CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT · 2012-12-06 · Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0 Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate

Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0

PRELIMINARY DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATE

for the

CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT

prepared for

Progress Energy Florida, Inc.

prepared by

TLG Services, Inc.Bridgewater, Connecticut

November 2011

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating PlantPreliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate

APPROVALS

Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Page ii of xxii

Project Manager

Project Engineer

Technical Manager

William A. Cloutier, J.<

Thomas/J. Garrett

It//e'iolI

Date

Date/

Francis W. Sey•mot/ Date

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page iii of xxii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION PAGE

SU M MVLARY ........................................................................................................... vi-xxii

1. INTRODU CTION ..................................................................................................... 1-11.1 Objectives of Study ........................................................................................... 1-11.2 Site Description ................................................................................................. 1-21.3 Regulatory Guidance ........................................................................................ 1-3

1.3.1 N uclear W aste Policy Act ...................................................................... 1-41.3.2 Low -Level Radioactive W aste Acts ...................................................... 1-61.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Term ination .................................... 1-8

2. SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVE .............................................. 2-12.1 Period 1 - Preparations ..................................................................................... 2-12.2 Period 2 - Dorm ancy ......................................................................................... 2-22.3 Period 3 - Preparations for Decom m issioning ................................................ 2-32.4 Period 4 - Deferred Decom m issioning ............................................................. 2-42.5 Period 5 - Site Restoration ............................................................................... 2-7

3. COST ESTIM ATE ..................................................................................................... 3-13.1 Basis of Estim ate .............................................................................................. 3-13.2 M ethodology ...................................................................................................... 3-13.3 Financial Com ponents of the Cost M odel ....................................................... 3-3

3.3.1 Contingency ........................................................................................... 3-33.3.2 Financial Risk ........................................................................................ 3-5

3.4 Site-Specific Considerations ............................................................................. 3-63.4.1 Spent Fuel M anagem ent ....................................................................... 3-63.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Com ponents ........................................... 3-83.4.3 Prim ary System Com ponents ............................................................... 3-93.4.4 Retired Com ponents ............................................................................ 3-103.4.5 M ain Turbine and Condenser ............................................................. 3-113.4.6 Transportation M ethods ..................................................................... 3-113.4.7 Low -Level Radioactive W aste Disposal ............................................. 3-123.4.8 Site Conditions Following Decom m issioning .................................... 3-13

3.5 Assum ptions .................................................................................................... 3-133.5.1 Estim ating Basis ................................................................................. 3-143.5.2 Labor Costs .......................................................................................... 3-143.5.3 Design Conditions ................................................................................ 3-143.5.4 General ................................................................................................. 3-15

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page iv of xxii

TABLE OF CONTENTS(continued)

SECTION PAGE

3.6 Cost Estimate Summary ............................................................................... 3-17

4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ........................................................................................ 4-14.1 Schedule Estimate Assumptions ..................................................................... 4-14.2 P roject Schedule ................................................................................................ 4-2

5. RADIOACTIVE WASTES ........................................................................................ 5-1

6. R E S U L T S ................................................................................................................. 6-1

7. R E F E R E N C E S .......................................................................................................... 7-1

TABLES

1. Decommissioning Cost Elements ................................................................... xvii2. Schedule of License Termination Expenditures ........................................... xviii3. Funding Requirements for License Termination, 2016 Shutdown .............. xx3.1 Schedule of Total Annual Expenditures ....................................................... 3-193.2 Schedule of License Termination Expenditures ........................................... 3-213.3 Schedule of Spent Fuel Management Expenditures .................................... 3-233.4 Schedule of Site Restoration Expenditures .................................................. 3-255.1 Decommissioning Waste Summary ................................................................. 5-46.1 Decommissioning Cost Element Contribution ................................................ 6-4

FIGURES

4.1 A ctivity Schedule .............................................................................................. 4-34.2 Decommissioning Timeline .............................................................................. 4-45.1 Decommissioning Waste Disposition .............................................................. 5-3

APPENDICES

A. Unit Cost Factor Development ......................................................................... A-1B. Unit Cost Factor Listing .................................................................................. B-1C. Detailed Cost Analysis ....................................................................................... C-1

TLG Services, Inc.


REVISION LOG

Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Page v of xxii

No. CRA No. Date Item Revised Reason for Revision

0 11-21-2011 Original Issue

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page vi of xxii

SUMMARY

Florida Power Corporation, doing business as Progress Energy Florida, Inc.(Progress Energy), a subsidiary of Progress Energy, Inc., is seeking renewal of theoperating license for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant (CrystalRiver), currently set to expire at midnight on December 3, 2016. An application forthe renewal of Facility Operating License No. DPR-72, for an additional 20-yearperiod, was submitted to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on December16, 2008. The application is currently under review.

However, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(f)(3), each power reactor licensee shall at orabout 5 years prior to the projected end of operations submit a preliminarydecommissioning cost estimate which includes an up-to-date assessment of themajor factors that could affect the cost to decommission. This report presents anestimate of the cost to decommission the Crystal River assuming a cessation ofoperations after a nominal 40-year operating life in 2016. The cost estimate includesan assessment of the major factors that could affect the cost to decommission theCrystal River nuclear unit.

Progress Energy is submitting this estimate to comply with the requirements of 10CFR 50.75(f)(3). Progress Energy has not determined or committed to a specificdecommissioning approach for Crystal River at this time. However, it is ProgressEnergy's current plan for purposes of demonstrating the adequacy of funding tomeet regulatory requirements to use the SAFSTOR decommissioning option basedon the current license expiration date. License renewal is likely to require a need torevise this preliminary plan.

The currently projected total cost to decommission the nuclear unit, assuming theSAFSTOR alternative, is estimated at $1,077.6 million, as reported in 2011 dollars.The cost includes the monies anticipated to be spent for operating licensetermination, spent fuel storage and site remediation activities. The cost is based onseveral key assumptions in areas of regulation, component characterization, high-level radioactive waste management, low-level radioactive waste disposal,performance uncertainties (contingency) and site remediation and restorationrequirements. The assumptions are discussed in more detail in this document.

Decommissioning Alternatives and Regulations

The ultimate objective of the decommissioning process is to reduce the inventory ofcontaminated and activated material to levels at or below the site release criteria sothat the license can be terminated. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC orCommission) provided initial decommissioning requirements in its rule adopted on

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page vii of xxii

June 27, 1988.111 In this rule, the NRC set forth financial criteria for decommissioninglicensed nuclear power facilities. The regulations addressed planning needs, timing,funding methods, and environmental review requirements for decommissioning. Therule also defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to the NRC:DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB.

DECON is defined as "the alternative in which the equipment, structures,and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants areremoved or decontaminated to a level that permits the property to bereleased for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations."[21

SAFSTOR is defined as "the alternative in which the nuclear facility isplaced and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to besafely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination)to levels that permit release for unrestricted use."[31 Decommissioning is tobe completed within 60 years, although longer time periods will beconsidered when necessary to protect public health and safety.

ENTOMB is defined as "the alternative in which radioactive contaminantsare encased in a structurally long-lived material, such as concrete; theentombed structure is appropriately maintained and continued surveillanceis carried out until the radioactive material decays to a level permittingunrestricted release of the property."[41 As with the SAFSTOR alternative,decommissioning is currently required to be completed within 60 years.

In 1996, the NRC published revisions to the general requirements fordecommissioning nuclear power plants to clarify ambiguities and codify proceduresand terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency and uniformity in thedecommissioning process.[51 The amendments allow for greater public participationand better define the transition process from operations to decommissioning.Regulatory Guide 1.184, issued in July 2000, further described the methods andprocedures acceptable to the NRC staff for implementing the requirements of the1996 revised rule relating to the initial activities and major phases of thedecommissioning process. The costs and schedules presented in this analysis followthe general guidance and processes described in the amended regulations. The format

1 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72 "General Requirements for

Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 53,Number 123 (p 24018 et seq.), June 27, 1988.

2 Ibid. Page FR24022, Column 3.3 Ibid.4 Ibid. Page FR24023, Column 2.5 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 2, 50, and 51, "Decommissioning of Nuclear Power

Reactors," Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 61, (p 39278 et seq.), July 29,1996.

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page viii of xxii

and content of the estimate is also consistent with the recommendations of RegulatoryGuide 1.202, issued in February 2005.[J]

Bases of the Cost Estimate

For the purpose of the analysis, Crystal River was assumed to cease operations inDecember 2016, after 40 years of operations. The unit would then be placed into safe-storage (SAFSTOR), with the spent fuel relocated to an Independent Spent FuelStorage Installation (ISFSI) to await transfer to a Department of Energy (DOE)facility. Based upon a 2020 start date for the pickup of spent fuel from the commercialnuclear power generators, Progress Energy anticipates that the removal of spent fuelfrom the site could be completed by the year 2057. For purposes of this analysis, theplant remains in safe-storage until 2071, at which time it will be decommissioned andthe site released for alternative use without restriction, i.e., the license is terminatedwithin the required 60-year time period.

The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information from an evaluationprepared in 2008,[7] updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining to thedisposition of the nuclear unit and relevant industry experience in undertakingsuch projects. The economic basis was reviewed for the current analysis andupdated to reflect current site costs and budgets. The site-specific considerationsand assumptions used in the previous evaluation were also revisited. Modificationswere incorporated where new information was available.

Methodology

The primary goal of the decommissioning is the removal and disposal of thecontaminated systems and structures so that the plant's operating license can beterminated. The analysis recognizes that spent fuel will be stored at the site in theplant's storage pool and/or in an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI)until such time that it can be transferred to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE).Consequently, the estimate includes those costs to manage and subsequentlydecommission these interim storage facilities.

The estimate is based on numerous fundamental assumptions, including regulatoryrequirements, low-level radioactive waste disposal practices, high-level radioactivewaste management options, project contingencies, and site restorationrequirements. The estimate incorporates a minimum cooling period for the spentfuel that resides in the storage pool when operations cease. Any residual fuel

6 "Standard Format and Content of Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors,"Regulatory Guide 1.202, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, February 2005

7 "Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Crystal River Plant, Unit 3," Document No. P23-1597-002,Rev. 0, TLG Services, Inc., October 2008

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page ix of xxii

remaining in the pool after the cooling period is relocated to the ISFSI to awaittransfer to a DOE facility. The estimate also includes the dismantling of sitestructures and non-essential facilities and the limited restoration of the site.

The methodology used to develop the estimate followed the basic approachoriginally presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study report, "Guidelines for ProducingCommercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates,"[8] and theDOE "Decommissioning Handbook."[9] These documents present a unit cost factormethod for estimating decommissioning activity costs that simplifies thecalculations. Unit factors for concrete removal ($/cubic yard), steel removal ($/ton),and cutting costs ($/inch) were developed using local labor rates. The activity-dependent costs were then estimated with the item quantities (cubic yards andtons), developed from plant drawings and inventory documents. Removal rates andmaterial costs for the conventional disposition of components and structures reliedupon information available in the industry publication, "Building Construction CostData," published by R.S. Means.[101

The unit factor method provides a demonstrable basis for establishing reliable costestimates. The detail provided in the unit factors, including activity duration, laborcosts (by craft), and equipment and consumable costs, ensures that essentialelements have not been omitted.

An activity duration critical path is used to determine the total decommissioningprogram schedule. The schedule is relied upon in calculating the carrying costs, whichinclude program management, administration, field engineering, equipment rental,and support services, such as quality control and security.

This analysis reflected lessons learned from TLG's involvement in the ShippingportStation decommissioning, completed in 1989, as well as the decommissioning of theCintichem reactor, hot cells, and associated facilities, completed in 1997. Inaddition, the planning and engineering for the Pathfinder, Shoreham, Rancho Seco,Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point, Maine Yankee, Humboldt Bay-3, ConnecticutYankee, and San Onofre-1 nuclear units have provided additional insight into theprocess, the regulatory aspects, and the technical challenges of decommissioningcommercial nuclear units.

8 T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power PlantDecommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986.

9 W.J. Manion and T.S. LaGuardia, "Decommissioning Handbook," U.S. Department of Energy,DOE/EV/10128-1, November 1980.

10 "Building Construction Cost Data 2011," Robert Snow Means Company, Inc., Kingston,Massachusetts.

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page x of xxii

Contingency

Consistent with cost estimating practice, contingencies are applied to thedecontamination and dismantling costs developed as "specific provision forunforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope, particularly importantwhere previous experience relating estimates and actual costs has shown thatunforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur."["]1 The costelements in the estimate are based on ideal conditions; therefore, the types ofunforeseeable events that are almost certain to occur in decommissioning, based onindustry experience, are addressed through a percentage contingency applied on aline-item basis. This contingency factor is a nearly universal element in all large-scaleconstruction and demolition projects. It should be noted that contingency, as used inthis analysis, does not account for price escalation and inflation in the cost ofdecommissioning over the remaining operating life of the station.

Contingency funds are expected to be fully expended throughout the program. As such,inclusion of contingency is necessary to provide assurance that sufficient funding willbe available to accomplish the intended tasks.

Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal

The contaminated and activated material generated in the decontamination anddismantling of a commercial nuclear reactor is classified as low-level (radioactive)waste, although not all of the material is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal. With thepassage of the "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" in 1980,[121 and itsAmendments of 1985,[131 the states became ultimately responsible for the disposition oflow-level radioactive waste generated within their own borders. With the exception ofTexas, no new compact facilities have been successfully sited, licensed, andconstructed.

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

11 Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, American Association of Cost Engineers,Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, p. 239.

12 "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act of 1980," Public Law 96-573, 1980.13 "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, 1986.

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page xi of xxii

decommissioning Crystal River (the Texas facility has limited the importation of wastefrom outside the Texas Compact).

For the purpose of this analysis, Progress Energy's "Life of Plant Agreement" withEnergySolutions is used as the basis for estimating the disposal cost for the majority ofthe radioactive waste (Class A [141). EnergySolutions does not have a license to disposeof the more highly radioactive waste (Classes B and C), for example, generated in thedismantling of the reactor vessel.

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), the environmental agencyfor the state, is responsible for the licensing of a low-level radioactive waste disposalfacility for the Texas Compact. The agency granted Waste Control Specialists (WCS) adisposal license in 2009 and approval to commence construction in early 2011.Construction of the disposal facility is now essentially complete and the facility wasdeclared operational in November 2011. However, to date, the TCEQ has onlypublished interim disposal rates for the facility, in advance of the formal disposal rate-setting process, and only for Compact generators. As a proxy, disposition of the Class Band C waste is based upon the last published rate schedule for non-compact waste forthe Barnwell facility.

The dismantling of the components residing closest to the reactor core generatesradioactive waste that may be considered unsuitable for shallow-land disposal (i.e.,low-level radioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limitsestablished by the NRC for Class C radioactive waste (Greater-than-Class C orGTCC)). The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assignedthe federal government the responsibility for the disposal of this material. The Act alsostated that the beneficiaries of the activities resulting in the generation of suchradioactive waste bear all reasonable costs of disposing of such waste. However, todate, the federal government has not identified a cost for disposing of GTCC or aschedule for acceptance.

For purposes of this study, GTCC is packaged in the same canisters used for spentfuel. The GTCC material is shipped directly to a DOE facility as it is generated.

A significant portion of the waste material generated during decommissioning mayonly be potentially contaminated by radioactive materials. This waste can be analyzedon site or shipped off site to licensed facilities for further analysis, for processingand/or for conditioning/recovery. Reduction in the volume of low-level radioactivewaste requiring disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive waste disposal facility canbe accomplished through a variety of methods, including analyses and surveys or

14 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 61, "Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal

of Radioactive Waste"

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page xii of xxii

decontamination to eliminate the portion of waste that does not require disposal asradioactive waste, compaction, incineration or metal melt. The estimate for CrystalRiver reflects the savings from waste recovery/volume reduction.

High-Level Radioactive Waste Management

Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act"[151 (NWPA) in 1982, assigning thefederal government's long-standing responsibility for disposal of the spent nuclear fuelcreated by the commercial nuclear generating plants to the DOE. The NWPA providedthat DOE would enter into contracts with utilities in which DOE would promise totake the utilities' spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste and utilities would paythe cost of the disposition services for that material. NWPA, along with the individualcontracts with the utilities, specified that the DOE was to begin accepting spent fuelby January 31, 1998.

Since the original legislation, the DOE has announced several delays in the programschedule. By January 1998, the DOE had failed to accept any spent fuel or high levelwaste, as required by the NWPA and utility contracts. Delays continue and, as aresult, generators have initiated legal action against the DOE in an attempt to obtaincompensation for DOE's breach of contract.

Completion of the decommissioning process is dependent upon the DOE's ability toremove spent fuel from the site in a timely manner. DOE's repository programassumes that spent fuel allocations will be accepted for disposal from the nation'scommercial nuclear plants, with limited exceptions, in the order (the "queue") in whichit was discharged from the reactor. Progress Energy's current spent fuel managementplan for the Crystal River spent fuel is based in general upon: 1) a 2020 start date forDOE initiating transfer of commercial spent fuel to a federal facility and 2)expectations for spent fuel receipt by the DOE for the Crystal River fuel. Fuel could becompletely removed from the site as early as 2057, based on an oldest fuel firstpriority, and the DOE achieving an annual rate of transfer (3,000 metric tons ofuranium year) as reflected in DOE's latest Acceptance Priority Ranking and AnnualCapacity Report dated June 2004 (DOE/RW-0567).

The assumed 2020 DOE start date is nominally based on the last position stated bythe DOE. On July 15, 2008, the then-Director of the DOE's Office of CivilianRadioactive Waste Management testified before Congress that DOE "could be ready tobegin accepting spent nuclear fuel by 2020," but his statement was based on continuedprogram funding.[16] The current administration has cut the budget for the geological

15 "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," DOE's Office of Civilian RadioactiveManagement, 1982

16 Statement of Edward F. Sproat, III, Director Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management,U.S. Department of Energy, Before the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality Committee on

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page xiii of xxii

repository program, but the administration has also appointed a Blue RibbonCommission on America's Nuclear Future to make recommendations for a new planfor nuclear waste disposal. That Commission's charter includes a requirement that theCommission consider "options for safe storage of used nuclear fuel while finaldisposition pathways are selected and deployed." Progress Energy believes that one ormore monitored retrievable storage facilities could be put into place following a BlueRibbon Commission recommendation for the same, within a relatively short timeframe, at least by 2020. For example, a facility such as that licensed by the NRC toPrivate Fuel Storage could be used by the DOE to store fuel until a final disposition isdetermined.

It is generally necessary that spent fuel be cooled and stored for a minimum period atthe generating site prior to transfer. As such, the NRC requires that licenseesestablish a program to manage and provide funding for the management of allirradiated fuel at the reactor site until title of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary ofEnergy, pursuant to 10 CFR Part 50.54(bb).[1 71 This requirement is prepared forthrough inclusion of certain cost elements in the decommissioning estimate, forexample, associated with the isolation and continued operation of the spent fuel pooland the ISFSI.

The spent fuel pool is expected to contain freshly discharged assemblies (from the mostrecent refueling cycles) as well as the final reactor core at shutdown. Over thefollowing six and one half years the assemblies are packaged into multipurposecanisters for transfer to the DOE or to the ISFSI for interim storage. It is assumedthat this period provides the necessary cooling for the final core to meet the transportand/or storage requirements for decay heat.

An ISFSI, operated under a Part 50 General License (in accordance with 10 CFR 72,Subpart K[18]), is in the process of being constructed to support continued plantoperations. The facility is assumed to be available to support future decommissioningoperations. Once the wet storage pool is emptied, the auxiliary building can beprepared for long-term storage.

Progress Energy's position is that the DOE has a contractual obligation to acceptCrystal River's fuel earlier than the projections set out above consistent with itscontract commitments. No assumption made in this study should be interpreted to beinconsistent with this claim. However, at this time, including the cost of storing spentfuel in this study is the most reasonable approach because it insures the availability of

Energy and Commerce U.S. House of Representatives, July 15, 2008.17 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and

Utilization Facilities," Subpart 54 (bb), "Conditions of Licenses."18 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 72, Subpart K, "General License for Storage of

Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites."

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page xiv of xxii

sufficient decommissioning funds at the end of the station's life if, contrary to itscontractual obligation, the DOE has not performed earlier.

Site Restoration

Prompt dismantling of site structures (once the facilities are decontaminated) isclearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option. It is unreasonable toanticipate that these structures would be repaired and preserved after theradiological contamination is removed. The cost to dismantle site structures with awork force already mobilized on site is more efficient than if the process is deferred.Site facilities quickly degrade without maintenance, adding additional expense andcreating potential hazards to the public and the demolition work force.Consequently, this study assumes that site structures are removed to a nominaldepth of three feet below the local grade level wherever possible. The site is then tobe graded and stabilized.

Decommissioning Trust Funds

As of September 30, 2011, the aggregate trust fund balance for Crystal River wasapproximately $578.0 million. The total includes Progress Energy Florida's share(91.8%), as well as that of the nine minority owners.[19]

Financial Assurance

Progress Energy intends to fund the expenditures for license termination(comprising approximately 70% of the total cost) from the decommissioning trustfund currently held by Progress Energy as well as the nine minority owners. Themanagement of the spent fuel, until it can be transferred to the DOE, may befunded from excess trust fund earnings and from proceeds from spent fuel litigationagainst the Department of Energy (DOE). Expenditures from the trust fund for themanagement of the spent fuel will not reduce the value of the decommissioningtrust fund to below the amount necessary to place and maintain the reactor in safestorage. The licensee would make the appropriate submittals for an exemption, inaccordance with 10 CFR 50.12, from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) inorder to use the decommissioning trust funds for non-decommissioning relatedexpenses, as defined by 10 CFR 50.2.

The total cost projected for license termination (in accordance with 10 CFR 50.75) forthe deferred decommissioning alternative (SAFSTOR) is shown at the bottom of Table

19 Total decommissioning funds available include Progress Energy Florida's share (91.8%) as wellas that of the nine minority owners: City of Alachua, City of Bushnell, City of Gainesville, City ofKissimmee, City of Leesburg, City of Ocala, Orlando Utilities Commission, Seminole ElectricCooperative, and City of New Smyrna Beach

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page xv of xxii

1 ($753.717million). The schedule of expenditures for license termination activities isprovided in Table 2. Table 3 provides the details of the proposed funding plan fordecommissioning Crystal River based on a 2% real rate of return on thedecommissioning trust fund. As shown in Table 3, the current trust funds (as ofSeptember 30, 2011) are sufficient to accomplish the intended tasks and terminate theoperating license for Crystal River. The analysis also shows a surplus in the fund atthe completion of decommissioning. This surplus could be made available to fund otheractivities at the site (e.g., spent fuel management and/or restoration activities),recognizing that the licensee would need to make the appropriate submittals for anexemption in accordance with 10 CFR 50.12 from the requirements of 10 CFR50.82(a)(8)(i)(A) in order to use the decommissioning trust funds for non-decommissioning related expenses, as defined by 10 CFR 50.2.

Summary

The cost to decommission Crystal River assumes the removal of all contaminated andactivated plant components and structural materials such that the owner may thenhave unrestricted use of the site with no further requirements for an operating license.Low-level radioactive waste, other than GTCC waste, is sent to a commercial processorfor treatment/conditioning or to a controlled disposal facility.

Decommissioning is accomplished within the 60-year period required by current NRCregulations. In the interim, the spent fuel remains in storage at the site until suchtime that the transfer to a DOE facility is complete. Once emptied, the storagefacilities are also decommissioned.

The decommissioning scenario is described in Section 2. The assumptions arepresented in Section 3, along with schedules of annual expenditures. The major costcontributors are identified in Section 6, with detailed activity costs, waste volumes,and associated manpower requirements delineated in Appendix C. The major costcomponents are also identified in the cost summary provided at the end of this section.

The cost elements in the estimate are assigned to one of three subcategories: NRCLicense Termination, Spent Fuel Management, and Site Restoration. The subcategory"NRC License Termination" is used to accumulate costs that are consistent with"decommissioning" as defined by the NRC in its financial assurance regulations (i.e.,10 CFR Part 50.75). In situations where the long-term management of spent fuel is notan issue, the cost reported for this subcategory is generally sufficient to terminate theunit's operating license.

The "Spent Fuel Management" subcategory contains costs associated with thecontainerization and transfer of spent fuel to the ISFSI and the management of the

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Page xvi of xxii

ISFSI until such time that the transfer of all fuel from this facility to an off-sitelocation (e.g., geologic repository) is complete.

"Site Restoration" is used to capture costs associated with the dismantling anddemolition of buildings and facilities demonstrated to be free from contamination. Thisincludes structures never exposed to radioactive materials, as well as those facilitiesthat have been decontaminated to appropriate levels. Structures are removed to threefeet below grade and backfilled.

