the year 2061. ;' The following sections describe the basic activities associated with each base case alternative (DECON and SAFSTOR).
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.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-35 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 2 of 13 The conceptual approach that the NRC has described in its regulations divides decommissioning into three phases. The initial phase commences with the effective date of permanent cess*ation of operations and involves the transition of both plant and licensee from reactor operations (i.e., power production) to facility de-activation and closure. During the first phase, notification is to be provided to the NRC certifying the permanent cessation of operations and the removal of fuel from the reactor vessel. The licensee is then prohibited from reactor operation.
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 Diablo Canyon 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 DECON
The DECON alternative, as defined by the NRC, is "the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations." This study does not address the cost to dispose of the spent fuel residing at the site; such costs are funded through a surcharge on electrical generation; However, the study does estimate the costs incurred with the interim on-site storage of the fuel pending shipment by the DOE to an off-site disposal facility.
2.1.1 Period
1 -Preparations In anticipation of the cessation of plant operations, detailed preparations are undertaken to provide a smooth transition from plant operations to site decommissioning.
Through implementation of a staffing transition plan, the organization required to manage the intended decommissioning activities is assembled from available plant staff and outside resources.
Preparations include the planning for permanent defueling of the reactor, revision of technical specifications applicable to the operating conditions and requirements, a characterization of the facility and major components, and the development of the PSDAR. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-36 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Engineering and Planning Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 3 of 13 The PSDAR, required prior to or within two years of permanent cessation of operations, provides a description of the licensee's planned decommissioning activities, a timetable, and the associated financial requirements of the intended decommissioning program. Upon receipt of the PSDAR, the NRC will make the document available to the public for comment in a local hearing to be held in the vicinity of the reactor site. Ninety days following submittal and NRC receipt of the PSDAR, the licensee may begin to perform major decommissioning activities under modified 10 CFR §50.59 procedure, i.e., without specific NRC approval.
Major activities are defined as any activity that results in permanent removal of major radioactive components, permanently modifies the structure of the containment, or results in dismantling components (for shipment) containing GTCC, as defined by 10 CFR §61. Major components are further defined as comprising the reactor vessel and internals, large bore reactor coolant system piping, and other large components that are radioactive.
The NRC includes the following additional criteria for use of the §50.59 process in decommissioning.
The proposed activity must not: o foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use, o significantly increase decommissioning costs, o cause any significant environmental impact, or o violate the terms of the licensee's existing license Existing operational technical specifications are reviewed and modified to reflect plant conditions and the safety concerns associated with permanent cessation of operations.
The environmental impact associated with the planned decommissioning activities is Typically, a licensee will not be allowed to proceed if the consequences of a particular decommissioning activity are greater than that bounded by previously evaluated environmental assessments or impact statements.
In this instance, the licensee would have to submit a license amendment for the specific activity and update the environmental report. The decommissioning program outlined in the PSDAR 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 PSDAR, activity specifications, cost-benefit and safety analyses, work packages, and TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-37 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 4 of 13 procedures, would be assembled to support the proposed decontamination and dismantling activities.
Site Preparations Following final plant shutdown, and in preparation for actual decommissioning activities, the following activities are initiated:
o Characterization of the site and surrounding environs.
This includes radiation surveys of work areas, major components (including the reactor vessel and internals), internal piping, and biological shield cores. o Isolation of the spent fuel storage pool and fuel handling systems. This allows decommissioning operations to be performed in plant areas to the greatest extent, with minimum impact to the project schedule.
The fuel will be transferred from the spent fuel pools once it decays to the point that it. meets the heat load criteria of the spent fuel casks. It is therefore assumed that the fuel pools will remain operational for a minimum of ten years following the cessation of plant operations.
o Specification of transport and disposal requirements for activated materials and/or hazardous materials, including shielding and waste stabilization.
o 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 metallic components generated in decommissioning), site security and emergency programs, arid industrial safety. 2.1.2 Period 2 -Decommissioning Operations This period includes the physical decommissioning activities associated with the removal and disposal of contaminated and activated components and structures, including the successful release of the site from the 10 CFR §50 operating license, exclusive of the ISFSI. Significant decommissioning activities in this phase include: o Construction of temporary facilities and/or modification of existing facilities to support dismantling activities.
For example, this will include a centralized processing area to facilitate equipment removal and component preparations for off-site disposal.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-38 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 5 of 13 o Reconfiguration and modification of site structures and facilities as needed to support decommissioning operations.
This will include the upgrading of roads (on-and off-site) to facilitate hauling and transport.
Modifications will be required to the containment structure to facilitate access of large/heavy equipment.
Modifications will also be required to the refueling area of the reactor building to support the segmentation of the reactor vessel internals and component extraction.
o Transfer of the spent fuel from the storage pool to the ISFSI pad for interim storage. o 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. o Procurement (lease or purchase) of shipping canisters, cask liners, and industrial packages.
o Decontamination of components and piping systems as required to control (minimize) worker exposure.
o Removal of piping and components no longer to support decommissioning operations.
o Removal of control rod drive housings and the head service structure from reactor vessel head. Segmentation of the vessel closure head. o Removal and segmentation of the upper internals assemblies.
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.
o Disassembly and segmentation of the remaining reactor internals, including the core former and lower core support assembly.
Some material is expected to exceed Class C disposal requirements.
As such, the segments will be packaged in modified fuel storage canisters for geologic disposal.
o 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-air to containers that are stored under water, for example, in an isolated area of the refueling canal. o Removal of the activated portions of the concrete biological shield and accessible contaminated concrete surfaces.
If dictated by the steam TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-39 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 6 of 13 generator and pressurizer removal scenarios, those portions of the associated cubicles necessary for access and component extraction are removed. o Removal of the steam generators and pressurizer for controlled disposal.
The generators will be moved to an on-site processing center, the steam domes removed and segmented for transportation and disposal.
The lower shell and tube bundle will be packaged as a piece container for direct disposal.
These components can serve as their own disposal containers provided that all penetrations are properly sealed and steel shielding added, as necessary, to those external areas of the package to meet transportation limits and regulations.
o Expansion of the ISFSI .and transfer of the spent fuel from the storage pools to the DOE and ISFSI pad for interim storage. Spent fuel storage operations continue throughout the active decommissioning period. Fuel transfer to the DOE is expected to begin in 2035 and to be completed by the end of the year 2061. At least two years prior to the anticipated date of license termination, an LTP is required.
Submitted as a supplement to the Final Safety Analysis Report (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:
o 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).
o Removal of the steel liners from refueling canal, disposing of the activated and contaminated sections as radioactive waste. Removal of activated/
contaminated concrete (all concrete inside the containment liner). o Surveys of the decontaminated areas of the containment structure.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-40 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 7 of 13 o Remediation and removal of the contaminated equipment and material from the auxiliary building, fuel handling buildings, and any other contaminated facility.
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.
o Routing of material removed in the decontamination and dismantling to a central processing area. Contaminated material is characterized and segregated for packaging and disposal at a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.
Material that meets the US NRC release criteria, but may contain residual radioactivity is classified as decommissioned material and will be transported, and disposed of at an out-of-state 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)."[22]
This document incorporates the statistical approaches to survey design and data interpretation used by the EPA. It also identifies 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 the requested change to the operating licenses (that would release the property, exclusive of the ISFSI, for unrestricted use). The NRC terminates the operating licenses if it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with the LTP, and that the terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-41 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 2.1.3 Period 3 -Site Restoration Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 8 of 13 Following completion of decommissioning operations, site restoration activities can 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 t11;e structures.
Although performed in a controlled, safe manner, blasting, coring, drilling, scarification (surface removal), and the other decontamination activities will substantially degrade power block structures including the . reactor and auxiliary buildings.
Under certain circumstances, verifying that subsurface radionuclide concentrations meet NRC site release requirements will require removal of grade slabs and lower floors, potentially weakening footings and structural supports.
This removal activity will be necessary for those facilities and plant areas where historical records indicate the potential for radionuclides having been present in the soil, where system failures have been recorded, or where it is required to confirm that subsurface process and drain lines were not breached over the operating life of the station. It is not currently anticipated 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 is deferred.
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. Non-contaminated concrete rubble produced by demolition activities is processed on-site to remove reinforcing steel and miscellaneous embedments.
The processed rubble is then transported and disposed of at an out-of-state waste disposal facility.
The removed rebar, plus non-contaminated steel, copper, and other metals are transported to an out-of-state scrap dealer. Below grade voids are backfilled with clean imported fill to provide a reasonably uniform site contour (i.e., no large localized on site depressions).
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.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-42 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 2.1.4 ISFSI Operations and Decommissioning Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 9 of 13 For purposes only of this estimate, transfer of spent fuel to a DOE repository or interim facility is assumed to be exclusively from the ISFSI once the fuel pools have been emptied and the fuel handling buildings released for decommissioning.
If this assumption is incorrect, it is assumed that DOE will have liability for costs incurred to transfer the fuel to DOE-supplied containers and to dispose of existing containers.
The ISFSI will continue to operate under a separate and independent license (10 CFR §72) following the termination of the §50 operating licenses.
Completion of the decommissioning process is dependent upon the DOE's ability to remove spent fuel from the site in a manner timely enough to complete license termination activi_ties within 60 years of unit shut down. This analysis assumes that the last of the spent fuel will be removed from the site within approximately 36 years of the station shutdown or year 2061. At the conclusion of the spent fuel transfer process, the ISFSI will be decommissioned.
The Commission will terminate the §72 license when it determines that the remediation of the ISFSI has been performed in accordance with an ISFSI license termination plan and that the final radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release. Once the requirements are satisfied, the NRC can terminate the license for the ISFSI. The ISFSI is based upon the currently licensed facility that uses purpose canisters and concrete overpacks for pad storage. For purposes of this cost analysis, it is assumed that once the inner canisters containing the spent fuel assemblies have been removed, any required decontamination performed on the storage overpack (some minor neutron activation is assumed), and the license for the facility terminated, the concrete overpacks can be dismantled using conventional techniques for the demolition of reinforced concrete.
Demolished concrete (decommissioned material) is packaged and transported to an out-of-state waste disposal facility.
The concrete storage pad is then removed and the area regraded.
2.2 SAFSTOR
The NRC defines SAFSTOR as "the alternative in which the nuclear facility is placed and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to be safely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination) to levels TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-43 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 10 of 13 that permit release for unrestricted use." The facility is left intact (during the dormancy period), with structures maintained in a sound condition.
Systems that are not required to support the spent fuel pool or site surveillance and security are drained, de-energized, and secured. Minimal cleaning/removal of loose contamination and/or fixation and sealing of remaining contamination are performed.
Access to contaminated areas is secured to provide controlled access for inspection and maintenance.
The engineering and planning requirements for physical dismantling activities are similar to those for the DECON alternative.
Site preparations for physical dismantling are also similar to those for the DECON alternative, with the exception of certain activities, such as spent fuel pool operations and maintenance, and chemical decontamination of primary systems. Decommissioning operations are assumed to begin once the transfer of the spent fuel to the DOE is completed (in year 2062). 2.2.1 Period 1 -Preparations Preparations for long-term storage include the planning for permanent defueling of the reactor, revision of technical specifications appropriate to the operating conditions and requirements, a characterization of the facility and major components, and the development of the PSDAR. The process of placing the plant in safe-storage includes, but is not limited to, the following activities:
o Isolation of the spent fuel storage services and fuel handling systems so that safe-storage operations may commence on the balance of the plant. This activity may be carried out by plant personnel in accordance with existing operating technical specifications.
Activities are scheduled around the fuel handling systems to the greatest extent possible.
o Transferring the spent fuel from the storage pools to the ISFSI for interim storage, following the minimum required cooling period in the spent fuel pools. o Draining and de-energizing of the non-contaminated systems not required to support continued site operations or maintenance.
o Disposing of contaminated filter elements and resin beds not required for processing wastes from layup activities for future operations.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-44 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 11of13 o Draining of the reactor vessel, .with the internals left in place and the vessel head secured. o Draining and de-energizing non-essential, contaminated systems with decontamination as required for future maintenance and inspection.
o Preparing lighting and alarm systems whose continued use is required; de-energizing portions of fire protection, electric power, and HVAC systems whose continued use is not required.
o Cleaning of the loose surface contamination from building access pathways.
o Performing an interim radiation survey of plant, posting warmng signs where appropriate.
o Erecting physical barriers and/or securing all access to radioactive or contaminated areas, except as required for inspection and maintenance.
o Installing security and surveillance monitoring equipment and relocating security fence around secured structures, as required.
2.2.2 Period
2 -Dormancy The second phase identified by the NRC in its rule addresses licensed activities during a storage period and is applicable to the dormancy phases of the deferred decommissioning alternatives.
Dormancy activities include a 24-hour security force, preventive and corrective maintenance on security systems, area lighting, general building maintenance, heating and ventilation of buildings, routine radiological inspections of contaminated structures, maintenance of structural integrity, and a site environmental and radiation monitoring program. Resident maintenance personnel perform equipment maintenance, inspection activities, routine services to maintain safe conditions, adequate lighting, heating, and ventilation, and periodic preventive maintenance on essential site services.
An environmental surveillance program is carried out during the dormancy period to ensure that releases of radioactive material to the environment are prevented or detected and controlled.
Appropriate emergency procedures are established and initiated for potential releases that exceed prescribed limits. The environmental surveillance program constitutes an abbreviated version of the program in effect during normal plant operations.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-45 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 12 of 13 Security during the dormancy period _is conducted primarily to prevent unauthorized entry and to protect the public from the consequences of its own actions. The security fence, sensors, alarms, and other surveillance equipment provide security.
Fire and radiation alarms are also monitored and maintained.
Consistent with the DECON scenario, the spent fuel storage pools are emptied within approximately 10 years of the cessation of operations.
The transfer of the spent fuel to the DOE takes place during the dormancy period until completed in 2061. Once emptied, the ISFSI is decommissioned along with the power block structures in Period 4. 2.2.3 Periods 3 and 4 -Delayed Decommissioning Prior to the commencement of decommissioning operations, preparations are undertaken to reactivate site services and prepare for decommissioning.
Preparations include engineering and planning, a detailed site characterization, and the assembly of a decommissioning management organization.
Final planning for activities and the writing of activity specifications and detailed procedures are also initiated at this time. Much of the work in developing a termination plan is relevant to the development of the detailed engineering plans and procedures.
The activities associated with this phase and the follow-on decontamination and dismantling processes are detailed in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.1.2. The primary difference between the sequences anticipated for the DE CON and this deferred scenario is the absence, in the latter, of any constraint on the availability of the fuel storage facilities for decommissioning.
Variations in the length of the dormancy period are expected to have little effect upon the quantities of radioactive wastes generated from system and structure removal operations.
Given the levels of radioactivity and spectrum of radionuclides expected from forty years of plant operation, no plant process system identified as being contaminated upon final shutdown will become releasable due to the decay period alone, i.e., there is no significant reduction in the waste generated from the decommissioning activities.
The delay in decommissioning also yields lower working area radiation levels. As such, the estimate for this delayed scenario incorporates reduced ALARA controls for the SAFSTOR's lower occupational exposure potential.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-46 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 13 of 13 Although the initial radiation levels due to 60Co will decrease during the dormancy period, the internal components of the reactor vessel will still exhibit sufficiently high radiation dose rates to require remote sectioning under water due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides such as 94Nb, 59Ni, and 63Ni. Therefore, the dismantling procedures described for the DE CON alternative would still be employed during this scenario.
Portions of the biological shield will still be radioactive due to the presence of activated trace elements with longer half-lives (152Eu and 154Eu). Decontamination will require controlled removal and disposal.
It is assumed that radioactive corrosion products on inner surfaces of piping and components will not have decayed to levels that will permit unrestricted use or allow conventional removal. These systems and components will be surveyed as they are removed and disposed of in accordance with the existing radioactive release criteria.
2.2.4 Period
5 -Site Restoration Following completion of decommissioning operations, site-restoration activities begin. Dismantling, as a continuation of the decommissioning process is a cost-effective option, as described in Section 2.1.3. The basis for the dismantling cost is consistent with that described for DECON, presuming the removal of structures and site facilities to a nominal depth of three feet below grade and the limited restoration of the site. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-47 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis ' 3. COST ESTIMATES Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 1 of 32 The cost estimates prepared for decommissioning Diablo Canyon consider the unique features of the site, including the nuclear steam supply system, electric power generating systems, structures, and supporting 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 ESTIMATES The estimates were developed using site-specific, technical information extracted from the 2012 and previous estimates.
This 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.
The following are the significant changes associated with the plant configuration or radiological status that have been incorporated into the current estimate.
o Removing and disposing of materials associated with recently installed security measures, particularly physical barriers, were incorporated into the estimate.
The following are the significant changes associated with other aspects of the current estimate.
o Consistent with PG&E's interpretation of the California governor's executive order on the moratorium on disposing of decommissioned materials in the State of California[
2 3l, costs to account for transporting and disposing of decommissioned materials to an out-of-state disposal facility have been added. o PG&E's experience segmenting the Humboldt Bay Unit 3 reactor and industry experience segmenting the Zion Nuclear Station reactor vessels have been incorporated into the estimate.
o Permitting costs associated with constructing a Greater-Than-Class-C storage pad, as well as other expected permitting expenses and environmental fees have been incorporated into the estimate.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-48 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 2 of 32 0 Maintaining security staff levels near operating staff levels while spent fuel is stored in the spent fuel pools was re-affirmed.
The cost associated with maintaining these staff levels has been incorporated into the estimate.
- Cost impact of a delay in DOE's start of spent fuel pickup from commercial generators from 2024 to 2028.
- Complying with expected re-licensing requirements after the ISFSI license is renewed. 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,"[24]
and the DOE "Decommissioning Handbook."[25]
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) are developed using local labor rates. The activity-dependent costs are estimated with the item quantities (cubic yards and tons), developed from plant drawings and inventory documents.
Removal rates and material costs for the conventional disposition of components and structures rely upon information available in the industry publication, "Building Construction Cost Data," published by R.S. Means. [261 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 .. 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 experience associated with the Pathfinder, Shoreham, Rancho Seco, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Humboldt Bay-3, Connecticut Yankee, San Onofre, Vermont Yankee, and Zion nuclear units have provided additional insight into the process, the regulatory aspects, and technical challenges of decommissioning commercial nuclear units. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-49 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Work Difficulty Factors Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 3 of 32 TLG has historically applied work difficulty adjustment factors (WDFs) to account for the inefficiencies in working in a power plant environment.
WDFs are assigned to each unique set of unit factors, commensurate with the inefficiencies associated with working in confined, hazardous environments.
The ranges used for the WDFs are as follows: o Access Factor o Respiratory Protection Factor (l) Radiation/ALARA Factor o Protective Clothing Factor o Work Break Factor 10% to 20% 10% to 50% 10% to 37% 10% to 30% 8.33% 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 m?re detail in that publication.
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 radiological controlled areas. The resulting labor-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 is based upon productivity information available from the "Building Construction Cost Data" publication.
In the DECON alternative, dismantling of the fuel handing systems and decontamination of the spent fuel pool is also dependent upon the timetable for the transfer of the spent fuel assemblies from the pool to the ISFSI. 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 costs. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-50 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 4 of 32 3.3 IMPACT OF DECOMMISSIONING MULTIPLE REACTOR UNITS In estimating the near simultaneous decommissioning of two co-located reactor unit's 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. For purposes of the estimate, Units 1 and 2 are assumed to be essentially identical.
Common facilities have been assigned to Unit 2. A summary of the principal impacts are listed below. (I} The sequence of work generally follows the principal that the work is done at Unit 1 first, followed by similar work at Unit 2. This permits the experience gained at Unit 1 to be applied by the workforce at the second unit. It should be noted however, that the estimate generally does not consider productivity improvements at the second unit, since there is little documented experience with decommissioning two units simultaneously.
The work associated with developing activity specifications and procedures can be considered essentially identical between the two units, therefore the second unit costs are assumed to be a fraction of the first 43%). o Segmenting the reactor vessel and internals will require the use of special equipment.
Thermal cutting equipment and equipment spare parts will be shared between the two reactors.
The decommissioning project will be scheduled such that Unit 2's reactor internals and vessel are segmented in sequence with the activities at Unit 1. o Some program management and support costs, particularly costs associated with the more senior positions, can be avoided with two reactors undergoing decommissioning simultaneously.
As a result, the estimate is based on a "lead unit that includes these senior positions, and a "second" unit that excludes these positions.
The designation as lead is based on the unit undertaking the most complex tasks (for instance vessel segmentation) or performing tasks for the first time. o 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, the transfer of the spent fuel from the storage pools and subsequent decontamination of the spent fuel pool areas is coordinated so as to synchronize the final status survey for the station. c The final demolition of buildings at Units 1and2 are considered to take place concurrently.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-51 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 5 of o Unit 1, as the first unit to enter decommissioning, incurs the majority of site characterization costs. o Shared systems and common structures are generally assigned to Unit 2. o Station costs such as ISFSI operating costs, emergency response fees, regulatory agency fees, and insurance are generally allocated on an equal basis between the two units. 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, spent fuel management and site restoration.
3.4.1 Contingency
The activity-and period-dependent costs are combined to develop the total dycommissioning 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"[27J as "specific provision for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope; particularly important where previous experience relating estimates and actual costs has shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur." The cost elements in this analysis are based upon ideal conditions and maximum efficiency; therefore, consistent with industry practice, contingency is included.
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, includes a contingency target based on a preliminary technical position [281 to reflect the California Public Utilities Commission's desire for owners to conservatively establish an appropriate contingency factor for inclusion in the decommissioning revenue requirements.
Contingency Based on AIF Guidelines As stated in the AIF study 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 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-52 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 6 of 32 the maJor activity-related problems (decontamination, segmentation, equipment handling, packaging, transport, and waste disposal) that necessitate a contingency.
Individual activity contingencies i*anged from 10% to 50%, 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: o Decontamination 50% o Contaminated Component Removal 25% o Contaminated Component Packaging 10% e Contaminated Component Transport 15% o Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 25% o Reactor Segmentation*
35% o NSSS Component Removal 25% o Reactor Waste Packaging 25% o Reactor Waste Transport 25% o Reactor Vessel Component Disposal 50% o GTCC Disposal 15% o Non-Radioactive Component Removal 15% o Heavy Equipment and Tooling 15% o Supplies 25% e Engineering 15% e Energy 15% a Characterization and Termination Surveys 30% o Construction 15% o Taxes and NRC Fees 10% o Insurance 10% '-o Staffing 15% o Breakwater Removal 25% o ISFSI Decommissioning (license termination) 25% o Spent Fuel Storage (Dry) Systems 15% o Spent Fuel Transfer Costs 15% o GTCC Pad Permitting 15% o Environmental Permits and Fees 15% o Decommissioned Materials (Transport and Disposal) 15%
- Reactor Segmentation Contingency has been reduced from AIF Guidelines level (75%) to 35% since substantial industry experience (and corresponding increased cost) has been incorporated into the current estimate.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-53 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-J.719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 7 of 32 The contingency values are applied to the appropriate components of the estimates on a line item basis. The composite contingency value (excluding additional contingency described in the Preliminary Technical Position) for the DECON alternative is approximately 17.4%. The value for the SAFSTOR alternative is approximately 17.0%. Appendix E, the ISFSI decommissioning calculation, uses a flat 25% contingency added at the end of the calculation.
Contingency Based on Preliminary Technical Position In addition to the contingency based on the AIF guidelines, additional contingency was added to reflect the California Public Utilities Commission desire for owners to conservatively establish an appropriate contingency factor for inclusion in the decommissioning revenue requirements.
Based on the previously referenced technical position, additional contingency was added to reflect an overall project contingency of 25% (both scenarios).
This contingency was incorporated on a line item basis, with each line item receiving a pro-rated share of the increase.
The nominal increase in contingency to achieve an overall contingency rate of 25% is 40%. 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: o Transition activities and costs: ancillary expenses associated with eliminating 50% to 80% of the site labor force shortly after the cessation of plant operations, added cost for worker separation packages throughout the decommissioning program, national or company-mandated retraining, and retention incentives for key personnel.
Q Delays in approval of the decommissioning plan due to intervention, public participation in local community meetings, legal challenges, and national and local hearings.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-54 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis DocumentPOl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 8 of 32 a 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.
o Regulatory changes, for example, affecting worker health and safety, site release criteria, waste transportation, and disposal.
I I
- Policy decisions altering national commitments in the ability to I accommodate certain waste forms for disposition, or in the timetable for such, or the start and rate of acceptance of spent fuel by the DOE.
- Pricing changes for basic inputs such as labor, energy, materials, and waste disposal.
This cost study does not add any additional costs to the estimate for financial risk, since there is'insufficient historical data from which to project future liabilities.
Consequently, the areas of uncertainty or risk are revisited periodically and addressed through repeated revisions or updates of the base estimates.
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. 3.5.1 Spent Fuel Management The cost to dispose the spent fuel generated from plant operations is not reflected within the estimates to decommission Diablo Canyon site. Ultimate disposition of the spent fuel is within the province of the DOE's Waste Management System, as defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. As such, the disposal cost is financed by a surcharge paid into the DOE's waste fund during operations.
On November 19, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the Secretary of the Department of Energy to suspend collecting annual fees for nuclear waste disposal from nuclear power plant operators until the DOE has cond.ucted a legally adequate fee assessment.
Prior to this suspension, the disposal cost was financed by a 1 mill/kWhr surcharge paid*into the DOE's waste fund during operations.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-55 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 9 of 32 The total inventory of assemblies that will require handling during decommissioning is based upon the following assumptions.
The DOE's generator allocation/receipt schedules are based upon the oldest fuel receiving the highest priority.
For purposes of this analysis, acceptance of Diablo Canyon spent fuel by the DOE is expected to be complete by 2061 to permit license termination within approximately 36 years of station shut down. The first assemblies removed from the Diablo Canyon site are projected to be in year 2035. The estimates incorporate a minimum cooling period of approximately 10 years for the spent fuel that resides in the storage pools when operations cease. The current Part. 72 ISFSI license does not allow dry cask storage of spent fuel with burnups above 62 GWD/metric ton. It is assumed that PG&E can amend the Part 72 license to store the higher burnup fuel, but that as a condition of the amendment it rwill require longer decay times (10 years) before storing the spent fuel in the casks. In both scenarios, any residual fuel remaining in the pool after the 10-year period is relocated to the ISFSI to await transfer to a DOE facility.
Operation and maintenance costs for the spent fuel pool and the ISFSI are included within the estimates and address the cost for staffing the facility, as well as security, insurance, and licensing fees. The estimates include the costs to purchase, load, and transfer the multi-purpose spent fuel storage canisters (MPCs) from the pool to the ISFSI. Costs are also provided for transfer of the MPCs to the DOE from the ISFSI (although it is acknowledged that this may not occur and that the fuel in the MPCs may have to be repackaged at DOE expense).
Canister Design A multi-purpose storage canister (HOLTEC HI-STORM lOOSA system), with a 32-fuel assemblies capacity, is assumed for future canister and overpack acquisitions.
The overpack in use at Diablo Canyon is uniquely configured with additional support steel for seismic considerations.
A unit cost of $1,230,000 is used for pricing the internal multi-purpose canister (MPC) and concrete overpack.
Canister Loading and Transfer An average cost of $1,053,600 per canister is used for the labor and consumables to load/transport the spent fuel from the pools to the ISFSI pad, based upon Diablo Canyon operating experience.
The same cost, $1.053 million per canister, is used to estimate the cost to transfer the fuel TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-56
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 10 of 32 from the spent fuel pools to the DOE. For estimating purposes, 50% of the pool to DOE cost is used to estimate the cost to transfer the fuel from the ISFSI to the DOE. Operations and Maintenance Annual costs (excluding labor) of $1.58 million and $1.09 million are used for operation and maintenance of the spent fuel pools and the ISFSI, respectively.
The ISFSI cost reflects additional costs associated with inspection and aging mitigation likely to be required as a result ,of the ISFSI license renewal. ISFSI and GTCC Pad and Decommissioning
- At the . time of decommissioning it is expected that there will be 138 emptied concrete I steel HI-STORM 100 SA overpacks, and 8 similar GTCC emptied concrete I steel overpacks located on the ISFSI and GTCC pads, respectively.
The nominal weight of each overpack is 135 tons, comprised of 45 tons of steel and 90 tons of concrete.
From a perspective of complying with the US NRC release criteria, the estimate is based on seven overpacks per unit (quantity necessary to manage the final core offload) having some level of steel liner neutron-induced activation as a result of the long-term storage of the fuel, i.e., to levels exceeding release limits. The steel liners in these activated overpacks are assumed to be removed and disposed of as radioactive material.
The remaining material, including the concrete pads and embedments up to a depth of three feet below grade are designated as decommissioned material.
The cost to demolish this material, as well as package and transport it to an out-of-state waste disposal is included in the estimates.
In accordance with the specific requirements of 10 CFR §72.30 for the ISFSI work scope, the cost estimate for decommissioning the ISFSI reflects:
- 1) the cost of an independent contractor performing the decommissioning activities;
- 2) an adequate contingency factor; and 3) the cost of meeting the criteria for unrestricted use. The decommissioning cost for the ISFSI is identified as a separate line item in the Unit 1and2 cost tables in Appendices C and D, and as stand-alone table in Appendix E. GTCC The dismantling of the reactor internals generates radioactive waste considered unsuitable for shallow land disposal (i.e., low-level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-57 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 11 of 32 established by the NRC for Class C radioactive waste (GTCC)). The Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned the federal government the responsibility for the disposal of this material.
The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such waste. Although there are strong arguments that GTCC waste is covered by the spent fuel contact with DOE and the fees being paid pursuant to that contract, DOE has taken the position that GTCC waste is not covered by that contract or its fees and that utilities, including PG&E, will have to pay an additional fee for the disposal of their GTCC waste. However, to date, the federal government has not identified a cost I for disposing of GTCC or a schedule for acceptance.
As such, the GTCC radioactive waste has been packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel. For purposes of this study, GTCC is packaged in a canister similar to those used to store spent fuel. The cost of the canister is estimated to be approximately 50% of the spent fuel canister due to design differences.
Disposal costs are based upon a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel. It is not anticipated that the DOE would accept this waste prior to completing the transfer of spent fuel. Therefore, until such time the DOE is ready to accept GTCC waste, it is reasonable to assume that this material would remain in storage with the spent fuel in the ISFSI at the Diablo Canyon site (for the DECON alternative).
In the SAFSTOR scenario, the GTCC material is shipped directly to a DOE facility as it is generated since the fuel will have been removed from the site prior to the start of decommissioning and the ISFSI deactivated.
The cost to dispose of GTCC material is based on the equivalent cost to dispose of spent fuel (weight basis). The details for estimating this value is provided in Section 5 of this analysis.
3.5.2 Reactor
Vessel and Internal Components The reactor pressure vessel and internal components are segmented for disposal in shielded, reusable transportation casks. Segmentation 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 dictate the segmentation and packaging methodology.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-58 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 12 of 32 Intact disposal of reactor vessel shells has been successfully demonstrated at several of the sites that have been decommissioned.
Access to navigable waterways has allowed these large packages to be transported to the Barnwell disposal site with minimal overland travel. Intact disposal of the reactor vessel and internal components as a single package 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 (including the internals).
However, its location on the Columbia River simplified the transportation analysis since: ' o the reactor package could be secured to the transport vehicle for the entire journey, i.e., the package was not lifted during transport, o there were no man-made or natural terrain features between the plant site and the disposal location that could produce a large drop, and o 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 when the Diablo Canyon plant ceases operation.
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 that the reactor vessel will require segmentation, as a bounding condition.
3.5.3 Primary
System Components In the DECON scenario, the reactor coolant system components are assumed to be decontaminated using chemical agents prior to the start of dismantling operations.
This type of decontamination can be expected to have a significant ALARA impact, since in this scenario the removal work is done within the first few years of shutdown.
A decontamination factor (average reduction) of 10 is assumed for the process. Disposal of the decontamination solution effluent is included within the estimate as a TLG Semices, Inc. 2-AtchA-59 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document.POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 13 of 32 "process liquid waste" charge. In the SAFSTOR scenarios, radionuclide decay is expected to provide the same benefit and, therefore, a chemical decontamination is not included.
The following discussion deals with the removal and disposition of the steam generators, but the techniques involved are also applicable to other large components, such as heat exchangers, component coolers, and the pressurizer.
The steam generators' size and weight, as well as their location within the reactor building, will ultimately determine the removal strategy.
A trolley crane is set up for the removal of the generators.
It can also be used to move portions of the steam generator cubicle walls and floor slabs from the reactor building to a location where they can be decontaminated and transported to the material handling area. Interferences within the work area, such as grating, piping, and other components are removed to create sufficient laydown space for processing these large components.
The generators are rigged for removal, disconnected from the surrounding piping and supports, and maneuvered into the open area where they are lowered onto a dolly. Each generator is rotated into the horizontal position for extraction from the containment and placed onto a multi-wheeled vehicle for.transport to an on-site processing and storage area. The generators are disassembled on-site with the outer shell and lightly contaminated subassemblies designated for segmentation and direct disposal.
The more highly contaminated tube sheet and tube bundle contained within the steam generator lower shell are packaged as a piece container for direct disposal.
Disposal costs are based upon the displaced volume and weight of the units. Reactor coolant piping is cut from the reactor vessel once the water level in the vessel (used for personnel shielding during dismantling and cutting operations in and around the vessel) is dropped below the nozzle zone. The piping is boxed and transported by shielded van. The reactor coolant pumps and motors are lifted out intact, packaged, and transported for processing and/or disposal.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-60 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 3.5.4 Main Turbine and Condenser Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 14 of 32 The main turbine is dismantled using conventional maintenance procedures.
The turbine rotors and shafts are removed to a laydown area. The lower turbine casings are removed from their anchors by controlled demolition.
The main condensers are also disassembled and moved to a laydown area. Material is then surveyed and prepared for transportation to an off-site scrap facility.
3.5.5 Retired
Components Both Diablo Canyon units have replaced their original sets of steam generators and reactor closure heads; these retired components are stored on site within a concrete protective structure.
The cost for transportation and disposal of these items has been included in this analysis.
3.5.6 Transportation
Methods Contaminated piping, components, and structural material other than the highly activated reactor vessel and internal components will qualify as LSA-I, II or III or Surface Contaminated Object, SCO-I or II, as described in Title 49. [29] 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.
The reactor vessel and internal components are expected to be transported in accordance with 10 CFR Part 71, in Type B containers.
It is conceivable that the reactor, due to its limited specific activity, could qualify as LSA II or III. However, the high radiation levels on the outer surface would require that additional shielding be incorporated within the packaging so as to attenuate the dose to levels acceptable for transport.
Any fuel cladding failure that occurred during the lifetime of the plant is assumed to have released fission products at sufficiently low levels that the buildup of quantities of long-lived isotopes (e.g., l37Cs, 90Sr, or transuranics) has been prevented from reaching levels exceeding those that permit the major reactor components to be shipped under current transportation regulations and disposal requirements.
Transport of the highly activated metal, produced in the segmentation of the reactor vessel and internal components, will be by shielded truck cask. Cask shipments may exceed 95,000 pounds, including vessel segment(s), supplementary shielding, cask tie-downs, and tractor-trailer.
The maximum level of activity per shipment assumed permissible was based TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-61 L __ Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 15 of 32 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 oflarge intact components (e.g., large heat exchangers and other oversized components) will be by a combination of truck, rail, and/or multi-wheeled transporter.
Transportation costs for Class A radioactive material requiring controlled disposal are based upon the mileage to the EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah. Transportation costs for the higher activity Class B and C radioactive material are based upon the mileage to the WCS facility in Andrews County, Texas. The transportation cost for the GTCC material is assumed to be contained within the disposal cost. Truck transport costs were developed from published tariffs from Tri-State Motor Transit. [30J 3.5.7 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal The mass of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities at the site is shown on a line-item basis in the detailed Appendices C and D, and summarized in Section 5. The quantified waste summaries shown in these tables are consistent with 10 CFR Part 61 classifications.
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.
The volumes are calculated based on the exterior package dimensions for containerized material or a specific calculation for components serving as their own waste containers.
The more highly activated reactor components will be shipped in reusable, shielded truck casks with disposable liners. In calculating disposal costs, the disposal fees are applied against the liner yolume, as well as the special handling requirements of the payload. Packaging efficiencies are lower for the highly activated materials (greater than Class A waste), where high concentrations of gamma-emitting radionuclides limit the capacity of the shipping canisters.
Class A Waste For the purpose of this analysis, the Energy Solutions' facility is used as the disposal site for the majority of the radioactive waste (Class A). The disposal costs for Class A low-level radioactive waste are based on current Diablo Canyon contracted rates between PG&E and EnergySolutions in TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-62 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 16 of 32 year 2014 dollars. A complete explanation of the basis for Class A waste disposal is provided in Section 5 of this analysis.
Class B and C Waste For purposes of this analysis, the Waste Control Specialists (WCS) Andrews County, TX facility is used as the disposal site for the higher radioactivity waste (Class B and C). The disposal costs for Class B and C
- low-level radioactive waste are based on current Diablo Canyon contracted rates between PG&E and WCS in year 2014 dollars. A complete explanation of the basis for class B and C waste disposal is provided in Section 5 of this an.alysis.
3.5.8 Site Restoration Following License Termination The NRC will amend or terminate the site license if it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with the license termination plan, and that the terminal radiation 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 owner's own future plans for the site. Only existing site structures are considered in the cost. It is assumed that the electrical switchyard.s remain after Diablo Canyon is decommissioned.
Structures are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade. The voids are backfilled with clean fill and capped with soil. The site is then re-graded to conform to the adjacent landscape.
Vegetation is established to inhibit erosion. These "non-radiological costs" are included in the total cost of decommissioning.
Concrete rubble and scrap metal (considered decommissioned material) generated from demolition activities is processed and transported via a combination of local truck and long-distance railway transport to an site out-of-state waste facility or out-of-state scrap dealer. Concrete rubble also incurs a disposal charge. Clean fill is brought on site to backfill below grade voids as needed. The excavations will be regraded such that the power block area will have a final contour consistent with adjacent surroundings.
The estimates do not assume the remediation of any significant volume of contaminated soil. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-63 L __ Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 3.6 ASSUMPTIONS Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 17 of 32 The following are the major assumptions made m the development of the estimates for decommissioning the site. 3.6.1 Estimating Basis Decommissioning costs are reported in the year ofprojected expenditure; however, the values are provided in 2014 dollars. Costs are not inflated, escalated, or discounted over the periods of performance.
The estimates were developed using site-specific and technical information extracted from the 2012 estimates.
This 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.
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.
- 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 PG&E. PG&E will hire a Decommissioning Operations Contractor (DOC) to manage the decommissioning.
The owner will provide site security, radiological health and safety, quality assurance and overall site administration during the decommissioning and demolition phases. Contract personnel will provide engineering services (e.g., for preparing TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-64 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 18 of 32 the activity specifications, work procedures, activation, and structural analyses) under the direction of PG&E. Personnel costs are based upon average salary information provided by PG&E. Overhead costs are included for site and corporate support, reduced commensurate with the staffing of the project. Security is maintained close to operational levels while fuel is stored in the spent fuel pool. Security is reduced substantially once all spent fuel has been relocated to the ISFSI. Staffing levels are assigned for each unit by sub-period and functional area. This estimate was updated to reflect PG&E's experience at Humboldt Bay Unit 3 and industry experience at Zion. This experience has resulted in an increase in the Utility and DOC staff needed to support the reactor and large component decommissioning activities (Sub-Period 2a in the estimate).
Economies of a multi-unit decommissioning are recognized by establishing a primary and a secondary staff level. The unit assigned the primary staff will include common supervisory positions and positions that may be shared across both units. The types of positions and staffing levels are adjusted based upon the type of activity occurring in each period. 3.6.3 Design Conditions Any fuel cladding failure that occurred during the lifetime of the plant is assumed to have released fission products at sufficiently low levels that the buildup of quantities of fong-lived isotopes (e.g., 137Cs, 90Sr, or transuranics) has been prevented from reaching levels exceeding those that permit the major NSSS components to be shipped under current transportation regulations and disposal requirements.
The curie contents of the vessel and internals at final shutdown are derived from those listed in NUREG/CR-3474J31J Actual estimates are derived from the curie/gram values contained therein and adjusted for the different mass of the Diablo Canyon components, projected operating life, and different periods of decay. Additional short-lived isotopes were derived from NUREG/CR-0130l32J and NUREG/CR-0672,l33J and benchmarked to the long-lived values from NUREG/CR-3474.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-65 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis DocumentPOl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 19 of 32 It is anticipated that there may be control element assemblies (CEAs) in the spent fuel pool at the cessation of operations, including those CEAs from the final core. This analysis assumes that the CEAs can be disposed of along with the spent fuel at no additional cost. Neutron activation of the containment building structure is assumed to be confined to the biological shield. 3.6.4 General Transition Activities Existing warehouses are cleared of non-essential material and remain for use by PG&E and its subcontractors.
The plant's operating staff performs the following activities at no additional cost or credit to the project during the transition period: o Drain and collect fuel oils, lubricating oils, and transformer oils for recycle and/or sale. o Drain and collect acids, caustics, and other chemical stores for recycle and/or sale. o Process operating waste inventories.
Disposal of operating wastes (e.g., filtration media, resins) during this initial period is not considered a decommissioning expense; however, the estimates do include the disposition of a small volume of material currently being stored in the spent fuel pool (as described in Section 5). Decommissioned Materials Consistent with PG&E's interpretation of the California governor's executive on the moratorium on disposing of decommissioned materials in the State of California (Executive Order D-62-02), costs to account for transporting and disposing of decommissioned materials to an out-of-state disposal facility have been included in this estimate.
Decommissioned materials, as used in the context of this analysis are defined as materials that meet the US NRC release criteria but contain low residual levels of radioactivity that currently may not be placed into California Class III landfills or unclassified waste management units. Demolished concrete and scrap steel are categorized as decommissioned materials in this analysis.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-66 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 20 of 32 Cost for disposing of decommissioned materials include local handling and packaging costs, cost for truck transport via public highway to a railhead in San Luis Obispo, and rail transport to an out-of-state location (Utah for concrete, Nevada for scrap steel). This cost is included in the Appendices C and D cost tables line items labeled: o Backfill Structures
& Concrete Removal (out of state disposal) o Breakwater Demolition and Removal (out of state disposal) o Disposition of Mobile Barriers (out of state disposal) o Miscellaneous Construction Debris (out of state disposal) o Scrap Metal Transportation (out of state); and o Demolition and Site Restoration ISFSI GTCC Pad The existing ISFSI pad is expected to be at capacity at the time of station shutdown with all spent fuel offloaded to the ISFSI. Due to the physical layout of the ISFSI pad it is impractical to expand the pad to support the addition of GTCC storage casks. In order to store GTCC material generated during decommissioning, costs for permitting and constructing a GTCC Storage Pad have been included.
The cost for design, permitting and reviews is estimated at $18.8 million. The cost for construction is estimated at $5 million. Environmental Permits and Fees The estimate reflects PG&E's determination that there will be substantive Environmental Permits and Fees required and costs incurred between the time of station shutdown and Part 50 licenses termination.
The annual amount budgeted between shutdown and license termination is $1.9 million I year (DECON scenario).
A similar amount was included in the SAFSTOR scenario.
The projected .costs are consistent with costs identified in the SONGS 2 and 3 Site-Specific Decommissioning Estimate [34J submitted to the NRC in 2014. Scrap and Salvage The existing plant equipment is considered obsolete and suitable for scrap as deadweight quantities only. PG&E will make economically reasonable efforts to salvage equipment following final plant shutdown.
However, dismantling techniques assumed by TLG for equipment in this analysis TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-67 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 21of32 are not consistent with removal techniques required for salvage (resale) of equipment.
Experience has indicated that some buyers wanted equipment stripped down to very specific requirements before they would consider purchase.
This required expensive rework after the equipment had been removed from its installed location.
Since placing a salvage value on this machinery and equipment would be speculative, and the value would be small in comparison to the overall decommissioning expenses, this analysis does not attempt to quantify the value that an owner may realize based upon those efforts. It is assumed, for purposes of this analysis, that metallic scrap generated in the dismantling process would be considered decommissioned material that requires out-of-state transport.
The dismantling techniques assumed in the decommissioning estimates do not include the additional cost for size reduction and preparation to meet "furnace ready conditions.
For example, the recovery of copper from electrical cabling may require the removal and disposition of any contaminated
- insulation, an added expense. With a volatile market, the potential profit margin in scrap recovery is highly speculative, regardless of the ability to free release this material.
This assumption is an implicit recognition of scrap value in the disposal of clean metallic waste at no additional cost to the project. Furniture, tools, mobile. equipment such as forklifts, trucks, bulldozers, and other property is removed at no cost or credit to the decommissioning project. Disposition may include relocation to other facilities.
Spare parts are also made available for alternative use. Energy For estimating purposes, the plant is assumed to be substantially energized, with the exception of those facilities necessary to support dismantling activities and spent fuel storage. Replacement power costs
- are used to calculate the cost of energy consumed during decommissioning for tooling, lighting, ventilation, and essential services.
The purchase price of electricity is based on the average PG&E's 2014 price for utility bundled retail sales to industrial customers.
The average price in 2014 was 14.22 cents I kWh. Emergency Planning FEMA fees associated with emergency planning are assumed to continue for approximately 18 months following the cessation of operations.
At this time, the fees are discontinued, based upon the anticipated condition of TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-68
_J Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 22 of 32 the spent fuel. Annual state fees are* assumed to be reduced by 50% at time of shutdown and remain at those levels until spent fuel has been transferred to dry storage. After spent fuel is in dry storage state fees are estimated to be reduced to 25% of operating levels until spent fuel has been removed from the station. Insurance Costs for continuing coverage (nuclear liability and property insurance) following cessation of plant operations and during 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."[35]
The NRC's financial protection requirements are based on various reactor (and spent fuel) configurations.
Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) and Internals Segmentation This estimate was updated to reflect PG&E's experience with i*eactor and internals segmentation at Humboldt Bay Unit 3 and industry experience at Zion. This experience has resulted in an increase in the time to segment and package the reactor and internals (Sub-Period 2a in the estimate), an increase in the Utility and DOC staff needed during this sub-period (included in Utility and DOC Staff cost elements), an increase in the level of PG&E and DOC staff necessary to directly support the work (identified as "PG&E RPV Staff Support Team" and "DOC RPV Staff Support Team"), and an increase in the estimated amount of equipment and spares necessary to perform the segmentation (included in the cost table line items labeled "reactor vessel" and "reactor vessel internals".
A reduction in reactor vessel segmentation (Removal) contingency from 75% to 35% was incorporated to reflect the addition of this industry experience, and cost of the equipment and spares necessary to perform the segmentation.
The estimate was also revised to reflect difference in mass between the Unit 1 and Unit 2* reactor internals.
Unit 1 has a somewhat massive thermal shield along the core elevation, whereas Unit 2 has a less massive series of neutron pad assemblies along the core elevation.
The thermal shield has a greater mass (76,500 pounds) than the neutron pad assemblies (23,000 pounds). TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-69 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Taxes Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 23 of 32 Property taxes (land) are included for all decommissioning periods. 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
Schedules of expenditures for the DE CON and SAFSTOR scenarios are provided in Tables 3.1 through 3.4. The tables delineate the cost contributors by year of expenditures as well as cost contributor (e.g., labor, materials, and waste disposal). ,Additional tables in Appendices C and D provide detailed costs elements.
The cost elements are also assigned to one of three subcategories: "License Termination, "Spent Fuel Management,
and "Site Restoration." The subcategory "License Termination
is used to accumulate costs that are consistent with "decommissioning" as defined by the NRC in its financial assurance regulations (i.e., 10 CFR §50. 75). The cost reported for this subcategory is generally sufficient to terminate the plant's operating license, recognizing that spent fuel management represents an additional cost liability that will interact with the license termination effort. The "Spent Fuel Management" subcategory contains costs associated with the containerization and transfer of spent fuel from the pools to the DOE and the transfer of casks from the ISFSI to the DOE. Costs are also included for the operations of the pools and manageme:r:it of the ISFSI until such time that the transfer of all fuel from this facility to an off-site location (e.g., geologic repository) is complete. "Site Restoration" is used to capture costs associated with the dismantling and demolition of buildings and facilities demonstrated to be free from contamination.
This includes structures never exposed to radioactive materials, as well as those facilities that have been decontaminated to appropriate levels. Structures are removed to a depth of three feet and backfilled to conform to local grade. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-70 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 24 of 32 As discussed in Section 3.4.1, it is not anticipated that the DOE will accept the GTCC waste prior to completing the transfer of spent fuel. Therefore, the cost of GTCC disposal is shown in the final year of ISFSI operation (for the DECON alternative).
