e 9
DISMANTIING meme USNRC THE MYTHS ABOLT '85 MY-6 P3:00
'' - - 0FFICE CF SECRtiAi ! 00CKEltNG & SEPVlli ) "^"'" i DECOMMISSIO:NIN~G > |
|
<
,
Public Citizen Environmental Action !!!soggon eso303 April 1985 30 SoFRS600 ppg . . | ] : DISMA:NTLING ] THE MYTHS ABOLT = NUCIRAR
, DECOMMISSIOXING
.,
. ,
')
- ,
_.. ' .
. ' Sally Hindman Principal Researcher C Public Citizen / Environmental Action 1985
_ _ . _ . . - ______- ______. ______
. .
Acknowledgements We would like to thank the many utility and state regulatory commission smff members who provided state decommissioning policy data which has been used in this report. In addition we thank Federal Energy Regulatory Commission staff membem Al Der and Malcolm Bertsch and citizen activists Pat Agnello, Ernest Fuller, Cort Richard- son, and Carl Zichella, for their assistance in providing data. ( Special thanks to Environmental Action staff members Ruth Caplan for her excellent writing, editing, patience and perseverance throughout this project; Peter Anderson for his invaluable assistance; and Rick Morgan for his technical assistance, and to Public Citizen's Critical Mass Director Michael Totten for supervising and editing the report.
We also extend thanks to the following reviewers and advisors: David Albright, Bob Alvarez, David Berick, Jeff Bmmmer, Frank Cardile, Duane Chapman, Paul Chernick, Joan Claybrook, Alicia Culver, Kay Dmy, Carl Feldman, Steve Fetter, Michael Foley, Carl Goldstein, Keiki Kehoe, Charles Komanoff, Jim Lazar, Gene Mapes, Sheila Mayberry, Fred Millar, Christopher Meyers, Alan Nogee, Elliott Negin, Caterine Quigg, Marvin Resnikoff, Michael Slott, Richard Smith, Richard Udell, and Robert Wood.
Sally liindman was the principal researcher and prepared the initial draft report.
Ruth Caplan authored Chapter 6 and was the principal editor for the report. Chapter 8 is based on testimony presented before the NRC by Michael Totten on behalf of Public Citizen and Environmental Action. Bob Bullock co-authored an earlier draft of this report.
Andy Feeney assisted with editing. Others contributing to the production of the report include Brian Carney, Jan Pilarski, Christine Beekman, Beth Elliot, Ann llarter, John Kel- ly, Jeanne 1.2wson, Susan Lockwood, Paul Markowitz, Leslie Milofsky, Liz O'Donnell.
Richard Picardi provided equipment used in preparing the report.
.
- - _ _ _ _ _ . ______.______._.__.__m__ .._ _ - - - _ - - _ _- _ - _ _ - _ - - -
. .
0 .
Table of Contents ]
I List of Tables ...... 3
C hapter 1. Introduction ...... 5 ( Chapter 2. The Expenenm of No Expenena ...... 9
Chapter-3. Unexamined Cost Estimates: The Road to Rate Shock?...... 19
Chapter 4. Phantom Funding: The latest Utility Gold Mine...... 33 -
Chapter 5. The Myth of Immediate Dismantlement and Site Restoration...... 45
Chapter 6. National Non-Regulations and Non-Policies...... 53
Chapter 7. State Efforts: Too Little, Too late, But Better Than Nothing...... 55
Appendix A. Public Citizen's 1984 Decommissioning Survey...... 58
Appendix B. Licensed Commercial Nuclear Power Plants 1985...... 60
Appendix C. Diagram of a Pressurized Water Reactor Vessel...... 63
B ibHography ...... 65
1
_
_ - - ______. _ _ ._ -
. .
7
6
4
List of Tables .
(
Table Name Page ,
Table 1. Experimental and Demonstration Reactor Decommissioning History 13 Table 2. Inoperable Nuclear Power Generating Facilities 1985 14 ( ' Table 3. Commercial Power Generating Reactor Decommissioning Candidates 2005 15 Table 4. Decommissioning Policy Data for Licensed Commercial Nuclear Power Plants 16 1984 Table 5. NRC Total Estimated Costs of Possible De_ommissioning Choices for a PWR and 25 BWR 1983 Table 6. Ranges of Decommissioning Costs for Four Studies Using Immediate Dismantle- 26 ment { Table 7. Cost Overmns in Major Construction Projects Completed Between 195#-1977 28 Table 8. Generating Lives of Inoperable Nuclear Commercial Power Generating Reactors 28 1985 Table 9. Decommissioning Funding Data for inoperable Commercial Power Generating 29 ' Reactors 1984 Table 10. Decommissioning Studies Used in Ost Estimate Fonnulation 30 Table 11. Total U.S. Utility Estimated Decommmsioning Costs 1983 Verst i. Alternative Cost 31 Scenarios Table 12. Decommissioning Cost Estimates by State 1983 Versus liigh and Low Estimates 32 of Potential Costs Table 13. First Year Funds for Decommissioning Collected from Ratepayers 38 Table 14. Decommissioning Financing Methods for Nuclear Power Plants by State 1984 40 Table 15. Decommissioning Funds Collected by Principal Plant Owner Versus Estimated 41 Costs of Decommissioning by State 1984 Table 16. Decommissioning Methods Assumed for Ratemaking Purposes by State 1984 43 Table 17. Summary of Estimated Extemal Occupational Radiation Doses for fkcommission- 49 ing a Reference PWR Table 18. Estimated Burial Volumes. Weights, and Truckloads of Radioactive Material Using 50 Dismantlement for a Reference PWR . Table 19. Radioactivity levels in Major Activated Components at Time of Reactor Shutdown 51 Table 20. Decommissioning Altematives Practical with Onsite Waste Storage 52 Table 21. External Sinking Funding Policy Initiatives for Commercial Nuclear Power Plants 57 1984
3
______y . . -- ymi Ma -; -- A = -- 2 Chapter One n, Introduction 5 4 -t ; " 5 ft is unthinkable that the United States should continue. However. by the following year the electric utilities ~ nuclear power plant wnstruction without a national pro- themselves had begun to develop plans for decommissionmg ; gram ofiadioactice uuste disposal und decommissioning funds, subject to the approval of their state regulatory com- [L without a clear delineation of Federal. State, and pricute missions. Unfortunately, the development of state regulations g responsibility for uuste disposal and dewmmissioning, has been hampered by the absense of federal guidelines, since - and without a sense of urgency and priorrty on the part of states are concerned that their policies could be subsequently m goternment to address this growing problem. overturned by federal regulations. Jg in the absense of federal guidelines, the utilities have begun d -U. S. House of Representatives to address the physical methods to be used in decommission- 4 Committee on ing, their likely cost and methods of recovering these costs. But " Government Operations,1978, p.4 such laissez-faire development of private decommissioning policies, in the absence of strong government regulations, has % created a number of serious problems. For example, the three ? When Americans first visualized a nuclear future. most of us deccmmissioning methods currently allowed by the proposed 4 didn't think about reactors entering old age. We did not envi- NRC ruling, all have major financial .isks associated with _3 sion highly radioactive reactors sitting dormant on thousands them and may ultimately prove to be unsafe. Utility cost Z of acres of land, vulnerable to earthquakes and tornadoes for estimates for decommissioning are also extremely low. His 4 generations to come. We did not worry about people slipping may place an unfair burden on future ratepayers and endanger ' through the ring of barbed wire that is supposed to surround the financial viability of decommissioning itself. Finally, the _ retired reactors and carrying a burden of radioactivity back to most common methods of accumulating funds for decommis- 1! the outside world. sioning provide little assurance that the money collected will _5 Now, however, with accounts of children playing in pools of actually remain available for decommissioning, since utilities - toxic chemicals at Love Canal and knowledge of the near- are able to use the funds as a source of internal capital for ex- 3 meltdown at the Rree Mile Island nuclear plant, the possible pansion. W perils of long-term environmental contamination from toxics To further complicate the problem. there is no commonly Z and radi.oactivity have become clear. As a result, citizen accepted definition of decommissioning. because three very 1 organizations across the country have begun to grapple with different decommissioning methods have been described by ; the problem of what to do with nuclear waste. His report nuclear utilities and t! government. - concems one aspect of the problent what should be done with -Immediate dismantlement'is the most stringent approach. It g highly radioactive reactors which are no longer operating. Re involves radioactise decontamination of the site when the reac- 1 13 process for dealing with this problem is called -decommission- tor is retired. so that the site will meet NRC standards for 2 ing- general public use. He radioactive components are disman- - The first major action by citizens took place in 1977 when tied, including the reactor vessel itself, and are removed from y twelve national organizations questioned how utilities would the site. He NRC calls this method DECON. _- fund decommissioning. In a petition to the Nuclear Regulatory " Temporary storage" delays decommissioning by takmg - Commission (NRC), the groups urged that regulations be temporary measures, such as removing the radioactive fuel developed to require nuclear utilities to take financial respon- rods and flushing the pipes, which are intended to allow the g sibility for decommissioning in order to assure protection of idle reactor to be maintained within acceptable bounds for a Z future generations. He NRC agreed to develop regulations, a- period of years. Significant amounts of radiation cannot be ' process which has yet to be completed. In 1978. when Con- removed in this manner, however, because the components " gress held hearings on nuclear power costs, the long. neglected themsches become radioactive. as a result of neutron bom- = - issue of decommissioning came to public attention. He hear- bardment creating actisation products. After temporary -li ings examined financial costs and technical problems, storage, full dismantlement is to take place. De NCR calls this 3 establishing that inaction could lead to a potential crisis. SAFSTOR. ii Although some members of Congress appeared concerned. no -Entombment * simply requires that all radioactive com- 5 specific action was taken. ponents be encased in a semi. permanent chroud such as steel == -- ^$ 7 5 g 2 ' '
. - - . - ' ~
_ __ ......
.
reinforced concrete.after limited cleanup and decontamination. to provide adequate assurance of the availability of funds in 1he facility would have to be protected from public use for the event of prern .ture shutdown and utility financial crisis. thousands of years while natural radioactive decay takes place. We believe that prepayment held in segregated funds is the on- The NRC calis this ENTON1B. ly funding method which is adequate without decommission- Because some activation products remain dangerous for ing insurance to compensate for possible non-availability of hundreds of thousands of years. far outliving the housing of funds due to premature shutdown or utility financial crisis. the reactor itself or an entombment shroud, entombment is not External sinking funding was found by the NRC to provide a satisfactory decommissioning method from the point of view the next greatest assurance of the availability of funds for of public health and safety. Full decommissioning is essential. decommissioning. This method, however, is vulnerable in the How serious is the potential decommissioning problem? By event that premature shutdown is necessary. All five of today's the end of 1984,89 commercial nuclear power generating inoperable reactors experienced premature shutdown. units have received operating licenses in 28 states. Five of therefore,the NRC should require that the use of this method these are currently inoperable. Another 36 units are under be coupled with premature shutdown insurance. construction. By 2010, almost 70 reactors will be shut down. Intemal segregated funding was found to be vulnerable in Given current trends, however,it is likely that many of these the event of utility bankruptcy or other severe financial prob- units will be shut down prematurely, lems.1herefore, we recommend that,if this method is allowed 1he US. has no experience with decommissioning large at all,it should be combined with decommissioning insurance reactors such as those typically operating today. Nor have to cover utilities in the event of financial difficulties including other nations. For this reason,it is not easy to predict the dif- bankruptcy, as well as coverage for premature shutdown. ficulty of decommissioning. ti.e safety risks involved, or the Intemal unsegregated funding has been shown by the NRC costs. Re prob! cms yet to be fully understood include the to provide the least assurance that funds will be available risks of workers being exposed to high levels of radioactivity when needed. According to the NRC,this option is vulnerable during the decommissioning process and the sheer difficulty to any event or situation that significantly undermines the the industry may experience in breaking up very dense, ex. financial solvency of a utility.' tremely radioactive reactor vessels. Since no funds are physically set aside for decommissioning he disposal of large quantities of high-level and low-level when this method is used. unsegregated funding should not be radioactive waste material, including spent fuel rods. poses included as a method of financing. Rather, it serves as an ac- another major problem. At present, no permanent facility ex- counting procedure allowing utilities to acquire capital from ists which can safely handle spent fuel from commercial reac- ratepayers for plant construction, without having to compete tors. He US. Department of Energy (DOE) is only at the in the bond market. Utilities using this method hope to raise beginning of a long process required by law to select a perma- the funds needed for the task in 60-80 years when decommis- nent site for high level waste. %e disposal of low-level waste sioning takes place. %is is clearly not an acceptable financing poses physical and political problems given the expected option. volume and difficulty in classifying such waste. 2. Fund a major independent study of decommissioning costs Policy Recommendations and problems by the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment. Given the numerous unresolved policy issues which sur- round the topic of decommissioning,it is time for an end to the Battelle's study of the costs. safety and technology of decom- complacency which has pervaded the utilities, the NRC, and missioning is the only detailed, in-depth work to date on the public concerning this important part of the nuclear cycle. decommissioning a reference PWR and BWR. It has been Public Citizen and Environmental Action recommend the used, directly and indirectly, by a majority of utilities in following federal policies in order to insure that decommis- developing decommissioning cost estimates. sioning will be carried out in a safe and equitable manner- Unfortunately, the Battelle study may be heavily biased 1- , toward underestimating the costs and problems of decommis- C ji 1. Require prepayment of decommissioning costs held in sioning. Battelle Pacific Northwest laboratory is a member of segregated funds or external sinking funding with premature the Atomic Industrial Forum, the research and lobbying arm (X. N.J.h shutdown insurance. Exclude internal unsegregated funds as a of the nuclear industry, and has private contracts with electric QN financing option. utilities. Over 86 perrent of its work is for the Department of W y, .- Energy, which has actively promoted nuclear power. 4iA The NRC in its regulatory role is responsible for * ensuring To date there has been no major independent study of the that decommissioning is carried out so as to protect public costs, technology and safety of decommissioning nuclear health and safety.* The ability of a funding method to provide plants. We be!! eve that a detailed independent study of decom- * reasonable assurance" of the availability of funds for decom- missioning must be carried out in order to more accurately missioning when needed is a key factor in determining which determine (or verify) the costs and problems associated with financing methods are allowed by the NRC. this event. He Congressional Office of Technology Assess- In its study of decommissioning financing methods, the ment (OTA) should be designated to prepare an objective NRC found prepayment of decommissioning funds to provide assessment of decommissioning costs and risks, assuming the the greatest assurance of the availability of funds for decom- advisory panel has broad representation including indepen-
missioning. It was the or.ly method studied which was shown dent scientists and environmental and consumer advocates. .
