ML20098A010

Forwards Analysis of Postulated Pipe Breaks in RCS Primary Loop from Plant Structural Design Basis That Became Basis of Dose Reduction Estimate Re 831220 Application for leak-before-break Concept

ML20098A010
Person / Time
Site:	Catawba
Issue date:	09/14/1984
From:	Tucker H DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Adensam E, Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8409240218
Download: ML20098A010 (16)

Text

.-

O

.9 DUKE POWER GOMPANY

. P.O. box 33180 CHARLOTTE, N.G. 28242

"^t.";.SI". "" c,Wo'7rge -

- . - - September 14, 1984

- Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director -

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

. Attention: Ms. E. G. Adensam, Chief

. Licensing Branch No. 4

.. Re: Catawba' Nuclear Station Docket Nos.-50-413 and 50-414

Dear Mr. Denton:

On December 20,1983, Duke Power Company requested approval for application of 'the " leak-before-break" concept to Catawba Unit 2 to eliminate postulated

-_ pipe breaks in the Reactor Coolant System primary loop from the plant struc-tural design basis. Attachment 4 to that submittal provided a summary of

~

. estimated cost savings and operational benefits for elimination of primary loop pipe breaks on Catawba Unit 2._ Included in that summary was a projected occupational radiation ~ dose reduction of 600 man-rem. Attached is a copy of-the analysis which.was the basis of the dose . reduction estimate.

Very truly yours, Hal B. Tucker.

/{f(f

. ROS:slb Attachments

- cc: Mr. James P. O'Reilly, Regional Administrator U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region II

- 101 Marietta Street, NW, Suite 2900 Atlanta, Georgia 30323

- NRC Resident Inspector Catawba Nuclear Station

- Mr.: Robert Guild, Esq.

Attorney-at-Law-P. O. Box 12097 Charleston, South Carolina . 29412 840924y*1884o914o'oo goaa N 6el  !

p 1 1

F -

~

1 Mr..' Harold R. ' Denton', Dir:ctor.

' Septemb:r 14,;.1984 -

Page Two' cc: :-Palmetto Alliance 21351 Devine Street

. Columbia,' South Carolina : 29205 Mr.~' Jesse L. Riley Carolina' Environmental Study Group 854 Henley- Place '

Charlotte, North Carolina 28207-r Y

s T

I

~

m W -

-g.'d- - - 'WMh- %- -y,**-,,g-gg-e er-py9 gp9s,+4-'+-P--E'm P 'W 'sipe 6--e1M'-"*'TT^ e' F-**m-M8-'"T 7+4"-CS""W~M"4'*'-' 9vq' r<*P9*9-T'=T-W3"P

e  ;+ '" :

. :,J * : .' .

November- 17,1983 MDPE-83-599 Memo to File

'~

Re: -Catawba Nuclear Station Removal of Rupture Restraints - Radiation Dose and Cost Estimate.

File No.: CN-1206.03-04, CN-1229.00 This analysis estimates the occupational radiation exposure and inherent cost associated with primary and non-primary loop rupture restraints.

~Atitached are three separate calculations involving: first, the dose assess-ment of twenty primary coolant loop rupture restraints; second, the cost savings associated with this occupational radiation exposure, and

. third,- the dose assessment and cost savings associated with 140 non-primary coolant loop restraints.

- The results of these calculations for a unit lifetime of 40 years are:

600 man-rem from 20 primary loop restraints and, 1.3 million dollars of radiation exposure cost.

-and 270 man-rem from 140 non-primary loop restraints and, 670 thousand. dollars of radiation exposure cost.

The cost estimates are based on the present value of money, that is, present staticn labor salaries. 0ccupational radiation exposure is based on expected average dose rates which may vary depending-on system operation.

However, the respective dollars per man-rem values of 2100 and 2500 compare-favorably to accepted Nuclear Production estimates of 2500 dollars per man-rem.

.This' assessment does 'not include-loss of time or access to other equipment,

, - loss of equipment laydown space, or other hazards associated with maintenance and inspection tasks due to pipe rupture restraints.

