ML20207G721
| ML20207G721 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/10/1988 |
| From: | Zech L NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| To: | Hochbrueckner HOUSE OF REP. |
| References | |
| CON-#388-6905 OL-3, NUDOCS 8808240209 | |
| Download: ML20207G721 (2) | |
Text
1 E
e
/@ MQu 'o, UNITED STATES
! y,,
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Iq g,
{,]- .. WASHINGTON, D. C 20555 o, a gi f August 10, 1988 i
1 CHAIRMAN I
The Honorable George J. Hochbrueckner United States House of Representatives I Washington, D. C. 20515 l
Dear Congressman Hochbrueckner:
l I-am responding to your letter of August 2, 1988, concerning the I possible decommissioning of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. :
You asked what is required by the NRC in order to complete the l transfer of Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) licenses or permits relating to Shoreham to the State of New York. Our regulatory control over a transt r of Shoreham to the State of flew York will depend on the exact nature of the transaction l involved. NRC has no application for transfer before it, so ! I cannot give you a specific answer to your question. However, I l can describe what our requirements are in general terms.
Under the Atomic Energy Act (Sec. 101), no one within the United States may transfer, acquire, possess, or operate a power reactor except in accordance with a license issued by the Commission.
When ownership of a licensed facility is transferred from a licensee to another person, the other person reouires a license f roni NRC. Similarl possession or use)ofy,the if operation facility is (ortoany be other act ofby undertaken a person or organization other than the organization licensed to operate the facility, the new "operating organization" requires a license from NRC.
Sec. 184 of the Act provides also that no license and no riaht under any license may be transferred, assigned, or in any manner disposed of, either voluntarily or involuntarily, directly or indirectly, unless the Commission gives its consent in writing.
This requirement is reflected in 10 CFR 50.80. We have had instances in which the facility remained in the ownership or possession of the original licensee but where, through corporate restructuring, control of the licensee was transferred to another corporation, such as a holding compaisy. Such a transfer of i control requires NRC approval under 10 CFR 50.80. ;
In the event that a licensee intends to terminate operation and decommissier a facility, the licensee must apply to the j rommission under 10 CFR 50.82 (see 53 FR 24051-24052, June 27, '
F*'aumm,, PDC
% l
, ,- 4
-2 I
1988) for authority to do so and obtain Commission approval of l the licensee's proposed decommissioning plan. Under $50.82(f), l the Commission will terminate the license if it determines that !
decommissioning has been performed in accordance with the .
approved decommissioning plan and the Commission's order I authorizing decommissioning. A terminal radiation survey m9st also demonstrate that the facility and site are suitable for 1 release for unrestricted use. l The NRC has not performed a detailed cost estimate for )
decommissioning the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station. However, we j are enclosing the results of a study performed by Battelle's Northwest Laboratory for the NRC which estimates decommissioning costs for a reference 1100 MW(e) boiling water reactor. Our estimate based on this study is that decommissioning costs for plants of the Shoreham type, considering the limited operating history, would range between 65 and 105 million dollars. This estimate does not include costs associated with disposal of the irradiated fuel, site restoration, contingencies, or personnel !
termination. To include these and other site specific costs for a more comprehensive NRC cost estimate would require considerable expenditure of staff resources. These resources have not been expended because LILCO, in its June 1, 1988 letter to NRC, indicated its intent and desire to continue to pursue licensing of Shoreham urtil all contingencies in the LILC0/New York State agreement have been satisfied.
I trust this information is responsive to your request.
Sincerely, LA/ . .
Lando W. Ze , Jr.
Enclosure:
As Stated l
', A, e NUREG/CR 0672 Addendum 3 10 Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station Technical Support for Decomrnissioning Matters Related to Preparation of the Final Decommissioning Rule I
Manuscript Completed: May 1988 Date Published: June 1988 l
Prepared by G. J. Konzek, R.1. Smith Pacific Northwest Laboratory Richland,WA 99352 Prepared for Materials Branch Off!ce of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 NRC FIN No. B2902
[(ffT$ b S 0j1
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to acknowledge and thank the following utility contacts who provided information that was essential to the completion of this proj-ect: Roy Keck, Art D. Kohler, David L. Whitcomb, and William C. Wolkenhauer, all of the Washington Public Power Supply System. Only through their assis-4 tance and cooperation was it possible to complete this project.
Programmatic guidance for the project was provided by Dr. Carl Feldman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. His input contributed significantly to the successful completion of this project.
The editorial review prior to publication was provided by David R. Payson, Pacific Northwest Laboratory.
l i
i I
l l
j
}
Iii f
'. ?, c 1
l
)
FOREWORD l
BY :
NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0m !SSION STAFF l
its latoryThe Nuclear position relativeRegulatory t;: theComission (NRC) of decomissioning staff is reappraisin!ies.(Ngu-nuclear facili As l part of this activity, the NRC has initiated two series of studies through '
technical assistatice contracts. These contracts are being undertaken to l develop information to support the preparation of new standards covering ;
decomissioning. l The first series of studies covers the technol decomissioning reference nuclear facilities.(2-23)ogy, safety, Light waterand costs of reactors (LWRs) and fuel-cycle and nonfuel-cycle facilities are included. Facilities of current design on typical sites are selected for the studies. Separate i reports are prepared as the studies of the various facilities are completed. '
The second series of studies covers supporting information on the decom-missioning of nuclear facilities.(24-28) This series includes an annotated bibliography on decomissioning and studies on facilitation and radiation survey methods appropriate for decomissioning, as well as an examination of regulations applicable to decomissioning.
This report contains information concerning technical support provided by Pacific Northwest Laboratory staff for decomissioning matters related to preparation of the finai Decomissioning Rule by the NRC staff.
The infonnation provided in this report on cecomissioning of a reference BWR, including any coments, will be included in the record for consideration by the Comission in establishing criteria and new standards for decomission-ing. Coments on this report should be mailed te:
Chief Materials Branch Division of Engineering Technology Office of Nuclear Regalatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 REFERENCES
- 1. Plan for Reevaluation of NRC Palicy on Decomissioning of Nuclear Facil-ities. 1978. NUREG-0436, REY. 1, Office of Standards Development, U.S.
EcTear Regulatory Comission, Washington, D.C.
- 2. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissionina a Reference Nuclear Fuel Reprocessina Plant. 1977. NUREG-0278, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comis-sion Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, y
,bO r
- 3. Technolooy, Safety and Costs of Decomissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station. 1978. NUREG/CR-0130, U.S. Nuclear Regula- '
tory Comission ' Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. ,
- 4. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissionino a Reference Small Mixed DiiiTe Fuel Fabrication Plant. 1979. NUREG/CR-0129, U.S. Nuclear Regu-latory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, l Washington.
- 5. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station. 1979. NUREG/CR-0130 Addendum, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, I Washington.
- 6. Technology,_ Safety and Costs of Decomissioning a Reference Low-level !
Waste Burial Ground. 1980. NUREG/CR-0570, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com- '
mission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 7. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissionino a Reference Boilino Water Reactor Power Station. 1980. NUREG/CR-0672, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 8. Technolooy, Safety and Costs of Decomissioning a Reference Uranium Fuel l
_ Fabrication Plant. 1980. NUREG/CR-1266, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-
)
mission Report by Pacific Ncrthwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 9. Technology. Safety and Costs of Decomissioning Reference Non-Fuel-Cycle Nuclear Facilities. 1981. NUREG/CR-1754, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richlancl, Washington.
- 10. Technolooy, Safety and Costs of Decomissioning a Reference low-level 1 i
Waste Burial Ground. 1981. NUREG/CR-0570 Addendum. U.S. Nuclear Regu-latory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 11. Technolooy, Safety and Costs of Decomissioning a Reference Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Plant. 1981. NUREG/CR-1757, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 12. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissioning Nuclear Reactors at Multiple-Reactor Stations. 1982. NUREG/CR-1755, U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 13. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissioniac Reference Nuclear Research and Test Reactors. 1982. NUREG/CR-1756, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
vi
, s'
- 14. Technology, Sefety and Costs of Decomissioning Reference Licht Lter Reactors Followino Postulated Accidents. 1982. NUREG/CR-2601, U.S.
- Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 15. Technolooy, Safety and Costs of Decomissionine a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station. 1983. NUREG/CR-0130, Addendum 2, U.S. ;
Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pr.cific Northwest Laboratory, i Richland, Washington. i
- 16. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissionino a Reference Boilino Water l Reactor Power Station. 1983. NUREG/CR-0672, Addendum 1, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. 1 1
- 17. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioninc Reference Nuclear Research and Test Reactors. 1983. NUREG/CR-1756 Addencum, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory )
Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 18. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissionino Reference Independent Spent Fuel Storage Installations. T984. NUREG/CR-2210 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, l Washington. i
- 19. Technology, Safety and Costs of Oecomissionino Reference Nuclear Fuel l Cycle and Non Fuel Cycle Facilities Followino Postulated Accidents. I 1985. NUREG/CR-3293, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific l Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. l
- 20. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissioning Nuclear Reactors at Multiple-Reactor Stations. 1985. NUREG/CR-1755, Addendum 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
l
- 21. Technology, Safoty and Costs of Decomissionino a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station - Classification of Decomissioning Wastes.
1984. NUREG/CR-0130, Addendum 3, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
, 22. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissionino a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station - Classification of Decomissioning Wastes. 1984.
NUREG/CR-0672, Addendum 2, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 23. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissioning Reference Nuclear Fuel CL cle Facilities - Classification of Deconmissioning Wastes. 1986. I huREG/CR-4519, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Co6 mission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington, i
vii l
1
- 24. Decomissioning of Nuclear Facilities - An Annotated Bibliogr&phy. 1979.
hT)RG/CR-0130, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 25. Decomissioning of Nuclear Facilities - A Review and Analysis of Current ReQulations. 1979. NUREG/CR-0671, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 26. Facilitation of Decomissionino of Licht Water Reactors. 1979. NUREG/CR-0569, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 27. Monitorina for Compliance with Decomissionino Termination Survey Cri-teria. 1981. NUREG/CR-2082, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Report by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
- 28. Technology and Cost of Termination Surveys Associated with Decomission-ino of Nuclear Facilities. 1982. NUREG/CR-2241, U.S. Nuclear Regula-tory Comission Report by Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge.
l l
I l
viti
i ABSTRACT Preparation of the final Decomissioning Rule by the Nuclear Regulatory Comiss)
(PNL)(aion (NRC) staff staffwith familiar has decomissioning been assisted by matters.
Pacific Northwest Laboratory These efforts have included updating previous cost estimates developed during the series of studies on conceptually decomissioning reference licensed nuclear facilities for inclusion in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) on decom-missioning; documenting the cost updates; evaluating the cost and dose impacts of post-THI-2 backfits on decomissioning; developing a revised scaling fomula for estimating decomissioning costs for reactor plants different in size i from the reference boiling water reactor (BWR) described in the earlier study; and defining a formula for adjusting current cost estimates to reflect future escalation in labor, materials, and waste disposal costs.
This report presen':s the results of recent PNL studies to provide ,
supporting infomation in three areas concerning decomissioning c? the i reference BWR:
. updating the previous cost estimates to January 1986 dollars e assessing the cost and dose impacts of post-TMI-2 backfits e developing a scaling formula for plants different in size than the reference plant and an escalation fomula for adjusting current cost estimates for future escalation, i
l l
(a) Operated for the U.S. Department of Energy by Battelle Memorial Institute. l iX
CONTENTS -
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................... iii FOREWORD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V ABSTRACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
1.0 INTRODUCTION
..................... .... 1.1
1.1 REFERENCES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . 1.2 2.0
SUMMARY
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 2.1 STUDY BASES ........................ 2.2 2.2 UPDATED DECO MISSIONING COSTS ............... 2.2 2.3 ESTIMATED IMPACTS OF POST-TMI-2 BACXFIT REQUIREMENTS ON THE ESTIMATED COST AND DOSE OF DECOMISSIONING THE REFERENCE BWR ..................... 2.3 2.3.1 Estimated Additional Decomissioning Costs ..... 2.3 l
1 2.3.2 Radiation Exposure Estimates ............ 2.3 l
2.3.3 Conclusions from the Backfit Analysis . . . . . . . . 2.4 2.4 SCALING AND ESCALATION FORMULAE DEVELOPED FOR THE !
DECOMISSIONING RULE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.6 3.0 COST UPDATING BASES, METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS .......... 3.1 3.1 APPLICATION METHODOLOGY ,................. 3.1 3.2 ESTIMATED DECOMISSIONING COSTS .............. 3.1
3.3 REFERENCES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . 3.5 4.0 ESTIMATED IMPACTS OF POST-TMI-2 REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER !
SELECTED REGULATORY CHANGES ON DEC0mISSIONING OF THE l
REFERENCE BOILING WATER REACTOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 i 4.1 'sDM ARY OF STUDY RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . ...... 4.1 l
4.1.1 Study dases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 4.1.2 Additional Deconmissioning Costs Associated
- with Backfit Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.1 xi
, ., - - - - , - - -- - - -, - - - .,yy ,
', .' ', o' 4.1.3 Additional Decommi:sioning Radiation Doses Associated with Backfit Assessment ......... 4.2 4.1.4 Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . 4.3 4.2 STUDY OBJECTIVE, APPROACH, ALTERNATIVES, BASES AND ASSUMPTIONS ...................... 4.5 4.2.1 S t u dy Obj e c t i v e . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.5 4.2.2 Technical Approach ................. 4.5 4.2.3 Decommissioning Alternatives ............ 4.6 4.2.4 Study Bases and Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 4.3 SOURCES OF INFORMATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 4.3.1 Licensee Visitation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.7 4.3.2 Discussion Concerning Information Sources Used in this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.8 4.4 RESULTS OF THE BACKFiT IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE REFERENCE BWR ....................... 4.9 4.4.1 Estimated Additional Costs for Decommissionin the Reference BWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . .g .... 4.10 4.4.1.1 Estimated Additional Costs for Inmediate Dismantlement .......... 4.10 4.4.1.2 Estimated Additional Costs for Entombment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.14 4.4.1.3 Estimated Additional Costs for Preparations for Safe Storage ....... 4.16 4.4.1.4 Estime.ted Additional Costs for Deferred Dismantlement . . . . . . . . . . . 4.16 4.4.2 Estimated Additional External Occupational Radiation Doses for Decommissioning the Reference BWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.18 4.4.2.1 Estimated Additional External Occupational Radiation Doses for Immediate Dismantlement ........ 4.19 xii
.' l 4.4.2.2 Estimated Additional External Occupaticaal Radiation Doses '
for Entombment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.20 4.4.2.3 Estimated Additional External Occupational Radiation Doses for Preparations for Safe Storage .................. 4.20 4.4.2.4 Estimated Additional External Occupational Radiation Doses for Deferred Dismantlement . . . . . . . . 4.20 4.4.3 Estimated Additional Radiation Doses from Routine Transportation Tasks ............ 4.21
4.5 REFERENCES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.22 5.0 DEVELOPMENT OF SCALING AND ESCALATION FORMULAE FOR THE DECOMMISSIONING RULE ...................... 5.1 5.1 DEVELOPMENT OF SCALING FORMULAE FOR ESTIMATING l DECOMMISSIONING COSTS OF BWRs DIFFERENT IN I SIZE FROM THE REFERENCE BWR ................ 5.1 ;
5.2 DEVELOPMENT OF A COST ESCALATION FORMULA FOR l OECOMMISSIOh1NG COSTS .................,. 5,3
5.3 REFERENCES
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 t
APPENDIX A - COST UPDATING BASES AND METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . A.1 l APPENDIX B - REVISED ASSUMPTIONS AND FORMULAE FOR ,
ESTIMATING COSTS AS A FUNCTION OF I PLANT SIZE ....................... B.1 l l
e l
l
, xiii l
l
a FIGURES P
4.1 Post-THI-2 Backfit Impacts Study Methodology .......... 4.6 TABLES r
2.1 Sumdry of Updated Decomissioning Costs Estimated for the Referenca BWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.3
?, . 2 Total Estimated Additional Costs for Possible 3 Decomissioning Alternatives for the Reference BWR , ..... 2.4 i 2.3 Sumary of Estimated Additional External Occupational, !