It should be noted that the costs assigned to these subcategories are allocations.Delegation of cost elements is for the purposes of comparison (e.g., with NRC financialguidelines) or to permit specific financial treatment (e.g., Asset Retirement Obligationdeterminations). In reality, there can be considerable interaction between theactivities in the three subcategories. For example, an owner may decide to remove non-contaminated structures early in the project to improve access to highly contaminatedfacilities or plant components. In these instances, the non-contaminated removal costscould be reassigned from Site Restoration to an NRC License Termination supportactivity. However, in general, the allocations represent a reasonable accounting ofthose costs that can be expected to be incurred for the specific subcomponents of thetotal estimated program cost, if executed as described.

As noted within this document, the estimate is developed and costs are presented in2011 dollars. As such, the estimate does not reflect the escalation of costs (due toinflationary and market forces) over the remaining operating life of the reactor orduring the decommissioning period.

TLG Services, Inc.


Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Page xvii of xxii

TABLE 1DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENTS

(thousands of 2011 dollars)

Cost Element Cost [I'

Decontamination 12,409Removal 101,075Packaging 22,681Transportation 11,922Waste Disposal 46,245Off-site Waste Processing 23,246Program Management [2] 306,020Site Security 183,679Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 11,822Spent Fuel Management [3] 129,013Insurance and Regulatory Fees 61,040Energy 13,491Characterization and Licensing Surveys 15,110Property Taxes 87,216Utility Site Indirect 19,326Corporate Allocations 14,257Miscellaneous Equipment 19,045

Total [4] 1,077,596

Cost Element

License Termination 753,717Spent Fuel Management 271,910Site Restoration 51,969

Total [41 1,077,596

[1J Total costs reported (i.e., there is no cost allocation by ownership share)[21 Includes engineering and security costs[31 Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs

for spent fuel loading/packaging/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees[41 Columns may not add due to rounding

TLG Services, Inc.


Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Page xviii of xxii

TABLE 2SCHEDULE OF LICENSE TERMINATION EXPENDITURES

(thousands, 2011 dollars)

Equipment &Labor Materials

LLRWEnergy DisposalYear Other Total

2016 3,035 103 94 3 823 4,0582017 38,811 2,388 1,179 418 10,610 53,4052018 19,075 3,990 568 1,335 18,447 43,4152019 2,862 438 118 14 2,175 5,6072020 2,870 439 118 14 2,181 5,6222021 2,862. 438 118 14 2,175 5,6072022 2,862 438 118 14 2,175 5,6072023 2,862 362 118 10 2,174 5,5252024 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792025 1 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652026 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652027 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652028 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792029 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652030 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652031 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652032 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792033 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652034 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652035 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652036 1 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792037 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652038 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652039 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652040 1 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792041 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652042 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652043 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652044 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792045 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652046 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652047 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652048 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792049 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652050 1 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652051 1 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,465

TLG Services, Inc.


Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Page xix of xxii

TABLE 2 (continued)SCHEDULE OF LICENSE TERMINATION EXPENDITURES


Equipment & LLRWLabor Materials Energy DisposalYear Other Total

2052 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792053 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652054 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652055 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652056 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792057 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4642058 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342059 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342060 2,869 299 118 6 2,156 5,4482061 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342062 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342063 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342064 2,869 299 118 6 2,156 5,4482065 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342066 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342067 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342068 2,869 299 118 6 2,156 5,4482069 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,434

2070 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342071 4,621 472 176 8 2,276 7,5532072 35,366 3,622 1,182 32 4,470 44,6722073 43,439 21,970 1,146 18,390 13,820 98,7662074 44,947 23,086 1,014 24,109 14,794 107,9492075 43,442 8,421 884 12,763 6,699 72,2092076 28,520 2,641 327 2,189 3,239 36,9162077 121 0 0 0 0 1212078 74 0 0 0 0 74

Total 410,355 83,088 12,703 59,624 187,946 753,717

Note: Total costs reported (i.e., there is no cost allocation by ownership share)

TLG Services, Inc.


Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Page xx of xxii

TABLE 3FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSE TERMINATION

2016 SHUTDOWN

Basis Year 2011Fund Balance (9/30/2011) $578.026 (millions)Annual Escalation 0.00%Annual Earnings 2.00%

A B CDecommissioning

License Escalated License Trust FundTermination Termination Cost Escalated at 2%

Cost Escalated at 0% (minus expenses)Year (millions) (millions) (millions)

2011 $ 578.0262012 $ 589.5862013 $ 601.3782014 $ 613.4062015 _ - $ 625.6742016 4.058 4.058 $ 634.1292017 53.405 53.405 $ 593.4072018 43.415 43.415 $ 561.8592019 5.607 5.607 $ 567.4902020 5.622 5.622 $ 573.2172021 5.607 5.607 $ 579.0742022 5.607 5.607 $ 585.0492023 5.525 5.525 $ 591.2252024 5.479 5.479 $ 597.5702025 5.465 5.465 $ 604.0572026 5.465 5.465 $ 610.6742027 5.465 5.465 $ 617.4232028 5.479 5.479 $ 624.2922029 5.465 5.465 $ 631.3132030 5.465 5.465 $ 638.4752031 5.465 5.465 $ 645.7802032 5.479 5.479 $ 653.2162033 5.465 5.465 $ 660.8162034 5.465 5.465 $ 668.5672035 5.465 5.465 $ 676.4742036 5.479 5.479 $ 684.524

TLG Services, Inc.


Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Page xxi of xxii

TABLE 3 (continued)FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSE TERMINATION

2016 SHUTDOWN

Basis Year 2011Fund Balance (9/30/2011) $578.026 (millions)Annual Escalation 0.00%Annual Earnings 2.00%




2037 5.465 5.465 $ 692.7502038 5.465 5.465 $ 701.1412039 5.465 5.465 $ 709.6992040 5.479 5.479 $ 718.4132041 5.465 5.465 $ 727.3172042 5.465 5.465 $ 736.3992043 5.465 5.465 $ 745.6622044 5.479 5.479 $ 755.0962045 5.465 5.465 $ 764.7342046 5.465 5.465 $ 774.5642047 5.465 5.465 $ 784.5912048 5.479 5.479 $ 794.8032049 5.465 5.465 $ 805.2342050 5.465 5.465 $ 815.8752051 5.465 5.465 $ 826.7282052 5.479 5.479 $ 837.7832053 5.465 5.465 $ 849.0742054 5.465 5.465 $ 860.5912055 5.465 5.465 $ 872.3382056 5.479 5.479 $ 884.3052057 5.464 5.464 $ 896.5272058 5.434 5.434 $ 909.0242059 5.434 5.434 $ 921.7712060 5.448 5.448 $ 934.7582061 5.434 5.434 $ 948.0192062 5.434 5.434 $ 961.546

TLG Services, Inc.


Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Page xxii of xxii

TABLE 3 (continued)FUNDING REQUIREMENTS FOR LICENSE TERMINATION

2016 SHUTDOWN

Basis Year 2011

Fund Balance (9/30/2011) $578.026 (millions)Annual Escalation 0.00%Annual Earnings 2.00%




2063 5.434 5.434 $ 975.3442064 5.448 5.448 $ 989.4022065 5.434 5.434 $ 1,003.7572066 5.434 5.434 $ 1,018.3982067 5.434 5.434 $ 1,033.3332068 5.448 5.448 $ 1,048.5512069 5.434 5.434 $ 1,064.0882070 5.434 5.434 $ 1,079.9362071 7.553 7.553 $ 1,093.9822072 44.672 44.672 $ 1,071.1902073 98.766 98.766 $ 993.8482074 107.949 107.949 $ 905.7752075 72.209 72.209 $ 851.6822076 36.916 36.916 $ 831.7992077 0.121 0.121 $ 848.3132078 0.074 0.074 $ 865.206

Total 753.717 753.717

Note: Total costs reported (i.e., there is no cost allocation by ownership share)September 30, 2011 balance also used as year-end 2011 balance

Calculations:

Column B= (A)*(1+.00)^(current year - 2011) or for 0%, B = A

Column C = (Previous year's fund balance) * (1 + .02) - B (current year'sdecommissioning expenditures)

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 1, Page 1 of 9

1. INTRODUCTION

This report presents an estimate of the cost to decommission the Crystal River Unit 3Nuclear Generating Plant, (Crystal River) following a scheduled cessation of plantoperations. The analysis relies upon site-specific, technical information from an earlierevaluation prepared in 2008,[1]* updated to reflect current assumptions pertaining tothe disposition of the nuclear unit and relevant industry experience in undertakingsuch projects.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(f)(3),[21 each power reactor licensee shall at or about 5 yearsprior to the projected end of operations submit a preliminary decommissioning costestimate which includes an up-to-date assessment of the major factors that could affectthe cost to decommission. Progress Energy Florida, Inc. (Progress Energy) issubmitting this estimate to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(f)(3).

Progress Energy has not determined or committed to a specific decommissioningapproach for Crystal River at this time. However, it is Progress Energy's current planfor purposes of demonstrating the adequacy of finding to meet regulatoryrequirements to use the SAFSTOR decommissioning option based on the currentlicense expiration date. License renewal is likely to require a need to revise thispreliminary plan.

The current estimate is designed to provide Progress Energy, the plant's majorityowner, with sufficient information to assess its financial obligations, as they pertain tothe eventual decommissioning of the nuclear station. It is not a detailed engineeringdocument, but a financial analysis prepared in advance of the detailed engineeringthat will be required to carry out the decommissioning.

1.1 OBJECTIVES OF STUDY

The objectives of this study were to prepare a comprehensive estimate of thecosts to decommission Crystal River, to provide a sequence or schedule for theassociated activities, and to develop waste stream projections from thedecontamination and dismantling activities.

The plant was issued its operating license in December 1976. The licensecurrently expires in 2016. An application for the renewal of Facility OperatingLicense No. DPR-72, for an additional 20-year period, was submitted to theNuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on December 16, 2008. The applicationis currently under review. So, for the purposes of this study, the final

* References provided in Section 7 of the document

TLG Services, Inc.


shutdown date (license expiration) is assumed to on December 3, 2016 or 40

years from the original license issue.

1.2 SITE DESCRIPTION

The Crystal River site is located in Citrus County, Florida, approximately 70miles north of Tampa on the shore of the Gulf of Mexico. The generating site iscomprised of four fossil-fired units and one nuclear unit. The Gulf of Mexicoprovides the heat sink for both Units 1 and 2 fossil-fired units, and the nuclearunit (natural draft towers provide the cooling for Units 4 and 5).

The nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) consists of a pressurized waterreactor and a two-loop reactor coolant system, designed by Babcock & Wilcox.The generating unit has a reference core design of 2609 MWt (thermal), with acorresponding net dependable capability electrical rating of 860 megawatts(electric) with the reactor at rated power.

The reactor coolant system is comprised of the reactor vessel and two heattransfer loops, each loop containing a vertical once-through type steamgenerator, and two single speed centrifugal reactor coolant pumps. In addition,the system includes an electrically heated pressurizer, a reactor coolant draintank and interconnected piping. The system is housed within the reactorcontainment building or reactor building, a seismic Category I reinforcedconcrete structure. The reactor building is a reinforced concrete structurecomposed of a vertical cylinder with a shallow dome and flat circularfoundation slab. The cylinder wall is prestressed with a post-tensioning systemin the vertical and horizontal directions. The dome roof is prestressed utilizinga three-way post-tensioning system. The foundation slab is reinforced withconventional mild steel. The inside surface of the reactor building is lined witha carbon steel liner to ensure a high degree of leak tightness during operatingand accident conditions.

Heat produced in the reactor is converted to electrical energy by the steam andpower conversion system. A turbine-generator system converts the thermalenergy of steam produced in the steam generators into mechanical shaft powerand then into electrical energy. The unit's turbine generator consists of high-pressure and low-pressure turbine sections driving a direct-coupled generatorat 1800 rpm. The turbines are operated in a closed feedwater cycle, whichcondenses the steam; the heated feedwater is returned to the steamgenerators. Heat rejected in the main condensers is removed by the circulatingwater system. The condenser circulating water is taken from and returned tothe Gulf of Mexico through the intake and discharge canals, respectively.

TLG Services, Inc.


1.3 REGULATORY GUIDANCE

The NRC provided initial decommissioning requirements in its rule "GeneralRequirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," issued in June 1988.[31This rule set forth financial criteria for decommissioning licensed nuclearpower facilities. The regulation addressed decommissioning planning needs,timing, funding methods, and environmental review requirements. The intentof the rule was to ensure that decommissioning would be accomplished in asafe and timely manner and that adequate funds would be available for thispurpose. Subsequent to the rule, the NRC issued Regulatory Guide 1.159,"Assuring the Availability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors,"[41

which provided additional guidance to the licensees of nuclear facilities on thefinancial methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with therequirements of the rule. The regulatory guide addressed the fundingrequirements and provided guidance on the content and form of the financialassurance mechanisms indicated in the rule.

The rule defined three decommissioning alternatives as being acceptable to theNRC: DECON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB. The DECON alternative assumesthat any contaminated or activated portion of the plant's systems, structuresand facilities are removed or decontaminated to levels that permit the site tobe released for unrestricted use shortly after the cessation of plant operations.The rule also placed limits on the time allowed to complete thedecommissioning process. For SAFSTOR, the process is restricted in overallduration to 60 years, unless it can be shown that a longer duration is necessaryto protect public health and safety. The guidelines for ENTOMB are similar,providing the NRC with both sufficient leverage and flexibility to ensure thatthese deferred options are only used in situations where it is reasonable andconsistent with the definition of decommissioning. At the conclusion of a 60-year dormancy period (or longer for ENTOMB if the NRC approves such acase), the site would still require significant remediation to meet theunrestricted release limits for license termination.

The ENTOMB alternative has not been viewed as a viable option for powerreactors due to the significant time required to isolate the long-livedradionuclides for decay to permissible levels. With rulemaking permitting thecontrolled release of a site,[5I the NRC has re-evaluated this alternative. Theresulting feasibility study, based upon an assessment by Pacific NorthwestNational Laboratory, concluded that the method did have conditional merit forsome, if not most reactors. The staff also found that additional rulemakingwould be needed before this option could be treated as a generic alternative.The NRC had considered rulemaking to alter the 60-year time for completingdecommissioning and to clarify the use of engineered barriers for reactor

TLG Services, Inc.


entombments.[61 However, the NRC's staff has recommended that rulemakingbe deferred, based upon several factors, e.g., no licensee has committed topursuing the entombment option, the unresolved issues associated with thedisposition of greater-than-Class C material (GTCC), and the NRC's currentpriorities, at least until after the additional research studies are complete. TheCommission concurred with the staffs recommendation.

In 1996, the NRC published revisions to the general requirements fordecommissioning nuclear power plants.[7] When the decommissioningregulations were adopted in 1988, it was assumed that the majority oflicensees would decommission at the end of the facility's operating licensed life.Since that time, several licensees permanently and prematurely ceasedoperations. Exemptions from certain operating requirements were requiredonce the reactor was defueled to facilitate the decommissioning. Each case washandled individually, without clearly defined generic requirements. The NRCamended the decommissioning regulations in 1996 to clarify ambiguities andcodify procedures and terminology as a means of enhancing efficiency anduniformity in the decommissioning process. The amendments allow for greaterpublic participation and better define the transition process from operations todecommissioning.

Under the revised regulations, licensees will submit written certification to theNRC within 30 days after the decision to cease operations. Certification willalso be required once the fuel is permanently removed from the reactor vessel.Submittal of these notices will entitle the licensee to a fee reduction andeliminate the obligation to follow certain requirements needed only duringoperation of the reactor. Within two years of submitting notice of permanentcessation of operations, the licensee is required to submit a Post-ShutdownDecommissioning Activities Report (PSDAR) to the NRC. The PSDARdescribes the planned decommissioning activities, the associated sequence andschedule, and an estimate of expected costs. Prior to completingdecommissioning, the licensee is required to submit an application to the NRCto terminate the license, which will include a license termination plan (LTP).

1.3.1 Nuclear Waste Policy Act

Congress passed the "Nuclear Waste Policy Act"[8] (NWPA) in 1982,assigning the federal government's long-standing responsibility fordisposal of the spent nuclear fuel created by the commercial nucleargenerating plants to the DOE. The NWPA provided that DOE wouldenter into contracts with utilities in which DOE would promise to takethe utilities' spent fuel and high-level radioactive waste and utilitieswould pay the cost of the disposition services for that material. NWPA,

TLG Services, Inc.


along with the individual contracts with the utilities, specified that theDOE was to begin accepting spent fuel by January 31, 1998.

Since the original legislation, the DOE has announced several delays inthe program schedule. By January 1998, the DOE had failed to acceptany spent fuel or high level waste, as required by the NWPA and utilitycontracts. Delays continue and, as a result, generators have initiatedlegal action against the DOE in an attempt to obtain compensation forDOE's breach of contract.

Completion of the decommissioning process is dependent upon theDOE's ability to remove spent fuel from the site in a timely manner.DOE's repository program assumes that spent fuel allocations will beaccepted for disposal from the nation's commercial nuclear plants, withlimited exceptions, in the order (the "queue") in which it was dischargedfrom the reactor. Progress Energy's current spent fuel management planfor the Crystal River spent fuel is based in general upon: 1) a 2020 startdate for DOE initiating transfer of commercial spent fuel to a federalfacility and 2) expectations for spent fuel receipt by the DOE for theCrystal River fuel. Fuel could be completely removed from the site asearly as 2057, based on an oldest fuel first priority, and the DOEachieving an annual rate of transfer (3,000 metric tons of uranium year)as reflected in DOE's latest Acceptance Priority Ranking and AnnualCapacity Report dated June 2004 (DOE/RW-0567).

The assumed 2020 DOE start date is nominally based on the lastposition stated by the DOE. On July 15, 2008, the then-Director of theDOE's Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management testified beforeCongress that DOE "could be ready to begin accepting spent nuclear fuelby 2020," but his statement was based on continued program funding.[91The current administration has cut the budget for the geologicalrepository program, but the administration has also appointed a BlueRibbon Commission on America's Nuclear Future to makerecommendations for a new plan for nuclear waste disposal. ThatCommission's charter includes a requirement that the Commissionconsider "options for safe storage of used nuclear fuel while finaldisposition pathways are selected and deployed." Progress Energybelieves that one or more monitored retrievable storage facilities couldbe put into place following a Blue Ribbon Commission recommendationfor the same, within a relatively short time frame, at least by 2020. Forexample, a facility such as that licensed by the NRC to Private FuelStorage could be used by the DOE to store fuel until a final disposition isdetermined.

TLG Services, Inc.


It is generally necessary that spent fuel be cooled and stored for aminimum period at the generating site prior to transfer. As such, theNRC requires that licensees establish a program to manage and providefunding for the management of all irradiated fuel at the reactor siteuntil title of the fuel is transferred to the Secretary of Energy, pursuantto 10 CFR Part 50.54(bb).[101 This requirement is prepared for throughinclusion of certain cost elements in the decommissioning estimate, forexample, associated with the isolation and continued operation of thespent fuel pool and the ISFSI.

The spent fuel pool is expected to contain freshly discharged assemblies(from the most recent refueling cycles) as well as the final reactor core atshutdown. Over the following six and one half years the assemblies arepackaged into multipurpose canisters for transfer to the DOE or to theISFSI for interim storage. It is assumed that this period provides thenecessary cooling for the final core to meet the transport and/or storagerequirements for decay heat.

An ISFSI, operated under a Part 50 General License (in accordance with10 CFR 72, Subpart K [111), is in the process of being constructed tosupport continued plant operations. The facility is assumed to beavailable to support future decommissioning operations. Once the wetstorage pool is emptied, the auxiliary building can be prepared for long-term storage.

Progress Energy's position is that the DOE has a contractual obligationto accept Crystal River's fuel earlier than the projections set out aboveconsistent with its contract commitments. No assumption made in thisstudy should be interpreted to be inconsistent with this claim. However,at this time, including the cost of storing spent fuel in this study is themost reasonable approach because it insures the availability of sufficientdecommissioning funds at the end of the station's life if, contrary to itscontractual obligation, the DOE has not performed earlier.

1.3.2 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Acts

The contaminated and activated material generated in thedecontamination and dismantling of a commercial nuclear reactor isclassified as low-level (radioactive) waste, although not all of thematerial is suitable for "shallow-land" disposal. With the passage of the"Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act" in 1980,[121 and itsAmendments of 1985,[131 the states became ultimately responsible for the

TLG Services, Inc.


disposition of low-level radioactive waste generated within their ownborders.

The disposal facility in Barnwell, South Carolina is currently closed togenerators outside the Atlantic Compact (comprising the states ofConnecticut, New Jersey and South Carolina). The commercial disposalfacility on the Hanford Nuclear Reservation near Richland, Washingtonaccepts low-level radioactive waste from the Northwest (Alaska, Hawaii,Idaho, Montana, Oregon, Utah, Washington and Wyoming) and RockyMountain (Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico) Compact states. Thisleaves EnergySolutions' disposal facility in Clive, Utah as the onlyavailable option for the disposal of the majority of the low-levelradioactive waste generated in decommissioning Crystal River (theTexas facility has limited the importation of waste from outside theTexas Compact).

For the purpose of this analysis, Progress Energy's "Life of PlantAgreement" with EnergySolutions is used as the basis for estimating thedisposal cost for the majority of the radioactive waste (Class A [141).

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

The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), theenvironmental agency for the state, is responsible for the licensing of alow-level radioactive waste disposal facility for the Texas Compact. Theagency granted Waste Control Specialists (WCS) a disposal license in2009 and approval to commence construction in early 2011. Constructionof the disposal facility is now essentially complete and the facility wasdeclared operational in November 2011. However, to date, the TCEQ hasonly published interim disposal rates for the facility, in advance of theformal disposal rate-setting process, and only for Compact generators.As a proxy, disposition of the Class B and C waste is based upon the lastpublished rate schedule for non-compact waste for the Barnwell facility.

The dismantling of the components residing closest to the reactor coregenerates radioactive waste that may be considered unsuitable forshallow-land disposal (i.e., low-level radioactive waste withconcentrations of radionuclides that exceed the limits established by theNRC for Class C radioactive waste (Greater-than-Class C or GTCC)).The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985assigned the federal government the responsibility for the disposal ofthis material. The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activities

TLG Services, Inc.


resulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonablecosts of disposing of such waste. However, to date, the federalgovernment has not identified a cost for disposing of GTCC or a schedulefor acceptance.

For purposes of this study, GTCC is packaged in the same canisters usedfor spent fuel. The GTCC material is shipped directly to a DOE facilityas it is generated.

A significant portion of the waste material generated duringdecommissioning may only be potentially contaminated by radioactivematerials. This waste can be analyzed on site or shipped off site tolicensed facilities for further analysis, for processing and/or forconditioning/recovery. Reduction in the volume of low-level radioactivewaste requiring disposal in a licensed low-level radioactive wastedisposal facility can be accomplished through a variety of methods,including analyses and surveys or decontamination to eliminate theportion of waste that does not require disposal as radioactive waste,compaction, incineration or metal melt. The estimate for Crystal Riverreflects the savings from waste recovery/volume reduction.

1.3.3 Radiological Criteria for License Termination

In 1997, the NRC published Subpart E, "Radiological Criteria forLicense Termination,"[151 amending 10 CFR Part 20. This subpartprovides radiological criteria for releasing a facility for unrestricted use.The regulation states that the site can be released for unrestricted use ifradioactivity levels are such that the average member of a critical groupwould not receive a Total Effective Dose Equivalent (TEDE) in excess of25 millirem per year, and provided that residual radioactivity has beenreduced to levels that are As Low As Reasonably Achievable (ALARA).

The decommissioning estimate assumes that the Crystal River site willbe remediated to the levels specified in 10 CFR 20.1402, "Radiologicalcriteria for unrestricted use," although the remediation measuresincluded in this estimate are believed to be sufficient to result insubstantially lower levels than required by the foregoing regulation.

It should be noted that the NRC and the Environmental ProtectionAgency (EPA) differ on the amount of residual radioactivity consideredacceptable in site remediation. The EPA has two limits that apply toradioactive materials. An EPA limit of 15 millirem per year is derivedfrom criteria established by the Comprehensive Environmental

TLG Services, Inc.


Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA or Superfund).[ 161

An additional and separate limit of 4 millirem per year, as defined in 40CFR § 141.16, is applied to drinking water.[171

On October 9, 2002, the NRC signed an agreement with the EPA on theradiological decommissioning and decontamination of NRC-licensedsites. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU)[18] provides that EPAwill defer exercise of authority under CERCLA for the majority offacilities decommissioned under NRC authority. The MOU also includesprovisions for NRC and EPA consultation for certain sites when, at thetime of license termination, (1) groundwater contamination exceedsEPA-permitted levels; (2) NRC contemplates restricted release of thesite; and/or (3) residual radioactive soil concentrations exceed levelsdefined in the MOU.

The MOU does not impose any new requirements on NRC licensees andshould reduce the involvement of the EPA with NRC licensees who aredecommissioning. Most sites are expected to meet the NRC criteria forunrestricted use, and the NRC believes that only a few sites will havegroundwater or soil contamination in excess of the levels specified in theMOU that trigger consultation with the EPA. However, if there areother hazardous materials on the site, the EPA may be involved in thecleanup. As such, the possibility of dual regulation remains for certainlicensees. The present study does not include any costs for thisoccurrence.

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Section 2, Page I of 8

2. SAFSTOR DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVE

A detailed cost estimate was developed to decommission the Crystal River nuclearunit for the SAFSTOR decommissioning alternative. The following narrativedescribes the basic activities associated with the alternative. Although detailedprocedures for each activity identified are not provided, and the actual sequence ofwork may vary, the activity descriptions provide a basis not only for estimating butalso for the expected scope of work, i.e., engineering and planning at the time ofdecommissioning.

The conceptual approach that the NRC has described in its regulations dividesdecommissioning into three phases. The initial phase commences with the effectivedate of permanent cessation of operations and involves the transition of both plantand licensee from reactor operations (i.e., power production) to facility de-activationand closure. During the first phase, notification is to be provided to the NRCcertifying the permanent cessation of operations and the removal of fuel from thereactor vessel. The licensee is then prohibited from reactor operation.

The second phase encompasses activities during the storage period or during majordecommissioning activities, or a combination of the two. The third phase pertains tothe activities involved in license termination. The decommissioning estimatedeveloped for Crystal River is also divided into phases or periods; however,demarcation of the phases is based upon major milestones within the project orsignificant changes in the projected expenditures.

2.1 PERIOD 1 - PREPARATIONS

The NRC defines SAFSTOR as "the alternative in which the nuclear facility isplaced and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to besafely stored and subsequently decontaminated (deferred decontamination) tolevels that permit release for unrestricted use." The facility is left intact(during the dormancy period), with structures maintained in a soundcondition. Systems that are not required to support the spent fuel pool or sitesurveillance and security are drained, de-energized, and secured. Minimalcleaning/removal of loose contamination and/or fixation and sealing ofremaining contamination is performed. Access to contaminated areas issecured to provide controlled access for inspection and maintenance.

Preparations for long-term storage include the planning for permanentdefueling of the reactor, revision of technical specifications appropriate to theoperating conditions and requirements, a characterization of the facility andmajor components, and the development of the PSDAR.

TLG Services, Inc.


The process of placing the plant in safe-storage includes, but is not limited to,the following activities:

* Defueling of the reactor vessel.

" Isolation of the spent fuel pool and fuel handling systems so that safe-storage operations may commence on the balance of the plant. The pool willremain operational for approximately six and one-half years following thecessation of operations before the inventory resident at shutdown can becompletely transferred to the ISFSI. This activity may be carried out byplant personnel in accordance with existing operating technicalspecifications. Activities are scheduled around the fuel handling systems tothe greatest extent possible.

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

" Disposing of contaminated filter elements and resin beds not required forprocessing wastes from layup activities or for future dormancy operations.

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

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

* Preparing lighting and alarm systems whose continued use is required; de-energizing portions of fire protection, electric power, and HVAC systemswhose continued use is not required.

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

* Performing an interim radiation survey of plant, posting warning signswhere appropriate.

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

Installing security and surveillance monitoring equipment and relocatingsecurity fence around secured structures, as required.

2.2 PERIOD 2 - DORMANCY

The second phase identified by the NRC in its rule addresses licensed activitiesduring a storage period and is applicable to the dormancy phases of thedeferred decommissioning alternatives. Dormancy activities include a 24-hoursecurity force, preventive and corrective maintenance on security systems, arealighting, general building maintenance, heating and ventilation of buildings,routine radiological inspections of contaminated structures, maintenance of

TLG Services, Inc.


structural integrity, and a site environmental and radiation monitoringprogram. Resident maintenance personnel perform equipment maintenance,inspection activities, routine services to maintain safe conditions, adequatelighting, heating, and ventilation, and periodic preventive maintenance onessential site services.

An environmental surveillance program is carried out during the dormancyperiod to ensure that releases of radioactive material to the environment areprevented and/or detected and controlled. Appropriate emergency proceduresare established and initiated for potential releases that exceed prescribedlimits. The environmental surveillance program constitutes an abbreviatedversion of the program in effect during normal plant operations.

Security during the dormancy period is conducted primarily to preventunauthorized entry and to protect the public from the consequences of its ownactions. The security fence, sensors, alarms, and other surveillance equipmentprovide security. Fire and radiation alarms are also monitored andmaintained.

The spent fuel storage pool is emptied within six and one-half years of thecessation of operations. The transfer of the spent fuel from the ISFSI to a DOEfacility begins in 2024 and continues throughout the dormancy period untilcompleted in 2057. Once emptied, the ISFSI is secured for storage anddecommissioned along with the power block structures in Period 4.

After an optional period of storage (such that license termination isaccomplished within 60 years of final shutdown), it is required that thelicensee submit an application to terminate the license, along with an LTP,thereby initiating the third phase.

2.3 PERIOD 3 - PREPARATIONS FOR DECOMMISSIONING

Prior to the commencement of decommissioning operations, preparations areundertaken to reactivate site services and prepare for decommissioning.Preparations include engineering and planning, a detailed sitecharacterization, and the assembly of a decommissioning managementorganization. Final planning for activities and the writing of activityspecifications and detailed procedures are also initiated at this time.

At least two years prior to the anticipated date of license termination, an LTPis required. Submitted as a supplement to the Final Safety Analysis Report(FSAR) or its equivalent, the plan must include: a site characterization,description of the remaining dismantling activities, plans for site remediation,

TLG Services, Inc.


procedures for the final radiation survey, designation of the end use of the site,an updated cost estimate to complete the decommissioning, and any associatedenvironmental concerns. The NRC will notice the receipt of the plan, make theplan available for public comment, and schedule a local hearing. LTP approvalwill be subject to any conditions and limitations as deemed appropriate by theCommission.

Variations in the length of the dormancy period are expected to have littleeffect upon the quantities of radioactive wastes generated from system andstructure removal operations. Given the levels of radioactivity and spectrum ofradionuclides expected from forty years of plant operation, no plant processsystem identified as being contaminated upon final shutdown will becomereleasable due to the decay period alone, i.e., there is no significant reductionin the waste generated from the decommissioning activities. However, due tothe lower activity levels, a greater percentage of the waste volume can bedesignated for off-site processing and recovery.

The delay in decommissioning also yields lower working area radiation levels.As such, the estimate for this delayed scenario incorporates reduced ALARAcontrols for the SAFSTOR's lower occupational exposure potential.

2.4 PERIOD 4 - DEFERRED DECOMMISSIONING

This period includes the physical decommissioning activities associated withthe removal and disposal of contaminated and activated components andstructures, including the successful termination of the 10 CFR §50 operatinglicense. Although the initial radiation levels due to 60Co will decrease duringthe dormancy period, the internal components of the reactor vessel will stillexhibit sufficiently high radiation dose rates to require remote sectioningunder water due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides such as 94Nb, 59Ni,and 63Ni. Therefore, the remote dismantling procedures would still beemployed during this scenario. Portions of the biological shield will still beradioactive due to the presence of activated trace elements with long half-lives(152Eu and 154Eu). Decontamination will require controlled removal anddisposal. It is assumed that radioactive corrosion products on inner surfaces ofpiping and components will not have decayed to levels that will permitunrestricted use or allow conventional removal. These systems andcomponents will be surveyed as they are removed and disposed of inaccordance with the existing radioactive release criteria.

Significant decommissioning activities in this phase include:

TLG Services, Inc.


* Construction of temporary facilities and/or modification of existing facilitiesto support dismantling activities. This may include a centralized processingarea to facilitate equipment removal and component preparations for off-site disposal.

" Reconfiguration and modification of site structures and facilities as neededto support decommissioning operations. This may include the upgrading ofroads (on- and off-site) to facilitate hauling and transport. Modificationsmay be required to the reactor building to facilitate access of large/heavyequipment. Modifications may also be required to the refueling area of thereactor building to support the segmentation of the reactor vessel internalsand component extraction.

* Design and fabrication of temporary and permanent shielding to supportremoval and transportation activities, construction of contamination controlenvelopes, and the procurement of specialty tooling.

* Procurement (lease or purchase) of shipping canisters, cask liners, andindustrial packages for the disposition of low-level radioactive waste.

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

" Removal of piping and components no longer essential to support

decommissioning operations.

* Removal of control rod drive housings and the head service structure fromthe reactor vessel head. Segmentation of the vessel closure head.

" Removal and segmentation of the upper internals assemblies.Segmentation will maximize the loading of the shielded transport casks,i.e., by weight and activity. The operations are conducted under water usingremotely operated tooling and contamination controls.

* Disassembly and segmentation of the remaining reactor internals,including the core shroud and lower core support assembly. Some materialis expected to exceed Class C disposal requirements. As such, the segmentswill be packaged in modified fuel storage canisters for geologic disposal.

* Segmentation of the reactor vessel. A shielded platform is installed forsegmentation as cutting operations are performed in-air using remotelyoperated equipment within a contamination control envelope. The waterlevel is maintained just below the cut to minimize the working area doserates. Segments are transferred in-air to containers that are stored underwater, for example, in an isolated area of the refueling canal.

" Removal of the activated portions of the concrete biological shield andaccessible contaminated concrete surfaces. If dictated by the steamgenerator and pressurizer removal scenarios, those portions of the

TLG Services, Inc.


associated cubicles necessary for access and component extraction areremoved.

* Removal of the steam generators and pressurizer for material recovery andcontrolled disposal. The generators will be moved to an on-site processingcenter and prepared for transport to the disposal site. To facilitatetransport, the generators are cut in half, across the tube bundle. Theexposed ends are capped and sealed. The segments can serve as their ownburial containers provided that all penetrations are properly sealed and theinternal contaminants are stabilized. A similar process will be used toprepare the retired units for disposal. The pressurizer is disposed of intact.

" Removal of remaining plant systems and associated components as theybecome nonessential to the decommissioning program or worker health andsafety (e.g., waste collection and treatment systems, electrical power andventilation systems).

* Removal of the steel liners from refueling canal, disposing of the activatedand contaminated sections as radioactive waste. Removal of any activated/contaminated concrete.

* Surveys of the decontaminated areas of the reactor building.

* Remediation and removal of the contaminated equipment and materialfrom the auxiliary building and any other contaminated facility. Radiationand contamination controls will be utilized until residual levels indicatethat the structures and equipment can be released for unrestricted accessand conventional demolition. This activity may necessitate the dismantlingand disposition of most of the systems and components (both clean andcontaminated) located within these buildings. This activity facilitatessurface decontamination and subsequent verification surveys required priorto obtaining release for demolition.

Routing of material removed in the decontamination and dismantling to acentral processing area. Material certified to be free of contamination isreleased for unrestricted disposition, e.g., as scrap, recycle, or generaldisposal. Contaminated material is characterized and segregated foradditional off-site processing (disassembly, chemical cleaning, volumereduction, and waste treatment), and/or packaged for controlled disposal ata low-level radioactive waste disposal facility.

Incorporated into the LTP is the Final Survey Plan. This plan identifies theradiological surveys to be performed once the decontamination activities arecompleted and is developed using the guidance provided in the "Multi-AgencyRadiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM)."[19] Thisdocument incorporates the statistical approaches to survey design and data

TLG Services, Inc.


interpretation used by the EPA. It also identifies state-of-the-art, commerciallyavailable instrumentation and procedures for conducting radiological surveys.Use of this guidance ensures that the surveys are conducted in a manner thatprovides a high degree of confidence that applicable NRC criteria are satisfied.Once the survey is complete, the results are provided to the NRC in a formatthat can be verified. The NRC then reviews and evaluates the information,performs an independent confirmation of radiological site conditions, andmakes a determination on the requested change to the operating license (thatwould release the property, exclusive of the ISFSI, for unrestricted use).

The NRC will terminate the operating license if it determines that siteremediation has been performed in accordance with the LTP, and that theterminal radiation survey and associated documentation demonstrate that thefacility is suitable for release.

2.5 PERIOD 5 - SITE RESTORATION

Following completion of decommissioning operations, site restoration activitieswill begin. Efficient removal of the contaminated materials and verificationthat residual radionuclide concentrations are below the NRC limits will resultin substantial damage to many of the structures. Although performed in acontrolled and safe manner, the blasting, coring, drilling, scarification (surfaceremoval), and the other decontamination activities will substantially degradepower block structures. Under certain circumstances, verifying that subsurfaceradionuclide concentrations meet NRC site release requirements will requireremoval of grade slabs and lower floors, potentially weakening footings andstructural supports. This removal activity will be necessary for those facilitiesand plant areas where historical records, when available, indicate the potentialfor radionuclides having been present in the soil, where system failures havebeen recorded, or where it is required to confirm that subsurface process anddrain lines were not breached over the operating life of the station.

Prompt dismantling of site structures is clearly the most appropriate and cost-effective option. It is unreasonable to anticipate that these structures would berepaired and preserved after the radiological contamination is removed. Thecost to dismantle site structures with a work force already mobilized on site ismore efficient than if the process were deferred. Site facilities quickly degradewithout maintenance, adding additional expense and creating potentialhazards to the public as well as to future workers. Abandonment creates abreeding ground for vermin infestation as well as other biological hazards.

This cost study presumes that non-essential structures and site facilities aredismantled as a continuation of the decommissioning activity. Foundations and

TLG Services, Inc.


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

Non-contaminated concrete rubble produced by demolition activities isprocessed to remove reinforcing steel and miscellaneous embedments. Theprocessed material is then used on site to backfill foundation voids. Excessnon-contaminated materials are trucked to an off-site area for disposal asconstruction debris.

TLG Services, Inc.


3. COST ESTIMATE

The cost estimate prepared for decommissioning Crystal River considers the uniquefeatures of the site, including the NSSS, power generation systems, supportservices, site buildings, and ancillary facilities. The basis of the estimate, includingthe sources of information relied upon, the estimating methodology employed, site-specific considerations, and other pertinent assumptions, is described in thissection.

3.1 BASIS OF ESTIMATE

The estimate was developed using the site-specific, technical information fromthe 2008 analysis. This information was reviewed for the current analysis andupdated as deemed appropriate. The site-specific considerations andassumptions used in the previous evaluation were also revisited. Modificationswere incorporated where new information was available or experience fromongoing decommissioning programs provided viable alternatives or improvedprocesses.

3.2 METHODOLOGY

The methodology used to develop the estimate follows the basic approachoriginally presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study report, "Guidelines forProducing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant Decommissioning CostEstimates,"[20 1 and the DOE "Decommissioning Handbook."[21] Thesedocuments present a unit factor method for estimating decommissioningactivity costs, which simplifies the estimating calculations. Unit factors forconcrete removal ($/cubic yard), steel removal ($/ton), and cutting costs ($/inch)are developed using local labor rates. The activity-dependent costs areestimated with the item quantities (cubic yards and tons), developed fromplant drawings and inventory documents. Removal rates and material costs forthe conventional disposition of components and structures rely uponinformation available in the industry publication, "Building Construction CostData," published by R.S. Means.[221

The unit factor method provides a demonstrable basis for establishing reliablecost estimates. The detail provided in the unit factors, including activityduration, labor costs (by craft), and equipment and consumable costs, ensuresthat essential elements have not been omitted. Appendix A presents thedetailed development of a typical unit factor. Appendix B provides the valuescontained within one set of factors developed for this analysis.

TLG Services, Inc.


This analysis reflects lessons learned from TLG's involvement in theShippingport Station Decommissioning Project, completed in 1989, as well asthe decommissioning of the Cintichem reactor, hot cells, and associatedfacilities, completed in 1997. In addition, the planning and engineering for thePathfinder, Shoreham, Rancho Seco, Trojan, Yankee Rowe, Big Rock Point,Maine Yankee, Humboldt Bay-3, Oyster Creek, Connecticut Yankee, and SanOnofre-1 nuclear units have provided additional insight into the process, theregulatory aspects, and the technical challenges of decommissioningcommercial nuclear units.

Work Difficulty Factors

TLG has historically applied work difficulty adjustment factors (WDFs) toaccount for the inefficiencies in working in a power plant environment. WDFsare assigned to each unique set of unit factors, commensurate with theinefficiencies associated with working in confined, hazardous environments.The ranges used for the WDFs are as follows:

* Access Factor 10% to 20%

* Respiratory Protection Factor 10% to 50%

* Radiation/ALARA Factor 10% to 37%

* Protective Clothing Factor 10% to 30%

* Work Break Factor 8.33%

The factors and their associated range of values were developed in conjunctionwith the AIF/NESP-036 study. The application of the factors is discussed inmore detail in that publication.

Scheduling Program Durations

The unit factors, adjusted by the WDFs as described above, are applied againstthe inventory of materials to be removed in the radiological controlled areas.The resulting man-hours, or crew-hours, are used in the development of thedecommissioning program schedule, using resource loading and eventsequencing considerations. The scheduling of conventional removal anddismantling activities is based upon productivity information available fromthe "Building Construction Cost Data" publication.

An activity duration critical path is used to determine the totaldecommissioning program schedule. The schedule is relied upon in calculatingthe carrying costs, which include program management, administration, field

TLG Services, Inc.


engineering, equipment rental, and support services such as quality controland security. This systematic approach for assembling decommissioningestimates ensures a high degree of confidence in the reliability of the resultingcosts.

3.3 FINANCIAL COMPONENTS OF THE COST MODEL

TLG's proprietary decommissioning cost model, DECCER, produces a numberof distinct cost elements. These direct expenditures, however, do not comprisethe total cost to accomplish the project goal, i.e., license termination and siterestoration.

Inherent in any cost estimate that does not rely on historical data is theinability to specify the precise source of costs imposed by factors such as toolbreakage, accidents, illnesses, weather delays, and labor stoppages. In theDECCER cost model, contingency fulfills this role. Contingency is added toeach line item to account for costs that are difficult or impossible to developanalytically. Such costs are historically inevitable over the duration of a job ofthis magnitude; therefore, this cost analysis includes funds to cover these typesof expenses.

3.3.1 Contingency

The activity- and period-dependent costs are combined to develop thetotal decommissioning cost. A contingency is then applied on a line-itembasis, using one or more of the contingency types listed in theAIF/NESP-036 study. "Contingencies" are defined in the AmericanAssociation of Cost Engineers "Project and Cost Engineers'Handbook"[23] as "specific provision for unforeseeable elements of costwithin the defined project scope; particularly important where previousexperience relating estimates and actual costs has shown thatunforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur." Thecost elements in this analysis are based upon ideal conditions andmaximum efficiency; therefore, consistent with industry practice,contingency is included. In the AIF/NESP-036 study, the types ofunforeseeable events that are likely to occur in decommissioning arediscussed and guidelines are provided for percentage contingency ineach category. It should be noted that contingency, as used in thisanalysis, does not account for price escalation and inflation in the cost ofdecommissioning over the remaining operating life of the station.

Contingency funds are an integral part of the total cost to complete thedecommissioning process. Exclusion of this component puts at risk a

TLG Services, Inc.


successful completion of the intended tasks and, potentially, subsequentrelated activities. For this study, TLG examined the major activity-related problems (decontamination, segmentation, equipment handling,packaging, transport, and waste disposal) that necessitate acontingency. Individual activity contingencies ranged from 10% to 75%,depending on the degree of difficulty judged to be appropriate fromTLG's actual decommissioning experience. The contingency values usedin this study are as follows:

* Decontamination 50%* Contaminated Component Removal 25%* Contaminated Component Packaging 10%* Contaminated Component Transport 15%* Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal 25%

* Reactor Segmentation 75%* NSSS Component Removal 25%* Reactor Waste Packaging 25%* Reactor Waste Transport 25%* Reactor Vessel Component Disposal 50%* GTCC Disposal 15%

* Non-Radioactive Component Removal 15%* Heavy Equipment and Tooling 15%* Supplies 25%* Engineering 15%* Energy 15%

* Characterization and Termination Surveys 30%* Construction 15%* Taxes and Fees 10%* Insurance 10%* Staffing 15%

The contingency values are applied to the appropriate components of theestimate on a line item basis. A composite value is then reported at theend of the detailed estimate (Appendix C). For example, the compositecontingency value reported in Appendix C is approximately 16.1%.

TLG Services, Inc.


3.3.2 Financial Risk

In addition to the routine uncertainties addressed by contingency,another cost element that is sometimes necessary to consider whenbounding decommissioning costs relates to uncertainty, or risk.Examples can include changes in work scope, pricing, job performance,and other variations that could conceivably, but not necessarily, occur.Consideration is sometimes necessary to generate a level of confidencein the estimate, within a range of probabilities. TLG considers thesetypes of costs under the broad term "financial risk." Included within thecategory of financial risk are:

* Transition activities and costs: ancillary expenses associated witheliminating 50% to 80% of the site labor force shortly after thecessation of plant operations, added cost for worker separationpackages throughout the decommissioning program, national orcompany-mandated retraining, and retention incentives for keypersonnel.

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

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

* Regulatory changes, for example, affecting worker health and safety,site release criteria, waste transportation, and disposal.

* Policy decisions altering national commitments (e.g., in the ability toaccommodate certain waste forms for disposition), or in the timetablefor such, for example, the start and rate of acceptance of spent fuel bythe DOE.

" Pricing changes for basic inputs such as labor, energy, materials, anddisposal. Items subject to widespread price competition (such asmaterials) may not show significant variation; however, others suchas waste disposal could exhibit large pricing uncertainties,particularly in markets where limited access to services is available.

This cost study does not add any additional costs to the estimate forfinancial risk, since there is insufficient historical data from which to

TLG Services, Inc.


project future liabilities. Consequently, the areas of uncertainty or riskare revisited periodically and addressed through repeated revisions orupdates of the base estimate.

3.4 SITE-SPECIFIC CONSIDERATIONS

There are a number of site-specific considerations that affect the method fordismantling and removal of equipment from the site and the degree ofrestoration required. The cost impact of the considerations identified below isincluded in this cost study.

3.4.1 Spent Fuel Management

The cost to dispose the spent fuel generated from plant operations is notreflected within the estimate to decommission Crystal River. Ultimatedisposition of the spent fuel is within the province of the DOE's WasteManagement System, as defined by the Nuclear Waste Policy Act. Assuch, the disposal cost is financed by a 1 mill/kWhr surcharge paid intothe DOE's waste fund during operations. However, the NRC requireslicensees to establish a program to manage and provide funding for themanagement of all irradiated fuel at the reactor until title of the fuel istransferred to the Secretary of Energy. This funding requirement isfulfilled through inclusion of certain high-level waste cost elementswithin the estimate, as described below.

Completion of the decommissioning process is highly dependent uponthe DOE's ability to remove spent fuel from the site. The timing forremoval of spent fuel from the site is based upon the DOE's mostrecently published annual acceptance rates of 400 MTU/year for year 1,3,800 MTU total for years 2 through 4 and 3,000 MTU/year for year 5and beyond.[241 The DOE contracts provide mechanisms for altering theoldest fuel first allocation scheme, including emergency deliveries,exchanges of allocations amongst utilities and the option of providingpriority acceptance from permanently shutdown nuclear reactors.Because it is unclear how these mechanisms may operate once DOEbegins accepting spent fuel from commercial reactors, this studyassumes that DOE will accept spent fuel in an oldest fuel first order.

ISFSI

The ISFSI, constructed to support plant operations, will continue tooperate until such time that the transfer of spent fuel to the DOE can becompleted. Assuming that DOE commences repository operation in

TLG Services, Inc.


2020, Crystal River fuel is projected to be first removed from the sitebeginning in 2024. The process is expected to be completed by the year2057, based upon the current shutdown date. Based upon the expectedcompletion date for fuel transfer, the ISFSI will be emptied prior to thecommencement of decommissioning operations.

Operation and maintenance costs for the ISFSI are included within theestimate and address the cost for staffing the facility, as well as security,insurance, and licensing fees. The estimate includes the costs topurchase, load, and transfer the fuel storage canisters. Costs are alsoprovided for the final disposition of the facility once the transfer iscomplete.