.R. G. Eble, Design Engineer I Mechanical & Nuclear Division

-N RGE/sr > -

v

. , _ , ,, -w ,-, - w w

F . . -

1 l

Catawba - Occupational-Radiation Exposure Associated with Pipe Rupture Restraints

. Hypothesis: l Removal of main loop pipe rupture restraints inside containment at Catawba will eliminate-personnel radiation exposure related to restraint inspection tasks, restraint disassembly for pipe weld inspections and provide greater access and laydown space for other maintenance activities.

Assumptions:

Restraint assembly and disassembly' times are based on construction experience. Actual manpower will be higher due to protective clothing and access restrictions in high radiation areas.

-Radiation dose rates are assumed for normal expected shutdown conditions

. with no crud traps or " hot spots" near the work area.

Manpower for a given task includes ' ingress and egress time to the work area.

Other-assumptions are included in the calculation portion of this analysis.

References:

J. E. Cherry: Duke Power Company, OA Department, Design Engineering Department on' inspection frequency and number of weld / restraint interferences.

Radiation Analysis Design Manual, Catawba Nuclear Station, Westinghouse, Dated 11-78.

NUREG/CR-0446, "Detennining Effectiveness of ALARA Design and Operational

- Features." 4 - NUREG-CR-3254, " Licensee Programs for Maintaining Occupational Exposure to

. Radiation As Low As Is Reasonably Achievable." 7-83

-H. J. Dameron, Duke Power Company, Nuclear Production Department, Technical Services, telephone. conversation on average wage of Nuclear Production Department employees.

6

C ;.;", .-

. . y .;; . ,

4 - . ,

r LCalculation:

f A

I.- Quality ' Assurance' inspection Criteria

_ , .statesithat primary piping ~. welds will be inspected at the 10-year

~

.," ~

/ outages. ' All mainiloop pipe restraints . considered in this analysis will

+ fimpact weld inspection time.and exposure. Each restraint will have to be

-partially. disassembled and then reassembled to perform the. inspection.

Manpower necessary .to remove / reinstall a restraint'has been estimated ,

Jto be: '

i 12 men ~, 21sl days' for maintenance labor and.4 men, 21s days for field' and .

-engineering support.

~ '

The dosei rate.'at shutdown near the primary. coolant piping is approximately 100 mR/Hr. General area dose rates in' lower containment-is approximately-30 mR/Hr.

It:is ' ass'umed that the maintenance labor is in the vicinity of the primary

. coolant piping.and the support labor;is maintained-in the general area.

The occupational exposure associated with the removal / reinstallation of-pipe; restraints for primary coolant weld inspection is:

" ~

.Maintena'nce Exposure = 40 man-hours x 0.1 Rem x 20 Restraints = 80 man-rem restraint Hr. ,

' Field Support Exposure' = 80 man-hours x 0.03 Rem x 20 Restraints;= 48 man-rem restraint- Hr  !

N' i perl inspection frequency of 1 'every;10-year outage. -

.' Additional exposure.related to health physics personnel is' discussed in

~

1SectionLIII of this report.

3 =-

.II.. FAdditional occupationsi~ exposure'will be' received by Quality Assurance

, personnel ~during' inspection of pipe whip restraints. In discussion with

- " LQA personnel, pipe-restraints will be visually inspected approximately once every 5. years ~for proper. gap clearance. In the event of pipe / whip restraint-

. (crush' pad)' interaction a more detailed inspection of the restraint will be

~ performed. lit .is : assumed that i restraint undergoes detailed inspection .

L W' ;once every 10 years. Normal. visual . inspection takes 2 men is hour per

' restraint in a 100~mR/Hr radiation field with'no additional' field support.

Detailed inspe'c tion takes two men approximately 5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />s:near the primary. .

coolant.. piping with additional. 20 man-hours of field support in a general '

1 radiation field of.30 mR/Hr.. .-

~

The _ occupational radiation exposure associated with pipe whip restraint e  : inspection is:

visual inspection:

~~';QA: exposure = 20 men ~x10.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> x 0.1 Rem x 20 Restraints = 2 man-rem

-insp freq .Hr inspec freg

~

~

_ iins'pection frequency of once every 5 years.

