Dismantling Cost Study

Exhibit No.
FWS-1
Page 1 of 64
Document XOl-1617-003, Rev. 0
DISMANTLING COST STUDY

for
ARAPAHOE Units 1-4
BLUE SPRUCE Units 1 & 2
CAMEO Units 1 & 2
CHEROKEE Units 1-4
COMANCHE Units 1-3
CRAIG Units 1 & 2
FORT ST. VRAIN Units 1-6
HAYDEN Units 1 & 2
PAWNEE Unit 1
ROCKY MOUNTAIN Units 1-3
VALMONT Unit 5
ZUNI Units 1 & 2
GENERATING
STATIONS
prepared for
Xcel Energy
prepared by
TLG Services, Inc.

An Entergy Company
148 New Milford Road East
Bridgewater, CT
September 2011
Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 2 of 64
Xcel Energy Document XOl-1617-003, Rev. 0

Dismantling Cost Study Page ii of x
APPROVALS
Project Manager
Project Engineer
~ _
M1'
,/
~i:J'.14&i1< i~&
enjamiri ;J!Stochmal
r-.
i ..
Technical Manager JZ.o Zol I

Ge~ey M. Gri s Date
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 3 of 64
Dismantling Cost Study Page iii ofx
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION PAGE
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1
1.1 Objective of Study 1-1
1.2 Station Descriptions 1-1
1.3 Scope 1-2
1.4 General Approach 1-3
2.0 DISMANTLING OPERATIONS , 2-1
2.1 Project Organization 2-1
2.2 Post-Shutdown Activities 2-1
2.3 Dismantling Program 2-2
2.3.1 Period 1 - EngineeringlPlanning and Asbestos Abatement 2-3
2.3.2 Period 2 - Dismantling Operations 2-5
2.3.3 Period 3 - Site Restoration 2-6
3.0 COST ESTIMATE , 3-1
3.1 Basis of Estimate 3-1
3.2 Methodology 3-2
3.3 Assumptions 3-4
3.4 Station-Specific Notes 3-6
3.4.1 Arapahoe 3-6
3.4.2 Blue Spruce 3-7
3.4.3 Cameo 3-7
3.4.4 Cherokee 3-7
3.4.5 Comanche 3-7
3.4.6 Craig 3-7
3.4.7 Fort St. Vrain 3-8
3.4.8 Hayden 3-8
3.4.9 Pawnee 3-8
3.4.10 Rocky Mountain 3-8
3.4.11 Valmont 3-8
3.4.12 Zuni 3-9
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 4 of 64
Dismantling Cost Study Page iv of x
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(continued)
SECTION PAGE
4.0 SCIR.AP METAL CREDITS 4-1
5.0 RESULTS 5-1
6.0 RE:FER]~N CES 6-1
TABLES
Summary of Dismantling Costs x

4.1 Basis for Scrap Metal Value 4-2
4.2 Quantity of Scrap Metals by Station 4-3
4.3 Scrap Metal Credits by Station 4-4
5.1 Summary of Activity Costs 5-4
5.2a Arapahoe Station Summary of Activity Costs 5-5
5.2b Blue Spruce Station Summary of Activity Costs 5-6
5.2c Cameo Station Summary of Activity Costs 5-7
5.2d Cherokee Station Summary of Activity Costs 5-8
5.2e Comanche Station Summary of Activity Costs 5-9
5.2f Craig Station Summary of Activity Costs 5-10
5.2g Fort St. Vrain Station Summary of Activity Costs 5-11
5.2h Hayden Station Summary of Activity Costs 5-12
5.2i Pawnee Station Summary of Activity Costs 5-13
5.2j Rocky Mountain Station Summary of Activity Costs 5-14
5.2k Valmont Station Summary of Activity Costs 5-15
5.21 Zuni Station Summary of Activity Costs 5-16
FIGURES
2.1 Dismantling Project Organization Utility Staff 2-7

2.2 Dismantling Project Organization Dismantling Contractor Staff 2-8
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 5 of 64
Dismantling Cost Study Page v ofx
APPENDICES
A. Estimating Inventories for Similar Size Units A-I

B. Summary of Station System and Structures Inventories B-1
C. Unit Cost Factor Development C-l
D. Unit Cost Factor Listing D-l
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 6 of 64
Dismantling Cost Study Page vi ofx
REVISION LOG
o 09/12/2011 Original Issue
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 7 of 64
Dismantling Cost Study Page vii of x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report, prepared by TLG Services, Inc. (TLG), provides estimated costs for the
complete dismantling of the following electric generating stations:
Arapahoe, Units 1 through 4

Blue Spruce Units 1 and 2
Cameo, Units 1 and 2
Cherokee, Units 1 through 4
Comanche, Units 1, 2 and 3
Craig, Units 1 and 2
Fort St. Vrain, Units 1 through 6
Hayden, Units 1 and 2
Pawnee, Unit 1
Rocky Mountain Units 1, 2 and 3
Valmont, Unit 5
Zuni, Units 1 and 2
Public Service Co. of Colorado, a wholly-owned utility subsidiary ofXcel Energy, either
owns or has a share in ownership of these stations. All of the stations are located in
Colorado.
The dismantling estimate includes the cost of removing the power generating
equipment such as boilers, turbine generators, fuel handling equipment, system
equipment, and structures for each of the above-referenced stations. The electrical
switchyards are assumed to remain in place and are not included in the estimate.
The scope of the dismantling estimate includes the following significant cost elements:
Isolation of the units in preparation for safe dismantling (ensuring systems are
de-energized to ensure a safe dismantling environment)
Abatement of asbestos containing materials prior to dismantling (where
applicable)
Labor, equipment, and material costs associated with the removal and
disposition of all installed equipment
Labor, equipment, and material costs associated with the demolition and
disposition of buildings and foundations (to a depth of 3 feet below grade)
Demolition contractor's on-site management, engmeermg, safety, and
administrative staff
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 8 of 64
Dismantling Cost Study Page viii of x
Demolition contractor's expenses, including profit, insurance, permits, and fees

Owner's on-site management, oversight, and security staff
A cost credit associated with the disposition of scrap metals
Cost contingency
Ongoing environmental monitoring after the completion of the dismantling and
demolition
PSCo's fractional ownership share in Craig and Hayden is not reflected in the cost
estimate. This estimate accounts for 100% of the cost for dismantling Craig Units 1
and 2, and Hayden.
The general approach to developing these estimates was to develop a site-specific

estimate for each unit, based on a site-specific equipment and building materials
inventory. The site-specific inventory was established using site walk-downs, plant
drawings, and in certain instances, revising a previously developed inventory for a
similar plant (reference plant), to reflect differences between the PSCo unit and the
reference plant" Where inventories from a reference plant were used as a starting
point, differences were incorporated into the PSCo unit inventory, in essence creating
a site-specific inventory for the PSCo unit. To account for any difference in size
between the reference inventory and the PSCo unit a size adjustment to the reference
unit inventory was applied.
This cost estimate is prepared by applying unit cost factors (developed for each
inventory item from prior dismantling experience or similar related experience)
against the station specific inventory. Costs for project management, shared
equipment and consumables, and similar types of costs are estimated on a period
dependent basis (i.e., the magnitude of the expense depends, in part, on the duration of
the project and the types of activities taking place). While equipment salvage is not
included, the potential value of scrap from materials generated in dismantling the
boilers, plant components, and building structural steel is included as a credit in the
. dismantling cost estimate. Contingency is provided within this estimate to account for
unpredictable project events.
This estimate includes the costs to remove all structures on the site to a nominal level
of three feet below grade. Concerns for worker safety reinforce the need for a
cont:rolled approach. The cost estimates reflect demolition by controlled/engineered
dismantling.
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 9 of 64
Xcel Energy Document XOl-1617-00'3, Rev. 0

Dismantling Cost Study Page ix of x
Limited site landscaping includes grading and seeding for drainage and erOSIOn
controL
The total dismantling costs, expressed in thousands of 2010 dollars, are provided at
the end of this section.
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 10 of 64
Dismantling Cost Study Page x ofx
SUMMARY OF DISMANTLING COSTS

(All costs are in thousands of 2010 dollars)
MWe Station.
Station. Unit ratin In Service Cost, $
Arapahoe 1 1950-1955 38,352
2 1950-1955
3 1950-1955
4 1950-1955
Steam Turbine ST)
Combined Cycle
Combustion
Turbine CC-CT
3 130 CC-CT Natural Gas/Oil 2001
4 130 CC-CT Natural Gas/Oil 2001
5 138 CT Natural Gas/Oil 2008
6 138 CT Natural Gas/Oil 2008
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 11 of 64
Xcel Energy Document X01-1617-003, Rev. 0
Dismantling Cost Study Section 1, Page 1 of 4
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 OBJECTIVE OF STUDY
The objective of this dismantling cost study prepared by TLG Services is to

present an estimate of the costs to dismantle Xcel Energy's fossil-fuel
generating stations in Colorado. This study is not intended to be a dismantling
plan for each of the stations, but a cost estimate prepared to support current
financial planning for future dismantling.
1.2 STATION DESCRIPTIONS
Arapahoe is currently a 4-unit 256 MWe coal-fired station located in Denver,

Colorado. Units 1 and 2 are not operating but were considered within this study
and assumed to be the same as Unit 3. Unit 3 has a net dependable capacity of
45 MWe. Unit 4 has a capacity of 111 MWe. The operating units were installed
between 1950 and 1955.
Blue Spruce is a 2-unit 310 MWe natural gas combustion gas turbine station
located in Aurora, Colorado. Units 1 and 2 have an average individual net
dependable capacity of 155 MWe. The units were installed in 2003.
Cameo is a 2-unit 73 MWe coal-fired station located in Grand Junction,

Colorado. Unit 1 has a net dependable capacity of 24 MWe. U nit ~~ has a
capacity of 49 MWe. The units were installed between 1957 and 1960.
Cherokee is a 4-unit 715 MWe coal-fired unit located in Denver, Colorado.

Unit 1 has a net dependable capacity of 107 MWe, Unit 2 has a capacity of 106
MWe, Unit 3 has a capacity of 151 MWe, and Unit 4 has a capacity of 351 MWe.
The units were installed between 1957 and 1968.
Comanche is a 3-unit 1488 MWe coal-fired station located in Pueblo, Colorado.

Unit 1 has a net dependable capacity of 325 MWe. Unit 2 has a capacity of 335
MWe. The units were installed between 1973 and 1975. Unit 3 has a net
dependable capacity of 828 MWe. It was installed in 2009.
Craig is a 2-unit 856 MWe coal-fired unit located in Craig, Colorado. Each unit
has a net dependable capacity of 428 MWe. The units were installed between
1979 and 1980. The rating is based on the physical capacity of the plant, not
PSCo's ownership share.
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 12 of 64
Fort St. Vrain is a 6-unit 965 MWe natural gas-fired station located in
Platteville, Colorado. Units 2, 3, and 4 are combined-cycle combustion gas
turbines with an average individual net dependable capacity of 130 MWe. Unit
1 is a conventional steam turbine, powered by excess heat from the combustion
turbines. Units 5 and 6 are 138 MWe combustion gas turbines. The units were
installed between 1972 and 2008
Hayden is a 2-unit 446 MWe coal-fired station located in Hayden, Colorado.

