ML19269F011
| ML19269F011 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/31/1978 |
| From: | Bell M, Cardile F, Congel F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUREG-0389, NUREG-389, NUDOCS 7911140448 | |
| Download: ML19269F011 (100) | |
Text
NU REG-0389 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSlS REO.UIREMEnlTS OF APPENDIX 1 TO 10 CFR PART 50 Their Application to Certain Nuclear Power Plants Docketed Before January 2,1971 pos,,
T 2187 001 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comroission 7911140kyg
Available from National Technical Information Service Springfield, Virginia 22161 Price: Printed CopyS6.00, Microfiche $3.00 The price of this document for requesters outside of the North American Continent can be obtained from the National Techn' cal Information Service.
2iB7 002
NUREG-0389 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS REQUIREMENTS OF APPENDIX l TO 10 CFR PART 50 Their Application to Certain Nuclear Power Plants Docketed Before January 2,1971 F. P. Cardile M. J. Bell F. C. Congel W. L. Britz J. T. Collins Manuscript Completed: November 1977 Date Published: January 1978 2187 003 Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555
TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Table of Contents i
List of Tables ii I.
Introduc tion 1
II.
Fhthodology 4
III.
Conclusion 11 IV.
NRC Staff's Evaluation of Individual Radwaste System Augments for Boiling Water Reactors (EWRs) 12 V.
NRC Staff's Evaluation of Individual Radwaste 28 System Augments for Pressurized Water Reactors (PWRs)
VI.
References 57 Appendix A - Retrofit Costs for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors 2187 004 i
f h
LIST OF TABLES Table Title Pace B-1 Pre-1971 BWR Noble Gas Treatment Systems 26 E-2 Pre 1971 BWR Liquid Treatment Systems 27 P-1 Pre 1971 PWR Noble Gas Treatment Systems 41 P-2 Pre-1971 PWR Liquid Treatment Systems 43 C-la Cost Table For 3 Ton Charcoal Adsorber - Plant 45 Under Construction C-1b Cost Table For 3 Ton Charcoal Adsorber - Plant 46 In Operation C-2a Cost Table For 15,000 CFM Charcoal Filter - Plant 47 Under Construction C-2b Cost Table For 15,000 CFM Charcoal Filter - Plaat 48 In Operation C-3a Cost Table For 15,000 CFM HEPA - Plant Under 49 Construction C-3b Cost Table For 15,000 CFM HEPA - Plant In 50 Operation C-4a Cost Table For EWR Demineralizer - Plant Under 51 Construction-C-4b Cost Table for EWR Denineralizer - Plant In 52 Operation 3
C-Sa Cost Table For 600 Ft waste Gas Decay Tank -
53 Plant Under Construction 3
C-5b Cost Table For 600 Ft Waste Gas Decay Tank -
54 i q { ( Plant In Operation
+ t; ; ;
iu C-6a Cost Table For PWR Demineralizer - Plant Under 55 Construction C-6b Cost Table for Phd Demineralizer - Plant In 56 Operation ii 2187 005
I.
It1TRODUCTION Appendix I of 10 CFR Part 50 I) setr
- o numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to meet the criterion "aa low as practicable" for radioactive material in light-water-cooled nuclear pome reactor effluents.Section II.D of Appendix I requires each applicant for a pemit to construct a light-water-cooled nuclear powr reactor to submit a cost-benefit analysis to detemine if additional radwaste systems and equipment could, for a favorable cost-banefit ratio, reduce the radiation dose to the population reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor.
In this cost-benefit analysis, the interin values of $1000 per total body man-rem and $1000 per man-thyroid-rem are used as a measure of acceptability for reduction in dose achieved by potential radmste system augments.
In the rulemaking proceeding on Appendix I (Concluding Statement of Ebsition of the Regulatory Staff, Docket No. RM 50-2, February 20, 1974)(2) the staff proposed design objectives on the quantity of radioactive material released in liquid effluents (5 Ci/yr/ reactor), excluding tritium and dissolved noble gases, and on the qtontity of radiciodine-131 released in gaseous effluents (1 Ci/yr/ reactor). The staff also proposed in Docket No. RM 50-2, a 5 milliren design objective for the annual total body dose to individuals at or beyond the site boundary from all pathways of exposure for radioactive materials in gaseous and liquid effluents, and 2187 006 m i8is a 15 milliren design objective for the annual dose to any organ of an individual at or beyond the site boundary for radiciodine and radioactive materials in particulate form released in gaseous effluents.
Ch September 4,1975, '.he Commission amended Appendix I(3) to provide persons who have filed applications for construction pemits for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors which were docketed on or after January 2,
- 1971, and prior to June 4,1976, the option of dispensing with the cost-benefit analysis required by Section II.D of Appendix I if the proposed or installed radwaste systems and equipment satisfy the guides on design objectives for light-water cooled nuclear power reactors proposed by the Regulatory Stat r in the rulelaking proceeding on appendix I (Docket No. RM 50-2).(2)
In the analysis supporting this amendment, the staff showed that, since the design objectives set forth in RM 50-2, which were used by the stalT for plants whose applications for construction permits were docketed on or after January 2, 1971, and before June 4,1976, have led to the proposed or actual installation of radwaste systems and equipment that would reduce to lcw levels the total activity in effluent releases or expected effluent releases from such plants, it was unlikely that any additional radwaste equip-ment could be added for a favorable cost-benefit ratio usinF the interim value of $1000 per total body man-rem and $1000 per man-thyroid-rem.
Section V.B.1 of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 requires all applicants and licen e k e a plications to construct a light-water-cooled nuclear povar 2187 007 reactor were docketed prior to January 2, 1971, (referred to in this report as pre-1971 plants) to file with the Conmissior by June 4,1976, such infomation as is necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as is reasonably achievable including all such inforulation as required by Paragraphs 50.34a, (b) and (c) not already contained in his application.
A review by the staff of the information contained in the required June 4, 1976 submittals, indicated that the plants listed in Tables B-1 and P-1 have proposed or have actually installed radmste systems and equiptr.ent designed to satisfy numerical design objectives set forth in either the RM 50-2 rulemaking proceeding or in an earlier document which contained similar but nore restrictive criteria.
Using this infomation, the staff performed a generic cost-benefit analysis to detemine if additional radmste equipment could be added to the liquid and gaseous systems of these plants that could, for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, reduce the radiation dose to the population reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor using the interin values of $1000 per total body man-rem and $1000 per man-thyroid-rem.
2187 008 ruo \\gg
_ 1; _
II.
METHODOLOGY The generic cost-benefit analysis was performed using the procedures as described below. The details of the staff's evaluation of individual radwaste treatment system additions is given in Sections IV and V of this repor t.
A.
The cost-benefit ratio was determined using the following expression:
F
- 5 (I)
CB B
where R
= Cost-Benefit Ratio g
C
= Total annualized cost of augment to the system, $/yr B
= Benefit in population dose reduction resulting from the addi-tion of the augment to the system, $/yr.
Tne value, C, is determined using the methods described in paragraphs F. through H. below.
The value, B, is determined as follows:
xI
(
B
=DTB
- ITB + THY THY where D
= Population total body dose reduction resulting from the addi-TB tion of the augment, total body man-rem /yr I
- Appendix I,Section II.D, interim value of acceptability, TB
, (j (
jp100,0/totalbodyman-ren Q
DTHY = Population thyroid dose reduction resulting from addition of the augment, man-thyroid-rem /yr ITHY = Appendix I,Section II.D, interim value of acceptability,
$1000/ man-thyroid-rem.
2187 009 From the above, a favorable cost-benefit ratio is one for which the value of R is less than 1.0.
If the costs and benefits of an CB augment result in h of less than 1.0, i.e., a favorable cost-CE benefit ratio, the augrent must be installed in the system.
If the costs and benefits of an augment result in R f greater than 1.0, CB the augment need not be installed in the system in accordance with the requirenents of Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
B.
The analysis was based on existing redwaste systers which provided the least amount of treatrent capable of neetinF the design objectives set forth in EM 50-2.
This choice of systers resulted in the largest calculated release of radioactive materials in liquid and gasecus effluents (source terms), the largest population doses that could be exp tted resulting from effluents which are within the RF 50-2 design objectives and, therefore, the largest dose reduction if the systems are augmented.
Ca this basis, if an augment can not be added to the radwaste systems used in this analysis for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, then it can not be added +w any similar or more advanced radwaste systems for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
C.
Source terns were calculated using the parameters and models described in NUREG-0016,(5) and NUREG-0017.
D.
Population doses for the following radionuclide categories were evaluated:
2187 010 m
e.0 n.
i,t (1) Noble Cases - the principle sources of noble gas are the offgas from the main condenser steam jet air ejector (SJAE) systems (BWRs) and the waate gas processing system (PWRs). Noble gases contribute primarily to the population total body dose and, therefore, the benefit in dose reduction is expressed in total body man-rem /yr.
(2) Radiciodines - the principle sources of radiciodines from reactors having augmented o?fgas systems are building ventila-tion systems, turbine gland sealing system exhausts (EWRs),
mechanical vacuun pump exhaust (EWRs), and steam generator blowdown vents (PWRs).
Radiciodines contribute primarily to the population thyroid dose and, therefere, the benefit in dose reduction is expressed in man-thyroid-ren/yr.
(3) Particulates - the principle sources of radioactive particulates are building ventilation systems and waste gas processing systens
( PWRs ).
Particulates contribute prirrarily to the population total body dose and, therefore, the benefit in dose reduction is expressed in total body man-rem /yr.
(4) Liquid Effluents - liquid effluents contain radionuclides which contribute to both the popul, tion total body dose (primarily cesium and cobalt) and the popuhtion thyroid dose (primarily iodine). Berefore, the benefit in dose reduction is expresud both in total body nan-ren/yr and man-thyroid-rem /yr.
E.
Be population doses were calculated for three reference sites using the methods described in Regulatory Guide 1.109, U) and 1.111.
)
Reactor sites on lakes, rivers, and oceans were examined for approp-riateness as being reference (representative) sites. He selection of reference sites was determined by the existence of a nearby large population and by the availability of complete site data (e.g., agri-cultural production rates and population distribution). Sites which appeared to have the potential for having population doses in excess of the reference site doses were examined individually to verify that no significant underestination of actual doses occurred.
He sites selected OIO \\
2187 011
were the Fort Calhoun Station, a river site with a projected population of approximtely 1 million; the Pilgrim Station, an ocean site with a projected poralation of approximately 6 million; and the Sterling Station, a lake site with a y ected population of approximately s
2 million.
Data furnished by the utilities for the annual average meteorological and hydrological parameters, local milk, meat and vegetation produc-tion, drinking water consumption, and fish catch, within the 50 mile radius around each reference site were used for the evaluation.
A value of 100 man-thyroid-rem /Ci of iodine-131 was used to calculate the population dose resulting from the iodine releases.
This value was derived and used by the NRC staff for the dose analysis in NUREG-0002.(9}
A detailed description of the derivation of this value is contained in Appendix IV J(A) of NUREG-0002. Generic site parameters were conser-vatively utilized to approximate the integrated thyroid dose resulting from the uptake of iodine-131 by milk producing animals. When the addi-tional dose due to inhalation and other food pathways is included in the thyroid population dose, the 100 man-thyroid-rem /Ci of iodine-131 is still conservative (i.e., is an overestimate) wnen compared to the actual site specific values for all reactor sites under consideration.
(By way of comparison, the values for the reference sites were:
Ocean -
8 man-rem /Ci; Lake - 50 man-rem /Ci, and River - 54 mari-rem /Ci).
t[0 \\8is 2187 012 F.
The cost-benefit analysis was performed using the parameters and methods described in Regulatory Guide 1.110.( 0) Examples of the calculations for the total annual cost for augments are presented in Tables C-1 through C-6.
These calculations are based on the procedures outlined in paragraphs F. - H. of this section.
Retrofit costs for radwaste equignent and coniponents were determined using the cost data presented in Appendix A to this report.
G.
The cost-benefit analysis considered a labor correction factor of 1 and an interest rate on borrowed money of 10" (capital recovery factor equal to 0.1061). These values are conservative, since most regions in the country have higher valves.
H.
The capital cost of the augment was amortized over a 30 year operating life of a plant, which is conservative for a plant that has already been in operation several years. This is because the annual cost to pay for the augment spread over a 30 year period would be liis than if it were spread over the remaining years of the plant lifetime, thus resulting in a more conservative cost-benefit ratio, as can be seen from equation (1) above.
I.