6 a
. _ . . ______. . . - . .
, . d a .. _=
'- 4 M : 3. Require an Environmental Impact Statement as a decom. The NRC has not limited the number of years plants can j missioning prerequisite for each reactor, with full opportunity undergo temporary storage prior to dismantlement in its pro- , for public comment. posed regulations, even though a 30-50 year limit is suggested g in the discussion section. Nor has the EPA set standards R Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) an limiting this period to 100 years,as it had been expected to do. 'E environmental impact statement (EIS) is required for any He NRC argues that in setting such a time limit utilities will 1 Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the environ- be encouraged to delay dismantlement to meet this ceiling. We b ment.Re decommissioning of a reactor in order to return the believe there is no reason a utility should be allowed to wait 7 land to unrestricted public use is clearly an action with a more than fifty years to dismantle a reactor following its shut- , significant impact on the environment. Discussion of decom- down. Occupational exposure levels decrease gready and level -- mis sioning in an EIS should be required at two stages. off following a 30 year delay. Low-level waste volume reduc- 3 First, there should be discussion of decommissioning costs tion diminishes with a 50-year delay. Therefore, utilities - and avaihble methods in the EIS prepared at the time of the should be required to fully dismantle reactors after a max- # _ construction license, so that potential environmental impacts imum storage period of 50 years. [See Table 19 for half-lives g and the full cost of the nuclear alternative can be assessed of radionuclides present in major reactor components.] ~ before irreversible commitments are made to the technology. ; Second, a full EIS should be prepared at the time a utility 6. Exclude chemical decontamination wastes from low-level h submits its decommissioning plan to the NRC for approval. waste burial unless independent research clearly establishes -p Under the NRC proposed guidelines, this would occur near that low-level disposal is safe. ' the end of the operating life of the reactor. He EIS should 3 spell out available options regarding methods of decommis- Decontamination,a process comprised of running a highly " sioning and their environmental impacts. Given the potential corrosive solvent containing chelating agents through reactor g consequences for public health and safety and the piping systems, has been used in a number of rextors in re- % unavailability of the land if the plant is put in tempomry cent yeam to clean out radioactive 'emd." Decontamination d storage for 30-100 years, public input to the decision-making may be used prior to temporary storage, as well as dismantle- - process is essential at this stage. ment. j he NRC's proposed mie substitutes an environmental Utilities today bury wastes generated by decontamiretion in , assessment for an EIS, thus skirting the need to consider low-level waste burial grounds. Yet chelating agents present in i public comment in its decision-making process and attempting solvents have been suspected to be responsib!c for unex- ; to downgrade the environmental significance of decommis- pectedly rapid migration of radionuclides beyond the burial sioning, Such a policy runs counter to the Na+ional En. j trenches. __ vironmental Policy Act. Contrary to what the NRC proposes, No study to date has critically examined interactions be- Q there usually will be significant impacts associated with tween chelating agents and other low-level waste products. sin decommissioning. As such, the NRC's ger.aal mie should err he independent research assessment on decommissioning g on the side of safety by requiring an Environmental Impact costs and risks called for in recommendation two should in- 2 Statement in order to evaluate the different ways of mitigating clude an assessment of the problems associated with chelating 9 those impacts. agents. Until more is known about the interactions of chelating agents with other low level wastes, decontamination wastes f- 4. Reclassify decommissioning waste products and exclude should be excluded from low-level burial grounds. Instead, ? components with long lived activation products from low-level such waste should be stored in easily monitored above-ground e nuclear waste sites. facilities until such time as DOE has established a high-level 4 waste disposal facility or their safe disposal in low-level waste g At present, major reactor components have not been sites has been established with certainty. g classified as high-level or low-level nuclear waste. Com-
_ ponents which will have to be disposed of after dismantlement - irKlude the core shroud, lower core barrel, thermal neutron 7. Strengthen utility liability for decommissioning costs " shield pads, and upper and lower core grid pieces. All of these through legislation. -_ , , components contain nickle-59 and niobium-94 with half-lives of 20,000 and 80,000 years respectively. According to the A strong trend has developed in the last ten years toward 5 NRC, these components do not fall within the definition of fonnation of utility holding companies. This could result in the high-level waste. = holding company's assets being insulated from liability for i We believe radioactive wastes resulting from decommis- decommissioning. Ilolding companies may also spin off the a! sioning need to be carefully studied and reclassified. Certainly utility in a weakened state and, thereby, try to avoid liability i no wastes containing long-lived activation products such as for decommissioning. In order to guard against such future g ' nickel-59 or niobium 94 should ever be classified as low-level problems, federal kyislation is needed to make the parent waste and permitted to be buried at low level radioactive holding company liable for decommissioning costs. regardess waste landfills. of whether the utility is subsequently spun-off. g ,
5. Establish a 50 year limit on the temporary storage of reac- 8. Allow current tax deductions only for segregated decor imis- tors prior to dismantlement. sioning funds. Glii ;a3iR ' 7 5 | j |
| . , _ . _ . . . -
.. . - -
_ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ . . . . .
.
He Deficit Reduction Act of 1984 allows utilities to take a respected and prestigious health experts, including Dr. Ed- tax deduction for decommissioning costs only when a ward Radford, former chairman of the National Academy of segregated fund is used with no investment in utility assets or Sciences' Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing in associated holding company assets. Normally such deduc- Radiation (BEIR). It is a long overdue action to protect tions are allowed only when the expense is incurred, in this workers' health and safety. This is an especially timely step to case when actual decommissioning takes place. He utilities take as the NRC moves to establish comprehensive decom- want a tax deduction of unsegregated funds as well, even missioning guidelines. though they would use the funds to invest in new utility assets such as powerplants. 12. Establish residual radiation level at a maximum of 10 We rrcommend that such deductions continue to be al- millirems full body dose at plants released for " unrestricted * lowed only for segregated funds with no investment allowed in use. holding company assets. %is protects ratepayers from having to pay for utility tax expenses on the decommissioning funds he NRC has not included a residual radioactivity standard when the utility will eventually be eligible for a tax deduction, in the l'ebruary proposed rule, stating that the standard is be- ing developed in a separate rulemaking action. %e Commis- 9. Revise decommissioning cost estimates at least every five sion is expected to propose a 50 millirem full body dose per s years. year standard, hoping that, by setting ALARA (As Low As Reasonably Achievable) at a 10 millirem level, this is what Present decommissioning cost estimates are extremely un- will actually be achieved. His is not acceptable. Only when derstated and are likely to be inaccurate by a large margin. he the 10 millirem limit is set as a federal standard will there be NRC, although encouraging * periodic' update of cost adequate enforcement of the standarti. estimates, has established no explicit time frame for cost estimate revisions. Yet as plants grow closer to the end of their operating lives and as experience provides more information In addition to these recommendations for federal action, we about decommissioning costs, these estimates are bound to in- recommend the following state actions- crease. We believe cost estimates should be reviewed and updated 1. Make utility stockholders responsible for decommissioning on a regular basis, at least every five years,in order to ensure costs not collected from ratepayers during the operating life of the highest degree of equity to ratepayers and to assure that plant. adequate funds are being collected. A fundamental principle of utility regulation is that la Prohibit entombment as a decommissioning method. ratepayers benefitting from the electricity produced by a plant should bear its costs. Yet most utilities accrued few, if any, Entombment woulc allow a plant, including its radioactive funds for decommissioning during the first ten years of plant components, to be covered over with steel enforced concrete operation. Even now the average industry estimated cost of and left for eternity. Studies carried out by nuclear physicists decommissioning is only $66 million. Yet the preliminary cost Resnikoff and Pohl found that the nickel-59 and niobium-94 estimates for partially dismantling the 72-megawatt Shipping- present in reactor vessels would be radioactive for thousands port reactor are already $79 million. of years, well beyond the life of any concrete structure. At llumboldt Bay, Indian Point 1, Dresden 1, San Onofre, Although entombment is no longer deemed a viable decom- and %ree Mile Island 2 ratepayers never benefitting from elec- missioning altemative for commercial reactors, the NRC has tricity produced by plants already suffer from the inequity of not explicitly prohibited this method in its decommissioning paying decommissioning costs for reactors which shut down rule-making, Utilities clearly want this option to remain open. prematurely. This will ultimately be the case with every reac- Four plants are currently scheduled for entombment for tor unless costs of decommissioning are soon Icarned. ratemaking purposes, accwding to results of Public Citizen's We believe utilities should not be allowed to collect money decommissioning survey. in their rates to decommission plants which are no longer We recommend that the NRC explicitly prohibit the use of operable. Stockholders should be required to pay any decom- entombment in order to assure that utilities will not use this missioning costs not accounted for during the operating life of cheaper method when the true costs of full dismantlement are plants. wh known.%is would be consistent with the NRC's definition of decommissioning contained in the proposed rule which re- 2. Require prepayment of external segregated funds in the quires release of the property to unrestricted use. event the NRC fails to make this national policy.
11. Reduce the maximum permissible level of radiation ex. He proposed rule fails to select the appropriate method of posure to nuclear workers at least ten fold and establish a collecting decommissioning funds. If the NRC fails to require worker registry that monitors radiation exposures for all reac. utilities to adopt the most reliabie funding ~ methods, state tor workers, both permanent and temporary. regulators should protect the interest of their ratepayers by re- quiring prepayment or extemal segregated funds for reactors his recommendation is consistent with that of a number of licensed in their state.
8
. . _ . . . ,
. . . .
. . I$ .a ;i- !* i : ,2 ; - Chapter Two t |: The Experience of No Experience !;
-
! ' Becunse of differences in reactor si:e. type and design. ing. Data from these reactors. along with simulation models - operating time. licensing regreirements. motice for installa- developed from experiments using shipbuilding equipment. t tion of the facility. and conditions of concern ley. costs. have been extrapolated by Battelle for large reactors. | sistutdown radiation letels. amounts of radioactice uuste). Dr. Duane Chapman. an economist at Cornell University. y extmpolationsfrom tisese experiences to large commercial has pointed out the inadequacy of these data. Chapman ' - reactors are considered to be genemlly unreasonable. estimates that Elk River. with a 62.5% utilization of design
[ capacity.ran for the equivalent of 48 megawatt-years? By con- I
_ Report of Battelle Pacific trast. a hypothetical 1.000-megawatt power plant with a 62%
- Northwest Laboratory 1978, average capacity utilization operating for 30 years will end its . !- p. 3-1. (1) useful life after 18.600 megawatt years of operation. (7) ! De length of operation is critical to assessing decommis- # sioning. Chapman notes -Rere would seem to be little basis . g. h- !; By 1976. when the data for this Battelle report was for understanding problems related to long-lived radioactive 2kW gathered. more than 60 nuclear reactors in the United States isotopes of plutonium. nickel. and niobium [from Elk River] M$j had been decommissioned or were in the process of being because the accumulation of such radioactive materials is jf.3 ' -' decommissioned. While this would appear to provide the in- directly related to length of operations.-(8) Because disposing M, - dustry with substantial experience in decommissioning reac- of these long-lived radioactive isotopes is one of the most - M..R tors. the reality is quite different. Most of these were research troubling problems plaguing the decommissioning process. Mt'% reactors and all of them were tiny compared with today's Elk River is an unreliable -best model for estimating the - typical 1.000-megawatt nuclear power plants. In fact. no nation future decommissioning costs of today's reactors. %,i, ' N # ., + . - currently has the experience needed to assess the technical Battelle Pacific Northwest Labaratory. the major NRC con- ifjd problems of decommissioning large reactors and to estimate tractor studying decommissioning has reached conclusions T- 1 ; future costs. that converge with Chapman's. In a study of pressurized water hy.> ;- " Table I summarizes this country's total decommissioning reactors (PWR's). one of the two major reactor designs. Bat- 4 . J. i experience to date. Taken from the research of Lear and telle points to the nation's limited decommissioning experience W Erickson cited in the Batelle report. the table shows 65 li- during the last two decades. De study notes:-Because of dif- k*Y.Q. M1 : censed nuclear reactors where decommissioning was planned. ferences in reactor size. type and design. operating time. licens- .- ( .4 in process or completed. for the period 1%0 through ing requirements. motive for installation of the facility, and ?.jQ % - mid-1976. Of these. 52 are research reactors and another is a conditions of concerns (e.g. costs. shutdown radiation levels, y Q . nuclear ship. Only five are power reactors. (2) Furthermore. amounts of radioactive waste). extrapolations from these ex- i i! the dismantled reactors range in power ratings from less than periences to large commercial reactors are considered to be k., y% = 1 megawatt to just 22 megawatts. (3) generally unreasonable? (9) Tr ' * i _ Of the 65 rextors listed in the table.13 reactors still have One additional nuclear facility the Saxton Nuclear Ex- Qg .'.h not been dismantled but are instead entombed or in tem- perimental Facility in Saxton. Pennsylvania. was placed in tem- %J% i porary storage. (4) Of the 52 research reactors. 42 have been porary storage in 1972. It is scheduleci to be dismantled in hV;Q ' fully dismantled. while the remaining 10 are either partially 1997 by its operator. General Public Utilities Nuclear. the dismantled or still in the planning stage. (5) reluctant owner of the crippled Bree Mile Island No. 2 reac- ~J R,r' ~ Wj; |= De 22-megawatt Elk River unit is the largest reactor tor. This 7 megawatt plant operated commercially for only 10 9g - dismantled thus far. it was dismantled in 1974 after only four years. In addition to its small size and short lifespan. Saxton ? - J;,%, ; i= years of operation. Data on how much power it generated or used plutonium rather than uranium, as a fuel. (10) Rese fac- hyn : a on how much it was running during those four short years and tors make Saxton of littic use as a model for estimating future - MM- '- at what power level (capacity utilization) are unavailable. (6) decommissioning costs. Nevertheless. Elk River serves as our best decommissioning Some utilities have used the ratio of original cost to decom- , t r model to date. Its dismantling. along with that of the tiny missioning cost of these small reactors as a basis for - research reactors decommissioned in the 1960s and 1970s. estimating the probable expense of dismantling their much - provides our only actual experience with full decommission- larger reactors. Bis approach is of highly questionable validi-
'" 1 : ( . m 9 ( '
5'
_ _ _ _, 5
------i . - _ _ - - _ _
.
