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

{{#Wiki_filter: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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page 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 d~r::! LZ-~ CJ William A. Cloutier, Jr/ John A. Carlson Date Date 1/-:1;0 ~

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

SUMMARY

..............................................................................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 of the 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 Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page iii of xvii PAGE ~CUTIVE 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page iv of xvii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) SECTION 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page v of xvii TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) SECTION PAGE FIGURES 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-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 Analysis Document 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Page 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 scheduled cessation 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, 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 minimum 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.[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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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."[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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 1980,1101 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 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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" [131 (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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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).[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 16 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 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 [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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Page xv of xvii

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS DECON (thousands of 2012 dollars) Decontamination 25,126 Removal 191,180 Packaging 27,715 Trans ortation 13 229 Waste Disposal 80,391 Off-site Waste Processin 14,464 Pro am Mana ement X11 421,449 Sent Fuel Pool Isolation 12,176 Spent Fuel Direct Costs [21 144,449 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 19,482 Energy 19,467 Characterization and Licensing urve^ s 27,911 Pro ert Taxes 44,649 Miscellaneous Equipment 6,738 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 ~I_nsurance and Re@!atoryFees 19,48~_ 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 17,477 Trans ortation 9,194 Waste Disposal 1, 42,172 Off-site Waste Processing 17,240 Pro am Mana ement [ll 578,327 went Fuel Pool Isolation 12,176 irect Costs) [2] 74,086 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 1 27,942 Energy 1 31,969 Characterization and Licensing Surveys 1 29,549 Property Taxes 53,473 MiscellaneousE ui ment 13,600 Site O&M 9,718 Cost Element NRC License Termination S ent Fuel Mana ement Site Restoration Total [31 Total 666,212 367,871 101,418 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 Ip.surl!!!.~~~_~~latory Fees 27,942._- Energy 31,969 ~haracterization 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 Analysis Document 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 187'1~ Packaging 16,3 Trans~~rtation 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 f~!lsl!~~p.ce and R~_@latory': Fees 57,273 Energy 38,925 Characterization and Licensil!.g Surveys 29,549 Property Taxes 92,510 Miscellaneous Equipment 26'1~ 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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 scheduled cessation 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 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 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. 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 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,[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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 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.lS] 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 Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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).[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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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,[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 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[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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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] 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 NRC-prescribed level. It should be noted that the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) differ on the amount of residual radioactivity considered acceptable in site remediation. The EPA has two limits that apply to radioactive materials. An EPA limit of 15 millirem per year is derived from criteria established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).[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,"[141 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 NRC-prescribed level. It should be noted that the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) differ on the amount of residual radioactivity considered acceptable in site remediation. The EPA has two limits that apply to radioactive materials. An EPA limit of 15 millirem per year is derived from criteria established by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund)J151 An additional limit of 4 millirem per year, as defined in 40 CFR §141.16, is applied to drinking waterJ161 TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 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 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 NRC-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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 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 Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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 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: 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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. 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. 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 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 Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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: 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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. 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 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 (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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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: 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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). 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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), 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 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, 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,"[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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 Respiratory Protection Factor Radiation/ALARA Factor Protective Clothing Factor 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 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 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 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[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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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. Changes in the project work scope from the baseline estimate, involving the discovery of unexpected levels of contaminants, contamination in places not previously expected, contaminated soil previously undiscovered (either radioactive or hazardous material contamination), variations in plant inventory or configuration not indicated by the as-built drawings. Regulatory changes (e.g., affecting worker health and safety, site release criteria, waste transportation, and disposal). Policy decisions altering national commitments (e.g., in the ability to accommodate certain waste forms for disposition or in the timetable for such, 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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").[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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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 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 Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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 high-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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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, 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 Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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-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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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

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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 18 of 22 TABLE 3.1 DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars) Equipment & Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 1 2046 17,328 3,108 824 11 3,537 24,808 2047 72,522 15,915 4,021 2,1111 21,635 116,205 2048! 82,398 2049 80,423 30,222 31,147 3,865 3,038 27,911 25,575 34,186 19,431 169,972 168,224 2050 74,912 21,280 2,453 9,005 10,072 117,721 2051 74,400 20,364 2,398 6,667 9,204 113,033 2052 54,352 9,808 1,555 5,6881 7,050 78,453 2053 45,486 4,263 642 49511 4,938 55,823 2054 30,768 14,665 320 01 4,497 50,249 2055 30,768 14,665 320 01 4,497 50,249 2056 7,151 1,446 32 0 [ 4,237 12,866 2057 4,553,1 0 0 0 4,196 8,7491 2058 4,553 1 0 0 0 4,196 8,749 2059 4,553 0 0 0 4,196 8,749 2060 4,565 0 0 0 4,208 8,773 2061 4,553 0 0 01 4,196 8,749 2062 4,553 0 0 0 4,196 8,749 2063 5,631 3,234 0 0 4,196 13,062 2064 5,852 4,569 0 2 12,740 23,163 2065 2,117 565 0 251 2,543 5,476 ......_..._............_..._..._.____...3........ _..... __......... _......._.. Total 611,436 175,251 __.__`.____.._..._...__...__.._.___I 19,4671 .._...._._.__....__.._........_.._._.L_._........_.._..._.__...._._._...__...1 86,328 159,342 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 50,24:~ 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 4,196.~._8J49 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... _?Q~~ 5&~r-_. ___ ~}234 0 0 __ 4-,-,_196 1~10~~ I 2064 5,852 4,569 0 2 12,740 23,163 I 2065 2,117 5651 0 251 2,543' 5,476 iT~tal ,******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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 19 of 22 TABLE 3.2 DELAYED DECON ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars) Equipment & Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 2046 13,638 316 824 11! 1,997 16,785 1 2047 62,743 6,925 3,198 7661 23,413 97,045 2048 23,061_. 1,405 1,258 488 1 10,127 36 33 8 2049 13,811 435 640 171 6,698 21,600 2050 13,811 435 640 1711. 6,698 21,600 2051 13,811 435 640 17 6,698 21,600 2052 13,848 436 641 171 6,717 21,659 2053 13,811 2054 13,811 435 435

640, 1

640 17 6,698 17 6,698 21,600 g17690 2055 13,811 435 640 171 6,698 21,600 2056 13,848 436 641 17 6,717 21,659 2057 13,811 435 640 171 6,698 21,600 2058 13,811 2059 13,811 E 435 435 640 ! 640 171 6,698 17 6,698 21,600 21,600 2060 13,8481 436 641 17 6,717, 21,659 2061 13,811 435 640 17 6,698 21,600 2062 13,811 435 640 17 E 6,698 21,600, 2063 15,967 2064 11,456 6,904 5,870 640 462 1 17 6,698 12 5,446 30,225 23,245 2065 44,043 1,631 3,198 38 2,432 51,340 2066 65,594 2067 68,629 14 ._.___.....__..._.__...__.,715 18,005 ....__...._._.......__3,11. 3,038 _._...__.10,838! 7,138 21,574; 11,818 101,402 123,064 2068 63,676 2069 62,801 9,798 8,646 2,482 2,398 7,892 5,751 ! 5,998 4,904 89598 84,747 2070 54,091 5,152 1,516 3,008, 3,787 67,555 2071 31,630 2072 27,254 _ _............11,618. 14,864 1 398 321 8 1 781 0 1,496 45 43 43,936 2073 13,776 7,513 162 0 756 22,208 Total 751,821 119,452 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 1'--~6!~-+-~t~i1-+- --.. --!,:~~ 1,~}~L.--_-1ii 1~:~~~L---~i~~66 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 li:'~" 22 0 0 5 5 4 3 II 1133',881111 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 l_~_~8 I 13,811 435 664400"~ 17..J ___ §.. 6~§..f-~1&QQ. 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 \\ __ ~O~~ 15,967 _6,!~94 r--___..§.4,Ql _____ 17 _~~ ___ ~Q1.~_~Q~ 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 ~--~-6-~*~-.. ----i - ~~:~~:--.. *.. ---.. i-~~-6~-~+.... --~:6-~*~l--*.. -~~,~~: 1i:~~~.. -----i~i.~~!.. l_.. ~.Q§~ 63,676_ __ 9, 798 __ 2A~2 7,892 §., 75lj ___ ~_~59~_1 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 t--}6~-}----\\---.. ~~~~-~~t-----.... -*i-!:~-~!1----.. ---------~~i-I-------*-----.. --6+--------i:~~~1-------.. :~::~~ 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 20 of 22 TABLE 3.3 SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars) Equipment & Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 2046 14,5301 2,992 824 11 3,537 21,894 2047 66,210 17,326 3,198 7661 27,853 115,353 2048 26,597 2049 17,3641 12,015 11,093 1,258 640 4881 13,0211 171 10,499 53,380 39,612 2050 1 17,364 11,093 640 17 10,499 39,612 2051 17,364 11,093 640 17 10,499 39,612 2052 9,159 1 3,149 398 10 5,989 18,705 2053 6,428 2054 6,428 319 319 320 320 8 4,540 81 4,540 11,615 11,615 2055 6,428 319 320 8 4,540 11,615 2056 6,445 320 321 8 4,5531 11,647 2057 6,428 319 320 81 4,540 11,615 2058 6,428 2059 6,428 319 1 319 320 320 81 4,540 8 4,540 11,615 11,615 2060 6,445 320 321 8 4,553 11,647 2061 6,428 319 320 8 4,540 11,615 2062 6,428 319 320 8 11 4,540 11,615 2063 7,506 3,554 320. 81 4,540 15,928 12064 7,732 4,201 321 8 4,547 16,809 2065 3,721 313 320 7 2,319 6,680 2066 __--3,721... 2067 3,721 313 313 1 320 320 7 2,319 7 2,319 6,680 6,680 2068 3,731 2069 3,721 314 313 321 320 7 2,325 7' 2,319 6,698 6,680 2070 3,721 313 320 71 2,319 6,680 2071 --...._:_......___3,721 2072 3,731 ..... 313 1 314 1 320 321 7.._..._--_...._._.2,319 7 2,325 6,680 6,698 2073 3,721 2074 3,721 313 1 313 1 320 320 2,319 7 1 2,319 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\\ 4,540_~_11,61~ 2054 6,428 319 320 81 4,540 11,61~_ 2055 6,428 319 320 8 4,540 11,615 i 2056 6,445 3201 321 81 4,553 11,647

2057 6,428 31~

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 11,6151 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

ig~~---+------~~i~i-------- ----**--*--~-i~L--------{~-6-1--------------*~-*l--------~:~i~.-.--.-----~:'~~g!

1_20§_~_L~7~LL 314 321 _____ 7_L_~1_32~ 6,~~1 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-i---~-Ql~----t-~~~l-1-------~J&J-- 320 7 L ___ ~~!Q.L_-_-§J.68~, ! 2074 3,7211 313 i 320 I 71 2,3191 6,680J TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 21 of 22 TABLE 3.3 (continued) SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars) Equipment & Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 2075 11 3,721 313 320 71 2,319 6,680 2076 3,731 314 321 7 2,325 6,698 j 2077 2078 3,721 3,721 313 313 1 320 320 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, 2087 3,721 313 320 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....__.~, ~L~L... _ .. ____._.§1§§gj 2078 3,721 313 320 71 2,319 6,680 L~}~--l--?-1-Z~ _. 313 320 7 L~,31Q. __ 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 6,6~QJ 2083 3,721 313 320 71 2,319 6,680 l 2084 I 3,731 314 321 7 2,32~ ______ j?1.6~~ ! 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 __ 20~~_1---QJ21 J-_____ ~_Q _____ ~~~~ ______ l_L--~l~l~ ___.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 _L_~L?1§_r-_____ §,698., ! 2093 I 3,721 313 320 71 2,319 6,680 U~~:l ~:~~~I. ___ ~lll ~~~I ~I _t~~L __ 1: i 2096 I 3,731 3141 321 7\\ 2,325 6,698 2097.U12!___ 313 320 7 2,31~ 6,~~~ 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 ~-{l~~-'-~~%~ ------~~*}t-- ~:~~~ -lt~!t_~~:~~-~it~~~t TLG Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 3, Page 22 of 22 TABLE 3.3 (continued) SAFSTOR ALTERNATIVE SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (thousands, 2012 dollars) Equipment & Year Labor Materials Energy Burial Other Total 2104 62,972 8,651 2,405 5,9851 4,954 84,966 2105 62,753 8,608 2,393 5,9521 4,934 84,640 2106 1 40,805 1 27,471 5,083 14,904 557 320 251 2,.37.1 0 1,492 48,842 44,187 2108 27,546 14,945 321 0___ 1,496 44,308 2109 151 82 2 01 8 242 Total 1803,188 182,094 38,925 46,938 257,427 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 4,9-54~--~96~1 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 __.1....t!~§_ 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Analysis Document 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 11 2 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^.^ecoxnnussioning 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 storage operations 24 J^f l.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 ves~el & 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 y~ 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 ~I t ~ ~ ~

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document 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,.fi iiiiiat.r.tecl 31 Period 2b Unit 1 - Decontamination (wet fuel) 22 Fuel Cl t l"1 33 Il-, ^ I d 34 11: 1c .c t]^ ^i,a': L^ `.'^ ^1 l i us^awwv,^na*^wnn 30 s^wbwa^:. 36 37 Fuel stor.t, i-,^l sati azl;,ljl, for <3,-ccznznissiorun-38 Period 2d Unit 1 - Decontamination following wet fuel storage 39 Dry fuel storage operations 40 Remove remainizT systems 41 Ilecor, Y.. -t "a ai a 42 Period. 2e Unit 1 - Plant license termination 43 Dry fuel storage operations 44 B..._t 45 A l41l0> 46 Pi f=it,._u inated 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 ~k'~L~w.vL1S Remove systems not Jporting "vet fuel """v~gP 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 l"nf~"t>Smin" 'or -c END TLG Services, Inc. IY-l Y1 IY~) Y3 Y4 (" i",,':,;, - ~ Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 4 of 7 Y5 Y6 IY7 Y8 Y9 YIO ~11 ~12 ~ .1'1 i1~" ~ --Iii. I~ ~.. ";:;';,:J;;;; r

Clinton Power Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 4, Page 5 of 7 FIGURE 4.2 DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE DECON (not to scale) (Shutdown September 29, 2046) ..................................................................................................................................................... 31-Pool and ISFSI Operations ISFSI Operations Period 1 Transition and Preparations Period 2 Period 3 ISFSI ISFSI Decommissioning I R Site Operations D&D 09/2046 03/2048 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 ISF~I ISFSI ~~~~----~~~-Fi~-1~~1 09/2046 03/2048 1112053 02/2056 12/2064 06/2065 TLG Services, Inc. Storage Pool Empty 03/2052

Clinton Power Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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 1 Period 2 Transition and Dormancy Preparations Period 3 Period 4 Delayed Decommissioning Preparations Period 5 Site Restoration 09/2046 03/2048 12/2064 07/2066 03/2071 07/2073

• ISFSI Operations (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 ~-"~" __ "" __ +~~~i~~~j _______ " __ j~:~:.~::j 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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 2 Period 3 Dormancy Delayed Preparations ..................................................... F..................................................................................... I Period 5 Site Restoration 09/2046 03/2048 09/2100 03/2102 09/2106 01/2109 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 ~" _____ """ __ "-+::~~~t~~+ ____ "_"_+~~~~~1 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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,[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 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 5, Page 3 of 5 TABLE 5.1 DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

DECON Waste Volume Mass Waste Cost Basis Class [1] (cubic feet [______(pounds) Low-Level Radioactive EnergySolutions Waste (near-surface Containerized A disposal) EnergySolutions Bulk 219,548 13,142,220 59,509 3,452,391 Future Disposal 487,391 20,285,930 151,932,000 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 5, Page 4 of 5 TABLE 5.2 DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

DELAYED DECON Waste Volume 1 Mass Waste Cost Basis 'Class [1] (cubic feet) ounds) Low-Level Radioactive EnergySolutions Waste (near-surface Containerized A disposal) EnergySolutions Bulk A Future Disposal Facility B Future Disposal Facility__ I C _ Total [21 I ProcessedlConditioned Recycling (off-site recycling center Vendors 582,9011 24,179,990 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 5, Page 5 of 5 TABLE 5.3 DECOMMISSIONING WASTE

SUMMARY

SAFSTOR 1 Waste Volume Waste Cost Basis Class [1] I (cubic fee Low-Level Radioactive EnergySolutions Waste (near-surface Containerized A disposal) EnergySolutions Bulk A Future Disposal Facilit B Future Disposal Facility C Mass pounds 125,048 7,617,500 55,969 1 2,972,850 751 97,700 1,038 100,425 GTCC 1,785 351,100 184,591 11,139,5751 Greater than Class C (geologic repository) Total [2] Spent Fuel Equivalent ProcessedlConditioned Recycling off-site rec clip center Vendors Scrap Metal A 584,403 1 24,323,490 151,932,000 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 7,617&QQ~ 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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 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 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 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 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 site-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 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 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 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 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 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis 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 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 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) Cost Element Total Decontamination 25,126 1 Removal 191,180 Packaging 27,715 1 Transportation 13,229 Waste Disposal 80,391 Off-site Waste ProcessL*n 14,4641 1.4 Pro am Mana ement ^^^ 421,449 40.1 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 12,176 1.2 Spent Fuel (Direct Costs) [21 144,4491 13.7 Insurance and Re ulator Fees 19,482 ! 1.9 Energy 19,4671 1.9 Characterization/Licensing Surveys 27,9111 2.7 Property Taxes_ 44,649 4.2 Miscellaneous Equipment 6,738 0.6 Site 0&M 3,3971 0.3 Total [3^ 1,051,824 100.0 NRC License Termination 732,894 69.7 S ent Fuel Mana ement 217,632 20.7 Site Restoration 101,298 9.6 I Total [31 1,051,824 1 100.0 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 _ _ _ t ~ ~ 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page 5 of 6 TABLE 6.2

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS DELAYED DECON (thousands of 2012 dollars) Cost Element Total Percentage 32,855 185,721 17,477,1 9,194 42,172 1. 17,240 578,327 Decontamination Removal 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 31,9691 1.1 6.5 2.5 2.8 29,549 1 2.6 53,4731 4.7 13,600 1.2 9,7181 0.9 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 r~~- .~~---- Decontamination Removal Packa 'n Transportation ________ _ Characteriza tionlLicensin _J::)~():Re~¥ Taxes __ _ Miscellaneous E ui ment Site O&M ostElement [3] [lJ Includes security and engineering costs Total Percenta~e 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 6, Page 6 of 6 TABLE 6.3

SUMMARY

OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS SAFSTOR (thousands of 2012 dollars) Cost Element Decontamination Removal Packaging Total Percentage 32,644 2.5 187,109 14.1 16,3491 1.2 Tran ortation 7,9891 0.6 Waste Disposal 38,122 2.9 Off-site Waste Processing 17,343 1.3 Pro am Management [1] 609,045 45.8 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 12,176 0.9 Spent Fuel Direct Costs [21 140,812 10.6 Insurance and Re ulator Fees ` 57,273 4.3 Energy 38,925 2.9 Characterization/Licensin Surve s ! 29,549 2.2 Proerty Taxes 92,510 7.0 Miscellaneous E ui ment 26,121 2.0 Site O&M 22,606 1.7 1,328,572 100.0 Total [3] Cost Element NRC License Termination Spent Fuel Management Site Restoration Total [31 Total Percentage 949,951 71.5 277,213 ' 20.9 101,4081 7.6 1.328.572 ( 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 ent~a.,. 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" Tr~nsportation i --~--*~' Waste Disposal 38,122 2.9 __ Qlf~~!te W l:l_ste~!:Qce~§inJL ______ 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 ~~E-..!:l:~gy~ __ 38,925 2.9 Characterization/Licensing Surveys 29,549 2.2 "O_"J~~!:QP~rt.y Tax~~ ____ o_. _____ L_~,510 7.0 Miscellaneous Equipment I 26 121 2~6-Site O&M 22,606 1.7 al [3]

• 1,328,572 100.0

~ost Element Total Percentage NRC License Termination 949,951 71.5 Spent Fuel Management 277,213 20.9 Site Restoration ___ 191,4~ 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Section 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix A, Page 2 of 4 APPENDIX A UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT Example: Unit Factor for Removal of Contaminated Heat Exchanger < 3,000 lbs. 1. SCOPE Heat exchangers weighing < 3,000 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 Critical Act Activity Duration Duration ID Description (minutes) (minutes)* a Remove insulation 60 (b) b Mount pipe cutters 60 60 c Install contamination controls 20 (b) d Disconnect inlet and outlet lines 60 60 e Cap openings 20 (d) f Rig for removal 30 30 g Unbolt from mounts 30 30 h Remove contamination controls 15 15 i Remove, wrap, send to waste processing area 60 60 Totals (Activity/Critical) 355 255 Duration adjustment(s): + Respiratory protection adjustment (50% of critical duration) 128 + Radiation/ALARA adjustment (37% of critical duration) 95 Adjusted work duration 478 + Protective clothing adjustment (30% of adjusted duration) 143 Productive work duration 621 + 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix A, Page 3 of 4 APPENDIX A (continued) 3. LABOR REQUIRED Number Duration Rate (hours) ($/hr) Crew Cost Laborers 3.00 11.217 $46.15 $1,552.99 Craftsmen 2.00 11.217 $55.37 $1,242.17 Foreman 1.00 11.217 $58.54 $656.64 General Foreman 0.25 11.217 $60.07 $168.45 Fire Watch 0.05 11.217 $46.15 $25.88 Health Physics Technician 1.00 11.217 $70.20 $787.43 Total labor cost 4. EQUIPMENT & CONSUMABLES COSTS Equipment Costs Consumables/Materials Costs Blotting 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 % $8.70 Total 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix A, Page 4 of 4 5. NOTES AND REFERENCES Work difficulty factors were developed in conjunction with the Atomic Industrial Forum's (now NEI) program to standardize nuclear decommissioning cost estimates and are delineated in Volume 1, Chapter 5 of the "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986. References for equipment & consumables costs:

1. 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 2 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit Removal of clean instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot 0.50 Removal of clean pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot 5.32 Removal of clean pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot 7.51 Removal of clean pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot 14.41 Removal of clean pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot 28.05 Removal of clean pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot 36.41 Removal of clean pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 53.58 Removal of clean pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 63.69 Removal of clean valve >2 to 4 inches 95.96 Removal of clean valve >4 to 8 inches 144.07 Removal of clean valve >8 to 14 inches 280.50 Removal of clean valve >14 to 20 inches 364.08 Removal of clean valve >20 to 36 inches 535.81 Removal of clean valve >36 inches 636.90 Removal of clean pipe hanger for small bore piping 32.02 Removal of clean pipe hanger for large bore piping 117.22 Removal of clean pump, <300 pound 241.72 Removal of clean pump, 300-1000 pound 666.04 Removal of clean pump, 1000-10,000 pound 2,649.79 Removal of clean pump, >10,000 pound 5,120.32 Removal of clean pump motor, 300-1000 pound 279.86 Removal of clean pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound 1,103.10 Removal of clean pump motor, >10,000 pound 2,481.96 Removal of clean heat exchanger <3000 pound 1,420.74 Removal of clean heat exchanger >3000 pound 3,570.42 Removal of clean feedwater heater/deaerator 10,080.07 Removal of clean moisture separator/reheater 20,743.01 Removal of clean tank, <300 gallons 311.12 Removal of clean tank, 300-3000 gallon 983.41 Removal of clean tank, >3000 gallons, $/square foot surface area 8.15 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 3 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit Removal of clean electrical equipment, <300 pound 132.25 Removal of clean electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound 455.66 Removal of clean electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 911.31 Removal of clean electrical equipment, >10,000 pound 2,157.46 Removal of clean electrical transformer < 30 tons 1,498.33 Removal of clean electrical transformer > 30 tons 4,314.91 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, <100 kW 1,530.41 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, 100 kW to 1 MW 3,415.99 Removal of clean standby diesel generator, >1 MW 7,071.76 Removal of clean electrical cable tray, $/linear foot 12.34 Removal of clean electrical conduit, $/linear foot 5.39 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, <300 pound 132.25 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound 455.66 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 911.31 Removal of clean mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound 2,157.46 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, <300 pound 159.92 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 547.50 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 1,091.18 Removal of clean HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound 2,157.46 Removal of clean HVAC ductwork, $/pound 0.52 Removal of contaminated instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot 1.71 Removal of contaminated pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot 22.81 Removal of contaminated pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot 38.91 Removal of contaminated pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot 61.96 Removal of contaminated pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot 121.25 Removal of contaminated pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot 145.70 Removal of contaminated pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 201.88 Removal of contaminated pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 238.74 Removal of contaminated valve >2 to 4 inches 478.50 Removal of contaminated valve >4 to 8 inches 569.79 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 4 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit Removal of contaminated valve >8 to 14 inches 1,162.49 Removal of contaminated valve >14 to 20 inches 1,477.66 Removal of contaminated valve >20 to 36 inches 1,968.80 Removal of contaminated valve >36 inches 2,337.37 Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for small bore piping 157.65 Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for large bore piping 504.04 Removal of contaminated pump, <300 pound 1,014.32 Removal of contaminated pump, 300-1000 pound 2,299.75 Removal of contaminated pump, 1000-10,000 pound 7,348.76 Removal of contaminated pump, >10,000 pound 17,897.28 Removal of contaminated pump motor, 300-1000 pound 978.26 Removal of contaminated pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound 2,992.60 Removal of contaminated pump motor, >10,000 pound 6,718.78 Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <3000 pound 4,495.82 Removal of contaminated heat exchanger >3000 pound 13,023.67 Removal of contaminated feedwater heater/deaerator 31,565.43 Removal of contaminated moisture separator/reheater 68,525.37 Removal of contaminated tank, <300 gallons 1,686.40 Removal of contaminated tank, >300 gallons, $/square foot 32.27 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, <300 pound 788.85 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,870.74 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 3,602.26 Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, >10,000 pound 6,977.40 Removal of contaminated electrical cable tray, $/linear foot 38.03 Removal of contaminated electrical conduit, $/linear foot 17.94 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, <300 pound 877.99 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound 2,067.28 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 3,974.28 Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound 6,977.40 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, <300 pound 877.99 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 5 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 2,067.28 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 3,974.28 Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound 6,977.40 Removal of contaminated HVAC ductwork, $/pound 2.38 Removal/plasma arc cut of contaminated thin metal components, $/linear in. 4.06 Additional decontamination of surface by washing, $/square foot 8.71 Additional decontamination of surfaces by hydrolasing, $/square foot 35.59 Decontamination rig hook up and flush, $/ 250 foot length 7,431.42 Chemical flush of components/systems, $/gallon 17.64 Removal of clean standard reinforced concrete, $/cubic yard 138.42 Removal of grade slab concrete, $/cubic yard 185.40 Removal of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard 362.29 Removal of sections of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard 1,077.74 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard 233.53 Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard 2,155.48 Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard 295.12 Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard 2,851.79 Removal heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar & steel embedments, $/cubic yard 449.06 Removal of below-grade suspended floors, $/cubic yard 362.29 Removal of clean monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard 892.75 Removal of contaminated monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard 2,150.15 Removal of clean foundation concrete, $/cubic yard 701.09 Removal of contaminated foundation concrete, $/cubic yard 2,003.09 Explosive demolition of bulk concrete, $/cubic yard 30.36 Removal of clean hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 101.08 Removal of contaminated hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 368.53 Removal of clean solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 101.08 Removal of contaminated solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 368.53 Backfill of below-grade voids, $/cubic yard 32.64 Removal of subterranean tunnels/voids, $/linear foot 115.34 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 6 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit Placement of concrete for below-grade voids, $/cubic yard 123.83 Excavation of clean material, $/cubic yard 3.20 Excavation of contaminated material, $/cubic yard 42.17 Removal of clean concrete rubble (tipping fee included), $/cubic yard 23.59 Removal of contaminated concrete rubble, $/cubic yard 26.58 Removal of building by volume, $/cubic foot 0.30 Removal of clean building metal siding, $/square foot 1.21 Removal of contaminated building metal siding, $/square foot 4.66 Removal of standard asphalt roofing, $/square foot 2.32 Removal of transite panels, $/square foot 2.13 Scarifying contaminated concrete surfaces (drill & spall), $/square foot 13.35 Scabbling contaminated concrete floors, $/square foot 8.23 Scabbling contaminated concrete walls, $/square foot 21.84 Scabbling contaminated ceilings, $/square foot 75.05 Scabbling structural steel, $/square foot 6.74 Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail < 10 ton capacity 629.42 Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail < 10 ton capacity 1,926.24 Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail >10-50 ton capacity 1,510.62 Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail >10-50 ton capacity 4,622.18 Removal of polar crane > 50 ton capacity 6,291.22 Removal of gantry crane > 50 ton capacity 26,968.26 Removal of structural steel, $/pound 0.20 Removal of clean steel floor grating, $/square foot 4.38 Removal of contaminated steel floor grating, $/square foot 13.62 Removal of clean free standing steel liner, $/square foot 12.22 Removal of contaminated free standing steel liner, $/square foot 37.75 Removal of clean concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot 6.11 Removal of contaminated concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot 43.98 Placement of scaffolding in clean areas, $/square foot 14.56 Placement of scaffolding in contaminated areas, $/square foot 26.23 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix B, Page 7 of 7 APPENDIX B UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only) Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit Landscaping with topsoil, $/acre 27,956.74 Cost of CPC B-88 LSA box & preparation for use 2,023.74 Cost of CPC B-25 LSA box & preparation for use 1,850.93 Cost of CPC B-12V 12 gauge LSA box & preparation for use 1,507.79 Cost of CPC B-144 LSA box & preparation for use 10,334.90 Cost of LSA drum & preparation for use 192.28 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 foot 0.79 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix 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 Analysis Document 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--Sate LLR De.eon Rettmvsl Packaging Transport Proce ing Disposal Ollter Total Coat Cost Co.,. Coat. Costa Cristo Costs Cnutingroey NEC Spent Fuel Site Prnrr0aed Bartel Volumes Burial / Utility and Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Vnlmne Cass A Class B Close C 0 CC Processed Craft Contractor Costs Cnatn Co.. Costs Co. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Moon nurs Munhourn.._ Activity Index Activity Descriptimt PERIOD 1. - Shutdown through Transition Forted to Dio.e Ikco,nmi.--ing Aaiviti,w lu.i.l Prepare preliminary de<<omminniuning cost 1".1? Notilcntion of Cvoantian of Opemttonu in.l3 Remove fool & nrurco mnterinl 101.4 Nolif lion of Pertnsnent Defueiing tn.t.5 Deoetlvste plant tyst,mn & pea aaaa waste 1".1.6 Preporv and nuhmit PSDAR .1 7 Review plant dwgs & apses. 10.1.8 Perfun. detail d rod aurvuy In.1.9 E44-1, by tnod-t.n-nony in 11) End product d., iption 10.1.11 Detnibd by.pmdurttnventoey In.1.12 Define tm,jor work quan,e 1".1.13 Perform SER and EA 10.1.14 Perform Site Sp-the Cost Study 1..1.15 Preponfnubuat Ltven.c Tam,inuton Plan ta.1.16 Rtnxeve 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.i7 Total P1"nnwg & Otto Promorssnrvr Prcpxredi.mnntling wrqucnee Plan. pcep.& temp.ntver 11.1.2)1 Design water eie.n. up ay+lem 11.1 21 Rigging/C-1. Cold Envipsll, ulinglotc. I..t.22 Procure corkn/lim,eu & eonntinnra 10.1 Subtotal Period 1, Activity Coutn 162 24 250 37 574 86 185 19 125 19 16, 24 937 140 7 58 624 94 512 77 614 92 620 78 62 9 887 13:1 812 122 62 9 125 19 2)10 30 261 39 261

19 250 37 200 30 396 58 574 86 112 17 5,330 600 45 435 26 330 23 2,237 187 187 N.

287 287 661 661 144 144 144 144 167 187 1,677 1,077 445 445 718 718 588 588 707 626 71 598 539 no 72 72 1,020 1,020 9.33 933 72 72 144 144 236 115 115 300 3101 3911 3011 287 287 230 230 448 224 224 661 661 129 65 65 6,130 5,596 534 345 345

1,335 3,:135 201 201 2,5:0 2,530 177 177 17,154 11),620 5:14 1,:08) 2,)X0) 4,100) 1,106) 1,10X) 1.:00) 7.&0) 3,100 5,b o) 4,10)6 4,010 4,167 5161 7,100 6,5)0) rdw 1,100)

1. 600 2,1)98 2,100) 1,300) 120 4,0)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.l ISFSI Esponnion 10.2 Snbtotol Period la A+Idition,l Costs 0) 780 6,p 0 780 5,980 5

5,980 5 Perim 1. Cuil.lcrnl Costa 1x.3.1 Sio,nt NO Capital sad Tnm.rer 1x.3 Subtotal Pureed In C'11'4-1 Coots 12,051 1,868 13,8.58 12,051 1,808 13,858 13,&58 13,958 Period in Period Dependent Ctmto 1..4.1 lumm^cv 1 u.4.2 Property tours ls,4.3 11-111, phyuien nupj,lirs 1044 i tchyquipmamt n:No) Iu.45 Dinp s^o1 afDAW gvnerutcd I.. 4.)) Plant enertty budget i..4.7 NEC Fens I..4.8 Ena,rgency PI.nning Fees 2,178 218 4x7 109 4197 69 13 2

l6 11 2,781 417 1,151 115 2,481 248 2,396 2,393) 547 547 529 529 61 61 3,196

1,198 1,269 1,286 2,729 3110 12,190 2,729 TLC Sereices, Inc.

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity lndrox Activit~ Descriedon PERIOD la - Shutdown througb Tramdtion P~nod 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 RI~ntove fud & lIOurt"e In&\\t!fJal In.l.4 NohflClJtion ()f Permanent Dcfllding In.1.5 Dl'activote plant aysh!tn" & p~_ 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 Rt~'iVtl NRC IljlPfUVfll oftvrminnlioo plan AcllvllySI~,(:lficfttion$ 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 I1N~ltb 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 C~.. 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 c~.. 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 Analysis Document 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 lades Activity D..criptinn O Slte LLRW Dec.. R...-I Pe kaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Cast Cost C sts Casts Co.. Co.. Cost Contingency NRC Spent Feel

Sit, Total Lic. Term Management Restoration Costs Co.,.

Cast. Costs Processed Banal Votenws Bnrlni) Util tl ad Volume Class) Class B Class C G CC Processed Craft Cont tar Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Peet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Wt., Lbs. Mar b urs Ma 1 urs Period 1, Pcrxl - Dupoo hint Gals )rontinucd) 10.4.9 Site O&M Gals 10.4.10 Stool Fool Pond O&M 1.1 4.1) ISFSI Operoling Gals 10.4. 12 Srknrity StofCost 10,4.13 Utility Slf Ca 10.4 Sebtoutl Period to Period -Dulamdent Coots lo.0 TOTAL 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 16.7.1.3 Ram^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.l Total 16.1.2 Doran NRSS 16.) Subtnb,l Period Ib Aetiv Pw'iod IbAdditionot Costs 76.2.1 Spout fun! pod,solsbon l1, 2 Site Charsrtoricot,00 lb2 Subtotol Poriod Ib Addiuonal Coots P.'nol 11, Cnllmornl I. W. 16.3.1 D,.nn I,npment lb.3.2 DOC Batt rvlarnuon nxp,uixam Ib-3.3 Pr.... d... ring xmer 50570 16.3.4 Pan & mn iosioning rhemicol Ouch sooty 16.3.5 5,0,11 toil.ti,,.vorx*., 16.3.6 Pilw cutting vvluip1mmt 1b.3.7 Dora rig It, 18 Slxmt Fwd C.p,tol end Translcr 16.3 Subtoml Penot ib Collol,'r.) C -t. Penal Ib Permd.Dependrnt Cones 76.4.1 A.- n n.pphes ib-4.2 Insurance 16.4.:) Proporty Into, Ib.4.4 Ileollh physics supplies 16.4.5 Bevy equipveat mntm 16.4.6 Disposal of DAW gonermul lb.-1.7 Plant energy budget 16.4.8 NRC Fwa 7b.4.9 Emergency Planning Fros 11,.4.1(7 Site O&M Gals IbA.li Spent Fuel Pad O&M 316 777 91 7,158 33,037)) 36 50,862 36 83,1729 12,3.53 591 89 125 19 575 75 ICS 25 125 19 125 19 25D 37 45:1 68 150 22 151) 22 125 19 260 39 201 39 250 37 341 51 341 61 4,214 632 4,214 10,588 1,558 6,(018 1,082 17.196 3,571 841 126 1,100 154 45 19 711 93 60 2 49 260 3.123 825 2 0 1,1(5 165 1,533 225 0,(Y25 904 2,388 1,102 68 338

1,216 7,055 2,460 26 6

812 81 6,097 610 246 62 231 35 21 6 2,788 418 335 34 954 95 158 24 389 58 363 6,232 .19,019 55,010 3,727 96,335 72,231 23,565 534 680 612 144 144 574 674 194 48 144 144 144 144 287 287 521 521 172 86 172 172 144 72 299 299 300 375 287 287 392 353 3'92 353 4,046 4,390 895 895 5.740 5,215 12,176 12,176 8,591 8,591 20,767 20,767 968 968 1,184 1,104 295 295 4,259 4,259 2 2 1,265 1.265 1,725 1,725 6,029 11,929 16,627 9,698 6,929 32 32 893 893 6,707 6,707 308 308 266 265 3)1 36 3,215 3,2(8'1 360 369 1,049 1R2 182 446 897 13 2 897 13 596 596 208 9:10 47 117 14 1,074 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 4'23,415 12,1911 211 580,871 12,190 20 059,480 4,733 1,109) 4,)X5 1,:1,511 L(Xs) 1,(X5 2,109) 3,6:5 1,115 1,2)91 1.)101 2)18)) 2,,1016 2,105 2,730 2,739

13,741 1,0077 1,007

1:1,741 10,852 1)1,852 16,657 54 80,156 141 96,662 195 358 7,151) 12 751 278 278 751 TLG Sereices, Inc.

Clillton Power Station DecornmiBllioning Cost Analysis Activity I Illdl'x Activit~ Dt'!:ICril:tiOll Pllnod la PCflud*D"peoo"ol COI!!~ (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 Co~l 1IlA.I:! Ullilty Staff fmt laA Suhtulal Period 1a Penod.DclKmdeot ('Ollts 111.0 TOTAL PERJOD lfi COST PERIOD lb* Decommissioning Preparutioll8 P~'riod 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 I>Ulldin~" th.U.S cno huulIin{.':!< & Nl" lb.l.l.6 lnrore instrunwntalion Ih.l.l.7 HI'n1<1\\'al pnmary cooillinnwni lb. I. !./:!. R!~actorvf'","'1 111.1.1.9 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 ~Iohutlre 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 Dt~n 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 P\\.~nod 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 C~t 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 COlltillliellC~ C~" 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 ~JO 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 E1fi...1640~006. 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 Index Activity Description O0Stte LLRW Dec.. R,tnovnl Packaging Transport Prot ing Disposal Other Total Co., Co., Co.,. Cots C-1. Costa Costa Contingency NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burisi Volumes Burial / Utility mid Total Lic. Term. Msnngemeot Restoration Volume Cl-A Cl-8 Chas C GT C Processed Craft Contractor Costa Costa Co.. Coats Co. Feet Co. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Wt. Lbt. Mootnurs Mouttnurs Pori" Ib Pcri,d.Dvp.ndont C.mtx (continuod) 16.4.1'2 ISFSI Opvra ti ng Coda ib.413 Sv'ooly StnfCnet 16.4.14 DOCSttICoot ib.4.15 Utility SIoR Coat ib.4 Subtotal Penmi It, M nod-Depondvnt 2x,10 16.0 TOTAL PERIOD lb COST PERIOD 1 TOTALS PERIOD 2. - L.M. Comp onent Removal P,nod 2. Boot Doornoosioning Aetivittva Nuvloxr Steam Supply Sy,uvn Ito oval 20.1,1. 1 xemirculntiae, 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..5 ReoCI., Vessel 20.1.1 Tolnle Removal of Motor Foio,y.," nt 20.1.2 \\lein Turbin.1;^ ^ eretar 20.1.3 Moin 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 20.1.4.5 Fuol Building 20.1.4

Total, 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 Ilondling 1.5.6 Chem Rodwnxto Repnxw.v,ing & Dinpmol 20.1.5.7 Chilled Water RCA Y0.75,8 Chiliad Wntcr Non-RCA 2..1.5.9 Chlortn,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 Extrootioo 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 Semites, Inc.

46 7 53 5:1 3,589 5,38 4,127 4,127 5,679 852 6,531 6,531 17,1186 2,50 19,649 19,649 21 37,934 5,389 43,865 42,305 1,.549 3,237 86,399 12,349 86,988 79,061 8,479 4611

1,972 149,428 24,702 183,319 150,291 32,044 984 57 54 11 15 79 65 282 282 57 49 14 40 14 281 120 576 576 231 191 53,5 141 1111 278 1,538 1,538 14H 4,104 161,880 2,503 25,188 363 19,142 62,323 62,323 94 7,879

1.222 1,222 3,827 363 9,036 25,644 25,644 587 1 2,274 14,663 3,922 14 29,634 727 28,642 101,362 90,363 431 324 70 417 52 226 1,621 1,521 1.338 1,118 242 1,437 180 743 5,058 5,958 1,1)'11 158 1,174 1,174 245 37 281 281 579 87 666 666 577 87 1164 664 268 40 309 309 2,690 404 3,094 3,094

35 1

2 12 11 60 60 652 12 27 192 197 1,1180 1,080 44 7 51 19 3 2'2 18 0 1 5 5 29 29 479 508 68 50 57 207 441 1,811 1,611 1,395 24 58 407 421 2,305 2,305 202 30 232 51 8 59 207 14 34 237 94 585 585 57 8 65 126 10 7 5

10 42 2'20 220 199 II.

11 20 41 68 353 351 137 21 168 1.1 821 320 245 347 973 659 3,726 3,728 1,071 531 412 479 1.712 882 5,086 5,086 928 88 63 113 236 376 1,755 1,755 227 17 36 255 102 61M 636 1161 7 6 20 17 34 184 184 835 74 56 109 204 297 1,570 1,570 634 32 36 144 78 208 1,132 1,132 181 19 21 70 53 74 418 418 87 3 5 30 4 28 157 167 626 108 88 141 341 287 1.591 1,591 668 219 173 228 700 423 2,409 2,409 1,(138 218 176 303 664 089 3,1186 3,666 272 28 18 18 79 96 512 512 6 1 5 26 477 1 3,010 1,579 76 340

1,0111 2,476 88 342 358 636 751 1,245 751 78,051 63,789 213.:326 7.159 12 356,066 103,822 31,773 4001,659 116,012 31,793 1,0&1,120 5111 64,094 1,943 50 2,473 251,240 1,998 6,985 131,119 8,471 7112 1,430 1,3211 355,125 411,7)0) 1,7611 14,388 1,526,0150 40,7161 1,766 50 25,169 1,430 1,:1311 2,327,628 93,813 3,53)1 14,933 748 714,386 7,802 51,490 2,581 2,463,233 24,681 11,4541 2,582 6,493 6,771 2,912 30,209 493 20,012 573 7,613 300,178 111,682 51 877 22 373 186 7,571 285 2,244 3,043 250,752 15564 16,163 656,386 22,847 232 3,958 59 988 9,4112 381,817 3,5903 65 1,093

,04 427 32,517 2,127 803 584 65,560 3,408 158 2,681 1:1,775 13,946 1,350,699 21,288 19,037 24,551 2,164,864 19,922 4,485 3,4001 374,117 16,13:61 10,118 410,897 3,912 791 249 46,272 1,727 4,325 2,961

141,535 14.418 5,706 1,113 294,892 111,426 2,779 766 156,269 3,193 1,190 54 51,362 1.485 5,581 4,893 504,016 11,115 9,065 10,1133 8:16,889 12,138 12,026 9,536 1,028.074 28,824 5

720 1,133 93.621 4,674 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 Ch~'m Rl1Ilwali!to! n('p~"ing & DiollltMtll 2a.1.5.7 Chilled Water* RCA

la.! 5.1'1 Chillt'd WallJr Non-RCA

~fd.5,9 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 Equipn~nt 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 5,:m~ 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 - ~ ~6 - 24 = ~ N ~ m - ~ 00 Total C~" 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 9O,3~1 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 ln9ez Activity Description Off-S to LLRW Decnu Removal Packaging Tronaport Prot slog Disposal Other Total Cost Cast C..t. Costs C "t, Co.. Costs Contingency NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Borinl V 1 men Burial I Utility and Total Lt. Term. Management Reatoratlon Volume las, A Cl-B Class C G CC Pro d Craft Contractor Costs Costs

Coat, Coats Cu. Feet Co. Feet C Feet C. Feet Co. Feet Wt Lb._

Munh.urs M.nhuurs Nxp*.-., I of Plant Syxtcnss aontinned3 .,,,orator llydnrgnn Sent Oil 2a.10 I *rolor 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..liorr 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 Sttaan 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..1.5 Totals 20.1.6 Scotoldinginxopportofdorommisxloning 20.1 Suh)Mol Prnml 2n 0060110 Contx P--120 Additional (Into 2.2.1 D,np0u11 of Stored Torhine Rotors

2..2 SnblAnl P,niod On Additional Conte P. m.1 211 (,filar,..1 I'.* A.

20.:3.:) S,n0310001 olinwnnro 1 3.4 Sv.of Fuel Capital 2nd Tranxfer 20.3 Subtoml Perval 2. Cnllou *rnl Conti Prnod 20 Prnod.Drinndrnt Como 20.4.1 Dunn xnppliea t.1.2 Inn nm, 4,:1 Properly 10000 2x.4.4 Ilonlth phy600 n0pplirn 2..4.5 H000y equipment rvnlol 20.4.6 DinpnnelofDAWgonerated 20.4.7 Plant onrrgy hodgrl 20.4.8 NRC Fcm 211,4.9 Emergency Planning Feco 20.4.10 Silo O&M Coats 20.4.11 Spent Foot Pod O&M 9004.12 1tiFS1 Opernhng G.xtn -2..4.13 Sorority Slol Conl 200.14 DOC Stag Coot 35 31 1 6 10 20 0 1 5 6 327 722 54 78 215 163 32 0 1 4 9 268 22 20 54 611 95 5'2 2 1 1 3 14 6 1 125 43 30 30 1 '22 77 13 0 1 6 4 277 6 11 67 8 84 1,118 141 113 178 438 447 31 2 1 1 6 10 50 .50 255 4 9 62 75 455 405 2:34 35 269 355 32 19 14 86 118 625 625 19 3 22 35 5 41 0 21 1 1 0 4 7 34 34 115 4 9 61 40 229 229 279 26 21 46 71 100 548 543 22 3 25 16'9 25 195 36 fi 42

15 1

2 11 11 58 58

2 3

25 254 3 8 54 60 329 319 11 0 0 2 3 17 17 76 5 3 4 11 23 123 123 441 65 71 269 164 209 1,219 1,219 64 8 8 22 23 27 152 152 290 182 1611 287 501 306 1,816 1,816 479 17,086 2,435 2,070 4,462 7,142 7,414 41.088 39,889 3,749 68 16 83 22 964 4,902 4,902 1.006 37,569 18,608 6,320 6,413 36,930 727

18,393 146,025 144,807 27 246 103 822 170 1.368 1,360 27 246 103 822 170 1,368 1,368 144 62 256 303 192 957 957 1

20 106 182 64 373 373 514 77 591 632 22,585

3,388 25,984 25,984 145 514 82 362 485 22,596 3,723 27,906 1,862 25,9074 95 24 118 118 2,0,53 2205 2,258 2,258 16,141 1,614 17,755 15,980 2,1189 747 3,737 3,737 3,428 514 3,943 3,943 194

17 562 163 1147 947 4,871 731 5,601 5,601 1,117 112 1,229 1,229 3,507 351 3,857 8,857 582 87 669 669 I,4112 215 1,647 1,647 I08 25 194 194 11,168 1,674 12,832 12,832 05,711 3,857 25,5138 29,568 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 2,441 10,670 2,35:1 866 330 11,408 8,487 1,218 177,229 192,579 2,969 314 253 208

1,100 3,075 178 2,132 890 30 49 1,544 1,749 225 2

665 121 7,087 6,277 28 81 2,474 576 1,223 18 51 2,442 1,815 1,030 417 2,149 84 152 161) 3,604 378 99,182 3,945 131,581 4,901 4:35

3,2(1'2 751 16,953 569 4_M 87,291 3,298 3,425 189 15,482 1,2)01 586,794 717!0) 53,846 1,157 944,575 5,509 13,84,050 101.5,455 10,263 8,443 630,388 7,225 135,602 4,0511 162,1178 9,119 115,071 644,1123 5,723 100,400 92,952 151,:389 71,290 5531

N3 5,657 49) 4,6821 9:13 119 2,270 216 4,251 19,541 515 4,(501 4,440 5,964 372 688 1,218 246,871 131,391 1,430 1,320 18,660,690 533,311) 3,5233 29,464 1,325,883) 46s 29,464 1,325,680 469 8(13 54,209 176

166 32,629 57 59 50 1,210 86,8138 233 1,776 9,452 189,048 7

269 22 41 95 42 25 24:3,241 292,274 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.$.29 Generator nydroi,'l~n Seal Oil 2a.1.fl.:m Gunerator Stator DKllIng 211.1.5.31 Ih~h f'n'$a>urt,! Core SllfllY 2a.L5.32 Hydrogen 2a..l.5.:J3 LaundfY Eiluip & Jolf Drams RW Rqlro<.::l'ss 2a.1.5.a~ lA'ak IWtl.'Ction 2a.I.5.35 Local In$tnllllent Pandll 2a.1.5.ao Low Ptt'SJlllrtl Corn SptllY 2n.l.1i37 Machine Shop Equip,"I'flt 211.1.5.:18 Mttchim* Shop Vlmlilatlon 2u. 1. 5.:l9 Main Stt'am 2u.l.5AI) Milin Slvflm lsolution Vuh'll 2n.l.5Al Muku*up Dt*minefllhwr* RCA 211.1.5..12 Mllkt~.Uil Dt'lluneraiiu!r Ntm*RCA 2a.1.5.43 Mah'lIl1 Condensate Storage 2a. L5A~ MiS(', Building Drains 2a.1.5 45 ~liiICdlnllt!Outi Vt'nli18tlOll 2n.l.5.46 Nucivnr Ooiler 2a 15Ai OilTrllnsfer 211.1.5.48 RClldor Cow 1%OIlitioo Coullng 2a.1.5.49 Refrif,!erall.on PilHng 2a.15.50 Sanitary 211.1.551 Scfl'1!!l1 Hoth":' & MU P\\Ill\\ll (louse Ventilation 2a.1.552. Standby Liqtud Control 2n.1.5.53 Swit('hg"f\\f Hl'Ill Rt~m\\lval 2n.1.5.54 Turbine Building CIO$('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 & Mi~ O<lVICO';!