While designated for disposal at the geologic repository along with the spent fuel, GTCC waste is still classified as low-level radioactive waste and, as such, included as a "License Termination" expense. Decommissioning costs are reported in 2014 dollars. Costs are not inflated, escalated, or discounted over the period of expenditure (or projected lifetime of the plant). The schedules are based upon the detailed activity costs reported in Appendices C and D, along with the timeline presented in Section 4. The ISFSI decommissioning cost estimate is provided in a table format m Appendix E. This appendix is provided to support required US NRC filings. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-71 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis DocumentPOl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 25 of 32 Year 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 2050 2051 2052 2053 TABLE 3.1 DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 1 (thousands, 2014 dollars) PG&E Labor 21,002 119,598 72,400 69,575 69,766 68,119 38,931 26,569 26,641 26,569 27,971 14,456 12,322 8,689 8,689 5,853 4,370 4,358 4,358 4,358 4,370 4,358 4,358 4,358 4,370 4,358 4,358 4,358 4,370 4,358 Equipment
& Contractor Materials Labor 1,457 6,586 10,517 40,814 17,296 42,746 16,495 41,811 16,541 41,925 18,396 47,764 13,597 23,432 8,460 2,732 8,484 2,739 8,460 2,732 8,603 6,589 2,851 7,752 2,274 23,668 8,162 13,394 8,162 13,394 2,818 4,624 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LLRW Disposal Other Total 636 1,681 31,362 5,910 10,985 187,824 26,395 14,434 173,271 31,414 14,230 173,525 31,500 14,269 174,000 49,277 16,960 200,516 33,664 21,319 130,943 14 19,520 57,295 14 19,573 57,452 14 19,520 57,295 2,951 17,914 64,028 5,293 6,308 36,660 13 6,215 44,491 0 8,956 39,201 0 8,956 39,201 0 5,307 18,601 0 3,392 7,762 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,392 7,762 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,392 7,762 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,383 7,740 0 3,392 7,762 0 3,383 7,740 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-72 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 26 of 32 TABLE 3.1 (continued)
DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 1 (thousands, 2014 dollars) PG&E Equipment
& Contractor LLRW Year Labor Materials Labor Disposal Other Total 2054 4,358 0 0 0 3,383 7,740 2055 4,358 0 0 0 3,383 7,740 2056 4,370 0 0 0 3,392 7,762 2057 4,358 0 0 0 3,383 7,740 2058 4,358 0 0 0 3,383 7,740 2059 4,358 0 0 0 3,383 7,740 2060 4,370 0 0 0 3,392 7,762 2061 4,358 2,861 0 0 14,848 22,066 2062 567 653 1,639 666 5,096 8,621 Total I 713,655 156,089 324,340 187,761 297,185 1,679,030 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-73 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 27 of 32 Year 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 2047 2048 2049 .2050 2051 2052 2053 2054 TABLE 3.2 DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 2 (thousands, 2014 dollars) PG&E Labor 42,905 101,899 68,437 69,374 69,184 66,579 42,012 37,800 . 37,696 37,696 41,465 17,044 8,710 8,710 5,830 4,378 4,366 4,366 4,366 4,378 4,366 4,366 4,366 4,378 4,366 4,366 4,366 4,378 4,366 4,366 Equipment
& Contractor Materials Labor 2,330 9,426 9,790 27,036 17,998 40,977 18,453 43,415 18,403 43,296 19,330 53,125 8,972 10,491 7,066 2,254 7,046 2,248 7,046 2,248 7,980 11,924 13,124 49,794 75,661 119,926 75,661 119,926 25,497 40,413 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 LLRW Disposal Other Total 1,361 3,452 59,475 8,243 11,518 158,485 27,142 14,477 169,030 29,060 14,493 174,794 28,981 14,453 174,317 54,562 17,630 211,226 9,522 17,501 . 88,497 16 17,359 64,493 15 17,311 64,317 15 17,311 64,317 5,451 14,784 81,604 1,713 6,884 88,558 0 10,588 214,884 0 10,588 214,884 0 5,815 77,555 0 3,398 7,776 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,398 7,776 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,398 7,776 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,398 7,776 0 3,389 7,755 0 3,389 7,755 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-74 owerPlant Diablo Canyon P, Decommission in g Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 28 of 32 TABLE 3.2 (continued)
DECON ALTERNATIVE
- SCH EDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 2 (thousands, 2014 dollars) PG& E Equipment
& Contractor LLRW Year Lab or Materials Labor Disposal Other Total 2055 4, 366 0 0 0 3,389 7,755 2056 4, 378 0 0 0 3,398 7,776 2057 4, 366 0 0 0 3,389 7,755 2058 4, 366 0 0 0 3,389 7,755 2059 4, 366 0 0 0 3,389 7,755 2060 4, 378 0 0 0 3,398 7,776 2061 4, 366 2,869 0 0 14,876 22,111 2062 568 655 1,643 668 5,108 8,641 I Total I 752,0 34 317,881 578,140 166,748 285,369 2,100,172 TLG Services, In c. 2-'AtchA-75 I
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 3.3 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 29 of 32 SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES; UNIT 1 (thousands, 2014 dollars) Equipment
& Contractor LLRW Year PG&E Labor Materials Labor Disposal Other Total 2024 20,458 1,388 4,497 642 1,689 28,673 2025 116,037 9,383 24,985 3,733 10,712 164,851 2026 67,890 5,852 3,519 1,141 12,146 90,548 2027 36,157 4,856 1,455 9 12,556 55,033 2028 36,256 4,870 1,459 9 12,591 55,184 2029 36,157 4,856 1,455 9 12,556 55,033 2030 36,157 4,856 1,455 9 12,556 55,033 2031 36,157 4,856 1,455 9 12,556 55,033 2032 36,256 4,870 1,459 9 12,591 55,184 2033 36,157 4,856 1,455 9 12,556 55,033 2034 31,592 4,113 1,216 8 11,164 48,092 2035 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2036 8,409 333 0 4 4,099 12,846 2037 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2038 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2039 8,386 332 0 4 I 4,088 12,811 2040 8,409 333 0 4 4,099 12,846 2041 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2042 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2043 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2044 8,409 333 0 4 4,099 12,846 2045 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2046 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2047 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2048 8,409 333 0 4 4,099 12,846 2049 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2050 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2051 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 2052 8,409 333 0 4 4,099 12,846 2053 8,386 332 0 4 4,088 12,811 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-76 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 30 of 32 TABLE 3.3 (continued)
SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 1 (thousands, 2014 dollars) Year 2054 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 PG&E Labor 8,386 8,386 8,409 8,386 8,386 8,386 8,409 8,386 29,475 33,803 38,260 38,155 24,111 10,329 6,659 5,508 4,289 . 2,961 Total I 909,418 I TLG Services, Inc. Equipment
& Contractor Materials Labor 332 0 332 0 333 0 332 0 332 0 332 0 333 0 332 0 4,842 24,283 12,283 34,589 18,198 37,588 18,148 37,485 15,212 39,236 6,429 17,651 916 15,819 6,913 17,271 8,361 13,999 5,772 9,665 160,812 292,002 2-AtchA-77 LLRW Disposal Other Total 4 4,088 12,811 4 . 4,088 12,811 4 4,099 12,846 4 4,088 12,811 4 4,088 12,811 4 4,088 12,811 4 4,099 12,846 4 4,088 12,811 19 4,487 63,106 17,982 9,584 108,242 36,140 14,667 144,853 36,041 14,627 144,458 50,426 14,844 143,830 24,321 6,893 65,623 11 1,076 24,481 3 6,031 35,726 0 7,243 33,893 0 5,001 23,400 170,639 318,588 1,851,460
/ Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 31 of 32 TABLE 3.4 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 2 (thousands, 2014 dollars).
Equipment
& Contractor LLRW Year PG&E Labor Materials Labor Disposal Other Total 2025 41,550 2,169 5,902 1,365 3,459 54,446 2026 106,578 9,402 17,134 3,681 11,884 148,680 2027 45,846 4,247 1,823 531 8,035 60,482 2028 29,765 4,038 1,198 7 5,512 40,520 2029 29,683 4,027 1,194 7 5,497 40,410 2030 29,683 4,027 1,194 7 5,497 40,410 2031 29,683 4,027 1,194 7 5,497 40,410 2032 29,765 4,038 1,198 7 5,512 40,520 2033 29,683 4,027 1,194 7 5,497 40,410 2034 29,683 4,027 1,194 7 5,497 40,410 2035 21,225 2,727 777 6 5,626 30,361 2036 5,579 320 4 4 5,881 11,787 2037 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2038 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2039 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2040 5,579 320 4 4 5,881 11,787 2041 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2042 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2043 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2044 5,579 320 4 4 5,881 11,787 2045 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2046 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2047 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2048 5,579 320 4 4 5,881 11,787 2049 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2050 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2051 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2052 5,579 320 4 4 5,881 11,787 2053 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 2054 5,564 319 4 4 5,865 11,755 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-78 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 32 of 32 TABLE 3.4 (continued)
SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES, UNIT 2 (thousands, 2014 dollars) Year 2055 2056 2057 2058 2059 2060 2061 2062 2063 2064 2065 2066 2067 2068 2069 2070 2071 PG&E Labor 5,564 5,579 5,564 5,564 5,564 5,579 5,564 2,006 22,352 31,504 40,483 40,040 28,047 18,373 5,501 4,283 2,957 Total I 763,457 TLG Services, Inc. Equipment
& Contractor Materials Labor 319 4 320 4 319 4 319 4 319 4 320 4 319 4 319 4 4,799 16,381 13,382 29,759 20,301 39,540 20,085 39,650 14,248 42,615 7,665 41,126 60,188 103,406 76,008 120,736 52,477 83,358 324,526 550,674 2-AtchA-79 LLRW Disposal Other Total 4 5,865 11,755 4 5,881 11,787 4 5,865 11,755 4 5,865 11,755 4 5,865 11,755 4 5,881 11,787 4 5,865 11,755 4 1,323 3,655 18 4,428 47,978 16,245 9,724 100,614 , 32,382 14,885 147,591 32,725 14,823 147,324 42,032 13,152 140,094 19,470 6,810 93,444 3 7,246 176,344 0 8,853 209,880 0 6,112 144,904 148,606 307,474 2,094,736 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATE Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 1 of 6 The schedules for the decommissioning scenarios considered in this study follow the sequences presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study, with minor changes to reflect recent experience and site-specific constraints.
In addition, the scheduling has been revised to reflect the spent fuel management plan described in Section 3.5.1. A schedule or sequence of activities for the DECON alternative from shutdown to ISFSI site restoration is presented in Figure 4.1. The scheduling sequence is based on the fuel being removed from the spent fuel pools within ten years. 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 combining others for convenience.
The schedule was prepared using the "Microsoft Project Professional" computer softwareJ36J
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 table, 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:
o The spent fuel pools are isolated until such time that all spent fuel has been discharged from the spent fuel pools to the DOE. Decontamination and dismantling of the storage pools is initiated once the transfer of spent fuel is complete (DECON option). o All work (except vessel and internals removal) is performed during an 8-hour workday, 5 days per week, with no overtime.
e 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. o 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.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-80 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 2 of 6 o For plant systems removal, the systems with the longest removal durations in areas on the critical path are considered to determine the duration of the activity.
4.2 PROJECT
SCHEDULE The period-dependent costs presented in the detailed cost tables are based upon the durations developed in the schedules for decommissioning.
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. A second critical path is shown for the spent fuel storage period, which determines the release of the fuel handling area of the auxiliary building for final decontamination.
- Project timelines are for the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios are provided in Figures 4.2 and 4.3 with milestone dates based on the 2024 and 2025 shutdown dates for Units 1 and 2, respectively.
The fuel pools are emptied approximately ten years after shutdown, while ISFSI operations continue until the DOE can complete the transfer of assemblies to its geologic repository.
Deferred decommissioning in the SAFSTOR scenarios is assumed to commence so that the physical dismantling takes place immediately after all spent fuel has been removed from the site. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-81 Diablo Can y on Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Anal y sis Document POl-1719-001 , R ev. 0 Sec t ion 4 , Pag e 3 of 6 FIGURE 4.1 ACTIVITY SCHEDULE -DECON _;_; Diablo C anyo n t:lli1 I Shutdo ... Oat* l P triod b Shutdon Throufh Traiuition Cemfitiie of permanu t ttmnon of opmtJnO! !Uhmitted
-!...i F uel storage pool opennons 5 Dty fuel nongeopennons 6 R eco ali g u n plant J] P rep are amrity *pttlfiranons I P tr fo rm *it* chmcterizarion -PS D:IR 1 u bmitted 10 Writte n ttrti6cate of permane n t re moral of fuel submitted Ir Site 1pecifit de<O:nmmiozung ro.t emmm !ubmitted 11 DOC !ta fh 3obihud ll P eriod l b P r e p aralioM ...,.,...., Fuel sto n ge pool 0pt11tions ll R ecoaligur e p lan t (con t inued) If' l>ty fut! !tO!lg! OptllODlll lfi Prepare dt tailed nrk pro<tdum U Deco n:'i" --u-i L<ol&te iptn t fuel pool ""F' P eri od 21 Larfe Compont nt Rtmo v al F uel !t o11,ge pool openrions D ry fuelstonge opentions ll P repmtio n for rea<ro r msel re moral 'Ti Rea<r o r m!El & in t ernals lS Rel!lllllln g l&rge :'iSSS components dispo!lnon 7'* __.D :'i oo'f'-'E n rial !)'!!Elll!
Main t utbin g enento r T Main conden.<er T !.irelL" t*rminatim>
p1an !Ulimined
...,.,...., 2 b D e con t llllin atlo n ( .. et fue l) ...!., F uel !tonge pool opennons D ry fu el !t onge ope11tiom n R*more S)"!l!Jll!
no t suppornng
.-!I fut! !tO!lg! Decon buildings DOI suppomng nt fu*l !IO!lfe Liotnse ttrmination plan 1ppt01*ed
..:_, P eri od pent F uel D e l ay Prior t o S pen t F u e l P oo l D eco n ll F u*l uo r age poo l openrions
"'i'1 D ry fu*l stonge openrions 2 d De co n taminatio n fo ll o.-in f wtt fue l Dty fut! Stong e opentions Re mow remaining sy!leJZll Deco n .-er fut! >tong* uu P triod 2e D ela y before wse termination II 0.lay b.fore littn.<e t tl'll!lllltio n 754 lo C anyon t: lli t 2 Shutdo.-n D a t e :l uguit 26 ,
___. P tri od la S hu i do n Throufh T raasltlon ll Cenifirate of permanen t tt<..!lhon of opelllwns
!ubmmed F uel1 1 orag e pooloperarions l! Dty fue l sto11,ge ope11rions ll R.co ali gurt p lan t Si"" PNpare actirity specifications Iii Pt rf orm !ite chm<r*rizanon 551 PS DAR *mit t.d T Ce n ifitt t e of permuen1 ttmoral of fuel subnut fd SJ' it e *pe<ifit de<Olllml!!iontoJ
'°"' tsttm11e *ubnnned T OOC!tlf!mobiliz.d TLG Services, Inc.
- 11 * ----* * *
- n * * * * *
- I
- r-i * ---2-AtchA-82
- * *
- I
- fl *
- n
- Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 4 of 6 FIGURE 4.1 (continued)
ACTIVITY SCHEDULE -DECON lb DtcO!lllllissioninf P reparatiollS Fuel !iorage pool op!rttioll!
6l Re<<>nfigure plant (continutd) T Drr fuel !lortgHpmtioM g-i Pttpare dttailed mrk De<<>nXs.§
-;;-; lsol.tte spent fuel pool 16 P eriod 2a l.arfe Compone n t Removal Fuel storage pool opentiolll Dry fuel !lortge opentions
.!_, Pttpuanon for rmtor rt!..<tl rttnOl*al
.!-, Reactor 1-.!..<tl S:: interoals 71 Remaining l.trgt XSSS romponents di..<po!tbon Xon .. s..<tntial 3J'lfm> ll lliin nuWie/genmto r 111 lliinrondell$tr w!ISf tennillatiGn pl.tn submmed 2b Det0ntamlnation ( .. et fuel) 71 Fuel !lOrtge pool opentioll! Drr fuel stortge operttioll! R em01-. system> oot su pponin g .-et fuel stortge -!-1 De<<>n buildings not supponin1 wet fuel !lortge Llten..<t tenmnation pl.tn appm-.d Period !c pent Fuel De by P rior to pent Fuel Poo!Det0n F utl storage pool openrio111 Dry fut! Stonge openboll!
2d Unit! Det0ntamlnation FollowinfWtl Fuel Drr fuel ltorage opentioll!
11 RemOl"f ttml!lllllg sr*tem> .!.i Dtrouet srorageam
..!_, Period tlUntt 1and2 License Terminat i on Dry fuel l!Ortge opertlioll!
flllllSiteSllrl"e; XRC m in* S:: ap p m"ll 9l Pan 00 litense t erminated 3 b Unit l and ! Site R estoration
!I D ry fuel !lortgt operttioll!
- !j Bwlding demolition!, baoifill and ludmping 91 l.tnd..<<1 . TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-83 n * * * * *
- I -I --* liil
- ri *
- I Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 5 of 6 Unit 1 FIGURE 4.2 DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE (not to scale) (Shutdown November 2, 2024) ' ' Pool and ISFSI Operations ISFSI Operations Period 2 Period 3 Site Period 1 Transition and Preparations Decommissioning Restoration ISFSI Operations ISFSI D&D 11/2024 Unit 2 P2a I P2bl 09/2029 05/2030 05/ 2026 11/2036 Storage Pools Empty Unit 1 -11 / 2034 Unit 2 -08 / 2035 (Shutdown August 26, 2025) Period 2 Site 05 / 2039 12 I 2061 07 I 2062 Period 3 Period 1 Transition and Preparations Decommissioning Restoration ISFSI Operations ISFSI D&D P2a I P2b I 03/2030 02/2031 08 I 2025 02/ 2027 11I2036 05 / 2039 12 I 2061 07 I 2062 P2a represents the* sub-period during which the reactor, reactor internals, and other large NSSS components are removed. P2b represents the sub-period during which the remaining radioactive materials are removed (excluding wet spent fuel storage facilities).
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-84 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost AnalY,sis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 6 of 6 Unit 1 FIGURE 4.3 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE (not to scale) (Shutdown November 2, 2024) Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Delayed Period 5 Site Period 1 Transition and Preparations Dormancy Preparations Decommissioning Restoration 11I2024 05/ 2026 .. 01I2062 Unit 1 Pool Empty 11 I 2034 07 I 2063 Dry Spent Fuel Storage Unit 2 (Shutdown August 26, 2025) Period 1 Period 2 Transition and ISFSIEmpty 12 I 2061 Period 3 Delayed 03 I 2069 09 I 2071 Period 4 Period 5 Site Preparations Dormancy Preparations Decommissioning Restoration 08/ 2025 02 I 2027 TLG Services, Inc. 01I2063 Unit 2 Pool Empty 08 I 2035 2-AtchA-85 07 I 2064 03 I 2069 09 I 2071 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 1 of 7 5. RADIOACTIVEWASTES 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, [37] 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, Part 71 defines radioactive material as it pertains to transportation and Part 61 specifies its disposition.
Most of the materials being transported for controlled Disposal are categorized as Low Specific Activity (LSA) or Surface Contaminated Object (SCO) materials
\ containing Type A quantities, as defined in 49 CFR Parts 173-178. Shipping containers are required to be Industrial Packages (IP-1, IP-2 or IP-3, as defined in 10 CFR §173.411).
For this study, commercially available steel containers are presumed to be used for the disposal of piping, small components, and limited quantities of concrete.
Larger components can serve as their own containers, with proper closure of all openings, access ways, and penetrations.
Material that is expected to meet requirements for transport in bulk, such as the majority of contaminated concrete, is disposed of without its' packaging.
The waste material produced in the decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear plants is primarily generated during Period 2 of DE CON and Period 4 of SAFSTOR. The. volumes of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities at the site are shown on a line-item basis in Appendices C and D, and summarized in Tables 5.1 through 5.4. The quantified waste volume summaries shown in these tables are consistent with Part 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 and internals are categorized as large quantity shipments and, accordingly, will be shipped in reusable, shielded truck casks with disposable liners. In calculating disposal costs, the disposal fees are applied against the liner volume, as well as the special handling requirements of the payload. Packaging efficiencies can be lower for the highly activated materials (greater than Type A quantity waste), where high concentrations of gamma-emitting radionuclides limit the capacity of the shipping canisters.
No process system containing/handling radioactive substances at shutdown is presumed to meet material release criteria by decay alone (i.e., systems radioactive at shutdown will still be radioactive over the time period during which the TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-86 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 2 of 7 decommissioning is accomplished, due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides).
While the dose rates decrease with time, radionuclides such as 137Cs will still control the disposition requirements.
Disposal costs are based on the following:
Class A Waste For the purpose of this analysis, the EnergySolutions' facility is used as the disposal site for radioactive waste (Class A). The disposal costs for Class A low-level radioactive waste are based on current Diablo Canyon contracted rates between PG&E and EnergySolutions in year 2014 dollars. The resulting 2014 rates, using this approach, results in disposal costs of: o $304 per cubic foot for' Large Component waste (components disposed of essentially intact) o $277 per cubic for Containerized waste (components that are segmented and placed into steel shipping containers) o * $62 per cubic foot for "Bulk" waste (high density was such as contaminated concrete) 0 $39 per cubic foot for medium density "Bulk waste o $27 per cubic foot for low density waste (paper and plastics) o $62,188 per cask ($518 per cubic foot for a 120 cubic foot cask) for higher activity Class A waste requiring cask shipments (some resins and filters and some segments of the reactor and internals).
Class B and C Waste For purposes of this analysis, the WCS Andrews County, TX facility is used as the disposal site for the higher activity radioactive waste (Class B and C). The disposal costs for Class B and C low-level radioactive waste are based on current Diablo Canyon contracted rates between PG&E and WCS in year 2014 dollars. The resulting 2014 rates, using this approach, results in a disposal costs of: o Class B non-irradiated hardware waste (including High Activity Fee) -The Class B non-irradiated hardware base rate is $2,885 per cubic foot. The high activity fee reflects a surcharge for waste with higher curie contents);
after application of this surcharge the rate is $6,520 per cubic foot. o Class B irradiated hardware waste -$10,500 per cubic foot (the curie content of this waste is not considered large enough to warrant High Activity or Carbon-14 fees). TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-87 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 3 of 7 o Class C irradiated hardware waste -$10,500 per cubic foot (base rate). The high activity and Carbon-14 fees are a substantial contributor to cost increases above the base rate. The average rate for irradiated hardware with high activity and Carbon-14 fees included ranges from a low average of $19,335 per cubic foot (Unit 2 -SAFSTOR) to a high average of $23,561 per cubic foot (Unit 1 -DECON scenario).
The average changes depending on the mass of the reactor internals (there are differences between Units 1and2), and the amount of radioactive decay c (SAFSTOR scenario is based on a greater amount of radioactive decay). GTCC Waste The volume and cost to dispose of GTCC material is developed using the following method: o A projection of the amount of electricity delivered from the station through the end of currently licensed life is calculated.
Using a rate of 1 mill per kWhr (DOE standard contract rate) this is converted to a total spent fuel disposal cost for the station. * <> An estimate of the total weight of spent fuel generated through the end of currently licensed life is calculated . ., An average disposal cost for the spent fuel (per pound) is calculated by dividing the total spent fuel disposal cost the total spent fuel mass. This calculation results in the cost per pound used for disposal ($111 per pound). o This average disposal cost is applied against the total mass of GTCC material to estimate the GTCC disposal cost. o The reported disposal volume is calculated by assuming that GTCC waste is placed in a canister equivalent in size to a spent fuel canister (nominal 360 cubic feet, each) and loading these canisters with up to 23, 100 pounds of waste. The reported disposal mass is the mass of the GTCC material plus the mass of the spent fuel canister.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-88 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 5.1 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 4 of 7 DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE
SUMMARY
, UNIT 1 Waste Volume Weight Waste Cost Basis Class 1 1 1 (cubic feet) (pounds) . Low-Level Radioactive Energy Solutions Waste (near-surface Large Component A 101,249 8,511,621 disposal)
Energy Solutions Containerized A 150,150 8,670,091 Energy Solutions Bulk A 322,760 32,275,569 Energy Solutions Medium Density A 8,960 397,906 Energy Solutions DAW A 13,117 262,341 Energy Solutions Class A Cask A 6,953 630,618 WCS (other than irradiated hardware)
B 887 94,531 WCS (irradiated hardware)
B 963 109,091 WCS (irradiated hardware) c 785 112,154 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel _(geologic repository)
Equivalent GTCC* 1,649 330,307 Total 1 2 1 607,474 51,394,230
[l] Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55 [2] Columns may not add due to rounding.
- GTCC unpackaged mass is 85,510 lbs. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-89 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 5.2 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 5 of 7 DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE
SUMMARY
, UNIT 2 Waste Volume Weight Waste Cost Basis Class [lJ (cubic feet) (pounds) L6w-Level Radioactive Energy Solutions Waste (near-surface Large Component A 101,249 8,492,999 disposal)
Energy Solutions Containerized A 139,621 8,017,074 Energy Solutions Bulk A 329,078 32,907,367 Energy Solutions Medium Density A 11,761 517,442 Energy Solutions DAW A 14,857 297,133 Energy Solutions CiassA Cask A 7,031 635,327 WCS (other than irradiated hardware)
B 887 94,531 WCS (irradiated hardware)
B 963 109,091 WCS (irradiated hardware) c 393 52,080 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel (geologic repository)
Equivalent GTCC* 1,649 330,307 Total [2 l 607,490 51,453,351
[1) Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55 [2) Columns may not add due to rounding.
- GTCC unpackaged mass is 85,510 lbs. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-90 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 5.3 Document P01-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 6 of 7 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE
SUMMARY
, UNIT 1 Waste Volume Weight Waste Cost Basis Class [1 1 (cubic feet) (pounds) Low-Level Radioactive Energy Solutions Waste (near-surface Large Component A 106,396 8,987,727 disposal)
Energy Solutions Containerized A 148,691 8,514,573 Energy Solutions Bulk A 322,095 32,209,011 Energy Solutions Medium Density A 8,960 397,906 Energy Solutions DAW A 15,511 310,219 Energy Solutions Class A Cask A 3,142 214,949 WCS (other than irradiated hardware)
B --WCS (irradiated hardware)
B 501 44,300 WCS (irradiated hardware) c 798 111,490 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel (geologic repository)
Equivalent GTCC 1,649 330,307 Total [2 1 607,742 51,120,484
[l] Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55 [2] Columns may not add due to rounding.
- GTCC unpackaged mass is 85,510 lbs. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-91 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 5.4 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 7 of 7 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING WASTE
SUMMARY
, UNIT 2 Waste Volume Weight Waste Cost Basis Class [IJ (cubic feet) (pounds) Low-Level Radioactive Energy Solutions Waste (near-surface Large Component A 106,396 8,987,727 disposal)
Energy Solutions Containerized A 138,340 7,880,533 Energy Solutions Bulk A 326,832 32,682,782 Energy Solutions Medium Density A 11,761 517,442 Energy Solutions
\ DAW 'A 15,913 318,268 Energy Solutions Class A Cask A 3,244 221,109 WCS (other than irradiated hardware)
B --WCS (irradiated hardware)
B 501 44,300 WCS (irradiated hardware) c 406 51,416 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel (geologic repository)
Equivalent GTCC* 1;649 330,307 Total [2 1 605,044 51,033,885
[l] Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55 [2] Columns may not add due to rounding.
- GTCC unpackaged mass is 85,510 lbs. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-92 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 6. RESULTS Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 1 of 7 The analysis to estimate the costs to decommission Diablo Canyon relied upon the site-specific, technical information extracted from the 2012 and previous estimates.
This 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 incorpqrated where new information was available or experience from ongoing decommissioning programs provided viable alternatives or improved processes.
While not an engineering study, the estimates provide PG&E with sufficient information to assess their 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, low-level radioactive waste disposal practices, high-level radioactive waste management options, and site restoration requirements.
The decommissioning scenarios assume continued operation of the station's spent fuel pools for a minimum of ten years following the cessation of operations for continued cooling of the assemblies.
The cost projected to promptly decommission (DECON) Diablo Canyon is estimated to be $3, 779.2 million. The majority of this cost (approximately 62.5%) is associated with the physical decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear plant so that the operating license can be terminated.
Another 20.8% is associated with the management, interim storage, and eventual transfer of the spent fuel. The remaining 16.7% is for the demolition of the designated structures and limited restoration of the site. The cost projected for deferred decommissioning (SAFSTOR).
is estimated to be $3,946.2 million. The majority of this cost (approximately 55.2%) is associated with placing the plant in storage, ongoing caretaking of the plant during dormancy, and the eventual physical decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear plant so that the operating license can 'be terminated.
Another 28.8% is associated with the management, interim storage, and eventual transfer of the spent fuel. .The remaining 16.0% is for the demolition of the designated structures and limited restoration of the site. The primary cost contributors, identified in Tables 6.1 through 6.4, are either 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. The size and composition of the management organization varies with the decommissioning-phase TLG Services, Inc. . 2-AtchA-93 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 2 of 7 and associated site activities.
However, once the operating licenses are terminated, the staff is substantially reduced for the conventional demolition and restoration of the site, and th'e long-term care of the spent fuel (for the DE CON alternative).
As described in this report, the spent fuel pools will remain operational for a minimum of ten years following the cessation of operations.
The pools will be isolated and independent spent fuel islands created. This will allow decommissioning operations to proceed in and around the pool areas. Over the ten-year period, the spent fuel will be packaged into multi-purpose canisters for transfer to the ISFSI. Spent fuel stored in the ISFSI is assumed to be transferred to the DOE in order to support license termination within 60 years of shut down. The cost for waste disposal includes those costs associated with the controlled disposition of the low-level 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, disposition of the majority of the low-level radioactive material requiring controlled disposal is at the Energy Solutions' facility.
Highly activated.
components, requiring additional isolation from the environment (GTCC), are packaged for geologic disposal.
The cost of geologic disposal is based upon a cost equivalent for spent fuel. Decontamination and removal* costs reflect the labor-intensive nature of the decommissioning process, as well as the management controls requj.red to ensure a safe and successful program. Non-radiological demolition is a natural extension of the decommissioning process. 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 operating license. Prompt demolition reduces future liabilities and can be more cost effective than deferral, due to the deterioration of the facilities (and therefore the working conditions) with time. 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. For purposes of this analysis, low-level radioactive waste is primarily moved via public highway by truck. Bulk shipments of decommissioned materials are moved by a combination of truck and railway. Decontamination is used to reduce the plant's radiation fields and minimize worker exposure.
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 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-94 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 3 of 7 specified by the NRC. 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 ofany 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. 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.
While site operating costs are greatly reduced following the final cessation of plant operations, certain administrative functions do need to be maintained either at a basic functional or regulatory level. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-95 Diablo Canyon Ppwer Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 6.1 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 4 of 7 DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS, UNIT 1 (thousands of 2014 dollars) Cost Element Total Percentage Decontamination 18,214 1.1 Removal . 141,218 8.4 Packaging 33,435 2.0 Transportation 31,679 1.9 Waste Disposal 199;331 11.9 Program Management
[IJ 473,419 28.2 Security 338,910 20.2 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 26,314 1.6 Spent Fuel Management
[2 l 213,527 12.7 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 36,956 2.2 Energy 32,071 1.9 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 33,875 2.0 Property Taxes 7,658 0.5 Severance 84,005 5.0 Miscellaneous Equipment 8,421 0.5 Total [3 l 1,679,030 100.0 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 1,190,754 70.9 Spent Fuel Management 389,775 23.2 Site Restoration 98,501 5.9 Total [3J 1,679,030 100.0 r11 Includes engineering costs f 2 l Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer costs/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [31 Columns may n,ot add due to rounding
- TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-96 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 6.2 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 5 of 7 DECON ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS, UNIT 2 (thousands of 2014 dollars) Cost Element Total Percentage Decontamination 21,549 1.0 Removal 319,210 15.2 Packaging 32,500 1.5 Transportation 294,378 14.0 Waste Disposal 178,340 8.5 Program Management
[IJ 491,299 23.4 Security 348,555 16.6 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 17,577 0.8 Spent Fuel Management
[2J 193, 784 9.2 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 32,862 1.6 Energy 31,910 1.5 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 37,509 1.8 Property Taxes 7,503 0.4 Severance 84,169 4.0 Miscellaneous Equipment 9,026 0.4 Total [3J 2,100,172 100.0 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 1,172,913 55.8 Spent Fuel Management 395,217 18.8 Site Restoration 532,042 25.3 Total l 3 J 2,100,172 100.0 111 Includes engineering costs 1 2 1 Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer costs/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [3J Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-97 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 6.3 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 6 of 7 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS, UNIT 1 (thousands of 2014 dollars) Cost Element Total Percentage Decontamination 14,403 0.8 Removal 143,288 7.7 Packaging 23,554 1.3 Transportation 29,063 1.6 Waste Disposal 182,273 9.8 Program Management
[IJ 604,377 32.6 Security 377,878 20.4 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 26,459 1.4 Spent Fuel Management
[2] 214,610 11.6 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 53,180 2.9 Energy 37,842 2.0 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 34,831 1.9 Property Taxes 9,548 0.5 Severance 84,470 4.6 MiscellaneouS" Equipment 15,685 0.8 Total [3 l 1,851,460
- 100.0 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 1,128,923 ( 61.0 Spent Fuel Management 623,759 33.7 Site Restoration 98,778 5.3 Total [3] 1,851,460 100.0 [1J Includes engineering costs [2J Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer costs/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [3] Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-98 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 6.4 Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 7 of 7 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS, UNIT 2 (thousands of 2014 dollars) Cost Element Total Percentage Decontamination 21,401 1.0 Removal 319,891 15.3 Packaging 22,581 1.1 Transportation 292,279 14.0 Waste Disposal 160,224 7.6 Program Management
[IJ 439,612 21.0 Security 386,029 18.4 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 17,615 0.8 Spent Fuel Management
[2J 194,121 9.3 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 50,493 2.4 Energy 37, 721 1.8 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 42,625 2.0 Property Taxes 9,373 0.4 Severance 84,353 4.0 Miscellaneous Equipment 16,419 0.8 Total [3J 2,094,736 100.0 Cost Element Total Percentage License Termination 1,048,860 50.1 Spent Fuel Management 512,851 24.5 Site Restoration 533,025 25.4 *Total [3J 2,094,736 100.0 [ll Includes engineering costs [2 1 Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer costs/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [3J Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-99 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 7. REFERENCES Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 1 of 4 1. "Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Diablo Canyon Power Plant," Document POl-1648-001, TLG Services, Inc., December 2012. 2. 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, 53 Fed. Reg. 24018, June 27, 1988. 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.159, "Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors," Rev. 2, October 2011. 4. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination." 5.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 20 and 50, "Entombment Options for Power Reactors," Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 66 Fed. Reg. 52551, October 16, 2001. 6. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 2, 50 and 51, "Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 61 Fed. Reg. 39278, July 29, 1996. 7. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72, "Decommissioning Planning," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 76, (p 35512 et seq.), June 17, 2011. 8. "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982," 42 U.S. Code 10101, et seq.
- 9. Charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, "Objectives and Scope of Activities" http://www.brc.gov/index.php?q=page/charter
- 10. "Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy," http://www.brc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/brc finalreport jan2012.pdf, p. 27, 32, January 2012. 11. "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and Level Radioactive Waste," U.S. DOE, January 11, 2013. 12. U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Of Columbia Circuit, In Re: Aiken County, et al, Aug. 2013, http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/BAEOCF34F762EBD9852 57BC6004DEB18/$file/11-1271-1451347.pdf TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-100 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 7. REFERENCES (continued)
Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 2 of 4 13. In 2008, the DOE issued a report to Congress in which it concluded that it did not have authority, under present law, to accept spent nuclear fuel for interim storage from decommissioned commercial nuclear power reactor sites. However, the Blue Ribbon Commission, in its final report, noted that: "[A]ccepting spent fuel according to the OFF [Oldest Fuel First] priority ranking instead of giving priority to shutdown reactor sites could greatly reduce the cost savings that could be achieved through consolidated storage if priority could be given to accepting spent fuel from shutdown reactor sites before accepting fuel from still-operating plants ..... The magnitude of the cost savings that could be achieved by giving priority to shutdown sites appears to be large enough (i.e., in the billions of dollars) to warrant DOE exercising its right under the Standard Contract to move this fuel first." For planning purposes only, this estimate does not assume that Vogtle, as a permanently shutdown plant, will receive priority; the fuel removal schedule assumed in this estimate is based upon DOE acceptance of fuel according to the "Oldest Fuel First" priority ranking. The plant owner will seek the most expeditious means of removing fuel from the site when DOE commences performance.
- 14. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Subpart 54 (bb), "Conditions of Licenses." 15. "Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act," Public Law 96-573, 1980. 16. "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240,
- 1986. 17. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61.55 "Waste Classification." 18. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "Final Rule, Radiological Criteria for License Termination," 62 Fed. Reg. 39058, July 21, 1997. 19. "Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination," EPA Memorandum OSWER No. 9200.4-18, August 22, 1997. 20. 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." TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-1 01 I I Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 3 of 4 7. REFERENCES (continued)
- 21. "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. 22. "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)," NUREG/CR-1575, Rev. 1, EPA 402-R-97-016, Rev. 1, August 2000. 23. Governor State of California, Executive Order D-62-02, Moratorium on the Disposal of Decommissioned Materials.
- 24. T.S. LaGuardia,et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986. 25. W.J. Manion and T.S. LaGuardia, "Decommissioning Handbook," U.S. 26. 27. 28. '* 29. 30. 31. 32. Department of Energy, DOE/EV/10128-1, November 1980. "Building Construction Cost Data 2014," Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Kingston, Massachusetts.
Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, p. 239, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, 1984. "Technical Position Paper for Establishing an Appropriate Contingency Factor for Inclusion in the Decommissioning Revenue Requirements", Study Number: DECON-POS-H002, Revision A, Status: Preliminary (provided by PG&E). U.S. Department of Transportation, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, "Transportation," Parts 173 through 178. Tri-State Motor Transit Company, published tariffs, Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), Docket No. MC-427719 Rules Tariff, March 2004, Radioactive Materials Tariff, August 2011. :J.C. Evans et al., "Long-Lived Activation Products in Reactor Materials" NUREG/CR-34 7 4, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 1984 . . 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. TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-102 ) \
Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 7. REFERENCES (continued)
Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 4 of 4 33. 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. 34. San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, Units 2 and 3, Site Specific Decommissioning Cost Estimate, submitted to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory . Commission on September 23, 2014 (NRC ADAMS -ML14269A034).
- 35. "Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Reactors," 10 CFR Parts 50 and 140, Proposed Rule, 62 Fed. Reg. 58690, October 30, 1997. 36. "Microsoft Project Professional 2013," Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA. 37. "Atomic Energy Act of 1954," (68 Stat. 919). TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-103 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis APPENDIX A Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix A, Page 1 of 4 UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-104
\ .. __J Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 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 processmg area. 2. CALCULATIONS Act Activity ID Description Activity Duration (minutes) a Remove insulation b Moµnt pipe cutters c Install contamination controls d Disconnect inlet and outlet lines e Cap openings f Rig for removal g Unbolt from mounts h Remove contamination controls 1 Remove, wrap, send to waste processing area Totals (Activity/Critical)
Duration adjustment(s):
+ Respiratory protection (50% of critical duration)
+ Radiation/ALARA adjustment (37.1% of critical duration)
Adjusted work duration + Protective clothing adjustment (30% of adjusted duration)
Productive work duration + Work break adjustment (8.33 % of productive duration)
Total work duration (minutes)
- Total duration:::::
11.217 hr*** 60 60 20 60 20 30 30 15 60 355
- alpha designators indicate activities that can be performed in parallel TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-105 Critical Duration (minutes)* (b) 60 (b) 60 (d) 30 30 15 _fil! 255 128 95 478 143 621 673 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 3.
- LABOR REQUIRED Crew Laborers Craftsmen Foreman General Foreman Fire Watch Health Physics Technician Total Labor Cost APPENDIX A (continued)
Number 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.25 0.05 1.00 Duration (hours) 11.217 11.217 11.217 11.217 11.217 11.217 4. EQUIPMENT
& CONSUMABLES COSTS Equipment Costs Consumables/Materials Costs -Universal Sorbent 50@ $0.63 sq. ft. *{1} Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix A,, Page 3 of 4 Rate ($/hr) $58.50 *$73.82 $77.97 $82.70 $58.50 $80.71 Cost $1,968.58
$1,656.08
$874.59 $231.91 $32.81 1$905.32 $5,669.29 none -Tarpaulins (7.5 mils, oil resistant, fire retardant) 50@ $0.28/sq.
ft. {2} $31.50 $14.00 $19.89 -Gas torch consumables 1@ $19.89/hr. x 1 hr. {3} Subtotal cost of equipment and materials Overhead & profit on equipment and materials
@ 17 .25 % Total costs, equipment
& material TOTAL COST: Removal of contaminated heat exchanger
<3000 pounds: Total labor cost: Total equipment/material costs: Total craft labor man-hours required per unit: TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-106
$65.39 $11.28 $76.67 $5,745.96
$5,669.29
$76.67 81.88 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis 5. NOTES AND REFERENCES Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix A, Page 4 of 4 o 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. o References for equipment
& consumables costs: 1. www.mcmaster.com online catalog, McMaster Carr Spill Control (7193T88)
- 2. R.S. Means (2011) Division 01 56, Section 13.60-0600, page 20 3. R.S. Means (2011) Division 015433, Section 40-6360, page 664 o Material and consumable costs were adjusted using the regional indices for San Luis Obispo, California.
TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-107 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis APPENDIXB Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 1 of 7 UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (DECON: Power Block Structures Only) TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-108 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 2 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Removal of clean instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe > 14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean valve >2 to 4 inches Removal of clean valve >4 to 8 inches Removal of clean valve >8 to 14 inches Removal of clean valve > 14 to 20 inches Removal of clean valve >20 to 36 inches Removal of clean valve >36 inches Removal of clean pipe hanger for small bore piping Removal of clean pipe hanger for large bore piping Removal of clean pump, <300 pound Removal of clean pump, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean pump, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean pump, > 10,000 pound Removal of clean pump motor; 300-1000 pound Removal of clean pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean pump motor, >10,000 pound Removal of clean heat exchanger
<3000 pound Removal of clean heat exchanger
>3000 pound Removal of clean feedwater heater/deaerator Removal of clean moisture separator/reheater Removal of clean tank, <300 gallons Removal of clean tank, 300-3000 gallon Removal of clean tank, >3000 gallons, $/square foot surface area TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-1 09 Cost/Unit($)
0.64 6.83 9.71 18.80 36.38 47.32 69.62 82.71 125.09 187.99 363.81 473.25 696.24 827.12 43.11 153.78 317.69 876.55 3,467.44 6,708.09 366.40 1,440.67 3,241.51 1,863.57 4,694.16 13,221.06 27,164.50 408.58 1,287.26 10.76 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 3 of 7 APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Unit Cost Factor Removal of clean electrical equipment, <300 pound Removal of clean electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean electrical equipment, > 10,000 pound Removal of clean electrical transformer
< 30 tons Removal of clean electrical transformer
> 30 tons Removal of clean standby diesel generator, <100 kW Removal of clean standby diesel generator, 100 kW to 1 MW Removal of clean standby diesel generator, > 1 MW Removal of clean electriGal cable tray, $/linear foot Removal of clean electrical conduit, $/linear foot Removal of clean mechanical equipment, <300 pound Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean mechanical equipment, > 10,000 I Removal of clean HV AC equipment, <300 pound Removal of clean HV AC equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean HV AC equipment, > 10,000 pound Removal of clean HV AC ductwork, $/pound Removal of contaminated instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $,/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe > 14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated valve >2 to 4 inches Removal of contaminated valve >4 to 8 inche's TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-110 Cost/Unit($)
172.18 596.53 1,193.05 2,833.62 1,967.92 5,667.24 2,010.05 4,486.57 9,288.11 16.19 7.07 172.18 596.53 1,193.05 2,833.62 208.20 716.77 1,428.53 2,833.62 0.67 2.12 27.60 48.06 76.99 151.04 182.02 252.93 299.41 596.47 713.66 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 4 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Removal of contaminated valve >8 to 14 inches Removal of contaminated valve > 14 to 20 inches Removal of contaminated valve >20 to 36 inches Removal of contaminated valve >36 inches Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for small bore piping Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for large bore piping Removal of contaminated pump, <300 pound Removal of contaminated pump, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated pump, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated pump, > 10,000 pound Removal of contaminated pump motor, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated pump motor, > 10,000 pound Removal of contaminated heat exchanger
<3000 pound Removal of contaminated heat exchanger
>3000 pound Removal of contaminated tank, <300 gallons Removal of contaminated tank, >300 gallons, $/square foot Removal of contammated electrical equipment, <300 pound Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, > 10,000 pound Removal of contaminated electrical cable tray, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated electrical conduit, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, <300 pound Removal of contaminated mechanical' equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, > 10,000 pound Removal of contaminated HV AC equipment, <300 pound Removal of contaminated HV AC equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated HV AC equipment, 1000-10, 000 pound TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-111 Cost/Unit($)
1,457.10 1,855.89 2,475.96 2,940.80 196.57 627.04 1,271.73 2,912.20 9,419.98 22,949.80 1,224.80 3,820.36 8,577.08 5,745.96 16,620.69 2,109.59 41.10 992.28 2,374.42 4,571.64 8,896.21 47.99 22.33 1,104.56 2,624.64 5,045.24 8,896.21 1,104.56 2,624.64 5,045.24 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 5 of 7 APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)
Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, > 10,000 pound Removal of contaminated HVAC ductwork, $/pound Removal/plasma arc cut of contaminated thin metal components, $/linear in. Additional decontamination of surface by washing, $/square foot Additional decontamination of surfaces by hydrolasing, $/square foot Decontamination rig hook up and flush, $/ 250 foot length Chemical flush of components/systems, $/gallon Removal of clean standard reinforced concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of grade slab concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard Removal of sections of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard Reniova:l of contaminated.heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar & steel embedments, $/cubic yard Removal of below-grade suspended floors, $/cubic yard Removal of clean monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard Removal of clean foundation concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated foundation concrete, $/cubic yard Explosive demolition of bulk concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of clean hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Removal of clean solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard
- I Removal of contaminated solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Backfill of below-grade voids, $/cubic yard Removal of subterranean tunnels/voids, $/linear foot Placement of concrete for below-grade voids, $/cubic yard Excavation of clean material, $/cubic yard TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-112 8,896.21 2.88 5.18 10.82 46.25 9,363.44 20.36 176.00 236.02 458.27 1,369.56 294.72 2,746.44 372.62 3,635.61 567.86 458.27 1,148.84 2,741.24 902.94 2,553.97 39.04 127.04 450.03 127.04 450.03 36.27 146.14 139.00 3.78 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 6 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Excavation of contaminated material, $/cubic yard Removal of clean concrete rubble (tipping fee included), $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated concrete rubble, $/cubic yard Removal of building by volume, $/cubic foot Removal of clean building metal siding, $/square foot Removal of contaminated building metal siding, $/square foot Removal of standard asphalt roofing, $/square foot Removal of transite panels, $/square foot Scarifying contaminated concrete surfaces (drill & spall), $/square foot Scabbling contaminated concrete floors, $/square foot Scabbling contaminated concrete walls, $/square foot Scabbling contaminated ceilings, $/square foot Scabbling structural steel, $/square foot Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail<
10 ton capacity Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail<
10 ton capacity Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail>
10-50 ton capacity Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail>
10-50 ton capacity Removal of polar crane > 50 ton capacity Removal of gantry crane > 50 ton capacity Removal of structural steel, $/pound Removal of clean steel floor grating, $/square foot Removal of contaminated steel floor grating, $/square foot Removal of clean free standing steel liner, $/square foot Removal of contaminated free standing steel liner, $/square foot Removal of clean concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot Removal of contaminated concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot Placement of scaffolding in clean areas, $/square foot Placement of scaffolding in contaminated areas, $/square foot Landscaping with topsoil, $/acre Cost of CPC B-88 LSA box & preparation for use TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-113 Cost/Unit($)
52.86 28.80 33.74 0.38 1.69 6.08 2.99 2.70 16.23 10.18 27.24 93.82 8.28 830.25 2,454.05 1,992.60 5,888.73 8,320.63 35,420.29 0.26 5.97 17.93 16.14 48.13 8.07 56.11 17.60 31.95 26,800.29 2,212.44 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 7 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Cost of CPC B-25 LSA box & preparatfon 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 ofLSA drum & preparation for use Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8 120A cask (resins) Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8 120A cask (filters)
Decontamination of surfaces with vacuuming, $/square foot TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-114 Cost/Unit($)
2,025.85 1,655.88 11,184.40 230.65 13,296.62 9,629.75 1.02 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis APPENDIXC Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 1 of 21 DETAILED COST ANALYSIS DE CON Tables C-1 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 1 ...................................................................
