NUREG-1713

Standard Review Plan for

Decommissioning Cost

Estimates for Nuclear

Power Reactors

Final Report

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Washington, DC 20555-0001 ,,+F
I iI

AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC's Public Electronic Reading Room at

http:H/www.nrc.cov/readinp-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports, and Commission papers and their attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

U.S. Government Printing Office

Mail Stop SSOP

Washington, DC 20402-0001

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

Telephone: 202-512-1800

Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

Springfield, VA 22161-0002

www.ntis.gov

1-800-553-6847 or, locally, 703-605-6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: Office of the Chief Information Officer,

Reproduction and Distribution

Services Section

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov

Facsimile: 301-415-2289

Some publications in the NUREG series that are

posted at NRC's Web site address

htto:l/www.nrc.aovlreadina-rm/doc-collectionsinureas

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained atThe NRC Technical Library

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852-2738

These standards are available in the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, fromAmerican National Standards Institute

11 West 42'd Street

New York, NY 10036-8002

www.ansi.org

212-442-4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated

only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including

technical specifications; or orders, not in

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed

in contractor-prepared publications in this series are

not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the

staff (NUREG-XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREG/CR-XXXX), (2) proceedings of

conferences (NUREG/CP-XXXX), (3) reports

resulting from International agreements

(NUREGIIA-XXXX), (4) brochures

(NUREGIBR-XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal

decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic

and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors'

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC's regulations

(NUREG-0750).

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site bear the date the material was accessed,

the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.
NUREG-1713

Standard Review Plan for

Decommissioning Cost

Estimates for Nuclear -

Power Reactors -

WI; ''.'., . ;''

Final Report - Manuscript Completed: October 2004

Published: December 2004

Prepared by:

C.L. Pittiglio -- r

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001
COMMENTS ON DRAFT REPORT

_ Standard Review Plans (SRPs) are issued to describe and make available to the public

information' such' as methods acceptable to.thee' NRC staff for implementing specific parts

of the NRC's regulations, techniques used by the staff in evaluating specific problems or

postulated accidents, and data needed by the NRC 'taff in its review ofapplicatiorsfor'

permits and licenses. This standard review plan was issued as a draft for public comment

in November 2001. Based on use of this document and th6~public comments provided on -

the November 2001 version, the SRP has been revised.

This SRP guides the NRC staff in performing a review of each of the decommissioning

cost estimates that licensees are required to submit in accordance with .10 CFR 50.75, A

"Reporting and Recordkeeping for Decommissioning Planning," and 10 CFR 50.82,

"Termination of License." The principal purpose of the SRP is to ensure the quality and

uniformity of NRC staff reviews and to present a well-defined base from which to evaluate

the decommissioning cost estimates that are submitted before decommissioning and at

various phases of the decommissioning process. It is also the purpose of the SRP to

make the information about regulatory matters widely available so that interested. ,

members of the public and the'nuclear industry can gain a better understandingoflthe

staff's review pro6ss. Thie SRP identifies the matters to be'reviewed, the basis for ther -

review, and the conclusions that are sought.

. 1_r I

4 r :1.  1:

-L-. ----, 7 1'-i -- - .. 7-.

, --: N,

I . j -q

SRPs are not substitutes for Regulatory Guides or the Commission's regulations, and

compliance with them is not required. SRPs are initially issued in draft form for public

comment to involve the public in the early stages of developing regulatory positions.

Published SRPs will be revised periodically, as appropriate, to accommodate comments

and to reflect new information and experience.

ii
ABSTRACT

This Standard Review Plan (SRP) for decommissioning cost estimates provides guidance

to Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) and Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards (NMSS) staff on how to evaluate each of the decommissioning cost estimates

that are required to be provided by the power reactor licensees. The SRP includes

guidance on evaluating decommissioning costs for both pressurized water reactors

(PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs). The SRP is divided into sections that are

keyed to the sections in Regulatory Guide-I 085, "Standard Format and Content of

Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors," which was developed to

provide guidance to licensees on decommissioning cost estimates. Each section of this

NUREG is a separate SRP and presents the areas of review, acceptance criteria, review

procedures, and evaluation findings for each of the decommissioning cost estimates

required by 10 CFR 50.75 and 10 CFR 50.82.

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

COMMENTS ON THIS DRAFT REPORT .............................. ii

ABSTRACT ......................... ' .iii

A. INTRODUCTION ....................... 1

1. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE. 2

2. DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATES ................................. 3

3. DECOMMISSIONING COST DEFINITION ................................. 4

4. COST ADJUSTMENT METHODOLOGY ... ............................... 5

C. STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATES ... 9

1. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE .. 10

2. ESTIMATE OF EXPECTED COSTS IN THE PSDAR . .14

A. COST ESTIMATE USING MINIMUM FINANCIAL

ASSURANCE FUNDING AMOUNT METHOD .15

B. SITE-SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATE .20

3. SITE-SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATE .. 20

4. LICENSE TERMINATION PLAN UPDATED SITE-SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATE ... 37

D. REFERENCES .41

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Schedule of Activities During Reference BWR Deactivation (Period 2) .... ....... 34

Figure 2. Schedule of Activities During Reference BWR Dismantlement (Period 4) .... ..... 35

LIST OF-TABLES

Table 1. Cost Adjustment Factors Used for Decommissioning Cost Estimates

of the Reference PWR and Reference BWR ................................ 6

Table 2. Labor Cost Adjustment Factors by Region ................................. 7

Table 3. Energy Cost Adjustment Factors by Energy Source .......................... 8

Table 4. Waste BuriaVDisposition Cost Adjustment Factors

by Disposition Option and Site ........................................... 9

Table 5. Decommissioning Cost Distribution by Time Period-Reference PWR .... ....... 15

Table 6. Decommissioning Cost Distribution by Time Period-Reference BWR .... ....... 16

Table 7. Estimate of Expected Costs-PWR DECON ............................... 18

Table 8. Estimate of Expected Costs-BWR DECON ............................... 18

Table 9. Estimate of Expected Costs-PWR SAFSTOR ............................. 19

Table 10. Estimate of Expected Costs-BWR SAFSTOR ............................. 19

Table 11. Example of Inventory for Contaminated Equipment and Piping ..... ............ 24

Table 12. Example of Inventory for Concrete and Metal Surfaces

Requiring Decontamination/Removal ..................................... 25

Table 13. Reference PWR Decommissioning Cost Distribution

by Time Period-DECON ........... .................................. 29
-- -- ITable 14. Reference PWR Decommissioning Cost Distribution

by Time Period-SAFSTOR . ............................................. 30

Table 15. Reference BWR Decommissioning Cost Distribution

by Time Period-DECON . ............................................. 31

Table 16. Reference BWR Decommissioning Cost Distribution

by Time Period-SAFSTOR . ........................................... 32

Table 17. Typical Waste Burial Cost and Volumes-Reference PWR ..... ............... 33

Table 18. Typical Waste Burial Cost and Volumes-Reference BWR ..... ............... 33

Table 19. Labor Needs and Labor Costs . ......................................... 36

Table 20. Burial Volumes by Waste . ............................................. 37

vi
A. INTRODUCTION

Decommissioning means permanently removing a nuclear facility from service and reducing

radioactive material on the licensed site to levels that permit termination of the NRC license.

This Standard Review Plan (SRP) is divided into sections that are keyed to the sections in

Regulatory Guide-1 085, "Standard Format and Content of Decommissioning Cost Estimates

for Nuclear Power Reactors," which is being developed to provide guidance to licensees on

decommissioning cost estimates.

NUREG-0586, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear

Facilities, Supplement 1," dated October 2002, evaluated the environmental impact of three

methods for decommissioning. The supplemental information to the 1988 decommissioning

rule (53 FR 24019) also discussed the three decommissioning methods. A short summary of

the three methods follows.

DECON: The equipment, structures, and portions of the facility and site that contain

radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits termination of

the license after cessation of operations.

SAFSTOR: The facility is placed in a safe, stable condition and maintained in that state

(safe storage) until it is subsequently decontaminated and dismantled to levels that permit

license termination. The determination of SAFSTOR includes those activities necessary for

the final decontamination and dismantlement of the facility. During SAFSTOR, a facility is

left intact or may be partially dismantled, but the fuel has been removed from the reactor

vessel and radioactive liquids have been drained from systems and components and then

processed. Radioactive decay occurs during the SAFSTOR period, thus reducing the

quantity of contamination and radioactivity that must be disposed of during decontamination

and dismantlement (D&D). The definition of SAFSTOR includes the decontamination and

dismantlement of the facility at the end of the storage period.

ENTOMB: Radioactive structures, systems, and components are encased in a structurally

long-lived substance such as concrete. The entombed structure is appropriately

maintained, and monitored until the radioactivity decays to a level that permits termination

of the license. Because most power reactors will have radionuclides in concentrations

exceeding the limits for unrestricted use even after 100 years and because current

regulations require that decommissioning be completed within 60 years of cessation of

operation, entombment requests will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

The NRC recognizes that some combination of these methods would also be acceptable. For

example, the licensee could conduct a partial radiological decontamination of the plant

followed by entombment or a storage period, followed by the completion of the radiological

D&D. NUREG/CR-5884 and NUREG/CR-6174 describe two possible scenarios for evaluating

the SAFSTOR decommissioning method: SAFSTOR1 and SAFSTOR2. For this SRP, the

SAFSTOR2 scenario is assumed where all materials that were originally radioactive still

exceed unrestricted release levels and are removed for disposal as low-level waste (LLW).

This option results in a more conservative (higher) decommissioning cost estimate than the

SAFSTOR1 scenario, which assumes most of the radioactive materials have decayed to

unrestricted release levels.

1
On July 29, 1996, a final rule was published in the Federal Register (61 FR 39278) amending

the NRC's regulations on the decommissioning procedures that will lead to termination of an

operating license for nuclear power reactors. This final rule included changes to 10 CFR

Parts 2, 50, and 51.

The revised regulations contain requirements related to decommissioning cost estimates.

Regulatory Guide-1085 was written to provide guidance to licensees on the preparation of

these cost estimates and to establish a standard format for reporting these cost estimates that

is acceptable to the NRC staff.

The guidance in RG-1 085 and this SRP apply only to power reactor licensees. The

regulations for nonpower reactor licensees are given in 10 CFR 50.82(b).

The minimum decommissioning funding required by the NRC reflects only the efforts

necessary to terminate of the Part 50 license. Other activities related to facility deactivation

and site closure, including operation of the spent fuel storage pool, construction and operation

of an independent spent fuel storage installation (ISFSI), demolition of decontaminated

structures, and site restoration activities after residual radioactivity has been removed are not

included in the NRC definition of decommissioning. Accordingly, costs for such

"nondecommissioning activities' are not addressed in this SRP; however, costs associated

with the decontamination of an ISFSI licensed under the general license are included.

B. DISCUSSION

NRC decommissioning funding requirements can be segregated into two categories: (1) those

that specify the minimum decommissioning fund that power reactor licensees must obtain

and/or maintain to demonstrate reasonable assurance of having adequate funds to

decommission their facilities, and (2) those that specify when licensees must submit

decommissioning requirements governing site-specific cost estimates. Both sets are relevant

to this SRP and are discussed below.

1. FINANCIAL ASSURANCE

Licensees of operating nuclear power reactors must provide reasonable assurance that funds

will be available for the decommissioning process. For these licensees, reasonable

assurance consists of fulfilling a series of steps identified in 10 CFR 50.75(b), (c), (e), and (f).

These steps assure that the licensee can certify that financial assurance is in effect for an

amount that may be more but not less than the amount stated in the table in

10 CFR 50.75(c)(1). Specifically, this table states that if P equals the thermal power of a

reactor in megawatts (MWt), the minimum financial assurance (MFA) funding amount in

millions of January 1986 dollars is:

(1) For a PWR: MFA = (75 + 0.0088P)

(2) For a BWR: MFA = (104 + O.009P)

For either a PWR or BWR, if the thermal power of the reactor is less than 1200 MWt, then the

value of P to be used in 1 and 2 is 1200, and if the thermal power is greater than 3400 MWt,

then a value of 3400 is used for P. That is, P is never less than 1200 nor greater than 3400.

The financial assurance amounts calculated in equations 1 and 2 are based on January 1986

2
dollars, in millions. To account for inflation from 1986 to the current year, these amounts must

be adjusted annually by multiplying 1 and 2 by an escalation factor (ESC) described in

10 CFR 50.75(c)(2). This ESC is

ESC (current year) = (0.65L + 0.13E+ 0.22B)

where L and E are the ESCs from 1986 to the current year for labor and energy, respectively,

and are to be taken from regional data of U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor

Statistics, and B is an annual ESC from 1986 to the current year for waste burial and is to be

taken from the most recent revision of NUREG-1307, uReport on Waste Disposal Charges:

Changes in Decommissioning Waste Disposal Costs at Low-Level Waste Burial Facilities."

