RS-13-064, Submittal of Updated Clinton Power Station Site-Specific Safstor Decommissioning Cost Estimate

Submittal of Updated Clinton Power Station Site-Specific Safstor Decommissioning Cost Estimate

ML13063A531
Person / Time
Site:	Clinton
Issue date:	03/01/2013
From:	Simpson P Exelon Generation Co
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Document Control Desk
References
RS-13-064 E16-1640-006, Rev 0
Download: ML13063A531 (131)

Text

r RS-13-064 March 1, 2013 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Clinton Power Station Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 NRC Docket No. 50-461

Subject:

Submittal of Updated Clinton Power Station Site-Specific SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate

Reference:

Letter from P. R. Simpson (Exelon Generation Company) to U.S. NRC,"Submittal of Clinton Power Station Site-Specific SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate," dated August 27, 2009 In the referenced letter, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) submitted a site-specific SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (DCE) for Clinton Power Station (CPS). Attached is an updated DCE that has been performed in accordance with EGC's normal practice of updating DCEs every five years.

There are no new regulatory commitments contained in this letter. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Thomas J. Griffith at (630) 657-2818.

VV Patrick R. Simpson Manager - Licensing Exelon Generation Company, LLC

Attachment:

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Estimate 1 RS-13-064 March 1, 2013 u.s. Nuclear Regulatory Commission A TIN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Clinton Power Station Facility Operating License No. NPF-62 NRC Docket No. 50-461 2000

Subject:

Submittal of Updated Clinton Power Station Site-Specific SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate

Reference:

Letter from P. R. Simpson (Exelon Generation Company) to U.S. NRC, "Submittal of Clinton Power Station Site-Specific SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate," dated August 27,2009 In the referenced letter, Exelon Generation Company, LLC (EGC) submitted a site-specific SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (DCE) for Clinton Power Station (CPS). Attached is an updated DCE that has been performed in accordance with EGC's normal practice of updating DCEs every five years. There are no new regulatory commitments contained in this letter. If you have any questions about this letter, please contact Thomas J. Griffith at (630) 657-2818.

Patrick R. Simpson Manager -Licensing Exelon Generation Company, LLC

Attachment:

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Estimate ATTACHMENT Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Estimate ATTACHMENT Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Estimate Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 DECOMMISSIONING COST ANALYSIS for the CLINTON POWER STATION prepared for Exelon Generation Company, LLC prepared by TLG Services, Inc.

Bridgewater, Connecticut December 2012 Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 DECOMMISSIONING COST ANALYSIS for the CLINTON POWER STATION prepared for Exelon Generation Company, LLC prepared by TLG Services, Inc. Bridgewater, Connecticut December 2012 Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisPage ii of xvii APPROVALS Project Manager Project Engineer Technical Manager William A.

Cloutier, Jr:Date John A. Carlson Date TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Project l'vIanager Project Engineer Technical Manager TLG Services, Inc. Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page ii of xvii APPROVALS CJ William A. Cloutier, Jr/ John A. Carlson Date Date 1/-:1;0 Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisPage iii of xvii TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTIONPAGE EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

..............................................................................vii-xvii 1.INTRODUCTION

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

1-11.1Objectives of Study ...........................................................................................1-11.2Site Description

.................................................................................................1-11.3Regulatory Guidance

........................................................................................1-2 1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act ......................................................................1-4 1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Acts

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

1-6 1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Termination

.................................... 1-7 2.DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES ..........................................................

2-1DECON ..............................................................................................................

2-2Period 1 - Preparations ......................................................................... 2-2 2.1.2 Period 2 - Decommissioning Operations

.............................................. 2-42.1.3Period 3 - Site Restoration

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

2-8 2.1.4 ISFSI Operations and Decommissioning

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

2-9 2.2 SAFSTOR AND DELAYED DECOMMISSIONING .....................................

2-9Period 1 - Preparations

....................................................................... 2-10 2.2.2 Period 2 - Dormancy

............................................................................2-112.2.3Periods 3 and 4 - Delayed Decommissioning

.....................................2-12 2.2.4 Period 5 - Site Restoration

.................................................................. 2-13 3.COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................... 3-13.1Basis of Estimate .............................................................................................. 3-13.2Methodology ...................................................................................................... 3-1 3.3 Financial Components of the Cost Model ....................................................... 3-33.3.1Contingency ........................................................................................... 3-33.3.2Financial Risk ........................................................................................ 3-53.4Site-Specific Considerations ............................................................................. 3-6 3.4.1 Spent Fuel Management ....................................................................... 3-6 3.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components ........................................... 3-9 3.4.3 Primary System Components ............................................................. 3-11 3.4.4 Main Turbine and Condenser ............................................................. 3-11 3.4.5 Transportation Methods ..................................................................... 3-11 3.4.6 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal ............................................. 3-12 3.4.7 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning .................................... 3-13 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page iii of xvii PAGE SUMMA.RY ..............................................................................

vii-xvii 1. INTRODUCTION

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

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

1-1 1.2 Site Description

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

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

1-2 1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act.. ....................................................................

1-4 1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Acts ......................................................

1-6 1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Termination

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

1-7 2. DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES

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

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

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 AND DELAYED DECOMMISSIONING

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

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 ESTIMATE ...................................................................................................

3-1 3.1 Basis of Estimate ..............................................................................................

3-1 3.2 Methodology

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

3-1 3.3 Financial Components ofthe Cost Model .......................................................

3-3 3.3.1 Contingency

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

3-3 3.3.2 Financial Risk ........................................................................................

3-5 3.4 Site-Specific Considerations

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

3-6 3.4.1 Spent Fuel Management..

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

3-6 3.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components

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

3-9 3.4.3 Primary System Components

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

3-11 3.4.4 Main Turbine and Condenser

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

3-11 3.4.5 Transportation Methods .....................................................................

3-11 3.4.6 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal .............................................

3-12 3.4.7 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning

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

3-13 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisPage iv of xvii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTIONPAGE3.5Assumptions .................................................................................................... 3-143.5.1Estimating Basis ................................................................................. 3-143.5.2Labor Costs .......................................................................................... 3-143.5.3Design Conditions ................................................................................ 3-143.5.4General ................................................................................................. 3-153.6Cost Estimate Summary ............................................................................... 3-17 4.SCHEDULE ESTIMATE

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

4-14.1Schedule Estimate Assumptions

..................................................................... 4-14.2Project Schedule

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

4-2 5.RADIOACTIVE WASTES .....................................................................................

5-1 6.RESULTS ................................................................................................................. 6-1 7.REFERENCES

........................................................................................................ 7-1 TABLES Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, DECON ................................ xv Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Delayed DECON ................. xvi Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, SAFSTOR ........................... xvii 3.1Schedule of Annual Expenditures, DECON ................................................. 3-18 3.2Schedule of Annual Expenditures, Delayed DECON ................................... 3-19 3.3Schedule of Annual Expenditures, SAFSTOR .............................................. 3-20 5.1Decommissioning Waste Summary, DECON ................................................. 5-3 5.2Decommissioning Waste Summary, Delayed DECON ................................... 5-4 5.3Decommissioning Waste Summary, SAFSTOR .............................................. 5-5 6.1Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, DECON ............................... 6-4 6.2Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Delayed DECON ................. 6-5 6.3Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, SAFSTOR ............................ 6-6 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page iv of xvii PAGE 3.5 Assumptions

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

3-14 3.5.1 Estimating Basis .................................................................................

3-14 3.5.2 Labor Costs ..........................................................................................

3-14 3.5.3 Design Conditions

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

3-14 3.5.4 General .................................................................................................

3-15 3.6 Cost Estimate Summary ...............................................................................

3-17 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 Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, DECON ................................

xv Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Delayed DECON .................

xvi Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, SAFSTOR ...........................

xvii 3.1 Schedule of Annual Expenditures, DECON .................................................

3-18 3.2 Schedule of Annual Expenditures, Delayed DECON ...................................

3-19 3.3 Schedule of Annual Expenditures, SAFSTOR ..............................................

3-20 5.1 Decommissioning Waste Summary, DECON .................................................

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

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

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

6-4 6.2 Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, Delayed DECON .................

6-5 6.3 Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements, SAFSTOR ............................

6-6 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisPage v of xvii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

SECTIONPAGE FIGURES 4.1Activity Schedule .............................................................................................. 4-3 4.2Decommissioning Timeline, DECON .............................................................. 4-5 4.3Decommissioning Timeline, Delayed DECON ................................................ 4-6 4.4Decommissioning Timeline, SAFSTOR .......................................................... 4-7 APPENDICES A.Unit Cost Factor Development

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

A-i B.Unit Cost Factor Listing ......................................................................................

B-1 C.Detailed Cost Analysis, DECON

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

C-1 D.Detailed Cost Analysis, Delayed DECON ........................................................... D-1 E.Detailed Cost Analysis, SAFSTOR

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

E-1 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

FIGURES Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page v of xvii PAGE 4.1 Activity Schedule ..............................................................................................

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

4-5 4.3 Decommissioning Timeline, Delayed DECON ................................................

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

4-7 APPENDICES A. Unit Cost Factor Development

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

A-I B. Unit Cost Factor Listing ......................................................................................

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

C-l D. Detailed Cost Analysis, Delayed DECON ...........................................................

D-l E. Detailed Cost Analysis, SAFSTOR ......................................................................

E-l TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost AnalysisDocument E16

-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page vi of xvii REVISION LOG TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis I No. Date 0 12-03-2012 TLG Services, Inc. REVISION LOG Item Revised Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page vi of xvii Reason for Revision Original Issue Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisPage vii of xvii EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

This report presents estimates of the cost to decommission the Clinton Power Station (Clinton) for the identified decommissioning scenarios following a scheduledcessation of plant operations. The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information, developed in an evaluation in 2007111 for AmerGen Energy, LLC, and updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of the nuclear unit and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects. In 2008, the operating license was amended to reflect Exelon Generating Company, LLC (Exelon) as the licensee authorized to own and operate the station. Therefore, the updated estimates are designed to provide Exelon with sufficient information to assess their financial obligations, as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear station.

The primary goal of the decommissioning is the removal and disposal of the contaminated systems and structures so that the plant's operating license can be terminated. The analysis recognizes that spent fuel will be stored at the site in the fuel building's storage pool and/or in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) until such time that it can be transferred to a Department of Energy (DOE) facility.Consequently, the estimates also include those costs to manage and subsequently decommission these storage facilities.

The estimates are based on numerous fundamental assumptions, includingregulatory requirements, project contingencies, low-level radioactive waste disposal practices, high-level radioactive waste management options, and site restoration requirements.

The estimates incorporate a minimum cooling period ofapproximately five and one-half years for the spent fuel that resides in the fuel building's storage pool when operations cease. In the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios, any residual fuel remaining in the pool after the cooling period is relocated to the ISFSI to await transfer to a DOE facility (the fuel is assumed to remain in the storage pool for the Delayed DECON scenario and transferred directly from the pool to an off-site DOE facility). The estimates also include the dismantling of non-essential structures and limited restoration of the site.

Alternatives and RegulationsThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) provided initial decommissioning requirements in its rule adopted on June 27, 1988.[21 In this rule,"Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Clinton Power Station," Document No. E16-1555-005, Rev.

0, TLG Services, Inc., October 2007 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 "General Requirements for TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis EXECUTIVE

SUMMARY

Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page vii of xvii This report presents estimates of the cost to decommission the Clinton Power Station (Clinton) for the identified decommissioning scenarios following a scheduled cessation of plant operations.

The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information, developed in an evaluation in 2007[1] for AmerGen Energy, LLC, and updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of the nuclear unit and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects.

In 2008, the operating license was amended to reflect Exelon Generating Company, LLC (Exelon) as the licensee authorized to own and operate the station. Therefore, the updated estimates are designed to provide Exelon with sufficient information to assess their financial obligations, as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear station. The primary goal of the decommissioning is the removal and disposal of the contaminated systems and structures so that the plant's operating license can be terminated.

The analysis recognizes that spent fuel will be stored at the site in the fuel building's storage pool and/or in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) until such time that it can be transferred to a Department of Energy (DOE) facility.

Consequently, the estimates also include those costs to manage and subsequently decommission these storage facilities.

The estimates 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 estimates incorporate a mmImum cooling period of approximately five and one-half years for the spent fuel that resides in the fuel building's storage pool when operations cease. In the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios, any residual fuel remaining in the pool after the cooling period is relocated to the ISFSI to await transfer to a DOE facility (the fuel is assumed to remain in the storage pool for the Delayed DECON scenario and transferred directly from the pool to an off-site DOE facility).

The estimates also include the dismantling of non-essential structures and limited restoration of the site. Alternatives and Regulations The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) provided initial decommissioning requirements in its rule adopted on June 27, 1988,[2] In this rule, "Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Clinton Power Station," Document No. E16-1555-005, Rev. 0, TLG Services, Inc., October 2007 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 "General Requirements for TLG Services, Inc.

3 4 Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisPage viii of xvii the NRC set forth financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear power facilities.

The regulations addressed planning needs, timing, funding methods, and environmental review requirements for decommissioning. The rule also defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC: DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB.

DECON is defined as "the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations."[3]

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."[41 Decommissioning is to be completed within 60 years, although longer time periods will be considered when necessary to protect public health and safety.

ENTOMB is defined as "the alternative in which radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete; the entombed structure is appropriately maintained and continued surveillance is carried out until the radioactive material decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property." [5} As with the SAFSTOR alternative, decommissioning is currently required to be completed within 60 years.

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 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.

Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 53, Number 123 (p 24018 et seq.), June 27, 1988 Ibid. Page FR24022, Column 3 Ibid.Ibid. Page FR24023, Column 2 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page viii of xvii the NRC set forth financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear power facilities.

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

The rule also defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC: DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB. DECON is defined as "the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations.

"[3] 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. "[4] Decommissioning is to be completed within 60 years, although longer time periods will be considered when necessary to protect public health and safety. ENTOMB is defined as "the alternative in which radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete; the entombed structure is appropriately maintained and continued surveillance is carried out until the radioactive material decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property."[5]

As with the SAFSTOR alternative, decommissioning is currently required to be completed within 60 years. 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, rule making has been 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.

Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 53, Number 123 (p 24018 et seq.), June 27, 1988 Ibid. Page FR24022, Column 3 4 Ibid. Ibid. Page FR24023, Column 2 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisPage ix of xvii In 1996, the NRC amended its decommissioning regulations to clarify ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and uniformity in the decommissioning process.[6] The amendments allow for greater public participation and better define the transition process from operations to decommissioning. Regulatory Guide 1.184, issued in July 2000, further described the methods and procedures acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing the requirements of the 1996 amendments relating to the initial activities and major phases of the decommissioning process. The costs and schedules presented in this analysis follow the general guidance and processes described in the amended regulations. The format and content of the estimates is also consistent with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.202, issued in February 2005.[

7)Decommissioning Scenarios The following scenarios were evaluated and are representative of the alternatives available to the owner:

1.DECON: The plant's operating license currently expires on September 29, 2026. However, for purposes of this study, the license is assumed to be renewed for an additional 20 years (until 2046). The first scenario assumes that an ISFSI is constructed to support continued plant operations and expanded once the plant is shut down to accommodate any residual spent fuel in the pool and facilitate decontamination and dismantling activities within the fuel building.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 2064.

2.Delayed DECON: In the second scenario, the unit is prepared for anabbreviated period of storage. The spent fuel discharged to the storage pool once operations cease remains in the pool until it can be transferred to a DOE facility. Decommissioning is delayed until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete (i.e., in the year 2064). The unit is then decommissioned.

3.SAFSTOR: The nuclear unit is placed into safe-storage in the third scenario.

However, decommissioning is deferred beyond the fuel storage period to the maximum extent possible; termination of the license would conclude within the required 60-year period. As in the DECON scenario, spent fuel is relocated to an ISFSI until it can be transferred to a DOE facility. Dormancy continues following the removal of spent fuel from the site, timed to allow final U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 2, 50, and 51, "Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors," NRC, Federal Register Volume 61, (p 39278 et seq.), July 29, 1996"Standard Format and Content of Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.202, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 2005 TLG Services, Inc.

6 7 Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page ix of xvii In 1996, the NRC amended its decommissioning regulations to clarify ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and uniformity in the decommissioning process)6]

The amendments allow for greater public participation and better define the transition process from operations to decommissioning.

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

The format and content of the estimates is also consistent with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.202, issued in February 2005)7] Decommissioning Scenarios The following scenarios were evaluated and are representative of the alternatives available to the owner: 1. DECON: The plant's operating license currently expires on September 29, 2026. However, for purposes of this study, the license is assumed to be renewed for an additional 20 years (until 2046). The first scenario assumes that an ISFSI is constructed to support continued plant operations and expanded once the plant is shut down to accommodate any residual spent fuel in the pool and facilitate decontamination and dismantling activities within the fuel building.

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 2064. 2. Delayed DECON: In the second scenario, the unit is prepared for an abbreviated period of storage. The spent fuel discharged to the storage pool once operations cease remains in the pool until it can be transferred to a DOE facility.

Decommissioning is delayed until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete (i.e., in the year 2064). The unit is then decommissioned.

3. SAFSTOR: The nuclear unit is placed into safe-storage in the third scenario.

However, decommissioning is deferred beyond the fuel storage period to the maximum extent possible; termination of the license would conclude within the required 60-year period. As in the DECON scenario, spent fuel is relocated to an ISFSI until it can be transferred to a DOE facility.

Dormancy continues following the removal of spent fuel from the site, timed to allow final 6 U.s. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 2, 50, and 51, "Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors," NRC, Federal Register Volume 61, (p 39278 et seq.), July 29, 1996 "Standard Format and Content of Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.202, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 2005 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisPage x of xvii decommissioning and license termination to be completed within 60 years of final shutdown.

Methodology The methodology used to develop the estimates described within this document follows the basic approach originally presented in the cost estimating guidelines 181 developed by the Atomic Industrial Forum (now Nuclear Energy Institute). This reference describes a unit factor method for determining decommissioning activity costs.The unit factors used in this analysis incorporate site-specific costs and the latest available information on worker productivity in decommissioning.

An activity duration critical path is used to determine the total decommissioning program schedule. The schedule is relied upon in calculating the carrying costs, which include program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental, and support services such as quality control and security. This systematic approach for assembling decommissioning estimates ensures a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the resulting cost estimate.

Contingency Consistent with standard cost estimating practice, contingencies are applied to the decontamination and dismantling costs 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."[91 The cost elements in the estimates are based on ideal conditions; therefore, the types of unforeseeable events that are almost certain to occur in decommissioning, based on industry experience, are addressed through a percentage contingency applied on a line-item basis.

This contingency factor is a nearly universal element in all large-scale construction and demolition projects. It should be noted that contingency, as used in this analysis, does not account for price escalation and inflation in the cost of decommissioning over the remaining operating life of the station.

The use and role of contingency within decommissioning estimates is not a safety factor issue. Safety factors provide additional security and address situations that may never occur. Contingency funds, by contrast, are expected to be fully expended T.S. LaGuardia et at, "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986 Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, p. 239 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page x of xvii decommissioning and license termination to be completed within 60 years of final shutdown.

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

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

This reference describes a unit factor method for determining decommissioning activity costs. The unit factors used in this analysis incorporate site-specific costs and the latest available information on worker productivity in decommissioning.

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

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

This systematic approach for assembling decommissioning estimates ensures a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the resulting cost estimate.

Contingency Consistent with standard cost estimating practice, contingencies are applied to the decontamination and dismantling costs 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."[9]

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 scale construction and demolition projects.

It should be noted that contingency, as used in this analysis, does not account for price escalation and inflation in the cost of decommissioning over the remaining operating life of the station. The use and role of contingency within decommissioning estimates is not a safety factor issue. Safety factors provide additional security and address situations that may never occur. Contingency funds, by contrast, are expected to be fully expended 8 T.8. LaGuardia et aI., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIFINESP-036, May 1986 9 Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, p. 239 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisPage xi of xvii throughout the program. Inclusion of contingency is necessary to provide assurance that sufficient funding will be available to accomplish the intended tasks.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal The contaminated and activated material generated in the decontamination and dismantling of a commercial nuclear reactor is classified as low-level (radioactive)

waste, although not all of the material is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal.

With the passage of the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" in 1980,1101 and its Amendments of 1985,1111 the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders. With the exception of Texas (which has issued a license to Waste Control Specialists for operation of a new facility in Andrews, Texas), no new compact facilities have been successfully sited, licensed, and constructed.

The disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina is currently closed to generators outside the Atlantic Compact (comprising the states of Connecticut, New Jersey and South Carolina). The commercial disposal facility on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland, Washington accepts low-level radioactive waste from the Northwest (Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming) and Rocky Mountain (Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico) Compact states. This leaves EnergySolutions' disposal facility in Clive, Utah as the only available option for the disposal of the majority of the low-level radioactive waste generated in decommissioning Clinton.

For the purpose of this analysis, Exelon's "Life of Plant Agreement" with EnergySolutions is used as the basis for estimating the disposal cost for the majority of the radioactive waste (Class A[121).

EnergySolutions does not have a license to dispose of the more highly radioactive waste (Classes B and C), for example, generated in the dismantling of the reactor vessel.

As a proxy for future disposal facilities, waste disposal costs for the higher activity waste (Class B and C) are based upon the last published rate schedule for non-compact waste for the Barnwell facility, adjusted for escalation of the Atlantic Compact rates.

Material exceeding Class C limits (limited to material closest to the reactor core and comprising a small percentage of the total waste volume) is generally not suitable"Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980," Public Law 96-573, 1980"Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, 1986 Waste is classified in accordance with U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61.55 10 11 12 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page xi of xvii throughout the program. Inclusion of contingency is necessary to provide assurance that sufficient funding will be available to accomplish the intended tasks. Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal The contaminated and activated material generated in the decontamination and dismantling of a commercial nuclear reactor is classified as low-level (radioactive) waste, although not all of the material is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal.

With the passage of the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" in 1980,[10]

and its Amendments of 1985,[11]

the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders. With the exception of Texas (which has issued a license to Waste Control Specialists for operation of a new facility in Andrews, Texas), no new compact facilities have been successfully sited, licensed, and constructed.

The disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina is currently closed to generators outside the Atlantic Compact (comprising the states of Connecticut, New Jersey and South Carolina).

The commercial disposal facility on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland, Washington accepts low-level radioactive waste from the Northwest (Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming) and Rocky Mountain (Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico) Compact states. This leaves EnergySolutions' disposal facility in Clive, Utah as the only available option for the disposal of the majority of the low-level radioactive waste generated in decommissioning Clinton. For the purpose of this analysis, Exelon's "Life of Plant Agreement" with EnergySolutions is used as the basis for estimating the disposal cost for the majority of the radioactive waste (Class A[12]). EnergySolutions does not have a license to dispose of the more highly radioactive waste (Classes B and C), for example, generated in the dismantling of the reactor vessel. As a proxy for future disposal facilities, waste disposal costs for the higher activity waste (Class B and C) are based upon the last published rate schedule for compact waste for the Barnwell facility, adjusted for escalation of the Atlantic Compact rates. Material exceeding Class C limits (limited to material closest to the reactor core and comprising a small percentage of the total waste volume) is generally not suitable 10 "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980," Public Law 96-573,1980 11 "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240,1986 12 Waste is classified in accordance with U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61.55 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640

-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisPage xii of xvii for shallow-land disposal. This material is packaged in the same multipurpose canisters used for spent fuel storage/transport and designated for geologic disposal.

A significant portion of the metallic waste generated during decommissioning may only be potentially contaminated by radioactive materials. This waste can be surveyed on site or shipped off site to licensed facilities for further analysis, forprocessing and/or for conditioning/recovery. Reduction in the volume of low-level radioactive waste requiring disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility can be accomplished through a variety of methods, including analyses and surveys or decontamination to eliminate the portion of waste that does not require disposal as radioactive waste, compaction, incineration or metal melt.

The estimates reflect the savings from waste recovery/volume reduction.

High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act" [131 (NWPA) in 1982, assigning theresponsibility for disposal of the spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the DOE. Two permanent disposal facilities were envisioned, as well as an interim storage facility. To recover the cost, the legislation created a Nuclear Waste Fund through which money is collected from the sale ofelectricity generated by the power plants. The NWPA, along with the individual disposal contracts with the utilities, specified that the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998.

Since the original legislation, the DOE has announced several delays in the program schedule. By January 1998, the DOE had failed to accept any spent fuel or high level waste, as required by the NWPA and utility contracts. Delays continue and, as a result, generators have initiated legal action against the DOE in an attempt to obtain compensation for DOE's breach of contract.1141 For purposes of this analysis, acceptance of commercial spent fuel by the DOE is assumed to begin in 2025.Once an interim storage or disposal facility is operational, fuel acceptance will be prioritized and spent fuel assemblies will need to meet certain acceptance criteria, including heat output. These conditions require that the fuel discharged upon the"Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, 1982 Settlement: Exelon and the U.S. Department of Justice, in close consultation with the DOE, under which the government will reimburse Exelon for costs associated with storage of spent fuel at the company's nuclear stations pending DOE fulfilling its contractual obligation to accept commercial spent nuclear fuel. Additional amounts reimbursed annually for future costs. August 5, 2004 TLG Services, Inc.

13 14 Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page xii of xvii for shallow-land disposal.

This material is packaged in the same multipurpose canisters used for spent fuel storage/transport and designated for geologic disposal.

A significant portion of the metallic waste generated during decommissioning may only be potentially contaminated by radioactive materials.

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

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

High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act" [13] (NWPA) in 1982, assigning the responsibility for disposal of the spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the DOE. Two permanent disposal facilities were envisioned, as well as an interim storage facility.

To recover the cost, the legislation created a Nuclear Waste Fund through which money is collected from the sale of electricity generated by the power plants. The NWPA, along with the individual disposal contracts with the utilities, specified that the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998. Since the original legislation, the DOE has announced several delays in the program schedule.

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

Delays continue and, as a result, generators have initiated legal action against the DOE in an attempt to obtain compensation for DOE's breach of contracUl4]

For purposes of this analysis, acceptance of commercial spent fuel by the DOE is assumed to begin in 2025. Once an interim storage or disposal facility is operational, fuel acceptance will be prioritized and spent fuel assemblies will need to meet certain acceptance criteria, including heat output. These conditions require that the fuel discharged upon the 13 "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," U.s. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, 1982 14 Settlement:

Exelon and the U.s. Department of Justice, in close consultation with the DOE, under which the government will reimburse Exelon for costs associated with storage of spent fuel at the company's nuclear stations pending DOE fulfilling its contractual obligation to accept commercial spent nuclear fuel. Additional amounts reimbursed annually for future costs. August 5,2004 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640

-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisPage xiii of xvii cessation of operations be actively cooled and stored for a minimum period at thegenerating site prior to transfer (a minimum of five years as defined in 10CFR§961 for standard fuel). As such, the NRC requires that licensees establish a program to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor until title of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy, pursuant to 10CFR§50.54(bb).[151 This funding requirement is fulfilled through inclusion of certain cost elements in the decommissioning estimates, for example, associated with the isolation and continued operation of the plant's fuel storage pool and/or ISFSI.At shutdown, the plant's storage pool is expected to contain freshly discharged assemblies from the most recent refueling cycles, as well as the final reactor core.Within five and one-half years of final shutdown, the spent fuel in the storage pool is expected to be transferred to the ISFSI (DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios). Once the storage pool is emptied, the fuel building can be either decontaminated and dismantled or prepared for long-term storage. The pool is kept operational in the Delayed DECON scenario until the transfer to the DOE can be completed.The DOE's generator allocation/receipt schedules are based upon the oldest fuel receiving the highest priority. With a large fleet of reactors, Exelon is able to re-assign allocations between its units to minimize on-site storage costs. Assuming spent fuel from the older units is given priority and with a maximum rate of transfer of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU)/year), the assemblies residing at Clinton at the time of shutdown would be scheduled for pickup in the years 2063 and 2064 (assuming the cessation of plant operations in 2046). This equates to 66 multi-purpose canisters (at 89 assemblies per canister).

It is expected that an ISFSI, operated under a Part 50 General License (in accordance with 10 CFR 72, Subpart K [161), will be constructed to support continued plant operations. The facility is assumed to be expanded following the cessation of plant operations to support future decommissioning operations. As such, the fuel (in the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios) is packaged for interim storage at the ISFSI.

Exelon's strongly held position is that the DOE has a contractual obligation to accept Clinton's fuel in a timely manner and consistent with its contract commitments. No assumption made in this study should be interpreted to be inconsistent with this claim. However, at this time, including the cost of storing spent fuel in this study is the most reasonable approach because it insures the U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Subpart 54 (bb), "Conditions of Licenses" U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 72, Subpart K, "General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites." TLG Services, Inc.

15 1 6 Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page xiii of xvii cessation of operations be actively cooled and stored for a minimum period at the generating site prior to transfer (a minimum of five years as defined in 10CFR§961 for standard fuel). As such, the NRC requires that licensees establish a program to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor until title of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy, pursuant to 10CFR§50.54(bb)JI5]

This funding requirement is fulfilled through inclusion of certain cost elements in the decommissioning estimates, for example, associated with the isolation and continued operation of the plant's fuel storage pool and/or ISFSI. At shutdown, the plant's storage pool is expected to contain freshly discharged assemblies from the most recent refueling cycles, as well as the final reactor core. Within five and one-half years of final shutdown, the spent fuel in the storage pool is expected to be transferred to the ISFSI (DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios).

Once the storage pool is emptied, the fuel building can be either decontaminated and dismantled or prepared for long-term storage. The pool is kept operational in the Delayed DECON scenario until the transfer to the DOE can be completed.

The DOE's generator allocation/receipt schedules are based upon the oldest fuel receiving the highest priority.

With a large fleet of reactors, Exelon is able to assign allocations between its units to minimize on-site storage costs. Assuming spent fuel from the older units is given priority and with a maximum rate of transfer of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU)/year), the assemblies residing at Clinton at the time of shutdown would be scheduled for pickup in the years 2063 and 2064 (assuming the cessation of plant operations in 2046). This equates to 66 multi-purpose canisters (at 89 assemblies per canister).

It is expected that an ISFSI, operated under a Part 50 General License (in accordance with 10 CFR 72, Subpart K [16]), will be constructed to support continued plant operations.

The facility is assumed to be expanded following the cessation of plant operations to support future decommissioning operations.

As such, the fuel (in the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios) is packaged for interim storage at the ISFSI. Exelon's strongly held position is that the DOE has a contractual obligation to accept Clinton's fuel in a timely manner and consistent with its contract commitments.

No assumption made in this study should be interpreted to be inconsistent with this claim. However, at this time, including the cost of storing spent fuel in this study is the most reasonable approach because it insures the 15 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Subpart 54 (bb), "Conditions of Licenses" 16 U.s. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 72, Subpart K, "General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites." TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640

-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisPage xiv of xvii availability of sufficient decommissioning funds at the end of the station's life if the DOE has not met its contractual obligation to take the fuel.

Site Restoration The efficient removal of the contaminated materials at the site will result in damage to many of the site structures. Blasting, coring, drilling, and the other decontamination activities will substantially damage power block structures, potentially weakening the footings and structural supports. Prompt demolition once the license is terminated is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option. It is unreasonable to anticipate that these structures would be repaired and preserved after the radiological contamination is removed. The cost to dismantle site structures with a work force already mobilized is more efficient and less costly than if the process were deferred. Experience at shutdown generating stations has shownthat plant facilities quickly degrade without maintenance, adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public and the demolition work force.

Consequently, this analysis assumes that non-essential site structures within therestricted access area are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below the local grade level wherever possible. The site is then graded and stabilized.

Summary The costs to decommission Clinton were evaluated for several decommissioning scenarios, incorporating the attributes of both the DECON and SAFSTOR decommissioning alternatives. Regardless of the timing of the decommissioning activities, the estimates assume the eventual removal of all the contaminated and activated plant components and structural materials, such that the facility operator may then have unrestricted use of the site with no further requirement for an operating license. Delayed decommissioning is initiated after the spent fuel has been removed from the site and 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 can be completed. Once the transfer is complete, the storage facilities are also decommissioned.

The scenarios analyzed for the purpose of generating the estimates are described in Section 2. The assumptions are presented in Section 3, along with schedules of annual expenditures. The major cost contributors are identified in Section 6, with detailed activity costs, waste volumes, and associated manpower requirements delineated in Appendices C, D, and E. Cost summaries for the various scenarios are

provided at the end of this section for the major cost components.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page xiv of xvii availability of sufficient decommissioning funds at the end of the station's life if the DOE has not met its contractual obligation to take the fuel. Site Restoration The efficient removal of the contaminated materials at the site will result in damage to many of the site structures.

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

Prompt demolition once the license is terminated is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option. It is unreasonable to anticipate that these structures would be repaired and preserved after the radiological contamination is removed. The cost to dismantle site structures with a work force already mobilized is more efficient and less costly than if the process were deferred.

Experience at shutdown generating stations has shown that plant facilities quickly degrade without maintenance, adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public and the demolition work force. Consequently, this analysis assumes that non-essential site structures within the restricted access area are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below the local grade level wherever possible.

The site is then graded and stabilized.

Summary The costs to decommission Clinton were evaluated for several decommissioning scenarios, incorporating the attributes of both the DECON and SAFSTOR decommissioning alternatives.

Regardless of the timing of the decommissioning activities, the estimates assume the eventual removal of all the contaminated and activated plant components and structural materials, such that the facility operator may then have unrestricted use of the site with no further requirement for an operating license. Delayed decommissioning is initiated after the spent fuel has been removed from the site and 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 can be completed.

Once the transfer is complete, the storage facilities are also decommissioned.

The scenarios analyzed for the purpose of generating the estimates are described in Section 2. The assumptions are presented in Section 3, along with schedules of annual expenditures.

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost AnalysisDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page xv of xvii

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS DECON (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Decontamination25,126 Removal191,180 Packaging27,715 Trans ortation13 229 Waste Disposal80,391 Off-site Waste Processin14,464 Pro am Mana ement X11421,449 Sent Fuel Pool Isolation12,176 Spent Fuel Direct Costs [21144,449 Insurance and Regulatory Fees19,482 Energy19,467 Characterization and Licensing urve^

s27,911 Pro ert Taxes44,649 Miscellaneous Equipment6,738 3,397 Cost Element NRC License Termination Spent Fuel Management Site Restoration Total [31[11 Includes security and engineering costs

[21 Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees

[31 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page xv of xvii

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS DECON I * (thousands of 2012 dollars) Cost Element Tota Decontamination 25,126 Removal I 191,180 Packagi:gE:

27,71! Transportation 1322 ____ VVasteDis2osal I 80,39 Off-site VV aste Processing 14,464 Program Management

[1] I 421,449 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation I 12,176 Spent Fuel (Direct Costs) [2] 144,449 and Re@!atoryFees ,

I Energy I 19,467 Qharacterization and Licensing Surve;ys 1 27,911 I Property Taxes 44,649 Miscellaneous Equipment i 6,738 I Site O&M 3,397 I Total [3] I 1,051,824 Cost Element Total NRC License Termination 732,894 Spent Fuel Management 217,632 Site Restoration 101,298 Total [3] ! 1051,824 [I] Includes security and engineering costs [2] Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuelloading/transferlspent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [3] Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisPage xvi of xvii

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS DELAYED DECON (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Cost ElementTotal Decontamination32,855 Removal185,721 Packaging17,477 Trans ortation9,194 Waste Disposal1,42,172 Off-site Waste Processing 17,240 Pro am Mana ement

[ll578,327 went Fuel Pool Isolation12,176 irect Costs) [2]74,086 Insurance and Regulatory Fees127,942 Energy131,969 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 129,549 Property Taxes53,473 MiscellaneousE ui ment13,600 Site O&M9,718 Cost Element NRC License Termination S ent Fuel Mana ement Site Restoration Total [31 Total 666,212367,871 101,418 1,135, 501 (11 Includes security and engineering costs

[21 Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees 131 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page xvi of xvii

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS DELAYED DECON (thousands of 2012 dollars) Cost Element ! Total Decontamination 32,855 Removal 185,721 Packaging i 17,477 I Transportation I 9,194 Waste Disposal 42,17:£ Off-site Waste Processing I 17,240 Program Management

[1] I 578,327 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation i 12,176 Spent Fuel (Direct Costs) [2] 74,086 __

Fees 27,942 ._-Energy 31,969 and Licensing Surveys 29,549 Property Taxes 53,473 Miscellaneous Equipment 13,600 Site O&M 9,718 Total [3] 1,135,501 Cost Element Total NRC License Termination Sent Fuel Mana ement ite Restoration 1,135,501

[IJ Includes security and engineering costs [2J Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuelloadingitransferispent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [3J Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost AnalysisDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page xvii of xvii

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS SAFSTOR (thousands of 2012 dollars)

I Cost Element Decontamination Removal Packa ing Transportation Waste Disposal Off-site Waste Processin Program Management [1]

Spent Fuel Pool Isolation Sent Fuel (Direct Costs) [21 Insurance and Regulatory Fees Ener Characterization and Licensin Surveys Property Taxes Miscellaneous E ui ment Site O&M Total 32,644 187,10991 16,349 7,989 38,122 17,343 140,812 57,273 38,925 29,549 92,510 26,121 22,606 609,045 12,1761 Total [31 NRC License Termination S ent Fuel Mana ement Site Restoration

[1]Includes security and engineering costs

[21 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.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page xvii of xvii

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS SAFSTOR (thousands of 2012 dollars) Cost Element Total Decontamination 32,644 Removal Packaging 16,3 I 7,989 Waste Disposal I 38,122 Off-site Waste Processing 17,343 Program Management

[1] 609,045 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation I 12,176 Spent Fuel (Direct Costs) [2] 140,812 and Fees -57,273 Energy 38,925 Characterization and Licensil!.g Surveys 29,549 Property Taxes 92,510 Miscellaneous Equipment Site O&M 22,6 . Total [3] 1,328,5721 Cost Element I Total t NRC License Termination 949,951 Spent Fuel Management I 277,213 Site Restoration 101,408 Total [3] I 1,328,572

[I] Includes security and engineering costs [2] Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuelloading/transferlspent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [3] Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 1, Page 1 of 8 1.INTRODUCTION This report presents estimates of the cost to decommission the Clinton Power Station (Clinton), for the scenarios described in Section 2, following a scheduledcessation of plant operations. The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information from an earlier evaluation prepared in 2007,111 for AmerGen Energy, LLC, and updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of the nuclear unit and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects. In 2008, the operating license was amended to reflect Exelon Generation Company LLC (Exelon) as the authorized licensee for the station. Therefore, the updated estimates are designed to provide Exelon with sufficient information to assess their financial obligations, as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear station. It is not a detailed engineering document, but a financial analysis prepared in advance of the detailed engineering that will be required to carry out the decommissioning 1.1 OBJE CTIVES OF STUDY The objectives of this study are to prepare comprehensive estimates of the cost to decommission Clinton, to provide a sequence or schedule for the associated activities, and to develop waste stream projections from the decontamination and dismantling activities. The plant's operating license currently expires on September 29, 2026. However, for purposes of this study, the license is assumed to be renewed for an additional 20 years (until 2046).

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION Clinton is located in east central Illinois, approximately 60 miles northeast of Springfield. The station is comprised of a single boiling water reactor with supporting facilities.

The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) consists of a BWR/6 boiling water

reactor system designed by General Electric. The reactor recirculation systemis comprised of the reactor vessel and two recirculation pump loops external to the reactor vessel which provides the driving flow of water to the reactor vessel jet pumps. Each external loop contains one high-capacity, motor-driven recirculation pump and three motor-operated gate valves for pump maintenance. The recirculation loops are a part of the nuclear system process barrier and are located inside the containment structure. The design reactor thermal power level is 3473 Megawatts thermal (MWt). The corresponding net electrical output is approximately 1138.5 Megawatts electric (MWe).

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis 1. INTRODUCTION Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 1 of 8 This report presents estimates of the cost to decommission the Clinton Power Station (Clinton), for the scenarios described in Section 2, following a scheduled cessation of plant operations.

The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information from an earlier evaluation prepared in 2007,[1] for AmerGen Energy, LLC, and updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of the nuclear unit and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects.

In 2008, the operating license was amended to reflect Exelon Generation Company LLC (Exelon) as the authorized licensee for the station. Therefore, the updated estimates are designed to provide Exelon with sufficient information to assess their financial obligations, as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear station. It is not a detailed engineering document, but a financial analysis prepared in advance of the detailed engineering that will be required to carry out the decommissioning 1.1 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY The objectives of this study are to prepare comprehensive estimates of the cost to decommission Clinton, to provide a sequence or schedule for the associated activities, and to develop waste stream projections from the decontamination and dismantling activities.

The plant's operating license currently expires on September 29, 2026. However, for purposes of this study, the license is assumed to be renewed for an additional 20 years (until 2046). 1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION Clinton is located in east central Illinois, approximately 60 miles northeast of Springfield.

The station is comprised of a single boiling water reactor with supporting facilities.

The Nuclear Steam Supply System (NSSS) consists of a BWR/6 boiling water reactor system designed by General Electric.

The reactor recirculation system is comprised of the reactor vessel and two recirculation pump loops external to the reactor vessel which provides the driving flow of water to the reactor vessel jet pumps. Each external loop contains one high-capacity, motor-driven recirculation pump and three motor-operated gate valves for pump maintenance.

The recirculation loops are a part of the nuclear system process barrier and are located inside the containment structure.

The design reactor thermal power level is 3473 Megawatts thermal (MWt). The corresponding net electrical output is approximately 1138.5 Megawatts electric (MWe). TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 1, Page 2 of 8 The BWR-Mark III containment structure at Clinton consists of a lined, reinforced concrete cylinder with a hemispherical domed roof and a flat base slab.The drywell consists of a cylindrical reinforced concrete structure that surrounds the reactor vessel. The lower portion of the drywell is submerged in the suppression pool. The drywell and suppression pool are connected by three rows of circular vents which are located below the normal water level of the suppression pool.

Heat produced in the reactor is converted to electrical energy by the power conversion system. A turbine-generator system converts the thermal energy of the steam produced in the reactor into mechanical shaft power and then into electrical energy. The turbine consists of one high-pressure, double-flowturbine element, and two double-flow, low-pressure turbine elements allaligned in tandem. The generator is driven at 1800 rpm and rated at 1100 MVA. The exhaust steam from the turbine is condensed and deaerated in the main condenser. The heat rejected to the main condenser is removed by the circulating water system.

The circulating water system provides the heat sink required for removal ofwaste 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.

Water is withdrawn from Lake Clinton via the intake tunnels by the circulating water pumps. After passing through the plant condensers, the water is routed through the 3.4 mile long discharge flume back to the lake.

1.3 REGULATORY GUIDANCEThe Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) provided initial decommissioning requirements in its rule "General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," issued in June 1988.[21* 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,[3]" 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

• Annotated references for citations in Sections 1-6 are provided in Section 7.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 2 of 8 The BWR-Mark III containment structure at Clinton consists of a lined, reinforced concrete cylinder with a hemispherical domed roof and a flat base slab. The drywell consists of a cylindrical reinforced concrete structure that surrounds the reactor vessel. The lower portion of the drywell is submerged in the suppression pool. The drywell and suppression pool are connected by three rows of circular vents which are located below the normal water level of the suppression pool. Heat produced in the reactor is converted to electrical energy by the power conversion system. A turbine-generator system converts the thermal energy of the steam produced in the reactor into mechanical shaft power and then into electrical energy. The turbine consists of one high-pressure, double-flow turbine element, and two double-flow, low-pressure turbine elements all aligned in tandem. The generator is driven at 1800 rpm and rated at 1100 MV A. The exhaust steam from the turbine is condensed and deaerated in the main condenser.

The heat rejected to the main condenser is removed by the circulating water system. 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.

Water is withdrawn from Lake Clinton via the intake tunnels by the circulating water pumps. Mter passing through the plant condensers, the water is routed through the 3.4 mile long discharge flume back to the lake. 1.3 REGULATORY GUIDANCE The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or Commission) provided initial decommissioning requirements in its rule "General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," issued in June 1988,[21*

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,[31" 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

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

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640

-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 1, Page 3 of 8 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.

The rule also placed limits on the time allowed to complete thedecommissioning process. For SAFSTOR, the process is restricted in overall duration to 60 years, unless it can be shown that a longer duration is necessary to protect public health and safety. The guidelines for ENTOMB are similar, providing the NRC with both sufficient leverage and flexibility to ensure that these deferred options are only used in situations where it is reasonable and consistent with the definition of decommissioning. At the conclusion of a 60-year dormancy period (or longer for ENTOMB if the NRC approves such a case), the site would still require significant remediation to meet the unrestricted release limits for license termination.

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, the NRC has re-evaluated this alternative.[4]

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.

However, the staff also found that additional rulemaking would be needed before this option could be treated as a generic alternative. 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.[51 However, the NRC's staff has 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.

The NRC published amendments to its decommissioning regulations in 1996.[6]When the regulations were originally 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 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 3 of 8 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.

The rule also placed limits on the time allowed to complete the decommissioning process. For SAFSTOR, the process is restricted in overall duration to 60 years, unless it can be shown that a longer duration is necessary to protect public health and safety. The guidelines for ENTOMB are similar, providing the NRC with both sufficient leverage and flexibility to ensure that these deferred options are only used in situations where it is reasonable and consistent with the definition of decommissioning.

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

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 rule making permitting the controlled release of a site, the NRC has re-evaluated this alternative,[4]

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.

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

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,[5]

However, the NRC's staff has recommended that rule making 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.

The NRC published amendments to its decommissioning regulations in 1996,[6] When the regulations were originally 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 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 1, Page 4 of 8 facilitate the decommissioning. Each case was handled individually, without clearlydefinedgeneric requirements.

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

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 will 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 applications to the NRC to terminate the license, which will include a License Termination Plan (LTP).1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act" [7] (NWPA) in 1982,assigning the responsibility for disposal of the spent nuclear fuel

created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the DOE. Two permanent disposal facilities were envisioned, as well as an interim storage facility. To recover the cost, the legislation created a Nuclear Waste Fund through which money is collected from the sale of electricity generated by the power plants. NWPA, along with the individual disposal contracts with the utilities, specified that the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998.

Since the original legislation, the DOE has announced several delays in the program schedule. By January 1998, the DOE had failed to initiate the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste, as required by the NWPA and utility contracts. Delays continue and, as a result, generators have initiated legal action against the DOE in an attempt to resolve the impasse.[8] For purposes of this analysis, acceptance of commercial spent fuel by the DOE is assumed to begin in 2025.TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 4 of 8 facilitate the decommissioning.

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

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

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 will 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 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 applications to the NRC to terminate the license, which will include a License Termination Plan (LTP). 1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act" [7] (NWPA) in 1982, assigning the responsibility for disposal of the spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the DOE. Two* permanent disposal facilities were envisioned, as well as an interim storage facility.

To recover the cost, the legislation created a Nuclear Waste Fund through which money is collected from the sale of electricity generated by the power plants. NWPA, along with the individual disposal contracts with the utilities, specified that the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998. Since the original legislation, the DOE has announced several delays in the program schedule.

By January 1998, the DOE had failed to initiate the disposal of spent nuclear fuel and high level waste, as required by the NWPA and utility contracts.

Delays continue and, as a result, generators have initiated legal action against the DOE in an attempt to resolve the impasse.l S] For purposes of this analysis, acceptance of commercial spent fuel by the DOE is assumed to begin in 2025. TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 1, Page 5 of 8 acceptance will be prioritized and spent fuel assemblies will need to meet certain acceptance criteria, including heat output. These conditions require that the fuel discharged upon the cessation of operations be actively cooled and stored for a minimum period at the generating site prior to transfer (a minimum of five years as defined in 10CFR§961 for standard fuel). As such, the NRC requires that licensees establish a program to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor until title of the fuel is

transferred to the Secretary of Energy, pursuant to 10CFR§50.54(bb).[91 This funding requirement is fulfilled through inclusion of certain cost elements in the decommissioning estimates, for example, associated with the isolation and continued operation of the plant's fuel storage pool and/or ISFSI.

At shutdown, the plant's storage pool is expected to contain freshly discharged assemblies from the most recent refueling cycles, as well as the final reactor core. Within five and one-half years of final shutdown, the spent fuel in the storage pool is expected to be transferred to the ISFSI (DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios). Once the storage pool is

emptied, the fuel building can be either decontaminated and dismantled or prepared for long-term storage. The pool is kept operational in the Delayed DECON scenario until the transfer to the DOE can be completed.

The DOE's generator allocation/receipt schedules are based upon the oldest fuel receiving the highest priority. With a large fleet of reactors, Exelon is able to re-assign allocations between its units to minimize on-site storage costs. Assuming spent fuel from the older units is given priority and with a maximum rate of transfer of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU)/year), the assemblies residing at Clinton at the time of shutdown would be scheduled for pickup in the years 2063 and 2064 (assuming the cessation of plant operations in 2046). This equates to 66 multi-purpose canisters (at 89 assemblies per canister).

It is expected that an ISFSI, operated under a Part 50 General License (in accordance with 10 CFR 72, Subpart K 1101), will be constructed to support continued plant operations. The facility is assumed to be expanded following the cessation of plant operations to support future decommissioning operations. As such, the fuel (in the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios) is packaged for interim storage at the ISFSI.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 5 of 8 Once an interim storage or disposal facility is operational, fuel acceptance will be prioritized and spent fuel assemblies will need to meet certain acceptance criteria, including heat output. These conditions require that the fuel discharged upon the cessation of operations be actively cooled and stored for a minimum period at the generating site prior to transfer (a minimum of five years as defined in 10CFR§961 for standard fuel). As such, the NRC requires that licensees establish a program to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor until title of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy, pursuant to 10CFR§50.54(bb).l9]

This funding requirement is fulfilled through inclusion of certain cost elements in the decommissioning estimates, for example, associated with the isolation and continued operation of the plant's fuel storage pool and/or ISFSI. At shutdown, the plant's storage pool is expected to contain freshly discharged assemblies from the most recent refueling cycles, as well as the final reactor core. Within five and one-half years of final shutdown, the spent fuel in the storage pool is expected to be transferred to the ISFSI (DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios).

Once the storage pool is emptied, the fuel building can be either decontaminated and dismantled or prepared for long-term storage. The pool is kept operational in the Delayed DECON scenario until the transfer to the DOE can be completed.

The DOE's generator allocation/receipt schedules are based upon the oldest fuel receiving the highest priority.

With a large fleet of reactors, Exelon is able to re-assign allocations between its units to minimize on-site storage costs. Assuming spent fuel from the older units is given priority and with a maximum rate of transfer of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU)/year), the assemblies residing at Clinton at the time of shutdown would be scheduled for pickup in the years 2063 and 2064 (assuming the cessation of plant operations in 2046). This equates to 66 multi-purpose canisters (at 89 assemblies per canister).

It is expected that an ISFSI, operated under a Part 50 General License (in accordance with 10 CFR 72, Subpart K [10]), will be constructed to support continued plant operations.

The facility is assumed to be expanded following the cessation of plant operations to support future decommissioning operations.

As such, the fuel (in the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios) is packaged for interim storage at the ISFSI. TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 1, Page 6 of 8 obligation to accept Clinton's fuel in a timely manner and consistent with its contract commitments. No assumption made in this study should be interpreted to be inconsistent with this claim. However, at this time, including the cost of storing spent fuel in this study is the most reasonable approach because it insures the availability of sufficient decommissioning funds at the end of the station's life if the DOE has not met its contractual obligation to take the fuel.

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,[111 and its Amendments of 1985,[12] the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders. With the exception of Texas (which has issued a license to Waste Control Specialists for the operation of a new facility in Andrews, Texas), no new compact facilities have been successfully sited, licensed, and constructed.

The disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina is currently closed to generators outside the Atlantic Compact (comprising the states ofConnecticut, New Jersey and South Carolina). The commercial disposal facility on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland, Washington accepts low-level radioactive waste from the Northwest (Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming) and Rocky Mountain (Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico)

Compact states. This leaves EnergySolutions' disposal facility in Clive, Utah as the only available option for the disposal of the majority of the low-level radioactive waste generated in decommissioning Clinton.

For the purpose of this analysis, Exelon's "Life of Plant Agreement"with EnergySolutions is used as the basis for estimating the disposalcost for the majority of the radioactive waste (Class A[131).

EnergySolutions does not have a license to dispose of the more highly radioactive waste (Classes B and C), for example, generated in the dismantling of the reactor vessel.

As a proxy for future disposal facilities, waste disposal costs for the higher activity waste (Class B and C) are based upon the last TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 6 of 8 Exelon's strongly held position is that the DOE has a contractual obligation to accept Clinton's fuel in a timely manner and consistent with its contract commitments.

No assumption made in this study should be interpreted to be inconsistent with this claim. However, at this time, including the cost of storing spent fuel in this study is the most reasonable approach because it insures the availability of sufficient decommissioning funds at the end of the station's life if the DOE has not met its contractual obligation to take the fuel. 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,[11]

and its Amendments of 1985,[12]

the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders. With the exception of Texas (which has issued a license to Waste Control Specialists for the operation of a new facility in Andrews, Texas), no new compact facilities have been successfully sited, licensed, and constructed.

The disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina is currently closed to generators outside the Atlantic Compact (comprising the states of Connecticut, New Jersey and South Carolina).

The commercial disposal facility on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland, Washington accepts low-level radioactive waste from the Northwest (Alaska, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming) and Rocky Mountain (Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico) Compact states. This leaves EnergySolutions' disposal facility in Clive, Utah as the only available option for the disposal of the majority of the low-level radioactive waste generated in decommissioning Clinton. For the purpose of this analysis, Exelon's "Life of Plant Agreement" with EnergySolutions is used as the basis for estimating the disposal cost for the majority of the radioactive waste (Class A[13]). EnergySolutions does not have a license to dispose of the more highly radioactive waste (Classes B and C), for example, generated in the dismantling of the reactor vessel. As a proxy for future disposal facilities, waste disposal costs for the higher activity waste (Class B and C) are based upon the last TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 1, Page 7 of 8 facility, adjusted for escalation of the Atlantic Compact rates.

Material exceeding Class C limits (limited to material closest to the reactor core and comprising a small percentage of the total waste volume) is generally not suitable for shallow-land disposal. This material is packaged in the same multipurpose canisters used for spent fuel storage/transport and designated for geologic disposal.

A significant portion of the metallic waste generated during decommissioning may only be potentially contaminated by radioactive materials. This waste can be surveyed on site or shipped off site to licensed facilities for further analysis, for processing and/or for conditioning/recovery. Reduction in the volume of low-level radioactive waste requiring disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility can be accomplished through a variety of methods, including analyses and surveys or decontamination to eliminate the portion of waste that does not require disposal as radioactive waste, compaction, incineration or metal melt. The estimates reflect the savings from waste recovery/volume reduction.

1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Termination In 1997,theNRC published Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination,"[14] amending 10 CFR §20.

This subpart provides radiological criteria for releasing a facility for unrestricted use. The regulation states that the site can be released for unrestricted use ifradioactivity levels are such that the average member of a critical group would not receive a Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) in excess of 25 millirem per year, and provided that residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).The decommissioning estimates for Clinton assume that the 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 derivedfrom criteria established by the Comprehensive EnvironmentalResponse, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).[151 An additional limit of 4 millirem per year, as defined in 40 CFR

§141.16, is applied to drinking water.[161 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 7 of 8 published rate schedule for non-compact waste for the Barnwell facility, adjusted for escalation of the Atlantic Compact rates. Material exceeding Class C limits (limited to material closest to the reactor core and comprising a small percentage of the total waste volume) is generally not suitable for shallow-land disposal.

This material is packaged in the same multipurpose canisters used for spent fuel storage/transport and designated for geologic disposal.

A significant portion of the metallic waste generated during decommissioning may only be potentially contaminated by radioactive materials.

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

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

1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Termination In 1997, the NRC published Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination,"[

14 1 amending 10 CFR §20. This subpart provides radiological criteria for releasing a facility for unrestricted use. The regulation states that the site *can be released for unrestricted use if radioactivity levels are such that the average member of a critical group would not receive a Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) in excess of 25 millirem per year, and provided that residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). The decommissioning estimates for Clinton assume that the site will be remediated to a residual level consistent with the 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)J 15 1 An additional limit of 4 millirem per year, as defined in 40 CFR §141.16, is applied to drinking waterJ 16 1 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 1, Page 8 of 8 On October 9, 2002, the NRC signed an agreement with the EPA on the radiological decommissioning and decontamination of NRC-licensed sites. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) [171 provides that EPA will defer exercise of authority under CERCLA for the majority of facilities decommissioned under NRC authority. The MOU also includes provisions for NRC and EPA consultation for certain sites when, at the time of license termination, (1)groundwater contamination exceeds EPA-permitted levels; (2) NRC contemplatesrestricted release of the site; and/or (3) residual radioactive soil concentrations exceed levels defined in the MOU.

The MOU does not impose any new requirements on NRC licensees and should reduce the involvement of the EPA with NRC licensees who are decommissioning. Most sites are expected to meet the NRC criteriafor 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.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 8 of 8 On October 9, 2002, the NRC signed an agreement with the EPA on the radiological decommissioning and decontamination of licensed sites. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOD) [17] provides that EPA will defer exercise of authority under CERCLA for the majority of facilities decommissioned under NRC authority.

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

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 2, Page 1 of 14 2.DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES Detailed cost estimates were developed to decommission Clinton for three variations of the approved decommissioning alternatives: DECON and SAFSTOR.

Although the scenarios differ with respect to technique, process, cost, and schedule, they attain the same result: the ultimate release of the site for unrestricted use.

Three decommissioning scenarios were evaluated for the nuclear unit. The scenarios selected are representative of alternatives available to the owner and are defined as follows:

1.DECON: The plant's operating license currently expires on September 29, 2026. However, for purposes of this study, the license is assumed to be renewed for an additional 20 years (until 2046). The first scenario assumes that an ISFSI is constructed to support continued plant operations and expanded once the plant is shut down to accommodate any residual spent fuel in the pool and facilitate decontamination and dismantling activities within the fuel building.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 2064.

2.Delayed DECON: In the second scenario, the unit is prepared for anabbreviated period of storage. The spent fuel discharged to the storage pool once operations cease remains in the pool until it can be transferred to a DOE facility. Decommissioning is delayed until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete (i.e., in the year 2064). The unit is then decommissioned.

3.SAFSTOR: The nuclear unit is placed into safe-storage in the third scenario.

However, decommissioning is deferred beyond the fuel storage period to the maximum extent possible; termination of the license would conclude within the maximum required 60-year period. As in the DECON scenario, spent fuel is relocated to an ISFSI until it can be transferred to a DOE facility. Dormancycontinues following the removal of spent fuel from the site, timed to allow final decommissioning and license termination to be completed within 60 years of final shutdown.

The following sections describe the basic activities associated with each alternative.

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.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 1 of 14 2. DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES Detailed cost estimates were developed to decommission Clinton for three variations of the approved decommissioning alternatives:

DECON and SAFSTOR. Although the scenarios differ with respect to technique, process, cost, and schedule, they attain the same result: the ultimate release of the site for unrestricted use. Three decommissioning scenarios were evaluated for the nuclear unit. The scenarios selected are representative of alternatives available to the owner and are defined as follows: 1. DECON: The plant's operating license currently expires on September 29, 2026. However, for purposes of this study, the license is assumed to be renewed for an additional 20 years (until 2046). The first scenario assumes that an ISFSI is constructed to support continued plant operations and expanded once the plant is shut down to accommodate any residual spent fuel in the pool and facilitate decontamination and dismantling activities within the fuel building.

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 2064. 2. Delayed DECON: In the second scenario, the unit is prepared for an abbreviated period of storage. The spent fuel discharged to the storage pool once operations cease remains in the pool until it can be transferred to a DOE facility.

Decommissioning is delayed until the transfer of the fuel to the DOE is complete (i.e., in the year 2064). The unit is then decommissioned.

3. SAFSTOR: The nuclear unit is placed into safe-storage in the third scenario.

However, decommissioning is deferred beyond the fuel storage period to the maximum extent possible; termination of the license would conclude within the maximum required 60-year period. As in the DECON scenario, spent fuel is relocated to an ISFSI until it can be transferred to a DOE facility.

Dormancy continues following the removal of spent fuel from the site, timed to allow final decommissioning and license termination to be completed within 60 years of final shutdown.

The following sections describe the basic activities associated with each alternative.

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.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 2, Page 2 of 14 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 cessation of operations and involves the transition of both plant and licensee from reactor operations (i.e., power production) to facilitate 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 would then be 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 Clinton 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.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 2 of 14 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 cessation of operations and involves the transition of both plant and licensee from reactor operations (i.e., power production) to facilitate 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 would then be 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 Clinton 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.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640

-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 2, Page 3 of 14 Engineering and Planning The PSDAR, required within two years of the notice to cease operations, provides a description of the licensee's planneddecommissioning 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 meeting 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 a 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 recirculation 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:

foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use, significantly increase decommissioning costs,cause any significant environmental impact, orviolate 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 also considered.

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 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Engineering and Planning Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 3 of 14 The PSDAR, required within two years of the notice to cease 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 meeting 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 a 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 recirculation 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: it foreclose release of the site for possible unrestricted use, .. significantly increase decommissioning costs,

• cause any significant environmental impact, or .. 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 also considered.

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 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 2, Page 4 of 14 PSDAR, activity specifications, cost-benefit and safety analyses, and work packages and procedures, would be assembled to support the proposed decontamination and dismantling activities.

Site PreparationsFollowing final plant shutdown, and in preparation for actual decommissioning, the following activities are initiated:

Characterization of the site and surrounding environs. This includes radiation surveys of work areas, major components (including the reactor vessel and its internals), internal piping, and primary shield cores.

An ISFSI is designed, licensed and constructed to support continued plant operation and expanded following the cessation of operations to offload the spent fuel pool in support of the decommissioning program.

Isolation of the spent fuel storage pool and fuel handling systems, such that decommissioning operations can commence on the balance of the plant. Decommissioning operations are scheduled around the fuel handling area to optimize the overall project schedule. The fuel is transferred to the ISFSI as it decays to the point that it meets the heat load criteria of the containers.Consequently, it is assumed that the fuel pool remains operational for approximately five and one-half years following the cessation of plant operations.

Specification of transport and disposal requirements for activated materials and/or hazardous materials, including shielding and waste stabilization.

Development of procedures for occupational exposure control, control and release of liquid and gaseous effluent, processing of radwaste (including dry-active waste, resins, filter media, metallic and non-metallic components generated in decommissioning), site security and emergency programs, and industrial safety.

2.1.2 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 termination of the TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 4 of 14 PSDAR, activity specifications, cost-benefit and safety analyses, and work packages and procedures, would be assembled to support the proposed decontamination and dismantling activities.

Site Preparations Following final plant shutdown, and in preparation for actual decommissioning, the following activities are initiated:

• Characterization of the site and surrounding environs.

This includes radiation surveys of work areas, major components (including the reactor vessel and its internals), internal piping, and primary shield cores.

• An ISFSI is designed, licensed and constructed to support continued plant operation and expanded following the cessation of operations to offload the spent fuel pool in support of the decommissioning program.

• Isolation of the spent fuel storage pool and fuel handling systems, such that decommissioning operations can commence on the balance of the plant. Decommissioning operations are scheduled around the fuel handling area to optimize the overall project schedule.

The fuel is transferred to the ISFSI as it decays to the point that it meets the heat load criteria of the containers.

Consequently, it is assumed that the fuel pool remains operational for approximately five and one-half years following the cessation of plant operations.

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

• Development of procedures for occupational exposure control, control and release of liquid and gaseous effluent, processing of radwaste (including dry-active waste, resins, filter media, metallic and non-metallic components generated in decommissioning), site security and emergency programs, and industrial safety. 2.1.2 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 termination of the TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16

-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 2, Page 5 of 14 10 CFR §50 operating license.Significant decommissioning activities in this phase include:

Construction of temporary facilities and/or modification of existing facilities to support dismantling activities. This may include a centralized processing area to facilitate equipment removal and component preparations for off-site disposal.Reconfiguration and modification of site structures and facilities as needed to support decommissioning operations. This may include the upgrading of roads (on- and off-site) to facilitate hauling and transport.

Modifications may be required to the containment structure to facilitate access of large/heavy equipment.

Modifications may also be required to the refueling area of thereactor building to support the segmentation of the reactor vessel internals and component extraction.Design and fabrication of temporary and permanent shielding to support removal and transportation activities, construction of contamination control envelopes, and the procurement of specialty tooling.Procurement (lease or purchase) of shipping canisters, cask liners, and industrial packages.Decontamination of components and piping systems as required to control (minimize) worker exposure.Removal of piping and components no longer essential to support decommissioning operations.

Transfer of the steam separator and dryer assemblies to the dryer-separator pool for segmentation. Segmentation by weight and activity maximizes the loading of the shielded transport casks. The operations are conducted under water using remotely operated tooling and contamination controls.Disconnection of the control blades from the drives on the vessel lower head. Blades are transferred to the spent fuel pool for packaging.

Disassembly, segmentation, and packaging of the core shroud and in-core guide tubes. Some of the material is expected to exceed Class C disposal requirements. As such, those segments are packaged in modified fuel storage canisters for geologic disposal.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 5 of 14 10 CFR §50 operating license. Significant decommissioning activities in this phase include: Construction of temporary facilities and/or modification of existing facilities to support dismantling activities.

This may include a centralized processing area to facilitate equipment removal and component preparations for off-site disposal.

It Reconfiguration and modification of site structures and facilities as needed to support decommissioning operations.

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

Modifications may be required to the containment structure to facilitate access of large/heavy equipment.