2 C-2 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 2 .................................................................
12 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-115 l\J :T 1> O> Diablo Canyon Power Pla11t Deconuninfoninz Co*t AnalJ"*i*
Activity Jude.. Actlvlt ' OHC:rl tlon PERIOD h-Sh utd own t h rouib Tr1u11ltlon Period la Direcc DecommiM.io oin g Acch*iti e* l a.I.I Prepare prelimi nary deoommi&l!ioning coel l a.1.2 Notification o r Ceesalion o r O pe r atiODI la.US kf: mov e (u c ( & IO U l'Ce mater ia l ln.1.4 Noc m ention or Pennaoent Ocfuelinp:
la.1.5 De3e li\*n te plant. systems & JlroeefM Ja.l.6 Prepare and s ubmi t PSDAR l u.1.7 Re\*iew plant. dw gs & 11pecs. lo.1.8 Perb n1 detailed rad surw i y la.1.0 E:11timm.c b y-produ ct inn!ul ory ltd.1 0 Eud product description I n.I.II Dclailcdby-µroduct im*e 11tory ln.1.12 Define nlajorwurk sc queoce la.1.1 3 Pe r form SER mu\ EA In.I.I<! Perfonn Site.Specific Col!l Study ln.1.1 5 Prepnre/s ubmit Li cense TenniMtkln Plan la.l.I G Receh*e NRC approvnl c.r t.e nrun11 tion plan Activity Specifications la.1.17.1 Pl11nl &tem1>0rnryfacilities ln.1.1 7.2 Planl"]'Mem11 111.1.1 7.3 NSSB Deco ntamin a tion Flu1h 111.1.17.4 React: c.r interna l s la.1.1 7.i.i Reacic.r\'Cll8e) ln.l.17.6 Biological i.-b il!l d l a.1.1 7.7 Steam generaton l a.1.17.8 Rei n kin:ed COO('re l e ln.1.1 7.\f la. 1.1 7.10 Co n de n!9C'rs la.1.17.11Plant1tructuro1&bui l ding' la.1.17.1 2 Wa 1te maoag (>m e ot la. I. 17.1 3 l'ao.."ilit.y
& s i1 e clueoou l 111.1.1 7 T of1.1 l P l trnning & Site PrepRrations In.I.I S Prep:tre dismnntHn g l!CQUe n ce Jn.l.IO P lant. prep. & t emp. B\'OOl'I l a.l.20 De11ign wet.er dean-up sy1W m la.1.2 1 Rigg:i n gf{))nf..
Cntr l Emlp1/tooling/e1c. lu.1.22 Procure ensksllinen
& co ntnin ers la.I S ubt oht l Per i od l o Adivit.y Cott i.I Period la Addilio11n l Cost.& I R.2.1 Sµe n L Fuel P1X.1l l eolntio11 l a.2.2 Disp!'.188 1 o f Conta m inated Toole &
J a.2 Subtotal Period la Additional C<.8 1.!! Period l a Co U alera l Coel8 l a.3.1 J-:uviron m e n t.nl Perm ii.. a nd F ee1 l a.3.2 GTCC Swagc Pennittilll'. (PG&E L.abo r 1 1 a3.3 GTOC Slol'age Permitting (Contractor) l a.3 Sub!ulnl P eriod la Coll11te r n l C-osts TLG &1*vicn, Inc. Off-Site Remov11l P11ck11.inc TrRDsport Pro<'eulnc C..t c. .. Costs Co1t1 c. ... 211) 1 03 219 1 03 Tab l e C-1 Diab l o Canyo n Unit 1 DECON D eco mmi ssio nin g Cost Esti mat e (T h o u san d s of20 1 4 Do ll a r s) LLRW NRC Disposal Other Total Tot11l Uc.Tenn. eo. .. Cotls Conlin enc Coit! eo. .. 202 43 2*1 6 240 . n/o . 3!0 67 377 3 77 71 3 163 8(16 '"" " IM "" 188 1'8 1 56 "" 1 88 1'8 202 1 3 2 1 5 245 1 , 1 63 200 1.4 1 2 1.412 481 103 58* 584 77 5 I GG £M2 042 630 136 771 771 763 164 027 83< .... 1 39 ,.. 708 78 17 9, 1 .. 1 , 101 2 36 1 ,33 7 1 ,33 7 1 , 008 216 1 , 224 1 , 224 78 17 94 9 4 *18' 104 ... ... 248 63 ilO I 15 1 62 13 " 62 1 3 " 484 1 04 ... 294 713 1 63 1166 866 1 40 30 169 86 5 , 860 1 , 209 7 , 1 24 6 , 273 372 80 4 62 452 3, 000 6 44 3 ,6*14 3,644 217 *17 264 "' 2 , 300 *If.I-I 2.794 2.794 1 9 1 *II 232 232 IG.730 3, 602 20.3 28 J9 ,.f77 21 , 00-4 *.GOO 26.3 14 26 ,3 14 2 , 835 1 , 068 4 , 225 4 , 225 2 , 835 2 1 , 664 5 , 718 '°*""" 36 , 538 9*9 " 1 , 1[)3 1 , 1 53 3.200 700 3, 996 3,996 5!0 1 00 01 9 619 4 , i40 1 ,01 9 5,769 5 , 769 Spent Fuel Site Processed Burhi.l Vo lum es M11n111ement Restor11tlon Volume C h utA C IH sB C IHs C Costs c. ... C u. F ee l C u.Feet Cu. Feet C\1. Feet 03 78 1 61 " " 21J.I " 861 861 l(*, 245 10.2'5 GTCC Cu. Ff!f!t Document PDl-17 1 9-00 1 , Re v. 0 Appendix C, Pa/le :!of 21 Burial/ UtUity11ad ProcHsed Curt Con h*11c t or Wt., Lbs. M1111houn M*nhoun I.JOO 2.000 4 , 600 l , OfA.1 1 , 000 1 , 300 7.600 3.1 00 oOOO 4.000 4 , 920 4 , 167 500 7 , 1 00 11,500 500 3 , 12U 1 , 600 400 400 3 , 120 4 , 600 000 37 , 827 2,400 1 , 400 t280 n.15a G24.9 45 3 17 C1 2UU5 3 17 N :T :p--.J Diablo Ctm,Yort Power Plant Decommiuionin1 Co*t Anal>**ia Activity In des Actlvt t De sc rl tl on Period la Period-Df'pendent.
Goe l:& l a.4.1 ln e ur a n ce J a.4.2 Prop N 1yta:o;-e8 l a.4.3 H et1 lth1>bys kf!eupplie s l t1.4.4 H eavy e qu i pm ent 1tnlal l a . .Ui o f D A W gene ra ted ln..&.G Pl a nt. e n e r gy budget la .. 1.7 NRC la..&.8 E mergem .. 'Y Pleoning Fees l a.4.9 Spent Fuel P oo l O&M l a.UO I SFS I Ope r ating Coe!h l a.4.11 $e\*e ran oo Related Cos t.& l a.4.12 Sta lT Coal l a.4.1 3 Utilit}' SUilT Co&t l a.4 S ubt ota l Per i od I a P e ri od-Depe nd e nt Col:ltl!!
la.O TO TAL PERIOD la COST PERIOD lb -D eeo mmi11i on lnr PrepuaUons P e riod l b Direct Dea.mmis11iouing Ac linli e.'1 Detaifo d W o rk P roce dure* l b.I.LI Plant l!!YS l t" W S l b.1.1.2 N SSS Deconl.a minali o o F lu e h l b.1.1.3 Reactor in le rnal it lb.l.1.4 Re:ma i ningbui l dinge Jb.1.1.6 CRD coo l ing alll!t'mb l y l b.1.1.6 CR D h o usin gs & I C I tube11 l b.1.1.7 l.11 curei n 11 1rum e nl.a 1i o n lb.1.1.8 Reacto rv ef!61!.I lb.l.1.9 FacilityclO@IOOut lb.J.1.10 t.li ll.'l il e11 hi e ld s lb.I.I.II Bio l ogic11\sb)e ld lb.J.J.12 St e am gcn e r a t o n lb.1.1.13 Re infore e J concrete lh.1.1.M t.l ainTurbine ib.1.1.IO Uain Co nden aen Jb.1.1.1 6 Aux ili i.ry building Jb.i.1.1 7 Reacto r buildin g lb.LI T ot al l b.1.2 Deco n primal')' l oo p lb.I Subtot a l Pe ri od lb Ad.iv i ty Cost.ii Period lb .i\ddi tio na l Coete l b.2.1 Site C h arncte riwti o n l b.2.2 H aza r dous Wa s te M.anagemenl l h.2.3 Mi!Le d Wast e ;\lanag eme nt lb.2 S ublolal Period lb Additional Cc.P ts Period l b U.llat era l Coe 1 .. l b.3.1 Deoon equipn1enl lb.3.2 DOC etaffrelocation expenses l h.3.3 Proce11e decom mi ssio nin g water W[l9te Jh.3.4 Prooeu deeon1 mis eio ning che mi ca l flu s h w aste lb.3.5 Sm alt t no l 1dlowarn:e lb.3.6 P ipe cu l ting equipme n t. lb.3.7 Decon ri g lb.3.8 Envinmmeota l Per mi t..s a nd Foo s Jb.3.9 G T CC St oroge P e rmill ing L abo r) Jb.3.J O GTCC S t o r11 ge Pennitting (Contracto r) lb.3 S u b t ot al Pf'riod lb Co llat e ral C-Oll l s TLG &,.vicn , lnc. Off-Site D eeo n Rem o val P ackagi ng Tl"an.'lport ProceHln r eo .. Coot Co.'11.'J Co1t s Co.'Jt9 G26 607 I.I 1 , 003 " 1 , 093 2 33 1 07 797 797 942 <6 32 &I 2 94 25 1 J , 1 00 1 , 6"0 2 ,6 90 1 , 10 3 127 306 Table C-1 Diablo Canyo n Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2014 Dollars) LLRW NBC 01.'Jposlll Ot h e r Toh.I Tota l Lie.Term. Costs Co.'Jh Co 11th1 e nc Costs eo. .. 1 , 1 32 1 62 1 , 29 4 1 , 294 17 7 25 203 203 , .. 7 14 714 122 689 """ 16 4 3 13 2 , 7 3 7 087 3,32 4 3,32 4 1 , 1 8 1 , . .,, 1 ,300 1,300 1 , 00 1 14 3 1 , 1.J 5 792 170 003 5 47 117 6"4 4 1 , 741 8 , 960 50 , 701 50 , 701 22.783 4.800 27 , 6 7 3 27.673 37.3 70 8.022 45 , 392 4 5,392 JG 1 00 , 462 23 , 565 1 3 4 , 153 1 3 1.382 2 , 85 1 l ii2 , 6 1 0 33,895 1 90 , 7 88 18 7 , 1 00 7 34 1 68 891 802 1 50 33 1 88 188 388 83 4 71 471 209 45 25 4 6 4 1 5G 33 1 88 188 1 05 33 1 88 188 1 56 33 188 1 88 003 1 21 .... 084 1 86 4 0 226 11 3 70 15 85 "" 1 86 4 0 226 226 71 3 1 53 86G 8G6 1 5G 33 188 94 2,12 52 294 242 52 2\H 423 9 1 514 '"" 423 91 51 4 463 6 , 1 54 1.1 00 6.26 1 5.083 570 1 , 367 1 , 36 7 5.1 54 1 , 67 7 7 , 628 6 , 4i>l 5 , 234 2.2 47 7 , 48 1 7 ,.J81 217 47 264 264 287 62 349 349 5,738 2.35 6 8.003 8.003 2 02 1 , 144 l,U4 l ,*1 65 3 15 1 ,780 1 , 780 1 51 1 03 386 386 5 , i83 2 , 138 8 , 269 8,200 1 3 ""' 1 , 336 1 , 336 3*1 3 1 ,9 4 3 1 ,9 4 8 47 1 IO I 672 5 72 2 21 47 269 269 51 3 11 0 623 623 5 ,98 4 2 , 6 7 0 3,59 7 1 6,326 16 ,326 Spent Fue l Sit e ProceHed BuriR I VolumH M11narement Restoration Volume Cla.'l.'IA C lusB c 1.,, c Costs eo ... Cu.Feet C u. F ee t Cu. Fe e t C u. F e et G IO 1.1.1 5 963 """ 2 , 771 610 2.771 85 1 1 0.855 8 9 191 11 3 94 294 '°' 51 51 1 , 177 1.177 291 88 7 29 1 887 GT CC C u. Fe et D oc ument PO l-17l!J..OO I , R ev. 0 Appendix C , Pa1e 3 of 21 Buri*I/ Utility and Proce.'l.'led C raft Contra c tor Wt. Lbs. M*nhoun Manhoun 1 2,190 20 302 , 008 4 2 3 , 400 1 2.1 00 20 726 , 308 G37 , 1 30 33 7 800.06 1 4 , 7 33 1 , 000 2,500 1 ,300 1 , 000 1 , 000 1 , 000 3,630 1 , 200 400 1 ,200 4 ,000 1 ,000 1 , 560 1 , 5GO 2 , 730 2 , 730 33.2 4 3 1 , 067 1.067 33 , 243 2G , OOO 9.412 25.000 0, 41 2 17 , 471 57 9-1 ,63 1 1 66 112 , 002 223 N :l> 0 ::::r '.!: CX> Oioblo Con,10n P ower Plant D ec:on m1W io nin1 Cost A nul y*i* Activity lud u: Actlvlt De sc rl >tlon Pe rkxt lb J>eriod.()ppeodeot Coeu 1 lb.4.1 Decun 1 uppl ies lb.4.2 l n*W"*ntt lb.<1.3 l'roperty t 11u1 lb.<1.4 Hellitb pbyak:. auppliM tb.4.6 H el'IY}' eq u ipment renla l ib.4.G Di1pou l oC DA\\' gene r ated lb . .&.7 Plant ene r gr bu*t ib.4.8 NRC F'eet 1b.rn Emergency Ph111ning Fl-ea l h.4.10 Spe nt Fu el Pool O&J.1 lb.<1.11 t srn r Ope rali11 g Cos t s lb.ol.12 Sern r anc:t: Related Coat1 l b.4.1 3 Secu r ity Ste fT Gi.t l b.4 1-4 DOCSt.a fT Coiit l b.4.16 Utilit}' Sc.afl'Coat l b.I Sublola l Period lb Period-Dependent Co.ta l b.O TOTAL PERIOD lb COS T PERIOD 1 TOTALS PERIOD Z. -lAr*e Co mpon e u t Runoval Pe r iod 2a Dired. Decom m iss i o nin g Aclh'itit>8 Nuelel'lr Siemn Supply Sy1 t em Remwa l 2a.1.l.I Re8cto r Ux>lnnl Pip1nr 2a.l.l.2 Prt-Muriu-r Quench Tank 211.1.1.3 Reftctor Cuo l11n1 PwniJ8 & M oton 211.l.l.4 Pre..,uriu-r 2*.1.1.6 Sr eam GelK" ratOl'f 2a.l.l.6 JU.1 ired Steam Gern.*rator Unit.a 2a.J.l.7 CROl\bn C J.&:rvk-e S t rur:t.ure Rt>mul'a l 211.l.l.8 Reacto r Ve1eel l.nterna\!1 21'1.1.l.9 RellCto rV elll!I 2a.l.1 "°"'" Hemovn l o f Major 1<:quipn1enl 28.l.2 Turbi.11 e/Gene r alo r 28.l.3 l.l ttb1Conden!lf!l'1I Cnscadinr 0... fr om Clean Building Demo l ilion 211.IA.I '"'-* 2*.1.4.2 Co nlllinmenL Penetration Area 2a.l.4.3 J<'uel Hudlin& 2a.14 T oe.11 Dit1KJU1 I of Sy11tem1 2a.l.6.I A u%ilia11*St.eam 2a l.6.2 A u xi li aJ1' Sieam 2a 1.6 3 Coode n 11o11 t a &'y1tem 2a 1.6*1 Condenaate Sr1tem (l11 1 ul ated) 2a.l.6.6 Contai nm ent Spray 2a.l.6.6 Exiroctkm Sleam & H ealer Drip 2a.l.6.7 Feedwa1 e r S)'!lem 2a.l.6.8 J<'eedwa l er Sy11tcm (ln1ulated) 2a..l.6.9 Fet'dwater SrMem (RC A ln!lu l fltP<i} :?a.l.6.1 0 Fttdwaler Syttem (RCA) 2a.l.6.1 1 Lu be Oil Di1l r ib u tion & Pu n fkalion 2a.l.6.12 N11ropn & H y d ruren 21'1.1.6.13
& 11, ,v droeen (ln8ulat ed) 2a.l.5.l-4 Ni l rotien & (RCA l n1ulatetl) 2a.l.5.Hi N ii f\llf\'11 & H y d rofl'.en (RCA) 211.1.6.1 6 O il y Wii!er &>1 1amt<>r & TO Swnp 2t l.l.6.17 Sa ltw n l e r Sys t e m 2a.t.6.18 Turbin t* St.ca m S uppl y 2a.l.6.1 9 Turbint* Steam S uppl y (RCA) nG Servicn, I nc. O rf.Si t e Decon RenK1v*I P11cit.rinr TraDJpor1 Procenlnr
- c. .. Co o< Cotti Coo u Com 29 292 281 29 073 3, 416 1 , 876 1 36 307 3,4 16 2,768 367 ... ""' 361 .. .. .. 37 8 1 63 1 3 1 169 213 63 ,. 630 1 3 1 503 3 , 330 3, 239 2.034 2,298 1 , 982 207 380 2'0 .. 216 1 0 , 286 1 0 ,00 5 2,0(H I G I 1 , 186 2 , 83'1 808 1 , no1 22 , 386 1 9,-400 7 , JOO 2 1 2 600 1.262 78 206 1 , 645 16' m " 1 8 708 293 262 121 " 2i4 .. li6 1 28 34 13 8 2 1 20 20 Ill
- 38 to 198 790 871 26<1 .. Tab l e C-1 D i ablo Ca_u yo n Unit 1 DECON D eco mmi ss i o ning Cost Est i mat e (ThouHnds o f 20 14 Do llar s) U.R W NHC Spent Fuel Obpon J Other Total To t*l Uc.Term. M*n*fement c.. .. Co91s Co n tlu e n c c. ... Costs Cos ts 1 0 ,. 39 '6 1 80 ... 642 88 1 3 I OI I OI 1 04 """ 300 00 3 11 3 11 10 ' " " 2 , 7 1 4 ... 3,2fJ7 a,201 3'2 *10 39 1 30 1 197 71 ""' 668 393 84 477 477 27 1 "" 329 329 2.4!S4 627 2.08 1 2,08 1 10.670 2.269 1 2,839 1 2.839 7 , 040 1.6 1 2 8.568 ..... 18 , 638 4 , 001 22 , 688 22 , 638 10 43 , 674 9 ,-427 G3,6 22 62 , 2*18 1.374 0,9.U 67 , 1 37 1 7 , 065 86670 83.118 1 ,3 74 &795 200,7 47 00 , 900 2iG , 468 270,28-4 4 , 1 46 1 , 181 *** 2,866 2 , 866 1 66 1 04 362 302 1 ,-431 7 3 7 2,823 2 , 82 3 744 ... l ,"6() 1 ,1166 12 , 696 6,993 28 ,796 28 , 796 1 2 , 696 6,298 22 , 272 22 , 272 66 1 683 2 , 002 2 , 002 29,646 367 30 , 860 83 , 362 88 ,3 62 """' 367 7 , 894 28 ,8 68 28 ,3&6 62.087 714 63,719 I G7,886 167 ,686 ... 267 11 0 Sitt 271 1.633 1 , 633 17 96 .. u 2'9 2-t9 3ll2 1 , 677 J,Sn 33 187 608 21)() 1 , 1 33 1 , 1 33 162 800 6.1 3'6 1 , 608 6W 2,683 2,683 09 332 to "" 38 213 '"' 204 7ll8 71J8 22 II 41 41 26 l*W 26 I 4 . .. 14 8 1 70 27 1 27 1 1 32 63 2"7 247 4 3 2*11 17 0 000 3, 1 62 1 ,00 1 0,388 '*'"" Site Proces.ed Burial Vo lum e!! Huloratlon Vo lu me C h1HA C l usB C I HsC OT CC c.. .. C u. F ee l C u. F ee t C u. Feel Cu.Feet C u. F ee t ... ... 1 , 1 77 ... 887 2,0'l8 11 , CiOO 887 2,2i6 321! 4 , 701 2 , 4*13 41 , 7 1 2 4 1 ,03 1 3, 881 t ,878 003 786 0, 420 1 07 ,0 71 003 780 267 *** 187 1 ,836 800 ... 6 , 4.4 1 332 .. 21 3 1, 6 17 811 146 " 1 6 2112 478 2 .. 1 000 1 1 , 428 D ocu ment PO l-111 9-00 1 , Re v. 0 Appendi x C , Pa1e 4 o f 2 1 Burl*I/ Utlllty*nd Proceu1ed C rRft Co ntr*c tor Wt. Lbs. M*nho\ln M*nhoun 7 ,0 fN " 142 , 2 1-t 63,09 1 210.004 7 , 00< " 4 1 6.300 119 ,0&l 26 , 30 1 468 ,966 700 , 22 1 26,638 1 , 259 ,0 16 200 , 153 I0 , 1 38 30,667 1 , 073 77-4 , 000 '*""' 1 00 306 , 214 2,366 ... 3.360 , 761 23,233 1 , 750 3 , 1 26,629 I0 , 800 1 , 1 26 1 46, 494 7 , 9'76 404 ,'11 3 33, 1 67 1 , 469 003,382 33, 1 67 1 , 4li9 9 , 300,00 2 1 26,487 6,830 3,033 0.8i6 11 , 896 70< 1.7-46 1 ... 3 46 2.3 IO 111.86!.!
3,7 14 1 0 , 67 1 4 ,aGi 331 , 619 3,631 4 , 162 708 2 , 666 92,470 1 , 793 4 , 867 86 1 , 817 3 1 6 17 037 77 1 7 , 803 l ,*163 20, 1 38 4;7 2 , fr.!G 11 ,966 GOG , GOO 1 2 , 203 Dioblo Con,o n Power Planl Decommia.ionin1 Co*I Analy.I* Activ ity lndu: Actlvlt D tte rl Io n Di*puewl o( Plant System* (l'On l inlW!dj 2*. 1.6.20 Turbinr 11nd °"Dl'.ralor 2a.1.6.21 Turbine *11d Geoeralor (lwulat.ed) 211.l.6 Total* 2-.1.G ScatrolcUne in 1uppon. oC decomm1A1toninJ Subtctal.
Pe:riod 211 kf.i,*lty Coeu Period 2a Add 1 tio1uil Co.ta 2o.2. I Re n1 e d i1t l AcHo n Sun*ey1 2a.2.2 Retire d He11ctor H ea d 211.2.3 PG&J.; RPV St..t1fTSuJJport TellD'I 2a.2..I DOC RJlV Staff Support. Team 211 2 Subtot.al Period 211 AdtlitKina l Coe t 1 Period 2a C<;Ual e ral Co.U 211.3. I Proceu decommiNioning wnt e r wul.e 2a.3.2 Proceu deoommiNionin1 chemical flu1h waN.e 2a.3.3 Small tool 11J1llowance 2a.3..t Emirorunental Permh.a and F't:fl 211.3.11 GTCC St.<<¥ Permitting (PG&E Labor) 2a.3.6 GTCC Storage Permitting (Cont rM:t or) 2a.3 Subtotal Pf'riod 211 Col lateral Cash Perkid 2a Period-Dependen l <Oat" 211.4.1 Decon 1mpp l iH 211.4.2 lntlU'lllJ(!e 211.4.3 Property l*XH 211.4.4 Heall h phyeiCll flupplieto 2111.4.ll H eavy equipmenL renl*I 2a.4.G Dil!poaal of DAW renerated 2a.4. 7 Plan! 1H1ergr bud,el 2a.4.8 NRC Fee1 2a.ol.9 Emel'gt1ncy P1anoing Feet1 2aA.10 Spent. Pw1 O&M 2a.4. l I ISFS I Opcr111.inlf Cofit1 h..6.12 Se\'e r ance l te l 11led Co81.1 2a .. I. 13 Spent CanietenK.>\'f:rpticlr:11 2*. l.14 Security Sta ff Cos t 211..t. 1 6 DOC Slaff Coel 2o . .J. JG Utili t y So1rr C'olL 2aA Sublofol Period 2a Period-Dependent Coeh 211.0 TOTAL Pt:RIOD 2a COST PER I O D 2b-S ite Decontamination Period 2b Direct. DeconmiHk.ning Actirit.ie.
Di111)0MI of P lant Sy1t.etn.1 2 1.. I. I I Capita l AddiUorui 85-2002 (clean) 2b 1.1.2 Capita l Add 1 Uo 1 ui 80-2002 {rontaminated) 2b.l. l.3 C hem k:al & Volume Cootrof 2b.l. l.4 Chmik:fl l & Vo l ume Control (tnsuJated) 2b.l.l.5 CooiponentCooli n gWate r 2b. I. I.6 Canponent Coolin& W11ter (RCA) 2b.J.l.7 CcmprenedAfr 2b. 1.1.8 Ccmpreued Air (lntula t ed) 2b. I. 1.9 ConprelM'ld Ai r (RCA ln 11ula led) 2b.l.J.I O Com 1 1reslledAi r (RCA} 2b.l.l.ll Die9el Engioo-Generator 2b.I. 1.12 Oie9el E11Jine-Geoo r a1or l l ntula l ed) 2b.1.l.1 3 tClt>anJ 2b. I. L 1 4 Ele<:1r i eal (Conlaminated) 2b. I. I. IO Eklctr i ad (Deoo n1.a111illllled) 2b.l.l.IB Fire Prolecti o n 2b.l.l.1 7 Go&eou11 Radw11ete TLG Serv icH , In c. Decon eo .. l , i2.a 6 9 1 96 196 1 , 900 918 338 Rem o val Tu as port Cos t Cos t s Costs 84 28 "'"" 2 , 2 6G 3 1 , 679 3,630 7,443 1 0.973 tl , 960 100 400 1 ,268 ... 204 622 181 6 29 ... 167 12 2 , 227 636 3 , 481 300 .. 1 6 1 9 ,930 263 263 12 6 126 20.3 78 38 ... 26 149 2 .. .. 1 23 G 1 83 """' 6 1 81 84 .. 7 , 688 16 6 1 11 .. 1 13 O ff...S lt e Proceuln1 Costs Tab l e C-1 Diablo C any o n Un.it 1 DECON Decommi ss i oning Cost Estimat e (Tho u sa nd* o( 20 1 4 Do ll ars) LLRW Disposal CottJ 0 , 1131> 26 G8 , 4--li 1.6 15 1 , 516 "'" 235 150 150 70.34 7 '"' 1 , 927 342 1 , 852 22 421 1 , 12 4 1 ,007 72 Othe r Co!tt 71< 5 , 8 77 6 , 006 5.876 17 , 860 3.213 2 , 306 2.(i79 8 , 128 1 , 7 39 006 8 , 882 2 , 1"9 2,443 2 , 707 1 , 8C8 9 , 100 l ,BGa 66 , 60 1 7i , 702 11 6 , 873 291.664 3 18.246 Total Co nli n encv 18 G ... ...... 2.623 . ., 1 , 300 6,()00 109 ., 600 ... ... 1 , 067 70 249 87 1 , 263 1 , 008 ,. 1 , 007 ... """ 681 401 1 ,0GO 400 M , 2<J6 1 6.670 24 872 66.097 1 3 1.239 ... 36 1 1 , 83 1 ... " ... .. 19 30 1 40 3 .,. 640 747 "' .... Total Cosu 102 34 14 , 491 3, 11 9 188 , 476 8 , 400 2 , 4 00 7 , 407 7 , 1 36 211 , 309 "'" 362 U'1l 2,800 3 , 1 33 10,831 267 1 , 988 693 """ 9 , 041 -10 , 789 2 , 445 2,71!2 '""" 2,209 11 ,08!) 2,263 80 , 898 94 , 361 140 , 745 368 , 1 3 1 OO'l , 838 " 1 , 398 6 , 143 l , i23 248 ..... 220
- 73 1,358 227 14 2 , 70{; 2 , 63 1 4 , 228 2,922 228 N R C Lie. Term. Coso 1 0,9 7 6 3, 11 9 183 , 868 8AOO 2 , 400 7 , 407 7 , 1 36 211 , 300 3:16 3 , 940 zeoo 3, 1 33 1 0 , 7116 267 1 , 088 .... 4 , i1f2 fl , 041 ""' 10 , 780 2 ,.14(i 1 1 ,089 80 , 698 0-1.36 1 140.746 367 , 449 677.601 1 , 3"" 6 , 143 1 , 723 3, 000 73 1 , 358 2 , 63 1 2,922 228 Spent Fuel Mllnafement Cotti 2 , 792 3,288 2,269 2,2(;3 1 0 , 613 J0.6 1 3 102 34 3 , 61 6 4 , 61!! 3G .. .. 4.72*1 22\l
- l*l 2 , 705 4 , 228 C u. F ee l C u. Fee l C u. Feet Cu. Feet C u. F ee l 21 , 087 .. , 6 , ()72 6(172 *53 4 03 ..... 1 40.616 1.78£i ..... 1 , 236 6 , 692 .. 1 , 622 4 , 061 *.006 2G2 786 786 Documen t POl-111'-00I , R ev. 0 AppendU C, Pa1 e 5 o f 21 B ur ial I Proce11ed Wt. Lb s.
29 ,3 2 3 I0 , 681 , 000 822 ,<142 27.1 70 27.17 0 111 , 698 111.Ml8 II \.4 2300 1 08 , 806 424 , 620 76 , 243 407,837 4 , 883 112.770 3l'J3,970 16 ,{15J 1 , 244 422 67 , 001 16 , 818 2 3 7 , 569 71.016 2,008 73,114 .. .. 182 182 310,94 3 2 , 830 B , 756 21,664 10 , 766 3,078 8 , 0 14 2 , 744 98 393 i , 1 99 2 , 760 178 32 , 770 S , 666 49 , 641 Ci , 4 00 1 ,IGG Utili ty .ud Co n trACtor Manh o u r.11 '" 69 , 808 01 , 69 1 llil.637 OCI0 , 24 1 7 1 2.67 1 1 , 308 , 922 2.030.736 3., 089 , 102
"' 0 Diablo Co n y<m Pow e r Plant D eco mmiH io nin1 Coa t Anal J'lli11 A c t iv ity ln d e.x Actl v it\* D esc d l i o n Di8JJUflal oC P l 1:1ni Sys 1 e m 1 (cun l ioued) 2b. l.l.1 8 l lVAC (Cle11 n lns ul 11t.ed) 2b.l.l.1 9 1-IVAC(Clea n) 2b.J. l.20 H\I AC (Con l aminated J 119 ul m.ed) 2b.l.l.2 1 H\IAC(Ux!Utmin11ted) 2 b. I. l.22 Li q uid Ju.d waste 2b. I. l.23 Li qu id Ju.dwHte (]nsu l ated) 2b.l.l.24 2 b. I. l.25 M 11 k e-u p W 11te r (lt 1M u l a l e d) 2b. l. l.26 M ti k e-u p W at.e r (R CA ln 1 u l 11t fl d) 2 b. I. i.27 Mu ke-u1 l W 1:tt.e r (R CA) 2b. l. l.28 Mi acel l n n ro u 1 Re 11 ctor Oio lant 2b. I. l.29 N u clea r S l eam Su p p l y Sampl i ng 2b. I. l.30 N u cl ea r Sleam S u pply S am pl i ng (l nsuluted 2b. I. l.3 1 Reaid u a l H eat Remui*al 2b.1.l.3 2 Snrety Injectio n 2b.1. l.33 Snrets Injection
(]naulat.ed) 2b. l.1.J.t Safot>* lnjecuo n (RCA l neulated) 2b. I. l.35 Sarety I11jec::t.10 n (RCA) 2b. I. l.3G Sel"\'ice Coo li ni Waler 2L.1.1.37 Sel"\*ioe Coo li ng Watt:r (RCA) 2b.l.l Tot1:t l s 2b. l.2 Sc aff o ld i n g in l!Up port of derommiuioni n g Dero n tmni u a l io n o f S i l:e Bu ild in gs 2b.l.3.I *RellClor 2 b. l.3.2 Ca p i t11 I Addi ti o lllll 8 0-2004 2b. l.3.3 Cootuinnw nt Pent'tra1ion Area 2b.l.J Toi els 2b.I Sub l otal Pe r kKI 2b Activit.y Co&.-11 Pe ri od 2b Addiuomd f'...o&UI 2b.2. I Remt.>dia l Action S u rn*ya 2 b.2 Sublot11\ Pe r kN:l 2b A J di l fo n a l CoM.,, Pe r i o d 2b Cos t* 2 b.J. I P rncen t1 eco m m iuio n i n g w ate r w 1 1 ete 2b.3.2 P rown d eco mm issioning c h e m i ca l O u1 h w aste 2 b.3.3 S n 11 dl too l a ll owance 2b.3 . .J En\*ironme n t11 I Penn i l.fl and Feeti 2b.3 SubloCa l Pe r tod 2b CoUai.eral Chit.fl Period 2b P e r iod.Dependent Coa l s 2b.4. I Demo s upp l ieii 2 b..l.2 I n s ur ance 2 bA.3 Prorie r tyt..ue9 2b . .J.4 li ea l tb phy*it.,.
s u pp l ies 2 b.4.5 M e1wy eq ui p m e n t rental 2 L.4.6 Di.s 1 io.n l o f DA W genera t ed 2 L.4.7 Pl a nL c r it: r ip*l.ud 1ie 1 2 b.4.8 NRC t'oo1 2 b.4.9 Plmin i n g Fees 2 b.4. I O Spe nt Fue l P oo l O&M 2bA. I l L i q uid l tatl w 1t1le Process in g Equip m e n t&l"\*i ef!ll 2b.4.1 2 JSF'SI Opero l i n g "2 b.4.1 3 SenirRnce Rr l ated Coeh 2b.4. I-& Spe n t Fu el Sto r age C...nislers.Ovt"rpacks 2b.4. l 5 Secu r ity S111 fT f'..<111 t 2b.4.1 6 DOCS111 1T Co.t 2 b.4.1 7 2b.4 Sub l ola l Pe r kK.I 2L Per i od-Depe n dent Cu.i l l! 2b.O TO T AL 2 b OOS T TLG &1-v i c n , In c. Tab l e C-1 D i ab l o C a n y o n U n.i t 1 DECON D ec ommi ss i o n ing Cost E s t i m a t e (T h o u sa nd s o f201 4 Do ll ar s) O ff-S it e LLRW O e<10 n R emov*I Pft c k*ri n f Tr 1Wspo rt Procenl n f Dls p o JAI Cost Coa t Cos t s Co sts Co1 ts Cost.s 610 72 22 338 2,297 983 34 336 1 ,362 3,649 13 3 137 702 702 29 36 1 62 1 1 , 425 801 87 3i6 34 *16 237 J.1 1 1 88 67 ,., 132 * " 362 12 3 30 16, 1 66 2,820 2 , 637 30 225 2,8\.12 2 1 ,8 77 400 1 , 919 l , 2Gl'i 3, 18 3 26,460 49 247 " 6 5 27 12 3 lG I * .. 1 , 251 18 1 , 132 2 6 2 ,-433 98 '" 253 70 70 2,765 20 IO I " 2 2 10 ' 4 0 60 7 0 21 007 5,JOO 3 2'1 6,3J6 5.M8 1 64 41 3 20 643 3, 214 1 ,0 72 6 7 59 33 2 Ill 12 1 15 1 , 603 210
- 75 677 '5 16 , 123 32 25,386 85 32S 26, 7 99 "' 1 ,3-1-1 1.80 1 83 83 43,838 Ot h e l" Cos h 1 ,009 1 ,009 M7 667 200 104 1.203 367 "° ... 110 3 21 8 , U78 637 11.096 6,llOO 1 0, 7 6 1 4 1 ,65 7 43,223 T o till Co nt lu e n c 6 82 306 J , 7 J G 1 , 126 10 7 8 1 7 " 21 0 1 08 11 3 26 966 126 ' *13 380 26 32 1 2,420 1 ,024 12 , 030 6 7 17 1 2,544 26,98 7 "' '33 """ 694 86 11 9 l , IU7 25 1 " " 686 271 "' 2'8 53 60 1 00 " 69 l , fl27 1 37 2,382 1 , 483 2,308 10 , 1 10 37 , 637 To t 11.I Cos ts 36 .. , 1 , 389 6,703 3,726 '"' *II J.18 B I G 303 '36 1 00 3.424 491 21 1 69 1.48 5 1 49 12 3 48 , 763 3,899 47 , 4i5 224. 1 ,386 49,086 10 1 , 7*18 1 , 4*11 1 , 4*11 1 , 1 60 2 ,500 *186 676 4 , 8 3 1 91>3 341 11 9 2.005 1.636 217 l ,4G2 ° 479 " 134 389 10 , 906 774 1 3,478 8 ,392 1 3,008 56,825 1 63 , 846 N H C S penl F u e l Lk. Te rm. M 11.n ftfe 1n e n t Co su Co sts 1 , 389 G,703
'"' 1*1 8 816 303 436 1 00 3,42 4 491 21 1 00 1 , 4 85 1!!3 30,737 3,8!1£1 47 , 475 224 1 ,386 49 ,086 92,722 1 , 441 1 , 4"1 1 , 1 00 2,500 486 676 4 , 8 3 1 053 3 41 11 9 2.606 1 , 536 217 1.402 420 134 10 , 000 1 3, 478 8 ,3'12 1 3,058 63, 6 1& 1 52,6 1 3 479 664 389 2,207 2,207 S h e Proc e sse d B urhd Vo l um e!I R es 1 or 11.tl o n V o lum e C l n u A C l a.u B C la ss C OT C C Cos ts C u. P ee l C u. Fee t C u. Feet C u. F e e l C u. F ee t 467 41 14 9 9,026 9,026 9,026 2,324 11 ,6 1 5 3,8 74 241 212 1 , 1 00 402 436 116 6 , 793 750 30 272 2 ,-147 200 68 , 270 816 349,938 320 2 , I ZIJ 36 2 , 387 4 11 , 472 882 1 ,.1 00 2 , 34 1 3.1 0'.! S,!02 4 1 6 ,f H G D oc um e n t PO l-1 1 1 9-00 1 , R ev. 0 A p p end ix C , Pa Jle G of 2 1 Bur ia l I Proce ss ed W t., Lbs. 1 41 ,63 1 707 , 889 2$,13 7 l.J , 7 1 8 1 2,800 73 , 076 24,489 26 , 67 1 3 , 362 363.0 70 46.248 1 , 8 41 IG ,5 7 1 1 4 9.1 39 12 , 1 59 3,55 1 , 368 36,653 33.233, 450 1 8 ,6 71 l i2 , 7 93 33.424 , 910 37.0 12 , 930 52 , 000 1 56,622 208.42 1 62.046 62 , 0-1 6 37.283,400 Cr 11£t Milltl h OUl"!I 476 6,0 IG 4, 102 1 8 , 472 1 1:1 , 782 2 , 1 00 6 ,6 1 1 5 21 50*1 3.1 39 2 , 1 58 2 , 700 824 ti.036 1.852 "' 068 4,656 1 , 856 251 ,64 8 2 1 ,023 43 , 339 847 7 ,3 62 6 1 ,63 7 3 24 , 1 08 12 , 187 12 , 187 1 72 27 3 IO I I OI 336,842 U 1 lllty 1 111d Co 111 r 11 c t or &hn h o un 1&2 , 246 60,034 122 ,&17 34 1 , 1 77 3 4 1,17i
"' ;!: (") ::T !: "' Diablo Conyo" Power Pl o rat D l!co mmiu ionin1 Cod A nol yel* Actl\llt)'
1.nde..x Aetl\1 11\' Desel'i tl o n PERIOD :?.c-S pe n t fuel delay pl'i o r 1 0 SFP d eco n Period 2c Direc:t IA-cotnntiMkmini Activities Period 2cCollateral Coll* 2e.3.I Spe n t Pue l TraoaJl.'r
- Pool t o ISFSI 2e.3.2 Environm e n t.ad Pe m litl and Feet 2c.3 Sub t o t a l Pertod 2e Co l h 1 tc r al COtllt Period 2c P e ri od-Depen d en l. Coet.e 2c.4.I ln*ur H n lll!! 2c.4.2 P roi>erty t oxe1 2c.4.3 H ea llhp by1ic11 up p li e1 2c.4.4 Oispogal o ( DAW ge n eraled 2c.4.5 P l ant e nergr budget 2c.4.6 l\.'RCJo*ces 2c.U Enle.J'geney Pla n ning Fee1 '.lc.4.8 Llqu 1d Radwa11.e Proce11.i n g Equipmenl.1Sern ee1 2c.4.9 I SF'SI Ope r aliog Cos t a 2e.4.10 Spent Skirnge Can i 1lera.Overpackl 2c.4.IJ Secur i ty Sta rr C:O.t 2c.4.1 2 U t i li tySta ff Cciet 2<.4 S ub tOfa l Period 2c Periotl*Dependeot Coet& 2".0 TOTA L 2c OOS T PERIOD 2d-Decont*mln11tlon FollowlnrW e t F 1..1 e l S t o nr e Period 2d Direct Deromm i Hioning Ad1vitic9 2d.l.l Remove epe.n t fo c i r acU of P l ant Sy&te m t 2d.l.2.I Elec:trial l (C'..o otrunirmted)
- F H B 2d.l.2.2 Electrie111 J (Dttontarninaled)
- FHB 2d.i.2.3 Fire Protect.ion (RCA) 2d.l.2 . .f. H VAC (Cont.am i natt'\I)
- F H il 2d.J.2.6 Spent Puc l Pit Coo lin g 2 d.l.2.6 Spe n t f.'u cl Pit CooJi n g
- 2 d.l.2 T ot11 l a Derontamin11 t ion of Site B u ildi n gs 2d.l.8.J Fuel ll1:1 n dling 2d.l.3 T ota l s 2d.l. 2 d.3.2 Proceu dl'commiHio n ing c h em i ca l flu sh WHle 2d.3.3 Sm11 1l 1 ooJ 11.llowance 2d.3.4 Decoin m i9"'io n ing Equ.ipment Di.'\lposition 2d.3.5 Envimnm.-ntal PcrmiLt a n d 2d.3 Subtota l Period 2d Cu U a1 e r aJ Cosu Pe r iod 2d Period*Depemlent 2d.4.I Deoon 1upp l ies 2 d.4.2 IH ur l'l n l'f! 2d.4.3 Propt'r t ytaxe1 2d.4.4 H e" lthp by1k1!1u 1 1 vli e' 2 d.4.5 n'nL a l 2d.4.6 Diapo1tt l o r DA W 1wnert1ted TLG &1'Vi c a, lr*c. O ff-S it e D econ Ren10"*l P 11.ekar in r Tr11.nsport Proee H hlf eo .. eo .. Cos ts eo ... Cos u 809 39 II ... 39 II 809 39 II 602 "' 1 63 33 1 86 13 1 , 1 49 126 49 200 28 II 339 06 23 9C .JG 1 9 1 3 3 00 20 2, 1 52 319 128 845 800 60 .. 845 890 60 38 664 1.-14 7 3.674 5'5 20 1 " 35 59 82 1 00 52 45 82 1 86 112 212 C.26 003 30 Tabl e C-1 Diab l o Ca uyon Uuit l DECON D eco mmi ss ioning Cost Est i mat e (Thousands oC20 14 Dollar s) LLRW N R C Dbpo511.J Ot h e r To till Total Li e. Terin. Co so Costs Co nlin e n e Co s t s Costs 40 , 63 1 8,700 *19 , 2 3 1 U79 9 1 8 5,197 5, 107 4-1 ,800 9,6 18 64,428 5, 1 97 2 , 29i'i 328 2.623 2.623 800 11 4 9 14 0 14 307 1 , 1 66 1 , 1 00 47 25 12 1 1 2 1 9 , 200 1 , 986 1 1 , 236 1 1 , 236 *400 36! 2 , 812 2 , 8 1 2 3 , 222 " 3 , 684 846 182 1 , 027 1 , 027 2 , 464 629 2.993 47 ,3 1 7 10 , IG7 U7.'7 3 Sl>,02 2 1 8 ,250 1 03,273 61,636 13 ,668 2 ,9 10 16 , 4G8 8 ,234 47 1 67,234 36,60 1 203,79 1 79,770 4 7 2 1 2 , 044 45 , 220 258 , 21U 84 , 007 1 , 066 863 2,786 2,786 171 130 006 006 1,069 1 , 00 1 3 , 895 3,896 342 218 849 849 7 3* 31)7 1 ,6&0 1 ,660 602 200 1,022 1,022 646 "-"' 1 , 1 38 1,138 4 ,063 2 , 297 8,969 8,950 400 1.11 0 3.418 3.4 1 8 400 1 , l lO 3 , 418 3 , HS 2()5 780 780 5 , 602 4 ,<175 15 , 943 15 , 943 845 363 1.208 1 ,2()8 792 3*1 0 1 , 132 1 , 1 32 1.637 703 2.3.\0 2,J.10 1 65 1 09 414 41'1 18 1 00 1 00 208 125 " 085 437 94 531 031 423 437 "° 1 , IL<>9 1 , 629 76 287 287 234 " 268 268 82 12 ., "' 1 88 714 71< 21 3 1 ,200 1 ,200 .. 1 9 92 92 Spen t. Fue l Site Proce!t!ted B u rh1.l Vo lum e!t M 1 m111ement Restoration Vo l um e C J 11.ssA C l as s B C l assC Co si s eo ... C u.F e et C u. F ee t C u. Fe e t C u. F e et 49 , 2 3 1 .f.9 , 23 1 1.732 3.684 2,003 67,473 51 , 636 8 , 2 34 1 2.f., 02 1 1 , 732 1 73,25 1 J , 7 32 3 , 862 8 1 9 6,670 1,287 2,664 2 , 174 2 ,3 32 1-1 , 686 3 , 326 3 , 320 163 22 , 025 319 6,667 6 , 986 1 ,3 21 OT C C C u.F ee t D ocumen t POl-1 1 19-00 1 , R e v. 0 App l!n di:c C, Pug#! 1o f 2 1 Burial/ Utility a nd Processed Cl'11.ft Co ntr actor Wt. Lb s. M an h o u n Manh o un 8-1 , 637 ,.,. 1 , 170 , 300 1 60,400 34 , 637 5G 1,320 , 700 34,637 w 1 ,32 0 , 700 234 , 773 966 3 7 , 72 1 2,492 345,663 15 , 063 76 , 37J 161 , 76 3 4 ,376 1 3 2 , 6 11 1 ,40 1 1 42 , IOJ 1 ,923 806 , 02 4 28,562 2*1-8,).12 23.647 248.142 23.047 7 , 33 1 4.20& 1.385.200 67 , 278 G.240 9 , 567 9 ,00 7 6,240 1 9 , 1 42 62 300 , 000 .. 3 1 9 , 1 42 100 ZC , 4 1 2 43
"-' ::r :p "-' "-' Diablo Ca n yon Po wer Plant Deconm1ilf9ionin,R Co*t Arwly*i* Acti vity I ndex Ac tl v lt D ese rt 1tlo11 Pt:riod 2d Period-Dependent Co81.11 {ooo tinued) 2d.4.7 Pltinl energy b ud get 2d.<l.8 N R C fo'eee 2d.<1.!t t:mcrlfl!ncy Plrmning Feea 2d.4.IO Spent fo'ue l Transfer
- ISFSI lo DOE 2d.4.ll Liquid R.ti dw 111le ProcesAing Equipm entJSe n*k:e1 2d.4.12 ISFSI Opc r nting Co8r.. 2d.4.1 3 Se\*er11 noe Rel&t.ed Cot!lfl 2d.4.l-1 Security Staff Cos t 2d.4.1 6 DOCStu IT Co&t 2d.4.1 6 UtilityStHITCOllt 2d.4 Subtoeol Period 2d Period.De11endent Cotil 1 2d.O TO TAL PERIOD 2d OOST PERIOD 3e -De lay before License Termination Period 2e Direct. l)ea,utmisaionmg Act.iviUea Period 2e Co llnt era l Co8t1 2e.3.I Ell\irorunental Permit.II and Ftoet 2e.3 Subtotal Period 2e C>lla1 e ral f'AJ11t1 Period 2 e Period-Depend e nt Coa t s 2e.4.1 ln 1u r n n ('(' 2f".4.2 1'1'(>µ1*rt y t axe1 2e.4.3 H eu lth phy 11icii 1u11plieti 2e.4.4 Di1Po@al or DAW 2e.4.6 Planr energy budget 2e.4.6 NRCl-'001 2e.4.7 Emt>rgt:ncy Pl11uning Footi 2e.4.8 Spent Tram1rer
- ISF'SI to OOE 2e.4.9 ISlS I Ope r at ing Coe t-8 2e.4.JO Sec urity Sta IT Cc.t 2e.4.ll U tilily Slt1 1T Coe t 2e.4 Subl-Ot.al Period 2f' Period-Dependent Co.it-8 2e.O P*;muo 2e OO ST PERIOD 2C-Llce11H Termlnation Period 2r Direct 2f.Ll OR I SEoonfinnot.ory 1un*ey 2f.l.2 Terrninolelioenae 2f.I Sub t ota l Period 2f Acth"i t y COits Peri(.(I 2f Addi tion a l Co!l l* 2(2.J L icem1e Tem1im1tioo Survey 21'.2 S ub tota l Period 2f Additional Cost.II Pe r iod 2fC>llat.eral Co.ii. 2 f.3.I DOC t i n ff r docatk..u el'.pell!Ml!!