NUREG-1307 is updated from time to time to account for disposal charge changes. In

January 1986 (the base year), using disposal costs from DOE's Hanford Reservation waste

disposal site, L, E, and B all equaled unity; thus the ESC itself equaled unity. A discussion of

the origin of the 0.65L, 0. 13E, and 0.22B terms is given in NUREG-1 307. Thus,

MFA (in millions, current year dollars) = MFA (in millions, 1986 dollars) x ESC (current year)

NUREG-1307 provides several examples of how to determine the minimum decommissioning

fund requirement using the above algorithm.

2. DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATES

The regulations summarized below apply to decommissioning cost estimates:

10 CFR 50.75(f)(2) requires that a licensee "...shall at or about 5 years prior to the

projected end of operations submit a preliminary decommissioning cost estimate

(herein after referred to as the preliminary cost estimate) which includes an up-to-date

assessment of the major factors that could affect the cost to decommission." Section

50.75(f)(4) requires a licensee to include plans to adjust funding levels to demonstrate

a reasonable level of financial assurance, if necessary, in the preliminary cost

estimate.

In addition, 10 CFR 50.75(c) specifies that the initial certification amount of funds for

decommissioning be based on the amounts specified in 10 CFR 50.75(c), which

represent the minimum funding level that applicants and licensees must meet.

However to meet the 10 CFR 50.75(c) requirements, a power reactor licensee may

submit a certification based on a site-specific cost estimate which may be more but

not less than the 10 CFR 50.75(b)(1) estimate when a higher funding level is desired

than that provided in 10 CFR 50.75(c). The basis for any increases should be

provided.

* 10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i) requires a licensee to provide an estimate of expected costs for

the activities being proposed in the Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report

(PSDAR). The PSDAR is to be submitted prior to or within 2 years following

permanent cessation of operations. Regulatory Guide 1.185, "Standard Format and

Content for Post-Shutdown Decommissioning Activities Report," identifies the type of

information in the PSDAR that would be acceptable to the NRC staff. The cost

estimate may be the amount of decommissioning funds estimated to be required

3
pursuant to 10 CFR 50.75(b) and (c) as currently reported on a calendar-year basis at

least once every 2 years to the NRC according to 10 CFR 50.75(f)(1), or a

site-specific cost estimate.

10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii) requires a licensee to provide a site-specific decommissioning

cost estimate within 2 years following permanent cessation of operations. This

requirement may be satisfied by including a site-specific estimate as part of the

PSDAR. In addition, 10 CFR 50.75(c) specifies that the initial certification amount of

funds for decommissioning be based on 10 CFR 50.75(c)(1), which represent the

minimum funding level that licensees must meet. The site-specific cost estimate

submitted within 2 years following permanent cessation of operations may be

significantly higher than the funding level based on the formula. If the site-specific

cost estimate results in a funding level that differs from the amount specified in 10

CFR 50.75(c), the licensee must provide the basis for the change.

* 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(ii)(F) requires that a licensee provide "an updated site-specific

estimate of remaining decommissioning costs..." as part of a License Termination

Plan (LTP). According to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(i), the licensee must submit the LTP at

least 2 years before termination of the license.

As provided in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(ii), a licensee may at any time without prior notification to

the NRC withdraw funds from the decommissioning trust up to a cumulative total of 3 percent

of the generic amount calculated under 10 CFR 50.75 for decommissioning planning

purposes. After submittal of the certifications of permanent shutdown and fuel removal

required under 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1) and commencing 90 days after the NRC has received the

PSDAR, the licensee may use an additional 20 percent of the decommissioning funds

prescribed in 10 CFR 50.75(c) for decommissioning purposes. The licensee is prohibited

from using the remaining 77 percent of the generic decommissioning funds until a

site-specific decommissioning cost estimate (SSCE) is submitted to the NRC. In addition,

use of decommissioning funds is limited by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(i) to legitimate

decommissioning expenses that neither reduce the value of the trust fund below the amount

necessary to place and maintain the reactor in a safe storage condition, nor inhibit the

licensee's ability to completely fund the trust so that the site is released the license

terminated.

3. DECOMMISSIONING COST DEFINITION

As defined in 10 CFR 50.2, "Decommission means to remove a facility or site safely from

service and reduce residual radioactivity to a level that permits-

(1) Release of the property for unrestricted use and termination of the [Part 50] license; or

(2) Release of the property under restricted conditions and termination of the [Part 50]

license."

The decommissioning cost estimates required by the regulations referenced above apply

only to those costs that necessary to accomplish the purposes listed in the definition above.

Costs that may be incurred by a licensee when it removes a facility from service or restores

the site after decontamination is complete but that do not reduce residual radioactivity or are

not required to terminate the license are not considered NRC decommissioning costs.

Accordingly, they should not be included in the NRC decommissioning cost estimate. A

4
licensee may choose to report non-NRC decommissioning costs along with its

decommissioning cost estimate; however, such costs need to be clearly identified and

separated.

4. COST ADJUSTMENT METHODOLOGY

The decommissioning cost estimates based on 10 CFR 50.75(c) for the reference PWR and

reference BWR presented in this SRP are based on information developed in NUREG/CR5884 and NUREG/CR-6174, respectively. All costs presented in this SRP include a 25%

contingency factor and are in year 2000 dollars. The cost adjustment methodology described

in this section can be used to adjust the costs in this report from year 2000 dollars to any

future year. As discussed in Section B.1, costs are divided into three general areas that tend

to escalate similarly: (1) labor, materials, and services, (2) energy and waste transportation,

and (3) radioactive waste burialdisposition. A typical allocation of cost adjustment factors to

the set of reference reactor cost components is presented below in Table 1.

A relatively simple equation can be used to estimate decommissioning costs to account for

escalation from the base year 2000 to any other year of interest, year(x). That equation is

Estimated cost [year(x)J = Abase Lx + Bbas, E. + Ca,,e B.

Abase = sum of all labor, material, and services cost components

L, = labor, material, and services adjustment factor, base year 2000 to year(x)

Bbase = sum of all energy and transportation cost components

Ex = energy and transportation adjustment factor, base year 2000 to year(x)

Cbase = sum of all radioactive waste burial/disposition costs components, and

Bx = radioactive waste burial/disposition adjustment factor, base year 2000 to

year(x)

5
Table 1. Cost Adjustment Factors Used for Decommissioning

of the Reference PWR (a) and Reference BWR (b)

Cost Estimates

Adjustment Adjustment

PWR Cost Component Factor BWR Cost Component Factor

Used Used

Radioactive Component

Removal of RPV Internals

Removal of Reactor

Steam Generator Removal

Generator Clading Costs

RCS Piping

Large Miscellaneous RCS

Small Miscellaneous RCS

Pressurizer

Pressurizer Relief Tank

Primary Pumps

Spent Fuel Racks

Biological Shield

Decon. & Dismantlement

Decon. Buildings

Removal of Plant Systems

Management and Support

Support Staff

DOC Staff

Consultant/Other Staff

Termination Survey Costs

Regulatory Costs

Special Tools & Equipment

Monitoring Costs

Laundry Services

Maintenance Allowance

Small Tools & Equipment

Nuclear Liability Insurance

Property Taxes

DOC

Steam

Chemical Decon

Plant Power Usage

LLW Packaging

LLW Shipping

LLW Burial/Waste Vendor

Radioactive Component

RPV Internals

Reactor Pressure Vessel

Sacrificial Shield

Recirculation Pumps

RCS Piping

RCS Piping Insulation

Main Turbine

Main Turbine Condenser

Moisture Separator

Feed Water Heaters

Turbine Feed Pumps

Structural Beams, Plates, &

Spent Fuel Racks

Decon. & Dismantlement

Decon. of Buildings

Removal of Plant Systems

Management and Support

Support Staff

DOC Staff

Consultant/Other Staff

Termination Survey Costs

Regulatory Costs

Special Tools and

Environmental Monitoring

Laundry Services

Maintenance Allowance

Small Tools or Equipment

Nuclear Liability Insurance

Property Taxes

DOC

Chemical Decontamination

Plant Power Usage

LLW Packaging

LLW Shipping

LLW Burial/Waste Vendor

L.

L.

Lx

Lx

Lx

Lx

Lx

Lx

Lx

Lx

Lx

Lx

Ex

Ex

Ex

B,, ___________________________________ IA I

(a) NUREG/CR-5884

(b) NUREG/CR-6174

6
4.1 Labor Adjustment Factors

The adjustment factor for labor; L, can be obtained from the "Monthly Labor Review,"

published by the U.S. Departmerit of Labor,- Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Specifically,

the appropriate regional data from the table (currently Table 24) entitled "Employment Cost

Index, Private Nonfarm Workers, by Bargaining Status, Region, and Area Size," subtitled

"Compensation," should be used. These labor adjustment factors can also be obtained from

BLS databases made available on the World Wide Web (see NUREG-1307, Appendix C, for

instructions). L. should be adjusted from a base value in Table 24 corresponding to base

year 2000, to the year(x) of interest. . -

To calculate 'a labor adj ustmeneit facto for a particular region,-two indices are needed, a value

for the base year and a value for the year (x) of interest. These values are shown in Table 2

for each region. The base year 2000 values of L'from the'BLS data are provided in column

2 of Table 2. To adjust the costs to a future year(x), the year (x) values for Lx from the BLS

data should be substituted in column 3 (year (x) of interest).

Table 2. Labor Cost Adjustment Factors by Region

' Region J Base Year (2000) 'Year (x) of Interest

Northeast 144.3- XN-ofteast

South 143.0 XSOuth

Midwest 146.3' XMd"St

West 144.7 Xwest

In general, L., is calculated for each region by dividing the.Year (x) of Interest value (column

3) by the Base Year 2000 value (column 2).

Future labor adjustment factors from BLS should be treated similarly. Future revisions to

NUREG-1 307 will provide new'base year calculations as appropriate. However, if BLS has

changed its base year and the change is not reflected in the current revision of NUREG1307, the licensee should calculate the labor adjustment factor to reflect applicable changes.

4.2 Energy Adjustment Factors

The adjustment factor for energy,' E', can be obtained from the "Producer Price Indexes,"

published by the U.S. Depairitent of Labor, Bu3r6eau of Labor Statistics (BLSj. Specifially,'

data from the table (currently Table 6) entitled "Producer Price Indexes and Percent Changes

for Commodity Groupings and Individual Items" (PPI) should be used.

Ex consists of two components, industrial electric power, P,, and light fuel oil, F.. Hence, E'

should be obtained using the BLS data in the following equations:

for the reference PWR: E, = 10.58P, + 0.42FJ -

7
for the reference BWR: E, = [0.54P, + 0.46FJ

These equations are derived from Table 6.3 of NUREG/CR-0130 and Table 5.3 of;

NUREG/CR-0672. ,Px should be taken from data for industrial electric power (Commodity

code 0543), and Fx should be taken from data for light fuel oils (Commodity code 0573)..;

These energy adjustment factors can also be obtained from BLS databases made available

on the World Wide Web (see NUREG-1 307, Appendix C, for instructions). The Base Year

2000 values for P, and F. from BLS data are provided in column 2 of Table 3.

Table 3. Energy Cost Adjustment Factors by Energy Source

_________IBase Year (2000) | Year (x) of Interest

Industrial electric 126.5 Xebci

power _

Light fuel oils 72.9 Xfuel oil

As discussed for Lx in Section 3.1 above, to adjust the costs to a future current year (x) , the

year (x) values for P, and Fx should be substituted in column 3. The base year 2000 values

of PX and F, from the BLS data are 126.5 and 72.9, respectively. No regional BLS data for

these PPI commodity codes are currently available. Thus, the values of P. and Fx for the year

(x) of interest are:

Px = (Xelectnc.Yearix) of interest (126.5) Base Year2000

Fx = (xiuej ol)Year(x) ofinterest ( 7 2 9)Base Year 2000

The value of Ex for the reference PWR is therefore

Ex = [(O.58PJ + (0.42F)]

This value of Ex should then be used in the equation to adjust the energy costs to year(x)

dollars for decommissioning a PWR. Correspondingly, the value of Ex for the reference BWR

is:

E= [(0.54P) + (0.46FJ]

Future energy adjustment factors from BLS should be treated similarly. Future revisions to -

NUREG-1307 will provide new base year calculations as appropriate. However, if BLS has

changed its base year, and the change is not reflected in the current revision of NUREG1307, the licensee should calculate the energy adjustment factor to reflect applicable

changes.

4.3 Waste Burial Adjustment Factors

The adjustment factor for waste burial/disposition, B5, can be taken directly from data for the

appropriate LLW burial location as given in Table 2.1 of the most recent revision of

8
NUREG-1307. For example, B, = 18.129 (in 2000 dollars) for a PWR directly disposing all

decommissioning LLW at the South Carolina burial site. The base year 2000 values for B,

are provided in columns 2 and 3 of Table 4.

Table 4. Waste BuriaVDisposition Cost Adjustment

Factors by Disposition Option and Site;-;.

