AEP-NRC-2024-86, Unit 2 - Decommissioning Funding Plan for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Older edit
VisualWikitext
StriderTol Bot change
StriderTol Bot change
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Adams
#REDIRECT [[AEP-NRC-2024-86, Nuclear Plant, Unit 1 and Unit 2 - Decommissioning Funding Plan for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation]]
| number = ML24344A155
| issue date = 12/09/2024
| title = Unit 2 - Decommissioning Funding Plan for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation
| author name = Dailey S
| author affiliation = Indiana Michigan Power Co
| addressee name =
| addressee affiliation = NRC/NMSS, NRC/NRR, NRC/Document Control Desk
| docket = 05000315, 05000316, 07200072
| license number =
| contact person =
| case reference number = AEP-NRC-2024-86
| document type = Decommissioning Funding Plan DKTs 30, 40, 50, 70, Letter type:AEP
| page count = 1
}}
 
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER*
An MP Company BOUNDLESS ENERGY-Docket No.:
50-315 50-316 72-072 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Unit 1 and Unit 2 DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING PLAN FOR INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION Indiana Michigan Power Cook Nuclear Plant One Cook Place Bridgman, Ml 49106 indianamichiganpower.com AEP-NRC-2024-86 10 CFR 72.30(b) 10 CFR 50.4 In accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR 72.30(b), Indiana Michigan Power Company (l&M),
the licensee for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP) Unit 1 and Unit 2, is submitting the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI) Decommissioning Funding Plan for Nuclear Regulatory Commission review and approval. to this letter provides l&M's Decommissioning Funding Plan for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation. to this letter provides the current decommissioning cost study for CNP. There are no new or revised commitments in this letter. Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Michael K. Scarpello, Regulatory Affairs Director at (269) 466-2649.
Scott A. Dailey Site Vice President KMH/sjh
 
==Enclosures:==
: 1. Decommissioning Funding Plan for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant
: 2. Decommissioning Cost Study for the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Conducted by TLG Services, LLC, dated November 2024, Revision 0.
December 9, 2024
 
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page2 CC:
EGLE - RMD/RPS J. B. Giessner - NRC Region Ill N. Quilico - MPSCNRC Resident Inspector R. M. Sistevaris - AEP Ft. Wayne S. P. Wall-NRC, Washington D.C.
A. J. Williamson - AEP Ft. Wayne AEP-NRC-2024-86
 
ENCLOSURE 1 TO AEP-NRC-2024-86 Decommissioning Funding Plan for Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation at Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant to AEP-NRC-2024-86 DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING PLAN FOR INDEPENDENT SPENT FUEL STORAGE INSTALLATION AT DONALD C. COOK NUCLEAR PLANT Page2 As described in 10 CFR 72.13(c), 10 CFR 72.30(b) and (c) applies to licensees with a General License for an Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI).
Indiana Michigan Power Company (l&M), the licensee for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (CNP) Unit 1 and Unit 2 has a General License for an ISFSI and therefore is obligated to meet the requirements of 1 O CFR 72.30(b). This Decommission Funding Plan provides the required information for U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission review and approval as described in 1 O CFR 72.30(b) and (c).
10 CFR 72.30(b)(1) requi;es information on how reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available to decommission the CNP /SFSI.
l&M is an electric utility as defined in 10 CFR 72.30(e)(5). The projected costs of decommissioning CNP, including those for the CNP ISFSI, have been collected through jurisdictional rates and earnings on prior collections which are held in external trust funds. The projected decommissioning costs are based on a site-specific cost study that is updated periodically. A recent site specific cost study was completed in November 2024, by TLG Services, LLC.
The site-specific cost study, provided as Enclosure 2 to this letter, includes the estimates for the cost of decommissioning the CNP ISFSI.
All funds collected for the eventual decommissioning of CNP (including those for decommissioning the ISFSI) are deposited to a Nuclear Decommissioning Trust (NDT) fund that is external to the company.
10 CFR 72.30(b)(2) requires a detailed cost estimate (DCE) for decommissioning, in an amount that reflects the following:
(i)
The cost of an independent contractor to perform all decommissioning activities; (iij An adequate contingency factor; and (iii)
The cost of meeting the 10 CFR 20. 1402 criteria for unrestricted use The TLG Services, LLC, Decommissioning Cost Study assumes that a decommissioning general contractor would be selected to perform the decommissioning activities. The study also includes contingency factors for the various aspects of the decommissioning process, and it details and justifies the contingency factors used.
The cost estimate also details separately the costs for radiological decommissioning and decontamination, as well as the costs for spent nuclear fuel storage and disposal and the costs to restore the plant site to a Greenfield condition.
to AEP-NRC-2024-86 Page 3 The TLG Services, LLC, Decommissioning Cost Study for Donald C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant, dated November 2024, consists of one decommissioning scenario.
The cost estimated for ISFSI decommissioning is $44,871,000.00 in 2024 dollars.
10 CFR 72.30(b)(3) requires Identification of and justification for using the key assumptions contained in the DCE.
Section 3.5 and Appendix G, of the TLG Services, LLC, Decommissioning Cost Study for Donald C.
Cook Nuclear Power Plant, dated November 2024, describes specific key assumptions regarding the decommissioning cost estimates and contains the justification for the assumptions being made.
10 CFR 72.30(b)(4) requires a description of the method of assuring funds for decommissioning from 10 CFR 72.30(e), including means for adjusting cost estimates and associated funding levels periodically over the life of the facility.
As previously described, l&M collected the projected costs of decommissioning through jurisdictional rates and earnings on prior collections held in external trust funds. l&M's jurisdictional state commissions review the projected decommissioning costs and the current status of the decommissioning trust fund as part of regulatory proceedings, and can adjust the ongoing amount that will be recovered in rates for decommissioning funding. While the state jurisdictional commissions have concluded that the extremal trusts are adequately funded, l&M can pursue additional funding through a rate recovery if necessary based on actual expenses. In addition, l&M periodically submits a Funding Adequacy Study to the state jurisdictional commissions that updates the cost projections and the funded status of the NOT.
If the funded status of the NOT is inadequate as compared to the cost estimates, l&M could initiate a rate request for recovery from customers to be contributed to the trust fund.
10 CFR 72.30(b)(5) requires the volume of onsite subsurface material containing residual radioactivity that will require remediation to meet the criteria for license termination.
CNP utilizes the HI-STORM 100 Cask System, which consists of a multi-purpose canister (MPC) enclosure vessel which is placed inside of a HI-STORM overpack for ISFSI pad storage. The MPC is loaded, dried, backfilled with helium gas, sealed (welded shut), and decontaminated inside the plant prior to being placed inside the concrete HI-STORM overpack. As described in the Safety Analysis Report, the MPC uses multiple confinement barriers provided by the fuel cladding and the MPC enclosure vessel to assure that there is no release of radioactive material to the environment.
All confinement boundary components are maintained within their Code-allowable stress limits during normal and off-normal storage conditions.
The peak confinement boundary component to AEP-NRC-2024-86 Page4 temperatures and pressures are within the design basis limits for all normal and off-normal conditions of storage. The Holtec MPC design, welding, testing, and inspection requirements meet the guidance of ISG-18 such that leakage from the confinement boundary may be considered non-credible. Since the MPC confinement vessel remains intact, and the design bases temperatures and pressure are not exceeded, leakage from the MPC confinement boundary is not credible during normal and off-normal conditions of storage.
As such there is no source of onsite subsurface material containing residual radioactivity that will require remediation as a result of ISFSI operations and no volume has been assumed in the decommissioning cost estimate for the ISFSI.
10 CFR 72.30(b)(6) requires a certification that financial assurance for decommissioning has been provided in the amount of the cost estimate for decommissioning.
l&M, the licensee for CNP Unit 1 and Unit 2 hereby certifies, as evidenced by the letter from Q. S.
Lies, l&M, to NRC, "Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant Units 1 and 2 DECOMMISSIONING FUNDING STATUS REPORT," ML23087A116, dated March 28, 2023, filed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1 ),
that financial assurance for decommissioning CNP Unit 1 and Unit 2, as well as the ISFSI, has been provided. This amount meets or exceeds the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(b), which pursuant to 10 CFR 72.30(e)(5) provides the requisite financial assurance of the ISFSI decommissioning cost.
10 CFR 72.30(c) requires a description of the effect of the following events on updated decommissioning costs:
: 1. Spills of radioactive materials producing additional residual radioactivity in onsite subsurface material: None
: 2. Facility Modifications: None
: 3. Changes in authorized possession limits: None
: 4. Actual remediation costs that exceed the previous cost estimate: None
 
ENCLOSURE 2 TO AEP-NRC-2024-86 Decommissioning Cost Study for the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Conducted by TLG Services, LLC, dated November 2024, Revision O
 
Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 DECOMMISSIONING COST STUDY for the D.C. COOK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT prepared for INDIANA MICHIGAN POWER COMPANY prepared by TLG Services, LLC Bridgewater, Connecticut November 2024
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Project Manager Project Engineer Technical Manager TLG Services, LLC Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page ii of xxi APPROVALS b~k 11/6/2024 Date L/2w-tUJI 11/6/2024 Richard W. Threlkeld Date
~J,t(l#lW 11/6/2024 Lori A. Glander Date
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page iii of xxi PAGE EXECUTIVE
 
==SUMMARY==
............................................................................... vii-xxi
: 1.
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Objectives of Study........................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Site Description................................................................................................. 1-2 1.3 Regulatory Guidance........................................................................................ 1-3 1.3.1 High-Level Radioactive Waste Management...................................... 1-5 1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Regulations......................................... 1-8 1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Termination................................. 1-10
: 2.
DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVE............................................................ 2-1 2.1 Period 1 - Preparations.................................................................................... 2-2 2.1.1 Engineering and Planning.................................................................... 2-2 2.1.2 Site Preparations................................................................................... 2-3 2.2 Period 2 - Decommissioning Operations......................................................... 2-4 2.3 Period 3 - Site Restoration, ISFSI Operations, and Demolition................... 2-7 2.3.1 Site Restoration..................................................................................... 2-7 2.3.2 ISFSI Operations & Demolition........................................................... 2-8
: 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........................................................................................ 3-6 3.4 Site-Specific Considerations............................................................................ 3-7 3.4.1 Spent Fuel.............................................................................................. 3-7 3.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components......................................... 3-11 3.4.3 Primary System Components............................................................. 3-12 3.4.4 Main Turbine and Condenser............................................................ 3-13 3.4.5 Transportation Methods..................................................................... 3-13 3.4.6 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal............................................. 3-14 3.4. 7 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning.................................... 3-15 3.5 Assumptions.................................................................................................... 3-16 3.5.1 Estimating Basis................................................................................. 3-17 TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study SECTION TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page iv of xxi PAGE 3.5.2 Labor Costs.......................................................................................... 3-17 3.5.3 Design Conditions............................................................................... 3-18 3.5.4 General................................................................................................. 3-19 3.6 Impact of Decommissioning Multiple Reactor Units.................................. 3-22 3.7 Cost Estimate Summary............................................................................... 3-23
: 4.
SCHEDULE ESTIMATE...................................................................................... 4-1 4.1 Schedule Estimate Assumptions..................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Project Schedule................................................................................................ 4-2
: 5.
RADIOACTIVE WASTES..................................................................................... 5-1
: 6.
RESULTS................................................................................................................. 6-1
: 7.
REFERENCES........................................................................................................ 7-1 TABLES Cost Summary.................................................................................................. xxi 3.la Summary Schedule of Annual Expenditures, Unit 1................................... 3-25 3.lb Schedule of Annual Expenditures - License Termination, Unit 1............... 3-26
: 3. lc Schedule of Annual Expenditures - Spent Fuel, Unit 1............................... 3-27
: 3. ld Schedule of Annual Expenditures - Site Restoration, Unit 1...................... 3-28 3.2a Summary Schedule of Annual Expenditures, Unit 2................................... 3-29 3.2b Schedule of Annual Expenditures - License Termination, Unit 2............... 3-30 3.2c Schedule of Annual Expenditures - Spent Fuel, Unit 2............................... 3-31 3.2d Schedule of Annual Expenditures - Site Restoration, Unit 2...................... 3-32 5.1 Decommissioning Waste Summary, Unit 1.................................................... 5-5 5.2 Decommissioning Waste Summary, Unit 2.................................................... 5-6 6.1 Summary of Decommissioning Cost Elements............................................... 6-4 TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study TABLE OF CONTENTS
( continued)
SECTION FIGURES Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Pagev ofxxi PAGE 4.1 Decommissioning Activity Schedule................................................................. 4-3 4.2 Decommissioning Timeline.............................................................................. 4-6 5.1 Radioactive Waste Disposition........................................................................ 5-3 5.2 Decommissioning Waste Destinations, Radiological...................................... 5-4 APPENDICES A.
Unit Cost Factor Development............................................................................. A-1 B.
Unit Cost Factor Listing...................................................................................... B-1 C.
Detailed Cost Analyses........................................................................................ C-1 D.
ISFSI Storage Only............................................................................................... D-1 E.
ISFSI License Termination.................................................................................. E-1 F.
ISFSI Site Restoration........................................................................................... F-1 G.
Detailed Assumptions........................................................................................... G-1 TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study REVISION LOG Rev. No.
I Date II Item Revised II 0
11-06-2024 TLG Services, LLC Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page vi of xxi Reason for Revision I
Original Issue
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page vii of xxi AEPC
* AIF ALARA CERCLA CFR CIS(F)
DAW DOC DOE EPA FEMA FSAR GTCC HVAC IMPC IPs ISFSI kW LTP LSA MARSSIM MOU MPC MRS MWe MWt NESP NRC NSSS NWPA OFF PSDAR
* sco TEDE TLG
* wcs WDF TLG Services, LLC ACRONYMS I DEFINITIONS American Electric Power Company Atomic Industrial Forum As-Low-As-Reasonably Achievable Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act Code of Federal Regulations Consolidated Interim Storage Facility Dry Activate Waste Decommissioning Operations Contractor Department of Energy Environmental Protection Agency Federal Emergency Management Agency Final Safety Analysis Report Greater Than Class C Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning Indiana Michigan Power Company Industrial Packages Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation Kilowatt License Termination Plan Low Specific Activity Multi-Agency Radiation Survey & Site Investigation Manual Memorandum of Understanding Multi-purpose canister Monitored Retrieval Storage Megawatts electric Megawatts thermal National Environmental Studies Project Nuclear Regulatory Commission Nuclear Steam Supply Systems Nuclear Waste Policy Act Oldest Fuel First Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report Surface Contaminated Object Total Effective Dose Equivalent TLG Services, LLC Waste Control Specialists Work difficulty adjustment factor
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study EXECUTIVE
 
==SUMMARY==
Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page viii of xxi This report presents estimates of the costs to promptly decommission (decontaminate and dismantle) the Donald C. Cook Nuclear Plant (D.C. Cook), Units 1 & 2 following a scheduled cessation of plant operations. The estimates are designed to provide American Electric Power Company (AEP) and Indiana Michigan Power Company (IMPC) with sufficient information to assess their financial obligations as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear station.
The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information compiled by TLG from information provided by IMPC. The analysis reflects current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of nuclear power plants and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects. The costs are based on several key assumptions in areas of regulation, component characterization, high-level radioactive waste management, low-level radioactive waste disposal, performance uncertainties (contingency) and site restoration requirements.
The estimate is 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. It incorporates a cooling period of three years and three months for the spent fuel that resides in the plant's storage pool when Unit 2 operations cease. Any residual fuel remaining in the pool after this period will be relocated to an on-site, interim storage facility to await the transfer to a Department of Energy (DOE) facility. The estimate also includes the dismantling of non-essential structures and limited restoration of the site.
The analysis is not a detailed engineering evaluation, but an estimate prepared in advance of the detailed planning required to carry out the decommissioning of the nuclear units. It may also not reflect the actual plan to decommission D.C. Cook; that plan may differ from the assumptions made in this analysis based on facts that exist at the time of decommissioning.
The primary goal of decommissioning is the removal and disposal of the contaminated systems and structures so that the operating licenses can be terminated. This analysis recognizes that spent fuel will be stored at the site in the wet storage pool and/or in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI) until such time that it can be transferred to an appropriate disposal facility. Consequently, the estimates include those costs necessary to manage and subsequently decommission these interim storage facilities.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page ix of xxi The costs to decommission D.C. Cook are tabulated at the end of this section. Costs are reported in 2024 dollars and include monies anticipated to be spent for radiological remediation and operating license termination, spent fuel management, and site restoration activities.
A complete discussion of the assumptions relied upon in this analysis is provided in Section 3, along with schedules of annual expenditures for each scenario. A sequence of significant project activities is provided in Section 4 with a timeline for each unit.
Detailed cost reports used to generate the summary tables contained within this document are provided in Appendices C through F.
The cost estimates assume that the shutdown dates of the nuclear units are scheduled and pre-planned (i.e., there is no delay in transitioning the plant and workforce from operations or in obtaining regulatory relief from operating requirements, etc.). The estimates include the continued operation of the fuel handling area of the auxiliary building as an interim wet fuel storage facility for approximately three and one-quarter years after Unit 2 operations cease. During this time period, it is assumed that the spent fuel residing in the pool will be transferred to an ISFSI located on the site.
The ISFSI will remain operational until the spent fuel is transferred to an appropriate disposal facility.1 11 Consequently, the estimates also include those costs to manage (as an annual cost) and subsequently decommission these interim storage facilities. The timing of these expenses is indeterminate and therefore these costs are not included in the tables in Section 3.
Alternatives and Regulations The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provided general decommissioning requirements in the rule adopted on June 27, 1988121. In this rule the NRC set forth financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclear facilities. The regulations addressed planning needs, timing, funding methods, and environmental review requirements for decommissioning. The rule also defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC - DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB.
Projected expenditures for spent fuel management identified in the cost analyses do not consider credit for DOE's payment of damages to AEP for DO E's failure to perform under the terms of the disposal contract between DOE and AEP. Collection of spent fuel damages from the DOE is expected to provide the majority of funds needed for spent fuel mana*gement following shutdown.
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.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Pagex ofxxi 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."[31 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."[51 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 NRC directed its staff to re-evaluate this alternative and identify the technical requirements and regulatory actions that would be necessary for entombment to become a viable option.
The resulting evaluation provided several recommendations; however, rulemaking has been deferred pending the completion of additional research studies, for example, on engineered barriers. In a draft regulatory basis document published in March 2017 in support of rulemaking that would amend NRC regulations concerning nuclear plant decommissioning, the NRC staff proposes removing any discussion of the ENTOMB option from existing guidance documents since the method is not deemed practically feasible.
In 1996, the NRC published revisions to the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plants to clarify ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and uniformity in the decommissioning process. The 3
Ibid. FR24022, Column 3 4
Ibid.
5 Ibid. FR24023, Column 2 TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page xi of xxi amendments allowed for greater public participation and better define the transition process from operations to decommissioning. Regulatory Guide 1.184, issued in July 2000, further described the methods and procedures acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing the requirements of the 1996 revised rule that relate to initial activities and major phases of the decommissioning process. The costs and schedules presented in this analysis follow the general guidance and process described in the amended regulations. The format and content of the estimate is also consistent with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.202, issued in February 2005.(61 In 2011, the NRC published amended regulations to improve decommissioning planning and thereby reduce the likelihood that any current operating facility will become a legacy site.[71 The amended regulations require licensees to conduct their operations to minimize the introduction of residual radioactivity into the site, which includes the site's subsurface soil and groundwater. Licensees also may be required to perform site surveys to determine whether residual radioactivity is present in subsurface areas and to keep records of these surveys with records important for decommissioning. The amended regulations require licensees to report additional details in their decommissioning cost estimate as well as requiring additional financial reporting and assurances. These additional details are included in this analysis, including the ISFSI decommissioning estimate (Appendix E).
Decommissioning Scenario The DECON scenario assumes that decommissioning activities at the two units are sequenced and integrated so as to minimize the total duration of the physical dismantling processes. Spent fuel remaining in the spent fuel pool at shutdown will be transferred to the ISFSI to facilitate decontamination and dismantling activities within the Auxiliary Building. For purposes of this study, IMPC has directed TLG to assume spent fuel storage operations continue on-site indefinitely.
6 "Standard Format and Content of Decommissioning Cost Estimates of Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.202, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 2005 7
U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72, "Decommissioning Planning," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 76, (p 35512 et seq.), June 17, 2011 TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Methodology Document l13-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page xii of xxi The methodology used to develop the estimates described within this document follows the basic approach originally presented in the cost estimating guidelines[81 developed by the Atomic Industrial Forum (now Nuclear Energy Institute). This reference described 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.
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, Crystal River, Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim, Indian Point and Fort Calhoun nuclear units have provided additional insight into the process, the regulatory aspects, and the technical challenges of decommissioning commercial nuclear units.
Contingency Consistent with cost estimating practice, contingencies are applied to the decontamination and dismantling costs developed as "specific provision for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope, particularly important where previous experience relating estimates and actual costs has shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur."(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 8
T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-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, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page xiii of xxi these estimates, 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 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 generally classified as low-level radioactive waste, although not all of the material is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal. With the passage of the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal Act" in 1980,1101 and its Amendments of 1985,1111 the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition oflow-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders.
With the exception of Texas, no new compact facilities have been successfully sited, licensed, and constructed. The Texas Compact disposal facility is now operational and waste is being accepted from generators within the Compact by the operator, Waste Control Specialists (WCS). The facility is also able to accept limited volumes of non-Compact waste.
Disposition of the various waste streams produced by the decommissioning process considered all options and services currently available to IMPC. The majority of the low-level radioactive waste designated for direct disposal (Class Al12l) can be sent to Energy Solutions' facility in Clive, Utah. Therefore, disposal costs for Class A waste were based upon IMPC's agreement with EnergySolutions, LLC for disposal of LLRW and UniTech Services Group for off-site processing. These facilities are not licensed to receive the higher activity portion (Classes B and C) of the decommissioning waste stream.
The WCS facility is able to receive the Class Band C waste. As such, for this analysis, Class B and C waste was assumed to be shipped to the WCS facility and disposal costs for the waste using this facility were based upon IMPC' s agreement with Waste Control Specialists, LLC for the WCS facility.
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, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page xiv of xxi The dismantling of the components residing closest to the reactor core generates radioactive waste that may be considered unsuitable for shallow-land disposal (i.e., low-level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the NRC for Class C radioactive waste (GTCC)). The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned the federal government the responsibility for the disposal of this material. The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such waste. However, to date, the federal government has not identified a cost for disposing of GTCC or a schedule for acceptance.
For purposes of this analysis only, the GTCC radioactive waste is assumed to be packaged and disposed of in a similar manner as high-level waste and at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel. The GTCC is packaged in the same canisters used for spent fuel and stored on site with the spent fuel.
A significant portion of the metallic waste generated during decommissioning may potentially be contaminated by radioactive materials. Rather than designating this large volume for controlled disposal, this analysis assumes that the material is sent to a licensed facility for characterization and processing. Processing is routinely used to reduce the volume, for example, by component disassembly, sorting, and compaction.
The estimates reflect the savings from waste recovery/volume reduction.
High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act"l131 (NWPA) in 1982, assigning the federal government's long-standing responsibility for disposal of the spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the DOE. The DOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998. However, to date no progress in the removal of spent fuel from commercial generating sites has been made.
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 NWP A 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 partial breach of contract. To date no spent fuel has been accepted from commercial generating sites for disposal.
Today, the country is at an impasse on high-level waste disposal, despite DOE's submittal of its License Application for a geologic repository to the NRC in 2008. The 13 "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," DO E's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, 1982 TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document l13-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page xv of xxi Obama administration eliminated the budget for the repository program while promising to "conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle... and make recommendations for a new plan."[141 Towards that goal, the Obama administration appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (Blue Ribbon Commission) to make recommendations for a new plan for nuclear waste disposal. The Blue Ribbon Commission's charter includes a requirement that it consider "[o]ptions for safe storage of used nuclear fuel while final disposition pathways are selected and deployed."[151 On January 26, 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission issued its "Report to the Secretary of Energy" containing a number of recommendations on nuclear waste disposal. Two of the recommendations that may impact decommissioning planning are:
* "[T]he United States [should] establish a program that leads to the timely development of one or more consolidated storage facilities"P6l
* "[T]he United States should undertake an integrated nuclear waste management program that leads to the timely development of one or more permanent deep geological facilities for the safe disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste."[171 In January 2013, the DOE issued the "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste," in response to the recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Commission and as "a framework for moving toward a sustainable program to deploy an integrated system capable of transporting, storing, and disposing of used nuclear fuel... "[181 This document states:
"With the appropriate authorizations from Congress, the Administration currently plans to implement a program over the next 10 years that:
14 "Advisory Committee Charter, Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future," Appendix A, January 2012 15 Charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, "Objectives and Scope of Activities," 2010 16 "Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy,", p.
32, January 2012 17 Ibid., p.27 18 "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste," U.S. DOE, January 11, 2013 TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page xvi of xxi Sites, designs and licenses, constructs and begins operations of a pilot interim storage facility by 2021 with an initial focus on accepting used nuclear fuel from shut-down reactor sites; Advances toward the siting and licensing of a larger interim storage facility to be available by 2025 that will have sufficient capacity to provide flexibility in the waste management system and allows for acceptance of enough used nuclear fuel to reduce expected government liabilities; and Makes demonstrable progress on the siting and characterization of repository sites to facilitate the availability of a geologic repository by 2048."[191 The NRC's review of DOE's license application to construct a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain was suspended in 2011 when the Obama Administration slashed the budget for completing that work. However, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a writ of mandamus (in August 2013) r2o1 ordering NRC to comply with federal law and restart its review of DOE's Yucca Mountain repository license application to the extent of previously appropriated funding for the review.
That review is now complete with the publication of the five-volume safety evaluation report. A supplement to DOE's environmental impact statement and an adjudicatory hearing on the contentions filed by interested parties must be completed before a licensing decision can be made. Although the DOE proposed it would start fuel acceptance in 2025, no progress has been made in the repository program since DOE's 2013 strategy was issued except for the completion of the Yucca Mountain safety evaluation report.
Holtec International submitted a license application to the NRC on March 30, 2017 for a consolidated interim spent fuel storage facility in southeast New Mexico called HI-STORE CISF (Consolidated Interim Storage Facility) under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. In May 2023, the NRC issued a license to Holtec to construct and operate a facility to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel at the HI-STORE CISF.
Waste Control Specialists submitted an application to the NRC on April 28, 2016, to construct and operate a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) at its West Texas facility. On April 18, 2017, WCS requested that the NRC temporarily suspend all safety and environmental review activities, as well as public participation 19 Ibid., p.2 20 U.S. Court of Appeals for the District Of Columbia Circuit, In Re: Aiken County, et al, Aug.
2013,http://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/BAEOCF34F762EBD985257BC6004DE B 18/$file/1l-1271-1451347.pdf TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page xvii of xxi activities associated with WCS's license application. In March 2018, WCS and Orano USA, announced their intent to form a joint venture to license the facility. The joint venture, named Interim Storage Partners (ISP), requested that the NRC resume its review of the original CISF license application. Subsequently, in September, 2021, NRC issued a license to ISP for its WCS CISF to construct and operate the facility for spent nuclear fuel and GTCC storage. However, the facility is not yet operational.
In May 2018, the U.S. House of Representatives passed R.R. 3053, known as the "Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of 2017." This legislation aimed to amend the Nuclear Waste Policy Act (NWPA) of 1982, granting the Department of Energy (DOE) the authority to site, construct, and operate one or more Monitored Retrievable Storage (MRS) facilities while a permanent repository is licensed and built.
Additionally, it allowed the DOE to enter agreements with non-federal entities for temporary storage. However, in March 2024, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ruled that the NWP A authorizes the DOE only to site such facilities, not to operate them. This decision led the court to invalidate the licenses granted by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to Interim Storage Partners (ISP) and Holtec International. The U.S. Supreme Court is currently reviewing this ruling in NRC v.
Texas, consolidated under case number 23-1300. Should the Fifth Circuit's decision be upheld, storing spent nuclear fuel (SNF) away from its generation site would remain illegal until the NWP A is revised. While Congress has introduced multiple amendments to the NWPA over the years, none have passed.
Completion of the decommissioning process is dependent upon the DOE's ability to remove spent fuel from the site in a timely manner. DOE's repository program had originally assumed that spent fuel allocations would be accepted for disposal from the nation's commercial nuclear plants, with limited exceptions, in the order (the "queue") in which it was discharged from the reactor.l21l However, the Blue Ribbon Commission, in its 2012 report, noted that: "[A]ccepting spent fuel according to the OFF [Oldest Fuel First] priority ranking instead of giving priority to shutdown reactor sites could greatly reduce the cost savings that could be achieved through consolidated storage if priority could be given to accepting spent fuel from shutdown reactor sites before accepting fuel from still-operating plants..... The magnitude of the cost savings that could be achieved by giving priority to shutdown sites appears 21 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 961.11, Article IV - Responsibilities of the Parties, B. DOE Responsibilities, 5.(a)... DOE shall issue an annual acceptance priority ranking for receipt of SNF and/or HLW at the DOE repository. This priority ranking shall be based on the age of SNF and/or HLW as calculated from the date of discharge of such materials from the civilian nuclear power reactor. The oldest fuel or waste will have the highest priority for acceptance... "
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page xviii of xxi to be large enough (i.e., in the billions of dollars) to warrant DOE exercising its right under the Standard Contract to move this fuel first."
This estimate is based on IMPC's current spent fuel management plan. This plan assumes indefinite on-site storage for the D.C. Cook spent fuel.
The NRC requires that licensees establish a program to manage and provide funding for the caretaking of all irradiated fuel at the reactor site until title of the fuel is transferred to the DOE. [221 Interim storage of the fuel, until the DOE has completed the transfer, will be in the auxiliary building's storage pool as well as at an on-site ISFSI.
For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that DOE will accept already-canistered fuel.
An ISFSI, operated under a Part 50 General License (in accordance with 10 CFR 72, Subpart K[23l), has been constructed to support continued plant operations. The facility is assumed to be available to support future decommissioning operations. In the three years and three months following the cessation of Unit 2 operations the fuel is packaged for interim storage at the ISFSI. The final core off-load is not eligible to be moved to the ISFSI until after cooling three years in the fuel storage pool. Once the fuel storage pool is emptied, the auxiliary building can be prepared for removal.
Site Restoration The efficient removal of the contaminated materials at the site may result in damage to many of the site structures. Blasting, coring, drilling, and the other decontamination activities can substantially damage power block structures, potentially weakening the footings and structural supports. It is unreasonable to anticipate that these structures would be repaired and preserved after the radiological contamination is removed. The cost to dismantle site structures with a work force already mobilized is more efficient and less costly than if the process is deferred.
This estimate assumes that some site features will remain following the decommissioning project. These include the existing electrical switchyard, which is assumed to remain functional in support of the regional electrical distribution system.
22 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50 - Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, Subpart 54 (bb ), "Conditions of Licenses" 23 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, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page xix of xxi Consequently, this study assumes that site structures will be removed to a nominal depth of three feet below the local grade level wherever possible. The site will then be graded and stabilized.
Summary The estimate to decommission D.C. Cook assumes the removal of all contaminated and activated plant components and structural materials such that the owner may then have unrestricted use of the site (exclusive of the ISFSI). Low-level radioactive waste, other than GTCC waste, is sent to a commercial processor for treatment/conditioning or to a controlled disposal facility.
Decommissioning is accomplished within the 60-year period required by current NRC regulations. In the interim, the spent fuel remains in storage at the site until such time that the transfer to a DOE facility is complete. Once spent fuel transfer is complete the ISFSI will be decommissioned.
The alternative evaluated in this analysis is 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 Appendix C. The major cost components are also identified in the cost summary provided at the end of this section.
The cost elements in the estimates for the decommissioning alternatives are assigned to one of three subcategories: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) License Termination (radiological remediation), Spent Fuel Management, and Site Restoration. The subcategory "NRC License Termination" is used to accumulate costs that are consistent with "decommissioning" as defined by the NRC in its financial assurance regulations (i.e., 10 CFR §50. 75). The cost reported for this subcategory is generally sufficient to terminate the unit's operating license, recognizing that there may be some additional cost impact from spent fuel management.
The "Spent Fuel Management" subcategory is used to accumulate costs associated with the containerization and transfer of spent fuel from the wet storage pool to the ISFSI for interim storage. Costs are included for the operation of the storage pool (spent fuel pool will operate until three and one quarter year after shutdown of Unit 2). The management of the ISFSI is included through the end of site restoration. It does not include any spent fuel management expenses incurred prior to the cessation of plant operations, nor does it include any costs related to the final disposal of the spent fuel.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page xx of xxi "Site Restoration" is used to capture costs associated with the dismantling and demolition of buildings and facilities demonstrated to be free from contamination.
This includes structures never exposed to radioactive materials, as well as those facilities that have been decontaminated to appropriate levels. Structures are removed to a depth of three feet below grade and backfilled to conform to local grade.
It should be noted that the costs assigned to these subcategories are allocations.
Delegation of cost elements is for the purpose of comparison (i.e., with NRC financial guidelines) or to permit specific financial treatment (e.g., Asset Retirement Obligation determinations). In reality, there can be considerable interaction between the activities in the three subcategories. For example, an owner may decide to remove non-contaminated structures early in the project to improve access to highly contaminated facilities or plant components. In these instances, the non-contaminated removal costs could be reassigned from Site Restoration to an NRC License Termination support activity. However, in general, the allocations represent a reasonable accounting of those costs expected to be incurred for the specific subcomponents of the total estimated program cost, if executed as described.
As noted within this document, the estimates were developed and costs are presented in 2024 dollars. As such, the estimates do not reflect the escalation of costs (due to inflationary and market forces) over the remaining operating life of the plant or during the decommissioning period.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Page xxi of xxi DECON COST
 
