Decommissioning Cost Estimate Study: Duke Energy Progress

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 1 of 73
Decommissioning Cost Estimate Study
Duke Energy Progress

Project No. 95525
4/19/2017
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 2 of 73
Decommissioning Cost Estimate

Study
prepared for
Duke Energy Progress

Raleigh, North Carolina
Project No. 95525
4/19/2017
prepared by
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.

Kansas City, Missouri
COPYRIGHT © 2017 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 3 of 73
Decommissioning Cost Estimate Study Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Page No.
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Results .................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.3 Statement of Limitations ...................................................................................... 1-2
2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Study Methodology.............................................................................................. 2-1
2.3 Site Visits ............................................................................................................. 2-2
3.0 PLANT DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Simple Cycle / Combustion Turbines .................................................................. 3-1
3.1.1 Asheville CT ......................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.2 Blewett CT ............................................................................................ 3-1
3.1.3 Darlington ............................................................................................. 3-1
3.1.4 Smith CT ............................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.5 Wayne County ...................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.6 Weatherspoon ....................................................................................... 3-2
3.2 Combined Cycles ................................................................................................. 3-2
3.2.1 HF Lee .................................................................................................. 3-2
3.2.2 Smith CC............................................................................................... 3-2
3.2.3 Sutton .................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3 Coal Generation ................................................................................................... 3-2
3.3.1 Asheville Coal ....................................................................................... 3-2
3.3.2 Mayo ..................................................................................................... 3-3
3.3.3 Roxboro................................................................................................. 3-3
3.4 Solar ..................................................................................................................... 3-3
3.4.1 Camp Lejeune ....................................................................................... 3-3
3.4.2 Elm City ................................................................................................ 3-3
3.4.3 Fayetteville ............................................................................................ 3-4
3.4.4 Warsaw ................................................................................................. 3-4
3.5 Hydro ................................................................................................................... 3-4
3.5.1 Blewett Hydro ....................................................................................... 3-4
3.5.2 Marshall ................................................................................................ 3-4
3.5.3 Tillery.................................................................................................... 3-4
3.5.4 Walters .................................................................................................. 3-4
4.0 DECOMMISSIONING COSTS .......................................................................... 4-1

4.1 General Assumptions for All Sites ...................................................................... 4-2
4.2 Site Specific Decommissioning Assumptions ..................................................... 4-5
Duke Energy Progress TOC-1 Burns & McDonnell

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 4 of 73
4.2.1 Asheville Coal ....................................................................................... 4-5

4.2.2 Asheville CTs........................................................................................ 4-6
4.2.3 Blewett .................................................................................................. 4-6
4.2.4 Camp Lejeune Solar .............................................................................. 4-6
4.2.5 Darlington ............................................................................................. 4-6
4.2.6 Elm City Solar....................................................................................... 4-7
4.2.7 Fayetteville Solar .................................................................................. 4-7
4.2.8 Lee......................................................................................................... 4-7
4.2.9 Marshall ................................................................................................ 4-7
4.2.10 Mayo ..................................................................................................... 4-7
4.2.11 Roxboro................................................................................................. 4-8
4.2.12 Smith ..................................................................................................... 4-9
4.2.13 Sutton .................................................................................................... 4-9
4.2.14 Tillery.................................................................................................... 4-9
4.2.15 Walters ................................................................................................ 4-10
4.2.16 Warsaw Solar ...................................................................................... 4-10
4.2.17 Wayne County .................................................................................... 4-10
4.2.18 Weatherspoon ..................................................................................... 4-10
4.3 Scrap Metal Credit ............................................................................................. 4-11
4.4 Results ................................................................................................................ 4-12
APPENDIX A - PLANT AERIALS

APPENDIX B - COST ESTIMATE SUMMARIES

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 5 of 73
LIST OF TABLES
Page No.
Table 1-1: Decommissioning Cost Summary ($2016) ............................................................ 1-2

Table 2-1: Site Visit Dates ....................................................................................................... 2-2
Table 4-1: Basis for Scrap Metal Value................................................................................. 4-12
Table 4-2: Decommissioning Cost Summary (2016$) .......................................................... 4-13

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 6 of 73
LIST OF FIGURES
Page No.
Figure 2-1: DEP Facilities ......................................................................................................... 2-3

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 7 of 73
Decommissioning Cost Estimate Study List of Abbreviations
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Abbreviation Term/Phrase/Name
Burns & McDonnell Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.
BOP Balance of Plant Facilities
C&D Construction and Demolition
CC Combine Cycle
CCGT Combined Cycle Gas Turbine
CT Combustion Turbine
DEP Duke Energy Progress
HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator
Hydros Hydroelectric Generating Units
OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration
NOx Nitrogen Oxide
PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls
Plants Power Generation Assets
PPA Power Purchase Agreement
RS Means Construction Cost Estimating Data
SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction
ST Steam Turbine
STG Steam Turbine Generator
Study Decommissioning Cost Study
Duke Energy Progress i Burns & McDonnell

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 8 of 73
Decommissioning Cost Estimate Study Executive Summary
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc. (“Burns & McDonnell”) of Kansas City, Missouri, was
retained by Duke Energy Progress (“DEP”) to conduct a Decommissioning Cost Study (“Study”) for
power generation assets (“Plants”) in North Carolina and South Carolina. The assets include natural gas
and coal-fired generating facilities. The purpose of the Study was to review the facilities and to make a
recommendation to DEP regarding the total cost to decommission the facilities at the end of their useful
lives. The decommissioning costs were developed by Burns & McDonnell using information provided by
DEP and in-house data available to Burns & McDonnell.
1.2 Results
Burns & McDonnell has prepared cost estimates in 2016 dollars for the decommissioning of the Plants.
These cost estimates are summarized in Table 1-1 When DEP determines that the Plants should be retired,
the above grade equipment and steel structures are assumed to have sufficient scrap value to a scrap
contractor to offset a portion of the decommissioning costs. DEP will incur costs in the demolition and
restoration of the sites less the scrap value of equipment and bulk steel.
Duke Energy Progress 1-1 Burns & McDonnell

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 9 of 73
Table 1-1: Decommissioning Cost Summary ($2016)

Plant Decommissioning Costs Credits Net Project Cost
Asheville Coal $ 22,971,000 $ (5,300,000) $ 17,671,000
Asheville CTs $ 2,217,000 $ (1,125,000) $ 1,092,000
Blewett Hydros $ 4,645,000 $ (212,000) $ 4,433,000
Blewett CTs $ 932,000 $ (198,000) $ 734,000
Camp Lejeune Solar $ 1,332,000 $ (406,000) $ 926,000
Darlington $ 9,033,000 $ (3,951,000) $ 5,082,000
Elm City Solar $ 6,277,000 $ (1,858,000) $ 4,419,000
Fayetteville Solar $ 2,702,000 $ (676,000) $ 2,026,000
Lee $ 14,368,000 $ (4,481,000) $ 9,887,000
Marshall $ 1,313,000 $ (97,000) $ 1,216,000
Mayo $ 38,670,000 $ (7,419,000) $ 31,251,000
Roxboro $ 86,054,000 $ (20,838,000) $ 65,216,000
Smith CCs $ 19,223,000 $ (6,135,000) $ 13,088,000
Smith CTs $ 4,171,000 $ (2,507,000) $ 1,664,000
Sutton $ 10,215,000 $ (8,824,000) $ 1,391,000
Tillery $ 3,442,000 $ (207,000) $ 3,235,000
Walters $ 2,708,000 $ (716,000) $ 1,992,000
Warsaw Solar $ 11,452,000 $ (5,292,000) $ 6,160,000
Wayne County $ 6,130,000 $ (2,689,000) $ 3,441,000
Weatherspoon $ 4,919,000 $ (907,000) $ 4,012,000
The total net project costs presented above include the costs to return the sites to an industrial condition
suitable for reuse for development of an industrial facility. Included are the costs to dismantle the power
generating equipment owned by DEP as well as the costs to dismantle the DEP-owned balance of plant
facilities (“BOP”) and environmental site restoration activities.
1.3 Statement of Limitations

In preparation of this decommissioning study, Burns & McDonnell has relied upon information provided
by DEP. Burns & McDonnell acknowledges that it has requested the information from DEP that it
deemed necessary to complete this study. While Burns & McDonnell has no reason to believe that the
information provided, and upon which Burns & McDonnell has relied, is inaccurate or incomplete in any
material respect, Burns & McDonnell has not independently verified such information and cannot
guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
Burns & McDonnell’s estimates and projections of decommissioning costs are based on Burns &
McDonnell’s experience, qualifications and judgment. Since Burns & McDonnell has no control over
weather, cost and availability of labor, material and equipment, labor productivity, construction

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 10 of 73
contractors’ procedures and methods, and other factors, Burns & McDonnell does not guarantee the
accuracy of its estimates and projections.
Burns & McDonnell’s estimates do not include allowances for unforeseen environmental liabilities
associated with unexpected environmental contamination due to events not considered part of normal
operations, such as fuel tank ruptures, oil spills, etc. Estimates also do not include allowances for
environmental remediation associated with changes in classification of hazardous materials.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 11 of 73
Decommissioning Cost Estimate Study Introduction
2.0 INTRODUCTION
2.1 Background
Burns & McDonnell was retained by DEP to conduct a study for Plants in the Carolinas to estimate the
decommissioning costs. The assets include natural gas and coal-fired generating facilities. Individuals
from Burns & McDonnell visited 14 of the 16 Plants covered by the Study in December of 2016 and
January of 2017. The purpose of the Study was to review the facilities and to make a recommendation to
DEP regarding the total cost to decommission the facilities at the end of their useful lives.
Burns & McDonnell has prepared decommissioning studies for over 100 facilities on various types of
fossil fuel and renewables power plants using a proven approach to developing these estimates. In
addition to preparing decommissioning estimates, Burns & McDonnell has supported demolition projects
as the owner’s engineer, to evaluate demolition bids and oversee demolition activities. This has provided
Burns & McDonnell with insight into the range of competitive demolition bids, which also assists in
confirming the reasonableness of the decommissioning estimates developed by Burns & McDonnell.
2.2 Study Methodology