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

• 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. 11 Procurement (lease or purchase) of shipping canisters, cask liners, and industrial packages.

• Decontamination of components and piping systems as required to control (minimize) worker exposure.

• Removal of piping and components no longer essential to support decommissioning operations.

.. Transfer of the steam separator and dryer assemblies to the separator pool for segmentation.

Segmentation by weight and activity maximizes the loading of the shielded transport casks. The operations are conducted under water using remotely operated tooling and contamination controls.

• Disconnection of the control blades from the drives on the vessel lower head. Blades are transferred to the spent fuel pool for packaging.

.. Disassembly, segmentation, and packaging of the core shroud and in-core guide tubes. Some of the material is expected to exceed Class C disposal requirements.

As such, those segments are packaged in modified fuel storage canisters for geologic disposal.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 2, Page 6 of 14 Removal and segmentation of the remaining internals including the jet pump assemblies, orificed fuel supports, and core support assembly.Draining and decontamination of the reactor well and the permanent sealing of the spent fuel transfer gate. Install a shielded platform for segmentation of the reactor vessel. Cutting operations are performed in air using remotely operated equipment within a contamination control envelope, with the water level maintained just below the cut to minimize the working area dose rates.

Sections are transferred to the dryer-separator pool for packaging and interim storage.

Disconnection of the control rod drives and instrumentation tubes from the reactor vessel lower head. The lower reactor head and vessel supporting structure are then segmented.

Removal of the reactor recirculation pumps. Exterior surfaces are decontaminated and openings covered.

Components can serve as their own burial containers provided that all penetrations are properly sealed.

Demolition of the sacrificial shield activated concrete by controlled demolition.

Transfer of the spent fuel from the storage pool to the ISFSI pad for interim storage. Spent fuel storage operations continue throughout the active decommissioning period. Fuel transfer is expected to begin in 2063 and to be completed by the end of the year 2064.

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 meeting. LTP approval will be subject to any conditions and limitations as deemed appropriate by the Commission. The licensee may then commence with the final remediation of site facilities and services, including:

Removal of remaining plant systems and associated components as they become nonessential to the decommissioning program or TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 6 of 14 Removal and segmentation of the remaining internals including the jet pump assemblies, orificed fuel supports, and core support assembly.

• Draining and decontamination of the reactor well and the permanent sealing of the spent fuel transfer gate. Install a shielded platform for segmentation of the reactor vessel. Cutting operations are performed in air using remotely operated equipment within a contamination control envelope, with the water level maintained just below the cut to minimize the working area dose rates. Sections are transferred to the dryer-separator pool for packaging and interim storage.

• Disconnection of the control rod drives and instrumentation tubes from the reactor vessel lower head. The lower reactor head and vessel supporting structure are then segmented.

• Removal of the reactor recirculation pumps. Exterior surfaces are decontaminated and openings covered. Components can serve as their own burial containers provided that all penetrations are properly sealed. $ Demolition of the sacrificial shield activated concrete by controlled demolition.

• Transfer of the spent fuel from the storage pool to the ISFSI pad for interim storage. Spent fuel storage operations continue throughout the active decommissioning period. Fuel transfer is expected to begin in 2063 and to be completed by the end of the year 2064. 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 meeting. 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:

It Removal of remaining plant systems and associated components as they become nonessential to the decommissioning program or TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 2, Page 7 of 14 worker health and safety (e.g., waste collection and treatment systems, electrical power and ventilation systems).

Removal of the steel liners from the drywell, disposing of theactivated and contaminated sections as radioactive waste. Removal of any activated/contaminated concrete.

Removal of the steel liners from the dryer-separator pool, reactor well, and spent fuel storage pool.

Surveys of the decontaminated areas of the containment structure.

Removal of the contaminated equipment and material from the turbine and radwaste buildings, and any other contaminatedfacility.Use radiation and contamination control techniques until radiation surveys indicate that the structures 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 will facilitate surface decontamination and subsequent verification surveys required prior to obtaining release for demolition.

Removal of the remaining components, equipment, and plant services in support of the area release survey(s).

Routing of material removed in the decontamination and dismantling to a central processing area. Material certified to be free of contamination is released for unrestricted disposition, e.g., as scrap, recycle, or general disposal. Contaminated material is characterized and segregated for additional off-site processing (disassembly, chemical cleaning, volume reduction, and wastetreatment), and/or packaged for controlled disposal at a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.

Incorporated into the LTP is the Final Survey Plan. This plan identifies the radiological surveys to be performed once the decontamination activities are completed and is developed using the guidance provided in the "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)."[18] 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 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 7 of 14 worker health and safety (e.g., waste collection and treatment systems, electrical power and ventilation systems).

• Removal of the steel liners from the drywell, disposing of the activated and contaminated sections as radioactive waste. Removal of any activated/contaminated concrete.

It Removal of the steel liners from the dryer-separator pool, reactor well, and spent fuel storage pool. (I) Surveys of the decontaminated areas of the containment structure.

• Removal of the contaminated equipment and material from the turbine and radwaste buildings, and any other contaminated facility.

Use radiation and contamination control techniques until radiation surveys indicate that the structures 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 will facilitate surface decontamination and subsequent verification surveys required prior to obtaining release for demolition.

.. Removal of the remaining components, equipment, and plant services in support of the area release survey(s).

$ Routing of material removed in the decontamination and dismantling to a central processing area. Material certified to be free of contamination is released for unrestricted disposition, e.g., as scrap, recycle, or general disposal.

Contaminated material is characterized and segregated for additional off-site processing (disassembly, chemical cleaning, volume reduction, and waste treatment), and/or packaged for controlled disposal at a low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.

Incorporated into the LTP is the Final Survey Plan. This plan identifies the radiological surveys to be performed once the decontamination activities are completed and is developed using the guidance provided in the "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)."[18]

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 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 2, Page 8 of 14 format that can be verified. The NRC then reviews and evaluates the information, performs an independent confirmation of radiological site conditions, and makes a determination on final termination of the license.The NRC will amend the operating license (to reduce the license to the ISFSI) 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 site (not associated with the ISFSI) is suitable for release.

2.1.3 Period 3 - Site Restoration Following completion of decommissioning operations, site restoration activities will begin. Efficient removal of the contaminated materials and verification that residual radionuclide concentrations are below the NRC limits will result in substantial damage to many of the structures.

Although performed in a controlled, safe manner, blasting, coring, drilling, scarification(surfaceremoval), and the other decontamination activities will substantially degrade power block structures including the reactor, turbine and radwaste 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, when available, 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.

Prompt dismantling of site structures is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option. It is unreasonable to anticipate that thesestructures would be repaired and preserved after the radiological contamination is removed. The cost to dismantle site structures with a work force already mobilized on site is more efficient than if the process were deferred. Site facilities quickly degrade withoutmaintenance, adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public as well as to future workers.

Abandonment creates a breeding ground for vermin infestation as well as other biological hazards.

TLG Services, Inc.Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 8 of 14 format that can be verified.

The NRC then reviews and evaluates the information, performs an independent confirmation of radiological site conditions, and makes a determination on final termination of the license. The NRC will amend the operating license (to reduce the license to the ISFSI) 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 site (not associated with the ISFSI) is suitable for release. 2.1.3 Period 3 -Site Restoration Following completion of decommissioning operations, site restoration activities will begin. Efficient removal of the contaminated materials and verification that residual radio nuclide concentrations are below the NRC limits will result in substantial damage to many of the 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, turbine and radwaste 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, when available, 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. Prompt dismantling of site structures is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option. It is unreasonable to anticipate that these structures would be repaired and preserved after the radiological contamination is removed. The cost to dismantle site structures with a work force already mobilized on site is more efficient than if the process were deferred.

Site facilities quickly degrade without maintenance, adding additional expense and creating potential hazards to the public as well as to future workers. Abandonment creates a breeding ground for vermin infestation as well as other biological hazards. TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 2, Page 9 of 14 This cost study presumes that non-essential structures and site facilities are dismantled as a continuation of the decommissioningactivity.Foundations and exterior walls are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade. The three-foot depth allows for the placement of gravel for drainage, as well as topsoil, so that vegetation can be established for erosion control. Site areas affected by the dismantling activities are restored and the plant area graded as required to prevent ponding and inhibit the refloating of subsurface materials.

Concrete rubble produced by demolition activities is processed toremove rebar and miscellaneous embedments. The processed material is then used on site to backfill voids. Excess materials are trucked to an off-site area for disposal as construction debris.

2.1.4 ISFSI Operations and Decommissioning The ISFSI will continue to operate under a general license (10 CFR

§50) following the completion of the decommissioning process.Assuming the DOE starts accepting fuel in 2025, transfer of spent fuel from Clinton is anticipated to begin in 2063 and continue through the year 2064.

At the conclusion of the spent fuel transfer process, the ISFSI will be decommissioned. The Commission will terminate the §50 license if it determines that the remediation of the ISFSI has been performed inaccordance 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.

This study assumes that, once the casks are emptied and dismantled, and the license for the facility terminated, the pad can be dismantled using conventional techniques for the demolition of reinforced concrete.

The area will then be graded and landscaped to conform to the surrounding environment.

2.2 SAFSTOR AND DELAYED DECOMMISSIONING 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 that permit release for unrestricted use." The facility is left intact TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 9 of 14 This cost study presumes that non-essential structures and site facilities are dismantled as a continuation of the decommissioning activity.

Foundations and exterior walls are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade. The three-foot depth allows for the placement of gravel for drainage, as well as topsoil, so that vegetation can be established for erosion control. Site areas affected by the dismantling activities are restored and the plant area graded as required to prevent ponding and inhibit the refloating of subsurface materials.

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

The processed material is then used on site to backfill voids. Excess materials are trucked to an off-site area for disposal as construction debris. 2.1.4 ISFSI Operations and Decommissioning The ISFSI will continue to operate under a general license (10 CFR §50) following the completion of the decommissioning process. Assuming the DOE starts accepting fuel in 2025, transfer of spent fuel from Clinton is anticipated to begin in 2063 and continue through the year 2064. At the conclusion of the spent fuel transfer process, the ISFSI will be decommissioned.

The Commission will terminate the §50 license if 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. This study assumes that, once the casks are emptied and dismantled, and the license for the facility terminated, the pad can be dismantled using conventional techniques for the demolition of reinforced concrete.

The area will then be graded and landscaped to conform to the surrounding environment.

2.2 SAFSTOR AND DELAYED DECOMMISSIONING 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 that permit release for unrestricted use." The facility is left intact TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 2, Page 10 of 14 (during the dormancy period), with structures maintained in a soundcondition.

Systems not required to operate in support of 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 are similar to those for the DECON alternative, although a shorter time period is expected for these activities due to the more limited work scope. Site preparations are also similar to those for the DECON alternative. However, with the exception of the required radiation surveys and site characterizations, the mobilization and preparation of site facilities is less extensive.

The following discussion is appropriate for both the SAFSTOR and Delayed DECON scenarios, the primary differences being in the length of the dormancy period. In the Delayed DECON scenario, the fuel remains in the fuel building's storage pool until such time that the transfer to a DOE facility is complete. Decommissioning operations are assumed to begin once fuel is off site. By contrast, in the SAFSTOR scenario, the spent fuel is relocated to the ISFSI. The plant remains in safe-storage after the fuel is removed from site.

Decommissioning operations are initiated such that the license is terminated within the required 60-year time period.

2.2.1 Period 1 - Preparations Preparations for long-term storage include the planning for permanent defueling of the reactors, revision oftechnicalspecifications 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:

Isolation of the spent fuel storage services and fuel handling systems located in the fuel building 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.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 10 of 14 (during the dormancy period), with structures maintained in a sound condition.

Systems not required to operate in support of 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 are similar to those for the DECON alternative, although a shorter time period is expected for these activities due to the more limited work scope. Site preparations are also similar to those for the DECON alternative.

However, with the exception of the required radiation surveys and site characterizations, the mobilization and preparation of site facilities is less extensive.

The following discussion is appropriate for both the SAFSTOR and Delayed DECON scenarios, the primary differences being in the length of the dormancy period. In the Delayed DECON scenario, the fuel remains in the fuel building's storage pool until such time that the transfer to a DOE facility is complete.

Decommissioning operations are assumed to begin once fuel is off site. By contrast, in the SAFSTOR scenario, the spent fuel is relocated to the ISFSI. The plant remains in safe-storage after the fuel is removed from site. Decommissioning operations are initiated such that the license is terminated within the required 60-year time period. 2.2.1 Period 1 -Preparations Preparations for long-term storage include the planning for permanent defueling of the reactors, 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:

1/1 Isolation of the spent fuel storage services and fuel handling systems located in the fuel building 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.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 2, Page 11 of 14 In the SAFSTOR scenario, the ISFSI built to support operations is expanded to permit offloading of the spent fuel pool in support of the decommissioning program.

Draining and de-energizing of the non-contaminated systems not required to support continued site operations or maintenance.

Disposing of contaminated filter elements and resin beds not required for processing wastes from layup activities for future operations.

Draining of the reactor vessel, with the internals left in place and the vessel head secured.

Draining and de-energizing non-essential, contaminated systems with decontamination as required for future maintenance and inspection.

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.

Cleaning of the loose surface contamination from building access pathways.Performing an interim radiation survey of plant, posting warning signs where appropriate.

Erecting physical barriers and/or securing all access to radioactive or contaminated areas, except as required for inspection and maintenance.

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 radiologicalinspections 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, TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 11 of 14 41 In the SAFSTOR scenario, the ISFSI built to support operations is expanded to permit offloading of the spent fuel pool in support of the decommissioning program. .. Draining and de-energizing of the non-contaminated systems not required to support continued site operations or maintenance.

e Disposing of contaminated filter elements and resin beds not required for processing wastes from layup activities for future operations.

@ Draining of the reactor vessel, with the internals left in place and the vessel head secured. II' Draining and de-energizing non-essential, contaminated systems with decontamination as required for future maintenance and inspection.

s Preparing lighting and alarm systems whose continued use IS required; de-energizing portions of fire protection, electric power, and HV AC systems whose continued use is not required.

• Cleaning of the loose surface contamination from building access pathways.

• Performing an interim radiation survey of plant, posting warning signs where appropriate.

• Erecting physical barriers and/or securing all access to radioactive or contaminated areas, except as required for inspection and maintenance.

II 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, TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 2, Page 12 of 14 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 and/or detected and controlled.

Appropriate emergency procedures are established and initiated forpotential releases that exceed prescribed limits. The environmental surveillance program constitutes an abbreviated version of the program in effect during normal plant operations.

Security during the dormancy period is conducted primarily to prevent unauthorized entry and to protect the public from the consequences of their own actions. The security fence, sensors, alarms, and other surveillance equipment provide security. Fire and radiation alarms are also monitored and maintained. While remote surveillance is anoption, it does not offer the immediate response time of a physical presence.The transfer of the spent fuel to a DOE facility continues during this period until complete. Fuel is shipped from the pool or the ISFSI (depending upon the scenario). After a period of storage (such that license termination is accomplished within 60 years of final shutdown), it is required that the licensee submit applications to terminate the license, along with an LTP (described in Section 2.1.2), thereby initiating the third phase.

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 DECON TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 12 of 14 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 and/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.

Security during the dormancy period is conducted primarily to prevent unauthorized entry and to protect the public from the consequences of their own actions. The security fence, sensors, alarms, and other surveillance equipment provide security.

Fire and radiation alarms are also monitored and maintained.

While remote surveillance is an option, it does not offer the immediate response time of a physical presence.

The transfer of the spent fuel to a DOE facility continues during this period until complete.

Fuel is shipped from the pool or the ISFSI (depending upon the scenario).

Mter a period of storage (such that license termination is accomplished within 60 years of final shutdown), it is required that the licensee submit applications to terminate the license, along with an LTP (described in Section 2.1.2), thereby initiating the third phase. 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 DECON TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 2, Page 13 of 14 and deferred scenarios 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 sixty 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. However, due to the lower activity levels, a greater percentage of the waste volume can be designated for off-site processing and recovery.

The delay in decommissioning also yields lower working area radiation levels.As such, the estimates for the delayed scenarios incorporate reduced ALARA controls for the lower occupational exposure potential.

Although the initial radiation levels due to 60Co will decrease duringthe 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 DECON alternative would still be employed during deferred scenarios. Portions of the sacrificial shield will still be radioactive due to the presence of activated trace elements with long 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 can begin. If the site structures are to be dismantled, dismantling as a continuation of the decommissioning process is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option, as described in Section 2.1.3. The basis for the dismantling cost in the deferred scenarios is consistent with that described for DECON, presuming the TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 13 of 14 and deferred scenarios 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 sixty 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.

However, due to the lower activity levels, a greater percentage of the waste volume can be designated for off-site processing and recovery.

The delay in decommissioning also yields lower working area radiation levels. As such, the estimates for the delayed scenarios incorporate reduced ALARA controls for the lower occupational exposure potential.

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 DECON alternative would still be employed during deferred scenarios.

Portions of the sacrificial shield will still be radioactive due to the presence of activated trace elements with long 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 can begin. If the site structures are to be dismantled, dismantling as a continuation of the decommissioning process is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option, as described in Section 2.1.3. The basis for the dismantling cost in the deferred scenarios is consistent with that described for DECON, presuming the TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 2, Page 14 of 14 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.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 14 of 14 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.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16

-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 1 of 22 3.COST ESTIMATE The cost estimates prepared for decommissioning Clinton consider the unique features of the site, including the NSSS, power generation systems, support services, site buildings, and ancillary facilities. The basis of the estimates, including the sources of information relied upon, the estimating methodology employed, site-specific considerations, and other pertinent assumptions, is described in this section.3.1 BASIS OF ESTIMATE The estimates were developed with site-specific, technical information developed in an evaluation prepared in 2007. The information was reviewed for the current analysis and updated as deemed appropriate. The site-specific considerations and assumptions used in the previous evaluation were also revisited.

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

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," 1191 and the DOE "Decommissioning Handbook."[201 These documents present a unit factor method for estimating decommissioning activity costs, which simplifies the estimating calculations.

Unit factors for concrete removal ($/cubic yard), steel removal ($/ton), and cutting costs

($/inch) were developed using local labor rates. The activity-dependent costs were estimated with the item quantities (cubic yards and tons), developedfrom plant drawings and inventory documents. Removal rates and material costs for the conventional disposition of components and structures relied upon information available in the industry publication, "Building Construction Cost Data," published by R.S. Means.[211 This analysis reflects lessons learned from TLG's involvement in the Shippingport Station Decommissioning Project, completed in 1989, as well as the decommissioning of the Cintichem reactor, hot cells, and associated facilities, completed in 1997. In addition, the planning and engineering for the Pathfinder, Shoreham, Rancho Seco, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Humboldt Bay-3, Oyster Creek, Connecticut Yankee, and San Onofre-1 nuclear units have provided additional insight into the TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis 3. COST ESTIMATE Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 1 of 22 The cost estimates prepared for decommissioning Clinton consider the unique features of the site, including the NSSS, power generation systems, support services, site buildings, and ancillary facilities.

The basis of the estimates, including the sources of information relied upon, the estimating methodology employed, specific considerations, and other pertinent assumptions, is described in this section. 3.1 BASIS OF ESTIMATE The estimates were developed with site-specific, technical information developed in an evaluation prepared in 2007. The information was reviewed for the current analysis and updated as deemed appropriate.

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

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

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,"[19]

and the DOE "Decommissioning Handbook.

"[20] These documents present a unit factor method for estimating decommissioning activity costs, which simplifies the estimating calculations.

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

Removal rates and material costs for the conventional disposition of components and structures relied upon information available in the industry publication, "Building Construction Cost Data," published by KS. MeansJ21]

This analysis reflects lessons learned from TLG's involvement in the Shippingport Station Decommissioning Project, completed in 1989, as well as the decommissioning of the Cintichem reactor, hot cells, and associated facilities, completed in 1997. In addition, the planning and engineering for the Pathfinder, Shoreham, Rancho Seco, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Humboldt Bay-3, Oyster Creek, Connecticut Yankee, and San Onofre-1 nuclear units have provided additional insight into the TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 2 of 22 process, the regulatory aspects, and the technical challenges of decommissioning commercial nuclear units.

The unit factor method provides a demonstrable basis for establishing reliable cost estimates.

The detail provided in the unit factors, including activity duration, labor costs (by craft), and equipment and consumable costs, ensures that essential elements have not been omitted. Appendix A presents the detailed development of a typical unit factor.

Appendix B provides the values contained within one set of factors developed for this analysis.

Work Difficulty Factors TLG has historically applied work difficulty adjustment factors (WDFs) to account for the inefficiencies in working in a power plant environment.

WDFs were 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:

Access Factor Respiratory Protection Factor Radiation/ALARA Factor Protective Clothing Factor Work Break Factor10% to 20%10% to 50%10% to 40%

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 more 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 radiologically controlled areas.

The resulting man-hours, or crew-hours, are used in the development of the decommissioning program schedule, using resourceloading and event sequencing considerations. The scheduling of conventional removal and dismantling activities are based upon productivity information available from the "Building Construction Cost Data" publication.An activity duration critical path is used to determine the total decommissioning program schedule. The schedule is relied upon in calculating the carrying costs, which include program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental, and support services such as quality control and security. This systematic approach for assembling TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 2 of 22 process, the regulatory aspects, and the technical challenges of decommissioning commercial nuclear units. The unit factor method provides a demonstrable basis for establishing reliable cost estimates.

The detail provided in the unit factors, including activity duration, labor costs (by craft), and equipment and consumable costs, ensures that essential elements have not been omitted. Appendix A presents the detailed development of a typical unit factor. Appendix B provides the values contained within one set of factors developed for this analysis.

Work Difficulty Factors TLG has historically applied work difficulty adjustment factors (WDFs) to account for the inefficiencies in working in a power plant environment.

WDFs were 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:

• Access Factor 411 Respira tory Protection Factor lit RadiationJALARA Factor

• Protective Clothing Factor 411 Work Break Factor 10% to 20% 10% to 50% 10% to 40% 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 more detail in that publication.

Scheduling Program Durations The unit factors, adjusted by the '0ffiFs as described above, are applied against the inventory of materials to be removed in the radiologically controlled areas. The resulting man-hours, or crew-hours, are used in the development of the decommissioning program schedule, using resource loading and event sequencing considerations.

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

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

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

This systematic approach for assembling TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 3 of 22 decommissioning estimates ensures a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the resulting cost estimate.

3.3 FINANCIAL COMPONENTS OF THE COST MODEL TLG's proprietary decommissioning cost model, DECCER, produces a number of distinct cost elements. These direct expenditures, however, do not comprise the total cost to accomplish the project goal, i.e., license termination and site restoration.

Inherent in any cost estimate that does not rely on historical data is theinability to specify the precise source of costs imposed by factors such as tool breakage, accidents, illnesses, weather delays, and labor stoppages. In the DECCER cost model, contingency fulfills this role. Contingency is added to each line item to account for costs that are difficult or impossible to develop analytically.

Such costs are historically inevitable over the duration of a job of this magnitude; therefore, this cost analysis includes funds to cover these types of expenses.

3.3.1 Contingency The activity- and period-dependent costs are combined to develop the total decommissioning cost.

A contingency is then applied on a line-item basis, using one or more of the contingency types listed in the AIF/NESP-036 study. "Contingencies" are defined in the American Association of Cost Engineers "Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook[22} 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, a contingency factor has been applied. In the AIF/NESP-036 study, the types of unforeseeable events that are likely to occur in decommissioning are discussed and guidelines are provided for percentage contingency in each category. It should be noted that contingency, as used in this analysis, does not account for price escalation and inflation in the cost of decommissioning over the remaining operating life of the station.

The use and role of contingency within decommissioning estimates is not a "safety factor issue." Safety factors provide additional security and address situations that may never occur. Contingency funds are TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 3 of 22 decommissioning estimates ensures a high degree of confidence In the reliability of the resulting cost estimate.

3.3 FINANCIAL COMPONENTS OF THE COST MODEL TLG's proprietary decommissioning cost model, DECCER, produces a number of distinct cost elements.

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

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

In the DECCER cost model, contingency fulfills this role. Contingency is added to each line item to account for costs that are difficult or impossible to develop analytically.

Such costs are historically inevitable over the duration of a job of this magnitude; therefore, this cost analysis includes funds to cover these types of expenses.

3.3.1 Contingency The activity-and period-dependent costs are combined to develop the total decommissioning cost. A contingency is then applied on a 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[221 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, a contingency factor has been applied. In the AIF/NESP-036 study, the types of unforeseeable events that are likely to occur in decommissioning are discussed and guidelines are provided for percentage contingency in each category.

It should be noted that contingency, as used in this analysis, does not account for price escalation and inflation in the cost of decommissioning over the remaining operating life of the station. The use and role of contingency within decommissioning estimates is not a "safety factor issue." Safety factors provide additional security and address situations that may never occur. Contingency funds are TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640

-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 4 of 22 expected to be fully expended throughout the program. They also provide assurance that sufficient funding is available to accomplish the intended tasks. An estimate without contingency, or from which contingency has been removed, can disrupt the orderly progression of events and jeopardize a successful conclusion to the decommissioning process.For example, the most technologically challenging task in decommissioning a commercial nuclear station is the disposition of the reactor vessel and internal components, now highly radioactive after a lifetime of exposure to core activity. The disposition of these components forms the basis of the critical path (schedule) for decommissioning operations.

Cost and schedule are interdependent, and any deviation in schedule has a significant impact on cost for performing a specific activity.

Disposition of the reactor vessel internals involves the underwater cutting of complex components that are highly radioactive. Costs are based upon optimum segmentation, handling, and packaging scenarios.

The schedule is primarily dependent upon the turnaround time for the heavily shielded shipping casks, including preparation, loading, and decontamination of the containers for transport. The number of casks required is a function of the pieces generated in the segmentation activity, a value calculated on optimum performance of the tooling employed in cutting the various subassemblies. The expected optimization, however, may not be achieved, resulting in delays and additional program costs. For this reason, contingency must be included to mitigate the consequences of the expected inefficiencies inherent in this complex activity, along with related concerns associated with the operation of highly specialized tooling, field conditions, and water clarity.

Contingency funds are an integral part of the total cost to complete the decommissioning process. Exclusion of this component puts at risk a successful completion of the intended tasks and, potentially, subsequent related activities. For this study, TLG examined the major activity-related problems (decontamination, segmentation, equipment handling, packaging, transport, and waste disposal) that necessitate a contingency. Individual activity contingencies ranged from 10% to 75%, depending on the degree of difficulty judged to be appropriate from TLG's actual decommissioning experience. The contingency values used in this study are as follows:

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 4 of 22 expected to be fully expended throughout the program. They also provide assurance that sufficient funding is available to accomplish the intended tasks. An estimate without contingency, or from which contingency has been removed, can disrupt the orderly progression of events and jeopardize a successful conclusion to the decommissioning process. For example, the most technologically challenging task in decommissioning a commercial nuclear station is the disposition of the reactor vessel and internal components, now highly radioactive after a lifetime of exposure to core activity.

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

Cost and schedule are interdependent, and any deviation in schedule has a significant impact on cost for performing a specific activity.

Disposition of the reactor vessel internals involves the underwater cutting of complex components that are highly radioactive.

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

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

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

The expected optimization, however, may not be achieved, resulting in delays and additional program costs. For this reason, contingency must be included to mitigate the consequences of the expected inefficiencies inherent in this complex activity, along with related concerns associated with the operation of highly specialized tooling, field conditions, and water clarity. Contingency funds are an integral part of the total cost to complete the decommissioning process. Exclusion of this component puts at risk a successful completion of the intended tasks and, potentially, subsequent related activities.

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

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

The contingency values used in this study are as follows: TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3,Page 5 of 22 Decontamination50%Contaminated Component Removal25%Contaminated Component Packaging10%Contaminated Component Transport15%Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal25%Reactor Segmentation75%NSSS Component Removal25%Reactor Waste Packaging25%Reactor Waste Transport25%Reactor Vessel Component Disposal50%GTCC Disposal15%Non-Radioactive Component Removal15%Heavy Equipment and Tooling15%Supplies25%Engineering15%Energy15%Characterization and Termination Surveys30%Construction15%Taxes and Fees10%Insurance10%Staffing15%The contingency values are applied to the appropriate components of the estimates on a line item basis. A composite value is then reported at the end of each estimate. For example, the composite contingency value reported for the DECON alternative is 18.5%. Values for the other alternatives are delineated within the detailed cost tables in Appendices D and E.

3.3.2 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:

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 5 of 22 Decontamination 50% Contaminated Component Removal 25% Contaminated Component Packaging 10% Contaminated Component Transport 15% Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 25% Reactor Segmentation 75% NSSS Component Removal 25% Reactor Waste Packaging 25% Reactor Waste Transport 25% Reactor Vessel Component Disposal 50% GTCC Disposal 15% Non-Radioactive Component Removal 15% Heavy Equipment and Tooling 15% Supplies 25% Engineering 15% Energy 15% Characterization and Termination Surveys 30% Construction 15% Taxes and Fees 10% Insurance 10% Staffing 15% The contingency values are applied to the appropriate components of the estimates on a line item basis. A composite value is then reported at the end of each estimate.

For example, the composite contingency value reported for the DECON alternative is 18.5%. Values for the other alternatives are delineated within the detailed cost tables in Appendices D and E. 3.3.2 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: TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 6 of 22 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.

Delays in approval of the decommissioning plan due to intervention, public participation in local community meetings, legal challenges, and national and local hearings.

Changes in the project work scope from the baseline estimate, involving the discovery of unexpected levels of contaminants,contamination in places not previously expected, contaminated soilpreviously undiscovered (either radioactive or hazardous material contamination), variations in plant inventory or configuration not indicated by the as-built drawings.

Regulatory changes (e.g., affecting worker health and safety, site release criteria, waste transportation, and disposal).

Policy decisions altering national commitments (e.g., in the ability to accommodate certain waste forms for disposition or in the timetable for such, for example, in the start and rate of acceptance of spent fuel by the DOE).

Pricing changes for basic inputs, such as labor, energy, materials, and burial.

This cost study does not add any additional cost 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 estimate.

3.4 SITE-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS There are a number of site-specific considerations that affect the method for dismantling and removal of equipment from the site and the degree of restoration required.

The cost impact of the considerations identified below is included in this cost study.

3.4.1 Spent Fuel Management The cost to dispose of spent fuel generated from plant operations is not reflected within the estimates to decommission the Clinton site.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 6 of 22 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. Delays in approval of the decommissioning plan due to intervention, public participation in local community meetings, legal challenges, and national and local hearings.

110 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.

<<I Regulatory changes (e.g., affecting worker health and safety, site release criteria, waste transportation, and disposal).

<<I Policy decisions altering national commitments (e.g., in the ability to accommodate certain waste forms for disposition or in the timetable for such, for example, in the start and rate of acceptance of spent fuel by the DOE). <<I Pricing changes for basic inputs, such as labor, energy, materials, and burial. This cost study does not add 'any additional cost 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 estimate.

3.4 SITE-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS There are a number of site-specific considerations that affect the method for dismantling and removal of equipment from the site and the degree of restoration required.

The cost impact of the considerations identified below is included in this cost study. 3.4.1 Spent Fuel Management The cost to dispose of spent fuel generated from plant operations is not reflected within the estimates to decommission the Clinton site. TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 7 of 22 Ultimate disposition of the spent fuel is within the province of the DOE's Waste Management System, as defined by the NWPA. As such, the disposal cost is financed by a 1 mill/kWhr surcharge paid into the DOE's waste fund during operations. However, the NRC requires licensees to establish a program to manage and provide funding for themanagement of all irradiated fuel at the reactors until title of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy. This funding requirement is fulfilled through inclusion of certain high-level waste cost elements within the estimate, as described below.

The total inventory of assemblies that will require handling during decommissioning is based upon several assumptions. The pickup of commercial fuel is assumed to begin in the year 2025. The maximum rate at which the fuel is removed from the commercial sites is based upon an annual capacity at the geologic repository of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU). Any delay in the startup of the repository or decrease in the rate of acceptance will correspondingly prolong the transfer process and result in the fuel remaining at the site longer.

In all three scenarios, the ISFSI will continue to operate until such time that the transfer of spent fuel to the DOE can be completed.Assuming that the DOE commences repository operation in 2025, fuel is projected to be removed from the Clinton site by the year 2064. Inthe Delayed DECON scenario, the ISFSI is only used to store fuel placed during plant operations. Spent fuel off-loaded from the reactor after operations cease, remains in the pool during the transfer period.

The inventory of fuel assemblies located in the spent fuel pool is preferentially off-loaded as the allocations permit.

Operation and maintenance costs for the storage facilities (the ISFSI and the pool for the Delayed DECON scenario) are included within the estimates and address the cost for staffing the facilities, as well as security, insurance, and licensing fees. The estimates include the costs to purchase (DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios), load, and transfer the fuel storage canisters. Costs are also provided for the final disposition of the facilities once the transfer is complete.

Repository StartupThe current administration has cut the budget for the geological repository program, but has also appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future to make recommendations for a new plan for nuclear waste disposal. That Commission's charter includes a TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 7 of 22 Ultimate disposition of the spent fuel is within the province of the DOE's Waste Management System, as defined by the NWPA. As such, the disposal cost is financed by a 1 milllkWhr surcharge paid into the DOE's waste fund during operations.

However, the NRC requires licensees to establish a program to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactors until title of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy. This funding requirement is fulfilled through inclusion of certain high-level waste cost elements within the estimate, as described below. The total inventory of assemblies that will require handling during decommissioning is based upon several assumptions.

The pickup of commercial fuel is assumed to begin in the year 2025. The maximum rate at which the fuel is removed from the commercial sites is based upon an annual capacity at the geologic repository of 3,000 metric tons of uranium (MTU). Any delay in the startup of the repository or decrease in the rate of acceptance will correspondingly prolong the transfer process and result in the fuel remaining at the site longer. In all three scenarios, the ISFSI will continue to operate until such time that the transfer of spent fuel to the DOE can be completed.

Assuming that the DOE commences repository operation in 2025, fuel is projected to be removed from the Clinton site by the year 2064. In the Delayed DECON scenario, the ISFSI is only used to store fuel placed during plant operations.

Spent fuel off-loaded from the reactor after operations cease, remains in the pool during the transfer period. The inventory of fuel assemblies located in the spent fuel pool is preferentially off-loaded as the allocations permit. Operation and maintenance costs for the storage facilities (the ISFSI and the pool for the Delayed DECON scenario) are included within the estimates and address the cost for staffing the facilities, as well as security, insurance, and licensing fees. The estimates include the costs to purchase (DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios), load, and transfer the fuel storage canisters.

Costs are also provided for the final disposition of the facilities once the transfer is complete.

Repository Startup The current administration has cut the budget for the geological repository program, but has also appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future to make recommendations for a new plan for nuclear waste disposal.

That Commission's charter includes a TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 8 of 22 requirement that the Commission consider "options for safe storage of used nuclear fuel while final disposition pathways are selected and deployed." For example, it is possible that the NRC could license an interim storage facility, such as that proposed by Private Fuel Storage, within a relatively short time frame, at least by 2025.

Spent Fuel Management Model The Exelon nuclear fleet consists of 21 units at 11 sites in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, including the inactive units at Dresden, Peach Bottom and Zion (Zion is still included in the spent fuel analysis model since the fuel transfer to DOE will still be done as part of the Exelon allocation). The ability to complete the decommissioning of these units, particularly for the DECON and Delayed DECON alternatives, is highly dependent upon when the

DOE is assumed to remove spent fuel from the sites.

The DOE's repository program assumes that spent fuel will be accepted for disposal from the nation's commercial nuclear plants in the order (the "queue") in which it was removed from service ("oldest fuel first").[23]

A computer model developed by Exelon Nuclear was used to determine when the DOE would provide allocations in the queue for removal of spent fuel from the individual sites. Repository operations were based upon annual industry-wide receipt of 400 Metric Tons Heavy Metal (MTHM) in the first year of operation, a total of 3,800 MTHM in years 2 through 4 and 3,000 MTHM for year 5 and beyond.[24)

ISFSIs are constructed as necessary to maintain full-core discharge

capability at the individual sites. Once the DOE begins repository operations, queue allocations are used to ship spent fuel from Exelon's operating sites.Spent fuel shipments are then made from decommissioning sites in the order of retirement.

Canister Design The design and capacity of the ISFSI is based upon the Holtec FW vertical cask system, with an 89 fuel assembly capacity. A unit cost of

$1.256 million is used for pricing the dry storage cask system. The DOE is assumed to provide the MPC for fuel transferred directly from the pool to the DOE, with the same 89 fuel assembly capacity, at no cost to the owner.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 8 of 22 requirement that the Commission consider "options for safe storage of used nuclear fuel while final disposition pathways are selected and deployed." For example, it is possible that the NRC could license an interim storage facility, such as that proposed by Private Fuel Storage, within a relatively short time frame, at least by 2025. Spent Fuel Management Model The Exelon nuclear fleet consists of 21 units at 11 sites in Illinois, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, including the inactive units at Dresden, Peach Bottom and Zion (Zion is still included in the spent fuel analysis model since the fuel transfer to DOE will still be done as part of the Exelon allocation).

The ability to complete the decommissioning of these units, particularly for the DECON and Delayed DECON alternatives, is highly dependent upon when the DOE is assumed to remove spent fuel from the sites. The DOE's repository program assumes that spent fuel will be accepted for disposal from the nation's commercial nuclear plants in the order (the "queue") in which it was removed from service ("oldest fuel first")J23]

A computer model developed by Exelon Nuclear was used to determine when the DOE would provide allocations in the queue for removal of spent fuel from the individual sites. Repository operations were based upon annual industry-wide receipt of 400 Metric Tons Heavy Metal (MTHM) in the first year of operation, a total of 3,800 MTHM in years 2 through 4 and 3,000 MTHM for year 5 and beyond.[24]

ISFSls are constructed as necessary to maintain full-core discharge capability at the individual sites. Once the DOE begins repository operations, queue allocations are used to ship spent fuel from Exelon's operating sites. Spent fuel shipments are then made from decommissioning sites in the order of retirement.

Canister Design The design and capacity of the ISFSI is based upon the Holtec FW vertical cask system, with an 89 fuel assembly capacity.

A unit cost of $1.256 million is used for pricing the dry storage cask system. The DOE is assumed to provide the MPC for fuel transferred directly from the pool to the DOE, with the same 89 fuel assembly capacity, at no cost to the owner. TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 9 of 22 Canister Loading and Transfer An average cost of $250,000 is used for the labor to load/transport the spent fuel from the pool to the ISFSI pad, based upon Exelon experience.

For estimating purposes, 50% of this 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 approximately $777,243 and $91,366 are used for operation and maintenance of the spent fuel pool and the ISFSI, respectively.

ISFSI Design Considerations A multi-purpose (storage and transport) dry shielded storage canister with a vertical, reinforced concrete storage module is used as a basis for the cost analysis. The final core off load, equivalent to 8 modules, are assumed to have some level of neutron

-induced activation as a result of the long

-term storage of the fuel (i.e., to levels exceeding free-release limits). The cost of the disposition of this material, as well as the demolition of the ISFSI facility, is included in the estimate.

3.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components The NSSS (reactor vessel and reactor recirculation system components) will be decontaminated using chemical agents prior to the start of cutting operations (for DECON alternative only). A decontamination factor (average reduction) of 10 is assumed for the process.The reactor pressure vessel and internal components are segmented for disposal in shielded, reusable transportation casks. Segmentation is performed in the dryer-separator pool, where a turntable and remote cutter are installed.

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

The dismantling of the reactor internals will generate radioactive waste considered unsuitable for shallow land disposal (i.e., GTCC).Although the material is not classified as high-level waste, the DOE TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Canister Loading and Transfer Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 9 of 22 An average cost of $250,000 is used for the labor to load/transport the spent fuel from the pool to the ISFSI pad, based upon Exelon experience.

For estimating purposes, 50% of this 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 approximately

$777,243 and $91,366 are used for operation and maintenance of the spent fuel pool and the ISFSI, respectively.

ISFSI Design Considerations A multi-purpose (storage and transport) dry shielded storage canister with a vertical, reinforced concrete storage module is used as a basis for the cost analysis.

The final core off load, equivalent to 8 modules, are assumed to have some level of neutron-induced activation as a result of the long-term storage of the fuel (i.e., to levels exceeding release limits). The cost of the disposition of this material, as well as the demolition of the ISFSI facility, is included in the estimate.

3.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components The NSSS (reactor vessel and reactor recirculation system components) will be decontaminated using chemical agents prior to the start of cutting operations (for DECON alternative only). A decontamination factor (average reduction) of 10 is assumed for the process. The reactor pressure vessel and internal components are segmented for disposal in shielded, reusable transportation casks. Segmentation is performed in the dryer-separator pool, where a turntable and remote cutter are installed.

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

The dismantling of the reactor internals will generate radioactive waste considered unsuitable for shallow land disposal (i.e., GTCC). Although the material is not classified as high-level waste, the DOE TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 10 of 22 has indicated it will accept this waste for disposal at the future high-level waste repository.[25]

However, the DOE has not been forthcoming with an acceptance criteria or disposition schedule for this material, and numerous questions remain as to the ultimate disposal cost and waste form requirements. As such, for purposes of this study, the GTCC has been packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost 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 at the Clinton site.

Intact disposal of the reactor vessel and internal components can provide savings in cost and worker exposure by eliminating the complex segmentation requirements, isolation of the GTCC material, and transport

/storage of the resulting waste packages. Portland General Electric (PGE) was able to dispose of the Trojan reactor as an intact package. However, its location on the Columbia River simplified the transportation analysis since:

the reactor package could be secured to the transport vehicle for the entire journey, i.e., the package was not lifted during transport, there were no man-made or natural terrain features between the plant site and the disposal location that could produce a large drop, and transport speeds were very low, limited by the overland transport vehicle and the river barge.

As a member of the Northwest Compact, PGE had a site available for disposal of the package - the US Ecology facility in Washington State.

The characteristics of this and site proved favorable in demonstrating compliance with land disposal regulations.

It is not known whether this option will be available when Clinton 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. Additionally, with BWRs, the diameter of the reactor vessel may severely limit overland transport.

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 10 of 22 has indicated it will accept this waste for disposal at the future level waste repository.l25]

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

As such, for purposes of this study, the GTCC has been packaged and disposed of as high-level waste, at a cost 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 at the Clinton site. Intact disposal of the reactor vessel and internal components can provide savings in cost and worker exposure by eliminating the complex segmentation requirements, isolation of the GTCC material, and transport/storage of the resulting waste packages.

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

It is not known whether this option will be available when Clinton 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.

Additionally, with BWRs, the diameter of the reactor vessel may severely limit overland transport.

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16

-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 11 of 22 3.4.3 Primary System Components Reactor recirculation 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 recirculation pumps and motors are lifted out intact, packaged, and transported for processing and/or disposal.

3.4.4 Main Turbine and Condenser The main turbine will be dismantled using conventional maintenance procedures. The turbine rotors and shafts will be removed to a laydown area. The lower turbine casings will be removed from their anchors by controlled demolition. The main condensers will also be disassembled and moved to a laydown area. Material is then prepared for transportation to an off-site recycling facility where it will be surveyed and designated for either decontamination or volume reduction, conventional disposal, or controlled disposal. Components will be packaged and readied for transport in accordance with the intended disposition.

3.4.5 Transportation Methods Contaminated piping, components, and structural material other thanthe 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.[26] 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 §71, as Type B. It is conceivable that the reactor, due to its limited specific activity, could qualify as LSA II or III. However, the high radiation levels on the outer surface would require that additional shielding be incorporated within the packaging so as to attenuate the dose to levels acceptable for transport.

Transport of the highly activated metal, produced in the segmentation of the reactor vessels 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 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis 3.4.3 Primary System Components Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 11 of 22 Reactor recirculation 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 recirculation pumps and motors are lifted out intact, packaged, and transported for processing and/or disposal.

3.4.4 Main Turbine and Condenser The main turbine will be dismantled using conventional maintenance procedures.

The turbine rotors and shafts will be removed to a laydown area. The lower turbine casings will be removed from their anchors by controlled demolition.

The main condensers will also be disassembled and moved to a laydown area. Material is then prepared for transportation to an off-site recycling facility where it will be surveyed and designated for either decontamination or volume reduction, conventional disposal, or controlled disposal.

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

3.4.5 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)26] 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 §71, as Type B. It is conceivable that the reactor, due to its limited specific activity, could qualify as LSA II or III. However, the high radiation levels on the outer surface would require that additional shielding be incorporated within the packaging so as to attenuate the dose to levels acceptable for transport.

Transport of the highly activated metal, produced in the segmentation of the reactor vessels 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 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 12 of 22 permissible was based upon the license limits of the available shieldedtransport casks. The segmentation scheme for the vessel and internal segments is designed to meet these limits.

The transport of large intact components (e.g., large heat exchangers and other oversized components) will be by a combination of truck, rail, and/or multi-wheeled transporter. Truck transport costs were estimated using published tariffs from Tri-State Motor Transit.[27]

3.4.6 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal To the greatest extent practical, metallic material generated in the decontamination and dismantling processes is treated to reduce the total volume requiring controlled disposal. The treated material, meeting the regulatory and/or site release criterion, is released as scrap, requiring no further cost consideration. Conditioning and recovery of the waste stream is performed off site at a licensed processing center.

The mass of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities is reported by line-item in Appendices C, D and E, and summarized in Section 5. The Section 5 waste summaries are consistent with 10 CFR §61 classifications. Commercially available steel containers are 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 waste volumes are calculated on the exterior package dimensions for containerized material or a dimensional calculation for components serving as their own waste containers.

The more highly activated reactor components are transported in reusable, shielded truck casks with disposable liners. In calculating disposal costs, the burial fees are applied against the liner volume and weight, with surcharges added for the special handling requirements and the radiological characteristics of the payload. Packaging efficiencies are 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.

Disposal fees are calculated using current disposal agreements, with surcharges added for the highly activated components, for example, generated in the segmentation of the reactor vessel. The cost to dispose of the majority of the material generated from the decontamination TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 12 of 22 permissible was based upon the license limits of the available shielded transport casks. The segmentation scheme for the vessel and internal segments is designed to meet these limits. The transport of large intact components (e.g., large heat exchangers and other oversized components) will be by a combination of truck, rail, and/or multi-wheeled transporter.

Truck transport costs were estimated using published tariffs from Tri-State Motor TransitJ27]

3.4.6 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal To the greatest extent practical, metallic material generated in the decontamination and dismantling processes is treated to reduce the total volume requiring controlled disposal.

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

Conditioning and recovery of the waste stream is performed off site at a licensed processing center. The mass of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities is reported by line-item in Appendices C, D and E, and summarized in Section 5. The Section 5 waste summaries are consistent with 10 CFR §61 classifications.

Commercially available steel containers are 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 waste volumes are calculated on the exterior package dimensions for containerized material or a dimensional calculation for components serving as their own waste containers.

The more highly activatp-d reactor components are transported in reusable, shielded truck casks with disposable liners. In calculating disposal costs, the burial fees are applied against the liner volume and weight, with surcharges added for the special handling requirements and the radiological characteristics of the payload. Packaging efficiencies are 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.

Disposal fees are calculated using current disposal agreements, with surcharges added for the highly activated components, for example, generated in the segmentation of the reactor vessel. The cost to dispose of the majority of the material generated from the decontamination TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 13 of 22 agreement with EnergySolutions for its facility in Clive, Utah.

EnergySolutions facility is not able to accept the higher activity waste(Class B and C) generated in the decontamination of the reactor vessel and segmentation of the components closest to the core. As a proxy for future disposal facilities, waste disposal costs for the higher activity waste (Class B and C) are based upon the last published rate schedule for non-compact waste for the Barnwell facility, adjusted for escalation of the Atlantic Compact rates.

Material exceeding Class C limits (limited to material closest to the reactor core and comprising a small percentage of the total waste volume) is generally not suitable for shallow-land disposal. This material is packaged in the same multipurpose canisters used for spent fuel storage/transport and designated for geologic disposal.

3.4.7 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning The NRC will terminate (or amend) 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 forrelease.The NRC's involvement in the decommissioning process willend at this point. Building codes and environmental regulations will

dictate the next step in the decommissioning process, as well as the owner's own future plans for the site.

Non-essential structures or buildings severely damaged in decontamination process are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade. Concrete rubble generated from demolition activities is processed and made available as clean fill. The excavations will be regraded such that the power block area will have a final contour consistent with adjacent surroundings.

The estimates do not assume the remediation of any significant volume of contaminated soil. This assumption may be affected by continued plant operations and/or future regulatory actions, such as the development of site-specific release criteria.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 13 of 22 and dismantling activities is based upon Exelon's current disposal agreement with EnergySolutions for its facility in Clive, Utah. EnergySolutions facility is not able to accept the higher activity waste (Class B and C) generated in the decontamination of the reactor vessel and segmentation of the components closest to the core. As a proxy for future disposal facilities, waste disposal costs for the higher activity waste (Class B and C) are based upon the last published rate schedule for non-compact waste for the Barnwell facility, adjusted for escalation of the Atlantic Compact rates. Material exceeding Class C limits (limited to material closest to the reactor core and comprising a small percentage of the total waste volume) is generally not suitable for shallow-land disposal.

This material is packaged in the same multipurpose canisters used for spent fuel storage/transport and designated for geologic disposal.

3.4.7 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning The NRC will terminate (or amend) 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 the owner's own future plans for the site. Non-essential structures or buildings severely damaged in decontamination process are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade. Concrete rubble generated from demolition activities is processed and made available as clean fill. The excavations will be regraded such that the power block area will have a final contour consistent with adjacent surroundings.

The estimates do not assume the remediation of any significant volume of contaminated soil. This assumption may be affected by continued plant operations and/or future regulatory actions, such as the development of site-specific release criteria.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 14 of 22 3.5 ASSUMPTIONS The following are the major assumptions made in the development of the estimates for decommissioning the site.

3.5.1 Estimating Basis The study follows the principles of ALARA through the use of work duration adjustment factors. These factors address the impact of activities such as radiological protection instruction, mock-up training, and the use of respiratory protection and protective clothing. The factors lengthen a task's duration, increasing costs and lengthening the overall schedule. ALARA planning is considered in the costs for engineering and planning, and in the development of activity specifications and detailed procedures. Changes to worker exposure limits may impact the decommissioning cost and project schedule.

3.5.2 Labor Costs The craft labor required to decontaminate and dismantle the nuclear unit 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 Exelon or from comparable industry information.

Exelon 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 the activity specifications, work procedures, activation, and structural analyses) under the direction of Exelon.

3.5.3 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 long-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.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis 3.5 ASSUMPTIONS Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 14 of 22 The following are the major assumptions made in the development of the estimates for decommissioning the site. 3.5.1 Estimating Basis The study follows the principles of ALARA through the use of work duration adjustment factors. These factors address the impact of activities such as radiological protection instruction, mock-up training, and the use of respiratory protection and protective clothing.

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

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

Changes to worker exposure limits may impact the decommissioning cost and project schedule.

3.5.2 Labor Costs The craft labor required to decontaminate and dismantle the nuclear unit 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 Exelon or from comparable industry information.

Exelon 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 the activity specifications, work procedures, activation, and structural analyses) under the direction of Exelon. 3.5.3 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 long-lived isotopes (e.g., 137CS, 90S r , 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.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 15 of 22 The curie contents of the vessel and internals at final shutdown are derived from those listed in NUREG/CR-3474.[25] Actual estimates are derived from the curie/gram values contained therein and adjusted for the different mass of the Clinton components, projected operating life, and different periods of decay. Additional short-lived isotopes were derived from CR-0130129 and CR-0672,[30] and benchmarked to the long-lived values from CR-3474.

The disposal cost for the control blades removed from the vessel with the final core load was included within the estimates. Disposition of any blades stored in the pool from operations was considered an operating expense and therefore not accounted for in the estimates.Activation of the reactor building structure is confined to the sacrificial shield.3.5.4 General Transition Activities Existing warehouses will be cleared of non-essential material and remain for use by Exelon and its subcontractors. The plant's operating staff will perform the following activities at no additional cost or credit to the project during the transition period:

Drain and collect fuel oils, lubricating oils, and transformer oils for recycle and/or sale.

Drain and collect acids, caustics, and other chemical stores for recycle and/or sale.

Processes operating waste inventories, i.e., the estimates do not address the disposition of any legacy wastes; the disposal of operating wastes during this initial period is not considered a decommissioning expense.

Scrap and Salvage The existing plant equipment is considered obsolete and suitable for scrap as deadweight quantities only. Exelon will make economically reasonable efforts to salvage equipment following final plant shutdown. However, dismantling techniques assumed by TLG for equipment in this analysis are not consistent with removal techniques required for salvage (resale) of equipment. Experience has indicated TLG Services, Inc.Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 15 of 22 The curie contents of the vessel and internals at final shutdown are derived from those listed in NUREG/CR-34 7 4,[28] Actual estimates are derived from the curie/gram values contained therein and adjusted for the different mass of the Clinton components, projected operating life, and different periods of decay. Additional short-lived isotopes were derived from CR-0130[29]

and CR-0672,[30]

and benchmarked to the long-lived values from CR-3474. The disposal cost for the control blades removed from the vessel with the final core load was included within the estimates.

Disposition of any blades stored in the pool from operations was considered an operating expense and therefore not accounted for in the estimates.

Activation of the reactor building structure is confined to the sacrificial shield. 3.5.4 General Transition Activities Existing warehouses will be cleared of non-essential material and remain for use by Exelon and its subcontractors.

The plant's operating staff will perform the following activities at no additional cost or credit to the project during the transition period:

• Drain and collect fuel oils, lubricating oils, and transformer oils for recycle and/or sale.

• Drain and collect acids, caustics, and other chemical stores for recycle and/or sale.

• Processes operating waste inventories, i.e., the estimates do not address the disposition of any legacy wastes; the disposal of operating wastes during this initial period is not considered a decommissioning expense. Scrap and Salvage The existing plant equipment is considered obsolete and suitable for scrap as deadweight quantities only. Exelon will make economically reasonable efforts to salvage equipment following final plant shutdown.

However, dismantling techniques assumed by TLG for equipment in this analysis are not consistent with removal techniques required for salvage (resale) of equipment.

Experience has indicated TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640

-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 16 of 22 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 possible salvage value that an owner may realize based upon those efforts.

It is assumed, for purposes of this analysis, that any value received from the sale of scrap generated in the dismantling process would be more than offset by the on-site processing costs. The dismantling techniques assumed in the decommissioning estimates do not include the additional cost for size reduction and preparation to meet "furnaceready" conditions. For example, the recovery of copper from electrical cabling may require the removal and disposition of any contaminatedinsulation, 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 will be removed at no cost or credit to the decommissioning project. Disposition may include relocation to other facilities.

Spare parts will also be made available for alternative use.

Energy For estimating purposes, the plant is assumed to be de-energized, with the exception of those facilities associated with spent fuel storage.

Replacement power costs are used for the cost of energy consumptionduring decommissioning for tooling, lighting, ventilation, and essential services.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, were provided by Exelon.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 16 of 22 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 possible salvage value that an owner may realize based upon those efforts. It is assumed, for purposes of this analysis, that any value received from the sale of scrap generated in the dismantling process would be more than offset by the on-site processing costs. 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 will be removed at no cost or credit to the decommissioning project. Disposition may include relocation to other facilities.

Spare parts will also be made available for alternative use. Energy For estimating purposes, the plant is assumed to be de-energized, with the exception of those facilities associated with spent fuel storage. Replacement power costs are used for the cost of energy consumption during decommissioning for tooling, lighting, ventilation, and essential services.

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, were provided by Exelon. TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 17 of 22 Taxes Property taxes are included for all decommissioning periods. Exelon provided a schedule of decreasing tax payments against the current tax assessment. These reductions continue until reaching a minimum property tax payment of $1 million per year; this level is maintained for the balance of the decommissioning program.

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.

3.6 COST ESTIMATE

SUMMARY

through 3.3. Decommissioning costs are reported in the year of projected expenditure; however, the values are provided in thousands of 2012 dollars.

Costs are not inflated, escalated, or discounted over the period of expenditure.

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Taxes Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 17 of 22 Property taxes are included for all decommissioning periods. Exelon provided a schedule of decreasing tax payments against the current tax assessment.

These reductions continue until reaching a minimum property tax payment of $1 million per year; this level is maintained for the balance of the decommissioning program. 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. 3.6 COST ESTIMATE

SUMMARY

A schedule of expenditures for each scenario is provided in Tables 3.1 through 3.3. Decommissioning costs are reported in the year of projected expenditure; however, the values are provided in thousands of 2012 dollars. Costs are not inflated, escalated, or discounted over the period of expenditure.

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

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 18 of 22 TABLE 3.1 DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars)

Equipment &

YearLaborMaterialsEnergyBurialOtherTotal 1204617,328 3,108 824 113,537 24,808 204772,522 15,915 4,021 2,111121,635 116,205 2048!82,398 204980,423 30,222 31,147 3,865 3,038.27,91125,575 34,18619,431 169,972 168,224 205074,912 21,280 2,453 9,00510,072 117,721 205174,400 20,364 2,398 6,6679,204 113,033 205254,352 9,808 1,555 5,68817,050 78,453 205345,486 4,263 642 495114,938 55,823 205430,768 14,665 320 014,497 50,249 205530,768 14,665 320 014,497 50,249 20567,151 1,446 32 0 [4,237 12,866 20574,553,1 0 0 04,196 8,7491 20584,553 1 0 0 04,196 8,749 20594,553 0 0 04,196 8,749 20604,565 0 0 04,208 8,773 20614,553 0 0 014,196 8,749 20624,553 0 0 04,196 8,749 20635,631 3,234 0 04,196 13,062 20645,852 4,569 0 212,740 23,163 20652,117 565 0 2512,543 5,476......_..._............_..._..._.____...3........ _..... __......... _..... .._..

Total611,436_..__.._._._.._._..._..__.___._.._.

175,251__.__`.____.._..._...__...__.._.___I 19,4671.._...._._.__....__.._........_.._._.L_._........_.._..._.__...._._._...__...1 86,328159,342 1._.._._.____.._.__.__ ................

1,051,824 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 3.1 DECON ALTERNATIVE Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 18 of 22 SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars) Equipment

& Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 2046 17,328 3,108 824 11 3,537 24,808 2047 1 72,522 15,915 4,021 2,111 21,635 116,205 i 2048 ! 82,398 30,222 3,865. 27,911

• 25,575 169,972 , ...........

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

-... -... -.-.-.+--.-

.......

...... _. _ ... _ ... _-_ .... __ ........ _ .. _ .. _-_ .. _._ ..... -I 2049 i 80,423 31,1471 3,038 34,186 19,431 168,22! 2050 I 74,912 21,280 2,453 9,0051 10,072 117,721 2051 74,400 20,364 2,398 6,6671 9,204 113,033 I 2052 I 54,352 9,808 1,555 5,6881 7,050 78,453 I 2053 I 45,486 4,263 642.. 4951 4,938 55,823 I 2054 II 30,768 14,665 320 0 I 4,497 I 2055 30,768 14,665 320 0 I 4,497 50,249 I 2056 I 7,151 1,446 32 0 I 4,237 12,866 2058 4,553 0 0 0 2059 4,553 0 0 0 4,196 8,749 2060 4,565 0 I 0 0 4,208 8,773 2061 4,553 0 0 0 4,196 8,749 ! 2062 4,553 0 0 0 4,196 8,749 I ...

___ 0 0 __ 4-,-,_196 I 2064 5,852 4,569 0 2 12,740 23,163 I 2065 2,117 5651 0 251 2,543' 5,476

,******6******1***-1-***,***

4 ... -3 ..... 6.-.. 1--.. -.. -.... -.1 ..... 7-.-5 .... , .. 51-.... l--*---**i 9*-,***4*****6**

.. ***7****+--****--*--8-6****-,**

3*****2-**8****+--**_*1-5-***-9***,**

3***_***4****2****+--**1**--,-0****5-*1-*-,-

8***2******4 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16

-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 19 of 22 TABLE 3.2 DELAYED DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars)

Equipment &

YearLaborMaterialsEnergy BurialOther Total 2046!13,638 316 824 11!1,997 16,785 1204762,743 6,925 3,198 766123,413 97,045 204823,061_.1,405 1,258 488 1 3 6 3 3 8 204913,811 435 640 1716,698---.21,600 205013,811 435 640 1711.6,698 21,600 205113,811 435 640 176,698 21,600 205213,848 436 641 1716,717 21,659 205313,811 205413,811 435 435 640, 1640 176,698 176,698 21,600 g17690 205513,811 435 640_1716,698_____21,600 205613,848 436 641 176,717 21,659 205713,811 435 640 1716,698 21,600 205813,811 205913,811 E435 435 640 !640 1716,698 176,698 21,600 21,600 206013,8481 436 641 176,717, 21,659 206113,811 435 640 176,698 21,600 206213,811 435 640 17 E6,698 21,600, 206315,967 206411,456 6,904 5,870 640 462 1 176,698 125,446 30,225 23,245 206544,043 1,631 3,198 382,432 51,340 206665,594_._._.....__-.._..__.._._., 206768,629 14._.___.....__..._.__...__.,715 18,005....__...._._.......__3,11.

3,038_._...__.10,838!7,138 21,574;11,818 101,402 123,064 206863,676 2069!62,801 9,798 8,646 2,482 2,398 7,8925,751 !5,9984,904 89598 84,747 207054,091 5,152 1,516 3,008,3,787 67,555 207131,630 207227,254_ _ ...... ......

11,618.14,864 1 398 321 81 781.._.._.......__

01,496 45 43..___.__.._-.._._......_.......-..-._......

43,936 207313,776 7,513 162 0756 22,208 Total751,821 119,452 31,969 50,886 =181,373 1,135,501 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 19 of 22 Year TABLE 3.2 DELAYED DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars) Equipment

& Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total ! 2046 13,638 316 824 11 1,9971 16,785 I 2047 I 62,743 6,925 3,198 766 23,413 97,045

--..

I 2050 I 13,811 435 640 17 6,698 21,600 I 2051 13,811 435 640 17 i 6,698 21,600 I 2052 13,848 436 641 17 6,717 21,659 I 22 0 0 5 5 4 3 II 113 3',881 11 1 435 640 17 6,698 21,600 . 4351 640 171 6,698 21,6QQ r 2055 I 13,811 435 640 171 6,698 21,600 I 205f? J 13,848 436 641 17 6,717 21,659l I 2057 13,811 435 640 17\ 6,698 21,600'1 I 13,811 435 17..J ___ § ..

I 2059 I 13,811 435 I 17\ 6,698 21,600 i 2060 13,8481 436 641 171 6,717 21,659 I 2061 I 13,811\ 435 640 17 6,698 21,600 I 2062 I 13,811 1 435 640 171 6,698 21,600 \ __

15,967 r--___ ..§.4,Ql _____ 17 ___

i 2064 I 11,456 5,870 4621 12 5,446 23,245 , ' i 2065 44,043 1,631 3,198 38 2,432 51,340

.. ----i -

.. * .. ---..

....

.. -

..

.. l_ ..

63,676_ __ 9, 798 __

7,892 §., 75lj ___

I 2069 62,801 8,646 2,398 5,998 i 4,9041 84,747 I 2070 54,091 5,152 1,516 3,008 3,787 67,555

..

....

..

..

..

I 2073 i 13,776 7,5131 1621 0 I 7561 22,208 :---------*--T--*---, i------t----------t-----------*r--*------* ! I I -l-------i-------+------i

! Total I 751,8211 119,452 1 31,969 50,886 181,373 1,135,501 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 20 of 22 TABLE 3.3 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars)

Equipment &

YearLaborMaterialsEnergyBurialOtherTotal 204614,5301 2,992 824 113,537 21,894 204766,210 17,326 3,198 766127,853 115,353 204826,597 204917,3641 12,015 11,093 1,258 640 488113,0211 17110,499 53,380 39,612 2050117,364 11,093 640 1710,499 39,612 205117,364 11,093 640 1710,499 39,612 20529,159 1 3,149 398 105,989 18,705 20536,428 20546,428 319 319 320 320 84,540 814,540 11,615 11,615 20556,428 319 320 84,540 11,615 20566,445 320 321 84,5531 11,647 20576,428 319 320 814,540 11,615 20586,428 20596,428 319 1 319 320 320 814,540 84,540 11,615 11,615 20606,445 320 321 84,553 11,647 20616,428 319 320 84,540 11,615 20626,428 319 320 8 1 14,540 11,615 20637,506 3,554 320.814,540 , 15,928 120647,732 4,201 321 84,547 16,809 20653,721 313 320 72,319 6,680 2066__--3,721 ...

20673,721_.__.._.313_ .313 1320 320 72,319 72,319 6,680 6,680 20683,731 20693,721 314 313 321 320 72,325 7'2,319 6,698 6,680 20703,721 313 320 712,319 6,680 2071--...._:_......___3,721 20723,731........-.......313 1314 1320 321 7.._..._--_...._._.2,319 72,325 6,680 6,698 20733,721 20743,721!313 1313 1320 320 2,319 ,7 12,319 6,680;6,680 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 20 of 22 Year TABLE 3.3 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars) Equipment

& Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 2046 I 14,530! 2,992 824 111 3,537 21,894 2047 I 66,210 17,326 3,198 7661 27,853 115,353 i 2048 i 26,597 12,015 1,258 488 i 13,021 1 53,380 r.-..........