In addition to the base case radwaste systers used in the analysis noted in B. above, the staff considered a number of variations in these systers that are contained in the design of some pre-1971 plants, for exarple, pressurized storaFe tanks or cryogenic distillation in place or i \\8!N 2187 013
_9_
charcoal delay systems for the treatment of offgases from the main condenser air ejector of a BWR. Cost-benefit analysis of these system variations were done individually, taking into account the particular plant parameters and the plant site.
J.
The actual sites of pre-71 plants were individually examined to deter-mf 'e if there were any for which the reference site parameters used in
- t VDf(
th 3 analysis weretnot~ representative of *he actual sites, for reasons such as differences in population, agricultural production, fish catch, and drinking water consumption.
Meteorological differences between sites in the same site category (e.g., two different river sites) did not significantly affect the integrated population doses. Therefore, meteoro-logical parameters for each reference site were assuned to be representative of all sites within the same siting category.
Actual sites which were not adequately represented by the reference sites were examined and evaluated individually based on a calculated source term from the particula-plant at that site. Population doses for sites whose site parameter values exceeded the reference sites were calculated using the expression:
D =DR
- P /Pg a
a where:
D = Actual site population dose (man-rem /yr) a DR = Reference site population dose (man-rem /yr)
P = Actual site parameter, e.g., population size.
a PR = Reference site parame
, e.g., population size.
2187 014 K.
Source tenns and population dose reductions were calculated for items of reasonably demonstrated technology, as given in Table A-1, Rt.gulatory Guide 1.110, that could be added to the radmste systems of the pre-1971 plants and the cost-benefit ratio deterr'ned and compared to the criteria for a avorable cost-benefit ratio discussed in A. abov,
2187 015 4
III. CONCLUSIONS Based on the generic cost-benefit analysis performed by the staff and discussed it this report, the staff concludes that no items of addi-tional equipnent can, for a favorable cost benefit ratio, be added to the radwaste systems of certain nuclear power plants (listed in Tables B-1 and P-1) whose applications for construction pennits were e ocketed prior to January 2, 1971, provided their radwaste systems' include sufficient equipment to satisfy the design objectives set forth in RM 50-2(2) and reproduced in the Annex (3) to Appendix I to 10 CFR 50.*
2187 016
'If, in addition to meeting the criteria of RM 50-2, the detailed analysis of the individual radwaste systems of these plants shows that these systems are capable of meeting the design objectives of Sections A, B and C of Paragraph II of Appendix I to 10 CFR 50, then the staff would conclude that these plants satisfy the criterion that radioactive materials released in their effluents to unrestricted areas are as low as is reasonably achievable, i!O \\8lS IV.
EVALUATION OF RADWASTE SYSTEM AUGPENTS FOR BOILING WATER REACTORS (BWRs)
A.
Control Systems for Offrases from the Main Condenser Steam Jet Air Eiector BWRs for which applications for construction permits were docketed prior to January 2,1971, (i.e., pre-1971 BWRs) have committed to install or have already installed effluent control equipment to treat the offgases from the main condenser steam jet air ejector (SJAE) to satisfy individual dose design objectives similar to that set forth in RM 50-2.
Tatle B-1 was prepared based on inforaation contained in the June 4, 1976 submittals. This table describes the characteristics of the offgas systems proposed cr' installed at each of the BWRs to which this generic cost-benefit analysis applies, as well as other pertinent plant data.
The large majority of EWRs use charcoal delay systems to treat the
~
offgas from the SJAE. 'Iherefore, this base system was chosen for the svia generic cost-benefit analysis. As shown in Table B-1, the least amount of treatment provided by any of these BWRs equipped with charcoal delay systems resulted in calculated holdup times of 12 hours1.388889e-4 days <br />0.00333 hours <br />1.984127e-5 weeks <br />4.566e-6 months <br /> for krypton and 4.5 days for xenon. Based on these holdup times and the parameters given in NUREG-0016, a source term of 100,000 Ci/yr of noble gases from the SJAE charcoal delay system was calculated, which represented the largest source term for BWRs with charcoal delay systems. This" noble gas source term resulted in the largest population dose and, therefore, the largest possible dose reduction, if augmented.
If an augment 2187 017 cannot be added to this system for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, it cannot be added to any pre-71 EWR, equipped with a charcoal delay offgas system, for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
The base system described above was evaluated at the three reference sites. The population total body doses resulting from the base system and the population dose reduction resulting from addition of a 3 ton charcoal adsorber to this system are shown below:
Augmented Dose Base System System Feduction Total Total Body Total Body Due To Annual Site Population Lbse Population Dose Augment Cost Of Location (ran-rem /vr)
(ran-rer/vr)
(man-rer/vr) Auvrent ocean 34 25 9
$ 14,000 River 23 17 6
$ 14,000 Lake 10 7
3
$ 14,000 The total annual cost of $14,000 for the addition of a 3 ton charcoal adsorber is for a plant that is under construction. The total annual cost for retrofitting an operating plant with this augment is $27,000.
Examples of the calculations for the cost of this augment are presented in 1hbles C-la and C-1b.
Comparison of these annual augment costs to the benefit in dose reduction indicated in the table above, resulted in cost-benefit ratios greater than 1.0 for the augment and, therefore, the augment cannot be added to this system for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
In addition, the augment cannot be added for a favorable cost-benefit ratio to any pre-1971 BWR with a charcoal delay offgas system if the characteristics of the reference sites are applicable to the particular BWR, plant site.
~ p ;
w i ',
2187 018 The staff also considered those BWRs equipped with charcoal delay systems, but which are located at sites for which the characteristics of the reference site are not applicable and which, therefore, could potentially result in higher population doses than at the reference sites for a given source term. For these sites, the parameter which is the most significant variable in calculating the population dose is the population size within a 50 mile radius of the plant.
For the plants noted in the table below, the actual site population data, as well as the calculated noble gas source term from the particular plant, were used to calculate the population dose resulting from the offgas systems currently proposed or installed in the particular plant and the dose reduction resultinfr from augmenting these sysiems with a 3 ton charcoal adsorber.
Augmented Current System System Dose Reduction Total Total Body Total Pody Due To Annual Population Dose Population Dose Augment Cost Of (man-rem /vr)
(man-rem /vr)
(man-rem /vr)
Aurrent Zimmer 1 1
0.5 0.5
$ 14,000 Dresden 1 31 23 8
$ 27,000 Dresden 2/3 55 46 9
$ 27,000 Bailly 6
4 2
$ 14,000 Fermi 2 3
1 2
$ 14,000 For each plant noted above, comparison of the annual auFrent costs to the benefit ir. dose reduction resulted in a cost-benefit ratio greater than 1.0 and, therefore, the augment cannot be added to these systems for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
M0 \\81s 2187 019 For those BWRs which do not use charcoal delay systems, the following types of holdup systems are used:
Cryogenic Distillatior. - Brunswick 1/2 and Limerick 1/2 Pressurized Storage Tanks Monticello Small Charcoal Humboldt Bay Adsorber Cryogenic systems were not evaluated in the analysis since the calculated source tem was negligible in comparison to the source term for charcoal delay systems, which were evaluated above and, therefore, the benefit, if augmented, would be small. 'Ihe remaining types of offgas systems were evaluated individually, taking into account the particular plant parameters and the plant site. Tne following table shows the population dose resulting from the currently proposed or installed system and the dose reduction resulting from an augment to these systems:
Augmented Dose Wrrent System System Reduc tion Total Total Body Total Body Due To Annual Population Dose Population Dose Augment Cost Of Type Of (ran-rem /vr)
(man-rem /vr)
(ren-ren/vr) Auvrent Auerent 3
Ponticello 12 10 2
$ 20,000 600 ft Decay Tank Humboldt Bay 3
1 2
$ 27,000 Charcoal De-lay Adsorber Examples of the calculations for the cost of these augments are presented in Tables C.l.b and C.S.b.
For each plant noted above, comparison of the annual augment costs to the benefit in dose reduction in a cost-benefit ratio greater than 1.0 and, therefore, the augment cannot be added to these systems for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
i3.0 \\8iS 2187 020 B.
Control Systems for Radioiodine in Gaseous Effluente The calculated releases of iodine-131 from untreated EWR vent systems using the parameters given in NUREG-0016 are: reactor building ventila-tion system exhaust, 0.34 Ci/yr; turbine building ventilation system exhaust, 0.19 Ci/yr; radwaste building ventilation system exhaust, 0.046 Ci/yr; turbine gland seal condenser vent, 0.048 Ci/yr; and mechanical vacuum pump exhaust, 0.03 Ci/yr.
The main condenser air ejector exhaust is also a potential source of iodine release and is discussed below.
Potential augments to these systems were evaluated using a method similar to that used by the staff in support of the September 4,1975 Amendment to Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.(3)
The annual quantity of iodine-131 released by each potential release pathway listed above was calculated for the base case of no treatment since many of the EWRs do not provide treatment for these release pathways. The base case represents the largest calculated source term for iodine releases and, correspondingly, the largest population dose and largest possible dose reduction, if augmented.
The base case systems described above were evaluated using the reference iodine dose parameters discussed in Item E of Section I.
The following is a summary of the calculated population thyroid doses resulting from the >ase systems and the dose reduction resulting from augments to these systems for each release path.
nn \\6is 2187 021 Ease Dose
~ System Reduction Total Population Due To Annual Thyr id Dose Augment Cost Of Type Of (man-rem /vr)
(man-rer/vr)
Aument Aument Reactor Bldg.
34 31
$ 42,000 15,000 cfh (47,000)
Char. Adsorber Padwaste Bldg.
4.6 4.1
$ 42,000 15,000 cfb (47,000)
Char. Adsorber Turbine Eldg.
19 17
$ 66,000 30,000 efb (74,000)
Char. Adsorber 19 15
$ 60,000 Clean Steam Seal-ing of 21/2" end larger valves Turbine Gland 4.8 4.8
$ 84,000 Clean Steam Seal-Seal ing of Gland Seals 4.8 4.3
$ 10,000 Charcoal (17,000)
Adsorber Mechanical 3
2.7
$ 8,300 Charcoal Vacuun Pump (17,000)
Adsorber The values of the total annual costs listed are for plants that are under construction. For operating plants, the total annual costs are given in parentheses. Examples of the calculations for the cost of these augments are presented in Table C-2a and C-2b.
For operating plants, the total annual costs are not listed for clean steam sealing of turbine gland seals, and for clean steam sealing of 21/2" and larger valves in the turbine building, because the costs for those systems would be extremely large due to the difficulty involved in repiping the existing system. For each release pathway indicated in the table above, comparison of the annual augment cost to the benefit in dose reduction resulted in a cost-benefit ratic greater than 1.0 and, therefore, the augments cannot be added to the systems for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
} T, Q \\'8 l k The release of iodine-131 from the min condenser air ejector exhaust for plants equipped with charcoal delay systems, ar.d from cryogenic systems, is negligible (less than 10 Ci/yr). Therefore, additional augments to these release painways were not evaluated. Monticello, which does not utilize charcoal delay beds or cryogenic systems in its main condenser offgar treatment system, has a charcoal filtration system augment down-stream of its pressurized delay tanks.
C.
Control Systems for Releases of Radioactive Material in Particulate Form The calculated releases of radioactive materials in particulate form from untreated BWR building ventilation systems using the paraneters given in NUREG-0016 are: reactor building, 0.054 Ci/yr; radwaste building, 0.17 Ci/yr; and turbine building, 0.034 Ci/yr. HEPA filtra-tion of building ventilation exhausts was evaluated as a possible augment using the methods discussed below.
The annual quantity of radioactive materials in particulate form for each of the potential release pathways listed above was calculated for the base case of no treatment since many of the EWRs do not provide treat-ment of these release pathways. This source term represents the largest calculated source term for particulates and, correspondingly, the larFest population dose and largest possible dose reduction, if augmented.
The reduction in the release of radioactive materials in particulate form was calculated for the augnented system. The addition that was considered for these release pathways was a 15,000 cfm HEPA filtration ihO \\b 2187 023 system for the reactor and radwaste ouildings and a 30,000 cfm HEPA filtration system for the turbine building.