The site decommissioning costs were developed using information provided by DEP and in-house data
Burns & McDonnell has collected from previous project experience. Burns & McDonnell estimated
quantities for equipment based on a visual inspection of the facilities, review of engineering drawings,
Burns & McDonnell’s in-house database of plant equipment quantities, and Burns & McDonnell’s
professional judgment. This resulted in an estimate of quantities for the tasks required to be performed
for each decommissioning effort. Current market pricing for labor rates, equipment, and unit pricing were
then developed for each task. The unit pricing was developed for each site based on the labor rates,
equipment costs, and disposal costs specific to the area in which the work is to be performed. These rates
were applied to the quantities for the Plants to determine the total cost of decommissioning for each site.
The decommissioning costs include the cost to return the site to an industrial condition, suitable for reuse
for development of an industrial facility, commonly referred to as a brownfield site. Included are the
costs to decommission all of the assets owned by DEP at the site, including power generating equipment
and BOP facilities.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 12 of 73
2.3 Site Visits

Representatives from Burns & McDonnell and DEP visited the sites. The site visits consisted of a tour of
each facility with plant personnel to review the equipment installed at each site. Tours were conducted by
plant personnel.
Mr. John Edelen, from Duke Energy Progress, served as the DEP representative throughout the site visits,
along with plant personnel at each of the sites.
The following Burns & McDonnell representatives comprised the site visit team:
 Mr. Jeff Kopp, Project Manager

 Mr. Thom Bristow, Project Engineer
 Ms. Beth Wiese, Lead Consultant
The site visits were performed on the following dates.
Table 2-1: Site Visit Dates
Plant Site Visit Date

Asheville January 26, 2017
Blewett December 8, 2016
Darlington December 7, 2016
Elm City Solar December 6, 2016
Fayetteville Solar December 7, 2016
Lee December 6, 2016
Mayo December 5, 2016
Roxboro December 5, 2016
Smith December 8, 2016
Sutton December 7, 2016
Tillery December 8, 2016
Warsaw Solar December 6, 2016
Wayne County December 6, 2016
Weatherspoon December 7, 2016

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 13 of 73
Figure 2-1: DEP Facilities

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 14 of 73
Decommissioning Cost Estimate Study Plant Descriptions
3.0 PLANT DESCRIPTIONS
The following sections provide site descriptions for each of the power plants included in this Study.
3.1 Simple Cycle / Combustion Turbines
3.1.1 Asheville CT
Asheville Plant is located about 10 miles south of Asheville, North Corolina. The Plant consists of two
(2) Combustion Turbines (“CTs”) and began commercial operation in 1999. Each CT has a 2017 summer
capacity rating of 160 MW per unit for a total of 320 MW.
3.1.2 Blewett CT
The Blewett Plant is located in Lilesville, North Carolina which is about 50 miles east of Charlotte and 10
miles to the north of the North Carolina, South Carolina Border. The plant consists of four (4) GE Frame
5 CTs, fired only on fuel oil. The plant began commercial operation in 1912 with additions in 1971. The
Blewett CTs have a 2017 summer capacity rating of 13 MW, combining for a total of 52 MW.
3.1.3 Darlington
Darlington plant is a natural gas facility consisting of thirteen (13) CT units located in Darlington County,
South Carolina. Commercial operations began in 1974 with nine (9) CT units, one (1) additional CT was
added in 1975 and three (3) more in 1997. Since then, unit 11 has been retired. The CTs have a combined
2017 summer capacity rating of 714 MW, and each unit is capable of operating using either natural gas or
distillate fuel oil.
3.1.4 Smith CT
The Sherwood H. Smith Jr. Energy Complex is approximately two miles north of the South Carolina state
line and just south of Hamlet, North Carolina. There are five (5) CT units that have a combined 2017
summer capacity rating of 772 MW. The CTs are all General Electric (GE) 7FA turbines. The CT units
began commercial operation in 2001.
3.1.5 Wayne County

The Wayne County Plant is also a part of the H.F. Lee Energy Complex located adjacent to the Lee Plant
in Goldsboro, North Carolina. Wayne County consists of five (5) GE 7FA combustion turbines and
combines for 2017 summer capacity rating of 857 MW. The plant began commercial operation in 2000
with an addition in 2009.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 15 of 73
3.1.6 Weatherspoon
Weatherspoon power plant is located in Lumberton North Carolina 30 miles south of Fayetteville.
Weatherspoon plant began commercial operation in 1970. The plant currently has four (4) Siemens CTs
that has a combined 2017 summer capacity rating of 124 MW. The CTs are now the only operating units
at the plant since the three coal-fired steam units were retired in 2011.
3.2 Combined Cycles
3.2.1 HF Lee
The Lee Plant is part of the H.F. Lee Energy Complex located near Goldsboro, North Carolina. This is a
3x1 combined cycle (“CC”) consisting of three (3) Siemens manufactured CTs and one (1) Toshiba STG
with a combined 2017 summer capacity rating of 888 MW. The CC began operations in 2012 after three
(3) coal-fired units and four (4) oil-fueled CT units were retired. The new 3x1 unit includes a selective
catalytic reduction (“SCR”) for minimizing nitrogen oxide (“NOx”) emissions.
3.2.2 Smith CC
The Sherwood H. Smith Jr. Energy Complex is approximately two miles north of the South Carolina state
line and just south of Hamlet, North Carolina. The first CC unit (Power Block 5) is made up of two (2)
GE 7FA CTs, one (1) Toshiba Corp ST and began commercial operation in 2002. The second combined
cycle (Power Block 6) consists of two (2) Siemens Energy CTs and one (1) GE steam turbine generator
(STG). Both CCs units have an SCR for reducing NOx emissions. The HRSG supplier for the CCGT
units is Nooter. The 2x1 CC has a combined 2017 summer capacity rating of 1073 MW.
3.2.3 Sutton
Sutton Power Plant is located outside of Wilmington, North Carolina 12 miles from the coast. The current
CC began commercial operating in 2013 after the three (3) existing coal fired units were retired. The 2x1
CC is composed of two (2) Siemens SGT6-PAC 5000F CTs and one (1) Toshiba ST for a combined 2017
summer capacity rating of 666 MW. This unit includes an SCR for reducing NOx emissions.
3.3 Coal Generation
3.3.1 Asheville Coal

Asheville Plant is located about 10 miles south of Asheville, North Carolina. The Plant consists of two
(2) coal-fired units that have a 2017 summer capacity rating of 189 MW each, combining for a total of
378 MW. The coal units began operation in 1964 and 1971. Both coal units on site share one smoke

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 16 of 73
stack. Asheville is currently the largest electric generating facility in Western North Carolina. Asheville
Plant uses once through cooling from Lake Julian.
3.3.2 Mayo
Mayo is a coal fired plant located north of Roxboro, North Carolina, and south of the Virginia, North
Carolina state borders. It began commercial operation in 1983 with a 2017 summer capacity rating of 727
MW. The plant consists of two (2) boilers and one (1) ST. The plant has the capability to burn fuel oil as a
secondary fuel type.
3.3.3 Roxboro
The Roxboro Plant is located in Semora, North Carolina on Hyco Lake, south of the Virginia, North
Carolina border. Roxboro consists of four (4) STs. ST 1 has a 2017 summer capacity rating of 379 MW
and began commercial operation in May 1966. ST 2 has a 2017 summer capacity rating of 671 MW and
began commercial operation in May 1968. ST 3 has a 2017 summer capacity rating of 691 MW and
began commercial operation in July 1973. ST 4 has a 2017 summer capacity rating of 698 MW and began
commercial operation in September 1980. All four STs are currently in operation with a total operating
capacity of 2,439 MW. Currently the Roxboro plant has a Power Purchase Agreement (“PPA”) with
North Carolina Eastern that extends until August 2045.
The four-unit, 2,439-megawatt coal-fired Roxboro Steam Plant is one of the largest power plants in the
United States. It is located in Semora, North Carolina and began operation in 1966, with additions in 1973
and 1980.
3.4 Solar
3.4.1 Camp Lejeune

Camp Lejeune is a solar facility located at the Camp Lejeune Navy base near the Atlantic Ocean Coast in
North Carolina. Camp Lejeune came online in November 2015, has a 2017 summer capacity rating of 13
MW and has 53,960 monocrystalline fixed solar panels. Duke has a PPA with the Navy for Camp
Lejeune with no contract term or end date.
3.4.2 Elm City

Elm City is a photovoltaic solar farm located about 40 miles to the east of Raleigh in Wilson North
Carolina 487,520 thin film fixed panels cover 450 acres with a 2017 summer capacity rating of 40 MW.
Elm City began commercial operation in March 2016.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 17 of 73
3.4.3 Fayetteville
Fayetteville Solar Facility is a photovoltaic solar power facility located in Fayetteville North Carolina
about 65 miles south of Raleigh. The facility is 120 acres and has 104,652 polycrystalline fixed solar
panels. The Fayetteville Solar Facility has a 2017 summer capacity rating of 23 MW.
3.4.4 Warsaw
Warsaw Solar Farm, located in Duplin County, North Carolina began commercial operation in December
2015. The solar farm spans more than 550 acres and contains 854,160 thin film fixed solar panels. The
total 2017 summer capacity rating is 65 MW.
3.5 Hydro
3.5.1 Blewett Hydro