Unit 1 has a capacity of 184 MWe. Unit 2 has a capacity of 262 MWe. The units
were installed between 1965 and 1976. The rating is based on the physical
capacity of the plant, not PSCo's ownership share.
Pawnee is a single unit 505 MWe coal-fired station located in Brush, Colorado.
The unit was installed in 1981.
Rocky Mountain is a 3-unit 600 MWe natural gas-fired station located in

Keenesburg, Colorado. Units 1 and 2 are combined cycle combustion gas
turbines with an average individual net dependable capacity of 150 MWe. Both
turbines are equipped with heat recovery steam generators (HRSGs). Unit 3 is a
conventional steam turbine, powered by steam generated by Units 1 and 2
HRSGs. The units were installed in 2003.
Valmont is a single unit 186 MWe coal-fired unit located in Boulder, Colorado.
The unit was installed in 1964.
Zuni is a 2-unit 107 MWe natural gas/oil fired station located in Denver,
Colorado. Unit 1 has a net dependable capacity of 39 MWe. Unit 2 has a
capacity of 68 MWe. The units were installed between 1948 and 1954.
1.3 SCOPE
The scope of the dismantling estimate includes the following significant cost
elements:
Preparation for safe dismantling; including hazardous materials

characterization for such items as ACM (asbestos-containing materials),
lead, mercury, PCBs, hydrocarbons in soil, etc., and isolation of the units
in preparation for safe dismantling (e.g. ensuring systems are de
energized, fuel and chemical storage tanks are drained and cleaned, etc.
(where applicable).
Abatement of ACM prior to dismantling (where applicable)
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 13 of 64
Labor, equipment, and material costs associated with the removal and
disposition of all installed equipment
Labor, equipment, and material costs associated with the demolition and
disposition of buildings and foundations
Demolition contractor's on-site management, engineering, safety, and
administrative staff
Demolition contractor's expenses, including insurance, permits, and fees.
Owner's on-site management, oversight, and security staff
A cost credit associated with the disposition of scrap metals
Cost contingency
Ongoing environmental monitoring of the facilities after the completion
of the dismantling and demolition
PSCo's fractional ownership share in Craig and Hayden is not reflected in the
cost estimate. This estimate accounts for 100% of the cost for dismantling Craig
Units 1 and 2, and Hayden.
Costs are provided for each station, identified by significant cost element. The
cost per station includes the costs for dismantling the generating unit and the
common station facilities. Costs are provided in 2010 dollars.
1.4 GENERAL APPROACH
The general approach in assembling the estimate was to develop a site-specific

cost for each generating unit located at the station, based on a unit-specific
equipment and building materials inventory. The inventory of components
designated to be removed as part of the dismantling program was established
using site walk-downs (including discussions with the Operations &
Maintenance staff), station-provided equipment databases, and plant drawings.
A similar estimate was developed for dismantling systems and structures
common to all units on site.
This cost estimate was prepared by applying unit cost factors (developed for
each inventory item from prior dismantling experience or similar related
experience) against the station specific inventory. Costs for project
management, shared equipment and consumables, and similar types of costs
are estimated on a period-dependent basis (i.e., the magnitude of the expense
depends, in part, on the duration of the project and the types of activities taking
place). While equipment salvage is not included, the potential value of scrap
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 14 of 64
from materials generated in dismantling the boilers, plant components, and

building structural steel is included as a credit in the dismantling cost estimate.
Contingency is provided within this estimate to account for unpredictable
project events.
This estimate includes the costs to remove all structures on the site to a
nominal level of three feet below grade. Concerns for worker safety reinforce
the need for a controlled approach. The cost estimates reflect demolition by
controlled/engineered dismantling.
Limited site landscaping includes grading and seeding for drainage and erosion
control.
Section 2 of this report identifies the activities and sequence of activities

necessary to dismantle a generating station. Section 3 provides the specific
bases for the estimate. Section 4 discusses scrap metal and associated credits to
the dismantling costs. Section 5 provides the results. Appendices, noted
throughout this report, provide additional information important to
understanding this estimate.
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 15 of 64
2. DISMANTLING OPERATIONS
The estimate for dismantling the stations is based on the complete removal of the
units and common station facilities (except where noted). The following sections
describe the project organization, basic activities, and special equipment necessary for
accomplishing the dismantling project.
2.1 PROJECT ORGANIZATION
For the purposes of this study, the dismantling project for each station is
assumed to be managed by an Xcel Energy Project Director, who would have the
primary responsibility for dismantling the station. A Dismantling Contractor,
experienced in dismantling similar facilities, would be hired as the prime
contractor for the removal of plant components and site facilities. The
Dismantling Contractor's Project Manager would report to the Project Director.
The Dismantling Contractor would manage and supervise the dismantling
activities of the station and be responsible for completing the work in an
expeditious and safe manner. Contractor personnel would manage and direct
the labor force in accordance with approved procedures and in accordance with
a health and safety program. The owner's staff would maintain and/or provide
the engineering, safety, and environmental compliance oversight, and the
security services necessary to support dismantling operations. Figures 2.1 and
2.2 identify typical organizations for the plant/utility staff and the associated
contractor personnel during the dismantling phase of the project. The smaller
facilities included within this estimate would have a commensurately smaller
project organization (Blue Spruce, Cameo, Rocky Mountain, Valmont and
Zuni).
2.2 POST-SHUTDOWN ACTIVITIES
The estimate is based on each station being shut down and placed into a post
shutdown configuration by the plant staff. The length of time that the facility is
in this configuration is indeterminate; consequently the costs for maintaining
the facility in this configuration are not included within the scope of this
dismantling estimate. The activities to be completed post-shutdown, but prior to
station dismantling, include:
Removal of consumables and supplies not needed III the post-shutdown

configuration
Removal of residual fuels (including oil/coal)
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 16 of 64
Removal of acids and caustics; flushing and cleaning of storage tanks

Cleaning of fly-ash handling equipment, e.g., filters and holding tanks
Removal of hazardous waste and combustible materials
If the unit is to be maintained in a condition where lighting, electricity,
heating, water, sanitary, and similar services are to remain active,
reconfigure these systems to minimize maintenance requirements
Disposition of surplus bulk chemicals and gas storage containers
Completion of a hazardous materials survey of the station
De-watering and removal of residual ash from settling ponds and/or basins
Installation of any appropriate physical barriers (sealing circulating water
system) and/or security barriers
Maintenance of the facility (maintaining roofs and windows, drain systems,
and electrical systems to preclude creating hazardous working conditions in
the future)
Except for the hazardous materials survey, costs to conduct these activities
have not been included in this estimate. The plant operations and maintenance
staff would be expected to perform these activities in the interval of time
between final plant shutdown, and the onset of the dismantling program.
2.3 DISMANTLING PROGRAM
The actual dismantling program begins once the station owner has decided to
dismantle the site, either immediately following final shutdown, or after a
period of storage following final shutdown. The dismantling program has been
organized into three distinct periods: Period 1 - EngineeringlPlanning and
Asbestos and Other Hazardous Material Abatement (if necessary); Period 2
Dismantling Operations; and Period 3 - Site Restoration. This section
summarizes the activities performed under each Period of the program.
For the purposes of this estimate it is assumed that once the decision to
dismantle has been made and a project start date established, the work in each
of these periods will be completed successively (no delay between periods). This
report does not attempt to describe all of the activities necessary to dismantle a
station, but identifies representative activities appropriate to this type of
project.
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 17 of 64
2.3.1 Period 1- EngineeringlPlanning and Asbestos Abatement
Engineering/Planning:
A preliminary planning phase of the program begins once it is has been
determined that a station will be dismantled and the project has been
authorized to proceed. During this phase, the owner assembles its
dismantling management organization, makes appropriate decisions
regarding the extent of dismantling and the approach to managing the
activities, and accomplishes those site preparation activities necessary to
transition from a plant shutdown configuration to site dismantling. For
purposes of this estimate it is assumed that the intent is to dismantle the
entire station as a single project. Costs incurred during this preliminary
phase of the program are included in the dismantling costs presented in
this study.
The Owner prepares the stations for dismantling by performing the

following activities:
Prepare specifications that identify and describe the objectives and

major work activities to be accomplished (establishing the final site
configuration)
Assemble plant documentation that may be relevant to dismantling
(drawings; hazardous material reports, environmental studies, etc.)
Select an asbestos abatement contractor (if required) and Dismantling
Contractor
Assemble and mobilize the management and oversight team
responsible for the project
Asbestos Abatement (if applicable)

The asbestos abatement contractor prepares for this work by thoroughly
understanding the scope of the asbestos remediation work and obtaining
the permits necessary to initiate the work. Abatement of asbestos is
considered an important prerequisite to dismantling the station's
systems and structures. The method by which asbestos is abated is
strictly controlled by federal and/or state regulations and includes the
following requirements:
Work will be done inside enclosures designed to capture any asbestos

containing particles. With the exception of removal of small quantities
of asbestos in local areas, it would be expected that most work will be
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 18 of 64
done in large enclosures (containment tents). The enclosures will have

a filtered exhaust and be maintained under negative air pressure (air
will leak into the enclosure rather than leak out).
The air outside of the enclosures will be monitored to ensure barriers
are effective.
Workers, while working inside enclosures, will wear respiratory
protective equipment as well as protective clothing.
All materials removed from the enclosure will be packaged in
accordance with regulations (minimum double-bag), and will be
removed via a materials handling access area.
Workers will enter and exit the enclosures through a personnel
decontamination chamber in a controlled manner (ensuring asbestos
contamination does not spread beyond the containment).
After the asbestos abatement is complete, the effectiveness of the
process will be established via regulatory-specified processes
(generally verifying that there is no asbestos containing material
capable of becoming airborne).
Asbestos containing materials will be disposed of at a properly
licensed disposal facility.
After ensuring that all asbestos has been removed, the enclosures will
be taken down in accordance with regulatory requirements and
disposed of at a licensed facility.
Dismantling Preparations
The dismantling contractor prepares the station for dismantling by

performing the following activities:
Installing environmental barriers and monitoring equipment

Reviewing plant drawings and specifications that may be useful for
the dismantling project
Identifying the processes to achieve the final desired station
configuration
Identifying the major work sequence
Preparing dismantling activity specifications and work orders/forms
Preparing detailed dismantling procedures
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 19 of 64
Preparing a dismantling plan

Preparing permit application(s) for plant demolition
Mobilizing site staff
Configuring temporary services/facilities to support dismantling
operations
Arranging for heavy lift and dismantling equipment, rigging, and
tooling
Hiring the local labor force
2.3.2 Period 2 - Dismantling Operations
Dismantling activities are initiated after completing the engineering and

planning process, and after asbestos abatement is complete. The
sequence of activities will be determined at the time of dismantling, but
typically a sequence would include the following items (not all activities
will be required for each station, particularly those with Combustion Gas
Turbines):
Removing coal yard equipment, including unloading structures,

conveyors, transfer towers, and reclaim systems
Removing above-ground storage tanks
Removing large equipment from rooftops or at higher elevations
Removing equipment that must be removed prior to start of boiler
structure removal, including fly-ash handling, coal handling, burner
fuel supply, scrubbers, air and flue gas ducts, etc.
Removing electrostatic precipitator and bag houses by cutting casings
and connecting gas ducts
Removing the top of the boiler enclosure to allow access to the platens
Removing the boiler waterwalls
Removing steam drum and de aerator by severing all connections and
lowering to grade
Removing boiler structural steel
Disassembling the turbine/generator and condenser
Removing all other equipment and components required prior to
structures demolition
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 20 of 64
Removing the turbine building superstructure and interior floors

Blasting/dismantling the concrete turbine-generator pedestal(s)
Removing siding from buildings
Dismantling steel framing
Demolishing structural concrete
Removing the stack(s)
Removing cooling tower(s) and / or cooling water intake and discharge
structures
Removing all other site structures within the scope of the dismantling
program
Sorting and organizing materials for pickup by the scrap dealer(s)
Size reducing concrete rubble to enhance its suitability for backfill
Removing any temporary services used to support the dismantling
effort (lighting / ventilation / electrical/groundwater management)
2.3.3 Period 3 - Site Restoration
Site restoration activities are initiated following completion of the

dismantling operations. The objective of site restoration in this estimate
is to restore the station grounds to a configuration that does not pose a
safety hazard; and plant vegetation for erosion controL As such,
landscaping will be limited to grading, placement of top soil, and seeding.
Site restoration as used in this estimate is not intended to re-configure
the station for redevelopment, e.g. use as a recreational or industrial
facility.
A typical site restoration sequence would be:
Backfill below grade voids with recycled concrete rubble (reinforcing

steel removed from concrete) or with additional fill, if necessary
General grading of the station
Placement of top soil or other suitable surface material necessary to
maintain erosion control
Landscaping to the extent necessary to re-vegetate the station (grass
or similar plant materials), and
Demobilizing personnel and equipment
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 21 of 64
FIGURE 2.1
DISMANTLING PROJECT ORGANIZATION
UTILITY STAFF
Project Director
Contracts
Administrati
Administrator
Assistant
Security
Engineering
Supervisor
Manager
I
I I
Security
Guards
Environmental
Engineer
Civil Engineer
Industrial
Safety ]
. TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 22 of 64
FIGURE 2.2
DISMANTLING PROJECT ORGANIZATION
DISMANTLING CONTRACTOR STAFF
Project Manager
Administrative
~
Assistant
Project
Engineer
I I
Work
Civil Engineer Safety Engineer
Superintendent
!
I I
[ Cammon
Equipment
Operators
Dismantling
Work Force
TLG Seroices, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 23 of 64
3. COST ESTIMATE
The basis, methodology, and assumptions for the site-specific cost estimate are
described in the following paragraphs.
3.1 BASIS OF ESTIMATE
Inventory of Materials to be Removed