'Ihe total body population doses resulting from these releases were evaluated for the reference sites. 'Ihe population doses resulting from the base systens and the dose reduction resulting from augments to these systems are noted below:
Reactor Buildin_g Base System Total Body Dose Reduction Site Population Dose Due To Auguent Total Annual Location (man-rem /vr)
(man-rem /vr)
Cost of Aument Ocean 2
2
$ 22,000 River 1
1
$ 22,000 Lake 1
1
$ 22,000 Radwaste Building Base System Total Body Dose Reduction Site Population Dose Due To Augment Total Annual Location (man-rer,:/vr)
(man-rem /vr)
Cost of Aurnent ocean 6
6
$ 22,000 River 3
3
$ 22,000 Lake 2
2
$ 22,000 Turbine Building Base System Total Body Dose Reduction Total Annual Site Population Dose Due To Augment Cost of Augment Location Lman-rem /vr)
(man-rem /vr)
(man-rem /vr)
Ocean 0.2 0.2
$ 30,000 River 0.1 0.1
$ 30,000 Lake 0.01 0.04
$ 30,000 60 \\815 2187 024 The total annual costs listed in the table above are for plants that are under construction. The total annual cost for retrofitting the reactor, radwaste, and turbine buildings of an operating reactor with a HEPA filtration systems is $28,000, $28,000, and $34,000, respectively.
Examples of the calculations for the cost of this augment are presented in Tables C-3a and C-3b.
Comparison of these annual augment costs to the benefit in dose reduction indicated in the above tables resulted in cost-benefit ratios greater than 1.0 for the augments and, therefore, the augments cannot be added for a favorable cost-benefit ratio to any EWRs if the characteristics of the reference site are applicable to the particular EWR site.
The staff also considered EWRs located at sites, for which the charac-teristics of the reference site are not applicable and which, therefore, could potentially result in higher population doses than those calculated for the reference sites for a given source term.
For these sites the parameters which are the most significant variables in calcrlating the population dose are size of population and agricultural production. For this reason, the following EWRs were evaluated separately:
Bailly Fermi 2 Monticello Dresden 1/2/3 Limerick 1/2 Zimmer 1 Certain of the ventilation exhaust systens at the above plants are already provided with HEPA filters and, therefore, not considered in the analysis.
Also, the staff did not further consider the turbine building releases since the above table demonstrates that the population dose resulting
-3.0
\\gis 2187 025 from this source term is very small in comparison to the cost of the auF-ment.
Using the particulate source terms for the remaining plants having untrested exhausts, as well as actual site population data, the staff calculated the pc ulation dose resulting from these current systema and the dose reduction resulting frem an augrent to these systems. 'Ihe results are shown in the followinF table:
Current System Total Body Dose Reduction Total Annual Untreated Population Dose Due to Augment Cost Of Release Path (ran-rem /vr)
(ran-ren/vr}
Aument Bailly Reactor Bldg.
5 5
$ 22,000 Dresden 1 Radwaste Bldg.
5 5
$ 22,000 Dresden 2/3 Reactor Bldg.
10 10 t 28,000 Fermi 2 Reactor Bldg.
5 5
$ 22,000 Monticello Reactor Bldg.
3 3
$ 28,000 Zirrmer 1 Reactor Bldg.
2 2
$ 22,000 For each plant noted above, comparison of the annual augment cost to the benefit in dose reduction resulted in a cost-benefit ratio greater than 1.0 and, therefore, the augment cannot be added to these systems for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
D.
Systers for Control of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Lionid Effluents BWRs whose applications for construction permits were docketed prior to January 2,1971, have installed or proposea to install treatment equipment in their liquid radwaste systems to meet the 5 Ci/yr design objective set forth in EM 50-2.
Table B-2 was prepared based on informa-tion in the June 4, 1976 submittals.
2187 026 s e \\8K This table presents the types of radwaste treatment equipment its the liquid waste management systems of the BWRs to which this generic cost-benefit analysia applies, with an indication as to whether the plant uses filter /demineralizers (POWDEX) or deep bed denineralizers for condensate treatment. Based on a review of the system information in Table B-2, the staff selected base case liquid radwaste managerrent systems for BWRs.
These base case systems were selected because the anount of treatment provided by them resulted in a calculated liquid source term of approximately 5 Ci/yr, which is the design objective curie release value set forth in RM 50-2.
Therefore, this source tern resulted in the largest population dose and largest possible benefit in dose reduction, if augmented.
The base case systems selected were the following:
Plants with Filter /Demineralizer (Powdex) for Condensate Treatrrent Clean Waste - demineralization, Dirty Waste - demineralization, Plants with Deep Bed Dcnineralizers for Condensate Treatment Clean Waste - demineralization, Dirty Waste - demineralization, Regenerative Wastes - evaporation / demineralization, The staff evaluated the total body and thyroid population doses for this base case systen at the three reference sites. The population doses resulting from the base system and the dose reduction resultinF fromadditioggfa50gpndemineralizerarenotedbelow:
dSU \\0lb 2187 027 Plants with Filter /Derineralizers (Powdex) for Conderisate Treatment Population Doses - Total Body Base System Dose Reduction Site Population Dose Due To Augrent Total Annual Location (ran-ren/vr)
(man-rer/vr)
Cost of Aument Lake 03 0.3
$36,000 River 0.2 0.2
$36,000 Ocean 0.1 0.1
$36,000 Population Doses - Thyroid Ease System Dose Reduction Site Population Dose Due To Augment Total Annual Location (tran-rem /vr)
(man-rem /vr)
Cost of Aument Lake 5
5
$36,000 River 4
4
$36,000 Ocean 0.1 0.1
$36,000 Plants with Deep Eed Demineralizers for Condensate Treatment Population Doses - Total Body Base System Dose Reduction Site Population Dose Due To Augn2ent Total Annual Location (man-rem /vr)
(man-ren/vr)
Cost of Augment Lake 0.3 03
$36,000 River 0.2 C.2
$36,000 Ocean 0.1 0.1
$36,000 Population Doses - Thyroid Base System Dose Reduction Site Population Dose Due To Aufnent Total Annual Location (man-rem /vr)
(man-rem /vr)
Cost of Aument Lake 7
7
$36,000 River 5
5
$36,000 Ocean 0.2 0.2
$36,000 2187 028 ISO.\\815 The total annual cost for a denineralizer listed in the tables above is fbr a plant that is under construction.
The total annual cost for retrofitting the liquid radwaste system of an operating plant with a 50 rpm demineralizer is $45,000.
Examples of the calculations for the cost of the augment are presented in Table C 4a and C 4b.
Comparison of these annual augment ecsts to the benefit in dose reduction indicated in the tables above, resulted in cost-benefit ratios greater than 1.0 for the augment and therefore, the auFment cannot be added fbr a favorable cost Fenefit ratio at the reference sites.
The staff also considered those EWRs at sites for which the characteristics oJ the reference site were not applicable. However, based on a site-by-site comparison,it was found that the reference sites provided a Food representation of the sites considered in this report. Therefore, no further analysis of individtal sites was re auired.
E.
Surrary The staff has performed a generic cost-benefit analysis for radwaste systems for EWRs, whose applications fcr construction permits were docketed prior to January 2,1971. This generic cost-benefit analysis ms performed to determine if there are potential augnents which could be added, for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, to existing radwaste systems if the systens meet the design objectives set fbrth in M4 50-2.
In doing this analysis, the staff reviewed radwaste systems currently tiid \\8iS 2187 029 proposed or installed at EWRs, which are desiFned to satisfy design objectives similar to RM 50-2.
Pase case systens were chosen to rep-resent the least amount of treatrert of the systers the staff reviewed.
The staff performed generic cost-benefit analysis for the base case systems at 3 reference' sites; lake, river, and ocean site.
For certain EWRs for which it was determined that the reference sites did not adequately represent the actual plant site, a cost-benefit analysis for the particular plant was perforned.
Also, for BWRs which had systems different from the base case, e.g., those which do not use charcoal delay systems, a cost-benefit analysis for the particular plant was perforred.
In each case described above in Sections IV A, B, C, and D, the staff's analysis has onown that the total annualized cost of each augment resulted in a cost-benefit ratio greater than 1.0.
Therefore, it was determined that augnents could not be added, for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, to systems which satisfy the design objectives set forth in RM 50-2.
2187 030
,a,
. W.
TABLE B-1 Pre-71 BWR Noble Gas Treatment Systems (I)
Holdup Times Status Type Krypton Xenon Of Plant (2) OfSite(3) 50 mile pop. Type of Treatment
(_ hrsi (days) 6 Bailly C
L 8.4 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 18 13 6
Browns Ferry 1-3 OP R
0.9 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 12 4.5 0
Brunswick 1/2 OP R
0.25 x 10 Cryogenic Distil.
(4)
(4) 6 Cooper OP R
0.2 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 180 90 6
Dresden 1 OP R
10.5 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 12 8.3 6
Dresden 2/3 OP R
10.5 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 16 9
0 Fermi 2 C
L 8 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 26 19 6
Hatch 1/2 OP/C R
0.26 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 18 13 6
LaSalle 1/2 C
R 1.2 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 12 8.8 6
Limerick 1/2 C
R 11.7 x 10 Cryogenic Distil.
(4)
(4) 6 Monticello OP R
3 x 10 Holdup Tanks 62 2.6 6
Quad Cities 1/2 OP R
0.7 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 12 9
6 Shoreham C
0 7.5 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 56 41 6
Vermont Yankee OP R
1.5 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 30 21 6
Zimmer -1 C
R 2.2 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 32 23 6
Humboldt Bay OP 0
0.2 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 2.5 1.8 NOTE:
(I)Parannters in table taken from infonnation in June 4,1976 Appendix ' submittals, and in individual plant Final Environmental Statements and Safety Analysis Reports.
(h)C =, Pfakk hbunder construction; OP = Plant is in icperation.
(3)R = River Site; O = Ocean Site; L = Lake Site.
'(4)For cryogenic distillation systems, xenon and iodine decon-tamination factor is 1 x 104 and krypton decontamination factor 3
is 4 x 10,
2187 031
. TABLE.'-2 Pre-71 BWR Liquid Treatment Systems (I)
Type of Treatment (4 Status Type Type of Of Plant (2) OfSite(3) Cond. Polishers High Purity Low Purity Wastes Bailly C
L Deep Bed D-D E-D E-D Browns Ferry 1-3 OP R
Powdex D
E Brunswick 1/2 OP 0
Deep Bed D
E-D E-D Cooper OP R
Powdex D
E-D ep Be D
D Dresden 1 OP R
f g
Dresden 2/3 OP R
Deep Bed D
E-D E-D Fermi 2 C
L Powdex D
D Hatch 1/2 OP/C R
Powdex D
D LaSalle 1/2 C
R Deep Bed D
E-D E-D Limerick 1/2 C
R Powdex D-D D-D Monticello OP R
Powdex D
D Quad Cities 1/2 OP R
Powdex D
D-D Shoreham C
0 Deep Bed D
E-D E-D Vennont i:nkee OP R
Powdex D-D D-D Zimmer-1 C
R Deep Bed D-D D-D E-D Humboldt Bay OP 0
Deep Bed E
E E
NOTE:
(I) System parameters in table taken from information in June 4, 1976 Appendix I submittals and in individual plant Final Environmental Statements, and Safety Analysis Reports.
(2)C = Plant in under construction; OP = Plant is in operation.
(3)R = River Site; O = Ocean Site; L = Lake Site.
(4)D = Demineralizer; E = Evaporator.
2187 032 UO \\81S V.
Evaluation of Fadwasta Fvster Aurrants fo Pressurized Water Peactors (PWFs)
A.
Control Systams for Waste Gas Processinc Systoms PWRs foe which applications for construction permits were docketed prior to January 2, 1971, (i.e., pre-1971 PWRs) have cocinitted to install or have already installed effluent control equipment in their waste gas processing systems to satisfy the individual dose design objectives similar to that set forth in RM 50-2.
Table P-1 was prepared based on information contained in the June 4,1976 submittals. This table describes the characteristics of the waste Eas processing systems proposed or installed at each of the PWRs to which this gerarie cost-benefit analysis applies, as well as other pertinent plant data.
The large majority of PWRs use pressurized storage tanks in the waste gas processinF system to treat the waste gas resulting from dogassing of the primary system, Therefore, this base system was chosen for the generic cost-benefit analysis.
As shown in Table P-1, the least amount of treatment provided by the large majority of these PWRs, equipped with pressurized storage tanks, resulted in calculated holdup times of 30 days for krypton and 30 days for xenon.
Eased on these holdup times and the parameters of NUREG-0017, a source term of 730 ci/yr of noble gases from the waste gas processing system was calculated which represented the largest source term for PWRs with pressurized storage tanks. This noble gas source term resulted in the largest population dose and. therefore the greatest pccsible dose reduction, if augmented.
bU
\\ 0 \\ ).