The Blewett Plant is located in Lilesville, North Carolina which is about 50 miles east of Charlotte and 10
miles to the north of the North Carolina, South Carolina Border. The plant consists of six (6)
hydroelectric generating units (“Hydros”). The gravity dam is 60 feet high and 650 feet long. The river
flow is controlled by the upstream Tillery Hydro Plant. The plant began commercial operation in 1912
with additions in 1971. The combined 2017 summer capacity rating of the site is 27 MW.
3.5.2 Marshall
Marshall Plant is located on the French Broad River in Marshall, North Carolina northwest of Asheville.
There are two (2) hydro units that have a combined 2017 summer capacity rating of 4 megawatts, using a
concrete masonry gravity dam that is 36 feet in height.
3.5.3 Tillery
The Tillery Hydroelectric Plant is located near Mr. Gilead, North Carolina on the Pee Dee River. The
Plants dam is 86 feet high, 2,800 feet long, has flood-control gates, and the powerhouse contains four (4)
vertical shaft turbines. The Tillery Plant has a combined 2017 summer capacity rating of 84 MW. The
plant began commercial operation in 1928, with additions in 1960.
3.5.4 Walters
Walters Plant is located on the Pigeon River right inside of North Carolina at the North Carolina,
Tennessee border. Walters is a hydroelectric plant and began commercial operation in 1930. The plant
consists of three (3) hydros that have a combined 2017 summer capacity rating of 112 MW.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 18 of 73
Decommissioning Cost Estimate Study Decommissioning Costs
4.0 DECOMMISSIONING COSTS
Burns & McDonnell has prepared decommissioning cost estimates for the Plants. When DEP determines
that each site should be retired, the above grade equipment and steel structures are assumed to have
sufficient scrap value to a scrap contractor to offset a portion of the site decommissioning costs.
However, DEP will incur costs of decommissioning of the Plants and restoration of the site to the extent
that those costs exceed the scrap value of equipment and bulk steel.
The decommissioning costs include the cost to return the site to an industrial condition, suitable for reuse
for development of an industrial facility. Included are the costs to dismantle all of the assets owned by
DEP at the sites, including power generating equipment and BOP facilities, as well as environmental site
restoration activities.
For purposes of this Study, Burns & McDonnell has assumed that each site will be decommissioned as a
single project allowing the most cost effective demolition methods to be utilized. A summary of several
of the means and methods that could be employed is summarized in the following paragraphs; however,
means and methods will not be dictated to the contractor by Burns & McDonnell. It will be the
contractor’s responsibility to determine means and methods that result in safely decommissioning the
Plants at the lowest possible cost.
Asbestos remediation, as required, would take place prior to commencement of any other demolition
activities. Abatement would need to be performed in compliance with all state and federal regulations,
including, but not limited to, requirements for sealing off work areas and maintaining negative pressure
throughout the removal process. Final clearances and approvals would need to be achieved prior to
performing further demolition activities.
High grade assets would then be removed from the site, to the extent possible. This would include items
such as transformers, transformer coils, circuit breakers, electrical wire, condenser plates and tubes, and
heater tubes. High grade assets include precious alloys such as copper, aluminum-brass tubes, stainless
steel tubes, and other high value metals occurring in plant systems. High grade asset removal would
occur up-front in the schedule, to reduce the potential for vandalism, to increase cash flow, and for
separation of recyclable materials, in order to increase scrap recovery. Methods of removal vary with the
location and nature of the asset. Small transformers, small equipment, and wire would likely be removed
and shipped as-is for processing at a scrap yard. Large transformers, CT, STG, and condensers would
likely require some on-site disassembly prior to being shipped to a scrap yard.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 19 of 73
Construction and Demolition (“C&D”) waste includes items such as non-asbestos insulation, roofing,
wood, drywall, plastics, and other non-metallic materials. C&D waste would typically be segregated
from scrap and concrete to avoid cross-contaminating of waste streams or recycle streams. C&D
demolition crews could remove these materials with equipment such as excavators equipped with material
handling attachments, skid steers, etc. This material would be consolidated and loaded into bulk
containers for disposal.
In general, boilers could be felled and cut into manageable sized pieces on the ground. First the structures
around the boilers would need to be removed using excavators equipped with shears and grapples. Stairs,
grating, elevators, and other high structures would be removed using an “ultra-high reach” excavator,
equipped with shears. Following removal of these structures, the boilers would be felled, using explosive
blasts. The boilers would then be dismantled using equipment such as excavators equipped with shears
and grapples, and the scrap metal loaded onto trailers for recycling.
After the surrounding structures and ductwork have been removed, the stacks would be imploded, using
controlled blasts. Following implosion the stack liners and concrete would be reduced in size to allow for
handling and removal.
BOP structures and foundations would likely be demolished using excavators equipped with hydraulic
shears, hydraulic grapples, and impact breakers, along with workers utilizing open flame cutting torches.
Steel components would be separated, reduced in size, and loaded onto trailers for recycling. Concrete
would be broken into manageable sized pieces and stockpiled for crushing on-site. Concrete pieces
would ultimately be loaded in a hopper and fed through a crusher to be sized for on-site disposal.
4.1 General Assumptions for All Sites

The following assumptions were made as the basis of all of the cost estimates.
1. All cost estimates are in current 2016 dollars.

2. All estimates are budgetary in nature and do not reflect guaranteed costs. Budgetary refers to the
nature of the itemized cost estimate being for planning purposes only and not a guarantee.
3. All estimates are based on labor rates from RS means values for a demolition crew B-8 with
adjusted rates based on the local site cost index for the Plants.
4. All work will take place in a safe and cost efficient method.
5. Labor costs are based on a regular 40-hour workweek without overtime.
6. The estimates are inclusive of all costs necessary to properly dismantle and decommission all
sites to a marketable or usable condition. For purposes of this Study and the included cost

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 20 of 73
estimates, the sites will be restored to a condition suitable for industrial use. Such sites that are
restored for reuse in industrial settings are referred to as brownfield sites.
7. Abatement of asbestos will precede any other work. After final air quality clearances have been
reached, demolition can proceed.
8. All facilities will be decommissioned to zero generating output. Existing utilities will remain in
place for use by the contractor for the duration of the demolition activities.
9. It is assumed that all of the power stations will be dismantled after all units at a single site are
taken out of service, allowing dismantlement of entire sites at once.
10. Soil testing and any other on-site testing has not been conducted for this study.
11. Transmission switchyards and substations outside the boundaries of the plant are not part of the
demolition scope.
12. Major equipment, structural steel, CTs, generators, inlet filters, exhaust stacks, transformers,
electrical equipment, cabling, wiring, pump skids, above ground piping, and equipment
enclosures for the above equipment will be sold for scrap and removed from the Plant site by the
demolition contractor. All other demolished materials are considered debris.
13. The costs for relocation of transmission lines, or other transmission assets, are specifically
excluded from the decommissioning cost estimates.
14. Any costs necessary to support on-going operations of adjacent or newly proposed units will be
allocated to the operating costs of the units not being decommissioned.
15. All demolition and abatement activities, including removal of asbestos, will be done in
accordance with any and all applicable Federal, State and Local laws, rules and regulations.
16. Any residual oil or sludge in tanks and pipes will be cleaned up by DEP prior to demolition.
17. The scrap value of the equipment is based on the equipment being at the end of its useful life at
the time of demolition; therefore, the equipment will not have a value on the grey market for
reinstallation. Equipment will have value as scrap only at the time of site demolition.
18. All scrap materials include a deduction for transportation and are based on pricing at the
Cincinnati hub and, with the exception of stainless steel, which is based on the Cleveland hub.
19. It is assumed that sufficient area to receive, assemble and temporarily store equipment and
materials is available.
20. Step-up transformers, auxiliary transformers, and spare transformers are included for demolition
and scrap in all estimates.
21. Demolition will include the removal of all structures, equipment, tanks, conveyer systems,
ancillary buildings, and any other associated equipment to two (2) feet below grade.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 21 of 73
22. To the extent possible, concrete will be crushed and disposed of on-site. During crushing of the
concrete, a large magnet is utilized to remove all rebar. All other non-hazardous material with no
scrap value will be disposed of off-site at the nearest landfill.
23. All above grade plant structures and materials such as fire walls, masonry, doors, windows,
building finishes, plumbing, HVAC ductwork, lighting fixtures, and cable trays, will be disposed
of off-site at the nearest landfill.
24. Foundations and ground floor slabs will be removed to two (2) feet below grade. The surface will
be graded for drainage using onsite soil and seeding.
25. All pipe supports, and pipe racks will be demolished and scrapped.
26. Three feet of soil beneath the fuel oil tanks is to be removed and replaced with clean fill.
27. Hazardous material abatement is included for all sites as necessary, including asbestos, mercury,
and polychlorinated biphenyls (“PCBs”). Lead paint coated materials will be handled by certified
personnel compliant with OSHA Standards as necessary, but will not be removed prior to
demolition. Scrap steel can be taken to scrap brokers with lead paint still intact, and it will not
impact the scrap value.
28. All portable tanks will be removed from the site and scrapped, including any propane tanks, oil
storage tanks, and waste oil tanks.
29. All production wells will be closed as per state regulations. Production wells will be filled with
grout to approximately five feet below surface grade. The top five feet will be overdrilled and
filled with soil backfill to grade on top of the grout. Monitoring wells will remain intact.
30. All chemicals will be consumed or disposed of by the Plant prior to shut down, including process
chemicals in equipment, stored chemicals, and laboratory chemicals.
31. Any observable surface spill will be cleaned up.
32. All trash, debris, and miscellaneous waste will be removed and disposed of properly.
33. Underground piping will be capped and abandoned in place. Circulating water tunnels will be
filled with flowable fill.
34. No environmental costs have been included to address cleanup of contaminated soils, hazardous
materials, or other conditions present on-site having a negative environmental impact, other than
those specifically listed in these assumptions. No allowances are included for unforeseen
environmental remediation activities.
35. Handling and disposal of hazardous material will be performed in compliance with the approved
methods of DEP’s Environmental Services Department.
36. Ash ponds and landfills are excluded from the scope of this Study.
37. Storm water ponds will be drained and the area graded out to allow for natural drainage.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 22 of 73
38. Site areas will be graded to achieve suitable site drainage to natural drainage patterns, but grading
will be minimized to the extent possible.
39. Existing basements will be used to bury non-hazardous debris. Concrete in trenches and
basements will be perforated to create drainage. Non-hazardous debris, such as concrete will be
crushed and used as clean fill on-site once the capacity of all existing basements has been
exceeded. All inert debris will be disposed of on-site. Costs for offsite disposal are included for
materials not classified as inert debris.
40. Valuation and sale of land and all replacement generation costs are excluded from this scope.
41. Spare parts inventories were not provided to Burns & McDonnell for review. Burns &
McDonnell assumes that to the extent possible spare parts will be sold prior to decommissioning
and remaining spare parts will be scrapped by the demolition contractor.
42. Rolling stock, including rail cars, dozers, plant vehicles, etc. is assumed to be removed by DEP
prior to decommissioning.
43. The scope of the costs included in the Study is limited to the decommissioning activities that will
occur at the end of useful life of the facilities. Additional on-going costs may be required. These
costs are excluded from the cost estimates provided in this Study.
44. A 20 percent contingency was included on the direct costs in the estimates prepared as part of this
Study to cover unknowns.
45. Indirect costs are included in the cost estimate to cover owner expenses such as management
trailers, utilities, etc. which may impact the cost of decommissioning each site. An indirect cost
of 5 percent was included in the estimates to cover such costs.
46. Market conditions may result in cost variations at the time of contract execution.
4.2 Site Specific Decommissioning Assumptions