Transport, and Public Radiation Doses for 1 Decomissioning the Reference BWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.5 3.1 Sumary of Estimated Costs for Imediate Dismantlement of the Reference BWR l
............... 3.2 !
3.2 Sumary of Estimated Costs for Preparations for Safe Storage of the Reference BWR .................. 3.3 l
3.3 Sumary of Estimated Costs for Entembment 1 of the Reference BWR ...................... 3.$
4.1 Sumary of Estimated Additional Costs for Possible Decomissioning Alternatives for the Reference BWR ... ... 4.3 4.2 Sumary of Estimated Additional External Occupational.
Trans; ort, and Public Radiation Doses for Decomissioning the Reference BWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.4 I i
4.3 Sumary of Regulatory Items Associated with Post-THI-2 l
Action Plan Requirements for the Reference BWR ......... 4.10 l
4.4 Sumary of Information Regarding Addi'sional Potentially Contaminated Materials at the Refereace BWR . . . . . . . . . . . 4.11 4.5 Sumary of Estimated Additional Costs for Imediate Dismantlement of the Reference BWR ......... ..... 4.12 4.6 Sumary of Estimated Costs for Disposal of Additional Contaminated Materials from the Reference BWR . . . . . . . . . . 4.13 4.7 Estimated Costs for Staff Labor During Imediate Dismantlement of the Reference BWR ,.............. 4.14 xiv
4.8 Estimated Costs for Additional Miscellaneous Supplies During Immediate Dismantlement of the Reference BWR . . . . . . 4.15 i
4.9 Summary of Estimated Additional Costs for Preparations for Safe Storage of the Reference BWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.16 4.10 Estimated Additional Volumes and Costs of Contaminated
, Material Disposed of During the Various Decommissioning Options for the Reference BWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.18 4.11 Estimated Additional Occupational Radiation Doses for Immediate Dismantlement of the Aeference BWR .......... 4.19 4.12 Estimated Additional External Occupational Radiation Doses for Deferred Dismantlement of the Reference BWR , . . . . . . . . 4.21 4.13 Estimated Additional Accumulated Radiation Doses from Truck Transport of Radioactive Wastes from the Reference BWR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4.22 5.1 Revised Estimated Decommissioning Costs for WNP-2 and Vermont 7;aksc Deactors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.1 5.2 Distribution of Radioactive Waste Disposal Costs into Components that Escalate Proportional to Labor, Energy, and Burial Costs ........................ 5.4 ;
5.3 Derivation of the Coefficients A, B, and C in the Decommissioning Cost Escalation Formula . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.5 l
I 1
1 i
xv l
l l
- .g .-
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Preparation of the final Decomissioning Rule by the NRC staff has been assisted by PNL staff familiar with decomissioning matters. These efforts have included updating previous cost estimates developed during the series of i studies on conceptually decomissioning reference licensed nuclear facilities for inclusion in the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) on Decomissioning; documenting the cost updates; evaluating the cost and dose impacts of post-THI-2 backfits on decomissioning; developing a revised scal-ing fomula for estimating decomissioning costs for reactor 31 ants different in size f study;ll) rom andthe reference defining boilingfor a formula water reactorcurrent adjusting (BWR)cost descrised in the estimates to earlier reflect future escalation in labor, materials, and waste disposal costs.
This report presents the results of recent PNL studies to provide sup-porting infonnation in the following three areas concerning decomissioning of the reference BWR:
e updating the previous cost estimates to January 1986 dollars l e assessing the cost and dose impacts of post-THI-2 backfits e developing a scaling fonnula for plants different in site than the reference plant and an escalation formula for adjusting current ;
cost estimates for future escalation. l For consistency, the analyses for the impact of post-THI-2 backfits fol-low the same basic stru original BWR study.(1) cture, content, and study approach delineated in the Because of rising costs and a changing regulatory climate, the NUREG/CR-0672 generic cost estimates, originally developed in 1978 dollars, were updated to reflect Power 1984 cost Research condit);ons Institute.(2 in athe Using report newprepared by PNL cost estimates forbase, as a the Electric revised l'
generic cost estimates were developed for several alternatives identified to increase decomissioning costs, including additional licensin staff to keep personnel radiation exposure below 5 rem / year. g fees and extra In addition to the EPRI cost update, two addendums(3,4) to the original BWR report (NUREG/CR-0672) have been prepared which examined the effects on costs and safety of decomissioning plants 1) of being unable to dispose of wastes offsite and 2) of classifying the wastes resulting from decomissioning.
This third addendum, which examines the topics listed above, was prepared in support of the FGEIS on Decomissioning and the final Decomissioning Rule.
Following this introductory chapter, a sumary of the infomation and findings concerning the three areas of interest to this study is presented in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 contains the supporting information associated with updating the previous cost estimates to January 1986 dollars. The assessment i
of the cost and dose impacts of post-TMI-2 backfits on decomissioning the reference BWR is given in Chapter 4. The methodology used to develop scaling
- 1.1 l l i
and escalation formulae fcr the Decommissioning Rule is presented in Chapter 5.
Two appendixes to the report provide supporting information for cost updating '
bases and methodology (Appendix A) and revised assumptions and formulae for estimating costs as a function of plant size (Appendix B).
1.1 REFERENCES
i
- 1. H. D. Oak, G. M. Holter, W. E. Kennedy, and G. J. Konzek. 1980. Tech- ;
nology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Boilino Water Reactor Power Station. NUREG/CR-0672, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
] Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 2. R. I. Smith, G. J. Konzek, E. S. Murphy, and H. K. Elder. 1985. U) dated i Costs for Oecommissioning Nuclear Power Facilities. EPRI NP-4012, Electric Power Research Institute Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
, 3. G. M. Holter and E. S. Murphy. 1983. Technolocy, Safety and Costs of j
Decommissioning a Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station. NOREG/CR-0672, Addendum 1. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 4. E. S. Murphy. 1984. Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissionino a Reference Boilino Water Reactor Power Station. NUREG/CR-0672, Adden-dum 2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
4 i
l i
l f
i 1.2 4
___,_m- , . - , , _ .- . . _ . _ , - , - - - - - -
__._m..._ . _
l i
l I l 2.0 SU M RY f
The results of this study sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-i mission (NRC) to provide technical support for deccamiissioning matters related i i to preparation of the Final Decomissioning Rule are summarized in this chapter. ;
The purpose of this study is to provide supporting information related to decom- l l missioning a reference boiling water reactor (BWR), as described previously -
- in NUREG/CR-0672. The three areas considered in this report ares !
e updating the previous cost estimates to January 1986 dollars
{
e assessing the cost and dose impacts of post-THI-2 backfits i
e developing a scaling formula for plants different in size than the !
reference plant and an escalation formula for adjusting current 4 '
cost estimates for future escalatfor,.
}
The principal results are given, in brief, in the following paragraphs, with
] more complete summaries presented in subsequent sections, j i
I Immediate dismantlement of the reference BWR is estimated to cost !
] $131.8_million (in January 1986 dollars) under the utility-plus-contractor '
option or $108.9 million under a utility-only option.
Preparing the reference BWR for safe storage, safe storage for 30 years, and. dismantlement after.30 years !s estimated to cost a total of $131.4 million (in January 1986 dollars). Continuing care during the safe storage period is {
j estimated to cost $120,000 per year and would continue until the facility is J . dismantled. The cost of deferred dismantlement, starting after intervals of j 10, 30, 50 and 100 years after final shutdown, has been estimated in January 198.6 dullars to be $82.2 million, $82.2 million, $48.3 million and $48 million
!, 1respectively. e 4'
' Entombing the reference BWR after removing the hi
, vessel internals is estimated to cost $112.8 million (ghly activated in January reactor 1986 dollars)
! under the utility-plus-contractor option. Entombing the reference BWR with the hi i
cost $ghly activated 96.9 million under reactor vessel internals left inoption.
the utility-plus-contractor place is estimated to 1
Costs of continuing care during entombment of the reference BWR are esti-il mated to be $64,000 per year. Federal and state licensing / inspection costs are estimated to cost an additional $10,000 per year. These costs would con-tinue until either the radioactivity can be shown to have decayed to unre- ,
I 1 ,. stricted release levels, or until the facility is dismantled should an earlier j j release of the property become necessary. I
~
No detailed estimates of cost and radiation dose are made for dismantle-
! ment of an entombed facility. However, it is anticipated that these parameters !
l' will have values similar to those for dismantlement following safe storage.
e i .
2.1 l
. 4 j
f_- _ ._.-__ ______ _._- _ _. _..__ _ _________ _ _.._ _.._____.- _ _._
l
> l i
The removal, packaging, and shipment of equipment and materials that >
were installed in the reference plant subsecuent to the THI-2 accident and '
! which became radioactive and/or contaminatec while in service are estimated ;
i to result in additional radiation doses of about 3.1 man-rem to decomission- .
ing workers during imediate dismantlement. The original imediate disman- '
tiement decomissioning cost estimate could be expected to increase only 1
! slightly overall expanded scope of(decomissioning activities associated with changes in thele !
reference plant's characteristics.
I i An important part of the Decomissioling Rule developed by the NRC related !
to commercial )ower reactors is the section dealing with assurance that funds !
, will be availa)1e for decomissioning when the time comes to accomplish that ;
effort. The NRC has placed into the Rule a fomula for estimating the amount i of funds required to provide reasonable assurance of adequate funding as a function of the power rating of the reactor. Since the actual date of decom-missioning for most plants is as yet undefined, an additional formula has 1
i i been developed for adjusting that cost estimate to include escalation from the ,
j time the Rule was issued to the time of actual decomissioning.
l 2.1 STUDY BASES !
i ;
For consistency, the major study bases are the same as those used in the i original BWR decomissioning studies with two exceptions: 1) costs are in f January 1986 dollars, and 2) occupational radiation doses to decommissioning j
workers shall not exceed 5 rem per person per year. It should be recognized I that revisions to 10 CFR 20.101 since NUREG/CRo0672 was published in 1980 have ;
tended to reduce annual cumulative radiation dose allowable to persons working -
in the nuclear industry. Under nomal circumstances, the allowable quarterly !
i
' radiation dose is now 1 - 1/4 rem (rather than the 3 rem per quarter dose postulated in NUREG/CR-0672 for decommissioning workers), with an annual cumu-lative dose of 5 rem.
n j 2.2 UPDATED DECOMMISSIONING COSTS l All costs are given in terms of January 1986 dollars, with 254 contingen-j cies included.
! The total cost in January 1986 dollars for each of the decomissioning alternatives is sumarized in Table 2.1. In addition to the values escalated from the parent documents, the costs in Table 2.1 reflect several new cost
! adders (i.e., predecomissioning engineering, additional staff to assure meet-1 ing the 5 res/ year dose limit for norsonnel, extra supplies for the additional l staff, and the additional costs usociated with the o) tion of using an external
- contractor to conduct the deconaissioning effort). Taese cost adders, initially developed in a PNL decomissioning cost update done in 1984 for the Electric l Power Research Institute (EPRI NP-4012), are included in this Analysis. Fur-l thermore, the estimated impacts on the decomissioning cost of post-TMI-2
! backfit requirements for the reference BWR, described in Chapter 4, are included i in the overall totals shown in the table, where applicable, l
- 2.2 1
_--_.-,-__.__..-__,_-,--.,..-,-,_,-,__,-_,,__._,___,-,,__,______,_.,-n_,-,_,,
TABt.E 2.1. Sumary of Updated Decomissioning Costs Estimated for the Reference BWR(a,b) setieet.d coste in Wiiii.as of tus oellere re.,e r e u.n. vows m Deceesissioning for Safe SV5TCA(c) Internede Internale e, tion o.containation sterne is 1.or. = reece u r. ore in 7. ore faciude d mees,ed Utility Ont 106.9 41.8 128.0 131.4 99.9 1M.1 77.3 89.8 Utility Plve.
. Centruter (Esternel)
Steffing 131.4 M.9 -- -- - -- M9 112 8 (e) , Values include the_ cut addere described in Sectlen 2.2 and the ef fects of TWI.! backfite g plus a !$5 con.
to nc , one are in Janue X 1ve4 delis m -
(b) e ves.utladelat of dispeeWof Wet _cere. anluda taaUefeaalltlen eleen_redleecthe atructures, and i uclude cut of__deelgneetoglydlepeest of dienntled, highly octivated coepenente.
i (c) The veluu shese for SVsTOR include the cute of the ergeratione for eef a etersee, continuine'~~n
~ ~
care end, l
.infarred di Mentionent. j (d) The cost of surveillance sad saintenance for the entoebed structure le setteeted to be obeut H.M4 elallen ,
per year. Yaluu listed de nn include any coste for poet.enteobsent period octione.
(e) and disposal of the entoebed Does notseteriale, radienciive includethethedeoelition coste speciated with the of the entoeboent eventuel structure, recevel, pukeginglitlen of the reetter build or dese
' 2.3 ESTIMATED IMPACTS OF POST-THI-2 BACKFIT REQUIREMENTS ON THE ESTIMATED COST AND DOSE OF DECOMMISSIONING THE REFERENCE BWR Since the original BWR decomissioning report was prepared, a number of post-THI-2 backfit requirements have been imposed on operating nuclear power stations. These requirements were actions judged necessary by the NRC to correct or improve the safety of operation of nuclear power plants based on the experience from the accident at THI-2. The results of analyses to examine and assess, in quantitative tenns, the impact on estimated occupational doses ]
and on decomissioning costs for all NRC-initiated post-TMI-2 plant modifi- l cations imposed on the previously studied reference BWR are sumarized in the following subsections.
2.3.1 Estimated Additional Decomissionino Costs !
The total additional cost in January 1986 dollars for each of the decom-missioning alternatives is sumarized in Table 2.2.
2.3.2 Radiation Exposure Estimates The additional accumulated occupational radiation doses are estimated to
' be 3.1 man-rem for imediate dismantlement and for entombment, and about O.28 man-rem for placing the facility in safe storage, with essentially no increase in occupational radiation dose for surveillance and maintenance staff during continuing care. Relatively little additional reduction in accumulated
) occupational radiation dose is estimated to result from deferring the disman-tlement sequence beyond 30 years for those items identified in this backfit assessment, and virtually no reduction results from deferment beyond 50 years.
2.3 b
l ., .
