ML20138F520
| ML20138F520 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crystal River  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/1992 |
| From: | Bohdau T External (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20138F511 | List: |
| References | |
| 0920-208-01, 0920-208-01-R00, 920-208-1, 920-208-1-R, NUDOCS 9610170131 | |
| Download: ML20138F520 (54) | |
Text
_ _ _ _
~
i n,t A t., e,
DAir
- sitt coot DEH 8/20/92 iSP-Godt7
- D ATA TR ANSMITTAL
..o c,
SH EET Overpressurization or sw system ew.r Crystal River Unit #3 TYPE OF DATA STATUS OF DATA PURPOSE OF DATA ACTION TO BE TAKEN k
M ROUTE TO C Tracing i Sepia 1 Mylar C Preliminary C Review & Comment O Acknowledge M
C Prints or approvat O Approval O Approve & Return OR RER S
)
O ApertureCards pprovedi Accepted C Bidding Purposes O Revise & Resubmit O specifications or R 0:s '
ccepted "as noted" O Construction Osee speciatinstructions-t O Biiis of wateriais ONot accepted C Fabncation pertify 4,.
P
m$TWON
%8 O Manufacturers Pnnts C"As built"I Finalissue icensing gew datalDestroy 0ld M.
OR AFILE
- struction Manuals C Revised nformation0nly Other Other 00ther tner O Review &submitcomments Ic PDB i
4 (see below)
Ic RER asruas cowucNis to Ic FVF speciAussiauctions ENGINEERING STUDY BY DATE l
SEE BELO'n':
DOCUMENT NUMBER REV.l DATE TITLE OR DESCRIPTION Q[p jQ jQQQ ww.. sww ENGINEERING STUDY SP-90-037 0
overpressurization of SW System.
SEP 101992 ADDITION AL COM MENTS OR INSTRUCTIONS
" MAD (DTS and cover sheet only)
~
9610170131 961008 PDR ADOCK 05000302 P
PDR m
VERIFICATION AP DATE R
ENG
-,_.-t,-
.. :o
i EVALUATION OF SW SYSTEM OVERPRESSURIZATION Prepared for:
Florida Power Corporation 3201 Thirty-Fourth Street South P.O. Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Prepared by:
ABB Impell Corporation 333 Research Court FLORIDA POWER CORPORATloN Technology Park /At;anta NUCLEAR ENGINEERING DEPARTM:NT Norcross, Georgia 30092 CRYSTAL RIVER - Utili 3 REVIEWED AND ACCEPTED CY:
'Iz July 30,1992 tas'a' oc.
2 b cu,9//4a 8'ml=
Job No. 0920-208
/
/e ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01 Revision 0 wY$ CAtIvkk Y
Subpfitted By Reviewed By" Approved By 1
ABB impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page 2 of 22 l
TABLE OF CONTENTS No.
Title Pace Title Page 1
Table of Contents 2
i Project Description 3
II Existing Condition / Background 3
j lli Project Jurffication 4
l Industry Experience Survey 4
IV Evaluation Results of Alternative 1 - Maintain Existing 6
Configuration V
Evaluation Results of Alternative 2 - Containment of Loss 9
of Reactor Coolant i
VI Eva!uation Results of Alternative 3 - Prevention of Loss of 12 Reactor Coolant Table 1 Summary of the Three (3) Alternatives 14 Vll Benefit / Cost Analysis 15 Tables 2a Benefits / Costs for Three (3) Alternatives 16 i
through 2e Vill Conclusions / Recommendations 21 Figure #1 Schematic Diagram of Three Alternatives 22 l
Attachments See List of Attachments A1 l
l l
l l
li l
ABB impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 j
Page 3 of 22 i
I
-1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION j
FPC contracted ABB impell to conduct an engineering study to evaluate three alternatives
}
relative to a potential overpressurization of the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Services j
Closed Cycle Cooling (SW) System due to a failure of the RCP thermal barrier (see i
Figure #1 for a schematic diagram of the three alternatives). The benefits and costs i
associated with each alternative have been estimated, with the results tabulated in this report. An industry survay was conducted of seven similarly designed units to determine what actions, if any, have been taken to address the problem.
A matrix which summarizes the results is attached as Attachment 1.
II. EXISTING CONDITION / BACKGROUND i
NRC Information Notice 89-54 addresses concerns for potential overpressurization of i
cooling water systems resulting from failure of the tubing in a Reactor Coolant Pump j
(RCP) seal cooler heat exchanger (thermal barrier). FPC has reviewed IN 89-54 for j
applicability and has determined that the described event is not within the specific j
licensing / design basis for Crystal River Unit 3 (CR3). However as a prudency measure, FPC has decided to evaluate possible engineering actions to address the potential overpressurization of the SW System dits to the IN 89-54 described event.
l The current configuration of the SW system to the RCP thermal barrier cooler is that there are no upstream check valves to isolate any backleakage from the RCP into the supply side of the SW system. Also, there are no downstream isolation valves which have been designed to isolate /contain a leak from the RCS into the SW system through 3
j the RCP thermal barrier cooler. The existing SW system piping to and from the RCP l
thermal barrier is Schedule 40 carbon steel ASTM A106 GR. B piping designed with a 150 psig rating, which is well below the RCS normal operating pressure of 2250 psig j
(design pressure of 2500 psig).
f
+
i i
!i
l' ABB 1mpell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page 4 of 22 lli. PROJECT JUSTIFICATION This project is discretionary since this project has a viable "do nothing" alternative and since the licensing basis at CR3 does not require postulation of the described event. In order to gain additional experience from the actions of other similarly designed plants, an Industry survey has been conducted by ABB Irnpell:
INDUSTRY EXPERIENCE SURVEY provides a summary of the industry survey which includes design and other relevant data for PWR plants with RCP thermal barrier cooling design that is similar to CR3. Note: The Component Cooling Water (CCW) System or Nuclear Services Closed Cycle Cooling (NSCCC) System are hereafter referred to as the " cooling water system" l
for simplicity. Significant findings are as follows:
4 (1)
Six (6) of the seven (7) plants have the isolable portion of the cooling water system rated to Reactor Coolant System (RCS) pressure. The one remaining plant (Palisades) is internally committed to modify the cooling water system, but has not finalized a specific action plan.
l (2)
All seven (7) plants have cooling water system check valve (s) upstream of the RCP thermal barrier cooling coil. Six (6) of the seven (7) plants have upstream
~
check valves that are rated at RCS pressure to eliminate the likelihood of any j
upstream Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) for the described event. The other remaining plant (Palisades) recognizes that their upstream check valve is not rated for the described event but is committed to future modifications to the cooling water system to address that issue.
(3)
Two (2) of the seven (7) plants are designed with automatically actuated motor-i operated valve (MOV) closure - one uses a high pressure signal (Davis Besse) and the other uses a high flow rate signal (Suny) to actuate the downstream MOV.
Of the other five (5) plants which do not have automatic MOV closure, two (2)
(Oconee & Summer) have MOV's downstream which can be manually actuated 4
from the control room. Thus, four (4) of seven (7) plants surveyed have the capability to contain a LOCA within the Reactor Building originating from the described event. TMI 1 took the additional measure of overriding its MOV l
capability to allow an unobstructed flow path to the letdown cooler heat exchanger relief valves. Thus TMI 1 is not included in the four (4) plants which have the capability to contain a LOCA, rather TMI 1 is included as one of the two (2) plants which utilize pressure relief measures to address the described event.
(4)
All seven (7) plants use relief valves (some have additional rupture plugs) to alleviate overpressure conditions in the cooling water system. All seven (7) plants are designed to relieve the high pressure fluid inside of the containment building.
ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page 5 of 22 (5)
Not all plants have detailed analyses to ensure that the cooling water piping and components will be protected from overpressurization by the relief valves. Instead, f
these plants do not take credit for the relief valve function during the described event. Thus, shutting down the plant and repairing the leak is the official licensing position taken for the described event.
(6)
Two (2) of the seven (7) plants (ANO 1 and TMI 1) depend solely upon relief valves to protect the cooling water piping. At ANO 1, a calculation has been performed which demonstrates that the relief valve manifold will prevent piping rupture and protect the containment isolation valves so that the containment isolation valves will not become inoperative during the described event. At TMI 1, the MOV's are overridden to stay open to allow an unobstructed flow path to the letdown cooler heat exchanger relief valves.
(7)
It should be noted that neither NRC Information Notice 89 54 nor the individual FSAR's of any of the plants surveyed mandate modifications to isolate a thermal barrier rupture. Thus, shutting down the plant and repairing the leak is the official licensing position taken by all of the plants surveyed for the described event.
(8)
None of the plants utilize rupture plugs as the primary means of overpressure protection. The rupture plugs are only used as a backup means of overpressure protection in case the primary means of overpressure protection (relief valves) fails.
Conclusions of Industry Survey The results of the industry survey (see Attachment 1) have been factored into the conclusions / recommendations at the end of this report. The industry survey shows that two (2) of the seven (7) plants have designs similar to Alternative 2 (containment of loss of reactor coolant) to address NRC IN 89 54, while four (4) of the seven (7) plants have designs similar to Ahernative 3 (prevention of loss of reactor coolant) to address NRC IN 89 54. The remaining plant, Palisades,is currently reviewing this issue to determine their future action.
4 4
f F
e f
ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 PaGe 6 of 22 1
j-IV. Evaluation Results of ALTERNATIVE 1 - Maintain Existina Conflauration Alternative 1 is to maintain the existing plant configuration.
The current configuration of the SW system to the RCP thermal barrier cooler is that there are no upstream check valves to isolate any backleakage from the RCP into the supply i
side of the SW system. Also, there are no automatically / remotely operated downstream isolation valves for isolating /containing a leak from the RCS into the l
SW system through the RCP thermal barrier cooler. The existing SW system piping to and from the RCP thermal barrier is Schedule 40 carbon steel ASTM l
A106 GR. B piping desigrd far 150 psig. The SW system is not designed to withstand the RCS pressure / temperature conditions.