2n.1.5 Totals

la.l.6 NaIToiding In i<Uilporl of dl~'ommi$ltomng 2n.l Subtmal Penlm 2n Activity Cmlh!

Penod 2a Additional C~l... hI 211 2.1 Di>l-~:>!\\I'l of Slun'il Turbine Holm... 2u.2 Sublotal Period 21t Additional Crn.tls PI'nod :ill CoJlaterol CU!.<h!

!n,;ll d'::~:::::::::::~

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 gvn~'rnh'(l 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 O&~I 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 -

~ 35 ~ - 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

4~ a 4~ ~441 60 --- a a ~ - ~ 35 -* ~ 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 El6-1640~006. 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. ~oo ~_ 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 A ppendix C. Page 6 of 11 Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) Activity emlrx Activity Drxcripuno OFF Stte LLRW Dec.. Removal Packaging Trannpnrt Proc sing Disposal Other Total Cost Cost Costa Costa C to C.sta Cotta Contingency NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Voluntea Burial / Utility and Total Lic. Terns. Management Reatnratian Volume Cl-A Cl-B Cl... C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Costa Coats Cotta Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Wt, Lbs. Manhnurs Manhonrs 5,698 31,682 Period 2, P,-,d.Drizrndrnt Costa (rontimm,^d) -2 A5 Utility Stnt Cao 2a.4 Subtotal 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 26.1.1.4 Dl."'1 Fu^1 Oil 26_1.1.5 De= ' I t. u. ml 26-1.1,6 Ili.., l f^ i,. rotor R<<n, Vunlilalion 26.1.1.7 Drains-I_,^mdry to Radoe.le 2b-11.8 Clean Non'IICA 261.1.9 F.l,'eAlllean RCA Lb.t.l.l0 Eq tl 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 Srroico 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 nupl Pratt wasp & Tranttor 26.1.1 39 Supt I'.. '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 26,1.1

Tote, 26,1.2 SaRoldtng in support d decommissioning Drronn.ninat ion 01 Site Buildings 26.1:1.1 Reactor Building 16.1 :i.i Auxtliory Building 2b.1,3,3 Control Building 26,1.3.4 Diewtt Grncretor Building

`16.1.3.5 Radenanu, Building 2b.1.3 Ii Turbine Budding 2b.t.3 Totals 244 4 9 61 72 389 389 72 2 1 3 5 20 108 103 526

0 27 35 111 172 009 909 67 10 77 59 9

68 88 13 101 22 1 1 7 38 38 1,735 21)0 1,995 7,621 113 270 1,884 2,240 12,127 12,127 1,517 122 W 185 338 518 2.774 2,774 182 27 210 933 08 77 141 283 3`16 1,678 1,678 37 2 3 14 4 13 73 73 282 42

124 393 9

16 95 13 119 645 645 631 It, 26 152 21 191 1,036 1,030 167 10 10 38 23 56 304

1114 896 27 43 2,34 46 2861 1,524 1,524 66 10 74 736 18 82 187 25 215 1,223 1,223 ri 1

7 566 4 10 72 152 795 795 22 3 25 237 17 14 38 41 79 426 426 2:18 5 11 78 73 405 406 184 28 212 138 8 4 7 17 41 215 215 24 67 8 6 4 27 38 174 174 295 39)1 41 30 30 127 290 1,2112 1,202 618 7116 176 125 166 508 674 2,974 2,974 7 1 0 325 4 9 64 93 496 496 17 3 19 125 2 5 38 38 200 200 Ito 18 136 523 751 60 47 94 165 517 2,156 2,166 86 2 It 13 5 25 134 134 146 19 13 16 64 66 3W 311 64 14 12 19 45 33 188 188 286 23 14 12 60 93 487 487 421 36 26 54 93 144 775 775 1,4)9) 21,166 879 938 3,732 2,015 7,030 37,221 33,962 4,686 85 20 104 27 1,205 6,128 6,128 3,2811 4,147 766 629 195 2,304 3,453 14,774 14,774 397 220 42 50 29 1117 297 1,143 1,143 458 164 43 50 1 113 310 1,140 1140 133 41 12 14 31 88 321 321 1,555 661 156 184 27 4181 1,090 4,074 4,074 1,390 681 143 170 6'9 369 1,010 3,842 3,842 7,213 5,919 1,161 1,097 321 3,334 6,240 25,294 25,294 544,169 1,776 9,452 189,1148 308 1,079,684

1,053 276,385 142,05:1 1,410 1,320 20,262,450 534,320 1,0113,204 2,412 97,965 1,955 101 75 8,389 1,281 1,377 1,585 145,976 9,093 77 1,276 118 1,1:10 101 1,848 36 66 5,199 370 1,995 33.545 74,814 31038,244 120,569 7,348 4,917 573,2/)3 2(1,185 210 3,565 5,587 4,102 456,741 16,177 540 112 25,419 664

124 5,842 3,783 182 163,9161 5,998 6,038

307 262,576 9,743 1,510 126 79,883 2,791 9,277 661 414,217 13,9161 74 1,266 7,422 359 321,762 11,269 7

123 2,875 116,761 8,528 25 429 1,521 591 05,329 4,032 3,090 126,49:1 3,884 212 3,643 278 242 25,1198 2,2115 149 381 27,659 1,576 1,174 1,824 156,981) 9,432 6,580 7,268 680,643 15,173 9 146 2,553 103,1160 5,156 19 329 1,565 61,135 2,0'15 136 `2,328

1,748 20)3 286,1511 21,627 517 6fi

`24,74(1 1,458 630 771 69,389 2,544 747 652 67,245 1,156 464 8114 67,083 4,7.11 2,153 1,349 762,948 7 273 3,259 148,229 29,044 7,9.58,084 373,854 3,711 393 189,236 89,113 7,734 35,5,53 2,661,1121) 127,854 1,171 196 8 217,924 10,195 56 2,074 184,549 10,270 568 49,962 2,913 1,067 7,510 701,180 36,:193 2,736 6,765 699,593

1,351 12,763 54,427 4, 515,127 221,976 95 6,418 194 37 1,305 44,527 10,130 6,822 7,235 37,068 133,997 59,194 6,590 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... ~ommi.\\{)ning 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:* Au~iliary 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 2b.1.1.~14 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 R('pJ1.lCl~""lng & 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 dt~OUlml!Ulionjllg Dt~'Onlllnllnatton 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 -oft~Site 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 CI~~

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 3,7~3 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,(Y~5 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 A ppendix C, Page 7 of it Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) Off-Si t L N C Spent act Site Presented IIurial VMunren - - Bartat l Utility and Deean R oval Pa kaging Tra port Pro as g Disposal Other Tatai Total Lie. Term Management Restoration Volume Cl... A C t.. B Class C CTCC Processed Craft Contractor Activity Deeseipt!nn Cost Cat C ate Cate C to C.- Costa C ntinge y_ -_- Costa Canto Cnxta Costa Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbe. Manhoura Manboure 2b.1 Su6totol P' al 2b Activity C is 8,637:3 31,771 2,125 2,055 4,157 5,377 14,485 68,643 &5,:184 3,259 164,703 83,863 12,362,450 684,943 2,1.1.1 Remove spent fuel racks 026 78 181 218 1,086 696 3,293 3,2943 15,584 882,760 1,587 Disiwsal of Plant Systems 2.1 El' .1 - Gwtxmirml,d 1.247 18 33 188 25 354 1,878 1,876 7,867 356

139,6341 21,:142 20.12.2 Fin, Prot-lion RCA 831 14 33 231 249 1,356 1,358 9,172 372,484 13,597 2d.1.2:t Pool llnndling & Tronob,r 30 4

3 4 12 12 65 85 174 189 16,628 54:1 28.1.2.4 Foal Pool Caobng&Cloanup 1,1114 186 129 167 526 403 2,695 2,895 6,629 7,541 696,897 20,77!1 28.12.6 Funl Support 119 20 17 28 66 55 354 304 1.1(11 945 98,187 '2,151 201.2.8 IIVAC-Conminmunt0uilding 826 49 64 282 117 317 1,755 1.755 11,204 1,674 549,850 14,892 20.1.2.7 Potob)o Water 12 2 14 14 2:10 20.7.20 Procaas So-piing 602 4a 21 86 2135 1,0113 1,006 891 1,220 11)63,301 11,482 20.12 Tolnis 5,051 8311

409 911 831 7.687 9,132 9,118 74 37,037 17,972 2,180,098 8.5,(116 Pori<<f 2% Collotersl C 2b.3.1 Pr.-^ <21, g water wnnU, 170 26.02 Pt,'..I.,.

...rig rhemirni qush wools 5 26.3 3 all tool., 627 26.3.4 SI-t Fmd I" its) and Trnnsk,r 26.3 Subtotal Poi 2b Cilaternl C wts 184 627 79 825 142 747 220 1,078

186 243 1,211 1,211 1,286 450 2,63311 2,630 94 721 721 27,114 4,057 31,181 31,181 1,672 27, 114 4,854

15,744 4,561

11,181 1)8,1106 224 2:!0,113 404 209,110 628 Pe6,x121, Peri<<bD.pmdenl C-W 26.4.1 D<<vm nopplioa 2h 4.2 1.-

,11 4.3 Properly loon, 26.4.4 tlvnllh,hyxics x0PPOes 26.4.5 Ba+tvy egnipmcnt nmmi 26.4.6 Disµewluf DAWln,nernt,d 26.4.7 Plant energy bodgal 26.4 8 NRC F,- 2b.4 ' Emergnt y Planning Fees 26.4.10 Sit'. O&M Cts 211.4.11 Spent Fuel Pod 0&M II, 4.1_2 Liquid Redwosw Prosenoit 26.4.13 ISFSI Operating Coots 26.4.14 Snoonty 81111Caat 26.4.15 DOC SIof Coat 2b.4.16 Utility 5050 Coot 26.4 Sublata) Period 2h Periud-Dependent G,- 563 2,913 2,913 1,117 112 1,228 1.228 5,101 518 5,611 5,611 1133 4,664 4,664 506 4,567 4,567 226 43 642 190 1,1111 1,1111 4,502 675 5,178 5,178 1,868 181 1,439 1,439 4,1116 411 4,517 681 102 783 793 1,677 252 1,020 436 64 490 499 1117 30 227 13,1)6 5 1,980 15,024 15.524 28,955 4,343 33,298 33,298 49,282 7,302 56,674 56,674 2,330 10,998 219,910 4,517 I,'928 227 21'9,9111 2,330 7,701 226 43 1142 110,416 18,281 139,841 130.070 6,072 10,1016 1,150 2,159 3,:1)9 284,66 326,709 610,1:37 1,_23,651 21,,0 TOTAL PERIOD 21, COST PERIOD 2d - Deronmmiaatien Fallowing wet Fuel Storage Period 2d Di-t Daxnmmissinning Activities 11,187 40,101 2,571 3,171 4, 157 7.691 137,530 37,620 244,11'-28 202,017 37,85:1 3,259 164,70:1 98,168 12,881,470 685,03(1 1,20:1,651 D<<nntaminntion nfeia, Buildings 24.1,3,1 Fuol Building 9,2 924 20.1.3 Totols 972 924 2,1.4 Sosflold,ng in suplwrt of inning 937 48 57 65 IN 769 2,951 2,951 48 57 65 116 769 2,951 2,951 17 4 21 5 241 1,226 1,226 285,159 32,714 285,159 32,714 742 79 37,847 17,823 2,574 2,105 2,574 2,1&5 201 Sobbaal Perim! 2d Activity C.-.:- 1,898 6,901 576 579 1,016 2,039

1,502 16,603 16,588 14 40,:154 29,679 3,385,815 1:17,089 Purim! 2d Addilonai Casco

.12A License Torminntimt Survey [`loaning 9,54 286 1,24) 1,240 202 Subt,,m) Period 2d Addilinmd Coals 954 286 1,240 1,240 Pcriad 2,1 CRalornl Coma 2,1.:11 Prmnsx d,nnnmisaiontng water woxtu 00 411 165 195 122 6,11 611 20.:1:1 Snmll tool ollawonce 140 21 161 161 28.:1.4 Dam00m000ming F luipmant Disix..ilian 1:11 88 167 44 56 444 444 303 &Ibintal Porkol 2d Culinteral Cslo 91) 140 178 2113 167 239 199 1,216 1,216 582 6,008) 635 6,0)01 1,217 34,913 11:3 305,981 88 34(1,875 202 6,2411 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 Spt~nl FUtll Capital Rod Tranltfl'r 2h.:I Subtotol PI)noo 2b CoUah~ral 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 FL~'$

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.$

M~I.2.2 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 d.>(~mnll>l"i(jning

.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"\\'"" d~>("(}mmi~ionmg Walt'f wal<lc

!d :1 a Small tool Rllowanc.*

Dl'('Onllm~l(lJlIllg r"'llllllnwflt DI"IlQ..-!ilIOIl Subtotal Pt.riod 2d Collalt'ral Costs TLG Services. Inc. Decou C~t 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 l:.'1fi...1640~O(}6, 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 Analysis Document E16-I640-006, Rec. 0 Appendix C, Page 8 of II Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Total Lim Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A CI... B Class C GTCC Processed Craft Contractor Coats Coats Costs Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet C Feet.. Wt., Lb., Manhour Meuseurs 58,771(1 88,286 168,626 87,8211 14:1 315,621 56,770 54,896 1.0110 14 46,554 35,287

1,814,510 137,434 321,8111 Off-S"'

LLRW Drrns Removal Packaging Transport Process ing Diap i Other Total Cost Cost Costa Costa C is C... Coats Contingency 942 4:15 1,610 297 334 50 77 12 2,929 424 7,814 1,172 14,155 2,123 256 29,74(1 4,893 9,581 844 799 1,185 2,535 311,7101 8,880 Aet:vity Drseription Ponod 2d Period-Del-lo. 2d.A.l Demo suppli 2' 4.2 1--- 2d.4.3 Prupcrty 151.01 2'.4.4 Ilomlth physics supptios 22.4.5 Ilea vy equipment mntd 2'1.4.6 Dislxmnl of DAW genumnrt 24.4.7 Plant energy budget 2'1.4.8 24.4.9 Emergency Planning Pins 24.4.10 Sit,, O&M 0,1. 24.4.11 Liquid Rodwasto Pn oos,sng 24.4.12 ISFSI Opera ling Costs 24.4.1:1 Security Staff Coal 2,.4.14 DDC Stall Cast 2d.A.15 Utility Staff C" 24.4 Subtotal Porio,l 2d Period De:µmdnnt Costa 24.0 TOTAL PERIOD 2d COST PERIOD 21-License Termination 65 44 85 223 2:4 76 141 44 161 417 2511 258 2,246 00 17 2,450 90 17 438 84(3 6

123 481 931 1,116 1,791 440 1,083 479 1,771 3117 384 89 3,263 8,988 16,278 37,711 32:1 481 931 1,116 1,791 44(1 1,083 479 397 384 3,253 8,986 16,278 35,861 1,860 1,771 89 4,391 87,82(1 143 P,'nol 21Oin<'l D. otntsission,ng Activities 211.1 ORISE o,ofrmakay survey 211.2 Tenninalelioensn 21.1 Subtoal Panoll 2f Activity Cons Porio,l 2f Additional Costs 21.2.1 License Termination S" 'y 21.2 Sub(olal Period 2( Additional Costs Porosl 21 Collateral Costs 21.:1.1 DOC stall ndooMion esponwa 21,3 Subtotal Poriad 21'Co11aleral Cools Period 2f Peiissl.Dependent Cnata 21.4.1 Ira 21.4,2 Prnpr rly Issas 21.4.3 Ilodth phynics suppliers 27.4.4 Dispossl of DAW gonernt,d 21.4.5 Plant oergy budget 214.(3 NRC Fe n

es 21.4.7 Emergency Planning Fees 21.4,8 Site O&M Costa 21.4.9 ISFSI O(-ling Casts 2t.4.10 Securely Staff Cost 214.(1 DOC Staff Carl 214.12 Utility Staff Cost 21.4 Subl.al Pen7d 21' Porool Dafs,rulent Cants 20 TOTAL PERIOD 21' COST PERIOD 2 TOTALS PERIOD 31, - Site Restoration Ponod 36 Diroct Decommissioning Ad-1115 Donwlinon of Renmining Site Buildings

36.1.1.1 Reactor Building 36.1.1.2 Auxiliary Building 36.1.1.3 Circulating Water Srrnenhuusn 36.1.1,0 1051701 Building 36.1.1.5 Diosci Oenemlor Building 175 52 175 52 13,733 4.120 13,733 4,120 1,14311 154 1,030 154 414 62 436 44 1,417 142 235 35 68 10 2,440 366 5,194 779 7,251 1,1018 810 7

1 20 18,585 2,849 819 7 1 20

13,522 7,176 11,730 162, 1128 22,552 10,79:1 12,577 48,214 335,75(1 112,871 5,791 869 2,2172 330 8,8(19 541 5,265 790 1,858 279 223,57:1

1,1211 223,573 3,1211 1,184 1,184 1,184 1,184 424 424 819 819 1,1124 1,024

15 35 477 477 479 479 1,559 270 270 78 2,805 2,805 5(1,514 5,974 5,974 56,7:11 8.:139 8,:939 60,0413 2.183 20,648 1,1137 351 7,020 11 187,291 41,546 38,909 1,637 351 7,020 22:1,595 190,411 652,523 573,105 73,032 0,326 487,391 275,859 1,430 1,320 36,065,450 1,581,269 2,819,129 6,659 65,1011 2,533 23,242 4,150 38,418 6.054 56,578 2,1:16 20,234

1e5 745 1119 7

1 20

19 74 205 6

227 227 227 227 17,852 17,852 17,852 17,852 7,1120 7'559 78 0,659 2,5:13 4.1:01 6,054 2,1:16 TLG Services, Inc. Clinton Puwer Station Decommissioning Cost Arlaiysis Activity Indf'x Artivit" Uf'Hcril)tion Period :ld Pcnod'~llimdcnt [:<'>>($ 2dA.l D('Wn lIuppliulI 2IU.:! In.-Iurancu 2dA.3 Pn>t~rly 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 Adivitlt~

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 C{)sll~

2£.4.2 f'fopt'rtytIlXt'S 2f.4.:l 11('Ullh llhYlliics ~lIpplil.lll

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 Sil~ 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 SI~IT Cost 2fA Subtmal Pcnod 21' PI~n(.>t.l*Dl'p<'ru:I,'nt 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 Wal~'r 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 Continlenc~ 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 a~15

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 Analysts Document 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 Index Activity 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 36.1.1 Totals Silo Clomwul Arlivities 3b.i 2 RorkFill Situ 36.1.3 Grade & land-i.` 0,10 330.1.4 Final relwrt Is NEC 36.1 &rMMUI Poriod 31, Aki,,ily 0-N-A31, Additional Conte 31,.2.1 Conortdo Crushing 3622 Sera mhausn Cam nlam 3b. 2.3 Die A,atge Fl-Rackfill 16.2.4 Unit 2 Eooavntion liackbll 36.2 Subtotal Frill 31, Additional Cost Period 3b Collateral Coots 31,3 1 Small tad ally.. -e 36.5 Sobtmal Puriool lb Cdb+larai Coato l°000.1 eb Pooioel Dulrondant 0-31,.4.1 Inoseaneu

16.4,2 Property tares 36.4.3 heavy tvluipmeni, rental 3b-4.4 Plant energy badger 3b.4.5 NEC ISFSI Fr,,

330.4.8 6mcrgwxy Planning Fe<<

16.4.7 ISFSI Olmra ling Coots 36-4,8 Sit, O&M 0-

lb,4.9 Soyorily Sod( Coal 3" 4.10 DOC S10R Cool

36.4.11 Utility Slab Col 3304 Subht.] Pernd 3b Period-Dependent Cato 36A TOTAL PERIOD :lb COST PERIOD 3c - Fuel Storage Operntionnl` loipping Pen of :k Dire 1 D,.rommioioning Actioilios Purled :k Collol,rnl Cools

30.3.1 Sis'at Fuel Capital and Trsnu5,r

30.3 Subtaat Porial 3c Collatoral Costa Posool:k' Peri.d.Dels'ndent Cools

30.4.3 Insoronco

30,4.2 Property 150,..5 4.4 NRC ISFSI Foes t4.5 Emergency Planning Fos 4.6 ISFSI 01..ling C-3,4.7 Barurity StaBCwl 30.4 8 Utility S35(1 Cost 3e.4 Subtoal Period 3, PorialDvpondout Coots R. 0 TOTAL PERIOD 30 COST off-sit.

LL W Deeun Rem val Portaging Transport Processing Diaposni Other Total 0 cant Coot casts enaw ctata casts cns. Contingency 411'1 17:1 5,324 1,223 2,442

18,447 1(10 2,154 40,710 NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes BuNatl Utility and Total Lie. Term-Management Restoration Volume Cl-A CI-. B Class C tiTCC Peoroose.d Craft Contractor Costs Co..