==SUMMARY==
DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
Work Activity Unit 1 Unit 2 Decontamination 12,614 16,106 Removal 125,134 181,752 Packaging 37,427 37,510 Transportation 24,307 25,394 Waste Disposal 131,975 132,966 Off-site Waste Processing 12,195 11,796 Program Management 111 326,681 345,675 Site Security 74,716 49,828 Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 17,313 Spent Fuel Management 121 289,527 286,686 Insurance and Regulatory Fees 18,025 11,761 Energy 15,859 13,445 Characterization and Licensing 32,629 38,088 Surveys Property Taxes 1,860 1,860 Miscellaneous 9,642 9,581 Corporate A&G 31,090 33,784 Non-Labor Overhead 2,668 2,899 Tritium Monitoring 347 256 Total 131 1,146,696 1,216,700 NRC License Termination 780,544 817,289 Spent Fuel Management 305,459 296,949 Site Restoration 60,693 102,463 Total131 1,146,696 1,216,700 ISFSI Operations, annual cost ISFSI License Termination ISFSI Site Restoration 111 Program Management costs include Utility and subcontractor staffing Station 28,720 306,886 74,937 49,701 264,941 23,991 672,356 124,544 17,313 576,213 29,786 29,304 70,717 3,721 19,223 64,875 5,567 603 2,363,396 1,597,833 602,407 163,156 2,363,396 7,494 32,117 12,754 121 Includes capital expenditures for dry storage system, loading and transfer, spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees but excludes program management costs (staffing) 131 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study
: 1. INTRODUCTION Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 1 of 11 This report presents estimates of the costs to promptly decommission (decontaminate and dismantle) the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant (D.C. Cook) following a scheduled cessation of plant operations. The estimates are designed to provide American Electric Power Company (AEP) and Indiana Michigan Power Company (IMPC) with sufficient information to assess their financial obligations as they pertain to the eventual decommissioning of the nuclear station.
The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information from an evaluation prepared in 2021!11* and updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of the nuclear plant and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects. The analysis reflects current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of nuclear power plants and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects.
The costs are based on several key assumptions in areas of regulation, component characterization, high-level radioactive waste management, low-level radioactive waste disposal, performance uncertainties (contingency) and site restoration requirements.
The 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 cooling period of three years and three months for the spent fuel that resides in the plant's storage pool when Unit 2 operations cease. Any residual fuel remaining in the pool after this period will be relocated to an on-site, interim storage facility to await the transfer to a Department of Energy (DOE) facility. The estimates also include the dismantling of non-essential structures and limited restoration of the site.
The analysis is not an engineering evaluation, but consists of estimates prepared in advance of the detailed planning required to carry out the decommissioning of the nuclear units. It may also not reflect the actual plan to decommission D.C. Cook; the plan may differ from the assumptions made in this analysis based on facts that exist at the time of decommissioning.
1.1 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY The objectives of this study are to prepare a comprehensive estimate of the costs to decommission D.C. Cook for the scenario outlined in Section 2, to define
* References provided in Section 7 of the document TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 2 of 11 a sequence of events, and to develop waste stream projections from the decontamination and dismantling activities.
The two units at the D.C. Cook site were designed and constructed concurrently.
Unit 1 obtained its operating license on October 25, 1974, with Unit 2 following on December 23, 1977. For the purposes of this study, the shutdown dates were taken as 60 years after the operating license issue dates, or October 25, 2034 for Unit 1 and December 23, 2037 for Unit 2. This time frame was used as input for scheduling the decommissioning.
1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION The D.C. Cook site is located along the eastern shore of Lake Michigan in Lake Township, Berrien County, Michigan about 11 miles south-southwest of Benton Harbor. The population density of the area surrounding the site is relatively low. The area is primarily devoted to agricultural pursuits with some manufacturing in the Benton Harbor-St. Joseph and Niles areas.
The nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) provided by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation consists of a pressurized water reactor and a four-loop reactor coolant system (RCS). The licensed rating is 3,304 MWt and 3,468 MWt for Units 1 and 2, respectively. The maximum dependable capacity (net) is 1,009 MWe and 1,168 MWe for Units 1 and 2, respectively.
The NSSS is housed within a seismic Category I containment structure. The ice condenser reactor containment involves the very rapid absorption of the energy released in the improbable event of a loss-of-coolant accident by condensing the steam in a low temperature heat sink. This heat sink, located inside the containment, consists of a suitable quantity of borated ice in a cold storage compartment. The containment is a reinforced concrete structure with a steel liner. Access to the containment structure is provided by means of personnel air locks and an equipment hatch.
Heat produced in the reactor is converted to electrical energy by the steam and power conversion systems. A turbine-generator system converts the thermal energy of steam produced in the steam generators into mechanical shaft power and then into electrical energy. Each unit's turbine generator consists of a tandem compound (single shaft) arrangement of a double-flow, high-pressure turbine and three functionally identical low-pressure turbines driving a direct-coupled generator at 1,800 rpm. The turbines are operated in a closed feedwater cycle, which condenses the steam, heats the feedwater, and returns it to the steam generators. Heat rejected in the main condensers is removed by the TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 3 of 11 circulating water system (CWS). The CWS provides the heat sink required for removal of waste heat. The water is pumped via intake tunnels to the main condensers from where it returns to Lake Michigan via the discharge tunnels and submerged discharge pipes approximately 1,150 feet from the shoreline.
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 1988.121 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,"131 which provided additional guidance to the licensees of nuclear facilities on the financial methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the requirements of the rule. The regulatory guide addressed the funding requirements and provided guidance on the content and form of the financial assurance mechanisms indicated in the rule.
The rule defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC: DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB. The DECON alternative assumes that any contaminated or activated portion of the plant's systems, structures and facilities are removed or decontaminated to levels that permit the site to be released for unrestricted use shortly after the cessation of plant operations, while the SAFSTOR and ENTOMB alternatives defer the process.
The rule also placed limits on the time allowed to complete the decommissioning process. For all alternatives, the process is restricted in overall duration to 60 years, unless it can be shown that a longer duration is necessary to protect public health and safety. At the conclusion of a 60-year dormancy period (or longer if the NRC approves such a case), the site would still require significant remediation to meet the unrestricted release limits for license termination.
The ENTOMB alternative has not been viewed as a viable option for power reactors due to the significant time required to isolate the long-lived radionuclides for decay to permissible levels. However, with rulemaking permitting the controlled release of a site,141 the NRC did re-evaluate the TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 4 of 11 alternative. The resulting feasibility study, based upon an assessment by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, concluded that the method did have conditional merit for some, if not most reactors. The staff also found that additional rulemaking would be needed before this option could be treated as a generic alternative.
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 subsequently recommended that rulemaking be deferred, based upon several factors (e.g., no licensee has committed to pursuing the entombment option, the unresolved issues associated with the disposition of greater-than-Class C material (GTCC), and the NRC's current priorities), at least until after the additional research studies are complete. The Commission concurred with the staffs recommendation. In a draft regulatory basis document published in March 2017 in support of rulemaking that would amend NRC regulations concerning nuclear plant decommissioning, the NRC staff proposes removing any discussion of the ENTOMB option from existing guidance documents since the method is not deemed practically feasible.
In 1996, the NRC published revisions to the general requirements for decommissioning nuclear power plantsJ61 When the decommissioning regulations were adopted in 1988, it was assumed that the majority oflicensees would decommission at the end of the facility's operating licensed life. Since that time, several licensees permanently and prematurely ceased operations.
Exemptions from certain operating requirements were required once the reactor was defueled to facilitate the decommissioning. Each case was handled individually, without clearly defined generic requirements. The NRC amended the decommissioning regulations in 1996 to clarify ambiguities and codify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and uniformity in the decommissioning process. The amendments allow for greater public participation and better define the transition process from operations to decommissioning.
Under the revised regulations, licensees will submit written certification to the NRC within 30 days after the decision to cease operations. Certification will also be required once the fuel is permanently removed from the reactor vessel.
Submittal of these notices, along with related changes to Technical Specifications, entitle the licensee to a fee reduction and eliminate the obligation to follow certain requirements needed only during operation of the reactor. Within two years of submitting notice of permanent cessation of operations, the licensee 1s required to submit a
Post-Shutdown TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 5 of 11 Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) to the NRC. The PSDAR describes the planned decommissioning activities, the associated sequence and schedule, and an estimate of expected costs. Prior to completing decommissioning, the licensee is required to submit an application to the NRC to terminate the license, which will include a license termination plan (LTP).
In 2011, the NRC published amended regulations to improve decommissioning planning and thereby reduce the likelihood that any current operating facility will become a legacy site.[71 The amended regulations require licensees to conduct their operations to minimize the introduction of residual radioactivity into the site, which includes the site's subsurface soil and groundwater.
Licensees also may be required to perform site surveys to determine whether residual radioactivity is present in subsurface areas and to keep records of these surveys with records important for decommissioning. The amended regulations require licensees to report additional details in their decommissioning cost estimate as well as requiring additional financial reporting and assurances. The additional details, including a decommissioning estimate for the Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installation (ISFSI), are included in this study.
1.3.1 High-Level Radioactive Waste Management Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act" (NWPA) in 1982,181 assigning the federal government's long-standing responsibility for disposal of the spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the DOE. It was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998; however, to date no progress in the removal of spent fuel from commercial generating sites has been made.
Today, the country is at an impasse on high-level waste disposal, despite DO E's submittal of its License Application for a geologic repository to the NRC in 2008. The Obama administration eliminated the budget for the repository program while promising to "conduct a comprehensive review of policies for managing the back end of the nuclear fuel cycle... and make recommendations for a new plan." Towards this goal, the Obama administration appointed a Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future (Blue Ribbon Commission) to make recommendations for a new plan for nuclear waste disposal. The Blue Ribbon Commission's charter included a requirement that it consider "[o]ptions for safe storage of used nuclear fuel while final disposition pathways are selected and deployed."191 TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 6 of 11 On January 26, 2012, the Blue Ribbon Commission issued its "Report to the Secretary of Energy" containing a number of recommendations on nuclear waste disposal. Two of the recommendations [101 that may impact decommissioning planning are:
"[T]he United States [should] establish a program that leads to the timely development of one or more consolidated storage facilities"
* "[T]he United States should undertake an integrated nuclear waste management program that leads to the timely development of one or more permanent deep geological facilities for the safe disposal of spent fuel and high-level nuclear waste."
In January 2013, the DOE issued the "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste," in response to the recommendations made by the Blue Ribbon Commission and as "a framework for moving toward a sustainable program to deploy an integrated system capable of transporting, storing, and disposing of used nuclear fuel..." [111 This document states:
"With the appropriate authorizations from
: Congress, the Administration currently plans to implement a program over the next 10 years that:
Sites, designs and licenses, constructs and begins operations of a pilot interim storage facility by 2021 with an initial focus on accepting used nuclear fuel from shut-down reactor sites; Advances toward the siting and licensing of a larger interim storage facility to be available by 2025 that will have sufficient capacity to provide flexibility in the waste management system and allows for acceptance of enough used nuclear fuel to reduce expected government liabilities; and Makes demonstrable progress on the siting and characterization of repository sites to facilitate the availability of a geologic repository by 2048."
The NRC's review of DOE's license application to construct a geologic repository at Yucca Mountain was suspended in 2011 when the Obama Administration slashed the budget for completing that work. However, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued a writ of mandamus (in August 2013) [121 ordering NRC to comply with TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 7 of 11 federal law and restart its review of DOE's Yucca Mountain repository license application to the extent of previously appropriated funding for the review. That review was completed with the publication of a five-volume safety evaluation report. A supplement to DOE's environmental impact statement and adjudicatory hearing on the contentions filed by interested parties must be completed before a licensing decision can be made. Although the DOE proposed it would start fuel acceptance in 2025, no progress has been made in the repository program since DOE's 2013 strategy was issued except for the completion of the Yucca Mountain safety evaluation report.
Holtec International submitted a license application to the NRC on March 30, 2017 for a consolidated interim spent fuel storage facility in southeast New Mexico called HI-STORE CISF (Consolidated Interim Storage Facility) under the provisions of 10 CFR Part 72. In May 2023, the NRC issued a license to Holtec to construct and operate a facility to receive, possess, store, and transfer spent nuclear fuel at the HI-STORE CISF.
Waste Control Specialists submitted an application to the NRC on April 28, 2016, to construct and operate a Consolidated Interim Storage Facility (CISF) at its West Texas facility. On April 18, 2017, WCS requested that the NRC temporarily suspend all safety and environmental review activities, as well as public participation activities associated with WCS's license application. In March 2018, WCS and Orano USA, announced their intent to form a joint venture to license the facility. The joint venture, named Interim Storage Partners (ISP),
requested that the NRC resume its review of the original CISF license application. Subsequently, in September, 2021, NRC issued a license to ISP for its WCS CISF to construct and operate the facility for spent nuclear fuel and GTCC storage. However, the facility is not yet operational.
Completion of the decommissioning process is dependent upon the DOE's ability to remove spent fuel from the site in a timely manner.
DOE's repository program assumes that spent fuel allocations will be accepted for disposal from the nation's commercial nuclear plants, with limited exceptions, in the order (the "queue") in which it was discharged from the reactor. (131 However, the Blue Ribbon Commission, in its final report, noted that: "[A]ccepting spent fuel according to the OFF [Oldest Fuel First] priority ranking instead of giving priority to shutdown reactor sites could greatly reduce the cost savings that could be achieved TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 8 of 11 through consolidated storage if priority could be given to accepting spent fuel from shutdown reactor sites before accepting fuel from still-operating plants..... The magnitude of the cost savings that could be achieved by giving priority to shutdown sites appears to be large enough (i.e., in the billions of dollars) to warrant DOE exercising its right under the Standard Contract to move this fuel first." For purposes of this study, IMPC has directed TLG to assume spent fuel storage operations continue at the site indefinitely.
The NRC requires that licensees establish a program to manage and provide funding for the caretaking of all irradiated fuel at the reactor site until title of the fuel is transferred to the DOE.[14llnterim storage of the fuel, until the DOE has completed the transfer, will be in the auxiliary building's storage pool as well as at an on-site ISFSI. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that DOE will accept already-canistered fuel.
An ISFSI, operated under a Part 50 General License (in accordance with 10 CFR 72, Subpart K [151), has been constructed to support continued plant operations. The ISFSI is assumed to be expanded following cessation of plant operations to accommodate the assemblies in the plant's wet storage pool. By relocating the fuel to the ISFSI, the wet storage pool may be secured and decommissioning of the nuclear units may proceed. The ISFSI pad will be expanded at the time of decommissioning to be able to accommodate all necessary dry fuel storage casks required in support of the decommissioning program.
IMPC's position is that the DOE has a contractual obligation to accept D.C. Cook's fuel earlier than the projections set out above consistent with its contract commitments. No assumption made in this study should be interpreted to be inconsistent with this claim. However, including the cost of storing spent fuel in this study is appropriate to ensure the availability of sufficient decommissioning funds at the end of the station's life if the DOE has not met its obligation. The cost for the interim storage of spent fuel has been calculated and is separately presented as "Spent Fuel Management" expenditures in this report.
1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Regulations 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 TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 9 of 11 material is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal. With the passage of the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" in 1980,[161 and its Amendments of 1985,[171 the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition oflow-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders.
With the exception of Texas, no new compact facilities have been successfully sited, licensed, and constructed. The Texas Compact disposal facility is now operational and waste is being accepted from generators within the Compact by the operator, Waste Control Specialists (WCS). The facility is also able to accept limited volumes of non-Compact waste.
Disposition of the various waste streams produced by the decommissioning process considered all options and services currently available to IMPC. The majority of the low-level radioactive waste designated for direct disposal (Class A[18l) can be sent to Energy Solutions' facility in Clive, Utah. Therefore, disposal costs for Class A waste were based upon IMPC's agreement with EnergySolutions, LLC for disposal of LLRW and UniTech Services Group for off-site processing. This facility is not licensed to receive the higher activity portion (Classes B and C) of the decommissioning waste stream.
The WCS facility is able to receive the Class Band C waste. As such, for this analysis, Class B and C waste was assumed to be shipped to the WCS facility and disposal costs for the waste using this facility were based upon IMPC's agreement with Waste Control Specialists, LLC for the WCS facility.
The dismantling of the components residing closest to the reactor core generates radioactive waste that may be considered unsuitable for shallow-land disposal (i.e., low-level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the NRC for Class C radioactive waste (GTCC)). The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned the federal government the responsibility for the disposal of this material.
The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such waste. However, to date, the federal government has not identified a cost for disposing of GTCC or a schedule for acceptance.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 10 of 11 For purposes of this analysis only, the GTCC radioactive waste is assumed to be packaged and disposed of in a similar manner as high-level waste and at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel.
The GTCC is packaged in the same canisters used for spent fuel and stored on site with the spent fuel.
A significant portion of the metallic waste generated during decommissioning may potentially be contaminated by radioactive materials. Rather than designating this large volume for controlled disposal, this analysis assumes that the material is sent to a licensed facility for characterization and processing. Processing is routinely used to reduce the volume, for example, by component disassembly, sorting, and compaction. 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,"l191 amending 10 CFR Part 20. This subpart provides radiological criteria for releasing a facility for unrestricted use.
The regulation states that the site can be released for unrestricted use if radioactivity levels are such that the average member of a critical group would not receive a Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) in excess of 25 millirem per year, and provided that residual radioactivity has been reduced to levels that are As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA). The decommissioning estimates assume that the D.C. Cook 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).l201 An additional and separate limit of 4 millirem per year, as defined in 40 CFR §141.66, is applied to drinking water.l211 On October 9, 2002, the NRC signed an agreement with the EPA on the radiological decommissioning and decontamination of NRG-licensed sites. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)l221 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 TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 1, Page 11 of 11 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, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 1 of 8
: 2. DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVE Detailed cost estimates were developed to decommission D.C. Cook based upon the approved DECON decommissioning alternative. 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.
The operating licenses for Units 1 and 2 currently expire in October 2034 and December 2037, respectively. The DECON scenario assumes that decommissioning activities at the two units are sequenced and integrated so as to minimize the total duration of the physical dismantling processes. Spent fuel that remains in the storage pool at shutdown is relocated to the ISFSI so as to facilitate decontamination and dismantling activities within the Auxiliary Building. For purposes of this study, AEP has directed TLG to assume spent fuel storage operations continue at the site indefinitely.
The following section describes the basic activities associated with the DECON decommissioning 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.
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 facility de-activation and closure. During the first phase, notification is provided to the NRC certifying the permanent cessation of operations and the removal of fuel from the reactor vessel. The licensee is then prohibited from reactor operation.
The second phase encompasses activities during the storage period or during major decommissioning activities, or a combination of the two. The third phase pertains to the activities involved in license termination. The decommissioning estimates developed for D.C. Cook 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.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study 2.1 PERIOD 1-PREPARATIONS Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 2 of 8 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.
2.1.1 Engineering and Planning The PSDAR, required prior to or within two years of permanent cessation of operations, provides a description of the licensee's planned decommissioning activities, a timetable, and the associated financial requirements of the intended decommissioning program. Upon receipt of the PSDAR, the NRC will make the document available to the public for comment in a local hearing to be held in the vicinity of the reactor site. Ninety days following submittal and NRC receipt of the PSDAR, the licensee may begin to perform major decommissioning activities under a modified 10 CFR §50.59, 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 greater than Class C waste (GTCC), as defined by 10 CFR §61. Major components are further defined as comprising the reactor vessel and internals, large bore reactor coolant system piping, and other large components that are radioactive. The NRC includes the following additional criteria for use of the 50.59 process in decommissioning. The proposed activity must not:
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 TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 3 of 8 permanent cessation of operations. The environmental impact associated with the planned decommissioning activities is also considered. Typically, a licensee is not 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 must submit a license amendment for the specific activity and update the environmental report.
The decommissioning program outlined in the PSDAR will be designed to accomplish the required tasks within the ALARA guidelines (as defined in 10 CFR §20) for protection of personnel from exposure to radiation hazards. It will also address the continued protection of the health and safety of the public and the environment during the dismantling activity. Consequently, with the development of the PSDAR, activity specifications, cost-benefit and safety analyses, and work packages and procedures, would be assembled to support the proposed decontamination and dismantling activities.
2.1.2 Site Preparations Following final plant shutdown, and in preparation for actual decommissioning activities, the following activities are initiated:
Characterization of the site and surrounding environs. This includes (1) performing detailed radiation surveys of work areas and major components (including the reactor vessel and its internals), and (2) performing contamination surveys of internal piping components levels and primary shield cores.
Expansion of the site ISFSI pads Isolation of the spent fuel storage pool and fuel handling systems.
This allows decommissioning operations to be performed in plant areas to the greatest extent, with minimum impact to the project schedule. The fuel will be transferred from the spent fuel pool once it decays to the point that it meets the heat load criteria of the spent fuel casks. It is therefore assumed that the fuel pool will remain operational for a minimum of three years and three months following the cessation of Unit 2 operations.
Specification of transport and disposal requirements for activated materials and/or hazardous materials, including shielding and waste stabilization.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 4 of 8 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.
2.2 PERIOD 2 - DECOMMISSIONING OPERATIONS This period includes physical decommissioning activities associated with the removal and disposal of systems and structures containing contamination and radioactivity including the successful termination of the Part 50 operating licenses, exclusive of the ISFSI.
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. Building modifications may be required to facilitate access oflarge/heavy equipment.
Modifications may also be required 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.
Removal of control rod drive housings and the head service structure from the reactor vessel head. Segmentation of the vessel closure head.
Removal and segmentation of the upper internals assemblies.
Segmentation will maximize the loading of the shielded transport casks, TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 5 of 8 i.e., by weight and activity. The operations are conducted under water using remotely operated tooling and contamination controls.
Disassembly and segmentation of the remaining reactor internals, including core former and lower core support assembly.
Segmentation of the reactor vessel. This requires installation of a shielded work platform. 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. Segments are transferred in-air to containers that are stored under water.
Removal of the activated portions of the concrete biological shield and accessible contaminated concrete surfaces. If dictated by the steam generator and pressurizer removal scenarios, those portions of the associated cubicles necessary for access and component extraction are removed.
Removal of the steam generators and pressurizer for controlled disposal.
Decontaminate exterior surfaces, as required, and seal-weld openings (nozzles, inspection hatches, and other penetrations). These components can serve as their own burial containers provided that all penetrations are properly sealed and the internal contaminants are stabilized. Steel shielding will be added as necessary to meet transportation limits and regulations.
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. A date for the fuel transfer to the DOE from the D.C. Cook site has not been determined, as such the ISFSI will remain in operation indefinitely.
At least two years prior to the anticipated date of license termination, an LTP will be required. Submitted as a supplement to the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR), or equivalent, the plan must include: a site characterization, description of the remaining dismantling activities, plans for site remediation, procedures for the final radiation survey, designation of the end use of the site, an updated cost estimate to complete the decommissioning, and any associated environmental concerns. The NRC will notice the receipt of the plan, make the plan available for public comment, and schedule a local hearing. LTP approval will be subject to any conditions and limitations as deemed appropriate by the NRC. The licensee may then commence with the final remediation of site facilities and services, including:
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 6 of 8 Removal of remaining plant systems and associated components as they become nonessential to the decommissioning program or worker health and safety (e.g., waste collection and treatment systems, electrical power and ventilation systems).
Removal of the steel liners from refueling canal, disposing of the activated and contaminated sections as radioactive waste. Removal of any activated/contaminated concrete.
Surveys of the decontaminated areas of the containment structure.
Remediation and removal of the contaminated equipment and material from the auxilia1*y building and any other contaminated facility. Radiation and contamination controls will be utilized until radiation and contamination levels are reduced such that the structures and equipment can be released for unrestricted access and conventional demolition. This activity may necessitate the dismantling and disposition of most of the systems and components (both clean and contaminated) located within these buildings. This activity facilitates surface decontamination and subsequent verification surveys required prior to obtaining release for demolition.
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).l231 This document incorporates the statistical approaches to survey design and data interpretation used by the EPA. It also identifies state-of-the-art, commercially available instrumentation and procedures for conducting radiological surveys.
Use of this guidance ensures that the surveys are conducted in a manner that provides a high degree of confidence that applicable NRC criteria are satisfied.
Once the surveys are complete, the results are provided to the NRC in a format that can be verified. The NRC then reviews and evaluates the information, performs an independent confirmation of radiological site conditions, and makes TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 7 of 8 a determination on the requested change to the operating license (that would release the property, exclusive of the ISFSI, for unrestricted use).
The NRC will amend the operating licenses if it determines that site remediation has been performed in accordance with the LTP, and that the terminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that the property (exclusive of the ISFSI) is suitable for release.
2.3 PERIOD 3 -
SITE RESTORATION, ISFSI OPERATIONS, AND DEMOLITION 2.3.1 Site Restoration Following completion of decommissioning operations, site restoration activities may begin. Efficient removal of the contaminated materials and verification that residual radionuclide concentrations are below the NRC limits may result in substantial damage to many of the structures.
Although performed in a controlled and safe manner, blasting, coring, drilling, scarification (surface removal), and the other decontamination activities will substantially degrade power block structures, including the reactor and auxiliary buildings. Verifying that subsurface radionuclide concentrations meet NRC site release requirements may 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 and future workers. Abandonment creates a breeding ground for vermin infestation and other biological hazards.
This cost study presumes that non-essential structures and site facilities TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 2, Page 8 of 8 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, and 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.
Non-contaminated 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. Removable concrete vehicle barriers are removed intact and transported off site (cost of handling and transport is included in the estimate). Disposal of the barriers is based on no cost or credit to the decommissioning project.
2.3.2 ISFSI Operations and Demolition The ISFSI will continue to operate under a general license (10 CFR Part
: 50) following the amendment of the operating licenses to release the adjacent (power block) property. As there is no projected start date for the DOE to start accepting spent fuel, IMPC has directed TLG to assume an indefinite ISFSI storage period.
At the conclusion of the spent fuel transfer process, the ISFSI is decommissioned. The NRC terminates the 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.
The existing ISFSI design is based upon the use of a multi-purpose canister (MPC), each with a concrete overpack. The spent fuel is placed inside the MPC, which is placed inside the concrete overpack (cylindrical concrete shielding container), and stored vertically on a storage pad. For purposes of this cost analysis, it is assumed that once the MPCs containing the spent fuel assemblies have been removed, and any residual radioactivity removed from the concrete overpack, the license for the ISFSI will be terminated. Following license termination, the concrete overpacks will be dismantled using conventional reinforced concrete demolition techniques. The concrete storage pad will then be removed, and the area graded and landscaped to conform to the surrounding environment.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study
: 3. COST ESTIMATE Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 1 of 32 The cost estimates prepared for decommissioning D.C. Cook consider the unique features of the site, including the nuclear steam supply system, power generation systems, support services, site buildings, and ancillary facilities. The bases of the estimates, including the sources ofinformation relied upon, the estimating methodology employed, site-specific considerations and other pertinent assumptions are described in this section.
3.1 BASIS OF ESTIMATE The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information compiled by TLG from information provided by IMPC. The analysis reflects current assumptions pertaining to the disposition of nuclear power plants and relevant industry experience in undertaking such projects. The costs are based on several key assumptions in areas of regulation, component characterization, high-level radioactive waste management, low-level radioactive waste disposal, performance uncertainties (contingency) and site restoration requirements.
3.2 METHODOLOGY The methodology used to develop these cost estimates follow the basic approach originally presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study report, "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates,"1241 and the DOE "Decommissioning Handbook."1251 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 provided by IMPC. The activity-dependent costs are estimated with the item quantities (cubic yards and tons), developed from plant drawings and inventory documents. Removal rates and material costs for the conventional disposition of components and structures rely upon information available in the industry publication, "Building Construction Cost Data,"
published by RSMeans.[261 The unit factor method provides a demonstrable basis for establishing reliable cost estimates. The detail provided in the unit factors, including activity duration, labor costs (by craft), and equipment and consumable costs, provides a high level of confidence that essential elements have not been omitted. Appendix TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 2 of 32 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.
Regulatory Guide 1.184 [271 describes the methods and procedures that are acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing the requirements that relate to the initial activities and the major phases of the decommissioning process. The costs and schedules presented in this analysis follow the general guidance and sequence in the regulations. The format and content of the estimates is also consistent with the recommendations of Regulatory Guide 1.202, issued in February 2005. [28]
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, Crystal River, Vermont Yankee, Pilgrim, Indian Point and Fort Calhoun nuclear units have provided additional insight into the process, the regulatory aspects, and the technical challenges of decommissioning commercial nuclear units.
Work Difficulty Factors TLG has historically applied work difficulty adjustment factors (WDFs) to account for the inefficiencies in working in radiologically controlled areas and in a power plant environment. WDFs are assigned to each unique set of unit factors, commensurate with the inefficiencies associated with working in confined, hazardous environments. The ranges used for the WDFs are as follows:
Access Factor Respiratory Protection Factor Radiation/ALARA Factor Protective Clothing Factor Work Break Factor 10% to 20%
10% to 50%
10% to 37%
10% to 30%
8.33%
The factors and their associated range of values were developed in conjunction with the AIF/NESP-036 study. The application of the factors is discussed in more detail in that publication.
Scheduling Program Durations TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 3 of 32 The unit factors, adjusted by the WDFs as described above, are applied against the inventory of materials to be removed in the radiological controlled areas.
The resulting 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 is based upon productivity information available from the "Building Construction Cost Data" publication. Dismantling of the fuel pool systems and decontamination of the spent fuel pool is also dependent upon the timetable for the transfer of the spent fuel assemblies from the pool to the ISFSI.
An activity duration critical path is used to determine the total decommissioning program schedule. The schedule is relied upon in calculating the carrying costs, which include program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental, and support services such as quality control and security. This systematic approach for assembling decommissioning estimates provides 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, spent fuel management, 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 TLG's 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"l29l as "specific provision for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 4 of 32 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 estimate 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 estimate, 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 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, could 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, which have become highly radioactive after a lifetime of exposure to radiation produced in the core.
The disposition of these highly radioactive components forms the basis for the critical path (schedule) for decommissioning operations. Cost and schedule are inter-dependent 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 risks and uncertainties associated with this task are that the expected optimization may not be achieved, resulting in delays and additional TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 5 of 32 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 range from 10% to 75%,
depending on the degree of difficulty judged to be appropriate from TLG's actual decommissioning experience. The contingency values used in this study are as follows:
Decontamination 50%
Contaminated Component Removal 25%
Contaminated Component Packaging 10%
Contaminated Component Transport 15%
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 25%
Low-Level Radioactive Waste Processing 15%
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%
Insurance and Taxes 10%
Staffing 15%
NRC and Emergency Planning Fees 10%
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Spent Fuel Storage (Dry) Systems Spent Fuel Transfer Costs Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 6 of 32 Operations and Maintenance Expenses 15%
15%
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 detailed estimate (as provided in Appendix C). The overall contingency, when applied on this basis, results in an average value of 18.6% for Unit 1 and 18.6% for Unit 2. Appendix E, the ISFSI decommissioning calculation, uses a flat 25% contingency added at the end of the calculation.
3.3.2 Financial Risk In addition to the routine technology-related uncertainties addressed by contingency, there is a broader level of project uncertainty that is sometimes necessary to consider when bounding decommissioning costs.
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:
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.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 7 of 32 Policy decisions altering national commitments, e.g., in the ability to accommodate certain waste forms for disposition, or in the timetable for such.
Changes in the DOE's spent fuel transfer schedule and acceptance rate. Changes in these parameters affect the ISFSI size and duration of spent fuel storage and transfer.
Pricing changes for basic inputs, such as labor, energy, materials, and waste disposal.
This cost study does not add any additional costs to the estimate for financial risk, since there is insufficient historical data from which to project future liabilities. Consequently, the areas of uncertainty or risk are revisited periodically and addressed through repeated revisions or updates of the base estimates.
3.4 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 The cost to dispose the spent fuel generated from plant operations is not reflected within the estimates to decommission D.C. Cook. Ultimate disposition of the spent fuel is within the province of the DOE's Waste Management System, as defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. As such, the disposal cost is financed by a surcharge paid into the DOE's waste fund during operations. On November 19, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ordered the Secretary of the Department of Energy to suspend collecting annual fees for nuclear waste disposal from nuclear power plant operators until the DOE has conducted a legally adequate fee assessment.
The NRC does, however, require licensees to establish a program to manage and provide funding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor site until title of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy. This requirement is prepared for through inclusion of certain high-level waste cost elements within the estimates, as described below.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 8 of 32 Since the DOE has not provided a firm acceptance start date, AEP has directed TLG to assume spent fuel will remain on-site indefinitely.
ISFSI An ISFSI, which is operated under the plant's general license, has been constructed to support management of the spent fuel during operations.
Costs are not included to re-license the ISFSI, but are included to expand the capacity of the ISFSI following final plant shutdown. The facility is assumed to be available to support spent fuel management once the units cease operation, until the DOE is able to removal all spent fuel from the site.
The ISFSI will continue to operate throughout decommissioning, until such time that the transfer of spent fuel to the DOE can be completed.
Post-shutdown and maintenance costs for the spent fuel pool and the ISFSI are also included and address the cost for staffing the facility, as well as security, insurance, and licensing fees. Costs for the transfer of spent fuel from the ISFSI to the DOE are not included in this estimate.
Costs are provided for the final disposition of the facilities once the transfer is complete. These costs are allocated on a 50:50 basis between Units 1 and 2.
Canister and Overpack A Holtec HI-STORM 100 system is assumed for future ISFSI capacity expansions. For fuel assemblies transferred from the pool to the ISFSI after shut down, 32 assemblies are loaded into a canister. The cost of the concrete overpack and the MPC is included in the decommissioning estimate.
Canister Loading and Transfer The estimates include the cost for the labor and equipment to transfer and load each spent fuel canister into the ISFSI from the wet storage pool. Since this estimate assumes that spent fuel will remain on-site indefinitely a cost to transfer the fuel from the ISFSI into the DOE transport cask has not been determined.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Operations and Maintenance Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 9 of 32 The estimates include the cost of operating and maintaining the spent fuel pool and the ISFSI, respectively. Pool operations are expected to continue approximately three years and three months after the cessation of Unit 2 operations. ISFSI operating costs are identified as an annual expense in Appendix D.
ISFSI Decommissioning In accordance with 10 CFR §72.30, licensees must have a proposed decommissioning plan for the ISFSI site and facilities that includes a cost estimate for the plan. The plan should contain sufficient information on the proposed practices and procedures for the decontamination of the ISFSI and for the disposal of residual radioactive materials after all spent fuel, high-level radioactive waste, and reactor-related GTCC waste have been removed.
A multi-purpose (storage and transport) canister (MPC) with a concrete overpack is used as a basis for the cost analyses. The majority of the overpacks are assumed to be disposed of as "clean'' material. As an allowance, the inner steel liners of the remaining overpacks (total of 14) are assumed to have residual radioactivity due to some minor level of neutron-induced activation as a result of the long-term storage of the spent fuel, i.e., contain residual radioactivity. The allowance is based upon the number of modules required for the final core off-load (i.e., 193 offloaded assemblies, 32 assemblies per canister) which results in 7 overpack liners per unit. It is assumed that these are the final modules offloaded; consequently, they have the least time for radioactive decay of the neutron activation products.
No contamination or activation of the ISFSI pad is assumed. It is expected that procedure-driven confirmatory surveys will be performed for potentially impacted areas after each spent fuel transfer campaign.
As such, only verification surveys are included for the pads in the decommissioning estimate. The estimate is limited to costs necessary to terminate the ISFSI's NRC license and meet the §20.1402 criteria for unrestricted use.
In accordance with the specific requirements of 10 CFR §72.30 for the ISFSI work scope, the cost estimate for decommissioning the ISFSI reflects: 1) the cost of an independent contractor performing the TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 10 of 32 decommissioning activities; 2) an adequate contingency factor; and 3) the cost of meeting the criteria for unrestricted use.
The decommissioning cost for the ISFSI is identified in a stand-alone table in Appendix E and F.
GTCC The dismantling of the reactor internals is expected to generate radioactive waste considered unsuitable for shallow land disposal (i.e.,
low-level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by the NRC for Class C radioactive waste (GTCC)). The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned the federal government the responsibility for the disposal of this material. The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such waste.[171 Although the material is not classified as high-level waste, federal regulations under the Act designate that disposal of this material is a federal responsibility under Section 3(b)(l)(D). 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 in the same manner as high-level waste, at a cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel. The number of canisters required and the packaged volume for GTCC was based upon experience at Maine Yankee (e.g., the constraints on loading as identified in the canister's certificate of compliance), but adjusted for the increased spent fuel capacity of the current MPCs.
It is assumed that the DOE would not 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 D.C. Cook. GTCC costs have been segregated and included within the "License Termination" expenditures. The cost to dispose of the GTCC is included in period 2a of this estimate. The reality is that the cost may be deferred to such time that the DOE accepts this waste.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study 3.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 11 of 32 The reactor pressure vessel and internal components are segmented in order to meet transportation and disposal requirements. Segmentation is performed in the refueling canal, where a turntable and remote cutter are installed. The vessel is segmented in place, using a mast-mounted cutter supported off the lower head and directed from a shielded work platform installed overhead in the reactor well. Transportation cask specifications and transportation regulations will dictate segmentation and packaging methodology. Material is loaded into single use cask liners that are loaded into shielded and reusable transportation casks.
Intact disposal of the reactor vessel and internal components could provide savings in cost and worker exposure by eliminating the complex segmentation requirements, isolation of the GTCC material, and transport/storage of the resulting waste packages. Portland General Electric (PGE) was able to dispose of the Trojan reactor as an intact package. However, its location on the Columbia River simplified the transportation analysis since:
The reactor package could be secured to the transport vehicle for the entire journey, i.e., the package was not lifted during transport.
There were no man-made or natural terrain features between the plant site and the disposal location that could produce a large drop, and Transport speeds were very low, limited by the overland transport vehicle and the river barge.
As a member of the Northwest Compact, PGE had a site available for disposal of the package-the US Ecology facility in Washington State.
The characteristics of this arid site proved favorable m
demonstrating compliance with land disposal regulations.
It is not known whether this option will be available when D.C. Cook ceases operation. Future viability of this option will depend upon the ultimate location of the disposal site, and the disposal site licensee's ability to accept highly radioactive packages and effectively isolate them from the environment. Consequently, as a bounding condition, the study assumes the reactor vessel requires segmentation.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study 3.4.3 Primary System Components Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 12 of 32 The reactor coolant system is assumed to be decontaminated using chemical agents prior to the start of dismantling operations. This type of decontamination can be expected to have a significant ALARA impact, since in this scenario the removal work is done within the first few years of shutdown. A decontamination factor (average reduction) of 10 is assumed for the process. Disposal of the decontamination solution effluent is included within the estimate as a "process chemical waste" charge.
The following discussion deals with the removal and disposition of the steam generators, but the techniques involved are also applicable to other large components, such as heat exchangers, component coolers, and the pressurizer. The steam generators' size, weight, and location within the containment will ultimately determine the removal strategy.
The extraction of the generators will require the cutting of an access to facilitate the removal process. Sections of the steam generator cubicle walls and adjoining floor slabs may require removal to allow for the generators to be maneuvered to the hatch.
Grating within the work area is decontaminated and removed. Next, a trolley crane is set up for removal of the generators. By setting the trolley crane first, it can be used to move portions of the steam generator cubicle walls and floor slabs from the containment to a location where they are decontaminated and transported to the material handling area.
The generators are rigged for removal, disconnected from the surrounding piping and supports, and maneuvered into the open area where they will be lowered onto a dolly. Once each steam generator has been placed in the horizontal position, nozzles and other openings are sealed. When this stage has been completed, each generator is moved out of containment and lowered onto a multi-wheeled transporter. The generators are relocated to an on-site storage area. The generator secondary side dome and internals are removed in order to reduce the component dimensions to permit rail transport to the disposal facility.
The secondary side (dome and internals) is reduced in volume, repackaged, and sent to the recycling facility. If required, the lower shell will have carbon steel plate welded to its outside surface for shielding during transport. The interior volume is filled with low-density cellular concrete for stabilization of the internal contamination and to satisfy TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 13 of 32 burial ground packaging requirements. The pressurizer is removed using the same technique. Each component is then loaded onto a heavy-duty flatcar for rail transport to the disposal facility.
Reactor coolant piping is cut from the reactor vessel once the water level in the vessel (used for personnel shielding during dismantling and cutting operations in and around the vessel) drops below the nozzle zone.
The piping is boxed and transported by shielded van. The reactor coolant pumps and motors are lifted out intact, packaged, and transported by rail for disposal.
3.4.4 Main Turbine and Condenser The main turbine is dismantled using conventional maintenance procedures. The turbine rotors and shafts are removed to a laydown area. The lower turbine casings are removed from their anchors by controlled demolition. The main condenser is disassembled and moved to a laydown area. Material is surveyed and if free of radioactive contamination, released as scrap.
3.4.5 Transportation Methods Contaminated piping, components, and structural material other than the highly activated reactor vessel and internal components qualifies as LSA-I, II or III or Surface Contaminated Object, SCO-I or II, as described in Title 49 of the Code of Federal RegulationsJ30I The contaminated material is packaged in Industrial Packages (IP I, II, or III) 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 Part 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 require that additional shielding be incorporated within the packaging so as to attenuate the dose to levels acceptable for transport.
Any fuel cladding failure that occurred during the lifetime of the plant is assumed to have released fission products at sufficiently low levels that the buildup of quantities of long-lived isotopes (e.g., 137Cs, 90Sr, or transuranics) has been prevented from reaching levels exceeding those that permit the major reactor components to be shipped under current transportation regulations and disposal requirements.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document Il3-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 14 of 32 Transport of the highly activated metal, produced in the segmentation of the reactor vessel and internal components, is by shielded truck cask.
Cask shipments may exceed 95,000 pounds, including vessel segment(s),
supplementary shielding, cask tie-downs, and tractor-trailer. The maximum level of activity per shipment assumed permissible is based upon the license limits of the available shielded transport casks. The segmentation scheme for the vessel and internal segments are designed to meet these limits.
The transport of large intact components, e.g., large heat exchangers and other oversized components, is by a combination of truck, rail, and/or multi-wheeled transporter.
Transportation costs for Class A radioactive material reqmrmg controlled disposal are based upon the mileage to the EnergySolutions' facility in Clive, Utah. Transportation costs for the higher activity Class B and C radioactive material are based upon the mileage to the WCS facility in Andrews County, Texas. The transportation cost for the GTCC material is assumed to be contained within the disposal cost.
Transportation costs for off-site waste processing are based upon the mileage to Oak Ridge, Tennessee. Truck transport costs are developed from published tariffs from Tri-State Motor Transit.l31l 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. Any material leaving the site is subject to a survey and release charge, at a minimum.
The mass of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities at the site is shown on a line-item basis in the detailed Appendix C, and summarized in Section 5. The quantified waste summaries shown in these tables are consistent with 10 CFR Part 61 classifications. Commercially available steel containers are presumed to be used for the disposal of piping, small components, and concrete. Larger components can serve as their own containers, with proper closure of all openings, access ways, and penetrations. The volumes are calculated based on the exterior package dimensions for TLG Services, LLC
 