The following assumptions were made specific to each plant cost estimate.
4.2.1 Asheville Coal

1. Unit 1 has been assumed to have had approximately 50 percent of the asbestos removed from the
boilers, 50 percent of asbestos removed from the steam turbines, and 20 percent of asbestos
removed from the critical piping. The cost of removal and disposal of the remaining asbestos is
included in the cost estimates.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 23 of 73
3. Stack demolition does not include any asbestos remediation.

4. The cooling lake will remain as-is.
5. Three transformers at the plant historically included PCB containing oil. These oils have all been
removed. PCB testing results indicate that PCB levels are below 50 ppm, therefore, this oil will
be disposed of as non-PCB oil. The costs also include removal of one foot of soil beneath the
pads for offsite disposal.
4.2.2 Asheville CTs

1. The two Fuel Oil tanks on the south side of the plant are included in the cost estimate for the
decommissioning of the CT Units.
2. The two Demineralized Water Tanks east of the coal plant are included in the cost estimate for
the decommissioning of the CT Units.
3. The two BOP buildings located east of the Demineralized Water tanks were included in the scope
of the Asheville CT Study.
4. The combustion turbines do not contain any asbestos.
4.2.3 Blewett
1. The dam is not included in this Study, and will remain in place for flow control purposes. The
powerhouse and penstocks will also remain in place to support flow control operations.
2. Although the powerhouse will remain, the cost of asbestos abatement in the powerhouse is
included in the decommissioning cost estimates.
3. Generators, transformers, and other power generation equipment will be removed.
4.2.4 Camp Lejeune Solar

1. All roads on site are gravel.
2. Since the transformers at the power station were in use before Camp Lejeune was constructed, the
cost to decommission these transformers were not included in the estimate.
4.2.5 Darlington
1. Unit 12 and Unit 13 are asbestos free.
2. Units 1 through Unit 11 have had asbestos containing heat shields removed.
3. The lube oil lines under the generators and water lines are assumed to contain asbestos. Costs for
removal and disposal of this asbestos have been included in the cost estimates.
4. The transformers at the plant historically included PCB containing oil. These oils have all been

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 24 of 73
4.2.6 Elm City Solar

4.2.7 Fayetteville Solar

4.2.8 Lee
1. The fuel oil tank located at Wayne County that is the farthest south east and closest to Lee is
incorporated in the Lee estimate.
2. No further work where the coal plant used to be located is associated with this Study.
3. Below ground circulating water piping is concrete and will be flowable filled.
4.2.9 Marshall
3. Ceiling tiles in the powerhouse and flooring in the control room contain asbestos.
4. Additional areas around the powerhouse potentially contain asbestos, including, but not limited
to, pipe insulation, sprayed decorative ceilings, plaster, gaskets, valve packing, floor tile and
vinyl, specialty paint and coatings, roofing asphalt, joint compound, cord/rope, roofing felt,
transite panels, ebony boards, mastics, and electrical wire coating. An allowance for abatement
of these potentially asbestos contaminated areas has been included in the cost estimates.
4.2.10 Mayo
1. The boilers, steam turbines, critical piping, and other major equipment at the Mayo plant is
assumed to be asbestos free, based on the age of the facility. Gaskets, packing, tiles, etc. are
assumed to contain asbestos. The cost for handling and disposing of this asbestos containing
material is included in the cost estimates.
2. The cooling lake will remain as-is.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 25 of 73
3. The transformers at the plant historically included PCB containing oil. These oils have all been
4.2.11 Roxboro
5. The old stacks are concrete stacks with a brick liner, with a layer of asbestos material in between
the concrete and the brick. Unit 3 and Unit 4 stacks are approximately 800 feet tall. The cost of
removal and disposal of this asbestos is included in the cost estimates.
6. In areas around the fuel oil tanks, the areas will be excavated down 5 feet below the existing
ground surface level, to account for potentially contaminated soil from historical leaks or spills.
This soil will be hauled off and disposed of in an appropriately licensed landfill. For purposes of
this Study, this depth of removal from the surface was selected as an assumed average depth of
removal for the potentially contaminated areas. The actual contamination depth may be
shallower or deeper in some areas, but for purposes of this Study, this average removal depth was
assumed. During final decommissioning activities, soil sampling will be performed if needed, to
verify removal of contaminated material.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 26 of 73
7. In areas around the fuel oil pipes, a trench will be excavated 5 feet wide by 10 feet below the
existing ground surface level, to account for potentially contaminated soil from historical leaks or
spills. This soil will be hauled off and disposed of in an appropriately licensed landfill. For
purposes of this Study, this depth and of removal from the surface and width of removal was
selected as an assumed average area of contamination surrounding the fuel oil lines. The actual
area of contamination may be smaller or larger in some areas, but for purposes of this Study, this
average removal area was assumed. During final decommissioning activities, soil sampling will
be performed if needed, to verify removal of contaminated material.
8. The cooling lake and intake canal will remain as-is.
9. Plant personnel indicated that 70 percent of the transformers at the plant historically included
PCB containing oil. These oils have all been removed. PCB testing results indicate that PCB
levels are below 50 ppm, therefore, this oil will be disposed of as non-PCB oil. The costs also
include removal of one foot of soil beneath the pads for offsite disposal.
4.2.12 Smith
1. All buildings and tanks are associated with the combined cycle estimate.
2. The buildings and materials to the north east of the plant outside of the fence line are not in the
scope of this Study.
3. Spare transformers are included in the combined cycle estimate
4. Due to the vintage of the plant, it is assumed no asbestos is present.
5. There are no PCBs at Smith Energy Complex.
4.2.13 Sutton
1. Assets belonging to the coal plant currently being decommissioned were not included in the scope
of this Study.
2. Due to the vintage of the plant, it is assumed no asbestos is present.
4.2.14 Tillery
3. No known asbestos contamination has been identified; however, areas of potential asbestos
contamination exist.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 27 of 73
transite panels, ebony boards, mastics, electrical wire coating. An allowance for abatement of
these potentially asbestos contaminated areas has been included in the cost estimates.
4.2.15 Walters
3. The CO2 shed associated with the engine plant includes panels that contain asbestos.
4. A list of known asbestos contamination had been provided to BMcD in 2011, and serves as the
basis for the asbestos removal and disposal costs.
transite panels, ebony boards, mastics, electrical wire coating. An allowance for abatement of
these potentially asbestos contaminated areas has been included in the cost estimates.
4.2.16 Warsaw Solar

4.2.17 Wayne County

1. There are no PCBs at Wayne County Plant.
2. There is no asbestos at Wayne County Plant.
4.2.18 Weatherspoon
1. There is minimal asbestos at Weatherspoon in the gaskets and wiring.
2. Fuel oil remediation project is outside of scope
3. New HDPE liner on the fuel oil containment was assumed to have a density of 59.68 lbs/sqft and
a thickness of .098 feet (3 mm).