Site-specific inventories of materials were developed using information obtained
during physical walk-downs of representative units, station-specific
maintenance databases (lists of equipment), and station-specific drawings and
photos. This information was used to determine the general arrangement of
representative units and to develop estimates of building concrete volumes,
steel quantities, and component inventories ofthese units.
The PSCo representative units selected for the estimate are as follows:
Arapahoe 3 - 45 MWe
Cherokee 3 - 151 MWe
Comanche 1 - 325 MWe
Ft. St. Vrain 1- 300 MWe
Ft. St. Vrain 2 -130 MWe
In order to produce the estimate in a cost effective manner, TLG used a

reference station inventory previously developed for another client to serve as
the basis for the Rocky Mountain and Blue Spruce Energy Centers, with
appropriate adjustments for site-specific attributes.
Based on these representative units, and considering the difference in electrical

ratings (size) between the units, an inventory for similarly sized units was
developed, thereby creating a site-specific estimate of installed equipment and
materials for the remaining units. Where significant differences exist between
the representative unit and estimate units, appropriate considerations and
adjustments were made. A summary for the inventory basis for each unit is
provided in Appendix B.
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 24 of 64

Economic Cost Drivers
In developing an estimate, the cost of labor, equipment and material, credit for
scrap, and similar costs will influence the results of the estimate. The basis for
the significant cost drivers are:
1. Craft labor rates are based on existing contracts with craft labor contractors.
These rates were provided by Xcel Energy (Ref. 1).
2. Utility labor rates are based on current labor costs for positions likely to be
employed during the dismantling project. These rates were provided by Xcel
Energy (Ref. 2).
3. Material and equipment costs for conventional demolition and/or
construction activities, Contractors Insurance, Small Tools Allowance,
Permit / Fees, and Contractor's Fee are based on RS. Means Construction
Cost Data (Ref. 3).
4. Scrap metal prices are based on indices published by Recycler's World (Ref.
4).
5. Contingency, contractor fee, contractor insurance, environmental sampling,
and permits & fees are based upon RS. Means Construction Cost Data.
6. Costs in this estimate are in 2010 dollars.
7. Property taxes (or payments in lieu of taxes) are not included within the
estimate.
8. The estimate to dismantle the stations does not address credit associated
with the residual value of the land.
3.2 METHODOLOGY
The methodology used to develop the cost estimate follows the basic approach
presented in the AIF/NESP-036, "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear
Power Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates" (Ref. 5) and the US DOE
"Decommissioning Handbook" (Ref. 6). These publications utilize a unit factor
method for estimating decommissioning activity costs to simplify the estimating
calculations. Unit cost factors for concrete removal ($/cubic yard), steel removal
($/ton), and cutting costs ($/in) are developed from the labor cost information
from R S. Means. The activity-dependent costs are estimated using item
quantities (cubic yards, tons, inches, etc.) developed from plant drawings and
inventory documents. The unit factors used in this study reflect the latest
available information on worker productivity in plant dismantling. A sample
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 25 of 64
unit cost factor is provided in Appendix C. A list of unit cost factors is provided
in Appendix D.
An activity duration critical path is developed to determine the total

dismantling program schedule. This program schedule is then used to
determine the period-dependent costs for program management,
administration, field engineering, equipment rental, quality assurance, and
security. TLG estimated typical salary and hourly rates for personnel
associated with period-dependent costs. The costs for conventional demolition
of structures, materials, backfill, landscaping, and equipment rental are
obtained from R.S. Means. Examples of such unit factor development are
presented in AIFINESP-036.
The unit cost factor method provides a demonstrable basis for establishing
reliable cost estimates. The detail of activities for labor costs, equipment and
consumables costs provide assurance that cost elements have not been omitted.
Detailed unit cost factors, coupled with the site-specific inventory of piping,
components and structures provide confidence in the cost estimates.
The activity-dependent and period-dependent costs are combined with

applicable collateral costs to yield the direct dismantling cost. A contingency is
then applied. "Contingencies" are defined in the American Association of Cost
Engineers "Project and Cost Engineers' Handbook" (Ref. 7) as "specific provision
for unforeseeable elements of cost within the defined project scope; particularly
important where previous experience relating estimates and actual costs has
shown that unforeseeable events which will increase costs are likely to occur."
The cost elements in this estimate are based on ideal conditions; therefore, a
contingency factor has been applied.
Examples of items that could occur but have not otherwise been accounted for in
this estimate include: labor work stoppages, bad weather delays, equipmentJtool
breakage, changes in the anticipated plant shutdown conditions, etc. These
types of unforeseeable events are discussed in the AIF/NESP-036 study.
Guidelines are also provided for applying contingency.
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 26 of 64

3.3 ASSUMPTIONS
The following assumptions were used in developing the dismantling estimate.
Pre-reg uisite Activities

1. Dismantling of the station will not commence until all units are retired
(cost estimate is not based on independent dismantling of units while
adjacent units are operating).
2. The arrangements of the unit facilities as they exist in 2010 based upon
walk-downs conducted by TLG, and databases and drawings provided by
owner.
3. The dismantling process will be an engineered process with substantial
consideration for industrial (worker) safety.
4. The demolition will be performed by a Dismantling Contractor who is
responsible to provide adequate staff and equipment to complete the
dismantling in a safe manner.
5. Site security costs to restrict access to the demolition project by
unauthorized personnel are included.
6. Ash ponds will be dewatered and closed after shutdown by the stations'
owner.
7. On-site fuel inventories will be used and/or removed prior to start of
dismantling.
8. Silos, precipitators, hoppers, tanks, etc., will be emptied by operations
and maintenance staff after shutdown.
9. Acids, caustics, and similar hazardous materials will be removed by
operations and maintenance staff after shutdown.
10. Consumables, such as ion exchange materials and filters, will also be
removed by operations and maintenance staff after shutdown.
11. Stores, spare parts, gas storage containers, laboratory equipment, office
furniture, etc., will be removed by the owner after shutdown.
12. Oils used in station transformers are PCB-free. Lubricating and
transformer oils are drained and removed by operations and
maintenance staff after shutdown.
13. Asbestos (if present) will be removed prior to the start of dismantling.
Asbestos insulation and PACM (presumed asbestos containing
materials) will be disposed of at licensed facilities. Quantities of asbestos
are based on owner-provided information where available. Where such
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 27 of 64
information was not available, the quantities of asbestos were

estimated.
14. Prior to initiating dismantling, essentially all live circuits will have been
de-energized (to preclude creating an industrial hazard). If required,
temporary services systems (air, water, electrical, fire water, etc.) will be
used to support dismantling operations and will remain in service
throughout the project until no longer required.
Economic Assumptions
15. Post-shutdown "dormancy" costs (i.e., security and maintenance on any
of the units retired prematurely) are not included in the study.
16. Escalation/inflation of the costs over the remaining operating life is not
included.
17. A 12.5% fee is added to the Demolition Contractor's cost to account for
its overhead and profit.
18. A 25% contingency is applied to asbestos remediation activities.
19. A 15% contingency is applied to all remaining dismantling-related costs.
20. An allowance has been included for post-dismantling environmental
monitoring costs (where applicable)
21. A credit for scrap metal cost recovery is included in the estimates.
Retired plant equipment is assumed to have no value as salvage (sold for
re-use).
Physical Work Assumptions

22. The costs for disposition (if required) of contaminated soil (e.g., PCBs,
hydrocarbons, lead, asbestos, mercury, acids or caustics) are outside the
scope of this estimate.
23. Large equipment and components will be removed prior to structures
demolition.
24. An environmental hazards crew will be maintained throughout the
demolition period to address such items as lead paint and asbestos that
was inaccessible during the asbestos remediation period (where
applicable).
25. Turbine pedestals and powerhouse building foundations will be removed
by controlled blasting and back-filled to grade.
26. Structures and foundations will be removed to a depth of three feet
below grade, with any resulting voids back-filled to grade leveL
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 28 of 64
27. Chimney stacks will be blasted to the ground and broken into rubble,
the steel liners cut and removed, and the foundations control-blasted to
break the concrete in place so that groundwater drainage is provided.
28. The dismantling of the electrical equipment terminates at the switch
yard boundary. The switch yard is left intact.
29. Concrete rubble generated during dismantling will be used as fill where
needed.
30. The site will be graded; however, no effort was included in this estimate
to restore the original contour of the land. Ground cover will be
established for erosion controL
31. Roads, parking lots, etc., are removed after the facility is dismantled
(with the exception ofthe immediate area around the switchyard).
Scheduling Assumptions
32. All work is performed during an eight-hour workday, five days per week,
with no overtime.
33. Multiple crews work parallel activities to the maximum extent possible,
consistent with efficiency (adequate access for cutting, removal, and
laydlown space) and with industrial safety appropriate for demolition of
heavy components and structures.
34. Scheduling was calculated without constraints on availability of labor,
equipment, or materials.
3.4 STATION-SPECIFIC NOTES
3.4.1 Arapahoe
The inventory for Unit 3 was developed from a site walk down and
plant drawings
Units 1 and 2 use Unit 3 as the reference plant basis for the systems
and structures inventory
Unit 4 uses Cherokee Unit 3 as the reference plant basis for the
systems and structures inventory
The inventory for station common areas was developed from
information recorded during the site walk down
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 29 of 64

3.4.2 Blue Spruce
Both units use an inventory extracted from TLG's database as the

reference plant basis for the systems and structures inventory
3.4.3 Cameo
Units 1 and 2 use Arapahoe Unit 3 as the reference plant basis for the
The inventory for station common areas uses Arapahoe common area
as the reference plant basis for the systems and structures inventory
3.4.4 Cherokee
plant drawings
3.4.5 Comanche
plant drawings
information recorded during the site walk downs.
3.4.6 Craig
Units 1 and 2 use Comanche Unit 1 as the reference plant basis for
the systems and structures inventory
The inventory for station common areas uses common area
information for Comanche Units 1 / 2 as the reference plant basis for
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 30 of 64

3.4.7 Ft. St. Vrain
The inventory for Units 1 and 2 were developed from a site walk down
and plant drawings
Unit 5 and 6 use an inventory extracted from TLG's database as the
3.4.8 Hayden
Units 1 and 2 use Cherokee Unit 3 as the reference plant basis for the
The inventory for station common areas uses Cherokee Station as the
3.4.~3 Pawnee
Pawnee uses Comanche Unit 1 as the reference plant basis for the
The inventory for station common areas uses common area
information for Comanche Units 1/2 as the reference plant basis for
3.4.10 Rocky Mountain
All three units use an inventory extracted from TLG's database as the
3.4.11 Valmont
Unit 5 uses Cherokee Unit 3 as the reference plant basis for the
The inventory for station common areas uses Cherokee Station as the
There are other shutdown units at Valmont Station that are not
included in this estimate
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 31 of 64
XcelEnergy Document XOl-1617-00'3, Rev. 0

