C!? - armc.am

Revised Annlyscs of‘
Water Rcactor Power Station
With the issuance of the final Decomnissionlng Rule (July 27, 1988), owners and
operrtorr o f rlcenred nuclear power plants are requlred to prepare, and submit to the
U . S . Nuclear Regulatory C o m i s s l o n (N R C ) fot review, decormissionin p l a n s dnd cost
~ ! ~ t i r n ~ l e rThe
. NRC s t a f f is in need of bases documentation that w i 1 d s i i s t them in
d s w s s i n y thr adcquacy of the licensee submittals, from the viewpoint o f both the
p I ~ n n r dactions. inclutliny occupational radiation exposure, and the probable costs.
Ihc purpose of this reevaluatlon study i ; t o provldc! some o f the needed bases documen.
t a t ion.
3
This report presents the results o f a review and reevaluation o f the PNL 1978
iltv:onmissioninq study o f the Trojan rtuclear power plant, including all identifiable
f.ictori and r o s t assumptions whlch contribute signlflcantly t o the total c o s t o f
dctonvoissioning the nuclear powev p!ant for the OICON, SAFSTOR, and ENTOMB decormlsriuning alternattves. There alternatives now include an initial 5 - 7 year period during
which t h e qwnt fuel I s rtoriid i n the spent fuel pool, prior to beginning major
4i;J~semhly (11' cxtcndcd safe storaqe of t h , plant.
1hLr r o p w t also incllidcs considerat ion of the NRC requirement that d e c o n t m l n a .
lion m d deconunirslontng activltier leading 1 3 termination o f the nuclear license be
completed within GO years o f final reactor shutdown, considerat ion o f packaying and
d i \ l i o $ a l requirements for materials whose radionuclide concentratlons exceeded the
limit; f o r . I l a r s C low.levc1 waste (t.e., Creater.Thm-Class C), and reflects 1993
( o \ t \ l o r ' 1,itii)r) matrrials. transport, and disposal activities. Scnritivltj of the
t o t d l 1 I t t ' l i * > C tprrninat (on t o r t t o thi? disposal c o s t s a t different low.level radioactive
w . i > t t i d i i i i o r a l sitrr, and t o d i f f o l ' e n t depths of contaminated concrete surface rtmoval
withiri t h t ? f a r i l i l i c r arc alru crxitnlnid.
REPORT CONTENfS O U T l l N E
EXECUI I V E SUMMARY
C1IAPTIR 1
CIIAPTrn 2
CHAPIER
CIIAPITR
CIIAPTEA
- lNlRODUCllON
3 4 - SAFSTOR
5
6 -
CllAPlER
CllAPTCR 7
SIUDY APPROACII, BASES, AND ASSUMPTIONS
UECOH FOR l l l E REFERENCE PWR POWER STATION
FOR THE REFERENCE PWR POWER STAflOH
ENTOMB FOR THE RUERENCE PWR POWER STATION
CONCLUSIONS
GLOSSARY
*
VOLUMl
2
. . ~ _ . . . _ I ..._
APPENDIX A
AI’PCtlDlX B
APPFNOIX C
APPtNDlX D
API’It4DIN t
- STUDY CONlAClS
*
COST ESTIMATING BASES
-
COS1
ESTIMAIINC COMPUTFR PROGRAM
E t f E C T S OF I V E SPEN; NUCLEAR FUEL INVENTORY
- ALTERNATIVES
-
R E A C I O R PWSSURE VESSEL AND I N T l R N A L S OISMANILEMENT PsNO OlSPOSAl
A C T I V I T I E S , MANPOWER, AND COSTS
S l f A M GLNtRAlORS OISMANTLFHEN~ AND DISPOSAL A C Y I V I I I E S ,
MANPOWER, AND COSTS
OTCO1.pII SSIONING METHOD‘
MIXED UASTES
APPLNDIX C APPtfiDIX I{ k P P t N l ) l X I - REGULATORY CON$IDIRAIIONS
APPt NDlX I
APPFtiDIA J
APP1,HDIX K
-
-
ON DECOM4ISSIONING
f O R OFCOMMISSIONING
REVlCrl Of DfCOMMISSIONING EXPERIFNCE SINCE 1978
R t V l t W O f OtCOMMISSlONlNG TECllNlCAL DEVElOPMENlS SINCE 1978
Y
Dmn for Comma1
..............................
REPORT CONlENTS 0UTI.INE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ABSTRACT
ACYNOULEOGMINTS
...........................
. STUDV IJJNTACTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Is . COST fSTkEV\IING BASIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
111
V
XXt
APPENDIX A
A.1
APPENDIX
8.1
...................
8.1
BASES AND ASSUMPTIONS
8.1
MANPOUIR COSTS
8.3
HOBlLllATlON
8.4
RADIOACTIVE WASTE PACKAGING COSTS
R.5
CASK CHARUS
AND
......................
8.7
.............
8.7
8.6
........................
TRANSPORTATION COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.7
WASTE
t1.8
8.10
....................
....... ....
.............
d.7.1
Cost; f o r Shallow-land B u r i a l
0.7,2
Costs f o r Geologic Disposal
8.7.3
Costs f o r Hlxed Uaste Disposal
8.9
B.15
8.15
8.24
8.24
.....
8.25
.....................
8.29
.....................
8.29
8.9.1
Assumptions
8.9.2
Estimated P r o p e r t y Taxes f o r t h e Reference
PUR F o l l o w i n g f i n a l Shutdown
............
NUCLfAR INSURANCE COSTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
8.10.1 Arsumptibnr
....................
8.10.2
8.9
...........
COSTS Of S i R V l C f S . SUPPLIES. AND SPECIAL EQUIPMENT
B a 9 PROPERTY IAXATION
8.4
...........
DfHOBlLlZATlON COSTS
DISPO5AL COSTS
8.2
P r e d : c l i o n s f o r t h e Annual Costs o f the
Insurance Program f o r the Reference PUR
f o l l o w i n g f i n a l Shutdown
..............
8.30
8.31
8.33
8.35
4
.
NIIWEGlCR.SBIW V d . 2
vii
Drpn for CuMIcnl
8.10.3
S u m a r y o f the Estimated Costs o f Insurance
Following Permanent Cessatiori o f Operations
. ..
8.10.4 Estimated C o s t s o f Insurance Followfng Terminatton
o f the Possession-Only license . ,
. . ... ..
I
8.11
LICENSE TEWlNATlON SURVFY COSTS
8.12 CASCADING COSTS
. .
.
, ,
.
,
I
<
........
..
‘
a
I
I
, ,
e
I
1
I
........ ........
8.14 CONTINGFNCY , , , , , . . . . . . . . . . . .
8 . 1 5 RLFERENCES
.....,. ..........
APPENDIX C . COST ESIlMATlNC COMPUTER PROGRAM . . , . . . . .
C.l PLANT INVfNTORY
.. .....,..
...
B,I3 RCCULATORY COSTS
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
-
*
8.46
.
.
8.46
. .
...
a
..
Inventories o f Process System Components
I
I
.
..
....
I
I
*
.
.
,
I
8.38
6.39
I
. ....
UNIT COSTIFACTORS A N 0 WORK DlfFlCUlTY FACTORS . . . . . , .
C.2.1 Analysts o f Work Duratlons and Available Time
...
C . 2 . 2 labor and Materials Costs per Hnur o f Cutting
Crew Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , . ,
C.2.3 Removal and Packaging o f Contaminated Piping
0.5 in. Oia. to 2 in. Dia.
, .
,
... ....
C.2.4 Rehioval and Packaging o f Contamlnated Piping
... . .
..
2.5 in. Dia. to 14 in. Oia.
C . 2 . 5 Removal and Packaging o f Contaminated RCS Plping,
32 in. Oia. to 37 In. Dia,
...,.....,,.
(.?.6 Removal and Packaging o f Contaminated Tanks,
lank Diameters between 3 f t and 15 f t
. ....
C.2.7
and Materials Costs per Hour o f Equipment
Rcrnoval Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.1.I
C.2
+
I
.
R+37
I
B.49
8.52
C.1
C.5
C.5
C.40
C.41
2.42
C.44
c.45
C.46
C.47
LAb9r
I
I
I
C.2.9 Removal and Packaging o f Pumps and Miscellaneous
Equipment krighing Less than 100 Pounds , ,
.....
C.2.9
C.2.10
Removal and Packaging o f Pumps and Miscellaneous
Equipment Ueighing More than 100 Pounds
. .
Removal and Packaging o f Pressurizer
C.49
C.50
.
...
C.51
, ,
.....
C.52
.....
C.2.11
Removal and Packaging o f Primary Pumps
C.2.12
High-Pressure Water Wash/Vacuuming o f Surfaces
C.2.13
Cutting Uncontaminated Concrete Walls and Floors
C.2.14
Removal o f Contaminated Concrete Surfaces
+
C.53
.
C.54
.
C.56
.. ..
C.58
I
I
C . 2 . I5 Removil o f Actlvated/Contarrlnated Concrete by
Controlled Blastlng + , +
.
C.61
C.2.16 Removal and Packaging o f Contaminated Metal
Sllrfaces
,
.
C.65
. .. .... ...
I
.... . ......
I
C.Z.17
......
I
Removal and Packaging o f Contaminated Ducts
6 x 8 in. t o 42 x EO in.
,
,
, , ,
.. .
C.2.18 Removal o f Steel Floor Crating
...
C.2.19 Decontamination o f liandrails
.,,,.
.
C.2.23 Removal o f Contamlnated Floor Dralns
TRANSPORTATION COSTS . . . . . , , . , . . . . .
REFEREKES
.. , , .. , , . , , .,.. . .
I
C.3
C.4
APPENDIX D
D.l
I
. EFFECTS
, , , .
D. 1. I
C.68
.
C.70
,
c.73
... .
C.76
......
C.81
,
.
I
I
I
......... ..
SNF DISPOSAL . . . . . .
I
...... . .. ...
Projections . . . . . . . .
.
I
0.3
0.4
0.4
. . .
0.6
......... ... ....
D.A
I
.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION RELATED TO POST-SHUTDOWN STORAGE
OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUEL
.
,
I
0.4 GFNCRIC CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO POST-SHUTDOWN
STORAGf O f SNF .
. .. . . . , . .. . .
.
0.1
I
I
0.2 POSTULATED A l LOCATION Of lllE WASTE MANAGfWENl S Y S T E M ' S
ANNUAL ,ACCfPTANCE CAPACITY FOR i H I R E F E R W E PUR
, .
D.3
I
I
Standard Disposal Contract Requirement for an
Annual Capacity Report
.
Waste Acceptance
I
.. . .
.
I
0.1.2
C.67
..
...
OF SPENT NUCLEAR FUfL INVENTORY
ON DECOMMlSSlONiNG ALTERNATIVES
REGULATORY CONSIDCRATIONS GOVERhlNG
.
. .
D.4.I
Storage/Dlsposition Alteraatives for SNF
......
...,.
0.4.2
Consideration o f Two Basic Alternatives for
SNF Storage . . . . .
. . . . .
.....
. ....
.
I
.
0.10
0.11
0.14
. . Two
...........
RLQUIREO SNT COOLING TlHE FOLLOWING DISCHARGI
REFORE DRY STORAGE
... ................
RATIONAL F. FOR THE SPtNT FUEL STORAGE OPTION POSTULATED
FOR THE REFIRFNCE PUR
...................
AEfERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0.4.3
0. 5
0.6
D.7
APPlNDlX t
Present Value Llfe.Cycle Costs o f
A l t e r n a t t v r ; f o r SNF Storage
0.26
0.30
......
E.l
..................
f.2
................
E.3
t.I
EAStC O I S A S S F R E L Y PLAN
E.2
UPPER CORf SUPPORT ASSEHRLY
E.2.1
CRD Guides
1.2.2
TopPlate
.................. ..
.....................
f.2.3 Posts and Columns
1.2.4
Upper G r i d P l a t e
E.3
E.3
.................
E.5
..................
E.5
....................
Upper Cor B a r r e l
.................
... ........... ..
Thermal S h i e l d s
L0H.R COR[ ASSlElBLV
E.6
1.3.1
E.6
1.3.2
f . 3 . J l o r e Shroud P l a t e s
..
Shroud former P l a t e s
.
I.ower Grld P l a t e
...
Lower Core B a r r e l
..
f.4
0.21
. RLACTGR PRESSURE VESSEL AN0 INTlRNALS OISW\NTLEHENT
AND DISPOSAL A C T I V I T I E S . HANPOWFR AND COSTS
1.3
0.17
............
t .3 . 4
............
t.3.5
............
1.3.6
............
1 . 3 . 7 Lower Core Support S t r u c t u r e
............
RtACTOR PRESSURE VESSfL
..................
E.4.1 Insulation
.....................
E . 4 . 2 RPV Upper Head and Flange
.............
1.4.3
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
RPV Lower f l a n q e and RCS P i p i n g
. . . . . . . . . .
E. 8
.
t 9
C.10
E.11
t.12
E.13
E.14
E.14
E . 15
E.16
....................
1.4.5 RPV Val1
......................
E . 4 . 6 PV l o w e r Head
...................
SUMMARY O f CUTTING AhD PACKAGING ANALVSES
.........
E . S . 1 C u t t r n g Team Compositions
.............
E.4.4
f.5
RPV Nozzles
E.17
E.17
..............
E.21
.............
1.21
C u t t i n g Analyses D e t r l l r
E.f.4
GTCC C u t t i n g and PackarJlng
E,5.5
Packages f o r Disposal
E.5.6
Estimated Costs
f . 5.7
P o s t u l a t e d Schedule f o r C u t t i n g and Packaging t h e
RPV and I t s l n t e r n a l s
...............
E.22
..................
E.22
...............
E.24
Impacts on Transport and D l s p o s a l Costs o f Disposal
....................
..........................
a t tlarnwell
E.6 REFERENCES
APPENDIX F
E.16
1.18
E.3.3
.
E.16
..........
E . 5 . 2 C u t t i n g Operatian fime E s t i m a t e s
C 5.8
f.16
STCAH GENERATORS DISMANTLEMENT AND DISPOSAL A C T I V I T I E S .
MANPOWtR AND COSTS
....................
........................
........................
1.29
E.28
F.1
f .1
ASSUMPIIONS
F.?
HETNOMLOGV
F.3
STEAM GENERATORS ( 4 EACH)
f.3
F.4
S T E M GENfRAlORS
F.6
F.5
.................
RFHOVAL AND DISPOSAL
...........
f.6
..........
F.6
............
f.9
Phase 1
. Precursor
F.4.2
Phase 2
. Preparatory A c t i v i t i e s
f.4.3
Phase 3
. Removal A c t i v l t i e s
F.4.4
Phase 4 . Heavy l i f t R i g g i n g , Transport.
and Disposal
....................
RADWASTE IiANDLING AND PROCESSING
F.3
..............
F.4. I
Tasks
F.2
..............
F.12
f.12
f . 6 OCCUPATIONAL R A J I A T I D N DOSE
r.7 ESTlMATfD
................
F.13
...............
F.25
COSTS AN0 SCHEDULES
.........................
F . 9 REflRENCLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
APPENDIX C . DECOMMISSIONING METHODS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
f.8
C.1
DISCUSSION
SYSTEM DECONTAMINATION
C.I.l A s s u m p t i o n s
G.1.2
Discussion
..................
....................
.....................
SURFACE DECDNTANINATION
h'ATtR
C.4.1
C.5
APPINDIX H
C.4
.............
G.10
.....
C.10
Removal o f Contaminated C o n c r e t e S u r f a c e s
......................
Romoval o f C r a n e s
.................
IPlATMENr AND DISPOSAL
...............
I r e d t m e n t a n d D i s p o s a l o f the C o n c e n t r a t e d B o r o n
Solution
......................
Temporary Waste S o l i d i f l c a t l o n System
C.11
C.12
G.19
C.19
. . . .
C.20
.......
C.23
C.4.2 S p e n t F u e l P o o l W a t e r T r e a t m e n t a n d D i s p o s a l
C.4.3
Gz2
C.9
and F l o o r s
C.4
C.1
..................
G . 3.2 t u t t Ing U n c o n t a m i n a t e d C o n r r e te W a l l s
C.3.3
C.l
C.9
C.3 REMOVAL TfCHNlQUES AN0 EQUIPMENT
C.3.1
F.36
........
C.1.3 E s t i m a t e d T a s k S c h e d u l e and Sequence
C.2
F.33
.........................
WASTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
RtFfRtNLfS
C.26
. MIXED
'1.1
. . . . . . . . . . .
WASTE
.......
H.1
STATUTORY AND RfCULAlORY RFQUlRtMfNIS
t1.2
NRC GUIDANCE ON IliE MANACEhFNl Of MIXED
H.3
VIM1 IS CURRENTLY BEING DONE TO D f A L WITH THE
PROBLfH Of M I X E D W P S l f S
..................
xii
11.1
H.5
H.6
H.4
ESTIMATED PRODUCTION OF MIXED UASTES DURING OPERATION
OF SELECTED LIGHT-UATER REACTORS
.............
H - 5 ESTIMATED PRODUCTION Of MIXED UASTES DURING
OECOMMISSIONINC OF THE RfFERT”CE PUR
11.9
...........
H. IO
..
H IO
.
H.6
ESTIMATE0 COSTS FOR STORAGE AND DISPOSAL OF MIXED UASTES
11.7
CONCLUSIONS
........................
H.11
1i.8
REFERERCES
........................
H‘12
APPENDIX I . RECUIATOQY CONSIDFRATIONS FOR DECOMMISSIONING
1.1
PLANNING AND PREPARATION
...............
1.3
.........
1.3
..................
1.13
................
I . I5
Internal Revenue Service Involvement in Decomissioning
iunding
......................
1.20
..................
1.21
licensing Costs
1.1.4 Financial Assurance
1.1.5
1 . 2 ACTIVF DfCOMMlSSlONlNG
1.2. I
1.2
Licensing
.....................
Public Radlation Safety
1.21
. . . . . . . . . . .
1.23
..............
1.25
2 Occupational Radiation Safety
1.?.3
1.1
1.1
1.1.2 Ducomissloning Plan Rec/iiirements
1.1.3
*
.................
Licensing Requirements
1.1.1
.
........
Hanayemcnt
.. .........
.................
1 . 2 . 4 Special Ndclear Materials Management
1.26
1.2.5 Radioactive Uaste
I .27
1.2.6 Industrial Safety
1 . 2 . 7 Other Statutory and Regulatory Requirements
1 . 2 . 8 license lerniination and Facility Release
1.3 CONTINUING CARE
1.3.2 licensing
....
1.35
. . . . . .
1.37
......................
I .3.1 Public and Occupational Safety
1.34
...........
.....................
1.37
1.38
1.38
SELECTED RECULAlORY ASPECTS ASSOCIAfEO WITH
DECOHHlSSlONlNC PREMATURELY SHUTWWN PLANTS
1.4
I
I
.
I . 6 REFERLNCES
APPCNDIX J
. . 1,40
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ' 41
a
. REVIEW O f DECOMHISSIONINC E X P E R I E M f SINCE 1978
...........
2
DOMESTIC EXPfHlEtiCE 114 DEC(V.1HISSIONINC NUCLEAR POWER
STATIONS SINCE 1978
.
I
I
I
0
.
6
.....
J . 1 , l D e c o m n l s s l o n i n g E x p e r l e n c e s a t N u c l e a r R e a c t o r Power
.... ....
. .
FORE ICN EXPlRItNCE I N DTCOMMISSIONINC NUCLEAR REACTORS
.......... .,.......
5INCE 1 9 7 8
J . ? . I D e c o N t m ~ r s i o n i n gP r o j e : t s t n Canada
. .....
Stations
5.2
, ,
.
, ,
I
I
I
I
I
5 . 2 . 2 Decomnisrioning P r o j e c t s +n France
I
I
I
I
5.2.3 Derommissioning P r o j e c t s I n Federal Republic
o f Germany
.
a
.....
.. .. ....... .. .. .
5.2.4 Oecomnisrloniny P r o j e c t s i n Italy
.. . , .
J.2.5 D e c o m m i s s i o n i n g P r o j e c t s i n J ~ p a n . . . . . . . . .
5.2.6 i)ecammissioniny P r o j e c t s i n S p a i n
. .. . , . , .
...
J . 2 . 7 D P c o m n i s i i o n i n g P r o j e c t s i n the U n i t c d K i n g d o m
RFfERfNIfS . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..........
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
5.3
APP[ ND I X
I
K R L V l t W O f DtCOMMlSSlONlNC 1ECHNlCAL DtVtlOPMENT5
.
* . .
SINCE 1 9 7 8 . . , . , . . .
.
6
.
L
.
I
.
.
.
K. I OOHlSllC AND fORt ICN lELiIN1CAI D E V l l O P M t N l S SlNCt 1918
K.2
K.3
1.38
DfCOMMlSSlDNlNC AFlER A 20-YCAH LICENSE RENEWAL PERIOD
1.5
J. I
.....
K.I.1
Domestic Technical Developments
K. 1.2
f o r e i g n Technical Developments
f A C l l l l A I l O N lECHl
POWfR RlACTORS .
CONCLUSIONS
K.4 REFlRLNCfS
.
I
........
.
I
I
J,I
J.l
5.2
5.10
J.11
J.11
5.13
5.14
5.14
J.14
5.15
J.16
K.l
. K. 1
I
K. I
......... .
K.4
f O R CICOMMISSIONINC LIGt{T WATER
, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . l . . . .
K.5
.. . .. . .. . .. .
, . . , . , , . . . . .
,
............
..........,,
K.5
K.6
.........................
C.1
C t C P Harn Mww
C.2
f l o w Diagram f o r t n t e r i n q D a t a i n t o t h e CECP
C.36 System I n v e n t o r y i n f o r m a t i o n (Screen
I)
C . 3b System i n v v n t o r y I n f o r m a t i o n (Screen 1 1 )
. . . . . . . . . .
.............
............
C.2
C.3
C.4
C.4
C . 4 a P a r t i a l C L C P Output f i l e for Contaminated Systems.
lxample I
C.6
(i.411 P a r t i a l C t C P Output f i l e f o r C. ontaminated Systems.
fXJmiple?
C.7
C . 4 c P a r t i a l C L C P Output f i l e f o r Contaminated Systems.
fxanyilc3
C.8
............................
............................
............................
L.54
P a r t i a l ClCP Output f i l e for B u l l d i n g Decontamination.
txmple I
............................
C.9
C . 5 b P a r t f a l CfCP Output f i i c Tor B u i l d i n g Decontamination.
txanipI(! 2
C.10
C . 5 c P a r t i a l L l C P Output f i l e for. B u i l d i n g Decontamination.
Ixawlr! 3
c.11
C . 5 d P a r t i a l Cf.t.1) Output F i l e f o r B u i l d i n g Occontainination.
txamule 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.I?
............................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.6
C1C.P Output F i l e f o r UPV l n t e r n a l s
D.1
Storqe/Dirposrtion Alternatives for
.....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Spent Nuclear f u e l . .
. .
I ) . ? P r ( ? w n t Value C o s t s f o r 5Nf Storage Operations
11.3
0.4
. . . . . . . . .
L1.12
0.20
Decay Heat f m i s r i o n Rate a r a Function o f Haximiim Claddiny
l e s p e r a t u r e f o r PUR f u e l Stored i n M e t a l Casks
0.22
Required Cooliny T i m e a s a f u n c t i o n o f f u e l Burnup for Haximiim
Cladding Icmperatures o f 340°C and 375°C. f o r Various I n i t i a l
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Inrirhments
0.24
. . . . . . . . .
t . I. Uppcr Corr A ~ : e m b l y
.
I
C.13
i %. i o w p r C o w Aswmbly
......................
f.,4
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E.7
f . 3 . I o w v r f.orc Support S t r u c t u r e
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
E 13
.....,........*...*,
f .4. Reactor Pressure Vessel
E . 15
E.5. Postulated Schedule for Ciittfng/Packaging tho RPV and
.,, ,.,,,.,,. .....,.,... ...
Postulated Schedule for Cutting/Packaging the RPV . . . . . . .
Steam Generator
...
Steam Generator Supports , ,
. .. . ....... .
Estimated Task Schedule and S e q w c o f w Chemical
Decontamination
.. .,.... ...,..... .. .
lntcrnals
[.os
f.1
1.2
C.I.
I
I
1
1
1
.
.
I
.
1
I
.
1
1
I
,
1
.
I
.
.
1
1
.
I
.
I
.
I
I
I
I
I
E.26
t.26
1.4
f.5
c . IO
C . 2 . Conceptual Decommissioning Plan for the Polar Crane Using
Method1
, . l . . . , l . . . l . . l l . . . l l . . l . . , .
G.3. Conceptual Decommissioning Plan f o r the Polar Crane Using
Method 2, Sheet 1 of 2 .
.
,
,
... .. . .. ..
I
.
C.4. Conceptual Decommissioning Plan for the Polar Crane Using
Method 2, Sheet 7 of 2
,
,
...
I
. ..
I
I
I
. ...
I
C.5.
Conceptual Decommissioning Plan for Lhe Fuel Building Crane
1.1
Power Reactor Decorrmlssionlny Regulatory Overvtew
xvi
.
, ,
.
I
.
.
.
6.16
6.17
,
I
.
C , 18
,
..
G.21
.,.
,
I .2
......... .....
Packaglng for Radioactive Materials , . . . , .
. ...
Shielded Casks for Shipment o f Radioactlve Materials . . . .
U . S . tcology Shallow-land 8urlal Costs a t Hanford
. . . . . .
Chem-Ruclear Shallow.land Burial Costs At Earnwell . . . .
Special Tools and Equipment Costs
, . . . . . .
. .. .
.
8.1 labor Costs for Decomnissioning
6.2
8.3
0.4
8.5
0.6
F.7
8.8
8.9
I
I
I
+
.
.
8.5
8.8
8.9
8.16
.
8.19
.
8.26
.........
8.32
. ...
8.42
I
I
I
I
I
Sumnary o f Istimated Post.Shutdown Iilsuranco Costs In
1993Dollat-r . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . .
Summary of Estimated C o s t s for the Termination Survey
I
Summary of Estlmated Time for the Termination Surveys
o f the RiJ\\dingS and S i t e
........... .
I
8.10 Staffing and Labor Rates Postulated for Surve) Crews
0.11
I
.
I
.
I
I
.
,
I
I
..
8.43
,
B.JS
fstimatod labor (.osts for. Preparation o f Termination
Survey Report
.
. . . .
. . .
I
C.4
......
Sumnary o f Lstimated Regulatory Coqts
,
, . . .
.
DfCON Case for Re*erence P d , Hanford Burial Site
, , . . . .
DlCON Case for Refcrence PUR, Barnwell Brwlal Site . . . . . .
S A F S I W Care for Reference PUR, tlanford Burial Site . . . . .
S A f S i O R ? Caie for Reference PUR, Barnwell Burial Site
. . . .
(.5
R c f e r c n c e PUR
0.1
DroJec!ed waste Acceptance Rates for Spent. Nuclear Fuel
0.2
Portirlated S t l f Oisposition Schedule for Lhe Reference PWR
0.3
Distribution o f S i t e s Storing SNf for Given Number of Years
, , , . . . . . . .
lo1 lowing Shutdown . . . .
.
0.4
lstimaled SNF Storaye Operational Costs a t the Reference PUR
..
0.18
I1.S
Calculated Allowable Cladding lemperatures In Dry Storage
.. .
D.23
8.12
C.1
C.2
C.3
.
I
I
.
I
I
....
...
I
a
System Com1)onents and Pipiny Inventories
.
I
. . .
..
. ....
I
,
.
8.46
.
8 50
.
C.14
.
C.18
.
.
, ,
..
..
I
C.22
C.27
C.34
0.5
D.7
0.15
0.6
Required Cooling Times as FunctiJns o f Initial Enrichment and
Cumulative flurnup, for Two Maximum Cladding l e m p e r a t w e s
. ..
0.24
Required Cool in9 Times followtng Final 'Jhutdown, for Last
Seven Discharges from Trojan Reactor . . . . . . . . . .
....
0.25
I
0.7
Reactor Pressure Vessel and Internals Cutting Details
.....
.....
Calculated Weights, lull .Density Volumes, Packaged
Volumes and Number o f Canisters of GTCC LLU Generated
During the Ueconmirsioning o f the Reference PUR
..
......
Stafflng and LJbor Rates Postulated for Cutting Crews
t *4.
I .5.
Summary o f Information on RPV and lnternals Packaged for
OIsposdl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Siirnmry o f Costs for Cuttirig, Packaging, Ir,ar,sport.
and Uirporal o f the Rezrtor Pressure Vessel and Its
Intc!rnal Strurtures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
E.18
E.20
f.22
...
E.23
.....
k.25
L . 6 . S m s i t i v i t y o f I r a q o r t and Disposal Costs for the LLU
Portions of the Reactor Vessel and Vessel lnternals to
Disposal lacilit:, Location and Rates
..............
. . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Generators Removal . . . . .
L.27
F.6
1.1
Stcdm
Genrwator nata
f .2
Phase
1
f .3
Phase 2 . Preparatory Activities
f .4
Staffinq arid labor Hater Postulated for ReFoval Crews
F.9
I .5
Phase 3 . Remc.va1 Activities
f.10
I .6
Summary o f Occupational Radiation Doses from the Point Beach
S t ~ mCenrra!or Replacement Prgject
............
r.7
t .8
I .9
.
h e c u r s o r lasks for Steam
................
.....
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
..
Estimated Occupational Dose for the Postulated Removal o f tour
S t e m Generators Similar t o FBNP-1 Units h r i n g Immediate
Dismantlement With and Uithout Chemical Decontamination o f the
Reartot Coolant System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Siimary o f Estimated Costs for Steam Generators Dismantlement
. . .
and Disposal Activities at US Ecology and at Barnwell
Estimated Costs for Disposal o f Radioactive Materials at US
ftolocjy from Steam G e n v a t o r Rwncval. Project . . . . . . .
xvi i i
f.7
f38
f .I5
f.16
. .
f.26
. . .
F.30
I .IO t s t i m a t c d C o s t s f o r D i s p o s a l o f R a d i o a c t i v e Materials a t
tlarnwull from Steam Generator Removal P r o j e c t
.........
I .I I
Sirnundry o f I s t i r i t e d C o n t r a c t o r Costs and Schedule f o r
Rcmoval, Ili,ncll lng, and i r a n s p o r t o f the Steam Generators
l o tlanford
....................
C.1.
6.2,
C.3
I
. . .
G.3
biiirmiar~y uf t s t i m a t c r l ( . o , t r f o r Cranes Dismantlement and
I)isliosal A c t i v i t i e s
G.13
Siimmary o f 15tiniatrd C o n t r a c t o r Cnrt s, Manpower, and
SOicthilc f o r Removal o f the Containment Miiildirig
P o l a r Crane UiliicJ Method 1
G.14
Summary o f l ' s t imated C o n t r a c t o r Costs, Manpower, and
Sclicdulc f o r Removal o f t h o Containment Bu(1dlng
P o l a r Crane Usinq Mcthod 2
G.12
Sumnidry o f t stlniated C o n t r a c t o r Costs, Manpower, and Schedule
fvr Rc~nioval o f the t u p 1 HiiildintJ Crano
C.20
.........
......................
...................
G.5.
1.32
Sunniary o f f s t i m a t c d C o s t s ar.d R a d i a t i o n Oose f o r F u l l . S y s t e m
( h c n i c a l [)ocontamin.rtion o f t h e Reference PUR
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
C.4
f.31
.............
[;.ti. C W W (.omposlt i o n and txposrrre hater P o s t u l a t e d f o r Crane
(..Icaniil, Crews
L . 7.
h.8.
R a d l a t i o l i Dose f o r Spcnt Fuel
Pool U d t c r l r e a t m c n t and Suhsequent k a c t e Disposal
Siininiary o t
J. I
-1.2
I stimatecl h s t s
ifid
. . . . . . .
G.22
G.24
S i i m a r y o f l r t i m a t c d C o s t s and R a d i a t i o n Dose f o r iemporary
U a i l e S o 1 i c l i f i c a t i o n Systcm Opcration and Subsequent Uaste
1)1\()0S31
II. I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............................
N U M A R C - f r t imatcd L h a r a c t c r i s t i c s o f
LIW ' r o m Commercial I W R Operations
?iimrr.iry o f
Mixed
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Infoi-rn,it i o n on Selcc t r d N u c l e a r Reactor ~ ~ c c o m n i s s i o n l n g s
and S h i i t ~ l o w n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Summary o f S h i p p i n g p o r t I)ccommissioning C o s t s
xix
G.25
..
. . . . . . . . .
11.10
5.3
J.5
The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance provided by individuals a t the
Paciflc Northwest Laboratory during the course o f this studv and preparation o f the
d r a f t report. Denny R . Haffner provided a tochnical review o f the entire study. Dr.
Carl Feldmdn and George J , Mencinsky o f the Nuclear Rogulatory Commission provided
con5tructive crlticism and guidance throughout the study. The editorial review prior
to publlcation was contributed by D. R . Payson, Pacific Northwest laboratory. Marlene
Ilale, Laurie Ann Empey, Margie tlutciiings, Rbse Urbina. Margot White and Pat Young, all
o f Paclfic Northwest Laboratory, prepared the final manuscript. finally, those many
Irdividk.als who contributed information that subsequently led t o the completeness of
this reevaluation study are greatly appreciated and are specially acknouledgod i n
Appendix A .
xx i
APPENDIX A
Those many individuals who contributed information that sdbsequently led
t o the completeness of thls study are greatly appreciated and specially
acknowledged in this appendlw.
Special thanks are expressed to the following Individuals rho gave SO
willlngly o f their time and expertise: Chris Alexander o f Advanced Engineer.
incj Services, for providing intormatton on the removal o f the craiies from the
reference p l m t ; Daniel S. McCarvey of Johnson 6 Higgins o f Arizona, Inc., for
prov id I ny nuc 1 car lnsurance Informat Ion associated w l th decomni ss loning:
Uilliam N . 1<3rnpson, Paul R. Parish, and Russel 3. Rutherford of Neil f .
laspson, Inc.. for their help concerning the removal of cranes and the steam
q c w r a t o r s removal and transport ertimate pi esented in thls report; and,
J . Bradley Mason and Dave Schneidmiller o f Pacific Nuclear, for the informat i o n on (urvent practlces arrocidted with the chemical decontamination o f
I iqht .water reactor rystems.
listing o f indlvidudls who contributed t o thir. prqject i s
f i t I J V Irfed be I o w ,
A full
Atlvanccd
L ng ineer 1 ng Service
Chrls Alexander
A 1 1 rml lec hnology Croup, Inc
John E . Grochowrki
Derek Thornton
l i ~ tr lrtt Nu( !ear:
Art OesRosiers
IIrdnd
Robert J. V i s c o m l
Scaffold Services. Inc.:
(hm.fluclear Syslcms, Inc.:
Gary A Benda
Mark S . lewis
William S. Mohr
David 1. Presley
Charles Smith
fnlumbia Concrete Sawing, Inc.:
Jan ti. Duncan
SI RE(;,('H-.(RRJ,
VIII.
2
A. 1
Lompact Ing Iwhnologlcs,
Steve Nowak
James F . Oshorne
Interoat ional:
Container Pt oduc ts Corporal Ion:
Creyory H. Green
Diversified Scientific Services, Inc.:
larry llcmbree
t lectric Power Research Institute:
Ray Lambert
f nvi ronmental Protect i o n Agenry,
Region X :
Dennis A . f a i i l k
Cf'U thclear Corp.;
Bill Potts
Crating Specialities:
Shawn A. Foster
Interstdte Nirclear Servlccs (INS):
Vic Crusselle
Johnsun 6 Higgins of Arizona, Inc..
Daniel 5 . HcCarvey
Neil F . lampson, Inc.:
William N . Lampson
Paul R. Parish
Russell J. Rutherford
K . Bruce lolley
Mirror Insulation:
K i m Cllbert
Raget Pagel
Niiclear Assurance torp. :
James P. Halwie
JaFeS H. V;rLrdck
Oak Ridge Assoclated Universities,
James 0. Ihwpr.
Rebecca H. Kcnnard
Oak Ridge Institute o f Science
and [ducat ion:
Oregon Aisessor'r Office, Columbia
County:
I
Oreson Dep:rtmerli
Jeff Reman
Tom W . tichares
Dav 1 d S t cwart .Smi t h
o f fneryy :
I
Oregon Department o f Iw'ronmcntal
Quality:
John C. Eoik
Oreyoii Department of Revenue:
tdward C(!rh3t'd\Js
Oregon Public Utility Commission:
Roger lo1 burn
l e e Sparling
Pacific L i s 6 t l e r t r i c lompany:
Robert 1. Nelson
A.2
P J c I I i c Nuclear Servlces:
Hike 11411
J. Bradley Mason
Peter H. Newton
Mark R , Ping
Dave Schneidmlllcr
P a c l f l c Northwest laboratory:
Lavelle 1. C l a r k
Dennis R . liaffner
Jim V . Macstrctli
John K . Rau
Samuel R . Hod
Scott A . Vanco
PCI Crrergy Services:
George J . Knet 1
Pentek, I n c . :
Bradley P. f u l l e r
Sheldon lefkowltr
Purtland General f l e c t r i c Cornpan:!:
Steven 1. Bumt
0. Aruce Ca'pcnlPr
John 1. F v w i n c J
David W . lleintzman
B i l l Kephart
Aaron S, HcCabe
Edward P . Miska
Hike Nolan
Susan M. Nolan
J i l l Saracione
Steven P. S a u t t e r
James S . Willison
P r o . C u t Concrete Cult iny, Inc. :
Wilbur D . Plcklc
Rvese Instruments:
Roy Aenriet
Sacramento Municipal U t i l i t y D i s t r i c t :
Dantel C . Oelac
Kenneth R . H i l l e r
SI Ci) Conrtruc,t ion Equipment:
J . Mlchael Bond
kiarbara A . Bond
S c i e n t i f i c Ecoloyy Group (SEG)
Gary R. Lester
Sona 1 y r t I, I nc :
.
Karl L , 1t:onnch:
Iransnuclear, I n c , :
Charles W. Penninyton
Pat Walsh
A.3
l r i . S t a t e Hotor T r a n s i t Co. :
Saundra 1. Holdman
P h i l l p R. Nelson
U.S. Ecology, Inc.:
Arvil Craw
Dan A. Tallmau
D a r w i n A. Y e s t l u n d
U. S . Nucl e a r Regill a t o r y Comni ssion:
Ramin Assa
Robv 8. Revan
f r a n k P. C a r d i l o
Ira Dlnltz
P e t e r B. I r l c k s o n
C a r l Feldman
James C. Holloway
James C. H a l a r o
George J. Hencinsky
Robert
Steven
Phllip
Cheryl
Robprt
J. Pate
R. R u f f i n
ling
A. Trottier
Wood
Joe Bell
rhinylon Public Power S u p p l y Syrtcm:
C h a r l e s 1, Criscola
J. Steve i l o o d
Lowell M. Heeker
Vcr'non 1. Shockley
Ronald 1. Wardlow
lienry R. Benzel
Robert J . C i r o i r
Jowph J. lloyan
Jay f . rloods
A.4
informatlon developed in this reevaluation study i s based on
IIIIII c o \ t ~ l a t d prescntcd in this appendix.
Categorlcr for which b a s l c iinlt
I I ~ s . t thtr A W
qivpn include: salaries, waste packaging, cask rental, trans.
Reactw,
i ! t t 1 I , w d s t e iJisporJ1, \pccial equipment, and services and supplier.
~ , ~ t If i ~c c C.OSI data also are provided concerning taxes, insurance, and license
t'*rtninat ton 5urvriy tosts. In addition, the impact on decomnissioning c o s t s
t i s \ i i l t i r i g from ca3cading c o s t s and contingency allowance i s discussed.
Ihe
tr.l,,t,..
f ( t v tht: e s t i m a t e d decomnisrioning costs lor specialiicd decomnissioning
: , i : h % : i i r h %isr c a w a l of t h e pvessuriier, \he redclor pressure vessel, the
~ , I w n~iv~ii!r~itofs,
and syrtr!ms c.hemical decontamination are contained in
( ~ I o ~ I I ( , I3, Ap:Jcnill(c> I , f and G , respectively, And are not repealed h w e .
It'? c i i r t d d t d pri-\cnti!il i n this appepdix are all early.1993 c o s t s .
r t i v cort
~dv(onlniissiontny cost estimating computer program ( C f C P ) ileveloped at
! ' ! I ( i f ! < N o r ~ t h w t : ~ llaborstory (PNL) for the U . S . Nuclear Regulatory Comnission
f,fiiir,) w a i u t I l i r w l in this pressuriied water reactor (PUR) reevaluatioil study.
! t i l , ~ . l [ . l p sk i s i q r w d lor use on an IBM personal computer or equ'valcnt, w a s
d o u v l q w i f o r . ~ ! ~ b t i i n a t i nthe
q c o l t o f decommissioning light-water reactor power
\ ) , i t t m $ tu t h o Iroirit o f license termination. Such costs include component.
i ' i 11 I iiq and 1 1 q i i iprnc~ot ri?wval c o s t s : packaqinq c o s t s : decuntaminat ion cost I :
i i . , i i i c 4 t i L i r t a t icon t o , t \ :
buridl volumes and costs; and manpower staffing costs.
U , . i r i q c'ciuiiinwnt .ml consrimabler c o s t s , inventory data. and labor rates r i i p ~ ~ I I I , :b! y ttic iuscr, the C f C P calculates unit cost fdctors and then combiner
t t ! v ~ , i ! fartors with transportation and burial cost algorithms to produce a
i w y I i . t c i report of decomnisrioning costs
In addition to costs. the CFCP a l s o
i . ~ I ( . t i l d t e sp w r o n . h o u r s . crew-hours. radiation exposure person-hours, and
I 1 1 7 i i l d t i v i i radiation dose associated with decomnissioning.
Inventories o f
i ' i u i c \ s 5yrtcm tomponents, piping. and valves for the lrojan plant (the
t ' i * I i * f i L n c c PUR p l a n t ) were used to develop and test the C f C P .
Ild? C t C P , the
A
inveniories, and the bare unit t o s t factors developed for use in this study
a r e desirlbed in greater detail in Appendix C.
Ihe cost data presented in this appendix, together w i t h the C K P , can be
used t o develop cost estimates for other decomissloning projects, based upon
rpproprlate consideration of the key r ~ r u m p t i o n r given in Section 8 , l . lhese
data should be carefully examined t o ascertain their appllcability to the
facility under consideration, and may require slgniflcant adjustments for a
5 11tx c I f 1 c I I tu a t i on ,
H. 1 tl!W ?JQ.AZ%!M.SIlQJ.I
the
Ihc followiny major bases and assumptions apply to this reevaluation o f
dccom,issioning cost estimates for the reference FUR:
Ihe cost , stirnates in this reevaluation study, just a s in NUREG/
CR,0130.iS take into consideration only those c o s t s for decomnis.
sioning that affect the public health and safety . i.e.. costs to
reduce t h e residual radloactivity In a facility t o a level that
perillits the facilit,y to be released for unrestricted use and the
liRC llcense t o be terminated. Hence, the cost estimates in thir
include such {terns as the cost to remove clean
study do
m t c r l a l s and equipment nor t o restore the land t o a "green field,"
which would require additional demolition and site restoration
activiticr. Although these additional costs for site restoration
r8a, bc needed from tt,u viewpoint O f public relations or site resale
value, they arc- not related t o health and safety and !herefore were
ccinsidured to be outside o f N R C ' s area o f responsibility.
ltie c o s t estimate is site.specific for the reference PUR (Irojan)
d n d i y w d in this reevaluation study to arcount for the unique
features o f the nuclear steam supply system, elcctrlc power
gcncritrcn syrtcmr, site location. and site buildings and
5
t. 1.UC I llt'c $
.
l a b o r r a t e s for each craft and salaried worker reprerwtative o f
the lrojan location are used in this development of a site.specific
decommi ssioning cost estimate. Port land General f lec tric Company,
the majority owner and the operator of the Trojan plant, provided
typical craft labor rates and salary data for utility personnel
from utility records.
Pre-decommissioning engineering services for such items a5 writing
dccommisiioning activity rpeci f icat ions and procedures. detailed
rttivatiori analyqes, structural modifications, etc. are assumed t o
Decomnissioning Operations Contractor (OOC). I t
I S turthcr d\SUmed that the llccnsee contracts with the
for
$irbwqirent management o f the decomirsloning program(s).
.I
be provided by
RC
Mdtcvial arid equipment costs for conventional demo1 ition and/or
i o n s t r u c t i .y,n activltie% were taken from H. $. Means ConstructLon
and Means Istimatiny Handbook.'
Co:l [ ) a l a
'
a
Ihr waste disposal c o s t s presentcd in this stcdy were specifically
~ l ~ ~ v ~ l cfur
i ~ the
~ r d refere,icc! PUR. whlch i s located within
tloi'thk'e$t Compact, arsumirig disposal a t the U . S . tcalogy
.
I
thv
rite I n
IltO~larid,Udshington. lo provide additional Information, the c o % t s
d l S I ) wvr(,! C\tlIPdtL'b for shlpplng and d t s p o r a l o f the relerence llwK
w ~ r t r \a t thc H ~ r n w e l l s l l e In Barnwell, South Carolina.
A t t l ; c direction o i the NRC, consideration o f the use o f a radwaslr
~ V I , ~ I ~ , I S I .$+:rvii:[:s
's
were rxcluded from this reevaluation study
r m o v a l , transport, and disposal i s handled by ari "
(vendor), who is well ertabltshcd in
and associated integrated outage activi
! I + \ , u n i l t . r tontr'art t o the DOC,
tleavy.lift rigying, baryc!, and
i i i c r 1 a n t l !ranrport c o s t s for the steam generators are hased on
r ~ t f o t - m d l i u nprovided by d qualified vendor o f thrse services, who
) : i i t ~ , i n i i I w l the barye. ovcrland transport, and installation o f NSSS
, ~ n o - * r ~ tfnr
s
rcvrral plants. (See Appendix I for a d d i t i o n a l
il..bci:k I p I l l ' V d t b r
t . t p c r i i . r i c w j subcontractor
-.t4'da ilrnerator thangrout
j ;,*r
~l~-!.ill\,)
'.!,.,In :jiani>rd!iir; a r e rcvnovrd sequentially and
t o !!II:
U , ! i ( o 1 o i j y . I n r . comercial disposal
l h i b
:,<*:tlif'i(l
barged two a t a t i m v
site at itanford.
w i l l conrolldJte shipping and reduce mobiliration
t i c a v y haul vchiclvc used. ( S e e Appcntlix I for
tiii t h r
n l ' i : ! lIrrl,il t f * ~ t c l i l $ , )
ir!r,t\
0
address the removal or disposal o f spent furl
f r r v i !hi! r i t e . [hr c o s t s for such activitics are assumed to tic
f i w v r i , , ! tiy U . S . Ucpartmrnt o f tnergy's 1 mlll/kUh surcharge. llow
I ' V I * I ' . t t w s t 1 1 4 y doc\
1ncltr:'r consideration o f the constraints t h a t
;'t't'scinrt?o f spent fuel onsite may impose on other d e c o m I r s i o n
i r q ~ ~ . ! i i i I i i ! i,wJ on u h e d u l e s .
I t i I ,
*,twly IIWS
not
I
'i:tv
9
I h i c , :ti;iiv docs n o t addreis the removal or disposal o f mixed w r r t e
f
r the?
~ ' , i~t , i ! .
I h e c o s t s for r i r t h a c l i v i t i e s a r e assumed to Le
operational c o s t s covered by an actlve (and continued in forrr?)
Heiource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) permit for the
fa*:illty. liowevcr, the study does include consideratlon of the
(onstraints thqt the presence of mlxed waste onsite may impose o n
Jrconm(ssioniiig alternatives and on schedules.
Ihu s t u d y yref,umes the installation of spent rue; dry storage mod.
such tha! dccomnlssloning operations call proceed with mlnlmum
inpsc.t [ i . e . , all fuel is transferred t o the dry storago compound
by approximately 7 years after shutdown)
Separate, distinct fund
i n q for post,shutdown activitles associated rlth the spent nuclear
f i i o l ( S N f ) are dellncated in IO CFR Part 50.54(bb), "Conditions o f
I i < c n 5 v s . " All such c~ostsassoclatcd with the SNI are c o n s i d w e d
lo be operational costs In this reevaluatlia study, I L ~ Ld e c o m i s .
rloning costs. Therefore, nelther the dlsposition o f the SNF ror
thtr c o s t o f the dry storage modules has been included within this
deiormissioning cost estimate. (See Aprendix D for additlonal
IiCl a i I I . )
iticL
a
0
Ihi! ut i l icy's staff lng requirements during decorrmissioning vary
with the various phases o f on.
thc staff size required t o
siwport and maintain wet storage ( i 4 e . , the spent fuel pool) (01.
lowing final shirtdown I s substantially greater than that required
l o monilor the independent spent fuel storage installation (15151)
w i l t , thc level o f effort associated
~ i t esloragc o f S N F . ConseqGently,
Saldry d J t d for the decomnisslonlng s t a f f poiitions used in this study
.iri> q i w n i n Table 0 . 1 . The labor c o s t s shown in Table 8.1 are reprcsetttJtivr
for this particular deccmissioniny project at the refcrencc
IW, which is the lrojan plant, located at Railller, Oregon
The utility over
twac! iiositions data shown in the table were supplied by the Portland G e n w a l
I Icctric. Company, the majority owner and the operator o f the Trojan plant. 2nd
'111 l i d ( ! an overhead tale o f 42%.
111
Idbor c o s t s
8.4
P l a n t Manager
A s s i s t a n t Plan: Manager
Secretary
Clerk
Accountant
Corit r ~ t s / P r o c u r e m e n t Spec ia1 is t
I n d u s t r i a l Safety S p e c i a l i s t
DIonning/Schedullng Engin e r
H a d i r a c t i v e Ship. S p e c i a l si
Chemistry S u p e r v i s o r
Lhrmi s t r v l e c h n i c i a n
O u d l i t v A s s c r ance Manaoer
i l i a 1 it i Assurance E n g i i e e
O J a l i t y Assurance Technic an
I l e a l t h Physics Manager
5r. H e a l t h Physics Technician
tleal t h Physics/ALARA Planner
H e a l t h Physics Technician
Nuclear Records Special i s t t " '
h i Id in9 S e r v i c e s S u p e r v i s o r
1 r a i i i i n g Cngineer
Operations Manager
Admi n i s t r a t i o n Manager
operations Supervisor
C o n t r o l Operator
P l a n t Equipment Operator
P l a f i t Engineer
Maintenance Manager
Maintenance S u p e r v i s o r
l i c e n s i n g Engineer
Craftmarl
Custodian
S e c u r i t y Manager
S e c u r i t y S h i f t Supervisor
S e c u r i t y Patrolman
Base Pay
Assumed Over.
1YYIL
&adRate.-LZil
91,210
73,820
20,500
19.120
48,610
48.610
47,600
52.630
55,950
52,630
30,29?
61,140
34,710
30,290
55,950
51,440
51,440
31,710
43,260
61,430
52,630
63,620
61,140
61, I 4 0
51,400
36,470
51,140
67,190
61,430
50,690
42,810
22,710
61,140
27,070
24,560
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
92
47
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
42
.cat
129,518
104.824
29, I IO
27,150
69,026
69.026
61.592
74.735
79.449
74,735
43,012
86,819
43,188
43,012
?9,449
73.045
73,045
45,028
61,429
87,231
74,735
97.440
86.819
86,819
72.988
51,787
72,619
95,410
87,231
72,264
60,790
32,248
80.819
38.439
34.875
.. ...--.----I_-_
DOC Overhead Positig-i'c'
P r o j e c t Hanager
A s s i s t a n t P r o j e c t Manager
Secretary/Clerk
I n d u s t r i a l Safety S p e c i a l i s t
'1 artning/Schedul i n g Engineer
+ \ a d i o a c t i v e Shipment S p e c i a l i s t
91,210
73,820
19,805
47,600
52,630
55,950
B.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
220,271
178,275
47,829
114,954
127,101
135,119
lAP4t 6.1.
(contd)
Base Pa;.
(Slyr)
U! 1 !! . J r . . 9 y ~ . : r ~ ~ p _ _ 9 9 l r _ ~ ~ ~ n .- uLur1~
I d w y c , . i F inanc i a ) Admlnis t r a t o ! I t ' i
( o n t r a c t s / A c c o u n t i n g Superyb\sor
Contracts S p e c i a l i s t j B u y e r
Procurement Special i s t r
h c c o m t ant
Operat ions Supervisor
I k r ! t h Physics S u p e r v i s o r
t l i J 1 t h Physics/hlARA P1ani:er'l''
I n g i n e c r i n y Strpi?rvisor
1)90 Operations S u p e r v i s e r
f nginrers
D v a f t Ing Special ist
Qual i t ) Assurance Supervisor
Q u a l i t y Assurance Engineer
Q u a l i t y Assurance Technician
SI-. H e a l t h Physics Technician
I I c a l t h Physics Technicidn
1'r.otective Equipment I e c h n i c i a n
Io01 C r i b Attendant
P r o t P C t ive C 1 o t h i n y A t tendant
ILicensing i n g i n c e r
.,afcty Consiil t a n t
Assumed Over-
tiR.&deale .L%
- S-QXL
62,420
62,420
48 600
44,200
48.600
61,140
61,550
51,440
til, 140
61,140
50,890
28,080
61,140
34,710
31,710
51,440
31,710
31.710
31,110
31,770
50,890
142.200
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
...
150,744
150,144
117,369
106,743
117,369
147,653
148,643
124,228
147,653
147.653
122,899
67,813
147,653
83,825
76,580
124,228
76,580
76,125
16,125
16,725
172.899
742.200
47.230
42,810
141.5
141.5
141.5
141.5
114.060
103.386
54,845
863,075
Drd 1.c. 31~11..Qeco_nt ar?! n.a!.i.on. Uork.e.r s
Crew 1 eadcr
C raftsnan
?:.?lo
L ahorer
Utility Opcratdr
. .. .. . . .. .. . .-
36.410
,
S a l a r y r a t e s are i n 1993 dollJrs, assuming 2080 Lours p e r mAn.year.
( b ) Study e s t i m a t e .
( c ) Salary r a t e r i n c l t i d e 1:07 overheid. p l u s 15% Oecommissioning Operations
C o n I r x t o r (DOC) p r o f i t on l a b o r .
(3)
8.6
It
acknowledyed in this I ~ . c i ~ i u ~ t,:dy
, " t , :tiat uic'vtiedd ratel
dpPllCd t o direct staff labor are expected t o be significantly higher for
tutlcontracting organizations (e.g., the WC) than for operating utilities.
bccabrc o f the I u g e r ratio of supervisory and support personnel to direct
labor that usually exists in subcontracting organizations. tiaving personnel
in \ h e f i e l d rather than in the home office also increases the overhead costs,
twiaurc o f travel and living expenses for many o f the personnel. In view o f
:.,lese factors, an ovnrhead rate on direct staff labor of 110%. plus 15% DOC
p r o f i t cn l a b o r . i r , assumed to be applicable to all DOC personnel in this
r.ver~ll:dt io11 s t u d y .
IS
regional labor costs can deviate significantly iron those used
t h i 5 s t u d y . care should bt. used in the application of 'these data to o t h e r
WNI!: s s ioni 119 projects
Eetaiise
:I?
<JV
I
b 3 %B!L.!.lA!
ION .AN~..l)[email protected]_..~l'.~!s
d r ~significant costs associated with a cor:ra;tor
establishing
: I > [ ' t v \ c ' n c c a t the uork s i t e . lhese c o s t s . called mobililation and demobili
: J I I O I I t : o \ t c . will v a r y with the size and complexity of thc Job.
These costs
l , , : j ? tcC1ior'dr.v o f f i c e facilities, obtaining the required special equipment.
.1n1 ~ . , \ , t : ~ . ! b l iny the work force. Similarly, there are costs associated wilh
lo~,~riqf;wn a work \ite. For the dismantlement o f a large PWR. these costs
WIY r;rt.riously Ps!iirated b j an engineer experienced in estimating c o s t s for
';lilitj i:;n>ti-ucttcn projects to be about 1 1 . 2 5 milliun (without ronttnyencj)
1 1 1 IG:Y
dolldi\:'
A p p l y i n g an escalation factor of 2.11, based o n the
: I i
l y i l r i i t P t i c e Oefldtor,
brings the mobilization and demobililation c o s t s
! J 5 2 . 6 4 m i l ! i ~ ~ iwithout
.
contingency. tn 1993 dollars.
IhCr'e
1 r i i
1
"
I:!. 4
U!)!
3C
! !I V f ..u!?sr
5 ..MCKAG.!NG. C91.!1
containers assumed to be used for packaging rddioactivr
W L ~ ~ ?ryitcrizls for disposal are listed in Table U.?.
A brief description.
it't!,;~:thcr.k, ' : tbe displaced burial volume, the particular application, and t h r
;,nit c o \ t . i s included f o r each type o f tontainer.
1 1 : ~ :hipping
4.655
Oecv qtologlc airposal of
GICC l a . l c r e I r a a l e [reactor
core c m m t n t s )
0 24
510
13 J I
1.565
I I1
S h l l w land burial of
RPY nozzle S P C ~ I O ~ S
410
4.110
5.150
. 9.900"'
3.b50
Shallor land
I8 I ?
l a lcrel
Durlll o f
waste
4.965
?b.95
B.8
Jome of the waste i rterial $hipped to a burial site i s sufficiently radio
active to require transport in reusable shielded casks. In general. i t is
more economical t o rent such cask: than t o purchase them, especially the
larger ones. lhe casks assumed in this study for use in shipping highly
radioactive materials are listed in Table 8.3. together with the application
and the estimated rental charges.
!&lIL02. Shielded Casks for Shipment o f Radioac!ive HatPrials
--2&b&&!l-lrrnrpurl o f greater t h s n
clrtr C I G I C C ) L I Y u a s l t
lrbnswrt o f 9rcct rr. t hrn
L l A S 5 . C L I Y rrste
B. 6
Irrnrpaorl of high i n t q r l t y
taniaintr or 55 pal drm5
I.t5O
Irrnrpurl of high Integrity
c m l a i n c r or 55 o b 1 drmr
I .?SO
Ir r ns pa r t of r.4rrncttre
nratrrral I n the I o n o f
aclirrttd r i r c t o r ccnmncnts
1.150
!@!SPQRlALK!N XQLrs
radioactive materials resulting from decomnissior\ing are assumed to
be rhipped i n excIusive-use(" trucks t o a burial site (U.S. Ecology, Inc.,
a t llwlford!, )r, in the case o f highly activated reacttr components, to a
qsoloyrc repository 5r o,her such disposal facility as the NRC may approbe.
Most
thc czce:.tions. all assuming bdrye transport and overland transport, are the
pumps and the pressurizer (see Chapter 3 for details), and the steam
ycncratorr (see Appendir F for details).
primary
for shlpplng radioactive wastes were provided by lri-State Motor
Iransit Co. and from i t s published tariffs for this cargo.")
Barge transport
drd overland transport c o s t estimates were provided by Neil F . lampson,
.,
I n c . " , who has handled the barge, overland transport, and installation o f
NSSS components for several nuclear power plants. Also, see Appendix F ,
L; .. ,
. c ~ t i c n 1 . 1 f o i a detailed description of ihese costs.
Rates
transporting low.leve1 waste t * J the disposal s i t e are calculated
U X I the
~
C . I C P . The CCCP data base (see Appendix C) contains great-circle
d i 5 t a f i c e s f r o m all comnercial reactor sites to the postulated geologic reposi.
tut'y at Yucca Mountaiii and to the low-leve: disposal sites at Barnwell and
C o s t s of
ildnford.
ca;iulatc traisportation c o s t s . the CECP employs a different cost
t o i . w l a fur each c i s k (CNS 8-1208. NuPac 14-210t1, NAC-L.UT. znd TN.8) that will
tw u,cd iri d e c o m i s s i o n i n g . lhese formulas, based on data supplicd in
ct.'Q?'?F*I:e
9 , at-1' gi'JCfl bC;OW.
:U
.
. ' ,
.
I
:, 1 3
, ><!,
':,
( h e * r , i t o r % lB u r l d l $!IC
* RI
rn
111/410
* Ul
B
\17d?O
* n
1111 v d w 0
* In .
i; : (RO
I
L
d/dJ
d:d3
t
t
W1 *
Ow21
P)
8.12
.I,C,.2
ai
* cost of tr.msporting
dl
* di-lanct I n miles betloen reaclor i i l C 8n4 the cask supplier,
(ti0
a
.
!?
* ciistartce
-
n
v
$upylter to reactor sllr
S10190.61.
-
reference distance b r t a ~ ~reactor
t
s11b ad thc task rupp1t.r
1199 milea.
c o s t o f lrdn'porling -11
cask f r d l thc reposilory l u c k la Suyalter
$13551 4 4 .
ti?
d:J
r q l y cask (ran c83k
i n m i l ~ betwetn
t
rtpository and supplier.
reference d i s t r n r e b r t w e n reposttori
nvnher 0 1 c t t k s t o k+ ship&
to
1 8 4
supplier
-
26)4 eljtr,
lm repository.
ii
* '011 o f tr.n%wrtiny fully l o a d e ~c i a h f r n $11. t o reposttory * t W I 6 I ? ,
I
* .C,qhl o f loaded b a s k , In ~ a u n d s .
C.
* r r i g h l Of f u l l y Ioddcd cask * 84049 pounds.
J
* 4 - s t a n c e betwen reactor s i t e and r t w s i t o r y . i n miles.
rtferenre dlsllnce b c t m n i t a c t o r s i t e and repOattory
d5
-
-
901 m t l e s .
E4
* c o s 1 o f 1 r . m p o r t l n u t v v I y cask f r a rtpotltory back t o reactor r l l a
OY
* aberwipht c b r y r s
P
. w-?t
14165.95.
$365 00. and
c o s t * $ l i O 00
non.cask truck shipments, the calculations are much simpler. tor
c a r g o consisting o f 55-gallon drums, 96-ft' metal boxes, or mwitime containe r s , the t.ound.trip truck transportation charges are
tor
.here
P
* tk round-trip d!rtmiut r a t t = $ 4 . 8 6 49.
0
d i r l a i c e In aller belwetn s i l t an4 84rnw11.
00 *
1~
PC
w n i t cost
reference a i r t m c t . t r m Rainner, orcpon I o t ) r r n . r l l . IC
-
1199 miles.
$95,
a\\unin9 that Ihc carps does nut exrrtd 4 0 . W pounds
NIIREGICR--5864, Vol. 2
6. 3
Dr¶nfor canmmt
t a c h o f the spent fuel racks is shipped in specially constructed oversize
metal containers. lransportation costs for eaL'h rack i s calculated from the
following formulas:
w.ls!f~..a!S!:\;?i\LS~~IS
6.7
A s p r e v i o u s l y mentioned. most r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s r e s u l t i n g from
~lccovmmlssmloningare assumed t o be shipped f o r disposal t o a b u r i a l s i t e (U.S.
I c o l o q y , lnc.
rli'nt:.
a t t l a n f o r d ) , o r , i n the case o f h i g h l y a c t i v a t e d r e a c t o r compo-
t o a gcrlogic: r e p o s i t o r y o r o t h e r such d i s p o s a l f a c i l i t y as the NRC may
approve.
I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e i s a t h i r d t y p e o f waste t h a t a l i c e n s e e may have
t o consider d u r i n g decomnissioning
~
mixed waste.
The u n i t c o s t s f o r a l l
t h r e e CiSeS o f waste d i s p o s a l are discussed i n t h e f o l l o K i l i g subsections.
8.7.1
Co_st~r~-f~s!r_Lhallowi~nd_8u_ra!
I h e primary s h a l l o w - l a n d b u r i a l c o s t s used i n t h i s study are presented
11)
Table 8.4.
1:-y
are t h e February 9. 1993. schedule o f charges from U.S.
I c o l o g y , I n c . , which operates the b u r i a l s i t e a t Richland, Washington.
I l ~ k f v e r ,because s e n s i t i v i t y o f t h e t o t a l l i c e n s e t e r m i n a t i o n c o s t t o the d i s .
posal c o s t s a t d i f f e r e n t l o w - l e v e l r a d i o a c t i v e waste disposal s i t e s i s a l s o
rdamincd i n t h i s r e p o r t , the January 1. 1993, schedule o f charger from Chemk i c l e a r Systems, I n c . , which operates t h e b u r i a l s i t e a t Barnwell, South
C a r o l i n a . i s presented i n Table 8.5.
T 8 1 f--.B,C.
US EcGlogy Shallow-Lhnd B u r i a l
Costs at t k n f o r d
US ECOLOGY
SCHEDULE A
EFFECTIYE FEBRUARY 9, 1993
A.
.IS?OSLL CHARGZS
1 . Packages ( e x c e p t as noted I n S e c t i o n 2 )
-
CU.
-----
R/HR A i CONTAINER SJRFACE
0.00
0.231
1.01
-
0.20
-
10.00
-
2.c1
5.01
10.01
29.01
2.00
5.00
I
$66.30
Fi.
53.2'2
61 .40
t ($0.541 x R/HR
i n excess o f 4 0 )
Disposal L i n e r s Re!nOWd F r m S h i e l d ( G r e a t e r 'Ihan 12.0 C u . F t . E d c n l
WRCHAGGE
-
0.00
O.?I
1.01
?.01
5.91
10.91
x.ni
-
-
PER LINFR
P R I C E PFR
-------
CU. F T .
0.20
1.00
7 .00
No Charge
263.59
$35.92
597 .?O
5.00
10.00
999.20
2 5 .??
35.12
3 5 .?.?
35 .??
29.LO
$0.0:)
GreAter t q a n 40.00
3.
DE!?
$35 - 9 2
37.70
39.10
40.60
44.50
1 .oo
20.00
40.00
C r e a z r t h a f i 40.00
7.
PR!CE
25.92
1 ,592 .00
2,086.00
7:
"9
2 . 2 9 3 .JO
.,.>L
2 , 6 1 9 . 4 0 + ($?2.96 x R i H E
35.9%
i n excess o f 4 0 )
Z U ~ Z : ? ~ ? f a r Curit.., (per l o c d )
110 C h a r y
$1 ,097.90
*2,195.80
Less than 50 c u r i e s
100 c u r i e s
j00 curies
301 560 c u r i e s
501
1,000 c u r i e s
1,001
5.000 c u r i e s
5,001 10,000 c u r i c ;
13,001 19,000 c u r i e s
Grea:i.r
t?an 15,000 c u r i e s
511
101
-
2,744.90
2,203.90
3,842.80
5.530.50
7i905.20
8,?59.?0 c ($0.425 x c a r i e s
i n excess o f 15,000)
C.
! 4 i n i m n Charge Per Zhipnents
A l l s h i p c n t s will De subjec: t!, a ninitnljn cliarse o f $1 ,000 per
I;?iier3?or p e r s h i p x n t .
8. 16
I h R for Comment
SCHEDULE c
CFFECTIVE FESRUARY 9 , 1993
The r a t e ,n.l cnarses s e t fort:, i n Schedule A & B shall be increased by the
axcun: o f an;? f + e , jurcnarge o r t 3 x assessed on a volune c r g r o s s revenue
b a s i s a g a i . i s : or c o l l e c t e d by US Ecclogy, as lis:'?d belod:
Fer;etgal
C a r e and Naintenance Fee
eusines: L Oc:apation
Si:?
T3x
L r v e i l : : . ~ , : e Fee
SI;r.cn 3 r y e ( ; : : 4
2 ? .?50.?3? 1
C m z ., s s ic-I 7,s .% i 3 t o rj Fee
$1.75 per cubic f o o t
5.5:
$;
o f rates and charges
.09 p e r c.;biC f o o t
S E . 5 C l per cubic f o o t
1 .G% o f rates and charcer
Ihah lor Comment
__-_
' P E L s-82.
Chern-Nu::ear
S h a l l o w - L a n d Bbrial Costs at Barnwell
5 4,150.CC
S -4,710.00
2 6,235.00
5 9.405.00
S il. 460. GO
s:s,525.00
s:e,630.:0
$24,9SS.C0
531.280.00
537,375.00
B y S F O C L A :Reques:
L a r g e : . m e r ~ wi:>
O t e q a c k a uith
H a x x u m 3LDeci:on
a f a:D i a a m e - r and
79' Eerqht
MaXJW
-
Dxmanaion of 3 3 '
Diameter And 7 9 '
Ecrqht
__
55-Gallon D w
cr:e wit2 H a x .
Dmcnrion of
2 5 . 5 - DiLLIcter
and 3 6 - E r i c h t
I
, ,
-___
Th-ac con+a&nera r i l l b e a s a e s n e d
charges t h e same a a o a c r
c i n t a i n - r s b accordance u i t h t l i a
r a t e rchcdule p l u g 5 2 , 9 0 0 F C Z
o r e q a a c k and $ 7 5 0 per drum
$29,325
$30,760
$32.775
535,300
s~a,sis
$44,965
$S1.210
- Repr_rct
.YURECiCR-'RR(, Voi. 2
8.20
[Inn lor Comment
Barruoll R l t a Scbodulc
A.
E.
C.
.
-.
E.
?.
6.
R.
.
-.
B.71
DnR for Commcol
I!&
.€
85.
(coitd)
C h c n i . : h ~ t ! e ~ Sys:erns,
r
Inc.
-
I
-
,
Attxhment 1
Barnwell Low-Level Radioactive Waste Management Fac!lity
1093 Dlsoo!;al Frlclna
__---___.1.
@ z s e Disposjl C h a g e s
2.
Surci;sr(;es
A.
Ae!er :o Eaia Sshedi;ie ei!ec:ive
darxzry 1, l E 3 fer weig::is under 50,000 Ibs
LVcignt Surcnarces
6.22
H.73
I t shou!d be wcogniied, hOheVer, that regardless o f when so!id &nixed
l . L W is generated, comercial treatment, storage, and disposal s e r v i c e s for the
aaste do not currently exist. Based on the dforementioned projected astronomi c a l tl~sposdl costs and on the Jnrertainties surrounding the ultimate disposition o f solid mixed waster, it is assumed further that implementation o f waste
minirnizdtion techniques used during the operating years of the plant will a l s o
be iisrd during decomnissioning. Therefore, only a reldtively small amount, i f
a n y , o f ndditidnal so'id mixed L L W is assumed t o be generated during decommis!.ioninq o f the reference PUR. Additional information concerning mixed
rr,irtcs c a n be found in Appendix 11.
pldnt.
R.8
CO5!$
.. .~ Of FfRVICF5 1 :
FIIPPI I t S L.... ?NO
-..ISPFClAl
FQllIPMfNT
V.ir'ious types o f stirvi,.cs and supplirs are required for decomnissioning
[he rtfcrcnce PWR. Ihc cstimdted unit c o s t s o f the major items are discclrsed
her?. r h e est im,ited unit c o s t s f o r special equipment items anticipated for
use d u r i n g decomnissioninq are sumnnarizcd in lable B . 6 .
-
A principol scrvices c o s t item i, ?lectric power. Oiscursionr
kith l'or.tl,ind Gcncrhl tlrctric Company staff, the majority owners and the
oprrcitor o f the referrme PNR. indicdted that r!ectr.ical replacement power
rosts i n the range Gf $0.025 t o 1 0 . 0 3 4 / k ~ h dt-e reasonable. f o r conservatism
i r i this reevaluation study, a unit cost o f $0.034/kUh, o r $34/MWh, is assumed
for e 1 cc t r i c i ty .
t l e c t r".i c..i t. y
p,I,I
. , i' n g a
recent long-term shutdown (i.e.,
9 months) with about 1,000
pcsople onsite, the reference PUR'S average site electricity consumption was
reported t o be about 5 FlW.
A siynificant portion of the electricity was used
for healing, air conditioning, lights, etc. A similar inquiry t o Rancho Seco
conitrrninq thci average site consumption for their current possession-only
S i . d t i r : (i.e.. a long-trrm shutdown mode with less than 200 people o n s i t e and
-
8.25
.
Special Tools and Equipment Costs
fsllruled
I
LIO? 5
2
!I 2
I
I
2
13 0
3 3
33 0
4
4 4
ll 0
6 6
18 6
I?
9
19 R
5 3 * w
40 A
50 I
S I
)? i
I
4
4
: 4
Y 9
I 3
? P
I ?
6.26
a l l fuel stored in their f u e l pool) revealed an average site consumption o f
about 3.25 MU. Based upon the similarities o f Rancho Seco's current shutdown
situation t o the postulated conditions at the slightly larger reference PUR
a f t e r final shutdown, an approximate site electricity consumption value ( i . e . ,
base load) o f ahour 4 Mw is assumed in this study for !he reference PUR during
a c t i v e periods o f decomnissicning. The daily unit cost for electricity is
c < 3 l c u l ~ t t da s follnns:
( I MLI a f3J/M"h) x 20 hr,/day
* $3,?64/day
aiidition, use o f the RCS pumps during chemical decontamination would
at111 a b o u t I8 Mii t o the hase load Hhile t h e oirmbs are iunning. By making the
.tforcr,cnt ioned rebsonable assumpt ions a b o u t electriii ty consumption a t the
s i t e f o r . d specific decommissioning altcrnativr. and by following the appropi'i,itc scherllrle for t h a t dcconunissioning alternative, the power usage hy year
~ i r t c rs'uitdown i s estimated.
In
-
boiler w o u l d be uscd t o provide steam f o r the evaporation
; i r ' o c r s s , htiich is anticipated to be used for drboration o f t + e primary n n t p r .
I t w i , s t i w t e d fuel consumption ~ o u l dhe a t a r,ite o f d t J O U t 100 gallons!hour
of
ad' d i i ! \ ( % i f u e l , Htiich c o 5 t s $0.775/ga1, i n 1993 d o i l a r s .
Oil
1t.e s t a r t u p
__
,Iqu...ipmcii
. - . -t . Srrv i c(:s
- ... -
P. .r o. t L Y. t. , .i i r (1 1 o t I .....
ing ,.cmi,ri-
scrvicrs drr anticipdtrd t o h r provided
l i y ,in of!sile ;ul.contrdctor,
requirrd.
<in estim~ted c o s t o f $21 pcr d.ay
iter r 8 i * r s i i n . h a s r r l on disc-usrions with inillistry p c r s o n i i e l .
P i o t i . x - t i v e c l o t t i i r i q ,\rid cqiripincnt
l{.inf! :.i i .5.i .t v. ....
~Siippnr t S c r i ic.c.5
j!
?!!e I ! a n l o r d s i t e , & i c h i s c o n t r o l l e d hy the 11.5. Oepnrtment of t n e r q y ,
r ~ o i i t r d t . t i ~ an4
i
s:hlrcontr~ic:torsohtdiii ser-vicrr f r m thc Operdtions dnd Mdinttrn,tniiS i . : s t ' t r , ~ ttor's l o r t h e movoment o f l n r q e o b j e c t s . such ,i%
t h e s t c m qener.,ttor.'..
t o ttic I n h - I v ~ , c l u..istr burial q i - o i m l . Inc.lud?d in thr cost of thcsr
\ i ? t i i ( i ' s ( i r v ro,i(l p r c p , i r , i t i o n m i maintrnance, u t i l i t i c % . f i v pvatcction,
b i ~ u i vt v , p C ti ro I , t r'nr!sport d t ion, me8 ica I a i d , e t c
fldsed upon d i scuss ions
(:!I
.
.
with industry contacts, these servtces, including labor, equipment. and
materials, w e estimated to cost about 1132,300 per trip, resulting in a total
cost of $529,200 for these services for the foirr steam generators, and
1132.300 each for the four primary pumps and for the pressurizer.
Ka.tec i-kL5.W
Material costs are a function o f the size o f the piplng/tdnk,'eQUipment
being dismantled. Principal components are absorbent materials, plastic
sheeting and bags, and gases for torches. The quantities and unit costs used
in these analyses are listed below.
!!E3 -.__-__-___I_--
.
",IF..*:
.k>.
2..
M.%II
t':s<t,t
Y $0 3Zlfi;
,,*<,,5
J
A!\
Y $C 0 4 / f t
I6
I5lbr
: f . . : . : ' - p 1 5 1 ihX u r o f i t
.Small
. ...
!lLLLEL
L.III"A3. LA'.'..?C. -4%.
10 (1' 13 ?O
25 f17 $ 1 W
I5 1,' I1 e3
3 I 5 I $ I 5;
RJl?
hr
10 11 LPZZlLeLd
$4 1 2 I C " l
16
$4 91/cui
$ I %;rut
V i L U l
?O
11'
~-i:LE..w!.?l.i!
.
$1, 40
l p n , ~ l t l 1111
icnqlh I ,!>I
w b r s oi i 3 t
I ? OG
uL!Llu2
50 I t '
8
IO ) I
1
IO
C4
$ 5 !\
A< i a J ~ u ' ~ t w~ .r I l i n k
$10 6 l i c u l
$17 ??.rut
.-.-
._I._.._
_____I--
I I$
.
4 % i*IC.'idl*,f
I
per 1 8 " )
I oo l L a n d Minor E a u i D w a
In decomissioning, the cost for small tools and minor equipment i s often
difficult t o estimate. Many o f these tools nil\ become conlAminaled and u l : ~ .
mately will be disposed o f by burial. lhe 1993 edition o f R . 5 . Means'"
r e c o m c n d s a maximum allowance o f Z X of the contractor's direct labor cost.
f o r . say, 110 million o f direct labor costs, 2% would be roughly $200,000.
Further assuming ail average small tool were to cost 11.100 (e.g., small chain
hoists. saws, drill$, oxyacetylene torches, sets of hand tools, etc.), the
decommissioning operations contractor (DOC) would purchase approximately 190
tools for the crews. 'I1) This appears to be in the appropriate range for
d e c o m i s s i o n i n g work. Therefore, a 2% allowance fcr these itens is incorporated into the cost calculations for the small tools and minor equipment.
8l.+deS._U~rdfor C
i ULmss.4~
Ihe unit cost for blade material i s estimated at 10.44/in.-ft of cut.
0.28
i c a f fg 1 i~tig
Ydsed upon dibcussions uith Irojdn plant personnel, sufficient scaffolding
and associated equipment is kept in two staging areas cnsite, to meet their
needs during reactor ootages. I Q addition, thp supply o f scaffolding is
repleciihed a s required. Iherefore, the reference nlant's inventory of scaf
folding i s deemed su:ficierit (0 meet decomi;sioning requirements, with on?
Pxception-thr additional scaffolding anticipated t o be needed for steam
generator\ removal (see Appendix f for details).
8 .9
fRQPlY i Y . 1 A X A l . l O N
Iota1 property taxer for the reference PUR are bared on the real estate
book v ~ l i i t ' ( i . e . . the original c o s t o f the land). plus the value of the C.dpl.
t a l eqtiipmcnt installed in the facility. The capital equipment portio.. o f the
tax ascv?rseent ii usually based upon an Operdtirig plant value. During decom
r ! i s s i o n t i , g . however. local property taxes may be assessed on only the real
C s t a t e s ' fair market value, depending o n how the land is toned. Overall, this
approach results in a reduction in property tax assessment after plant shutclown. a f f e c t i n q both delayed decommissioning doraancy c o s t s and local t a x
r~?v~'rlile.
are commonly referred t o as collateral o r undirtributcd
C O S ~ S . Surh c o s t s c d n zxtend over one or more deconunissioning periods.