ty because of wide variation in costs. For instance, Peter Skin- radioactive disposal sites now being established by states. ner, with the New York Office of the A+torney General, has Such large, highly contaminated units would be candidates for found that the dismantlement costs for Elk River were 28 per- deep geologic waste disposal, but it is doubtful that the cent of the original facility costs. (11) llowever, the expected Department of Energy (DOE) will design shafts with such dismantlement costs for Saxton, a $6 million reactor, are now sizes in mind. estimated at around $12 million-200 percent of the original At a time when the nuclear utilities are in critical need of capital costs. (12) decommissioning experience, the U.S. govemment is spending $79 million ($1987) to decommission a nuclear reactor and Inoperable Reactors employing a method which cannot be used for large reactors. In doing so. DOE is virtually throwing away the opportunity As shown in Table 2, six commercial-scale reactors in the to develop a valid model for future decommissioning efforts. United States are currently inoperable. With one exception, He estimated cost of the Shippingport decommissioning is their owners are postponing the day wben they will be decom- about 12 percent of its cost of construction during the 1950's, missioned. Such delay means utilities will not have the ex- according to the Committee for Energy Awareness.(17) CEA perience needed to develop sound cost estimates and increases does not provide a cost estimate if the reactor were to be fully the likelihood that utilities will not set aside adequate funds dismantled. for future decommissioning. Without such information, rate- payers may face a mult: billion-dollar rate shock," when Ihnnirldt Bay decommissioning on a commercial scale actually begins-probably after the tum of the century. He ilumboldt Bay No. 3 reactor in California has been closed since July,1976. Its owner and operator, Pacific Gas and Shippingport Electric Co. (PG&E), petitioned the Nuclear Regulatory Com- mission in 1983 for permission to decommission the plant in %e Department of Energy's 72-megawatt Shippingport 1985. reactor in Pennsylvania has been inoperable since October But despite the demands of local citizen organizations that 1982, and is the one reactor currently stated for decommis- the reactor be fully dismantled PG&E plans to put llumboldt sioning. Both DOE and the Committee for Energy Awareness Bay in temporary storage.(18) He preliminary cost for this is (CEA), the nuclear industry's public relations agency, are estimated at $16 million, calculated in 1983 dollars. (19) The presenting Shippingport as a model case of decommissioning total expense to PG&E ratepayers by the year 2000 is which will provide the industry with valuable experience estimated to be about $76 million, again in 1983 dollars. (20) needed in future decommissioning efforts.(13) Shippingport's At only 65 MW,ilumboldt Bay is less than one-tenth the size size-larger than any other reactor yet decommissioned-and of most reactors operating today. the fact that work on it will begin in 1985 both add credence to such claims. Ilowever, there is evidence that DOE is throwing Dresden away its best chance to learn from Shippingport by choosing a decommissioning method that maximizes short-term economic Commonwealth Edison Cols 209-megawatt Dresden 1 efficiency at the expense of long-term information gain. rextor has been shut down since 1978. %c plant was Dismantlement of the reactor vessel poses a key cost prob- chemically decontaminated in September,1984, following lem and technokigical and safety challenge for decommission. Commonwealth Edison's August decision to retire the reactor. ing teams because it is the most highly radioactive component. He utility is likely to place the unit in temporary storage, until Nevertheless, DOE does not plan to dismantle the Shipp. its sister units, Dresden 2 and 3, also become inoperable. (21) ingport reactor vessel at all. Instead, the agency plans to cover the relatively small vessel with core ete in order to contain its Indian Point radiation, then float it by barge to llanford, Washington for burial. (14) Consolidated Edison Cols Indian Point No. I was shut Unfortunately, the larger reactor vessels of 1,000 MW reac- down in 1974. llowever,it is not scheduled for full decommis- tors operating today are unlikely to be good candidates for sioning until Indian Point 2 is also decommissioned sometime barge transport or for burial in radioactive landfills. According around 2006. to an October,1984, article in Engineering Netes-Rccord. - only 10 other reactors could be removed that way. We rest Three .Ude Island Na 1 and 2 will have to be cut apart remotely and trucked to disposal sites.* (15) De damaged Three Mile Island Unit 2 reactor in Penn. In addition to the cost of barging the reactor intact (if indeed sylvania has been closed since 1979. Its owner, General Public a barge could accomodate the weight), the high levels of Utilities, has no schedule for reopening the plant until the radioactivity generat(d over the 30-year life of a large commer- cleanup of its interior is completed, probably in 1988. Its sister cial reactor would likely cause problems in complying with unit,%ree Mile Island Unit 1, has also been closed since 1979 shipping classification standards, probably making barge and remains shut due to questions that regulators have raised transport impossible. (16) And even if such a vescel could be about management integrity. barged,it would not qualify for disposal in regional low-level A number of other opcrating reactors are currently nearing
10
__ _ _
, .
the end of their useful life, and may soon be candidates for sonal communication,15 August and 13 December 1983. decommissioning. Table 3 lists the nation's oldest reactors and 11. Skinner 1977. some of their vital statistics. 12. Burns and Ra 1981:1-3, Ernest Fuller (Concemed Citizens for SNEC Safety), personal communication,15 August 1983. 13. U.S. Committee for Energy Awareness 1984. Footnotes, Chapter 2 14. Ibid. 15. Engineering News. Record 1984:27. 1. Smith, et al.1978a:3-1. 16. Physical difficulty in removing an intact PWR reactor 2. Ibid 3-2-3-3. vessel: Wittenbrock 1982. Dr. Carl Feldman has described ex- 3. Ibid:3-4-3-5. tremely high radioactivity and cost as making this option dif- 4. U.S. NRC 1978:12, also cites these reactors as yet to be ficult. Dr. Carl Feldman (NRC), personal communication, 5 dismantled. June 1984. 5. GPU Nuclear 1983. 17. U.S. Committee for Energy Awareness 1984. 6. Chapman 198053. 18. Nuclar Free Times 1983a-9. 7. Ibid. 19. Savage 1983:8.
, 8. Ibid. 20. Nuclear Free Times 1983b:8. ' 9. Smith, et al 1978a 3-L 21. Jim Tascas (Commonwealth Edison Co.), personal com- 10. Ernest Fuller (Concemed Citizens for SNEC Safety), per- munication,18 July 1983.
I
11
- _ _ _ _ _ e 5
12 . ______
Table 1. Experiments nd Demonstration Reactor Dw m dssioning History
* . .
Reactor Reactor ProtectAve f' Facility Reactor Thermal Type of Monitoring Storage and Location Type Rating, MW (a) Decomunissiong System Measures
CVfR Pressure tube 65.0 Mothballing Periodic sur- Welded closure, Parr,5C heavy water veillance locked doors, set urity fence
Pathfinder BWR 190.0 Mothballing Continuous Welded closure, Sioux Falls, SD nuclear superheat steam plant security force (b) security fence conversion
FERMI 1 Sodium cooled 200.0 Mothballing Continuous Locked doors, Monroe Co., MI last security force (b) securaty fence
Peach Bottom 1 Gas cooled 115.0 Mothballing Continuous Not yet York Co., PA graphite security force (b) estabitehed moderated
VRWR BWR 50.0 Mothballing continuous Locked doors, Alameda Co., CA with steam security force (b) securaty fence plant conversion
NASA Plumbrook Light water 0.1 Mothballing Continuous Locked doors, Sandusky, OH security force (b) security fence
GE EVESR BWR with nuclear 17.0 Mothballing Continuous locked doors. Alameda Co., CA superheat security force (b) security fence
Saxton, PA PWR 23.5 Mothballing Intrusion Welded closure, alarms locked doors, security fence
SEFOR Sodium cooled 20.0 Mothballing Intrusion Welded closure, Strickler, AR fast alarms locked doors, security fence
Westinghouse Bank 60.0 Mothballing Continuous Locked doors, Test Reactor security force (b) security fence Waltz Mill, PA
B&W Pool 6.0 Partial Not required Not required Lynchburg, VA dismanting f
Hallem Sodium cooled 256.0 Entombing Not required Welded closure, Hallam, NB graphite concrete cover, moderated weatherproofed
Piqua Organic cooled 45.5 Entombing Not required welded closure, Piqua, OH and moderated concrete cover, waterproofed
BONUS BWR with nuclear 50.0 Entombing Not required Welded closure, Ricon, Puerto superheat concrete cover, Rico locked doors, security fence e Elk River BWit 58.2 Dismanting & Not required Not required Elk River, MN partial conversion *
TABLE I. Footnotre
* Power termse are espressed in thermal mese=mta Three thermal mesaweets are equal so appronnnately one electrwat mess =mt. h use of a contmuove ereunty force wee not requered by the NRC because conimuove manned escunty wee prowuled for other onete actmties that were unrelesed to the decommiessoned reactor if such a force was not preernt, the NRC mesht have stipulated menned secunty or oiher additional access control menevree
Sourw Escerpeed from "re. - _ ens and Cm - an of Lerneed Reactor Fecehenes and Demonstronon Nuclear Power Plante,* by P.8. Erwhean and G. Leer.U S NRC. preernted el con- ference on L _ son and Decommissionens. Idaho Faisr ideha Augue: 19 21.1975. m W M Pehul.*Essienarion of Nuclear Power Plante Dnommessiomng scoote and enethodel" R-822249 4 R 8222M PA PUC Tnel Staff Espert Teorimony on TMI I Dreemmiessonen. 4'IR/83
' '-
...... ______. . _ _ -
Tgble 2.
Inoperable Nuclear Power Generating Facilities 1985- - ,
Power Peellitlee Mmme Rosette Prinelpal rWlan Date of Msture of and Leestlem Type" Ratlag(ter)' Omer Artlen 1hkes @ erat ten Shu tdema Slustessa er Espeeted i i ihmeeldt Ray 3 3 85.3 Feelfle Gas 1943 | Ihsholdt Op., Q 97/92/78 Plant Leeeted on Reester testatively i and Elsetrie earthquake fault. sehedsled to tre put i 06. ' Qased to study la temporary eterage possible modifies- pendlag ISC approval. tiene la plant. I Dresden 1 3 2 00.8 ht th 1946 | 14/31/18 hadleestive earre- ' Grundy Q., IL Rdleen Op. Gamleelly eleased sten produets september 18, 1984. lasado piplag. Deelsten to put la ten- perary storage Abg. 31, 1984 pending IE: ap- preval .
Radiaa Polet 1 P 175.0 Onsolidated Mustehester O., NF 1941 16/31/14 Plant had me Shusttaaema desemis. Edisen Q>. emergemey core sientar plassed-Indian eere ecollag systen. Pt. I and 3. Plant Sinst den la eeupil- will remula eletdemn amee with nas ABC matal deemudestealsg regulat tens. of ladian Pt. 3 la 2006.
Ihree Mlle P til.9 Quneral Puhtle 1914 3/38/79 Qased slaae Islead I Utilities Restart delayed ese to eeeldent at Unit 3. marssolved - t Deephia G., PA lheelears _ Iertrapelltaa lategrity issues. Edison
ihree Mlle P 941.0 Island 3 Qaeral Pelle 1918 3/ 38/ 19 Major remeter Gesa-g will osatlass Ut!!6 tles aseident theq>hla G., PA lenelaare threigh less pending IIntrepet itan sentlemed fundlag. Reism
Shipplagpert P T1.6 U.S. Dupt. of Reever Os., PA 1987 18/81/03 III rescereh 014 seheduled for Rnergy/Dempsesse activittee egleted. dereusdssicalsg start. 14. Os. No further need for lag la 1888. Emmeter plant to aperate. esseel will be shipped by terse to Ihafard. R4 far burial. Peral 1 Eadlien Stet Peer Amester 1944 - Iemarse Op., ng eested, Develepammt Op. Roseter ereldent. Emmeter gut la taperary feet storage ta 1978.
pathflader R. 64.0 Heethere States 1994 - Sleen Palle, SD Seper- Peser On. Qupement fallares. Remoter put la temporary hunting etorage la 1978.
Peseh Rettem1 Gs 44.4 Fttiledelphla 1941 - - York Q., PA eseled. Elastrie G. Emmeter put la temporary graphite storage to 1978. moderate
Remus S. 80t ----- Bleen, Pherto Rice anelser 1944 - - Bateshed fellplag super- sluntdemm. heating
Piqua Organte est - 1963 - Pique, GI eseled Oolaat problems. Batembed in 1940. i and I anderated
OPIR Pressure est - 1848 - - Perr, E' tee, Remeter put in taperary hmery enter, storage la 1947. (DD) eeeled a underated
glh River a S. St.4 U.S. Atente 1963 - - Elk River,1st fasell fuel Energy Roseter dlaumatted. super- Osunteelen , heet t sg '" ' linileum Oraphite 238t - 1983 - Italiam, le leaderater element Intembed in 1968. I moderated, sedlien preless. j eest ed
: <- i lestee thle 1.,ere.tle e t sh,ein.d by t eetm. t
____ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ TA8LE 1 Foosneses ainoperable plants are defined as those whrh have been cloerd for over one year with mejor problems handerms thew future operation, or those whsch have been permanently shutdown hNuclear Boehng V'eser Reactor P=Presouneed taler Reactor ' Units are en electreal menswatts unless indrated by t t= thermal megawarts One electreal mesewett equals app 5sansiety 3 thermal megawatts.