3.4.12 Zuni
Units 1 and 2 use Arapahoe Unit 3 as the reference plant basis for the
The inventory for station common areas uses Arapahoe common area
as the reference plant basis for the systems and structures inventory
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 32 of 64
4. SCRAP METAL CREDITS
The dismantling of a fossil plant typically occurs after a lengthy plant operating life.
The existing plant equipment can be considered obsolete and suitable for scrap as
deadweight quantities only. The dismantling techniques assumed by TLG for
equipment in this analysis are not consistent with removal techniques required for
salvage (resale) of equipment. Experience has indicated that buyers prefer equipment
stripped down to very specific requirements before they would consider purchase. This
can require expensive work to remove the equipment from its installed location, which
is inconsistent with the rapid dismantling approach assumed in this estimate. Since
placing a salvage value on this machinery and equipment would be speculative, and
the value would be small in comparison to the overall cost of dismantling, this analysis
does not attempt to quantify the value that an owner may realize based upon those
efforts.
Furniture, tools, mobile equipment such as forklifts, trucks, bulldozers, and other
property is removed at no cost or credit to the dismantling project. Disposition may
include relocation to other facilities. Spare parts are made available for alternative
use.
The materials used in the equipment and buildings are suitable for recycle as scrap
metals. As such, an estimated value of the scrap metal credit has been developed and
applied to each station's cost estimate. The value of scrap was estimated using current
market values extracted from published sources and applying this value to the
estimated quantities of materials generated from the dismantling project. There were
four basic types of metals used in the scrap estimates; carbon steel (the most common
material used at the station), copper, stainless steel (high alloy steel) and aluminum.
The scrap credit, in addition to considering the quantity and types of materials, also
considered the cost of handling and transporting these materials to a major scrap
processing location (Los Angeles, CA area) where scrap is extensively used or sold.
The value of the scrap credit is reduced to account for transportation costs from
Colorado to California.
The basis for the value of scrap metal is summarized in Table 4.1. A summary of the
scrap quantities, by material type, produced from dismantling each station is provided
in Table 4.2. An estimate of the total scrap credit, after the scrap quantities have been
applied against the scrap metal prices, is provided in Table 4.3.
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 33 of 64
TABLE 4.1
BASIS FOR SCRAP METAL VALUE
(2010 Dollars)
Scrap Metal
Type of Scrap Market Transport Credit 5
Material Category 1 Value 2 Units Cost 3,4 (per ton)
Carbon Steel Cast Iron 251.62 Per Ton 103.27 148.35

No.1 314.53 Per Ton 103.27 211.26
Mixed Scrap 251.62 Per Ton 103.27 148.35
Galvanized 62.91 Per Ton 103.27 0.00
Stainless Steel SS-1 1.16 Per Pound 0.05 2,207.67
Copper Insulated Cable 1.62 Per Pound 0.05 3,141.70

No.2 Copper 2.60 Per Pound 0.05 5,087.78
Copper-Nickel 5.79 Per Pound 0.04 11,4!}2.70
Large Motor 0.39 Per Pound 0.05 675.40
Note 1: Scrap categories are consistent with information provided in Recycler's World
Note 2: The market value for scrap metal used in this estimate is based on Recycler's World U.S.
Scrap Metal Index Historical Market Price. Values shown represent the average over the 1st
6th month period of2010.
Note 3: The estimated cost for handling and transporting the materials to a major scrap processing
center in the Los Angeles, CA area is $103.27/ ton or $0.052 / pound.
Note 4: Due to its location, Cameo has a different estimated cost for handling and transporting the
materials to a major scrap processing center in the Los Angeles, CA area. The corresponding
values for Cameo are is $ 87.41 / ton or $0.044 / pound.
Note 5: The scrap metal credit reflects the market value of scrap adjusted for handling and transport
cost to local scrap metal recycler.
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 34 of 64
TABLE 4.2
QUANTITY OF SCRAP METALS BY STATION
(pounds)
Stainless
Carbon Steel Steel Galvanized Copper Copper
Station Name Cast Iron No.1 Mixed Scrap SS-1 Steel Insul Cbl No.2 Cu Large Mtr Nickel Total
Arapahoe 2,316,987 26,094,754 28,786,987 1,211,738 1,064,884 308,776 374,813 1,784,907 - 61,943,846
Blue Spruce 308,754 1,949,561 4,270,695 48,735 78,353 41,611 282,663 1,099,723 - 8,080,096
Cameo 859,872 11,548,891 11,225,286 262,730 438,230 130,377 148,224 678,348 233,416 25,525,373
Cherokee 3,822,559 41,827,585 65,057,583 1,819,724 2,063,024 397,490 1,878,757 3,245,026 - 120,111,748
Comanche 5,575,266 73,961,134 129,550,106 2,914,278 2,194,357 599,317 1,293,758 5,451,072 - 221,539,287
Craig 3,500,262 46,541,064 85,675,930 1,819,686 2,336,076 342,092 830,324 3,333,148 - 144,378,581
FI. SI. Vrain 2,228,611 21,571,130 33,212,963 552,989 962,608 81,991 773,292 1,842,965 - 61,226,550
Hayden 2,296,660 23,217,563 49,120,229 946,205 1,115,635 266,579 957,650 1,883,484 - 79,804,005
PaWlee 1,972,259 27,550,328 50,424,393 1,019,017 1,357,656 200,161 507,902 1,877,986 - 84,909,702
Rocky Mountain 1,246,342 5,957,377 15,339,577 323,704 253,463 121,005 600,713 2,012,143 - 25,854,323
Valmont 1,020,250 11,460,141 15,875,712 477,171 540,066 122,811 483,772 815,321 - 30,795,244
Zuni 1,120,100 13,011,731 13,651,888 559,381 554,333 167,950 280,161 873,580 - 30,219,124
Total 26,267,920 304,691,259 502,191,347 11,955,358 12,958,685 2,780,161 8,412,030 24,897,704 233,416 894,387,879
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 35 of 64
TABLE 4.3
SCRAP METAL CREDITS BY STATION
(thousands of 2010 dollars)
Stainless
Carbon Steel Steel Galvanized Copper Copper
Station Name Cast Iron No.1 Mixed Scrap SS-1 Steel Insul Cbl No.2 Cu Large Mtr Nickel Total
Arapahoe 172 2,756 2,135 1,338 0 485 953 603 8,442

Blue Spruce 23 206 317 54 0 65 719 371 - 1,755
Cameo 71 1,311 922 292 0 206 378 234 1,341 4,756
Cherokee 284 4,418 4,826 2,009 0 624 4,779 1,096 - 18,036
Comanche 414 7,813 9,609 3,217 0 941 3,291 1,841 27,126
Craig 260 4,916 6,355 2,009 0 537 2,112 1,126 - 17,315
Ft. St. Vrain 165 2,279 2,464 610 0 129 1,967 622 - 8,236
Hayden 170 2,452 3,643 1,044 0 419 2,436 636 - 10,802
PalMlee 146 2,910 3,740 1,125 0 314 1,292 634 10,162
Rocky Mountain 92 629 1,138 357 0 190 1,528 680 4,615
Valmont 76 1,211 1,178 527 0 193 1,231 275 - 4,689
Zuni 83 1,374 1,013 617 0 264 713 295 4,359
Total 1,955 32,276 37,339 13,199 0 4,368 21,400 8,413 1,341 120,293
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 36 of 64
5. RESULTS
An estimate for dismantling each of the Xcel Energy fossil-fuel generating stations in
Colorado was developed by applying the system and structures inventories against the
associated unit cost factors and accounting for program support costs. A summary of
each station's major cost categories is presented in Table 5.1. Breakdowns ofthe major
cost categories by unit and common facilities are provided in Tables 5.2a through n.
The following is an explanation of the contents of each line item in these tables:
Station Unit Rating (MWe) - This is the nominal electrical rating of each unit at the
station. In Table 5.1 this represents the sum of all units on site.
Demolition Preparations / Temporary Services - The cost associated with ensuring

that all energized systems have been isolated from the buildings scheduled for
dismantling and the cost for installing temporary services to support the dismantling.
Scaffolding / Worker Access - The cost associated with providing safe access to areas
of the station being dismantled.
Asbestos Remediation - The cost associated with remediating asbestos from the station
prior to initiating dismantling activities. It should be noted that dismantling can
proceed much more efficiently if asbestos containing materials have been removed.
Equipment Removal - The cost associated with removing all station equipment
(piping, valves, heat exchangers, tanks, electrical equipment, etc.).
Boiler(s) - The cost associated with removing the boiler.
Structures Demolition - The cost associated with demolishing the buildings and
concrete foundations (to three feet below grade, Grand Meadow removes all below
grade materials).
Backfill / Grade / Landscaping - The cost associated with backfilling below grade
voids, and grading and landscaping the grounds to preclude erosion of soils.
Ongoing Environmental Monitoring (quarterly for 5 years) - The cost associated with
monitoring the environment around the station after the completion of dismantling
activities.
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 37 of 64
Xcel Energy Document XOI-1617-00'3, Rev. 0
Utility Management / Oversight - The staff directly assigned to manage the

dismantling project, including planning, execution, oversight, and restoration.
Demolition Contractor Staff - The contractor's staff assigned to manage, engineer, and
supervise the dismantling project.
Security - Personnel assigned to control access to the dismantling site.
Property Taxes - Not included in this estimate.
Shared Heavy Equipment / Operating Engineers - The cost for renting I operating
equipment in general use throughout the dismantling project (cranes, trucks, forklifts,
front-end loaders, etc.).
Small Tool Allowance - The cost for procuring small tools.
Utilities Allowance (Office Equip & supplies / Telephone, Electric etc.) - The cost for
procuring utility services and office supplies.
Permits - The cost of obtaining permits.
Demolition Contractors Insurance - The cost of the demolition contractors insurance.
Demolition Contractors Fee - A fee applied to contractor activities.
Contingency - The cost to cover expenses for unforeseen events that are likely to occur.
Scrap Credit - A credit to the project for the recovery of scrap metals.
Unit (Table 5.2) - Costs directly attributed to the physical work associated with
dismantling a generating unit.
Common (Table 5.2) - Costs directly attributed to the physical work associated with
dismantling facilities shared by more than one unit.
Station (Table 5.2) - Costs associated with supporting the physical dismantling work
for a station.
This study provides an estimate for dismantling under current requirements, based on
present-day costs and available technology. As inputs to the cost model change over
time, such as labor rates, equipment costs, scrap metal value, etc., this cost estimate
should be reviewed and updated to reflect these changes.
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 38 of 64

Dismantling Cost Stlldy Section 5, Page 3 of 15
TABLE 5.1
SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY COSTS
(2010 Dollars)
Rocky
ActlvRles (Costs) Arapahoe Blue Spruce Cameo Cherokee Comanche Craig FI. SI. Vrain Hayden Pawnee Mountain Valrnont ZUni Fleet Totals
Slation Rating(MWe) 246 310 73 694 1488 856 965 446 505 600 186 107. 6476
Characterization I Temporary Services 834,500 286,375 242,375 911,500 796,125 520,750 701,750 470,750 268,375 531,750 230,375 579,125 6,373,750
WorkerAccess 934,616 420,621 1,713,989 2,771,968 1,761,626 763,486 849,817 956,770 389,565 1,214,114 11,776,571
Asbestos Remediation 4,949,380 2,183,398 9,780,031 5,140,003 1,248,655 3,090,023 - 2,588,172 2,882,894 31,862,556
Equiprnent Removal 5,503,328 1,287,410 2,461,795 9,187,619 16,117,216 9,574,172 8,862,325 4,719,231 5,546,611 3,441,075 2,388,772 2,529,006 71,618,560
Boi"r(s) 2,658,568 1,131,994 4,604,509 7,160,823 4,454,783 185,741 2,373,503 2,445,503 - 1,130,944 1,489,350 27,635,719
StructuresDemolition 4,736,643 414,345 2,460,172 8,074,294 17,063,213 10,042,888 4,277,420 4,002,264 5,830,693 1,693,463 2,077,563 2,617,288 63,290,247
Backfill I Grade I Landscaping 1,483,724 303,069 886,793 2,856,649 3,520,510 3,233,913 970,745 2,098,668 2,337,125 592,590 1,292,335 736,553 20,312,672
Ongoing em,;ron, monitoring (quarterlyfor 5 years) 598,000 156,000 403,000 999,000 949,000 1,032,000 307,000 865,000 870,000 616,000 651,000 456,000 7,902,000
UtilityManagement!Oversight 3,109,688 345,450 1,491,430 3,299,573 3,550,492 1,477,545 2,642,869 2,214,515 1,491,108 825,451 1,234,608 1,514,511 23,197,240
Demolition ContractorMgmtI Super. I Safety Slaff 4,153,399 446,543 1,784,669 4,478,490 4,908,074 2,091,272 3,720,271 2,620,826 2,114,493 1,127,708 1,588,783 1,824,850 30,859,378
Security 1,446,746 162,641 427,302 1,540,734 1,664,933 664,630 1,228,559 1,003,659 671,344 230,655 353,375 434,695 9,829,272
PropertyTaxes
Project Expenses