Ihiir.
thcre chpcnses can be expectec' t o continue following final shutdown and during
the dormancy periods o f safe storage or entombmen'. until the possession-only
license i s terminated. Uhile the property taxes will continue to be assessed
after the license ir terminated, these costs will no longer be considered
d c(.om i s s i on 1 ng cos t s ,
F'ropcrly t a r e s
H.9.1
A5lu-mp_tlo~s.
f o r the purpose of this study, the estimated property taxes
for the
rr-fcrcnce PWR are based on the following assumptions:
a dramatic decrease in property values after final shutdown, when
the operating plant i s removed from service and from the tax rolls
SI'KE(;I('H-SRRI, V d . 2
8.29
lknn Tor Crmnwnl
8.10 NU!&LA!NJURANCC
COST
s
s: delineated in NURfG/CR.0130,('' the basis for the 1978 nuclear
insurance costs given in that study were originally developed in 1975 by
American Nuclear Insurers (ANI) . ' d l Cost projections for this comnitment
have increased significantly since then. In addition, cost estimates in the
1978 time frame typically only Included insurance premiums associated with
nuclear 1 lability policies. More recent information, obtained from Industry
personnel and their broker.,, suggests that addltlonal insurance coverage will
be needed t o limit owner liability immediately after final shutdown, during
subsequent decomnissioning and dismantling operations, and for a prudent
peviod of time following t e m i n a t i o n of the porsession.only license.
Ihe estimated nuclear insurance costs used in this study are based on
information provided by Johnson 5 Higgins of Arirond, Inc. Johnson h Wiggins
h a s indicated that "the task of estimating post.shutdown insurance c o s t s for
t h e referenced facility is made easier by the fact that they have had several
years of experience placing insurances for a corrmercial facility which has
bcen shut down for decomnissioning. Once actual plant dismant.lement begins,
however, we can only look to information which the insurer; have provided for
guidance. 140 c o m e r c i a 1 reactor of this size and type has yet undergone the
complete decommissioning process . ' l e i
sumar.y o f the estimated tctal post-shutdown insurance costs, by
5 t a g e . i s presented in Table 8 . 7 . rhe bases for .he values shown in the table
arc developed in subsequent sections.
A
Summary
l r ~ l ,&,-I,.
f
.
o f t s t i m d t t J P o j ! Shutdown Insurance Costs in 1193 Dollars
.Stae
lranrition (first
x!q&WWQrL
-- 7 3 7
Pnwmisximina Cos t,..L- X B a n a a e m e n t Orr_t_T-I, 703,754'"
2,449,146")
1 - 1 ; 2 years followi n g qhutdown. until
rcccigt of Propvrt)
Rule waiver)
t 0 1 lowing general
plant layup preps and
rec -1 pt o f Property
Rule waiver
I xtended
with
Safe Storage
0
I , 107,60O/year
bOO.OOO/year
the f u e l r o o 1 Empty
Iitiring periods o f active
d i r c onmi s s ion 1 ng
I , 198,600/year
A f t e r lermination o f
t h c P c - : :ssion-Only
I icense
8.32
Druft for Ctunmcnt
The estimated property damage insurance and nuclear liability insurance
o s t s presented i n this study arc based upon the following assumptions pro-
Note:
for purposes of this study, it i s conservatively estimated i u
t;dx 13 months, after shutdown, to receive t h e waiver.
Hith the hr\ivcr granted, a $200 million limit o f Property Damage insutance i s dctermiftcd t o be sufficient t o protcct essential cooling,
onitor in!], and defueling systems. This i s a conservatively high figure
hcn viewed against those in place at current decotmissioning facilii c s , and assuncs that plant conversion o r other usc of site assets are
ot anticipdted,
300 million limit in Excess Decontaminaticn insurance i s determined
b e the appropriate amount required to respond to t h e worst postulated
t-shutdown accident. Again. this amount i s conservatively selected.
dits of forty percent (40%) and fifty percent (50%) are applied to
Property apd Liab:lity premiums, respectively, t o recognize the
anently shutdown nature of the plant. These credits a r e extended
y percent up front, and fifty percent a t policy year end subject to
p)ant operation and acceptable loss prevention efforts.
r Electric Insurance Limited. NEIL I (business interruption)(i)
ediateiy s,Jspended following plant permanent shutdown. A loss
ry under NEIL. I i s not technically feasible for a plant which has
ently ceased power generation.
Dran for Comment
I
6. Immediately following plant shutdown, property ‘tnsurance level s are
reduced t o the minlmum ($1.06 billton) required by the Property Rule (10
The $560 million first excess layer I s met through NEIL
C f R 50,54(w)).
I 1 coverage versus ANI excess because i t i s less costly and offers
dividend potenttal.
7.
NEIL I 1 Excess property coverage f s provided at ftfty percent o f pre.
shutdown cost following plant defueling.
traditional NEIL shutdown credits.
This i s consistent with
8.
Facility iorm”’ ( l i a ~ i l i t y insurance) premium levels stabilize
followfng reductions in 1991 and 1992. The ANI experience modIflcation
factor for primary property rating i s capped a t 35% in 1993. ftnally,
i t i s assumed for simplicity that the reference insured i s not receiving
credits und,?r ANI’S individual property fredit plan, and that the pre55utdown Ecgineering Rating factor (ERF) h’ i s 1.0.
9.
The price per Ir,illion of Excess Oecontamtnatton coverage i s approximately forty percent (40%) o f full Property OamacJe coverage, as has recently
been observed.
IO. A $1 million deductible level i s selected. This i s consistent with
current ANI minimum decormi ss ioning deductible requ I rements .
11. A $200 mill ion level o f Suppliers’ and Transporters‘ ( S & T ) l i l coverage
is maintained in anticipation o f a large number o f radiological
shipments during the prelimtnary decomnissioning process.
13.
A full 1200 million level o f Facility Form coverage, as well a s partlci.
pation in the fecondary Ffnincial Protection (SFP) and Worker form
programs, I s required thrrlughout the d e c o m i s s i o n i n g process.
14.
-. .
Scheduled reductions for Property and Liability coverages proceed
according t o these rough guideljnes, which have been obtained over time
from ANI:
-...-____..-___I
.__I
: t i
:.(le
t , , % , r a m t v cwom, e.rlirdtinn lor rrllrp thc w c c l * e d t a f t t y rnd r l s h
r a t t y tactor I S a p r e m i a w l l i p l ! e r , b a w d v w n the i>c%urar,cec o w a n y ‘ s tr4lu6tlcn ior rrllnq thl:
NL’REC/CR.JS&(. VOI. L
8.34
Draft fur C‘ummwt
Itic i;sc,t
i m . i t c d propcr'ty damage insis
ance and n u c l e a r l i a b i l i t y i n r u r a n t c
prc:setlted i t i this study nr'c based upon t h e l o 1 lowing assumptions prori idrd b y Johnson 8 I l i i j g i n s :
CI>$I\
1,
Ihe rrferrnce plant i s insured by A N I for primary p r o p e r t y insurance,
lull limits 01 p r o p w t y ,
and business i n t c r r u p -
,itid c a r r i e s
t i a n covcraqe. I h e shutdown r e a c t o r
c w n p l e t e \ y t o t h e spent
f w l p o o l , dnd i s granted a waiver or P r o p e r t y Rule insurance l i m i t
t-~:c]uircments as h a w other decomnissioning f a c i l l t l e s t o date. This
fiIiivrr c,in b r ripectcd t o r e q u i r e f r o m one year t o eiqhteen months to
(1 t t n i11 ,
I
LIP:
?.
l o < pur.irosc*s o f t h i s stuily, i t i s c o n s e r v a t i v e l y estimated t o
t a k r 18 nionths, a f t e r s h u t i h n , t o ix?ceire t h e waiver.
G I I I ~ I!tiu-
waiver grantrtl, a $200 m i l l i o n l i m i t of P r o p e r t y Damage i n s u r -
. i n c r i s drtt*rmincd t o be s u f f i c i e n t t o p r o t e c t essential c o o l i n g ,
n x : i i i t o i . i i q , dnd d i i f u r l i n g systems.
l h i s i s J c o n s e r v a t i v e l y h i g h fiqurr
#,!'mi vic.w:d q < i i n . i t those in p l a c e at c u r r e n t dccomnirsioninq f a c i I i -
! i w , and a$surnrs t h a t p l a n t convcrsion or o t h e r use o f s i t e assets arc
ipatrd.
not *in1 i t
.4.
li $to0 i n i l l i o n l i m i t i n fxcess Decontamination insL
Is deterniincd
t i ? fw t t i c ,tppropriatc amount f e q u i r ~ dt o respond t o
worst p o s t u l a t e d
p o s r - s h u t d o r n a c c i d e n t . Again, this amount i s c o n s e r v a t i v e l y selectcJ.
1
,I. f : r ? d i t s of f o r t y percent (40i: arid f i f t y percent ( S o t ) a r e a p p l i e d to
A!i! ('roprrty arid i i d h i l i t y prcr, iums, r c s p e c t i v e l y , t o recognize the
i i i , i i i ! s i n r i i t l y shutdrmn n a t u r e o f the p l a n t . l h t s e c r e d i t s are cxtendcd
f i f t y p e r c e n t u p f r o n t , and f i f t j p r r c c n t at policy year end subject l o
5 , i f v p l m t o p r r d t i o i i m d acccptable loss p r e v e n t i o n e f f o r t s .
5.
I (business i n t e r r u p t i o n ) ( f )
ianncdiately suspended f o l l o ~ i n gp l a n t permanent shutdown. A loss
r i ' r c ~ v c r y unticr N t l l 1 i s not t e c h n i c a l l y feasible for a p l a n t d i i c h har
tii-i:.i.mrnt l y c-c,isrd pnwcr grnerat i o n .
t i ~ i r . l c o <f Irctr-ic lnrurance L i m i t e d , N t ' l l
15
6.
l m e d i a t c l y following plart shutdown, property insurance levels arc
reduced t o the mtnimnm ($1.06 billion) r e w i r e d by the Property Rule 10
C f R S0.$4(w)). The $560 million flrst excess layer I s met through lit 1
I I co:rrdcje versus ANI excess because i t i s less costly and offers
dividend potential
I
7.
MIL I 1 Excess property coverage i s provided a t fifty percent o f pre.
shutdown c a s t following plant defueling. This i s conslstent with
tradltionrl NE11 shutdown credlts.
8.
facility formtg' (Iiabtlity Insurance) prealum levels stabilize
following reductions in 1991 and 1992. The ANI experience modlficaiian
factor for primary pro erty rrttr.g I s capped at 35% i n 1993. Finally,
i t \ s assumed fo: simp iclty that the reference insured i s not recelvlng
credlts under ANI'S individual property fredit plan, and that the pre.
shu!down I n g i n w r i n g Rat ing Factor (ERF) h, i s 1 . O .
P
9.
10.
Ihe price per million of Excess Decontumination coverage is approximate.
ly forty percent (40%) o f full Property Damage coverage, as has recently
been observed.
SI million deductible level i s selected. This is consistent with
current ANI mlnimum decomnlssionlng deducilble requirements.
A
1 . A $200 million level of Suppl lerr' and Transporters' ( S i i T ) ' ' ' coveragc!
i s maintained in anticipation of a large rlumber o f radiological
shipments during the preliminary decomnlssioning process.
2.
Insurance pricing during the first few months after shutdown is not
sobrtanttdlly reduced, save for the extension o f traditional shutdown
credits .
3,
I4
A full $200 million level of Facility Form coverage, as well as participatlon in the Secondary Finanrial Protection (SFP) and Yorker Form
programs, is required throughout the decomnlssionlng process.
Scheduled reductions for Property and 11abil ity coverages proceed
according to these rough guidelines, which have been obtained over time
from ANI:
Shutdown for Decomissionlng
Plant defueled offsite
PI ant defueled onsite
20
Shutdown for Deromniss(oning
fuel offsite (if option available)
Oecomissioning and Decontamt.
nation Operations
Decontamination Complete
40
40
61
50
50
20
. 60
- 70
1
40
7 0 . EO
IS. f i n a l l y , total pre-shutdown nuclear insurance expenses a r e approximately
17 miliion per year.
H . 10.2
f . ~ r - t h _ ~ A is.^^...
n ~ ~ l9 . t l h e_ l n t , l ~ . f.nr..thr
~~~~~...
Rr: f t r en< t ,P W R F n!lw.ng . f U m l W g
P.w#!L~!-Q.E.
On the b a r i s of t h e aforementioned assumpr ions, the following predict i o n s are made for the annual cost o f the Insurance program from final
itiirtdown to Property Rule uaiver receipt:
,?xm.!lu.
.
-... -
C'r-tmary Property
15500 milliori)
G e s s Property'
($560 mi 1 1 ion)
i'ioyram
------_--- llhhlll t Y
$1,750.000
f
Factlity form
SLI Policv
Worker Fo;m
SfP
616,000
lotal:
$
I
.___I_-_
345,000
27.000
i 23;ioO
I.. 1
I5QP
S2,768,600/yr
tollowing defueling to the sperlt fuel p o o l , completion o f general plant
l a y u p preparations, and rec-?lpt o f the Property Rule waiver, the annual
p r ~ e n i u mi s projected to be:
8.35
Pr9!wly. ...._
I'rimdry Ptoperty
(I200 million VI)
I x c r s s Propc-ty
($300 miilion ANI)
I
"
I 490,000
S 270,000
-____
J,,imlik*
_-..-__.
Facility form
Sbl Policy
Worker form
SFP
I'royram Total :
$
290,000
I 27,600
I 23,100
L-.._.L59p
S1,107,600/yr
from this potnt forward, premlums will likely fluctuate according to tho
Irwl of activity onsite. During periods o f active decomnlssionlng and
di\mantlemcnt. the annual insurance costs could be adjusted t o :
.."
PrwS.r!.Y .... _....
I'r'tmary Property"'
5 350,000
I x ( : e j s Derontaminat ion
I 360.000
i'rvqraa
Iota1 :
I_iAhillf*y.
-....-----
__,-__
Facility Fp,y
S61 Policy
Uorker Form
$431,000
Sf P
L..1 3 4 P
5 27,100
$ 23,100
$ 1 , I98,600/yr
selected pieces of equipment are removed, the spent fuel pool
& l f r r o l i d , tlte workforce reduced, and low-level waste shipments slow, a site
f igurc a f $600,000 annually I s believed t o represent a good approximat ion o f a
r i ~ s u n a b l esafe storage premium level.
A\
lhese ffgures assume a relatively conservative risk management philosop h y . A utility seeking to aggressively lower plant operating expenses may opt
to lower premiums more sharply by reducing the amount of coverage purchased.
A s can be seen from these projections, the reduction in insurance expenses for
J single u n i t s i t e following planned permanent cessation o f operations can bc
rignt licant .
In addition, the reference PUR'S premium projections are now being
tempered by a number o f the following stipulations and/or caveats that could
further modify, o r at worst, preclude premium credit consideration for any o r
all staye5 of the decomnissioning and decontamination o f the reactor:
Nuclear insurance premium projections are bared upon the assumption
that the referenL* PUR'S "relirement" I S due to the expiration o f
the usual 40-year operating license and net due to an "incident" o f
any kind.
Any premium credit would be contingent upon the evaluation and
approval of bath the NRC and nuclear 1 iabil Ity engineering representing the insurer(s) relative t o each stage o f decomisiioning
and decontaminat ton.
*
Ihe specific Facility Form Engineering Rating Factor of the
reference PWR's retirement may differ substantlally from that of a
similar reactcr due to the procedures involved, the number or Contractor personnel onsite, whether or not spent nuclear fuel i s
stored onsite, etc.
I t should be recognized that final ratings, with respect to a Specific
rcactor's retiremeni, would be promulgated by the respective lnsurarice Scrv i c e s Office.
for example, ANI has established and applied a risk assessment
program t o decomissioning activities a t a variety o f insured nuclear facilit i c s . lhis risk assessment begins at the planning stages and continues
throughout the decomnissioning effort. This program is prirarily based on an
cngineering evaluation of the adequacy o f performance in the major areas of
nuclear safety, quality assurance, and documentation. Thus, the results o f
the engineering assessment can afrect the level o f premlum assessed and the
rate o f change o f premium during decomnis$ioning.
8.10'3
S u m m a T y g f _ t b q _ ~ a f L m ~ ~ - n t _ ~ ~ l ~ ~ ~ r ~ . ~ . .
Cr.5 s &
L ! ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~
The total insurance costs for the first 18 months following shutdown of
the reference PUR (i.e., the "transition period" pending receipt of a waiver
o f Property Rule limit requirements) are estimated t o be about $4,152,900.
following defuel ing t o the spcnt fuel pool, completion o f general plant layup
preparations, and receipt o f the Property Rule waiver, the annual premium i s
projected to be $1,107,600. Subsequently, premiums will likely fluctuate
Jccording to the level of activity oncite. Woucver, because the SNF inventory
must remain in the spent fuel pool for d 7-ycav period, it is postulated that
all of the nuclear liability insurance costs, except for a proportionate share
o f the annual premium covering about 3 2 weeks dtiring the first year following
PL!RE(;/CR-SI)R(. Vul. 2
8.37
Drnft for Comment
shutdown when active decormi\*.irwinq n p r a t i o n s occur, are attrihijtablc t o SNI'
management operations during the 7.year period. Upon reduction o f the SNf
inventory to iero and active decomnissioning activi ty commences, subsequent
1 nsurance costs are attr ibutable to Cr~onnriss ioning operat ions.
During period$ o f active decomnissioning and dismantlement, the annual
insur; Sce cost; could rise again t o $1,198,600. T h e reduction in estimatod
insurance expenses for the reference PUR following a planned permanent cessation o f operations is significant compared with the operating level premiums.
B . IO. 4
1.15.i.nl~.t.~.d.Q_~.es~~_Qf.IQ~~~~_E91lPhlL.~~~f~-e&s.zesil
3n!l...LL.€Q,ensa
For the purpose of this study, $ 5 million in nuclear 1iabilit.y insurance
I S postulated to be carried for 30 years following termination o f the posses.
I i o n only license. at an estimated annual cost o f 517,250.
This lower
i n w r a n r e covcragc for this relatively small annual premium is deemed prudent,
since it provides "discovery term*'" protertion for the insured covering
the entire l i f e o f the policy, plus 10 years after cancellalion o f the policy.
I t should be rpcoynized, however, that liability is limited to whatever amount
of insurance was in effect during the period for which a claim might be made .
i . e . , t h ? ycridd covering the operating years, the period following permanent
t.ersation o f bperation, the decomiiissioning period, and the 30 years (in this
CAW)
following termination o f the possession-only 1 icense. In summary, what
lhii means i s that upon cancallation o f the poticy, the clock starts ticking
o n the IO-year discovery term for any claims that might be made covering the
lifetime of the policy (as defined above), but after the I(, years have
elapsed, no claims against the policy c a n be made. Again, i t should be
recognired t h a t any change in credit of the normal operating premium would
iiectd approval by the NRC arid the nuclear liability pools.
(1)
I n , i c t rs*,tain t~ontli anti poltcies. provBsfon 1.1 made l o p i w the Insured a period o f l l w r f l e r the
L a n ~ e l l a l ~ o01
n o c o n l r d ~ l In rhlih t o d l i c w e r whether he ur she hdi suslrlnrd b l a i i that would
)).e tiein rciorcrablr hod :he Lontrsrl rcmalned In terce
I h l i pcrlotl v a r l e s , i n i t thr r w a n y can
1 % . , h r geriod 01 l i m t o he o l l o r t J
lhe D r r i o d my a l s o he ilctermlncd h y s i r t u t c , I n ccrlrin
: , ~ n , l s . 1 1 I S 01 i r l l e l i n i l e dvralion hecavrc of such t l r t u t o r y r r q u l r w n l
In order t o terminate the referenco PUR'S license, the NRC must deter.
mine that release o f the facility and site for unrestricted use (!.e., without
the need for future radiological controls) will not constitute an unreasonable
risk t o the health and safety o f the public. To make such a determination,
there must b e evidence to show that rrdirtlon levels of the facility, site,
and adjacent environs permlt release for unrertrlcted use.
Tho release criteria NRC has been using for license termination include
those found in the following:
Regulatory Guide 1.86, j&&j.&jnn
N~~~_!PN-RG&MLz (NRC 1974)
of Operat : 5 ¶ - L m &
i
FUJdd\
!
l
~
~~ & R d~ & & ! ~E l t & hCk K L b.
~
Pel m e - f ! ? r l w . a & M ~ o r a P L l l c P n f e - 1
Br~mduzf,_&SPur&_sr
Soec&&clear
Material$ (NRC 1987), Office
l
o f Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NHSS), and
In addition, the decomnissioning rule'")
requires submittal o f a final
radiation survey plan as part of the d e c o n i s s i o n i n g plan. Plans for a final
termination survey(m) should be designed to provide evidence, with a high
degrce o f assurance, that residual radioactive contamination levels will meet
criteria f o r release for unrestricted use. A final termination survey plan
should also be designed so that procedures, results, and interpretations can
be verified by the NRC staff.
Currently. the NRC has a draft guidance manual, NURLG/CR-5849,''51 for
conducting radiological surveys in support o f 1 icense termination. This
manual updates information contained in NUR~G/CR-Z082,''6) and provides
guidance for 1 icensees on conducting radiological surveys of their facil itics
and sites to demonstrate that residual radioactive contamination levels, as
i t , , ) s u r v e y 1 5 k n o m by several t i t l e s . including lrnitmllm surrey. porl r a d l r l - a c t l m survcy,
final s t a t u s surrey a n 0 flrul survey Tha t e r n f l n a l terminallon survey Is used In l h l t study.
N ! R t X / C R - 5 W , Vol. 2
8.39
Dnh lor Comnirnt
derivrd from NUREC/CR-5512,i”’ meet NHC criteria for unrestricted use.“”
Ihe guidance emphts:s in RURCG/CR-5849 i s on the termination survey, which
should demonstrate that the facility and site meet the criteria for unrestricted use.
Ihe NRC requlres that the tarminrtlon suivey be =~11iu;med tn b mannor
t h a t assures the results are complete and accurate. Surveys are to be performed by trained individuals who are following standard, written procedurds.
Properly calibrated survey Instruments, sensitive to the Identified contaminants at levels specified in the NRC decomisslonlng criteria, should be used.
Thi custody of samples must be tracked from collection t o analysis. Data must
be recorded in an orderly and verifiable way and must be reviewed for accuracy
Every step o f the survey, from training o f personnel, to the
aqd consistency.
calculation and I,,torpretation o f tho results, must be documented in a way
t h a t lends itself to audit. These requirements are achieved through a formal
program of quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC). The draft manual,
NURfG/CR-5849, provides acceptable approaches for: I) survey planning and
design, 2) radiological Instrumentation, 3) survey t e c h n i q w s , 1) laboratory
prccedure:, 5 ) interpretation o f survey results, and 6) survey iocumentation
and reports.”@)
The needs of bpth licensee and inspector for design of their respective
final surveys, having somewhat dlvergent objectives, should be kept in mind.
One i s an integral part of the other insofar as the licensee’s final informa.
tion i s input to the inspector’s final survey design for verificatlon o f the
1 icensee‘s compliance. Therefore, the survey plan prepared by the licensee
(or his radiological contractor, as assumed in this reevaluation study)[’)
(n)
lo)
hUR1G/IR.5517 p r o r i d c i a trchnlcal brrls for tranrlrtlnp contmlnrtlon levels in bulldiqr bnd
:rnd!soll t o annual & s r . I t presents rcrn8rloI for tndlvldurl eaposurr to resldurl contmlnation.
pdth.ay
of rnpasura. m d c l l n p rnd dose calculrllons.
To t k rrtent t b t nanltorlnp rtquircr hrduarr (4nrlysls r q u i m n t . crllbrrtlm rlrndardi. ruppller.
erc ) a s cmtrasted with Icrvlccs Icanguter p r o g r m t n p . data rtorapr rnd m r l y s l s rwtlncs.
i n t e q w e t a t t o n . etc.1. selected r l m n t i o f a qurltty rssurrnc* p r o p r v on mnltorlnp for rcqllrnre
with decownlrstonlng c r l t c r l a . . t . p . . control of neriurlnp and test e q u l m n t . control of rpccial
Drocesaes such 1s WnQlinp procedures and s t a t l t t l C a l mo&lt. CorrectIvI actlon. etc:.nuy
not apply
t o tho crtcnl that phyrlcal a t w c t s of the anltorlnp program are ContrbCted out to a rp.cIa1IIcd
campany r l t h t h h.rd.rrr. Ouallty assurance of t h i e c r t q o r l e a then b u m s ttu p r t m r y
responsiblllty o f t k contractor or subcmtrrttor. Howvrr. Ih t l t e m e r l a Jo{Pb)y rrsponrlb\r
for FA on t k flnal r a u l t s * n m l y c q l f r n c e r l t h t h drcanlssionlng crllerli.
SIIWECICR-SMI4, Vd. 2
B.40
D d for Cmvncml
should be reviewed by thc ~ c r ~ ~ l l ~ ~iri\pector
t l ~ J i prior
i
t o initiatic,n o f the
I icvnsce's final survey plan. I 1 should b e anticipated that the certification
rnspilctor will emphasize review o f thE analytical techniques, quallty ,iss:rd n c e measures, and rtatlstical bases for sampling. In turn, the licensee's
rddiologlcal contiactor should carefully consider the incorpordtion of
conunents offered by the certification inspector. This early agreement should
minimize the need for a completely independont radiological survey by the
Lertification inspector. (161
Ihe estimated cost of the termination survey for the reference PUR is
based upon the information contained In draft NUREG/CA-5849 and In
kURrC/CR 2082. Because the latter document used the reference PUR a s the
model for development of the methodology preseqted therein. it proved Useful
i n developing the cost estlmate for the final termination survey. The total
eitimated cost of the final termination survey fol* the reference PWR is about
SI 2 ? million, inclbling about 10.16 million 'in NRC-rslated costs for the
tonfirmation survey. The element>l costs o f the survey are presented in
lallle 0 . 8 . Brief di=cussions/derivations o f the survey.relale4 c o s t s shown in
t h e table follow.
In NURfG/CR.0130, the termination surveys were conducted intermittently
over a period of about 8 months, starting with a survey o f the Control Build.
i:iy and ending with a survey of the T u r b i w Building.
For the purpose o f this
a n a l y s i s , i t I S postulated that the surveys are conducted jn four survey
a c t i v i t y groups, in the order shown in Table 6.9. 'he rationale for the
buildings survey' sequences shown in Groups 1 and 2 in the table i s based upon
an est imated diminishlng order-of-difficulty of c o n d x t i n g the surveys and
upon segregation o f the site into two classifications of areas - affected and
unaffected a r e a s . " ' Ihis scenario will consolidate suvvey activities and
t~31
Affected areas a r e b r c r s that hawe b 6 t c n l l i l r r d i o a c l i r r c o n t m i n r i i o n ( b o e d on p l r n i operating
hb$Ior,) or L n o m r a d l o & c l l v e conlbmlnrtlon (based On pdtt or p r e l l m l n r r y r r d i o l a g l c r l survelllancc)
1h:s would r . o r m l \ y \nclur)o brei1 *err
r i d i o a i l ) i e MIPII~IS
e r e usto or stortd. whore rQrords
I * W I I L & ! C ~ ~ ~ or
1 other
1 s unilsudl occurrences that could hsve resulted i n spread or contamination. ami
*'.ere r i d i c x l i ~ em~tcrlrls mere burlrd
h r c b s i m m d l b t ~ l y surrounding or rdjrccnt l o locations
.here radlorctlre n!4terlils n r e used or i l o r e d . s p l ~ l e d . o r buried are Included In this
r i ~ s ~ l r l c ~ t l becruse
on
or IN wtentirl f o r inbdrrrlenl spread o f rontm!n.tion
Ih.ffuiwt am1
a r e w e d s not c l r s s i f t r d 4s a f f e c t e d
: * m e areas a r t not e s p c l e d to r o n t r l n resid
r a ~ i i o a c t ~ r l t yh.r i e d on a knorler!qe of s i t e hrslary and previous c u w y l n f o m t i o n .
Yfil
._
l&?LKh.d,
Sumnary o f lrtlmatcd Costs for the Termination h r v e y
.toS.ib.-
cost-f!mL,-.
1 lcenseo
labor
Rad 1 ological survey
Report. preparation
Off t ce mater i a1 SId)
958, 030'b1
16,1251c1
2,500
Services
Orllling (auger, coring,
restorationj
land surveyfpg
Hnalyt ical
NRi
Subtotal, Licensee
1,061,032
15% o f Licensee coststP1
_LU$
rota1
1,220, I87
vediice mobilization costs for the instrumented mobile laboratory p o s t u l a t e d t o
be USPJby the radlological contractor.
The 1 iccnse termination survey process is labor-intensive, requiring an
crliinated 13,112 hours o f direct labor. This number is increased by 25% in
t h i s s t u d y t o account for lunch, work breaks, and set-up and calibration
c.liccks. resulting in total clock time o f about 16,590 hours (see Table 8.9).
8.42
Draft fur Ctmnimt
o f rrttmrted T i m e s f u r t h e l m n i n a t i o n Siirvcys o f tho
l A ~ h ~ - ~ Summary
3 .
B u i l d i n g s and S i t e
a inment
Fuel
Auxi 1 i a v y
Condenrate/Demlneral i zer
10,029
599
451
188
R e d c tor/Cont
SRQV Y-2-dBuJldlngi
I , 238
Turbine
Control
Shop/Warehoure
Adminlstration
Chlorine
Coal Iny Tower
395
252
130
46
17'"
C!?a!?. 3.. :-J!.k Sui-!
*
Survey U n i t I"'
Survey U n i t ?"!
Survey U n f t 3Ie')
461
169
2,449
c.; .oYP~4..~:...z_aplp.u!-!~
L§§
Air, Water, e t c .
l o t a l , hours
16,590"'
8.43
Iwo c r e ~ ,working a
conduLt the ;urvey protocol.
is postulated to rotisltl of the staff listed in Table 8.10.
binyle shift,
tach crew
uLfl,lQ. Staffing rod Labor Rates Postulated for Survey Crews
.-_rnZAtnsPrJ.--H.P. Leader/Supervisor
H, P./SurJey Technician
1 .o
5.0
laborer
Sr. Chemical lechnictcqn"'
Sr. Instrument Tech.
SecretarylL lerk
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.5
10.99
36.82
26.31
54.40
54.40
22.99
total hours of the two crews equals 136 hours per day and the combined salarier of the crews comes to $5,557.68 per day. Based upon the total
hours given in Table 0,9, the total time to complete the final termination
survey protocol is derived as follows:
1he
/
-
16,590 hours/136 hrs per day -122 work days
or,
24.4 wks (or,
"122 work days/5 work days per week
-
~
-
5.6 months)
Thus, the direct labor cost is: $5,557.68/day x '122 work days = $678,040.
P w diem for 17 full-time equivalent ( F T E ) staff, calculated using Federal
Travel Rates o f S9l/day, amounts to $262,990.
Travel costs (postulated to be about $1,00O/person) add another $17,000,
resulting in a total labor cost o f :
$678,040 + 262,990
t
17,000
-
8.44
$958,030.
I t i \ turthrr JS5UmCd t h a t t h o r a d i o l o g i c a l c o n t r a c t o r uses an i n s t r u montcd inobi l e lcjho;.atory('l) f o r the d u r a t i o n o f the survey. Assuming a
5 - y r t ! r I i f c t i n i c , s t r d i g h t l i i i e depreciation, and a 25% u t l l i r i t i o g i f a c t o r , t h e
inotiilr l a b o r a t o r y c o 5 t of about 1156,500 wau\d be amortized a t a r a t e of
about $?,408/wcck, r r s u l t i n g i n a t o t a l mobile l a b o r a t o r y cost f o r t h c survey
of:
$7,40A/wk x 24.4 wks * $58,755
A f t o r t h r s i t e titis bccn surveyed, samples c o l l e c t e d and analyrcd, thc
d ~ t must
~ . bc cvrluatcd and presented i n a r e p o r t whi\' documents the f i n d i n g s
of t h c survcy. I h c estimated labor associated with r e p o r t p r e p a r a t i o n shown
iri
I d b l i ? 8 . 1 1 i s taken f r o m Refcrenre 16 and t h e labor costs are based upon
ttir DOC costs presented p r r v i o u s l y i n Tdblc E . 1 .
.1...
~ R i . f11.11.
~
Estimated Labor Costs f o r Preparation o f Termination
Survcy Report
L?ho~~~CWEY
L ng inec r
Graphic A r t s
Tech. n r i t e r l e d i t o r
Clerical
RatLJlwk
--.
Person-weeks
--I__-
4
1
2,363.44
1,304.10
919.79(')
1,304. IO
3
2
--.-A
Amount
_$_
9,454
1,304
2,759
2,608
m
Total
When the licensee has completed the cleanup and documented t h e r a d i o l o g i c a l c o n d i t i o n o f the s i t e , the NRC ( o r i t s agent) i s ready f o r the c e r t i f i c a t i o n process. Based upon discussion w i t h NRC and upon i n f o r m a t i o n contained
i n Reference 15, i t i r p o s t u l a t e d t h a t t h i s confirmatorylverification survey
K'IJREGICR.5884, Val. 2
8.45
Dnfi for Comment
o f s e l e c t e d p o i n t s w i l l take ahout one month and i s estimated t o c o s t r o w h l y
15% o f the l i c e n s e e ' s c o s t s Shown i n Yable 8.8, or about $159,700, These
c o s t s arc ultimately p a i d by the l i c e n s e e under t h e NRC's f u l l - c o s t recovery
pol icy.
According t o 10
CTR 50,82,
" A p p l i c a t i o n f o r l e t m i n a t i o n o f i {censc," thc
Commission w i l l t e r m i n a t e t h e l i c e n s c i f i t determitics t h a t 1) t h e dccomniss i o n i n y has been pcrfornicd i n accordance w i t h t h o approved d c c o n i s s i o n i n y
order authorizing decomissionirrg; and, 7) t h e t e r m i n a l r a d i a t i c n
s u r v r y and associated docuincntation dcmonstratrr t h a t t h e f a c i l i c y and s i t e
p l d r i and t h e
a r r s u i t d h l e fni r e l e a s c f o r u n r r s t r i c t c d use.
B.l? CASCAOING
..........
COSTS
.........
A n r r t c n s i v r I i t e r a t , u r e r c a r r h r r v c a l e d t h a t cascadirlg cost.(')
have
n ~ i t t i i w g i v e n any s c l c c t i v c o r d i s t i n c t i v r c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n dcconnnissidning
cost c.:tin!,lt.cs u n t i l t w c n t l y .
l h i s i s not s u r p r i s i n g , s i n c e t h r h i s t o r y o f
dccoininissioning cost c s t i i i i ~ t i n ghas provrtl t o tic ,in c v o l d t i o n a r y and i t C r a t i v r
, ~ r o c ' r s % .This h i g h l y s u l r j c c t i v c co-,t i:ateljory WJS r i o t considered as a
srpat(i1c e n t i t y i n NURFG/CR-0130 i n 1'378. tlohcvcr, i n t h i s r e e v a l u a t i o n study
o f t t e r r f r v c n c c P # R , cascading c o s t s
,ire
5pccifioally i d e n t i f i e d , whcre
a p p l i c Q i t ) l r . Ihus, f u l l c o n s i d c r d t i o i i i s givirri
iii
exccut i n 9 ttic d c r o t i t m i n a t i o n 111ocesscs,
iiiclcidc cascading costs.
...............
-
SI'REG CK-ZBW. Val. 2
htii(.ti
t h i s study to t h e inclhoti5 0 1
.
R.4G
Drali for Comnieni
Office In Callfornia, and trchnira1 cpcrialists from the NRC headquarters in
Maryland, to oversee Trojan's operations.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990 (Public l a w 101-508) was
slgned into law November 5, 1990. It requires that the NRC recover 100% of
its budget author'ty from fees assessed agaifist licensees for services
rendered, except for the amount appropriated from the Cepartment o f Cnergy
(Oof) admlnistered Nuclear Waste Fund'*) t o the NRC for F Y s 1991 through
1995 for purposes o f licensing support to the NWPA activities. Subsection
( c ) ( 3 ) dirccts the NRC to establish a schedule o f annual charges that falrly
and equitably allocates the aggrpgate amount of charges a m n g licensees and,
to the maximum extent practicable, reasonably reflects the cost o f providlng
services to such licensees o r classes o f licensees. The schedule may assess
different annual charges for different licensees o r classes o f licensees based
on the allocation o f the NRC's resources among licensees o r classes o f
licensees, IO that the licrdisees who require the greatest expenditures o f the
NRC's resources will pay the greatest annual charge.
With revision to 10 C f R Part 170, f w . f ~ ~ . E ~ r i l i l , i e Z _ . ~ ~ ~ . ~ t ~ ~ . t ~
LFELQk€:,m.d.,.Qthcr.
J?-wrlala.fnrr...strvice-$~.Y-~dQI..
ttLe._lSt9fli€.hQrYLY-.
aL!._af_1954,.-as
Amen&$* the NRC has established a policy o f full-cost recovery for all NRC
1 icensiny services and inspections, including those activities assoclated with
thr renewals dismantl iny/decomnlsrioniny, and termSnation o f reactor licenses.
NRC licensees are now expected t o provide 100% o f the agency's budget through
user fees. for example, 10 CFR Part 170.20, as amended, changes the c o s t per
professional staff hour for all full cost fees from 592 per hour for fV 1990
to Ill5 per hour fob F Y 1991 (a 25% increase over F Y 1990) and t o $123 per
hour for FY 1992 (a 7% increase over FY 1991).''9' At the ttme o f this
writing, the professional staff-hour rate for F Y 1993 was unavailable. For
the purpose o f this study, the professional staff.hcur rate is estimated at
5132 per hour (a seven percent Increase over F Y 1992). The professional
NIIHE(;ICK-Sw, Vul. 2
0.47
D d t for Comment
s t a f f . h o u r r a t e s through FV 1995 w i l l be published as a N o t i c e i n the Federal
Reglster d u r i n g the first q u a r t e r o f each f l s c a l year.
T i t l e 10 CFR P a r t 1 7 1 , ~
~
~
has been expanded to include a d d i t i o n a l r e g u l a t o r y costs t h a t are a t t r i b u t a b l e
t o power r e a c l o r s o t h e r than thore c o s t s t h a t have p r e v i o u s l y been included i n
the annual f e e f o r o p e r a t i n g power r e a c t o r s . lhese a d d i t i o n a l costs i n c l u d e
the costs o f generic a c t i v i t i e s t h a t p r o v i d e a p o t e n t i a l f u t u r e b e n e f i t t o
u t i l l t i e s c u r r e n t l y o p e r a t i n g power r e a c t o r s . These generic a c t i v i t i e s a-e
(emphasis added), l l c e n s e renewal,
associated w i t h r x a k Q r & & u
standardization, and Construction Permits and Operating License reviews. By
modifying P a r t 171, t h e base annual f e e f o r an o p e r a t i n g power r e a c t o r is
expected t o increase from approximately $ 1 m l l l i o n to approximately $2.8
m i l l i o n . E x a c t l y what f r a c t i o n of t h l s annual fee i s a t t r i b u t a b l e to t h e
f u t u r e b e n e f i t s o f generic a c t i v t t l e s assocfatcd w l t h r e a c t o r decoimrissionlng
was not determined i n t h i s study, b u t t h e e n t i r e annual fee i s apparently
considered an operations.re1ated c o s t . Thus, P a r t 171 fees are n o t a p p l i c a b l e
t o r e a c t o r s w i t h possession-only l i c e n s e s and these fees are n o t included I n
the decomnissioning cost estimates associated w i t h t h i s r e p o r t ,
lhus, t h e NRC charges fees i n p r o p o r t i o n t o i l s cost ( i . e , , f u l l - c o s t
recovery) f o r pcovidlng i n d l v i d u a l l y i d e n t l f i a b l e services t o s p e c i f i c
a p p l i c a n t s for, and holders o f , NRC l l c e n s e s and approvals.
Oregon a l s o has a u t h o r i t y over Trojan operations. Trojan operates under
a S i t e C e r t l f i c a t e issued by the Energy F a c i l i t y S l t i n g Councll (EFSC).
Oregon law r e q u i r e s PGE to comply w i t h NRC requirements and t h e terms o f i t s
s i t e c e r t i f i c a t e . The EFSC has d i r e c t e d t h e Oregon Department o f Energy
(OWE)t o set up an i n s p e c t i o n program a t Trojan. There has been an OWE
o v e r s i g h t program a t Trojan since 1980. Oregon operates it; program i n
cooperation w i t h the NRC 'Jnder the terms o f a Memorandum o f Understanding.''o)
l h e Administrator, Nuclear Safety and Energy f a c i l i t i e s D i v i s i o n , OWE,
and the Reactor Safety Manager, OWE, are responsible f o r implementing t h e
r e g u l a t i o n program. C u r r e n t l y , OWE has authorized a Reactor Safety Hanager
and two Resident Englneers. The Resident fngineers work f u l l - t i m e at t k
lrojan S i t e and are antlclprted to contlnue t o do so durlny perlods o f rctlve
rlecomisstonlnq. lhey conduct lnrpectlons of PC1 actlvltlrr. ldonllfy
potentlal problems, and discuss corrertlve rctlon wtth PCL. Ihe Rerldent
fngineers report on thelr activltles t o the Reartor Safety Hanaqer, the
Adminlrtrator, and the L l S C Ihe reports form the basls for dlscusslons o f
lrojari statui wlth the t1X. this proqram ir expected l o cnntlnue durlnq
periods of actlve Cecomnisslnnlng. Ihe COIt o f thcs program, together wlth a
sumnary o f estimated reyuldtory t o r t s , i s given in lable 8.12.
11.14 COHTINGMCI
Some s t a l k utility rate c.ommlsslonr have expre,sctl concerns about the
s i l e o f the cont Iny@nc,y allowances in d e c o m l s s l o n l n q rost c s t l m a t e s . Uhst
follows 1 % a brinf dlrcurslon of the nature o f a contingency allowance, the
variation in t h e sire o f thi. contliiyency allowante as a function o f the degree
n C knowledge about the projrct, the slre o f the allowance y c m r a l l y arslgned
t o dcvomlrsionlny proJects, and the slrc o f the sllouanre usud tn this
reevaluation study. the dlscusslon is derlbud from a report prc!part*d IJ)
Northeast Utilltles Servlte Compdny for decomnlssionlny of the Hillstonr
U n i t s I and 2 . ' " '
A common element o f engineering co.'t ertirnati*s I $ rnntlnyency.
Ainerlcan Association o f Cost tnyincerr (A).'l')
book'"' defines cont inyency a s :
Ihe
in ' ( . s Cost Inyineerr Note
Ihe specific provision for unforeseeable elernenis o f c o s t wllhln
the deflned project scope; particuldrly Important where previous
experience relatlnq estlmates and actual costs has shown that
unforeseeable events which wlll lnrrea,,? cost arc Ilkely to
occur.. ,
The inclusion o f contlnyency In project estlmates (conrtructlon, deron.
struction or otherwise) is an industry-wlde practice. In the U . I . Department
of fnQrgY Pub1 fcation ~~-Unifsrco..Inolsnc.tQL.RCPPTt
i.Os..Sws.lem,...YQl.~e- 1,
September 1978, rorm 00E533P Illustrates speciflc use o f project contingency.
l h l s form r.ontalns an item callrd 'Management Reserve' uhlch l s defined as
R.49
JMJJ B112,
Sunmuy u f f s t l m a t e d Regulatory Cusls
..
Id1
fl.1
"Amouot o f tonllngency. ,Available for U s e , . , " As another example, the S t a t e
o f Connect i c u l ' s Department o f Transportation employs contingency a s an
lnlegral part o f project estimates on budgeted construction jobs. Thls I s
I
done primarily t o adequately allow lor the 'Unforeseeable tlements of Cost'
such as:
*
unexpected minor changes In scope
allowuice for uncertainties in estimating methods
allouance for untried process
*
unexpected Job conditlonr.
These definltions and examples highlight the importance of including a
provision for unforeseeable events that are likely t o occur and that will
increase costs. Virtually every nuclear and fossil fuel facility owner,
architect.engineer, consultant, construction and demolition company in the
country (and probably in the world) abides by the aforementioned contingency
principle. either expressed or imp1 led. Their experience in thelr respecttve
fields have led them to recognize the propriety o f a contingency provision in
cost estimates. ( i ' )
Because of the varying circumstances that make a contiggency necessary, a
slngle standard rate i s not appropriate for all situations. The rate could be
3 s hlgh d s 100% of the cost for an untried process where no engineering is
complete and the )ob t s to take p\ace in the distant future. Conttngency
amounts o f 20 to 35% are not uncommon for projects in the proposal stages.
Contingency amounts o f 5% are not uncomnon for projects that have been fully
engineered and d w f g n e d and are entering the construction phase.
Contingency sire i s time-related. At the initial project stages when
small amounts of engineering or design work have been completed, a larger
rontingency i s needed, since more uncertatnties extst. As the job approaches
completion. lesser contingency amounts are appropriate.
considering the sta:e o f knowledge available for a decomnissioning project
that I S to take place 20 to 30 years in the future, a contingency o f 25% i s
considered by professionals in the field t i be a reasonable and realistic
value for use in developing estimates o f the possible financial exposure that
will result from dccomnissioniny. Therefore, a 25% contingency Is used in
this reevaluation study for the decomnis$ionitig of the reference DWR power
statlon.
8 - 1 5 sLFsBIs1CL$
1..
2
1. Cmlth. C. .I.
Konzek. and U. E . Kennedv. Jr, 1978. ~eChflQ~Q!lL
sdseG&& iLsslll--mlPrertlrr-km-F=
P a
pn. NURLG/CR-0130, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Report
b W N o r t hweit laboratory, R ichl and, Yash ington
.
2.
'Bullding Construction Cost Data 1993,' Robert Snow Means Company, InC.
Kingston, Mass lchusetts.
3. "Means Estima ing Handbook 1991," Robert Snow Means Company, I n c a ,
Kings ton, Mas ,achuret t s
.
1979. Ir:€hnQlQgY&!&LUid.&lfLSf
O e ~ ~ d ~fig i a-Ecfumc.e
~ n l
9 r a s % r m f A w & Q a ~ i o n
&p&p#ga1. NURCC/CR-0130, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Report by
4. R . 1 . Smlth, and 1. M. Polentz.
Pac i f Ic Northwest Laboratory, Rich1 and, Yarhlngton.
5. Direct testimony o f R . t . Brrerlnski, Consumer, Power Company before the
Michigan Publ(c Service Comnission, Case U.6041, March 7, 1979.
6. NdtiQ~~Lhi_hzo_nomIcTrenb. february 1993. lederal Reserve Bank o f St.
louis, St. louis, Missouri
Q l ~ r & y - s f _ Q ~ a t c s n ~f - ~ h & U X
fQr&diQ&fl!!&H h t e r i a l t . e h r k n ~ I ~ r ~ ~ ~ s . o f C o m P l i1991.
~.
7. NURLG-0383, V o l . 2, Revision 14.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C m n i s s i o n Report by Office o f Nuclear Material
Safety m d Safeguards, Washington, D.C.
8. Title 49 Code o f federa! Regulations, Part 173, LtpDIePrtatioa.
9. Tri-Slate Motor Transit Company, pub1 :shed tariffs, Interstate Comnerce
Conmission (ICC) Oocket No. MC-109397 and Supp!ements. 1993.
IO. NUREG-1437, Volume 1. 1991. G & o . w l c t a l I mDacL S W m e n
I icense Renewal of&lear
Plants - Main ReDort - Draft ReDort for
I-.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission, Yashington, D . C .
11.
t
OTA-0-426. 1989. 'Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing C o m r c i a l
Low-Level Radioactive Uaste," Office of Technology Assessment, U.S.
Congress, Washington, D . C .
12. w e a r U & $ W . August 29, 1991. "States Look to Wt for Mixed
Yarte Rescue," p. 342.
NIJREG/CR-.W, Vd. 2
8.52
for
13. AIfJNtSP.036, Volumes I and 1 % HAY 1986. GII1Pnljne.L.fu.Sduim
Lmuuelent_hm4umsslonlnctCostrstlmafes.
Atom! c
Industrial forum, Inc. Report hy TLC Englneerlng, Inc., Bethesda,
Nary1 and.
Federal Register. 'General Requirements for Oecomissioning Nuclear
Facilities," Vol. 53, No. 123, pp. 24018-24056, June 27, 1988.
I4
IS. J. 0. Berger. June 1992. ~ r _ . & n d u c t l n q _ B $ d ~ W U X Q Y i - l o
SUP&Q&Qf- L L W e J e r m L R P I l P n - > S r ~ - *WNUREG/CR5849, ORAU-92/CStI U.S. Nuclear Regulatory C o m i s s l o n Report by Oak Ridge
Associated Unlversitles, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
16.
C.. f. iloloway, et. t l . June 1981.
W~~l.r1fQr--!2m!Uu&~fh
I!tLmllShn 1 t I L h i r m l n a t l Q L S r J J NUR EG/CR. 2082
4
ORNl/tIASRD-95, U . S . Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Report by Oak Ridge
National laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
17.
U
t
Ll;f
Kennedy, Jr. and R. A . Peloquln. January 1990. ! & . . L i d ~ L n l ~ ~ ~ ~ r -
hl$.nlmlnaf~
~ - ~ r Y ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ i ~ a
PNL - 72 I i., U 5 .
Nuclear Regulatory draft report for comnent by Paclfic Northwest
laboratory, Richland, Uashington.
NUREG/CR-SS 12,
CQnt~ina~~.l~.Lt-~~-BanllaLPere9
I
18. 1 . V . Shum. J. J. Swift, and J. C. Halaro. November 1911. " D e c o m i s sioniny of Nuclear Facillties Using Currelit Criteria." Paper presented
at the American Nuclear Soctety 1991 Uinter Heeting. San Francisco,
California.
19. fedeial Register. 'Revision of Fee Schedules; 100% Fee Recovt.ry,
IY 1992," Vol. 57, NO. 142, pp. 32691-32721, July 23, 1992.
70.
1991. u t l o n Q ~
!b~W14toruermWh&sk&~rB
Prepared
.
by
Technical Analysis Corporation for Oregon Department o f Energy.
21
~
I
I. Y ~ n g ,Jr., il. lieber, and Don Beckham.
n
a
_
r
4
o
w
c
r
P
J & Q ~
~
I
Report by Northeast Utillties Service Company, Berlin, Connecticut, Nay,
1983. (Pub1 ic Document Room 105000245).
22
I
C o s t Engineers I
M-4.000, p. 3
0.
I
'
book: American Association o f Cost Engineers,
, Revision 2, January 1978.
8.53
l
~
~
APPlNOlX C
lhe Cost lstimating Compwter Program (CCCP), designed fcr use on an IBH
personal computer or equivalent, was developed for estimatlng the cost o f
decomirsioning li$ht-water reactor power stations to the point o f license
termlnatlcn. lucii ci.st( include component, piping and equipment removal
costs; packaging costs; decontamination costs; transportation costs; burial
volumes and costs: and manpower staffing costs. Using equipment and consumabler c0st.s and inventory data suppl led by the uscr, the ClCP calculates unit
c o s t f a c t ors and then combines these factors wlth trdnrportatlon and bitrial
cost alqorithms to produce a c m p l e t e report o f decomissioning costs. In
dddit ion to costs, the CECP also calculates person.hours, crew-hours and euposure person.hours assoclated with decomnlssinning. Data for the reference PUR
were used to develop arid test the CKCP.
lhe CtCP uses a data base, but it is not a commercial datJ base p r o l w t .
f o r this reason, data may be entered and Information extr:-ted only through
the CECP program itself. The detailed and sunmary output files produced by
the ClCP are in ASCII format and may be accessed and prlnted using any IBH P C compatible word processing system.
The C[CP main menu i s shown in figure C . 1 . The first task for the user
I S to cnter certain grneral data which the CtCP will need later in calculating
site.specific costs. This is done by selecting 1, 2, and 3 from the main
menu. Uhen the user types 1, for example, a portion o f the data base is
opened up permitting the user to enter labor costs, burial costs, overhead
c o s t s , conrumables costs, physical constants (e.g., the density o f reinforced
concrete) and so on. Uhen the user selects 1 for the first time, the default
file i s loaded into memory. The user may then modify whatever values he or
she desires and save this new information to a file. In fact the user may
save data to several files during the same session. The next time the user
CECP M l M MENU
QENERAL COSTS AND UNIT COST FACTORS
1 labor Rates, Burial Costs, Con$lants
2 Unit Cost Factors for Decontamination
3 Unit Cost Factors fur Contam. Systems
SITE-SPECIFIC COSTS AND PARMETERS
A Site infot~mation
B Decomni ss 1 oni ng Schedules
C
Soecial EauiDment Costs
. . .
.
0 Manpower Costs
H Undistributed C o s t s
I final Suninary Report
***
PRESS Alt-X TO E X I T ; V TO VlEU FILES
f1cM-u. CECP Main
*'*
Menu
accesses item 1 he or she will have several file: to choose from: the default
file (which I s always available) and the files he or she created. Any o f
these files may be loaded into mcrnory and used a s a basis for creating a new
file. The user may save u p I o 150 different flles, but i t is unlikely that
more than about five wlll ever be needed. Data for items 2 and 3 are entered
in the s a w way. I f the u w r does not supply his or her own files for 1, 2,
and 3, the C l C P will still have the default files rvailable.
Haviny entered g w e r a l information into the data base, the user must now
enter ritr-ipccific data. D A t a for menu items A and B are entered first, in
either order, then data for items C through H, in any order. Yhen the user
selects items C, D . E, F , G, or H, the C l C P requests the user to specify which
input files (from 1 throdgh 3 and A and B ) to use. For each o f the items C
through H, the CCCP calculates cost and exposure information in delail and
c.2
then writes the results to appropriate oiitput flies. To got a complete site
suimnary, combining data from items A through H, the user selects Item 1.
lha overall method for entering data i s outlined in Ftgure C.2,
Enter Ceneral Costs and Unit Cost Factors
1-3. Hay be
--L.
1
1
---_-I__
Enter Schedule and Site Informatlon
Items A.B. May be entered i n either order.)
--.__-- __-_-
-r
~
I
_- _.____--.__--I
Enter Site-Specific Data
(Menu Items C-H. May be entered in any order.)
-^_--I_-_
_-
1
-
-
-
~
~
I
I
I
f.&UB.L.,,,CJ,
G e n w a t e a final Sumnary Report
(Menu Item I)
I__
-
Flow Diagram for Enterlng Data into the CECP
example o f the data entry process, Figures C.3a and C.3b show the
two input screens the user will see when he or she selects Item E from the
main menu. These screens cover inventory information for a single system.
The user enters the system name at the top and then enters information for
each component in the system which will be removed in the decomissioning
process. On Screen 1 . the user supplies the following Information for each
component: name, equipment category, disposal category, and quantity. On
Screen 11, the user supplies the following: volume. weight, radiation dose
rate in millircrn/hour, and, in the case of tanks, tank diameter and tank
height.
A s an
L.3
l 1 W t : Ca(1MIWttD S l S l u S W S l S *
CaIepDry Dlrpwl G u n l l l y
lank
M I 1 Box
2
lank
Sea-Van
1
Tank
lank
lank
Tank
Tank
ldnk
ldnk
Lg P
32 6 Inch Valve
31 4 Inch valve
34 3 Inch Valve
Ibnk
Lg Valve
19 Valve
sa Valve
I
2
I
I
$*&-Van
Sei-Van
Sea-Van
Sea-Van
Sei-Van
Lg P w
27 b r l c Acid traporalor Vtnt Comknrtr
28 b r l c Actd tvap. Oistlllalt Condtnrer
29 I X filter
30 Yeclrculallon P q
3
MI1 801
MI1 Bo#
iitl kox
lank
Lg P w
24 C w . Hold lank lransfnr Puap
2 5 CIIr S l r i p p r f e d Pump
26 b r l c Acid Irtparatbr CMdenrdr
M I 1 Box
7
2
2
1
8aK
1111
q
2
2
Sea-Van
I
Sea-Van
Sea-Van
Sea.Vin
sea-van
4
2
35
49
r o f rscorde: ST
r i l e I n use: wt.w
S r r c a Change Syslea
pplp p9a, S e l e c l ltm
I n t e r Data I n M r t ltm
rl ltrn a t End Delele I:m h v e Oat8 l o i F l , A l l - X Gull
m
3
--
.
FIGURE C.3a. System Inventory Informatinn (Screen I)
.
svsiins cosrs
IUNU iiin I : ~ ~ I I M I M I I O
henlcdl and V o l m Conlrol Systen
uetght
Dlrcler
1650
3500
1os0
0.8
5.5
2.2
2.2
0.61
0.6)
tM0
40
40
200
5.4
5.4
3.2s
DDrc(ds)
IW
100
ICS
IO0
i 00
IO0
1.1
3.75
0.161
0 167
8.7
5
11.1
I
3.3
I
0.161
0,s
6
I
IO0
It
3YO
4
I:
3
I4
440
465
I
1W
I
2ooM)
600
100
150
200
540
5.38
2.1
26a
I53
1.1
I
Lmqlh
6.3
7.8
25
160
IW
100
100
100
100
r of rsconjs: 31 Ftte i n uw: MSt.wv
Change System
t t t h Ind p~lpp9a, Select IIMI
tniar 011s Insert Itm
C l r l Cnd Insert Ilm a1 tnd Dalele I t n Save Data t o a file A l t - X Qui1
m
f l FZ
SeIec1
Sysla
3
f&UE C.3h. System Inventory Information (Screen 11)
N U R E G I C R - W , Vol. 2
c.4
the equipment category and disposal category parameters require further
explanation. The user selects the equipment category from t.he following list:
Lg Pipe, Sm Pipe, Lg Valve, Sm Valve, Tank, Lg Pump, Sm Pump, Lg HX, Sm HX, Lg
Hisc., and Sm Hisc. Lg Pipe refers to piping greater than 2.5 inches in diameter and Sm Pipe is piping 2 ,riches or less in diameter. The other categories are similarly defined. The equipment category parameter is important
because i t provides the CLCP with the correct unit cost factor to be used in
determining removal costs.
The disposal category parameter is either Sea-Van (maritime container)
or Metal Box (8-25 container). This parameter enables the CECP to apply the
proper disposal cost algorithm to each component.
lxamples o f typical output reports are illustrated in Figures C.4
through C.6. for the reference PUR. Ta.*les C.l through C.4 .?r. complete
mary tables for the four cases discussed in Chapters 3 and 4. Table C.1
the OECON Case with lianford relected as the law-level burial site; Table
I S the sane as C.l but with the burial site at Barnwell.
Tables C.3 and
arc t h e SAFSTORZ versions of C.l and C . 2 .
C.1
PLAN1
sum.
is
C.2
C.4
INVENTORY
I t d CLCP requires that the user supply information on the inventory of
the plant. This includes information on building names and wall surface
areas. reactor pressure vessel size, system names, number and sizes o f pumps
and valves, lengths and diameters of pipes, radiation levels in the vicinity
o f components, and so on. A discussion of the reference PUR plant inventory,
which the CECP uses as the default PUR inventory, i s presented below.
C. 1.1
m n t o r i e s of Process System CpmDonents
Inventories of process system components aiid the inki-tory of stainless
steel piping that will have to be removed during decomnisstoning are compiled
and presented in this section. These inventories are used in the CECP,
together with appropriate unit cost factors and algorithms, to estimate the
costs of removal, packaging, transport, and disposal for this material. The
Reactor Coolant System, because of its complexity and large physical size, is
.t(.(ttt.(ttt~(.tttt~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...)(..i~.(~...~.t.t.t(.~b~+~**~.f~**~t~
* IWY[NIOCV 01 P D I ~ N I I A l l IRAOIOACllYl S V l l t M b .
PnlilLAI
LtiARALIlk~~lILS*
t r t t t . . t t t . t f ~ t ( ( t l , * ~ . ~ ~ b * * * ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ ~ ~ * ~ ~ + * ~ * * ~ ~ * * t ~ b ~ ~ * + b b * t f ~
"'
Rbd!odct(br taseoui Vartr $)stso
.....
1rnk.a
Ola(fl)
HQl(fl)
..I._
Calrgory OII~ODJI
C w n t n t Ocscr 1 p t i gn
Jly
Ypl(lb)
Vol(fI3)
srr-van
I
Sra-Van
Sea-Van
sea-van
Htl Box
Sra.Vm
SeJ-Vaa
Srr-Van
I
2
Z
89 b
I0.8W
13
8.000
200
I6
Ira Yilrr Sur-Van
35
Sn V r l v r Sea-Van
h Valve $ I J - V J n
.............................................................
Surpc lank
Iank
lank
Oecry lank
Gas Conpresror
L9 HIsc.
gr
b i a t u r r Scparalc.Br Seal Wtr W
4 Inch Valvr
L9 WI
1.9 Valve
VJlvS
3 Inch V a l w
2 Inch Valve
1 I / ? Inch Valve
h Valvr
I Inch Val,*
l / 4 Inch Valve
...
WISC.
8
IO0
I
21
3
I?
1.100
168
I53
90
61
50
16
30
0
Z
I
3
Olspc$al
.........................................................
Lp
Lq
Valve
I ? Inch v a l v e
IO I n i n va1,e
lg
R i n c h Vdlve
? Inch b a l r e
Lg
h
3 ~ 4Inch
19
Lg
fn
Valre
Sbfrty
Ply
1
2
2
2
IO
33
0
Dlspral
Ply
Ygt(lb)
$*..Van
Sca.Van
Sra-Van
Sea-Van
Sea.Van
Sca-Van
sea-van
Sea-Van
Sea.Vm
Ira-Van
Sed-vdn
Sea-Van
Sea.Van
Sea-Van
4
I
Z
I8
31
24
18
I5
I
lrirct~onS r s t e >
C m w n e n t Drrrrip:ian
. . . .
A c c m l lank
.....
Category
.........................................
Tank
Fioroo i n ] t r t i o n l a n k
l n i r c t ~ o nPunp
Erf,,elioy uite,' Storage lank
F t r n y r , Wd%c~pWater jtorrgc l a n k
10 1 w h V a l r e
8 Inch Valve
6 l i c h Va!re
4 :rrh Y s l r e
3 Irxh balre
2 :nLh Vdlve
1 : ; 1 I!.<" i a l r e
\ate!,
lank
Lg Pw
IJnk
lank
lg
19
Lp
Lg
Valve
valve
Valve
Value
h Valvr
; Inl-h ',*Ire
*n Valve
h Valve
5m Valve
,311 : w h Va1.e
In
FIGURE C . 4 a .
---.-
..............................
2.9
212
3
tanks
O l I ~ f l l I*yl(fll
Ugtllb) V a t ( f t 3 )
C.800
23.100
2.760
1.912
1.158
1.029
90
SCJ-vbn
Htl Box
Hx
Valve Sea-Van
Valve Sea-Van
Valve Sra-Van
valre Sea-Van
V a l v r Sea-Van
Valve Sra.Van
PUnp
6,OO
16.00
0
.....
Category
I'NQ
nx k n i t
14 Inch
3.00
10.00
I
Rr.i!ilunl H c i t L l m r a l S y s t m
C~m(mrcnt Dcirription
...
.............................
Valrr
I
7
I
I
8
8
2
9
I
I
1
33
20
Vol(ft3)
.....
ljnkr
Ota(fI1
Hpt(f0
.............................
r6.500
28,500
8.600
1)1.800
99.200
1.1s
1.029
58(1
268
153
90
11.00
5.50
21.00
1X50
36?
41.00
39.60
206
18
30.00
JS 40
56
31
165
I5
I
3
I
I
I
62
50
0
30
0
Partial CECP Output File for Contaminated Systems, Example 1
C.6
Draft lor Comrnmt
...
! b d l o a c l l v t Galcout Y a s l c System
Cowanent Description
.......................
Q I ~ crn-mrs
Cateqory Oiswral
_ _ _ _.......
_...............__
.....__.
_._._.._
Tank
0.0
16
0.0
I20
654
Lp
Lq
Ly
Lg
Lg
Lg
12 lnLh v e l w
10 I W h V a l * *
R [rich V a l ~
2 Inlh kdlre
3 / 4 InLh V J I W
4..
3
0.0
0.0
aty Crcr-Hrs
0.0
0.0
Puq Str-Van
)(I
Valve
Valrr
Valve
Valrr
h Valve
Valve
Y l l Box
Sea-Van
Sea.Van
Sea.Van
Sea-Van
Sca.Van
SCa-Vbn
0.000
0,ow
2
2
1
3
4 1
4.1
20.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.000
0.001
0.000
0.000
0.130
P ~ ~ S - H ~tmp
S H ~ SP N S . R ~
curies
416
-...... ..._..-...-.._
16.4
10.4
0.0
16~4
114.2
48.9
0.2
0.6
0.001
I 405
0 021
293.1
10.4
12,6
31.1
20.1
186 6
0.0
0.0
00
00
0.0
00
0.0
0.0
0.024
0.000
0.000
91
522
I32
4
1.02
t r p Hrs
Qerr-Pen
196 1
54.3
10.4
299.5
3.2
02
213.6
0.1
82 9
82 9
1.1
I 2
20 1
0I
91 3
0.0
0.0
00
1.1
2
89
59
I8
53 4
2
IO
0.0
0.0
I...._
I
.......... ........ .._..... ... ...._... ........
IU U"It
14 Inch V a l v e
0.2
10.4
0 0
I2
pimp
0 MH)
0 116
16.1
0.0
Oisposal
0.0
0.0
I
16
Caltpoiy
0.0
0.016
0 195
0 ow
10.4
35
.......
0,l
Ib.4
5m Vrlre h a - V a n
h V a l v e Sea-Van
h V a l r r Str.Van
... .... .. . ... ..-.
. ...
ISI.!
4.1
h v a l v e Sea-van
'*' P e r i d d l He11 Remora1 S y r M
Cargown1 Oerc r Ipt 1on
0.0
2
2 Inch
I Inch V a l v e
114 lncb V a l v e
40 9
I01 3
0.0
0.0
00
0.0
00
Valve
Curlet
4
2
2
64.3
555.9
3.0
0.0
0.0
I l / 2 Inch V a l v e
Peri-Pa
11.1
I Inch Y r l r e
h a Cqrarior
I(0 Ia t ur. Separr tor
B r Seal Ytr Hx
4 Inch V a l v e
...._..........
I
S*a-Vrn
Imh
Sba-Vrn
Lg Illic. S*a-Van
k h a c Sea-Van
t g I(X
nti B ~ K
Lg V a l v e Sea-Van
k V a l v e Sea-Van
Surge Ian6
&cay lank
Exp Hrs
I2 6
0.1
03
2.1
0.008
0.004
S a f e t y Injection S y i t m
Cornporein1 Descr ~ v l % o n
Accml
lank
Boron InjriLion lack
Safcly I n l e r ! ! o n
Pimp
Pefucl:ng Ydter Storage l a n k
Vrlmdry Cakt.p Water Storapr 1nr.k
IO Inch V a l v e
8 Inch V a ' v e
6 Inch Valre
4 inch V a l v c
3 Inch V a l v e
7 Inch V a l v e
i 1 / 2 Inch V a l v e
I Inch Yalvr
3 / 4 Inch V a l v e
FIGURE C.4h.
........ ........
03rwsrl
PI
...Y
Iank
Sta-Van
link
Sea-Van
19 ~ u r q h - v a n
lank
Sea-Van
Iank
<.ea-Van
l q V a l v e Sea.V&n
lg V a l v e Sea-Van
Lg V a l v e See-Van
L q V a l v e qea-Van
Sm V a l b c Sea-Van
Sin V a l v e Sea.Van
Sm V a l v e Se8.Vr.n
Sm V a l v e Sea-Van
4
113.5
624.3
I
I5 5
2
4 1
I
85 1
61 I
11 1
23 1
85.5
16.4
411.1
316 Z
110 5
130 5
Category
l a V a l v e Sea.Vrn
I
8
8
2
9
4
1
4
31
10
cre..nrr
5 9
26 1
Vsra.Hrr
00
32.6
I46 8
00
0.0
00
00
00
00
0.0
00
0.0
360
1.9?4
....... ........
0 0
0.0
1.254
0.0
0.1
0.0
0 0
00
0.0
00
8
P a r t i a l CECP Output F i l e f o r Contaminated Systems, Example 2
c.7
Curler
......
0.826
0.059
0.003
1.919
1.011
0.016
0.010
0.002
0.004
0 001
0 000
0 000
0 001
0.000
3 912
..............................................................................
..............................................................................
*
P O ~ l h l l A l i VPAOIOACllV[
.I.
IlSllMS
OISPOSAL C O I l S
PiWVAL. IRINSWRIAIIOY.
t
9 s d i o a c l l ~ eGaseous Waste 5 y s l e n
Cw.anent O
r rcr i p t ion
.......................................
ply
ha-Van
SeI.Van
Y i r c Sea.Van
MISC
sea.van
w
1111 Box
Valve Sea-Van
Vdlve Sea.Van
Valve Sea-Van
Valve Sea-Van
Valve Sca.Van
Valve Sea-Van
I
4
?
2.233
19.561
85
I23
5.958
7.701
2
6
581
512
0
78
1.051
31
63
I1
0
0
0
0
199
299
53
83
66
23.031
10.119
Sur$? I d O k
lank
Decay l a n k
bdr i m p r e r r o r
N o i s l u r e Srpardlor
lank
Lg
sm
Er 5 r a l Y c r
1 Inch Valve
19
Lq
X
3 Inch Valve
? 1% h Valve
i I:? Inch Valve
I lnrh kalve
3 i 4 17th Valve
Rcmoval Conlalner I r r n r p o r l
................
;atrqory
Sm
In
h
Sn
Sm
Oirporal
Oirporrl 101. Coslr
..............................................
7
I
3
16
35
12
16
33
1.031
1.420
1.598
50.024
592
1
18.527
232
213
8.499
IO
310
532
11.141
21.411
213
10.409
929
612
80
22
18
l,b61
2.513
695
556
1.919
2.892
800
640
2.104
84.58b
120.145
S,SIn;
Catequry
Olrporal
.............................
Oty
Removal Conlarner Irrnrporl D l t p o s a l l o t . Costs
..............................................
533
l q Plno
2
MI
1g H I
2
1
646
4.001
3
1.115
1.816
0
2 665
816
2
18
1.143
402
10.788
2.554
IO8
685
2
0
25
I
Sea-Van
Wtl Box
Lq Valve Ser.Van
Lg Valve Sia-Van
l p VIlVe std.Vln
l q Valve Sea-Van
h Valve Sea-Van
Sm Valve Sra.Van
1.538
715
219
15.148
18.108
31.212
22.312
33.391
29.I52
6.851
9.600
5.030
34.915
3.311
21.448
208
240
...
U f c l y i o i e c l ? o n I,strm
Curpunen1 De)cr I p t $ 0 0
Caleqory
Oirporal
Oty
Arcunl I m k
Boron lniecrron l a r k
Ian1
Ian&
19 P q
ScA-Van
Sea Van
Sea-van
Sea-Vdn
Sea.VIn
Sea-Van
Sea-Van
Sed-Van
Sea-Van
Sea.Van
4
22.022
I
I
2.981
631
11.114
S a f e l y Injection r q
Uelbeliny Ydler I t c r d q e lank
Q i n e r y Makeup Y a t e r Slorape Idnk
IO I n c h Valve
8 I n c h Vdlve
6 lrich Valbe
4 Inch Valve
1 Inch V i l r e
? I x h Valve
1 1 ' 2 Inch Valve
1 Inch Valve
J/4 Inch Valve
I
12.122
8
4.512
4;512
1.143
lank
lank
Lp
Lg
Lq
19
R m v d l Container I r a n s p a r t
... .........................
.......................................................
7
Valve
Valve
Valve
Valve
h Valrc
Sm Valve Sea-Van
Sm Yalrc Sea-Van
Sn V a l v e Sea-Van
h Valve Sea-Van
8
2
~~
11.320
354.337
1.054
616
33.007
6.518
205.886
114.810
13.506
,135
I ti2
305
333
89
z3
4
33
0
20
0
I?
34
228
83
70.309
90.388
4
1
a4
flCURE c . 4 ~ . Partial CECP Output File f r C ntamlnated Sj
NUREGICR-5884. V O ~2.
C.8
..................
,202
,911
,512
i ,522
I ,681
,609
4
5.144
0
0
0
9
0irpatal l o t . cost,
3.610
I32
44
3
19.91l
429.882
40.914
23.558
254.099
144,343
20,119
9.532
1.361
15.545
2.111
7.193
!W
I04
8.359
816
120
9
61
22
1.911
695
800
74.746
19.910
943.854
281
331
~~.
2.199
ems, Example 3
kpn for Commpnl
Lcnglh
Act I V I t )r
..._
_...
MI1
Mtl
Mtl
Mtl
Wash
Wash
Wash
Wash
Mtl Wash
H I ' YJrh
Wtl
Wash
Wash
Wash
Mtl
Mtl Wash
MI1
MI1
40.500
80.000
2s.000
24.000
16.000
8.0@0
40.500
I ,500
3.500
09. oco
Wash
Wash
8.000
MI1
MI1 Wa$h
8,000
1tl
Wash
7.000
MI1
MI1
N11
Wash
Wash
Warh
MI1
Wash
Wash
4.000
4.500
3.000
2 . 500
MI1
MI1 Wa%h
MI1 f b n ~ l
MI1 fbnvl
ut1 b*l
?.?31
I .?SO
5n,ooo
80.000
29.000
24.000
16.000
ut1
ut1
fbnmrl
Rrnrl
MI
hrl
Rnrl
8 . aoo
32,000
Wtl
wti
MI1
Mtl
h
i
34.000
h
b
n
r
l
Rnvl
111
Rnl
16.000
3.000
2.000
1.000
I . 500
3.500
111 Rn1
MI1 h r l
MI1 Rmrl
flGURE C . 5 a .
!A. 000
2.000
?.OOO
Wash
Wash
MI1 Wash
MI1
((11
32.000
34.000
16.000
3.000
Mtl Wish
Ut1
rrt1
Wldth
..._.
40.000
40.500
40.300
12.000
21.000
21.000
11.000
25 OW
25.000
25.000
3.000
._... ...-..- -.
MIA
MIA
IIA
NIA
NIA
111
NIA
NlA
WA
MIA
NIA
MIA
MIA
5.000
40.500
40.500
43.500
40.500
MIA
44.500
25.000
25.000
RIA
MIA
25.000
6.500
3.500
nIA
MIA
NIA
NIA
KIA
NlA
MIA
MIA
Val I
Val1
Floor
wal'
wall
fl w r
Yal 1
W4II
Floor
VI11
Wall
Wall
f Ioor
Floor
wa1 I
wall
Wall
wall
iloor
Wall
Val I
wall
fIwr
floor
wall
40,500
40.500
0 125
40.009
0 I25
f loor
40 500
YIll
40.500
0.125
0.12s
l?.OOO
O.I&
?1.000
21.000
ll.000
O,I?5
23.G00
0.125
?5.000
25.000
0 . I25
0 Its
0.115
0.125
3.000
5 000
0.125
0.125
0.I25
w.1
Wall
Flwr
WJ! I
wall
Floor
Wall
wal I
Wtll
FlWf
Flwr
P a r t i d l CECP Output F i l e for Building Decontamlnatlon,
c.9
Example 1
Wan R n
...-.__
Fuel Pool (two Will.)
Fual Pool (1, Walls)
fu.1 Pwl (floor)
Cask Loadlng P I 1 (Tw walls)
Cash Loadlng P l t ( I W wills)
Cash Loadlng P l t (Floor)
wrsh P I t (1- wills)
Wash P l t ( I r , Wtlls)
Wash P i t (flwrr)
t o i d PIL Gate (lw Walls!
Load P l t Gale (Tw v a l ’ r )
L M d P i t Gate (Iw Walls)
Lord P i t Gdle ( F l o o r )
Load P l t Gate (Flnor)
Transfer Canal (110 w a l l s ]
I r r n s f e r Canal
( l w walls)
Ytl
1111
Wtl
Wtl
Wtl
Wtl
Wtl
Wtl
Htl
Mtl
Htl
Wtl
Wtl
Wtl
Mtl
l r r r s t t r Canal ( l w w a l l s )
lrantfer Canal (1- w a l l s )
l r a n s f t r Canal (Floor)
Canal Gate (lm walls)
Wll
Wtl
Mtl
1111
Wtl
Canal Gate (lww a l l s )
Mtl
Canal Gate (1.0 walls1
Canal Gate (Floor)
Canal Gate (Floor)
fuel Pool ( l w walls)
Fuel Pool ( I r a halls)
Fuel Pwl (Floor)
Cask Loddlnp P I 1 (1.0 walls)
Calk Loadinq P I 1 (?wwalls)
Cask Loadlng P I 1 (Floor)
VaSh P i t (1.0 W a l l s )
Wash P I 1 ( l r o w a l l s )
V i a l ! P I 1 (Floor)
load P l t Gate (1w walls)
Load P l t Gate (1- walls)
Laad P l t Gate (1w walls)
Load P l t Gate (Floor)
load P i t Gate (ffoor)
FIGURE C.5b.
Wash
Wish
11.115
16.200
46.980
64.800
Wish
Uish
4.833
19.333
4.860
Wish
9,240
0.400
19.440
12.960
1.600
13.440
14.280
4.533
1.500
I .ooo
3 . 500
0.015
0.292
I?.
090
6.480
6.480
wish
Wash
With
Wish
VJSh
Wash
Wash
Vash
Wash
Wish
Wash
Wash
Warh
Wash
3,360
3.570
1.133
0.315
0.250
0.875
0.019
0.013
18.023
1.620
I . 610
1.418
Wash
0.’42
O.!J63
Wfsh
0.315
Wtl Wash
H I 1 Wash
Y t l Waih
W t l Fmvl
MI1 h v l
Wtl ijnvl
Wtl h r l
M t l Rnvl
0.313
0.061
0.018
13.137
16.043
nti
&VI
8.618
8.606
1.101
3.137
Ytl
Rmvl
3,839
MI1
Htl
Ytl
W11
MI1
Wtl
Htl
hrl
5.m
hvl
h l
hrl
4.365
hvl
3.129
h v l
0.030
h v l
0.000
3.094
3.086
5.610
2.961
2.250
I .SO0
1.250
0.244
0.013
75.556
88.238
41.729
47.331
39.055
11.254
32.116
32.304
24.005
17.019
16.912
11.207
0.000
0.000
11.145
0.014
1E.200
0.020
4.833
4.860
3.240
0.400
0.006
0.006
3.360
3.570
1.133
0.315
0.250
0.875
0.019
0.073
18.023
1.620
1.620
I .4M
0.142
0.563
0.315
0.313
0.061
0.018
48.009
$6.068
30.328
30.015
24 816
10.963
20.401
20,526
15.253
10.814
0.004
0.0w
0.004
0.004
0.001
0.000
0.0w
O.Wt
0.00
0.000
0.022
0.002
0.002
0.002
0.001
0.001
0.000
0.00
0.000
a. 000
0.058
0.068
0.037
0.036
0.030
0.013
0.025
0.025
10.934
0.018
0.013
0.013
0.013
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
IO.185
Partial CECP Output File for Building Decontamination, Example 2
c.10
~ r n Ibr
n c-mt
*"
Fuel 8ldp
Actlvlly
Re~mval
Olswsal
..__._._
.._________...___~__~~~......