If an augment cannot be added to this s, stem for a favorable cost-benefit 2187 033 ratio, it cannot be added to any pre-1971 PWR waste gas processing systen, designed to have 30 days or greater holdup time, for a favt rable cost-bencrit ratio.
The base system described above was evaluated at the three reference sites. The total body population doses resultir.g from the base syster 3
and the population dose reductior, resulting from addition of a 600 ft decay tank to this systen are noted t;elow:
Ease System Tctal Total Body Dose Reduction Annual Site Population Dose Due To Augme.
Ccst Of Location (ran-rer/vr)
(ran-rer/vr)
Aurrent Ocean 0.02 0.02
$ 12,000 River 0.03 0.03
$ 12,000 Lake 0.01 0.01
$ 12,000 3
The total annual cost of $12,000 for the addition of a 600 ft decay tank is for plants that are under construction. The total annual cost for retrofitting an operating plant with this augnent is $20,000.
Examples of the calculations for the cost of this augment are presented in Tables C-Sa and C-5b.
Comparison of these annual augre-t costs to the benefit in dose reduction indicated la the table above resulted in cost-benefit ratios greater than 1.0 for the augnent and therefore the augment cannot be added to this system for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
In addition, the augment cannot be added for a favorable cost-benefit ratio to any pre-1971 PWR with pressurized storage tanks having holdup capacity of 30 days or more, if the characteristics of the reference sites are applicable to the particular PWR plant site.
\\M, 2187 034 The staff also considered those PWRs equipped with pressurized storage tanks, but which are located at sites for which the characteristics of the reference site are not applicable, and which therefore could potentially result in higher population doses than at the reference sites for a given source term.
For these sites, the parameter which is the most siFnificant variable in calculating the population dose is the population size within a 50 mile radius of the reactor.
For the plants noted in the table below, the actual site population data, as well as the calculated noble gas source term from the particular plant, were used to calculate the population dose resulting from the waste gas processing systems currently proposed or installed in the particular plant and the dose reduction resulting from augmenting these 3
systems with a 600 ft decay tank.
Current System Tc' il body Dose Reduction Total Annual Population Dose Due to Augrent Cost Of (ran-rrr/vr)
(rnn-rer/vr)
Aument Rancho Seco 0.01 0.01
$ 20,000 Zion 1/2 0.01 0.01
$ 20,000 Ecaver Valley 1 0.1 0.1
$ 20,000 Indian Point 1-3 0.6 0.6
$ 20,000 Prairie Isl.1/2 0.07 0.07
$ 20,000 Davis Besse 1 0.01 0.01
$ 20,000 McGuire 1/2 0.01 0.01
$ 12,000 Wa terford 0.01 0.01
$ 12,000 For each plant noted above, comparison of the annual augment costs to the benefit in dose reduction resulted in a cost-benefit ratio of greater than 1.0 and therefore, the augment cannot be added to these systems for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
2187 035 R0 \\8IS For those PWRs which have less than 30 days holdup in the pressurized storage tanks, the anount of holdup provided is as follows:
Calvert Clifr-1/2 - 24 days holdup 25 days holdup Forkei River :
Ft. Calhoun 1 17 days holdup Haddan !!eck 11 days holdup St. Lucie 1 12 days holdup The waste gas processing systers for these plants were evaluated individually, taking into account the particular plant parameters and tb plant site.
The followirg table shows the population dose res"ItinF from the currently proposed or installed systems and the dose reduction 3
resulting from the addition of a 600 ft decay tank to these systems:
Dose Current System Reduction Total Total Body Due To Annual Population Dose Augrent Cost Of (ran-cem/vr' (man-rem /vr)
AugT*en t Haddam fleck 1.0 1.9
$ 20,000 St. Lucle 1 0.3 0.3
$ 20,000 Forked River 1 0.04 0.04
$ 12,0C0 Ft. Calhoun 1 0.17 0.17
$ 20,000 La] vert Cliffs 1/2 0.05 0.05
$ 20,000 For each plant noted above, comparison of the annual augment costs to the benefits in dose reduction resulted in a cost-benefit ratio greater than 1.0 and therefore, the augments cannot be added to these systers for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
B.
Control Systors for Radiciodine in Gaseous Effluent.s_
The calculated release of iodine-131 fron untreated PUR vent systems using the parameters given in t1UREG-0017 are: containment purge, 0.12 Ci/yr; auxiliary buildir.g ventilation, 0.045 C1/yr; main condenser air ejector exhaust, 0.027 Ci/yr; and steam generator blowdown vent, 0.16 Ci/yr.
90 \\8lS 2187 036 Potential augments to these systems were evaluated using a method similar to that used by the staff in support of the September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50(3)
The annual quantity of iodine-131 released from each potential pathway indicated above was calculated fer the base case of no treatment since many of the Pr!Rs do not provide treatment for these release pathways.
The base case represents the largest calculated source tern for iodine releases and, correspondingly, the largest population dose and largest possible dose reduction if augmented.
The base case systems described above were evaluated using the reference iodine dose paraceters discussed in Item E of Section I.
The following is a summary of the calculated population thyroid doses resulting from the base systers and the dose reduction resulting from augments to these systems for each release pathway.
Dose Base System Reduction Total Population Due To Annual Thyroid Dose Augment Cost Of Type Of (ran-rem /vr)
(man-rer/vr)
Aument Aumont Contmt Purge 12 11
$42,000 15,000 cfm (47,000)
Char. Adsorber Auxiliary Eldg.
4.5 4.1
$42,000 15,000 cfm (47,000)
Char. Adsorter SJAE Exhaust 2.7 2.4
$13,000 Char. Adsorter (23,000)
Steam Generator 16 16
!?7,000 Vent to Main Blowdown Vent Condenser The values of the total annual costs listed are "or plants that are under construction. For operating plants, the total annual costs are given in parentheses.
Examples of the calculations for the cost of this augment 2187 037 un \\8is are presented in Table C-Cu rf C-2t, F^c w eatment of the blowdown vent, the cost given is for un c"
'ating plant since those plants with untreated vents art. tperating plants. For each release pathway indicated in the table above, comparison of the annual augment costs to the benefits in dose reduction resulted in a cost-benefit ratio greater than 1.0, and therefore, the augnents cannot be added for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
C.
Control Systems For Releases Of Radioactive Material In Particulate Forn The calculated releases of radioactive materials in particulate form from untreated PWR vent systems using the parameters of flUREG-0017 are:
containment building, 0.2 Ci/yr; auxiliary building, 0.16 Ci/yr; and waste gas processing system, 0.04 Ci/yr.
HEPA filtration of these systems was evaluated as a possible augment, using the rethods discussed below.
The annual quantity of radioactive materials in particulate form for each of the potential release pathways listed above was calculated for the base case of no treatment since many of the PWRs do not provide treatment for those release pathways. This source term represents the largest cal-culated source term for particulates and, correspondingly the largest population dose and largest possible dose reduction, if augmented.
The reduction in the release of radioactive materials in particulate form was calculated for the augmented system. The additions that were conside *d were 15,000 cfm HEPA filtration systems for the containment and auxiliary building and a 40 cfh HEPA filtrat$1on system for the waste gas processing system.
c.
2187 038 o u \\8tS
. The total body population doses result.ng from these releases were evaluated at the three reference sites. The total body population doses resulting from the base systems and the dose reduction resulting from augments to these systems are noted below.
Contairment Puilding Base System Total Body Dose Reduction Site Population Dose Due To Augment Total Annual Location
_Iman-rem /vr)__
(man-rer/vr)
Cost of Aument Ocean 4
4
$ 22,000 River 2
2
$ 22,000 Lake 1
1
$ 22,000 Auxiliary Building Base System Total Body Dose Reduction Site Population Eose Due To Augment Total Annual Location (man-rem /vr)
(man-rem /vr)
Cost of Aument Ocean 3
3
$ 22,000 River 2
2
$ 22,000 Lake 1
1
$ 22,000 Waste Gas Processing Systen Base System Total Body Dose Reduction Site Population Dose Due To Autunent Total Annual Location (man-rem /vr)
(man-ren/vr)
Cost of 3.urment Ocean 0.8 0.8
$ 4,000 River 0.5 0.5
$ 4,000 Lake 0.2 0.2
$ 4,000 The total annual costs listed in the tables above are for plants that are under construction. The total annual costs for retrofitting the contain-ment building, auxiliary building, and waste gas processing system of an k0 \\BN 2187 039 operating reactor with HEPA filtration systems are $28,000, $28,000, and $14,000, respectively.
Examples of the calculations for the cost of these augments are presented in Table C-3a and C-3b.
Comparison of these annual augnent costs to the benefit in dose reduction indicated in the above tables resulted in cost-benefit ratios greater than 1.0 for the augments, and therefore, the augments cannot be added for a favorable cost-benefit ratio to any PWRs if the characteristics of the reference site are applicable to the particular PWR site.
The staff also considered PWRs located at sites, for which the character-iatics of the reference site are not applicable, and which therefore could potentially result in higher population doses than those calculated for the reference sites for a given source term.
For these sites the most significant variables in calculating the population dose are size of population and agricultural production.
For this reason, the followinF PWRs were evaluated separately:
Calvert Cliffs 1/2 Haddam Neck Rancho Seco Indian Point 1/2/3 Prairie Island 1/2 Zion 1/2 Davis Besse 1 McGuire 1/2 Waterford Beaver Valley 1 Certain of the ventilation exhaust systems at the above plants are already provided with HEPA filters and,therefore, were not considered in this analysis.
Using the particulate source terms for the remaining plants having un-treated exhausts, as wall as actual site populatior data, the staff calculated the population dose resulting from these current systems and the dose reduction resulting from an augment to these systems. The results are shown in the following table:
2l87 040
!60 \\8!S Current System Total Body Dose Reduction Total Annual Untreated Population Dose Due to Augment Cout Of Release Path (man-rem /vr)
(man-rem /vr)
Aurrent Zion 1/2 Waste Gas System 1.3 1.3
$ 14,000 Beaver Valley 1 Auxiliary Building 8
8
$ 28,000 McGuire 1/2 Waste Gas System 0.7 0.7
$ 4,000 Waterford Was',e Gas System 0.9 0.9
$ 4,000 Indian Pt. 1 Containment Purge 13 13
$ 28,000 Indian Pt. 1 Auxiliary Building 11 11
$ 28,000 For each plant noted above, comparison of the annual augment costs to the benefit in dose reduction resulted in a cost-benefit ratio of greater than 1.0 and therefore, the augreent cannot be added to these systems for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
D.
Systems for Control of Radioactive Materials in Liauid Effluents PWRs for which an application for a construction permit was docketed prior to January 2, 1971 have installed or have proposed to install treatment equipment in their liquid radwaste systems to meet the 5 Ci/yr design objective set forth in RM 50-2.
Table P-2 was prepared based on informa-tion in the June 4, 1976 submittals. This table presents the type of liquid radwaste system at each of the PWRs to which this generic cost-benefit analysis applies. Based on a review of the system information in Table P-2, the staff selected base case liquid radwaste management systems for PWRs.
These base case systems were selected because the amount of treatment provided by them resulted in a calculated liquid source term of approxi-mately 5 Ci/yr, which is the design objective curie release value set forth in RM 50-2.
Therefore, this source term resulted in the largest population, dose and largest possible dose reduction, if augmented. The
.J i
\\01 4 base case ststem selected was as follows:
2187 041 evaporation Shim Bleed Floor Drain demineralization Steam Generator Blowdown demineralization Untreated steam generator blowdown was not considered, since it resulted in a release of greater than 5 Ci/yr, which is the design objective set sat forth in BM 50-2.
The staff evaluated the total body and thyroid population doses for this base system at the three reference sites.
The population doses resulting from the base system and the dose reduction resulting from addition of a 50 gpm demineralizer in the floor drain system are noted below:
Pooulation Doses - Total Body Base System Total Body Dose Reduction Site Population Dose Due To Augment Total Annual Location (man-rem /vr)
(man-rem /vr)
Cost of Aurrent LLxe 3
3
$ 26,000 River 2
2
$ 26,000 Ocean 1
1
$ 26,000 Population Doses - Thyroid Base System Total Body Dose Reduction Site Population Dose Due To Augment Total Annual Location (man-rem /vr)
(man-rem /vr)
Cost of Aurment Lake 3
3
$ 26,000 River 2
2
$ 26,000 Ocean 1
1
$ 26,000 The total annual cost for a demineralizer listed in the table above is for plants that are under construction. The total annual cost for retro-fitting a liquid radwaste system of an operating plant with a 50 gpm demineralizer is $35,000. Examples of the calculations for the cost of f-e iui2 2187 042 the r agments are presented in Table C-6a and C-6b.