BaseYear (2000) ' Year(x)'of Interest

Waste Burial -PWR BWR PWR .BWR

Direct Disposal/WA (a) 2.223 3.375 PWR Direct XBWR Direct

._ ._._._._._. _ - DisposaVWA Disposa JWA

- Direct DisposaVSC (b) *18.129 -16.244 XPWR Direct .-

.._ ___ _ ._.._,..._._ . DisposaVSC DisposavSC

Waste Vendor/WA 4 060 4.379 SXpwwaste WR Waste

Vendor/WA -Vendor/WA

Waste Vendor/SC 8.052 8.89 R Waste

I Vendor/SC : 'Vendor/SC

4 WA refers to the Washington LLW disposal site located near Richland, Washington.

S() SC refers to the South Carolina LLW disposal site located near Bamwell, South Carolina.

As discussed forl-,andE above, to adjust the costs to a future Year (x), the Year'(x),alues

for B from the latest revision of NUREG-1307 should be substituted in'columns 4 and 5 of

Table 4. For example, to adjust waste disposal costs using the waste vendor optiori for LLW

from a PWR at the South Carolina disposal site from base year 2000 (basis for this SRP) to

the waste vendor option at the Washington disposal site in Year (x):.

B1 = (XpwR Waste VendorWA) year(x) olfIterest (

8 .O5 2 )baseyear 2000

This value of Bx should then be used in the equation to adjust the waste burial cost to year (x)

dollars for LLW waste disposition from a PWRusing the waste vendor option with thi . Washington disposal site.

C. STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATES

The purpose of this SRP is to direct the NRC staff's review of the licensee's cost estimates.,

The major types of cost estimates affecting the licensee are the preliminary cost estimate,

the estimate of expected costs presented in the PSDAR,.the SSCE required within 2 years

following permanent cessation of operations, and the updated SSCE reqired as part of the

LTP. In addition, a licensee' mnysubrnit'a certification amount of funds for decommissioning

based on an SSCE that is equal to orgreater than thatcalculated in the formula in 10 CFR

50.75(c)(1) or (2) when a higher funding level is desired. Individual SRPs are provided for

the preliminary cost estirmate, the estimate of'expected costs presented in the PSDAR, the

SSCE, and the updated SSCE.

Each SRP is divided into the followinig' s'ections: (1) Review Responsibilities; (2) Areas 6f

Review, (3) Acceptance Criteria, (4) Review Procedures, (5) Evaluation Findings, and

(6) Implementation.

9
1. PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE

The preliminary cost estimate is required at or about 5 years prior to the projected end of

operations. The projected end of operations need'not be the same as the expiration date of

the operating license if a licensee chooses to permanently cease operations at an earlier

date. In some cases, a licensee may prematurely shut down and submit its certification of

permanent cessation of operations, as required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(1)', more than 5 years

prior to the expiration date of the operating license. In this event, the requirement of

10 CFR 50.75(f)(2). to submit a preliminary cost estimate is not applicable. 'A licensee could

choose to submit its preliminary cost estimate as the estimate of expected costs presented in

the PSDAR, and thereby satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i).

According to 10 CFR 50.75(f)(4), the licensee is required to include in the preliminary cost

estimate plans for adjusting levels of funds for decommissioning, if necessary to demonstrate

a reasonable level of assurance that funds will be available when needed to cover the costs

of decommissioning. -The reviewer should determine whether the licensee must comply with

this requirement. If it is required, the reviewer should determine whether the plans provide

adequate financial assurance.

By 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iv), licensees who plan to use a period of storage or surveillance

(SAFSTOR) are required to provide a means of adjusting cost estimates and associated

funding levels over the period of storage or surveillance.; .If a licensee plans to use 6iperiod"

of SAFSTOR, the' reviewer should ensure that the licensee has included a description'of its -

means of adjustment with its preliminary cost estimate. The reviewer should determine if the

means described by the licensee provides adequate assurance that funds will be available:

for decommissioning activities at the time they are needed.

1.1 Review Responsibilities

Primary- Cognizant Project Manager, Project Directorate, Division'of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or as assigned

Secondary- Financial Reviewer, Financial and Regulatory Analysis Section, Reactor Policy

and Rulemaking Branch, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, or as assigned

1.2 Areas of Review

This SRP directs the staff's review of the preliminary cost estimate that 10 CFR 50.75(f)(2)

requires to be submitted at or about 5 years before the projected end of operations. -The

intent of this preliminary estimate is to provide the NRC with an up-to-date estimate of

expected costs and identify' major factors in the cost of the decommissioning. The licensee

will have already submitted a cost estimate for establishing a fund for decommissioning,

asrequired by 10 CFR 50.75(b). This estimate will have been revised periodically during

operation and may be used in preparing the preliminary cost estimate. The preliminary cost

estimate will generally be substantially less detailed than the SSCE.

10
The scope of the review directed by this SRP includes (1) a comparison of the preliminary

cost estimate with the minimum decommissioning funding required, and (2) an assessment

of the major factors that could affect the preliminary cost estimate.' -

,

?: 1.3 Acceptance Criteria

The acceptance criteria are based on the requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(f)(2), 10 CFR

50.75(f)(4), and 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iv);:as'applicable. The regulations require that each

power reactor licensee shall at or about 5 years prior to the projected end of operations

submit a-preliminary cost estimate which' includes an up-to-date'assessment of the major

factors that could affect the' cost to decommission.'

* The reviewer should compare the' preliminary cost estimate to the rminimrum

decommissioning funding required under 10 CFR 50.75(b) to ensure that the

licensee's submittal meets the intent of the regulations given in 10 CFR 50.75.

* The reviewer should ensure that the preliminary cost estimate includes an up-to-date

listing of the major factors that could affect the cost to decommission an6d that these

factors are assessed by the licensee.:

1.4 Review Procedures ' ' ' . 1

The reviewer will use the following process to determine that the cost estimate has been

submitted and that the estimate included an up-to-date assessment of the major factors that

could affect the cost to decommission.- -- r -

1.4.1 Comparison of the preliminary cost estimate to the minimum required

decommissioning fund'

The reviewer should calculate the minimum decommissioning financial assurance'

requirement amount derived per the' algorithm discussed in' Section B.1 of this'SRP

(10 CFR 50.75(c)) and compare it to the preliminary cost estimate amount. The preliminary

cost estimate is acceptable if it is greater than or equal to the decommissioning financial

assurance requirement amount. If the preliminary cost estimate is less than the amount

derived from the algorithm in 10 CFR 50.75(c), the reviewer shall provide this information to

the NRC project manager who will document the finding and inform the licensee in writing of

additional information needed to resolve the deficiency.

If the preliminary cost estimate differs from the amount of the generic decommissioning fund

amount of 10 CFR 50.75(c), the reviewer should assess the licensee's cost estimate to -

determine whether all significant costs have been included. The reviewer should assess

site-specific conditions identified by the licensee to determine if the site-specific conditions

would significantly impact the amount calculated in accordance with 10 CFR 50.75(c).

' , _ ! 'm . f _aitr th .fa'~ jo ,_. .$ i a.ec the 

1.4.2 'Assessment'of the major factors that could affect the preliminary cost estimate

The following factors should be used by the reviewer to ensure that the cost estimate

includes an up-to-&ate assessment of the major factors that could affect the cost to,

decommission:

11
* the decommissioning option/method anticipated to be used;

* the potential for known or suspected contamination of the facility or site to affect the

cost of decommissioning

* the LLW disposition plan

* the preliminary schedule of decommissioning activities

* any other factors that could significantly affect the cost to decommission

The reviewer should review the preliminary cost estimat6 to' determine if it is sufficiently

detailed to allow the reviewer to assess its adequacy. To make this assessment, the

reviewer should confirm that the cost estimate is provided in current year (estimate year)

dollars and that it accounts for the entire decommissioning work scope. The cost estimate

should provide costs for each of the following, or similar, major decommissioning phases:

* Pre-decommissioning engineering and planning-decommissioning engineering and

planning prior to completion of reactor defueling

* Reactor deactivation-deactivation and radiological 'decontamination of plant systems

to place the reactor into a safe, permanent shutdow'n condition

* Safe storage-safe storage monitoring of the facility until dismantlement begins (if

storage or monitoring of spent fuel is included in the cost estimate, it should be shown

separately)

* Dismantlement-radiological decontamination and dismantlement (D&D) of systems

and structures required for license termination (if demolition of uncontaminated

structures and site restoration activities are included in the cost estimate, they should

be shown separately)

* Low-level radioactive'waste (LLW) disposition-LLW packaging, transportation,

vendor processing, and disposal. Tables 5 and 6 provide'decommissioning cost

estimates by these major activities for the NRC reference PWR' (NUREG/CR-5884)

and reference BWR2 (NUREG/CR-6174), respectively. The reviewer should compare

The Portland General Electric Company's Trojan nuclear plant, at Rainier, Oregon, is used as the

reference PWR power station:. Trojan is an 1175-MW(e) single-reactor power station that utilizes a fourloop pressurized water reactor manufactured by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in the nuclear

steam supply system. Although Trojan was prematurely shutdown on January 4, 1993, the reevaluated

decommissioning cost analyses assumed that the Trojan plant operated for the full term of its license to

be more representative of large PWRs in general.

2 The Washington Public Power Supply System's Washington Nuclear Plant Two (WNP-2) at Richland,

Washington, is used as the reference BWR power station. WNP-2 is an 1155 MW(e) single-reactor

power station that utilizes a nuclear steam supply system with a direct-cycle boiling water reactor

12
the pliminarycost estimate with the cost values provided in Tables 5 and 6 to make a

judgment of the reasonableness of the preliminary cost estimate, recognizing the

differences between the reactor for which the preliminary cost estimate was

developed and the reference reactors.

If necessary, as required by 1 O'CFR 50.75(f)(4), the preliminary cost estimate shall also

include plans for'adjusting levels of funds assured for decommissioning to derrionstrate a

reasonable level of assurance that funds will be available when needed to c6ver the cost of

decommissioning. However, the evaluation of the reasonable assurance of funding is not

conducted as part of the review of the licensee's decommissioning cost estimate. It is

conducted according to NUREG-1577. 'The reviewer should ensure that the appropriate

information has been provided.

The reviewer should confirm that the licensee has taken into account any major factors that

could affect the cost to decommission. Major factors include the following:'

The decommissioning option/method anticipated to be used. The decommissioning

options generally available are DECON, SAFSTOR, or some combination thereof.

Section A of this SRP describes each of these options. If the'chosen option/method'

will result in completion of decommissioning' more than 60 years after cessation 'of

operations, 'identification and assessment of the factors causing this delay should be

presented. Acceptable factors from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3) include unavailability'of

waste disposal capacity and other site-specific factors, such as the presence of other'

nuclearfacilities at the site. -

* The potential for known or suspected contamination at the site. Although the

requirements described in 10 CFR 50.75(g) for keeping records of spills or other

unusual occurrences are outside the scope of this SRP, the reviewer should ensure

that the licensee has evaluated the anticipated extent of contamination on the facility

and site based on informatioh available in the decommissioning files. This description

need not be a detailed discussion but should include descriptions of known instances

of releases of contaminated materials into the facility and the external environment,

and the possible impact on decommissioning. Known environmental contamination

should be identified (including soil, groundwater, surfac6-water, etc.). (Note,'the files

required to be kept,- pursuant to 10 'CFR 50.75(g),' include records of spills or other

unusual occurrences involving the'spread of contamination in and around the'facility,

equipment, or site; as-built drawings and modifications of structures and equipment in

restricted areas where radioactive materials are used and/or stored and of locations of

possible inaccessible contamination such as buried pipes which may be subject to

contamination; records of the cost estimates performed for the decommissioning

funding plan or of the amount certified for decommissioning; and records of the

funding method used for assuring funds if either a funding plan or certification is

used.)

* A brief description of the plans for'LLW disposal. The reviewer should determine if

the license'specifically evaluated the'plans for LLW-management, including the -

anticipated LLW disp6sal situation, and how LLW will be managed if no LLW disposal

manufactured by the General Electric Company.' WNP-2 has a Mark II containment. The reevaluated

decommissioning cost analyses assumed that the WNP-2 plant operated for the full term of its license.

13
sites are available. The reviewer should understand the site-specific factors that

could impact the disposition of spent fuel and LLW to determine the reasonableness

of these plans.

* A preliminary schedule that shows the major decommissioning activities and the time

period over which each of these activities extend. Typical major decommissioning

activities were described above.

* Any other major site-specific factors that could have a significant effect on the cost of

decommissioning, such as large volumes of rnixed radioactive-hazardous wastes with

uncertain disposition pathways and known regulatory or technical issues having

uncertain resolution outcomes.