Sourcer fLL Smith.Gj. Konark, and WE Kennedy Jr. 7banofopy. Se/rry emiCaers of C , a 7tefreeme. Aussemed her Ransor sker Sneries. NUREC/CR-013a Vol.1. (Washmaton. D C; US Nucleer Resuletary Commission. june 1978k pp. 3-2 -3-ta latensory of /ker Messo a rhe (Asuso Saues J982 Amenal. US D.OEJF_tA 0D95 t82k (Washmston D C; Ui Department of Energy- Energy information Admmmera- tion.1962K US Nuclear Regulatory '' ion.Lavesed Opensnap 7teactors-Saerne S memory fleport. NUREG-0020 Vol. 7. Na 12. (Washmston. D C; US Nuclear Regulatory C. . December 1963L pp. 34 "Nuctrer Resulatory Connwm Reluctandy Coughs Up Last of Integnty leeues involving CPU * The Encery Dedy. january 24.1984, p. 2. Joerph M. Benesh. General & ,olic Utihties Ca. Persappeny. NJ. personal communration. July 23.1981 Kevin Coughhn. Cahforma Pubir Utihties C_ - Sen Francisco, CA. personal communcation. December 3.1984. Andy Carde. Cahfornse Puble Utihties Commineion. San Francmea CA. personal communsmion. December 3. I984. Sue Gegner.Pubir Affaire-US Nuclear Regulatory C_ . WashmstorL DC. personal communication. December 3.1984. Cart Crees Consolidmed Edison Ca of NY. New York. NY. personal communration. December 10.1981. Dennie Pooler. Pects Ces and Electne Ca. Sen Francisco. CA. personal commumcmiort July 27.1981 Jen Tascas.C- Th Edman Ca. Chrago. IL personal communretion. July 18.1981 Jerry D. Whies. US Department of Energy. Rchland. WA. personal communcatiorm July 26. t 983
Table 3. Cemarmdel Power Generating Reactor Dew.iimissioning Candidates 2005
Year of Operating Commercial License Net MDC Reactor Operation (b) Expiration MWE (c) Net (d)
Shippingport 1957 (e) 72 ---- Dresden 1 1960 1996 207 ---- Yankee Rowe 1961 1997 175 69.7(g) Indian Pt. 1 1962 (e) 275 ---- Big Rock Pt. 1963 2000 63 57.2(g) Humboldt Bay 1963 (e) 65 ---- Conn. Yankee 1968 2004 582 82.4(g) San Onofre 1 1968 2004 436 ---- La Crosse 1969 (f) 50 47.7(g) Nine Mile Pt. 1 1969 2005 620 58.l(g) Oyster Creek 1969 (f) 650 58.5(g) Monticello 1971 2002 545 74.6(g) Prairie Island 1 1973 2005 530 76.5(g) Prairie Island 2 1974 2005 530 80.6(g) Three Mile Island 2 1978 (e) 906 ----
TABLE 1 Footnoses
*This table does not take into consideration the hkelshood of necessary premature shutdown due so emdrets or other problems Nor does a consiJer posential for operstmg hrecer renrwal
bYear of commercel operation is the date the umt was declared by the utihty owner to be aveelable for the regular production of eiertricity. usually related to satisfatters compartum of aushriemian tem. . epec dMDC nre is the mesimum dependable cepenty less the normal semen arrwwe loads. 'Operstmg Irense espwation dates are nos mcluded for unds whrh are permanently shutdown. The plant has a provisional license bus arver received a full arrm operating Irenee. Therefore, there is no operatina hrease espiration daic I emh calculased vems a weighted everser. Sou,ce. L.w.md Oprm, y stmenir -Sn i.e S me,, n, port NUREC402a Val 7. No 12 t%sehmsten. DC; U S Nucicer Regulator, Commiesson. Februars 19MU * Nuclear Power Planie in The Uneled Sisies* Asomic Industnal Forum. Inc. IWashmaton DC; Aiormc indu.irial Forum, lac.19mh 15 . . - - _ _ . . _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ . . ! - Table 4. 4 P+---.. *i-. g Policy Data for IImmsed Commetrial Nuclear Power Plants 1984 .. , i * ! Unit @erettag Tentatively Finanelp Estlanted Ost o{ Years Dollars 1983 Estimated Funds Collected I License Seheduled hethod Dneannissiontag in which (bst of to Date by 5 | Ikpleetion Decomunissiping (millioma of Esported Deecennissioning Prinegle lht t ! Year Method dollars) (altlions of Osners (millions | dollars) - of dollars) i i ' Joseph M. Farley 1 2012 IRIN IW 37.0 1981 42.2 9.8 Joseph M. Parley 2 2012 DBGN IW 37.0 1981 42.2 3.4 i Brauns Ferry 1 2010 IRIN ISP 57.0 1983 57.0 , Brauns Ferry 2 2010 DBGN ISP 57.0 1983 57.0 30.033 Browns Ferry 3 2010 IRIN ISF 57.0 1983 57.0 Arkanses 10seleer 1 2000 IBGM14 IW 20.8 1975 38.7 9.2 34 ; Arkansas Nuclear 2 2012 IRINI4 IW 21.5 1975 30.3 3.434 I : Hisdpoldt Bay S TWW5KR IWII 82.020 1983 82.020 .5 8 ! Diablo O nyon 1 None11 IEDI IWII 123.8 1985 100.028 None collested } Raneho Seco 1 2006 Undeteendmed ISF 113.0 1983 113.0 21.1 i San Onofre 1 2004 IMDE IWII 118.5 1984 104.3II 18.7 + San Otofte 2 2013 DBEN IWII 113.3 1984 100.0IT 1.2 i San Onofre 3 2013 INDI IWII 130.721 1984 123.327 Mone collected 1 ] Ft. St. Wala 2000 Undeteendmed EF 35.0 1981 30.9 2.7 . cm * j Q . Dukee 2004 INDE IW of.8 1983 87.0 11.8 i Millstone 1 2006 DECDI IW 125.5 1984 117.3I8 10.8 ! Millstone 2 2010 INDI IW 120 .7 1984 110.438 12.4 ! ' Orystal River 3 2000 UKDE ISF 84.4 1983 84.4 11.3 ' Turkey Polat 3 2007 IRIN ISF 80.3 1983 80.3 18.238 h rkey Point 4 2007' IBGN ISF 50.8 1983 58.8 18 .2 30 St. Imele 1 2010 INDE ISF * ' 80.0 1983 88.8 18.235 St. Imele 2 2023 DBGM ISF 74.5 1983 74.5 -- ! . Ehrin I. Hatch 1 2014 INDE IW 125.7 1982 133.2 10.3 j Eerin I. Hateh 2 2018 DBGN IW 1982 ] 4 | Dresden II 1994 IRDI IW 38.422 ggg3 3g,422 | Dresden 2 12 pBgm gy 3033 ! Dresden 3 2006 IBGBI ' IW 138.0 1983 130.0 . Zion 1 2000 DBGN IW 1983 - ) Zion 2 2006 IB&BI IW 112.8 1983 112.8 lbtalforsty8 Qaed Qties 1 2007 IBGN IW 1983 units = 84.7 j Qaed Qties 2 2007 INDI IW 103.1 1983 103.1 ; la Salle 1 2022 IBGN IT 81.1 1983 81.1 Duane Arnold 2010 Undetenmined Mone None None None None collected * Maine Yndee 2006 IEGN IBF 122.0 19 83 122.0 2.1 4 O lvert O lffs 1 2000 DBGN " IW 333.0 2000 93.729 8.2 | O! vert Qlff a 2 2009 IE&M IW 2000 I j Filgrim 1 2000 DBGM IBF 87.3 1983 87.3 2.8 37 Yankee Rome 1997 INDI BF 40.0 1983 40.0 ---- - ______. _ _ _ _ _ . - _ - . _ - _ _ - _ - _ _ _ ._. . . _ . 2 Big Rock Point 2000 IBGBf Itr 35.0 1982 37.1 3.4 Fin 11sedes 2007 1BGB1tX Itr 88.7 19 78 88.5 I Donald C. Osak 1 2000 Undetesudned Norw 155.8 1982 184.3 9.7 38 t Donald C. Opok 2 2000 Undeteruilned None 1982 - # . Itsat teello 2002 IBG38 ItF 54.5 1979 73.7 13.9 Praire Island 1 2005 INDI ItF 51.7 1979 89.8 14.388 Praire Island 2 2005 DBG38 ItF 14.5 1979 20.0 0.7 38 Grand Ostf 18 2014I3 INDE 18 93.5 1981 108.5 Mene collected I Geyer 2008 IBGN ISF 89.8 1983 89.8 None colleeted Ft. Onthoun 1 2005 INDI ISF 87.4 1983 87.4 1.5 Oyster Oeek 12 EtHES ItF 100.0 2003 gg,y ' 55.430 Salami 1 2000 Undeteratined ItF 210.0 1981 230.4 40 , Satan 2 2008 Undeteredned 11F 1901 - 48 | Indian Pt. 17 19sBER15 ItF 92.7 1900 118.331 38.2 | Indian Pt. 2 2008 13 338 ItF 4 2000 IRIN ' Indian Pt. 3 ILF 30.0 1980 48.8 8.9 Jaume A. Fitzpatrick 3010 IBG38 ILF 45.0 1980 58.3 9.9 ! Nine Mile Folnt 1 2005 INDI ItF 57.023 1981 85.0 12.7 1 Robert E. Ginna 2005 IBGBf ILF 37.g23 1979 50.0 10.1 i Brunsulek 1 2010 BMDB+30 ILF 43.9 1979 50.3 10.541 ' Brunswick 2 2010 BfE39630 ILF 58.4 1979 70.8 15.34I MeOutre 1 2010 INDE 1980 a ILF 50.0 82.5 Unkmasa * McGaire 2011 IBG38 ILF 50.0 1980 82.5 None collected q Dawls-Besse 1 2011 BfEES+ RF 53.0 1983 53.0 Unknown U 1Yojen 2011 BflG S*100 ItF 173.0 Stil 1;3.832 5.2 * Beever W iley 1 2010 IEKIN BF 84.5 1983 84.8 -- 8 Dree Mlle Island 1 2011 IBG38 IBF 37.3 1983 37.3 .442 1hree Mlle Island 27 Undetermined BBF 24 . 24 24 . 24 i Susquehanne 1 2022 IBGDI IBF 229.g25 1983 229.025 ,4 Nech Bottcen 2 2008 UKIB4 IBF 132.0 1982 139.9 --.27,4 0 Peach Bottan 3 2008 DEGDI BF 1982 ' Shippingport7 ,10 IMD118 79.0 1983 79.0 None collected ] , k H.B. Robinson 2 2007 INIGe+30 ILF 44.8 19 79 80.5 12.943 j Oeonee 1 2007 Undetermine4 ItF 50.0 1980 82.5 Unknown ; Oeonee 3 2007 Undetennined IW 50.0 1980 82.5 a Oeonee 3 2007 Undeteratined itF 50.0 1980 82.5 j Sunner 1 2013 DEE3i ISP 73.0 1982 77.4 -- 4 4 Sequoyah 1 2010 DBGN ISF 51.0 1983 51.0 5.0 33 q. Sequoyah 2 2015 IRDI ISF 51.0 1983 51.0 ' Veenont Yankee 2007 DEGN ESF19 72.7 1951 82.9 .6 ! Surry 1 2008 1BEWIGL ItF 112.4 ., 1983 112.4 Tbtal for all 4 ; Surry 2 2008 11BFSIGt ItF 1983 units = 8.8 - North Anne 1 2011 1BWS1GL ItF 118.4 1983 118.4 4 North Anne 2 2011 11BFSIGL ILF 1933 Puford-fil8 None Not Avellable ~~ ------None collected | Ia Ocese 12 ------20.0 1983 20.0 None collected | Point Beech 1 2007 IEKDE ILP 101.7 1982 107.8 38.0 i Point Beach 2 2008 DEGN ILF 1982 Memmunee 2004 IEKDE ILP 43.5 19 83 43.5 23.0 1 . . TABLE 4 Foerneers 'This totdr was esapded from dele conscend as part of Public Cismen's 1964 documunemenaqs pohry, alnden Pome I is in what ik NRC miers es as the "rumodial esfe sto-age * mode. Thes means that some swwy. Infernenen was obtened from utdites and same reguisesry thnnghout the country. minor eNorts how been made snwerd stahihema the reactor but the unn has not undergone many of the pro- Surwy denen and implementation is deernbod in Appends: A of this nyert Appendia A also conemne a reduIre required for 'psestw male storage *(previously referred to se mothballmg). Three outwmesorw of esmple , temporary storage are dermed a Chapeer 2 of the report Does causdud is curent through year end 1983 unless andrased " . ,"**E*"" * N'**''" "U O'pped m av Eherwn evenors were mcluded in this surwy. The included both heensed counsurcel apeutes ruec- Pw@ WNMA b bunal Although the might formally fall under the definition of dismantle- ears and ' _ '_ unna It included the Hanford-N and Shippegiort ruerters, searwhat arbitrenly.on the snent it e an anomaly emce today,e adors am espected to how to be broken up onese bases af their mclueen in the f , e/heier PIsom is #4e unded Samme (DOE /EIA) owr the years Five units with lowpower or full-power leerecers as of Dec. 31.1983 included Grund Gulf. Diablo Canyon San "In Apnl 1983. entrenei makire funding was adopted conceptueny as a requirement for all commercial* reac. g' Onofre 3. McCuwe 2 and La Selle 1 As of Dec. l.1984.of theer esdy Grand Cuff and Dutdo Canyon had not ears in Cahfornia As of Dmmhre 1984 the Cahforma Pubhc Unines Comnussion had not suued a naal I gone imo . . : opersion. order perimens to this subject. A fmal ordre requinns emple nentaten is especed somener m 1985 " ' ' ' ' " * * * * " * * "Although FERC required enternel enkmg funding for the unis in 1964. funds wdl not be conected for AP pendu 8 contains kW das b em enas _ uned commernal operanon somerme en 1961 8Tentes vely scheduled"indraers that thee innehad a bnng werJ for resemakmg purpoers by pnnciple j . _ utdwiss k e amaumed that the method used for rearmakug pwposse a the one whrh unhtwo plan so var or encrow account out of the companws hands,earmeg money mortet interest rues. The fmal arttirnwns agree- ' " " " * ' I '" niers whereby FERC requwed enternal unkmg fumhng for Vermont Yankee was eseurd in Spreg 1984 The Whldy pi'ns to drwl p 8 p'oIre8sonally managni trues fund by early 1985 RMPSTOR=Tesiipusy b" ;h ENTOM8= Entombinrnt 8'Thee figure includes eenassed comes of puttug the una in temporary morage, as well as d. ENTOM8+=Eneamtwnent with delayed _ . . - dare not include survnHance and menteruna costa " " " ' " " * '" * Costs of diamenthns common areas for all three unns are included in the 6gure. ; . "' '", Un.rer,mmed.No sp_ c n mems u.sm.r rear n.h.g - .f,e - net fr o.er .42 m..m wh.h .. c.H_nl - rmep.,e,s f-_ matms- Chapeer 2 of this wport definre threr methods Dreedse 1. 'Financeg methods are wdaws'menne of handhng monies collected Iran roerpeyers for f . in arthrer Ryeres are curent ehrough 1981. order that theer funds are avadable when needed. Unless indicesed the mrthod nomad is used by all utddwe "The eenmand cost of the TMI Uma 2 cluen op has been approsi*esely $1 binen smee 1980 However. in the stase where the und is larmed However. ence Gnanceg methode are chen drerrmined on the essee Weddy assumpnens for whee is encluded m thee Agure esem to how changed it is unclear to the author Irwl. the does not enren that owners outade the saare are uoms this method Methods diustresed are shoer in funds fw deconwnismoning wm a sum y u re pmemns . use by utanws Pohcus unpirmemed but not yet a prartre how been footnoast bdied to . . durug the bar the plant opersed Chapeer 6 of the report definre and discueers finannns methods d _" W" _l&1 IUFeinerrnal unsegregesed fundmg ISFalnerrnal segregned fundmg "An inReten rese of 64 pemnt was assumed by the unddy and werd to cornert fqures so 1963 dollars "8 "" 8'The author ameumed a 6 peant innanon ruse m order so conwet figum to 1963 dolle 2. beard on reel e- 'The esamesed cost of ' 'ns is the annount whrh the pnnnple utilwy owner and the steer finten in runt years. % enRation rue was evalebie fnen the unhty. ngulatory mvolved have enernunnf as the hans on whrh to coliset menry Inun rompeyws for "An inneren ruer of 7 pemnt was eneumed by the utddy and used to conwet figures to 1983 dollars future _ . ;comsr '- ; cost estunsers seesbhehed by utamos how been formulased moms a wide ventry of assumpoons A number of estummers were reponed in future years donnes Othres aAn innenen rose of S prmnt was assumed by the utrhty and werd so cornert 6gures to 1963 donars were reported in years doHare as early as 1971 Varyms cents (es surwdlance and momernance) have been , , g3 included se part of seemsere drpendmg on the seser and the apenficwy of cost sehmenos The surwy dsd not " An inflation roer of 7 6 pemnt was used for 