---.---l----

.. -.-----. _ -------.----.-. __ . _____ ._ . .L ___ . __________________ . --*---------+-------------*-----T--*-----**

i 2049 I 17,364 11,093 640 171 10,499 39,612 I 2050 I 17,364 11,093 640 17 10,499 39,612 i 2051 . 17,364 11,093, 640 17 10,499 39,612 12'052 9,159 3,149 398 10 5,989 18,705 2053 6,_428 319 320 8\

__ 2054 6,428 319 320 81 4,540 2055 6,428 319 320 8 4,540 11,615 i 2056 6,445 3201 321 81 4,553 11,647 : 2057 ! 6,428 320 81 4,540 11,615 ! 2058 I 6,428 3191 320 81 4,540 11,615 I r--2059--6A2sr--3i91 320 8T 4,540 11,615 1 12060 6,4451 320 321 81 4,553 11,647 2061 6,428 319 320 8 4,540 11,615 2062 I 6,428 319 320 8 4,540 11,615 I 2063 I 7,506 3,554 320 81 4,540 15,928 e-y-----f--------------f-------

--I 2064 I 7,732 4,201 321 8 4,547 16,809 i 2065 I 3,721 313 320 71 2,319 I 6,680

---

.-.--

314 321 _____

i 2069 i 3,7211 313 320 71 2,3191 6,680 r 2070 I 3,721 313 320 7 2,319 6,680 I 2071 I 3,721 313 320 7\ 2,3191 6,680 r-'20-72---'r'---3':7Si-1 314 321---'--'---iI'-------2-:S25r-'-------'-'-6,-69S-320 7 L ___

! 2074 : 3,7211 313 i 320 I 71 2,3191 6,680J TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640

-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 21 of 22 TABLE 3.3 (continued)

SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars)

Equipment &

YearLaborMaterialsEnergy BurialOther Total 2075 113,721 313 320 71 2,319 6,680 2076 3,731 314 321 7 2,325 6,698 j2077 2078 3,721 3,721 313 313 1320 320 71 7 2,319 2,319._..____....._..._6,680_

6,680 2079 3,721 313 320 7 2,319 2,319.

1 2080 3,731 314 321 7 2,325 6,698 2081#3,721 313 320 71 2,319 6,680 2082 2083 3,721 3,721 313 313 320 320 7 71.2,319 2,319 6,680 6,680 2084 3,731 314 321 7 2,325 6,698 2085 3,721 313 320 711 2,319 6,680 2086 3,721 313 320 7 2,319 6,680, 208 73 ,721 313 320 71 2,319 6,680 2088 3,731 314 321 71 2,325 6,6981 2089 3,721 313 320 7--_--_--------

2,319----------

6,680 2090 37211 313 320 71 2,319--._-6,680 2091 3,7211 313 320 7 11 2,319 6,680-2092_3,731 314 321 71 2,325 6,698 , 2093 3,721 313 320 71 2,319 6,680 2094 3,721 313 320 7!2,319 '6,680 2095 3,721 313 320 7 2,319 6,680 2096 3,731 314 1 321 7 2,325 6,698 2097 3,721 313 320 7 2,319 6,680 2098 3,721 313 320 7 2,319 6,680 2099 3,721 313 320 7 2,319 6,680 2100 16,519 723 1,234 17 2,355 20,849 2101 49,887 4,719 1 3,198 39'2,432 60,275 2102 69,056 18,204 3,067 17,612 10,357 118,297 2103 67,580 15,503 2,794 15,624!9,398 110,8991 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 21 of 22 Year TABLE 3.3 (continued)

SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars) Equipment

& Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 2075 3,721 313 320 7 2,319 6,6801 2076 I 3,731 314 321 71 2,325 6,698 2077 3, 721 313 320 __ ._. ____ ._. __ .. _} L..

... _ .. ____ ._.§1§§gj 2078 3,721 313 320 71 2,319 6,680

_. 313 320 7 . __ 6,680 I 2080 i 3,731 314 321 71 2,325 6,698 ! 2081 i 3,721 313 320 7! 2,319 6,680 2082 I 3,721 313 320 71 2,319 2083 ! 3,721 313 320 71 2,319 6,680 l 2084 I 3,731 314 321 7

______

! 2085 I 3,721 313 3 7 2,319 6,680 i 2086 ! 3,721 313 320 7 2,319 6,680 ! 2087 ! 3,721 313 320 7 2,319 6,680 ,---__ ----j _____ e---_ : 2088 I 3,731 314 321 7 2,325 6,6981 l __

J-_____ _____

______

___ .i?&§Q_ I 2090 ! 3,7211 313 320 7\ 2,319 . 6,680 2091 I 3,7211 313 320 7 i 2,319 6,680 L-2091_-1_ 3,7?1 314 ___ 9_?J 7

_____ §,698., ! 2093 I 3,721 313 320 71 2,319 6,680

___

__ 1: i 2096 I 3,731 3141 321 7\ 2,325 6,698 2097 .U12!___ 313 320 7 2098 I 3,721 313 320 7 2,319 6,680 2099 I 3,721 313 320 7 2,319 6,680 2100 16,519 7231 1,234 17 2,355 i 20,849 1 I 2101 49,887 4,7191 3,198 39! 2,432 60,275 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 3, Page 22 of 22 TABLE 3.3 (continued)

SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars)

Equipment &

YearLaborMaterialsEnergy BurialOther Total 210462,972 8,651 2,405 5,98514,954 84,966 210562,753 8,608 2,393 5,95214,934 84,640 2106140,805 127,471 5,083.14,904 557 320 2512,.37.1 01,492 48,842 44,187 210827,546 14,945 321 0___1,496 44,308 2109151 82 2 018 242 Total1803,188 182,094 38,925 46,938257,427 1,328,572 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 22 of 22 Year TABLE 3.3 (continued)

SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars) Equipment

& Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 2104 62,972 8,651 2,405 5,9851 I 2105 62,753 8,608 2,393 5,952 i 4,934 84,640 ! 2106 I 40,805 5,083 557 25 i 2,371, 48,842 r*-----**-*---

J--*****--******-***-**

1-**--**--****-**.-

.. -...... -.. -...... -------.... --...... -.-... --.... --.. -.-.-.--........ ;-.-... -.-...... -._ .... -.-..... -...........

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

........ -..... -.. ---... . i 2107 I 27,471 14,904 320 0 I 1,492 44,187 2108 27,546 14,945 321 0 L __

44,308_ 2109 151 82 2 01 8 2421 I I Total I 803,188 182,094 38,925 46,9381 257,427 1,328,572J TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 4, Page 1 of 7 4.SCHEDULE ESTIMATE The schedules for the decommissioning scenarios considered in this study follow the sequence presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study, with minor changes to reflect recent experience and site-specific constraints. In addition, the scheduling has been revised to reflect the spent fuel management plans described in Section 3.4.1.

A schedule or sequence of activities is presented in Figure 4.1 for the DECON decommissioning alternative. The schedule is also representative of the workactivities identified in the delayed dismantling scenarios, absent any spent fuel constraints.

The scheduling sequence assumes that fuel is removed from the spent fuel pool within the first five and one-half years after operations cease. The key activities listed in the schedule do not reflect a one-to-one correspondence with those activities in the cost tables, but reflect dividing some activities for clarity and combining others for convenience. The schedule was prepared using the "Microsoft Project 2010" computer software.[311 4.1 SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS The schedule reflects the results of a precedence network developed for the site decommissioning activities, i.e., a PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique) Software Package. The work activity durations used in the precedence network reflect the actual man-hour estimates from the cost tables, adjusted by stretching certain activities over their slack range and shifting the start and end dates of others. The following assumptions were made in the development of the DECON decommissioning schedule:

The fuel building is isolated until such time that all spent fuel has been discharged from the spent fuel pool to the DOE or to the ISFSI.

Decontamination and dismantling of the storage pool are initiated once the transfer of spent fuel to the ISFSI is complete.

All work (except vessel and internals removal) is performed during an 8-hour workday, 5 days per week, with no overtime. There are eleven paid holidays per year.Reactor and internals removal activities are performed by using separate crews for different activities working on different shifts, with a corresponding backshift charge for the second shift.

Multiple crews work parallel activities to the maximum extent possible,consistent with optimum efficiency, adequate access for cutting, removal and laydown space, and with the stringent safety measures necessary during demolition of heavy components and structures.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 1 of 7 4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATE The schedules for the decommissioning scenarios considered in this study follow the sequence presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study, with minor changes to reflect recent experience and site-specific constraints.

In addition, the scheduling has been revised to reflect the spent fuel management plans described in Section 3.4.1. A schedule or sequence of activities is presented in Figure 4.1 for the DECON decommissioning alternative.

The schedule is also representative of the work activities identified in the delayed dismantling scenarios, absent any spent fuel constraints.

The scheduling sequence assumes that fuel is removed from the spent fuel pool within the first five and one-half years after operations cease. The key activities listed in the schedule do not reflect a one-to-one correspondence with those activities in the cost tables, but reflect dividing some activities for clarity and combining others for convenience.

The schedule was prepared using the "Microsoft Project 2010" computer softwareJ31]

4.1 SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS The schedule reflects the results of a precedence network developed for the site decommissioning activities, i.e., a PERT (Program Evaluation and Review Technique)

Software Package. The work activity durations used in the precedence network reflect the actual man-hour estimates from the cost tables, adjusted by stretching certain activities over their slack range and shifting the start and end dates of others. The following assumptions were made in the development of the DECON decommissioning schedule:

.. The fuel building is isolated until such time that all spent fuel has been discharged from the spent fuel pool to the DOE or to the ISFSI. Decontamination and dismantling of the storage pool are initiated once the transfer of spent fuel to the ISFSI is complete.

.. All work (except vessel and internals removal) is performed during an 8-hour workday, 5 days per week, with no overtime.

There are eleven paid holidays per year.

• 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. <II 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.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 4, Page 2 of 7 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 schedule for decommissioning Clinton.

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 also shownfor the spent fuel cooling period, which determines the release of the fuel building for final decontamination.

In Figure 4.1, the schedule is based upon years following the final shutdown date of September 29, 2046. Project timelines are provided in Figures 4.2 through 4.4; the milestone dates are based on this same shutdown date. The start of decommissioning activities in the Delayed Decommissioning scenario is concurrent with the end of the fuel transfer activity (i.e. to an off-site DOE facility).

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 2 of 7 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 schedule for decommissioning Clinton. 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 also shown for the spent fuel cooling period, which determines the release of the fuel building for final decontamination.

In Figure 4.1, the schedule is based upon years following the final shutdown date of September 29, 2046. Project timelines are provided in Figures 4.2 through 4.4; the milestone dates are based on this same shutdown date. The start of decommissioning activities in the Delayed Decommissioning scenario is concurrent with the end of the fuel transfer activity (i.e. to an off-site DOE facility).

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost AnalysisDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 3 of 7 FIGURE 4.1 ACTIVITY SCHEDULE ID Task Name l Y° Y3 Y Y5 Y6 Y7 Y8 Y9 10 112 1 Clinton schedule 2`nit 1 3 Period la Unit 1 - Shutdown through transition 4 i.x ..r_ ct permanent cessation.

5 Fuel storage pool operations 6 Dry fuel storage operations 7 8 Prepare activity specifications 9 Perform site characterization 10 P',I)A1' !- ut,i-ixitted 11 of permanent removal of #:,,a}>ii,^t ce.l 12`^_ _^ifx^.^ecoxnn ussioning cost estimate 13 DOC, n u.;obilized 14 Period lb Unit 1 -

Decommissioning preparations 15 Fuel storage pool opera n.ons 16 17 Dry fuel storage operation 18 Prepare detailed work procedures 19 Decon NSSS 20 Isolate spent fuel pool 21 Period 2a Unit 1 - Large component removal 22 Fuel storage pool operations 23 Dry fuel s torage operations 24 J^fl.IC,l k,lli=_i<25 26 2" UL n e,. _ntial sv stems TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis FIGURE 4.1 ACTIVITY SCHEDULE ID ITask Name 1 IClinton schedule 2 I Shutdcrvvn Vmt 1 3l Period la Unit 1 -Shutdown through transition oJ, 5 6 7 8 9 10 Certificate of pl?rmanent cessation Fuel storage pool operations Dry fuel storage operations Prepare activity specifications Perform site characterization PSDAR submitted submitted 11 Written certIflCate of permanent removal of fuel submItted 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Site cost estimate sUltlmlltted DOC staff llJ.VUU1L"'

... Period Ib Unit 1 -Decommissioning preparations Fuel storage pool operations Dry fuel storage operations Prepare detailed work procedures DeconNSSS Isolate spent fuel pool Period 2a Unit 1 -Large component removal Fuel storage pool operations Dry fuel storage operations r-rp"Hr,,, .nn fo1' reactor v",sse! removal Reactor

& internals NSSS components U.lo'P05UiOIl Non-essential systems TLG Services, Inc. Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 3 of 7 lY-ilYl1 I ysl Y4J Y51 Y61 Yil ysl Y91YlolY'111Y121 il Ilfit,MkB,H/:fIJJjTKKtIT1'K:15If;;:;/T\I;;:Q;iM'tlSm:tirttlimElitlit1BIi f r ;; r ".." * * ;: 11 t "

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost AnalysisDocument E16

-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 4 of 7 FIGURE 4.1 (continued)

ACTIVITY SCHEDULE ID Task Name-1 1 2 Y3 Y4 Y5 Y 7 Y3 Y 1Q 11 12 28 Main turbinelgenerator

....::.,.29 Main condenser`30 pl,.fiiiiiiat.r.tecl 31 Period 2b Unit 1 - Decontamination (wet fuel) 22 Fuel Cltl"1 33 Il-,^I d 34 11:1c.c t]^^i ,a': L^`.'^^1li us^awwv,^na*^wnn 30 s^wbwa^:.36 37 Fuel stor.t, i-,^l sati a zl;,ljl, for <3,-ccznznissiorun-38 Period 2d Unit 1 -

Decontamination following wet fuel storage 39 Dry fuel storage operations 40 Remov e remainizT systems 41 Ilecor, Y.. -t "a-1-aia 42 Period. 2e Unit 1 -

Plant license termination 43 Dry fuel storag e operations 44 B. .._t 45 A l41l0>46 Pif=it,._uinated 47 Period 3b Unit 1 -

Site restoration 48 Dry fuel storage operations 4 9 y'jj TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis ID 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 Task Name Main turbineJgenerator Main condenser License termination submitted FIGURE 4.1 (continued)

ACTIVITY SCHEDULE Period 2b Unit 1 -Decontamination (wet fuel) Fuel storage fuel storage Remove systems not Jporting "vet fuel Decon 'ilrli'1g:" not C:!!uppvHulg

\vet fuel storage License terminahon approved.

Fuel storage available for ..], ;"', . .,. Period 2d Unit 1 -Decontamination following wet fuel storage Dry fuel storage operations Remove remaining systelll.5 Decon wet fuel storage area Period 2e Unit 1 -Plant license termination Dry fuel storage operations Final Site S .. u. ""Y review & Part 50 license terminated Peliod 3b Unit 1 -Site restoration Dry fuel storage operations tIding ,-l"'mAlitinn<<

backfill and

'or -c END TLG Services, Inc. IY-l Y1 Y3 Y4 , (" i",,':,;, -Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 4 of 7 Y5 Y6 IY7 Y8 Y9 YIO .1'1 --Iii. .. ." ; ";:;'; ,:J;;;; r Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 4, Page 5 of 7 FIGURE 4.2 DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE DECON (not to scale)(Shutdown September 29, 2046)

-< ........................... _.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

31-Pool and ISFSI OperationsISFSI OperationsPeriod 1 Transition and Preparations Period 2Period 3ISFSIISFSI DecommissioningI R Site OperationsD&D 09/204603/2048 Storage Pool Empty 03/2052 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 5 of 7 FIGURE 4.2 DECOMMISSIONING TIME LINE DECON (not to scale) (Shutdown September 29,2046) -.< .............................................................................................................. ..................................................................................................................................................... Pool and ISFSI Operations ISFSI Operations Period 1 . Period 3 Transition and Pen?d.2 . Site ISFSI 09/2046 03/2048 1112053 02/2056 12/2064 06/2065 TLG Services, Inc. Storage Pool Empty 03/2052 Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 4, Page 6 of 7 FIGURE 4.3 DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE DELAYED DECON (not to scale)(Shutdown September 29, 2046)

.............................................. ....................................... _..................................................y Storage Pool Operations (pool empty: 06/2064)

Period 1Period 2 Transition andDormancy Preparations Period 3Period 4 DelayedDecommissioning Preparations Period 5 Site Restoration 09/204603/204812/206407/206603/207107/2073. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............................ . . ..... . . ................................. (ISFSI empty: 12/2064)

All Spent Fuel Off site TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 6 of 7 FIGURE 4.3 DECOMMISSIONING TIME LINE DELAYED DECON (not to scale) (Shutdown September 29,2046) ..............................................

-.......................................................................................... . Storage Pool Operations (pool empty: 06/2064) Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Transition and Dormancy Delayed Decommissioning Site

__ "" __

_______ " __

09/2046 03/2048 12/2064 ...................................................................

-..................................................................... . . ISFSI Operations (ISFSI empty: 12/2064) TLG Services, Inc. All Spent Fuel Off site 07/2066 03/2071 07/2073 Clinton Power StationDocument E16

-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 4, Page 7 of 7 FIGURE 4.4 DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE SAFSTOR (not to scale)(Shutdown September 29, 2046)

................................. _......... _..................................................

>Spent Fuel Storage Period 1 Transition and Preparations

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

Period 4 Decommissioning Period 2Period 3 DormancyDelayed Preparations

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

F.....................................................................................

I Period 5 Site Restoration 09/204603/2048 09/210003/210209/210601/2109 Storage Pool Empty 03/2052 ISFSI Empty 12/2064 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 7 of 7 FIGURE 4.4 DECOMMISSIONING TIME LINE SAFSTOR (not to scale) (Shutdown September 29,2046) << ............................................................................................... Spent Fuel Storage Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Period 5 Transition and Dormancy Delayed Decommissioning Site __ " _____ """ __

____ 09/2046 03/2048 Storage Pool Empty 03/2052 ISFSI Empty 12/2064 TLG Services, Inc. 09/2100 03/2102 09/2106 01/2109 Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 5, Page 1 of 5 5.RADIOACTIVE WASTES The objectives of the decommissioning process are the removal of all radioactive material from the site that would restrict its future use and the termination of theNRC license(s). This currently requires the remediation of all radioactive material at the site in excess of applicable legal limits. Under the Atomic Energy Act,[321 the NRC is responsible for protecting the public from sources of ionizing radiation. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations delineates the production, utilization, and disposal of radioactive materials and processes. In particular, §71 definesradioactive material as it pertains to packaging and transportation and §61 specifies its disposition.

Most of the materials being transported for controlled burial are categorized as Low Specific Activity (LSA) or Surface Contaminated Object (SCO) materials containing Type A quantities, as defined in 49 CFR §173-178. Shipping containers are required to be Industrial Packages (IP-1, IP-2 or IP-3, as defined in subpart 173.411). For this study, commercially available steel containers are presumed to be used for the disposal of piping, small components, and concrete. Larger components can serve as their own containers, with proper closure of all openings, access ways, and penetrations.

The volumes of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities at the site is shown on a line-item basis in Appendices C, D, and E and summarized in Tables 5.1 through 5.3. The quantified waste volume summaries shown in these tables are consistent with §61 classifications. The volumes are calculated based on the exterior dimensions for containerized material and on the displaced volume of components serving as their own waste containers.

The reactor vessel 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 burial fees are applied against the liner volume, as well as the special handling requirements of the payload. Packaging efficiencies are 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 decommissioning is accomplished, due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides.While the dose rates decrease with time, long-lived radionuclides will still control the disposition requirements.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 1 of 5 5. RADIOACTIVE WASTES The objectives of the decommissioning process are the removal of all radioactive material from the site that would restrict its future use and the termination of the NRC license(s).

This currently requires the remediation of all radioactive material at the site in excess of applicable legal limits. Under the Atomic Energy Act,[32] the NRC is responsible for protecting the public from sources of ionizing radiation.

Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations delineates the production, utilization, and disposal of radioactive materials and processes.

In particular, §71 defines radioactive material as it pertains to packaging and transportation and §61 specifies its disposition.

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

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

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

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

The volumes of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities at the site is shown on a line-item basis in Appendices C, D, and E and summarized in Tables 5.1 through 5.3. The quantified waste volume summaries shown in these tables are consistent with §61 classifications.

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

The reactor vessel 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 burial fees are applied against the liner volume, as well as the special handling requirements of the payload. Packaging efficiencies are 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 containinglhandling 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 decommissioning is accomplished, due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides.

While the dose rates decrease with time, long-lived radionuclides will still control the disposition requirements.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 5, Page 2 of 5 The waste material generated in the decontamination and dismantling of Clinton is primarily generated during Period 2 of the DECON alternative and Period 4 of the deferred alternatives.

Material that is considered potentially contaminated when removed from the radiologically controlled area is sent to processing facilities in Tennessee for conditioning and disposal. Heavily contaminated components and activated materials are routed for controlled disposal. The disposal volumes reported in the tables reflect the savings resulting from reprocessing and recycling.

Disposal fees are calculated using current disposal agreements, with surcharges added for the highly activated components, for example, generated in the segmentation of the reactor vessel. The cost to dispose of the majority of the material generated from the decontamination and dismantling activities is based upon Exelon's current disposal agreement with EnergySolutions for its facility in Clive, Utah.

EnergySolutions' facility is not able to accept the higher activity waste (Class B and C) generated in the decontamination of the reactor vessel and segmentation of the components closest to the core. As a proxy for future disposal facilities, waste disposal costs for the higher activity waste (Class B and C) are based upon the last published rate schedule for non-compact waste for the Barnwell facility, adjusted for escalation of the Atlantic Compact rates.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 2 of 5 The waste material generated in the decontamination and dismantling of Clinton is primarily generated during Period 2 of the DECON alternative and Period 4 of the deferred alternatives.

Material that is considered potentially contaminated when removed from the radiologically controlled area is sent to processing facilities in Tennessee for conditioning and disposal.

Heavily contaminated components and activated materials are routed for controlled disposal.

The disposal volumes reported in the tables reflect the savings resulting from reprocessing and recycling.

Disposal fees are calculated using current disposal agreements, with surcharges added for the highly activated components, for example, generated in the segmentation of the reactor vessel. The cost to dispose of the majority of the material generated from the decontamination and dismantling activities is based upon Exelon's current disposal agreement with EnergySolutions for its facility in Clive, Utah. EnergySolutions' facility is not able to accept the higher activity waste (Class Band C) generated in the decontamination of the reactor vessel and segmentation of the components closest to the core. As a proxy for future disposal facilities, waste disposal costs for the higher activity waste (Class B and C) are based upon the last published rate schedule for non-compact waste for the Barnwell facility, adjusted for escalation of the Atlantic Compact rates. TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16

-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 5, Page 3 of 5 DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

DECON Waste VolumeMass WasteCost Basis Class [1](cubic feet[______(pounds)

Low-Level RadioactiveEnergySolutions Waste (near-surfaceContainerizedA disposal)EnergySolutions Bulk 219,548 13,142,220 59,509 3,452,391 Future Disposal 487,39120,285,930 151,932,000 Scra[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.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 3 of 5 TABLE 5.1 DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

DECON ! Waste Volume Waste

• Cost Basis I Class [I] (cubic feet) I I I I I , I Low-Level Radioactive Energy Solutions I I Waste (near-surface Containerized A 219,548 disposal)

EnergySolutions Bulk A 59,509 I Future Disposal I I I 2,180 I I Facility B Future Disposal I I Facility C 1,320 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel (geologic repository)

Equivalent GTCC .t 1,7851 I I Total [2] 284,343 I I Processed/Conditioned Recycling I (off-site recycling center) Vendors I A 487,391 I I I I I Scrap Metal Mass (pounds) 13,142,220 3,452,391 253,736 110,235 351,100 17,309,682 20,285,930 151,932,000

[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.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16

-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 5, Page 4 of 5 TABLE 5.2 DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

DELAYED DECON Waste Volume 1Mass WasteCost Basis'Class [1](cubic feet)ounds)Low-Level RadioactiveEnergySolutions Waste (near

-surfaceContainerizedA disposal)EnergySolutions BulkAFuture Disposal Facilit y Future DisposalFacility__

IC _Total [21 I ProcessedlConditionedRecycling (off-site recycling centerVendors 582,901124,179,990 A L Scrap Metal 1 151,932,000

[']Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title 10 CFR, Part 61.55

[2]Columns may not add due to rounding.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 4 of 5 TABLE 5.2 DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

DELAYED DECON Waste Volume Waste Cost Basis Class [I] (cubic feet) I Low-Level Radioactive EnergySolutions Waste (near-surface Containerized A 126,122 disposal)

EnergySolutions Bulk A 54,048 Future Disposal I Facility B I 751 Future Disposal I I Facility C I 1,0751 I I I I 1 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel I I (geologic repository)

Equivalent GTCC 1,7851 I Total [2] I 183,781 I Processed/Conditioned Recycling 582,901 I (off-site recycling center) Vendors A I I Scrap Metal I Mass (pounds) 7,772,117 2,934,429 97,700 102,750 351,100 I --11,258,096 24,179,990 151,932,000

[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.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640

-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 5, Page 5 of 5 TABLE 5.3 DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

SAFSTOR 1 Waste Volume Waste!Cost BasisClass [1] I (cubic fee Low-Level RadioactiveEnergySolutions Waste (near-surfaceContainerizedA disposal)EnergySolutions BulkA Future Disposal FacilitBFuture Disposal FacilityC Mass pounds125,0487,617,50055,969 12,972,850 75197,7001,038100,425 GTCC1,785351,100 184,591 11,139,5751 Greater than Class C (geologic repository)

Total[2]

Equivalent ProcessedlConditionedRecycling off-site rec clip centerVendors Scrap Metal A584,403 124,323,490 151,932,000 1

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

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 5 of 5 TABLE 5.3 DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

SAFSTOR I Class [1] Waste Volume lYHlSS Waste Cost Basis (cubic feet) nds) I I EnergySolutions I --Low-Level Radioactive Waste (near-surface I Containerized A 125,048 disposal)

I EnergySolutions I Bulk A 55,969 ! 2,972,850 i Future Disposal I I Facility B 7511 97,700 r Future Disposal ! I I Facility C 1,038 100,425 Greater than Class C Spent Fuel I i (geologic repository)

Equivalent GTCC 1,7851 351,100 ---Total [2] 184591 11,139,575 Processed/Conditioned Recycling (off-site recycling center) Vendors A I 584,403 24,323,490

! i Scrap Metal l ! 151,932000

[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.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 6, Page 1 of 6 6.RESULTS The analysis to estimate the costs to decommission Clinton relied upon the site-specific, technical information developed for a previous analysis prepared in 2007.

While not an engineering study, the estimates provide Exelon with sufficientinformation 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 fundamentalassumptions, 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 plant's spent fuel pool for a minimum of five and one-half years following the cessation of operations for continued cooling of the assemblies.

For the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios, the ISFSI is expanded to accommodate the spent fuel, once sufficiently cooled, until such time that the DOE can complete the transfer of the assemblies to its repository. The spent fuel remains in the storage pools in the Delayed-DECON alternative.

The cost projected to promptly decommission (DECON) Clinton is estimated to be

$1,051.8 million. The majority of this cost (approximately 69.7%) is associated with the physical decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear unit so that the license can be terminated.

Another 20.7% is associated with the management, interim storage, and eventual transfer of the spent fuel. The remaining 9.6% is for the demolition of the designated structures and limited restoration of the site.

The primary cost contributors, identified in Tables 6.1 through 6.3, are either labor-related or associated with the management and disposition of the radioactive waste.

Program management is the largest single contributor to the overall cost. The magnitude of the expense is a function of both the size of the organization required to manage the decommissioning, as well as the duration of the program. It is assumed, for purposes of this analysis, that Exelon will oversee the decommissioning program, using a DOC to manage the decommissioning labor force and the associated subcontractors. The size and composition of the management organization varies with the decommissioning phase and associated site activities.

However, once the operating license is terminated, the staff is substantially reduced for the conventional demolition and restoration of the site, and the long-term care of the spent fuel (for the DECON alternative).

As described in this report, the spent fuel pool will remain operational for aminimum of five and one-half years following the cessation of operations. The pool will be isolated and an independent spent fuel island created. This will allow TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis 6. RESULTS Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 1 of 6 The analysis to estimate the costs to decommission Clinton relied upon the specific, technical information developed for a previous analysis prepared in 2007. While not an engineering study, the estimates provide Exelon 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 plant's spent fuel pool for a minimum of five and one-half years following the cessation of operations for continued cooling of the assemblies.

For the DECON and SAFSTOR scenarios, the ISFSI is expanded to accommodate the spent fuel, once sufficiently cooled, until such time that the DOE can complete the transfer of the assemblies to its repository.

The spent fuel remains in the storage pools in the Delayed-DECON alternative.

The cost projected to promptly decommission (DECON) Clinton is estimated to be $1,051.8 million. The majority of this cost (approximately 69.7%) is associated with the physical decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear unit so that the license can be terminated.

Another 20.7% is associated with the management, interim storage, and eventual transfer of the spent fuel. The remaining 9.6% is for the demolition of the designated structures and limited restoration of the site. The primary cost contributors, identified in Tables 6.1 through 6.3, 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. It is assumed, for purposes of this analysis, that Exelon will oversee the decommissioning program, using a DOC to manage the decommissioning labor force and the associated subcontractors.

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

However, once the operating license is terminated, the staff is substantially reduced for the conventional demolition and restoration of the site, and the long-term care of the spent fuel (for the DECON alternative).

As described in this report, the spent fuel pool will remain operational for a minimum of five and one-half years following the cessation of operations.

The pool will be isolated and an independent spent fuel island created. This will allow TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 6, Page 2 of 6 decommissioning operations to proceed in and around the pool area. Over the fiveand one-half year period, the spent fuel will be packaged into transportable steel canisters for loading into a DOE-provided transport cask (DECON and SAFSTORalternatives).

The canisters will be stored in concrete overpacks at the ISFSI until the DOE is able to receive them.

The cost for waste disposal includes only those costs associated with the controlled disposition of the low-level radioactive waste generated from decontamination anddismantling activities, including plant equipment and components, structural material, filters, resins and dry-active waste. As described in Section 5, disposal of the majority of the radioactive material is at EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utahor some alternative facility. Highly activated components, requiring additional isolation from the environment, are packaged for geologic disposal. Disposal of these components is based upon a cost equivalent for spent fuel.

A significant portion of the metallic waste is designated for additional processingand treatment at an off-site facility. Processing reduces the volume of material requiring controlled disposal through such techniques and processes as survey and sorting, decontamination, and volume reduction. The material that cannot be unconditionally released is packaged for controlled disposal at one of the currently operating facilities.

The cost identified in the summary table for processing is all-inclusive, incorporating the ultimate disposition of the material.

Removal costs reflect the labor-intensive nature of the decommissioning process, as well as the management controls required to ensure a safe and successful program.

Decontamination and packaging costs also have a large labor component that isbased upon prevailing union wages. Non-radiological demolition is a natural extension of the decommissioning process.The methods employed in decontamination and dismantling are generally destructive and indiscriminate in inflicting collateral damage.With a work force mobilized to support decommissioning operations, non-radiological demolition can be an integrated activity and a logical expansion of the work being performed in the process of terminating the 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, material is primarily moved overland by truck.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 2 of 6 decommissioning operations to proceed in and around the pool area. Over the five and one-half year period, the spent fuel will be packaged into transportable steel canisters for loading into a DOE-provided transport cask (DECON and SAFSTOR alternatives).

The canisters will be stored in concrete overpacks at the ISFSI until the DOE is able to receive them. The cost for waste disposal includes only 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, disposal of the majority of the radioactive material is at EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah or some alternative facility.

Highly activated components, requiring additional isolation from the environment, are packaged for geologic disposal.

Disposal of these components is based upon a cost equivalent for spent fuel. A significant portion of the metallic waste is designated for additional processing and treatment at an off-site facility.

Processing reduces the volume of material requiring controlled disposal through such techniques and processes as survey and sorting, decontamination, and volume reduction.

The material that cannot be unconditionally released is packaged for controlled disposal at one of the currently operating facilities.

The cost identified in the summary table for processing is inclusive, incorporating the ultimate disposition of the material.

Removal costs reflect the labor-intensive nature of the decommissioning process, as well as the management controls required to ensure a safe and successful program. Decontamination and packaging costs also have a large labor component that is based upon prevailing union wages. Non-radiological demolition is a natural extension of the decommissioning process. The methods employed in decontamination and dismantling are generally destructive and indiscriminate in inflicting collateral damage. With a work force mobilized to support decommissioning operations, non-radiological demolition can be an integrated activity and a logical expansion of the work being performed in the process of terminating the 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, material is primarily moved overland by truck. TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 6, Page 3 of 6 Decontamination is used to reduce the plant's radiation fields and minimize worker exposure. Slightly contaminated material or material located within a contaminated area is sent to an off-site processing center, i.e., this analysis does not assume that contaminated plant components and equipment can be decontaminated for uncontrolled release in-situ. Centralized processing centers have proven to be a more economical means of handling the large volumes of material produced in the dismantling of a nuclear unit.

License termination survey costs are associated with the labor intensive and complex activity of verifying that contamination has been removed from the site to the levels specified by the regulating agency. This process involves a systematic survey of all remaining plant surface areas and surrounding environs, sampling, isotopic analysis, and documentation of the findings. The status of any plant components and materials not removed in the decommissioning process will also require confirmation and will add to the expense of surveying the facilities alone.

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.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 3 of 6 Decontamination is used to reduce the plant's radiation fields and minimize worker exposure.

Slightly contaminated material or material located within a contaminated area is sent to an off-site processing center, i.e., this analysis does not assume that contaminated plant components and equipment can be decontaminated for uncontrolled release in-situ. Centralized processing centers have proven to be a more economical means of handling the large volumes of material produced in the dismantling of a nuclear unit. License termination survey costs are associated with the labor intensive and complex activity of verifying that contamination has been removed from the site to the levels specified by the regulating agency. This process involves a systematic survey of all remaining plant surface areas and surrounding environs, sampling, isotopic analysis, and documentation of the findings.

The status of any plant components and materials not removed in the decommissioning process will also require confirmation and will add to the expense of surveying the facilities alone. 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 nuclea!" 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.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost AnalysisDocument E16-1640

-006, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 4 of 6 TABLE 6.1

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS DECON (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Cost Element Total Decontamination25,126 1 Removal191,180 Packa g in g Transportation13,229 Waste Dis p osal 80,391 Off-site Waste ProcessL

• n14,46411.4 Pro am Mana ement

^^^421,44940.1 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation12,1761.2 Spent Fuel (Direct Costs) [21144,449113.7 Insurance and Re ulator Fees19,482 !1.9 Energy19,46711.9 Characterization/Licensing Surveys27,91112.7 Property Taxes_44,6494.2 Miscellaneous Equipment6,7380.6 Site 0&M3,39710.3Total [3^1,051,824100.0 NRC License Termination732,89469.7 S ent Fuel Mana ement217,63220.7 Site Restoration101,2989.6 I Total [311,051,824 1100.0 Ill Includes security and engineering costs 121 Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees

[31 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 4 of 6 TABLE 6.1

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS DECON (thousands of 2012 dollars) Total 2.4 18.2 2.6 1.3 13.7 1.9 1.9 2.7 ui ment 4.2 j------------

0.6 0.3 Total [3] 1,051,82 100.0 Cost Element Total NRC License Termination 732,894 Sent Fuel Mana ement 217,632 Site Restoration I 101,298 *, ____ , ___ '*_m' __

• ___ .' ____ *, ___________

• • __ M ___ " ___ **

1,051,824

[IJ Includes security and engineering costs [2J 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.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640

-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 6, Page 5 of 6 TABLE 6.2

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS DELAYED DECON (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Cost ElementTotalPercentage 32,855 185,721 17,477,1 9,19442,172 1.17,240 578,327 DecontaminationRemoval Packa ' n Transportation Waste Disposal Off--site Waste Processinj Program Management M Spent Fuel Pool Isolation Spent Fuel Direct Costs [21 Insurance and Regulatorv Fees Characterization/Licensing Surveys Property Taxes Miscellaneous E ui ment Site O&M Total [3]Cost Element Total 1 Percentage I J 2.9 16.4 1.5 0.8 3.7 1.5 50.9 12,176 74, 27,9421 31,96911.1 6.5 2.5 2.829,549 153,47314.7 13,6001.2 9,71810.9 NRC License Termination Spent Fuel Management Site Restoration Total [31 111 Includes security and engineering costs

[21 Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees

[31 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis TABLE 6.2 Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 5 of 6

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS DELAYED DECON (thousands of 2012 dollars) stElement Decontamination Removal Packa 'n Transportation

________ _ Characteriza tionlLicensin Taxes __ _ Miscellaneous E ui ment Site O&M ostElement

[3] [lJ Includes security and engineering costs Total 2.9 16.4 1.5 0.8 3.7 1.5 50.9 1.1 6.5 2.5 2.8 2.6 4.7 1.2 9,718 0.9 I 1,135,501 100.0 Total Percent 666,212 58.7 367,871 32.4 . 8.9 1,135,501 100.0 [2J Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuelloading/transferlspent fuel pool O&M and EP fees [3J Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 6, Page 6 of 6 TABLE 6.3

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS SAFSTOR (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Cost Element DecontaminationRemoval Packaging TotalPercentage32,6442.5187,10914.116,34911.2 Tran ortation_ _7,98910.6 Waste Disposal---38,1222.9 Off-site Waste Processing17,3431.3 Pro am Management [1]609,04545.8 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation12,1760.9 Spent Fuel Direct Costs [21140,81210.6 Insurance and Re ulator Fees`57,2734.3 Energy38,9252.9 Characterization/Licensin Surve s !29,5492.2 Proerty Taxes92,5107.0 Miscellaneous E ui ment26,1212.0 Site O&M22,6061.7 1,328,572100.0 Total[3]Cost Element NRC License Termination Spent Fuel Mana g ement Site Restoration Total [31 TotalPercentage 949,951 71.5277,213 '20.9 101,4081 7.61.328.572 (100.0[11 Includes security and engineering costs 1']Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel loading/transfer/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees

[31 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 6 of 6 TABLE 6.3

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS SAFSTOR (thousands of 2012 dollars) []'ost Element Tot .1 I T10 I Decontamina tion 32,644 2.5 I Removal I 187,109 14.1 Packaging 16,349 I 1.2 7,9891 0.6 r"

-i Waste Disposal 38,122 2.9 __

W

______ J 17,343 1.3 Program Management

[1] i 609045 45.8 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 12,176 0.9 Spent Fuel (Direct Costs) [2] I 140,812 10.6 Insurance and Regulatory Fees ! 57,273 4.3

__ 38,925 2.9 Characterization/Licensing Surveys 29,549 2.2

____ o_. _____

7.0 Miscellaneous Equipment I 26 121 :. Site O&M 22,606 1.7 al [3]

• 1,328,572 100.0 Element Total Percentage NRC License Termination 949,951 71.5 Spent Fuel Management 277,213 20.9 Site Restoration

___

7.6 ---"-.-... --"-..

.. _-._. __ . __ ._--_. _. ___ 0 __ *** _"-I Total [3] 1,328,572 100.0 [lJ Includes security and engineering costs [2J 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.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640

-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 7, Page 1 of 3 7.REFERENCES 1."Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Clinton Power Station," Document No.

E16-1555-005, Rev. 0, TLG Services, Inc., October 2007 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, Federal Register Volume 53, Number 123 (p 24018 et seq.), 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.U.S. 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."Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, 1982 8.Settlement: Exelon and the U.S. Department of Justice, in close consultation with the DOE, under which the government will reimburse Exelon for costs associated with storage of spent fuel at the company's nuclear stations pending DOE fulfilling its contractual obligation to accept commercial spent nuclear fuel. Additional amounts reimbursed annually for future costs. August 5, 2004 9.U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Subpart 54 (bb), "Conditions of Licenses" 10.U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 72, Subpart K, "General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites" TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis 7. REFERENCES Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 1 of 3 1. "Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Clinton Power Station," Document No. E16-1555-005, Rev. 0, TLG Services, Inc., October 2007 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, Federal Register Volume 53, Number 123 (p 24018 et seq.), 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. U.S. 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. "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," U.S. Department of Energy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, 1982 8. Settlement:

Exelon and the U.S. Department of Justice, in close consultation with the DOE, under which the government will reimburse Exelon for costs associated with storage of spent fuel at the company's nuclear stations pending DOE fulfilling its contractual obligation to accept commercial spent nuclear fuel. Additional amounts reimbursed annually for future costs. August 5, 2004 9. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Subpart 54 (bb), "Conditions of Licenses" 10. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 72, Subpart K, "General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites" TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 7, Page 2 of 3 7.REFERENCES (continued) 11."Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy," Public Law 96-573, 1980 12."Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, January 15, 1986 13.U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61.55 "Waste Classification" 14.U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination," Federal Register, Volume 62, Number 139 (p 39058 et seq.), July 21, 1997 15."Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination," EPA Memorandum OSWER No. 9200.4-18, August 22, 1997 16.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" 17."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 18."Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)," NUREG-1575, Rev. 1, EPA 402-R-97-016, Rev. 1, August 2000 19.T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986 20.W.J.Manion and T.S. LaGuardia, "Decommissioning Handbook," U.S.

Department of Energy, DOE/EV/10128-1, November 1980 21."Building Construction Cost Data 2012," Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Kingston, Massachusetts 22.Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, p. 239, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, 1984 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis 7. REFERENCES (continued)

Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 2 of 3 11. "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy," Public Law 96-573, 1980 12. "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, January 15, 1986 13. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61.55 Waste Classification" 14. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination," Federal Register, Volume 62, Number 139 (p 39058 et seq.), July 21, 1997 15. "Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination," EPA Memorandum OSWER No. 9200.4-18, August 22,1997 16. 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" 17. 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 18. Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)," NUREG-1575, Rev. 1, EPA 402-R-97-016, Rev. 1, August 2000 19. T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986 20. W.J. Manion and T.S. LaGuardia, "Decommissioning Handbook," U.S. Department of Energy, DOE/EV/10128-1, November 1980 21. "Building Construction Cost Data 2012," Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Kingston, Massachusetts

22. Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, p. 239, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, 1984 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisSection 7, Page 3 of 3 7.REFERENCES (continued) 23.DOE/RW-0351, "Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Waste Acceptance System Requirements Document", Revision 5, May 31, 2007 24."Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Requirements Document, DOE/RW-0406, Revision 8, September 2007 25."Strategy for Management and Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste," Federal Register Volume 60, Number 48 (p 13424 et seq.), March 1995 26.U.S. Department of Transportation, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations,"Transportation," Parts 173 through 178 27.Tri-State Motor Transit Company, published tariffs, Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), Docket No.MC-427719 Rules Tariff, March 2004, Radioactive Materials Tariff, August 2011 28.J.C.Evans et al., "Long-Lived Activation Products in Reactor Materials" NUREG/CR-3474, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 1984 29.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 30.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 31."Microsoft Project 2010," Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA 32."Atomic Energy Act of 1954," (68 Stat. 919)

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis 7. REFERENCES (continued)

Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 3 of 3 23. DOElRW-0351, "Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Waste Acceptance System Requirements Document", Revision 5, May 31,2007 24. "Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Requirements Document, DOEIRW-0406, Revision 8, September 2007 25. "Strategy for Management and Disposal of Greater-Than-Class C Low-Level Radioactive Waste," Federal Register Volume 60, Number 48 (p 13424 et seq.), March 1995 26. U.S. Department of Transportation, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, "Transportation," Parts 173 through 178 27. Tri-State Motor Transit Company, published tariffs, Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC), Docket No. MC-427719 Rules Tariff, March 2004, Radioactive Materials Tariff, August 2011 28. J.C. Evans et aI., "Long-Lived Activation Products in Reactor Materials" NUREG/CR-3474, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 1984 29. 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 30. H.D. Oak, et aI., "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 31. "Microsoft Project 2010," Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA 32. "Atomic Energy Act of 1954," (68 Stat. 919) TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisAppendix A, Page 1 of 4 APPENDIX A UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis APPENDIX A Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix A. Page 1 of 4 UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisAppendix 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 pounds will be removed in one piece using a crane or small hoist. They will be disconnected from the inlet and outlet piping.

The heat exchanger will be sent to the waste processing area.

2.CALCULATIONS ActivityCritical ActActivityDuration Duration IDDescription(minutes)(minutes)*

aRemove insulation60(b)bMount pipe cutters6060 cInstall contamination controls20(b)dDisconnect inlet and outlet lines6060 eCap openings20(d)fRig for removal3030 gUnbolt from mounts3030 hRemove contamination controls1515 iRemove, wrap, send to waste processing area6060 Totals (Activity/

Critical)355255 Duration adjustment(s):

+ Respiratory protection adjustment (50% of critical duration)128+ Radiation/ALARA adjustment (37% of critical duration)95 Adjusted work duration478+ Protective clothing adjustment (30% of adjusted duration)143 Productive work duration621+ Work break adjustment (8.33 % of productive duration)

Total work duration (minutes)

• • • Total duration = 11.217 hr ***

• alpha designators indicate activities that can be performed in parallel 52 673 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, 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 pounds will be removed in one piece using a crane or small hoist. They will be disconnected from the inlet and outlet piping. The heat exchanger will be sent to the waste processing area. 2. CALCULATIONS Activity Act Activity Duration ID Description (minutes) a Remove insulation 60 b Mount pipe cutters 60 c Install contamination controls 20 d Disconnect inlet and outlet lines 60 e Cap openings 20 f Rig for removal 30 g Unbolt from mounts 30 h Remove contamination controls 15 I Remove, wrap, send to waste processing area 60 Totals (Activity/Critical) 355 Duration adjustment(s):

+ Respiratory protection adjustment (50% of critical duration)

+ RadiationlALARA adjustment (37% 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 *** Critical Duration (minutes)* (b) 60 (b) 60 (d) 30 30 15 60 255 128 95 478 143 621 673

• alpha designators indicate activities that can be performed in parallel TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisAppendix A, Page 3 of 4 APPENDIX A (continued) 3.LABOR REQUIRED NumberDurationRate (hours)($/hr)Crew Cost Laborers3.0011.217$46.15$1,552.99 Craftsmen2.0011.217$55.37$1,242.17 Foreman1.0011.217$58.54$656.64 General Foreman0.2511.217$60.07$168.45 Fire Watch0.0511.217$46.15$25.88 Health Physics Technician1.0011.217$70.20$787.43 Total labor cost 4.EQUIPMENT & CONSUMABLES COSTS Equipment Costs Consumables/Materials CostsBlotting paper 50 @ $0.59 sq ft {1}$29.50 Tarpaulin 12 mils, oil resistant, fire retardant 50 @ $0.27/sq ft (2)$13.50 Gas torch consumables 1 @ $10.56/hr x 1 hr {3}$10.56 Subtotal cost of equipment and materials$53.56 Overhead&profit on equipment and materials @ 16.25 %$8.70Total costs, equipment

&material$62.26 TOTAL COST:

Removal of contaminated heat exchanger

<3000 pounds:

$4,495.82 Total labor cost:$4,433.56 Total equipment/material costs:$62.26 Total craft labor man-hours required per unit:81.884$4,433.56 none TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix A. Page 3 of 4 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 ConsumableslMaterials Costs Blotting paper 50 @ $0.59 sq ft {I} Rate ($/hr) $46.15 $55.37 $58.54

$60.07 $46.15 $70.20 Tarpaulin 12 mils, oil resistant, fire retardant 50 @ $0.27/sq ft {2} Gas torch consumables 1 @ $10.56/hr x 1 hr {3} Subtotal cost of equipment and materials Overhead & profit on equipment and materials

@ 16.25 % 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. Cost $1,552.99

$1,242.17

$656.64

$168.45 $25.88 $787.43 $4,433.56 none $29.50 $13.50 $10.56 $53.56 $8.70 $62.26 $4,495.82

$4,433.56

$62.26 81.884 Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisAppendix A, Page 4 of 4 5.NOTES AND REFERENCES Work difficulty factors were developed in conjunction with the Atomic Industrial Forum's (now NEI)program to standardize nuclear decommissioning cost estimates and are delineated in Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986.

References for equipment & consumables costs:

1.www.zncmaster.com online catalog, McMaster Carr Spill Control (7193T88)2.R.S. Means (2012) Division 01 56, Section 13.60-0600, page 22 3.R.S. Means (2012) Division 01 54 33, Section 40

-6360, page 674 Material and consumable costs were adjusted using the regional indices for Bloomington, Illinois.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis 5. NOTES AND REFERENCES Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix A, Page 4 of 4 " Work difficulty factors were developed in conjunction with the Atomic Industrial Forum's (now NEI) program to standardize nuclear decommissioning cost estimates and are delineated in Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986. " References for equipment

& consumables costs: 1. www.mcmaster.com online catalog, McMaster Carr Spill Control (7193T88)

2. RS. Means (2012) Division 01 56, Section 13.60-0600, page 22 3. RS. Means (2012) Division 01 5433, Section 40-6360, page 674

• Material and consumable costs were adjusted using the regional indices for Bloomington, Illinois.

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisAppendix B, Page 1 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (DECON: Power Block Structures Only)

TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis APPENDIXB Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 1 of 7 UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (DECON: Power Block Structures Only) TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisAppendix B, Page 2 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost FactorCost/Unit Removal of clean instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot0.50 Removal of clean pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot5.32 Removal of clean pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot7.51 Removal of clean pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot14.41 Removal of clean pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot28.05 Removal of clean pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot36.41 Removal of clean pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot53.58 Removal of clean pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot63.69 Removal of clean valve >2 to 4 inches95.96 Removal of clean valve >4 to 8 inches144.07 Removal of clean valve >8 to 14 inches280.50 Removal of clean valve >14 to 20 inches364.08 Removal of clean valve >20 to 36 inches535.81 Removal of clean valve >36 inches636.90 Removal of clean pipe hanger for small bore piping32.02 Removal of clean pipe hanger for large bore piping117.22 Removal of clean pump, <300 pound241.72 Removal of clean pump, 300-1000 pound666.04 Removal of clean pump, 1000-10,000 pound2,649.79 Removal of clean pump, >10,000 pound5,120.32 Removal of clean pump motor, 300-1000 pound279.86 Removal of clean pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound1,103.10 Removal of clean pump motor, >10,000 pound2,481.96 Removal of clean heat exchanger <3000 pound1,420.74 Removal of clean heat exchanger >3000 pound3,570.42 Removal of clean feedwater heater/deaerator10,080.07 Removal of clean moisture separator/reheater20,743.01 Removal of clean tank, <300 gallons311.12 Removal of clean tank, 300-3000 gallon983.41 Removal of clean tank, >3000 gallons, $/square foot surface area8.15 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, 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, $Ilinear foot Removal of clean pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $Ilinear foot Removal of clean pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $Ilinear foot Removal of clean pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $Ilinear foot Removal of clean pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $Ilinear foot Removal of clean pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $Ilinear foot Removal of clean pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $Ilinear foot Removal of clean pipe >36 inches diameter, $Ilinear 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. CostlUnit 0.50 5.32 7.51 14.41 28.05 36.41 53.58 63.69 95.96 144.07 280.50 364.08 535.81 636.90 32.02 117.22 241.72 666.04 2,649.79 5,120.32 279.86 1,103.10 2,481.96 1,420.74 3,570.42 10,080.07 20,743.01 311.12 983.41 8.15 Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisAppendix B, Page 3 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost FactorCost/Unit Removal of clean electrical equipment, <300 pound132.25 Removal of clean electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound455.66 Removal of clean electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound911.31 Removal of clean electrical equipment, >10,000 pound2,157.46 Removal of clean electrical transformer < 30 tons1,498.33 Removal of clean electrical transformer > 30 tons4,314.91 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, <100 kW1,530.41 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, 100 kW to 1 MW3,415.99 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, >1 MW7,071.76 Removal of clean electrical cable tray, $/linear foot12.34 Removal of clean electrical conduit, $/linear foot5.39 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, <300 pound132.25 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound455.66 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound911.31 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound2,157.46 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, <300 pound159.92 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound547.50 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound1,091.18 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound2,157.46 Removal of clean HVAC ductwork, $/pound0.52 Removal of contaminated instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot1.71 Removal of contaminated pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot22.81 Removal of contaminated pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot38.91 Removal of contaminated pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot61.96 Removal of contaminated pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot121.25 Removal of contaminated pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot145.70 Removal of contaminated pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot201.88 Removal of contaminated pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot238.74 Removal of contaminated valve >2 to 4 inches478.50 Removal of contaminated valve >4 to 8 inches569.79 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 3 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) 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 electrical cable tray, $Ilinear foot Removal of clean electrical conduit, $Ilinear foot Hemoval 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 pound Removal of clean HV AC equipment, <300 pound Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound Removal of clean HV AC ductwork, $/pound Removal of contaminated instrument and sampling tubing, $Ilinear foot Removal of contaminated pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $Ilinear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $Ilinear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $Ilinear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $Ilinear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $Ilinear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >36 inches diameter, $Ilinear foot Removal of contaminated valve >2 to 4 inches Removal of contaminated valve >4 to 8 inches TLG Services, Inc. CostlUnit 132.25 455.66 911.31 2,157.46 1,498.33 4,314.91 1,530.41 3,415.99 7,071.76 12.34 5.39 132.25 455.66 911.31 2,157.46 159.92 547.50 1,091.18 2,157.46 0.52 1.71 22.81 38.91 61.96 121.25 145.70 201.88 238.74 478.50 569.79 Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisAppendix B, Page 4 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost FactorCost/Unit Removal of contaminated valve >8 to 14 inches1,162.49 Removal of contaminated valve >14 to 20 inches1,477.66 Removal of contaminated valve >20 to 36 inches1,968.80 Removal of contaminated valve >36 inches2,337.37 Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for small bore piping157.65 Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for large bore piping504.04 Removal of contaminated pump, <300 pound1,014.32 Removal of contaminated pump, 300-1000 pound2,299.75 Removal of contaminated pump, 1000-10,000 pound7,348.76 Removal of contaminated pump, >10,000 pound17,897.28 Removal of contaminated pump motor, 300-1000 pound978.26 Removal of contaminated pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound2,992.60 Removal of contaminated pump motor, >10,000 pound6,718.78 Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <3000 pound4,495.82 Removal of contaminated heat exchanger >3000 pound13,023.67 Removal of contaminated feedwater heater/deaerator31,565.43 Removal of contaminated moisture separator/reheater68,525.37 Removal of contaminated tank, <300 gallons1,686.40 Removal of contaminated tank, >300 gallons, $/square foot32.27 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, <300 pound788.85 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound1,870.74 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound3,602.26 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, >10,000 pound6,977.40 Removal of contaminated electrical cable tray, $/linear foot38.03 Removal of contaminated electrical conduit, $/linear foot17.94 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, <300 pound877.99 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound2,067.28 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound3,974.28 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound6,977.40 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, <300 pound877.99 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, 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 feedwater heater/deaerator Removal of contaminated moisture separator/reheater Removal of contaminated tank, <300 gallons Removal of contaminated tank, >300 gallons, $/square foot Removal of contaminated 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, $Ilinear foot Removal of contaminated electrical conduit, $Ilinear 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 TLG Services, Inc. CostJUnit 1,162.49 1,477.66 1,968.80 2,337.37 157.65 504.04 1,014.32 2,299.75 7,348.76 17,897.28 978.26 2,992.60 6,718.78 4,495.82 13,023.67 31,565.43 68,525.37 1,686.40 32.27 788.85 1,870.74 3,602.26 6,977.40 38.03 17.94 877.99 2,067.28 3,974.28 6,977.40 877.99 Clinton Power StationDocument E16

-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisAppendix B, Page 5 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost FactorCost/Unit Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound2,067.28 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound3,974.28 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound6,977.40 Removal of contaminated HVAC ductwork, $/pound2.38 Removal/plasma arc cut of contaminated thin metal components, $/linear in.4.06 Additional decontamination of surface by washing, $/square foot8.71 Additional decontamination of surfaces by hydrolasing, $/square foot35.59 Decontamination rig hook up and flush, $/ 250 foot length7,431.42 Chemical flush of components/systems, $/gallon17.64 Removal of clean standard reinforced concrete, $/cubic yard138.42 Removal of grade slab concrete,$/cubic yard185.40 Removal of clean concrete floors,$/cubic yard362.29 Removal of sections of clean concrete floors,$/cubic yard1,077.74 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar,$/cubic yard233.53 Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar,$/cubic yard2,155.48 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard295.12 Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard2,851.79 Removal heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar & steel embedments, $/cubic yard 449.06 Removal of below-grade suspended floors, $/cubic yard362.29 Removal of clean monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard892.75 Removal of contaminated monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard2,150.15 Removal of clean foundation concrete, $/cubic yard701.09 Removal of contaminated foundation concrete, $/cubic yard2,003.09 Explosive demolition of bulk concrete, $/cubic yard30.36 Removal of clean hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard101.08 Removal of contaminated hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard368.53 Removal of clean solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard101.08 Removal of contaminated solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard368.53 Backfill of below-grade voids, $/cubic yard32.64 Removal of subterranean tunnels/voids, $/linear foot115.34 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 5 of 7 APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Unit Cost Factor CostJUnit Removal of contaminated HV AC equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated HV AC equipment, >10,000 pound Removal of contaminated HV AC ductwork, $/pound Removal/plasma arc cut of contaminated thin metal components, $Ilinear 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 wl#9 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete wl#9 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal of clean heavily rein concrete wl#18 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal heavily rein concrete wl#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 Removal of contaminated solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Backfill of below-grade voids, $/cubic yard Removal of subterranean tunnels/voids, $/linear foot TLG Services, Inc. 2,067.28 3,974.28 6,977.40 2.38 4.06 8.71 35.59 7,431.42 17.64 138.42 185.40 362.29 1,077.74 233.53 2,155.48 295.12 2,851.79 449.06 362.29 892.75 2,150.15 701.09 2,003.09 30.36 101.08 368.53 101.08 368.53 32.64 115.34 Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisAppendix B, Page 6 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost FactorCost/Unit Placement of concrete for below-grade voids, $/cubic yard123.83 Excavation of clean material, $/cubic yard3.20 Excavation of contaminated material, $/cubic yard42.17 Removal of clean concrete rubble (tipping fee included), $/cubic yard23.59 Removal of contaminated concrete rubble, $/cubic yard26.58 Removal of building by volume, $/cubic foot0.30 Removal of clean building metal siding, $/square foot1.21 Removal of contaminated building metal siding, $/square foot4.66 Removal of standard asphalt roofing, $/square foot2.32 Removal of transite panels, $/square foot2.13 Scarifying contaminated concrete surfaces (drill & spall), $/square foot13.35 Scabbling contaminated concrete floors, $/square foot8.23 Scabbling contaminated concrete walls, $/square foot21.84 Scabbling contaminated ceilings, $/square foot75.05 Scabbling structural steel, $/square foot6.74 Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail < 10 ton capacity629.42 Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail < 10 ton capacity1,926.24 Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail >10-50 ton capacity1,510.62 Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail >10-50 ton capacity4,622.18 Removal of polar crane > 50 ton capacity6,291.22 Removal of gantry crane > 50 ton capacity26,968.26 Removal of structural steel, $/pound0.20 Removal of clean steel floor grating, $/square foot4.38 Removal of contaminated steel floor grating, $/square foot13.62 Removal of clean free standing steel liner, $/square foot12.22 Removal of contaminated free standing steel liner, $/square foot37.75 Removal of clean concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot6.11 Removal of contaminated concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot43.98 Placement of scaffolding in clean areas, $/square foot14.56 Placement of scaffolding in contaminated areas, $/square foot26.23 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 6 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Placement of concrete for below-grade voids, $/cubic yard Excavation of clean material, $/cubic yard 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 TLG Services, Inc. CostJUnit 123.83 3.20 42.17 23.59 26.58 0.30 1.21 4.66 2.32 2.13 13.35 8.23 21.84 75.05 6.74 629.42 1,926.24 1,510.62 4,622.18 6,291.22 26,968.26 0.20 4.38 13.62 12.22 37.75 6.11 43.98 14.56 26.23 Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisAppendix B, Page 7 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost FactorCost/Unit Landscaping with topsoil, $/acre27,956.74 Cost of CPC B-88 LSA box &

preparation for use2 ,023.74 Cost of CPC B-25 LSA box &

preparation for use1, 850.93 Cost of CPC B-12V 12 gauge LSA box & preparation for use1 ,507.79 Cost of CPC B-144 LSA box &

preparation for use10 ,334.90 Cost of LSA drum & preparation for use192.28 Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8 120A cask (resins)8,191.87 Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8 120A cask (filters)8,033.05 Decontamination of surfaces with vacuuming, $/square foot0.79 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 7 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Landscaping with topsoil, $/acre Cost of CPC B-88 LSA box & preparation for use Cost of CPC B-25 LSA box & preparation for use Cost of CPC B-12V 12 gauge LSA box & preparation for use Cost of CPC B-144 LSA box & preparation for use Cost of LSA drum & preparation for use Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8 120A cask (resins) Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8 120A cask (filters)

Decontamination of surfaces with vacuuming, $/square foot TLG Services, Inc. CostlUnit 27,956.74 2,023.74 1,850.93 1,507.79 10,334.90 192.28 8,191.87 8,033.05 0.79 Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisAppendix C, Page 1 of 11 APPENDIX C DETAILED COST ANALYSIS DECON TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis APPENDIXC Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 1 of 11 DETAILED COST ANALYSIS DECON TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Pourer Station Decommissioning Cost AnalysisDocument E16-1640-006, Re". 0 Appendix C, Page 2 of 11 Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

OiT--SateLLR De.eonRettmvsl Packaging Transport Proce ing DisposalOllterTotal CoatCostCo.,.Coat.CostaCristoCostsCnutingroey NECSpent F uelSitePrnrr0aedBartel VolumesBurial /Utility and TotalLic. Term.

Management RestorationVnlmneCass AClass BClose C0 CCProcessedCraftContractor CostsCnatnCo..CostsCo. FeetCu. Feet Co.Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs.Moon nursMunhourn.._

Activity IndexActivity Descriptimt PERIOD 1. - Shutdown through Transition Forted to Dio.e Ikco,nmi.--ing Aaiviti,w lu.i.lPrepare preliminary de<<omminniuning cost 1".1?Notilcntion of Cvoantian of Opemttonu in.l3Remove fool & nrurco mnterinl 101.4Nolif lion of Pertnsnent Defueiing tn.t.5Deoetlvste plant tyst,mn & pea aaaa waste 1" .1.6Preporv and nuhmit PSDAR

.1 7Review plant dwgs & apses.

10.1.8Perfun. detail d rod aurvuy In.1.9E44-1, by tnod-t.n-nony in 11)End product d., iption 10.1.11Detnibd by.pmdurttnventoey In.1.12Define tm,jor work quan,e 1".1.13 Perform SER and EA 10.1.14 Perform Site Sp-the Cost Study 1..1.15Preponfnubuat Ltven.c Tam,inuton Plan ta.1.16Rtnxeve NRC nppeovnl of tennin,liaa plan Activity Sino ,Oeo)v.na 1 n.1.i7.1 PInn1 & temlwrnry Pnciiities 10.1.17.2 Plonlny.Wmu 10.1.17.3 NS.SS Ducontaminntivu Flu..sh 1..1.17.4 Reactor internals 10.1.17.5 Reactor vessel lu.7.17.6 Snerifie,oi shield 1..1.17.7 Mointon...r1'.mtors

/n!t,c"tarn i++.1.178 Rrtnfonvtleoncrat.

In.1.17.9 Main Turbine 1x.1.17.10 Alain 11--7..1.1.11 Peeanur,nuppreanion sleueture 1 x.117.i2 Drywnil 11.1.17,13 Plantutrveturen & building.

1..117.14 Wanto nurnogement 1..1.17 15 Facility

& it, via-nut lu.l.i7Total P1"nnwg & Otto Promorssnrvr Prcpxredi.mnntling wrqucnee Plan. pcep

.&temp.ntver 11 .1.2)1Design water eie.n. up ay+lem 11.1 21Rigging/C-1. Cold Envipsll, ulinglotc.