Shared Heavy EquipmentI OperalingEngineers 4,790,949 592,876 2,139,672 5,184,549 5,704,663 2,495,259 4,367,047 2,935,406 2,523,373 1,390,791 1,932,110 2,190,241 36,246,937
SmallToolAllowance 255,541 26,585 120,285 455,889 650,959 365,742 208,517 215,944 215,259 74,127 124,167 144,440 2,857,454
utilitiesAllowance 68,503 17,483 45,934 72,953 78,834 31,470 58,172 47,523 31,788 24,795 37,987 46,728 562,171
Permits 387,089 44,134 178,509 603,993 810,767 445,048 320,889 303,612 289,250 118,654 180,397 208,882 3,891,225
Demolition Contractors Insurance 910,841 103,849 420,040 1,421,227 1,907,776 1,047,221 755,068 714,414 680,619 279,198 424,484 491,511 9,156,247
Demolition Contractors Fee 3,439,210 384,516 1,586,448 5,608,400 7,715,357 4,246,609 2,839,977 2,727,644 2,640,671 1,018,305 1,599,609 1,891,267 35,698,014
Sub-Totel 40,260,725 4,571,275 19,284,438 60,793,398 80,510,713 43,484,929 33,458,491 31,252,799 28,912,980 11,964,562 18,224,245 21,251,456 393,970,012
Contingency 6,534,047 685,691 2,976,006 10,097,013 12,590,607 6,522,739 5,143,639 4,996,922 4,336,947 1,794,684 2,992,454 3,476,008 62,146,757
ProjectTotal(before scrap credit) 46,794,772 5,256,967 22,260,444 70,890,410 93,101)21 50,007,669 38,602,130 36,249,721 33,249,927 13,759,246 21,216,700 24,727,464 456,116,769
Screp Credit (8,442,373) (1,755,213) (4,755,606) (18,035,704) (27,125,763) (17,314,642) (8,236,183) (10,801,739) (10,162,155) (4,614,584) (4,689,426) (4,359,137) (120,292,526)
Praect Total 38352398 3501754 17504838 52854 706 65975558 32693026 30365947 25447982 23087772 9144 662 16527274 20368326 335824243
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 39 of 64
...... __ , T:'I
.d.l.;ta,L:lut::'';J
_
D:;::::;:~:J::,t xa! set: oes, E~:... a
Dismantling Cost Stltd.y Section 5, Page 4 of 15
TABLE5.2a
ARAPAHOE STATION
(2010 Dollars)
Activities Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Common Station I Station Total

Arapahoe Unit Rating (MWe) 45 45 45 111 246
Characterization I Temporary Services 41,000 41,000 41,000 54,000 657,500 634,500
Worker Access 211,224 211,224 211,224 300,943 934,616
Asbestos Remediation 1,257,201 1,257,201 1,257,201 1,177,776 - 4,949,360
Equipment Removal 1,051,979 1,051,979 1,051,979 1,450,116 697,275 5,503,326
Boiler(s) 602,577 602,577 602,577 650,636 - 2,656,566
Structures Demolition 969,735 969,735 969,735 996,363 629,056 4,736,643
Backfill I Grade I Landscaping 67,936 67,936 67,936 126,656 1,093,260 1,463,724
Ongoing environmental monitoring (quarterly for 5 years) 596,000 596,000
Utility Management I Oversight 3,109,666 3,109,666
Demolition Contractor Management I Supervisory I Safety Staff 4,153,399 4,153,399

Security 1,446,746 1,446,746
Property Taxes - - - - 0
Project Expenses
Shared Heavy Equipment I Operating Engineers 4,790,949 4,790,949
Small Tool Allowance 52,771 52,771 52,771 61,964 35,245 n/a 255,541
Utilities Allowance (Office Equip & supplies I Telephone, Electric etc.) 66,503 66,503
Permits 367,069 367,069
Demolition Contractors Insurance 910,641 910,641
Demolition Contractors Fee 3,439,210 3,439,210
Sub-Total 40,260,725
Contingency 6,534,047
Project Total (before scrap credit) 46,794,772
Scrap Credit (1,744,643) (1,744,643) (1,744,643) (2,143,979) (1,063,666) - (6,442,373)

.n~_:_ ...... T ..... _f ':ta ':tl::" ':taa,
I r- I UJCI"A I '-'~Ql
I ""'-',"" .....:.''''''''' ... 1
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 40 of 64
Xcel Energy Document XOI-I617-003, Rev. 0

Dismantling Cost StIld.y Section 5, Page 5 of 15
TABLE 5.2b
BLUE SPRUCE STATION
(2010 Dollars)
Activities Unit 1 Unit 2 Common Station Station Total
Blue Spruce Unit Rating (MWe) 155 155 310
Characterization I Temporary Services 61,000 61,000 - 164,375 286,375
Worker Access - - - 0
Asbestos Remediation - - - 0
Equipment Removal 504,740 504,740 277,931 1,287,410
Boiler(s) - - - 0
Structures Demolition 141,058 141,058 132,228 414,345
Backfill I Grade I Landscaping 28,729 28,729 245,611 - 303,069
Utility Management I Oversight 345,450 345,450
Demolition Contractor Management I Supervisory I Safety Staff 446,543 446,543

Security 162,641 162,641
Project Expenses
Shared Heavy Equipment I Operating Engineers 592,876 592,876
Small Tool Allowance 9,194 9,194 8,197 n/a 26,585
Permits 44,134 44,134
Demolition Contractors Fee 384,516 384,516
Sub-Total 4,571,275
Contingency 685,691
Scrap Credit (819,808) (819,808) (115,597) - (1,755,213)
Project Total 3,501,754
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 41 of 64
..... __ , D ._. n ._.. ~ Vn'f ,.,. nn .. " __ n

.Ll.l.t; .. L:lUt;IliJ .I.IUl.' .. IUt;' ........ 1. ....... -.11 .11 '-v ... v r ....L t;V. v
DismantHng Cost Study Section 5, Page 6 of 15
TABLE 5.2c
CA,\iEO STATION
(2010 Dollars)

Cameo Unit Rating (MWe) 24 49 73
Worker Access 173,176 247,445 - 420,621
Asbestos Remediation 889,789 1,293,609 - 2,183,398
Equipment Removal 845,451 1,090,540 525,804 2,461,795
Boiler(s) 463,892 668,102 - 1,131,994
Structures Demolition 793,210 1,133,394 533,569 2,460,172
Activities currently under contract - Ash and Evaporation Ponds 900,000 900,000

Security 427,302 427,302
Project Expenses
Permits 178,509 178,509
Scrap Credit (' ,629,356) (2,621,783) (504,467) III '71:1: C("\Q\

\"",1 'o,Iv,\"lV\"lj
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 42 of 64
Xcel Energy Document XOI-I6J7-003, Rev. 0

Dismantling Cost Stud:r Section 5, Page 7 of 15
TABLE 5.2d
CHEROKEE STATION
(2010 Dollars)
Activities Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Common Station Station Total
Cherokee Unit Rating (MWe) 107 107 151 330 694
Characterization! Temporary Services 54,000 54,000 61,000 85,000 - 657,500 911,500
Worker Access 294,780 294,780 351,003 773,426 - 1,713,989
Asbestos Remediation 1,991,860 1,991,860 2,521,588 3,274,724 - 9,780,031
Equipment Removal 1,425,279 1,425,279 1,632,122 3,611,184 1,093,754 9,187,619
Boiler(s) 831,512 831,512 1,021,802 1,919,683 - 4,604,509
Structures Demolition 977,936 977,936 1,164,459 3,687,375 1,266,588 8,074,294
Backfill! Grade! Landscaping 123,156 123,156 146,646 293,194 2,170,497 - 2,856,649
Utility Management! Oversight 3,299,573 3,299,573
Demolition Contractor Management! Supervisory! Safety Staff 4,478,490 4,478,490

Security 1,540,734 1,540,734
Property Taxes - - - - - - 0
Project Expenses
Shared Heavy Equipment! Operating Engineers 5,184,549 5,184,549
Small Tool Allowance 71,232 71,232 86,233 170,557 56,635 n/a 455,889
Utilities Allowance (Office Equip & supplies! Telephone, Electric etc.) 72,953 72,953
Permits 603,993 603,993
Demolition Contractors Insurance 1,421,227 1,421,227
Scrap Credit (2,046,624) (2,046,624) (2,728,963) (7,516,709) (3,696,783) - (18,035,704)
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 43 of 64
,,-~ 7 T"I _ ro .. ~_ ,,.. ...... 7,.. .................. n n
ACta. D'U:;"~;Y ""Vl-U'U~'f.f av 6.-6. v 6. 'VVII, 6.U:;V. v

Dismantling Cost Stud.y Section 5, Page 8 of 15
TABLE 5.2e
COMANCHE STATION
(2010 Dollars)
Activities Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Common Station I Station Total
Comanche Unit Rating (MWe) 330 330 828 1,488
Characterization i Temporary Services 85,000 85,000 133,000 - 493,125 796,125
Worker Access 773,426 773,426 1,225,115 2,771,968
Asbestos Remediation 2,570,001 2,570,001 5,140,003
Equipment Removal 3,535,134 3,535,134 6,427,135 2,619,814 16,117.216
Boiler(s) 1,919,683 1,919,683 3,321,457 7,160,823
Structures Demolition 3,729,781 3,761,470 6,170,265 3,401,696 17,063,213
Backfill i Grade i Landscaping 294,285 297,850 509,999 2,418,375 3,520,510
Utility Management i Oversight 3,550,492 3,550,492
Demolition Contractor Management i Supervisory i Safety Staff 4,908,074 4,908,074

Security 1,664,933 1,664,933
Property Taxes - - 0
Project Expenses
Shared Heavy Equipment i Operating Engineers 5,704,663 5,704,663
Small Tool Allowance 161,341 161,782 222,337 105,499 nia 650,959
Utilities Allowance (Office Equip & supplies i Telephone, Electric etc.) 78,834 78,834
Permits 810,767 810,767
Scrap Credit (6,147,098) (6,153,980) (11,409,925) (3,414,760) (27,125,763)
/Project Total I 65,975,5581
TLG Services. Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 44 of 64

Dismantling Cost Stud.y Section 5, Page 9 of 15
TABLE 5.2
CRAIG STATION
(2010 Dollars)

Craig Unit Rating (MWe) 428 428 856
Worker Access 880,813 880,813 - 1,761,626
Asbestos Remediation - - 0
Equipment Removal 4,005,013 4,005,013 1,564,146 9,574,172
Boiler(s) 2,227,391 2,227,391 - 4,454,783
Structures Demolition 4,193,690 4,193,690 1,655,508 10,042,888
Backfill I Grade I Landscaping 333,740 333,740 2,566,433 - 3,233,913
Ongoing environmental monitoring (quarterly for 5 years) 1,032,000 1,032,000

Security 664,630 664,630
Property Taxes - - - 0
Project Expenses
Permits 445,048 445,048
Scrap Credit (7,435,085) (7,435,085) (2,444,472) - (17,314,642)
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 45 of 64
n __ _.. Vn 7 Y>7"T nn'l D __ . n

Xcc! E~;:;~iij" ...,VLI
.1-
~OV . . .. ... .. lI,I..-,l..lI,I.. ' - l I l I U , ,I.. .. OVLl. II
Dismantling Cost Stlld.y Section 5, Page 10 of 15
TABLE 5.2g
FORT ST. VRAIN STATION
(2010 Dollars)
Activities Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Unit 4 Unit 5 Unit 6 Common Station Station Total
Ft. St. Vrain Unit Rating (MWe) 300.00 130.00 130.00 130.00 137.50 137.50 965.00
Characterization I Temporary Services 81,000 58,000 58,000 58,000 59,000 59,000 - 328,750 701,750
Worker Access 348,886 138,200 138,200 138,200 - - - 763,486
Asbestos Remediation 1,248,655 - - - - - - 1,248,655
Equipment Removal 1,992,156 1.295,425 1,295,425 1,299,292 494,761 494,781 1,990,505 8,862,325
Boiler(s) - 58,678 58,678 58,678 - - 9,707 185,741
Structures Demolition 1,090,982 499,128 499,128 499,128 132,857 132,857 1,423,341 4,277,420
Backfill I Grade I Landscaping 50,543 29,465 29,465 29,465 28,082 28,082 775,643 - 970,745