1 TABLE 2.2. Total Estimated Additional Costs for Possible Decomissioning Alternatives for the Reference BWR Additional Decomissignjng Costs
+ (1 thousands)ta)
Number of Years After Shutdown Dismantlement is Deferred Decomissionino Alternative 0 10 _30 50 100 Imediate Dismantlement 101 -- -- -- --
Preparations fort Safe Storage 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 Continuing Care -- -- -- -- --
Deferred Dismantlement -- 58.9 58.9 3.8(b) 3.8(b)
Total Additional Cost --
62.7 62.7 7.6 7.6 l Entombment 101 101 101 101 101 Continuing Care -- -- -- -- -- I Deferred Dismantlement -- -- -- -- --
, Total Additional Cost --
101 101 101 101(c) l (a) values include a 25% contingency and are in January 1986 dollars.
(b)
These reduced values result from lesser amw nts of contaminated l materials for burial in a licensed disposa) site, j (c) It is assumed that the entombed radioactive material decays to the unrestricted release level in 100 years.
The individual estimates of additional external occupational, transport, and public radiation doses for the various decomissioning alternatives are sumarized in Table 2.3. The radiation dose rates are based on the maximum allowable dose rates for each shipment in exclusive-use trucks, just as analyzed i in the parent study and are thus conservatively high. The estimated addi- ,
i tional external radlation dose for routine transportation operations for l immediate dismantlement is 0.07 man-rem to transport workers and 0.007 man- j rem to the general public.
Based on this study, there are no additional radiation doses to workers or to the public during the preparations for safe storage, since no additional
' 1 truck shipments are contemplated.
2.3.3 Conclusions from the Backfit Analysis
.i I
The changes at the reference BWR that have resulted to date, as well as those changes anticipated to result from full implementation of post-TMI-2 regulatory requirements, will have only a minor impact on decomissioning
)
l 2.4
l l
l TABLE 2.3. Sumary of Estimated Additional External Occupational, Transport, i
4 and Public Radiation Doses for Decosuiissioning the Reference BWR i Time After Estimated l Reactor Additional Dose (man-rom)
Shutdown Transpor :
- Decomissionina Mode (Years) Occupational Workers a (t)Public(a) !
, Imediate Dismantlement (b) 0 3.06 0.070 0.007 [
l SafeStorage:(c)
- Preparation 0 0.28 0 0 l 1
Storagelb) s for Safe Continuing Care 10 0 0 0 1 30 0 0 0 l
' 50 0 0 0 100 0 0 0 ;
i
- Deferred Dismantlement 10 0.82 0 0 30 0.06 0 0 50 <0.005 0 0 '
100 <0.00001 0 0
- Total for safe Storage (c) with Deferred Dismantle-l ment in year: 10 1.1 0 0 30 0.34 0 0 50 0.29 0 0 100 0.28 0 0 (a) Based on the radiation doses per shipment delineated in Table M.5-2 in NUREG/CR-0672.
l (b) Total additional shipments: 1 for imediate dismantlement; zero for i safe storage.
1 (c) Safe Storage consists of three phases: preparations for safe storage,
- continuing care, and deferred dismantlement.
1 4
i costs and occupational radiation doses for that facility. For any given plant, however, site-specific issues will have to be addressed to assess the actual impact of the backfits on decomissioning.
i
- One unexpected result of this assessment is the identification of the I
positive effect that the Technical Support Centers (TSCs), required in the aftermath of THI-2, will eventually have on decommissioning activities. TSCs are required to provide up-to-date, as-built drawings for the purpose of emer-
) gency preparedness. The availability and use of those drawings will facill-l tate planning and preparation of decomissioning activities and subsequently j will support implementation of those activities. l
- l l 2.5
),
A number of plant modifications have been mde for which no specifics I could be obtained (and thus no quantification of potential impacts on decom-missioning could be made). These modificat4ns portain to safeguards and/or plant security areas or equipment, and this type of infomatio') is not avail-able without appropriate need-to-know. However, it is unlikely that these modifications would have any significant effect on the safety or cost of decomissioning.
2.4 SCALING AND ESCALATION FORMULAE DEVELOPED FOR THE DECOMMISSIONING RULE The fomulae for evaluating financial assurance for decomissioning that the NRC has placed into the Decomissioning Rule are sumarized in this section.
The formulae for estimating decomissioning costs incorporate the effects of post-THI-2 backfits, as documented in Chapter 4 of this report, and account for the situations when the utility employs an external decomissioning con-tractor and when the utility acts as its own decomissioning contractor. These fomelae were develepad using data from plants ranging in size from about 1200 Wt to 3400 Wt . The fomula appearing in the Rule for the utility-plus-contractor option is: '
Estimated BWR Decomissioning Cost = 104 + 0.009 Wt(millionsJanuary19865) where the cost for plants smaller than 1200 Wt is set equal to the cost for a 1200-Wt plant, and the cost for plants larger than 3400 Wt is set equal to the cost for a 3400,Wt plant.
l 3
This fomula provirier reasouble cost estimates for imediate dismantlement !
of reactor plants tha. are small v than the reference plant examined in the :
original BWR decomisstet,ing analysiG Since imediate dis-mantlement(DEC0Y)isgenerallythemor(NUREG/CR-0672).
e expensive of the acceptable decom-1 missioning possibilities, if fun 4 for DECON are available, the other '
, possibilities are aise covered.
As a result of perfoming several cost updates over the (the most recent update is given in Chapter 3 of this report) years sinceappar-
, it became 1978 ent that the total cost could be divided into three principal components, as regards to cost escalation. These components are:
] . Labor and other components that escalate at the same rate as labor I e Energy: electricity, fuel, and other components that escalate at the same rate as energy l e Waste Disposal handling and burial charges at a low-level waste
- disposal site.
i l l
i j 2.6 1
l Assuming that the escalation factors for each of these components can be derived for any point in the future, relative to the 1986 data base used in the afore-mentioned formula used in the Decommissioning Rule, then the escalated decom-missioning cost is given by:
Estimated Cost (year X) = January 1986 Cost (0.65 L2 + 0.13 Ex + 0.22 Bx) '
l where Lx is the escalation factor for labor and related components between January 1986 and year X, Ex is the escalation factor for energy over the same period, and Bx is the escalation factor for waste disposal over the same period.
Lx and Ex are to be based on regional data of the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. The waste disposal factor, Bx, is to be taken from NUREG-1307, a report that will be developed especially for this purpose f and will contain the bases and the derived escalation factors for each disposal site operating in the U.S. at the time of issue. The report will be updated 3 and reissued on some reasonable frequency, to provide reliable factors at any point in time.
l
]
I l t I i 4
e l
i
)
- 2.7 i
l 1 ; : .' :
i i j
j 3.0 COST UPDATING BASES. METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS l The cost adjustment factors used to update the decomissioning costs for i
the reference 8WR to a January 1986 cost base for the Finc.1 Generic Environ-i mental Impact Statement (FGEIS) on Decomissioning are described in detail in ,
- Appendix A of this report. The results of the application of the cost adjust-ment factors given in Appendix A are presented in this chapter, j 3.1 APPLICATION METHODOLOGY 1
The application methodology consisted of a detailed review of all element !
, that make up each of the major cost categories given in the parent documentll)s for the three decomissioning alternatives--imediate dismantlement (DECON),
safestorage(SAFSTOR),andentombment ENTOM8). The appropriate cost adjust- l t
mentfactorswerethenappliedtothere(spectivolineitemsandtheitems l
were added to fors updated cost categories for each of the decomissioning ;
alternatives. In addition to the values escalated from the parent document, l several new cost adders were included in the update. These were: predecom- !
1 missioning engineering; additional staff to assure meeting the 5 res/ year dose limit for personnel; extra supplies for the additional staff; and the !
) additional costs associated with tie option of using an external contractor 1 4
to conduct the decomissioning effort. These cost adders were developed in the ;
4 PNL decom$nioning cost update done in 1984 for the Electric Power Research i
! Institute.h21 Furthermore, the estimated impacts of post-TMI-2 requirements i on the reference BWR decomissioning costs, described in Chapter 4, are included l in the overall cost update. In each case, a 25% contingency is applied to the sum of the categories to establish the estimated costs of decomissioning the reference BWR in January 1986 dollars. ]
j 3.2 ESTIMATED DEcom!$5!0NING COSTS I l
i Immediate dismantlement of the reference BWR is estimated to cost $131.8 $
million under the utility-plus-contractor option. The major contributors to !
1 j the total cost of immediate dismantlement are sumarized in Table 3.1. The ;
cost for shipment and disposal of radioactive materials is about 34% of the ;
) total decommissioning cost. About 30% of the total decomissioning cost is ;
] due to utility staff labor (i.e., the cost categories of Staff Labor plus Additional Staff Needed to Reduce Average Annual Dose to 5 rem per year, shown i inTable3.1). Approximately 22% of the total decomissioning cost is due to l i
the use of an external decomissioning contractor. Energy, suppites, and i
special tools and equipment costs constitute about 7%, 3%, and 3%, respectively, l of the total dismantlement cost.
f i
' Preparing the reference BWR for safe storage is estimated to cost i
$50.9 million under the utility-plus-contractor option. The major contributors !
to the total cost of preparations for passive safe storage are sumarized in Table 3.2. About 44% of the total cost of preparations for safe storage is i l
1 l
I 3.1 l 4
_ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _ _ _ _ u
TABLE 3.1. Sumary of Estimated Costs for Immediate Dismantlement of the Reference BWR (millions of 1986 dollars)
Estimated Costs Percent Cost Category ($ millions)(a,b) of Total Disposal of Radioactive Materials Activated Materials Disposal 7.248 Contaminated Internals Disposal 23.483
. RadioactiveWasteDisposal(c) 4.549 Total Disposal Costs 35.280 33.5 Staff Labor 28.098 26.7 Energy 7.071 6.7 Special Tools and Equipment 3.226 3.1 '
Miscellaneous Supplies 2.974 2.8 Specialty Contractors 0.570 0.5 Nuclear Insurance 1.520 1.4 License Fees 0.112 0.1 CostAdders(d)
" Additional Staff Needed to Reduce 3.520 3.3 Average Annual Dose to 5 rem / year Use of External Decomissioning 16,880 16.0 Contractor Predecomissioning Engineering 5.920 5.6 by an External Contractor Supplies for Extra Staf? C.160 0.2 Post-TMI-2 Impacts by an
- External Contractor 0.080 0.1 Subtotal 105.411 100.0 25% Contingency 26.353
! Total, Imediate Dismantlement Costs 131.764 J
(a) Costs adjusted to January 1986.
(b) Number of figures shown is for computational accuracy and does not
- imply precision to the nearest thousand dollars.
(c) Includes both wet solid wastes and dry solid wastes.
j (d) See text for details concerning this category, i
- 3.2
~ . , - - , - - - _ . . . - - -.
TABLE 3.g. Sumary of Estimated Costs for Preparations for Safe Storage of the Reference BWR (millions of 1986 dollars)
Estimated Costs Percent Cost Category ($ millions)(a,b) of Total i Disposal of Radioactive Materials 3.757 9.2 i Staff Labor 18.006 44.2 i Energy 4.229 10.4 l Special Tools end Equipment 0.562 1.4 Miscellaneous Supplies 2.178 5.4 Specialty Contractors 0.314 0.8 Nuclear Insurance 0.950 2.3 License Fees 0.084 0.2 i CostAdders(c)
Additional Staff Needed to Reduce 0 0
- Average Annual Dose to 5 rem / year Use of External Decomissioning 7.040 17.3 Contractor
- Predecommissioning Engineering 3.600 8.8 by an External Contractor Supplies for Extra Staff 0 0 Post-THI-2 Impacts by an External Contractor Neoligible --
Subtotal 40.720 100.0 l 25% Contingency 10.180
) Total, Preparations for Safe 50.900 2 Storage Costs (a) Costs adjusted to January 1986.
(b) Number of figures shown is for computational accuracy and does not
. imply precision to the nearest thousand dollars.
- (c) See text for details concerning this category. l l
l J
i i
l i
3.3 l
due to utility staff labor. The external contractor contributes about 76% of the total cost. Disposal of radioactive wastes, energy, and supplies contribute about 9.2%, 10.44, and 5.44, respectively, to the total cost.
The cost of continuing care during safe storage of the reference BWR is estimated te be about $120,000 per year.
The cost of deferred dismantlement, starting after intervals of 10, 30, 50 and 100 years after final reactor shutdown, is estimated in January 1986 dollars to be $82.2 million, $82.2 million, $48.3 million and $48 million, respectively. The lesser cost after 100 years is the result of having less contaminated material for packaging, shipment, and burial due to decay of the residual radionuclides.
Entombing the reference BWR via the scenario that calls for the removi, and disaosal of reactor vessel internals is estimated to cost $112.8 million under tie utility-plus-contractor option. The major contributors tc the total cost of entombment are sumarized in Table 3.3. About 34% of the total is due to utility staff labor (i.e., the cost categories of Staff Labor plus Additional Staff Needed to Reduce Average Annual Dose to 5 arem per year, shown in Table 3.3). The external contractor labor accounts for about 26% of the total cost for this scenario. Disposal of radioactive materials, energy, and special tools and equipment contribute 22.8%, 8.4%, and 3.6%, respectively, to the total cost.
With the reactor internals left in place, which is really a form of hard-ened safe storage, entombment of the reference BWR is estimated to cost about
$97million(seeTable3.3),
The cost of continuing care during entombment of the reference SWR is i estimated to be about $74,000 per year for either of the aforementioned sce-narios, which includes an estimated $10,000 per year for various federal and state licensing / inspection costs.
Because of the many variables involved, PNL made no fire estimate of the costs for possible deferred dismantlement of the entombment structure. How-ever, these costs are anticipated to be at least of the same order of magnitude !
as those discussed previously for deferred dismantlement of the reference BWR after a period of safe storage.
3.4
t l
TABLE 3.3. Summary of Estimated Costs for Entombment of the Reference BWR (millions of 1986 dollars)
Enteebeent m b..nt (.ith int.ensie tinterneis c ev.d)(e) stiset.e coste renon atiestes cute recient c u t esteeery ( einione)(e,b) et reisi ga i n itae)(e.n> et totei ole,eu l of Rediensive unterleis Newtron. Activated Wateriale N/A 7.269 Centeelneted Waterlels 9.491 8.7M Radioactive testes (d) 4.540 e.549 Total Olepesel Coats 14.048 14.1 N.M4 22.8 Staff LeWe 27.198 88.1 N.983 32.1 Energy 7.587 t,7 7.547 4.4 Special feele end Equipeent 1.344 1.8 3.tM 3.8 Wiscelleneeve Eevipeent 2.974 3.8 2.974 3.3 Specialty Centre < tere 0.275 0.4 0.275 8.3 hweleer insurance 1. 5N t.f 1. 5N 1.7
- Liconee Fees f. 0N I.1 f.004 0.1 Cut Adders (e)
Addllional Staff heeded to Reduce 3 !N 2.4 1,844 t.0 Average Annwel Does to 8 res/ year Use of Eaternal Decesaleelening 14.348 11.4 17.844 18.9 Cutruter Predeceeoluioning Engineering 5.9N 7.0 4,000 8.8 by on Externel Centrector .