I..t.22Procure corkn/lim,eu & eonntinnra 10.1Subtotal Period 1, Activity Coutn 162 24 25037 57486 18519 12519 16,24 937140 758 62494 51277 61492 62078 629 88713:1 812122 629 12519 2)1030 26139 261:19 25037 20030 39658 57486 11217 5,330600 45 435 26 330 23 2,237187187 N.2872876616611441441441441671871,6771,07744544571871858858870762671598539no72721,0201,0209.339337272144144115115300310139113011287287-23023044822422466166112965656,1305,596-534345345:1,3353,:1352012012,5:02,53017717711),620 5:14 1,:08)2,)X0)4,100)1,106)1,10X)1.:00)7.&0)5,b o)4,10)64,010 4,1675161 7,100 6,5)0)rdw1. 600 2,1)982,100)1,300)1204,0)11 910)42,683 2,401 1,4)0)1,2:0)78,1009 175 2,00)154 14,917 Period 1. Adklition.I Costa i n.2.lISFSI Esponnion 10.2Snbtotol Period la A+Idition,l Costs0)7806,p 07805,98055,9805 Perim 1. Cuil.lcrnl Costa 1x.3.1Sio,nt NO Capital sad Tnm.rer 1x.3Subtotal Pureed In C'11'4-1 Coots12,0511,86813,8.5812,0511,80813,85813,&58 13,958 Period in Period Dependent Ctmto 1..4.1lumm^cv 1 u.4.2Property tours ls,4.311-111, phyuien nupj,lirs 1044i tchyquipmamt n:No)

Iu.45Dinp s^o1 afDAW gvnerutcd I.. 4.))Plant enertty budget i..4.7NEC Fens I..4.8Ena ,rgency PI.nning Fees 2,178218 4x7---109 4197---69 132:l611 2,781417 1,151115 2,4812482,3962,393)54754752952961613,196:1,1981,2691,286 2,729 3110 12,190 2,729 TLC Sereices, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity lndrox Descriedon PERIOD la -Shutdown througb Tramdtion 1a Din'Ct Dt"CommitllllOning Ali.lvitlll:l'I 11l.1.1 Pr1.'jlafC preliminary tk',;:ommwioninu fOljl la.1.2 Nolification of Cl"slMllinn of OawrnlloR.\l 1n.1.3 fud & lIOurt"e In&\t!fJal In.l.4 NohflClJtion

()f Permanent Dcfllding In.1.5 Dl'activote plant aysh!tn" & Yl'l\>!-h' In.U\ Prulmre and SUOOlit PHDAR In.l.7 Rl'vit:'w plant dwgs & II-l)OClS-.

la.l.8 Perform detnil .... d flul survey la.1.9 &timall' by.pnx:lucl Inventory In.1.10 End 11I"odud rn..'>I-('fiption Ja.1.11 Ddnih>d by.produd Inventory 1Il.1.12 Define Irnljof work I<<'"qucn("'c lR.U3 Perform HER nnd EA In.t.14 Pt,nOfill Site Sjll,(,lfic CIMlI Study In.1.15 PrcpJlln.J"ubmit Liroost, Tl,nlllnaliOil Plnn la.l.Hi NRC IljlPfUVfll oftvrminnlioo plan In.l.17.1 Plnnt & It'mpornry fm:;llihes In.I.17.2 T'lnnl "yll-lpllUI In.1.17.3 N&<;HDoconliulllnllliouF1u"h In.1.17A Rt'ACtor internal" In.l.17 .. 5 Rt'ariorvemwl In.l.17.6 Sacnfinalshidd In.l.17.7 Mrnsture gcpaflltonJreru.fltl!NI In.1.J7.8 Rt'mftlrredooncrcle In.1. 1 7.9 :\Inill Turbine In.1.17.10 Mnin Condt'lIl<t!rs In.l.17.11 Pn>oI\1:Illnll:lUPjlf'CAAItJll l:Itrudun" In.1.17.12 Drywell 111.1.17.1:1 Plant atrudurt's

& building" la.l.li.l4-WMle managt!ml'nt la.1.1715 FncililY&

!!itedOll(.l'Out 10.1.17 Total Pt'noo Ia Aciditlonai Ctffihj 1n.2.1 ISFSI r.,pan!4ltlll In.2 Sl.IbloUll Period til AddilumRI Costs Period In Collatcrnl COOl!l:I In.:1.1 Spent Fuel CalJltnlllnd Tran",f"r tn.3 Suhtotfll Pcnoo In Collult'rai COl'-tl' Pnrwd In PenIXI D.'pendent COl:Its In.4.1 IllSurnnl'e In 4-.2 Property ta:n'S la..,l.a phY!4K-s !!uPlllwli\

In.4..,1 Heavy t."quipnwnt omlnl In..,l5 Di"po!!ill nfDAW generated In.4.(\ Pllint enc1'j.,'Y budget 11'1.4.7 NRCFill1i9 11l.4.8 EtmtfgL'OCY Plllnning F.l\'!! TLG Services.

Inc. Off*Site Decon Removal Packu.ging Transport Proceuing COlit CO!fjt COSt8 Costs Costs ,,:Ii "ro 1:1 Table C Clinton Power Station DEC ON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) LLRW NRC Dispoml Other Total Total Lie. Term. COIIt8 Costs Conting:nct .. co.t3 162 24 187 187 . nI. . 200 :17 2ri7 287

• 7. .. 661 661 125 10 1+1 1+1 125 19 H. 1+1 162 2. 187 187 937 140 1,077 1,077 :m7 .6 4 .. 445 6'2-1 94 "8 "8 512 77 5811 58!1 614 IIi 707 ,;.;m 520 78 598 539 62

• 72 72 ""7 la:1 I,O'lO 1,020 812 122 .,'!" 933 62

• 72 72 125 I' 144 144 200 30 2aO 115 "'1 39 :100 300 261 :19 300 :JOO 25{l 37 287 287 200 ao 230 230 390 58 *** 224 574 1!6 run 6fil 112 17 129 65 5.a:m !lOO 6,130 5,596 ,roo 45 34-5 345 2,900 4:15 :1,:1:15 3,:135 17. 2. 201 201 2,200 :130 2,5:10 2,530 154 23 177 177 1",917 2,237 17,154 Hi,620 5,200 780 5,980 5,200 780 5,lliMJ 12,051 1,b08 1:1,8.78 12,051 1,808 13,858 2,178 218 2,396 2,:iOO 10. .47 547 69 529 529 36 11 61 61 2,781 417 a,HlM :1,198 1,151 115 1,266 1,266 2,-181 248 2,729 Spent Fuel Site Proces5ed.

Burinl Volumes Management ReJitoration Volume Clll5sA CIIl58B ClaDC COMS .. Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet 71 60 115 224-65 Ii:!" 5:H 5,9*' 5,980 l:I,&'l8 13,!)58 litO 2,729 GTCC Cu. Feet Document El6-1640-006.

Ret'. 0 Appendix C. Page 2 of 11 Burinlf -------Utility and Proceued C,.rt Contructor WL,Lbs. MnnhouOi Manhuurl'l I,avo t,(JO(l 1,000 1,:100 7,500 3,10(1 5,000 ",096 --I,!t.W ",Wi 500 7,100 6,50() flOO 2.{i88 2,O(jO 1,60n :1,120 .,600 !J(J() "2,683 2,-iOU 1,40U U,I90 :m Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cast AnalysisDocument EI6.1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 3 of Il Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

I Activity ladesActivity D..criptinn O SlteLLRW Dec..-_--R...-I Pe kaging Transport Processing Disposal OtherTotal CastCostC stsCastsCo..Co..CostContingency NRCSpent FeelSit, TotalLic.Term Management Restoration CostsCo.,.Cast.Costs ProcessedBanal VotenwsBnrlni)Util tl ad VolumeClass)Class B Class CG CCProcessedC ra ftCont tar Cu. FeetCu. Feet Co. Peet Cu. FeetCo. Feet Wt., Lbs.Mar b ursMa 1 urs Period 1, Pcrxl

-Dupoo hint Gals )rontinucd) 10.4.9Site O&M Gals 10.4.10 Stool Fool Pond O&M 1.1 4 .1)ISFSI Operoling Gals 10.4. 12Srknrity StofCost 10,4.13 Utility Slf Ca 10.4Sebtoutl Period to Period

-Dulamdent Coots lo.0TOTAL PERIOD In COST PERIOD 16 - Decommissioning Preparations Parind lb Diroct Drrommiso,oniug Ao604i,a Deteded Work P oxdureo 16.1.1.)Plant nyn)cmn 76.7.1.2 NSSS Drrantieveetson Plush 16.7.1.3Ram^ner internnin Remoining budding., Ib 1.1.3 COD hatningo & NI.

ib-1.1.6 inrore instrumentation 16.1.1.7 Rrznmvnl primary mmvrinnn-nt lb 1.1.8 Ruocbrvrmmi lb.1.1.0 Forility CbwaooA 16.1.1.10 Sacrificial xbiald ll,.l. i.ll Roinfor,odroncruto lb.l.l.12 Moin Turbine 16.1.1.13 Stoin Conde-w" ib.l.1.14 Meiotnrv,wporamn: &rohemero lb.1.1.15 Radwsnm building 16.1.7.16 Reartorbuilding lb.l.lTotal 16.1.2Doran NRSS 16.)Subtnb,l Period Ib Aetiv Pw'iod IbAdditionot Costs 76.2.1Spout fun! pod ,solsbon l1, 2Site Charsrtoricot,00 lb2Subtotol Poriod Ib Addiuonal Coots P.'nol 11, Cnllmornl I. W.

16 .3.1D,.nn I,npment lb.3.2DOC Batt rvlarnuon nxp,uixam Ib-3.3Pr.... d...ring xmer 50570 16.3.4Pan& mn iosioning rhemicol Ouch sooty 16.3.55,0,11 toil 16.3.6Pilw cutting vvluip1mmt 1b.3.7Dora rig It, 18Slxmt Fwd C.p,tol end Translcr 16.3Subtoml Penot ib Collol,'r.) C -t.

Penal Ib Permd.Dependrnt Cones 76.4.1A.- n n.pphes ib-4.2Insurance 16.4.:)Propo rty Into, Ib.4.4Ileollh physics supplies 16 .4.5Bevy equipveat mntm 16.4 .6Disposal of DAW gonermul lb.-1.7Plant energy budget 16.4.8NRC Fwa 7b.4.9Emergency Planning Fros 11,.4.1(7Site O&M Gals IbA.li Spent Fuel Pad O&M 316 777917,158 33,037))3650,862 3683,172912,3.53 591891251957575ICS25125191251925D3745:16815022151)221251926039 2013925037 34151341614,214632 4,21410,5881,5586,(0181,08217.1963,571 841----1261,100154 4519711-93-60 249260-3.123-825201,1(5----165 1,533 225904 2,3881,10268338:1,2167,0552,460 266---812816,09761024662231-----35 21-62,78841833534954951582438958 363 6,232.19,01955,0103,72796,33572,23123,5655346806121441445746741944814414414414428728752152117286172172144722992993003752872873923533'923534,0464,3908958955.7405,21512,17612,1768,5918,59120,76720,7679689681,1841,104295295-4,2594,25921,2651.2651,7256,029-11,92916,6279,6986,92932328938936,7076,7073083082662653)1363,2153,2(8'13603691,049-1R2182 446 89713 2 89713 596 596 208 9:10 47 117 141,074 5,009 7,528 363 893 105 8,232 30,019 59,:07 893 195 68 145 86 72 30 39 450 4:w 1,049 446 610 610 157,471 4'23,41512,1911211580,87112,19020059,480 4,7331,109)4,)X5 L(Xs)1,(X5 2,109)3,6:5 1,1151,2)91 1.)101 2)18))2,,1016 2,1052,730:13,7411,00771,007:1:1,741 10,852 1)1,85216,6575480,156141 96,662195 358---7,151)12 751 278 278751 TLG Sereices, Inc.

Clillton Power Station DecornmiBllioning Cost Analysis Activity I Illdl'x Dt'!:ICril:tiOll Pllnod la PCflud*D"peoo"ol (continued) 11l,*t9 Site O&M Coshl la..&.10 Spt'ot Fud Pool O&M If1A.1I ISFSI Operllhng Cmlw InA.I:! .t;t'Cunly Stall 1IlA.I:! Ullilty Staff fmt laA Suhtulal Period 1a Penod.DclKmdeot

('Ollts 111.0 TOTAL PERJOD lfi COST PERIOD lb* Decommissioning Preparutioll8 11> Din.'<'t Dt'C:Ommil'lJjwninl:

Actlvilltl>!

Ddllllcd Work Pro<.'l..Jures Ib.l.l.1 PlanllfY>ltcml!

Ib.I.t.:.!:

N&"lS Dt.'C:On!nminatlon f1u"h Ib.1.1.:1 nl'm'lor internals Ih.1.U R"IWlimng th.U.S cno huulIin{.':!<

& Nl" lb.l.l.6 lnrore instrunwntalion Ih.l.l.7 HI'n1<1\'al pnmary cooillinnwni lb. I. !./:!.

111.1.1.9 FacilitydlMll1OU1 Ib.1.1.10 Socnficinl llhidd Ib.1.1.11 Reinfurccdconct'l'tc Ih.l.l.12 Main Turbim! 111.1.1.13 Main Condt'nlWf1'l 111.1.1.14 oreparnwl"#

& rohe-alt'rs Ib.l.I.15 Rndwa.d\'

bllilding Ih.l.l.1fi HCllflor building Ih.l.l Total Ih.1.2 De<<J1I NHSS th.1 Sublntai Penod Ib Achvily Ca.'!! .. Period Ib Additional (AsU! lh.2.1 tipent rud poolllwil1llOn Ih.::!.2 Sittl Charactl'flUilloo lb.2 Suhtotal Period Ib Addih .. nal C4:kll .. P.'nf>!.!

th:l.1 t"t)ulplY\cnl fun'&'! dt'COmmi-iooini:

fhemirnl flu"h wMle Smallluolal1tlwfllK'll Ih.:t6 Pll)!! cutting e'luipment Ib.a.7 D.oron rig th.as SPO:'111 Fud Capital And Tnll\"fl'f Ih.a Suhtotal Period Ib CollakraJ C4JtIts Ih Perlod.Dcpendent Co .. 1.Ii lhA.l DI'<XlI1IiUlI11Im

.. IhA.2 lll>1uTant't)

IhA.:) PmpcrtytaXt'll IhAA Health IJhYl'liCtlllUpplwlI thA.5 nt'-uvy Il'lUiplTlI'nt rentlll IbA.6 DWJlO#al ofDAW glllll'ratc<i th4.7 Plnnt energy hudget IlI.HI NRCFl't'S IbA.9 Enwrgtlncy Planning Fc<-'>' IbA.to fhuJ O&M Costs IhA.ll Srwnt Fuel Pool O&M 7'LG Services" Inc. Off*Site Decon Removal Packaging:

Transport ProctWling Cost Costs Costll Casu li97 13 8.7 1:1 506 596 H41 45 '" 711 49 260 2 I,WO 1,500 2,:>>18 1,ltrl .6 :1:18 :Ui 246 2:n TableC Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) LLI'W NRC Disposal Other Total Tota) Lie. Term. Costs Costs Costs 316 47 :163 :l6:J 777 117 893 91 14 105 7,158 1,074 8,232 8,2:12 :13,9.10 5,089 :m,019 :19,019 36 50,862 7,528 69,aa7 55,610 3. 83,O'l9 12,353 96,330 72,231 591 8. """ 012 125 19 144 144 6(10 7' 574 574 169 25 194 48 125 I. 144 144 125 I. 144 144 250 37 287 287 45:1 68 521 521 150 22 172 86 150 22 172 172 125 I. 144 72 260 3. 299 299 261 39 300 aoo 250 37 287 287 341 61 39'l :153 341 61 aw..!; a&:1 4,214 6:.12 4,&16 4,:t00 2118 .95 ... 4,214 5,740 5,290 10,588 1,51!8 12,176 12,176 6,008 1,1lli2 8.591 8,591 17.100 .1,571 20,767 20,767 126 968 !l6I! 1,0aO '64 l,lf1.1 1,184 93 60 295 295 3,123 ""5 4,259 4,259 0 2 2 165 1,265 1.265 225 1,725 1,725 6,trl5 904 6,9'l9 :1,216 7,0.')5 2,460 16,627 9,698 32 a2 812 HI 89:1 H"" 6,097 6]0 6,707 6,707 62 300 3{)8 35 266 266 21

• 31. 36 2,788 418 3,200 :!,206 3:)5 34 :169 369 .54 95 1,049 158 24 1"" Ill" 38. 58 448 Stwnt Fuel Site Processed Buritd Volumes Management RestoraHon Volume ClauA CJa88B Cla .. C Costs COSt8 Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet 89:1 105 3,n7 610 2:1,565 534 610 68 145 8. 72 3U ;19 450 450 27M 751 0,929 ti,tr19 278 751 351! l,W9 .. 8 GTCC Cu. Feet Documellt Rev. 0 Appendix C. Page 3 of 11 Burial I Utility and Processed Craft Contractor Wt., Lbs. Muuhours Muuhourlj lfii,471 *U:I,400 12,HlO 20 5till,871 It,ISO 20 6f)9,480 4,n:! I,UOO 4.f)OU l,aSH I,noo 1,000 2,llOO a,fhUl 1,tOO 1,20(J 1,000 2,mm 2,OMB 2,000 2,7:1Il 2,7:m a3,74) 1,067 a:l,741 :ltl,500 to,H.'i:!

30,500 HI,KI}2 Hi,657 5' tlO,OOO 141 96,662 195 7,1.')!) 12 Clinton Power.Station Decamntieaioning Caat Analysis Document E16-7640-006, lies. R Appendix C, Page 4 of 11 Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

I Activity IndexActivity Description O0StteLLRW Dec..R,tnovnl Packaging Transport Prot ing Disposal OtherTotal Co.,Co.,Co.,.CotsC-1.CostaCostaContingency NRCSpent FuelSiteProcessedBurisi VolumesBurial/Utility mid TotalLic. Term.

Msnngemeot RestorationVolumeCl- A Cl- 8 Chas CGT C ProcessedCraftContractor CostaCostaCo..CoatsCo.FeetCo. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Wt.Lbt.MootnursMouttnurs Pori" Ib Pcri,d.Dvp.ndont C.mtx (continuod) 16.4.1'2ISFSI Opvra ti ng Coda ib.413Sv'ooly StnfCnet 16.4.14DOCSttICoot ib.4.15Utility SIoR Coat ib.4Subtotal Penmi It, M nod-Depondvnt 2x,10 16.0TOTAL PERIOD lb COST PERIOD 1 TOTALS PERIOD 2. - L.M. Comp o nent Removal P,nod 2. Boot Doornoosioning Aetivittva Nuvloxr Steam Supply Sy,uvn Ito oval 20.1,1.1xemirculntiae, Syaknn Piping & Vnivex 2n.1.12 Rrrirrolatioo Pump & Mowry

?x.1.1.3 CRD51n & NI, Removal 1x.1.1.4 Roocwr Vo,ovl Internsla 2x.1.1..5ReoCI., Vessel 20.1.1Tolnle Removal of Motor Foio,y.," nt 20.1.2\lein Turbin

.1;^^eretar 20.1.3Moin Coo ,l.n ,o Coo od,og Coat, from Clean Bod,hng Demolition 20.1.4.1 Rmuto, Building 2x.1.4.2 Auxiliary Building 20.1.4.3 Rndwo,ta Building 20.1.4.4 Tudone Ruild,ng 20.1.4.5Fuol Building 20.1.4Total, Dinixnl of Plant. Syntoma 2.1.5.1 Acid F,xd & handling 2n1.5.2 A,ixiiiory Stv.m 2x.1.5,3 Rrexlhing Air 20.1.5.4 C02 &(n.nornwr Purge 1x.1.5.5 Cmtwlic Ilondling1.5.6 Chem Rodwnxto Repnxw.v,ing & Dinpmol 20.1.5.7 Chilled Water RCA Y0.75,8 Chiliad Wntcr Non-RCA 2..1.5.9Chlortn,lion 20.1.5111 ('ovulating Wotor-RCA 2..1.5.11 C,rcultting Watvr NonRCA 20.1.5.12 Cntm-l Anx & Fool Bldg Fototy Drxinn 0,1.5,13 Cntmm^l Aux & Fool Bldg Floor Droina

?x.1.5.14 Co.,W- t Cooling Wan, Non-RCA 2..1.5.15 Co.dxr.20.1.5.16 LonII,, t,r 2.-1.5.17 Conl, 2.15,16 Condenas Vxvuum 20.1-5 ,19 Contoiomvnt COmbnoltblu Con 20.1.620 Cyd, I 1-vodenaate 20.1.5.21 Drywall Coding 20,1.5.22 Drywall Purge 20.1.5.23 ECCS Euuipnnnt Cooling 20.1,5,24 Extrootio o St.xm 20.1.5.25 Fovdwntcr 10.1.5.26 Pavdwator Iis0lvr Droine Tm)dnv Lyric 20.1.5.27 Fc,dwatnrlinaivrMiae-2x.1.,5,28 Fillerod Wator TLC Sem ites, Inc.46753-5:13,5895,384,1274,1278526,5316,53117,11862,5019,64919,649 2137,9345,38943,86542,3051,.549-3,23786,39912,34986,98879,0618,4794611:1,972149,42824,702183,319150,29132,044984 57541115-79-65282282 5749144014281-120576576 23119153,5141-1111-2781,5381,538 14H4,104161,8802,503-25,18836319,14 262,323 947,879:1.2221,222-3,8273639,0362 5 ,64425,644 5871 2 ,27414,6633,9221429,63472728,642101,36 2 4313247041752-2261,6211,5211.3381,1182421,437180-7435,0585,9581,1)'11-----1581,1741,174 245---37281281 579---87666666 577---871164664 268-----403093092,690----4043,0943,094:351212--116060 6521227192-1971,11801,080 44--751 1932'2 18015-52929 47950 8685057207-4411,8111,611-1,3952458407-4212,3052,305 202---30232 51-----859 2071434237--94585585 57--'865-1261075:10-422'20220 199II.112041-68353351 137----211681.1 821320245347973-6593,7263,7285314124791.712-8825,0865,086 9288863113236-3761,7551,755 2271736255--10261M636 1161762017-34184184 8357456109204-29 71,570 634323614478-2081,1321,132 18119217053-74418418 8735304-28157167 62610888141341-2871.5911,591 668219173228700-4232,4092,4091,(138218176303664-0893,11863,666 27228181879-96512512 61526477,13,0101,57976340:1,01112,47688342 358-636751 1,245751-78,051 63,789--213.:3267.15912356,06631 ,77340 01,659116,01231,7931,0&1,1205111--64,0941,943-502,473---251,2401,9986,985--131,1198,471-71121,4301,3211-355,125411,7)0)1,761114,388---1,526,015040,71611,766 5025,1691,4301,:1311-2,327,62893,8133,53)114,933748---714,3867,80251,4902,581--2,463,23324,68111,4541 2,582 6,4936,771 2,912 30,209493----20,0125737,613----300,178111,682 51---877 22--373186----7,5712852,2443,043--250,7521556416,163----656,38622,847 232----3,958 59---988-9,4112---381,8173,5903 65--1,093,0442732,5172,127803584-65,5603,408 158---2,681-1:1,77513,946--1,350,69921,28819,03724,551--2,164,86419,9224,4853,4001---374,11716,13:6110,118----410,8973,912791249--46,2721,7274,3252,961---:141,53514.4185,7061,113---294,892111,4262,779766---156,2693,1931,19054--51,3621.4855,5814,893--504,01611,1159,06510,1133---8:16,88912,13812,0269,536---1,028.07428,824 5 7201,133---93.6214,674 90 Clinton Powe,* Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity lndt>x Activitv DNu*ription Period Ih PI>ritld*D"IM*o,knt Co.!.lti.

{oontinuoo}

IhA.l:! ISFSt Opcrallllg COSUI IbA.l:l Sl)l:lIrily Staff end Ih...l.14 DOCStafTCost Ih...l.15 UlllityStafT(:o-..l Ih..& Subtotal Pcrirn.t th Pilnod.Dt'Jlcndcnt Co,,\.;;.

th.O TOTAL PERIOD Ib COHT PERIOD 1 TOTAlS PERIOD 2a Large Component Rf'Ulovul P"rlod 2a Dm*d lli-commlsgiomng ActivitilJIi!

Nud.*JU SlmHu SIIl'ply SY:!lh"{l\

lfullloval 2n.l.1.1 Rt'("Ift'ulllItmu SY>'IINn Piping & VnlvciI 211.1.1.2 RI't'Ift'ulation Pump;) & Moton! 2a.1.1.:1 CRDMo;! & NI" Hmnoval 2a.1.1..&

Rl'a('wrVIlAAeI Internals 2a.l.I.5 Ht*aclorVIlIlSeI 21l.1.1 Tumls Dlspo,;n1 ufPIIlIIISy"lt'ms 2a.1.5.1 Arid Fl'\ld & Handling :.l1l1.5.2 AuxilillfyStwun ia.I.5.3 Brt>lIthing Air 21l.1.5'" C02&GNltJmtnrPu'1W 2n.l.55 Cnu .. '!tic I1nndhng 2a.. 1.5,6 Rl1Ilwali!to!

& DiollltMtll 2a.1.5.7 Chilled Water* RCA :la.! 5.1'1 Chillt'd WallJr Non-RCA Chlormallon 2a.l.a.to Cin-ulaling Water -RCA 2'a.l.5.1 I Cu-culatmg Wuh'r Noo* nCA ill. 1 5.12 Cnlnmnt Aux & Fuel Dldg F .... jUlII Dram" 2a.l.5.1:1 Cntnmn! Aux & FuO!i Dldi\ Floor Drain" 2'a.I.5.14 Component Cooling Water Non-RCA 211.1.5.15

('ondt'nmtt" 2n.l .. 5.JIi OItldi>OlUlh'llotL"h'r

la.I.5.17

('OOdl'oMle Polillhmg 211.1.5,18

('ond"'Il$l!rVncuum

la.I.5,19 Conlainment Combu8Hbll' Ga>l 21l.1.5.20 Cycit!d CoodeoMtc 2a.1.5.21 Drywcll Cooling 2n.1.5.22 Drywdl Purge :la.1..1.2..1 ECCS Cooling 2a.l,5.24 Exlradlon Stcam :!a.l,5.25 Ff'cdwnter Fm>dwatcr F('l'fiwnh'r 211.1.5.26 2n.l.5.27 23.1.5.28 Fllh'rod Wah'T TLG SCM)ices.

lnc. Dl'con Cost 2. :1.010 :I,OW 57 57 2:11 ". 94 587 -479 Removal Pnl'kaging Transport Cost COlOts Costlll 477 1,579 2,476 54 49 191 04,100 7,IH9 12,274 4:11 1.:1:lB 1,021 245 579 &77 26M 2,690 :15 652 44 19 I. 508 fit 207 " 126 199 137 l,lti2 1,071 9211 227 100 .". 634 181 l!7 626 666 1,H36 2i2 5 76 .. II 14 5::1,,) lO,&m :1.222 14,66.1 324 1,118 12 58 24 14 III It, ato fhl1 Il8 If. 7 74 32 19 lOll 219 218 211 340 342 15 40 141 2,503 1,222 3,9'12 7. 242 27 50 58 34 II 2015 412 63 36 56 36 21 88 173 176 18 OIT*Site ProcePlng Costs 14 14 417 1,437 12 192 .7 407 237 5 2tI :147 479 113 255 20 109 144 70 :10 141 :t'l8 :.IU3 18 TableC Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) LLR Dispos,al Costs Other Costs 4" a,589 5,679 17,086 21 :n,U34 3,237 66,399 a,27:.! 149,428 79 281 lfll 25,186 ::1,827 29,6::14 52 180 207 :UJ 41 97:1 1.712 236 17 204 7. 5:1 4 :141 700 664 79 :16:1 363 721 Total COJltiuaenc 538 ""2 2.563 12,:1*&9 24,702 65 120 278 HI,142 9,036 28,642 226 743 15:1 37 87 87 40 404 II 197 7 ill m 8 M 8 a 66 m --24 = N m -00 Total 53 4,127 6,531 19,649 4:J.tUi5 86,981l IH;I,319 282 576 1.5::18 62,;)23 ;.l5,644 90,:16.1 1,521 5,058 1,174 281 666 6ti4 309 3,094 60 1.IlHO 51 "" 29 l,tHl 2,305 232 59 5Hli 65 220 353 158 :1,726 5,086 1,755 6:lli 184 1,570 1.132 418 vn 1,591 2,409 :1,666 512 NRC Lie. Term. Costs 4,127 6,531 111,649 42,305 78.061 150,291 282 576 1,538 fi2,323 25,644 1,521 5,058 1,174 2!il 600 604 3<J9 3,094 00 I,""" 29 1,811 2,305 5115 220 353 3,726 5,086 1,71).') Il:IB 184 1,570 1,132 418 157 1,591 2,409 3,_ 512 Spent Fuel Management Costs 5:1 1,549 8,479 32,044 Site Reatoration Cos'" 400 !lll4 51 :!2 232 '9 6' 158 Processed BliriafVolumeli Volume CliUUI A CliUUI B CliUUI C Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu, F....,t Cu. Feet 2.'iO 250 14,9:1;) 51,490 4113 7,61a IH6 2,244 16,163 9,402 204 sua 1:1,775 19,0:17 4,485 10,118 791 4,325 5,706 2,779 1,190 5,581 9,065 12,0:28 720 aSH n36 1,245 Mil 2,473 -,-7112 14,:lliB 25,1611 748 2,581 :1,04:1 427 5>14 1:J,!J4fi 24,551 :1,400 249 2,961 1,113 766 "4 4,B93 lO,oa3 9,536 1,133 751 751 l,4aO l,a:tn 1,430 1,3:!O Document EI6-164(J..006", llf!ll" 0 Appendix C. Page 4 0/11 Burinll "(;'1'CC Processed Cu, Feet Wt., Lb!!. 7.159 lOJ,H22 116,012 li4,094 251,240 131,119 355,125 1,5:!6.11'W) 2,:127,628 714,:186 2,46:1,23:1 20,012 :I(W,178 7,571 259,752 656,386 :1t1l,817

12,517 65,560 l,:I50,fi99 2,Hl4,864 374,117 410,897 46,272 :1041,5:15 294,H9"1 156,269 51,362 5(}.I,016 9!l6,989 1,0'.!8.074 9;),621 Craft Munbours H 31,773 :11,79:1 I,H4;\ l,rnm 8,471 40,700 040,700 9a,813 7,1<<12 24,tiRl 11,4fJJl 2,51:12 6,49;1 6,771 2,912 30,209 57:l ltl,il!tl H77 ai3 285 15,fi6..I 22,8047 3,958 9"" 3,59() t,Othl 2,127 3,408 2,681 21,268 19,922 16,fl:lU a,912 1,727 14,418 10,426 3,193 1.485 11,115 12,taS 28,824 04,674 !lO Utility and Contractor MuuhOlint a56,06H 400,659 1.06U,I:19 1,760 1.'i60 a,520 Clinton Pourer Station Decnrnmiasioning Coat Analyst.Document EI6-I640-606, Rev. 6 Appendix C, Page 5 of II Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

IA t vily ln9ezActivity Description Off-S toLLRW Decnu Removal Pa c kaging Tronaport Prot slog Disposal OtherTotal CostCastC ..t.CostsC "t,Co..CostsContingency NRCSpent FuelSiteProcessedBorinl V 1 menBurial IUtility and TotalLt.Term.Management ReatoratlonVolumelas, A Cl-B C lass CG CCProdCraftContractor CostsCostsCoat,CoatsCu. Feet Co. Feet C Feet C . FeetCo. Feet Wt Lb ._Munh.urs M.nhuurs

.,,,orator llydnrgnn Sent Oil Stator Cooling 2..1.5.31 high Prexnurn Corn Sproy 20.1.5.32 1:ydrogon 20.1.513 Laundry Egoip & F1,, Droinn RW Roprorrox 20.1.5.34 lk Detection 20.1.5.35 larcn ool Innt"=.t Ponoln 20.1.5.36 Ion Pn'oonro Coro Sprny 20.1.5.37 Monhtne Shop Equipmrmt 20.1.5.38 Machin Shop Ventilation 20.1.5.38 51010 Strom 2a1.5.40 51010 Steam rmintion Volvo 2o.1.5.41 Mnke-upDemineralirxr.RCA 20.1.5.42 Make op Denline..lio rr N -RCA 2 3.5.43 Ilokeup Co-le. Storage 20.1.5.44 Mies. Building Drains 20.1.5.45 Mixrcllaneoun Ventilation 20.1.5-46 Nocleer Ikdler 20.1-5.47 Oil Transfer 90.1.5.48 Rro,'tnr Con, lvarlotion Galling 20.1.5.49 Refrigrrolon Pildng 20.15.5))Snnitory 20-1.5 51 Stta an Ilousr& MU Pump 110404 Ventilation 20.1.5.52 Standby 1040,d Control 20.1.5.53 SwilchKcar heal Relrurvsl 20.1.5.54 7tiddn, Bonding Closed Gsding Wntnr 20.1.5.55 Turbine Ehrl mhydrmdio Control 20.1.5 ,50 Turhinv Oon Mix Drnlno & Vonvo 25.1.5.57 Tud,ine Oland So.l Steam 20.1.5.58 Torhine Oil 2..1.5.50 Turbine (inn Anx &M6, 0,--

2. .1.5Totals 20.1.6Scotoldinginxopportofdorommisxloning 20.1Suh)Mol Prnml 2n 0060110 Contx P--120 Additional (Into 2.2.1D,np0u11 of Stored Torhine Rotors

2. .2SnblAnl P,niod On Additional Conte P.

20.:3.:)S,n0310001 olinwnnro 1 3.4Sv.of Fuel Capital 2 nd Tranxfer 20.3Subtoml Perval 2. Cnllournl Conti Prnod 20 Prnod.Drinndrnt Como 20.4.1Dunn xnppliea t.1.2Inn nm, 4,:1Properly 10000 2x.4.4Ilonlth phy600 n0pplirn 2..4.5H000y equipment rvnlol 20.4.6DinpnnelofDAWgonerated 20.4.7Plant onrrgy hodgrl 20.4.8NRC Fcm 211,4.9Emergency Planning Feco 20.4.10Silo O&M Coats 20.4.11 Spent Foot Pod O&M 9004.121tiFS1 Opernhng G.xtn

-2..4.13Sorority Slol Conl 200.14 DOC Stag Coot 353116-10 200156 3277225478215-163 32014-9 268222054611-95 5'2211314 61 1254330301'2277 130164 277611678-841,118141113178438-447 3121161050.50 2554962-75455405 2:34--35269-35532191486-118625625 19--322 35--541021110473434 1154961-40229229 27926214671-100548543 22----325-16'9----25195 36----fi42:151211115858:2-325-254385460329319 11002-31717 7653411-23123123 44165712691642091,2191,219 64882223-27152152 29018216112875013061,8161,81647917,0862,4352,0704,4627,14 27,41441.08839,8893,749681683229644,9024,9021.00637,56918,6086,3206,41336,930727:18,393146,025144,807 27246103822--1701.3681,360 27246103822--1701,3681,36814462256303-19295795720106-182-64373373--514-----7759163222,585:3,38825,984-25,98451482362-48522,5963,72327,9061,86225,9074 95-241181182,0,5322052,2582,25816,1411,61417,75515,9802,1189---7473,7373,7373,428---5143,9433,943194:17 562-16311479474,8717315,6015,601 1,1171121,2291,229-3,5073513,8578,857 58287669669 I,41122151,6471,647 I082519419411,1681,67412,83212,83205,7113,85725,513829,568 ter wnxle.000.1 90x11 00x3,, 5:1 9118 47 519 72 7 437 23 453 2,441 5:1 32 9(38 47 519 72 437 23 453 2,44110,6702,35:186633011,4088,487 1,218177,229192,579 2,969314 253 208-:1,1003,075 178 2,132890 3049 1,5441,749 225-2 , 665121 7,0876,277 2881 2,474-5761,223 1851 2,442 1,8151,030 417 2,149 84 152161)3,60437899,1823,945131,5814,901-4:35:3,2(1'2 75116,953569 4_M87,2913,2983,42518915,4821,2)01586,794717!0)53,8461,157944,5755,50913,84,050101.5,455 10,263 8,443630,388 7,225 135,602 4,0511 162,1178 9,119115,071 644,1123 5,723100,400 92,952 151,:38971,2905531:N3 5,65749)4,6821 9:13 119 2, 270 216 4,251 19,541 5154,(501 4,440 5,964 372 6881,218246,871131,3911 ,4301,320-18,660,69053 3,311)3,5233----1,325,883)46s29,464--1,325,6804698(13--54, 209176;166-32,6295759.501,21086,8138233 1,7769,452--189,048 7 269 22 41 95 42 2524:3,241 292,274 TLG Services, In,,.

Clinton POWf!r Station Decommissioning Cost AllalysiH Activity Indt>x Activity Description 01.."1_1 ()fPlunt Sysh'm.'I' (continued) 2a.l.$.29 Generator Seal Oil 2a.1.fl.:m Gunerator Stator DKllIng 211.1.5.31 f'n'$a>urt,!

Core SllfllY 2a.L5.32 Hydrogen 2a..l.5.:J3 LaundfY Eiluip & Jolf Drams RW Rqlro<.::l'ss lA'ak IWtl.'Ction 2a.I.5.35 Local In$tnllllent Pandll 2a.1.5.ao Low Ptt'SJlllrtl Corn SptllY 2n.l.1i37 Machine Shop Equip,"I'flt 211.1.5.:18 Mttchim* Shop Vlmlilatlon 2u. 1. 5.:l9 Main Stt'am 2u.l.5AI)

Milin Slvflm lsolution Vuh'll 2n.l.5Al Muku*up Dt*minefllhwr*

RCA 211.1.5..12 Dt'lluneraiiu!r Ntm*RCA 2a.1.5.43 Mah'lIl1 Condensate Storage 2a.

MiS(', Building Drains 2a.1.5 45 V t'nli18tlOll 2n.l.5.46 Nucivnr Ooiler 2a 15Ai OilTrllnsfer 211.1.5.48 RClldor Cow 1%OIlitioo Coullng 2a.1.5.49 Refrif,!erall.on PilHng 2a.15.50 Sanitary 211.1.551 Scfl'1!!l1 Hoth":' & MU P\Ill\ll (louse Ventilation 2a.1.552.

Standby Liqtud Control 2n.1.5.53 Swit('hg"f\f Hl'Ill 2n.1.5.54 Turbine Building CIO$('d ('oollng Willer :la.l.5J;5 Turbine E1I'('lrohydrtlulir.

Control 20.. La.flU Turb!nt) Gen MillC Drnin ... & Vlmls 2a.1.5.57 Turbine Gland Seal Sh'arn 2a.l.5.58 Turbine Oil tn 1.5.59 Turbine (lcn Aux & O<lVICO';!

2n.1.5 Totals :la.l.6 NaIToiding In i<Uilporl of 2n.l Subtmal Penlm 2n Activity Cmlh! Penod 2a Additional ... hI 211 2.1 of Slun'il Turbine Holm ... 2u.2 Sublotal Period 21t Additional Crn.tls PI'nod :ill CoJlaterol CU!.<h! :!n,;ll

la.3.:! d( :la.:l:1 2a 3.4 2n.3 Period 2a Perlo<!.Dcp.md"nl 211 .... 1 Dt.'u:m .mpplies 20. .... 2 In"urnnt'e 2a .... :1 Propl.'fiy laxell 21l"'.4 Health ph)'>!I!;!>

!lupphcs 211.4.5 III'lIvy t1'lUil'nwnt nmt .. d 2nA.6 Di>!pooal ofDAW 2aA.7 Plant cnel1;Y budget 2n.4.8 NRC Ft,llS 2n.4,9 Emergency Planning Fvc .. :lnA.HI Sill' O&M (\mtll 2n..l,11 Spent Fuel Pool 2nA.12 ISFBI Op':'raling COlltl! 21t .1.1 a Secunty Staff C{f:jl 2aA.14 DOC StaffCO>It TLG Sen.jccs, Inc. Decou Cost 479 l,(J6(i 144 145 .5 Table C Clinton Power Station DEC ON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dol1ars) orr-Site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Removal Packaging TrAm"port ProcessIng Disposal Other Costs Total Contin Total Cns,ts Lie. Term. Management Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs 35 20 :127 :J:.! 268 52 rn u = 1,116 M 2M --n

• R 115 m a II 76 441 .4 290 17,086 3,749 :l1.568 21 27 514 514 2,111'19 a,428 7:! 2:l 2 4a o 14', 32 2tl o 5 '" 8 1M2 2,435 68 IH,608 246 246 6:! 20 82 ",. .4 2. I :10 1 II 113 19 21 o 3 71 8 160 2,070 16 6,:120 10:1 103 :/56 106 :162 :17 78 54 I :19 6 67 178 I 62 14 o 61 46 II 54 4 269 22 287 4,462 8" 6,4t:l 812 8'l2 215 60 a 122 4.'. 6 86 71 II 164 2:1 '91 7,142 22 36,930 aoa 182 727 22,595 485 22,595 552 2,(1'):1 16,141 4,871 1,117 :I,5U7 582 1,-t12 Hili 11,158 25,711 10 163

• 95 14 I 77 84 447 10 7. 3S 118 3 40 100 3 25 5 II 60 23 209 27 :JOO 7,414 004 a8,393 171) 170 19'1 64 77 :1,:1&9 3,72:1 24 205 1,614 747 514 163 7:11 112 351 M7 215 2S I,fi74 3,857 "" :12 90H 47 51. n 7 a 60 ---a a

• 35 17 m 1,219 m 1,816 n_ 4,90'1 146,O'15 l,a68 1,368 957 37:1 591 25,984 21,906 11M 2,258 17,755 3,737 3,94a !147 5,601 1,2i9 :Ui57 669 1,647 194 12,8:1'.1 29,i)fl8 Costs Costs 5a 32 IIOll 47 519 72 -&:17 23 453 2,441 5. 405 625 34 229 543 58 :1:.m 17 123 1,219 152 1,816 39,869 4,90'.1 144,807 1,:168 1,:168 957 37:1 532 1,862 118 2,258 15.980 3,737 a,943 .47 5,601 1,2i9 669 12,H..12 29,568 25,984 25,984 3,8.'i7 1,Ii47 1.4 Site Restoration Costs 269 22 41 :!5 195 42 25 1,218 1,218 5' 5. 1,776 Processed Document Rev. 0 Appendix C. Page 5 of J 1 Burial Volumf'l:l Duriull Utility and Volume Cu. Feet CIMS A ClalUl B Class C GTCC Proooued Craft MllIlboul'ii Contractor Mlluhuurs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. --m U_ _ *

• 1,544 1,749 225 2,665 121 7,Oln 6,277 28 81 2,-174 576 1,2'2;' 18 51 2,442 1,8t5 1,039 417 2,149 "' 152 16a 10,610 2,35:1 H66 330 11,408 8,487 177,2:!9 102,579 2,969 a14 246,871 1:11,391 29,464 29,464 90a aoo 1,210 9,452 1,430 1,320 1O,!W:I 8,44:1 300,388 7,225 135,602 4,050 162,(J78 9,119 115,071 644,023 5,723 100,485 92,952 a,604 99,182 tal,581 16,!J53 87,291 3,425 15,482 566,794 5a,8411 !J44,075 1:1,004:,050 ISl,aM9 18,660,690 1,:J25,1lliI) 1,325,!i80 54,209 :12,629 86,8:-18 189,048 5ri} a4a 5,857 "" 4,682 9:13 119 2,2iO 216 4.251 19,fi41 515 4,()6(; 4,4-10 5,gew :172 .... 378 1,!145 4,9m 4:15 a,20'l 751 fi69 426 a,298 Hi!.1 1,21)0 7,790 1,157 5,ft69 30.'),455 71,290 5:J::I,:110

• HlH 469 176 57 233 :IOll a,fi:W 2-1:1.2-11 292,274 Clinton P.trxr Station Decommiaaioning Coat Analysis Document 0116-1640-606, Her. 0 Appendix C. Page 6 of 11 Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Activity emlrxActivity Drxcripuno OFF StteLLRW Dec..Removal Packaging Trannpnrt Proc sing DisposalOtherTotal CostCostCostaCostaC toC.staCottaContingency NRCSpent F uelSiteProcessedBurial VolunteaBurial/Utility and TotalLic. Terns.

Management ReatnratianVolumeCl- A Cl- B Cl... CGTCC ProcessedCraftContractor CostaCoatsCottaCostsCu. FeetCu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Wt, Lbs.ManhnursManhonrs 5,698 31,682 Period 2, P,-,d .Drizrndrnt Costa (rontimm,^d)

-2 A5 Utility Stnt Cao 2a.4Subtotal Period 2a Period-Dependant C to 2a1)TOTAL PERIOD 2a COST PERIOD 26 - Site Decontamination Period 21, Direct Dc mmixnioning Activities Dintoosl of Plant Systems 26.1.1.1 Comiwnant C<<+ling Wninr-RCA 26.1.1.2 Containment Alonitnnng 26.1.3 3 Content Rod Drive 26.1.1.4Dl."'1 Fu^1 Oil 26_1.1.5De= 'I t. u. ml 26-1.1,6Ili.., l f^ i,. rotor R<<

n, Vunlilalion 26.1.1.7Drains-I_,^mdry to Radoe.le 2b-11.8Clean Non'IICA 261.1.9F.l,'eAlllean RCA Lb.t.l.l0 Eqtl uip mm Rado,aotr Repro cooing 26.1.1.17 Ptro Protavtion Non-RCA 26.1.1.12 Pbntr Drain Radneaxto Repeucaoaing 2b,1.1.1:1 IIVAC AtuiliarY Building 26.7.1-14 IIVAC . Control Rtwm

21 1.1.15 IIVAC -

Fuel Building 21,1.1.tti IIVAC-Ininrotnry 26.1.1.17 RVAC - OR Gen Building 91+.1.1.18 IIVAC -Radn,oxte Building 26,1.1.19 IIVAC - Service Building

26.1.1.21)

IIVAC - Turbine Building 26.1.1.87 Iioiata Cramre & Elevnlorn 26.1.1.22 Inatrumunt At, - RCA 26.1.1.28 Inntn,mant Air Non-RCA x6.1,724 OROan 26.1. t. x5 PlnntSrnin+ Water-RC:1 26.1.1.2(1 Plant Soevio, Wnler Non-RCA 26.1.1.27 Proem Radiation Atonilnnng 26,1.1.28 RracterRorimulatinn x6.1.1.29 Reactor Water Clean-up 26.1.1.30 Rasid+nl heat Removal 26.1.1.31 Scmm. Wash 26.1.1.3'2 Srro ico At, - RCA 26.1,1.33 Seri-, Air Non RCA 26.1,1.34 Shut m Service, Water- RCA 21+.1.1.35 Shutdown Service Water NunFICA 26.1.1.36 Solid Rode..tie Repmcv

=.=e,ng & Ditgaeud 26.1.1.37, Treatment 21, 1.1.38 nuplPratt wasp

&Tranttor 26.1.1 39 SuptI'.. 'I I' tka.ui 26.1.1 411 Tut), u.: :1W Caul & DO Bldg Equip Denton 26.1141 Tutb OG RW Cnlel & DO Bldg Floor Drains 26,1.1Tote, 26,1.2SaRoldtng in support d decommissioning Drronn.ninat ion 01 Site Buildings 26.1:1.1Reactor Building 16.1 :i.i Auxtliory Building 2b .1,3,3Control Building 26,1.3.4 Diewtt Grncretor Building

`16.1.3.5 Radenanu, Building 2b.1.3 Ii Turbine Budding 2b.t.3Totals4961-723893892135-20108103526:0273511117200990967---1077-59--96888----13101-22_11738381,735----21)01,995-7,6211132701,884--2,24012,12712,1271,517122W185338-5182.7742,774182----27210-9330877141283-3`161,6781,6783723144-137373-282--42:1249169513-119645645631It,2615221-1911 ,0361,03016710103823-56304:111427432,344628611,5241,52466---1074736188218725-2151,2231,223ri-17-56641072-15279579522-----325-23717143841-794264262:1851178-73405406--28212-13884717-41215215 246786427-38174174 29539)1413030127-2901,21121,202 6187116176125166508-6742,9742,974710-3254964-9349649617-----319-1252538--38200200Ito-----18136-523751604794165-5172,1562,166-862It135-2513413414619131664-663W3116414121945-3318818828623141260-9348748742136265493-144775775 1,4)9)21,1668799383,7322,015-7,03037, 22133,9624,686852010427-1,2056,1286,128 3,28114,1477666291952,3043,45314,77414,774 3972204250291117-2971,1431,143 45816443501113-3101,1401140 133411214-3188321321 1,5556611561842741811,0904,0744,074 1,3906811431706'9369-1,0103,8423,842 7,2135,9191,1611,0973213,334-6,24025,29425,294 544,169 1,776 9,452 189,11483081,079,684:1,053276,385142,05:11 ,4101,320 20,262,450534,3201,0113,2042,412---97,9651,95510175---8,3891,2811,3771,585---145 ,9769,09377-----1,276-----1,1:10101-----1,848-3666--5,1993701,995----33.54574,814----31038,244120,5694,917-573,2/)32(1,185210----3,5655,5874,102---456,74116,177540112---25,419664:124-----5,842-3,783182---163,916 16,038:307--262,5769,7431,510126---79,8832,7919,277661--414,21713,916174----1,2667,422359--321,76211,269 7 1232,875---116,7618,52825-----4291,521591--05,3294,0323,090---126,49:13,884212----3,643242--25,11982,2115-149381--27,6591,5761,1741 ,824--156,981)9,4326,5807,268---680,64315,1739-1462,553----103,11605,15619-----3291,565---61 ,1352,0'15136----`2,328:1,74820)3-286,151121,6275176fi--`24 ,74(11,458630771---69,3892,544747652---67,2451,1564648114--67,0834,7.11-2,1531,349-762,9487 2733,259148,22929,044--7,9.58,084373,8543,711393 189,23689,1137,73435,5,53---2,661 ,1121)127,854196 8---217,92410,195562,074---184,54910,270-568-49,9622,9131,0677,510---701,18036,:1932,7366,765---699,593:1,35112,76354,427---4, 515,127221,976956,418194371,30544,52710,1306,8227,23537 ,068133,99759,1946,590 16,1819 43,&34 110,675 5(1,524 127,4116 275,443 50,524 134,879 310,178 TLC Services, Inc.

CHilton Power Slat;oll Decommissioning Cost Allal.vsis Activity hul(')I. Activity Drscription Period 2iI Pefu;xi.Dl'l)(!nlh-nt CQliih:l (ronlimwdl 2a ... 1.15 UtilityStuITCmI( 2aA Subtotal Period 2a PeriOd.Dt-l>tmdcllt CAlSls 211.0 TOTAL PERIOD 211 COST PERIOD 2b* Site Decontamination Period :!b Dil'"t'l:t Ik ...

Adivitk'>l Di"poAAI of Plant Hysh;lllS 2b.I .. I.1 ('ompommtCooilngWah!r RCA :.':b.l.l.2 r:ontainment

},IollllonDg 2b .. l.l.:1 Control Rod Drive 2b.l.1 A Dit,*C1 Fuel Oil 2b 1.1.5 Dil,,,dOt:'fH'ml 2h 1 1,6 Dwwl .. Genprnlnr Room Vt-ntilslion 2b.l.l.7 Drain1>.Laundry 10 Radwl)><te

,!h.t.l.tI Ehdneal* Clean Non*HCA 2b.I.I.9 Ell'Clrical*

Cllllln RCA :lb.l .. 1.l0 P..quip Dmm Radwll"te Rt'pron'>I>Img 2b .. l.1.11 Fu'c Prott.'1"tion Non .. RCA :lb.l.l.l2 Floor Dmin Radwal'te Rt'procM>\l:iUlg 2b,I.I.I:1 nVAt:*

BUIlding 21>.1..1.14 nVAC .. ControlRoom

tb.LI.IS nVAC* Put'! Building 2b.1.!.!I; nVAC.l.aooralory 2h.1.1.17 nVAC* OfTOn>l Building :!h.l.l.18 nVAC* RadwRl'h!

Building 2b.l.I.19 IIVAC*S{'rvit'eDuilding 2b.I.1.20 IIVAC -Turbine Duildint::

2b.I.1.21 Hoists Cra01m & ml!\'atohl Instrument Au . RCA Instnllll",nt Air Non* RCA 211.1.1.24 OITGa>1-2b.I.I.Ui Plant&'rviftlWawr*

HC*\ th. t.l.:.Ui Planl Serviw Water Non*RCA 2b.l.l.27 PFlXf:'$S Rmliation Monitonng Zh.l.1.28 Reoctor Rocirculation 21>.1.1.29 RI)octor Watt'r Cloon-up 2h.1.1.30 ROI:l.iduallk'tit Removal 2h.l.I,33 2h.l.1.:JS 2h.1.I.:16 211.1..1.37 Zh.l.l.38 2b.1.1.:m 2h .. 1..1AO 211.1 .. 1.41 2b.1.1 ScrmmWnsh Servke Air* RCA ServictJ Air Non*RCA Shuldown Servl ...... l Water RCA Shutdown Sen'l('e Wah-r Non*RCA Ralid Rndwasl\J

& Dill-POSHI Standby GAS Treatment SuppressIOn Pool r:loonup & TrAnsfer Hllppnwmon Pool MllktHll' Tum OG RW Cnltl & on nhlg FAlUl!, DrainS Tum OG RW Cnltt & DO Bldg Flour Drams Totals 2b.t.2 Seaffohimg m !!-u!,port of of Sile Buildin!P' 2b.l.:l.l Rt'octor Duildmg 2b.1.:t2 Au.uliary Dudding :lb.l,:t::J Control Building 2b.l.3.-1 Die:wl Gcrwrntor Buildwg 2b.l.:1.5 Radwilsltl nuilding 2b. CUi Turbine Building 2b.l.;) Totals TLG Services.

Illc. Df'con Cost 95 1,:W5 :!4 295 618 52:1 I,liiO a,zgo .197 458 1;)3 1,55."1 1,:100 7,2t:J Removal Packaging Tran8pon Cost Cor.u Cosu 6,418 44,527 244 72 526 67 59 "" 22 1,735 7,6:!1 1,517 "'2 !KI:I 37 282 3tKi fl31 167 8 ... M 7:Jtl 6 556 22 2:l7 2aS 1 ... JaB 67 300 706 7 325 17 125 119 751 86 14" 64 :.':H6 421 21,166 4,f)t\6 4,147 220 164 4:1 6thl " .. , 5,919 19-1 19,1:10 :19 Ita l:l2 ... I ** 10 27 18 17 41 1711 6{) 19 14 2:1 311 .79 M 766 42 4:1 " 156 143 1,161 :J7 6,822 27 :no 94 77 3 I. 2. 10 43 :12 10 " 11 ao 125 47 3 13 12 " 26 938 20 629 SO 50 " 184 170 1,097 Processing Costs 7,2;)5 61 3 35 1,884 185 141 " 95 152 3ll 2.14 ,.7 71. a8 78 an 166 64 3. 94 13 16 19 12 54 3,732 104 195 '" 27 b1l a21 TableC Clinton Power Stution DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) LLkW DispOStlI Cmllta Other Costa 4a,9.14 552 110,675 :l7,9m! 1:13,997 111 3a8 28;) 4 1:1 21 23 46 2. 41 17 27 127 fiOB 165

• 64 4. 60 .3 2,015 27 2,3O-i 1117 113 31 4011 36. 3,334 Total Continuene 6,590 16,909 59,194 72 2. 172 10 9 1:1 260 2,240 518 27 a46 la 42 "' 191 56 2l!() 10 2'.&5 I 152 3 7. 73 2. 41 3B 2!10 674 I 93 3 38 16 517 25 66 aa 93 144 7,030 1,205 3,45:1 :Ill7 310 sa I,09() 1,{)10 6,249 Total Costs 50,524 134,879 :110,178 3"" to:l 909 77 os 101 3B 1.995 12,127 2,774 210 1,B78 7:1 :124 645 1,0ilo 304 1,524 74 1,223 7 795 25 426 405 212 215 174 1,2(rl 2,974

• 496 I. 2011 136 2,156 134 304 188 467 775 37,221 6,128 14.774 1,14:1 1,140 321 4,074 3,842 25,294 NRC Spent Fuel Lie. Term. Management Costa Costs 50,524 127,406 275,443 ' 103 fJ09 36 12,127 2,774 1,878 73 645 l,naG 304 1,524 1,223 795 426 405 215 174 1,202 2,974 496 2011 2,156 134 304 188 467 77. 33,962 6,128 14,774 1,143 1,140 321 4.074 3,842 25,294 5,C198 31,6H2 Site Restoration Costs 1,716 :1,053 77 08 101 1,995 210 :1:.':4 74 25 212 19 la6 3,259 Proee5Sed Volume Cu. Feet Documetlt

£16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix C. Page 60111 BuriafVolunws Burial I Cill$sA Clll&5B ProcelJ8ed Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lba. 9,-1.,)2 U!9,t148 Croft Manhours aog Utilityund Contractor Manhonrs 544.tH!I I,079,6H4 270,3:)5 142,05:1 1,<l:1tl 1,:120 20,262,450 5:14,:120 1,osa,204 2,412 101 J,:l77 36 74,!:B4 7,348 5,587 640 6,038 1,510 9,277 7,422 2,875 1,521 3,090 278 14" 1,174 6,580 2,553 1,505 :1,748 517 6ao 747 464 2,153 148,229 3,711 7,7:14 1,171 66 1,067 2,7:15 12,763 76 1,58S 1m 4,1117 4,102 112 IB2 a07 :!:.l6 661 :1fi9 591 242 a81 l,till4 7,268 2,:ma 66 771 652 864 1,349 29,044 :193 :1S,5..,):I 1,116'8 2,074 66B 7,510 6,765 54,427 97,96.') B,3ll9 145,976 5,199 a,naB,2",4 573,204 450,741 25,439 16a,9Hi 262,576 79,883 414,217 321,762 116,i61 95,:129 125,49::1 25,09:1 27,6&9 150,000 6&1,04:1 lO:l,fi66 61,135 286,150 24,740 69.:189 67,245 67,963 162.948 7,6-IJ8,0B4 189,236 2,661,n:m 217,924 184,549 49,962 70l,ISO 6Ug,SUa 4,515,127

.1.955 1,281 9.1)9:1 1,276 1,150 1,848 370 :1:1,545 1:Mi,569 26,185 3,585 16,171 664 5,842 5,998 9,743 :'.,791 1:1,900 1,266 11,2WJ 12:1 H,5ts 4:l9 4,0:.12 a,HS-I :1,64:1 2,295 1,576 9,432 15,173 146 5,150 a:m 2,:1:.18 21,027 l,4lhl 2,544 1,156 4,790 7,273 :173,8.')4 89,11:1 1:!7,tlfi-I 10,195 10,270 2,!11:J :m,;m.1 :l4,:l5t 221,f)76 Clinton Poner Station Decontmiasioning Coat Analysis Document El 6-1640-006, Neu. 0 Appendix C, Page 7 of it Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Off-Si tLN CSpent actSitePresentedIIurial VMunren --Bartat lUtility andDeean R oval Pa kaging Tra port Pro as g Disposal OtherTataiTotalLie. Term Management RestorationVolumeCl... AC t.. BClass CCTCCProcessedCraftContractor Activity Deeseipt!nn CostCatC ateCateC toC.-CostaC ntinge y_ -_- CostaCantoCnxtaCostaCu. FeetCu. Feet Cu. FeetCu. FeetCu. Feet Wt., Lbe.ManhouraManboure 2b.1Su6totol P' al 2b Activity C is 8,637:331,771 2,125 2,055 4,157 5,377 14,48568,643&5,:184 3,259164,70383,863 12,362,450684,943 2,1.1.1Remove spent fuel racks02678181218-1,086-6963,2933,2943 15,584--882,7601,587 Disiwsal of Plant Systems 2.1El'.1 -Gwtxmirml,d-1.2471833188253541, 8781 ,876--7,867356--:139,634121,:142 20.12 .2 Fin, Prot-lion RCA8311433231-2491,3561,358--9,172-372,4 8413,597 2d.1.2:t Pool llnndling

& Tronob,r-3043412-126585-174189--16,62854:1 28.1.2.4 Foal Pool Caobng&Cloanup-1,1114186129167526-4032,6952,895-6,6297,541--696,89720,77!1 28.12 .6 Funl Support-11920172866-55354304--1.1(11945--98,187'2,151 201.2.8 IIVAC- Conminmunt0uilding-8264964282117-3171,7551.755--11,2041,674--549,85014,892 20.1.2.7Potob)o Water-12----21414---2:10 20.7.20 Procaas So-piing6024a2186-21351,01131,006-8911,220-11)63,30111,482 20.12Tolnis-5,0518 311:4099118317.6879,1329,1187437,03717,972-2,180,0988.5,(116 Pori<<f 2% Collotersl C 2b.3.1Pr.-^ <21,g water wnnU,170 26.02Pt,'. .I.,....rig rhemirni q ush wools5-26.3 3all tool.,-627 26.3.4SI-t Fmd I" its) and Trnnsk,r-26.3Subtotal Poi2b Cilaternl C wts184627 79825 142747 2201,078:186-2431,2111,211 1,286-4502,633112,630-94721721-27,1144,05731,181-31,181 1,67227, 1144,854:15,7444 ,561':11,1811)8,11062242:!0,113404 209,110628 Pe6,x121, Peri<<bD.pmdenl C- W26.4.1D<<vm nopplioa1.-,11 4.3Properly loon,tlvnllh ,hyxics x0PPOesBa+tvy egnipmcnt nmmiDisµewluf DAWln,nernt,d 26.4.7Plant energy bodgal 26.4 8NRC F,-2b.4 'Emergnt y Planning Fees 26.4.10 Sit'.O&M Cts 211.4.11Spent Fuel Pod 0&M II, 4.1_2Liquid Redwosw Prosenoit 26.4.13 ISFSI Operating Coots 26.4.14Snoonty 81111Caat 26.4.15 DOC SIof Coat 2b.4.16Utility 5050 Coot 26.4Sublata) Period 2h Periud-Dependent G,-

5632,9132,9131,1171121,2281.2285,1015185,6115,611 11334, 6644,664 5064 ,5674,567 22643-6421901,11111,1111 4,5026755,1785,178 1,8681811,4391,439 4,11164114,517-681102783793 1,6772521,020-43664490499 111730227 13,1)6 51,98015,02415.524 28,9554,34333,29833,298 49,2827,30256,67456,674 2,330 10,998 219,910 4,517 I,'928 227 21'9,9111 2,3307,70122643-1142110,41618,281139,841130.0706,072--10,10161,150 2,159 3,:1)9 284,66 326,709 610,1:37 1,_23,651 21, ,0TOTAL PERIOD 21, COST PERIOD 2d - Deronmmiaatien Fallowing wet Fuel Storage Period 2d Di-t Daxnmmissinning Activities 11,18740,1012,5713,1714, 1577.691137,53037,620244,11'-28202,01737,85:13,259164,70:198,168 12,881 ,470685,03(11,20:1,651 D<<nntaminntion nfeia, Buildings 24.1,3,1Fuol Building9,2924 20.1.3Totols972924 2,1.4Sosflold,ng in suplwrt ofinning-937 485765IN-7692,9512,951 485765116-7692,9512,951 1742152411,2261,226285,15932,714285,15932,714 74279--37,84717,8232,5742,1052,5742,1&5 201Sobbaal Perim! 2d Activity C.-.:-

1,898 6,901 5765791,0162,039-:1,50216,60316,588-1440,:15429,679--3,385,8151:17,089 Purim! 2d Addilonai Casco

.12ALicense Torminntimt Survey[`loaning---9,542861,24)1,240 202Subt,,m) Period 2d Addilinmd Coals--9542861,2401,240 Pcriad 2,1 CRalornl Coma 2,1.:11Prmnsx d, nnnmisaiontng water woxtu00-411165195-1226,11611 20.:1:1Snmll tool ollawonce-140-----21161161 28.:1.4Dam00m000ming F luipmant Disix..

ilian881674456444444 303&Ibintal Porkol 2d Culinteral Cslo91)1401782113167239-1991,2161,216 582 6,008)635 6,0)011,21734,91311:3305,981882026,2411 6.240 TLC Seruicea, Inc.Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Indf'x :lb.} Artivity Df'lu'rlption Subtotal I'lwiod :lb Activity Cw>ls 2b.:I.2 Procl'H$ oc"OJmmis.;;iomng ch.'mll:lll nu:ili WUrlll' :lb.:!.a Small 1001 aliowancOJ 2b aA FUtll Capital Rod Tranltfl'r 2h.:I Subtotol PI)noo 2b CO>lI", :lbA.9 2li.*UO 2h*Ul :lhA.l:.!.

2bA.1:1 2h.*'-1-1 2b..&.15 2b.*I.Hi ::Ib..& :lb,O NRC Enwrgtlncy Planning F.'cs Site O&M C(IoIts Spellt Fuel Pool 0&'" Liquid RadWR>llt' Prwl'#>ling ElIUllmwIlIltiOJfVlt"CII ISFHI OpOJrnting Cw>ta NJCunly StafT('AMt DOCStuITCru>t Utility SlJlffCtMt Subtotal Pcritxl2b PI!nOO* Dt'p'!ndcnt CostOl TOTAL PERIOD 2b COST PERIOD 2d* Derontaminution Following Wet Fuel Storage PCl'lod 2d Dlfl'<'t Dt'COlUmlMuming ActlvIIIC!:'I 211.1.1 Rcmovll !:'Ipcnl fud radl.$

Flw Proh'('lion*

RCA 2d.l.2.:t Full! Bundling & TraMf,', 211. J .2..1 Fuel Pool Coolmg & Cleanup 2d.1.2.5 Fut'! Support :M.L2.6 HVAC* CootlUnment Duildlng 2d.1.2.7 Powble Water 211.1.2.8 ProCt'!IS Sampling 2d.1.2 Tolaln Dt"t'tlllhunmation of Slh' BUilding" 2& L:U FUt'l Duildmg 2d.I.3 TuwIn 2d.IA &nffoJding in "lIppurt of

.ld.1 Subtotal Period 2d Activity C(fflV; r"nod :M Additional C-t);St" :.ld.2.) :.ld.:.! PI'nod 211 CoHateml Cosis 21i.a 1 Pnx"\'""

Walt'f wal<lc :!d :1 a Small tool Rllowanc.*

r"'llllllnwflt DI"IlQ..-!ilIOIl Subtotal Pt.riod 2d Collalt'ral Costs TLG Services.