1.5 Evaluation Findings

Using the acceptance criteria in C.1(3) and the review procedure in C.1(4) of this section as a

basis, the NRC reviewer shall verify that sufficient information has been provided to satisfy

the requirements of the underlying regulations (10 CFR 50.75(f)(2))., The preliminary cost

estimate shall be considered deficient if the decommissioning cost estimate is less than the

financial assurance amount required by 10 CFR 50.75(c), or if the assessment of the major

factors that could affect the preliminary cost estimate are not adequate, or if site-specific

factors invalidate the technical basis of the formula used to calculate the minimum fund

amount in 10 CFR 50.75(c). If deficiencies are discovered, the reviewer should request the

appropriate information from the licensee in writing. The reviewer documents the findings of

his/her review of the preliminary cost estimate and places a copy of the memorandum into

the licensee's docket.

If the licensee included plans to adjust the level of funds assured for decommissioning in

accordance with 10 CFR 50.75(f)(4) and 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iv), the reviewer should

document the plans to adjust the level of funding.

1.6 Implementation

The method described in this SRP will be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with

the Commission's regulations, except when the licensee proposes an acceptable alternative

for complying with specified portions of the regulations.

2. ESTIMATE OF EXPECTED COSTS IN THE PSDAR

Prior to or within 2 years following permanent cessation of operations, the licensee is

required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i) to submit a PSDAR to the NRC. In addition to other

prescribed content, this report is required to include an estimate of expected costs.

Regulatory Guide 1.185 identifies the type of information to be contained in the PSDAR that

would be acceptable to the NRC staff. The cost estimate may be the amount of

decommissioning funds estimated to be required by 10 CFR 50.75(b) and (c) as currently

reported on a calendar-year basis at least once every 2 years to the NRC according to

10 CFR 50.75(f)(1), or it may be a site-specific cost estimate. Other related but non-NRC

decommissioning costs (spent fuel storage, site restoration, etc.) may be included in the

cost estimate if desired; however, the cost of decommissioning, as defined by 1 0 CFR 50.2,

should be listed separately.- As a separate item, the cost of placing and maintaining the

14
facility in safe storage should be identified, along with a plan to ensure that sufficient funds

will be available for.this purpose, if necessary, until such time as the radioactively

contaminated material is placed in an authorized waste disposal site. The reviewer should

note'that, as with the PSDAR, 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii) requires a licensee to provide a SSCE

within 2 years following permanent cessation of operations. If the cost estimate provided

with the PSDAR was an SSCE, then this requirement has been satisfied.

Licensees who plan to use a period of storage or surveillance (SAFSTOR) are required by

10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iv) to provide a means of adjusting cost estimates and associated'

-funding levels over the period of storage or surveillance. If a licensee intends to use a

period of SAFSTOR, the reviewer should ensure that the licensee has' included 'a description

.of its means of adjustment with its estimate of expected costs. The reviewer should

determine whether the means described by the licensee provides adequate assurance that

funds will be available for decommissionin'g activities 'at the tilmethdy are needed.

Table 5. Decomnmissioning Cost Distribution by Time Period-Reference PWR I

Decommissioning Cost (2000 Smillions) b)

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4

Planning & Plant Safe Storage DismantleDecommissioning Option - Preparation Deactivation Operations ment, - Tot;

DECON - . - . .. .__. . .

- - PeriodYears - 2.5 | 06 6.3 | ' - - 7:1

Period Cost 14.3 - | a56.9 10.8 | 151.7: - 23

SAFSTOR - . - . . . ...

Period Years 2.5 . 0.6 57.7 J 1.7 6

Period Cost 14.3 1 56.9 144.3 | 148.5 l 36

> NUREG/CR-5884 (Ref. 5)

( Includes an assumed 25% contingency cost. SAFSTOR2 decommissioning option Is assumed. .

A. Cost Estimate Using Minimum Financial Assurance Funding Amount Method

(1) Review Responsibilities ;

Primary-Cognizant Project Manager, Project Directorate responsible for the reactor,

Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, as

assigned.

Secondary-Financial Reviewer, Financial and Regulatory Analysis Section, Reactor Policy

and Rulemaking Branch, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, or as assigned. . -

15
Table 6. Decommissioning Cost Distribution by Time Period: - Reference BWR (a)

Decommissioning Cost (2000 $ millions) (b)

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4

Decommissioning Planning & Plant Safe Storage DismantleOption Preparation Deactivation Operations ment Total

DECON_

Period Years 2.5 1 1.2 | 3.4 | 1.7 8.8 -

- Period Cost 14.8 | 76.1 [ 7.2 243.2 341.3

SAFSTOR .. . ,_._-._.

Period Years 2.5 1.2 57.1 X 1.7 62.5-

Period Cost 14.8 76.1 189.2 242.0 522.1

('} NUREGICR-6174 (Ref. 6)

(bl Includes an assumed 25% contingency cost. SAFSTOR2 decommissioning option is assumed.

(2) Areas of Review

This SRP directs the staff's review of the cost estimate that is required by

10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i) to be included in the PSDAR submitted prior to or within 2 years

following permanent cessation of operations. The intent of this estimate of expected costs

is to provide the NRC with an up-to-date cost estimate using the minium financial assurance

fun ding amount method (10 CFR 50.75(c), the same method the licensee used in the

submittal for establishing a fund for decommissioning as required by 10 CFR 50.75(b). This

estimate will have been revised periodically during operation and may have been used in

preparing the preliminary cost estimate.

(3) Acceptance Criteria

The acceptance criteria are based on regulations set out in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i). The

regulations require that, within 2 years following permanent cessation of operations, the

licensee shall submit a PSDAR to the NRC with a copy to the affected State or States. The

report must include, among other things, an estimate of expected costs.

The acceptance criterion for the cost estimate is that the estimate at least equals the

minimum financial assurance funding amount defined in 10 CFR 50.75(c) unless otherwise

adequately justified. Only those costs contained in the description of decommissioning, as

defined in 10 CFR 50.2, may be used to determine if the estimate at least equals the

minimum funding requirement of 10 CFR 50.75(c). Therefore, the estimate should separate

costs into categories that enable the reviewer to identify whether or not each listed item fits

within the definition of decommissioning costs.

(4) Review Procedures

The reviewer will use the following process to determine that the submitted estimate of

expected costs considers, in adequate detail, all major factors that could affect the cost to

decommission.

16
The reviewer should verify that the procedure for calculating the MFA funding amount has

been followed in determining the estimate of expected costs (see Section B.1). The

reviewer should confirm that the cost estimate is provided in current year.(estimate year)

dollars, using disposal cost adjustment factors from the most recent revision of

NUREG-1307, and that the factors affecting the funding algorithmr calculation are verifiable.

The reviewer should confirm that the following'information is provided and that all items are

reasonable: -

* ' Reactor thermal power rating -

-* Reactor type (PWRtBWR)

* ' Cost escalation factors (including an acceptable method of inflation adjustment;

Section B.1&provid6esan acceptable method of allowing for escalation of costs due to

- ----inflation in unit costs of labor,,energy (transportation), and waste burial). - - -

LO

(5)- Evaluation Findings - ;

Using the acceptance criteria in C.2.A(3) and the review procedure in C.2.A(4) of this -

section as a basis, the NRC reviewer shall verify that sufficient information has been

provided to satisfy the requirements of the (10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i)). The estimate of

expected costs shall be considered deficient if the decommissioning cost estimate is less

than the financial assurance amount required by 10 CFR 50.75(c) and adequate justification

is not provided. If deficiencies are discovered, the reviewer should provide this information

to the NRC project managerfor the plant. The NRC project manager will inform the licensee

in writing of the deficiencies that must be corrected before major decommissioning activities

can begin. 2The reviewer documents'the findings of his/her review of the estimate of

expected costs in a memoradirn. -The memorandum should be forwarded for inclusion in

the review of the licensee's PSDAR.'

(6) Implementation

The method described in this SRP will be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with

the Commission's regulations,-except when the licensee proposes an acceptable-alternative

- for complying with specified portions of the regulations. '-

17
Table 7. Estimate of Expected Costs-PWR DECON (a)

Decommissioning Cost (2000 $millions)(b)

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Duration

(2.5 Years) (0.6 Years) (6.3 Years) (1.7 Years) (11.1 Years)

Decommissioning Planning & Plant Safe Storage Dismantle- Total

Activity Preparation Deactivation Operations ment Cost

Radioactive Component Removal 0.0 0.7 0.0 11.8 12.5

Diseantlement 0.0 22.5 0.0 10.4 32.9

Management and Support 14.3 14.7 10.8 40.5 80.2

LLW Packaging 0.0 0.2 0.0 3.5 3.6

LLW Shipping 0.0 1.5 0.0 4.3 5.8

LLW Burial/Waste Vendor 0.0 17.3 0.0 81.3 98.5

Total Cost 14.3 56.9 10.8 151.7 233.6

(a) NUREG/CR-5884

(b) Assumes a 25% contingency cost.

Table 8. Estimate of Expected Costs-BWR DECON (a)

Decommissioning Cost (2000 $millions) (b)

Period 1 Period 2' Period 3 Period 4 Duration

(2.5 Years) (1.2 Years) (3.4 Years) (1.7 Years) (8.8 Years)

Decommissioning Planning & Plant Safe Storage Dismantle- Total

Activity Preparation Deactivation Operations ment Cost

Radioactive Component Removal 0.0 1.2 0.0 6.6 7.8

Decontamination and 0.0 20.8 0.0 15.8 36.6

Dismantlement

Management and Support 14.8 34.7 7.2 40.0 96.8

LLW Packaging 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.5 5.7

LLW Shipping 0.0 1.1 0.0 0.4 1.5

LLW Burial/Waste Vendor 0.0 18.1 0.0 174.8 192.8

Total Cost 14.8 J 76.1 J 7.2 J 243.2 341.3

(a) NUREG/CR-6174

(b) Assumes a 25% contingency cost.

18
Table 9. Estimate of Expected Costs-PWR SAFSTOR (a)

-___ _ -Decommissioning Cost (2000 Smillions)lb) :

Period 1 Period 2 Pe"iod 3 .'Period 4 Duration

(2.5 Years) (0.6 Years) (57.7 Years) (1.7 Years) (62.5 Years)

Decommissioning Planning & Plant Safe Storage Dismantle- Total

Activity - Preparation Deactivation Operations ment Cost

Radioactive Component Removal 0.0 0.7 - 0.0 11.8 - 12.5

Decontamination and - Dismantlement Dsateet0.0 22.5 1.2 9.2 32.9 - 5

Management and Support 14.3 14.7 142.5 40.4 212.0

LLW Packaging 0.0 - 0.2 . 0.1 3.4 - 3.6

LLW Shipping 0.0 1.5 0.0 4.3 : 5.8

LLW Burial/Waste Vendor 0.0 17.3 0.4 79.4 97.0

Total Cost -- 14.3 | 56.9 -| 144.3 148.5 | 363.9

(a) NUREG/CR-5884

b Assumes a 25% contingency cost. SAFSTOR2 decommissioning option is assumed.

Table 10. Estimate of Expected Costs-BWR SAFSTOR

DecommissioningCost(2000Smillions) b)-

Period 1 Period 2 - Period 3 Period 4 Duration

(2.5 Years) (1.2 Years) (57.1 Years) (1.7 Years) (62.5 Years)

Decommissioning Planning & Plant Safe Storage 'Dismantle- Total

Activity Preparation" Deactivation Operations ment - Cost

Radioactive Component Removal . 0.0 1.2 0.0 6.6 7.8

Decontamination and -0.0 20.8 0.7 5.1 36.6

Dismantlement

Management and Support - 14.8 34.7 188.2 41.6 279.3

LLW Packaging - 0.0 0.2 0.0 5.5 - 5.7

LLW Shipping - 0.0 - . 1.1 0.0 - 0.4 1.5

LLW Burial/Waste Vendor- 00 r 18.1 : 0.3 172.8 191.1

Total Cost [ 14.8 - 76.11 1 T 189.292 ; 1 . 242.0_.0 ' ||_522.1 5221

(a) NUREG/CR-6174

(') Assumes a 25% contingency cost. SAFSTOR2 decommissioning option is assumed. : .

,. , .. .. - , I .. ;i

. I I . I..I I .

. . ._ , , .

: ., ,:,

. -. . .I I .

_ . . . .

i, 19
B. Site-Specific Cost Estimate

The estimate of expected decommissioning costs required for the PSDAR can be the same

as the site-specific cost estimate required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii). The site-specific cost

estimate is a detailed assessment that incorporates the cost impact of site-specific factors.

The site-specific estimate is discussed in Regulatory Position 3.

A site-specific cost estimate is required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii) to be submitted within 2

years following permanent cessation of operations. This cost-estimate may be included withthe PSDAR (10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i)). In addition, a licensee mnay submit a certification

amount of funds for decommissioning based on a site-specific cost estimate that is equal to

or greater than the amount calculated in the formula in 10 CFR 50.75(c)(1) or (2) when a

higher funding level is desired. If the amount of the site-specific cost estimate is less than

the certification formula amount, a licensee must provide adequate justification for the

difference.