1968 and a race of 8 pment amournni for foHowmg years as sammpt to east out auch assumptans tuceuer of the impreciarswee of cast - for many umas N * "" 'F surve have been conweted to 1983 dollars in order for bene . . -. to be made bs* ween costs eenmeens Converman was made vems " Handy Whsunen Pubhc Utdny Indes for Electne Light and Power? "An inAshon rear of 6 pomnt was assumed by the utihty and veed to convert Agures to 1963 dunars Consmwnsa Anasse. Sept ''The uma has a e ' operswg hevner as of June 1984. N luense espresson daar has tren emek .rthes repreernes the Penneytvenne utddwo share of funds coHened from resepeyers 1978 1982. Imbsd ''This fipwe is cumnt to March 38.1984. i ''The undwy mvolwd win te applymg for as operates lerener espretion daar of 2022 as seen as the plane * funds were ceHected froen resspeyers se of March 1984. The enact amount conected a unevolehle ace,m a comuneraal heener. ''This does is curma to 1981. | . | ' 1 I8 ------. ... , ' ' . Chapter Three Unexamined Cost Estimates: The Road to Rate Shock? . There is much uncertainty surrounding this subj1rct and basis for utility cost estimates for 13 units and that utilities the accuracy of schat is currently projected for future performed in-house studies for 24 units.For 15 units utilities . decommissioning is equimcal at best. contracted with engineering firms and other outside con- sultants to develop site-specific decommissioning estimates. R. H. I.masburg, %ese studies have generally been less thorough than Vice President for Nuclear Operations, Battelle's. (1) he one other engineering study that is widely Virguna Electric & Power Co., used by utilities in developing cost estimates was conducted in March 24,1982 letter to author 1976 by Manion and LaGuardia for the Atomic Industrial Forum, the lobbying arm of the nuclear industry. his was a The 320 million (estimate)-the assistant general generic study that was considerably less detailed than manager pulled it out of the smil. Battelle's work. (2) In addition, Manion and I.aGuardia have also performed site-specific studies for four plants. Richard E. Shimshak, Manager of Special Nuclear Projects, %e Problems With Battelle's Research Dairyland Power Cooperative. October 23,1983, he Battelle studies referred to above include the Battelle personal commurnestion to author pressurized water reactor (PWR) decommissioning study published in 1979, the Battelle boiling water reactor (BWR) study released in 1980, and the Battelle Multi. Reactor Station While a number of utilities have developed estimates for Decommissioning study released in 1982. Rese studies were future decommissioning costs, the basis of these estimates are commissioned by the NRC as part of its research on decom- shaky at best. he results of Public Citizen's survey of cost missioning, prior to its development of formal guidelines. He estimates for decommissioning by individual utilities is set studies are based on data taken from the 22-megawatt Elk forth in Table 4.he highest estimate was $122 million for the River decommissioning experience, various simulation ex- 825 MW Maine Yankee plant. He lowest estimate was $20 periments concerned with the cutting open of reactor vessels, million for the 50 MW lacrosse unit run by the Dairyland and the actual operation of reactors. Power Cooperative in Wisconsin. His chapter will examine Table 5 shows the breakdown for Battelle's estimated cost the problems with these estimates. . of decommissioning using immediate dismantlement and delayed dismantlement scenarios for a reference PWR and The Battelle Studies BWR. Estimated decommissioning costs for PWR's ranged from $61.5 to $75.2 million and for BWR's. from 563.7 to he only significant studies of future decommissioning 586.0 million, with immediate dismantlement being the ! costs ever done in the United States were carried out by Bat- cheapest. (1983 dollars) ' telle Pacific Northwest I.aboratory and published between Other estimates of immediate decommissioning costs range 1979 and 1982. Unfortunately, there is reason to doubt their significantly higher. For PWR's the Atomic Industrial Fonam reliability because of the limited data available. In addition, the has estimated a range of $30.1 to 129.3 million. according to Battelle results have received virtually no formal criticism from the size of the rextor. Analysis and Inference, Inc. has individuals or institutions outside of the nuclear industry and estimated costs from $173.3 to $694.9 million for a large the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Further, reports by the PWR,in its study of design. costs and acceptability of a utility Rand Corporation and the Department of Energy suggest the self-insurance pool for the NRC. Duane Chapman. an possibility of large cost overruns when actual decommission- economist at Comell University, expects costs on the order of ing takes place. 53 billion for a reference PWR, assurhing that the reactor is Despite their possible flaws, the Battelle figures are still the completely dismantled. Table 6 summarizes these findings. most detailed that the utility industry has available for Battelle funding and leck o/ Peer Rcricm in 1984. a full 86 calculating decommissioning costs. %e Public Citizen decom- percent of the p!'a nning budget for Battelle PNL came from missioning survey found that the Battelle studies formed the Department of Energy contracts. He other 14 percent of the 19 - . .- __ _ . - __ . . . . . Battelle PNL budget came from other government agencies (in- vironment. T1 us,'while quality assurance problems that have ciuding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission), from contracts plagued some well-known reactor construction projects with the utility-funded Electric Power Resean h Institute should not be a major factor in decommissioning, costs c .Id (EPRI), and from contracts with the electric utilities escalate in response to regulations to protect workers from ex- themselves. (3) In addition, Battelle PNL is a member of the posure to radiation. Atomic Industrial Forum. To protect workers, much decommissioning work is Given Battelle's links with inten sts which have been pro- planned to occur underwater, with submerged workers using moting nuclear power as an important component of our arc-welding equipment combined with carefully timed ex- future energy supplies, the lack of full peer review of the plosives to cut through thick steel and concrete walls-a far studies casts a shadow on the reliability of the studies. Review cry from a demolition crew just coming in with a wrecking of the NRC files on Battelle's three decommissioning studies crane. (See Chapter 6 for further discussion.) These precau- shows that very few comments have been received. With the tions could push decommissioning costs (c,r any gNen reactor exception of a few letters from state regulatory commissions, as high as, or higher than, the costs incurred during construc- university faculty members and unaffiliated individuals, all the tion. comments in the NRC file are from utilities and their attorneys Decommissioning fits into the "first of a kind' technology and the agency's own staff members. Bere is no evidence of which could produce large, unanticipated cost overruns, systematic review from the outside. described in a 1979 study by the Rand Corporation. As Obsolescence. Originally, the NRC's plans called for the shown in Table 7, such overruns averaged around 400 percent release of decommissioning guidelines to dovetail with the for major construction projects completed between 1956 and release of the Battelle studies, allowing the utilities to use Bat. 1977. De projects surveyed in the study ranged from energy telle's results in their planning for reactor decommissioning.(4) process plants to the acquisition of major weapons systems. But the NRC's proposed rule on decommissioning, originally "One of the key factors leading to potential errors in cost scheduled for release in March 1980 (5), has just been issued estimation for decommissioning * Rand Corporation official in February 1985. Rus the data, which was gathered in 1978 Christopher Myeni has concluded. might be the length of for the Battelle studies, were already seven years old by the time the estimation is made (befont) the time work is actually time the proposed guidelines were released. to be completed."(10) When Rand looked specifically at cost Recent decontamination estimates for the Dresden reactor estimates for energy process plants, it found that early highlight the obsolescence of the Battelle estimates. Battelle's estimates and even estimates made well into the definitive PWR study estimated the costs of decontamination at a typical design have proven to be poor predictors of pioneer energy PWR nuclear plant as $280,393 to $414,713. (6) However, the process plant cost or performance.* (l l) his principle should preliminary estimates for decontamination of the Dresden I have major implications for decommissioning procedures, reactor are already running at more than $50 million since many of the cost estimates which have been made so far (7)-making Dresden's likely decontamination expense 120 to for decommissioning will not be tested until at least 30 years 180 times higher than Battelle's estimate.(8) from now. Possibly, the decommissioning of some nuclear plants will occur 60 to 80 years after the dates on which such Cost Overruns in the Industry cost estimates were developed. (12) Nuclear plant construction costs in recent years have ex- Scaling Up Fmm Shippingport perienced severe cost overruns. A January,1984, report by DOE showed that of the 47 reactors surveyed,36 reactors he Shippingport reactor is supposed to provide a model cost at least twice as much to complete as initially projected for estimating future decommissioning costs by utilities. But and 13 cost at least four times as much.(9) A few units will what is the relationship between decommissioning costs and cost more than 10 times the original estimate. the size of a reactor? While the NRC and others have largely as a result of such major cost overruns, several ma- acknowledged that reactor size is a significant factor in the cost jor utilities-including the Long Island Lighting Company, of decommissioning, available data is sparse. Battelle studied Consumers Power Co. of Michigan, and the Public Service Co. the relationship in a 1979 addendum to its PWR study and of New Hampshire-have become severely overextended and found estimated costs of dismantling a reference" are facing the possibility of bankruptcy. His is becoming a 1004 megawatt reactor to be nearly three times greater than major worry for Wall Street investors. De recent default of the cost of decommissioning the 175. megawatt Yankee Rowe the Washington Public Power Supply System on its bonds for plant, which was more than five times smaller in size.(13) two new nuclear units, meanwhile, has created complex Since Shippingport is more than twice as small as Yankee political and financial problems for the investment community Rowe and more than ten times as small as Battelle's reference' and some units of government. PWR,it is possible to make a conservative prediction that the What is to prevent similar cost overrun problems from af- cost of decommissioning the reference reactor would be more flicting the utilities as they go about nuclear decommissioning? than three times the cost of dismantling Shippingport. Assum- Re biggest difference between construction and decommis. ing that estimates that have been inade of Shippingport's sioning is that new plants must be constructed to strict stan- decommissioning cost totalling $79 million are correct. (14) dards because of the radiation which will be produced, while we can conservatively predict that the costs of decommission- decommissioning itself must take place in a radioactive en- ing a large 1,000-megawatt PWR will be well over 5240 20 t d million Other Factors Causing Under-Estimate Such scale considerations, however, ignore the fact that of Decommissioning Costs Shippingport's decommissioning will remove the reactor vessel intact and transport it in one piece to a n mote federally- operated, tax-subsidized waste-disposal facility. His decom- Tom Robbins and John Vallance, consultants for the utility missioning technique is unlikely to be used on 1,000-megawatt industry, state in a recent paper *While decommissioning PWRs, so there are serious problems with extrapolating from costs are well recognized and planned for by the utility in- Shippingport's costs to come up with figures that will be rele- dustry, there has been a lack of attention to other costs in- vant for the industry as a whole. herent in plant operations termination * (19) Rey cite the cost Another problem with decommissioning cost estimates of writing off the leftover fuel remaining in a reactor and the based on the Shippingport experience involves reactor type. cost of decontaminating the plant for its dismantlement by Like approximately 63 percent of the reactors now licensed, workers. Shippingport is a PWR: but 35 percent of the licensed reactors Robbins and Vallance have shown that the unrecovered fuel are BWRs, which experience higher levels of contamination costs associated with decommissioning a mature reactor could than PWRs.