Inc. Decou 8,67:1 1711 5 184 2,a:m 2,:1;10 11,11n 9:.!6 n/2 972 1,898 00 110 Removal Packaging Transport Cost {'oats Costs 31,771 027 627 a,7:11 a,97'l 7,70"1 -10,101 76 1,2-17 S:Il :m 1,IH4 "' 926 12 .,," 5,051 H:l4 924 9:J1 6,991 1-10 140 2,125 7!l 142 220 ::126 226 2,571 161 16 " 4 I ... 2U .9 40 aao ** .6 17 576 4(J l:lS "" 2,065 325 747 1,07:1 -Ia 43 :1,171 218 33 :13 129 17 ** 21 :l00 57 57 579 165 36 203 OIr-:site Processing Costs 4,151 4,151 19M 2:11 4 167 :!l! 282 9Xl 6Ii 6Ii 21 1,018 167 167 Table C Clinton Power Station DEC ON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (tbousands of 20}2 dollars) L Dispoaal Costs 5,31i :!86 1,286 Other Costs 27,11-1 1,672 27,114 642 1i4:! 1.117 5,101 4,50:! 1,a08 4,lIl6 run 1,671 426 lil7 la,oa.') 28,965 49,282 110,416 7,691 1:17,530 l,{lli6 25 12 526 ** Il7 6. 6:n Uti 116 2,O:!9 19.') 44 239 954 954 Total Continttcnc 14,485 24:1 4110 94 4,007 4,HM "'" 112 510 11.1.1 5!16 190 675 1:11 4Il 102 252 64 ao 1,!.I6O 4,34a 7,392 18,281 37,620 1lO5 :t54 249 12 49:1 55 317 205 1,SS1 7.9 769 241 :1,502 2S6 2l!6 122 21 5. 199 Total CM'" 68,643 1,211 2,a.:10 721 31,181 :15,744 2,91:1 1,228 5,611 4,664 4,561 1,101 5,178 1,439 4,617 71<1 1,9'18 490 227 15,024 :13,298 56,674 139,641 244,1l28 3,293 1,876 1,358 65 2,695 304 1,755 14 1,066 9,132 2,951 2,951 1,226 16,603 1,240 1,240 611 161 444 1,216 N'kC Lie. Term. Coats 6!i,:l84 1,211 2,6:10 721 4,563 2,91:1 1.228 5,611 4,664 4,567 1,101 5,178 1,4:19 783 400 15,024 33,298 56,674 132,911l 2O'l,917 3,29.1 1,876 1,358 65 2,_ 304 1,755 I,OfI6 9,118 2,951 2,951 1,226 16,5&1 1,2-10 1,240 611 161 444 1,216 spenfF'uel Management COl>U al,lBl :11,181 4,517 1,9'lB 2'l7 6,672 37,KSa Site Restoration CUlits 3,259 a,259 14 " 14 ProcM&ed Volume Cu.F_t 164,70a 164,70:1 7,8f:i7 9,172 174 6,629 l,WO It,:.104 691 a7,037 2,574 2,574 742 40,:15-1 6,000 6,OnO Burhal Volumes Clil&sA Class n ClaM C Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet BJ,863 1,150 2.159 a,:l09 lIJ,99ti 10,996 98,168 15,5tU 356 1611 7,!H1 945 1,674 1,2'l8 11,912 2,105 2,10.') 79 29,679 5S2 635 1,217 Document Rell. () Appendix C, Page 7 of 11 Burial I GTCC Pmceued Cu. Feet Wt ** Lbs. 12,362,450 fiH,!l96 2aO,11:) 29!1,110 219,910 219,lllll 12,881,470 882,760 a:m,642 a72,48-1 16,628 696,897 98,187 549,850 1Il6,:J61 2,Uill,049 285,151) 285,159 37,847 3,385,815 34,Hla 305,961 340,H76 Craft Manhours r>84,94:1 224 41J.1 ."" a59 :JMI Hti5,9:YI 1,5:17 21,a-l2 la,597 54:1 20,77!I 2,15:1 1-1,882 2:18 11,-IMt 8.'1,1115 32,714 32,714 17,82:1 1:17,089 11:1 Il!l 20'2 Utilityund Contractor Manhouno 1,22:1,651 1.22:1.1i51 6,240 6,2-10 Clinton Peaoer Station Decommiaaioning Cost AnalysisDocument E16-I640-006, Rec. 0 Appendix C, Page 8 of II Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

NRCSpent FuelSiteProcessedBurial VolumesBurialIUtility and TotalLim Term.Management RestorationVolumeClass A CI... BClass CGTCCProcessedCraftContractor CoatsCoatsCostsCostsCu. FeetCu. FeetCu. FeetCu. FeetC Feet..Wt., Lb.,ManhourMeuseurs88,286 168,62687,821114:1315,621 56,77054,8961.01101446,55435,287--:1,814,510137,434321,8111 Off-S"'LLRW Drrns Removal Packaging Transport Process ing Diap i OtherTotal CostCostCostaCostaC isC...CoatsContingency 4:151,610 2973345077122,9294247,8141,17214,1552,123 25629,74(14,893 9,5818447991,1852,535311,71018,880 Aet:vity Drseription Ponod 2d Period-Del-lo.

2d.A.lDemo suppli 2' 4.2 1---2d.4.3Prupcrty 151.012'.4.4Ilomlth physics supptios22.4.5Ilea vy equipment mntd2'1 .4.6Dislxmnl of DAW genumnrt24.4.7Plant energy budget 2'1 .4.8 24.4.9Emergency Planning Pins 24.4.10 Sit,, O&M 0,1.

24.4.11 Liquid Rodwasto Pn oos,sng 24.4.12ISFSI Opera ling Costs 24.4.1:1Security Staff Coal 2,.4.14DDC Stall Cast 2d.A.15Utility Staff C" 24.4Subtotal Porio,l 2d Period De:µmdnnt Costa 24.0TO TAL PERIOD 2d COST PERIOD 21- License Termination 65 44 85 223 2:4 76 141 44 161 417 2511 258 2,246 0017 2,4509017 438 84(3 6:123481 9311,1161,791 440 1,083 479 1,771 3117384 89 3,2638,98816,278 37,711 32:1481 931 1,1161,791 44(11,083 479 397 3843,253 8,986 16,278 35,8611,860 1,771 89 4,391 87,82(1143 P,'nol 21Oin<'l D. otntsission,ng Activities 211.1ORISE o,ofrmakay survey 211.2Tenninalelioensn 21.1Subtoal Panoll 2f Activity Cons Porio,l 2f Additional Costs 21.2.1L icense Termination S" 'y 21.2Sub(olal Period 2( Additional Costs Porosl 21 Collateral Costs 21.:1.1DOC stall ndooMion esponwa 21,3Subtotal Poriad 21'Co11aleral Cools Period 2f Peiissl.Dependent Cnata 21.4.1Ira 21.4,2Prnpr rly Issas 21.4.3Ilodth phynics suppliers 27.4.4Dispossl of DAW gonernt,d 21.4.5Plant oergy budget 214.(3NRC Fe n es 21.4.7Emergency Planning Fees 21.4,8Site O&M Costa 21.4.9ISFSI O(-ling Casts 2t.4.10Securely Staff Cost 214.(1DOC Staff Carl 214.12Utility Staff Cost 21.4Subl.al Pen7d 21' Porool Dafs,rulent Cants 20TOTAL PERIOD 21' COST PERIOD 2 TOTALS PERIOD 31, - Site Restoration Ponod 36 Diroct Decommissioning Ad-1115

Donwlinon of Renmining Site Buildings

36.1.1.1Reactor Building 36.1.1.2Auxiliary Building 36.1.1.3 Circulating Water Srrnenhuusn 36 .1.1,0 1051701 Building 36.1.1.5 Diosci Oenemlor Building175521755213,7334.12013,7334,1201,143111541,03015441462436441,4171422353568102,4403665,1947797,2511,1018 81071-2018, 5852,84981971-20:13,52 27,176 11,730162, 112822,55210,79:112,57748,214335,75(1112,8715,791----8692,21723308,8(19-----5415,2657901,858---279 223,57:1:1,1211 223,5733,12111,1841,1841,1841,1844244248198191,024:15354774794791,559-270270 782,8052,8055(1,5145,9745,974-----56,7:118.:1398,:939-----60,04132.18320,6481,1137--351-7,02011187,29141,54638,9091,637351--7,02022:1,595190,411652,523573,10573,0320,326487,391275,8591,4301,32036,065,4501,581,2692,819,129 6,659--65,1011 2,533-23,242 4,15038,418 6.054--56,578 2,1:16------20,234:1e5 745 1119-71 20:19 74 205 622722722722717,85217,85217,85217,852 7,1120 7'559 78 0,6592,5:134.1:01 6,054 2,1:16 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Puwer Station Decommissioning Cost Arlaiysis Activity Indf'x Artivit" Uf'Hcril)tion Period :ld

[:<'>>($ 2dA.l D('Wn lIuppliulI 2IU.:! In.-Iurancu 2dA.3 tau'lli :MAA tIufllthllhys.iclIl:!UWilcl'l Heavy l"qUipmenl rental DisllO><:lI ofDAW j:ll'nl'rall>lts 2dA.I:! Sl'<:Urity Staff Cost 2d.4.14 DOCStnlTCmd 2dA.15 UtilitySlaffCA)st

ldA Subtotal Periml2d Pl'flod.DclJ';mdcllt Cosls 211.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2d CO:-1' PERIOD if -Licellse Termination Ilomng tOf'Yl:!urvey fllclict'fWU Subtotal Period 2f Activity Costs P"rlod :U Addltiooai Costs :U2.1 I.ic,*fi>W TerminatIOn SUf\ "Y 2f.2 Subtotal Period 2f Additional CO>lhl PI'rlud :!f (,,,III1Ii'Tfll 2£.4.2 f'fopt'rtytIlXt'S 2f.4.:l 11('Ullh llhYlliics

lrAA Di.'lpOMi ofDAW gtlnerah'ti irA.a Plant cneryy hlldget 2f.Hi NUCFI_ 2f.4.7 Emcr)t,*wy Planning <<'.'t'll :If,4,8 O&M Costs 2f.4.9 ISFSI 0lwrlltmg Costs 2f.4.10 &'('unly Staff Cost 2f.4.11 DOC SlaffC<.>>t 2f.4.12 Vhlity Cost 2fA Subtmal Pcnod 21' Cllst", :U.O TOTAL PERIOD if COST PERIOD 2 TOTALS PERIOD 3b -Site Restoration Pllrlod all DII'1.!d DeI,'ommlMmning ActiVIties Dcmolilu)fl nfRl'llllliningSlit' Ouildin!;,1'!

lh.l.l.l RcoctorBmld.mg

lh.\.1.2 Auxiliary Building ab.1.13 Cin:ulating St-fN'nhoulW

lh.l.l.4 Contrul Buildin" 3b.U.S DI\'$)I Gt'Ocrnlof Building TLG Services.

Inc. 'ff*Site Decon Removal Pw.ckaging Transport PrOCCtPlng Cfult Cost Costs Costs Cos'" 258 8!X1 1,557 !lO 17 25M 2,450 00 17 :!,:!46 9,5111 .44 798 1,185 MIg 819 819 J.l,7;m H,,'i,028

.12,552 10,79:1 12,577 1i,7!H <!,<!0'2 :1,61)9 5,265 1,858 Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommi6sioning Cost Estimate (thousandf' of 2012 dollars) LLRW NRC Disprnw.l Other Total Total Lie. Term. Costs Costs Cos" Costs 65 a2a 32:1 4:1M .. 481 481 &Ill 85 931 931 :rla 1,116 1,116 2:t4 1,791 1,791 256 76 440 440 942 141 I,""" 1,083 4a5 .. 479 479 1,610 161 1,771 267 41l 307 307 33' 50 3&1 3&1 11 12 89 2,829 424 3,253 a,253 7,814 1,172 ',-B,_ 14,155 2,123 16,278 16,278 256 29,741i 4,893 37,711 :16,851 2,5:15 30,700 ',-56,770 54,896 175 62 227 227 176 52 227 227 13,7a::l 4.120 li,852 17,852 13,7a:J 4,120 17,852 17,852 1,OJU 154 1,184-1,184 1,030 154 1,184 1,184

l9 424 424 745 74 819 81!l 205 1,024 1,024 21l 6 a5 :\5 414 62 m m 436 44 479 479 1.417 142 1,559 2:15 35 2iO 270 68 to 7. 2,+40 366 2,1ID5 2,800 5,194 718 5,974 5,974 7,251 1,_ 8,:139 8,:139 20 18,585 2,849 2'.U83 20,646 20 :l3,522 7,176 41.546 39,909 48,214 3:15,750 112,871 652,523 57a,16/> 1l6. ll,fl59 """ 2,5:13 Ml 4.150 790 6,Ol\4 278 2,1:16 Spent Fuel Site ProceliMld DuriulVoiuJllf'Jo Management ReJltoration Volume ClasaA ClassB CIItlUiC COlits Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Fret Cu. Feet 4,391 1,771 8. 1,860 -t,:l91 1,_ 14 46,:154 35,287 a51 1,51)9 78 1,637 :151 1,fi37 :151 7:\,032 6,:126 487,391 275,859 l,-1aO 1,320 fl,659 2,53a 4,150 6,O!)4 2,1:16 GTCC Cu. Feet Document EJ6-J640-IJIJ6.

Rev. 0 Appendix C. Page 8 of 1 J Buriull Utility and Processed Craft Contractor Wt.,Lbs. Mllnhuufs MuuboUfS 1::17,820 14:1 58,710 H8,2lifi 16t:1,1i26 87,S:!O 14:1 :115,621 :1,814,510 1;17,4::14

121,lml 223,57:1 :I,I:W 223,573 a,12U 7,020 11 50,514 ,'16,7:11 HO,{Hfi 7,020 11 11'17,291 7,020 22:1,5&'1 100,411 :W,965.450 1,581,269 2,811:1,129 11.."1,001 2:1,24::!

l!:I,418 56,578 :W,234 Clinton Poorer Station Decommissioning Coat AnalystsDocument 616-1640.606, Het- 0 Appendix C Page 9 of]]

Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

I Activity IndexActiv i ty Description Denmida+n oI Remaining Silo Duihliugs (mntinuod) 36.1.1.6 Mako.Up Walor Pump Ih,uoe 3301.1.7 Miooollon-S.tyWorh 3b..8 Mirelcllanauw 8100 0005 36.1,111 Radso oolc Building Ib.l.l.lll Scrvio Building 36.1.1.1 I Tv+naloomoe and Tank Pods 36.1.1.12 Tudsino Building 36.1.1.13 Torbina Pr,h,olnl 36.1.1.14 Fool Banding 36.1.1Totals Silo Clomwul Arlivities 3b.i 2RorkFill Situ 36.1.3 Grade &land-i.` 0,10 330.1.4Final relwrt Is NEC 36.1&rMMUI Poriod 31, Aki,,ily 0-N-A31, Additional Conte 31,.2.1Conortdo Crushing 3622Sera mhausn Cam nlam 3b. 2.3Die A,atge Fl- Rackfill 16.2.4Unit 2 Eooavntion liackbll 36.2Subtotal Frill 31, Additional Cost Period 3b Collateral Coots 31,3 1Small tad ally.. -e 36.5Sobtmal Puriool lb Cdb+larai Coato l°000.1 eb Pooioel Dulrondant 0-

31,.4 .1Inoseaneu:16.4,2Property tares 36.4.3heavy tvluipmeni, rental 3b-4.4Plant energy badger 3b.4.5NEC ISFSI Fr,, 330.4.86mcrgwxy Planning Fe<<

16.4.7ISFSI Olmra ling Coots 36-4,8Sit, O&M 0-:lb ,4.9So yorily Sod( Coal 3" 4.10 DOC S10R Cool

36.4.11Utility Slab Col 3304Subht.] Pernd 3b Period-Dependent Cato 36ATOTAL PERIOD :lb COST PERIOD 3c - Fuel Storage Operntionnl` loipping Pen of :k Dire 1 D,.rommioioning Actioilios Purled :k Collol,rnl Cools

30.3.1Sis'at Fuel Capital and Trsnu5,r

30.3Subtaat Porial 3c Collatoral Costa Posool:k' Peri.d.Dels'ndent Cools

30.4.3Insoronco:30,4.2Property 150,..5 4.4NRC ISFSI Foes t4.5Emergency Planning Fos 4.6ISFSI 01..ling C-3 ,4.7Barurity StaBCwl 30.4 8Utility S35(1 Cost 3e.4Subtoal Period 3, PorialDvpondout Coots R. 0TOTAL PERIOD 30 COST off-sit.LL WDeeun Rem val Portaging Transport Processing DiaposniOtherTotal 0 cantCootcastsenawctatacastscns.Cont ingency411'1 17:15,324 1,223 2,442:18,447 1(10 2,154 40,710 NRCSpent FuelSiteProcessedBurial VolumesBuNatlUtility and TotalLie. Term-Management RestorationVolumeCl- A CI-. B Class CtiTCCPeoroose.dCraftContractor CostsCo..CoateCostsCu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. FeetCu. FeetCu. Feet Wt.. Lbs.ManhaursManhnurs5,1101 21,22744,561 58,4411 5,.5852,4113 63,415 12,474 26,720 443,457 201 4,449 448,106674372682,0634173,1997826,99460462261997996,1231841,4073662,131185.76744,216 437 2,0533,190 5,994 462 100 6,123 1,407 2,808 44,215-16125-1253232,477--2,477 19529224224-1956,13647,041224-46,817 91,2999,2699 2191,7531641,2604,7102021,548 67515 67515 1,753 1,2110 4,7101,546 9,269 515 515 7,355 10,159 23,9:1113,128 54,57:1 55,169 44,19414,490118,662 1,1711171,288 2,364_162,4915,959---1946,857 63095725 54454589 4,3094314,740 20731239 715107622 7,4171,1138,530 15,2012,28917,651 11,4701,7211:1,1915,959-43,9917,07857,027 22419,61093,988 599 4,740 218-822 (0)7,2.501,279 17,551 03,113410,157 019,1141137,387 2,491 11,85:1 725 8,2501,2389,498 8,2501,2389,488 4,5824585,(14(1 8,8578569,743 2,67021172,937 16,85610618,542 909121931 24,6103,69228,31(2 10,4781,57212,1150 68,86:38,68177,544 77,113!),91987,9:12 9,488 9,488 6,114(1----9,743 2.937 18,542---9:11 28302--499.114 12.(16(1--124,779 77,544-----62:1,89:1 87.032----112:1,893 1,515 1,! 116 4,0041 1,344 8,051 448 448 2153,5811 1311,674128,776 44:1,(1:1(1 5(1'3.079444,5301 TLG Seroices, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost AnaiysJIJI Jb.1.1.!1

lb.1.1.l0 St'fVlCC Buildmg :lb.LI.l1 Trlln .. forlTltlrllndTllnk Pads 3b.l.1.12 Turbine Building :lb.1.1.1:1 Turbine PI'&"&lal

th.U.I4 Pud BUilding ah.l.I Total\\. Site CloA'Oul AchvltlC$

lb.l.2 BackFill

lh.1,;"1 Grade & landSl."oIw

!lIte aidA Fillal rvport 10 NRC aL.t Sublotal Period 3b Cell$l!; Pllnod :lh AdditIOnal Cunrn.;tc Cru,.:hmg

&r1'\lnhuww Coffenillm ab.:!.:! DUK:huI1l'l1 Thn'kfill Unit 2 E.\cavlltlon Bar:krill Subtotal Period ab Additional Costs Period :iil Collahrral C01!!ts :ih.:l.l Small tool nlwwlll\<.'\t ah a Suhtotal Period ah Ccllnh'ml Cw;t .. IWlunlnre

JbA.2 Prnp"rty taM'>! Heavy l'<luipml'nt rt'ntlll Plant energy budgvt

lh.*U NRC ISFSI abA.6 Enwrgent"y PhmnlOl{ F ... *" :JhA.7 ISFSI O,mrlllmg Crn<tll ah 4.8 Silt' O&M Costs ab.*t9 &'(:urity Staff CooIl abA.to DOC Slllrr('(l$t Utility Staff Cost Subhllal Penod ab ah.O TOTAL PERIOD:1h COHT PERIOD 3c Fuel Storuge OperationtJShipping Period 3c Adivlllt'li Pl,noti;k C(lIIts :k 4.1 In,.unmee

kA.2 I'fOpt-'rtylaXl-'fl

leAA Nne ISFSI Flit'" :leA.S EnlCllWnt"y Planning P, .. '" :kA.H ISf'SI O,WrIlIHlg Costs :k.4.7 St'Cunty Slarr t:.:ml :kA 8 Utility Staff Cns!. :k.4 Subtotal Period 3c Co"ts ;k 0 TOTAL PEnlOD ac COS1' TLG Sert';ces, Int!. 01f.SIte--

Deeon Removal Packaging Trallsport ProcNaing Cost COlit Cosu Casu Costs aMO 1,7H.') 2,78:l 5,:H2 40'1 17:1 5,:124 1,223 2,442 a8,447 109 2,154 40,710 1,515 1,096 4,096 1,a44 8,05t '48 448 5,95'J 5,959 M,I69 Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 20}2 dollars) LLRW NRC Dililp0.8al Other Total Total Lie. Term. Costa CWlt& Costa 67 437 268 2,053 417 3,199 7g2 6,_ 60 462 26 199 799 6,123 184 1,41n 366 2,808 5,767 44,215 I" 12fi 323 2,477 195 2. 224 224 195 6,1:16 47,041 224 2'19 1,75:1 16, 1,260 (i14 4,710 202 1,546 1,209 9,269 67 515 67 515 1,171 117 1,288 2,264 226 2,491 1!lJ4 6,8fi.l 6.10 9' 725 544 '4 '99 4,309 431 4,740 207 31 238 715 107 82'1 7,417 1,113 8,530 (0) 15,261 2,289 17,551 11,470 1,721 1:1,191 43,990 7,078 57,U:!7 44,194 14,490 Ita,1iS2 22.,1 8,250 1,238 9,48M 8,250 9,488 4,5H2 45. 5,041) 8,857 ... 9,74:1 2,610 267 2,9a7 16,856 1,61:1.6 18,542 80. 121 l}at 24,610 3,692 28,aO'l lO,478 1,572 12,{)5{J 68,86:1 8,681 77,544 77,113 !I,919 87.0:12 Spent Fuel Site Processed Management Rutoration Volume CIruJ5A Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet 437 2.05:1 3,199 5,994 462 19' (i,123 1,407 2,808 44,215 125 2,477 46,817 1,753 1,2110 4,710 1,546 9,269 515 615 1,288 2,491 O,85a 725 599 4,740 2:18 822 7,250 1,279 17,551 a,lhl4 10,157 19,640 37,387 19,640 93,988 9,4i!I! 9,488 5,()40 9,74:1 2,937 18,542 9:)1 28,:t02 12,O5() 77,544 87,032 Burha! Volumes ClusB Class C GTCC Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Document El6-16.JO.OU6.

Rev. U Appendix C. Page 9 0/11 Burial I Utility und P_d Craft Contractor Wt ** Lbl:i. Manhours Munhourli li,lOU 21,227 44,561 58,440 5,585 2,4thl 63,415 12,474 26,720 44:1,457 201 4,449 44t1,106 7,:15..; 10.159 2:1,9:11 1:1,128

• 54,57:1 15:1.5tui

1lJO,674 128,771i 44:I,O:m 502,1179 444,59ti 4\.1\1.114 I 24,i79 62:1,89:1

()2:l,tma Clinton Posner Station Decommissioning Coot AnolyaisDocuntettl E16-1640-006, Be,,. 0 Appendix C, Poge 10 of 11 Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Activity IndexActivity Description Off-Si tLLR Decon Remn.ol Packagtog Transport Pr-mg Disposal OtherTotal CottCoatCastsCastsCoatsCostsCosaContingency NRSpent F uelSite ProcessedSocial VolumesBurial/U ti l ity and TotalLie. Term, Management RestoretionVolumeClots A Cl-Cl- CG CC ProcessedCraftContractor cos.CosaCot.CootsCu. FeetCu. FeetCu. FeetCu. FeetCu. Feet Wt., Lbs.MonhouMotohnu PERIOD 3d - GTCC shipping Pram 34 Dinrt D,.+

urnmissioning Activitioo Nedoor Seam Supply Sy.We, Remnvol 34.1.1.1 Vnoo,,l & Internals GTCC Dip>anl 34.1.1Totals 34.1Sub6unl Period 3d Activity Cie1,785351,1(0)1,785351,1(301.785351,100 625 625 625 7,415 7,415 7,415 1,1751.175 1,175 9,214 9,214 9,2149,214 9,214 9,214 0 0 Periuu13d Porial-Ihpemknt Luna 3,.4.1Inournmx 3114.2Property 10.00

.34 4: tNRC 35F8I Furt 341 5Emergoo oy Plonning Fees

3,.4.6ISM Oloua ling Colo MA 'Security SlolT Coot 3114.8Utility Staff C. i 34.4Subtoai N-1 3,1 PorooL Doprnd,rnt C,-3d,0TOTAL PERIOD 3d CAST PERIOD 3e - ISFSI Dccontnminntion Penal :k D,roo t p ooorn >>sioning Arlivities l'oood :k Add,--l Coate 301.1ISFSI Li,-M,, minotum 30-2Subtotal Porxd 3,.Addilionnl CwIn Penal:k Collolorol Coals 3"3.1Small to ol ollowoncv 3".3Subtotal Pond 3o Collolorol Costa I'wval:k Poriod'Depemionl Ca 3'.4.7Inaoronor 30.4 .2Prolmrty ..,.m

k.4.4NRC ISFSI Frays 45Svunty Stott Cool 30.4.6Utility 5311 Col 30.4Subtotal Ponod 3e P.'rialDop od,mt Costs 2:122525 4444848 If11212 8389292 4155 12218140-140 52860130 5;7843381.381 0237,4153381,2179,5959,214:381 4283520.21,431 42835-2021,431 u 0 17017187187:32933361-391 7988787 2443728(1280 32449373373 1,1461431,289-1,289 2,IX032,(013 2,30012,4139 017 3,006 1,785351,1(03-3,10313 1,95:1---163,11523,1,23 1,9531133,0523,6234,971:3,771 8,743 30.0 TOTAL PERIOD 3e COST PERIOD 3f- ISFSI Site Reotoratioo P'nai 3f Dinxt Drrvtmmi0s.omng A, tivilios 438352022,5774253,2103 1,953-363,0523,62311,353 3,290 P rod 3f Additional C .I.

31.2.1ISFSI Dwm,litio I and Sito Rettomlion 31,2Sobtaol Period 3CAddi(ionnl Costa1,440502241,7141,440-502241,71410,12111(0)19,129160 1,714 1,714 Pod 3f ('41afi-l Cud., 31.3.1Sntnlt 6x,1 .11-t-U3Soblottl Penal 3f Collateral Cost., Penal 3f Perod DoWrel-l Cads 31.4.2Pnµwrty taxes 31.4.4So.nnly Staff Cn 31.4.5Utility S.ff Col 31.4Subtotal Pero d 3f Po-atDelwndvnt Coals

1C0TOTAL PERIOD 3f COST 17319-19 1731919 16717184184 12419143-14:1 13420154154 42555490480 1,4574752822,2142,214 2,527 1,509 4,1003 10,12114,256 PERIOD 3 TOTALS 544,06963335-7,617124,091320,:1.12215,98`129,4:01112,5559:1,988-1,9631,785514,1552525,4321,087,133 TLG Serpiceo, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Index Descriction PERIOD 3d -GTCC shipping P"nod 3d Dio'<'t Df'Ommu.s.iofHng Acllntit'oI Nudt'ar StllfUll SUIIIll}, SYlltem Rt'llI(wal

ld.1.l.I Vt'AACI & Intl'mals GTCC Diil-lXlSnl Totals ad,t Subtotal Pt'fltXl :Id Act ivity CtMts P"flOl.i:lrl PCf'I(l(I*Ikpellti(*nt Cos\$ 3dA.1 Insurant:c ad 4.2 rrolwrly

W ... IA NRC ISFSI Ft. .... " adA.S Emt'rgency Planning Ft't't'l ISFHI Op,,)raling S,)('urit)'

Staff Cod Utlilly Staff C{lS1 adA Subtotal Penod ad CI)$ts :ld.o TOT At. PERIOD 3d COt."T PERIOD 3e -JSlo'OI DtWontamination Period :le Dlrt'<'t lk'<:"tlmmISlllOning Actillitle" Penod a .. ) AdditIOnal Co><l.l'1

le:!.1 ISFSI L.u:Wt$.c TtJrminati(m 3e.2 Subtotal Period aI' AdditjoMI Cu,d$. P"riod:1c:

Collateral Costs :Ie :1.1 Small tnol alklwIUl.:t'

le.a Subtotal Period :It! Collatt'rlll elM!;,! Pennd :k1II'I00' Dt'pernhmt COoit/1 :1('..1.1 In"ufIIlloo

k'A.:! ProJwrtytaxt.'!l

le.4A NRC ISFSI FI'1.'8 :l.t>A.5 Staff C{\t\ll :1cA.fl Utility StalTCost aeA Subtotal Period 3e I'I*rirnl Dt'pcmknt

<AMI..!! :lc.O TOTAL PERIOD:le Co..'iT PERIOD 3f -JSFSI Site Relotoration Pl'riod arDin..:,t DeaJmmiru>lumng At tivilies :J[O TOTAL PERIOD ;If COST PERIOD a TOTALS 1'LG Services, Inc. Off-Site Decon Removal Packilging Transport Proce8sing Cost Costs Costs Costs tit,,) (l25 625 £i25 42 a5 42 35 4:1 :15 1,440 l.4*10 17 17 1,457 50,669 tl:l;l :I5 Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) LLRW NRC Disposal Other Total Total LIe. Term. Costs Cosu e.,.", e", .. 7.415 1,175 9,214 9,214 7,415 1,175 9,214 9,214 7,415 1,175 9,214 9,214 2:1 2.5 " .. 11 12 83 Wl 4 122 18 140 52 8 60 3:18 43 3tH 7,415 338 1,217 9,595 9,214 :m2 1,4:11 282 2,000 202 l,4:n 282 2,000 171l 17 187 :I!W 33 :161 7. 8 87 2H 37 280 324 4' 373 1,146 143 1,289 202 2,577 425 :1,290 50 224 1,714 5<1 224 1,714 I. I. 167 17 , ... 124 I. 14:1 1:14 20 1M 425 55 480 475 282 2,214 7,617 26,:!:12 :l15,1m2 9,4:18 Spent Fuel SIte PrtlC1lfised Burial Volume& Management Restoration Volume ChU'5A ClanB ClftSSC COSUi Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet 25 48 12 .2 140 110 381 381 :!,OOO 1,95a 2,000 l,9S';1 187 361 87 280 :17:1 1,289 3,290 1,9..'):1 1,714 1,714 ,. I. ",. 14:1 154 480 2,214 112,5..')5 9:1,9&:1 1,9.');1 Gfcc Cu. Feet 1,7Hfi 1,78a 1,785 1,785 1,785 Document 1:.'16-1640-006.

Ret'. 0 Appendix C, Page 10 of 11 Burial I Utmty und Procesaed Craft Contractor Wt., Lbs. Mauhours Millihours

151,100 :151,100 :151,100 2,4ti!l (iI7 3,086 :151,100 :l,(lt<>l 19,12U 16U 1!I,t:W 4,:::56 514,152 525,432 LVM7,I;l;!

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis E16-1640-006, Rec. 0 Appendix C, Page II of I1 Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

OfSiteLLRW ActivityDecanRemoval Packaging Teanspert Processing DisposalOtherTotal IndexActivity DescriptianCostCost(batsCostsCostsCostsCostsContingency NRCSpent F uelSiteProcessedBurial VolumesBurial IUtility and TotalLie. Term.MsnageatentRestorationVolumeClass ACl.- BCl... CGTCCProcessedCroftControctor Cu..CostsCostsCu..Cu. FeetCu. FeetCu. FeetCu. Feet C Feet Wt., Lbs.Manhourt Manbaurs TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION 17,749154,17323,27311 ,17112, 57759,103 609,874163,9651,051,824 732,894217,632101,298487,391279,0572,1801,3301,785 37,595,6102,138,4944,960,400 SAL COST DECOMMISSION WITH 18.461. CONTINGENCY:61,051,824 thousands of 2012 dollsrs TOTAL NRC LICENSE TERMINATION COST IS 69.

68+. OR:$732,804 thousands of 2012 dollars SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT COST IS 2 0.09?: OR:6217,632 thousands of 2012 dollars NON-NUCLEAR DEMOLITION COST IS 9.63% OR:610 1, 298 thousands of 2012 dollars TOTAL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BURIED (EXCLUDING GTCC):282,557 cubic fact OTAL GREATER THAN CLASS C RADWASTE VOLUME GENERATED:1,785 cubic feet TOTAL SCRAP METAL REMOVED:75,966 tons TOTAL CRAFT LABOR REQUIREMENTS:2 ,138.494 man-bears End NW.-o:

Nx -:vd::otos that this activity nal rhnrgnd os d,..ommissimti indkon, s that this octtvhy lwrfaroud by dcvxnumioo i:o:o6 0 - ind'arotce thel this volue ix less. than 0.5 but is nan.sam.

-,41 containing'-' iodkstat x r mn vaiw.

TLC Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis TableC Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) Off-Site UR' NRC Spent Fuel Activity Indt'x Decon Cost Removal Packaging Transport Processing Dispoaal Other Costs Total Contim!enc Total CONUi LIe. Term. Management Activity Description Cost ('milt", Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION 17,749 15",173 23,273 11,171 12,577 59,103 609,874 163,005 1,051,824 732,894 217,632 ITAL COST TO DECOMMISSION WITH 18.46'_ CONTlNGENL'Y:

ITA!. NRC LICENSE TERMINATION COST IS 69.68% OR: ISPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT COST IS 20.69'14 OR: SU1H,824thOuaands ofW12 dollars $132,894 thouaands oC 2012 do1lars $217,632 thousands of 2012 dollW's NON*NUCLEAR DEMOLITION COST IS 9.63'" OR: E TAL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BURIED (EXCLUDING GTCC): OTAL GREATER THAN CLAS.., C RADWASTE VOLUME GENERATED:

TAL SCRAP METAL REMOVED: TAL CRAFT LABOR REQUIREMENTS:

$101,298 thousands of 2012 dollars 282,557 cubic feet 1,785 cubic feet 75,966 tons 2.138,494 man-hours TLG Services.

Inc. Document EI6-I64()..f)06.

Rev. 0 Appendix C. Page 11 of 11 Proceued Burial Volumes Burial I Restoration Volume ClllJlil A Cia .. B Class C GTCC Processed Craft COllts Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Munboul"11 101,2.98 487,391 279,057 2,180 1,320 1,785 37,595,610 2,138,494 Utilltyand Contractor Munbourl' 4,966,*mo Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisAppendix D, Page 1 of 12 APPENDIX D DETAILED COST ANALYSIS DELAYED DECON TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis APPENDIXD Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 1 of 12 DETAILED COST ANALYSIS DELAYED DECON TLG Services, Inc.

437 400 132 811713 2 Clinton Power Station Deeomrnisaioning Cost Analysis I Activity IndexActivity Deocripttnn PERIOD to - Shutdown through Transition Porno)la Dinct Doe on oniuuonmg Activities l a 1.1SAFSTOR wile eharnelerixation ourvoy 10.12Pnpare preliminarydxmnmimlaning emt la .1.3Notifratian of C aoatirm of Operatiana tn.l.4Remn font &annreu matvial in.1.5Not i(rntion ofPermonent De/aeliog In LfiDeaclivala plant ayaWma & {m(o)os Saran ta.1.7Ptapara and auhmit P5DAR i 0.16Review plant dwgy. & >>pe o.

la.19Perform detailed rod 0nrvey ia.i0 F (foots by-product inventory I n.l.lt I i.llBob sld hy'pnduct inner fory 1,0.l3 Define major work -,--

l. .1.14Perform SER end EA 1x.1.15Porfonn Silo-SpuciOm. Coal Study cilicntionn 10,1.161 Preparo plant and faeilitea fM SAFSTOR 110.1.16.2 Piontoy>>temx 1x.1.16:1 Plant alroetanix and huildtnga in.1.I6.4 Waste management in.l.l6.5 Facility and situ dormancy l n.l.l6Total Detailed Work Pronxlnroa 10.1.17.1 Plant syateans 10.1.17.2 Paeslilyokuwnat&dormaney I..1.17Total i n.l_18Pvseurovansam drying>>y>>ten 10 1.11)DraiNde anvotiixe nonrnnl. ay>>timx in 1.20 Drain& dry NESS 10.1.21Drain (dconevtya o rontmninat ed >>yatunix 70.1.22 DocnNsocaro oontamiaatd oy>>tema tatSnhtotal Perud la Activity Costa Parionl to li+dmi-Ds'pendeml Costa 10.4.1lnaaranee la.L2Pmperlytaxax 10.J.3Health phyaica >>npptias ta,4.4Ileevy cywpmenl rental la.4.5Diapuvalof DAWgemsatcd In.4.6Plant ermrgy budget 10.4,7NRC Fa o 10.4.8Eamvlpmcy lMnnning Peas 10.4.9Si", O&h1 Qmta I..4.10 Spent Pool PmI O&M 10.4.11ISFSI Operating Casty 1,.4.12Soenrfly Stall Cool 11.4.1 3Utility Stntf Cast I..4Soblotol Perini is ftrud Depetsdent Cots 10,11TOTAL.PEI1IOD la COSTDocument PI6-1648.006, 1{eo. 0 Appendix D, Page 2 of 12 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

RCSpent FastSiterorvotodRurtal VolumesB .H.11Utility and

---

TotalLie Tenn.Management RestorationVolumeClusa A Clam R Class CGTCC P_ '_dC fCent etor CastsCostaCastsCastsCu. FeetCu. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Cu. Feet Wt Lbs.Muth rsManl ours 686 187Nn 25037287287 16224187187 12519144144 12519144144 18728215215 12519144144 38758445445 62494718718 61402707707 520785508508 310)58448448 2,5037287287 2,5037287287 2,0243042,3272,327 1482-1170170 15022172172 29845342342 1221414 5,1x198305,8405,840 35,x10)2,1762162,3062,386 109547547 60529529 36 116161 2,7814173,1983,196 1,1511151,2)61,266 2,4612482,729-2,729 31647:It/I36:1 nsiteLLRWDecoo Removal Packaging Tre p rt Processing DisposalOtherTotal c..'CoatC.A.C.A.CostsCostsCostaContingency 1 158 24 1.:)102,1x5)1,355)1,0!x11,1051 1, 1St 1,000 3,100 5,10x1 4,167 2,0(x12,05)16,21171,18:11:'00 2,:18:1 610---12,19020777117893-8939114105-10571.581,0748,2328,23288,9365, 05939,019397019 3650,8627,52859,33756,6103,727 3655,8718,3586.5,17761,4663,727157,471 423,400 610--12,19 0580,871 610--12,19020616,761 TLG Senricee, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissionitlg Cost Analysis Activity I Index Dt>lu"rietion PERIOD la* Shutdown through Transition Period IA Din-ct D{)('(HnmiNtiooing Aclivltit's In.1.1 HAFt-.TOR SII\-dwraderiMltioo survey 111.1.2 Pn'pare J}rdiminary cL.'<<>>1lmiNtiooing HlJ:IIt la.1.3 Notifwlllioo of C'cI'ssalion uf Operations la.tA RI'movt! fuul & Sill1rt"t!

matNi>>1 ]n.l.5 Notifirnttoll ofPermllncnt Dcful'ling 11 *. }.6 Dt'twhvalu plant

& pmet!*'" Wll>lUl In.l.i Prepare and I>uhmit PSOAR tl1.LH }WVitlW pianl dwgn & spt"'!I\.

111.1.9 PUfform delailNI fad sun ey la.un F...,tul1ah*

bY-Jlroducl inw'nlory 111.1.11 Eml product fit'scription 111.1.12 [k'lailmi hY'llf'odud invt'l\ory 1.1.1.1:1 Define major work l<t'(IU'!'uce 11l.1.14 SER Ilnd EA Ia.1.I5 PI'rfonn Sili.1,Spocifw.

CQjjt Siudy A('tlvily SjK.'('ifkaliuM 1a.1.16.1 PO'Il<u'e lilant and fl<<'t1i1i.'>1 fOf" SAFSTOR ta.1.1R:!

Plant system" 11l.1.16 a PllInl and ta.l.10A Wll!Ite management Ill. t. tli.5 FaCility IIlId !'lib' dorlllUllry In.U6 Totlll D,*lllih*d Work Pox"Niuf"CS la.1.17,1 Plallt sy,;t('lnll la.l.ti.2 FaCl!itydo$t1()ul&dormancy la.Ui Total 11l.LHI ProCUfll vacuum dryinf{ .. ystl'lu la.1.It) Dnunlde'NIIlfl,'1ze non ronl. SY811'ffiS

]a l.:W Drain & dry N&'lH 1B.1.21 Oraill/de.enUrb'lZtl

(";ImtanlEOatL<d In.1.22 Ik"Con!StlCurv oonlamlnah'd 8}'!\tl'm14 la.l Subtotal Period 18 Activity ('osls Ia PtJ"f\<)\{*Dl'IWllficnt

('{#Iii; In ... U tn,mralW'C 10.-1.2 PropertylaXl'!I lilA.:! flt'alth physi('s .. upplll'll In...l.4 Heavy L'1jlllpml'ol rontnl 10.4.5 DisfIOI'al of OA W gl'lwral.nl laA.6 Plan' cooflO' budget Is .. tj NRC Ft.'Cs laA.8 Emt'rb'Cnt'Y Planning FtJ"cJ< 10.-1.9 Hill! a&:M CtWll< laA.1O Fuel Pool a&M lnA.l1 ISFSI Opt'rating Costs InA.I2 &"('uflly la.4.I:1 Utility SlalTCost laA Subtotal Period III Pcnm:l-D.'p<'ful.'nl Cost .. 1a.O TOTAL rEHIan ta CObT TLG Sen!ices, Inc. Decou Rt'tnOval Paciwging Tnuuoport

('Olit Cost Costs COlit!> .J:li 460 1:1 8!17 1:J 897 1:1 TableD Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) 'tr-Site LLRW NRC Procehing Disposal Other Total Total Lic.Tenll.

COIOts Costs Costs Costs Costs 52i 158 6ti6 fl&i 162 '4 187 187 " nI. " 250 :17 287 287 162 24 187 187 125 I. 144 144 125 I. 144 144 187 28 215 215 125 I" 144 144 387 58 445 445 624 .4 718 718 614 112 707 i07 520 78

'98 :190 58 448 <<. 2.';0 37 287 287 250 37 287 287 2,024 :104 2,327 2,327

14. 22 17" 17" 150 22 li2 172 2"" 45 :142 :142 12 14 14 " 5,009 83" 5,,,," 5,840 2,li8 218 2,:100 2,:196 109 5-17 5" fm 529 529 a6 II 61 61 :!,781 m :1,198 :1,198 1,151 115 1,266 1,266 2,41H 248 2,729 :116 47 :ma 36:J 777 117 S93 91 14 105 7,158 I,Oi4 8,23'.l 1i,:.!:!2

i3,9:ID 5,Ofin a9,019 :19,019 :16 50,862 i,5tS 59,:137 55,610 3. 55,871 8,35S Wi,I77 61,450 Spent Fuel Site Procem>ed Burial Volumes Management Retiwration Volume ClatmA ClaM! B Class C Costs Cmits Cu. Feet Cu. Ft'et Cu. Feet Cu. Feet 610 2,729 811:1 lOfi 3,727 610 3,72i 6U1 GTCC Cu. Feet Document El6-164tJ..006.

Ret!. 0 Appendix D. Page 2 of 12 Burial I Utilityund Procem>ed Craft Contractor Wt., Lb ** Manhours Manhours 1.:100 2,nOO 1,300 *ur.w .I,16i a,120 2,000 2,000 16,:Wi toO :15,H9H 1:!,IUO 2!l tfli,.Jil 4Z:I, .. U}0 12,190 2{J filiO,8il 12,190 20 filli,7Hl Clinton Power Motion Decommissioning Cost AnalysisDocument 9116-1640-1106, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 3 of 12 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) 00-RiteLLRWDieu[ Renmvai Packaging Transport Proc sing DisposalOtherTotul CootCootCostaCostaCastsCostsCostaContingencyNR CSiteProcessedBurial VedumesBurial/Utility and nVolumeClass A Close R Class CO CCProcessedCraftContractor TotalLie.TerManagement Resmrati n CentsCo..CastsCoorsCu. FeetCu. FeetCu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt.. Lbs.MmrhnuraMuni ours10,5661,58810,5681,58812,17612,17612,17612,176 4,8914,891 561561 649649 169189 2,1952,195 1,9631,963 1,4191,419 11,86811,868 11,66611,61963,2111 374 433 126 1.4631,399 946 7,912 7,9121,630 187 216 63 732 654 473 3,956:1,956 56,016'6,4657,5151 2,16225,3692`2,669 16,275 136,519 1311,519 I Activity bodesActivity Description PERIOD tb - SAFSTOR Limited DECON Activities Period lb Direct Dorvanmisoiomin6 Artlv,llos Drevnlaminetion of Site Ruildings lb.l. i.I RonNor Budding 16.1.1.1 Auaihory Building 16.1.1.3 Control Building lb.1.1.4DIoncl t.enurnmr Building Ib.1.1.5 ftudwnale Building ib.1.1,6 Tarbino Building 1,.7 Fool Building 16.1.1TMolo Ib_iSubtotal Period Ib Aetivity Cowls P- .1 lb Additional Canla Ib2.1Siam[fool pa,l ieololion 1b.2Subtotal Period lb Addit venal Coxes Pcrind lb (lolu(enel Comte lb: .1Ocean ,aipment 11,.3.2Prar'nas devmnnunaioning water wean..

lb 3.4Smolt leaf uluwance lb.:1Sublotni Perx,d lb Collmoml Cewts lh 4.1lcra,n xupyliro 16.1.2Inauro 16.4 .3Properly Intro 16.1 .4health physws supplies 16.4.5heavy eyuipmenl cooled 11,46Dialmsal at DAWgenamled 11,47Plant energy budge 11,4.6NRC Feen 16.4.9Esuagoncy Punning Fuca 16.4.10 Site O&M Costa 11.4.11Spent Fact Peal O&St 16 .4.121SFSI Operruling Cuala 16.4.13SL' Staff "W" 11x.4.14Ulilily Staff Cost lb.4Subotal Period Ib Pod,,' Dopmient Coats 11,0TOTAL PERIOD 11, COST PERIOD lc- Preparatiooa for SAFSTOR Dormancy Period Ir Direct Da rommisnianing Activities ic.l.1Prepare wq ,vartoj,ipmenl for elamg, Ic.l.21001011 evntainnwnt prmaara a+pml. lino, 10,1.3interim aurvey prior in dormancy 191.1.4Soo-ore building

-'r-1"1.5 Pura &submit interim roped letSubtotal Puriod is Activity Crests Bored lc C Iloteral Coots ic;1.1rmreno daaamm,oeooning water 00x10 10.3 3S,,,nll tool ollownn0c 10.3Subtalol Period is Colulorol Costa 941---126 240-1110416-493-316 127-----19 1,0911271110416493-461 550 40340_3,11;12303 160 17 28590-24 693104 16717 47447 7912 19429 233 12765268 9,4591,269 2.2(12778285-9015,:0162,050 11.195905129422-57325,81819,955 66 6 220 11:003 78:1,4364246 1 186 79324-384246 969 968 1,56.51,5115-1,471--69,241297 146146------2,6792,679-1,471---88,241287 2,752 444 3 138138---1,374-27,47645 223------26-(1(26) 7701,374---27,47645144,8211 7702.844-115,7161 5075117------3,106)45457161 95.1053------9.827 8494---1,.5961,569--13,5275831,2191,218--1,145--69,715223441,2221,222-1,145--68,715223 2,202 115 733 73 8191 444 3,;135 6229 132 797 183 522 90 SI2,0522.0529,7289,72821,25220,48247,97647,2(15 522 144,820 5HJ TLG Services, Inc.Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity IudeK Artivitv l)(>scril,tion PERIOD Ib -SAFSTOR Limittld DECON Activities PCrlod Ib Din'!:! DL"L't)Enmlssiomng Afhvllws D"(Xmt..1mllUlhoo of SIt.-BUildings 1h.U.1 Rt'lwlor BUilding Ih. 1. 1.2 Au.uliary Budding 1h.l.1.3 Control Building 1h.U'" Diwwl Gt'Jwra!or Buildmg Iv.l.l.5 Building 1h.Lt.6 Turbine BUilding lh.1.1.7 Ftll'lBuilding Ih.l.1 Totals Ih.1 Subtotal Ptlnod lh Activity ('1m!" Ih Addihonal Sll4.lllt fud 11001114011111011 Ih.2 Subtotal Ptlriod lhAdditl.mai Cosl ..

III Col\alcnll elmls Ih.:1.1 Th){'on t'qllillinent Ib.:I.:.!

Pron)!!>!

dt'!t'ommi

..... iooinll willcr wiu'IiI' lh.a .... Small tool allowlloce lb.:! Huhtotnl Period Ih CoUali'raJ COIS lbA:! tn!!tU"'lInctl lilA.:! Pn)pt'ftytaX('" Ill ...... tit-tilth phy!!il'l!

!!uPllh.,!!

1b.*J)) Ht'flvy L'qulll1n"nl nml.11 IbA.6 Di"I)O!Ial of DA W j,,'ClWfaled Ih4.7 Plant elWl)..'j' budget IbA.8 NRC Fooll-Ih...l.9 Emergency Planning Fet:!s 111.4.10 HltcO&MCrn<ts 1 b .... II Spent Fuel Pool O&M Ib .... 12 tSf'Bl Olwrllting Cosl.!i IbA.13 &"<"Urlly Staff Cost Ib4.14 Utility StalTros.1 IbA Suhlotal Pertod lb Custs Ib.O TOTAL PERIOD Ib COST PERIOD lc* Preparations for SAI'STOR Dormuncy Period It: Dired DI.'COmlllu!siomng

.*\diVltif'll kl.l Pn.*Pllro s.uPllOrt t'<.luijlmcnl for !I\<lffiRU Ie. I.:.! Install containmcnt IIrtl&iUOl

,,<,ual. lim'>I le.1.3 Intenm lIu.rvey prior In dormnn<:y le.l'" St"<"uro huildmg noreSllCI!

If. 1.5 Pn'pan; & submllmtcrilll report te.1 Subtotal Pcrl<xllc Aclivity U:mlll Ie Collntcrl1l Coslll lc.;J.l PlOI'CAA .h't<tllllllll!v,wning wah'f wash' 1(".:1.:1 Small tool al!owrtno' 11.'.3 Suhlotul Period Ie CollalcrIIl

(;0$\1'1 TLO Seroices.

Inc. Decem Removal Packaging Tranaport

('ost Cost COllts Custs J,2Hl :174 4:1:1 126 1.-IH3 1,3otl 94H 7,912 7.912 8'1 240 100 416 127 1,081 127 HI" 'I" 2,202 6ua 115 "" :':,202 77' 28 11,195 905 129 422 W 3" "'" 11"16 7" ;)24 lilt! 7. J24 TableD Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) O(f-Slte LLRW NRC ProcNsing Dispo5ft1 Other Total Total Lic. Term. C"""' Costs Costs Contina:ellc.\::

CUsts Costs 1,6:10 4,891 4,891 lH7 561 5£1 216 649 6,. 63 189 189 732 2,195 2.195 65, 1,_ 1.963 473 1.419 1.419 3,956 11,868 11,868 a,956 11,868 11,868 10,588 1,"" 12,176 12,176 10,588 1,588 12,176 12,176 126 9611 """ 4!J:J 316 1.56:i I,M}5 I' 146 H6 493 '61 2,679 2,679 550 2,752 2,752 40a 40 '" 444 a,O:l2 303 3,a.15 :1,3.35 lfl6 829 829 17 1:!2 132 ." 24 1:18 laB 693 104 797 797 Hl7 17 183 183 m '7 52'l 7. 12 90 00 194 2. 22.1 23 , '"' 1,7M "Ill 2,052 2,052 1,269 9,728 9,728

!!U 15,:108 2,850 21,252 :m,-l82 57:1 25,8iUi 8,H55 47,976 47,205 6. 5{17 507 6 45 " 7:1:\ 2' .. !.O 95.1 . 73 11 '" '" "Oil 303 1,5M 1,5H8 "", 246 1,218 1,218 1 , , :184 246 1,222 1,22'J Spent Fuel Site Proceued Durial Voiuml's Management Restoration Volume Cll1!lsA ClauD ClasliC GTCC CO$ts Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cll,Feet 1 .... n 1,471 1,:17'" 522 !.!2.1 26 770 1,374 770 2.H-44 1,145 1,145 Document E16'*164IJ-006, Rev, 0 Appendix D. Page 3 of 12 Duriall Utility and Proce.aed Craft Contractor Wt..Lbs. Munhours Muuhoun. 56,016 6,4&'1 7,50':1 2,1H2 25,369 2".l,6.!UJ IH,275 136,519 la6,519 ,*,,241 287 88,241 287 27 .... 70 45 :m,:'Wo ]05,560 !.!7,-176 4f. 144,8:l0 115,716 l:m,851 144,H:.w a,OO(l 700 9,lt.l7 5/Q 1:1,527 58;) fl1S,715 22:1 68,715 22::1 Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost AnalysisDocumeu t E16-1640-006, Re,,.0 Appendix D, Page 4 of 12 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Artislty IndexActivity Description Off-S' teLLRW Decor Removal Pa (aging Tre port Processing Disposal OtherTotal CostfirstCastsC tCasteCostsco'"Contingency RCSpent Fit.]SiteP oeessed13ur1o1 VolumesBurial/Utility and TotalLie. Term M nagem t R estorationVolumeClues A Cl-B Cl- CG CC ProcessedCroft Contractor CostsCoatsCostaGrazCu. FeetCu.Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs.MonhoursManhours I'eriwi'Dapendvol C le Inauranar.10.4.2Property mown 1013health physics aoppli<<.

Ile.vy vquipnaml rvolnl Dtsismnl of DAW Geovroly l Plonlcncrgy budget NRC Feus F.nungency Planning Eros Situ O&M Crass Spml Fuel Prrol O&M ISFSt Oper.ling Crab.Srxarity Stag Cool Utility Stag Gut Subtotal Period is Perisl'Ihpendvot Costs 1 0.4 .810.3.4 I0A.3 4.6 10.4.7 k14910.4.11)1c.4. 1I 10 .4.)2 104.13 11.4 40:03 41 17 3 693104 16717 47447 791290M-19429223-223 23:t26-26 1,7652662,0522,052 403 3,032 444 3,335 206 132 IS 707 183 522444 3,33521)1 132 15 797 1638,4591,2699,7269,72615,.71/82,15317,75416,98320,50419,794770133,717128.4495,708 770 152:1,039 152-1)1,210--1115,560:1,0395144,820 1,297 71,75513,70-5145,403 4,751 199,661150,625906,985 Ie.0TOTAL PERIOD iv COST18076381325-39316,1142,702 PERIOD I TOTALS11,3812,565222749-1,00297,88219,915 PERIOD 2e- SAFSTOR Dormancy with Wet Spent Fuel Storage Perim 2n 0,0,1 Drrnmmi+avntng Activities 20.1.1Qr novrly insprction 2x.1.2Semi ... tut onvinmmental eorvey 20.1.3Propose ,,port.

2x.1.4Bitominuoeroofrepi0vemunt 25.1.5Slninten.nce soppl,vo 20.1Subotal Itrriod 2. Altivdy f l02, .4603842,9442,9442,2165542,7702,7704,7769385,7145,714 Penrxi 2. Collstvvrl Costs

?.3.1Sprat Fuel Cocos) .nei Trnnd'ar---11,2501,68812,9:M 2.3Sublatnl I'vrlr.t 2. Crdlrrloml Costs11,2501,68812,93812,9:38 12,936 Period 2. Period-DOpendont Cost,, 2n 4.1Inoot.rnce 2..4.2Prnwrty Imes 20.4,3Beall h piosies0op'lies 25.4.4Dies.-.,1 olDAWggrwrnlerl 204.5Plost"nergy bodgel 20.4.6NRI' I'20.4.7i:",e. e' , I'I.nnrng Fvoo 2..4 .88du P&`d Costs 2x.98,'Foul P,.,1 O&M Z 10 1SF51 Operating C

-AA]Srmurily SloICost 2.,0.12Utility StoITGmt 2s.4Subtol ,rl Period 2. Ikwia4Dependenl Cools 20,0TOTAL PERIOD 2. COST-2,84077 PERIOD 21, - SAFSTOR Dormancy with Dry Spent Fuel Storage 9,476948 33,4563,346-710 15-217-64 9,0021,3,81 4,455445 30,7843,078 5,107766 12,5721,900 1,476222 83,33012,499 1119,:19116,407 15-217299 ,04041,722 15 217:115.066 44,34710,424-10,424-36,8(1'2------3,5503,65 0----373373--:1,724---74,48212110,:152-111,352-----4,9604,90)----33,8611-330:1------5,873-5,67314,458-14,4581,7601,700 95,829-95,829----1,797,72)1125,788-125,788------1,333520343,9118,823335,088-:1,724---74,482121:3,131,240362,56214,537348,026--3,724--.74,4821213,131;240 2,6-40 77 Pev,vvt 26 Dram Drrornmissioning Avlivitivs 26.1.1Quorferly lnspr.Orm 2b.1.2Sr..rmi en rrvn menml survey

'21, L3Prepre ele aev 26.1.4Ditumina.0-I repl-c.-ut----9214110106"26.1.5M.inlenoovv 0upplivo--8020lie100 26.1Sublolol Farad 21, Activity Costs----17234210200 Pori of 2b Collatnr.i C I.

26.3.1Spent Fool .,pant and Tranoter---2,625.1943,019 26.3Subotal Per,,)

I, tbllotuml Cots 2,0253943,619 3,019 3,019 TLG Services, fns Clinton Power Station DecommissiOllilig Cost Alialysis Activity Indt.'x Activitv Dt'scription P,'riod Ie Pcnod.Dt'pendent Costs. leA.1 Iwmrrmrtl leA.:.! Prot>>;rty kA.:1 n"I1Ub physIcs supplitls kAA Ih'llvy '--"1uiplllt'nl nlOtal 1c.-I.5 Dl!l11OM1 ofDAW b",m'ruk'(l kA.6 Plunt ClWrg)' budget kA.7 NRCFwll 11'..1.1:1 Emergency l'ianning F(""n leA 9 Situ O&M Cm>\JI 1c. .. t.l() Spenl Fud Pool O&M k4.11 ISFSt {)pt!rating Coals IcA.12 1eA.l:1 Utility Staff Coni 1c.4 Subtotal Period 1c Ptlflolj)<;N:'tion 2u.1.2 &>nll*unnual enVtrnllllwnlalllulVn)'

2a.1.:1 2a.1A 2u.I.5 2u.l PerIOd 2a CollalL;rlli Costs :la.a.l Slwnt Fulll Capilalllnd TnlMII,r 2a.3 Subtotal 2u CuUalcml Period 2a 21lA.l 2a .... 2 Pmfl<,lrty lOll'S 2a.4.:1 Ileailh Ilhysjcl'!

flUI)j1Ii.*S 21lAA

la .... 5 Plant energy boo,,'\'1

.!a.*t6 NRC' Fet's 2a.-l.7 Enwq:wncy I'lnnning PI}"IS 211.*1.8 Sitt> O&M Costs 2a..l.9 Fud Pool O&M 2u .... l0 tS}o"HI OllCrllling

('(>>Its 2nA.l1 &'t'urity Siaff CmIt 2a.*U2 UlilityStaffCfMlt 2t1A Subtotal Period 2a Pvriod .. Dt}lwmieuL eusls 21\,0 TOTAL PERIOD 2a COST PERIOD 2b* SAFSTOR Dormancy with Dry Spent Fuel Storage P(*nod 2b Din'('l Dl-'NlUHnl8SHming Activiti('d 2b.1.l 2b.1.2 2b.l.:1 2b.1'" :Hd.5 :lb. 1 Pl'rlQ(12b Collllhlrnl Cosh :lb :1.1 SpI'nl Fud CapLlulllnd TraMrt'r :lb.:I Subtotal Period 2b Collah'ml C(>>Ij,;; TLG Services, Inc. Removal Packuging Tramport Cost Costs Costs Hi5 115 279 7f1:1 :.!,Stt')

2,K-W 2,840 2,1'140 81 a25 2:.12 749 77 15 77 1. 77 15 TableD Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) otr-Site PrOCNJling LLRW DiSp05B1 Costs :lU:l 1,002 217 217 217 Other Costs 40a a,032 69:, 167 474 79 194 2., 1,785 8,459 15,308 16,114 97,882 2,500 2,216 4,716 11,2W 11,250 9,H6 3:1,456 9,()(l2 4,4-IUi 30,71'14 5,107 12,572 1,478 8:1,330 109,aSl 299,040 :115,066 92 .0 172 2,625 2,625 Total Continl!enc 40 a03 41 17 104 17 47 12 2. 268 1,269 2,lsa 2,702 19,915 3M 55-1 .". 1,6H8 1,_ .... 3,316 710 ** 1,3..,)()

..... :1,078 766 1,_ 222 12,499 16,407 41,722 44,347 14 20 34 aS4 394 Total Costs m :1,:13..,)

206 1:12 15 797 1113 522 00 22..1 26 2,052 9,728 17,754 20,564 133,717 2,944 2,770 5,714 12,!M8 12,9;)8 10,424 36,8Il'J 3,550 37:1 10,:152 4,900 33,tffi:i 5,873 14,458 1,700 95,829 125,788 :l4a,911 362,562 ]1)6 100 206 3,019 a,Il19 lfC Lic.Term.

Costs 444 3,aafi 200 132 15 79'/ 183 90 2.052 9,728 16,9& 19,794 128,449 2,9-14 2,770 5,714 a,550 :l7a 4,900 8,823 14,5:17 106 100 206 SpenCFuel Management Costs 522 223 26 77. 770 5,2fiS 12,!h18 12,938 10,424 :l6,8(r2 10,352 :l3,SOa 5,tr7:1 14,4fH1 1,700 95,829 125,788 :135,088 348,025 :I,OW :1,019 Site Restoration Cm.ts Proceued Volume Cu. Feet Burial Volumes ClliuA---clw-selw C GfCC Cu .. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet 152 152 1,297 4,751 a,724 a,724 :1,724 Document Elfi..1640M006, /lfW. 0 Appelldix D, Page 4 of J2 BurialJ Proce!llWd Wt.,Lbs. a,oa9 a,039 71,755 199,6(11 74,482 7",,-182 74,41:12 CraCt Munhaurs 1:1,75.')

150,625 121 121 121 Utilityund Contractor Mllnhours

1lJ,

WO ](J5,MO IH,8:m 145,40:1 1,7m,no l,a:I:I,520 a,1:Jl,240

l,I:11,240 Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Coat AnalysisDocument EI6-1640-006, Rep. 0 Appendix D, Page 5 of 12 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Activity Den,eiptinn OllStoLL WDecon Removal Packaging Transport Proc ess ing Disp osa lOtherTotal CoatCastCottaCoatsC toCotCast,Contingency NRCSpent F eelSiteProcessedaurini VolumesRuriul/....Utility and TotalLie. Term.

Management RestorationVolumeClass A Cl.. R C oa COTCCProcessedCraftContractor CastsCostaCottaCostsCu. FeetCu. Feet Cu. Feet Ca Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lb,.Manbnurs Mun6ourn Period 2b Period-Deiwndent C-t.2b.4.1Inauronce 264.2 2b 4.3Ileolth phyxice auppliea 2614.4Disposal of DAW generated 214,5Pionttmarty budget 264.6NRC Frwo 2bt.7 2b-4.8saw O&Nf G .W 2b 4.9ISFSI Operat ing Cota 2(04.11)Sonority Slog Coot 2h4.11Utility SlOR Coat 26.4Subbaol Pcriml 2b Porimt-Dupendont Coat, 26.0TOTAL PERIOD 21, COST PERIOD 2 TOTALS-2,8)5 PERIOD 3, - Reactivate Site Following SAFSTOII Dormancy Perixd :la Di--t Drr,unmia ioo,ng Activities 3a. 1.1Co-porn peoliooooey lkn-,unmiarilming nwl

4x.1.2Review plant dwgo

&atom.30.1.3Perform detat6d cad aurvoy 30.1.4

30.1.5Detodod by.prduct inventory

0,1.6ihel'ina motor work onqu0nce 1)0.1.7Perform SER and EA

to I8Porf nn Si4 S,nci10 C-1 Study 30.11,9Po,p>>relsulm,iti<<,noe r....1'.. Phan 3>>,.10 Itmoivc NRC oppmvd mf tcrmioetion plan Activity Spooimool,nnn 3>>,1.11.1 Re 00O-t0 plan,& lemlmrary frcilitioa

i>>.1.11.2 Plant ayatornx

0,1.1 1.3 Rrreclor;nlornaio 3>>.1. n.4 Reactor woos 3>>.1.11.5 S>>emOool shield

0.1.11,6 Moinloro aarporntnralrehooteto

0.1.11.7 Raint>>rad mocrwn 30.1.11.5 Main Turbine 1.9 Mein Conde,-

I.1 I 1.10 Proaaum aupp r.aaaion niructurc

la.,.ii DrYwell 3,.1.12 PI>>nl atruciurrw

&buiidinga 3>>.1.11.13 W>>ato m000600001

0.1.11.14 Frxility &

oil,' rlamout Total Pi000,ng & Site Pmparmiona 13oemve 4..11.. 12Po wre d,omonll,ng wnl i 3Plan! prep.

& temp. "',-

3. .1. i 4Ikr aign water clown-up ayaiom 30.1.15RigginglAmt.

Cole) F.nvll^dtonlingle/c.