D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 15 of 32 containerized material or a specific calculation for components serving as their own waste containers.
The more highly-activated reactor components will be shipped in reusable, shielded truck casks with disposable liners. In calculating disposal costs, the 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 Class A waste), where high concentrations of gamma-emitting radionuclides limit the capacity of the shipping canisters.
Disposition of the various waste streams produced by the decommissioning process considered all options and services currently available to IMPC. The majority of the low-level radioactive waste designated for direct disposal (Class A[181) can be sent to Energy Solutions' facility in Clive, Utah. Therefore, disposal costs for Class A waste were based upon IMPC's agreement with EnergySolutions, LLC for disposal of LLRW and UniTech Services Group for off-site processing. These facilities are not licensed to receive the higher activity portion (Classes Band C) of the decommissioning waste stream.
The WCS facility is able to receive the Class Band C waste. As such, for this analysis, Class B and C waste was assumed to be shipped to the WCS facility and disposal costs for the waste using this facility were based upon IMPC's agreement with Waste Control Specialists, LLC for the WCS facility.
3.4. 7 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning The NRC terminates the site licenses (Part 50) 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, of the Part 50 facility, ends at this point. Building codes, environmental regulations* and future plans for the site dictate the next step in the decommissioning process. As an example, the estimates assume that the electrical switchyard will remain operational in support of the electrical transmission and distribution system.
The large underground cooling water p1pmg is isolated, sealed, and abandoned in place. Site utility and service piping is abandoned in place.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 16 of 32 Electrical manholes are backfilled with suitable earthen material and abandoned. Asphalt surfaces in the immediate vicinity of site buildings are broken up and the material used for backfill on site, if needed. The site access road remains. The ISFSI remains and is subsequently decommissioned as explained in Section 3.4.1.
The estimate includes an allowance for the removal and disposal of contaminated soil from the absorption pond. In addition, certain areas of the critical dunes (as designated by Michigan regulations)[321 and the Unit 1 and 2 tank yards contain low levels of 137Cs. The contaminated soil, approximately 6,000 cubic yards, associated with these areas will be removed and disposed of. Continued plant operations and/or future regulatory actions, such as the development of site-specific release criteria, may increase this volume.
The current tritium well monitoring program will continue through the decommissioning process. While at some point in the future this program will be discontinued, a cost is included in the annual ISFSI storage cost.
In addition, the cost for closure of the Tritium Monitor Wells has been included in this estimate.
Structures are removed to a nominal depth of three feet below grade.
Concrete rubble generated from demolition activities is processed and used as clean fill. Clean structural fill will be imported to the site to fill any remaining below grade voids. The site is graded following the removal of non-essential structures to conform to the adjacent landscape, and vegetation is established to inhibit erosion.
A significant amount of the below grade piping is located around the perimeter of the power block. The estimate includes a cost to excavate this area to an average depth of six feet so as to expose the piping, duct bank, conduit, and any near-surface grounding grid. The overburden is surveyed and stockpiled on site for future use in backfilling the below grade voids.
3.5 ASSUMPTIONS The following are the major assumptions made m the development of the estimates for decommissioning the site.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study 3.5.1 Estimating Basis Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 17 of 32 Decommissioning costs are reported in the year of projected expenditure; however, the values are provided in 2024 dollars. Costs are not inflated, escalated, or discounted over the periods of performance.
The plant inventory, the basis for the decontamination and dismantling requirements and cost, and the decommissioning waste streams, were developed for the 2021 analysis and reviewed for this study.
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 IMPC will hire a Decommissioning Operations Contractor (DOC) to manage the decommissioning. The licensee 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 the owner.
Personnel costs are based upon average salary information provided by IMPC. Overhead costs are included for site and corporate support, reduced commensurate with the staffing of the project.
The costs associated for the transition of the operating organization to decommissioning, e.g., separation packages beyond the current severance policy, retraining, and incentives are not included in the estimates and were considered to be ongoing operating expenses. Severance costs for utility staff personnel separated at Unit 1 and Unit 2 shutdown have been included in the estimate based on the current IMPC policy. The majority of these costs occur immediately after shutdown of each unit when the TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document ll3-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 18 of 32 largest reductions occur. Severance costs continue to be incurred as decommissioning progresses and the staff is further reduced.
The craft labor required to decontaminate and dismantle the nuclear units is 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 IMPC.
Security, while reduced from operating levels, is maintained throughout the decommissioning for access control, material control, and to safeguard the spent fuel (in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 37, Part 72, and Part 73). Security costs include provisions for recurring expenses.
The estimates incorporate economies of scale. Examples include the reduction in the man-hours and dollars for the preparation of common engineering work packages for the two units. Staff levels are reduced for supervision and management of parallel activities. Cost sharing is also reflected within the estimates for selective and joint decommissioning activities and in the purchase of specialty decommissioning equipment.
3.5.3 Design Conditions Any fuel cladding failure that occurred during the lifetime of the plant was assumed to have released fission products at sufficiently low levels so that the buildup of quantities of long-lived isotopes (e.g., 137Cs, 90Sr, or transuranics) have been prevented from reaching levels exceeding those that permit the major NSSS components to be shipped under current transportation regulations and disposal requirements.
The curie contents of the vessel and internals at final shutdown were derived from those listed in NUREG/CR-34 7 4.1331 Actual estimates were derived from the curie/gram values contained therein and adjusted for the different mass of D.C. Cook components, projected operating life, and different periods of decay. Additional short-lived isotopes are derived from NUREG/CR-01301341 and NUREG/CR-0672,1351 and benchmarked to the long-lived values from NUREG/CR-3474.
The control elements are disposed of along with the spent fuel, i.e., there is no additional cost provided for their disposal.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 19 of 32 Activation of the containment structure was confined to the biological shield in the estimates. More extensive activation (at very low levels) of the interior structures within containment have been detected at several reactors and the owners have elected to dispose of the affected material at a controlled facility rather than reuse the material as fill on site or send it to a landfill. The ultimate disposition of the material removed depends upon the site release criteria selected and the designated end use for the site.
3.5.4 General Transition Activities Existing warehouses will be cleared of non-essential material and remain for use by the IMPC and its subcontractors. The warehouses may be dismantled as they become surplus to the decommissioning program. The station'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. It is assumed that these chemicals will have some value; therefore, the cost for their removal will be compensated through their subsequent sale.
Process operating waste inventories. Disposal of operating wastes (e.g.,
filtration media, resins) during this initial period is not considered a decommissioning expense. The estimates do not address the disposition of any legacy components, with the exception of the contaminated operations / maintenance tools and equipment.
Scrap and Salvage The existing plant equipment is considered obsolete and only suitable for scrap as deadweight quantities. Economically reasonable efforts will be made to salvage equipment following final plant shutdown. However, dismantling techniques assumed by TLG for equipment in these estimates are not consistent with removal techniques required for salvage (resale) of equipment. Experience indicates that some buyers wanted equipment stripped down to very specific requirements before they would consider purchase. This required expensive rework after the TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 20 of 32 equipment has 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, these estimates did not attempt to quantify the value that may be realized based upon those efforts.
It is assumed, for purposes of this estimate, 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 estimate did not include the additional cost for size reduction and preparation to meet "furnace ready" conditions. For example, the recovery of copper from electrical cabling from a facility currently being decommissioned has required the removal and disposition of the PCB-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 was 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 such items of property owned by the utility will be removed at no cost or credit to the decommissioning project. Disposition may include relocation to other generating facilities. Spare parts will also be made available for alternative use.
The concrete debris resulting from building demolition activities is crushed on site to reduce the size of the debris. The resulting crushed concrete is used to backfill below grade voids. The rebar removed from the concrete crushing process is disposed of as scrap steel in a similar fashion as other scrap metal as discussed previously.
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 to calculate the cost of energy consumed during decommissioning for tooling, lighting, ventilation, and essential services.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Emergency Planning Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 21 of 32 FEMA fees associated with emergency planning are assumed to continue for approximately 18 months following the cessation of Unit 2 operations. At this time, the fees are discontinued, based upon the anticipated condition of the spent fuel (i.e., the hottest spent fuel assemblies are assumed to be cool enough that no substantial Zircaloy oxidation and off-site event would occur with the loss of spent fuel pool water). State fees remain at operating levels until all fuel has been transferred from the pool to the ISFSI. These fees are then eliminated.
Local fees remain in effect until all fuel is removed from the site.
Insurance Costs for continuing coverage (nuclear liability and property insurance) following cessation of plant operations and during decommissioning are included and based upon current operating premiums. Reductions in premiums, throughout the decommissioning process, are based upon the guidance provided in SECY-00-0145, "Integrated Rulemaking Plan for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning."[361 The NRC's financial protection requirements are based on various reactor (and spent fuel) configurations.
Property Taxes A nominal property tax (land only) during the decommissioning period is considered in these estimates.
Site Modifications The perimeter fence and in-plant security barriers are moved, as appropriate, to conform to the site security plan in force during the various stages of the project.
Hazardous and Mixed Waste No significant quantities of, industrial solvents, chromated water, lead, mercury or mixed waste are expected to be present on site at the time of decommissioning. Therefore, remediation costs were not included in the study.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Overhead Costs Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 22 of 32 IMPC has provided TLG with their current corporate and site overhead costs. These costs have been adjusted to the appropriate levels consistent with the staffing levels, as necessary, and are included with the period dependent costs.
3.6 IMPACT OF DECOMMISSIONING MULTIPLE REACTOR UNITS In estimating the near simultaneous decommissioning of two co-located reactor units there can be opportunities to achieve economies of scale, by sharing costs between units, and coordinating the sequence of work activities. There will also be schedule constraints, particularly where there are requirements for specialty equipment and staff, or practical limitations on when final status surveys can take place. For purposes of the estimate, Units 1 and 2 are assumed to be essentially identical. Common facilities have been assigned to Unit 2. A summary of the principal impacts is listed below.
The sequence of work generally follows the principal that the work is done at Unit 1 first, followed by similar work at Unit 2. This permits the experience gained at Unit 1 to be applied by the workforce at the second unit. It should be noted however, that the estimates do not consider productivity improvements at the second unit, since there is little documented experience with decommissioning two units simultaneously. The work associated with developing activity specifications and procedures can be considered essentially identical between the two units, therefore the second unit costs are assumed to be a fraction of the first unit(~ 43%).
Segmenting the reactor vessel and internals will require the use of special equipment. The decommissioning project will be scheduled such that Unit 2's reactor internals and vessel are segmented after the activities at Unit 1 have been completed.
Some program management and support costs, particularly costs associated with the more senior positions, can be avoided with two reactors undergoing decommissioning simultaneously. As a result, the estimate is based on a "lead" unit that includes these senior positions, and a "second" unit that excludes these positions.
Unit 1, as the first unit to enter decommissioning, incurs the majority of site characterization costs.
Unit 1, as the first unit to enter decommissioning, incurs a greater fraction TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study of the NRC hourly charges.
Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 23 of 32 The final radiological survey schedule is affected by a two-unit decommissioning schedule. It would be considered impractical to try to complete the final status survey of Unit 1, while Unit 2 still has ongoing radiological remediation work and waste handling in process. As such, the final status surveys of Units 1 and 2 are conducted concurrently.
The final demolition of buildings at Units 1 and 2 are considered to take place concurrently.
Shared systems and common structures are generally assigned to Unit 2.
Station costs such as emergency response fees, corporate overhead, and insurance are generally allocated on an equal basis between the two units.
: 3. 7 COST ESTIMATE
 
==SUMMARY==
Summary level costs, license termination, spent fuel and site restoration costs projected for the decommissioning of each of the two units are provided in Tables 3.1 and 3.2 (sub-parts a, b, c, and d). The tables delineate the cost contributors by year of expenditures as well as cost contributor (e.g., labor, materials, and waste disposal).
The tables in Appendix C provide additional detail. The cost elements in these tables are assigned to one of three subcategories: "License Termination," "Spent Fuel Management," and "Site Restoration." The subcategory "License Termination" is used to accumulate costs that are consistent with "decommissioning" as defined by the NRC in its financial assurance regulations (i.e., 10 CFR §50. 75). The cost reported for this subcategory is generally sufficient to terminate the plant's operating license, recognizing that there may be some additional cost impact from spent fuel management. The License Termination cost associated with the decommissioning of the ISFSI (as required by 10 CFR
§72.30) is presented separately. The basis for the ISFSI decommissioning cost is provided in Appendix E.
The "Spent Fuel Management" subcategory contains costs associated with the containerization and transfer of spent fuel from the wet storage pool to the ISFSI for interim storage. Costs are included for the operation of the storage pool and the management of the ISFSI until such time that the transfer is complete. It does not include any spent fuel management expenses incurred prior to the cessation of plant operations, nor does it include any cost related to the final disposal of the spent fuel.
"Site Restoration" is used to capture costs associated with the dismantling and TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 24 of 32 demolition of buildings and facilities demonstrated to be free from contamination. This includes structures never exposed to radioactive materials, as well as those facilities that have been decontaminated to appropriate levels. Structures are removed to a depth of three feet and backfilled to conform to local grade.
As discussed in Section 3.4.1, it is assumed that the DOE will not accept the GTCC waste prior to completing the transfer of spent fuel. Therefore, the cost will be deferred to such time that the DOE accepts this waste. However, the cost to dispose of the GTCC is included in period 2a of this estimate. While designated for disposal at the federal facility along with the spent fuel, GTCC waste is still classified as low-level radioactive waste and, as such, included as a "License Termination" expense.
Decommissioning costs are reported in 2024 dollars. Costs are not inflated, escalated, or discounted over the period of expenditure (or projected lifetime of the plant). The schedules are based upon the detailed activity costs reported in Appendix C, along with the timelines presented in Section 4.
The "Burial" column (Tables 3.1 and 3.2) contains costs for the processing of low-level radioactive waste, as well as for the controlled disposal of material that cannot be recovered (released for unrestricted use). Since the following tables are often used in escalation analyses, costs associated with the disposition of GTCC have been reassigned to the "Other" column, commensurate with contractual payments for a one-time disposal service, although the cost is still reported in the "LLRW Disposal Costs" column in Appendix C and as a "Waste Disposal" cost in the summary tables (i.e., on the table on page xix, and Table 6-1). "Off-site Waste Processing," separately reported in the summary tables, has been included in the "Burial" column as well.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 25 of 32 Year Labor 2034 13,094 2035 114,271 2036 94,463 2037 88,346 2038 59,002 2039 41,898 2040 9,370 2041 29,054 2042 7,246 2043 25,173 2044 23,177 2045 14,733 2046 13,078 Total 532,907 TLG Services, LLC TABLE 3.la UNIT 1, DECON ALTERNATIVE TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
Equipment
& Materials Energy Burial Other 571 417 6
6,568 126,831 2,658 1,182 31,250 75,200 2,869 23,768 21,090 77,387 2,128 31,615 24,324 12,552 1,739 18,138 12,899 6,765 1,680 11,031 10,044 431 1,685 19 7,619 7,053 1,072 44,705 16,806 291 452 479 1,856 1,611 448 13 2,493 5,719 287 6
2,058 6,680 224 0
1,557 5,930 199 0
1,382 327,020 15,859 130,961 139,948 Total 20,656 276,193 217,390 223,800 104,329 71,419 19,124 98,691 10,324 29,740 31,247 23,195 20,589 1,146,696
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 26 of 32 Year 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 Total TABLE 3.lb UNIT 1, DECON ALTERNATIVE LICENSE TERMINATION EXPENDITURES (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
Equipment Labor
& Materials Energy Burial Other 12,948 571 417 6
6,335 73,288 7,011 2,658 1,182 30,001 77,695 29,311 2,869 23,768 20,080 71,898 31,486 2,128 31,615 23,426 56,021 12,511 1,739 18,138 12,001 39,668 6,736 1,680 11,031 9,146 9,370 431 1,685 19 6,719 26,904 7,053 1,072 44,705 16,513 4,935 291 452 479 1,738 22,543 1,611 448 13 2,376 11,730 869 124 6
895 104 0
0 0
0 92 0
0 0
0 407,197 97,880 15,273 130,961 129,232 TLG Services, LLC Total 20,277 114,140 153,724 160,553 100,410 68,262 18,224 96,248 7,894 26,991 13,624 104 92 780,544
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 27 of 32 Year 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 Total TABLE 3.lc UNIT 1, DECON ALTERNATIVE SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURES (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
Equipment Labor
& Materials Energy Burial Other 0
0 0
0 233 39,940 119,821 0
0 1,249 15,287 45,860 0
0 1,010 15,287 45,860 0
0 898 0
0 0
0 898 0
0 0
0 898 0
0 0
0 900 2,150 0
0 0
293 2,312 0
0 0
118 2,630 0
0 0
118 2,989 0
0 0
325 2,980 0
0 0
403 2,645 0
0 0
358 86,219 211,540 0
0 7,700 TLG Services, LLC Total 233 161,009 62,156 62,044 898 898 900 2,443 2,429 2,748 3,314 3,383 3,003 305,459
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 28 of 32 Year 2034 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 Total TABLE 3.ld UNIT 1, DECON ALTERNATIVE SITE RESTORATION EXPENDITURES (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
Equipment Labor
& Materials Energy Burial Other 146 0
0 0
0 1,043 0
0 0
0 1,481 28 0
0 0
1,162 41 0
0 0
2,980 42 0
0 0
2,230 29 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
8,458 4,850 163 0
838 11,650 6,680 224 0
1,154 10,341 5,930 199 0
1,024 39,492 17,600 586 0
3,016 TLG Services, LLC Total 146 1,043 1,510 1,203 3,022 2,259 0
0 0
0 14,309 19,708 17,494 60,693
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 29 of 32 Year Labor 2035 26,352 2036 0
2037 1,542 2038 76,560 2039 92,689 2040 90,132 2041 72,972 2042 72,279 2043 65,216 2044 31,367 2045 21,303 2046 18,910 Total 569,321 TLG Services, LLC TABLE 3.2a UNIT 2, DECON ALTERNATIVE TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
Equipment
& Materials Energy Burial Other 79,056 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
76 57 1
859 44,293 2,370 184 35,166 73,225 3,348 19,596 35,642 78,228 2,203 31,705 24,263 18,328 1,870 31,703 18,323 12,542 1,735 31,738 15,886 8,546 1,128 16,619 16,098 9,774 296 6
5,946 11,877 231 0
1,966 10,543 205 0
1,745 346,488 13,445 131,552 155,894 Total 105,409 0
2,534 158,572 224,501 226,531 143,196 134,181 107,608 47,389 35,377 31,403 1,216,700
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document l13-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 30 of 32 Year 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 Total TABLE 3.2b UNIT 2, DECON ALTERNATIVE LICENSE TERMINATION EXPENDITURES (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
Equipment Labor
& Materials Energy Burial Other 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 1,534 76 57 1
828 62,622 3,529 2,370 184 33,917 76,363 27,343 3,348 19,596 34,593 73,704 32,324 2,203 31,705 23,392 67,703 18,178 1,870 31,703 17,985 65,298 12,348 1,735 31,738 15,769 60,140 8,445 1,128 16,619 15,980 15,107 1,151 128 6
4,486 44 0
0 0
0 39 0
0 0
0 422,553 103,393 12,840 131,552 146,950 TLG Services, LLC Total 0
0 2,495 102,621 161,243 163,329 137,439 126,887 102,312 20,878 44 39 817,289
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 31 of 32 Year 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 Total TABLE 3.2c UNIT 2, DECON ALTERNATIVE SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURES (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
Equipment Labor
& Materials Energy Burial Other 26,352 79,056 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 31 13,588 40,764 0
0 1,249 15,287 45,860 0
0 1,049 15,287 45,860 0
0 871 0
0 0
0 338 0
0 0
0 118 1,423 0
0 0
118 2,989 0
0 0
325 2,980 0
0 0
403 2,645 0
0 0
358 80,549 211,540 0
0 4,859 TLG Services, LLC Total 105,409 0
31 55,601 62,195 62,017 338 118 1,541 3,314 3,383 3,003 296,949
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 3, Page 32 of 32 Year 2035 2036 2037 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2044 2045 2046 Total TABLE 3.2d UNIT 2, DECON ALTERNATIVE SITE RESTORATION EXPENDITURES (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
Equipment Labor
& Materials Energy Burial Other 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 8
0 0
0 0
350 0
0 0
0 1,040 23 0
0 0
1,141 44 0
0 0
5,269 150 0
0 0
6,982 194 0
0 0
3,653 102 0
0 0
13,271 8,623 168 0
1,135 18,279 11,877 231 0
1,563 16,226 10,543 205 0
1,387 66,219 31,555 605 0
4,085 TLG Services, LLC Total 0
0 8
350 1,063 1,185 5,419 7,176 3,755 23,197 31,950 28,361 102,463
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study
: 4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATE Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 1 of 6 The schedule for the decommissioning scenario considered in this study followed the sequence presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study, with minor changes to reflect recent experience and site-specific constraints. In addition, the scheduling was revised to reflect the required cooling period for the spent fuel.
A schedule or sequence of activities is presented in Figure 4.1. The schedule reflects the prompt decommissioning alternative and the start date consistent with a scheduled shutdown in 2034 for Unit 1 and 2037 for Unit 2. The sequence assumed that fuel would be removed from the spent fuel pool within the first three years and three months. The key activities listed in the schedule do not reflect a one-to-one correspondence with those activities in the Appendix C cost table, but reflect dividing some activities for clarity and combining others for convenience. The schedule was prepared using the "Microsoft Office Project" computer software.(37J 4.1 SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS The schedule was generated using a precedence network and associated software. Activity durations were based upon the actual man-hour estimates calculated for each area. The schedule was assembled by sequencing the work areas, considering work crew availability and material access/egress. The following assumptions were made in the development of the decommissioning schedule:
The spent fuel storage areas of the auxiliary building are isolated until such time that all spent fuel has been discharged from the storage pool to the ISFSI. Decontamination and dismantling of the storage pool is initiated once the transfer of spent fuel is complete. The auxiliary building will continue to serve as the spent fuel storage/transfer facility until such time that all spent fuel has been removed from the spent fuel pool. The auxiliary building is expected to operate for approximately three years and three months after the cessation of Unit 2 operations.
All work (except vessel and internals removal activities) will be performed during an 8-hour workday, 5 days per week, with no overtime. There are nine paid holidays per year.
Reactor and internals removal activities will be performed by using separate crews for different activities working on different shifts, with a corresponding backshift charge for the second shift.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 2 of 6 Multiple crews will work parallel activities to the maximum extent possible, consistent with: optimum efficiency; adequate access for cutting, removal and laydown space; and the stringent safety measures necessary during demoli-tion of heavy components and structures.
For plant systems removal, the systems with the longest removal durations in areas on the critical path were considered to determine the duration of the activity.
4.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE The period-dependent costs presented in Appendix C were based upon the durations developed in the schedule for the decommissioning of D.C. Cook.
Durations were established between several milestones in each project period; these durations were used to establish a critical path for the entire project. In turn, the critical path duration for each period was used as the basis for determining the period-dependent costs.
Project timelines are shown in this section as Figure 4.2. Milestone dates were based on a 60-year plant operating life from the operating license issue date, a three-year three-month wet storage period for the last core discharge, and continued operation of the ISFSI. A date for the fuel transfer to the DOE from the D.C. Cook site has not been determined, as such the ISFSI will remain in operation indefinitely.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 3 of 6 FIGURE 4.1 DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITY SCHEDULE Task Name 2032 DC Cook Project Unit 1 &2 Unit 1 Shutdown (10/25/2034)
Period 1a
* U1 Shutdown through transition Fuel storage ~
rations Dry fuel storage operations Reconfigure plant
,_.,,......._~P_re~_are activity specifications Perform site characterization PSDAR submitted DOC staff mobilized Period 1b -U1 Decommissioning preparations Fuel storage pool operations Reconfigure plant (continued)
Dry fuel storage operations Prepare detailed work procedures Decon NSSS Isolate spent fuel pool Period 2a
* U1 Large com onent removal Fuel storage pool operations Preparation for reactor vessel removal Unit 1 Reactor vessel & Internals Remaining large NSSS components disposition Non-essential systems Main turbine/generator Main condenser License termination plan submitted Period 2b
* U1 Decontamination (wet fuel)
Fuel storage pool operations Dry fuel storage operations 30 Remove systems not supporting wet fuel stora e Task Cntical Task ~----~
TLG Services, LLC 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 Milestone Summary
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 4 of 6 FIGURE 4.1 DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITY SCHEDULE (continued)
ID Task Name 2032 2034 2036 2040 2042 2044 2046 2048 31 Decon buildings not supporting wet fuel storage License termination plan approved Fuel storage pool available for decommissioning Period 2c
* Spent fuel delay prior to SFPdecon Spent fuel delay Period 2d
* U1 Decontamination following wet fuel storage Dry fuel storage operations Remove remaining systems Decon wet fuel storage area Period 2e. U1 Delay before license termination Delay before License Term.
Unit 2 Shutdown (12/23/2037)
Unit 2 Wet Fuel Storage Period 1a
* U2 Shutdown through transition Fuel storage pool operations Dry fuel storage operations Reconfigure plant Prepare activity specifications Perform site characterization PSDAR submitted DOC staff mobilized Period 1b. U2 Decommissioning preparations Fuel storage pool operations Reconfigure plant continued)
Dry fuel storage operations Prepare detailed work procedures Decon NSSS Isolate spent fuel pool Period 2a
* U2 Lar e com onent removal Task Critical Task Milestone
* Summary TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 5 of 6 FIGURE 4.1 DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITY SCHEDULE (continued)
Task Name 2032 2034 2036 2042 Task Fuel storage pool operations Dry fuel storage operations Preparation for reactor vessel removal Unit 2 Reactor vessel & internals Remaining large NSSS components disposition Non-essential systems Main turbine & condenser License termination plan submitted Period 2b - U2 Site Decontamination (end wet fuel)
Dry fuel storage operations Remove systems not supporting wet fuel storage Decon buildings not supporting wet fuel storage License termination !)Ian approved Fuel storage pool available for decommissioning Period 2f - Plant license termination Dry fuel storage operations Final Site Survey NRC review & approval Part 50 license terminated Period 3b - Site restoration Building Demolition Landsca in Critical Task TLG Services, LLC Milestone Summary 2044 2046 2048
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 4, Page 6 of 6 FIGURE 4.2 DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE (not to scale)
Unit 1 Shutdown t
Period 1 Preparations Oct2034 Apr 2036 Shared Fuel Pool Operations Period 2 Decommissioning Operations Apr 2041 Apr2044 Shared Fuel Pool Operations Apr2041 Unit 2 Shutdown t
P
* d 1 eno Preparations D.
De c2037 Jun 2039 TLG Services, LLC Period 2 Decommissioning Operations April 2041 April 2044 Period 3 Site Restoration Nov2046 ISFSI Operations ISFSI Operations Period 3 Site ISFSI Operations Restoration Nov2046
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 1 of 6
: 5. RADIOACTIVE WASTES The objectives of the decommissioning process are the removal of all radioactive material from the site that would restrict its future use and the termination of the NRC license(s). This currently requires the remediation of all radioactive material at the site in excess of applicable legal limits. Under the Atomic Energy Act,(381 the NRC is responsible for protecting the public from sources of ionizing radiation. Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) delineates the production, utilization, and disposal of radioactive materials and processes. In particular, 10 CFR Part 71 defines the requirements for packaging and transportation ofradioactive material and 10 CFR Part 61 defines the criteria and procedures by which the NRC issues licenses for the disposal of radioactive waste. 10 CFR 61.55(a)(2)(iv) states that GTCC waste requires disposal in a geologic repository unless otherwise approved by the NRC.
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 Part 173. Shipping containers are required to be Industrial Packages (IP-1, IP-2 or IP-3). 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 destinations for the various waste streams from decommissioning are identified in Figures 5.1 and 5.2. The volumes of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioning activities at the site are shown on a line-item basis in Appendix C and summarized in Tables 5.1 and 5.2. The quantified waste volume summaries shown in these tables are consistent with Part 61 classifications. The volumes were calculated based on the exterior dimensions for containerized material. The volumes were calculated 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 were applied against the liner volume and the special handling requirements of the payload. Packaging efficiencies are lower for the highly activated materials (greater than Class A waste), where high concentrations of gamma-emitting radionuclides limit the capacity of the shipping canisters.
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 oflong-lived radionuclides. While TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 2 of 6 the dose rates decrease with time, radionuclides such as 137Cs will still control the disposition requirements.
The waste material generated in the decontamination and dismantling of D.C. Cook will primarily be generated during Period 2. A significant portion of the metallic waste will be 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 will be packaged for controlled disposal at a licensed facility. Material considered potentially contaminated when removed from the radiologically controlled area will be sent to processing facilities for conditioning and disposal at an all-inclusive unit cost. Other contaminated components and activated materials will be routed for controlled disposal. The disposal volumes reported in the tables reflect the reductions resulting from reprocessing.
Disposition of the various waste streams produced by the decommissioning process considered all options and services currently available to IMPC The majority of the low-level radioactive waste designated for direct disposal (Class A[18l) can be sent to Energy Solutions' facility in Clive, Utah. Therefore, disposal costs for Class A waste were based upon AEP's agreement with EnergySolutions, LLC for disposal of LLRW and UniTech Services Group for off-site processing. This facility is not licensed to receive the higher activity portion (Classes B and C) of the decommissioning waste stream.
The WCS facility is able to receive the Class Band C waste. As such, for this analysis, Class B and C waste was assumed to be shipped to the WCS facility and disposal costs for the waste using this facility were based upon AEP's agreement with Waste Control Specialists, LLC.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 3 of 6 FIGURE 5.1 RADIOACTIVE WASTE DISPOSITION DAW Resin/ Filters (Class A)
Direct Burial EnergySolutions Containerized Waste Clive, Utah Decommissioning Low-Level Radioactive Waste Bulk Waste Streams Reactor Waste (Class A)
UniTech Services
~
Metal
~
Group Processing Oak Ridge, TN Reactor Waste (Classes B/C)
Waste Control Specialists Andrews County Resin Texas
~
NSSS Decontamination (Class B/C)
Reactor Waste Geologic Disposal
~
~
TL G Services, LLC (Class GTCC)
Federal Facility
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 4 of 6 FIGURE 5.2 DECOMMISSIONING WASTE DESTINATIONS RADIOLOGICAL Specialists Andrews, Texas The figure indicates the destinations for the low-level radioactive waste designated for direct disposal (Clive, Utah and Andrews County, Texas) and processing/recovery (Oak Ridge, Tennessee).
GTCC is expected to be disposed of in the same location as spent fuel.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 5 of 6 TABLE 5.1 DECOMMISSIONING WASTE
 