2f.3.2 Endrom n c ul.al Permit.11 ond Fees 2f.3 S u b l otal Pe r i o d 2fCollate r al C09 t9 Tabl e C-1 D i ablo Ca ny o n Unit 1 DECON De co mmi ss ioning Cost Estimate (Th o u sands 0(20 14 Dollars) O ff-Site LLRW Decon Remov11 I P11ck*ci1t1' Tr Ansport Procenlnl' Dlsposlll Co11t Co!lt Co1t!I Co1tJ Co1u Co!l ls 212 1.6 1 8 30 3/i 1 , 703 6.274 760 3 21 6.06 1 78 78 78 Otbel:' Co!lfJ "" 240 IGO 306 1 7' 262 6,867 1 ,364 3 , 639 6 , 07D 1 8 , 989 21.063 780 780 37< 146 209 294 1 ,006 ... 2,860 1 ,00 1 G,480 7,260 IS.1 1 83 9 , 76 1 &, 76 1 1..1 66 715 2 , 1 81 Tot.U Co ntl11 e n c 1 08 35 24 .. 37 " 1 , 472 293 78 1 1 , 000 4 , 620 I0 ,0-t 3 1 67 lGi 63 " 28 I 30 '2 236 96 612 228 1 ,8 47 1 ,5 14 79 79 4 , 190 4.190 315 154 ... Totll1 Co!ll!I .., 280 1 88 ° 210 300 8 ,329 1 ,667 4.420 6.170 26 , 3 1 2 46,:.126 9-18 948 '27 I07 1 06 6 238 336 l ,333 048 3 , 402 1 , 289 7 ,009 8 ,857 " . 262 1 3,96 1 1 3.95 1 1 ,780 8GO 2,(H9 N H C S p e nt Fue l Site Lie. Tel'ut. M11n11f'em e nt Ret10l'Atl o11 Coii t.1 Co!l l l Co!ll!I Cl2 280 1 88 ""' 210 306 8 ,329 1 ,66 7 4 , 420 6.1 70 2*1 , 338 "" "4.26 1 974 9 18 ... 427 1 67 100 6 238 330 1 ,333 646 3 ,.in2 1 , 289 6,C9 4 2,215 G,0 12 2 , 216 262 262 1 3,9.5 1 1 3.95 1 1 , 7/JO 8GO 2,649 Proce!l!led B ul'i fl l Vo l umes Volum e C I Hs A C l an 8 C J.,, C OTCC Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet C u. F ee t Cu. Feet 1 ,32 1 30.33 2 82 82 D ocu m en t POJ-1719-001, Re v. 0 Appendix C, Pa,Re 8 of 2 1 Buria l I Proeened Wt., Lbs. 26 , 4 1 2 1.700.822 1 ,838 1 ,638 1 , C39 Craft Ma11houn 67,00D Utllltyand Co ntr 11ctor 11.tanhouu 16 , 800 35,0 40 611,080 I 00 , 92U 116 , 1 60 36,103 1 2,000 48 , 103 -18 ,!0 3 126 , 393 3.120 1 26.393 3.120
"' ::T f: "' "' Diablo Ca n ,on Po we r Planl D eco mmi-.lo nin6 Co.I Anub .. i* Activity lndu Actlvi t v D ffe rl tlo n Period 2f Period-Of.pendent (Joe(.e 2(4.l lnaura!IC\" 2f.4.2 2r.4.3 Health pby11n 1upplies 2[4.4 Oiapoaal ol DAW gene.rated 2r.4.6 Pl.nt e nergy budget 2r.u NRC Pee1 2(4.7 Planniag 2tU Spent. Fuel Transrer -I SFS I to OOE 2(.4.9 ISPSI Opm*ting Collt.1 2 (.4.1 0 Sec urit y S t affC.-...t 2 r.4.11 DOCSUJffCoet 2(.4.12 Ut ilit y Sta rr Colt 2f.4 S u blota l Period 2f Period-Dependent Colu 2'0 TOTAL PERI O D 2 r OOST PERIOD j TOTALS PERIOD 3b -Site Rutor*don Period 3b Direct. n.ia.run1uionrng i\d.i,*itiel Demolition ofRemainirll'.
Sit e Buildinp 3b.l.l.I *Rewtor 3b.l.l.2 C 11t1it.-I Additiona 86-2004 3b.t.J.3 Coutainmtnt.
P e nelrall()ll An-11 ab.J.1.4 AU-lbm e ou1 3b.l.l.15 Turbine 3b.l.l.6 Turbine Pedellal 8b.J.l.7 Fuel llandlirll'.
3 b.l.I To:Ol t Sit e Cloeeout ActMtft 3b.l.2 Grade & lamhcapP lite 3b.l.3 Pinal report lo NRC 3 b.I S u bl.Ol.3 1 Pe ri od 3 b Ai.1.ivit.y Colt.a P e ri o d 3 b ;\d dili o n&I Cotil! 3 b.2.1 CoMret.eC ru 11b i11 g U b.2.2 ColTerditm Co n 1truct.ion
&nd TeMdown 3b.2.3 Soi l I Sediment Control Plant Area 3 b.2.4 1\likellaneou1 Conatruction Deb.U (outof11.ate di1poeal) 3 b.2.6 Scrttp Mel.al Tramportttlion (ou' of.1tate) 3 b.2.6 FSS Mnn11ger 3 b.2 Subtot.al Period 3b Additiona l Coltt Pf.riod 3b Collateral C<lltJo 3b.3.I Small tool aJlow3noe 3 b.3 S ubt o4*a l Period 3b Colkller31 eo.u Period 3b Period.Dependent Coatt 3b4.I l ne.uranoe 3b.4.2 Pf"Oliel1ytaxes 3 b.4.3 He11Y)* equipment.
rental 3b.4.4 Plttn1 e ners:>* budget 3b.U NR C ISFSI FeH 3 b.4.6 Emef'll'Dc:y Planning Fees 3b.4.i Spent Tran1fer
- ISl-'$1 t o OOE Sb.U I SFSI Operati ag C.0.11 3 b.4.9 Secunty s1,.rr Coet 3 b.4.I O IX>C S1a rr eo.t 3b.4.ll Utilily 3b.4 Sublotal Period 3b Penod*Ot>pendcn t Coete 3b.O TOTAL PERIOD 3b OOST TLG &rvicn, ln c. O IT-Site Remov*I Pa c bslns Tr1tnsport ProceH ln s "" "" Co1h eo ... eo ... .... .... .. , 8.181 7 5 , 300 2 3.942 14.4 06 7 , 188 320 730 31 3 , 8U7 1,404 15 ,&19 2 , 337 17 , 88G ... 1 478 1.33-1 Z2G8 ""' 208 7 , 689 7 , 589 27 , 96 1 Tab l e C-1 Diab l o C an yo n Un.it 1 DECON De co mmi ss ioning Cost Estimate (T hou sa nd s 0£2014 Dollars) LLRW N K C Dlspos.U Other Tot al Tot al lJe. Term. Manasement c.. .. Cos l J Conli n enc Cos t s Cot ts Com .., ** ... 39 1 13' 1 9 ... J M 245 929 929 * " " m 99 J;()J J;()J ... .. ... ... 200 .. ... "" 1 , 004 ... 1 , 219 1.219 "' .. J;()() 600 2 , 800 622 3.62 1 3 , 62 1 6 , 073 1,(189 6 , 162 6 , 162 5.7<< 1.2 33 6 , 977 6 , 977 1 6.746 3.758 21 , 200 19.1 78 2.027 28 , 869 8.496 38 , 067 aG,089 2 , (1'.!7 120.303 G30 , 7 0 4 23 4 , 118 1.1 07 060 902.0 1 3 191 , 287 l ,&1 3 8 , 7 3 1 ** 388 ,., 887 7 3 7 837 4 , 7 3 4 30 1 1 , 7 06 "" 2,403 3, 388 1 8 , 886 W2 2 , 839 242 " "" ,,,. "' 3 , 891 22,01 9 294 .. M7 10 3 ... ... 1 , 620 6 , 870 1 , 260 7 , 1 3 1 4.97 6 1.068 6 , 0-14 6 22 '" 7 06 7 06 11 , 471 :1 , 94 9 16 , 688 706 *1 5 , .. .. 2113 r& 81 G J 3 643 "'° .. 002 602 1 , 629 9 , 2 18 678 ... 82 3 ... ** ... 35!1 ... 1 27 1 , 0 1 2 l , 012 710 4,018 4 , 0 18 ..... 201 1 , 646 1 , 645 9 , 622 2 , 044 11 , 006 '°' 8 , 790 16 , 1 37 18 , 387 8 , 1 00 1 , 769 &, 966 0 1 , 001 40 , 397 1 0 , 14 3 68 , 1 29 '°' 18,96 1 62, 1 10 1 7 , 0'.l8 117 , 088 1 , 000 1 8,96 1 Site P roc eHed Burl1t l Vo lum C9 BHtor1tllon V o lum e C la HA C lauB Clll3sC OTCC Com C u.Feet C u. F<<t C u. Fee t Cu.Feet C u. Feet .... 33 7 .. , 1 3,760 689 ,9 12 003 785 8 , 73 1 """ 887 3 7 4 , 73..f J ,700 ..... 1 8 , 886 2,JJJ9 2 1 , 726 .. 7 ... 1.620 7.1 3 1 6 , 044 1 5.932 ... ... 9 , 2 18 82 3 2 , 776 1 8 , 387 7 , 06-1 39 , 168 77 , 0'i8 Document POJ.J719-00J , R ev. 0 Appendi.Y C, Pu6e 9o f 21 Burial/ UtUltyand Procuted C l"llft Co ntr,.cto r Wt. Lbs. lh ub oun lh n.hou n 6 , 73-4 JI 37,32 1 46 , 760 60 , 1 07 6 , 734 IH , 1 79 6.7 3 4 1213 , 404 147 , 299 60.199.630 841 , 286 6 , 002 , 1>41 67 , 9 1 4 3,672 G , r& 2'9 38 , 803 11 , 300 1 6, 700 14 4 , 961 4 , 687 '*'""' 149,538 '*""" 1 ,0 71 4.004 I0 , 271 6 , 1>18 16,247 6 , 1>18 1 22,582 136 , Sill 87 , llH 346,671 1 66 , 784 863 , 371)
"' :::,-'.!" "' ,t> Diablo C t rnyon Pow e r Pla 11t Der:om m iHio ni na Coat An a l y*i* Activi t y l n d u: Acti vlt\* D escr l li on PERIOD k -F u e l S t oraj'e O perati o n s/S hlpp l n l' P eriod Sc Din!ci Deeom m iMiooing Acti v i ti es P eriod 3c Co l.J 11te r al Cue1a &.3 S u b l ot.a l Pe ri od 3c Co lla te r itl Cueta P e ri cx l 3c Pe riod-De pe n de n t Coet.11 3cA.J l oHr a n ce 3c..l.2 P roi>c rt.y la 11e11 3c.4.3 Plimt c oorgy hml ge l 3c.4.4 NRC l.SFS I F ee* & .. 1.6 E m ergency P l a nni ng f ees 3c..&.6 Spe n t 'l'n m e J e r
- I SFSI to DO E Sc..t.7 I S f S I O p ew t i n r Coets Sc..t.8 Sec ur ity S t a!l'Coe t 3c A.9 Utili t y St.a lf Coet &A S u blc.la l Period 3c:: P eriOO.Depe n denl Costa &.O TOTAL P ERIOD 3c:: COS T P ERIO D a d -OTC C s hl p p in f P t" riod 3d Oi reci Deroi nm in 1 o n in g Aet.i v il iee N u clen r Ste1t m S u1 1 pl y Sys l l'n l I L.>m cn*n l 3d.l.l.1 Vetll!l'I & l n t.e r oa l s GTCC Di!!PoSll l 3d.l.I To1.a l 1 3d.I S u b l ulll l P e n u d 3d Act 1\*i t y C',<;aet* 3d.3 S ulitol al P f'r iod 3d Ui ll u t e r a l C-Oeh P e r i od 3d P t>r iod-De!J('ndt-nt Cueu 3d . .f..1 l nA u rance 3d.4.2 Prope rl y l a.1::e11 3d A.3 P l a n t t"ne r g y hut.I ge l 3d.4.4 I S F S I Opera ting C-Oli l s 3d A.5 Sec urit y S t 8 ff Co!i t 3d.4.6 U ti li ty S lllff eo.t. 3d.4 Su btot al P e ri od :"sd P e r iod-Depe nd e n t Coe11 3d.O TO T AL P ER I O D 3d 0061' PERI OD le* I SFS l Dc co ntamlu a tl on Period 3e Direct Decommi1111ioo in g Actfr ili es Pe ri od 3e A d di t i o n a l Coet.1 3e.2.I L iai n!IC T e n11i nn l100 I Slo"S I 3e.2 S u btot ril P e riod 3e Ad diti o n a l Coell P e r i od 3e Co ll at.ern l Co&t P .... S u b t o t.n l P e r i o d 3e Co lb1tcrn l ""°"'* Pe r iod 3e P e riotl*Depe nd e nt Costs 3e.4.J JeA.2 Prope r1 y l&Jte& 3e.4.3 P l a n 1.f'oer w*b u tlge 1 36.4.4 Secu r ity S t a ff Coe l 3'>.4.6 U111i 1 ySta lT Cc.et 3e.4 S u b l oln l P e ri od 3e Pe r i<xl-Depe nd e n t Cal l 11 3'".0 TOT A L P E RIOD 3e COS'l' T LG Inc. O ff-S it e Oeco 11 Rem o v a l P1 u*karJ11r Tr11n 9 port Proceu l n r Cool Cool Cos t s Co*" Coou 2 , 1 07 2 , 1 07 2,I0 7 2.107 1 2 1 1 3 1 2 1 13 1 2 1 1 3 Ta bl e C-1 D i ab l o Ca n yo n U ni t 1 DECON D e commissio nin g Co s t Est im at e (T h ousand s o{ 2 014 D olla r s) LLR W N R C Obp o u l Othec T o tal T o ta l Uc. T e rm. Co sl s Cos ts Co n t in e n c* Co s t.11 "°'" 6.1*11 7 36 6 , 8 7 6 .,a , 0 1 0 675 .,1 , 689 *1.1 09 688 .f., 697 8.088 1 , 167 9 , 2 4 6 30.M6 6 , 656 3 7.IO I 12 , 3 71 2,655 1 5 , 026 66.&89 l.f., 166 80 , IM 1 6 , 1 78 3 , 268 1 8 ,.f.30 1 46 , 436 29.690 1 75.1 2U l.f.6,4315 29 , 690 176,126 9,6 2 6 2 , 799 l.f.,43 1 1 .. , 43 1 9,626 2,799 14 , 4 31 1 4,43 1 9,626 2,7ll9 1 4, 4 3 1 1 4,43 1 I i 1 2 8 9 26 3 1 1'16 2\) 1 66 3 1 7 ,. 2 1 1 " 255 9.626 211 2.8 43 l.f., G86 1 4 , 43 1 <00 1 ,096 6 1 9 U 4 9 2.3 4 9 <OO 1 ,098 619 2 , 3 4 9 2 , 3*1 9 79 2 8 1 07 107 "' 2 1 80 80 l<I 60 1 9 1 19 1 UM 66 260 260 *1 62 1 66 628 028 '"' 1.r.oo 784 2,if76 2 , 076 S p e11 t.Fue l Sit e Proc ene d M11n11rem e nt R Htoratlo n Vo l um e C l a HA Co st s Co m C u.F e et C u. F eet 5 , 8 76 4 , 589 .f., 697 9 , 2 4 (1 37.IO I 1 6.026 80.1 04 18.4 36 176.1 26 1 75, 1 2(1 1 2 3 1 16 5 38 200 206 J ,777 1 ,777 1 ,777 llu r h d V o l ume' C la n B C J u sC O T CC C u. Feet C u. F e e t C u. F ee t 1 ,6<19 1 ,6<19 1 , 649 1.6*19 D oc u m e n t P01-11 1 9-00 1 , Re v. 0 App e n d i x C , Poa e J O of 2 1 Bu r l*I/ U t llit y and P rocessed C urt Co 11t r 11 ct or Wt., Lbs. M a nh o u n 82lUIOO 169.49 7 £185.297 !Rl5 , 297 3'0,307 330,307 330 , 307 1 ,700 32 8 2.028 330.307 2 , 028 1 06.17 0 7.000 388 1 08, 1 70 7,00G 388 1 ,00 1 1 ,00 1 3,803 1 08, 1 70 7 , 006 4, l lf l Diablo Canyon PowerPlou l Dt!com m luion i n1 Co*t AnulJ .. i* Activity lndu Actlvltv Descri tlon PERIOD ar -ISFSI Site Restoration Period SfDin!ci Decomnti..aiuninf Activitie*
Pt!riod s r Addi1iunal Cost* 3 f.2.I Ot>molition
&nd Site Refilortllion I SFSI 3 f.2.2 Soil/SedimeotCootro llS PS I 3(2 Subcotal Pe r kxl 3 f Addi l iona l C-oe11 Pe riod 3 C Co llot.era1 CoiJu J f.3.1 S nrnll too l allowonce 3 f.3 Subt.o1al P&ri oc l a r C.O lla t.e r1J.l Ch!t.1 Period 3 ( Period-Dependc nL Coats 3 f.4.l l o*uranoe 3 14.:.t 3!4.3 H eavy eq u ip 1n e nt. re nt:r.1 3 1'.4.4 Pla nt er.erg)* Lud get 3f.4.6 Secu rilJ' St.a fT Cott 3 f.4.6 Utili t;S1a rr n.at 3 f.4 Subwu l Period 3( P eriod-Dependent n.t* ato TOTALPERIOD3 f 00ST PER.IOD 3 TOTALS TOTAL COST TO DE CO lDUSSJON TAL COST TO OECOMAOSSIO WITH U.06"l> AL NR C LI CENSE TERMJNATION OOST IS 70.1 1'i OR: C..t ll , H7 Remova l Coot 1 , 642 21 l,663 ,. " " 57 1 ,7 44 29,8 1 6 107 , 890 TALLOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME DURJED (EXCLUDING OTCC): AL GREATER THAN Cl.ASS C RADWASTE VOLUAtE OENERATID:
AL SCRAP M.ETAL REMOVED: AL CRAFT LABOR R.E UJREMENI'S:
E11dNole1: nla
- indic&t e. th a t Lbhl ad:Mty nc;t charted as deeommit&ioning expeo!ll!. 11. i ndicates thtit this 9Cl.iv1ty performed by dttommiuiooing 11.aO'. 0 *i n dicates thot this na lue 11 leu than 0.5 but i1 non-uro. a ce ll contain.inc*
.* indic.ule.
a uro ,*a lue TLG &rvice*, Inc. Tab l e C-1 D ia bl o Canyo n U n it 1 DECON Deco m miss i o nin g Cost Est im ate (fhousanda of 20 1 4 Do ll ars) P11ckafi111 Transport Costs Costs O ff-Site ProceHl n f Cos l.s LLRW Oiapo!!lal eo. .. Other eo,,, 2,7.1{1 23 27 76 156 2.906 2 , 11 6 13 1 0,016 202 , 22 1 16 ,<114 14.8'13 1.19.11 4 1 ,041,671 S l , 871.030 OUltln o r 201.f dollars tl.,190,764 th o usandJ or 2014 dollars 1389.776 thouuods o r 201.f doll.rs 198,GOI thousa11d1 o f 2014 dollus 606,824 C11blc Feet 1.649 Cubic Feet. 49.707 Tons I 06I 7!5 M*n-h ours Tot Ill Co ntln enc 912 I 0'7 *I " *
- 10 " llOO 6 1 ,3 41 aaa .. u1 Total c. ... M33 20 6,369 :JO :JO " 69 28 33 "" , .. 6,646 296 , 622 1.671,010 NKC Uc.Tenn. Costs 18 ,467 1 , 190,76.f Spent Fue l Man111ement Costs 1 94,342 189,77G Site B es tor11 1 tlo n c. ... '*""" 20 6 , 369 30 30 ,, 69 :18 33 !J3 200 6, 646 82 ,723 N.60 1 Document PO J-l1 l!J..OOJ, Rev. 0 Appendix C , Pa1e II of 2 1 Proces1ed Volume C I Hs A Cius 8 C l aH C GT CC C u. F eet Cu. Feet C u. Feet Cu. Feet C u. Feet Burld/ Procened Wt., Lbs. 1 ,777 1.649 "38,477 &63,189 , .... 1.6.fl 6 1., 194.ZIO 20 ,.143 ..... 23 , 0 11 23,0 11 195 ,800 l,06a , 72G UtUityand Contr11ctor Ma11houn 80 340 "' 1 , 1 33 1 , 213 1 , 346, 1 09 7,667,666
"' :::,-::=-"' CJ) Diablo Ca n ycm Po wer Pla rit Decommiuionin1 Cost Analy*i* Actl\*lty I nd ex A c tivity De9cri d o n PERIOD lit-Shutdown thr o u sh Transition Period l a Direct Dewmrn i 111"o n in g Act il*h:ie!ll I n.I.I Pre p tire p re limi nary d eoom m illl!!ioning fXl8l 1 11.1.2 Not ifi catio n o£Cessatio o o rf)peratiooa 1 a.1.a Retno\*e ru e] & ao u rce m a teria l l a.1..t Not ifi c at io n o r Pe rm ane n t D e J u t:l ing l n.1.5 Deact in t t e plant sys t e m* & P l'OC'lN ""IA! l a.1.6 P rep are 1to<l 1i ubm it PS D A R l a.1.7 Ri l*i c w pl a n t d w gs & SJ!eCll. l a.1.8 Pe rfom1 de t a iled rml a un*cy l n.1.9 EBt irufll£h y-prod uct.inl'e 11 lory l a.LIO E nd pro.Ju d de K ripti o n l a.I.II De l a i le d b y-prod uci.in re n lo r y l n.1.1 2 De fin e m ajo r work 8C qu e n c,-e Ja.1.1 3 P c r ro m1 u m! E..t,. l a.1.14 Pe rfom1 S i te-Sp e(;Hi c Cost St ud y l a.1.1 5 P re p areh rnhtnit Li ce n se T c nnin a l io n P l a n l a.1.1 6 R ece h*c NRC a p p rov al of l e nnin aLlo n p l an Acti v ity Specifica t ions J a.1.1 7.1 P l a ol &.t.pmpora l'}* r aci h1 it-, l a.1.1 7.2 P l a nl iiyMe m 11 l a.1.1 7.3 NSSS Drco ntruni natio n F l u" h l a.1.1 7.4 1 1e8Clor int erM I., 111.1.1 7.6 Reactorves!'lf' I lr 1.l.1 7.6 Biological11 h iekl l a.1.1 7.7 S l eamge n e r a l or9 l a.1.1 7.8 Rei nfo rce d oonc re le Ja.1.1 7.9 M11 i11 T urb i n e l n.1.1 7.10 M iti n Cc.n dense r f!. l a.1.1 7.11 Plan t. " tru c1 u ret1 & bu il d ings l a.1.1 7.1 2 Wa!!o l e man age n1 e n1 la.1.1 7.1 3 Faci lit y&!!o it edoeoeo u1 J a.1.1 7 T o l81 Pl a nnin g & Sit e Prcpar at.io llll J a.1.1 8 P re p n re di 11 m a ntling se qu e n ce lit.LI O Pl n nl.pr e p. &t e mp. 8\'CC6 1 11.1.20 De1 i gn w a ler ele an-up eyale m 111.1.2 1 R iggi n gl\Jo n t. Cn lrl Eo\*lp aft.oo lin gletc. l a.1.2 2 P rocureetu1 ka/l in c ra&oo nt.n i n e re 1 11.I Sublol n l Pe ri od l a A ctivity Coeh Period l a Additio na l Coalll l n.2.1 Spent Jo'ue l Pool ho l ntio n l a.2.2 Dispoe:t l o r Co n ta mi nated T oob & l-:qui1)me nl l a.2 Subl.olal Period l a Ad d iLl ona l Cc.At-& Perk>d laCol l a t era l Coe t a la.3 1 Em*irouine n t.-i l Pe rm il9 and F'ee1 l a.3.2 G T CX::: S t o r age Pe nn iUing (PG&E Labor) l a.3.3 G T OO S t o r age Pe rmitti ng (Co n t r ACto r) l a.3 Su b t ota l Pe r io d l a Co ll atera l f'..oe t1 Pe ri od l a P e rio d-Drpe n de n t. Cosl.s l a.4.1 l n s ur a n ef' lo.*1.2 ProiK'rt y t a x e1 l a.4.3 H ea lth p hy11ic111 up1 1 li e1 l a.4.'I 1-!cavyeq u i pm e nl.l't!nt a l l a.4.5 D ispo11a l o r DA\\' geoe rnt ed l itA.0 P l n nl e ner gy bud get l a.4.7 N ll CF'ee!!I la.4.8 E me r ge n cy Plan n ing Ft'('! ]H ,4.9 Spent lud Poo l O&M ln.4.10 I S F SJ 0 1 1e r alfo g <'-<A!!l.s TLG Servi.cH, In c. Removal Pa c U.-lns Tnt n 5 Por1 eo.t Co ot "°'"' "°'" 219 10.1 219 103 4 95 667 13 Tabl e C-2 Diab l o Ca n yo n Unit 2 DECON D ec ommi ss ioning Cost Es timat e (T h ousa nd s o f 2014 Dollars) Off.Site LLRW NRC P roc e u lns Dbpo,a l Ot h er To t 11.I Total Lie. Term. eo, t , eo,,, Co 1t1 Co nlin en c Co9 tl c. ... 8G 19 106 1 06 . nl* . 1 33 2!l 162 1 62 :m 66 372 372 66 " 8 1 81 66 14 8 1 81 "" 10 105 1 05 498 108 606 606 '°" *1* 200 2[)0 .,., 72 <O* 4 0-1 272 59 33 1 33 1 326 71 39 7 358 277 00 33 7 303 33 7 *10 40 4i l 1 02 673 673 43 1 .. "' 626 33 7 40 .. 207 " 262 202 1 66 23 1 21! 65 27
- 32 27
- 32 207 ... 2G2 12 6 306 66 372 37:! GO " " 36 2.5 1 0 5'15 3,0M 2 , 6'.)0 1 60 36 104 1 9.1 3.000 651 3 , 65 1 :i,66 1 03 20 11 8 11 3 2.300 *1 00 2.700 2.700 82 18 09 99 1 0.19.t 2 , 2 1 2 1 2.407 12 , 042 1 4.442 3 , 1 3-4 17577 17.577 2.836 1 , 079 t 236 *1 , 236 2.836 IU-42 4.214 2 1.8 1 3 2 1.81 3 9 49 ""' 1.1 56 1 , 1 65 3 , 389 7M 1 , 12 4 4 , 12.t 1 ,57 1 341 1.9 1 2 1 , 9 1 2 5 ,90'J 1 , 282 1.1 92 7 , 192 1.1 32 1 6< 1 , 200 1.200 1 77 20 '""' 203 17 0 67 4 6 74 12a 61'0 600 15 * ** 4 0 2.737 ... 3 ,3 3 1 3, 33 1 834 1 21 054 ""' 1 ,001 1 46 1.14 6 792 17 2 .... G47 11 9 666 Spe nt Fue:I Si te Proce9sed Burial Volumes )flllla1ement Re9lor11.tio11 Vo l ume C l auA C la ssB c 1.,,c Cos ts Co st s C u. F e el C u. F ee t C u. F ee t C u. Feel .., " 65 32 32 1 26 "" 365 306 I0.245 I0 , 245 666 1 , 1*16 00< ... GT CC Cu. F ee t Documen* POl-1119-001, Rev. 0 Appendix C , Po.re l!of 21 Bu ri al/ Ut ili ty llJld ProceHed c .. n Co ntract o r Wt., Lb ,. J\.la.nh o un Man h o urs 6'6 866 1 , 009 *1 28 4 28 566 3.2IO 1 , 32 7 2 , 1 4 0 1 , 753 2 , 1 00 1 , 783 214 3.039 2 , i 8 2 "' 1 ,336 ... 171 171 1 ,33 5 1 ,"69 385 16 , 1 00 1.0 2 7 690 526 3 1.&36 GH946 317 62-1.045 317 11 ,200 1 8
"' -::1" 1> "' ..... Diablo Can yo n Power Pion I De co nunln lo nin1 Co.t Anoly*i* Activity l nde.x Actlvlt De1i c rl li o n P11:riod la Period*lkpc.nden1
.Cos11 (lvntinued) la.4.11 Se ,-e r anre Re l ated Cai l* l a.4.12 &c::urityS.11trCo.1 la.4.1 3 Utilit)' su.rr Coat Subtotal Period la Period-Oepc.nde.nt Cott* l a.O TCYrAL PEJU O D la C{JST PERIOD lb-D eeo mntlHl o n l n1 Pr e paration* Pr.Mod lb Direct Oecom m iH i o ni ng Aci.il'it i e* Deut il e d W ork Proce d ure* lb.I.I.I Pl 11D t ty1lem* lb.1.1.2 NSSS Drecontominatio n J'lua h lb.l.1.3 Reactof'inlernol1 lb.I.IA Remain.ing huilding1 Jb.1.1.6 CROcooling11188embly lb.1.1.G CRO houetnp & I CI tube.I lb.I 1.7 lnt:l'.ftl i utnnnenlaCJon lb 118 Reactwvcael Jb.1.1.9 Facili l y c&o.eout lb.I.I.JO Miuikla h ield* lb.I.I.I I BiokJcictole b te lJ Jb.1.1.1 2 S t t-a m gener"ton l b.1.1.1 3 HeinrottedOOl\Crf'le l b.1.1.1 4 Main Turbine lb.l.J.16 MainCondienl!lf'n l b.I.I.IS Auxiluuy buildiov l b.1.1.17 Reector bu1kho1 l b.I.I Total l b.1.2 °"-vn p r ima r y lwp l b.I S u blotal Period lb Actm1y Colt* Pe r iod l b Addil.iono l
l b.2.1 SiteC h 1m 1 cte r iw li oo l b.2.2 llo 2 ar do u a W flll t e Ma n 11gtome n t l h.2.3 rt l ix e d\\'09tcl.l o n ogeme n t l b.2 S u b t ota l Pe r iod l b Ad d itio n 11 I OltlU Period l b Co ll a t era l Coe l* lb.3.1 Oeoo n equipme1 1t i b.3.2 DOC 1tafl' cxpenaet lb.3.3 Proa!'l1decomminiooiog11
- ate r wa11t.c lb.3..4 ProoeH deeommlMioningehemical R uth wlllle lb.35 Smal l loo! t\lklw1nce Jb.3.8 Pipe c uUina cquipmenl l b.3.7 °""""rig l b3.8 Enviroomeol.a.
1 Permit* and Fee1 lb.39 GTCC Storawe Pemutling (PG&E Labor) l b3 J O GTCC Stor* Pennittinv (Cont r acto r) l b3 S u btota l Pe r iod lb Co ll ale r a l Coate Pe r k>d l b Perk>d-Ot!pe n deo1 C09t* l b.4.1 Deron tuppliel l b.U l n11uranct l b.4.3 Proper1ytatt11 t b.4.4 Health phy1k9 1upplie9 lb.4.6 llellJV)' equipment rentl'll l b.4.6 0ial)Otl81o r DAWgeqera 1 ed l b.4.7 Plim l t'DellO' budger l b.4.8 NRCF11Jet l b.Ht Emergency P l a n n i ng ree, l b.4.1 0 Spe n t Pool Poo l O&M TLG ,5e,.v i c u , In c. RemovaJ Cn.t Cno t 1 ,00 2 l ,00 2 i97 7£17 ... .. 2 1 , 100 1 , 000 2 ,&90 1.I03 29 2611 28 1 Tab l e C-2 Diablo Ca n yo n Unit 2 DECON D eco mmi ss ioning Cost Es timat e (Thousands o( 2014 Dollars) OCI-Slte ILRW Pa c lultfnl Tr11n s por1 Pr oc e H IDI DlspoH I Ot h er Tot11 I Tota l en. .. Co!il!I Co!ltl Co!l t S Cno u Co 11tln e n c Cos tt 46 , 9*i3 9,970 66,9 1 3 21.316 4 , 620 26 ,9 41 29 , 883 ..... 3G.3C8 " lo 104.362 22,7 3 1 128 , 186 232 107 2,850 134 , 908 30, 4 39 100697 "' ll8 38' 00 " 81 100 "' 202 00 19 100 00 " 81 00 14 81 .. .. 81 "' 62 293 80 17 97 30 6 "' 80 17 97 ""' 00 372 00 14 " Ill* 22 126 1 0*1 22 126 1 81 31! 220 1 81 "' 220 2.206 "" 2 , 086 677 1.374 2 , 200 1 , 00< ..... 2 , 238 971 3,200 217 .., " 287 C2 3.19 2.742 1 , 08 1 3, 823 201 1 , 1*17 IA66 318 1.784 " 6 1 151 llM 888 94 ,., 6.783 2161 8 292 I ""' 1.330 347 1.91 7 471 102 "' '°' 16.1 867 613 1 33 7'6 127 000 6 , 934 3,25-1 3.763 17 , 0iG 10 ,. 561 81 642 88 13 IOI ., " 61 .. , 6 23 2,7 1 4 ""' 3,300 23 1 33 "" 497 72 068 393 .. 478 NRC Spent Fuel Si t e Procet!Jt'!d Ll c. Term. *tan*Jemenl Restor11ti o u V o l um e C l aHA ""'" Co st!J ""'" C u. F ee t C u. F ee t 66,9 1 3 26 ,9 41 30,308 126 , 409 2,776 ""' IGG,"6G 2,776 ... 10 , 810 ... 38 " "" 27 82 8 1 8 1 81 293 48 48 "' 97 372 ** ** 1 26 120 llJ8 " llJ8 " 2 , 180 ... 1 ,3 74 3 , 66< ... 3,209 264 3*IO 3.823 1 , 147 1 , 781 388 291 8.29'.l 3 1.339 1.9.(7 "' 867 740 17 , 076 29 1 39 642 IOI '"" 342 " 322 '*""" "" 008 478 Burial Volumes C lassB Clau C GT CC C u. F ee t C u. F ee t C u. F eet 887 887 D oc ument PO l-1719-001 , Rev. 0 Appen d ix C , Pa1e 13 of 2 1 Burial/ Utlllty and Proce n ed C r.Ct Co utr11 c t o r Wt. Lb s. M a nh o un Manh o u u 286,';86 3 4G,279 11 , 200 18 C33,0 14 636,2 44 336 CG4,680 2.026 .,. 1 , 070 678 ,,. .,. 428 1.564 614 193 ... 1 ,009 '28 008 ... 1 , 168 1.168 14 , 228 1 , 007 1 ,00 7 14 ,2 28 10 , COO 4,025 1 0 ,600 4 ,025 17.471 57 94.53 1 1 66 1 1 2,00'.l 223 6,439 II Diablo C an yo n Pow e r Plout D eco mmi1J1Jionin1 Co.a Anal.r*i* Act ivity lnd ex Actlvlt De sc ri t l on Pe r iod lb Period*Dependent Co!l1*11ron linu ed) l b.4.11 l b.4.1 2 Sec urit y S l a lf Coet Jb.4.1 3 rx:x:: Sta lf Coet Jb.4.Jo& Utili t ySta lT Cost. lb.-' Subl.Ol.al P e r iod l b Period.Dependent Coe t s lb.O TOTAl.P l<;R.I O D l b COS T PERIOD 1 TOTALS PERIOD 211.. Lar&e Co mpon e nt Removal Period 2a Direct Decom ru iu i o ni nK Ac!frities Nucleu r Steam S uppl y Systen1 Re ru0\"8 1 2a.l.l.I Reacto 1 Cool8 n l Pipi n 11 2a.1.l.2 Preuurize r QueocbTruik 2a.l.l.3 lkactorCoola nt.flum ps&.Mot.or8 2a.l.l.4 Preu uri ze r 2a.l.l.6 SteamGenera l ofl!I 2a.l.1.6 Ju.tired S t ea m Gent>rat o r U n its 2n. I. l.7 C RDf\11n C l s/Se rv ice Str uct u re Ren101*a l 2 n.l.l.8 Re.actor\" eue l l n t e rna l 8 2i:t.1.J.11 Uetteto r\*e11te l 2a.1.I Tol ri l ll Remova l o r Majo r Equi pm e nt 2a. l.2 Main Tur b io e!Cene rat o r 2a.l.3 ?\lain C.C,ndeMt'n C a!!a!d.iog Croo.1 C lean Bu ildin g Deruo l i1Mx 1 2a.1.4.I *RelllClor 2a.l.4.2 A uxil iary 211.1.4.3 Cu ntainm ent Penr*lr ation Are a 2a.l.4.4 Radwaslt>
Storage 211.1.4.5 Fue l H o ndlin g 2a.l.-1 To1.a l 8 Dit1po11alofPlan l Sy11t.emt1 2 a.l.5.I A u x iliarySt ea m 2a. l.6.2 A u xi liary S1.P.a n1 (RCA) 2a.J.6.3 B uil ding Service* (Non.P owe r Bloc k) 2a.l.5.4 Co ndeo&lllle. System 2a. l.5.5 Conde n lllte S)*11 t e m On1u la ted) 2a. l.6.6 Cont.ai no1en t Spr ay 2a.l.5.7 E:rtrncdon Steam & H eat.e r D rip 2a.l.5.8 F eed wal t'r 2a. l.6.9 F eedwate r System (lo111laled) 2a. l.6.1 0 fo'eedwat.e.
r Syste m (R C A ln s ula t.ed) 2a. l.6. I l F eed wat.er Syst.e 1 n (RCA) 2a. l.5.1 2 NS8S Sr:.mp l i n g 2a. l.5.1 3 NSS S Sr:.m1 1lln g (ln s ul r:.1.ed) 2n. l.5.14 N ilrogcn & H y dn)£en 2a.l.6.1 6 N i1.rogen&.llydrogen(lmulatt'd) 2a.l.6.1 6 Nitroge n&. H y dnl(en (RCA Insul a t ed) 2a.l.6.17 Ni trogen & H yd roge n (RCA) 2n. l.6.18 O il y W a t e r Se par11t or & TB Sum p 2a.1.5.1 9 S11ltwa l e r Sys t e m 2a. l.6.20 Turbioe Steft m Supp l y 2a. l.5.2 I T urb ine S I.ea rn Supp l y (RCAJ 2n.l.5.22 Turbi ne find Genern t o r 2a.l.5.2 3 Turb ine and Ge n era t or (l m*ufotcd) 2a.J.6 Tot ale 2n. l.6 Sca f fo ld ing in a uppurt. of dec-ommiH i u nin ir 2a.l Sub t.ota l P1*r iod 211 A ctfrity Costs TLG &,.vice., In c. D eco n C:O.t 20 3 , 416 300 " 1 63 53 503 20 7 186 1 6 1 1 ,69 4 l , Gff4 R e mova l P*ckal'inf Tran spo rt Cos t Cosu Co5 l s 661 1 , 663 2 , 7 1 6 001 37 13 1 70 3 , 330 ""' 10 , 11 2 7 ,6 1 2 22,033 212 696 1 ,262 762 " 97 206 2 , 4 05 70 1.1 3 7 6*1 5 286 238 240 70 1 08 121
- 1 66 ... 20 I
- IOO 30 188 794 ... 85 20 4,357 4, 4 24 3 4 , 1 27 1 34 366 .. 7 1&9 .... 3, 239 2 , 298 246 f.1 , 706 2,639 18 ,790 20 1 17 33 266 458 1 9,281 " -1 1-1 38 6 213 114 2 , 03.t 1 ,982 35 1 ,609 8fAI 6 , 7 8 8 .. 13 1 0< 1 rn G,977 Table C-2 Diablo C anyon U nit 2 DECON D eco mmi ss ionin g Cost Est imat e (Thousand s 0!2014 Dollars) 00'..S lt e LLRW Pr ocen lnf Di spoH I Coi l s Cos tJ 6,9-1 8 8 , 703 1.1 81 100 1 , 4 3 1 760 12 , 696 12.696 66 1 18 , 920 3, 469 6 1 ,00!J 260 1.4 53 ... 22 8 7 72 .. 3,3!0 6 , 710 56 07 , 734 Ot h er Cosu 27 1 I 0.5i0 """' 14.8 1 9 36 , 1 00 4 3 , aas 33' 334 668 Tota l Co uth1 e n c 59 2,29< 1 ,083 3, 216 7 , G99 1 3 , 696 4-1.037 856 )()6 745 4 2 5 7 , 0iO 6 , 36 4 660 23,009 7, 818 46,011 46 IO I 27 4 1 60 17 21 46 622 11 l>l 2 140 6 2 638 52 " 37 202 IO 93 21 4 0 3 .. ... " 172 1 , 080 18 3,300 1,627 61,726 To tal Cost* 330 1 2 , 8G4 6 , 075 1 8.036 4 3 , 431 68 , 388 237 ,986 2.874 363 2.83 1 l , W! 28 , 872 22.330 2 , 008 63.8 3 4 22.8 00 1 47J163 267 8<8 1 ,5 36 928 90 11 8 2/iO 2.927 !JG 11(;7 9 785 3'8 2492 292 .. 200 786 " 35 4 70 24 I 13 200 17 1 221! 966 6 , 149 103 "' 14.074 6, 14 8 17 2 , 206 NR C S 1>ent Fu e l Li e. Tertn. Manag e m e nt Cos t* Coils 1 2 , 86<1 6 , 076 18 , 036 1 2 , 056 00 , 607 232.963 2.87 4 363 2 , 83 1 1 , 869 28.8 72 22 , 330 2 , 098 63,83 4 22 , 890 1 47 , 953 1.036 1128 90 11 8 260 2,9"2 7 11(;7 2.49"l 786 " 36' 70 13 200 17 1 6 , 14 9 1 0,900 6, 14 8 I G7 , 928 1 ,377 1 ,8 77 .1 , 1 53 S it e R e, t o r*ti ou Cos ts " 870 257 848 06 9 7 8 5 "' 292 .. 205 229 900 1 03 30 3 , 1 7*1 4 , 279 ..
C u. Fe e t C 11. F e el C u. F ee t C u. F ee t C u. Fe e t 322 lH3 1 1.-'23 2.276 329 -1 , 701 2 , 4 43 41.71 2 4 1 , 0.1 1 3, 881 1 , 878 9 , 4 20 107.67 1 00 3 5 , 26 1 1 , 502 70 316 30 l*I 2GO 3 17 11 , 9EH 20 , 636 1 , 444 1 29.700 887 887 393 003 393 393 D oc um en r POJ.J119-001 , R ev. 0 Appendix C , Pa1e U o f 21 Burl*I I Proce,,ed Wt. lb ,. G.43& 1 1 8.H I 71'.l-'.686 200.1 53 36.65 7 774.900 286 , 592 3,360,76 1 3 , 1 25.629 14 6, 4!M 34-1.339 003 , 382 0,287.&"'6 65.0 1 2 320.0 48 f.1 1.654 4 , 81!":1 1 9.1 7 3 1 , 85:.! 834 1 6.841 1 9.303 729 , 177 1.267,6 1 2 64.977 IO.G I 0 , 400 C raft Ma11h o u r1 II 11 , 000 12.32.5 I0.1 38 1 , 073 """' 2,J(;G 23.233 I0 , 800 7 , 9 7 6 30, 8 33 30, 8 33 1 2 1 , 8 2 0 3 , 033 !:1 , 875 11 , 89C. 'i ,064 7 04 9 1 8 1 , 7 4 6 22 , 3 1 7 1 , 1 70 1 , 008 1 00 9.716 4.253 3420 3.625 1.038 2 , M7 1 ,G95 81 2, 4 00 7 11 300 16 73 1 ,39 1 400 2, 1 m 1 2 , 007 1 2 , 4<1 2 1,260 378 133.726 25G.63 4 U tlll 1y*n d Co ntra c t o r M*nh o u u 14 2 , 2 14 4G , 643 1 7 1 , G9 1 300.4.19 378 , 7 (1 1 1.0-1 3 , 282 100 938 1 ,760 1 , 1 25 1 , 365 1 ,3% 6 , 6 44 G,64 4
"' :::T :!: "' <O Diab l o Ca n,yon P ower Plartt D f!!co nuniffionin1 Co*t An al)'9i* Act i v ity lnd e.x Actlvltv De.11crl lio n Pe r tod 2* Additiorui.