A maximum estimated l
leakage rate of 483 gpm from the RCP thermal barrier rupture has been calculated
[
per Babcock & Wilcox Nuclear Technologies (BWNT) document #86-1202150-00 dated 7/91. Thus, the described event is a 483 gpm leak of reactor coolant from i
the RCP into the SW system through the RCP thermal barrier heat exchanger.
Alternative 1 is evaluated as follows:
i j
(1)
Stress Evaluation - A simplified stress evaluation shows that the maximum stresses on the Schedule 40 SW system piping due to the described event
]
exceeds the ANSI B31.1-1967 allowable stresses. However, the simplified stress j
evaluation shows that the existing Schedule 40 SW system piping will remain intact l
and thus there is no expected SW system piping rupture resulting from the described event. This stress evaluation only considers the forces due to pressure j
and deadweight and does not include thermal, seismic or other stresses.
l However, the temperature of the fluid was taken into account in selection of the maximum allowable piping stresses (i.e., the allowable stress at the RCS fluid temperature was used).
t (2)
Assessment of Damace/ Contamination to the SW System - Portions of the SW j
System will need to be replaced where the ANSI B31.1-1967 allowable stresses j
have been exceeded.
in addition, individual pipe support inspections and l
ovaluations would also be required to determine if the supports sustained any l
damage. Since the SW piping remains intact, contamination of the SW system would spread to outside of containment until the containment isolation valves are i
manually activated to close. The isolation valves will require manual activation i
because an ES signalis not expected immediately following the event because of j
the slow depressurization of the RCS associated with this leak. The containment isolation valves may become inoperative due to the higher pressure and i
]
temperature upstream from the SW system, which after the described event would be near the Reactor Coolant System (FCS) normal operating pressure of 2250 i
psig/550 F.
The containment isolation valves will need to be evaluated to i
determine whether the valves will close or not and whether or not the closed j
valves will leak. Such level of detallis not included in this study and would have i
~
i i
j ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 i
Page 7 of 22 mummer j-to be evaluated in the future if Alternative 1 is selected. None the less, it is i
assumed that the SW system will become contaminated outside of the containment as the Reactor Operator wil' not receive an annunciation to close the isolation valve and it is unlikely a 15') psig rated butterfly valve will be leak tight against l
RCS pressures.
(3)
Assessment of damaae/ contamination of CR3 - Extensive contamination of CR3 j
is expected for the descr: bed event. A release of reactor coolant is expected inside of the containment building through the SW system thermal relief valves.
4 Contamination would net be confined to the inside of the containment building l
since it is assumed the containment isolation valves will not prevent a release of l
i reactor coolant, even though there is evaluated to be no SW system piping rupture inside or outside conte:nment, it is expected that there will be a release outside of containment in the Auxiliary Building via the SW surge tank overflow. The reactor coolant which leaks into the Auxiliary Building is assumed to be liquid water 4
l since it passes through coolers and is itself cooled by a larger volume of SW l
system fluid and piping components. Leakage outside of the Auxiliary Building has not been evaluated quantitatively but cannot be ruled out at this time.
i (4)
Estimate of Cost for Recovery (see Attachment 3) - An unplanned outage of approximstely 6 riionths is estimated (see Miscellaneous and Ancillary Effects) to l
be required to recover the plant. Using values listed in the FPC Engineering i
Economy Manu.al, the lost power (760 MW for Crystal River Unit 3 is listed for i
1992 and bayond) times the 1994 replacement power rate of $36.80/MW hr yields l
a replacement power cost of roughly $122.5M for 6 months of plant down time, i
l Repairs to the damaged portions of the SW system and to other systems inside i
of and outside of containment (excluding the RCS thermal barrier) are assumed to be approximately the cost of implementing one of the other two alternatives. It is assumed that Alternative 3 (Prevention of Loss of Reactor Coolant) would be i
installed to prevent a future loss of reactor coolant due to the described event. A cost of $1,146K is estimated for the new design of the SW system.
i inspection costs are detailed in Attachment 3 and are estimated to be $13K.
i
}
Decontamination costs are detailed in Attachment 3 and are estimated to be j
$670K.
i l
Total plant recovery costs (including replacement pover for 6 months) are estimated to be $124,329K.
I l
i
ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page 8 of 22 (5)
Miscellaneous and Ancillary Effects - There would be numerous negative effects to FPC if the subject event occurred and no provisions had been incorporated to mitigate the release of reactor coolant outside of containment. The quantifiable costs to FPC have been described previously and are tabulated in Table 1. The negative effects that cannot be easily quantified include:
Regulatory impact Nuclear Regulatory Commission Public Service Commission j
ALARA concerns Decrease in FPC Electric System Reliability During Outage Damaged Public Perception From Event Personal and Property Damage Liability Potential Potential Increased Insuranco Premiums (6)
Benefit / Cost Analysis - The three attematives are compared at the end of this study.
l.
l ABB impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 j
Page 9 of 22 u
V.
Fvaluation Results of ALTERNATIVE 2 - Containment of Loss of Reactor
^
Coolant (Local Relief Valves at RCP)
Alternative 2 is to contain the RCP thermal barrier rupture within the containment l
building by installation of pressure relief valves in the vicinity of the piping upstream and downstream of the RCP thermal barrier in the SW system. The pressure relief valves would be designed to keep pressure below 150 psig. Thus, it is expected that the SW system containment isolation valves can be closed and the leaking reactor coolant will stay inside the secondary shield wall within the containment building. The described event is a 483 gpm leak of reactor coolant from the RCP into the SW system through the RCP thermal barrier heat i
exchanger. The majority of the contamination due to RCP seal barrier rupture is l
expected to be remain inside containment due to the relief valves. However, the l
SW containment isolation valves may allow a small amount of leakage outside of j
containment because of the increased SW System temperature, which after the described event would increase due to the reactor coolant System entering the SW System. The containment isolation valves will nead to be Muated to determine t
whether the valves will remain leak-tight. Such level of detaliis not included in this study and would have to be evaluated in the future if Altemative 2 is selected.
l Alternative 2 is evaluated as follows:
l l
(1)
Simolified Thermal / Hydraulic Analysis - A siraplified thermal / hydraulic analysis was conducted by ABB Impell using RELAP5 to determine fluid flow conditions in order 1
i-to evaluate the relief valve alternative. The piping is 2-1/2"$ ASTM A106 GR.B Schedule 40 pipe. Only a small stub of 1-1/2"4 e.xists off of the RCP and therefore l
the components being added and analyzed are 2-1/2" components. The results show that pressure relief valve (s) can be used to protect the SW system piping from exceeding allowable stresses due to the described event. The RELAP results i
for Altemative 2 were based on pressure forces only and did not include any i
seismic, or thermal stresses acting on the piping.
Due to the high fluid temperature and ve'ocities and due to the high differential pressure between the source of the fluid (RCS pressure) and the sink (containment building at =0 psig),
critical,2-phase flow results. This analysis also concludes that a Crosby Model JBS-16 relief valve with a K size orifice limits the pressure to 910 psig using initial l
Inlet conditions of 2170 psia @ 579 F. The resulting 910 psig pressure produces a piping stress of 6100 psi, which is well below the allowable of 15,000 psi for the material.
i-A containment isolation signal is not expected immediately following the event i
j since the 483 gpm leak would take considerable time to actuate either a RB high j
pressure or a RCS low pressure signal. Thus, the automatic containment isolation features of CR3 are not expected to be able to immediat31y prevent a loss of a
i
-,,e-
.,..-.m
l' ABB impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 PaGe 10 of 22 i
i reactor coolant fluid outside containment following a rupture of the RCP seal barrier cooler.
The REFORC analysis concluded that the operation of the relief valve produces i
a reaction force of 6,000 lbs. A unique pipe support would be required to restrain j
the piping.
(2)
Eauipment Evaluation and Modification Costs - In order to implement this j
attemative, a Modification Approval Record (MAR) r. lust be prepared. A MAR j
package would need to be developed to add a 2-1/2" class 150# relief valve upstream of the RCP, a 2-1/2" class 150# relief valve downstream of the RCP, and j
approximately 20 feet of piping from the discharge of the relief valve. This piping j
will direct the discharge flow away from any safety-related equipment to prevent i
any jet impingement concerns. It is estimated that $210K in design, $219K in materials, $191.9K in installation costs, and 23K in FPC Engineering site support, i
for a total of $643.9K would be required to implement this alternative. See
- for a breakdown of these costs. See Table 1 for a summary of costs j
for all three alternatives.
l (3)
Assessment of Damace/ Contamination to the SW System - Pipe whip is not j
expected since the design of the relief valve (s) piping is assumed to account for j
the 483 gpm design basis thermal barrier rupture. Thus, no hardware damage is expected due the described event. If the event occurs 110 wever, inspections would l
be required to determine that the SW piping and supports were not deformed.
(4)
Assessment of Damace/ Contamination of CR3 - No damage is expected to CR3.
Contamination inside containment is estimated to be mainly inside the secondary shield wall (D-Ring). Contamination outside containment is possible since the SW system containment isolation valves may leak, but the leakage should be minimal compared to Alternative 1. Thus, the SW system outside of containment may j
become contaminated due to possible SW system containment isolation valve l
leakage. The SW system surge tank in the Auxiliary Building is not expected to i
k overflow due to leakage past the SW containment isolation valves, but if the surge tank does overflow, then contamination would likely spread to the Auxiliary Building. A total reactor coolant volume spill of approximately 60,000 gallons results in a total plant decontamination cost of $624K.