._-..___
C o w m e n 1 Oercrl p l Ion
fuel Pool (Im Walls)
Fuel Pool (1- WlllS)
fuel P w l (Floor)
Cask Loadlng PI1 (Iw walls)
Cask Lwdln9 P l t ( l w w a l l s 1
Loading P l t (Floor)
P I 1 (lw Walls)
P I 1 (TWO W a l l s )
P i t (floor)
P i t Gate (Iw W a l l s )
P i t Gale (Iw Walls)
P I 1 Gale (In, W a l l s )
P i 1 Gate ( f l o o r )
P i t Gate ( f l o o r )
Transfer Canal ( l w w a l l s )
l r a n s f e r Canal (1- walls)
l r i n i f e r Canal (1- w a l l s )
Iranrfer Canal (lwwalls)
l i r n s f c r Canal ( f l o o r )
Canal Gate (1- w a l l s )
Canal Gate ( l w w a l l s )
Cdnbl G d I C ( I W w a l l ¶ )
Canal Gate (Floor)
Canal Gale ( f l o o r )
Fuel Pool (1.0 w a l l s )
fuel Pool ( l w w a l l s )
Cask
Wash
Wash
Wash
Load
Load
Load
Load
Load
Fuel
Pool
Cask
Cark
Cask
Wash
Wash
Wash
Lord
Load
toadlng P i t ( l w walls)
Loading P I 1 (Tw walls)
(Floor)
l o a d i n g P I 1 (Floor)
P i t (Iw walls)
Pi1
Pi1
Plt
Ptt
load P i t
Load P I !
Load P l t
(Iw walls)
(floor)
Gate ( l w w a l l s )
Gate ( l w w a l l s )
Gate ( l w w a l l s )
Mll Wash
Mtl Wash
Mtl
Wash
Ma!
Wash
Wash
Wash
Wash
Wash
Mtl Wash
M11 Wash
Mtl Wash
M I 1 Wash
M l l Wash
Mtl Wash
M11 Wash
M t l Wash
M I 1 Wash
I l l 1 Wash
Mtl Wash
M I 1 UIlh
M t l Wash
W l l Wash
Mll Wash
M I 1 Wash
Mtl &I
MI1 hl
n t i lbni
Mtl
HI1
1111
Ytl
I .617.84
2.231.51
661, I3
669.45
446.30
55.21
462.83
491.16
156.43
51.66
34.44
120.53
2.59
10.06
2.~2.55
223.15
223.15
195.26
102.31
7 7 . 48
51.66
43.05
8.41
2.52
Mtl lbml
n t i lbmi
Wtl lbml
ut1 lbml
Mtl b v l
Wtl lbnl
Htl h l
M I 1 lbnl
1111
Gate (Floor)
nti
Gate (Floor)
Ill1
&1
lbmi
Rmvl
,625.25
,068.55
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00 2.936.25
6.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.050.00
1.450.M
1.215.00
810.00
0.00
120.00
840.00
892.50
340.00
93.15
62.50
218.15
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
I .661.32
2.327.34
,655.15
,641.69
,353.19
596. i2
,115.01
,119.62
830.89
588.45
813.25
698.20
465.41
68.96
586.80
35.92
595.07
0.00
125.11
3.23
0.00
12.51
482.T1
512.88
195.38
53.87
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.63
21.86
4.505.62
405.00
405.00
351.38
222.50
140.63
93.75
18.17
18,'J
5 41
452.61 14,166 95
624.29 19.54C 63
m . 5 1 6.991 .03
187.?9 5.8f:.19
124.86 3.9.8.13
!!8.98
18.50
129.48 4.1 52.87
137.58 4. 06.18
52.41 I . 40.45
452.33
14.45
9.63
301.55
33.12
0.87
3.37
, ,055.40
21.14
105.54
FIGURE c . 5 ~ . P a r t i a l CECP Output F i l e f o r B u i l d i n g Decontamination, Example 3
NUREGICR-5884. VOI. 2
c.11
.,....t
t
+
.
*
t
.
*
tt
.l
.*
.
*
~~
*.
~
..
~
*
....
,,
.~
*
.
*
+
.
*
,
*.
,
.
,
*
.+
+ S W R V OF BU1101hG OLCONlMlNAlIOh C O 5 I S [ALL COIlS I N WLLARS)
t
~+t~tt~*e*t+++*tt~,++*t*+++,.~*t~~~.~.,,~tt..trr++.+.+~,,++,t,~,+rt~
”* fuel Bldp
Concrete Washing.Surface Ar+&:
Won Co$ti:
Crw Hour$:
Parr-Hours:
Parr-Pa:
22.864
13.150
95
381
flZ
0 . I2
Metal Washing-Surface Area:
k c o n Costs:
Crew M u r r :
15.428 f l 2
10,421
16
303
Perr-Hours:
Per$-Rm:
0.09
Conrrttc R e m v r l - Surface Area:
Weight Renovcd:
R a o v a l Costs
CM liner Costs:
Shlp3lnp Costs:
Burial Costs:
Burial V o l m a :
Wunber of Orvns:
C r e w ‘10urs:
Perr-murs:
Pers-Rm:
6.510 f l 2
18.846 Ib
112.265
3.541
2.844
41,158
912 f t 3
131.41
ma
2.?60
1.90
Wl&l Rmral-.
Surface Area:
Veipht Remved:
Pcmoval Costf:
Contalner Costs:
Shippinq Costs:
B u r i a l Costs.
B u r i a l Volvng:
Nunber of Vans:
Crew Hours:
PerS-k”r*:
Per r - Rein:
15.428 f t 7
80.354 l b
24.410
ii.oa2
2.9?3
93.041
1.429 f13
2.23
128
104
0.54
Concrete Cutting-8,664
Inch-feel:
c u t i t n 9 cost
Crew m u r s :
Pers-)burs:
Pers-Rm:
FIGURE C.58.
,:
33.069
269
613
0,52
P a r t i a l CECP Output F i l e f o r B u i l d i n g Decontamination, Example I
f:UREGICR-W, Vol. 2
c.12
DrPn for Comma1
............................................................
COSlS (IN O O U A R S ) IOR K A C I O R PRfSSURC Y f S S f l "10
50.439
lop P l a t e
9.409
Upper Port 1 on
INI[RBAlS
IRANSPOPI
DISPOSAL
IOIAl
IW.600
I .290
4.695
1.332
9.311
33.189
8.345
I , 565
1.332
34.5W
I .290
I.332
11.441
2.580
1.332
18.627
9.390
39.852
41.01'
I .290
14.045
1.'.)80
16.840
127.028
41.396
40.813
CRO Guldcs
Upper P o r t l m
%st and
19.104
217.155
Colums
t a r Port Ion,
Portr. C O l U m l
CRO Gu1d.i
Upper Core
Barrel
I7.305
1.317
lhennal Shlelds
17.661
3.120
127.994
31r.600
416.382
Shroud P I a l e s
and iornerr
50.551
4.160
162.24 I
416,800
653.151
Upperltaer G. I d P l a t e s
25.219
4. I60
129.310
416.800
595.489
Upper Portion of Support
Posts and Ins1 Guldes
22.930
1.040
61.446
IW.200
194.616
lower Care 8 a r r e l
61.120
11.440
401.358
I .201 .zoo
1.641.118
Sbpport Forglng
1 l C Plbtc.
42.112
18.110
68.511
84.110
1l3.589
L m r Posts and
12.930
4.695
31.449
11.643
12.111
tipperltorer RPV Neeads
28.224
4.515
4.661
101.139
144.539
Upperllover RPV i l a n q e r
11.238
4.515
4.661
69.8tit
90.218
4.346
1.160
5.321
66.841
80.'281
28.480
103.290
181.731
ZIl.783
513,184
0
1.190
I .33?
14.636
11.258
31.464
645
1.332
4.656
44.101
504.943
210.985
1,312.915
3.306.196
5.331.100
I n s l r u n t n t Guider
Nozzle S u l l o n s
Lover Will
Studs i Nuts
CPO i I n s l r m n l
%elrealion$
lolLls
flCURE C . 6 .
NURECICR-JS84, Vol. 2
CECP Oytput F i l e for RPV l n t e r n a l s
C.13
. ..
* ...
!>
.*.... . . ..,. . . . . . .
,,
I ,
.
,
, b
, (1
,
I
n
..
J
.
I%
C.14
..............
........ ............
.. ..**.
:~~
x'".:,'
.._
~
(1
n
..,
.n
Nuo
ul
r)r.
NU.
h
*.IN....
,i.:
..
. I
m
uo
....
<.
I ..... .. .. .. .. .. ......,.. .. .. ..... .. .. ... .
. . . . . . . . . ...,. . ..,.,... .,
,.,.
,.
.
..
......\,.~,.,
. ...... .. ... . . ...........
.,... .....
...
.
.
. ,'. ....... , .
. ., . . ,., . . .,,.,,\,
.
(
,
4 ,
.I
.
*
.
,,,.
)
/...,
L
1
.I
I , " ,
.I
,,,".I
,
,
I.,,,
.%
",
I,
. . .*,. .,, .e.,.. . . . ,., ,~,I, . . ' " r.", < , < , " . n ., o : :>..s : ?"
,..,
. .. .. ..,.,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. . . . .. . .. ~,
.. .. ... ..... ... .................. .. ... .. . ,".r h.. l .l..i .n,i r . .....
Y . . . . . . . . .
.. (.'
,o
,,..,
.,
I
,N<,',"I",
,A%
l i
E
-"
.
.&'.
.......
*I
1.1
.,1
1,1
I
......
( 0 ,
N
,, ,..,.
.......
.. ,,..,.,..., ,".,<,
.
. . .....
. . . . ". ., . .
..
.)..".h..*.N.)
1, . . . I * ,
.'%<
.r
0,
d l IU
I . , ,
.
,I.
.I
..<fi.L
(Y
. ... ........... .. .... '. . ,. . ..
. . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . .. . .. .. . . . ... .,.. ..... ". . .
. .
. I ? . I .
I.
.<..*N",*",'7
.
,
,
">
.,"S
Y b _I
I ,.*I.l%'.*,,l
,,..I
,i>
"7
I
"1
-.
>.
1
I
...
....
......
...* ., i., n*,
... . . '.
,"
,:,,>.
T
."
,
...
.. ..
.......
. . . . . . . . . . .". . . . .*.,
.
.....................
..
.......................... ,........
. . .-. .
. ... . . . . ...
. ,
. ~:?~ .. . :
. ..................
. . . ,.,.,
..
- . . ., ". ., ,. ~ ~ ,, ~,
*,
,
,I
I.
.":
.'
,?.
....
.
2
m
4
c
,,.
.I
.
.
I
.
/
.
.
7
.
.
.
.
,
. c *
.
,
I>
1,
" 5
1.
I N
.
c
"7
.1
.^"I".oN..N',"r.,i,
I I 1 P C I . . " 1 ~ . . _
Lri
N
,I
n
.<,,.
c,.
,,.
I,
I\/
n
,n
2,
U~.,">Y%rn?,<W,
Y, Y.
' 0 1D 0 , V .
0 U',
&Jmtn
a',
a
I
,I
.,I
<,'
v
.I,
..............................
,>
C.16
' C I
,
D
<,In
**I
n
8,
1
I
m
..........................
' ~ )
C.17
Ihflfor Commrnt
. . . .v . . . ,. . .
. . ,. , .. , .. ..
...
.~.....
t .I
' I
'.3h.,.L1
V . 3
I,
,u
/1 I ,
L'*
n
I.
yl
<1
r
...........
.* .
L.
"I
0
,l
.jl
. . . . .
.I
I
,&?
Y
..I,
"..I.,
W
I.,
u
.r
ul
r-
.-m
I
J
m
.
I
a
3
a
..
.I
. ,. .
.
c
0
m
0
...:
'.
1
I
.
I
[
...-
"
I.
n
L
a3
a
.
I\
<,Y
..
,.
!t..
..
. . . <.
I.
,c
.
'0
.., .,\...,. .,\,.
*,
r:,
<.
.a,.*
,
...............
...........
. . . . .
.,.I
,,I
.:,r. . .. .
"
I
",
,.
, ,<
e..
>
~
..
\c
I.... ".
$ii ,.I
c,
"
''I
"l
c.>
<o
" ..,.. .......
......
.
.
. .",.
* ., ..
11 ?
. ..
< > v ,<
r%
...I
0
I.,
3
,I,
I
.I.
a,..
I
, .
I/(C,L>
., ., :..r..
(1
I.
,i
I
>
"I
d ,
.....
..... ..,... ........
. . . ...........
. . . . .
7
,
T.
(1
.....,I.
;I
... . ,," ... ....
-'
,
*:,
~
;
<,
1
~I
,n z ,
"1
..
,
.,,,.
-
~
# 3
$ 9 a
I
%
.,
I
>
-0
tJ
C
..
0
U
......................
.c .
..
.,
,
,
N'
U
.
w
a , . , , . , t , . > l i , ; r ,
!?
. I
c
_1
m
2
'.,
',
,/
c
c
..
.,
?
/ .
-I
<>
.I
.:* . *,.
I
,
< I
:,
..
.
..
. . ..
.
,
..............................................
. .... ..............
..
. ..
.: 5
, .
I
I
.
II
7:
:~
I
.>
v,
0
0
<>D
I
,
.
3
I
.
8
: s
c
.- .
c o
L A _
, 7,
1
:?:
.
>.*1
n
L,
n
1
.I
I
NI:RKG/CR-SIUW. Vol. 2
c.20
Dmfl for Comment
D
a
u
1.
F
.........................
x
(1
oi
m
.I
u
.*
0
L
..
a
U
.r
v)
?--
m
.r
L
3
m
U
L
0
Y.
c
RI
I
...........
a
3
a
I
, ">
.
W
V
C
01
L
al
v.
W
ce
L
0
v.
.,
.#
01
'I
v)
.
a
U
a
0
t;,
U
U
In
..
I,
,
,!
lyl
-.
3
c
0
U
Y
1
.,
.
I,
Ij
$1
w
c-
. ,
............................
. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
:.
I
,
,
1
I,
.
,
I
.
,
,
. ,.
)
.
. < a,
,
..
t'
..
$, ::::
::. . . ,.
.1
.
.
, ~ ".
(.
.
.. '
m
I2
n
...
i'
I.
IC
... . . . . . . .
> 0 , *! L
c * I. 9 .I
.. ..
, , . -
i
R,
.
:,
..
. i
,, n
C . . .
I
)
... ... ... ...
I &
..........
"..... ., ..
I
C
.
,i
I,
r
I
.
>
. I
............................
.. .. ..., ..... .,"..
......
..
..... .,. .. ,..*."... .. .< . . ., ., .,. .. ,. ...
s.<...
.1
I,
, > ,, < , I ,
c
1
r,
I,
*.
r,
1,
. . . . . . . . .,
. .... . . . . . . . .
,,
..
, , , , , r _ , , ~ , . . I . . . . . . . .
. ., . . . . . . . . .,
.. . .... . ".<.
. .. .. .. . . .. . .., .
,
.
<, r
., . .
.. .,. .,. ., ... . .. . .,,.."
. . . .. .. .. ... .
~
~
~
I./
..
%
I
7
.I
I.
_I.,
I
1..,
I
. . . . . . . . . . ............., ..
I
;
t
.......
...
..........
,
.. .. .. . . .. . ... ... . .. . . . . . . .
i . . . . . .. .. .. . .. .. . ., . I
. . .
..
. . . . . .
..
I . , , I
I , . , .
<,,,
.I
i
. .. ... .. .. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . ,., .,.. ,.. .
.. . ,.
.1
I,
. .
I
.
..
C.25
....................
<I
',
.I
, .
,,
.I
..
I
LJ,
..
, .
.,
..
...- .
.
*
,
..
i
..
: ...
...
5
,. '..
.I
I
.
< I
..* -
., ...
C.26
,
". .. . . .
.
. ._".
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
. .. ... .. . .. . .. ... . ..
,,,,,,
L,
,SI
+I
~A.
,,
R
L
v..
I .
........,...I
. . . . . . .
-,.,,<,
.Q~
..
",
t
, I ,
,
, ,< ".+
,
,
I,
.1
,..
,
.
..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., .. .",. . . .*. .,,,,
I
.......,'....r.
: ',
3
8
,.\
I
: i>
ii
01
I..
-.a.
I ,
'I,
:
. I. ,./ , ..,, I , ,.
., < , .. . (1
. . . .; .!.' .: :
*.
.. .,.<.I r. . . .. . .I.
. .-,.... ., .., .. ." .. .. . .
., I , . ,
1
.
~
7
,. . .,...,.,. .
,
..I
.
6,
I.,
I,.
..
<".%%
" I ).
bI
..I
...
.. . ,,,. . . .. . . . . .,.,.,. . .. ... . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
C
L
. I
n)
w
~
a
< I
,./I
I,
.,I*
".
I.
.,...,*.,,.*.. . ,,, .,,
,1
.%
1.
<
.,, ,
1
,
*..
1
,<,,
.
h
,
,
,,, ,,,"
..
"* . I .
,,
4 .
I
I
,/
..
"
. ......................
. . . ..
,,.
i(
'I
.
*
~
.7
.
..
..
, .
3
.
.
.
. . *..<...................
,( .,
.., ,
,
.. , .
.
.,
t.
.
t
I.
L I
I
I
,
. *; .....................
,
..il
,.,
,
I
. .
I
d
I,
.
,
.,
I
,,
,,
,
,
a
* .. I,
*
4
I
. .
,
.t
i
!.
t
.,
l,
I .
.
.......................
.,
.
> , +
,
..
.
~ , "
,
,
.
"
,.
I.
.
.,.
. ,. . .. ,. , ., .. . . ., .
. .
,
,
.
..
I.
;
........
.,
::
\:;
, . ,
, , .
.
r
i
..I
L
.
.,. .
*
I
. ..,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...,. ..
I
.,
,
c
.,
.........................
,
c ,
( 1
,.
t
I.
,.
.*
. ....................
.................
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,.
$ 5
.I
,.I
,
\...
\::
:
,
.I
, . I. ,
/.
I >
..
,,
. . . . a ,.
. . < I
I
I ,
.....
.
.........................
,, .,
.,
..
I,
,,
I
,
,,
,8. . .
.,
. . . . . . .
.. ,. . . ., .. ,. ,. .. . ..
, . , .
.!
.
. .. ., . .. . .., ,. . ., .
., , . . ,
. . . .. .. . .. .. . ..
.
,. . . . . *.
,
I
.,
t
I
. ,. ,
, , ..
.
L I
,
1.
,.
.
L I
, I
I,
.,
,
,
...............................
.,
T .',
.I
1
I/
(r
.,
,
/,
1
I
I.
,
>'I..'.
.
i
,.
I )
.................
.
,
,
I
,
*
,
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
,.
., . ,
.
I
.,
I,
... .
.
I
,
.
.
,
.
.. . ~.
. . . . .
. , , ..
,
.. .. ... .. . .. .. . ... .. .....
. .
. , .- .. .. ..
i . ,
.,
i
I
, .
1
.
?
.
.
,
.
.
i . ,
.
, .
.
.
.I
I,
\ . . . . . . , . .. , .. .. ,. . ., , ,, . , ., ,.
.....................
...........
. .,. . ,. . . :.
.. . . ,
,.
!
..,_
,,
.
, . I
.
.. .. .. .,. . . ..... .. .. . . . .. .. .. . .. .. .. . .
,.., ....
,,
..I
........... .................
.." ... .,. .. ... .... . . .. '.(.,,:. .'.,.. ., ..... . :,:,*
.,
,1
,
.
"
,
,. .,
.
.?
. . . .
. I ,
/ I
,
,,
$.'
~
. , . _ .... . ..,
I , . ,
7
,
;,
I
,
>
.I
./
,,
.
. ,
.,
.I
.
..:
.
, ,
I
,
,
8
~
,
,
,,,,,
,
..
.. .. . ... .. .. ..., . .. ... ... ... .. .. ..
,
.
,
,
,
,
,
.
1
1
,
.
.I
1
9
r
;
8.2
.
I , . ,
,.
,
.
I
.
,,
I ,
, .
. . . .. .., . . . . . . . . ._..
. , ' , I
.I
. . . . . . . .
.,
. .. .. . .. .. .. . ,. ... .. ...... .. . .. . . .., . .. . .
. , , . ,
. . I
/"
.,.I
,L/
~
.I
. . I
I_,
" 1 " ,
.
I
",
..................
......., ,"
.............................
., ,, .,, ..
..," ., .
., . . ,. ..,. ... ... . . . .. ... ... .
.
, .
,,,
...,.
. ..,
.. .
,
.. ... ..
.
.I
1
.
... . . .
I
, .
,,.,
, .
.......,. ..,. ..... .
.. . ...................
.. ., .........,
..........
.. ,.~,
...........
. . . . .,. . ....
. . . . .....
. .
.....
,
,,...
I
,
. ..
... ., .. .. . .- . .. .,. . . .,. . . ,:
.,
...............................
,,
,., ... .,.. .. ... . ... ... ... .. ... .... ... ... ... . ..
.
. . . .
,
I,
.
0.
,,
c .?9
I I I . , * a . ,
.. _ . ....
...............
. . . . . . . . _..,3 I . I ... i.
i. .~,';
,..,." . . . . . . . . . . . . .
~
..
. . . .
. . .,*.:
,I ,
I . I
..............................
" .
~
.I
..
I >
.!
<.
.. ... .. ...*. . .~. .............
... _,
, ,r,. ..I..=
.. . . . . .
...
.1
.,,( >,
I/
. . . . . .. . . ..... .. . . .. . .. ..
. . . . . . . . . . . .~...
.. .. ...............
. , . ,. . . . . . . . .
................"......
..............
. . . ..,. .....
..
.. ..
I
~
,
* " . I . .
. , , . I .
I
_./
"
~
,j
.................
. . . . . . : _ .. .. . . ...,,
,. ... . .,._.. . .. . . ......
.. . .. ,. . .., .".. . . . . , ...
, ,. .. .. .. .... .,,. .,
., . . .;.. . . .,
r ,
_
"
L
1
, I
.
.I,
c
c
I
:
v
I.
.I
< I
.....
,
L
,
.,/
d
, I,
.A
, ~.
>
.
.-
0
.
..
.
,.,
"
,..,, -.., . . . .. .,
...........
.__
.,
..... . . .., .. .,.
........
., . .' ....
0
.,
,
I
. .:,
.
.
.
.
..I
,..
...
i
.. . .. . . . , . , ,. *. .. .. .,... . , .,.,
. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . , . . . . . ., . . . . .
, .
., ,
.t
..
I /
/,,
,
..
-
....
,.
1 .
i
. i
I
, ,
' I
~, , ,
.*
. .. . . ., ,... .. .,.. ,. ,., ., .: ..,... .*. . ,,.
.. .. . .. .., .. .. ... .. .. .. . .,,., , 1 ;
. .
,.
.
,.,.
I
, I.
,
i.
I
Li,,
j'
.......................
..
.,
./
',
. .,I.
.
.,
I
.,
... .
....
*
$
1
:
.'. .'.
.. ,
.
~
./
.I
c
/.
I.
I.
.
D
&J
c
0
U
v
t r e a t e d s e p a r a t e l y III d e t a i l e d d i i d l y $ e s , presented lfi Chapter 3 f o r t h e
p i p i n g , Appendtx F f o r t h e prcssurc vessel and I n t e r n a l s , and Appendix f f o r
t h e steam g e n e r a t o r s ,
@~Mh'~S-&QLQ&Cb
Each major system t h a t w i l l r e q u i r e removal d u r i n g d e c o m i s s i o n l n g i s
i d e n t i f i e d and i t s components llstea, t o g e t h c r w i t h t h e p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o i t h e components where known.
a l s o given,
I h e numbers o f v a l v e s o f each s i r e are
Valves 3 inches i n diameter and s m a l l e r
will p r o b a b l y be removed
w h i l e attached t o a l e n g t h o f p i p i n g and packaged t o g e t h e r with i t s p i p l i v j .
Because o f t h e i r s i r e and weight, most o f t h e larger and h e a v i e r valves w i l l
be removed and packaged separate from t h e i r a \ s o c i a t e d p i p i n g . No e f f o r t i s
made t o i d e n t i f y and q u a i i t i f y t h e number and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f p i p e hangers,
u n d r r t h e as:umption t h a t most o f t h e p i p e i i a n g w s a r e s u f f i c i e n t l y s m a l l that
they can be placed I n t h e p l p i n g c o n t a i n e r s w i t h o u t f u r t h e r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .
l h o q u a n t i t i e s o f p i p i n g associatiid w i t h each system a r c , i n most cases,
n o t known s u f f i c i e n t l y w e l l t o attempt t o assign l e n g t h s o f p i p i n g t o t n d i v i dual systems.
Rather, the t o t a l i n v e n t o r y o f p i p i n g purchased f o r c o n s t r u c -
t i o n o f t h e p l a n t i s l i s t e d , and i s segregated according t o s i r e and m a t e r i a l ,
a c o n s e r v a t i v e approach.
Because the s t a i n l e s s s t e e l p i p i n g i s p r i m a r i l y
associated w i t h t h e r e a c t o r coolant system. and w i t h a s s o c i a t e d safety and
support systems, a l l o f t h e s t a i n l e s s s t e e l p l p i n g I s assumed t o be removed
d u r i n g decormnissioning.
The b a s i c approach i n t h i s a n a l y s i s i s t h a t o n l y those systems l i k e l y t o
be conlaminsted, o r which must be removcd t o f a c i l i t a t e removal o f contaminated systems, are removed t o s a t i s f y the requirements f o r l i c e n s e t e r m l n a t i o n . Thus, o n l y those p o r t i o i l s o f the carbon s t e e l p l p I n g associated w i t h
the main steam system that a r e w i t h i n t h e r e a c t o r containment b u i l d i n g are
IC be removed, t o f a c i l t t a t e the f i n a l cleanup arhd decontamination o f
the contairmen! b u i l d i n g . Because the remaining carbon s t e e l systems which
aSsumPa
serve t h e t u r b i n e , s e r v i c e cool i n g w a t e r , potablr? water, s a n i t a r y sewer, e t c . ,
a r e assumed t o be uncontaminated, they do t l b t need t o be removed t o s a t i s f y
NIJRI.:Wr'R-SQ&d, Vul. 2
C.32
the requirements for license terniiiiation, and t h y rernaln in place lor a
demolltioti contractor t o remove, should the owner choose t o demolish the clean
structures.
InuentorvLls!
The systems identified in this section for complete o r partial removal
during decontamination for llcense termination are:
* Component Cool Ing Mater
.
0
Chemical and Volume Control
Cont a inment Spray
Clean Radioactive Waste Treatment
Dirty Radioactive Waste Treatment
Hain Steam (within containment)
Radioactlve Gaseous Waste
e
Residual Heat Removal
6
Spent Fuel Cooling
. Safety injection
Stainless Steel Piping
lhe inventories o f system components for each system and the stainless
steel piping inventory are presented in Table C . 5 . The weights o f the valves
listed are based on typical 600 psig $erv(ce-rated gate valves. for most of
the valves, whirh are in systems rated for 150 psig service, these estimates
are coiiservative. for the limited number o f valves associated wlth the prlmary coolant system ai,d the steam system, these estimates are nonconservative. O n the average, the estimated weights should be conservative.
The volumes o f the valves are estimated using a crude approximation t o calculate the space occupied b j the valve body and the valve stem and operator.
Again, the estimates are considered to conservativcly overrstimate the actual
volumes occupied by the valves.
c.33
Reference FUR Systcm Components and
flu-&.,-$.
YU!!.L.hbl
1.610 I h
5W I b
350 l b
6.800 Ib
10.958 I b
$00 I b
11,100 I b
?SO I b
3 f l dtr
I I f l dlr
9 I t dib
IO
I1 d l r
10 11 d l b
11 hlph
7 I t lonp
I
76 I t long
I
3 1 1 x I fl x I I 1
15 11 hlpb
10 11 dlr
61 Ib
IO
x
I It
4 11 I
1,300 I b
4 0 . 0 0 Ib
4 , l I 1 long
I 1 II long
I
I
5.400 I b
1JO l b
8 I1 loop
I
4 I I x I l I * ? f l
6 I1 dlr
7.099 Ib
N U R E G I C R - w , Vd. 2
wmw
1,090 I b
200 I b
Piping Inventories
II hlph
*
IS
x
11 hlph
3 f l x I (I x I f 1
6 11 d l r
3 11
I 1
0 6 11
I9 11
L
11
dlb
I
c.34
IO I t hlph
I It
I 7 2 11 long
L
9 I1 x I ? I1
TABLC C.5.
(contd)
WBinRadloactive Waste -aeTr
I er C l n Rr&tl
I e4 Cln R~.&SI
?
b&.u
I7
1.057 11J
volw
ft
YtlPhlI
I51
I 4
64
90
I O
Si?ruw&a
Lw&ws
hE!k
? ar.
9 It x
vilvd
19
Containinent
I
~ v c p~ o & n r
m ( m l n h 1 a nd v o l m tier
iI.UALl
1
19 I 1
40.000 I b
Irrporrtor
2 ea
Pung
PUW
I cr
tank
4 11 d l a . I 9 11
6.800 Ib
1 11 d l 4
9 f l dla
100 Ib
--
YQh&&hM
YtlPh\LIlrhlI
I
volw
Imp
I fl Imp
IO fI hlgh
V O l W
area
113 f l 3
1 fl'
410 fI'
V O l W fflJ)
60.5
?' 1
IO,?
I ,4
0.6
0.1
O ?
Chemical and hlume Control Svstm
wm
hQQT!i u M
phvrlcal -DI
6.600 Ib
I . ? II dlr.
I
le' I m p
I e I , 3e.I Water HX
1.700 Ib
1 . 2 11 d l s .
I
14' long
I e a . I e t h HX
I ea. ~ i c e sl e~ t d m HX
1,900 I b
1 . 5 fl d l b .
I
18' long
1.600 l b
0.9 11 d l a . L 11' Ion9
1 rr
Reqmcrrllre M
I e a . C e n l r l f . Chrp
P v r ~
I e a . Vol Control Irnk
I e1 C h n M I 1 lank
3 e a . Holdup lank
1 r a Nonitor lsnk
I e4 8orlc Acld tank
1 e a . Brlch lank
I e a , RctIn r l l l lank,
I e a , Rrc!prccrl Charg. P u p
I1.WO l b
1 1 . 8 I t x 4 . 2 fl I 4 . 6 I 1
4.850 l b
1 5 fl d l r . I 10.4 I t Imp
77 l b
0.15 f l dlr. x
?,S f t long
30.000 I b
I n It d l r , L 34 I I long
IO.000 I b
20 fI d l r . x 10 11 hl9h
20.000 I b
1.450 I b
260 I h
11.100 I b
I2
I 1 d l r . x J4 I 1 hlph
4 It dlb,
I
5 8 I t hlgh
5 . 1 fl d l r . I 6 , ? f t hlph
I4 I t
I
5 . 1 fl I 4 . 1
It
? e a . Barlc Acld P
w
618 I b
4 . 1 f t r 1.25 I 1 x 1 . 7 5 f t
I e a , P e r c t o r Caolbnt I f I t e r
7 e a . Mired Bed h l n e r r l l t e r
2 0 0 Ib
1 . 2 5 fldl6
1.050 I b
I.?
I e.. C & t I M , II
1.050 l b
? ? 11 d l r . x 5 . 4 f t lcnp
NUREG/CR*UUU, Vol. 2
1 4 . 7 5 fl Ion9
f t dlr. I 5 . 4 f t
c.35
long
Drrh fo? c
m
volulr
.
.
area
.
VOIVr*
* I , l W
C.36
J I t3
I 5 It3
534 I t ?
,1
3
11
JjlJlI
C,s.
c.37
(contd)
(contd)
Ydlvrr~*rl&t&lplmw r d u l
i!ILh!Aw
s
WbLl
I6
w
1
(
1
1
1
I ,029
I4 6
?
?
90
1 0
4
in
30
0 1
Wetr I n l e U U u
w
sw?Qntcr
Accwl. thnk
I er
I rr
8
I e#
P6fuelIn.g vrlcr tank
I ea
P r l n r r y wrlrr $ l o r
InJ tank
18.500 I b
Srfety InJ p v p
8.600 \ b
3.9..€&1
wtr
r
wmupI
LOMA
10
8
1.458
18.1
8
8
I .029
14.6
6
2
588
1.1
4
9
?MI
3.1
3
1
I53
1.4
7
I
PO
1 0
It
I
4
61
0.6
31
50
0.3
i
?O
10
0.1
s#t&Lamw
urn
CQW3fW.l
x 21 f l hlph
4 b f1 dla. n 39 6 I!hlph
30 11 d l c I 35 4 flhlph
99.200 l b
u
fldlr.
5 5 fld l a . I 11.5 f l hlph
14.) 11 Y J 3 f t x 3 5 f t
111.800 Ib
Link
volurv u
t
It
16.500 I b
4 ' t ~
n
y
p
n
lb
m
t
ehyllSpLDlmnrlonl
PVrq
1.000 Ib
7 ta
Pvop
900 l b
sft
I rc
Pu*r
100 Ib
4 ft x
I
CI)
F4ltrr
360 l b
I 5 flx 1
0.9 I t dlr x 3 8
I ea
Illtcr
360 I b
0 9 ft dlr
I ei
ltlter
150 Ib
0 1 5 fl dla
I er
h l n e r r l iter
Z.700 I b
4 I t dl6
? ea
Ikal fkrhdnger
6.100 I b
I ? fl d l c
Vslvrr
#nd WIUT
Irtlaht
uer
rolrd
uicl.hJW
X
1 5 fI X
&
z
IO
8
1.458
18
8
I7
1.079
6
I
58.3
I4 6
71
4
16
163
3.1
NURECICR-S%M,Vol. 7.
v
.
5 f l x 1.5 I1 x 1 ft
e4
I
C.38
I
?
ft
vo~w
fl
vo~un
fl
volvn
x 3 8 11
vollm
3
(I fl
VDlUTr
IO fllong
volm
volm
L
x 19 fI long
..
.
.
-.
-
15
15 f13
11 f13
3
? . 5 11
1 . 5 I t3
3
1.1 ft
I51
fl3
151 f t 3
Vslvur (wplghl bnd volvrr w r vrlvel
Wd w
hk.hLm
1
I
I51
?
2
90
I .o
I
10
50
0.1
I
5
30
0 2
3
I 4
S_talnlessSteelP_iPlns"'
eLeLslrn
2 4 In
18 I n
16 I n
I4 In
I?
tn
10 I n
I
Ill
II
6Z 58
110.72
1.40
54.59
P 315
I . I25
54 57
I.000
0.165
0.365
0.365
0.165
16.11
I .01
I 01
I 01
I 01
L
110
30
300
I10
200
270
610
159.68
49,56
53.51
0.89
I50
0.89
4 00
0.89
?lO
104.13
18.10
40 40
40.48
I8 10
0.63
110
0,6J
320
360
0.41
?50
0 41
0,4I
530
I
II
I1
II
111
0,906
0.322
0.500
0 906
0 372
14.69
28.55
43,39
14 69
28 55
(bl
0 148
0 321
0 118
0 I14
0 780
0.63
0.63
0.63
GO
I.OC0
50
0 41
20
0 41
670
I3 40
18 55
0 41
400
0 41
130
0 24
0 24
550
0 74
0 24
0 74
500
0.180
0 I34
( 5 30
9 19
18 97
18 91
9.29
I
I1
11
0 531
22.51
0.170
0.11
0 II
II
0 J31
II
5 61
10.79
I 4 98
22 5 1
(bl
I
II
1 In
1 11
0 115
111
4 In
1 I4
10 59
Ill
I
II
Ill
I
0.315
0 406
I ~ I ~ I ~W
U
94 6)
1.250
0 ?50
(bl
G In
&plun
I
I1
I1
11
II
8 In
u n t r r [ I nJ
0 115
0 315
0 3t5
0.231
Ill
0 511
0 ?I1
lb)
0 I?O
I
I1
II
0
II
Ill
Ibl
0 431
1b)
NURI.:(;/CR-JW, Vul. 2
43)
0 IN
0 21G
0. ...
216
0,120
0.216
0 II
0 II
0 II
IO0
90
1.400
280
750
500
10
180
IO 79
5 KI
0 II
1.340
0 I1
2.700
I 4 12
4 13
I sa
I 4 32
0 0)
0 01
0 01
0 01
1.58
4 13
1 58
0.01
0 01
c.39
0 01
40
120
z ,000
1.100
1.460
5.000
20
I h f t Inr Comment
0 343
0 154
I
II
1 44
0,03
530
3 63
0.03
0.03
0.03
200
800
1.450
0.03
4.100
3 65
0.03
1,400
4 86
?,lZ
O.O?
1W
O.O?
?DO
O.@?
0.01
BOO
0 181
0 145
0 I43
0.07
O,O?
1.100
1,500
1 84
1,6a
0.01
0.01
100
2 17
1 84
I 68
I 68
I 94
0.01
II
0 118
II
0 143
0 I34
0 IS4
111
lbl
5 02
1 44
? G3
0,181
0 145
I
0 IS0
/I
II
II
Ill
0 135
0 119
lbl
133
0 230
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
II
II
II
Ill
Ibl
C*2
?I8
113
154
718
I I3
I 4)
I 94
I I1
0 113
0 I13
It1
a)
I33
I
IS
0.01
0.01
LO1
0 006
0.006
O.OOt
0,006
0.006
0.006
zoo
100
300
600
1,500
1.000
290
too
100
700
900
1.000
I
II
0 181
I 30
0.004
105
...
0 141
0,004
200
/I
0 181
I .09
I IO
O,OG4
200
Ill
(bl
0 109
0 109
0 a5
0,604
800
0.004
1.000
---
.- -.
0 as
---
I n v e n t o r y ~ a i l ~ & RCS
,
p l p i n p . r h l r h Is accounted for In Chdpler
I n d l c a l e r piping that 1 3 not nuclear g r a d
3
U!i.LL!2251.V?QmLM.@KDIFf ICUL TIFACTORS
The average tlme required to perform a partlcular deconissioning task
will almost always be longer than expected because of unavoidable external
factors. reduced efficiency while working in respiratory equlpment or working
on scaffoldiqg; the number and length o f each work break; and radiation protection/ALARA activities. Each o f these work difficulty factors may be expressed
as a percent increase in time. Thus, a 20% factor for working in a respirator
means that
work duration in respirator
NIIHI.:C/CR-5R(W. Vul. 2
-
1.2 x work duration not in respirator
t.40
The CECP permits the user to change work difficulty factors for any activity
or to simply use the default values.
Using labor costs, equipment and consumables costs, and the work
difficulty factors, the CECP calculates the unit cost factor for each decommissioning activity. Unit cost factors are in dollars per unit ( e . g . , dollars
per cut in the case o f piping). The unit cost factor i s thus defined as the
estimated amount o f money required to perform some operation on one unit o f a
component or material, The CECP calculates unit cost factors for remJving,
decontaminating, transporting, and disposing of a variety o f equipment and
materlal.
General work difficulty factors are presented in Section C.2.1. labor
rater, crew staffing levels and consumables c o s t s for the cutting and pack.
aging crews arc discussed in Section C.2.2.
In Sections C.2.3 through C.2,20,
the assumptions of C . 2 . 1 and C . 2 . 2 are applied to spectftc system components
to arrive at the reference PWR unit cost factors.
C.7.1
halvsis
Qf Work
D u r u s and Avallable
T
h
The basic assiimptions about lost work time per shift are as follows:
Ihe crews work 8-hour shtfts.
The crew members take two 15-minute breaks per shift,
* lhe crew members suit-up or un-suit In anti-contamination clothing
8 times per shift, @ 15 minutes each time, including travel time to
and from the work-place, and
* The crew members devote 25 minutes per shfft to ALARA-related
activities, e.g., radiation protection guidanco, etc.
- -
Thus, a total o f 30 t 120 t 25 175 crew-minutes are lost from each 8 tar.
shift, leaving a total of 480 . 175 305 crew-mlnutes available for
productive work. lhese non-production time factors are:
[ 1 t (30/305) t (120/305) t (25/305)] X 305
[ 1 + 0.098 t 0.393 t 0.0821 x 305 480
C.41
- 480
-
and the non-productive time adjustment factor becomes 480/305
1.574. Uorker
efficiency while working in respiratory equipment is assumed to be 83% of
normal, or a work adjustment factor of 1.2 x work duration. Uorker efficiency
while working on scaffoldlng i s assumed to be 91% of normal, or a work adjustment factor o f 1.1 x work durdtion. These default factors may be changed if
the CECP user so desires.
Total crew-minutes per activity
RaOiat{on Exposure time
estimated work duration x work difficulty
adjustment x non-productive time adjurlrnent
estimated work duration x 1.3 x 1.574
estimated work duration x 2.046
estimated work duration x 1 . 3
c- 2.2 L a b ~ . . . . h a h ~ l d t _ e T l a l s _ _ C Q l t u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The postulated staffing for crews engaged in cutting and packaging
piping and tanks wlthin the reference PUR is given below, together wlth appropriate labor rates for each type o f crew member. Multiplying the hourly rate
for each labor type by the number o f crew members o f that type and sumning
over all labor types yields the labor rate per crew hour.
T
lb)
(c)
k
e values I x u r k 110% overhead and I 5 X Doc p r o f l t
P a r t of Dot o r e r t r r d s t a f f . Lrbo~C O 5 1 s rpucdr I n undlslrlbulcd cos1
A 10% s h l f l d l f f e r e n t l a l 1 % Included f ~ rccond
r
shlfl
c.42
Haterial costs are a function o f the piping/tank sire. Principal components are absorbent materials, plastic sheeting and bags, and gases for torches. lhe quantities and unit costs used in these analyses are listed below.
_.
--
0 2 In
Yll*rldl
dla
910 3 ? / l t *
IOfI’
PlAtllL
Ut0 C4/ftz
? 5 f t Z $ 1 00
Gales
016 )5/hr
Ah3
Mdll
I J 70
trnLt
Plplng
?.I4 I n dln
I S f l z $ 4 80
17 5
ft‘ll $0
0 011 lir 10 I I
0 033 h r l O ?2
$ 4 3tlCUl
t 6 511cul
c.43
I / ? I n tank arll-
37-41 In d l r ,
? 0 f l 2 16 40
50 (1‘
0 33 hr
ICnplh k d l a
12 00 l m p t h
I? I 3
110 63Iclrt
I
dla
3
I O I?
t
I O 04
Houri of CUI
x I 6 15
AI c a l w l r t e d par tank
-
c. 2 3 f Q 3 r U L P d - P- !=LU&dmwJtedPiplnu0,5in,ULAls,
~
All contaminated piping I s assumed to be stainless steel, Schedule 140
to 160. Cutting i s accomplished uslng a plasma arc torch mounted o n a
mechanically-driven track system. The piping i s cut into nominal 15 ft
lengths, for packaging into maritime containers. T le basic operations are
listed below, together with the estimated clock tim s required t o dccomplirh
each operation.
I5 rnln
5 rnl"
5 dln.
5 rnln
I mln ( d )
5 mln
5 rnln
5 rntn
5 mln Ibl
I5 m l n
61 m l n
c.44
c.2 4
R?~QUWUA
U LL MW~ M
urn
Y
!
Q
&
.
~
~
~
All contaminated piping i s assumed to be stainless steel, Schedule 140
to 60. Cuttlng I s accomplished using a plasma arc torch mounted on a
mechanlcally-driven track system. The plplng Is cut into nom\na\ 15 ft
lengths, for packaging Into maritlme containers. The basic operations are
listed below, togsther wlth the estimated clock times required to accomplish
each operation.
N u n w w s i w , vUi. 2
c.45
C 2.5 R e m o v a l a P - k C k U s L R P e t L S S
1L!Lh4iat
LQ-tL_laPln,
All contaminated piping i s assumed t o be stainless steel, Schedule 140
to 160. Cutting i s accompl #shed using a plasma arc torch wounted on a mechanically driven track system. The piplng i s cut for packaging i n t o maritime
containers, with the relatively straight sectlons between the RPV ,nd the
steam generator and between the RPV and the prlmary pump removed i o one piece,
and the curved section between the steam generator and the primary punip cut
into two sectlonr. The basic operations are listed below, together with tho
estimated clock times requirod to accomplish each operatior.
30 mln
10
mil,
20 n l n
70
-1”
15 nln
10 min ‘ 4 ’
I5 mln
10 m l n
10 n l n
10 mln (b’
30 n l n
190 mln
IOX o f d i l u d l duratlun
I O X o f a r t u b l Juraltun
1.3
I
actual d u r a l l o n
11
? I ? min
C.L.6
KemOral a&d Packas {nu o
W e e n 3 f t and 15 ft
m
W
d
&
U
m
All contamlnated tanks are assumed t o be stalnlesc steel, approximately
0.5 inches in wall t h i c k w :s. Cutting is accomplished using a plasma arc
torch motlnted on a mechanically driven track system. The cutting rate is
4 ft/min., which includes the torch changeout time of 15 mln. for every
30 min. o f torch operation. The tank i s Cut into nominal 3.5 f t x 7.5 ft
segments for packaging In maritime containers, which are limited in contents
weight to less than 35,000 lb. lhe basic operations ari listed below,
together with the estimated clock times required t o accomplish each oparation.
15 mln
(a1
i-I
I
L-
>O
rnln
I5
mln
IO
min
IO thin
A man
IO
mln
10 mtn ( b )
I 5 mln
I5 mln
where 0
IS
the t a n k i j ! d w t e r
and h
It
the tank h e i p h t . I n rcet
c u t s . l o r p i t d ~ n a lc u t ? , and c u t s . i c r O % t tank ends
c.47
Malor c u t s a r e defined a s C l r C U n f F r F n l l a ~
Ihe r v i r r p e rlm (mlnutsr) par c u t . A.
-
A
1 % q l v r n by:
[L/(cuttinq r t t i In f t l m l n . ) l l N
Work O l l f r c u l t y h d j u i l w n l i :
l r l p h l l A c c e r s rdJulImen1 i o r r c r f i o l d w o r k
10% of actual d u r r t l o n
Resplrelory p i o t e c t l o n tdluslncnl
?Ox 01 a c t u a l cluratlon
1 . 4 x actu&l d u r b t l o n
Ldjurtrd Uork Ouratlon
Y o n ~ p r o d u cIYI
l
I Inm tjjurtnanti
P ?% of
F!8dlrllon/AlArU rdjuslment
I n antl.contu;lnrllon
5ult.uplurt.sult
Work breaks
( I per
r d l u s l r d durrllon
39.4% O f td]UrIOd durrtlon
clolhlnp
9 BX o f t d l u i t d duratlon
ihiill
C v u l r l l v a r r w - t w r i per t e n t
at
Other Calculrttonc
lotrl Labar
rrhk
(Crcu~hourillank)(Dollrrrlcrw~hour)
5 5 p e r s o n - b u r r I h e cor1 per crew hour l a dcflnrd t o b. $190 13
I 3 I I90 * N a ( 3 0 + A)1/60
H o u r i per I a h ( a d j u c t r d d u r t t l o n )
c o s t per
One c r n , h o u r
Crew Liwrure
.
i r w w r c per(-houri per lank 1) 5 S p a r r - h o u r i l c r w . h o u r * 5 5 x
-
.
I X M P L L CAlCU\ A I I O N :
tilbnler
-
4
[ I
[YI I
8
4
Pressurlrer Re1 l e i Iank
? I 11
10.7 (I. hclqhl
Is plvcn by:
N. lhe n d x r of major c u l c
N
[I 3 x [EO
( ? I / ) 5)(rounJed l o nerl I n t e g e r ) ]
IO 7/3.5l(roun&d to
nest I n l o p e r )
b
-
6
I + 4
10
*
6 * ?I
1. Ihe totb1 l r n p l h of i u t I n r e c t l o n l n g Ik lank I s glven b y .
I -ff x IO,?
I
(I
t
4)
+ 21 x I O
*
6 110.7
503 f t
A , the arstrge c u t l m p t h e . I S gtven by.
A
*
-
L/l/(cutIlnp rale)
Crew-hour6 per l a n k
Perron.hc~:r per lank
* 503
fl I 2 1 cuts I 4 fllrnln.
I J
1.574
2 046
i
* 78.85
t i p o w e pert-hours * 1 . 3
I
I
--
(90 + W x (30 + 1)1/60
(90 + ? I a (30 + 611160
x
* 6 nln./cul
28.05 c r h . h o u t i
5 , s perr-houri/crn.hour
( 1 4 . 1 csp. crw.tMir;;
x
I 3 8 I per*-houri
5 . 5 perr-hourslcrw
* 100.11 rtrporurc perion.hauri
C.48
N x (30
t
hIll60
The p o s t u l a t e d s t a f f i n g f o r crews engaged i n removing and packaging
pumps and miscellaneous equipment w i t h i n t h e reference PUR i s g i v e n below,
together w i t h a p p r o p r i a t e l a b o r r a t e s f o r each type o f crew member. M u l t i p l y i n g the h o u r l y r a t e f o r each l a b o r type by t h e number o f crew members o f t h a t
type and sumning over a l l l a b o r types y i e l d s t h e l a b o r r a t e per crew hour.
2.0
1.0
0.5
Laborer
Crafts
ti. P. Tech.
Crew Leader
PA
26.37
49.70
36. e2
54.04
4.0
_(a)
(b)
(c)
Average l a b o r cost, 2 - s h i f t operations
-
$136.35(c)
These values i n c l u d e 110% overliead and 15% DOC p r o f i t .
P a r t o f DOC overhead s t a f f . Labor :osts appear i n u n d i s t r i b u t e d
cost.
A 10% s h i f t d i f f e r e n t i a l I s included f o r second s h i f t .
M a t e r i a l costs depend on pump/equipment size. For t h i s a n a l y s i s , i t i s
assumed t h a t the average pump o r Item o f miscellaneous equipment i s a c y l i n d e r
whose h e i g h t i s twice i t s diameter. To be conservative, i t i s f u r t h e r assumed
t h a t t h i s c y l f n d e r f s o r i e n t e d w i t h i t s a x i s h o r i z o n t a l t o the f l o o r and t h a t
the a r e a o f the absorbent m a t e r i a l should be t w i c e the p r o j e c t e d area o f t h e
c y l i n d e r on t h e f l o o r . Under these assumptions, t h e area o f r e q u i r e d absorbent m a t e r i a l i s
area
-
3 x
VOI”’,
where v o l i s the volume c f the i t e m . The c o s t s o f p l a s t i c and i b s o r b e n t
m a t e r i a l , i n c l u d i n g 15% DOC p r o f i t are then:
Abs. N d t l . B $ 0 . 3 2 / f t 7
Plastic
e $0.04/ft’
--
3 X Vol”’
3 x vol”’
x $0.32 X 1.15
x $0.04 x 1.15
C.2.8
R:-QQ~&\
and
P3L(Lkaqinci o f Punips and
HiscclIancsj~sfM~W
LpLLUk.LQPllnunbr
for items weighing less than 100 pounds, It is assumed that scaffolding
ulll not be required and that the attached plping has already been severed
The basic removal
f t o m the itern (accounted for in Sections C.2.4 o r C . 2 . 5 ) .
nperatlons are listed below, together with the estlmated clock times requlred
to accomplish each operation.
70 .In
10 min
10 .In
40 nln
c.50
C $ 2 . 9 ts
im?-
!Q-
Y w s - a n ? . Ki ice1 lmQur1~~!mnLWeigMm
The assumptions hero are similar t o tho ones made In the preceding section, except that it is now assumed that scaffolding may be required and that
the removal operatlon will be more timo consuming. The basic removal operations are listed below, together wlth the estimated clock timer required t o
accomplish each operation,
30 nln.
30
nln.
70 ntn.
10 .In.
90 m i " .
C.51
C.2.10 Removal and PackpyUls of Pressuriza
The p r e s s u r i z e r i s mounted on the f l o o r o f the r e a c t w b u t l d i n g . A l l
p i p i n g has p r e v i o u s l y been severed from t h e p r e s s u r i z e r . The I n s u l a t i o n i s
removed and the p i p e openings are welded closed. The vessel i s r i g g e d for
l i f t i n g and r a i s e d t o the o p e r a t i n g deck where i t
is placed on a h o r i z o n t a l
t r a n s p o r t c r a d l e . The b a s i c operations are l i s t e d below, tngc-ther with t h e
estimated c l o c k times r e q u i r e d f o r each operation.
*
Install scrffoldlnv around p r e s t u r l m r
IS nln.
*
Wmre lniulrtlon f r m pretrurlter varsrl
30 nln
'
C r p a w n plplnv ports
Altrch l l f t l n q d w ~ c e sIO p r t r t u r l t r r versol
150 nln.
1?0 nln.
*
l l i t t b y r e i t u r l z w vessr\ t o thn D 9 . r r l h p deck
IiO .In.
'
Rumrr tcrffoldlng
1
Secure Ihe Dressurller
ws,cl to Ihm
&nJ r e v @ I o
Creu-nlnutes for r m v l n g prrssurlrer
nrit
30 n l n .
thlpplnq cradle
15 nun.
laillan
480 * I n .
(rclucl d u r r l l o n )
Uork O t f f ' c u l t y Ad]urtwenti'
Halr,ht/Acc@ss
IO* o f 4cturI d u r r l l o n
r d l ~ r t m n for
l
scaffold n r k
Retplrrlory prolrcllon rdjuilrcnt
Ad)usted
20% of a c t u a l hrrrtlon
York Ourallon
1 . 3 x r c l u r l duratlon
-
6?4 mln
Nan.product(va Ilm rdlutln+nts
8 ?X of adjusted h r r r l l o n
3 9 . 4 X of bdJulled d u r r l l o n
PadlrllanlLLARI tdjustnsnt
lull
u p l u * . r u l l In rntl-conlamlnrllon clolhlng
Uork brcckr ( 1 wr ihlfl)
9 . 8 X o f adlusted d u r r t l o n
lotrl York OuratIan
I 414
letel labor cast ( 1 6 37
I
rdJusle6 d u r r l l o n
16 11 h r r .
Crer.Hourr par c u i
I
1190 IJlcrtW.hr)
$J.II?43
Creu Irpcsurr IlOur3 I r d j u i l c d durrtron)
10 4 h r i
I r p x u r c Parson hours 0 5 5 wrs,hourslcrcr-hour
51 ? hri
Radlrllon Dose
R I I ~(nrnnlhr)
4 6
l r r n r w v t c r h d h (Ndlflrd tlram Qenrtitor c r r d l r )
)S.OW
l o l a 1 cillmaled c a s t for r m v r l and p a c k r g l ~ qpressurlrar
18,Il?
C.52
981 mln
c.z.11 R e m o v a l a n e e K k a p m h s
Each primary pump i s supported on 3 hinged support posts and stabilized
horizontally with tie rods and seismic snubbers. lubrication and seal rooldnt
llnes are attached. The attached piping i s presumed severed from the pump
body proviously (accounted for under RCS Piping Removal). The pump ports are
sealed wlth steel plates welded in place, llfting attachments are connected to
the pump/motor assembly, the supports and stabi\i:?rs are r e m v e d , and the
tinit is lifted t o the operating deck and placed in a horlzontal shlpping
cradle. The basic operations are listed below, together with the estimated
clock times required to accomplish each operatlon.
60 mln
10 mIn
30 mtn
20 m l n
I O *In
30 n l n
110 *In
90 mln
6G
IO
mln
nln
60 r l n
York Olfflculty AJJv$lwnts
Helqhl/Access tdlurtmenl for scaffold work
Im of
Rerpirrlorr p r o l e c t l o n rdluflmenl
r t l u ~ ldvratlbn
?OX of rclbrl durrllcn
Adjutled W f k Ourcllon pe purp
1 3
NURECICR-W. VOI. 2
I
actual d u r r l l o n * 614 * I n .
c.53
Did4 for CanmfYIl
1 * 2 * 12 t l ! n k & e t ~ . . e W a t e r W a , h / J ~ u ~ - s u ~ ~
All contaminated horizontal surfaces are washed Lslng a manually operated cleanlng system which washes the surface uslng hlgh-pressure (250 psig)
jets and collects the water and removed material simultanaously using a vacuum
collection system. This system permits excellent cleansing while rboiding
recontamination due to dispersion of the water. The same system, employing
modified cleansing heads, is used t o wash vertical o r overhead surfaces and
stairs. An additional 20% of labor tlme is postulated to be requlred for the
vertical and overhead surfaces cleaning and an additional 5% of labor timo I t
required for stalrs. The costs per square foot o f surface cleaned are devel.
oped below.
A crow conslstlng o f 2 laborers, 1 crafts, 0.5 crew leader, and 0.5
health physics technician i s required for the clean ing operation. Normally,
there will be two crews working per shift, with ' . ,hift operations. The
crew labor costs and exposure levels ate:
labor Rate
PerS:hfs/c.rew_:hr
2.0
I .o
0.5
-QL5
4.0
catrwclclr1 M?xL!!rl
laborer
Crafts
[I. P . lech.
Crew Leader
26.37
49.10
36.82
54.84
Cost(&'
IUsrsn-hrl
Dose Rate
hrL~rretr:.hrJ
52.74
49.7fb1
._
.-27.,42
129.86
Average labor cost, 2-shift operations
2
0
0
-..e2
1136.35"'
These values include 110% overhead and 15% DOC profit.
Part o f DOC overhead staff. labor costs appear in undlstributed
cost.
(c) A 10% shift differential is included for secord shift.
(a)
(h)
During an 8 - h o u r (480 minute) shlft, the actual cleansing time is
estimated t o be 4 hours, based on the follor'ng:
1.54
480 . 120 (suit-up) - 30 (breaks) . 25 (ALAHA) . 15 (warmup) - 50 (cleanup),
or 240 minutes net working tlme using the cleansing system. Assuming a cleansing rate o f 8 ft’/mlnute, about 1,920 ft’ can be cleansed In one shift.
Thus, the cost per square foot o f surface cleansed i s given by:
8 (1136.35) / 1920 ft’ = $0.S68/ft2
Material costs to support system operatlon Include:
Vacuum h o w replacement ( 4 tlmes/yr)
HEPA filter rsplacement (once/yr)
Misc. parts (steam hose,filters) per y r
Total material costslyr
si.180
300
_2999
$3,480
Uith a system cperatlng time o f 1040 hrlyr, the material costs per ft’ are:
l13,480/yr] / [ l o 4 0 hr/yr x 60 min/hr x 8 ft’/mln) = 10.007/ft’
and the total operating costs for the system are 10.575/ft’ for horizontal
surfaces. for vertlcal and overhead surfaces, an additional 20% I s added t o
the operations time and the lahor c o s t s t o account for the time used In maneu.
vering the bucket crane, fork-llft basket, etc.. t o reach the elevated surfaces. Then, the unit cost factor for elevated surfaces I s :
10.575/ft’ x 1.2
-
S0.690/ftZ
for stairs, an additional 5% i s added to the operations time and the labor
c o s t s t o account for the time used in maneuvering the equipment on the stairs.
lhen. the unit co5t factor for stairs is:
10.575/ft’ X 1.05 = $0.604/ft’
c.55
The water usage, and hence llguid - a J w ~ % t rgrneration, at the rate o f 1 gallon
por minute o f system operatlon i s :
I gallon/8
ft'
0 , 1 2 5 gallonc/ft'
Lmdly
--
Unit cost factor (horizontal surfaces)
Unit cost factor (ve*tical/overhead)
Unit cost factor (stairs)
Liquid radwaste generatlon
*
Radiation Exposure
c * 2 +13 CUt\h.!t
.
I
$0.575/ft7
$0.690/ft'
$0.604/ft'
0.125 gallons/ft'
0.004 mrem/ft'
Vnr;Qnt~m~~n_h~~~-~Cn~-~bcrrte_Lla~.~~€LnQrz
All concreto walls and floors are assumed
t o be unconlamlnated or t o
have been decontamlnated before sawiny operations b,gin. Thus, thr. costs O f
c u l t ing uncontaminated concrete t o provide access t o other components are con
sidrred t o be rascading costs
Material and labor c o s t s for rutting uncontaminated concrete walls and
floors are based on the cut measured in inch-feet ( { . e . , a cut I-inch deep,
I f o o t long, equals 1 inch.foot). Based on discussions with an industry
sourco, a cutting rate o f 60 inch-fert per hour i s used in this study. The
unit c o s t for blade material I s estimated at 10.44 per in-ft o f cut.
in cutting the uncontaminated
roncrete within the referenre PUR I s given below, togetner wlth approprlate
The postulated staffing for crews engaged
labor rates for each type o f crew member. Hultlplying the hourly rate for
each labor type by the number o f creu members o f :hat type and sunning over
all labor types yields the labor rate per crew hour.
I
Pcr.r:.hrsl!,rskc :.hl
1.O
1 .o
e
5
2.5
Labor Rate
I;at.€gorY
laborer
Crafts
Crew leader
Cost(a'
I$ f ! U S r n
IJfuwhrJ
49.70
49.70
54.84
-2192
26.37
Average labor cost, 2-shift operations
26.37
103.49
5108.66(h'
-"
(a) lhese values Include 110% overhead and 15% DOC profit.
( b ) A 10% shift differential is included for second shift.
Cutting of concrete walls I S dLLOIilPllShed using d wall saw on a mechani.
cally driven track system. Cutting of concrete floors i s done with a s l a b s a w . Scaffolding w l l l be used a s needed for installing and removing the track
system when sawing openlngs i n walls. The concrete p i e r e s are cbt into various shapes and sizes, depending upon the s i r e o f the openings deslred. No
packaging I s contemplated. since the removed material i s uncoiitaminated. The
removed pieces o f concrete are transferred t o nearby storage arc;s. lhe basic
operations for cutting concrete walls and concrete floors follow, together
with the estimated clock times required t o accomplish each operation are shown
below.
30
c . 2 14 ~ ~ m~~ ~.v .. f
oln
. . . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ J , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ . ~ ~ ~
lhosc contaminated horizontal surfaces which are not sufficiently
& : w t a m i n a l e d usinq the hiyh.pressure washing system are removed using a c o m mercial I ) available pneumatically operated surface removal system. C o m e r c i a 1
systems w h i c h tise very high-pressure water ;els for surface removal a r e also
available. l o r this analysis, 3 specific COII. v c i a l system manufactured by
C.58
Pentex, I n c . i s assumed ( t h e Moose@ and a s s o c i a t e d s m a l l e r u n i t s ) r h i c h c h i p s
o f f t h e s u r f a c e and c o l l e c t s t h e d u s t and c h i p s i n t o a waste drum, and f l l t e r s
t h e a i r t o prevent recontamlnation o f the cleaned surfaces.
I t i s p o s t u l a t e d that the d e p t h o f c o n c r e t e t o be removed w l l l v a r y from
l o c a t i o n t o l o c a t i o n , but that on t h e average, removal o f about one I n c h
be s u f f l c i e n t t o remove t h e r e s i d u a l r a d i o a c t i v e c o n t a m i n a t i o n .
will
Because t h o
removal system s e l e c t e d removes about 0.125 i n c h o f m a t e r i a l p p r pass, an
average o f 8 p a r s e r w i l l be r e q u i r e d o v e r t h e c o n t a m i n a t e d areas.
Because t h e
Moosem cannot y e t c l o s e r t o w a l l s t h a n about 6 inches, s m a l l e r u n i t s of t h e
same t y p c ( S q u i r r e l I l l * ,
areas o f rooms,
and Corner C u t t e r w ) a r e used t o c l e a n t h e p e r l m e t e r
F o r t h i s a n a l y s i s , I t i s p o s t u l a t e d t h a t the p e r i m e t e r areas
Lomprisc about 20% o f the t o t a l s u r f a c e a r e a t o be c l e a n e d .
for I - p a s s
removal OpPrdtions, t h e Moose" i s assumed t o c l e a n a t t h e r a t e o f about
I15 f t ' p e r h o u r and t h e S q u i r r e l * c l e a n s a t t h e r a t e o f about 30 f t ' p e r
Combininy t h e s e r a t e s by w e l g h i n y w i t h t h e f r a c t i o n s o f s u r f a c e removed
hour.
by each u n i t , t h c nominal removal r i t e becomes about 100 ft'/hr.
Assuming an
Arcraqe o f 8 pa?.res a r c r e q u i r e d , t h e e f f e c t i v e average c l e a n i n g r a t e becomes
12.5 f t ' / h r .
S t a f f i n g o f t h i s c r e w i r p o i t i i l a t e c l t o c o n s i s t o f 3 l a b o r e r s (one on the
HooscsY. one on t h e S q u i r r e l N . one w a t c h i n g t h e comprersor and h a n d l i n g t h e
f i l l c d w a s t e drums). about I,'4 each o f a crew l e a d e r and a h e a l t h p h y s i c s
techri i c ian.
.
- h r Cn_!egory
.
P...w.-.
s ..hrr/c
... ... r.ew
tabor Rate(l/hr)
cost'n'
Dose R a t e
I I/.! abp_r_lh.r1.
I $ L ! x K 3!Ll
Lmrc.!!/lrcwlhrl
I. a b o r e r
iI. P. Tech.
Crew l e a d e r
3.00
0.25
.o z 5
.I
3.50
Averaye f o r ? . s h i f t o p e r a t i o n
..
(a)
(b)
(c)
.
. ... .
.
~..
26.31
36.82
54.84
.79.
I
Ib)
..
..13.,11
92.82
3
0
._.p -
191.46'''
-
These v a l u e s i n c l u d e 1104 overhead and 15% DOC p r o f i t .
P a r t o f DOC overhead s t a f f . l a b o r c o s t s appear i n u n d i s t r i b u t e d
cort.
A 10% s h i f t d i f f c r c n t ( d 1 i s i n r l u d e d f o r second s h i f t .
3
During an 8-hour (480 minute) shift, the actual cleansing time is
esti:.iated to be 5.33 hours (320 minutes), based on the following:
480
-
120 ( w i t - u p )
-
30 (breaks)
-
10 (ALARA)
or 320 minutes net working time using the cleansing system. Assuming a
cleansing rate o f 12.5 ft’/hour. about 67 ft’ can be cleansed in one shift.
Thus. the labor cost per square f o o t of surface cleansed is given by:
(S97.46/crew-hr) / (320/480 x 12.5) ft’/hr
-
$11.70,/ft2
The cutting bits for the units are assumed to bc replaced every 80 hours
o f operation, for an equlvalent cost o f about $13 per hour o f operation.
Principal additional c o s t s would be filter replacements at about 12.50 per
hour o f operation, and wcste drums for the collected debris at about $Q 37 y~~
square foot per pass (or 10.539 per square foot for eight passes).
The duration o f the removal effort would be about 32 weeks, based on
21,600 ft‘ to be removed, the 12.5 ft’lhr removal rate, two shifts per day,
and a daily operatiny time of 5.13 hours per shift. Because of the relatively
short time that the equipment is needed, rental would be preferable to
purchase. Assuming a 5-yr lifetime, straight-line depreciation, and a
25% utilization factor, the equipment c o s t o f about 5148,000 would be amortized at a rate of about S2,300/wk, or about 143.17 per h o w of operation.
Rcntal of a 365-cfm capacity compressor sufficient to supply the main
unit and the edger unit simultaneously would be about S2,025/month, or about
$8.76 per kour of operation.
The total material and reqtal cost per square foot for the eight passes
is then given by:
(S13/hr. (bits) t 12.50/hr. (filters) t 543.12/hr. (system)
(compressor)]/l2.5 fl’/hour t 50.539/ftz (drums) $5.93/ft7
..
NURECICR-5884, Vol. 2
C.60
t
58.76/hr.
Thus, the total cost per scjliare foot of horizontal surface removal i s
estimated as 111.73 (labor) t $5.93 (materlal and rental)
S17.63/ftz.
The smaller units (Squirrel l i t * and Corner Cutter*) could be utilized on vertical surfaces. The cost per square foot of vertical surface removed would be
approximately four times the horizontal c o s t , due to tho lower removal rates
of the smallnr units:
-
4 X [$ll.?O (labor)
t
$5.39 (material)]
t
$0.539 (drums)
S68.90/ft7
Sumnarv
Unit c o s t factor (horizontal surfaces)
f17.63/ftz
Unit cost factor (verticaljoverhead)
S68.90/ftz
0.083 ft3/ftz
Uarte volume qenerated ( 1 in. removed)
Radiation txposwe
= 0.24 mrem/ft’
C.2.15 Eisw&nf_Brtiuk4lContam
1n
=
-
w r e t e h u Z p n t r o l l e d Blasrr nq
lhe activated portion of the reactor biological I s removed from the
cmtainaent buiiding by controlled drilling ano blasting. The volume of
concrete to be removed (6335 fl’) is a hollow cylinder wlth an inner radius of
10 feet, an outer radius of 14 feet, and a height of about 2 ‘ feet, based un a
calculated residual radioactivity on the remaining portton of thc shield of 10
mrem/yr, a s given in Section 3.4.6. In this analysis, the shleld will b;
removed in 4 layers. Each layer consists of 4 concentric rlngs 1 foot th:ck
and about 5 feet hiqh. After one set of rings has been removed, the next set
in the layer beneath i s rem6ved. and so O Q , until all 4 sets have been
removed. Because the rings arc large, only i.alf a ring wil: be removrd a t a
time.
Using a track drill, holes 5 feet deep will be drilled into the concrete
on two-foot centers parallel to the inner cylindrical surface of the concrete.
Explosives will be inserted into the hole: and the holes back-filled with
sand. elastiny m a t s and two fog spray systems (one in the work area and one
in the pit below the bio bhleld) will be used t o contain the scattering of
deLris and dust. Four 8-25 containers (4 f t x 4 ft x 6 ft) will be placed in
i
the pit to catch falling rubble. To minlmize the amount of debris fall!ny
onto the pit floor. wooden chutes will be rigged to direct the rubble into the
boxes. Following the removal o f each semi
w l a r ring o f concrete, the
mes.
boxes will be removed and replaced with e,,il
I
.
I
In this analysis, it i s assumed that while holes are being drilled in
one half-ring, rubble and re-bar are being removed from the previous halfring. The time requlred for drilling holes signlfltantly exceeds the time
required tr, cut re-bar and remove the boxes of rubble. Thus, drilling time is
the limiting factor.
It is postulated that a crew consisting of 1 crew leader, 2 craftsmen, 2
laborers, 1 explosive demolition engineer, and 0.5 health physics technician
will be required for 'he blasting operation. Normally, there will be one crew
working per shift, with two-shift operations. The crew labor costs are:
P.w2:bTJLcrcHdlr
2.0
2.0
0.5
I .O
1 .Q
6.5
W
C
Y
1 aborer
Crafts
H. P. Tech.
Crew leader
Engineer
labor Rate
Costla)
Lsmzu
ULEJY&hd
26.37
49.70
36.82
54.84
59.09
Average lab or cost, 2-shift operations
...
52.74
g9...
49b,
54.84
l266.07
ese
$279.37("
.
These values include 110% overhead and 15% DOC profit.
Part of DOC overhead staff. Labor costs appear in
undistributed costs.
(c) A 10% shift differ<rrlal is included for second shift.
(a)
(b)
The time required to remove tl,e
,.ivated portion of the biological
shield and the associated labor and material costs are determined below. In
the equation for Net Time that follows, the terms marked with asterisks are
task\ periormed at the same time the holes are drilled. Because these tasks
do not take as long a s the drilling operation, they are not time.1imiting and
do not contribute to net time.
C.62
Net Tlnc
.
SI0
t
NL k [Sl + (8
X
MI)
t
IPH I NM
t
RCl*
DRL.)
* tl.
rhre.
$10
the t l w rcqulrcd t o re1 up scaffoldlng.
= c q u l p a n t set-up tlrn for t h job 4s Irhola:
fog apray a y r l n . and wul barrlrlrs 10 contain dust 4nd d o b r l r In r o r k arela and p l l
110 n$nutes
m
Nt
* n h r o f layers
SI
rn
Mi
-
4
ret-up IIW,
the 11- requlred t o art up 111 the W u l W n l
-
f o r each layer
60 a l n u t c r l l a y e r
I l n s l o pcvfom l r i k s r c q u l r r d f o r each h a l f - r l n g . n-ly
. Install
b l r s t l n g -1s
and star1 1% spray
. e r i c ~ b l qarea and dclonalr ch4rpds
-
r m b t
IFC
holes In one layer
-
30 mlnu!er
I5 nlnulea
30 mlnules
I45 ( c r l c u l r t c d b l w )
* t i w per c u i . lh t h m r q u l r e d l o cut lhrough
v
IPn
-
rn
blaallng NIS
inrl slop fog spray
n ~ r b c rof
NH
w
a
hole 5 feel deep * 10 slnules
p'macc charge !n holc = 5 alnules
b e r l f y chartje has delcnated
Da
of r e - b r r
? mtnuler
om required for preparlng rach hole. namely.
. drill
-
Itlwc
detris rmrral
m
0
120 mtnutes.
r t p l a i j n q t h n r!th q t y ones,
1 :minute
tenoval o f
four boxes of rubble l r m one b l f - r t n q a d
Pane In p a r a l l e l w l l h d r t l l ~ n gholes In one b l i - r l n p and
cutling rehrr I n the previous t u l f - . I n g
li
'Pi'?
I
n d r o f c u t s o f 118 rc.bar i n ur.e layer
1 4 5 (calculalrd bel-)
re-bar c b l l i n g time pcr layer, TFC
hulri and I 1 C b r l I r m v r l .
.?,,
..si
= debris r m r o l Der layer
l o l e i and rtbar
I
NC * i 3 0 alnuter. done In parallel r l l h d r l l l l n g
Not llnc I l n l l l n g .
R x CR
8
X
110
.
I
960 mInulQr. &ne I n pardllel r l l h d r i l l l r g
Not I I W l i m l t l n g .
an:,
C'
clrai.,v
t > m z , the time required l o ranplc area f o r
r a d ! c a c t ~ w i l y and r m r e e q u l p p n l and any r m l n l n q debrlr
* C'4c alnutQ%
C.63
Usiny Ihe v a l u e s dbove y l r r r
.
t116.gai
* $ 13.195
.
1140.116
* 1 ??
C.64
f ng Ineer ( s e l t I no 1 h r r g e s )
* 6
'Illnljl?r'h,ilF
u
1IC holes I (cork
* 6 k 145 x 1.3 I 4
layers * 4524
dlf'lculty
minutes
Ldbarerr and crdfl3 (LOOX)
= 1 . 3 x I2280
* 15964 minuter
Crew Leader and H . P. Technlclrn ( a t s u n exposure caprrsblc k l t h englncer)
I i ~ n i n pr
-.
adlustmcntl
75.40 houri
266.01 hours
r5.40 hours
x 4 ldyert
rddirllon f l e l d of ?O mredhour. the t o t a l rsdlatlcn euparure r l shutdown Is
25 p c r r ' r m
266.0) I 4 75.40 x I 5 ) a ?0/1000
loltl radlallon exposure * ( I , 4 0 x I
The weight of the removed concrete is about 1,267,000 lb, assuming a
concrete density of 200 lb/ft3, which includes the associated reinforcing
steel. I t is assumed that the volume expansion factor for the rubble I s 1.56.
resulting in about 9,875 cubic feet of rubble volume for packaging. For an
allowable p,yload of 9,400 lb, the boxes of shield rubble are weight-limited,
not volume limited. Thus about 135 8-25 containers will be required, each
weiqhing about 10000 pounds, fully loaded. The costs fcr removing, packaging,
transporting, and disposing of the activated concrete is summarized below:
Removal:
6
C.2.16
$140,200
Container:
$86,900
Transport:
$44,900
Disposal:
$699.000
k m o v a l and P a c w n a of Contamjnated Metal Surfaces
All contaminated metal surfaces are assumed to be stainless steel,
approximately 0.125 inches in wall thickness. Cutting is accomplished using 3
plasma arc torch mounted on a mechanically driven track system. The cutting
rate is 4 ft/min., which includes the torch changeout time of 15 min. for
every 30 min. of torch operation. The surfaces are cut into nominal 7.5 ft x
18 f t segments for packaging in modified maritime containers. Crew size and
composition, work difficulty adju$tments and non-productive time adjustments
are assumed to be the same as for tank cutting operations, Section C.2.6. The
basic operations for removing a section of rectangular steel surface H feet
high by W feet wide are listed below, together with the estimated clock times
required to accomplish each operation.
C.65
Install Icaffoldlny r t rurfris I X a t t O n
Initall contmlnatlon control S y s l t m
I5 min
15 mln
-
Install track-muntad torch s y s t m
Attach Iiftlnp derlccr to surface scctlon
i-1
IO
I
IO aln.
*
*
Uamvs
*
*
s
*
*
(a)
(b)
(8)
W e major cut I n natal rurfrae
R m r e track.imuntrd torch s y 3 t m
Vlacc the scctlon I n ~ h cdlsposal
IO mln. (b)
IS oln
contsalnstion control S Y S I ~
R u m r e sclffoldlng tnd m,e to neal l w t t l o n
IS
mtn
These operations arc repeated for each M J o r cut.
This ictlvlly 1s cooducted in parallel r l l h torch track r u m v a l and relnstal~dtlon for
ncrt cut
rota1 Crer.hours for s r ~ n e n t l n ga rectangular sectton (actual duration): 160
where
A aln
L
cont&lntr
mln.
10 mln.
N I s the nvrber
*
of mjor cuts per scctIon. and L 1 % the avcraqe l l w per
Y(30
t
MJOP
A))160.
cut
A
M J o r CUI
vertical or bwrlrontat cut eslendlnq (cross the cunplrte hclght or wldlh of the rectanpultr sccllon
w j o r cut i s either
n Ieet
long or Y
.here
W o r i z . the n d c r o f
and u . e c t .
-
Nhorlz
horlrarlal c u l s . Is qivcn
the numt.er o f vertical
1
Ihc nvlbcr of major CYII
I s piken by
feet long
H
IS a
Thus
I
Nrrrt.
by
cuts. i s given by
C.66
Dnft lor Ccmtncnt
N
-
khcrtr
t
-
hvcrt
9.
Putting l h l a topelher g l v e r f o r thm average l e n p l h o f tlnm per CUI:
A
(ktmrlr x W
t
-
Nrert I H I I N I R I ~=~ ( 5 x BO t 4 L 4 0 ) / 9 / 4
-
r o t a 1 crew hours
1.3
I
15.6 nlnulcrtnaJor c u t .
1.514 x [60 + I130 + A)1/60
I 3 a 1.574 I [60 9130 t IS.6)1/60 * 16.0 b u r r .
Ihe f a c t o r s 1 . 3 and 1 , 5 1 4 are the w r k d l f f l c u l t y and non-productive Om adjustments. d e v t l w d in
Section C . 2 6
C.2.17 Removal
md
Packaqtna of Contam i n a t e d u t s 6 x 8 in . t Q u -
All contaminated ducts are assumed t o be galvanized steel, 20 to 16
gauge. The ducts are assumed to be separated into about 8-ft sections. The
time bases are drawn from R . S . Means 1992 for duct removal. The average rate
of removal in linear feet per 8-hour day for the inventory of ductwork in the
reference PUR i s calculated to be about 62 llnear feet, by interpolats;'Jof
the Heans data. Thus, the average time per section of duct removed I S about
60 minutes, including scaffolding. Subtracting 4 minutes per hour for work
breaks letves 56 minutes o f direct labor per 8-ft section. Tho time duration
factors that need to be considered are respiratory protection, protective
clothing changes, work breaks and ALARA. lhe postulated crew size, c o s t , and
associated radiation dose are given below.