The SSCE is a very detailed assessment that incorporates the cost impact of site-specific

factors. Because the SSCE that may be submitted with the PSDAR can be used to satisfy

the requirement for a SSCE in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii), the same review process should be

used. The reviewer is referred to the Acceptance Criteria and Review Procedures that are

provided in Section 3.

3. SITE-SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATE

A SSCE is required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii) within 2 years following permanent cessation

of operations. It may be included with the PSDAR (10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i)). The SSCE is

intended to be based on a detailed analysis of the decommissioning costs required to safely

dismantle and decontaminate the facility and site to meet the criteria for license termination.

The SSCE submitted to the: NRC may summarize the results of the detailed analyses with

the underlying detail submitted as supplementary information. The summary data should be -

sufficiently detailed to demonstrate that the licensee has considered all significant

decommissioning costs, and should reference the detailed cost estimate.

Licensees who plan to use a period of storage or surveillance (SAFSTOR) are required by

10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iv) to provide a means of adjusting cost estimates and associated

funding levels over the period of storage or surveillance. If the time period covered by the

updated SSCE includes a period of SAFSTOR, the reviewer should ensure that the licensee

has included a description of its means of adjusting its SSCE. The reviewer should

determine if the means described by the licensee provides adequate assurance that funds

will be available for decommissioning activities at the time needed.

(1) Review Responsibilities

Primary-Cognizant Project Manager, Project Directorate, Division of Licensing Project

Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, or Office of Nuclear Materials Safety

and Safeguards depending on when submitted.

20
Secondary-Financial Reviewer,-Financial and Regulatory Analysis Section, Reactor Policy

and Rulemaking Branch, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, or Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards. -

(2) Areas of Review.

This SRP directs the staff's review of the SSCE that is required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii)

within 2 years following permanent cessation of operations. The intent of this cost estimate

is to provide the NRC with a detailed assessment that incorporates the cost impact of

site-specific factors. Additionally, site-specific estimates may be submitted pursuant to 10

CFR 50.75(b) provided they are equal to or greater than the amount required by 10 CFR

50.75(c). -

(3) Acceptance Criteria -

The acceptance criteria are based on regulations set out in 10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii). The

regulations require that within 2 years following permanent cessation of operations, if the

licensee has not already submitted a SSCE with the PSDAR (10 CFR 50.82(a)(4)(i)).

To ensure that the cost estimate is site-specific and that all significant decommissioning

costs have been considered, a SSCE should include the following items:

* -A description of thedecommissioning cost estimating methodology

* l description of the overall decommissioning project:

* A summary decommissioning cost estimate by major activity and phase

* A schedule of the major decommissioning activities - -

* A summary of the radiological D&D 'management with support staff levels>-

* An estimate of the radioactive waste volume

(4) -Review Procedures -

The reviewer will use the'following process to determine that the submitted SSCE considers,

in adequate detail, all major site-specific factors that could affect the cost to decommission,

and to ensure that the SSCE appears reasonable.

The reviewer should compare the SSCE with the minimum decommissioning financial

assurance requirement amount derived per the algorithm discussed in Section B.1

(10 CFR 50.75(c)). If the SSCE is less than the amount derived from the algorithm-in

10 CFR 50.75(c) and adequate justification is not provided, the reviewer should provide this

information to the NRC project manager for the plant. -As discussed, the NRC project

manager will inform the licensee in writing'of additional information needed to resolve the

deficiency.. - ;

The reviewer should first review the SSCE to determine if it is sufficiently detailed to allow

the reviewer to make an assessment of its adequacy. If the reviewer is unable to find each

of the detailed items, then the reviewer will need to make a determination as to whether

enough information has been provided to evaluate each of the six items discussed under

21
Acceptance Criteria (above). If there is not sufficient information, the NRC reviewer will

inform project manager, who will inform the licensee in writing of the additional information

needed to resolve the deficiency.

1. The reviewer should confirm that the following information is provided:

a. A description of the decommissioning cost estimating methodology

The reviewer should check for the following items to ensure that the licensee's

description of the decommissioning cost methodology is complete.

* The decommissioning option/method-The reviewer should identify the

decommissioning option/method that the licensee is planning to use. The

decommissioning options generally available are DECON, SAFSTOR, or some

combination thereof. Section A of this SRP describes each of these options. If the

chosen option/method will result in completion of decommissioning more than 60

years after cessation of operations, identification and assessment of the factors

causing this delay should be presented. Acceptable factors from 10 CFR 50.82(a)(3)

include unavailability of waste disposal capacity and site-specific factors, such as the

presence of other nuclear facilities at the site.

* A discussion of the methodology used to derive the cost estimates-The reviewer

should identify the methodology used to develop the generic cost estimate. The

most common methodology used to develop decommissioning cost estimates is the

unit cost factor approach, which is the methodology utilized in the NRC reports

mentioned above and the methodology developed by the Atomic Industrial Forum

(now the Nuclear Energy Institute) for use by nuclear power plant licensees

(AIF/NESP-036). Other methodologies, such as activity-based cost estimates, are

acceptable.

b. A description of the overall decommissioning project

The reviewer should check to ensure that the licensee has provided a detailed work

breakdown for all the activities to be performed, including planning and preparation.

The reviewer should specifically check that the following activities have been

included:

* Planning and preparation

* Characterization survey of facility and site

* Disposal of ionexchanger resins

* Removal, radiological decontamination, and packaging of spent fuel racks

* Concentration and shipment of boron waste

* Radiological decontamination of systems using chemical cleaning methods

* Draining and processing of spent fuel pool water

* Removal of spent fuel pool cooling system

* Removal and packaging of reactor pressure vessel (RPV) internals

22
* Radiological decontamination and closure of RPV .

* Removal of contaminated cranes

* Radiological decontamination, removal, and packaging of spent fuel pool liner

* Removal of reactor coolant system (RCS) piping and equipment

* Removal of pressurizer

* Removal of steam generators

* Removal of control rod drive system .

* Segmentation and packaging of reactor pressure vessel

* Removal of bioshield shield - -

* Removal of turbine generator(s) ---- -. .

-Removal of turbine condenser(s) .

* Removal of moisture separator reheaters

* Removal of feedwater heaters ' - -

* Removal of feedwater condensate system

* Removal of feedwater pumps/turbine drives_

* Radiological decontamination and removal of-floor drains

* - Vacuuming or washing or other radiological decontamination of surfaces

; Removal of contaminated concrete

Removal of heating, ventilation, and air conditioning ducts and equipment

-- * Removal of other contaminated systems (list each system)

*- Remediation/removal of surface and groundwater .

* Remediatio&Vimovalbof contaminated soils - - - - --

* Final survey

* LLW packaging, shipping, and burial charges, including LLW processing fees by

waste vendors.-

* Shipment and processing or storage of greater-than-Class C waste

If the decommissioning project includes SAFSTOR periods (longer than about 5 years), the

reviewer should also check that the schedule includes the following activities' and labor

requirements were included:

* Removal of any LLW that is ready to be shipped - - ' ' ' '

Deenergizing or deactivating specific systems - :- - -

* Reconfiguration of ventilation systems and fire protection systems for use during the

.storage period

* Maintenance of any systems critical to final dismantlement during the storage period

'23
* Mobilization of additional personnel at the end of the SAFSTOR period to begin the

active phase of decommissioning work

The reviewer should also check for the following information:

* A summary of the inventory of contaminated systems and components requiring

radiological decontamination and/or decommissioning (Table 11 provides an

example of a contaminated equipment and piping inventory for the reference PWR

and reference BWR (see NUREG/CR-5584 and NUREG/CR-6174)). The reviewer

should compare the inventory provided with Table 11 in order to make a judgment

regarding the reasonableness of the inventory.

Table 11. Example of Inventory for Contaminated Equipment and Piping

Reference PWR Reference BWR

Length of Piping in Feet Length of Piping in Feet

or Number of Items in or Number of Items in

Equipment Category(" Each Category Each Category

Piping diameter > 3 inches 15,110 55,654

Piping diameter 5 3 inches 34,631 66,160

Valves > 3 inches 235 1,103

Valves • 3 inches 779 7,962

Tanks of all sizes 76 80

Pumps > 100 pounds 43 87

Pumps 1o00 pounds - 2 8

Heat exchangers > 100 pounds:- 25 16

Heat exchangers • 100 pounds 0 0

Electrical components > 100 pounds 69 0

Electrical components • 100 pounds 34 0

Miscellaneous components > 100 pounds 13 1,323

Miscellaneous components • 100 pounds 26 282

Large piping hanger, for pipes > 4 inches in 2,204 5,000

diameter

Small piping hanger, for pipes •5 4 inches in 10,608 7,500

diameter

(a) The equipment categories shown here are arbitrary. Any reasonable method of categorization is

acceptable.

An identification of the rooms and/or areas in the facility that need to be

decontaminated (this information may have been either submitted by the licensee

either as maps or provided in tables). Table 12 provides a table example of an

inventory of concrete and, metal surfaces requiring radiological

decontamination/removal for the reference PWR and reference BWR. The reviewer

should compare the inventory provided with Table 12 in order to make a judgment

regarding the reasonableness of the inventory.

24
Table 12. Example of Inventory for Concrete and Metal Surfaces

Requiring Decontamination/Removal

Refeirence'PWR (DECON and SAFSTOR) '_'

Area of ' Area of Metal

Concrete Volume of . Surfaces - Volume of Metal

- Decontaminated * Concrete Decontaminated Surfaces

Building or Location (ft) ,Removed (ft3), ( F Removed (ft3)

Fuel Building ' 22,864 548 -15,428 161

Containment Building 127,124 433 4,690- 49

Auxiliary Building - . -;43,860 819 -0 0

Reference BWR (DECON and SAFSTOR)

Area of Area of Metal

Concrete Volume of ' Surfaces Volume of Metal

Decontaminated Concrete Decontaminated -: Surfaces

Building or Location (f__) - Removed (ft)' (ft) | Removed (!_e)

Reactor 30,537 -1,304 33,906 541

Rad Waste/Control 21,711 388 1,526 16

Building

Turbine Generator 8,042 123 1,526 16

Building ; -

* A summary description, based on the decommissioning records required by

10 CFR 50.75(g), of events occurring during operation involving the spread of

contamination in and around the facility, equipment, or site, such that significant

' contamination remained after any cleanup procedures were carried out. Records of

events that may have spread contamination into inaccessible areas or resulted in

possible seepage into porous materials must be maintained. The decommissioning

records must include as-built drawings and modifications to structures and equipment

in restricted areas where radioactive materials were used or stored, and the locations

of areas of possible inaccessible contamination, such as buried pipes. These records

are intended to provide a historical record of the location, use, and spread of

radioactive materials that can be used to guide decommissioning efforts.

Although the requirements described in 10 CFR 50.75(g) for keeping records of spills

or other unusual occurrehnces'are outside'the scope of this -SRP, the reviewer should

ensure that the licensee has evaluated the anticipated extent of contamination on the

facility and site based on information available in the decommissioning files. This

description need not be adetailed discussion but should describe known instances of

rele'ases of contaminated materials into the facility and the external environment, as

well as the possible impact on decommissioning. The licensee's discussion should

include an evaluation of the historical use'and location of radioactive materials at the

site with an assessment of their impact on decommissioning costs.

-25
l .

The record-keeping requirements of 10 CFR 50.75(g) became effective on July 27,

1988. As a result, events that occurred before the effective date may not be included

in the licensee's decommissioning records. Therefore, for plants with operating

histories prior to July 1988, the reviewer should determine whether the licensee

evaluated the plant's operating history and the modifications made to its facility,

equipment, and site to assess their impact on decommissioning costs.

A summary of available characterization information on known and/or suspected

environmental contamination (soil, groundwater, and surface water). The reviewer

should look for the identification of known environmental contamination (including soil,

groundwater, surface water, etc.). The files that are required by 10 CFR 50.75(g)

include records of spills or other unusual occurrences involving the spread of

contamination in and around the facility, equipment, or site; as-built drawings and

modifications of structures and equipment in restricted areas where radioactive

materials are used and/or stored; locations of possible in-accessible contamination

such as buried pipes.

* Records of the cost estimates performed for the decommissioning funding plan or the

amount certified for decommissioning; and records of the funding method used for

assuring funds if either a funding plan or certification is used.

* A summary description of structures or equipment in the restricted area where

radioactive materials were used or stored, as well as the locations of possible

inaccessible contamination.

c. A summary decommissioning cost estimate by major activity and phase

* The reviewer should confirm that the cost estimate accounts for the entire

decommissioning work scope, but not for items that are outside the scope of the

decommissioning process such as the maintenance and storage of spent fuel in the

spent fuel pool, the design or construction of spent fuel dry storage facilities, or other

activities not directly related to the long-term storage, radiological D&D of the facility,

or radiological decontamination of the site. If non-decommissioning cost items are

included in the SSCE, these items should be identified separately. The SSCE should

provide costs for each of the following, or similar, major activities and phases:

- Major radioactive component removal-reactor vessel and internals, steam

generators, pressurizers, large bore reactor coolant system piping, and other

large components that are radioactive to a comparable degree, as defined in

10 CFR 50.2

- Radiological D&D-removal of remaining radioactive plant systems, including

radiological decontamination

- Management and support-labor costs of support staff and decommissioning

contractor's staff, energy costs, regulatory costs, small tools, insurance, etc.