1 (5)
Estimate of Cost for Recovery - Decontamination, inspection, and replacement power are expected to be the only plant recovery costs.
See Table 1 for
- summary, i
1 ABB 1mpell Report No. 0920 208-01, Revision 0 Page 11 of 22 (6)
Miscellaneous and Ancillary Effects - Compared to Attemative 1, FPC would, with implementation of Alternative 2, incur less negative impact. The loss of reactor coolant should be mostly contained within the containment building; this would be i
the most positive improvement to FPC for implementing Altemative 2 versus the l
" Maintain Existing Configuration"in Alternative 1. There would still be however, j
a 2 month outage to decontaminate, cleanup, inspect, and repair the RCP thermal j
barrier. Thus there would still be ALARA concerns, possible regulatory impact and i
FPC Electric System reliability concems from this unplanned outage. Public perception, FPC liability due to personal and property damage and insurance should be minimally impacted by the postulated event if Alternative 2 is i
implemented.
4 7)
Benefit / Cost Analysis - The three alternatives are compared at the end of this study.
l l
1 i
3 J
A j
ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page 12 of 22 VI. ALTERNATIVE 3 - Prevention of Loss of Reactor Coolant (Local Isolation Valves at RCP)
~
Alternative 3, which is to prevent the loss of reactor coolant, would be accomplished by installation in the SW system near the RCP thermal barrier cooler i
an upstream check valve, a downstream motor-operated isolation valve (MOV),
l higher pressure rated piping in between the check valve and the MOV, and l&C components to allow manual and/or automatic isolation of the MOV. The pressure boundary of the installation would be safety-related, however the MOV would not have any active functions since it is not providing a function required by the design basis of the plant. The described event is a 483 gpm leak of reactor coolant from the RCP into the SW system through the RCP thermal barrier heat exchanger.
This alternative would immediately stop the loss of reactor coolant by automatic closure of the SW system valve installed downstream of the RCP. The SW containment isolation valves should not be challenged with this alternative.
Alternative 3 is evaluated as follows:
i i
(1)
Eauipment Evaluation and Modification Costs - In order to implement this alternative, a Modification Approval Record (MAR) must be prepared. The MAR must add a 2-1/2" class 1500# check valve upstream of the RCP, a remotely-operated 2-1/2" class 1500# isolation valve downstream of the RCP, additional lengths of 2-1/2" Class 2 Schedule 160 piping in between the check valve and the isolation valve, control circuitry on the main control panel for automatic and/or manual isolation of the valve, and temperature or flow or pressure indicators on l
the main control panel for detection of the leak. An automatic closure of the l
isolation valve is the preferred design since automatic closure of a valve assures timely containment of the RCS and does not rely on manual action by the control room operator. A Hand-Off-Auto switch is also proposed to allow manual contro!
of the MOV to isolate the SW cooling line to the RCP thermal barrier. Itis j
estimated that $238K in design, $340K in materials, $523K in installation costs, and $45K in FPC Engineering site support, for a total of $1,146K would be required to implement this attemative. See Attachment 5 for a breakdown of these i
costs. See Table 1 for a summary of costs for all three alternatives.
(2)
Assessment of Damaae/ Contamination to the SW System - No damage is expected to occur in the SW System.
Contamination of the SW system is minimal. The automatic closure circuitry is expected to be able to shut the isolation valve within 10 seconds of the therma' barrier rupture. This results in 10 sec x 483 gpm + 60 = 80.5 gallons of reactor coolant lost to the SW system. Using a coolant activity of 1x10* Ci/mi equivalen 4
1 Co 60 results in 80.5 x 3785 x 1x10 = 0.0003 Ci of contamination in the SV, System. The cost associated with the clean up of the 0.0003 Ci is estimated tc
ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page 13 of 22 1
be negligible compared to the cost of other costs for this alternative such as replacement power to repair the RCP thermal barrier. Also, the small amount of activity would be greatly diluted by the SW System water and would probably be at nearly undetectable levels. Thus, the cost of cleanup for the 0.0003 pCiin the SW System is assumed to be zero for the purposes of this study.
(3)
Assessment of Damaae/ Contamination of CR3 - No damage is expected to CR3.
No contamination other than that described in Section 2 above is expected to occur to CR3.
(4)
Estimate of Cost for Recovery - The cost of recovery for the purposes of this study Is limited to the cost of replacement power for the duration of the RCP thermal barrier repair. The repair is expected to take 1 month in duration x $36.80/MW hr x 760 MW - $20.1M. Note that the material and design costs for repairing the RCP thermal barrier are not included in this study, however the time is included since the RCP thermal barrier repair is the critical repair necessary for plant recovery.
(5)
Miscellaneous and Ancillarv Effects - Implementation of Alternative 3 would have the least impact on regulatory impact, ALARA concerns, FPC Electric System Reliability, public perception, liability and insurance. There would be no reactor coolant release, decontamination, cleanup or repairs other than to the failed RCP thermal barrier. The other three RCP thermal barriers would need to be inspected and repaired if necessary. This is the preferred alternative considering the potential qualitative negative effects resulting from the postulated event. Also the small break LOCA transient and its negative effects on component life would be avoided.
(6)
Benefit / Cost Analysis - The three attematives are compared at the end of this study.
ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 PaGe 14 of 22 l
Table 1 - S3 mary of the Three (3) Alternatives (Note A)
I Pre-Event Costs:
if G
Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3 qg y;g
$1 h (Maintale)
(Contain)
(Prevent) ltem Cost ($)
Cost ($)
Cost ($)
i Design 0
210,000 238,000 FPC Engineering Site Support 0
23,000 45,000 Materials 0
219,000 340,000 Installation (includes Labor. Construction 0
191,900 522,500 Sup., GAC and Rornoval Cos:s)
Total Capital Costs 0
643,900 1,145,500 i
Annual O&M Costs (Note B) 0 1,000 3,200 2
After Event Costs:
1
- an M61%
Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3
, spi,n%i@_ gg@@@@
(Maintain)
(Contain)
(Prevent)
Item Cost ($)
Cost ($)
Cost ($)
Decontamination 670,000 624,000 0
Repair / Replacement (Note D) 1,145,500 0
0 Inspections 13,000 0
0 Replacement Power 122,500,000 40,274,000 20,137,000 i
Total (After Event) Recovery Cost 124,328,500 40,898,000 20,137,000 (Note C)
Notes:
t A.
The cost estimates are shown in 1994 dollars, i
B.
Tha O&M dollars are for one year only. The present worth costs for the yearly stream of O&M annual costs are not shown.
C.
The cost of repairing the reactor coolant side of the RCP is not included in this engineering study, since the cost would be the same for all three alternatives.
D.
.The cost of repair for Alternative 1 is the same as the total capital cost of implementing one of the other alternatives. It is assumed that Alternative 3 would be implemented.
ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Pa0e 15 of 22 Vll. Benefit / Cost Analysis The three alternatives differ mainly in decontamination costs, capital costs, replacement power costs, and intangible costs (such as regulatory impact). All three alternatives share the same cost for RCP thermal barrier repair and inspection of the other RCP thermal barriers for similar failure possibilities. Thus, the cost for repair and inspection of the RCP thermal barrier has not been assessed in differentiating between the three alternatives.
If it can be determined that the postulated event will not occur, it would be best to implement Alternative 1 (Maintain Existing Configuration) and incur no additional capital or operations and maintenance cost. Unfortunately, there is no data to determine a failure rate for the RCP thermal barrier. The expected probability for the event occurring during the remaining CR3 plant life cannot be readily determined to see if it is likely or i
unlikely to occur. Thus, the benefit / cost analysis was performed using a range of probabilities from 1.0 (event is certain to happen) to 0.0 (event never happens) as shown in Tables 2a through 2e.
Assuming the event occurs, there are no benefits with Alternative 1 other than deferring the cost to. implement Alternatives 2 or 3, which will ultimately be required if the event does occur. The costs are extremely large if the event occurs and there are no measures to prevent outside containment release, excessive contamination, and excessive plant down time.
Assuming the event occurs, the primary benefits with Alternative 2 are the replacement power costs avoided with an estimated four (4) month shorter outage (2 months versus 6 months with Altemative 1), less outside containment decontamination costs (as compared to Alternative 1) and the reduced negative effects of regulatory scrutiny and penalties, public perception, and liabilities with an offsite release (as compared to Alternative 1). The costs associated with Alternative 2 are the engineering design, materials, and installation necessary for implementing the modification and minor O&M costs.
Assuming the event occurs, the primary benefits with Alternative 3 are the replacement power costs avoided with only a one (1) month outage estimated, versus an estimated six (6) month outage with Alternative 1 and a two (2) month outage with Alternative 2.
Also, there will be significant avoided costs due to there being no decontamination cost of CR3 structures, components and the SW system. Also, the effects that cannot be directly quantified such as regulatory impact, public perception, and ALARA will be less impacted with the implementation of Alternative 3, as there will be no release of reactor coolant.
i
1 ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page 16 of 2.2 Table 2a - Benefits / Costs for Three (3) Alternativet (Notes A, B and E)
Probability = 1.00 (Event Occurs)
W Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3 0
ad;dS (Maintain)
(Contain)
(Prevent) j Benefits l
Avoided Decontamination Costs 0
$46,000
$670,000 3
Avoided inspection Costs 0
$13,000
$13,000 Avoided Replacement Power Costs 0
$82,226,000
$102,363,000 Total Benefits
$0
$82,285,000
$103,046,000 l
Costs
-A Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3 l
' 4: L.
$$ll&
(Maintain)
(Contain)
(Prevent)
O&M Costs (Note C) 0
$8,600
$27,600 i
Capital Costs (Note D)
$1,145,500
$643,900
$1,145,500 j
Total Costs
$1,145,500
$652,500
$1,173,100 f
Benefit / Cost ympa Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3 N" W$IMEAy m
(Maintain)
(Contain)
(Prevent)
Benefit / Cost Ratio 0
126 88 l
Benefit Minus Cost Difference
- $1,145,500
$81,632,500
$101,872,900 i
Notes:
A.