0.1.16Procure cxok rJtinera &

cmna;nera 30.1Submtal Periml 3n Activity C 0 dut tots Period :1a Prm)0-D10 04.1lnur0 30.4.2Prolwrty tn....

3a4 3Ilenlth plv,+oi.ptir+

30.4..4Iluevy ogmpo . nt ron01 302301332 58358641-1262 16 16'224187 15315168 1,1101111,221 18428212 538fit 1,6202431,863 1,5812371,818 5,7497686 ,572237 15221323,61245,543372,35914, 980357,379-3,789-75,7721243,183,5771622418718757466661661 144144 187187 1,0771,077 445445 718718 688588 1,8599531081 598539-60 1,0201,020 9:139.19 7272 144144 230115115 390300 300300 287287 233)230 446224-224 681661 1206565 6,4105,841560:145345-------2,4053,3353,335201201---1,4002,5302,630177177------1,23017,00316,434-569-----77,5595691,0901,090478478529529 048,5461,1969,7974439,354 62 168:132641 1871,221 212 611,8631,818 6,335 64 1,2111:12.61):119,474 52,337 523;17 64 0141,290 1,215 020138 52078 8871:13 812122 629 12519 294130 26139 26139 25037 20030 39058 67486 11"17 5,574836 12519 16224 9:17140:18758 63494 51277 1.3851,:1m)7.5(55,(86)4,)0067,:170 4,107 7,100 fi,703 5(51,0[531,104)2,01882,0818 2,185 1,6153,120 4,605 44,8:1:3 45 435175262,2003301542314,7862,218 51752 090115 302-96 468--60 TLG Seroieea, Inc.

Clinton Powe,' Station Decommis&uming Cost Analysis Activity Indf'x Activitv DN.l'rintion til COl:llll 20..1.1 Insuffwf'l) 2bA.2 Property U1Xtt/! :.lilA.:!

lIealth php'i('$

2bAA Oispmull of DAW gtHWrIlled

lhA,5 Plant t'fwrgy budget 2b *1-6 NRC Fool:l ZbA.7 Emergency Planning Fl""" :.lbA.$

O&'M r.otlls 2b *1.9 ISFSI Opt,rating COolls tll.-I.IU

&-curity Staff Cost :th-l.11 Uiility&affCost

lilA Subtotal Period 2b PCflod*Dcjlendt'nt CO<!IA :lh.O TOTAL PERIOD 2b CO::-,'1' PERIOD 2 TOTALS DecoR COllt PERIOD 3n Reactivate Site Following SAFsTOn Dormallcy Al'ltvily Sllt.""lficatlOos 3a,I.11.1

13.1.11.2

m.1.ll.:)

m.l.ll.4 Jh'acloryt*$$

... 1 :1[1.1.11.5

&cnr)(:lnl shi"ld :m.l.11.6 MOIslure

la.l.11.7 Rcinfnn'l?drol

M.l.11.8 MamTurbm(*

an.I.Il.ll Drywdl :m,1.11.12 Plant

&

la.I.II.I:!

Wa .. ht Iw:uwglmwnt aa.I.II.I-I Flldlity & sileciOAt)()ut

Ja.1.11 Tutal Planmng & Site Pn'lmrllil'lII>'1 Ja.l.I:! l'rvp<lrl' dismantling

"llJl'fWtl

In 1.1:1 Plant lireI'. & WllIll.

la.l.I-I wah'r dean-up !ly"h'm :Ia.l.15 Rigging/Cont.

Cntrl ErwllWtoolingfdc

la.l.16 Procure cMk"'liners

& cru,tainers.

Ia.l Subtotal Penod 3a Actlvily rAmW P,>rloil aa P'lflod.DCfwnd'mt

(-:ru.tll

laA.l In!lurllllci' 3aA.2 :IaA.3 3u ... .4 TLG Services.

Inc. Removal Padwging Transport Cost Costs Costs 50 '" 50 t,HIK] 3ti2 400 7. 15 TableD Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) ott*Site Proceasing Costs llnW Dispoaal Costs 221 Other Costs 3f12 58:1 162 153 1,110 ,.4 5:1 t,BtO 1,5.!H 5,749 8,.'i46 :t2:1,tH2 162 574 125 162 S:17 :1Ii7 62-1 512 9'0 520 1187 812 62 125 200 261 261 ll50 200 39() 574 112 5,574 :100 2,900 175 2,200 154 14,il<<l 517 1!911 Total Continttenc 3n 5. 12 24 15 111 2. 8 2-1:l 2.l'i 76B 1,196 45,54:l 24 o. 19 24 140 5. 94 77 1:18 78 1:13 122 9 19 3. 39 39 37 3<l .. 86 17 836 45 435 2. 330 23 2,218 52 100 86 69 Totnl Cos.ts 3:12 641 62 161 1M 1,221 212 61 1,863 1,818 6,572 9,797 372,359 ,.7 661 " 144 ,.7 I,Oi7 445 71. &lIB 1,058 598 1,020 933 72 144 2:10 300 300 287 2:10 44B 661 129 6.410 :1-15 3,3a5 201 2.530 177 17,003 51 1,_ 478 5211 NRC Lie. Term. Costs 62 Hi8 :!a7 443 1-1,980 187 661 144 187 1,077 445 71. 5118 953 5J9 1,00lO 9.1.1 72 144 115 300 300 287 230 224 6., 6t; 5,841 345 3,3:15 201 2,530 177 16,434 569 1,099 47. 5"" Spent Fuel Management Costs :l:J2 6" 1B7 t,221 212 61 1,863 1,818 6,335 9,354 :157,:179 Site Restoration C(I!Its 106 61l 115 224 65 569 569 Volume Cn.Feet BurinfVolumeli Clau A ClaM B Cia" C G'fC"C CU. Feet Cu. Feet Cn. Feet Cu. Feet 64 64 Ii-l 3,71:l9 Document EJ6-J64IJ..O06, Rev. 0 Appendix D. Page 5 of 12 Burial I Processed Wt., Lhs. 1,290 1,290 1,200 75,772 Cruft Muuhours 12-1 Utility"ud Contractnr Maulmurs :1;!,HH.1 Hl.-li-l 52,:J37 52,;1a7 :1,18:1,577 1,:IHH -I,(lOU UJUO 1,:100 7.5(10 a,1Il0 ii,nOn -1,(196 7,:\70 -I,Hii i,lIlt) 6,SOO 500 1.000 1,600 2,{>>l8 2,000 1,600 3.120 -1,600 "'M) 44,6:1;1 2,4m) 1,-IUO Clinton Pnmer Station Decommissioning Cost AnalysisDocument E16-1646-666, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 6 of 12 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Activity htdeaActivity Desenption OtlSiteLLRWDevonRemoval Packaging Transport Processing DisposalOtherTinst CostCostCnatsCnatsCastsCostsCostsContingency NRCSpent FuelSiteProcessedBurisl VolumesB.6.1 IU tility .,to TotalLit_Term Manugetnent RestotntionVnlumeClass A Class B Class COTCCProcessedCroftContractor CostsCostsCostsCootsCu. FeetCu. Feet Co. Feet Cu. FeetCu. FeetWI., Lb..Monbuurs Msnhnurs 514 514 514 29'2 806 Peri01 3, Pen,xl Dependent C,>>ln (conlinuod) 3,.4.5boll of DAW get onoOd 3..4.6Pl,nt nnoo y bmiget 330.4.7NRC F,-3 A.8Site O&M Cools 30,4,9Sornrity SIOR Cues

5.4.1)Utility SLOB Cool 30.4Su6lotal Poriod 3, Periool'Doprn,knt Coolo

3,11TOTAL PERIOD 3. COST PERIOD eb - Decommissioning Preparations Poriod 31, Dinxl DorOmmf

>>ninning Activitioa Do,ilcd Work Pr aoduro>>

36.1.1.1Plaot oy>>tem>>

36,3.1.2 Roortor ml,-In 36.1.1.3 Romnining building.

3b.1.1 4 CRD hou>>ingo & N1.

36.1.1.5 Invore in>>tnunen)a)inn 35.1.3.6 iiomoval pn oryttuttainnunn 35.1.1.7 Rvmrlar vtl a.d 36.1.1.8F,eilily nlooeout 36.1.1.9 Ss,,r,,lol shield36.1.1.10Reinforced cuncreu' 36.1.1.11 1,,i. Turbine 35.1.1.12 bloin Cnndonixxs 36.1.1.13 51oi>>lurn wrpornlnrx & nfiooler>>

36.1.1.14 Rod-lc building 36.1.1.15 Roortor building 3b-1.1T. .1 36.1Sublol0l Poriod 36 Activity C.>>4.

P,, v4 335 Additional Coats

35,2.1Silo Chtrael,,00ol,on 3b.2SubloNl Peria1:35 Add,- otl Cst.

Poriod 31, C Ilnlemi Curls 35,3,)Doranequlpot0nt 35.3.2DOC outf rolornlion oopcnwro 3533Pits.. cutting equipment 36.36061,101 Perud 3h Coilateral CON N6.3 31, Perud-Dependonl Cwt..

36,4.1D,xnnsupplias 35.4.2I.-.-31, .4.3Properly ta>>es 36.4 .4Ileallh phy.ics >>upplirm 3b 4,5Ito'" equipment rvntol 3646Di>>txwai of DAW genoroled 334.7Pinnt onergy bndgot 31, 4.8NRC Foot 31,19Ste O&M Cots

364 10Security Staff Cunt 31, 4.11DOC Stag Coot 4.12Ulilily SI,ffC0.t 2.460510101 Period :33, I4riod-Dependent Cowls 360TOTAL PERIOD 3b COST PERIOD 3 TOTALS2,781362 3163,161 20,817 842 2:1026,052 842112-3043,7386,64051,25250,69359189680612-68500755745741692519448-145125191441441251914414425037287287453685215211502'17286-86150221721721251914472-722611392992992613930930025037287287-34151392363-3)3:N151:192363-394,0896134,73024,252-4504,0896134,71014,252-4506,0081,9828,5918,5916,6081,9828 ,5918,591 641---1209689681541,1641,164-1,10----1651 9051,265 841LIIX)-1,0304463,4173,4176102329 2628528.550150551551 211---53264264 231--35265265 ti1-17-529291,3942091,6101,50318218'1(X)200158241821821,5852381,8221,8225,1957795,9745,97410.4371,56612,00212,002 20442()1-1719,7103,410823,21123,211 1,542 1731,4376,05030,02039,470 8672,384173-4775,17412,69()91,18290,163 10,287 17 256,629 10,28717323,807 10,28717401,300 4,7:334,(X)0 1,3001,18111,(X0)2,(X0)3,001,201)12001,0(X)2,080 2,3003`9,7:30 2,7:3032,741:12,741:01,50010,85230,:))01)3,02 9 417 36 47 474 3,123 4,422 363 3,6:3523,0:0 34,259 52 3,198 399 383 3,635 23,9:10 34,259 450 1,0195,83410 58,560 129,6695,834I()220,9075,83430,51()264,50016,121:0,526665,866 TLG Services. It.

Clintan Pawer Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Index Aetivitv Descriction Period 3a Petlod Ot'pcodenl (l'UnhnUl->d) 3n.4.5 Di8posal ofDAW 311.4.0 Plant em\rg}' budget :lllA.7 NRC Fl"'S 3aA.8 Site O&M eo,,!,; 3n.4,9 Stall Cost :lH.4.lO Utility SWIlC<ffll 311..1 Subtotal Period 0a Perinti*J).'IJ"nti.mt Cost" :In.O TOTAL PERIOD aa COS'£' PERIOD ah Deconuniuioning Preparatioll&

Period all Din!<"l Dt't'mllllli""lIming Achnlic$

Work Pro('t.uun'f!

3il-1.1.1 Plant "y!!tems inlernals Ih'mamlng huildings 3b.l.l.4 CRD oowung,< & Nts :Jb.l.l.5 In('ore tnstrumclllalion 311.1.1.6 Ih'movaJ pomary containulCut

lb.1.1.7 Rt"lwtorvcssd Facililyclot<cout Slierifidal shidd ab.1.1.10 Rl'mfnn:vd l'nfl{'n'u!

Main Turbine Mnin CondtJn*,-'n1 ab.I.!.la

!\Ioistufe st'paralof'l'l

& r"hl'alers Radwash' buiilling Rwtdoc building ah.l.l Tutnl ab.l Subtotal Period ab Activity CUllls all

)uA.l D,'<'on8l1Pllli"!I InllurnOt'I' Prnpi)rtywlWS, :lb ...... Hl'alth phY!lks !HIPplw>'

ahA.5 I1111wy cqUlpnwnt nmtal ab ... t! Dispollnl of DAW tt'foornl\'d ab4.7 I'ianl energy hudgel abA.8 NRCFccll :lb.4.9 Site O&.M CO$i8 ab.4.1tJ &'<.'urily StaffCo$l

lbA.ll DOC Staff Cost abA.I2 UtliityStllffCost abA Subtotal Period all I'cnud*Ot'FCUdt!Ul Crulls :lbJJ TOTAL PERIOD all CUh'T PERIOD 3 TOTALS l'LG Services.

Inc. Decon Removal Packaging Transport COl>t COlit COllt& Costa \I 1:I-i2 11 1:142 11 841 1,100 841 1,100 26 211 2;11 ifi 4-i2 ffii7 1,542 tl67 2.:UW 17 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) OfT*Site LI,RW NRC Pr0ee55ing Disposal Other Total Total Lic.Term. Costs Costs Costs Costs 3U 9 52 52 2,781 417 3,H18 3,198 362 36 399 300 316 47 :163 3S:! 3,161 m 3,6:!5 a,fhk"i 20,817 a,123 2a,9:m

10 28,952 4,422 3-i,259 34,259 ao 43,738 6,640 51,2b'2 50,69:1 591 8. 6HO 612 500 7. 574 674 18. 25 194 4H 125 19 144 144 125 I. 144 144 250 37 2H7 287 453 68 521 621 150 22 172 86 150 22 172 17. 125 19 144 7. 260 39 269 269 261 3. 300 300 25<l 37 287 287 3-il 51 3HZ 353 :Ul 51 :l9'J 353 4,rum 613 4,7U2 4,252 4,01:19 613 4,7trJ 4,252 6,008 1,982 8,591 8,591 6,1lOl! 1,982 8,591 8,591 126 "'" 969 1,0..10 154 1,184 1,184 165 1,265 1,265 1,0.10 44. 3,417 3,417 :rJ 32 259 26 2"" 28.'i 501 50 551 551 5a 264 264 35 265 265 17 5 29 211 1,au-i :ru9 1,60..1 1,60..1 182 18 200 200 158 24 182 182 1,58[, 238 1,822 l,1:I:!2 5,195 779 5,97-i 5,974 10,437 1,566 12,002 12,002 17 19,710 a,008 2.:1,211 23,211 17 31,4:t7 6,060 39,920 39,470 47 75,17-i 12,6S0 91,182 90,163 Spent Fuel Site Proc_d 8urial Volumes Management RelitOlation Volume ClJUUiA ClaoB ClassC Costs CM'" Cu. Feet Cu. Feet CU. Feet Cu. Feet 514 514 569 514 "8 145 86 72 311 :19 450 450 292 292 450 292 I,OW 806 GTCC Cn.Feet Document EI6-1640-(1II6, Rev. 0 Appendix D. Page 6 of 12 8uriall ----Utilityalld Proceued Craft Contractor Wt.,Lbs. Manhour" Mal1houn.

10,21:17 17 10,21:17 17 10,287 17 401,:ilW 4,7:\:1 4,000 l,a,'){J I,QOO 1,000 2,000 0,6:10 1.200 1,:mo l,OOO 2,mm 2,IISH 2,000 2,7aO 2,7:10 :I:!,7-il

i2,7-i1 ;10,500 Hl,H52 :1O,f<<JO Hl,B.'i2 5,tl3-i 10 :1:.!.ii7U 5tl,560 129,669 5,1:1;:14 10 220,H07 5,8:14 aO,510 264,5011 16,121 :ro,526 (j65,ffiil!

Clinton Pos er Station Decommissioning Cost AnalysisDocument E16

-1640-006, Ilea. 0 Appendix D, Page 7 of 12 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

I Activity IndexMrtivity Description PERIOD 4. - L.N. Component Removal Off-SiteLLR W c k a ging Tronsport Processing DisposalOtherTotal CoatCostCu..ConteCoatsCopt.Cu..ContingencyCSpent FuelS it,Y oceeaedBurial Volume..B ial IUtil i ty ad TotalLie. Term Management Restoeot nVolu aCl- A Clues B Class COTCCPro acedC -ftCnnt tar CmtsCu..Cu..CostCu. F e etCu. FeetCu. Feet Cu. FeetCu. Feet Wt Lb..M-1rs Muth urn 23.2 59 65 158 7 Penal 4, Dicrrl Do o oioo ooivg Aravitio,.

Norhrar SWom Sopply System Rcnwval 41.1.1.1 R,v'i rolstum Sy tom Piping & Valves 40.1.1.2 Ihvirculation Pump, & MoWrs 40.1.1.1 CRDM, &Sin Removal40.1.1.4Rovolor Vc,n,l Intcrn11o 41.1.1.5 Veoool & 1002011 OTCC Di,im wl 40.1, 1 1.6 Roorh,r V-1 40.1.Tet.la Romo'ol of Slope Equipment 41.1.2M.I. Turhm,40, crotur 40.1.3Moon Condensers Co,radrng Coots (rim Cl... Building Demolotion 40.1.4.1 Reoolor Building 40.1.4.2 Auxiliary Building 44.1.4.3 Rodwnnte Building 40.1.4.4 Turbine Building 4x.1.1.4.5Fuel Building 40.4Tolnln Divlwao1 of Pinnl Sy,/emn 4n1.5.1 Arad Food & tlnndhng 40.1.5.2 Auxiliary Sloom 40.1.5.:1 Breathing Air 4.,1 54 C02 & Genondor Purylc 4a. 1.5.5 Connie linndling 40.1.5.6 (Cm Rndwaale Rcprmeooing & Dio1onol 41.1.5.7 Chill d It:, . RCA 4..1.5.8 Chilled Water Non-RCA 41.1.5 9 Chlorination 4o.1,5.II Circulating Water - RCA 4..1.5.11 Circuloting Wolor N.. RCA 41-1.5.12 Cntmm. t Aux & Fuel Bldg E pop Drnino 40.1.5.13 Cntmm. t Aux & Fuel Bldg Floor Drains 40.1.5.14 Cnmiwnent Cooling Water Non-RCA 40.1.5.15 Condrvoolr 40.1,5.16 Gmdrmnale Boonln'r 40.1.5 ,17 C,&-u, Pnli,hing 40.1.5.18 Cmtdenoer Vorooov 40.1.5.19 Conlainment Combu0Aiblo C..

40.1.5.20 Cycled CundenooW 40.1.5.21 Drywall Cooling t1.5.22 Drywall Purge 1.5 .23 ECCS Equipment Cooling 40.1.5.24 E"'-'i". "t-" 40.1,525 Ford water 40.1.5.26 Fad-tor Beater Droino Turhino Cync 40.1.527 Foedwater thmlcrMinr.

40.1.5.28 Fillnrad Wntrr 40.1.529 Cmenaor Bydrogon Sonl Oil 40.1.5.:0 Gcnern/or Slater Carling 40.1.5.31 I1igh Pnv,ure Coro Spray 4a.i.5.32 hydrogen 40.1.533 laundry &luip & Plc Dmina RW Repnxe 44.1.5.34 [e.st Dobslitm 40.1 7.35 I II ln,trumenl Pam4, 41.1.5.36 Le w Prvxnum Core Spray 40.1.5.37 Monhim, Shop

&luopment 40.1.5.38 31-lino Shop Ventilation 1349111279-41204204 1344143814281-975016111 51191535107-1611831,2291,229 963,7185,5121,252-9,0243179,08729,00729,007---7,415-1,1128,5278,627 847,4972,7941,222-3,8273178,63 ,1024 ,37224,372 25711,4998,8672 ,(31142 0,78763319,15163,83983,839 3813211634392011,4081,4081,1991,1142171,512-6704,7124,712 1531,174 37281 87885 87664 40309 4043,094:15I12Il60 6521227192--1971,1180 44---751 19----322 18015-529 4595)4085141-1749501,3952458407--4212,305 20230232 51-859 211714:14237-94585585 57----865 1146921-37193193 179982919563003)137---211.56155166580416-4972,8792,879 9833373177621,036-11954,1084,109 83753481591262771,5621,502 2271536255-102636&362427-271501504342152103-2481,3431,3431025176--17495895651392-573303:0 532-2514214264652101762331,3131,313127126368367-3281,9131,9131251304433:X1-5503,11523,05214324682438436 15016105353015-6323231?3613383123701701014-947471215692480442442002126161 17161873395331431416-4232341071-76410410 501--64,0941.0782502,473--251,2401,145 6,08.5--131,1194,475 1,3887511,075341,6101)5,0331,5311-1,785351,10014,3881,526,115015,01131,51)1!25025,7957511,0751,7852,665,21376,7663,1817707,3586,0342,439,10)022,0,5011,451)2;5826,4936,771 2,912 01,209493--211,012573--309,1781)1,682 877-373166--7,57128.53,3922,056--252,3957,95716,163---656,38622,847 3,958.9880,402--381,8171,590 1,09:1344:00)-31,3221,8,41278--62,7223,02`2 2,68123,02061362---1,272,85918,602:0,2l)314,866--2,071,2017,5756,3201,812-:159,42914,28410,118---410,8973,912---43,8211,5371,481-326,95712,8826,996-284,1279,1713,669149,1X122,830--50,8561,3118,3332,526---481,6049,803,15,262891,18010,721 14 6017,9)54,73198:1,03025,6391,264661-88,8534,161 10253--10,263551---8 ,4433431,194-281 ,9865,172--7,2254912,760350--131,6444,191873,522839 1192,917559--150,1921,987---9,1192162.8011----113,9391.6701,021 245 579 577 268 2,690 1,174 666 664 309 3,894 29 950 2,306 90 755 572 161.79 565 ,598 1,474 246:12 242 46 6 113 13 250 15,719 54,2(X)TLC Se-ice., Inc.ClintOlI Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Index At*tivitv Ue!Ocrilltion PERIOD 40* Large Compouent Removal 48 Dirtxcl DlICOUlmilAAl(miug Al'tiviholl-Nut"kar SII'am fiuPIJly Sy!'<tpm Rl'nloval 411.1.1.1 RlITulatmn Hy"h'm Pipiug & Valves 4a.l.1.2 Iknrnlilllion Pumps & Motors 4n.l.1.a CROMs & Nb Removal 411.1.1....

RtlAdorVt\'l$JI Internals -In.l.I.5 V,",<w1 & IUM'roals GTCC Di"'Im. ... d -In.t.I.O Rt*adorVcsllt.ll -Ia. I. I Totals CII>lt'8dmg

('iliIlii

[nlln Clt'an DuilUin/:

Ikmoiitlon 4.d ..... l R"llctor Buildmg -Ia.l.4.2 Au.:uh8ry BUlldmg 4a.l.4.a Radwostc nUlldmg 41l.1.4.4 Turbinv-BUilding 4a.I.4.5 Ful'l Building 4a.l.4 T(ltals Di .. po .... 111 of Planl System!! 4a 1.5.1 Ar!(j

& ITllndhng 4a.l.5.2 AuxdiarySblom 4a. Ui:l Breathing Air 4a.l.5.4 C02 & Generator PUrgll 4a.1.5.5 Cautrtk Handling 4a.l.5.S elwin Radwasltl Rt.'!l(l)Ct..'l'u.ing

& Di"II1.)&11 4a.I.S.7 Chlll ... -d Water* RCA 4n.l.fid-l Water Non*RCA 4a.1.5.9 Chlorination -Ia.t.f).tO CirculatingWlltcr-RCA 4a I 5.11 CirculahngWalcrNon*RCA 4a.L5.12 t:ntnmnL Aux & Fu(*i Bldg FAIUlP Drain$ 4a.LS.I:1 CntmnnL AllX & Fuel Bldg Floor Dram!! -Ia.1.S 14 {'ompOnl'flt

('ooling Water Non*RCA 4n.l.5.15 ComL;msatc 4a.I.5.16 Thxll'to:r 4a.l.5.17 CunrumllJlitl Polishing 4n.1.5.18 Coud.m"'l'r Va('ullm 4n.l.5.19 Contmnment Cmllbth'ltlble Gat! 4a.I.5.W Cyd(>t.\ ConJ,,'tmaw 4a.l.5.:n Drywdl Cooling 4a.1.5.22 Drywdl Purge 4n.1.5.2:1 ECCS EqUipment Coolmg 4a.I.5.24 Extradion Steam 411.1.5.25 Fl'Riwatcr 4a.l.S.26 Fm,'iiwater IIt'ater Dr81n!lTllrbln.!

Cydll -Ia.I.5.27 Ft'I,dwalcr fIt'llwrMi.s<:-.

4a.l.fI.2H Fliten:--d Water 4a.l.fI.29 (kmllrutor Hydrogen Oil 4a.l.5.:m Gt*nernlnr Stator Couhng 4n.1.S.31 IIigh Pn'mtllre Core Spray 4a.l.a,at lIydrotlcn 4n.l.b 3:1 Laundry BlIIIIP & FIr RW fulH'l)(\"'s 4a.1.5.34 Lmk Dell><:tiufl 4a.l.a.a5 Local Instrument Parwl$ .ltd n.:ltI Low Pressure Con) SIJray .Ja.I.5.37 Machirw Shop &lllillllwnl 4a.l.5 as Machme ShOll Ventilation TLG Services.

Inc. Decon Cost 13 la 51 !l6 !!4 257 Removl11 Packaging Transport Cost LOllits Costs 4n 44 191 :1,718 7,497 1l,49n :un 1,199 1,021 245 579 577 268 1,09(} 35 652 44 1. 16 459 1,:195 2{r.l 51 207 57 114 179 1:17 1,064 963 837 227 00 755 572 1112 79 fi65 5118 1,474 246 5 :15 2tl 294 ;12 242 46 113 13 250 11 14 53.'i 5,512 2,794 8,867 a:l:1 1,114 12 o fill 24 14 155 :1:17 5:1 15 2 43 10 5 64 127 125 17 :12 o 1" o I" o 12 38 107 1,252 1,222 2,flJl 63 217 2 27 40 5. :1-1 166 :117 46 36 42 25 13 65 126 130 14 :16 1 15 o I. 1 10 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 20}2 dollars) Otr-Site Proceuillg Coats 14 14 4a9 1,512 12 In2 5 85 407 237 29 5llO 762 159 255 27 152 176 92 32 210 :168 443 32 l:hJ 4 69 2 73 6 71 LLR Disposal COMt. 7. 281 161 9,024 7,415 3,827 20,787 HI 21 19 410 1,0:16 126 10:1 176 367 3.:10 46 8:1 24 :19 Other Costs 317 a17 633 Total Contine:eflC V 41 97 1.!h1 9,087 1,112 8,0.10 19,1S1 2(}'1 670 15:1 37 67 87 40 404 11 197 7 5 174 421 30 S 94 6 37 56 21 497 ... 277 102 27 246 174 57 25 23:1 328 55<l 62 1 10 123 9 80 12 53 75 Total COIltS 204 501 1,229 !om,007 8,527 24,372 6.',8J9 1,408 4,712 1,174 281 600 664 300 3,094 60 1,1J80 51 22 29 950 2,:lO5 232 59 ... 6S 19.' 300 159 2,879 4,109 1,502 6J6 150 1,:14:1 951!

142 1,313 1,913 3,052 4:>6 5 53 a2 701 47 442 61 314 2J 410 c Lic. Term. Costs 204 501 1,229 29,007 8,627 24,372 63,839 1,408 4,712 1,17-1 281 666 664 3<l9 3,094 60 1,080 2. 950 2,a05 ... 193 300 2,879 4,109 1,502 6.'16 1OO 1,343 1158 3:m 142 1,313 1,913 3,052 436 53 701 47 12 61 :11-1 23 410 SplmtFuel Management CaMS ite Restoration COI.tS 51 22 232 59 65 156 Procewd Volume Cu. Feet 250 2fill 15,719 54,200 493 7,61:1 186 3,392 10,16:1 9,402 344 1,157 2:1,020 :W,26J 0,320 10,118 1,079 6,039 6,91!6 a,069 1,252 8,333 14,601 17,605 1,264 253 20H 5,277 17H 2,760 87 2,917 225 2,8Ofi Burinl VolumE's Class A Clw-B---Class C UTCC Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet filH 2,47:1 0,98.'i 1,388 751 1,075 Document El6-1640-006.

Rel'. 0 Appendix D. Page 7 of 12 Buriali ProcefUled Wt.,LblO.

fi-l,OU4 251,240 131,119 a41,610 Craft Mnnhou.rs 1,078 1,1.J1i "",,475 :1,'),03:1 Utility and Contractor MuuhourH l,th!;j 1,785 351,100 14,:188 25,795 2,0.'>>; aOfi 27.

14,866 1,812 1,481 2,526 5,262 4,731 661 1,194 350 "0 751 1,075 1,526,050 1,78S 2,665,213 707,:158 2,439,000 2/l,012 ;1(19,178 7,571 252,395 656,386 381,817 31,322 0:.1,722 1,272,859 2,071,290

159,429 410,897 4:1,821 :I:lB,957 284,127 149,002 50,856 481,604 891,180 98:1,031/

88,!i.')3 10,263 8,443 281,966 7,225 131,044 a,522 150,192 9,119 113,939 iJ.S,oaa 76,766 6,9:14 22,().'j()

11,450 2,!lli2 6,771 2,912 aO,2OU 57:1 10,6112 877 a73 28.'i 7,957 22,847 a,!).'l8 .,." :1,590 1,09:1 1,8..40 3,0'.l2 'l,Slll 18,802 17,575 14,284 3,912 1,5:17 12,88'.l 9,171 2,ts:ill 1,311 9,893 10,721 25,639 4,101 !IO 550 a4:t 5,172 490 4,191 Sag 119 1,987 216 :1,670 Clinton Poroer Station Decommissioning Coat Analysis Document EI6-7640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 8 of 12 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Activity Uencription

---

Off-SiteLLRW Dec.,, Remnvnl Packaging Trutraport Proceuing Diapo.ul Othe r CoatChatCantoCantoCostaCoat.CoateCo ntingency NRCSpent P ontuSiloProceanedBurial VolumesBurial/U tility and TotalLis Term.ManagementReataratlonVolumeCl..A C eua B Cl..CGTCC ProceonedCraftContractor ConsCant.Cu-CantoCu. Feet Co. Feet Co.Peet Co.FeetCo. Feet Wt., Lb..Mantua.Manhoorn Du,peai of I'bmt Syateonn lmutinuudi 40.1.5.39 Alain SOmm 40.1.5.40 Main Steam iodation Volvo 4..1 5.41 Atukv up lk+mbn'robo'r - RCA 4..1.5.42 Afnke.up Dominemlix,v M,. RICA 4..1.5.4:3 Alnkeup C'mdononle St-g' 4..1.6.44 Ali,.Building Dm-4n -1.5.46 Miir.'I'.noau Ventilation 40.1.5.46 No l.:,r Dailar 40.1547 Oiltin 41.1.6-49 R,1'q,mg 40.1.5.50 40.1.5.51 Scr,n IV- & MU Pump Jim,- V-64,1-U, 1.5,52 4.1.563 S'witchguar Iicnl Rmnovol 40.1.5.54 Turbine Building Ckmed Carling Wat.r 40.1.5.55 Turbine Elurlrohydrnulir Control 40.1.5.50 Turbino Gnn Mioo Donn, & Vvnlo 40.1.5.57 Turl,ine GIond Sent St-, 4..1.5.50 Turbine Oil 45.1.5.59 Turbinc.Gon A., & Mis Dovicen 40.1 5Tntolo 41.1.6,So0tf lding in x01,(,,,10f dammmino0000g 40.1Subtotal Period 4o Activity Cool, Pm,o 40 Additional Gwl.

4x2.1Dixtx,nul otliond 40.2Subtotal Pored 4, Addao,noI Coelo Pern) 45 Collotvrol C.wtn

44.3.1Pmo nn d,n'<Wing ogler woele 4a-3.3Smo111oot allowance 40.3Subtotal Feriud 4, GJioteml Gale Pedal 40 Pori o) Dependent Canto

45.4.1Ibsen ouppli,v, 40.4.21..uronco 4..4.3Property Lora 40.4.4Deol/h physic

>>nupplicn 45.4.5 41.4.6Dinpnnl of DAW gencr5t,,1 40.4.7Plaer nt engy budget 40.4.8NRC Food 45.4.9Silo O&AI Cnn(0 40.4.10 Liquid Radwlnte Prot axing EquipmuoVSorvieca 45.4-11Secraily St016 Coot 40.4.1_DOCStoI Cunt 404.13Utility Staff Cool 41.4Sub(olal Ped ,d 4n Peri anl D,q,ondo ol Cool, 40(1TOTAL PERIOD 4. COST PERIOD 41, - Site Decontaminadun Purim 4b Direct Docmnminwuning Activities 46.1.1Remove oppnt NO rack, Dialn,xol of Plant Syxlemn 46.1.2.1 Crnnponont Gx,ling Wmor- RCA 46.1.2.2 C onloinment Monitoring Z.1.2.3 Control R,d Ddve1.00892822554 2:u22 19:35191115425214loo---2519536--5423512it--11586822--3253854--6032932911002-3171769019--1998983961948337--1590689605212531-201151152603077536--1e01,0631,06315,8261,3201,5256,0933,255-5,9403.3.90832,749:1,301108168322-8674,4174,417 25734,95511,7014, 4518,14124,08403327,235111,437110,21927246103022--1701,3681,30827246103022--1101.3 001,36829150150695264749767662383-2184 1,621 162 665 452 16832476,1414,28464:19561277965,12676920,T29:),(31934,0755,111 83978181218-1,0811-7613,1033,163 2444961--72889389 04015--178787 4742621536614979979010,4893,342--615,66317,:1904962--5,52743012.474---100,4854,0301 269----4,440-1,0.568115--88,6795,325 22----372 41-----6883536-:1,4643382,442--99,1821,9452,511438---126,64 04,379 25------435 195---3.202 42-----751417---16,953569 25-----4262,149---87,2911,29884----3,4 251111)339----1:1,7721,122---544,1476,883---5 0 ,7951,02421,282-864 ,2794,767 1,218241,99746 ,726---12,473,930273,266:114--151,38963,800 1,218315,13572,8357511,0751,78518,436,890473,027:1,101729,464----1,325,88040029,464----1,325,880469 151---9,06429 151---9,06429 15,584-882,7001,537 2,412---97,9653,955 187--7,5951.149 2,113951-1:19,8510,12.5 85264 11 9ti?27 233 42,048 45 406269 545 22 2,048 46 406 545 371 9 75 35 103 8 11 961 641-63030 40229229 84459458 325 3 156330 51 1043 457 17 17 51 45710432,618 3,06 ,63416832-47668,37211,354 104 9'_21,7361 3.278 3,460 817 4,927 1,042588 7311 5,8,2:1,11764itl39,186,11985,941 1788,156 16:1,121266 ((t ,714 233,417 422,857 1788,156---163,121266761,989 104 922 1,605 3,273 3,400 817 4,927 1,042 588 35841,07312,1254,6298, 06324,59169,(1(538,856199,6001198,150 1,449344,50981,1427511,0751,78519,934 ,960473,791765,055 TLC Service& Inc, Clinton Power Station Decommissionirlg Cost Analysis Activity Index A(*tivity Dt'scription DlII{lOI!al of Plant Sysh*ms (nlllilnut.'tl) 41).1.5.39 MIllO Btl'am 411.1.5.40 Main SllJam lsolatllm Vaivu 4a.l.fi.41 Mako*up Dtlmirlt'raliu'r

-RCA -In.l.f).42 Non* nCA -4a.I.5.-4:!

Mnlwup Cnul1:UlMltc SUh .Igc 4n.1.5.-44 Misc DrAm:'! .,I1l.1.5A5 Miocdlant.'Ous Ventilation -Ia.l.5A6 Nudt'IU Boiler -41'1.].5.-47 Oil Transfer 4a.1.5.48 Rendor Ctlfi' ',..;,labon r..oohng 4a.l.5A9 Rcfn",'erlltion Pilling 4n.1.fiIJO Sanitary 411.1.5.51 S(Tt'I!O Hnuoo & Jl.W Pumllllml!lt.

VI'nlilllhon 4a.l.S.52 Standby Liquid Control 4a 1.5 5.:1 Swikhg .. ar lIenl Remuval 4a.l.55-4 Turbine Building Cu-d C(kJling Wah'r 4a.l.5 55. Turbln\l Ell'etrohydraulu:

CA:tnlrul 4a.1.5.56 Turbnlll Gen Mit'!(" Dm!n", & Vents *la.1.5.57 Turbin!.!

nillnd &31 Steam 4a.l.5.58 Turbim' Oil -411. Ui.59 Turbinu*Gtln Au ... & Mise 4a.I5 Totals 4a.IJi &:aITolding In !\UPpuft of

..... ionillg 411.1 Subtotal Puriuu 4a Achvlty (',_osla Pl'ruJd 4il Addihonal

('{J$h! 4a 2.1 Disposal of Sturt..:1 Turhin,* Rotorll 411.2 Sublolnl PeruKi4n Addlh.mal r..<mls 411..;1 Sublotai Pemld 41l f',_ollah:<rni Costs 4I1A.H NRC Fr .. ", -Ia.-4.9 SII_e O&M ('Als\s 4n.4. to I"\tultl Radwallh' Pnxvs><ing El.luiIJffil'lIt/St.'rviet'" 4a.4.11 -InA.l:;!

DOCSta!TC',-()$t 411.4.1:1 Utility StafTCost

-4aA Subtotlll Penod 4a Perrot! Ih'!ll-'ndt'lll Cll$t>j 4a.O TOT AI.. PERIOD 4n COST PERIOD 4b -Site Decontamination

• lh.l.:'!.2

• lh,1.2.;)

TLG Services.

Inc. RCA Decon COllit :!57 17 17 &1 '" 358 Il3Y TableD Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate <thousands of 2012 dollars) ocr*Site Remonl Packaging Transport Proce.uing Cnst CO)lts Costs Costs l,O()6 :Ill 255 2:W 322 I. :J5 I. 115 252 22 lIill :16 35 22 2<" II 'ill 300 51! 260 15,M26 :1,360 :l4,95fi 27 21 457 451 :U118 a,oHi 3,6:14 -11.073 78 244 f,.. m o. 22 14 10 2 30 1,:129 .. 11,701 246 246 10 10 If'" 168 1:t.12h 181 o w 85 15 15 I 40 5 71 1,525 16 4,451 103 103 43 43 32 32 -4,629 218 21 264 62 27 I 61 63 II 5, :1:17 at 536 6,093 83 8,1-41 H22 ""2 8,96:1 61 5 53 ilRW Disposal COfits 233 4 56 :JU 3,255 22 24,064 bI 51 470 Other Costs 1,621 4,:u!4 947 512 64() 5,126 20,:t.29 34,075 -176 68,372 24,591 69,nos 1,08(i (i(l Total Continttenc 371 9 75 35 103 3 40 B4 3 25 5 II 3 60 3 10 150 20 160 5,9-10 867 27,235 170 170 29 69 97 21 84 162 65' 4fi2 141 64:1 '5 77 96 769 :1,049 5,111 11,354 38,866 761 72 17 149 Total .. 2,048 45 405 269 545 2'2 41 30 229 .58 25 195 42 58 25 329 17 98 !JOO 115 1,063 3.,1.968 4,417 111,4:17 l,a68 1,:ms 150 526 676 lIl-l 922 1,78;) :J,273 3,468 817 4,927 1,042 f>8!l 736 5,8>>5 2;J,:178 39,186 00,119 HW,600 :1,163 :l1i9 07 7110 NRC---------Spenffuel Lie. Term. Management Costs C05U 2,048 45 405 545 30 229 458 58 329 17 98 !JOO 115 1,06.1 32,749 4,417 110,219 1,:1&1 1,368 150 474 62:1 IIl-l 922 1,605 3,273 3,4m:! 817 4,9'..!7 1,042 5&! 736 5,895 23,378 39,186 8.5,941 198,150 3,163 :189 .7 190 Site Restoration Costs 269 22 41 25 195 42 25 1,218 1,218 53 53 178 178 1,449 Proc_d Burinl Volumes Volume Cia" A C1AflJi B ci,," c Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet ell. Feet 10,489 4. 2.474 l,OSS 35 2,*142 2,511 417 2,149 84 a:m }:1,:l99 1,251 21,282 241,997 2,969 :n5,135 29,464 29,464 :144,599 2,412 187 2,113 :1,342 62 805 36 -438 4G,n6 :11-4 72,S:J5 151 151 H,156 8,156 15,.')8-1

!lIil 751 t,n75 751 1,075 Document El6-1640-tJOG.

Rev. 0 Appendix D. Page 8 af 12 Burial I GTCC Proce-lI5ed Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. 1i15,66:1 5,527 100,485 88,679 :1,464 99,182 126,640 1fi,95a 87,291 3,425 1:1,772 544,147 5n,7US 864,279 12,473,930 151,a89 1,785 18,-136,890 1,::I25.&<<)

1,325,8&1 9,064 9,064 16:"1,121 1,785 19,9:W,960 88t,7flO 97,965 7,595 l:m,851 Craft Mallhours 17,:!SO 400 .,1,006 -1,440 5,:125 372 6S8 33!l 1,945 -1,379 4:lJ; a,202 751 56ll 426 :1,298 ISH 1,122 6,&i:i I,O:;!" 4,767 273,260 (w,H09 473,027 469 469 29 29 :!66 47:l,7m 1,/).'17 a,9M 1,149 dUty and Contractor Munhours :I,Uti7 IOa,71-4 2:1:1,417 422,857 761,9MH 7i15,055 Clinton Poorer Station Decommissioning Cast AnalysisDocument E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix D. Page 9 of 42 IA wiry IndexActivity Dravription Disp,mal of Plant Systems )contino d) 46.1.2.4Dioxel Fuel Oil 41, 1,2,5Diesel q anersl 41.1.2.6 Di,:+el-Generator Timm Cvntilntinn 41, 1.2,7 Drnins'Loondry to Rmiwosto 46.12,8 F.l.rtcvol - Cl... Non-RCA 46.1.2.0 Electrical-Clean RCA 41.12.10 Ebvlr,vol - Cnntomins vd 41,1.'22.11 Fquip Drain R'dwesw R, pr,o',oing 4b..2.12 Firu Prohrhon - RCA 41,Firo Protoction Nan-RCA 46 .12.14 Flmr Drain Radwusto Repconnoung 4b.1.2.15 Fmd handling& Transfer 46.1 2.16 Fncl Pml Cooling

& Cloa,mp 46.12.17 Fuel Supl6,d 4h. 1.2.18 INAC - Aruilinry Building 46.1.2.19 INAC - Containment Building 46.1.3.20 INAC - Control R

-46.1 .221 IIVAC Font Dulling 41.1.222 INAC - t ebmatory

4" 1.223 BV AC - OR Goo Building 4'72.24 INAC ^

Budwsste Building 4b.1.2.25 INAC ' Sr-in Building 40.1 2.26 IIVAC - Turbino Building

41, L2.27 Hoist, Croons & FAovolorn 41 .1.2,28 Ioolrumant Air - RCA 41.1.2.29 Inslrumca)

Air Nan-RCA 41' 1.2,:X)

Off Gas 4'1.2.31 Plant Servko Wntcr - RCA 41.1232 Plant Scrvica Wt,, Nan RCA

46.1.2.33 Potable Water, 46.1.2.:3 Process Rodialion Monitoring 46.1.2.35 Pnvasw Smnpling 46.1.2.30 Roo- Roolnmlmion 46.1.2.37 Rosso Wstor Cloonup 46.1.2.38 Residua) Rent Rmrnoval 46.1.2.38 Smoot Wneh 41'.7 2.40 Service Air - RCA 46.1.2.41 Service Air Non'IICA 41.1.2.42 Shutdown Service Water RCA 41.12.4:1 Shutdown Scnke Woler Non RCA 40.1.2.44 Snlid Rndwastc Ruprmoso,ng &

O,npoool 41.1.2.45 Stomlby Got Trcwlmont4'1.2.46Suppmso,on P,s,l 0-up & Transrer 4'1.4.47 Suppn, nsion Punl ?,!Am up 4b-12.48 Turb OO RW Cntrl & 0G Bldg 6loip Bran 46.1.3.49 Turb OG RW Cntrl & DG Bldg Fksu Drone 40.1.2TMois 4b.1.3Scolf olding in ouplwrl af,l.rvann Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Of SiteLLRWDecnu Re oval Packaging Transport Processing DisposalOtherTotal CastCastCstsCast.costsCastsCastscontingency 77 68 13101 fi32 93892872:18:1852,1102,180 12134233-44248248 115-11&163 1947331--2671,504)1,50(1-42:324 614101--107582582 923Ilil--1719339.13 3748--46204254 1436253--2471,3591,359-t074-1128197--2011,1031,1113 17 4TO72--152796795---325-2143855--6334434423851178--734054115184----2821212----214-(251214--3417817663113856--(68867867fit85719-22120120352:3112545W-1246666666367982294198-2731,5621,5627193254994--9349649617---319-1252538-382092110119-----18136678363612885-2(81,1821.162771215--221171171321092825-462502505889282:1-2615215225815112040-8142542537919197641-1216566.5624,8617031,18105,3511,207-7,26246,41237,1395,040(022412433-1,3016,6256,625 67 59 88 201,735-2607,6211132701,887--2,2401,12112302279-3171,3707472254178-4438061433229--242182-----2794261)60193160-29527276-10 to 9 1,995 12,1271,680 1,3232101,61:1 55 2 12,1271,6892,391 1,323 1,613 551,0781047 33 835229 3.55 5621151 809 77 68 101 1;995 210:124 74 256739 74,8148,281-10,0722,501)0,(18.5-7,6712,319)2639211,3953,4131,649472612-13,152-:),994-0304-1,887-(0,046- 2,875 2 1,2761,1511 1.846 4,925334-:0,545 3,038,24412211,569 3:00,:104)19,039 553,91823,:392:366,03413,156-3.585 441,81914,444 15,9113463 656,37018,444 93,7591 '105 24,859592 534,00612,947 5,842 162,1955,172 250,6768,426 76.6262,458 407,95712,02.5-1,265 316,3879,72()-12:3 116,7616,52042)89,4513,589 125,493:,884 2)2------3,643 14------2:18 55422,4972,04)193,00210,271212,51217 ,323--9,611 ,517418,603276272--26,6181,0461,7841,297--145,9745,07811.6922,842---6.16,06711,1149-1462,553----I(R1,066,15619------3291,505---61,1352,025(30-----2,:3285,081,230---278,50111,57:1593--24.6831,28111,103362&S, :1672,2641,123328---64 ,1951,024008566--64,9664,2673,033588---156,3726,470 4,453471--227,0395,713 NRSpent FuelSiteProsesnodHurini ValumesBuriol IUtility and TotalLim Term.Management RestorationVnlumeChas A Class B Class CG CCProcessedCraftContractor CastsCostsCastsCostsCu. FeetCu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. FeetWt.. Lhs.ManhunMnnha 606 27 25 7 84 00 678 22 21 6 70 75 1,896 2,133 Dornnlnmi-tiun M Situ Buildings 41.1.4.1 R,-In, Budding 41.1.4.2Auxiliary Building 41, 1.4.3Control Building 46.1.4.4 Diawel C n motor Duliding 46.1.4.5 Radwostn building 41.1.4.6 Tur bno Building 40.1.4.7Fo 4 Building 46 .1.4Task 4b.1Subtotol Period 4b Arhvity Costs 2,9413,625 3491:11 41147)i 1)719 3117329 1,222310 863746 7,2645,316 8,10335,316 1951,9)18-3,04212,99012;995 2955-212847847 157-2241825625-15-69234234 27208-8432,9452,945 69189-787-,8222$22 65626512,4492,449 3662,492-5,66523,11823,116 5,6814,81815,18973,31670,04380,707--2,526,02111,9151,1711,016--134 ,1887,90561,0,19--93 ,4877,976284---24 ,99622,'2741,11673,787--373,57420,1942,7353,45(1-408,70126,8412,5741.117---198,19527,89515,33741,480--3,759,162214,093:1,273232,30274,8.57-.14,480,520729,1)48 TLC Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station DecommiBSioning COIlt Analysis A('tivity Index Acti\'it\'

DCIi('ription DI>lpO$ru of Plant 4h.l.:lA DiOlWi Fud Oil 4h.1.2.5 Di{'!<ci

.&b.l.2.6 DII'$('j*Gcnerntor Hooln V,'nlilnlion -Ih.I.:!.7 Drains*LAundry to RlidwlMto 4h.L2.8 Eltlt"lncal*

Clean Non-R('A .&b. L2.9 Etoclrical . Clean RCA 4b.I.2.IO EIN'lncal-Cuniliminah"l.i 4h.I.:!.ll Etlull} Dram RlIdwlI:de R, proo:t'mling -Ih.I.:!.12 Flnl " RCA -Ib.I.:!.I:}

Fire Non-RCA 4h.1.2.l.&

I-100r Drain Radwasw RCllrnL't.-'$$1n1:

.&h.1.2.15

& Tran$fer -Ih.t.2.16 Fut>! 1'001 Cooling & CIt)(\flUP 4h.I.2.17 FudSupport 4b.t.:.t 1M (JVAC* Awiiiary Buildkg .jb.I.2.tH IJVAC Conl-l1lllmcnt Building 411.1.2.20 ITVAC* Control Room 4b.1.2.:11 UVAC Fuel Duilding 4b 1.2.22 tIVA('* LAboratory 4h.l.:!.2:1 IIVAC* O!TG/lS Buihlml! -Ib.J.2.24 nVAl' Raclwaflte Butldmg 4b.1.:l.:t5 HVAC* StlrviC:t!

Building 4h,1.:t26 HVAC* Turbint1 Building 4b.I.2.27 1100 ..

& F.Jevalor

.. 4b.l.2,:lS In .. lrUlmlflIAlr*

RCA 4h.l.2 . .29 Instrument Air Non-RCA 4b.l.2.:J:O OITGfI'" 4b l..2.:n Plant St!rvinJ Waler* RCA 4b.l.2 :J2 Plalll &'fV<<-ll WaleI' NOIl*RCA 4i1,1.2.:\3 Potable Walt-r 4b.J.2.:N Proct*!j$

Radiation Maniloflng .jb 1.2 :15 PnwA'AA Saml>ling

-41" J.2.:l6 Reactor RIc' ..

4h.l.2.37 Rmu:luf' WaleI' Clean.up 4h.l.2.:JS Rt*siduallh*al RtlIl10vai

-4b.I.2.:19 Senten Wnsh 4h.I.::!.40 RCA "b. 1.2...11 Hcr'l'ice Air Noo*nCA -\b.1.2.44 4b.l.2A5 1.2.016 4b.1.2A8 4b.l.2A9 -4h.I.2 Shutdown tWfVK'e Water RCA Shutdown SerYK"C Wah'r Nan*RCA Solid Radwash! Reproct",,,ing

& Oispusul Standby Gail Trt.'8tnwnt Suppression Pool CltmnufJ & Transf"r Suppn*omion PtlUl MalH"up Turb on RW Cold & Dn OIdj( r"'luil) DnHn .. Tllrh 00 RW Cnlrl & Dn Bldg Floor Vrains Total$ .,lb. 1.3 Scaffolding III l'IujJJlort of titl'COIlHuimlioninj(

of Sih' BUlldlllgs 4h.I .... l RNKtor Btlilcling

.&b.1.4.2 Auxiliary Building .&b.l A.3 Control Building 4b,I . .jA Dit,'sc! GVntlrator BUlJdm,t:

4b.1.4.5 Radwastc Dudding 4h.lA.6 Turhme nuiltling 4b.lA.7 Flwl Buihlmg 4b.l.-I Totals "b. 1 Subtotal {'cnoo 4h Arllvity TLG Serllices., Inc. Decou COfit :t.Y41 :l49 404 117 1,3'17 1.222 1163 7,264 8,10:1 Removal Packaging Transport Cost Cmits Cmlts 67 59 "" 20 1,7:15 7,fi21 1,121 1,370 806 1I!2 842 27 1,078 "" :1.1 &% 282 :lliS 5611 151 I!OO .. 66Ii 6 556 2'2 214 2311 I'" 12 125 6:U:I 61 al'l2 636 7 :125 17 125 119 678 77 l:t..! 51! 258 :J79 24,881 5,040 :J,6:!5 1:11 711 I" 328 a90 746 a,3J1i 35,316 11:1 12 74 14 6:1 1<1 I' I 19 14 II " fl 3!J 7" all J(J 6 15 I" 703 "'" 67. 22 21 7ll 75 2li !lO!l 1,KOO 270 30 72 33 60 2 6. 13 47 14 23 7 "" 28 J(J 6 II 25 82 36 !l !l II l!l 1,0ill! " tiO. 27 25 7 !14 90 34 !!!!3 2,1:13 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) Orr-Site Proeeaalng Costs 1,!l8-l WJ " 22!l 19:1 7 287 "2 15 331 J(JI 101 'B 253 197 72 55 78 14 56 7 45 294 ., 3. 128 I' 28 28 20 76 5,351 124 HJS 29 27 69 a,,,, 5,861 LLRW DLtp05al Costs 17B 160 2a8 aa I' 90 198 .5 25 2:1 40 4J 1,207 a:J 1,91.18 55 57 J5 206 IBO fl2 2,.j92 4,818 Other Costs Total Continl!enc JO

• 13 260 2,2.j0 = --n -JO -II -G m m

• J(J 201 I m 3 a D

• 2 34 22 rn = I 38 18 219 22 4. 2. BI 121 7,262 1.301 3,042 2:12 241 6!l 843 7B7 (lSI 5,865 15,H19 Total COHts 77 68 101 32 1,99S 12,127 I,""" 2,391 1,:123 210 1,6t:! 55 2,180 2.j8 1,50() :124 582 93.1 2M 1,359 74 1,103 7 795 ,5 :14-4 405 21::! 14 17. 867 120 666 1,562 9 496 I. 209 136 1,182 117 250 152 425 656 40,412 6,625 12,996 847 8i5 2:14 2,945 2,822 2,449 2!J,116 73,316 NIl Lie. Term. COfi,tJ!;

32 12,127 I, .... 2,391 1,323 un:1 56 2,180 248 63 1,1)00 58'2 933 25-4 1,:1S9 1,103 795 344 405 176 .. 7 120 666 1,56::! 400 2UY 1,182 117 250 152 425 656 37,139 6.6<15 12,H95 847 825 234 2,945 2,822 2,"49 23,116 70,043 Spenil i uel Management Costs Site Restoration Costs 77 68 101 1,995 210 :124 74 2fi 212 14 l!l 136 :I,:n:l :1,27:1 Procefuwd Volume Cu, Feet 67 74,1:114 8,281 10,072 9,OSfi 7,671 263 11,395 1,649 612 la,152 :1,994 6,:194 I,tun 10,046 7,840 2,875 554 2,290 276 1,784 11,692 2,553 1,505 5,098 59;1 1,103 1,12:1 1!08 3,03:1 212,512 4,45a 7,73.& 1,171 .6 1,CJ67 2,735 2,574 15,3:17 2:12,302 Burial Vnluuwl'i CIa.s,g A 'Clad B Clall. C GTCC Cu, Ff'et Cu, Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet a9 :!,566 2,:J06' 92 3,41:1 472 272 1,297 2,842 1,2:10 362 :128 566 ""8 17,323 471 30,787 l,f1l6 I,Ha9 21:14 3,787 3,450 1,117 41,41:10 74,8.'i7 Document Ill. 0 Appendix D. Page 9 of 12 Burinlf Procellftd Wt .* I.bs. 4,925 :1,0:18,244 336,aOO 553,918 :IfW,934 441,819 15,91)3 656,370 9:1,750 24,859 5:14,096 162,195 259,676 76,626 407,957 :1l8,31i7 116,761 89,451 125,493 22,-197 93,002 26,618 145,974 6..16,067 10::1,666 61,1:15 276,501 6$,:167 (;4,195 64,966 156,372 9,611,517 227,08:1 2,526,021 134,188 9:1,487 24,996 :17:1,574 408,701 198,195 3,759,162 14,480,520 Craft Mlluhour" 1,276 1,15f) 1,841:1 :134 :1J,545 1211,569 19,039 2:J,:nr2 1a,l56 14,444 4ttl 18,4.&4 1,!'I05 592 12,947 5,8.&2 5,172 8,426 2,458 12,025 1,2611 9,72(1 12a 8,528 42!I a,589 :1,H84 3,64:1 2:lli 2,0*1() 10,271 l,046 5,978 11,11.& 146 5,156 32U 2,025 2,:128 11,57:1 2,264 1,024 -4,267 6,470 418,603 95,7J:J 112,915 7,mom 7,976 2,274 28,194 26,841 27,1i!lfi 214,119::1 729,1146 Utility Illid Contractor Monhuurll Clinton Pinner Station Decommissioning Cast AnalysisDocarnent E16ag40-0060, Reo. 0 Appendix D, Page JO of 12 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Of7SiteLLRWDrvon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal OtherToted CastCostCoolsC..t.coatsCastsCostsCnmingency95420219062022,260 548 35 35 Activity lode.Acuvity nescripNnn Period 4b Additional Costa 46.2.1Lc-so Termination Survey Planning 41.2.2ISFSI Lirvoo o Toaninal, .n 4b.2Soblotnl Period 4b Additioml Cool NRCSpent FuelSiteProcessedurinl VolumesBurial/Utility and TotalLie. Term Management RestorationVolumeCassA C lass B Class CC CCProcessedCroftCnntractar CostsCostsCoat.Clot.Cu. FeetCu. FoesCu. FeetCu. FeetCu. Feet WI., Lbs.Manhours Monhoses 11,2431162,7502,3682,560162,7502,3038,360) 1,240 1,949 1,8491,240 1,849 3,090 Period 4b Cuilaleml Coma 46.:3.1P__ deemno,oo ,oning or wool,, 46.3.3SmalI la, i allawsnco 46.3.4Dironu....ioning Equip-,a Di.l,oo,lloo 4b3Subtotal Poeiol 4b Collaleml C.I.

P-7'43, Peri.d-Dolrondent Cls 46.4.3Ikcnn nuppliox 4h.4.2in,mrnme 46.4.9Prop'rty 1a%e.

4b.4.4Iloalih physics suppIivu 4b.4.5lesvy equipment mud 4b.46Disl000,I of DAW gemrni,-d 4b.4.7Plant oneryy budget 4b.-I SNRC Fvim 46 .4.9Site O&M Cots 46.4.10 Liquid Rd.-u-Pnxr,so,ng Equipmenlolrv, oo 46.4.11Sirurity Stoll Cost 4b.4.12 DOC Stnlf C-4b.4.13Utility StsICool 4b.4Subtutol Period 4b PerilD,.pendenl C.M.

4b0TOTAL. PERIOD 4h COST PERIOD 41-License Termination Puriod 4f D,r,ol Ducommi..ioning Aclivilioo 41.1.1ORISE ron0nn1h,ry .urvey 41.1.2Termimle Iireme 41.1Soblolal Poriod 4f Activity Cools Period 4f Addiliomd Costa 41.2.1Liccnw, Torminstlon Survey 41.2Sublotnl Period 4f Additional C,,-

P, n,xd 41 C.nllnleral Grote 413.1DOC staff rcl,ooI,on oxprnmm 41,3 Subu,toi Period 4f Clint..]

Coe1e P ,'ml 4 PeriolDep oodonl Coot.

4(.4.1tonor.nre 41.4.1Pmiarty taxo.

4fA.3Uosl/hph MW.uppli,x 414.4Dl.posalogommtod 41.4.5Plant energy budget 44.6NRC Fe,w 41.4.7Silo O&M C is 41,4.8Security Slag Cool 41.4,9DOCSt.RCosl 4f.4. 10Utility Stag Cool 41,4Subtotal Period 4f PerixlDepeoknt C,-

40TOTAL. PERIOD 4f COST PERIOD 4 TOTALS 81424424 1037867811 56444444 2391,0531,653 5782,8992,8891,2311231,3541,:1.542,3792:182,0172,617 9954,9754,1175 6575,9375,0872364 670-1981,1491,1494,9657455,7105,7101,3/01391 ,5291,5297511138648641411,0801,0897,5251,1298,6548,65429,10)54,3633:1,44733,44747,3687,09054,40554,4952,3128,35123045-67095,57316,514123,709123,70910,46144,3072,8972,3736,3/295,879117,83332,489201,768196,64517552227227175522272274,12017,85217,8524,12017,95217,8521,11)501541,1841,1841,0301541.1841,184385:1942442474574819819817-2041,0211,021063535414624774774:044479479235352702701031441,1071,1075,1947795,9745,9748,7221.0087.7317,731 81771-2 1 115,0852,39618,38718,337 61771-2030,0326,72337.01037,03010,81886,28714,4397,00314,99230,4801 90,87078,009438.967432,396---229,404374 155,179_332,71)3-585,95411,47:1---229,4643741,1173,83131,8493,273238,3 0280 ,3 35--15,204 ,00782,8561,082,00223,57:1:1,1211223,5733,1211347--6,945.-1911.51.78,829347--6,94811149,211--6, 948223,5&5152,3811,8494,722582,901170,8247511,0751,785:15,146,5301,4313,2 8 22,100,022 40 684 40 2,312:1,9111 4,351 122-145 3810744 160167189-432 6,180635 6,01811,66725,1/298488331,810172 TLG Services, Inc.CUnton Puwer Station Decommissiuning Cost Analysis Activity I Index Activitil;;

Dt'scrletion Pt'no<l 4b AdditionAl Co"hl 4b.2.1 l..iccnlW Tcrnunnlioll Planmng -Ih.2.2 lSFSI Llcl'nJ:!.C Termmull '0 -Ib.2 Sublolal Period -Ib Additional CWl.W Pt'nrnl-lb C{)lIall'rnl

('mobl 4b.a.l Pro(."c.;s Ut)l(omlnl""lOning wal,er wash! 4b,3.;) Smalilooi Illlow>>.nt't*

4h,aA ik'Comml$l!lioning Eqlli(lIlWllt Di,,!H)lutton -Ih.a Subtotal Pllriod 4b Collateral COtIl8 PcnOiI 4h Perloo.Def.t4.*ndt'nl Costs 4b.*tl Dt'("on SUpplies .. bA.2 IO!'\lrHOCe .JhA.:l Propt>rty laX!'!! .. bAA fIeallh IthYJ:'.ia suppli\ll\

4b.4.5 U,'IIVY IJquipmt'nl mowl "b.4.6 DiJ:'.pos.Il1 ofDAW gClWrn\,'fi 4bA.7 Plant cnergy budg'llt 4bA.8 NRC Fet's -IbA.9 fiIlI'O&M Cosw 4h.4.10 Liquid Radwash' PrUCfl,. .. mg E'IuipmcntIHl'rvw., .. 4bA.l1 &'Cul"ilyStaITCrnlt 4h4.12 DOC Staff Co"t 4bA.l:1 Utility S!offCruot 4b.4 Subwtnl Period 4b Period Dt*pt*ndeol Co:>tl"l -Ibn TOTAl. PERIOD .. h cosr PERIOD 4f License Tenninl\tion Period .. r Dllx-d Adivili<)8 4f.1.I ORlSE confirmat.ory tlun'ey 4f.1.2 Terminate IkttrulC 4f.} Subtolul PerIOd 4f Ach\'ltv C08ltl l','nod 4f Additional C...ostl>

-1£.2.1 Termmation Sur\,\)y 4£.2 Sublotlll Penod -If AdditIOnal Co"l" P .. ri(){l -If PI' nod Dqrend.*nl Co"ts 4fA,} lnllurarN'C 4f..l.2 PnJIK!rtytaxeli 4f.-1.3 lh*alth IlhY>l1C1l oluPl'lit'>l

.. r.-I.4 Disposal ofDAW gcrwfllh>d

.. fA,5 Plant t'nt'rg)'

budgttt -IfA.6 NRC Fco.'Ii -If.-I.7 Sitl' O&M C.(fflW 4£.4.1\ Soc-urity SlniT('.ruot

-1[-1,9 DOCStliffCod 4£.4,10 Utility Sluff Cmot -Ir ... Subwtal PerIOd 4f Pcrwtl.Dcpt'lIolcllt Costs 4f.O TOTAL PERIOD -If COST PERIOD 4 TOTAL'i TLG Services.