- LLW packaging-placing LLW in packages

- LLW shipping-shipping LLW to waste vendors/burial site

26
- LLW burial/waste vendor-LLW burial charges, including LLW.processing fees

by waste vendors

- Contingency -

If the SAFSTOR option is being used, the cost categories should also be segregated

into the following:-

- Pre-decommissioning engineering and planning/plant deactivation-. all

activities from engineering and planning through defueling and layup to

- completing the placement of the reactor into permanent shutdown condition

*-- Extended safe storage operations-safe storage monitoring of the facility until

.dismantlement begins (if storage or monitoring of spent fuel is included in the

. ~ cost estimate, it should be shown separately)

- Final Radiological D&D-radiological D&D of radioactive systems and.

structures required for license termination, including demolition for the';,

purposes of reducing residual radioactivity if demolition of uncontaminated

structures and site restoration activities are included in the cost estimate, they

* - should be shown separately

Tables 7 through 10 provide decommissioning cost estimates by decommissioning

activities listed in Section3(4)lc and time periods for the NRC reference PWR and

reference BWR (see NUREG/CR-5884 and NUREG/CR-6174), respectively. The

reviewer should compare the SSCE with the'cost values 'provided in Tables 7. through

10 to make a judgment of the reasonableness of the SSCE, recognizing the difference

between the reactor for which the SSCE was developed and the reference reactors.

* An estimate of the cost necessary to place and maintain the reactor in a safe storage

condition if such action becomes necessary.

* A description of how the contingency costs are calculated

* A description of how inflation is accounted for in the cost estimate-The reviewer

should confirm that the cost estimate'is provided in current year (estimate year).

dollars and that escalation-6f the LLW disposition costs is considered separately from

the-general inflation rate applicable to labor, material, and energy costs. -The reviewer

-should be aware of escalation rates used in the current revision of NUREG-1307.

* A schedule showing the amount of decommissioning funds currently available, the

accumulation of additional funds, and the'expenditure'of the decommissioning funds

* The assumptions, references, and bases for unit costs that were used in developing

the estimates

d. A schedule of decommissioning activities

The reviewer should check to ensure that the schedule includes a work breakdown

decommissioning activities (as discussed previously), periods of interim safe storage,

labor requirements (person-hours), and key milestones.

27
e. Radiological D&D management- Support and DOC staffing levels

The reviewer should check to ensure that the licensee has estimated staffing levels,

labor requirements, and labor costs for each decommissioning phase (including

periods of SAFSTOR, if applicable). Radiological D&D staff requirements may vary

from site to site, depending on management. For this reason, the reviewer should

determine if labor rates were adjusted for escalation and region accordingly.

f. Radioactive waste information

The reviewer should determine if the licensee submitted estimates of radioactive

waste volumes that are expected to be generated during decommissioning, assuming

no volume reduction. Radioactive waste (radwaste) volumes should be identified by

waste class. In addition, the reviewer should identify if the licensee submitted plans

for radwaste disposition, including radwaste disposal sites to be used, if available. If

the licensee has specified that a vendor will process the waste, then the radwaste

information after processing should be available to show the results of the waste

minimization. The licensee may also have included descriptions of the methods and

technologies employed to achieve the improved waste characteristics.

2. The reviewer should assess the reasonableness of submitted SSCEs and compare

the information that was submitted with the information that is provided in this section

for the reference PWR and BWR using the following process.

a) The reviewer should compare the information presented in this section for the

referenced PWR or BWR with the level of detail provided in the SSCE. The reviewer

should check to see if there are items that appear to be significantly less than the

amounts given in the following tables (taking into account the differences in plant

sizes or decommissioning techniques) or that are significantly out of proportion. If the

numbers are significantly different or out of proportion, before determining that the

SSCE is deficient, the reviewer should check for an explanation or reason that might

account for the difference.

b) The reviewer should compare the cost estimates with detailed analyses as the

reevaluated analyses of decommissioning of the NRC reference PWR and the

reference BWR (see NUREG/CR-5884 and NUREG/CR-6174). Summaries of reports

to be used for this comparison are presented below for a PWR undergoing the

immediate dismantlement option (DECON) in Table 13 and for the safe storage option

(SAFSTOR) in Table 14. Likewise for a BWR, Table 15 summarizes the DECON

option and Table 16 summarizes the SAFSTOR option.

28
Table'13. Reference PWR Decommissioning Cost Distribution by Time Period- DECON

DecommissionIng Cost (2000 $ thousands)

Period 1 -Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Duration

(2.5 Years) (0.6 Years), (6.3 Years) (11.7 Years) (11.1 Years)

--- Planning & Plant Safe Storage. Dismantle-: Total

-Decommissioning Activity Preparation Deactivation Operations ment -.,Cost

Radioactive Comoonent Remo~val _____

Removal of RPV nternals; * ~0 - -743 0 0 743

Removal of Reactor Pressure Vessel -- 0 - 0 0 -254 254

Steam Generator Direct Removal Costs -.- 0 0 .0 9,7 8w9 9,789

Steam Generator Cascading Costs 0-- .- 0 -- 0 22323

_RCS Piping> 0 - 0 --- 0 35 35

Large Miscellaneous RCS Piping 0 -o0 -o - 36 36

Small Miscellaneous RCS Piping - 0 0 0 67 67

RCS Insulation 0 0 0 - ____

Pressurizer 0 0 0 - 13 13

Pressurizer Relief Tank 0 0 09 -

Primary Pumps 0 0 0 51 51

Spent Fuel Racks 0 0 0 1,038 1,038

Biological Shield 0 0 0272 272

Subtotal - .0 743 0 11,787 1255

*Decontamination and Dismantlement -______}____________

Decontaminationof Site Buildings -. . .0 -22,487 0 2,002 24,490

Removal of Contaminated Plant Systems -- 0 - 0 8,41 8 - 8,418

* Subtotal'- 0 2248 0 -0403,0

Management and Support --

Support Staff -949432,9533 - 18,689

DOCOStaff 7,579 - . 0 1 1,516 -877 -2,3

*Consultants/Other Staff 0 0 -0 - 9 -- 190

Termination Survey Costs . 0 0 - 0 - -1,916 -1.916

Regulatory Costs .- 561 582 35 168.2.787

Special Tools and Equipment . 5,216 -. 0 0 . 0 5,216

Environmental Monitoring Costs 0 47 48 130 . -225

Laundry Services -. 0496 92 1,456 -_2,044

SmaillToolsn Mio~upet-015 0 - 411 426

Nuclear Liability Insurance - - -- ;---- 0 2.695 594319 - 11,827

* Property~raxes - -_-- ' _----0 0 89 240 - 329

DOC Mobilization/Demobilization Costs ------ 0 0 . 4,144 - 4,144

-Steam Generator Undistributed Casts -- --- - 0 0 - 0 - 328 - 328

ChemicalDecon "--.----0 414--- 0..- *0-.. 414.

Plant Power Usage 0-- --- 1,011---- 5 - 271 3,4

Subtotal - 1,28 4 9 -*- 40,453 8208

11W Packaging 7 0 ;-- 167 0 3,464 3,631

LLW Shipping'- 0 1 51 8 0 4,323 5,841_

LLW Burial/Waste Vendor 0 17,251 0 : 8 1,~264 98,515

Total 1429 5685 1 1076 5172 233 632

~29
Table 14. Reference PWR Decommissioning Cost Distribution by Time Period- SAFSTOR

Decommissioning Cost (2000 $thousands) _

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 . Period 4 Duration

(2.5 Years) (0.6 Years) (57.7 Years) (1.7 Years) (62.5 Years)

- Planning & Plant Safe Storage Dismantle- Total

Decommissioning Activity Preparation Deactivation Operations ment Cost

Radioactive Component Removal ____________

Removalof RPV Interals 0 743 0 0 743

Removal of Reactor Pressure Vessel 0 0 0 254 254

Steam Generator Direct Removal Costs 0 0 0 9.789 9.789

Steam Generator Cascading Costs 0 0 0 223 -223

RCS Pipinq 0 0 0 35 35

Large Miscellaneous RCS Piping 0 0 0 36 36

Small Miscellaneous RCS Piping 0 0 0 67 67

RCS Insulation 0 0 0 0 0

Pressurizer 0 0 0 13 13

Pressurizer Relief Tank 0 0 0 9 9

Primary Pum.s 0 0 0 51 51

Spent Fuel Racks 0 0 0 1.038 1.038

.Bioloical Shield 0 0 0 272 I272

Subtotal 0 743 0 11787 12530

Decontamination and Dismantlement . . .

Decontamination of Site Buildings 0 22.487 1.184 818 24;490

Removal of Contaminated Plant Systems 0 0 0 8.418 8.418

Subtotal 0 22,487 1,184 9,236 32,908

Management and Support

Support Staff 942 9.433 685187 5.323 83 884

DOC Staff 7.579 0 3:032 18 737 29,348

Consultant/Other Staff 0 0 0 190 - 190

Termination Survey Costs 0 0 0 1.916 . 1.916

Regulatorv Costs 561 582 2.443 1.608 5.19

Special Tools and Equipment 5,216 0 0 0 5 216

Environmental Monitoring Costs 0 47 3.968 130 4,145

Laundry Services 0 496 990 1.438 2.925

Maintenance Allowance 0 0 1.402 0 1.402

Small Tools and Minor Equipment 0 15 0 411 426

Nuclear Liability Insurance 0 2.695 54,329 3.199 60.223

PropertV Taxes 0 0 7.348 240 7,588

DOC Mobilization/Demobilization Costs 0 0 0 4,144 4,144

Steam Generator Undistributed Costs 0 0 0 328 328

Chemical Decon 0 414 0 0 414

Plant Power Usage 0 1.011 847 2,771 4.629

Subtotal 14,298 14,693 142 546 40,435 211 972

LLW Packagin_ 0 167 105 3.360 3,631

LLWShipping 0 1.518 1 4322 5,841

LLW Burial/Waste Vendor 0 17,251 422 79.355 > 97,028

Total II 1.295 9 1.

30
'Table 15 Reference BWR Decommissioning Cost Distribution by Time Period-DECON,

___________ Decommissioning Cost (2000 $thousands) ______

(Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Duration

2.5 Years) .. (1.1 Years) (3.4 Years) (1.7 Years) (8.8 Years)

- Planning & Plant Safe Storage Dismantle- Total

Decommissioning Activity Preparation Deactivation Operations ment -. Cost

Radioactive Component Removai

RPV Intemnais 0 1,2 0 0 ' 1,227

Reactor Pressure Vessel and Insulation 0 0 0 287 28

Sacrificial Shield' 0 0 0 1.177 1J177

Recirculation Pumps 0 0 0 25 .25

RCS Piping o 0 0 1.635 .1635

RCS Piping Insulation 0 0 0 .0 -- 0

Main Turbine 0 0 0 382 382

Main Turbine Condenser 00 0 776 -776

Moisture Separator Reheaters 0 - 0 0 -188 -. 188

'Feedwater Heaters 0 0 I01 104 104

Turbine Feed Pumps 0 0 0 '-221

'Structural Beams:, Plates. & Cal Tas0 0 0 - 691 -691

-Spent Fuel Racks 0 0 0 1.298 129

Subtotal 0 12701 6, ,1

Decontamination and Dismantlement I _ _ I_ *Decontamination of Site Buildings j0 . 20~j.81 0 1 144 21 .954

Removal of Contaminated Plant Systems 0 0 0 14J:687 14,687

Subtotal 0 2081 0 15,831 3664

Management and Support ______

Support Staff '1,336 2615 2,5 7,8 37.432

DOC Staff 7.579 0 1J516 1769 -26.789

Consuitantss/Other Staff 0 0 0 10190

Termination Survey Costs 0 0 '0 JJ--1 661 1.661

Regulatory Costs 561 677 136 959 2,3M

Special Tools and Equipment 5,374 ' 00 0 5,374

'Environmental Monitoring Costs 0 92 26 1I30 *'247

Laundry Services 0 826 s0 1 700 - 2.576

Small Tools and Minor Equipment 025 0 '430 - --454

Nuclear Liabilit Insurance 05...0L16 310 3,199 11.417

DOC MobilizationlDemnobilization Costs ' 0 0 0 4,144 4.144

Chemical Decontamination '0 328 0 0 ' 328

Plant Power Usage 0 156I25 I 2,219 ' ' 3,810

Subtotal '14,850 3468 7,208 4001 96,757

L1W Packagin ' 0 217 0 5,0 - 5.722

LLW Shipping' 0 1.8 0 44 - 1.534

11W BuralWaIMste Vendor 0 064- 08 192.845

Tntal '14-S476162271 t413312 -

- . . - - 4 r, -

31
Table 16. Reference BWR Decommissioning Cost Distribution by Time Period-SAFSTOR

Decommissioning Cost (2000 Sthousands)