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 28 of 73
4. In areas around the fuel oil tanks, the areas will be excavated down 5 feet below the existing
ground surface level, to account for potentially contaminated soil from historical leaks or spills.
This soil will be hauled off and disposed of in an appropriately licensed landfill. For purposes of
this Study, this depth of removal from the surface was selected as an assumed average depth of
removal for the potentially contaminated areas. The actual contamination depth may be
shallower or deeper in some areas, but for purposes of this Study, this average removal depth was
assumed. During final decommissioning activities, soil sampling will be performed if needed, to
verify removal of contaminated material.
5. In areas around the fuel oil pipes, a trench will be excavated 5 feet wide by 10 feet below the
existing ground surface level, to account for potentially contaminated soil from historical leaks or
spills. This soil will be hauled off and disposed of in an appropriately licensed landfill. For
purposes of this Study, this depth and of removal from the surface and width of removal was
selected as an assumed average area of contamination surrounding the fuel oil lines. The actual
area of contamination may be smaller or larger in some areas, but for purposes of this Study, this
average removal area was assumed. During final decommissioning activities, soil sampling will
be performed if needed, to verify removal of contaminated material.
4.3 Scrap Metal Credit

Scrap metal prices used in the development of the scrap credit were based on prices for various types of
materials published by the American Metal Market. Transportation costs were deducted from the scrap
material prices from the American Metal Market values to determine the net scrap credit per ton or per
pound for each scrap material at each site. Table 4-1 presents the net scrap metal unit prices for each site.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 29 of 73
Table 4-1: Basis for Scrap Metal Value

Steel Copper Aluminum Stainless Titanium Hastelloy Sea Cure
Plant Name Scrap Value Scrap Value Scrap Value Scrap Value Scrap Value Scrap Value Scrap Value
(Per Net Ton) (Per Pound) (Per Pound) (Per Pound) (per pound) (per pound) (per pound)
Asheville ($138.27) ($1.72) N/A ($0.65) N/A N/A N/A
Blewett ($139.47) ($1.72) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Camp Lejeune ($136.23) ($1.72) ($0.40) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Darlington ($142.23) ($1.72) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Elm City ($140.37) ($1.72) ($0.40) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Fayetteville ($136.22) ($1.72) ($0.40) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Lee ($141.28) ($1.72) N/A ($0.65) N/A N/A N/A
Marshall ($137.61) ($1.72) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mayo ($136.92) ($1.72) ($0.40) ($0.65) ($8.10) ($4.47) N/A
Roxboro ($136.92) ($1.72) ($0.40) ($0.65) N/A N/A ($1.87)
Sherwood Smith ($140.00) ($1.72) N/A ($0.65) N/A N/A N/A
Sutton ($141.83) ($1.72) N/A N/A ($8.10) N/A N/A
Tillery ($139.12) ($1.72) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Walters ($126.58) ($1.71) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Warsaw ($143.52) ($1.72) ($0.40) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Wayne County ($141.28) ($1.72) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Weatherspoon ($139.26) ($1.72) N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
4.4 Results
Table 4-2 presents a summary of the decommissioning cost for each Plant. This summary provides a
breakout of the total for the decommissioning and demolition activities and the scrap value totals for each
Plant in order to calculate the resulting net project cost for each Plant.

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 30 of 73
Table 4-2: Decommissioning Cost Summary (2016$)

Plant Decommissioning Costs Credits Net Project Cost
Asheville Coal $ 22,971,000 $ (5,300,000) $ 17,671,000
Asheville CTs $ 2,217,000 $ (1,125,000) $ 1,092,000
Blewett Hydros $ 4,645,000 $ (212,000) $ 4,433,000
Blewett CTs $ 932,000 $ (198,000) $ 734,000
Camp Lejeune Solar $ 1,332,000 $ (406,000) $ 926,000
Darlington $ 9,033,000 $ (3,951,000) $ 5,082,000
Elm City Solar $ 6,277,000 $ (1,858,000) $ 4,419,000
Fayetteville Solar $ 2,702,000 $ (676,000) $ 2,026,000
Lee $ 14,368,000 $ (4,481,000) $ 9,887,000
Marshall $ 1,313,000 $ (97,000) $ 1,216,000
Mayo $ 38,670,000 $ (7,419,000) $ 31,251,000
Roxboro $ 86,054,000 $ (20,838,000) $ 65,216,000
Smith CCs $ 19,223,000 $ (6,135,000) $ 13,088,000
Smith CTs $ 4,171,000 $ (2,507,000) $ 1,664,000
Sutton $ 10,215,000 $ (8,824,000) $ 1,391,000
Tillery $ 3,442,000 $ (207,000) $ 3,235,000
Walters $ 2,708,000 $ (716,000) $ 1,992,000
Warsaw Solar $ 11,452,000 $ (5,292,000) $ 6,160,000
Wayne County $ 6,130,000 $ (2,689,000) $ 3,441,000
Weatherspoon $ 4,919,000 $ (907,000) $ 4,012,000

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 31 of 73
APPENDIX A - PLANT AERIALS

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 32 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 33 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 34 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 35 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 36 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 37 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 38 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 39 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 40 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 41 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 42 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 43 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 44 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 45 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 46 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 47 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 48 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 49 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 50 of 73
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 51 of 73
APPENDIX B - COST ESTIMATE SUMMARIES

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 52 of 73
Table B-1
Asheville Coal
Decommissioning Cost Summary
Material and
Labor Equipment Disposal Environmental Total Cost Scrap Value
Asheville Coal
Unit 1
Asbestos Removal $ - $ - $ - $ 618,000 $ 618,000 $ -
Boiler $ 1,306,000 $ 1,122,000 $ - $ - $ 2,428,000 $ -
Steam Turbine & Building $ 501,000 $ 431,000 $ - $ - $ 932,000 $ -
Cooling Water Intakes and Circulating Water Pumps $ 10,000 $ 8,000 $ - $ - $ 18,000 $ -
Precipitator $ 334,000 $ 287,000 $ - $ - $ 621,000 $ -
SCR $ 398,000 $ 342,000 $ - $ - $ 740,000 $ -
Scrubber / FGD $ 576,000 $ 495,000 $ - $ - $ 1,071,000 $ -
Stacks $ 110,000 $ 95,000 $ - $ - $ 205,000 $ -
GSU & Foundation $ 16,000 $ 14,000 $ - $ - $ 30,000 $ -
Refractory Disposal $ - $ - $ - $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ -
On-site Concrete Crushing & Disposal $ - $ - $ 101,000 $ - $ 101,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 29,000 $ - $ 29,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (2,698,000)
Subtotal $ 3,251,000 $ 2,794,000 $ 130,000 $ 625,000 $ 6,800,000 $ (2,698,000)
Unit 2
Boiler $ 1,271,000 $ 1,092,000 $ - $ - $ 2,363,000 $ -
Steam Turbine & Building $ 501,000 $ 431,000 $ - $ - $ 932,000 $ -
Precipitator $ 333,000 $ 287,000 $ - $ - $ 620,000 $ -
SCR $ 386,000 $ 332,000 $ - $ - $ 718,000 $ -
Scrubber / FGD $ 13,000 $ 11,000 $ - $ - $ 24,000 $ -
Stacks $ 110,000 $ 95,000 $ - $ - $ 205,000 $ -
GSU & Foundation $ 22,000 $ 19,000 $ - $ - $ 41,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 30,000 $ - $ 30,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (2,277,000)
Subtotal $ 2,645,000 $ 2,274,000 $ 126,000 $ 625,000 $ 5,670,000 $ (2,277,000)
Handling
Coal Handling $ 10,000 $ 9,000 $ - $ - $ 19,000 $ -
Rail Spur Removal $ 139,000 $ 119,000 $ 51,000 $ - $ 309,000 $ (92,000)
Limestone Handling Facilities $ 171,000 $ 147,000 $ - $ - $ 318,000 $ -
Coal Pile Remediation $ - $ - $ - $ 1,110,000 $ 1,110,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (3,000)
Subtotal $ 320,000 $ 275,000 $ 63,000 $ 1,110,000 $ 1,768,000 $ (95,000)
Common
Cooling Water Intakes and Circulating Water Pumps $ 71,000 $ 61,000 $ - $ 301,000 $ 433,000 $ -
Roads $ 141,000 $ 121,000 $ 169,000 $ - $ 431,000 $ -
All BOP Buildings $ 190,000 $ 163,000 $ - $ - $ 353,000 $ -
Fuel Oil Storage Tanks $ 6,000 $ 6,000 $ - $ - $ 12,000 $ -
All Other Tanks $ 26,000 $ 22,000 $ - $ - $ 48,000 $ -
Mercury & Universal Waste Disposal $ - $ - $ - $ 11,000 $ 11,000 $ -
Plant Wash Down & Disposal $ - $ - $ - $ 49,000 $ 49,000 $ -
Transformer Oil Disposal $ - $ - $ - $ 89,000 $ 89,000 $ -
Transformer Pad and Soil Removal $ - $ - $ - $ 12,000 $ 12,000 $ -
Fuel Oil Line Flushing/Cleaning $ - $ - $ - $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ -
Nuclear Device Disposal $ - $ - $ - $ 34,000 $ 34,000 $ -
Grading & Seeding $ - $ - $ - $ 1,531,000 $ 1,531,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 6,000 $ - $ 6,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (230,000)
Subtotal $ 434,000 $ 373,000 $ 187,000 $ 3,145,000 $ 4,139,000 $ (230,000)
Asheville Coal Subtotal $ 6,650,000 $ 5,716,000 $ 506,000 $ 5,505,000 $ 18,377,000 $ (5,300,000)
TOTAL DECOM COST (CREDIT) $ 18,377,000 $ (5,300,000)
PROJECT INDIRECTS (5%) $ 919,000
CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 3,675,000
TOTAL PROJECT COST (CREDIT) $ 22,971,000 $ (5,300,000)
TOTAL NET PROJECT COST (CREDIT) $ 17,671,000