Comparison of these annual augment costs to the benefit in dose reduction indicated in the tables above resulted in cost-beneff a ratios greater than 1.0 for the augment and therefore, the augment cannot be added for a favorable cost-benefit ratio if characteristics of the reference site are applicable to the particular PWR sites.
The staff a:so considered those PdRs at sites for which the character-istics of the reference site were not applicable, and which therefore result in higher population doses than these at the reference sites for a given source term. The fact that the actual site has higher water usage than the reference site was the principal reason for the higher popula-tion dose.
The only site found to be in this category was the Zion Station which is a lake site (Lake Michigan).
A review of the June 4, 1976 submittal made for the Zion Station indicates that the Zion 1/2 systems are as follows:
Shim Bleed Wastes evaporation, demineralization 10% discharge Floor Drain Wastes evaporation, 10% discharge Steam Generator Blowdown demineralization, 10% discharge Using the actual site population data, as well as the calculated source term for the Zion plants, the staff calculated that the addition of a 50 gpm demineralizer to this system would result in a population thyroid dose reduction of 3 man-thyroid-rem per year and a total body population dose reduction of 0.3 total body man-rem /yr.
2187 043 un \\815 Since the total annual cost of adding an evaporator distillate demineralizer to the floor drain system is $28,000, the resulting cost-benefit ratio is greater than 1.0, so that additional radwaste treatment equipnent cannot be installed for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
E.
Summary The staff has performed a generic cost-benefit analysis for radwaste systemsforFWEs,hwh$sk}dpfp'licationsforconstructionpermitswere docketed prior to January 2, 1971. Tnis generic cost-benefit analysis was performed to determine if there are potential augments which could be added, for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, to existing radwaste systems if the systems meet the design objectives set forth in RM 50-2.
In doing this analysis, the staff reviewed radwaste systems currently proposed or installed at PWRs which are designed to satisfy design objectives similar to RM 50-2.
Base case systens were chosen to represent the least amount of treatment of the systems the staff reviewed.
The staff performed generic cost-benefit analyses for the base case systems at three reference sites; lake, river, and ocean sites.
For certain PWPs for which it was determined that the reference sites did not adequately represent the actual plant site, a cost-benefit analysis for the particular plant was performed.
Also, for PWRs which had systems different from the base case, e.g., those which provide less than 30 days of holdup, a cost-benefit analysis for the particular plant was performed.
2187 044
ho -
,,, s In each case described above in Sections V A., B., C., and D, the staff analysis has shown that the cost of each augment resulted in a cost-benefit ratio greater than 1.0.
Therefore, it was determined that augments could not be added, for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, to systems which satisfy the desiFr. objectives set forth in RM 50-2.
2187 045
,$b b
TABLE P-1 II)
Pre-71 PWR Noble Gas Treatment Systems Holdup Type 50 Mile Time' Status I2) Of Site (3) pop.
Type of Treatment (days)
Of Plant 6
Arkansas 1 OP R
0.19. 10 Holdup Tanks 30 6
Arkansas 2 C
R 0.19 x 10 Holdup Tanks 40 6
Beaver Valley 1 OP R
4.3 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 30 and Holdup Tanks 6
Calvert Cliffs 1/2 OP L
3.5 x 10 Holdup Tanks 24 6
Cook 1/2 OP/C L
1.3 x 10 Holdup Tanks 34 6
Crystal River 3 OP 0
0.4 x 10 Holdup Tanks 45 6
Davis-Besse 1 OP L
3 x 10 Holdup Tanks 56 6
Diablo Canyon 1/2 C
0 0.5 x 10 Holdup Tanks 40 6
Farley 1/2 C
R 0.4 x 10 Holdup Tanks 90 6
Forked River 1 C
0 6.5 x 10 Holdup Tanks 25 0
Ft. Calhoun 1 OP R
1 x 10 Holdup Tanks 17 6
Ginna 1 OP L
1.4 x 10 Holdup Tanks 53 6
Haddem Neck OP R
3.8 x 10 Holdup Tanks 11 6
Indian Pt. 1 OP R
21 x 10 Holdup Tanks 60 0
Indian Pt. 2/3 OP R
21 x 10 Holdup Tanks 45 6
Maine Yankee 0P R
0.8 x 10 Holdup Tanks 30 6
McGuire 1/2 C
R 1.8 x 10 Holdup Tanks 70 6
Midland 1/2 bbC R
1.1 x 10 Holdup Tanks 60 6
North Anna 1/2 C
R 1.5 x 10 Holduo Tanks 60 0
Oconee 1-3 OP R
0.8 x 10 Holdup Tanks 30 6
Palisades OP L
1.4 x 10 Holdup Tanks 30 6
Pt. Beach 1/2 OP L
- 0. 8 x 10 Char. Delay Beds 30 and Holdup Tanks 6
Prairie Island 1/2 OP R
2.4 x 10 Holdup Tanks 90 6
Rancho Seco 1 OP R
2.2 x 10 Holdup Tanks 75 6
Robinson 2 OP R
0.8 x 10 Holdup Tanks 45 2187 046 TABLE P-1 (continued) 6 St. Lucie 1 OP 0
0.5 x 10 Holdup Tanks 12 6
Sequoyah 1/2 C
R 0.8 x 10 Holdup Tanks 60 6
Trojan OP R
1.6 x 10 Holdup Tanks 60 6
Turkey Pt. 3/4 OP 0
3 x 10 Holdup Tanks 45 6
Waterford 3 C
R 2.2 x 10 Holdup Tanks 60 6
Yankee Rowe OP R
1.7 x 10 Holdup Tanks 90 6
Zion 1/2 OP L
10 x 10 Holdup Tanks 60 NOTES:
(1) Parameters in table taken from information in the June 4, 1976 Appendix I submittals, and in individual plant Final Environmental Statemer.ts and Safety Analysis Reports.
(2)C = Plant is under construction; OP = Plant is in operation.
(3)R = River Site; O = Ocean Site; L = Lake Site.
2187 047 nbo \\8tS TABLE P-2 Pre-71 PWR Liquid Treatment Systems (I)
D Status f
tea Of Plant ( ) Site (3) Generator Shis41eed Floor Drains Glowdown Arkansas 1 OP R
Ooce-Thru D-E-D E
Arkansas 2 C
R U-Tube D-E-D E
D-S Beaver Vallej 1 OP R
U-Tube D-E-D E-D D.
Calvert Cliffs 1/2 OP L
U-Tube D-E-D E-D D-S Cock 1/2 OP/C L
U-Tube D-E-D E
D-D Crystal River 3 OP 0
Once-Thru D-E-D E-D Davis-Besse 1 OP L
Once-Thru D-E-D E-D Diablo Canyon 1/2 C
0 U-Tube D-E-D E
D -S Farley 1/2 C
R U-Tube D-E-D E-D D -S Forked River 1 C
0 U-Tube D-E E-D D -S Ft. Calhoun 1 OP R
U-Tube E
E D-D Ginna 1 OP L
U-Tube D-E-D E-D D-S Haddem Neck 0"
R U-Tube D-E-D D-E-D D
Indian Pt. 1 OP R
U-Tube E-D E-D D
Indian Pt. 2/3 OP R
U-Tube D-E-D E
D Maine Yankee OP R
U-Tube D-E E
D McGuire 1/2 C
R U-Tube D-E-D E-D E-S Midland 1/2 C
R Once-Thru D-E-D E-D North Anna 1/2 C
R U-Tube D-E-D E-D D-D Oconee 1-3 OP R
Once-Thru E-D D-E Palisades OP,
} @,U{
U-Tube D-E E-D S
Pt. Beach i/2 OP L
U-Tube D-E-D E-D D
Prairie Island 1/2 OP R
U-Tube D-E-D D-D D
Rancho Seco 1 OP R
Once-Thru D-E-D D-E Robinson 2 OP R
U-Tube D-E-D E-D D
St. Lucie 1 OP 0
U-Tube D-E-D E-D D
Sequoyah 1/2 C
R U-Tube D-E-D E
S 2187 048 TABLE P-2
( ontinued)
Type Type Of Type of Treatment (4)
Status Of Steam Of Plant ( } Site ( ) Generator Shim-Bleed Floor Drains Blowdown Trojan OP R
U-Tube D-E-D E
S Turkey Pt. 3/4 OP 0
U-Tube D-E-D E-D D
Waterford 3 C
R U-Tube D-E-D E-D D
Yankee Rowe OP R
U-Tube E
E E
Zion 1/2 OP L
U-Tube E-D E
D LOTES:
(I) Parameters in table taken from information in the June 4, 1976 Appendix I submittals, and in individual plant Final Environmental Statements and Safety Analysis Reports.
(
C = Plant is under construction; OP = Plant is in operation.
(3)R = River Site; O = Ocean Site; L = Lake Site.
(4)D = Demineralizer; E = Evaporator; S = Blowdown is routed to the secondary system.
2187 047 h,d p
Table C-la Cost Table for Radwaste Systems Augments (cost per reactor)
Augment:
3 Ton Charcoal Adsorber - Plant Under Construction From Cost a(1).
Direct Cost of Equipment (DCE)
App. A, Table 2
$ 58,000 a(2).
Direct Cost of Labor (DCL)
App. A, Table 2 16,000 Labor Cost Correction Factor (LCCF)
Section II 1
a(3). Total Direct Cost (TDC) = DCE + LCCF x DCL
$ 74,000 Indirect Cost (IC)
App. A, Table 2
$ 60,000 c.
Total Capital Cost (TCC) = IC + TDC
$134,000 d.
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)
Section II 0.1061 e.
Annual Fixed Cost (AFC) = CRF x TCC/fl
$ 14,200 f.
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-2 neg.
Annual Maintenance Cost (AMC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-3 neg.
g.
Total Annual cost (1AC) = AFC + A0C + AMC/N
$ 14,000
- c. s
' E<,
2187 050 Table C-lb Cost Table for Radwaste Systems Augments (cost per reactor)
Augment:
3 Ton Charcoal Adsorber - Plant In Operation From Cost a(1).
Direct Cost of Equipment (DCE)
App. A, Table 2
$ 113,000 a(2).
Direct Cost of Labor (DCL)
App. A, Table 2 39,000 Labor Cost Correction Factor (LCCF)
Section l'I 1
a(3). Total Direct Cost (TDC) = DCE + LCCF x DCL
$ 152,000 Indirect Cost (IC)
App. A, Table 2
$ 100,000 c.
Total Capital Cost (TCC) = IC + TDC
$ 252,000 d.
Capital R'covery Factor (CRF)
Section II 0.1061 e.
Annual Fixed Cost (AFC) = CRF x TCC/N
$ 26,700 f.
Annual Operating Cast (A0C)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-2 neg.
Annual Maintenance Cost (AMC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-3 neg.
g.
Total Annual Cost (TAC) = AFC + A0C + AMC/fl
$ 27,000
. x, o, e, 8 t <>
2187 051 Table C-2a Cost Table for Radwaste Systems Augnents (cost per reactor)
Augment:
15,000 CFM Charcoal Filter - Plant Under Construction From Cost a(1).
Direct Cost of Equipment (DCE)
App. A, Table 2
$ 106,000 a(2).
Direct Cost of Labor (DCL)
APP. A, Ti;1e 2 32,000 Labor Cost Correction Factor (LCCF)
Section II 1
a(3). Total Direct Cost (TDC) = DCE + LCCF x DCL
$ 138,000 Indirect Cost (IC)
App. A, Table 2
$ 109,000 c.
Total Capital Cost (TCC) = IC + TDC
$ 247,000 d.
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)
Section II 0.1061
$ 26,200 e.
Annual Fixed Cost (AFC) = CRF x TCC/fl f.
Annual Operating Cost (A0C)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-2 7,000 Annual Maintenance :,ost (AMC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-3 9,000 g.
Total Annual Cost (TAC) = AFC + AOC + AMC/N
$ 42,000, 2187 052 m Mi g l c; Table C-2b Cost Table for Radwaste Systens Augments (cost per reactor)
Augment:
15,000 CFM Charcoal Filter - Plant In Operation From Cost a(1).
Direct Cost of Equipment (DCE)
App. A, Table 2 1
$ 37,000 a(^'
Direct Cost of Labor (DCL)
App. A, Table 2 54,00l Labor Cost Correction Factor (LCCF)
Section II 1
a(3). Total Direct Cost (TDC) = DCE + LCCF x DCL
$ 191,000 Indirect Cost (IC)
App. A, Table 2
$ 100,000 c.