Coate Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt.. Lbs. Manhaurs Manhnurs 5,1101 21,227 44,561 58,4411 5,.585 2,4113 63,415 12,474 26,720 443,457 201 4,449 448,106 67 437 268 2,063 417 3,199 782 6,994 60 462 26 199 799 6,123 184 1,407 366 2,13118 5.767 44,216 437 2,053 3,190 5,994 462 100 6,123 1,407 2,808 44,215 16 125 125 323 2,477 2,477 195 29 224 224 195 6,136 47,041 224 46,817 9 1,299 9,269 9 219 1,753 164 1,260 614 4,710 202 1,548 67 515 67 515 1,753 1,2110 4,710 1,546 9,269 515 515 7,355 10,159 23,9:11 13,128 54,57:1 55,169 44,194 14,490 118,662 1,171 117 1,288 2,364 _16 2,491 5,959 194 6,857 630 95 725 544 54 589 4,309 431 4,740 207 31 239 715 107 622 7,417 1,113 8,530 15,201 2,289 17,651 11,470 1,721 1:1,191 5,959 43,991 7,078 57,027 224 19,610 93,988 599 4,740 218 822 (0) 7,2.50 1,279 17,551 0 3,1134 10,157 0 19,11411 37,387 1,288 2,491 11,85:1 725 8,250 1,238 9,498 8,250 1,238 9,488 4,582 458 5,(14(1 8,857 856 9,743 2,670 2117 2,937 16,856 106 18,542 909 121 931 24,610 3,692 28,31(2 10,478 1,572 12,1150 68,86:3 8,681 77,544 77,113 !),919 87,9:12 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 1311,674 128,776 44:1,(1:1(1 5(1'3.079 444,5301 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 Sih~

lh.1,;"1 Grade & landSl."oIw !lIte aidA Fillal rvport 10 NRC aL.t Sublotal Period 3b Arh~'ily Cell$l!;

Pllnod :lh AdditIOnal ~t$ Cunrn.;tc Cru,.:hmg &r1'\\lnhuww Coffenillm ab.:!.:! DUK:huI1l'l1 F1ulrn~ 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 Fl~'l'I 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 Pcriod.Dppl~ndt!lIt {'t)..~ts ah.O TOTAL PERIOD:1h COHT PERIOD 3c ~ Fuel Storuge OperationtJShipping Period 3c Din'(~llk>('ommiMionin!l Adivlllt'li Pl,noti;k 1'1~nod*Dl'pt'ndtml 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 Pl~nO\\l*D"jll.'ndt!llt 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. c~" Costa Continlenc~ 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 1,~1li 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 C~ts 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 Anolyais Docuntettl 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 Index Activity Description Off-Si t LLR Decon Remn.ol Packagtog Transport Pr-mg Disposal Other Total Cott Coat Casts Casts Coats Costs Cosa Contingency NR Spent Fuel SiteProcessed Social Volumes Burial / Utility and Total Lie. Term, Management Restoretion Volume Clots A Cl-Cl-C G CC Processed Craft Contractor cos. Cosa Cot. Coots Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Monhou Motohnu 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 34.1.1 Totals 34.1 Sub6unl Period 3d Activity Cie 1,785 351,1(0) 1,785 351,1(30 1.785 351,100 625 625 625 7,415 7,415 7,415 1,175 1.175 1,175 9,214 9,214 9,214 9,214 9,214 9,214 0 0 Periuu13d Porial-Ihpemknt Luna 3,.4.1 Inournmx 3114.2 Property 10.00 .34 4: t NRC 35F8I Furt 341 5 Emergoooy Plonning Fees

3,.4.6 ISM Oloua ling Colo MA '

Security SlolT Coot 3114.8 Utility Staff C. i 34.4 Subtoai N-1 3,1 PorooL Doprnd,rnt C,- 3d,0 TOTAL PERIOD 3d CAST PERIOD 3e - ISFSI Dccontnminntion Penal :k D,root p ooorn >>sioning Arlivities l'oood :k Add,--l Coate 301.1 ISFSI Li,-M,, minotum 30-2 Subtotal Porxd 3,. Addilionnl CwIn Penal :k Collolorol Coals 3"3.1 Small tool ollowoncv 3".3 Subtotal Pond 3o Collolorol Costa I'wval:k Poriod'Depemionl Ca 3'.4.7 Inaoronor 30.4.2 Prolmrty..,.m

k.4.4 NRC ISFSI Frays 45 Svunty Stott Cool 30.4.6 Utility 5311 Col 30.4 Subtotal Ponod 3e P.'rialDop od,mt Costs 2:1 2

25 25 44 4 48 48 If 1 12 12 83 8 92 92 4 1 5 5 122 18 140 140 52 8 60 130 5;78 43 381 381 023 7,415 338 1,217 9,595 9,214

381 42 8

35 20.2 1,431 42 8 35 202 1,431 u 0 170 17 187 187

329 33 361 391 79 8

87 87 244 37 28(1 280 324 49 373 373 1,146 143 1,289 1,289 2,IX03 2,(013 2,3001 2,4139 017 3,006 1,785 351,1(03 3,10313 1,95:1 163,1152 3,1,23 1,953 1133,052 3,623 4,971

3,771 8,743 30.0 TOTAL PERIOD 3e COST PERIOD 3f-ISFSI Site Reotoratioo P'nai 3f Dinxt Drrvtmmi0s.omng A, tivilios 43 8

35 202 2,577 425 3,2103 1,953 363,052 3,623 11,353 3,290 P rod 3f Additional C.I. 31.2.1 ISFSI Dwm,litio I and Sito Rettomlion 31,2 Sobtaol Period 3CAddi(ionnl Costa 1,440 50 224 1,714 1,440 50 224 1,714 10,1211 1(0) 19,129 160 1,714 1,714 Pod 3f ('41afi-l Cud., 31.3.1 Sntnlt 6x,1.11-t-U3 Soblottl Penal 3f Collateral Cost., Penal 3f Perod DoWrel-l Cads 31.4.2 Pnµwrty taxes 31.4.4 So.nnly Staff Cn 31.4.5 Utility S.ff Col 31.4 Subtotal Pero d 3f Po-atDelwndvnt Coals

1C0 TOTAL PERIOD 3f COST 17 3

19 19 17 3 19 19 167 17 184 184 124 19 143 14:1 134 20 154 154 425 55 490 480 1,457 475 282 2,214 2,214 2,527 1,509 4,1003 10,1211 4,256 PERIOD 3 TOTALS 544,069 633 35 7,617 124,0913 20,:1.12 215,98`12 9,4:01 112,555 9:1,988 1,963 1,785 514,1552 525,432 1,087,133 TLG Serpiceo, Inc. Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Index Activit~* 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 a~t.l.l 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 la~cs

W... IA NRC ISFSI Ft..... "

adA.S Emt'rgency Planning Ft't't'l ISFHI Op,,)raling C~tll S,)('urit)' Staff Cod Utlilly Staff C{lS1 adA Subtotal Penod ad f'llrlf~,Dcpcnd,'nl 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 St~'lInty 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 C~t 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 Coutin~enc~ 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 7,617 124,~i 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 Document E16-1640-006, Rec. 0 Appendix C, Page II of I1 Table C Clinton Power Station DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) OfSite LLRW Activity Decan Removal Packaging Teanspert Processing Disposal Other Total Index Activity Descriptian Cost Cost (bats Costs Costs Costs Costs Contingency NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility and Total Lie. Term. Msnageatent Restoration Volume Class A Cl.- B Cl... C GTCC Processed Croft Controctor Cu.. Costs Costs Cu.. Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet C Feet Wt., Lbs. Manhourt Manbaurs TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION 17,749 154,173 23,273 11,171 12,577 59,103 609,874 163,965 1,051,824 732,894 217,632 101,298 487,391 279,057 2,180 1,330 1,785 37,595,610 2,138,494 4,960,400 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 ~ite 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix 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 13 2 8117 13 2 Clinton Power Station Deeomrnisaioning Cost Analysis I Activity Index Activity Deocripttnn PERIOD to - Shutdown through Transition Porno) la Dinct Doeononiuuonmg Activities l a 1.1 SAFSTOR wile eharnelerixation ourvoy 10.12 Pnpare preliminary dxmnmimlaning emt la.1.3 Notifratian of C aoatirm of Operatiana tn.l.4 Remn font &annreu matvial in.1.5 Not i(rntion ofPermonent De/aeliog In Lfi Deaclivala plant ayaWma & {m(o)os Saran ta.1.7 Ptapara and auhmit P5DAR i 0.16 Review plant dwgy. & >>pe o. la.19 Perform detailed rod 0nrvey ia.i0 F (foots by-product inventory I n.l.lt End product rk*wripttin I i.ll Bob sld hy'pnduct inner fory 1,0.l3 Define major work -,--

l..1.14 Perform SER end EA 1x.1.15 Porfonn Silo-SpuciOm. Coal Study Activity Sp,.*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.l6 Total Detailed Work Pronxlnroa 10.1.17.1 Plant syateans 10.1.17.2 Paeslilyokuwnat&dormaney I..1.17 Total i n.l_18 Pvseurovansam drying>>y>>ten 10 1.11)

DraiNde anvotiixe nonrnnl. ay>>timx in 1.20 Drain & dry NESS 10.1.21 Drain(dconevtyao rontmninated >>yatunix 70.1.22 DocnNsocaro oontamiaatd oy>>tema tat Snhtotal Perud la Activity Costa Parionl to li+dmi-Ds'pendeml Costa 10.4.1 lnaaranee la.L2 Pmperlytaxax 10.J.3 Health phyaica >>npptias ta,4.4 Ileevy cywpmenl rental la.4.5 Diapuvalof DAWgemsatcd In.4.6 Plant ermrgy budget 10.4,7 NRC Fa o 10.4.8 Eamvlpmcy lMnnning Peas 10.4.9 Si", O&h1 Qmta I..4.10 Spent Pool PmI O&M 10.4.11 ISFSI Operating Casty 1,.4.12 Soenrfly Stall Cool 11.4.1 3 Utility Stntf Cast I..4 Soblotol Perini is ftrud Depetsdent Cots 10,11 TOTAL. PEI1IOD la COST Document 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) RC Spent Fast Site rorvotod Rurtal Volumes B.H.11 Utility and Total Lie Tenn. Management Restoration Volume Clusa A Clam R Class C GTCC P_ '_d C f Cent etor Casts Costa Casts Casts Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Cu. Feet Wt Lbs. Muth rs Manl ours 686 187 Nn 250 37 287 287 162 24 187 187 125 19 144 144 125 19 144 144 187 28 215 215 125 19 144 144 387 58 445 445 624 94 718 718 614 02 707 707 520 78 5508 508 310) 58 448 448 2,50 37 287 287 2,50 37 287 287 2,024 304 2,327 2,327 148 2-1 170 170 150 22 172 172 298 45 342 342 12 2 14 14 5,1x19 830 5,840 5,840 35,x10) 2,176 216 2,306 2,386 109 547 547 60 529 529 36 11 61 61 2,781 417 3,198 3,196 1,151 115 1,2)6 1,266 2,461 248 2,729 2,729 316 47

It/I 36:1 nsite LLRW Decoo Removal Packaging Tre p rt Processing Disposal Other Total c..'

Coat C.A. C.A. Costs Costs Costa Contingency 1 158 24 1.:)10 2,1x5) 1,355) 1,0!x1 1,1051 1, 1St 1,000 3,100 5,10x1 41)20 4,167 3,120 2,0(x1 2,05) 16,2117 1,18:1 1:'00 2,:18:1 610 12,190 20 777 117 893 893 91 14 105 105 71.58 1,074 8,232 8,232 88,936 5,059 39,019 397019 36 50,862 7,528 59,337 56,610 3,727 36 55,871 8,358 6.5,177 61,466 3,727 157,471 423,400 610 12,190 20 580,871 610 12,190 20 616,761 TLG Senricee, Inc. Clinton Power Station Decommissionitlg Cost Analysis Activity I Index Activit~ 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 sy~ttl"ln~ & 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 PI~rf()fm 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 stru('lun~ and building~ 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 8y~hm1S In.1.22 Ik"Con!StlCurv oonlamlnah'd 8}'!\\tl'm14 la.l Subtotal Period 18 Activity ('osls P~'rwd 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 SI~I~nt Fuel Pool a&M lnA.l1 ISFSI Opt'rating Costs InA.I2 &"('uflly StarrC~lSl 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 Contins;enc~ 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 5~J8 '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 Analysis Document 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-Rite LLRW Dieu[ Renmvai Packaging Transport Proc sing Disposal Other Totul Coot Coot Costa Costa Casts Costs Costa Contingency NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Vedumes Burial / Utility and n Volume Class A Close R Class C O CC Processed Craft Contractor Total Lie. Ter Management Resmrati n Cents Co.. Casts Coors Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt.. Lbs. Mmrhnura Muni ours 10,566 1,588 10,568 1,588 12,176 12,176 12,176 12,176 4,891 4,891 561 561 649 649 169 189 2,195 2,195 1,963 1,963 1,419 1,419 11,868 11,868 11,666 11,6196 3,2111 374 433 126 1.463 1,399 946 7,912 7,912 1,630 187 216 63 732 654 473 3,956

1,956 56,016' 6,465 7,5151 2,162 25,369 2`2,669 16,275 136,519 1311,519 I Activity bodes Activity 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.1.1.4 DIoncl t.enurnmr Building Ib.1.1.5 ftudwnale Building ib.1.1,6 Tarbino Building 1,

.7 Fool Building 16.1.1 TMolo Ib_i Subtotal Period Ib Aetivity Cowls P-.1 lb Additional Canla Ib2.1 Siam[ fool pa,l ieololion 1b.2 Subtotal Period lb Addit venal Coxes Pcrind lb (lolu(enel Comte lb:.1 Ocean,aipment 11,.3.2 Prar'nas devmnnunaioning water wean.. lb 3.4 Smolt leaf uluwance lb.:1 Sublotni Perx,d lb Collmoml Cewts P.-ad lb Puriod,Dcix*ndent Corte lh 4.1 lcra,n xupyliro 16.1.2 Inauro 16.4.3 Properly Intro 16.1.4 health physws supplies 16.4.5 heavy eyuipmenl cooled 11,46 Dialmsal at DAWgenamled 11,47 Plant energy budge 11,4.6 NRC Feen 16.4.9 Esuagoncy Punning Fuca 16.4.10 Site O&M Costa 11.4.11 Spent Fact Peal O&St 16.4.12 1SFSI Operruling Cuala 16.4.13 S L' Staff "W" 11x.4.14 Ulilily Staff Cost lb.4 Subotal Period Ib Pod,,' Dopmient Coats 11,0 TOTAL PERIOD 11, COST PERIOD lc-Preparatiooa for SAFSTOR Dormancy Period Ir Direct Da rommisnianing Activities ic.l.1 Prepare wq,vartoj,ipmenl for elamg, Ic.l.2 1001011 evntainnwnt prmaara a+pml. lino, 10,1.3 interim aurvey prior in dormancy 191.1.4 Soo-ore building -'r-1"1.5 Pura & submit interim roped let Subtotal Puriod is Activity Crests Bored lc C Iloteral Coots ic;1.1 rmreno daaamm,oeooning water 00x10 10.3 3 S,,,nll tool ollownn0c 10.3 Subtalol Period is Colulorol Costa 941 126 240 1110 416 493 316 127 19 1,091 127 1110 416 493 461 550 403 40 3,11;12 303 160 17 28 5 90 24 693 104 167 17 474 47 79 12 194 29 23 3 12765 268 9,459 1,269 2.2(12 778 28 5 90 15,:016 2,050 11.195 905 129 422 573 25,8181 9,955 66 6 220 11

003 78

1,4 364 246 1

186 79 324 384 246 969 968 1,56.5 1,5115 1,471 69,241 297 146 146 2,679 2,679 1,471 88,241 287 2,752 444 3 138 138 1,374 27,476 45 223 26 (1(26) 1115,560 770 1,374 27,476 45 144,8211 770 2.844 115,716 1 507 5117 3,106) 45 45 7161 95.1 053 9.827 84 94 1,.596 1,569 13,527 583 1,219 1,218 1,145 69,715 223 4 4 1,222 1,222 1,145 68,715 223 2,202 115 733 73 8191 2,752 444 3,;135 6229 132 797 183 522 90 SI 2,052 2.052 9,728 9,728 21,252 20,482 47,976 47,2(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 Radwu~hl 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 CO>lh~ Sll4.lllt fud 11001114011111011 Ih.2 Subtotal Ptlriod lhAdditl.mai Cosl.. P~,ril>d 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 COI<I.. P"rlod Ih4.1 {)..'"('on,.upplit>S 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 PCfiwl.Dcp<'ndt~nl 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 f'~!rwd 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 8,~59 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 '~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 c~"'

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 Analysis Documeu t E16-1640-006, Re,,. 0 A ppendix D, Page 4 of 12 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) Artislty Index Activity Description Off-S' te LLRW Decor Removal Pa (aging Tre port Processing Disposal Other Total Cost first Casts C t Caste Costs co'" Contingency RC Spent Fit.] Site P oeessed 13ur1o1 Volumes Burial / Utility and Total Lie. Term M nagem t Restoration Volume Clues A Cl-B Cl-C G CC Processed CroftContractor Costs Coats Costa Graz Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lbs. Monhours Manhours Period 11 I'eriwi'Dapendvol C le Inauranar 10.4.2 Property mown 1013 health 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 0.4.8 10.3.4 I0A.3 4.6 10.4.7 k149 10.4.11) 1c.4. 1I 10.4.)2 104.13 11.4 40

03 41 17 3

693 104 167 17 474 47 79 12 90 M 194 29 223 223 23

t 26 26 1,765 266 2,052 2,052 403 3,032 444 3,335 206 132 IS 707 183 522 444 3,335 21)1 132 15 797 163 8,459 1,269 9,726 9,726 15,.71/8 2,153 17,754 16,983 20,504 19,794 770 133,717 128.449 5,708 770 152

1,039 152 1)1,210 1115,560

1,039 5

144,820 1,297 71,755 13,70-5 145,403 4,751 199,661 150,625 906,985 Ie.0 TOTAL PERIOD iv COST 180 763 81 325 393 16,114 2,702 PERIOD I TOTALS 11,381 2,565 222 749 1,002 97,882 19,915 PERIOD 2e-SAFSTOR Dormancy with Wet Spent Fuel Storage Perim 2n 0,0,1 Drrnmmi+avntng Activities 20.1.1 Qr novrly insprction 2x.1.2 Semi... tut onvinmmental eorvey 20.1.3 Propose,,port. 2x.1.4 Bitominuoeroofrepi0vemunt 25.1.5 Slninten.nce soppl,vo 20.1 Subotal Itrriod 2. Altivdy f l0 2,.460 384 2,944 2,944 2,216 554 2,770 2,770 4,776 938 5,714 5,714 Penrxi 2. Collstvvrl Costs ?.3.1 Sprat Fuel Cocos).nei Trnnd'ar 11,250 1,688 12,9:M 2.3 Sublatnl I'vrlr.t 2. Crdlrrloml Costs 11,250 1,688 12,938 12,9:38 12,936 Period 2. Period-DOpendont Cost,, 2n 4.1 Inoot.rnce 2..4.2 Prnwrty Imes 20.4,3 Beall h piosies0op'lies 25.4.4 Dies.-.,1 olDAWggrwrnlerl 204.5 Plost "nergy bodgel 20.4.6 NRI' I' 20.4.7 i:",e . e', I'I.nnrng Fvoo 2..4.8 8du P&`d Costs 2x.9 8,' Foul P,.,1 O&M Z 10 1SF51 Operating C AA] Srmurily SloICost 2.,0.12 Utility StoITGmt 2s.4 Subtol,rl Period 2. Ikwia4Dependenl Cools 20,0 TOTAL PERIOD 2. COST 2,840 77 PERIOD 21, - SAFSTOR Dormancy with Dry Spent Fuel Storage 9,476 948 33,456 3,346 710 15 217 64 9,002 1,3,81 4,455 445 30,784 3,078 5,107 766 12,572 1,900 1,476 222 83,330 12,499 1119,:191 16,407 15 217 299,040 41,722 15 217

115.066 44,347 10,424 10,424 36,802 36,8(1'2 3,550 3,650 373 373

1,724 74,482 121 10,:152 111,352 4,960 4,90) 33,8611 330:1 5,873 5,673 14,458 14,458 1,760 1,700 95,829 95,829 1,797,72)1 125,788 125,788 1,333520 343,911 8,823 335,088

1,724 74,482 121

3,131,240 362,562 14,537 348,026 3,724 74,482 121 3,131;240 2,6-40 77 Pev,vvt 26 Dram Drrornmissioning Avlivitivs 26.1.1 Quorferly lnspr.Orm 2b.1.2 Sr..

rmi en rrvnmenml survey '21, L3 Prepre ele aev 26.1.4 Ditumina.0 -I repl-c.-ut 92 14 110 106 "26.1.5 M.inlenoovv 0upplivo 80 20 lie 100 26.1 Sublolol Farad 21, Activity Costs 172 34 210 200 Pori of 2b Collatnr.i C I. 26.3.1 Spent Fool .,pant and Tranoter 2,625 .194 3,019 26.3 Subotal Per,,) I, tbllotuml Cots 2,025 394 3,619 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 h~x"l1 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 ~urilyStafTCot!;I 1eA.l:1 Utility Staff Coni 1c.4 Subtotal Period 1c Ptlflo<i Dependent ('<J"h~ 1('.0 TOTAL PEUIOD Ie COhi' PERIOD 1 TOTALS Dt-con ('Oilt HUi 11,alil PEIUOD 2a M SAIb'TOR Dormancy with Wet Spent Fuel StorRge Penoll :tu DLn",,:t nl'('ommlSlMonmg Actlvititlll 21l. L 1 '~uurh:rly In>lj)<;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 [\\~nod 2u CuUalcml ~t~

Period 2a PI)riod.DI~jI('ndt\\nt Cost~ 21lA.l In~lIrance 2a.... 2 Pmfl<,lrty lOll'S 2a.4.:1 Ileailh Ilhysjcl'! flUI)j1Ii.*S 21lAA Dilll~ofDAWgmwrnh'll

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 SJlt~nt 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 C~" 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 9(jli,9~5 1,7m,no l,a:I:I,520 a,1:Jl,240

l,I:11,240

Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Coat Analysis Document 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 OllSto LL W Decon Removal Packaging Transport Proc essing Disp osal Other Total Coat Cast Cotta Coats C to Cot

Cast, Contingency NRC Spent Feel Site Processed aurini Volumes Ruriul/....

Utility and Total Lie. Term. Management Restoration Volume Class A Cl.. R C oa C OTCC Processed Craft Contractor Casts Costa Cotta Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Ca Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lb,. Manbnurs Mun6ourn Period 2b Period-Deiwndent C-t. 2b.4.1 Inauronce 264.2 Propt*rty 0om 2b 4.3 Ileolth phyxice auppliea 2614.4 Disposal of DAW generated 214,5 Pionttmarty budget 264.6 NRC Frwo 2bt.7 Emorgenry Planning Fc,*a 2b-4.8 saw O&Nf G.W 2b 4.9 ISFSI Operat ing Cota 2(04.11) Sonority Slog Coot 2h4.11 Utility SlOR Coat 26.4 Subbaol Pcriml 2b Porimt-Dupendont Coat, 26.0 TOTAL 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. 1.1 Co-porn peoliooooey lkn-,unmiarilming nwl

4x.1.2 Review plant dwgo & atom.

30.1.3 Perform detat6d cad aurvoy 30.1.4 Pod pnxlu*l llearri,ainn

30.1.5 Detodod by.prduct inventory

0,1.6 ihel'ina motor work onqu0nce 1)0.1.7 Perform SER and EA

to I8 Porf nn Si4 S,nci10 C-1 Study 30.11,9 Po,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 13 oemve 4..11.

. 12 Po wre d,omonll,ng wnl i 3 Plan! prep. & temp. "',-

3..1. i 4 Ikraign water clown-up ayaiom 30.1.15 RigginglAmt. Cole) F.nvll^dtonlingle/c.

0.1.16 Procure cxokrJtinera & cmna;nera 30.1 Submtal Periml 3n Activity C 0 dut tots Period :1a Prm)0-D10 04.1 lnur0 30.4.2 Prolwrty tn....

3a4 3 Ilenlth plv ,+oi.ptir+ 30.4..4 Iluevy ogmpo. nt ron01 302 301 332 583 58 641 12 62 1 6 16'2 24 187 153 15 168 1,110 111 1,221 184 28 212 53 8 fit 1,620 243 1,863 1,581 237 1,818 5,749 768 6,572 237 15 221 323,612 45,543 372,359 14,980 357,379 3,789 75,772 124 3,183,577 162 24 187 187 574 66 661 661 144 144 187 187 1,077 1,077 445 445 718 718 688 588 1,859 953 1081 598 539 60 1,020 1,020 9:13 9.19 72 72 144 144 230 115 115 390 300 300 300 287 287 233) 230 446 224 224 681 661 120 65 65 6,410 5,841 560

145 345 2,405 3,335 3,335 201 201 1,400 2,530 2,630 177 177 1,230 17,003 16,434 569 77,559 569 569 1,090 1,090 478 478 529 529 0

4 8,546 1,196 9,797 443 9,354 62 168

132 641 187 1,221 212 61 1,863 1,818 6,335 64 1,2111

12.61):1 19,474 52,337 523;17 64 014 1,290 1,215 020 138 520 78 887 1:13 812 122 62 9

125 19 2941 30 261 39 261 39 250 37 200 30 390 58 674 86 11" 17 5,574 836 125 19 162 24 9:17 140

187 58 634 94 512 77 1.385 1,:1m) 7.5(5 3,1110 5,(86) 4,)006 7,:170 4,107 7,100 fi,703 5(5 1,0[53 1,104) 2,0188 2,0818 2,185 1,615 3,120 4,605 9641 44,8:1:3 45 435 175 26 2,200 330 154 23 14,786 2,218 517 52 090 115 302 96 468 60 TLG Seroieea, Inc.