- Supplies for Estre Staff s.ses f. pee s.1 s.1 Poet.TWI.2 !spute by en
!stereal Centracter s.tes l s.1 s.cos ,g i Subtetels 77.818 IN 8 N.234 1H.S til Centlegencies 19.371 f t lit 7etel, Enteebeent Cute se,tel 113,793 Annwel Coellnwies Care Cute f.f74 8.374 (e) Costa ed]weted be January 1964.
(t) Nweber of figuru eheen le for coeputational occuracy end does not imply proclelen to the notreet thessend de1\ere.
c For this enteebeent econerie, diesentleeent elli event 5elly be required, d
Includu both set selld outes and dry solid voetes. j e
See test for details concerning th;e category, I i
1 l
l 1
l 3.5 I l
l
3.3 REFERENCES
l
- 1. H. D. Oak, G. H. Holter, W. E. Kennedy, and G. J. Konzek. 1980. Technol-ooy, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Boilina Water Reactor Power Station. NUREG/CR-0672, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Repert by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 2. R. I. Smith, 3. J. Konzek, E. S. Murphy, and H. K. Elder. 1985. U1 dated
_ Costs for Oecommissioning Nuclear Power Facilities. EPRI NP-4012, Electric Powe' Research Institute Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
l l
3.6 i
1 f
4.0 ESTIMATED IMPACTS OF POST-THI-2 REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER SELECTED REGULATORY CHANGES ON DECOMMISSIONING 0F THE REFERENCE !
BOILING WATER REACTOR '
Since the original BWR decomissioning report (1) was prepared, a number of post-TMI-2 backfit requirements have been imposed on operating nuclear power stations. These requirements were actions judged necessary by the NRC to correct or improve the safety of operation of nuclear power plants based l
on the experience from the accident at THI-2.
Examined and assessed in quantitative terms in this chapter are all NRC- ,
initiated post-TMI-2 plant modifications imposed on the previously studied l reference BWR, whether mandated (as in a rule, regulation, or order) or com- '
mitted to by the licensee (originating in a generic letter or IE Bulletin, l for example), for their impact on estimated decomissioning costs and occupa- !
tional radiation doses. The purpose of this examination was to provide the !
NRC decision-makers with pertinent information concerning the effects of those backfit re ,uirements and associated regulatory changes on decomissioning.
The results of these analyses also make a useful addition to the already existing decomissioning data base and increases its general applicability.
The study results are sumarized in Section 4.1. Tile study approach taken is presented in Section 4.2. The analyses ar BWR nuclear power plant reported in NUREG/CR-0672.(e) 1 based The on the sources of reference infor-mation used in the analyses are discussed in Section 4.3, and the detailed results of the analyses are given in Section 4.4.
4.1 SUMARY OF STUDY RESULTS The results of this study to assess t% impacts on dec3missioning of post-THI-2 requirements and other changes in t! regulatory climate are sumarized in this section. The principal results are given, in brief, in the following paragraphs, with more details presented in subsequ'it sections.
4.1.1 Study Bases For consistency, the major study bases are the same as those used in the original BWR decomissioning study with one exception--costs are in January 1986 dollars. The results obtained in this study are specifi: to these major bases and to the specific assumptions that are derived from them. Applying these results to situations with conditions different from those in this study could produce erroneous conclusions. However, without additional evidence /information, more refined analyses are not expected to significantly change the results of this study.
4.1.2 Additional Decomissionino Costs Associated with Backfit Assessment All additional costs associated with this backfit assessment are given in January 1986 dollars, with 25% contingencies included.
l 4.1
l Imediate dismantlement of the reference BWR is estimated to cost an additional $100,800 based on this backfit assessment.
It is assumed for purposes of this backfit assessment that virtually all of the contaminated materials identified in this study for imediate dismantle-ment require offsite disposal for entombment as well. It is further assumed that the removal, packaging, and transport of those materials is accomplished in a manner similar to that postulated for imediate dismantlement. The costs, schedules, and manpowo' estimates also are anticipated to De similar to those estimated for imediate dismantlement. Thus, the total additional cost assoc-iated with this backfit assessment for entombment is about $101 M0, including a 25% contingency. No increase in costs associated with con;. .re activities is anticipated to result based on this backfit asses arit.
Preparing the reference BWR for safe storage is estimated to cos+. an additional $3,800. Deactivation and tagging of the additional valves and equipment that were identified in this study are estimated to require about two days. No increase in costs associated with continuing care activities is anticipated to result based on this backfit usessment.
The additional costs of deferred dismantlement following safe storage of the reference BWR for intervals of 10, 30, 50 and 100 years after final shut-down are estimated in January 1986 dollars to be $58,900, $58,900, $3,800, and
$3,800, respectively. The lesser costs after the longer intervals are the result of having less of the contaminated materials identffied in this study for shipment and disposal due to decay of the radionuclides.
The total estimated additional costs in constant 1986 dollars for each of the decommissioning alternatives are sumarized in Table 4.1.
4.1.3 Additional Decomissionino Radiation Doser Associated with Backfit Assessment Estimates of additional accumulated occupational radiation doses associated with this backfit assessment are briefly described in the following paragraphs.
Included are the additional occupational doses and the additional radiation doses received by transport workers and by the general public as a result of transperting the increased amount of radioactive materials identified in this study to disposal sites.
The individual estimates of additional occupational, transport worker, and public radiation doses for the various decomissioning alternatives are sum:narized in Table 4.2. Additional accumulated occupational radiation doses are estimated to be 3.1 man-rem for imediate dismantlement and fer entombment, and about 0.28 man-rem for placing the facility in safe storage, with essen-tially no increase in occupational radiation dose for surveillance and main-tenance staff during continuing care. Deferring the dismantlement sequence beyond 30 years for those items identified in this backfit assessment results 4.2
l TABLE 4.1. Sumary of Estimated Additional Costs for Possible Decommissioning Alternatives for the Reference BWR ;
Additional
--t- ($Decomissign)ing thousands)(a Costs
)
Number of Years '
After Shutdown Dismantlement is Deferred l Decommissioning Alternative 0 10 30 50 100 l Imediate Dismantlement 101 -- -- -- --
1 Preparations for:
l Safe Storage 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 3.8 Continuing Care -- -- -- -- -- 1 Deferred Dismantlement -- 58.9 58.9 3.8(b) 3.8(b)
Total Additional Cost --
62.7 62.7 7.6 7.6 l Entombment 101 101 101 101 101 !
Continuing Care -- -- -- -- --
i Deferred Dismantlement -- -- -- -- --
Total Additional Cost --
101 101 101 101(c)
(a) Values include a 25% contingency and are in January 1986 dollars.
(b) These reduced values result from lesser amounts of contaminated materials for burial in a licensed disposal site. :
(c) It is assumed that the entombed radioactive material decays to the !
unrestricted release level in 100 years.
l l
in relatively little reduction ir, accumulated occupational radiation dose, and virtually no reduction results from deferment beyond 50 years. The esti-mated additional external radiation dose from transport operations for ime-diate dismantlement is 0.07 man-rem to transport workers and 0.007 man-rem to the general public.
Since no additional truck shipments are contemplated, there are no addi-tional radiation doses to workers or to the public resulting from post-TMI-2 backfits during the preparations for safe storage.
4.1.4 Conclusions and Recomendations Based upon the results of this study, it appears that the chan havealreadyresulted,aswellasthosechangesanticipatedtoresu$esthat t from I full implementation of post-THI-2 regulatory requirements at the reference BWR, will have only a minor impact on decomissioning costs and occupational radiation doses. Site-specific issues will have to be addressed in every other case where precise assessments of the exact extent of the impact on !
decomissioning are desired. For example, the license conditions for plants '
licensed before January 1, 1979, vary in both scope and content. After ;
4.3
- l :
TABLE 4.2. Sumary of Estimated Additional External Occupational, Transport, and Public Radiation Ooses for Decommissioning the Reference BWR Time After Estimated Reactor Additional Dose (man-rem)
Shutdown Transport Decommissioning Mode (Years) Occupational Workers (a) Public(a)
Imediate Dismantlement (b) 0 3.06 0.070 0.007 SafeStorage:(c)
Preparation 0 0.28 0 0 Storage (b) s for Gafe Continuing Care 10 0 0 0 !
30 0 0 0 ,
50 0 0 0 1 100 0 0 0 l Deferred Dismantlement 10 0.82 0 0 30 0.06 0 0 1 50 <0.005 0 0 '
100 <0.00001 0 0 Total for Safe Storage (c) with Deferred Dismantle- ;
ment in year: 10 1.1 0 i
0 30 0.34 !
0 0 !
50 0.29 0 0 '
100 1 28 0 0 l (a) Based on the radiation doses per shipment delineated in Table N.5-2 in NUREG/CR-0672.
(b) Total additional shipments: 1 for immediate dismantlement; zero for safe storage.
(c) Safe Storage consists of three phases: preparations for safe storage, continuing care, and deferred dismantlement.
January 1, 1979, inclusion of a fire protection program (including a fire hazards analysis) in the Final Safety Analysis Report became a prerequisite for licensin widely. g. Plant modifications resulting from such analytes apparently varied It is known that at some plants such modifications have been extensive, including rerouting of cable, affixing fire retardant materials, installation of new conduits, and provision of improved barriers as well as the addition of pum)s and other equipment. To identify all the practical aspects involved in suc1 assessments will require an in-depth study of each plant, since each reactor and its respective site are uni Thus, cost and occupational dose estimates for post-TMI-2 requirements (que. and other regulatory adjustments) for the single BWR examined in this study may not represent the circumstances at all BWR stations.
4.4
i One unexpected result of this assessment is the identification of the pos-itive effect that the technical support centers (TSCs) required in the after-math of TMI-2 will eventually have on decomissioning activities. TSCs are required to provide up-to-date, as-built drawings for the purpose of emergency preparedness. The availability of those drawings will facilitate planning and preparation of decomissioning activities and subsequently will support imple-mentation of those activities.
It should be noted that a number of plant modifications have been made for which no specifics could be obtained (and thus no quantification of poten-tial impacts on decomissioning could be made). These modificationn pertain to safeguards and/or plant security areas or equipment, and this type of infor-mation is not available without appropriate need-to-know. However, it is i unlikely that these modifications would have any significant effect on the j safety or cost of decomissioning.
l An emerging area of change that was identified concerns et's steadily l increasing costs associated with the burial of radwastes and the concomitant efforts at volume reduction by nuclear power plant operators. Whether such efforts are done by a contractor or by the addition of new equipment at the plant itself, an increase in the inventory of contaminated materials, in the form of outdated original equipment, could result. In many cases, this equipment may lie unused at the plant for years until the plant is decomis-sioned. Then, it must be accounted for.
l i
4.2 STUDY OBJECTIVE, APPROACH, ALTERNATIVES, BASES AND ASSUMPTIONS I This section contains brief descriptions of the study objective, approach, decomissioning alternatives, and bases and assumptions.
4.2.1 Study Objectin The primary objective of this study is to examine post-TMI-2 backfits and assess their potential impacts on decomissioning cost and dose estimates previously developed for the reference BWR.(1) Development of this informa-tion is necessary in order to provide NRC decision-makers with the pertinent information they need concerning those impacts on decomissioning.
4.2.2 Technical Aoprot,ch A methodology was developed to guide the acquisition and assessment of the data concerning post-TMI-2 backfit apagts previously developed for the reference MR.ll) on the decomissioning estimates The study methodology, which is designed to provide direction for data gathering, proper use of the literature, and careful evaluation of infomation, is shown in Figure 4.1. The first step in the process was to acquire background material on the reference BWR by consulting the literature. Coin-ciding with that task were contacts (initially arranged by the respective NRC 4.5
- Cn cts
""" "" ~
Data !
Acquisition -
and Study v u j l
+ Evaluation : Ucensee Visitation ;
1 i r l Prepare Report FIGURE 4.1. Post-TMI-2 Backfit Impacts Study Methodology project manager) with the utility that operates the reference reactor involved in the study. The final step included visits to the utility headquarters and the reference reactor site to meet with cognizant utility staff and to gather appropriate backfit infomation.
4.2.3 Decomissionina Alternatives l
The three decomissioning alternatives evaluated in the referewe BWR study are examined again in this study to estimate the additional costs and 1 radiation doses that may result from im)1ementation of post-TMI-2 backfits.
These alternatives are defined briefly )elow.
. Imediate -
The station is decontaminated and the radioactive Dismantlement materials are removed shortly after final reactor (DECON) shutdown. Upon com)letion, the nuclear license is teminated and t1e property is released for unrestricted use.
, Safe Storage -
The radioactively contaminated materials and con-with Deferred taminated areas are decontaminated or secured and Dismantlement the structures and equipment are maintained as (SAFSTOR) necessary to ensure the protection of the public from the residual radioactivity. During the period of safe i storage, use of the property remains limited by the {
nuclear license. Eventual dismantlement is necessary l for unrestricted release and license temination.
. Ertombment -
The radioactively contaminated materials and con-(ENTOMB) taminated areas are decontaminated and the r.onreleasable materials are confined within a monolithic structure that provides integrity to ensure the protection of the public from the entombed radioactivity for a period of sufficient length to pemit the decay of the radioac-tivity to unrestricted release levels. During the 4.6
period of entombment, the property is maintained as necessary and remains restricted in use by the nuclear license.
4.2.4 Study Gases and Assumptions The stud NRC decisionmakers. y is intended In addition, to protide thedecommissioning infomation will provide infomation theuseful basistofor developing current cost and occupational dose estimates for decommissioning the reference plant. The study bases are:
. Costs are in January 1986 dollars.
e All other applicable bases and assumptions necessary to the conduct of this study are the same as those used in the original NUREG report (see Reference 1 for details).
4.3 SOURCES OF INFORMATION A manual literature search was conducted to obtain information associa-ted with post-THI-2 backfits. For example, the WNP-2 responses (through December Final Safety 1985) toReport Analysis 60 regulatory issues resulting)from (FSAR) Appendix BlZ were examined. THI-2 containedGovernment in their reports, technical journals, conference proceedings, etc. were examined for infomation relative to the reference BWR. A computer-based licensee event report (LER) search was conducted for the licensee's plant. Although the LERs were not viewed in the same context as other more clearly defined post-TMI-2 backfits, they were nonetheless examined and assessed for their potential impact on decommissioning costs since they often reveal modifications to the plant. Where those modifications involved equipment, components, and/or mate-rials that would eventually become radioactive and/or contaminated, they were assessed for their impact on decomissioning as well.
The utility visitation was a very significant part of the study, though limited in scope in tems of actual time spent with utility representatives.
The NRC is cognizant of the criticism focusing on the regulatory burden on licensees. Therefore, initial discussions were conducted between the licensee and their respective NRC project manager. Subsequently, PNL staff contacted the cognizant utility staff identified by the NRC project manager, meetings were conducted, and the infomation gathering process was carried out.
4.3.1 Licensee Visitation The visitation itself involved an introductory conference with utility
~
representatives representing finance, licensing, and/or decommissioning plan-nin Topics covered included: 1) the purpose and objectives of this study;
- 2) g.a brief review of their decomissioning plans; 3) a discussion focusing on understanding differences between various decommissioning cost estimates by others; and 4) arrangements for responsible utility staff to provide backfit infomation to PNL.