Security 1,228,559 1,228,559
Property Taxes - - - - - - - - 0
Project Expenses
Small Tool Allowance 60,153 25,986 25,986 26,035 8,934 8,934 52,490 n/a 208,517
Utilities Allowance (OfficeEquip & supplies I Telephone, Electric etc.) 58,172 58,172
Permits 320,889 320,889
Demotilion Contractors Insurance 755,068 755.068
Scrap Credit (2,203,557) (1,050,835) (1,050,835) (1,208,550) (757,281) (757,281) (1,207,843) - (8,236,183)
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 46 of 64
XcelEnergy Document XOl-1617-003, Re~. 0

Dlemantling Cost Stud.Y Section 5, Page 11 of 15
TABLE 5.2h
RAYDEN STATION
(2010 Dollars)
Hayden Unit Rating (MWe) 184 262 446
Chatacterization I Temporary Services 66,000 76,000 - 32.8,750 470,750
Worker Access 387,464 462,353 - 849,817
Asbestos Remediation 1,335,621 1,754,402 - 3,090,023
Equipment Removal 1,768,972 2,065,333 884,926 4,719,231
Boiler(s) 1,068,547 1,304,957 - 2,373,503
Structures Demolition 1,357,480 1,619,851 1,024,933 4,002,264
Backfill I Grade I Landscaping 163,213 194.759 1,740,695 - 2,098,668

Security 1,003,659 1,003,659
Project Expenses
Permits 303,612 303,612
Scrap Credit (3,472,010) (4,626,634) (2,703,094) - (10,801,739)
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 47 of 64
X:;::!E~~:'~j'
n_~ .. ~_ VI11 1"1'71111') D_ 11
...... v ....... ,,~~ 4 . . . . -"--" . . -" . - ....... , -"'-LV ..
TABLE 5.2i
PAWNEE STATION
(2010 Dollars)
Activities Unit 1 Common Station Station Total
Pawnee Unit Rating (MWe) 505 505
Characterization I Temporary Services 104,000 164,375 268,375

Worker Access 956,770 956,770
Asbestos Remediation o
Equipment Removal 4,307,629 1,238,982 5,546,611
Boiler(s) 2,445,503 2,445,503
Structures Demolition 4,551,816 1,278,876 5,830,693
Backfill I Grade I Landscaping 365,030 1,972,094 2,337,125

Security 671,344 671,344
Property Taxes o
Project Expenses
Small Tool Allowance 159,134 56,124 n/a 215,259
Permits 289,250 289,250
Scrap Credit (8,336,946) (1,825,209) (10,162,155)
IProject Total I 23,087,7721
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 48 of 64
Xcel Energy Document XOI-1617-003, Rev. 0
TABLE 5.2j
ROCKY MOUNTAIN STA'I'ION
(2010 Dollars)
Activities Unit 1 Unit 2 Unit 3 Common Station Station Total
Rocky Mountain Unit Rating (MWe) 150 150 300 600
Characterization I Temporary Services 61,000 61,000 81,000 - 328,750 531,750
Worker Access - - - - 0
Asbestos Remediation - - - - 0
Equipment Removal 928,126 928,126 834,252 750,570 3,441,075
Boiler(s) - - - - 0
Structures Demolition 253,426 253,426 597,363 589,249 1,693,463
Backfill I Grade I Landscaping 71,617 71,617 113,924 335,432 - 592,590
Utility Management I Oversight 825,451 825,451

Security 230,655 230,655
Property Taxes - - - - - 0
Project Expenses
Small Tool Allowance 16,427 16,427 20,332 20,941 n/a 74,127
Permits 118,654 118,654
Scrap Credit (1,287,987) (1,287,987) (1,568,587) (470,023) - (4,614,584)
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 49 of 64
'''"-
H.'
-, y;'I_.
.d.l;";t. C.fl,";1
---
D;;;;;;;;;;;;:.: Xf}!-1&!7-f}92, R;;:;. 9
Dismantling Cost Stlld.y Section 5, Page 14 of 15
TABLE 5.2k
VALMONT STATION
(2010 Dollars)
Activities UnitS Common Station Station Total
Valmont Unit Rating (MWe) 186 186
Characterization I Temporary Services 66,000 164,375 230,375
Worker Access 389,565 389,565
Asbestos Remediation 2,588,172 2,588,172
Equipment Removal 1,775,801 612,971 2,388,772
Boiler(s) 1,130,944 1,130,944
Structures Demolition 1,292,386 785,178 2,077,563
Backfill I Grade I Landscaping 167,174 1,125,161 1,292,335

Security 353,375 353,375
Properly Taxes o
Project Expenses
Small Tool Allowance 92,626 31,541 n/a 124,167
Permits 180,397 180,397
Scrap Credit (3,091,955) (1,597,470) (4,689,426)
IProject Total I 16,527,2741
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 50 of 64
XcelEnergy Document XOl-1617-003, Rev. 0

Dismantling Cost Stud.,,! Section 5, Page 15 of 15
TABLE 5.21
ZUNI STATION
(2010 Dollars)
Zuni Unit Rating (MWe) 39 68 107
Worker Access 523,223 690,890 - 1,214,114
Asbestos Remediation 1,226,649 1,656,245 - 2,882,894
Equipment Removal 930,438 1,169,092 429,477 2,529,006
Boiler(s) 625,891 863,459 - 1,489,350
Structures Demolition 919,875 1,142,429 554,984 2,617,288
Security 434,695 434,695
Project Expenses
Permits 208,882 208,882
Scrap Credit (1,571,922) (2,369,219) (417,996) - (4,359,137)
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 51 of 64
6. REFERENCES
1. E-mail dated June 24,2010 from Lisa Perkett ofXcel Energy to Fran Seymore of
TLG; subject "Cameo Labor Rates".
2. E-mail dated June 24, 2010 from Lisa Perkett of Xcel Energy to Fran Seymore of
TLG; subject "Utility Staff Rates-201O.xls".
3. "Building Construction Cost Data 2010," Robert Snow Means Company, Inc.,
Kingston, Massachusetts.
4. Recycler's World, Iron and Steel Recycling Section and Scrap Copper Recycling
Section, U.S. Scrap Metal Index, average over the 1st - 6 month period of :~o 1O.
5. T.S. LaGuardia et al., "Guidelines for Producing Commercial Nuclear Power
Plant Decommissioning Cost Estimates," AIFINESP-036, May 1986.
6. W.J. Manion and T.S. LaGuardia, "Decommissioning Handbook," U.S.
Department of Energy, DOEIEV/10128-1, November 1980.
7. AACE International, Skills and Knowledge of Cost Engineering, 4th Edition,
1999.
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 52 of 64
Xcel Energy XOl-1617-003, Rev. 0
Dismantling Cost Study Appendix A, Page 1 of 2
APPENDIX A
:I8STIMATING INVENTORIES FOR SIMILAR SIZE UNITS
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 53 of 64
Xcel Energy XOl-1617-003, Rev. 0
Dismantling Cost Study Appendix A, Page 2 of 2
APPENDIX A
ESTIMATING INVENTORIES FOR SIMILAR SIZE UNITS
In order to cost-effectively develop estimates TLG recognized that units of a similar

size and fuel type share many common characteristics. For instance, plant systems
(feedwater, steam, condensate, coal-handling, generating, lubricating oil, electrical
power distribution, etc.) would be designed to serve the same functions, contain
similar components, and be similar in size. Similarly, the structures necessary to
support these systems, including boiler building, turbine building, intake and
discharge structures, and fuel handling would be designed to serve the same
functions and would also be similar in size. Based on these characteristics, units
were selected to represent the range of sizes and fuel types currently installed
within PSCo's system. Site-specific inventories were developed for these units using
a combination of drawings, site walk downs, and databases. These representative
unit inventories were extrapolated to represent inventories of equipment and
structures for similar units. This approach is referred to by AACE International
(The Association for the Advancement of Cost Estimating) as a "scale of operations
method" (Ref. 7).
The basic approach to the extrapolation is the following:
CI = Rating of Representative Unit (MWe)
Ca = Rating of Similar Unit (MWe)
QI = Quantity of Material Representative Unit (by component)
Qz = Quantity of Material Similar Unit (by component)
x = constant (0.65 for equipment, 0.5 for structures) (estimators judgment)
The basic concept is that a similar unit, with a rating 20% greater than a
representative unit, does not have a 20% increase in inventory. Using the scale of
operation method, the component would have a (120%/100%) 0.65 = 112.6%, or a
12.6% increase in size or quantity. Practically, this is interpreted to mean that a
pipe carrying 20% more fluid (e.g. feedwater) would be approximately 12.6% larger
In size.
For units that are essentially identical, but may have slight differences in electrical
ratings due to local conditions (efficiency of units), the inventories are also
considered identical.
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 54 of 64
Dismantling Cost Study Appendix B, Page 1 of 3
APPENDlXB
SUM:MARY OF STATION SYSTEM AND STRUCTURES INVENTORIES
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 55 of 64
v __ ,
Document X!J!-!t!7-{}{);], R;:;;, c
T,'I _ _
... ,J. ... c;,J-~''''c;'I!iJ
Dismantling COBt Stltd.y Appendix B, Page 2 of 3
TABLEB
SUMMARY OF STATION SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES INVENTORIES
Ft St Roo!<y
Index SlnftemtStrucfure InventorvData Point Arapaho. Blu. SIXUO. Cameo Cherokee Comanche cra Vrain Havden Pawnee Mountain Vs/mont Zuni
2 Piping 0.25 fo 2 inchesdiarrefer, ~near foot 5,427 7,520 24,791