Clinton Powe,' Station Decommis&uming Cost Analysis Activity Indf'x Activitv DN.l'rintion Pt~nod til Pt~ntxl.J)t"IWndent COl:llll 20..1.1 Insuffwf'l) 2bA.2 Property U1Xtt/!

.lilA.:!

lIealth php'i('$ ~upplies 2bAA Oispmull of DAW gtHWrIlled

lhA,5 Plant t'fwrgy budget 2b *1-6 NRC Fool:l ZbA.7 Emergency Planning Fl"""

.lbA.$

81h~ 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 !4'paratorsJrchellh~r~

la.l.11.7 Rcinfnn'l?drol

M.l.11.8 MamTurbm(*

an.I.Il.ll Drywdl

m,1.11.12 Plant !ltrw::lun~ & bUl!dil\\~!l

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. >'I\\'CP~

la.l.I-I o..~lgn 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 Pio~3Ifl!d 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

!,(~8 2,000 1,600 3.120

-1,600 "'M) 44,6:1;1 2,4m) 1,-IUO

Clinton Pnmer Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Document E16-1646-666, Rev. 0 A ppendix D, Page 6 of 12 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) Activity htdea Activity Desenption OtlSite LLRW Devon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Tinst Cost Cost Cnats Cnats Casts Costs Costs Contingency NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burisl Volumes B.6.1 I Utility.,to Total Lit_Term Manugetnent Restotntion Vnlume Class A Class B Class C OTCC Processed Croft Contractor Costs Costs Costs Coots Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet WI., Lb.. Monbuurs Msnhnurs 514 514 514 29'2 806 Peri01 3, Pen,xl Dependent C,>>ln (conlinuod) 3,.4.5 boll of DAW get onoOd 3..4.6 Pl,nt nnoo y bmiget 330.4.7 NRC F,- 3 A.8 Site O&M Cools 30,4,9 Sornrity SIOR Cues

5.4.1)

Utility SLOB Cool 30.4 Su6lotal Poriod 3, Periool'Doprn,knt Coolo

3,11 TOTAL PERIOD 3. COST PERIOD eb - Decommissioning Preparations Poriod 31, Dinxl DorOmmf >>ninning Activitioa Do,ilcd Work Pr aoduro>>

36.1.1.1 Plaot 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 36.1.1.8 F,eilily nlooeout 36.1.1.9 Ss,,r,,lol shield 36.1.1.10 Reinforced 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-1.1 T..1 36.1 Sublol0l Poriod 36 Activity C.>>4. P,, v4 335 Additional Coats 35,2.1 Silo Chtrael,,00ol,on 3b.2 SubloNl Peria1 :35 Add,- otl Cst. Poriod 31, C Ilnlemi Curls 35,3,) Doranequlpot0nt 35.3.2 DOC outf rolornlion oopcnwro 3533 Pits.. cutting equipment 36.3 6061,101 Perud 3h Coilateral CON N6.3 31, Perud-Dependonl Cwt.. 36,4.1 D,xnnsupplias 35.4.2 I.-.- 31,.4.3 Properly ta>>es 36.4.4 Ileallh phy.ics >>upplirm 3b 4,5 Ito'" equipment rvntol 3646 Di>>txwai of DAW genoroled 334.7 Pinnt onergy bndgot 31, 4.8 NRC Foot 31,19 Ste O&M Cots

364 10 Security Staff Cunt 31, 4.11 DOC Stag Coot 4.12 Ulilily SI,ffC0.t 2.4 60510101 Period :33, I4riod-Dependent Cowls 360 TOTAL PERIOD 3b COST PERIOD 3 TOTALS 2,781 362 316 3,161 20,817 842 2

10 26,052 842 11 2

30 43,738 6,640 51,252 50,693 591 89 680 612 68 500 75 574 574 169 25 194 48 145 125 19 144 144 125 19 144 144 250 37 287 287 453 68 521 521 1502' 172 86 86 150 22 172 172 125 19 144 72 72 2611 39 299 299 261 39 309 300 250 37 287 287 341 51 392 363 3)3

N1 51

192 363 39 4,089 613 4,7302 4,252 450 4,089 613 4,7101 4,252 450 6,008 1,982 8,591 8,591 6,608 1,982 8,591 8,591 641 120 968 968 1,1130 154 1,164 1,164 1,10 165 1 905 1,265 841 LIIX) 1,030 446 3,417 3,417 6

102 32 9 26 285 28.5 501 50 551 551 211 53 264 264 231 35 265 265 ti 1 17 5 29 29 1,394 209 1,610 1,503 182 18 '1(X) 200 158 24 182 182 1,585 238 1,822 1,822 5,195 779 5,974 5,974 10.437 1,566 12,002 12,002 20 442 () 1 17 19,710 3,4108 23,211 23,211 1,542 17 31,437 6,050 30,020 39,470 867 2,384 17 3 47 75,174 12,69() 91,182 90,163 10,287 17 05,17' 1 256,629 10,287 17 323,807 10,287 17 401,300 4,7:33 4,(X)0 1,300 1,1811 1,(X0) 2,(X0) 3,00 1,201) 1200 1,0(X) 2,080 2,3003 `9,7:30 2,7:30 32,741

12,741

01,500 10,852 30,:))0 1)3,02 9

417 36 47 474 3,123 4,422 363 3,6:35 23,0:0 34,259 52 3,198 399 383 3,635 23,9:10 34,259 450 1,019 5,834 10

3' 2.1379 58,560 129,669 5,834 I()

220,907 5,834 30,51() 264,500 16,121

0,526 665,866 TLG Services. It.

Clintan Pawer Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Index Aetivitv Descriction Period 3a Petlod Ot'pcodenl C~)Sb (l'UnhnUl->d) 3n.4.5 Di8posal ofDAW ~\\~ru}fatt!d 311.4.0 Plant em\\rg}' budget

lllA.7 NRC Fl"'S 3aA.8 Site O&M eo,,!,;

3n.4,9 ~urity 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$ Ddail~>(1 Work Pro('t.uun'f! 3il-1.1.1 Plant "y!!tems R~'tH'lor 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 P~'riod all P'~l'ind*Dt'pendent r~mu

)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. C~", Costs Costs COlltill~encl 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 2.1,9~19

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 Analysis Document 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 Index Mrtivity Description PERIOD 4. - L.N. Component Removal Off-Site LLRW Decon Rrnmvol Pa ckaging Tronsport Processing Disposal Other Total Coat Cost Cu.. Conte Coats Copt. Cu.. Contingency C Spent Fuel

Sit, Y oceeaed Burial Volume..

B ial I Utility ad Total Lie. Term Management Restoeot n Volu a Cl-A Clues B Class C OTCC Pro aced C -ft Cnnt tar Cmts Cu.. Cu.. Cost Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. 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 Removal 40.1.1.4 Rovolor 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 41.1.2 M.I. Turhm,40, crotur 40.1.3 Moon 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 .1.4.5 Fuel Building 40.4 Tolnln 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 III 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 13 49 11 12 79 41 204 204 13 44 14 38 14 281 97 501 6111 51 191 535 107 161 183 1,229 1,229 96 3,718 5,512 1,252 9,024 317 9,087 29,007 29,007 7,415 1,112 8,527 8,627 84 7,497 2,794 1,222 3,827 317 8,63,10 24,372 24,372 257 11,499 8,867 2,(31 14 20,787 633 19,151 63,839 83,839 381 3211 63 439 201 1,408 1,408 1,199 1,114 217 1,512 670 4,712 4,712 153 1,174 37 281 87 885 87 664 40 309 404 3,094

15 I

12 Il 60 652 12 27 192 197 1,1180 44 7 51 19 3 22 18 0 1 5 5 29 459 5) 40 85 141 174 950 1,395 24 58 407 421 2,305 202 30 232 51 8 59 2117 14

14 237 94 585 585 57 8

65 114 6 9 21 37 193 193 179 9 8 29 19 56 300 3) 137 21 1.56 1,064 155 166 580 416 497 2,879 2,879 983 337 317 762 1,036 1195 4,108 4,109 837 53 48 159 126 277 1,562 1,502 227 15 36 255 102 636 &36 2 4 27 27 150 150 43 42 152 103 248 1,343 1,343 10 25 176 174 958 956 5 13 92 57 330 3:0 5 32 25 142 142 64 65 210 176 233 1,313 1,313 127 126 368 367 328 1,913 1,913 125 130 443 3:X1 550 3,1152 3,052 17 14 32 46 82 438 436 1 5 0 1 6 10 53 53 0 1 5 6 32 32 31? 36 133 83 123 701 701 0 1 4 9 47 47 12 15 69 24 80 442 442 0 0 2 12 61 61 1 7 16 18 73 39 53 314 314 0 1 6 4 23 23 4 10 71 76 410 410 501 64,094 1.078 250 2,473 251,240 1,145 6,08.5 131,119 4,475 1,388 751 1,075 341,610 1)5,033 1,5311 1,785 351,100 14,388 1,526,1150 15,0113 1,51)1! 250 25,795 751 1,075 1,785 2,665,213 76,766 3,1817 707,358 6,034 2,439,10)0 22,0,50 11,451) 2;582 6,493 6,771 2,912 01,209 493 211,012 573 7,613 309,178 1)1,682 877 373 166 7,571 28.5 3,392 2,056 252,395 7,957 16,163 656,386 22,847 3,958 988 0,402 381,817 1,590 1,09:1 344

00) 31,322 1,8,41 1,157 278 62,722 3,02`2 2,681 23,020 61362 1,272,859 18,602

0,2l)3 14,866 2,071,20 17,575 6,320 1,812

159,429 14,284 10,118 410,897 3,912 1,079 43,821 1,537 6,039 1,481 326,957 12,882 6,996 284,127 9,171 3,669 149,1X12 2,830 1,252 50,856 1,311 8,333 2,526 481,604 9,803

,1 5,262 891,180 10,721 14 60 17,9)5 4,731 98:1,030 25,639 1,264 661 88,853 4,161 10 253 10,263 551 208 8,443 343 5,277 1,194 281,986 5,172 178 7,225 491 2,760 350 131,644 4,191 87 3,522 839 119 2,917 559 150,192 1,987 225 9,119 216 2.8011 113,939 1.670 1,021 245 579 577 268 2,690 1,174 281 666 664 309 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 P~rj(X) 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$JI Internals -In.l.I.5 V,",<w1 & IUM'roals GTCC Di"'Im.... d -In.t.I.O Rt*adorVcsllt.ll -Ia. I. I Totals CII>lt'8dmg ('iliIlii [nlln Clt'an DuilUin/: Ikmoiitlon 4.d..... l R"llctor Buildmg -Ia.l.4.2 Au.:uh8ry BUlldmg 4a.l.4.a Radwostc nUlldmg 41l.1.4.4 Turbinv-BUilding 4a.I.4.5 Ful'l Building 4a.l.4 T(ltals Di.. po.... 111 of Planl System!! 4a 1.5.1 Ar!(j Fel~d & ITllndhng 4a.l.5.2 AuxdiarySblom 4a. Ui:l Breathing Air 4a.l.5.4 C02 & Generator PUrgll 4a.1.5.5 Cautrtk Handling 4a.l.5.S elwin Radwasltl Rt.'!l(l)Ct..'l'u.ing & Di"II1.)&11 4a.I.S.7 Chlll... -d Water* RCA 4n.l.fid-l Chilll~d Water Non*RCA 4a.1.5.9 Chlorination -Ia.t.f).tO CirculatingWlltcr-RCA 4a I 5.11 CirculahngWalcrNon*RCA 4a.L5.12 t:ntnmnL Aux & Fu(*i Bldg FAIUlP Drain$ 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 C{~mltimMh~ 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 S~'.(II 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 DnHn~ 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:eflCV 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! ~'IO 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 ~l 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.

5,~)62 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 0,4~1 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-Site LLRW Dec.,, Remnvnl Packaging Trutraport Proceuing Diapo.ul Other T.W Coat Chat Canto Canto Costa Coat. Coate Contingency NRC Spent Pont uSilo Proceaned Burial Volumes Burial / Utility and Total Lis Term. Management Reataratlon Volume Cl.. A C eua B Cl.. C GTCC Proceoned Craft Contractor Cons Cant. Cu-Canto Cu. Feet Co. Feet Co. Peet Co. Feet Co. 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 Oil tin 41.1.6-49 R, 1'q,mg 40.1.5.50 Son^l:*cy 40.1.5.51 Scr,n IV- & MU Pump Jim, V-64,1-U, 1.5,52 Stn^,*tby Liquid Control 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 5 Tntolo 41.1.6, So0tf lding in x01,(,,,10f dammmino0000g 40.1 Subtotal Period 4o Activity Cool, Pm,o 40 Additional Gwl. 4x2.1 Dixtx,nul otliond Turl.in.* Romrn 40.2 Subtotal Pored 4, Addao,noI Coelo Pern) 45 Collotvrol C.wtn 44.3.1 Pmo nn d,n'< Wing ogler woele 4a-3.3 Smo111oot allowance 40.3 Subtotal Feriud 4, GJioteml Gale Pedal 40 Pori o) Dependent Canto 45.4.1 Ibsen ouppli,v, 40.4.2 1..uronco 4..4.3 Property Lora 40.4.4 Deol/h physic>> nupplicn 45.4.5 1100.y equipment n*nlo1 41.4.6 Dinpnnl of DAW gencr5t,,1 40.4.7 Pla er nt engy budget 40.4.8 NRC Food 45.4.9 Silo O&AI Cnn(0 40.4.10 Liquid Radwlnte Prot axing EquipmuoVSorvieca 45.4-11 Secraily St016 Coot 40.4.1_ DOCStoI Cunt 404.13 Utility Staff Cool 41.4 Sub(olal Ped,d 4n Perianl D,q,ondool Cool, 40(1 TOTAL PERIOD 4. COST PERIOD 41, - Site Decontaminadun Purim 4b Direct Docmnminwuning Activities 46.1.1 Remove oppnt NO rack, Dialn,xol of Plant Syxlemn 46.1.2.1 Crnnponont Gx,ling Wmor-RCA 46.1.2.2 Conloinment Monitoring Z.1.2.3 Control R,d Ddve 1.00 89 28 2 255 4 2:u 322 22 19

35 19 1

115 4 252 14 loo 25 195 36 5 42 35 1 2 it 11 58 68 22 3 25 204 3 8 54 60 329 329 11 0 0 2 3 17 17 69 0 1 9 19 98 98 396 19 48 337 159 068 960 521 2 5 31 20 115 115 260 30 77 536 1e0 1,063 1,063 15,826 1,320 1,525 6,093 3,255 5,940 3.3.908 32,749

1,3011 08 16 83 22 867 4,417 4,417 257 34,955 11,701 4,451 8,141 24,084 033 27,235 111,437 110,219 27 246 103 022 170 1,368 1,308 27 246 103 022 110 1.300 1,368 29 150 150 69 526 474 97 676 623 83 21 830 84 1,621 162 665 452 168 32

476, 141 4,284 64:1 947 95 612 77 8411 96 5,126 769 20,T29

),(319 34,075 5,111 839 78 181 218 1,0811 761 3,103 3,163 244 4

9 61 72 889 389 04 0 1 5 17 87 87 474 26 21 53 66 149 799 790 10,489 3,342 615,663 17,:190 49 62 5,527 4301 2.474 100,485 4,0301 269 4,440 1,0.56 8115 88,679 5,325 22 372 41 688 35 36

1,464 338 2,442 99,182 1,945 2,511 438 126,640 4,379 25 435 195 3.202 42 751 417 16,953 569 25 426 2,149 87,291 1,298 84 3,425 1111) 339 1:1,772 1,122 13,899 544,147 6,883 1,251 50,795 1,024 21,282 864,279 4,767 1,218 241,997 46,726 12,473,930 273,266 2,969

114 151,389 63,800 1,218 315,135 72,835 751 1,075 1,785 18,436,890 473,027

1,1017 29,464 1,325,880 400 29,464 1,325,880 469 151 9,064 29 151 9,064 29 15,584 882,700 1,537 2,412 97,965 3,955 187 7,595 1.149 2,113 951 1:19,851 0,12.5 85 264 1

1 9 ti? 27 233 4 2,048 45 406 269 545 22 2,048 46 406 545 371 9 75 35 103 8 1 1 9 61 6 41 6 30 30 40 229 229 84 459 458 3 25 3 15 63 30 51 10 43 457 17 17 51 457 10 43 2,618 3,06 ,634 168 32 476 68,372 11,354 104 9'_2 1,7361 3.278 3,460 817 4,927 1,042 588 7311 5,8, 2:1,1176 4itl 39,186 39,1 86,119 85,941 178 8,156 16:1,121 266 ((t,714 233,417 422,857 178 8,156 163,121 266 761,989 104 922 1,605 3,273 3,400 817 4,927 1,042 588 358 41,073 12,125 4,629 8,063 24,591 69,(1(5 38,856 199,6001 198,150 1,449 344,509 81,142 751 1,075 1,785 19,934,960 473,791 765,055 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 M~lkt.HIP Dcmincr$Ii:<<~r Non* nCA -4a.I.5.-4:! Mnlwup Cnul1:UlMltc SUh.Igc 4n.1.5.-44 Misc nuildin~ 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 n..!vio.~11 4a.I5 Totals 4a.IJi &:aITolding In !\\UPpuft of dt~nu ..... ionillg 411.1 Subtotal Puriuu 4a Achvlty (',_osla Pl'ruJd 4il Addihonal ('{J$h! 4a 2.1 Disposal of Sturt..:1 Turhin,* Rotorll 411.2 Sublolnl PeruKi4n Addlh.mal r..<mls 411..;1 Sublotai Pemld 41l f',_ollah:<rni Costs 4I1A.H NRC Fr.. ", -Ia.-4.9 SII_e O&M ('Als\\s 4n.4. to I"\\tultl Radwallh' Pnxvs><ing El.luiIJffil'lIt/St.'rviet'" 4a.4.11 ~lIritySta!TCoI\\.I -InA.l:;! DOCSta!TC',-()$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

~13 ~1' 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 C~..

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 Hl,14~

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 I~J,121 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

~66 47:l,7m 1,/).'17 a,9M 1,149 H,I~'l dUty and Contractor Munhours

I,Uti7 IOa,71-4 2:1:1,417 422,857 761,9MH 7i15,055

Clinton Poorer Station Decommissioning Cast Analysis Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Appendix D. Page 9 of 42 IA wiry Index Activity Dravription Disp,mal of Plant Systems )contino d) 46.1.2.4 Dioxel Fuel Oil 41, 1,2,5 Diesel qanersl 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 BVAC - 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 Trcwlmont 4'1.2.46 Suppmso,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 40.1.2 TMois 4b.1.3 Scolfolding in ouplwrl af,l.rvann Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) Of Site LLRW Decnu Re oval Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Cast Cast Csts Cast. costs Casts Casts contingency 77 68 13 101 fi 32 93 89 287 2:18

185 2,110 2,180 12 13 42 33 44 248 248 1

15 11 &1 63 19 47 331 267 1,504) 1,50(1 42

324 6

14 101 107 582 582 9 23 Ilil 171 933 9.13 3 7 48 46 204 254 14 36 253 247 1,359 1,359 t0 74 11 28 197 201 1,103 1,1113 1 7 4 TO 72 152 796 795 222 3 25 214 3 8 55 63 344 344 238 5 11 78 73 405 4115 184 28 212 12 2 14 (25 1 2 14 34 178 176 6311 3 8 56 (68 867 867 fit 8 5 7 19 22 120 120 352

311 25 45 W

124 666 666 636 79 82 294 198 273 1,562 1,562 7 1 9 325 4 9 94 93 496 496 17 3 19 125 2 5 38 38 209 2110 119 18 136 678 36 36 128 85 2(8 1,182 1.162 77 1 2 15 22 117 117 132 10 9 28 25 46 250 250 58 8 9 28 2:1 26 152 152 258 15 11 20 40 81 425 425 379 19 19 76 41 121 656 6.56 24,861 703 1,1810 5,351 1,207 7,262 46,412 37,139 5,040 (02 24 124 33 1,301 6,625 6,625 67 59 88 20 1,735 260 7,621 113 270 1,887 2,240 1,121 12 30 2279 317 1,370 74 72 254 178 443 806 14 33 229 242 182 27 942 61) 60 193 160 295 27 2 7 6 10 to 9 1,995 12,127 1,680 2,3301 1,323 210 1,61:1 55 2 12,127 1,689 2,391 1,323 1,613 55 1,078 1047 33 835 229 3.55 5621 151 809 77 68 101 1;995 210

124 74 25 67 39 74,814 8,281 10,072 2,501) 0,(18.5 7,671 2,319) 263 92 11,395 3,413 1,649 472 612 13,152

),994 0304 1,887 (0,046 7,84(1 2,875 2

1,276 1,1511 1.846 4,925 334

0,545 3,038,244 12211,569 3:00,:104) 19,039 553,918 23,:392

366,034 13,156 3.585 441,819 14,444 15,9113 463 656,370 18,444 93,759 1 '105 24,859 592 534,006 12,947 5,842 162,195 5,172 250,676 8,426 76.626 2,458 407,957 12,02.5 1,265 316,387 9,72()

12:3 116,761 6,520 42) 89,451 3,589 125,493

,884 2)2 3,643 14 2:18 554 22,497 2,04)1 93,002 10,271 3,273 212,512 17,323 9,611,517 418,603 276 272 26,618 1,046 1,784 1,297 145,974 5,078 11.692 2,842 6.16,067 11,114 9

146 2,553 I(R1,06 6,156 19 329 1,505 61,135 2,025 (30 2,:328 5,08 1,230 278,501 11,57:1 593 24.683 1,2811 1,103 362 &S, :167 2,264 1,123 328 64,195 1,024 008 566 64,966 4,267 3,033 588 156,372 6,470 4,453 471 227,03 95,713 NR Spent Fuel Site Prosesnod Hurini Valumes Buriol I Utility and Total Lim Term. Management Restoration Vnlume Chas A Class B Class C G CC Processed Craft Contractor Casts Costs Casts Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt.. Lhs. Manhun Mnnha 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 41.1.4.2 Auxiliary Building 41, 1.4.3 Control Building 46.1.4.4 Diawel C n motor Duliding 46.1.4.5 Radwostn building 41.1.4.6 Tur bno Building 40.1.4.7 Fo 4 Building 46.1.4 Task 4b.1 Subtotol Period 4b Arhvity Costs 2,941 3,625 349 1:11 4114 7)i 1)7 19 3117 329 1,222 310 863 746 7,264 5,316 8,103 35,316 195 1,9)18 3,042 12,990 12;995 29 55 212 847 847 1 57 2241 825 625 15 69 234 234 27 208 843 2,945 2,945 69 189 787 -,822 2$22 65 62 651 2,449 2,449 366 2,492 5,665 23,118 23,116 5,681 4,818 15,189 73,316 70,043 7,734 80,707 2,526,021 11,915 1,171 1,016 134,188 7,90 56 1,0,19 93,487 7,976 284 24,996 22,'274 1,1167 3,787 373,574 20,194 2,735 3,45(1 408,701 26,841 2,574 1.117 198,195 27,895 15,337 41,480 3,759,162 214,093

1,273 232,302 74,8.57 14,480,520 729,1)48 TLC Services, Inc.