!!e.r&W-W
Lateaorv
'
'
3
2.0,
0.5
0.5
3.0
'
-
t
Labor hate
(S/Persu
.t.abr.rer
t i . P. Tech.
Crew leader
26.37
36.82
54.84
cost(&)
crew-trJ
__
52.7tb1
z.42
80.16
Average labor cost, ?-shift operations
Dose Rate
Im.dcrew hrl
~
2
0
0
2
$84.17'')
(a) Includes a IO% shift differential for the second shift.
(b) Part of DOC overhead staff. Labor costs appear in undistributed cost,
(c) 10% shift dlfferential for econd shift.
The removal operations and assoc ated time durations are listed below.
Inrlall I C b f f U l d l n q 4 1 CUI \ c € a t l u n
P m v e duct rectlon
*
Eag epds o f duct w c t l o n
NIIREGKR-.W, V d . 2
C.67
I
, . ,
'
-
*
*
f l r t t c n sectlon
5 nln
I r m r f e r (he I l a l t e n r d s e c t l o n l o d marlline contrlner
5 nln.
..
R m r c scdffolding and m v c t o next l o c r t l o n
Crew-ntnutet for romvtng one
11 mln.
(actual durrrlon)
rectlon
Uork Ollflculty A d j u r t m n t s .
20’1 o f r t l u r l durrllon
Prrpirdtory p r o l v c t l o n adjuiimenl
I.?
Adlusted Uork Durrtlon
I
actual durrtlon * 85 n l n
Non%waluctive 1 1 4 a d j u r t m n t r
8 ?I o f r d j u s l e d durrtlon
RadlrltonlAlARA adjurlncnl
Sull upiun-rull In an11 ccmlmlndllon c l o l h l n p
lotal
Work
39 4 X of rdluslrd duratton
9 81
Break l i m
I
Ouratloo per section
Crew b u r s per 8 f t
514
I
o f r d j v t t r d duration
bdjustcd durrtlon * 134 nln
7 73
section
Crew t r y o w r e l h u r i wr s e c t i o n
I 50 h r i
OidlurIcJ D u r r t i o r )
* 3 0 nrm
.
Padidlion Dose vrr setlion
Radirltor. Care per I t removed
.
I
.
,
. .
I
o
3e
,
I
It is assumed that contaminated steel floor grating (on stairs, plat.
f o r m , and walkways) will be removed during decomissioning in essentially the
same manner in which it was installed; therefore, installatlon labor factors
were used, based on “Building Construction Cost Data 1991’ by R . S. Means,
p. 130, and modified for a radiation zone environment. Steel floor grating is
assumed t o weigh 10.4 Ib/ft’. In an uncontaminated environment, the performance rate is 550 ft’ o f steel floor grating installed (removed) per 8 hours
NIIRECK’R-58U4, Vul. 2
C.68
(about 68.75 ft'/hr),
by interpolalion o f the Means values. Based on thc iluiiproductive work time factor (1.574) given in Section C.2.1, the available time
per 8-hr shift used in this re-evaluatlon analysis is found by:
8 hrs/1.514
-
5.083 hr;
Ihe worker efficiency in respiratory equlpaent (1.2) for a radrone environment
reduces the total removal efficiency per shift as follows:
5.083 hrs x (68.75 ft2/hr / 1.7)
-
291.2 ft'/shift
- 36.4 ft'/hr
or to an hourly rate o f 291 2 / 8 hrs
The postulated crew soze, cost, and associated radiation dose are given below.
Pers-hrslcrew-hr [atesory
Laborer
lech.
Crew leader
3.0
0.5
H. P.
-915
labor Rate
jS/Ders-hrl
26.37
36.82
54.84
Cost")
Dose Rate
jmrem/cre& -m
ULrrmm
3
0
79.11
_.
ibl
9_
4.0
. < , Average
., . ,
3
labor c o s t , 2-shift operations
#
I
,
1
'
S111.86"'
(a) Inciuaes lloX overhead, 15% DOC profit.
(b) Part of DOC overhead riaff. labor c o s t s appear in undistributed
cost.
(c) 10% shift differential for second shift.
Crew-liours per ft'
0.0275
Total labor Cost pcr ft'
0.0275 x $111.86/creu-hr $3.08
Crew Exposure Hours per ft2
0.0275 hrs.
Exposure Pers-hours per f t '
@ 4.0 pers-hours/crew-hour
0.11 hrs.
Radidtion Dose-rate (mrem/hr)
1 .O
-
-
C.69
D n f i for Crmmcnt
Assuming two crews per shift, two shifts per day, the duration of the
gratinq removal effort in the Containment, Fuel, and Auxiliary buildings would
be about 9.7 days, based on an estimated 11,265 ft2 of grating t o be removed.
Principal material costs are gases for torches at $7.76/hr, including
15% DOC profit (see Section C.2.2). Costs of materials used in the removal
operations is determined as follows:
-
t5.083 hrs/crew x 2 crews/shift) x 2 shifts/day x 9.7 days
197.22 hrs x $7.76/hr / 11,265 ft2 $0.14/ftz
-
197.22 hrs
I t is estimated that about 3.31 maritime containers at S4,965/each will
be required, resulting in a total container cost of $16,500.
for packaging is: $16,500 / 11,265 ft‘
S1.46/ft2
-
The unit Cost
Thus. the total removal cost per ft2 is estimated to be:
$3.08 (labor) + $0.14 (torch gases) t $1.46 (maritime containers) = S4.68/ft2
Summary
-
Unit cost factor $4.68/ftZ
Radiation exposure 0.11 mrem/ft’
0
C.2.19 l&mtarninstion
of H a n w b
All contaminated handrails are assumed t o be 2-inch-diameter carbon
steel. One lineal foot ( L F ) of handrail equals about 1/2 ft’ of surface area.
The assumed decontamination rate 1 s I5 ft‘/hour or about 30 IF/hr. Decontamination will be done manually using industrial wipes and Radiacwashw (diluted
5 : l ) . The waste will be bagged for disposal. This work is not anticipated to
require either respiratory protection or scaffolding.
C.70
The postulated crew size, cost, and associated radlatlon dose are given below.
Labor Rate
eers-hrs/crew-hr
2.0
0.5
_e5
€&aQJY
Laborer
H. P. Tech.
Crew Leader
Cost("
Dose Rate
LVDers-hrl
Immm/crew-hrl
2
0
26.37
36.82
54.84
92
3.0
Average labor cost, 2-shift operations
$84.17(')
(a) Includes lloX overhead, 15% DOC profit.
(b) Part of W C overhead staff. labor costs appear in undistributed
cost.
(c) 10% shift differential for second shift.
The decontamination operations and associated time durations are listed below.
* Manually decontamlnate 1 L F of handrail
2 min. ( a 1
* Radiation survey
1 win.
-
I min.'bl
Hove to next location
Crew-minutes for decontamination o f 1 LF (actual duration)
Work Difficulty Adjustments: None required.
Adjusted Work Ouration:
1.0 x actual duration
Non-product ive time ad jus.ments:
Radiat ion/ALARA adjustment
Suit-up/un-suit in anti-contamination clothing
Work breaks (2 per shift)
(b)
Assumed to bs washed twice, rinsed once, and dried.
The move i s made in parallel with t h e survey.
NC'HEGICR-588J. V d . 2
c.71
(1
3.0 min.
3.0 win.
3.1% of adjusted duration
37.5% o f adjusted duration
9.4% o f adjusted duration
Total Work Suration per l f 1.500 x adjusted duration
Crew-tiours per LF
Total Labor Cost per I LF 0.05 Y S84.17/crew-hr
(a)
.
I
-
4.50 min.
0.075 hrs.
$6.31
Crew Exposure H o u , ~per 1 l t (adjusted duration)
Exposure Pers-hours per 1 L f @ 2.0 pers-hours/crrw-hour
Radiation Dose-rate ( m r e d h r )
-
0.033 hrs.
0.10 hrs.
1.0
During an 8 - h o u r (480 minute) shift, the actual cleansing time is
estimated to be 5.33 hours (320 minutJs), based on the folloning:
480
-
120 (suit-up)
-
30 (breaks)
-
10 (ALARA)
Assuming a clednsing rate o f 30 LF/hour (15 ft'/hour),
about 160 LF (80 ft')
ran be cleansed in one crew-shift. Assuming two crews per shift, two shifts
per day, the duration o f the cleansing effort in the containment, fuel, and
auxiliary buildings would be about 17.6 days, based on an estimated 11,226 LF
o f handrails to be cleansed.
Costs of materials used in the decontamination operations:
lndustrlal Wipes w/hand-held #dispenser (McMaster-Carr, Edition 98,
p. 1060.)
Wipes @ 514.76/275-ft roll (9-3/4 in. wide)
Dispenser @ $13.50/each
Radiacwash' @ $15/gal (Air Products Corporation, Catalog 68)
Principal material costs are: 1) industrial wipes (at an estimated
usage rate o f 10 wipes/6 f t section) for an equivalent cost o f about $0.09/Lf
and 2) cleansing solution (.AiNlit 2 6 gallons) for an equivalent cost of about
SU.O3/LF.
In addition, it i s estimated that eight hand-held dispensers are
needed, for an equivalent cost o f about SO.Ol/LF. Ten used wipes are estimated to occupy about 0.0324 ft3, or a total space o f about 60.62 ft3. lhe
estimated total space required, including space for the 2 6 gallon containers
(about 3.5 ft'), is about 64.12 ft3. About nine 55-gallon drums are needed
C.72
for this waste, resulting in an estimated equivalent cost of about $O.OZ/lF.
Thus, the total cleansing cost per lineal foot I s estimated t o be:
$6.31 (labor) t $0.09 (wipes) t $0.03 (Radiacwash*)
$0.01 (dispensers)
16.46/LF
-
{
10.02 (drums) t
SmArY
-
Unit cost facto, 16.46;LF
Waste volume generated 0.0054 ft3/LF
Radiation exposure = 0.067 mrem/LF
C.2.20
k m o v a l of
C o n ~ ~ d & z x h &
Discussions between the authors and senior staff o f Pacific Nuclear
Services (PNS)(A' were held concerning PNS's experiences to date with chemical decontamination of drain systems at nuclear power plants. PNS indicates
that it is probably not cost-effective, nor practical to chemically decontaminate reactor drain systems prior t o disassembly. Therefore, the piping In
the drain systr.,, at the reference PUR are not postulated t o be chemically
derontaminated before disassembly. Removal and packaglng of contaminated
piping associated with the drains i s covered under Sections C.2.J and C.2.4.
This section discusses only the removal of the drains, which is postulated t o
occur after the drain piping has been removed.
Based upon information provided by the Trojan staff, it i s estimated
that there are approximately 210 drains that could be radioactively contaminated. The volume o f a "typical' drain is conservatively estimated t o be
about 2.80 f t 3 , usiny a rough approximatian t o ca\culate the space occupied by
the "plug" that is postulated t o be removed by a core drill. tach plug i s
estimated t o weigh about 550 pounds, based on a 16-in-diameter concrete plug
(containicg the drain) being cut from a nominal 2-ft-thick reinforced concrete
floor.
----
---
(a) Pacific Nuclear Services specializes in chemical dccontamination
services and is currently under contract to Consolidated Ldison o f New
York to perform the first full-system decontamination o f a conmercial
PWR in the U.S.
NUREGICR-5884. VOI. 2
c.73
D~II~I for Comment
lhe following procedure for the i,ernoval o f contaminated floor dralns is
based upon discussions between the authors and senior staff of the Columbia
Concrete Sawing Company.
I t is assumed that 3-inch-wide steel strapping is bolted underneath the
plug t o prevent it from fialling upon completion o f the core drilling operation. In addition, the top of each drain i s covered with plastic prior t o the
start of drilling. A water mist is used during core drilling operations for
dust control, as required. The water ' 5 collected by means o f a vacuum at the
top end and by a plastic trough that empties into a bucket at the bottom of
the plug, resulting in the collection of an estimated total of 5 gallons of
pot0 ntially contaminated waste water per plug. Very limited, if any, respiratory equipment is anticipated to be needed for core drilling operations
associated w i t h removal of the floor drains.
Upon completion of drilling, the plug i s rigged for lifting, raised,
moved, and placed in a 8 - 2 5 metal container. The basic operations are listed
below, together with the estimated clock times required for each cperation.
.,
+ ~ % l ~ ~ lt rl , :t i m
%d:l. t , - u
(.
c s l ~ m i h d 1 4 m a i ~ ow f ;'?I
ntii
i
I GI * 'ill
mih.
lor.
-
5 2 hrn)
of 1 laborer, 1 crafts, 0.5 crew leader, and 0.5
health r.hy:ics technician is rcquired for the removal operation. Normally,
there will be foiii. crews working per shift, with two.shift operations. Tho
crew IAbor. cost.; m
i exposure '2vels are:
A
C ~ P WcS,:l<istinq
26.37
49:jPL,
__
.__
2 7 ..4 2
103.49
0.5
0.5
0
__ 0 .
1
four crcws per shift, two shifts per day. tho duration of the
d r d i n \ r.eniov~l effort irl the Reactor/Containmcnt, Radwaste & Control, and
Turbine Cc.ni!ratcr buildings would be about 26 days ( - 1 . 2 months), based on an
estinated t o t a l of 210 drains t o be removed.
Assmiiq
c.75
P r i n c i p a l m a t e r i a l c o s t s ( i n c l u d i n g 15% WC p r o f i t ) are:
d i m n d - c o r 4 bi1 rrplrcnantt r l 14 6Ollnch dcplh
14 60/lnch depth
x 24-In Ihlck floor
-
LllO 4O/drrln
s l r o r h n l H I e r l b l t and p l r t l l c arc e81Imted a t $5 80Idraln
*
cqulprent rantals
u n l t r at fl.OJS/.k
( 4 -r
6
4 drrln plug pullers
( 2 6 2 5 days k 1938 4 O I d a y ) / ?IO drains
-
i'1138/*t)
I 5 days/*
-
1938 4 0 I d . y
1117 30ldraln
On a weight-basis, i t i s estimated t h a t a E-25 c o n t a i n e r w i l l h o l d 17
d r a i n plugs, s i t u a t e d i n two l a y e r s . A t t h a t r a t e , i t i s f u r t h e r estimated
-
that 12.4 8-25 c o n t a i n e r s w i l l be required, r e s u l t i n g i n a t o t a l c o s t / d r a i n o f
(12.4 c o n t a i n e r s x $618.50/container) / 210 d r a i n s
136.52.
Thus, the t o t a l removal
COSC
p e r d r a i n i s estimated as determined below.
$869.83 ( l a b o r ) t 1110.40 (core b i t s ) t $5.80 ( m a t e r i a l s ) t $111.30 (equipment
r e n t a l s ) t 136.52 ( c o n t a i n e r s )
S m r i 'a I
-
-
$1,139.30/drain
--
2.80 f t 3 / d r a i n
U n i t cost f a c t o r
J1,139.30/drain
Waste volume generated, water
5 gal/drain
-
Waste volume generated, s o l i d s
Radiatton exposure
C.3
5.2 mrem/drain
TRANSPORTATION ZpSLs
The CFCP d a t a base c o n t a i n s distances from a l l cotwnercial r e a c t o r s i t e s
t o t h e p o s t u l a t e d g e o l o g i c r e p o s i t o r y a t Yucca Mountain and t o the l o w - l e v e l
disposal s i t e s a t Hanford and Barr-well.
The distances provided a r e suggested
I f t h e user does
nor f i n d t h e d e s i r e d s i t e i n t h e s i t e l i s t i n g , he or she may add h i s o r her
own s i t e name and distances. I n a d d i t i o n t o s i t e name and distances, the user
distances o n l y and may be changed as d e s i r e d by t h e user.
(a)
S p e c i f i c s p e c i a l i z e d equipment purchases f o r t h i s d r a l n removal t a s k a r e
included s e p a r a t e l y i n Appendix E, Table 8.6.
NUREGKR-5884, Vd. 2
C.76
Draft for comment
specifies the name of the desired low level waste disposal site. lhis site
information, along wlth the plant inventory and reactor pressure vessel characteristics, enables the CECP t o calculate transportation costs.
To calculate transportation c o s t s , the CECP employs a different cost
formula for each cask (CNS 9-1206, NuPac l4-210H, NAC-LYT, and TN-8) that
will
be used in decomissioning. These formulas, based on data supplied in
Reference 1, are yiven below.
Pound-lrlp CXS 8-1208 Cost for the Hanford burl41 Slte
wtwe
-
111 I dlldlO
I
RZ x dlld20
t
n I (R3 a rlrO x dfdO + W I
t
(n
~
I) x
(a4
d!dO
Y
171
.
dl
* dlilance ln milea h t r e r n reactor site and the c r r k suppllrr.
dl0
-
112
11'.
cost o f t r a n i p x t l n g r q t y
=
d20
n
R1
w
-
t
t
PI
W?]
cask frm cask suppllrr (Barnwell) l o redclor ( I t a
r c l c r m c e d l i l a n c e between reatlor l l t e rnd the cask supp)ler
-
a
2?93 biles.
c o i l 01 lranrporllng m l y crsk f r a thr burial s l t e (Hdnford) brrk t o aupPlltr
tll855.99.
-
dlrtdnce I n miles between bur,al s l l e and suppller.
reference dlitdnce between burldl IIte and suppllcr * 2614 mllas.
* n u r h r of c 1 s k a t o be shlppcd l o the burl81 1110.
cost o f trrnrportlng f u l l y lm&d c a l k f r a s l l e t o b u r l r l
alte
$2456 BO.
* r e l g h l of l o a d d cash. In pounds.
r0 * welghl 01 f u l l y loaded crrk
14000 pounds.
* dtttdncc beti.Pen reactor s l l e and burltl site. In n l l e r .
40 r reference dlstance betreen reaclor s l l e and burial a l l @
d
R4
.
-
-
197 mllrr.
cost of t r m f p o r l l n g r q l y cash fro1 burlrl s l l e back l o reactor r l l e =
OYI * a v r n c i q h t chrrgrs
-
$1216.06.
1119.05,
W? * overweight chdrqes * $69 3 1 . m d
P
=
nenntt cost
tlZO.00.
Rouncl.lrip CNI 8-120B Cost for the BtrnwelI Burlrl S l t e
t
n
I
(RI
I
n x (R? x
d/dO)
dfdO
I
where
RI
d
-
* r o i l o f t r r n i p o r t l n p a p t y calk f r a Barnwell t o teaclor r l t t
d > > l m c e tn nile, between Barn*\\
and reactor s l t c .
do * reference dlrtancc betwen Darnwell and reaclor s l l e
P2
cost of Irrnsporting f u l l y IMded cask f r a
NURECICR-W. Vd. 2
C.77
-
r l w 0 + OU
-
4
PI
111855.99.
2199 n l l e s .
v a c l o r n i l e to B a r w e l l
-
$14185 BO.
t10122.15.
C.78
c.79
for non-cask truck shipmeots, the calculations are much simpler. for
cargo consisting o f 55-gallon drums, 96-ft' metal boxes, or maritime ccntainers, the round-trip truck transportation charges are
RounJ,lrlp Lou ~ e v e lM c t e Eo11 ( I n d o l l a r c ) lor Hlnford 8 u r I r l Sltr
hero
-
II * th round.lrlp d l r l r n c a r r l e
0
DO
pc
-
-
R L DIW
$1111.02,
dlclrnce In n11#c h l w e c n c I I e r d Hlnford.
-
* tho rrfermce dlrtrnca. fro+ Rrlnler, Orlpon. t o Hlnfcrd. Urchlnpla,
p m l l cort
PC
t
-
291 hlloc.
1110.
r'lsvhlnq t h a ~~ h ccargo doer not erccrd 43.000 wndi
arrimlng lhrl lh ctr)o c b i no1 riceed 40.000 wndc.
Each o f the spent riel racks i s shipped in specially constructed
ovcrrlze metal containers. Transportation costs for each rack art calculated
from the following formulas:
I b r l n r c k Ihlpwnl (OBI
I o Hlnlord ( I n d o l l r r r )
-
II
I
d/dO + P
Of
t
mkre
(I
* c o i l 01 I r r n i y o r l l n q rrck l o M n f o r d
$966 $4.
0 * d l r l r n c e IIMrew.lor r l t e i o Hlnlord. I n nilei.
-
- -
dO * r c r t r r n c r hrttnrc tatween rrtrlor t l l r rnd Hlnfard
P
P.ImlI
rort
195 00.
01 * d r o ~f r m charqe
OY
00
I
--
o w d d l h chrrpe
$100 00.
$100 DO.
-
o w dlnmnclcn chrrpe * $65 OS. rnd
trrprulrn clurgr
NL'REGICR-3884, Vd. 2
$35 W
C.80
-
?91.
OY
0
00
*
1
P
.
.-
. .
1W.W.
DT * drop f r u a chrrgb 1 I W . W .
h
i
00
1
pnlt
COIL
o v t r - r l d l h chargr
-
1YJ1.W.
over4lmnslan c:urga
thrprulln charge
154J.00, rr,d
9
SJS.00.
The Reactor duilding and Fuel Building cranes will be shipped in
specially modified maritime containers. The transportation formulas for these
cranes are calculated as follows:
-
Crane S h l m n l C o i l t o Ibnfcrd ( I n d o l l r r b )
R
P
x dld0 x r/rO
W
+
1.
6
ukrr
P
a
c o i l of trdnrportlnp crane l o Hlnford
d * dlllrwe fro*
rCJClOr
(11.
$llOO,
-
b n f o r d . I n m11ba.
IO
dO * rtfarencr d!btrnce b r l w n r t r c t o r a l t r and h n f o r d
1
.O
P
I
-
--
-
291 nllea,
r e l ? h l of lo rd d truck. I n pound$.
n l g h t of f u l l y lorded truck
40.000 p w r d s
W n l t colt * $95 00.
trlrt la):l r r l l t r c o i l * 1120 00. Iml
@d * o r t n t l g h l chrrpe * 169. I f
Crane I h i p n n t Cost to B a r n n l l ( I n
load t r c t d a 40.000 parndi: no charge, o l h n l r c
dallarr)
-
R x d/dO I ri.0
4
P
I
OY
t
0 1 x d.
CW1C
c o ~ 01
l tranrwrllng craw l o
P
J
do
w
r0
P
W
-.
Brrnrrll
15984.
* d i r l m c e frm reactor s l t t to BrrmFII. I n
nlles.
r e f r r m c r distance k t m n r e ~ c t o r111. rnd B i r m s l l
-
-
?I99 nI1.s.
uclghl o f I w W truck. I n rmundi.
n l p h t of f u l l y lorded truck
40.000 pounds
-
wrnit cor1 * 195 00. rnd
* orerwt1Qht c M r ~ e 1543. I f lord exceed$ 40.000 pounds: no charge. o t h e h l r e
For the specific case of the reference PWR, barges and trucks are used
to transport equipment and material to the disposal sites. Rail transportation I s not used. Because barge costs are complex and strongly site-specific,
no attempt has been made to include barge cost algorithms in the CECP
1 . ILLState IfQb-sit
C o r n u , published tariffs, Interstate Coanerce
Comnisrion (ICC), Docket No. HC-109397 and Supplements, 1991.
APPENDIX 0
Omll for Commenl
APPlNDlX D
f
Current U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ComnissfoOl (NRC) pol icy requires removal
of all spent nuclear fuel (SNF) from a facility licensed under Title 10 CFR
Part !io(’) before DECON can be accomplished. A number of removal alternatives
exist, including transfer to another storage pool or transfer to either a wet
or dry independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), licensed under
Title IO CFR Part 72.(’) Transfer to another storage pool is constrained by
the availability o f space in another pool. Trailsfer to a dry ISFSI i s constrained by limits on allowable fuel cladding temperatures. These temperature
limits necessitate storage in water pools for extended periods of time following discharge from the reactor prior to dry storage, with the length of the
storage period dependent upon the fission product heat generation in the fuel,
which is a function of the ,nitial enrichment and irradiation history of the
fuel. The use of a dry ISFSl may also be constrained by the availability of
equipment t o transfer SNF from dry storage casks to transportation casks prior
to shipment to a repository.
The analyses presented in this appendix reflect the expected situation
at the reference pressurized w t e r reactor (PYR), the Trojan plant near
Rpinier, Oregon, i f the plant operated until expiration o f its operating
license, and therefore are representative o f other large PWRs that do operate
until their licenses expire. These analyses do not necessarily reflect the
actual situation at the Trojan reactor, which was prematurely closed late in
1992.
Under the contractL.1 agreements between the U.S. Department qf Energy
(DOE) and the nuclear utilities for disposal of SNF, SNf owned by utilities is
placed in an acceptance queue, ranked by date of discharge on an oldest-fuelfirst (OFF) basis. Subsequently, the amount o f SNF accepted from a given
U t i l i t y i n a givi*n year i s
by 1 1 3 k , l d c c
o f S'if t o be acrtbptcd I)) I101 d u r i n g t h d t y e a r .
tl,~Lt!ii,tiiit~ti
iii
ttic
qUCU(?
t h e aeiount
J I I ~
tiaseJ upan t t i e c u r r e n t r r q u l a t o r - 3 e n v i r o n n i c i , t and upon ttie SIIf c o o ? i n g
t i n ? ana1y:cs
p w b p n t c d i n t h i s 3ppendix, t h c miiiimurn period for spent f u e l
pool : ~ p i ~ i ' a t i o nand p l a n t s a f e storage p r i o r to disi::mtlernent a t t h e i - t f c r c n c o
FWR I S c s t i i x t t x i t o t ~ c? y e a r s . p r o v i d e d th3t t h e owner c o r i r t r ' u c t h
l i i : c n s e s an onritc I S I S I u n d e r P a r t 7 2 .
W i t h o u t an o n s i t e ISFSI. t h s miiiimuni
p c r i o d f o r p o o l o p c r a t i o n and p l a n t s a f c s t o r a g e p r i o r t o d c c o n m i s s i o n i n g i s
c s t i n ~ ? e ot o he 1 4 years.
l h i s IC-year e s t i m a t e presumes t h e u t i l i t y n i s i n -
t a i n s i t s fael p o o l u n d e r a P a r t 50 p o s s e s s i o n - o n l y l i c c n s e a f t e r shutdown,
t o y e t h t , r w i t h r e l i a r i c e on t t i c
DOf's a c c c p t a n c c o f t h e SNF u n d e r
ttic 10
C1R
P a r t 961 c o : , t r a c t u a l a~4r-ccnc!ntt o empty t h e f u e l p o o l .
l t i i ! r c g u l a t o r y c o n s i d c r a t i o n s , background i n f o r m a t i o n , and t h e d e t a i l s
o f the analyses l e a d i n g t o t h e dbuvc c o n c l u s i o n s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n subscqtrent
sections o f t h i s appendix i n t t i c f o l l o w i r g o r d e r :
6
r e g u l a t o r y c o n s i d e r a t i o n s y o v c r n i n g Sfli d i s p o s a l
postuldted a l l o c a t i o n o f the waste manaqomcnt system's annual
acccptancr! c a p a c i t y for t h e r.eft.rcnce PUR
e
*
background i n f o r m a t i e n relater! t o p o s t -shutdown s t o r a g e o f SNF
g e n e r i c c o n s i d e r a t i o n s r e l a t e d t o p o s t - s h u t d o w n s t o r a g e o f SNF,
i n c l u d i n g t h e r a n g e o f s l o r a g e / d i s p o s i t i o n a l t e r n a t i v e s and a
methodology for e v a l u a t i n g the p r e s e n t v a l u e o f t h e t o t a l s t o r a g e
system 1 i f e - c y c l Q c o s t s f o r two b a s i c o p t i o n s o f SNF stt,rage
r e q u i r e d SNF c o o l i i l g t i m e f o l l o w i n g d i s c h a r g e b e f o r e d r y s t o r a g e
*
r a t i o n a l e f o r t h e spent f u e l s t o r a g e o p t i o n p o s t u l a t e d f o r t h e
r e f e r e n c e PUR.
0.2
DraR for Comment
D. 1
~,tc?l~.!O~l!..C,Ol!UCLw\~-lD-,~,~~~,
I:,.!2. C i . LO.:^..
$'I
,I,.
-q\:--,,
I.-
<.,it
4
l h e N u c l e a r Uaste P o l i c y A c t o f 198i jNWPA)"'
a s s i g n s t o t h e Fcder'al
Covernncnt r e s p o n s i b i l i t y 10 p r o v i d e f o r t h e permanen1 d i s p o s a l o f SNF"'
The D i r e c t o r o f the Department
3nd h i g h - l e v e l r a d i o a c t i v e waste ( N W ) . " "
e t t n c r g y ' s (03E) O f f i c e o f C i v i l !an R a d i o a c t i v e U a s t e Management (OCRUH) i s
r c r p c n r i b l e f o r c a r r y i n g out t h e f u n c t i o n s o f thd S e c r e t a r y o f Cnergy ( S e c r c .
t a r y ) u n w r t h c NWPA.
S e c t i o n 3 0 2 ( a ) o f t h e 11WPA a u t h o r i z e s t h e S e c r e t a r y t o
e n t e r i n t o c o n t r a c t s ' C ' w i t h owners or generatorsid) o f c o m e r c i a 1 SNf o r
IilU.
The Standdrd C s i i t r a c t f o r 9 i s p o s a l o f Spent N u c l e a r Fuel and/or H i g h -
iCs<cl R a d i o a c t i v e W a s t e " ' r e p r e s e n t s t h e s o l e c o n t r a c t u a l mechanism f o r DOE
af.ccptance and d i s p o s a l o f S11f and M U .
i9era::orial
It e s t a b l i s h e s the r e q u i r e m e n t s and
r r s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f :he p a r t i e s t o t h e C o n t r a c t i n t h e areas o f
a d m i n i s t r a t ve m a t t e r 5 . f e e s . terms of p a y n c n t f o r d i c p o s a l s e r v i c e s , waste
a:ciE,i:.c<r
L'??!,-;I~;'.
I
.
I <*r:5:
;'I(
:,r\;t
r : : c r i a . irld u a s t c acceptance p r o c e d u r e s . The Standard D i s p o s a l
V I ~ ? S (or t h t d c q u i s % ' . : o n o f t . i t i e t o t h c Siif o r ti!W by DOE. i t s
I Y I :o
f ! a c ; : . t i c s * ;.rid i t s rub$cq!ii.nt I i r l : o S j l .
r ~ r n ~ r it,hc
q
id:
i s s u e o f p r i o r i t y bein;]
cc%;mndvd t t i u T , l
,
{
':
3 f f o r d t d t o perinancnt.1y thutdcwn
With regard to D O E ' S bcgiiiiiiriy oyo-dtions in 1998, DOC'S intelltion,
consistent with the NUPA and the Contract, is to initiate acceptance o f spent
fuel from Purchasers as soon a s a DOE facility comnences operations. DOE
anticipates that waste accept,an;i. at a Monitored Retrievable Storage (HRS)
facility could begin in 1 H 8 if the initiatives detailed in the November 1989
"Report to Congress on Reassessment o f the Civilian Radioactive Ulste Hanagement
are fully implemented. Until waste acceptance begins, the
owners and generators t f SNF/HLW will continue to be responsible for storing
their spent fuel.
0.1.1
Standard Di mesal C o n t i - ~ c t R e s ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ' p ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 C a e i l z _ l
Under the terms of the Standard Disposal Contract (Article IV), the WE
issues an Annual Capacity Report (ACR)'') wherein DOE'S annual SNF/HLU receiving capacity i s projected and t.he annual acceptance ranking allocations to the
Purcha.ters are presented for IO years following thc projected comnencement o f
DOE facility operations. A s specified in the Contract, the ACR is for planning purposes only and thus is not contractually binding o n either Wt or the
Purchasers. The Standard Disi>osal Contract states that beginning April 1991.
DOE shall issue the first annual Acceptp.l:e Priority Ranking for receipt of
SNF/HLU. The Contract further specifies that, beginning in January 1992, and
based on the Acceptance Priority qanking. the Purchasers shall submit Delivery
C o n i t m e n t Schedules (DCSs) t o DOE identifying the SNF/HLW that the Purchasers
propose t o deliver to the federal iaste Management System (FWMS). The Contract provides that the approved DCSs will become the bases for Final Delivery
Schedules, which are t o be submitted by the Purchasers not less than 12 months
before the designated year of DOE'S anticipated acceptance of title t o the
SNF/tILW and w b s e q u a n t transport t o a WE facility.
0.1 . 2 weJ!!!PLm9_Pro.lect.u
lhe wast' acceptance projections used in the ACR are representative of a
FUMS configuration authorized by the Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments Act of
1987 (Amendments Act),") which includes an HRS facility. Aitlcle I t of the
Standard Contract specifies that 'The services to b e provided by DOE under
this contract shall begin, after the commencement o f facility operations, not
."
later than January 31, 1998.. .
DOL rccugnizes that, under current condi.
tions, waste acceptance at a DOE facility can begin in 1998 only if the
federal Governnient is able t o consumnate a timely agreement, which is enacted
into Federal law. with a host S t a t e 0 1 ' Indian Tribe for the siting of an MRS
facility. Ihe Nuclear Waste Negotiator, which i s a representative of the
Federal Government appointed by the President, is actively seeking a State or
Indian Tribe willing t o host an M R S facility or a geological repository. is1
DOE'S projected acccptance rates for the first 10 years o f FWHS operation, extracted from the ACR,"' are yiven in Table D . 1 . lhese rates d o not
reflect the HRS facility schrdule linkaqes with the repository development
that were imposed by the Amendment; Act, but are consistent with the
10,000 q l U storhge capacity limit contained in the Amendments Act for an MRS
facility before a repository starts operation. These acceptance ratrs assume
comnencement of facility operations in 1998. I f the current linkages between
HRS facility construction and reporitory construction authorization are maintained, i t is estimated thdt commencement o f HRS facility operations could not
start until at lea5t 2007."'
TABLE p.1.
ProjertPd Uarte Acceptance Rates for Spent Nuclear fuel
_Year
.._
-
1998
I999
2000
600
900
900
zoo1
2032'&'
2'303
2004
2006
900
900
900
900
300
2607
900
2005
Tot21
8,200
D.5
Calendar \ e a r
n t Tie!- Y-k k .Yr!
2002
2005
ZOO6
2007
2008
2010
201 1
2012
2013
2014
201 5""
2016
201 7
2018
2019
ZOZO
Vear/Hon t h
9 f - U ss!urse
1978/03
1980/04
1981/05
198?/03
1983/01
1984/04
1985/05
1986/04
1987/04
1388/04
1989/03
1990/03
1991/03
1992/04
1993/06
19Y4/08
I9Y5/09
1996/10
1998/01
1999/02
2000/03
2001/03
2021
2U22
SNF Inventory
&m!dlsrl.
1156
1253
1267
1274
1280
1212
1212
1215
1158
1152
1095
1086
1099
1219
1150
1081
1041
986
93 1
87 7
825
174
2002/04
723
2003/06
673
2004/08
623
2023
?005/09
2023
?006/09
20?5
?026
2007;IO
2O08/ 1 1
20 I o/o 1
201 1/0?
?012/02
701 3/03
?014/03
2Q14/10
573
524
419
434
390
346
303
259
115
193
2015/11
0
2021
202G
70?9'
SNF Assembl i e s
&CQQ&d-&U
1
53
35
38
39
52
40
61
57
49
51
53
53
73
69
69
40
55
55
54
52
51
51
50
50
50
49
45
45
44
44
43
44
44
22
19'1
based on a pool capacity of 1408 spent fuel a s 5 w b l i e s , i t can al\o bi!
s w n from lable 0.2 that the reference PUR has adequate pool c;pacity t o
ac.cotimodate i t s remaining inventory wlthout additional stocaye capabil ity.
I t %lioulti tic noted that Irojan’s current operating license expires In
CV.7011, based upoI a 40-year license period, beginning with tho start of
construction. lfi! NRC now permits the operating license periods o f commercial
nucleir reactor power stations t o begin at the start of c o m o r c l a l operation
o f those reactcrt. Ihc lneryy Information Administration’s ( E I A ) projected
ycar of flnal s11,ttdown for the Irojan plant i s CV.2015 (the date shown in
this license entJ.datc used by the t l A assumes that the 40-year
Idtile D,2).‘”’
lic-ensiny period bogan at the start o f commercial operation o f the Trojan
plant. n o t a t the start of construction. Ihe E I A ‘ s shutdown date o f CY-2015
i s used throughout this study for the purpose o f developing decomnissioning
sc hcdu 1 c $
.
the D O L ’ S O f f i c e of Civilian Radioactive K3ste Manaqement (OCRWM)
“linal Verslon Dry Lask Storage Stvdy’ t o NRC in January 1989
for final rcwicw. Information copies o f tho d o c u n w t were also provided l o
Catiqrcrs. After receiving final NRC comments on the study, 0CRV:l formally
submitted the “final Version llry Cask Storage Study,“lY1 to Congress in March
1909 accompanied by NRC’s comments. [he Study presents two major conclusions:
1 ) existing technologies are technically feasible, safe and environmentally
acceptable option!, for storing spent fuel at civilian reactor s i t e s until such
time a s a federal facility i s available t o accept the spent fuel, and 2) OCRWH
is not authorlied t o provide direct financial support for at-reactor storaye.
Ihe l a t t e r conclusion is based on the NWPA, which established the Nuclear
Waste Fund. As stated in Section lll:a)(5), “the generators and owners o f
high-level radioactive waste and spent nuclear fuel have the primary responsibility to provide for, and the responsibility t o pay tho costs of, tho interim
$toraqr o f such waste and spent fuel until such waste and spent fuel i s
accepted by the Secretary of tnergy in accordance with the provisions o f this
w b m i t t e r l the
0.8
I)mh fur Cmmenl
Ihus, It is the 001’s yin<ltlon t h a t the iitilItios arc rp\lionc.ihlo for
stor ny spent fuel at reactor sites until an operating federal faclllty is
aval able to accept tile fuel .(lo’
Act.
In a generic environmental impact statement on spent fuel storage,‘”’ the
NHC expressed confidence that the regulations now ln place will ensure
adoquate protectlun of the public hoalth and safety and the environment during
the prrlod when the SIW Is in storage, The reactor operatiny llcense may be
amended at the end of the plant operating life. Ihos, spent fuel may be
stored in the reartor pool under an amended reactor operatiny 1 icense pursuant
t o 10 CFR Part 50.”’ lie reactor license, however, cannut be terminated
until the reactor is decommissioned. 1 0 fully decommission the reactor, 111
spent fuel m u s t bo removed from the fuel pool.
Currently, thpre are tilne sliutdown nuclear power plants tn the U . S . with
fuel onsite. lhey are: Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Slatton o f Sacramento
Munlcipal Utility District; tlumboldt Bay Unit 3 o f Pacific Gas Llectrlc; the
Dresden I plant of Commonwealth Ldison Company; the Lacrosse unit of Dairyland
flectric Co-op, In<.; the Shoreham station of Long Island I iqht Company: the
fort St. Vrain plant of Public Service Co. of Colorado; the VaiiGee Rowe [’)ant
of ‘tankee Atomic flectrlc Co. o f Hassachuwtts; the San Onofre Un\t 1 o f
Southern California tdison to. and San Olego Gas and llectric Co.; and the
Trojan plant o f Portland General Electric Co. All shutdown plants have
iitillted 1ight.water-cooled reattors wlth the exception of the Fort St. Vrain
piant, which employs a hlgh-temprrature gas-cooled reactor. Fort St. Vrain
fuel is highly enriched and fur that reason, may require special treatment
bofore disposal at the presently contemplated federal geologic repository.
Several Itorage system derlgns are presently licensed or about t o be
licensed tor storage o f SNF In the U.S. These include water pools for wet
storage, and metal casks, concrete casks, horlzontal concrete modules, and
air-cooled vaults for dry storage. Transportable metal storage casks, for at.
reactor dry storage, are not currently certified in the U . S . To use metal
casks designed for dual-purpose service, a utility would have t o obtain an NRC
license for %torage under 10 Cfo! Part 72”’ and specify a cask certified fer
storage by the NRC and for transportatlon in accordance wlth regulations In
In additinii, the lirenslnrl and (rrtiffcation o f these
casks would have to addross concerns about using the casks for transportation
after extended use for storage. Concrete casks and horizontal storage modules
cannot be transported intact. However, the metal canisters containing the
fuel may be able t o fit inside a transportable cask. Nonetheless, some form
o f storage unit-to-transport cask transfer capability would bo required on the
reference site, t o provfde for recovery from il cask real fallure o r some
abnormal condition occurrlng with the storage units.
10 CFR Part 71.‘”’
On the other hand, the safety of storage in spent fuel pools has been
wldely demonstrated. In thq review of its Waste Confidence Decision,”’) the
NRC concluded that spent fuel can be stored safely and wlthout significant
envlronrnental In;phcts for a t least 30 years beyond the licensed life for
operatioir (uhich may lnclude t h e term o f a revised o r renewed license) of that
reactor at its spent fuel storage basin or at either an onsite o r an offsite
I S F S I . This finding was supported by the NRC’s experience in conducting more
than 80 Indivldual safety rvaluations o f spent fuel storage. In particular,
the NRC noted that the rladding o f tho spent fuel is highly resistant to
failure undcr tho conditlons ( I f pool storage, and the NRC cited up t o 18 years
o f c a n t iniicrus storage experience for Zirraloy-clad fuel.
lhus, W f c.in 1)o stored citncr in a pool or In dry storage faillities.
Ihouqh both types o f storagc may be used at t h e same reactor s i t e , they are
sllhJ(’<t l o different NRC regulations. lhis is bocause the spent fuel pool Is
normally (oirsidrred t o be an Integral part of tho nuclear power plant and suhJ t v I I n roquldtlon under IO C t H Pdrt 50.
Dry storage facilities are con
\idvrcd indopmdcnt of the plant, and are subject tn rogulation triidcr
IO r l R Part 7 7 . I t should 1)c noted that a general license under Subpart K ,
PdrI Y ? ( a n be cjrdntcd to Part 50 l i c e n s e v s , i f a1)proved stovaqr casks are
U,>PIi,
important considerat ion when select iny the decommissioning mode to
employ on a retired power reactor facility is what to d o with the SNf stored
onsite. Ihe range o f rtorage/disposi~ion alternatlves o f SNI I s dlscussed in
An
Section 0.4.1. A methodology for evaluating the present value o f the total
storage system life-cycle costs is presented In Section 0.4.2, together wlth
an evaluation for two basic alternatives for SNF storaye.
The following dlscussion on the disposition alternatives for SNF is
based on Information extracted from a study on such alternatives for Rancho
Seco Nuclear Generating Station'") and other sources, Based on those sources,
an overview o f post-shutdown spent fuel storage alternatives is presented In
Figure 0 , l . The disposition alternatlves for SNF shown in the figure appear
to illustrate the range of alternrtlves currently availablv upon final shutdown. I t can be seen from the figure that two major groups of alternatives
are available, onsite and offsite storage.
The onsite storage alternatives can be subdivided Into wet and dry
storage. Wet stordye could be accompllshed by utilirlny the existlng spent
furl puol ( 5 f P ) or by transferring the SNf to a wet ISFSI. 80th altarnatives
arc iricludeil as posslbllltlcs in Figure 0.1. It should be noted that a bypass
Is provided al'ound the improvements associated wlth modifylng the exlstlng
pool ( I . P . , a r@duction in support systems necessary to malntain SNf in wet
s t o r a q o ) in thr event the time of storagc in the S f P can be limited, thereby
r w l i i c i i i y the incontlve for incurring the costs of the chanyes.
In the r a s c o f dry storaqc, five alternatives are shown in rlgure 0 . 1 :
m e t a l s t o r ~ q ct a \ k r , concrete cask,, vault storage, horiiontal storage
module,, arid ti~an~r~iirrtable
br uiral .purposi! casks. Ihese five inethods o f dry
r t o r d q ~ 'h.9vu hctrn rt,idied previou;ly and officially evaluated by OUr."'i
upon (tie t y p e o f dry rtorage selucted, J transfer t o a shipping cask
may tie necessary before transport to the 03: repository. lhal mode o f transf r v ( a n be wet or dry as illustrated in figI:,e 0.1. tinwcvcr, i t should be
r~~ii~iii~i!d
that t h e tiRC may rrquirc t t e 1 izcnwc! to maintain fuel transfer
c a p a b i l i t y in C S I C o f c?rncrgrncic\
long a \ fuel i s onsite."' tinder the
Oqwv.iing
3 ;
~. ,
......__..,.~.,~.,..I .-..
..,.
59304(067 15
(a) llared
on Inlorin.ilm conlaiond in lloloroncab 9 and 14
fl&uR_t_D,1. Storage/Oispositlon Alternatives for Spent Nuclear fuel"'
o f f s i t e group o f alternatives, wet and dry storage possibilitles are i n -
cluded for storlng SNF a t another plant, a c o m e r c i a 1 storage f a c l l l l y , and
0.12
off-shore. lhe possibflltirs o f forplqn reprnrossiny and dlsposal arr
included in tigure D.1, even though no serious opportunity for foreign
disposal currently exists, In the cas? o f reprocessing, all wastes arising
from that process that are returned to the United States should be i n a form
acceplable to the DOE for* final disposal, as shown In f igure 0.I .
In the Rancho Seco study'"' the posslbility o f carrying out a demonstration program wlth transportable dry storaye casks, and shlpplng 56 1owAburnup
Rancho Seco fuel assemblies for reinsertion in another nuclear plant. w a s considered. The demonstration program was selected by Hanrho Seco because a
cJual-(iurpose cask dcmonstrat ion program with long-term storaye prior to shipment hds not yet been carrled out. It was roncluded In the study that nonr o f
the alternatlvps wlth economic vlabllity evaluated for their spent fuel
storage and dispositlon were precluded specifically because of lack of an
appl {cable \tructure o f federal safety reyulations. llowevcr, differences did
emerge amunq the attractiveness o f dlternatives d u e to cost o f compliance wlth
applicable tegulations. The study also roncluded that many o f the alternative
path, for Rancho Seco spent fuel dispositlon are not viable because of a
comblnat !on o f tuchnlcal, economic and recipient acceptance barriers,
Incliidud In this category are:
early shlpment to storage at another plant, comnercial, or govern.
ment site
dirpora: offshore
offshore storage
0''
reprocessing
The Ran( ho Seco st~dy''') showed that offshove storage/reyrorcssiny had
the highest cost relative to other options evaluated for Rancho Scco as well
as thr greatest number o f regulatory and non-regulatory impediments.
Other conclusions drawn from the Rancho Seco study("' are:
*
storage in concrete storage.only casks o r storage in the modified
SFP are the lowest cost optlons, jJ Congressional or D d policies
and programs delay initiation o f delivery services o f the spent
fuel well beyond 1998
*
lower the fuel pool security, monitoring and maintenance cost
actually achieved, the more attractive is the fuel pool option
the
the longer the predicted storage time (after the initial years that
the fuel must remain in the puul tu r e m o w decay heat), the iiiore
economlcally attractive i s dry storage in concrete casks relative
to storaga in the modified pool
the ciucial problem with dl the storage-only options i s the uncertainty In predicting delivery time plus the necessity 6f m a n q i n g a
one t o two-year bac kend 1 oad ing t o - shi ppi ng - L J l k campaign I.ask
disposal, and a Lask facility dismantling program in the i +Jeflnite
future.
*
I
Overall, the study zoncluded that for several reasons the Rancho Seco
situation with regard to spent fuel storage and final disposition was unique
and that the highet capltal cost transportable cask alternative should be
pursued. However, i t should be recognized that a similar conclusion may be
unlikely at other PUR power statlons, because o f differences in their fuel
storage and disposition situations.
0s 4 2 ~QJl$!.dfX4k~Q!LLJf.-h!Q
. k ! & S k . A h ~ h t l u e $ - f.$hrMe
~~
I
Because of delays in the implementation o f the FUNS, many reactors will
have largo ii w n t o r i e s o f SNF, and in some s i t u a t i o n s may have already lieen
rorced to Install external dry storage facilities on their sites to contain
SNf- that exceeded their pool capacities. An ddditional complication arises
b e c d u w the fUMS will only be able to accept SNF at a finite rate, and, under
the terms of the contract betweeti DOI: and the U . S . nuclear utilities, allocation of arccptance rights t o the utilitirs i s t o be based on an Olf b a s i s , and
the SNI must he ~ o o l e d in the rrartor pool for at least five years before
a L ( e p t a n c c . . becaure o f the l a r g ~backlog o f SNI in the ut11 ities , " * I s ,
periods tanging i t u q 5 to 26 years aftcr reactor ihutdown will pass before an
indivitlual rimtor'$ pdol rould be vmptied and the pool dc<onuniss(oned (see
latile 1 1 . 3 ) .
laced with t h c need to :tori- the SNF for an extended perlud of tlme, a
utility hds t o evaluate i t s storage o p t i o n s to determine which decomnlssioning
modi- b c s t suits its particular situation. If, for example, the utility had
strong r e a s o n s for pursuing OtCON. I t would be necessary to transfer the SNF
from the pool t o dti onsite dry 1SfSI as soon after shutdown a s possible, to
make 1 1 yosrrblp to proceed with decontamination and disasremhly o f the
0.14
.l@Ul,$.
Dlstrlbution of S l ) $ s Storlng SNF for Glven Number of Vears
Followlng Shutdowri a
Numberf-Srn
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
15
16
17
18
19
20
24
25
26
7
3
10
5
12
7
5
4
2
11
28
12
?
1
1
reactor facllity in a timely manner. I f , on the olher hand, the utility preferred to plalc the rcdCtor facility in S A f S l O R for an exterided perlod
( < 60 y e a r s ) , t!ie utility could choose to matntain the pool under a Part
50 poss~::~?n.only lic,onse ( P O [ ) unttl the FUMS had accepted all of the s i t e
SNF inventory, or t o p l a c e all o f t h e SNf in an ISFSI (wet or dry) lnltially,
even though the facility was placed in SAFSTOR, dcpendlng upon the amount of
SNI in the inventory arid the lcngth of the storage perlod until the inventory
WSI removed.
Iwo trasic allernat ives are evaluated further in subsequent
s u t r s t~ions :
contlnue operalion of t h o rpcnt fuel pool at the reactor (under a
modified Part 50 liccnse)
0
transfcr all SNT t o an on.site 1SfSI (wet or dry), and malntain
fuel transfrr c a p a b i l i t y .
In some circumstances, a qiven rcactor site may have already installed a
dry ISfSI o n s i t e to handle the oberflow from It!, reactor pool. In that case,
the options involve continulng to operate both storage facilities or t o trans.
fer the pool SNI Inventory to the onslte ISFSI. In all of theso situations, a
m a j o v factor in the dec(slon.maktng process i s the total life-cycle cost of
the planned operations. To a s s i s t In making these decisions, a methodology
has been dovelopod which evaluates the presont v a l u e o f tho life-cjcle cost O f
each o f the utlllty's options. A number o f Factors Influcnre these evalLdlions, Including surh things as:
What i s tho total onsite SNf inventory at react.or shutdown?
Uhcn docs the reactor terminate power operations?
Uhcn docs tho fWMS begin arceptlng SNI from tho s i t 0 7
At
what rrtc docs tho iWHS acc,ept SNF from the site?
Uhat would be the minlmum time required for DOI: t o accept
all o f
the utility's SNr?
qui!.$
I t 4 . l t . ~ i i t h ~ ~w~l .l ph
*l,,'.l>4,<fe
0 1 ,,MI
.<1,111
IO l i s
IIO 'I
P.31.1
1461 ( l h t i [or!trnrl). IhP r n l n l n w tlrm to dellrrr l k 1 a \ 1
, w 1 1 l o l l u w l r t p 5l,"!,I,,W"
If no I S l S l exists at shutdown, what are the costs of building and
licensing, u n d w IO C I R Part 72, an onsite I S f S I (wet or dry)?
What arc t h e costs of continuing wet storage in the existing
rcactor pool(s)?
Uhat are the c o s t s per unit quantity o f SNI for dry storage d e vtces?
Uhat are the aniriral opcratlnj c o s t s associated with the existing
storage mode and/or an I S 1 SI ( w e t or dry)? What are the dccommis,ioniny c o s t s for the existing wet storage mode and/or an ISFSI
( w e t o r dry)?
wet
oq
t h
N J J ~ P $ q r r J i n < jIhr p v t r r ~ t l a l l m y a c l i on t k I C I C I . ~ I F I I of t l c ~ ~ m n l ~ r l n n iaIICrndtlVC(.
lnllinirir, % l a l t m . n t 1 % nu:k i n IO C l l l P n r l 50 5 4 ( t h ) i.unwrnlnp h ) w renrohnlzle 4 ~ 5 u r m r euI'1 be
p r n k i t l w l Ih.tt Iurils Y I I I L r r u r l l ~ b l ? l o nrinayr dnd pror!de fumllnq fur Ihc ruenl fuel b p i s crplrr,
" l o r rrperrttny i,ut.ledr w e e r i ~ ~ l r r r Irt *. 1!cenree s h a l l , na
l i o n 01 \be r r i ~ t t va,,crrliny IIcenst
l a t e r 1h.m 'I p a r % brlore rbylrallon 01 thc rraclor opcrrtlnq Ilcensc. s u h l l r r l t t ? n nollflcallnn I n
: t ~ rtmt\,!on i c r i t s r e v i w a n 4 ~ r @ l l m l n r r approval
g
ni the praprun by which Ih Ilcnnrse Intends
1 1 , nn,l.yt
rncl proviilr l u n . l i q lor Ihp n a n e p w n t 01 i l l trrddiited fuel & t thr r e b c l n r upon cxrlr*'
!loo 01 the r c n r t o r operrtlnp llrentr u n t l l t ~ t l rt o ~ t m ! I r r b d l l l n l l u t l and poqwislun o f lhc fuel
tinml ( m l r t l o n r c v l c ~* I l l be
1 9 t f a r v \ I e v t v ~ ll a t h ' r c c r c t r r r o f (orryy for I t s ullimalr rlIspon11
u n h r i a b e n a, p t r t 111 a n y prurerdinp lor cuntintird I i r m s t n g u n i b r Par1 50 or r ~ I ? i 1)u IItcnsrr
w $ t h w n % t ? a I vt o hlil Ilul It#!e I F t l w l d t l l o n i r l l l he ~ o n s l % l r f ir ll l h NRf l W u \ r l W n l R for
I).
4.3
Pr.e.s.ent..Ya?!re...l
i.f.u:.Cyclc,.C,P.L~A ~1 . I.K~...lii.
f.cr.nst.Sru._far.SNLSt~sn9e
Ihe present value o f t h r t o t a l storage system l i f e - c y c l e cost can be
e s t lmatcd f o r each system, i o r purposes o f comparison.
l h e f o l l o w l n y expres.
sion y i e l d s the present value o f the l i f e - c y c l e c o s t f o r the case of u t l l l l i n y
the spont f u e l p o o l u n t l l the t o t a l liiventory o f SNF has liven t r a n s f e r r e d to
DO1 ,
N
PV * D,,o +
c
DuI/(l+k)'
t
DD,/(ltk)h
1.1
whcre O,,, i s the c o s t o f l s o l a t l n y the silent f u e l pool from the r e t i r e d p l a n t
systems; Dc8, I s the annual o p e r a t i n g costs o f the we1 storage f a c i l l t y i n
constant d o l l a r s o f Year 0; k i s the net discount r a t e ( i n t e r e s t minus i n f l a t i o n ) which I s assumed constant ovor the storage p e r i o d ; i Is the number o f
years sincc r e a c t o r shutdown f o r whlch the operatlons c o s t s are being c a l c u 1ai.ed; and ti i s the number o f years a f t e r r e a c t o r shutdown r e q u i r e d f o r the
o n - s i t e i n v e n t w y t o reach zero. Once tho Inventory i s zero, the existlng
storage f a c i l i t y i s decommissioned, a t a cost o f DOp, I n constant Year 0
dollars.
A s i m i l a r e x p r e i $ i o n can be used t o c a l c u l a t e the present value o f the
l l f e - c y c l e cost o f u l i l l t i n g the spent f u e l pool u n t i l the h o t t e s t fuel
assemblles can be s a f e l y placed i n t o d r y storage, then u s i n g dvy storage u n t i l
the t o t a l i n v e n t o r y o f SNF has been t r a n s f e r r e d t o ODE.
N
wherr n i s the numhcr o f years a f t c r r e a c t o r shutdown l h a t the hottest SNf
must con1 before being placed Into dry storage; I)+, is the cost of creating
and loadlng the dry ISFSI In Year n; 0,, i s the annual cost o f operating and
maintaining the dry I S F S I ; and OD, i s the cost o f decomnirrioning the dry
ISFSI, ill values in Year 0 dollars. Other terms are as doflned above.
Because tho c v t s o f deactivating and decomnissionlng the pool are included in
the normal plant decomnissionlng costs, they are not coited in t h e x i l i f e cycle cost analyses.
lhe ostimated annual costs o f operating the SNF storage pool or the
I S f S I storage faclllty are given in Table 0.4. The cost o f separating the
spent fvel p o o i systems from the balance o f plant systems i s estimated t o be
ahout 10.5 mllllon, and operatlng and maintainlng the spent fuel storage pool
]&?La
u,j.
Istimated SNF Storage Oporatlonal Costs at the Reference PUR( a . b l
D. 18
during safe storage o f the rerl n f tho plant i s estimated to be 14.1 million
per year, as given in Table 0.4. The net discount rate i s assumed to be 3%
per year, and the duration o f pool operations i s assumed to be 14 years (i,e.,
SNF inventory has reached zero: see Table 0.3). With these assumptions, the
present value o f the SNF pool operatlons until the inventory has reached zero
is evaluated to be about $48 mlllion, without contingercy.
Similarly, tha initial cost o f establlshlng a dry lSFSl (Dd0) during Year
6 includes the capital costs o f casks, transporters, and other handling equtp.
ment, plus the labor costs of loadlng the Wf into the casks and transporting
the casks to the ISFSl location for storage. Assuming a pool inventory o f
1136 assemblies, sturage capacity for about 541 metrlc tonncs o f uranium (MlU)
is required. Eased on data from Reference 9, the estlmatcd cost o f storage
capacity i s about $65,00O/MTU for about 49 concrete casks, for a total cost o f
about 135 million, expended during Year 6. fquipment and storage pads/
fences/etc. would cost about an additional $ 5 million during Year 6. The
labor costs for removing the SNF from the pool and placing i t in the l S f S l
durinq Year 6 are estimated to be about $0.3 million. Thus, the tot,al initial
would be about $43.3 million
c o s t o f establishing and loading the lSFSl
in Year 6, wlthout contingency. l,abor and noli-personnel c o s t s associated with
ISFSI operation (O,,,)are estimated tn be about $2 million per year.
[)ecommrssioning costs for tho ISFSI (OO,,) is estimated to be about 10% o f the
capital c o s t , or almut 14 million during Ycar 15, The first 7 years o f pool
%torag('results in an initial cumulative cxpenditure o f aoout I27 million
(present value). Added t o those inttial pool costs are the large Initial
capital t o r t o f the I S T S I (133 million, present value), !ne cumulative present
valuc! o f the I S f S l operating c o s t s (110.6 million) and the present value of
15151 decommissioning cost.$ (12.6 mi11 ion). The resulting present value of
SNI storagr oporations utiliztnq 7 years o f pool storage and 7 years o f dry
c a s k storage Is about 1 7 3 million, without continyency. lhus, for the
relatively short storaqe time considered in this analysis, i t . is more t o s t
effictive to store the SNf in thr fuel rtoragc pool than to build a dry I S f S I .
ilowcver, i f the storage period were t o be w t c n d e d to 40 years o r greater, the
p r e w n t value c o l t u f the iSfSI would i m o m c less than that o f the spent fuel
p o o l , as shown In Flgure 0 . 7 . where t h e prosent value of tho r u m u l a l l v P c o s t s
for pool operation and For pool plus dry l S F S l operatinn and decohmlssloning
a r e shown for 40 yedrs following reactor shutdown.
70
10
30
Years Following Reaclor Stiuldowti
fL6.UR.E.D J .
Present Value Costs for SNF Storage Operrtions
0.20
40
lo determine the cooling time required before fuel from Irojan could be
placed in dry stordye a t the site, the assumption Wac, made that the fuel would
be stored in metal storage casks (which may or may not be transportable). The
requlrcd time delay following disrharge befure spent fuel c a n be placed into
the dry cask storage is primarily a function of the fuel burnup and reactor
oprratlng history (with a small sensitivity t o inltial enrichment). I h e first
strp in the approach taken to estimate the required delay time was to develop
a curve of maximum clai'!ing temperature for fuel stored in metal casks as a
function o f the decay heat output rate (watts/HlU). Data from three experimental proyrams at I N l l were exami led. wherein fuel rod cladding temperatures
were Inferred from measurements. lhese data sets Included:
An average value o f 0.4582 HTll/a~rumbly, derived from data con
t a lned in UOL/RL-90-44, Spmt-f.uL.&cs, raseRenuirenco~s_1999r29.49"6'
for the fuel used in the cask tests, based o n fuel from Surry
Reactor. Castor-V/21 28 kW heat load, 21 assemblies, 9.622
HTU/iask load, for a heat loading o f 2910 uatts/HTU and a maximum
cladding temperature of 3 5 2 , 368, and 424'C for cask atmospherss o f
he1 ium,nitrogcn, or vacuum, respectlvely, extracted from l P R l HP4 88 7 I he &5.t !?trY1.2 1. PYR. SPenlsL!&l~ sfnruc-cask; -InrUn¶.-nnd
An aJr $.tk.
1
4
NC.10 12.6 kU heat load, 24 assemblies, 10.9972 HlU/cask load, for
a heat loading o f 1146 watt$/HlU and a maximum cladding temperature
of 139, 181, and 217'C for cask atmospheres of helium, nitrogen, o r
vacuum, respectively, extracted from EPRl NP-5?,$7, .J&l.Lcr.lQ.PJB
Spent: ~.!J.K! .. 5\.Qragt..LJ,skt...
le$!! Q g .SOBoh!Y.~i.S
lN.24P 20.5 kU heat load, 24 assemblies, 10.9972 MIU/cask load, for
a heat loadlng of 1862 watts/MlU and a maximum cladding temperature
o f 221, 2 4 1 , and 290'C
for cark atmospheres of helium, nitrogen, or
vacuum, respectively , ex t rac ted from EPR I NP. !i&fj, I-~g-&~Q..p_W.H
S N ot.:E tiel.. .Sf 0 r~ase..c a.&t .I.tst,r. ng-and h a ! Yzel .
lhese average heal loadings were plotted versus the maxlmum cladding
temperature Inferred from the measurements on each loaded cask, to obtain a
curve of mawrmum cladding temperature versus fuel decay heat emission rate, as
shown in Figure 0 . 3 .
D.21
0
300
400
Mnxitniriti Clirtkling Tutuporaturo ( C)
100
100
600
51306081 I ?
[lFuH[ y , ) .
Decay Ileat [ m i s s i o n Rate a s a f u n c t i o n o f Maxfmum Cladding
Temperature f o r PUR Fuel Stored In M e t a l Casks
Ihu 5erond step w a s
to c a l c c l l a t e tho allowable maximum temperatijres f o r
two l e v e l s o f I n t e r n a l f u e l r o d p r e s s u r i r a t i o n , f o r c o o l l n y times o f 2 t o
5 years. Assuming the uw o f standard 17x17 Westinghouse f u e l asscniblles,
w i l h rod i n t e r n a l gas pressure o f 1293 p s l w h i l e o p e r a t i n g w l t h the gals tem.
pi!rature a l 3 W C , h o t c l a d d i n g hoop stresses i n the ranye from about 100 t o
120 MPa f o r c l a d d i n g temperatures ranging from about 300 t o 470°C were c a l c u .
l a t r t l . l h c maximum a l l o w a b l e c l a d d i n g temperature d u r i n g d r y storago w a s
calculatctl u s i n g the methodology y l v e n i r , f'NL6639, OA.I.ING-,:J~ 5~mpUt.prGPQQ
f o r , Oetcrm i.n inq..N !owah1e..! emper.alli.rc> .for_Vr~
.SIOcese,..s!_S~cn~
.IveLia 1n.?.rtr
pnd t I j trvp;n,.Ca.se). '''01 Postulating a r t o r a q e p e r i o d o f 300 years t o a v o i d any
sensitivity to storage d i i r a t l o n , the allowable c l a d d i n g temperatures were c a l .
c u l a t e d f o r f u p l w i t h c , o o l l n g t i m e s rangin? from 2 to 5 years, f o r assumed
clatlding hool, stresses r a n q i n g from 50 t o 120 MPa.
calculation,
The r e s u l t s o f these
are shown i n l a b l e 11.5, f o r hoop stresses o f 100 and 120 MPa.
0.22
lAfiEALJ, Calculated Allowable Cladding Temperatures In Dry StorJgo
".-CM_1M1&LU9Ks_l-
-2,
-3-
9_
-5.-
Max. Temp. C'( 0 100 MPa)
Max. Temp. (@C @ 120 MPa)
401
388
392
380
385
314
371
363
Because the difference between the measured and calculated cladding
temperatures in the cask tests discussed earlier tended l o be In the vicinity
o f 30"6, a safety factor o f 3OoC was subtracted from the above values,
resulting in allowable value5 ranginq from 371 to 333%.
Nominal values o f 340 and 375OC were selected as a reasonable range of
cladding temperatures t o consider for limits, taking into account the safety
factor. M a x i m m allowable decay heat rates for shielding temperatures of 3 4 0
and 375'C werc read from t h n curve of Decay Heat versus Cladding Temperature
(Figure 0.3) to be ahout 2690 arvJ 3000 watts/MTU, respectively.
I o determine thc required cooling times for spent fuel having differing
lcvelr o f burnup and initial enrichment, calculated data on decay heat
clrnlrsiori were w a d from tables contained in Hegulatory Guide 3.54, Sfignt.fucl
!leg!, ,. Gc,!i!:rnf
i.w .!.n
,a? .. lnd,cuend.~o~...5r?enf,,..tucl
.Zf,ar~~e..Inital.Lhf,l~n
I?,) f o r
cooling times o f 1 , 2, 5, and IO years, at burnups o f 18, ?8, 33, 40, 46, 50,
and 55 cWD/MIU, ani1 for initial enrichments of 2.5, 3.3, 4.0, and 4.5 t; '.'"U
in the f u e l . lhose data were plotted on a log-log scale and smooth curves
w c w drawn throwjh the points. The cooling times required fnr decay heat
emission rater o f 2690 and 3000 wat.ts/MlU, as redd from the curves for each
level o f burnup and 'nitla1 enrichment, are tabulated in Table 0.6. Those
values of requiri!d cooling timc! were plotted and the (eyeball-fit) curve o f
coolinq time in year'!, as a function rf fuel burnup i s shown in Figure D.4.
Information on the projected numbers of fuel assemblies having various
levels o f birrnup that will be discharged from the Trojan reactor during its
last 1 years of operation was obtained from the Spent Fuel Storage Requirements ieport,""' which contains the spent fuel Inventories and inventory
projections for all U + S . commercial nuclear power plants made by the Energy
0.23
JA&l_IL6.
Required Coollnq T ~ R I R Sa 3 functions o f Initial Fnrichment and
Cumulative Burnup, f o r Two Maximum Cladding Temperatures
Ini t i a1 Enr lchment
-- A L 2.5
2.5
3'3
4.0
4.0
4.5
4.5
Cumulative Burnup
ICWDIHLUL
2.30
3.20
3.70
4,40
5.40
6.05
7.50
18
29
J3
40
46
50
55
2.15
2.90
3.35
3.90
4.70
5-20
6.30
/
f
[l@,J&QJ.
Required Cooling Time as a Function o f fuel h r n u p f o r Maximum
Cladding TemoWltUres o f 3dO'C and 375'C.
f o r Various Initial
Inr ichment i
0.24
I
Information Administration ( E I A ) . These projections are based upon a certain
set o f assumptions EIA has developed for estimrting future inventories o f S N f .
lhese estimates may
reflect the current expectations o f any given utility.
for purposes o f this study, given the burnupr as w o j e c t e d by I I A o f the fuel
in the last seven discharges from Trojan (including the fuel in the core a t
final shutdown), the required cooling times in the reactor pool, before the
fuel could be safely placed in dry storage in a metal cask, were read from the
curve. the actual cooling times of the assemblies at the time of final
shutdown were subtracted from the required cooling timer read from the curve
in figure 0.4. T h e resulting additional cooling timer followlag reactor
shutdown for the fuel assemblies from the last seven discharges from Trojan
are tabulated in Table D . 1 .
J&LL-QJ.
Required Cooling Times following final Shutdown, for L a s t
Seven Oirchrrges from Trojan Reactor
6f
&.s cm
. b 1 I E.$
Burnup
NO.
D!xhnrsc.Pale
January 2010
Iebrciary 201 I
March
t
'
32
3
-,
9
32
LYIIDLHIUI
S h L h LrearA
68,533
56,000
56,000
48.68R
0
1028
1.28
0.62
2.40
2.40
1.66
3.49
3.49
2.68
4.43
4.43
3.60
5.30
5.30
4.21
5.88
5.88
2.08
3.98
5.00
6.82
>8.5
2012
March 2013
March 2014
October 2014
December 2015
9
32
3
9
32
3
9
16
2
56,437
40,511
56.043
56,043
48,163
55,513
55.573
48; 163
55,573
55,573
16.222
32;443
45,462
54,012
60.058
4
48
4&
48
40
1
hI'KE(;/cW.5RRI, \.'Ill. 2
0.25
Cooling lime
After final
Based on t h i s analyrls., t h o f i i r l pnnl r n i i l i l not h r f l ~ i r l l yomptlrd t i n t i 1
a t least I yoarr f o l l o w l n i j r u a r t o r shutdown, I f tho SNf I s lort tined f o r dry
t t o r a y e o n s l t e . (tlowever, I t should bo r o c o g n i i o d l h r t t h e Contract allows a
u t i l l t y l o d e l l v e r ‘to @Of 5.year old Stif without r o r t r l c t l o n s . ) I h e olio
acscmbly r e q u l r l n g more than 8 years cooling may bo an anomaly r c s u l l l n c ) from
t h e flA’s p r o J e c t l o n o f SNI d l s r h a r g o r . Irr any event, somo means miqhl bo
found t o accommodate that r r m n h l y ( I f i t exlrts), pcrhap, by shlypiny t o somk
other pool f o r a lchw yoars.
I f the shutdown plant i s a t a irvlti-unit nuclear site, such as in
the case o f Uvesden-1, tho c o s t s o f storing spent fuel will be
relatively low and roughly equivalent t o those for an operating
plant. (Tho refcrance PUR, Trojan, i s not a m u l t l . u n l t nuclear
rlte.)
I f the utillt owns other nuclear plants, i t can conslder transrhipmont of t e spent fuel from the shutdown plant t o i t s remaining
operatin nuclear plants. Such a transfer could reduce c o r t s I
especial y I f the federal repository gets further and further
delayed. [For tho purport, o f this study, it i s assumed that the
reference PUR'S owners cannot conslder transshipment o f the reactor's fuel to another o f Its nuclear plants because the reactor
i s the only nircloar plant owned by the utility,]
K
3
I f the rhutdowii plant 1 s at J site whero other power generatlon
units are located, such as In tho c a w o f ilumboldt Bay and
Lal~'oirc, tho c o s t s o f storiny spent nuilcar fuel are reduced
bccauru securlty and maintenance services are avallable already.
(At prurent. tho reforrnce PUR Is exclusively a nuclear generating
aitc'.
*
I
U t m the .ihuldown plant i s large in s i l o , as i s the case o f the
riife,'ance PWH. there could IJI!Incentives l o repower the plant with
o t h w types o f fuel. Such ropowering i s w o n more a'tractlvo i f
the nuc.lear ptsnt can be dacontamlnatod and decomissIoneJ. Ihe
Nil( rcyulations provide for two principal alternatives after a
reactor has bccn shut down and dofueled:
i11CON
Ihi\ ofition requires that tho fuel ti(! shipped off-site.l"'
Ih(! q u ; p r n m t , structures, and p o r t i o n s o f the farillty and s i t e con.
t a i n l n g r w l l i i ~ i c tivi! cntrtaminmtc are rcrnovcvl or dcrontaminatod l o c\
Ievi!I that pormlts the property l o be r eased for irnrertricted uw
rlicirliy *iftrr rc;,ation o f cipi!rst,ions.
[this means that tho
r~c~fr.rnnci*
i)lant (Iroj%iri)(',tttnot tic! dmnnl.aminatcil and r c l e a w d from
r'fliJIJlat(lr.y c ' n t r ~ ) l il i n t i l I t s f i i o l i s , $ ~ ~ l i i w ~ , In the O r 1 optton,
t h i s , cannot o(.(.ut' unl,il a t I(uart 2029,
some 14 years a f t e r final
r v t i c t i i v *,hiitiiown, iirilc!$s anoltior opllcin for o l f s i t e spcnt f i w l ItoratjP
t w \ I i l u ~ ~ I I Ppvrrnanivit 001 rcpo5itory tan tic dcvclojwil. In this study,
t h i l ( I f 1 o l r t i i i r t 1s dsrtinic!d to Iir thi! most r c ~ \ i . $ . t \ rC, A S U . On tht. othcr
ttsind, d i i v t o thc! i>x(tianqv procii;~ c:ontaineil I n t h e L o n t r a c t , lhi- mo\t
r'i'
- This option permits placing the f a c i l i t y in a s a f e storage
condition f o r u p t o 60 years. Fuel may be s t o r e d i n the fuel pool.
According t o informatlon contained I n Reference 6, Trojan's 1 Iconsod/
maximum fuel pool capacity of 1408 assemblies ( l n c l u d l n g f u l l core
r e s e r v e ) w l l l occur i n 2004, with a t o t a l a d d i t i o n a l capacity needed
f o r 4 7 2 assemblies \tirough 2014. The end of p l a n t l i f e i s projected
by EIA t o be 2015,'"' However, as preulously shown i n Table 0.2, the
reference PUR will have adequate pool c a p a c i t y t o accommodate Its
remalning inventory wlthout the need f o r a d d l t l o n a l storage capab i l i t y , assumlng DOt receives SNf beginning i n 1996 and a t the rates
qlven i n Table 0.I .
. SAfSTOR
l o dtllermine the m l n l m u m SAFSTOR perlod f o r t h e r e f e r e n c e FUR, i t i s
the reference PUR'S fuel pool, under,
tho IO C I H Part 50 posression.only l i c e n s e , a f t e r f i n a l r e a c t o r shultlo\tn i n
a=,,ruiced thdt the SNf remains stored i n
C Y ?015.1i'1 lticn, the m l n l m u m S A r S l O R period f o r t h e reference PUR, without
us(! of the [ ) C S e x c h m l e proci'ss, can be defined a s t h e time between the year
o f i'o,ic.tor rtluthwn, i n (.V 1015. a n d tho year i n which the l a s t shipments
i n C Y 7 0 1 9 , o r 14 years.
III'~IIP
I t i 5 I u r t h e r conrludcd t h a t Immedlale dismantlement (DfCON) In t h 2
o x a t t (am(* manncr a \ defined I n t h v orlgirial PUR study'"' does not appear I O
lw viatile I i u c a u w dc!~.ommissioninycannot start inunedlately a f t e r f i n a l r e a c t o r
sliutiiown without rc,moval o f t h e stored S N f
Based $rpon the est lmatcd SNf
c t m l lnq t irnv cincily\l*, I t w c n t e d i n Section 0 . 5 , the ftrcl pool c o u l d not be
f i n a l l y c m l i l \(Ill l i n t i I a t l i ! d i t . 7 ycnrr fol lcrwln~)rei\clor shutdown ticcauso o f
( " I d d d i n r j t o m p w ; i t i i w l i m i ~ , a t l o n rfor dry s t u r a q e . 1tw t r a n s f e r o f the fuel
from t h e p o o l i n t o J r v s t o r d q c C O U ~ Iproccrcl
~
beqlnniiig a t shutclown, .inti con.
I i n w lhrnu~iliiiut t'te i n 1 irvc.rlincj y r a r r u n t l l the f i n a l asscynbl I e s wertt
r ' l ~ m o v l ~ d ;o r . ' ''. ~ r ~ i n r l et rf the fur1 (:tiuld lie rloncb i n
:in!jle campaign,
t i c y i n n i n q dlioul \c'vrn ycbar: . I t v r shutdown.
.
I.
lor. Iiurporrs of 1 h i \ \ t u d . i t i s aswmrrl t h a t t h e spent fuel pool i s
rnalnld/nc!il iindrr t t w O
I' L at111 I s t y t ronvwtwl I r i t o an NRC.1 icensc!d ISISI under
10 ( I H I'drt I ? , w'iicli rnl!jtit allow I m e d i a t e dismantlcmunt o f thc remainder o f
,. .
!hi
{Lll't
I.,
,)I.l*l
.,*.
1
.. ..
lh I w r t i y I t ) i i r n r t t i w
8C.ll"'t,l
,,I
41.1'.*1.1111'*
At*ini%trt t \ w ' <
R 11',.1
11,
i ~ v o 1 v\ * . c I
) * , A ,t r f
Iig*rl
~ . h ~ t , i t , w r tIII,
iltt*
Irtltan
the f a c i l i t y . I h o reasons provided by the NRC f o r not assuming converslon or
tho e x i s t i n g f u e l pool i n t o a l i c e n s e d wet-storage ISFSl i n t h i s study are:
I n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e NRC d e f i n i t i o n o f decommissioning does not
a l l o w coriverslon t o a P a r t 72 l i c e n s e . The l i c e n s e must remain a
P a r t 50 l i c e n s e u n t i l t h e r e a c t o r I s decontamlnated and t h e s i t e
restored f o r u n r e s t r i c t e d USR.
Conversion t o a P a r t 72 l i c - s e i s a c o s t l y and d i f f i c u l t undertaka
tng and separating t h e t e a c t o r components from those needed t o
support a wet.ISFSI u s u a l l y cannot be done i n a s a t l s f a c t o r y way t o
cnsure the h e a l t h and s a f e t y d u r i n g t h e r e a c t o r dismantlement
process because areas and equipment that support spent f u e l pools
have c o m o n a l i t y w i t h t h e e x i s t i n g r e a c t o r ; dlsmantlemtnt o f the
r e a c t o r c o u l d compromise the i n t e g r l t y o f the wot.1SrSr.
C o s t s f o r m a i n t a i n i n g a P a r t 50 possession o n l y l i c e n s e (POL) can
he reduced by amendments o r exemptions as requested by licensees
w i t h shutdown r e a c t o r s , Amendments o r exemptions have been made
f o r r e d u c t i o n o f o n - s i t e property darnagc Insurance and t h e s t a f f i s
a l s o c o n s i d e r l n g s i m i l a r requests f o r l i a b i l i t y insurance,
The m o d i f i e d OfCON a l t e r n a t i v e developed f o r this study e n t a i l s t r a n s f e r r l n g the S N I , d f t e r an adoqiiale c o o l i n g p e r i o d , t o an a t . r c a c t o r . s i t e ISFSI
( d r y - c a s k storaye), which i s licensed undcr P a r t 72, f o l l o w e d by decommission.
i n y o f t h r reference r e a c t o r f a c i l l t y . It is f u r t h r r asstined t h a t the
a t r ~ a c t o r ~ ~ ISISI
i t c h a s frit!) t r a n s f e r c a p a b i l l t y I n case o f emergencies a s
l o n g a s f w l i q o n s i t e ; however, i t should be r c c o g n l i e d t h a t no l i c e n s e d d r y storage t w h n o l o g y r u r i m t l y provides such capabil i l y .