Storage Canister Design

DOE has not identified any cask systems it may use. As such, for thepurpose of this analysis, the design and capacity of the ISFSI is basedupon the NUHOMS system, with a 32 fuel assembly capacity. A unitcost of approximately $1.46 million is used for pricing the internal multi-purpose canister (MPC) and the horizontal concrete storage module.

Canister Loading and Transfer

An average cost of $700,000 is used for the labor and equipment to sealeach spent fuel canister once it is loaded and to load/transport the spentfuel from the pool to the ISFSI pad. For estimating purposes, $100,000 isused to estimate the unit cost to transfer the fuel from the ISFSI into aDOE transport cask.

Operations and Maintenance

An annual cost (excluding labor) of approximately $764,000 and $89,000are used for operation and maintenance of the spent fuel pool and theISFSI, respectively. Pool operations are expected to continueapproximately six and one-half years after the cessation of operations.ISFSI operating costs are based upon a 41 year period of operationsfollowing plant shutdown.

ISFSI Design Considerations

A multi-purpose (storage and transport) dry shielded storage canisterwith a horizontal, reinforced concrete storage module is used as a basisfor the cost analysis. The final core off load, equivalent to 6 modules, are

TLG Services, Inc.


assumed to have some level of neutron-induced activation as a result ofthe long-term storage of the fuel (i.e., to levels exceeding free-releaselimits). The steel support structure is assumed to be removed from thesemodules for controlled disposal. The cost of the disposition of thismaterial, as well as the demolition of the ISFSI facility, is included inthe estimate.

GTCC

The dismantling of the reactor internals generates radioactive wasteconsidered unsuitable for shallow land disposal (i.e., low-levelradioactive waste with concentrations of radionuclides that exceed thelimits established by the NRC for Class C radioactive waste (GTCC)).The Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985assigned the Federal Government the responsibility for the disposal ofthis material. The Act also stated that the beneficiaries of the activitiesresulting in the generation of such radioactive waste bear all reasonablecosts of disposing of such waste. Although there are strong argumentsthat GTCC waste is covered by the spent fuel contract with DOE and thefees being paid pursuant to that contract, DOE has taken the positionthat GTCC waste is not covered by that contract or its fees and thatutilities, including Progress Energy, will have to pay an additional feefor the disposal of their GTCC waste. However, to date, the FederalGovernment has not identified a cost for disposing of GTCC or aschedule for acceptance. For purposes of this estimate, the GTCCradioactive waste has been assumed to be packaged in the samecanisters used to store spent fuel and disposed of as high-level waste, ata cost equivalent to that envisioned for the spent fuel.

The GTCC material is assumed to be shipped directly to a DOE facilityas it is generated from the segmentation of the reactor vessel internals.

3.4.2 Reactor Vessel and Internal Components

The reactor pressure vessel and internal components are segmented fordisposal in shielded, reusable transportation casks. Segmentation isperformed in the refueling canal, where a turntable and remote cutterare installed. The vessel is segmented in place, using a mast-mountedcutter supported off the lower head and directed from a shielded workplatform installed overhead in the reactor cavity. Transportation caskspecifications and transportation regulations dictate the segmentationand packaging methodology.

TLG Services, Inc.


Intact disposal of reactor vessel shells has been successfullydemonstrated at several of the sites currently being decommissioned.Access to navigable waterways has allowed these large packages to betransported to the Barnwell disposal site with minimal overland travel.Intact disposal of the reactor vessel and internal components canprovide savings in cost and worker exposure by eliminating the complexsegmentation requirements, isolation of the GTCC material, andtransport/storage of the resulting waste packages. Portland GeneralElectric (PGE) was able to dispose of the Trojan reactor as an intactpackage (including the internals). However, its location on the ColumbiaRiver simplified the transportation analysis since:

* the reactor package could be secured to the transport vehiclefor the entire journey, i.e., the package was not lifted duringtransport,

* there were no man-made or natural terrain features betweenthe plant site and the disposal location that could produce alarge drop, and

* transport speeds were very low, limited by the overlandtransport vehicle and the river barge.

As a member of the Northwest Compact, PGE had a site available fordisposal of the package - the US Ecology facility in Washington State.The characteristics of this arid site proved favorable in demonstratingcompliance with land disposal regulations.

It is not known whether this option will be available when the CrystalRiver unit ceases operation. Future viability of this option will dependupon the ultimate location of the disposal site, as well as the disposalsite licensee's ability to accept highly radioactive packages andeffectively isolate them from the environment. Consequently, the studyassumes the reactor vessel will require segmentation, as a boundingcondition. With lower levels of activation, the vessel shell can bepackaged more efficiently than the curie-limited internal components.This will allow the use of more conventional waste packages rather thanshielded casks for transport.

3.4.3 Primary System Components

Due to the natural decay of radionuclides over the dormancy period, achemical decontamination is not included.

TLG Services, Inc.


The following discussion deals with the removal and disposition of thesteam generators, but the techniques involved are also applicable toother large components, such as heat exchangers, component coolers,and the pressurizer. The steam generators' size and weight, as well astheir location within the reactor building, will ultimately determine theremoval strategy.

A trolley crane is set up for the removal of the generators. It can also beused to move portions of the steam generator cubicle walls and floorslabs from the reactor building to a location where they can bedecontaminated and transported to the material handling area.Interferences within the work area, such as grating, piping, and othercomponents are removed to create sufficient laydown space forprocessing these large components.

The generators are rigged for removal, disconnected from thesurrounding piping and supports, and maneuvered into the open areawhere they are lowered onto a dolly. Each generator is rotated into thehorizontal position for extraction from the reactor building and placedonto a multi-wheeled vehicle for transport to an on-site processing andstorage area.

The generators are segmented on-site to facilitate transportation. Eachunit is cut in half, across the tube bundle. The exposed ends are cappedand sealed. The interior volume is filled with low-density cellularconcrete for stabilization of the internal contamination. Each componentis then loaded onto a rail car for transport to the disposal facility.

Reactor coolant piping is cut from the reactor vessel once the water levelin the ve'ssel (used for personnel shielding during dismantling andcutting operations in and around the vessel) is dropped below the nozzlezone. The piping is boxed and transported by shielded van. The reactorcoolant pumps and motors are lifted out intact, packaged, andtransported for processing and/or disposal.

3.4.4 Retired Components

The estimate includes the cost to dispose of the retired reactor closurehead expected to be in storage at the site upon the cessation of plantoperations. The component is segmented, with the segments placed insea-land containers or custom containers for disposal. The retired steamgenerators, currently in storage at the site, will be segmented tofacilitate transportation.

TLG Services, Inc.


3.4.5 Main Turbine and Condenser

The main turbine is dismantled using conventional maintenanceprocedures. The turbine rotors and shafts are removed to a laydownarea. The lower turbine casings are removed from their anchors bycontrolled demolition. The main condensers are also disassembled andmoved to a laydown area. Material is then prepared for transportation toan off-site recycling facility where it is surveyed and designated foreither decontamination or volume reduction, conventional disposal, orcontrolled disposal. Components are packaged and readied for transportin accordance with the intended disposition.

3.4.6 Transportation Methods

Contaminated piping, components, and structural material other thanthe highly activated reactor vessel and internal components will qualifyas LSA-I, II or III or Surface Contaminated Object, SCO-I or II, asdescribed in Title 49.1251 The contaminated material will be packaged inIndustrial Packages (IP-1, IP-2, or IP-3, as defined in subpart 173.411)for transport unless demonstrated to qualify as their own shippingcontainers. The reactor vessel and internal components are expected tobe transported in accordance with Part 71, as Type B. It is conceivablethat the reactor, due to its limited specific activity, could qualify as LSAII or III. However, the high radiation levels on the outer surface wouldrequire that additional shielding be incorporated within the packagingso as to attenuate the dose to levels acceptable for transport.

Any fuel cladding failure that occurred during the lifetime of the plant isassumed to have released fission products at sufficiently low levels thatthe buildup of quantities of long-lived isotopes (e.g., 137Cs, 90Sr, ortransuranics) has been prevented from reaching levels exceeding thosethat permit the major reactor components to be shipped under currenttransportation regulations and disposal requirements.

Transport of the highly activated metal, produced in the segmentation ofthe reactor vessel and internal components, will be by shielded truckcask. Cask shipments may exceed 95,000 pounds, including vesselsegment(s), supplementary shielding, cask tie-downs, and tractor-trailer. The maximum level of activity per shipment assumedpermissible was based upon the license limits of the available shieldedtransport casks. The segmentation scheme for the vessel and internalsegments is designed to meet these limits.

TLG Services, Inc.


The transport of large intact components (e.g., large heat exchangersand other oversized components) will be by a combination of truck, rail,and/or multi-wheeled transporter.

Transportation costs for material requiring controlled disposal are basedupon the mileage to the EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah and theWaste Control Specialist facility in Andrews County, Texas.Transportation costs for off-site waste processing are based upon themileage to Memphis, Tennessee. Truck transport costs are estimatedusing published tariffs from Tri-State Motor Transit.[261

3.4.7 Low-Level Radioactive Waste Disposal

To the greatest extent practical, metallic material generated in thedecontamination and dismantling processes is processed to reduce thetotal cost of controlled disposal. Material meeting the regulatory and/orsite release criterion, is released as scrap, requiring no further costconsideration. Conditioning (preparing the material to meet the wasteacceptance criteria of the disposal site) and recovery of the waste streamis performed off site at a licensed processing center. Any materialleaving the site is subject to a survey and release charge, at a minimum.

The mass of radioactive waste generated during the variousdecommissioning activities at the site is shown on a line-item basis inAppendix C, and summarized in Section 5. The quantified wastesummaries shown in these tables are consistent with 10 CFR Part 61classifications. Commercially available steel containers are presumed tobe used for the disposal of piping, small components, and concrete.Larger components can serve as their own containers, with properclosure of all openings, access ways, and penetrations. The volumes arecalculated based on the exterior package dimensions for containerizedmaterial or a specific calculation for components serving as their ownwaste containers.

The more highly activated reactor components will be shipped inreusable, shielded truck casks with disposable liners. In calculatingdisposal costs, the burial fees are applied against the liner volume, aswell as the special handling requirements of the payload. Packagingefficiencies are lower for the highly activated materials (greater thanType A quantity waste), where high concentrations of gamma-emittingradionuclides limit the capacity of the shipping canisters.

TLG Services, Inc.


Disposal fees are based upon estimated charges, with surcharges addedfor the highly activated components, for example, generated in thesegmentation of the reactor vessel. The cost to dispose of the majority ofthe material generated from the decontamination and dismantlingactivities is based upon the current cost for disposal at EnergySolutionsfacility in Clive, Utah. As a proxy, disposition of the Class B and C wasteis based upon the last published rate schedule for non-compact waste forthe Barnwell facility.

3.4.8 Site Conditions Following Decommissioning

The NRC will terminate the site license if it determines that siteremediation has been performed in accordance with the licensetermination plan, and that the terminal radiation survey and associateddocumentation demonstrate that the facility is suitable for release. TheNRC's involvement in the decommissioning process will end at thispoint. Local building codes and state environmental regulations willdictate the next step in the decommissioning process, as well as theowner's own future plans for the site.

Non-essential structures or buildings severely damaged indecontamination process are removed to a nominal depth of three feetbelow grade. Concrete rubble generated from demolition activities isprocessed and made available as clean fill for the power blockfoundations. Excess construction debris is trucked off site as analternative to onsite disposal. The excavations will be regraded suchthat the power block area will have a final contour consistent withadjacent surroundings. Certain facilities, which have continued use orvalue (e.g., the switchyard) are left intact.

The estimate includes the remediation of the west settling pond(approximately (500 cubic yards). This assumption may be affected bycontinued plant operations and/or future regulatory actions, such as thedevelopment of site-specific release criteria. Costs are also included forthe remediation of the firing range (i.e., removal of soil containing leadresidue).

3.5 ASSUMPTIONS

The following are the major assumptions made in the development of theestimate for decommissioning the site.

TLG Services, Inc.


3.5.1 Estimating Basis

The study follows the principles of ALARA through the use of workduration adjustment factors. These factors address the impact ofactivities such as radiological protection instruction, mock-up training,and the use of respiratory protection and protective clothing. The factorslengthen a task's duration, increasing costs and lengthening the overallschedule. ALARA planning is considered in the costs for engineering andplanning, and in the development of activity specifications and detailedprocedures. Changes to worker exposure limits may impact thedecommissioning cost and project schedule.

3.5.2 Labor Costs

The craft labor required to decontaminate and dismantle the nuclearunit is acquired through standard site contracting practices. The currentcost of labor at the site is used as an estimating basis.

Progress Energy, as the licensee, will continue to provide site operationssupport, including decommissioning program management, licensing,radiological protection, and site security. A Decommissioning OperationsContractor (DOC) will provide the supervisory staff needed to overseethe labor subcontractors, consultants, and specialty contractors neededto perform the work required for the decontamination and dismantlingeffort. The DOC will also provide the engineering services needed todevelop activity specifications, detailed procedures, detailed activationanalyses, and support field activities such as structural modifications.

Personnel costs are based upon average salary information provided byProgress Energy. Overhead costs are included for site and corporatesupport, reduced commensurate with the staffing of the project.

Security, while reduced from operating levels, is maintained throughoutthe decommissioning for access control, material control, and tosafeguard the spent fuel.

3.5.3 Design Conditions

Any fuel cladding failure that occurred during the lifetime of the plant isassumed to have released fission products at sufficiently low levels thatthe buildup of quantities of long-lived isotopes (e.g., 137Cs, 90Sr, ortransuranics) has been prevented from reaching levels exceeding those

TLG Services, Inc.


that permit the major NSSS components to be shipped under currenttransportation regulations and disposal requirements.

The curie contents of the vessel and internals at final shutdown arederived from those listed in NUREG/CR-3474.[271 Actual estimates arederived from the curie/gram values contained therein and adjusted forthe different mass of the Crystal River components, projected operatinglife, and period of decay. Additional short-lived isotopes were derivedfrom NUREG/CR-0130[28] and NUREG/CR-0672,[291 and benchmarked tothe long-lived values from NUREG/CR-3474.

The control elements are disposed of along with the spent fuel, i.e., thereis no additional cost provided for their disposal.

Activation of the reactor building is confined to the biological shield.More extensive activation (at very low levels) of the interior structureswithin reactor buildings has been detected at several reactors and theowners have elected to dispose of the affected material at a controlledfacility rather than reuse the material as fill on site or send it to alandfill. The ultimate disposition of the material removed from thereactor building will depend upon the site release criteria selected, aswell as the designated end use for the site.

3.5.4 General

Transition Activities

Existing warehouses are cleared of non-essential material and remainfor use by Progress Energy and its subcontractors. The plant's operatingstaff performs the following activities at no additional cost or credit tothe project during the transition period:

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

* Drain and collect acids, caustics, and other chemical stores forrecycle and/or sale.

* Process operating waste inventories, i.e., the estimate does notaddress the disposition of any legacy wastes; the disposal ofoperating wastes during this initial period is not considered adecommissioning expense.

TLG Services, Inc.


Scrap and Salvage

The existing plant equipment is considered obsolete and suitable forscrap as deadweight quantities only. Progress Energy will makeeconomically reasonable efforts to salvage equipment following finalplant shutdown. However, dismantling techniques assumed by TLG forequipment in this analysis are not consistent with removal techniquesrequired for salvage (resale) of equipment. Experience has indicated thatsome buyers wanted equipment stripped down to very specificrequirements before they would consider purchase. This requiredexpensive rework after the equipment had been removed from itsinstalled location. Since placing a salvage value on this machinery andequipment would be speculative, and the value would be small incomparison to the overall decommissioning expenses, this analysis doesnot attempt to quantify the value that an owner may realize based uponthose efforts.

It is assumed, for purposes of this analysis, that any value received fromthe sale of scrap generated in the dismantling process would be morethan offset by the on-site processing costs. The dismantling techniquesassumed in the decommissioning estimate do not include the additionalcost for size reduction and preparation to meet "furnace ready"conditions. For example, the recovery of copper from electrical cablingmay require the removal and disposition of any contaminated insulation,an added expense. With a volatile market, the potential profit margin inscrap recovery is highly speculative, regardless of the ability to freerelease this material. This assumption is an implicit recognition of scrapvalue in the disposal of clean metallic waste at no additional cost to theproject.

Furniture, tools, mobile equipment such as forklifts, trucks, bulldozers,and other property is removed at no cost or credit to thedecommissioning project. Disposition may include relocation to otherfacilities. Spare parts are also made available for alternative use.

Energy

For estimating purposes, the plant is assumed to be de-energized, withthe exception of those facilities associated with spent fuel storage.Replacement power costs are used to calculate the cost of energyconsumed during decommissioning for tooling, lighting, ventilation, andessential services.

TLG Services, Inc.


Insurance

Costs for continuing coverage (nuclear liability and property insurance)following cessation of plant operations and during decommissioning areincluded and based upon current operating premiums. Reductions inpremiums, throughout the decommissioning process, are based upon theguidance and the limits for coverage defined in the NRC's proposedrulemaking "Financial Protection Requirements for PermanentlyShutdown Nuclear Power Reactors."[30° The NRC's financial protectionrequirements are based on various reactor (and spent fuel)configurations.

Taxes

The tax model is based upon the current tax obligation by the owers.Taxes on plant systems and structures are included (at a reduced level)and further reduced as dismantling operations proceed. Taxes areincluded on the land and the ISFSI (during its operation), throughoutthe decommissioning timeframe.

Site Modifications

The perimeter fence and in-plant security barriers will be moved, asappropriate, to conform to the Site Security Plan in force during thevarious stages of the project.

3.6 COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY

Schedules of expenditures are provided in Tables 3.1 through 3.4. The tablesdelineate the cost contributors by year of expenditures as well as costcontributor (e.g., labor, materials, and waste disposal).

The cost elements are also assigned to one of three subcategories: "LicenseTermination," "Spent Fuel Management," and "Site Restoration." Thesubcategory "License Termination" is used to accumulate costs that areconsistent with "decommissioning" as defined by the NRC in its financialassurance regulations (i.e., 10 CFR §50.75). In situations where the long-termmanagement of spent fuel is not an issue, the cost reported for this subcategoryis generally sufficient to terminate the unit's operating license.

The "Spent Fuel Management" subcategory contains costs associated with theconstruction of an ISFSI, the containerization and transfer of spent fuel to theISFSI over the six and one-half years of post-shutdown pool operations, and

TLG Services, Inc.


the management of the ISFSI until such time that the transfer of all fuel fromthis facility to an off-site location (e.g., geologic repository) is complete.

"Site Restoration" is used to capture costs associated with the dismantling anddemolition of buildings and facilities demonstrated to be free fromcontamination. This includes structures never exposed to radioactivematerials, as well as those facilities that have been decontaminated toappropriate levels. Structures are removed to a depth of three feet andbackfilled to conform to local grade.

Decommissioning costs are reported in 2011 dollars. Costs are not inflated,escalated, or discounted over the period of expenditure (or projected lifetime ofthe plant). The schedule is based upon the detailed activity costs reported inAppendix C, along with the timeline presented in Section 4.

TLG Services, Inc.


Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Section 3, Page 19 of 26

TABLE 3.1SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES


Equipment &Labor Materials Energy

LLRWDisposalYear Other Total

2016 3,035 103 94 3 969 4,2042017 38,811 2,388 1,179 418 12,447 55,2432018 24,371 6,630 636 1,335 28,746 61,7182019 12,067 5,027 236 14 18,718 36,0622020 12,100 5,040 236 14 18,769 36,1602021 12,067 5,027 236 14 18,718 36,0622022 12,067 5,027 236 14 18,718 36,0622023 8,019 2,367 168 10 9,719 20,2812024 5,078 426 118 7 3,159 8,7882025 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642026 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642027 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642028 5,078 426 118 7 3,159 8,7882029 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642030 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642031 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642032 5,078 426 118 7 3,159 8,7882033 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642034 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642035 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642036 1 5,078 426 118 7 3,159 8,7882037 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642038 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642039 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642040 1 5,078 426 118 7 3,159 8,7882041 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642042 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642043 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642044 1 5,078 426 118 7 3,159 8,7882045 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642046 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642047 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642048 1 5,078 426 118 7 3,159 8,7882049 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642050 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642051 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,764

TLG Services, Inc.



TABLE 3.1 (continued)SCHEDULE OF TOTAL ANNUAL EXPENDITURES


Equipment & LLRWLabor Materials Energy DisposalYear Other Total

2052 5,078 426 118 7 3,159 8,7882053 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642054 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642055 5,064 425 118 7 3,150 8,7642056 5,078 426 118 7 3,159 8,7882057 5,058 425 118 7 3,148 8,7552058 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342059 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342060 2,869 299 118 6 2,156 5,4482061 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342062 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342063 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342064 2,869 299 118 6 2,156 5,4482065 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342066 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342067 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342068 2,869 299 118 6 2,156 5,4482069 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342070 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342071 4,656 472 176 8 2,276 7,5872072 36,052 3,622 1,182 32 4,470 45,3582073 45,234 22,009 1,146 18,390 13,878 100,6572074 46,421 23,157 1,014 24,118 15,270 109,9802075 44,354 8,495 884 12,783 7,629 74,1452076 30,089 3,499 337 2,193 3,450 39,5682077 17,331 10,279 118 0 655 28,3822078 10,541 6,252 72 0 398 17,263

Total 566,727 127,742 13,491 59,657 309,979 1,077,596

Note: Columns may not add due to rounding

TLG Services, Inc.



TABLE 3.2SCHEDULE OF LICENSE TERMINATION EXPENDITURES




2016 3,035 103 94 3 823 4,0582017 38,811 2,388 1,179 418 10,610 53,4052018 19,075 3,990 568 1,335 18,447 43,4152019 2,862 438 118 14 2,175 5,6072020 2,870 439 118 14 2,181 5,6222021 2,862 438 118 14 2,175 5,6072022 2,862 438 118 14 2,175 5,6072023 2,862 362 118 10 2,174 5,5252024 1 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792025 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652026 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652027 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652028 1 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792029 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652030 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652031 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652032 1 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792033 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652034 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652035 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652036 1 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792037 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652038 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652039 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652040 1 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792041 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652042 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652043 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652044 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792045 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,465.2046 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652047 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652048 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792049 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652050 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652051 2,862 306 118 7 2,17 5,465

TLG Services, Inc.



TABLE 3.2 (continued)SCHEDULE OF LICENSE TERMINATION EXPENDITURES




2052 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792053 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652054 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652055 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4652056 2,869 307 118 7 2,179 5,4792057 2,862 306 118 7 2,173 5,4642058 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342059 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342060 2,869 299 118 6 2,156 5,4482061 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342062 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342063 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342064 2,869 299 118 6 2,156 5,4482065 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342066 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342067 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342068 2,869 299 118 6 2,156 5,4482069 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342070 2,862 298 118 6 2,150 5,4342071 4,621 472 176 8 2,276 7,5532072 35,366 3,622 1,182 32 4,470 44,6722073 43,439 21,970 1,146 18,390 13,820 98,7662074 44,947 23,086 1,014 24,109 14,794 107,9492075 43,442 8,421 884 12,763 6,699 72,2092076 28,520 2,641 327 2,189 3,239 36,9162077 121 0 0 0 0 1212078 74 0 0 0 0 74

Total 410,355 83,088 12,703 59,624 187,946 753,717


TLG Services, Inc.



TABLE 3.3SCHEDULE OF SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURES



LLRWDisposalYear Energy Other Total

2016 0 0 0 0 146 1462017 0 0 0 0 1,838 1,8382018 5,296 2,640 68 0 10,298 18,3022019 9,205 4,589 118 0 16,543 30,455

2020 9,231 4,601 118 0 16,588 30,5382021 9,205 4,589 118 0 16,543 30,4552022 9,205 4,589 118 0 16,543 30,4552023 5,157 2,005 50 0 7,545 14,7572024 2,208 120 0 0 980 3,3092025 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002026 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002027 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002028 2,208 120 0 0 980 3,3092029 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002030 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002031 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002032 2,208 120 0 0 980 3,3092033 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002034 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002035 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002036 2,208 120 0 0 980 3,3092037 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002038 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002039 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002040 2,208 120 0 0 980 3,3092041 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002042 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002043 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002044 2,208 120 0 0 980 3,3092045 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002046 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002047 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002048 2,208 120 0 0 980 3,3092049 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002050 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002051 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,300

TLG Services, Inc.