4.7
. - - - . - - , - - . . , - . - . , ,7.--.,--,-9.-n -
,-sr,.-,..,,,__,_,-,..,,e.,.,. , , , , , , . . % ,, .yww 7.-- ,.,.w,y--,,,,my,w %,7-,,,,,,-,.3 ...g.m
~
\
l l
The discussions were kept informal to facilitate development of backfit information specific to the study. This effort was quite productive as mean-ingful, pertinent backfit information was obtained. Some of the information secured on the utility visit was not available from other sources.
4.3.2 Discussion Concernino Information Sources Used in this Study As previously mentioned, the primary objective of this study is to exam-ine post-TMI-2 backfits for their potential impact on decommissioning. If a plant modification is needed for a facility to comply with a license, an NRC rule or order, or to conform with a written commitment by the licensee, it will probably show up in the utility's record system (either as a backfit or possibly as a design change).
Backfitting is defined as a modification of or addition to systems, struc-tures, components, or desien of a facility; or the design approval or manufactu-ring license for a facility; or to the procedures or organization required to design, construct, or operate a facility; any of which may result from a new or amended provision in the NRC rules or the imposition of a regulatory staff position interpreting the Commission rules that is either new or different 3 from a previously applicable staff position after: (i) The due of issuance of the construction permits issued after October permit21, for1985; the facility or, ii) (for facilities Six months having before theconstruction date of docketing having construction of the operating permits issued license beforeapplication October 21,for theorfacility 1985; iii) The (for datefacilities l
1 of issuance of the operating license for the facility for facilities having '
operating licenses; or, (iv) The date of issuance of the design approval under 10 CFR Part 50, Appendices M, N, or 0.(3)
Generic backfitting is governed by the Committee to Review Generic Require-ments process. On the other hand, plant-specific backfitting is governed by l
NRC staff manual chapter 0514, which encompasses power reactors. Plant-specific backfitting is different from generic backfitting in that the former involves ,
1 the imposition on a licensee of positions unique to a particular plant, whereas '
generic backfitting involves the imposition of the same or similar positions on two or more plants. In the case of generic backfitting, additi on the subject to the licensee is provided via generic letters,(a)onal guidance since a systematic and documented analysis is required to be done by the NRC for any generic backfit it seeks to impose.
(a) Generic letters are issued by the NRC Office of Nuclear Reactor Regula-tion, Division of Licensing. They are used to transmit information to, and obtain information froin reactor licensees, applicants, and/or equip-ment suppliers regarding matters of safety, safeguards, or environmental significance. Generic letters usually either 1) provide infonnation thought to be important in assuring continued safe operation of facilities, l or 2) request informetion on a specific schedule that wculd enable regula- l tory decisions to be made regarding the continued safe operation of facil- l ities. They have been a significant means of communicating with licensees ;
on a number of important issues, the resolutions of which have contributed to improved quality of design and operation.
~
4.8
- 1 :
The examination and assessment of infomation contained in generic letters concerning backfits led into other records-keeping systems that revealed areas with the potential for additional infomation on various kinds of changes to the reference plant. For example, the LERs include a detailed narrative description of potentially significant safety events. These reports are ini-tiated by the licensee. By describing in detail the event and the planned corrective action, the LER system provides the basis for the careful study of events or conditions that might lead to serious accidents. For the purpose of this study, the "planned corrective action" feature of the LERs (and the followup correspondence associated with that action) was examined for the reference plant to assess any potential impacts on decommissioning. About 270 LERs were examined for the WNP-2 plant (the reference BWR), which cor-responds roughly to most of the LERs produced for the plant since commercial operation began.
In all cases, the subsequent identification of any change that might impact on decommissignin plant onnual reportsta) gandwasdiscussions investigated further, with including er. and/or plant engineering amination of licensing staff. In some cases, as-built drawings were obtained from which estimates of volumes of contaminated and/or radioactive wastes were subsequently made.
For the most part, best estimates concerning material quantities were based upon discussions with utility staff and upon engineering judgment. Records associated with most material quantities and with all occupational exposures associated with installation activities were generally unavailable. Therefore, estimates concerning occupational exposures presented in this study rely on the composit document.(1)e values developed for the reference plant contained in the parent 4.4 RESULTS OF THE BACKFIT IMPACT ASSESSMENT FOR THE REFERENCE BWR This section contains the results of the backfit impact assessment for the reference nuclear power plant, including estimates of the additional decom-missioning costs and occupational doses resulting from the post-THI-2 require-ments imposed on the licensee to date by the NRC as well as other selected changes resulting from adjustments in the regulatory climate. The results are based upon the infomation sources previously discussed in Section 4.3.
The WNP-2 responses (through December 1985) to 60 rg ing from THI-2 are contained in their FSAR Appendix B.(2;gulatory This backfit issues result-assess-ment is not intended to encompass a technical discussion of all 60 regulatory issues and responses, and that level of detail is not included. The 60 require-ments are lumped into fewer categories for simplicity and are presented in Table 4.3 to show the broad spectrum of issues covered therein.
1 (a) The annual reports contain, together with other licensee infomation, a section devoted to plant modifications and design changes. Equipment, components, and/or other materials that had been or were scheduled to be installed in radiation zones were carefully examined for their potential impact later during decommissioning.
4.9
TABLE 4.3. Sumary of Regulatory Items Associated with Post-TMI-2 Action Plan Requirements for the Reference BWR Regulatory Items Technical Support Center Emergency Operations Center Emergency Feedwater System Upprade Abnomal Transient-Operator Guidelines and THI-Related Training and Drilling Emercency Planning Reactor Coolant System Vents Shift Technical Advisor Training Safety Parameter Display System Safety and Relief Valve Testing Reactor Coolant System and Containment Atmosphere Sampling Safety Grade Reactor Trip Small Break Loss-of Coolant Accident Analyses Plant Shielding Review Reactor Vessel Level Instrumentation Containment Pressure Instrumentation Containment Hydrogen Monitor Hydrogen Purge System Reactor Vessel Themal Shock Report Control Room Habitability Improvements Information found in FSAR Appendix 8, the WNP-2 Annual Reports, generic letters, and LERs, together with discussions with WNP-2 engineering staff, were carefully assessed to identify those plant modifications and design changes subsequent to the THI-2 accident that could potentially have an impact on decomissioning. Included in this category are equipment, components, and/or materials that had been er are scheduled to be installed in the near-tem in radiation zones (i.e., in those plant areas whereby such entities will probably become thus become contaminated prime candidatesor for radioactive removal during during the' plant's decommissioning remaining)
. Table 4.4 lifetim lists the equipment, piping, valves, and other items that are estimated to eventually have an impact on decommissioning of the reference plant.
4.4.1 Estimated Additional Costs for Decomissioning the Reference BWR The estimated additional costs for decommissioning the reference BWR via the three decouriissioning alternatives described previously in Section 4.2.3 are presented in the following subsections. The costs include a 25% contin-gency and are adjusted to January 1986 dollars in all cases.
4.4.1.1 Estimated Additional Costs for Imediate Dismantlement The estimated additional costs for imediate dismantlement are sumarized
' and totaled in Table 4.5. It can be seen from the table that the total addi-tional cost associated with this backfit assessment for imediate dismantle-ment is about $101,000, including a 25% contingency.
4.10
- :9 :
TABLE 4.4. Sumary of Information Regarding Additional Potentially Contaminated Materials at the Reference BWR Estimated Number of Number Disposable System or Descriptign of Containers Location of Materialta) Units (b) Lenath, m Mass, kg (rounded up)(c)
Post-Accident Piping, 3/4-in. 453 793 709 1 Sampling s/s System Valves 66 NA(d) 92 <0.2 Pumps 6 NA 138 <0.1 Hanger Supports 255 NA 561 1 Display Panel 2 NA 909 2(e)-
Insulation NA NA 90 1 '
Material and l Heat Wrap Miscellaneous NA NA 90 <0.5 CR0 Mainte- Piping, 2-1/2- 44 76 740 0.2 nance Room in.
Valves 8 NA 182 <0.1 Skid (filter 1 NA 455 0.3 andpump)
Tank 1 NA 614 1(f)
Pre-Moisture Piping, 8-in. 35 61 2,728 1.4 Separator c/s Reheater Valves 12 NA 588
)
l Drain Tank 2 NA 2,086 02) 2l9 l Miscellaneous Instrumentation NA NA 227 2(h) in Contain-ment Fire Protection Materials NA NA 1,061 0.5 Totals 855 930 11,270 7+7(i)
(a) Obtained or estimated from infomation supplied by Washington Public Power Supply System.
(b) A piping unit consists of a piece 1.75 meters in length. l (c) Assumed to be 1.2-m by 1.2-m by 2.4-m metal boxes, unless otherwise indicated. l NA means not applicable. !
Packaged as their own containers, 0.6 m by 1.2 m by 1.8 m each.
Packaged as its own container, 0.9 m by 0.9 m by 6.1 m.
Packaged as their own containers, 0.8-m diameter by 2.7-m each. '
These containers are 55-gal drums.
These seven containers represent self-contained disposable containers on ,
i which openings or surfaces are capped or covered and seal-welded.
4.11 i I
, ,.-.._vr, -,.- _ - _ +,.,,-,-m_,e
TABLE 4.5. Sumery of Estimated Additional Costs for Imediate Dismantlement of the Reference BWR Estimated Cost Category Costs,$(a,b)
Disposal of Contaminated Materials 58,914 Staff Labor 40,165 Special Tools and Equipment NA(c)
Miscellaneous Supplies 1,705 Total, Imediate Dismantlement Costs 100,784 (a) Values include a 25% contingency and are in January 1986 dollars.
(b) The number of figures shown is for computational accuracy and does not impl many significant figures. y precision to that (c) NA means not a,nplicable; see text for discussion.
Detailed cost data for the individual cost categories shown in Table 4.5 are presented and discussed in the following subsections.
Costs for Disposal of Contaminated Materials. The contaminated mater-ials listed in Table 4.4 are anticipated to be removed from various locations within the reactor building. the radwaste and control building, and the turbine generator building. For example, the post-accident sampling system has piping, components, and valves at various elevations in the reactor building (including a minimal amount within primary containment) and in the radwaste and control building. An estimated one additional overweight truck shipment is required to transport the contaminated materials to a shallow-land burial facility, where they will occupy an estimated 36 m3 of space. The total disposal cost (see Table 4.6) for these additionel contaminated materials from the immediate dismantlement of the reference BWR is estimated at about $59,000, including a 25% contingency.
Costs for Staff Labor. The estimated additional costs for staff labor attributable to this backfit assessment during imediate dismantlement are shown in Table 4.7. The estimated staff labor requirements shown in the table are based on a task-by-task analysis to detennine the man-years of effort required to remove and package all of the materials previously given in Table 4.4. The same basic assumptions raade in developing the staff labor estimates given in the original study (see Section I.2.4, Reference 1) are utilized here. It is assumed that the laborer and craftsmen shown in Table 4.7 are hired from the local union hall and that they are adequately trained on-site for the decomissioning work.
4.12
. .7 ?
! TABLE 4.6. Sumary of Estimated Costs for Disposal of Adqit Contaminated Materials from the Reference BWRia)ional
Description:
All materials shown in Table 4.4 Estimated Mass, kg(b): 11,270 Number of Disposable Containers (c): 14(d)
ContainerCosts,$(e): 15,000 NumberofShipments(f): 1 Transport Costs, $(9): 4,320 Handling Costs, $: 0 Burial Volume, m3: 36 Burial Cost, $(h): 39,594 Total Disposal Cost, $(i): 58,914
/a) Values include 25% contingency and are in January 1986 dollars.
[b) Obtained or estimated from infomation supplied by Washington Public Power Supply System.
(c) Assumed to be 1.2-m by 1.2-m by 2.4-m metal boxes, unless other-wise indicated.
(d) Seven of these containers are self-contained disposable con-tainers on which the openings or surfaces are capped or covered and seal-welded.
(e) Based on infomation in Section M.2 of Appendix M, Reference 1, and escalated to January 1986 dollars.
(f) Assumed to be overweight shipment.
(g) Based on Table M.4-4 of Reference 1 and escalated to January 1986 dollars.
(h) Based on Table M.5-1 of Reference 1 and escalated to January 1986 dollars; based on an assumed container surface dose rate of
<0.20 R/hr.
(i) The number of figures shown is for computational accuracy and dose not imply precision to that many significant figures.
Costs for Special Tools and Equipment for Imediate Dismantlement. The I inventory of special tools and equipment given in Table I.3-9, Reference 1, is considered adequate to accommodate the additional decomissioning tasks attributable to this backfit assessment.
Costs for Additional Miscellaneous Supplies. The sdditional miscellan-ecas sup) lies needed to accomplish the decomissioning tasks attributable to this bac(fit assessment include anticontamination clothing, cleaning and 4.13 J
TABLE 4.7. Estimated Costs for Staff Labor During Innediate Dismantlement of the Reference BWR '
Total Staff Labor Required Total Staff Labo Pcsition (man-years) Costs ($)(a,b,c)r Decommissioning Workers CrewLeader(d) 0.117 8,728 UtilityOperator(d) 0.117 6,343 Laborer 0.117 6,060 Craftsman 0.167 13,160 H.P. Technician (d) 0.117 5,874 Totals 0.615 40,165 (a) Values include a 25% contingency and are in January 1986 d:11ars.
4 (b) Calculated as the product cf the estimated staff labor requirements shown above analysis) and the correspo(nding data given inbased on a task-by-tas Table M.1-1 of Reference 1, and escalated to Janusry 1986 dollars.
(c) The number of figures shown is for computational accuracy and does not imply precision to that many significant figures.
(d) One additional trained person is maintained for the time period shown above to meet the additional requirements associated with this task.
contamination control supplies (chemical agents, sweeping compounds, rags, mops, and plastic bags and sheeting), expendable hand tools, and cutting and welding supplies (saw blades, torch gas, and welding rod). The total estimated cost for these additional miscellaneous supplies during innediate dismantlement of thereferenceBWRisabout$1,700(seeTable4.8). Individual costs shown in the table are estimated by detemining the average cost of the respective items per man-year for the original decommissioning worker staff, then multi-plying that cost by the additional number of man-years estimated to accomplish i
the deconnissioning tasks identified in this backfit assessment, and then
- escalating the costs to January 1986 dollars.
4.4.1.2 Estimated Additional Costs for Entombment PNL considered two apprgaghes to entombment in the parent study on decom-missioning tha reference BWRll)--entombment with the reactor vessel internals removed (s .:nario 1) and entombment with the reactor vessel internals in place (scenario 2). The latter scenario is really a fom of hardened safe storage since eventually dismantlement is necessary. For both entombment scenarios, 4.14
- ll .-
TABLE 4.8. Estimated Costs for Additional Miscellaneous Supplies During Immediate Dismantlement of the Reference BWR -
Estimated Item Costs,$(a,b)
AnticontaminationClothing(c) 580 j Cleaning and Contamination Control Supplies 739 i Hand Tools 257 i Cutting and Welding Supplies 129 Total 1,705 l
1 (a) Values include a 25% contingency and are in January 1986 dollars. {
(b) The number of figures shown is for computational accuracy and does not imply precision to that meny significant figures.
(c) l Estimated at four changes per day per decomissioning worker.
dismantlement of the reference facility outside the entombment structure is carried out in a manner similar to immediate dismantlement, with the difference being that as much as possible of the contaminated equipment and material is placed in the entombment structure (see Figure K.1-1, Reference 1, for details) rather than being packaged and shipped to offsite disposal. However, the amount of contaminated material that can be entombed inside the primary contain-ment vessel, in either entombment scenario, is limited by the free and easily-filled volume available for use within the vessel.