I ec.a. 2-.2.1 Remedia l Act loo Su n*eys 2 *. 2.2 Rel ittd Reactor H ead 2 *. 2.3 PG&:E RPV Sc a ff Support T ea m 211-2.4 IX)C RPV St*ff Support TelllD 2*.2 Subtotal Period 2a Addition al Cost.a Period 2* Collate r11l Co.LA 2 11.3.1 Prooe11 dewmmi&aioning
"Ille r wast e 211.3.2 Prooeu dooommiMio n ing che 111 k:o l n118h wa1t.e 2a.S.S Smoll loo l 11Uowr1oce 211.3.-1 Enl'iro n m e nu.I Pen:n i ll 1md Feet 2a.3.6 GTCX::
P e n uilling (PG&E Labor) 2a.3.G GT CX:: St o rage Pe m1i tliug (Co ntr tteto r) 2a.3 S u bl.olal P e riod 2a Co llnter11 I Co!lll Period 2a Pe r iod-Dependt:nt Cu!:ll lla..&.I Decon t u ppliu 2L-l.2 IHuranoe 2it.43 Prqien.ytaxee 2*-4.4 H ea lth physkt *Upplie1 2a.4.6 HeftV)' eqWplll('n t reuliil 2a.4.6 Ois poM l o r DA W iienerated 2it.4.7 Planl t'net10*budgt>f 2a.4.8 N R C F eH 2u A.ll Emergency Planning F ees 2a A.1 0 S11t"nt lo'uel Pool O&M 2 ..... 11 I SFSI Ope r a t iug Coel* 2a.4.1 2 $e\-erHce RelatOO Ule l* 2*.4.13 Spent. Fuel Stor11p C.ni11*ent/Qverpf11Cb 211.ol.14 Securi1y S 1 a tr eh!1 2 ..... 1 u 2* .... HI Ut iUly StatrClist 2a.4 Sublol a l P eriod 2* Period-Depe nde-nt Cc.sis 2 a.O TOTA L PERI OD 2a CXIST PE RI O D 2 b. Si t e O eeo 111a1n i 11ati o11 P e riod 2b Diroct Acth-itie1 Di11poe.11I of Pinnt S y1 t cnu 2 b.l.1.I C apit.fll Additions (l,""le t10) 2b.l.l.2 Capiull Addilionl 86-2002 (oontam.ineted) 2b.l.l.3 Chemiad 5' Volume Control 2b.l.l.4 Chemica l It Volume Control (Jng ulated) 2b.l.l.6 Qmpooen t Cc.dintf W at.e r 2b.l.l.6 Component Cc.ding W ate r (RCA) 2b.l.l.7 Ct.-npreued Aif 2 b.l.l.8 Compno:ued An (ltllulated) 2L.I.1.9 Can 1 1 reued An (R CA l n1ulatedJ 2 b.I LI O Cunpreued Air (RCA) 2b l.l.ll Dte11el Engine-Generrilor 2b.J.l.l.2 DM:te l (lmrnfat t'd) 2b.l.l.1 3 Electrica l (Clean) 2b.l.l.14 EMlct r ic8 1 (Co nt am inat ed) 2b.l.1.15 E\ocuica l (RC * .\J 2b.l.l.1 6 2b.l.l.17 G119t'OUs Radw*ste 2b.1.J.J8 HVA C (CleA n Jruu.lated) 2b.l.l.1 9 H\'AC{Clerin) 2b.l.l.20 HVA C{Coo tamina1 e d lHulnt ed) 2b.l.l.21 H VAC (U mtamin*led) 2b.Ll.2 2 Liqui d Ra dw Hte 2b.1.l.23 Liquid Ua dw Hte <ln!!u l ated) 2b.l.l.24 Lube Oil Dillribul io u & Purifi c at.K.o 2b.l.l.25 1\1 11ke-up\Vat t'r 2b.l.J.26 Writ e r (l11 1 ul ated) TLG In c. Remov*I C..* C..* 72 3 21 72 3 21 177 3 , 400 6 , 715 177 1 0,116 1 ,9 4 3 44 ,662 467 ... 8'9 1090 807 "" 1116 600 123 * ,. ""' 14 3 3 3 , 257 362 1 ,963 374 1 36 " *38 241 1 , 073 380 4 59 81 .. 1 3 2 2 M " Table C-2 Diablo C any o n Unit 2 DECON Decommi ss i oning Cost Es tima te (fhouHnd s o{ 2 014 Dollar s) O ff.Site u.RW P*c kA1b11 Tr.n 1port Proceu io a Dbpoul Ot her Tolll l Tot*I C..u Costl Coi l* Co1 1 1 Costs Co ntln e o c Costs *, 302 7.003 2G3 81 1 ,6 15 003 2,462 G,008 1 ,3 23 7 , 422 5 , 875 1 , 275 7 , 1 00 ""' 81 1 ,5 1 6 17 ,276 5 , 603 U.C37 ., ... 24' I G7 62' 70 300 2.926 ... 3,00 1 1 7 22 "' 2 , 006 I A l 8 308 1.7 26 " 88 "' G.06 7 1 ,"53 8 597 .. "' l.C.00 227 1 ,700 .. , 7 9 .,._ 1 , 230 '"'"" 1 , 457 8172 1 32 37 157 .. <1 0 8.0 1 3 1 ,730 !l,762 1 ,3"3 19' 1,637 2 , 2().1 319 2 ,5 23 2.442 ... :?,973 1 , 686 306 2 , 00 1 6 , 008 1 , 30 1 7 , 297 ..... "' 30<8 c.8.33 1 1 2 , 659 ,...,, 70, 1 00 16 , 2 1 3 86 , 3 1 3 1 07.38 1 23 ,303 1 30,686 1 82 37 1 6 7 2S2, 112 69,307 332 , 037 19 , 728 7 , 18 2 59,CS I 286 , 122 118 , 090 637 , 278 1 0 1 """ .. 22 ... 443 1 , 710 1 27 62 1 , 653 1.636 ..... " 1 0 3 17 ... 1 690 ,13 "' 149 .. .. ... '"' M 83 27 14 9 8 2 ,. '° 76 30 II ... 30* l , 3!l8 31 17' I
- 70 7 3,003 41 17 MO 336 1 ,2"6 ,,. 2 , 3811 122 .. I .... 737 2,866 .. 0 183 118 ... * ** .. ... 34 14 ... , .. 0 8 9 1 7 3 71 2 , 250 1 ,242 4.808 ., 23 7 42 "' 2,MG 3 33 *1 1 68 29 ""' .. 3 11 ' 30 NRC Spent Fuel Site Proce.Hed Lie. Term. ll an*ge m e n t R mitorat l o 11 Vo lu r.ne C l*u A C..u Coll i.!J c.. .. Cu. Feet C u.Feet 7 , 003 2 , 462 6 , 072 7 , 422 7 , 1 60 2.&, C37 5.072 62< .172 36 1 311 3.00 1 2.006 1 , 72 6 8.368 "" 472 "' 1 , 700 ""' 63 """' 8 , 1 72 41 0 ..... 9,702 J.637 2 , li23 2 , 973 2 , 05 1 7,297 3,043 70 , llS!I 86,3 1 3 1 30.68li 321.386 I0,689 G3 *,llGI> C.2 2 ,30<J 1 0.689 4,880 1 41 , 148 008 1.7JO .... ..... 5.976 , ... 1 , 1, 6 '" .... 6 , 009 ... 8 ,. .. 1 ,'911 1.0 1 9 "'
- 3,003 ..... 1 , 962 2 , 389 2 , 860 5 , 726 ... 600 .. "" ""' 1 ,60!> 4.8118 8.1 32 2,380 2.G83 1 68 1 20 1 60 8 11 30 B ur l*I Volume s C l u!I B C l u!IC GTCC C u. F ee t Cu. Feet Cu. Feet 963 303 D ocu ment P0/./1/J..00 1 , Re v. 0 Appendix C , Pu1 e IS of 2 1 Burl*I/ Utility *nd Proce ued Cr aft Co olr ac tor Wt. Lbs. !lihnh o 11" M a nh oun 6',008 322 442 2 ,098 '° 611 , 803 9 1 ,69-4 322, 4-12 00 , 166 161 ,63 7 28.292 D2 28 ,W'J 92 117.005 1 91 800 , Sl)i 642,867 1 ,206,367 11 7.006 1 9 1 2,648,6 7 2 11 ,07 8 , 2l:IO 322,983 2 , 800, 7 62 7 , 040 1 68.006 6 , 600 36 ... 1 37 24 672 69.872 9920 2 , 1164 408.30.& 8,:.118 1 , 881 ..
<00 98,G62 7 , 238 2.069 *18 <17 ,9 18 118 , 983 4 ,00 1 27,956 348 , 902 6, 1 .. 9 40 , 200 1 ,833 002 7 , 019 li7.832 3, 075 496.632 J S,888 1 63 , 638 11 ,3 1 2 7.330 1 ,002 1 ,00 4 3,79 4 87C
"' :i> ff ::::r '.!: "' 0 Di a bl o C an)'On P o w er Pfa rit D eco mmi .. io nin g Co** Ana l y*i* Ac tklt y lnd u A c tl vl t v De , er i tl o n Di,posa l of P i n nt Sy11 1 e m 1 ll'Ontinued) 2b .. l.l.27 W111e r (R CA lne.u l 8.ted) 2b.l.l.28 M11ke-up Wn t c r fRCA) 2b .. J .. l .. ?9 M ec henic*I De.pllJ'lment Eq u i p ment 2b.l.l.30 Mi1eellan eo m1 Rencto r Coolant. 2b.J.1.31 Nuc l ear $le8m S up p l y Samp l ing ::!b.l.l.32 Nuclea r Slc t un SllJ>p}y Swnp li Dg H nsuloted ::!b.1.1.33 Rc.:iid u al ll e 11t Re m o\'" 11 1 2 11..l.l.34 Sa f e t y l njed.ion 2b.l.l.36 Snfoty lnjcctio n (l ns u l uted) 2 h.1.1.36 Safe l y lu ject.io n (H CA ln s uh1t ed) 2b.J..l.3 7 Sa f ely l u,icrtion
<R C .. .\) 2b.l.l.38 Sel'\*lce Coo lin g Wate r 2h.J.l.39 SeM*ice Coo lin g Wnte r (R CA) 2h.l.l.40 Sewer Sy1le 1 n 2b.l.I T otat1 2b.l.2 Scrurolding in 1 up1>0r1. ol dccu:run ias ioninj!: Dec:ontam i nat ion tJ (6 il e llu il dinge 2b.l.3.I *React.o r 2b.l.3.2 Aux ili ary 2b.l.3.3 Cn pit11 I Addi t ion* 86-2004 2b.l.3.4 Conta i n m e n t Pe n ei r ati!J n An-;i 2 b.i.3.li H1.1 dw 8S t eS t (l r 1.1g e 2b.l.3 Tot 11 1!1 2b.I Sub1(Jfal Pr r iod 2b Act i vity Costs P e r iod 2b Add1t1ona l Cu!ott ::!b.2.l Remedi11l .Actiou SuM*e y 1 2b.2 Subtotal Pe r iod 2b Addition11I C-OM..t P e ri od 2b Collater11 I Coe t 11 2h.3.J Prooeu 1lel ie1 2b.4.2 l nsurunt-e 2b.4.3 Prq:iertytaxet:
2h.4.4 H e11 l th phy1iai 11upplie11 2h.4.5 H e11vy eq u ipme n t rcn l a l ::!b.4.6 Disix--1 o r DAW ge oe rnU!d 2b.O Pl8nt ene r gy bu d get 2bA.8 NRCFee1 2b.4.9 Em e rgency Plt111 n i n g J.'eet 2 h.4.I O S pe u l J.'uc l Poo l O&M 2b.4.ll Liq u i d Ra dw n1te P roocsti u g Equ i\>m e n t.J6e n*i oo11 2b.4.12 I SPS I Ope r;i tin g Cos t* 2b.4.1 3 Sc\*ernnce Re l a t ed Coit t 1 2b.4.14 Secu r i t y St11 IT Cos t 2b.4.1 5 DOC Sta.IT Cost 2b.4.I EI Ut ili1 y S l 11 IT C<.J t 2b.4 Sub l otnl P e r iod 2b P e riod*Dept>n d e nt C<.6 1!-2b.O TO TAL PERJOO 2b CUST TLG &rv ien, l n e. R e 1 nov AI Tr11n,port C..t eo .. Co*" Cos t! 33 . I G6 23 I 22 14 6 22 I I 0 I 0 326 3 1 3 12 2 60 128 16 6 I 30 6 323 .. " , .. 37 ** 1.914 14.335 1.078 436 6,6'0 12 083 2 , G37 1 , 132 1.36 9 773 02 02 4:!4 17 6 10 1 9 336 22 6 25 27 66 * " 3, 1 20 3,870 1 ,23 1 5 , 453 0 , 033 23 , 741 2,360 5,000 1'3 104 17 6 3 136 362 ""' 1-11.: i 4 36 2-1 1 537 1.389 2 , 3 1 2 2.003 92 26 1 ,389 .j ,3 1 5 92 20 6 , 668 28 , 493 2.683 8 ,'63 T abl e C-2 Di a b l o Ca n yo n U nit 2 D EC O N D eco mmi ss i o nin g C os t Es timat e (Th o u sa nd s o f 2 014 Do llar s) rf-S il l'l LL RW N"RC P roe eni n r Dbpo,11.I O th er Tot11 I To l*I Lie.T e r m .. Cos t' Co sts Cos t s Co nli n e n c Cos t! "°'" 62 3 1 12 1 121 292 17 1 06 1 06 1 0 2 11 2 Ill *103 .J03 1 6 " 63 53 7 6 " 23 1 , 1>8 4 l)Q(I 8,3-1 3 8 , 3 4 3 200 12 6 ., .. , .. 8 6 21) 21) 76 42 164 1 6*1 67 1 3 72 l.4'12 l , 4 42 31 17 6 74 42 162 162 II 00 1 3.87 3 I0.789 42.-124 33,066 70 2.034 7 , 686 7 , 686 25 , 386 1 2 , 1 62 47 , 607 "7 , 007 69 1 1 , 6 41 U I S 4 ,6 1 8 Ill '23 1.1 71 1 , 17 1 328 462 l.89 1 1 ,39 1 36 46 1 66 1 66 26 ,500 1 4,623 5 4.8 53 M , 803 40 , 493 ::!7 , 4 48 10 4.003 00 , 147 6"3 2 , 2tH 2 , WI l."'8 693 2.291 2.21J I 488 333 1 ,243 1 , 243 1 , 180 627 2,200 2,200 96 63 1 63 1 692 19 1 1.073 1 ,078 l , GGS " 1 , J.1 6 6 , 066 6,066 60 2 1 , 81l2 1 , 892 *17 3 68 6'I 6 41 166 " 1 8!1 189 836 3.1 48 3, 148 '36 2438 2,438 110 59 287 267 1.006 414 2.320 2.320 *106 59 463 463 004 96 700 736 160 8913 174 38 2 1 2 2 1::! 508 11 0 6 1 8 9.100 1 , 988 11 , 148 11.148 1 7.677 3, 81 4 2 1 ,39 1 21,39 1 rn.633 3,3 7 1 18 , 9CM 1 8.00 4 23 , 400 6,099 28 ,596 28,596 11 0 70 , 797 17 ,0 7 3 03,81.).'}
U l ,5 29 42 , 27 1 73 , 2 77 4 6 , 368 200 , 11 3 1 96,022 Sp e nt F u e l Site P rocess e d B u rl*I V o lum e' M11.n*(e m e 11t R e ,t o r11.l io 11 Volum e C l*H A c 1.,,u c 1.,, c G TC C Cos ts Cos ts C u.Fe e t C u. F ee t C u. F ee t C u. F ee t C u. F ee t 1 86 1 ,0UG 406 60 ,. 6,726 767 "" 27(1 2 ,*127 17 6 260 GO 8 , 81 6 50 , 1 36 1 , 80 5 349.938 G,804 1 ,:JOO 2 , IW 000 JG0 , 784 8 , 81G 4 1 2 , 720 942 1 , 28 1 2 , 223 4.006 760 ... 6 1 8 2 , 274 4 , 006 2,274 8 , 81 6 419.0*I S D ocu m e nl POl-1 1 1 9--001 , R ev. 0 App e ,.d ix C, P a jfe l lio/ 21 B ur i*I/ U t.Hlt y *nd Proceue d C raf t Co n t r R c t o r W t. Lb.s .. M a 11h o 11 r 1 M 1 rnh o u n 11 , 366 "' 64.346 2,2 1 0 1 9 24.7 6 1 2,226 280 1.528 120 3-18,913 6 , 4 1>8 46.1 09 1.792 1.826 76 1 6..133 617 1 47.800 4 , 277 2, 1 8ti 16.400 606 7*1G 3.060.638 222.884 81.221 <<.703 33, 2 33.4C.O 4 3.3 40 582.052 28 , 093 11 7.11 8 8 , 1 1 3 7 ,36 2 M , 1 5 4 ll(J7 3 4 , 1 00.500 87 , 7 6*1 3 7 , 29 7.420 366,35 1 lff , 300 19 ,306 G6 , 1)20 184 1 00.538 240 1 03.058 *12:! 81.806 '" 24 1 , 174 l*IJ ,.j ll 2 6 2 , 48.'l 8 1.8 00 1 3*1 640,069 37 , 572.380 3 70 , 2 1 4 G<t6.Cl69
"' ::r 1> w Diabl o C an yo n P owe r Plat1I D ecom miul o nin1 Cost Analpl* Activ ity l ndu Actlvlt De sc ri Ion PERIOD 2e-Spent fu e l delay prior to SFP d eoo n Periotl2c0il'fd Dflc:onuniuionin1 Actintte&
Period 2c Collateral Colt* 2c.3.I Spent Fue l Tranarer
- Pool LO I SFSI 2c.3.2 Environ1nent*I Permiu and Fees 2c.3 Sublotfl l Perkill 2c Collate ral C.:.U Pe r iod 2c P e riod-Dependent Co.I.a 2c.4.I l n9u r a n ce 2e..t.2 P roi ier1.y 1 axe1 2e.4.3 Hea l th pby 8ic81 uppli t'I 2c..S.4 Di*posal of D AW generated 2 c.'l.6 Pla nt ene r gy budget k4.6 NRC Feet 2c.4.7 Emervency Plannin1 Feee 2c.<l.8 Spent Tran1fer.
I SFS I to IX)lo; 2c.4.9 Liquid Radwa\WI J>roceM.ing f,qWpmenlJSen
- ice1 2c.l.10 ISFSI Operalin1 Co.ti 2c.4.l I Spent Fuel Storage C.ni.tersKNerp.::b 2c..4.12 Security StafTCoat 2c..4.1 3 Utility S t11ff Coet 2<.4 S ubtotal Period 2c Pt'dod*Depe n tko n t Coei.. 2<.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2c OOS'r PERI OD !d-Decontamloation Fo llo"*lnrW e t Fue l PerKlll 2d Dtcommiuioning Activitiet 2d.l.I Remwe spent fuel r acb Di8JKl8lll cA Plaot S y1ter:n1 2d.l.2.I Elect r ica l {Co nlnminl!l tMI}
- FH B 2d.l.2..2 Eled r iclll l (R CAJ-Fl-m 2d.l.l.3 Fire Prot.ictklo (RCA) 2d.J.2.4 HVA C(Co ntnmin11h'tl).
FHB 2 d.l.:U Spe n t Fuel Pit Cooli n g 2 d.l.2.G Spe n t F u e l P it Cooli n g. nm 2 d.1.2 T otals Decontrun innr.Mln or Site Bu.ildinge 2d.l.3.I fo'ue l Handling 2d.l.3 Total1 2d.l.4 Scaffnldinr in 1upport. oC decommi11ioning 2d.I Subtot.al Period 2d Adiril1* eo.t1 Period 2d Addi t ionnl Co.ti 2d.2.I LicenMl TermiMLkMt Survey P l anniug 2d.2.2 Remedi:.I At.-tion Sun-..y1 2d.2 Subkll&I Pe r kid 2d Additio u n l C.0.1 1 Period 2d CoU&te r al Coeui 2d.3.I Process dea.m.miNioning
"'ttte r waM.e 2d.3.2 Procet111 UtoraxiuniHkming
('hemica( n u.b W88le 2d.3.3 Smalllooll!lllowaoce 2d.3.4 Decommiuioning Equipment Dli!poeition 2d...3.6 En\*irontnf'nt.a.1 and Feee 2d.3 Subtotal Pt"riotl 2d Co lllll e r tt l Coel* Period 2d Pe r iod*De!'l(:.
n dent CM!la 2d.4.I Decon euppliet 2tl.U In s ur ance 2d.4.3 Prq)Cny taxe1 2d.4.4 ll ea hhp hyeic*aupplit>e 2 d.4.Ci 1-l ettvy equip m e nt ren 1.tt l TLG &1-vicn, I nc. Remo val Padustnr Transpai:1 C..* Co** eo. .. Costs 078 '3 12 078 '3 12 978 43 12 602 .. Ul 3 83 Ill 3 68 1 ,. 29 266 "' " 2'0 37 " 00 47 19 133 "" 21 1 , 627 '"" IOI 8'6 8119 00 38 *** 899 60 .. 1106 1 , 4-17
... 17 6 .. 36 00 78 100 " ** 78 185 Ill 212 628 ,.,,, Tabl e C...2 Diab l o C anyon Unit 2 DE C ON D eco mmi ssion.ing Cost Es tima te (T b o u sa 1 1d* 0(20 14 Dollar*) Orf-S il e LLR W Procenlnl' Obpasa l Ot h e r Tot11 I Total Cos l s Cosu Cos t s Co11 tin C U C Costs 33.22 1 7 , 210 -U71 027 6 , 198 37.-IO"l 8 , 1 00 46 , 628 2.200 33 1 2.622 71l6 "' 014 ... 1.38 1 61 27 1 33 9.233 2 , 004 11 237 1.080 2-1<4 l , 004 3.2 17 ... 3.682 867 188 1.006 84-1 183 1 , cm 2,400 .... 2.004 38 , 783 8 , 417 47 , 200 98 , 076 21 , 284 119 369 4 1.267 8 , 966 60 , 22.2 " 199 ,6 26 43,102 243.711 " 237.0 1 7 61,239 289 ,339 1 , 006 873 2, 700 IOI 78 " 918 096 2,297 4G9 27 4 1 , 002 <t i G 267 1 , 004 GOO 266 1 , 007 656 297 1 , 1 66 3,227 1 , 778 6,88G 466 1 , 1 22 3.430 ... 1 , 1 22 3.4 30 ,. " 1 1537 4.773 """ 14.640 8'6 367 1.2 1 2 792 , .. 1.1 36 l ,B37 711 2.3 48 1 66 116 .,. 17 .. 258 1 26 087 '37 .. ..,., 423 '37 ... 1.627 77 288 " ... 268 82 12 93 1 9 1 710 216 1.206 KRC Spen t Fuel Si l e Procened Llc. T e r 1 n. lilana1ement Vo lun ie C l aHA eo. .. Costs eo. .. C u. F eet C u. Feet 40 ,-13 1 6 , 198 6 , 1{18 40 ,43 1 2,622 ll l*I l , 331 1 33 1.002 11 , 23 7 1.93-1 3 , 682 l.06G 1 , 0'l7 ..... ....... 69,680 26 , 11 1 25 , 111 103,""' 1 39 , 722 1 , 902 100 , 187 1 80 , 1 63 1 , 002 """' 3,802 36 1 366 2,297 3,3 17 J.()62 l ,GOC 1 , 034 1 , 719 1.o: n 2,200 1 , 1 66 2,367 6,886 ll.003 3,430 3.325 3.*l30 3.326 1.1537 36 1 14.B40 10 , 20"J 1 , 212 1 , 1 3Ci 2 , 348 ,,. 3 18 ... 087 a.ea1 ""' 1 , 627 ..... ,.. 268 93 719 Buria l Vo l umes C lanB C ius C GTCC Cu. F eet Cu. F eet Cu.Feet O oc urnenl PaJ.J1J J..OO J , RflV. D A ppend ix C, Pa*e 11 o f !l Buria l/ U tilit y *nd Procened C raft Con t i:: 11 cto r Wt. Lbs. Mau h o u rs Man h o u n 38.042 62 J ,:W0 , 724 *150 ,3 77 38 , 042 62 1.800 , 1 01 38.042 62 1.800 , 1 0 1 234.77 3 ... 2222& 1 , 498 201.1 80 8,927 3,643 104 ,76 7 3,086 13-to79 1 , 4IO l*l*l , 266 1 ,&2 1 7 1 0 , 8.t!) '°*""" 248.142 23 , 547 248.14 2 23 , 647 1 6.2 4-4 8.94 1 l.2!0007 63..837 6 , 240 0 , 007 il.667 GJ!IO 19 , 1 00 62 300.000 .. 31D, I OO ""
I\) :i> 0 :::T !: w I\) Diablo CPnyon Power P l ant DecommiHionin1 Co*t Analy*i* A c t i vity lnd e.x AcUvlt De!lcri tlon Pt:riod 2d Per iod-Dependeni.
Q.ieu (l'Uolinued) 2d.4.6 D11 1 1)()Nlll o r DAW geoer11ted 2d..f.7 Plant ene rgy budge.I 2d..f.8 NRC 2d.4.9 Planning Fee11 2d.4.1 0 Spent Fuel Tran1fer -
to DOE :.!d.4.11 l,i(1m d Radwasle Procening Equipm e nL/Sen*i ces 2d.4.12 I SFS I Ope ra I ing Cost* 2d.4.1 3 $e\*er1H-.ce Relt1led Co!lh 2 d.4.J.I Security Ste ff Co6t 2 d . .f.1 5 DOC Stt 1 1T Co81 2 d.4.1 6 SlaffCo!ll 2d.4 Subtoln l Period 2d P e riod-Depen de n t Coet.1 2d.O TOTAL PERI OD 2d L"OST PERIOD 2r-U ce111e Termln*tion Period 2f Direct Decomin1saioni..n1 2r.1.1 OR I SE oonfirmatory 1 un*ey 2(1.2 Temunal e licen11e 2r.1 Subl o l!d Period 2f Acth*itr Cuit1 Pe ri od 2f Add ili om al Cos l 1 2£.2.1 Li cense Trm1i1111tio11 Surve y 2r.2 Subtolf1 l l'l!riod 2f Additiona l ('All!h Period 2f Ulllat.e r a l O>elll 2r.3.1 lX>Cslt1ffrelc.cationeXpeOJ1oes 2 r.3.2 Environme ntal Perm.it.1111 nd Fee!il 2f.3 Sub l ofal Pe r il.xi 2fColl11le r 11I CoEo.ll! P t r kid 2£ Perkod-Oependent Costs 2[4.1 ID.!luram:e 2(4.2 ProiK'rtyt11xe1 2t.f.3 Heidt h phy1ic1 1u ppli e1 2(4A Di JJl)Qlt1 l of D AW ge ntrztt.ed 2(.4.5 P l 1mle!K!r l(\'hud goct 2[4.6 N R CFces 2f.4.7 Emergency Plann i ng Ftte 2(.4.8 Spent Fuel Tr1rn1for
- I SFSI to 2(A.9 ISFSI Ope 1ntm g Cc.t.s 2U.IO Secu rit y 61.t1C!'C.O.t 2(.4.11 OOC StafTCost 2(4.12 Uti l ity Stall'C'091.
2[4 Subtoenl Pe r k>d 2rPeriod-Depende n t Cosl8 2r.o TOTAL PER I OD 2 r oo sT PERIOD 2 TOTALS PERIOD 3 b -Site R e1 t on ll o n Pe r iod 3b Dired Dcoommiseiooing Ac1i\*iti1?'
Demolitio n of Hemaininit Sit.e Building&
3b.l.l.1 *Reactor 3b.l.1.2 AdminiJ1Jtr111ioo 3b.l.l.3 Auxilinry Sb.l.1.4 Ca p i l.al Addi ti o111 86-2004 3b.l.l.5 C hem k:a l Storfllftl Jb.1.1.6 Chlorinnti(Jfl.
Jb.l.1.7 Circ ulfll i11g Wate r Tunnele 3b.l.l.8 Co ld Mt1Chine Shop 3b.l.l.9 (A)mmunkntion 3b.l.l.IO Oo 11 ck!nMte Sup11ort S b.1.1.11 Co nt ainment l'PDCl r ni.ion Area 3b.l.l.1 2 TLG &,.vice*, In c. Remo v lll Co.t Co** 212 1 , 620 1.703 IU88 00 4 904 004 I0,214 80, 1 24 7, 188 1,100 ..... 4 ,6 27 ' 10 1 , 214 42'i ' 926 736 fl.)7 Tab le C-2 Diablo Ca n yo n Unit 2 DECON Decomm i ss i oni n g Cost Estimate (T h ousand s 0£20 1 4 Dollars) O rt.S it e LLRW Pacbj'lni Tr11nsport Pr oceH in f D l!po111l Ot her Tot11 l T ot al COlltll Collt9 Co9t9 Coll II ColltS Co11t h 1 enc Co!ll 4() 11 ... 26 120 00 4 109 613 168 " 193 1 6" " 188 GJ.I 13a i.f8 17 3 37 210 252 00 300 8.061 1 , 7.10 0.8 10 1.77 1 .... 2, 1 56 0.266 1 , 141) 6.4 12 8..190 1 , 842 10.332 *IO II 48 2578 1 6,066 33.666 701! ""' 5.244 27.856 1 1.296 52.293 183 1* 262 18 3 79 202 16.JIJ'j 6,697 2 1.7fl6 1 6.IW 6,597 21,700 1 , 466 318 1 , 784 7 1 6 1 66 870 2.18 1 473 2 , 65 4 S<2 50 392 1 3' 19 16.1 32'7 1 ,28 1 " .1 1 2 89 li02 302 14 3*1 6 269 "" """ 1.004 218 1.222 412 89 " 2.8911 629 3.528 6.0 7 3 1 , 1 0 1 6.174 5.74-1 1 , 2 47 6.900 1 6.592 385 7 2137 1 34.154 11.006 4 6.083 23, 171 1 3.968 I07 ,2 2G 658,425 237,087 1.1 31 , 100 1 ,560 8 , 748 200 1 , 400 1 ,5 1 6 8.002 1 , 004 5 , 63 1 I 6 2 12 264 1 , 478 "' 020 I G 20 1 1,127 158 886 216 1 ,2 1 4 !<R C Spent Fuel Sit e Procened U c.TertlL MllDafem e n t Rator11.tlon Vol u me C la H A eo ... Co1t9 Co1t1 C u.Feet C u.F ee t l2U 1 , 781 613 1 93 188 1.18 2 1 0 300 0.810 2.1 00 6.412 10 ,33 2 82,.127 1.242 1.78 1 fil.060 U42 27.068 262 262 2 1 ,7ll6 21,700 1 , 784 87 0 2.664 39'l 1 6.1 1.2 8 1 24 33 7 002 3 4 6 ""' 1 , 222 " 3,52 8 6, 17-1 6 , 000 19 , 339 2,031 337 44 ,002 2 ,03 1 337 92 1 ,6 20 100 , 21ID 1 3 , 197 500,398 8 , H8 1 , 400 8 ,00 2 6 ,63 1 6 12 1 , 478 020
- 1 ,127 889 1 , 21*1 B url*I Vo l um es C l 11"B C l usC GTCC Cu. Feet C u. Feet Cu. Feet 003 393 D ocu m e nt POJ-111 9-00 1 , R ev. 0 App e ndi x C, Pa1e /So/2 1 Bu ri*! I U tlll ty*nd Proce11ed C raft Co ntn c t or Wt. Lbs. Ma11h o 11r1 M a n h ours 36,629 "' 22 , 800 48.000 9 J.G80 35.629 58 1 62.480 UiG4.746 636 1 3 1 0.S,720 200 , 4G8 3, 120 200,-468 3 , 120 6,734 II 37.32 1 46 , 700 G0.1 07 6.734 II 144.179 G.7 3-1 200.470 147 , 299 li0,200.180 962.351 s.001.9.m 87,9 1 4 1 0,368 64,"71 47 , 403 49 "" 1 2,194 3,780 " 9,300 G,(;G!j 8 ,3 2 1 N :t> 0 ::::T !: w w Dioblo Canyon PowerPlonl Decommi.*ioning Co*t Anol.r*i*
Activity Jn du Acdvl t Oon Demolilko n of RemainiDlt' Site Buildi.np (a:.a lioued J 3b.1.l.1 3 Fabric".atioo Shop 8b.l.l.1'4 Fire Pwnp H ou.e Sb.1.1.1 6 Hn.ardou1 WAIU! Storage i-'acilit)" 3b.l.l.I G lota bStrucu.ire 3b.l.l.1 7 A l aintenftnce Shop 3b.l.l.18 ,_l iteelleneous Structure1 3b.l.1.19 Nl'O Perminte nt Wa reho u se 3b.1.1.20 Po ud 1 a b.1.1.2 1 P o rtubl e J.'ire P un1 11 & F ue l Ca rt. 3 b.l.l.22 Pre tre n tm en t 3 b.J.l.23 ROOwost e Ston ge 3 b.J.l.2* Radwa1te Sto r ttge F ac ilit y (Add it io m1l) 3 b.l.l.20 Rotor Warehou 11e J b.l.l.26 Sec uri t y 3 b.l.l.Z7 Secu rity Buildi u p (addi l ic m a l) 3 b.l.l.28 Sec:u ri ty Mod1f'icnU ons (2010 kl 20 1 0) 3b.l.l.29 SimuJatur 3 b.I 1.30 Ste11m Generator Storage F aci hly 3b.l l.31 T eif.pbone Te.rminaJ 3 b 1.132 Turbi ne 3b.l.l.33 Turb11w Pedelt11 I 3b.l.J.J.4 Vehicl e ,_l11 i nle.n 11nce 3b.l.1.36 W H t e. W ate r H o ldmf & Tre111.me o t Facility Jb.1.1.36 Fuel H an dling Sb.I.I T oto l s Si t eC!oetoo u1..o\di 1*itit-t Sb.1.2 G rade & landlcape 1 it e 3 b.l.3 Finalreport.ru N R C 3 b.1 Subt otal Prriod Sb Additiorutl aw. 3b.2.I Backfill Structures
& Concrete Remv.*al fou l of state. di&p<11af) 3b.2.2 Breakwa rrr Oemoli l ion and Remonl (ou t of &l ate. di11poMI)
S b.2.3 Coflertlam Con1 1 ruc1 ion and T eardow n 3 b.2.4 ConcrNe C ru s h i ng Jb.2.6 Ois11088lor Ca l be 1t.o1 Sidiog :Jb.2.(1 Oi.e J)l)di t.io n o r Mobil e Bn rri erw (out oC s t11 te t li&JlOlll l) 3b.2.7 Soi l I Sedim e nt Qm trol Plant Are a 3 h.2.8 t.li-lla noo u* Constr u ction Debrie (o ut o (e la te 1U1p o1111 l) 3b.2.9 Scr np Met11 I Ttaruiportotion (o u r. ol ttate) 3b.2.IO FSS }.l anager 3b.2 Subt.ota!
Period 3b Additional Coelf; Period 3b Co U ate.r ti l Coelf; 3b.3.I Small tool aJlowance 3b.3 Subtotal Period 3b Collateral Co.ti Period 3b Co&l9 3 b.4 I l na u rance 3 b.U Propert y t a:te1 3b4.3 H eAV)" eq u i pmttnt ren t a l 3b.4.'4 Plant l"Perg:r bu dge t 3b.4.6 NRC I SFSI F eet 3b.4.6 EmerK'l!ncy Planning Feet 3b.O Spent Pue.I Tranefor -ISJ.'SI t o DOE 3b.'4.8 I SJ.'S I 0,iera l in g Col t.9 SbA.9 Secu rit y Sta ll'Coet. 3b.4.1 0 IX)C Sta IT Coet 3 b.4.ll U t i lil yS t a lT Coet 3 b.4 S ubtot a l Period Sb Period-Dependent. Coet1 3 b.O TOTA L PERI OD 3 b OOST TLG Ser-vice.a, lr u:. Decon Removal Pa c brlnr Transport Coo* Coot eo.u Cotti 129 6 .. 6 , G.>6 "'" G8 1 , 468 2 I II 1 , 89 2 63 002 36 7 " &36 '4-14 OG8 3 6 , 008 1 ,'40'4 37 " 1 ,9 79 47,0 1 5 2.337 .. 9 , 362 24,700 73,G67 .,. 1 ,"73 1'8 1 , 3.3*1 101 , 810 1.1 00 1 , 1 00 7 , 089 7 , 689 I G9,Ul l Table C-2 Diab l o Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommi ss ioning Cost Estimate (Tho u unds o f2014 Do ll ars) Oft-S it e LLRW R C Processinr DlspoHI Other Tot*I Total U c. Ter1n. Cos ts Co11t1 Co1t1 Cout ln e nc Co111 c. ... 28 167 "' 1 , 227 G.882 116 IBO 16 83 310 1 , 787 a 2 " *Ill 2.302 II ** 1 96 1.008 80 m L2 70 :JOO 1.1 38 ll6 6'1 210 1 , 1 78 I 3 1 , 282 7 , 1 00 306 1 , 700 *1 6 30 429 2.'108 1 0,200 67,!?18 WI 2.8 .. 4 l lM 22 "" "" llM 10 , 7 33 60 , 188 1 26 '44 , 417 1.(, 999 8'4 , 117 I G8 , C l 3 B3,233 306,003 1 04 682 321 1 , 80 1 4 2 1 0 1 -1 72 ""' 770 "" 1 ,623 5.870 1 , 27 4 7.1 4'4 7.837 1 ,70 1 9.1138 6'2 1 36 767 767 228.26 1 82 , 286 412.368 767 .., 1412 "' 1.412 603 81 .... .. 0 ** l\03 1.8 47 9.236 67 8 1 47 8 26 "' .. 300 ... 128 1 , 0 1'4 3 , 308 7 18 """' 1.36< 2!l< 1 ,6 48 9.629 2 , 068 ll ,008 1 5 , 1 37 3 , 286 18 , t 23 8 , 1 00 1 , 779 9 , 97'4 (0) .w,.1 00 1 0 , 266 68 , 2<19 0 268.769 1 03,627 632.207 883 Spent F uel S it e ProcesHd llanaaement RHloratl ou Volume C l 11111A Cost*s eo. .. Cu.Feet C 11.Feet "' 62 C , 882 '80 .. 1 , 787 3 ' 13 2 , 002 *.. 1 , 008 .., 70 1 , 1 88 6'1 1 , 1 78 3 i , 1 90 1 , i09 4 6 30 2,408 67 , 2 18 2 , 8 .. 4 00 , 002 8'4 , 117 300,003 082 1 , 80 1 612 779 1 ,623 7 , 1*1<1 ..... 411 , 600 1 ,.(1 2 I.Hi 6" 600 9 , 23G 82 6 300 1 , 0 1'4 "°"' 1 , 648 8,81'4 2 , 783 18 , 423 1 ,996 7 , 9 7\1 I St,OCM 3\t , 246 l!i ,00'4 &1 2.320 Burl*I Volumes C la nB C l anC GTCC C u. F ee t C u. Fee t Cu. Feet D ocumen t POJ-JTJ!J..001, R ev. 0 Appendix C, Page 19of :!I Burl*I/ Utility and Proc:eHed Cra f1 Con lr.ctor Wt. Lbs. Ma.nh o ur s Mo1h o un 1 , 223 .. 400 4G , 3G 4 3 , U4 C73 1 4 , 003 " 14 1 08 17 , 86 4 662 li.938 39 44 722 9 , 62 7 '4 , 191 8 , 888 28 67 , 74'4 11 , 300 " 238 16,760 439,079 (,687 008 443 , 600 6G8 3 1 , H8 29'4,'408 4 ,00 4 ..... 1 , 4-1 5 1 0,2 7 1 6 , 1 48 347 , 936 6.148 122 , 686 1 36,89 1 87 ,197 346 , 7 7*1 79 1 ,6()1 3!>2,fiOO
,,., :; '.(> w .,. Diablo Canyon Power Plant DecommiMioning Co*t Analy11i11 A c ti vity l ndex A ctlv l t De1cri tlon PER IOD k *Fue l S t o r.fe O per11.tlonSISblppln*
Period 3c Dirvct Acth*itie9 p.,riod 3c Co ll 11ter11 I C<.91-11 3c.3 Sublotal Period 3c Co U ate r u l Cos l 1 P e ri o d 3c Period.l)ependentCo.u ac .. u In s uran ce 3c..l.2 Propertytaxea 3c..l.3 P I Mt eoo rgy b udgP.l 3c.4A NRC I S FSI 3c.4.6 Eme r gency P l anning Fee. 3c.4.6 Spent F ue l 1'tan11Cr.
IS F"S I w DO E 3c.4.7 I SF'SI Opera 1 in1 Coats 3c.4.8 Sec u r it y Sta lJ Cusl 3d.9 Utih t ySi.a lT Cc.et 3c..I Subtotal Peri od 3c Period.Dependent Co.t.11 3c.O TOTAL PERI OD 3c OOST PER I OD 3 d *OTC C 9 hl pplnr P e r iod 3d Dif1'CI. Dt>commiHioning A c livitiea N ucl enr Steam S up p l y H e m on d 3d.1.1.1 Vt'fl!K'I & Int l'rn a l.!i GTOO ad.I.I 3d.I Sublolal P er i od 3d Acfo*ity Cos t s P e ri o d 3d Col.lrtt.cral U.. Sd.3 SubtoM I Period 3d Co ll m rnl Q:,,, t.e P e r iod 3d Period-Depemknt Coe t-ll Sd.4.J Insurance 3d.4.2 PropP.ny t11 xe1 3d.4.3 P l ant e ll(*rg)' budget 3 d.4.4 I SFS I Qr.e r n tin g Co!lh &l.4.5 Sec uri Ly S talJ COll l 3d A.6 Ut ilit y S latT Coet Sd.4 Sublola\ P e r iod 3d Pe r iod.l)epe m:km l Gusts 3d.O TOTAL P ERI OD 3d Q)S'J' PE RIOD 3e. I SFSl Decontamln11tlon Period 3e Direct Detun m1 uiio nin g A ctivities Period 3e Additional Costt 3e.2.J L ice n se T e nnimition I S FS I 3e.2 Subtol.t1I Period 3e Addit10nal
!Ae ls P e riod 3e Co ll ate r a l Coli1: s 3e.3 S u blOl.a.I P e ri o d 3ci Co l h1 1 11 ral Co at a Pe ri od 3e Pe ri od*Depeodeot Co8 1 s 3e.4.I 3e.4.2 Proilt'nytaxes 3e.4.3 P l s nr. e nergy budget 3e.4.4 Secu ri ty Sta ff Co.i t 3e.4.6 U1ili t y S t a fT Co8 1 .... S u btOl.aJ Period 31' Pe r iod*Depe n dent Co8l.ll 3o.O TOT AL PERIOD ae COS" r TLG &rvicn , In c. R e 111 ova l Pac kac"ln* C:O.t Co*t eo. .. 2 ,!07 2 , 107 2 , I07 2.!0 7 121 121 1 21 Table C-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Esti mat e (Thousands 0!20 14 Dollau) O rr.S ite ll.RW Tr1m1port Pr ocessi nr Dbpo111l Ot her Tota l Tot1tl Cost! Cos t! Co!l l!I Co1tt Co ntln e n c Costt 5.1 43 7.14 5.887 *1.0 1 6 581 *1.507 4.11 1 095 4.705 8 00 1 l.1 71 0.262 30"6 6.63 1 37.186 12.3 7 6 2.686 1 600 1 00.013 H.326 803"9 1 5.1 84 3.295 1 8.470 14 5.488 30.028 1 76 , 6 1 6 1 45 , 488 J0.028 1 76 , 6 1 6 9.626 2 , 829 1 4 , 462 9 , 520 2 , 829 1 4 , 462 9.520 2 , 829 1 4 ,"62 11 12 ' " 6 31 1 36 29 1 00 31 38 2 11 "' 256 9.620 211 2.8 7.f 1 4.7 1 8 1 3 4 90 1.098 026 2 , 300 13 400 1.006 62tl 2 , 3W 7D 28 1 07 60 21 80 '" 6 1 11!2 184 66 200 *1 02 1 6 7 '"' 1 3 4"'1 1."60 798 2,980 !<RC S 1 1ent Fu e l Site Proces-d Ll c. T erm. Ptl1Wag eme 11t R H t or11 tl on Vo lum e C l1111A Co lt* Cost! Cus t s C u.Feet C u. F ee t 5 , 887 4 , 507 .f.7 00 0.262 37 , 186 16 , 061 80.339 18 , 470 17 6.616 176.616 1 4 , 4 62 1 4 , 462 1 4 , 462 "
- 3 1 1 66 38 200 1 4 , 462 256 2 , 300 1 , 777 '*""' 1 , 7 77 107 80 192 "" .,. 2.98Ci 1 , 777 Burial V o l umes C l*ssB C l nt C GTCC C u. F ee t Cu. Feet C u. F ee t 1 , 649 1.649 1.649 1.640 Document POJ.J119-00 I , R ev. 0 Appendix C, Page 20of 2 1 Burial! Uti li ty and Processe d Cr aft Con tra ctor Wt. Lb!I. Man h ours M11nhours 826 , 100 1 59 , 665 086.665 985 , GOS 3.10 , 30 7 330 , 30 7 330.30 7 1 ,700 3 28 2 , 028 330.30 7 2.028 1 08.17 0 7.000 388 108 , 170 7.000 3ll8 1.00 1 1 , 90 1 3,803 1 08 , l iO 7.006 4,19 1 Diablo Can)'OH Pomer Plant Decon11nidionin1 Co*t AnaiJ'*i* Ac1ivl 1y A ct l vh v Descrl tt o n PERIOD 1£-ISFSI S ite R u toraLk>n P eriod 3 r 0irecl Decomm 1 11ion..in1Act 1 vi t it-t 3r A ddi 1 ion al eo.1 .. 3f.2. I De moht lOCI. Md S ite RH tor&Lion ISFS I 3 r.2.2 A.rea Soi l/Sed un e nt Cont rol I S FS I 3 f.2 S u b t.olal P e r io d a f * .a.rldit kl n a l Co.ti P e r iod 3 f Co U a t eral CoWi 3 f.3.I S n rn ll loo l a ll ow m1 ce 3 f.3 Su btotu l P e r iod 3 f Col l at.e ml Cloti lll P c r kxl 3 f P e riOO-Oe pe n dent Co.lll 3 L4.I ln a ur a Dai Prot:ie.ri)' t rui: ea 3 f.4.3 H eav)* eq u ipm ut r ul a l 3 f.4.4 P lant ene r1y bud tet 3 f.U.i Seairity Stal!'Coe t 3 f.4.6 U tilil)" Staff CoM. 3 L4 S u htc.la l Per k.cl 3 f P eriod-Or pen dent eo.t.. 3 (.0 TOTAL pf;RI O D 3 f OO ST PERIOD 3 TOTALS TOTAL COST TO DE CO llMlSSION "° 13,610 Tab l e C-2 Diablo Ca nyon Unit 2 DE CON Decomm i ss ion_ing Cost Estimate (Thousand& of2014 Do ll ar s) O ff-Site ILRW Remova l Pa c U..lnl' THnsport ProceH ID I' DbpoH I Other Costs Cos t CosLt Co stt Cos tt Co sts 1 ,&42 21 1 , 663 ,. ,. 67 6 7 1 , 74 4 1 6 1 , 77 6 2, l lU 244,916 H.8.51 2 , 7 4 9 2 , 74 0 23 27 7 6 '"' 2.906 1 3 1 0 , 0 1 6 4 18 , 9 34 14 , 186 128.0U 1,156 , 806 u.100 , 11 1 lh o unndt o r 2014 dollars Sl.1 7J ,llH thoun.nd 1 o r 201-1 dollars '3116.117 thou*ands o r 2 014 dollars $H 2 ,G42 thouund s or 2 014 dollars 963 * "67
- 12
- 6 J7 ... 1 , 007 138 , 228 420 ,!5 1 Tota l "°'" 6 3 4 4 u ..... .. 30 3' 00 "' 33 93 257 ..... 7 3 U l8 1 2 , 1 00,171 AL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BUR I ED (EXCLUDING OTCC): 606 ,840 Cubi c F e et AL GREATE R THAN CLASS C RADWAb'TE VOUJA-1E GENERATED: UIREMENTS: End Notea: nfa
- i nd 9calff lh.., t 1 h i1 actM t y not. di a l'j'l'!d M decom nn ukming eJq>t_n.r. 11. ind K:attt that t hi* .et.i\*1ty pef forme d by deconu n iNionl n r s 1 11 fT. 0 -ln dica tu that thi* l'alue it leel th a n 0.6 bul i* non-tt ro. a ce U co n ta in i n1 '"*'" ln c h ca t H a zero v a l lH'l TLG &r u icn , Inc. 1 , 649 Cubi c Feet 78 , 197 T o u t l,iK 293 Man-b o uu NR C Spe nt Fuel Ll c. Te r m. Manal'ement Cos ts Costs 1 8.330 194 , 7i 6 1 , 1 71,11 11 195.!17 Site Restora ti on "°'" 6 ,S U ,. 6 , 369 30 "' 3' 00 2 8 33 93 "' ..... ti 17 ,97 G 5 H.o.u Document POI-1719-00 1 , R ev. 0 Appendi x C, Paze 2 1 o f 2 1
-..,.c"" 1 .. p::::!:d C u , F ee t C u. Feet C u. F ee t C u. F ee t C u. Fe e t Wt. Lb 1. C rllft MAnhoun 1 , 777 1 , 860 ... 20 ,-1-13 2 , 668 23,0 11 23 , 0 1 1 1 , 64 9 438.4 77 8 2 1 ,G l i l,6411 61 , 463.140 1,796.2 91 U tllil 1 and Con tr" c tor M*nh o un JJO 3'9 ,.. 1.1 33 1 , 2 1 3 1 , 346.678 7,llH.900 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis APPENDIXD Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 1of21 DETAILED COST ANALYSIS SAFSTOR Tables D-1 Diablo Canyon Power Plant , Unit 1 ...................................................................