==SUMMARY==
UNIT 1 Waste Class Volume Waste Cost Basis
[1]
(cubic feet)
Energy Solutions A
126,185 Containerized Low-Level Radioactive Energy Solutions A
150,779 Waste (near-surface Bulk Waste Control 1,608 disposal)
Specialists B
Waste Control C
870 Specialists Greater than Class C Spent Fuel GTCC 2,061 (geologic repository)
Equivalent Processed/Conditioned Recycling A
141,794 (off-site recycling center)
Vendors Total [2]
423,297 Scrap Metal
!11 Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in 10 CFR Part 61.55 121 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, LLC Mass (pounds) 8,721,854 10,112,410 201,691 111,082 410,254 5,275,937 24,833,228 50,898,000
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 5, Page 6 of 6 TABLE 5.2 DECOMMISSIONING WASTE
 
==SUMMARY==
UNIT2 Waste Class Volume Waste Cost Basis
[l]
(cubic feet)
Energy Solutions A
116,109 Containerized Low-Level Radioactive Energy Solutions A
183,838 Bulk Waste (near-surface Waste Control 1,608 disposal)
Specialists B
Waste Control C
870 Specialists Greater than Class C Spent Fuel GTCC 2,061 (geologic repository)
Equivalent Processed/Conditioned Recycling A
137,232 (off-site recycling center)
Vendors Total [2]
441,718 Mass (pounds) 8,230,911 11,612,250 201,691 111,082 410,254 5,102,962 25,669,150 Scrap Metal 116,432,000 Pl Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in 10 CFR Part 61.55
[21 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study
: 6. RESULTS Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 1 of 4 The analysis to estimate the costs to decommission D.C. Cook relied upon the site-specific, technical information provided by AEP. While not an engineering study, the estimates provide the owner 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 were 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 scenario assumed continued operation of the plant's spent fuel pool for approximately three years and three months following the cessation of operations for continued cooling of the assemblies. The ISFSI will be expanded to allow transfer of all fuel from the spent fuel pool and the orderly progression of decommissioning activities. The ISFSI will be decontaminated and demolished once the DOE completes the transfer of the assemblies and the GTCC material to its repository.
The costs projected to promptly decommission D.C. Cook are estimated to be $1,146.7 million for Unit 1 and $1,216.7 million for Unit 2. The majority of the $2,363.4 million cost (approximately 67.6%) is associated with the physical decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear units, so that the Part 50 licenses can be terminated.
Caretaking and handling of the spent fuel and termination of the ISFSI license constitutes an additional 25.5% of the cost. The remaining 6.9% is for the demolition of the remaining structures and limited restoration of the site.
The primary cost contributors, identified in Table 6.1, are either labor-related, ISFSI 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 and the duration of the program. It was assumed, for purposes of this analysis, that the utility would oversee the decommissioning program, managing the decommissioning labor force and the associated subcontractors. The size and composition of the management organization will vary with the decommissioning phase and associated site activities. However, once the operating license(s) is amended or terminated, the staff is substantially reduced for the conventional demolition and restoration of the site, and the long-term care of the spent fuel.
As described in this report, the spent fuel pool will remain operational for approximately three years and months following the cessation of plant operations.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 2 of 4 The pool will be isolated and independent spent fuel islands created. This will allow decommissioning operations to proceed in and around the auxiliary building. Over this period, the spent fuel will be packaged into transportable steel canisters for loading into concrete overpacks, on the ISFSI pad. The spent fuel will remain on the ISFSI pad until all spent fuel has been removed from the site by the DOE.
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 tables for processing is all-inclusive, incorporating the ultimate disposition of the material.
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 lower-level radioactive material will be at the EnergySolutions facility. Selective reactor vessel components and processed liquid waste (Class B and C) will be sent to the WCS facility in Andrews County, Texas. Highly radioactive reactor vessel internal components (GTCC waste), requiring additional isolation from the environment, will be packaged for geologic disposal. The cost of geologic disposal was based upon a weight-cost equivalent for spent fuel.
Removal costs reflect the labor-intensive nature of the decommissioning process and 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 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 could be more cost-effective than deferral, due to the ultimate deterioration of facilities (and therefore the working conditions).
The reported cost for transport includes the tariffs and surcharges associated with moving large components and/or overweight shielded casks overland, and the general expense, e.g., labor and fuel, of transporting material to the destinations identified in this report. For purposes of this estimate, material will be primarily shipped to the waste disposal facilities by truck.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 3 of 4 Decontamination will be used to reduce the plants radiation fields and minimize worker exposure. Slightly contaminated material or material located within a contaminated area will be sent to an off-site processing center, i.e., this estimate did not assume that contaminated plant components and equipment could be economically decontaminated for uncontrolled release in-situ. Centralized processing centers have proven to be a more efficient means of handling the large volumes of material produced in the dismantling of a nuclear unit.
License termination survey costs were 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, and 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 at a basic functional and regulatory level.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study TABLE 6.1 Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 6, Page 4 of 4
 
==SUMMARY==
OF DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS Work Activity Unit 1 Unit 2 Cost 2024 $s Percent of (thousands)
Total Costs Decontamination 12,614 16,106 28,720 1.2%
Removal 125,134 181,752 306,886 13.0%
Packaging 37,427 37,510 74,937 3.2%
Transportation 24,307 25,394 49,701 2.1%
Waste Disposal 131,975 132,966 264,941 11.2%
Off-site Waste Processing 12,195 11,796 23,991 1.0%
Program Management [11 326,681 345,675 672,356 28.4%
Site Security 74,716 49,828 124,544 5.3%
Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 0
17,313 17,313 0.7%
Spent Fuel Management [21 289,527 286,686 576,213 24.4%
Insurance and Regulatory Fees 18,025 11,761 29,786 1.3%
Energy 15,859 13,445 29,304 1.2%
Characterization and Licensing Surveys 32,629 38,088 70,717 3.0%
Property Taxes 1,860 1,860 3,721 0.2%
Miscellaneous 9,642 9,581 19,223 0.8%
Corporate A&G 31,090 33,784 64,875 2.7%
Non-Labor Overhead 2,668 2,899 5,567 0.2%
Tritium Monitoring 347 256 603 0.0%
Total [31 1,146,696 1,216,700 2,363,396 100.0%
NRC License Termination 780,544 817,289 1,597,833 67.6%
Spent Fuel Management 305,459 296,949 602,407 25.5%
Site Restoration 60,693 102,463 163,156 6.9%
Total [31 1,146,696 1,216,700 2,363,396 100.0%
ISFSI Operations, annual cost 7,494 ISFSI License Termination 32,117 ISFSI Site Restoration 12,754 111 Program Management costs include Utility and subcontractor staffing 121 Includes capital expenditures for dry storage system, loading and transfer, spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees but excludes program management costs (staffing)
[31 Columns may not add due to rounding TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study
: 7. REFERENCES Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 1 of 4
: 1. "Decommissioning Cost Study for the D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant,"
Document No. !13-1788-001, Rev. 0, TLG Services, Inc., December 2021
: 2. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72, "General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 53 Fed. Reg. 24018, June 27, 1988 (Open]
: 3. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.159, "Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors," Rev. 2, October 2011 (Open]
: 4. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria for License Termination" (Open]
: 5. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 20 and 50, "Entombment Options for Power Reactors," Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, 66 Fed.
Reg. 52551, October 16, 2001 (Open]
: 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 (Open]
: 7. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 20, 30, 40, 50, 70, and 72, "Decommissioning Planning," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 76, (p 35512 et seq.), June 17, 2011 (Open]
: 8. "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982," 42 U.S. Code 10101, et seq. (Open]
: 9. Charter of the Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, "Objectives and Scope of Activities," 2010 (Open]
: 10. "Blue Ribbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future, Report to the Secretary of Energy," p. 27, 32, January 2012 (Open]
: 11. "Strategy for the Management and Disposal of Used Nuclear Fuel and High-Level Radioactive Waste," U.S. DOE, January 2013 (Open]
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study
: 7. REFERENCES (Continued)
Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 2 of 4
: 12. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, In Re: Aiken County, Et Al., August 2013 [Open]
: 13. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 961.11, Article IV -
Responsibilities of the Parties, B. DOE Responsibilities, 5.(a) [Open]
: 14. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," Subpart 54 (bb), "Conditions of Licenses"
[Open]
: 15. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 72, Subpart K, "General License for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites" [Open]
: 16. "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act," Public Law 96-573, 1980 [Open]
: 17. "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, January 15, 1986 [Open]
: 18. Waste is classified in accordance with U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61.55
: 19. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "Final Rule, Radiological Criteria for License Termination," 62 Fed. Reg. 39058, July 21, 1997
[Open]
: 20. "Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with Radioactive Contamination," EPA Memorandum OSWER No. 9200.4-18, August 22, 1997
[Open]
: 21. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 141.66, "Maximum contaminant levels for radionuclides" [Open]
: 22. "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 [Open]
: 23. "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM),"
NUREG-1575, Rev. 1, EPA 402-R-97-016, Rev. 1, August 2000 Open TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study
: 7. REFERENCES (Continued)
Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 3 of 4
: 24. T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986
: 25. W.J. Manion and T.S. LaGuardia, "Decommissioning Handbook," U.S.
Department of Energy, DOE/EV/10128-1, November 1980
: 26. "Building Construction Cost Data 2024," RSMeans (From the Gordian Group),
Rockland, Massachusetts
: 27. "Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.184 Revision 1, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, October 2013 (Open]
: 28. "Standard Format and Content of Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors," Regulatory Guide 1.202, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 2005 (Open]
: 29. Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, p. 239, American Association of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, 1984
: 30. U.S. Department of Transportation, Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations, "Transportation," Parts 173 through 178 (Open]
: 31. Tri-State Motor Transit Company, Radioactive Materials Tariffs, TSMT 7000, January 2023.
32.Natural Resources and Environmental Protection Act, Act 451 or 1994, Part 353, Sand Dunes Protection and Management.
: 33. 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 (Open]
34.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 (Open Main Report] (Open Appendices]
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study
: 7. REFERENCES (Continued)
Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Section 7, Page 4 of 4 35.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 [Open Main Report] [Open Appendices]
: 36. SECY-00-0145, "Integrated Rulemaking Plan for Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning," June 2000 [Open]
: 37. "Microsoft Project Professional," Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA
: 38. "Atomic Energy Act of 1954," (68 Stat. 919) [Open]
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study APPENDIX A Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix A, Page 1 of 4 UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document l13-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix A, Page 2 of 4 APPENDIXA UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT Example:
Unit Factor for Removal of Contaminated Heat Exchanger< 3,000 lbs.
: 1.
SCOPE Heat exchangers weighing< 3,000 lbs. will be removed in one piece using a crane or small hoist. They will be disconnected from the inlet and outlet piping. The heat exchanger will be sent to the waste processing area.
: 2.
CALCULATIONS Act Activity Activity Critical ID Description Duration Duration*
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 1
Remove, wrap in plastic, send to the waste processing area 60 60 Totals (Activity/Critical)
Duration adjustment(s):
+ Respiratory protection adjustment (50% of critical duration)
+ Radiation/ALARA adjustment (37.08% 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 min
** Total duration= 11.217 hr***
355 255 128 95 478 143 621 52 673 min Note: (alpha designation) indicates activities that can be performed in parallel with corresponding Act ID (within critical duration)
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, 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 APPENDIXA (continued)
Number 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.25 0.05 1.00 Duration (hr) 11.217 11.217 11.217 11.217 11.217 11.217
: 4.
EQUIPMENT & CONSUMABLES COSTS Equipment Costs Consumables/Materials Costs
-Gas torch consumables 1@ $24.21/hr x 1 hr {1}
-Blotting paper 50@ $0. 79 sq ft {2}
Rate
($/hr) 45.46 75.81 81.21 84.21 45.46 72.19
-Tarpaulin 12 mils, oil resistant, fire retardant 50@ $0.46/sq ft {3}
Subtotal cost of equipment and materials Overhead & sales tax on equipment and materials @ 16.00 %
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, LLC Cost
$1,529.77
$1,700.72
$910.93
$236.15
$25.50
$809.76
$5,212.83 none
$24.21
$39.50
$23.00
$86.71
$13.87
$100.58
$5,313.41
$5,212.83
$100.58 81.884
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study
: 5.
NOTES AND REFERENCES Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix A, Page 4 of 4 Work difficulty factors were developed in conjunction with the Atomic Industrial Forum (AIF) (now Nuclear Energy Institute) 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. RSMeans (2024) Division 01 54 33, Section 40-6360, page 744
: 2. www.mcmaster.com online catalog, McMaster Carr Spill Control (7193T88)
: 3. RSMeans (2024) Division 01 56, Section 13.60-0600, page 23 Material and consumable costs were adjusted using the regional indices for Kalamazoo, Michigan.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study APPENDIXB Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 1 of 7 UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (DECON: Power Block Structures Only)
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 2 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)
Removal of clean instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe> 14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of clean valve >2 to 4 inches Removal of clean valve >4 to 8 inches Removal of clean valve >8 to 14 inches Removal of clean valve > 14 to 20 inches Removal of clean valve >20 to 36 inches Removal of clean valve >36 inches Removal of clean pipe hanger for small bore piping Removal of clean pipe hanger for large bore piping Removal of clean pump, <300 pound Removal of clean pump, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean pump, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean pump, > 10,000 pound Removal of clean pump motor, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean pump motor, > 10,000 pound Removal of clean heat exchanger <3000 pound Removal of clean heat exchanger >3000 pound Removal of clean feedwater heater/deaerator Removal of clean moisture separator/reheater Removal of clean tank, <300 gallons Removal of clean tank, 300-3000 gallon Removal of clean tank, >3000 gallons, $/square foot surface area TLG Services, LLC Cost/Unit($)
0.54 5.64 8.32 17.07 32.10 41.87 61.57 73.10 112.23 170.72 321.05 418.70 615.70 730.97 38.75 130.77 290.64 822.81 3,204.94 6,207.27 342.71 1,329.99 2,992.47 1,728.93 4,3~4.66 12,247.72 25,104.95 373.52 1,172.78 10.13
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, 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, $/linear foot Removal of clean electrical conduit, $/linear foot Removal of clean mechanical equipment, <300 pound Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of clean mechanical equipment, > 10,000 pound Removal of clean HVAC equipment, <300 pound Removal of clean HV AC equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of clean HV AC 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, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated valve >2 to 4 inches Removal of contaminated valve >4 to 8 inches TLG Services, LLC Cost/Unit($)
156.21 557.98 1,115.96 2,689.47 1,867.79 5,378.92 1,907.78 4,258.31 8,815.57 14.78 6.46 156.21 557.98 1,115.96 2,689.47 188.89 670.45 1,336.20 2,689.47 0.58 1.84 25.92 44.07 72.59 138.60 166.09 228.81 269.89 546.18 656.98
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 4 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)
Removal of contaminated valve >8 to 14 inches Removal of contaminated valve > 14 to 20 inches Removal of contaminated valve >20 to 36 inches Removal of contaminated valve >36 inches Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for small bore piping Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for large bore piping Removal of contaminated pump, <300 pound Removal of contaminated pump, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated pump, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated pump, > 10,000 pound Removal of contaminated pump motor, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated pump motor, > 10,000 pound Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <3000 pound Removal of contaminated heat exchanger >3000 pound Removal of contaminated tank, <300 gallons Removal of contaminated tank, >300 gallons, $/square foot Removal of 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, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated electrical conduit, $/linear foot Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, <300 pound Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, > 10,000 pound Removal of contaminated HV AC equipment, <300 pound Removal of contaminated HV AC equipment, 300-1000 pound Removal of contaminated HV AC equipment, 1000-10, 000 pound TLG Services, LLC Cost/Unit($)
1,313.50 1,667.10 2,215.62 2,626.38 176.03 555.19 1,175.47 2,746.94 8,709.27 21,213.33 1,181.48 3,559.78 7,992.27 5,313.41 15,449.69 1,956.84 38.31 902.93 2,224.01 4,283.76 8,467.79 43.68 21.40 1,004.44 2,455.97 4,722.79 8,467.79 1,004.44 2,455.97 4,722.79
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 5 of 7 APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)
Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)
Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, > 10,000 pound Removal of contaminated HVAC ductwork, $/pound Removal/plasma arc cut of contaminated thin metal components, $/linear in.
Additional decontamination of surface by washing, $/square foot Additional decontamination of surfaces by hydrolasing, $/square foot Decontamination rig hook up and flush, $/ 250 foot length Chemical flush of components/systems, $/gallon Removal of clean standard reinforced concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of grade slab concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard Removal of sections of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#9 re bar, $/cubic yard Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard Removal heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar & steel embedments, $/cubic yard Removal of below-grade suspended floors, $/cubic yard Removal of clean monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard Removal of clean foundation concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated foundation concrete, $/cubic yard Explosive demolition of bulk concrete, $/cubic yard Removal of clean hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Removal of clean solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard Backfill of below-grade voids, $/cubic yard Removal of subterranean tunnels/voids, $/linear foot Placement of concrete for below-grade voids, $/cubic yard Excavation of clean material, $/cubic yard TLG Services, LLC 8,467.79 2.67 4.80 9.43 46.55 8,464.57 32.34 75.91 86.25 444.44 1,309.85 109.33 2,647.76 148.00 3,503.36 611.61 207.30 1,111.61 2,633.30 874.38 2,453.32 61.01 31.23 82.26 31.23 82.26 29.16 126.35 218.70 3.56
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 6 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)
Excavation of contaminated material, $/cubic yard Removal of clean concrete rubble (tipping fee included), $/cubic yard Removal of contaminated concrete rubble, $/cubic yard Removal of building by volume, $/cubic foot Removal of clean building metal siding, $/square foot Removal of contaminated building metal siding, $/square foot Removal of standard asphalt roofing, $/square foot Removal of transite panels, $/square foot Scarifying contaminated concrete surfaces (drill & spall), $/square foot Scabbling contaminated concrete floors, $/square foot Scabbling contaminated concrete walls, $/square foot Scabbling contaminated ceilings, $/square foot Scabbling structural steel, $/square foot Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail < 10 ton capacity Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail < 10 ton capacity Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail > 10-50 ton capacity Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail> 10-50 ton capacity Removal of polar crane > 50 ton capacity Removal of gantry crane > 50 ton capacity Removal of structural steel, $/pound Removal of clean steel floor grating, $/square foot Removal of contaminated steel floor grating, $/square foot Removal of clean free standing steel liner, $/square foot Removal of contaminated free standing steel liner, $/square foot Removal of clean concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot Removal of contaminated concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot Placement of scaffolding in clean areas, $/square foot Placement of scaffolding in contaminated areas, $/square foot Landscaping with topsoil, $/acre Cost of CPC B-88 LSA box & preparation for use TLG Services, LLC Cost/Unit($)
52.44 31.80 33.04 0.43 1.52 5.44 2.55 2.64 15.75 9.36 24.64 84.47 7.95 806.68 2,338.94 1,936.05 5,612.47 8,172.05 30,032.29 0.32 6.22 18.18 15.19 44.74 7.60 52.16 18.62 30.92 22,875.08 2,333.28
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix B, Page 7 of 7 Unit Cost Factor APPENDIXB UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING (Power Block Structures Only)
Cost of CPC B-25 LSA box & 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, $/square foot TLG Services, LLC Cost/Unit($)
1,998.72 1,811.20 11,588.81 355.62 15,329.88 10,967.89 0.97
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 1 of 18 APPENDIXC DETAILED COST ANALYSES Page Unit 1................................................................................................................................ C-2 Unit 2............................................................................................................................... C-11 TLG Services, LLC
 
D. C. Coolr Nuclea,. Powe,. Plant Deconu11iffionin1 Co*t Analy*i.
Activity Index Activ!!l'_Qe,_c;_ription PERIOD la - Shutdown throu(h Traruition l',*rwJ la Dm*,** D,-.*umnm*.~1umnl! A,*11v111,*1<
111 I I l'n*11:ir1* pr<*lnmn,11')' cl1>1*omnu1<w1on1n1t t.~11<1 la I.!
Nu11hn.1llunuf<A*,1,11111..,.1ufOpnal1u11:1 la I :I H,-mov,* f1wl & wuun1* mah*rial lu I I Nu11lk1111nnufl',*rman,*nt D,*fuchn11 h* I 5 lfo,1t.111ah-pl;,nl 1<)llh-m1< & 1m1<:CHI' wa,ih*
la If; l'ni1i;.11'Cnn<IHuhmi1 l'SHAI(
la I i H.cvww pl.ml tlWKH & l'Jlt.~'ll la Ill l'**rform,lctllllmlra<iHun*,*)*
la I !I E111tma\\cli)'*1*n1tlu11.1n1*,,n1ury la I IO Entl('r11du,*1,l,-,,n111t1nn l a I 11 IJ,,1,ult*d hr-i,r1111Ut1 mH*nlur) ht I 12 Dd,n,* m11Jor work 11***11u*n1~*
la I 1:1 l't:l'furm St,;K aml E,\\
Ja. I. l*I l'r,,par,,/11uhm1t l),,fu,*l,,J T1***hnir11I Sp1'<*11ir11l1on11 111. l. Iii Perform S1tc-S111*cific (~oHI S1udy 111.1.16
]'r,,1u1nd11uhm11 lnaJ111t1*1l ~*u,-1 Munni;-cnwnl l'l11n Art1nty S1wr1lk11t1on" la. 1.17. 1 1'];1n1 & 1cn111ur;or)' far1htw11 111. 1.17.2 l'lunl 11y111<*mi,.
la. 1. 17.:1 NSS8 n,.. *unlanun:111011 Flu11h la 1, 17,1 kN1clur1ntcrnalt*
la. 1. 17.r, ltu;H"lurv1*1<:11*I l:.1. 1.17.ll 11inlo,tit:al 11h1cltl la. 1.17.i St,*am i,:1*111>r11lur:1 la I 17 H lto*1nfor,..~*d t.~mrr,*lr.
l11 I Ji!I Ma1nTurb111,*
la 1 Ii IOMa1n(A1n,l1:mwn lu I 1711 l'lun111trudur,*11& buihlinl!:I la I 17 12Wa11tcm11nagumt*nt 111 I 17 1 : F111.*1htr&:11t1*.-lu11<*out la.I.Ii Total l'lannmi,: & Sit.- l'n*paral 1on1<
l11. I. IH l'ro*1111r,* d111m1mthni,: :1<*11m*n****
111 l.l!I l'lant1m*p.&ltm110. 11\\rt*1<
la I l!fl O.*,n11n w11tn 1*l1*11n-up 11y11t1*1n 111 I 21 R11!'11m11/f~on1 C11trl J::n1*lp11/h.1<*hni:/1*h' 111 I 22 l',~,..ur,* ra~k11/hn,*r11 & rnntmm*r" la I S11L1u1al l'uriu,I la,\\<11vuy Cu,ot s l'1:riut.l laC'ullah,ralC01<l11 111.:I. I S1mnt Fuel C11111ta] aml Tr;m11r,,r la.:U!
St*vn,mn*
la.:c1 Tritium1\\lon1totmK Ja.:t.<t NEIF,-.*"
la a Suhtntal Pcm~l la Cullatcral t~o~ll' l'rnn,I I:, Pu1111I-Ullllllnol<>nl I '011111 h14 l IMunmrn la42 l'r,,t,<>rl)'laJtl!M la I :1 11,*allh phy,ii.-:1,iuppli1,,.
lu.4 I llc.i\\) 1*11ui11ml'nlren1al lu I fi D1~11u,ml ur DA\\\\' i:.,m,ratc,I la,Jli l'l,mt,*ni,rin*bu,li:t*1 lu 17 NHCf,,,..i la '1 H Emcr~1*nc) l'l.. nmni; ft.~*11 111 I!)
S11t* O&M Cni<l ll.1.'I. IO S1uml Fuel 1'U1JI O&M 111.-1. 11 IS~~I 01wru11n1: CoHII' lu.4 12 4~orpur111t* A&I; rU111 1114 1:1 81et*ur1tyS111ffl',1111 la I 1*1 11t1h1yS1,,rrr.,,.,
la I Suhlutn11'1*m11I l;i l',*r1,ul.l),,p1*n,l,,nt l'u11h TLG ServicH, LLC Decon Cost Removal Packa(in11 Tran*port Co11
: Cost, Cost*
!M'i:!
ij!l7 l!lf.i!I II II Table C DC Cook Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
Procet in(
Di*poHI Cosu Costs Other
: Cost, l!H;
:SO:!
m11 ir,1 lfil 1!)6 11:i1 II.If I 1:11
;r,1 1r, 1 7,1;!
1;2!J 7r, I 071
!ml 7,;
Iii
.!*ll co nu
'1il 6!1-1 1:m r,,7m>
:u;:i
*l,:!UO 211 2!100 114{;
1148\\JU 11:illll 111167 Ir,1, 1:12:1110 I !1014 l,!1114 1,11:1
:i:!14 fi!i:!
51'1 1:1; ll,4:i7 7f,!';I
:IG,31:1:1
:!:i
;i(;;S!iJ Total
~ontincenc:
:!!I
,1,;
ICM 2:1 w
170 70 170 11:1 Total
_&#xa3;0,ts 221; nla
:Hi 7!114 173 17:1 2:lli 1:w1
/i:18 1:w1 867 11;1 Ill 11.;1
!II 72:l II H7 WI ll!:12 117 1.1211 II 117 71 Ml
:11; 271i ii rn,
!I Hfl 71 fioll HM 7!t8
:!O Jn(;
gr,t; fi,5U2
:ii llf; (l:JIJ
*1.8:W
'.I.!
24:1 1:1;;
:IJ:15
:!II 2J:I 211:1,1 21,72J l!i!J;,i; 1.!!19!17
: 2147r, 2201:1 l!~
2:1 UIO 1!114.">H l:i221H l!ll 2()!1!1
:!ICJ
\\l!O:!
1:,a 1,u:u 2!12 2,21U IIH 1,UI\\
r,:1 581 ii f.i!I\\
HI 71:
\\166 7,,IU:!
1.1:1:i li(;N7 r,:<<J7
*10,(i!lU
!11il2 Hli!ltlO
~pent Fuel Lie. Tenn.
Manairement
~~.!!.
: Cost, 22fi
:q7 7!!8 17:1 li:I 221; l.:SOI 5:18 I :!Cl!
867 11:1 iGH
,;51.,
12:12 1, 12M.,
5,11 1:1!1
:!71 WI!,.
5,778 llfi
,1,8:Jtl
:!-i:t
:1:i:1r,
:!\\:i 20,,111 2.!0*1:l
\\KO 2.!251 2,orr.1 1,202 1,0;!1
!',;j 2/t,IO 1,1a1 7 102 111;ic7 ll)U\\10 B:i1;r,:i 1:m~11 IW!J97 1i8l fill!
11; 1,21!1 Site Restoration
: Cost, M5 1:1!1 fi!I
,;!+
:!71 7>11 78\\
Processed Volume ClaH A Cu.Feet C~eet f:10
,;in urial Volun1es c1a.. e ctanC Cu. Feet C~eel GTCC Cu. Feet urta Proce11ed Wt.,Lb,.
l:!. 1!10 l:!WO Cra(t
_M_anhouu 20 Document ll3-18Zi-OOI, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Pa,e :! of 16 tililyan Contractor
: Manhour, I :iOO 2()()()
IUOO 1,000 1 oon 1,:10o 7SOO
:IIUtl 1r,oo 5uoo I OIIO 1~20 I W7 7 1110 u,r,1111 fiO(I a1io
\\ liOO 100
\\[)(I
:JIW Jf;t.J(l i)OO
:n,ij:t7 2 IOO 1 1011 I 2:10 7>1157 1:1to11; l.!.!.!IO 551 :IIB
 
D. C. Coolr Nuclea,. Power Pia,.,
Decommissionin1 Co*t Analy*i*
Activity lnde~
la.O Activity Deacription TOTAL l'EltJOD la COST PERIOD lb-Decommission inf Preparations l'1*1*1uJ II, D1rt'<1 l).,-...,m1111:<,11un111i: A<1iv1ll\\'11 Dt*laiJ,,,I \\\\"ui-k l'rt><*,*Jurt*II II, I I I l'lunll')'llll'mi<
lh I I 2 NSSS l),,...ontmnin;1lion Flush lh I I J H.,*,u1or inlcrnal,i lh I I I kcmt1111ini: huil,lini:11 JI, I I 5 l'H.IJ,.....,Jin!: a:<scmbly lb I I 1; CH.IJ hnusini:" & ICI tub,*11 Jh I I i ln,..,r1* 111>1trumcntat1un lb I I H l<1*1irlnr v,*1111,*I lb. I. I !I F"'-*lhl) do,11-uut
\\l, 1.1. IO M1s111\\,*11hwlt.ls lb I 1.11 U1oloi:-1cat llhi,*lol Jh. 1.1 12 Slo*am li:"llttruh,rll lh. 11 IJ ltcmforct,dt-u11t*1*1*t,i lb I 1.11 Mam 1'urhmt>
Jb I I lfi Mam Cind,*nwr,.
ilt I I Iii Auxiliary liu1IJ1nic lh I I 17 &*.1dur hu1IJ111i:
II, I I Tolal llt.1.2 1)1,.,on 11r1mar)' 10011 lb. I Sul,tulal 1'1*r1ud ti,,\\d1Y1l_v Coiolll l'**riuol lli AJJ1tu,nal Cuiotll lb.2 I S1h* ('harad.1*n;,;at1nn lb 2 2 A:1b,*:1to:< Almtt*mt*nt II, 2 Suhlolal Pcrto<I JL,\\dtli11unal r.,llh PN*tod lh Collah-ral t,.,,.,,.
11,.a.1 l),,.~,n m1m1,m**nt lh.3.2 IJOC >1laffrcloc,11ion cxpcn,;c,.
lb.a.a l'ro,,c,,;1, d,,mmmi,isionini: w111t:r "'11:11,,
11,.J.-I 1'1*uo,c>1>',lu<'Olllmi11,.ioni11i: ("h1*n11t*aJ fluioh wa>1h*
lb.a.ii
.Sn111II ton\\ allnwim,*,*
lh.J.6 l'i1m cuttmg 1*11u11,nwnt 11, a 7 n.-,~,n 111:
lb J H S1wnl ~*uul Capital and Tran,.f,*r 1h a !I 1'r1t1Um Momturtni:
lb.J.JO NEI ~-,'\\.,.
lb.a Sul,101,1I Perm,! lh Cnllu1,:r:1I Co,;l11 P,*r1od I li 1'..r1otl*l><,1)('n<il'nl t 'n11h lh <I I lh*,*un 1<u1,vh,*11 lli -12 ln.. uran,:('
II,,J.:i l'ru111*rtylux1*11 lb. \\.-I lf,,:,lth phyi<1c,~ 11up11llf'~
lb *I,;
ll,*1111,*,*c1u11*mt<nl rt*nt..11 lb.,\\.H 1)1~110,rnl of DAW 11:1-1wratt>d lh *I 7 l'lnnl t'nt*ric,* butli:1'1 II,,ui NHC F,*cs I h -1 11
~:mt*ri:**m*y l'lanmni: Fm*ll lb. I. JO S11t* ti&M Cu:<l lb -1 11 SJwnt Fu.,J Poul I J&~I U, 4 12 IS~'Sl 0111*ratmi: r,.,,.,,.
ll> I J:i Cur1111rah* A&G C<>!!I lli I J,J St'l*ul"lty SlaffC'Ulll lb. 1 l!'i IX>CStaITl"o,;l lh.<1 16 11t1luy StaffC'u:>I lb 1 Sul,tolnl 1',*r1ml II, 1',*r1u,l.[),,1'**nd,*nt l'u~h n,o TUTAI~ l'EH.1(11) th COST PERIOD 1 TOTALS TLG Service*, LLC Decon Cost Jlli:'i 1,Wii 1,2!>:i 2K 2 ;,r,2
:i,H:!.i ii.Ill I ii.(l-11 Table C DC Cook Unit I DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
Removal Packa1in1 Tran11port ProceHihl Di,ponl Other Total Total Costs Cost Costs
-~osts
_Costs
~*ti CostS:
Continre_nc:
J Hf,!I 11;2:1 1,02:1 l!I J,itlt) l,iW H,i:i Iii I l(lll 121:!
Ii IOI 20 I08 12M 1:17 lfil 120 17-1 178
,IKj
:wil:i:i,;
21;:1
:ma
!'i!J 2 1*12 ii I
]!ii
:Iii 2111 1r,1
\\!'ii 1r,1 i'iUI 181,,.
!Kl H~-1 Jril 2:\\!i
;ia:,
<II::!
112
!i 015 fi 01r,
*1,H!Hi
-1,tlllG 1/*!IH
-1:.!, I l:i I::!
!12 2201 II llli
!)!ii 1.~.1:s
*M!I 2c;:1 277 2!'iH JJ
:1 :.!:!!'>
:1,11;1; G,71:c, li,7 l:J 14
.!:i,G7:s 2.-1711 H!l 7:!!l z ;,oa
:m1:11;1
:II :1:1.1 2,!0,Hi2
:ti 2:1 23.,
27 10
::!i JIM 2:1
:iii
:15 H2 62 7!'i2
!iK2 unr.
l, \\r;!I 171 1,IIIU K21 11:1 IJI 2.11 J7a 11:1 17J (i:IO 2011 78
:!UIS 7!lH 17:!
::!71 271 171 17-1
,;7{;7 1.717 7 ;,11 1;,;u;r, 2,:liiK 8,72:1 UIM 1 111 2 IU 1,KJll
,oo 1;1 I a,211:i 2::!ii I 725
:n1:i
:.!9:ir, 6:W(;
411,!IO!J 2
l*I II JOii K07(1 HO:J7:!
II
!J,i I 017 lfj;J 817 c;;
!ill
:11
:!!JI 2,2:11 45 1\\1.1
:!Ii
::!90 12
:l\\H
:n1 2!l!'i "8
IK*I
:l.7CY.J
:,M
-1,a:11 I ll\\!'i 7.7Kll
::! 661 20,,io,1 r, fil I
,12,:\\!'iH l*;K,i!I IIH.llf;K IK 19:1
:J,i!IHIU RC Spent Fuel Site Lie. Term.
Mana(ement Restoration Costs Costs Costs
!OH 11,1:1 7:l!l 11:1 J;!,t
!'i!)
17:i 1;:1 liJ
,;:so
!04 78 2011 7!JH 87 121; ll:6 l!>l!2 17H B 1:10 f>,:m:;
2 a,-,i,i H72:I 1111 l,IJ:l!I 200 a 211:i 22 17:lfi 2!):Jfi II JO,j 11:;1;1 I 047 817 5M
:it 2,2:*1
,m,,
:HK
:1 70!l
*l,3:11 7780 20401 lt7:ifi m1,ir,:!
1772!11 1:11 2*16
*18,80!1
*IH,HOO 2!JO 20!'i a8 i;2:s 49.-1:12 1KllH7K 7HI 17(i IOI 271 271 17 I OHii ICUl:i I OMfi I H(;H rocesse Volume Cu.Feet urial Volumes Burial /
Clan A Clan B Ciau C GTCC ProceHed Craft Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet~bs. _____M_anhours GIO 5,0:!5 r,,025 l!i!I l!'i!J ar,i;
;jf,1; fifilll 0 11!1 117!1 87!)
H7!1 H7!1 12 mo Wi.:s2.i 1;;,a:u;
!1,511
!lJHlii 10:s 12!J 7, 122 7 l:!2 l7!'i!'i76 111771Ki l,{lli7 l,0(;7 21 100
: 11. lliK Jf,,1!(,11
:ii 161 l!lfi 12 12
:!7 112 J7 11;2 Documeut 113-IBZG-001, Rev. 0 Appendi:;,c C, Pa1e 3 of 18 6:i2-1n 1,7:1:l 1,000
'.!,!'AAJ 1,:sfiO 1 IMJO I 000 1,000
!lli:IO 1200 mo l 21JO lliC.H1 I UOO I 5HO lo(;o 27:!0 Z 7:\\(1
:i;j 2,1:1
:-1:12-1:*
II 8Hi 11,1!16
(;5,!l!ii n:i.21;1;
::!11,fii!J
:-l-lfl.702
:1112.71:il I 01:; ::!:ii
 