Total Capital Cost (TCC) = IC + TDC
$ 291,000 d.
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)
Section II 0.1061 Annual Fixed Cost (AFC) = CRF x TCC/il e.
$ 30,800 f.
Annual Operating Cost (A0C)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-2 7,000 Annual Mainteaance Cost (AMC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-3 9,000 g.
'otal Annual Cost (TAC) = AFC + AOC + AMC/fl
$ 47,000
\\ [j {
2187 053 Table C.',a Cost Table for Radwaste Systems Augnents (cost per reactor)
Augment:
15,000 CFM Reactor Bldg. HEPA - Plant Under Construction From Cost a(1).
Direct Cost of Equipment (DCE)
App. A, Table 2
$ 56,000 a(2).
Direct Cost of Labor (D..;
App. A, Table 2 16,000 Labor Cost Correction Factor (LCCF) bection II 1
a(3). Total Direct Cost (TDC) = DCE + LCCF x DCL
$ 72,000 Indirect Cost (IC)
App. A, Table 2
$ 59,000 c.
Total Capital Cost (TCC) = IC + TDC
$ 131,000 d.
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)
Section II 0.1061 e.
Annual Fixed Cost (AFC) = CRF x TCC/N
$ 13,900 f.
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-2 6,000 Annual Maintenance Cost (AMC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-3 2,000
$ 22,000 g.
Total Annual Cost (TAC) = AFC + A0C + AMC/N 2187 054 e
' bis
.=
Table C-3b Cost Table for Radwaste Systems Augments (cost per reactor)
Augment: 15,000 CFM Reactor Bldg. HEPA - Plant Ir Operation From Cost a(1).
Direct Cost of Equipment (DCE)
App. A, Table 2
$ 69,000 a(2).
DirectCostofLabor(DCL)
App. A, Table 2 23,000 Labor Cost Correction Factor (LCCF)
Section Il 1
a(3). Total Direct Cost (TDC) = DCE + LCCF x DCL
$ 92,000 Indirect Cost (IC)
App. A, Table 2
$ 100,000 c.
Total Capital Cost (TCC) = IC + TDC
$ 192,000 d.
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF) dection II 0.1061 e.
Annual Fixed Cost (AFC) = CRF x TCC/fl
$ 20,000 f.
Annual Operating Cost (A0C)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-2 6,000 Annual Maintenance Cost (AMC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-3 2,000 g.
Total Annual Cost (TAC) = AFC + A0C + AMC/ft
$ 28,000
- (' ij
\\ BIS 2187 055 Table C-4a Cost Table for Radwaite Systens Augments (cost per icactor)
Augment:
BWR Demineralizer - Plant Under Construction From Cost a(1).
Direcc Cost of Equipment (bCE)
App. A, Table 2
$ 47,000 a(2).
Direct Cost of Labor (DCL)
App. A, Table 2 34,000 Labor Cost Correction Factor (LCCF)
Section II 1
a(3). Total Direct Cost (TDC) = DCE + LCCF x DCL
$ 81,000 Indirect Cost (IC)
App. A, Table 2
$ 65,000 c.
Total Capital Cost (TCC) = IC + TDC
$ 146.000 d.
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)
Section II 0.1061 c.
Annual Fixed Cost (AFC) = CRF x TCC/fl
$ 15,500 f.
Annual Operating Cost (A0C)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-2
$ 15,000 Annual Maintenance Cost (AMC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-3 5,000 g.
Total Annual Cost (TAC) = AFC + AOC + AMC/fl
$ 36,000 2187 056 e
18!L 4
Table C-4b Cost Table for Radwaste Systems Augments (cost per reactor)
Augment:
50 gpm Demineralizer - Plant In Operation From Cost a(1).
Direct Cost of Equipment (DCE)
App. A, Table 2
$ 69,000 a(2).
Direct Cost of Labor (DCL)
App. A, Table 2 53,000 Labor Ccst Correction Factor (LCCF)
Section iI 1
a(3). Total Direct Cost (TDC) = DCE + LCCF x DCL
$ 132,000 Indirect Cost (IC)
App. A, Table 2
$ 100,000 c.
Total Capital Cost (TCC) = IC + TDC
$ 232,000 d.
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)
Section II 0.1061 e.
Annual Fixed Cost (AFC) = CRF x TCC/N
$ 24,600 f.
Annual Operating Cost ( AOC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-2
$ 15,000 Annual Maintenance Cost (AMC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-3 5,000 g.
Total Annual Cost (TAC) = AFC + AOC + Af1C/N
$ 45,000 nJa
- i8i, 2187 057 Table C-Sa Cost Table for Radwaste Systems Augments (cost per reactor) 3 Augment:
600 ft Gas Decay Tank-Plant Under Construction From Cost a(1).
Direct Cost of Equipment (DCE)
App. A, Table 2
$ 36,000 a(2).
Direct Cost of Labor (DCL)
App. A, Table 2 26,000 Labor Cost Correction Factor (LCCF)
Section II 1
a(3).
Total Direct Cost (TDC) = DCE + LCCF x DCL
$ 62,000 IndirectCost(IC)
App. A, Table 2
$ 52,000
$ 114,000 c.
Total Capital Cost (TCC) = IC + TDC d.
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)
Section II 0.1061
$ 12,100 e.
Annual Fixed Cost (AFC) = CRF x TCC/fl f.
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-2 neg.
Annual Maintenance Cost (AMC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-3 neg.
g.
Total Annual Cost (TAC) = AFC + AOC + AMC/fl
$ 12,000,
\\b[
't
2187 058 Table C-5b Cost Table for Radwaste Systems Augments (cost per reactor) 3 Augment:
600 ft Gas Decay Tank-Plant In Operation From Cost a(1).
Direct Cost of Equipment (DCE)
App. A, Table 2
$ 59,000 a(2).
Direct Cost of Labor (DCL)
App. A, Table 2 29,000 Labor Cost Correction Factor (LCCF) dection 11 1
a(3). Total Direct Cost (TDC) = DCE + LCCF x DCL
$ 87,000 Indirect Cost (IC)
App. A, Table 2
$ 100,000 c.
Total Capital Cost (TCC) = IC + TDC
$ 187,000 d.
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)
Section II 0.1061 e.
Annual Fixed Cost (AFC) = CRF x TCC/f4
$ 19,8C0 f.
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-2 neg.
Annual Maintenance Cost (Af1C)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-3 neg.
g.
Total Annual Cost (TAC) = AFC + AOC + AMC/fl
$ 20,000, 2187 059 vu 'i815 Table C-6a Cost Table for Radwaste Systems Augments (cost per reactor)
Augment: PWR Demineralizer-Plant Under Construction From Cost a(1).
Direct Cost of Equipment (DCE)
App. A, Table 2
$ 47,000 a(2).
Direct Cost of Labor (DCL)
App. A, Table 2 34,000 Labor Cost Correction Factor (LCCF)
Section II 1
a(3). Total Direct Cost (TDC) = DCE + LCCF x DCL
$ 81,000 Indirect Cost (IC)
App. A, Table 2
$ 65,000 c.
Total Capital Cost (TCC) = IC + TDC
$ 146,000 d.
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)
Section II G.1061 e.
Annual Fixed Cost (AFC) = CRF x TCC/fl
$ 15,500 f.
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-2 5,000 Annual Maintenance Cost (AMC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-3 5,000 g.
Total Annual Cost (TAC) = AFC + AOC + AMC/fl
$ 26,000 2187 060
- + \\8iS Table C-6b Cost Table for Radwaste Systems Augments (cost per reactor)
Augment: PWR Demineralizer-Plant In Operation From Cost a(1).
Direct Cost of Equipment (DCE)
App. A, Table 2
$ 69,000 a(2).
Direct Cost of Labor (DCL)
App. A, Table 2 53,000 Labor Cost Correction Factor (LCCF)
Section II 1
a(3).
Total Direct Cost (TDC) = DCE + LCCF x DCL
$ 132,000 Indirect Cost (IC)
App. A, Table 2
$ 100,000 c.
Total Capital Cost (TCC) = IC + TDC
$ 232,000 d.
Capital Recovery Factor (CRF)
Section II 0.1061 e.
Annual Fixed Cost (AFC) = CRF x TCC/ft
$ 24,600 f.
Annual Operating Cost (AOC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-2 5,000 Annual Maintenance Cost (AMC)
R.G. 1.110, T.A-3 5,000 g.
Total Annual Cost (TAC) = AFC + AOC + AMC/fl
$ 35,000
\\[i!'$
8' 2187 041 REFERENCES 1.
Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix I, " Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Feet the Criterion ' As Low As Practicable' for Radioactive Materials in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents," Federal Rogister, V. 40, p. 19442, May 5,1975.
2.
Opinion of the Connission, Docket No. RM 50-2, " Numerical Guidance For Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Peet the Criterion, ' As Low As Practicable' for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents,"
April 30, 1975.
3.
Title 10, CFR Part 50, Amendment to Paragraph II.D of Appendix I, Federal Register, V. 40, p. 40816, September 4,1975.
4 Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix I, " Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion ' As Low As Practicable' for Radioactive Material In Light-W'ater-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents;" Federal Register, V. 36, p.
11115, June 9, 1971.
5.
NUREG-0016, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials in Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Boiling Water Reactors (EWR-GALE Code)," April 1976.
6.
NUREG-0017, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials In Gaseous and Liquid Effluents from Pressurized Water Reactors (PWR-GALE Code)," April 1976.
7 Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I," Rev.1, October 1977.
8.
Regulatory Guide 1.111, " Methods of Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors," March 1976.
9 NUREG-0002, " Final Generic Environmental Statement on the Use of Recycle Plutonium in Mixed Oxide Fuel for Light Water Reactors,"
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, W'ashington, D.C.,
- 20555, August 1976.
10.
Regulatory Guide 1.110, " Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors," March 1976.
2187 047
APPENDIX A Retrofit Costs for Radwaste Systens for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors I.
Introduction Section II.D of Appendix I, " Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion ' As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable' for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents," to 10 CFR Part 50, " Licensing of Produc-tion and Utilization Facilities," requires that liquid and gaseous radwaste systems for light-water-cooled nuclear power reactors include all items of reasonably demonstrated technology that, when added to the system sequentially and in order of diminishing cost-benefit return, can, for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, effect reductions in dose to the population reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor. Values of $1000 per man-rem and $1000 per man-thyroid-rem are given in Appendix I as interim criteria for the cost-benefit analysis. Regulatory Guide 1.110, " Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors,"
describes a procedure acceptable to the NRC Staff for performing a cost-benefit analysis for liquid and gaseous radwaste systen components and presents capital costs for potential augments to radwaste systens to show conformance with the requirements of Section II.D of Appendix I.
The costs given in FeFulatory Guide 1.110 are based on augmentation of radwaste systems during the initial design phases of the nuclear station (construction permit stage of NRC review).
Section V.B.1 of Appendix I requires that, for each light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor constructed pursuant to a permit for which applica-tion was filed prior to January 2, 1971, the holder of the permit or a 360 \\81E 2187 063 license authorizing operation of the reactor file with the Commission by June 4,1976 such information as is necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as is reasonably achievable, including all such infortration as is required by 50.34a (b) & (c) not already contained in his application.
If a cost-benefit analysis is performed for a reactor for which an applica-tion for a construction permit was filed prior to January 2, 1971, to meet the requirements of Appendix I, the general procedures given in Regulatory Guide 1.110 may be used. However, these reactors are either under construction (operating license stage of NRC review) or are already operating, and the capital costs for a retrofitted augment to a reactor in these stages are different from those presented in Regulatory Guide 1.110.
This appendix provides guidance for determining the total capital costs of several potential argments to radwaste systems for reactors under construction and in operation.
II.
METHODOLOGY Cost estimates for the retrofit of radwaste systems at reactors under con-struction or in operation were made using similar bases, methods, and data as are presented in Regulatory Guide 1.110 and considered factors which could affect the cost of retrofitted equipment. The principal factors influencing costs peculiar to retrofittinF that were considered in this analysis are building space requirements, schedules, interface with existing systems, change order costs, and special craft labor require-ments.
.a igis 2187 064 The costs of retrofitting radwaste systems vary widely due to differences in layout and available space for individual plant designs, and depending on refueling and maintenance schedules for individual reactors. Therefore, for the purposes of this Appendix, the following assumptions were made that would result in costs at the low end of the expected range of costs.