2 D-2 Diablo Canyon Power Plant, Unit 2 ...................................................
.............. 12 TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-136
""' :::J" :i=-w ..... Diublo Ca n yon Power Plant D eco nuni.aa lo n i n1 Coa t Anal y ai* Ac ti v it y A c tlvlt De!ll e r l tl o n PEBJOD l a -S hu tdown tbroulh Trandd o n Ill Direct Ol!c:ommi98ioning Activitaet 1111.l.I SAFSTOR 11ilf' ebarl!lcie ri ulion turvey 111.l.2 P,..,pa.re prelimi n ary decornmiMioning ro.t. l*.1.3 Nolificalion o r Ceu&tio o oCOperation*
l a.1.-1 Remm*e f ue l & llOUrct ma t.er-ill.I l a.1.6 Nol ifi et1 l ion o f P e m1 a n ent De fu eli n g l a.1.6 Deact.h*ole pluut 1ys 1.em 11 & prooeu .,,,,.,le hi.1.7 P re p Kre and s ubmit PSD A R 1 11.l.8 Revi e 11* ))lunt dwg s & 8 1>CC8. h i.1.9 P e rlhm1 del a iled rad s un*e y la.LI O Estim a t e b ,-.p rod u ct. in\'e n to r y l s.I.II Endprodu ct d c11e ript io n l a.1.1 2 De t a i led by.product i nv e n l.ory l a.1.1 3 De fi ne major wo rk 1e<1ue o ce l a.1.14 Perl'o rm SER r.n x l EA l a.1.1 6 Perbtn S 1 i.e.SpeclfieColt Study Act 1 n t y Spedflcatk>o.
l*.1.1 6.1 Ptt pa r"I' pla ol 1 m d fiw:il 1l ie1 l'o r SAFSTO R l*.1.1 6.2 P l 1.1 ot 1ylle m 1 l a.1.1 6.3 P l fl ol 1 t ructu re s11 nd b ui ldi n p l a.1.1 6.4 W M l f' m an11ge ment l a.1.1 6.6 111e i l i1 y a nd si t e donnan<")'
1 11.l.16 T""'I Detailed Work Prooedures 1 11.1.1 7.I ptantll)..tem*
lt.1.1 7..2 Fad li ty cloiooou l &: dorm11D<-')
' 1 11.1.1 7 Tota l l a.1.1 8 Procure nc u um dr ying -'YS l e m l a.1.1 9 D r ain/de-cnergiR noi1<0 o t. l)'tte m s 111.1.20 Drain &t dr)* NSSS \11.1.2 1 D r11in/de-eoe rit: iuron l.1 1min a ted sysl.e m 1 111.1.22 Decoo/11ee u re co nt.amine led l)'tlem t la.I P e r iod l a Act ivit y C08 1.5 Pe riod la Arldit io nal Co.u l a.2.1 Spe nt Fu e l P ool 1 80latlo n l a.2.2 0i 8P(l5ll l o( Co nt a min ated T oolt &: Eq uipm e n t. 111.2 Su btota l Period h t Additional Coeu Period l aCo lla tera l C.,.u l s.3.1 En ,*ironme n lal PenniU a n d F ee1 IL3 S u btota l Pe r iod l a Collatem l Cc..sl..t Period l a Period-Depe n de n l. Cc.ta J a.4.1 h u1 ur a!le'! l a.4.2 Pr<ipe rt y l axu l a .... 3 ll ea lthp hy1tc.1 u11 p l ie1 l a.4.4 H ein')' eq uipm e n t. re o tn l l ll..1.6 Ditposa l o( D AW gene r a t ed 1 1'1 .... 6 Plt1 nt energy l a.4.7 NKC F-l a.4.8 Pbtonin1 io'ee. 1 11 .... 9 Spe.n 1 f'u e l Pool O&:M l a.4.1 0 I SJo"S I ()pe r a lio gCuit.s 1 1'1.4.ll Seve r atxe Hell'l t ed Co.t s 1 11 .... 1 2 Sec ur i l y S u.ff Coe t 111.4.1 3 Ut ili t J'Stft!l'Coe t 111..I S ubt otn l Perk.d l a P e ri od*Dcpe nd ent Cuii t 1 l a.O TOTA L PERI O D la COST TLG &1"Vicn, I nc. O rf.S it e R emov al Paeli:a1ln1 T ran spo rt Proeesa ln l eo .. Co o< Cool> eo. .. C..u 219 1 03 219 1 03 ,,. '67 " 1.093 " 1 , 093 233 I07 Table D-1 Diablo Cauyon Unit 1 SAFSTOR Decommi ss ioning Cost Estimate (Thousands 0£2014 Dollars) RW N K C Disposal O um Total T o t111 l Lie.Term. Co11h Cosu Co 11tln ru e Co*l* eo ... 600 ""' 8G& ... 202 .. "" 2-I C . of* 310 GO 379 379 202 *I& 246 2*1 6 1 6& 3-1 1 89 1 89 1 6& 31 1 89 1 89 2 3" " " 1 66 ,. 189 1 89 '8 1 1 00 1587 1587 "' 1 72 9'7 9<7 76,'J 1 00 9"2 932 .... 14 3 789 789 *8 4 107 " "" 310 69 3;9 379 310 89 379 379 2 , 61 3 "" 3,00 H 3 , 00it 1 83 " ,,. "' 1 86 " 227 227 370 82 41>1 " I 1 6 1 9 .. 6, 1 85 1 , 197 7,002 7,G62 2 1.66 4 4.700 26.460 26 ,*Mt 2.836 I.IO I 4.2M UM 2.836 2 1.66-1 6 , 897 00 , 717 30 , 717 9*9 '10 1 , 1 00 l , 1 60 949 210 l , 1 60 1.160 1 , 132 1 07 l ,"'9 1 , 200 177 26 20 1 20 1 1 9 1 720 720 1 26 892 692 1 6 * ** ** 2 , 737 006 3 , 342 3 , 342 1 , 18 1 1 74 1 , 366 1 ,36' 1 , 00 1 148 1 , 1 40 ?92 17& 008 ... , 12 1 868 4 1 , 7" 1 9,240 W,982 60,982 22 , 783 6,043 27,826 27,826 37 , 370 8 , 273 4 5,0 4 3 *1 5,6*3 1 8 1 09 , 462 2*1 , 302 1 3*1 , 89 1 1 32 , 1 00 2,86 1 1 38 , 239 3 1 , 007 1 74,429 1 7 1 , 646 Spen t F u el Site Processe d B urial Man11.,.eme11t Re1toratlon V o lume ClauA C la u B C I H!llC GTCC "°"" Co11 11 Cu. Fe e t Cu.Feet C u.Fu: t C u. Feet C u. Ffft I0 , 2*6 1 0 , 246 8 1 0 1 , 1*9 968 668 2,785 6 1 0 2,786 1 0,81>6 D ocumen t PDl-111 9-001 , R ev. 0 Appendix D , Pa1e ! o f Burial Utility an d Proe e Hfld Cra ft Con tr acto r Wt., U,.. Manhoun M11nh o un 1.300 2.000 1.300 1.000 1 000 I 600 1.000 &, 000 *.112<l .a, 1 a; 3.1 20 2.000 2 , 000 16 ,!..'07 .. .. 1 , 200 100 36 , 8 00 62*.U46 3 1 7 62*.9 1 6 317 1 2,100 20 302 , 006 4 23.400 1 2 , lfJO '° 720.308 637, 1 3ti 33 7 762, 1 98
"' ::T 1> w °' Oiablo Ca nyon. Pow e r Plrrn l D ecom miH io nin 1 Co*t Anal.)'9i* Activity Index Actlvitv Des c rl lion PERIOD lb-SAFSTOR Limited DEOON Activities Period lb Dtrect DK-ommiMiooing Activiliel Il<<onlrunirutlioo or Site Buildings l b.I.I.I *Reacto r lb.1.1.2 Co n t.a.inme n l Pcnelration Area J h.1.1.3 F'uel H 11nd l i n g lb.I.I Tot al 1 lb.I S uhl.ol a l Pe r iod lb Co..ta P e riod l b Ad di tiona l lb.2.1 l ftt1,0rdou 1 W1t11te M onagt" m ent lb.2.2 Mixed\\'tu1te Mauagement l b.4! S ub total Pe r iod lb AtkJ it ional Cot t* P er.00 J b Co ll ate r al Cc.au lb.3.1 Deu,.nequipment lb.3.2 P!'OOeMdecc.mm.iuioningw&te rwa11l e l b.3.3 Pn.ooeN deoooJ.miNIOlling tbem1ca\ nu th Wtl&le l b.3.4 SmaU tool allowance l b.3.6 Em*ironmen l al Penni 1 1 a n d Fres l b.3 S u btotal Period lb Collatt" r al Gotts Pt>riod lb Pe r iod-Dt>pe n de n! COll t1 lb.4.1 l b.4.2 l u ur 11111(:'e lb..&.3 Property l8xee l b.4.4 llt>n l th phy!!lic:e 1 upplte. l b.4.6 lle11vy equipment. rental l b.4.6 DiepcJ1NlofDAWgent"rated lb.4.7 P l ant energy bu.I lb.4.8 NRC f(-lb A.9 E rn e rgti-ncy Pl annini;i ft'tt9 lb.4.1 0 Spent t'ut'I Poo l O&: M l b.'1.11 !Sft'SJ Opert1 ling Co.il8 l b.4.1 2 Se\*erH o ce Reh1t e d Coste lh..1.1 3 Sec uril y St.&IT Coe t lb .. 1.1.1 Uti lityS ta ft Coi!t lb..J S u btotal Period lb Period*De11endent C'Olltl lb.O TCffAL PE RIOD lb COb'T PER I O D le -Preparations (or SAFSTOR Dorman cy Period le Direct Dcrommi1ttonmg
- .\dh:it;e1 l e.I.I Prepare 1 u pport. eq uip ment 1£.r 1toragre lc.1.2 ln11all conlainmeot 1 1re11ure equal. line* l e.1.3 In terim 1 un*ey prior to dormancy l e.1.4 Securf! building aooeMee: lc.1.5 Prepare & s ul.llnit interim 11llKl'1 le.I S u btota l P e r iod l e .o\t.1h*i1y Cos t s Period I r: Col lat t>ral Co8ta le.3.1 !>l'()Cffll der:omrni11toning wnter w a11 1 e l e.S.2 P'roceM derommiukming chemical flu sh le.3.3 Sma ll t oo l ttUowimce
\c.3.4 Em*ironmental Penn.ill a nd Fee11 l c.3 S ub h:.tal P f'r iod le Co ll ate r al D>>t1 TLG &1vicn , In c. O fr..S lt e Rr:mova l P*clr:*sl n s Tran.9Por1 P r oce11 lns c. .. Co" c. ... Co sts ""'" 1 ,0 1 5 28.J 7 3 1 2.030 2 ,(00 ... 168 Ill 1 85 ,. 1 ,100 Ill 1 85 8-1 7 , .. 143 .,, I06 3,9 77 < 2'1 7 4 , 210 241
"' :::r "' <D Diablo Canyon Power Planl DecommWionin1 Co*t Anul y*i* Activity lnde:m: Actlvlt Oe!l c ri tion P e r iod l e Pe r iod-Depe n deo1. Coeu1 k.'4.1 ln e ur ance le.'4.2 Prcperty taxes le.'4.3 Heal lh pby1ica1u p p l ie8 lc.'4.4 Hea\')' equipmen l rent.a l lc.'4.0 DilPOlal o( DAW p;ene r 11ted lc.4.6 P\ll n t energy bu dget lc.4.7 NRCFeeai lc.4.8 E n1 ergency P l an n ing Feee lc.4.9 Fu el Poo l O&M l c.'4.1 0 I S P S I Oper uting Coe 1.11 l c.4.11 Se\*e r a n ce l te l o ted Co.ih l c.'4.1 2 Sec uri1 y SUi fl'Coet l e.'4.1 3 U tili trStafl'Coe:t l e.4 Suhlota l Period l e Period-Dependent Coet1 l cO TOTAL PER I OD lcOOST PERIOD 1 TOT AlS PERIOD 2a. SAF&1'0R Dormancy with W e t Spent Fue l Storare Period 2a Direct. Decu11 m i111ioning Activities 2 11.1.l Quarte r ly l nel)t'ctio n 21 1.1.2 Sem i-a nnul'll e m*iro nn w n w.l 1urvey 2n.l.3 Prepttre re 1 10 rt 1 211.l.4 1li 1.u m i1 m u 1 roo r rep h lC'l'.Dll'llt 2a.l.5 M ain t e n ance eup p lie1 211.I SubWl.11! Period 211 .Ad 1 vity Co!lt* Pe r iod 2a Additiona l Ccet1 2a.2.l Sevt>r aoee IWLated Cul!t* 2a.2 Subtotal Pe r lc..d 2ll A ddi tiona l Cost* Period 2a C>llate r al Coeta 2a.3.1 Spen t F ue l Ttan11fur
- Poo l t o ISFSI 2a.3.2 Em*1ro nm en t a l Per m ite and F eee 2a.3 Su b l-0 l a l P eriod2aC oll a l ere l Coe l 11 Pe r iod 2a P e r iod-Depe n de n t C'o8t.a 2a . .t.I ln a u ranit"e 2n..l.2 Property l llJ:ee 21'1.4.3 H ea ltb pby1ica1 u pp l ie9 2a.4.4 Diepolllll of DAW 28.4.5 Pl.811 t e n ergy budi;cl 2a.4.6 NRC F ee. 21A.7 E m ergenc)' P l anning fee1 2a.4.8 Spe n t F u e l Pool O&."d 2a.4.9 I Sl<'S I Operat i ng Coat.a 2aA.IO Spe nt F u e l Slorage Cania l en.Ornrpacb 2a.4.l l Secu r ity Sla ff Coat 2a.4.1 2 U tilit r S t a rr Uoe t 2a.4 Pe r iod 2a P e ri od-Depe u de nl. Cof;U 21t.O TOT A L P E HI OO 2a OOST PERIOD l!b* SAFSTOR Domum e y with Dl"y Spent Fuel Storare Period 2b Direc t Decommi&11ioning
/\divi t ie!I 2b.l.I Quarte r ly Jn epec:tio n 2b.l.2 Semi-annua l e n\*i rc.nme n tn l 11urvey 2b.l.3 Preparerepo rl 1 2h.l.4 B ilu m i no u e roof replace m en t 2b.l.6 Maintena o cee up p l iel! 2 b.I Su bt ota l Pericd 2b Ac t U.S I* Per iuJ 2h Ui lla1 cr11: I <'A1S t 1 2b.3 S u b t-OC11 I Pe r iod 2 b <'..ol l mc r a l Coe t a TLG &,.vices , In c. Off-Sit e Remov11 I Pa c k11JlnJ T r an s port ProceHl n J Co" eo .. eo ... eo, ,, eo ... 1 88 1 36 32 7 196 886 "o 231 4 , 173 2 , 418 493 526 1.849 46 13 1 , 849 46 13 1,849 ,. 13 Tab l e D-1 Diab l o Canyon Unit 1 SAFSTOR Decommi s sio n ing Cost Est i mate (T h ousand s of2014 Dollar s) LLRW NRC Disposal Oth e r Tota l Tot Ill Lie. Term. Co sts Cos ts Co ntln en c Cost1 Cos t s 276 " 317 317 " * '° 00 70 268 268 31 IG9 IG9 1 0 10 6"7 "" .,. .,. 168 " 1 93 198 24-1 3G 260 1 93 .. '"" 133 "' 1 63 1 6,227 3.692 1 9.8 10 1 9.8Ht G.1 97 1.1 5 1 6.3 4 8 6.348 9.11 2 2 , 017 ll , 1 29 1 1 , 1 29 32 , 262 7 , 1 90 39 , 787 39 , J (lfl 6'45 33 , 3 1 7 8.1 6 1 4 3,575 42 , 800 4.026 189.203 *I G, 4'45 247 , 283 243 , 1 17 1 , 1 82 436 1 , 618 1 , 6 1 8 1 , 1 82 436 1 , 6 1 8 1.618 I0 , 86*1 2,<06 13 , 268 1 3,2 68 10 , 864 2 , 405 13 , 268 13 , 268 40 ,53 1 8 , 972 49.003 8 , 079 1 , 788 9 , 867 9,867 4 8,009 I0 , 76 1 59,370 9,86 7 4 , 333 63ll *l , 972 .ol , 277 U i!O 223 1.7 33 1 , 733 .. ., 2.632 2.63 2 00 30 14' 14' ..... I.OJI 5,689 2 , 8H 2,462 363 2.826 2 , 826 6 , 08-l 696 6.982 6 , 743 1 ,*t93 8 , 236 4 , 653 1 , 930 5 , 683 49.817 1 1 , 028 60 , 8"4 1 62,000 36 , 081 199.0 71 9 , 8 32 1 7 , 280 95,340 1 6,82 1 '5 32 1 ,310 70,779 394,002 4 1 , 008 55 38 1 ,965 84 , 380 468 ,309 66,762 3,776 1 , 393 0 , 169 0 , 169 3,776 1 , 393 5 , 169 ii,\G{J Spent Fuel Sit e ProceHed Burial Voluane.9 Mana&"ernent Re1tou 1 llo n Vo l ume C l as:. A C l a.HB Cl11uC Co.to Co 111 C u.Fee t C u.F ee t Cu. F ee t Cu. F e et 1<9 260 236 1 63 679 149 679 1 , 386 4 , 166 13 ,660 49 ,503 .t9 , C.03 695 2 , 045 2.8-U S,98 2 8 , 236 5 , 663 60,844 1 89 , 239 7 8 , 519 363 , 0'14 2 , 0*1 6 402 , 647 2 ,0 46 OTC C Cu. F ee t Document PO l-1119-001 , R e v. 0 Appendi.xD, Page 4 of 21 Burh1 I/ Utilltya11d Processed curt Co ntract o r Wt .* Lb s. Manh o ur 1 Manh o 1 1 rs um 69.92D 1 00.240 2 , 972 17 3 169 77.1 88 1 2..193 17 3.752 782 , 4 36 39.926 1 , 114 , 956 40.000 67 2 , 23 1 , 700 86 1 , 931 40 , 900 67 3,083.637 40 , 900 67 3 , 083 ,63 7
"-' :l> n ::::r 1> .!>. 0 D i obl o C un yo n P owe r Plan t D e conunin io ninz Co*t Anal y*i* Actl v il.y ln dex Actlvlt Descl'i tlo 11 Period 2b Prri00-Depend1.*nt Co.1.e 2b.4.J ln 1ur11 1 ice 2b.4.2 P roperty I Rire. 2b.4.3 1-l en.l lh phyeice sup pl ies 2b.M Oiapogal of DAW 2b.4.6 Plant e n e rgy budget 2b.4.6 NRC F eet 2b..l.7 J.:mergencyPlenningFeee 2b . .t8 Spent Fu e l Transfer.
I SFS I to DOE 2b .. UI 181-'S I Operi:ttingCoiiLA 2b.4.10 Security StnITCoet 2h.4.J I Utility StaITCoe 1 2b.4 Sublotal Period 2 b Period.Dependenl Costs 2b.O TOTAL PERIOD 2b OOST PER IO D 2 TO T ALS PERI O D 3a-R eactl v*t e S le e F o ll o w l n r SAFSTO R Do nnan cy Period 3a Direct D erorw ni11 io ning Activities
- Jtt.1.1 Prepare pn>limmary deromm i saioning roet 3 a.1.2 l levklw 11le11tdwg1&spee11. 3a.l.3 P e r form d eta ilt*d r11 d 1 une1* JR.!.4 E n d product dc 11Cr i11 t io n 3a.l.6 Detailed b y*1 lrodt1ci inventor y 3a.l.6 Define major work 3a.l.7 P e r l"o rm S ER and EA 3a.l.8 Perform Si1 e-Speci[ic Coet Stud y 38.1.9 Preparehubmil License Tem1inatiou Plan 3a.LIO Receive NRC eppnn*a\ o f termin a l io n pion Acth*itySpeci fi cntion11 3 a.1.11.l Re-itetivale planl & lemporary f acilitiea 38.1.11.2 Ph.ml 1y&1e nt1 311.1.1 1.3 Reoct.of"inlern11l1 3A.l.ll.4 ReActor\*esse l 3 a.1.ll.5 B i o l 0l(ict1l 1hield 311.J.Jl.6 SwnmgenerBWNI aa.1.11.7 Reinforced concrete 38.1.1 1.8 Main Turbine 38.1.11.9 Main Condcneers 311.1.11.10 Plunl11 ruct ure 1& building&
38.1.1 1.11 Wu1temllllagemeut 3a.1.ll.12 F acili t y&.si t ecloeeou t 3a.l.ll Tota l Planning & Site Prep:m*tion*
3a.l.12 Pre11arediamantlingsequence 3a.l.1 3 Plantr1re 1).&temp.11Vce11 3a.l.H De11ign wat e r clean-up 8}"11.f:'m 3a.l.15 Ritiging.IC<.mt. C n tr l Ell\*l p Bft ooliug/elc. 3a.J.IO Procure ca1 kalli n e r 1 & co ntainer* 3".I Subtotal P e r iod 3a Act.ivi l y f'...os!s Period 3R Ad d il i cma l Come 38.2.1 S 1 t.r Characteriz11 1 kon 3a.2 S ubt ota l Prriod 3a Addi I ione l Coet!! Pe r iod Sa Co llat er aJ Co.11 3".3 S ublot a l Pl'ri!Jd 3e Col l ate r a l Period 3a P\'riOO*Dl!'pe ndt>nt Coel.ll 3a.4.I lnsur 1 m ce 3a.4.2 Properl)' t10.:e1 38.4.3 llenl t h p h y1ics11 uppl ies 3RA.4 H ea\'Y equi111uen l rent.a l 3a.4.6 Dispoea l o f D A W T L G Sel'"vice1 , I nc. orr-s it e Deeo n R e m ova l P11.c k aJ1 n r T ran spo rt P r oeeul n r c. .. c. .. Co9ts c. ... C..u 2 , 772 68 19 2.772 68 19 2.772 68 19 *1.622 114 32 '"' 06 7 12 Tab l e D-1 Diab l o C an y on Unit 1 SAFSTOR Deco mmi ss i o nin g Co s t E s tima te (T h o u sa n d s o f 20 14 Dollars) LLRW NR C D isposa l O th er Tot*I To t11.I Li e.Ter m. Cos t s Costs Con t l n euc Costt Costs 12 , 363 1 , 823 1"', 176 13 , 664 4 , 824 712 5 , 63G 0, 63G 1 , 023 3, 795 3, 796 *1 44 2 11 2 11 7 , 4 39 1 , 647 9 , 006 9 , 0llG """ 1 , 1 0 7 8,609 9,718 1 ,-1 3.f 11 , 163 36 , 3-19 8 , CM7 H.300 14 , 8G3 3 , 2<.JO 1 8 , 16 1 103.874 22 , 095 12'\868 3 1 , 407 82.779 18.325 10 1.104 M.73 3 81 279 , 702 60.4 4 6 3-1 3.088 1 26.0-11 81 283 , 4 78 61 , 830 3-18 , 267 1 3 1 , 2 1 0 1 30 000 , 443 146 , 220 816.666 196 , 972 202 4 6 246 2*16 7 1 3 l58 871 871 . 166 3*1 1** 18 9 202 " 240 24(1 1 , 10 3 207 1 ,<120 1 , 4.20 481 106 587 587 776 1 72 947 947 630 141 ii6 776 1 , 1 43 203 1 , 3<.)6 1 , 2r..G 646 1 43 789 710 1 , 101 244 1 , 340 1 , 346 1,00ll 223 1 , 231 1 , 23 1 7 8 17 ., .. 481 107 69 1 69 1 2*1 8' "" 303 16 1 ., l*I "' 62 " 7 6 484 1 07 6111 296 713 1 58 871 871 l*lO 31 170 86 6 , 1 67 1 , 366 7 , 533 6 ,63 1 372 82 464 "' 3 , 000 004 3 , 004 3 , 004 217 4 8 20& 26& 2,300 509 2,809 2,800 19 1 42 233 233 1 6 , 5 7 3 3 , 669 20,2 41 19,339 5 , 234 2 , 3 17 7 , 66 1 7 , 661 U , 234 2 , 3 17 7 , 561 7 ,66 1 4 38 66 ro3 003 1 77 2 6 20*1 2<"1 100 627 627 126 692 otn 14 8 3G 3C Spe ntlu e l S lt.e P r oees , e d B u rill1 Vo lum e9 M anR (e m e nt RHto r a t lo n Vo l um e C l auA C l usB C l 11 uC c.. .. Co1 t 1 Cu. F eet Cu.Feet C u. F ee t C u. F eet "' 3.00* 1 1 , 1 63 .f-1 , 396 18 , 1 6*1 95 ,*1 62 -17.371 217 , 047 3 , 004 217.047 3.004 6 1 9 , 59-1 6 , 0.f9 "" 79 16 1 ,. 76 296 86 902 902 6 14 G T CC C u. Feet D oc u m ent P0 1*1119-00I , R ev. 0 App e ndi x D, P a g e 5 of 2 1 H url1"1/ U tilit y and Proeesn d C r aft Co ntr ac t o r Wt .* lbs. Man h ours M1 m h o 11 n G0 , 088 .. 1, 3.15.786 007.I M ll0,088 "" 2.2.J2.93f.I ll0.088 .. 2.2 4 2.039 1 00.98 7 1 66 6.3 26.676 1.:JOO 4,600 l.tlOO 1.300 7 , 600 3.1 00 6 , 000 4.096 7.370 4 , 167 7 , 100 C , 500 500 3 , 120 1.600 100 ... 3.120 1.600 000 39777 2.*100 1 , M.(I 1.230 72 , 7 00 25.000 it,412 25 , 000 9,4 12 1 0 , 287 17
"' :J" t> .,,. Diab lo Cun)'On Power Pla,.t DeconuniMloning Co*t Anu l y*i* Activity In d ell Actlvlt Dese r t lion Period 3" Pt>notl-Dependeot Collt.& toon1 i nlM!dJ 3" . .f.6 Plant energy
- a. .... 7 NRCFee. 311.4.8 Securi l)' SoiffCoM 3'1.4.9 Utility Starr Coet .... Subtot.a l Period 3a P e riod-Of:pendenl eo.t.a "'" TO'T'AL PERIOD &i COST PERIOD Sb* Decomnliulonlnc P r epnatlon1 J>r:.riod 3b Direct DecornmiMk>ning Acti vit ie1
- Detailed Work l)rore d ure1 3b.l.l.I Pla11Ll)*tteru1 3b.l.U! Reactor internal*
3b.1.J.3 Remaining buiWing1 3b.l.l.-I Jb.1.u; CRD bou.1np & !C l tube* 3b.l.l.6 lnoore il\91.rumenlalion 3b.l.l.7 Reactor\'ettel 3b.l.l.8 Facility cbloout 3b.l.l.9 Miniie1hie l tl1 Jb.1.1.1 0 3b.l.l.11 S1eam J b.1.1.12 Rein r orced oo n cre l c J b.1.1.1 8 M11in 'l'urbine 3 b.J.1.14 Main Co n dcnMn Jb.1.1.Ui Auuli*u*y building 3b.l.l.16 Re111."lorbuildin1 Sb.I.I Toh! ab.I S ub tcic.I Period 3b A.ct.ivily Co&l1 Period 3b CoUat e ral Cc.el* 3b.3.I Dtlcon equipment 3b.3.2 3b.:t 3 Pipe culling equipment 3b.3 S uhl:o t a l P e riod 3b Col l ater11I Cot ti Period 3b Period-Depend e n t Coet.11 3b.4.I Deroo lll l\Jl h et 3b.4.2 ln11ur111)Ce 3b.4.3 Propert)'
l*xe& ab.4.4 Health pbyliai 1upplieil 3b.4.6 Hein")' equipment rent.Al 3b.4.6 Disp<11a l ol W gen e:raled 3b..i.7 Plti.nl e nrf'ID' budfet 3 b.U NR C Fcet 3b.HI Secur it}* Sl.tl tr Coet 3b.4.J O DOC Starr Co.t J b.4.11 Utilitr S 1 arr eo.1 3 b . .f Subtot.o l Period 3b Period-Depemlent Uollll 3 b.O TaTA L l'EltlOD 3b COST PER I OD a TOTALS Ofl-Slte Removal Packastnc Transport Proceu ln c Cool Co" Com eo. ... eo." 1,(lU 12 1,(126 12 ... 1 , 100 942 1 , 1 00 29 '"' , .. 29 537 971 1 , 637 97 1 2 , 662 ,. Ta bl e D-1 Diablo Canyon U nit 1 SAFSTO R Decomm..is s i o ning Cost Estimate (T h o u H nda oC20 14 Do ll ars) LLRW NRC Obposal Oum Tot*I Total Uc.Term. Costs Cost1 Co ntln enc Cot t s Com 2 , 737 006 3 , a.2 3, 342 3 78 w "" '34 .... "'" 1 , 1 66 1 , IM 23, 187 28, l'U 9 28, 9 19 " "*""" 0 ,30 7 36, 31 3 36,3 1 3 J.J *19 , 669 12 ,383 63, 100 G2,2 0-1 73' 162 800 807 388 .. "' 473 209 .. 266 ** 1 66 34 , .. , .. 11 5 6 34 189 189 , .. 34 18 9 180 003 12 6 687 687 1 86 " 227 11 4 70 1 6 .. .. ,.., " 227 227 71 3 1 68 871 871 '" 3'1 189 0 6 242 " 295 242 64 2"6 423 ., , 6 1 7 ... 423 ** 617 ... ..... 1 , 107 6 , 106 4 , tr22 ..... 1 , 107 6 , 106 4 , 922 ... 1 , 161 1 , 1 6 1 1 , 406 ... 1 , 790 1 , 700 , .. 1 , 34*1 1 , 344 1.406 77C -1,28.1 4,28-1 11 ,. 3 9 ... 38 293 29 3 .. 13 102 " "' 3'6 3 16 .. .., 3-17 * " " 1 ,3 72 ,.,. 1 , 67 6 1 , 67 6 100 28 218 218 "' 1 06 579 679 G , 66 1 1 , 460 8 , 00 1 8 , 001 11 , 0:16 2 , 673 14 , 1 99 14 , 1 00 20,600 4,682 25 , 821 26 , 821 27,0'l l 6 , 1566 36,2 11 36 , 027 22 76 , 600 18 , 948 99 , 318 97 , 230 S)M'nt}" u el S ile Processed B uri al Vo lum e;, ltbn11Sement Rertou 1ll o n Vo l um e Clan A ClanB C l a ssC "°'" Cot t i C u. Fe et C u.Fut C u. Feet C u. Feet 614 002 6 11 00 l!l2 '" ., 296 , .. " 62 l,lM l , IM 2!'2 292 1 , 184 ""' 2 , 006 1100 OTCC C u. Feet D ocument POl-1119-001 , Rn'. 0 Appendix D, Page 60/ :!l Bu ri al/ U tilit y and Processed Cr art Co ntract or Wt.,Lb1. Manhoun '&hnhoun 1 3, 00G 268 , 62D I0 , 287 17 271 , (,64 10 , 287 2&, 017 363 , 779 47 33 2600 1.300 1.000 1.000 1 , 000 3, 630 1 , 200 *150 1.200 *.1100 1.000 1 , 000 1 , 600 2 , 730 82243 3 2.2"3 5.834 1 0 6.636 68 , 600 1:19 , 669 5 , 834 1 0 19-1 , 764 5 , 834 10 227 , 007 16 , 121 25.026 i>80 , 786 N :::,-:/" .,,.. N Diablo Canyon Power Plant D eco mm iHionin11 Co.a Analy*i* Ac tivit y l ndu Actlvltv Descrh>tlo n PERIOD .. a* Llirre Co mponent Remova l Period 411 Dtrect OecorumiNioninr Adi-fi t in Nudt*ar Steam Supplf Syal.em Reruovl!l l 4a. J. J. I Reactor Coo lant Pip1n1 48.1.1.2 PreNurize rqu enc hT8nlt 4a.J.l.3 ReactorCoo lantP11mJ)6&Moc.on 48.l.l..I Pre1111 uri ze r 4a.l.l.fi Sleani Gt: 1'6rttl o1"11 4a. l.l.6 ffclired Stewn Ce 11 er1t1..0 r Uni!.$ 411..1.1.7 CHO i\ll 1 fl G l 1&n*ioo Structure R e ruovol 4 11.l.l.8 ReltCtcrVuael ln lf!rn 1 d J 4a.l.1.9 Ve..el &: l nlernol* (.,T CC Di*poaa l 4 a.1.1.IO Reacto r Veuel 41.l.l Total1 JU.11KN:d o fM 1'JQf' E11uipment 4 a. l.2 M11m Turbine iUe neralor 4a.l.3 Main Co nden Joe n CMea tling Coe 11 from Ckit1 n Building 0.1.4.1 *Re acto r 4 a. l.4.2 Co nUiirun enl P e nctrt1tioo Arett 4 o. l.4.3 Han dli n g 4t1.l.4 Tc1tt1 l 1 Dlllposal of Plflnt Sy11em1 4a.l.6.I Aux:ililu)'Sl!!tlm 4a. l.6.2 S 1 e1un tRCA' 4a. l.6.3 Con dcnNJl.e Sy1tem 48. l.6.4 Con den&al.e 6y11em (lmula1ed) 4t1. l.6.6 Con tamm e nl Sp r ay 48. l.6.6 E:x 1rACt10n St ea m&. ll e t1l t>r Drip 4t1.l.6.7 F eedwt1te r6 y11 em 4t1. I .6.8 Fe.odwl!lt e r Syalt'ru (l n 1 ulateJ) 4o. l.6.9 F'u-t>dwr1t e r Sy1 l e m (R CA Jnsuln ted) 4a. l.6. IO Syatem <R CA) 4t1. I .6. I I Lube Oi l Di*trihuti o n & P urir lClltion 4a.l.6.1 2 NitrD(re n&l-I J drutten 4&.1.6.13 4a.l.6.14 N ltl"OIJt"n
& 1-l ydrove n (R CA In s ul ated) 4t1.l.6.l 6 Ni trogen&l-l r d l'OC'!n(RCA) 48.1.6.1 6 Oily Wat.crSeparator&TBSump 48.1.6.17 Salt.,,ot1l.er6y*
t e ru 4a.l.6.18 Turbi ne S1.e111n S upply 4a. l.0.1 9 Turbi ne Steam Supply {RCA) 4a.l.6.io Turbine and OenemWr 4.a.1.6.2 I Turbine an d Generator ti n 1 ulaled) 4a.l.6 T nt.4 11 4a. l .6 Sca ffoldtnll in ll Ul lJl(lr l o r deooinmiui c.ning 4a.I S ub total Period 4a A c tivily Co.1 1 P e riod *IA Additional Q:,i,i,, 4a.2.J Re m edi11 I Action Survey1 *l a.2.2 Retire d Reac\Ot" ll e lld *l it.2.S PG&E RPV S l llfTS up port Teo.m 4a.2.4 IX>C RPV Stt1!f Support T e am 4a.2 Subu.o l P1m o d 4t1 Addi l ional Col u P e riod 4a Col h1l e r a l Cul t 1 4A.3.J Jll'OCl'lll d ceo mmi llll ioning 111*ate r wa 1 h 1 4a.3.2 Pl'\.ll'f'N d ecom m1 n lvning cbl'mi ca l nu 11 h wm 1 te *la.3.3 SmAll tool olkiw1H IOI! *IA.3 S ulitotal Period *ht Cul lnl er nl Co8 1.11 TLG &rvicn, l" c. Tab l e D-1 Dinb l o Ca nyon Unit 1 SAFSTOR D eco mmi ss i o ning Cost Estimate (T h o u sa nd s o f2014 Dollars) O U.S i te -LLRW Deco n Removal Pacta.inr Tran.sport Proceulnr Disposal Cost Coit Co.tu Cosu Cotts Co1 ts 83 "" II 107 ... 1 04 393 393 : m 38 ll G 70 3.330 ,.. 0*118 U.9 1 8 20.545 2 1 2 ... 1 , 262 7 8 206 1.546 1** 278 708 293 262 "' .. 17 0 1 28 G 1 20 20 Ill ,. l llll 700 871 84 28 4 , l\8G 2 , 1 00 29.784 230 230 .. 7 87 370 2.260 :uoo 2'6 7.188 1.646 14 , 003 " 1.21 34 2 1 0 2l il *l<l9 " 1 4 , 6 7 6 263 263 27 4 l llll 11 0 1982 1: os2 26 l.I0 5 210 6 , 7 36 1 6 *17 la I 99 183 6 , 923 81 81 " " 1 , 181 I I>; l ,.f 3 1 760* 1 2,696 1 2.696 06 1 2 4 ,672 9.625 2 , 90 1 66 , 677 l508 1 , 506 420 22 I 8 1 1 32 3.1 62 *.836 " 72 , 437 l , 6 1 6 1 , 6 1 6 42 " Other "°'" 243 l!-1 3 ..., ..., 4 , 703 '*""' 4 , 11 3 1 3 , 086 Tota l Con tlna: enc ... .. <7 "' 2 7 9 17 .. 34 2 34 """ 1 6 7 .. 677 61 II 39 210 II 27 6 *I 72 66 41 176 1 , 0-48 19
- 3 , 527 82*1 64,000 2 , 082 6 1 6 946 9!0 4 ,663 26 63 78 Tot.al "°'" 2,21JG JO I 2,520 1 ,702 27 , 12 0 22 , 382 1.763 68.0 40 11.63 1 18, 3 71 1 5 7.025 268 .. I 1 ,6 4 2 .. 26 1 1 , 888 188 1 , 14 2 866 368 2 , 003 ... 68 2 14 800 " 1'7 2 6 I 14 273 "" "' ... 6 , 936 1 03 ** 14.60 1 3 , 007 177 ,689 6 , 780 2 , 474 6 , 2 1 4 6,0'.l 3 1 9 , 4 1:1 7 *7 29 1 ""' NRC ___
Li e. Teml. l!Ian1treme nt Cosu Cosu 3(11 2 , 520 1 , 702 27 , 12 0 22 ,:}82 1.763 68 , 0 IO 11 , 63 1 18 , 3 71 1 67.026 1 , 642 .. "' 1 , 888 1 ,1 .. 2 2,603 llOO *" 14 273 262 6, 936 11 , 000 17 3 , 0 .. 6 6 , 786 2 , 4 7 4 6 , 2 14 6 , 02 3 1 11 , 4 97 "' :!6 2 ... S li ii*-*----Pniceued___ -u u-ri1tTVo l u1n e5 Rettonllon Vo l ume C ius A C l u1 B C lt1u C GTCC Co*I* Cu. Feel Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet C u. Feet 208 85 1 188 ... ,.. 3: l< 68 2 14 147 26 242 ... 1 00 .. 3.636 2 , 270 '"' 4 , 70 1 2.4-1 3 *11.7 1 2 -1 1.03 1 3.88 1 2 , 632 9.63 1 J06 , 4:V J 1 , 836 II 1 , 6 17 80 " 202 .,. II 4t8 2 1.067 ... 00 1 798 1 , 6 49 60 1 708 1.649 D oc um e nt POJ./119-0 01 , Rev. 0 App1:11dixD, Pa1e 1of!J Bu rlt1I/ ProcH!ted C raft Wt .* u, ,. Manhoun 200 , 1 63 36 , 66 7 714 , 000 267.066 3.3li0 , 76 1 3 , 1 2 6 , (;29 1 46 , 49.f 402.868 330.307 063.812 9 , 667 , 685 111862 33 1 , 619 02, 4 70 *1 , 867 03 7 1 7 , 803 29 , 138 691'609 1.285 , 206 29,323 6 , G l*I ... 2,796 l , NH 20.008 ICl.800 5.232 2 1 633 21.63;1 90.114 3, 033 0 , 87& 11 , 6 96 70 4 I.H O 14.3*1 6 2.3 1 0 3,i l .. I0.67 1 4.367 3.63 1 4.IG2 706 2,066 1 , 703 llG 1.817 3 1 6 17 77 1..1 63 !50 1 2028 11.906 12.:.!03 1.244 *1 2"J 6 7.026 16.049 UliifiY4'-1iti Co nt rac t or Ma.nh o u ni 80 700 1.126 1.1 26 003 ... ... , 4,644 1 30 , 1 76 " 71)(! 1 , 649 1 0 , 972 , 11 0 200.3 4 0 6.067 29 29 6 , 072 6 , 072 8 2 82 322, 442 322 , 442 4 , 8fl5 4 , 895 66 , 8.'.16 2.000 &8 , 033 1 6 1 6 .. 41.862 6 ... 1 86 1 06088
,._, :::T J> "' D i ablo Con10 n Pow e r Pl ant D e co mminloning Co*t Anal.)'Si*
Acti v it y l od e s. A c tlv l t D ese rl tl o n Period 4111 PE'r.00.Depe-ndt>nLCoet.
<ta..4.1 Deooo 1 upph e1 4a.4.2 lnaur aDl'f! 4e.4.3 Prope rt y tau. 4A.4.4 H ealt h pby1icl 1 upp lie1 .. ,.,..&, 6 H U\")' equipment rentel ... ..&.6 Dil{>OU I of DAW generated 4a..6.7 PlanLenergybudget 4a..t.8 NRCFee9 4 11 , l.IJ Liquid fUtdw111le Equipment./Servk:leS 4tt..l.I O Sec uri1ySt11 rr Cost. 41! .... J I D OC Sta ff Chi t 4 a .... 1 2 Utili t y S l a ff Cos t "8.*I Su b l.otal P e r iod 411 P e riod-Depe n dent Coal.I 4a.O TOTAL PER I OD -la OO&'T PERI O D .. b. S it e D eco nt .. mln*t lon Period 4b Di r ect Deo:immi111ionlng Actirilies
- l b.I.I Rell"IO\*e 1pe nl f ue l racke 0 111pc.M I of PIAnt S y9lem1 4b.l.2.I Capi tal Additio n* st;..200'.l (d eft n) 4b.l.2.2 Ca pit a l A dd i l k>n1 86-2002 (ro n la m ina l ed) 4b.l.2.3 Chemica l & \" olunw Con t rol 4b.1.2.4 & Volume Co ntrol (ln!!-ul a ted J .. b.1.2.6 Cornpont'n l Cooling Wtt1 e r .. b.J.2.6 Componen t Cooli ng W11t e r (RCA) 4b.1..2.7 funpreaaed Air 4b.l.2.8 Canpre-1 Air On1ule1ed) 4b.l.2.9 Com pl'\'Mt'd Ai r (RCA l ruuhtted) 4b.l.2.IO Com p reeeed Ai r {RCA) .. b.J.2.11 EnJioe-GenerDl:or
.. b.1.2.1 2 Dtelel Engine-Gent>ralor On 1 ulat ed) *l b.1.2.1 3 Elect.ri c al (Clean) *l b.1.2.1 4 Elect.ric11l (Co n tam i nated) 4b.l.2.1 5 Elect r i c a l (Co n tam in otcd)
- P I-IB 4b.l.2.1 6 E l ect ri ca l {Deco n taminale d) 4 b.l.2.17 E l ectricn l {Deoo n t.a n 1i n ttt.e d)
- f'H B 4 b.l.2.1 8 Fire Protoo t km 4b.1.2.l9 Fire Prot.ection (RC.A.) 4b.l.2.20 Gn1P.O u1 Rad11*&1Jlc 4b.l.2.21 IW AC (Oe an ln1ulated) 4b.l.2.22 HVA CCClee.n) 4b.l.2.23 !IV AC (Coa lamin11ted IDAulated) 4b.l.2.24 llVA C (Con tamin ated) 4b.l.2.2 6 H V A C (Con tam inated)* FIJB 4b.J.2.26 Uquid R.3dwaate 4b.l.2.27 Uquid Radv.*aate (huul:Ked) 4b.l.2.28 Make..upW&
te.r .. b.1.2.29 Make.up Wat e r Ont ul ated) 4b.l.2.30 Make-u p \Vo t e r (RCA ln a u l ated) 4b.l.2.31 M11ke-upWl!ter(R(".,A) 4b.l.2.32 M111tt ll a n eo u 1 Reactor Coolant 4b.l.2.33 Nudear St e am Sup1Jlv Sampling 4b.l.2.34 Nuclea r S t ea m Supply Sampling On1ula1ed 4b.1.2.36 Re&id u a l H eat Removal 4b.l.2.36 Sarety l zUectiort 4b.l.2.3 7 Sarety l njeclioo Onaulllted) 4b.l.2.38 Sa&!)' l n jeelion (RCA l n tulttted) 4b.l.2.39 Sarety ID jec tion (R CA) 4b.l.2..&0 Se r vk.'f' Coo ling W ill e r <tb.1.2.4 1 Servke Coo ling W11 1 e r (R CA) 4b.l.2.42 Spen t F uel P i l Coo li n g *l b.1.2.4 3 Spen t f'u e l Pi t Cc.o li n g *!<'J IB 4 b.l.2 Tutttl s TLG Sen.i i c n , I n c. f..S it e o ... n R e mo v*I P*e k*stns Transpo rt P r-oces1 in1 eo .. eo .. eo ... c.. .. C..u 1 57 2.800 6 , 967 96 27 157 8.766 06 27 ... 38.789 14 , 94 3 6,0-IG ... "' 1 03 33 190 *1 36 38 1 6 1.1 36 148 6 1 "" 26 II '°" 6Z2 149 .. 181 6 .. 2 I 638 3< 13 18'i 12 2 , 227 6 7 3 "' 36 W 1 '" 6 3 , 4 8 1 1.M O 1 26 40 *"" 12 3 "' 2llO 28 II "
- 2 29 881 288 49 20 J.280 247 IO I ""' .. " 726 ., 34 79 ' 376 " 4 G * ' 237 27 IO 1 26 0 3 168 4 6 1 I 0 300 123 liO 11 0 1 6 7 6 I 0 42 6 ' 352 .. 21 12 3 30 4 ' .. <6 1 9 1 20 00 20 17 , 6 1 3 1 ,5 7 0 634 T abl e D-1 Di a bl o Canyon U ni t 1 SAFSTO R D eco mm is s i o nin g Cos t Es tim ate (T h o u sa n d s o{ 20 1 4 Do ll ar s) LL RW N K C S put F u el Disposal Other T o t*I Total U c.Term. lhn*s: e me n t eo ... Co s u Co ntln c u e Cosu eo ... "°'" .. 216 216 1 , 392 206 ..... 1 , 698 ... " 667 00 1 1 , 037 3, 84f j M-1'3 1 ,3 19 7 , 27 6 7 , 276 113 62 "" 297 i , 1 (18 1 ,5 7 .. 8 , 682 8,682 1 , 600 '" 1 , 804 1 , 804 1 , 026 227 1 , 263 12 63 ..... 673 3, 1 59 3 , 1 59 66 , 486 1 2.604 68 , 000 08.000 8 1 , 682 18 , 000 09.6 4 1 09.6 4 1 11 3 152.316 36 , 933 197 , 408 197 , 362 7 .. , IU8 Hl6 , 887 91.063 394.983 300.26 .. 1 ,066 ... 2 , 7 14 '..1 , 7 14 " 23' 494 362 1 , 336 1 , 336 1 , 927 1 , 1 66 '*""' 4 , 430 '"" :roo 1 , 005 1 , 005 ** ... 1 , 802 ... , 8 , 628 3 , 628 40 22 1 I ' " 1 9 " 78 "' 362 ..... ..... .. 2'9 3 14 493 2.720 1 , 1 24 6<7 2 ,"'6 2, 4 66 1 71 128 4 81 45.1 770 4 , 25 1 1 , 569 1 ,03 2 3 , 0 26 3 , 026 1 , 60 7 773 2 , 00 1 2 , 00 1 342 226 866 866 72 "' 220 °
- 36 , , ... 6<3 366 1 ,360 1 ,366 3, 2 14 1.7 17 6,666 6 .... 73 1 "" l , 5 1 6 1 , 5 1 5 1 , 072 G83 '*""" 2600 67 .. 208 208 83 460 ' 42 69 "' 14 9 14 9 33 2 216 8 22 8 22 Il l 00 336 339 121 1 09 412 412 .. " "" ** 1 , 008 '"' 2 , 820 2 , 820 %10 '" 476 47 6 ' ' 21 2 1 7 6 " 17 0 1 70 677 "" 1 , 497 l , 4 f17 27 1 00 65 33 1 2*1 1 24 002 , .. 1 , 0 1 7 1 , 0 17 *** 21'4 1 , 1 29 1 , 1 29 20 , 1 87 1 3 , 222 63 , 226 44 , l liO S h e P r-oc e.n ed B u rial V o lumes Re tto r*tl o n V o l ume C b ss A C lassB C I H!!C Co t ti C u. Fe et C u. Feet C u. F eet C u. F ee t l5C -t,2 18 "' 4 , 218 4.729 1 30 , 647 50 1 ,, .... 3,862 232 1 ,786 6,00l> 1 , 236 !?49 6,692 "' ' "" 1 , 622 229 14 2 , 720 4 , 06 1 6 IO 4 , 2fi l 6 , 670 6 , 800 1 , 23 7 ,., 36 466 2.32 4 11.6 1 6 2 , 65-1 3 , 871 '..I.f l 400 ., "' 1 , 100 402 "' .. 5, 793 769 80 "' 2., 44 7 1 00 '""' 2, 1 74 2 ,332 O , O'i6 72 , 065 GT CC C u. F ee t l.G 40 Docu m e nt PD l-1 1 1 j.0 0 1 , Re v. 0 Appendix D , Pa6e 8 o f :!I ll ur h d/ U ll li t y*n d f'roeeH cd C r aft Co nt r*ctor Wl ** Lb t. M*nh o un M 1t nh o i1n ... '"' 3G.G4J 52 3.1 23 1)2 8.l<tO 84.36G '"' 1.486900 1 1 , 383 , 81 0 2 69.427 1.008.00 1 234,?;3 000 2.830 1 08 , 808 5.963 424 , 520 1 6.520 75 ,243 6,600 3 , 0 78 407 , 837 8 , 6 14 2 , 744 "" ..... 393 92 , 770 7.1 99 2 , 760 1 78 32 , 770 247 , 4!".19 i.74G 37 , 72 1 2,200 4 9,54 1 3-1 6,563 1 5,003 36a , 9'i0 6.6 J G 75.373 3.808 1 0.963 1.0.fO .,. 6.0 1 6 l.U, 63 1 a656 707.889 J G.046 1 6 1.763 a796 236,137 9.848 1 4 , 718 1 , 0-1 2 5 , 6 1 4 621 1 2 , 8 00 69 4 73,0'iG 3.1 39 24 , 489 1 , 787 26,671 2,436
,, .. 363,0 70 4 , 438 46 , 248 ..... UMJ 80 16 , 67 1 ... 14 9 , 1 3f t 4.666 J , 81ie 1 2 , 1 69 400 1 3 2 ,5 1 1 1 , 208 1 42 , 1 03 1 , 724 4 , 44 G,392 244 , 4 96 N :,-:p .,,.. .,,.. Diablo C on.}'On P ow e r Plant D eco mmiMllo n in1 Co il Anal y ai* Acti v it y lnd ex Act l vitv D ese rt l i on 4b.t.3 &:*f'Jolding in 1upport. Q( dt>a.ommieeiorUng l>eroo.t.un inab.1a of Srte Buildinp <lb.1.4.1 ... """ .ib.1.4.2 C.pi l a l 80-2004 4b.l.4.3 Containment Penetration An!a .fb.l . .J.4 Fuel Handling .fb.1...i Tolal 1 4b.1 Sublolnl P er iod -l bActiv i tyCot!t e Period 4b Additiounl Costs 4b.2.l Li oe n tM T e nninalion S u rv e y Plannin11 4b.2.2 Remcdi11I Act.ion Swv ey1 4b.2.3 Llce.1111e T e rminulion ISFSI 4bJ! Su l ,tLoLaJ Period *lb Addi I iuna\ Coett PerKKl*ib Col la teralO...t.