Estimates come from Table 1.
B.
Alternative 1 is the base case that Attemative 2 and 3 are compared against.
Thus, the avoided costs are the benefits for Alternatives 2 and 3.
C.
The annual O&M costs were converted to a present worth assuming a 20-year life using the Present Worth Factor in Table 2 of the FPC Engineering Economy i
Manual. The O&M costs for Alternative 1 are not included since it is not known when the event would occur and O&M costs are minor for this comparison.
4 D.
Capital costs based or, installing Altemative 3 are shown for Alternative 1, since a modification would be required to mitigate the event in case it occurred again.
E.
The capital costs shown for Alternative 1 are multiplied by the probability of the j
event occurring, since the capital costs for Alternative 1 are incurred only when the j
event occurs.
Also, the Alternative 2 and 3 benefits are multiplied by the probability of the event occurring, since the benefits of having avoided post-event i
costs are realized only when the event occurs.
i
ABB impell R; port No. 0920-208-01, R; vision 0 Page 17 of 22 l
Table 2b - Benefits / Costs for Three (3) Alternatlves (Notes A, B and E) l Probability = 0.01 (1 Chance in 100)
- m p
(Maintain)
(Contain)
(Prevent)
Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3 4
m Benefits Avoided Decontamination Costs 0
$460
$6,700 Avoided inspection Costs 0
$130
$130 d
Avoided Replacement Power Costs 0
$822,260
$1,023,630 i
Total Benefits
$0
$822,850
$1,030,460
)
Costs g%p 'l}$6pf ;
. 's 2 Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt.#3 L.g 3
. gc?
(Maintain)
(Contain)
(Prevent)
O&M Costs (Note C) 0
$8,600
$27,600
)
Capital Costs (Note D)
$11,455
$643,900
$1,145,500 1
Total Costs
$11,455
$652,500
$1,173,100 Benefit / Cost i
W W *s 4; Wg% g' '
Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3 j
~-
- A (Maintain)
(Contain)
(Prevent)
Benefit / Cost Ratio 0
1.26 0.88 4
5 Benefit Minus Cost Difference
- $11,455
$170,350
- $142,640 Notes:
A.
Estimates come from Table 1.
B.
Alternative 1 is the base case that Alternative 2 and 3 are compared against.
Thus, the avoided costs are the benefits for Alternatives 2 and 3.
C.
The annual O&M costs were converted to a present worth assuming a 20-year life 1
using the Present Worth Factor in Table 2 of the FPC Engineering Economy Manual. The O&M costs for Alternative 1 are not included since it is not known when the event would occur and O&M costs are minor for this comparison.
Capital costs based on installing Alternative 3 are shown for Alternative 1, since j
a modification would be required to mitigate the event in case it occurred again.
j E.
The capital costs shown for Alternative 1 are multiplied by the probability of the event occurring, since the capital costs for Alternative 1 are incurred only when the event occurs.
Also, the A4ernative 2 and 3 benefits are multiplied by the 4
probability of the event occurring, since the benefits of having avolded post-event costs are realized only when the event occurs.
i 1
i i
ABB impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page 18 of 22 i
Table 2c - Benefits / Costs for Three (3) Alternatives (Notes A, B and E)
Probability = 0.0001 (1 Chance in 10,000)
Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3
~
a-aV (Maintain)
(Contain)
(Prevent) o Benefits Avoided Decontamination Costs 0
$4.60
$67.00 Avoided Inspection Costs 0
$1.30
$1.30 Avoided Replacement Power Costs 0
$8,222.60
$10,236.30 Total Benefits
$0
$8,228.50
$10,304.60 Costs
,x
,y@
Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3 C
w&
(Maintain)
(Contain)
(Prevent)
O&M Costs (Note C) 0
$8,600
$27,600 Capital Costs (Note D)
$114.55
$643,900
$1,145,500 Total Costs
$114.55
$652,500
$1,173,100 Benefit / Cost
' KM.jg pggA42pMg Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3 mm % gi,.
he (Maintaln)
(Contain)
(Prevent) g, Benefit / Cost Ratio 0
0.0126 0.0088 Benefit Minus Cost Difference
- $114.55
- $644,272
- $1,162,795 Notes:
A.
Estimates come from Table 1.
B.
Alternative 1 is the base case that Alternative 2 and 3 are compared against.
Thus, the avoided costs are the benefits for Alternatives 2 and 3.
C.
The annual O&M costs were converted to a present worth assuming a 20-year life using the Present Worth Factor in Table 2 of the FPC Engineering Economy Manual. The O&M costs for Alternative 1 are not included since it is not known when the event would occur and O&M costs are minor for this comparison.
D.
Capital costs based on installing Alternative 3 are shown for Alternative 1, since a modification would be required to mitigate the event in case it occurred again.
E.
The capital costs shown for Alternative 1 are multiplied by the probability of the event occurring, since the capital costs for Alternative 1 are incurred only when the event occurs.
Also, the Alternative 2 and 3 benefits are multiplied by the probability of the event occurring, since the benefits of having avoided post-event costs are realized only when the event occurs.
4 ABB Impell Report No. 0920 208-01, Revision 0 Page 19 of 22 Table 2d - Benefits / Costs for Three (3) Alternatives (Notes A, B and E)
Probability = 0.000001 (1 Chance in 1,000,000) i Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3 (Maintain)
(Contain)
(Prevent) 4 Benefits Avoided Decontamination Costs 0
$0.05 30.67 Avoided inspection Costs 0
$0.01
$0.01 Avoided Replacement Power Costs 0
$82.23
$102.36 Total Benefits
$0
$82.29
$103.04 Costs Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3 (Maintaln)
(Contain)
(Prevent)
O&M Costs (Note C) 0
$8,600
$27,600 Capital Costs (Note D)
$1.15
$643,900
$1,145,500 j
Total Costs
$1.15
$652,500
$1,173,100 Benefit / Cost e<
Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3 (Maintain)
(Contain)
(Prevent)
Benefit / Cost Ratio 0
0.00013 0.000088 gnefit Minus Cost Difference
- $1.15
- $652,418
- $1,172,997 Notes:
A.
Estimates come from Table 1.
B.
Alternative 1 is the base case that Alternative 2 and 3 are compared against.
Thus, the avoided costs are the benefits for Alternatives 2 and 3.
C.
The annual O&M costs were converted to a present worth assuming a 20 year life 4
using the Present Worth Factor in Table 2 of the FPC Engineering Economy i
Manual. The O&M costs for Altemative 1 are not included since it is not known when the event would occur and O&M costs are minor for this comparison.
D.
Capital costs based on installing Altemative 3 are shown for Alternative 1, since a modification would be required to mitigate the event in case it occurred again.
E.
The capital costs shown for Alternative 1 are multiplied by the probability of the event occurring, since the capital costs for Alternative 1 are incurred only when the event occurs.
Also, the Alternative 2 and 3 benefits are multiplied by the probability of the event occurring, since the benefits of having avoided post event costs are realized only when the event occurs, i
i 4
ABB Impell Report No. 0920 208-01, Revision 0 Page 20 of 22 Table 2e - Benefits / Costs for Three (3) Alternatives (Notes A, B and E)
Probability = 0.00 (Event Never Occurs)
Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3
,t%
(Maintain)
(Contain)
(Prevent)
Benefits Avoided Decontamination Costs 0
0 0
Avoided inspection Costs 0
0 0
Avoided Replacement Power Costs 0
0 0
Total Benefits
$0
$0
$0 Costs Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3 (Maintain)
(Contain)
(Prevent)
O&M Costs (Note C) 0
$8,600
$27,600 Capital Costs (Note D) 0
$643,900
$1,145,500 Total Costs
$0
$652,500
$1,173,100 Benefit / Cost
- y" Alt. #1 Alt. #2 Alt. #3 (Maintain)
(Contain)
(Prevent)
Benefit / Cost Ratio 0
0 0
i Benefit Minus Cost Difference
$0
- $652,500
- $1,173,100 Notes:
A.
Estimates come from Table 1.
B.
Alternative 1 is the base case that Alternative 2 and 3 are compared against.
Thus, the avoided costs are the benefits for Alternatives 2 and 3.
C.
The annual O&M costs were converted to a present worth assuming a 20-year life using the Present Worth Factor in Table 2 of the FPC Engineering Economy Manual. The O&M costs for Alternative 1 are not included since it is not known when the event would occur and O&M costs are minor for this comparison.
D.
Capital costs based on installing Alternative 3 are shown for Alternative 1, since a modification would be required to mitigate the event in case it occurred again.
E.
The capital costs shown for Alternative 1 are multiplied by the probability of the event occurring, since the capital costs for Alternative 1 are incurred only when the event occurs.
Also, the Alternative 2 and 3 benefits are multiplied by the probability of the event occurring, since the benefits of having avoided post-event costs are realized only when the event occurs.
l.
i-I-ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 l
Page 21 of 22 yllt. CONCLUSIONSfRECOMMENDATIONS l
The probability of the event described by NRC IN 89 54 cannot be reasonably determined i
as there is no relevant failure data. FPC has reviewed IN 89 54 for applicability and has j
determined that the described event is not within the specific licensing / design basis for Crystal River Unit 3 (CR3).
If the probability of occurrence for the event can be determined, then the selection of the best alternative can be performed by selection of j
i the alternative with either the highest benefit-to-cost (B/C) ratio or the highest benefit yiold (B C difference) in Tables 2a through 2e.
If it can be shown that the event has a greater than a 1-in-88 chance of occurrence up 1
to a 1-in-1 (100%) chance of occurrence, then Alternative 3 (Prevention of Loss of Reactor Coolant by Local isolation Valves at RCP)is the best alternative as shown by the highest benefit yield of $101,872,900 in Table 2a.