Clinton Power Station DecommiBSioning COIlt Analysis A('tivity Index Acti\\'it\\' DCIi('ription DI>lpO$ru of Plant Syt\\ll~'ml:l toontinu~'1i) 4h.l.:lA DiOlWi Fud Oil 4h.1.2.5 Di{'!<ci G(m!~ral .&b.l.2.6 DII'$('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 Proh~lum " RCA -Ib.I.:!.I:} Fire Proh.~tioo Non-RCA 4h.1.2.l.& I-100r Drain Radwasw RCllrnL't.-'$$1n1: .&h.1.2.15 FUI.~lllllndling & Tran$fer -Ih.t.2.16 Fut>! 1'001 Cooling & CIt)(\\flUP 4h.I.2.17 FudSupport 4b.t.:.t 1M (JVAC* Awiiiary Buildkg .jb.I.2.tH IJVAC Conl-l1lllmcnt Building 411.1.2.20 ITVAC* Control Room 4b.1.2.:11 UVAC Fuel Duilding 4b 1.2.22 tIVA('* LAboratory 4h.l.:!.2:1 IIVAC* O!TG/lS Buihlml! -Ib.J.2.24 nVAl' Raclwaflte Butldmg 4b.1.:l.:t5 HVAC* StlrviC:t! Building 4h,1.:t26 HVAC* Turbint1 Building 4b.I.2.27 1100.. t",Cmlll~ & F.Jevalor.. 4b.l.2,:lS In.. lrUlmlflIAlr* RCA 4h.l.2..29 Instrument Air Non-RCA 4b.l.2.:J:O OITGfI'" 4b l..2.:n Plant St!rvinJ Waler* RCA 4b.l.2 :J2 Plalll &'fV<<-ll WaleI' NOIl*RCA 4i1,1.2.:\\3 Potable Walt-r 4b.J.2.:N Proct*!j$ Radiation Maniloflng .jb 1.2 :15 PnwA'AA Saml>ling -41" J.2.:l6 Reactor RIc'.. i<<~uIBti(Jn 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 s..~rvieeAlr* 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( D'~'(!nwlllinaUon 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 w~ 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 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 Speniliuel 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 EIG-1640~006. 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 24,(j~1 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 a,~5 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 1,2~j 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 Analysis Docarnent E16ag40-0060, Reo. 0 Appendix D, Page JO of 12 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) Of7Site LLRW Drvon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Toted Cast Cost Cools C..t. coats Casts Costs Cnmingency 954 202 1906 202 2,260 548 35 35 Activity lode. Acuvity nescripNnn Period 4b Additional Costa 46.2.1 Lc-so Termination Survey Planning 41.2.2 ISFSI Lirvooo Toaninal,.n 4b.2 Soblotnl Period 4b Additioml Cool NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed urinl Volumes Burial / Utility and Total Lie. Term Management Restoration Volume CassA Class B Class C C CC Processed Croft Cnntractar Costs Costs Coat. Clot. Cu. Feet Cu. Foes Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet WI., Lbs. Manhours Monhoses 11,2431 162,750 2,368 2,560 162,750 2,303 8,360) 1,240 1,240 1,949 1,849 1,240 1,849 3,090 Period 4b Cuilaleml Coma 46.:3.1 P__ deemno,oo,oning or wool,, 46.3.3 SmalI la,i allawsnco 46.3.4 Dironu....ioning Equip-,a Di.l,oo,lloo 4b3 Subtotal Poeiol 4b Collaleml C.I. P-7' 43, Peri.d-Dolrondent Cls 46.4.3 Ikcnn nuppliox 4h.4.2 in,mrnme 46.4.9 Prop'rty 1a%e. 4b.4.4 Iloalih physics suppIivu 4b.4.5 lesvy equipment mud 4b.46 Disl000,I of DAW gemrni,-d 4b.4.7 Plant oneryy budget 4b.-I S NRC Fvim 46.4.9 Site O&M Cots 46.4.10 Liquid Rd.-u-Pnxr,so,ng Equipmenlolrv, oo 46.4.11 Sirurity Stoll Cost 4b.4.12 DOC Stnlf C-4b.4.13 Utility StsICool 4b.4 Subtutol Period 4b PerilD,.pendenl C.M. 4b0 TOTAL. PERIOD 4h COST PERIOD 41-License Termination Puriod 4f D,r,ol Ducommi..ioning Aclivilioo 41.1.1 ORISE ron0nn1h,ry.urvey 41.1.2 Termimle Iireme 41.1 Soblolal Poriod 4f Activity Cools Period 4f Addiliomd Costa 41.2.1 Liccnw, Torminstlon Survey 41.2 Sublotnl Period 4f Additional C,,- P, n,xd 41 C.nllnleral Grote 413.1 DOC staff rcl,ooI,on oxprnmm 41,3 Subu,toi Period 4f Clint..] Coe1e P,'ml 4 PeriolDep oodonl Coot. 4(.4.1 tonor.nre 41.4.1 Pmiarty taxo. 4fA.3 Uosl/hph MW .uppli,x 414.4 Dl.posalogommtod 41.4.5 Plant energy budget 44.6 NRC Fe,w 41.4.7 Silo O&M C is 41,4.8 Security Slag Cool 41.4,9 DOCSt.RCosl 4f.4. 10 Utility Stag Cool 41,4 Subtotal Period 4f PerixlDepeoknt C,- 40 TOTAL. PERIOD 4f COST PERIOD 4 TOTALS 81 424 424 103 786 7811 56 444 444 239 1,053 1,653 578 2,899 2,889 1,231 123 1,354 1,:1.54 2,379 2:18 2,017 2,617 995 4,975 4,1175 657 5,937 5,087 236 4 670 198 1,149 1,149 4,965 745 5,710 5,710 1,3/0 139 1,529 1,529 751 113 864 864 9,99 141 1,080 1,089 7,525 1,129 8,654 8,654 29,10)5 4,363 3:1,447 33,447 47,368 7,090 54,405 54,495 2,312 8,351 230 45 670 95,573 16,514 123,709 123,709 10,461 44,307 2,897 2,373 6,3/29 5,879 117,833 32,489 201,768 196,645 175 52 227 227 175 52 227 227 13,733 4,120 17,852 17,852 1:1.733 4,120 17,952 17,852 1,11)50 154 1,184 1,184 1,030 154 1.184 1,184 385

19 424 424 745 74 819 819 817 204 1,021 1,021 0

6 35 35 414 62 477 477 4:0 44 479 479 235 35 270 270 103 144 1,107 1,107 5,194 779 5,974 5,974 8,722 1.008 7.731 7,731 817 7 1 211 15,085 2,396 18,387 18,337 617 7 1 20 30,032 6,723 37.010 37,030 10,818 86,287 14,439 7,003 14,992 30,480 190,870 78,009 438.967 432,396 11,473 229,404 374 155,179 332,71)3 585,954 11,47:1 229,464 374 1,1173,8313 1,849 3,273 238,302 80,335 15,204,00 782,856 1,082,00 223,57:1

1,1211 223,573 3,1211 347 6,945 1911.51 78,829 347 6,948 11 149,211 347 6,948 223,5&5 152,381 1,849 4,722 582,901 170,824 751 1,075 1,785

15,146,530 1,4313,282 2,100,022 40 684 40 2,312

1,9111 4,351 122 145 38 107 44 160 167 189 432 6,180 635 6,0181 1,667 25,1/29 84 805,961 88 331,810 172 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 Survt~y 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$l!lioning Eqlli(lIlWllt Di,,!H)lutton -Ih.a Subtotal Pllriod 4b Collateral COtIl8 PcnOiI 4h Perloo.Def.t4.*ndt'nl Costs 4b.*tl Dt'("on SUpplies .. bA.2 IO!'\\lrHOCe .JhA.:l Propt>rty laX!'!! .. bAA fIeallh IthYJ:'.ia suppli\\ll\\ 4b.4.5 U,'IIVY IJquipmt'nl mowl "b.4.6 DiJ:'.pos.Il1 ofDAW gClWrn\\,'fi 4bA.7 Plant cnergy budg'llt 4bA.8 NRC Fet's -IbA.9 fiIlI'O&M Cosw 4h.4.10 Liquid Radwash' PrUCfl,... mg E'IuipmcntIHl'rvw.,.. 4bA.l1 &'Cul"ilyStaITCrnlt 4h4.12 DOC Staff Co"t 4bA.l:1 Utility S!offCruot 4b.4 Subwtnl Period 4b Period Dt*pt*ndeol Co:>tl"l -Ibn TOTAl. PERIOD.. h cosr PERIOD 4f ~ License Tenninl\\tion Period.. r Dllx-d n'>eommi$Sionin~ 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 Lklm~ 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

1,9~U

-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 C~'" 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,~18 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 Analysis Docurnent E16-1646-1106, Rev. 0 A ppendix D, Page II o/12 Table D Clinton Power Station Delayed DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 do,lars) Activity Index Activity D...riptinn PERIOD Sb - Site Resmration Perini 5b Diroo t Den o mianioning Activitioo 0f0-s"' LLRW Deco. Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Coot Coat Cu.,. Cu.. Cos Costa Cu.. Contingency NR Spent Fuel Site Proeesaed Racist Volu,nea 11.6.1 1 Utility and Total Lic. Term. Management Restoration Volume Cl.ss A ClassB Cluts G C Processed Craft Contractor Costa Coats Cu.. Coats Cu, Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feat Wt., Lbs. Manhoura Manhaurx 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 56.1.1.4 Cu,tml Building 561.1.5 Di,".4

,Building Building 51.1-1-6 6lo L,,-U, Woter Pump Ilnoac fib.l.1,7 5R.*+kl,i,..u,. Sit', Work 56.1.1-8 Mi-... u., n..,... stnmtnnre 5b.t.t.9 11.6, Building 56.1.1.10

..r. Pudding .,nn*n and Tank Pneix 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 56.1-1 Totals Site ('loon U t Acl,video 51, 1.2 It.rkFill Site 66.7.3 C.-Ic & landrai,v solo 51,.4 Final report to NRC 5b.1 Subtotal Pariml Sb Activity Cm,to Period Sb Additionol toots 56.2.1 Concrete Crushing 56:1:1 Senrvnhousn CoOerdnm Sb.2.3 Dia:hnri,, Flwne & Unit 1 E...vat5on Bnrk011 66,2.4 15Fti1 it, Rcntoratinn 66.2 Subtat.l Period 51, Additooosl Costs Portod 5b Collntmnl Cools 533.1 Small tad Alu-- Sb.3 Subtotal Period 5b tolh,tor.I Cana Period 51, 1'oroodDependent Costa 5b.42 Porpo rty taboo 56.4,3 b'o'y taluipmcnt cr0151 Sb.4A Plant energy hodg,4 5b.4.5 Site O&M Coma 51, So'oonty Staff Col Sb,4.7 DOC Staff Cmu 56.4.6 Clitity Stall Coat 5b.4 Subtotal Penal Sb Periat Daprm3rnt Cants SbIt TOTAL PERIOD 61, COST PERIOD 5 TOTALS TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION 5,791 2,201 3,6(19 5,2&5 1,858

180 1,785 2,7W2 5,212 4(2 173 5,324 1,2'13 2,442 38,447 109 2,154 4(1,7111 5,959 5,959

5,894 55,894 23,067 150,020 14,750 7,770 14,992 8(i9 6,659 330 2,533 541 4,1511 790 6,054 276 2,1:16 57 437 268 2,663 417 3,199 782 6,694 60 461 26 199 799 6,123 164 1.497 366 2,898 5,767 44,215 16 125 323 2,477 195 29 224 195 6,138 47,041 2.264 226 2,41)1 894 6,853 110) 95 725 715 107 829 2,927 4:19 3,3&1 15,261 2,289 17,551 8,479 1,272 9,761 30,277 5,322 41,658 30,531 12,851 99,275 30,631 12,851 09,275 724,069 109,067 1,135,501 1,515 9

229 1,753 I,191f3 164 1,260 5,440 816 6,256 718 50 115 884 8,769 60 1,324 10,153 455 (i8 623 455 68 523 52:1 523 2,491 6,853 725 3,:166 511 709 17,551 1)9),674 9,751 92,151 2,491 39,067 3011,534 224 3,374 05,677 510,721

111,254 224 3,374 16,677 510,721 311,254 666,212 367,871 101,418 582,001 160,170 751 1,075 1,785 35,438,080 2,122,228 7,067,703 6,659 2,533 4,150 6,054 2,136 437 2,063 3,199 5,994 462 199 6,123 1,407 2,608 44,215 65,wt 2:1.241 38,418 5(1,576 211,2:14 5,1)9) 21,227 44,561 58,440 5,.585 2,463 0,415 12,474 26,70 443,457 224 224 125 2,477 46,817 201 4,449 448,106 7,355

-10,159 37,059 8,042 111(1 62,614 160 884 884 1,753 1,260 6,2.56 9,269 TLG Services, Inc. Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Activity Indt'x Activit~ Ut'l)cri&:;tion PERIOD 5b ~ Site Restoration P,-noo 5b Dih-'Cl Dl,(,OInmllAAuming A~*tlvlhc~ 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 DiN~cI G *. *n~.'rator nuildin~ Sb.I.I.1i Mak~--Up Wah'f' PUlTl}1 lInuse ,lih.l.1.7 Mi..ccllnnooll." Silt. Work 5b.U.S Mist'cllaO('Ous Struclun~3 5h.l.L9 RadwaJlh~ 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 Pl~nud 5b AdditIOnal Co.-tl) 5b.2.1 COilCrt!tu Cru,,;hlllg s,'rt'<JnhOIls.e Co(feniam ni~*hnq.'l! 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 l't~rmd 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 Coutinliellc~ 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 Activity Demo Removal Pnekaging Tenon port Procesoios Disposal Other Total lodes Activity De<<criptinn Cnvt Coat Costs Costs Crete Co.,. Cotta Contingency TOTAL COST DECOMMISSIONWITH 17.494: CONTINGENCY: $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: $101,418 thousands of 2012 dollars OTAL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BURIED (EXCLUDING GTCC): 181,996 cable feet TOTAL GREATER THAN CLASS C RADWASTE VOLUME GENERATED: 1,785 cable feet OTAL SCRAP METAL REMOVED: 75,986 tons OTAL CRAFT LABOR REQUIREMENTS: 212$ 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 then ll.ihni i<< non-eem. n colt ru.taining"-' indicalen a um vNue NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Velours. 11.4.11 Utility and Total Lic. Tenn. Management Restoration Voiume Class A Class B ClosoC GTCC Processed Crag Contractor Casts Co.. Casts Cots Cu. Feet Co. 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 Pro~d 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 Station Document E16-1640-006, Rev. 0 Decommissioning Cost Analysis Appendix 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 ite LLaw Deco. Removal Ponkagiog Transport Proroxxing Dip -.1 Other Total Cost Cost Cost. Co.. C stn

Cost, Costs C otiogenuv NRC pent Fuel Site Prorroord 13.6.1 W.-

florist t Utility and Total Lin. Term. M...gemeat Restoration Volume Class A Class R UM-.7 G C Prod Craft Contractor Coats Costa Costa Co.. Co. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Cu. Fort Cu. Feet Wt Lb, Manhours Monhours 437 41111 I: la. 1.1 SAFSTOR onto' rhorxrtrriuuion --y 10,1.2 Pn'porr prehminxry dtan,xnnionoiuning rout 10.1 :1 N,,to1 nlIon of Coxsotion of Opornlonx 1..1.4 Remove fuel & rourse molerinl In.1.5 Noli5rnu0n of Pennenent DnEueling 10.1,6 Dtvtctivalc plant nyslumn & Irroarxx waxle 10.1.7 Pn*.poru and xnhmit PSDAR 1..1.8 Rnvinw plont dwga & slsrs. 10.1 9 Perform dmoibd red xnnvy. i(0212ill Eolimate by pmdo,r inv,minry 1..1.11 End 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 1.115 Purf nn Sile.Stwcilr Cool Study Artivily Sine 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..1.16 Total Det.ilyd Work Proaduren L,-1.17.1 Flom nynlema 10.1.17.2 Fxrilityrlonr:oul&durmoncy t..1.17 Most 10.1.16 Pr o-on, 00rnnm drying nynlem 11, 1.19 DrniNde-energiaenrn.wnt.xyntems 10.1.20 Dr0in & dry N88S 10.1.21 Drn iNd,nenergixr rw txmin0led ynl.ems 10.1.22 Dtav,Nwr oarsounotcdnvxtems 10.1 Su140101 Poo' od 1. Activity Cart. Pori,xl in Additional Coma 10.2 i ISFSI Espnnsinn 103 Subtot.l Period 1. Additional C.A. Parini 10 U>Ilotorol Coals 10 3. i Spent Fort Capital and Transfer 1023 SubOBal Period 1. Coll.trrol C,wta Prrno1 in R,rnnl Drprndent C 010 10 4.1 Inauranen 10.4.2 1'topariy 10.x. to 13 Rvnllh pb _^..uppli.. 1.4.4 lluovy eyuit,i...nt 010) 10 3,5 Dixinw.I of DAW general 01 10.4.6 Plant cmtrgy budget I. A.7 NRC Fan 1x.4.8 Emergrncy Planning Fees 10A-9 Soto O&M Coma 10.4.10 Spent Fool Fad O&\\I 10,4.11 ISFSI Olu'ro0ng Coda 1..4.12 Sr'oritySloll Co" 10.4.13 Utility Staff Gwt WA Sobtaol Poriai le Parial D,,-dent Crum, 527 156 162 24 0(0 250 37 287 162 24 187 135 19 144 125 19 144 187 28 215 125 19 144

187 58 445 624 94 718 614 92 707 707 520 78 596 598

190 58 448 448 25(1

17 287 287

'150 37 287 287 2,024

814 2,327 2,327 148 2'2 1711 1711 1 50 22 172 172 298 45 342 342 12 2

14 14 5,160 8:81 5,845 5,840 5,216 780 5,980 5,Lfq 780 5,980 13,8.56 13,858 2,396 2,396 547 547 529 529 61 61 12,190

1,188 3,198 1,268 1,266 2,729 2,729

363 363 893 89:3 105 105 8,232 8,232 157,471 39,019 39,019 423,400 50,337 55,810

1,727 610 12,19(1 20 5811,871 688 187 1,3(X1 666 187 287 187 144 144 215 144 445 718 4,92(1 4,167 3,12(3 2,1001 2,1801 (6.307 100 35,80(1 12,051 1,808 13,858 12,051 1,608 13,858 2,178 218 109 69 11 2,781 417 1,151 115 2,481 248 316 47 777 117 91 14 7,158 1,074

13,9:0 5,089 897 13 2

313 50,862 7,528 TLG Seruicea, Ina. Clinton POU1{!r Station Decommissi01ling Cost Analysis Activity Indl'x Aetivit~* 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 I'Iy~lt.'nM & 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!$l'<'Uru cOnl1lllltnahJ({ systems In.l 8ubtotal Period 1n Arlinty ~hl 1'<'rw.:l 1u Adtllhonal ('0.:<1$ 1n.2.1 TfiFSl El.IMUlI'IIOn In.2 Sublotall'eriod In Addlhonal CO>lht PUllud In Culiaterni Costs In.:I.l H~'nt 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 I)hy.-ir~ 1'upphw!' In....4 IIeavy,~quipmt'nt nmtal 1n.-l,5 Disl~()"al of DA W gcncfi\\!' 11 la.-I.6 Plant eru'rgy budget InA.7 NRC F~'s la.-I.8 Emt'rgcnry Planning FI~\\'~ 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 Pennd*Oep~'fltlent 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 l:!.~ 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 Analysis Document 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 lades Activity Description 017Site LLRW Deere. Rernovol Packaging Tronnport Processing Disposal Other Total Cost Cost Co.. Co.. Cants Costs Co.. Contingency NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial) Utility and Total Lic. Term. Management Resmrotion Volume na A Cl... B Clan,, C GTC Processed Craft Contractor Costs Cants Costs Co-Cu. Feet Co. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., L1n. Manhnurn Men nun loft TYPAL PERIOD 1. COST PERIOD 11, - SAFSTOR Limited DECON Activitlen Period It, Dn-t S ao ,oixo,oo,ng irtivitie>> 2 616,761 20 13 36 73,122 61,450 85,011) 23,565 12,190 10,946 897 6111 11%1 416 127 127 1110 416 3,261 374 433 126 1,463 1,303 946 7.912 7,912 841 240 1,081 llo o oonat,on of attr Beildi'ge lb.l.i.l R, color building Ib1.1,2 Auxiliary Ruild,ng 16.1.1.3 Contnd building 11. 1 1. 1 1.4 Diwnl tlenemtnr nodding 16.5 Rndanata nodding 16.1,1.6 Turbine Building 16.1. i.7 Fmdfn,ld,og 16.1.1 TWnin 16.1 Subtotal Period lb gravity Conte Prrio,t 11, A6 1, l,. u, I C ^t-1b2.1 4 1-, ^ lo, l r'-4atian 16.2 Sol,loyat Proud 16 Add I C-1. Peri,sl It, Colint=rnl Cool, it, :A Dump rgaipmont It, 32 Pn,oono d,xommu,n,omng enter wants 16.3.4 Small tool nttneancn lb 3-5 Spent Fuel C.1,4.1 -1 7tnnn5er 11,3 Subtotal Portal It, Cotta Wrnl Costa 1,630 4,991 4,891 187 561 66t 216 640 649 63 189 189 732 2,195 2,195 654 1,963 1,963 473 1,419 1,419 3,956 11,069 11,968

1,956 11,868 11,999 10,.588 1,588 12,176 12,176 10,588 1,588 12,176 12,176 126 969 968 49:1 316 1,565 1,665 10 146 146 3,111:1 95'1.

3,965

1,485 403 3,913 913 6,144 2,679 3,465 56,016 6,405 7,51)3 2,182

.1 369 22,68)1 16,275 1:16,519 13(1,.519 88,241 287 88,241 287 2,202 11,195 186 Period 11, Rxiod-Dop,dent Cavta 16.4.1 Doom supi,lton lb.4.2 Innumnro I 6.4.3 Pmp,, Iy too. lb4.4 Ifenlth pb*.O oopplien lb.4.5 Ile.,,} mpup,,,. of no,tal lb.4.6 Dintaaol ofDAW o nembvl 16.4.7 Plant energy bodgrt ib.4-8 NRC Fees 16.4.9 En,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 3 Sorority Stall Coat 16.4.14 Utility Staff Coat 16.4 Subtotal Peril lh Poriod.Ilol.oodont Conte 1b,0 TOTAL PERIOD lb COST PERIOD 1c-Preparation, for SAFSTOR Dornmncy Period to Dorol Dooo,mmsnioo,ng Ad-ti. lc.i.1 PM" P"' sopped equipment too 0108150 10.1.2 Install contninmont P-- oganl. liner ic.t.3 Interim aurooy prun to dormer y Ie7.4 Sororu building acr'aoro tr.1.5 Pmparo & submit interim s=port 10.1 Subtotal Period to Activity Gmta Peril to Cottal rnl Como 10.3.1 Pmo,'oa dtrnmminoioning ealrr wants in.33 Small loot atbwance tr 1.4 Spool Fuel Copital and Trannh:r 669 2,752 2,752 40 444 444 303 3,335

3,335 166 828 829 17 132 132 24 138 138 1,374 27,476 45 693 104 797 797 167 17 183 183 474 47 522 522 79 12 89 so 194 29 223 223 23 3

26 26 1,785 269 2,052 2,1152 39,1110 8,459 1,269 9,798 9,728 165,561) 28 5 811 15,308 2,660 21,252 20,482 770 1,374 27,476 45 144,928 129 422 673 28,81)0 9,307 51,440 47,205 4,235 2,844 115,716 1 441 66 507 5117

91 6

45 45 733 220 953 953 7:1 11 64 84 8116 303 1,588 1,589 78 324 384 246 1,218 1,218 1 4 4 3,01:1 452 3,465 28 66;3 115 403 3,032 2,202 778 3,1X01 700 9,827 144.821) 583 480 3 13,527 541:) 68,716 223 1,145 3,465 TLG Seraicea, Inc. ClilitOlI PowerStalion DecOInmwioning Cost Analysis Activity Ind(')I: Activitv Df'l!lcri~tion lrdJ TOTAL PERIOD ta COST PERIOD lb* SAFSTOR Limited DECON Activities P"nod Ib DU1,'d D'mI1lUI!I>IiuumlZ _\\dlvltic~ 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" rt~riud lh Colllllt-ral CO*ts Ot'<<ln I~tluil)tnent Pf'OCt'AA dL>o;<ommW,.mnmg water WllSlt~ 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 D.~'fln 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.. klrngl~ lc.1.2 Install nmtainml'nl pn'1'.'4urc milia!. Inws k1.3 Illhmm survey prill( to dormancy IdA ~ure 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 Trtlnsrt~r TLG Services. Inc. Orr-Site Decon R.. moval Packaging Transport Proeeuing Cost Cm.t (;olibl Costs c~.. 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.