It was assumed that space was available in existing buildings to house the system augment. The cost estimates for retrofitting were developed assuming that the work could be performed (or completed) and tested during an annual outage for plant scheduled repairs and refueling. Time to place the augment in operating condition was assumed to be available. No charge for downtime for retrofitting was added to the retrofit cost.
In the event that the assumptions considered above do not describe the condi-tions at a particular reactor, the costs for augmented radwaste systems will be higher than those estimated in this appendix. Therefore, if a radwaste system augment can not be made for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, using the capital costs in this Appendix, it is unlikely that it can be added to any actual system for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
Cost estimates for the retrofit of radwaste systems at reactors after the initial design stage were made using the following procedure.
Each augment case is reported in like categ^ ries of craft labor (L), purchased equip-ment (E), and site materials (M). To these items are added spare parts and a contingency allowance on these four items.
Direct cost is the total of these five categories of cost. The direct cost estimates were developed by censidering(such factors as hardware, design, labor, building space, and 5:
sO!
2187 065 interfaces with existing systems. These factors were compared with industry experience which permitted the staff to determine relationships of labor, materials, equipnent, and total directs.
Manpower required for security, fire protection, operational interface with construction, craft orientation, and materials handling was also considered in developing the costs for operating reactors.
The breakdown of indirect costs are presented in Table 1 for a plant in the initial design phase, for a plant under construction, and for a plant in operation. The first component of the indirect costs is the craft labor overhead (fringes, burdens, etc.), construction facilities, equignent, and services. The second component is for engineering and construction manage-ment, and the third component is other owners costs, such as property taxes and insurance.
Interest during construction is an applicable indirect cost for reactors under construction, but was not considered for an operating reactors due to the relatively short duration of the planning and construction of the retrofit.
For retrofitting while a plant is under construction, the indirect costs include a charge for change-order expense.
'Ihe indirect cost for the retrofit to an operating reactor was determined to be a fixed cost instead of the percentage value noted in Regulatory Guide 1.110, because the indirect costs for initiating a retrofit project for a nuclear reactor in the operating stage are relatively independent of the direct and labor costs.
2187 066 NU \\8tS In order to confirm the validity of important inputs used in developing to the cost estimates presented in this appendix, the major areas of the costs were reviewed with representatives of utilities, equipment vendors, and architect engineering firms and were found to be in the range of those actually being encountered.
II.
RESULTS Retrofit costs for nine radwaste system augments considered most likely to be added to a reactor whose application for a construction permit was received before January 2,1971, were evaluated.
The radwaste system augments that were considered in this evaluation are listed along with the components of their capital cost in Table 2.
Capital costs were determined following the Accounting System given in ERDA-108. which is the same system used in Regulatory Guide 1.110.
As in Regulatory Guide 1.110, all costs are presented in 1975 dollars.
Neither the costs nor the interim criteria are escalated for the predicteu effects of inflation, since the worth of a man-rem or man-thyroid-rem to the public is subject to the same fluctuations in value as the cost of equipment to reduce radioactive effluents.
Seven of the radwaste system augments, considered in Table 2, were previously considered in Regulatory Guide 1.110, and process equipment costs for these augments are taken from that guice.
Costs for the following two augments were newly developed for this analysis: the PWR steam generator blowdown heat exchanger (Item No. 7); the PWR waste gas decay tank vent HEPA filtration system (Item No. 8). The principal components of the capital costs of these items are given in Tables 3 through 11.
N d !,)
\\ O f I$
y 2187 067
TABLE 1 INDIRECT COSTS FOR RADWASTE SYSTEM AtlGMENTS i
Base Cost Construction Operatino Plant Initial Desian Phase Desion Chance Desian Channe c,
'i,.
Construction Facilities a, b a
gf-Equipment and Services 19%
19%
$30,000 Engineering and Construction a
a Management 20%
207
$60,000 a
a Other Owners Costs 1%
1%
$10,000 Interest During Construction 35%c 35%c Healioible Design Change (not applicable) 55000 Included above Requests N
(($
U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration, C0HCEPT - A Computer Code for Conceptual Cost Estimates of Steam-Electric Power Plants -
O Phase IV User's Manual ERDA-108, June 1975 Ch C13 b
The percentages indicate the percent of direct costs.
C8ased on 10% for 4 years and adiusted to cover total to this point.
n 0
o 1
it 1
a 1
tp
.G 2
6 1
7 7
2 4
4 2
e a
9 8
3 3
G 2
9 d
d OU 5
M 1
i a
2 1
2 2
2 1
A 2
u G
na S
L yr s
A
.G 4
0 7
4 6
6 5
13 o
i T
CU 3
7 4
1 9
4 3
O A
1 2
1 1
1 t
a t
T l
i u
E 1
2 3
9 8
6 9
g e
S 1
4 4
9 5
2 1
e c
A 1
2 1
R n
1 i
B n
s i
t n
n e
a v
n
.G 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
gt OU 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
ig un 1
ae A
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
S y
m l
sp T
s ii C
u h u E
R
.G 0
3 9
2 4
5 8
9 o
t q 5
i" e
DI CU 6
3 0
5 4
6 1
v -
r A
1 e-of N
r f o p"
I s
we E
S 0
8 5
2 5
4 1
ta oc I
A 5
1 9
4 2
5 5
o l e nd i
(
B e
sp S
sr i
E t e g
S st t n A
on si C
ce ot 3
.G 2
6 1
7 7
2 4
4 2
cs OU 5
5 9
8 3
3 8
2 9
t e i
ns t x A
1 1
1 1
1 ea ce mc e
S S
p rn T
T ie ia S
C
.G 4
7 3
2 2
1 7
2 us d
O E
7 qa nf C
R CU 7
3 3
C 5
8 1
EB I o I
A 1
)
)
L D
2 3
A I
l i
0 E
P 0
S 7
4 8
7 3
2 8
A0 A
6 2
2 5
3 7
6 CT B
1 2
Y s
R TS t
NY E
At E S Ps L
i I
O C o B
l MC
.G 3
0 7
9 7
9 6
5 9
Cn
( c A
U IU5 OU 1
3 3
5 4
6 0
1 T
S 6
R. io e
Q7 A
1 1
1
,f s
t E 9 a gf a E 1 h uor pA e
T 6
ep S
R
.G 8
1 6
6 8
7 1
5 n. go A
CU 5
2 0
3 1
4 1
D igCa W
A 1
t n s
si A
e.
R d0Ls E
F S
3 4
7 3
4 3
2 1Oi O
A 5
1 9
3 1
4 5
l1(
r B
a, no i1 N
t ot 0
ieic 5
ndt a 1
iice R
3 uur A
P
.G 9
6 4
9 0
3 8
9 2
nGr f
OU 3
2 5
2 9
5 7
i t n i
0 A
yse srnh C
i oow t c R
ra t
O L
A 16 6
2 6
4 4
5 6
ol rn Cn B
3 2
3 3
1 t uee A
t 1
c gd m aenp
)
eRui 2
r u
E
(
nnq S
4 0
1 4
9 9
6 niie A
1 1
3 2
1 2
1 e
h asr B
w ei o v
f A
ti r P
ngos r
A E
e tt e
P k
i mscs t
E n
l paao r
n l
a r
w r
i ec o
/
T e
cr e
u) r qw d
i l
o l e t
i een s
Bg l
n am y
t i
e ie A
a ce a
l n
i t
rvh g r
ct c
t a
ra f
l rs c
nr r
oh A s oewu a
1 ay D
ee c
t c s
P y f r t A c
C s
n i
ax a
ES o
hS V s n
rE G
H sCn.
r
/n a
k e n
e n
tR eO T
a ao G
nd e
nt e
i o sNp o
o 0E f
ct 3
T o 1
G :
t,
!T h
r fi an D
ea t i
- t
- fi h
r a
. ou)
! t C
t a
t C
t W
0r qw n
i 0r f
h H
m R!!
o 1
0t s n G
on 0t ee(
U ;U i
cw R
0l eg i T
0l 0
Ma 0
t o 5i sarv
^
3 c
1F 0
f I M'.
1 F at oe RA 5i 3
t 5
Sd C sf r 4'
)
I 1
_3 4
6 7
1 9
I
)% DN O@W 0
C
. yi
~ s e
ts siox o
cee t
c 1
g dt a g
t n epp m
n t
S ni t as e
i c
E gg e
ad t
t e
m rag i
s l
e TO o
n i
g n
rri n
x e
o u
N A
Pot I
E N
N GUA 6
5 1
1 2
0 0
0 0
2 7
2 0
5 5
6 3
1 0
5 O
1 1
1 2
S
% [
L G
5 A
U 7 y T
A 9
2 1
3 4
6 0
4 O
4 1
6 1
7 6
3 T
)
1 p}
C
~
E 5
N S
9 2
1 6
7 7
0 7
E A
4 1
6 6
5 1
T B
1 S
)f}
Y S
T S
G N
R U
E O
A 6
9 5
8 3
MT S
6 7
3 1
T C
L 1
1' A
A A
O
='
E E
I
+'
R R
r
)
R
>i T
e 0
E T m R
b 0
T u
E A
r 0
A G
I T
E o
1 M
U o
S L
s
/
A 4
4 8
0 8 \\[C A
C r
t T
4 4
1 5
W U A
5 N
j D
N 7
E C
3 A
l 9
M R D a
1 P
E E
o
(
I s
L F
L c
U E
5 r
t B
O O r
Q S
4 4
8 5
3 7
i c
0 3
A O
a E
A 4
4 5
D e
4 9
TT C
h B
)f}
E C
E R
I E
n IS T
o A
T G
E W U
0 6
6 3
9 T
3 A
1 1
2 1
3 A
T M}l I
G O
T I
S L
E R
e l
R O
e a
n T
O B
G S
t m
S F
A U
o
'u O
L A
t C
5 8
3 3
6 t
]
]
1 1
(
L n
C A
e T
m O
g s
T u
E 5
r t
A S
7 5
c A
5 8
3 l
4 0
e 0
4 f
B 1
1
)$j 1
2 o
n S
L o
M O
i E
R t
T T
p g
S N
i i
Y O
r s
T S
C D
p c
N E
S N
L s
T E
G C
T G
E 0
e N
M N
I S
I I
S 5
D M
E N
I N
V O
S F
T S
u E
M3 G
P O
R C
E S
T S
T P
I I
I E
D O
C T
o I
I S
P T
S T
C E
O S
1 U
S A
S L
Y C
G R
A D
T L
T A
C E
N F
D I
C e
E N
A R
T N
R I
F E
D t
G T
E C
A O
E I
R 0
T N
L S
S N
A M
I P
T G
D E
A A
3 I
S I
I U
R B
N E
E I
T nt E
D C
R T
E U
I L
N G
C L
O of C
L O
T C
R S
T A
A O
/}
T I
b O
I S
S E
A N
T G
N S
T r0 R
U S
N L
P O
O N
A S
R Pa0 B
A I
E S
C T
E H
A T
C2 o.
Q jcl 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 0 1
2 3
1 1
1 1
N CN O D
n i
S e
E en T
ti O
a N
c L
j n
o G
i 7
9 6
0 0
0 0
6 U
6 ot 9
6 5
5 A
1 ni 3
1 5
6 3
1 0
5 d
1 1
1 d
O a
t S
% c 1
6 7
5 e
3 0
L G
3 5
A U
5 6
3 3
K 3
7 3
3 7_$
1 T
A 4
1 S
O
_u T
C
)
}
t in
- 3 8
2 U
E 5
5 3
2 1
1 2
2 4
57_]
M S
1 4
2 2
E n
A 0
4 T
o B
S
)
}
1 i
Y t
S a
n r
o T
S G
t i
N R
U 0
ot 3
5 2
5 0
0 0
s l
E O
A 2
1 3
l i
1 ni M T F
S d
3 1
a T
C L
d t
A A A
A O
a o
EE P
T I
R R
E
)
R R
l 0
E e
T l
0 T
E A
0 A
G.
e S
l 1
M U
0 T
E a
S L
o
/
A 5
2 5
5 8
3 1
1
)
}
1 1
2 f
T A
C c
1 1
1 l,
J r
5 N
DK 7
E C
4 a
9 M
Ai h
E Rl C
1 P
L l
(,
I
~
B Fl r
U E
1 1
3 1
4 5
0 4
5 5
5 5
A OO o
Q S
1 1
7 1
2 T
O t
E A
7 1
1 0
"e T
C c
B
){}
E e
l R
E j
i E
E n
S T
o A
r G
i E
W U
6 ot 6
2 3
7 9
6 s
i A
A ni 1
2 l
T AT d
a i
Ml d
t I
G R
O a
o T
I W
T S
L P
E R
e R
O e
T O
B G
S S
F A
U 3
3 4
1 2
3 3
6 )
}_
L A
1 1
O
[
C t
L n
C A
e T
m O
g T
u E
3 3
2 5
5 9
l 0
5 8
8 A
S 1
7 1
A 0
0 f
B o
)
}
n S
L o
M O
E R
i A
P T
T t
S N
p
.E Y
O i
rH r
T S
C D
o N
E S
N L
c t.
s T
E G
C T
G E
al e
Nra M
N I
S I
I S
ao N
I N
V O
S F
T S
D M
E S
E Mpc G
P O
R C
E S
T T
I I
I E
D O
C T
P er S
S P
T S
T C
E I
I O
Sa S
A S
L Y
C G
R U
h C
QeC A
D T
L T
A C
E N
F D
I u
Er E
N A
R T
N R
I F
E D
G T
E C
A O
E I
R 0
T N
L u,
I P
T G
D E
A I
A t r N
A M
S I
I U
R B
N E
E I
T Sse D
C R
T E
U I
L N
G C
L O
Eit Coa L
O T
C R
S T
A A
O A
T I
I S
S E
A N
T G
N S
T OMe R
U S
N L
P O
O N
A S
O H
F B
A I
E S
C T
E M
A T
o 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9 0 1
2 3
]c h-p
I Atil.E 5
~ TOTAL COST ESilHATE SilEET OF RADWASTE TREATHENT SYSTEH FOR LIGTIT-WATER-COOLED tiUCLEAR RLACTORS
_5,
Description of Augment.