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 53 of 73
Table B-2
Asheville CTs
Material and
Asheville CTs
CTs 3 & 4
CTs $ 508,000 $ 437,000 $ - $ - $ 945,000 $ -
Stack (Metal) $ 12,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 22,000 $ -
GSUs, Electical, & Foundation $ 59,000 $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ 109,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 4,000 $ - $ 4,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (1,010,000)
Subtotal $ 579,000 $ 497,000 $ 16,000 $ - $ 1,092,000 $ (1,010,000)
Common
Switchgear & Electrical $ 5,000 $ 4,000 $ - $ - $ 9,000 $ -
BOP Miscellaneous $ 3,000 $ 2,000 $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ -
Roads $ 51,000 $ 44,000 $ 60,000 $ - $ 155,000 $ -
All Other Tanks $ 66,000 $ 57,000 $ - $ - $ 123,000 $ -
Soil Remediation Beneath Fuel Oil Tank $ - $ - $ - $ 36,000 $ 36,000 $ -
Fuel Oil Tank Cleaning $ - $ - $ - $ 34,000 $ 34,000 $ -
Grading & Seeding $ - $ - $ - $ 69,000 $ 69,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (115,000)
Subtotal $ 207,000 $ 177,000 $ 62,000 $ 235,000 $ 681,000 $ (115,000)
Asheville CTs Subtotal $ 786,000 $ 674,000 $ 78,000 $ 235,000 $ 1,773,000 $ (1,125,000)
CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 355,000

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 54 of 73
Table B-3
Blewett Hydros
Material and
Blewett Hydros
Hydroelectric Unit 1-6

Hydroelectic $ 1,420,000 $ 1,135,000 $ - $ - $ 2,555,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 7,000 $ - $ 7,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (212,000)
Subtotal $ 1,420,000 $ 1,135,000 $ 7,000 $ - $ 2,562,000 $ (212,000)
Common
Asbestos Removal $ - $ - $ - $ 1,125,000 $ 1,125,000 $ -
Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ 1,154,000 $ 1,154,000 $ -
Blewett Hydros Subtotal $ 1,420,000 $ 1,135,000 $ 7,000 $ 1,154,000 $ 3,716,000 $ (212,000)
TOTAL DECOM COST (CREDIT) $ 3,716,000 $ (212,000)
TOTAL PROJECT COST (CREDIT) $ 4,645,000 $ (212,000)

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 55 of 73
Table B-4
Blewett CTs
Material and
Blewett CTs
CTs 1-4
CTs $ 171,000 $ 147,000 $ - $ - $ 318,000 $ -
Stack (Metal) $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ - $ - $ 6,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 1,000 $ - $ 1,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (124,000)
Subtotal $ 185,000 $ 159,000 $ 6,000 $ 12,000 $ 362,000 $ (124,000)
Common
BOP Misc. $ 5,000 $ 4,000 $ - $ - $ 9,000 $ -
Fuel Oil Tanks $ 25,000 $ 22,000 $ - $ - $ 47,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 1,000 $ - $ 1,000 $ -
Grading & Seeding $ - $ - $ - $ 92,000 $ 92,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (74,000)
Subtotal $ 102,000 $ 88,000 $ 6,000 $ 188,000 $ 384,000 $ (74,000)
Blewett CTs Subtotal $ 287,000 $ 247,000 $ 12,000 $ 200,000 $ 746,000 $ (198,000)
TOTAL DECOM COST (CREDIT) $ 746,000 $ (198,000)
TOTAL PROJECT COST (CREDIT) $ 932,000 $ (198,000)
TOTAL NET PROJECT COST (CREDIT) $ 734,000

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 56 of 73
Table B-5
Camp Lejeune
Solar Decommissioning Cost Summary
Material and
Camp Lejeune
Unit 1
Solar Panel Removal/Recycling $ 227,000 $ 60,000 $ 88,000 $ - $ 375,000 $ -
Solar Panel Support $ 190,000 $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ 240,000 $ -
Cables and Wires $ 37,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 47,000 $ -
Transformer and Inverter Block $ 26,000 $ 7,000 $ - $ - $ 33,000 $ -
Combiner Boxes $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000 $ -
Roads $ - $ - $ - $ 9,000 $ 9,000 $ -
Perimeter Fence Removal $ 33,000 $ 9,000 $ - $ - $ 42,000 $ -
On-site Concrete Crushing and Removal $ - $ - $ 1,000 $ - $ 1,000 $ -
Site Restoration $ - $ - $ - $ 313,000 $ 313,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (406,000)
Subtotal $ 514,000 $ 136,000 $ 94,000 $ 322,000 $ 1,066,000 $ (406,000)
Camp Lejeune Subtotal $ 514,000 $ 136,000 $ 94,000 $ 322,000 $ 1,066,000 $ (406,000)
TOTAL NET PROJECT COST (CREDIT) $ 926,000

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 57 of 73
Table B-6
Darlington
Material and
Darlington
CTs 1-10
CTs $ 1,289,000 $ 1,108,000 $ - $ - $ 2,397,000 $ -
Stack (Metal) $ 35,000 $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ 65,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 2,000 $ - $ 2,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (2,879,000)
Subtotal $ 1,419,000 $ 1,220,000 $ 19,000 $ 34,000 $ 2,692,000 $ (2,879,000)
CTs 12 & 13
CTs $ 447,000 $ 384,000 $ - $ - $ 831,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 6,000 $ - $ 6,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (917,000)
Subtotal $ 485,000 $ 416,000 $ 12,000 $ - $ 913,000 $ (917,000)
Common
Roads $ 442,000 $ 380,000 $ 386,000 $ - $ 1,208,000 $ -
Fuel Tanks and Equipment $ 151,000 $ 130,000 $ - $ - $ 281,000 $ -
All Other Tanks $ 60,000 $ 52,000 $ - $ - $ 112,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 3,000 $ - $ 3,000 $ -
Grading & Seeding $ - $ - $ - $ 1,118,000 $ 1,118,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (155,000)
Subtotal $ 792,000 $ 681,000 $ 400,000 $ 1,749,000 $ 3,622,000 $ (155,000)
Darlington Subtotal $ 2,211,000 $ 1,901,000 $ 419,000 $ 1,783,000 $ 7,227,000 $ (3,951,000)
CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 1,445,000

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 58 of 73
Table B-7
Elm City
Material and
Elm City
Unit 1
Substation $ 11,000 $ 3,000 $ - $ - $ 14,000 $ -
Solar Panel Removal/Recycling $ 1,151,000 $ 303,000 $ 336,000 $ - $ 1,790,000 $ -
Solar Panel Support $ 1,088,000 $ 287,000 $ - $ - $ 1,375,000 $ -
Cables and Wires $ 146,000 $ 38,000 $ - $ - $ 184,000 $ -
Combiner Boxes $ 3,000 $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ 4,000 $ -
Roads $ - $ - $ - $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ -
Site Restoration $ - $ - $ - $ 1,144,000 $ 1,144,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 41,000 $ - $ 41,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (1,858,000)
Subtotal $ 2,707,000 $ 713,000 $ 388,000 $ 1,214,000 $ 5,022,000 $ (1,858,000)
Elm City Subtotal $ 2,707,000 $ 713,000 $ 388,000 $ 1,214,000 $ 5,022,000 $ (1,858,000)
CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 1,004,000

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 59 of 73
Table B-8
Fayetteville
Material and
Fayetteville
Unit 1
Substation $ 11,000 $ 3,000 $ - $ - $ 14,000 $ -
Solar Panel Removal/Recycling $ 518,000 $ 137,000 $ 243,000 $ - $ 898,000 $ -
Solar Panel Support $ 367,000 $ 97,000 $ - $ - $ 464,000 $ -
Cables and Wires $ 51,000 $ 14,000 $ - $ - $ 65,000 $ -
Combiner Boxes $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,000 $ -
Roads $ - $ - $ - $ 18,000 $ 18,000 $ -
Site Restoration $ - $ - $ - $ 574,000 $ 574,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 11,000 $ - $ 11,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (676,000)
Subtotal $ 1,038,000 $ 275,000 $ 257,000 $ 592,000 $ 2,162,000 $ (676,000)
Fayetteville Subtotal $ 1,038,000 $ 275,000 $ 257,000 $ 592,000 $ 2,162,000 $ (676,000)

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 60 of 73
Table B-9
H.F. Lee
Material and
H.F. Lee
Unit 1
CTs and HRSGs $ 3,080,000 $ 2,647,000 $ - $ - $ 5,727,000 $ -
ST, Pedestal, & Building $ 935,000 $ 803,000 $ - $ - $ 1,738,000 $ -
SCR $ 89,000 $ 77,000 $ - $ - $ 166,000 $ -
Stack (Metal) $ 217,000 $ 186,000 $ - $ - $ 403,000 $ -
Transformers & Foundation $ 179,000 $ 154,000 $ - $ - $ 333,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (4,257,000)
Subtotal $ 4,500,000 $ 3,867,000 $ 127,000 $ - $ 8,494,000 $ (4,257,000)
Common
Aux Boiler $ 10,000 $ 9,000 $ - $ - $ 19,000 $ -
Roads $ 173,000 $ 148,000 $ 141,000 $ - $ 462,000 $ -
All Other Tanks $ 152,000 $ 131,000 $ - $ - $ 283,000 $ -
Grading and Seeding $ - $ - $ - $ 715,000 $ 715,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 2,000 $ - $ 2,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (224,000)
Subtotal $ 842,000 $ 724,000 $ 171,000 $ 1,263,000 $ 3,000,000 $ (224,000)
H.F. Lee Subtotal $ 5,342,000 $ 4,591,000 $ 298,000 $ 1,263,000 $ 11,494,000 $ (4,481,000)
CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 2,299,000

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 61 of 73
Table B-10
Marshall
Material and
Marshall
Hydro 1-2
Hydroelectic $ 455,000 $ 483,000 $ - $ - $ 938,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 17,000 $ - $ 17,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (97,000)
Subtotal $ 455,000 $ 483,000 $ 17,000 $ - $ 955,000 $ (97,000)
Common
Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ 95,000 $ 95,000 $ -
Marshall Subtotal $ 455,000 $ 483,000 $ 17,000 $ 95,000 $ 1,050,000 $ (97,000)