(

1 l

1

, . . - w

..- . -- , _ . ~ , , - , . . . . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ - . _ . - _ . - _ _ _ . _ _ . _ - . , _ . . . _ .

a .;. ..

i 4 ,z w .

Qhh I ~ Detailed Inspection

4 , _.

r, JQA' exposure =: 2 men x '5.0- hours:x 0.1 Rem 'x 1 Restraint = 1.0 man-rem, insp freq- Hr insp freq l field support =14 men x15.0 hours0 days <br />0 hours <br />0 weeks <br />0 months <br /> x 0.03 Rem x 1 restraint = 0.6 man-rs=

insp freq Hr insp freq.

' inspection-frequency of once every 10 years.

III. Occupational " exposure; associated with health physics' personnel support

- Jincludes surveys, monitoring and normal HP support on the job. It is assumed that HP personnel .will spend the same number of manhours as maintenance an(Quality Assurance personnel .but will spend most of that y :timeJin the general, 30 mR/Hr, radiation field.

2 <

~ ~

For pipe. weld inspection, maintenance and -QA personnel HP support-

-radiation' exposure:

800 man-hours x 0.03 Rem = 24 man-rem ,

insp-freq Hr- insp freq inspection frequency of/once'every 10l years.

lFor pipe whip restraint inspection:

visual': .: 20 man-hours 'x 0.02. Rem = 0.6 man-rem -

V .insp freq inspection frequenc(of once every 5 years.

. - Detailed:

-10 man-hours.x .03 Rem /Hr; = 0.3 man'-rem-insp:freq _

inspection frequency of once every 10 years.

The total radiation dose associated with primary loop pipe whip restraints

_IV.-

n ~is:=

dos'e/insp: freq inspection frequency dose in plant' life Llabor group (man-rem) (insp/40 years) (man-rem) maintenance -~ 80 4 320

. weld 'fieldssupport 48 ~

4 192 einsp.' HP support 24- 4 96 608

_ ~

Quality! Assurance -2 8- 16

-- Restr ~ -Quality' Assurance -1 4- 4

. insp field support' O.6~ 4 2.4 6 'HP; support. 0.6 8 4.8 m_ lHP support '

'0.3- 4 1.2 28

Acwy m- , . a -

...f,,

y,

, tp p; v

c.

-'y y -

1

', -l

-,. u ,e . . - ..

_ f- [ t

.., _**. r

% d-.e ;-=e '

+( + ' a #" d

'u'$.. , -

.x ,

y a.w.- y ~ _, --

~ ~ .. ~

'r ,

? Total:-occupational exposure l associated with primary loop-pipe whip

&-L

~

l restraints:is: 636 mari-rem

^

6 4 , ., , _ l. ,

~

l per unit't. lifetime.~ ..

. x7- _.s . s

~ n a;.

".t , m

. , + c f

x ,

e. ._ %

f ' e N-s 1 . .

J ,-,m,*-

y.

>+

4 b

s.. ,

C'~

w

), #. '-

3 $

'? ,'- *r ,

z

._Q'_ F. -

3 y

u

'Sl 1

J ,

y

- te e

a i

~'

i* &

5 G F , E h

'p1 .

f_

a d

M_i,y

• n sl1 ,

-'T'*Y

, g ,;

_-', . ,wt f a

'yu

. .  ;~ ~ .+

.4

,.,,  ?

• -e A + .~

A.

• . {

'_ > r n

=

Q.

i ~

fI

+ n I

-^ s-k

( 5 h, _F.', g f

~

-'I'..

m t

~

-s _ .

1 't

~

, , -k 1"5s .'

t t g

4..

' +

t , ?

A 4&

s c

e 5_-  %, m i.

r  %

u ,

~ - 5 ..

, e W ,. . -, 'w E V 1'

& J. , h _ sA ,-~;

iw s T.