Period 1 Period 2 Period 3 Period 4 Duration

. (2.5 Years) (1.2 Years). (57.1 Years) (1.7 Years) (62.5 Years)

Planning & Plant Safe Storage Dismantle- Total

Decommissioning Activity, Preparation Deactivation Operations ment Cost

Radioactive Component Removal______

RPV Intemals 0 1.227 0 0 1,227

Reactor Pressure Vessel and Insulation 0 0 0 287 287

Sacrificial Shield 0 0 0 1,177 1,177

Recirculation Pumps 0 0 0 25 25

RCS Piping 0 0 0 1,635 1.635

RCS Piping Insulation 0 0 0 0 0

Main Turbine 0 0 * 0 382 382

Main Turbine Condenser 0 0 0 776 776

Moisture Separator Reheaters 0 0 0 188 188

Feedwater Heaters 0 0 0 104 104

Turbine Feed Pumps 0 0 0 21 21

Structural Beams, Plates. Cable Trays 0 0 0 691 691

Spent Fuel Racks 0 0 0 1.298 1,298

Subtotal 0 1,227 0 6,585 - 7812

Decontamination and Dismantlement

Decontamination of Site Buildings 0 20.811 715 428 21,954

Removal of Contaminated Plant Systems 0 0 [ 14, 687 14,687

Subtotal 0 20,811 715 15,116 36,642

Management and Support

SupportStaff 1.336 26.154 101,702 9,171 138,364

DOC Staff 7.579 0 3,032 17.694 28,305

Consultants/Other Staff 0 0 0 190 - 190

Termination Survev Costs 0 0 0 1.661 I 1,661

Regulatory Costs 561 677 22.378 959 24.575

Special Tools and Equipment 5.374 0 0 0 5,374

Environmental Monitoring Costs 0 92 4.123 130 4,344

Laundry Services 0 826 981 1,843 3.651

'Maintenance Allowance 0 0 1.465 0 1.465

Small Tools and Minor Equipment 0 25 0 430 454

Nuclear Liability Insurance 0 5,016 3,199 | 61997

Property Taxes 0 0 0 0 0

DOC Mobilization/Demobilization Costs 0 0 0 4 |4,144

Chemical Decontamination 0 328 0 0 328

Plant Power Usage 0 1,566 685 2.219 4.471

- Subtotal 14,850 34,684 188,150 41,640 279,324

LLW Packaging 0 217 38 5.467 5,722

LLW Shipping 0| 1,089 26 418| 1,534

LLW Burial/Waste Vendor 0 18,064 270 172,768 191,103

Total 1 14.850 76.092 3 q

-

____uzm

32
c) The reviewer should compare the licensee's estimates with the tabulations of typical

waste volumes, packaging costs, shipping costs, and burial costs for the 'reference

PWR and the reference BWR (see NUREG/CR-5884'and NUREG/CR-6174) as

shown in Tables 17 and 18 below. The most recent update of NUREG-1307 includes

a discussion and analysis of recently-used waste volume reduction technologies.

This analysis includes an option that assumes the utilization of waste vendors to

process limited amounts of LLW that meets certain specifications. The updated

NUREG-1307 also give the latest radioactive waste disposal unit costs and

adjustment factors for waste burial at other licensed disposal sites. -

Table 17. Typical Waste Burial Cost and Volumes-Reference PWR

Waste Volume Packaging Cost Shipping Cost Burial Cost

Decommissioning Activity ; (t) (2000 S millions) (2000 S millions) (2000$ millions)

DECON

Removal of NSSS 123,700 1.38 5.22 49.00

Removal of Contaminated Plant ' 75,500 1.14 ' ' 0.28 - 25.52

Decontamination of Site Buildings 72,500 1.00 0.28 19.25

Dry Active Waste 19,500 0.11 0.06 4.74

Total 291,200 3.63 5.84 98.52

SAFSTOR l

Removal of NSSS 123,700 1.38 5.22 47.71

Removal of Contaminated Plant 75,500 1.14 0.28 25.33

Decontamination of Site Buildings 72,500 1.00 0.28 19.25

Dry Active Waste 19,500 0.11 0.06 4.74

Total 291,200 3.63 5.84 97.03

Table 18. Typical Waste Burial Cost and Volumes-Reference BWR

Waste Volume Packaging Cost Shipping Cost Burial Cost

Decommissioning Activity (ft) (2000 S millions) (2000 S millions) (2000 S millions)

DECON

Removal of NSSS 293,200 3.04 1.37 113.85

Removal of Contaminated Plant 149,000 2.06 0.07 53.77

Decontamination of Site Buildings 57,700 0.42 0.08 16.48

Other Dry Active Waste 34,200 0.19 0.02 8.74

Total 534,100 5.72 1.53 192.84

SAFSTOR

Removal of NSSS 293,200 3.04 1.37 113.81

Removal of Contaminated Plant 149,000. 2.06 0.07 52.07

Decontamination of Site Buildings 57,700 0.42 0.08 16.48

Other Dry Active Waste 34,200 0.19 0.02 8.74

Total [ 534,100 | 5.72 | 1.53 191.10

d) The reviewer should compare the licensee's schedule of decommissioning activities

with the schedules shown in Figures 2 and 3 to ensure sufficient level of detail to

33
I

determine the task scheduling, task durations, and labor requirements for

decommissioning activities.

Figure 1. Schedule of Activities During Reference BWR Deactivation (Period 2)

LaborHours tr l,2000 Otr2,2000 Chtr3.2000 hr 4A.2000 Otrt .2001 Qtr 22001 Qtr3.201

58,41! | - ==mm ReatorDeactivation

,92 F Conduct rdation survey for baseline for chemical decontnation d sysems

_9 ,s'77."177 777 Perform chemical decontamination

5,76 Deactatepport Systems

21,64 = J Cut, internaes

_ .011 _ _ _ Drain, decontaminate dryer separator pool

___ __ __ 3 , Treat, release water from RPV, dryer separator

10,08 ( F = I *i Package radioactive wastes

34
Lsbor HounI Otr 1. 2004 1r02.2004 I O 3.204 Or 4. 2004 Olr I, 2005 1 Otr 2, 2005 JOr3, 2 I Otr 4. 2005 Otr 1.206

1s3.77 m iiRetrBuilding tt.9r0 ctm Sor my _airr 

_ _ __teriIa"M _ l l

4.000 1,_. -Rnov. decrntamIrra. p rage .p.r fuel a 

4,032 - Dn.rai, pres pSp huol pod .r |

1.749 Ros lud o g Sy I

60 e i MdaIg r

I63 |nb123t. remove. package spn bl pod

29,863 s ; . Remove i RC_ pi g andequlpnre

12.178 R rcel _ drtve tod system

5,073 _ egmeS4ard pca e r pr

3,600 Remove af hleld

74, Reo7 5 system piping aW haner

2,738 Remove ctnt drywell .Iternal ebuchwes

7.76 Reoother systems In reactor btdfdfl¶l

13.910 . Decontariate, rmove drains,vte

1.162 Vacuunm, wasi biding arfacee

5,057 s Remove contamnated concasta arfacee

77E Reoe, decontaminate brdge cre

2.9v . emove HVAC tucts, nd equipmernt

Labor Hours Ot 1. 2004 Otr 2. 2004 aOrr 3.2004 4t004 Otr 1. 2005 rxr 2. 2005 QV3.2005 0r4.2005 atr 1,2006

89.507 W i _ T ue Brdbng

7.040 s mov em5 e t_ I ."896 * T T_ -sIilm Remo e 9egn rr__ 

12.54 Remove tur xe condenee

3.456 Remove moisture tor r

1.920 r" Remove fJedwer Newsr

1,612 R e feedwater condensate system

3Remove feeieta pumpsetuxrw dr&ves

800 Decontaminate buding crane In situ

2-9403 Deco 1newlrts remove drains

I I - 160 Vaum was surfaces

4 t Remove contminated concrete

304Remove HVAC dumcts ad equlImn

Labor Hours Otr 1.2004 Otr2.2004 JOr3 2004 10tr4,2004 051. 2005 1Otr2.2005 05Xr3,2005 lOl 4.2005 i13.2C06 Ot 

78,244 _ 7 R a S I Control Building

2.16tC Process cemawaste

3.12e Rov oralizer systentm

2.34__ _emove a"g an standby gas treatment system

3.68*3rw- 3,E8C .i - sta n and eagcontrol ytenu

.20r1. Remove other syatama, Piping, and hangers

_.53 rl | Reove contaminated drains I a 1,77t III , ., i1rwnv, decontamInate 1lUter/ldmenerahzer crane

_.RemII I Ia

710 truckcont loadirn and radwasta storage cranes In aO

_ 1.5 Rell move conterninsted uaces, 1I04I

61tRem HVAC rts a equipment

ILabor ours Olr 1. 2D4 |tr 2.2004 |tr03.2004 |tr 4.2004 |Otr I, 200S |r 2.200 ZS |3,2005 |Otr 4. 200 05O 1. 200E

15.240 Uicarua Tenmination Suv

| 3270| Oter aucturee eA ea

| 2.270 | _ R w___ t end e cst ontrol uidIkng

* Turbine genretr building

3.100, i Reecir btAiding

Figure 2. Schedule of Activities During Reference BWR Dismantlement (Period 4)

35
e) The reviewer should compare the licensee's estimated labor needs and labor costs

by time period with those shown below in Table 19 for the reference PWR and

reference BWR (see NUREG/CR-5884 and NUREG/CR-6174) for both

decommissioning scenarios, DECON and SAFSTOR. Labor needs (in person-years

per period) and labor costs (in millions of 2000 dollars) are grouped into two labor

categories, decommissioning crews and management/support staff.

Table 19. Labor Needs and Labor Costs

Labor Needs (person-yrs) and Labor Costs (2000 $millions)

Period 1 (aPeriod ( 2 Period3 ( Period 4 (LaTotal

(Labor (Labor (Labor (Labor (Labor (Labor (Labor (Labor (Labor (Labor

Need) Cost' Need) Cost) Need) Cost) Need) Cost) Need) Cost)

PWR DECON

Decommissioning Crews 0.0 0.0 16.0 23.2 0.0 0.0 122.0 22.2 138.0 45.4

Management/Support Staff 55.5 8.5 112.7 9.4 42.9 4.5 169.0 26.2 380.1 48.6

Total 55.5 8.5 128.7 32.7 42.9 4.5 290.9 48.4 518.1 94.1

PWR SAFSTOR

Decommissioning Crews 0.0 0.0 16.0 23.2 2.1 1.2 119.9 21.0 138.0 45.4

Management/Support Staff 55.5 8.5 112.7 9.4 936.9 71.2 181.0 26.2 1,286.0 115.3

Total 55.5 8.5 128.7 32.7 938.9 72.4 300.9 47.2 1,424.0 160.8

BWR DECON

Decommissioning Crews 0.0 0.0 16.7 22.0 0.0 0.0 168.7 22.4 185.4 44.5

Management/Support Staff 55.5 8.9 219.6 26.2 27.5 3.8 176.6 27.2 479.2 66.1

Total 55.5 8.9 236.3 48.2 27.5 3.8 345.3 49.7 664.6 110.5

BWR SAFSTOR

Decommissioning Crews 0.0 0.0 16.7 22.0 1.3 0.7 167.3 21.7 185.4 44.5

Management/Support Staff 55.5 8.9 219.6 26.2 960.9 104.7 191.8 28.7 1,427.8 168.5

Total 55.5 8.9 236.3 48.2 962.2 105.4 359.2 50.4 1,613.2 213.0

f) The reviewer should compare the licensee's estimate of radwaste volumes with the

approximate estimates made in the reevaluated analyses of the NRC reference

reactors (see NUREG/CR-5884 and NUREG/CR-6174). Those analyses assumed

no significant volume reductions and used waste containers, transportation and

waste burial rates typical for 1993. The distribution range of waste burial volumes

by waste classes A, B & C, and greater than class C (GTCC) are shown below in

Table 20. The table displays the combined volume of classes B & C. All Class A

and B & C wastes are assumed to be disposed at licensed LLW burial sites with

GTCC waste being stored in a licensed geologic repository.

36
Table 20. Burial Volumes by Waste(a)

Reference PWR - Reference BWR

Waste Class Volume (P) Percent Volume (ft3) j Percent

Class A 280,900 96.5 514,900 96.4

Class B&C 9,900 3.4 19,200 3.6

GTCC 400 0.13 200 0.04

Total [ 291,200 | 100.0 | 534,100 | 100.0

(a) Untreated (prior to volume reduction) volumes.