I t i s important t o note here that there I s a d e f i n i t e i n t e r a c t i o n
I w l r e c n derommisrioning decisions and any f i n a l s e l e c t l o n f o r port-shutdown
r t o r a q e o f a sprnclfic r e a c t o r ' s $pc.nt f u e l , I f r e q u i r e d . Such d e c i s i o n s must
i n c l u d r c o n s i d n r a t i o n (if t h r f i n d l d i s p o s i t i o n schedule of the f u e l w i t h i t i the
context o f t h r o v e r a l l l c t i e r a l w d i t r manaycment system.
l h e r e i u l t s o f the dnalyses prc>sented i n t h i s appendix r e a l i s t i c a l l y
reflcct l h e a v a i l a b l c decommissioning alternat,lves f o r t h c r e f e r e n c e PUR.
It
5liould be r e c o g n i i e d , howrvrr. t h a t the s i t u a t i o n described i n t h i s appendix,
w i t h regard t o spent fuel r t r i r a y r and i t s eventiral d e l i v e r y t o DOF, i s
y r c d i t a t c d on ttie c u r r e n t r e y l a t n r y environment and on s i t e - s p e c i f i c t n f o r .
mation a r s o t i a t c d w i t h the reference PUR. Therefore, t h e conclusions reached
h e r e i n concerning d c c o m i s s l o n i n g a1 t e r n a t l v e s f o r the reference PUR may n o t
be the same f o r other PUR pornr s t a t i o n s .
D 7
R
L
F
I
f
a
ix
s
1.
C&ap..nf-Fx&ral
8
RegfiLd.iap.$, T i t l e IO, P a r t 50, "Domestic Llcenslng o f
Productlon and Utilization F a c i l i t l e s , " Superlntendent o f Documents, GPO,
Washington, D.C., January I , 1990.
2, G.Odc-..~f.
j:&&r&&fl&io.af,
T i t 1e IO, P a r t 72, " 1icen s 4 ng R e w Irement 5
f o r t h e independent Storage o f Spent Nuclear' fuel and Nigh-Level Radioa c t i v e Waste," Superintendent o f Documents, GPO, Washington, D.C.;
January I , 1990.
3 . "Nuclear Waste P o l i c y A c t o f 1982," P u b l i c l a w 97-425 (January I , 1983).
4. U . S , Department o f Energy, "Standard Contract f o r Disposal o f Spent
Nuclear f u e l and/or H i g h - l e v e l Radloactlve Waste,"
Reguiatlons. l i t l c IO, Part 961 (1990).
Code o f redera1
5.
U.S. Departmcnt o f I n e r g y , "Annual Capacity Report," 00f/RU-O294P, O f f i c e
o f C i v l l Ian Radioactive UuStc Mansgemcnt, Washington, O.C. (December
1991).
6.
U.S. [Iepartment o f Cnorgy, "Report to Conyress on Reassessment o f t h e
C i v i l i a n Radioactive Uaste Management Program," DOT/RW-0247, Washington,
U . C . (Novcmber 1989).
1 . "Niiclcar Waste k l l c y Amendments A c t o f 1987," I i t l e V , S u b t i t l e A,
I'uhlic: l a w 100.203 (Oecemhw 22, 1987).
8 . t l o ~ 1~.043a(ro).
/ ~
1990. m m . q r c i 4 i . NW
K.PQ!'!Cr..~9.9O. .:~.PrPSPPc.t.~...f,OT
ttic. ~ ~ i i l . ~ ( j . S ! ~ ? t e i , , , b,jhq..Wgr,)jj.
n!J
U . S . Ikpartmcnt o f Encrgy Report by
I r w r q y tnfnrmat i o n A d m i n i r t ; . 3 t i n n , Uashington. O . C .
9 . U . S . Ocpartment o f tncrgy, O f f i c e o f C i v i l i a n R&jloactlve Waste Managem m ! , I ina! .Yers!gri, Ury . C . a s k . . $ \ o r , ~.$(!u...y,
'~~
fcbruary 1989 (00[/Rw-02?0).
. .
10. U S Oc;tar t mcn t o f Inc rgy , QC IMM N i s s i.911 P,! an,.,A.mcnJm_~n , I)OI/RU . O 128.
U a ~ h q i i q i wI).(..,
,
1987, l i p . 111 an4 112.
I I . u . S . thic.Ir ar Rrqulatory ( ~ i i i ~ i n l s ~ [!ntll
i ~ i n ~ Gi~n!!r!c.ln.vIrorimi.n141 ~ l m p a ~ t
5 , t ~ t r . i y n.!#n
t ilandl ing an!] Storage uf, 3ppnt ..L.l9!!t-.yaicr..!!pw~r. I(t>:i.ctot:
[iif;l,,
N U H I G . O S I 5 . Uashington. U . L . , 1979.
I?.
~..~~~c..nf,,.~.~~!~~jI,_R~e~~.!a,~,i,o~',,
l i t l c 10. Part 7 1 , "Packag'ng and I r a n s p o r t a t i o n o f Hddiciact i v c Material 5 , " Siiiicr intcndent o f I)ocumcnts, GPO,
Washington. U . L U b January I , 1990.
0.30
13.
U . S . Nuclear Regulatory Conunlsrion, " R o v i e w and Final Rovlsion of Warla
Confidence Decision," f e d e i ' d l Keyislor-, Vol, 55, Nu. 181, September 18,
1990.
14. H. 14, Klepfer and R. W . Bowser.
"Rancho Seco Spont Fuel Dispositlon
Proceedings o f the Second Annual International Conference on
t l l l l ~ ~ V 9 ! - . ~ ~ i , p g '.as
6 ~Vegas,
~ , 1Nevada,
~ ~ ~April
~ ~28,
May 3, 1991.
Strategy."
-
15.
Sturz. 'Dry Spent Fuel Storage Licensing at Reactor S i t e s . " In
Proceodings o f the Institute o f Nuclear Materials Management Spent Fuel
Hanaqement Seminar V I I I , January 16-18, 1991, Washington, D . C .
16.
DOE;RL~90.44. S n s n t L u e l - ~ S f n r 4 9 a ~ ~ ~U. ~
S ~DePal
~ o tment
~~~
of Energy, Richland Operations Office, Richland, Washington (November
1990).
17.
f.
I
S R Rod *
8
1991
a
~~~.~,
~QS~-.Lsll~aS~~-sf..DP.e~95_1n9.~zi~~.SP.~,t_f.~l~
? . f t r r _ . f ~ n d _ L R . f i ~ ~PNL-7778,
. ~ - ~ h ~U ~. S .~ Department
~.
o f Energy Report
by Pacific Northwest Laboi-atory, Richland, Washington.
18. J . M . Creer, et a). I rhe.~d~.t~1:.Y~~2l..e~~!efl.t..~~~.~~~saZhzktle~llns
~ad.~An~J_lus.p.s,
NP.4887, tiectric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
Gal ifornia, November 19$6,
19. M. A. McKinnon, e t a1 . * I~H€rlP..PWR_SP~-~.EurLS_tQr_n.sc-Cds.k;-.l~rting
knd..?p.d,y$.,if, NP - 5268, I 1 ec t r ic Power Re search I nst i tu t e , Pal o A1 to,
California, July 1987.
20.
21.
27,
23.
24.
APPtNDlX E
APPrNDlX E
RLACTOH PRESSURE VESSEL AND INTERNALS OISHANTLEHENT 4NfLUZJ59L
&j
1'V 1 T I E$ L .K N m & D COS TS
The levels of neutron-activation in the metallic reactor pressure vessel
(RPV) aiid its internals vary greatly with proximity to the fueled region of
the vessel. Those components located close to the fueled region are very
highly activated, with some segments being classified as Greater-Than-Class C
(GlCC) radioactive waste (10 CFR 6 1 . 5 5 ) . ( ' ) The CTCC material must be packaged for transport to and disposal in a geologic repository or other such disposal facility a s the Nuclear Regulatory Comnission may approve. Transport O f
the CTCC material to the repository is postulated to be accomplished using
spent fuel casks (NAC-I.WT and IN-8, containing 1 and 2 canisters per shipment,
respectively, because o f weight limitations on the cask payload). Other components, located sume distance from the fueled region, are still strongly
activated but are classified as Class B or C waste and require packaging for
shielded transport to and disposal in a licensed low level waste (LLW) burial
s i t c . Still other portions o f these components are only slightly activated
and are classified a s Class A waste, acceptable for unshielded transport to a
L L W burial site. In this analysis, the activation analyses for the reference
PWR, originally presented in NUREG/CR.0130,'z1 are used to define the classification o f the various components and segments of those components, a s
described in Addendum 3 to NUREG/CR-O130,(') and the various segments are segregated for packaging according to their activity levzls.
The reactor pressure vessel (RPV) head and the upper core support assembly are removed and placed in their normal storage locations within the reactor containment area, prior to defueling. Following defueling, the lower core
assembly is removed from the RPV to the refuelrng cavity for disassembly.
Disassembly, sectioning, and packaglng of the RPV internal structures are carried on in the refueling cavity. Following the secticnjng and packaging of
the RPV internals, the RPV head is reinstalled and the RCS i s drained for the
NUREC/CR-S%&(,Y d . 2
E.l
hal: lor Comment
safe storage period. Section4ng and packaging of the RPV is delayed until the
deferred dismantlement period. The postulated procedures for these activities
are presented in this appendix, together with estimates o f the time and cost
o f these activlties.
E.l
L t C 01sASSfHBlY PLAN
To facilitate the disassembly and packaging operations, two plasma-arc
cutting systems are postulated to be installed inside the reactor containment.
One is mounted on the -efueling bridge, principally for major disassembly of
the core barrel and other internais. The second cutting system is mounted on
a separate bridge/manlpulator assembly at the far end of the refueling cavity,
together with a cutting table and appropriate jigs for holding the various
pieces during cutting operations in the refueling cavity. All cutting of
stainless steel materials with the plasma-Arc systems i s performed under
water, wit.h the exception of the insulation surrounding the RPV and the Reactor Coolant System (RCS) piping.
B?fore cutting o f the RPV internals begins, the reactor coolant is
deionized, removing the residual dissolved boron and other residual contaminants, to avoid many o f the difficulties encountered at T M I - 2 ( 5 1 and thereby
improve performance of the plasma-arc cutting torches. The refuel ing cavity
i s maintained filled with deionized water until removal, sectioning, and packaging o f the stainless steel RPV internals has been completed, after which it
i s drained and decontaminated.
Curing the deferred dismantlement period, a support structure is installed beneath the RPV, to support the RPV during the sectianing. The seal
between the RPV and the biological shield enclosure is removed, so as to
provide acc2ss f o r cutting the RCS piping at the nozzles, and for removing the
insulation surrounding the vessel prior to beginning sectioning o f the RPV.
following insulation remova\, the oxy-acetylene cutting of the RPV gets under
way. with the water level being maintained J u s t below the level of the cutting
operations. Cutting o f the RPV is performed in air within the concrete biological shield, using an oxy-acetylene cutting system. The oxy-acetylene
torch I S applied to the outside of the RPV, thereby avoiding any problems in
penetrating the stainless steel lining of the vessel. The vlability of this
approach was demonstrated by Lundgren") for cutting thick (9 i n . ) sections o f
carbon steel clad with thin stainless steel on one side.
The dinensions of the RPV and its internal structures used in these
analyses are derived from information given in the reference PWR report") and
from backup information supporting that report.
E.2
UPPER CORE SUPPO-
The Upper Core Supp,,rt Assembly, illustrated in Figure E.1, is comprised
of a top plate, 61 Control h:d Drive (CRD) guides, 79 support/mixer columns,
and a bottom plate (called the u p p r grid plate). The upper grid plate IS
postulatrid t o be CTCC mdterial. The rest of the assembly is classified as
Class A, Class B, or Class C material.
E. 2.1 ggj-.Qi&
Approximately 244 bolts which attach th? CRD guide collars to the top
plate o f the upper core support assembly are removed or broken off. The
61 CRD guides, which are 7.6 'n. dia. and 16'' in. in length, are removed from
the assembly by lifting up through the top p.ate and are placed on the rutting
table in the refueling cavity. Ihe lower 4 ft is cut from each tube and packaged for shielded shipment in an 8-1208 cask liner (62 in. OD x 72 in. high)
with a packaged volume of 126 ft3 or 3.6 m'.
The upper sections of the tubes
and the collars are packaged in 2 steel boxes (4 ft x 4 ft x 6 ft, packaged
volume of 142 ft' or 5.4 m') for unshielded shipment. One hundred twenty-two
cuts, lor 2,928 linear inches, are required.
E.2.2 1.0~Plate
The 48 nuts are removed from the top ends o f the support columns and
mixer columns, freeing the top plate from the rest of t h e assembly. The top
plate i s removed t o the cutting table for sectioning. The plate, which is
172 in. dia., is cut across the face on the 90-270 degree line, turned over
:si the support ring and webs severed on the same line. The two pieces are
packaged in a special U-shaped steel box (174 in. dia. x 210 in. long x 45 in.
I+
140 3 in
I
13 1.00in
59304067.24
I [email protected] 1 .
~
Upper Core Assembly
t .4
high, package volume o f 470 ft.3 or 13.3 m3) for tinshielded shipment. Seven
cuts, for 353 linear inches, are required.
The 316 bolts that attach the 79 support posts and mixing columns to the
upper grid plate are removed. The 79 columns, which are 7 . 6 In. dia. and from
126 to 134 in. in length, are removed to the cutting table and the lower 4 ft
of each column is cut off for packaging in an 8-1208 cask liner, together with
the bolts. lhe upper sections of the columns are packaged in four steel boxes
(4 f t x 4 ft x 6 ft packaged volume of 10.9 m’) for Iinshielded shipment. The
lower 4 ft of the columns are packaged In a cask llner for the 8-1208 cask
(packaged voluma of 3 . 6 m’) for shielded shipment. Seventy-nine cuts, for
1,896 linear inches, are required.
E.2.4
Upp.cr. Cri.d Plate
upper grid plate, which is 147.25 in. in diameter and 3 in. thick,
with 61 holes t h a t are 8.8 in. diameter and 132 holes that are 5.6 in. diameter, is placed on the cutting table for sectioning. The calculated fulldensity volirat o f the plate is:
Thp
(n/4)[(147.25)’
- 61(8.8)’
- 132(5.6)’] in. ? x 3 In. = 30,204 in. 3 , or 0.495 m’
lhe weiqht o f the p!ate i s :
30,204 in.’ x 0.29 lb/in.’ = 8,759 lb. o r 3,973 kg
This plate is cut into 8.5 in.-wide strips for packaging in the 9 in. x
9 in. x 180 in. long canisters postulated for GTCC material. The equivalent
of 10.4 strips are cut, which are loaded 2 strips per canister. Thus. 5.2
canisters are loaded. It i s assumed that the material leftover after filling
5 canistcrs can be placed into one of the other partially filled canisters, so
that thr packaged volume o f t b c upper grid plate is 5 canisters. Eighteen
cuts, for 2 , 1 1 5 linear inches, at: required.
The packaged volume, weight p w ranister, and effective packaged density
o f the material within the canisters are:
5.2 canisters x 0.24 m’ 1.25 m’.
3,973 kg / 5.2 canisters 764 kg/can, and
3,973 kg / I5.2 cans x 0.24 m’/can]
3,183 kg/m’
-
-
This markedly lower density reflects the poorer 16adlng efficiency and the
reduced average density o f the plate material due to the holes.
E.3
COWER CO RE ASltllaLy
The lower core assembly, illustrated in Figure E . 2 , i s comprised of the
upper core barrel, the lower core barrel with thermal shields, the core shroud
plates and shroud former plates, the lower grid plate, and the lower core support structure. ;his assembly I s unbolted from the RPV and liftcJ from the
RPV and placed upright on its stand in the refueling cavity. Disassembly and
packaging o f this assembly is described in the following subsections.
f.3.1
Qpg Core Barrel
Ihis coinponent is a cylindrical shell which surrounds the upper core
support assembly. The barrel has an outer diameter of 153.5 in., a length of
108 in., and a thickness of 2.5 in. Circumferential cuts are made in the
upper core barrel at distances of approximately 46 in. and 108 in. below the
barrel top flange. The rings are removed to the cutting table for further
sectioning, with the uppcr ring cut into 1 1 pieces, 46 in. x 46.7 in., for
packaging in two 4 ft x 4 ft x 6 ft steel boxes (packaged volume of 5.4 m3),
for unshielded shipment. The lower ring is sectioned into 10 pieces which are
62 in. in length (4 ea. 54 in. wide wlnozzle rings, 2 ea. 50 in. wide, 2 ea.
45 in. wide, 2 e a . 38 in. wide). The lower ring pieces are packaged ir 3 cask
liners (62 in. OD x 65 in. high) for the 8-1208 cask (packaged volume o f
3.1 m’), for shielded shipment. Twenty-three cuts, for 2,090 linear inches,
re required.
E .6
-ni
--172
Flange
413in
(Crucitorrn)
/ %%$&
Buit Type
Column
.f
\on-sot
Instrumenlation
Column
IGURL 1 . 2 . l o w e r Core Assembly
59304067.10
I .3.2
Tll.ermsl_ Shields
The thermal shields consist o f 4 segments o f stainless steel attachvd to
the outside o f the lower core barrel t o absorb neutrons and reduce the neutron
dose to the pressure vessel wall in those locations closest to the corners o f
the fuel core. All o f the shields are 148 In. In length and 2.8 in. thick.
Two o f the shields are 36 in. wide and two are 48 in. wide. The approximately
156 bolts attaching the thermal shields t o the outside o f the lower core
barrel are removed ?nd the shields removed to the cutting table for sectioning. Ihc full-density volume is:
148 in. x 2.8 in. x 2 (36
+
48)
in. = 69.619 In.’.
or 1 . 1 4 1 m 3
lhe weight o f the thermal shields is:
69.619 in.> x 0 . 2 9 lb/in.’ = 20,190 lb, or 9 . 1 5 8 kg
1/5
lhe shields are cut into strips 8.5 in. wide, and assembled into strips
in. in length, for packaging as GTCC material:
[36/8.5 = 4 strips plus a 2-in. strip] x 2
[ 4 8 / 8 . 5 = 5 strips plus a 5.5-in. strip] x 2
The total number o f strips i s : 2 (4 t 5 t 1 ) = 20 strips that are 148 in.
long. Asscnihling the strips into units 175 in. long yields:
20 x 148/175 = 1 7 strips
which can be loaded 3 strips per canister, for a total o f 6 canisters (pack
aged volume o i 1.4 m’, rounded to the noarest whole canister). Ihirty-four
cuts, for 2,800 linear inches, are required.
E.8
D d i for Cnmment
T b packaged volume, weight per c;nistcr,
and effective packaged density
o f the material within the canister are:
6 canlsters x 0.24 m 3
9,158 kg / 6 canisters
1 . 4 4 m’,
-
1,526 kg/canister, and
9,158 kg / [6 cans x 0.24 m3/can]
t.3.3
= 6,360 kg/m3
Shroud PI&&
I . ~ l e
The1.e components consist of flat plates 160.5 in. long which enclose the
fuel core vertically. Removal of the core shroud plates is accomplished by
removing the approximately 900 bolts holding the plates to the shroud former
plates. Disassembly o f the shroud plates is accomplished by removing t h s
apprJximately 17 bolts that hold each corner together and, if necessary,
nrikini a vertical cut i r one o f the wide plates to make enough space to permit
re.iova1 of the plate assemblies from the vessel. The plate assemblies are
mob d t o the rcfueliny cavity cutting table for removal o f the rest o f the
corner bolts and for sectioning.
The vertical plates are 0.75 in. in thickness and are in segments:
4 ‘ d . 7.75 in. wide, 12 ea. 8.5 in. wide, 8 ea. 17 in. wide, and 4 ed. 61 in.
wide. Thc full-density v o l m e is:
[4(7.75)
. lZ(8.5)
+
8(17)
+
4(61)] x 160.5 x 0.75 = 61,752
in.j,
or 1.012 m 3
Ihe weight o f the vertical plates is:
61,752 in.’ x 0.29 Ib/in.’ = 11,908 j b , or 8,123 kg
rhe vertical p l d t e s are cut into 8.5 in. ( o r less) wide strips For packaging
as G I C C malcrial. The strips. which are 160.5 in. long, when assembled into
175-in. strips yield an effective 56 strips. With 11 sirips per canister, the
1.9
number o f g-in.-square canisters is -u/ll
for 6,246 linear Inches, are requlred.
E.3.4
-
5.1 canisters. Ninety-one cuts,
Shroud f o rmer P 1 ater
Eight shroud former plates surround the vertical plates and fit against
the inside surface of the lower core barrel. The approximately 700 bolts
attaching the shroud former plates to the lower core barrel are removed, and
the shroud former plates are removed to the cutting table for sectioning.
The full-density volume of a former plate I s found by computing the rea
of a disk whose diameter f s that o f the inside o f the lower core barrel
(148 in.), minus the area occupied by the fuel assemblies and the vertica
shroud plates, and multiplying that area by the plate thickness (1.25 in.
([n/41(148)‘
- 186(8.5):
-
5 1 3 ( 0 . 7 5 ) ) in.*
x 1.25 in.
-
4225 in.’, or 0.069 m3
The weight of the eight shroud former plates is:
4225 in. I x 0.29 lb/in. 3
Y
8
-
9802 lb, or 4,446 kg
The shroud former plates are less regular in shape but can be arranged
into reasonably compact strips for packaging as CTCC material. The total
lenqth i s about 2640 in., which, when cut into 175-in. lengths, will yield
15.1 strips. Uith a thickness of 1.25 in., 6 strips can be loaded per canister, for a total of 2,: canisters. Twenty-six cuts, for 315 linear inches,
are roquired.
The leftover pieces from the shroud vertical plates ;,.e loaded into the
partially-loaded former plate canister, making a total of 5 t 3 = 8 canisters.
The total weight o f the core shroud and former plates is:
17,908 lb
t
9,800 lb
-
27,708 lb, or 12,568 kg,
and the full-density volume is:
E.10
D d lor Commenl
1.012 m’
t
8(0.069 m’)
-
1.566 m’,
The packaged volume, weight per canister, and effective packaged density
of the material are:
8 canisters x 0.24 m’/can
-
1.92 m’,
12.568 kg / 8 canisters
1,571 kg/canlster, and
12,568 kg/[8 cans x 0.24 mJ/can) 6,546 kg/ml.
E.3.5
0
-
Lower Crid._P_!a&
lhe lower grid
with numerous holes
weight o f the lower
plate (ignoring the
plate is a disk 149.4 in. in diameter and 2 in. thick,
o f various sires. The reference PUR report gives the
grid plate as 3,946 kg, and the calculated volume o f the
holes) is:
[n/4](149.4)’
in.’ x 2 in.
-
35,061 in.’, or 0.575 m3.
The 384 b o l t s attaching the lower grid plate to the core support posts
are removed, freeing the plate from the rest o f the lower support assembly.
Ihe 60 bolts attaching the lower grid plate to the lower core barrel are
removed or broken o f f , freeing the plate from the core barrel. The grid plate
i s removed to the cutting table for sectioning.
Ihe grid plate is cut into strips 8.5 in. wide, and arranged into strips
having a total length of 2042 inches, for pa kac;lng a s CTCC material. Dividing t h i s length into strips 175 in. long yields 11.7 strips, which are loaded
4 strips per canister. Thus, approximately 3 canisters are filled. The leftover space can be filled with the scraps from other packages. Thirty cuts,
for 2,276 linear inc,hes, are required.
lhe packaged volume, weight per canister, and effective packaged density
o f the material within the canisters are:
E.ll
-
-
3 canisters x 0.24 m’/ran
0.72 m3,
3,946 kg / 3 canisters 1,315 kg/can, and
3,946 kg / [3 cans x 0.24 m3/can]
5,481 kg/m’.
-
This component is a cylindrical shell, 153 in. dia. which surrounds the
core, extending the distance between the upper and lower core plates
(160.5 in.), and is 2.5 in. in thickness. The full-denstty volume is given
by :
(n/4[(153)*
-
(148)’]) in.’
Y
203 in.
-
239,951 in.3. o r 3.932 in3.
The weight o f the core barrel is:
139,951 in.3 x 0.29 lb/in.:
A circumferential cut i s made
- 69.586
lb, or 31,563 kg.
in the lower core barrel just above the
core support forging, making a secticn approximately 203 in. high.
section is removed to the cutting table for sectioning.
The barrel
The core barrel is c u t (nto long strips that are 8.5 in. *;?e for pdckaging as GTCC material. The circumferenc2 of the core barrel is 153rr or
480.7 in., which when divided by 8.5 in. yields 56.5 strips, 203 in. in
length. lo package in the space available in the canister, the total length
of the ctrips is computed and divided by 175 in., t o obtain the effective
number o f full-length strips t o package.
57 strips x 203 in / 175 in.
=
66.1, or 66 strips, plus an 18-in piec.e.
With the thickricsr o f 2.5 i n . , only 3 strips c a n be placed lnto a 9-in.-sauare
canister, yielding 22 canisters (rounded t o the nearest whole canister). One
hundred and twenty-three cuts, for 12,772 linear inches, are required.
The packaged volume, weight per canister, and effective packaged density
of the material within the c;nislers are:
D n n fur Commml
-
22 cans x 0 . 2 4 m3 5.28 m',
31,563 kg / 22 cans 1,435 kg/can, and
31,563 kg /I22 cans x 0.24 m3/can] = 5 , 9 1 7 . 0 kg/m3.
t 13.7 h Q H U E . $ U P Q W A W € W . e
This assembly, illustrated in Figure E.3, I s comprised o f the core support forgtng, tie plates, support posts and instrument guides, and the secon.
dary support plate. Those portions of the 96 support p o s t s (about 3 i n .
dia.), and the 25 instrument guides (about 2 in. dia.). which protrude above
the core support forging about 24 in., are cut off flush with the upper face
o f the forglng. and packaged in 2 canisters as CTCC material. The remainder
Lower Core
Sb(lpUr1 IjlllQ Plale
\ I
Mairway Cover
Core Support
I
1154111
Lower
TIC
I'laln
I
Inslrtiinontation Gude
Colurriri (Crucilorm) ( 7 5 )
FIGURE
LJ.
\
t\
nergy Absorber Ass'y
OH.SCI instrurneiitatlon Column
Lower Core Support Structure
o f the support posts and insttwmrnt guides are handled :IS descrihed below.
One huidred and twenty-one cuts, for 336 linear inches, are required.
The core support forging, which is about 152 In. dia. and 20 i n . in
thickness, is turned face down and the approximately 236 bolts that attach the
support posts and instrument guides t o the forging are removed. The remainder
o f the lower core support assembly is lifted off, turned over, and placed face
up t o permit removal o f the approximately 236 bolts attaching the posts and
guides to the upper and lower tie plates. The posts and guides are removed
for packaging. The bolts attaching the lower support posts to the lower tie
plate and thP secondary support plate are removed and packaged. The tieplates
are removed to the cutting table for sectioning. The lower forging Is removed
to the cutting table for sectionlng. All o f the lower core support structure
is packaged in six 8-!208 cask liners (packaged volume of 22 m3) for shielded
shipment. Eighty-three cuts, for 1,660 linear inches, are required.
E.4
REACTOR PRE SSURL
V
m
\
The RPV, illustrated in figure E . 4 , is a right circular cylinder with an
outside diameter of 190 inchtv and hemispheric enbs, rlith 8 RCS pipes attached
to the 8 nozzles. The seal between the RPV and the surrounding biological
shield is removed, to permit separating the RPV from the RCS piping, and to
permit removal and packaging of the insulation surrounding the RPV. With the
insulation and the RCS pipes removed, access to the outside o f the RPV is
available for sectioning the RPV using the oxy-acetylene torches. Disassembly
and packaging of the 2PV is described in the following subsections.
I . 4 .1
Ins.u!a_tiQ.!j
Ihe vc.sse1 insulation i s comprised o f packages of multiple layers o f
thin stainless steel which are contoured t o surround the entire vessel, top
and hottom heads and the cylindrical side wall. Ihescl packages are approximately 4 in. thick tnd are of various sizes to facilitate installation and
removal. lhe packages are removed, flattened to ,educe their volume, and cut
into sires for packaging. The lower 200 inches o f the side wall insulation i s
packaged in an 8-120R cask liner (packaged volume o f 3 . 6 m’) for shielded
Draft lor Comment
H~
130 it,
H
Conlrol Rod Mechanism
and Drive Rod
~ H e a Lltf
d Lug
pShell FlanSo
?
in
Vessel
support
Lower Core
supfmfl nod
\.
r
I
FIGURE E . 4 .
S9304067 9
Reactor Pressure Vessel
shipment. The remainder of the insulation i s packaged in two 4 ft x 4 ft x
6 ft steel boxes (packaged volume o f 5.4 m3) for unshielded shipment. One
hundred arid thirteen cuts, for 9,300 linear lnches, are required.
I . 4.2 RfV Upper !{cad_..&
.I?_amrr
The 61 CRD guides, which are about 3.8 in. dia., and assorted instrumentation penetrations on the RPV upper head are cut o f f flush with the hemispheric surface, and are packaged in a 4 f t x 4 ft x 6 f t steel box f o r
unshielded shipment. About 63 cuts, for 240 linear inches arc required.
E.15
Draft for Comment
A circumferential cut i s m&
above the y p e r head flanye. lhe
flange is cut into 14 segments and packaged 4 segments/per box in 4 ft x
4 ft x 6 ft steel hoxes. The remainder o f the upper head is cut into 22 segments approximating 46 in. x 46 in. in area and packaged 6 segments/box. One
hundred cuts, for 2.689 linear inches, are required.
ju>t
_H_Pv..b.%rLmeamLm
I.4.3
The RCS piping is cut at the vessel nozzles. A circumferential Cut i s
made about 27 in. below the surface o f the RPV lower flange. The flange 4s
cut into 14 segments and packaged 4 segments/box in 4 ft x 4 ft x 6 ft steel
boxes. The combined packaging for the upper and lower vessel flanges is
7 boxes (pdckaged volume of 19 m 3 ) . Fifteen cuts, for 975 linear inches, are
required. The cutting o f the RCS piping is accounted for In Section 3.4.4 o f
1:hapter 3.
RPV..NML~.I.S
1.4.4
A circumferential cut i s made about 131
in. below the surface o f the RPV
lower flange just below the RPV nozzles. This ring is cut into 8 segments,
L scgnmt/nozzle. These segments are packaged by placing each piece in a
form f i t t i n g box which covers the inside surface of the piece and welding the
box to thc p i e c e . lhe nozzle i s capped and welded. lhe 8 pieces (packaged
volumr o f 14.2 m') are shipprd unshiclded. Nine cuts, for 1,429 linear
int.hes. are required.
I .4.5 RI'V.Wal.!
Four circumferential cuts are made every 50 in. down the length of the
remaininy RI'V Wall. The rings are cut into 11 segments. lhese segments are
packdqed in special cask liners for the 8-1208 cask. The liners are fitted to
contain 2 segments/liner. for a total of 2 2 shielded shlyments (packaged volume of 22.5 m').
forty-eight cuts, for 4,588 linear inches, are required.
f .4.6
RPV. l.owcr...!karl
Ihe 50 instrument guide penetrations are cut off flush on the inside and
outside o f t h e RPV lower head, and the head is sectioned into 35 segments
which are packaqed in 4 f t x 4 ft x 6 ft steel boxes. The combined packaging
o f the upper and lower heads is 7 boxes (packaged volume of 19 in').
One
hundred cuts, for 2,735 linear inrhes, are required.
E. 5 L
U
M
A
B
W
D
U
m
The results of the analyses for cutting and packaging the RPV internals
and the RPV Itself are presented in this sectioii.
E.5.1
Cutting. Team C o m p o s i t i q a
Removal o f the RPV internals and the RPV requires a sequence of operations, repeated many times, t o cut and package these aLtivated materials. The
equipmenl is set up, to make the cut, the piece to be cut 1s grappled to support it during and after the cutting, the cut piece is removed from the c u t ting location to the packaging location, and the piece is placed into the
appropriate container preparatory to shipment for disposal. All of the GTCC
material is packaged i o canisters (9 in. x 9 in. x 180 in.) which are compatible with storage in the spent fuel racks in the spent fuel pool and with
spent fuel shipping cask baskets.
Removal dnd packaging o f the RPV internal$ is postulated t o require two
manipulator systems with attached plasma arc cutting devices, one operating at
the far end o f the refueling cavity and one operating at the location of the
stand for the core barrel assembly in the refueling cavity. During subsequent
RPV w c t ioning, a manipulator system for carrying the oxy-acetylene cutting
torch i s required within the reactor vessel cavity.
One crew per shift operates the cutting systems.
lated to consist o f the staff listed in Table E . l .
Each crew is postu-
In addition t o the dedicated cutting crews, a non-dedicated crew for
handling the packaged materials operates on the third shift, t o deliver and
remove the casks/containers t o and from the work areas and to prepare the
casks and containers for transport. This crew is comprised o f a foreman,
2 e q u i p m w t operators, 2 craftsmen, and 2 health physics technicians. During
the rutting and packaging of the RPV internals, this crew is provided by the
utility, at a daily cost of 51,546.40, avd received an average radiation dosp
of about 35 mrem/crew-hr. During the cutting and packaging o f the RPV, this
JABlE E.1.
Person-hrs
per c rcw/hr
3
4
1
1
9
Stafflng and labor Rates Postulated for Cutting Crews
labor p,yte
Labor Cest
Cateqor y
(S/hr
IVcren-hrl
Craftsman
L &bo rer
H.P. Tech.
Foreman
49.10
149.10
105. 4EtbI
Average cost per crew-hour
(a]
(b)
(cl
26.31
36.82
M
Dose-rate
Wem/cra&2
30
__
40
5
4
80
309.42
324.89"'
labar rater arc I n 1393 dollars. and Include 110% owtrhcad. and 1%
P a r t o f u l I l l t y l D O C overhead s t a f f . Included I n undlrlrlbulrd costs.
Includes a 10% s b l f t dlfferenllal for second r h l f l work.
proflt.
crew is provided by the DOC, at a daily cost of 52,500.48, and received an
average radiation dose of 35 rnrem/crew-hr. These costs are included in the
non-dedicated labor costs.
E.5.2
Cuttino Operation lime Est-
It is estimated that about 2 weeks will be required for initial installatiun and checkout of the cutting and manipulator systems. Subsequent cutting operations are estimated to require about 20 minutes to set up for each
cut, including attaching grapples to the piece to be cut. The cutting time
will depend upon the type o f cutting, ;he material thickness, and the length
o f cutting required. Following a cut, about 20 minutes is estimated to be
required to remove the cut piece from the cutting location and place it in the
appropriate package. These efforts can continue in parallel with the next
setup/grappl ing operation, uh.ch begins about half-way through the moving/
packaging operation.
Underwater plasma arc cutting rates are postulated to range from about
14 in./min. for 0.5-in. thick stainless steel to about 5 in./min. for
5-in.-thick stainless steel, based on tnformation developed at 1HI-2
and
European experience described in ECFOCUS.(6) Rates for oxy-acetylene cutting
of carbon steel are postulated to range from about 13 in./min. for 1.5-in.
thick carbon steel to about 3 in./min. for 14-in.-thick carbon steel, based on
information presented in the Deromissioniny IlandbJok.(’) For many of the
cutting operations, the actual cutting time i s a very small fraction o f the
total operating time for a cut.
The total operating time (in minutes) for cutting the j‘” component can
be ex1 essed by:
where N, is the number o f cuts, L,, is the length of the i t h cut, and R,, i s
the cutting rate for the i t h cut in the jthcomponent.
The effective time, TE,, required t o segment a component is greater than
the total operating time described above. The effective time also includes
the amount o f time the crew spends in radiation protection/ALARA activities,
in dressing and undressing with anti-contamination clothilrg, and on work
breaks. The cutting equipment i s basically automated and controlled remotely
underwater. The gases evolved during cutting are filtered through the pool
water and are captured and removed using ventilation hoods placed just above
the pool surface over the cutting areas. As a result, res3iratory protection
should not be required for the crew during underwater iuttlng.
An additional factor associated with the plasma arc ,l.::?:ng is the tiifw
required t o change the torch when it fails to functiin. f q ~ i e n c eat
TM1.2‘5’ suggests that a torch fails about every 7 5 cu:s.
Assuming the
change-out time is 2 hours each occurrence, and the 890 plasma arc cuts made
in stainless steel From Table E . 2 , the torch change-out factor is about 46%.
Thus, the work difficulty factors appropriate for the underwater cutting are:
Non - Droduc t i ve-T ime Ad.iustment
Protective Clothing
(8 x 15 min./shift)
39.4%
Break Time
(2 x 15 min./shift)
9.8%
(25 min./shift)
0.2%
ALARA
Activities
Torch Change-out
( 1 every 7.5 cuts)
46%
DI dl for Comment
.j?
...
Y
?
a
.J
h
Thus, the e f f e c t i v e t i m e for underwater c u t t i n g i s glven by:
TE, = T, ( 1
t
0.394
t
0.098
t
0.082)( 1.46)
-
2.30 1,
For the i n - a i r oxy-acetylene i u t t t n g o f t h e RPV, and t h e i n - a i r plasma
arc c u t t i n g o f the i n s u l a t i o n and RPV p i p i n g , r e s p i r a t o r y p r o t e c t i o n i s
assumed t o be r e q u i r e d f o r the crew, with a work d i f f i c u l t y f a c t o r o f 20%.
The t o r c h change-out problems a n t i c i p a t e d with t h e underwater plasma arc torch
should not occur w i t h the i n - a i r plasma a r c t o r c h o r t h e oxy-acetylene torch.
For i n - a i r c u t t i n g , the e f f e c t i v e c u t t i n g time per component is given by:
T I , = 1, (1.574)(1.20)
= 1.88 T,
The exposure hours f o r the c u t t i n g crews are g i v e n by TE,/1.574.
actual contact hours apply.
since o n l y
The cost o f the c u t t i n g operation f o r t h e jthcomponent i s c a l c u l a t e d a s
the product o f the e f f e c t i v e crew-time f o r t h a t component, TE,, and the c o s t
per crew-hour, as displayed i n the n e x t - t o - l a s t column o f Table E . 2 .
E.5.3
L a t i n s Analvses De t a i l s
The d e t a i l s o f t h e analyses f o r c u t t i n g the RPV i n t e r n a l s and the RPY
i n t o pieces s u i t a b l e f o r packaging f o r disposal are presented i n Table E.2,
where each component i s i d e n t i f i e d , and t h e number o f c u t s needed t o s e c t i o n
t h a t component, the c u t t i n g thickness o f t h e compor,ent, t h e t o t a l l e n g t h o f
c u t , the c u t t i n g r a t e f o r t h a t m a t e r i a l thickness, t h e c u t t i n g time and t o t a l
elapsed t i m e , and the l a b o r costs f o r t h a t component are l i s t e d .
E.5.4
G u - c y t t i n a and P
iw
The d e t a i l s o f the c u t t i n g and packaging o f m a t e r i a l p o s t u l a t e d t o be
a c t i v a t e d l e v e l s t o g r e a t e r than C l a s s C are presented i n Table E.3. These
m a t e r i a l s are p o s t u l a t e d t o be packaged i n 9 - i n . x 9 - i n . x 1 8 0 - i n . - s q u t r e
c a n i s t e r s whose envelcpe approximates t h a t o f a PUR f u e l assembly and a r e
compatible w i t h PUR spent f u e l racks and spent f u e l cask baskets. The coaponents are l i s t e d i n column 1, and t h e component weights c a l c u l a t e d from t h e
NUREGICR-SW, Vol. I
E.11
TABLE E . 3 .
Calculated Weight$. Full-Density Volumes, Packaqed Volumes,
Component
0.575
0.495
3,946
Lower Grid Plate
Uooer Grid Plate(bt
l n r l v ' d h v r e (IS polentlrl
Pic kaged
3.913
0.72
1.20
3
5
crndihter
reference PUR report'" (and from Reactor Safety Analysis Reports and other
supporting information) are given in column 2. Dividing those values by the
theoretical density of the metal yields the full-dcnsity volumes given in
column 3. The volumes of the component material, when packaged using the
high-density approach developed in this appendix, are given in column 4. lhe
numbers o f 9-in. -square canlsters that would arise from the high-density packaging approach are given in column 5.
I 5.5
Packaqes for D l s o o s a l
The number, type, and weight o f packages, volu,)e per package, number o f
shipments, weight per shipment, and disposal volume per shipment resulting
from the cutting and packaging of the APV and its internals are sumnarized in
Table E . 4 .
E.5.6
Estimated Costs
The costs o f removing, cutting, packaging, transport, and disposal are
s u n a r i z e d in Table 1.5. The removal/cutting labor costs are derived from
Table C . 2 . The cost o f disposal containers, transport cost (includiny cask
rental), and disposal costs are derived from information listed in Table E . 4
and Appendix B .
E .22
T A M E EA.
Summary o f information on RPV and lnternals Packaged for Disposal
<I
Ilc)
,181
1.130
96
3.460
I
IPI:
'IO
52.?40
52.740
I ? , ,'S
96
24.930
I
I
410
,50
.
470
<IO
1.957
96
19.826
1
384
191
.22.000
30
10.850
I76
10.170
?
257
21.)
.IO00
5
11.615
96
23.190
1
197
l(D)
.1.000
5
It6
378
130.000
3 665(h1
8 4
68.510
54.865
3
r,lcl'
6('1
5u 1
8"')
3 065
3.?64lh1
8 4
54.964
8(1)
61 7
5(J)
84 0
2(bJ
lipper Rarrrl
'?
Y
9.153
13(")
5o'J.ooo
?,044[h'
8 4
83.288
2i""
'266 030
3,461(h1
8 4
54.663
c('1
litii
,ill
,(dl
"l\.l
Il[')
.la)
22("
-2503
IO
I?.700
116
77.020
6
150
5
12.400
126
71.?20
I
25.100
96
50.;00
3 5
61 ?
.IO
24.030
96
48.060
I 5
612
[?O
2?.260
62 5
44.520
4
500
15.134
36
74.000
22
192
18.400
96
36.800
I
197
.?5
~11.000
2
<IO
ICOOld
on
FC.1
t.23
page)
ut.4.
(contd)
E.5.7
Pgy?tulated Schedule for Cuttlncl and P g b j n q the RPV and Its
Mernab
i?r this schedule analysis, i t is assumed that the cutting and packaging
activities occur on 2 shifts oer day, with movement o f casks and boxes into
and out of the containment building occurring on the third shift. This latter
activity i s performed by the handling/shipping crew, not by the cutting crews.
The initial 2 weeks (20 shifts) o f the RPV internals cutting operations
are devoted to installing and testing the plasma arc torches and the manipulator systems in the refueling cavity area. The core assembly i s removed from
thci RPV and placed in its stand in the refueling cavity during this period.
Cutting and packaging o f the RPV internals proceeds in the sequence shown in
Figure I .5. Upon rompletion o f the cutting and packaging operations, a final
week i s devoted t o removal o f the cutting systems and to final packaging and
shipping from the refueling cavity. At that time, the remaining water in the
refueling cavity is drained and the cavity is available for decontamination.
The elapsed caleidar time for the cutting and packaging o f the RPV internals
i s estimated to b e about 3'1 months.
The initial week (10 shifts) o f the RPV sectioning i s devoted t o installing and testing the plasma arc and oxyacetylene torches and the manipulator
LW-L.5.
S u m a r y o f Costs for C u t t i n g , Packaging, T r a n s p o r t , and Diffiosal
o f the Reactor Pressure Vessel and Its I n t e r n a l S t r u c t u r e s
corkJJJg Dol l e r r
I .?go
4.695
33.189
9.311
8.345
1,565
1,332
34.508
I.290
1,332
11.441
2.hl
1.W
18.611
9. *,J
39.852
47.013
1.190
14.685
1.332
47.3'36
13.180
36.840
1?.661
3. I20
121.994
3?1.600
4 IO.38?
50.551
4.160
l 61.241
41L.800
cs1.151
25.119
4.160
119.310
436.600
585.189
?1.930
1.540
61.446
IO9 .?OO
I'l4.6l6
16.1?0
11.446
401.358
1 .?01.200
41.717
18,110
68.531
e 4 . i ~ ~
1 2 . 9 30
4.695
33.449
11.643
12.111
?0.??4
4.515
4.661
101. I39
144.539
I 1 .138
4.515
4.E6l
59.861
90.?78
4.346
3.760
5.371
66.841
80.281
18.483
103.?90
I84.?3I
?51.783
573.784
...
i.130
1.332
14.636
11.158
31.468
t45
1.331
1.656
44.101
504.943
110.985
50.439
3.409
19.304
1?.305
1,312
40.8;3
1,
?11.:55
713.589
5 111.100
include
25'1 c o n l i n g e n c j
,,,.arranged l o correspond to the packaging a r r r n q e n m l t in l a b l c f 4 .
IC) Calculated v t l n p d a t a frun I r b l c f . 4
( d ) C a l c u l a t e d b y Cost [5limattnp Ccmputer Program. using data f r m l s b l c I 4
( e ) C a l c u l a t e d by C o s t tS1tIMling C w u l r r Frogram. using datr f r m Table t 4
Costs &
~
? * l a f r a lablr f ?
d
121.028
I.fRI.7IB
_
_
_
I
-
(a]
(h)
108.600
3
Lower Core Assembly
_...----_.__.___----_.__
.----..-.---._.-..-tlandle/ShIp Casks/Containers
(1) No. of shifts
(2) Available time
Calendar Months
1
0
Cleanup
2
3
4
f.J!&J&..[A, Postulated Schedule for Cuttlng/Packaging the RPV and lnternals
system in the reactor vessel, and to installing the RPV support structure
beneath the RPV. Cutting and packaging o f the RPV proceeds in the sequence
shown in Figure 1 . 6 . Upon completion of the cutting and packaging operations,
a final week is devoted to removal of the cutting systems and to final packaging, shipping, and cleanup. Ihus, the elapsed calendar time for the cutting
and packaging o f the RPV is estimated to be about 14 months.
IO^"
.-..
38
I
-
Section 8PV
_ - . . . - - . _ . .( 1_) . _ _ _ I nsu 1 at i on/RPV Piping
IO
___--._.__.____.
Hand1 ing/Shipping Cleanup
( I ) No. of shifts
(?) Available time
Calendar Months
0
fJV_RLL.G.
1
2
Postulated Schedule for Cutting/Pxkaging the RPV
E.5.8
lmmcts on Tranzoort anh- k n f 4 L & h d l
The transport and disposal costs for low-level radioactive wastes are
sensitive to the distance between the reactor site and the disposal facility,
and to the charge schedule at the disposal site. The analyses presented
previously in this appendix are based on transport r,; the LLU portion o f the
sectioned and packaged segments of the reactor pressure vessel and the vessel
ivternal from the Trojan site t o and disposal at the U.S. Ecology facility at
Hanfcrd. Washington. All o f these materials are assumed to be transported by
truck. These same analyse: were repeated for transport from the Trojan site
to and disposal at the Chem-Nuclear fac'!ity at Barnuell. South Carolina. The
results o f these analyses are presented in Table E.6. The estimated transport
cost to Barnwell i s about a factor o f 3 larger than the transport cost to Hanfcrd. reflecting the much greater distance traveled. Similarly, the disposal
c o s t at Barnwell i s nearly a factor o f 6 larger than the disposal cost at
llanford. reflecting the much higher disposal rate structure at Barnuell.
lAB1l
-. ... _
f .6.
_. Sensitivity o f Transport and Disposal Costs for the 11U Portions
o f the React r Ves 1 and Vessel lnternals to Disposal facility
location and Rates r.3
l o c a t ion
~
tlanford 1IW
Barnwe1 1 I.lW
?L%EPLKL.Q
S.!L~!M.3...$1
P ~ P ~ . ~ ~ . . T ~ . _ t ~ - ~ ~ ~ . ~
796,596
430,626
1.330.489
4,585.646
r.27
Onif1 for Comment
C.6
BIIlRENCES
1.
Tit?! 10, Code o f federal Regulations Part 61.55 ,mitacifi&hC-&b
Janudry 1 , 1990.
2.
J. Konzek, and W. E . Kennedy, Jr. Jechnolow. Safcty
o
f
DecomisrionLna
a Reference P
r
e
w
a
m
411
NURtC/CR-OIJO, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Report by
Pacific Northwest laboratory, Rlchland, Washington. June 1978.
3.
m o l o s v . Ssfetv and Costs of Deconissioninq a
w . e - P r e s s u b W W w ~ W ~ o- Classificat
n
ion of Decpik
rjjissigniuJ&&.
NUREC/CR-0130, Addendum 3, U . S . Nuclear Regulatory
Comnission Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washirgton.
September 1984.
4.
R. A . Lundgren. Reactor V e m 1 Sectionina Demonstratiofl. PNL-3687,
(Revision I ) . U.S. Department o f Energy Report by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington. September 1981.
5.
M. S. McCough, W . E . Austin, and G. J. Knetl, "Performance o f the Automated Cutting Equipment System During the Plasma Cutting o f the Three
M i l e Island Unit 2 lower Core Support Assembly," Nuclear T e c h n o l o w ,
V o l . 87, pp. 648-659, November 1989.
6.
-rk[OC&, No. 11, Comnission o f the Eurgpean Comnunities, DG X I 1
Science, Research and Development - Joint Research Centre, December
1989.
7.
W . J. Manion. and T . S. LaCuardia, Decomnissionlncl t i & . . . WE/
LV/10128-1. U.S. Department of Energy, Washington, D . C . , November 1980.
-
R . 1. .mlth, G.
$hw
E . S. Murphy.
-
E.28
APPfNnlX F
lhe postulated dlsmantlement and disposal act Ivities for the steant generators, together with estimated manpower, costs, and schedule, are presented
in this appendix. It should b e recognized that most dismantlement costs can
be estimated usIng standard costs per unit o f rrmoved quantity. After c o n struction o f the plant, quantities of material and equipment required In the
plant can be estimated# These quantitles can then b e multiplied by a standard
removal c o s t per unit, whlch includes the values o f any workbrelated adjustment factors, t o obtain total removal costs. Thls i s not generally true, how.
ever, ir, the case of extra-larye components such as the steam generators,
whlch are niore complex and reactor-specific I n nature. Therefore, such items
are estimated separately (as in this appendlk) and are presented In c o s t summaries, elsewhere in this study, as an aggregate c o s t line Item, with refer.
ence to thlr appendix for detalls,
thc many variables Involved, the analysis presented in this
appendix I s nut Intended to result in an ’exact” solutfon concernlny c o ~ t so r
orcuyational doses for steam yr!nivator removal during decommissioning. lhe
resultant coot and dose valuos are Intended as reliable updated estimates
(based on the kcy assumptions given in Section f . 1 ) for tho removal o f steam
generators from the reference pressurized water reactor (PUR) during decornois.
sioning and their subsequent disposal. Consequently, the results of this
analysis make a useful addition to the already existing decommissioning data
base and increase its general applicability.
Because o f
following the assumptions, the methodology used In this analysis is presented in k c t i o n f - 2 . followed by a brief description o f the steam generators
in Section F - 3 . The steam generators removal and disposal activities are
described in Sectlon f , 4 . Section F . 5 covers the radwaste handling and procerring associated with the steam generator removal project. Ihe result, o f a
reevaluation o f the anticipated occupdtlonal radiation dore for the project
are discussed in Section f . 6 r<tlmrtod r o t t r and scheduler and a ditcurston
o f important considerations associated with recent \team generator r e m 1
projects are presented in Sectlonr f . 7 and f . 8 , respectlvely. Ihe referencor
for tho appcndlx are given In Section f . 9 .
I* I
A.S.SY1(P.I
1ws
I n developing scenarios and the subrequent analyses, the followlng
assumpt i o n s were used:
The removal o f the reference plant's steam generators i s based, in
part, upon a reassessment o f t o r t and dose estlmates for removal
o f steam gtwurators during decomnitrioning presented in Reference
I , which included a comprehensive revlew o f r e t d steam generator
changoout programs.
*
One piece steam yelierator removal Is postulated, based upon three
of the mort important consideratIonr - adequacy of plant equipment
hatch egress, reduced radiation exposiire, and a shorter overall
schedule duration.
Itw radiatlon dose rater used In the analyses remain essentially
unchanqc 'rom those estimated in tho original Study. NURCC/
f H O130.'7i which. In turn, were based on conservative estimates of the
v f l e c t ivurirsr of the chcmlral decontaulnation o f the plant system. The
rate a t which radiation levels diminish with time during the dec@nnls.
rioniny e f f o r t s is assumed to be controlled by the half"1Ife o f Co.
S t e a a s qenei.ator exterior surfacer will be decontaminated, as
rcquircd. l o l l w i n g injection o f low.density cellular concrete to
c'nsure cncapsuiation of the internal contaminants, all openings
will be real welded, since the s t e m generators are anticipated to
xvw 3s thoir owr burial containers. I t i s further assumed that
the NUL i s s u e s Certificate5 of Compliance for shipments of thr:
s t e a m generators on an open waterway, as Type A LSA trancport
packages.
Steam generator removal, transport. and disposal i s handled by an
exyivlenced contractor, who i s well established in steam yenerator
changeout and associated integrated outage activtties, under c o n tract to the Deromlssloning Operations Contractor (DOC). Heavyl i f t riyyinq, barge, and overland transport costs for the s t e m
yonerators arc' bared on information provided by a qualified vendnr
o f lhese services, who has handled the barge, overland transport,
arid installation o f NSSS components for several plants.
f.2
*
The waste disposal costs presented in this study were specifically
developed for the reference PUR, khich is located within the
Northwest Com act, assuming disposal at the U.S. h O l 6 g y site in
Richland, Wss Ington. Steam generators are removed sequentially
and barged two at a time to U.S. h o l o g y , lnc. T h i s scenario will
conrol idale rhlpplng and reduce mobilirallon costs for the heavy
haul vehicles used by the vendor mentioned above. TO provlde
additional information, the costs also were estimated for shi ping
and disposal o f the reference steam generators at the Barnwel
s(tc In Barnwell, South Carollna.
R
P
f.2
H I A M
Two removal scsnarlos were considered: 1) sectioning each steam gene-
rator into two or more pieces for subsequent transport by rat1 as delineated
in NUREC/CR-013d7' and 2) removing them intact for subsequent transport by
barge. The one-piece removal scenario appeared to have the greatest estimated
W e n t tal for mintmizing cost and occupational radiation exposure (ORE) and
was analyzed in this study,
F 3
bTlh! FLNIMI9RLJ.4 .Wll
The aiiptoxIniate weiyht o f each o f the reference steam generators is
3 1 2 Hq (688,000 l b ) , and about 321 Hg (about 708,000 lb) with shipplny saddle
and liftinq beams, lhe steam generator shown in figure F . 1 i s a vertical
shell and U.tube unit with integral moisture separating equipment. The present steam yenerdtors at the reference plant are Westinghouse Series 51
model s.
steam g r w r a t o r i s supported on four hinged columns. Lateral resis.
tance i s provided by two rlny girders. The lower glrder i s designed to permit
the theraal movements of the support columns, vessel and primary piping in the
horizontal and vertical directions. The upper girder i s located close to the
center o f gravlty of the steam generator. Lateral resistance at t h l ; level is
provided by four bumper stops and two hydraulic suppressors (snubbers), a s
qhown In figure f.2.
facti
The yerlinent features o f the reference plant's steam generators used in
this analysis are gt.ren In Table F . 1 .
f.3
Sieem OuIlel lo
Turtme Oeneratnr
\
,
Manway
/
Primary Coolanl
lnlel
ChHnnol Hoad
G93(\1c47
I .4
v
,
tloi and Cold Siopo
IBBLf-fJ.
Steam Generator D a t a
Total H e i t Transfer Surface At,ea
1786 m’
(51,500 ft’)
O v e r a l l Height
20,63 n
(67.67 f t )
Dlameter, Upper P o r t i o n
Lower P o r t i o n
f
-4
Number o f U-tubes
3385
9-tube outer dlametw
22.2 mn
(0,875 i n 4 )
lube w a l l thicknqss, nominal
1.27 m
(0.050 in.)
Number o f manways
Estimated volume
4
250.2 m’
(8130 ft’)
S . W L & W & I P B Q W !
f o r the purpose o f t h l s analysis, t h e steam qenerator removal and d i s p o s a l operatlons were developed I n f o u r phases: Phase 1 Procursor Tasks,
Phase 2 . Preparatory A c t i v l t l e s , Phase 3 - Removal A c t i v l t l e s , and Phase 4
Heavy-11ft Higglng, Transport, and Disposal A c t i v l t l e s .
-
I 4* I
9
~
Pb ilE l _ : h U U S b l
l h e selected Phase I precursor tasks (presented i n Table F . 2 ) are postul a t e d a s being completed before removing t h e steam generators.
r ’ 4 * 2 P!m.C L - P E W . r . Y A U r n
The cstlmated l a b o r hours f o r p r e p a r a t o r y a c t i v i t l e s , p e r steam generat o r , fronr the Point Beach Nuclear P l a n t Number l (PBNP-I) two-piece removal
program( 1 . 4 4 1 were r a t l o e d down t o r e f l e c t a c t u a l hours as c l o s e l y as p o s s l b l e
f o r the one-piece removal scenario analyzed i n t h i s study. Those r e s u l t s , per
steam generator, were compared t o s i m i l a r tasks f o r t h e Sorry steam generator
removal program.(5J Where both numbers were a v a i l a b l e , an average value per
steam generator ua3 computed and used i n t h i s a n a l y s i s (see Table F.3).
f .6
Mt for Comment
, Phase 1
-
Precursor lasks for Steam Generators Henloval(’’
I
u
1.
Chemical decontaminallon of the Reactor Coolant System (done within
the first year after flnal reactor shutdown).
2.
The transferring o f the spent nuclear fuel from the fuel pool to an
inde endent spent fuel storage Installation (as discussed In Appendlx &,the fuol pool could not be finally emptied until at least 7
years following reactor shutdown)
I
3.
Disassembly, decontamlnation (as deemud ap ropriate), packaging,
and disposal o f a l l spent fuel storage rat s.
4,
Dralnlng and decontamination of the spent fuel pool.
5.
Decontamination of the 93-ft elevation ln the fuel Bulldlng.
6.
Removal o f appropriate sections of the Fuel Building roof to provide clearance for 1 ifting the steam generators by a contractor.
for the purposia of this analysls, the cost assoc ted with thls
activity has been classified as a cascading costlbq because no
radioactively contaminated materials are anticipated to be involved.
7.
Barge slipb,preparatlons (primarily dredglng operations) - a cascading cost
t:
I
8.
Completion of a j o b training program for all staff aqrticipating
directly in the steam generator removal operations. C
_---(41
I
_
-
I lhmuph 5 a r e I I s l t d ‘vrr (01. conylslanbsl, H a v e r . $Inca l k y a r b ICLdUnlCd for
I n t h l i tllrdy. t h e y a r c nol c o i l e d I n l h l s r p p r n d l r l o tvold &ubl.-counllng
C t r c i , f i n p C O I ~ I t r e h f l n c d a i t l w i e ( o i l s rssoclttcd r l t h thr ranovtl of nonconlmlnelmd and
r e I r a f a b l e mblcrlrl i n ~ u p p ~ rotf the d + c a n l r i l o n l n g process ( e . 9 . . I f I 1 I t conrldsred ncccisary l o
~ O I U V C yurtians o f ~ h ctop f l w r r or .
I roof t o get t t a b o t l c w f l o o r nuc l e ar conponcnt).
I t 1 5 tr,uncd l h r l ttlsllnp. onillc l r a l n l n g ~ ~ t u and
p i facllillcr r l l l k used for l h l s p r o g r m .
P r r r n t stcam penerator’ r m v l l p f o J t c I r . y e f l t n c c r w t a l f thc h l p h l y f u c c t l 3 f u l nature of such
t r s l n i o y program% I n maxlmltlng thc p r o d u r l l r l l y and rrduclng psrson.Rbn caposure.
Protur%or I e s b )
clsi+.nre
(0)
(11
I t i s estimated that two dedicated 60-person crews, working one crew on
each of two shifts, will be required t o complete the Phase 2 activitles in
approximately 1.75 months. Each crew I s assumed t o coiisist of the staff
llsted i n Table F . 4 . The work duration ddjustment factors considered appropriate for the steam generator preparatory tasks given in Table f . 3 and for
f.7
UWJ.
rlldslj
2
plC[JdrdtOry A C
i v i & ies
Estimated Labor
Asixmhwrs I
Larb U a c u i m " '
745
P o l a r Crane H o d l f l c a t l o n
I n s t a l l Steam Generator Transport
System
3 I 446
Remve Containment Obstructtons
513
P r o t e c t i o n o f Contalnment Components
169
Inst a1 1 Temporary Vent 11a t ton
System
566
Temporary S c a f f o l d i n g
5,795
Temporary L l g h t i n g and Power
Cleanup and Decontamination'"
Polar
Crane Operator
680
8,367
i.16
lloal t h Phys I c i s @ad l a t l o n Honf t o r s ( c 1
3,080
Sh 1e 1d (ng
7,262
I n s t a l l Service A l r System
142
Work P l a t f o r m H o d l f l c a t l o n
2,312
H i s c e l laneous(cl
2,052
Subtotal Phase 2
36.945
_-._---
(11
For Ih purwse u f rubsequent us# In % w r y l l n e - I t a c o i l pr&sentallonr I n t h l n i t u d i . & I 1
t a i k i shun In tlu table a m @ s $ m t t r \ l yaaIM1ht.d mlth r a o v a \ attIvltl(lt [ a i opwsrd to
rcllultles). u n l a ~ rIndlcalsd o l h r d a e .
l h l r lark hdr been ddrlpnrtrd 4 dccontrmlnrllan 141h; also lee Ioolnol~( a ) ,
lha aubrcqucnl calculated costs a*iocIaLcd w i t h l h l s t a s k hrvs bern aveoly divldcd b e l n e n
r m v a l and deconlamlnbtlon
UCwntmlnatlon
(bl
(0
F .8
Draft for Cntnmrnt
m-L4.
S t a f f i n g and l a b o r R a t o r P o s t u l a t e d f o r Removal Crows
Wm&Slsr.whr
l a b o r Rate($/hr)
Llfasnry
Craftsman
26.0
23,O
5.0
laborer
foreman
H. P. Tech.
fLe
49.70
26.37
54.84
36.82
Cost(')
U
M
1,292.20
606.61
274.20
I
_
m
9
2
"
-
2,393. '13
60.0
Average l a b o r cost per crew-hour, I n c l u d i n g s h i f t d i f f e r e n t i r l l b l
$3,613,$2
the steam generator removal tasks (presented
aro:
~
i
.
Q
*
*
.
In Table f . 5 i n
L
I
Radi a t i o n Protect ion/ALARA
Resp Ir a t o r y P r o t e c t ion
He l gh t/Acces s Adjust ment f o r
S c a f f o l d Uork
~
Section f . 4 . 3 )
~
A
10.0%
20.0%
10.0%
kkllP_e.
.Mh.s",dYlOt m
s
Protective t l o t h l n g
4
F.4.3
Break T(mc
ehase 3
-
W
36.4%
9.1%
Activitiu
The estimated l a b o r hours f o r removal a c t i v i t i e s , per steam generator,
from the PBNP-1 removal
were r a t i o e d down t o r e f l e c t actual
hours as c l o s e l y a s p o s s i b l e f o r t h e one-plece removal scenario analyzed i n
t h i s study. lhose r e s u l t s , per steam generator, wore compared t o s i m i l a r
Nhere both numbers
tasks f o r the Surry steam generator removal program."'
were a v a i l a b l e , an average value per steam genorator was computed and used i n
t h i s a n a l y s i s (see Table F . 5 ) .
I t i s estimated t h a t two dedicated 60-person c r e w , working one crew on
each o f two s h l f t s , w i l l be r e q u i r e d l o complete the Phase 3 a c t i v i t i e s i n
mLfu.
iiennval AL 1t v it 1 es
Estlmated labor
Phase 3
Joerrnn-rnL
LaSk&W'"
Removal o f lnsul at lon
2,594
Remobal o f Hlscellaneout Plplng
2 500
.(bl
Cutting o f Reactor Coolant Piping
Ctittlng o f Hrinrtrerm and Feedwrtor
Plplng
I ,65V
nlsassembly o f Steam Generator
Supports
1,280
Removal o f Steam Generator Lovol
lnstrumonts and Blowdown Plplng
1,952
13,296
Temporary Scaffold I ng
lcmporary lighting and Power
4 540
Cleanup and Decontarnlnation"'
8,370
827
Polar Crane Operator
llcalth Physics lechnlcians'"'
4,136
Material Hand1 lng, Equipment Maintenance, and Hi,ss)ellaneous Construc.
tion Actlvities
8,372
_--49,612
Subtotal Phase 3
F.10
approxlmately 2 . 3 5 idonthr.
listed In lable F . 4 .
tddi
LWW
I s afsuniud to ronsisl o f the staff
Host o f the steam generator insulatlon
I s comprised o f packages
of
mlneral fiber matarlal, sandwlched between multiple layers o f thin strlnlesr
steel, which are contourad to surround the entlre generator, top and bottom
heads and the cylindrlcal side wall. Thesn packages are approximately 4 ln,
thick. The total volume of insulatlon for all 4 steam generators Is estimated
a t about 11,028 cublc feet, Because the Inruliktion package sires are designed
t o facllltate installatlon and removal, very llttle, i f any, cutting Is rntici.
pated before pack.qlng.
Uslng an estimated packlng efflclency factor o f 1.5,
twelve 8 - f t x 8 - 1 / 2 - f t x 20 ft martttme contalners (Sea-Vans) are packed wlth
the Insulation for unshielded shipment t o Jtanford, It I s assumed that vlrtually all o f the insulatlon I s disposed o f In this manner, slnce i t could be
argued that Interior spaces betwesn layers could not be proven to be contamlna
tlon free wlthout complete dlsassembly.
Once the lnsulatlon has been removed from a steam generdtor and
))dCkayOd, the plpiny from the reactor coolant system (2 RCS cuts per ycnera'
tor), the feedwater system ( I cut per gonorator), the steam outlet t o the
turbine genorator ( 2 ruts por generator), a s well as tho mlscullaneous
iristrumcrtt and c o n l r o l 1Inps arc! actesslble for cuttlny. After cuttlng, tho
O p l ~ n ~ f i l Jarc
5
s e a l welded, slnce the steam generator i s antlclpated t o serve as
i t s own burial contalner. rho i t c a m yenorator Is rlyyed and supported, as
ncetlrd, in preparation for dlsenyagrment from the steam yenerator's support
mechanism, ( s e e f lyure F . 2 ) .
lhe lower support ring I s cut as necessary, wlth
o x y a c e t y l w r torthes, t o allow clearance for RCS plplny stubs when the steam
yenerdtor is wbwqiiently l l f t e d . Similarly, the upper lateral support rlny
Is rut a s neressnry to provide a ( i y d U w clearance for llftlng. W l t h !lie
i n s u l d t i o n and t h e n(;u> removed, 1 Iftiny o f the steam generator can proceed.
I
4 4
I
Phlr_L.:-tlkaYYIiU~~urUW
This work i s assumed t o be done by a contractor (tee footnote I , Section f . I ) and consists of rigging, handllng, temporary storage, and placement
o f the steam generators on a barge, two Lo a barge, for hauling to the Hanford
site for disposal, The contractor furnishes t e s t equipment, test weights,
tort lifting ttquipment, and related items to be used In the performanco of the
uork. Ihe contractor i s antlclpated to use the polar bridge crane without
charge, Ihir crane 1% deslgned for both trolley and bridge travel under a
455.ton lifting capacity.
fnslde the containment, the steam generator i s raised by the polar
bridge crane. I t i s placed in an upendlng devlce or skid (whirh is assumod to
he furnished by the utility) and lowered to a horizontal position for extraction from the containment vessel - an auwlliary trolloy placed on the Reactor
Building bridge crane rail I s used in conjunction wlth a tunway and the Fuol
Buildinq crano, located outside the equipment hatch, to move thP generator
from the Rrrctor Building to the Fuel Building laydown storagp area. In turn,
each stram gonorator i s placed in tho laydnun area at tho 93 foot elevation in
tho rue1 Building i n preparatlon for the 4L.foot lift t o grade level. It i s
cbtimated that this partlciilar effort might amount t o one work day (or each
yenorator. The generator i s thnn lifted out of the Fuol Ruilding, via an
o p , ~l r 7 P r a a t P d in tho h l i i l d { n g roof i q d placed onlo a cradle/trailer for
movement to tho barge ?lip and onto a barge for river .bipmont to the U . S .
Ecology, I n c a , c o m e r c i a l dlsposal site at Iianford.
f
9
5
RNN9bJ.C I~ANL!llNG_BNe-P8SU;fSSlliG
I t e handling and processing of the steam generator removal project'
raduaste i s p o < t l l l * t f i d tci be arcornpllrhed as an integrated effort hotween the
IlOC and the licensee's personnel. It is assumed that limited storage fac 1 1 I i p s at thP reference site require the continuous handling, processlng, and
rhippiny of radwasta. DOC personnel are rerponsiblc for the removal o f waste
a s it i s giverated inside containment during steam generator removal. Waste
I*; anticipated to be removed from containment and deposited at a tcmporary
holding area. I)OC personnel will prepare and packago the waste for disposal.
Two drum compactors are assumed to be rvallable during the steam
yenerrtor removal project for the compactlon o f compressible waste. Noncompressible waste Is packaged in 8-25 metal containers (96 cubic (Jet dlsposal capaclty). All o f the waste i s shlpped from the site a$ the accumulated
waste volume dictates optimal use o f shlpping vehiclus.
fhe Initial cleanliness o f the Contalnment Building, and a continuing
rffort to control contamlnatlon, is anticipated t o prevent tho contamlnatlon
of much o f the equipment brought into containment. Thls effort i s expected to
result in a minimization o f radwaste volumes.
the estimated radwaste volume for the reference PUR was ratioed from the
PBNP-I storm generator project radwaste volumes reported I n Reference 4. Act.
ivitles assoclated with the steam generator preparatory and removal phases for
the relercnce PUR are estimated to generate a radwbste volume o f 15,684 cublc
feet, o f which about 3,780 cubic feet are estimated to be compressible wastcs
and the remaining 11,904 cubic feet are estlmated to be non-compresslble
w a s t e s . These waste volumes do not Includo the steam gsnerators (see I & hle f . 1 ) or the insulation (discussed provlously in Sect.lon F . 4 . 3 ) . The
comprertible wastes are shlpped a s LSA materlal t o ilanford from the reference
PUR in 55.gal driims. Approximately 504 drums are estimated to he utllized as
shipplnq containers. Noniomprerslble wastes are shipped to Hanford usiny an
estimated 124 R . 2 5 containers,
Ihc results o f an analysis to evaluate and compare the occupational
radlation doses of recent PUR s t e m generator changeout programs wlth the dose
estimates previously developed for OECON o f the reference PUR described in
N U R L C / C R ~ 0 1 3 0 are contalned In Reference 1 . for ease of rnferenco and because
they provlde the bases for the steam generator removal scenario analyzed In
this study, the principal results are given, in brief, In the following subscttions.
comparison of the reported exposures for the steam generator removal
proJect at t h e Point Beach Nuclear Power Plant No. 1 ( P S N P . I ) , which was
The
f.13
selected for examination In Referuncc 1 , considers in detdil the lasks
involved to determlne their appl Icability to decomnissioning under the DECON
alternrt Ive. Data o n the occupational exposure for that removal/replacement
project were obtalned from the literature as well as from personal COIrinUnlCation wlth utllity personnel. Analysis o f those data involved assessing the
rbbiorted doses concerning all specified tasks and then eliminating those doses
associated with tasks deternilned t o be unrelated to decomnissioning. In addition, dose rdjuslments were made where it was determined that the task was
performed in a different sequence o r manner than envisaged durlng decomnissioning. The adjusted doses were then compared t o the doses previously eStl*
mated in NUREG/CR-0130. The comparison showed that the estimated total radiation dose to decomissioning workers for the removal o f $team generators during DtCON remained essentially unchanged from the total dose initially estirnatod In NURfC/CR-0130 for this task.
It should ba emphasized that the dose consequences for any decommission-
alternative in whlch the steam generators are t o be physically removed are
gulte different from the dose consequences associated wlth the replacement o f
rtclam generators durlng reactor outages. This Is because, during a replacemclnt i f r o r t , significant additional activities are necessary t o assure tontinned operat ion, including prosorvation o f building structures, concern for
cdpitdl cqulpment, materials, continuing use of alr, water, etc. On the other
hanil, large component removal (such as s t e a m generator removal) during decommissioning doer not rrquire any activities to assure future operability, and
thus involves a much tmaller comnltment of resources than does removal and
replacement of the steam generatorc.
Ink
Upon examinatlon and discllssion (with PBNP-I staff) o f the elemental
constllucnls o f each activity given i n lable f . 6 , the occupatlonal radiation
dose wa\ adjusted by PNL in Reference 1 for the "removal only" tasks concerning both P O N Y - I s t e a m generators. The results are presented in lable f . 7 ,
together with the rationale for the adjustments used to derive the estimated
occupntlonal radiation doses for steam generator removal during DECON. The
estimated dose resulting from the postulated removal o f lhe four steam genera.
tors similar t o the PBNP-I units during D K O N , but without the beneflt o f a
Sumnary
ufiJ&_fJj,
o f Occupdtlonal Radlatlon Dpses from the Polnt Reach
Steam Generator Hey 1 rlcemen t Projoc t '''
Dose
Containment access bui ding preparation
Lqulpment move- in/set-up In containment
Containment access modificat Ion
Temporary sh iel d I ng Inr t a1 l/remove
Biological shleld instal I/remp,ye
S/G supports * remove/refurbish
S/G temporrry supports and restraints . Instrll/remove
Temporary power lnstallatlon
lemporary yowor removal -restorat ion o f permanent power
Protectlon o f containment components
Interference removal
foundation shoring o f rontalnment access
Comunication system Instali/remove
lent ing
Breathing air syc,tem Ins tal l/remove
Polar c r h e modification
a
-
I.oad t e s t
I q u ipment decont ami na t ion
Cleanup and decontaminatlon o f containment
lnsulntlun removal
S/C girth cuts
Steam drum handling
S/G main steam and reedwater p i p e cuts
S/G small Imre piplng and instrument line cuts
S/G reactor coolant pipe cuts
S / G lower assembly removal
S/C laydown stands
S t e m druiii iiiod i I iC a t I on
S / G lower assembly inrlallation
Reartor coolant pipe weld
S/G girtti weld
S/C main steam and fccdrater pipe weld
S/C bluwdown pipe and i n s t n i n m t line weld
P o s t weld heat treatment
I n w l a t ion installation
lont a inmont res torat i on
System integrity
Primary slde search and retrieval
Secondary side search and retrieval
General containment entry and miscellaneous work
Total Occupational Dose
fm!l
0.09
7.09
2.27
41.52
0.13
6,83
7.26
5.90
0.10
1.29
0'92
0.83
0.58
14-42
0. I5
11,97
0.52
6.63
62.97
15.16
3.82
0.45
I .62
2.10
35.13
22.19
0.37
16.22
12.45
135.70
6.18
4.27
12.10
0.18
39.36
17.49
3.76
5.62
0.83
.fi&P
589.65
!
I
,
..
I
I
,
I
i
f.17
I
.
f .18
F.19
,
*.
,.,
I
I
. I
f .21
. I
...
.,
F.22
'1
,,
.
.-:
c h e m i c a l decontamination of the tcdt,lui Luularil sybtuni ( R C S ) , and Llie est1
maled dose resulting from the removal o f four steam genorators durlng DECON
following a RCS t-hemical decontamination, are presented. Events llkely t o be
affected by the ch,?ical decontamination are identified in the table with an
asterisk. Only those actlvltler that would be performed during decomnissionIng, o r would fall tinder the task descrlptlon o f steam generator removal in
liURtC/CR.0130 are Included. The adjusted total dose shown i n the table
(77.1 ptrson.rem) i s based on the conservative assumption that the chemical
decontamination of the RCS results in a decontamination factor (OF) of 5 . If
a Df o f 2 Is assumed, the total occupational radlallon dose is calculated to
be about 136.2 person.rem.
The DLCON values shown i n Table F , 7 were calculated for the reference
PUR i n R e f e t m x I, bdsed upon the steam generator romova! program occurrlng
a t about 18 months following flnal reactor shutdown. HoweverI for purposes of
t h i s analysis, the steam generator removal program i s postulatemi to occur
about 8 yearc followiny final shutdown, after the fuel pool i s finally emptied
( w e Chaptrr 3 for &tails) and after the fuel Building i s decontaminated.
Iherofote, based on "'Co decay, the applicable dose rates shown In Table F , Y
can he expected to be further reduced by approximately a factor of two.
lor the purpose o f this study, t h e information shown in fable 1 . 7 was
a d j u s t r d In w f l e c l l'lc estimated labor hours giver, previously in Tables f . 3
and 1.5 f o r I preparatory activities and removal activities, rrspectlvely.
In addition, *,> w y as 13 subcontractor s t a f f are estimated to be involved in
the steam qenevator heavy-1 If1 operations, including mobillration and demobill
iation activltles. However, only about 9 o f these workers arc antfclpated to
tie actua'ly involved in working In radlatlon zones, near the steam generators.
I 1 i s furl1 'r anticipated that approxlmately 59,700 hours will be expended by
all of the w r k e r s , i n radlatlon zones that average about 1.0 mR/hr.
I
1 .7
T.S! IM?.!tD ._CQUs ILNI)...SCHIP.Y.LIS
,.
rhe major contrlbutors t o the estimated total c o s t o f stea:i generators
removal, tran:port. and disposal at US fcology and at Barnwell are summarized
in Iable F . 8 . lhe total cost for these activities I:
timatud at about 114.8
lI\VLL !, 9 .
Sumnary o f I s t i m a t c 4 C J : ~ : fng ' f t l a m C c n c r a t o r r Dirmanl1rnic.nt a n d
Ulsposdl A r t l v l t l e : a t US ttoloy, :hd a t Llarnwell
CQSk..h!lL...-.--.-.--.Phase 1 . P r e c u r s o r l a s k s : ' b '
Ilemr I t h r o w h 5
I t e m 6 f u e l 8 d y . Roof Prepara/J,ons t d < O )
I t e m 7 Rarye S l i p P r e p a r a t i o n s
I t e m 8 Job l r a i n l n p Program
-IC)
i'
I'hase 2 . P r o p a r d t o r y A c t l v l t l e s : " '
I abor
Phase 3 . Removal A c t l v l t l e s : ' " '
Labor
Phase 4
I
31,486
110,250
208,085
.