(15) Such BWRs are likely to have higher decon- run as high as 50 percent or more of the cost of decommis- tamination costs than the nation's PWRs, so that basing cost sioning itself. Robbins states *While decommissioning costs, estimates for them on the govemment's experience with Ship- for example, are estimated at an average between $100 to pingport is likely to create underestimates of real decontamina- $200 million per plant, unrecovered fuel costs could run as tion expenses. high as $50-$100 millioa* (20) Herefore, Robbins and Vallance have suggested that these extra fuel revenue re- Premature Shutdowns- A Complicating Factor quirements should be added to the total costs of decommis- sioning. All the cost estimates discussed above concern the expenses %e costs of decontaminating a reactor before dismantle- connected with decommissioning a healthy prototype reactor ment (to reduce the dangers of workers being exposed to at the end of its useful life. However, technical problems now radiation) will also add significantly to total decommissioning being experienced at the nation's operating reactors-notably costs, if immediate dismantlement occurs just after shutdown. the development of cracks in BWR plants, the embrittlement For example, the cost of dismantling Dresden I has been of reactor pipes due to high radiation dosages, and the oc- estimated at $38 million. (21) But this figure does not include currence of various mishaps in reactor steam generators-all more than $51 million in additional funds that will be spent in make it likely that many of today's currently functioning reac- 1984 for the decontamination of the unit. (22) De technical tors will be shut down prematurely. Our data presented in problems and costs of decontamination will be discussed fur. Table 8 shows that the 18 plants which have been shut down ther in Chapter 5. Many decommissioning cost estimates used had an average operating life of 12 years. by the utility industry severely underestimate such future ex- Early shutdowns are already causing problems, as indicated penses or ignore them altogether. in Table 9. He table describes the financing provisions which have been adopted for the six reactors that are presently in- Decommasunung Costs as a Percentage of Construction Costs operable in the United States. Of the four plants for which financing information has been made available, no funds at all Utilities often express the cost of decommissioning a nuclear were collected for two reactors-Indian Point No. I which power plant as a percentage of the cost of building it. At least operated for 12 years and %ree Mile Island No. 2 which in part, this is because the Battelle studies arrived at the con- operated for less than one year. For the ilumboldt Bay reactor, clusion that future decommissioning costs should amount to only $517,000 was collected through 1983,a small part of the 10 percent of the costs of reactor construction. (23) $62 million decommissioning costs which have been pro- Charles Komanoff of Komanoff Energy Associates has jected. shown that the capital costs for nuclear plant construction To the extent that accidental shutdowns damage reactor have been badly estimated over the years primarily because equipment or allow for the unexpected escape of radioactivity, their estimates did not account for increasing safety related they could significantly boost the costs of decommissioning, design change regulations and qtality assurance requirements. Battelle has examined ' accident scenarios' for both a BWR and (24) For this reason, Komanoff would not automatically link a PWR and has estimated the likely decommissioning ex- decommissioning costs and construction costs, although this penses.Re findings for the PWR showed that for three pro- could be used as a rough first cut, provided that the numbers gressively more serious accidents, the dismantlement costs for are adjusted for inflation and interest costs for each plant. (25) the reactor would range from $120 million to $461 million. Given the extensive uncertainties between construction (16) costs and decommissioning costs, unadjusted construction Chapman estimated in 1980 that for an accident involving cost figures provide an urireliable basis for utilities to estimate the severe radioactive contamination of a PWR, decommis- their decommissioning costs. Yet, as Table 10 indicates, two sioning costs could easily exceed the original costs of plant major nuclear utilities, Commonweattli Edison Co. and Duke construction. (17) llence, the bill for decommissioning a badly Power Co., estimate that decommissioning will cost 10 percent damaged PWR could be as high as $3 billion-or even more, of construction costs. Neither utility has performed any site- given the costs of reactors being built today. (18) specific decommissioning studies at each of their reactors. Nar 21 d * ' . have state segulators questioned these numbers;instead, they quacy of the funding mechanisms for decommissioning are allowing the utilities to collect decommissioning funds described in the next chapter, electric customers may be in for a rate shock" when the day of reckoning arrives and the reac- from ratepayers based on the 10 percent numbers. Most utility executives and nuclear industry consultants tor must be decommissioned. . continue to predict that the future costs of h.. ..;ssioning his violates a fundamental principle of utility regulation will be insignificant. Stone and Webster Engineering Corpora- which is that only those ratepayers benefitting from a power tion has actually estimated that it would cost more than twice plant's operation should have to pay for the cost of putting as much to dismantle a half-built reactor than to decommis- that plant into service and maintaining it in the rate base. Utili- sion a similar plant after 30 years of operation. In the first in- ty decommissioning practices that load the expense of decom- stance, ' they were testifying in hearings conceming the missioning today's nuclear reactors onto tomorrow's electricity economics of completing a reactor for which they were the customers are unfair and inequitable and should not be al- engineer / contractors. In the second instance, they were pro- Iowed by utility regulators. viding decommissioning estimates for the Atomic Industrial A decommissioning " rate shock could have even more Forum. (26) Such inconsistencies further confirm the uncer- serious consequences than those relating to equitable cost- tainty surrounding estimates of future decommissioning ex- sharing between generations. Utilities could press to delay decommissioning for as long as possible in order to ac- penses made by the nuclear industry. cumulate the necessary money.ne industry might also decide Aggregate Estunates of Decommisseomng Costs to try to redefine what * full decommissioning entails,in order to minimize expenses-at the expense, of course, of public ne total costs of decommissioning currently licensed reac- safety. For example, utilities may push for permanently en- tors in the U.S. have been estimated by Battelle, the Atomic In- tombing as much of the reactor as possible at the original site dustrial Forum, Rand Corp., Analysis and Inference, and in order to reduce dismantling and shipping costs. economist Duane Chapman for the Califomia Energy Com- Dere are other problems in the story of how the industry is mission. Dene estimates are set out in Table i1. A more preparing for decommissioning. In the next chapter, we turn to detaikd illustration of the cost estimates is provided in Table problems arising from the ways in which utilities are planning to finance decommissoning, 6. Battelle's figure for the full dismantlement of the 84 reactors (excluding Shippingport. Dree Mile Island No. 2 and Han- ford) comes to $5.2 billion. AIFs -high estimate adds up to Footnoese, Chapter 3 nearly $11 billion. Cost overruns equal to those found by the 1. For example, as described in Smith et al.1978:12 5, a study Rand Corporation would put the cost at $22.5 billion. by NUS Corp.,Sm Onofre Nuclear Genemting Samtion Decom- Analysis and inference's estimate for the NRC would put the maassonmg Alarrnatites includes,"no detailed analyses and no cost as high as 559.1 billion. De results of the Chapman estimates ,,, for occupational radiation exposure or for ex- study wou!d result in a total cost of $255 billion for complete- posure to the public resulting from decommissioning opera- ly dismantled reactors. Dus, current estimates of decommis- tions.De study also includes little detail of the development of sioning vary by a factor of 50 When the same figures are ex- disposal costs for radioactive materials,just the assumed unit pressed in terms of dollars per installed kilowatt (kw) of costs and the final totals." nuclear generation in 1983, Battelle's estimate amounts to 2. Manion and I.mGuardia 1976:12-4. 880/kw, the AIF 'high' estimate to $169/kw and the Chap- 3. larry L Rader (Battelle Pacific Northwest tabs), personal communication,27 March 1984. man estirnate to $3933/kw. Table 12 shows total utility estimated costs by state, as well 4. Smith et al 1978a:1 1. as costs, assuming the high and low range predictions of 5. NRC 1978:MBO 3. 6. Smith et al.1978b G 25. Costs are cited as ranging between Chapman and Battelle. Decommissioning costs by state range from a high of $618 million for California to a low of $34 192,050 to 284.050 in 1978 dollars. His includes an estimated $23,000 to $115,000 for the decontaminant: $105,000 for elec. million for Oregon. De impact of these figures on ratepayers could be con- trical power; and 864,050 for staff labor, siderable, particularly in the event of inflation and cost over- 7.Nucleomes Week 1983a6. . runs. Tables !I and 12 indicate the possible eventual size of 8. Dr. Carl Feldman of the NRC's av w.vdesioning project, the utility industry's decommissioning expense, as well as the when asked about this cost estimate discrepancy, argued that total decommissioning costs that could face consumers in each this was because of the increased care which was required in state with nuclear power plants. By subtracting the estimates decontaminating a unit which might be restarted. Personal for decommissioning from the state estimates being used to communication,9 April 1984. collect funds, we can estimate the potential decommissioning 9. Energy Information Administration 1983:7. deficit for states and the country under different scenarios. 10. Christopher W. Myers (Rand Corp.), Personal Com- munication,17 January 1984. Is " Rate Shock' Next? 11. Merrow et al.1979 v. 12. Dis calculation assurnes that cost estimates are developed Given the apparent tendency of the nuclear industry to in the early stages of plant's operation and that they live out underestimate future decommissioning costs and the inade- their full operating lives. If dismantlement is delayed 30 to 50 22 . . . , , years, as discussed in Chapter VI, these costs might not be in- estimated that these costs would be $3 billion for a healthy curred for at least 6040 years. reactor in a non-accident scenario, with complete dismantle- 13. Smith and Polentz 1979.2-4. ment of the reactor. Personal communication 13 May 1984. 14. U.S. Committee for Energy Awareness 1984. 18. Costs for nuclear plants built today are typically as high as 15. According to data found in the Battelle PWR (Smith et al. 83 billion. Stoler 1984: Diablo Canyon 1 and 2. for example,is 1978) and BWR (Oak et al 1980) studies, estimated dismantle- estimated to cost $4.4 billion Shoreham 54 billion; Midland 2 ment radiation doses (not including transportation for a $4.4 billion; and Marble Hill 1 and 2 $7 billion. reference PWE are 1,200 person-rems; doses for a BWR are 19. Nucleonics Week 1983b 9. 1,865 person-rems. Costs of dismantlement, as pointed out in 20. Ibid. Table 7 are $61.3 and $63.5 million, respectively,in 1983 cur- 21. Jim Tascas (Commonwealth Edison), personal com- rent dollars for a PWR and BWR. munication. 31 October 1983. 16. Murphy and Holter 1982dx. The best case accxlent "is 22. Ibid: 18 July 1983. postulated to result in 10% fuel cladding failure, no fuel 23. Battelle's estimates for the reference PWR. were in 1978 melting, moderate contamination of the containment structure, S42.1 million. EIA 1983, cites final costs for Trojan, the plant but no significant physical damage to buildings and equip- used in the study, as $448 million in 1976. U.S. Committee for ment.* The worst case accxlent is postulated to result in 100% Energy Awareness 1984, describes these costs as expected to fuel clodding failure, significant fuel rnetting and core damage, be less than 10 percent of the cost of building it.' severe radioactive contamination of the contamment structure, 24. Charles Komanoff (Komar.off Energy Associates), per- moderate radioactive contanunation of supporting buildings, sonal communication,9 July 1984. and major physical damage to structures and equipment." 