TABLE 3.3 (continued)SCHEDULE OF SPENT FUEL MANAGEMENT EXPENDITURES




2052 2,208 120 0 0 980 3,3092053 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002054 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002055 2,202 120 0 0 978 3,3002056 2,208 120 0 0 980 3,3092057 2,196 119 0 0 975 3,2902058 0 0 0 0 0 02059 0 0 0 0 0 02060 0 0 0 0 0 02061 0 0 0 0 0 02062 0 0 0 0 0 02063 0 0 0 0 0 02064 0 0 0 0 0 02065 0 0 0 0 0 02066 0 0 0 0 0 02067 0 0 0 0 0 02068 0 0 0 0 0 02069 0 0 0 0 0 02070 0 0 0 0 0 02071 0 0 0 0 0 02072 124 82 0 29 1,347 1,5832073 0 0 0 0 0 02074 0 0 0 0 0 02075 0 0 0 0 0 02076 156 435 0 3 193 7882077 0 0 0 0 0 02078 79 239 0 0 20 338

Total 122,583 27,839 589 32 120,866 271,910


TLG Services, Inc.



TABLE 3.4SCHEDULE OF SITE RESTORATION EXPENDITURES




2016 0 0 0 0 0 02017 0 0 0 0 0 02018 0 0 0 0 0 02019 0 0 0 0 0 02020 0 0 0 0 0 02021 0 0 0 0 0 02022 0 0 0 0 0 02023 0 0 0 0 0 02024 0 0 0 0 0 02025 0 0 0 0 0 02026 0 0 0 0 0 02027 0 0 0 0 0 02028 0 0 0 0 0 02029 0 0 0 0 0 0

2030 0 0 0 0 0 02031 0 0 0 0 0 02032 0 0 0 0 0 02033 0 0 0 0 0 02034 0 0 0 0 0 02035 0 0 0 0 0 02036 0 0 0 0 0 02037 0 0 0 0 0 02038 0 0 0 0 0 02039 0 0 0 0 0 02040 0 0 0 0 0 02041 0 0 0 0 0 02042 0 0 0 0 0 02043 0 0 0 0 0 02044 0 0 0 0 0 02045 0 0 0 0 0 02046 0 0 0 0 0 02047 0 0 0 0 0 02048 0 0 0 0 0 02049 0 0 0 0 0 02050 0 0 0 0 0 02051 0 0 0 0 0 0

TLG Services, Inc.



TABLE 3.4 (continued)SCHEDULE OF SITE RESTORATION EXPENDITURES




2052 0 0 0 0 0 02053 0 0 0 0 0 02054 0 0 0 0 0 02055 0 0 0 0 0 02056 0 0 0 0 0 02057 0 0 0 0 0 02058 0 0 0 0 0 02059 0 0 0 0 0 02060 0 0 0 0 0 02061 0 0 0 0 0 02062 0 0 0 0 0 02063 0 0 0 0 0 02064 0 0 0 0 0 02065 0 0 0 0 0 02066 0 0 0 0 0 02067 0 0 0 0 0 02068 0 0 0 0 0 02069 0 0 0 0 0 02070 0 0 0 0 0 02071 34 0 0 0 0 342072 686 0 0 0 0 6862073 1,794 38 0 0 58 1,8902074 1,436 46 0 0 58 1,5402075 827 17 0 0 0 8442076 1,544 815 10 0 51 2,4202077 17,079 9,886 118 0 622 27,7052078 10,388 6,013 72 0 378 16,850

Total 33,789 16,814 199 0 1,167 51,969


TLG Services, Inc.


4. SCHEDULE ESTIMATE

The schedule for the decommissioning scenario considered in this study follow thesequences presented in the AIF/NESP-036 study, with minor changes to reflect recentexperience and site-specific constraints. In addition, the scheduling has been revisedto reflect the spent fuel management plan described in Section 3.4.1.

A schedule or sequence of activities for the deferred decommissioning portion of theSAFSTOR alternative is presented in Figure 4.1. The scheduling sequence assumesthat fuel has been removed from the site prior to the start of decontamination anddismantling activities. The key activities listed in the schedule do not reflect a one-to-one correspondence with those activities in the cost tables, but reflect dividingsome activities for clarity and combining others for convenience. The schedule wasprepared using the "Microsoft Project Professional 2010" computer software.[311

4.1 SCHEDULE ESTIMATE ASSUMPTIONS

The schedule reflects the results of a precedence network developed for the sitedecommissioning activities, i.e., a PERT (Program Evaluation and ReviewTechnique) Software Package. The *work activity durations used in theprecedence network reflect the actual person-hour estimates from the cost table,adjusted by stretching certain activities over their slack range and shifting thestart and end dates of others. The following assumptions were made in thedevelopment of the decommissioning schedule:

* The spent fuel handling area in the auxiliary building is isolated untilsuch time that all spent fuel has been discharged from the spent fuelpool to the ISFSI.

* All work (except vessel and internals removal) is performed during an8-hour workday, 5 days per week, with no overtime. There are elevenpaid holidays per year.

* Reactor and internals removal activities are performed by usingseparate crews for different activities working on different shifts, with acorresponding backshift charge for the second shift.

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

TLG Services, Inc.


For plant systems removal, the systems with the longest removaldurations in areas on the critical path are considered to determinethe duration of the activity.

4.2 PROJECT SCHEDULE

The period-dependent costs presented in the detailed cost tables are based uponthe durations developed in the schedules for decommissioning. Durations areestablished between several milestones in each project period; these durationsare used to establish a critical path for the entire project. In turn, the criticalpath duration for each period is used as the basis for determining the period-dependent costs.

The project timeline is provided in Figure 4.2 with milestone dates based on a2016 shutdown date. The fuel pool is emptied approximately six and one-halfyears after shutdown, while ISFSI operations continue until the DOE cancomplete the transfer of assemblies to its geologic repository. Deferreddecommissioning is assumed to commence so that the operating license isterminated within a 60-year period from the cessation of plant operations.

TLG Services, Inc.


FIGURE 4.1ACTIVITY SCHEDULE


STask Name2074 2075 2076 2077 20781OTs~meQ 2Q Q1 QI Q2 1 3 104 1 1. Q2 IQ3 1(4 1Q2I Q2 IQ3 IQ4 IQ1I Q2 IQ3 IQ4 IQ1I Q2 IQ3 IQ4 IQ1I IQ21

1 PERIOD 3a - Reactivate Site

2 Reconfigure plant

3 Prepare activity specifications

4 Perform site characterization

5 DOC staff mobilized

6 PERIOD 3b - Decommissioning Prep

7 Reconfigure plant

a Prepare detailed work procedures

9 Decon NSSS

10 PERIOD 4a - Large Component Removal --

11 Prep for reactor vessel removal

12 Reactor vessel & internals

13 Remaining large NSSS components

14 Non-essential systems

15 Main turbine/generator

16 Main condenser

27 Reactor building systems removal

18 Systems removal not supporting RPV

19 PERIOD 4b - Site Decontamination

20 Reactor building systems removal

21 Reactor building Decon

22 Remaining Decom Activities

23 Removal of remaining systems

24 License termination plan approved

25 Decontamination of remaining buildings

26 PERIOD 4e- Ucense Termination

27 Final site survey

28 NRC review & approval

29 Part 50 license terminated

30 PERIOD 5b- site restoration

31 Building demoltions, backfill, landscape

32 Decommissioning Complete

Legend: 1. Blue bars indicate overall duration of activity

2. Red bars indicate critical path activities

3. Diamond symbols indicate major milestones

TLG Services, Inc.


FIGURE 4.2DECOMMISSIONING TIMELINE

(not to scale)

ShutdownDecember 3, 2016

1Operating License

Terminated

IPeriod 1

SAFSTORPreparations

Period 2Dormancy

Period 3Decommissioning

Preparations

Period 4Deferred

Decommissioning

Period 5Site

Restoration

12/2016 06/2018 12/2071 06/2073 12/2076 08/2078

Wet TransferComplete

Transfer ofIrradiated Fuel

from Pool to ISFS1

06/2023Dry Transfer

Complete

TTransfer of

Irradiated Fuelfrom ISFSI to DOE

2023 2057

TLG Services, Inc.


5. RADIOACTIVE WASTES

The objectives of the decommissioning process are the removal of all radioactivematerial from the site that would restrict its future use and the termination of theNRC license. This currently requires the remediation of all radioactive material atthe site in excess of applicable legal limits. Under the Atomic Energy Act,[321 theNRC is responsible for protecting the public from sources of ionizing radiation. Title10 of the Code of Federal Regulations delineates the production, utilization, anddisposal of radioactive materials and processes. In particular, Part 71 definesradioactive material as it pertains to transportation and Part 61 specifies itsdisposition.

Most of the materials being transported for controlled burial are categorized as LowSpecific Activity (LSA) or Surface Contaminated Object (SCO) materials containingType A quantities, as defined in 49 CFR Parts 173-178. Shipping containers arerequired to be Industrial Packages (IP-1, IP-2 or IP-3, as defined in 10 CFR§ 173.411). For this study, commercially available steel containers are presumed tobe used for the disposal of piping, small components, and concrete. Largercomponents can serve as their own containers, with proper closure of all openings,access ways, and penetrations.

The volumes of radioactive waste generated during the various decommissioningactivities at the site are shown on a line-item basis in Appendix C, and summarizedin Table 5.1. The quantified waste volume summaries shown in these tables areconsistent with Part 61 classifications. The volumes are calculated based on theexterior dimensions for containerized material and on the displaced volume ofcomponents serving as their own waste containers.

The reactor vessel and internals are categorized as large quantity shipments and,accordingly, will be shipped in reusable, shielded truck casks with disposable liners.In calculating disposal costs, the burial fees are applied against the liner volume, aswell as the special handling requirements .of the payload. Packaging efficiencies arelower for the highly activated materials (greater than Type A quantity waste),where high concentrations of gamma-emitting radionuclides limit the capacity ofthe shipping canisters.

No process system containing/handling radioactive substances at shutdown ispresumed to meet material release criteria by decay alone (i.e., systems radioactiveat shutdown will still be radioactive over the time period during which thedecommissioning is accomplished, due to the presence of long-lived radionuclides).While the dose rates decrease with time, radionuclides such as 137Cs will stillcontrol the disposition requirements.

TLG Services, Inc.


The waste material produced in the decontamination and dismantling of thenuclear unit is primarily generated during Period 4. The assumed disposition ofwaste material is shown in Figure 5.1. Material that is considered potentiallycontaminated when removed from the radiological controlled area is sent toprocessing facilities in Tennessee for conditioning and disposal. Heavilycontaminated components and activated materials are routed for controlleddisposal. The disposal volumes reported in the tables reflect the savings resultingfrom reprocessing and recycling.

Disposal fees are based upon estimated charges, with surcharges added for thehighly activated components, for example, generated in the segmentation of thereactor vessel. The cost to dispose of the majority of the material generated from thedecontamination and dismantling activities is based upon the current cost fordisposal at EnergySolutions facility in Clive, Utah. Separate rates were used forcontainerized waste and large components, including the steam generators andreactor coolant pump motors. Demolition debris including miscellaneous steel,scaffolding, and concrete was disposed of at a bulk rate. The decommissioning wastestream also included resins and dry active waste. As a proxy, disposition of theClass B and C waste is based upon the last published rate schedule for non-compactwaste for the Barnwell facility.

TLG Services, Inc.



FIGURE 5.1DECOMMISSIONING WASTE DISPOSITION

TLG Services, Inc.



TABLE 5.1DECOMMISSIONING WASTE SUMMARY

Waste Volume Mass

Waste Cost Basis Class [1] (cubic feet) (pounds)

Low-Level RadioactiveWaste (near-surface EnergySolutions A 133,758 9,951,211disposal)

Barnwell B 250 27,400

Barnwell C 501 57,900

Greater than Class C Spent Fuel(geologic repository) Equivalent GTCC 2,142 423,646

Processed/Conditioned Recycling(off-site recycling center) Vendors A 234,503 11,217,670

Total [21 371,154 21,677,830

[1] Waste is classified according to the requirements as delineated in Title10 CFR, Part 61.55

[2] Columns may not add due to rounding.

TLG Services, Inc.


6. RESULTS

The analysis to estimate the cost to decommission Crystal River relied upon thesite-specific, technical information developed for a previous analysis prepared in2008. While not an engineering study, the estimate provides Progress Energy withsufficient information to assess their financial obligations, as they pertain to theeventual decommissioning of the nuclear station.

The estimate described in this report is based on numerous fundamentalassumptions, including regulatory requirements, project contingencies, low-levelradioactive waste disposal practices, high-level radioactive waste managementoptions, and site restoration requirements. The decommissioning scenarios assumecontinued operation of the station's spent fuel pool for a minimum of six and onehalf years following the cessation of operations for continued cooling of theassemblies. An ISFSI will be used to safeguard the spent fuel, once sufficientlycooled, until such time that the DOE can complete the transfer of the assemblies toits repository.

The cost projected for deferred decommissioning (SAFSTOR) is estimated to be$1,077.6 million. The majority of this cost (approximately 70.0%) is associated withplacing the unit in storage, ongoing caretaking of the unit during dormancy, and theeventual physical decontamination and dismantling of the nuclear unit so that theoperating license can be terminated. Another 25.2% is associated with themanagement, interim storage, and eventual transfer of the spent fuel. Theremaining 4.8% is for the demolition of the designated structures and limitedrestoration of the site.

The primary cost contributors, identified in Table 6.1, are either labor-related orassociated with the management and disposition of the radioactive waste. Programmanagement is the largest single contributor to the overall cost. The magnitude ofthe expense is a function of both the size of the organization required to manage thedecommissioning, as well as the duration of the program. It is assumed, forpurposes of this analysis, that Progress Energy will oversee the decommissioningprogram, using a DOC to manage the decommissioning labor force and theassociated subcontractors. The size and composition of the managementorganization varies with the decommissioning phase and associated site activities.However, once the operating license is terminated, the staff is substantially reducedfor the conventional demolition and restoration of the site.

As described in this report, the spent fuel pool will remain operational for aminimum of six and one half years following the cessation of operations. The poolwill be isolated and an independent spent fuel island created. Over the six and one-

TLG Services, Inc.


half-year period, the spent fuel will be packaged into transportable steel canistersfor interim storage at the ISFSI. Dry storage of the fuel provides additionalflexibility in the event the DOE is not able to meet the current timetable forcompleting the transfer of assemblies to an off-site facility and minimizes theassociated caretaking expenses.

The cost for waste disposal includes only those costs associated with the controlleddisposition of the low-level radioactive waste generated from decontamination anddismantling activities, including plant equipment and components, structuralmaterial, filters, resins and dry-active waste. As described in Section 5, theEnergySolutions facility in Utah is the assumed destination for the majority of thelow-level radioactive material required controlled disposal, with the remaining,high-activity waste destined for the newly opened Waste Control Specialists facilityin Texas. Components, requiring additional isolation from the environment (i.e.,GTCC), are packaged for geologic disposal. The cost of geologic disposal is basedupon a cost equivalent for spent fuel.

A significant portion of the metallic waste is designated for additional processingand treatment at an off-site facility. Processing reduces the volume of materialrequiring controlled disposal through such techniques and processes as survey andsorting, decontamination, and volume reduction. The material that cannot beunconditionally released is packaged for controlled disposal at one of the currentlyoperating facilities. The cost identified in the summary tables for processing is all-inclusive, incorporating the ultimate disposition of the material.

Removal costs reflect the labor-intensive nature of the decommissioning process, aswell as the management controls required to ensure a safe and successful program.Decontamination and packaging costs also have a large labor component that isbased upon prevailing union wages. Non-radiological demolition is a naturalextension of the decommissioning process. The methods employed indecontamination and dismantling are generally destructive and indiscriminate ininflicting collateral damage. With a work force mobilized to supportdecommissioning operations, non-radiological demolition can be an integratedactivity and a logical expansion of the work being performed in the process ofterminating the operating license. Prompt demolition reduces future liabilities andcan be more cost effective than deferral, due to the deterioration of the facilities(and therefore the working conditions) with time.

The reported cost for transport includes the tariffs and surcharges associated withmoving large components and/or overweight shielded casks overland, as well as thegeneral expense, e.g., labor and fuel, of transporting material to the destinationsidentified in this report. For purposes of this analysis, material is primarily movedoverland by truck.

TLG Services, Inc.


Decontamination is used to reduce the plant's radiation fields and minimize workerexposure. Slightly contaminated material or material located within a contaminatedarea is sent to an off-site processing center, i.e., this analysis does not assume thatcontaminated plant components and equipment can be decontaminated foruncontrolled release in-situ. Centralized processing centers have proven to be amore economical means of handling the large volumes of material produced in thedismantling of a nuclear unit.

License termination survey costs are associated with the labor intensive andcomplex activity of verifying that contamination has been removed from the site tothe levels specified by the regulating agency. This process involves a systematicsurvey of all remaining plant surface areas and surrounding environs, sampling,isotopic analysis, and documentation of the findings. The status of any plantcomponents and materials not removed in the decommissioning process will alsorequire confirmation and will add to the expense of surveying the facilities alone.

The remaining costs include allocations for heavy equipment and temporaryservices, as well as for other expenses such as regulatory fees and the premiums fornuclear insurance. While site operating costs are greatly reduced following thefinal cessation of plant operations, certain administrative functions do need to bemaintained either at a basic functional or regulatory level.

TLG Services, Inc.



TABLE 6.1DECOMMISSIONING COST ELEMENT CONTRIBUTION

(thousands of 2011 dollars)

Cost Element Total Percentage

Decontamination 12,409 1.2Removal 101,075 9.4Packaging 22,681 2.1Transportation 11,922 1.1Waste Disposal 46,245 4.3Off-site Waste Processing 23,246 2.2Program Management [1] 306,020 28.4Site Security 183,679 17.0Spent Fuel Pool Isolation 11,822 1.1Spent Fuel Management [21 129,013 12.0Insurance and Regulatory Fees 61,040 5.7Energy 13,491 1.3Characterization and Licensing Surveys 15,110 1.4Property Taxes 87,216 8.1Utility Site Indirect 19,326 1.8Corporate Allocations 14,257 1.3Miscellaneous Equipment 19,045 1.8

Total [31 1,077,596 100

Cost Element Total Percentage

License Termination 753,717 70.0Spent Fuel Management 271,910 25.2Site Restoration 51,969 4.8

Total [31 1,077.,596 100

[1] Includes engineering and security costs[21 Excludes program management costs (staffing) but includes costs for spent fuel

loading/packaging costs/spent fuel pool O&M and EP fees[31 Columns may not add due to rounding

TLG Services, Inc.


7. REFERENCES

1. "Decommissioning Cost Analysis for the Crystal River Plant, Unit 3," DocumentNo. P23-1597-002, Rev. 0, TLG Services, Inc., October 2008

2. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50.75, "Reporting andrecordkeeping for decommissioning planning," Subpart (f0(3)

3. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 30, 40, 50, 51, 70 and 72,"General Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities," NuclearRegulatory Commission, Federal Register Volume 53, Number 123 (p 24018 etseq.), June 27, 1988

4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Guide 1.159, "Assuring theAvailability of Funds for Decommissioning Nuclear Reactors," October 2003

5. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "RadiologicalCriteria for License Termination"

6. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 20 and 50, "EntombmentOptions for Power Reactors," Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FederalRegister Volume 66, Number 200, October 16, 2001

7. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Parts 2, 50 and 51,"Decommissioning of Nuclear Power Reactors," Nuclear RegulatoryCommission, Federal Register Volume 61 (p 39278 et seq.), July 29, 1996.

8. "Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1982 and Amendments," U.S. Department ofEnergy's Office of Civilian Radioactive Management, 1982

9. Testimony of Edward Sproat, Director, Office of Civilian Radioactive WasteManagement, before a U.S. House of Representatives subcommittee on thestatus of Yucca Mountain, July 15, 2008

10. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 50, "Domestic Licensing ofProduction and Utilization Facilities," Subpart 54 (bb), "Conditions of Licenses"

11. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 72, Subpart K, "GeneralLicense for Storage of Spent Fuel at Power Reactor Sites."

TLG Services, Inc.


7. REFERENCES(continued)

12. "Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act," Public Law 96-573, 1980

13. "Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985," Public Law 99-240, 1986

14. Waste is classified in accordance with U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title10, Part 61.55

15. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Part 20, Subpart E, "RadiologicalCriteria for License Termination," Federal Register, Volume 62, Number 139 (p39058 et seq.), July 21, 1997

16. "Establishment of Cleanup Levels for CERCLA Sites with RadioactiveContamination," EPA Memorandum OSWER No. 9200.4-18, August 22, 1997.

17. U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Part 141.16, "Maximumcontaminant levels for beta particle and photon radioactivity from man-maderadionuclides in community water systems"

18. "Memorandum of Understanding Between the Environmental ProtectionAgency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Consultation and Finality onDecommissioning and Decontamination of Contaminated Sites," OSWER9295.8-06a, October 9, 2002

19. "Multi-Agency Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Manual (MARSSIM),"NUREG/CR-1575, Rev. 1, EPA 402-R-97-016, Rev. 1, August 2000

20. T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear PowerPlant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986

21. W.J. Manion and T.S. LaGuardia, "Decommissioning Handbook," U.S.Department of Energy, DOE/EV/10128-1, November 1980

22. "Building Construction Cost Data 2011," Robert Snow Means Company, Inc.,Kingston, Massachusetts

23. Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook, Second Edition, p. 239, AmericanAssociation of Cost Engineers, Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, New York, 1984

TLG Services, Inc.


7. REFERENCES(continued)

24. Civilian Radioactive Waste Management System Waste Acceptance SystemRequirements Document, Revision 5" (DOE/RW-0351) issued May 31, 2007

25. U.S. Department of Transportation, Section 49 of the Code of FederalRegulations, "Transportation," Parts 173 through 178

26. Tri-State Motor Transit Company, published tariffs, Interstate CommerceCommission (ICC), Docket No. MC-427719 Rules Tariff, March 2004,Radioactive Materials Tariff, August 2011

27. J.C. Evans et al., "Long-Lived Activation Products in Reactor Materials"NUREG/CR-3474, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the Nuclear RegulatoryCommission. August 1984

28. R.I. Smith, G.J. Konzek, W.E. Kennedy, Jr., "Technology, Safety and Costs ofDecommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station,"NUREG/CR-0130 and addenda, Pacific Northwest Laboratory for the NuclearRegulatory Commission. June 1978

29. H.D. Oak, et al., "Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a ReferenceBoiling Water Reactor Power Station," NUREG/CR-0672 and addenda, PacificNorthwest Laboratory for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 1980

30. "Financial Protection Requirements for Permanently Shutdown Nuclear PowerReactors," 10 CFR Parts 50 and 140, Federal Register Notice, Vol. 62, No. 210,October 30, 1997

31. "Microsoft Project Professional 2010," Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA.

32. "Atomic Energy Act of 1954," (68 Stat. 919)

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Appendix A, Page I of 4

APPENDIX A

UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Appendix A, Page 2 of 4

APPENDIX AUNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT

Example: Unit Factor for Removal of Contaminated Heat Exchanger < 3,000 lbs.

1. SCOPE

Heat exchangers weighing < 3,000 lbs. will be removed in one piece using a crane orsmall hoist. They will be disconnected from the inlet and outlet piping. The heatexchanger will be sent to the waste processing area.

2. CALCULATIONSActivity Critical

Act Activity Duration DurationID Description (minutes) (minutes)*

a Remove insulation 60 (b)b Mount pipe cutters 60 60c Install contamination controls 20 (b)d Disconnect inlet and outlet lines 60 60e Cap openings 20 (d)f Rig for removal 30 30g Unbolt from mounts 30 30h Remove contamination controls 15 15i Remove, wrap, send to waste processing area 60 60

Totals (Activity/Critical) 355 255

Duration adjustment(s):+ Respiratory protection adjustment (50% of critical duration) 128+ Radiation/ALARA adjustment (37% of critical duration) 95Adjusted work duration 478

+ Protective clothing adjustment (30% of adjusted duration) 143Productive work duration 621

+ Work break adjustment (8.33 % of productive duration) 52

Total work duration (minutes) 673

*** Total duration = 11.217 hr *

* alpha designators indicate activities that can be performed in parallel

TLG Services, Inc.