'[.,,q

.4. ,, ' '

'l**-, l 4-9

>  % - s

% .Y .W

_y..'%' #

.' ) : ,

$ T

'd s I t.

e a E #

• _-"A.,,

C #

% g I f

.s.-

e+.... t s

=-

k#*..- 4 y _9.-_V

,, ePw'- #5? 4 M F,v v4Te )F

.,O

, i , -

f.,  ;

9 w q., p- Inf. + ey>m e-T*mMW Pf'M*tWrV ='tr R NF W+ 14N**T'*P'"YiMM

• i E "UN DTT I UN * -- '

L ,

i Catawba-Cost Savings Estimate for Radiation Exposure Associated with Primary Loop Rupture Restraints Hypothesis:

Removal of primary loop piping rupture restraints inside containment at Catawba will provide cost ~ savings associated with the ultimate reduction of radiation exposure. In the same way as exposure reduction, (see 9/14/83 correspondence), time spent in removing restraints for reactor coolant pipe. weld inspection, gap clearance inspection, and asso-ciated support of these tasks will be eliminated- thus saving employee time, protective clothing, radiation risk, and will provide the employee an opportunity to continue work in a radiation area.

The cost of these activities will provide the basis for savings associated with the approximate 600 man-rem exposure savings per unit

. life.

TAssumptions:

Man-hours associated with each task and frequency of tasks from 9/14/83 correspondence used for dose reduction estimation.

Salaries for maintenance, health physics, QA/QC technician is $18/hr.

Supervision is $22/hr. Engineering support is $20/hr. and covers Duke Power employees only -- no contracted work.

No outage cost associated with pipe restraint maintenance or inspection activities .

Personnel access inside containment is allowed during system shutdown

-conditions only.-

O s

b 12

o .

~,; .

.. ,,1 , - ,-

Calculation:

I.. Primary coolant pipe whip restraints 1.1. Cost associated with removal / reinstallation of restraints for weld inspections.

Manpower

. 40 man-hours per restraint per inspection frequency of once every 10 years.

. Radiation Dose: 40 man-hours x 0.1 Rem = 4 man-rem per restraint Hr per inspection frequency of once every 10 years.

' Cost: - A worker is allowed 1000 millirem per quarter (Duke. limit)-

and restraint work is assumed to take' place in one quarter

.of the year. Thus ~4 man-rem of radiation exposure will eliminate 4 employees from additional radiation work in the quarter. It is assumed that an employee restric'ted from work in a radiation area is worth 3/4 of his normal capacity to the company. A cost of 1/4 of the worker's salary is then associated with the inability to perform in a radiation area. Therefore the cost associated with '4 man-rem of maintenance personnel exposure is:

Cost = 4 man-rem x 520 hours0.00602 days <br />0.144 hours <br />8.597884e-4 weeks <br />1.9786e-4 months <br /> x $18 x 1 = $9360.'

1 man-rem quarter Hr T quarter per restraint per inspection frequency.

~

For all 20 restraints: cost.= $9360 x 20 = $187,000/insp freq.

and for 4 inspections in 40 years,

. Cost = $749,000 per unit lifetime.

All remaining calculations based on personnel exposure will

follow this same. methodology in an abbreviated fonnat.

' I '. - -1.2 Field support 'of restraint remove / install for weld inspection:

-general labor 0 $18/hr + h engr 0 $20/hr = $19/hr.

Manpower: 4 men x 20 hours2.314815e-4 days <br />0.00556 hours <br />3.306878e-5 weeks <br />7.61e-6 months <br /> in general area (.03 Rem) restraint Hr.

per restraint per inspection.

H in one inspection: 20 restraints x 80 man-hours

= 1600 man-hours of support /I.F.

48 man-rem / inspection frequency.

,7--

t_

y,- =

e .

J: . * :

. Cost = :1600 man-hours x 0.03 Rem x 520 Hrs. x $19/Hr x 1 M" ?)Cs

,1 -1 man-rem quarter.

Hr quarter T

= ll5,000/ inspection frequency inspection: frequency 4 (in 40 yrs)

. Total cost: associated.with loss of field support personnel is:

115,000 x 4 = $460,000 per unit lifetime.

I. . 2. Inspection of pipe restraint gap clearance and detailed restraint

inspection for pipe-restraint interaction.

2.1 ~ Visual inspection of all pipe restraints, no. field support.