3 Piping >2 to4 inches diameter, lineer foot 58,756 3,684 24,551 90,817 153,033 104,908 101,601 52,678 61,616 16,527 24,300 31,626
4 Piping >4 to 8 inches diameter, linearfoot 31,821 3,684 12,276 60,555 103,856 69,960 75,793 35,120 41,077 11,268 18,200 15,813
5 Piping >8 to 14 inches diarneter, linear foot 22,709 1,742 9,044 40,347 85,965 46,626 90,812 23,396 27,385 8,545 10,793 11,852
6 Piping >14 to20 inches diarreter, linear foot 10,873 960 4,754 19,318 46,343 31,084 30,660 8,387 18,257 8,876 3,869 6,124
7 Piping >20 to 36 inches diarreter, linear foot 7,610 1,181 3,507 8,710 17,317 11,131 8,274 4,709 6,538 4,675 2,172 4,518
8 Piping >36 inches diameter, linear fool 1,023 5,467 6,909 4,737 1,600 3,679 2,782 2,093 1,697
10 Valws >2 10 4 inches 2,024 578 815 3,269 2,974 1,719 2,223 1,748 975 898 892 839
11 Valves >4 to 8 inches 1,003 288 413 1,590 1,523 848 1,242 851 490 400 436 427
12 Valws >8 to 14 inches 721 96 299 1,019 876 489 1,182 553 273 571 283 315
13 Valves >14 to 20 inches 120 48 53 253 540 310 279 86 174 98 44 55
14 Valves >20 to 36 inches 50 24 27 78 221 124 74 19 70 48 10 27
15 Valves >36 inches 7 12 48 99 53 218 18 32 18 11
24 Pipehangers forsrrall borepiping, each 3,839 384 1,684 6,536 10,202 5,906 12,594 2,832 3,355 1,742 1,448 1,732
25 Pipehangers forlarge borepiping, each 1,731 320 754 3,215 5,613 3,241 4,053 1,297 1,836 1,237 882 775
26 Purrp andrrolor setc 300 pounds 145 8 88 219 192 113 138 128 68 43 69 80
27 PuI1l'S, 300-1000 pound purrp 32 22 27 38 76 46 46 23 34 23 20 15
28 Purrps, >1000-10,000 pound purrp 18 4 10 47 62 36 14 28 23 2 22 10
29 Purrps, >10,000 pound purrp 18 10 28 52 26 10 13 6 5 10
32 Purrp rrctors. 300-1000 pound pump 32 22 27 36 76 39 35 23 27 23 20 19
33 Pump rrotors, >1000-10,000 pound pump 18 4 10 47 69 43 22 28 30 3 22 10
34 Purrp rrotors, >10,000 pound pump 18 10 26 52 26 10 13 6 5 10
36 Mainturbine-generator (pounds perMW(e) input) 4 2 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 2
39 Heatexchanger <3000 pound 72 4 31 70 70 48 20 44 32 8 23 36
40 Heataxchanger >3000 pound 19 4 10 16 15 6 16 6 4 5 4 10
41 Feedv.ater healer/deaerator 23 10 33 27 16 6 16 9 2 8 10
49 Maincondenser (pounds per MW(e) input) 4 2 5 6 4 1 2 2 1 1 2
51 Tanks, <300 gallons, filters, andionexchangers 165 3 90 107 102 60 45 60 36 27 32 77
52 ranks, 300-3000 gallons 46 4 33 45 129 59 34 16 36 14 12 33
53 Tanks, >3000 gallons, square foot surface 12,421 35,302 5,765 15,528 113,553 18,666 19,709 10,186 12,210 50,439 5,429 7,406
54 Electrical eqUipment, <300 pound 1,221 84 504 2,349 3,631 2,010 1,232 920 1,035 194 485 459
55 Electrical equlprrerrt, 300-1000pound 359 254 139 726 1,143 598 352 303 311 305 155 141
56 Electrical ecutprrenf 1000~10,000 pound 163 156 94 299 776 369 301 75 197 263 40 102
57 Electricel ecutprrenf >10,000pound 6 16 4 17 75 34 69 17 4 4
59 Electrical transforrners < 30 tons 45 2 22 55 50 34 14 27 16 6 14 23
60 Electrical transforrners > 30 tons 4 16 2 15 5 3 21 8 2 17 7 4
61 Standby diese~generalor, <100 kW 2 2 1 2
62 Standby diese~generator, 100kW to 1 WW\I 2 6 3 1 2 1
63 Standby diese'-generator, >1 WW\I 3 4 2 2 1 2
64 Fluorescent light fixture 625 100 284 693 1,146 760 350 524 456 150 217 321
65 Incandescent light fixture 757 100 183 1,996 2,219 1,364 1,699 1,249 613 150 503 211
66 Electrical cabletray,linear foot 4,826 2,466 1,948 7,302 25,076 6,750 8,906 4,535 3,648 10,996 2,068 2,510
67 Electrical conduit, linear foot 62,649 7,531 35,073 104,255 129,552 68,811 6,967 70,631 52,162 14,502 32,562 45,161
69
70
W1echanical equipment, <300 pound
Mechanical equipment, 300-WOO pound
1,165
341 228
- 521
189
1,655
200
3,146
370
1,717
187
625
279
717
63
907
103
27
291
362 254
43 120
71 Mechanical equipmen~ 1000-10,000 pound 112 25 58 123 347 152 121 41 63 67 22 19
72 Mechanical eaui ment >10000 ocund 18 30 8 30 69 37 337 14 27 129 6
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 56 of 64

Dismantling Cost Study Appendix B, Page 3 of 3
TABLEB
SUMMARY OF SYSTEMS AND STRUCTURES INVENTORIES
(Continued)
Ft. st, Rocky

Index Svatem'Struatur. Inventarii D_ Point Ar.~ho. Blue Spruoe Cllmeo Ch.ro/fJe Comlfnohe Cr.ia Vrain H.vden P"wn"e Mountrlln VII/mont Zuni
78 t-WAC equipment, <300 pound 35 17 82 102 62 24 30 37 17 21

77 t-WAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 12 5 24 40 22 61 10 12 4 5 6
78 t-WAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 10 5 10 19 10 3 4 5 3 2 6
79 t-NAC equipment, >10,000 pound 10 19 12 3 6 8 6
82 !-NAGductwork, pound 431,600 165,206 1,060,667 765,942 1,433,727 566,396 450,699 798,247 200,967 212,951
201 Standard reinforced concrete, cubicyard 10,453 3,392 4,906 12,566 26,466 14,573 4,790 6,760 8,657 9,241 3,306 5,968
202 Gradeslabconcrete, cubicyard 4,065 366 1,091 11,987 14,921 10,712 10,557 7,512 6,453 360 3,722 1,174
206 Heavily reinconcretewI#9 rabar, cubicyard 2,366 946 6,772 10,147 7,122 350 3,708 4,211 1,982 1,154
215 Foundation concrete, cubicyard 2,734 9,796 6,226 3,382
222 J-bllow masonry block wall,cubicyard 194 916 1,132 727 548 398 251
224 Solidmasonry blockwal, cubicyard 5,084 2,458 3,145 964 669 34 2,627 392 1,204 2,991
226 Subterranean funnels/velds, linearfoo1 388 211 1,311 218 246 1,278 1,051 189 879 258
229 Backfilof belowgradevoids, cublc yard 17,905 4,444 8,463 39,963 49,379 44,763 15,772 27,837 31,144 12,983 16,498 10,137
230 Excavation of cleanmaterial, cubicyard 1,832 998 5,502 16,542 16,836 6,263 4,410 14,469 2,848 1,208
235 Building by wlume, cubicfoot 1,974,842 299,550 1,097,787 1,961,144 6,373,456 1,990,884 2,412,141 1,588,195 1,529,167 1,695,663 1,025,635 1,137,441
238 Building metalsiding, squarefoot 86,649 37,212 129,446 216,911 126,031 35,062 70,203 70,520 10,407 32,789 45,319
242 Standard asphah roofing, squarefoot 60,765 25,936 94,749 146,731 95,525 16,830 48,514 52,392 22,389 31,588
253 Overhead crenes/rronoralls < 10 toncapacity, each 11 5 30 90 56 32 8 38 4 8
255 Overhead cranes/rronorells >10 ~ 50 ten capacity, each 1 1 5 16 10 1 8 1 1
256 Gantrycranes> 50 toncapacity, each 1 1 3 5 3 4 2 2 2 1
259 notused
260 Structural steel, pounds 17,634,301 304,875 7,983,779 22,608,738 35,154,065 21,555,839 9,637,021 12,532,155 12,149,032 2,178,083 5,924,383 9,198,587
262 Steel floorgrating, squarefoot 38,262 7,182 11,571 78,012 76,774 30,131 25,566 56,563 18,571 19,863 28,688 14,088
266 Placerrent of scaffolding in cleanareas,squarefoot 135,256 54,221 246,045 401,153 254,939 110,490 122,964 138,482 58,377 175,704
270 Landscaping withtopsoil, acre 3 2 1 1 14 15,5 3 1 11,9 4 1 2
271 Landscaping wlo topsoil, acre 61 6 33 138 115 131 20 111 101 62 72 40
272 Chainlinkfencing, linearfoot 7,275 2,920 3,983 20,697 19,395 22,066 20,174 18,752 18,965 8,840 10,818 4,798
273 Railroad track,linearfool 12,388 6,746 31,616 52,660 51,203 2,430 25,506 39,328 18,471
274 Asphah pavement, squarefoot 597,444 125,375 325,455 635,710 379,460 363,176 263,798 669,952 294,311 152,052 432,846 394,023
294 Carbonsleelplale 1/2 inchthick,squarefoot 32,263 7,325 12,462 34,852 51,090 32,424 105,662 31,489 24,904 59,102 14,435 52,526
359 Steamdrumremoval {fossiO 4 2 4 4 2 2 1 6 1 2
360 Water drumrerrovel(fossiO 12
381 Upperllower waterwaU headers(fossiO 33 16 43 53 33 2 28 18 11 18
362 Topsupboiler 'Naterwall (8'xS' section), inchescut 136,022 56,306 212,782 329,817 204,563 125,134 113,893 55,803 72,580
369 Boilerconvective superheaaler platens 587 242 724 1,000 620 457 345 204 312
371 Boilerreheat platens 74 359 481 298 231 188 103
372 Boilereconomizer platens 166 67 822 1,535 952 218 530 97 87
374 Stationary sootblowers 69 38 131 183 ,,4 62 83 32
375 Retractable sootbowers 39 14 113 225 118 36 59 18
376 ProcessductMlrk(8'xS' section), inchescut 734,346 '26,006 261,060 1,651,202 4,110,017 2,549,168 471,408 767,028 ',419,284 427,979 342,052 989,741
378 reo-esbescs insulated regeneratiw air preheaters 1 8 8 4 4 1
379 ~n~insulatad regenerative air preheaters 1
3BO ~n-asbestos insulated recuperative air preheaters 3 2 2
382 Induced, lorced, primary draftfans 6 4 12 14 4 6 4 4 8
383 Coal car dumpers 2 1 3 4 3 2 2 1
384
385
Conveyors
Transfer Towers
1,150
1
522
1
1,950
1
5,600
6
2,724
1
1,463
, 2,155
60,502
829
1
38B Stacker- raclalmers 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1
387 Coalcrushers 2 2 3 8 4 2 3 2
388 Coalhoppers (8'xS' section), inchescut 2,621 3,104 1,980
389 BaD mils 8 4 13 16 10 8 5 4
390 Coalfeeders 169 69 236 305 189 154 105 69
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 57 of 64
XcelEnergy Document XOl-1617-00'3, Rev. 0
Dismantling Cost Study Appendix C, Page 1 of 4
APPENDIXC
UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
TLG Services; Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 58 of 64
APPENDIXC
UNIT COST FACTOR DEVELOPMENT
Example: Unit Factor for Removal of Heat Exchanger < 3,000 pounds
1. SCOPE
Heat exchangers weighing < 3,000 lb. will be removed in one piece using a crane or
small hoist. They will be disconnected from the inlet and outlet piping. The heat
exchanger will be sent to the laydown area.
2. CAI~CULATIONS
Act Activity Activity Critical

ID Description Duration Duration
a Remove insulation 20 (b)

b Mount pipe cutters 60 60
c Disconnect inlet and outlet lines 60 60
d Rig for removal 30 30
e Unbolt from mounts 30 30
f Remove, send to packing area 60 60
Totals (Activity/Critical) 260 240
Duration adjustment(s):
+ Work break adjustment (8.33 % of productive duration) 20
Total work duration (minutes) 260
*** Total duration =4.333 hr ***
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 59 of 64
3. LABOR REQUIRED
Crew Number Duration Rate Cost

(hr) ($/hr) ($)
Laborers 3.0 4.333 38.33 498.25

Craftsmen 2.0 4.333 48.69 421.95
Foreman 1.0 4.333 58.77 254.65
General Foreman 0.25 4.333 60.28 65.30
Fire Watch 0.05 4.333 38.33 8.30
Total labor cost 1,248.45
4. EQillPMENT & CONSUMABLES COSTS
Equipment Costs none
ConsumableslMaterials Costs
Gas torch consumables 1 @ $8.85/hr xl hr {I}
Subtotal cost of equipment and materials 8.85

Overhead & profit on equipment and materials @ 12.90% 1.14
Total costs, equipment & material 9.99
TOTAL COST Removal of heat exchanger <3000 pound: $1,258.44
Total labor cost: $1,248.45

Total equipment/material costs: $9.99
Total craft labor man-hours required per unit: 27.298
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 60 of 64

5. NOTES AND REFERENCES
Durations are shown in minutes. The integrated duration accounts for those
activities that can be performed in conjunction with other activities,
indicated by the alpha designator of the concurrent activity. This results in
an overall decrease in the sequenced duration.
\;york difficulty factors were developed in conjunction with the AIF program
to standardize decommissioning cost studies and are delineated in the
"Guidelines" study (Reference 2, VoL 1, Chapter 5).
References for equipment and consumables costs:
1. R.S. Mean.s (2010) Division 01 5433, Section 40-6360 Page 658
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 61 of 64
Dismantling Cost Study Appendix D, Page 1 of 4
APPENDIXD
UNIT COST FACTOR LISTING
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 62 of 64
TABLED