IC
I
31,486
110,250
208,e85
1,547,81 I
1,547,811
2,078,495
2 ,078,495
Heavy L i f t R l g y l n g , I r a n s p o r t , and
Disposal Act l v l t i e s :
Subcotitrac,tor 1,abor 6 Equipment
2 , 3 ~ 0 , 0 8 0 ' t ~ 12,624,703
I l a n f o r d S i t e Support S e r v i c e s : ' ' '
529,200
0
I)irporal o f RadioactivP H a t e r l a l r :
Steam Generators (4)
Compressible Dry A c t i v e Yaste (DAU)
N o n ~ C o m p r e ~b,l~el OAU
In\ulation
1,699,735
204,885
745,023
815,l I ?
12,450,437
I ,099,485
3,508,804
4,646,lI9
21,600
55,100
198,500
496,200
21,600
55,100
198,500
496,200
469,535
469,535
SI cam Generator l r a n s p o r t System:
Upendor
l o w . P w f l l e Saddle
lranrfrr Skit!
lrarne T r a i l e r w i t h S h i p p i n g C r a d l e ( 2 )
H a t c r i a1 5 a d Iqu ipment "
'
PYP t rr 1, !vc. C.!nt h !n4.i. .LPU !.nment.SCJ.:.~
Ire I 0_ '
I
-.217 d.12
-22L3212
Subtotal
11,855,114
29,780,622
l a a t inqenru . ( 2 W
.2,963,124
- I*4§Ll5h
Total
14,818 968
31,225,178
F.26
I h f t for ('twnmmt
million at US fcology and about $ 3 1 . 2 million a t Barnwell, Includihg a
25% contingency.
Phase 1 , Item 6, fuel Ruildlng Roof Preparatlons, shown in table F.8, ir
c-stimated to cost approximately $31,500, based upon information contained in
Hcferenccs 6 and 1 . It i s estimated that one large structural support beam
and 5 smaller r o o f support beams as well a s aIJut 317 m' of roofing material
must be removed (to allow room for the Phase 4 contractor to extract the steam
generators) and replaced (to provide adequate weatherization for storage of
the f u e l Bullding and/or subsequent re.use o f the building by the utility).
for purposes of this study, th!s cost t s considered t o be a cascadlng cost
(see lable 1 . 2 , footnote (b) for detatls).
Ihe dredging cost (Phase 1, Item 7 shown in t h e table) i s a study estim a t e , based on discussions with industry personnel, The job trainlng costs
(Phase 1, I t e m 8 shown in the table) fur the Phase 2 and 3 staff Is based upon
one week’s training iit the labor rates given in ldble f . 4 . The 1itera:ure
review conducted as part o f this reevaluation study indicates that training
programs are highly successful in maxlmiring the productivity and reducing
person-rem exposure. In addition to basic project introduction as well as
security and health physics Indoctrination, medical examination, whole body
count, and respirator fit test, the training program I s postulated t o include
detailed actlvity training, including mockup training for selected activities.
Remote TV and vide@ tape? o f actual work may be used durlng the training to
fine tune crew performance on special activities.
The decomissioning operations contractor (DOC) labor costs (Phases 2
and 3 in Table F . 8 ) , over the estimated 4.1-month removal period, are derived
from the average cost per crew hour, based upon the crew cowositions discussed previously In Section F.4, and include an additional 10% tor second
shift operations, where applicable.
On the Hanford site, which is controlled by the U . S . Department of
Energy, contractors and subcontractors obtain serviccs from the Operations and
Haintenznce contrdctors for the movement of large objects, such as the steam
generators, t o the low-level waste burial ground operated by US Ccology, lnc.
Included in the cost of these services are road preparation and mainteitance,
utilities, fire protectlon, security, wtrol. transportation, medical aid,
etc. Based upon discussions with industry contacts, these services, including
labor, equipment, and materials, are estimated t o cost about 1132,300 per
trip, resulting in a total cost o r $529,200 for these services for the four
steam generators.
Three distinct waste forms require disposal during the steam generator
removal project: 1 ) the steam generators themselves, which are shipped in one
piece, two to a barge, 2) dry active waste (DAW), both compressible and noncompressible, and 3) the insulation that was removed from the stcam generators. The steam generators and the dry active waste are anticipated to be
shipped t o the U.S. Ecology, Inc. commercial low-level waste burial ground at
Hanford. The insulation is packaged in Sea-Vans for unshielded shipment to
Ifanford a s discussed previously in Section F . 4 . 3 . A s can be seen from Table
F.8, disposal o f radioactive materials at Hanford is estimated to cost
NIIRECICR-5884. Vol. 2
F.28
D
~ forI Comment
approximately $ 3 . 5 million. lhc di3posdl cost3 shown in the table for DAW and
insulation include the container, transportation, and burial costs. lhe costs
for the four steam generators shown in the table represent only the burial
costs. lrdnsportation costs for the steam generators are accounted for in the
total shown for Phase 4. The direct labor costs for removing and packaging
these materials are accounted for in the Phase 2 and Phase 3 labor Costs. A
detailed breakdown o f the disposal costs at US lcology for these items is
presented i n r?ble F.9.
Bzscd qm disposal cost information provided by Chem-Nuclear Systems,
Inc. for the Barnwell site (see Appendix 8 ) and upon vendor information
concerning heavy-haul and barge transport, the total estimated cost for
disposal at Barnwell for the aforementioned three distinct waste forms from
the steam generator removal project is about $21.7 million (see Table F.10 for
details).
The steam generator transport system [consisting o f an upender, lowprofile saddle, transfer skid, and frame trailer with shipping cradle) cost i s
a study estimate, based on discussions with industry personnel. The materials
and zquiprncnt c o s t given in Table F.8 includes $94,800 (without contingency)
for the purchase and installation of two drum compactors for the project.
Frotective clothing and equipment services are anticipated t o be provided by
an offsite subcontractor for the duraticn o f the steam generator project, at
an estimatea cost o f 121 per day per person, based on discussions with
industry personnel.
A summary of the contractor costs (presented as Phase 4 costs in Table
I .8) and sc!icdule for removal, hand1 ing, and transport of the steam generators
t o the U . S . Ecology, Inc., comnercial disposal site at Hanford i s presented in
lable F . 1 1 . It c a n be seen from the table that the contractor’s total time
onsite . including mobili:ation, removal of four steam generators, and
demobilization . i s estimated at 2 months, which is the basis for the equipment rental costs shown in the table. To scope the work, schedule the Lampson
lransilifts ( t l l s ) . develop the plans, procedures, training requirements and
calculations associated with the removal, handling, and transport o f the steam
generators is estimated to require a minimum 6-month lead time. Contractual
JI
,-
I)
.,
I .30
MlE F.11. Sumnary o f E s t i m a t e d C o n t r a c t o r Costs and Schedule f o r Rernp,yal,
Hdndling, and Transport o f t h e Steam Generators to Hanford
mwnt
Estlmated Cost
.-LuaA-
H o b l l i z a t l o n Cor shipment
to reference PdR:
Labor
Transportation Inbound
65,070
93,713
H o b i i i r a t i o n o f Equipment
a t reference PUR:
labor
65,070
Remove 4 each Steam Generators/
Loadout Aboard Barge:
labor
Estimated Time
-m&
2 weeks
2 weeks
4 weeks
125,729
M o b i l i z a t i o n f o r shipment
t o Han’ord B u r i a l S i t e :
labor
l r a n s p o r ! ? t i $ n Inbound
65,070
93,713
H o b i l l z a t i o n o f Equlpment
a t Hanford:
labor
65,070
Receive 4 each Steam Generators a t
Port o f Benton/lransport t o Hanford
B u r i a l S i t e and O f f l o a d :
labor
65,070
Oemobil i i e Equipment a t Referelice
Plant:
labor
l r a n s p o r t a t l o n Outbound
65,070
93,713
2 weeks
2 weeks
2 keehs
2 weeks
Uernobil i z e Lquipment a t ttanford
Burial Site:
L ahor
I r a n s p s r t a t ion Outbound
Major Equipment at Reference
Plant:
1. 100- ton Truck Crane
2 . 2 0 0 - t o n Crawler Crane
3 . 5 5 0 - t o n l r a i l e r System
4 . 550-ton Prime Hovers
5 . 111-900-ton Crane
2 weeks
65,070
93,713
Ib)
18,743
20,665
79,380
37,485
275.625
f.32
YELL
f.11. (contd)
Estimated T i m e
Estimated Cost
m
-.-&AWL
Major Equipment at Hanford Burial
site:
1. 100-ton Truck Crane
2. 200-ton Crawler Crane
3. LTL-900-ton Crane
Ihl
18,743
28,665
275,625
Major Equipment/lidw:!*~
Rarge
Lines (50 f t x 200 ft Barge with
Tug Boats):
1.
Transportation C o s t (Reference Plant to Port o f
Benton)
la)
(bl
IC)
(cl
a8.752
(30% Markup)
SI ,807,754
512.326
Estimated Total Cost
12,350,080
.
on l e t t e r s
I ) W l l i r m W L w r o n . Ne11 r Larnpson. Inc to George J. Konrak. Battelle
N o r t h e s i . trantnittinq r o q h . c r d e r . o f mqnttude d a t a 0,) d c c m i s s l ~ n c n gcost8 for s t e m generators
r w v d l fwn the r 8 f P i e n c e WQ.dated January 31. I W . 21 Paul F a r l s h . Net1 I Lanpson. I n c . . t o
h o r g r J < O n t c % . B d t t t I I e N u r l h e r l . t r d n r n l t l i n q updated c 0 8 l I n f ~ m l l o non d e i m l $ ¶ i O n l n q L O S l t
fop
stcam g w e r a t o ~ rr e m r d l fron the reference M . dated L p r i l 6 . 1993
Eared on 2 mf-t%sr e n l a l c o i l for edcLl p i e c e o f e q u l p w n l
P ~ ? e t ~n
f t r a v e l l i m e s o f d h u t 3’1 h o u r s upstream per t r i p and dbout 3 5 hours darnstream per t r i p
aara
approval by the ut lity/DOC is assumed to be requ‘red for all contractor activities.
Security measures equired during the steam generator removal project are assumed t o
be the responsibil ty o f the utility.
f
.8 NSWUOr!
It was determined in Reference 1 , and again in this analysis, that specific
steam generator repair/replacement cost data were generally not available, due t o
the inherently proprietary nature o f this highly competitive type o f reactor outage
work i n the U . S . However, the estimated c o s t s and conditions for reaoval o f a steam
generator during deconmissioniny Ldn be niuth more sharply defined now than they
could be in earlier studies. The activities associated with the removal process
are no longer first-of-a-kind, but rather reflect direct applications of developed
techniques and equipment. Recent learning experiences can be used to guide the
industry in planning for future steam generator removal operations.
Uhi l e relevant information on steam generator removal during reactor oritages
is now available, similar information from actual decomnissioning experience is
still largely unavailable. From the experience base reviewed in Reference 1 and
again for purposes of this analysis, i t is clear that 1 ) precise estimates of occupational doses for this type of large-component removal during decomnissioning will
probably remain uncertain because o f the uncertainties in the exact procedures which
could be utilized (e.g., harsher decontamination methods and more extensive dismantling operations could be used in decommissioning than would be allowed during a
replacement project); and 2) the feasibility as well as the practlcality o f the
reactor-specific procedures concerning steam generator r c m r a l will remain primary
considerations for decommissioning planners, since the estimated occupational dose
is highly dependent on the degree and manner o f decomissioning envisioned.
In general, i t is concluded that dose reduction during decomnissioning, relative to recent steam generator repair/replacement projects at the U 7 . operating
power plants examined in Lhis study, would be attributable t o :
Essentially no channel head or manway entries required for deconmisrioning.
Ch2mical decontamination of the RCS, including the steam generators,
which is anticipated to significantly reduce both contact and background
radiation dose rates for decomnissioning workers. Chemical decontamination processes for the RCS will be dictated by cost, decontamination
effectiveness, and radioactive waste management consideratlans during
decomnissioning. However, if a significant reduction in worker dose is
to be achieved, the value o f chemical decontamination of the RCS cannot
be overemphasized in the steam yenerator removal process during h n e diate dismantlement.
Partially filling the steam generators with water for shielding after
the chemical decontamination task, thus providing further reductions in
background radiation during the initial preparatory and the actual
removal cutting operations. This preparatory ALARA step also was done
at Surry. Turkey Point, and ti. 8 . Robinson.
f.34
R e m v a l o f each steam generator in one piece (01' in as few pieces as
possible), thus minimizing the cutting and welding operations inside
containment.
It is further concluded that, historically, it appears that a combination o f
poorly-defined data, controversial assumptions, and modeling difficulties for largecomponent removal projects have often resulted in significantly different occupational radiation doses than originally estimated. It seems reasonable, therefore,
that the actual ULc.upationa1 radiation doses for steam generator changeout projects
at operating PUR$ In the future can probably be expected to continue to vary for a
variety of reasons. It is anticipated that the occupational radiation dose during
decommissioning will also vary considerably from plant t o plant. In all cases, the
total dose fcr this la,rge-component removal operation is sensitive to 1) the amount
of preparations required; 2) the quality and thoroughness o f the preparations;
3) the degree o f success o f the chemical decontamination cavpaign; 4) the duration
working conditions; 5) the steam generator design and other plant-speclfic conditions; 6) the technology applied, involving to a large extent the need for and the
successful use of purpose-built tools and equipment; 7) the removal methodology
employed; 8 ) the skills ot properly trained and qualified workers; 9) the degree of
success o f the management iomnitment to maintain the occupational doses within the
CFR Part 20 limits and as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).
One potential change identified in Reference I , and reaffirmed again in this
analysis, is that fewer segmentation cuts per steam generator may be requfred for
removal during decommissioning than were envisioned in NUREG/CR-0130. Fot' d e c o m i s sioning planners, additional emphasis is recomnended on the initial general cleanup
and decontamination of containment as well a s o n the periodic housekeepiny and
decontamination o f walkways, platforms, tools, and equipnlent. All o f these activities will be beneficial in reducing worker skin contamination, airborne radioactivity. and the need For respiratory-protection devices during stean generator
removal prsjects.
In summary, there are definite advantages t o removing and transporting steam
generators in one piece, if possible, including reduced radiation exposure and a
shorter overall schedule duration. Other factors include crane and crane support
f.35
c a p a c i t i e s . space l l m i t a t i o n s , a r c h i l e t t u r a l c l e a l ..ices, and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r o u t i n g
cons i d e r a t i o n s .
F.9
1.
REFERENCES
G . J. Konzek and R.
Comnission Repart
2.
I . Smith.
1988.
R. 1 . Siitith, G . J. Konzek, and Y. E, Kennedy, Jr.
Safety
Power
Regulatory Commission Report by P a c i f i c
s u n . NUREG/CR-OI~O-~P
Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
5
1978.
k&lO1OQV.
rence Pressurized Nu.r&a&r
.*A-Iear Ena i m e r i n q h t e r n a t l
\.
Ah:.ad
4.
and W1s O f D e m k
by P a c i f i i Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington.
a<
n-d-
',
Technoloav. Safetv
o f Scheddle."
o a .
" P o i n t Beach 1 Steam Generators Replaced
DP. 38-42, January 1985.
0 . f . Johnson. "Health Physics and Exposure Hanagement Aspects o f t h e P o i n t
Beach Nuclear P l a n t Steam Generator Replacement P r o j e c t , " Paper presented a t
the Uestinghouse R a d i a t i o n Exposure Management Seminar, October 2, 1984,
P i t t s b u r g h , Pennsylvania.
1. S. LaGuardia, e t . a l .
---&MQ&$.
1986.
!&p&
for
m
ProducmComnerGtalw
AIF/NESP-036, Atomic I n d u s t r i a l
Forum, Inc. Report by T l G Engineering, Inc., B r o o k f i e l d , Connecticut.
6.
" B u i l d i n g C o n s t r u c t i o n Cost D a t a 1993,'
Kingston, Hassachusetts.
1.
"Means Kstimating Handbook 1991."
Massachusetts.
Robert Snow Means Compny, Inc.,
Robert Snow Means Company, ,nc.,
F .36
Kingston,
APPENDIX G
NUREC/C R 4883, VO!.2
APPLNDIX C
Methods, equipment, and disassembly procedures postulated to be used to
accomplish various decommissioning activities at nuclear facilitles, such as
the refci-ence pressurized water reactor (PUR), were discussed in considerable
detail in NUREG/CR-O130.('I Some of those methods are no longer state-of-theart, other methcds/techniques have seen improvements, some never fully mater4 alired for subsequent decomnissioning applications as anticipated (e.g., the
arc saw) , ( ' I and some new decomnissioning-related techntques, methods, and
equipment have come on the scene. Information associated with this latter
group is prescnted in Appendix K and i s not repeated here. Decomnisslonlng
methods used in this reevaluation study are presented in thls appendix,
together with the development o f selected cost estimates that are not pre.
sented elsewhere in this reevr!uation study. The information is presented i n
the following order:
system decontamination
surface decontamination
removal techniques and equipment
water treatment and disposal.
G. I
~UH.U!B!&!!N4Ill!.M..
For the purpose of this reevaluation study, the full-system chemical
decontamination (recirculatory method) is used where dilute chemical decontamination solutions can be recirculated until the desired degree of deconLamination i s obtained. The dissolved radioactivity and chemicals are removed
o n icjn exchdnie resin and the water is either reused for an additional decon-
NUUEG/CR-SIIRI, Vul. 2
c. 1
nnn for commmr
tamination step o r treated further fur discharge. lhis technique wd: identified to reduce dose rates (and therefore exposures) incurred during th subsequent removal and disposition of the prlmary coolant system piping a i d
associated equipment
a
The information presented herein i s based t o a large extent on discussions between the authors and senior staff o f Paclfic Nuclear Services, who
spcclal ire in chemical decontamination services and are currently under contract to Consolidated Edison o f New York t o perform the first full-system
decontdiiiiiiation o f a comnercial PUR in the U . S . .
The major contributors to the estimated total cost and occupational
radiation exposure (ORE) for full-system chemical decontamination at the
reference PUR are sunmarired in Table C.1. The total cost for these activities i s estimated at about $14 million, not including contingency. The total
0% is estimated to be about 46 person-rem.
The assumptions used in these reevaluation analyses are described below,
followed by a general discussion of the estimated cost, ORE, volumes of radwastes, and schedule associated with the full-system chemical decontamination
o f the reference PUR.
G.1.1
bSSUmDtiQs
In developing the chemical decontamination scenario and the subsequent
analysis, the following assumptions were used:
lhe PWR primary system components description and radioactive
inventory were taken from NURLC/CR-OI 30.
full-system chemical decontamination of PURs by a specialty contractor (vendor) i s postulated to be routine work by the time this
operation commences at the reference PUR (i.e., It i s assumed that
at least 3 such campaigns have been successfully completed prior to
the reference PUR campaign).
The full+system chemical decontamination will be completed during
the first year following final shutdown, after defueling o f the
reactor and deborating of the primary coolant water (to less than
100 ppn) by the utility.
C.2
Sumnary o f E s t l m a t e d C o s t s a n d R a d l a t i o r Dose f o r f u l l System
C h e m i c a l Decontaminatlon o f t h e Reference PUR
JJBLE CJ.
cor1 llRn
5
G
w t e r tr.rlnmt/r.l..,s(c)
d
I l * t d . c o I I Contract
(sptclalty ~ o n t r r c t o r ) ( g )
b I J t i l l l y support
It,'130.000
I?
UIC
28
' 7
750.000
USC
O~$poial o f Radloacllve
Water
KJlC-lall
l
y
lreatment
d
5 nigh-lntegrlty
Contalners
1
'0 I
61.8011k)
ProtOctI.e clolhlnq 6 equlp
u;nt serricus Ivendc- o n l y ) I t )
27.116
lolals [ d o contlngencyl
l4.6~l.311
-45.1
In1
ihc nsb?er o f riqnlficant l i g u r r s 1 3 f o r c w u t a t i o n a l accuracy and
mrmy signlficdnt f i g u r e s .
(a1
(0
A O J : ~n r d n s ~ C Ia p ~ i l l c a b l r . unless indicated o l h e r r l s e
A v C 1 r w t h V n t c o N J l L l o n a l step consldered neceisdry for optirml relulls (ran Ita s u t w q u e n l
c h m i cat r l c c ~ nam'
t n a l Ion opcrat Ions.
t f c n without c h n l c a l decontmtnatlon. thlr step would he neceisary d u r l ~ )d p c a m i r r ~ o n ~ n g
"uSL"
I n d i i : a t f l t h d l costs are Included I n the u t l l l t y rtaff c o ¶ t ¶ durlng I h t s perlod.
ilndl i t r b h Y t E L l cor1
(dl
re;
III
lql
It.)
01
(11
lkl
(ti
doer not ("pl y preciston l o that
for f1etaIJs
B a r e l upon *iirpoirl c o s t lnfonnatlon provlded by Chnn.WuclrIr S y s t a s . I n c . l o r the Biinwcll i l t e
fstc lvpe,.rltr e l . the t o t a l eri~mntrdb u r l r l cost for t h 18 n l c s g ( v m i n Stop 1.1, I S $i.rit.rso
inciw.ie.i , P u t i i l t y support.
A < c m c s th e Y S C o f v rious purps. Inclur'ing the 1 p r l m r y p w s . for I
2 rrebs c o n s w 8 i i p r o . i m t t l y 1 a 10 Mh o f e l e c t r i c i t y SI
d o i i r l b c d In N U R i t l C R . 0 1 3 0 .
Bare0 upon dirposal c o s t I n f O m t I o n provldtd h i C h - N u c l e d r S y s t m s . I n c . for the B a r n r r l l % I I e
(see b p c n d l z b), tta t o t a l e s t i m t e d D u r l a l cost l o r thc 5 HlCs glven I n Step 6 I s f 3 1 3 , e O O
Bared upor! f1iscus'llOnS with Industry personnel. these S e ~ v I c e 5are estlrmted t o he approilmstcly
$ ? l / d d f l p c r r o n f o r r a d - l o w workers only
See 1e.t
%I
I
c.3
Drph for Ccinmenl
No water rinses are needed following chemical decontamination; the
solutions wlll be drainpd, treated, and released according t o
applicable release standards; the systems will be left dry.
Uecontamination does not
unrestricted use because
lion; controlled removal
shipment to a comercl a1
ty) will be required.
permlt release o f the components for
of tightly adherent residual contamina-
and final disposition (either burial or
decon t ami na t ion/vol ume reduc t 1 on faci 1 1.
Removal o f components after decontamination requlres the same
labor as without decontamination because the components are still
contaminated. The same precrutions and ,)I eparations, contamination controls and packaging would be required. However, significantly less ORC would be incurred and fewer personnel would be
needed to accomplish the work.
*
The postulated decontaminatlon factor (OF) for the full-system
chemical decontamination o f the reference PUR i s a DF o f IO.
Decontamination dose reductions are accounted for in subsequent
removal o f components :fter chemical decontamlnation for each o f
the three decomissioning alternatives, as applicable.
The waste disposal costs presented in this appendix were specifically developed for the reference PUR, which is located within the
Northwest Compact, assuming disposal at the U . S . Ecology site in
Richland, Washington. To provide additional inforeation, the
costs also were estimated for disposal o f the reference PUR wastes
at the Rarnwell site in Barnwell, South Carolina.
G.l.2 [Ilrr~um
Just a s in NUHFC/CR-Ol30,(” the princlpal systems considered for
chemical decontamination in this reevaluation study are the reactor coolant
system ( R C S ) , the chemical volume control system (CVCS), and inter-tied
systems, I .e., those systems that contain deposited contamination representing
a radiation dose rate harard for further decommissioning effort once they are
drained and c(ried.
I ? the opinion of the authors, chemical decontamination of the aforementioned systems i s a necessary step even if the current decomnissioning plan
calls for placing the facility in safe storage for an extended period of time,
since completing the decontaminatlon step removes most of the internal radioactive contamination and leaves all optlons open for changing the decommis-
C.4
sioning plan at a later date. I t is unlikely that a chemical decontamination
could be carried out without major equipment renovation after the facility has
been in safe slorage for a few years, due t o equipment deterioration. I f a
decision wore made t o dismantle after 5 t u 10 years o f safe storage, significant radiation exposures would be encountered if the plant had not been
previously decontaminated. It should be noted that even without chemical
decontamination, the amounts given for C o s t Items I . and 5. (i.e., deboration
and water cleanup prior to release) In Table G . 1 would still be incurred.
l h t chemical decontamination project i s postulated t o be done by
an
experienced specialty contractor (vendor) well established in systems decontamination and associated integrated outage activities, under contract t o the
uti1 ity. During the planning and preparation staye, procedures and results
from previous decontamination efforts will be reviewed to obtaii, maximum
benefit from previous experience. lhen, with the reactor completely defueled
and the pressure vessel head reinstalled, the RCS and the CVCS will be isolated from the rpont fuel p o o l system. All possible branches of the CVCS will
be o p r r a t c d dirricg the decontamination period, with heated solution circulatiny throiigh p l l m l J 5 , heat exchangcirr, piping, and tanks, and returning t o the
HCS loop f o r r e t i c a t and cleanup.
liirr<!nt informat ion on chemical decontamination of 1 iqht.uater reactors
U J ~o b t a i n c d from a comprehen,ive rcvicw o f the literature and from discus.
>ion: with senior staff o t Pacific Nuclear Scrvices (PNS), Iocdted in
H i c h l a n d . V.ishiri'Jtoir. Ihe PtiS staff m p h a s i r e d that i t should be recognized
t h a t : 1 ) full-systcm chemical dec,ntaminations of light-water reactors are
very plant.;iwiific; 2) the amount of radwastes depends o n the solvent used
for Lhc! job: and, 3) since n o conmercial PUR has y e t undergone a full.system
chemical dccontanination in the United States, d f i r s t - o f - a - k i n d ( F O A K ) fullsystem chemical dctontamination o f a PUR could cost in the range of 120 to
5 2 5 million. Iiowever, when such decontaminations of PWRs become 'routine"
( d r f i n c d here as a f t e r a t least 3 such campaiyns have been successfully c o m pleted), a coct in the ranqe o f 110 to 115 million could be anticipated for a
full.system rhemical decontanination. lhis latter cost includes mobilitation/dc!aotiiI icJtion c.orts. d l l contractor staff costs, the costs o f chemicals,
mobile equipment, hoses, etc., onsitc radwaste processing, high-integrity containers for the resultant waste, and transportation costs, but not final
burial costs of the high-integrity containers ( H I C s ) .
Cased upon the information obtained from Pacific Nuclear staff, the
following schedule, dose and cost values, and volumes o f radwastes associated
with a specialty contractor's effort are postulated t o be reasonable estimates
for use in this reevaluation study:
About 4 months is estimated for the completion o f the full-system
chem!ca' decontamination project at the reference PUR. About
2 months are estlmated for mobiliratlon. including reactor-specific indoctrination training, equipment installation, tie-ins, etc.;
1 week around-the-clock for decontamination process application; 1
month to process the waste onsite (outside the containment building such that these latter activitiei d o not interfere with other
decommissioning tasks) and for concurrent treatment and release o f
the water from the reactor systems; and 3 weeks for demobilization
arld shipment o f the resultant wastes.
A I - t o 5.step process will be required to obtain the desired
results f r o m the decontamination process.
*
1
An occupational radiation exposure in the range of 30 to 50
person,rem couid be expected for the decontamination effort. For
purposes o f this study, a mid-range value o f 45.7 person-rem has
been assigned to this work.
In consideration of the uncertainties associated with a fullsystem chemical decont.amination to be done in the future, including the proprietary constraints and the highly competitive business climate for this type o f work, and based upon an antlcipated
cost in the range o f $10 t o 115 million, a mid-range cost o f about
1 1 2 . 5 milliori has been assigned to the work.
Solnewhere between about 2,400 and 3,500 f t 3 o f dewatered resin,
C l a s s A waste, containing about 5,000 curies o f activity, could be
expected t o result from the full.system chfmical decontamlnation
job. A mid-range volume o f about 3,000 ft is used in this study.
polyethylene IIICs postulated to be used f o r the radioactive resins
result i n y from t h e chemical decontamination operations must be dewatered
before burial. The HICs also are assumed to contain a nominal 15% void. f o r
The
the HICs postulated. for use In t h i q stitdy (burial volume of 5.72 in3 o r about
200 ft'/tilC), about 170 ft3 of waste resin/HlC (assuming a 15% void) results
in about 18 HICs requiring dispo5al at the low-level waste bur(a1 ground at
Hanford. Nine o f 18 HICs are postulated t o require engineered concrete barriers for disposal, since they are assumed t o contain 2% t o 6% chelates. The
remaining 9 HICs are assumed t o contain (0.1% chelates. It I s further assumed
that the contact readings on the HICs are about 80 R/hr. Based upon the
assumptions, i t is calculated that each HIC contains approximately 278 curles.
Under the postulated condltions just described and based upon dlsposal
cost information provided by U. S. Ecology for the Richland, WA, site (see
Appendix E ) , the total estimated burial c o s t for the 18 HlCs given in
Step 3.a. o f Table G.l is $404,498. Based upon disposal cost information
provided by Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. for the Barnwell site (see Appendix 8).
the total estimated burial cost for the 18 HICs given In Step 3.a. o f Table G . 1 is 11,731,780.
Upon completion o f the chemical decontamination process, the solution
remaininq in the systems cannot be released without some form o f additional
treatment since the water is expected to still contain measurable radioacti
vity. Therefore, the water will b e treated by batch process by a specialty
contractor (sampled, analyzed and treated again, as necessary until release
criteria are met) and releascd according to applicable release standards. The
derontaminated systems will be left dry. As shown in Table G.l, Step 5, the
cost for final water treatment is estlmated at 1750.000. It is further e s t i mated to take 30 ddys, working 21 shifts per week. Since the waste activity
conccnt.ration i s not well known at this point, it is difficult to predict with
tonfidcnce either the ORE o r the volume o f waste that will result from these
activities. tlowever, for the purpose of this study, I) an occupational
radiation exposure o f approximately 2 person-rem i s anticipated for these
activities; and ? ) i t is roughly estimated that an additional five 5.72-m'
h i q h - int.egrity containers (IiIC's) of spent ion exchange resin could be
required. U J S C ~upon disposal cost infolmation provided by U.S. Ecology for
tho Richland, W A , rite ( s e e Apvendix B), the c o s t o f subrequent disposal o f
the I4lC's (Step 6 in Table G . l ) , Prtimated at 161,803,1c' is assumed to be
the responsibility o f the utility. Based upon disposal cost information provided by Chem-Nuclear Systems, Inc. for the Barnwell site (see Appendix E ) ,
the total estimated burial c o s t for the 5 HICs given in Step 6 of Table G . 1 is
$373,800.
The utility is responsible for the c o s t s of indoctrination training for
all non-utility staff coming onsite; energy; deborating the primary system
water: :!ctectlve clothing and equipment services; routine radwaste COlleCtion, processing, and disposition; and final disposal o f the decontamination
wastes. Also, security measures required during the chemical decontamination
project are assumed to be the r'.donsibillty o f the utility.
In addition to the specialty contractor's (vendor's) staff, which i s
assumed t o be 18 people, the utillty must orovide technical support. A description o f the optimum project s.aff is provided in Reference 4, based upon
r e c e n t chemical decontaminations at boiling water reactors. However, the
author states that the information presented is applic-ble to both 8URs and to
PWRs. This study's approach is similar. Typical support staff for the
feference PWR are assumed t o include:
Station Project Manager (days)
or Responsible tngineers (one/shift)
Plant technical support (one per shift)
Head liaison engineer (one per shift)
Consliltant (one per shift)
Dcdicdted health physics support (2/shift)
One chemist plus one chemical technician per shift
Pipe fitters (two pcr shift on standby)
Ins t riimcnt technician and electrician ( 1 each/shi ft
laborers (two per shift on standby)
n s andby)
3
3
3
3
6
6
6
6
6
The aforementionnd persons are part o f the existing Period 2 utility staff
In addition, Pacific Nuclear staff related that their experiences to
date with chemical decontamination of drain systems indicates that it is
probably not cost-effective, nor practical t o chemically decontaminate reactor
drain systems orior to disassembly. Therefore, the piping in the drain
systems at the rrference PUR i s not postulated to be chemically decontaminated
before disassembly.
L.1.J
Istimatefl-W.$chedule
and
SePuence
Ihe overall task schedule and sequence of events for performing the
chemical decontamination is given in Figure C.I. It can be seen froin the
figure that tPe contractor's total time onsite, including mobilization and
demobiliratio7. is estimated at 4 months. I t is further estimated to require
a 12-month lrad time to scope and schedule the work, develop the plans,
procedures, training requirements, and cal cul at ions associated with the
chemical decontamination project.
G. 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ C ~ - - ~ ~ ~ ~ N ? ~ ~ J ~ ~ O ~
In this study, all contaminated horizontal surfaces are assumed t o be
washed usiiig a manually operated cleaning system which washes the surface
using high.pressure (250 psig) jets and collects the water and removed
mdterial simultaneously using a vacuum collection system. This s,ystem permits
excellent cleaning while avoiding recontamination d u e to dispersion of the
water. The same system, employing modified cleaning heads, is used to wash
vertical or overhead surfaces. An additional 20% o f labor time i s postulated
to be required for the vertical and overhead surfaces cleaning.
In general, the water.jet/vacuum decontamination activity can proceed
independently o f the recirculatorj method. Only a brief discussion o f the
water-jetjvacuum decontamination activity i s presented in this section, since
the specifics associated with this activity are described in detail in
Appendix C. I ikewise, the c o s t s per square foot o f surface cleaned are
developed in Appendix C and are not repeated here.
1.
step (a)
I?efueling
2. Radiation Survey (Basetino)
3
4.
-
0
1
->'<~thsAfter Shutdown
4
3
2
5
6
I--.1
35 days
Debrate to <lo0 ppm (b)(around4ho~clwk)
Specially Contractor ( S C ) (CJ
M&diralion (L Indoctrinati,-.iiT.aining (4wks) I
I
Installation,tiews. etc. (4wk)
9 Chem.Decontaminatbn ( 1 wk)
~
-
-
(around-the-cbck)
Process decon w a s w onslle arK1
treat 6 releaso wter
fromrractw systerns. including
process waste (around.
Ihe.c!ockJ (1 ro)
* Ship wastes (pari.itrnoelforl)
Demobilize ( 3 wk)
5 ullllty Support to SC'.d)
-
I
-
m
(a) Steps 1. 2 3. and 5 are tlorrc by ihn ~~tility
rb) See text Swtm G 4 1 , lor subsequeni trentmeilt and co5ts corwernlng thp
ilisposillon of thu condensato restlning lrom thls step
(6:)
Eighteen coplo are u s 4 lor tlns work
jd) uti~~ty
SIJ
s t i p p r i of the speciahy contraLtor (SCJ minin1izes costs ' 7 ' sc u
t ~ i for
l ulilily stalling details
R
s9m406i 5
f.&&lJ
Estimated
~ ~ .Task Schedule and Sequence
for Chemical Decontamination
he various removal techniques and equipment used in this study for the
remova
of contaminated and uncontaminated structural materia:s are discussed
below.
G.3.1
Remo.v_4!-.of.LQn.taminelcdCo u.r~.e>!K
h s
hose contaminated horizontal turfaces which are not sufficiently decon
tamina cd using the high-pressure washing system (see Section 1.1.1) are
removed iirinfJ d commercially available pncumalirally operated surface chipper
removal %ystem. Commercial systems which use very high pressure water jets for
surface removal are also available. For this analysis, a specific commercial
system nlanufactured by Pentex, Inc. is assumed (the Moose" and associated
-
7
smaller units) which chips off the surface and collects the dust and chips
into a waste drum, and filters the air t o prevent recontamination o f the
cleaned surfaces.
It is postulated that the depth o f concrete to be removed will vary from
location to location, but that on the average, removal o f about 0.25 in. will
be sufficient to remuve the residual radioactive contamination. Because the
removal system selected removes about 0.125 in. o f materjal per pass, an average c f 2 p ~ s s e swill be required over the contaminated areas. Because the
MooseN cannot Set closer to walls than about 6 inches, smalldr units o f the
same type are uscl t o clean t h e perimeter areas of rooms. For this analysis,
it is postulated that the p e r i m t e r areas comprise about 20% o f the total
surface area to be cleaned. For I-pass removal operations, the Moose* is
assumed to clean at the rate o f about 115 ft' per hour. Smaller units clean
at thp rat: of abu:#+ ?'! ft' per hour. Combining these rates by weighting witl,
the fractions of surface removed by each unit, the nominal rp ' i d 1 rate
becomes about 100 ft7/hr. Assuming an average o f 2 passes are requirt>. thP
effective average cleaning rate becomes 50 ft'/hr.
lhe smaller units (Squirrel 111' and Corner Cutter") could also be
utiliz,,d on vertical surfaces. The cost per square foot for vertical surfaces
would t . approximately four times the cost for horizontal surfaces, due to the
lower removal rates o f the smaller units. Staffing of the crews and unit cost
factors are developed in Appendlx C aihd are not repeated here.
Cuttins Uncontamin-gted Concr.eteJalls
G.3.2
and FlogrJ
All concrete walls and floors are assumed to be uncontaminated or to
have been decontam:nated before 5 a w i r l g operations begin. Thus, the costs o f
cutting uncontamitated corclete to provide acw:s to btiter c m p o n e n t s are
considered to be cascading costs.
L'.terlal and labor costs for cutting uncontaminated concrete walls and
based on the lcnyth o f cut, measured in inch-feet (i.e., a rut
I - ' i l c n deep, 1 f o o t I C ! ;
equals 1 inch-foot). Based on discussions with an
industry source, 60 inch-feet ner hour is used in this study as a reasonable
cutting rate.
f?c:i
_I
Ire
Cutting o f concrete wall< 1 7 acconpllrhed uslng a wall-saw on a mechanfcally driven track system. Cutting o f concrete floors I s done with a slabsaw. Scaffoldlng will be used as needed for installing and removing the track
system when sawing openings in walls. The concrete pieces are cut Into v w l ous shapes and sizes, depending upon the slze of the openings desired. NO
packaging is contemplated, since the removed material i s postulated t o be
uncontaminated. The removed pieces o f concrete are transferred to nearby
storaqe areas. Ihe basic operations for cutting concrete w i l l s and concrete
floors, together with the estimated clock times required to accomplish each
operation, the staffing, and the unit costs are developed i n Appendix C and
are not repeated here.
c. 3 . 3
B2!!.9.YLL-!2L.LU
The Containment Bullding polar crane and the Fuel Bulldlng crane are
anticipated t.0 be disengaged from their moorings by a vendor, lowered to the
operating floor, decontaminated, surveyed, and, except for the trolley drums
and asroriated cables, abandoned in place. The trolley drums and associated
cables frcm each o f the cranes wlll be packaged and shlpped to the low-level
waste disposal stte at tianford. In both buildings, these are the last
scheduled decomnissioning activities t o occur before thc 1 icense termination
survey commences.
Ihc major contributors to the estimated total cost o f cranes removal,
dctontaminat ion operations, and transport are sumnarized l n Table C.2. The
total c o s t o f t h e L e activities is estimated at about $616,000, including a
25% cont i n y ~ n c y .
estimated removal/l;hor costs and schedules for the removal o f the
Containment Building crane and the tue! Buildiny La.me are discussed below.
!wn conceptual methods fur the removal o f tiat Containment Building crane are
p~.c;cnlrd i n Table C.3 (Method I) and fable 6 . 4 (Method Z), respectively, with
t h e conceptual ci,,!hods depicted in Figure 6 . 2 (Mk:hod I ) and Figures C.3 and
L 4 ( H c t h o d 2). rcrpcctively. The postulated work plan associated with each
m ~ t t i o d i s includrtl with the respective figures. For the purpose of this
stirdv. t4ett.d 2 d t 1237.020 is se1e:ted over Method ; at $229,100 as the
[hi!
W
E
C,z.
Sumnary o f Estimdtcd Costs for C r m e s Dlsmantlement and Disposal
Activities
cosRemoval o f Reactor 81dK) Polar
Crane using Method 2
237,020
R e m m a l o f Fuel 8ldg. Crane'c)
75,780
De~sr,tbmination/Survey o f Cranes'd)
16,630
Disposal o f Radioactiv
Materials:
7,300")
2,837'''
Maritime Containers 2 )
Transportation (2 OU $ h i pmen t s )
Disposal
153.206'91
492,773
Suhtotal
-li!.3-;1p1
I
61 5,966
C . 13
-1 A U . J .
Sumnary o f Estimstcd Contractor Costs, Manpower, and Schedule
Removal o f the Containment Building Polar Crane Using Method 1 fa?'
Method 1
-
Usins C e n t a l e Jacks 6 Associated E ouloment ( b )
E s t inated
rpmcrrf.
E s t imated
!2lsL&
Ilanm
Equ 1 pment'*'
"Y)
4nU.L-
132,300
labor:
Jack Installation
6 Disassembly
(2 each)
4 people
42,240
?4
Remove Corbel
4 people
8,800
5
Lower Bridge
Crane
4 people
1,760
1
Disas mble Bridge
Crane TR
8 people
35.200
10
5 people
8,800
I
229.100
44
Closure of
Center Holes
Totals, Method 1
C.14
IAm..id. Sunmary
o f I s t i r a t e d L o i t t l I t o r Costs, Manpower, and Schedule
Removal o f t h e Containment B u i l d i n g P o l a r Crane Uslng Method 2
I'
H!sthQndl_JLrLna Bar C l I m b e r A Associated Eauioment l b l
I s t ima ten
I s t imated
Ccw..Q!nmi
-tlim.Qm
Equipment'@'
cam.?
Time
davs"
132,300
labor:
Tower Erection
10
E people
35,200
1 i f t i n g tlridge
5 people
1.653
0,75
Remove Corbel
4 people
8,800
5
tower b r i d g e
5 people
2.750
1.25
Disasf$mt81c Bridge
Cr dne
8 people
35.200
Tower Disassembly
( 4 each)
8 people
( 4 each)
IO
6
T o t a l s . Method 2
237,020
C.
IS
33
Center Hole Jacking
Lash Trolley lo Girders
Work Pl;!n
S9304067.1
Swure the Irolley Io bridge gtrders
Using Ihe cenler IMIO lacks. raise the brdge crane cssembly lo ine llrnils
n l l o ~ o db{ overhead clearances
Usdq linear c t i q e s . r e m e lhe mncrele corbel and rail
Coder thc br*lge crane using conlsr tlole pcks. lhe t i m e may act as a work
plallorm lo r e f m e any remaining rebar. elc 10 allow Iho crane lo pass :he corbel
Using the ccnlerble lacks. lcwer !he Lrvlge crane lo grade
f
I',UI?I 1;.2. f , r , n ( . ~ i i l l ~ rti,,
a l ( ~ m ~ ~ i . , $ i o r i i n1'1ari
!l
tor t h e Polar' (.raw U \ i n g Mothoil 1
Air Tugger
Lash Trolley to Girders
Bar Climber Towers
S9304C67 2
Work Plan
Using polar crane. SI .emWe bar cltmbmg lowers to the upper t m k ltmti
Using air luggers mountod at elevalffin 2OS.o'. sel the too tcwer secttons
Using the p l d r crane. set a bar cltrnber header boani Setween each 01 tho two
sels 01 towers at ground elzrafiun
LJsh Ihe lrollq io Ihe oridge girders
liaise 1b.u bar c1trnber:header assembly and lift Ihe brdyo qtrders
Usmg lirear sham charges. reinwe a seaton 01 lho corbei and rat1
Using rhe bar climbers lower the Ortdge girders to ground elevation
1
il.UkI 1;.,3.
(1111
v ~ ~ t t i ~I i ~
l
M ~ a l t i i i t l2
~ ~ I J ~ IP l~
. i r l , l~
o t - . (hi)
~~
Polar
I I ~~ . VI, I~
I W IU,>iriq
I~
. >hr.c>t 1 (11 7
Air Tugger
Polar Crane Girders
Oar Clirnher Header.
Shown in Raised Position
Bar Clirnher Towers
G . 18
preferred choice because o f ltie l e s w r manpowar cooml tmenl, better schedule
( i d e s ,fewer days to d o the project), and because the Contafnment 8ulldlng
roof i s not vlolated and thus subsequent repair costs are avoided.
The estlmatcd removal/labor costs and rchodule for tke romoval of the
Fuel Building crane are given in Table C.5. The postulatcd mathod used for
the removal o f the crane Is illustrated in tigure C . 5 . rhe estlmates presented in the tables are based upon Information provlded by Advanced Englneering Services. l d l
After removal of the trolley drums and associated cables, the docontamination process Is estimated t o rcqulre one week for each o f the cranes. I t I S
ostimated that two dedicated 5-person crews, worklng one crew on each o f two
shifts, will be required to complete these activities a t a total cost of
$15,002. Very little, i f any, occupatiuna\ radialton exposure is antictpated
from thcsa actlvitles. Each crew Is assumed t o conri:t o f the DOC staff
listed In Table G . 6 .
6.4
H~~LR_!SU\!MLN~.AELD..DI~PQSAL
Selected water treatment and disposal oporatlons associated with decom
missioning the reference PUR are described in this section.
6.4.1
-'
rrc_alm~rlL-BnPOi~PQ~~l
.nf..lhr ConcenLr_aIrd Dgrm-SnhLlan
The deboration process (Cost ltem I . I n Table C . 1 ) i s estimated to have
resulted In the temporary storage o f approxjmately 179,lOO yallons of reactor
grade boric acid solution. Pacific Nuclear's Radloactlve Waste Volume
Reduction Sy\tem (RVR-800)" or equivalent Is prcrumcd to be used by a vendor
for the disposition of this borated water a t an estimated cost o f S6 per
gallon, r c t u \ t i n g in a total c o s t of S1.074,600.'c' lhe end-product, a
pelletized powder, will be packaged in sixty four 55-gallon drums for
subsequent transport t o the low-level waste disposal facility at tlanford.
[mf.fi,30
Sunmar
Remova
Contrartor
Co s , Hanpower, and Schedule for
T ofo f lstimatrd
the rue1 Bullding
Crane
h\
E qu lpment
Mobilization 4
Demobi 1 irat ion
22,050
5 people
22,050
10
Crane 6 Rigging
Operat Ions
8 people
14,080
4
Hechan ical Demo'd)
5 people
.lL.W
-4
75,780
22
labor:
lotals
Based upon lnformatlon contalned in Appendlx E , the cost for in-compact burial
o f there drums at U . S . Ecology i s estimated at 123,278. Based upon information contained in Appendix 8 , the cost for out-of-compact burial of these
drums at Barnwell 1: estlmated at 1134,600.
Assuming 10% equlpment downtlme, i t i s calculated that approximately 164
consucutlve working days will be required t o complete this task. Iwo 12-hour
shlfts, wlth three people per shift, are involved In these operatlons. A
cumulative ORE o f about 3 person-rem I s anticipated.
G . 4 . c Spc~l-B!rL P_aal_Wht~r_lre$~~~_and_QIien~l
Upon reduction of the spent nuclear fuel inventory t o zero, approxlmately 7 year!, a f t e - final shutdown (see Chapter 6 for dclails), the spent
fuel pool ( S I P ) water cannot be released without some form o f additional
L
€
Grode Elevalion 4 5 ' 4 '
Ir---------
100' Radius ---S9304OG7 4
G.21
IMLE&h.
Crew Composition mnd Exposure Rate$ Postulated f o r Crane Cleanup
Crows
Labor Rate
Mm.hr.sLuwhr
La!mu
d
m
2.0
2.0
Laborer
Craftsman
0,5
H.P.
26.37
49.70
36 82
Foreman
ljQBf
9.A
580
6
0
0
52-71
99.40
I
-9
0
Averaye cost p e r crewahour, i n c l u d i n g s h i f t d i f f e r e n t i a l i c ’ $197.52
.
I
I
_
( 0 l n r l w l + ~IlOX
lbl
(1’
I
i
I
orerhdrd. 15% WC p t o f l l
c o t l s a r e rccounred I o r I n undlitrlbul~d l l 4 f i
~ I l l f r r s t i l l a lfor trcond s h l i l
IUIrunplelrnrsr.
coria.
‘ slnco the water w i l l c o n t a i n measurable r a d i o a c t i v l t y , Therefore,
the water w i l l be t r e a t e d by batch process by a s p e c i a l t y c o n t r a c t o r (sampled,
tro:’i
I
afIalyzod and t r e a t e d again, as necessary u n t l l release c r i t e r i a are met) and
releabed according t o appl {cable reloase standards. The SFP and assoc;ated
systems w i l l be l e f t d r y .
l h i s task i s very s i m i l a r I n nature to Task 5, shown i n Table C . 1 .
Oiscussions w i t h a q u a l l f i e d vendor have suggested t h a t t h e estimated vendor‘s
cost f o r t h i s task would be about $150,000. Subsequent t r a n s p o r t a t i o n costs
f o r the r e s u l t a n t r a d l o a c t i v e wastes a r c Includod i n t h l s c o s t estimate, b u t
raduaste b u r , a l costs are the r e s p o n s l b i l i t y o f the u t i l i t y . It is f u r t h e r
estlmated t o take 30 ccnsecutlvc days, working 21 s h i f t s p e r week ( 6 people
per s h i f t ) . Protective c l o t h i n g and equipment f o r vendor’s s t a f f are expected
t u c o 5 t the u t i l i t y about $11,340.
S i n c e the spent t u e l pool w a t e r q u a l l t y and e x t e n t o f d e p o s i t accumula-
t l o n f r m the f u c l asscmblles are not w e l l known at t h i s p o i n t , I t i s d l f f i cult t o p r e d i c t w i t h confidence e l t h e r the occupational r a d i a t i o n exposure o r
the voliime o f waste t h a t w l l l r e s u l t from these a c t i v i t l c s . However, f o r the
purpose o f this Ftlidy, 1) an ORf of approximately 2 person.rem i s a n t l c l p a t e d
f o r there a c t i v l t i e s ; and, 2 ) I t 1 s roughly estimated t h a t about f i v e 5.72 m’
IIIC’s c o u l d be r e q u i r e d .
G.22
Bared on irfformation contained in Appendlx B, the cost of flve HlCo 1 %
estimated at f 3 9 , 1 ? 5 . Ihe transportation cost for the HlCs from the manufacturer to the piant site i s estimated a t 14,210, based on a direct quote from
the lrl-Strto Motor lronsport Company, Twenty-one day$ of cork rental charges
come to an ostimated $26,250. Burial costs at U . S . lcology are estimated a t
$67,590. Purtal costs a t Barnuell om estimated at 1373,800. The burlrl t o s t
estimater are based on the assumptions that individual HlCs contain less than
50 curie#, o f activity each and ’ w e surface contact readlngs o f less than
20 R/hr,
A sumnary o f the total estimated costs and ORE for this activity I s
pre-
rented {n Table C . 7 .
Tho rpociflcs associated wlth the decontamlnatlon o f surfaces using
hlqh pressuro water wash/vacuurnlny are described in detail in Appendix C and
are n o t r’cpuated heve. Ilowovor, the water usage, and hence llquid raduaste
cjcnorat ion, treatmont, transport and disposal is addressed here.
At the calculated generation rate o f
I gallon per minute of system
operation ( s e e Appendix C for details), It i s estimated that approximately
27.330 gallons o f hlgh solids, l o w activity waste solutions will rosult frottd
the surface rleanlng tasks at the referenco P \ N . It i s postulated that a
transportable evaporator sol idification system, togethor with specialty contraitor n p c r d t i n q personnel, will be used t o provide this addltronal llquid
radioact I W w~.rtehandling capahil Ity and final cleanup capability at the
rclfercnri! PUR. Based upon discussions wlth senior staff at Pacific Nuclear
Fervicoi, the waste solution; are estimated to be processed for disposal
(i.e., waporated/solidified In seven 5.72 m’ I l l C ) at a unit cost of about
S10/cjalI on
Hobi 1 i zat ion/demob I 1 i rat ion costs add another $20,000, r e s u l t inq
i n a total *est o f $293,300 for this fixed-price contract. Overall, about
3G days are required to cornpleto the task, including mobiiization/
d m o b i l tiation. Occupational radiation exposure i s anticipated to bo less
thdri 0 7 pcrrori rem.
C.23
Sumnary of Fstimatpd Costs and Radiatlon Dose for SpPnt fuel Pool
Water Treatment and Subsequent Yaste Disposal
Fixed-cost Contract,(,,
Speclalty Contractor
750,000
Transportation o f H l C ~ ~ f o
Plant Site from Hfgr.
litgh- Integr/,\y Coriainers")
Cask Rental
Trans rtation
Bur I ap?h 1
Totals
Protectlve Clothing 6 Equipment Services (vendor only)
4,211
39,125
26,i?fjO
.. 0
61,590
I
-2
..(4
..
.-
."
.*
887, I76
"2
11,340'"
.-
The cost o f the HICs, cask rental, transportation and final disposal o f
the IiiCs are the responsibflity o f the Iicensee. Based o n information contained in Appendix 8, the HlCs are estlmated to cost 154,775; 25 days o f cask
rental come to 131,250; total transportation costs are estimated at about
524,350; and disposal costs at U.S. Ecology are estimated at $86,525. Buridl
costs at Barnwell are estimated at 1513,275. The burial cost estimates are
based on the assumptlonr that individual tiICs contain less than 5 curies of
activity carh and have surface contact readings of less than 5 R/hr. A sum-
c.24
mary o f t h e t o t a l estimated c o s t s and o t c u p a t l o n a l r a d i a t i o n exposure f o r t h i s
a c t l v l t y i s presented i n Table 0,8,
flu$.
Sumary o f Estlntated Costs dnd R d d l a t l o n Dose for Temporrry urstr
S o l l d l f l c a t i o n System Operatlon and Subsequent Waste Disposal
E It !ma t e d
IIpermkremL.-
“-..-LQsUkeL- Z & l W
F ixed-cost
293,300
Contract, ,bl
S p e c i a l t y Contractor
Disposal o f R a d i o a c t i v e
H a t e r 1 a1 s :
Estimated Dose
(0.9
<O. I
54,775
31,250
24,343
High. Integr),!,y
Container(C’
Cask R e n t a l
Transpphtat ion(”
Burial
U 2 L
196.893
--.-
1otals
N I J W E C I C R . S SVol.
~~. 2
490,193
C.25
-0.8
Dnn for Cmunent
2.
T . S. LaCusrdla, and J . f , Rirely. 1986. 1QIFntLtcation U l u a t l O n
ofFacl11tath&&sllmixrtPeLnsl-W
Reactors. NURCC/CR-3587, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Coamlsrion Raport by
T1C Engineerlng, Inc., Brookfield, Connecticut.
3.
EPRl NP-6023, Project 1329.3.
Research Instltute Final Report
Nlagara Falls, New Vork.
4.
1988.
m
-
oaceat_GnmePllhUmW b r Po
%, Nli-hnical
0. H. Vrnder riff. August 1987. I Y a W n of
!XULh!!fh_B &~&j&g~t~~&jmJ&h~rechnolpsu.
C.26
s, Electrlc Power
Consultants,
BerenllltFuUpt?rJI
EPRl Report NP-5515.
APPFNOIX H
The est imated volume of mixed radioactivelharardous waste ({.e., nixed
waste)") and the costs assoclated with its removal, bdckaging, and either
storage or disposal were not rdnsidered in the nrlktna) dec6mlsrioning study
on the reference pressurized dater reactor (PUR) . ( I ) Disposal of mixed
wasti?$, especially sol Id mlxed wrste, generated by the comnerclal nuclear
power Industry In the United btates i s presently very difficult, if not
impossible, since there ara no disposal s i t e s licensed for radioactive wastes
and permitted for harardous wastes, Consequently, 1 icensees must store mixed
wastes until a disposal site becomes available, The statutory and regulatory
requtrements, current NRC guidance on the management of mixed waste, what i s
currently being done to deal with the problem o f mixed wastes, estimated
productton o f mixed wastes during operation at selected light water reactors,
t h e postulated production of mixed wastes during decomnissioning at the
reference PUR, and the estimated costs for storagt. Ind disposal of mixed
wastes are discussed in this appendix. The conclusions of this appendix are
presented in Section t 1 . 7 .
tI.1
SIAUIJQRY-AND REGULA TORY REOU I RE HENIS
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has authority under the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)'b' over the management of
hazardous wastes. Radioactive material, as deflned in the Atomic Energy Act
(AEA), is excludcd from the definition of solid waste in the RCRA. AccordThe
ingly, comnercial use and dlsposal of soiirce, byproduct and rpecia’l nuclear
materials, and wastes are regulated by the NRC to meet the envlronmenlrl
standards developed by [PA, Low-level radloactive wastes (LLW) containing
source, byprodbct, or special nuclear material tbdt also contain chemical
constituents which are hazardous under EPA rcgi,lations i n 40 CFR Part 261,
IdPetiflr~lJnn_~md_Llr~ias-~LliKKdollLWatte
are referred t o as xed Uaste
(mixed LLW).
The Low-level Radioactlve Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 defines
LLW as radioactive material that (A) i s not high-level radioactive waste,
spent nuclear fuel, or byproduct material as definod i n section 116(2) o f the
AEA ( \ , e . , uranium or thorliim ml\l tailings) and (6) the NRC c\a$sifies as LLW
consistent with existiny l a w and In accordance with (A). llsted hazardous
wastes include hazardous waste streams from speclflc and non-speclfic Source$
listed in 40 C F R Parts 261.31 and 261.32 and discarded commercial chemical
products Ilsted in 40 CFR Part 261.33. I f LLW contains a llsted harardous
waste or non-AfA regulated materials that cause the LLY to exhiblt any of the
hazardous waste characteristics . ignltabllity (Section 2 6 1 . 2 1 ) , corrosivity
(Sectlon 261.22), reactivity (Section 2 6 1 . 2 3 ) , and toxicity, as determined
using the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure (Section 2 6 1 . 2 4 ) . the
waste i s mixed 1iW. The waste must be managed and disposed of in compllance
with E P A ’ s Subtitle C haiardous Waste regulations in 40 CfR Parts 124, and 260
through 270, and NRC’s regulations in IO CFR Parts 20, 30, 40, 61, and 70.
Ihe generator i s responsible for determining whether LLW contains listed or
characteristic hazardous wastes. Furthermore, management and dlsposal o f
mjxed LLW must be conducted in compliance with state requirements in states
with €PA-authorized regulatory programs for the hazardous components o f such
waste and HRC agreement state r a d i ~ t i o ncontrol programs for LLW.(2’
In summary, NRC regulations exist to control the byproduct, source, and
siiecial nuclear material components o f commercial mixed LLW; EPA has the
authority t o control the non-radioactive component o f the mixed LLW. Thus,
thc individual constiturnts o f comnercial mixed LLW are subject to either NRC
o r LYA regulatlons. When the components are combinpd t o become mixed L I W ,
neither statute has excluslve jurisdiction; however, RCRA Section l006(a)
states that the A M requirements have precedirrice in the event an inconsistency
Is found between the requirements o f the two statutes. T h i s has resulted In a
situation of joint regulation where both NRC and €PA regulations may apply to
the same waste. To aid comnercial LLU generators in assessing whether they
are currently generdting mlxed LLU, the NRC and the EPA j o i n t l y developed a
revlred guidance document entltled, "Joint EPA/NRC Culdanco on the Definition
and Identlfication o f Comnercial Mixed Low-Level Rtdloactive and Hazardous
Uaste,' Directive No. 9432-00-2, October 4, 1989. It is based on NRC and CPA
regulations in effect on December 31, 1988. Applicatlon o f the methodology to
identlfy ntlxed LLU, as delineated in this document, will reveal the complexl.
ties o f the definition o f mixed LLW. Generators with specific questions about
whether L1W is mixed LLW can call NRC and EPA rontactr given in the dtcument.
States are authorized to promulgate mixed waste regulations under the
RiRA as long a s their regulations are no less stringent than applicable
federal regulations. States, however, have been slow to receive authorlzrlion
to regulate mixed waste under their approved RCRA programs. Mixod waste is
reyuldted as a RCRA hazardous waste In those states where EPA implemonts the
entire RCRA Subtitle C program (i*e., unauthorized states) a s well as in
authorlred states which have obtain-d spociflc authorization from IPA t o
implement a mixed waste program C u r w i r l y , there are five unauthorized
states (Alaska, California, llawaii.
and Wyoming) and, a s o f January 31,
1992, 29 additional statas and territories with mixed waste authorization.
In any statu previously w f h J r i 2 e d by EPA to regulate hazardous waste,
but not mixed waste, the gener.:t ion, transport, treatment, storage or disposal
of mixed waste is not regulatrr'l under the federal RCRA program until the
state's mixed waste authorization is approved. But in states not authorized
to run their own RCRA program, federal RCRA mixed waste regulations become
effective upon promulgation. A further compllcalion comes about sinre no one,
not even the federal government, has reliable data on the number o f facilities
produclng mixed waste or the volumes produced annually. [PA estimates that 2
to 30% o f all low-level radioactive waste contains RCRA-hazardous components.
There is also a recognized absence of treatment and disposal facilities. In
addition, complications attending mixed waste dlsposal are expected to yield
massive disposal costs. which aro likply to rise still further at generators,
seeking t o avoid costs as hlgh as $20,000 per cubic foot, cut their mixed
waste output drarticalty, thereby pushing up costs lor the remaining
waste,"^"
Tho NkC and the [PA have been working together for several years to
resolve tile issues associated with mixed waste. Ihe agencies conuucted a
survey o f generators of comnerclal mixed radioact ive/hazardous waste and are
completing two joint techrlical guidances on testing and storage o f such
wastes, Oak Rldge National laboratory, which conducted the voluntrry generator survey for the two agencies, sent out questionnaires to over 1,366
potential mixed waste generators in November 1991. The results o f the survey,
presented in NURfG/CR-5938,") have been used t o develop a natlonal profile
that i s expected t o provide needed inforfiation t o states and compact off!.
clals, private developers, and federal agencies to assist in plannlng and
devcloplng adequate disposal capacity for low.leve1 radioactive waste,
lnciudlng mixed wastet a s mandated by the LLRWPAA o f 1985. Tile report also
contains information on existing and potential comnerclal waste treatment
facilities that may provide treatment for specific waste streams identified in
the national survey. lhe report provides a reliable national database o n the
volumes, characteristics and treatabil Ity o f comercial mixed waste In the
United Stator. Data from the survey also may serve as a basis for posslble
tederal actions to effectively manage and regulate the treatment and disposal
o f mixed waste.
NRC and FPA also are developing a joint guidance on safe storage o f
mixed waste. Given the current lack o f treatment and disposal capacity for
most mixed wastes, both agencies are concerned with problems that could arise
from long-term storage of such wastes. The joint guidance will address issues
associated with onslte storage, Including inspection and surveillance o f
waste. waste compaLibility and segregation, storage container requirements,
and t i m e limitations on storage of untreated waste. Tor each issue, the
agencies are attemptiny to identify acceptable practlce~.~')
In instances where regulatory authority can be delegated, the EPA may
delegate regulatory authority t o the state for state programs that meet or
exceed EPA requiremonts, Where requlalory authority is not delegated, [PA Is
responstble for revlewlng and evaluattng compllance utth the €PA regu\atlons.
This includes interpreting regulations and consulting with reactor owners and
their contfactors to aid regulatlon implementrtion and Inspection o f faClli*
ttw at the rites.
Guidance on storage and dlsporal of mixed wastes at nuclear power plant5
i s provided i n Draft Regulatory Guide DC-1005,'6' Ihe draft gulde describes
elements to be included in the radioactive waste management plan, which 1 s
p3rt of the fliral decomnissionlng plan submitted by the licensee t o the NRC.
The radioacttve waste man.igement plan should contain a description o f f e
procedures, processes, and systems used for dlsposlng of a\\ rad\oact(ve
waster as well as a detailed characterlration o f the wastes t o be generated
with projected volumes, radionucl {de concentrations, waste forms and classification, and inforinat Ion on any signillcant quantities o f special waster such
as mjxtddfifas and chelating agents. Expected dispositions o f these rnaterials should also be identlfied with respect to treatment, packaging, interim
storage, transportation. and dlsposal. The need for changes t o the stte
radwarte process coiltrol plan and transportation plan should be addressed.
I f rvjloactive wastes are t o be stored onsite, the quantities of waste,
the expcctcd length o f storage, the location o f storage areas, radiation
1c.elr a t access points, and the manner in which positive control will be
malnta\ncd should be descr\bed. Ihe plan shou\d indlcate the extent to whtch
the sltc has been previously used to dlspose of low-level radioactive wastes
by land burial and indicate the remedial measures that are appropriate before
the site Lan be released for unrestricted use and the license termlnated.
In addition, the NUC has published d draft guldance document intended
for use by NRC licensees entitled, 'tlarifiratlon o f RCRA llazardoirs Waste
IcstitrrJ Hcquiremcnts for Mixed Waste," March 1992. Described in the guidance
are: I ) t h o current regulatory requirements for determining if a waste i s a
RCRA hazardous waste; 2) the waste analysis information necessary for propcr
treatment, storage, and dispo:al o l mixrd waste;'" and 3) the implications
o f the RCW land disposal restrictlons (IDRs) on the waste characteriratlon
and analysis requlrements. This Informat.lon will be useful for radloacttve
mixed waste generators, who must determine If their waste 1s a mlxed waste1
for those generators storjiig mixed waste unslte in tanks or contalnerq for
longer than 90 days, who consiquently become responsiblo for meeting RCRA and
NRC storage t'equlreinont$; and for those facilities who accept mixed waste for
o f f s i t e treatment, s t w a y e l or dlsposal.
11.3
IILIAL.& - U R ! ! I L W S Z L I I I l I 1 . P E A I . . . H U H . - W R W U ~ ILS
A I though primary respansibillty for the development o f treatment and
dlsyosdl tcchnologles rests with the nuclear industry and the Department of
Inurgy, NRC is currently conductlng several activities that should facilitate
development by clarifying the regulatory framework f w mlxed waste management,
NRC anif I D A are jointly developing guidance documents on waste characterizal i o n , inspection, and storaye o f mixed waste. The waste characterization
yuldance wlll address occupat lonal exposures during testing. lhe inrpectlon
guidance will provide NRC Regional, Agreement State, EPA Regional and
Authorlzed State inspectors with background information on mixed waste
Iiccnrlng and yermittlng, inspection planning and coordination, cross-training, and conduct o f mixed waste inspections. The storage guldance will c o w
bine the NRC radloactive waste storage recomnendatlons with CPA storage
requirements. In addltion, NRC i s providing assistance to EPA in the permit
writers' workshop on mixed waste regulation.(')
CPA has set some treatment standards for mlxed wzste. Inclneratlon Is
an appl icable technology for low-level waste comblned with organic compounds
in wastewater and non-wastewater, as well a s ignitable llqulds (listed waste
number 0001 under RCHA). With the exception o f scintillation fluids contain-
ing low lovels of carbon-14 and m w r u r y , OOt has the exclusive franrhlse on
mlwed-waste incineration in the United States. Incineration o f mixed wastes
destroys organic chemicals and reduces volume. An experimental W I reactor at
the Idaho hational EngineerinD Laboratory, for example, I s getting a 250.to.I
reduction rate: thus, substantial savings could be realized from c o m e r c i a l
But at the Rocky
application o f this technique, if i t were
flats Plant, near Denver, Colorado, DOC abandoned plans to start an inclnera.
tor for mixed hazardous and radioactive wastes when public opposition combined
with problems during the plant's testing phase.(")
Diversified Scientific Services, Inc. (DSSI), Kingston, Tennessee, I s
the only comnercial company In the United States currently licensed and permitted to treat/store selected liquid, mixed low-level wartss, In addition,
tho nation's largost low-level waste processor, Sclentific Ecology ?roup, Inc.
(SIG) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, has applied for permits and a license to
operate the first commercially available inclnerator for solid and liquid
mixed wart@. I h c incinerator I s currently licensed only for low-level radioactive waste. The company submltted an ACRA Part A permit application in
March I991.''' lhe associated Par1 B permit application was submitted to the
Tennessee Division o f Solid Waste in early 1993. These permits, when yranted,
will allow S I C to store and treat characteristic hazardous wastes.
U.S. fcology, Inc. i s developing a new low-level waste burial ground at
Uard Valley, California. The company has said that i t expects ultimately to
store m i x p d waste at Uard Valley; howevar, i t prefers to develop the part o f
the s i t e needed for the estimated 95% o f the expected LLW that is not chemi.
tally hazardous."'
As previously mentioned, EPA estimates that 2 to 30% o f
all low-level radioactive waste contains RCRA-hazardous components. At
present, I t appears that no one Is exactly certain what percentage o f lowlevel radioactive waste generated durlng the decomlssioning process will
contaln RCRA-hazardous components. Addittonal LLW may be identified a s mixed
in the futuro, as generators implrment the deflnltlon o f mlxed L L Y and as
[PA revises the d e f i n i t i m o f hazardous waste. At currently ertlmrted Cost3
as htgh as $20,000 per cublc foot for dlsporal of some mlxed waster, there
exlrtr strong Incentlve to Imple.nent mlxed waste rnlnlmlratlon technloues. io
LLU
In August 1991, EPA decided not t o enforce RCRA land disposal restrlctions (Section 3604) for mlxed LlU for two years, slnce nelther treatment nor
disposal Is avallable for such wastes. In effect, EPA outllned a pollcy that
can he used on a slte-speclflc bas's t o provide reduced enforcement prlorlty
t o the storaye o f somo mlxed wastes. Thus, the new pollcy acknowledges the
Impossibility o f enforclng the land-ban restrlctionr for these wartos.
Generators i less than 1,000 cublc feet per year o f nlwed waste wlll not be
Interfered wlth so long as they are managing wastes In a responslble manner,
as defined by tPA. This Includes: 1 ) an Inventory o f stored mlxed waste,
2) Idenliflcatlon o f such waste and good records, 3) a mlxed waste mlnlml.
zation plan, 4) documentation o f 'good faith" efforts to ascertain availability o f treatment and disliosal, and 5) cooperation wlth EPA an a mlxed waste
survey it is conducting jointly wlth NRC (see Sectlon 11.1 for detalls). The
policy wlll terminate December 31, 1993,") I f sufficlent lawful treatment or
dlsporal capacity becomes available before then, it could be terminated early.
On the other hand, it may be extended, although EPA I s under n o obligation to
d o so.
Ar reported in Reference 4, the so-called 'land-ban" restrictlons have
placed some mixed waste generators In a "catch-22' sltuatlon. The llarardous
and Soli4 Wastp Amendments Act o f 1984 amended RCRA t o , among other thlngs,
prohibit storage o f hazardous waste subject to the land Dlsposal Restrictions
(IIlRs) 'unless such storage I s solely fer the purpose o f accumulating necessary quantities o f waste t o facilitate proper recovery, treatment, o r d l s posal." However, for radloactive mlxed waste falllng under LOR, nelther
treatment or disposal options exist, leaving generators unable t o comply with
the regulations.
11.8
14.4
fSIln(lISn.PR~PVULPfL.QrHlXW W T I S RYR1HE.OPtRA1IQNPL.SEI.FC~lO~l.lE~t’IWILRBE(ICUIb
The following information was extracted from Reference IO. In 1990, the
Nuclear Hanagemant and Resources Councll (NUMRC)completed I study o f mixed
wastes In the comnerclal nuclear power industry,l”l T h i s Investigation developed estimates o f generation and disposal rates for mixed wastes from Iightwater roactor operatlons (sumnarlxerl In Table H . 1 ) . Two case estimates were
developed for the NUMARC study, one based o n a set o f conservatlve assumptlons
and the other based on reasonable changes made t o those assumptlons. The
“reasonable assumptions* case indicates a lower bound IUR mixed waste genera.
tion rate o f 02 m’/year and a dlsposal rate o f 21 m’lyear. These “reasonable
assumptions“ are based on the following:
It I s possible to segregate wastes containing certain hazardous
([PA Code F003) spent solvents from other spent solvents.
Characteristically hazardous wastes can be processed to render them
nonhatardou\.
Procedures can be implemented t o minimize radiologic31 contamlnation.
Catlmlurn content in welds and weld rods may be shown to not exhibit
the 1C 1P/E P t ox ic i t y character I s t 1c s .
Lxpllcil account can be made o f the timing o f mixed waste generated on
an infrcquent basis.
Scintillation cocktallr, may be shown t o not exhibit the ignitabil.
i t y charartcrist ic.
Chromate.bearing ion-exhange resins may be shown to not exhibit the
TCL P/ IP lox ic i ty c harac tor is t i cs .
OecontaminJtton resins may be shown t o not exhibit the corrosivlty
tharacterist ic.
Individual plants may have design and operating features whlch do
not produce the mixed waste s t r e a m assumed in this estimate.
11.9
lJfJLLJj,I,
S u m s r y o f NUHARC l i l l m d l y c { Charartoristics o f Hixcd l L U from
Conunercial 1UR Oporrtlons ’
Annual waste Volume (myyear)
Generated
Dlsposed
I
Source
“d
PUR Operations
102
12.5
BUR Operations
119
59.5
I W R Total, Coriservat ivo Base Case
21 1
LUR Total, Reasonable Assumptions Case
82.1
.
102
21 - 2
11.5
The implcmentation o f waste minlmliation technlques at the refarence PUR
during the operating years is assumed t o carry over into active decomnissioning periods, resulting in relatively small volumes o f generated mixed wastes
(either liquid o r solid). As usod here, waste mir,imiratlon refers to reducing
the volume o r toxiclty o f waste by using source.reduction techniques (e.g.,
chemical subst itutlon, process modifications, or recycling). lhese techniques
arc not to be confused with the broader definition usually associated with
waste reduction, which includes source reduction and recycling, but i t also
acknowledges various waste treatment options as useful t o reducing the volume
o r toxicity o f waste. Under these definltions, compaction to decrease waste
volume would be considered waste reduction, but not waste minimization.
I f mixed wastes are required to be stored for a lengthy period at the
referrnce PUR after final shutdown o f the reactor. terminatlon of the llcense
would be delayed until the mlxed waste tnventory i s reduced to zero, and OLCON
would not be possible. Similarly, ENTOMB would not be possible until the
mixed wastc invcntory was reduced to zero, slnce entombment o f mixed wastes is
not rovcrrti by federal regulation. I f etther the hardened or passive SAFSTOR
option is selectcd, the mixed waste inventory is anticipated to be added t o
the existing waste inventory that miict tin rafrly crrod for. For thr purpose
of this study, it i s assumed that: I) If a RCM permit ekisted during operation of the reference plant for the storage of mixed waste, the permlt would
bo continued into the postulated decohm{rsioning storage period, presumably
until disposal of the mixed waste occurred; and 2) the RCRA-related costs
(including liability requirements) and the ultimate disposal costs are considered to bo operational costs.
with a representative o f Diversified Scientific Services,
(OSSI), Kinyrton, Tennessee, revealed that costs of aboltt $35 per gallon
A discussion
Inr,
(1991 dollars). not including transportation, for disposal of selected, liquid
mixed wastes i s a reasonable estimate to use.(") firm cost estimates for
slmilar s o w i c e s concerning disposal of solid mixed LLV were not obtained,
However, joint
since such services are not curre?tly available in the U.S.'"'
regulatlon by both NRC and EPA is uxpecLed to make the unit cost of disposing
of mixed waste much higher than the c o s t o f disposing of other low-level
wastes. ( 1 1 )
11.7
€S!YClYSIOYS
Currently, mixed waste i s estimated t o account for less than 3% o f the
annual generation rate of L l W (by volume). No offslte disposal or treatment
facility for mixed waste has been available since 1985. U t i l i t i e s are finding
ways to !reat some o f their mixed waste so that i t i s no longer a chemical
hazard, thus making it possible to dispose o f the radioactive component along
with other L I U . The remainder of mixed waste. however, i s currently stored
onsite. ( I ? 1 4 )
for purposes of t h i s study, the ultimate cost o f disposal of mixed
wastes (either liquid or solid) expected to be present on the reference PUR
site a t final shutdown are considered to be operational costs, since they were
iricurred during operation . c the plant. It should be recognized. however,
that regardlesc, o f when sol Id mixed 11U i s generated, comnercial treatment,
storage, and dispocal servicot for the waste d o not currently exist. Based an
projected astrunomical disposal c o s t s and on the uncertainties surrounding the
ultimata disposition o f solid mixed LLU, It I s assumed further that implemen.
tation o f waste minimiratlon techniques used during the operating years o f the
plant will also be used during decomnissloning. Therefore, only a relatively
small amount, I f any, o f additional solid mlxed LLW I s assumed to be generated
durlng decomnlsrioning o f the reference PUR.
tl.8
I.
lUPRfNCfl
R . I . Smith, G . J. Konzek, and W. E , Kennedy, Jr. 1978. Jer;hnnlosr,
Safety $04 .<QS \ L 3f ~rn.~.isrlsr!inpk.~tP~~_PTe~ftlltl2LCd-~ater..~~8eas
c\g~-pywg~.j&&lgn. NUREC/CR-0130, U S Nuclear Regul atory Comnl ss Ion
Hoport by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Uashington.
I
I
2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnlssion. 1989. "Guidance on the Definition
and Identification o f Comnerclal Mixed Low-Level Radioactive and Hazardous Waste."
3.
UaLerdQuLh!asLcNekf5, July 1 , 1991, pp, 2 5 6 - 2 5 7 .
4.
P ~ l e a ckls.$\sHcMS, August 29, 1991, pp. 342.344.
5.
Oak Ridge, "1enoes;ee.
6. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1005,
"Standard Format and Content for Decomnlssloning Plans for Nuclear
Reactors," September 1~89.
1.
letter, Ihe Honorable Kenneth H.
Commlsslon, to Ihe Honorabiv Horr
Interior and Insular Affairs U . S .
information on issues related to
w a s t e s . dated January I O , 1990.
0.
-l ~ ! . - C j ~ y . October
. ~ ~ ~ ~6,, 1991. "Company lieads for Uncharted Territory," p. A9
arr, \'hairman, U.S. Nuclear Regulator/
s K. I.'lall, Chalrman Comnittee o n
House L f Representatives, transmi ttiny
he trealment and disposal of mixed
9. ~ g ~ ! e 4 ~ . ~ $ ~April
- ~ . 1989, "NRC Isrt3?s Guidance on 1990 Certifica-
tions,"
I,.
114.
11.12
Nuclear Management and Resources Counctl ,
CeunLBndi!~~UHfiWenr
UHARC/NESP*006,
n
prepared by Rogers and Associates En ,
.C.
(January
1990).
Uaste Management, Inc., Uashington,
8
NURIC-1437, Jolume 1.
mmi,
1991. Eenar
U.S. N u c l e w Regirlatory
CAO/RCED.92-61. January
L
~
~
1992.
~
in
Wuclear..Warte....51owwsz_ekualnnir.s
l
~ United States
~
General
~
Accounting Oft ice Report to Congresslonal Requesters, Washington, D.C.
1W9. “Partnerships Under Pressure: Managing Comnerclal
Low-Level Radioactive Uaste,” Office o f Technology Assessment, U . S .
Congress, Uashington, O.C.
OTA.0.426.