APPENDIX A(continued)

Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Appendix A, Page 3 of 4

3. LABOR REQUIRED

Duration(hours)

Rate($Ihr)Crew Number Cost

Laborers 3.00 11.217 $28.05 $943.91Craftsmen 2.00 11.217 $51.72 $1,160.92Foreman 1.00 11.217 $60.83 $682.33General Foreman 0.25 11.217 $63.09 $176.92Fire Watch 0.05 11.217 $28.05 $15.73Health Physics Technician 1.00 11.217 $44.00 $493.55

Total Labor Cost

4. EQUIPMENT & CONSUMABLES COSTS

Equipment Costs

Consumables/Materials Costs-Universal Sorbent 50 @ $0.62 sq ft {(}-Tarpaulins (oil resistant/fire retardant) 50 @ $0.46/sq ft 12}

-Gas torch consumables 1 @ $11.84/hr x 1 hr {(3

Subtotal cost of equipment and materialsOverhead & profit on equipment and materials @ 16.00 %

Total costs, equipment & material

TOTAL COST:

Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <3000 pounds:

Total labor cost:Total equipment/material costs:Total craft labor man-hours required per unit:

$3,472.73

none

$31.00$23.00$11.84

$65.84$10.53

$76.37

$3,549.10

$3,472.73$76.37

81.88

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Appendix A, Page 4 of 4

5. NOTES AND REFERENCES

* Work difficulty factors were developed in conjunction with the AtomicIndustrial Forum's (now NEI) program to standardize nucleardecommissioning cost estimates and are delineated in Volume 1, Chapter 5of the "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power PlantDecommissioning Cost Estimates," AIF/NESP-036, May 1986.

" References for equipment & consumables costs:

1. www.mcmaster.com online catalog, McMaster Carr Spill Control(7193T88)

2. R.S. Means (2011) Division 01 56, Section 13.60-0600, page 203. R.S. Means (2011) Division 01 54 33, Section 40-6360, page 664

* Material and consumable costs were adjusted using the regional indices forTampa, Florida.

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Appendix B, Page I of 7

APPENDIX B

UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING(SAFSTOR: Power Block Structures Only)

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Appendix B, Page 2 of 7

APPENDIX B

UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING(Power Block Structures Only)

Unit Cost Factor Cost/Unit($)

Removal of clean instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot 0.36Removal of clean pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot 3.62Removal of clean pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot 5.50Removal of clean pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot 11.41Removal of clean pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot 21.18

Removal of clean pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot 27.56Removal of clean pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 40.54Removal of clean pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 48.16Removal of clean valve >2 to 4 inches 76.72Removal of clean valve >4 to 8 inches 114.08

Removal of clean valve >8 to 14 inches 211.82Removal of clean valve >14 to 20 inches 275.56Removal of clean valve >20 to 36 inches 405.40Removal of clean valve >36 inches 481.61Removal of clean pipe hanger for small bore piping 24.48

Removal of clean pipe hanger for large bore piping 82.23Removal of clean pump, <300 pound 192.65Removal of clean pump, 300-1000 pound 550.51Removal of clean pump, 1000-10,000 pound 2,149.11Removal of clean pump, >10,000 pound 4,156.91

Removal of clean pump motor, 300-1000 pound 230.87Removal of clean pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound 894.31Removal of clean pump motor, >10,000 pound 2,012.19Removal of clean heat exchanger <3000 pound 1,164.56Removal of clean heat exchanger >3000 pound 2,932.13

Removal of clean feedwater heater/deaerator 8,191.42Removal of clean moisture separator/reheater 16,745.08Removal of clean tank, <300 gallons 247.78Removal of clean tank, 300-3000 gallon 780.85Removal of clean tank, >3000 gallons, $/square foot surface area 6.76

TLG Services, Inc.


APPENDIX B

UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING

(Power Block Structures Only)


Removal of clean electrical equipment, <300 pound 104.76Removal of clean electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound 375.90Removal of clean electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 751.80Removal of clean electrical equipment, >10,000 pound 1,841.91Removal of clean electrical transformer < 30 tons 1,279.18

Removal of clean electrical transformer > 30 tons 3,683.82Removal of clean standby diesel generator, <100 kW 1,306.57Removal of clean standby diesel generator, 100 kW to 1 MW 2,916.36Removal of clean standby diesel generator, >1 MW 6,037.46Removal of clean electrical cable tray, $/linear foot 9.82

Removal of clean electrical conduit, $/linear foot 4.29Removal of clean mechanical equipment, <300 pound 104.76Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound 375.90Removal of clean mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 751.80Removal of clean mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound 1,841.91

Removal of clean HVAC equipment, <300 pound 126.69Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 451.67Removal of clean HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 900.18Removal of clean HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound 1,841.91Removal of clean HVAC ductwork, $/pound 0.38

Removal of contaminated instrument and sampling tubing, $/linear foot 1.19Removal of contaminated pipe 0.25 to 2 inches diameter, $/linear foot 18.15Removal of contaminated pipe >2 to 4 inches diameter, $/linear foot 30.28Removal of contaminated pipe >4 to 8 inches diameter, $/linear foot 49.50Removal of contaminated pipe >8 to 14 inches diameter, $/linear foot 93.16

Removal of contaminated pipe >14 to 20 inches diameter, $/linear foot 110.95Removal of contaminated pipe >20 to 36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 151.69Removal of contaminated pipe >36 inches diameter, $/linear foot 178.39Removal of contaminated valve >2 to 4 inches 370.40Removal of contaminated valve >4 to 8 inches 437.70

TLG Services, Inc.


APPENDIX B




Removal of contaminated valve >8 to 14 inches 868.96Removal of contaminated valve >14 to 20 inches 1,098.06Removal of contaminated valve >20 to 36 inches 1,454.27Removal of contaminated valve >36 inches 1,721.27Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for small bore piping 115.54

Removal of contaminated pipe hanger for large bore piping 370.99Removal of contaminated pump, <300 pound 783.33Removal of contaminated pump, 300-1000 pound 1,841.28Removal of contaminated pump, 1000-10,000 pound 5,810.90Removal of contaminated pump, >10,000 pound 14,145.54

Removal of contaminated pump motor, 300-1000 pound 810.42Removal of contaminated pump motor, 1000-10,000 pound 2,394.87Removal of contaminated pump motor, >10,000 pound 5,376.99Removal of contaminated heat exchanger <3000 pound 3,549.10Removal of contaminated heat exchanger >3000 pound 10,358.57

Removal of contaminated tank, <300 gallons 1,310.02Removal of contaminated tank, >300 gallons, $/square foot 25.36Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, <300 pound 596.45Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,488.20Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 2,867.82

Removal of contaminated electrical equipment, >10,000 pound 5,776.36Removal of contaminated electrical cable tray, $/linear foot 28.72Removal of contaminated electrical conduit, $/linear foot 14.91Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, <300 pound 662.99Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,641.54

Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 3,158.03Removal of contaminated mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound 5,776.36Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, <300 pound 662.99Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 1,641.54Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 3,158.03

TLG Services, Inc.


APPENDIX B



Removal of contaminated HVAC equipment, >10,000 pound 5,776.36Removal of contaminated HVAC ductwork, $/pound 1.80Removal/plasma arc cut of contaminated thin metal components, $/linear in. 3.23Additional decontamination of surface by washing, $/square foot 6.53Additional decontamination of surfaces by hydrolasing, $/square foot 31.91

Decontamination rig hook up and flush, $/ 250 foot length 5,548.30Chemical flush of components/systems, $/gallon 19.54Removal of clean standard reinforced concrete, $/cubic yard 129.38Removal of grade slab concrete, $/cubic yard 162.13Removal of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard 341.10

Removal of sections of clean concrete floors, $/cubic yard 995.12Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard 229.00Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#9 rebar, $/cubic yard 1,919.93Removal of clean heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard 289.56Removal of contaminated heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar, $/cubic yard 2,536.65

Removal heavily rein concrete w/#18 rebar & steel embedments, $/cubic yard 429.87Removal of below-grade suspended floors, $/cubic yard 341.10Removal of clean monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard 817.52Removal of contaminated monolithic concrete structures, $/cubic yard 1,904.47Removal of clean foundation concrete, $/cubic yard 643.51

Removal of contaminated foundation concrete, $/cubic yard 1,774.63Explosive demolition of bulk concrete, $/cubic yard 29.38Removal of clean hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 77.50Removal of contaminated hollow masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 265.37Removal of clean solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 77.50

Removal of contaminated solid masonry block wall, $/cubic yard 265.37Backfill of below-grade voids, $/cubic yard 34.32Removal of subterranean tunnels/voids, $/linear foot 96.84Placement of concrete for below-grade voids, $/cubic yard 137.89Excavation of clean material, $/cubic yard 3.36

TLG Services, Inc.


APPENDIX B




Excavation of contaminated material, $/cubic yard 40.38Removal of clean concrete rubble (tipping fee included), $/cubic yard 24.09Removal of contaminated concrete rubble, $/cubic yard 23.97Removal of building by volume, $/cubic foot 0.29Removal of clean building metal siding, $/square foot 0.86

Removal of contaminated building metal siding, $/square foot 3.17Removal of standard asphalt roofing, $/square foot 1.70Removal of transite panels, $/square foot 1.88Scarifying contaminated concrete surfaces (drill & spall), $/square foot 11.67Scabbling contaminated concrete floors, $/square foot 6.61

Scabbling contaminated concrete walls, $/square foot 17.02Scabbling contaminated ceilings, $/square foot 57.99Scabbling structural steel, $/square foot 5.54Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail < 10 ton capacity 551.82Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail < 10 ton capacity 1,560.67

Removal of clean overhead crane/monorail >10-50 ton capacity 1,324.37Removal of contaminated overhead crane/monorail >10-50 ton capacity 3,744.98Removal of polar crane > 50 ton capacity 5,680.92Removal of gantry crane > 50 ton capacity 23,023.90Removal of structural steel, $/pound 0.19

Removal of clean steel floor grating, $/square foot 4.27Removal of contaminated steel floor grating, $/square foot 12.24Removal of clean free standing steel liner, $/square foot 10.13Removal of contaminated free standing steel liner, $/square foot 29.57Removal of clean concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot 5.06

Removal of contaminated concrete-anchored steel liner, $/square foot 34.44Placement of scaffolding in clean areas, $/square foot 17.33Placement of scaffolding in contaminated areas, $/square foot 25.14Landscaping with topsoil, $/acre 31,052.99Cost of CPC B-88 LSA box & preparation for use 2,330.58

TLG Services, Inc.


APPENDIX B



Cost of CPC B-25 LSA box & preparation for useCost of CPC B- 12V 12 gauge LSA box & preparation for useCost of CPC B- 144 LSA box & preparation for useCost of LSA drum & preparation for useCost of cask liner for CNSI 8 120A cask (resins)

Cost of cask liner for CNSI 8 120A cask (filters)Decontamination of surfaces with vacuuming, $/square foot

2,128.871,720.00

12,064.98198.16

8,331.49

8,734.690.68

TLG Services, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate Appendix C, Page I of 12

APPENDIX C

DETAILED COST ANALYSIS

TLG Services, Inc.

C-y•atl River Unit 3 Nuclear Generting PlantPreliinuey Deo.Iealuning Cat EatlU-te

Document P23-16I1-001, Ret. 0Appendix C. Page 2f 12

Table CCrystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant

SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate(tht.uusnds of 2011 dollar.)

I

IA[- dwtpOff-site LLRW NRC Sp-n Fuel S te Pr-se ,,r-a1 V.I.e -Bur'alI/ Ufflky-adeoon Rmeoual Pack.giog Trenopon Po..iog Dihpu..l Other Totl Tutul LIe- T.erm . gent ReM.oraeio. Vol.oe Cl.ss A Cl.ss B Cl... C OTCC P-e--d Craft Co--tror

Co.. C.t" Co.-. Cu-e. Cute. Cste. Cute. Contiogeocy Cut. Cut. Cute. Co.- Cu. Feet Cu. Fot Cu. Feet C.. Fee Cu. Feet W., Lh.. M.nhoour. 3 M.ihou..........

PERIOD 1. - Shutdowo though T'r.osiioo

Perosd Ho Dir-et Deooooie.iooiogdi Aetirlid

1.1.1 SAFSTOR sith.e e6 .- er i-ti.o-uuya.1.2 Prupte prelimrinaryd oi-sirm gsotot

I,. '.3 Notifirtioo of Ceation of r Qerau.os.1.4 Ro-- f..u & .o..ur m

Ic.1.5 No.ifi.Uisr of P-sre-t Defuelsogla.1.6 peo .,i -,tep.tosy.suo & p-ro -ao te1a.l.7 Prrtepe uod -ubmit PSDAR

IsI8 Review pl-n dwgp & spo.]Ia ] tPrforrederoiled rtd .urssoIs IS OIerrtlmtu by-prod oot loornoory

ad1.11 od prols d-esriplonIs 7 S2uDcid by.produs indenlory

le.t.l3 Deu moj.or -ok -oque...S14 Ptrform SER .. d EA

le.t.15 P-rfsrro Sisa-Speoiflr Cost Study

Adritaly Spci-ilo-sle.N.I6. -Prepe plit t-d Sidbie, f., SAF,33 RIa.1.16 2 'lest eyeetoo1I..1.16.3 'I~to tsrturets od buldiog,

le.1.6.4 We I, o s.emtl1a.1.16.5 Pacdhty oedsiteadsrronoyIa 1.16 Tostal

Detuited Worh Pornleea•l1,1.17.1 l'leseyrsrso

l,..7.3 F.dscis d.o. t & d.-otryIa 1.17 Total

I, 1.10 Pros-os,,sumorr dresinesytrstel1 1.19 Prtiolde-orsrgize oosnorret s oa

I 1.20 Dri. & dey NSSS10.l.21 Sr sirtide-rrrrSizeuossrausnrted yur er

l 1.22 Deoolsure ooramrodroody Cea'laot Subloral Puriod laeAcliisty Csos

Period 1t Colle.er.l Co.s...,3.1 Florid, LLRW lospectiro Fee

Is3 Subot] Poriod l. CellaerI Co.s-

Period I, Poriod.Djpoedrrt Co-1l4 4.1 r-rsur1 4 2 Propertytrato.

1.4.3 Health phycio tupphtla.4.4 H_ y eruipmoentrenat

1.4.5 Dspoalof DAW geoertatdla 4.6 Pt oener. -budge.l1a..7 NRC F1l,4.0 rer.--oS Pluooing Fela.4.9 Usibly Situ TrdiersIs.4.10 Sport FPol Post O&M1,.4.11 ISPSI OptebratnCosla

1.4.12 Co-r=ote A2l6'onsle.4.13 INI'ClFers

la.4 14 Soerity SsuftCotle 4.15 -l1oity SaffCostI0.4 Subhes] Poriod It Period-L•S.psrdrrs i.oe

10.0 TOTAL PERIOD1.5l COST

347 2N 451 451149 171 171

229149

1141]4172114M35

277M5729

137273

I1I

4 263 26322 171 171

17 M97 19717 132 132

ole 3142 2132

27 197 i9717 132 1325M 408 40886 01 658

M8 N48 G4872 59 N4954 411 ,11

%3 263M4 M 203

27,8 2.133 2.133

41 314 311

2 13 13

13600

2. I01.30M

5.00o

4.9204.1673.1202."002.600

16207

1,183

2.a33

10M

145 720 5 173 5175

490

1.3343.715

1,025

1,87176389

135

6598S 22 197

W 30 40705

Iý30 45 16t

1043 1.457 1.007372 4007 4.007

in 127 627

73 W`3 5%3

15 1.179 1,1797 45 846

7. .157 -2M1 2 152 2,1521]4 87813 I03M

214 1.602 1.642

600 7.588 7.5083330 25.526 22.526

.5 95 47.735 45897

6705 52911 51.074

12.1W0 20610

13

99114

14

610

61W

12190

]1- 1

157.471423.40W

20 580.871

20 616.761

TLG SeniceInc.

Cryetal Ricer Unit 3 Nuclear Generatin PlantPreliminay Decommiaioning Cot &timnmte

Docinent P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Appendi. C, Page 3 of 12


SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate(tlnu,,ndof 2011 dollses)

IActivity DevonAInden Actvity DlescripuionLu Ct

PERIOD I1 - SAFSTOR Limited DECON Atlultlu.

peritd lb DireD t Dnmoomiuitoiot Acsioitis

Decontaminstjon ot Sitn Btildiogs:b.l.I, Rnottr 980lb.t.t.2 Auuliery Buddig 3291b.t. .3 Fuslisodling Attn (un Bldo) 80&lb. l.t.4 Inte datn e Bldg 67tb.t.l.5 Machine Sao. - Hot 46:b.t.1.6 R"t W.b..o.2lb.t.1.7 RVCH Storge Bnuildog 4tI.i.i Total. 2.258

lb.t Subotal Period Ib Adtiýto C-t. 2.258

Psriol lb Addiu.on.l LotIb2.1 Misc Wntalb.3 Subtotal Pood li Addti..onl Cot

Ptriod lb CLllabursl CLoslb.3.t D-tnteutcmeot 964lb.3.2 Pr- ds-tooomouiiog ut-rne~ta 33tb.3.4 Stoal tool sllowuooo

lb.3 5 Gopids L±5W lapnclou Folb.3 Subtotal Period lb Contol C- ost 1.097

Psriod Ib Priod-Dopendot Louts:b.4.l Dtoo upplits 901lb.4.2 lootrsomtb.4.3 Property tout.

Ib..s lltbh phbito -upplintb.4.5 lý my nquipmeot rentollb.4.6 Dipusl f DAW gooerstodlb.4.7 Plut eoergy btdgstlb.4.l NRC Fo.1b.4.9 cE,

1r

2 Pec lsoo ing Ions

1b..0 Utility S-te 1Idto•,tb:.4.11 Sptot Fuel Pool .. &lb..12 JSFSI OperUtiog Lotstb.s.13 Corptorsto ' lt'onsulbs. I4 Snotity Staff Cttb.4.15 Utility Stff Loutib.4 Subttl Ptood Ib Ptriol.-D~eodtyt Lust. Sol

lb.2 TOTAL FERIOD lb, LST 4.5

PERIOD t. - Preprut ion. fto SAPFTOR D....,y

Off-Site LL~t, VNRC Sp-n Fuel Site P-o-sd -uria VolmsBrilIUilt-nRemovsl Pcksaging Trsnsport Possiog Disp.ossI thber Tot-1 Total Lie. Term. M.n.ge-t Setorutioo Volume ClIss A lans B . luss C . TC Prom d Crf Lt ContrsctorCout Lost. Losts Cout- CLout CLots Continr Ln -ost. Co. Cots Ct ost Cu. Fet C Feet Cu. Feet C. Feet C. Feet Wt.. Lbs. M.nhobr. Mnhsour.

490 1.470 1.4001"4 493 493,01 1-204 1.20434 10l 10123 69 6914 43 4

1.12 3,386 3.386

1,12 33&6 3.386

- - - - 7.527

- . - - 1.5571.031,

9061

425 w-0 681 241 1,987 1.987422 633 681 211 1,987 1.987

2.3432.343

1I.4 253 2892158,W53. 2.892

41 3141

344

YA'

- - 145 1.109 1.109318 254 1.057 1.057

6 47 477 1 8 a

318 2 355 2222 2.=2

225 1.126 1.12636 34 370 7

&M8 64 701 261-92 458 ,58

S - 9 142 142-30 - 0o 1 61

39 297 257194 19 213 21313 .2o 21G472 71, 542 &12192 29 221

23 3 263w0 64 414 414

1.663 249 ],913 1.913M5595 69 60.34 6.4341

-302 9927 1.767 13.138 12,675

601 348 9934 3.491 20.734 20270

841

841

602

5O.433

58.433

Iq4

184

216

221

4Q•

463

12.041 20

39•9]106.720

12 41 20 146.411

1.610.727 51.216 146.411

490

531

14 10

1. 99977

- 602

2343 14,13

Priod k Ditet Demtvtisstodtn titmilis

le.].l Preprn supporttequipmetnt rot stuorge

le.].2 Installtotaiveoot pressoo equsIlinese1v13 ioterit sut"ey p-orttot dtormnyl.] .4 S--re buildiog s1. 1b Prepar & sbrtttrmrpr

l. I Subtotal Period I Aftivity Cout.

Period Ie Additioul CLt.le 2 I Spt, FotI Inolsuoolc 2 Subtotal Petid Ik Additiuosl CLout

P.rted k Coll.teral Lost,:e.3.1 Pr-ss de.mmwssinionstar wsste

-33 Smell to] .l:,3 4 Florids LLIRW Inespetio F.t1s3 Subtotal PFriud It L -ll1tursI Lout

4",

733

1,7

800

64 489 4895 42 42

220 353 953

to 77 77

.299 1,5W 1,560

3.060

15,678

583

W8

12.280 1.542 ' 1.022 11.02210.280 ,542 11.022 I 1.822

386 247 1.2s3 1283

3 4 4- 3 3

.68 2 24s 1.29. 9

71 41s4

71

1,020 0],230199

199

TLG Se1ices, Inc.

Crystal Rier Unit 3 Nuclear Genermain PlantPreliminary Decommiioning Coat Estimate

Document P23-1651-001. R.t. 0

Appendix C, Page 4 of 12


SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate(thousa.nds f 2011 d,11a-)

I

I 3tdmOff-Sit. LLRW NRC S-1n Iue Sit Pr-ed Bur0al -o1.-e -ri. I UIit Y.d

De-on Iemotal P-1bagoig Tr.nsport Pcosstg Disposal Otthet T l oa Total loTerm. Maoagsent Re.stortioo VRolIn Class A Class 5 Class C OTCC Poross-d Cru- Contr.ctorCost Cost Costs Costs Costs Costs Costt Co-Costs Co(tt Costs Co.ss C.. Feet C.Feet CuFeet C.Feet C.Feet Wt., Lhs. Mtanhtoura Mahouo...... .... .......

PttM 1, t H drid-Otpeodcot Costs6,4.1 lotosoc

1e.4.2 Procorty tottsIt 4.3 Hlotth phytt• topplieslo.4.4 HZ- tcotptet t-ot,1le 4 L5 fpotolof D9W -geort.dlol4 Pl-t eergybudgt

-c.4.7 NRC Fstt1c4 8 Emere-c Plannlng Fee

lc.4.9 Utility Sile lodi-otkl.0 Sp.t Ful Ptol O&Mto 4t 1 lSFSlOpertannosCosts

to.4.t2 Ctro-ts .Slotioosolt13 Stortty Sff Cot

t-.14 Utility Stf r"o"tt.4 Subtotl Petiod 1t Prottd.-ptdeot Costs

Ic.0 TOTAL PERIOD t, COST

PERIOD I TOTALS

PERIOD 2a - SAFSTOR Doorancy with Wto Spet Fool SIotos

Perod 2o [2rt Fh t D o iooiog At-io2a.lI. I Q .. toly Ittpettioo

2t. 13 Prtpatrttrepor2o 14 Rttotuinoooorfreplstometot

2t.1.5 Mioao.ntetnc upplim2t.. Subtotat Potiot 2o Aotivity Cosa

Piod 2a Collatel Cos..2. 3 I Sp-nt Fool Capital sd Tsotrr2a32 [IFSM lapittl E-poodotot2o33 Florida LLRW 1nsp-t.o. Ftolt 3 Su.Mot P-.ld 2. €'olla tdrlcs

PoeolJ 2a. PEiod.Dtpoodot Cos-

2. 4 2 Prooertytatet4.t 3 H-tlth phtsi• sopplios

2o44 4 D,--oosalof DAW -- ertd2I 45 Pltt to-ty bodoet2042 6 NRC F.os

2a4 7 mErey Plannin F-2.8 I t~t I=e[dr-t

24 9 Spont Fue PloolO&M2. 110 [SFSIOpertttiCg Ct.t

40. 11 tooport .loa t ioot2. 4 12 Se 'try Staff C-t2.4 13 Sholoty StffloI t

2s 4 Sobtotal Pettod 23 Period-Dopendent Costt

2..0 TtITAL P0RttD 2. C1OST

PERIOD 2b - SAFSPItO)R Do-maooy itbh Dry Spot Fool Storuge

Potiod 21,Dtro Doootonttt Attoo tii26.1 I Qoartotrlyo[spoctiooo2b 1.2 Serti.sooual nrobo eonotoltooooTb.]I 3 Poeparetrepoot2h.l.4 Ottotinoust rooftrtltooentt26 1.5 Mlaiottensnosupplits21.. I Subtotal Pottolr 2b Aotioity Coota•

Peroiod 2b toOllattra/ Cotst2b.3.1 Spent Foot CtpiltM atd Trostert2h632 lISFSIl•.apitol tpendlttoes2b.3.3 FI..tida FF010 lospctttoo oet

217

4 3

Mi4 1 3

16, 806 74 4.0

4.417 2,328 584 IM7,

238

19419%472192

1663

.120

194 21 302

GI 772 76.397

14 370

54 2721 9 14293 P,03

39 29719 21320 216

29 M.

1 2•

54 41249 h9ý11839 43,1

1.526 12 NoO

3414 26 772

13811 lM.417

370

272142

9 97213

542

1414

6434

11,6,,7

,7.65.3

216

3 73 5

39.,91• 1 .721

3 073 5 143311

4,0 220 7319 582 146

.672201 71 318 9LO 168

463

463

2764 2343 3.226

347 37 2114925 269 84292 206 1.127

134843

1 127

24.400

09.7 30

1,00527 2

35089881

1 0251.102

9991 7321816

4471389

5 07432911

56 Q9553

5% 156,205

0069 67.997

0 2

125M9 98.590

351 3,859908 10 M9251 1,257

20 123154 1.171

1t0 :.212too I1093200 h.992

573 4.30907 510

3561 27.3043327 a'.1989 930 80,59t

229ý95 W80308

1005 7 20

1.05 2

3 4875 2N1,257

123589

1,212

52,

354

5.1 ,

280335

7.N75 :1357.80

05w067997

98587

3725•2

589

5438

1,244IS828620."I13 X6

152 273

1.110 23.w08 38

55512141 1929

23,900 38 967.250

23.900 38 907250

1 150

1.150

1 711 27 1.9474. 1 , 167 3.0354370 1.424 7.002

48090 721 5.5211ý3.0, 45. 3.45

7I.45203.45

TLG Saniees, Inc.