(5) Evaluation Findings

Using the acceptance criteria in C.3(3) and the review procedure in C.3(4) of this section as

a basis, the NRC staff reviewer shall verify that sufficient information has been provided to

satisfy the requirement of the underlying regulations (10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iii) or 10 CFR

50.75(b)). The SSCE shall be considered deficient if (1) the decommissioning cost

estimate is less than the financial assurance amount required by 10 CFR 50.75(c) and

adequate justification is not provided, (2) the reviewer cannot verify that all the information

identified under the Acceptance Criteria has been provided, or (3) in the reviewer's

judgment the SSCE submitted does not appear reasonable based on a comparison with

the information provided from the reference PWR or BWR, considering the variation in

plant sizes and decommissioning techniques. If deficiencies are discovered, the reviewer

should provide this information to the NRC project manager for the plant. The NRC project

manager will inform the licensee in writing of the additional information that is needed to

ensure that the SSCE can be adequately evaluated. The reviewer documents the findings

of his/her review of the SSCE in a memorandum to his/her branch chief with a copy to the

NRC project manager for the plant.

(6) Implementation

The method described in this SRP will be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with

the NRC's regulations, except when the licensee proposes an acceptable alternative for

complying with specified portions of the regulations.

4. LICENSE TERMINATION PLAN UPDATED SITE-SPECIFIC COST ESTIMATE

According to 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(ii)(F), a licensee must submit "[a]n updated site-specific

estimate of remaining decommissioning costs..." as part of an LTP. According to

10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(i), among other things, the licensee must submit the LTP at least 2

years before termination of the license. The estimated remaining costs of

decommissioning must be compared with the present funds set aside for decommissioning.

The financial assurance instrument required per 10 CFR 50.75(b)(1) must be funded at

least to the amount of the cost estimate. If there is a deficit in present funding, the LTP

must indicate the means for ensuring adequate funds to complete the decommissioning.

Information on the preparation of an LTP may be found in Regulatory Guide 1.179,

"Standard Format and Content of License Termination Plans for Nuclear Power Reactors"

37
and NUREG-1700, "Standard Review Plan for Evaluating Nuclear Power Reactor License

Termination Plans." NUREG-1700, "Update of Site-Specific Costs' addresses the

information necessary to support the cost estimate. The update of the site specific costs

may be in summary form provided the supporting information had been previously

submitted and is referenced. The supporting information may have been submitted as part

of the SSCE or the expected cost estimated submitted with the PSDAR.

Licensees who plan to use a period of storage or surveillance (SAFSTOR) are required by

10 CFR 50.82(a)(8)(iv) to provide a means of adjusting cost estimates and associated

funding levels over the period of storage or surveillance. If the time period covered by the

updated SSCE includes a period of SAFSTOR, the reviewer should ensure that the

licensee has included a description of its means of adjustment in the updated SSCE. The

cost estimate reviewer should consult with a financial assurance reviewer to determine if

the means described by the licensee provide adequate assurance that funds will be

available for decommissioning activities at the time they are needed. Cost estimates

associated with requests for license termination under restricted release conditions and for

entombment will be handled on a case-by-case basis.

(1) Review Responsibilities

Primary-Division of Waste Management, Office of Nuclear Material Safety and

Safeguards

Secondary-Financial Reviewer, Financial and regulatory Analysis Section, Reactor Policy

and Rulemaking Branch, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs, Office of Nuclear

Reactor Regulation, or as assigned.

(2) Areas of Review

This SRP directs the staff's review of the "an updated site-specific estimate of remaining

decommissioning costs" that is required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(ii)(F) as part of an LTP.

The intent of this cost estimate is to provide the NRC with an up-to-date site-specific

estimate of remaining decommissioning costs to terminate the license. A complete SSCE

will have been submitted within 2 years following permanent cessation of operations.

(3) Acceptance Criteria

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(i), a licensee must submit its LTP at least 2 years

before termination of the license. The LTP submittal must be a supplement to the final

safety analysis report (FSAR) or equivalent. In accordance with 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(ii)(F),

the LTP must contain "an updated site-specific estimate of remaining decommissioning

costs...."

The LTP cost estimate should contain, for those activities remaining to be completed, an

updated, equally detailed version of the site-specific estimate previously submitted to and

accepted by the NRC. The updated cost estimate in the LTP should include the following

items:

* Estimated costs of remaining radiological decontamination activities

* Estimated costs of dismantling remaining contaminated equipment and structures

38
* Estimated costs for disposal of remaining radioactive waste

* Estimated final survey costs and license termination survey costs

* If the site is released for restricted use, the estimated costs for controls and a

description of the financial assurance mechanisms used to ensure the availability of

funds when they are needed

A licensee may include nondecommissioning costs in its LTP for information purposes.

However, if the licensee does so, such costs should be clearly identified as costs in

addition to decommissioning costs.

(4) Review Procedures

The reviewer will use the following process to determine that the submitted LTP

decommissioning cost estimate considers, in adequate detail, all major factors that could

affect the total remaining cost to decommission.

The reviewer should review the LTP decommissioning cost estimate to determine if it is

sufficiently detailed to allow the reviewer to assess its adequacy. To make this

assessment, the reviewer should confirm that the cost estimate is provided in current year

(estimate year) dollars and that escalation of the LLW disposition costs is considered

separately from the general inflation rate applicable to labor, material, and energy costs.

The reviewer should be aware of the escalation rates used in the current revision of

NUREG-1 307. The reviewer should also confirm that the cost estimate accounts for the

entire decommissioning work scope, but not for items that are outside the scope of the

decommissioning process, such as the maintenance and storage of spent fuel in the spent

fuel pool, the design or construction of spent fuel dry storage facilities, or other activities

not directly related to the long-term storage, radiological D&D of the facility, or radiological

decontamination of the site.

The reviewer should ensure that (1) the licensee has identified the remaining

dismantlement activities that are necessary to complete the decommissioning of the

facility/site, as required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(ii)(B), and (2) the licensee has identified site

areas requiring remediation and has in place an organization to safely perform the

remediation as required by 10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(ii)(C). The licensee should have provided

costs for each of the following cost elements identified below.

Cost Elements

* Cost assumptions used, including a contingency factor

* Major remaining decommissioning activities and tasks

* Estimated costs of radiological decontamination and removal of remaining

radioactive equipment and structures

* Estimated costs of waste disposal, including applicable disposal site surcharges and

transportation costs

* Estimated final survey costs

* Estimated total costs

39
I .

The previous SRP for the SSCE gives further details on this analysis, including the specific

information that should have been provided and descriptions of the type of information and

anticipated values.

(5) Evaluation Findings

Using the acceptance criteria in-C.4(3) and the review procedures in C.4(4) of this section

as a basis, the NRC staff reviewer shall verify that sufficient information has been provided

to satisfy the requirements of the underlying regulations (10 CFR 50.82(a)(9)(ii)(F)). The

LTP decommissioning cost estimate shall be considered deficient if any of the costs listed

in the acceptance criteria are not adequately addressed. If deficiencies are discovered, the

reviewer should provide this information to the NRC project manager for the plant. The

NRC project manager will inform the licensee in writing of the additional information that is

required by the regulations before major decommissioning activities can begin. The

reviewer documents the findings of his/her review of the LTP decommissioning cost

estimate in a memorandum to his/her branch chief with a copy to the NRC project manager

for the plant. The review should be forwarded for inclusion in the LTP evaluation.

(6) Implementation

The method described in this SRP will be used by the staff in evaluating conformance with

the Commission's regulations, except when the licensee proposes an acceptable

alternative for complying with specified portions of the regulations.

40
D. REFERENCES

AIF/NESP-036, "Guidelines for.Producing Commercial Nuclear Power Plant

Decommissioning Cost Estimates," Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc., May 1986. ..- . .- *. .,,.-

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Monthly Labor Review," Table 24, U.S. Department of Labor,

Updated Periodically.

Bureau of Labor Statistics, "Producer Price Index," Table 6, U.S.- Department of Labor,

Updated Periodically.

DG-1 085, "Standard Format and Content of Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear

Power Reactors," Regulatory Guide, USNRC, November 2001.1

NUREG-0586, "Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissi6ning of Nuclear

Facilities, Supplement 1" USNRC, October 2002.2

NUREG-1307, "Report on Waste Disposal Charges: Changes in Decommissioning Waste

Disposal Costs at Low-Level Waste Burial Facilities," Rev. 9, USNRC, September 2000.2

NUREG-1577, "Standard Review Plan on Power Reactor Licensee Financial Qualifications

and Decommissioning Funding Assurance," Revision 1, USNRC, March 1999.2

NUREG-1700, "Standard Review Plan for Evaluating Nuclear Power Reactor License

Termination Plans," NUREG-1700, USNRC, April 2000.2

NUREG/CR-01 30, R. l. Smith, G. J. Konzek, and W. E. Kennedy, Jr.; "Technology, Safety

and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station"

(Prepared for the U.S. NRC by Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington), June

1978 (Addendum 1, July 1979; Addendum 2, July 1983; Addendum 3, September 1984;

Addendum 4, July 1988).2

NUREG/CR-0672, H. D. Oak et al., "Technology, Safety and Costs of Decommissioning a

Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station" (prepared for the U.S. NRC by Pacific

Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington), June 1980 (Addendum 1, July 1983;

Addendum 2, September 1984; Addendum 3, July 1988; Addendum 4, December 1990).2

NUREG/CR-5884, G. J. Konzek et al., "Revised Analyses of Decommissioning for the

Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station," (prepared for the U.S. NRC by

Pacific Northwest Laboratory, Richland, Washington), November 1995.2

' Single copies of regulatory guides may be obtained free of charge by writing the Reproduction and Distribution

Services Section, OCIO, USNRC, Washington, DC 20555-0001, or by fax to (301) 415-2289, or by email to

DISTRIBUTION@NRC.GOV. Copies of guides are available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public

Document Room at 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington,

DC 20555; telephone (301) 415-4737 or (800) 397-4209; fax (301) 415-3548; email PDR@NRC.GOV.

2Copies are available at current rates from the U.S. Government Printing Office, P.O. Box 37082, Washington, DC

20402-9328 (telephone (202) 512-1800); or from the National Technical Information Service by writing NTIS at 5285

Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161; http://www.ntisxiov/ordernow: telephone (703 )487-4650;. Copies are

available for inspection or copying for a fee from the NRC Public Document Room at 11555 Rockville Pike,

Rockville, MD; the PDR's mailing address is USNRC PDR, Washington, DC 20555; telephone (301) 415-4737 or

(800) 397-4209; fax (301) 415-3548; email is PDR@NRC.GOV.

41
NUREG/CR-6174, R. I. Smith et al., 'Revised Analyses of Decommissioning for the

Reference Boiling Water Reactor Power Station," (Prepared for the U.S. NRC by Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington), July 1996.2

Regulatory Guide 1.179, "Standard Format and Content of License Termination Plans for

Nuclear Power Reactors," USNRC, January 1999.1

Regulatory Guide 1.185, "Standard Format and Content for Post-Shutdown

Decommissioning Activities Report," USNRC, August 2000.1

42
NRC FORM 335 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

(94004) (Assigned by NRC. Add Vol. Suppj, Rev.

NRCUOD 3. and Addendum Nubenr, If any.)

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See Irstuctions on the reverse) NUREGC1713

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 3. DATE REPORT PUBUSHED

Standard Review Plan for Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors MONTH YEAR

December 2004

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

Clayton L. Pittiglio Final

7. PERIOD COVERED (Indlusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (ItNRCpriderOJin Orfce orRegion. U.S. NudearReguiatoyCormissn, m ndimla gaddesscontrador

provide name and Maing addressj

Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

i

I

I

I

I

I

I

i

i

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION -NAME AND ADDRESS (It NRC, ape 'Same as above contracdor, provide NRC Ddsion, Ofce or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regutatory Commission.

and maling addressj

Same as 8 above.

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

11. ABSTRACT (200 words orless)

This Standard Review Plan (SRP) for decommissioning cost estimates provides guidance to Office of Nuclear Reactor

Regulation (NRR) and Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) staff on how to evaluate each of the

decommissioning cost estimates that are required to be provided by the power reactor licensees. The SRP includes guidance

on evaluating decommissioning costs for both pressurized water reactors (PWRs) and boiling water reactors (BWRs). The

SRP is divided Into sections that are keyed to the sections In Regulatory Guide-1 085, "Standard Format and Content of

Decommissioning Cost Estimates for Nuclear Power Reactors," which was developed to provide guidance to licensees on

decommissioning cost estimates. Each section of this NUREG is a separate SRP and presents the areas of review,

acceptance criteria, review procedures, and evaluation findings for each of the decommissioning cost estimates required by

I0CFR50.75 and IOCFR50.82.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that wit assist resea rchers In ocatig the reporL) 13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Decommissioning, Cost Estimates, DECON, SAFSTOR, ENTOMB unlimited

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

(7his Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
INL Printed

on recycled

paper

Federal Recycling Program
NUREG-1713

FINAL

_1 . . I . . , . , , . _ .1. . I . . .. -

STANDARD REVIEW PLAN FOR DECOMMISSIONING COST ESTIMATES FOR

NUCLEAR POWER REACTORS

DECEMBER 2004

UNITED STATES

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20555-0001

OFFICIAL BUSINESS