J~4 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) LLRW NRC Disposal Other Total Total Lic. Tenn. Costs Costs COl1tinlenc~ 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 EJ6~J640.006. 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 Analysis Document 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-Site LLRW Activity Deena Removal Psekaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Index Activity Description Cost Cost Co.. Co.. C. Costs Costa NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial l-Utility and Total Total LIc. Teral. M...gemeot Rostoratiun Volume CloaoA ClassB Cl.. GTCC Processed Croft Contractor Contingency Costs Costs Costs Co.,. Co. Feet Cu. Fees Cu. Feet Co. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lhs. Monhours Monhnuro 1r.3 Subtotal Porvoi lc Collateral Costs 180 3 78 324 384 3,013 698 4,687 1,222 3,465 1,145 68,715 22:3 Pero') lc Pvvvot.Depetnlent firsts Ic.4.1 I...... e Ic.4.2 Pnrperty toyed 1e.4.3 tleabh physics supplies to 4.4 11"." wpipoo nt Hotel 1c15 Di-i..,voI oIDAW generated 1r.4.6 Phrnt re^.'vv hralyet I,A.7 NEC I. Iv.4.8 Eov i, - Pl>>nning Fires IoA.9 Silo 11&' l Cob 1,,4.10 51sot Fool Post O&M 10A.11 ISM Drooling coat' Ic.4.12 &.'-ovity 5)41 Cost 1c.4.13 Uti)ityStslCost I0A Subtotal Period to Pari,ai Dapemknt Casts 279 1c.0 TOTAL PERIOD Iv COST 186 763 81 325 PERIOD t TOTALS 11,381 2,66.5 222 749 PERIOD to - SAFS"TOR Dornlaucy with Wet Spent Foot Storage Poriod 2, Direct D,>>xanmissioning Activities 20.1.1 Qunrtvr)y Inspoetion 2..1.2 5omi-annual envimntuenlal survey 2..1.3 Frvpsbc mpW t0 2..1.4 Bitnmimws roof rop).ca uont 3..7.5 M>>inlvoonve supplies " 2..1 Subtotal Perl<<12, Actin ty Costs Pcri,d 20 Collateral Costs 2>>3.1 Spool Foe] Copilal and Tvs nster 49,7119

2. 3 Suhtatol Period 2. Collateml Casts 49,709 633 648 1,151 95 728 728 137 685 685 232 1,413 1,413 7,456 57,166 57,166 7,456 57,166 67,166 1,602 121,158 393 19,127 693 167 474 79 194 23 1,765 8:4595 9

15,308 403 3,032 3,154 24,029 19,794 4,235 1,297, 23,407 160,485 128,449 31,035 4,751 40 444

w3 1)335 41 206 17 132 3

15 04 797 17 183 47 522 12 90 29 223 3 26 266 2,052 1,269 9,7'18 2,153 17,754 522 _23 26 770 152 3,()39 39.2(4) 105,560 3,039 5 144,820 71,755 13,755 145,456) 199,661 150,625 16)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..4.1 Insumm:e 20,4.2 Pn,i iY tas,ps 25.4.3 11,nib physics nnpplian 2s.4.4 Dislaml of DAW F **-rnl,,d 2.4.5 Pt.nt, gy budget 22>>.4.6 NRC F^.. 20.4-7 L.i^..i,,e y Planing F,- 2.48 &t, (ievlC ls 2.4.9 Sp. el Fuel Pod O&M 2..4.10 IS i 31 Op, 'rating Costs 2n.4.11 &r.uritYSlnff Cent 2..4.12 Utility Staff Cost 2.4 Subtotal Farad 2. Peril-Dal-dent Costs 2..0 TOTAL PERIOD 2. COST PERIOD 2h-SAFSTOR Dormancy with Dry Spent Fact Storage

1,174 21,272 54 2,226 1,102 7,613 1,263 3,109 365 20,607 27,049 702 111 4

54 87,779 702 19 4 54 1 38,670 317 3,491 2,276 1,216 2,127 23,400 4,400 19,000 176 878 878 16 02 92 021 18,419 30 334 2,500 1,280 1,280 110 1,212 1,212 761 8,374 8,374 189 1,452 1,452 486 3,676 3,575 55 420 420 3,1191 23,698 7,791 15,906 444,.511 4,057 32106 8,627 24,480 329,769 11,700 100,268 28,1218 74,250 021 18,419

91 774,330 19,389 158,837 27,421 131,416 921 18,419 30 774,330 Pesos) 26 Dint D,vmnmisstoning Activitios 2b.11 Qo.rlerly 1ns1at)on 2b.L2 Scml nnnos ) environment >>l eurvey 26.1.3 Prep.re reports 26.1.4 Dilominoooood n-pl>>cement 2,019 26.1.5 Mainten0tae supplie.

1,748 26.1 Sobtoto l Perimt 2b Aervily Coats 3,767 30:1 2,322 2,322 437 2,185 2,185 740 4,507 4,507 TLG Services, Inc. Clillton Power Station Decommi$$ionillg Cost Analysis A('tivity Indf'!( Activit~, I>f'-'>Cl'ii:tion k;J Subtotal Ptlrltxi Ie Collaleral Cwts l',>noo leA.1 InijUflH\\('~l 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 ('m)r~ budget k4.7 NRC FI*H~ 11'.4.R Emergl'nry Planning F"HI Ir.4.9 SlleO&M(~1$! 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 1'\\~ri(l(l*D\\lpefl(k*nl ('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 P.~nod 2a DIn'C1 fh~"QInmimonlng Adiviticil 211.\\.1 quarterly In>lpt,'etloo

la.t.:!

&'IIlHmnuul environnwllln.lllurvcy 2a.\\.3 Prepare reports 211.1.4 Dilmnmous roof n'ph~CI'!mmt 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$! 21lA.l In,.urant:e 20..1.2 l'nlllt'r-ty lax~'l1 28.4.3 Ih'alth phy;;ws supplies 2aAA DiIlI)()!U'lI of DAW 1fIlffi.)rnb'ti 21lA.5 Plant energy budget 2a.*I.(' NRC Ft.'f.'s 2HA.7 E[m~fI;I~IlCY Planning Ft"'" 2aA.8 Sth*O&MCo~1$! 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 lrml~'C11On 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 ~~-NRC------ Disposal Other Total Total Lie. Term. Costs Cos", Continienc~ 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 3~ 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 El6-1640~tJ06. 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 Analysis Document 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-Site LLRW Devon R oval Packaging Transport Pr-sing Disposal Other Tend Total Coot Cot Costa Costs C t. Casts Co.. Contingency Costs C Spent Fuel Sit. Processed Mortal Volurrtes 1150151) Utility and Lie. Term. Management Restoration Volume Mae A Clans D Claoe C GT C Proeessed Craft Contractor Coots Co.. Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lies. Mmsbnu. Munhouro Period 2b Colbdoml Cools 21, 3.1 Stsmt Fool Cop,l.l nod Trnnofor 21.3 Subldnl Period 26 Collateral Gal,, Poo,otl2b Drlomdoot Coots 21.4-1 Ineormrco 21, 4.2 Fo,porly taxes 26.4.3 1lvallh phy0°0 suppli,m 2b.4.4 Diopcwxl of DAW getwrsod 26.4.5 P)onl crwrgY budget 21.4,(1 NRC Brea 21,.4.7 Emergency PI.nning Fore 2b.4.8 Silo O&M Greta 21,.4.9 ISFSI Ois*robmg Cwls 26.4.10 Sonority Staff Gat 21,0.11 Utility Saff Coot 2b.4 Sublol,1 Period 2b Porio,l.0.pendont C -t,, 1,087 2bD TOTAL PERIOD 21, COST 1,087 PERIOD 2e-SAFSTOR Dnmm^cy without Spent Fuel Storage 1,238 9,488 1,238 9,488 6,6401 61)1) 7,260 12,758 1,276 14,034 272 1,358 24 141 3,550 533 4,083 3,346 335 3,680 24,262 2,428 26,710 4,028 604 4,632 1,166 175 1,341 35,451 5,318 40,768 34,591 5,189

19,780 29 6

82 125,771 16,812 143,788 29 6 82 137,789 18,780 157,762 9,488 9,488 26,710 4,632 1,341 40,768 718,1171 22,422 17,358 426,0157 45,719 98,059 1,411 28,221 46 1,145,029 50,226 107,556 1,411 28,221 40, 1,145,029 8,25(1 8,2541 7 L( 8'2 29 14,034 1,358 141 4,083 3,680 7,260 28,2'21 4)1 Per on 2e Diroxl Dav ing Activities 201 -1 Seroir.nnn:J ^,unmenlsI survey 20.1:3 Pn 20.1,4 Rimminos, tw,f ^., 1 n0.nt 20.15 Mninbmaw auppll^.. 20.1 Sn6totst Period. 0 Ar"ly Cods Period 2, Poriml-Drpondont Cools 20.4.1 Ineumme 21.4.2 Fre01rly l 20.4.3 1103lth p61-:.^+uppti 201.4 Di 1,^ ^.d et DAW ti'm,oc,t,d 20.4.5 Plnnt every bodb t 20.4.6 NRC Fees 20.4.7 Silo O&M C-1. 20.4.8 S "'nity Staff Cool 20.4.9 Utility Stn)) Coot 20.4 $,1,101x1 Period 2, Ponai-Dupondent Coots 2,859 75 5,647 847 6,494 4,888 1,222 8,111 10,536 2,068 12,605 18,459 1,846 20,305 35,682 3,568

19,251 715 3,573 212 63 364 9.929 1,489 11,418 8,575 858 9,433 11,266 1,608 12,956 60,439 9,068 69,504 51,4)12 7,710 59,112 212 195,751 37,(414 225,916 75 200 TOTAL PERIOD 20 COST 2,859 75 14 PERIOD 2 TOTALS 4,648 123 24 PERIOD 3, - Reactivate Site Following SAFSTOR Dormonep Period 3s Dinxl Dona emissioning Arlivi9oo 31.1.1 Pn'poro prolimin.ry dsvmtmissioning cMl 162 24 187 30.1.2 Rooms plant dwgs & slwrs.

574 86 861 1.3 Perform detoilml rsl survey

13.1.4 End pnsiuct dosor,ption 125 19 144 3..1.5 Dvlsilod by'l'notoot inventory 162 24 187

10.1.6 Dofine.*, work segos no0 937 140 1,077

lo.1.7 Perform SER and EA 387 68 445 33.1.8 Pvrf rm Sil.-Spoeiio Can Study 624 94 718 33.1.9 Pniaro/submil Lia'n,x Terminslion 17nn 512 77 588 33.1,10 R,ooivo NRC npp-.1 of 1,memadon pl..

212 206,287 29,073 238,520

148 482,745 67,252 555.139 6,494 6,111 12,605 187 1,:14M) 661 4041 144 L(AX) 187 1,:4X) 1,577 7.51X) 445 3,1141 718 5,1041 588 4,098 20,305 39,251 3,573 364 11,418 9,433 12,958 69,504 59,112 225,916

116,168 235,972 72,692 111) 1,1)7,)14 1151,(1511 72,692 119 1, 71iti,784 72,692 119 1,768,71)4 5,1167 119,:131 19,

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} Tmnsfl~r Suhtotal Period 2b Collah>ml Cool'!! P"rw.. l:!b I'l'rt,ld*DclWndt'nt ('O-~s 2b.... l In"Urllll:Ctl 2h.... 2 PmpNiy 11Ixml

.Ih.... :1 11.*8Ith physics !lUllplit'SC 2h......

Dis~l ofDAW gt~ncralcd 2b.4.5 Planll'lWl'I.'Y bud gel ib4.fi NRCFI!<'s Emcrgt>Jlcy I'llInllifl~ Fl"' Sill.' O&M Co~t" 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 ('~I>J

!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 St*"'\\lritySt.afT(~l 2<'A.9 Utility SlaITCost

teA Subtotal Period 2e l'eri()d*D,'p<'lld~'I1t 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 d~""HmmiMloning nlHt ao.l.2 Review plant dwlP! & $i~'t's

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 Co.~t Study au.}JJ Prejillf1.,f,mbmit LIO~nse Tl.!rmillUlllln I'hm au.l.tO 7'LG Services, Inc.

bft~ite-Removal Packaging Transport Proceuing Cost Costa Costs Costs I,Im7 29 1,087 2!) I,run 29 2,Hf19 75 14 2,~59 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 Contin~enc~ 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 El6-16.JO~OtJG. 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 Index Activity Drocriptlnn off-silo LLR Doeon Removal Packaging Tronaport ProcessMg Disposal Other Total Coat Cost C.M. Cools Coats Cast. Costs Contingency NRC Spent Fuel Site Prneen.ed Duriol Volume. Burial / Utility and Total Lic. Term Management Reatoratlon Volume Clans A Caw B CI..sC GTCC Prncenaed Croft Contractor Co.tn Costa Coats Costs Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt., Lb.. Monhnurs Mauhoura Activity sWx'ifnaionx 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-&--

3 1 2 .t. t t.l(1 Pm<<nnrs aupprannion alncetwu 3x.1.11.11 Drywctl x.1.11.Plant A...Iovo & bua,hngn 30.1.11.18 Wnxte m0nagement 3..1.11.14 Facility & ite 0kaamnt 30.1.11 Toll PI...ino & Situ Prep.mtioon 3..1.12 Prepnro dinm.ntling x,yocnnr x1000

x.1.13 Plant prep. & 1e P.

3..1.14 Donigoooterchnn.upsyntem 3n.iI6 Itigging/Cont. Cold 6m4pn/tading/etc la. 1.16 Ponunr cnakNRnern & emtninern

41.1 Subtotal Period 3a Activity Cootn Period 3a PeriodDependnnt 0-

`u,.4.1 1, -.- 3,A.2 Pmpurty taxe.0 3".4.3 health phynicx '."'It" 3.4.4 Itawvy equipment nmt.I 3..4.5 Diniamnl of DAW generated

1..4.6 Plant energy budget 30.4.7 NRC Fovu

30.4.8 Sit, O&M Cols 4.9 Slaurily Staff Coot 10.4.10 Utility Stoll Cons 30.4 Subtot01 Period 3" PenalDapendml Coma Ha -0 TOTAL PERIOD In COST PERIOD 31, - Decommissioning Prep.ratinna N-1 31, Dimct D-i eievioning Aetiviti,n 130 1,1158 953 78 598 539 133 1,020 1,020 122 933 933 9

72 72 19 144 144 30 230 115 39 300 300 39 3110 300 37 287 287 30 230 230 58 448 224 224 86 881 661 17 129 65 85 836 6,410 5,841 569 45 345 345 435 3,:135 3,335 175 26 2111 201 2,200 330 2,530 2,530 154 23 177 177 14,786 2,218 17,003 16,434 517 52 589 569 099 (fill 1,099 1,099 382 96 476 476 41111 69 529 529 2 30 9 52 52 2,781 417 3,108 3,198

162 36 399 399 316 47 363 363 3,161 474

1,635 3,635 11()

28,952 4,422 34,250 34,259 20,817

1,123 2:1,9311 23,939 30 43,738 6,640 51.262 50,693 9'20 5'20 887 812 62 125 200 2,1 261 2531 200 391) 574 112 5,574 300 106 60 115 842 842 569 569

,370 4,167 7 6,5 ,1)0) )0) 5161 108) 1,11101 2,088 2,086 2,(66) 1,14M) 3,120 4,14x) 980) 44,633 2,400 1.401 1,2:0) 77,559 514 10,287 (15,179 258,629 514 10,287 17

123,007 514 10,287 17 4111,166 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 36.1.1.5 in,on: u,, n,manlation 56.1.1 6 R,mov.l Primary conlninment 36.1.1.8 Li,I,I,,i out tlr.1.LD se., 11.' 1l uhia4d 36.1.1.10 R, f,1., I mmrr.*le 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 311 Toll 36.1 Subtotal Perial 31,Aolivily Cools 591 89 880 612 5W 75 574 574 169 25 194 48 125 19 144 144 125 19 144 144 250 37 287 267 453 68 521 521 150 22 172 8t1 150 22 172 172 125 19 144 72 2W 39 299 299 261 39 300 1W 250 37 287 287

141 51 392 853

141 51 392 3.53 4,089 011 4,702 4,252 4,089 613 4,702 4,252 68 4,7:1:1 4,)000 145 1,353) 1*IMM) 1.146) 2,)06) 86 1,2/x) 1,21x) 72 LIAR) 2,11811 2,086 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.. ~('riptlnn

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"

lll;.1.11.~ Rwu'{orvl.,fit4

111.1.11.5 Haatfkialshicld

Ja.Ll1.6 MOisluJ'j; 1<<'lmra1

l1l.1.11.7 Rl'mf()I'(".'d<.X~no::rt'll!

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 DI~ign 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* Dt~p.'nd!'nt 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 P~'fU).. I.Th'p\\~ncl.'nt 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, tf1('tll"1~ 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

~(OI"lur-e~'PAraIOi ab.1.1.14 Radwast~ 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 ~120 520 687 812 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'16w 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 44,a:~J 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 Arolysia Document 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 index Activity Description Pwiol:ib Additioool C.I. 312.1 Situ Chnro'terieotion Sobu1.) Period 3b Addilionnl Conte 36.2 Pcriat 36 Collnlorol Conte 36,3.1 D-- 31, uipmmt

1.2 DOC stOR relora(ion exp,.mwo 3b:L3 Pipe cutting,goymtenI,

13,::

Sublotol Poriol36 Collal.ml Coda 1'oriol31 Pcriol.D,lamdont Cool 36.4.1 Devon <<uppheo 36.4.2 (- m-3b.4.3 Prviwrty Lannon 30.A.A ff,.lth phyn,O.a auppl,00 3104.5 Deovy,.quipment mnbtl 30.4.6 Dispoa.l of DAW goooe,n,d 31.4-7 Plant om.rgy budget 31.4.6 NRC Free

13.4.9 Site O&51 Cants

31.4.10 Sovrity Staff C L 3b.4.11 DOC SOIL Cons 31, Utility Staff Curt 33.4 Subtotal Period 31, Period D,'pendvmt C>nt.

31.0 TOTAL. 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..1.1 Total. RrmaacoI of M.jor Egtxi,m0nl 4,x.1.2 Moin TorbindGunemk,r 4.1.3 Main Coodrnoor. C-"ing Cool, from Clown Building Donxol,lion 40.1.4.1 Rr.rtor Bolding 4..1.4.2 Auolli.ry Ruilding Z. 4..1.4.3 Rodwostc Building 40.1.4.4 Turbine Ruilding 4.1.4.5 Fool Beild 031 40..1.4

Total, 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 41.1.5.9 Chlarinulion O -Site LLRW Deco,.

Removal Packaging Transport Procesatng Diepus.I Other Total Coot Coat Costa C is Coate Costs Costa Contingency (1,0(16 6,608 126 1,030 154 185 1,1130 446 259 26 501 50 53 35 5 1,304 209 182 18 159 24 1,585 238 5,195 779 10,437 1,566 26 442 6 1 l7 19,710 3,1818 887 1,54.2 6 1 17 31,437 6,050 867 2,384 17 3 47 75,174 12,690 13 49 11 8 18 39 33 13 44 14 31 &5 140 71 51 191 535 107 161 183 90

1,403 5,115 1,026 6,417 278 7,3&1 7,415 1,112 7,1812 2,269 551 3,050 278 8,063 167 10,889 7,944 1,722 103 18,0:11 556 16,845

181 323 113 4:19 203 1,199 1,114 217 1,512 670 1,021 153

'145 37 519 87 577 87 268 40 2,690 404 35 12 11 85'2 12 27 P.r2 197 44 7 19 3 18 (1 1 5 5 459 5(1 40 85 141 174 1,305 24 58 407 421 202 30 51 8 NRC Spent Peel Total U.. To-Management Co.. Costa Co.. 6,591 6,691 8,591 8.691 966 988 1,184 1,184 1,265 1,265 3,417 3,417 32 32 285 285 551 551 264 264 2&5 265 29 29 1,1013 1,603 200 200 182 162 1,822 1,822 5,974 5.974 12,002 12,002 23,211 23,211 39,920 39,470 91,182 90,163 171 171 398 398 1,229 1,229 23,712 23,712 8,527 8.527 22,201 22,201 56,238 56,238 1,408 1,408 4,712 4,712 1,174 1,174 281 281 686 066 664 664 360 309 3,094 3,094 60 60 1,1(60 1,080 51 29 29 95(1 950 2,305 2,305 232 59 Site Processed Racial Valemea Rurial I Utility ad Reetorotion Volume Cl... A lens R Class C GTCC Processed craft Coot for Costs Co. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Wt., Lb,. Moth.... Mm h ern 30,5(0) 10.6.52

10,5(8) 10,652 292 5,834 32,1179 59,'0i0 1'20,81 9 292 5,634 I0 220,0)7 450

012 5,834 30,510 2664,500 1,019 801 16,121 30,528 885,686 265 280 61,461 1,078 1,487 1,237 251,240 1,145 8,955 131.119 4,212 1,388 751 1,0:18 339,285

10,367 1,3147 1,785 351,100 15,059 7,531,690 30,367 1,347 1,752 24,949 751 1,o:iS 1,785 2,688,095 67,189 2,693 15,719 7117,3.56 6,934 54,200 2,430,000 22,050 11,450 2,582 6,403 8,771 2,912

10,299 493 20,012 573 7,613 369,178 10,((82 51 877 22 373 186 7,571 265 3,392 2,056 252,395 7,957 16,163 858,:186 22,947 232 3,958 59 988 1.062 1,982 841 100 841 1,101 26 6

211 231 TLG Seroires, Inc. Clilllon POIl.If!r Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis P\\~fIIld ab Collall'rai C'O$ts 3b,:\\,1

lh.:l.2

lb:\\:1

lh

,

I>~'nod :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 Slh~ 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 COfI!1.;n!ll:m~ Ca.;,:ading Co..<!t.f4 from Clmm Duildm~ 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 BI'I~athlng 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 Chill~>d 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 (thousand~ 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 20~1 670 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. C~.. 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 afte-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-site LLRW NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Ruriol olomee B-1.1 l

---

Utility and Decnn Removal Pn k ging Tr sport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lt. Teem, Management Reotorntinn Volume Cl.- A Cl-R Class C G C Pro essed c-ft Contractor Cost Coat C..t.