Examination of the analysis perfonned in the parent document (1) reveals that a volume utilization efficiency for storage within the primary contain-ment vessel of 50% was assumed. This resulted in roughly 33% of all contam-inated material, in either scenario, requiring packaging and shipment to offsite disposal. It is beyond the scope of this study to optimize the storage, but 3 this should be considered during the planning of any actual entombment project. j Based on the aforementioned discussion, it is assumed for purposes of this backfit assessment that virtually all of the contaminated materials listed previously in Table 4.4 require offsite disposal. It is further assumed that the removal, packaging, and transport of those materials is accomplished in a !
manner similar to that which was previously described for immediate disman- 1 tiement. The costs, schedules, and manpower estimates also are anticipated to be similar to those previously estimated for immediate dismantlement.
Thus, the total additional cost associated with this backfit assessment for entombment is about $101,000, including a 25% contingency (see Table 4.5 for details).
4.15
t
- ;;
- l l
l l 1
No increase in costs associated with continuing care activities is antici-pated to result based on this backfit assessment.
l 4.4.1.3 Estimated Additional _ Costs for Preparations for Safe Storage Deactivation and tagging of valves and equipment (see Table 4.4 for l details) are estimated to require about two days. The estimated additional I costs for preparations for safe storage for these activities are sumarized in Table 4.9. It can be seen from the table that the total additional cost associated with this backfit assessment is about $3,800, including a 25%
contingency.
4.4.1.4 Estimated Additional Costs for Deferred Dismantlement The cost of deferred dismantlement of the reference BWR has previously l been estimated assuming that dismantlement takes place starting at intervals of 10, 30, 50, and 100 years after reactor shutdown. These estimates are developed in Appendix J.7 of Reference 1, together with the costs for continuing care. Continuing care costs of the reference BWR are not anticipated to be affected based on this backfit assessment.
l t
The total costs of deferred dismantlement are affected only slightly because of the increased quantity of contaminated materials (see Table 4.4 for details) that must be removed. However, the additional costs due to this increase in the contaminated materials inventory could be expected to decrease for dismantlement at 50 years or later just as they were judged to do so in TABLE 4.9. Sumary of Estimated Additional Costs for Preparations for Safe Storage of the Reference BWR Estimated Cost Category Costs,$(a,b)
Disposal of Contaminated Materials Negligible Staff Labor 3,509 Special Tools and Equipment Negligible Miscellaneous Supplies 294 Totel, Preparations for Safe 3,803 Storage Costs (a) Values include a 25% contingency and are in January 1986 dollars.
(b) The number of figures shown is for computational accuracy and does not imply precision to that many significant figures.
4.16
I ; .. !
l the parent document.(1) This lower disposal cost is because of the lesser quantities of contaminated materials for burial, due to decay of the radionuclides.
It is assumed that the radioactive contamination of the piping systems, tanks, pools, etc. is primarily 60Co. Thus, for safe storage periods of less i than fifty years (~10 half-lives of 60Co), the material remains radioactively 3 contaminated to levels greater than those that would permit unrestricted use l of the material. After 50 years of decay, it is assumed that the radioactive l contamination on the bulk of the formerly contaminated material has decayed to levels that are indistinguishable from the natural radioactivity in the er.vironment, and can be either salvaged for scrap value, buried in a land-fill. or left in the structures.
The same basic activities that are perfomed during immediate dismantle-ment are also performed during deferred dismantlement. It is assumed that a work force of essentially the same size as was used in imediate dismantlement 1 l
is needed for deferred dismantlement, and for approximately the same duration. '
A convenient way to estimate the additional costs incurred for deferred dismantlement, based on this backfit assessment, after periods of safe storage '
of various lengths is to examine only those cost parameters that are different !
from immediate dismantlement. The manpower costs are assumed to be the same l
as for immediate dismantlement. The major difference in cost identified in this study concerns the cost of disposal of contaminated material. ,
l The estimates of the additional volumes of contaminated material that !
must be packaged and shipped for burial when dismantlement is performed start-ing imediately and starting at 10, 30, 50 and 100 years after reactor shutdown l are given in Table 4.10, together with their respective estimated disposal costs. The estimated additional volumes given in the table are sumarized from information discussed previously in this section. The total adaitional volume of contaminated material, as previously presented in Table 4.4, is assumed to remain constant through 30 years but to have decreased to <0.4 m3 by 50 years and thereafter based on engineering judgment.
Essentially no additional volume of contaminated material is attributable to the preparations for safe storage as determined by this study; thus no dis-posal cost is assigned to it in Table 4.10.
Using the additional volumes of contaminated materials and their respec-tive estimated disposal costs listed in Table 4.10 for the different time periods, it can be seen that after about 50 years, additional deferred dis-mantlement costs associated with those additional contaminated materials are reduced by about $55,000.
In sumary, the total cost of deferred dismantlement could be expected to increase by about UFUOO when dismantlement starts at either 10 or 30 years after reactor shutdown. Deferred dismantlement at 50 years or more after 4.17
'. l TABLE 4.10. Estimated Additional Volumes and Costs of Contaminated Material Disposed of During the Various Decomissioning Options for the Reference BWR Estimated Burial Option Starts Volume, m3 Estimated (Years after Contaminated Disposal Decomissionino Option Shutdown) Material Costs,$ta)
Imediate Dismantlement 0 36 58,914(b)
Preparations for Safe 0 -- --
Storage Deferred Dismantlement 10 36 58,914 30 36 58,914 50 <0.4 3,828(c) 100 <0.4 3,828 Values include a 25% contingency and are in January 1986 dollars.
Based on Table 4.6.
Based on: 1) one legal-weight truck shipment of two disposable con-tainers (1.2-m by 1.2-m by 2.4-m metal boxes) to a low-level waste burial ground; 2) information in Appendix M, Reference 3, escalated to January 1986 dollars; and 3) Table M.5-1, Reference 1, for assumed container surface dose rates of <0.20 R/hr.
reactor shutdown is estimated to result in an increase of about $3,800. In any case, the increase in the total cost of deferred dismantlement is attributable to the increase in the volume of contaminated materials as determined by this backfit assessment.
4.4.2 Estimated Additional External Occupational Radiation Doses for Decomissioning the Reference BWR Detailed estimates are made of the external occupational radiation doses that are accumulated by the workers used to accomplish the decomissioning tasks attributable to this backfit assessment during immediate dismantlement of the reference BWR. The estimates are based on a task-by-task analysis to determine the man-hours of effort required in radiation-zone work and the anticipated dose rates associated with each task for all labor categories.
The same basic assumptions made in developing the occupational radiation dose estimates given in the original study (see Section I.4, Reference 1) are used here.
Estimates of the additional occupational radiation doses for decomis-sioning the reference BWR via three decomissioning alternatives are presented in the following subsections.
4.18
'. '. l 4.4.2.1 Estimated Additional External Occupational Radiation Doses for Immediate Dismantlement The estimated total dose for each task (within each building) is corrected for radioactive decay with a decay factor calculated using the half-life of 60Co and the midpoint of the timeline for the given task as it is accomplished within the reactor building / primary containment, turbine generator building, and the radwaste and control building. For the purpose of this study, the approximate timeline selected to accomplish the dec:m:nissioning tasks attri-butable to this backfit assessment falls between the twentieth and the twenty- i fourth months (after shutdown) of the original imediate dismantlement sched-ule. The reason for this selection is that this seriod roughly corresponds 1 to theofpiping three and equipment the buildings removal (see Figure activities scleduled I.2-4, Reference 1, for details to take
. p) lace in all The results of these analyses, including decay corrections, are presented in Table 4.11. The total corrected additional external occupational radiation dose is about 3 man-rem.
TABLE 4.11. Estimated Additional Occupational Radiation Doses for Immediate I Dismantlement of the Reference BWR l
Estimated Occupational Exposure (man-hr)/ Corrected Dose (man-rem)(a) Totals {
Reactor / Corrected 1 Primary RW&C Exposure Dose (b) !
Position Containment T-G Buildina Buildino (man-hr) (man-rem)
Decommissioninc Workers '
Supervisors (c) 42/0.2883 13/0.0376 7/0.0188 62 0.3447 Utility Operators 183/1.2404 59/0.1356 30/0.3530 272 1.7290 and Laborers l
Craftsmen 141/0.1936 45/0.1417 24/0.2030 210 0.5383 H.P. Technicians 50/0.3604 _1_6/0.0463 8/0.0461 74 0.4528 Totals 416/2.0827 133/0.3612 69/0.6209 618 3.0648 (a) The decay factors used in these analyses for the reactor building /
primary containment, the turbine generator building, and the radwaste and control building are 0.858, 0.851, and 0.769, respectively.
(b) The number of significant figures shown is for computational accuracy and does not imply precision to the nearest millirem.
(c) Includes shift engineers, crew leaders, craft supervisors, and senior health physics techniciens.
4.19
- l '.
4.4.2.2 Estimated Additional External Occupaticnal Radiation Doses for Entombment As previously discussed, this backfit assessment is based on the same man-power assumptions used for imediate dismantlement. In addition, the overall schedule and sequence of tasks also are essentially unchanged from those des-cribed previously for imediate dismantlement. Therefore, based on the scen-arios postulated for entombment in the parent study (l) and the radiation doses previously estimated in this study for imediate Jismantlement, the estimated additional external occupational radiation dose is anticipated to remain unchanged, at about 3 man-rem, by perfoming entombment rather than a disman-tiement (see Table 4.11 for details).
4.4.2.3 Estimated Additieral External Occupational Radiation Doses for Preparations for Safe Storage As previously mentioned in Section 4.4.1, two additional days of effort were allocated for the deactivation and tagging of valves and equipment. For the crew size envisioned, it is estimated that this equates to an additional 56 hours6.481481e-4 days <br />0.0156 hours <br />9.259259e-5 weeks <br />2.1308e-5 months <br /> of radiation zone work, which results in a total corrected additional occupational dose of about 0.28 man-rem.
During the continuing care period, the external occupational radiation dose of the surveillance and maintenance staff is not anticipated to be sig-nificantly affected by the additional equipment and materials identified in this study.
4.4.2.4 Estimated Additional External Occupational Radiation Doses for Deferred Dismantlement The same basic activities that are perfomed during imediate dismantle-ment (see Table 4.11 for details) are also perfonned during deferred disman-tiement. It is assumed that a work force of essentially the same size as was used in imediate dismantlement (see Section 4.4.1 for details) is needed for deferred dismantlement, and for approximately the same time duration.
For this study it is assumed that the additional amounts of occupational radiation dose accumulated by the decomissioning workers is controlled largely by the radiation levels of 60Co throughout the plant. Thus, if a given task performed imediately after shutdown caused a radiation dose of No, that same task of N(performed t) = No e-Xt,twhere years A later during is the deferred decay dismantlement constant would cause a dose for 6000 in years.
Since one of the key assumptions for deferred dismantlement is that essen-tially all of the same jobs would be perfonned in approximately the same way as for imediate dismantlement, using the same techniques and equipment, the occupational radiation dose accumulated during deferred dismantlement, includ-ing those jobs concerning this backfit assessment, would be proportional to that accumulated during imediate dismantlement (see table 4.11), reduced by the relative reduction of the radioactivity levels of 60Co over the safe stor-age period. Therefore, to estimate the additional external occupational dose 4.20
\ : *. l t
for deferred dismantlement, a simple reduction of the immediate dismantlement dose in proportion to the decay of 60Co over the safe storage period is a reasonable and conservative approach. These estimates are given in Table 4.12 for dismantlement starting 10, 30, 50 and 100 years after reactor shutdown.
After 100 years, essentially all of the remaining radioactivity is contained only in the activated reactor vessel components, and the occupational radiation dose associated with this backfit assessment is extremely small.
TABLE 4.12.
- Estimated Additional External Occupational Radigtiun Doses for Deferred Dismantlement of the Reference BWRia)
Estimated Years After Aoditional Final Reactor Dose Decommissioning Mode Shutdown Iman-rem)
Immediate Dismantlement 0 3.06 Deferred Dismantlement 10 0.82 30 0.06 50 <0.005 100 <0.00001 (a) Man-rem estimates derived from table 4.11.
4.4.3 Estimated Additional Radiation Doses from Routine Transportation Tasks The same basic assumptions made in developing the estimated accumulated radiation dose from truck trensport of radioactive wastes in NUREG/CR-0672, Section N.5 of Appendix N, are used in this study. The estimated routine doses from truck transport of the additional contaminated materials identi-fied in this backfit assessment from immediate dismantlement and from prepa-rations for safe storage are listed in Table 4.13. These radiation dose rates are based on the maximum allowable dose rates for each shipment in exclusive-use trucks, as analyzed in the parent study, and are thus conservatively high.
The estimated additional external radiation dose for routine transportation operations for immediate dismantlement is 0.0703 man-rem to transport workers and 0.0068 man-rem to the general public.
Based on this study, there are no additional radiation doses to workers or to the public during the preparations for safe storage, since no additional truck shipments are contempleted.
9 4.21
.". l TABLE 4.13. Estimated Additional Accumulated Radiation Doses from Truck Transport of Radioactive Wastes from the Reference BWR
- Estimated Radiation Dose Additional perShipment,(a) Total Dose Mode Group (man-rem) [ man-rem)
Immediate Truck Drivers 0.067 0.067 Dismantlement (b) Garagemen 0.0033 0.0033 Total 0.0703 l Onlookers 0.005 0.005 i General Public 0.0018 0.0018 l
Total 0.0068 l
Preparations Truck Drivers 0 0 SafeStorage({r Garagemen 0 0 j Total 0 Onlookers 0 0 General Public 0 0 Total 0 (a) Based on Table N.5-2 in NUREG/CR-0672.
(b) Total additional shipments: 1 for imediate dismantlement; zero for safe storage.
4.5 REFERENCES
- 1. H. D. Oak, G. M. Holter, W. E. Xennedy, and G. J. Konzek. 1980. Tech-noloay, Safety and Costs of Decomissioning a Reference Boilino Water Reactor Power Station. NUREG/CR-0672, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Keport by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
- 2. Washington Public Power Supply System. 1982. WPPSS Nuclear Project No. 2 Final Safety Analysis Report. Appendix B, "WNP-2 Response to Regulatory Issues Resulting from THI-2." Richland, Washington.