If it can be shown that the event has between a 1 in 88 and a 1-in-126 (e.g.1 in 100, etc...) chance of occurrence, then Alternative 2 (Containment of Loss of Reactor Coolant by Local Relief Valves at RCP) is the best alternative since it is the only alternative with either a B/C ratio greater than one or a positive benefit yield (See Table 2b).
If it can be shown that the event has a probability of 1 chance in 126 or less (e.g.1 in 1,000 or 1 in 10,000, etc...), then selection of Alternative 1 (Maintain Existing Configuration) is the best attemative, since no additional capital or operation and maintenance costs are incurred and there is the lowest Benefit Minus Cost Difference in i
Tables 2c through 2e, The number of Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR) operating hours in the United States 8
is estimated at approximately 5.80x10 hours (662 years) as of July 1992 based upon the commercial operation date and a 70% industry capacity factor. During this period of operations no failures of a reactor coolant pump seal heat exchangers have been reported. Based on this operating experience, it can only be assumed that there is a very low probability of a catastrophic rupture of the RCP seal area cooler, however, the probability of occurrence will never be zero.
A survey of the industry, documented in Attachment #1, determined that all seven plants which were contacted had relief valves installed to prevent overpressurization of the cooling water system. In addition, two plants automatically isolated the cooling water line following a break and two other plants had the capability for remote manual isolation of the lines from the control room.
In conclusion, ABB Impell recommends that Attemative 2 be considered for implementation. Although, the probability of a seal cooler rupture is low based upon operating experience, the majority of the nuclear industry is designed to mitigate the consequence of this event. ABB Impell feels that it is prudent to remain consistent with the nuclear industry. In addition, Alternative 2 provides a means of mitigating the consequences of this event at a cost of approximately 55% (= $500,000 less) of Alternative 3 (see summary of Pre-Event Costs in Table 1).
i
ABB Impell R: port No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 FIGURE #1 Page 22 of 22 LTERNATIVE
- 1 REACTOR REAC BUtLDING BUILDING I
SW T0 s i
i m
m i
i
,SW FR0u EXISilNC EbSilNC VALW REACTOR COOLANT VALVE PUMP SEAL COOLER ALTERNATIVE
- 2 NEW REllEF REACTOR VALVES REACTOR BUILDING BUILDING P
P I
I SW TO,
i.i m
i COOLER '
I
~
~
l
~i
, SW FROM
' COOLER 5
VALVr REACTOR COOLANT VALVE PUMP SEAL COOLER ALTERNATIVE
- 3 REACTOR REACTOR BUILDING BUILDING
=
C R
l
' COOLE EXISTING NEW CHECK NEW WOTOR EXISTING REACTOR C ANT OPERATED VALVE VALVE VALVE VALVE p
(g
ABB impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page A1
^~
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS No.
Title Paae List of Attachments A1 Summary of Industry Experience Concerning the A2 Component Cooling Water (Nuclear Services Closed Cycle Cooling) System and NRC Information Notice 89-54 Miscellaneous Information A3 Alternative 1 (Maintain Existing Configuration) Data A4 Alternative 2 (Containment of Loss of Reactor Coolant)
A8 Data Alternative 3 (Prevention of Loss of Reactor Coolant) Data A16 Timeline for Implementation of Alternative 2 A28 Timeline for Implementation of Alternative 3 A29 l
Alternative Evaluation Sheets A30
._.-_.___m Anachment 1. ABB impos Report No. 0920-200-01, Rousekwi 0 Page A2
{
Summiery of industry C -
- Conomening the C- - ; - - " CooEng Water (Nuclear Services Closed Cycle CooNng) System and NRC leformation Nodse 8644
[
Udity Arkansas Toledo Edson Co.
Duke Power Co Viryne Power Co.
South Carohna GPU Nudeer Corp.
Const.. Power Florida Power Corp.
j Electic 4 Gas Co.
Corp.
I Power & Light Unit ANO Unit 1 Davis Ramma Oconee Surry Si,.. w Three Mde Island Urut 1 Pahsados Crymed Rwer Unt 3 f
W B&W CE B&W Architect Ergyneer Beditol Beditel Bechtel S&W Gibert GRsert Bedical Geert i
Name of Contact Bracy Moens Deve Gemen Ken Greenwood Wayne Con 6.c.g Price Joe Bashots Wayne Bennmgton j
Phone Number (501) 964-5532 (419) 321-8109 (704) 373-8002 (804) 365-2729 (803) 345-4224 (717) 948-8142 (616) 7644913 Et 0552 l
Number of check valves Two in series One One Two in series One One One Nons upstroom of the RCP Number of isolellon valves Two in series One MOV and one One MOV One MOV One MOV and one One MOV, but motor is One manuel One snanuel downsteem of the RCP manuel valve in manuel inoperaeve to allow series unobsaucted flour path to loadown cooler HX
[
{
Rating of piping to/trom RCS pressure RCS pressure RCS preneuro RCS pressure RCSp-ore RCS pressure 150 psag 150 poig Wiermal benior of RCP la plant dess0ned for tiermal No No No No No No No No f
barrier rupane Hour b isoleton valve Manuel Automancelly via ManuaEy from consol Automenceby via Manuety from N/A - kept open by puting N/A - vehe is N/A - vehm is I
controlled?
pressure switch room high CCW flour rate control room breakers for MOVs which manuel niental I
doomstroom of decedor fail *as is"(open)
{
thermal bemer I
is % vaho No Yes No alarm, but has Yes No alarm, but has No alarm. but has,~ L.
No No annunciated in the control positon irwarentwi position indicaton andcedon
-?
Are relief valves used to Yes, four 2" Yes. takes credt toi Yes, one rehof volve was Yes, upstroom of Yes, one relief Yes,the 4x6 relief volve Yes, rehof valves to No eNewlete pressure?
relief volves on tehof volve on mstelled inside tuvo dieck valves valve upstroem of ori a letdown cooler wig contasnment sump a cornmon letdown cooler to contamment to protect tiermal barrier reliowe 936.5 gpm at 175 l
1258 header hoop psesoure contamment penstremon and downseeem psig - hoops 9te 275 gun below 150 poig.
molemon valves of check volve leak inside of contenmeni Wus conSguration changed No No Yes, by eden 0 tie relief No, but a 2nd MOV No No physical d 6 - a Not yet Not yet as a result of NRC vetro in series is being procedural change hoops t
intermamon Notico 89-547 arerend for double MOV's open
[
R.nm Ru,tu.e ph.gs e,e Shuteng down piant is Ademon
$4 renofvah.
in
._:g -
f backup pressure official hcenomg posiden MOV is scheduled
, downessen to medly CCW-1 protocean
- no credit is taken ser tar text outage of thermalbarrierdoes etit not sue of basi i
the reist wehe not provede adarym flour course of acelen i
l i
f
~..
-, ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 i
Pa0eA3 i
ATTACHMENT 2 - Miscellaneous Information 1.
All dollars in this report are converted from present day 1992 dollars to 1994 dollars by multiplying by a factor equal to two (2) years of 4 percent inflation.
t Thus, for non-labor costs (such as materials) the net effect is:
(1994 Non Labor Dollars) = (1992 Non-Labor Dollars) x (1.04)'
- (1992 Non Labor Dollars) x 1.08 2.
The labor man hour estimates are based on six (6) 10-hour days per week.
Considering the overtime premium pay (i.e. 70 hours8.101852e-4 days <br />0.0194 hours <br />1.157407e-4 weeks <br />2.6635e-5 months <br /> of pay for 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> of work) i and the labor inefficiency in working overtime (estimated to be 17%), a multiplier of 1,41 should be applied to all labor man hours estimated for six 10-hour work days per week. Again, the present day 1992 dollars for labor estimates are 1
i converted from 1992 labor dollars to 1994 labor dollars by multiplying by a factor j
equal to two (2) years of 4 percent inflation. The net effect on labor costs is:
(1994 Labor Dollars)
= (1992 Labor Dollars) x 1.41 x (1.04)"
- (1992 Labor Dollars) x 1.41 x 1.08 i
- (1992 Labor Dollars) x 1.52 i
Note that the man hours totals shown in Attachments 3 - 5 are the man hours in terms of six 10-hour-per-day work days per week with a 17% inefficiency factor 2
i built in.
4
\\
j-l, ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 i
Page A4 ATTACHMENT 3 - Alternative 1 (Maintain Existina Conflauration) Date l
1.
Duration of outage required to recover the plant - 6 months (minimum) based on similar offsite radiation releases at other plants. Actual repair assumed to take 6 months limited by 26 week quoted delivery time of motor-operated isolation valves which will be needed to repair the plant with LOCA isolation capability. Also, much of FPC time will be spent addressing NRC inspectors.
i 2.
Cost of Design - None.
i 3.
Cost of Materials - None.
l 4.
Cost of Installation - None.
5.
Annual O&M Costs - None.
6.
Decontamination Costs - see Parts A-F below The cost of cleanup is based on a simplified model of the contamination geometry.
t It is assumed that no piping rupture occurs and that the contamination is to be evenly divided between two flow paths. It is assumed that half of the leaking j
reactor coolant fluid will be lost through the letdown cooler heat exchanger relief i
valves located inside the containment building and that the other half of the leaking reactor coolant fluid will be lost through the intact SW system piping (this assumes that the SW system 150# containment isolation valves are not functional near RCS j
i pressures) via overflow of the Nuclear Services Closed Cycle Surge Tank located at Elev. 95' of the Auxiliary Building.