25. Ibid. 17, Chapman 1980. Prof. Chapman has more recently 26. Percival and Roe, 1981:26. . 4 23 6 4 4 4 i | I I } ' | I i i i e %. 34 . - ______- _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - ______- _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ - - ______- - _ _ - _ _ . ______- . . Table 5. NRC Total Estimated Costs of Possible Decoinmissioning Choices for a PWR and BWR 1983 Decannissioning Unit Decomnissioning Costs (Millions $) lede Type Nisnber of Years Af ter Reactor Shutdown Dismantlenent is Deferred 1 11 M M 1R Ifanediate IWR 61.5 ------Dianantlement ItfR 63.7 ------ Preparation PWR ---- 18.4 18.4 18.1 18.4 for 'Ilumporary IBfR ---- 31.1 31.1 31.1. 31.1 Storage Continuing IWR ---- 0.9 3.2 5.4 11.4 Chre IMR ---- 0.9 3.1 5.2 10.8 Deferred PWR ---- 54.0 54.0 44.5b 44,4b b Dianantlement IMR ---- 51.8 51.8 38.5b 38.5 Total IWR 61.5 73.3 75.6 68.3 74.2 Decannissioning IMR 63.7 84.0 86.0 74.9 80.3 Cost TABLE 5. Footnotes- *BWR= Boiling Water Reactor. The boiling water reactor referred to in the table is a 1855 MWE reference umt used in the Battelle study. PWR=Pressunzed Water Reactor. The pressurized water reactor referred to in the table is a 1175 MWE reference unit used in the Battelle study. Values include a 25% contingency. Constant 1978 dollars have been updated to the nearest hundredth of 1983 dollars using *llandy Whitman Pubhc Utihty Indes for Electric Light and Power." Dept. of Commerce. Bureau of Industry Economics. Construction Retectc. Sept..Oct.1983. Nos ember 1978. The inden used for 1983 is based on preliminary data. It is debatable which of the many indices available is most accurate in properly updating decommissioning cost estimates. This is especially true since decommissioning costs are yet unknown. Blandy Whitman was chosen as a general inden, as reasonable as most for this type of cost estimate updating %ese reduced values result from lesser amounts of contsminated matenals for a burial in a heensed disposal site. Source- R.I. Smith.G J. Konsek W E. Kennedy.Jr Technology Safety sad Costs o/Drcommissioning A Rc/erence IVessumed Water | Reactor huer Station. NUREG/CR 0130. Vol.1 (Washington. D C.: US Nuclear Regulatory Commission June 1978i. Table 2.9 3. Il D. Oak. GAI. Ilotter, W F. Kennedy. Jr G J. Konzek. Technology Sw/ety. and Costs of Drcommnissoning A Rc/erence Bodme Water Reactor Pouer Station, NUREC/CR 0672. Vol 1. lWashington. D C.; U S Nuclear Regulatory Commission. June 1980). Table 2.10-4. . %. 25 | - -- - _ - - - _ _ .. - . Table 6. Ranges of Duv.. * ' 's:. Costs for Four Studies ' Using Immediate Dismantlement (In Million 3) * - Unil TIDE atadr as as Original (bst in Original Oost 1983 Cbst in Cost %M nt11ars 1983 1 Year 8) Bsttelge 42.1 nt11 ara (MIC) 61.5 (1973) 43.6 63.7 Atante Industrial (1973) Fortsn' 23.7-101.9 30.1-129.3 (1980) 29.4-121.8 37.3-154.6 (1980) Analysis & Inference, 152.4-609.6 173.7-694.9 ---- Inc. (NIC)d (gggg) ---- Onapaan' 100tsof up to 3,000 ---- investment cost --- (1979) TABLE 6. Footnotes: *PWR=Pressurind Water Reactor: BWR= Boding Water Reactor Stud e . dustry Economics. Constructio,. Renew.e Sept.-Oct.19832.g t and Power.* Dept. of Commerce. Bureau November of in- 1978 De inden us d fValues have been updated to 1983 dollars using ' Handy. Whitman Public Utdity indes for Electric Li hi s, with the esception of AlF. list costs for large reactors 19001175 MWEL 6 or 1983 is based on preliminary data. reference PWR and BWRBattelle's figurn include a 25 percent contingency factor. Values esclude maintenance sur veillance and security costs. De study looked at costs for a Estimates are based on engineering. studies carned out for a variety of units.'AIF's ranges include costs of small, medium, and large reactors Figurn exclude d escalation, contingency, maintenance, surveillance and secunty costs. u e regional cost indices for nuclear productiono be 32%plant gruter thanwere 1978 costs. 29.7 llandy Whitmanpercent to 34 6 percent higher in MAnalysis and inference used Bettelle's onginal cost estimates as a base.1981 costs were ass m d t arch,1981, than for January,1978. 'In 1980, Chapman estimated that in a severe accident scenario (hypothetical uree Mil I l dismantling a healthy reector with a 30a years s n 1983operating would be as high hfe. as 83 although billion for cornplete no formal analysis h s bpercent of the investment cost. More recently.however, he has estimated that decommissioning co t ie s and) decommissioning costs for a large reactor could be 100 Sou ses: een performed. D.F. Greenwood. R.K. Westfahl, and J.W. Rymshs * Analysisr of Decommissioning Costs fo N Webster Engr. Corp 1983). Table 3 and 6. Study performedorum.uclear for Power the AtomicReactors.*lBoston. Industrial MA F Stone and P.L Chermck. W B. Farley M B. Meyer. LC. Scharff.Orsign., Costs, a J Amptabd ty / the AJenmacy of FuaJs for Nuclear hee Plant Decommission,mg Erre Commission 1981). Table B 12. o a= Electu UtJety Self-lasers ce /bo/for Asinneg TableDuane 14. Chapman. Nuclear Fanemics Tasation. Feel Cost a=J Drmmm,ss,onnag (Sacrame tssr. NUREG/CR.2370,(Washington, D C.: U.S. Nuclear Hegulatory n o. CA: Califomia Energy Commission.19801 Duane Chapman Cornell University.Ithaca N% Personal Communicat#on May . . , Rt. Smith. G J Konzek. W E. Kennedy, fr Technology.13 1984. Safety a=J Costs of Drcommission ag a R ' . Statwo. NUREG/CR 0130. Vol.1. lWashington.. D C.:e erenessunned Nuclear H'ater Regulatory Reactor /buer Commission june 1978h T bl 2 9 3 11 D. Oak. G M. Holter. W E. Kennedy, Jr, G J Konzek. Technologyae . Su/ery a=J Costs of D her Station. NUREG/CR4672. Voi. I,lWashington,rmmmessiossaga D C.: U.S. Re/trena Nuclear Bod,ag Water ReactorRegulatory Commission J : . une 1980). Table 2104- * 26 L i { 1 1 - I l l Table 7. | | Cast Oweruns in Major Constnaction Projects Completed Between 1956 1977 l | Ratio After Adjustment ra=pa===d Annual Initial Estimate Actual Result Unadjusted Rate of Cost Ratio of For For Change Overruns After Amount Amount Date Final to Unanticipated in Scope Adjustments Project (sillions) Date (alllions) Completed Initial Cost Inflation of Project (in percent)a . Say Area Rapid Transit Authority $996.0 1%2 $1640.0 5/76 1.647 1.297 1.037 0.31 New Orleans Superdome 46.0 1%7 178.0 7/75 3.870 3.219 3.219 15.73 Toledo Edison's Davis-Besse nuclear power plant. Chio 305.7 1971 466.0 5/75 1.524 1.401 1.401 11.89 Trans-A'aska Oil Fipeline (Alyeska) 900.0b 1970 7700.0 C 7/77 8.556C 6.926 4.250 22.96 Cooper Nuclear Station. , * Nebr. Pub. Power Dist. 184.0 1%6 395.3 74 2.148 1.748 1.748 7.23 ; Rancho Seco Nuclear Unit * No. 1. Sacramento 142.5 1967 347.0 74 2.435 2.020 1.239 3.11 Dulles Airport, Washington, D.C. 66.0C 1959 106.3C 62 1.641c 1.641d 1.486 14.10 Second Chesapeake Bay Bridge %.6c 1968 120.1c 6/73 1.243C 1.104 1.104 2.00 Frying Fan Arkansas Project ' C Ruedi Das 12.8c 1%2 22.9 72 1.789 1.636 1.145 1.36 '.' Sugar Loaf 6.1 1%2 10.2 73 1.672C 1.500 1.500 3.75 Boustead Tunnel 9.2C 1962 21.2c 73 2.304C 2.078 1.233 1.92 Rayburn Office Building. * Washington. D.c. 64.0C 1956 98.0C 6/66 1.531C 1.531d 1.342 2.99 Weighted average 3.93 3.21 2.21 10.07 i T4 TEE 7 F *Thr se==pma.M mensal .or emperummes e end ens, as e genurmese sphed 4 . _, essoal caer . . mesh de see af 'Ours met unriedt eerwes aft aritmut rows e see _- - fo she pesyve The drame pensues e - _ el emewune se erwrul pseprees homes d4 4 b.we swammate om %$ay 9474. $r 43nreka W $s.eur Ce . 2 CW cent af S4 buRueEL dire 2 (heullre 3974 Soute erst somse NN DC. tessmer ter 5%bhr PWuy Areresch, B977 mA 39 Cased om FJ.ard Menew. Sarphee W. Chapel asul d a se h.a to me . _ pereer n,3 , t97s she emmesme e ed em 363n behen en s*t der see # 4 nedben seus emensar ter 4%ede aanweed a capes e, of WM enhed The wayr een shesord se poemne a caperey of 8 2 medhuse N8'' E - " b I" W " Mar"We h h b/d The seer af usmo shogr = greye man SWm adhen sesess ehr essend cared came salmasuar to 5I G hiemen C*'P"'''''" N ION " Table 8. Generating IJves of Inoperable Nuclear Commercial' Power Generating Reactors 1985 humber of Years Number of Years Reactor Operated (b) C.tosed Prematurely (c) Humboldt Bay 3 13 17 Dresden 1 18 12 (d) Indian Point 1 12 18 Three Mile Island 1 5 25 Three Mile Island 2 1 29 Shippingport 25 5 (e) Average 12 18 TABLE 8. Femnsere "Insperaban reareers are d Ansd as unne shut down for oww I year weh messe probleme hendmns ther Arture ep-wien. w those whwh have tuen permanenlfy shut down inspereWe reareers deemed isnwnereal espmmensal" are Pernu 8. Perhhnder. peerh Buttom 1. Benue. Pique. CVTIL Elk Rever, and Hallam lhe distwetion a wnportane breause puet.as thser pienes en a taasesry enh seher ammereial inoperable reersore lowere the everser numter af yeere operseed to eshe. and reare the aversee numhre of peere ; lente ricard prematurely to 191 % is sumswed horn she owne che piene ment inse esmmemai spermian 'Pp ammune e 30 year operenne his for e typerel reerter d_C i Edmen made me dmosen net to reenart the und in Palf 1944 %e reen. .e. = w am,rd,n is .h h,r a heed 3ays. we he h,r n d.d . .;,. . so. -,e. ., m. we .e d.re ,ero. n er we, e come., ,.im 'Ne nuel emmen has toen ende se as .haher she pi nr a te demann r.d w meanea Sture11e US heurtser Assulesary C. . tmensed Opereswis Rsertere4 serve bnwnery Report. NUREG402R Val 8. No 3 (% sehengten. D C; US NRC. March 89a4L p 3 6 . 4 | 28 | | - . Table 9. e , Decommissioning Funding Data for Inoperable CessaaswW- Po'wer Generating Reactors 1984 Unit Estimated Funds Collected Nimber of Years Nmber of Years Oos t of De- Frcm Ratepayers Chumorefal Opera- Funds Collected emmissioning Prior to Shutdown tion before First Prior to Unit (Millions of 1983 (Millions of 1983 Punds Cbllected Shutdown dollars) dollars) d Haboldt 82.0 e517 9 4 Bay 3 Dresden 1 95.0' ---- Unit operated f3r 18 ---- years. A separate subaceount for de- emmissioning was established 2 years after plant shutdownsh Indian 118e3f No funds collected Plant operated for 0 Pt. 1 12 years with no funds collected. 'Ihree Mlle 37.7 ---- 4 1 Island 1 '!hree Milg 1000.0E No funds collected No funds collected 0 Island 2 Shippingporte 79.7 N/A F/A N/A TARLE 9 Ponenosee "InapreeWe mariare are drfined as unne ahus down for swe are year with mesar proldrme hendrems thew futwo opermen, or shoop whrh how twen permanemly shw down This taNe aws not wwtude das for the lofloweg moperaNr commmet eepenownsai reerters e sehhndpr.s Ferne 1. PWern lissem 1 Helten Pheme. CYTM, Oh Rewr, or Bonue la endwowe thee enforeseen wee nas e=mlaNr. b umt 2 operered for only four momho prior to the arndent the i,tdwy hee nas yet drierenwd whos the come of a , the reareer w N tw 'sh.p, pmi . .wewd 6, ow Us orp.inwm .f Eners, nerem- e.ma -n ne p.ed 6, see oOr. N. fond. f- a , thmeure.e.nnied from em,.wra du,m. ihe piane e aperstens Me bee igure dues nas enclude snentaisnie end surwdlante esses for the plant. $6G) melhan per year 'Thee enrtudre been ehr ease of themsel doesnaammatan of etw piens. 457 mdhan tle 230 endhon of whrh wsH tw poed by the DOFk and the emwnsed twee of a _ 814 mdhon he repreerme casal enhenseed a ; esses ier ladeon Pemt I & 3 85 wwe 1Jna Cenreel PwWe Undetwo hee emwnesed she er #.he eteen+p m Dree M.le leiend.Unie 3 al appews B1 Imilson A 1940 Cawrel Anwuneing Offere study seawmed thee these costs erludrd remert. einwewe. enforussion preernted m 1943 heermee befe.e the suhrenumster en Enrray and the fmwenmens. U S Houer of Repreemetews did noe het restart er drawnsmessenmg as part of riren- up teses h essahhehowne of e orporese a ; evbercount marked the fwm owne sheer esere avee dremed greewe than those for e nonasriter groweenne vme somee r. rem sim .f h, nm u* isand Nuri,e, ce.wes,,. sim. Un.e. i a swe.h. H,e,,r, breore th, suh. mmtme e,. rmen, and ihe u.e,en.wm .f ow c-.m inser,- and ineolar Affsere Howee of Repeterneanwe, Aprd26.1981 U S Ceareal Aeroomwg Offue, Aener, se ene Cenpees elsee (Assesd Sasses treewe Comnussene Norded to Solve Commweg ProNeme as Tpm M4 leend * F MDAi106. 4% sahington, O C. O S Cearest Aaevnema Of'we. Assum 26.1981P US Nwtror Res lasary Carwmemen,lue ord Ope.we,a, Amersar $serse 5 mseere Aepeer. NORFGnD20 Voe 7. No I!.theshingien DC; Dre 19st3i. p 34 Personal eenwrunerasem Pee Aywfin, Redweed ANianre. Asema C A. May 2.1944 Perennel commonwonen Reherd MarsheN. New Yort samer PwNe servue Canumenian Alteay. NY. Aped 11 1984 Perennel remmunermen Rohret Roemhel Penneet enia PwNw Utddwo Conwnsemen Hornehurg PA. Aprd 12.1944 Personei conwnunnenen Jamre Tenres Commonweelsh Feenn Co. Chesen t1 Orsoewe $1. I941 PMonel Coenmunnmen jew Whrher. Ibseween and Professional Peopir e PuNw inereres. Chreee IL Me, 8.1944 29 _ - _ _ - - _ _ _ - __-__ -. . _ _ _ _ .__ - .