D. C. Cook Nuclea,- Powe,* Plant Decommi.. ionin, Co*t Anal.va;.
Activity
!ndn Acth'!_ty Description PERIOD 2a - Laree Component Removal l'.-rwd 2u 1)..,.,,., l),-.-un111111-.~1unmit" At*11v11,,,,.
Nud,*,ir Sh*am Su1111l>* Sy11ti*m lt.*muvul
:la I 1 I R,*at'lor Coolanl 1'11unl(
2u I 12 l'n*uuru.,*r k,*lwfTu11k 2a. l I a H.,*at*lur Coolan~ l'um1111 & Motor11 2u. l,l.o\\
l'tllhUtl~.t*t 2u.1. u; Sl.,;1m G,*ncrolor><
211 I I**
CRIIM11/IC!J</Scrvwc Slru,:ture lt.*mornl 2a.l. l.7 Ru111"lorVc,.,..,I lnlt!rnal><
2:1 I I ff
\\",*1111<*1 & lnlo*rnal11 GTCt' l>u11m,111I 2a I l!i R<*m*turVc>1>1cl 211. I.I T,11.111~
R,*mun1I of ~lnJor E11u1pm1*n\\
2a U!
~lam T,nlum*/1.ri*m,ratur 211 I:~
Mu1nContl,*n11cra, Ca1K*11d1ni=: Co,;h from Ck*an Hu11<1mi;- l),,muhu"n 2a I *I I IU*,1.-lur 211 I I Totul..
l)1~11n>1:1l of l'lanl S~*111t*m~
2a 1 ;, I Aui,:,hary 1-',-,,,Jwah*r
:l11. l.5.2 Aui,:ili:uy S1,*:.m 2u. 1,:",:i B\\,,.*tlSh*am
!fa l:i I Uluwduwn 2111,; 5
<"lwmw11IClt>anmi:
:la I :;i; f'h,*mwal F1*1*,I
:!al,;7
('11,*ulutml(\\\\'alt't 2a 158 C'umltin:wl<*
211 I fi 11 Coml1*n11to1*,\\Ir kcmuvul 2a IS IO t'onlammenl E11ualr,;al1un/lb,I
:!11.IAI I Cunlrol 1m,l lh*,"flnlmmm1t11m A1r 2a. J.5. 12 Conlrul anti ln11lrunienl1,l1on 2n. 1.fi.l:1 l)t,mim*ruhz,*tl\\\\'nt.-r 211.1.5. 1-1 l*l\\".-\\CTurli111t-211.l.fi. lO lfou1<ir11Dram11nnJV,*nt,;
:!a. 1.5.16 Main t,*,.,.,tlwult,r 2111,;17 M11inC.*nnntnr
:ta I,;_ Jg l\\1111n TurLm,*
:!>I I.; l!t Non-E1111<tntml Snv1rc Wut.*r 2a.1.5.2U l'l;ml Air 211. J,,;,21 l'n1<t A,,,.,d.. nt f'tml 112 Mnn11nr1n,:
2a. l.5.22 l'~t.-\\*~*1d1*nt Sam11IU11f 2n 1.;2a R<*111"t11rl-lrJrol!'1*n&N11roi:,*n 2a 152*1 Scrt"<*n Wa~h 2a I.; :u, s.. -.-nn,larr S:on11hn11:
2a I r, 21> Su1hun1 llyput*hlurllt* Syi<h*m
:la l.:i27 Su,tu,n Dra1nal(t' 2a I 5 2~ 1'urLm,*,\\uuhary l"uultnjC \\\\'ah*r
:la I.;
1'ot,.J~
2a, I 1; S,.-affolthni: 1n >111p11u11 uf *l*~"<*mm1""1un1nic 2ul Sulilutal Penotl 2a,\\<-l1v1ly Cu111><
l'cnotl :la Ad,hliunal Cu.~~11 211.2.1 H.,m.,Jiul Art1nn Sur~**'Yll 211.2.2 G'['(,'CSfl'Lci,:,11')"\\\\',,~t**
211 2 a Smhum l*l)*dro!wl,* D111po11ul
:la 2 Sulilulal l'criotl 2:*,\\tl1h11u1u1l f',ml><
TLG Service*, LLC Decon Co.1t 21,g
\\!;0 21:1 11*
ir,r, 111**
!II{;
Removal Packal[i.nf Tran.port Co11t Co.11.1 Cost!I 122 5, IMJ
:181 U 1!!11 H,l!-17 20!171 l!IU 17fi
.'IG2
:11;!!
mi 71
:10 1:sr, WI II
!)7
!16
!17
!M,.
5,i
].i I
17 1, 121; m!a 2*1,3 111 li7 12
:IIUI 11;1
-1!1117 21;\\
JH 777
:J(,HI
:!8!&deg;.0!1 1!1 2115:12 2ll!I 11:.
2!11 1!1!)
3757 l!lH 2670
:!l!IU
!I ll:!
II Ill II
\\I l~i Table C DC Cook Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
~le Proce.. 1n, Di11po11al Co_!U Co!lt!I
!!,1;8!!
21~!)
23 1-10 1r, 2,811 1,1(1-1 m
1, 11)!!
12~ *-
~ -~ --~-
!KN
!!7
!II H2 7
1117 IIIH(;H Other
~!11!1
*117
-117 H:n 27:11 II 1, lfiO
,111115 Total Q,;_,ntin(enc*
Total Co!ltt no2 2,:J1; 1
!.17 1Ci7 nao 2,g2r, IOI 2,:1,12
(,l)f;G 30,!NJ:J If;!)
2,:t!;lO Hl,1178 U7,*l:!*I lfil!I 11,1471 10,a;,1;
:Jtl, IIO
:1HHIM 1:itl.(07:s 211 71 M
20 20 30 I
II 2
lfi II 7
1.-.
II
!11 1:1
:.!H 0
3 1:1 2:1,;
218 547 117 117 1-11.,
I 11!1 1;,;,
!!:JI II 221 12 112 0()
II Ill 111 IOfl 20 HiK 1.;;;
I 17 20,.
2,1:IH l,IIJfi
:m 5:",o 1,;1-., 111 820 11a
!l!l*I
:1,'l!il 1 :12:1
*1,H8~
Spentt'ue Lie. Tenn.
Manafement Cost!I_ __
Co!lts 2:M"il 2.H2:'.
2,:1-12 30,!IO,I 2:1:i(;
fi1, 1:1.1 II K71
:W, IIO l!'MJG7:t 117 117 IHI 22*1 lilH..
l:i,i 7:1.i I !HG 153,0\\tl
:1fifi l 1:12:*
IIUl!I Site Rettoration Co!ltS 218 5 17 J.11
*II I
)ii,i 231 II,,.
12 II:!
r,o,.
111 lfJ!j I
17 1-101 2161;
: rocesse, Volume Cu. Feet
*1:1.273 1:1,;.!7:I
: 211r, 21;2
!17 H71 1,711 lfi!I
*li\\,lr..:J urial Volumet Cla11.1 A Cius B Cla11.1 C GTCC Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu_Jeet Cu. Fe~t urfif7 Procened Wt.,Lb,.
:!,700
:'iXI fi,!178
!1,2\\!i 22.8:tl
-1,rnm
*1.211!1 13,775
:i7,Mlil 71 2:Ul 11;1;,.
26 522 iilS,J!IH 72\\1 78!i 7:l!l 7Mfi 72!1 785 JgH mr,
*IO!il:I 7:lfi,!12:1 2(;7!l71
:!,81;!1,282 tm8:JI 418,61;!1 2,(Kol IIO 1*12
!176,(,13 2.01a 7,0!i:i:SII 201;:10 27tl!!g 21 272 5,057 2:JO.'i2 IO:l, IOH H,fiU7 2,0UI
: 7. lfHOlfi 11:1 113 crart Manhoun ti,:170 1,0112 I.fi ll l.:tl(;
2J:ma g.:12!)
JIHIO
:tl.!IIO 11!;171 2,HIJ 7, 1:10 J,001!
:1.,-.. ;g 1,HH7 1,l!H
:",!I(;
21 1-1:i
*1:11 2,17B a,21;5 15fi i:!2 fill 171 1;,.;7 710 j;!;j l,1i54 7{ili
\\,fi62 1,;55 211!1
.i!l:I
:j!l!I H:lfi 17 2-11 70
:.!HI; aw; 22!18:I li5,M 1611511
:17870 3i.870 Document ll3*18Z6*00J, Re11. 0 App,mdi.,: C, Pa,e 4 of 18 IOO
!):>>1 2871i lf1iili 1,r,,;i; 702:'>
70:lii
 
D. C. Coolt Nuclea,. Powe,* Plant Decommiuioni111 C,nt Analy*i.
Activity lnde~
Ac1ivity Descr_!P~ion l'l*noJ :!.a Cullah*ral roi"ll/1 2a.:! I l'rm*{*,111 d1*1:umm111,non1n11 \\\\'al1*r wa11tl' 2a !i.2 l'rur1.*1111 d1*1"\\.lntn11s>11unml! 1*h,.nurnl nush wa11h*
2a.3 a Small tool all<twan.,r 2a :J,1 Sp,*nl Fl.11'1 C11)lltal and Tram1f1*r 2a.:L)
St*v,*r:mri, 2a :s B 1'n11um ri.lon1tonni,:
2a.3.7 NEI l-'t:1*ll
;!a :s Sulitotal l'<>1*1ml :!.11 Collnll*ral Cullht
\\>1*nu,I 2a Pn1ud-l k:111*nt!Pnl COllt!I 2n.*I I l>c1-un 11uvphc>1
:!.a.*l.2 ln11uranr,*
2a.,J.a Property la:\\Cll
:!.a.-1.*I llm1llh phy111<:1111upplw,;
2a.4.5 J-1.,,11*y 1*11u11,nwnt rental 211 4 fl ll11111<>:ml uf DAW 1:nwrah*,I
:!.a.4.7 Pinnt t*ni,rio* IJutli,:H 211.4.H NRC FNJS 2a.,J.!I Enwr1wm:y l'lannLn!! Fcl'l' 211A 10 SUP O&M C11><l 2nA.I I S11e111 Fulll l'uul O&f..*I 2aA. I:!.
ISJ,'SJ 01wr,1t1ng C'olll><
2a.-1. 1:1
<'urpurah* A&C C'uMI 211 4 1-1 S1*,*ur1l)' SlaITCo,;I 2a I lfi IJOf'S1aITCu1&l 2a 1. lti l'11l1tySlalTCu"l 2a I Sulitutal l',*rn,.l :ta l'n1<11l-D,*iJl'11,t,*n1 Cu,it,i TI.>TAL l'~;J<IOD 211<'UST PERIOD 2b-Site Decontamination 1',*nocl :!b [lm*t*l Jli,mmrn1,i,nonmii: A,*l1v1t1t*M Hi111111,ml or l'l;onl Sy,ih,m11 2h. l. I.I Auxiliary p,_.._.dwall*r RC;,.\\.
2b. l. l.2 Auxiliary St,!am RCA 2b. I. 1.a Hlowduwn HCA 2b. J. J.-1 81111 l'rol..c:tion & Mrt,*rinK 2h. l. J.ii Hu~ l'ru1<*1*l1U11 & Met,*rmK t<C.\\
2b. l.l.H Ch,*mit-:11 Vu\\um,* Cuntrol Syt1ll*m 2h. l. J,7 Compoiwnt f'ouhni: Wolllr 2b I I.H Cund,*n,iat,* RCA 2b J, l 9 runlamnu,111 21., I. I. JO (",unlammunl Spruy 21, J. J 11 ro111rul aml D,,nmlanunahun Air l{CA 2li I I 12 <',mtrol an,l ln><lrumcntat1,m kl',\\
2\\, I 1.1:1 lh*mm,*rahiw,I \\\\'at.-r !((',\\
21J I I J.I EIN*I rir llrolrui,:1'n RN:oml,m1*r
:!.Ii.I I.Iii ~:ll*,*11*1<"111 21., I I If; ~;1.,,*frn:al IJ1><tl'IIJut1on 2b I I 17 Elc*t*I r1,*11J 1)1,il nl,ul mu RC',\\
:!b. I. I IH Eh*1*1 r1cal RC:A
:!h I I l!I Em,*ri:**n,*y Cun* f'ouhni,: Sy,ih*m 2h 1.120 Em1,ri,:1*nc*y Du,in-1 Gt*nt*ratur 2h 1 I 21 Eni:1nt*t*1*1*tl Snfo*I)' F1*ulun*1& \\11*nlll11t10n 2b. J. l 22 E:<:<llnllUI :forvirti Water
:!b 1 1 2:1 Es..tintml S1*1-..*1,:1i Wah*r RCA
:!h I I 24 ~*m* l'nitm:ltun
:!.lo I I 21',
F11,* l'r,11.,,1*111111 Rl'A 2li. J. J.2f; ~*ukushuna 2b. I. l.27 11\\"AC :-\\uxiliury
:!.b.l.J.2H l*l\\"ACC11nlai11mi,11I 2b. I. um H\\"AC Control Room 2b. J.J.:il.l H\\"AC Mi>11*1*1lan1*ouH
:!b I I :u 11\\'Al' M1t1t.1,1lam,ou~ Rl',\\
21, I 132 11\\"Al'Switchi,:t*ar 21J I. I :1:1 l*l\\":\\C T,,.*hnll'11I Su1*1mrl C'f'nl**t TLG S1trvice*, LLC Decon Co,1 1~}
,t!)
lfi2 16:!.
: t. tr,r; Removal Packa1in1 Tran,por1 Co,t Co,1,
: Cos1,
:!](;
!i Fill
:i. lUH H,7*W a:1 !ll:J lfi n
~
n n
IIJ.
1!'1 w
IIH M -
I 1, IM
~
~
l~Titti m --
21
:11 -
n II 1;111
~
~
a 2K.f.:,O 11 1:m
:!2 20
!).r,9:1 JK;-,
a:1 I
iii u:.
r,r,H
;q 72 so Table C DC Cook Unit I DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thouaands 0&#xa3; 2024 Dollars) if:r:Sl1e Procesainc D1,pou)
Other Co,t,
: Cos1, Coit,
:!..1111 17 II
:Ji I:!.
211:1 165 U,i 1:12 80 1:i
,o a,7(i2
(;(.
w
;i.1:1
(,12 10(;
Ki1.7HO
*112!1
,I(;
IO(i
!lt,2!)()
11, 11:11
:m J,372 J,4BH a1u I;!!!)
!i:17 1:!.I H, lfill I:!. mo
.m, 1r,:1 tn,4!11
\\Ill IUl,O(i.l 111!):!.2 20:iOKI 20
\\Ii a2
);i l:!li:l 116
,I(;()
1.,,;
,1;1 Iii II lil\\G
:!21
:!K
!ifi!I 2(;8 Total Co~enc Total Co,ts H!l
:1.it.i
:12
:!*Ill 1a.,m1 10:1,2.11 liHI
*l,7-IK 7
r.o a11r.
M,24fi IO!J,Oa7
*Ill 202 11:1
!ll I
:i 28
!HO I,:;,;1 7Gli ii87,J
!ii
:12:,
!i06 3,878 1r,o 1.H-1!1 as
.,w 10:i Hfl-1 141 1,07H IH t:l!I l,t22
~,:in 1.H'-!I 1<1,:1:!!l 1 r,2a
:*M,G75
: tilUf,
,i2.:!.l!J 17,2*1I 1:10, lllfi 72 0:10
:1!J!l,iiH!)
12 71 II 77 2i3 Ml l!l 117 JU ii6 r,117
: a. um 87 51!1
:1 1H 18*1
!186 22.i I J 1U f,5
:1u; 11 BO 10
:;7 K
48 175 1,:11:1 2!1
:ll/:2 17
!MO 2 r,or, J.1.aa:1 IJ,I G24 12
!If; 12 fi(;
J 2(,
:!fi 1-IG 12 1-f2
:1.1; 1-1!)
I:!.
:!!ll lil!lfi 1:iH 777 w:1 an K
~penf t*ue Lie. Term.
Manarement Co,t, Co,t,
:i5(1 1,7,IH 52
:1x11 5,7W, 202 1111
:!II I 5:il r, 871 a2:1
:1878 11;1!)
Hfl*I
!l:172 J,1 :l:!.\\J
:-14 675
!i2.lM\\I 12H Xi,1
:.!!r.l.-,1r, 71 77 1-H 50
:i IXO r,m w WWI 1.a.10
:i16
!',7 1H 1 t,aaa
(;2,1 ll<i 11!1 I fi9:'>
777 10!1247
)0:-1.:!47 41!1 l,tJ7X 1:m 1,(i!tfi 10,UIK:1 Site Re,toration
: Cost, 2:,
2,i ll:. WI I 17 J :M!-1 22:!.
2,;
12
:!.7 W,1
\\0 Volume Cu. Feet urial Volumes C)as A CIHs B Cla,s C GTCC Cu. Feet _Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet 211:,
a,-.111
:l,(il!I uriiTT Proces,ed Craft Wb._1,.1,s. _Man)lours l!\\!17:t If; !17t r,r, 7:ti;:1.x 1:!.0 1:-1(;2x 120
,1r,. 1r,:1 n2.:mi1:
1:m 711!,
l/:.01:I 7.:!.fi7 7:!.H l/:07 !',H7 21:1 177
<II 146
:\\ *Iii!>
l.!101
/;!I 008 fi,:!.!lH
!177 12!1 i,r, inn 2-11
,lfi (~11 201 lfil W7 2.97!i 1.7:iH
\\fl!)
;;2
*I:!. -
a,:IH-1
:wr, l,:!.2:1
:111:,
116
:1\\1
:n II 1,711!)
!)(;
9-17 717 12,02,;
!l,!1:1/;
22 Ja(l II 118
.liilil\\\\
\\17 IM
:!,HI 1 1Uii!i5ll 2:i!l7!1:I
*17021 a,fi:m G,.um H,H/iH IU.H7!J l,!111.3.,il!i 711.:1!)!\\
11,(i.l\\
:!.I f>ll2 2:11,111 11109!ll 116 2111 I 11!):l 221 l:ll 022 2.020 l/:61 11701 I 7:i7
!JI) 2,1,211 H,71i/\\
1,780 aa:i 2\\12 1:1r, 11!.llt<<i a,Cllll 77,1 9:1,2!11
:!.,(;:1!)
1,a,12 fi{I!)
ar,&
fi211 1,311 7\\!)
171
"!Ho]
:!..:151!
:111 2,717
\\Kl 11a 1-17 Documenr 113-182G-001, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Pa1e 5 of 18 tffi1yan Contractor
~anhours 2Hifl01 2HH,00!1 5;M,{;o;i l,O:l8,f;J2 I 045,G:17
 
D. C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decammiaaionin1 Coat Anal.wi*
Activicy Index Activity Description D111po11al nf Plant Syt<lt*m11 (.-ontmued)
.!b. I. l.:J4 le,, Cund,*mu-r 2b. J. 1.:ir, Main ~'tiedw11.t<1r ltl.',\\
.!h.1.1.:w i\\htinSh*.im 2li.1. I.:J7 1'1:iin Stt1am HCA
.!h I I :lit i\\*lt1h*riul/Equi1,m,,nt Humlli11ji:
2b J. 1.:1!1 N'on-EMlll,ntial Sm-vh-e \\ltatt:r RC,\\
2h I I Ill N'ur\\,*ar ln:111*umrnlulim1 2b I. 1 41 Nurlrar Sam1>hn11 2b.l.l.<12 OIT:1it" 1'011*m*
2b. J. J.<\\:J l'i11<i Ct.*an - ln~ulall*tl 2h I I J.I l'ill<l Cl.,an - Non-ln:1ulu1t-,I 2li.1 I,\\!i P11JoC (~ontammalt-il
* ln~ulat~*tl 2h I I.ic; 1'1111' l'n11ta1n1n<<h*'1 - Non-ln~u]nlt*,1 2h I. I <17 Plant An* l<CA 2b. I. I IH l'rnnury Wut,*r 2b I.I. m l'l'Ol'l*ss OramH
* M1m"t!lla1wou~
2h I. I.all 1<,11lmt1nn Mon1lur1ni;Sy11t,*m 211.1.1.51 l<mli111ion Mon1lormji: Sy111,,m !{CA
!!b.1.1.ii.! k11diouc:11v,, \\\\'111-tr D1,.po11ul 2h.l. l.5:! l<l,arlo1* Cool<1nt Sy11h*m 2h.1.1.:j,\\ lfoful'linK
.!b. J. I.5f, Residual I 11*;,t 1<,*nuwal 2h. l.1.a6 Srn:urity 2h. I. I.57 St*ll'aji:t* IJ1~1,011.1I o111d Tr,*alnwn1 2li.1.I ;,s S1al1un l)rmnlll!'" I{(':\\
2h ]. j.j\\J Su1,pl,*nwnl;1] D1t*~**l G1*nnator 2ti.1.1 Tot.11111 2b. I..!
S.,:;1ffnl,ht111" m 11u11Ju>tl 11fd,.,.,,mm11,,,1nmn11
]),i,~1nt.amina1 ion ufSII.<* Bu1lchnt!"
2h I :i I l<<w*tor 2b. l :J Tutal11 2b 1 I Pre11arc/i1ulim11 L1n*ns1* T1*rmm,1I 1011 Plan
:!h I fi f{,.,.,,1,*" NkC a1*1>rov;1I uft,*nn1tiut11,n 1,J.u1
!!b I Sul,101111 1',*r1u,I 2h,\\rl1v1ty Co11111 l'cnod :!h Add1tmn11I Cu11t11
:!b 2 I Nuu-~'m*I l'ool h,*m D111vu-~al
:!b 2 2 l{,*m,,J1u\\ Ari 1nn Sur\\*,,y11 2h.:t Subtotdl l'crn,d.!b,\\d,ht1onal C,~~*~
i'l*riod Jib Culla1t*1*al Cusl~
2b.:J. I 1'1"<11,t,,-,- d,*mnlffll~>'tnnmK \\\\',al,11* wa~tr 2b.:J.:t l'l'Ol'.t'/</< dl'l"Olnlllilll<mlllj! t'hl'll11<'111 nush 11*;,~h*
2h.:J.:J Sn1111l 1011I allowan,,,
2h.:i.4 S,*v,*rnnn*
2b :i.;;
1'r1tium ~lomtu1*1nll' 2h :i.6 NEI F,*,*~
2b.:I Subtrnal 1'1Jr111tl 2h Gollatrra\\ t '011t" p.,rin,I 2b Period-D,*111*ndcnt. I *,,.;t,-
!!b.<\\. I ll***'<>n 11upplw9 2h.<\\..!
ln~uranl-c 2h.~.:i l'ru1>erly taiu*~
2b.,J.<\\
lfoalth 1*hr~11"H "u111,Jw,-
2b.1 fi I !,*a\\'}' e<1u111m.,nt. *~*nt11I 2b <\\ Ii IJ1111m>1al of UAW 1wn,*rah*tl 2b 1.7 l'lant o*n,*rKy hudji:1*t 2h,t H Nl<l' t\\*.,~
21, -1 9 Enwri:,,ncy l'lunn1nK t',,,.,.
2h 4 1U S11t* O&M Cost
!!b,1 11 S111*nt Fu,*I 1'0111 lJ&M 2h.4. 12 L1qu1d lfotlw1*>1tc l'rol-..!1~1111>! Equ11mwnt/S,*rv11*c~
2b 4 1:1 ISt'SJ Op..,rut1ng r~,,1h TLG Servica, LLC Deeon
_<<;:osl fi25
: fl2f, f;:!fi
!ill.
Removal Co.!t
~
a m -
n
~
m M
llffll -
,~
~ -
~
g 28 12;,
221 117 17,:i7tt
))(ii
(;H:!
BH2 rn111
:120
:120 1,:172 ICil Packarin(
Cosls
*l!I 1:1 I
lfi7
!!O 20 167 I
:t6
!HI II 80 Tran11port Co1t1 85 15 22 25 2u;;
:t/i 0
r,:,i 28,1 10 1:J 2 050
,m1
*!Bl 2 fil7 Off-Site Procesin&"
!GO HI KM
!17 71 187 2,!
:t6 1!19
,,o 2W 19
:Ji',
II H.71:1
;,7 1; 711K Table C DC Cook Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
Dh1poHI Co,t1 f,60 5,j H!I w.*,
I\\:\\
17 H:1 2,IH7 27(;
20 2:1;\\
lU 2!i:!
Ji 16:1 Hl 3;.M I0\\1-1 2:t:;r, 2 35f, 12!>()4; H!I\\
!~II
]07
!07 15:'i Other
: Cost, HIii 2 a:il 2 J:!I
,1,0:iH
:l!I
.!8{l
:1,31;:i 70!/
,!!)I;
:.! :.!70 1,27K
:12 I IOI 7!1!)
,JU:i 10:t Total Co!!!!.!!.l!_nc*
:1w
:n 10
;J7 r,n 71; 10 II 32:i 10
!Jf,fj 12!)
(I; I
II 1011 6!KJ
;17 12,i II 21 0
7,K!ll 2!14 1,1.;11 I 15H Total Co,t, 1,7(;6 206 7:l
:J:l:i
::1211 1.!K
:;1 22H
;;1 2,4!15
:WH ii,Ofili fi7H
!12
!):10 l*l 5711
:1753 199 66!-I II I
1!i 28fi I 4H2
,i,*115 ii,*115 711
!Ji:i(;
fi:!,11\\11 306 fi!)!J I 006 456 4:-1 fl.!!
1a1 71
:m 1.m1a 4;70 51
:1m 128
:i,!
120
,u 1.;
I 6Ha
:,o:io 4 71J a.;1;
.14!11
:-12!1
*l,,i!-12
,~:1
:12fi 5,,lfif, fi,l:U 3:l\\1 2Gltl l.,JoG
:1;;7 161
!)\\!)
16:!
\\\\!l Uc. Term.
Co,t, 1,766
,!Ofj
:Ja.;
:lll,H 12K r,1 228 5,0t>I; li7H H:t 9:IO fi711
:l 75.i
[!)!j li6!1 IOUil I.\\82 5.11,,
5 11:,
71 I 17 771 168:1 a n:10 1713
:ti~
a,.m1 1;;
:1t!!
1,592 1.;,i:1
:t2:'i 5,,lfl;;
:,,1:11 3:1\\!
21;10 1,406 161 16:!
Spent t*ue Manarement Co,t,
;1;;7 Site Restoration Co,ts 51
:t, l!J5
,;, 122 fi 122 Volume Cu. Feet ClaA Cu. Feet 1,11:1:-1 J,,17{;
7111 l,Ui 1.081 232 I. Wt 211:1
!)(II W-1
,m 7M um 2,2!11 (i,'121 270 7:i:cl
:121 ii:!
.i,~,
m!:1
!If, ti,
~!12 1m; 2,8UO G,7.!H 237 wa 4:11 Rfi5 170
!};1 82,2:11 21\\,!-1:l;J
.!12 mn H\\13 11:11:1!)
l!I l*l,.!=>5 11.255 11..!07 J,8fi6 uri Cla B Cu. Feet 011.une, c1a.. c C~eel GTCC Cu. Feet uriaf7 ProceHed Wt.,~,.
IG!l!l77 41 151 fi!ln:J,\\
(i(;:f;i(;
!ifi!-IMI
:l,H(;J 1:1:181 412,35:1 fiHO(Xi Iii 118 1:moo11
:",,,IHI 6:\\ l:!11
*18l'. 752
:mn1.;
72 SIG 12 !l\\2
,;.010101 JO 70!1 fil7!J/H 1;17.m;,1 fi,729:11:*
J,802 J,H02 17011 17,011 77 32!1 Craft Manhou~,
\\1,Hl!-1
;;:12 1,01:,
1,(17:J 1,11:m
.!!II 1,,';!11 Jfi llli 1,111:1
:wuH,i 2,7 IU
;jl7
:i 978 1!16
*1:18 l.!l:m
:1,iu:,
I Or;ii
\\,H71
;17
,i67 21 i1:m IHl.21 1s1;21
:1oa 11:1n 1,or,o
:12 28H J3a:w 121; Document ll3-l/J26-001, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Pa1e 6 of 18 tffityan Contractor
~nhoun 10m; 10!)(0
 
D. C. Cook Nucleo,. Powe,* Plant Decomminionin1 Co*t Analy*i.
Activity Index
!<c_ti\\'!t}' Qescr~
P,iriocl 2b P1,riml-D1*pPmlPnl t 'nst11 konl 1nu1>d) 2hA.l*I C11rpural<* A&t1 rust 2b I Iii Sr,*ur1l)' StaffC011t 2h *I 1H l}OC' S1 aff Cu,it 2b.4 17 l lt1hl)* Sl11fT Cu><l 211 4 Sul,lutu1 l'i*r1osl 21, P1*r1osl-D1*1.lt'ntl,*nl C'uals
:!hO TOTAL N;1u<,n 2h l'UST PERIOD 2c - Spent &#xa3;uel delay prioJ' to SFP decon 1'H1*1od :.:,: ll1r,,.,1 ll1.*1'<>ftlm1~111un1n!f _.,_ctw1tws J>.,1*i,KI :!r Collah*nd Cnllhl 2<: :J. I S1.*v.... rann*
:,:,. a :!
Tritium il.lnnitnrrni:
2c ::1 3 NE! ~\\*1*~
:.:,* :S Sul,lotal l',*rio,I :!** Collat1*1"al t 'n.its l'c,nod :!c Pt:r1tM.I-D1ipund1ml Cnsh 21:.*I. I ln~uranee 2<:.~.2 l'toJuirty tu!<r.11 2,:A.a 1-lt*;,lth phy~in1 >1u111,li""
2c..t. I Ui11tm1w1I of DAW K"nr.r>1lf'd 2c I 5 l'lant,*nn1:y l,udi:,*I 2r-.11; NRC Ft*N 2r I 7 Enwriwnry l'lanmni: J-\\,,.,.
2r I K S1t(* O&M Cn:tl
:fr -I.!)
S1wn1 Fui*I Puul O&M 2c I 10 L1,1uul lfadwa11U* l'rcK'<.'ll>'IPK E,1u111m**nt/S,*rv1<'<*II
:!,* 111 ISFSI011t*ralml!Coi1l:t 2,: I 12 Coi-imratc A&U C<,111
:!,* 4 1:1 S,*nmty Sluffr'osl 2r I M l ltihty S1aITt~u11l 2,: I Suhtotal 1'1*nod :!,* l'er1oil-D,:p1,nd1*nl Cn,cls
:!cO TUT AL l'ElU(JI) :.!r L'(J~'1' PERIOD 2d - Decontamination Followin(Wet Fuel Sto... te J>..rmd :!d ll1r,*rt D1*,*nmm111111onml(,\\1*t1\\*1tu-~
2d I I Rcmovt' ~111*111 Cue! r;1t:k>1 D111vu,.at or l'lant Sy,ctem,.
2d. l.2. J 11\\'At: S111ent Fu,*1 Pool 2d. 1.2.2 S1m11t Fu"I l'uul 2d.1.2 Totul11 IX!c:ontaminalKln ofS1to* Hu11tlmi:-11
.!tl. 1.:t. I
*d'o.~I Fu,*1 (IUI) 2,1.1.::S Totals 2<11 I Sr11ffnM1111e m !1Ul'l*01'l 0Cd,*<"llfflfflllit110nln1C 2<1 I Suhtotal Pn1nil 2d Ael1ntr I 'u11t11 TLG ServicH, LLC Decon Co!lt
;;,I(;
1,:!l!I 1, 1:H
:i!l!l
;j!J!)
u1:m Removal eo..
K,H:m 28,lif,!)
r.20
/;2(1 fi:!U 11!1 fi
),:JK!I 1:JK:)
2:11 1,K/i2 Pack*tint Trant1porl Costs Costs I :!,;o i:s l:S 1::18 IO!I 10!1 fit,G 2H]7
*l:!U II 1.2:ffl 12:m 11;77 ifi:-:Site PJ'ocessin1
~Af 1.,7HH 12 6 *'"
H:1 It!
1::1/i Table C DC Cook Unit I DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thou.ands of 2024 Dollars)
DlspoHI Costs Other Cosl__!
,1 701 10 B21 17,:IHH 2:i Ol!l 1r.,:;
(il,!121
):i 7!i!l 11,2:1;1 fil r.2 to:!
li,H71 l\\!171 ltl,fi:1:1 fi,!lf;7
:m 173
(;(17!)
WI 2!1:1 2 2r,,1 I 211:1
:t.!:!
:11 7:1:1
\\(I(}
io:1
;:l(;j IO,!i19 l,!1111 rn,ou:1 V10H:!
Total Co~_t_in:t_e_nc:
Total Cost.!_
706
,;410 I !i!l.1 12.21H 2 (iO!I l!l,!1!17 a1M:i w,41;2 11 r,GI HG, lfiO 22 (;:!I l *IH,:ll!l
'"&deg; 21;
!112 67H II 2UU ti!ffil 7U 771
!!!l a22 130 lH!l
;l;i!I 2 i:,!12 J!!O I :12:1
:12
::1,;.1 5
::IG 1m
!112 HO
&#xa5;;o 11*
r,;;
12!!
I !;>H2 1:!, 1:ll 2!18 2,281
:!,Kfi2 22,*l:!7
:1 /7-1
~J IIH I 74!!
2:l r,7
:! -l!IH 2 19H r.!l
'iil{l 19!1 11,
::117 12 687 12:1;117 291; 1,:11;4 21,u.11; c
Uc. Term.
Cost_!
r..110 12 2111 J!l.!IH7 2!l 402 HI 7f,<i 111,!U:!
H 7,17 II 200 1;!)!)(
77-1
:122 61!1 2 5\\12 I a2:1 12!!
12,1:q 2,281 21.01:!
:!H();1:1 7 7,16 I!~
118
:117 IZ 6Hi l:!I\\H7
:!!IG 21,0,11; 1,:!!JI J,:1!11
:1i, I
!112
\\,:\\Hfi 1,:111r.
Site Restoration Costs
.;12:!
: rocesse, Volume Cu. Feet clat111A Cu. Feet
:1,mm H:1, 1:m
,1r,,,10,;
311
.3H!l 1,021 1,021 42 1,ur.2
:;77 r,77
;;77
!l,f>f,7 l:ffl 137 27fi
.\\H,207
::SH,207 411,01:l
;uJ'lal Volumes ClaH B Cius C GTCC Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet udaf7 Processed Wt.,Lbs.
77,:1~1 r.,1'127,:;,ir.,
llfi::S!I 11,fi:!!J 11 fi;j!)
607 127 2!Jm;1 118(;!1
.\\lfiW 1,651 !I.II 1,tif,I !I:! I
: 2. 112 2 ::102,7:!2 c... r1 Manhours
!!!ti
:1:-11,:1;,<;
I!)
2 6::12 771
*12\\1 1,200
:!3076 2:J.Oifi 1,:um
:II 2!1.;
Document ll3-JBZOOJ, Rev. 0 Appendix C, Page 7 of 18 tffityan Contractor Manhou~
IH4,J6!l 174.,4.kl
:IOH,,i7!!
1;m,22.i fi71,:1(;0 11'12,H70 2,t(lfj2 WCi.!J:12
:!OfilJ:1;:
 