Area drawings inside containment near the letdown coolers show roughly 60 ft x 100 ft x 88 ft high. Using rectangular dimensions and doubling the surface area to account for equipment, piping, cabling, etc... yields a cleanup area of roughly 80,000 ft inside of containment. Drawing E-303-601 shows the Aux. Building area in the vicinity of the NSCCC surge tank to be roughly (100' x 100') - (50' x 60') -
7000 ft + 10% of vertical wall area = approximately 8000 ft* of area. A reactor coolant activity of 1x10* Cl/ml equivalent Co-60 is assumed based on ABB Impell experience.
The total amount of reactor coolant lost is estimated by using a graph of the
-allowable temperature / pressure for the RCS during cooldown. The BWNT study of the thermal barrier rupture includes one such curve for heat up and one for cooldown. The saturation curve is drawn in using data from steam tables. Case 3 in the BWNT study of the thermal barrier rupture was used because it starts at
}
i.
1
!, ABB impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 l
Page A5 j
the highest reactor coolant temperature. Using this cooldown curve and the i
maximum listed cooldown rate of 100 F/hr starting at 579 F/2170psig, continuing at 579 F for 1 hour1.157407e-5 days <br />2.777778e-4 hours <br />1.653439e-6 weeks <br />3.805e-7 months <br /> as plant pressure stabilizes at 1800 psig, then reducing pressure and temperature low in the operating band with at least 50 psi margin over saturation yields 58,506 gallons of reactor coolant lost if the LOCA is stopped i
at 145 psig (for a reseating relief valve). Thus if the LOCA is stopped by relief valve (s) reseating, the amount of reactor coolant lost is expected to be approximately 60,000 gallons. The RCS will continue to lose liquid water until l
either the leak is mechanically stopped or until the core is defueled and core water level is reduced to less than the level of the RCP thermal barrier. Since the flow rate of leaking RCS coolant at pressures less than 145 psig is much less than during the described event, the volume of RCS coolant lost is assumed to be -
60,000 gallons for this alternative. It is assumed that half of the 60,000 gallons (30,000 gallons) will leak into containment via the letdown cooler relief / valves and the other half (30,000 gallons) will leak into the Auxiliary Building via the NSCCC l
Surge Tank.
4 I
The cleanup cost is estimated as follows:
A.
Assumptions for decontamination 2
1.
Contamination is uniform on all surfaces submerged.
2.
No fixed contamination due to exposure to coolant.
1 3.
Contaminated surface area inside containment = 88 ft x 100 ft x 60 ft
- 2(60 x 100) + 2(60 x 88) + 2(100 x 88) = 40,160 ft" doubled to account for pipes, equipment, cables - 80,000 ft. Assume 40,000 ft" concrete; 30,000 ft' equipment; and 10,000 ft* electrical.
i 4.
All concrete surfaces coated with epoxy. No chipping required.
5.
Decon to background radiation level.
6.
~ Methods-Water decon for all concrete surfaces with no electrical equipment and all piping (SS and coated CS, if any).
Solvent decon for miscellaneous items (i.e. I&C equipment).
Dry decon for all electrical equipment including cable trays, cables, electrical cabinets, MCC's, and light fixtures.
7.
Use of contractor crew.
8.
Use of contractor scaffolding and decon equipment.
9.
Utility provides contractor General Employee Training, respirator and PC.
10.
All waste management is responsibility of the utility.
11.
It is assumed that the utility's radioactive waste processing equipment can handle the capacity of liquid waste generated during plant decontamination.
l
., ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 PaceA6 B.
Crew size 1.
40 decon technicians (contractor) 2.
4 foremen (contractor) 3.
4 HP (utility or independent contractor)
C.
Scope j
1.
Decontamination Concrete decon (water, amended water);
40,000 ft" @ $3.00/ft" = $120K Equipment decon (solvent); 30,000 ft* @ $3.50/ft" = $105K i
Electrical decon (dry rag); 10,000 ft" @ $5.00/ft" = $50K 2.
Survey (utility or other independent contractor) a.
Swipe b.
Area monitoring c.
Personnel monitoring 3.
Final Cleaning Concrete; 10,000 ft" @ $2.00/ft = $20K Equipment; 10,000 ft @ $2.50/ft = $25K a
Electrical; 5,000 ft: @ $3.00/ft = $15K 4.
Acceptance Survey (utility or independent contractor) 5.
Equipment Mobilization and Decon (scaffolding, panels, ladders, wet vacs)
= $25K.
6.
Miscellaneous = $50K.
D.
Total inside containment = $410K (in 1992 dollars) x 1.41 x 1.08 j
= $624K (1994 dollars) 1
'I This also results in a contamination level of 30,000 x 3785 x 1x10* = 0.11 pCi of long-lived Co-60 activity released from the RCS into the auxiliary building. This is assumed to be spread evenly over the 8,000 fta.
For this cleanup, the 4
contamination is assumed to be simple loose surface contamination on smooth concrete in the Auxiliary Building with no electrical or equip
- ment decon needed:
Concrete decon (water, amended water);
8,000 ft @ $3.00/fta =$24K 2
Concrete final decon; 2,000 ft @ $2.00/ft = $4K E.
Total outside of containment = $28K (in 1992 dollars) x 1.41 x 1.08
- $43K (1994 dollars)
F.
Total decon costs for alternative 1 - 624K + 43K = 667K (in 1994 dollars)
USE 670K 670,000/27.04 = 24,778 man-hours USE 25,000 man-hours Note: Depending on decon activity levels, total decon cost $300K - $600K (in 1992 dollars). If concrete surface removal and/or replacement is required, the concrete decon would at least double in cost.
I L
., ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page A7 i
i 7.
Repair / Replacement Costs - The cost of repair for Alternative 1 is the same as the total capital cost of implementing one ot the other alternatives. It is assumed that Alternative 3 would be implemented. Thus, the capital cost of implementing J
Alternative 3 is used to estimate the repair / replacement cost of Attemative 1.
8.
Inspections - It is assumed that SW system piping inspections will have to be conducted to determine the extent of damage to SW system piping. It is assumed that four (4) men working two (2) forty-hour weeks could complete the inspections.
Thus, the cost of inspections = 4 men x 2 wks x 40 hrs /wk = 320 man-hours.
Converting to 610-hour days worked per man per week:
320 mhrs x 1.41 = 451.2 man-hours 451.2 mhrs x $27.04/mhr = $12,200 (in 1992 dollars) 12,200 x 1.08 - $13,177 (in 1994 dollars)
USE $13K 13,000/27.04 = 481 man-hours USE 480 man-hours
)
9.
Replacement Power Cost - Using FPC Engineering Economy Manual, the lost power (760 MW is listed for 1992 and beyond) times the 1994 replacement power rate of $36.80/MW hr for six months (half of a year) yields a replacement power cost of:
760 MW x $36.80/MW hr x 365/2 days x 24 hrs / day = $122,500K (in 1994 dollars) k
\\
-, ABB Impell Report No. 0920 208-01, Revision 0 Page A8 ATTACHMENT 4 - Alternative 2 (Containment of Loss of Reactor Coolant) Data 1.
Duration of outage required to recover the plant - 2 months (minimum) based on 4 weeks to clean up the contamination in the plant followed by 1 month of repairs, inspection, and testing.
2.
Cost of Design -
ALTERNATIVE 2 TASKS HOURS COST (1992 Dollars)
Project Preparation 24
$1,800 Kick-off Meeting 24
$1,800 Walkdowns 40
$3,000 Valve Selection and Purchasing Technical Requirements 48
$3,500 Conceptual Design 40
$3,000 Thermal Hydraulic Analysis 400
$31,900 Seismic Piping Analysis 300
$21,400 Piping Support Design 1260
$87,100 Isometric Drawings 80
$5,100 Support Drawings 240
$6,600 Bill of Materials 12
$900 50.59 Evaluation 40
$3,000 Design input Considerations / Engineering 100
$7,500 MAR Preparation 60
$4,500 Verification 40
$3,000 Project Co-ordination 60
$4,500 FPC Engineering Discipline Comment Resolution 40
$3,000 FPC Site Departmental Comment Resolution 40
$3,000 Total Production 2848
$194,600 This cost is the current estimated cost of the relief valves. In order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4%
for 2 years. This yields a Total Production Cost of $210,000 (1994 Dollars).
I
., ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page A9 Thermal Hydraulic Deslan The estimate for the Thermal Hydraulic Analysis is based upon modeling each of the eight lines in which a relief vabe will be installed. The estimate assumes that the relief can be installed within 2t/ of the Reactor Coolant Pumps' thermal barriers. This location will be confirmed during the field walkdowns. The model of each lino will be used with RELAP to confirm that the specific locations will prevent the pressure in the line from producing stresses that exceed the code allowable stress values. The models will also be used with REFORC to determine the actual reaction forces created during relief valve discharging.
3.
FPC Engineering Site Support 420 man-hours x $50/mnhr = $21,000 (1992 Dollars)
= $22,680 (1994 Dollars)
USE $23,000 USE 420 man-hours 4.
Cost of Materials -
Piping:
Approximately 20' of piping is estimated for the discharge piping of each relief valve. Eight valves at 20' each yields a total of 160' of piping: Use 200* of piping for this estimate. This piping will be non-safety related piping since it is downstream of the SW System pressure boundary. The estimated cost of 2%" Schedule 40 carbon steel non safety related piping is $5 per foot.