C"1.ta Rier Unit 3 N-clear Gene. ti Piant

Preiminaey Decommissioning Cot EstimateDIocment P23-1651-001, Ret. 0

Appendix C, Page S of 12


SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate(thooaonds of 2011 dollars)

Z..ttoitlode. At~itity Description

De-on Removat P.oksging Transpntt P.ssing Disposat Other Tot-t Total Lit. Term. Management e.Restoion Voluie Class A Clh"s B Cl... C GTCC P eo d C-st Contrsotnr ICost Coo Cost. Cost. Co.a Casts Costs Contingenoy Costs Cos Costs Costs C. Feet C. Feet C. Feet C.. Fee C. Feet Wt., Lbs. M.nhoou Mjnhouh

7.807 I,171 8.978 8 8.9702b 3 Sobtotal P'tol 215 Coll2tbrsl Cott

Period 2b Ptriod-Deptod-r Costa2b4.f1 1-sts2b 4 2 Proprty tost.2b 4 3 Hsthh phyios spphls2b.4.4 Dispose1 of DAW -t-ootttdSb 4.5 Plt etorgy bodget2b 4.6 NRC Fos.2b 4.7 Em-rgency P]ot- Fo s2b 48 Ubtty Sit, lodirect2b 4. ISFSI Opsrttng Co.tt2b4.t0 Corportet Altoaos2b 4.tt Se tfy Staff Cost2b4.12 Ubty StaffCost2b 4 Subtoti Period 2b Ptrioi-Oependeot Costa

2b.0 TOTAL PERIOD 21b COOT

PERIOD t - SAFOTOR Dormsnoy without Spent Faet Storage

Pooa So Dtra-o Dooototog AdUt.to'. Qotrttry Iopsotiooa .] 2 Seri..n..sl toiroo. talosroySo 3.3 Fropoos rtpoot

2o.t.4 Bitumnous roof r-plo--ot20.1.5 MOf -tooo supphit2,.1 Subtotol Porod 2o Aotivity Costs

Pertod 2S Co.latersl Cott-20.3.1 Florid, LLRW opspetioo Feo2o.3 Sobtotal Poriot 2e Cofltorsl C.,

Period 2o Pod. Dopodett Co.ts2 1.4.t fosor-2o.4.2 Propotty tato2o4.3 A sslth physioa spplies2o.4.4 Dipas of DAW geotratd20.4.5 Plst t..erg bodeto2a.4.6 NrRC FP2.4.7 Wtay Ott Iodtret,2 '.4.8 Co-o-rata dl tlonbos2o 4.9 Seoaoity Stff CostSo 4.10 ttlity Staff Cost2o.4 SObtotal Pooiod 2, Ptriod-D-ptodent Costt

21.0 TOTAL PERIOD So COST

PER IOD 2tT~rALS3

PERIOD 3.. llestivste Sitel F.nI.ooogOSAPcOR Dorosooy

Poriod 3. Di-rool A,,Mmossiooiog Atibtiý3t.3.t CIropso po..tti oory do-.t oi~tio gri st3s.t.2 Rta so plsot dots & sps.3.13 Perfor detaldod tod ooy3s.1.4 ERd prodoot dotript ioo23.1.5 Detailed by-prodout ionoetoro

3.i.9 Do0ino major .ook sntuooo

t.t .7 Psrfor SER -d EA3s.3 8 Perofot Sita.Spoflo Cost SOtod3.1.9 Poopattobot Lao Torooo Pba3.3.I1 Reoeioe NRC spproosi of t prin.tioo pIS

A'dtySped-eUon

3s.3.tf t Ro.sottoataplsnt&tteoporsoyfooliooa

3s.t.t .2 Pltnt"sstso3t 1.113 Rastori.taro-aý

3.375

3.375

3.375

90 65

w

SO

22478 2.2N8 24.729 24,132 50345845 4.585 50.430 36.236 14.t93

844 4.219 4219187 - 6ý 408 408

3546 532 4.778 4,0787.625 792 8.M87 83876915 692 7,607 - 7.6075238 784 6,M24 3,37 2.3953095 464 3.559 - 3.5593894 584 4.478 2.449 2.029

88783 13.318 102.101 62,402 39.6996t1 M1 9.188 70,438 3W.321 35.117

187 20.677 04,27 286.450 181,262 105,194

187 292.M57 20.663 303.236 189,072 114,164

3.824

3.82M

3.824

76.481 125

I.lt8,4.011.t51.,51

79.51 325 3.103126

798.81 32 Sf19

I990 344 784 794

1,883 471 2,323 23533.573 574 3.147 3.1M 7

3 0 30 3

34 24

I28M 34 24

1.281 34 24

5.,1 151 109

8,849 8M5 9.734 M.73413287 1.329 14.616 14.616

3W I'M0 I.MO70 • 24 152 152

1.430 215 1.645 13652,787 279 3.099 30951.273 391 1.464 1.464859 32M 903 950

21.M07 3.M03 2M,174 25.17012,349 1.858 14247 14,247

70 62,761 8.513 72.681 72.681

70 93.337 9.707 75831 75.831

313 484 398 68.743 559,376 292,939 2%437

1.421

t.12t

1.421

6.39%

25.412 46

436.929254.700

28.412 46 6913329

28.412 46 6919.3-2

127.9M 209 4.761,704

149527

149

149

22 171 L7179 60% -0

17 132 132S 171 173

29 487 48753 403 403

70 ý9 539

1.3774.700

iWoo

7.0oo3.3IM

7.3704.1677,1W0

A44 17 970 873477 72 549 494813 2 935 93

97

TLG So-1ice, Inc.

Crytal River Unit 3 Nuclear Gene ating PlantPreliminary Devnmissioning Cost FRttate

DIoeent P23-1651-001. Rev. 0

Appendix C, Page of 12


SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate(thoussnds of 2011 dollars)

tn .... ... ..... . .. . A. to.... .. .. .. .... . .A otiv 'itv D nvxn R e mottvsl r v ksgtng T vsn spx rt Pvxv ing Dlspxss l Ot hee T o tls Tot l Li e. Te rtx. M axsget e nt 5e-t restloe Volo m e Cl ass A C lsss a 'lass C C GTCC Pvo xssed C rsfD C ent sv txe r

led es Av itity Desl ripti on C.o st Cost Coets C ostt Costs Costs Costs C onti nge noy Cosa Cots Cost s Costs C . F et C u. Ft t C.. F et C.. Feet C . Fee W t., Lbs. . Ml nhto urs M .nh o urs

Ativity Sped f1iotlos (Onxliuxd)3a.l.l1.4 Ret-o nsse]3. 1115S Soaloevolsbield3a.l.l 1.6 Sos., gtxteroato

3a 11.7 Moloford- d ot3a.l.l1.8 Maix Ttbin.3s.l.ll.S Maio Cx do._e3.1.11.10 Pl'lte -troto & bSoidiogs3a.I.Il.Il W~t~elavatgtvoent

3. 1 11.12 wFdhty & stedcout

3. 1 11 TotI

Planoog & Site Poep=stiot

3.1.12 Preparedisxttxioesevuen3a.113 Planoprep &oopxsve3a. 14 De -rn o atorvl•.upestlm3e.1.15 Rigglg/Con. Col Enalpvtloxltoleto3.1 16 Prxt-k.4.-koers & -xt-ie-3..1 Sobtota Period 3. Aciity Cott

Ptriod 3, Adduoo...l Cott3t2.1 Sit Ch-txeoielxon Sovey3a.2 Sobtotal Ptriod 3. Additioxal Cots

Petitd 3U C.llstersl Cott3:.3 I Flotd L W Ilpeotio F.t3s.3 Sobtotal Period 3e Collaterl Cots

Perod 3 Period.Depxd.t Coe-3.4 1 lxeosxron

3o.0.2 Propt~ly tates3e.4 3 Ieltth 1 ph ti v vppht-3t.4.4 Ilxy tqolpmo t tentsl3.4 5 Dsposal o D D- W gdenert- d3a.4 6 Plattene- budgel3,.47 NRC t F-,3a.4 8 Uoliey S.. Ildi-et33.4.9 C--otto All-,...s3S.4 IS Sevoity Staff cxt3atl1 UtilibtySff Co-t3,.1 Sobtotal Peti)d 3. Ptriod.LDpeodet Cot.

3.0 TOTAL PERIOD 3a COST

PERIOD 8b - Deeomlsion-g Prepration

Peritd 3b [orv Doxoioiooite AL-i-ilid

Detailed Work Proctd-3b.l.:.I PlIteeotexo3b.1.1.2 Retctor iateelo3b .lI 3 Pe-siixaboildite,3b. I. 14 CRD 1itg -sembly3b.1.1.5 CRD hlooix & ICI tobs3b.1.16 lovore iotldmettai3b.1.1.7 I lettolr -.- I3I..1.8 IS Fality -l.ote3b.1.1.9 M1issilextbields35.1.1.10 Siologixal shield3b.1.1.11 Steto genxertots

3b.1.1.12 Rootrorctd tnxos ,3b.1.1.13 Wmin Torbine3b51.1.14 Matin (otd~oeser

3b 1.1.15 Ao-liry boodh.g3b.1.1.16 Ieator. boildiog3b 1.1 TolaI3b 1 Sobooal Priod A3 Aerily C-.to

74457

3371834646ý

357527

4,55w

112 856 856

54 111 41127 211 105

53

7 606 Goo15 118 59

61i3 5.23 4,609

5353

2O

59627

627,

3.12o

* 4.600

"9.777

275 41 316 3162.800 4_20 3.210 3.2-20

1 0 24 is, 184

2.2o) 330 2.530 2.530141 21 162 162

13.322 1998 15.321 1169'

2.771 831 3.602 3.6022.771 .31 3,602 3.602

2400

1,23072 7W

19.100 7,85219.100 7.852

I0 I

43849o

12

920 12

9M8 12

934930

251.025

2721,215

8722.919

13.6M525 21.513

25 37608

362

155

114

416

13712

'79

179313313

3.6013.691

03 1.0-5 1,705

Ito "I3 5473 563 6029 55 55

154 1.179 1.17927 299 2-9

182 1,397 1,397131 1W63 1.0Z3435 3357 3.357

2.044 15 Go 15.669

3.326 25813 2.033

6.156 14.737 41110

514

627, 514

to 2ft.'17

G5,9002.5.629

10 2117 17 3M 807

10.2117 19.117 404 362

8143

02

17

27

1727

27474 7547

554

6M3 5613_29 3N178 44

132 13232 32

132 132

59 I59158 M5

306 606

V0520,

0.24 3.00

4.214 3,421

23133

2.500

1000I.000I.0003.4301,200450

IO -1560ý

1w5•273M2.730

32 24332 Z43

TLG Serices, Ic.

C091tal RiUer Uit 3 Neleor Ge ting PlantPeliminae7 De...iyioing Coat timsate

D-o. .ene P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Appendio C, Page 7 of 12


SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate(thousaands of2011 dollars)

Indez ~Aýli-y D-serptor.

Period 3b Coltterl Cot t1b.3. 1 D-oo oqip"eot

3b.3.2 DOC staff roi-U.tioo aaseooalb.3 3 Cpaetbog " iolpmt2b.3.1 Florida LLRW io-evtio Pso3b 3 Sobtotl Piod 31b Collaoal Coot

Period 3b Period-Dopeoder Cot.3b.4.1 D-oo s-pp

lia

3b.4.3 Propatiy tW..3b.4 4 H thh pvh,.. ovpplii3b.4.5 Heyquipmeot...ntaW3b.4s Dopooi of DAW geerated3b.1.7 Plot energy bodgot3b.4.8 NRC Peeso

3b.4I UtOhty S-t. id-ooo•t3b.4.10 Corpotet Allotios3b.4.ii Secueity Staff Cot3b4 12 DOC 'SffCot3b.4.13 Utility Stall Co-t3b.1 Sobtot] Period 3b Poel.Dvepodoet Coat.

3b.0 TOTAL PERIOD Sb COST

PERIOD83 TOTALS

PER10D 4. - LarIe Co-tpoaen Re-ota.

Patiod 4la Dire- Dloeomieioniog Alivil

No-iest Swtea Sopply Sy-tet Roetoos4a.1.i.i 1oactor Coolant Ppiogis .1.2 Presst..ee RilM f Tk4s.i.i.3 Roector Colat Coops & MSttrsls.iAi.1 Pseteiror4a.i.i.5 Sloes C~earstors

is.1.1.A Ret-red t S. ooratr oiUt.is.i.i.7 CRDNble C] ieier o St-_uoo Re.otou4a I .8 R-ottor Vassel loternsiIa.i.l1.S CesoI & Ioteroale GTCC LMsptei4. i 1.10 R-actor Vessel4a.i.I Totas

i .T02t50LK 0002 openota•el tote Yroves|ra teurtat olumes eaurial Utlt banoapaD-.ve RemovsI Psokaging Tra. spora P=so I;g Dispoal t1hter Total TotlI LIe. T Mr.. 8aoaget eno Re-.ora.io. Voluee Class A Class . Clasa C OTCC Pro.-s.sd Crate Co ntraot r ICost C Coss Coats s ot. Costs Cost. Cotngrvy Costs Coats Coot. Co.- C.. Feet C. Feet Co. Fe C. F-t C. Fet Wat., Lb. Macboors .. ho.l- oH

964

LIN110

• 145 ill0 IH091,58 ill 1.416 1446

1 65 1.265 126518 0 1 1

1,7,8 498 3.821 3821

3w

245

14519

616442

1.4805049

14 15.988

14 20937

40 58545

3. 493

994 1,593

994 2,521

7

19

5

5

14

20 97 27 24.2 2 4 4

22 74 47 3

52 412 16236 4,703 1.072 2.M4. 1072 2.3M29 80 312 7136 2316 12,373 470

- 5341 1.158157 12.688 1G,376 6.137

126 17S21 27

S831

- 6.83156 3

2 .114 182

- 7.80W- 2.1617 182004 28.20 364

7 37 317

48 531 53161 3M6 30N

37 285 2153 31 '1

7. 597 597

11 152 15292 7W00 708

222 1.702 1.702757 5800 5.800

1.136 7842 7,9421.40 N8.998 18.M8

3.512 27063 26.240

9.668 71 801 70.350

1IN 580 580I5 86 80

669 2947 2,947209 1 649 1."49

3,355 18301 [8.3042,164 17.392 12.392

122 553 853

6045 03525 0.521.180 9,049 %.0195.515 111718 14,71819,346 84.184 81.181

161 1.133 1,133284 1.7N0 1.704

104 790 7N4

26 121 124

7 5w1 4 4

0 1 1

153 1.173 1.153

3 61 -13 76 7622 1 30 130

3 17 12

3 15 1521 1 2' 12ý

13 13

n 4 1. 1814 104

823

5.898

29%

295

809

10

33 03659.2.

131.0865898 10 22I3.31

5.898 10 753564

16.185 19.126 659.936

5G4 597 W13787 27719- 94 20.849 310

7.016 1,122 318 2755 802 Q24 353593 ].19 1.700

23.908 .1,92,167 10,251 27502%. .98 ] 889 1W 7 5 10 2.250

753 M.100 91.378 23711.32 5 01 9 217.620 18.750 982

-. 2112 423, •5- 9.626 9 - - 978.700 18.750 882

1.411 72.327 2) w51 2 142 0.697.382 62,933 7.841

Ro-votal ofMj-or Equiptoso4a.1.2 MSi TtrbtooG -eoeatar4a. 1.3 Ma.in Coodensers

Caaodioa Co flet CleIo Buildiog Deoltt.on4:.1.4.1 Rea-tIa.l.4 2 Aueislr Boddog4a. 1.4.3 PosI , odliog Area lA.o B1da4a. 1.4.4 lotretodieat Bhle

4a.I.4. M-hioe Shlop. Hot4.i .46 RM Wehaoous4a. 1.4 T te. l

Disposal of Pivt Sotao4a.I.5.1 A.az-er Sbras4a. 1.5 2 Ateiiaey Stao - RCA4a.l1.5 3 Cbreleal Addtuoon. Coot

4a.1.S C -e 1 aldddition. Cent. -slated4: 1.55 Cboolti-o Ad-ditio - [estdd - RCA4a 1.50 Chemikal AddtiOo - RCA4a.1.5 7 Cheiool evi Srtondoy •Cd.4a.1.58 ie F.ieol Feedl SoodeyoCyIe-oRCA4.1.5 9 ChdAed Watr4a.1.5I0 Chiod Wtr - RCA4.1.5.11 Croltiaig Wa.st

244 101 26 52177,1 128 M 493

2.9315.419

69w1701 084G

3I

1.1120

257.966 6.3782M.3865 17.298

8.169- 2.063

1.252

557

12.121

- 53

56

41

I12

61.

02

3

0

3 149

5154

55

- 1 -7 -,59

6161

"14

"68- 62

104

• 13911525M 6M5

24.217 1.1272.461 1592.401 12,

26.704 903

- 3312.0.7 107

• .520

27.273 1,229S - 2318

TLG Set-iva, I-a.

Cryatal Rite Unit 3 Nuclear Generting PlantPrIiminat Deeomtitioning Cast timate

Doument P23-1651-001, Rev. 0Appendix C, Page 8 of 12


SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate(thousands of2011 dollars)

I=:~. ... .... ..... ... .................... I7d'De-n Remos-l Packaging Tranapor Presaiog Disposi uthber Tull Total Lie, Teem. Managemeot Restoratiou Volome Class A Cl... B Class C GTCC Proeeed Crsft Contractor

lo.de Atity Desiption C Cost CoCts Coats Coats Coats Cost. Contlngeno' Costa Custs Coats Coats Cu. et Cu.Fe CuFeet Cu.Fet Cu. Feet Wt.. Lbs. nhours Mnlhours

Duapinls of PIvot Sstu.s lmoned)4a.l.5.l2 CoodiDemn R bonorall to

"t 15 1 C.odootso

40.l.5li Coondesloe &I De.lnWta Supplyt 1.515 Codtostu& Oool W.sltoeruply -Coo

4a.1.5 t- Conde1ta & SIoln Watr, Supply. -RCA4t.l.5.l7 Coodensate- Cent4s IS5IS Codoioatsl Detinort.1zor

1.tI5 19 CondtouseDeolnertlioro-Cenlis 15SO Coodouse Ale Removal& Pr'.-o

4s 1521 I kyloMsketp Do Wltor

4a.l.522 Cyle Mokeup De-n Wte. RCAit 523 C.7lASttopio.1.5 24 ylt S-ortp. RCAi45 25 F',-] Jsckot CI] t4S 95 2o 0,ool-AIr CleClstIo.1.5 27 RRAPFO&C resead .r&Eohousl

4i 1528 ED3 jLhn. 1i4I.l.529 REFPS C3opreuad sod Slteoouno,4a .5.30 EP.3 Fool 0,1 Trer4I 15.3 R EPB Sop Diaehaoeit 1.5.32 E_,ere::y F-odoer,4 Is. R5Eerenocy todwato,.RCA4t.1.5 Ni Etjacon Soe,a .535 FWHote R'eIhdVent & DraisIa 536 FW H Rater -Rlier Va-a& aDs-t -Coot4a 15.37 Fodnlator

l.5.38 Feolwater - Inslad4i 539 Fondwo 1r.Ioooattd • RCA

Is Ii 4 Fon-wat ,RCA4a..5.41 HVAC.Mm Outbtdi4: 1 512 LP & HP Fýonwar Draisa & V.oIa.I.5.13 LP & HP Fýeloso Dsa & VVnt - Cent4e.1.i.44 LUqd Sampliog. Coot4s 15I5 , L4qAd Somolog- RCA4a. I SIR6 Lola 0,I

4a. 1547 Malt & Roheat S-am4a. 1.5." Memn & Rehot Soe,. Coot4a.I 5.19 Mlin & Rohot Soe-. RCA4:.I 5.50 Uis, Toebtna Rlom Sta• ralm4. 1 5.51 MIss 7oebt.,b R o S.e. Drsim CootIa.l 5.52 Niitrounulydromen]Caroot Diotlda4 .1.5.53 No-Soc& Dm RHust Sa Wata.I:.1 5.5 N-oSo & DRoy ttt St Wtr •. CentIs.1.5.55 NSeSe- & D., HRatSna Wa.r -RCAIn.1.5.56 RC & Ma_ Waat Es poraor4a.I.5.57 RC & Mesaý e aorotor. E-- ala-Is.1.5.58 Sormn W'ah W-at,4a.I.. SeI & Spray WateIs. .5. Se"l & SprayWlte Coot4I.I5. Soul & Sp'ay WRuer, RCA

is.I-S. seoodoyCdSselsIs-I.S 63 Sseooaey CycAe Saooclio -oo4:.1.5 63i eodery Cycle 9 liot - CeOt

Is-I. 65 SA roiy CAt Samplie In [nased

4a.1.S.66 S ondtry Sort Clos.d Cyole Coliog4.1.5 67 Tob Bidg Su & Odly Water SopastooOs.1.5 68 T b-o Generat lorSe (Oilit.IS59 Toboe Clod St-a & Draies4-.1 M 7 T~bl- Lub. ¢]

lb1. 7 1 Waste Drumln4.1.5 72 W-soes .,spos- l40 .1.5 Total

4s-IA Scsfildioe t aspportof doeooooeioniot

4.It SobIetsl PCoild 4i Aelotpy Cost-

431w9

16194

IM•o

8

211

2442

I]I

6912111346

15

517194

209

46

B34

46

7•

44

21n

5.19

784

57 20518

3

2

7

2

2

4072

2 .5"

132

12

35

4 o 181 2 47

10 1 92t 261 28

0 1 19

2 1

1 494 127 -

2 127 12735 205 205

3 528 5.

14 108 •55 3&0 330

14 1014

1 2o

I 1 8 68

4 2

I S51 45

2 127 19

13 860 8

52 32 32o17

I3 8

7 5319 107 31513

2917 15254 353 5

13 26 862 19

129 219 ,83 478 4982m 112 1 121 8 102 102

2 2I13 %6

,135 2.98l 29811 40o 40

67 MI3 Mlt 307 M3

4 459 4 59wo 340 340

IN( 1.176 1.1761Is 8 84

S 47

IM 202 20229 174 174

3 7 171 6 6I 7

-• 2193 22

3 26

I 3 35127 736 736

1 889 12 36 M0,in

49

27

87 5- 3.m6

108

134

51

438

1219

w

1,640

53

223•

572

19219

1.0492868

19.101 1,28435538 1.773131.415 3.586

65131 2.800

- 1 •472

29841 1.125

L7,515 101

los

.1028

21.2-1 N - 481 1.187

2.106- - - - 1.222

9331M9 1,964- 3.243 453

40•

S5.01895.269 4.,1412.721 1.39613.,5. 1.10o

- - 9m2.077 1I.9999.182 27

- 1.33257.049 2,735

736- 1.172

151890 1.438- 101697 1.45275.377 7.952

-1.030 633

1989

33.041 1.87731,81 1,379

6222.419 IG9

810 57

4.978491

• 1.107

4.667 268138.892 5321

2 452.901 113,990

2m46313

12

96 22779226

54 1,405

6,075 w662 92

7.3

46

20

19

124

2130

16

276

5

6.,,19

3W7

498 1

25 -

2 9

4.787 213

1 7 26 3

- 2374 4812.1IM 58,350 980

71 5 211 1 097 1.097

6.076 29.138 361 22915 101.597 99.413 2.191 68896 73,391 no 501 2.142 9.691.321 233907 7.811

TLG Sen-,ee 1, I.