D. C. Cook Nucleal' Powel' Plant Decommi.. ionin1 Co*t Anal.v.~
Activity Index
~tivi~}' Oe,cription l'nit>1I 2tl Addi1iu11al l~u!!I!!
:M.:!. I Lkt*n111* 'ft'rmm1,tu111 Sutvt')' l'lanrunlf l!d.2.2 0111*rnl 1un.1I Tuul~ & E,1u11m11*n1
:!ti 2.:1 E:i.:raval mn or UnJ1*rlfrt1unJ Snv1c.*H
:.i:J :l I Ah:wri,tum l'und lfrnw,h.. 11u11
:M 2,1 Cont am1nalt*J Soil 2J 2 r.
&*m,-t.11111.-\\<'11011 Sun*,*y~
2cl 2 Subtotal l'nu,d 2d AJd111nn11l C:o~l6 l'cn0tl :M rull.. tcrnl Co,.lll
:!d :1 I J'rt>t-CIIII,!c<.~>mmhttnonlnl! Willl't 11*,u1l1i 2d.:! 2 i'l'l>t"<'"",l,,,,,umm1,.,uonmi.: t*h,*mtt*al nu,oh wa,oh*
2,1:1:1 Sm1.1ll1ool1.1ll11w11m***
2J.:! *I Hut*omn11>1,.1unmi: E,1u11mwnt 1)1,01,0~1uun 2.J.:i fi S.*\\'<'falll~*
2tl a 6 Tritium l\\lumtormic 2<1.:17 NEJ J<',w*
2,1.J Suhlulal 1',*r10tl 2d C'ullalt*ral Co,0!1<
l',,riutl 2,1 l'criod-Dc1>1*ndt*nt Cu.~1'<
2t.lA. J l).,n,n*UIIJlh***
:O::d.-1.2 l1111ur;1n,*,*
2,1 I a Pru11rrtytaxc11
:o::J.-1.-1 l11*o1ltli 1,hy,ok*11,ou1111h,*,o
:!cl-1r, IIPa\\')"t*qu1pm1*11lrenlal
:O::J.-1.6 IJ1,.11U11,1I uf DA\\\\' i:**n<*r11h>tl
:!,1.,1.7 l>lante1wrjo!yhu,l111*I tJ.-UI Nl(CJ,\\,,,"
2tl.-1.!f 2J.-1. 1U 2,1.-1. 11 2d 112 2J -1 IJ 2,1-111 2J.-1.1r.
2d.-l.W 2,IA 2tl.O En11,1w,ncyl'lann1nl!i<',.,,,.
Sih* O&M Cu,ol L1qu1d Rmlwa11lr l'rcore11llmlf E11u1pnwn1/Snv1r,*s ISJ<'NI (.11wrat1ni:<'u,01,o l'or1wrah* A&G !~,.,
s,,,*ur1tySt11fTCo111 J><JCStaffCu,ot lJtililySl11ITCo,1l Sul>lutal Pcnu,I 2d i'n11Ml*l.lt*p**ntlcnl f'ruil,o TOTAL l'Jo:KJOIJ tel (,"'(lST PERIOD Ze. Delay be&#xa3;ore LiC"ense Termination l\\*rwd :0::** Dm*.-1 l),,.*umm,,.111nnmi:.-\\l*uv11 Ill~
l'criuJ:.i:,-Collatnalr.u11111
:!e.:t.t Tr1t1uml\\lun1tormlf 211.:t:.::
NE! F'L'<'"
2e :1 Sul,101111 l'cr1111\\21*l\\1ll:1ll*ral('u,ob l't*l"l<Mi2,,J',,ru"l*lkp,*nd,*nll'c,.:h
:.::,* *I. I lnllUtun,*,*
2t',*l.2 Pro1u*rt)*laxf's 2,* 4 ;J Ht*allh phy"""" ll\\l)ll*lto-:<
:fo.4.-1 U1~1111,oal of DAW 1t1*11..ratf',I 2t* 4 5 l'l>1nt 1*nt*r1CY budi:t*I 2c4li NKCl-'t-c,o TLG Servic:~** LLC Deeon Co,<
7K 11:1 11a 2,022 OfC--Site Table C DC Cook Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
Removal Packafinf Tran port ProceHinf Dl po al Other Costs Total
~ntin<<enc.
Total Costs Uc.Term.
Cost ___ Co,ts Coso __
Costs Costs 11,\\I 2!1(1
:m-1 1,fi.t!K 71 11\\G 22i'i2 J:Jml 1;,!+82 2H.I f;J 117
,;i 11/i 207
'&deg; 211
!100
:, 1 I (;KY 1:11:;
1;111 w:i 10a IO lf0fi7 W,1 2~-1 5-1;1 r,,13
!172 1\\70(;
17, 1!11 2121H) 1!17
:177
:Jj 122K
;ir,;;
1, 171; 2,7;;!'1
;;(Ml 2U 71
/)!1:1
:ir.H
\\\\!)
HII lill 1:m
\\Oli
:;2 1,r,oa
:l,KfiO
!i,lltl!I 7,KIO 21,:m11 aa:,i,ir, 21,1r,o
!II 12!1 (i!/1 28K
:i!H.I f;!l5
:mK 1-i~i IJU
:1:17 1,H2fi l,!l:U, 1U,1;r,r, 1,HRG 27,0nl
:1r.:1 1,.;211 7,!122
-l:l,0!1-1 l\\fi II llll 7;,
II
:!7:i 211
:I(;
1;;
27!1 a:ui
!12
(;!
l!l 22ii fi77 117!1 1, li(;
a,810 f>!)7 1, 1*1!1
;,7;,
2J
: 11r, 2iil:l 1*12
:!llJ Hi-I 1 :mr.
2.">K!)
702 1\\72
:12 lr.7 1,72!1 4,427 fi,7:18
!1,0lr; 28,7!',!l u;,1711
!fr,.40; II l!l
(;i, w
(;(;
K!)
70 1(1:j MK 7(i0
:111
:12K r;1i, 7fi:',
Costs I :,91; 110 1,K2ti ww;;;
2707\\1 152K
-1:10!11 fi!l7 Hi',
J, M!I r,7;;
2r.rn 112
:!93 IHI 1,:ma 2r>KH 77 702 (072 JIK
-lli7 1,72!1
:.::,r;!)(;
li,738 H,.'i7-I 21;,,JHH
!f:I 1-12 IO/;
7(;()
:111
:1211
(;7!1 7fifi 1,7:-11 2,21;5 2,21;5 Site Restoration Collts
;urial Voluities*--
Bunill
'rOCCllSe Volume Cu. Feet ClaH A ClaH B ClaH C GTCC ProceHed Craft Cu,_feet Cu. fetl__ Cu. Feet (lu. Feet Wt., Lbs.
~hour, r,,11!'.iO
:JJ,O!iO Kl,OUU r.,Kr,o 112or>11 Ii!>
1;,000 r.w I 00K 8H2 u,ao:J 11;i mt:1 1:,1 11{;2j()
2, 1:.::l!-KIO ti,:!IHO(Nl K,KKfi, lr,o 2K71:I
:!0:10!)8 JJ2:172 176:17 17,H:17 11,r,:Ul,H!Hl
:1,020 I(.
7,001 li7H 2,1121; lfi,2K7 21;011 117 210 2H r.7!'174 Document l13*18Z6*001, Beu. 0 Appendix C, Pa1e 8 of 18 li2,l(1 fi,2\\0
(;7i;:1;;
5!1,48H
!JKti0:1 22,">,72i 2:!1,!167
 
D. C. Cook Nuclea,* Power Plant Decommiuionin1 Ca*f Anol.v*i*
Activity Index Activity De,cription l'{'l"Jod !!*: J'.,n,..,(.IJu1mnd,:nl Cush (t:untinu,*d)
'..fo.4.7 Enwriien"Y i'laiminii F1i1*1<
2c.-1.H Sitt* D&M Cnsl 2<*.ff!
ISFSI011n1.1lingC.,:-it~
2c 4 HI Cm11<1ralf' A&t; Co~I 2,* 4 11 S. 0,*ur11y Stuff('.,.,,,
2{' 4. 1!!
{t11hly Slarfl'o~l
:!,* I Sul,totul !',*nm!:.!,* 1',*nml-Dt*pt*ml,*nt l'osls
:!PO TOTAL l'~~IU(11) 2t* l'tJST PERIOD 2r - License Termination
!',*nod :!f Um*PI l),,,.,,mmui,nomni,: A,*t1nlll'<1
:!f I I Ol<JSE,*onf1rmator,,uun*r
:!f I :!
T,-rnnnal** lu-.*n~,-
!!f I Sul11u1al Pcr1otl :!C.-\\cl11*1l) Cu.~111 l'niotl U AJditit111al f:0,0111
:!f.:!. I Li,*1*n111* TPrmmntlun Surwy 21'2 Subtotal 1',1r1t1tl 2f Add1l1t1n.,J f'u,;111 l'~*notl 2( Collah-l'al ('..,,;1,1
:!Ca I UUl
* 111affr1*Ult*11t1<1n ""l'<'n111*11 l!C:t 2 Tr1t1um !\\lunllurinit 2r :1 :t NE! Fm!~
2f :1 Sulitutal i't*riml 2f('ollat,*rnl c..,,..c,.
l',*r1u<I 2f l't*m,d.l},*p,*n,l,*111 Cusl,.
2f I I ln11uran1-e
:!f 4 2 l'ru1,Pt1y la,i,*,i 2f ~ :I 111,rillh 11hr,.1t*11,;up11h1*11
:!&#xa3; I *I l>111pus1.1I uf DAW 1t**nl*r1.11t*d 2f 1.r, Phml t'IICl'IO' hu.J1n*t
:!&#xa3; I U NkC Fc,i11 2C I 7 Em1*rii1*nry l'l.. nmni.: f1*c*11
:!f.4.H S1h! U&M Co11l 2f.4.!I IS~'SI Op1*rul1nl! ! '01<1>'
:!f..1. IO Corpora\\!* A&IJ Cost
:!f..1.11 Sucurity SlaffCu11I 2(..1.12 l)l)l!St:1ffCnst
!!f.al.l:J lftilitySlaITC11111
:!f 1 Suhtot11l 1'1*r1ocl 2f P,*rmd.l),,~*11d1*nt Cost11
:!fO TUT AL PERIOD 2fl 'OST PERIOD 2 TOTALS PERIOD lb-Site Re11tontion l't>l'lotl :n, D1r,*,*I Dt*rummlll<IIUl\\llllf A,*11v1l1l':-l D,*moh\\1,111 uf l(.,mammg Su,* Hu1hhnii11 ah. I. I. I Rcadur
:Jh.1.1.2 ftH,\\ux1lim*y
:Jh. I. I.a
~krcunhuu.,w Umt I
:Jh. I. IA Turhint1
:U,.1.1 Total11 Sih* Clo:<1*011.I. A1*1inlw11
:ilo.1.2 Grad,* & lunJ111*n\\"' 1111,,
:Ji, I :1
~*1nal t\\!l1<11*t to Nit('
:!lo I Suhtot11I l'<*rm,I :ib,\\c-l1v1ly CoMli<
TLG Servicn, LLC Decon Co11t 1.:m1 Table C DC Cook Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousand* of 2024 Dollars)
OU-Site Removal Packa(in(
Tran11port Proces,in(
Dil1ponl Other
: Cost, Co,t
_Co,ts
~,-1!__
~-~st*
2n:1
:!f;:1 1,;>M:l 1 ;;H:l I ;>Ma J,J II 2!j 101
!!:JI;
; *I l*I 1_1102 12,0:11
: 12. 11.:,1 IHI WI 12 r.11 l.!,641 I,i!~I l!I
.ir, l.60:1
!!ti J,1:1 2!11 mn,.
iiU
:l,70!!
411:111 ii.1.15 11;:Jr,1; 1,1 ao 7!i:i 71 :UH
:10 H2:i 20 IH!I
!17 !111!1
:107 rn;1 2,01;2
!1:il f,66 17fil 8,:M!!
,;11fi
!J0:17 2:J5 2:1fi Total Co~nc
](j I 117
!!70 I fH(;
I HOC; 57
/i7
:1 7(;3 3 iG:J 2m 7
2-J\\1 Total Co,111 (i.l aa IW
:UJ7 H.,i&#xa3;:I 2,072 l *l,0!11 l*l,212
:ws..
2*18 Hi !!07 I0,.107 18:1\\J 22
;;;t UJ12
:I~
:J7H 14 l:iH
:!!'Ill 1,97H
,j(J
(;2 f,N:I
;j
:l\\
12
!10 8
r>H 1::17 I Ofil f,/j;i 4,l!fii 12r.
,::;.::;n:1 8ll2 6,1-W
:.! 797 20_71;1 H KH7
:l!l,!!:!H 12a.;10 726 2:12
:\\09 11:1 H5 7J.'>
1,!!GI 2,:171
,.~1:1 6i'il a,-liH
!l,ij!l:l Ill.I HOO aa 211 1 :1111
\\(l,f,!;4 RC Spent fuel Sife Lie. Term.
Mana(ement RHtoratlon
: CoJ1t, Co,tll CoJ1ts
:un 5,21-1 I !l2:l
]O,JI!)
J0.~,(;7 2 IH 218 IH ao7 16 au, J 8:1!1 22 F>l!
I Hit
:m1 1:-.8 I !liH
:1u
:i:ffl r;x:1 I.Ohl 2./i!l:l 5 fi(j:J
/i f,62 1ft 12:1
:m.H91 li02!l7!)
271
:!71 6:1 IW
:1,;1,17 1-I\\!
:1,mr,
!l,r.i!i
:11
,;g 1,605 581 2.:1:17 2 :1:11 llii!Ja!J 1:111 2,:171 llt!J:i li:il i'i 17H
!l,J!l:J 1{);1!1:1
'roce,se Volume Cu. Feel Document l13-18Z6-00I, Reu. 0 Appe11di:e: C, Pa1e 9 of 18 urial Vofuines Buriii.~
-Utiffty an ClaH A Cla1111 B Clan C GTCC ProceHed Craft Contractor Cu. Feet C~Feel Cu. Feet Cu. Feet __ Wt., Lb,.
: Manhour, Manhour, 1/.il 151
;1;17
:1:i1 aa1
:1,0:!0
:1,020 1:,1:11 6 7:11 H,7:M IK091;(
\\80\\JOI II II
\\HO 972 l!I0,777 22 or.ii H.i2K!i7 1!;2,H!ii
:u20 a 120 c;;; O:!J
~1; fi2:!
5!l !l.t:!
171,i!JN 17'1.7IH 111 79-1 270 H 1,i 72!)
201;1 211;1,; mo 7Ha :>12
!! IN:! l!ifJ 20,:ia,1 H/>HO
,1,071
:IH)127 71 :!12 lfi!l!l 7:!!lll I 0011 I !ilill
 
D. C. Cook Nuclea,- Powel" Plant Deconu11i.. ionin1 Co*I Anal;:,*i4 rr-Site Table C DC Cook Unit 1 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
RC Spent Fuel Site Activity Jndelt Decon
~*t Removal Packal(inl Tun,port Proce111in1 Di,poHI Other Costs Total
~~c:
Total
.&#xa3;o*t~
Lie. Term.
Mana1e111ent Re1toration Activity ~escription l'ur11MI :iii Add1t11,nnl (~u.. 11.
al, :c: I runn1*1.- rrHhmi:
ali,;t,;t Con~trul:linn U1*hr1H
:sl,.;t.:1 Trilium Munltur \\\\',*II~
ali.:t Suhtn1.al Pcrwd :ih Ad1h1u,nal Cu>1h l',,rin,l:1bt:ul1;111:talCosh<
:ib.:1.]
Smalltoolallowann,
:!li.3.:t Tritiuml\\foniturinic ah :1:i NE! F,..,.,.
at, :1 Sublotnl l'c nud:.lli Cull;ih*ra l f'<,,,1,.
l't-r1ool :lli l'cr1<1d*Dqwmlcnt n,,,.,,.
al, 1 I lnHurnnn*
:!bA.2 Pro11c11ylaxc>1
:fu.. 1.:1 llrn11*)'w1ui1*m**nlt1*nl;al
:!b.4.--1 l'lant 1*ncri:ybml1.t1*\\
:Jb..J.='>
Nkt.: ISFSI Jo~,.,.,.
:lh *I 6 Enwr~t*ncy l'lannmi:- Jo~,..,i,.
:sb I 7 S1h* U&M Coi,L all I ti ISFS!Op,*rat111i:-C.-0>1l!1
:th 1 9 C'.<1rimrMlr A&G Cn11t
:ill I IO Scrur1tyStafrCo,i1
:Sh 1. 11 DOC Staff t:ol't
:il,.4.1:t U1ili1yStaff<'11l'I
:ib.4 Subtotal l'cr11HI ah l'uriotl-llo,1H"mlc*nt t *o,ah!
:!lifl mTAL PERIOD :th f'0!-.1' PERIOD :S TOTALS TOTALCOS'l''l'O DEf''OMMISS({)N 1,, 111 TALCOST-TO DECOMMISSION WfTH 18.&7"* CONTINGENCY:
TAL NRC LICENSE TERMINATION COST IS 68.07&deg;. OR:
PENT FUEL MANAGEMENT COST IS 26.6-1"* OR:
ON-NUCLEAR DEMOLITION COST JS 5.Z9"* OR:
Cost Costs Costs Co,ts Cost1 1(,1 11-1 Kl IU:l71.
IO:t71;
\\!),K(I!)
1!1,HU!I
!17,:.!:!H
:mini
:!0!171
;t!)
7r, IOK (i;j
]!i7
:t:!2
='>!H; 1!17 50!1 17:!
!ltl 1:m 171 I J9!l 50:tl l:il!)I; 110:12
:l:!111 a:!,!IH0 J2,!IHIJ ltJGO;j 100,471 li!l7 IC)f; TALLOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE VOLUME BURIED (EXCLUDING GTCC):
n.u&.696 thousana,orzoz-t "doITars f780.5-I--I thousands or Z0Z-1 dollars f305,-159 thousands or Z0Z-1 dollar*
t&0,693 thousands or 202-1 dollars Z79,4-IZ Cubk Feet TAL GREATER THAN CLASS C RADWASI'E VOLUME GENERATED:
TALSCRAP METAL REMOVED:
TAL CRAFT LABOR REQUIREMENTS:
EmlNu(o*ll n/a. 1mlK*11o1t*>1 I haL I h1>111.-t1nty not char,,w,l ui, d,*,~*mm1>1.. 1omn11 r~111*ni<r a* 1n,h1*;i1t*1< 1hal th1>1... -1iv11y 11nfurnwd hr d1'<~1mm11<>11unmi:- >1laff IJ. 1n,hc11te>1lh11tth1,o,*alur 1,i IPi<KLhanO!ibul 1>111un-iwru
,\\ n*ll 1vnt111111ni:".
* 111J11"al1*,i ;i z1*n,,*;ilu1*
TLG Service., LLC 2,061 Cubi(" Feet Z5,4--19 Ton,
_89::iL186 Man-ho!!!!_
(l:t II 10
:!I
*IKO KH 1;00
!M IKO a,m 1;;;i:;
;,o 5-17 I fill II.KIii 71; r>1"11; 11 aio IO
)Otl Ill l:IH
;t(.;
200 210
\\ liOH 7r,,1 577,i 2:l:t,1 17tl20 I 20fi
!l;t,17 H:llNI 1!11111 111:m
,w11;21 7 t1ar, r;o1;21 17!1G!ltl I J,Jfifi!lf;
~*-"--
Costs
~JU 271 271 7HO,:ill
;r,
\\iii 221;
,;20 6,77-1 2011 Hfil6 tllll:t tltl12 aor,1ii!1 IKO M
liOO
!M
!;,17 II HIM f>l'IU 1:111 I fiOH 178211 7:t;t:-1 IO:l!H\\
'>1,,ill 5 1/.Jl 1;o,1;!1:1 Volume Cu. Feet Document ll3-18Zf-OOI, Re,,, 0 Appendi.,: C, Pa1e 10 of 18
;urial Volun,es Burial I Utility an ClaH A Cla11, B Clan C GTcc Procesud Crart Contractor Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet_ c:;;_~W!.,_,_1,.b1.
Manhours Manbours 1,601 l(.i(J\\
7151:!
71.';12 H6!1112 1-M0H7
!117,11
:l:t:t7H!l
:i2,1:1.19 MIW4 z71;m;,t l,liOH 2,0t.il 21t1a:1,:t20 H!ll;IHf\\
:124,Jl!I
:! H;t:1,0:l,\\
 
D. C. c-h Nuclear Por~er Plant Deconuniniorii111 Coat A.,,al_t1*ia Acli\\'ity
__l!!du: _
Ar.:tivity IJc,.cripticm l'EHIOI) Ou - Pn-..o.;hutdo,wn f.:urly Plunninic l'm*,... I OH l)ir,.~*t l),~~*mm1:,~1Umn1: ~-11,*1hCb l'cnodOul'uUutcral('ubh 011 :1 I S1wnl Fu,*I Cu1111al,ond Trunsl\\*1*
1111 :!
Subtulul l'cr1ml 011 Culh.tc1*al Cost~
1-'cnud Ila l'l'l'lud*IJcprndrnl Cu~*~
On.<1.1 lns111*11m*,*
Ch1 *I ~
1'1"011rrtv 1>1x**~
Uu *IJ l'luntt*nHI!.) bud11:1*t Uu 4 I l/llhl}" St11ff Cu~I (lu *I Subtulul J'l'liml 011 P,*110<1-Dcprtulcnt c.,,.,~
TOTAL n:RJOU 0:, cos*r PER IOU I u. Shutdnwn throu~ Trunt<ltlon 1*.,nml lu llu*... -1 n,....,mmLll51ULUnj! Ai..11\\'II"'"
Iii I I l'ro:pul'c 11r1*hm1nurv d,.._~,mm1,.s1un1nc,:o,.\\
11< I 2 Nulific11tmn nfC'e.,,-111,on of01wr11hnn:,
la I :I lb-mov1* lut*I & :,ou1,1* mulcrrnl lu.1.*1 Nu111k,.11n11ofl',*rman,*nt ll,*fu..Jmt Io. l.fi U1*1t1iivate 11lonl system,; & pro,.~,u..-11:-to*
111.t.r; Pre1,11ro:Kndsubmi1 )'SUAR h.1.7 itl'l*i.,..- plant d1V11:,- & bp,-c:,
In Ill 1',*1*foi-mJ,,1aih,drmlsun***r 111 I !l l,;,.11m111cby-1,ruduct,m*rnlut)*
la l lO End1m.>tluii,lcs,*n11tu,n lu 111 ll1*l1.11h,dli)*pruduo:1 i11nnlury lul 12
()cfm,*m11Jot*..-urks.,,1ucnc1*
111 I la l',irform SElt,md E,\\
la I 11 l'rci,11n*/submi1 ll**fut,Jcd T,-chniru\\ s,,...,,fioc:ollun:1 111 I 15 l',*rform S11,,-s,...,,ifu* Cu~, Study I 11 I W l'r,*"'""/suhmll h*1*11diutml Fur.I Munui:"m"nl l'lun
~t1~11y Sl'D'*1lj.,..,111m~
lu I 17 1 !']uni & h*m1,unuy lauhtlt's
\\11 I 17:.! l'lunt,.v,.1c1n,.
lu I 17 :I NSSS /Jc*,*<.ml11mm11hun ~'lu:1h IMl 17 *1 H1>1,.*lurmh*rm1ls lu I 17 r, k,,,,.,101* 1*,,,.bd lu I 17 1>
B1oloi:1md ~hrnld Jut 177 s1.,um1t**nurnlul'"
la 1178 lt1*11UU1~.,_,J,:unu,*h*
111\\ 17!1 M11rnTu1tnnc l,1 I l7 Ill Mum ('undnnM!I""
lu.1.17.11 l'l:,nt ~tru<!lurM & bu1ltlm11:,-
l 11. l.l7.J:.! \\\\'11,-h* mun111!**m**111 111. 1.17.J:l f.' 11.:ilily& )ito,,*lo""uut 111.1.17
'fulal l'lnnning& Sih* l'n*11111*>11ion~
111 I Ill l'l'tlllll1"~J1smonlhn~ SIHIU"llC" 111 I l!I l'lun111n*11 &tl'm\\1,-nns I a I :.!O IJ1*~1i::n " :11t*r d,*,m*up ~y,.10:m In I ~l ltlllii:lnKICunt. Cnh'I F:nvl1,slluuhnt/..*h*
I II I ~t l'rut'UI u cu,;k,;/hm*h & "0IIIIILlll'r,;
111 I Sulitul11\\ l'ermd In,\\,;*11n1rc',"b l'unud lnCu\\lul1!1"11\\C.:osls lu:1 I S11!'.nl Fuul l'11p1lal HndTrunsl\\*r l.13t s~n*1*an,;c 111.I :t 1'11hum Mun.Llunng lu :1 I N~:I t,*,***s Subtnlul l't,1*:u,cl lnCc,llu1m*uJ C'n,;I ~
TLG s~rvlcH, LLC Dccon C'u!lt Table C DC Cook Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thouunds of 2024 Dollars)
Off-.'iill!
J.LHW NRC Sp,mt f.'ucl Site Rcmov.. l l'u.cka)Cinic Tram,port Procc,;sinl(
Uisp,>t<al Other Cu,11!1 Total CuntingcnC\\
Total Cost."
Lie. Tcrm.
M,maltl'.cmcnt Restoration Cu,it Cu,cbl
('ust!I Cwit!I C:m*b
!J llil,O
!ll Hlill
!llfifiU 12!1
:.!!17 h;'i 1,5
~no..,
:1:n
,;r,
:1111 t*i!I
,1r~
-1:!il
:ct 201 10:i
:!fl 21; 201
:.!~17
;",IC 2,*11~
lfifi
,1:wo 121 Iii ltilf97 l9\\fi7 tf>
IMO 1;,;, 1--;-o J;\\7l!l io:.to?J 1:1,71!1 Jll5,IO!J J:l71!1 105,10!1 HI 1:1 1:1 an 73 97
,I.I:!
71 r,;;7 557
:n1 Ill
;1<;r, Hl
:m!I
:n GH 5:.!7
:JO 2:J2 15 JW
:io an JO 2:12 ti7
:1m; Ji,llO!l
~a 1711 u:m lll:m 11 IOI
,1:1r,
:1:1:ir, 12
!ll I 1122 l:l!IHIC H!llfi
:i;lOl2 21175 2201:J I
W 2';'
~OM
!IK~I 7:i2!ll
{'o,1t!1 Cu!il!I Co!ll!I
!17
:112
:,iao r,57
:171,..
,\\2!1 2711
:17 527 111:1 2J2 59 116
:1-12
:1,;1 2.-n:1 17" IK:IO I0-1
:1:ia;
!II l:IH:1:1
~2.04:1
;.:11
:.!OM 22.:m1 HJ5AU!l
!05,-IO~
\\(15, 10!1 r.:1012 5:J 01~
:10
:m Pr,'4'C!<>U*d Burial Volu1nc1<
Burial/
\\'ulumc Clw;,;.\\
Cius!< U Class C GTf'C' Pro,:e,;,;ed Cr11rt
~
. f.'ect Cu. i-'eet Cu. Feet Cu. J,'eet C'u. Feet ____ID,._ Lb~ i\\'lanh!,urt<
lltility11nd Contractor
~J'!!huurt<
IC:'Ml 1!16!1 1211 1:.!K 5:iu
:i,210 i.:1:n
:1,210
:.!,MU
~*~
,.~
2M
:!(~
~m 21-1 IW
~
171 171 1.3~
1!~1 --~
I.0:.!7 r,21; J:1.-151 Document ll,1-llit6-001, Rev. O Appe,idix C', Pore 11 of Ill
 
D. C. ('ooh Nuclear Po1*er Pla11t Decom111iNio1tiHI C011t A,1al:,*i.
A,,tlvit~*
_ Index_
~,ti vii)* Ile~~
Pciiud I u l',*l'iml-U11J><'IIJt*nl t *u~I.*
I>><\\ I ln~un>n<~*
111.J:!
i'l'uJmrlvlux**s l11.J ;\\
ll,,.. 1th11h)'Mt:,<SU\\lllhcs 111*1 I Uuavr 1,quipnwnt rnn,,.J Jn,11i D1spu~,olu(DAW1lt'm*1*ut,,,I lu*IH l'hmt,*n<.,rtrbudt**t IH<\\ 7 NHC'F1>cs 111 <18 Enu-1-,:1*nc)*l'luru11n1lt-',,..s
\\11.4.!l Sil** O&l\\1 Gu~t
\\11 *I 10 S1wnl t-'ut!I Poul O&M lu 4 11 ISJ,'SI Opt-1*u1111i C'.,,.h 1114 I:!
l'Ul')IUl'lll~,\\&f; C.,,.I lu,j ]:i SL'<!llr1tyS1111TCost 111*1 ].I lflihlyStnff('u~I Subtolul l'om.. l lu l'**r1ud*IJ..,p,*nd,*nl Co,1,
TOTAL l't-:kl(Jll Jo CIJ!'.'i l'ERIOD lb - llcL.. 1m111i,.,.iuning l'rcpurvtion,<
l'e1'1<HI lb lltrnt.1 ll<'t'<>mmt~s,nmni: A<*l11*111r~
Ut*lmh*dWorkl'r<!(.<*du1*ub lb I I I l'lunt ~y~lf'm~
lb 11 2 NSSS IJ,,.'tmh1mm11\\1on 'lush lb I I a Reuctormlf'rmil.~
lb I 1 -1 l!,*nrn1mnibu1ld.int~
Jb 11 !i CHl)11H1hnt a~~"mhlv lb I I I; l'RI) huu~1nK" & 11'1 tube~
lb I I 7 111<-ut*** 1nsh*u.menl allon lb l I K IIN,l'luru*~~,il lb 11 !I t,*.,.*1ht)' dos,,,m1 lb I I JU M,~~110 "hrnld" ll, I I 11 B1,.\\us:1t:11l~hwl,I lb.\\.1.1:l Sl"'>fflii'"n,*t*alur" lb I I 1:1 R1,infon*,*d,*nm:l'ell' lb\\ 111 Mu111Tu1*bm,*
lb\\ I 15 Mu111ro11dom,**n lb I J H, Aux1har)l,wldml!
lb I I 17 Rw1t:lu1*buildm1:
lb 11 Total lh I 2 D,,runp11mu1-yl.,.,1, lb.I Subtutul l'*inod lb Acm*u~* l'n~h l'miU<I lb Addiliunul Cu~h lb:! I S1uml Fud l',w,I bolu\\1011 lb:!2 S11,,1'h,11*11drrrn11hon lbl!3 A,h,*~1u.*Abu1t*n11,nt lb2 Subtut<1l !',*nod IL Ad1.hllunulCu,1" l'rt"!od lb<'ullulct*ul c*u~h lb:! I JJ,.,:uno<1u11,m,*nl IL :1 :!
DOC ~tuffr,*lut*nlu,n,*11.i,,*ns.,~
lb.:t.:\\
l'r"'-"''ss d,... ~1mm1~~1<1nln1: 11.'Hl"r \\\\'o~,.,
lb :1 I l'roc"~s dccumm1"~1umn11.,hmm,*ul nu~h w,.~l<-
lb.:Ui Small tuul ullow.imu ib.:u; l'iJ1t*<'ullin1:**qu11inwnt lb.:t.7
[),..,onrii:
lb.:1.K S1111nt Fu.ii C11111t11l nnd Tr,111,-f,*1*
lb :1 !I Trilium Murulormi lh:110 N~:I J,'.,.,,.
lb :1 Subl<1tnl l'cruul lb c.. 11.,1nrul c*u~t~
l'unud lb l'1*11ud-Oi,p1*mli*nl ('u,t~
lb *I I UL~*on su&#xb5;phc~
lbl:!
lnsuroncc IL4:1 1'1ui,N'ly1m.:,,,
TLG Service*, LLC llec,011 Cu!<t 111,;;
I l!ifi 1,2;;:1
:!!',52
:Jll,lfi 11 Table C DC Cook Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousand* of 2024 Dollar.)
orr-Site LLNW lfomov11I l'11ck111(inl[
Tn,n,-port l'roccs,;inl[
l)ir<po,;ul Other Tot11I Tnt11l Cu.'lt.-1 c..,.t Cu.~ti<
Co!<ti<
Co,<b Cu!<t!<
Cu,1t,.
Cunlingenc 11!1';'
111r,!1 lloli lbli 20 l'ilMJ 15:!0 17 1 J:MIII
\\1110 l/011 111>9 5:!8
!'ir,2
!ill w,
6,U':'
7,:',fi l
:i;;:11t:1 l!::i
:,(j()rn!
2:i 1:1:11;2:,
27!!
:mr, b5 11;1 fi!i
: lir, h1i
:!!I 77 2!17 J/1]
101 lih lif; 2111; l!, llh 1:,.or,r, im11
:.mJ lill!l fi!l 2142 lf,!J!J 2G:11;;
\\I:!
2201
:.!KfliO i,r,1
: flf,
\\!I 210 1ar.
:.!0,1 1,202 1031 i,a1a 9,;,;
5Kl li:i!i Ti 5!11 10
%6 7,IU:!
1,1:1:1 11.m1;
,;;m; 101;90 8/HU t.G5llll l!tl2f,a li>:07112 1r; 1"
2-1 1a 10 1"
10 I:!
1 10 Jr, 2(,
:!Ii
:122
'ill2
!IOI
:\\fil l81i um 71
;1 71
:.!70 11!1
.1*1:!
llh lib iu:1 20:i l! *lfiK I.iii l:.!l!i mg
,m
~ a-188
! *Ill
:,MU
]":l!J
:1!-1 21Hl HI\\
:!:!8:1
:1
:!:!1i
]7:!!j
:18:l ll!l:l!'i
:1:1r,r,
:IO,:l:!2 iiH:i!J 1\\814" 11
!It.
1017 NIH' Spent Fuel Lie. Term.
Munul(ement Cu,it...
Cu!<l!<
::.mm 1202 11131
~ *. 1 2,:n:1 9.'Xi fi.~-.
7,,IU:!
11,filli lll.li90 fjf,,27,1 IUl.111:i
:1w 7-1 lllti 25 7,1 71,.
:.!711
~*
:1,12
]8:.!
UI:!
2001 1.717
:11:.1 li,:0:1
:!,722 2,*10!1 2:!,*l*l*I 1, 141
],11:\\11 200
:J :!K:I l!t l.7l!'i 2.!):lfi 1*1
]O(i 1.1117 11),1 5KI
!i!ll l,l!l!l f,1,l!HI
:m,:lt:!
:lO:lll:.!
Site l'rocer<sed Auriul Volumes Huriul I Utility und lfostorution
\\"ulume
<'IIL~r<.\\
Cl1L~s B Cluss ('
GTCr Procer<11ed Cruft Contructnr Co!lb Cu. Feet __ Cu. J,'eet Cu. Feet
{'u. t-'eet Cu. t-'ect Wt., Lb!I.
M1mhour,o Mvnhuur!<
a:11;
;5 11r.
110 20 lfil lilO 5:138 1i.:1:111 U,H tr.!I 117!1 Ki!l 1~.rno ll!l!-IU fi!l;i!II G!l.. ml
!f,fil-1 tt:i1ar, 10:11:!!!
20
],0(,7 IOi;?
1111:1:1 II 7UI
:!:!.1.15 l!l!i
\\:l:!O?ll
*1:!:!2,1(/
5513\\li
!iK77oill 2.0l!(;
1211 IIJ70 5711 ll!II
-1:ll'I lU l,f,5*1 f,J.l 19:1 514
\\.!16!1 12K tiWI llf.11 1, ]f,lol 112:.111 11:!l!II
:1770 Doc1,n1ent ll:J-llttft-001, Re11. 0 Appe1,di1t C, Po1e JZ of 111
 