(Costs are in 2010 dollars/Scrap Weights in pounds)
Unit Cost Factors Scrap Weight
Carbon Galv. Insul
UCF# Description Total Cost Labor Cost Labor Hours Cast Iron Steel No.1 Mixed Scrap S5-1 Steel. Cable No. 2 Copper Large Molor
2 Piping 0.25 10 2 inches diarretsr, linear foot 4.57 4.53 0.1 4 0.5
3 Piping >2 to 4 inches dian-eter, linear foot 6.60 6.55 0.2 7 0.9 0.4
4 Piping >4 to 8 inches dian-eter, linear foot 12.66 12.59 0.3 22
5 Piping >8 to 14 inches diarreter, linear foot 17.64 17.56 0.4 57
6 Piping >141020 inches diameter, linear foot 25.22 24.97 0.6 120
7 Piping >20 10 36 inches diameter, linear fool 39.82 39.49 0.9 221
8 Piping >36 inches diameter, linear fool 48.59 48.26 1.1 417
10 Valves >2 10 4 inches 86.92 86.42 1.9 75 8.8 4.4
11 Valves>4 to 8 inches 126.61 125.94 2.8 510
12 Valves >8 to 14 inches 176.40 175.58 4.1 1,066
13 Valves>14 to 20 inches 252.19 249.69 5.8 2,040
14 Valves>20 10 36 inches 398.24 394.91 9.1 3,334
15 Valves >36 inches 485.93 482.60 11.1 11,535
24 Pipe hangersfor smal/ bore piping, each 27.92 25.42 0.6 10
25 Pipe hangersfor large bore piping, each 100.38 95.38 2.3 50
26 Pumpand motorset < 300 pounds 212.20 208.03 4.7 50 12.5 62.3
27 Pumps,300-1000poundpump 585.05 578.39 12.7 293 49 48.9
28 Pumps, >1000-10,000 poundpump 2,329.52 2,319.53 51.3 2,834 472 472.3
29 Pumps, >10,000 poundpump 4,500.59 4,470.62 98.9 43,693 7,282 7,282.1
32 Pumpmolors,300-1000poundpump 246.18 246.18 5.4 307.8
33 Pumprrotors, >1000-10,000 pound pump 970.39 970.39 21.5 3,531.6
34 Pumpmotors, >10,000 pound pump 2,183.39 2,183.39 48.3 42,324.5
38 Main turbine-generator (poundsper MW(e) input) 142,388.84 141,749.38 3,042.0 - 851,500 851.500.0
39 Heal exchanger<3000pound 1,258.44 1,248.45 27.3 416 623.4
40 Heatexchanger>3000 pound 3,161.25 3,121.28 68.3 5,599 8,397.9
41 Feedwater heater/deaerator 7,882.99 7,803.06 172.6 12,000 18,000.0
49 Main condenser(poundsper MW(e) input) 390,364.78 375,616.38 8,243.6 149,400 149,400 199,200.0
51 Tanks, <300 gal/ons, filters, and ion exchangers 273.12 268.12 6.0 401 401.2
52 Tanks,300-3000ganons 863.76 853.77 19.1 2,700 300.0
53 Tanks, >3000 gal/ons, squarefoot surface 7.16 7.03 0.2 21
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 63 of 64
TABLE D (continued)


Carbon Galv. Insul
UCF # Description Total Cost Labor Cost Labor Hours Casi Iron Steel No.1 Mixed Scrap SS-1 Steel. Cable NO.2 Copper Large Motor
54 Electrical equipment, <300 pound 116.35 116.35 2.6 56 2.9

55 Electrical equipment, 300-1000 pound 400.82 400.82 8.8 624 32.8
56 Electrical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 801.64 801.64 17.6 2,212 116.4
57 Electrical equipment, >10,000 pound 1,933.47 1,933.47 41.0 19,950 1,050.0
59 Electrical transformers < 30 tons 1,342.77 1,342.77 28.4 11,250 3,750.0
60 Electrical transformers> 30 tons 3,866.93 3,866.93 81.9 375,000 125,000.0
61 Standby diese~generator, <100 kW 1,371.51 1,371.51 29.1 2,340 260.0
62 Standby diese~generator, 100 kW to 1 MW 3,061.31 3,061.31 64.8 9.450 1,050.0
63 Standby dlesel-qenerator, >1 MW 6,337.54 6,337.54 134.2 47,250 5,250.0
64 Fluorescent light fixture 47.88 47.88 1.1
65 Incandescent light fixture 23.89 23.89 0.6
66 Electrical cable tray, linear foot 10.84 10.67 0.2 6.6 6.6
67 Electrical conduit, linear foot 4.73 4.65 0.1 3.4 3.4
69 Mechanical equipment, <300 pound 116.35 116.35 2.6 127
70 Mechanical equipment, 300-1000 pound 400.82 400.82 8.8 641
71 Mechanical equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 801.64 801.64 17.6 4,184
72 Mechanical equipment, >10,000 pound 1,933.47 1,933.47 41.0 11,938
76 HIIAC equipment, <300 pound 140.68 140.68 3.1 184
77 HIIAC equipment, 300-1000 pound 481.62 481.62 10.6 643
78 HIIAC equipment, 1000-10,000 pound 959.86 959.86 21.0 3,813
79 HIIAC equipment, >10,000 pound 1,933.47 1,933.47 41.0 19,391
82 HIIAC ductwork, pound 0.46 0.46 0.0 1.0
201 Standard reinforced concrete, cubic yard 57.32 28.92 0.6 183
202 Grade slab concrete, cubic yard 85.98 43.38 1.0 183
206 HealAly rein concrete w/#9 rebar, cubic yard 104.32 36.44 0.8 730
215 Foundation concrete, cubic yard 636.50 462.41 9.6 730
222 Hollow masonry block wall, cubic yard 88.92 55.15 1.4 66
224 Solid masonry block wall, cubic yard 88.92 55.15 1.4 66
228 Subterranean tunnels/\Qids, linear foot 100.72 67.76 1.6
229 Backfill of below grade \Qids, cubic yard 20.37 2.85 0.1
230 Excavation of clean material, cubic yard 2.68 0.92 0.0
235 Building by \Q!ume, cubic foot 0.27 0.15
236 Building metal siding, square foot 1.00 0.80 0.0 2.4
TLG Services, Inc.

Exhibit No. FWS-1
Page 64 of 64
TABLE D (continued)

Carbon Galv. Insul
UCF # Description Total Cost Labor Cost Labor Hours Cast Iron Steel No.1 Mixed Scrap 55-1 Steel. Cable No.2 Copper Large Motor
242 Standard asphalt roofing, square foot 2.04 2.04 0.1

253 Overhead cranes/monorails < 10 ton capacity, each 561.04 561.04 11.8 3,700
255 Overheed cranes/monorails> 10 - 50 ton capacity, each 1,346.50 1,346.50 28.3 298,832 3,018.5
258 Gantry cranes> 50 ton capacity, each 24,168.30 24,168.30 511.9 712,800 7,200.0
259 not used
260 Structural steel, pounds 0.18 0.14
262 Steel floor grating, square foot 4.00 3.82 0.1 6 1.1
268 Placement of scaffolding in clean areas, square foot 14.83 4.27 0.1
270 Landscaping vJth topsoil, acre 22,572.76 2,379.47 52.6
271 Landscaping wio topsoil, acre 953.18 259.66 5.3
272 Chain link fencing, linear foot 2.90 2.25 0.1 10.0
273 Railroad track, linear foot 21.38 9.80 0.2 91
274 Asphalt paverrent, square foot 0.79 0.52 0.0
294 Carbon steel plate 1/2 inch thick, square foot 3.28 2.66 0.1 20
359 Steam drum removal (fossi~ 17,313.56 17,246.95 411.6 480,000
360 Water drum removal (fossil) 6,433.12 6,420.63 153.2 320,000
361 Upperllov.er waterwall headers (fossil) 4,853.25 4,840.76 115.5 120,000
362 Top sup boiler waterwall (8'xB' section), inches cut 0.58 0.56 0.0 11
369 Boiler convective superheaater platens 1,366.17 1,279.59 29.6 19,501
371 Boiler reheat platens 577.94 541.32 12.5 19,501
372 Boiler economizer platens 735.60 688.98 15.9 11,703
374 Stationary soot blowers 31.23 31.23 0.7 500 50.0
375 Retractable soot blo.....,rs 295.31 295.31 6.8 11.150 100.0
376 Process ductv.crk (8'xB' section). inches cut 0.28 0.27 0.0 0
378 Non-asbestos insulated regeneratille air pre heaters 8,678.67 7.899.32 188.5 1.376,000
379 Non-insulated regeneratille air preheaters 8.244.75 7.504.36 179.1 1.376,000
380 Non-asbestos insulated recuperatille air preheaters 4.801.31 4.314.21 101.6 1.376,000
382 Induced. forced, primary draft fans 1,398.16 1.378.18 31.9 30,000 3,531.6
383 Coal car dumpers 11,989.10 10.790.10 249.4 125,000 500.0
384 Conveyors 11.67 11.17 0.3 820
385 Transfer Towers 0.16 0.12 5
386 Stacker-reclaimers 127,789.11 127.789.11 3,008.3 300,000 2,000.0
387 Coal crushers 864.17 859.17 19.3 36,000 250.0
388 Coal hoppers (8'xB' section). inches cut 0.28 0.27 0.0 10
389 Ball mills 1,249,49 1,249.49 28.1 360,000 7,063.1
390 Coal feeders 301.22 296.22 7.1 1.194
TLG Services, Inc.

Dismantling Cost Study

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Dismantling Cost Study

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Exhibit No.

Document XOl-1617-003, Rev. 0

DISMANTLING COST STUDY

BLUE SPRUCE Units 1 & 2

CAMEO Units 1 & 2

CHEROKEE Units 1-4

COMANCHE Units 1-3

CRAIG Units 1 & 2

FORT ST. VRAIN Units 1-6

HAYDEN Units 1 & 2

ROCKY MOUNTAIN Units 1-3

ZUNI Units 1 & 2

TLG Services, Inc.

Xcel Energy Document XOl-1617-003, Rev. 0

Technical Manager JZ.o Zol I

TLG Services, Inc.

Xcel Energy Document XOl-1617-003, Rev. 0

Dismantling Cost Study Page iii ofx

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii

1.0 INTRODUCTION 1-1

1.1 Objective of Study 1-1

1.2 Station Descriptions 1-1

1.3 Scope 1-2

1.4 General Approach 1-3

2.0 DISMANTLING OPERATIONS , 2-1

2.1 Project Organization 2-1

2.2 Post-Shutdown Activities 2-1

2.3 Dismantling Program 2-2

2.3.1 Period 1 - EngineeringlPlanning and Asbestos Abatement 2-3

2.3.2 Period 2 - Dismantling Operations 2-5

2.3.3 Period 3 - Site Restoration 2-6

3.0 COST ESTIMATE , 3-1

3.1 Basis of Estimate 3-1

3.2 Methodology 3-2

3.3 Assumptions 3-4

3.4 Station-Specific Notes 3-6

3.4.1 Arapahoe 3-6

3.4.2 Blue Spruce 3-7

3.4.3 Cameo 3-7

3.4.4 Cherokee 3-7

3.4.5 Comanche 3-7

3.4.6 Craig 3-7

3.4.7 Fort St. Vrain 3-8

3.4.8 Hayden 3-8

3.4.9 Pawnee 3-8

3.4.10 Rocky Mountain 3-8

3.4.11 Valmont 3-8

3.4.12 Zuni 3-9

TLG Services, Inc.

Xcel Energy Document XOl-1617-003, Rev. 0

Dismantling Cost Study Page iv of x

4.0 SCIR.AP METAL CREDITS 4-1

5.0 RESULTS 5-1

6.0 RE:FER]~N CES 6-1

Summary of Dismantling Costs x

2.1 Dismantling Project Organization Utility Staff 2-7

TLG Services, Inc.

Xcel Energy Document XOl-1617-003, Rev. 0

Dismantling Cost Study Page v ofx

A. Estimating Inventories for Similar Size Units A-I

TLG Services, Inc.

Xcel Energy Document XOl-1617-003, Rev. 0

Dismantling Cost Study Page vi ofx

o 09/12/2011 Original Issue