.. (200 LF)(5 $/ft) = $1,000 This cost is the current estimated cost of the piping. In order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The piping material cost is ($1,000)(1.08) = $1,080 USE $1,500 Valves:
Eight relief valves will be required for this modification. These relief valves are accepted to 3" carbon steel Crosby relief valves. The cost of each relief valve purchased as a safety related item is estimated to be L10,000, s
i-
,, ABB Impell Report No. 0920 208-01, Revision 0 Page A10
.. (8 valves)(10,000 $/ valve) = $80,000 This cost is the current estimated cost of the relief valves. In order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The relief valve cost is ($80,000)(1.08) = $86,400 U3E $87,000 Fittings:
As discussed under the installation Cost,it is estimated that 5 fittings per line will be required: 1 tee in the main header and 4 elbows in the relief valve discharge piping. The tee will be a safety-related fitting and the elbows will be non-safety related fittings. The cost of a safety-related 2%" carbon steel tee is estimated as $500, and the cost of a non-safety-related 2%" carbon steel elbow is estimated as
$100.
j
.. (1 tee /line)(8 lines)(500 $/ tee) + (4 elb/line)(8 lines)((100 $/elb)
=$7200 l
This cost is the current estimated cost of the relief valves. In order i
to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
1 i
.. The cost of the fittings is ($7,200)(1.08) = $7,776 s
USE $8,000 Pipe Supports:
As 6scussed under the Installation Cost, it is estimated that 6 supports per line will be required for this modification. It is estimated that the cost of the materials will be $1500 per support: This includes the cost of the anchor bolts, structural steel, and grouting.
i
.. (6 supports /line)(8 lines)(1500 $/ support) = $72,000 This cost is the current estimated cost of the relief valves, in order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The material cost for supports is ($72,000)(1.08) = $77,760 USE $78,000
4 l, ABB 1mpell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page A11 l
Scaffolding:
Scaffolding will be required for this alternative. it will be l
leased with an option to purchase in the event it is contaminated. Present day scaffolding costs are estimated to be $40K. Scaffolding costs are ($40,000)(1.08) = $43.2K j
USE $44,000 f
Based on the above, the total material cost for Alternative 2 is estimated to be $218,500. USE $219,000.
5.
Cost of installation -
1 A relief valve will be installed on each inlet and each outlet line for the Reactor l
Coolant Pump thermal barriers. Since there are four Reactor Coolant Pumps, this l
attemative willinstall eight relief valves.
1 Piping:
Approximately 20' of piping is estimated for the discharge piping of each relief valve. Eight valves at 20' each yields a total of 160* of l
j piping: Use 200' of piping for this estimate. FPC Letter NEA88-1572 (Retrofit Database) estimates the manhours to install 2%", carbon l
steel, standard wall piping in contaminated areas (PC's required) as 5.51 manhours per linear foot. The cost per manhour for outage work is estimated as $27.04/manhour.
4 l
.. (200 LF)(5.51 mnhrs/LF)(27.04 $/mnhr) - $29,798 x 1.41 -
l
$42,015 The cost per manhour was provided in 1992 dollars. Therefore, in order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied L
by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The piping installation cost is ($42,015)(1.08) - $45,376 USE $46,000
= 46,000/27.04 - 1701 man hours USE 1700 man-hours 4
Valves:
Eight relief valves will be required for this modification. FPC Letter NEA881572 estimates the manhours to install 2%" manually i
operated valves as 3 manhours. This value is increases by a factor of 1.15 for installation in contaminated areas (PC's required). The cost per manhour for outage work is estimated as $27.04/manhour.
{;
b
~
l 4
- , ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page A12
.. (8 valves)(3 mnhrs/ valves)(1.15)(27.04 $/mnbr) = $746 x 1.41 =
$1,052 The cost per manhour was provided in 1992 dollars. Therefore,in order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The relief valve installation cost is:
($1,052)(1.08) = $1,136 USE $1,200 1200/27.04 = 44.4 USE 50 man-hours Fittings:
it estimated that 5 fittings per line will be required for this modification: 1 tee in the main header for the relief valve connection, and 4 elbows in the discharge piping. FPC Letter NEA88-1572 estimates the manhours to install 2%" standard wall fittings as 3 manhours. This value is increases by a factor of 1.15 for installation in contaminated areas (PC's required). The cost per manhour for outage work is estimated as $27.04/manhour.
.. (5 fittings /line)(8 lines)(3 manhours / fitting)(1.15)($27.04/mnbr)
= $3,731.5 x 1.41 = $5,261 The cost per manhour was provided in 1992 dollars. Therefore, in order to adjust this cost to a 1994 valuo, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The fitting installation cost is ($5,261)(1.08) = $5,682 USE $6,000 6000/27.04 = 222 USE 250 man-hours Welding:
It estimated that 2 welds per fittings will be required for this modification, and it was estimated above that 5 fittings per line would be required. FPC Letter NEA881572 estimates the installation manhours for welding 2%" Schedule 40 piping as 4 manhours. This value is increases by a factor of 1.15 for installation in contaminated areas (PC's required). The cost per manhour for outage work is estimated as $27.04/manhour.
.. (2 welds /ftng)(5 ftng/line)(8 lines)(4 mnhr/ftng)(1.15)($27.04/mnhr)
= $9,951 x 1,41 = $14,031 4
l
., ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 PaGeA13 The cost per manhour was provided in 1992 dollars. Therefore, in order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The welding cost is ($14,031)(1.08) = $15,153 USE $15,000 15,000/27.04 = 555 man-hours USE 550 man-hours Supports:
It estimated that a total of 6 supports per line will be required. Three seismic supports will be required for each main header for this modification: 1 to restrain the relief valve discharge forces, and two modifications to supports due to the increased weight on the line. In addition, it is estimated 3 supports will be required for the relief valve discharge piping: two will be seismically qualified to maintain the safety related to non-safety related boundary. To be conservative, the last (or sixth) support will be estimated as a seismic support.
FPC Letter NEA88-1572 estimates the manhours to install seismic restraints for 2W" piping as 15 manhours. This value is increases by a factor of 1.15 for installation in contaminated areas (PC's required).
The cost per manhour for outage work is estimated as
$27.04/manhour.
.. (6 supports /line)(8 lines)(15 manhours / support)(1.15)($27.04/mnhr)
= $22,389 x 1.41 - $31,569 The cost per manhour was provlded in 1992 dollars. Therefore, in order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The support installation cost is ($31,569)(1.08) = $34,094 USE $34,000 34000/27.04 = 1257 USE 1300 man-hours Scaffolding:
Scaffolding will be erected. Present day scaffolding costs are estimated to be $60K. Scaffolding costs are ($60,000)(1,08)
= $64.8K USE $65,000 65000/27.04 - 2404 USE 2400 man-hours Based on the above, the total installation cost for Alternative 2 is estimated to be $167,200. USE $167,000 J hD A TOTAL OF 6,250 MAN-HOURS.
7 l, ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page A14 j
6.
Construction Support -
}
lt estimated that a construction support for 5 weeks at 60 hours6.944444e-4 days <br />0.0167 hours <br />9.920635e-5 weeks <br />2.283e-5 months <br /> per week will be required for this modification.
At a hourly rate of $50/hr, the construction i
supervision cost will be:
i
)
5 wks x 60 hr/wk - 300 hrs /wk 300 his / 60 hrs = 5 wks x 1.41 = 7.05 wks 60 hr/wk x $50/hr x 7.05 wk - $21,150 1
j
$21,150 x 1.08 = $22,842 USE $23,000 23000/50 - 460 manhours USE 460 man-hours i
7.
General Administrative Cost -
1 in addition, the General Administrative Cost is estimated at $1900 (0.3% of the total cost). Use $1,900.
j l
l 8.
Annual O&M Costs -
Operations: No costs 1
Maintenance:
It is estimated that each relief valve wiu ce bench tested once every 5 years, and that the valves will be disassembled and l
inspected / rebuilt at the same interval. FPC Letter NEA88-1572 estimates the manhours to install a manually operated valves as 3 manhours. Therefore,it estimated that it wi!! take i
3 manhours to remove and 3 manhours to install each relief valve for bench testing and inspection.
In addition, it is I
estimated that the bench testing for each valve will take i
2 manhours, and that disassembly, inspection, and i
j reassembly of each valve will take 4 manhours. Therefore, this study estimates that each valve will require 12 manhours i
of maintenance every 5 years. Based on the above, the annuabad cost of maintenance for Alternative 2 is:
4 The cost per manhour 'or outage work is estimated as $27.04/manhour.
This value is increased by a factor of 1.15 for installation in contaminated areas (PC's required). Based on the above, the cost of maintenance for Alternative 2 is:
(8 valves)(6 mnhr/ valve)(1.15)($27.04/mnbr) +
( ;
., ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page A15 h
(8 valves)(6 mnhr/ valve)($27.04/mnhr) = $2,790.5 x 1.41 - $3,935 This cost is the current estimated cost of the maintenance for all eight relief valves, in order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years. In addition, this value is divided by 5 years to an estimated yearly cost:
.. The annual maintenance cost is ($3,935/5 yra)(1.08) = $850 USE $1M0 per year 1000/27.04 = 37 man hours USE 40 men-hours 9.
Decontamination Costs - Same as for Alternative 1 for the inside of contairment
$410,000 (in 1992 dollars) x 1.01 x 1.08
=
$624,348 (in 1994 dollars)
USE $624,000
=
624,000/27.04 = 23,077 USE 23,000 man-hours 23,000/60 hrs per wk = 383 people 383/48 people per shift per week = 8 wks 1 Shift = 8 weeks 2 Shifts = 4 weeks l
10.
Repair / Replacement Costs - No repair or replacement costs are expected since none of the cooling water systr,m 's damaged. Since the replacement of the RCP is not included in this report, ec_ repair / replacement costs are included in this attemative.
11.
Inspections - No inspections are expected since inspections were assumed to be necessary only for damaged or potentially damaged systems. The containment d
1 of the loss of reactor coolant protects the cooling water system from any damage.
Once again, the RCP inspections are not included in this report, since the RCP's 3
are common to all three options and evaluation of the RCP damage is beyond the scope of this evaluation.
12.