D. C'. Cooh Nu.clear Po1Hr Plo11t Dcco11n11i.. ior,i11* Coat A,,oly*~
Acti\\*it\\'
lndui Activity Oc11criftl!un l'cr10,llbl',*l'iod*lll'("'"d'*ntt'o,i1s(,*ont1nui,J) lb4 I lln1llhph)i.11*~sup11ll<'"
lb-If*
11.,aVV<!tjUlpm,*nlr<*ntul lb Iii 1)1,-1w~nlufl)_.\\W1tunl'n*lt*<l Jb4 i
!'Jani,,n,,~}*hud~**l ib *I.M NHCJ,',.,,s lb *19 Emol):1mcY l'hmnm11, t,',,u
\\b4 HI SlleO&Ml'u,-t lb 4 11 Sp,*nt F1u*J l'uu! O&i\\l lb <1.12 ISFSI O!>l'l'lllin~ Cu1h lh *I la l't>l'pUl'Hl<* A&(:Cn~t lb -1 11 St'l:W'ily Stuff Cu.~,
lb'11l'i DOCSlnffCu~I lbA.W Utili1rSt11ffCo~I lb.,I Subtolul l'c,ri,.,l lh l'f'rl*'<I-IJ,,11f'n<lrn11*u~h
'l'OTAL l' ~klOI) lb COS'J' l'ERIOU 1 TOTAI.S l'EklOD l!u-1.urtc,: Cotnpon,:r,t ffc1n,w11I i'(:l'tml :.!a llirec*t l>on1mm1ssrnnin11. Achnhos Nu,*\\..,11* s,,,,,m Su1111IY S!t~h*m l1,*n1uv>1I
:!1111 I H.. nctm*t'ool11nt 1'11un1:
:.!11 I I 2 P1*1*ssur1i-.01* Rdll'fT11nk 2a I I :t l{,,,.-tu1* Cuulunt l'wn1>~ & Motol'~
:!u.1.1.-1 l'r<lUUl'llt<JI'
:!11.l.l.!i S1eumt;enr.r11lu1*~
:!a. I.\\.I; CHl)Ms/JCls/SN*\\'tt"' S11*udu1~* k<*muv"l 2u. I.\\.i lfo,K:lur v.,~~d lnlurn11b
:!u.1.1.M
\\'.,ss,il & Jntc,rn11I, UTCC Dis1>os11l 2>1.I.UI Hc...,lur \\'"~""I l!a.1.1 Totals kc,mm*alufMajurfo~quiJlm"nl 211 I 2 M11in Tu1bind0.,1101*atol'
:.!ul;I l\\lumC'und<tnwn,.
Cos-,,.dini Cnsls frum Clenn Bmld1111: IJ.,mohhon
:!11 I 11 He,dcll' 2a I 12
,\\u,ulury
:!u I I Tutal*
D1,-11u~ul uf l'lunl S,1 ~h*m$
:!1& 151
,\\ux1hury 'ttt-'<111*1&h*1
:!u If,:!
,\\u:,uhur} Slt*am 211 I ;; ;1 fll,,,,JSteum
:.!a 15 I Blowdu"n
:!al55
{'lwmn,olC'lt>,1111111:
:!11 Ir,,;
C1n:ulahn~ Wate1*
;!., I /i 7
('undlln~a***
:.!a I 5 1:1 I 'nndnum1* An* ll**mu,*al
:!11 I :', !J Cunlnmnwnl :quulii,;nllun I llrd 211 I fi IO 1'.ontr<,I& ln,;lr11m.,nlllliu11
:!a I r, I I ('nntrol und DN*ont.. mlR>1llon Air 2,1 I 5 12 U**mmN'aiti-.ud W.itN*
:!n I r,,1:1 11\\'AC ill,-.*hunil-ul i\\111inll*nun<~*
2a 15 II 11\\'AC'l'urbnw
:!u I 5 l:i Hral<'r~ llnt1ns 11nd Venh
:!111516 Mum
'f't*dwulm*
:!a.u*,1i !\\lumG,*ne1*ato1*
:!ullilll Mum'l\\irbm,*
2u 1 5 l!I Non*li:~~1*ntml Sl-1'1'1c:.. W:,11,r
:!11 I !'>::U l'lunt Au 211 I ;, :! I Pust A.ct*ulonl Ctmt II:! Momlonn1 2u I r,2:.i Post A,,c1dentS>1m11hn1 2u I 5 2J l(.,,.,tu1* llydrugl'I\\ & N1trt)\\11*n TLG Seruice*, LLC Decon c.... t f,O*M
!iO M
:!tiM J;,U 21;1 1;;:,
!1-11, Table C DC Cook Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thouunds of 2024 Dollars) c,rr-Sitc I.LR\\\\'
NRC Spent J,'uel Site Removal l'uck11v;ini,r Trun,-port l'rucc,;,;inlC IJl,;pn,;al Other c..,.,~
Total
_t'.;onti~c_\\
Toto.I
~~'!
Lie. Term.
M11RU1CCRICllt Rc,;tnr11.tlon Cust c..,,t,,.
C'u,;t,.
C""t" Cu,.t,i_
61M
... j 1262 G, 121 12:!
71; iill'ill h *l:!M M:!lj 2U!lil l!lh
,171.,
17:l!i
:.!.IM:!
:11 1
:!llli 52
;ill IU:!
r,1 JOI 151 fii 12
:ll:IM
!(ii l,9M7
:!Iii Ut 77i
:t1">1il
:!l:1509 IK,i
:!0!1 2:1,1 1:1:1
:1.i!ii 2,1!1(1
!Ill:.!
11 2006
:!!1:1 21;:1 21i
:!5t.
:1,22r, J,7tili G.7m; li.7,1:1
:in,,;-;.,
:!,\\!If,
~1.0:i!I
:!.519
:!\\ti.liH-1 1\\01 2:11
,.102 l :!."i!l M91f>
l:lti\\
Wl-lfl 1u.:12r, f, IM1;
-ll:1 '11i5
:12
,JI';
M:IJ 31 M
8 12
;1111
-IMI a,iO!I 51;!0
-1:1:11 1015 i7fl0
:.!.(iii!
:!0,'10,1 5,!iW 1:.i,:rn1; 15.-1-li 110!.IO:!
fill:!
z:lti l
!17
*ltii 5:IU ZM:!5
*IOI 2:112 i; OHh
:m.tJll;i
*lfi!I 2;15fi
\\!t!l';'II 6i,1:t1
\\f,l!J 111171 10:lf,li
:m LIO a!ll:111:1 l501ii :I
:,!!I hi
:12;
:ll 21 1
2:!h r;r;
/ill 1!1!15
:.!<ill!)
ll!i ~,
1 1-1 1:11; 2:1';'
11~
120 IOU 1:1 111 C'u.'l\\;o C'""t" Costll Ill()
r,1-1
:!,:IOi
:1:.i2 a,7119 1,:1:1 1 7,7110 20,,10,1 117:11 7!1'1!1:1 ll:IOfii!I 2.alil 1{;7 2.11.15 2_;1,i2
:1o!Hla 2.:100 Gi *l,14
\\!Mil
:w110 150b7:I r,1-1 1!1!15
:!./iO!l 11*1
::i,:;
:!:!G 5 17
\\15 1:1(;
2:17 14 Iii 120 IUO l'r,..,-..:s,icd Hurhal Volumes Huriul /
Utility 11nd
\\"olumc Cla,,;,;.\\
C'la,,;,; H
<'Ill,;,; C' GTCC' Procc,;i;cd Cr11ft C:nntr11ct1>r Cu. 1-'cct Cu. 1-'cct Cu. Feet Cu. J,'t:ct Cu. Feet Wt., Lb11.
Munhuur11 M11nhour11
:1;,1; G,.(fi:!
2.1nn
!iMI 6:171:1
*121;,
1:127:l
:l'l.K:11
*11111!1 1:!K!I 1:111r,
'1:J.2iJ
!',7l:11il
];q Iii llfi 1
117!1 iW 72!1 ii:!:!
7 I:!~
17!1615 l!H,11:Hi IMK-101>
m;-;1a
';':tO!l:!:I
:!f,T!lil
:t,Mh!'l:.!M!!
llli M!ll IIM(i(l!J
:!!Mil 110112
~7h<,t:l 21.161 1.or.r,;111
:!7,:il;fi 10,!1:lr, 1iiM 11 2.i1UH H!lill l,0112 1514 1 :1.w
:!:!.:Ga l:1,:1:.!!I
:il!MU
:119.m 116 *171 2!1111 71:!t)
-1024 H,:l\\.l:i 20227 I !1~>11
: 1. 1:12
!ihl
!!I 111:;
1,!Mli
:i.:11:1
:.iu:,
1:,:1 l!l
!iii\\
]:!.'i
!MIM im, 1&11 1,1;1~1 l, i:./.t, JM.;
*IB u
lif,,8fi7 6:1.266 211.a,w
;1-10.i02
:tul'l.700
!)l(l l!ii
:!.M71i lfiali 71):.!5 Document ll,1-lllt6-00J, Rev. 0 Appcndi1t (', Pa*c 13 of Ill
 
D. C'. c-h Nuclfl!ar Po1Hr Pltmt Dfl!com111U.ior,i11f ('oal Anal:,*~
,\\(.'ti\\*ity lndi,i,;
Activ.!!l'.._lli11cril!.!!!!!l U1~1,u~al uf Plant S_l"~h*ms {mnlm,wtl)
:.!a I 5 :.!4 lt,,a,*lu1* Uydn'll"" &: N1tru!l**n ltCA 211 I r. z:; Srr,-un W11,.h
:.!11 I r.zr. S1>0:undurrS,1m11hn1t ta I r. :n Sud.1um II) VU<*hlunl<: S)*~t**m tu I r..:u1 Slu11un J"Jnunug,*
:.!u. I.fi.t!I Turbmu Aux1l1111*y Couhn1t Wulur 2>>.l.fi
'rulals
:.!o. u; S1:11!foldini-in ~up1,ur1 or d,~..,mmiuiunmx 2ul Subtutull'er1ml211At:11nt1 t*u~b l',*nod 2.. Add111<111ul Cu~ls t11 t I Hem<1d1>1l 1Vhun S11rvurs 2;, 2 2 GTCr St-'I' Lo.1:a1*y W:,~te Sodium llplrux.id,* Di~l"'~ul Suhtolul l'ul'ltod :.!u Addilinnul Cost~
l'.,nu,12a('olla1N"al c*u~I~
:!a :t 1 i'n>1-.*~s d,~*un1m1~~UIOIDI!. w11h*t \\\\'ll~h,
:!M :1 :!
l'ro,.-.1*a du("omm1~~10ntni:,.h.,mu*,il nu~h '4"1btu 1.. :1:1 St11ullloul11llow1tnc" 2a,I *I Sv,*nl ~\\11>( f'avual nnd Tr1111~fo1*
211 :1r, s,,v,*111ni*,-
:!11 :1i; Tr11tumMon1lorini:
2.. :11 r-a:1 ~*00$
:.!io.l Subtutul Pet'!Od 211 CullnlN*aJ Cu*b l'<'nml:!11l'o,ru,d-Uep.. 11dfnt('u~ls 2114 I
[),..,un~11p1,lws
:!;1*1:!
Jn~Ul'UIU't*
:!u,l :1 l'rn1u,i*lyu,x,**
211 *I I IIPollh 1*h~*~1cs su11ph1>~
2114 5 llu:1vy,*11u1vm**nt n*nl:,t
:!11. 4 (;
lll~J>UM>I ul J),.\\\\\\' l!*'llt!l"llh*d t11*li l'l11nt**n.,1-cyhud1tlel
:!11 *I K NRI' ~*N,~
tj 4 !I
&#xa3;m,*ry1*111 y t*l.uuuni: F,,.,.
:.!n *I Ill S1h* O&i\\l Cu~I
:!11*111 s,,.,ntFu1>l l',x,IO&i\\l 2>> -I 12 ISFSI CJ111>1*n1mi: l'11sls
:.!a*I 1:,
('11rpur111,,,\\&l,G0>,\\
:!a 4 1-1 S,-.*ur1ty S111ffC11~1
:.!a -I In ll04'Stoffl'u*t 2n*I Iii l.lt1ht.1* St11ffl'ust
:.!11 4 Subtutul l'ol'ltnl :!a i',*nud-ll,*11t*11d<'nl c*o~b
'r<JT,<\\L Pb:Hl(JI) :.!11 <'OST l'EHIOIJ :!b-Sit.., Dc<.-unt11mi1111tinn P.. n,.,J tb IJ1rc<:1 llecumm1ss10111ni:,\\t:t1nhcs
:.!bl I lt.*muwsv1*ntfu,,Jruck>>
n1~11t,s11I of l'l11nt Srstcm~
:.!b 121
,\\ux1h1trrt-*.,.,dw1tll'l' k.l'A
:!bl :.!2 Aux1harrS1t*arnlH',.\\
:!b I 2:i llluwduwnllC,\\
:!b 1 t I Bu~ PrulL-.1\\on &: i\\letcnni:
2b l 2-5 l'hem11*11I Volume t'nnlrul S\\-~l1*m
:.!b I :! 6 l'untl"Jm,nl CuulmJ W 1ttl'I*
2b 127 C1>nd1>nsntP.RCA 2b 1211
<'unlmnmm1I
:.!b 12!1 t'untmnrm*ntSprnv
:.!b I :! 10 CunlruJ ond D,.....,n111n1111>1hun,\\ir ltCA tbl:!.11 l'untrnlundlnstrumcnl1t\\1<m th.l.:!.12 Uemine1*11li1AdWat<'rflf',\\
l!b.1.2.13 EJ,,.,tric:ol TLG Ser11iee*, LLC lh:cnn Cost
;;1 lli2 16:!
11:'iK 1.1:11 Table C DC Cook Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousand* of 2024 Dollars)
Off..,<.;iti,
- LLH\\\\
ki,mov.. l l'ackol,(inl{
Tran.. port l'rocc,;,;inl(
lll,;p,,,.al Uthcr Cu"~
Co.~t Cu,sbl Costt<
C,>Stt<
c.... t,,_
:.!*i 1.25-1 2.:1-1:1 27122
:.!fif; t5U
:1!1!.1 1
:;1011
!IIU:.!
:lti,7110
:.!G II
:11111 7:1!1 27U 17K 47-1..
:.!O II 1 li\\10 28.55:l 100
*13K
!1:1
,l;i 0
20
:1152
*~*
100
!',I 112 I
f;7 LOii 1:1 Iii 2KII
:!O
>H
:11 2111
-1:1\\1 331i 711 127
!K6:14 Ill 21:11 II 1150 a11m; 81\\IIJ l\\lMl
:1:1:,
111 H5G:!I M:11
:111;
:!ll'II IIMlM 70:.!
!IU:.!
121 KJ7!',
12,:1211
:io,1r.:1
,15612 1111 10-10:!7 IK!ltli 191 :t':"li 2:1 15 121:1
*17K
\\",J1 Total Cont~nc**
Total
_&#xa3;_-~
20
:m 11>1111
:u1:1 I0\\33 J5HKl7 K:!U 17;1
:l!JI
:15lil 1.12:1 Ull!!-1 7:.!
'171 2!15 l:.!171
!t:l,l\\l l,lf, 1,7]!',
r,:.i 50
:lK5 l:.!.!15:1
!l!IJaO
-IU 202 K:1
!Ill
:1KI
!l!lH l!l!I:.!
71,h iiH71
:1:m
!itt 1011:l Jill JJmt 3-;
*106 IO!',
110':"
\\;Jfi
\\,Oai Ill 1:m I ttG
!l *IUI l,Kl!I M,17K 1r.2:i
:111,7;,
6H-12 52 *1!',I 17.\\15 l:IO !Ki!I 71-12/i
:maKOI 171\\)
II 2:,
r,11;
:!7*1.,
l!la
;12-1...
251 771U
:11/i
:ll21i IGI':"
:!U 103H ltl:!3 25:.!
2:1
:IO 1!111 NHC Sp,mt f.'11,,I Lie. Term.
Man111(cmcn1
~---~
II
:11i:1 Jf,lil,'1:1 1 :12:1 lllll!l
:111 2M, 1.11-,
fi:.!
:1s:;
!;iK!I 21.12
!IJ,I
:1111 1 !1!12
!;,K7,t 1011:J JIOH
!1. IUI 11178
:llti7!;
52,45*1 l:!!l :!K!,
2!)1;7:;K 7,7-IU 141
:l.12ti l,lii7 1,11:IK 1,82:1 252 H:1:u1
!1:1:l\\J 1,0:17 l:l!l 1,!',K:.!
!1-1,K!l:I Sitc l'roci,sscd B11ri1&1 Vol11mi,,;
Huriul /
Utility und Rc.. tc,rlltion
,*olumi, Clwis.\\
("IIL~S B Clnss C GTCr Procc1,i.cd Craft Contractco-Cost,i Cu. 1:-'cct Cu. f.'cct Cu. f.'cct
('u, t,'ccl Cu. t-'cct Wt., Lb.~.
Munhuur,.
M>1.nhuur!<
10
:.!II 1.:m1 2123 21r.:1
:115 1,\\111
:.!fi 12!)0 Ill
*lf,027 t<J!i 2!15 4.515 1515 lfiD:.!7 fl:llli 217
:.!15
:1.5ti:I 6,:181 lif,ii
-1122
:1,:11:,
1.277 G
l,!liil 14:!!I
:n i2!1 7~
7115 15IO 10l7K m;21r, 2,0til
: 7. ltil0\\13 11:1 17.ifli 177tJ7
!J0.2:1r,
\\M):,/!lf,
:.!.OtO\\
7,thf):,/011 G0712i 1:1,!l:12 11.;l!i!I 21.:w1;
:1r,fi,Hiii
:l!MJ.t:!U
:!.!l(il 11:1,*1:la 2f,K!>IIJ I06t.5 1:$14
:!H:t 1:1:1 211:1:,1 20!10111
:1;1170 Hi 117
:.! Ii O~l:!
2:,5 m:1 t:lH 1.7:12 11.:1:.!4 12:15 1:.17
:.!,727 7,2K:I 1.:mt
:1211 157
:.!i :120 7,025
:.!\\:t.i!l:I 21111,00!1 5:lli,227 IO:UIO:lM Document IIJ-Ill%i-OOI, Re11. 0 Appfl!11db (', Paff// I I of 111
 
D. C'. C'ool1 Nuclear Pori>cr Pfont Dccomminio11i111 Coat Al1aly*UI
,\\,,th-it,*
Index_
Adivity Description IJ1~1,us,il ur l'lant S,1"~1<-ms ((*untmu,-d)
:.!b I:.: 14 Elo>t*tn,nl J)1st1"1buhu11
:.:b I:.: 1:i Elo><*tr1c11I 01~1nbutiu11 Rl'A
:lb 12 If. Elrdr1cullH 0A 2b 12 Ii El,***atur
:.:b. l.:.!. IM Enwl"l!"''Y Cur,* Cuuhni sr~***m
:.:b.l.:l.l!I Emm-.:uncyDil's<lllicncrutor 2b.l.2.21l En11:iMr.rt:d S11foty f,"m1turr.s \\'enlllHhon
:.!b.l.:!.:.!I E~~1*11li11IS.*n*i,-..W.. 11*1*
:!b.J.:.:.:.:2 Ess,*nlial S,*1*,*i,*,, \\\\'111,-r RCA
:.!bl2:.::1 fo'm,l'1*nlocl1un 2b I 2 2*1
~*n*u l'rnl0<11un R!',\\
:.!b I:.::.::, ~*\\lkuslumn
:lb 1.:.:.w 11\\'AC,\\ux1h11r~
:!b.1.2.27 11\\'ACCuntninmont 2b. \\.2.21S l*IVAC Cunh-ul Room
:.:b.1.:.:.:.:i1 11\\'AC l\\li..,~*llnm*ouos
:lb.1.:.:.an IIVAC MiS<,ell11net1Uli Rt'A 2b.l.:.:.:I\\
IIVAC S1,ent Fu.,\\ 1'1K1l 2b 1232 11\\'At'Switthll'""l'
:.:h I :: a:i ll\\'At:: T,.. hru,-.. 1 Su111,u1*t c.. 111..,
:!b I :.: :H k,,Cund,*n~"r
:lb I :.::1a J\\lu1n ~*rNlw111<*rlH',\\
:.!b I :.: :1G J\\lmnSt<*am
:!b I 2 :\\7 Mum s1.. an1 RCA
:lb I 2 :111 Nun-Es,..,1111111 S,*n*1c1* Wnh*r RC,\\
2b I 2 :l!-1 Nw*lrMI' lnstrumm1l1il11m
:.!bl:!*IU Nurl1*11rSum1,tmr
:lb I 2 II Olf~1tc l'u*vt:1
:.!b I 2 12 111111' t'll'>1n
* ln~ul>1tr.d 2b I :.: IJ l'1v1* \\'l,*un
* Nun*ln~1datml
:!b I:.: 11 l'111t*Cunlammu1,,,t.Jnsulated
:.!b I 2 If*
1'11w Cnntammntud
* Nun-msulated
:!b I :.: u; l'lant,\\11 kt 'A 2bl217 l'nman* Wah*r
:.!b l :! Iii l'run*s; Drum~* Mis,*,*llu1wuu~
!!b.l.:.!.-1!1 RadialionMunitu1-inMS!,'Sl1!m 2b.l.:U;n R11dim1t:li1&deg;t' W11sl" Ui~1rusol 2b 1251 R1*1oclu1 l'oulant Sy~t.,m
:.!bl:!!'i2 lt.,f,whni
:.!b I 2 5:1 lfo~utu,d ll~nt H,*mnvnl 2b 1251 Secunty
:.!b. I.:!.55 St*W"I!<' Ulspo~al 1111d *r.-..111m,*nl
:lb.1.2.f,r, S1wnl t'u,*I l'uul
:lb.1.2.57 Stal.iun /Jroin>tl(l!HI',\\
2b.J.2.58 Sup11l,*m1,ntol Dws,*1 G,*m*n1tu1*
:.!b.l.:!
Tutul~
:lb I :1 S,-ntl'uldm11 111,u1*1*url or dN*umm1u1un1nii:
J.Jt.,*unl.,n11011l1un ufS11,, Hu1ldtnl!'"
:lb I 11 Relfl:tur 2b I I:!
Au:ul"ry
:!bl 13 lludMut1*11al
:!b I I I
.1h,~1 Ftwl (RB & S~'I')
:lb I I Tolul~
:!b I 5 l'rrpon*l~ubnut Ltn*11~** Tt!l'mm1111un 1'!011
:.!b IJ>
lt,...-.v,, Nl(C up1wuvHI ufh*rnunaliun 1,l;m 2bt Sublulul l'cr1u,12b,\\,:m*1t)'l'u~b 1',,11ml :lh Add1tmn,o\\ Cu~*~
:lb 2 I L,.-.,n~r TN*mmuhun Su1*,*cv l'l11nmn~
:lb 2 2 Op.,r;itiunal 'fool" and !-;qw1,m**nt
:lb :l :t llnd1*1-r1-uund s.,nm:.,) Ei.c,wul1u11
:lb:! I
,\\bsori,twnl'1111dlfomt*dH1t1nn 1',*ru1tl :.!h !\\dd1lmn11l t'u~h (,:cmtmul'd)
:lb 2 5 l"untum1nu1,*d Soil (S.111 lt1*m<,1ha11un1
:!b :l H Nun Fu,*I p,,.,I lh*m ll1~pu~ul
:lb :! i Rum,*dlul ;\\.-hon Su1-v.,rs 2b:!
Sublntul l',-nod211 A,ldlltnn11I Co~I-.
TLG Service*, LLC Dccnn
('u,,t 1,2:,
120 71 122.;
2:110 J.771 Table C DC Cook Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of:2024 Dollars)
CJff-.'litc l,LRW Rcmovul l'ucknl(lnj(
Trun,;pnrt l'roct:,;slnl(
Dispn,... I C&deg;"t C&deg;"~-
Co11t11
~!!<- -~_bl_
r.r,I
:12
:;5;;;
\\!)5
:12 M2:!I IOI f,lf, 1,;
,;1 2111
:11 J:l!J 10:1
:1:1 1,
21ti!I 21;11 1 *11,1
!!)';'
Vii
:.:1 a-:-
:.:r,-;
\\lit l:.:U 51
!)!i ii;\\
,u 25li':':.!
ar,11
-11:1 2;\\]!J UM71
:16,:.:09 11:11
:.:uo 21;1 1;;1; I
\\It, 12 2:1 2U l:l ii 10 11 1:;;
~* "
2*1 l\\fl 251 l..",tl:l l:l
\\,\\
II~
J,\\
27 Iii 21 ~*
:.!(,ii
:1:;
Iii K
l!l l:S l:i7 1:.:r,1 121;,i
:JM2*1 i",1171 f,J 1,f,M!I 1:m; 1:10 2r,
:t,l:.!fi 1:.::.:
75
:.::u:
1:11:
I" 2!1 1"7 2111 I
I"
,1 6UI!';'
i;r,
: 251, ti:",71,
:;;,o 111:1 t!l7 2til l:lll Mfi
!l:l
\\K
*I
:!0*47 27(i
""1 61 IW 120
:125 lr,Jt, 1;7 1-11
:th27 122
';'0\\2
\\J,50:i 2:17!17 171\\ll
:1!11 llthur Cost!'
Tot11I Contingenc.**
Toto.I C..,.L,.
M:l fi:11 1:1 711 207':'
IIMM';'
u u
15 II:!
12.
II:!
l,2:1.1 9 -1,;M
-11:1 2W f,7
:.:r,M l.'l:.!*1 1:i:1
;,;1
*I 27 20 Hi:t
*II 2!1 It.Cl K
11-1 li:l:!
:1.1 201;
:.!I HiO
,.r.
a:.:-1 li:I
:15M l*I 70 18
:1:.:r, 2,*195
*IU
:IOI!
!l5fi C,.115(;
\\:l!l HiM w
=
D I~
11 7-1
:.:1:.:
11-1-1
~
~*;
1$
6il 12
:~
110
'itlO 11
:.::m 4
11*15*1
!il*IIM liii'I f,1;:.:
2.:m:.:
2,2:IO 11:!!l!I 211:.:
1<101:1
:J\\llf, 1.;;i;-;
ll:Jf;(l 17 1:1:!
!l-1ti2:I
:!HM J :i!lli 5:J
*IIO
,\\:J';'
IIJ2Ci I !I:!!&deg;,
Jor,;,;,
IMli 2707!1
:l!M,
)n/1:1 l 001 1:1:.0 Mll7!1 17f,!l!I NRC Spent fo'ud Site Lie. Term.
M11n111(cmcnt Restoration C'o,.t,,
Co.'<ts Crn*b 711 11.1:11:17
!i!',7 (iti l*l:l 27!1 1.-12*1 7,;1 11 1(,11 1;22
:.m1;
:12,1
:1iwl
';'tl 1*
5.U:'>6 f:7M J,U5ti 125 1111 26.'i
:11(;
r.11 f.!IO
:!:Iii
,1r,,i4r, 17li!'I
:!2M:l 11:!!l!)
1, 1011 1r,:1;;
.10:14;1; iM,b20 l,t.!lll
-lltl IM2li
\\O,r.5!',
27,07!1 l.liM'.I
-1,:1r;o
'.J';',5!1!)
112
!l, 15M 1:,:1 WU
:!1!15 JOIS 112 5!!
lli,IMl:I l'rocc,;scd Buri11I \\'11lumc11 Buriul J
\\*olumc Clas,;.\\
ClllSs U Class("
GTf'C' Proc:e,;,;cd Cr11ft C'u. fo'cct Cu. fo'cct Cu. Feet
_Cu. fo'cct
('u. Feet Wt..!. Lb~
Munhuur,i
:m2
:ut:.!!N J, l!IU 201 ll20
:.!,M!l2 1.!lH7 11!1
:mn 10:ll
\\,()(j,1
,11 21
:.!,:!HI
:!70
\\Ii 2.r,77 1:1 1:.:1:
107:1 Wi
/Iii 1:17
:111<1 Will i-1572 JH:lii 11 1,-17';'
271
!It,
;n; 700 10:.:
:llili II':'
:.:2r.
:JUI 111 11 5,*121
;:1:1 112 WO l:l!ll 23!1
.1:.::.:
M:i':'
7,t';'
1711 171 f.!1:1
:s.11::i
:11,:1-11 I!!
3,li*II a.1:m
:Qt.:111 11MIM 77121 110.:\\;,.;
IO!l!l:12 5.llf.U
:i1.or,o 81000 l",Mr.O
\\120!/M l:HMll lti-1!1.UO I
':'M.1'1-1 M,(i.\\-1
:.::1,i:Hi
-1:1,*1!19 WM.II:!
112,!!MI f,,7K-1
:!llti,lfi 1:r, 1011
-111,!l() I
!',7MCi:.!
lll!lli:1 1.2:ir.
100:1 112.15:1 f,fft)()G 9:!1) 1r,:1MJ:1 1:.:20:1 1,1:i1 l:!li,l!I';'
21:..mH
:1i1.1<1a
';':i,15ii Wi,!lOM
:17,11/l!i
'1f,UK,IU5 117,91:.!
:!(Jf,.()I';'
l, IMU,!itl2 172,117-1 1.i-17.:.!II
:1,1;111;,;n1 KM:.:0,1 -111 llti25U
:!, 1:.!l!lOO ll;JIHOOO
'11111:!
ll,IIM!l!l52 11.7:il Ifft;
;;,21;r,
:t,11:'iCJ 1,!;t~
-1:IM
:,12 1:1:.:.210 1,56!1
!Ill 7,:115 2,:!iiti 210 7(iti 113
:1,!Kll'I
,,,1:1
:.:.:114 1.(10,1 l.:i:i,I f,lti 1:17 1.>1
:lll,-115 l,!11:1
:.:OUEH
:.:,71Cl
:1;;
1,372
:th,I iii:l
:l,!12:.!
1.333 l,!i:10 1,921 12r,.;
\\l!Ki
,11 Jr..f'.!I~
!i5,7ti!1 7,f,;l\\1
,JM.02il l21i,9:ll a!t!Ui70 1',
7UO,I 1,7M
:.:021; 1 u:;o
*lli,:J,;r, fi':'12!1 Utility,md Contr11ctnr M1,1nhuur!i I ;~.;1
!i.:!IO Docunumt l13-lllt6-00J, Beu. 0 Appc11db C', Powe JS of 111
 