Manpower: 2 men x 0.5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> in pipe area (0.1 Rem) restraint Hr .

per inspection : frequency of 8 in 40 years.

for inspection frequency: 20-restraints x 1 man-hour =

20 man-hours every 5 years 20 man-hours x 0.1 Rem x 520 Hrs. x $18/hr x 1 = $4500/I.F.

1 man-rem Hr. quarter 4 quarter-

$4500 x 8'insp = $36,000 per unit lifetime.

40 years-

.2.2.1 Detailed inspection - maintenance manpower: 2 men x 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br />.= 10 man-hours /I.F. of 4 in 40 yrs, assuming 1/20 restraints undergoes detailed inspection /

every 10 years.

Cost = 10 man-hrs. x 0.1 Rem x 520 Hrs. x $18/Hr. x 1 = $2250/I.F..

1 man-rem Hr. qtr.

quarter inspection frequency of 1 in 10 years or 4 in 40 yrs.

Cost = 2250 x 4 = $9,000 per unit lifetime.

4 -

4

-..y- ,ye, ~ , . . , . , . , -,_-,.__,..,.e.,,...y m .. , ,

w -

"'l - . ; , ~ .

_ ..y g

• r .-

sa ,

lQ- "

- /-

<' ~

,- 2. 2. 2. Detailed pipe restraint' inspection -~ field support in Lgeneral radiation -area.

f

. Manpower: 2 x. maintenance man-hours = 20. man-hours /I.F.

Rad.: Dose: 0.03 LRem xi20 man-hours = .6 man-rem.

.Hr.-

CostL= $19 x.1 x' .6 man-rem x 520 hrs.- = $1500/I . F. I .F.=4 in 7

. Hr: 4 .1-man-rem- qtr. -40 yrs.

l Cost"=_ $',500 x 4 =:$6000 per unit lifetime.

~

-I. 2 3L LCost associated with health physics support:

, ' Assume same manhours as maintenance and support personnel in a L general radiation: area of 0.03 Rem /Hr. This cost includes surveys, monitoring, badging, radiation work pennits and normal HP ' support on- the job.

3.l' Pihe inspection Ema'intenance and QA' health physics support- .

' Manpower ='800 man-hours Radiation Dose: '800 x .03. Rem /Hr. = 24 man-rem ,

Cost- $18 x:24 man-' rem x ~ 520 hours0.00602 days <br />0.144 hours <br />8.597884e-4 weeks <br />1.9786e-4 months <br /> x 1 = 56,000/I.F.

Hr 7 man-rem . otr 4_

quarter

~ '

Insp.~Freq. =~1Lin 10 years

3.2 ' Restraint Inspection .

13.2.1 V!sual inspection;cf all restraints

Manpower: 20' man-hours /I.F.

s. . Rad Dose: 20 x .03 Rem /Hr. = .6 man-rem

Cost: $18 'x 1 x 6 man-rem x- 570 Hrs. = $1400/I.F. -

, H r.. T. :1 man-rem :qtr.

. quarter-I.F. '= l Lin 5 years.

_ 3.2.2.. Detailed inspection - maintenance + quality assurance HP

. support.

< Manpower: 10 man-hours

Rad. Dose::10 x .03 Rem /Hr. = .3 man-rem iCost::$18 x'1lx .9 x 520 = $700/I.F.

Hr 4 T  !

' ~

I.F. = = 1 in 10 years. 2

' ~ ~

1-n c .

~

. 5. W .

1

-I. - 4.- Other associated cost will include cost for protective clothing.

~

Cost of protective clothing, i.e., material costs for throw-away objects and' processing,' cleaning and waste disposal is $13. per 1 change out. If we assume one change out every 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br /> (since most

! tasks'to be performed will extend to more than 4 hours4.62963e-5 days <br />0.00111 hours <br />6.613757e-6 weeks <br />1.522e-6 months <br />) and assume

radiation exposure limits will not be exceeded during this time

period then the cost associated with protective clothing will be:

Total man-hours E man-hours /IF cost /IF from I. -1.1. - 3200 4/40 yrs- 800 2600 1.2. - 6400- '4/40 yrs. 1600 5200 2.1. - 160 8/40 yrs 20 65 2.2.1- 4/40 yrs 10 32.50 2.2.2 80 4/40 yrs 20- 65+

3.1 1600 4/40 yrs 40 130 3.2 1600 4/40 yrs 40 , 130 3.3 80 8/40 yrs 10 32.50

' 3.4 20 4/40 yrs 5 16.25 Total Cost : 13,200-x 1 change x $13 = $43,000.