4b.3.I Proce.. deo::mrruMtoning wute 4b.3.2 Prooe. decomminming chemical Outh w**te 4b.3.3 S mall tool allowanct' 4b.3.nlal 4b.4.6 Dispoea l of DA W vne rat ed 4b .... 7 Plaotene:rgybudget 4b.4.8 NRC J.'ees 4b .. t.9 Liquid Riid11*u1e Procets mg Equlpmen1/Sern
- ie1 4b."4.IO Securily Sl.-ffeo..t
- l b.4.11 IX>C 61arr QJl r. *lb.4.12 Utili t r St.-IT Co8 l 4b.4 S u h l-Ola l Ptiriod *l b Period-Dependent CoAIJI 4b.O TOTA L PER I OD .tb CO&'T P ERI OD <l e -De l1 y Uc:e n se T e n11in*t km Period 4e Dtrect Decommi11klo.ing Ac:tiv it iet! Penod 4e Coll1t1.e r al Cott.a 4<.3 S ub trui l Period 4eCol lauraJ Co.ts Pe r wid -l e Penod-Depe n de nl Cr.st.t 4eA.I ln1ur3ntti 4e.4.2 Propertr 4e.-l.3 H ea lth pby1ia 1upphe1 4e.4.4 Di1po111ol o( D A W gene rated 4 e.4.5 Pluoten<'rgJ
'budget 4 e.4.6 NRC f en .ite.4.i St'curitySlflffCo!c.
4e.4..8 Uti htyS1 a 1T C.OS t .... Subtotal 4e Period-Dependent .... TOT AL PERIOD 4e COST TLG &rvice*, I nc. O U-S it e Rir:m ov111 I Pac lt at ln l' Tran s port Process In t eo .. Co" "°'" "°'" "°'" 3, 299 22 l , Olli ""' 1 , 132 6,300 .. 2G 7 a ""' 17 0 " ,, 75.'l "" 60 " 2 , 007 3 , 689 1 , 221 6,364 2.64 I 24.660 2.976 6 , 038 1 2 1 " 121 IJ 15 " 37 431 100 " 1 6 431 172 ** 003 2 , 376 2 , 612 86 " ooa -1 ,981:1 .. 2*1 MOO 30,20 1 3,2*1 1 6 , 1(1 6 .. .. .. Tabl e D-1 Diab l o Canyon Unit l SAFSTOR Decommi ss i oning Cost E s timat e (Th o u sa nd s o( 2014 Dollars) LLRW N H C D l!pos a l 0th .. T ot a l To t a l Llc.T ir:rm. Cos t s "°'" Con l i n enc "°'" "°'" 38 1 , 236 4 , 001 4 , 00 1 26 , 38C 1 2,-471 ...... '8 , 068 BO .. 216 216 3 1 0 106 1 , 229 1 , 229 '4 3 1 , 0IO 3,04-1 3 ,0.U 2'.i , 22-1 1 3,90 1 62,647 62,6-17 -1 7 , 6H 29 , 207 113 , 087 104.0Jl 8*6 37.1 1 , 220 1.220 2.063 9'J2 a , ooti a , 006 4 00 l , GGO 800 3 , 001 3 , 00 1 4 00 ..... 2.1 06 7 , 226 7 , 226 1 03 GO 236 236 .. 626 626 258 1 29 <i6!l <i6!l 361 280 1 ,35.'l 1 ,35.'l 333 1 , 230 1 , 230 Ol7 91 708 700 216 32 "' 247 877 3 , 263 :l , 263 6 78 3 , 1 00 3 , 1 00 1 03 .. 269 , .. 2 , 486 660 3 , 036 73 1 1 08 839 839 ... 101 ... ... 1 , 14 6 '"' 1 , 300 1 , 39!1 1 2,208 2 , 702 14 , 9IO 14 , 9!0 18 ,633 4 , 10 3 22,m!G 22,63G 103 36,:.iatl Q,784 62,2 77 62,277 ..i8 ,"61) *Kl , 877 1 1 , 1 3 1 17 3.942 1(14 , 866 181 27 206 206 36 1 32 1 32 7 , .. 36 297 297 ... 2 1 3 1 , 178 1 , 178 1 , 3 1 6 291 1 , 007 1 , 607 Z , 7 1 9 607 3 , 428 3 ,-428 2 , 719 607 3 , 428 3 , 428 Spent Fuel S il e P rocess ed Burial V o l um es lt1.a n111ern en t Reno ratl o n Vo lum e Cla n A C l*ss B C hu 1sC O T CC "°'" Co*** Cu. F eet Cu. Fee t C u. Feel Cu. F eet Cu. Ftt.t 977 3 49 , 938 3 20 1 , 638 M6 , 0..i7 9.(176 1 32 , 8 3 1 1.777 I 777 200 6 , 667 6 , 666 3 , 6>0 3 , 830 Q,076 1 1 0 , 306 1 02 102 IU2 D oc ument POl-1119-001 , R n*. 0 D, Pait: 9of 21 ll url111l/ U t ilily and Proceu ed c ,o11 Co ntra cto r Wt., Lbs. M 1n h o 1'rs M1 nh o 11 r.1 '3.98* 2 3.924 33 , 2 33, 460 44,00 3 1 8 , Sil 762 113,Gf.IO G , 14 0 2IO , C84 20 , 266 38,606 , 400 72,00CJ 38.33 1.640 3-1 1.HI G.2<10 2G l 71 108.1 70 7.006 *119 1 1 08 , 1 70 32.1n I0431 11 , 971 39 300 , 000 .. 3 11 , 971 127 76 , 600 1 26 1 5 , 786 118.700 2 12.1 00 76 , WJ l:lfi :J"6 , C64 :iS,828.aoo 373,8/:l 367.086 2 , 032 1 3.286 14 , 880 2 , 032 28 , 1 66 2 , 032 28 , 1 66 N :::r 1> .j>. "' D iab l o C on ,10n P ow e r P la11t D e co nuni u ion i nz C o*t A nul.f9 i* Ac ti v it y Ind es: A c tivity De sc r i tlo n P ERIOD 4f -U ce n5e Termln11tl o n Pt>r iod 4fD i rect DecommWioniOf Acth-i l ie1 4(.1.l ORJS E co n firmftlory 1ul'\o*ey .f.f.1.2 T erm in alelicenae 4f.l Subt.ot.ft l Period 4 f Actfrity L"oett Period 4 f Additio na l Golt. 4[2.1 L ice n ll6 Te rm inali o n Survey "' S ub toto l P e r iod .If Addilio n al Coate P eriod <lf C'.0 U ote r 1 d Coet.1 4£.3.l DOC sta ff relocation expen11e1 41.3 Subl.ola l P e r iod 4f Colla t era l Coet.e Period 4f Period-DepeDdenl Colt. 414.I ln 1 u ranoe 4[4.2 Prq>ert}'tau t 4 (.4.3 ll en lth ph ytk:81 upplie1 4 f.4.4 Di!ipOl,B I o r DAW generated 4 (.4.5 Plauttmert0*
b u dget 4[4.6 NRCFee1 4'.4.7 Secu r i t y Cott 4 f.4.8 DOC Sta ff Colt 4£.4.9 Ut ili t y S 1 1: t1T Coe 1 4 C.4 S u b tota l P ti-r iod 4 ( P eriod-Dt>p e nd e n l. *1£.0 TOTAL PERIOD 4CO)ST PERIOD 4 TOTAlS PE RI O D :lb-Site R nt o r ation Pe r iod 5b Oirec l Dc-comn1iMioning Adivilie!
De m o l i t io n or Re m ai n ing S i 1.i Bui l ding11 Db.I.I.I *Rencl-O r 6 b.l.l.2 C11 pi tn l A d difo n 11 85-200 4 6 b.l.l.3 P eool r 1ttk>n Area O b.I.I A Mi 11ee ll a n eo u s 6b.l.l.6 Tur b i ne 6 b.l.l.6 Tu rb i ne Pede9l11 l Uh.L l.7 F u e l Han dl ing Ob.I.I TotaJ. Site Ckieeout Acti v iti et 6b.l.2 G r ade &: la n dit'npe 1ite 6b.l.3 Fina l report t.o NRC 5b.1 Subl.ol.al Pe r kxl 6b Activit1* Colla Period 5 b A d di t ionn l Coats ob.2.1 CoDCre l e Cr u t hin j!: 5b.2.2 Co ff er d am Const ru ct)o n a n d T e a rd O\l*n 50.2.3 So il I Se d i n1 e nt Co n t rol P i o n I Areli 5b.2.4 Demol i Uo n 11n d S i te Rt-t!l-O r atio n IS FS I 6b.2.6 Mi&ee ll a n oo u s Cone t ruction Deb ri 1 (o u t o r 11te l e d1spoeal) 5b.2.6 S<-r a 1 1 M e l a! T r a n tpo rl at i on (out of 11.0lf') Gb.2.7 FSSManager
.. S u btotal P e riod 5b Addi t kmal Coe1-1 P e riod 5b Collute r al Col t 11 Ob.3.1 SmnJJ t oo l allot1*ance Ub.3 S u btotal P e r iod 5b Col l ateral Costs T L G Se 1-v i cu, I n c. Off-S it e Deco n R em o v 11 I P A c kflr ln r T n nsµo rt P r oe eas ln r Co" Co" Cos u Co!lts Co m 683 G83 683 4 , 1 10 69,700 18 , UJ6 1 2 , 2 1 3 7 , 1 88 320 7:l0 3 1 3.897 1 . ..04 1.979 1 5.649 2.337 17.886 "' *1 78 1 ,366 1.642 S,93 1 232 232 Tab l e D-1 Diab l o Ca n y on Uui t 1 S AFS T OR De c ommi ss i o n ing C o s t Es tima te (T h o u sa nd s o ( 2 01 4 Do llar s) LLRW N K C S p e nt F u e l D bp o n l Ot her T o t a l Tot.al Li e.Te nn. 1th n ft(e m e nt Co!it5 Co!l ts Co n t ln e u c Co sts eo ... Co U!I 183 81 204 2G4 1 83 81 264 26*1 9 , 76 1 .J ,32 1 1 4 , 082 1 4,082 9 , 761 *1 , 32 1 1 4 , 082 J.1 , 082 1.466 324 1.700 1.700 1.4 66 3 24 1 , 7 00 1 , 71JO 1 34 20 1 63 1 63 262 936 935 G 24 24 412 .. 601 604 ... 67 623 623 713 1 68 876 870 6,073 1 , 1 23 6, 1 96 6, 1 96 0,462 1 , 207 0 , 069 6,6{;9 1 2 , 2 4 0 2,923 1 6 , 864 16 , 86 4 23,6.f.8 7 , 000 3 2 , 000 32 , 000 1 22,589 233,132 144 ,3 41 604,362 000,M8 1 ,69 1 8 , 179 71 "'" 162 892 7 37 """ 4 , 760 3 11 1.7 1 5 *138 2.4 1 7 3.442 18.99 1 "' 2.864 242 .. ""' 295 "' *l , 013 22 , 1 40 296 1 02 660 100 684 300 1 ,656 2 , 749 009 4 ,999 0,870 1 , 300 7 , 1 70 4 , 976 1 , 1 0 1 6 , 077 622 1 38 780 760 1 4 , 220 3,656 :!1 , 806 700 61 284 o l ,., Sit e P rocesse d B u ria l V o l um es R esto n tl o u V o l um e C l auA C l a 5 sB C IA u C GT CC Co sts C u.Fe e t C u.Fe e t C u. F ee t C u. F ee t C u.F ee t 336 336 3U 1 3,806 680 , 289 60 1 roll 1 ,649 8.779 39 1 802 37 ol.760 1.7 1 6 2A l 7 18.00 1 2.864 218<15 600 ... 1,656 4 ,91'9 7 , 170 6 , 077 21.0"6 , .. 28* D oc um en t PO l-111 9-0 0 1 , Re v. 0 App e ndi x D , Pa 1 e l O o f 2 1 H url ll l/ U t lll t y 11n d f>roc es H d C r11 f t Co nt r act o r Wt., Lb s. Ma nh o u n M11 nb o 11 n l 21J.300 3.120 1 26.393 3.1 20 6,698 11 9 , 82 1 46.760 GIJ,00< 6 , 6<J 8 11 11 3,636 8,1198 1 26 , 404 l l0 ,666 00 , 220 , 940 769,707 2,009067 67 ,9 1 4 3,672 6.563 2 4 9 38.GOO 11.300 16.760 14.f..95 1 Hi87 1.500 149.638 1.560 1 , 9 71 4,f>C H 12.839 20,443 .. 6, 1 48 39 , 267 5 , 228 Diablo Canyon Power Plr:mt Deconw1i .. ionin1 Co.t Ana l y*i* Activit y J udea Acti v ity De9 c rl Perkld 6b "'°nod*Depe n dt-nt Coe$s 6b.4.I ln*uunire 6b.4.2 Propert1* 1iu:e. 6b.4.3 He&\'Y equipment ft"Dt.1111 6b.4.4 Plante n er'llJ'b u dgel Ob.*1.6 Stic: u rilySt.ll ff COltt 6b.a DOC Sts rr Coet 6b A.7 Uti lil.yS t a ff Cos t Ion 6bA Su!Jlol.11 1 Pe r iod 6b Pe n od.l.)f:pe u de n t Collt.1 li b.O TO'l'AL P E RI O D O h cmr r PERIOD 6 TOTALS TOTAL CO ST TO DEOOMMISSION n-. Rll".mov111I Co ot Co ot 7 ,'"9 7.580 21l6.18 29.638 9.2.69 109.109 '.AL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACT I VE WASTE V O LUlt.E BURIED (EX C LUDING GTCC); OT AL O RF.ATER THAN C LASS C RADWASTE VOLUME G ENERATE[);
E nd Nole1. oftt
- m dh:ate1 lha1. lh it RL1.h d t y nol.c h a r ged H 1 1£.cun m lJ1111Q n111 g upente. l:l
- i ndi cD1e11 lh at th.i i nc1ivily 11e r fu rm e d b y d l'\."'Otllmifl8iuning 0
- i ndi c 11l cJ1 th a t thi 1 va lu e i1 le!.8 thnn 0.6 bu t h1 I W ll*'l.t'ru. 11 oo ll C1JO t ain inJ***i ntl ic t1t e111:7.t'toY a lu c TLG &,.vic n , ln c. P*c bslns eo.o 1 8.819 Table D-1 Diab l o Canyo n Un it 1 SAFSTOR Deco m missioning Cost Estimate (T h ousa n d* 0(20 1 4 Dollars) on.su e LLRW NH C Tr*n,Vort Proceulns DbpoHI Othe. To1*l T o t Ill U c.Term. C..u C..u Co st' Co st' Co nlin e n c c.. .. eo, o .... .. ... l , C80 9,"'9 6 78 150 828 2.3&3 619 15.13 7 3,361 , ..... 6 , 366 1 , I07 7,762 2*1,06 8 7 , 171 3 0.7 1 3 11 , 8 9<1 83 , 0 .. 2 l , OW 39.4 1*1 l*l.800 83.942 1.000 11.7 76 128.771 UOU82: 1 70 , 844 l , 861, 4 80 1,11 8, 92.3 Sl.831.<180 Sl , 118 , 923 thouHod 1 o f 20U dollsn '821 , 749 lh o uund* nf !014 dollan SH.77 8 t h o uHud1 0 ( !0 1 4 do ll an 608 , 09 .. C ub ic f ee t 1,8.&9 C ub ic F ee t 49 , 70 7 T o n i 1.0 11.81 8 Man-h o u n Spent F u el Sile Procesaed Buri111 l Vo l ume!! ltlana1"emenl Rest o rati o n Volume C ius A ClaHB Cltt.n C c.. .. Co*ls C u. Fee t Cu.Fe et C u. Fe e t C u. F ee t '°' 9200 828 2.8G I 1 8.488 7.7(12 00.7 1 3 82.887 82.887 8H.7H 98.7 7 8 804 , 79-t *** 798 GT CC C u. Feet 1 , 649 Documen t POl-J7 l g..0 01 , Rev. 0 Appendix D , Pa,1e 11 o f !I Burl111 l/ Utllity111n d Proc e!i nd Craft Co nt'l'"tt c tor W t .. Lb,. M*nhours Manb o un 32 , 28G 1 3'.}891 67 , 1 64 200.33 1 1 88.7 96 2<13.1 20 1 88700 243.1 20 6 1 , 1 2 0 , .. 80 1.013.818 9 , S8 6, 40.4 N :::,-1" .,,. ..... Diablo Can.10n Power Pforit D eco mmiuionin1 Co*t Analy.i* Act ivity Ta d u AcUvil De9 c rl tlon PER I OD 1'1
- Shu1down t h l'O\l(h Tr111n1ill on Period I* Direct Decomm1Mioning Acl1nl1e1 l*.1.1 SAFS'T(JR 1ite charad.l!'riution 1un-ey 1 *. 1.2 Prepare prdiminaJ')
- dttocn.miuion.ing coet. la.1.3 Notification of Ceuation ol'OiM!rndons la.IA Remove r ue l & souroe m11teria l 1 11.l.6 Nolificado n of Permanenl
[)dueling lD.1.6 lk:lld i\'ltl.e 1 1 l11nt 1y1 1 e m 1 & prooeN Wt1sl.e lo.1.7 Prepnre and 1ub1 n il PSDAR l tt.1.8 p l nnt ;lwp & spec1. l a.1.0 P e r fonu detailed r ad aurve)' l a.I.lo Estinlflle by-productio\*entorr l a.I.II End product dellt!ription J a.1.12 Oet.niledhJ.i
- J>rnduct.in\*enlor)
- l a.1.13 Deline major work .eque1K'e l a.1.1'4 Perfi:.rm SER and EA l a.1.15 Per'""1u Site-Specific Co.t Stulb* Act.ivitySpecifica t ions l*.J.16.1 Prepnre pllUll and l°acllitifti for SAFSTOR 1 11.l.16.2 PIAol1yttem1 l a.l.16.3 Plant atructutt*
and building*
l a.1.1 6.4 W1111ema n age m c nl l n.1.1 6.6 Jo'acilily und ai 1 e OOnnaocy l a.J.16 Tot*a l la.L.17.1 Pillot 1yll.f'm1 l a.1.17.2 F'.Olit7 elo.i!eout
& donnancy la.1.17 Tot.i la.1.18 Procure v1tCUum drying l)'tllem la.I.lit Drllin/de-eneryiz e non<0nt..
1ystem1 la.1.20 Drain&dry NSSS la.1.21 Drain/Ue-f.nergiie contami na ted 1y1t('m1 l a.1.22 Decon/!le('Un!I oo nl.ami n tt l ed 1y1tem.t I n.I Sublou.I Per i Ol'l l a Activity C08u Period l a Ad d ition11 I Colt.II 111.2.1 Spent Pool h 1o lati on l a.2.2 Dil)>09al ofContan1 1 nated Tools & Jo;qulpment l a.2 Subt.otal Period l a Additional Co.ts Period le Collate r al Calta 111.3.1 Enrironmental Permiu 11od Fen la.3 Subt.olM Period la Collttleral Co.ta Period l a Period-Depeadenl Co.ta l a.4.1 ln auranoe l 11*U Pn'.lfll',lrtylaxeti l a.4.3 H e11 lth phyak:s 1 uppli e* 1 11.4.4 H e11vy equipment reul*I lll.4.5 Dispw11 I o r DAW geoera 1 ed l a.4.6 Plant eoe rgy budgt>t l a.4.7 NRCFf!ff la.4.8 Emergency Planning Feea la.4.9 S1wnl J.'uel Pool O&M l a.4.1 0 ISFSI Opera l ing C.:.1a la.4.11 Sel-e r ance Re l ated C.0.11 la.4.1 2 Secu rit y Sta ff Co.:.lf!t lll.4.1 3 Utility Sta ff Coll Ja.4 Subt(l(a\
Pl!riod l a Period-Depende nt Cc:.8t11 l a.O TO T AL P ER I OD l a OOS T TLG Servicn, In c. Removal Packll&'lnr Tr*n9port C:O.t Co*t C:O.u Coou 219 1 03 219 10 3 ... " 13 1 ,002 13 1 ,062 232 I07 Tab l e D-2 Diab l o Ca n yo n Unit 2 SAFSTO R Decommi ss i oning Cost Estimat e (Thousands of 20 14 Dollars) CI-Si l e Ll.RW NRC Procen ln r Dbpoul Ot h e r Tol111I Total Llc. Tenn. Co9t.I eo ,., Co1u Co utl11 e n c Co1 t 1 C:O.u GOO "" 803 """ 86 1 9 106 106 . olo . 1 33 ,. 1 62 162 .. 1 9 1 06 100 . "' 16 81 8 1 06 16 81 8 1 J OO 22 I" "' "' " 81 81 200 .. 251 251 332 73 ... .... 326 72 ""' """ 277 6 1 !137 337 207 .. 203 2i>3 1 33 29 162 162 1 33 29 1 62 1 62 1 , 075 , .. 1 , 312 l , 3 1 2 "' 17 96 .. 80 17 117 ., I08 " 193 193 . 2,082 7"7 3 , 7tl8 ll , 768 J.1.4-4.2 3 , 173 17.6 1 6 17 , 616 2.835 1 , 093 uro 4 , 2ro 2 , 836 14..142 *1.266 2 1.866 21.866 949 209 .... 1 , 168 949 209 1.168 1.168 100 1 , 298 1 , 2911 177 "' 203 203 181 GiG 676 "' 69 1 60 1 1 6 8 40 "' 2.737 00 1 3.338 3.838 .... 122 IY ... 966 1 , 001 147 1 , 148 702 "' 907 .. , 120 007 415 , 943 1 0 , 093 66 , 036 '6 , 036 2 1 , 3 1 6 4 , 680 26 , 006 26 ,&98 29,883 6 , 060 36,448 88.448 " I0-&, 362 23 , 010 128,40U 1 26 , 68*1 2,860 1 22.736 28,27 1 I M,2W 11>2,476 Spent Fu e l S it e Proceued Bu rl*I V o lum es J.lan*iiement Rest o rati on V o lum e C l*n A CltH' B Cl*uC GTCC Co!t l!J eo. .. Cu. Feet C u. F ee t Cu. F ee l C u. Feet Cu. Feet 1 0.246 10 , 246 060 1 , 148 007 667 2.78 1 ... 2 , 78 1 1 0.8 1 0 Docu m e nt P01*1 1 1!1-00 I , R ev. 0 D , Po1e /lo/ 11 Buri*I f Utility *nd Proce H ed C raf t Co atr llCtor Wt. Lb 1. Man h ours Mu\h o ur 1 666 806 006 '28 '28 642 "" 1.327 2.uo 2 , 1 00 1 , 783 1 , 330 ... 856 6,036 006 .,. 1,020 43 1 6 , 36 1 62-1.946 317 624.046 317 11 , 200 1 8 286,786 346 , 229 11 , 299 1 8 633,0 1 4 oaG.2<14 330 648 , 376 N :i> n ::;,-CX> Diab l o Co n yon Power Plant D ecommiHionin6 Co*t Analy*i* Actlvil)'
lnd e.x Act I v i De1crl lion PER I OD lb-SAFSTO R UmJted DE CON Activities Period lb Dtrecc DeoommlANoning Decootaminllllion of Bu..ildinp l b.I.I.I *Reacto r l b.1.1.2 Auii.li*ry lb.1.1.3 C11 p i t11\ Addition*
86-200-t lb.1.1..1 Conta inm e nt P e n e trati o n Arel! l h.1.1.6 Fuel llPndling l b.I.I T ota l* lb.I 6ub 1 o11.1l Period I b Al..'livity Co.1 1 Perie.cl lb Ad ditio u.&1 C<'8U l b.2.1 Haurdctus Wute Meoegemeot J b.2.2 Mixed Wq(.e MllD llp!me ul l b.2 Subtot1l Penod lb Ad di tton11l Co.ta Period lb c.olla t era l Cost* lb 3.I Deco u equipment l b.3.2 Proce11 decomminiooing
'11*ater w allte lb.3.3 Prooen deeommiMk>nin1 ehe m ical nu 1 h lb.3.4 S mull 1 oo l 1 dlowa nce l b.3.6 Env1ronmenl1'1 P e rm ii* and Feet1 lb.3 S ubl oho l P eriod lb Co l la t em l Co.1 1 Period lb Ptriod*Dt'pende ot Cosl.& JbA.I Deron 1upp l iel lb.4.2 ln111re ooe lb.-t.3 Prqier1ytsxes lb.-tA Heelth pby111C11 suppl.ie9 lb.-t.6 H e11vy eq ui pment renta l lb.U D11pueal ur DAW lf\"De r a t eJ lb.4.7 Pl11.n 1 e ne.rio*budae1 lbA.8 NRC Ft>t>I lb.4.9 Emerge n cy l'lt1nmng t't"es S 1)tl nL Fuel Pool O&M Jb . ..i.11 ISJ-'S I O perating Cos t& lb.*1.12 Sec urity 8 111.IT CO&t lh.U3 U tilit l* Sta rr Co!!it Subtotal Period lb Period-Depe n dent Costs lb.O TOTAL PERIOD l b OOST PER.IOD J c-Prep1ratl o ns for SAFSTOR Oorm.a.u cy PeriOO k Direct. Oeoommiaio o ing Ad.ivitie.
le.I.I Prepare 1 up p o rt equipment f or l!Wl°ll:IJ'!
l c.1.2 TostnU co ntainm e nt preu u re equa l.111 1'!'.11 l c.J.3 Int eri m 1 urv fl)* p11br to donn uncy l c.1.4 Sec ure building acce1ees lc.1.6 Prep11re & 1 u bmi t interim f'elKJrl le.I Subtotal Period le Act 1 v i11* Coel* Period l c Collete ral C.0.111 lc.3.1 Procest decom m iuk.n i n g: walt>r Wll!!te l c.3.2 ProceH deoonuninkming chemical flu 11h w111te l c.3.3 Smell lool alk.wullN!
lc.3A En vim1m e 11t 11 I Pe rmi t.I! 11nd Fees l c.3 S u bloln l Pe.r kld k Co llat e ral C'..os11 Pe r iod l e P e rkMJ.J)cpe nd e nt Cos t!I l c.4.1 In s uran ce l c.4.2 P rope r1ytn xet lc.4.3 H ca lthphy 1ic911 uppli e1 TLG Services , In c. Removal Pa c k.afinf Tr11 n 1port "° "° eo.u Cosh 1,015 1 , 160 372 ,.. 731 3,6"3 3 , 663 .., 172 121 202 .. 1 , 114 .. 121 202 1 ,-468 ... 14 3 16 1 , 468 601 16 6, 1 36 661 1 00 '"' 601 " 663 196 1 3 7 23() 1"6 1 37 ... 181 Ta bl e D-2 D i a bl o Ca n yo n U n it 2 SAFSTOR Deco m miss i o n ing Cost Es tim ate (T b o u aan d a 0 (20 1 4 Do ll ara) Off-Slee LLRW N"RC Proctu l nf Dbposa l Other Total Tola) Uc. Term. Co1 1t Co111 Coit* Co llUn e n c Cost* c. ... '" 1 , 700 1 , 769 8'2 1 00'1 1 , 00'1 273 6.u'i 6<6 ""' .192 492 636 1.266 1.266 2,60 1 (i , 1 6 4 6 , ID*I 2 , 60 1 6.1 6-4 6 , 1 6-t 217 .. ... 2G6 287 "" 360 350 '°' 111 6 1 6 G 1 6 207 1 , 14 0 1 , 149 ... 396 I A 6"4 1 ,"54 1 3 13 73 239 ., 21!2 292 ... 2311 ... 2 , 008 2,008 638 2.t.00 2,006 286 42 3 27 327 ... " " 131 *1"" ""' 3 1 17' 17* 19 1 0 ** ** GOO 152 . ., 841 1 1 7 17 1 36 1 .. 262 3 7 289 200 " "' 1'18 "" ""' 6.373 1 , 180 6 , 663 6,00.'.I 7.6a2 1 , 656 0.18 7 D.1 87 1 9 11.63 2 3 , 873 20 ,6 1 3 19.812 683 1 6.3 7 6 7 , 263 30.260 29 , 1>49 110 .., G l2 11 "" 63 733 1.066 1 , 065 . 3() *17 " 772 452 l.17i 1.777 641 ... 1.662 1 , 602 I 6 231 61 282 282 6 41 23 1 WO 1 , ll*K> l , H<tO 276 *IO 316 31 6 .. 6 .. .. GG 247 2-47 Spe n l }"ue l Sile Proce,,ed Buria l Vo l umes )bnafement Re1torad on Volume C l as1A Cb"B ClauC GTCC Co1u Cos u C u. Feet C u.Feet Cu. F ee t C u. F eet C u. Feet 1 , 088 1 , 088 696 286 2.M 1 68 70 1 696 701 1.783 1 , 237 1 , 237 Document PO l-1 11 9.0 01 , Rev. 0 Append i x D , PaKe 1 3 o f !!I Burial/ U llll ty *n d Procened C r.Ut Coo t1 r111 c tor Wt. Lb1. Manh o 11r1 Mu1hou r 1 1 3, 166 1 6 , 86 1 6 , 1 00 8 , 9 1 7 0 , 81 6 4 7 , 8&8 47.BliB 66 , 200 212 66.200 212 1 3, 892 2 3 72 , 28G 87 , 260 1 3.89'.l 23 150.66-t 70.181 '8.003 159 , 564 3 , 000 7 00 8 , 6-t7 266 12 , 247 266 74 , 2 1 6 241 74 , 216 2 41 Oiablo Ca n yo n Power Plant DecommWloninR Co*t Anal:y*i*
Act i vi ty l ndu A ct iv i ty De1cri tlon Period le F't:riod*Dependr-ut Co.ti (continued) l c.4.4 Heavy equipment re ntal l c.*.5 D*poeal of DAW gt'aerated 11'.4.<: Pbm t ener113* bu dp t l c.4.7 NRCFee1 l c.4.8 Jo:me.rgeney P lan ning Fee1 l c.4.9 Spent Fuel Pool 0&..>..1 l c.4.1 0 IS FS I ()pe raling Co.t s l c.4.11 Senmmcellt!
l 11tl!dCo8t.
l c.4.12 Spent Pu e l Stor11ge Ct nilll c r sKh*erp11Cka l c.4.13 Secu rit y S111 rr Co.t l c.4.14 \llilityStt1ff C.O.t lc.4 S u bt.otril P e ri o d J c Pc riod-Dcpendenl C'oet. l c O TO T AL PERJOD l e CO ST PERIO D 1 TOTAIS PE RI OD 2a-SAFSTOR Dormancy wit h We t Spen t Fuel Sto r*r e Pe r iod 2a Direct Decommiu 1 onin1 Adi\*1tiu 2*.1.1 Q u a rt e rlylnapectaon 211. 1.2 Semi-rmn u 11 I e nvironment a l 1 un ey 211.l.3 Prtoparereports 2a. I .4 Biluminou*
roof re p!M:emen l 2 n.l.5 211.l Sub 1 o411 I Period 211 Acti vity Co9 t 1 Pe r iod 2a Additional Coats 2a.2.1 Se\'t!rHcfl Rela t f.'d Cu.111 211.2 Sublot.al PerMxl 2* Additk>nal er..t.. Period 2a Coll*teral Coe 1*s 2a.3. I Spent Jo'uel 'hana!er
- P ool t o I SFS I 211.3.2 Envirownent.11 1 Pennits and Fen 2a.3 Sub t-ota l Pt>r iod 2a Co ll 11tera l Costs P e r iod 2a Period-Depend e n t Coe t 1 2n..l.I l n t ur&n Cfj 2a .... 2 Proper l y t.ax e1 2 11.4.3 H ea!Lh phy sic* 1 up p li es 211.4.-1 Oi1po1alofD A W1f!nuated 2a.4.6 Plani ene rgy budget 2*.4.6 NRC F ees 2*.4.7 E mergency Plan.nine F ee1 b.4.8 Spent Fuel ISF'S I to DOE 2a.4.9 Spent Fuel Pool O&:..\I 2a..l.1 0 ISFSI ()pe r a t inr Coll.I 2a.4. ll Stturi t y SMffC:O.t 2aA.12 U 1ilit)-*Sta lf'C<.l 2a.4 Subtota l Period 2a P eriod-Dependen t Co.I.I 2'0 TOTAL PERI OD 2a <DS T PERIOD 2b-SAFSTO R Do 1TI1 a n cy with Dry Spe nt F u e l Sto r 11re Period 2b Direct Deoommi111ionin1 2b.l.I Qua rl er\)'ln&peetion 2b.1.2 Semi-an11u11l en v irotlJJtt'nt11 l
2b. J.3 Prepare ttporU 2b. l.4 B 1 t um ioou1 ru.l rep l ncement 2b.l.6 2 b. I Sub l t11n l Pe r i o d 2b .Activ it y Coetll Pe r iOO 2b Co ll ateral Coii 1*1 2 b.3 Subtotn l Peri o d 2b Co ll alern l Chi t a TLG &,.vicn , In c. o ..... Coo t 1 95 6 , 331 Remo v al P*<'kArlnr T raM port Cn1 l Cos t* Colt.9 1 38 3 1 9 877 140 231 ... 1,622 30 II 1.622 II l , 622 .. II Tabl e D-2 Diablo Canyon Unit 2 SAFSTOR D ec ommi ssio ning Cost Estimat e (T houund a o f 2014 Dollars) N R C S pent Fue l O ff.-S it e Pr O<'en lnr (;Q1h Other Co1t1 Tota l Con lin e n c To t al Co*t* Lie. T e rm. lbn*r*ment 645 .t.078 t6 4 6 007 '" "' 1 00 " u;,703 2.000 IU97 7 , 287 3 2 3'8 33.36 1 17J..172 ,.. 1 , 18 2 1.2!1 7 , 514 7.514 33 , 221 8 , 079 41.800 -U33 J ,!!10 4.608 2 282 6.08-1 .. , 6.7'3 *.063 17 3.983 26 , 600 230 , 693 280 , 728 1 22 3.963 3.780 30 2 1'7 17 3G " 29 a*oo li-19 1 , 1 42 1 ,60 1 7 , 1 58 8 , llO <13.634 433 "' 1 , 661 1 , 65 1 7,298 1 , 776 9,073 ... 22 1 *** " 1 , 023 33 1 891 191 I '81 1 , 022 38 , 22 1 5 , 62 4 60.:159 6 1 ,.12 4 27 1 , 3-4 1 l ,"'8 100 1 0 *** 1 30 280 236 1 03 I0.1 63 3 , 0IO 0 , 339 8.887 30.843 """° 220.006 . '" 1 , 6 1 0 1 , 00.1 ff 164 Y , 164 40 , 520 9 , 853 60 ,3 73 4 , 0U7 1 , 73 1 2.2 1 6 121 5.68 1 2.693 6976 1068 .... 6.675 212.206 31 , 2%3 282 , 670 343.8 70 . 14 9 ..... 6.1 53 Co1t9 1 6& 1 0 814 1 00 19.l lia 6.3.'ID 8 , 887 36 , 11 5 39 , 832 22 1 , 800 ... 1 , 6 1 5 1 , 003 lt.1 64 lt , 1 64 9 , 853 9,853 *1 , 273 1 ,73 1 2.2 1 6 121 2 , 8*0 2.003 9.002 1 , 406 30 , 843 5 1 ,623 ... 6 , 004 5 , 1 03 200 " 1 63 3 , Cl-19 3.7 27 3 , 727 7 , 210 ..0 , 520 <I0 , 520 69 4 2.8-40 6 , 976 1 , 068 8 , 225 5 , 675 202 , 6*2 23 , 817 20 1 , 82 7 292.347 S it e R nto r*tl o u ""'" .. C u. Feet C u. F ee t Cu. F ee t C u. F eet C u. Feet 138 1 38 1,375 1 3.007 1 , 717 1.717 1 , 7 1 7 D oc ument POl*l T J J-001, R ev. 0 Ap p e 11J ix 0 , Pa6* U o f :!l Buri*! I Procened Wt. Lbs. 2.765 2.700 76.97 1 79'l.300 3t340 3-1 , 34(1 3.1 ,340 C r aft Man h o ura 12 , 4 93 60 , 92 1 58 "' .. Utility and Co nlr*c t o r Man h o urs 00.929 84 , 42 3 154.36 1 1 5 4 , 60 1 962 , 631 2 , 39 1 , 265 ""'"" 2.675,2 4 2 2.676,2 4 2
"' :i> 0 ::::T (J'J 0 D i a b lo C a n yo n Pow e r P l a"t De co nm1i**i o nh 11 Co*t Anal y*i* A c tivi t y ln d u A c tl v l tv Deller! li o n Period 2b Pe riod*Depe ndt-11 1. °'9 1 9 2b.4.I l m1urnnce 2b.4.2 Pl'QJlf'r1Y taxet 2b.4.3 H efllt h 11bytict 1 u pp li t>1 2b.4.4 Diripoea l of DAW itenerated 2b.-U Plant energ y budget 2b.-1.6 NR C J.'ee1 2b A.7 Emergt?ncy Pllmning F eee 21.1.-1.8 Spent Fuel w DOE 2b.Uf I SFSI Ope rnting Cost.1 2 b.4.1 0 Spent F u e l 2b..S.l l Socu r it y St.o(f'Coiit 2b.4.1 2 Ulilit.yStaffCo&t.
2b.4 Subtotal Period 2b Period-Dependent Coett 2b.O TOTAL 2b COST PERIOD 2c-SAFSTO R Dorm a n cy witb o u1 S pe nt F u el S t orare Period 2 c Direct Dcooinmis.ionmit Activ i t i es 2 c.l.I Quarter l y lm lJM!Clit.o n 2c.l.2 Sem i*nnnufll l'nviro n m e nl.a l e un-e y 2 e.l.3 2c.JA Bitumi u ou t roof re 1 1 l acemelll 2c.l.fi ll h11 nt em in oe11 u 1 1 1 1 l ice 2c.1 Subtnh*I P e riotl 2c Act i vity Coroh Ptriotl2eCollateralC.OS111 2c.3 Sub t otal Pe.nod 2c Co ll a t ern l Costt Pf: r iod 2e Period-0.-.pen d en l Co9t11 2c.4.l ln t ur ence 2c.4.2 P rope r1 y t axea 2c.4.3 H ealthp h yaic1aup11 li ee 2c .... 4 DiriJlOllR I of DAW jft':nera ted 2c.4.6 Plant. e ne rgy 2c.4.G NRC J.'1"1*a 2c.-1.7 Sec ur i ty St11ITC0!!t 2c.".8 Utility Sta ff Goet "'" Subtotal P e riod 2e P e ri od-Depe ndent Cotilll "'-0 TO T AL PER I OD 2c COST PERI O D 2 TO TALS PERI O D 3a -R eactlv*l e S i t e F o Uow l nJ SAFSTO R Do r m*n cy Pe riod S a Dired. Deanmi.Mio oi nit Actil-itiet 3a.l.I Prepare prelimuu1t)
- d eoommiuio nin g et11 t 3a.l.2 R e, , e..,*plant dwg1 &!lpe.Cll.
3a.l.3 Perforin deta iled r a d 1 urv er 3a.l.4 Eudpro.Juctde ac rip t i o 1:1 3a.l.6 Dela i ledby-11roductin1
- euto ry 3a.l.6 De fin e n 1ajor work ac que oce 3a.l.7 Pt>r fi>rm SER and EA 31t.l.8 PerM-m Site.Specific Coat St udy 3a.l.9 Pre parelll ubmit Llfl'nee Tenninalion Plan 3a.l.JO Rtte iv e NRC *11 prov al of t ermination plan Act.iYit y Spec i fiea t io1111 3a.l.Jl.1 Re-ectiv.Mepla nt&l empo r 11.ryfacilitie*
311.l.ll.2 Pinnt 1yMe 1n 1 311.l.ll.3 Re acto r intern11.I!
311..1.1 1.4 Reacto r v eNe l 38.1.ll.6 BiolQti:ic n l s h ie ld 3 o.l.11.6 S 1 ea m ge n era l o r s 311..1.1 1.7 Reinfon:edcoucre l t> 3a.J.J l.8 fll11i11Tu r bine T L Q Se r vicH, fo e. Tab l e D-2 D i a bl o C a nyo n Unit 2 SAFSTO R Deco mmi ss i o nin g Co s t E s t i m a te (T h o u sa nd s o f 20 1 4 Do ll ar!J) Off-Sit e LL RW N R C S1 1 e nt F u e l D eco n R e m ov al T r ftn!po rl Pwc:ess lnJ Dbpo J R I Ot h e r eo,u T ot"I Co nlin e n c Li e. T e rm. Man*1eme n t {;o, t Co!r l CoJts Cott5 Co5 1 5 Co5 1 S Costs CoJts ll , fl83 l , 7 Sli 1 3.738 13 , 2'42 400 4.G79 686 0 ,'6G 6 , 361> 2 , 42& 888 3 ,3 13 3, 3 1 3 " J G 68 37 178 178 i , 2J G 1 , 686 8 , 80'.l 8 , 802 G , 7 4 .. """ 7.732 7 , 7J2 9 ,-127 1 , 381 I0 , 808 1 0,808 35.-182 7.795 4 3.277 -13 , 277 1 1.-118 3 , lt>S 1 7 , 586 1 7 , 586 38.783 8 , 620 47 , 304 47 , 30 4 l(Jl.474 22 , 292 1 2 3.700 29 ,{14:.! 93.824 1881 7 4.1 3 .. 22.061 22 , 96 1 2.425 67 1 6 G8 2 .. 53.227 30 481{1 91 , 52-1 2 1 3, 294 2.42 5 57 J G 68 262.811 5-1 , 695 309 , 0 72 OO , G78 21 3, 294 6 J 6 6 J 39 51 J OO J OO l*M 62 J 96 I06 438 .. '°' 602 1 77 26 203 203 92 "' 126 126 J 7 7 "' GG 334 33< 24 0 "' 282 282 93 1 205 \, l ali 1 , 136 71-1 157 870 870 ., 2.780 683 3..100 3,.1 60 92 2.923 630 M M 3 , 066 4 , 1 39 98 28 117 G36.482 11 6 , 66 4 667.497 151.866 005.6 .. 1 8G J 9 J06 J06 306 67 3 72 372 . 06 15 8J 81 86 1 9 J06 JOO *1 96 J I)!) 607 007 206 46 20J 261 33 2 7 3 406 406 272 60 332 332 489 J07 697 637 277 O J 33 7 304 47 J JO< 676 676 -1:11 90 626 626 33 7 40 40 20 7 " 263 263 J GG " J 3G 65 27 G 32 S it e Resto rati o n Cost' 00 34 60 3' Proc e!lle d B ur ial V o lum H \'o l u m e C h 1H A C l u 5 B C l ass C G T CC Cu. Feet Cu. F eet Cu. F ee t C u. Feet C u. Feet 2.1133 2.533 OG 96 96 4.3 46 D oc um e n t PO J-1 11 9-0 01 , R ev. 0 Appe11d i x D , Pa 1e 15 o f 2 1 B u r i a l/ Processe d Wt. Lbs. 60 , GOO 60.00J 50.00G J.921 1 , 021 1.92 1 SG.92 7 Cr Aft Prh uh o u n 83 ., 83 J'2 Utilit y and Co nt r 11 c t o r M11nh o u n 1 ,::IOS.:.!&O 220 , 000 1 626.260 1.6 26 , 250 W,rot.i 1:1 , a.1 a 2 1 , 379 21.379 4.222.870 66G J , llGll 428 060 3 , 210 1 , 327 2 , M O 1 , 7 53 3 , 154 1 , 783 3 , 031l 2 , 782 "' 1 , 33(; ... 17 1 N l> <> :T 1> Diablo Canyo n Power Plant D eco mmioionin1 Co.t AnalJ11i*
Ac ti v i ty l n du Actlvlt Al.1i*1ty SpeeirJCaliun* (eont1nued) 3a.l.ll.9 Alam Condenser1 Sa.1.11.1 0 Planl 8lructures
&. bu1lding1 Sa.I.II.II WMlt-management 3 11.J.Jl.12 Fac1lily&aitecloeeout 3 a.l.ll r ... 1 P lannin s & Site Preparation*
3a.l.12 Prepare d i1m11nt l inr .equence 311.1.13 Plantprep.&.temp.1 wc:ea 3a.\.1 4 ))efiign water denn-up De1c rl tlo n 3a.1.IU Risgh ig..COn t. C ntrl En\'Jp.tlooling/etc.