D. ('. Cooh Nuclear Po111er Planl Decom111iu io11i111 Co.I A,,a/:y*U A<:th*U~*
_!_ndcx _
Pt*nod!!b f'ullat,*rnl C'usl:,
A~-tivity De....,riptiun 2b :I I i'l'<M'CSS dt:cumlmss!Unllll: lll'llh'I' Wll:,h*
:!b.3.2 l'ru,,cs~ d<.-c1,mm1,-:,1<111.1n1t, h1*m1cl\\l nu,.h w,.,.,,.
:!Ii,;\\.~
Sn1all luol 11ll0\\1 11m*"
ti..:u ll1'<:un11ni11Siumni: J.~qw11nwnl [),,;1,nMliun tb.:1.5 S1:1*m*unct*
2b.:1.f; Trilium Mnnitm*mx
::b.:t.i NE! J,'.,.,,;
21,.:1 Suhtulul l',:riud2hCull11t,*1*11lCu,;1s l'cr1ml 2b l'l'l'loti*llu11t*ndl'ntC'usl s
!!b ~ I D,,.:un s111111hr,.
tb.*\\.2 lnsur,m,..,
!!b.'1.:1 l'rn1,.,r1y l,O,:<'>
tt,..\\.-1 llu:,lth 1*h)*si,*" :111111llw:1
:!l,.4,!';
lfoavy,*qlli\\onwnt n *nlul 2b.-l.l; l)is1Jns11J of I)_.\\\\\\' itt1nr,rulo,d 2bA.i l'l11nt "nc111y bud1tr.l 2b -1 8 Nl!C' Fuu~
:!Ii *I~
E:nll'll!1*11<y f'lnnnmj! F,*,*~
tb 4 Ill Sit,* O&M 1'11:11 2b,t 11 L1q111<I Hndwn.. lc i'r,>1:11~~1111: l-:q11111m,mtfSr rv1r 1:~
!!b *I I!!
ISJ,'SI 011ri*atm11 Cu,;h 2b -I 1:1 Cur11urah* A&G Cu~1
:!b.4.11 St.-c:1111ly StJ11Tl:ust
'.!b.4.15 uoc; s101T tJns1
!!b.4.11.i lJ1ili1rStafff;u.,1 2b4 Suhtolol l'miod2h l't:rioJ.l),,p,*n,fontCush 21.0 TOTAL l'Jo: Hllll) 2b c os*r PERIOJ) :.!f-License Tcrminutiun l'nm 1tl 2fl>m>cl l,k!tvmmi!t:iionmi:,\\,*1h'itws
!![I.I Ol{ISE,vnlJrm11lul'y >lll'\\01*y 21'.l.2 T.,nninotl'li,~,nsi, tf I Sublol1d i'N*hKI tf.'\\ctil*u r l'ust.~
i'i,nudtf AdJ.1110111tJ Cusls tf.t.l Li,:ens.,Tct*minJ1tionSu1*v"y 2[2 Subtutul l'el'iud 21' Add11um11l I *osls l'1*ti0ti '.!f' Cullot1*r11I Cu~ls 21'.:l. l IJ(JC ~luff n,J,,.,atmn uxp,msus
::!f.J.t Stff<*l'ant:1*
!!f.:1.a Tl'ltium Monitur1111
!!f:f,l N EJ lo'uus t f:l Subtntnl l'N1udtfC'ull11ter..\\ Cu,;1~
l'<'nod!!f l'**nod*IJ.*111*11d1*11I Co:ils
!!1-l I lnsu1*111u-..
!!fl'.!
l'l'<ll>N*ly llu.:r.,-
2f I 3 lloalth J>h) >1r:1 ~11111,lw~
!!I 1-1 l)1~po>nl ofl)_-\\\\\\'it**n" ritll*d
!!fl 5 l'l11nl l!ne11:s hudi:.. 1 2fl l>
NIU-F""~
!!f-1 7 Em,*1-g<*n<')' l'lanmni: f.,,,.,
t i' *I.II
~hh* O&M Cu~I 21' 1.9 ISl,'SI Opel >>lln~ Cush 2f ll0 l'urpt11'1<ll' A&l;('usl
!!f-1 II s,,._w*11yS1nffl'usl 2r 1. 12 nocs111trcu~1 2r-11 :1 lJhh1ySt11ffC'ost 21' I Sulilulal l'unnd l!fl'.-a*1ud-U1*p1*nd1*n1 t*u~b 21"0 TOTAL 1*J,:H1on 2f('(JST PERIOD 21'tJTALS TLG Ser1.1icH, LL('
Jlccnn Cu!lt
\\(~)
\\Ml
\\11:ll I.K:ll 57b2 fi,!l~J Table C DC Cook Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thouu nde of 2024 Dollar.11)
Orr-Site LLf(\\\\"
Remov11I l'11cka l('inj(
Transport l'roccs,.i n l(
Dispn.cal Other c~
CUOlt Cu,iti<_
Co!ltll C~
t ll __
Cu11~
f;f,";'
h f,j 711!!1
<,,1<r.1 1-1,:100
;;2 !II~
2 1!18 21m1
!l\\ !l21 M*;
1-l!'i
],If, 22\\JO a:M
: r. 1:1 l:!i r, 1:1 IIH !h 711J 2 1122 IU2!',7
:t5H 1!17
.*,.;r, lt!'i:l 21;2 1.0111 12 1 a:rn1 12:13 i9!!
ll r',h
!l,2211 IO!l!i,11
;1;;,;111 5\\*11:1
:tlil!
115.1:111 1!111115 1211;111 1:11 1!11 l!l,illli lll70f; l!'i!l!l 8700 l!J,.,
10:11;:1
:111:i 41 -1
!!K 50
:1iu::
,t,H:IH 5;115 (1;(5!1 II
-Iii ll!l
!18745
:m2 um Total
~nt~*
IGI IHI 4511 102 12 1!17:J WI
!I\\
123 Total Cm.t...
i5t>
11-1:1 t.-1
*IIK
*1.<12,1 221111
\\ IHI
.iljj Hllfil i.liO
!-72 J :157
'.):!
11!1
!Ill Ii:!
1 :1:IO liU 1:1111 10.1;1:1
!,ti ll 12ti01
:;:12H IOllli iii:!
!i!!IJ!5 l::Oh lf, l:i2,!.1Jf, 17,hl!I
:!!~t,21t 2.111
'1.!.112 251i lll
:;1112 2;;,(il K 21fl IH:!!l I :IO!i IO OO!'i 2!!
r,2
\\51ii 11.!llll i,-1!1 12
:lill lf,11 27-li
:1,1!1 4:;;,
,0 1:17 1,051 555
*12U7 721i ii.:,1;:1 HO:!
li llli 2\\132 21313 JOif,f,
:',!)097 12!1!'>0(1 7'1211:1 NRC Spent Jo'ucf Lie. *rcnn.
M.. naj(emcnt C'm,t,i Cu,its 1, 1!11 7;,t, l.],J!I H,1:1 111,..
1 12-1
!!2H!I I.II!!
1,;;
!1,111,,\\
1,:1111 5it
:1,Hl,H 1,:,;;7
!l\\l 1:1:m JO(;l:1 12,liOI IU.KH 511125 1r,2.:1:1:1 l!K:!.!lifi 2111 25,ti!H 25.HIK I Ha!l 10 005 r,:,t l l!llll aiH l.;H 2,7"17
:1,1!1 1,;,;
1.11r.1
:!,!',!1:l r,.r.c;:1 5_;,1;2 l8!17b
:,ri7CiO 2{i:I
!!D:I 16&#xa3;i5 5HI
::,l:n 2,:1:1i
!17, 111:1 Site l'roce,.i.cd Buri11I V.,lunu:i.
Burial f Restorntion
\\"olumc Clw;,; A Closs B Clnss C GTrC l'roccs>'cd Cr11ft Cm,t,i Cu. J."cet Cu. J."c..t Cu. f'cet Cu. Feet C'u. t,'cl!t Wt., Lbs.
Manhuur" 9r,;;
1.-IHI t.!o\\!I r:,lil!l lii ll03
!12,205 2300~2 33i
:1:1; IH,Jf,ll 1:17,2:12 W3. 185 12!1
!ii2!IO 1:m :111 J:IO,:li,I
\\K,201.370 f;,i:11 ii 7:I-I 1;1:11 Mi 1;17:s,11
:!!HI.Ht 290742 2!l07:i:I 2.lllil 2:; 171:IIU 11851!10 lJtility,md Contrnctor M11nhoun1
\\!)2};011
:1:1H.Ci2*1 liOfi,:MH I 1:11i,li:I 1111:.0H
:l,\\2(1
:1.120
{iii,O:M l(;_r;12 51Ul-l2 171,5!1H li171H 2 :u:127!1 Dacumf/11111,'J.Jlft~-DDJ, &ti. 0 Appemlb: (', Pa1e If of IA
 
D. C'. C'ooh Nucleor Pou,er Plo11t Deco11m1inio11ilfl Coat Alu,l_v.UI
~,C.:~~:~~
A(.'fivlcy Dc>1cription Pl<~KIOI> lb* Sitc Kc>1tur11tiun 1'1>r1ml :111 lhn*.-1 lll'<-'tlmm1,,1omn1 A<*llnh e,-
D**muhhun ur R,*111n1nLnl! su.. B111l.lm1!"
ab 111 R,ml'lur
:lb I I!!
,\\Jd1l1onulS1ruc:11,1r<!s!lOIII
:n, 11 :1
,\\u:uhu-y
:1b.J.l.'1 Hl"st J>nin1 Sh111*
:lb I I !i FLEX
: Jblll, om,,,,
:tb l I; UHAuxtl1111) ab 11 M RmlM11ten11l
:lb I I !I S.*rncnhuu~r Um\\!!
:1b I I lO s,.. *w*1ty ~Jo,blit-utwn :.w:,M
:11, 11 11 S,,,..,..,..,
:ib 1112 Sew.. i:eTn,,..,m.,nt
:lb I I 1:1 Sil<! Rm] f-'cm*r~ Pnvr nu,nt ab I I M Tl'if'NAB
:ib I I 1:, Tl'iOC
:lb I I IG T!.lnk l'"d~ and 1'1pe Tunnt*I~
:lb 1117 Turbme
:lb 11 18 W:m,hou~""
:11, I I TulHb Site ('lo~eoul,.\\,t1nlm~
:ib l :.!
li11,*kF1IIS1h'
:'lb I :1 G1*11Ju& l11nd,.,*111rn Mh*
:lb l I 1<'111111 report l1> NRt' Jb I Subtot:,J J'cn"'I ab i\\cll\\'1\\r 1*o~h l'emnl :lb Add111onul Cu~h
:lb!! I t'olt<'t <!lr l'nu h1nx Jb 2 2 t:olforJum Jn,ot!.111!.ll!Un und Hr muvul
:1b :l :1 Cunslrucl1un l'lrl,n,.
:1b !l -1 fl'IIIUm Mnn1tor Well~
:lb!!
l'iubtotul l'enod:\\b Addtllon.,J ('o,a~
l't>rio,l :ib Cullatrrnl Cush
:ib:l I Sm11\\ltuo\\ulluw11nce
:lb :1 2 Tnlium M11mt,11*mx
:lb :l :I NEI t'ucs
:ti, :1 Suhlutul l'**nud :11, Cul111t,*ral Custs Peri"'\\ ab l',*nuJ-IJ,*1wntl,*nt t'osl~
:lb4 l lnsw*urn..,
:1b 4 !!
l'1opcrtv t uxi,~
:\\b.1 :J IIPUVV cqm1*mrnlrcntnl
:lb *I I l'l.,nti,n<'l*ii:,1* bude1*t
:lb *I 5 NH C: 1s~*s1 F,,,,,.
ab-11; En1" '1i"llt'V l'l11nmn1t ~*m,s
:lb,17 S1t1! IJ&Mt 'u., 1 Jb *18 ISFSI llpN*a1mi: rust~
:\\b *l !J c.....,.....,,.,\\&l>Cusl
:lb,1 ]f\\
SL*t'\\ll'IIVSl111ft'nsl
:lb *I II IJOt'S111ff t'osl
:1b,1 I!!
Ut1hty Sl111f Co~t
:lb *I Subhll,o\\ l',*riu,I :ii, i'o*t*iud-Ll,*pt*nd,*111 Cu~ls
:lbO f l)TAL PEltlOU :lb COi-.'T TLG SertJice*, LLC Dccn11 Cu>1t Table C DC Cook Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Tbouaand* of2024 Dolla ra)
Off-Site LLR\\\\'
NK('-
-SJ)Cl1t FuCI Rcmovul l'uck:iitinl(
Truns port f>rucc,,;sin jl l>i,,;po,,;ul Other Totul Tnt"I
_Qo,;t,o:
Lie. Term.
Mllnul(cment Cu,it Co,,t,o:
~.,,t,.
Cu,;t,.
CuJ1t>I_
Cu"~
Cunt~nc,**
251:.!
!iii 15.fll:.!
!!till
~51 1,(;11; 511:l 11' 51M
!;!I
-111r, 17'
!l11!J
!Of, l i lll
:11101 a2.011 l.!!H!i
(;:Jii 34021 tr,:11 5IO 2 U.J I w :m;
: 1027f, IGhN!i 1111 JUI 10:IM
(!j ;
G!IG
,I!);
!',!lll
,17::
IW 171 1 :1i1!1 5 0!!1 l:', -l!Hi HO.I:!
at Pl
:1:1 7!12
:!Ml 2,!l!!*I 2.:1.1:.!
li.!i5:I
*I
:11
$ :l
\\,!110 a
=
111
\\~
a
-11, -
l!ll ilfi i'i,4iM r,11
,J.:\\ili 4.110;
:1(;11r.1 111:1 l*li; IOI 1100
::; 1w ai121J M:.!
II
.u;!J 5!!
\\,ii11 5Hi 10:JO 111;
:1,;11
:l!l!i 75 UIO c.:.o
(,lJ (if,U
;,o r,1; 1511 IIIIIM 7!1 tiU!',
i-;
r.:w 111 IOM Ill l:IM
!!ti 200
:HO lliU11 7!i:I 5iil 2:!!l-1 17M!!D 1!!05 1;:1t:1 mo:m 11,!IMM 924ti5 ro,it,o:
Co"t" l ltl llh 111; 7:;
151
!!2(i 520 um 577.J
!! OM ll li l 'i Site-l'rocc,-scd-Uuriil'i/ nlumCI' -
Huriul f --
-Utility,.and Rc,,;tnra.tion
\\'olu mc Clia,;s.\\
Clu,,;s B Chu,,. C GTCf' Prnccs~ed Craft Cont1*11ctor
('u,it11 Cu.~<,:t C~Fcet
~ U_, Feet
~
-* t-'cct _Cu. t-'c ct _
__ Wt., Lb>!,_
M1m_huur11 M1mhou r,<
2.92 I j!i 17.!15:l a\\
!15 30!1 1.0!1,J l,!Mtl r,;!)
Jafi (i:IU Ill am; 2UU 1:.!l r,, liM 4375
:W.ll!'il 1.,1;7
,mo
:1i11t11 1,1;11
!ill7 1.0!JO Mti
;\\Ji.JI
:..~I l!ll G5fi r,.17 11,11111 m15 u:011 17,fl!!O 7.:!:.!:l
,ICJ. i! C, ll:l!'.117 2!!9UI 171
\\lf,11:IU
:102 i 7tl
!lli25 Kt,KO Hi,f,(;7
:172(;
1,llft<I 12M<I
](1('11,,
:l IM l,52U
:.!,tif,t) 9:17
:IM,:127
*l:.!,(16\\
!!JJ;_(>>l7
:.!lil:I I !'i!~l
:m1.:12!i
!i,!125
:1,IIK!I
~I M 15
:1111-1-1 1;1;11 1;6/1 MH!IM!l 1-ll(ki7
!11741
:lt!!7M!)
:12:1 4~,7 Docu111e11t IJJ.Jllt6-00I, &1,. 0 Appe11dix C', Po1e 17 of Ill
 
D. C. C'ooh Nuclear Poi.er Plant Decom111iuio11i1tf Ca.t Alrnly*ia Table C DC Cook Unit 2 DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Tbou and11 of 2024 Dollars) orr-Sitc I..LRW NRf'-
Spci1t Fucl Acth*it~*
Index llccon Cost Rcmnv11I l'wckal,[inl(
Trun"port Prncc""inl(
Di"P""11I Other Tntal Tota.I Co,;t..,
Lie.Term.
M11n11iccmcnt AL-tivity o.,,..,rjptiun Cu,;t Custs Costs Cust,, __ Cn11~ ('..,.~
Cnntjl!l;'.cnc:
l'ERIOJ'l 3 TOTALS
-1bbH5 TOT.-\\1, CUSTTU llKC'OM.VIISSION 1Ult;f>
111.U7
'OTA(, C'OST TO DECOM:\\IIISSIONWIT"fl 111.61*. f'( INTINGEN<'Y:
'OTAI. NRe LI Ct-:Nst-:n:HMINATION COST IS fi7.17",0R:
~PE/\\'T FUEL MANAGE:IIE/1.'T ('OST IS 2-U I", OH:
NON-NUCl.t-;AH l)EMOl,ITION COST IS M.42** OH:
~
OTAL ~0.\\.\\'-1:~~EL RAl:l~>A<.~:1~1-; WAS.TE'V~ll,UME HUl:l.l-::1. (EX1'~,UIJINt; UTI'( '):
OTAL <,HE.-\\ I F~R TH.\\N Cl.ASS C NAU\\\\ ASfF~ VOLUME <,ENF~HATED:
OTAL St.:HAI' METAL REMOVED:
OTAL ~ HAl-'T L,~OH HEC1U_IHEME/l.'TS:
EndNul<'~
n/n
* md1c:11t*~ th:1t th,~ adi\\*ity nut,*hnr1wcl "~ d'-'l"omnuss11,nmi: t*llp<*n~<'
a* 111d.11:,1I.,~ 1hul 1111~ oct11*1t)' J><'t*fo1*mud by d,-curnnu~~,orung ~luff (I. md,,*111"~ 1h111 1h1~,*ulur. u; htu 1hun o.r, bu* 1~ non-'M*rn Acr.11 t:t1nl1t1nthl( **
* 1ndi""'"~ II ltCl'O \\"ldUP.
TLG Service*, LL('
;J\\01!)
;U.i!Jt 21.!11)7 I0,2:'ii Hll,:.WI 71J.t,li!J5 fl.216.700 thnUNa.nd,; ur l!UJU dollars
,Ml7.2!19 thuusund" u( :m:u dullar,;
$296,9-19 thuu,;and,; of 20:1.-t dnll11r>1
$102.-lfi:I thous11nds or 202~ d11ll11rs 102,.&l!.& C'uhicFcct l!,Ofil Cubic t-*cct 58.:llti 1'nn>1 1,519,762 M11n-hourN_
190!1:17 l.2Hl,i00 Co,it..,
CW<t><
lib 8812 1117211!)
2%.!)I!)
Site l'roccsscd Hurh,I Vnlun'ICS Huriul /
Utilit)' 11nd Rc>1tnr11tion
\\*olumc Clu.,;,;,\\
<'la.~,; H
('Ja,;s ('
GTl'C Procc,;>1cd Cruft Cuntra.dor Cu,it,i Cu. io'cct Cu. t,*.,.,t Cu. f-'cct Cu. t,*cct Cu. t-'_ccL__")., Lh>1.
M1mhuur11 M1mhuur>1 102.-Ul:i J;ii,2:12
:!!>!l,!)17
]linll 11711 2111;\\
25r;r;91r.n l:'il!l71i:!
~2:1 -157 a,1;:11.20:1 Document lJ.1-IJlt6-00I, Ret>. 0 Appe11dix (', Pa1e 111 of Ill
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study TLG Services, LLC APPENDIXD ISFSI STORAGE ONLY Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Page 1 of 2
 
D. C. Cool, NuclearPowu*Plnnl Decommiaaionint Coal Ar.al.v*i*
Activity fu~*-
&'_tjvity Oe,,:,ription PERIOD le - Fuel Storare Operations/ShippinJ P,*rtnd :k Um-el l),.,,.,mm111~1omni;- Act1v1t14*,.
l'cnotl :k Collateral ro11lll
:Ir J. \\
Tr1t1un1 Mumlormi::
:io*.:t.:.!
Nl-:1 F'1*1*s Sul1lutu.l 1',*nrnl :k Collutt*rul <'011bi l'<ir10J :11: f>1*r1ml-llc111,ndunl C,,11111
:1,-.i.J ln11ur:mr.c
:Jr 1.2 l'rovurty 1uxc11
:ic I.J 1'1,mlt*ncrio*bud1wt
:ir. 1.<1 NIU~ ISFSI F1*1*11
:1,- Ii>
Emi-ri::.,n1-rl'lunn1ni::Fc,*11
:1r 1.G S11,, U&M ('0111
:1r...1.7 ISFSI 0 11cratm11 Cu111"
:11-I.II C'm1mralc A&G Cmll
:k.-l.~!
Sl'<:ur1ty Staff r.0111
:l,* I. IO U11h1yStaffCu111
:k I Suhtotal l',*rwd :k 1\\*nud-D,*pt*nil,*nt l'u:ih
:k.11 TUT,\\L l'EHIUIJ ;ll; l'OST TLG Service., LLC Dec:on
~st Remov*I P*ck*Jinc Tran*port Co*t Co,t, Costs TableD DC Cook Nuclear Power Plant DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
Off-Site LLRW ProceuinJ Di*poul Costa Costs Other Costs i,O GO 110 1.11; 7n 1:1:1 21*1
:1,!1<12 l,:l*I:.!
(i, *1*1!:i 1;.;;;r, Total ContinJenc Jf;
.u; 0
:m K
:m
:12 571; tlll i1n Tot*I Co_!ts r,7 6!1 JtG
.1(12
:m11 IC:i ti 1r.:1
:.146
*l.'1 111 1,ii*l;i 1,:u;1 7<1!JI NRC Spent FHI Uc. Tenn.
Mana1ement Costs Costa
;i7 1:.!<i 502
:w11 11:1 l:i:1 24&#xa3;.
*l,4 1!1 154:1 7:1(;7 7 HM Site Re,toration Co,ts Proceued Burial Volume, Buri*I /
Volume Cl*H A ClaH B ClaH C GTCC ProceHed Cra(t Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. F~et_
Wt., Lbs.
Manhours Document ll3-IB2fi-00I, Rev. 0 Appendix D, Pate Z of Z Utility and Contractor Maahours flll5511 140!0
!10::i!II!
l!Ofi!l!I
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study APPENDIXE Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix E, Page 1 of 2 ISFSI LICENSE TERMINATION TLG Services, LLC
 
D. C. Cook Nuclear Po1ve1* Plant Decommi.*ionin1 Co*I Analy*i*
AelivUy lnde~
-~~i_vlU>'_Pesc_r~
PERIOD Se - JSFSI Decontamination Period :1,, U1n~t l),_.oomm1t11<10111nK Afliv1t11*1<
1',ir1od :it* Add111011al C11>1h1 a, *.i I L1,*,*ns1* T,*rm1na* 1011 ISl-'SJ
!it* l!
Suhlulal Pt*nod :,1,. Add1t111na\\ Crn1ts l',:rintl :it: C1,ll11to,ral C'<>><h*
:Jii.:1.1 Ngl ~\\.-es
:tl* 3 Suhtutal PcrJod 3c C'olh,h*r;*I ('usL~
i't*raud ;1,. l*,*n111l-D,*p1*nU1*nt C'us1~
:sc -I I lnsu1*an,*u a,, -1.2 l'r11JM*r1y 111,u*~
:1i,.. &.;J Plant cnnir.,* hu<lij:rl a,*. I.-\\
Site O&M t 'o,sl
::It* I fi f'urJM.lr.*tt-A&f.i Cus1
::s,*,1 t; s~,*unty Starrr.,,.,
::1,, 17 l!11hty StuffC'ost Sul,tntal 1',*r1rnl :s,, 1'1*r11NI-D,*1u*n,l**nl l'o~ls
:II' (I TOTAL l'E}UOIJ :Ir t 'OST TLG Service., LLC Decon Cost Removal Cost Hfli H!JI Paekac(nc Cost lil!:I
/;;.!;I H:.!:1 Transport Co9tS
:.:: i,r.o l!!IW
:.! !150 Off-Sile ProeeHinC Co,t, Table E DC Cook Nuclear Power Plant DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
RW Di,po-1 Costs Other
: Cost, l,15Pt
*l. '174 11 ;;1:s
*l,'17*1
:m
:JO
:.!:.!I.
I
:.!U Hn l,:!*IU
:i:.!fl l! 210 11 f>l:t Ii 711 Total Continsenc-Total Costs 5 HG I 2H,:\\IH
;;H(;,j 2fJ,:IIH
!',7 l!:.!
:ur; 1:i2 fifi;j
:17
:n
;.!H:I
:.!!i 1,670
(;(;:.!
2,w :1 H 12:l
:i:!, 117 NRC Lie. Term.
: Cost, 2i1;-1u1
!!!J,;\\]H
:17
:.!H:i lllH I 075
{;(;2 2 7,;a
:12111 Spent F1.1el Manarement Costs Site Re,toration Costs Proce11 ed Volume Cu. Feet Clas A C1.1.Feet
*I0,6r.H
*IO,n,;11
,Wf\\.iH Burial ClaHB
~.Feet oTun,,e, Cla,s C Cu. Feet GTCC Cu. Fee~
Burial/
ProceHed
\\\\'t._,_Lb,.
:IH!H !i"iO
:1.H!!,l, \\,;o
:tH!14, 1.;o Craft
: Manhour, 27 1(;,t
:.!7, ](;.J 27 IH4 Documenl II3-18Zfi-OOI, Rev. 0 Appendix E, Pa,e Z of 2 Utility and Contractor M-houn 2r.:n 2.r.:11 av12:1 5,(;.J:.!
:sH-Wi>
II 1102
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study APPENDIXF Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix F, Page 1 of 2 ISFSI SITE RESTORATION TLG Services, LLC
 
D. C. Cook Nuclear Powe,* Plant Decommi.. ionina Co*t A,ial.v*i*
Acll\\llty
.fui!ex A<-ll\\lity Description PERIOD U-JSFSI Site Restoration l',*r1od :H IJirt*rl IJ1*ron11nu,111on1ni:- :\\t-t1~*1lw11 i'uraud :i(.-\\tl1hl1un.1l l'uNl>1
:H.l!. l l),*moht1on an,I S1tP l<**~tur.1t1011 ISl-'SI Zit:.!
Sul,1u1.1J P.-r1tid :ir Adcht1011al C'u11111 l'<Jrind :1rCollat.. ral Cu11t11
:If.:\\. I Small lonl ullownnn*
!lf.:1 Suhtol.a\\ Pn1ud :tr I ',,llah*ral ( 'o,:t 11 i'criud ~r Pcriud-D,*pcml,*nl Cu11I ~
ar.,1.1 ln~urun,*,,
ar.-1..!
l'ru1mrty tax**~
:ir.. 1.:-i l'lunt l!m*r1,')* l,ud11:1*t
:1(.-1.-1 Site O&M t 'u11t
:J(.4.!"1 Curpnratc A&G 1 *.,~*
afA.(;
l.l11hty Stuff Go~!
:ifA Suhtutal 1'1*nud :Jf 1',*r1ud-D,*1wndu11t Cu~t~
:lfO TOTAL l'ERllJI) :1rcosT TLG Seroice*, LLC Deeon Cost Table F DC Cook Nuclear Power Plant DECON Decommissioning Cost Estimate (Thousands of 2024 Dollars)
O&#xa3;&#xa3;-Sile LLRW NRC Spent F1.1el Remo\\lal Packa1in1 Tran,port Processinf Di,po,al Other Cos~
Tolal Contin.(~nc Total Costs Lie. Term.
Manarement Cost Costs Costs Cosls
_c;o,ts I07"t7 IO 7't.7 117 117 IIIHII 70 7U
.!:1 1<13 176
;,!If, IG:W l't,*117 I G'tO 12,-117 1*
't't.
.!H 1:u 1:11 "t1 llifi
.!U't.
I rn;a l't 7fi I Costs Costs Site Restoration Costs l't.117 I.! -117 1!!1 1:u 27 11;5 20.!
l't. 7:".I Processed B1.1ri*I Volumes Burial/
Volume Class A Cla11 B Clau C GTCC ProceHed CraCt Cu. Feet C1.1. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Wt.* Lbs. ~!m_(!'1.1rs
!12. 17*1
\\I.! 17*1
!)'t.17*1 Document ll3-182fi-OOJ, Rev. 0 Appendi.,: F, Pa6e Z of 2 Utility and Contractor j\\-1anhours
!HU
!GU 15:m 15:m
\\1;99
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix G, Page 1 of 6 APPENDIXG DETAILED ASSUMPTIONS TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix G, Page 2 of 6 APPENDIXG DETAILED ASSUMPTIONS Following is a list of assumptions developed by TLG in completing this study. These assumptions are based on the most current decommissioning methodologies and site-specific considerations.
: 1. Decommissioning costs are reported in the year of projected expenditure; however, the values are provided in 2024 dollars. Costs are not inflated, escalated, or discounted over the periods of performance.
: 2. The plant inventory, the basis for the decontamination and dismantling requirements and cost, and the decommissioning waste streams, were developed for this analysis. The inventory (pumps, valves, piping, electrical cable tray, etc.) of components for each plant system on site was developed from the site data base, reports from which were provided to TLG by AEP.
TLG personnel assigned the data into the TLG estimating categories. Plant inventory is based upon that developed for the 2021 cost study.
: 3. The building inventory (cubic yards of concrete, square foot of floor area, etc.)
of components for each structure on site included in the cost analysis was extracted from D. C. Cook drawings, as well as other information provided by AEP. Building inventory is based upon that developed for the 2021 cost study and has been updated to include three Bullet Resistant Enclosures (BRE) installed since then.
: 4. The utility staff assumed for the 2024 cost study is to be the same as was in the 2021 cost study.
: 5. Subcontractor craft labor rates were supplied by IMPC. These rates are provided in the Master Services Agreement Contract Number 01598364.
: 6. Staff costs are based upon average salary information provided by IMPC.
Overhead costs are included for site and corporate support.
: 7. Security, while reduced from operating levels, is maintained throughout the decommissioning for access control, material control, and to safeguard the spent fuel (in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 37, Part 72, and Part 73). Security costs include provisions for recurring expenses. Security guards are assumed to be contract staff.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix G, Page 3 of 6
: 8. Activity labor costs do not include any allowance for delays between activities, nor is there any cost allowance for craft labor retained on-site while waiting for work to become available.
: 9. IMPC will hire a Decommissioning Operations Contractor (DOC) to manage the decommissioning. The utility, as licensee, will provide site security, radiological health and safety, quality assurance and overall site administration during the decommissioning and demolition phases.
: 10. The professional personnel used for the planning and preparation activities will be paid the CONUS per diem at the rate of $191.00/day. Since the skilled laborers are being supplied by the local union hall, they will not be paid per diem.
: 11. The cost for Utility personnel assisting the DOC to develop decommissioning activity specifications is included in the Utility Staff costs.
: 12. Severance costs for utility staff personnel separated at Unit 1 and Unit 2 shutdown have been included in the estimate based on the current IMPC policy. Severance costs continue to be incurred during subsequent staff reductions and are included, as they are assumed to occur, in the estimate.
: 13. The DOC staff cost, including overhead and profit, were determined by TLG.
: 14. Transportation costs are based on actual mileage from D. C. Cook to each disposal or processing facility utilized in the estimate.
: 15. Class B & C radioactive waste base disposal costs are based on the rates provided in the USA Agreement with the WCS facility in Andrews, TX.
: 16. Class A waste will be disposed of at the EnergySolutions facility in Utah or the EnergySolutions processing facility in Tennessee. Waste is assumed to be transported to the lowest cost facility for which it qualifies. Further details on these processes are presented in Section 3.4.6 and Section 5 of this report.
: 17. Clean waste is assumed to be disposed of at a local landfill at a cost of $76.95 per ton.
: 18. It is assumed, for purposes of this estimate, 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 and is not included in the estimate.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix G, Page 4 of 6
: 19. The concrete debris resulting from building demolition activities is crushed on site to reduce the size of the debris. The resulting crushed concrete is used to backfill below grade voids. The rebar removed from the concrete crushing process is disposed of as scrap steel in a similar fashion as other scrap metal as discussed previously.
: 20. It is assumed that all radioactive waste generated during operations and stored on-site will be disposed of prior to shutdown. The cost of disposal of this material is considered an operating expense and is assumed not to be a decommissioning cost.
: 21. Greater than Class C waste (GTCC) will be removed from the reactor vessel, segmented and packaged in containers of similar size and shape to the spent fuel assemblies. The containers will be transferred to the ISFSI. The additional containers are assumed to be shipped offsite with the spent fuel.
Five containers of GTCC will be filled per unit resulting in a total of 10 containers for both units.
: 22. The costs of all required safety analyses and safety measures for the protection of the general public, the environment, and decommissioning workers are included in the cost estimates.
: 23. All post shutdown costs necessitated by the presence of stored spent fuel are presented separately in Appendices D, E, and F.
: 24. It is assumed that Unit 1 will shutdown in October, 2034 and that Unit 2 will remain operational until December 2037.
: 25. On-site dry storage will utilize the Holtec Vertical Concrete Casks (VCC) and Multi-Purpose Canister (MPC) system. Each MPC is designed to store and transport 32 spent fuel assemblies each. Separate overpacks, provided by DOE, will be used for transportation and disposal.
: 26. It is assumed that spent fuel will cool for a minimum of 3.25 years in the spent fuel pool prior to being transferred to the ISFSI.
: 27. Only the costs for the expanded storage pad, canister and overpacks projected to be purchased after shutdown are included in this study as a spent fuel storage expense. Any canister and overpacks required during operations, in order to maintain full core discharge capabilities, are assumed to be an operations expense. The cost per canister and storage overpack is estimated to be $2,953,928 including transfer, closure, and material costs.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix G, Page 5 of 6
: 28. This estimate is based on IMPC's current spent fuel management plan. This plan assumes indefinite on-site storage for the D.C. Cook spent fuel.
: 29. The Unit 1 and Unit 2 reactor vessel and internals are considered identical.
: 30. Curie contents of the vessel and internals at final shutdown were derived from those listed in NUREG/CR-3474. Actual estimates were derived from the curie/gram values contained therein and adjusted for the different mass of D. C. Cook components, projected operating life, and different periods of decay. Additional short-lived isotopes are derived from NUREG/CR-0130 and NUREG/CR-0672 and benchmarked to the long-lived values from NUREG/CR-34 7 4.
: 31. A nominal property tax (land only) during the decommissioning period is considered in these estimates. A land only assessment cost of $380,586/year is assumed through site restoration. An estimated cost of $3,025 per year is assumed for the ISFSI only period.
: 32. FEMA fees associated with emergency planning are assumed to continue for approximately 18 months following the cessation of Unit 2 operations. At this time, the fees are discontinued, based upon the anticipated condition of the spent fuel (i.e., the hottest spent fuel assemblies are assumed to be cool enough that no substantial Zircaloy oxidation and off-site event would occur with the loss of spent fuel pool water). State emergency planning fees remain at operating levels until all fuel has been transferred from the pool to the ISFSI. These fees are then eliminated. Local emergency planning fees continue until all fuel is removed from the site.
: 33. Costs for continuing coverage (nuclear liability and property insurance) following cessation of plant operations and during decommissioning are included and are based upon current operating premiums.
: 34. No PCBs will be on-site at shutdown.
: 35. It is assumed that some remaining asbestos insulation will be on site at shutdown and will need to be remediated during decommissioning.
: 36. Clean building walls and foundations more than three feet below grade may be left in place if there are no voids.
TLG Services, LLC
 
D.C. Cook Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Study Document 113-1826-001, Rev. 0 Appendix G, Page 6 of 6
: 37. The decommissioning will be performed under the current regulations. These regulations require a Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) to be submitted prior to or within two years of shutdown. In addition, certificates for permanent cessation of operations and permanent removal of fuel from the vessel must be submitted to the NRC 90 days after the PSDAR submittal. Major decommissioning activities that meet the criteria of 10 CFR Part 50.59, may be performed provided NRC agrees with the PSDAR.
: 38. The estimate includes an allowance for the removal and disposal of contaminated soil from the absorption pond. In addition, certain areas of the critical dunes (as designated by Michigan regulations) and the Unit 1 and 2 tank yards contain low levels of 137Cs. The contaminated soil, approximately 6,000 cubic yards, associated with these areas will be removed and disposed of as part of the decommissioning.
: 39. The current tritium well monitoring program will continue through the decommissioning process. While at some point in the future, approximately 60 years, this program will be discontinued, a cost is included in the annual ISFSI storage cost. In addition, the cost for closure of the Tritium Monitor Wells has been included in this estimate.
: 40. A significant amount of the below grade p1pmg is located around the perimeter of the power block. The estimate includes a cost to excavate this area to an average depth of six feet so as to expose and remove the piping, duct bank, conduit, and any near-surface grounding grid.
TLG Services, LLC}}

Latest revision as of 05:17, 11 February 2026

Redirect to:

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=AEP-NRC-2024-86,_Unit_2_-_Decommissioning_Funding_Plan_for_Independent_Spent_Fuel_Storage_Installation&oldid=5555790"