4 man-hrs change

. I .- 5.--Total-cost associated'with 20 primary-loop pipe restriants based on radiation exposure:

cost - IF Total (in1000's) cI.l. 180,000 + 115,000 1 in 10 yrs 1180 I.2. 4500- 1 in 5 yrs 36

.+ 3750 1 in 10 yrs 15 I.3. ~56,000 + 700 1 in 10 yrs 63

+.1400 1 in 5 yrs- 11 I 4. 8200 1 in 10 yrs 33

+ 100 1 in 5 yrs 1 1,339,000 Total dose = 600 man-rem == $2200 man-rem

~

- all cost assumed to be in present value of money.

- assessment does.not include loss of time or access due to pipe

. restraints, loss of equipment laydown space or other hazards associated with maintenance and inspection tasks.

c

Occupational radiation exposure and cost estimate associated with non-primary coolant loop rupture restraints:

Assumptions:

1.. ' Restraints are smaller;.' easier to remove / install it is assumed to take ithe man-hours to remove / install. RC pipe restraints.

~

'2. 140 restraints evaluated in this cost savings estimate.

3. . dose rates will vary depending on location, background, and systems; weLwill: assume 25 mR/Hr. general area dose rates.

4. -assumptions used for RC pipe restraints will also apply.

Method:

.1. One in five restraints will' have to be removed / reinstalled for pipe

' inspection.with'an inspection frequency of once every ten years.

!21 All restraints will be visually inspected once every 5 years, one in twenty restraints will need further detailed inspection once every ten years.

3. Tasks.(1) and (2) above will need field support by Health Physics technicians, supervisors and engineering.

4. . Cost associated with anti-contamination clothing $13/4 man-hours.

Calculation:

1. . Cost associated with non-primary coolant piping restraints. Cost for

. restraint removal / installation for pipe-inspection':

l'.1 Maintenance -

Manpower: 1 x 140 restraints x 1 x 40 nian-hrs = 560 man-hours T E restraint insp freq

' Radiation dose: '.025 Rem x 560 man-hours = 14 man-rem /IF Hr IF Cost: $18 x 1 x 14 man-rem x 520 Hrs = $33,000/IF Hr. L 1 man-rem , qtr quarter

. Inspection frequency is once every 10 years Total Dose =-56 man-rem Total cost = $132,000 per unit lifetime

W L ' y( ; J, n s :. [ a .

~

-1.2 Field Support:

Manpower: .1 x 140 rest. x 80 man-hours x 1 = 1120 man hours F restraint 2 IF Radiation Dose: .025 Rem x 1120 man-hours = 23 man-rem Hr IF IF

-Cost: . $19 x 1 x 28 man-rem x 520' Hrs = $69.000/IF -

Hr 4' I man-rem qtr quarter.

Inspection frequency: _1 every 10 years.

Total Dose = 112 man-rem Total Cost = 276,000_ per unit lifetime.

2. Inspection of pipe restraint 2.1 ~ Visual . inspection of all-restraints once every 5 years', no field -

support.

Manpower: -140 restraints x .5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> x 2 men = 70 man-hours 2 restr IF Radiation Dose: .025 ' Rem x 70 man-hours = 1.75 man-rem Hr IF Cost: $18/hr x 1 x 1.75 man-rem x 520 Hrs = $4000/IF T- 1 man-rem . qtr quarter Inspection frequency: 1 in 5 years Total Radiation Dose = 14 man-rem

- Total Cost = '32,000 per unit lifetime 2.2 Detailed inspection of 1 in 20 restraint's- .