- 3. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. 1985. Title 10, Part 50.109, "Backfitting," Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing Office, i Washington, O.C.
l
- 4. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations. 1982. Title 10, Part 50.48, "Fire ,
Protection," Superintendant of Documents, Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
4.22
)
5.0 DEVELOPMENT OF SCALING AND ESCALATION FORMULAE l FOR THE OECOMMISSIONING RULE l
A necessary part of the Decomissioning Rule developed by the NRC, related to comercial power reactors, is the section dealing with assurance that funds will be available for decomissioning when the time comes to accomplish that effort. To provide reasonable assurance of adequate funding, the NRC has placed into the Rule a formula for estimating the amount of funds required as !
a function of the power rating of the reactor. Since the actual date of decom- )
missioning for most plants is as yet undefined, an additional fomula has been developed for adjusting the ccst estimate to include escalation from the ;
time the Rule was issued to the time of actual <fecomissioning. The bases 1 and methodology used in developing these fomulae are presented in this chapter. l l
5.1 DEVELOPMENT OF SCALING FORMULAE FOR ESTIMATING DEC06941$S1_0NING COSTS OF l BWRs OlFFERENT IN SIZE FROM THE REFERENCE BWR In the original analyses of decomissioning a reference BWR,(1) a meth-odology was developed for estimating the costs of decomissioning plants with smaller power output than the reference slant. This methodology was based on the assumption that essentially all of t1e decomissioning costs were propor-tional to the size of the princi vessel, turbine condenser, etc.) palSubsequent components of thehave analyses plantsuggested (e.g., thethat reactor only the waste disposal costs should be proportional to the size of the major components, and that the other costs (principally labor and materials) should be nearly independent of the plant size. These revised assumptions and fomulae for estimating costs for plants smaller than the reference plant were initially documented in a letter (R. I. Smith to C. Feldman, 11/12/86), which is presented in Appendix B. Since that letter was written, small adjustments to the cost estimates have been made to include the effects of post-THI-2 backfits, as documented in Chapter 4 of this report. The development of these revised scaling formulae is presented here for completeness.
The smallest conventional BWR examined in the original scaling analysis for BWRs and a derived was the factor scaling Vermont Yankee of 0.648. Thestation, referencewith reactor a themal WNP-2) had rating t
a (of 1593 H themal rating of 3320 MWt and a scaling factor of 1.0. To develop a new scaling relationship, it was necessary to recalculate the cost estimate for the Vermont Yankee reactor, as shown in Table 5.1.
TABLE 5.1. Revised Estimated Decomissioning Costs for WNP-2 and Vermont Yankee Reactors (milliens of January 1986 dollars) l Waste Scaling Other External Utility Utility Plus ,
Reactor Site Disposal Factor Costs Contractor Only Contractor i WNP-2 44.201 1.00 64.694 22.972 108.895 131.867 Vermont Yankee 44.201 0.648 64.694 22.972 93.336 116.308 5.1 l
. . - - _ _ _ - - -_ -- . _ - _a
.. l To develop the revised scaling formulae, the cost estimates given in Table 5.1 were inserted into two linear equations having two unknown coeffi-cients and the equations were solved for the unknown coefficients.
A + B(3320 Wt) = $131.867, A = B(1593 Wt) = $116.308 B = 9.00 x 10-3 Million $/Wt , A = $101.956 million (Utility + Contractor) i A = $78.985 million (Utility-only) '
Thus, the BWR scaling equation for decomissioning costs becomes: !
Total Cost (millions 19865) = (101.956 + 0.0090 { Plant Wt when the utility employs an external decomissioning contractor, and Total Cost (millions 19865) = (78.985 + 0.0090 { Plant Wt }) l when the utility acts as its own decomissioning contractor. These equations were developed using data from plants ranging from about 1200 W t to 3400 W t, and are only assumed to be applicable witM n that range. I For plants smaller than 1200 Wt , the value calculated at 1200 h t should be ! used, a conservative assumption. For plants greater than 3400 W t the value ) calculated at 3400 Wt should be used. ' Subsequently, in the development of the Decomissioning Rule, some additional conservatism has been added to the constant terms in the above equations. As a result, the eqtation appearing in the Rule is: Estimated BWR Decomissioning Cost = 104 + 0.009 Wt (millions January 19865) Where the cost for plants smaller than 1200 Wt is set equal to the cost for a 1200-Wt plant, and the cost for plants larger than 3400 Wt is set equal to the cost for a 3400-Wt plant. This equation is believed to represent an adequate approach to estimating the amount of funds that should be available to provide reasonable assurance that decomissioning of a BWR station can be perfomed at the appropriate time. This equation is applicable to cost estimates for imediate dismantlement for reactorplantsthataresmallerthn)thereferenceplantexaminedintheorig-inal BWR decomissioning analysis.ki Since imediate dismantlement (DECON) is generally the more expensive of the acceptable decomissioning possibilities, if funds for DECON are available, the other possibilities are also covered. 5.2
. : '. l l 5.2 DEVELOPMENT OF A COST ESCALATION FORMULA FOR DECO MISSIONING COSTS The cost estimate for decomissioning the reference BWR was developed in 1978 dollars initially. Because of the significant amount of escalation that has occurred since that time, it has been necessary to periodically update the estimated cost to reflect increases in the various components of that cost, with the results of the most recent update given in Chapter 3 of this report. As a result of performing several cost updates over the years since 1978, it became apparent that the total cost could be divided into three principal components, as regards to cost escalation. These components are:
e Labor and other components that escalate at the same rate as labor o Energy: electricity, fuel, and other components that escalate at the same rate as energy e Waste Disposal: handling and burial charges at a low-level waste disposal site. Assuming that the escalation factors for each of these components can be derived for any point in the future, relative to the 1986 data provided in this report, then the escalated decomissioning cost is given by: Estimated Cost (Year X) = [ January 1986 Cost] [A lx + B Ex + C 8x] where A, B, and C are fractions of the total cost in January 1986 dollars that are attributable to labor, energy, and burial, respectively, and sum to 1.0. The factors Lx, Ex, and 8x are defined below. Lx = [ labor cost escalation from 1986 to Year X] Ex = [ energy cost escalation from 1986 to Year X] Bx=[disposalcostescalationfrom1986toYearX] or [disposalcostinYearX/disposalcostin1986] Evaluation of Lx and Ex for years subsecuent to 1986 are left to the licensees, based on the national consumer price incices and on local conditions at a given site. Evaluation of Bx is to be provided to the licensees via NUREG-1307, a report to be issued periodically by the U.S. NRC, which will contain the disposal rate schedules for each radioactive waste disposal site operating in the U.S. at the time of report issuance, and values of Bx applicable to each operating site. Evaluation of the coefficients A, B, and C is illustrated in the following tables and paragraphs. 5.3
The distribution of total disposal costs between container cost, transportation cost, and burial cost is illustrated in Table 5.2, with the - costs given in(January NUREG/CR-0672. 1) 1986 dollars, based on the original estimates given in TABLE 5.2. Distribution of Radioactive Waste Disposal Costs into Components i that Escalate Proportional to Labor, Energy, and Burial Costs Costs in Millions of January 1986 Dollars NUREG/CR-0672 container Transportation Burial , Reference Table Type of Waste _ Costs Costs Costs
]
I.3-3 Activated 0.67 1.51 5.07 Materials I.3-4 Contaminated 4.89 2.80 15.80 Materials ; I.3-5 Radwaste 0.95 1.72 1.80 Subtotals 6.50 6.02 22.67 Contingency j (25%) 1.65 1.51 5.67 i Totals 8.15 7.53 28.34 l Evaluation of the coefficients A, B, and C in the decomissioning cost { escalation formula is presented here for the reference BWR. This evaluation is based on infomation presented in Chapter 3 of this report and on Table 5.2, above. The cost components that escalate similarly are grouped together in , Table 5.3. The sum of those grouned costs is divided by the total cost of I decomissioning to obtain the fraction of the total cost attributable to that group of components. The analysis presented in Tabiti 5.3 has shown the values of A, B, and C to be 0.66, 0.12, and 0.22, respectively. A similar analysis for the reference PWR has yielGed values of 0.64, 0,14, and 0.22, respectively. In view of the uncertainties and contingencies on these values, and considering that the values of the coefficients for both the PWR and the BWR are so similar, it has bean concli'ded that the best estimates for the coefficients are the averages of the PWR and BWR values: e 0 65 li = 0.13 C = 0.22 5.4
TABLE 5.3. Derivation of the Coefficients A, B, and C in the Decomissioning Cost Escalation Formula ' Millions of January Cost Cateoory 1986 Dollars Coefficient Derivation Data Source Labor 35.98 Table 3.1 Equipment 4.03 " Supplies 3.71 " Decomissioning Contractor 21.1 " Insurance 1.9 " Added Staff 4.4 " Added Supplies 0.2 " Specialty " Contractor 0.71 Pre-engineering 7.4 " Post-TMI Backfits 0.1 " Surveillance -- -- Fees 0.14 A = 86.95/131.7 " Containers 8.14 Table 5.2 Subtotal 86.95 A = 0.66 Energy 8.84 B = 16.38/131.7 Table 3.1 Transportation 7.54 Table 5.2 Subtotal 16.38 8 = 0.12 Burial 28.34 C = 28.34/131.7 Table 5.2 i Total 131.7 C = 0.22 l i Note: All costs include a 25% contingency.
5.3 REFERENCES
- 1. H. D. Oak, G. M. Holter, W. E. Kennedy, and G. J. Konzek. 1980. Tech-nology, Safety and Costs of Decomissionino a Reference Boilino Water i Reactor Power Station. NUREG/CR-0672, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission '
Report by Pacific Notthwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. i l l 5.5
a .'. l APPENDIX A COST UPDATING BASES AND METiiODOLOGY 1 l J
f APPENDIX A COST UPDATING BASES AND METHODOLOGY Cost adjustment factors used to update decommissioning costs to a January 1986 cost base for the Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement (FGEIS) on Decommissioning are contained in the following letter to Dr. Carl Feldman (NRC) from Richard I. Smith (PNL). I i 4 A.1 4 h
. -- - . ~ . _ . . . _ - , . . - _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . _ , ___ _ _ _ . .
- t. ..'. :
OBattelle P3(iN L *
- fsit Su e? ,I 'b .% * .?* '*,
8 0 00n W4
< .a . n . v. n . .. u . , ~ <<'n ,
Igies090*.d .It/f ten u .c4 June 25, 1986 Dr.. Carl Fcidman 4 Chemical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Technology U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
'4ashington, D.C. 20555
Dear Dr. Feldman:
Enclosed are the marked-up draft of Chapter 14, NON-FUEL-CYCLE NUCLEAR FACILITIES, for the Generic EIS on Deccmmissioning, and a brief summ3ry of the bases and methocology used in uodating the cost estimates contained in Chacter 14 This same bases and methodology is being apolied to updating the remaining chacters of the GEIS, and these chapters will be forwarded to you as they are comoleted. In adoition, we reviewed the text of Chaoter 14 and offer a few minor suggestions for revisions where we thougnt a revision might clarify a point. These suggestions are also marked on the enclosed draft text. If you have any quest'icns about any of this material, please call me. Sin'cerely, 2 E - Richard I. Smith, PE Staff Engineer Enclosures RIS:sb A.2
- - - - - - r .,. e. c., . - - -
e
'o P.
1 COST UPDATING BASES AND METHODOLOGY E. 5. Murphy and G. J. Konzek Cost adjustment factors used to update decommissioning costs to a January 1986 cost base are shown in Tablo 1. The rationale for these cost. adjustment factors is given in the following paragraphs. Table 1. Adjustment Factors for Updating Costs to a January 1986 Cost Base Cost Adjustment Factor Applied To
.l Cost Category 1978 Costs 1981 Costs Staff Labor 1.6 1.3 Equipment 1.6 1.2 Miscellaneous Supplies 1.6 1.2 Energy Electricity 1.9 1.4 Fuel Oil 2.1 0.9 Specialty Contractors 1.6 1.3 Regulatory Fees See rationale See rationale Insurance 1.9 1.5 Waste Management
- Containers See rationale See rationale Transportation 1.8 1.3 Burial See rationale See rationale staff laber. Cost adjustment factors for staff labor were determined by using the January 1985 Handy Whitman Index of Public Utility Construction Cests.
Average values, determined by averaging cost escalation factors for building trades labor for the six regions of the United States defined by the Handy-Whitman incex, were used in making comparisens between 1978 or 1981 and 1956. A3
,% ?.. :
i
- Ecutement. Equipment costs were escalated based on national average cost escalation values for capital equipment obtained from the U.S. Department of
! Labor publication,
- Producer Prices and Price Indexes."
Miscellaneous Sueolies. Cost adjustment factors used for miscellaneous supplies l are the same as those used for equipment. - Electricity. Costs of electricity were escalated based on national average values of the electric power index in the U.S. Department of Labor publication.
- "Producer Prices and Price Indexes."
Fuel Oil. Costs of fuel oil were escalated based on national average values of the index for No. 2 fuel oil in the U.S. Department of Labor publication, "Producer Prices and Price Indexes." The price index shows a decline in the , price of fuel oil between January 1981 and January 1986. Soecialty Contractors. Specialty contractor costs are primarily costs associated with labor and equipment. The same cost escalation factors were used for specialty contractor labor and equipmer.t as were used for f acility j licensee labor and equipment. Reculatorv Fees. Fees charged for licensing services performed by the NRC are on a cost recovery basis as defined in 10 CFR Part 170. For these cost updates it is assumed that . licensee submittals are of a quality such that one NRC staff-year is required to accomplish the appropriate reviews, operational I surveillance, and tennination inspections, with an estimated cost in 1986 dollars of about $120,000. l l Insurance. Based on telephone discussions with American National Insurers (ANI) representatives and with Oregon State University personnel who operate i a research reactor,1978 insurance premiums were escalated by a factor 1.9 J and 1981 premiums were escr. lated by a factor of 1.5. i Centainers. Insofar as possible, container costs were updated using actual 1986 costs determined by telephone contact with a supplier. For cases where l this was not practicable,1978 container cests were escalated by a f act:r of A.4
- i. t.' :
1.6 and 1981 container costs were escalated by a factor of 1.2. (These are , the same escalation factors used to update equipment costs.) Transoortation. Per a telephone call to Tri-State Motor Transit Company on May 27, 1986, it was determined that the 1986 cost of a legal-weight, exclusive-use truck shipment employing a single driver is $1.89/ mile for a shipment from Raleigh, North Carolina to Hanford. The 1978 cost of a similar shipment was $1.03/ mile, and the 1981 cost was $1.42/ mile. These values were used to establish transportation cost adjustment factors. Lew-level Waste Buria1 _ Current rate schedules for disposal of radioactive waste were obtained from both U.S. Ecology and Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc.. The two companies use different bases for determining surcharges, and, therefore, their rate schedules are not directly comparable. Chem Nuclear's charges appear to be slightly higher than those of U.S, Ecology. Waste, di sposal costs in the original decommissioning studies were based on U..i. Ecology rate schedules. Cost adjustment factors were therefore obtained by comparisons of 1978 and 1981 U.S. Ecology rate schedules with the current U.S. Ecology rate schedule. Waste disposal cost escalation factors are larger than escalation factor for any other cost category. For example, for the disposal of steel drums ei wood boxes with surface dose rates (0.2 R/hr, the escalation factor is 9.4 ! 1 for adjustment of disposal costs from the early-1978 base to the Jan'uary1986 l base, and 2.9 for the adjustment of disposal costs from the early-1981 base to the January 1986 base. Waste disposal cost escalation factors for different cattgoria of waste depend on several parameters including type of waste container, quantity of radioactive material in the container, and package weight. Was'e disposal cost escalation ft.ctors were therefore detennined on a case-by-case, basis. . l A.S
zs .,x . . . _ . ., .. .. - .. . . - . . - - - . . - . . _ - - i J T 4 APPENDIX B REVISED ASSUMPTIONS AND FORMVLAE FOR ESTIMATING COSTS AS A FUNCTION OF PLANT SIZE 9 1 5 4 I l
]
. .. l APPENDIX B REVISED ASSUMPTIONS AND FORMULAE FOR ESTIMATING COSTS AS A FUNCTION OF PLANT SIZE For pu. poses of developing upper-bound estimates of costs for imediate dismantlement of reactor plants different in size from the reference BWR, scaling analyses were performed and overall scaling factors (OSFs) were devel-oped. The initial results of these analyses are contained in the following letter to Dr. Carl Feldman (NRC) from Richard I. Srcith (PNL). In addition, the letter also presents the cost escalation factors from 1984 to 1986 that were developed in PNL's cost update for the Electric Power Research Institute (a) and subsequently utilized as an integral part of the cost base for the NRC's Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) on Decomissioning. It should be recognized that since the letter was written, small adjustments to the cost estimates have been made to include the effects of post-TMI-2 backfits as documented in Chapter 4 of this report. Development of the revised scaling factors is presented in Chapter 5 of this report. l l l I I I I I (a) R. I. Smith, G. J. Konzek, E. S. Murphy, and H. K. Edler. 1985. U1 dated Costs for Decomissioning Nuclear Power Facilities. EPRI NP-4012, Electric Power Research Institute Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. B.1
November 12, 1986 OBattelle p,g g,% ,,, g,,,,i,, . P.O. Son 999 Rechtand, Washington U.s.A. 99152 Telephone (509) Dr. Carl Feldman Materials Branch Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
Dear Carl:
In re'sponse to your request, we have examined the updated costs for decomissioning the reference PWR and BWR as developed for the GEIS, and have made further adjustments which include the cost adders developed in our EPRI cost update (EPRI NP-4012) for pre-decommissioning engineering, additional staff to assure meeting the 5 Rem / year dose limit for personnel, extra supplies for the additional staff, and the additional costs associated with utilizing an external contractor to conduct the decommissioning effort. These adders have been escalated from 1984 to 1986. Engineering ano staff labor was escalated by a factor of 1.02 from the 1984 values, while the extra supplies wsre ' escalated by a factor of 1.04. Since the external contractor costs are essentially all staff labor, these costs were escalated by a factor of 1.02. All values include a 25t contingency. The results are presented in Table 1. Table 1. Immediate Dismantlement Costs in Millions of 1986 Dollars Reactor GEIS Pre-D&D Extra Extra External (a) Utility Utility + Tyce value Enerno. Staff sucolies Only contrtr. contrtr. l 1 PWR 73.608 5.610 7.527 1.248 14.740 87.993 102.733 !