Inc. Dl'<'on Removal Packaging Transport Cost CM' Costs COiota 3M 35 3. 35 -Iti ao 122 .84 l:m :18 46 684 168 150 :1,:1)2

-1,380 236 45 2,a12 8,aoo 2:Hi 4. lO,461 44,:197 :l,am 2,:11:1 817 ali 817 W,8HI tln,2117 14,4a9 7,00;) TableD Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) Orr-Site LLRW NRC PrOCi)uing Dispoul Other Total Total Lie. Term. Costs Costs Costs Continllencjt Costs 954 286 1,240 1,240 202 1,306 262 1,"'" 202 2,260 548 3,000 1,24\) 145 81 42-1 424 103 788 788 Jii7 44 5£ 444 444 167 189 2:19 l,fUhl 1,6i13 578 2,SIID 2,HS9 1,231 123 1,354 1,:154 2,379 2:18 2,617 2,617

.. 5 4,915 4,!l15 657 5,031 5,037 671l 198 1,149 1,149 4,965 745 5,710 5,710 1,:mo la9 1,52!1 1,529 751 113 864 864 9.19 141 1,080 1,""" 7,525 1,129 8,654 8,654 :,m,085 4,363 3a,447 :l.a,447 47,:108 7,096 54,405 54,-l05 670 95,573 16,514 123,709 123,709 {i,lt19 5,810 n7,&13 32,-189 l!Ol,768 196,645 175 52 227 227 175 52 227 227 1a,7aa -1,120 17,842 11,852 1:1,733 4,120 17.652 17,852 1,030 1'" 1,184 1,18-1 1,030 154 1.184 1,184 3115 :19 424 424 745 74 819 819 204 1,021 1,021 "0 :15 35 414 62 477 477 4:Ui 44 479 47. 235 :J5 270 270 00:1 144 1,107 1,107 5,194 77. 5,974 5,974 6,7'2.2 1,008 7,7al 7,7:n 20 15,095 2,396 18,3:17 18,337 20 30,032 6,723 31,600 37,600 14,9V2 3U,490 196,870 78,068 4:lH,967 4:12,396 Spent Fuel SUe Processed Burial Volumes Management Reswration Volume CluuA ClaMB CiauC Costs COlOts Cu, Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu, Feet UW9 1,849 1,938 4:\2 6,000 HaS 6,000 1,1l67 11,47:1 11,47:1 1,8-19 a,273 2:18,:102 69,:t35 a47 3-17 3-17 l,tH9 4,722 582,901 171l,824 751 1,1l75 GTCC Cu. Feet 1,7H5 Documellt Elfi.lfio/.O-006, Rev. tJ Appendix D, Puge 10 of 12 Burial I Utility and Processed CruCt Contractor Wt .* Lbs. Mllnbourl>

Manhours (I,2-<<J 16:t,750 2,;l(tl 2,000 Hi2,75(J 2,:Wa 8,_ 25,9'19 84 :ros,961 88 3;)1,890 172 229,"64 :J7.J 15fi,179 ;I:l2,7(J:1 585,954 229,464 374 l,(J7:J,&!{i 15,204,630 7:1;;1,856 1,082,6:1li 22:J,57:J

1,1

.lU 2XI,57:1 :1,l:W 6,9*HI 11 tH,fiat 56,7:n 7:I,lt.W 6,948 11 149,211 6,948 223,585 152,:1:11

15,146,5:10 1,.J:lU,2:t.l 2,1)(11l,U:!:!

Clinton Porucr Station Decommiaeioning Cost AnalysisDocurnent E16-1646-1106, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page II o/12 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 do,lars)

Activity IndexActivity D...riptinn PERIOD Sb - Site Resmration Perini 5b Diroo t Den o mianioning Activitioo 0f0-s"'LLRWDeco.Removal Packaging Transport Processing DisposalOtherTotal CootCoatCu.,.Cu..CosCostaCu..Contingency NRSpent FuelSiteProeesaedRacist Volu,nea--- --11.6.1 1Utility and

---

TotalLic. Term.

Management RestorationVolumeCl.ss A ClassB ClutsG CProcessedCraftContractor CostaCoatsCu..CoatsCu, FeetCu. FeetCu. FeetCu. Feet Cu. FeatWt., Lbs.ManhouraManhaurx 31,761 Dumolilion of Ron in,ng Si(e Ruitdings 51.1.1.1 Rracua Rnilding 56-1.1.?Auxiliary Building 56.1.13 Circulating Wales Srroenhoono 56.1.1.4Cu,tml Building 561.1.5 Di,".4:,Building Building 51.1-1-6 6lo L,,-U, Woter Pump Ilnoac fib.l.1,7 Work 56.1.1-8Mi-... u., n..,... stnmtnnre 5b.t.t.911.6,Building 56.1.1.10..r.Pudding 56.1.1.11 T 5b.1.1.12 T s...e P:,ild,ng 56.1.1. t3 Turbine Ildaatal 56.1, 1.14 Fu,d Building 56.1-1Totals Site ('loon U t Acl,video 51, 1.2It.rkFill Site 66 .7.3C.-Ic&landrai,v solo 51, .4Final report to NRC 5b.1Subtotal Pariml Sb Activity Cm,to Period Sb Additionol toots 56.2.1Concrete Crushing 56:1:1Senrvnhousn CoOerdnm Sb.2.3Dia:hnri,, Flwne & Unit 1 E...vat5on Bnrk011 66,2 .415Fti1 it, Rcntoratinn 66.2Subtat.l Period 51, Additooosl Costs Portod 5b Collntmnl Cools 533.1Small tad Alu--Sb.3Subtotal Period 5b tolh,tor.I Cana Period 51, 1'oroodDependent Costa 5b.42Porp o rty taboo 56.4,3 b'o'y taluipmcnt cr0151 Sb.4APlant energy hodg,4 5b.4.5Site O&M Coma 51,So'oonty Staff Col Sb,4.7DOC Staff Cmu 56.4 .6Clitity Stall Coat 5b.4Subtotal Penal Sb Periat Daprm3rnt Cants SbItTOTAL PERIOD 61, COST PERIOD 5 TOTALS TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION 2,201 3,6(19 5,2&5 1,858:180 1,7852,7W2 5,212 4(2173 5,3241,2'13 2,442 38,447 109 2,154 4(1,7111 5,959-5,959:5,89455,894-23,067150,02014,7507,77014,992 8(i96,659 3302,533 5414,1511 7906,054 2762,1:16 57437 2682,663 4173,199 7826,694 60461 26199 7996,123 1641.497 3662,898 5,76744,215 16125-3232,477 19529224 1956,13847,0412.2642262,41)18946,853110)957257151078292,9274:193,3&115,2612,28917,5518,4791,2729,76130,2775,32241,65830,53112,85199,27530,63112,85109,275724,069109,0671,135,501 1,515---92291,753 I,191f3--1641,260 5,440---8166,256 718--50115884 8,769---601,32410,153 455---(i8623 455--68523 52:1 523 2,491 6,853---3,:166--511 70917,551-----1)9),6749,751----92,1512,49139,067---3011,5342243,37405,677-510,721:111,2542243,37416,677------510,721311,254666,212367,871101,418582,001160,1707511,0751,78535,438,0802,122,2 2 87,067,703 6,659 2,5334,150 6,054 2,136 437 2,063 3,199 5,994 462 199 6,123 1,407 2,608 44,215 2:1.24138,418 5(1,576 211,2:145,1)9)21,22744,561 58,440 5,.5852,463 0,415 12,474 26,70 443,457 224 224 125 2,477 46,817201 4,449 448,106 7,355-10,159 37,0598,042111(162,614160 884 884 1,7531,260 6,2.56 9,269 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Indt'x Ut'l)cri&:;tion PERIOD 5b Site Restoration P,-noo 5b Dih-'Cl Dl,(,OInmllAAuming D,mlOlihon of Rt!OlIunmg Site BuildingJl R,>Ilf'lor Building Auxiliary Building 5b.ll.a Cil'fulatmg Water &n*.mho\llm Sh,LlA Control Building 5b 1.1.5 G *.

Sb.I.I.1i Wah'f' PUlTl}1 lInuse ,lih.l.1.7 Mi..ccllnnooll." Silt. Work 5b.U.S Mist'cllaO('Ous 5h.l.L9 Buildmg Servin! BUilding Tmnsfomwr and Tank Padll bb.I,1.12 TurbiM Buildmg Turbine Pt'lltti<lal Fud Buildmg Sb,LI Totall) Bit .. CIOSt'<.JutA\'IIVillcll.

Sb.I.2 BackFill SIW fib.I.'] Grade & lanl1""'311<'

lI.ih' 5blA Finnl report to NRC Sh.l Subtotal P{!riod 5b Adivity ('(kttli 5b AdditIOnal Co.-tl) 5b.2.1 COilCrt!tu Cru,,;hlllg s,'rt'<JnhOIls.e Co(feniam Flume & Umt 1 ExcaVatIOn BII('kf,1I ISf1H Siltl RL'>IIf)fRtlOn ab.2 Subtotal Period 5b AddItIOnal Costs Perwd fib Collateral Co,;!!! N>cunty Staff ('..<)$1 SbA.7 DUCStllffCo.<l 5bA.8 UtdityStalTCOIit 5bA Subtolal Period fib Dc)wndcnt Ccm! .. ShO TOTAL PERIOD fib COST PERIOD 6 TOTALS TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION TLG Sen..ices, Inc. Dl!con Removal Packaging Co,..t Cost Costlli 5,7!11 2,:W2 a,6t19 5,26.'1 1,8118 :180 1,7&'> 2,75'2 5,212 "" 17:1 5,;)24 1,22:1 2,.J42 a8,.J47 10.4 2,154 40,710 1,515 1,000 5,440 7tH 8,769 455 ,55 5,959 5.H59 5.'),894 55.894 23,067 150,020 14,756 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 20}2 dOllars) rr.site ----iJ:..RW NRC Transport Procl!uing Di8p08al Otber Total Total Lie. Term. Costs CasU CCHlhl COllits COllits Costs Ill,. 6,65!) 3:10 2,53:1 541 4,IM) 790 6,054 279 2,1:16 57 437 26. 2,053 417 3,199 782 5,994 60 4'" 26 lIID 79. 6,}23 '"' 1,.J07 366 2,1i08 5,767 44,215 1. 125 a2:1 2,477 19S 29 224 224 19' 6,136 47,041 224 2:t9 1,753 164 1,260 816 6.256 50 115 884 60 1,324 10,153 liM 523 68 523 2,:.'64 2:l6 2,*UI1 894 6,853 Ino 9. 725 715 107 l.i:t2 2,927 4:19 :I,:l66 15,261 2,289 17,551 8,479 1,272 9,751 :10,277 5,322 41,558 aO,5.11 12,851 99,275 224 :10,531 12,851 99,275 224 7,770 14,992 31.761 724,069 169,067 1.135.,501 666,212 Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Management Restoration Volume ClussA ChuaR Claue Costa Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet 6,659 2,&aa 4,150 6,054 2,136 437 2.05..1 3,199 5,994 462 199 6,123 1,407 2,808 -H,215 125 2,477 46,11]7 1,753 1,260 6,256 &l< 8'" 9,269 52;) 523 2,491 6,853 725 82'l :J,:J66 17,551 9,751 2,491 :m,067 :1,:114 95,677 3,374 !1,'l,677 367,871 101,418 582,901 !till,17D 751 1,075 GTeC Cu. Feet 1,785 Document 1:.'16-164f)..006.

llev. a Appendix D. Poge 11 of 12 Burial I Utility and Procaased Craft Contractor Wt ** Lbs. ManhouUi MUlIhourH 65,Oot 2:1,242 :lS,41H fj{i,578 2Il,2:l-l 5,100 21,227 44,561 58,440 5,585 2,4f';l 0:1,415 12,474 26,720 443,457 2m 4,449 44M,too 7,:155 10,159 :17,059 8,042 11;0 62,ln4 161l fili.7tm 1HO,fl7-1 92.151 3011,5:14 510,7:!1 :111,25-l 510,721 :111,254 36,438.,080 2,122,228 7,067,703 Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analyst.Document E16

-1646-066, Itep. 6 Appendix D, Page 12 of 12 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

O -Site LLRW I ActivityDemo Removal Pnekaging Tenon port Proces o ios DisposalOtherTotal lodesActivity De<<criptinnCnvtCoatCostsCostsCreteCo.,.CottaContingency TOTAL COST DECOMMISSIONWITH 17

.494: C ONTI NGEN CY:$1,1.75,581 thousands of 2012 dollar.

OTAL NRC LICENSE TERMINATION COST IS 58.67% OR:$868,212 thousands of 2012 doll...

'PENT FUEL MANAGEMENT COST IS 32.4% OR:$367,871 thousands of 2012 doll...

NON-NUCLEAR DEMOLITION COST IS 8.93'. OR:$101,418 thousands of 2012 dollars OTAL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BURIED (EXCLUDING GTCC):181,996 cable feet TO TAL GREATER THAN CLASS C RADWASTE VOLUME G ENERATED:1,785 cable feet OTAL SCRAP METAL REMOVED:75,986 tons OTAL CRAFT LABOR REQUIREMENTS:212$ 228 mmi-hour.

End Note<<:

ofa-,ndiau shot this nativity na charged an d....... vn:vo,ng exµ,n iv:laalc<< that lion activity Porto, mad by dccammivoioning <<4t R.

II in:lirulen lint thin vntue in less th e n ll.ihni i

<<non-eem.n colt ru.taining"-' indicalen a um vNue NRCSpent FuelSiteProcessedBurial Velours.11.4.11Utility and TotalLic. Tenn.

Management RestorationVoiumeClass AClass BClosoCGTCCProcessedCragContractor CastsCo..CastsCotsCu. FeetCo. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lb,.Monbnuro Monhourn TLG Services, Inc.Clinton Power Station Dccammissionillll Cost ... 1.nalys;s TableD Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) Ott:..site NRC SpenfFuel Activity ludell: Decon ('m.t Removal Packaging TraDlloport ProctUlsing Costs Disposal Costs Other Costs Total Continll:enc Total C08tS Lie. Term. Management Activih' Description Cost Costs Costs ftOTAL caST TO DECOMI\USSIONMTH 17.49'. CONTlNGF.NCY:

'OTAL NRC LICENSE TERMINATION COST IS 58.67 .... OR: -'PENT FUEL MANAGEMENT COST IS 32.4* .. OR: NON*NUCLEAR DEMOlJTJON COST IS 8.93-. OR: 'OTAL LOW*LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BURIED (EXCLUDING GTCC): FTAL GREATER THAN CLASS C RADWASTE VOLUME GENERATED:

'OTAL SCRAP METAL REMOVED:

OTAL CRAFT lABOR REOUlREMENTS:

End Notl'#: TLG Services.

Inc. 51,lali,50l thousandi-o-,--joi2lJoUars

$666,212 thousands of 2012 dollnrs $367,871 thouaands of 2012 dollars $101,418 thousands of 2012 dollars 181,996 cubic feet 1,785 cubic feet 75,900 tons 2.122.228 mllu"*hours Costs Costs Site Restonttion COf>.ts Volume Cu. Feet Document E16-164o.OfJ6.llf'v.

0 Appendix D. Page 12 of 12 BurililVofiimes -B-utinll Cia" A Cia. B ClllS-IIi C GTCC---Processed Cu" Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs" Craft Mllnhours lJiilitynnd Contractor Munhours Clinton Power StationDocument E16-1640

-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost AnalysisAppendix E, Page 1 of 12 APPENDIX E DETAILED COST ANALYSIS SAFSTOR TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis APPENDIXE Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix E, Page 1 of 12 DETAILED COST ANALYSIS SAFSTOR TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Pomer Stonon Dercut ntisaioning Coat Analyst.Document E18-1640-006, Reo. 0 Appendix E, Page 2 of 12 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

-rd-,Activity Drecriptinn PERIOD 10 -

Stuart- through Tratoltion Period 10 Din-,t Doromminnoning AUivitios iteLLaw Deco.Removal Ponkagiog Transport Proroxxing Dip -.1 OtherTotal CostCostCost.Co..C stnCost,CostsC otiogenuv NRCpent FuelSiteProrroord13.6.1 W.-florist tUtility and TotalLin.Term.M...gemeat RestorationVolumeClass A Class R UM-.7G CProdCraftContractor CoatsCostaCostaCo..Co. Feet Cu. Feet Co.Feet Cu. FortFeet Wt Lb,Manhours Monhours 437 41111 I: la. 1.1SAFSTOR onto' rhorxrtrriuuion --y 10,1.2Pn'porr prehminxry dtan,xnnionoiuning rout 10.1 :1N,,to1 nlIon of Coxsotion of Opornlonx 1..1.4Remove fuel & rourse molerinl In.1.5Noli5rnu0n of Pennenent DnEueling 10.1,6Dtvtctivalc plant nyslumn & Irroarxx waxle 10.1.7poru and xnhmit PSDAR 1..1.8Rnvinw plont dwga

&slsrs.10.1 9Perform dmoibd red xnnvy.

i(0212illEolimate by pmdo,r inv,minry 1..1.11End pnsluct rkurripliun 10.l.l'Dclnilual by-prnducl invnntary 1 n.l.13 Dui-3 major work xeyumue 1..1.14 Pero nn SER and EA 1.115Purf nn Sile.Stwcilr Cool Study Artivily Sin e ifications 1..1.161 Prelwrn plant and fxrililion for SAFSTOR 1..1.16.2 Plant nyslnm.

10.1.16.3 Plant slrurt0nm end lanildings 10.1.16.4 Wnsto mutwgrnuint 1..1.111.5 Facility nod site rkrmonny 1..1.16Total Det.ilyd Work Proaduren L,-1.17.1 Flom nynlema 10.1.17.2 Fxrilityrlonr:

oul&durmoncy t..1.17Most 10.1.16Pr o-on, 00rnnm drying nynlem 11, 1.19DrniNde-energiaenrn.wnt.xyntems 10.1.20 Dr0in& dry N88S 10.1.21Drn iNd, nenergixr rw txmin0led ynl.ems 10.1.22Dt av,Nwroarsounotcdnvxtems 10.1Su140101 Poo' od 1. Activity Cart.

Pori,xl in Additional Coma 10.2 iISFSI Espnnsinn 103Subtot.l Period

1. Additional C.A.

Parini 10 U>Ilotorol Coals 10 3. iSpent Fort Capital and Transfer 1023SubOBal Period 1. Coll.trrol C,wta Prrno1 in R,rnnl Drprndent C 010 10 4.1Inauranen 10.4.21'topariy 10.x.

to 13Rvnllh pb_^..uppli..

1.4.4lluovy eyuit,i...nt 010) 10 3,5Dixinw.I of DAW general 01 10.4.6Plant cmtrgy budget I. A.7NRC Fan 1x.4.8Emergrncy Planning Fees 10A-9Soto O&M Coma 10.4.10Spent Fool Fad O&\I 10,4.11ISFSI Olu'ro0ng Coda 1..4.12Sr'oritySloll Co" 10.4.13Utility Staff Gwt WA Sobtaol Poriai le Parial D,,-dent Crum, 527156 162240(0 25037287 16224187 13519144 12519144 18728215 12519144:18758445 62494718 61492707707 52078596598:19058448448 25(1:17287287'15037287287 2,024:8142,3272,327 1482'217111711 1 5022172172 29845342342 1221414 5,1608:81 5,845 5,840 5,2167805,980 5,Lfq7805,980 13,8.56 13,8582,3962,396547547529529616112,190:1,1883,1981,2681,266-2,729-2,729:36336389:31051058,232-----157,47139,019--423,40050,33755,810:1,727-610--12,19(1205811,871 688 187 1,3(X1 666 187 287 187 144 144 215 144 445 7184,92(1 4,1673,12(3 2,1801 (6.307 100 35,80(112,0511,80813,85812,0511,60813,858 2,178218 109 69-11 2,781417 1,151115 2,481248 31647 777117 9114 7,1581,074:13,9:05,089 897132-31350,8627,528 TLG Seruicea, Ina.Clinton POU1{!r Station Decommissi01ling Cost Analysis Activity Indl'x Dl's('rie;tioll PERIOD la -Shutdown through Transition P"riod In DINt't DL'1."ommimuoning Activities In.1.1 1';'Fb'1'OH

><ih' l'harru'h'ritation survc), 18.1.2 Po.'llfIrt' preliminary dt-"">fIHUI""mtllng COdt 11l.1.a NotifkallOll of CC.\Itlation of Orwralloos In.IA R"mov(' ful!! & lWun:e material la.1.5 Nolifiralmn of Permanent DeCudmg la.L6 D"a('tivnw plnnt

& IlI'l)CI!mI wa"le 111.1.1 Po.'PUtl and submil rsflAR Ia.l.!) Ruvil.'W plAnt dWb'll & sih ("' .... la.U) Perform 111tml\>d rnd IWrvey la.l.lO Estimate by.produd mv.-ntory 10.1.11 f:nd Ilft)l.}OCl dctICription In.1.12 01'luil.>d by-product IOwnlory lu.1.1:1 Odinl! lIlo)Or work scqUI'IM:f' 10.1.1'" Perfonn SER nad F..A lu.1.15 Perfonn Stle.Slwci(tc lA)'lt Study 11l.1.Ui Total Dl'lmi('tj Wtlrk Procedure.;

111.1.17.1 Plant I'Iyl'ltems la.1.11.2 Vanlity ("'lost1'oul

& tiOf'mancy tn.Ll? Tutal IIl1.UI PronlnJ Vlli'UUm ,iryilll{

sYl'ltl-'m IIi.1.I9 11i.1.20 In.1.21 la.L22 Ut'l'1.1n!$l'<'Uru cOnl1lllltnahJ({

systems In.l 8ubtotal Period 1n Arlinty 1'<'rw.:l 1u Adtllhonal

('0.:<1$ 1n.2.1 TfiFSl El.IMUlI'IIOn In.2 Sublotall'eriod In Addlhonal CO>lht PUllud In Culiaterni Costs In.:I.l Fuel Capital and Transfl'r Ill.:! Sublotal PerIOd In Cullateral CU.ll$ Period 111 PllrlOu* Ot'pendent

(',(l."lllI la..t.l In"urance 18A,2 J'mfwMyull.I"1i lIlA.a Health 1'upphw!'

In ... .4 IIeavy nmtal 1n.-l,5 of DA W gcncfi\!'

11 la.-I.6 Plant eru'rgy budget InA.7 NRC la.-I.8 Emt'rgcnry Planning In.-l9 Sile O&M Cost.;, la.*tlO Sp.'nl Fut"! ['001 0&.\1 18.4.11 ISF'SI Opcratinlt

(:\)1:1.1

.. In.J.12 St'('unty Siaff Co$!. InA.13 Utility StnffCOI,t InA Subtotal Period la Cnstl< TLG Services, Inc. -::the Decon Removal Packaging Transport PrOCMsing

('ost Cost COlits Costs. C05t.ll -I:ii -160 13 . ., 13 TableE Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollors) LLRW NRC Disposal Other Total Total Lie. Tenn. Costs Costs Contilllcncv COO" Costs 521 158 6>16 686 162 24 1.7 1.7

• nI.

• 250 :17 281 281 162 24 187 1.7 125 10 144 144 125 10 144 144 1.7 2. 215 215 125 I' 144 144 :187 ** 44. 44. 624 '4 71. 718 614 !12 707 107 020 78 ."" .98 :190 ** 44. 448 250 37 287 287 250 37 287 287 2,02'" :t04 2,:121 2,:121 148 22 170 170 150 22 112 112 298 4fi 342 342 12 14 14

• 5,1)09 8:10 5,840 5,840 5,200 780 5,980 5,200 780 5,980 12,051 1,_ la,858 12,051 1,_ 1:1,858 2,118 218 2,396 2,300 109 547 547 ** 529 529 a6 II 61 61 2,781 '17 :1,198 a,l98 1,151 115 1,266 1,266 2,481 2-&8 2,129 316 47 :wa 363 777 117 89.'1 91 14 105 1,158 I,ON 8,232 8,232 a:I,9:W 5,m19 39,019 :19,019 3lj l)O,862 7,528 59,JJ7 55,610 Spent Fuel Sitl' Proceoed burial Volumes Management Restoration Volume ClauA C .... U CilltlsC Costs ColOts Cu. Feet Cu. Feet ell. Feet Cu, Feet 5JI*) 5,980 1:1,&')8 13,358 610 2,129 119:, lOS :1,721 610 GTCC Cu. Feet Documfmt El6-164(J..(J06, Rell, 0 Appendix Page 2 of 12 Burial I Utility and Proceqed Craft Contractor Wt .. l.bil, Munbours Munhourli 1,:J(XJ a,lOO 5,O{lO -I,!t.W -1,161 :1,120 2,OO[J 2,000 16,201 lfll) :i5,1i90 12,190 :.W 1;;7,-171

• t:!a,.fOO 12,190 :.m 5HO,871 Clin ton Poraer Stalin,, Decor ,etiasioning Cast AnalysisDocument E16-1640-1186, for. 0 Appendix E, Page 3 of 12 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Activity ladesActivity Description 017SiteLLRW Deere.Rernovol Packaging Tronnport Processing Disposal OtherTotal CostCostCo..Co..CantsCostsCo..Contingency NRCSpent FuelSiteProcessedBurial VolumesBurial)Utility and TotalLic. Term.

Management ResmrotionVolumena A Cl... B Clan,, CGTCProcessedCraftContractor CostsCantsCostsCo-Cu. FeetCo. FeetCu. FeetCo. FeetCu. Feet Wt., L1n.Manhnurn Men nun loftTYPAL PERIOD 1. COST PERIOD 11, -

SAFSTOR Limited DECON Activitlen Period It, Dn-t S ao ,oixo,oo,ng irtivitie>>

2 616,761 20 13 3673,122 61,450 85,011)23,565 12,190 10,946 897 6111 11%1416 127 12711104163,261374 433 126 1,4631,303 946 7.912 7,912841 240 1,081 llo o oonat,on of attr Beildi'ge lb.l.i.lR, color building Ib1.1,2Auxiliary Ruild,ng 16.1.1.3Contnd building 11.1 1.1 1.4 Diwnl tlenemtnr nodding 16.5 Rndanata nodding 16.1,1.6 Turbine Building 16.1. i.7Fmdfn,ld,og 16.1.1TWnin 16.1Subtotal Period lb gravity Conte Prrio,t 11, A6 1, l ,. u, I C ^t-1b2.14 1-, ^lo, l r'-4atian 16.2Sol,loyat Pro ud 16 AddI C-1.Peri,sl It, Colint=rnl Cool, it, :ADump rgaipmont It, 32Pn,oono d,xommu,n,omng enter wants 16.3.4Small to ol nttneancn lb 3-5Spent Fuel C.1,4.1

-1 7tnnn5er 11,3Subtotal Portal It, Cotta Wrnl Costa1,6304,9914,89118756166t2166406491891897322,1952,1956541,9631,9631,4191,4193,95611,06911,968:1,95611,86811,999 10,.5881,58812,17612,176 10,5881,58812,17612,176126969968 3161,5651,66510146146 3,111:195'1.3,965:1,485 4033,9139136,1442 ,6793,465 56,016 6,4057,51)3 2,182.1 369 22,68)1 16,275 1:16,519 13(1,.51988,24128788,241287 2,202 11,195 186 Period 11, Rxiod-Dop ,dent Cavta 16.4.1Doom supi,lton lb .4.2Innumnro I 6.4.3Pmp,, Iy too.lb4.4 oopplien lb.4.5Ile.,,}mpup,,,. of no,tal lb.4.6Dintaaol ofDAW o nembvl 16.4 .7Plant energy bodgrt ib.4-8NRC Fees 16.4.9En,orgenry Planning Foen 16.4.11)Site O&M Guth 16.4.11 Slxmt Furl Pad O&M 16.4.ISFSI Opornling Coal, 16.4.1 3Sorority Stall Coat 16.4.14Utility Staff Coat 16.4Subtotal Peril lh Poriod.Ilol.oodont Conte 1b,0TOTAL PERIOD lb COST PERIOD 1c- Preparation, for SAFSTOR Dornmncy Period to Dorol Dooo,mmsnioo,ng Ad-ti.lc.i.1PM"P"' sopped equipment too 0108150 10.1.2Install contninmont P-- oganl. liner ic.t.3Interim aurooy prun to dormer y Ie7.4Sororu building acr'aoro tr.1.5Pmparo &submit interim s=port 10.1Subtotal Period to Activity Gmta Peril to Cottal rnl Como 10.3.1Pmo,'oa dtrnmminoioning ealrr wants in.33Small loot atbwance tr 1.4Spool Fuel Copital and Trannh:r 6692,7522,752-------'40444444---'3033,335:3,335 1668 2 8829-----'17132132------24138138-1,374--27,47645693104797797--1671718318347447522-522.791289so.19429223-22323326261,7852 6 92,0522,1152-------39,1110-8,4591,2699,7989,728----165,561)28581115,3082,66021,25220,482770--1,374--27,47645144,928 129422-67328,81)09,30751,44047,2054,235--2,844-115,7161 441---665075117:91----64545733220953953-7:111648481163031,5881,589 78324-3842461,2181,2181443,01:14523,465-2866;3 115 403 3,032 2,2027783,1X01 700 9,827 144.821)583 480 3 13,527541:)68,716223 1,145 3,465 TLG Seraicea, Inc.

ClilitOlI PowerStalion DecOInmwioning Cost Analysis Activity Ind(')I: Activitv lrdJ TOTAL PERIOD ta COST PERIOD lb* SAFSTOR Limited DECON Activities P"nod Ib DU1,'d D'mI1lUI!I>IiuumlZ Th'C<.mt<llmmatlOn of Slh-nuildin .. Ib.1.Ll R,'ador Buihhng Auuliary Buildmg Control Building Ih.l.l.4-DiL'toIt,*!

Gcnl'rator DUlitiinl{

Ib U.S Rlldwflste Building th.U.6 Turbme BuildinG Ib.l.17 Fud BUilding Ih.U 'fohl!!! Ib.1 Subtotal Period III ,.\('tlvlty C08t" lh Colllllt-ral CO*ts Ot'<<ln Pf'OCt'AA dL>o;<ommW,.mnmg water th.a.4 Small 1001 IIUOwllnt'll lb.:! 5 Spt'nt Fuel Capital and Transfer lil3 Subtotal PIlnod Ib Collateral t:w..t" Perit..:l Ib.4.1 suppliJJS Ih.4.2 In,"urlloce 1i1A.:1 l'mpcrty tU)Il'S Ib.4A Ih'alth phY1U('>I s\lpplit'>j IbA.fi IIt'Uvy mluiJJmt'nt fN11.a1 Ib.*til DispOIIal ofDAW gcncrllh"(l IhA.7 Plant energy budget 111.4.8 NRCFtJC$ IhA.9 Emergency Planning Fet>s Ib.4.10 Sitt! O&M Co",tR Ib.-l.ll ,slwnl Fuel POIlI 0&101 Ib.-l.12 ISFSJ Opt'rllting Cilills Ih.-l.I:J

&'Cunly SI.aIT Coolt Ih.-l.14 Utilily HlnlT Cast Ih.4 Suhtotul Perimllb PtlruJd*OcltetHl,*nl CosLl th.O TOTAL PERIOD Ib CO;.,1' PERIOD lc Preparations for SAFSTOR Dormancy Pt!riod Ie Du\'(:t DocummlS!lionmg ActtvalwliI k.1.1 Pre}lllftl support \.'quilmwnl for ..

lc.1.2 Install nmtainml'nl pn'1'.'4urc milia!. Inws k1.3 Illhmm survey prill( to dormancy IdA building a('("l;'lItw#

k.1.5 Prt'IJaFtl

& submit interim report le.l Subtotal Period Ie Activity Costs Pt'I'I'w;{

Ie Collaleral Cm!.l!!. k.:I.l Pru{"t'1iH rit'('mnllu>I$ioning waler WlIl!t<J 11'.:1.:1 Smaliloollillowiloce 11':1.4 Spent Fuel Capital nnd TLG Services.

Inc. Orr-Site Decon R .. moval Packaging Transport Proeeuing Cost Cm.t (;olibl Costs .. 8117 13 a,:efil 374 4:1:1 126 1,-163 1,30H H46 7,912 7,912 "'I 240 1Il0 416 127 cOIn 127 100 4tH 2,202: (j6,:1 115 2. 2,202 771i 28 11,l!15 UU6 129 422 '" :IH "'" 186 7. Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) LLRW NRC Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Tenn. Costs Costs C .. ", Costli 3. 73,122 10,946 85,01 Ii 61,450 1,6:10 4,891 4,891 lH7 561 661 216 .,. 649 63 I ** I.' 732 2,195 2,195 654 1,963 1,00:1 473 1,4tH 1,419 3,9M 11,868 11,868

1,1156 11,868 11,868 IO,a&! 1,51lll 12,170 12,176 10,588 1,51ill 12,176 12,176 126 !l6I! 968 *m:! 316 1,565 1,565 " 146 146 3,llla 452 3,465 49:J 3,01a 913 6,144 2,679 550 2,752 2,752 .JO:l ,0 '" '" a,oa2 303 3,335 :1,335 11m 829 1129 17 132 132 .0 24 1:18 1:18 (ilia '"' 7.7 797 167 17 UI3 183 '" 47 522 7. 12 9U 90 194 29 223 2:1 3 26 1,785 268 2,052 2,052 8,459 1,269 9,728 9,728 .lU 15,308 2,8W 21,252 20,482 57:1 28,909 9,307 51,440 47,205 66 507 507 * .5 45 7:13 220 9"" 953 " 7:1 II 84 ... "' 303 I,""" 1,51lll :184 246 1,218 1,218 4 4 :1,01:1 452 3,465 Spent Fuel Site ProCNSOO Burial Volumes Management Restoration Volume ClalUlA ClaasB ClassC GTCC Costa C".,t1l Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu, Feet 23,565 611l 1,471 :1,4(i.')

3,465 1,471 1,:174 522 2:2:1 2. 77U 1,374 4,235 2,844 1,1-15 :I,.J6li Document Rev. 0 Appendix E. Page 3 of 12 Budai I Utility and Proceuoo Craft COl1tructor Wt., Lbs. Manhouf!!.

Manbours 12,190 2U 61t1,761 56,016 6,485 7,50:1 2,182 25,361) 22,Ii8H 16,275 la6,519 1:16,fi19 H8.241 2ri7 81l,241 2M7 27,476 .-:lH,2tiO I05,fJt:\O 27,476 45 144,w.m 115,7Hi 1;16,8.')1 144,b;!O :1,000 700 9,827 :Hi:l 13,527 [.1&'1 Iiri,715 22:1 Clinton Poser Station Decommissioning Cost AnalysisDocument EI6-1640-006,!lec. 0 Appendix E, Page 4 of 12 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Off-SiteLLRW ActivityDeena Removal Psekaging Transport Processing Disposal Other IndexActivity DescriptionCostCostCo..Co..C.CostsCosta NRCSpent FuelSiteP rocessedBurial VolumesBurial l-Utility and TotalTotalLIc. Teral.

M...gemeot RostoratiunVolumeCloaoA ClassB Cl..GTCCProcessedCroftContractor ContingencyCostsCostsCostsCo.,.Co. FeetCu. Fees Cu. Feet Co. Feet Cu. FeetWt., Lhs.MonhoursMonhnuro 1r.3Subtotal Porvoi lc Collateral Costs 180 3 78 324 3843,013 6984,687 1,222 3,465 1,145 68,715 22:3 Pero') lc Pvvvot.Depetnlent firsts Ic.4.1I...... e Ic.4.2Pnrperty toyed 1e.4.3tleabh physics supplies to 4.411"." wpipoo nt Hotel 1c15Di-i..,voI oIDAW generated 1r.4.6Phrnt re^.'vv hralyet I,A.7NEC I.Iv.4.8Eov i,- Pl>>nning Fires IoA.9Silo 11&' l Cob 1,,4.1051sot Fool Post O&M 10A.11ISM Drooling coat' Ic.4.12&.'-ovity 5)41 Cost 1c.4.13Uti)ityStslCost I0ASubtotal Period to Pari,ai Dapemknt Casts-279 1c.0TOTAL PERIOD Iv COST18676381325 PERIOD t TOTALS 11,3812,66.5222749 PERIOD to -

SAFS"TOR Dornlaucy with Wet Spent Foot Storage Poriod 2, Direct D,>>

xanmissioning Activities 20.1.1Qunrtvr)y Inspoetion 2..1.25omi-annual envimntuenlal survey 2..1.3Frvpsbc mpW t0 2..1.4Bitnmimws roof rop).ca uont 3..7.5M>>inlvoonv e supplies " 2..1Subtotal Perl<<12, Actin ty Costs Pcri,d 20 Collateral Costs 2>>3.1Spool Foe] Copilal and Tvs nster----49,7119 2. 3Suhtatol Period

2. Collateml Casts-----49,709 633 648 1,151 95728728 137685685 2321 ,4131,4137,45657,166-57,1667,45657,166-67,166 1,602 121,158 39319,127 693 167 474 79 194 23 1,765 8:459 5 915,308 403 3,0323,15424,02919,7944,235--1,297,23,407160,485128,44931,035--4,75140444:w31)33541206171323150479717183475221290292233262662,0521,2699,7'182,15317,754 522_23 26 770-152 3,()3939.2(4)105,5603,0395144,82071,75513,755145,456)199,661150,62516)6'855 444 1),335 206 132 15 797 183 2,1)52 9,728 18,883 Perin) 20 P-iod-Deismdent C -W 2..4.1Insumm:e 20,4.2Pn,i iY tas,ps 25.4.311,nib physics nnpplian 2s.4.4Dislaml-rnl,,d 2.4.5Pt.nt, gy budget 22>>.4.6NRC F^..20.4-7L.i^..i,,e y Planing F,-

2.48&t, (ievlC ls 2.4.9Sp. el Fuel Pod O&M 2..4.10IS i 31 Op, 'rating Costs 2n.4.11&r.uritYSlnff Cent 2..4.12Utility Staff Cost 2.4Subtotal Farad 2. Peril-Dal-dent Costs 2..0TOTAL PERIOD 2. COST PERIOD 2h-SAFSTOR Dormancy with Dry Spent Fact Storage

1,174 21,27254 2,226 1,102 7,613 1,263 3,109 365 20,607 27,049 7021114-5487,779 70219454 1 3 8,6703173,4912,2761,216----2,12723, 4004,40019,000-----176878878-----160292---021--18,419303342, 5001 ,2801,2801101,2121,212-----7618,374-8,374------1891,4521,452-------3,676-3,575------554204203,119123,6987,79115,906-------444,.5114,057321068,62724,480-------329,76911,700100,26828,121874,250--021--18,419:91774,330 19,389158,8372 7,421131 ,416--921--18,41930774,330 Pesos)26 Dint D,vmnmisstoning Activitios 2b.11Qo.rlerly 1ns1at)on 2b.L2Scml nnno s)environment

>>l eurvey 26.1.3Prep.re reports 26.1.4Dilominoooood n-pl

>>cement---2,019 26.1.5Mainten0tae supplie.--1,748 26.1Sobtot o l Perimt 2b Aervily Coats----3,767 30:12,3222,322 4372,1852,185 7404,5074,507 TLG Services, Inc.

Clillton Power Station Decommi$$ionillg Cost Analysis A('tivity Indf'!(

I>f'-'>Cl'ii:tion k;J Subtotal Ptlrltxi Ie Collaleral Cwts l',>noo leA.1 k4.2 Prnp<-'rtyta:u.l1I k4.3 Iil'Ulth jlhyslt"!\

I1lI1Iplh'lI-kolA IIt'llvy C\jUijlllWOl

("IIow1 k4.5 Disposal ofl>AW gNreratcd lrA.6 Plnnt budget k4.7 NRC 11'.4.R Emergl'nry Planning F"HI Ir.4.9 k4.10 811<'ot Fuel Pool O&M k4.11 ISFSl Operating C(lI§hl 11".4.12 St><:urily5taffCWllt IrA.1:1 UtdilySlaffCA.n IrA Suhlotal Perioo Ie

('o,lls 1r.O TOTAL PERIOD Ie COST PERIOD 1 TOTALS Decon Cost 1,," Hlti 11,381 PERIOD .211;. SAFb'1'OR Donmmcy with Wet Spent Fue1 Star .. ge 2a DIn'C1 Adiviticil 211.\.1 quarterly In>lpt,'etloo

la.t.:! &'IIlHmnuul environnwllln.lllurvcy 2a.\.3 Prepare reports 211.1.4 Dilmnmous roof 2n.1.5 MllintclI41nt:esUPlllics 23.1 Subtotlll Perloo 2a AcI!\*lly Co:sts l'f'nud 211 Collah'ral Costs 2n a 1 Spt'nt Fud CnJlIlnl And Trall"r'lr 2n.3 Suhlu!al Pf'noo 2n Collateral COtihi l't,ruxi 20 Pcriod.Dt>l>l.md,-,nt

(',wI$! 21lA.l In,.urant:e 20..1.2 l'nlllt'r-ty 28.4.3 Ih'alth phy;;ws supplies 2aAA DiIlI)()!U'lI of DAW 1fIlffi.)rnb'ti 21lA.5 Plant energy budget 2a.*I.(' NRC Ft.'f.'s 2HA.7 Planning Ft"'" 2aA.8 2aA.9 S(Wnl Futrl Pool U&M 28..1.10 lSFSI OJmrnting CQlIII$ 2aA.l1 St.'("untySlnffCOtlI 28..1.12 Utility StaffCMl 2n4 tillblotnl Pt.>riod 28 PerimlDept'ndcnt Co.,,!!! 28.1) TOTAL PERIOD 211 COb'" PERIOD 2b SAFSTOR Dormancy with Dry Spent Fuel Storage Period 2b Dtn'<.'t [h'("QInmuwoning

.-\diVltl(!lI 2b.1.l quarterly 2b.I.2 St'ml*annual cnvironml'nlnl t<urvl'y 2h.I.5 Mainh'lIl1nre SIIPI)lil'll 2b.1 Subtotal PitnOO 2b Actinl \' Cwls l'LG Services, Inc, Orr..site Removal Paciwglng Trlul$port Proct!8sing Cost Costs Costs Cos .. 7lI :1"'24 Hi5 115 279 7thl 81 :l25 2,565 222 749 7tY2 19 702 m 7(tl 19 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) LLRW Disposal Other Total Total Lie. Term. Costs Cos",

Costs Costs ""4 a,Ot:l ."" 4,687 1,222 40:1 4U '" '" :1,0:12 :lO:l :1.,335 :1,:1:15 41 206 206 17 132 1:12 15 15 69:1 104 797 797 167 17 183 183 474 47 522 7. 12 90 90 194 29 223 23 26 1,7M 268 .2,052 2,0-.')2 8,459 1,269 9,728 9,728 15,308 2,153 17,75-1 16,983 19,127 :1,154 24,O:.m 19,794 1,002 121,158 23,407 160,485 128,449 " 6XI 95 728 728 548 1:17 61!5 6S5 1,181 232 1,41:1 1,413 49,709 7,456 57,166 49,709 7,456 57,166 :1,174 317 3,491 2,276 21,272 2,127 2:1,400 4,400 176 878 878 54 10 92 9' 2,226 334 2,560 1,280 1,102 110 1,212 1,212 7,613 761 8.,374-1,26-3 180 1,452 1,452 a,109 ... :1,575 365 5' 420 20,607 :J,1l91 23,698 7,791 27,049 4-,1l57 :11,106 6,627 54 87,779 11,700 loo,2M! 26,008 54 1:18,670 19.389 158,8;)7 27,421 2,019 aO-a 2,:122 2,322 1,748 437 2,185 2,185 3,767 7'U 4.507 4,507 Spent Fuel Site -Pil1ceued Management Restoration Volume ClauA Costs Cmlts Cu. Feet Cu. Feet 3,465 1,145 152 522 2'.!3 25 77U 152 4,2aS 1,297 :12,035 4,751 57,Hi6 57,166 1,215 19,000 9"ll 1,280 8,374-3,575 420 15,906 24,480 74,250 9"ll 131,416 921 Burial Volumes ClassB Claue Gtcc Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Document Uev. 0 Appelldix E. Page 4 of 12 Burial I ----tJtilityand Proceued Craft Contractor Wt.,Lru..

Manhunrs Manbourli 61i,715 22:J :1,0:19 :W,2IiO Hl5,fJ60 :1,0:19 H4,H20 71,755 13,755 145,40-:1 199,6(11 150,625 90fl,9H5 HI,419 :10 IH,419 ao IH,41U :10 774,a':l0 Clinton Paver Station Dceontmiseioning Coot AnalysisDocument El6-1640-006, Het. 0 Appendix E, Page 5 of 12 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Act tt Drorrip/ion On-SiteLLRW Devon R oval Packaging Transport Pr-sing Disposal OtherTendTotal CootCotCostaCostsC t.CastsCo..ContingencyCostsCSpent FuelSit.ProcessedMortal Volurrtes1150151)Utility and Lie. Term.

Management RestorationVolumeMae A Clans D Claoe CGT CProeessedCraftContractorCootsCo..CostsCu. FeetCu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. FeetCu. Feet Wt., Lies.Mmsbnu .Munhouro Period 2b Colbdoml Cools 21, 3.1Stsmt Fool Cop,l.

l nod Trnnofor 21.3Subldnl Period 26 Collateral Gal,, Poo,otl2bDrlomdoot Coots 21.4-1Ineormrco 21, 4.2Fo,porly taxes 26.4.31lvallh phy0°0 suppli,m 2b.4.4Diopcwxl of DAW getwrsod 26.4.5P)onl crwrgY budget 21.4,(1NRC Brea 21,.4.7Emergency PI.nning Fore 2b.4.8Silo O&M Greta 21,.4.9 26.4.10 Sonority Staff Gat 21,0.11Utility Saff Coot 2b.4Sublol,1 Period 2b Porio,l.0.pendont C -t,,-1,087 2bDTOTAL PERIOD 21, COST1,087 PERIOD 2e-SAFSTOR Dnmm^cy without Spent Fuel Storage 1,238 9,4881,2389,4886,640161)1)7,26012,7581 ,27614,0342721,358241413,5505334,0833,3463353,68024,2622,4 2 826,7104,0286044,6321,1661751,34135,4515,31840,76834,5915,189:19,780 29682 125,77116,812143,788 296-82 137,78918,780157,762 9,488 9,488 26,710 4,632 1,341-40,768-----718,117122,42217,358------426,015745,71998,059-1,411---28,2 21461,145,02950,226107,556-1 ,41128,22140,1,145,0298,25(1 8,2541 7 L(8'2 29 14,034 1,358 141 4,083 3,680 7,260 28,2'214)1 Per on 2e Diroxl Daving Activities 201 -1Seroir.nnn:J^,unmenlsI survey 20.1:3Pn 20.1,4Rimminos, tw,f ^., 1 n0.nt 20.15Mninbmaw auppll^..20.1Sn6totst Period . 0 Ar"ly Cods Period 2, Poriml-Drpondont Cools20.4.1IneummeFre01rly l20.4.31103lth p61-:.^+uppti201.4Di 1,^ ^.d et DAW ti'm,oc,t,d20.4.5Plnnt every bodb t20.4.6NRC Fees20.4.7Silo O&M C-1.20.4 .8S "'nity Staff Cool20.4.9Utility Stn)) Coot 20.4$,1,101x1 Period 2, Ponai-Dupondent Coots.2,85975 5,6478476,494 4,8881,2228,111 10,5362,06812,605 18,4591 ,84620,305 35,6823,568:19,2517153,573 212-63364 9.9291,48911,418 8,5758589,433 11,2661,60 812,956 60,4399,06869,504 51,4)127,71059,112 212195,75137,(414225,916 75 200TOTAL PERIOD 20 COST2,8597514 PERIOD 2 TOTALS4,64812324 PERIOD 3, - Reactivate Site Following SAFSTOR Dormonep Period 3s Dinxl Dona emissioning Arlivi9oo 31.1.1Pn'poro prolimin.ry dsvmtmissioning cMl--16224187 30.1.2Rooms plant dwgs & slwrs.-----57486861 1.3Perform detoilml rsl survey

13.1.4End pnsiuct dosor,ption----12519144 3..1.5Dvlsilod by'l'notoot inventory---16224187:10.1.6Dofine .*, work segos no09371401,077:lo.1.7Perform SER and EA--38768445 33.1.8Pvrf rm Sil.-Spoeiio Can Study--62494718 33.1.9Pniaro/submil Lia'n,x Terminslion 17nn--51277588 33.1,10 R ,ooivo NRC npp-.1 of 1,memadon pl..212 206,28729,073238,520:148 482,74567,252555.1396,494 12,605 187------1,:14M)661-----4041 144-L(AX)1871,:4X)1,577----7.51X)445--3,1141 718----5,1041 5884,098 39,251 3,573 364 11,418 9,433 12,958 69,504 59,112 225,916:116,168235,972111)1,1)7,)14 1151,(151172,6921191, 71iti,78472,6921191,768,71)4 5,1167--119,:13119,:4,595,193 3,(',:35 238,620 T'LG Services, Inc.

CliliUm JloU'erStation Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity I Jude.1 A('tivil\*

Df'1OC'rieHon Pt'nod :lb C(llllllcml Cosls Slwnt Ftwl Capilal um}

Suhtotal Period 2b Collah>ml Cool'!! P"rw .. l:!b I'l'rt,ld*DclWndt'nt 2b .... l In"Urllll:Ctl 2h .... 2 PmpNiy 11Ixml :.Ih .... :1 11.*8Ith physics !lUllplit'SC 2h ......

ofDAW 2b.4.5 Planll'lWl'I.'Y bud gel ib4.fi NRCFI!<'s Emcrgt>Jlcy Fl"' Sill.' O&M 2hA.9 ISf'S1 O,wrlltillg Cw.b 2hA.I0 tM.'Curity Starr Cost 2hA.ll Utility StaffC(ml 2b.4 Subtotal PcrtOl.l 2h PcnOti* Duptlndt"nl

!h.O TOTAL PERIOD 2h COb"T Det"ou Cost PERIOD 2c -SAFSTOR Dormancy without Spent Fuel Storage Pcrl<:K1 2c DireI'! Dt'ftumm!:#!ioflmg Achvitil'1l 2('.L1 21; 1.2 2<' 1.a 2d ... Bituminous roofrt'pJacClmml 2r.1.5 Mamllmaflre sUJlpli\,,, 2c.l Subtotal PCflOtI2c Activity C(>>I.ls Pt*rilld:!('IlJru)(I*Dl'III)ildl.'fli eo...ts 2I.'A.l insul'fuwc 2 .. 4.2 Propurl)"ta;ws 2.:..4.3 Health phYlfIics

!lUPl.lies

teA'" D"'IIOMI ofDAW b'Cncrah-tl 2c4.a Plant l'"ergy budb'ttt :k4.6 NRCFL'CS :teA.; Sill' O&M C{)Sls 21'-.4,8 2<'A.9 Utility SlaITCost

teA Subtotal Period 2e c:o,.ts 2<:.0 TOTAL PERIOD :k COST PERIOD 2 TOTALS PERIOD 311' Reactivate Site Following SAFSTOR Dormullcy Perilld:ln

In.l.l Pr'l.'{l<lfC IJ<<,liminary nlHt ao.l.2 Review plant dwlP! &

l8,1.3 Perform tichul(ld rad lIurvey :lalA End ilrot1ucl deOlenptiun 34.1.5 DI>taill'd by-product inVl'ntof)" :111.1.6 De-fine mllj.lr work $Cqu. oet! :m.1.7 Perform SER Bild EA :Ja.I.8 Pt,riurlll Situ.Spt-'Clfic Study au.}JJ Prejillf1.,f,mbmit Tl.!rmillUlllln I'hm au.l.tO 7'LG Services, Inc.

Removal Packaging Transport Proceuing Cost Costa Costs Costs I,Im7 29 1,087 2!) I ,run 29 2,Hf19 75 14 75 14 2,HMJ 75 14 4,648 Ita " TableE Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) LLRW NRC Dispa&al Other ToUtI Total Lie. Term. Costs Costs CoMs C"" .. 8.250 1,2:18 9,488 8,250 1,2:lS 9.488 6,600 rum 7,:!60 12,758 1,276 14,oa4 14,0:14 272 1,:158 1,:m8 82 " HI 1'1 :),550 533 4,08:1 ",M3 3,a46 3a5 3,680 3,680 24,21\2 2,428 26,710 4,0:U:I 60' 4,632 1,166 175 1,341 :15,451 5,318 40,768 :14,591 5,189 ;19,780 22,422 82 125,771 1ll,812 143,788 45,719 ** 1:17,789 18,790 157,782 50,2:.16 5,647 847 6,494 6,494 4,888 1,222 6,111 6,111 10,536 2.009 12,605 12,605 18,459 1,846 20,:105 20,305 3a,fiS2 3,568 :19,251 :l9,21H 71' 3,573 3,573 212 63 364 364 9.929 1,489 11,-&18 11,418 8,575 858 9,433 9,433 11,266 1,690 12,956 12,956 60,439 9,006 69,504 69,504 51,402 7,710 59,112 59,112 212 195,751 :l7.004 225,916 225,916 212 106,287 29,07:1 2:18,520 238,5:!(J

148 -&82,745 67,252 555.1:19 316,168 162 24 187 167 574 .6 661 fiHt 125 I" 144 144 162 24 187 187 9a7 140 1,077 1,077 387 58 4-&5 445 624 9' 718 718 512 77 588 588 Spent Fuel Sit .. Proce.u.ed Durial Volumes Management Restoration Volume ClauA CIw;sB ClalUiC GTCC Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Ff'et Cu. Feet 9,4H8 9,488 7,260 1,411 26,710 4,632 1,341 40,768 17,:158 98,0611 1,411 107,556 1,411 a,a:!.'i a,IiJ.'i :I,lmD 2;J8,972 5,967 Documellt Ref'. f} Appendix E, Page 5 of 12 Budai! Utilityund Processed Craft Contractor Wt.,Lhs. Manhourl>

MlluhourR 28,221 4fi 7IH,!l7t .J2/i,o.')7 28,221 46 1,1-&l),{)'29 28,221 46 l,H5,!t.m 72,692 1111 1,117,114 tlll1,H.'iO 72,692 II!} 1,711.8,76-&

72,092 II!) 1,76l'1,7ti4 119,a31 195 a,fil!ti,l:l3 1.;J.iJ()

4,000 1,000 I,auo i,5UO 3,100 5,000 4,096 Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document 516-1640-006, Nev. 0 Appendix 5, Page 6 of 12 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

I Activity IndexActivity Drocriptlnn off-siloLLR Doeon Removal Packaging Tronaport ProcessMg Disposal OtherTotal CoatCostC.M.CoolsCoatsCast.CostsContingency NRCSpent FuelSitePrneen.edDuriol Volume.Burial /Utility and TotalLic.Term Management ReatoratlonVolumeClans A Caw B CI..sCGTCCPrncenaedCroftContractor Co.tnCostaCoatsCostsCu. FeetCu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. FeetWt., Lb..MonhnursMauhoura Activity sWx' if naionx lu.l.l1.1 Re.activate plant

& temtmrary bonfitiex 30,1.11.2 Plant "yalemn 30.1.11.3 Renetorin tnrnnln 3..1.11.4 Reactor vexxa4 35.1.1 1.5 SOCnhciat shield m.1.11.6 Molawre,winranrdn'homer.

10.1.11.7 Reinforced mncn+t, 30.1.11.0 hlnin Tunonu

3..111.9 Main C-&--

31 2.t. t t.l(1 Pm<<nnrs aupprannion alncetwu 3x.1.11.11 Drywctl x.1.11.Plant A...Iov o& bua,hngn 30.1.11.18 Wnxte m0nagement 3..1.11.14 Facility

& ite 0kaamnt 30.1.11Toll PI...ino & Situ Prep.mtioon 3..1.12Prepnr o dinm.ntling x,yocnnrx1000:x.1.13Plant prep.

&1e P.3..1.14Donigoooterchnn.upsyntem 3n.iI6Itigging/Cont.Cold 6m4pn/tading/etc la. 1.16 Ponunr cnakNRnern

&emtninern:41.1Subtotal Period 3a Activity Cootn Period 3a PeriodDependnnt 0-

`u, .4.11,-.-3,A.2Pmpurty taxe.0 3".4.3health phynicx '."'It" 3.4.4Itawvy equipment nmt.I 3..4.5Diniamnl of DAW generated

1..4.6Plant energy budget 30.4.7NRC Fovu:30.4.8Sit, O&M Cols 4.9Slaurily Staff Coot 10.4.10Utility Stoll Cons 30.4Subt o t01 Period 3" PenalDapendml Coma Ha -0TOTAL PERIOD In COST PERIOD 31, - Decommissioning Prep.ratinna N-1 31, Dimct D-i eievioning Aetiviti,n 1301,1158953 78598539 1331,0201,020 122933933 97272 19144144 30230115 39300300 393110300 37287287 30230230 58448224224 86881661 1712965-85 8366,4105,841-569 45345345 4353,:1353,3351752621112012,2003302,5302,530154231771772,21817,00316,43451752589569(fill1,0991,099 382---96476476 41111--695295292 30 952522,7814173,1083,198:16236399399316473633633,161474:1,6353,635 11()28,9524,42234,25034,25920,817:1,1232:1,931123,939 3043,7386,64051.26250,6939'205'20 887 812 62 125200 2,1261 2531 200391)574 112 5,574 300 106 60 115 842 842 569 569,370 4,167 7 6,5 ,1)0))0)5161 108)2,088 2,086 2,(66)1,14M)3,120 4,14x)980)44,6332,4001.401 1,2:0)77,559 514-10,287 (15,179 258,629 514-10,28717:123,007 51410,287174111,166 Mtnibxt Work Pno'eduren 36.1.1.1 Want nystemn 3b.1.1.2 React- inhsnnf

36.1.1.3 Remaining 604431000 36.1.1.4 CRD hnnsiuga & Nix 36.1.1.5in,on: u,, n,manlation 56.1.1 6 R,mov.l Primary conlninment 36.1.1.8Li,I,I,,iout tlr.1.LDse., 11.' 1l uhia4d 36.1.1.10 36.1,1.11 Main Tnrlinu 36.1.1.1.2 Mxin Condennorn 36.1.1.1:1 Meoture. xeperxtora

&rebuxterx:36.1.1.14 Rid-t o 6uilding 36.1.1.15 Reactor building 311Toll 36.1Subtotal Perial 31,Aolivily Cools 59189880612 5W75574574 1692519448 12519144144 12519144144 25037287267 45368521521 150221728t1 15022172172 1251914472 2W39299299 261393001W 25037287287:14151392853:141513923.53 4,0890114,7024,252 4,0896134,7024,252 68--4,7:1:1------4,)000 145----1,353)1.146)2,)06)86----1,2/x)1,21x)72---LIAR)2,118112,086 2.OW 39-----2,730 39--2,7311 450----12,741 450----32,741 TLC Sereice., lac.

Clillton Power Statiun Decummissiuning Cost Analysis Activity Jndl'J; Afll\'ity spt"-'Irlfahool' A('tivity D ..

la,1.11.1 He (u*t!vah*

plant & h'mporary f_ihli.,s aa,I.11.2 Plunt "'>"''m

ffi.1.t1.:t RW'Idor mkrnllh" Rwu'{orvl.,fit4

111.1.11.5 Haatfkialshicld

Ja.Ll1.6 MOisluJ'j; 1<<'lmra1 :l1l.1.11.7

m.1.11.8

Ja. U 1.9 ,'Ja.l.l1.1tl

Ja.l.lt.11

la.1.11.12 aa 1.11.13 WI","e managemenl au 1.11.14 Fanli :hU.ll Total Phtnnint::

& Slle PrqlflrlltUJrl" Ja.l.12 Pn'IMire di"mantiing S\"i1wllCC

!lI.l.l:1 Plant jln!p. & temp. "v("e" :la.J.14 wah'rc!t'lln,upllYllh'l11 au.1 15 Higginw'Cont.

Cntrl EtwljJsAollling/ek

la.1,16 PrtX'un! c_kw'lineNi

& nmtfuncfs

,.\..1.1 Subtotal Period :111 Acll\"ily Co .. 11I Period an ('Ilriod*

all 4 1 :SuA.2 all.J a :JaAA aaA.5 :la.4.6 anA.7 :laA.1i Site O&M ('.0,011" auA.9 &..::urity Staff Cost an.4.1tJ UhlilySlAffCOIj.l

faA Subtotal Ptrriod :Ia

..

Cmds :ta f) TOTAL PERIOD 3a COST PEIUOD 3b -Del.'Ommi8.llioning Preparations Pcnud ab Din.'ct Dilt:OmmiwlIOfung Activities Dd .. lil.,d Work Procedurt>';

ah.J.I.t Plant sysli'flls ab.t.I.2 RtVldor mh'rnal .. :11),1.1.3 Rt*maimng buildings ah.l.lA CRD hou!lillgl!

& Ntl! :lh.l.l.r, inslrumcn1atIUn

lh.l.J.fi Rl'moval primary conlmnnwnl ab.1.1.7 R.'achlrvc.I!S-I>i

lh.1.J.B FUnJitydOlll'Ollt ab,1.1,9 Safnfkllli shi.'I!1 ab.l.t.ttl Reinfon* .. *dcollCf1*h*

ab.1.1.11 M"IIIIITurbine

lb.I.Ll:'!

Main Con .. kn""r,. :lb.l,1.1;j ab.1.1.14 buiidmg ah.l.I.ln Rttilclarhuildmg ab.1.1 Total ab,1 Subtotal Perlt:>d :lb AI'tln1y Custs TLG Sf!rvices, 1nc. TableE Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) 0<<.51te LLR' "NIH::----

Spellt Fuel Deeon Removal Packaging Transport Proct'llOsing DispMal Other Costs Towl Continuene Total Cods Lic_ Term. Management COlit Cost Costs Cosu Cosu Costs 3tli 460 842 842 11 30 11 an 11 ao 520 687 812 62 125 200 261 261 250 200 390 574 112 5,574 300 2,900 175 2,2OfI 154 14,786 517 999 2,781 aS2 :116 :1,161 20,1117 28,952 4:1,738 591 500 169 125 125 250 453 150 160 125 260 iHl 250 ;j*n :141 4,Otl9 4,£m9 tali 76 133 122 9 I. 30 3. :19 37 30 68 86 17 636 45 435 26 :j30 2a 2,:n8 52 HlO 00 69 417 36 47 474 a,123 4,422 6,640 ** 76 25 I" 19 37 68 22 22 I" 3. au 37 51 61 61:1 613 Cnsts Costs 1,058 95:1 598 539 I,O:W 1,0'20 9ail 933 72 7' I .. 144 2:tO 115 :100 300 300 300 287 287 230 230 448 224 661 661 129 ** 6,410 5,841 345 345 3,:la5 3,335 2111 201 2,530 2,530 177 177 17,003 16,434 569 569 1,099 1,_ 476 476 529 529 52 52 a,198 :1,198 aw :199 :ma a63 a,6:15 3,635 2:1,9:111 23,939 34,259 34,259 51,262 50,693 m'I) 612 574 574 194 48 144 144 144 144 287 2S7 52t 521 172 6" 172 172 14' 72 299 300 :100 287 287 :192 a53 392 35-.1 .J,70'l 4,252 4,7lt2 4,252 Site Restoration Costs 106 60 115 224 65 569 569 56!) .8 145 6. 72 :IH J9 450 '6" Ducunumt b'16 w 1640-006.

Rev. 0 Appendix E. Poge 6 of 12 ProCl'!ue-d Burial Volumes Burial' Volume Clan A Clan B Clan C GTCC Procea8ed Craft Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Fed Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhours 514 to,i87 17 514 to,287 17 514 1fJ,287 17 Utilityand ContrActor Manhours 7,:170 4,167 7,100 6,500 500 1,IMJ() I,HOO 2,IlSH 2,U&l 2,000 1,HtJ(} a,l:W 4,liOO !lOO 2,400 1,400 1,2;10 77,5.59 {if),179 258,<<2U :1:!;:I,H07 41Jl,3Hti 4,7,'),'1 4,000 1,350 1,000 1,000 2,000 a,ii;lO 1,200 1,:'WO l,l)(J() 2,{I$) 2,OgH 2,000 2,7Jtl 2,730 :12,741 a2,741 Clinton Power Station Decamnxiesioning Cost ArolysiaDocument E16-1640.0(16, Rev. 0 Appendix E, Page 7 of 12 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousand=of 2012 dollars)

I Act vity indexActivity Description Pwiol:ib Additioool C.I.

312.1Situ Chnro'terieotion Sobu1.) Period 3b Addilionnl Conte 36.2 Pcriat 36 Collnlorol Conte 36,3.1D--31,uipmmt:1.2DOC stOR relora(ion exp,.mwo 3b:L3Pipe cutting ,goymtenI,:13,::Sublotol Poriol36 Collal.ml Coda 1'oriol31 Pcriol.D,lamdont Cool 36.4.1Devon <<uppheo 36.4.2 (-m-3b.4.3Prviwrty Lannon 30.A.Aff,.lth phyn,O.a auppl,00 3104.5Deovy,.quipment mnbtl 30.4.6Dispoa.l of DAW goooe,n,d 31.4-7Plant om.rgy budget 31.4.6NRC Free:13.4.9Site O&51 Cants

31.4.10 Sovrity Staff C L 3b.4.11DOC SOIL Cons 31,Utility Staff Curt 33.4Subtotal Period 31, Period D,'pendvmt C>nt.

31.0TOTAL. PEtilO0 36 COST PERIOD 3 TOTALS PERIOD 4o- Large Component Removal Period 4. DinKt D,..om,mi..ioning Activities Nuclea, Steam Supply System Rem...1 40,1 1,1 Rrcirndnlion Syalrm Riling & Volvos 40.1.1.2 R ,circolalbn Pon,pa & AIM...

4,1.1.1 3 CRD51,&Nfn Remmal 40.1.1.4 Rea-lo, Veewd Inleroals 4a 1.1.5 Vrowl& Inlvrnalx OTCC Disloool 40.1.1.6 Rearlor Venw!1 4..1.1Total.RrmaacoI of M.jor Egtxi,m0nl 4,x.1.2Moin TorbindGunemk,r 4.1.3Main Coodrnoor.