2.2.1 Maintenance tasks.

Manpower: 1 x 140 restraints x 10 man-hours = 35 man-hours 20 -2 IF Radiation Dose: .025. Rem x 35' man-hours = 1 man-rem Hr IF Cost: $18/hr x 1 x 1 nan-rem / quarter x. 520 hrs /qtr = $3200/1F 4 1 man-rem

Total Dose = 1 man-rem x 40 yrs = 4 man-rem 10 yrs LT otal Cost = _ $2300 x 4 = $9200 per unit lifefime Inspection. Frequency: 1 in 10 year

M, 2 9 g M3.,fe',

x:

?2.2'.2I- Field support of ' detailed restraint -inspection, 2 times

. maintenance man-hours.

Manpower: 35 man-hours /IF_x 2 = 70 man-hours Radiation Dose: .025 Rem /Hr x 70 man-hours = 1.8 man-rem-

7 Cost

,$19/Hr x-l~.8 x 520 = $4000/IF IF = 1 in 10 yrs 4

^ Total Dose = 1.8 man-rem x 4 = 7.2 man-rem Total Cost = $4000'x 4 = $16,000 per unit lifetime

-3. -

Health Physics'and administrative support:

Assume same as maintenance and support in same radiation field.

This'. includes surveys, monitoring, badging, radiation work permits

- and normal I!P support.

3.~1 Pipe Inspection - maintenance and QA health physics su'pport Manpower: 560~ man-hours /IF Radiation Dose: 14 man-rem /IF

. Cost: .$33,000/IF-

.IF_=-1 in 10 yrs Total ~ Radiation Dose = 56 man-rem Total Cost = $132,000 per unit lifetime L3.2 Pipe: restraint Inspection.

3.2.1 Visual Inspection-Manpower: 70 man-hours /IF A Radiation Dose: 1.8 man-rem

Cost: $4000/IF - IF = 1 in 5 yrs.

3.2.2- Detailed inspection maintenance support only Manpower: 35 man-hours /IF Radiation Dose: 0.9 man-rem /IF Cost: .$18/hr x 0.9 x 520 = $2100/IF 4

I IF '= 1 in 10 yrs.

Total Radiation Dose = 18 man-rem c Total Cost = $40,400 per ur.it lifetime n-e m--g ;w- g y, >+ p y-., 9m-'-gm<v ym -

Mv- L--- - -+~a= *' 9 v-**'yw-wwe ---

y fr --e, y *v -  % y--

f~ .. _

g. =

s s m. ,,. w;u f,7 -3.' .a N.?& . L '% " .

A_

L4. . . Cost' associated wi .a personnel protection in.the work area, i .e. .. pro-tective clothing air pack,s, etc.

'$' N S- :- Assume ascin I.4:(that 1 change out occurs every 4 man-hours. .

.;' ~ _

manhours /IF-' E Cost, Clothing /IF-8 Fromillil.: 1680 1 in 10 yrs . $5460 J '2/i:

' ,?

~70 1 in 5 yrs $ 230

-2.2' 105- 1 in 10 yrs $ 340 i- '

' c 3.1 560 1 in 10 yrs $1820

'3.3.1 70 1 in 5 yrs $ 230 i

Q 3.3.21 35 1 in 10 yrs $ 115 D ~

d ~ Total. cost of protective clothing: $7735 every 10 yrs.

s

$ 460 every 5 yrs or.$30,940 + 3680 = $34,620 per unit lifetime. .

7 M "5. . Total cost associated.with non-primary coolant loop pipe restraints

based on radiation exposure:

~

Rad Dose Tot- Cost Total

1. 56 + 112 , 168 132,000+276,000 = 408,000-

2. 14 '+ 4 + 7.2= 25 32,000+9200+16,000 = 57,000

13. 56 +\18 = 74 132,000+40,400'= 172,400

4. .

0 '34,600

' Totals 267 ~ $ 672,000 Total Radiation Dose = 267' man'-rem

,3 Total cost' savings = $672,000 per unit lifetime

. for 140 non-primary loop restraints or 2 man-rem and $4800 per non-7 -

. primary loop restrainty

.w -

I

J

4 g ,\-

x: m ~

3- '

,z,

.L' .

6 3

.(

>s., 'hk ,

s

.RGE/sr y '

- -f s

l; 5 .

s

i. k )

s i