11. I 3
I ) r d lor Cmrhtrnt
~
l
In d e c o m l s r i o n i n y , tho faclllty llcenree must be aware o f appl lcrl~li?
regulatory requirements and regulator,y guidance. Ihe U . S . Nuclear Regulatory
Comnlsslon (NRC) provldes decomnlsslonlng guldellnes in the rule "General
Rc,qulri?ment$ for 0ccomhls:lonlng Nuclear Facilltles. n('l In tdditlon, Regulatory Guide I .86'" contains guldance on dvcomnicslonlny procedures.
Ihe Ilcensee also shouid recogrblte lhat two offices within the NRC share
the rcsponslblllties in the decommlsrioning process for vower reactors . - the
O f f l t , e o f Nuelear Reactor Requlatlon (NRR) and the O f f l c o of Nuclear Material
Safety and Safeguards (NMSS). An overvlew o f their decomnlssloi~lng regulatory
rcrponribilities I s illustrated in Figure 1 . 1 . NRC project manageioent resporisibility shifts from NRR to NMSS upon approval o f the decorrmissloibiny plan.
Upon transfer o f p r o j e c t managcmeiit responslbil Ity, NMSS takes on the respon.
sit)iI ity o f overview of the llcenseo's implementation of the approved
dccommi S I i on In- plan,
l h i r chapter identlfler ntid dlrcuries regulatlons, yuldes, standards,
and changer in regulatory requlrements from those del lneated In NUREG/CR.0130,
which was ptrbllrhcd in June 1978."'
The chapter 1.c organized according to
the following p h a w , o f dccoimissioninq: planning and preparation, activc,
tltvonimIssionincJ, and, In tho case o f storage modes o f deconimissionly,
continuing C d r C . for romplet.eness, selected regulatory aspects arsuciated
with ilecomissionlng prematurely shutdown plants are discussed in Sertion I . 4 .
Occommissioniny after a 20-year llcense renewal p e r i d i s t l l s c u r s t ~ ~in
l
Scrtlon 1 . 5 .
1. 1
PL?!Lr(lC(F flNV
%_I
W?!!!!@ri
Ihrinq the plunning and preparation phase o f d c c o m i s s i o n i n g prior to
final shutdown, the licencce, with NRC approval, dcciclcs on and plans how to
1.1
!
!
i
I .'
i
I_
I
I. 3
r e v i s e d S e c t i o n 50.82 requirlx*, !!I?! ,in : i p p l f c , \ t i o n for
l i t
cnse t c r m i n a t i o n be
accompanied o r preceded b y a proposed decomnl$slonlng p l a n ,
Ihe f o l l o w i n g r u b s o c t l o n s d l r c u r s t h e r e g u l a t l o n s and r e g u l a t o r y guides
t h a t p e r t a i n t o t h e documentation requlremonts o f a 1 lcense amendment r e q u e s t
o r a deComniS$loning p l a n I n the f o l l o u ! n g sequence: standard format and
c o n t e n t , t a d i o a c t i v e waste manayement p l a n , q u a l l t y assurance ()Ian, s o c u r i t y
and safeyuards p l a n , and envlronmental p l a n s '
I . I 2 1 Stnnder,d.,.E.o~rnat-JI!J..~Qnten.~.fQr...~Dr~~~,Lsr..tQnlnn,,.pl.ln
I
I
O t . ~ - f ~ . _ R ~ ~ ~ ! , ~ t cG!L\~.LD,C..
lT~.
1,.9.5, "Stan a d format and Content f o r Dccom"
m i r s i o n i n g P l a n s for N u c l e a r Reactors," W I S Issued f o r p u b l l c c o m e n t i n
Styitemher' 1989, i n c.onjunction w i t h pub1 ! c a t i o n o f t h e decormnissionlng r u l e .
I h e purpose o f the g u i d e i s to i d e n t i f y t h e i n f o r m a l l o n needed and t o p r e s e n t
a format acceptable t o t h e NRC s t a f f f o r preparing and s u b m i t t i n g a tloconimls.
s i o n i n q p l a n . l h c NRC s t a f f suqqests t h e use o f t h e s t a n d a r d format c o n t a l n e d
i n t h e q u i d e for decornmlssioriIn~~
p l a n s t o f a c i l i t a t e p r e p a r a t i o n by 1 I c e n r c e s
arid t l m r l y ~ n du n l l o r m r e v i e w by t h e NHC s t a f f and a s guldance i n use of the
Stanclard Kcview Plan for decommissioning p l a n s . T l t l e IO CFR P a r t s 20. 50,
'and 70 p r o v i t l c t h e r e g u l a t o r y b a s i s f o r t h e g u l d c .
A di!r~ornmlssioninijp l a n s h o u l d show that t h c f a c i l i t y can b e decomn;is,
5
i o n 4 i n a s a f e manner and dercrlbe t h e 1 iccnsoc'.; p l a n 5 t o tlt!monrtratr! that
t t i c f a c i l i t y and s l t c w l l l mcct c r i t e r i a f o r r c l c a s c f o r u n r c s t r i c t c d
u w . I .I I
This p l a n m u i t be approved by the NRC s t a f f . The d e c o m i s s i o n l n g
lU1e rerlriires a l i c c n s c c t u w b m i t a p r o p o s d decomnissioning plan w i t h i n two
, y i ! * ~ i . s a f t e r p c r m m n t l y c c a s i n q o p c r a t i o n , and rao l a t e r t h a n one y e a r
e q i i r d t i o n of the operatinq license.
In addition
prlor t o
t o the d e c o m i s s i o n l n g plan,
p r a g r a p h 5 1 . 5 3 ( b ) r c q u l r e s eac.h a p p l i c a n t f o r a l i c e n s e amendment a u t h o r i z i n g
the derornmisrloning o f a p r o d u c t l o n o r u t l l i i a t i o n f a c i l l t y to submlt w l t h
airy1 i t a t i o n a w p a r a t e d o c m c n t ent i t l c d " S u ~ ~ p l c m e i itl o thc A p l i l i c a n t ' s
i t 5
I n v l r o n m ~ n t a lHeport ..Postapcrat i n o I iconccr S t a g e . "
This supplcmont wfiilld
r w t l c c t any n i ~ w i n f o r m a t l o n o r s i g n i f i c a n t envlronmentnl change a s s o c i a t e d
w i t h t h e a p p l i c a n t ' s proposed decommissioning a c t i v i t i e s .
l h e requirements o f IO C f R 50.51(b) a p p l y t o a p l a n t g o i n g i n t o OfCnN,
ShlSIOR, o r tNIOHU. I f e i t h e r t h e S A f S l O R o r tNlOMR d e c o m l s s l o i i l n g method i s
w l w t v d , a deconunfsslonlng p l a n would c o n t a i n I ) t h o & t a i l s for p r o l u r i n g
t t w r a c i i i t y for. I J f e s t o r a y e o r f a r entombmoot, 2 ) p l a i r r f o r m o n i t o r i n g and
s t i r . v e i l l a n c c d u r l n g t h e storago p e r i o d , 3 ) p l a n s f o r a s s u r i n g furldr for maln.
t a i n i n y t h e f a c i l l t y and cornpletlng d e c o m l s s l o n l n g , I n c l u d i n g t h e means O f
d t l . ! J S t i l l y c.ust e s t i m a t e s and a s s o c i a t e d f u n d i n g l e v e l s o v e r t h e S a f e Storage
oi. s u r v e i l l a n c e p r r i o d [gultlanco on f u n d l n g I s d e l l n e a t e d I n R e g u l a t o r y
C,tritln 1,159 ( l a s k bC-1003), " A s s u r i n g t h e A v a i l a t i i r i t y o f funds f o r D e c o m l s .
I
4 ) a comrnltment t o submlt an Updated p l a n
s l o n i n y tliiclcar R c a c t o r ~ " ] , ' ~and
i ~ r i i i rt o 5 t a r t . i n g f i n a l d e c o m m i i r i o n l n y a c t i v l t i c s .
It
rnJy t.ikc a year f o r a power r e a c t o r l i c e n s e e t o prepare
s i o n i n g p l d n for w b n i l t t a l and about a y e a r for t h e
a decomls-
NRC s t a f f t o revlew,
and approve t h e p l a n .
lhur, preparation o f a dccomlssloning plan
> l i r ~ \ i !s~t la r t a j soon a s p r a c t i c a l a f t e r a l i c e n s e e decides t o permanently shut
dOWI1 a I
I 1 it y .
(.v.ilridte,
I n 5omc c d w s . the I n f o r m a t i o n t'eyucstcd . such a s t h e
I ) tralniny pro-
ijr-am, 2 ) r a t i i d t i o i ~p r o t p c t i o n p r o v i s i o n s , 3 ) r a d i o a r t i v c w a s t e manayoment
i ) l a n . 4 ) r i p d a l c d C o j l c $ l l v a t e for dc~commlssioriiny method chosen and p l a n f o r
a i s i i r - i n y d v a i l a b i l i t y o f fiJndS f o r c o m p l e t i o i t o t dcconwnissioning, 5) q u a l l t y
d:surdnce p r o v i s i o n s I n p l a t e d u r i n g dccc,,,,iissioniny, and 6 ) p h y s i c a l s e c u r i t y
l r l ~ r i provisions i n p l a c e d u r i n g cccnnun(ssionirly
t o i n f o t m t I o n p r e v i o u s l y sirbmittcd.
. may be t h e same o r s l m i l a r
I n f o r m a t i o n c o n t a i n e d i n p r e v i o u s sub
i i i t t a l s , \ t a t c m c n t s , o r r o l i o r t s may be i n c o r p o r a t e d
by c l e a r and s p e c i f i c
r e f c r e n c c r , hnd o n l y chanties ncwi br! s u b m i t t e d .
Irr ordor to t c r n l r i ~ ~
a t 1~icczrisc.,
~
ttii1r.c
mmi~.t
tlc
itiiia,t
d ~ ~ t ~ ~ r mt11;iI
liiu
I . o ~ I ~ . In
. ,f I ~
w i l l not c o n s t i t u t e an unreasonable
\ ; l l c t y of thc p u b l i c . i o make such a d e t e r m i n a t i o n ,
1 1 1 ~' ~x r l i t y .1nd s i l r fbr unre\tr.ic;etf
r i s k t o the ticdltti drid
tlir ttl((.
II<,V
tqvidi!ri((b t o show that r a d i a t i o n l c v c l s o f t h e f a c l l i t y , site,
1.5
and adjacent environs permit release for unrestricted use. Residual radiox t i v e contamination levels are the subject o f interim guidance under preparat i o n and in regulatory guides; present guidance is contained in Regulatory
Guide 1 .86.12) In addition, the d e c o m i s s i o n i n g rule requires submittal o f a
final radiation survey plan as part o f the d e c o m i s s i o n i n g plan.
The decommissioning plan and the associated approval process provide an
adequate legal framework for the regulation o f facil itics undergoing d c c o m i s sioning. Therefore. the licensee would submit, gain approval of, and carry
out decommissioning plans in accordance with the requirements of 10 C F R 50.82
and the guidance o f Regulatory Guide DC-1005. The NRC licensing offices
evaluate the information contained in the plan on whether it is based on
existing regulations applicable to reactors Undergoing decommissioning. These
regulations include applicable parts o f Title 10 CFR Parts 20, 50, 61, 70, 71,
and 7 3 . NRC staff will also monitor the carrying out of the plans.
1. I
.z . 2 ~ ~ i L i o . a c _ ~ ! . . ~ e ~ ~ s ~ ~ _ f a a n a . ; ' ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ l a n
Regar'less o f the detomisi'nrling mode. radioactive waste will be a c c u rt,Jlated, treated, packaged, stored, atiJ transported t o a di-.i.osal site. Means
f o r complying with the regulatory aspects c f each o f t'ese area5 must he
defined i n the decommissioning p!an. Unless in;ir.d'd
otherwise. the follow.
in9 regulatory changes. since 1978, a r e tskr?n from the S!ipplemt:ntary Informa
tion tu thc decommissionimj rule.
' I
Ihe DELOII dccon;ni::ioning
q~l!.or.nativc a;bum~?s avdilatiil i t i o f caii~city
to dirpn:e o f w a s t e . Disposal c d p a c i t j for Clsrs A . Class E . and Class L
wastes currently cxists. Ihc L o r - l i ~ ~ Radioactive
el
Waste Policy Amendments
k t (LL.RWPAA) o f la85 (Putil~c.law 9 9 - 2 4 0 , approved January 15, 1986, 99 Stat.
1942) provides t i?,t. 'isprisal o f Greater 1han.tlass C (CTCC) wastes is the
re:ponsibil ity o i the Federal Government.
:taff c!xficcted that Conqrcsss would provide guida,ice for development
o f dic,po:al capacity for wastes oicemling C l a t r , C ~ . r j ~ ~ ( ~ ~ ~ 1ho.c
t ~ f ~ ~
w 3 : t . c ~ Y ~ O % Cr,3dionucl i d e s concentrations c~cccdi!dthe mhximum a l l o w e d for
1 1 ! d disposal, G I C C , were r ? w i r e d to be storcd by licensees pending further
~ l ~ . ~ l i ~ t . ~ ~ i i i ThiT
~ ~ t , .determination
i~jn.
w a 3 provided in an amendment to 10 CFR 61
NR!
~ i ( ~ ~ ~ ~
(Part 6 1 . 5 5 , "Wasti! Classification") pub1 ished in the Federal Register dated
May 2 5 , 1989. wherein all CTCC wastes are to be G::;2ced
of in a geologic
repository. or in an approved alternative. In the LLRWPtA legislation passed
by Congress in 1905, the U.S. Department o f Energy (DOE) was assigned the
responsibility for the disposal o f CTCC wastes. Under this iqtislation, DOE
must provide the capability for disposal o f the GTCC wastes, but the raste
generator must pay for the service. Thus, the costs o f disposal o f CTLC
wastes resultin.? from decommissioning activities are a legitimate decomiss ioriing expense.
Decomnissioning activities do not include the removal and disposal of
spent fuei, which is considered t o be an operational activity, or the removal
anti d;sporal of nonradioactive structures and mat.erizls beyond that necessary
t o terminate the NRC license. Spent fuel disposal, although n o t included a s a
dr!cnmmiisioning activity, could nevertheless have an impact on the decomniss i o n i n y ichcdule ( s e e discussion below). The detailed schedule for developnient o f monitored retrievable storage and geologic disposal capacity provided
i n the Niiclcdr Waste Policy Act of 1982 (NWPA, Public Law 9 7 - 2 4 5 , January 7 ,
1983) d n : j i n the Nuclear Wdste Policy Amendments Act o f 1987 (NWPAA, Public
L a w 1 0 0 . ? 0 3 . [hcecber 22, 1987) has been slipping. Therefore, licensees will
h x r e to a:si:ss
the situation with regard t o spent f w l disposal when they pre.
p a r e the 1 r dr.co!nmi ssioiiing plans,
contains the background information and the r&tionale for the
( l c r i v a t ion o f the minimun length o f the SA1 SlOR p e r i o d at the t.efcrei1i.r: I'WR
r.citrl t ing from DOL'S intellt t o not a c c e p t standard spent nuclear f u u l
( S l i f ) " ' fro:? reactors until that fuel is t,ooled at least five years or can
n w t * > t i i p p i i y c a s k certifica! ion recyirements. lhis regulatory action could
J I ;o w ~ ~ u i ln~(.hanger
.
i n the deiom-iissioning planning bases for DtCON and
lIi10M!~d l wc.11. lhis change in the p l a n n t n g base requires a reassessment o f
rfecomsii:~,ioning activity schedules and sequences, s t a f f loadings, 2nd shift
$ctit?diilc!,q t o minimize thr cost. and radiation iiosc over the different dccom
Apgeridir f)
. .
1 .
:
.
~
~
..
,:'.,I
..,
'ti
"
:ii !
. .. . .
i
I d~* !
2 i . i .
'r!i'.o..! f..,!,
r
1
!'-*.
nf
a:ke,r
1.1 I , ( ' , '
. , , ' I ! , ! l e 1 it,<!\
iIrt.
(5)
,',,-l.
',+I
1%
Yi,;t,
Of
t , v , 3 , , 1 1 7<.ia.;,,!,e:~
. f PO! a l l , :\I
:e.o
l,'WP,.,',
!,,.I
+r,tii t h r e e catequrie? .
rrm l b e r,bfere"ce CUP I.,
l r , , . a t ~ , m * . l o r .,l,,hfarrl
fCi7.l
missioning periods. Thus, the rcsults o f thc analysis presented i n this study
are realistically anticipatcd io significantly affect the available choices o f
decommissioning alternatives for the reference plant.
It should be recognized, however, that the situation described in
Appendix D with regard t o spent fuel storage and final disposition and its
subsequent impact on choice of decommissioning alternative is predicated on
the current regulatory environment and on site-spectfic information associated
with the reference pressurized water re4ctor (PWR). Therefore, the conclusions reached i n this study concerning decommissioning alternatives for the
reference PWR may be different for other PUR power stations, depending upon
the age and burnup o f the fuel in th: pool, and t h e availability o f other pool
storage withit! a given utiliry system.
The NUPA of 1982 assigns t o the Federal Government responsibility to
provide for the permanent disposal of SNF and high-level radioactive waste
(HLU).''l
The Director of OOE's Office o f Civilian Radioactive Waste
Manaqement (OCRUM) is responsible lor carrying ou: tne functions ot the
Secretary of Energy ( S e c w t a r y ) under NUPA. Section 3 0 2 ( a ) o f the NUPA
authorizes the Secretary to enter into contracts("' with owners o r genera,
tors"' of c o m e r c i a 1 SNF and/or HLU. The Standard Contract for Disposal of
Spent Nuclear Fuel and/or High-level Radioactlve Uaste'5' represents t h e sole
contractual mechanism for DOE acceptance and disposal of SNF and iU. It
establ ishes the requirements and operational responsibilities of the parties
to t h e Contract in t h e areas of administrative matters, fees. terms of payment
for. disposal services, waste acceptanrs criteria, and waste aiceptance proceiJiiws.
Ihe Standard Uispasal Contract provides for the acquisition of title
t o the SNF and/or IILU by DOE, i t $ t r a n s p o r t a t i o n t o DOI f a c i l i t i e s , and
Its
subsequent d i s p o s a l .
Concerning t h e l s s u e o f p r i o r i t y b e l n g a f f o r d e d t o permanently shutdown
r e a c t o r s , DOE has responded thusly:161
" A r t i c l e V 1 . B o f t h e Standard Disposal C o n t r a c t a l l o w s t h a t p r i o r i t y w
[emphasis added] be a f f o r d e d t o shutdown r e a c t o r s . OOE has n o t d e t e r mined whether o r n o t p r i o r i t y w i l l be accorded t o shutdown r e a c t o r s o r ,
i f p r i o r i t y i s granted, under what circumstances. DOE recognizes t h a t
g r a n t i n g p r i o r i t y t o shutdown r e a c t o r s I n v i t e s q u e s t i o n s o f e q u i t y among
a l l owiiers and generators o f SNF."
With r e g a r d t o DOE's beginning o p e r a t i o n s i n 1998,
s i s t e n t w i t h t h e 1MPA and the Contract, i s
DOE's i n t e n t i o n , con-
to i n i t i a t e acceptance o f spent
f u e l from Purchasers a s soon a s a DOE f a c i l i t y commences o p e r a t i o n s .
OOf
a n t i c i p a t e s t h a t waste acceptance a t a monitored r e t r i e v a b l e storage (MRS)
f a c i l i t y c o u l d b e g i n i n 1998 i f the i n i t i J t i v e s d e t a i l e d f n t h e November 1989
"Report t o Congress on Reasses,ment o f the C i v i l i a n R a d i o a c t i v e Kastc
Mdnagnnent Progran"!"
are f u l l y implcmentrd.
Unt i 1 w a s t r ! a c c e p t ance begins,
the owners and g e n e r a t o r s o f Sflf/tlLW w i l l c o n t i n u e t o bc r c s p o n s i b l u f o r
s t o r i n g t h e i r spcnt f u e l .
The dernmmlssioiiing r u l e ' "
r e q i l i r c s t h a t a t o r aboirt f i v e y e a r s p r i o r t o
t h e p w j f c t e d end o f o p e r a t i o n , each r e a c t o r 1 i c c n r e e submit a p r e l iininary
t ! e c o m i s s i o n i n g p l a n c o n t a i n i n g a c o s t e s t i m a t e f o r decomaissioniny and an
r i p . t O - d a t e assessflent o f the a c t i o n s necessary f o r decommissioning. T h i s
r c q u i r e r c n t would as:ure t h a t c o n r i d e r a t ion be g i v e n t o r e l e v a n t u p - t o - d a t e
i n f o r m t i o n which coi:ld be imi:or!ant
t o al!rqtiatc p1ar;riiii:j
nrid
f!ir:!in:l
frlt-
I (I r c dcc.r!nrn i,c s ion incJ a c t u a I 1y beg in s . 1tie 5 e (,(iris ide r a
: iw: iriclw!i! a i i asstrriraoit o f the c i i r r e n t w a s t e d i s p o s a l c o n d i t i o n s . I f , f o r
de c o:w i 5 J ion ing w r?i 1
tJc
m y r c 3 i 5 0 n , dispo,,al
c a p d c 1 t . y f o r decornrnissioniny wastes were u n a v a i l a b l e ,
t1ivi.c
a r c p r o v i s i o n i i n IO L I R 50.02 t h a t w u l d allow t i c l a y i n completion o f
i ! ~ ; ~ . ~ ) ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ ,i ,ni (ori1r.r
i r ~ i i it ~o j
In ;tddi!icin.
wiiti!.
qii3to
iicrmit temporary s a f e storage o f deromnissioning
5 e ( t i a 1 1 50.82 r o n t d i n s rcquircments t o ensitre that adc
fiin4inq i i a v a i l r l t ) l ( ? f o r completion o f delayctl decommitsioning.
<hOUId
[It!
flrJtC'd,
h o w v w r , t h 3 t d e l a y s Would
h;IVi!
. , i ; ! r r a t i o n s and n n t j u r t on erocomic considerat.ionr.
!!I-
Il45!'f!
Ofi
It
$Afl!ty C o n -
Disposal of nonradioactive hazardous w a s t e arising from decommissioning
operations are not covered by the aforementioned regulations, but wo:lld be
treated by other appropriate agencies having responslblllty over these wastes.
1.1.2.3
Q u a l l t v Assurance Plan
The NRC recognizes that quality assurance (QA) is important for decominissioning. lhe decommissioning rule") indicates that QA provisions durliig
decommissioning are to be described, as appropriate, in the decomissionlng
plan. lhe decommissioning rule contains requirements that a decomissionlng
plan, regardless of the alternative chosen, contain a description o f quality
assurance provisions.
Quality assurance is enhanced and facilitated by good practices concern.
iiig record keeping by the 1 icensee. Paragraph SO.lS(g) of t.he dt.r-onmissioniny
rule requires Iicenwes t o keep records o f Information important lo safe and
r f f e c t i v e decommissioning until the license is terminated by the N k L . This
staction o f t h e rule a l s o identifies the kinds of information the NRC considers
inportant t o decommisiioning. A draft regulatory qui& (DL.!006)(8) has been
d I ! i ' C l < j ~ I ~ ! ~in
J conjunction w i t h t h e decommissioning rule and w a s 1
1ihl
ishcd for
p i h l i c crimmcnt in September 1909. The purpose of the draft guide is to prov i d e ~ j ~ ~ i ~ l dconi:crninr)
nie
t h e spccific information that should be kept and
i u i n f a i n n i ' d i n Ihc det.ommlssioning records required by the rule regarding the
rddinlogical condit i:ms at the plant that could affect cccupational and public
tw.11 I!!dn4 s a f t i t y rliiring decommisrioninq. Knowledge o f radiological condiI i m i i in and around thc reactor will serve t o facilitate decomissioning by
r ~ r n i m i i i r g r i c c u p n t i o n a l exposure and rcrlucinq t h c risk or any 1 i u t ) l i c exposure.
(.urwnt ly , the I I H C ' s rcgul a t o r y posi 1ion ronccrninq rtrcords important
f o r - fji'(cinmi!.:ionincj o f nucleJr reactors is S t d t C d in D G - I C 0 6 a s follows. Ihe
c o i l (?ct. ion, rsfrikec'p ing, rc!tPnt ion, maintenance, and updating o f deromiss ion
inq rw:ordi chould bc! i n c I u r l i ? r l in the ovwall site quality assurance program,
<onabi:tent with the covci'agcr f o r other health arid safety records systems.
R ~ y i r l a t n r yCuidc 1.88, Awlrion 7 , "Collcction, Storage, and Maintenance o f
tiw Iear Power P l a n t Q l i a l ity A5:urdncr Rr!cortJs," shotild be used in particular
1.10
for guidance on records administration, storage, preservation, safekeeplng,
and retrieval of the deconmissioning records.
Draft Regulatory Guide DG-1005 provides the 1 icensee guidance for QA
program requirements to be establ istied and executed during decomnissionfng.
For example, the equipment, such as plasma torches, portable ventilatlon, and
shielding, and the procedures that will be subject to the QA controls and
audits should be listed. The QA program should be established at the earliest
practical time consistent with the schedule for accomplishing an activity or
task.!') The staff positions and responsibilities for review and audit
should be specified.
In dddition, American Nuclear Insurers (AN!)'P) has estahl ished and
applied a risk assessment program t o decommissioning activities at a variety
o f insured nuclear facilities. This risk assessment begins at the planning
r t a g e s and c.ontinues thrauyhout the decommissioning effort. This program i s
primarily hajeil on an enginwring evaluation o f t h P adequacy o f pc!rfnt.mnce in
t h c m ~ j o ra r e d s o f nuclrar s a f e t y , ~ u . ~ l . ! , t y . . . - ~ -(emphasis
~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ a~d-d ~e d ) , arid
1 . i w i i n e n t a t i o n . The rerults of the engineering assessment and QA oversight can
d f f w t the levci o f premium assvrred and the rate o f change of premium during
i
I .I . 2 4
41
h!~!!r.i.l~..
mi..S~!.w!3r4>,
.!!an
rhould he part o f the 1 icense amendment
~(.'qu*?*>
(.r
t . t h e ciccolr::i1:sioninc~ plan. Althowih 5Pciit-it y and saftqiards d u r i r g
drc oir-ni i ;* i on i nij a r~ riot. i ~ : e icf i c .I 1 1 j a d d t.u s sed iri t he rtqii 1 ,I t i on !,, t ti< i11 t cnt
o f t h c f i t ~ 1 1i1! i a i i > for cipr.rat incj plants rcmdins tiiv same durir: decommissioni n q . 1n:'Jf;iI. a s t h e y a p p l y .
Ihrw rui~,~i!ct:are d i s c i r s s e d in 10 CFR 5 0 . 3 4 ( c ) ,
' ' i ' t i j S , i c a : 511curity P lan," Rr:cjuldtory Guiric! 1 . ] I , f'vr;e<
p h n t ', '.g*.i.rl,t~ ln!i~!.:tri~l.. :>atmt,Ige, and 10 C f P P a r t 7 3 , Physlc~a!. P_rgtc_ctjpn,of
P 1 ~ 1 t . ,am!..
s
Mate
!&!ir-ity
c,.
and
s.ii(~-jiidrds p
lans
In addition, Supplementary lnformatlon supporting the rule states: "The
existing regulations on safeguards for nuclear facilities are considered t o
contain criteria applicable to the decomissioning process. Therefore, it 1 s
not con;idered necessary to amend those regulations." H n W W d , the rule
requires that safeguards provisions during decommis.;ioning be described, a s
dppropriatc, in the decommissioning plan. Approprfate guidance documents have
n o t yet been issued identifying whlth o f the current operating requirements on
sateguards are to apply during decommissioning. ( : I
1.1.2.5
!&j.ronmental Plan-s
Ihe environmental information that is supplied with the license amcndcent request 01' the decomlssioning plan shoiild satisfy the requirements o f
IO L.1 ? Part 51, En'Li_!Lo!!~~.t-~.!-,Pro:~~t_~o,n__HC'Jir!
at.i.Qn-kIu._?.omcst ic.lL!Lq!!m
a.nij._~!!lr?t,e<l.Reg!!La-ro~-f~~ctioni, and the intent o f Section 51.53, "Supplement
l o tnrironaental Report." It states in Section 51.53(b) "Post Operating
i icens.? Stage," That cach applicant for a license amendment authorizing the
ilri:oc;n!s;ioning o f a production o r utilization facility covered by 5 51.20 and
each applicant for a license or license amendment t o stc 'e spent fuel at a
nucleAr powcr reactor after expiration of the nneratin., license for the
riiii.lear powcr w a c t a r shall submil. wilt i t c dpplicat I I a separate document,
cri! 1 tlcd "Siipplm~~nt
t o Appl itant's Environmcni.11 Report
Po51 O j r c ~ r d li n g
i ic.cii\>t? Stage," a s appropr.iilte, to reflect any riew information or significant
cinvir-on:xiital c . t : m y ? associated with the applicant's proposed decomissioning
acliviti~sor with the applicant's proposed activities with respcct to the
planncif % , t o l - q eo f s p l i n t fuel. Unless otherwise required by the Comnission,
i n a c t c i c l a n c e w i l h the gencric determination in 5 5;.23(a)'"' and tht. provi.
~ i i r n( I f ~ ~ 5 1 . 2 3 ( 1 1 ) , thr applicant shall orily atldress t h e environrreiltal impact
~
of spent fuel storage for the tPrm of the license applied fv. The Scpplmrn+
may incorporate by reference any information contained in prev ;d,usly submitted
records, which are delineated in Section 51.53(b).
furthermore, in Section 51.95, "Supplement to final Environmental Impact
Statement," Subsection ( b ) , " P o s t Operating license Stage," the following is
stated: "In connectior. with the amendment o f an operating license to authorize
the decommissioning of a production or utilization facility covered by 5 51.20
or with the issuance, amendment or renewal o f a license t o store spent fuel at
a nuclear power reactor after expiration of the operating license for the
nuclear power reactor, the NRC staff will prepare a supplemental environmental
impact statement for the pcrt operating license stage or an environmental
assessment, as appropriate, which will update the pl.+Qrenvironmental review.
This document may incorporate by reference any information contained i n previously submitted records, which are delineated in Section 51.95(b)."
In summary, the NRC has determined that if proper consideration and
implenentation is given to decomissioning, whatever alternative is chosen, in
comparison with the impact expected from 40 years of licensed operation, the
environmental impacts from decommissioning are expected t o be small. Thus,
the decommissioning rulc") allows for reduction of IO CfR Part 51 National
Environmental Policy Act (tiEPA) ( 4 2 U5C 4 3 2 1 et sr!q.) reqriirci-ents through
elimination o f t h e niandatory requirement for an envit'oniwntal impact statement
( 1 1 5 ) at the time of deconnissioniny for 10 CFR Part 50 and 7 2 licenses.
tnvironmental assessments would still be required, but these would not
ncce-,iarily lead to an CIS being issued.
I.I .3
L.icalJlg -C&&
Ihe Omnibus Budget Rcronciliation Act o f 1990 (Public
Law 101-508)was
:iywc'lI : ~ I O law Novcnlbcr 5 , 1990. It requires that t h p t l R C r w o v o r 100% of
i t > t w i g c t aii?horit r f + . : m ftrcs a:sessed aqsinst 1 iccrlsrw:. ! c r !,cr'~ii.i::, w n ~ f ~ ~ excop:
~ ~ c d f,o r t h c drioiirtt appropriated from the Uepartmcnt o f f nergy (DOC).
1.13
administered Nuclear Waste Fund(') t o the N I X for FYs 1991 through 1995 for
purposes o f licensing support to the NWPA activitjes. Subsection (c) (3)
directs the NRC to establish a schedule of annual charges that fairly and
equitably allocates the aggregate amount of charqes among licensees and, to
the maximum extent practicable, reasonably reflects the cost of providing
services to such licensees o r classes of llcensees. The schedule may assess
different annual charges for different licensees or classes o f licensees based
on the allocation o f the NRC's resources among licensees or classes o f 1lcensees, so that the licensees w h o require the greatest expenditures o f the
NRC's resources will pay the greatest annual charge.
. .
With revision to 10 CFR Part 170, fees for Facilities and Haterids
C,(_cEcscs..and Cther Resul atgr-y-$?rvices Un d e r the Atomic Enerav Act Q
Am~nd. the NRC has established a policy of full-cost recovery for all NRC
1 iiensing services and inspections, including those activities associated with
the tenewal, dismantling/decosmissioning, and termination of reactor licenses.
!GO% o f the agency's budqet through
NU. licensees are now expected to p~.;:i?n
user f e e s .
€m
l i t le 10 CFR Part 171, k n - u . Fee for- Power Reactor Ooerat&-Licenses,
h a s hccn expanded t o include additional regulatory costs that are attributable
tu p o u c r redctors other than those costs that have previously been included in
t h c annii,al f e e for operatinq power reactors. These additional costs include
thc c o s t s o f generic activities that provide a potential future benefit to
utilities currently operating power reactors. These generic activities are
as$ocis?ed with rea.Lt-o~._decommissioniRy (ernphaxis arl~lcd), 1 ircn5:c Irnewal,
standardization, and Construction Permits and Operating License reviews. It
should dlso be noted that if a facility has a POL at the beginning o f the
f i ; c a l year, a 1 ; 'ensee is n o lontjer assessed annual f e e s . Hourly fees
~c.:riai n , howcver, fur plant - spec i f i c 1 iccns ing act ions.
iiicl.
In additic-,, holders o f licenses assoriated with the storage o f spent
inclu',.r;g a gcneral licenre t o receive and store spent fuel at an inde
pendent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), and each holder of a Certificate of Compliance for a spent fuel storage cask, will be assessed an annual
fee.
Thus. the NRC will charge fees in prop.rtion to its costs (i.e., fullcost recovery) for pcoviding individually identifiable services to specific
applicants for, and holders of, NRC licenses and approvals. These fees are
deposited into the U . S . Treasury and do not augment the NRC appropriation.
Congress must still pass appropriations legislation for the NRC, but because
the NRC is now obligated to raise the money from users, legislators will
chiefly consider the funding authorization - that is, whether the amount of
money the NRC proposes to raise i s reasonable."'.
'I'
The financial protection requirements during plant operation are givsn
i n 10 CFR Part 140, [jflj~&! Protegtion Rgauirements and Indemnity A a m
po.tt_s. The levels o f protection required during decommissioning are not
spccifically defined. llouever. the intent o f the regulations for operatiny
p l a n t s r'cmaiiis t h e same dliririg decommissioning, insofar a s they apply, as
disci;:seiJ i n the following sirbsuction.
I . 1 . a Lir!a?c_lar .ns.rJ!.!.r_dncr
prcviourly merit ioncd. on Ji;r.,c 27, 1988. the NRC p u b 1 ished mendmnts
to 10 C f R D a r t 50 (53 FR 24018) corlcerning general requirements f o r deconlmissioning nilciear facilitivs. Amitnded 10 CFR 5 0 . 3 3 ( k ) , 50.75, and 50.81(b)
reqi1ir.e cperating 1 icense a p p l icantr and existing 1 icenwes t o submit informatitJti o n llow redsonable a s w r a n c c wil i be provided that funds will be aVJil?ble
t o decommission t h e i r facilities. Azcndcd Sei tiorl 5 0 . 7 5 ustriili~.hc, trquire
iccnt\ for in:lic<itirvjhow this assurance will be provided, l i d :!; the .jnoilnt o f
funds that n u s t be provided, includivy I I ~ I ~ ! ~
dnd
IIP
the
~ ,I X [ ! ~ ~ . J ~ I ~ , , i o t ) ( s ilccd for
a s s u r i n g f u n d 5 for any o f the tJr.cil:i!:r~~.~.ionirig
.II!.PI ; ~ . i t i v c ! i u l [ I I L O : ~ , SAfSIOR,
or ENTOMB.
As
Iitle 10 CfR Part 5 0 . 7 5 ( ~ ) ( ? ) w q v i r e s rliiclear pi!b-$'r roactor licensers
t o periodically a d j u s t t h o estil-!.it(! o f Ittr cost o f decommissioning their
plants, in d o l l a r s of the (lir.rc:nt y e ~ r ,a $ part o f t l i u pr'iirrss t o provide
r e a s o n a b l e assurdrice that w f C q l i d l e f'iinds for dccommicsioning will hc availdble
when needed.
NURFG-1307, " R r p o r t on U a c t e B u r i a l C l l d r q c s , " w h i c h i s x h e d u l e d
i o be r e v i s e d a p p r o x i m a t e l y a n n u a l l y , c o n t a i n s i n f o r m a t i o n t o be used i r a
formula f o r e s c a l a t i n g decomnissioning c o s t estimates t h a t i s acceptdble t n
t h e NRC. I h e s o i i r c 4 s o f i n f o r m a t i o n t o be used i n t h e e s c a l a t i o n f o r m u l a a r e
i d e n t i f i e d , and t h e v a l u e s developed f o r t h e e s c a l a t i o n o f r a d i o a c t i v e waste
b u r i a l c o s t s , b y s i t e and b y y e a r , a r e g i v e n . The l i c e n s e e s may use t h e
f o r m u l a , t h e c o e f f i c i e n t s , and t h e b u r i a l e s c a l a t i o n f a c t o r s from NURtG-1307
i n t h e i r e s c a l a t i o n a n a l y s e s , o r t h e y may use an e s c a l a t i o n r a t e a t l e a s t
equal t o t h e e s c a l a t i c n approach p r e s e n t e d t h e r e i n . ( 1 7 )
Reau 1 a t o r r hide 1 , I 59-fi3&._DGZ14Q1 1, As s u r 1ny L i l b Ava i1ab 1 1 ! t. y o f
funds f o r Decommissioning N u c l e a r R e a c t o r s , " August 1990, was developed i t 1
'I
I t s p u r p o s e i s t o p r o v i d e guidance t o
c o n j u n c t i o n wi'h t h e r u l e amendments.
a p p l i c a n t s and l i c e n s e e s o f n w l e a r power r e a c t o r s and r c s c a r c h and t e s t r c a c t o r s c o n c e r n i n g methods a L c c p t a h l e t o t h e NRC s t a f f f o r c o m p l y i n g w i t h
r e q u i r e m e n t s i n t h e amended r u l e r c q a r d i n g t h e amount o f funds f o r d e c o m i s sioning.
I t a l s o p r o v i d e r guidance on t h e c o n t e n t and f o r m o f t h e f i n a n c i a l
a 5 ~ 1 ' , i n c e mechanirrns i n d i c a t e d i n t h e r i i l c amenclmenls.
Under norrral c i r c u m s t a n c e s , decomnis*8ioninc) f o l l o w s t h e o r d c r l y shutdown
o f t h e f a c i l i t y a t t h e end o f i t r p l d n n e d l i f t : .
fir!+!.
Gc.fifLrj.<..(.n_vi/.ro
F a c. i.l..i.\.
.!.ci
n 1 , i l 1ny;lrt . .~..
5lattw~!ij
(conimn::nly w f e r r e d t o a s C f l S ) .
w h i c h h a s been i n v o l v c i J i n
ail
tlowever, a+,
disriicscd in the
ort, l ) i ~ ~ . i ! ~ , ~ ~ ! ~ , , , i rfOi,
i ~ t i1 i1 ~* 1i1j'
[I.!]
rli,ronirnissionincJ a! a
tor
IUW
a c c i d e n t c o u l d take p l a t e f o l l o w i n g s t a h i l i r a
thiis, tho a v a i l . j b i l i t , y o f flrnds f o r
t.ion dnd dccidi'nt c l r a n i i p a c t i v i t i f ! s .
posit w i d c n t clcanirir i s a l s o r e l a t e d t o f i n a n c i a l a*,surance f o r decommission
inq.
l o r example.
k > v ? ,in caffrct
JII
on j i i h ~ , ~ ! r ~ u e or ft r ~ r . o r : n i s s i o i i i n g<II t i v i t i r ' , .
i n 0 a l t e r n a t i v c r , ,in0
I.;,--I!
accidi!nt .in11 t h e r e w l t i r l q a c c i d c n f r:Ivaniiii act i v i t , i i ? s
a l ccirrtal ivc..
GII
t h e c.w;t,
:,ifcty
~~,JIP
; i c t i v ~ ! i i . s are
I;
' t imi I f ! I y t o
.."~niitr
linirnic,\irin
of
( . ~ n Oo ~ , i i l ~ . t . a indl l l y l a n j e r t h , > n 1 hi!
(01.
po:.t
,\if
p r o i ) e r l y ~ u v c r ~i.;
d iisi' o f i w , i ~ ~ . ~ ~ i ~ Y~u.: ,i t! ,
b t ~ ~ ~ i iI n~ s* i rr i~: ~ *tl,.iti
~
;' i t
*!i.c
and onvirc!rirci!ntai i.(in',t.ii'i"nco'.
c.ost5 o f ~ l ~ ~ ~ . ~ J ~ ~ ~ i i A~: ,;~l. ~f . ), irr iit ii : ol f~ ~fiin(lC,
~ .
IS
ttit!
.
Ihi. c o s t s of p o ~ , t . . i ( c i d c i , .
i t ics
(:I+
hi? r'
r eit s e
(i
r
tkr
irfciit
A:(
O ~ d r t i i p :I! I I V
itlcnt cleanup
( ~ ( ? ~ , , : . ~ ~ , t . , ' , i ~ Jtti,lL
n i r i , J ,45, ' t ~ ~t a~t 1y l e a d
~ : i ii iii :>ti t
rill .
Acco t . i l Inil I y ,
.:
'
1 rr(j
requirenients for accident cleanup are not included in the GtIS o r in the
rule,'') but are c m t a i n e d in IO CFR 50.54(w), which requires that utility
licensees for production and utilization facilities obtain insurance to cover
decontamination and cleanup costs associated with onslte property damage
resulting from an accident."'
With regard to the funding o f deconissioning activities which would
occur prematurely either following an accident or if an accident did not
occur, NRC has had several studies done to address this issue, Including
NUREG/CR-1481 ,1'0 NUREG/CR-3899,[I5' NURCC/CR-3999 Supplement 1 ,'I6' and
lhese documents address the question o f assurance provided
NURfC/CR-2370.("'
by the various funding methods. including prepayment, external reserve,
internal reserve, a n d insurance. in particular, as discussed in Section 2.6
o f the CEIS and ii! more detail in NUREG-1221, Section U . 3 . 2 . 1 . 1 , 1 ' " 1 and as
noted in NURfC/CR-3899, the market value o f utilitiec, even those involved in
the post extreme financial crises, Is still far in excess of decommissioning
t o i t , and that the value o f the assets o f a utility (both tangible and
intangible) i s more than adequate to cover futurc! projected decommissioning
c o s t s , lhese consiikrations must also be viewed within the context o f the
Conimisiion requirements f c r onsite property damage insurance in IO CFR
5 0 . 5 4 ( w ) , ~ I ~ , ( U ~ , ~ . aFbI u' v c , t n e procwils from which a utility could use to
detnnlaminatc i I s rcmactor after an accident. A1 though these insurance
p t o c w d s W C Vnot
~ ~tie~ uI s e d dircctly for decorcniissioning, they would go a long
w a y tcw;trd ! w h i ~ i r i qt h e r i s k o f 3 utility being subject to a tremendous demand
l o r I h i i . l . 5 J ~ ! C I , .iri a ~ : c i d c n t . l i c c a i i s c n u i t utilities are now carrying
ill e i r i f i S o f $ 1 billion ac;d :he i i i f i m i i s i o n has implivwrLttcil i t s
. . t i t i n 113 :.I-R 5 0 . 5 4 ( w ) f o r i f i t u r d r i c e at this level, a major threat to
1 . I I: I ri 11t i 1 i ty 50 1 vonc y' ti a c. ! , cr r i s kitr\ t a n 1. i a 1 1 y reduced. ' I 3 ;
i
V I
, : )
Thus, F u r s u d n t t o
IO CFR SO 5 4 ( w ) . a l i c e n s e e i s r e q u i r e d t o c a r r y a
minimum coverage 1 i m i t o f o n s i t e p r i m a r y p r o p e r t y damage i n s u r a n c e f o r a
r e a c t o r s t a t i o n s i t e o f e i t h e r $1.06 b i l l i o n o r whatever amount o f i n s u r a n c e
i s g e n e r a l l y a v a i l a b l e f r o m p r i v a t e sources, whichever i s l e s s ,
under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i m s ( e . g . ,
However,
a p e r m a n e n t l y shutdown, d e f u e l e d r e a c t o r ) , and
w i t h t h e p r o p e r j u s t i f i c a t i o n , an NRC e x e m p t i o n t o reduce t h e amount o f p r
mary p r o p e r t y damage i n s u r a n c e f r o m t h e f u l l amount o f $1.06 b i l l i o n t o a
For
rixample, i n i t s a p p l i c a t i o n f o r exemption, t h e l i c e n s e e must p r o v i d e J u s t ( i t a t i o n t h a t t h e l e s s e r amount o f i n s u r a n c e p r o v i d e s an adequate l e v e l o f
l e s s e r amount ( w i t h c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y l e s s e r premiums) i s p o s s i b l e .
c o v e r u l e t o s t a b i l i z e . c l e a n up, o r d c c o n t a m i n a t e t h e r e a c t o r f a c i l i t y based
LIII
1 i m i t e i i and much l c s s scveve a c c i d e n t s that c o u l d o c c i i r , g i v e n t h e d e f u e l e d
conili t ion.
A t a l i c . c n s e e ' s r e q u e s t , t h e N R C has t h e p r e r o g a t i v e to g r a n t e x e m p t i o n s
f i . o m t h c r e q u i r c m c n t s o f t h e r e q u l a t i o n s , w h i c h p u r s u a n t t o 10 C f R 50.12(a)
ai'e 1 ) a u t h o r i z e d by l a w , w i l l n o t p r e s e n t an
s~tid
s d f c t y . and are Li;nsi,tent
undue r i s k t o t h e p u b l i c h e a l t h
w i t h t h e common defense and s e c u r i t y , and 2 )
present s p e c i a l c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Pursuant t o 10 C f R S O . l Z ( a ) ( Z ) ( i i ) , s p e c i a l
c i n w v i 1 m c i i s eai:-t when coTp1iance w i t h d n i l e would n o t serve t h e purpose o f
o r ' I \ nilt n r i e s s d r y t o a c t i i c v e t h c i!ndcvl,yin7 piii.po*,p 1 1 1 the r u l e . Pursuant
t o IO C f R 5 0 , I ? ( a ) ( ? ) ( i i i ) , s p e c i a l c ! r c u n \ t a r i c ( i s e x i s t i f c.ornpliance w o u l d
rx:irIt in irivluc h t l n i 5 h i p o r r o s t s i n e x c e s s o f those contemplated when t h e
t ' r y r l a l ii!n wd: a & ~ i ~ t ( ! d , o r cost:, t h a t are s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n e r c e s s o f t h o s e
i rici1i.r tvl by o t h e r s s i m i 1a r 1 y s i t ii ,I t r i d .
I n a h l i t i o n , t h e Cornnis5ion r c t r i q n i ~ e dt b c r i s k t h a t , i f sonie r e a c t o r s
d i d n o t ~ q i w a t ef o r t t r c i r e n t i r e n p r : r a t i n q 1 i v c s , t h o s e licensecs might have
i n ! , u f f i r i e n t dccornmirsioning l u n i l i a t the t i m c o f prr.m.incnt. shutdown.
thi! til;'
/ I
pub1 i : h l t h c del-i):nmisr,ic~nir~'jruli! i n 1 9 8 8 , " '
f , i ( - i l i t i e s shut down p r c a a t u r ' i ? l y
.
After
faur. 110wrI Y I ~ tor
~(
the fort S t . Vrain Nuclcar Generating
'5tat.in11, t h e Vankci! Rowe H i i r l c a r Power Statiorb, t h e Rancho Seco N u c l e a r
Cvncrdt in!]
S t d t i u n , a r d the S l i o r ~ ~ h d Nut.lcar
ni
Power S t a t i o n .
As a r e s u l t , t h e
!ill(: tiad to rori~irlerwlict,hrar thi: dl?corriniissirininrJ f u n d i n g p r o v i s i o n s i n t,he
rules were appropriate in those c a s e s . In August 1991, the NRC derlded t o
propi':e a new special -case amendmer~t."~)
The decommissioning rule, as I t stands now, allows a licensee to build
up funding steadily over the duration of the license, but intends that enough
money should be in place by the time plant operations end. For a facility
which has permanently ceased operation before the expiration of its opetating
license, the collection period for any shortfall of funds will be determined,
upon application by the licensee, on a case-by-case basts taking into account
t h e specific safety and financial situation at each nuclear power plant."')
In addition, although not as directly related t o deconmissioning activities as t o the potentfa1 impacts on the selection of decommissioning alternatives, the following statwent is made in 10 CFR Part 50.54(bb) concerning how
reasonable assurance will be provided that funds will be available t o manage
and provide furlding for the spent fuel upon expiration of the reactor operat,.
ing license. "For operating nuclear power reactors, the licensee shall, no
l a t e r than 5 years before expiration o f the reactor operating license, submit
wr'ittc!n notification t o the Commission for its review and preliminary approval
o f the program by which the licensee intends t o manage and provide funding for
thc rmnayement of all irradiated fuel at the reactor upon expiration o f the
r-o,~rt.or
operating license w t i l title t o the irradiated fuel and possession o f
t h c f r i c l ii transferred to the Secretary of Energy for its ultimate disposal.
I inal Comission review will be undertaken as part o f any proceeding for cont,incie:llicensing under Part 50 or Part 72. Ihe licensee must demonstrate to
N R C t h a t the elected actions will be consistent with NRC requirements for
1 ircnscd po5session of irradiated nuclear fuel and that, the action: will he
imple!nented on a t imely basis. Where implementation of such action: tequire
I M w t h o r i Z a t i n n r , the 1 icensce shall verify in the notification that subv i i t t a l s for such a c t i o n s have been or will be made t o NRC and shall identify
thrm. 4 copy of the notifii-dtion shall be retained by the licensee a s a
rcicord i i n t i l expiration o f the reactor operating license. The licensee shall
rirbtify ti:i! IiRL o f any significant changes in tho proposed waste management
I I O ~ J I - , ? J~ S descriticd i n the initial notification."
1.19
The number of reactors that have been shut down prematurely has
increased over earlier expectations. Therefore, the NRC has recently proposed
to amend its regulations concerning 10 CFR 50.54(bb) to clarify the timing o f
notification to the NRC of spent fuel management and funding plans by
licensees of those nuclear power reactors that have been shut down before the
expected end o f their operating lives. lhe proposed rule, if adopted, would
require that a licensee submit such notificatlon either within 2 years after
permanently ceasing operation of its licensed power reactor o r no later than 5
years before the reactor operating 1 icense expires, whichever event occurs
first ."I'
1.1.5
Internal R e v e n Q a e r v i c e Involvement in De~rmnissiQ!li!lLFundins
The lax Reform Act o f 1984 added section 468A, "Special Rules for
Nuclear Decoavnisrioning Costs," to the Internal Revenue Code, which sets out
the rules for creating nuclear decommissioning funds by public utilities.
This section defines the rate at which funds are taxed, restrictions o n the
funds, and types of investments that can be made by the fund. The cash contributed t o these funds and the income accumulated by the funds will be used
to pay future costs o f decomnissiu1:ing nuclear power plants and to pay the
administrative costs o f the funds each year. Funds are tax-deductible the
year they are contributed to the fund, but the income on the investments o f
t h e s e funds i s taxed at the highest tax rate that applies t o corporations,
The Tax Reform Act of 1986 provides that nuclear decomnissfoning funds
will be treated as corporations. This law also reduced the highest tax rate
from 46% to 34% and became effective on July 1, 1987. Subsequently, the tax
rate on decommissioning funds was lowered from 34% to 20% when the Natfonal
Energy Policy Act (NEPA), Public Law 102-486, was signed into law o n October
24, 1992.""
The Tar Reform Act o f 1986 also requires nuclear decommissioning funds
tn pay estimated taxes. The method for determining estimated tax i s explained
in the G v m a l Instructions o f form 1120-ND (November 1986), which is used by
nuclear decommissioning funds to report contributions received, income earned,
1.20
the administrative expenses o f oprt-ating the fund, and the tax on the income
earned.
A s part of the 1986 tax overhaul, the Internal Revenue Service, which
must determine the "qualified" portion o f every nuclear utility's decomnissioning funds (i.e., !he amount of the total decommissioning costs entitled to
funding on a tax-deductible basis) was empowered t o look at utilities' derommissioning fund contributions going back to 1984.L23'
An unqualified fund invested, tor example, in stocks, could earn greater
returns, but its principal is subject t o risk and contrlbutions are taxed.
Contributions to a qualified fund are tax-deductible, but its earnings are
taxed at the maximum federal corporate rate of 34%. lhe NRC decommissioning
rule"' required utilities t o have external funds established by mid-1990 but
does not require them to be qualified. An unqualified fund's earnings are
added t o the earnings of its corporate owner and taxed at the utility's
overall rate. ( i 3 )
1.2
KrUL.oE5oMMLSSIohlNG
Regulations, regulatory yuides, and national standards that apply t o the
basic aspects of active decommissioning of the reference PUR are discussed in
this section. Most of these baric aspects are similw in nature t o many
aspects of plant operation; and the regulatory controls and national standards
that yovern plant operation of these aspects also apply to rctive decomissioning, although some o f them may not specifically mention decoirunissioning
activities. lhe basic areas o f active decommissioning are: licensing, occu.
pat ional radiation safety, pub1 ic radiation safety, special nuclear material
management, radioactive waste management, industrial safety, and 1 icense
termination and facility release.
I .2 . I
Lj.scnsing
"Application for Tcrmination o f license" is regulated by 10 CFR Part
50.82. For a facility that permanently ceases operat.ion after July 2 7 , 1988,
the appl icat.ion m i i r t he niarle within two years following permanent cessation of
operations, and in no case later than one year prior t o expiration of thc
operation license. Each application for termination of license must be
accompanied, or preceded, by a proposed decomissioning plan (see previous
discussion In Section 1.1.2 for details).
Although a POL is not defined anywhere in the regulations, Regulatory
- 0
for Na l e a r Reactors,(') conGuide 1.86, Terminations of
tains the procedures that are acceptable to NRC in dnending the facility
operating license to a POL and for obtaining a dismantling order. A POL. is
essentially an amended operating license and is one way for a licensee to
obtain relief from operating requirements. Regulatory Guide 1.86 delineates
the applicability of the POL and the dismantling order to the various
decomnissloning modes, the surveillance and security requirements if the final
decomnissioning status requires a POL, and the procedures for terminating the
license.
The POL allows the licensee to possess, but not to operate, the facility. it permits unloading, storing, and subsequent shipping of the spent
reactor fuel. as well as the minor work associated with preparation for
custodial safe storage or passive safe storage. In effect, the POL does not
preclude the storage of spent fuel in the spent fuel pool, in an onsite independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), shipment of spent fuel to
another ISFSI offsite, or shlpment to a U.S. Department of fnergy facility for
disposal. I t is the governing license in all decomissioning modes, but a
dismantling order i s also required in the case of dismantlement or preparations for hardened safe storage or entombment. The POL remains in force
during the continuing care period of safe storage or entombment, and must be
renewed every 40 years. In addition, an updated decomnissioning plan is
required at the end o f the SAFSTOR period when the licensee decides on how to
dismantle the facility. All activities must be completed within 60 years of
plant final shutdown.
The POL permits deletion of the technical specifications regarding plant
operation (and associated surveillance requirements) that are not applicable
It1
i t sh3dld
trC
reiognlicd that Requl$tory Cui&
IO SFR 50 82
I
86 I 8 currently being rtvircd t o be fully consistent
u l t h fhe W t C l changes 1 0
NUWECICR-$884, Vol. 2
1.22
Dtrh for Comment
t o decomniissioning, but maintain5 those that are necessary to ensure protection o f the workers and the public during decommissioning. Thus, the POL
would allow the licensee to immediately cut expenses by reducing testing
requirements and staffing. It also contains the authority t o possess and
handle byproduct material, source material, arid special nuclear material as
governed by 10 CFR Part 30, Rules o f General ADPI i cabi 1 i t v to Domestic
Licensincl o f Byproduct h.iit-eM, 10 CFR Part 40, 6 k m . s U c e nsins o f Source
Material, and IO CFR Part 70, Oomestic Licensins of Special Nuclear Material.
Situations that exceed the limitations o f the POL may arise during the
course o f active decomnissioning. (Regulatory Guide 1.86 refers to these
situations as "unrelated safety questions.") This type o f situation is
regulated by 10 CFR 5 0 . 5 9 , "Changes, Tests and Experiments."
1.2.2
Occupational Rdjation Safetv
Because o f the highly radioactive materials and contaminated work locations in the reference PUR during active decommissioning, occctpational radiation exposure control is o f major importance. Occupational radiation safety
is regulated by 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Aqaist Rad iatioq.
rhe maximum permissible 1 imits for occupational radiation exposure are presented in 10 CFR 20.101, "Radiation Dose Standards for Individuals in
Restricted Areas," and 10 CFR 20.103, "Exposure of Individuals to Concentrations of Radioactive Mrterials in Air in Restricted Arras." However, these
iicit~s are tempered by the aperating philosophy of 4s Low As is Reasonably
.Achievable (ALARA) as explained 1.1 IO CFR ZO.l(c). This philosophy is
described i i i Regulatory Guide 8 . 8 , Informqtion Relevant to Cnsurinqthat
Qs.cupa.tional Radiation-f-g.oscires at Nuclear P o w r Stations will be A s Low As
Rrasonab~.-~~.hjeva!!!.r,and in Regulatory Guide 8.10, Operatincl Philosophv f.bc
f.13.i:nt~yi_n~i~~-Oc_slleatlonal_Ra_~i
at i on E g o s u re s as Low As i s Re ason a bl v Ac h iev ?Ne_.
~
Additional information on how to comply with the ALARA concept can be
found in the N R C Standard Rcvicw Plan, Section 12.1, "Assuring that O C C I I ~ J t ional Radiation Exposures Are A s Low A s is Reasonably Achievable.""") Ilcsides
1.23
-
10 CFR Part 20 and Regulatory Guide 8.8, some of the more relevant regulations
and guidance cited in Section 12.1 are given below:
10 CFR Part 19, Motlces. hstructlonr
and R w r t s to Workerr;_
Regulatory Guide 1.8, -1
Selection and lrahhl,!
plLalification and TrpmJl5L-w
Regulatory Guide 1.33,
Qyditv Assurance
Pr0ar-m
(9Derationsl
NUREG-0761, Revision 2, July 1981, "Contents of Radiation Protec.
tion Plans for Nuclear Power Reactor Licensees.'
As of January 1, 1994 (with earlier compliance encouraged), the maximum
permissible limits for occupational radiation exposure delineated in 10 CFR
20. Subpart C, "Occupational Dose Llrnits," Section 20.1201 'Occupational Dose
Limits for Adults' are t o be implemented. The NRC listed several objectives
in revising 10 CFR 20. A primary objective was to "implement the principal
current dose-limiting recornendations of the International Comnission on
Radiological Protection (ICRP)' by incorporating the lCRP effective dose
equivalent (EDE) concept and requiring programs for "keeping radiation
exposures as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). " ( 2 5 )
The following brief discussion of the revised 10 CFR 20, a s i t relates
t o the radiological protection of workers, has been extracted from References
26 and 27. The ICRP tDE concept es$entially says that one rem from external
exposure is no different from one rem due t o internal exposure. In addition,
with the revision of 10 CFR 20, internal dose (comnitted effective dose equivalent) and external whole-body dose (deep dose equivalent) must be added t u
obtain t h e total effective dose equivalent (TEDE), which is limited t o 5 rem
(0.05 Sv) per year. There i s no quarterly limit, although the NRC fully
expects that licensees will prorate the 5 rem quarterly.
The revision of 10 CFR 20 i s bdsed on the 1977 recornendations of the
ICRP . which the NRC began reviewing soon after - and is 'generally consisten'" with 1987 recornendations of the National Council on Radiatlon Protec.
tion and Measurements (NCRP). The changes reflect basic changes in the
philosophy o f protection and update scientific information on radionuclide
uptake and metabolism and the biological effects o f ionizing -adlation. The
revision implements the 1987 Presidential guidance on occupational radiation
protection. The major changes t o 10 CFR 20 include the following:
greater emphasis on numerical risks
control of dose by use o f the sum o f internal and external doses
greater equality in treatment o f external and internal doses
use o f the ccmmitted effective dose equivalent for internal
exposures rather than the critical organ approach
wider selection of methods foi- estimating radionuclide intakes and
internal doses.
The revised rule also eliminates the use o f the cumulative lifetime dose
limit o f 5(N-18), where N is the age o f the worker in ;'ears. No lifetime dose
is specified because i f the magnitude of the annual dose is limited, there is
a de facto limitation o f the lifetime dose that can be received.
I . 2 . 3 P&l
i c Rad I a ti-gn-$alefy
Public vadiariun exposure thdt results from decommissioning the reference PUR must also comply with IO CFR Part 20. Currently, the maximum public
exposure limits for external exposure are specified in 10 CFR 20.105, "Permissible L e v e l s o f Radiation i n U n r e s t r i c t e d Areas." limits for internal exposure pathways a r e given in 10 C I R 20.106, "Radioactivity in Effluents t o Unre.strictcd A r e a s . " A s in the c a s e of occupational exposure, 10 I f R ? O . l ( c )
requires application o f the ALARA principle to the control o f public radiation
e x p o s u r e > dnd r c l c d s e , o f radioactive materials t o the environs. In addition,
a plant r i n d e n p i n g decoinmis\icminrj must meet the design requirements o f
Appendix I t u 10 CrI! Part 50.
Ar c f J a r w r y 1
1993 (with earlier campi iarice encouraged), the maximum
per-missible 1ii:its fur public radiation exposure are deljneatcd in IO CFR 20,
Siil1pdr.t U, "Radidtion Dose limils f o r Individual Mrirbers o f the Pub1 ic,"
Srctiiin ?0.!301 "I)o:c 1 imits for Individual Mcn:bcr5 o f
t.ffcttivr. The major ttianqc!s t o 10 CfR 20 concern:
1.25
t h c P u b l i C ' Ircc,i:ile
Explicit limits on public doses - 0.1 rem (1 mSv) per year, [a
temporary 0 . 5 ( 5 mSv) rem per year limit is available upon NRC
approval]: the previous requirement was an implicit limit of 0 . 5
rem per year.
The dose lr, any unrestricted area from external sources does not
exceed 0.002 rem (0.02 mSv) in any one hour. (Note: This Part 20
dose requirement is separate from current decommissioning site
release criteria discussed in Section 1.1.2.1.)
ihe Environmental Protection Agcncy (EPA) pub1 i c exposure limits are
defined in Title 40 CFR Part 191, fnvironmcntal Radiation Protection Standmi$
.
for
_ Manaqement and Disoosal o f b e n t Nuclear Fuel. Hiqh-Lcvcl and Transuran it
Radjoactive Wastes; speclfically Subpart A , Environmental Standards for
M d ! ! ~ g ~ m ~ n t . _ a n ~ tJuly
~ ~ ~ ~1 ,, 1990. Section 191.01 states that the EPA
limits apply t o the radiation doses received by icerntms o f thc p i i t i i i c as a
result o f the management (except transportation) and storage of spent nuclear
fuel or high-level or transuranic radioactive wastes at any facility regulated
hy the NRC or by Agreement Statws, t o the extent that such management and
;toracje operations are not subject t o the provisions of Part 190 of T i t l e 40.
It. is further stated in Section 191.03, Standards, that management and
s t o r ~ j co f spent nuclear fuel or high-level or transuranic radioactive wastes
a11 facilities regulated by the Commission or by Agreement States shall be
c.onducted in such a manner as t o providc rea:onable a \ s u t ' d i i c e t h a t the comb i n c d arinirdl dose cquiva'ent l o any member o f the public in the general
c!ivironrrent rcc.ulting from: 1) dischargcs o f radioactive material and direct
t.adistion from such n a n w y m n t and storage and 2 ) all operations covered by
h v t !OD; shall not exceed 2 5 millirems t o the wl:ole hody, 75 millirems t o the
tiiyixiiil, u i d ? 5 alilliremc t o any other crit i c ~ lorgan.
dt
I . 2 .4
:.pc 1 a.1, ~r!!i~.!~~!~r.-M.a!~~~.l.~.l~
.M~~p,~gc:~m~:tit
scciit.ily (JrP~c3utiorlsi:cii\t ( . o f t ! ir,iji! .r! tot' p l , ~ , , : !,tiiitGfwn
titi!il
s l l r{iec i a l nuclcir m.ltc.ria1s that come under rcqrr1al.ory control #ire
~ * , ~ . , ~ i < . . ; ffron t.hi! plant,
R t : g ~ . i l i ~ l . i defining
w~~
ttic: rcquireij prccsiitionr < i r p
i ~ i ~ v ~i rn! IO 1.1 C Pdrt 70, l k ~ ~ . ; t i r! i ( . . c r . i n ~ . s f ~ S p c f i a lN!r~l!.dr
.
Mat-~,t:ia.!.> and
!0 (. 1 1; P J r t 73 , !'ti~y:j c.41 .~f!!:i!
15 t i n.n...c, f.. .I1 l..~-nt.3 .. ,Incl .M?t.eI:ja.] 2 . 1 he pr i fir i pa 1
Salcqii.ird\ and
concern i s t o p r o t e c t against a c t s o f i n d u s t r i a l sabotage t h a t could endanger
the s a f e t y o f the work f o r c e and the p u b l i c .
1.2.5
Radioactive Waste Hanasement
Regulations t h a t govern the packaging and t r a n s p o r t o f r a d i o a c t i v e
are designed t o prevent the d i s p e r s a l o f r a d l o a c t i v i t y t o the r n v i -
materials
rons and t o p r o t e c t t h e p u b l i c and the t r a n s p o r t a t i o n workers d u r l n g shipment.
There i s
Lome
overlapping o f federal r e , p o n s i b i l i t y
packaging and t r a n s p o r t o f r a d i o a c t i v e m a t e r i a l s .
f o r r e g u l a t i n g t h t safe
This responsibility l i e s
p r i m a r i l y w i t h the Department o f T r a o s p o r t a t i o n (DOT) and secondarily w i t h the
NRC.
The f o l l o w i n g subrections describe packaging and t r a n s p o r t a t i o n
egula-
t i o n s and l i c e n s i n g requirements for land disFosal o f r a d i o a c t i v e was es
as.;ociated w i t h decommissioning r a d i o a c t i v e waste management.
I.2.5. I
Ilar_ka~in~..eriQ..~.r_ltn_lp~~lt.~.~g!!!h!~i~~~
Thc DOT i s responsible f o r s a f e t y standards governing packagirg nd
s h i p p i n y c o n t a i n e r s and f o r t h e i r l a b e l i n g , c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , and marking.
tllll clewlops performance standards and reviews designs f o r Iype
and 1 3 r g e . q o a n t i t y packages.
d:jt>s.
B,
The
fissile.
The DOT r e q u i r e s NRC approval t o use these pack-
Thc 1)Ol a l s o iniplements safety standards f o r t h e mechanical c l i n d i t i o n
o f c a w ; c r e,(~uti;writand f o r the q i i a l i f i c a t i a n s o f c a r r i e r personnel.
The
I i!dc.r.sl hv i J t ion A i h i n i 5 t r a t ion ( f AA) , t h r I n t c r s t,it e Comnxrcc Cornmi I S i o n
( I L f , ) $ the U.S. Coa:t G u a r d , a w l the U . 5 . Postal Service a l s o e x c r c i s c some
t+ciii
1 A !oy v
,311 t. firi r
i t y o v v I.
the
ti i pni!
n t o f r a d ioar. t ive ma t.er ia1 s .
use, or transfer o f byproduct, source, or special nuclear materials: such
authorization must be ohtained pursuant t o IO CFR Parts 30 to 36, 40, 50, or
70.
By federal Register notice dated December 2 1 , 1990,('8' the OOT promulgated a final rule which comprehensively revises t1.c Hazardous Materials
Regulations (IIMR; 49 CFH Parts 171-180) with respect to hazard cornmication,
classification and packaging requirements. The changes are based on the
United Nations Recommendations on the Transport o f Dangerous Goods (U.N.
Rccomnendations) and DOT'S Research and Special Programs Administration's
(RSPA) own initiative. They are made because the exis!ing tIMR are: 1 )
difficult to use because of their length and complexity; 2 ) relatively
inflexible and outdated with regard to non-hulk packaging technology; 3)
deficirnt iri terms o f safety with regard t o the classification and packaging
o f c.rrtain categories of hazardous materials; and, 4 ) generally not in alignw n t with international regulations b a w d on the U.N. Recommendations. The
ti%>ii!i,?s: 1 ) simplify and rcduce the volume o f the IIMR; 2) enhance safety
through ticttcr classification ani1 packaging; 3 ) promotc f l c x i t ~ i l i t yand tcchr i o l o q i c a l innovation in packaging; 4 ) reduce the rired for exemptions lrom the
IIMR; -3nd 5) f a ( i l itate international c o m m c r ~ e .
In addition t o complying with NRC's requirement: in 10 CFR Part 7 1 , each
<+'n5i!i? whc tran\ports 1 iccnsed matcrial o r i l s i d c o f the confines o f its plant
nr' o t h c r r l a c e o f tisi!, or who dclivers licensed material to a carrier for
ti.Jn:,prirt, s h a l l tomlily with thc applicable DOI requirements in 49 CFR Parts
! 7 0 t h i i j i i f j ! l 189.
Rqister notict) d a t e d Cr:c.ernber 2 ) . 1982,("" the NRC promurcgulation govttrning the land disposal o f low-level radioactive waste
t;.t t v d i : r d l
Ig.itctl 3
(
I W) :
1 (1 C I R 6 1
I
I. i CC!!~ i.nc~..Rl?slii!:rLn.ent..s_ror..La.nc!. e i , s p o . ~ 4 L _ o _ f . . R . ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~
The nr.w rqrilation established three classes of L L W , based on radioI i y i c d l halard, and provider minimum waste form and stability requirements and
i l t ~ ~ i . . s n r . f . ~disposal
cr
rpqtiircmcntr f o r the land burial o f these wastes. The
i . i t c y u r t c s were identified as C l a r s A , Class R , C l d s r C. m i Greater-Than-
k'.jit_c,..
SI'WI.X;z('K.588.1,Vd. 2
I .20
I)rvft
kw ('cnlinicnl
Class C (GTCC). depending upon the contained concentrations o f speclfic shortlived and long-lived radionuclides. Class A waste contains the lowest radionuclide concentrations and mu;t meet only minimum waste form requirements.
Class B and C wastes contain higher radionuclide concentrations and must meet
both the minimum waste form and the stability requirements o f Section 61.56.
Class C waste must be disposed o f by use of methods that provide added
protection against inadvertent intrusion into the burial ground. Categories
A, 8 , :wj C are acceptable for land disposal.
Those wastes whose radionuclides concentrations exceeded the maximum
allowed for land disposal, GTC!, were required to be stored pending further
determination. Thib determination was provided in an amendment t o 10 LFR 61
( P a r t 61.55, "Waste Classification") published in the Federal Register dated
bldy '25, 1989, wherein all CTCC wastes are to be disposed of in a geologic
i~epositovy, or in an approved alternative. In related legislation passed by
Congress in 198: (low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act o f 1985),
the U . S . Department o f Enerqy (DOL) was assigned the responsibility for the
disposal o f ClCC wastes. Under this legislation, DOE must provide the capabil i t y for dispordl of the CTCC wastes, but the waste generator must pay for the
x r v i c e . rhus, the costs of disposal of GTCC wastes resulting f r o m deconunissioniny dctivities a r e a legitimate decommissioning expense.
I n effect. the amendments t o 10 CFR 61 treat GTC; as if it were highl v v e l w a c t e , wt1ic.h i s what the DOE intends t o bury in its repository.
Itoww c r . the NRC. hds stated it does not consider this action t o be a redefinition
of G T C L a s IilW. The supporting trxt to the most recent amendments to
10 C f R 61, pliblistitd ic the Federal RecJisl.er on May 25, 1989, addresses the
matter o f considering CTCC as a scparate class o f inte~n:ctliate-l~velwaste as
fiJllOwS: " i t is the Commission's view that intermediate disposal facilities
may never be available.. .At the same time, the Commission wishes to avoid
foreclosing poqsible use o f intermediate disposal facilities," by the DOE.('')
.
In the analysis of the decommissioning
previously i n NURLC/CH-0130, it was assumed
could be disposed o f hy near-surface burial
qrounri. This a*,surrption was reevaluated by
of the reference PUR reported
that the LLW from decommissioning
at a licensed shallow-land burial
Murphy(''i in terms of the estab-
l i s h e d r e q u i r e m e n t s c o n t a l n r d IO C F R P a r t 61. w h i c h took e f f e c t on J a n u a r y 23,
Based upon t h e 1983 r e g u l a t i o n (10 CFR 6 1 ) , Murphy's r e e v a l u a t i o n c o n -
1983.
c l u d e d t h a t t h e n e u t r o n - a c t i v a t e d s t a i n l e s s s t e e l c o r e shroud and t h e l o w e r
g r i d p l a t e have such h i g h c o n c e t i t r a t i o n s o f N i - 5 9 , N i - 6 3 , and Nb-94 that t h e y
exceed t h e C l a s s C l i m i t s o f IO CFR 6 1 .
The r a d i o a c t i v i t y o f t h e l o w e r c o r e
harrc?l and t h e t h e r m a l s h i e l d s a l s o exceeds C l a s s C l i m i t s b y a s m a l l amoufit.
lhese m a t e r i a l s I r e g e n e r a l l y u n a c c e p t a b l e f o r r o u t t n e n e a r - s u r f a c e d i s p o s a l .
I h e r e f o r e . t h i s r e e v a l u a t i o n o f decommissioning t h e r e f e r e n c e PUR now i n c l u d e s
r o u g h e s t i m a t e s f o r s t o r a g e and g e o l o g i c d i s p o s a l o f t h e s e m a t e r i a l s .
Some a d d i t i o n a l r e q u i r e m e n t s d i r e c t e d p r i m a r i l y a t waste g e n e r a t o r s and
h a n d l e r s were c o n c u r r c n t l y pub) i s h c d as a new S e c t i o n 20.311. " T r a t l S f e r f o r
D i s p o s a l anti M a n i f e s t s . " o f P a r t 20, " S t a n d a r t l s f o r P r o t e c t i o n A g a i n s t
Rddiation."
l h e e f f e c t i v e d a t e o f IO CFR 2 0 . 3 1 1 was December 27, 1983.
Sub-
s c q u < w t l y , t h e NRC ,?nnouncell i n January 1991, t h e a v a i l a b i l i t y o f a r e v i s e d
S t a f f Icchnical P o s i t i o n e n t i t l e d " l e c h n i c a l P o s i t i o n on Waste f o r m
(Kc.wrsion I ) . "
l h i s t e c h n i c a l p o s i t i o n on w a s t e f o r m w a s i n i t i a l l y d e v e l o p e d
i n 1983 t o p r n v i t l r guidance t o b o t h f u r l - c y c l e and n o n - f u e l - c y c l e waste gene-
rators
QII
w a s t e form te:t
method: and r e L u l t z a c c e p t a b l e t o t h e t4RC s t a f f f o r
i r p i ~ * c ? n t i n gthe IO C f R P d r t 61 waste f o r m r c q i i i r c n e n t s .
I t has boor, used as
a n a c c e y t a b l e dpproach f o r d e m o n s t r a t i n g coI:iiil i a n c e w i t t i t h e 10 C I R Part GI
w ~ ; t i ! s t t 0 i l i t . y c r i t c r - i a . Tho P o s i t i o n ( R r v i s i o n 1 ) i n c l u d e s g u i d a n c e on I )
t h e processing o f W . I ' . ~ C S i n t o ;in a c c e p t a b l e , $ t a b l e waste form, 2 ) t h e d e s i g n
o f a c i e p t d b i e h t q h i n t e g r i t y c.ontaincrs, 3 ) the pdckaging o f f i l t e r c a r t r i d g ~ i ,and 4 ) c i i n i n i l a t . i c n o f
railidt
i o n e f f e c t s on o r g a n i c i o n - r x c h a n g e
I h r r ~ y i i l ~ ~ t i o10n ,CIR ?0.311, r c q i i i r c s w d r t e g e n e r a t o r s and p r o c
i.t*',iti'3.
t o citr't i f y l h , i t t t i c i i ' w.ic,tt1 f o r m 5 m t c t thc r'eiliiirem4:nts
c',',oi.',
( i n c 1 ~ 4 i n y !lit! rt~qiiiri:n.~~tit:.f u r : , t r i i r t u r c t l < t , i b i l i
ati:f
! ~ ) .
1hiB
!iiiid.inci! p t - ~ ) v i d ~i tnl t l i s r l i ~ ~ ~ b n i cl'o:,i
a l t iori ( K v i i s i o n 1)
r:.r*!t,t~i
iiiiun nlii<.h to tlti:>c x r t i
wa5ttn
i ! l ~iif
s ~
t b~c i r ~ 3 i ; t ! ~ + i ~ ~ 1 i~i i~~rt ~: !l ~ , i i t , ii i;:ipl < i c t
I>
!:,t':
t'rtlci
!i,~,,,~,~i:i,~',i.i(,r~ir,~i.
3 ttvric:f
tit':,
ar:i s
t 11 I 1 O d \
i o n Iiy
ii,r.t i f t c 3 t
i i .!cirr(,il
I
o f P a r t 61
:! t in II s
wiv 11 J
AVV
.in ; i c ( c p t ~ t ) l c
qcncvalors.
on l i I g a l l y . ( i i s p o ( a t i l F I I U
r i ~ v i o wo f U . S . LIW disposal f a ( i l i
~ :iiql l I c ~~ i ~ r~ thi , !r i \~ l ! , . ~ t 1 r p ~ c . t t w i r
.
I .30
lic.c!ri-,iriq
and ( i p e r a t r o n
S i x c o m m e r c i a l l y o p e r a t e d IIW d l r p o s a l f a c i l l t l e s h r v e b c w l i c e n s e d and
operd'1.d s i n c e t h e
AEC's announcement i n 1960 t h a t r e g i o n a l l a n d d i s p o s a l
s ! t e s fo, c o m m e r c i a l l y g e n e r a t e d LLU s h o u l d be e s t a b l i s h e d and t h a t t h e s i t e s
s h o u l d be o p : r a t e d by t h e p r i v a t e s e c t o r , s u h j e c t t o government l i c e n s i n g
iithority.
l h c . - c f a c i l i t i e s a r e l o c a t e d i n B e a t t y , Nevada; Haxey F l a t s ,
K e n t u c k y ; West V a l l c v , New York; R i c h l a n d , Washington; S h e f f i e l d , I l l i n o i s ;
and t a r n w e l l , South C a r o l i n a .
l h e B e a t t y f a c i l i t y . w h i c h opened i n 1962, was
t h e f i v s t t o b e g i n cornnerci,.l d i s p o s a l o p e r a t i o n s ; t h e B a r p w e l l f a c i l i t y ,
w h i c h opened i n 1971, w a s t h e l a \ t . Four o f t h o s e f a c i l i t i e s (Haxey F l a t s ,
West V a l l e y , S h e f f i e l d . and E e a l t , )
have s i n c e c l o s e d .
The o t h e r two f a c i l i -
t i c s ( R i c h l a n d and B a r n w e l l ) a r e s t i l l o p e r a t i n g s u c c e s s f u l l y and d i s p o s e O f
a l l ti.0 c o m e r c i a l 11W c u r r e n t l y g e n e r a t e d i n th? U n i t e d S t a t e s .