3a.l.1 8 Procurect11skalli o er1&00111.8iner1 3a.1 Subtotal P e riod 3a Ad.ivity Co.I.I Period Sn Additionnl Costs Sa.2.1 Site CbAracterization 3a.2 Subtotal P eriod 3a Additk.na l Cc.eta Period 3a Q.lla1era l C.ll "' Subtotal Perk.cl 8.a Collateral Co.ti Peri o d 38 Period-Dependent Co.11 3a.<1.I ln*urance 3111.<1.2 Prope11 y t axee 3.n.4.3 He1dth phy1ia s uppl ies Sa ....... l-l eev)' equi)Jlrn'Dl ren1al a. .... 5 Di*poeal or DAW gene r lMed 3 a.4.6 Planl.eMrm*budlo!f 3a.<l.7 N R C J.'en 38.4.8 Securit7 StaffC...t 3.11.U UtilityStatru..t
.... Subtotal Period Sa Periud-Dependent Cost1 3 ft.0 TOTAL 31 O)S'f PERJOD l b-Decomrulnl o ntn r Prepantlon 1 Pe r i od 3b Direct Decom1ni11ioning Acti\'itie1 Detai led W o r k Prucedurea S b.I.I.I Plnnt1y1tenu 8b.l.l.2 Relld.o r internal*
3b.l.l.3 Remaining buildiop 3 b.l.IA C RD roolior .-0 1b ly 3 b.l.l.5 CRD bou.inp & I CJ tubes Sb.l.1.6 l n ciore i n 9trwut.ntation 3b.l.l.7 ab.1.1.8 Facility doteout 3b.l.l.9 AU*ilfl*h6eld1 3 b.1.l.IO Biolotriea l 1h6eld 3b.1.l.H Steam generatc.n Sb.J.1.12 Re 1 nfoMed conerete 3b.l.l.I S Main Turbin!' 3 b.l.l.14 Main Cb ndena,r,r1 3b.t.l.16 A uxili ary bu1ldmg 3b.l.l.1 6 Reactor building Sb.I.I Total ab.I Subtolal Period Sb Activity Cmts Period S b Colla t t" ral U.l* 3b.3.I Deco n equipmenl 3 b.3.2 DOC '1 11fTrelocAtio n expe n eee. 3 b.3.8 Pipe culli n g equipment 3b.3 Sublola\ P eriod 3b Co ll 11tern l Cc.i.11 TLG Su'Vicn, l n-c. Remova l Pa c tu..inr Tran9port C..* eo .. C..u Co90 " " II 1.002 II 1.002 II "" 1 , 100 942 1 , 1 00 Tab l e D-2 Diablo C auyon Uuit 2 SAFSTO R Decom.mi ss ioning Cost Estimate (T housand s o( 2014 Dollars) IT.S it e LLRW NR C ProceHlnl 01,posa l Ot h er To tal Total Uc. Term. Co1t5 Cos t s Co1t1 Cou tln enc Co9tl C..u 27
- 32 ""' .. 263 126 " G7 372 372 .. 13 73 "' 2 , G.tO ..., 3, 220 2 , 834 1 66 " , .. '°' 3.000 ... MOO 3.600 "" "' 11 3 1 13 2.800 '°" 2.806 2.806 82 18 100 1 00 I0.1 26 2.224 12.3*19 1 1 , 963 6.234 2.300 7.6/W 7.53-1 6.2 S 4 2 ,300 '*""' 7 ,53 4 .,. .. "" "" 1 77 26 203 "" '"' "" " '" 00 1 00 1 13 7 34 3*1 2.7S7 00 1 3.338 3, 338 332 "' 381 ""' 946 ""' 1 , 164 1.164 l i.880 3, 818 21 , Hl8 21.1 98 13 22 ,0 10 6 , 06i 28,006 28.000 13 37 , 369 9,680 <17 , 978 47 , 002 "' 69 ,., "' 166 36 "" 202 00 20 1 00 27 .. 16 81 81 .. 16 81 81 .. " 81 8 1 "' 113 ,., " 80 17 97 ** 30 1 "' "' 80 17 97 91 ,.. 6'I 3 72 372 .. , . 81 *O '°' 23 1 26 1 0* 23 '"' 181 "' 221 1 00 181 "' 221 109 2 , J.40 <liO :!, 610 2 , 10 , 1 2 , 1.t() <70 2 , 6 1 0 2 , 104 207 1 , 149 1 , 149 l.4GG '22 1 , 787 1 , 787 242 1 ,3 42 1 ,342 1 , 466 i71 4 ,27 8 *l ,2 78 Spe nt Fuel Site Procen e d Management Rnt o r1ltl o n Vo lum e C l a1.tA C lu9 B Clau C GTCC Cosb eo. .. C u.Feet C t1. F ee t Cu. F ee t C u. Feet C u. Feet 32 126 ,. 366 386 .. , .. , """ .. , 38 8> 19 *IO 1 26 1 26 22 22 """ GOO D oc ument POJ-J 1 J 9-00J , R ev. 0 D , Pa1e 16 of !J Burl*I/ Procened Craft Wt., Lbs. M*nhours 25 , 000 25 , 000 9 , 8 1 3 1 6 9 , Gl3 1 6 \J , 6 1 3 2 6,0 16 U111ityand Co ntu cto r M an h o urs 171 1 , 336 1 , 969 ,.. 17 ,0'l4 1 , 027 ... 628 31.1 17 &, 412 9.412 1 3,036 200 , 229 2 1 3,26 4 263 , 793 2.026 1.070 678 ,,. '28 ,,. 1 , 66*1 "' 103 ,,. 1.009 <128 ... ... 1 , Hl8 1 , 168 1 3 , 800 01 "' D i ablo C an yo n Pow e r Pla nt De co mmiltsioninll C o*f A11a l.r*is Activity lnd u: A ct lvlt D esc d tl o n Period 3 b Period-Dependenl Cos t 1 3 b.4.l l>l'lron 1uppUe. 3 b.4.2 l n!-ura nct> 3 b.4.3 PJ"Ol)('ny taxe1 3 b.4.4 H et1 l t b11hy sic11 upplie s 3b.4.5 He t1vy 1M1 ui pm e nt rent.fl( 3 b.4.6 Dis posa l o rO ,\W genera1ed 3 b.-1.7 P I Hnt e ne r (O' b u d ge t 3 b.*l.8 N R C F ees 3b.4.9 Secu r ity Sta ff Co.t 3 h.4.IO DOCStalTCotit 3 b.4. J I Utility Slt1 fT Co8t 3b.4 S u btota l P e riod S b PcrioJ-Dependent Coats 3b.O TOTAL 3h COS T PERIOD 3 TO T AlS PERIOD .f a* La rJ" e Co mpon e nt Remova l P e riod 4a Direct Decommitie1c..nin1t Acth"ilie1 N u cle t1 r Ste11m Supply SJ*B l l'm Remornl 4a.l.l.l React.orC'-00 l anl Piping 4a.l.l.2 PIV!s ur i-wrQ u e n c hT a11k 4a.l.l.3 H e act or<Alo l a n l Pum1)S&Motort. .fa.1.1.ol Pre N urlle r 4a.l. l.5 Steam Gc u e rat o r 1 *ta.t.1.6 Re 1 iredS1 ea m Gl'ne.ratorU n it 1 4a.l.L7 C RDM 9'JC l1t/Se rv iceS 1 r ucture Rel'DO\'al 4n.l.1.8 RE'&etor\"eMel l otern t1 I* *l.'1.1.1.9 V-.1 & loterrud 1 GTCX: Dispw.nl 4a. I. I. IO He3Ct.Cor
\*eue l 4a.l.J Tot n l* Removal or M.Jo r Equi1)1n e nt 4a.l.2 Tutbin e1Ue nerator .ia.L.3 Cal!Ca di ng Cot.ti fr o m C lean Bu il ding De m o l iti<l n 4a.1.4.1 *R ette t o r la.1.-1.2 A uxl l iary *lo.l.4.3 Cot1 t ni nruc.nt P e.n c.l rot ioo A rea *la.l.4.4 RadwaeleSWrage 4a.1.4.5 Fuel H a 11tUing .. a.I... T ot.a l* Di9Jl(>lla l of P l ant Sy*tem1 .Sa.1.5.J AuxiliaryStet1.m fa.1.5.2 Auxiliary S tea m (RCA) *la.J.5.3 Comle n ante Sy s l e m 4a. l .5.4 Coude n s::i l e Srs l t m (l mrn l oted) 4a. l.5.5 Contai nru e.nt S p ray *l a.1.5.6 E:xt.r oct.icm S lt!tun & H e t1!.e.r Drip 4a.l.5.7 F'l'Cdw11 l.e r S y s te1n *111.1.5.8 F ee dwt1t.e r Sy tle m (ln1ulat f'd) 4a. 1.6.9 Peedwat c.r S)"Sl-t>m
{RCA I n s u l ated) 4a.1.6. I O Foodw a l e.r Syll.C m (RCA) 4a.J . .5.ll NSSSSampling 4a. l.5.12 NSSS San 1 plin 1 (ln11ulated}
4a. Ui.1 3 N ilrog.!n & H ydroti:e n 4a. l.5. l4 N it rowi n & H y drogen (ln1ul11t.ed) 4a.l.5.1 5 N i truge n & H y d l'(Jg'l<n (RCA l nn l fll ed) 4a.1.5.1 6 N i t roge n & H ydroge n (R C A> 4o. l.6. !7 O i ly W 11 1 e r &>11arnto r & T B Su mp 4o.J.6.1 8 Sa lt wa l e r 4o. l.5.19 Tu rb in e Ste11 m S u pp l y *l a. l.G.20 Turbin (" St.en m S u pply lRCA) T LG &,.v i ce., I nc. Tab l e D-2 Diablo Ca n yon Unit 2 SA.FSTOR De c ommis s i o nin g Cost Estimate (Tho u H nd s 0£2014 Dollars) O ff.S il e l.LRW NR C S p ent }" u e l D eco n R e mov a l Pa c k**lnf Tran s port Pr oce uinf Disposa l O ther Co!U Tott1l Co utit1 e n e T o ta l Costs U c. Term.. a.111.na a em e nt Co!i t Cost Cosu Costs Costs Cos t s 29 971 971 8 3 9 00 II !0 7 " 77 2 36 284 610 I GIO 327 33 11 6 70 3 , 330 335 1:1 , 2 44 6 , 744 20 , 197 2 12 coo 1 , 262 7 62 78 9 7 200 2.405 79 14 3 646 286 238 240 70 1 08 121 8 147 '3 20 I 9 1 06 31 188 7 94 ... 17 4 8 7 87 3 70 2 , 260 2 , 260 246 6 , 709 l,452 1 3,609 20 11 7 33 2 266 27 U)ti 11 0 1 , 982 1 , 982 26 7 0 1 210 6 , 24 1 4 6 1 3 104 20 1.1 8 1 1 60 1 , 4 3 1 700 12 , 696 1 2 , 600 60 1 13 , f.lfJ4 9 , 620 2 , 00 1 "6 , 000 200 1 , 4 53 41 6 22 8 7 8 72 .. 3,3 1 0 206 89 1.372 1 67 4 74 4.5 4(1 8.714 1 66 11 19.2 1 6 66.586 220 220 44 0 II 37 1 3 86 . ., 4 301 24 104 09 7 l,{'14 3 , GM .t.796 14.376 626 8 1 649 387 6 , 711 6 , 41 3 438 1 7 , 836 2,093 6 , 238 4 0 , 471 46 '"' 27i 1 67 17 21 46 628 17 148 142 63 646 "' 1 6 3 7 204 II 87 ,.
- 0 3 66 4& 41 174 1 , 699 39 293 I O'J 3 21 3 47 1 9 1 , 673 IOI 678 6 , 637 I0.62 8 19.72iJ 266 1 7 74.69 4 2 , 292 30 1 2 , 5 16 l ,091l 27.07 4 22.a.1 1.74 9 48 , 87 1 1 1.6 1 8 17 , 7 6G 1 36 , 22.j 258 849 1 , 5.W 930 .. 118 260 2033 llG ... 787 340 2.*199 293 86 200 7 87 41 331 72 " I 1 3 25 1 17 3 229 008 6 , 1 68 Co9 lJ 39 293 I O'J 3 21 347 1 9 1 , 673 1 9 1 678 6.5J 7 10 , 6 28 19 , 7 20 26 , 11 1 73.703 2,292 30 1 2 , 5 1l'i 1 ,600 :fi , 074 22 , a.1 1 , 7 .. 9 48 , 8 7 1 11 , 6 18 17,766 1 36 , 2 24 1.6.fO 980 95 118 260 2.933 787 41 33 1 72 1 3 26 1 17 3 G , 168 Sit e Ret to utl o n Cost! 802 258 8'9 96 7 87 340 293 86 2Q6 " 229 ... Process e d Bu ri a l V o lum es V o l um e C l a 11 A C l a H B C l a ss C G T CC C u. F eet C u. F eet C u. F e.e t C u. Fee t Cu. F ed 2 , 276 aw 4 , 701 2 , 4.f3 41 , 71 2 41.0: H 3 , 881 2 , 532 9 , 63 1 1 08 ,"36 003 G , 20 1 1 , 602 w 316 "" " 280 3 1 7 I I.BG-I 00 1 1.649 00 1 406 1.649 D oc um e 11I PD 1*1 1 1 9-00 1 , R ev. 0 Appelldi x D , PuJl e 11 of 2 1 B ur ia l/ Proce ss ed Wt. Lb!. 5.3 1 6 6.3 1 6 5.3 1 5 l-&.9 27 260 , 1 63 30.557 774 , 900 26 7.000 3 , 300, 76 1 3 , 12 5,629 14 5 , 4lM 342.784 330 , 307 963 , 812 9 , 09 7 , 6 1 1 55.0 1 2 320.048 9 1.664 4.819 1 9 , 17 3 1.80 2 834 15 , 841 19.300 729.1 7'i C rt1ft M a nh o un 2.5.02 4 6,6 14 600 2 , 706 1 ,50 1 "'"""' 1 0 , 800 5 , 232 l if , 200 19 , 200 85,44' 3 , 0 3 3 !), 875 1 1 , 8 96 7 , 0S4 701 6 18 1.746 223 1 7 1 , 17 9 1 ,008 9,7 1 0 4 , 25 3 3.4 2 0 3 , 625 1 , 038 2,5-17 1 , 695 8 1 2 , 1 58 642 300 1 6 7 3 1 ,3f H 4 1 7 2 , 770 1 2,007 12 ,.f42 Utlll1yand Co n tr 11 c t o r Manh o uu 6 , 636 1 2.874 1 00 , 389 14 9.799 103.500 4 1 7 , 39 2 80 700 1 , 12 6 1 , 12 6 000 <.880 --1 Diablo C on;J'O n Power Plant D eco mm ia.ion in g Co*t Anal.y*i* Activity l ndu Actlvhv De.scri do n DilJIOIJlll c;f Plan! Sy11em1 (l'(lll l inued) .. a.1.6.2 1 TurbineaodGenerator "a.1.6.22 Turbine ud Geoer11 1oc (luulaced) 4a.l.6 Total* 4a. l.6 6caffoldmg ifi 1 Uppor1. o( decomcruHioning 4a.I Sublolal Period .ja tJogu Period 4a Ad di tio n al Co6ts 4tt.2.I Re med i a l Action Su n*ey1 411.2.2 Hetlredlk11ctAJ r l-lcacl 4a.2.3 PG&Jo: HP V Sla ff S up po r t 't'e&m 4a.2.4 DOC RPV Sta ff S up port Team 4a.2 S u hwc,oJ P eriod 4a AddiUonul
<hill Period 43 Co U ateral Colt* *l a.3.1 Prooe99 deoon11niMioning wAter ll'Mle -la.3.2 Prooeu tlecumniNiorung chemical Ou sh wa1t.e 4a.3.3 Smalltool11i&owaDCfl
- la 3 Subtotal Pe r iod 4a Co llateral Costa Pt:rKid .ja Period*Dependcnl C.0.11 4 111.4. I Decon supp h ee *l a.4.2 ln!lu ronoe .fa.4.3 Propf'rt Y l llXH 4a.4.4 H e.I t h pby11icl l!IUJ'll l k-1 4a.4.6 lleflV)' equipmeul nm I.al 4a.4.6 411.4.7 Plant eoerg)' budget 4a.4.8 NRC fee1 4a.4.U Liquid RadwMte Procet11 1 ng Equipment&n
- K:e1 4a.<f.10 SeocurilyStnffU..t .ja.4.11 [)(X:S 1aff Cc>>t 4n.4.1 2 Ut ility St .. tr Cost 4a.4 Sub<<>tnl Pl'riod 4a PerioJ-IA-pendenl Coel.8 b.O TOTAL PEIU OD 4a OOST PER I OD 4b-Site Oeco nt an d11*Uon Pe riod 4b Direct Deoommi11kming lu:twilie.
- lb.I.I Re.n10\'e1pe.ntfoe lr ocb DilJlOlll]
ol Plaut Syllem* 4b. l.2. I Bu 1 kUng Se."icn (Non.Powe r mock) lb.1.2.2 Cnp ital Addition*
86-2002 (Ocen) *l b.1.2.3 Cnpita l Additioo1 86-200'1 (ctllltaminated) -lb.1.2.1 C hem6cnl&VolumeControl
.. b. J.2.6 Che mic8.I &. Volume Conlrol (l mufoted) 4b.l.2.G C'.crupc.neuc.Cooliu.a:Wat.er 4b. l.2. 7 C.C.npooent Cooling \Vat er (RCA) 4b 1.2.8 CuopreHed Ai r 4b.l.2.9 Com 1 1reued Air Ooeulttted}
4b. I .2. IO Comprefled Air (RCA ln s ul a led) 4b.1.2.11 Q.mpre..ed Air (RCA) <fb.J.2.1.2 DM!tlel Engine-Geoe.r 111tor .jb.1..2.1 3 Oieeel En&]DC'-f'..enerfllor 4b.1.2.J4 E1ec:trica l (Ck-1U 1) 4b.1.2.l ii Elenrica l (Co ntam i n11ted) 4b. l.2.1 6 Eledrica l (Contaminated)-
FHB .ib.J.2.1 7 Eledrial l (RCA) 4b.l.2.1 8 ElectriCl'l l (Rr'..A)-FH B 4b.l.2.19 FireProt*'dion 4b. l.2.20 fire Protect.ion
- lb.I.2.21 Cneeou9 Rl'l d wasle 4b.J.2.22 H\IAC(Cka o l nsulnted)
- lb.1.2.23 I WAC (lJl.,a n) TLG Se1-vicn, Inc. Coot "' 142 0 14 Removal Pa c tA&"ir 1 1 T r flnspor1 Co.st Co.su Costs 80 26 4 ,328 4 , 260 2S8 268 2,731 6,372 8 , 103 40 , 4*19 .. 7 437 ... 397 108 000 1 23 G 29 636 I
6,429 81 8 1 " 16 28 28 5,M*I 33 22 62 1 0 1 14 17 3 20 00 "
- Ta bl e D-2 D ia bl o Ca n yo n U ni t 2 SAFSTO R D eco mm iss i o n i n g Cost Es tim ate (T h o u sa nd s 0 (20 1 4 Do ll ar.s) NRC Spen t F u e l O'..S it e P roceu ln1 Cos e s LLR W Ol.1po1t1 l Coses O t her eo ... To t fl l Co n tln e n c Tota l Cost* Lie. Te r m. &1 1m aa:e.menl 6,710 66 61,766 1.610 urn; 43 121 121 63,.J.1 3 1 , 000 009 1 , 663 3 17 1 , 854 " 448 540 1 01 9 18 1 , 684 4S9 1 83 "" 4 269 *1 1 13 1 2.623 1 ,266 438 6 , 410 1.033 .,. 2 ,336 C.1.881 'i8 , 257 J.j2.63li 1 66,500 1 9 ' 3,40 1 1 , 683 4<'>,183 1 , 1164 6 11 038 904 *1 3 1 6 67 81 62 18' .. 1 ,000 1 , 180 .. 1 , 400 1 61 :!03 613 11 ,397 li ,192 33,410 83 , 00 1 2 100 429 ... 2"7 43 933 27 1 20 ... 31 715 327 76 "' 602 7 4 9 278 11 6
- 96 103 30 14 , 076 6 , 93 1 1 60 , 272 6.1 06 2 , 470 6 , 200 6 , (116 187 97 .. 316 "' 1 94 1.439 002 3,73 1 6 , 662 3 18 7819 1 , 184 1 , 1 29 2,800 63,278 \16,449 1 84,44 1 363 , 023 2.707 * ... 1 , 6-lO 3, 812 1 , 0 1 6 241 3 , 004 1 50 8 76 1 ,403 "' 4 3 , 972 1 , 262 287 2,394 2.80 .. 2,881) 1 ,066 4 ... 00 634 Co9 u Costs J0 ,00-l 6 , 93 1 IM , 092 6,106 2.470 5.200 5.0 1 6 1 8797 .. 283 381 19' l , 439 4 6 1 3 , 731 G , G62 3 16 78U:I J , 1 84 1.1 29 2,860 63 , 278 96 , 449 1 84 ,39 1 2 , 707 1 ,640 3.8 12 1 ,0 1 6 3 , 69-1 76 1.403 1 , 262 287 2 ,30-t 2.889 1 , 066 ... Site R"to r .. eio n C..** 100 30 3, 172 4 ,279 31 31 4 ,00 1
- 669 2*11 1 60 8 17' 4 3,072 2,3fl4 60 6"*1 Docume11 I P OJ-J 1 J J..OO J , Rev. 0 Appendix D , Page lB o f :!l P==d ..
Bu r l*I/ Processed w e. Lbs. C u. Fe.et Cu. Feet C u. F e.e t C u. Feet Cu. Feet 20 , C36 1.-14-1 1 00,6 1 6 l'i.072 5,072 82 82 4 , .. 96 (.10 , 1 66 3,M2 2 , 625 6 , 976 1 , 14 6 ..... 80 1 , 619 1 ,90 2 366 3 , 3 1 7 6,726 1 ,600 GOO 00 1 601 1 , 2L7.6 1 2 Gl,977 1 , 610 1 0 , 020, 1 00 322.-142 3 22.442 89.9 16 89 ,9 16 1.G*lfJ 1 1 ,33 7,300 23-t7i3 1 63906 361 1 37 00 , 872 6 , 193 90 , 002 118 , 983 22.229 202, 1 80 348 , 002 1 03.3 49 .0.203 Cr.C t 1 , 200 378 63,323 33 , 007 217 , 092 51,21H 2,098 53 362 16 10 147 1 47 270 , 007 ... 107 7 , 0-IO 5 , 777 1 3,445 6,26.t 2,981 8 , 218 1 , 88 1 .. 400 7,238 2,049 48 47 ,9 1 8 4 , 1189 1 , 340 27 ,!IM 8 , 1127 6,2fl4 3,643 1 ,644 662 7 , 019 U t llltyand Contnctor M*nh o urs 4,860 40 41.862 6 4.1 86 1 06.0 88 32,143 478 ,286 879 , 429 1 ,389, 867 U S00,825 Dia b lo C un yo n P ower P la ut D eco mmi Hion in Jl Co*f An u l y*i* A cti vit y 1.nde.x A c U vitv Dellcr i lion Dillpo11al o r Pl ant Sya 1 em1 (ronti nu ed) 4b.l.2.2<1 HVA C (Coulamina l ed lmi uhn ed) 4b.l.2.2G I WAC(Contamin11ted)
' 4b.l.2.2S HVAC(Contaminnted
). FHB 4b. l.2.2 7 Liquid RM.lwaat.e -lb.1.2.28 Liquid RadwHte (ln 1ulated) -l b.1.2.29 Lube Oil Di 1t r1bu t.k m &. P ur ificalio n 4b. J.2.30 Water l b.1.2.3 1 Make.up W 1tter (ln 11 uh1ted) -tb. 1.2.32 M ake.up W 11l e r (I WA I u s u l ut ed) 4 b. l.2.33 \Vo t e r (R CA) 4b. J.2.34 M ec harucal De 11artn1ent E<1u i pm ent 4 b. l.2.35 Mi&ee l lnoooua Re ac tor Coo l 1:1 nt 4b. l.2.36 Nuc l eur Sleam Su pp ly Samp lin g 4 b. l.2.37 Nuclear Sl u m Su pply Samp lin g (lna u lated *l b.1.2.38 Residua l H en t Remoo.*al -t b.1.2.39 Safot3* Luject.ion 4b.l.2.-IO S:ifot)' I Qjection(l n a ul:iled) 4b. l.2.41 SaJ'ety In jection (RCA ln1u l:ited) 4b. l.2.42 Sal"ety (RCA) 4b. l.2.43 Se n*i ce Coci lin 1 W11ltl r 4b. l.2.4 4 Sen*iCt' Coo lin g Wnter (RCA) 4b. l.2.45 Se"*c r Syr.t.e lfl Ex 11 a n 1io n *l b.1.2.46 Sp e nl F ue l Pit Co0Hn1 4b.i.2.47 Sp e nlfu e l PilCool i ng.fll B 4b.l.2 Tut1d 1 4L.1.3 Sca lJ o ldin g in aupport or decomm.iSt1io1.1ing Dero nl a m ii1atio n o r S i te Buildinp 4b.l.4.1 *Reactor 4b.l.4.2 A u J:.iliary 4b. l.-l.3 Capital Addit)l.)m 85-2004 4b. J.4.4 f'...oo t a inm t>nt Pen c lr ativn Area 4 b. l..t.6 Radwn!l l e S l oragt* 4b.l.4.G FuelHandling 4b.l.4 T otn l a 4 b.1 Sublol u l Per i o d 4b Activi ty 0:.91.1 P e r iod 4b 1 W dition&I Coet.a 4b.2. I Licc n te Te n11 im 1 tion S urv ey Pl anning <lb.2.2 Remedial .<\ctkin Su n"ey11 , l b.2.3 LiceD..!le Tt>r m i n 11 ti on ISFSI 4b.2 Sublot a l Period 4b Add i tional Co@.11 Period 4b Co ll:i te r al Cosl.8 4 b.3.I Proce H dcoon1m i1111ioning l\'ater Wll!l l e 4 b.3.2 Prores a decoolmiuio n ing che m ica l au llh waat.e 4b.3.3 Sma ll t oo l a ll owance 4b.3.4 Deoouuniu i o nin g Equipment Di aIJ(J@i l i on 4b.3 Sub l oln l Pt*ri OO 4b Co ll t1 t e ral Co!l t.ii Pe r iod 4b P er kJd.Depe n d e nt ClH C.a 4h.4.I De a: m a u p p li u 4b.4.2 l naura n ce 4 b.4.3 Property tax.e* 4b.4.4 H ea l th ph)'1k:I 1u ppli e<< 4 b.4.0 H eavy eq u ip m e nt renta l -lb.4.6 Dilpoe..*do r DA Wgen e r:iUld 4b . .f.7 Planl eoe.rgy budget 4b . .f.8 NRC Feea 4b.4.9 Liquid lliidw1t5te Equipment.1SeniN'1 4 b.4.IO Secu r i t y Sw.fT Coet 4b.4.11 lX>CSta fT Coe l 4b.4.12 U tilil>' S l ll fT Coet *l b.<I S ub l otal Period 4 b P e riod*De11 e nd e n c Co!i c a 4b.O TOTAL PERIOD 4b ms*r TLG &rvice*, ln c. D econ R emov al Pa c k 111i 11 1 Tra n spor l Co!it Co!l t Co!lts Costs 1 , 0 1 6 1 , 210 386 ""' 6 7ii 3 3,008 4 ,2 1 3 " I.MO 1 , ii*IO G , 768 2 1 7 004 216 "' *IO 132 205 " 33 1 66 I 1 30 20 8 281 1 16
- 39 323 144 37 *1 9 87 1 20 1 5,320 6,376 2 , 748 56 1 12 3 170 *16 746 -6 ,393 26, 1 56 12 1 12 1 .. , 46 1 2 , 733 3 , 2 32 G , OOG 32 , 703 173 37 57 3
- 23 122 16 I 6 G4 47 00 1 ,33 1 1 , 1 32 .. 9 24 3 .. 1 , 284 2,827 1 00 173 103 103 3 , 1 1 1 14 71 10 23 I I 0 00 19 21 " 6,300 7 3 14 22 13 13 39 " "' 29 29 6.171 T abl e D-2 Diab l o Ca n yo n U n it 2 SAF STOR D ec o m mi ss i o n ing C os t E s t i ma te (T h o u sa nd s o ( 20 14 D o ll a rs) ff.S it e I.LBW N R C S 1 1en t Fu e l S it e ProceHi n r D lspo1al Ot h e r Cos ta T o t11 I Coi 1U11 e nc T otal Costs Lie. Te r m. Ma o age m e 11 t Restora ti o n Cos u Cosu "' 2 ,2 60 476 7'2 33 G2 " 11 2 1 6 7 1.684 209 8 75 6 71 74 """ ... 1 7, 1 00 84 26.386 8 17 .. 310 27 443 26 , 877 4 6, 1 27 *100 400 11 0 , .. 368 123 123 46 , 1 08 846 2.678 I.GOO 4.ft83 763 200 3.07& 628 GOJ 1 , 4 1 3 22 , 899 33,0 48 62,66Ci 67.638 200 1 , 2 1 8 262 437 28 29 06 32 173 0 9 1 IJ 6 712 12 2
- 43 377 32 42 II 206 "" 11 , 12 5 2 ,3 75 12 , 3 7 6 1 ,3 41 367 402 33 1,003 16 , 622 29,863 3 71 1 , 1 3..J 803 2 ,30 7 IO I 128 2"3 -112 39 1.00 1 71 0 67 6 76 92 124 3 1 0 6,00 1 7 , 260 1 0 , 984 -1 8 , 4*17 ... 4 ,6 76 1 ,004 1 ,6 75 1 06 16 1 3 11 30 "'"' 2 3*1G G I 22 27-18 400 19 1 66 1 , 4<17 17 6 1 63 00 1 , 027 J,J.11 41'.i.422 8.11!11 47 , 003 3 , 860 .... 1 , 22& 121 3.03G 1>7,200 11 4,226 1 , 217 3, 710 2,000 7.922 1162 ... 1.401 2.I04 .,. ... 3 733 39*12 " 3.702 710 686 1 , 724 27 ,930 40 , 308 86 , 4 0 1 209.900 Co!i ts Costs Cos t s ... 4 ,6 76 1 , 004 1 ,f.i 71'.i I OG 12 2 663 346 G I 22 2 , 748 469 1 9 !BG l , H7 1 63 1 ,0 27 1 , 1 41 36,57 8 8 , 119'1 41,&63 3,860 ... 1 ,2 26 1 21 3,03G 67,200 101'.i,38 1 1.217 3 , 710 2,996 7.9 22 2&1 1162 ... 1 , 4 01 2 , 1 0*1 876 305 3.733 394 2 323 3.71>2 719 686 1.72*1 27 , 930 40.306 86.<IO I 20 1.1 06 IG l 3 11 ao 17 G GO 8 , 844 8.84-1 P r oceHe d B u ri a l Vo l umes Vo lum e C l11 H A C l 11H 8 C i us C GTC C Cu. Fee t C u. F ee t C u. Fee t Cu. F ee t C u. F eet 1 , 606 8 , 1 32 1 , 719 2.('83 12 0 1 66 1 , 066 406 69 25 5 , 726 767 3(1 270 2,427 ,.. 2,200 2 , 367 6 1 , 799 2, 1 00 34{1,ll38 6,6 1 3 1 , 0<17 1 , 838 476 2,951 36 1 ,863 4 29.68 1 1 , 777 1 , 777 211 G,007 6,878 *l.G!\3 *l ,6f J3 4 42.928 D oc u m en t P 0 1-111 9-001 , Rev. 0 A pp e n d i x D , Pa Jle 19 o f 21 B uria l/ Prouu ed W t. Lbs. 97 , 832 495 , 632 1 0-4.707 1 63,638 7,330 11.355 &4.346 24.76 1 3.666 1.628 3 48.913 -IG.1 00 1.826 UJ.433 147 , 899 16 ,409 134 , 0i!l 144, 205 3,700 , 486 9 7 , 466 33 , 233.400 462.994 9 1 , 174 14 3,66 7 42.1 64 2JO , G84 184 , 1 20 38,282.840 1 08.170 108 , 1 70 12 , 676 J00.000 3 1 2.6 7 5 9 1.856 91.856 38 , 700.040 C r aft Ma.n h o u u 2,660 6,697 """ 1 , 004 3 , 794 876 4 41 2 , 210 1 9 1 ,8 47 252 1 08 4.0 45 l , GO I ll8 Gl7 4,277 2 , 1 86 W6 7'16 1 ,266 1 ,72 1 2 1 4,8&3 H , 004 23 ,3 19 6 ,7&. &, 1 39 002 20.261) 10 1 , 986 367,447 31 , 1 6 1 7 ,000 38 , 1 67 41 .. 120 1 60 1 60 *1 06.883 U t il it y and Co n trftcto r M1ui h oun 6,240 4 , 1 9 1 10 , 4 3 1 1 9,636 209.42 3 368,83 4 61J7, 79:J 608.224 Dioblo Can,o n P owerP l a11 1 Df!:con1111inionin1t C o*l An.a l y.i* Act ivity lndu. Actlvltv De.!icri d o n PERIOD 4C-UcenHI Termina ti on Pe r klt.I 4f Direct Deoomm1Mioning
- .\ct1vitie9 4(.1.1 ORISE ronfirma1ory 1urny 4tl.2 Tenn.inate l ioenee . 1 r.1 Subl.ola l Pukid 4 f Actinty Co.ta P e riod 4 r Additiona l Co.a 1r.2.1 Liom11e Tem1 in*Uon Su rv ey 4 f.2 Sub l.ota l Pe ri od 4r Ad d ition 11I Coet1 P er i o d4r C.O ll ntc r a l Colill .. r.s.1 DOC1 taff re.locll t ionexpe n 11e1 *1[3 Su b wta 1 P eriod 4fCol l ale r a l Coeta Perioll 4C Period-Dependent O:iet.1 d.4.1 !DJJu.raoori .U.4.2 Property taxe1 4r.4.3 H eal th ph)*1ict 1upplte. <tf..fi.4 Dis)>09a l c.CDAW gene r ated *IC.4.6 P l ant ene:l"VJ' b u d&-et .. r. ... 6 NRCJ.'t'etl 4 f.4.7 Sec u rity S t a rr eo.t *lr.4.8 DOC S1.a 0' Coat 4 r.4.9 U lil i 1 yS t tt ff Co.t 4(... S u b 1 o1n l Period d f't>riod-Dependen t Co9t1 4(.0 TOTAL P E R I OD 4fOJST PERJOD 4 TOTALS PERIOD 6b-Sil e Res to rallon Period 6b Di r ed DecoomuMioniD( Ad.ilitle!I Demolitio n o r Remaini n g Sile B uilJ inp C.h.1.1.J *Rell\.1.o r 6b. I. l.2 At lm i ni u ral io n 6 h.l.l.3 A u x ilit 1ry 6 b.l. l.4 Ca pi la l Addili on1 8&.20().1 G b.1.1.6 Cbe m ictl l StQr11ge 6b. LI .6 C h lori n atio n 6b.l.1.7 Cin:-ul at in gWalerTun.nele 6b.1. l.8 Cold Machine Shop 6b , J.J.9 Comm un ication 6 b. I. l. IO Conde n ut& Poli*hi n gfT ec hnic::a.l Support 6b. I 1.1 1 Penetrntilin Atta 6 b.J.1.12 Dilc: h a r veStructutt 6 b.1. l.1 3 f3brk:ation Shop &ld 1.14 Pin Pump l foWMe 6b. I. l.16 ll na r do u 1 W*11.e St.omt1e Facilitr 6b 1.1.1 6 Int ake 8t r uet.u re 6 b I. I 1 7 M 1t i11 Le n 11nce SIM;p 6b. l.1.18 ll li 1re ll aneo u 1 S1ruc1 u rn 6b.l.l.1 9 NPO PennHe n t W*ttbo u.e 6 b.l.l.20 Pond* 6b.l.l.2 1 Portr.blePireP u mp&fo'ue l Cart 6b.J.1.22 Pre l re11t.111 ent 6b.l.l.23 IUidwt111tPStorav 6b. I. l.2 4 Rad w aa l e Storage P acill l y (Additiona l) 6b, 1.1.26 Rotor Warehou ee 6 b. l. l.20 Sec uri ty 6 11.1.1.27 Sec u rity B u i l di n p (Addi 1i o o al) C.li.1.1.28 Stt u.r i t y Modi fi i::ntiom (2010 lo 20 1 5) fib.1.1.29 Gb.1.1.00 S t ea m f' .... m e rat o r S l o r age fo'aci lit y 6 1,,.1.1.3 1 T e)e pb o neT e rm i n a l fi b.J.l.32 Turbi ll{' TLG &rvicn , fo e. Remo v al Pa c kA1h11 T ran 9pol'l C..t Co** C..u "°'" 002 902 90Z 6 , 282 74,065 17 , 492 1 1 , 7 00 7 , 1 88 1 , 1 60 6 ,{186 4 , 627 ' IO l , 2t.t m ' 926 7 30 997 1 29 ' " ..... ... .. 1 ,'68 2 I " 1 , 892 63 902 007 67 93' ... ... a 6 , 908 Table D-2 Diablo Ca n yo n Unit 2 SAFSTO R D eco mmi ssio nin g Cost Es tim ate (T h o u sand s o( 20 14 Dolla r s) O IT-Slte u.RW NRC Procenl o l Dltpo!a l Other Tota l Total Uc. Term. Cos o Co!t9 Co 11tt Co nlin e n c Co 9 t!I "°'" 183 80 2G3 203 . 183 80 26J 263 1 5.100 G,678 21.877 2 1 , 877 l t'>.100 6 ,0 78 2 1.877 2 1.877 I *1 66 3 22 1.787 1 , 787 IA66 "' 1.787 1 , 787 ... 20 1 53 1 03 330 1 ,233 1 ,233 ' ,. 2 1 .., 91 603 603 302 .. 3'7 "" 7 1 3 1 67 800 869 6,073 l , IJ.t 6, 1 87 6, 1 87 6,4C.2 1 , 198 6 , 6"' ..... 1 2,087 2,95£1 1 6,006 1 6,006 28 , 93'4 1 0,030 39 , 894 39.89-t 100 ,66 1 262 , 171 142 , 477 613.766 000 , 50 1 \,6 79 8 , 767 263 1..i oa 1 ,63 0 8 , 152 1 1 , 0 1 6 6,6'13 I 6 2 " 1.481 .. . .. I 6 200 ""' 1 00 89 1 '19 U1 1 6 ,. 1'7 7 " 1 , 242 6 , 89'7 87 *1 81 1 6 83 32.'.l 1 , 791 0 3 0 * * " 416 " ** I ... 1 , 1 00 8 1 448 1 3 70 200 1 , 14 1 .. . .. 213 1 , 1 8 1 I 1 , 298 7 , 200 Spe nt Fue l Site Buria l V o lu mes llaoa1ement Resto r .. t l o o V o lu me C J.s,A Cl*" B c1.,, c "° "°'" C u. Feet C u. F e e t C u. F ee t C u. Feet 33ll ... 336 13 , 206 ..... ,. 60 1 400 8 ,7G 7 1 , 40;J 8 ,62 1 6,6.13 6 " 1 , 48 1 '" 6 1129 891 1.716 167 7 " 6,897 '8 1 83 l ,79 1 3 2 1 3 2,307 o* 1 , 1 00 448 70 1 , 1 4 1 6'12 1 , 1 8 1 *I i , 200 GTC C C u , F e et J.6 4& Documenl POl-1119-001 , R ni. 0 Append i x D , Pa1tf!: :!O o f :!I B ur ia l/ U tilit y and Proceued Cra f t Contra c tor WI. Lb s. Manh o un Manh o un 200,468 8 , 120 200 , 468 3,12(J ..... " 9,82 1 "6 , 1W 50,00 4 6 , 608 " 11 3 ,036 6,6YEI 200,479 1 16 ,606 60 , 139,630 876 , 969 2.226,706 67,9 14 1 0 , 368 64 ,.7 1 47, 4 03 1 6 .. 1 2 , 1 9 4 3,78S .. 9300 ..... 8.3 21 1 ,223 "" '"' 46,364 3.4 44 673 1 4 ,093 " " 1 08 l i.86 4 002 9 , 938 3,li44 722 9,627 4 ,H H 8,888 ,. 57, 74 4
"' ::::r 1" 01 m Diablo Ca n yo n P owe r Plant D eco mmiHi o ninlf Co*I Anul yai* Act iv ity lndu A c tl v lt ne,cri tlon Demo l.ilioo o r RemRi oi ng Site Bu ild ine11 (eootioued J 6b.l.l.3;1 Turbin e Pedeeta l 6b.l.l.34 Ve hi cle M 1ti n1 e n aoce Ob.Ll.35 W 1U t e Water !fo ldi ng & Treatment Facility 5b.l.J.3G Fu e l H an dling Sb.I.I T ota l e Site Cl0800Ut Acti..-itiell 5 b.l.2 Gr a de & h:rnd 11e1:1µe 1 il.e C.b.1.3 FinHlre1>0 rtto N R C 5 b.I Sublotul Peri o d 5 b Acl.i\'ity Period 5b Addil.ionsl Colt.a 5 b.2.1 Backfill St ructu res & Concrete RemO\'ol (o ut o r e t ete di e1)0lal) O b , 2.2 Bren kw ste r De m ol it ion a nd RenKl'l'l'l i {o u t of e ln te di 11po11 11I) 5 b , 2.3 CofT en larn Co n s tructi o n and Teardown 5 b.2.4 Concrete Cr u 1hing 5 b.2.0 0 1 11po11a l ofGa l Le!llol S iding 6 b.2l> 0 1 1po11i ti o 11 c.f'-I OO U e Barrier* (o u t of et.ate d11poea l) C.h.2.7 Sol l /Sed iment Co nt rol Plant Area f.h.2.8 Demo ht k>n a nd Site Re1tomtibn ISFSI 5 b.2.9 '-l i9Cll'Jlaneu u 11 Co mtruction Debri1 (out o f e t ate tli 1po68]) 5b.2.IO Scr a J J M t!t.11 l 'l'r11n 11po rt11t ion (o ut of1111 u e1 5 b.2.ll FSSM11nagf' r 5 b.2 Sllblota l Pl'rio d 6 b Add ili onal Coe t-11 Period 5b Co ll a l Nlll 5 b.3.I Smell 100 1 11 llow&nC'I' 6b.3 Sublotal P e riod 6b C.o ll ate r a l Co:!!t.!! Period 6b P eriod-Dependent Coe te 5 b.4.I ln 1 u r 11DCe 6 b A.2 C.b.4.3 HtlttY)"e quipm en trenlel 6b.4.4 ene rlQ' budge! 6b.4.5 Sec urit y St.11fl'Cooet 6b.4.(l OOCSll'l lT Co!!L 5 b.U U tility S 1.a1T Col t 6 b .. 1 S ubtot ,u l P e ri o d 5 h P er iod.De1>e ndcnt Coe t e li b.O TO TA L PER I OD O b OOST PERIOD 6 TOTALS TOT AL COST TO DECOMMISS I ON l'OT COST TO DE CO M!.USS I ONW ITH 2.6.03** CONT INGEN C Y: AL NB C LICENSE TERMINATION COST I S 60.0 N OR: PENT FUEL MANAGEMENT COST IS 14.48" OR: ON.NUCLEAR DEMO Ll'fl ON COST I S 26.46% OR: Deeo11 Removllll
"° eo .. 1 ,404 37 24 1 , 079 .. 7.0 1 5 2 , 337 M.l ,3fi2 24 , 700 7 3.615 7 .,. l , 47 3 1 68 1.:lU 1 , 642 !0 3,<17 3 1 , 18<1 1 , 184 7,c.89 7 , 680 1 6 1 , 598 1 6 1 , 508 13 , 684 244,911 AL LOW.J..EVEL RADIOACTIVE W ASTE VOLUHE BURlED (EXCLUD I NG OTCC): AL GREATER TitAN C J.ASS C RADWA5I'E VOLUUE GENERATED:
End Notee: n/a
- i ndicat e" I h11t 1hi" activity not c h arged n& d cco mmi Hio nin g expe n se. a* i nd iC(ltefJ that. thi e Pct.h*ily pt>rfornMid by decommi Mi i o nin g 11t&IT. 0 -indkate s th 11t. thi 11 \'nlue i t leu than 0.6 but is non*ze ru. itct>lloonloining
"-" i ndi r nt ee 11wrovalue TLG &1-vicu , I n c. Packlllalna
"°'" 1 8, 11 4 Tab l e D-2 Diab l o Ca nyon Un i t 2 SAFSTOR De co mmis s i o n ing Cost Est i mat e (T h o u aa nd s 0 (2014 Dollars) Off.S i t e llRW N R C T r11n ,port Pll,)CH!ll D* Dl!!po!111I O ther Tot11I Total Lie. Term. Co!ih Co!ih Co!ll9 Co11t1 Co ntin enc Co!tll Co!lt!I """ 1 ,7 1 8 .. 00 '35 2 , 4 1 3 I0 , 3 28 57 , 3-t 4 5 1 3 2.800 10< "' 1 26 12 6 1 04 I0 , 860 00.320 126 4<1.417 1 5.18 4 8 4 301 1 68.6 1 3 6-t , 0 11 3062 81 I05 6113 3 2 0 1.806 "' 93 '" 472 141 780 298 l.G.S2 2 , 749 60 4 i, 995 5.8 70 1 , 290 7.1 60 7, 8 3 7 1 , 722 9 , G59 622 13 7 759 709 23 1.0 10 83 ,90 7 4 1 8 ,300 709 260 l , H4 200 1 , 44<1 4'0 6< 60< 1 ,00 7 9,256 678 ).19 827 2.3 4 3 0 1 0 2,8"8 1 5 , 137 3 , 3 26 1 8,*163 G,35() 1 , 396 7.76 1 2-1,1)53 7 , 11 7 a9 , 668 26G.06G 102, 1-1 9 519.8 1 3 ... 200.006 102.149 5 1 9.8 1 3 886 12,306 11 3.776 1.272.766 419.290 2.094,738 1,048,MO U.094, 738 thou 1an d 1 o r 20 14 dollan Sl , 048 ,88 0 t h ouund' of 2014 doll*n UU , 8U tbou1and*or 20 14 doll*" '633,026 th o u 1an d 1 o f 20 U dollar. 803,394 C ubi c F<<t 1,849 Cub i e F ee t 78 , 297 To n' 1 777 688 Man.ho urs S11eotFue l S it e Proce ,,ed Bu ri a l Vo l ume' !ol11n*ten1ent R estor*tl ou Vo l um e Cl11s,A C lo sB C lu, c eo,ts ""'" Cu. Feet C u.Feet C u. F ee t C u. F<<t 1 ,7 1 3 " 30 2,413 57 , 8 4*1 ""'° 00 , 194 84 , 30 1 306 , 28 1 6113 1.805 '" 780 1 ,66 2 4.995 7 , 1 60 9,559 *117.63 1 1 ,44 4 1 , 444 '°' El , 256 827 2,808 18 , otG3 7,75 1 00 , 6 58 5 1 8.928 5 1 8 , 928 611.86 1 6U,Oali 602.488 001 466 GTCC C u.F eet UWD D oc um e nl P01*1 1 1 9-00 l , R ev. 0 Appendix D , Pu 1e 2 1 o f 21 Buria l I Utlli1y111nd Proce,sed Cr11ft Co otr11 ctor WI. Lbs. Ma.n h oun M1111houn 11 ,300 367 , .. 1 6,'i60 *1 3!J , 079 4.587 6G8 443 ,G66 668 3 1.448 ,.. '°" U.l04 6.35!> l , HO 1 2.839 20 ,*M3 110 0, 148 3 70 ,9*1G 1', 228 3"l , 28G 1 36,89 1 G7, 1 5 4 236 , M I 81<1.61 1 2*12 , 227 814 , 6 1 1 242.227 6 1.033.880 1,777 ,668 8.070, 724 Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Anal y sis APPENDIXE Document POl-1719-001, Rev. 0 Appendix E, Page 1 of 2 ISFSI LICENSE TERMINATION ESTIMATE TLG Services, Inc. 2-AtchA-157 N I .-(") ::::r I ...... <J"1 CXl Diablo Canyon Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Description Decommissioning Co ntra c tor P l a nnin l" (characterization specs and procedur es) Decontamination (activated di s Dosition)
Li cense T ermination (radiolocical survevs) Subtota l S upp ort in g Costs NRC and NRC Contractor Fees and Costs In surance Proo ertv Taxe s S ec uri ty PG&E StaIT Subtotal Tota l (w/o co ntin l!e n cy) Total (w/25% co ntinsr e n cv) Removal Costs 243 24 3 243 303 Table E Diablo Caynon Power Plant ISFSI Decommi ssioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2014 dollars) Packaging Trallsport LLRW. Other Di s posal Costs Costs Costs Costs 423 15 27 981 55 1 557 15 27 981 2 036 160 1 58 11 8 282 36 8 1084 15 27 981 3,!l9 18 34 1,226 3,89 9 Total Costs 423 1 ,32 0 1 557 3 3 00 160 1 58 118 282 368 1084 4 ,38 4 5,480 Th e npplication of co ntin gency is consistent with the eva luation criteria r efere nc e d by the NRC in NUREG-1757
("Consolidated Decommissioning Guidance, Financial Assurance , R ecor dkeeping , and Timeliness," U.S. NRC's Office of Nuc l ear Material Safety and Safeguards , NUREG-1757, Vol. 3, Rev. 1 , February 2012). Note: The costs shown in this Appendix will differ from va lu es in Appendices C and D costs tables due. Thes e two appendices include n add itio nal continge n cyto achieve an overall project contingency of 25'!-o. TLG Services, Inc. B u ria l Vo lum e C l ass A (c ubi c feet) 3,555 3,55 5 3,555 Document POl-1719-001 , Rev. 0 Appendix E, Page 2 of 2 Person-Hours NRC/NRC Contractor Li censee Co ntra c tor Man h o ur s 1264 852 1189 5 14 011 776 3 803 3,8 0 3 7 606 776 14 , 011 7 , 606 776 Variance of the 2016 Forecast Enclosure 6 PG&E Letter DCL-17-022 Estimated Costs: Enclosu r e 6 PG&E Letter DCL-17 -022 Page 1 of 1 Forecast of 2016 per PG&E Letter DCL-15-044 , Enclosure 4 , dated March 31 , 2015, in 2015 dollars: Unit 1: NRC Scope (Radiolog i cal) Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel Management Unit 2: NRC Scope (Radiological)
Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel Management Actual Costs: $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Actual 2016 Incurred Costs, provided in Enclosure 4 of this letter, reflects the actuals for 2016 in nominal dollars. Unit 1: NRC Scope (Radiological)
Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel Management Unit 2: NRC Scope (Radiological)
Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel Management Variance: (Unfavorable)
Unit 1: NRC Scope (Radiological)
Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel Management Unit 1: NRC Scope (Radiological)
Non-NRC Scope Spent Fuel Management
$250 , 623 $0 $0 $241 , 031 $0 $0 -$250 , 623 $0 $0 -$241 , 031 $0 $0 Decommissioning costs were overspent in 2016 primarily due to PG&E's decision not to extend the operating license and began the planning process for decommissioning the two units. The costs for plann i ng the decommissioning commenced in 2016.