C-"ing Cool, from Clown Building Donxol,lion 40.1.4.1Rr.rtor Bolding 4..1.4.2Auolli.ry Ruilding Z.4..1.4.3 Rodwostc Building 40.1.4.4 Turbine Ruilding 4.1.4.5 Fool Beild 031 40..1.4Total, 01,1.0.1 of Met Sysloms 4..1.5.1 Acid Food & Doodling 4,.1.5.2 Auxiliary Steam 40.1.5.3 RrcathingAir 4..1.5.4 C02 & Genemlor Purge 4..1,5.5 5 Comic ilaodling 41.1.5.6 Chem Radwaetc Reprw.iag &

Dinlmaal 4..1.5.7 ChillA Water RCA 4,1,.5.8 ChillA W.I., No. RCA 41.1.5.9Chlarinulion O -SiteLLRW Deco,.Remov a l Packaging Tr ans port Procesatng Diepus.I OtherTotal CootCoatCostaC isCoateCostsCosta Contingency (1,0(16 6,608-126 1,030154 185 1,1130446 25926 50150-53 35 5 1,304209 18218 15924 1,585238 5,19577910,4371,566 2644261l719,7103,1818 8871,54.2611731,4376,050 8672,384173-4775,17412,690 1349118183933 13441431&5140-71 51191535107161-183 90:1,4035,1151,026-6,4172787,3&17,4151,1127,18122,269551-3,0502788,063 16710,8897,9441,72210318,0:1155616,845:1813231134:19--2031,1991,1142171, 5126701,021--153'145----37519-----87577-87268----402,690----40435121185'21227P.r2--19744-719--318(11554595(140851411741,3052458407421202--30 51 8NRCSpent Peel Total U..To- ManagementCo..CostaCo..6,591 6,6918,5918.6919881,1841,1841,2651,2653,41732322852855515512642642&526529291,10131,6032002001821621,8221,8225,9745.97412,00212,00223,21123,21139,92039,47091,18290,1631711713983981,2291,22923,71223,7128,5278.52722,20122,20156,23856,2381,4081,4084,7124,7121,1741,1742812816860666646643603093,0943,094601,1(601,080 51292995(19502,3052,305232-59-SiteProcessedRacial ValemeaRurial IUtility adReetorotionVolumeCl... Alens R Class CGTCCProcessedcraftCoot for CostsCo. FeetCu. FeetCo. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Wt., Lb,.Moth.... Mm h ern 30,5(0)10.6.52:10,5(8)10,652--5,83432,117959,'0i0 1'20,81 9292 5,634I0220,0)7450-:012--5,83430,5102664,5001,019801--16,12130,528885,686280--61,4611,0781,4871 ,237-251,2401,145-8,955-131.1194,2121,3887511,0:18339,285:10 ,3671,31471,785351,100-15,059---7,531,6903 0,3671,3471,75224,9497511,o:iS1,7852,688,09567,1892,69315,719---7117,3.566,93454,200--2,430,00022,05011,450 2,5826,4038,771 2,912:10,299493---20,0125737,613--369,17810,((82--87722----3731867,5712653,3922,056-252,3957,95716,163--858,:18622,947232---3,95859---988 1.062 1,982 841 100 8411,101 26 6211 231 TLG Seroires, Inc.

Clilllon POIl.If!r Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis ab Collall'rai C'O$ts 3b,:\,1 :lh.:l.2 :lb:\:1 ;lh :,

lb PI'noJ.Dclwndt'nl Cmls :lb..J.l Dt'lCOO flUIJplmli ab 4.2 Imll-lflul('lj ahA,;) Prop':lrt)*

lmH'1I HI'alth physit's supphus (lcavy equipml'nt rentRl ab.4.6 DiflVOSaJ ofDAW b'Crw-rntlld Plant llfwrgy budget NRCFI!t's ahA.9 O&:M COlliS :lhA.10 &'t:urily StaJTf'AMt abA.ll DOC StnffCOI:it 3bA.12 UtiMySlllffCru<t abA Sublolal Period 3b PlJrioJ.DI'lwmtcnt Co,,!s :lb.O TOTAL PElHO[) all COST PERIOD :I TOTALS PERIOD 4n -Large Component Removal Pl'rwd -ia Oln'('t D"C<>>llOlissionillg Activitit's Nudcar Sh'Iun }iuppiy SyslJi'm J{'!Ulo\'lli -Ia.l.1.1 Rt.-'ClfCulation System Piping & Vlllw .. -Ia.1.1.2 Rl!'CircuJalioll Pumps & ;\fotors 411.1.1.:!

CRDMII & Ntll Remmial -Ia.L!.4 4a1.1.5 4a.1.I.6 4a,I,1 Totals Rl.'mm'll!of Major f'..Ilulpmelll 4.}.1.2 Main TurblOoIGcneral.ur 48 1.3 Main Ca.;,:ading Co..<!t.f4 from Clmm DemolitIOn 4a.I.4.1 RI!lH:tor Duildmg 4a.1.4.2 Auxilillry Building 4a,I.4.3 Radwa"tc Buihling 411.1.4.4 Turbin!' Buiitling 4a.l..1.5 FUt*1 Building 4a,1.4 Tot.als OI"'I..:-".al ufPlllnll:ly><tem,.;

4a.l.5.1 AcId FI'oo & Itnndling 411.1.5.2 Awuliary Steam -Ill. 1.5.3 Air 411.1.5.4 C02 & nt:ncralor Purge 41l.1.5.5 C!lustll' Handling 4n.1 5.6 Cht'IU Radwllshl Rl'lll't){'e!<$ing

& Oi"jJO>I81 -Ia,I.5.7 Chillt't!

Water, RCA 4a Ui.tJ Water Non*RCA 411.1.5.9 Chlorinahon TLG Services, Inc. Decou Cost 8" 8" 26 26 867 K67 1:1 1:1 51 90 167 Removal Packaging Transport Cost Costs Costs 1,100 1,100 211 2;)1 442 1,542 2,:lS4 '9 " 191 a,4OJ 7,11'12 10,869 :lI:H 1,199 1,021 245 579 577 268 2,690 as as:.! " 19 18 <5. 1,:\9.') 2fYl 51 17 II H 5:1.") ii,ttS 2,269 7,944 323 1,114 It '0 24 :11 107 1,026 51H 1,7'22 Ii:! 217 27 '0 58 "iJ'ff-'STte Proce&flling Costs 18 ... , lila -1:19 1,512 12 Hl2 !!5 ,o7 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate of 2012 dollars) LLR' Disposal Costs 17 Other Co,"" (i,nos (i,60S 1,O;j() I,oao 259 501 1,:194 182 158 1,585 5,195 10,4:17 17 Hl,710 17 31,437 47 75,174 39 140 161 6,417 7,415 3,8,-"i9 18,0:11 w 27H 278 556 Total Continaenc 1.982 1,982 126 15< 165 440 6 26 50 5:1 35 209 18 24 2a8 77. l,iiOO a,008 6,050 12,690 aa 7! 11'13 7,:18;1 1,112 8,063 16,H45 670 15:J 37 87 87 40 ,o4 II 197 7 3 174 421 30 Total Costa 8,591 8,591 008 1,184 1,265 3,417 :12 t85 551 264 26" 29 1,1103 200 182 1,822 5,97-1 12,002 23,211 39,920 91,182 171 398 1,229 23,712 8,527 22,201 56.238 1,408 4,712 1,174 281 666 8." 309 ::1,094 r,o 1,080 51 22 29 9S0 2,305 232 '9 NRC' Lie. Term. .. 8,591 8,591 !Jll8 1,184 1,265 3,417 :12 285 551 264 265 29 1,603 200 ItJ2 1,822 5,974 12,002 23,211 :19,470 90,163 I7I :19S 1,229 2a,712 8,527 22,2fll 56,238 1,..i08 4,712 1,174 281 600 664 309 :1,094 60 i,mm 29 950 2,3OS pent Fuel Management Costa SUe Re&toration Costs 450 1,019 51 22 232 59 PrOct!5aed Volume Cu. Feet 265 1,487 1,752 15,719 54,200 49a 7,61:1 18(1 3,392 16,16:1 Document EJ6*Jli4O-lJ06, Rell. 0 Appendix E. Page 70/ J2 Budai Volumes Budllil Cla5s A Claas D Class C Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Proceued Wt ** Lhs. 292 :ill2 292 806 2HO 1,2.17 6,9&,,) 1,388 15,059 24,949 2,006 751 l,oa8 751 1,0;11'1 5,8:1" 5,H-a .. 5,Ba4 16,121 IH,461 251,2"0 1:11,119 3:19,285 1,71'15 351.11l0 1,531,890 1,78.5 2,666,095 707,:158 2,4:l9,OOIl 20,012 ;J1l1"J,178 7,571 252,:l95 656,:Ui6 Craft MonbouCI'i aO,500 aO,50() to to :1U,511J aU,St6 1,07tJ 1,].15 -1,212 :10,:167 :m,:J67 67,169 6,934 22,050 1l,450 2,582 6,49:1 6,771 2,912 :10,209 57:1 1O,6H-2 877 37:1 2H-5 7,957 22,847 :1,958 98l! Utility and Contractor Manhuurs 10,&')2 W,H52 at,um 5H-,f,(j{)

12H,66!J :t.W,!J07 264,500 665,Jj6(j 1,:I*n 1,:147 2,HIKI Clinton Patna, Station Decommissioning Coot Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rep, 0 Appendix E, Page 8 of 12 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) off-siteLLRWNRCSpent FuelSiteProcessedRuriol o lomeeB-1.1 l--------Utility and Decnn Removal Pn k ging Tr sport Processing Disposal OtherTotalTotalLt. Teem, Management ReotorntinnVolumeCl.- A Cl- R Class CG CPro essedc-ftContractor CostCoatC..t.C etaCoatsCostaCosts Contin g enc yCosaCo.aCootsCu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu Feet Wt.. I.hsM.A.- Manhnurs I Activity LodesActivity Description Diapoool of PIxnt Syntvms (rominu,d) 4..1.5.10 Cileololing Water - RCA 40.1.5.11 CiouIo5ng W.k,rNon-RCA 40.1.5.12 Cotmm.t Aux & Foul Bldg Equip Drsino 4x.1.5.13 Cntmm,l Aux & Fool Bldg Floor Drains 4x.1.5.14 Comiwnenl C,wl,ng Water Non-RCA 4x.1.5.15 Condvonte 4x.1.5.16 Condennolo lhomler 4x.1.5.17 Condenwtte Polishing 40.1.5.18 C-dm,wr Vacuum 40.1.5.19 ('onta,omeol Combot,ble (io.

40.1.5.20 ('yrbd c -d'-7" 4x.1.5.21 Urywell Cooling 4x.1.5.22 Doywo0 Purge 40.1 5.23 ECCS Equipon-nl Cpding 4x.1.5.24 Exlrxelion Shoots 40.1.5.25 Fend-le, 40.1.,.26 F,.,dwotrr lGmwr P,,. ns Turhino Cyh!

40.1.5 27 Fredwaor llrslcv N, 4..1.5.28 Fill-Wx(nr 40.1.5.29 Gvnemlor 1lydroe. v ^. "oil 4x.1.5.39 Go-lo, S4er 1'^^..

40.1.5.:11pn,y 44-1.5.32 tlydoogen 40.1.5.38 inundry Equip & Fir Drain RW R,prax,no 4o.1-534 look Dotaegimn 40 .1.535 Iacml inntrumvnl Pooulo 40.1.5.:0 Low Pn,nooo, Coro Spray 4x.1.5.37 Morhine Shop &,ipmonl 4..1.5:01 Mxrh,ov Shop Ventilaton 40.1.5.39 M.on Six.m 40.1.5.40 MOin Stem 40.1.5.41 Mike-up Deminernlixcr - RCA 4x.1.5.42 M.ke-up Deminernlixcr Non-RCA 40.1.5.43 Makeup Cnnden0xte Steo.gn 4..15.44 Misc.Building Dml-O 4..1.545 Mioeolinnrooo Ventilation 4x.1.5.49 Nodear !Silo

40. 1.,5.47 Oil Tmnofer 40-1-5-48 Rcxelor C.

10018100 Cooling 4..1.5.49 Refrigxrxtinn Piping 40.1.51, 50 Snn,tory 4".1.5.51 Screen Ifo`ne & MU Pump lloooe Venlil00i, 40.1.5.52 Sandhy L,qo id Control 40.1.5.53 Soik-hgexr deal Rnmovol 41.1.5.54 Turbine Buildng Chuarl Cooling WOter 40.1.5.55 Turbino Ehrelmhydraulie Control 41.1.5.56 T,abino Can Mier Drain. & Vona 4..1.557 Turbine Gland Sesl Sta.,oo 4 40 x..1.5.59 Turbin o e r Oil 1559 T,Irh Goo Aux & Mie, D-,,-4..1.5Taal.40.1.6S,dTolding in .5pµ000 of dc,0m,,oo,oto 155166580416 3373177621,1136 53148159126 1536255-902427 7554342152103 57211)25176-16251392-79632 5656465210176 5981271263683671251341443330 24617143246 5:15016 2001156 294:L:161:1383-123:r2014--9 2411215692480 4600212 61 1131618733953 130164 25041071751,0068985264233-371 2811149 2554962--75 234----35 32222152756-103 19-3 355 1911136 1154961--46 25214155330-84 22---325 169--25195 36----542:151211--115858 22---325-204:1854--60329329 it00--31717 69If19-199898:1981948337--159980060 582531--20115115 260:077536-1601,04131,06315,8261,2291,5250,0933,2555,94033,091832,7493,36068108322-8674,4174,4179,40265--34430011,157278 15823,0205,96230,26314,8066,3201,012 10,1181,079-6,0391,481 6,990 3,669 1,2528,3332,5265,26217,1054,7:111,264661 253 2085,2771,194 1782,76035087-72,917559 225 2,80610,4893,3424962 2,474 2691,056105 22 4136---3,4643:102,442----99,1621,9452,511430--126,64114,37925-----435195----3,20242--751----16 ,95:151.5925----426--87,2471:1,29884---3,425189339---13,7721,12213,300---544 ,1470,0831,251---50,7951,112421,202----864,2794,7671,218241 ,99746,726---12,473,930273,26012,969314--151,38963,869 207 67 114 179 137 1,064 96.3 837 227 14 7 9 137 921 2919 34 94 h 37 56 21 497 695 277 102 27 248 174 57 25 233 328 55(1 8'1 585 65 193 3011 1,592,8704,109 1,502 636150 1,343 958 330 142 1,3131,91:1 3,052 436 5 585 193 3(11 2,879 4,109 1,5112 036 150 1,34:3 958 330 1421,31:1 1,913 3,052 436 5363 32:12 701701 4747 442442 6161 7 314314 23'23 410410 2,0482,048 4545 405405 269-545545 22 41 3036 229229 458458 381,817 31,322 62,722 1,272,859 2,071,290 359.429 410,8974:1,821 328,957 284,127 149,Mr2 517,8,56 481,604891,180 98:7,039 88,65310,28:1 8,44:1 281,066 7,225 131,644 3,522 1511,102 9,119 113,939 615,663 5,527 100,485 88,679 1,11931,890 3,022 2,681 18,80217,575 14,284 3,912 1,5:17 12,6829,1712,0201,:1119,89:1 10,721 25,6:19 4,16190 ,5,50 34:15,172491)4,1916:10 119 1,987 2163,6711 17,780 4611 4,1816 4,440 5,325372 688 4..),451.08.1 Period 40 Activity Carl.

Perim) 40 244,60001 Cola

40.2.1D,olow.I of Sloroal 780515 Rolorn 40.2Subto l ol Period 4. Addi,ionxl Costs 167:14,32610,7783,5428,23021,30855624,929103,8791102,611 1,218:116,0:1771,9897511,51:101,78510,437,770463,4302,693272461113822-1701,:1681,369-29,464--1,327,05)469246103822-1701,3681,36829,464---1,325,880469 P,'v,od 4. COlaler.I Coats 4, 3 1Pnx 00 donn ing 0x1,0 0.010 40 13Smo lt tool 11ownn u 13747481-4,88516 67512461 51 27 62:1 445 TLC Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decammi8Bianing Cost Analysis Activity Indl.'x Activitv DelioCriptiol1 DisllO!>l1l ofPlnnt Hy"knlll (OOIlIInUl"<i) 4!l.I.S.In Cirrull1Ung Wilier* RCA 4n.1.5.11 Cin'ull1ling Wilter Non*RCA 43.1.5.12 Clltumut AUK & Fuel Dldg EqUIp Drnllls 4a.l.fI.l:1 Cnlumnt AUK & Futtlllldg Floor Dmins 4a.l.fI.14 Cottljlomml Cooling Wuhtr Non-RCA 4a.1.5.1n CoodvnAAte 4a.I.5.16 Conclt*osnhl BOl.1stur 4a.l.5.17 Confu'n&lle Polishing 411.1,5,18

(\lm!lmoorVacuum

,111.1.5.19

('(mtammcllt Combu$tlble GII$ "a.1.5.20

('rel.xI ('"ondcll8l)te 41l.1.5.21 Drywdl Cooling 4a.1.5.2'l Drywdl Purge "a,l.a.:.!;)

ECCS EqUllliruml Cooling ,1a.l.5.2" Extradion SI,\Jam 4a.t.5.25 FeI'tlwaler 4a.l.fi.26 4a.1.5.:!i 4/i.1.5.28 4a.I.5.2!!

Generator Ilydrogt'n 5"al Oil 411.1.5.30 Generator Stator Coolw!! 4a.1.5.a1 lIiifh Pn..sliurtl Core Spmy "a.l.h.a2 fIyof"Oltt!1I

,1/1,1.5.3a Laundry £qUIll & Fir Dram" RW R,'pfO('!'W8 4n.l.fI.:J4 t""'3k Dclt"CIJOIl 411.1.5.as Local Instrument PAllel.. 411..}.5.:)6 Low PWI!!SUnl COfU Sprlly 411.1.5.:17 Madlin;., Shop fAluipmenl 4a.l.n:l1i Machme Shop VefltiJatlOn 411.1.5.:19 MumSkum ,1a.I.SAO Mam Steam {"01111100 Vl1lvc 411.1.5.41

'.Iakl'-ufl DCmlOt*falil.cr RCA 411.1.5..,12 411.}.543 411.1 5.44 ,",JUlie nUlIlJlng lin., ... , 411.LIlA5

--4a.1.5.46 "11_1.5.47 4a.l.n.48 Reador Core Jr'oilltmll

{'ouling .Ia.I.5.,19 Rufngeration Pi,ling 4n.1.5.50 Sanitary 411.1.5.51 Scn'Cfl House-& l'Iflr PUl1lpllt}\I"c VcnHlaltull 4>>.1.5.52 Standhy l..lquid Control 41l.1.5.5a 8wikhgcIlr IIl'al RlIIlliwa!

411.L""54 Turbme Building Clo'&'d Cooling Wah-r 4a.l.n.;).'}

Turbine Eloctrohydrllulir Control 4n.l,5.56 Turbinu Gl'n Miflo:-Dnllntl & Vunts 4n.l.5.5i Turbin!:!

Gland Seal Stu"m 41l.1.5.58 Turbtnu Oil 4a 1.5.59

& MiS(' D{)VI('l'8 411,1.5 Total!> 4a.I.6 &'lItTolding in sUllport 01 Jl.'COlnllu>!<HQfllfll;!

4a.1 Subtilial Period 4a Al.'tivlty COI'I>! Ppnud 4a AdditIonal CO>!ill -Ia.:!.1 DI"fItMal of Ston. ... 1 Turbllltl Rotof1l 4a t Sublml1l Penod 4a Additional COIllh! TLG Servicl!B, Inc. Decon Cost lin Iff-Site Removal Packaging Trnnsport Procehing Cost Costs Costs Coats :W7 57 114 17. 1:17 1,06-4 96J ""7 227 90 755 572 162 79 565 598 1,474 246 5 :)5 20 294 :1'1 242 46 11::1 13 250 1,006 t. 255 234 322 l' 35 19 115 252 22 169 :16 a./j l!2 204 11 69 :196 .. 260 15,826 :1,360 :14,326 :)7 " 445 14 lfi.5 3:l7 5:' 15 2 43 1tI 5 64 127 125 17 ;)2 o 12 16 o 4 .. 22 " 19 :to 1,:129 .. 10,778 :t46 2.I6 :14 HIS 317 4. 3. 4 42 25 13 65 126 lao 14 :16 1 15 1. 10 .5 15 15 48 5 77 1,fl25 Hi :1,542 103 103 2:1 2.1i 29 5110 762 159 255 27 152 176 9'l 32 :!1O 'l6S 32 1:13 69 73

• 71 264 Ot t7 1 61 6.1 11 54 9 :la7 31 5.16 6,09.1 "" 8,2:m 822 TableE Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) LLRW Diapoaal CORts 21 19 410 l,t136 126 103 176 367 a:1O 46 .3 24 :19 2:1:1 4 56 30 3,255 22 :n,a08 :1.7 Other Costs 55fi Total ContinlIenc 94

• 37 56 21 497 695 277 102 27 248 174 57 25 233 :128 550 82 1 10 6 12.1 .0 12 1 53 75 :171 75 a5 103 40 .4 3 25 5 11 3 60 1. 159 20 160 5,940 .67 Total Coats 595 65 19:) 300 158 2,87H 4,109 1,502 636 150 1,34:1 9SI! 330 142 1,:113 1,91:1 .1,052 436 5 53 32 701 47 442 61 7 314 23 410 2,048 45 405 26. 545 22 4I 30 2:.19 45. 25 195 42 58 25 329 17 98 !l6O 115 l,lli)3 :1;1,968 4,417 24,929 10:1,8:16 170 170 13 67 74 512 NRC Lic. Term. C""'" 585 193 300 2,1::179 4,109 1,5n2 6:16 150 1,34:1 958 :130 142 1,.11a 1,913 a,052 436 53 :12 701 47 H2 61 :114 23 410 2,048 45 405 &45 ao 229 458 58 329 17 98 900 115 1,063 32,749 4,417 lO"l,6li 1,:W8 1,368 74 461 Spent Fuel Management Costs Site Reatoration Co .. ts 65 15H 269 22 41 25 195 42 25 1,2Hi 1,218 51 ProcelUed Volume Cu. Feet 9,402 344 1,157 23,020 :m,26;) 6,:I:W 10,118 1,079 6,Oa9 6,996 a,669 1,252 8,33:1 14,601 17,fi05 1,264 25:1 20B 5,277 178 2,760 87 2,!J17 225 2,806 10,"89 49 2,474 1,056 a5 2,4"2 2,511 417 2,149 84 :J39 13,:199 1,251 21,282 2"1,997 2,969 a16,O:17 29,,164 29,4(i-l Document Rev, 0 Appendix E. Page 8 of 12 BurinfVolulm.s Burial I -claD-A Class B Clwlii C GTC-C-Processed Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt .. Lbs.. aOt; 278 5,!:!62 14,866 1,812 1,481 2,526 5,262 4,7:n 661 1,194 a .. so 5..')9 a,:l42 62 "')5 36 4as 4{i,7211 a14 71,989 81 751 I,O;lH :l81,817 al,a2:! 62,722 1,272,859 2,071,290 359,429 410,897 ,1a,H21 328,957 284,127 14U,00'1 50,1t.'l6 481,f)o4 891,180 98:l,0.:19 Sa,lili3 10,!,m:t 8,44:1 281,966 7,225 1.11,644 a,522 150,192 9,119 lla,939 615,663 5,527 l00,.JM5 88,679 .1,464 9H,182 126,640 16,95:1 87,2!11 :1,425 13,772 544,147 50,795 864,279 12,47a,9:W 151,:189 l,7H5 18,4:17,770 1.:125,880 I,a25,&UJ

",BH5 Craft Munbours :1.590 1,093 I,8S0 a,0:.12 2,681 18,802 17,5i5 14,28,1 a,912 1,5:17 12,BH:! 9,171 2,8:10 1,:111 9,89:\ 10,721 25,6:)9 4,161 90 Mill 34:1 5,172 490 4,191 B:m "" 1,987 :lI6 :1,1i7() li,:J1iO ,160 "',0&, 4 ..... 0 5,at!i a72 """ 3:JI:I 1,9"'5 .I,:Im 435 a,20:! 751 569 4:l1i :1,298 1.9 1,122 6,&W l,O:!'" 4,767 :!7a,26!l 6a,tIOH ,16:),4:10 4tlU 469 16 Utility and Contractor Manhours :l,(i!};\

Clinton PotoerStotion Decommissioning Coat AnalysisDocument E16

-1640-806, Eeo.

0 Appendix E, Page 9 of 22 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)ActivityActivity Description off-s"'LLR Deco.Rem val Packaging Transport ProceingDisposal OtherTotnlTotal CostCostCostsCostsCostsCo.,.Co..Contingent,.Costs NRCS pent FuelSiteProcessedBurial V o l umesBurial fUtility and Lic. Term.ManagementReetoretionVolumeClam A C ass Bi CG CCProcessedC -ftContractor CostsCo..Co.,.Cu. FeetCu. FeetCo. FeetCu. FeetCo. FeetWt..Lbs.ManttouroManhours 74 40.3 bloat Foriod 4. Colbaeml Carts Pants) 451 runt D,pendrnt C'unla 4a.4.lDross supplies 4x.4.2It rottn+4o.43Property ISrrn 4,4.4Ileallh phynkn suppli,x 4o.4.5Ilrovy equipment rental 4a.4.t,Dtnpsml of DAW Inmerat,d 40.4.7 Plant--w budget 4o.4.8NRC &-4,4 '9Silo O1hi Costs 45.4.10 Liquid Rodwoale Pnmz,wing E9uip-mdiu:rvkoe 4s.4.11SroontyStsffCant 45.4.12DOC SIsO Crol RC t 45.4.1'3Utility St 4o.4Sol tumPeriod 4. Pertsd.Dvpendenl Costa 4.,0TOTAL PERIOD 4. COST PERIOD 41, - Site Decontmnination I°rS of 4b Dins'l Deromtronnotring Aoivilicn 4'.1.1Remove gpont toot rocks D,stoosl of Plant Synlomn 46.12.1 Crs1wnrnl Cooling Wsler - RCA 46.1.2.2 Conloinment Monitoring 4'.1.23 Control and D.-41,. 1.2.4Din s.4 Fuel Oil 46.1.2.5Di.-.4,:1.mre1 4b 1.2.6 Di,-. IC...armor R,wnt Ventilofion 41o1.a 7 Dnns-laundry to Rsdwonlo Clean NonIICA 46.1.2.8E:,,,: ,I. Cl- RCA 46.1.2.111 Eb,.ennl C nlnmtnsled 46.1.2.11 Fwpup Drain RSdwootc R,,,-sing 46.1.2.12 Fist U..:. 21155 - RCA 46.1.2.13 Fire I'lv,'lina No. RCA 4'.1.2.14 Floor Drain Rodwssle Ilepsnoos ing 46.1.2.15 Fuel Handling S Transkr 46.1.2.1 1 NO Fool Cooling & Ckannp 46.1.2.17 Fool SupiwH 46.1.2,11 INAC Auxiliary Building 46.1.2.19 IIVAC. Containment Budding 46.1.2.211 INAC - Control Roma 46.1.2.21 IIVAC .Fool Building 41,L2,22 INAC -

Iatwratory 46.1"2.2:1 II/AC -Off Gns Rs ilding 4b. 8.::.24 INAC .Rsdwoste Duilding 41, L2.25 IIVAC - S_i-Building 4.1.2.28 INAC - Turbine Building 46.1.2 27 hoists Cmoon & Eovotora 46.1.2.28 Instrument Air . RCA 46.1.2.29 Inatruuwnl Air Non-RCA 46.1.2-:)0 Off Dan n 45.1.2 31 Plant 0 n'ire Water - RCA 46.1.2.32 Plonl Son in, Waler Nov RCA 46.1"2.33 45,12,34 Pro.--_ I2 ..l ^ lion 5ootloring 46.12.;.,llirc,I..tku, 46.1.2.37 Ru. Inc Water Chan-up 41,.1.2.38 Donidual Boot Removal 445 2,494 2444961 64015 47426215366 67 59 98 29i 1,715-7,021113270 1,1211230 1,3707472254178 606IS33229 182 8426360193180 27276 1,078MI89287238 10612134233 3.3115 83.51047331 2312 35561d101 56'9923161 1513749 809436253 65 6851128197 6 5504W72 22 2143855 23851178 184.12 1251214 630l858 6165719:352311254590 6367782294198 85 586-189'2 74274816 1,4351431,571 61253,124 4003,070 136791 3,7925694,381 83884922 45368521 56685661 4,5386615,218 723119 1787 149790 1077 968 13101 632 2601.995 2,24012,127 3171,689 4432,391 2421,323 27210 2951,613 1055 3952,180 44248 1163 2671,500 42334 107589 1719:13 46254 2471.359 1074 2011,103 17 152795 325 63344 734011 28212 214:14176 11i8887 22120 124666 2731,682 92 8161,4203,124 3,0707914.361 922 521 6515,218 20,693 34,685 76,364180,884-1,427:146.10179,9697511,11381,78518,928,5211404 ,1731177,15113,183---15,564 892,7601,537389--2,412--117,965'1,116587-187---7,5951,1497902,113951--1:19,8518,125771,276----1,150 lot----1,84832117:M---4,925334 1,995--:13,54512,127--74,814---3,038,244128,5691,8898.281----:138,311019,0392,:191--19,0722,56 6553,91823,11921,323--0,085----368,9341:1,156 210---3,58,.51.613-7,6712,3111---441.11914,4445526392---15,90341332,18011,3953,413---656,37018,444248-1,949472--93,7.501 101563-612---2 4,8595921,50013,152---534,09612,947 345, 14'2582--:1,994--162,19.55,172933-6,394--259,6768,426254-1,887--76,6262,4581,359-10,046--407,95712,02574---1,2651,103--7,840--3 18,3879,7207-----12:1795--2,875--116,7618,528 25----429344-2,283--89,4513,589405-3,0811--125,4931.884 21`2-3,64314---238176-554-22,4972,046867--2,290---93,99210.271120--276279-26,0181,11411666--1,7841,297--145,9745,9781,56211,6922,842-636,06711,114 23 27 461 16217,9942,69920,69330,1614,52434,665 745,14181623146160,51810,10770,522 246:19,918111,1923,6999, 0 5221,798111,07535,296192,312 93978181218-1,086-7613,163 535 51 16 81 4,185 158 259 7,899 113,571_011,8161:174,2811 674,463 156-7,899 157,982258 TLG Set-rices, Inc.C/i,lton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Indl'J[ Activity Dt'hcriution 4u.3 Suhtotal Penod 4n Collllh'ml Cn,'1t:> Pcrirnl 4n 1\*noo.Dl'lwndl'nl

(',o,.Wi 4nA.l Duron SUIJplics 4a.4.2 hU:!Uflul('t*

4nA 3 tmws -tn 4..1 lIt'lllth jlhyJl,IC$

i'UPI)lh"" 4aA.5 IIt*av),

n*nlal *hlA.6 DI";JKI",al I)(DAW "",ml'mh-d 4a 4.7 Plllnll'Jle'1O' budget -tnA.1i NRC Fl"{\$ 4a ... L9 81tH O&:M 4n .... 10 Liquid Radwallfc Prucvuing 4aA.I1 &"!'lIrlty Htarr ('-0#1 4a,0I,12 DOG Staff COlil -InA.Ia 4nA Subtutai Periud 411 Co"hI 4a.0 Tt1I'AJ. PERIOD oIoIl COb1' PERIOO.jb*

Site Decontumination 4h. 1 .2.:1 Control Rod Dnvt! 4b.l.2A 4b.l.:!.S

..Jb.l.:!.1i Die,wl*(jcnerawr Room V.>ntilalion 4h.J.:!.7 Dralll,,*Laundry to Rauwllst" 4h.1.2.8 Eloctrical*

Clean Non-neA 4b.1.2'!)

Ehx*lrical*

C11'lIn RCA 4h.I.2. HI Ell'l'trinll*

Conlnminall*1i 4h.l.2.11 F .... IUljl Dram Rlldwllldc Rt'pl\"!("'Cl!W\ing 4b.I.:!.l2 FlI'tl Prohdion

• RCA 4b.I.:.t la Fire Non*RCA 4b.1.2.l4 Floor Drain RlldwlIlIW Ikpf'Ol',mmng 4h.1.2 15 Fuel nondling & Trnn"r.'f .jb.1.2.16 Fucll'oo.l Cooling & CI""nup 4h.l.2.17 Fud SIIIl[lOrt 4b.1.2.18 tIVAC* Auxiliary Duilthng 4i1 1.2.111 IIVAC* Cm-tiainlllcnt BlJlldmg 4h.l.2.:W HVAC* Control Room 4h.I.:.!.:'!1 nVAC" Flit-I Building 4h.l.2.22 IIV AC . IAhuralory -th.1.2.2;j nVAC* Off Gas Building oIb.I.2.24 IfVAC* Rlldwastc BUilding 4b,I.2.25 nVAC*

Building 4h.1.2.26 IJVAC -Turbme Building 4h.L!.27 (fOIsts Cl11m's & F.lcvawnt 4h.l.2.28 InstrumentAir*

RCA 4h.l.2.29 In!4runmnt Air Non*RCA orr OM Plant N.>rviev Watt'r' nc'-\ Plant &'f\'W!' Waler NOll RCA PotllbluWaltlr 4h, 1.2.:101 Ru(liatlOn MQllllnring 4b.l.:t3 .. 'i -tb.l.:.!:m RHal.""torR,lt*iITuilllion 4h.l.2.37 WaleI' Clean,uJI 4h.l.2.:ki Rt'!Uova)

TLG Services.

Inc. Df'con Cost 74 74 :w; t:l.:m Removal Packaging TraJl$port Cost Costs Costs 445 5,lfiS :19,9&1 7. 2"'4 6' -t74 67 59 ... 20 1,7al'i 7,621 1,121 1,:170 !lOO 11 .. ' 842 27 1,078 106 3.1 83..'1 "" 351\ 569 151 .0" .5 665 6 556 22 214 238 1&1 12 121) 63!l 61 :152 636 Hi2 1Ii2 II ,1 !1'l ,., 26 11:1 12 74 14 63 12 1 19 14 11 6 30 79 23 :n :11 a,699 2HJ 21 270 30 72 33 60 2 89 13 2 47 14 2:1 36 2S 10 11 25 82 Proct!ssing Costs 9,fJ52 61 5 53 UI84 209 254 2'.:19 193 7 21H 42 15 331 101 161 ,B 253 197 72 55 78 14 58 7 " "'" Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) LLR DispOJIal COlits 27 461 Other Costs 742 1,4a5 a,792 638 45:1 566 4,lh1S 17,994 aO,161 *Hit 60,518 21,796 £11,075 1,OM .6 "" 16U 6 2aS :1:1 19 90 19. Total ContinlfelU' 80 I. ,. 14a 625 400 136 569 84 68 B5 681 2,699 4,524 W,107 Total Costs 586 9'l 816 1,578 3,124 3,070 7', 4,:161 922 521 661 5,218 20,693 34,685 76,522 35,288 182,a12 761 72 17 149 10

• 13 6 260 2,240 317 44a 242 27 295-10 a95 44 11 267 42 107 171 46 247 111 201 1 152 3 0:1 7:1 28 2 :14 1118 22 124 273 a,163 87 790 77 68 101 32 1,995 12,127 1,689 2,391 1,323 210 1,61a 55 2,180 2-18 63 1,500 a24 582 9aa 2M 1,:159 " 1,1Oa 7 795 25 344 405 212 14 176 867 120 666 1.562 NRC Lic. Tenn. COJIts 535 92 816 1,420 3,124 3,070 791 4.a61 922 521 651 5,218 20,693 34,685 76,364 180,884 a,16:1 ;1l:19 .7 790 32 12,127 1,689 2.:191 1,323 l,61a 55 2,180 248 63 1,500 582 9:la 254 1,:159 1,1Oa 795 344 405 176 867 120 666 1,562 pent Fuel Management Costs Site Restoration Cm.ts " 158 158 1,427 77 6R 101 1,995 210 :124 74 25 212 14 Processed Volume Cu. Feet :146,101 2,412 ,.7 2,113 117 74,814 8,281 HI,072 9,085 7,671 26a 11,:J9.'l 1,649 612 13,152 3,994 6,:194 1,887 10,046 7,840 2,875 2,20:1 3,090 554 2,290 276 1,784 II,6!)2 Burial Volumes Closs A V-cree Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet 81 7,899 7,899 Documcllt E16-1640-006.

ReI'. 0 Appendix E. Page 9 of 12 Buriali Procfl'Qed Wt ** I..hs. 4,Il85 157,982 157,982 Craft Manhours 16 258 258 Utility and Contractor MaubouNt 117-t,463 79,909 751 1,Il:lg 1,785 19,926,520

..JIN,I7:!

1l77,15fi 15,5&l 951 a9 2,5(<<1 2,aoo .2 :1,413 472 272 1,297 2,842 882,760 !17,965 7,595 1:19,851 4,925 3,038,244 a:l6,300 55:1,918 368,934 4-11.819 15,90:1 656,370 93,750 24,859 5:14,096 162,19fi 259,676 76,626 4{)7,957 318,387 116,761 89,451 125,493 22.4!J7 9:1,002 2fi,618 145,974 636,067 1.5:17 a,!J55 1,1..1!) 8,125 1,276 1,1M) 1.848 aa4 :1:1,545 126,569 l!I,o:m 2:1,:192 1:1,156 3,5RS 14,444 41t1 592 12,947 5,tH:! 5,172-8,426 2,458 12,{)25 1,265 9,720 12:1 8,5:.:!8 429 3,589 :l,BS4 a,n4:! 238 2,046 10,271 1,04fi 5,978 11,114 Clinton Power Station Docommiooioning Coot Arrolyoio 0116-1 64 0- 0 0 6, Hen. 0 Appendix 01, Page 10.j`12 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Activity indexActivity D...riptimt Dinix..I of Plant Syxten,e irnntinu,.dl 41.1.2.39 Srreon Wonh 41.1.2.40 Service Air-RCA 41, 1.2.41 Service Air Non.RCA46.1.2.42Shnldown Survicn Wet.', RCA 411.2.43 Shutdown 0v- Wet'.Non-HCA 41.1.!.44 Solid Rudn..,;.v 0. Igo... -.mg & Dispo..1 40.1.2.45 Standby OonT, h,,.,.

461.2.46 Snppmnsion Pool, I. ^nup

&Traonf,r 40.1.2.47 Suppmaoion Pool 2L,1.,q, 40.1.2 40 Turn (10 RW Colrl & UO 11116 Equip D,.

-4b.1.2,49 Tnrh OO RW Cold & DO Bldg Fhwr Dmin.4b.1.2Totnla 41,.1.3Srolloldingin nopix,rl ufdoco,nmixnvning On-SiteLLffW Devon Removul Packaging Tennaport Proceeaing Diopoual OtherTotal Co.,CoatCo..CoateCoatsCoat.Co..Contingency NBCSpent FuelSireProceooedBuriul VolutnesBurialIUtility and TotalLie. Term Management BoatorationVolumeCl,,, A C l-Claus C(.TCCProw esoedCraftContractor CoatiCootsCo..CostaCu. FeetCo. FeetCo. FeetCo. FeetCu. Feet Wt. Lb..Munhours Muuhour.25815112040-8137919197641-12124,8817031,("5,3511,207-7,262 6,0401022412433-1,3016,62 56,625 5,0981,230 593 1,101362 1,123328 808515)3,033588:1,273212,51217,323 136 2,55:3 19 4,453471 325 17 125 119 4 678:I6 771 18210 588 9 64 8 1 93 3 38 18 3612885219 21522 9282546 92823-26 9491119 209 1361,182 117250 152 435 656 40,4124901 2(19 1.182 11725(1152425 6.50 37,139 146101,6665,1513 32061,1352,(V25-2,3282761,50111,57324,0831,2862,264(14,1951,0244,267156,3726,47119,611,517418,10)3227,08195,713 D,xnntnm.nntion of Sile Duildingn 41.1.4.1Sodding 41.1.4.2Aux,I,a,y Building 41.1.4.:3 Control Sodding 41.1.4.4D3.-.I (7. ,. .t.=, Roilding 41, . 1.4.5R..1..:.-i, 11.4,hng 46.1.4.6 Turbo. Uuil ing 41.1.4.7Fool Ruilding 46. 1.4To.:da 4b.1Subtotal P,.riod 41, Activity Cool,, Period It, Addjt,onnl C,mta 41,License Termination Suney Planning 41.2-2IS FS1 I.icunae Tannin hen 412Sohlntal Period 41, Additinnnl C.A.

P,u3,oi 46 Collotoml Conte

41, 3.1Praon, dooa,nminxinning water ,.to ON......40.:3 3Smell loot 41, 3.4Ihromminnioning Equipment Dixix>>il,x, 41.3Sublotol Period 41, Co)In4,rnl Conte Puri,xl 41, Period-D,'pondont Gwto 41.4.1Devon xuppliea 46.4.2loooranro 414.3I'mlmrty I--

41 .4.4ILmllh phynica xuppIo r 4b,4.5Inmvy nquipnwnl not,,)

41.4.6Dinponal of DAWgonaratod 46.4 7PIonI energy budget 46.4.8NBC F,-4 4.9Sin. O&M C -I0 41.4.10Liquid Radwnsla Pmnn

<aing E,p,ipmenl

/Servia.a-114.11Security Stall Coal 41, 4.12DOCStolCast 46-4.13Utility 81.11 Cant 40.4Subtotal Period 46I'mi,xl-Dupendnnt C,wln 41,0TOTAL. PERIOD 41, COST PERIOD 4f. License Termination Peri,xl4f Dinvi D,.vcm,mi+oioning Activitiox 4.1.1ORISE .nfnnntory survey 41.1.2Tenn onto lion-4f. 1S164411 Period 4fAelioiIy Carta 2,9473.62567815161951 ,908-3,04212 ,99512,995 314 913122272955-232847847 4174762125157-241825825 117196715-692:14234 1,3673287994272068432,9452,945 1,222390759069189-7872,8222,822 86174628346562-6512,4492,449 7,9645,3169098t183862,492-5,86523,11623,116 8,10315, 3161,8962,1335,8614,818 15,18973,31670,043-9542801,2401,24(1 2021,4312822,000-2,(08)2022,3855683,2411,2402,016)-1873-87-42235235 684--103786786 138381674456444444 684158111167181-2001,4651,465670 1961 ,1491.149 4,!3657455,7105,710 1,39(11391,5291,529 751113864864 9:191411,010)1,080 7,5251,1298,6548,654 29,0854,36133,447:33,447 47,3087,09054,40554,4052,3128,36523 64567095,57316,51512:1,715123,71510,43044,4072,216,2,3246,0295,82197,95832,472201,736198,463 2,7011)3,273238,90289,176 17652227227 17552227227 3 42 42 16 16 2,:312 5782,8892,889 1,2311231 ,3541,3.54 2,3792382,6172,6173,955-----9964,9814,9814,380-----6575,0375,037 230 45 11,240 15,194,480734,0821, 0 82,9167,734:01,787--2,526,021112,9151,1711,0113---134,1887,998561,0111--93,4877,976284---24, 9982,2741,0673,787--:173 ,57428,1942,7353,450---408,7012 6,8412,5741, 117---198,19527,89515,33741,480--3,759,162214,093:3,2732:12,30274, 867--14,480,5207211,046163,0523,6232,560 1,058---16:1,052316238,808)258---15A81506,000635---1305,181188893---321 ,442138 11,4741---229,404374155,1793:2,703 5(35,054 11,473---229,464:1741,073,9110 TLG Services, Inc.Clinton Power Station Decommissiollillg Cost Analysis Activity Indf'li. Activity Df'!.i('riptinn Di>ol){>><al of Plunt Systems (oontinth.d) 4h.1.:.'.:19 Scrt>tmWnsh 4b.1.:UO &rvu.'C Air* RCA 4b.1.2Al Servin' Air Non*RC'A 4h.I.2A2 Scrvlw Wlllm RCA .Jb.l.:.'....Ia Shutdown fWrvWll Wllter NOIl*RCA 4b.1.:!A4 Solid Radwa!!le R"IJro< ... ",,,ing & DillVOMI 4b.1.:.'....15 Slandby Gas Tn.*atnwnl 4b.I.2...1ti Suppo'limon Pool Clt'nnup & Trllnsfl!r -lb. L:.!A7 SUPIlro8l!1lon Pool Makl!"['i' 4b.1.2.41)

Tuth OU nw Cnld & DO nldg EtlUil1 DnullS 4b.l.2A9 Turb OU nw Gnln & DG Bldg Flour Drains -Ih.l.:.'.

Totals -Ih.t.a &"fJoldmg In of tk"<:ommiAAiooing D{","onlallllnlltI<JfI of Sih> Duilding>! -Ib_1 A.l RI'<lduf Duildio!t -Ib.l.*l.::!

Amiliary Building ..jb.U.:1 Control Building -Ib.IAA Dil'tWl Generator nuilding Radwa"'le DUlldmg Turbine Duilding Fud Butldmg -lb. I'" Totals 4h.1 Subtotal PI>flod -lil M'lIv!ly eMI# Puriod 4b (,ullllh'mi CoMs 4b 3.1 I'l"OCo;:,1>1 d<<omnw:lsloning w8>11u Small tool all(lwnnl'o Ik'('ommiJ'slonlllg' E..lllilJmNli DisjJo.ullon -lb.;! Subtotal Pcrwd 4h C.(lllllhmll CQoIUI; 4hA.6 4bA7 4b.-I.8 .fhA.9 O&M C...mIU! 4h.4.1(I *lb.4,11 -IhA.12 4!Joj,la 4hA -Ib_O LUIUld Radwasltl ElluipllwllUSUfViq'lJ Security SIJ11T ('osl DOeStaITC()!!t Utility StnlTCullt Subtotal Period 4b J>uflthl*Ikpl.'llrk!lli Costs TtJrAL PERIOD -Ib COST PERIOD 4f* License Termination P"fI(xl-lf Dlo'('! [).,{*(ullmi1%l10llmg AdinlH's -ILl. 1 ORisE ('Onfiflulltm-y survey 4f.J.2 TUl'lUinateliccllstl 4r.1 Subtotal Pflriod -If ktivily (:011,1", TLG Services.

Inc. Decon Cost 2,!141 :I.J9 -104 117 i,:.!64 8,103 16 16 2,:112 :l,aI2 10,-130 Removal Packaging Transport COfit Cosu Costs a25 17 125 119 678 77 IJ2 fill 2fi1l ,179 24,H.81 5,040 :I,ti;!5 1:11 76 19 a28 390 746 5,:n6 :ts,:l16 42 42 684 ..... :1,9&"1 4,ago Ii,ad,,) -14,407 :16 10

• 15 19 70:1 W2 671'1 22 21 6 7!) il'l "" 009 1,696 I. 1:18 ISH 2:m :.t:1ti 2,:WfJ a6 II 19 I,OOti 24 006 2i 25 .4 90 :14 I!8:J 2,1:1:1 35 35 73 3. III 45 45 2,;)24 OO-=srte Proceuing Costs 64 3. 128 I. 2. 2. 20 76 5,351 12.J 195 29 I 27 6"9 6Ii "'ll! 5,HBI ltii 167 6,029 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) LL DispwroJ Cnst5 ** "' 23 40 41 1,:mi :13 1,901'1 55 .7 I. 20B 169 62 :.'.,49'.!

-1,818 Other CostJi 954 202 1.4:11 202 2,385 .7 44 t:11 670 6iO 1,2:11 2,:179 4,1:165 1,390 751 R:19 7,525 29,085 -I7,:JOS 95,573 fiJi21 97,958 175 175 Total ContinUf'llc 9a 3 36 I. 219 22 46 26 .1 121 7,262 1,:101 3,042 2:12 241 ** 843 7.7 651 5,865 15,189 2M 282 fi68 42 lOa 56 !lOO 578 123 2:t11 996 6.7 I ** 745 13. 113 141 1,129 .J,a63 7,000 16,515 Total Cm .. 41M; I. 209 136 1.182 117 250 Hi2 425 ... 40,412 6,625 12,995 .47 825 2:1.J :.!,945 2,822 2,449 23,116 7:1,:116 1,240 2,000 3,241 2as 7 .. 444 1,-165 2,H89 1,:154 2,617 4,981 5,037 1,149 5,710 1,529 1\64 1,080 :13,447 54,405 12:1,715 32.472 201,i36 fi2 52 227 n 2:.!7 NRC Lie. Term. Cm'" 4Utl 209 I.HI2 117 250 152 425 6.'. :17,139 6,625 1:l,995 847 825 2:14 :l,U"5 2,822 2,449 2:1,116 70,04:1 1,240 1,240 2:15 ". 444 1,465 :.!,889 1,:154 2.617 4.981 5,037 1.149 5,ilO 1,529 ** 4 1,080 8,654 ;13,447 54..105 123,715 lWJ,-I6:J 227 22i Spent Fuel Management COStJi :l,IlOO :l,I)()()

2,OO(J Site Restoration Cnsts I' 136 :1,273 :1,27:1 :1,27:1 Processed Volume Cu. Feet 2,&5:1 1,505 5,098 5113 1,10:1 1,12:1 808 3,0;1.1 :l12,51:!

4,453 7,7:14 1,171 56 1,06i ::!,7:15 2,574 15,:137 232,:102 6,000 6,UOn :l38,:m2 Burial Volunlt's Class A Clull B Cla68 C Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feel 1,230 362 :l2S 56f1 "". 17,:rl:J 471 :m,787 I,OW 1,039 284 3,71\7 a,4bO 1,117 41,480 74,857 1,9sa 1,953 2Jjjj Chl5 SU:l 11,47:1 11,47:J 89,176 Document El6-164()"'006, Rev. II Appelldix E. Page 10 of 12 Buriali {,'fCC Proceued Cu. Feet Wt .. Lbs. 10:1,666 61,1:15 276,501 24,0!i3 65,:167 04.195 fi4,966 156,372 9,611,517 22i,083 2,526,()2l 1:1-1,188 9:1,487 2.J,996 :17:1,574 408,701 198,195 3,759,162 14,480,520 16:1,052 16:1,01)2 15,481 :105,9ti}

121,442 2:W,4fl4 229,.Jfi4 15,194,.J80 Cralt Manhours 146 5,I51i a29 2,O'J5 2,328 11.57;1 1.286 2,264 1,1l:!4 4,2iii 6,4711 4lS,noa 95,71:1 112,915 7,!J!l8 7,976 2,274 26,8-11 :l7,895 214,09:1 7:ltJ,946

1,6

!:1 a,6:t:J 50 ." taB :174 :174 7:l-I,lffl2 Utility and Contractor ManhnurJII H,2.JtJ 2,561) 8,800 155,179 :la2,iO:J I,Oi:1,H:W I,OM2,6:j(j Clinton Power station Decommissioning Cast Analysis s16-1 648-086, Rev. 0 Appendix E, Page 11 of 12 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

OffSiteLLRWNBCSpirt Fuel Drrnn Removal Portaging Transport Processing Diaposul OtherTotalTotalMr. Term.Management CoalCnatCoateCostaCostaCostaCo..Crauin uencyCottaCaretsCosts Activity lndexActivity Description Period 45dditimtal CoatsLuanne Termination survey41.2Subtotal Perini 4f Additional C.A.

Pon,oI4 1Oab:ral C -W41.3.1DOC aa0 rokrntion expen:a,s41.3Subtotal Penal 41 Cllolcrol Cwto Period 4 Ruiod

-Dependent C. stn414.1Insurau;.e41.4.2Pngwrty loses414.3lh>>Ilh physics suppli,a41.4.4Oisponsl of DAW ti -rolod41.4.5Pont energy bralgol41.4.6NBC Fens404.7Sib' Od45f Coals4L4,8So0,urity Staff Cant41.4.9DOC StaRCool41.4.10Utility Staff Cot 414Subtotal Period 4f Period. Dependent Cots 410TOTAL PERIOD 4f COST PERIOD 4 TOTALS PERIOD 5b - Site Beat ... On.

Period 56 Din.M Do nanmisoioning Arlivilioo Demolition of Bemoining Silo Buildings 5b.1.11 Reactor Ruildmg 56,1.1.2Ausiliory Building 56.1.13 Circulating Water Scmeohouo.o 56.1.1.4Control Building 6l 1.1.5Dioael (ionorntor Building 56.1.1.0 Marko-Up WaIve Pump Ilouse 56.1.1.7 Miwolims>>uo Site Work 56.1.1.8 ltiscetinm

>>us Struclums 56.1.1.0 Rodwoato Building 56.1.1.111 S e rvir. Building 56.1.1.11 Tronotormcr and Tank Pods 56.1.1.12 Turbine Building 56.1.1.13 Turbine Podoatal 510.{.1.14 Fool Building56.1.1Totals Sat, C1--a M-1-W1,2RorkFlll SiloGrade&landscalo, nil,,561.4Fool retort la NRC56.1Subtotal Period 66 Asia ily Costa Period 51, Additional Costa61, 21(',o . +, C,,-h,ng56.2 .2So,, nh,n,'CBerdmu56.2.3lb . too,,;, FYwae&Unit 2 Esoavotion Rorkhll56.2.4 415F.7 -, ' Rtaloration56.2Subtotal Period Sb Add,ioml Costa13,73:1 13,7331,030 1,9:307120 414 436 235 963 5,194 6,72281771-2015,09581771-21)30,032 111,1171165,18913,4946,/11515,98127,/1118189,0645,7912,2(1'2 3,6119 5,205 1,858380 1,785 2,782 6,212 402 173 5,324 1,223 2,442 38,447 109 2,154 40,7101,515-9 1,0905,440.1,4411-50--611:19424424748198192041,11211,0216353562477477479479352702701441,1071,1077795,9745,9741,9087,7317,7312,39618,33718,337 8696,659:13112,533 5414,150 7906,054 2792,136 574:17 2682,053 4173,199 7825,994 60462 20199 7996,123 1841,4(17 3662,9(18 5,76744,215 16125 3232,477 29224224 8,13647,041224 2281,753 1641,260 8166,256 2241,7141,714 1,43310,984-1,714 SileProceaeedBurial Valumetsocial/Utility sad RestorationVolumeCl..oAClass BClass CG CCProcessedCraftContractor CasteCu. FeetCu. FeetCu. FeetCu. FeetCu. Feet Wt Lbs.Mmthoura Manhourt 223,573 22:1,573 6,94818.11515(1, 731 73,629 6,94811149,211 6,948223,585152,331 4,700584, 403169,4937511,0381,78585,1 2 7,9501,421,8401,912,123 6,659--6511111 23,242 4,150------38,418 6,054--50,578 2,131120,234 4:37----5,1101 2,053------21,227 3,180.44,561 5,994------58,440 4312--5,58.5 199--2,463 6,123-63,415 1,407--12,474 2,808---26.720 44,215----443,457 125----2111 2,477----4,449 1.5091 46,817---448,1061.5141 1,753---7.355 1,260-10,159 6,256---37,059---19,129Kill 9,26973,7021101 817 385 745 195 195 4,12017,852 17,852 4,12017,85217,852 1541,1641,184 1541,1841,184 6,72337,600:17,600 74,481421,648414,9472,1081:1,1211 3,1911:347 347 347 16.00<<I 56 C Baleml C mba 56.3.1Small tool allowance 51x:1Sub4alo1 Pori<<3 Sb Collolernl Costa 70535 70535 465 465 535 535 TLG services, Inc.

Clinton Stotion Decommissioning Cost Anal.vs;s P"flud .If Cnllal'-fal DOCstlllTrckM:alltm.-lIjlcfl:#'fj Subtotal reno.:! 4f Collateral Coshl Pefiod 4f C'-Oltls 4fA.l In>lurlul<'e 4f.4.2 Pn1lwrtytllllc" 4r4.3 1I.-alth IlhY>>I(,"

.. [4.1 Dlspo!'al

{If DA W h'NUJrllu}d 4U.S Plant ('fiCIb'Y budget 4f.4.6 NRCFoo,," "fA.7 Sih*O&MC(l$ls 4£.*1.8 &"('uflty Stuff emil 4fA.9 DO(' SlllffCAAt 4£.4.10 Utility Slaffl'twl

.. £'4 Subtotal Pcritxl4fPcrloo*J)I'p,*ndcnt C'h!t .. 4f.o TOTAL PERIOD .. fCOST PERIOD 4 TOTALS PERIOD fib

• Site Restoration PI'rIot! 5b Dm-ct Dl\'Commi_wrung Achvlh.'s ildmgs 5b.1.1.5 Di,'S('1 Gcn4'mlor Duildu,g 1.1.6 Mak!)-Up Wahlr Pump lIou_ 1.1.7 Mi!ICt*llatmQus Silu WOfk fih. 1. 1.H-Slructun's ilh.I.L9 Radwlhlw Duilding 5b.1.1.1II St!rv1(:C Building 5b. 1.1.11 and Tank Pads Sb.1.1.l2 Turbinc Building fib.]'1.I:!

Turbim)

Fud Building Totals Slkf'l(>>lt'OtllA<:'Ii"llles bb.l.1 nll('kFIIi Site 5b.1.:l Grade & .. bb.I'" FillAl report 10 NRC 5b.1 Subtotal Period fib Adl\ily COlSl>l PI'nod ;')\) Addlhonal Coots fib.21 ('ofll:ntle Cru!\hmg 5b.2.2 Scrm'nhuUlw CofTi'nlum DiSl"har!:c F'1ume & Unit 2 Excavillion Thwkrlll ISFSI Sift* Rttstonllwn fib.2 Subtotal Period 5b Addillollill CO$ts 5b.:! Subtotlll Period [)b Collakml ('O$ts TLG Services.

Inc. ocr.site UpeoD Removal Packaging Transport Proeeuing Co"t COllt Co,.ts Costs Costs 817 ali 817 to,ilill H-t'dlID 1:1,494 6,0'25 15,081 5,7!Jl 2,202 3,609 5,2M 1,858 3,., 1,7&1 2,782 5,212 402 lia 5,:124 1,223 2,"42 38,44i lO9 2,154 40,710 1,515 1,096 5,440 1,440 9,492 4lj5 405 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) LLRW NRC DIJipmw.l Other Total Total Lie. Tenn. Costs Costs C""", C""" 13,73:1 4,120 17,852 17,852 1:1,7a3 4,121l 17,852 17,852 I,U:1O 15' 1,184 l,Hl4 I,naO 15< l,HH l,lS4 :lH.') :19 424 424 745 74 81. 81' 204 1,1l21 1,021 20 6 3fi :15 41< 62 Hi 477 436 .. 479 .7. 235 a5 270 270 90a w 1,107 1,107 5,194 77. 5,974 5,974 6,722 1,008 7,731 7,731 20 15,095 2,396 18,a:l7 18,337 20 30,032 6,723 37,('00 :17,600 27,1i:18 HID,064 74,481 421,64H 414,947 116. 6.659 aao 2,5a3 541 4,150 790 6,054 279 2,136 .7 4a7 , ... 2,05:1 417 3,199 782 5,994 60 462 :!6 19. 799 6,123 184 1,407 '""' 2,808 5,767 44,215 I. 125 32a 2,477 195 29 224 224 19. 6,1:16 47,041 224 229 1,753 164 I,:mo 816 6,256 50 224 1,714 60 1,4:13 1O,9H4 70 5:15 7" 5a5 Spent Fuel Sile Processed Burial Voluml's Management Resto.atian Volume Class A ClauD Claas C Costs Costs Cu.Ff!ilt Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet :J4i :147 :147 2,O()O 4,70{l 1ili4,40a IIm,4!!3 751 I,1KI8 (i,659 2,5:1:1 4,150 r,,054 2,1:111 4:17 2,053 3.,199 5,994 4t12 I" 11,123 1,407 2,808 -I4,:U5 125 2,477 4ti,H17 1,753 1,260 0,266 1,714 1,714 9,269 535 535 GTCC Cu. Feet 1,7H5 Document EI6-164{)"006.

Rev. 0 Appendix E. Page II of 12 Huriall Utility aDd Procesaed Craft Contractor WtOlLbs. MaJiboun.

Manbouftl 22:1,57:1 a,l:W 22:1,57:1

I,l:l(J 6,94M II I1Ui51 :>>i,7;11 7a,tt.!!J (i,94H II !..t9,211 6,94H 223,585 152,:1:n :15,127,950 1,"21,H--I0 1,912,12:1 2:),242 38,4UI 66,578 20,2:J4 5,lUO 21,227 44,561 58,440 5,f)8.'i 2,463 63,415 12,474 26,720 443,457 101 .. , .... 9 448,106 7.:1f:i5 )0,159 37,059 HI,129 tHO 7:1,702 16U Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost AnalysisDocument E16-1640

-006, Rea. o Appendix E, Page 12 of 12 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars)

Off SiteLLNRCSpent FuelSitep rocessedBurial VolumesBurial IUti l ity ,ad Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal OtherTotalTotalLia Term Management RestorationVolomeCl am A Clues BC lass CO CCProceosodCraftContractor CostCoatCost.Co..CoatsCostaCoats Contin g e ncy CostsCostsCostsCostsCo. Fact Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Co. FeetCo. Feet Wt, Lbs.Marabouts Manhours 5,959 5.959-56,62656,620 22,924151,412 A tivity indexActivity Description o al 5b ndvot C b, 56.4.2Pn,porty 10000 56.4.3Iluavy equipment ranlxi 5b4.4Pla nt oncrgy budget 5b A.5Site O&M C.M.5h4.6Seenrity Staff Can 51..43DO( Sta)Cuv/

56.4.8Utility Staff Coat 5bASabtxlol Period 56 Period Dcpendonl Cant.

5bATOTAL PERIOD 51, COST PERIOD S TOTALS TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION 2,491 6,9.53 725 8223,36617.551 9,751 2,49139,06730.53112,96)100,1172244 ,20595,688-521,8116:111,25430,53112,960100.1172244,20505,688---521.808:111,254 13,8566,80015,08129,035 898,673190,790 1,328,572949,951277,213101,408584,403181,0177511,0381,78535,463,0602,124,9947,484,351 2262,491 6946,853 95725 107822 4308,:166 2,28917,551 1,2729,751 5,32241,5582,264630 7152,02715,261 8,479 30,27756,.7(61 160,674 112,151 309,534 OPAL COST TO DECOMMISSION WITH 16.77% CONTINGENCY:61,32&572 thous de of 2012 donor.

TOTAL NBC LICENSE TERMINATION COST IS 71.

5%OR:6949,951 thousands of 2012 dollars

'PENT FUEL MANAGEMENT COST IS 20.67% OR,6277, 213 thousands of 2012 dollar.

NON-NUCLEAR DEMOLITION COST IS 7.63% OR,$101,406 tboose nda of 2012 dollar.

OTAL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BURIED (EXCLUDING GTCC):162,806 cubic feet OTAL (.BEATER THAN CLASS C RADWASTE VOLUME GENERATED:1,785 cubic host OTAL SCRAP METAL REMOVED:75,966 tons TOTAL CRAFT LABOR REQUIREMENTS:2,124.994 man-hnnrs Nx-iod,^:,,m that this xrtivity not 4Icng,.vloa do n..... aping cxiwv,ae.

m1"o oast thin ad,vity 1wrCxrmed by dooom,ni, s,ia,mg al.ff.hat thin value., bona than 0.5 but is pox-sum.

x<<II u`. N:i e,ng' °iodicnleaxsit,avebue TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Heavy cquipnwnt renrnl 5bAA Plnnl tlncrgy budget 5bA.S Site O&M Co"ls 5b.4.6 Sa'unly Staff Cost 5bA.7 DOCStalTCo.!l 5bA.8 tllililyStaITCmlt 5bA SubhJtal Period fib Ptlnml*Dclltmdunt Cmlhl Sb.O PERIOD 5h CO:-iT PERIOD S TOTALS TOTAL TO DECOMMIs...,ION Decon Cost 22,924 MAL COST TO DECOMMJSSJONWlTH 16.77"" CONTINGl';NCY:

NRC LICENSE TERMINATION COST)S 71.5'. OR: 'PENT FUEL MANAGEMENT COST IS OR: !NON-NUCLEAR DEMOLITION COST IS 7.63*0 OR: Removal Packaging Cost Cost.s 5,959 5.%9 56,626 56,626 151,412 13,856 OTAL LOW*LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BURIED (EXCLUDING GTCC): OTAL GREATER THAN CLASS C RADWA8TE VOLUME GENERATED:

OTAL SCRAP METAL REMOVED: OTAL CRAFT LABOR ROO!1IREMENTS:

a (V.i1 crmtaining . mdiellle$

a :reI <l value TLG Services.

Inc. TableE Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) OfT-..'lite LLRW NRC TralUJport ProcNUting Dispo.ul Other Total Total Lie. Term. Costs Costs Costs Costs Costs CmtJj 2,264 226 2,4!11 ** 4 6,&":1 6ao 95 725 715 107 822 2,927 .Ja9 a,:l66 15,261 2,289 17,551 8,479 1,272 9,751 30,277 5,:122 41,558 30,531 12.960 100.117 224 30,5:11 12,960 l()(I.lIi 224 6,8" 15,081 29,035 898,673 190,790 1,328,572 949,9!il

$949,951 thoulUlnds of 2012 dollars $277,213 thousands of 2012 dollars $101,408 thousands of 2012 dollars 182.806 cubic feet 1,785 cubic feet 75.!HS6 tons :U24.994 man*houn Spent Fuel Site ProCeMed Management Restoration Volume Class A Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet 2,491 6,8hJ 725 822 3,366 17.551 9,751 2,491 :m,067 4,205 95,flS8 4,205 95,688 277,213 101,408 584,403 181,017 Burial Volumes ClwofiiB ClauC GTCC Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet 751 1,038 1,785 Document E16-1640-006.

Rel'. 0 Appendix E. Page 12 of 12 Burial' Utmtyulld ProCl'&lled Craft Contractor Wt .* Lbs. Manhoun; Manhuurl'!

5tl,i{m 160,074 i)'l,IS} ;109,5;J4 521,&n; :111,254 521,tWH :111,254 35,463,060 2.I24,95H 7,*UW.351