The problems e x p e r i e n c e d i n t h e developmental yc.Irs o f commercial LLW
disposal l e d t o the recognition that the regulations c c t , ' t o l l i r i q thc licensing
o f radioac.tive m a t e r i a l s did not c o n t a i n s u f f i c i e n t t e c h n i c i t standards o r
c r i t e r i a f o r the disposal o f r a d i o a c t i v e waste."'
d,ii.ds,
More comprehcnsive s t a n -
t e c h n i c d l c r i t e r i a , and l i c e n s i n g p r o c e d u r e s were needed f o r t h e l i c .
c n ~ i n ( jd f new
disposal s i t e s , t h e a p c r a t i o n o f t h e e x i s t i n g s i t e s , and f o r t h r
f i n c i l c l o s u r e and s t a b i l i z a t i o n o f a l l s i t e s .
T l t l e 10 Code o f Federal R e g u l a t i o n s , P a r t 61 a l s o e s t a h l i s h e d a s e r i e s
o! prrfwndnce o b j e c t i v e i a1.d t e c h n i c a l and f i r i a n c i a l r c q i i i r m r n t s which a 1l.U
di.,posal
s i t e And s i t e
~ [ i c ~ l ' d t wm
' st
meet i n urrIc!r to e!i$iirc
s a f c t y . and 1or;q~tcrril p r u t c c t i o r , ? f t h e e n v i r o n m e n t .
1 istied four perfoi,wnce c i b j r x t i v c s ,
[ ! i i b I i-..
liealth,
Itlc r e g u l a t i o n e s t a b
a ) t o p r o t e c t t h r g c n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n from
t i . l c ~ , , e c o f r a d i o a c t i v i t y . ti) t ~ op r ~ ' , ? c any
t
i n d i v i d u ~ lwho i n a d v e r t e n t l y
witcr, a disposal site after the site is closed, c) t o protect workers during
rite operations, and d) to ensure long-term stability at disposal sites to
eliminate the need for ongoing active maintenance after closure.
lechnlcal requirements were established for site selection, desiyn,
operation, and closure 3s well as for environmental monitoring, waste classification, and waste characteristics. Specifically. two of the technical
requirements establ ished during the regulatory reform years o f 1980-1983 have
the potential for impacting decommi;sioning costs. They are: a) sites must
have characteristics which maximize long-term stability and isolatiod of waste
<itid ensure that pcrformance objectives are met (site characteristics and
~r(!rformance m u s t be evaluated for at least a 500-year period) and b) to reduce
sirbsiilence or cracking of the caps or barriers covering the waste, all LLV
r,iirt tic placed in the disposal unit in a way that maintains the integrity of
1111) w a j t c package and permits v o i d s t o be filled.
Special technical rcquirea,nts were also established for waste form.
Itfose requirements included: a) waste niurt not be packaged for dlsposal in
or' f i t ~ r t o a r dboxes; b ) 1 iquid waste must be solidified or packaged
i r i abiuttwnt material; c ) wastes t + a t generate toxic fumes or are spontai i i ~ * ~ f Ilarnmable
y
or cxlilosive a r e prohibited: d) waste form or high integrity
( r ' i t i t ~ i r i c r . (!IICs)
~
urci! t o provide s t r u c t u r l l \:ability mus* qaintain gross
r , ! i : d s i t a ? pi'opczt 1 ~ and
s
identity for 300 y c a r s . under the -' x t e d disposal
( , ' * ~ ~ ! : ! I O I I Sand
,
e ) void s p a c e s mi:t be r ~ * l t ~
o t~h e de x i t : . I practicahlc.
(,i~.,!L%)~rtl
Carolina, and Washington passed additional regulations t o
c::i<iit'c
t h d t t h c t r a n s p o r t d t ion and p a c k a g i n g problems they had experienced in
t t ) c t t . i f l i c r ycdr5 6 f cpcration would not be repeated. In general, these state
i . ~ . ~ l i : ! a t i r ) i i s r.equiri.d rmlioactive waste shippers t o : a) purchase transportation p o r n i t i and liability in:urnnce, b) certify that the shipment and trans;!i!l't v c h i c I C hdve been inspected and w m p l y with applicable state and federal
I M S , d n d c ) notify thc disposJ1 facility prior t o shipment of waste. In addi.
l i o n , t h c regulations iapscc i . w ? a l t i v s r d q i n l j f r o v 51.000 t o 525.000 if1 finrs
(It.,:! [i:;zrible si:?pcnsion o r t'cvoc;ltion o f the permit.
!icvala. South
I .32
In sununary, the current sy:tcr for managcmcnt o f LI.W evolved over a
period of time when disposal capacity was available and costs were low. 01sposal capacity currently exists at two sites: Barn.wl1, South Carolina and
tlanford, Washington. South Carolina and Hashington have decided to cut back
on the amount of waste they will accept from other states. Furthermore, the
volume of waste generated is on the rise despite improved volume-reduction
techniques. Disposal costs have risen as well, as have costs for transporting
the waste as much a s 3,000 miles to accommodate current volume ceilings at the
existing disposal sites.
When Congress enacted the low-level Radioactive Haste Policy Act of 1980
and subsequent amendmcnts in 1985, it set. in motion major changes in the
national 1ow.level waste disposal program:
of January 1, 1993, each state will be responsible f o r providing
its own disposal facilities for low-level waste. That includes all
50 states and the Distrirt of Columbia.
As
The most efficient method would be throuyh regional compacts, which
would provide a central disposal facility for several neighboring
states. Gotigress must endorse the creation of each compact in
advance arid renew the approval every five years.
After January 1 , 1993, any state can refuse t o accept low-level
waste from other states that arc not members o f its regional c o n
pact. Essentially, this means that,a state must enter into a regional agreement, estahli5h .i s owc; disposal facility, o ~ ':top
qcneratinq 1ow.level waste. I!' t
ihe lessons learned during the drvelopmental yedrs o f comaier-cia1 II.W
disposal led t o regulatory reform o f the systti under which disposal is
conducted. Improvements in t h e form of waste that i s disposed o f , as well as
in site selection, characterization, operations, monitoring and post.closure
CJI'C. have significantly reduced t h e likelihood that a new LLH disposal
fnc.ility will require cortly i.coicdiat.ion i n the future.
In addition t o the aforeo:ent ionrd technical irnprovcmcn!s, many states
a n d conpacts have also imposed rcquirrmnts for adiliticmtil rtnqinenrcvl tiar.riers
(generally concrete waxtc oackagc): o r tlisliosal c.eI1s) to reiiifar,cc! ,)iik~li,. canfidence that t h e waste will Ire : a l c l y isolated f r o m the environmcnt whilc I!.
tJi.cays to background I c v e i i . A I ttiuugti t t w lonq-tctm t w i i r f i t o f enyinwrrd
barriers over carefully se1i:ctcd flatiil'J1 Ijdri.jers i h a topic o f rniiLh discus.
iioii and technical analysis, the selection o f multiple barrier systems illus.
trates the degree t o which state and compact officials have responded t o
public concerns. that disposal of LLW should pose as little risk to public
health and safety a s reasonably possible. However, it should be recognized
t h a t the costs o f any changes/improvements will ultimately be paid for by the
waste generators.
1991, the NRC renewed in its entirety Chem-Nuclear Systems
Incorporated's 1 icerise t o rec?ive, possess, store, and dispose of special
nuclear material (SNH) a t its commercial LLW disposal facility located near
Aarnwell, South Carolina. The license was renewed in its entirety for five
yedrs. ( r l l
Oo April 30,
I . 2 .6
h~iu
sJWal-Safet i
During active decomnissioning o f a PUR, industrial safety and occupational work conditions arc regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) o f the U . S . Department of Labor under 29 CFR Parts 1900
t o end.
hlazardolls waste operations are defined as any work within a facility,
: i t e , or area that has h e n deemcd as a hazardous waste site. Work may
include sampling. logging, drilling, excavatiog, monitoring, and remediation
activities. Such work may be governed by a written, customlzed Health and
Safety Plan (lisp) that meets the intent of the requirements established in
29 C F R 1910, QLc.!jpatinrial Safetv and Health Standard$, and 29 CFR 1926,
5 t..ru
- c t i on Sa fe t y- ,_an!! ..j!y.~Lh_S~&..:i.w&
, w i t h sper i f i c emph as i s be ing app 1 1 ed to
29 C F R 1910.120, "I~ar!ardousWaste Operations and Emergency Response."
.x.
~
The OSHA requirements delineated in 29 CFH 1910.120 that dictate experience for team rrembccs are imposed t o protect the worker. 29 CFR 1910.120
requires that all hazardous waste workers receive at least three dzys
( 2 4 hours) experience on a bona fide hazardous waste site under the direct
s u p e r v i s i o n of an experienced hazardous k d s t e worker with similar di.ties.
Speclfic training and certification in such areas as radiological safety,
J:bCStOS reeoval and handling, and hearing protection may also be required.
fur example, i f an .sbestos J ~ ~ ~ ~ I , : Cwi,.ker
I I !
i s t o bo assigned w0i.k on a
haiardous waste site, that worker must either verify that he/she has the
necessary hazardous waste experience, or must be assigned to a worker who has
been verified as an experienced hazardous waste worker. For decommissioning
workers, applicable state, local, or licensee requirements may be imposed as
well. A thorough prejob analysis will help determine the level o f training
required. In addition, i t is expected that the onsite project manager br team
leader have relevant work experience, e.g., mixed waste characterization,
mixed waste remediation, or soil removal.
Other Statiilpryqnd RewlatorY Reauirements
1.2.7
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) develops, promulgates, and
enforces environmental protection standards and regulations as directed by
statutes passed by the U.S. Congress. Environmental regulations and standards
of potential relevance to decommissioning the reference PUR are those proniulgated by the EPA under the Atomic Energy Act (AEA), the Clean Air Act (CAA),
Clean Water Act (CWA), Safe Drinking Water Act (SOMA), Resource Conservation
dnd Rccovery Act ( R C R A ) , and the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Act (CERCLA).
Lonipensat ion, and l,i?~~ility
reported in Refcrence 3 4 , rcgulation o f nilxed radioactive/hazardous
waste (i.e., mixed wattc) by the 1PA and the NRC is largely duplicative, and
that situation is not likely tu chariye in the near future. In fact, regulations are likely t o tiecome morc complex and burde~somc in the future. States
are authorized t o promulgate mixed waste regulations under the RCRA as long as
their regulations are no less stringent than applicable federal regulations.
States, however, have been slow to apply for and receive authorization to
regulate mixed waste under their approved RCRA programs: in fact, as o f
January 2 4 . i991, only 24 s t a t e s and territories had been authorized t o
regulate mixed waste.
As
The NRC and the EPA have heeri working togettior. f o r scveral yciri-s t o
resolve the issues associated with mixed waste. The agencies conducted a
survey o f generators o f commercial mixed radioactive/harardous waste and are
completing two joint technical guidances on testing and storage o f such
wastes. O a k Ridge National Ldbot'dtory, which conducted the voluntary generator survey for the two agencies, sent out questionnaires to over 1,300 potential mixed waste generators in November 1991. The results o f the survey,
presented in NUREG/CR-5938,'"51 have been used to develop a national profile
that is expected to provide needed information to states and compact officials, private developer,, and federal agencies to assist in planning and
developing adequate disposal capacity for LLW, including mixed waste, as
mandated by the LLRWPAA of 1985. The report also contains information on
existing and potential comnercial waste treatment facilities that may provide
treatment for specific waste streams identified in the nat.iona1 survey. The
report provides a reliable national database on the volumes, characteristics
and treatability o f commercial mixed waste in the United States. Data from
t h e survey also may serve as a basis for possible federal actions to effeclively manage and regulate the treatment and disposal of mixed waste.
The NRC and the CPA also are developing a joint guidance on safe storage
mired waste. Given the current lack o f treatment and disposal capacity for
most mixed wastes, both agencies are concerned with long-term problems that
could arire from storage o f such wastes. The joint guidance will address
issuer associated with onsite storage, including inspection and surveillance
o f waste, wijte compatibility and segregation, storage container requirements,
and time limitations o n storage o f untreated waste. For each issue, the
agencies are attempting to identify acceptable practices. ( 3 6 )
of
The EPA has set some treatment standards for mixed w.istc. Incineration
i i an applicable technology for. L1W corabincd with organic compounds in wastewatel' arld rmn-wastewater, as well d~ DO01 ignitable liquids (listed waste
m l c r R C R A ) . Vitrification is q m i f i e d as an acceptable technology for
Lransuranic and high.leve1 wastes containing both highly radioactive compounds
and hazardoiis components. 1 3 4 )
Scientific Ecoioqy Group, lric. (SIC) in Oak Ridge, lennessee,
nation's 16rgest lI.W processor. S t C has applitrd for permits and a
o l i c r a t e the first commercially available incinerator for s o l i ~ la i i t J
mixed waste. l h e incinerator is currently licenscd on;y for I.LW.
submitted an RCRA Part A permit application in March 1991.("' The
is the
license to
1 iquiil
The company
associated
1'at.t B p e r m i t a p p l i c a t i o n
Waste i n e a r l y 1993.
w.i:,
; u b m i t t r ~ ! t o the Icrmrscc! D i v i s i o n u f s o l i d
These permits, when granted, w i l l a l l o w SEG t o s t o r e and
t r e a t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c hazardous w a s t e s .
In
instances where r e g u l a t o r y a u t h o r i t y can be delegated, t h e EPA may
d e l e g a t e r e g u l a t o r y a u t h o r i t y t o t h e s t a t e f o r s t a t e programs t h a t meet o r
exceed EPA requirements.
Vhere r e g u l a t o r y a u t h o r i t y i s not d e l e g a t e d ( e . g . ,
C r R C L A ) , the EPA i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r r e v i e w i n g and e v a l u a t i n g compliance with
the EPA r e g u l a t i o n s .
This includes i n t e r p r i : . t n g r e g u l a t i o n s and c o n s u l t i n g
w i t h r e a c t o r wdners and t h e i r c o n t r a c t o r s t o a i d r e g u l a t i o n implementation and
inspection o f f a c i l i t i e s a t tho s i t e s .
I .2.8 l . i r ~ s . ~ _ l l e _ r _ m l _ a ~ d
According t o 10 C F R 50.82,
Fac i1 1 t Y &l-~a3_5r
" A p p l i c a t i o n f o r Termination o f License," t h e
Cumnission w i l l t e r m i n a t e t h e I l c e n s e i f i t determines that I ) t h e d e c o m i s s i n n i n g has been performed i n accordance w i t h the appvoved decommissioning
p l a n and the o r d e r a u t h o r i z i n g decommissioning; and, 2 ) t h e t e r m i n a l r a d i a t i o n
survey arid a s s o c i a t e d documentation demonstrates t h a t the f a c i l i t y and s i t e
arc: s u i t a b l e f o r r e l e a s e f o r u n r e s t r i c t e d use.
A S d i s c u s r e d i n t h e Supplementary I n f o r m a t i o n contai.led i n t h e deconmis-
sinning rule,
(I!
acceptable l e v e l s o f r e s i d u a l r a d i o a c t i v i t y f o r r c l t ? a s e o f
p r o p e r t y f o v u n r e s t r i c t e d use w r r e not prcposcd a s p a r t o f the r u l c m a k i n g .
C r i t e r i a f o r r e s i d u a l r a d i o a c t i v o contamination a r e beirig developed by t h e NRC
JS
1. 3
p d r t o f a m j n v r u l c a e J k i n g e f f o r t c u r r t r n t l y underway.
I.(!!I!ItlU it&-
c.rEy
Conl.inuiny c a r e i r . a siib.category o f S A F S I O R and d e a l s w i t h t h e s u r v e i l .
lance m J maintenance o f t h e p l a n t i n a safe storage mode.
The hilL s t a f f
rcviews the drcommissioninq a l t e r n a t i v e s submitted by the l i c e n s e e a g a i n s t the
appl i c d b l e r c g u l a t ions.
Primary concerns d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d a r e f o r p u b l i c
arid occtijiationa1 s a f c 3 t y and f o r 1 i c e n s i n g .
Safeguards and s e c u r i t y precau-
t i o n s a s discussed ir: S e c t i o n 1.2.4 a r e reqciircd u n t i l the spcnt niir.l?ar f u e l
i n v e n t o r y i s rediiced t o zero.
1.37
Requirements for public and occupationa sa ty during the continuing
care phase of decommissioning remain identical to those during active decommissioning (see Sections 1.2.2 and 1.2.3). The requlrements in this area are
specified by the possession-only license, which likely will not be changed for
continuing care.
1.3.2
b!.uiflg
The NRC possession-only license remains in force during SAFSTOR.
Regulatory Guide 1.86 and IO C F R 50.87, "Application for Termination o f
License," present the guidance and regulations, respectively, for terminating
the license at the end o f SAFSTOR. In most cases, some dismantlement will be
required to ensure that the contamination levels in the plant arc at or below
aarcep t ab1 e residual contaminat ion levels. The regulatory regutrements
discussed in Snctions 1.1.1 and 1.2.8 of this chapter will apply in these
cases.
lhe following information concerning the regulatory process for decommissioning prematurely shutdown plants is extracted from NUMARC 9 2 - 0 2 (draft
The current regulations in 10 CFR 50 focus primarily on the
report) ."'I
tlesiyn, cons?ruction, and operation o f nuclear facilities. Although 10 CfR
4 50.82 "Application for lermination of License" allows a licrnsee to apply to
the NRC for the authority t o surrerlder its licenje voluntarily and dccommission i t s facility. there are a myriad of regulatory issues that become amhiguo u s , o r are undefined, when a licensee decides to shirt down its facility
permanently.
With the recent premature closing o f several nuclear power stations,
1 icensees. NRC, and the Nuclear Management and Resources Council, Inc.
(tlUMARC) have ecognlzed the need for a uniform nuclear plant closure and
decommissioning pol icy. The NUMARC 92-02 draft report prc~srnt::
I .38
guidance on activities that can be accomplished after premature
plant closure;
a discussion o f the regulations applicable t o a plant as l t proceeds from cessation o f operations through preparation for decommissioning activities, including issues iitilitles may face with
regdrds to supporting their permanently shutdown nuclear facility;
6
a review c;f the current regulatory process for decomnissioning,
including a regulatory summary;
a review o f a number o f "case histories" o f prematurely shutdown
facilities, including a comparison o f their decomissioning
approaches and conunon features so that facilities can use thfs
information for early decomissioning planning.
Prematurely shutdown plants have been submitting documents to gain
regulatory and economic re1 ief and to begin the decommissioning process.
Because there is no defined set o f documentation to achleve these objectives,
each plant has submitted its own unique series o f documents to the NRC for
approval. Although each facility has experienced different circumstances
leading to permanent shutdown, the post-shutduwn status and condition of the
plants were similar in many respects.
When a plant is shut clown prematurely, it is likely that the licensee
has not fully prepared for permanent plant closure or decommissioning. It is
also likely that the licensee has not yet submitted its application to terminate the operating license or completed its proposed decomissioning plan. To
minimize the co5t o f supporting a prematurely shutdown nuclear reactor, it is
essential that a utility act quickly t o reduce the number and scope o f regulatory programs applicable to its prematurely shutdown facility that are no
longer applicable or needed to protect public health and safety. NUMARC 92-02
d i x u s s e s a plan to provide a smooth transition through these phases and
considerations as to the most effective way t o address thesc issues. In addition, d step-by-step licensee/NRC action plan for decommissioning is included
in the report.
Currently, thcre is no definition or criteria for a possession-only
license (POL) in the Code o f Federal Regulations. However, as a result o f
recent closures. there has been much discussion concerning what a POL is and
what its implications are. It;c KUMAIK 92-02draft
' * ' ro\,fews the impact
of the POL on plant closure and decommissioning, including the generlc Issues
impacting decommissioning along with the regulatory basis for relief (e.g., 5
50.59 evaluation process, National Environmental Policy Act, Decommissioning
frrntlirg, Annual Operating Fees). The report al5o identifie5 the 10 CFR
sections for which an exemption should be submitted to thc NRC rplative to d
POL *
Ihe following selected conclusions are drawn from the NUMARC 9 2 - 0 2 draft
report:
Decommissioning a prematurely shutdown nuclear plant involves much
more than decontaminating and dismantling the facility to permit
i t s release fnr unrestticted u,e, and allow for termination o f its
1 iccnse.
Future rulemakinq o n decommissioning is needed because the present
regulations and associated guidance do not address prematurely
shutdown plants arid all phases of the process once a plant i s prematurely shutdown. Until such rulemaking is completed, utilities
murt be aware of, and plan for, the cost o f maintaining their prewturely shutdowri facilities until they are issued a POI. and gain
arrproval of their proposed decommissioning plan.
I ' 5 OI.CClMM15Si~NJ!K..MJKK A _ 2 O ~ . Y t ? l l , ~ ! C t ! ! ~ S , . . ~ ~ ~ ~ . _ ~ . ~ ~ R J , O ~
(he !iRC i s proposing to amend its regulations to establish new require.
for environmental review of applications to renew operating licenses for
nuclear power plants. The proposed amendments would define the number and
scope o f environmental impacts that would need to be addressed as part o f a
1 icense renevral application.
munts
A s reporter! in Reference 38, the physical requirements and attendant
effects of decommissioning nuclear power plattts after s 20-year license
renewal period irc not expccted to be different from those at the end of the
current 40-year license period. While license renewal would not be expected
l o change the ultimate cost o f decommissioning, it would reduce the present
value o f the cost. The iocioeconomic effects of decomlssionlng wlll depend
on the magnitude o f thr, decommissioning effort, the s i z e of the conunity, and
other economic activities at the time. However, the NRC does not expect that
the impacts would be increased by deconutiissionirlg at lhe end o f a 20-year
license renewal period rather that at the end o f the current license term.
Hecause the NRC can reach a generic conclusion o n the acceptability o f the
Incremental impacts o f decommissioning for all plants, irpacts o n d e c o m l s sioniny need not be evaluated for each plant license renewal application.'*"
..?.I
I .6
efLLRLk!L€'S
1.
Federal Register. "Ceneral Requirements for Decomnissioning Nuclear
Facilities," Vol. 53, No. 123, pp. 24018-24056, June 2 7 , 1988.
2.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.86, "Termination
of Operatiny Licenses for Nuclear Reactors," June 1974.
3.
E. Kennedy, Jr. 1978. & ? O W .
Safety and Costs o f Q e c o m n i s s i ~ n i n a~ Refer
Pressurized -U
&x.&wer
Stat ion. NUREG/CR-0130, U . S . Nu%&
Regulatory Comnission
Report by Pdcific Northwest laboratory, Rlchland, Washington.
R . 1 . Smith, G . J. Konzek, and W .
4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Regulatory Guide 1.159 (Task DG1003), "Assuring the Availability o f Funds for Decomnissioning Nuclear
Reactors," August 1990.
5. U . S . D q u r t m e n t of Energy, "Standard Contract for Disposal o f Spent
Nuclear file1 and/or Hiqh-Level Radioactive Waste," Code o f Federal
Regulations. Titie 10, Part 961 (1990).
6. U.S. Department of Energy, "Annual Capacity Report," DOE/RW-O294P,
Office o f Civilian Radioactive Waste Management, Washington, D.C.
(December 1990).
7.
U.S. Department of Energy, "Report to Congress on Reassessment o f the
Civilian Radioactive Waste Management Program," DOE/RW-0247, Washington,
D.C. (November 1989).
8. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cfimniission Draft Regulatory Guide (Task DG1006), "Records important for Decomlissioning o f Nucledr Reactors."
September !989.
9. Paul E. Fuller. 1987. "Decommissioning - An Insurance Perspcctive,"
Proceedings 1987 International Decomnissioning Symposium, October 4-8,
1987, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
IO. !luclear hews. January 1990. "Proposcd Amendments on Fees, Radiography," pp. 79-eo.
1.41
11.
Nuclear News. March 1991. "Advanced Reactor Reviews Boost NRC Reyclire.
ments," p . 30.
12. NUREG-1307, Revision 2. July 1991. PeDort on W
fscalation o f 0e c o m i ss ionina Waste Disoosal Cos
U
F
i
l
l Facll ltie:.
13. NUREG-0586. August 1988. final ( & l w j . y o n m e n f , a l lmoact
g n Decomissioninq o f - h W - W i M .
July 1980. ElnanciLlg Strategies for Nuclear Power P W
&omnissioninq.
Prepared by New England Conference o f Public Utilittes
Commissioners, Inc., in conjunction with Irmnle. Barker and Sloane, lnc.
for U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnlssion.
14. NUREG/CR-1481
I
1984. U t i l i t y F J W a 1 Stabllitv and the A u i U
NUREC/CR-3899, U . S . Nuclear Regulatory
o f Funds for Decorm&.$jgJBg.
Commission Report by Engineering and Economics Research, Inc.
15.
J. J. Siegel.
16.
J. J. Siegel. 1988. ytilitv Financial Stabilitv and the A val,ability
pf funds for_&~yiJ$sioniny.
NUREC/CR-3899, Supplement 1, U.S, Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Report by Engineering and Economics Research, Inc.
17.
P. L . Chernick, e t al. 1981. m i a n , C o s t s m W l l f u of an
-_
Elp&ic
Uttlitv Pool for Assurinq the A d e q y x v o f Funds for Nuclear
__
P o y K P M L . D e c o m m i $ 5 i onl nq E x p - m . NUREG/CR- 2370, U. S Nuclear
Regulatory Commission Report by Analysis and Inference, Inc.
18.
"IO CFR Part 50, Oecommissioninq Funding for Prema
lurely Shutdown Power Rpactors," Vol. 56, No. 162, pp. 41493-41495,
August 2 1 , 1991.
19. Federal Register.
20. Federal Register.
"IO CFR Part 50, Decommissioning Funding for Prema.
turely Shutdown Power Reactori," V o l . 57, No. 132, pp. 30383-30387,
July 9, 1992.
21. Federal Register. "IO CFR Part 50, Notificat.ion o f Spent Fuel
Management and lundiny Plans by Llccnsees I f Prematurely Shut Down i w e r .
Reactors," Vol. 58, No. 124, pp. 34947.34519, Junr 30, 199'%,
' W P A : Sweeping Changes on the Ilorizori
22.
~kc,I~r.&~.w~
November
,.
1992.
p . 22.
23.
"Ut i 1 i t i e s Face S 1 ew o f Opt i on s
&&~-_~_n,~.~~._JJrck.
Funds Grow," pp. 9-12, January 12, 1989.
I .42
,i '.I
iitxomv 1 s 5 i on i ng
?,
24. HUREG-0800 (formerly issued a s HUR€G-75/087). June 1987. $ f a i ) t ! d
E & . k K . P l m f o r L 9 f - r n J U c
1$arPP&l,
ants LWR EdFttna.
-
25. Federal Register. "10 CFR Parts 19 and 20. Standards for Protct tlon
Against Radiation; Extension of Implementation Date,' YO]. 5 7 * P.
38588, August 26, 1992.
26.
nNeur.
March 1991. "Experts Discuss Adopt* vi of Revised
Requirements,. pp. 36-38.
21.
28
I
29.
m-.
July 1991. 'Exposure Kanagment:
Practices," pp. 43-48.
lower Doses and Good
federal Register. "Performance Oriented Packaging Standards; i Iisnges to
Classification, Hazard Ccmrwi. tion, Packaging and Handling R e w i r e ments Based on UN Standards 8 t h hgency Initiative,' Vol. 5 5 , Mu (46.
December 21, 1990, pp. 52402 52729.
F d e r a l Reqlster.
it~iilrig ReQutrementt fur thc land Uisposal o f
Radioacti*t% Waste," r u l . i?,
No. 218, December 27, 1982, pp. 51446
57482.
30. NAcJear
p. 84.
July 1989. "Greater-That, Class C I n c j d e d by WC Role,'
fitb&.
31.
3;
DOE/NE-C085.
November 1981. A . : Q & ~
Elecmm.
33. U . S . Nut :ear Regulatory iomnission. 1991. 'Safety Evaluation Report
for R e n e w t of NRC License Number 32-135361-01 Issued to Chem-Nuclear
irsterns, incorporated - April '1391.
34.
!{.alafdQu> Waste NUS,, 3 i i l y 1, 1991, pp 2b6.257.
3s. J. A . Klein, et
21.
December 1992. [ i a m i l e on
Cefi:ma..LQ:d.Ll.f& W S U k ? . . . W d &g. NUREG/CR- 593
L..iauJ
6.
Nuclear Regtifatory Comnission Roport by Oak Ridpe National Labcratory,
Oak Ridge, Irr--*ssee.
36.
! j ~ l l q E r J f ~ . , sNt Q~W X ,
57.
NUWRC 92.02 (Draft), July 1992. 'Pc,siatory Process for k c o m i s s i o n ing Prrartureld Shut Down Piants.' :ilrpdipf by Nuclear Management iind
Resourirr, Council, Inc., Uashington. 0 i ,
&:;;gust 29, i991,
(>P. 342-344.
t v d e r a l R e y i s t c r . "IO LII{ P a t t SI, t i i v i i o n m e n l a t Heview f o r w i w w a l o f
O p e r a t i n g l i c e n s e s , " Vo!. 56, No. 180, p p . 47016.SW5, Septi ;ber 1 7 ,
38
1991.
l h e N U R I G reports and r e g u l d t o r y quides mentloned i n t h i s c h a p t e r a r e
dvailatile
!
.I
i n s p e c t i o n and copying for s f e e under t h e t l c ~ i m n i s s l o n i n gf i l e
docket 43 r R i 0 3 7 0 , a t t h e Commission's P 8 h 1 i c Docunierit 1..
NU, b l a r h i r , g l ~ ~DC
..
available
t'f-'
NURLG r e p o r '
ijnrchase from the t i a t i n r i a
S p r i n g f i e l d . VA
ment P r i n t i n g
20036.
22161: and from the S u i -
Off!::,,
1
,::I,
2120 1 Sircvt
.trid f i n a l vi!gulatory y u i d c s
,
!,rliCal
:~
(:(',
are
:#formation Service,
tit o f Documents, U . S . Govern
O f f i c e Box 3.'$8:,, washington, CC
20013-7982.
freP , i n g l e copies n i 3' . i t regulatory y v i t i e s d r e a v a i l a b i c on request from
lb U i v i s i o n o f l n f o r m a t i o n Support S e r v i t . c s ,
',
tin,
W a s h i n r i l w , Or.
20555.
1.44
U . S . N u c i c a r R c g i i l a t o r y Commis-
APPENDIX J
A comprehensive review o f the available experience in the deconmissioning of nuclear facilities was presented in NUREG/CR-0130, published in
1978.(') Since that time, additional deconmissioning activities have
occurred, including the total dismantlement of the Shippingport reactor. This
chapter contains information on selected nuclear reactor deconmissionlngs,
both domestic and foreign, since 1978. Industrial activities wlth potential
applications to decomnissioning pressurized water reactors (PWRs) are
described in Appendix K.
J.l m
m
Q
m
-
The decomnissiuning o f nuclear reactor facilities i s a relatively welldeveloped technology. In the United States, the term "decomnission" means to
remove (as a facility) from serv'ice and reduce residual radioactivity to a
level that permits release o f the property for unrestricted use and termination of license (10 CFR SO)."'
Historically, deconissjoning activities at
nuclear facilities have not necessarily resulted in complete dismantlement o f
plant facilities for unrestricted use. In fact, the safe storage (mothballiny, layaway, and entombment) approaches that have been used are now recognized as only one stage in the decomnissioning process, leading to dismantlement/unrestricted release. The current NRC decomnissioning regulations
require that all decomnissioning activities be completed within 60 years after
termination o f licensed power operations. Consideration will be given to an
alternative which provides for completion o f decomnissioning beyond 60 years,
only when it i s necessary to protect health and safety.'"
Previously, conventional wisdom suggested that all decomnissioning
methods start with removing all fuel and source material from the site. O f
course, the 1978 study (NUREG/CR-0130) could not foresee the future provision
delineated in the 1983 U . S . Department o f Energy (WE)contracts wlth
NUKEWCR-5881, Vol. 2
J.l
DrpIl for
Canmml
utilities (10 CFR Part 961)'" that would require spent fuel to undergo at
least 5 years of radioactive decay before DOE will take possession of spent
fuel. This provision impacts decomnissioning activities by delaying, for up
to 5 years, removal o f the last core loading of spent fuel from a site and
subsequent decontamination and ,dismantlement of the spent fuel storage
facil i ty.'"
Exoeriences at k 1 e a r Reactor Power Stati Q!ls
J.l.1 Qecomnis$j.am
Information on selected nuclear reactor power stations decolnnissionings
and/or shutdowns since 1978 i s presented in Table J.l. Discussions of soma o f
the significant reactor decomnissionings follow, based on information excerptd from a United States General Accounting Office report,I5) unless Indicated
otherwi sc?.
J.1. I . 1 SbiepinPoPrtx,-&-
3
Over its 25-year life, Shippingport operated for about 80,324 hours,
produced about 7.4 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, and operated at
varying power levels of 68, 150, and 72 megawatts electric. Th? plant was
shut down by its owner, Duquesne Light Company, in October 1982. In 1983, The
Energy Oaily reported that the $60- to $7O-million job of decomissioning the
reactor was expected to start in Harch 1984.'61 However, actual decomnissioning activities began in September 1985. At the time of shutdown, the radioactivity in the pressure vessel was about 30,000 curies; at the outset of
decomnissioning, it was about 17,000 curies.
It
completed all decomnissioning activities In Decc4nber 1989 4 months ahead
o f schedule - at a cost o f 591.3 million, 17 million under i t s 1986 estimated
cost. lhe most significant benefit o f Shippingport was that DOE demonstrated
that technology existed to decomnission a plant within the costs and time
DOE generally met the yoals it had established for Shippingport.
~
(41
I h e .myaLt o f the t q ~ r d r ystorage o f spent fuel at the reference Rm. untll Wt lakes wssesrlon.
A w l l stiff would be requtrrd I o provlde securlty operations.
I S a M r e s i e d i n Appendix 0
wirterwce. and rddiat!an proltclton s u p p ~ r l I m low~lenel rrd!oacllvQ rasles would a l s o be
perprated due I n operillon of the I d l e r purlflcltlon 9 1 s I m for the $ p n t fuel storage frcllity
Storage oprrrtionr would continue to be under an NRC llccnrc
NIIRK(;/('R-SIIBJ,
Vnl. 2
5.2
Draft for Cmuncnl
:~''rREG/CR-51)84. VOI. 2
5.3
frame established. One objective o f the Shlppingport project was to demonstrate that a nuclear power plant could be safely and economically d e c o m i s sioned using existing technology, such as manually dismantling radioactive
piping systems and components. Thus, WE did not design the project t o
increase the bisic research and development knowledge on methods or equipment
needed to decomnission a large plant. It relied on technology that the
nuclear industry had used for the last 30 years to construct, maintain, or
demolish plant systems and components. As a result, DOE did not need, nor was
it required, t o develop new technology, such as robotics, to decnmnission
Shippingport.
Very few utilities will be able to decomnissron their plants the way WE
decomnissioned Shippingport. and it is possible that newer technology may be
available by the time utilities do so. To illustrate, Shippingport was much
smaller and less radioactively contaminated than other plants, and WE removed
the most highly radioactive component, the reactor pressure vessel, in one
piece. Utilities operating comnercial plants will probably have to d4sassemble (cut-up) the reactor pressure vessels, because of their much larger
sizes, in a manner similar to the disassembly procedure used for the Elk River
Reactor pressure vessei in the early 1970s. For the Elk River Reactor disas-embly, a full test development program was carried out on the cutting
ptocesses and a manipulator for remote handllng o f the cutting torches was
developed. Also, DOE disposed af all the low-level radioactive waste from the
Shippingport deconmissioning activities at its Hanford, Yashington, facility.
Utilities will have to dispose o f waste at comnercial sites at substantially
higher costs.
Because of the demonstration nature of the Shippingport decomnissioning
project, WE used a relatively elaborate management structure. To extend
decomnissioning experience and knowledge to the private sector. DOE used over
right contractors to conduct the physical activities, and three management
contractors to oversee those activities Only about 30 percent o f DOE’S costs
related to the actual physical decomnissioning activities; the remaining
70 percent included engineering, oversight, manayement, and ot,,er artivities,
such as waste disposal (see Table 5.2).
NURECICR-5884. Vol. 2
5.4
mu.
Sumnary o f Shippingport Decomnissioning Costs“’
7
11
coati
(e)
m a n In
the table ora &rivcd
f r o . Inlonrtlon cmcrlntd In R e f e r m e 7.
Shippingport was not licensed by the NRC; therefore, WE did not have to
obtain NRC’s approval for the decomnissionfng activities conducted at the
plant. However, WE established a formal site release criteria that l i r 2d
the radiation exposure from the decomnissioned site to less than 100 mrenr/yr
and as low as reasonably achievable for the maximum-exposed individual. The
decomnissioned slte fnlly met the criteria, with a calculated maximum expo ire
of 2 mrem/yr for the worst-case plausible scenario. A site release certification was prepared for each of the 75 subdivisions o f the Shippingport
site. It contained the data that confirmed the conformance to the release
criteria. The decomissioning operations contractor issued a Post Remedia
Action Report that was used by WE as a sumnary document, distilling key
i nforrat i on of site hi story, decontami nat 1 on reports, 1 imi t ing cond i ti ons 3r
release criteria and rcdiological status.
The following conclusions pertaining to the Shippingport decomnissioning
project are drawn directly from Reference 5:
Utility executives that the CAO investigators contacted said the
lessons learned from WE’s planning efforts at Shippingport could
facil itate their planning for future decomnissioning projccts.
*
Shippingport provided only 1 imited information to reduce worker
exposures on future projects where the pressure vessel would be
cut-up (in the decomnissioning plan, DOE’S contractor proposed a
5.5
Draft lor Comment
worker exposure limit o f about 1,010 person rem for the project;
the actual exposure was 155 person rem).
Wlth the exception o f Northern States Power, which h a s removed the
pressure vessel from Pathfinder in one piece, there I s little evidence that Shippingport influenced other decomnissionlng projects.
WE developed extensive Information on Shlppingport, but the usefulness of the data will diminish as the utilities defer decomnissioning o f their plants.
WE did not *!evelop any new technology, such as remotely operated
robotics, t o decomnission Shippingport because one of
the project's objectives was to demonstrate that a nuclear plant
could be safely and economically decomissioned using existing
technblrgy .
equipment o r
lastly, DOE had predetermined sites to dispose of the spent (used)
f u e l from Shippingport as well as the lo#-level and mixed waste
generated from decomnissionina actlvities. WE sent the spent fuel
to its Idaho National Engineering laboratory and the low-level
waste to a government disposal facility at Hanford. Currently, n o
disposal site exists for the spent fuel from comnercial plants; DOE
expects that the earliest a permanent disposal site would be
available is 2010.
J.1.1.2 fithf&&?r
h?ac&or.
Sioux Falls. Sou&&&&
Pdlff4~~ildk~i.,
a 6 6 , H l d ~boiling water reactor (BUR), was placed in passive
safe storage by its ownet, hi . Y <C!ates
.
Power Company (NSPC). The reactor
was shut down in 1967, and the pl. ' was converted to fossil-fueled operation.
NSPC started t o decontaminate the pl :f-t in 1968 after removing the spent fuel
and shipping it off-site. The modification of the turbine cycle equipment, at
a coct of about $3.6 million, was the major activity. This equipment still
has 0.041 curies o f residual radioactivity, and thus requires an NRC Part
30 1 icense.'81
Pathfinder's piping and turbine components were decontaminated during
the plant conversion process. Decontaminating fluids were placed in barrels,
solidifiod, and shipped for burial. Over 300 0.2-m3 barrels o f solidified
waste were removed from the site. The utility removed all contaminated pipe
outside the reactor and fuel handling buildings, drained and filled the
reactor pressure vessel with gravel and grouted it in place. The utility did
not decontaminate the piping system inside the reactor butlding and left i t in
NllREGlCR-5884, Vol. 2
J.G
Draft for Cmunent
place. After partially decontaminatiny the realtor and luel hand1 iriq build
ings, NSPC sealed the areas in 1971 t o prevent unauthorized access. The cost
o f this Phase 1 decomnissioning work was 11.87 million.(g1
In 1990, NSFC began
The
onsite d e c o m i s s i o n i n g staff averaged only 30-35 full-time employees, occasionally supplemented with outside contract personnel, such as for the reactor
pressure vessel (RPV) lift. The utility disposed o f most of the low-level
radioactive waste at a comnercial site operated by U . S . Ecology in Richland,
Washington. Because of the weight (290 tons) and size (12 feet x 3 2 feet) of
the RPV (in one piece) and the shipping package, the utility rented a special
The RPV was buried at the U . S . Ecologyrailcar and train t o transport it.")
Richland site in August 1991.
t o decontaminate the previously sealed areas.
Pathfinder's decomnissioning cost, through July 1992, was
$12.31 million. Cost projections were reevaluated in August 1992 ba-ed on
accompl ishments to date and forecasts for future expenditures. The revised
projections reflect a total project cost estimate of about $13.0 rillion, down
from a June 1991 c o s t e, imate of $13.38 million, and an original cost e s t i mate o f 116.0 n,illion (to green field condition). The reduction in the August
1992 cost estimate resulted from costs for RPV shipment and burial being less
than anticipated.
"''
J. I . 1 .3 EQCL SL, .Yr-&i.n .RPbF.t~-r-..P1A_tteY!.!l~.
!&!9.4dO
Fort St. Vrain, a 330.WWe high.temperature gas.cooled reactor (HTCR), is
owned hy the Public Service Company (PSC) of Colorado. The plant hegan commercial operation i n 1979. In Auqcst 1989, the utility shut the plant down
after w a r s o f operating problems. During its lifetime, Fort St. Vrain
operated for about 21,360 hours, gen?rating about 4.3.billion kilowatt-hours
o f electricity. A t the time the plant was strut down, company officials e s t i mate that the reacttrr contained about 9OO,Oi? curies of radiodctive
contamination.
fort S t . Vrain is physically quite diff?rent from Shippinyport and the
other 112 domestic nuclear power plants. For example, the plant used graphite
a s the moderator and helium as the coolant, whereas Shippingport and thP other
comnercial power reactor plant: y c c r i l l y use watcrr for' both functions. A:so,
the fuel used in Fort St. Vrairi differed from that used in Shipplngport and
other plants. In November 1989, the utillty beyi,i v n - r * * ! - ? the <pent fuel and
planned to send it to WF's Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, but shipnient was halted by state o f Idaho court action. As an interim measure, the
company is now storing the spent fuel in an independent spent fuel storage
installation ilsFS1) at the slte.
PSC selected DtCON as its decomissioning option for Fort St. Vrain, and
is now proceeding with that optlon following approval o f the plan by the NRC
in November 1992. PSC estimates the costs for dlsnantlement at 1157 million.
R-w&..$cco N u E ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ n c l ~ l , ~ . ~ - S t ~ t l
L&!i.fer!S
J.1.1.4
Rancho Seco Nuclear Generating Station (RSNGS), a 913-Hue PUR, is owned
and operated by the Sacranento Municipal Utility District (SMUD). On June 7 ,
1989, SMUD shut down the plant in response to a voter referendum to close the
plant. During its lifetime, HSNGS operated for about 51,595 hoiirs and generated about 44 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity. Company officials esti.
sate that the amount o f radioactivity in the plant at i h L ; t J u w i exceeded
9 million c u r i e s . ( 5 :
In Hay 195!, SMUD submitted a decomissioning plan t o NRC. The decomrni5iioning plan outlines SMUD's intent to store spent fur?l in thc spent fuel
pool during the initial pharc o f decommissioning (Custodial-SAFSTOR). lhe
Hardened.SAfSIOR phase o f docomissioning will follow Custodial-SAFSTOR, aftcr
lhr fuel has been placed in dry storage at an onsite ISFSI. Oeferred.DtCON
(docoritaminat ion and dismantlement) will commence thereafter. An estimated
1280.8 million will be required to d e c o m i r s i o n the plant, including site
, . I ,
restoration.""
J . 1 . 1 .5
LhrW. !?j It 1.51 4 . d .l.L..lQfldO?d.Crrl .h!-!nskh
...
[email protected]~!did
lhruc Mile Island Unit 2 (TMI.Z), d 792.MUe PAR operated by GPU Nuclear
Lorpor.dtion. W J ~(,lased in March 1979 due to a nuclear accident. The tnforma.
tion base i \ extensive concerning the IMl-2-related cleanup, research, and
development activities following the accident. Many contributions o f yoten-
tial benefit t o future nuclear p w c r plants decomnihsioning programs have
resulted from the overall accident cleanup program at TMI-2. The brief
sumnaries of a few such contributions o f the TMI-2 research and development
( R W ) program that follow were extracted from Reference 12. Other potential
decomnissioning-related contributions from TMI.2 are further described 1~
References 13-17.
One important contribution of the T H I - 2 R60 program has been the highlevel radioactive waste technology developed at the national laboratories.
fro? the standpoint o f golume reduction, the use o f the EPICOR I I sy%tem ( b )
reduced the radioactive waste volume by a factor o f IO, and the submerged
demineraliier system (SDS) reduced the volume by a factor o f 500 over conventional waste processing systems.
Another accomplishment has been the development of the high-integri Y
contaiilers (IilCs). The concrete HIC is durable, t e s t e d , licensed, and
equipped with a one-way ient system for exhausting the gases produced in ide.
The H I C ' s design and scale could be adapted according to industry needs.
In addition, the knowledge gained from the handling of large radioa t i v e
c o m p o n m t r at TMl-2, and their subsequent disposal, should assist operating
nuclear power plants in formulating and cirrying out plans for decommissioning
their own nuclear power plants.
J. 1 . I . 6 la~..€ro~.srR~~f~r,..~~OL491..~_iSZP~~ii)
L a Crosse, a 50.MWe BUR, was placed in safe storage ( S A T S I O R ) by its
owner, Oairvlind Power Cooperative (OPC), in May 1987. All fuel was removed
from t h e reactor vessel, and DPC plans to monitor the reactor and the stored
fuel until such time a: the fuel can be sent away to a federal high-level
waste or spent fuel facility. Ikcomissjoninq o f thr! reactor facility would
take place only after the fuel has left.(lR1 The possession-only license for
i d C r o s s e has been approved t o March 2031.
5.1.1.7
U B o t t o m 1, Yprk C o u n t y . Peniibvlvani4
Peach Bottom Unit I , a 40-Hue prototype high-temperature gas-cooled
reactor (HTCR), is owned by the Philadelphia Electric Company. The plant
operated from June I967 until October 1974. During this I-year period, the
plant operated for about 32,375 hours, generating about 1.4-billion kilowatthours o f electricity. At the t h e the plant was shut down, the radioactivity
in the pressure vessel was more tban 3 million curies.
Philadelphia Flectric decided to place the facility in S A F S T O R and
started to decontaminate the site in January 1976. The company completed
there activities in tebruary 1978, using about 179 man-months o f labor, at a
cost of about $3.5 million. The utility removed all radioactive liquids.
drained refrigerants and cooling water, and sent the spent fuel t L DOF's Idaho
National lngineering laboratory. The company left the reactor vessel, piping
systems, and steam generators in the plant, and officials estimate that they
will not start t o remove these components o r otherwise decomnission the plant
for about 20 more years. I 5 1
J.
1.1.8
Sa-xtP~.:4uIIFerhrmIrnwJsl .RWcxLS4ltf,on,_PuLvRnin
lhe Saxton Nuclear Experimental R m c t o r , a 3 - M W e prototype PUR, is owned
by the Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation (SNEC). The reactor was placed
in S A f S ' J R following i t s shutdown in 1972. Work on decomnissioning the
reactor and site started in 1986. To date, decontamination actlvltles have
'en completed in the control room and radwaste building. lhe reactor c o n tainment buildlng is not scheduled for dlsmantling until the mid-1990s. 11'1)
J .2
f QBL1G.N~
..I.X_LUlNSl
lN..OLC. @! I SSlQlclNG..~ ~ L . L f _ ? R _ R - _ E I \ C J . QL..~ ~J-4.L4
~~~~
'"'
According to an October 1991 Nucleonicr Week article,
"the OtCD
Nuclear l n w g y Agency (NCA) has solved the puz:le o f why estlmatcs n f n i r L l t . a t .
lacll'ty d e c o m i s s i o n i n g costs h a \ > varied 5 0 widely: it's not lhc sire o f
.,u~
facility that counts, nor even the scope o f the planned decomnirsioning.
but. rather the amount o f waste the J o b I s proJec.tcd l o generate th&t makes the
difference. thc finding is significant not only because i t w i l l help nuclear
facility owners better project tt.elr own decomnissioniny costs, hut a l s o
becduse the wide varlation In decomisstoning cost ettinater worldwide has
undermined the credltillty o f all those estimates, essentially with the
cheaper ones being disbelieved by the public."
A n aswrsment o f forclgn decomnlsslcning technology with potentlal
appllcation to U . S . decomn1ssioning needs i s presented in Appendix K . 01s.
cussions of some o f the signfffcant foreign reactor decomissionfngs follow,
based on information extrastcd from References 21 and 2 2 . Yhen clted in the
references, the decomnI:sloning costs and reactor power' ) a w l s ate given.
J-2.1
O_er~.~xnlirs
im i n L P m - l & &
Centllly-1 i s a 2 9 6 - W e CANDU (Canadlan Deuterium Uranium Reactor),
noderated k i t h hea'y water and cooled with boillng light water. I t has been
mothballed since 1979. Canadlan strategy calls for keeping the facllity in a
"stbtic state,'"'
monitor i t for 50-80 years, then dlsmantle the facility.
Extensive use was made of an electrically driven water blaster (hydrolaser;
for decontamlnatlon o f fuel bundles, equipment, and spent fuel pool surfacps.
The decomissioning to the 'static state" was completed in 1486 at a cost of
$ 1 3 mflllon (Canadian); surveillance cost f s about I alllion (Calrrdian) pur
year.
DOUglaS Point i s a 216-nue CAHUU pressurlred heavy-w;ter reactor that
operated from 1968 t o 1984 and was permanently shut down i n 1984. All 23,000
spent fuel assembl ies (300 M U ) wcr' moved into 4 7 above-ground concrete
canisters (completed in 1987) for storage until a permanent reposftory i s
available The reactor facility tras ssaled and kept intact In ' s t a t i c state,'
pending a decfsion on possible future use,
5.2.2
Oeconmissioninq Pro.iects i o France
France i s relying on the nuclear industry to make decisions based upon
economics and applicable regulat I O M : numeroas decomlssloning projects have
been completed or a r e tinder way following thls policy. L i k e most countries,
France adheres t o t h e IAEA’s three-stage d e c o m l s s l o n i n g p a t t e r n I n p l a n n i n g
i t r decormni ss l o n l n g p r o j e c t s .‘231
.
Stage I decomnlssionlng r e l a t e s t o the p e r i o d lnmledlately f o l l o w l n g
f l n a l shutdown o f the nuclear power p l a n t , u s u a l l y assumed t o be a
planndd o p e r a t l o n r a t h e r t w n the r e s u l t o f an accident or n a j o r
breakdown. I n t h l s stage the r e a c t o r I s defueled and made Safe,
t h e work e s s e n t i a l l y b e l n g an extension o f normal o p e r a t l o n s .
Stage 2 decormnirslonlng has t h e o b j e c t i v e o f dlsmantling a11 p l a n t
e x t e r n a l t o the b i o l o g i c a l s h i e l d . This s t a e i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by
t h e a b i l i t y to dismantle the p l a n t u r l n g b u l ? t - l n f a c l l l t i e r o r
r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e b r o u g h t d l n englneerlng equipment.
Stage 3 i s t h e removal o f the r e a c t o r I t s e l f t o g e t h e r w i t h I t s
b i o l o g i c a l s h l e l d , o r p r e - s t r e s s e d concrete vessel, and f i n a l
clearancc o f the s i t e rendering i t safe t o r f u r t h e r use.
P a s t and c u r r e n t r e a c t o r decomnirslonlnq p r o j e c t s i n t r a n c e I n c l u d e
tho f o l l o w i r q :
*
Cesar CCR (gas cooled r - a c t o r ) a t tadarache has been decomnisstoned
t o Stage 3, i . e . . complete dismantlement and removal o f r a d i o a c t i v e
f a c i l i t i e s and equipment.
Chinon A1 (70 W e ) , A 2 (180 W e ) . and A3 (360 We) G C R r have been
shut down s i n c e 1973, 1985, and 1990, r e s p e c t i v e l y . A I has been
decommissioned through Stage 1. Oecomnisrioning o f Chinon A2 t o
Stage 2 i s expected t o t d k e 5 y e a r s and c o s t 100 m i l l i o n F F
($17 m i l l i o n U.S.).
t l Z . €13. 20e HWRs a t Fontenay.aux-Roser have been shut down. EL2
decomnissioned t o Staye 2 i n 1968 and E L 3 was decrimnissioned
through Stage 3 i n 1984. Zoe has been decomnlssion-d through
Stage 2 .
wds
i h c E 1 4 (70 W e J GCHUH a t Honts d’Arree has been shut down since
I985 and decomnissioning i s u n i l e r r ~ y .
GI ( 3 W e ) . C2 (40 Hue). and C3 (40 We) CCRs a t Harcoule have been
shut doun. GI has been decomnissioned through Stage 2; G2 decom
m i s s i o n i n g i r underway; and G3 decomnissioniny i s planned to bo
complete by 1993. Oecomnisrionlng o f the G2 and C3 r e a c t o r s t o
Stage 2 i s estimated to cost 20 m i l l i o n F T ($3.3 m i l l i o n U . S . ) .
J.12
raux*
Ninerve, Nereide, and T r i t o n experimental LYRs a t Fontena
Roses are b e i n g decomissioned. Minerve and T r i t o n have een
deconmlssioned through Str5e 3 . The Nereide r e a c t o r d e c o m i s s i o n i n g i s underway.
The Pegase and Peggy e x p e r l n e n t a l lURs, a l o n with the IO-MUt
Ra sodie ex e r i m e i i t a l LHFR ( l i q u i d Metal Fas Reactor) a t Cadarac e, have een shut down. Pegase and Peggy have been d e c o r a i r sioned t o Stage 3 and decomni$sioning o f Rapsodie i s J u s t s t a r t i n g .
1
J. 2.3
9
I
Q.!?umwmmAL-
The Federal Republic o f Germany (FRG), having a l a r g e n u c l e a r program,
has undertaken numerous decomnissloning p r o j e c t s . M a j o r p r o j e c t s i n c l u d e t h e
following:
f R - 2 r e r e a r c h r e a c t o r a t Karlsruhe: This 44-HUt, t a n k - t y p e HYR
operated between 1961 and 1981. l h e fuel has been removed and non
r a d i o a c t i v e s t r u c t u r o s a r e being removed (Stage 2 ) . The core
s t r u c t u r e and b l o s h i e l d w i l l be dlsmantled i n 30 years,
HLFR research r e a c t o r a t Karlsruhe: This 58-MU PUR operated
between 1965 and 1984. The f a c i l i t y , e i c e p t f o r the f u e l storage
b u i l d i n g , Is out o f o p e r a t i o n and i n safe enclosure.
*
Niedereichbach n u c l e a r power p l a n t : This heavy-water-moderated,
gas,coolcd, IOO-MUe r e a c t o r operated from 1972-1974. D e c o m i s s i o n i n g s t a r t e d i n 1987, The s i t e i s to be r e s t o r e d to "green f i e l d '
c o n d i t i o n . The estfmated cost f o r the program i s 100 m i l l l o n DH.
Contaminated s t e e l (about 1700 tons) from the p r o j e c t i s t o be
melted a f t e r s i r e r e 2 u c t i o n i n cn I n d u c t i o n - m e l t l n g furnace
I n s t a l l e d i n the decontamlnated and decomissioned b u l l d i n g o f t h e
FR 2 r e a c t o r ( f a c i l i t y name "EIRAH").
K R E A power p l a n t a t Gundremingen: This 250-Me BUR operated
between 1966 and 1977. f u e l has been removed and a l l systems but
the b i o t o g i c a l s h i e l d and r e a c t o r vessvl are expected t o be d i s mantied by 1992.
KUL Lingen power p l a n t :
i h l s 268-Hue BUR operated between 1968 and
I h e f a c i l i t y has been placed i n safe enclosure (Stage 1).
Dismantlcaent w i l l s t a r t a f t e r 25 y e a r s .
1977.
Ihe f i r s t stage o f d e c o m i s s i o n i n g and
d i s m a n t l i n g o f t h e 2 9 6 . W ~ THIR-300 high-temperaturc. as-cooled
r e a c t o r w i l l be completed i n 1992. Ihe FRC's o t h e r ti),., t h e 15,Me
AVR p i l o t HIR a t J u l i c h . was shut down i n 1988 and i s a w a i t i n g
decomnissioriing I {censes from the s t a t e r e g u l a t o r s . Spent fuel
from t h e two u n i t s w i l l be disposed a t Gorleben.
AVR and IHTR-303 r e a c t o r s :
h'[:REGiCR-SW, Vol. 2
J. 13
6
Nuclear Ship 'Otto Hahn':
This nuclear-powered ship, built in
1963, was shut down in 1979. All activated and contaminated c o w
ponents were removed and the rooms were decontmlnated. The ship
i s used for non-nuclear pur oses. The decommissioning and dis(SI1 million U.S.).
mantling cost 2 1 - 1 million
&I
in Italy
5.2.4 Decomnisr-ts
Hajor decomissioning projects in Italy include the following:
* Carigliano nuclear power plant: This I60-MUe BUR operated from
1964-1978. The nuclear steam supply system is tu be placed in
protective storage for 30 years.
Decomissioning o f the latlna CCR (153 We) has begun. The fuel
unloading I s expected to take three years (fuel shipments are suspended during sumner), The possible reuse o f the plant's turbines
for non-nuclear combined.cycle power generation is under investigatlon. Approximately 270 HT o f the reactor's fuel will be shlpped
to the Unitcd Kingdom for reprocessing.
J -2.5
lkmmkilentng P1a-b
Juan
The Japanese policy on decomissioning o f closed nuclear power plants Is
t o mothball them for 5-10 years, and then dismantle them completely so that
the land can be reused. Current estimates are 30 billion yen ($220 million)
for complete dismantling o f a 1000-HWe reactor unit. JAERl (Japan Atomic
Fnergy Research Institute) is at an advanced stage o f decommissioniny the
Japan Power Demonstration Reactor (JPDR). Thrs was a 12.5-HWe BUR at Tokai.
I)ismzritling was started in 1986, w i l t , project completion scheduled In late
1993.
5.2.6 Pecomni:(ioninq
Projects
in .&&
It has been assumed for calculation and planning purposes that once the
useful life of Spain's nuclear power plants (estimated at 30 years) comes to
an end and ifter a "cooling" period of about 5 years, total dismantling would
begin, lasting approximately another 5 years, leaving the site ready for other
unrestricted uses. Spain's main efforts and expenditures on decomnissioning
nuclear facilities are predicted to be in 2000-2025. furthermore, Spain does
not deem it advisable t o undertake specific research and development projects
on decommissioning; rather, it plans t o follow the R&D programs in other
NUREGICR-W, Vol. 2
J. I4
c o u n t r i e s , e s p e c i a l l y those i n the European Cornnupity. However, i t may
undertake d i r e c t collaboratlon/participatlon i n some f o r e i g n p r o j e c t s .
The 20-year o l d J e n - I , a 3.kW exper!mental r e a c t o r , i s being d i m a n t l e d .
The shutdown Varidellos 1, a 480.HWe GCR whose turbo-generator was severely
damaged i n a fire I n 1989, i s a l s o to be decomissioned. The Spanish government has estimated t h e c o s t o f d i s m a n t l i n g t h e Vandellos I r e a c t o r a t
15 b i l l i o n pesetas (about $146 m i l l i o n U . S . ) .
IntllelloStedD
5.2.7
The U n i t e d Kingdom's (UK's) plans f o r RbD o f nuclear power r e a c t o r s
covers t h r e e phases: 1) removing spent f u e l and b u l k wastes: 2) d i s m a n t l i n g
and removing the non-radioactive e q u i p m e n t / f a c i l i t i e s around t h e r e a c t o r ; and
3 ) removing the r a d i o a c t i v e p o r t i o n s o f the r e a c t o r a f t e r a t00-year delay t o
a1 low decay o f the r a d i o a c t i v i t y . P a s t an0 planned deconmissioning p r o j e c t s
include:
Four nuclear power s t a t i o n s , the !J-HWe Dounreay Fast Reactor
(DrR), the Berkeley Hagnox u n i t s 1 (138 M e ) and 2 (138 We), and
the p r o t o t y p e 28-We Windscale Advanced Gas-Cooled Reactor (YACR),
have been shut down. Decomissioning o f t h o Berkeley u n i t s i s j u s t
s t a r t i n g w i t h Stage 2 deconmissioning expected t o be complete i n
about 10 years. Phase 1 d e c o m i s s i o n i n g o f t h e DFR has been comp l e t e d w i t h no plans f w f u r t h e r work, w h i l e Phase 3 decomnirsloni n g o f the YACR i s expected t o be completed i n t h e m l d / l a t e - l 9 9 0 s .
The c o s t o f decommissioning t h e U.K.'s outdated Hagnox power s t a t i o n s and reprocessing t h e i r wastes was estimated a t $2.4 b i l l i o n
U.S. a s t e p o r t e d i n a 1988/89 annual r e o r t o f t h e Central E l e c t r i c i t y Generating Board (CECE). The t o t a f o r CEGB was estimated a t
$18.5 b i l l i o n U.S. (13 Hagnox r e a c t o r s ) and a t 12.9 b i l l i o n U.S.
f o r t h e South o f Scotland E l e c t r i c i t y 8oard (3 Hagnox r e a c t o r s ) .
Recent s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e s u b s t a n t i a l savings can be r e a l i r e d by
'mounding over' obsolete Hagnox r e a c t o r s i n s t e a d o f completely
decomn iss Ion ing them.
!
Decomnissioning o f the Windscale P i l e s , shut down a f t e r a serious
f i r e i n 1957, i s j u s t beginning.
NG'RECICR-5884. Vol. 2
J.15
J.3
I.
wm
il. 1 . Smith, 0 . J . Konzek, and W. E. Kennedy, Jr.
1578.
larhow
2. Title 16, Code o f Federal Regulations, Part 50 - O . @ a $ U m
P r o d u c t l o n a n d a e c L 1 l t i & i , January I, 1989.
3. Federal Register.
"General Requirements for Decomissionin Nuclear
Facilities,' Vol. 53, No. 123, pp. 24018-24056, June 27, 19;i8.
4. Title 10, Code o f Federal Regulation$, Part 961 Stendard.Coatract fQI:
QlsPosal of Soent W l m Fuel andluHlah-Levelioactlve Waste I
January I, 1989.
~
5. GAO/RCED-90.208.
to Congressional Requesters, Washington, O . C . ,
%k%$dk%port
September 1990.
6.
be EnergKOaily. October
26, 1983. "CE to Decomission Shippingport
Station,' p. 3.
7.
WE/SSDP-0081. December 2, 1989. f . h l P r o l a
t - ShiaSLatLMlleurmg&Prol&.
U.S. D e p a r t m e n t w n e r g y Report by
West Inghouse Hanford Company, Rich1 and, Washington.
-m m
8. Title 10. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 30
AeelicablUUA&mestic
Licenslng o f B w d u c t H e t e r u , January 1,
1990.
.
9. LJuclear New$ July 1991, "Reactor Vessel Removed from Pathfinder
Plant," p. 31.
IO. Quarterly Status Report
October 1981.
11.
-
Pathfinder Decomnlssioning Project (E89N030).
NRC Docket No. 50-312, 'Ralrcho Seco Decomissionlng Plan,' Hay 1991.
12. 'U.S. D e p a r t m d o f Fnergy and GPU Nuclear Corporation Research and
Development Activlties Report on Three Mile Island Unit Two: January
June 1989." October 1989. U.S. Deoartment of Enerav Reoort bv CPU
Nuclear Corporation, Hiddletoun, Pennsylvania and E& Idaho, inc.,
Idaho Falls, Idaho.
13. GEND-064. " U . S . Department of Energy Three Hlle Island Research and
Development Program 1988 Annual Report." April 1989. U.S. Department
o f Energy Report by EC6C Idaho, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho.
N U R E G / C R - W . VOI. 2
J. I6
-
14. CEND-INF-073. "THI-2 Defueling Tools En tneerlng Report,'
1986. U.S. Departnvtnt of Energy and EGh Idaho, Inc. Report by Bec tel
North Amerfcan P w e r Corporrtlon, Crlthersburq, Haryland.
8
15.
FebruarK
CEND-039. 'TVI-2 Technical Information and Examination Program 1983
Annual Report,' Aprll 1984. U.S. Department o f Energy Report by EC6C
Idaho, Inc., Idaho Falls, Idaho.
16. 'Data Report TPO/THI-107: Evaluation o f Concrete Core Borlngs from
Reactor Builrllng." February 1584. Prepared by THI-2 Technlcal Planning
Department CPU Nuclear Corporation Bechtel Nctlnnal, Inc.
17. "Data Report TPO/THI.053: Part A Dose Reductton.' January 1984.
Prepared by THI-2 Technical Planning Oepartment CPU Nuclear Corporation
- Bechtel National, Inc.
18. K!l.clear News. June 1987. 'Dalryland Announces Permanent Shutdown,"
pp. 31.32,
Data Barkfnr1991;_.u.S,
19. DOE/RW-006, Rev. 7. October 1991.
ctive Uaste Inveritor
U
n
!
W l s t i c r . %!?$rtrnent
of Energy-b%op;cR
laboratory, Oak Rldge, Tennessee.
20 *
October 17, 1991. 'NEA Study Finds Uaste Uelght I s
Key to Decomnissioning Costs,' pp. 1-9.
,-
21. K. J. Schneider, et al. Aprll 1991. m
r efina S
.
U.S. D d a r t m e n t m
uclear Fuel Cycle and Wpm
Report prepared by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Rlchland, Washington.
22.
Nuclear Ne&.
23 *
k l e a r h-oa
August 1991. "Uorld LIst o f Nuclear Power Plants."
Inter-.
Research Into Decomnlsslonlng,"
N U R E G I C R - U , VOI. 2
August 1984. "Five Years o f
pp. 15-18.
J. 17
APPENDIX K
W $LOF
ACINHCET-CED
SlNCt 1978
Because o f finite resources and the wide-range o f t6pfCS researched
during the course o f this re-evaluation study, it was not possible to obtain
information on decontnlssioning.related equipment/processes from all vendors o r
suppliers. However, the selected equipment/processes and suppliers described
in this chapter are believed to be representative o f state.of-the-art in those
areas. I t shovld be recognized, however, that the identification o f specific
vendors, processes, and/or equipment does ut constltute an endorsement of
those entities.
K* 1
Q@!.CSllc,BILe.LQRU4H..WfiW~.~.~.SINCE..L91&
Both domestic and foreign technical developments were reviewed for
potential direct applications t o decomnissioning pressurized water reactors
(PURs). The results of that review are briefly described in the following
sect ions.
.
K I I
RWk.Isrl!~lral.O~tbe~s
Perhaps the most significant ongoing industrial activities with potent i a l direct applications to decoimissioning PURs that have occurred since 1978
concern steam qenerator replacement projects. These programs have yielded
significant information on decomissioning (e.g.. steam generator removal
tcchno!ogy and associated exposure reduction techniques). In turn, this
information on removal activities has been i n c w p o r a t e d into this reexamina
tion o f the decomnissioning o f the reference PUR.
Current tnformation on chemical decontamination o f light-water reactors
uus obtained froin a comprehensive review of the literature and from discussions with senior staff of Pacific Nuclear Services (PNS), located in
Rlchland, Washington. The PNS staff emphasized that it should be recognized
that: I ) full .system chemical decontaminations o f light water reactors are
K. 1
M
ifor Ctnnmeni
very p l a n t . s p a c i f i c ; 2) the amount o f r a d r a s t e s depends on t h e s o l v e n t used
f o r the Job; and 3) since no comnercial PUR has y e t undergone a f u l l - s y s t e m
chemlcal d e c o n t a n i n a t l o n I n t h e United States, a f l r s t - o f - a - k l n d (FOAK) f u l l
system chemic. .. decontamination o f a PUR c o u l d c o s t i n t h e range of 120-25
m i l l ion. However, when such decontaminations o f PURs become * r o u t i n e *
( d e f i n e d f o r purposes o f t h i s r e e v a l u a t i o n study as a f t e r a t l e a s t 3 such
campaigns have been successful\y completed), a c o s t i n the range of $10-SA5
m i l l i o n c o u l d be a n t i c i p a t e d f o r a f u l l - s y s t e m chemical decontamination. This
l a t t e r c o s t includes mobilization/demobilization costs, a l l c o n t r a c t o r s t a f f
costs, t h e c o s t s o f chemicals, mobile equipment, hoses, e t c . , o n r i t e radwaste
processing, h i g h - i n t e g r i t y c o n t a i n e r s (HICs) f o r t h e r e s u l t a n t waste, and
t r a n s p o r t a t i o n costs, b u t n o t f i n a l b u r i a l c o s t s o f t h e H t C s .
I n a d ( i i t i o n , P a c l f i c Nuclear s t a f f r e l a t e d t h a t t h e i r experiences t o
data w l t h chemical decontamination o f d r a i n systems i n d i c a t e s t h a t i t i s
probably not c o s t - e f f e c t i v e , n o r p r a c t i c a l , t o c h e m i c a l l y decontaminate
r e a c t o r d r a i n systems p r i o r t o disassembly. Therefore. t h e p i p i n g i n the
d r a i n systems a t the reference PUR analyzed i n t h i s r e p o r t are n o t p o s t u l a t n d
t o be c h e m i c a l l y decontaminated b e f o r e disassembly.
I n sumnary, primary system chemical decontamination programs f o r b o t h
PURs and BURS have become major c o n t r i b u t o r s t o ALARA programs a t o p s r a t i n g
s i t e s . " 'I P r a c t i c a l and proven r e a c t o r c o o l a n t system chemical decontami
n a t i o n technoloqy i s a major dose r e d u c t i o n procedure b e i n g used by U . S .
nuclear u t i l i t i e s today. P r i n a r y system decontamination as a p r e c u r s o r t o
d e c o m i s s i o n i n g ( e s p e c i a l l y t h e base scenario analyzed i n Appendix 0 o f this
r e p o r t . where maximum b e n e f i t s c o u l d be achieved) w i l l undoubtedly be s e r i ously considered i n f u t u r e decomnissicnings.
~
According t o an E l e c t r i c Power Research I n s t f t u t e (EPRI) survey,
(41
nuclear power p l a n t s have increased the use o f i n d u s t r i a l v i d e o cameras a s
support t o o l s f o r a v a r i e t y o f p l a n t operations and outage tasks. I t was
found t h a t many p l a n t s a r e u s i n g video calneras as s u r v e i l l a n c e and m o n l t o r i n g
t o o l s t o s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduce personnel r a d i a t i o n exposure d u r i n g b o t h r o u t i n e
and s p e c i a l i z e d tasks. T y p i c a l uses i n c l u d e remote h e a l t h p h y s i c s support,
observation o f workers t o ensure t h a t they p o s i t i o n themselves t o minimize
exposure, job planning ptlor to entry into a radiation zone, and videotaping
j o b s for training purposes. Video cameras are also used as comnunicatlon
tools so that supervisors and task englneers can provide technical directlon
from outside the work zone. Area survelllance, such as fire watch during
welding, leak detection, and general observation during plant Operations, I S
another comnon appi ication.
Robots are yet another applicatlon of closed-circuit television (CCTV)
at nuclear power plants. Though still consldered developmental at many utilit i c s , they have performed a broad range of productive tasks ( e . g . , surface
decontamlnation, sludge removal, waste hand1 ing and packaging, area radiation
surveys, transportlnq shielding, sample acqulsition, concrete scabbl Ing, concrete coring, fire watch, and component inspections). This I s partlcularly
true at iHI-2, where extensive contamination made robots the ollly optton for
some plant recovery tasks. (‘I In recent years, many plants have used underwater surveillance vehlcles for inspection, cleaning, object retrieval, and
monitoring divers. These submersibles are equipped with cameras and 1 ights,
thus they are another nuclear plant application o f CCTV.(‘)
Though spcclal radiation~hardened cameras have for many years been used
for tasks such as in-vessel inspcctlons and fuel-assembly examinations, a new
grneration of industrial video cameras i s finding many new plant applications.
These camera5 are versLitile, relatively inexpenslve, and easy to install and
operate. In sumna-y, the EPRI survey concluded that video cameras are
Important tools for reducing radiat Ion exposure and Improving productlvity
through more efficient use o f personnel.
Many plants are using advanced iriaqe retrieval and processing systems t o
store. :earth, display, and print visual information. Using microcomputer
hardware and proprietary software, these systems can access images stored on
videotape, microfilm, laser disc, or in computer memory. The most c o m n
appl (cation i s for surrogate walk-throughs. That is, thousands o f photographs
L f the nuclear power vlant are stored on laser disc, and a joy-stick control
is used to “walk” through areas visually far orientation, jnb planning, etc. ( 4 1
K.3
K.1.2 w a n T
e
c
' wS
In 1987, the Pacific Northwost Laboratc-y (Plil) conducted a study(') for
the U . S . Department o f Enorgy t o Identify and technically asfess foreign
decomni sr ionlng technology developments that may represant signif {cant
improvements over decomtssioning technology cuvrently available or undor
development in the United States. Technology need areas for nuclear power
reactor decomnissioning operations uere Identified and priorltired using the
results of past 1 ight water reactor (LUR) decomnlssionlng studies to guantititively evaluate the potential for reducing co:t and decomnissioning worker
radiation dose for each major decomnissioning activity.
Eased on there idpntified needs, current foreigr decommissioning technologies o f potential interest to the U.S. were identified through personal
contacts and the collection and review o f a n extensive body o f decomnissioning
I iterature. These technologies uere then assessed quarltatively to evaluate
their uniqueaesi, potenttal for a significant reduction in decommissioning
costs and/or uorker radiation dose, development status, and other factors
affecting their value and applicability to U . S . needs.
lhe results o f that study show that the major cost elements in LYR
decomnisrioniny. and thus the activities with the greatest potential for cost
savings through improved technology, are: 1) management o f radioactive decommissioning uastes, 2) the dpmolition o f heavily reinforced nonradioactive
structures, and 3 ) the detachment, removal and segmentation o f flutd systems
and componrntr. Similarly, deconmisrioning worker radiation dose data show
clearly that improved technology for the last category represents the major
opportunity for worker dose reduct ion.
lhe technology assessment in that study indicates that no specific
decomnissioninq technology needs were identified that are not acldressed to
some degree eit?er by the Coreiyn technology development uorK or by exlsting
U . S . technoloqy developmwtt proqrams. In addition, there are no presently
itlcritified, fully develbped foreign technologies directly applicable to major
U S. decoirmi5sioning needs that are not currently available in the U.S. lhere
are, howvor., w v e r a l promising technologies in the coxeptual or
R6D/demonstration stage that shoubd be monitored and perlddically rtrarsessid
as further development and d e m n s t pation studies are conducted. Based on the
outcome o f the ongoing RbD work, :.he technology need areas that potentially
could benefit most from aCitiona1 R6D emphasis would include inprovod inonitorlng methods for metallic waste to assure compliance with release criteria,
better survey/sampl ing methods for contaminated concrete rurficer to gulde
operations on the extent o f colrcrete removal, and cost.effective treatment
processes for secondary decontamination wastes.
K.2
L A W I I U W J - m W w m
contains a comprehensive review of the available experience in the identification and evaluation of practical tachniques to facilitate the decomnissioning of nuclear power generating facrl itles. The objectives of the 'facilitation techniques" evaluated in that report were to reduce
pub1 icloicupationdl exposure and/or reduce volumes o f radioactive waste
generated dur Ing the decomni ss ioning process. ( b )
NUREG/CR-358/'')
The report presents the possiblc facilitation techniques identified
during the qtudy (circa 1986) and discusses the corresponding facilitation of
the decomissioning process. Techniques are categorized by their applicability of being Implemented during three stages o f reactor life: design/
construction, operation, or decomnissioning. Detailed cost-benefit anaiyses
were performed for each technique t o determine the anticipated exposure and/or
radioactive waste reduction; the estimated cost for implementing each technique was then calculated. Finally, these techniques were ranked by their
effectiveness to f a c i l (:ate the decommissioning process.
K . 3 CQNCJ?_uSl!BS
Concerning technology development for nuclear power reactor decomnissiuninq, most e x p w i e n c e and development have been In such areas as tralning,
drveloping special ired t o o l s , physical decontamination, lifting and removlng
heavy objects in high radiation fields, remote visual inspection techniques,
and demolition o f nonradioactive components. These areas ar? fairly well
developed and radical n e w developments which will affect decomnissioning costs
signiflcantly are not expected. Areas where technology development i s 1 ikely
to occur and may have significant cost effects include chemical decontamina
tlon, remote disassembly. waste reduction and recycling, and waste
disposal."'
K.4
Ef-
1.
MLU;~N&$.
2.
lPRl NP-6023, Final Report, September 1988.
Lreerience &-~ m ~ a ~ - ~ P
w
~ ~Plants.
1 ?e % 3 aS E er r
October 1988. 'Chemlcal Decontamination Experience at
Northeast Utilities,' pp. 42-46.
Research Institute Pepcrt by Niagara Technical Consultants, Niagara
falls, New Vork.
3.
R. A. Shaw and C . J. Wood. u-2,
Overview.' pp. 107-111, June 1985.
"Chemical Decontaminatlon:
An
4. LPRl NP-6882, final Report, August 1990. Yldeo Camera Use at Nucledl:
PMW _ S l a . ? ~ . : _ l n ~ l s f s r l a r m r i M 4 BaJiFattnn
~&~
h_xp~s ue . Electric Power Research institute Report by fHC0Rf Technical
Resources, Inc., Middletown, Pennsylvania.
NP.6521, September 1989. Bnbotics 2rpqlLgm O e v e l o D W L & l
Icable
Ltw.u._&rJdfrom
THl .z. Electric Power Research Institute Report,
Palo A l t o , California.
5.
lPRl
6.
J. Konrek, K . $1. Schneider, and R. 1 . Smith. September
1987. AllpZfment o f F o r e i q n J & g p i % 1 o n t n q h m
with
A ~ n l h W tU~
t S . Oeco m i s s i o n l n q Needs. PkL-6335, U.S. Department o f
Lnergy Report by Pacific Northwest laboratory, Richland, Washington.
R . Y . Allen, G .
.
I
1. S. LaGuardia and
J. F . Risley. jden !tftcation and tvaly U O & p f
Lsrrh thtirn k € m . m % m w L L - m m .
NUREC/CR-3587, U . S . Nuclear Regulatory Commission Report by TLC Engineerinq, Inc., Brookfield, Connecticut, June 1986.
8. P . H . Strauss and J. Kelsey. 1991, "State Regulation o f O e c o m i s
sioning Costs," The Enerqv Journal, Volume I ? , Special Issue.
K.6
Drdt for
ComM\(
I
, . .'.
....
>
I
.
..
i
I
llURErJ/CR - 51184
Vnl. !