C(ntal Riter Unit 3 Nulear tenettng Plant

Prlininoey Derontaloning Con PtitnateDocument P23-1651-001, R-y. 0

Appendix C, Page 9 f 12


SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate(thouaands of 2011 dollars)

I=... .. peotae .t. Site a. ae .1 ..... I Utiles maA"at" Decono eoant Reol Pahkaging Transport Pressieg Disposal Other Total Total be. Term. Maoagen.et Restoration ooete Cas. A Class B Cl... C GTCC ? P.-d Craft Cootraetnrniea Aotylnt Desripttion Coat Co.t Cott Costs Coats Cost. Coats Coot ineno Coat. Cost. Coat. Cotta Co. Free Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Cu. Feet Ca. Feat Wt., Lb.. M.nhotu,. M.anhno

poriod a .Addilootl Costs4:.2.1 RVCH Segmentation ed Dispotal4.22 OTSC Hot Itoa4a.2 Sobtotot Period 4t Additional Costa

Period to Coltateal Co-ta4a.3.1 Pr ts deommtinoing eat-rwasta1t 3t3 Sahol ai] loHsn4t.3.4 Florida LLRW inspeoion FaaIa3 Subotal Prod 4a CoIatoral Cos-

Period o. in-Detndot C.-oa4a.4.1 1t•n oopplioa

4t.4 3 PMropoty on4a.4.4 Heialh phyea arpphlm4i.4.5 H11v euipment rental4.4.6 Dsoposal of DAW gtnerated4-.l.7 Fi. t energy budgt4a.l4. NRC Faetta.4.t Uity Sito [ndoet4t It0 Uiqoid Rednwata Ptroting Uqotpmtonitroires

"a..11t Corpotamt Aultat ientt 4At2 Soeooty StaffCot

4a.l.t3 DO StaffCota.4.14 Utility StattCost

4, 4 Sobtotat Feod 4a Porind.Dtpendent (otto

tat. TOTAL PERIOD ts COST

PERIOD4b -Sitoleroteiostto

Period 4b Sint DDtomtiaionin g AtiitiM4b t.t Romoet spent ftol tsd.o

Disp 1 of FItot Sotto4b.t 1.4 dG Dittol Son.ib.t 22 ChoemlZClteningStoemn -oCent4b.t.2 3 Chonoao Cteaoing Stem - - RCA4i.1 2.4 Cnntaineet Mooitringlb t 2.1 Cott Flooding4b. 2t6 DReay HS at Cosed (NA. hmgn4bhi2 Deay Hot R--mo]al4b 1 I D-ee Ful oIhilTanta-USTSsSb. 12.S DeomoticeWater

4b 1t2 DI -6eatiW--ator. RCA4bl 2.I ' I I iM= . C"e"4b.! it12 E] rln.1-Contoodnttd4b.! 2 13 Ele.t.l - Dtoontim-natod4b.1.2 14 F-r Srvi•t /a•t4b.! 145 FirSe&m 4iWetot - RCA4b.1.2 6 Fl•r & Eqoip D[aa - Ado & Rte- Bldgtb.1.2.17 HVAC -xAoiary Bldg4b 1 2 t8 HS AG. Clon Maeoino Shop

th.1.2 S SVAG-Coononi Conli4b 1 2 20 HVAC.- D-ai Non RBldob 1.2 21 HVAC - Fio Pmp H.oosob.! 222 HVAC - Foel HandJling Dre4b 1 223 HVAC - Hot thtint Shopoh.! 224 HVAC .nt=tBnoditt Hid,4b.! 225 HVAC - Maintnene Soppot4b.1.226 HVAC - CC-lio Bld,4b.1.2 27 HVAC- R-a1to Bldg4b.: 228 HVAG. TorbmeBlde4b l2.29 [M I Iný' _ aln

4b.t 2.32 Indostoal CoI:i Watnt4b 1231 IndotiaG Colot Watte. RCAbb.1.2.32 Inttroent &USttiot SeAo"e lit4b t233 Iostrment& AtattonSornimoir-Cn-1

3194

158 '9'41158 M5

4 n

4 23

82 59

G5

1,6402346

65 3.987 82 59

226 24,698 17.075 71096

1.,493

21

31521 315

773

1711.072

*1.34742796S

3.21512.96915.096

171 37.707

6.076 304 ev 33,387

3.- -o -

1215

1 13710

214 14342

255 1.562 1.565217 1.102 1.102

471 2.667 2.667

t 01 3 6329 223 M-

32 347 34771 032 ti10

16 01 81

77 850 850105 1.154 1039410 2.050 2050352 2.618 269060 372 372

11 1.233 123375 869 869

202 1,550 1,550se 49! 491

145 1.113 1.113482 3.698 3998

Lots5 14.914 14,914

2264 171361 17.3616364 48.435 i8.319

28.%1 153.331 151.009

2 188 43 43

4 45 4518 103 10340 250 25

191 1.261 .26!M31 1.141 1.441

3 25 -6 42 -

13 119 12982 w3

183 1.073 1.0734.433 8.614 8.644

41 31 2 -

218 1.340 1.34L

ýII 491 049257 604 603

6 44

5 36 -

fl. 5433 '43

13 93 M339 262 No0

I s

199 [271 1 271

s8 472 472

53 3O5 305

22

22

5•

56

2.,782 94054118

115

115 3.4U3 -9,-6 .67

2.32! 60.896 82.352 2D 5so1 2 142 10.215 270

308.9(3 2.092 2.000172.000 -48t,903 2.092 2M00

-14

71.7186M58,03

- 287.143114 517.431

236.121 527.275

3,379

16

21

31107223761

3.5,182714971 7209

3363

lt9

31

M9

00

69

123217

42

63()

312

941

3

78

1ý5

36

so

151

3511,3738.6517.317 98

5•

1.39411.69 -

7.1262.614 6044,174

1,799

7,751

740

Z320

1 160

2N0.532 989

6.1447642

14.26855,7.43

351.3011

3801.145

21.339

178.1591.693.,54

289.375162.020169.50W

12l 88

2o.73573,076

314 7 .0

30.061

91.222

47.115

36

3991.o68

4,555

6.106493

13 20810259U3.4856.7279.7423.4724.279

476

9 1416872

3690662

1291162176

774330591J883

73

3 121

5 13 216

I 2 12,t 8 148

12

I

4

2

3

634

64

TLG Senipea, In.

Crystal River Unit 3 N-.lear Generating PlantPreliminary Dermolslonlng Cost Estimate

Dacsnent P23-1651-001, Ret'. 0Appsndix C, Page 10 of 12


SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate(thousands of 2011 dollar-)

Artiit De -on R o vaos l Pslksglog T r-n pore - P r=o i.ng Dlspo sI Othse Tosli Tosl L, ;el s. T M - ,ogo mes t R o rto s ioo Vola. s CIl.s A C lasts C lsssC GTC C Ptot ss d C raf Co ntra tors

- -y........... C......-[ ..-..-.. ... .-.. ..-. C.... .... ..... . ......... '".-... .-.. C...-....... .. ,.. .... -. C.u...... .. .... .. ..... ... ... ....... ...........

Dsposlotr Plnts tsty- (-..t.o.dt4b.1.2.34 Instrt1ooo & Sttion Seroto At, - RCA4b ' 2.35 Lst. RFt=Toot. C-ot4b 1.2.36 Loakl.ateTst -RCA4b , 2.37 Lqttd Ws.- Dtsposb. 1.2.38 Makelp & Pootfiltion

4b. 1.2.39 Mabkep & PAfrioftioo - tosatetd4b I 2.40 Nit-o-/o0-.doro/C.arbon Doode - Coot4b.1.2.41 Nittroso/Hydrooeo/Carboo Diowmds. RCAtb 1.2.t2 Nob!e Gsa Eflloot Mtonittoring • Ceot

4b I 2.43 Nob's tas Efllent onloMtonn. • RCA4b.I.2.44 N-v S- Cloed C.de Cobg - C-ot4b. 1.2.45 Not Sor Clood Cyle Coltog -RCA4b.l.246 PASS Cootsto= Moobltornog - Coot4b.t.2.47 PASS Coott ent Mooniwtg - RCA4b.! 2.00 Post A-ýdoot Sa pitog - Cot4b.1.2.29 P.st Aoldoot d-Saphog - RCA4b.t.2 0 Po.t A=otdoot Ventog - Cot4b.t.231 Post Aodoot Vontng - RCA4b.I.0.32 RB PF.ett-o Coliog - RCA4b.t.2.53 RCP Lobs Od t-Cot4b.l.2 54 RCP L•bs

0 - RCA

4b.t1.2.96 Radaosst Doottosrstttsr4b.! 236 RsoBttdtPtos•utSeoiog&Tsst

lb.! 257 Rnt 2ld Pressre .S.sig & Tt - RCA4b.1.2.58 Reato.r Bilding Spray4l. 2.59 Rofslting Eqttp..nt4b.I.2.60 Sewsaelb.! 261 Speot FoI'Cloo7totlb.! 2.62 -Wste GAs Sstorhbo4b.! 2 63 Wst Layp/N2 Blatkotiog4b.! 24 W4 t opoN2 Bt-k..., - Coos4b I 265 Wet LbptN2 Blsnkobog - RCA4b, 2 Totals

4b 13 S-Mitdtogtosopport ofNd.--.sso g

Do~tooooooottoo o!Suto Bottdtogs

4b 14 I Ro.tr2b.t.4.2 AuoioAso Bilding4b 113 Foot Hlodho A,.. (A-s Bldg)4b.l.l.1 Intoroedtste Btdg4b 1 5 Machin Shop, Hst

4b 14 RB BauitetoootBldg d HP O!Srtb.t.4.7 RN! Wehbos-4b 1 4 RVCH Sorso Buildinglb 1.4 Totals

4b t Subtotl Peritd 4lb Attoity Csta

Period 4b Additioa Cots-4b.2. I Liln Temoionto Soeoy Ptsnioog4b.2.2 Asbostos Reooals Pssrsoglb 2.3 IStM Ltt-ot Teroostion4b.2.4 Westatttiog Peod4b 2 Sobt-tal Fritod 4b Additioa Costa

Perotd lb Collateral Costa4b3.! Fross dsooo I- ssto wto wasto ste4b.3.3 Soot1 to•o sltovso4b.3.4 DooMooottg ERuipment Dispstlioob.3.5 FlooIds LLRW Iopaoton F.m

4b.3.6 o-st ooo s o- -d rstsas of 134.9 tao Iolo ostattllo wst.lb.3 Sobta.W Period 4b Colist.r.I Costa

poriot lb Portod-Dopsodst Co-talb.l.t I Don sopplto

4b.4 24b.4.3 Frsr ty -lts

271

- 277

827

570144

80

1627

'12

'4

3

1 292In

4I I

62

7I

12573

1 176

897 M8308 IM0729 5Q3

48 1.

4 1322.0.84 9.5

2,A21 15.182

35ISn

2o 6

3 0 659 -

S 4 78

7 18 3572 4 77

0 0 12

- 3 79 -

0 0 2

0 I 40 52 6 .0 -0

26 65 1,2813 430

o 1 19I 2 3411 1 13,2 4 79

0 5o

2 3 [5 1

4 12 •7 14 116 54

w• 61 3232M1 2 M

0 0 3

359 S! U M21 1 o67

31 a 1M7 7

94 5.12 542

31 178 17832 192 192

3M4 .998 1.998M06 1,152 1.15248 27 4 274

7 12 12

6 3M 32302 2069 2.0493N6 2284 2.284

06 387 302122 142

Io 57 57

ZO 5 5.1

5 3 2 38

45 33 22332 11

10

1 719 "19

13 13 732 13 •

13 0.6 7.387 1 122 122.

1 7 75 2 7 4 3 2 ,2 5 4 n0.8 8 '

316 1,ý4o 16ot6

968 ,1•I 4.161206 757 757-8 2.344 2.3 414 170 17030 N0 1045 19 1,

,9 63 653 ' 31.85., 7,6X) 7.6XI

7.7%9 43 105 41.7,39

2.012

9453.528 16754.355

941148A44152152

12.31515.611

14

237411

177 54

S- 2.75

1.412 23013 - .

3.930 985443

'4024 -

136 148.708 4.530

1.,-176 131

2.269 9.759497 1,173

4.376 947-,08 242

3 18 11:4

'27 37.30 12.408

1.30 157.2"4 19.517

81.728 516229.355 1,77530.385 I1

-2963566 17.036176876 11.68538.212 29946028 419

26.153 14026,172 3M96,172

-500136 13.5036,33.9M3 11.323

1777 1475 207 3W68 339 57.9

- 629 56016,678 6806 581 2 4

S 3.005 2,1782,361 852361 15

12,173 M.

- 11.906 673S 111.740 4.45478.597 3.003

M22251.108 10,0!)

a8005 1.190112

1.626 132

- 6 15,713 257.974

U8817 33321

8M2S28 32 10

111.373 8.770M231390 27.183

- 23.998 1.823

15.752 1230

- 9.906 773

2 176 1301, M487 72.622

7.995898 34C

25,066 940N6.514 5.133

1,053.006 3091 174,514 6.383

31

167

590

624

lo

169

W.

42

t422

2•

"4

186 108041 55

2

2 1

605 1.213

12.911 2867

- 1.445 134 1.79 1.879136 47 2-6 25o

26 1.276 248 1769 •770 - 207 1,065 1.065932 2.722 937 . 4.60 3.230

d2 32 182 182

545 38 - 114 903 903- 373 37 410 4105 - 148 15 L.3 1I99o545 tO0 521 242 I'm9 1.999

1.768

1.7,8

,7713.51314.577

6.000 667

6."O 83M

12.480

15.040

9.8n• 32

300,00 88

W09825 120

982 - 215 .=27 1.2W71.136 111 1256 1M2501.449 145 1.594 1.594

TLG Serices, Inc.

Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generting Plant

P-liminaryfDecammissIaln Cast Et inateDocument P23-1651-001, Ret. 0

Appendia C, Page 11 of 12


SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate(thousands of 2011 dollars)

pant a..... . .s -- d. .... a.. I a itypuAsteivtity asesaona- R-al .IPk.giag Tr..pan- = 1%sstn Dis.p...l Othss T-t. T.] ier.Ta. .anaent s•.rasian Volume Cl... A B M. . -0. E C GTCC P-aaed Crft Contsactta

Iadet Aetiity Descrpttian Pust Cast Pots. Co.st . C.Ptt Ca.t. Coatinenscy C.t. Cous. Cost Co.t. Cu. Fea Pa. Fat Cu. Fast Ca. FPe Cu. Fan Wt. Lbs. M.ahour. M.nanhu

peait 4b Ceri•l.Depaedeet Cet- (--nnttd,4b 44 Health phbtin suppliat4b.4.5 H-y tqipmeat - vets]4b 46 3

tape t,1fDAW nenerattd

4b.4.7 Fla, a.tten btdgat4b 4 8 NRC Fe4b 4 9 Utlity Stt Iadteatib.4.10 Liquid Radnasta PrFesiag Eqtipm-enSarsau4b 4 11 CorpteAllatliat4b.4.l2 Ssity Staff Cast4b.4.13 DOC Staf C0t"4b4 4 4 lity Staff Cet4b.4 Subtatal Period lb PFritd-Dependtat Coas

4b.0 TOTAL PERIOD 41, COST

PERIOD0 4f1- Li--eaTvvsaiesle

Pa.o.d 4f Di-a e -e• tee i Asctittei41. .1 ORISE -vetsasryesee_4 .I.2 Termieattle a--4.1 Sabtal Pasied tf Astity C.t..

Ported 4f Addil ... Cost

41.2.1 Lnsest Tetiatije St-ey41.2 Sebtetal Ptriod 4f Addition.l Costa

P.] 4fOC.1atera. osl0 t4 13.1l Decs f re•fnnepr

43.] Floaida LLRW Ilpao.iee F-41`3 Stb.tel Peeled lfCellaterl Cesta

Period 4f Ploaia.Dependent t C41.4.1 Ie[ teta-4114.2 Propere tmy aa41.4.3 Heasth phy•al supphl4".4.4 Disp-al f DAW --nratd41.4 1t Platr budgeet41.46 PaCt a

4f14]7 Uity Site Ind-ee41.4 8 Ce"pert't A]ll-aiee4f 4 9 Seett Staff Cat4 1.4 10 DO,' Sta!] 11-t

4f4 II Ulihly Staff 'o.t41.4 Stbtotal Pastd 4f PCerAd.Depaedent Cts.

4].] TOTAL PERIOD 4f COST

PERIOD 4 TOTALS

PERIOD55tb - Sits lteaavsiee

Peiodtb 5irvti Daaeea nie g aAetieitia

rteteltit f em.atini Site Btildiep5b.l.t I Raeat5b.l. 2 AAC Di-v G -eerto Butilling5b. .t.3 AWS Reatd W-tabhtte5b.t I 4 Atttltey Btfidtg5b.t.1.5 Cent-I A]ee Statio5b.t I 6 Cvrc -"l Storag5biI] C1ottro Comple-5b.l.t S Stesa] Pee Oil Tankt USTD

.::I F9 D Ise GeaOil T-1 IM

5b. I 10 io P Ceetp Buddlg5b.l.I II Pira Peetpbeete

5b.].1.12 Peel tedlee vg - (A-t Bid&)Sb.] 1.13 lntabkt DithbtgeStecetta,5b.1.1.14 IBdteretabte mdg

2.5133.421 -

1835 9 279 31245tl161L 887

L31,14.7271860121.4119

982 5,9Z15 13M 97 - 279 53 2G6

3.415 21 .¢x 95 1 1,Q7 13457 t.178 565WI,

S2,8 3 142 3 142

513 3935 3,935

1t7 1.431 1L431116 1278 1 27 82113 2 170 2 170

94 722 722202 1,545 I 545709 5436 5.436

2.790 21.391 21.3913.163 24.253 24,2539.287 69.981 69.981

18.26. IM0.054 IS 919

5.701 1]4.015 I86

21.3269398.W03

114.015 186 73,.307

9.594.252 371.595 745.347

5,701

.768 1.366 163.263 40.6M5

154 46 20W 2WO

154 46 200 2WO

6048 1.815 7.863 7,8630048 1.815 7.863 7863

1,M8 189 1.146 1.446

1 9 1 11,258 189 1.447 1.447

123.073 6240123.073 6.240

654

8 6 17154W77436251935

5.ffi44,42

654 8 6 17 412.4

65t 8 6 17 19.92G

3.6"1 47003 18031 8.72- 19.632 35.019 114.822

61 639 639M6 117 817

6 37 373 177 177

63 S3t SO]w5 01 501M828 HS5

140 1.076 1.076760 5823 5.823666 5,108 5.108

1980 15.131 15131

4029 24.641 746ý4]

51.246 298.000 M9.570

6.9M tII

Ie.709

57.14974.321

750 6999 I 150309

350 6.999 123.085 156549

1.768 387 232.10 123.327 7 00 2 142 19 86.530 730004 1,429.171

4.06319

154.552

12

73]

4.67222

23 17723M 1.782

0 3

114 8742 1 714 3I

19 1472 18

i63 1.17365 496

4.6722217]

1.7823

874

1173

"38

47.8M0

2.78619.,011

46

94321 33

12.445"06Iii -6

TLG Snticei Inc.

Crynata River Unit 3 No-car Generating PlantPrelimiry DLvmmiaoiooiog Cot Estimate

Doeomeot P23-1651-001, R. 0

Appendix C, Page 12 of 12


SAFSTOR Decommissioning Cost Estimate(thousand. of 2011 dollar.)

Avtroitv

Off.ti- LLtW NRC Speot Fool St. Pressed Burial Voo-es Sorial' Utility .odD.ov Rvmoval Paikagiog Tr-anport Poosing Disposal Other Total Total Li.. Term. Management R.oaotion Voolum Cla.s A Cla.. B Class.C TCC Pvovo-ad Cr-ft ContraiorCoat Co- t Coat. Coat. Costt Ctoo Cos .- Contingen Coat. Coat. Coot. Co.t. C. Fot C. Fot Cu. oFt Cu. Ft Cu. F-e o .. Lb.. M.ohoov. Manouo II .............. • ...... p .....

ODemohlon of Reatoiniog Sita 8tuildiogs lmo6nutdl51b 1.1.15 Machine Shop. Cold51, 1 IS Mahinoo Sltop -Hot5b.l.l.17 MitoYardStu.est& F& odotioo,b I 1 18 OTSGS--ragoBuild..gSb.l .l.I9 RSo Mintoo -o- Blid, d H P CCioSb.l.l 20 W51 t h-ouooSb 1.121 RVCH St-ogoBu.lding5b.t.l 22 Rsoty Bldg5b.!.' 23 Ttbtoo Build~ogSb.!.' 24 Turbtoe FodoatalSb.!.! Totalt

5b 1.2 BockFil S1 o

Sb.1 3 0radeo& ltodtvpalttoh. 1.4 Finorepor to NRC

Sb.l Subtotal PCootd 51 Ao-oty Coat.

Period 51 Additional Co..hb 2.'1 Cootroo 0:olhmo

5h.2.2 SfST Domolitioo -d Rstooation51 2.3 lotoke & Ditchargo Struotuo Cofferda-5b.2.4 Firing 'aogeolo`-5b.2 Sobtotal Poriod Sb Addtloon.l Coo.

PFotod 5b ColIttoral Co.tsS5h.!. Small tooalown

5b.3.2 Corporatilolion.5b.3.3 Uihty Silo Iodirtv5h.3 Subtotal Period 5b Collater.l Co

Periotd 51 Poriod-Daptndm Co-tt5h.4.l loooto55.4 2 Property tatv

5b.4.3 Hoyeqouipment -Wol54 4 Plot ooeoy bodgot5b.4.5 Soottoty Stat CmlSb.4.6 DOC StalF Cotb 427 Utihty Staff Cot

5b.4 Sobtol Poriod 5b Prodi-Dvptodool Cott

5b.0 TOTAL PERIOD51b COST

PERIOD8G TOTALS

FOTAL COST To 8ICOSMMISSION

1.4•0489

74228

2,101442

14.288

12 93I 1 88

219 1.67873 562

6 Z311 8631 263

315 2.416

2,143 16,431 -

9388I.678

562'2

2.416

2 .43 0

-14

17,600

1.396

12.0676.0601.077

445- 1.090- 3.770

27 791

04.739170,921

830

15,304

125 95528 214

179 27 205 205179 2.322 17.80G 205

1.4I1

1.560172,608 1,560

!18782

2.G33

161

161

48185 554Z23 04078 9

117 899407 2.000

6549 0

59%- 90

940 2,119

2.5114.4104.436

11 360

IGO

160

-2l ]as A8232 35 276 267248 37 283478 96 796 736

- 451 45 496 495

5.119 .. .70 5N70 5 . 887 . ..173 28 199 . 199 . . .

2.106 316 2.423 2,122 12309I1.038 1.555 '2,093 12.693 119.874

- 4.044 607 4.-50 4.650 as 51735.119 17 ]1t 3.417 26.=48 2.338 =230.93I

23.218 18.521 6 238 47.978 206 960 46.832 184048 232.654

23218 18,521 6.238 47.978 200 940 46.032 184 048 232.654

9.052 80,730 18.788 10.280 20,214 36,143 752,683 149.706 1.077,596 763.717 271.910 51,969 234803 133.758 288 801 1.142 21.677,830 1.005,605 7.993.623

TOTAL COSiTTO DECOSIISSION"ITK 16.13% CONTINGENf'CY: $1,077.596 lhot...d.of 2011 dollara

lOTALN5C LICENSE TERM INATION COST IS 0.4!; 08: $753,717 thloo..dtof 2011 dollars

ISPENT FUEL MANAOFM ENT COST IS26.23% OR: $271.10 ltbootodtof 20811 dollav

INON-SUCLUA48 DEMO1LITION COST IS4.82% OR: 151.969 tltooadt of 201t dollar.

TOTAL FSIMARY SITE RADWASTE VOLUM E BURlIED: 134,09 toblo Feat

TOTAL GREATER THAN CLASS C R.8DWASTE VOLUME GENERATED: 2,142 tobio f-o

[LOTAL SCHAAP METAL REMOVED: 39,30 too.

KrOTAL CRAFT LABOR REtUIREME8NTS: L.80,505 mao-h-oo.

Eod No.a.oft - ondloot otht tho s obotootynootcohargdttsdtoootiationi gttxpenso.o - indlt thbat thia ttioity porformtd by doeoommsti.ning ttalf.

0io idwaoote obtht thosalueoltlosstthea05bhut ia ono.tro.a calloontaiinhg ".-" ,divooaootsazrotvloe

TLG Service., 1-y.

Documents

CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT · 2012-12-06 · Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant Document P23-1651-001, Rev. 0 Preliminary Decommissioning Cost Estimate