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 62 of 73
Table B-11
Mayo
Material and
Mayo
Unit 1
Boiler $ 3,197,000 $ 3,719,000 $ - $ - $ 6,916,000 $ -
Steam Turbine & Building $ 1,113,000 $ 1,295,000 $ - $ - $ 2,408,000 $ -
Precipitator $ 682,000 $ 793,000 $ - $ - $ 1,475,000 $ -
SCR $ 790,000 $ 919,000 $ - $ - $ 1,709,000 $ -
Switchyard & Substation $ 9,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 19,000 $ -
Scrubber / FGD $ 788,000 $ 916,000 $ - $ - $ 1,704,000 $ -
Stacks $ 302,000 $ 351,000 $ 1,446,000 $ - $ 2,099,000 $ -
Cooling Towers & Basin $ 113,000 $ 131,000 $ - $ - $ 244,000 $ -
GSU & Foundation $ 123,000 $ 143,000 $ - $ - $ 266,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 194,000 $ - $ 194,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (6,516,000)
Subtotal $ 7,117,000 $ 8,277,000 $ 1,936,000 $ 51,000 $ 17,381,000 $ (6,516,000)
Handling
Demolition $ 125,000 $ 145,000 $ - $ - $ 270,000 $ -
Rail Spur Removal $ 258,000 $ 300,000 $ - $ - $ 558,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 135,000 $ - $ 135,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (285,000)
Subtotal $ 412,000 $ 478,000 $ 138,000 $ - $ 1,028,000 $ (285,000)
Common
Cooling Water Intakes and Circulating Water Pumps $ 30,000 $ 35,000 $ - $ 937,000 $ 1,002,000 $ -
Roads $ 211,000 $ 246,000 $ 268,000 $ - $ 725,000 $ -
All Other Tanks $ 16,000 $ 19,000 $ - $ - $ 35,000 $ -
Grading & Seeding $ - $ - $ - $ 4,503,000 $ 4,503,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 6,000 $ - $ 6,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (618,000)
Subtotal $ 742,000 $ 864,000 $ 450,000 $ 10,471,000 $ 12,527,000 $ (618,000)
Mayo Subtotal $ 8,271,000 $ 9,619,000 $ 2,524,000 $ 10,522,000 $ 30,936,000 $ (7,419,000)
PROJECT INDIRECTS (5%) $ 1,547,000
CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 6,187,000

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 63 of 73
Table B-12
Roxboro
Material and
Roxboro
Unit 1
Boiler $ 2,342,000 $ 2,014,000 $ - $ - $ 4,356,000 $ -
Steam Turbine & Building $ 726,000 $ 624,000 $ - $ - $ 1,350,000 $ -
Precipitator $ 526,000 $ 452,000 $ - $ - $ 978,000 $ -
SCR $ 518,000 $ 445,000 $ - $ - $ 963,000 $ -
Scrubber / FGD $ 189,000 $ 162,000 $ - $ - $ 351,000 $ -
Stacks $ 76,000 $ 66,000 $ - $ - $ 142,000 $ -
GSU & Foundation $ 32,000 $ 27,000 $ - $ - $ 59,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 60,000 $ - $ 60,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (3,338,000)
Subtotal $ 4,421,000 $ 3,800,000 $ 178,000 $ 1,495,000 $ 9,894,000 $ (3,338,000)
Unit 2
Boiler $ 3,349,000 $ 2,879,000 $ - $ - $ 6,228,000 $ -
Steam Turbine & Building $ 1,051,000 $ 903,000 $ - $ - $ 1,954,000 $ -
Precipitator $ 680,000 $ 584,000 $ - $ - $ 1,264,000 $ -
SCR $ 700,000 $ 602,000 $ - $ - $ 1,302,000 $ -
Scrubber / FGD $ 313,000 $ 269,000 $ - $ - $ 582,000 $ -
Stacks $ 76,000 $ 66,000 $ - $ - $ 142,000 $ -
GSU & Foundation $ 50,000 $ 43,000 $ - $ - $ 93,000 $ -
Coal Pile Remediation $ - $ - $ - $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 71,000 $ - $ 71,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (4,796,000)
Subtotal $ 6,231,000 $ 5,356,000 $ 223,000 $ 2,265,000 $ 14,075,000 $ (4,796,000)
Unit 3
Boiler $ 3,612,000 $ 3,105,000 $ - $ - $ 6,717,000 $ -
Precipitator $ 752,000 $ 646,000 $ - $ - $ 1,398,000 $ -
SCR $ 770,000 $ 662,000 $ - $ - $ 1,432,000 $ -
Scrubber / FGD $ 302,000 $ 260,000 $ - $ - $ 562,000 $ -
Stacks $ 229,000 $ 197,000 $ - $ - $ 426,000 $ -
GSU & Foundation $ 33,000 $ 28,000 $ - $ - $ 61,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 111,000 $ - $ 111,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (5,337,000)
Subtotal $ 7,458,000 $ 6,410,000 $ 406,000 $ 2,862,000 $ 17,136,000 $ (5,337,000)
Unit 4
Boiler $ 3,536,000 $ 3,039,000 $ - $ - $ 6,575,000 $ -
Precipitator $ 852,000 $ 733,000 $ - $ - $ 1,585,000 $ -
SCR $ 763,000 $ 656,000 $ - $ - $ 1,419,000 $ -
Scrubber / FGD $ 302,000 $ 260,000 $ - $ - $ 562,000 $ -
Stacks $ 229,000 $ 197,000 $ - $ - $ 426,000 $ -
GSU & Foundation $ 35,000 $ 30,000 $ - $ - $ 65,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 106,000 $ - $ 106,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (4,946,000)
Subtotal $ 7,459,000 $ 6,412,000 $ 401,000 $ 2,670,000 $ 16,942,000 $ (4,946,000)
Handling
Coal Handling Facilities $ 210,000 $ 181,000 $ - $ - $ 391,000 $ -
Rail Spur Removal $ 145,000 $ 125,000 $ - $ - $ 270,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 4,000 $ - $ 4,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (2,233,000)
Doss Exhibit 5
Page 64 of 73
Subtotal $ 372,000 $ 320,000 $ 6,000 $ 3,356,000 $ 4,054,000 $ (2,233,000)
Common
Roads $ 222,000 $ 191,000 $ - $ - $ 413,000 $ -
All Other Tanks $ 25,000 $ 22,000 $ - $ - $ 47,000 $ -
Soil Remediation Beneath Fuel Oil Tanks & Lines $ - $ - $ - $ 590,000 $ 590,000 $ -
Grading & Seeding $ - $ - $ - $ 4,315,000 $ 4,315,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 20,000 $ - $ 20,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (188,000)
Subtotal $ 752,000 $ 647,000 $ 40,000 $ 5,303,000 $ 6,742,000 $ (188,000)
Roxboro Subtotal $ 26,693,000 $ 22,945,000 $ 1,254,000 $ 17,951,000 $ 68,843,000 $ (20,838,000)
PROJECT INDIRECTS (5%) $ 3,442,000
CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 13,769,000

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 65 of 73
Table B-13
Sherwood H Smith CCs
Material and
Sherwood H Smith CCs
Power Block 4
CTs and HRSGs $ 1,439,000 $ 1,237,000 $ - $ - $ 2,676,000 $ -
ST, Pedestal, & Building $ 475,000 $ 409,000 $ - $ - $ 884,000 $ -
SCR $ 82,000 $ 70,000 $ - $ - $ 152,000 $ -
Stack (Metal) $ 68,000 $ 58,000 $ - $ - $ 126,000 $ -
GSU, Electrical & Foundation $ 117,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ 217,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 14,000 $ - $ 14,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (2,577,000)
Subtotal $ 2,375,000 $ 2,041,000 $ 63,000 $ - $ 4,479,000 $ (2,577,000)
Power Block 5
CTs and HRSGs $ 1,815,000 $ 1,560,000 $ - $ - $ 3,375,000 $ -
SCR $ 81,000 $ 69,000 $ - $ - $ 150,000 $ -
Stack (Metal) $ 135,000 $ 116,000 $ - $ - $ 251,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 16,000 $ - $ 16,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (3,106,000)
Subtotal $ 3,019,000 $ 2,595,000 $ 85,000 $ - $ 5,699,000 $ (3,106,000)
Common
Roads $ 212,000 $ 182,000 $ 198,000 $ - $ 592,000 $ -
All Other Tanks $ 146,000 $ 125,000 $ - $ - $ 271,000 $ -
Grading and Seeding $ - $ - $ - $ 2,437,000 $ 2,437,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 5,000 $ - $ 5,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (452,000)
Subtotal $ 1,001,000 $ 859,000 $ 231,000 $ 3,109,000 $ 5,200,000 $ (452,000)
Sherwood H Smith CCs Subtotal $ 6,395,000 $ 5,495,000 $ 379,000 $ 3,109,000 $ 15,378,000 $ (6,135,000)
CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 3,076,000

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 66 of 73
Table B-14
Sherwood H Smith CTs
Material and
Sherwood H Smith CTs
CTs 1-5
CTs $ 1,319,000 $ 1,133,000 $ - $ - $ 2,452,000 $ -
Stack (Metal) $ 30,000 $ 26,000 $ - $ - $ 56,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (2,480,000)
Subtotal $ 1,472,000 $ 1,264,000 $ 33,000 $ - $ 2,769,000 $ (2,480,000)
Common
BOP Misc. $ 5,000 $ 4,000 $ - $ - $ 9,000 $ -
Roads $ 53,000 $ 46,000 $ 50,000 $ - $ 149,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (27,000)
Subtotal $ 127,000 $ 110,000 $ 54,000 $ 277,000 $ 568,000 $ (27,000)
Sherwood H Smith CTs Subtotal $ 1,599,000 $ 1,374,000 $ 87,000 $ 277,000 $ 3,337,000 $ (2,507,000)