. \
BWR 98.564 5.610 4.412 0.208 22.972 108.794 131.766 (a) Includes incremental cost (1.836) of utilizing an external contractor ( for pre-decomissioning analyses. SCALING ANALYSIS 1 For purposes of developing an upper-bound estimate of costs for immediate , dismantlement of reactor plants smaller than the reference plants, assume that i all costs (staff labor, equipment, supplies, etc.) except waste disposal are independent of plant size, and that the scaling factors developed in the NUREG/CR-0130 Addendum and in the NUREG/CR-0672 Appendix 0 are applicable to just the disposal costs. This analysis will be limited to plants with themal power ratings greater than 1200 MW . Using the 1986 GEIS cost updates for 1 thereferenceplants,asgivenin!hetableabove,theportionofthosecosts ! that are due to waste disposal, the overall scaling factors from the previous scal.ing analyses, and the escalated cost adders from Table 1, above, the results shown in Table 2 are obtained: B.2 1
1 OBatteIIe L e u n',"i';8 . . Page Two Table 2. Immediate Dismantlement Costs For Plants Smaller Than The Reference PWR and BWR, Based On Previously-Derived Overall Scaling Factors Reactor Waste Scaling Remaining Escalated Utility utility + Disposal Factor Costs Adders Only Contractor R E Ginna 39.434 0.518 34.174 14.385 68.986 83.726 Troj an 39.434 1.000 34.174 14.385 87.993 102.733 Ver. Yankee 44.100 0.648 54.464 10.230 93.271 116.243 WNP-2 44.100 1.000 54.464 10.230 108.794 131.766 Using the results from Table 2, a set of linear equations can be derived for the scaling of the immediate dismantlement costs for plants in the 1200 to , 3500 MWt range. . PWR: Cost =57.756+8.640x10j;MWgl Utility Ot.ly Cost = 72.495 + 8.640 x 10~ , MWt- Utility + Contractor BWR: Cost = 78.948 + 8.986 x 10~3 Utility Only Cost =101.924+8.986x103((MWMh)) g Utility + Contractor For the reference plants, tne thermal power ratings used in developing these ecuations are PWR ( 3500 MW. ), BWR ( 3320 MWg ). The thermal power ratings of the other plants used in' developing the overal? scaling factors are given . in the respective NUREG/CR reports. I trust this information will be adequate and appropriate for your use in developing the final decommissioning rulec If you have an of the material presented in this letter, please call me. y questions about any sincerely, DA Richard I Smith, P.E. Staff Engineer Waste Systems and Transportation 1 B.3
... , --rw m.~.-,
g= n vau.. ur . ....
, BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG/CR-0672 Addendum 3
- a. .,.ver .. .....n
, ,6 . e . ,6. .6 ... 6...
Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissioning a Refer-ence Boiling Water Reactor Power Station: Technical Support for Decomissioning Matters Related to Preparation a o*" a s**' co='s = of the final Decomissioning Rule "*'"
. .. ,-o. ii.
gY l 1988 G. J. Ken::ek and R. I. Sm1th
, ' " "***I" " * " . . . .
June 1988
, . . .. . . .. ,, u i . . . . . . u .. o. . u u, i. = . = em.==..*, .ua Pacific Northwest Laboratory ' "' " * " " " ' " " " "
Richland, Washington 99352 B2902
.. . . . . o.. . . .u , .o. . . . . .,.. . . . u . ... u u~ < , e . ... ,,n o....oa, Materials Branch Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
'""'"""""~~""""
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555
,, 6 .,... ,u
.. .,..et.m . ,
Preparation of the final Decomissioning Rule by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) staff has been assisted by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff familiar with t decomissioning matters. These efforts have included updating previous cost estimates developed during the series of studies of conceptually decomissioning reference licensed . nuclear facilities for inclusion in the Final Generic Environmental Igact Statement (FGEIS) on Decomissioning; documenting the cost updates; evaluating;the cost and dose impacts of post-TMI-2 backfits on decomissioning; perfoming revised scaling factor analyses concerning reactor plants different in size from the reference BWR described in the earlier studies; and detemining the fomula for adjusting current cost estimates to reflect escalation in labor, materials, and waste disposal costs. This report presents supporting infomation in three of the aforementioned areas concerning decom-missioning the reference BWR: 1) updating the previous cost estimates to January 198G dollars, 2) assessing the cost and dose impacts of post-TMI-2 backfits, and 3) developing scaling and escalation fomula.
..ew.,6,.............c.,,, i.
,.4g.3, Unlimited
,. =cu.., c6.....uvi
,u.
. ,.. .. on. . a n. Unelassified
,u.
Unclassified i , w . . ...
- i. Pa.C.
November 12, 1986 eHe Pacific Northwest Laboratories P.O. Son 999 R#Chiand, Washington U.s.A. 99352 telepaone iso 9, Tel 1s. w 4 Dr. Carl Feldman Materials Branch Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research l U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D. C. 20555 i
Dear Carl:
In response to your request, we have examined the updated costs for ; decomissioning the reference PWR and BWR as developed for the GEIS, and have made further adjustments which include the cost adders developed in our EPRI i cost update (EPRI NP-4012) for pre-decomissioning engineering, additional staff to assure meeting the 5 Rem / year dose limit for personnel, extra suoplies for tne additional staff, and the additional costs associated with utilizing an external contractor to conduct the decomissioning effort. These adders have I been escalated from 1984 to 1986. Engineering ano staff labor was escalated ! by a factor of 1.02 from the 1984 values, while the extra supplies were
- l escalated by a factor of 1.04 Since the external contractor costs are l essentially all staff labor, these costs were escalated by a factor of 1.02. I All values include a 25: contingency. The results are presented in Table 1.
l Table 1. Imediate Dismantlement Costs in Millions of 1986 Dollars Reactor GEIS Pre-D&D Extra Extra External (a) Utility Utility-Tvoe value Enerne. Staff Sucolies Contrtr. Cnly Contrtr. i PWR 73.608 5.610 7.527 1.248 14.740 87.993 102.733 l SWR 98.564 5.610 4.412 0.208 22.972 108.794 131.766 l l (a) Includes incremental cast (1.836) of utilizing an external contractor for pre-decomissioning analyses. SCALING ANALYSIS For purposes of developing an upper-bound estimate of costs for imediate dismantlement of reactor plants smaller than the reference plants, assume that all costs (staff labor, equipment, suoplies, etc.) except waste disposal are independent of plant size, and that the scaling factors developed in the NUREG/CR-0130 Addendum and in the NUREG/CR-0672 Appendix 0 are applicable to just the disposal costs. This analysis will be limited to plants with thermal power ratings greater than 1200 MWe . Using the 1986 GEIS cost updates for , j the refe.rence plants, as given in the table above, the portion of those costs i that are due to waste disposal, the overall scaling factors from the previous l scaling analyses, ant :he escalated cost adders from Table 1, above, the results l shown in Table 2 are obtained: ' B.2 i - . _ - _ - - _ - . _- . - _ . _ . -. .\
=,. G . Dr. Carl Feldman . November 12, 1986 Page Two Table 2. Innediate Dismantlement Costs For Plants Smaller Than The Reference PWR and BWR, Based On Previously-Derived Overall Scaling Factors Reactor Waste Scaling Remaining Escalated Utility Utility + Discosal Factor Costs Adders Only Contractor R E Ginna 39.434 0.518 34.174 14.385 68.986 83.726 Trojan 39.434 1.000 34.174 14.385 87.993 102.733 Ver. Yankee 44.100 0.648 54.464 10.230 93.271 116.243 WNP-2 44.100 1.000 54.464 10.230 108.794 131.766 ; using the results from Table 2, a set of linear equations can be derived for the scaling of the immediate dismantlement costs for plants in the 1200 to ' 3500 MWt ranps. . PWR: Cost = 57.756 + 8.640 x 10- Utility Only Cost =72.495+8.640x10"f;MWtl , MWt Utility + Contractor BWR: Cost = 78.948 + 8.986 Utility Only Cost = 101.924 + 8.986 x 10'3 xMQ10'3 g ((MW, Utility + )) Contractor For the reference plants, the thermal power ratings used in develeping these equatinns are PWR ( 3500 MW. ), BWR ( 3320 MWt ). The thermal power ratings of the other plants used in' developing the overall scaling factors are given , in the respective NUREG/CR reports. I trust this information will be adequate and appropriate for your use in developing the final decommissioning rule. If you have an of the material presented in this letter, please call me. y questions about any i j Sincerely,
'd Richard I Smith, P.E. i Staff Engineer l Waste Systems and Transportation )
i l i B.3 {
~
? ' ' e' vs cs .... u ro.,c: cr . . . , .. . . m - r. o c ~ .. -.
......u.
I 22 BIBUOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET NUREG/CR-0672 Addendum 3 5 8sei.e.vceio .O. ,=......sg
, . . , a . . . .. . 4 a a a....s...
Technology, Safety and Costs of Decomissioning a Refer-ence Boiling Water Reactor Power Station: Technical Support for Decomissioning Matters Related to Preparation .o.n a.*oa,co.*u ,.o of the final Decomissioning Rule =oa,- u.a May l1988
. o . u . *o. , * .o G. J. Konzek and R. I. Smith .o .. ....
June I 1988
,...............,...............s,.o.oo..u,,.<.c . ,.o.. c r . . .. . ... . .. .
Pacific Northwest Laboratory '"'**'*""" Richiand, Washington 99352 B2902
. . wo . . . . o . . . . 4 . , , o . . . . . .. . . . s . . . . . . u ... < . c . ... ........ .,
Materials Branch Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research . n .'o c cov . .o ~ . .-, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Connission l Washington, D.C. 20555
,............on.
l l 2 . . . r . . e , .m , Preparation of the final Decomissioning Rule by the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) staff has been assisted by Pacific Northwest Laboratory (PNL) staff familiar with I decomissioning matters. These efforts have included updating previous cost estimates I developed during the series of studies of conceptually decomissioning reference licensed nuclear facilities for inclusion in the Final Generic Environmental Imact Statement (FGEIS) on Decomissioning; documenting the cost updates; evaluating the cost and dose i impacts of post-TMI-2 backfits on decomissioning; perfoming revised scaling factor analyses concerning reactor plants different in size from the reference BWR described in the earlier studies; and detemining the fomula for adjusting current cost estimates ! to reflect escalation in labor, materials, and waste disposal costs. This reoort ' presents supporting information in three of the aforementioned areas concerning decom- ! missioning the reference BWR: 1) uodating the previous cost estimates to January 1986 l dollars, 2) assessing the cost and dose impacts of post-THI-2 backfits, and 3) developing l scaling and escalation formula. l l ooc,........s,.... ... .. ...c...,
. . p.,.g.3, .
Unlimited
, . . .cw. ,, c 6. u . . ...
, r.. ,
. .o ., .. . . ..en . . .o. o n . Unclassified
, r. . _
Uncla.ssi fied it wase. Ose.Gil i . Pe .C .
%'< be o GEORGE J. HOCH8 Rut 0KNER teos tenieweetu e ovse ones evom ist oeste<, hee ve. Was=*evos oC 20515 i2021225 3130 anuto sgnvices "'"I'"""
Congregg of tilt IHnttch Statts oi c - -i 2""'--"-- 440 ,1&ia < El IWd8 III scii~ct. s,4ci *~o rie" ' '
%0115e of Reptt5tiltatibt5 "E*'n'N'2 Mashincon. DC 20515 ' 7,"'7.%7'. '0,*."
=,.. .. = v n o i iii.i nr. is:
August 2, 1988 The Honorable Lando W. Zech l Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission l 1717 H Street, N.W. { Washington, D.C. 20555 l
Dear Mr. Chairman:
I need some assistance from the Commission relative to the possible decommissioning of the Shoreham nuclear power plant, j As you know, the Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO) and the ; State of New York have an agreement as of June 16, 1988 that is I intended to result in the permanent closing and decommissioning of 1 Shoreham. I have two questions for you relating to future actions l pursuant to this agreement. l First, I need to know exactly what is required by the Nuclear l Regulatory Commission in order to complete the transfer of all LILCO licenses or permits relating to Shoreham to the State of New 1 York. Under the terms of the LILCO-New York State agreement, LILCO l consents to transfer all ownership and licenses associated with l Shoreham to the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA). Please advise me on what is required, from the NRC's point of view, in order to ! execute this transfer, with the result being LIPA's full ownership l of the Shoreham nuclear power plant and all licenses and permits i assigned to that plant. ! i Second, I would like to request that the NRC provide a cost estimate for decommissioning Shoreham in its current condition. I " understand that Shoreham has operated at 5% power for approximately 60 hours. Therefore, its decommissioning costs, particularly in l the area of decontamination, would differ dramatically from the l costs associated with plants that have operated with a full power ' license for a number of years. Since I am presently scheduled to meet with Governor Cuomo on Friday, August 5, I would appreciate a response by the close of business Thursday, August 4. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, I
- ) %
/ George J. Hochbrueckner Member of Congress I l}}