C eta Coats Costa Costs Contingency Coats Cosa Co.a Coots Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu Feet Wt.. I.hs M.A.- Manhnurs I Activity Lodes Activity 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.:11 tligh Prey-*hI, 0,,i pn,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 isolnhon Vnh.* 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 oe r Oil 1559 T,Irh Goo Aux & Mie, D-,,- 4..1.5 Taal. 40.1.6 S,dTolding in.5pµ000 of dc,0m,,oo,oto 155 166 580 416 337 317 762 1,1136 531 48 159 126 15 36 255 90 2 4 27 755 43 42 152 103 572 11) 25 176 162 5 13 92 79 6 32 565 64 65 210 176 598 127 126 368 367 1,474 125 1341 443 330 246 17 14 32 46 5

15 0

1 6 20 01 1 5 6 294

L

16 1:13 83 123

r2 0

1 4 9 241 12 15 69 24 80 46 0 0 2 12 6 1 113 16 18 73 39 53 13 0 1 6 4 250 4 10 71 75 1,006 89 85 264 233 371 28 1 1 1 4 9 255 4 9 62 75 234 35 322 22 15 27 56 103 19 3 35 5 19 1 1 1 3 6 115 4 9 61 46 252 14 15 53 30 84 22 3 25 169 25 195 36 5 42

15 1

2 11 11 58 58 22 3 25 204

1 8

54 60 329 329 it 0 0 3 17 17 69 If 1 9 19 98 98

198 19 48 337 159 980 060 58 2

5 31 20 115 115 260

0 77 536 160 1,0413 1,063 15,826 1,229 1,525 0,093 3,255 5,940 33,0918 32,749 3,360 68 10 83 22 867 4,417 4,417 9,402 65 344 3001 1,157 278 158 23,020 5,962 30,263 14,806 6,320 1,012 10,118 1,079 6,039 1,481 6,990 3,669 1,252 8,333 2,526 14,601 5,262 17,105 4,7:11 1,264 661 253 208 5,277 1,194 178 2,760 350 87 7

2,917 559 225 2,806 10,489 3,342 49 62 2,474 269 1,056 105 22 41 35 36 3,464 3:10 2,442 99,162 1,945 2,511 430 126,6411 4,379 25 435 195 3,202 42 751 417 16,95:1 51.59 25 426 2,149 87,2471

1,298 84 3,425 189 339 13,772 1,122 13,300 544,147 0,083 1,251 50,795 1,1124 21,202 864,279 4,767 1,218 241,997 46,726 12,473,930 273,2601 2,969 314 151,389 63,869 207 67 114 179 137 1,064 96.3 837 227 14 7

9 137 9 21 29 19 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 1,59 2,870 4,109 1,502 636 150 1,343 958 330 142 1,313 1,91:1 3,052 436 5 585 193 3(11 2,879 4,109 1,5112 036 150 1,34:3 958 330 142 1,31:1 1,913 3,052 436 53 63 32

12 701 701 47 47 442 442 61 61 7

314 314 23 '23 410 410 2,048 2,048 45 45 405 405 269 545 545 22 41 30 36 229 229 458 458 381,817 31,322 62,722 1,272,859 2,071,290 359.429 410,897 4:1,821 328,957 284,127 149,Mr2 517,8,56 481,604 891,180 98:7,039 88,653 10,28:1 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 3,599 1,1193 1,890 3,022 2,681 18,802 17,575 14,284 3,912 1,5:17 12,682 9,171 2,020 1,:111 9,89:1 10,721 25,6:19 4,161 90 ,5,50 34:1 5,172 491) 4,191 6:10 119 1,987 216 3,6711 17,780 4611 4,1816 4,440 5,325 372 688 4..) ,451.08.1 Period 40 Activity Carl. Perim) 40 244,60001 Cola 40.2.1 D,olow.I of Sloroal 780515 Rolorn 40.2 Subtol ol Period 4. Addi,ionxl Costs 167

14,326 10,778 3,542 8,230 21,308 556 24,929 103,8791 102,611 1,218

116,0:17 71,989 751 1,51:10 1,785 10,437,770 463,430 2,693 27 246 1113 822 170 1,:168 1,369 29,464 1,327,05) 469 27 246 103 822 170 1,368 1,368 29,464 1,325,880 469 P,'v,od 4. COlaler.I Coats 4, 3 1 Pnx 00 don n

ing 0x1,0 0.010 40 13 Smolt tool 11ownn u 13 74 74 81 4,885 16 67 512 461 51 27 6 2:1 445 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 Turbml~*GunAux & 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 44~J 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

~2 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 El6-1640~OO6, 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 Analysis Document E16-1640-806, Eeo. 0 Appendix E, Page 9 of 22 Table E Clinton Power Station SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate (thousands of 2012 dollars) Activity Index Activity Description off-s"' LLR Deco. Rem val Packaging Transport Proce ing Disposal Other Totnl Total Cost Cost Costs Costs Costs Co.,. Co.. Contingent,. Costs NRC Spent Fuel Site Processed Burial Volumes Burial f Utility and Lic. Term. Management Reetoretion Volume Clam A C ass B i C G CC Processed C -ft Contractor Costs Co.. Co.,. Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Wt.. Lbs. Manttouro Manhours 74 40.3 bloat Foriod 4. Colbaeml Carts Pants) 451 runt D,pendrnt C'unla 4a.4.l Dross supplies 4x.4.2 It rottn+ 4o.43 Property ISrrn 4,4.4 Ileallh phynkn suppli,x 4o.4.5 Ilrovy equipment rental 4a.4.t, Dtnpsml of DAW Inmerat,d 40.4.7 Plant--w budget 4o.4.8 NRC &- 4,4 '9 Silo O1hi Costs 45.4.10 Liquid Rodwoale Pnmz,wing E9uip-mdiu:rvkoe 4s.4.11 SroontyStsffCant 45.4.12 DOC SIsO Crol RC t 45.4.1'3 Utility St 4o.4 Sol tumPeriod 4. Pertsd.Dvpendenl Costa 4.,0 TOTAL PERIOD 4. COST PERIOD 41, - Site Decontmnination I°rS of 4b Dins'l Deromtronnotring Aoivilicn 4'.1.1 Remove 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,. 1.2.4 Dins.4 Fuel Oil 46.1.2.5 Di.-.4,:1.mre1 4b 1.2.6 Di,-. IC...armor R,wnt Ventilofion 41o1.a 7 Dnns-laundry to Rsdwonlo Clean NonIICA 46.1.2.8 E:,,,:,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 46.1.2.11 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 Dann 45.1.2 31 Plant 0 n'ire Water - RCA 46.1.2.32 Plonl Son in, Waler Nov RCA 46.1"2.33 Potntl: l5*.ttor 45,12,34 Pro.--_ I2..l ^ lion 5ootloring 46P,.*,.^o:,mpltng 46.12.;., llirc,I..tku, 46.1.2.37 Ru. Inc Water Chan-up 41,.1.2.38 Donidual Boot Removal 445 2,494 244 4 9 61 64 0 1 5 474 26 21 53 66 67 59 98 29 i 1,715 7,021 113 270 1,121 12 30 1,370 74 72 254 178 606 IS 33 229 182 842 63 60 193 180 27 2 7 6 1,078 MI 89 287 238 106 12 13 42 33 3.3 1 15 83.5 10 47 331 2312 355 6 1d 101 56'9 9 23 161 151 3 7 49 809 4 36 253 65 685 11 28 197 6 550 4 W 72 22 214 3 8 55 238 5 11 78 184 12 125 1 2 14 630 l 8 58 61 6 5 7 19

352 311 25 45 90 636 77 82 294 198 85 586 18 9'2 742 74 816 1,435 143 1,571 6125 3,124 400 3,070 136 791 3,792 569 4,381 838 84 922 453 68 521 566 85 661 4,538 661 5,218 72 3119 17 87 149 790 10 77 9

68 13 101 6 32 260 1.995 2,240 12,127 317 1,689 443 2,391 242 1,323 27 210 295 1,613 10 55 395 2,180 44 248 11 63 267 1,500 42 334 107 589 171 9:13 46 254 247 1.359 10 74 201 1,103 1 7 152 795 3 25 63 344 73 4011 28 212 2 14

14 176 11i8 887 22 120 124 666 273 1,682 92 816 1,420 3,124 3,070 791 4.361 922 521 651 5,218 20,693 34,685 76,364 180,884 1,427

146.101 79,969 751 1,1138 1,785 18,928,5211 404,173 1177,1511 3,183 15,564 892,760 1,537 389 2,412 117,965

'1,1165 87 187 7,595 1,149 790 2,113 951 1:19,851 8,125 77 1,276 68 1,150 lot 1,848 32 117

M 4,925 334 1,995

13,545 12,127 74,814 3,038,244 128,569 1,889 8.281

138,3110 19,039 2,:191 19,072 2,566 553,918 23,1192 1,323 0,085 368,934 1:1,156 210 3,58,.5 1.613 7,671 2,3111 441.119 14,444 55 263 92 15,903 4133 2,180 11,395 3,413 656,370 18,444 248 1,949 472 93,7.50 1 1015 63 612 24,859 592 1,500 13,152 534,096 12,947 34 5, 14'2 582

1,994 162,19.5 5,172 933 6,394 259,676 8,426 254 1,887 76,626 2,458 1,359 10,046 407,957 12,025 74 1,265 1,103 7,840 318,387 9,720 7

12:1 795 2,875 116,761 8,528 25 429 344 2,283 89,451 3,589 405 3,0811 125,493 1.884 21`2 3,643 14 238 176 554 22,497 2,046 867 2,290 93,992 10.271 120 276 279 26,018 1,11411 666 1,784 1,297 145,974 5,978 1,562 11,692 2,842 636,067 11,114 23 27 461 162 17,994 2,699 20,693 30,161 4,524 34,665 74 5,1418 162 31 461 60,518 10,107 70,522 246

19,9181 11,192 3,699 9,052 21,798 111,075 35,296 192,312 939 78 181 218 1,086 761 3,163 535 51 16 81 4,185 158 259 7,899 113,571

_011,8161

174,2811 674,463 156 7,899 157,982 258 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 Propt~rty tmws -tn 4..1 lIt'lllth jlhyJl,IC$ i'UPI)lh"" 4aA.5 IIt*av), I~quipmt'nl 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 CO#t.~ 4n.... 10 Liquid Radwallfc Prucvuing EIIUil)mt'nIJSI~fVkc", 4aA.I1 &"!'lIrlty Htarr ('-0#1 4a,0I,12 DOG Staff COlil -InA.Ia UtilityStaffr~t 4nA Subtutai Periud 411 Pcnod.Dt~pcndt~nl 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 Proh~liOtl 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* St~fVkc 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 ProC\\'~ Ru(liatlOn MQllllnring 4b.l.:t3.. 'i Prvt'\\:J$SSnmplln~ -tb.l.:.!:m RHal.""torR,lt*iITuilllion 4h.l.2.37 R~'fIdor WaleI' Clean,uJI 4h.l.2.:ki Rmti~llIaIIIt!lll 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

~I 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 otr~Sfte 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 3~J 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 Cla~ia5fi 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 H~,444 1,~)o5 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 Document 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 index Activity 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.RCA 46.1.2.42 Shnldown 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.1.2 Totnla 41,.1.3 Srolloldingin nopix,rl ufdoco,nmixnvning On-Site LLffW Devon Removul Packaging Tennaport Proceeaing Diopoual Other Total Co., Coat Co.. Coate Coats Coat. Co.. Contingency NBC Spent Fuel Sire Proceooed Buriul Volutnes Burial I Utility and Total Lie. Term Management Boatoration Volume Cl,,, A Cl-Claus C (.TCC Prow esoed Craft Contractor Coati Coots Co.. Costa Cu. Feet Co. Feet Co. Feet Co. Feet Cu. Feet Wt. Lb.. Munhours Muuhour. 258 15 11 20 40 81 379 19 19 76 41 121 24,881 703 1,(" 5,351 1,207 7,262 6,040 102 24 124 33 1,301 6,625 6,625 5,098 1,230 593 1,101 362 1,123 328 808 515) 3,033 588

1,273 212,512 17,323 136 2,55:3 19 4,453 471 325 17 125 119 4

678

I6 77 1

182 10 58 8 9 64 8 1 93 3 38 18 36 128 85 219 2 15 22 9 28 25 46 9 28 23 26 9 4911 19 209 136 1,182 117 250 152 435 656 40,412 4901 2(19 1.182 117 25(1 152 425 6.50 37,139 146 101,666 5,1513 320 61,135 2,(V25 2,328 2761,501 11,573 24,083 1,286 65,367 2,264 (14,195 1,024 64,966 4,267 156,372 6,4711 9,611,517 418,10)3 227,081 95,713 D,xnntnm.nntion of Sile Duildingn 41.1.4.1 Sodding 41.1.4.2 Aux,I,a,y Building 41.1.4.:3 Control Sodding 41.1.4.4 D3. -.I (7.,..t.=, Roilding 41,. 1.4.5 R..1..:.-i, 11.4,hng 46.1.4.6 Turbo. Uuil ing 41.1.4.7 Fool Ruilding

46. 1.4 To.:da 4b.1 Subtotal P,.riod 41, Activity Cool,,

Period It, Addjt,onnl C,mta 41, License Termination Suney Planning 41.2-2 IS FS1 I.icunae Tannin hen 412 Sohlntal Period 41, Additinnnl C.A. P,u3,oi 46 Collotoml Conte 41, 3.1 Praon, dooa,nminxinning water,.to ON...... 40.:3 3 Smell loot 41, 3.4 Ihromminnioning Equipment Dixix>>il,x, 41.3 Sublotol Period 41, Co)In4,rnl Conte Puri,xl 41, Period-D,'pondont Gwto 41.4.1 Devon xuppliea 46.4.2 loooranro 414.3 I'mlmrty I-- 41.4.4 ILmllh phynica xuppIo r 4b,4.5 Inmvy nquipnwnl not,,) 41.4.6 Dinponal of DAWgonaratod 46.4 7 PIonI energy budget 46.4.8 NBC F,- 4 4.9 Sin. O&M C -I0 41.4.10 Liquid Radwnsla Pmnn<aing E,p,ipmenl/Servia.a -114.11 Security Stall Coal 41, 4.12 DOCStolCast 46-4.13 Utility 81.11 Cant 40.4 Subtotal Period 46I'mi,xl-Dupendnnt C,wln 41,0 TOTAL. PERIOD 41, COST PERIOD 4f. License Termination Peri,xl4f Dinvi D,.vcm,mi+oioning Activitiox 4.1.1 ORISE.nfnnntory survey 41.1.2 Tenn onto lion-4f. 1 S164411 Period 4fAelioiIy Carta 2,947 3.625 678 1516 195 1,908 3,042 12,995 12,995 314 9 131 22 27 29 55 232 847 847 4174 76 21 25 1 57 241 825 825 117 19 6 7 15 69 2:14 234 1,367 328 79 94 27 206 843 2,945 2,945 1,222 390 75 90 69 189 787 2,822 2,822 861 746 28 34 65 62 651 2,449 2,449 7,964 5,316 909 8t18 386 2,492 5,865 23,116 23,116 8,103 15,316 1,896 2,133 5,861 4,818 15,189 73,316 70,043 954 280 1,240 1,24(1 202 1,431 282 2,000 2,(08) 202 2,385 568 3,241 1,240 2,016) 18 73 87 42 235 235 684 103 786 786 138 38 167 44 56 444 444 684 158 111 167 181 200 1,465 1,465 670 196 1,149 1.149 4,!365 745 5,710 5,710 1,39(1 139 1,529 1,529 751 113 864 864 9:19 141 1,010) 1,080 7,525 1,129 8,654 8,654 29,085 4,361 33,447

33,447 47,308 7,090 54,405 54,405 2,312 8,365 236 45 670 95,573 16,515 12:1,715 123,715 10,430 44,407 2,216, 2,324 6,029 5,821 97,958 32,472 201,736 198,463 2,7011) 3,273 238,902 89,176 176 52 227 227 175 52 227 227 3

42 42 16 16 2,:312 578 2,889 2,889 1,231 123 1,354 1,3.54 2,379 238 2,617 2,617 3,955 996 4,981 4,981 4,380 657 5,037 5,037 230 45 11,240 15,194,480 734,082 1,082,916 7,734

01,787 2,526,021 112,915 1,171 1,0113 134,188 7,998 56 1,0111 93,487 7,976 284 24,998 2,274 1,067 3,787

173,574 28,194 2,735 3,450 408,701 26,841 2,574 1, 117 198,195 27,895 15,337 41,480 3,759,162 214,093

3,273 2:12,302 74,867 14,480,520 7211,046 163,052 3,623 2,560 1,058 16:1,052 31623 8,808) 258 15A81 50 6,000 635 1305,1811 88 6,155/

893 321,442 138 11,4741 229,404 374 155,179 3:2,703 5(35,054 11,473 229,464

174 1,073,9110 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 SIUltdo~n 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 ~Uppoft 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 wah~r 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 Sit~* O&M C...mIU! 4h.4.1(I

• lb.4,11

-IhA.12 4!Joj,la 4hA -Ib_O LUIUld Radwasltl Pr()cc¥~mg 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 ~6"

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

~,194 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

~5,9,"j4 I,Oi:1,H:W I,OM2,6:j(j

Clinton Power station Decommissioning Cast Analysis Dncament 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) OffSite LLRW NBC Spirt Fuel Drrnn Removal Portaging Transport Processing Diaposul Other Total Total Mr. Term. Management Coal Cnat Coate Costa Costa Costa Co.. Crauinuency Cotta Carets Costs Activity lndex Activity Description Period 45dditimtal Coats 412.1 Luanne Termination survey 41.2 Subtotal Perini 4f Additional C.A. Pon,oI4 1Oab:ral C -W 41.3.1 DOC aa0 rokrntion expen:a,s 41.3 Subtotal Penal 41 Cllolcrol Cwto Period 4 Ruiod-Dependent C. stn 414.1 Insurau;.e 41.4.2 Pngwrty loses 414.3 lh>>Ilh physics suppli,a 41.4.4 Oisponsl of DAW ti -rolod 41.4.5 Pont energy bralgol 41.4.6 NBC Fens 404.7 Sib' Od45f Coals 4L4,8 So0,urity Staff Cant 41.4.9 DOC StaRCool 41.4.10 Utility Staff Cot 414 Subtotal Period 4f Period. Dependent Cots 410 TOTAL 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 56,1.1.2 Ausiliory Building 56.1.13 Circulating Water Scmeohouo.o 56.1.1.4 Control Building 6l 1.1.5 Dioael (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 Servir. 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 Building 56.1.1 Totals Sat, C1--a M W1,2 RorkFlll Silo 561.3 Grade & landscalo, nil,, 561.4 Fool retort la NRC 56.1 Subtotal Period 66 Asia ily Costa Period 51, Additional Costa 61, 21 (',o. +, C,,-h,ng 56.2.2 So,, nh,n,' CBerdmu 56.2.3 lb. too,,;, FYwae & Unit 2 Esoavotion Rorkhll 56.2.4 4 15F.7 -, ' Rtaloration 56.2 Subtotal Period Sb Add,ioml Costa 13,73:1 13,733 1,030 1,9:30 7 1 20 414 436 235 963 5,194 6,722 817 7 1 20 15,095 817 7 1 21) 30,032 111,11711 65,189 13,494 6,/115 15,981 27,/1118 189,064 5,791 2,2(1'2 3,6119 5,205 1,858 380 1,785 2,782 6,212 402 173 5,324 1,223 2,442 38,447 109 2,154 40,710 1,515 9 1,090 5,440 1,4411 50 9,492 611

19 424 424 74 819 819 204 1,1121 1,021 6

35 35 62 477 477 44 479 479 35 270 270 144 1,107 1,107 779 5,974 5,974 1,908 7,731 7,731 2,396 18,337 18,337 869 6,659

1311 2,533 541 4,150 790 6,054 279 2,136 57 4:17 268 2,053 417 3,199 782 5,994 60 462 20 199 799 6,123 184 1,4(17 366 2,9(18 5,767 44,215 16 125 323 2,477 29 224 224 8,136 47,041 224 228 1,753 164 1,260 816 6,256 224 1,714 1,714 1,433 10,984 1,714 Sile Proceaeed Burial Valumet social /

Utility sad Restoration Volume Cl.. oA Class B Class C G CC Processed Craft Contractor Caste Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt Lbs. Mmthoura Manhourt 223,573 22:1,573 6,948 18.1151 5(1, 731 73,629 6,948 11 149,211 6,948 223,585 152,331 4,700 584,403 169,493 751 1,038 1,785 85,1 27,950 1,421,840 1,912,123 6,659 6511111 23,242 4,150 38,418 6,054 50,578 2,1311 20,234 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 46,817 448,106 1.5141 1,753 7.355 1,260 10,159 6,256 37,059 19,129 Kill 9,269 73,702 1101 817 385 745 195 195 4,120 17,852 17,852 4,120 17,852 17,852 154 1,164 1,184 154 1,184 1,184 6,723 37,600

17,600 74,481 421,648 414,947 2,1081

1,1211 3,1911

347 347 347 16.00<<I 56 C Baleml C mba 56.3.1 Small tool allowance 51x:1 Sub4alo1 Pori<<3 Sb Collolernl Costa 70 535 70 535 465 465 535 535 TLG services, Inc.

Clinton Po~r Stotion Decommissioning Cost Anal.vs;s P"flud.If Cnllal'-fal r~MW DOCstlllTrckM:alltm.-lIjlcfl:#'fj Subtotal reno.:! 4f Collateral Coshl Pefiod 4f I\\~flod,Dt'(X'ndenl C'-Oltls 4fA.l In>lurlul<'e 4f.4.2 Pn1lwrtytllllc" 4r4.3 1I.-alth IlhY>>I(," sUIlIJH.~ .. [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- ~fiocdhuwou", Slructun's ilh.I.L9 Radwlhlw Duilding 5b.1.1.1II St!rv1(:C Building 5b. 1.1.11 Tl'an~fofllll~r and Tank Pads Sb.1.1.l2 Turbinc Building fib.]'1.I:! Turbim) Pcde~ial Fud Building Totals Slkf'l(>>lt'OtllA<:'Ii"llles bb.l.1 nll('kFIIi Site 5b.1.:l Grade & land~'all<! ~It.. 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 Contill&en~ 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 H~i,(JOl 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 Analysis Document 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 Site LL NRC Spent Fuel Site processed Burial Volumes Burial I Utility,ad Decon Removal Packaging Transport Processing Disposal Other Total Total Lia Term Management Restoration Volome Clam A Clues B Class C O CC Proceosod Craft Contractor Cost Coat Cost. Co.. Coats Costa Coats Contingency Costs Costs Costs Costs Co. Fact Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Co. Feet Co. Feet Wt, Lbs. Marabouts Manhours 5,959 5.959 56,626 56,620 22,924 151,412 A tivity index Activity Description o al 5b Al, i'ariad Deq*ndvot C b, 56.4.2 Pn,porty 10000 56.4.3 Iluavy equipment ranlxi 5b4.4 Plant oncrgy budget 5b A.5 Site O&M C.M. 5h4.6 Seenrity Staff Can 51..43 DO( Sta)Cuv/ 56.4.8 Utility Staff Coat 5bA Sabtxlol Period 56 Period Dcpendonl Cant. 5bA TOTAL PERIOD 51, COST PERIOD S TOTALS TOTAL COST TO DECOMMISSION 2,491 6,9.53 725 822 3,366 17.551 9,751 2,491 39,067 30.531 12,96) 100,117 224 4,205 95,688 521,8116

111,254 30,531 12,960 100.117 224 4,205 05,688 521.808

111,254 13,856 6,800 15,081 29,035 898,673 190,790 1,328,572 949,951 277,213 101,408 584,403 181,017 751 1,038 1,785 35,463,060 2,124,994 7,484,351 226 2,491 694 6,853 95 725 107 822 430 8,:166 2,289 17,551 1,272 9,751 5,322 41,558 2,264 630 715 2,027 15,261 8,479 30,277 56,.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, $101,406 tboose nda of 2012 dollar. OTAL LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BURIED (EXCLUDING GTCC): 162,806 cubic feet OTAL (.BEATER THAN CLASS C RADWASTE VOLUME GENERATED: 1,785 cubic host OTAL SCRAP METAL REMOVED: 75,966 tons TOTAL CRAFT LABOR REQUIREMENTS: 2,124.994 man-hnnrs Nx-iod,^:,,m that this xrtivity not 4Icng,.vloa do n..... aping cxiwv,ae. m 1"o oast thin ad,vity 1wrCxrmed by dooom,ni,s,ia,mg al.ff. hat thin value., bona than 0.5 but is pox-sum. x<<II u`. N:i e,ng' °iodicnleaxsit,avebue TLG Services, Inc. Clinton Power Station Decommissioning Cost Analysis Heavy cquipnwnt renrnl 5bAA Plnnl tlncrgy budget 5bA.S Site O&M Co"ls 5b.4.6 Sa'unly Staff Cost 5bA.7 DOCStalTCo.!l 5bA.8 tllililyStaITCmlt 5bA SubhJtal Period fib Ptlnml*Dclltmdunt Cmlhl Sb.O TOTAI~ PERIOD 5h CO:-iT PERIOD S TOTALS TOTAL CO~'T TO DECOMMIs...,ION Decon Cost 22,924 MAL COST TO DECOMMJSSJONWlTH 16.77"" CONTINGl';NCY: ~OTAL NRC LICENSE TERMINATION COST)S 71.5'. OR: 'PENT FUEL MANAGEMENT COST IS 20.87~;, OR: !NON-NUCLEAR DEMOLITION COST IS 7.63*0 OR: Removal Packaging Cost Cost.s 5,959 5.%9 56,626 56,626 151,412 13,856 OTAL LOW*LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BURIED (EXCLUDING GTCC): OTAL GREATER THAN CLASS C RADWA8TE VOLUME GENERATED: OTAL SCRAP METAL REMOVED: OTAL CRAFT LABOR ROO!1IREMENTS: a (V.i1 crmtaining ~. ~ mdiellle$ 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 Continlienc~ 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 Sl~*:His;,572*--thousauds-0f-*:!iIT2donw.r5 $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}}