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 67 of 73
Table B-15
Sutton
Material and
Sutton
Unit 1
Aux Boiler $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ - $ - $ 16,000 $ -
CTs and HRSGs $ 1,857,000 $ 1,857,000 $ - $ - $ 3,714,000 $ -
SCR $ 208,000 $ 208,000 $ - $ - $ 416,000 $ -
Stack (Metal) $ 127,000 $ 127,000 $ - $ - $ 254,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 8,000 $ - $ 8,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (8,678,000)
Subtotal $ 2,958,000 $ 2,958,000 $ 62,000 $ - $ 5,979,000 $ (8,678,000)
Common
Switchgear & Electrical $ 15,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 15,000 $ -
Roads $ 159,000 $ 159,000 $ 137,000 $ - $ 456,000 $ -
All Other Tanks $ 63,000 $ 63,000 $ - $ - $ 125,000 $ -
Grading and Seeding $ - $ - $ - $ 627,000 $ 627,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 16,000 $ - $ 16,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (146,000)
Subtotal $ 567,000 $ 552,000 $ 170,000 $ 904,000 $ 2,193,000 $ (146,000)
Sutton Subtotal $ 3,525,000 $ 3,510,000 $ 232,000 $ 904,000 $ 8,172,000 $ (8,824,000)
CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 1,634,000

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 68 of 73
Table B-16
Tillery
Material and
Tillery
Hydro 1-2
Hydroelectic $ 908,000 $ 855,000 $ - $ - $ 1,763,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 39,000 $ - $ 39,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (207,000)
Subtotal $ 908,000 $ 855,000 $ 39,000 $ - $ 1,802,000 $ (207,000)
Common
Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ 951,000 $ 951,000 $ -
Tillery Subtotal $ 908,000 $ 855,000 $ 39,000 $ 951,000 $ 2,753,000 $ (207,000)

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 69 of 73
Table B-17
Walters
Material and
Walters
Hydro 1-2
Hydroelectic $ 876,000 $ 563,000 $ - $ - $ 1,439,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 17,000 $ - $ 17,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (716,000)
Subtotal $ 876,000 $ 563,000 $ 17,000 $ - $ 1,456,000 $ (716,000)
Common
Subtotal $ - $ - $ - $ 711,000 $ 711,000 $ -
Walters Subtotal $ 876,000 $ 563,000 $ 17,000 $ 711,000 $ 2,167,000 $ (716,000)

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 70 of 73
Table B-18
Warsaw
Material and
Warsaw
Unit 1
Substation $ 68,000 $ 18,000 $ - $ - $ 86,000 $ -
Solar Panel Removal/Recycling $ 1,989,000 $ 524,000 $ 729,000 $ - $ 3,242,000 $ -
Solar Panel Support $ 1,849,000 $ 487,000 $ - $ - $ 2,336,000 $ -
Cables and Wires $ 395,000 $ 104,000 $ - $ - $ 499,000 $ -
Combiner Boxes $ 5,000 $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ 6,000 $ -
Combining Switchgear $ 149,000 $ 39,000 $ - $ - $ 188,000 $ -
Perimeter Fence Removal $ 179,000 $ 47,000 $ - $ 66,000 $ 292,000 $ -
Site Restoration $ - $ - $ - $ 2,085,000 $ 2,085,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 84,000 $ - $ 84,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (5,292,000)
Subtotal $ 4,889,000 $ 1,287,000 $ 835,000 $ 2,151,000 $ 9,162,000 $ (5,292,000)
Warsaw Subtotal $ 4,889,000 $ 1,287,000 $ 835,000 $ 2,151,000 $ 9,162,000 $ (5,292,000)
CONTINGENCY (20%) $ 1,832,000

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 71 of 73
Table B-19
Wayne County
Material and
Wayne County
CTS 1-5
CTs $ 940,000 $ 808,000 $ - $ - $ 1,748,000 $ -
Stack (Metal) $ 30,000 $ 26,000 $ - $ - $ 56,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (2,317,000)
Subtotal $ 1,116,000 $ 959,000 $ 24,000 $ - $ 2,099,000 $ (2,317,000)
Common
Cooling Water Intakes & Circ. Water Equip. $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ - $ - $ 2,000 $ -
BOP Misc. $ 166,000 $ 143,000 $ - $ - $ 309,000 $ -
Roads $ 165,000 $ 142,000 $ 135,000 $ - $ 442,000 $ -
Transformers and Electrical $ 31,000 $ 27,000 $ - $ - $ 58,000 $ -
Fuel Oil Tanks $ 217,000 $ 186,000 $ - $ - $ 403,000 $ -
All Other Tanks $ 151,000 $ 130,000 $ - $ - $ 281,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 1,000 $ - $ 1,000 $ -
Grading & Seeding $ - $ - $ - $ 812,000 $ 812,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (372,000)
Subtotal $ 800,000 $ 689,000 $ 153,000 $ 1,163,000 $ 2,805,000 $ (372,000)
Wayne County Subtotal $ 1,916,000 $ 1,648,000 $ 177,000 $ 1,163,000 $ 4,904,000 $ (2,689,000)

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 72 of 73
Table B-20
Weatherspoon
Material and
Weatherspoon
CTs 1-4
CTs $ 410,000 $ 352,000 $ - $ - $ 762,000 $ -
Stack (Metal) $ 12,000 $ 10,000 $ - $ - $ 22,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 2,000 $ - $ 2,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (865,000)
Subtotal $ 438,000 $ 376,000 $ 8,000 $ 1,000 $ 823,000 $ (865,000)
Common
Roads $ 97,000 $ 84,000 $ - $ - $ 181,000 $ -
Fuel Equipment $ 5,000 $ 4,000 $ - $ - $ 9,000 $ -
All Other Tanks $ 38,000 $ 32,000 $ - $ - $ 70,000 $ -
Soil Remediation Beneath Tanks and Lines $ - $ - $ - $ 2,296,000 $ 2,296,000 $ -
Debris $ - $ - $ 2,000 $ - $ 2,000 $ -
Grading & Seeding $ - $ - $ - $ 226,000 $ 226,000 $ -
Scrap $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ (42,000)
Subtotal $ 216,000 $ 185,000 $ 7,000 $ 2,704,000 $ 3,112,000 $ (42,000)
Weatherspoon Subtotal $ 654,000 $ 561,000 $ 15,000 $ 2,705,000 $ 3,935,000 $ (907,000)

Doss Exhibit 5
Page 73 of 73
Burns & McDonnell World Headquarters

9400 Ward Parkway
Kansas City, MO 64114
O 816-333-9400
F 816-333-3690
www.burnsmcd.com

Decommissioning Cost Estimate Study: Duke Energy Progress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Decommissioning Cost Estimate Study: Duke Energy Progress

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Decommissioning Cost Estimate Study: Duke Energy Progress

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Doss Exhibit 5

Decommissioning Cost Estimate Study

Duke Energy Progress

Decommissioning Cost Estimate Study

Decommissioning Cost Estimate

Duke Energy Progress

Project No. 95525

Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.

COPYRIGHT © 2017 BURNS & McDONNELL ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................... 2-1

3.0 PLANT DESCRIPTIONS ................................................................................... 3-1

4.0 DECOMMISSIONING COSTS .......................................................................... 4-1

Duke Energy Progress TOC-1 Burns & McDonnell

4.2.1 Asheville Coal ....................................................................................... 4-5

APPENDIX A - PLANT AERIALS

Duke Energy Progress TOC-2 Burns & McDonnell

Table 1-1: Decommissioning Cost Summary ($2016) ............................................................ 1-2

Duke Energy Progress TOC-3 Burns & McDonnell

Figure 2-1: DEP Facilities ......................................................................................................... 2-3

Duke Energy Progress TOC-4 Burns & McDonnell

Burns & McDonnell Burns & McDonnell Engineering Company, Inc.

BOP Balance of Plant Facilities

C&D Construction and Demolition

CCGT Combined Cycle Gas Turbine

DEP Duke Energy Progress

HRSG Heat Recovery Steam Generator

Hydros Hydroelectric Generating Units

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

NOx Nitrogen Oxide

PCBs Polychlorinated Biphenyls

Plants Power Generation Assets

PPA Power Purchase Agreement

RS Means Construction Cost Estimating Data

SCR Selective Catalytic Reduction

STG Steam Turbine Generator

Study Decommissioning Cost Study

Duke Energy Progress i Burns & McDonnell

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Duke Energy Progress 1-1 Burns & McDonnell

Table 1-1: Decommissioning Cost Summary ($2016)

1.3 Statement of Limitations

Duke Energy Progress 1-2 Burns & McDonnell

Duke Energy Progress 1-3 Burns & McDonnell

2.2 Study Methodology

Duke Energy Progress 2-1 Burns & McDonnell

2.3 Site Visits

 Mr. Jeff Kopp, Project Manager

The site visits were performed on the following dates.

Table 2-1: Site Visit Dates

Plant Site Visit Date

Duke Energy Progress 2-2 Burns & McDonnell

Figure 2-1: DEP Facilities

Duke Energy Progress 2-3 Burns & McDonnell

3.0 PLANT DESCRIPTIONS

3.1 Simple Cycle / Combustion Turbines

3.1.5 Wayne County

Duke Energy Progress 3-1 Burns & McDonnell