- - _ _ - _ _ _ . _ - . _ _ Table 10. P+: --- ''=2-- Studies Used in Cost Estimate Formulation . Unit, (State) Ensla for Cast Estimate Pennsletten Parley 1,3 (AIJ Beehtel Corp. Bagr. Study, iedeted July 1981. Diele Obspee (OL) N.U.S. Carp. s tudy 1979. Annehe Saee (OL) la-house etu % 1941. Millstone 1,3s Qan. Yankee (G) In-house study based on bettelle study and entrepeletten freus other studies. Crystal Alvor (PL) N.U.S. Ostp. esgr. stu% 1992. Dresden 1,2,33 f.len 1.33 Seed Ottes 1,38 la Antle I let of the sept of plant construellen (IL) la deproelation rete for mueleet plaat. Assimptions fram Battelle AIF/18BP studies and etmers. Dnene Arneld.(IA) lie speeifle stsdise. Greed Ost! 1 (m) Ostelde eensultant atudy. Used anttelle atudy and other studies as a heels. Pt. 6mlhoun OER) Flaherd. Ime and antrett did estimates but me detailed pleas. Osever Os) In-hemse etudy ites. Used other studies, such as that done for Pt. Oklhsun. Indian Polet as Jones A. Fitapattlek (Ny) Mattenal hvirosamental Studies Projoet reports sponsored by the Ateele Ineustrial Forus, lae. Cyster Creek (NJ) la-house study earried out by parent osmpany Osseral Pelle Utilities. (FU etu4 modified versten of study dame preolemnly by Peeifle Qas and Elsetrle O. for Diable Osnyon. Filgris Oth) Williem J.IInelse. W.E.L lae.. ;' east. study 1993. $lte speelfle study beoed on Atente ladustrlal Forum desammeleeleslag atu%. Seusselet 1.2 Oc) 18.5.8. Ime., engt s tudy. Imst time teented I991. 1tejan ((R) In-house study 1979 based on Battelle stu other site spee%lf teand study. see leuGsite 3,33 Osense 1,8,8, (E) Duproeletten rete of a for aueleer plant laeludes its prestalon for doesualesionig.e Summer I (E) 1hemas Im0uerela = eagt. etudy 1942. Vosment Ynekee (VT) Outside Onneuttant - esgr. study. Birty I,31 leerth Anne 1,3 (VA) 110 helaeorig, site speelf te atudy. Pelat Beneh 1,3 (WI) In-house study uslag other studies as e bests = 1993. laOcese (WI) Me e lete egleeerig s tu %. e 1ABil IQ Poseneses A 'A% to Waiam Stanert.Vre PNs of Reevieuery .Affere. Dukes Powerb Ca Teur perwu i regulassedy empseWr. CP4L and Comm Ed beah goe four pmene . . e,emedAaordms se bele Ruherdse saed E e Shanehek. Menseer Sperel Pourtrer Propets, Dsqlead Power Omy. euses as mer ... Any6edy deine anythmg elee, t's pees a fwtion . . We know*The when twenty N'e somenullen is doper eenenw m det a hweh bak tell . . the Ass. wane Centret klensper sent*= Persenet Communwonen wasem Sennart. Ornetw 211983. pulled d out of she welL*-Personal Communnenon, Anhard E Shunehen. Orsake 24_1943 30 ( Table 11. ' Total U.S. Utility Estimated Decommissioning Costs '1983 e Versus Alternative Cost Scenarios (In Billion 8) Source Basis 1983 Decommissioning Potential U.Se Cost Oost Estimated by Deficit (-) or Operatirg Utility Surplus (+) Public Citizen 84 Reactor's 5.6 ---- Survey Results Opets Battelle (1978)b 61.3/ unit 5.2 +.42 Atcele In&strial Forum (1982)e Average 69.2/ unit 5.9 .25 High 129.3/ unit 11.0 -5.4 BandCbgr. 4005 Amour.t 22.5 -16.9 (1979) Originelly Estimated - . Analysis and Inference (1981)' Average 405.4/ unit 34.5 -28.8 High 694.9/ unit 59.1 -53.4 Chapnan (1980)f 3,000/ unit 255.0 -249.4 TABLE 11. Footnotes *Eachty-fant umas have twen ecluded m thee tahir. Three reertars have been encluded. Three M.le teland 2. Hanford N and Shippmaport. Costs of -f- ;these units are unavadaNebtin. dusere a response here e not approprisse. Convermone so 1983 dallers were male veng Handy Whsman Pubir Utdity indes for Eircerr Light and Power? Drpt. of Commerce. Bureau of Induernet Economrt Camerernos Anww. Septort 1983 and November 1978 A drernphon of how the andes was cheern can be found in Table 9 of the report. TsNe 4 hase evertor speedw date and providro detals relaard to operstwig frense espermen does and cost ewanme development for eerh umt Entwneses other than thaer umns the Rand Corp. erudy.uer caste for presounsed waere roerters (PWR) emre owe 60 pertene of endey's hcensed commercial reertars are the type and conse of dec ; a PW R ere eenmated se be lower than these for a bedwg weer everior. The immediese _" .aDECON) ophon e assumed onwe over 80 percene of sedey's reersore are armauvely erheduled for prompt diamenstement foHowmg shutdown h 8setelle PWR reertor mudy for the Nuclear Regulmary C_ .. (NRC) estabishes the rotunmed cost of A . . . e reference 1050 MWE reactor uoms unmediese dismantlement. The coes euermose is 542.1 mdhon ($1978t 'The Saane and Webener Engmeereg Corp study for the Atomw Indusanal Forum entahlished a low, evereer and high cost estenase fur diamenthng e PWR beard on emanates for a nombre of reerters of varying enare. Ahhough the erudy was completed in 1961.a follow.up study nes carrwd out m 1962 up dRand Corp found m a study .I coat emwnerien in entrwd technologes that cost overrone everaged 400 percent fland looked at a semple of projects carned out between 1941977. TaNr 5 of this report hem three projecta 'Anseyme and Inferenre. Inc. emebhehed cost eenmeses se port of e A_ na insurance study for the NRC. The consultanis estabimhed figures for four rehos of actuel to esimared costo dimeenthey small, avdeum and large PWR'a An everage for theer four as well as the high figures for lary reersers are preernted here in 1961 theer selves were $355 6 and leos 6 edhan resper. twely. Ian a 1980 study for the Cahforma Energy Commiseen, Prof Duane Chapman eehmmed the coes of decommeesionmg a large reactor with ernous decontammehan proNems followeg en arruirne se 100 percent of the hemment coes. In a May 1984 uwerview Chapman rehmswd ihm the coes to fully diamantle e heelihy reertor of the saar operums for 30 yeare m 191I3 would tv m the 83 bilhon esgr 4 Sources Duane Chapman. Neriser F- ; Tamenom Feel Cost med Dere==.amon,ee,(Sacremento, CA Cahforma Energy C_ . 8900154 56.Tobir 14 PZ. Chrennt W 8. Farley. W 8. Meyer. LC Scharff. Drave. Cears end Acrepar6.l.ry s/s. Bartnr(Mary Srt/1 weare Af for Assene, tAs AJarew, af fende /pr Aerleer her i Pfeet r . e, Espense. NLRF C/CR 237(11Washmaton DC; U S Nuclear Regelmery Comemenen,1983 r 122.TsNr 812 r DF Creenwood,RK.Wemfahlandj W RymetraAestymeofh=.. , Costefor Nardeer Pbeser staarters. tRoston. M A Saane end Webener Fnhmre mg Corp. I 982t 9. TaNe j 3 Edward W, Mere.w. Seephen W. Chapel, and Chnstophre Worthwg A Rerww e/ Caer fanmenos ne heer Tscheadavira. ($snia Monra CA The Rand Corporehan.1979133. TaNe r 3& ( Rt. Smeh, CJ Konsek, and W L Kenrwdy. Jr. Torneology Su/rry and Caste e/ he.ema e e sta/erew, Pw,en,med war breer her $wnce. NORFG/CR 0130. Vol 1. ' (Washmston. O C; U S Nuclear Reguistory Commme on 197st 2-11.TaNr 2 9 I l Rohree D. Hershey. Jr.*fhile Seek se Clanfy Tae Saarve of Nurirer Shusdown Costs.* The Anr Yort T. ee. Aprd26.1984. p D4 Perennel Commonwaren Prof. Duane Chapman Cornell Univers.ty. Ithere. NY. May 13.1964 < . _ _ _ _ . - , . _,. _ _ _ - - . _ . _ -- Table 12. . ' D= _. ' Mas Cost Estimates by State 1983 Versus High and 14w Estimates of, Potential Costs (In Billion 8) state lesubor of Average htal Year of htal Defielt (- Units @eratisg DseauntestenlagCast, Dseannissioning surplus (+)) erTotal Lleense Oes t, If Deficit (- Bipleatiet# Utility Enttelle Estleiste Deeannissioning surplus (+)) Ifor - Estkantes Enttelle OK) Is corrent Geste Estimates oisessa Otagnan Estimate , Estimates is correet ' AL 5 5 2011 .385 3 3010 .307 CA 4 .993 -51.1 2004 e133 15.0 (D 1 .838 -47.8 -14e7 Cr 2000 .040 .388 8.0 3 3047 .081 +350.0 -5.0 IL 5 .333 18.0 3011 .184 -21.4 -17.4 GL . 384 +139.4 3.0 3 2018 .307 9.0 -3.0 IL 8 .133 +77.5 -8.7 1A 2007 . 473f .133 15.8 1 3010 +10.8 -14.8 E None . 490 8.0 1 2008 .441 -17.3 -5.9 3D 3 .133 -81.3 24.0 2000 .481 3.0 -33.5 ML 3 .004 +40.7 -3.0 MI 2003 .137 .133 3.0 4 2006 .133 -30.4 -3.0 W 3 .Ste 4.0 3084 .345 -4.7 8.0 -5.9 IS 1 .144 +44.4 -5.0 35 3014 .107 .184 13.0 ; 3 2008 .041 -24.4 -11.7 IU 3 .177 9.0 2006 .133 +45.3 3.0 -0.8 N 8 .395 +54.4 -3.0 1C 2003 .338 .184 4.0 4 3010 .348 +110.9 9.0 -5.8 Of 1 .383 -31.4 -0.7 QR 3011 .083 .345 18.0 1 3011 +17.9 -17.7 PA .034 .081 13.0 7 2006 .981 -8.3 3.0 -11.7 SC 5 .35GE -37.5 2008 .3 07 3.0 -3.9 1N 3 .335 + 40.8 -3.0 2013 .307 13.0 Yr 1 .103 +14.9 3407 .133 15.0 -14.8 VA 4 .083 -30.8 -14.7 WA 2010 .981 8.0 1 --- .331 +31.8 -5.9 --- .345 3.0 WI 4 -~ -14.4 ' -3.9 2007' .171 --~ 13.0 --- -11.8 .345 ---- -73.9 13.0 htal 84 -11.8 _ 5.8 5.3 +.43 355.0 TABLE 32. Faomores - 3 40. 4 *Fgures in thes table m.-a lowend and highend usudy for the NRC E81978, updsied se 41963kevermstre of the cost of ' Values repreerating the highend of the potential coes, found spectrwn en shadwo wm fanen updseed f to I983 do8ers towend welure are Iram the Benede PWeesurusd Waere neartor menwg a large (1000 MWet reertoe with serious contaminanon probere f ll thee in 1983 *- - _ _- costs for a healthy roertar th ran a study by Prel. Duane Chapman Our Cahierme Emesy Commes Rangue me based en cost estuneese for pressursed wowr roerters s . . e mar opersems for 30 years. would tw ineweber the 1954 63 inerenew. bdhon Prof regrChapman ensuming entwnesed ths o owing en andent as 100pemnt ofihr inweenamteast Howe.er in a Nsen i1990t Chapman emwnseed the cost of dreonune- .ete.e en they are based onwue costs over 80pomnt for nudsum of nedey's reersare and areemailee the wnsenwty averser urwie is compireely arheduled desmentledand for owr p 60 p2010 was used as a bene year for lookms at future come ence owr SS pm Convermons es 1983 donare were made uomsercent 1landy-Whene of twenned roertare Pubi are large (800l000.rospe MWe) 6amentlement unds following shutdown Estemeses are eenere- 1983 and Nov.197& A drempuen of how the indruent was of endsy*echoern hcensed roerters are espectedmw to be vuletable by the t eenr be Utdity found m indre Table d offor the Earrerte report I,ight and Power,*. Dept of Commen Burees ofI d n ueenal EranomesCesar,waam Art.nr.$rpt &t. Of the 47 trensed commemalue n wig un luense to espiretsenaround deers the and country,$4 rose entwnser drwlopnwnt areintf ford earndTatie unit 4 heta roertar opmhr dess and provides detale related to oper e be pand by the lederalgowenment Three Mar tenend Umt 2 (PA)i , asennseed that the total cose af the cisengs escluded woulden thisomre be 'table. appeessnesely Suppingert (PA)91 bdh and Hanford N IW4) are escluded unre the The preernession may owrewnphfy what actualon la comes 1984 wdl the be company by undernd contmed es nene $l Intlen as the eetwnse d i, cour eetwneere are unavalehie Howewr. in 1900 Conrrel Pubhe Utddes the owner of the urut,y are Departerne of Energy evertors and coets wdl e c sang cent band other vensbers The table doce noty attemptentwnshngnrae to comesportray per eaart roerter. costes epenns but factore a 6 e auch d d en reerter eue and type c t Permanently inoperable toeriors were semaned the yearto ofsugyet shutd conerrvasiwty the peermiel cose defree wwh rose . os estuneten edpuennent. charges m archrolo$y mode toward ressert or deem retansere cumntly 6n uur . . . own as the bremer empiraten dese. lhe engmal trener espiresion dea d'Cese sammeers are theer werd by utdatwa for rearmakes r was veed for vmrters ehusdown but for whsh no Ameen has been leedAe af June t004. Diable Canyon had not yet reeewed an operahpurpours for eerb esut ensaled by easw. Fgures were all conweted to 1983 d li ng horner la order le include the veerter in awreere ers woes operstwig the Handy.Whames hr lades. 'Dresden 2 (tLA Oyearr Creek (NJK and la Creuse __.- - - -- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . . . , Chapter Four Phantom Funding: The Latest Utility Gold Mine lkspite its apparent popularity. it is so fraught with meanwhile, are not yet cosered by decommissioning funds at uncertainty as to be of marginal adequacy unless coupled alI. with insurance or other surety arrungements. state nr. %ere is also more fundamental cause for concern regarding tification. or some other mechanism to increase the utilities' financing of future decommissioning the restructuring assumact provided(l> of utilities through the creation of * holding companies.* Such restructuring allows utilities to diversify into new ventures Robert Wood, * Assuring the Availability outside the scope of federal and state regulation. His could of Funds for Decomrmssioning represent a threat to availability of funds for decomissioning Nuclear Facilities," NUREG 0584 and could undermine the ability to hold utilities legally ac. countable for decommissioning. Who will ultimately pay for cleaning up and dismantling the nation's nuclear generating plants? Will utility funds be Decommissioning Financing: What are the Options? available for the job? Can utilities be held legally liable? Will the govemment have to step in? Internal Unsegregated Funds. He most popular financing These questions are of more than academic interest. In 1978, method for decommissioning does not actually require funds in the Love Canal neighborhood of Niagara Falls. N.Y, a to be set aside. Instead. this method-internal unsegregated group of homeowners were shocked to discover that their funding-allows utilities to use decommissioning money as an yards, basements, and elementary school were all con. -internal * source of capital to invest in new assets. He funds taminated with hazardous chemical wastes. originally dumpe