15000 cfm Charcoal /IIEPA Filtration System 7
(1975 $1000) s O:3 I TEM LABOR EQUll' MENT /MATERI ALS TOTALS NOTES
.7 BASE C. AUG.
O. AllG.
~ - ~ ~
-C. AllG.
O. AUG.--- ~HASE C. AUG.
O. AUG.
BASE
'l. PROCESS EQUIPMENT Includes ex-10 10 12 71 71 71 81 81 83 haust fan but not supply 2.
BUILDING ASSIGNMENT no no no 12 12 8
8 20 20 addition addition addition 3
ASSOCIATED PIPING SYSTEMS 3
3 9
2 2
5 5
5 14 In Item 1 4.
INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL 5.
ELECTRICAL SERVICE 3
4 15 2
2 10 5
6 25 6.
SPARE PARTS 5
5 5
5 5
5 SUBT0TAL 28 29 36 88 88 91 116 117 127 7
CONTINGENCY 3
3 18 9
18 46 12 21 64 8.
OTAL DIRECT COSTS 31 32 54 97 106 137 128 138 191
)75%
)
)75%
)
)75% )
75%
60 9.
ENGINEERING DESIGN Total
{
hSee Iotal I',
30
}
}
}
} h-}Dircts li.
MANAGE-0FF. & FIELD D$
f Set p
SK 10
- 11. ASSOCIATED COSTS 12.
TOTAL IdDIRECTS 23 72 109 100 13.
TOTAL COSTS 54 169 243 247 291
b f h i II \\ <
TABLE 6 TOTAL COST ESTlHATE SilEET UF RADWASTE TREATMENT SYSTEH FOR LIGHT-WATER-COOLED lillCLEAR REACTORS 3
Descriptien of Augnent,
600 Ft Gas fecay Tank (1975 $1000)
ITEM LABOR ECulPMENT/HATERIALs TOTALS NOTES BASE C. AUG.
O. AUG.
BKSl" C. AUG.
1.
PROCESS EQUIPMENT
~
O. AUG.
-BASE
' C. AUG.
O. AUG.
1 lank Carboi 2.5 2.5 10 20 20 40 23 23 50
- Steel, 150 [Lsig.
2.
BUILDlHG ASSIGUMENT ShTe_lding cos 18 18 1
9 9
5 27 27 6
only space available 3
ASSOCIATED PIPING SYSTEMS 1
1 8
1 1
4 2
2 12 4.
INSTRLMENTATION & CONTROL In item 1 5.
ELECTRICAL SERVICE Nealect 1
Ne9 ect 6.
SPARE PARTS SUBTOTAL 22 22 19 30 30 49 52 52 68 7.
CONTINGENCY 2
4 10 3
6 10 5
10 19 8.
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 24 26 29 33 36 59 57 62 87
]
t
]
75%
75%
60 9.
ENGINEERING DESIG4 g
S c[s
~
m
_ tem.
j See Totals Dir-30
- 10. MAtlAGE-0FF. & FIELD Dir-See Totals
<~.
" II. ASSOCIATED COSTS
)
)m, )
10 m
N 12. TOTAL INDIRECTS 17 25 42
,52 190 13.
TOTAL 41 58 99 114 187 u
TABLE 7 n'
TOTAL COST ESTIMATE SHEEI ut unDWASTE TREATMENT SYS1EN
/
FOR AIGHT-WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR REACTORS O
Description of Au9 ment. Stearn Generator Flash Tank Vent to Main Condenser 3
(1975 $1000)
ITEM LABOR EQUIPMENT / MATERIALS TOTALS NOTES 1.
PROCESS EQUIPMENT None 2.
BUILDING ASSIGNMENT waii Fernetra-ti n- & re-6 18 2
4 8
22 lated work 3
ASSOCIATED PIPING SYSTEMS 400 ft 13 18 36 7
7 21 20 25 57 6"Sch 40 4.
INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL 4
4 6
6 6
6 10 10 12 Allowance 5.
ELECTRICAL SERVICE Neglect 6.
SPARE PARTS Neglect SUBT0TAL 17 28 60 13 15 31 30 43 91 7.
CONTINGENCY 2
6 30 1
3 16 3
9 46 8.
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 19 34 90 14 -
18 47 33 52 137
]75%
],
,' ] '
[D -
f {]"'
}Dg-
[Dipect
},75%
1 75% ) 75%
60 9.
ENGINEERING DESIGN
- 10. MANAGE-0FF. & FIELD fdir-
[
g 30
}ects
]-~~
} '~ ~ J bK 10
- 11. ASSOCIATED COSTS
- 12. TOTAL INDIRECTS 14 11 25 44 100 13.
TOTAL COSTS 33 e5 58 96 237 2187 074
TABLE 8 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE SilEET OF RADWASTE TREATMENT SYSTEli C'
FOR LIGitT-WATER-COOLED huCLEAR REACTORS
/.
O Description of Augment.
50 gpm Demineralizer (1975 $1000)
,]
ITEM LAMR EQUIPMENT / MATERIALS TOTALS BASE C. AUG.
O. AUG.
BASE C. AUG.
O. AUG.
BASE C. AUG.
O. AUG.
1.
PROCESS EQUIPMENT 3
5 5
6 2Q 20 22 25 25 28 30 ft resin includes cost 2.
BUILDING ASSIGNMENT 9
9 13 5
5 7
14 14 20 to adapt arer for use 3
ASSOCIATED PIPING SYSTEMS 9
10 12 6
6 9
15 16 27 u np a
4.
INSTRUMENTATION & CCMTROL 4
4 4
6 6
6 10 10 11 5.
ELECTRICAL SERVICE Neglect 6.
SPARE PARTS 2
2 2
2 2
SUBTOTAL 27 l 28 35 39 39 46 66 67 88 7.
CONTINGENCY 2
6 18 4
8 23 6
14 44 8.
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 29 34 53 43 47 69 72 81 132 i)75%
)
)75%
)
)75% )75%
60 9.
ENGINEERING DESIGN
- 10. MAtlAGE-0FF. & FIELD
{yj[(
f
]ojain (l
{m kSc[-
[ Directs e
als 30 11. ASSOCIATED COSTS
)
)
j
)
) SK 10
- 12. TOTAL INDIRECTS 22 32 54 65 100 CDl3.
TOTAL 51 75 126 146 232 N
LD
TABLE 9 TOTAL COST ESTIHATE SilEET Of RADWASTE TREATHENT SYSTEli
[---
FOR LIGliT-WATER-COOLED.NlTCLEAR REACTORS Description of Augment,
Steam Generator Blowilown lleat Exchanger C,c (1975 $1000) v, ITEM LABOR EQUIPMENT / MATERIALS TOTALS BASE C. AUG.
O. AUG.
BASE C. AUG.
O. AUG.
BASE C. AUG.
O. AUG.
1.
PROCESS EQUIPMENT 10 50 60 2.
BUILDING ASSIGNMENT Assion exis-13 7
20 ting space 3
ASSOCIATLD PIPING SYSTEMS 21 9
30 4.
INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL 8
12 20 I
I" S.
ELECTRICAL SERVICE j
6.
SPARE PARTS 10 10 SUBTOTAL S2 88 140 7
CONTINGENCY 26 18 44 8.
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS 78 106 184 9.
ENGINEERING DESIGN
)
)
60 NO. HANAGE-0FF. & FIELD
( 5ee lota s
( dee 0 :ars 30
(
rnip nn t
rnlu un Coll. ASSOCIATED COSTS
)
)
10
~
- 12. TOTAL INDIRECTS 100 CD 13.
TOTAL 284
TABLE 10 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE SHEET OF RADWASTE TREATMENT SYSTEH
(
FOR LIGifT-WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR REACTORS
~
Description of Augment PWR Waste Gas Processing System HEPA Filter f
CO (1975 $1000)
V?
ITEM LABOR EQUIPHENT/ MATERIALS TOTALS.
NOTES BASE C. AUG.
O. AUG.
BASE
_C.
AUG.
O. AUG.
BASE C. AUG.
O. AUG.
1.
PROCESS EQUIPMENT Tank type 1
2 7
7 8
9 40 cfm 2.
BUILDING ASSIGNMENT 2
2 1
1 3
3 3
ASSOCIATED PIPING SYSTEMS 1
2 0.6 1
2 3
4.
INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL Inc1 ided in Process E tulpment In item 1 5.
ELECTRICAL SERVICE E (cluded Gas Co.ipressor 6.
SPARE PARTE 0.6 0.6 6
0.6 2 Filters SUBTOTAL 4
6 9
10 14 16 7
CONTINGENCY 1
3 2
5 3
8 8.
TOTAL DIRECT COSTS S
9 11 15 17 24 9.
ENGINEERING DESIGN
)
}
}
}
i
( P us
_)
( "
l0.
MAtlAGE-0FF. & FIELD See Tota Is See
< l le
-Tetag
) 5*
2 10
' change order II. ASSOCIATED COSTS olumn 3
allowance 18 100
- 12. TOTAL INDIRECTS 13.
TOTAL 35 124 2187 077
5 1 9 ~i O D TABLE 11 TOTAL COST ESTIMATE SHEET OF RADWASTE TREATMENT SYSTEM FOR LIGHT-WATER-COOLED NUCLEAR REACTORS Description of Augment 15000 cfm HEPo, Filtration System (1975 $1000)
ITEM LABOR EQUIPMENT / MATERIALS TOTALS NOTES BASE C. AUG.
0.AUG.
BASE C. AUG.
0.AUG.
BASE C. AUG.
O. AUG.
1.
PROCESS EQUIPMENT 5
5 6
40 40 40 45 45 46 2.
BUILDING ASSIGNMENT 7
7 5
5 add tion add tion add tion 3.
ASSOCIATED PIPING SYSTEMS 3
3 9
2 2
2 5
5 14 4.
INSTRUMENTATION & CONTROL In Item 1 5.
ELECTRICAL SERVICE 6.
SPARE PARTS
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5
.5 7.
SUBTOTAL 15 15 15 47 47 46 62 62 61 7.
CONTINGENCY l
1 7.5 5
9 23 6
10 31
{_,T0TALDIRECTCOSTS 16 16 23 52 56 69 68 72 92 N 9.
ENGINEERING DESIGN 75%
75%
75%
75%
60 (Dir-
~
Dir-
>Dir-
> directs fSeeTotal (ects fSeeTotal (ects j
- 10. MANAGE-0FF. & FIELD
' cts
+
30
- 11. ASSOCIATED COSTS
)
)
)
)
)
10 g
U 12._I0I6L_INDIRECTS 12 39 51 59 100
- 13. 'OTAL COSTS 28 91 119 131 192 l
U'J8TE D ST ATES NUCLE AR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION
]
WASHINGTON. D. C.
20555 POST AGE AND FEES PalO vN. I t O % FATE 5 N.s( 4 6 A W OFFICI AL BUSINESS UU" asct inroa.
(<ivv.s,o ~
PEN ALT Y FOR PRIV ATE U$E, $30u k
)
2187 079