Replacement Power Cost - Using FPC Engineering Economy Manual, the lost power (760 MW is listed for 1992 and beyond) times the 1994 replacement power rate of $36.80/MW hr for two (2) months (60 days) yields a replacement power cost of:
760 MW x $36.80/MW hr x 60 days x P4 hrs / day = $40,274K (in 1994 dollars) l
.., ABB impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page A16
,l ATTACHMENT 5 - Alternative 3 (Prevention of Loss of Reactor Coolant) Data 1.
Duration of outage required to recover the plant - 1 month (minimum) based on estimate of repairs to RCP, testing, and inspection of other RCP's.
2.
Cost of Design -
ALTERNATIVE 3 TASKS HOURS COST (1992 Dollars) 4 Project Preparation 24
$1,800 Kick-off Meeting 24
$1,800 l
Walkdowns 80
$6,000 Valve Selection and Purchasing
)
Technical Requirements 120
$9,000 Conceptual Design 120
$9,000 Seismic Piping Analysis 300
$21,400 l
4 Piping Support Design 840
$58,800 Electrical Design 440
$33,000 Isometric Drawings 80
$5,100 t
Support Drawings 160
$5,200 Electrical Drawings 180
$13,500 Bill of Materials 40
$3,000 l
50.59 Evaluation 60
$4,500 Design input Considerations / Engineering 180
$13,500 MAR Preparation 160
$12,000 Verification 60
$4,500 Project Co-ordination 80
$6,000 FPC Engineering Discipline Comment Resolution 80
$6,000 FPC Site Departmental l
Comment Resolution 80
$6,000 i
Total Production 3108
$220,100 This cost is the current estimated cost of the relief valves. In order to adjust this cost to
.I a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4%
for 2 years. This yields a Total Production Cost of $238,000 (1994 Dollars).
i
.l
= - -
., ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page A17 3.
FPC Engineering Site Support 840 man hours x $50/mnhr = $42,000 (1992 Dollars)
= $45,360 (1994 Dollars)
USE $45,000 USE 840 man-hours 4.
Cost of Materials -
Piping:
it is estimated that approximately 20' of piping will be replaced between each valve and the Reactor Coolant pumps (i.e., the valves can be installed within 20' of the pumps). Eight valves at 20' each yields a total of 160' of piping: Use 200' of piping for this estimate.
This piping will be safety-related Schedule 160 carbon steel piping since it is required to maintain the SW System pressure boundary.
The estimated cost of 2W" Schedule 160 carbon steel safety-related piping is $5 per foot.
.. (200 LF)(10 $/ft) = $2,000 J
This cost is the currcat estimated cost of the piping. In order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The piping material cost is ($2,000)(1.08) = $2,160 USE $2,500 Valves:
Four safety-related 2%" ANSI Class 1500# check valves will be installed in the supply lines to the Reactor Coolant Pumps. The cost of these valves is estimated at $10,000 each based upon a quotation obtained from Anchor Darling. Therefore, the cost of the check valves will be $40,000 at current prices.
Four safety-related 2%" ANSI Class 1500# motor-operated globe valved will be installed in the outlet lines from the Reactor Coolant Pumps. The cost of these valves is estimated at $35,000 each based upon a quotation obtained from Anchor Darling.
The quotation from Anchor Darling was $26,600 each for an air-operated 2%" ANSI Class 1500# gate valve.
This quotation has been
!ncreased 25% to account for the higher cost of a motor operator and a globe valve. Therefore, the cost of the isolation valves will be
$35,000 at current prices.
4 i
I, ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208 01, Revision 0 Page A18 l
This cost is the current estimated cost of the check and isolation l
valves, in order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increese of 4% for 2 years.
4
.. The cost of the valves is (4($10,000)+4($35,000)](1.08)
= $194,400 j
USE $195,000 Fittings:
As discussed under the Installation Cost,it is estimated that 5 fittings per line will be required. The cost of safety related carbon steel Schedule 160 fittings is estimated as $500, i
.. (5 ftngs/line)(8 lines)(500 $/ftngs) = $20,000 This cost is the current estimated cost of the relief valves. In order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The cost of the fittings is ($20,000)(1.08) = $21,600 USE $22,000 Pipe Supports:
As discussed under the Installation Cost, it is estimated that 4 supports per line will be required for this modification. It is estimated that the cost of the materials will be $1500 per support: This includes the cost of the anchor bolts, structural steel, and grouting.
.. (4 supports /line)(8 lines)(1500 $/ support) = $48,000 This cost is the current estimated cost of the relief valves. In order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The matorial cost for supports is ($48,000)(1.08) = $51,840 USE $52,000 Cable:
As discussed under the Installation Cost,it !s estimated that 700* feet 1
of cable will be required for this modification. It is estimated that the cost of the cable will be $2 per foot.
4 i-j, ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 i
PaGe A19 l
4 i
t
.. (700 feet)(2 $/ foot) = $1400 This cost is the current estimated cost of the relief valves, in order
!l to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by l
1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
i 4
i 4
.. The material cost for cable is ($1400)(1.08) = $1,5'i2 i
j USE $1,500 Conduit & Miscellaneous Hardware:
l As discussed under the Installation Cost, it is estimated that 375' of j
conduit is required for this modification. It is estimated that the cost 1
l of the conduit is $12 per 10 f.'et of length.
.. (375 ft)(12 $/10 ft) = $450 i
This cost is the current estimated cost of the relief valves. In order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by i
1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years. In addition, j
l increase the cost by a factor of four to account for support hardware.
j i
.. The material cost for conduits is ($450)(1.08)(4) = $1,944 1
USE $2,000 4
4 l
Scaffolding:
Scaffolding will be required for this alternative. It will be i
leased with an option to purchase in the event it is i
contaminated. Present day scaffolding costs are estimated to j
be $60K. Scaffolding costs are ($60,000)(1.08) = $64.8K
{
USE $65,000 Based on the above, the total material cost for Alternative 3 is estimated to be $340,000.
l
i iI.
I, ABB Impell Report No. 0920 208-01,' Revision 0 Page A20 l
l l
5.
Cost of Installation -
d l
A check valve will be installed on the inlet line to each Reactor Coolant Pumps' thermal barrier and a motor-operated automatic l solation valve will be installed on the outlet line of each Reactor Coolant Pumps' thermal barrier. Since there are j
four Reactor Coolant Pumps, this alternative will install four check valves and four isolation valves. In addition, the piping between these valves and the Reactor Coolant Pumps' thermal barriers will be replaced with Schedule 160 piping.
l Piping:
This estimate is based on installing the check valves and the i
isolation valves within 20' of the Reactor Coolant Pumps. Eight lines at 20' each yields a total of 160' of piping: Use 200' of piping for this estimate. FPC Letter NEA88-1572 estimates the manhours to install i
2W", carbon steel, standard wall piping in contaminated areas (PC's l
required) as 5.51 manhours per linear foot. This value is increased j
by a factor of 1.77 to account for the increased wall thickness of the j
Schedule 160 piping (The 77% is used since the manhours for j
fittings increases 33% between standard wall and XS v'all, therefore, to increase from standard wall to XXS wall the increase should be l
1.33 x 1.33 - 1.77). The cost per manhour for outage work is estimated as $27.04/manhour.
L j-
.. (200 LF)(5.51 mnhrs/LF)(1.77)($27.04/mnhr) - $52,742.6 x 1.41 j
= $74,367 r
l The cost per manhour was provided in 1992 dollars. Therefore, in order to adjust this cost to a 1994 valun, the above cost is multiplied i
by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
i t
j
.. The piping installation cost is ($74,367)(1.08) - $80,316
}
USE $80,000 80,000/27.04 - 29D man-hours j
USE 3000 man-hours Valves:
Four ANSI Class 1500# check valves and four ANSI Class 1500#
motor-operated globe valves will be required for this modification.
FPC Letter NEA88-1572 estimates the manhours to install 2%"
manually operated valves as 3 manhours. FPC Letter NEA88-1572 estimates the manhours to install 2%" motor-operated valves as 5 manhours.
This value is increases by a factor of 1.15 r installation in contaminated areas (PC's required). The cost per manhour for outage work is estimated as $27.04/manhour.
l, ABB impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revisior. 0 PaGe A21
.. (4 valves)(3 mnhrs/ valves)(1.15)($27.04/mnhr) +
(4 valves)(5 mnhrs/ valves)(1.15)($27.04/mnbr) = $995 x 1.41 =
j
$1,403 i
The cost per manhour was provided in 1992 dollars. Therefore, in i
order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The installation cost of the valves is ($1,403)(1.08) = $1,515 i
f j
USE $1,500 1500/27.04 - 56 man hours USE 60 man-hours Fittings:
it estimated that an average of 5 fittings per line will be required for this modification when replacing the existing piping. FPC Letter 1
NEA88-1572 estimates the manhours to install 2%" XS wall fittings as 4 manhours. This value ic 33% greater than for standard wall fittings. Since it is anticipated that XXS piping (Schedule 160) will be required, the 4 manhours will be increased by 33%. This value is then increased by a factor of 1.15 for installation in contaminated areas (PC's required). The cost per manhour for outage work is estimated as $27.04/manhour.
.. (5 fittings /line)(8 lines)(4 mnbrs/ fitting)(1.33)(1.15)($27.04/mnhr)
= $6,617 x 1.41 = $9,330 The cost per manhour was provided in 1992 dollars. Therefore, in order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The fitting installation cost is ($9,330)(1.08) = $10,076 USE $10,000 10,000/27.04 - 370 man-hours USE 400 man-hours Welding:
It estimated that 2 welds per fittings will be required for this modification, and it was estimated above that 5 fittings per line and 1 valve per line would be required.
FPC Letter NEA88-1572 estimates the installation manhours for welding 2%" Schedule 80 piping as 5 manhours. This value is 25% greater than for Schedule 40 piping. Since it is anticipated that Schedule 160 piping will be required, the 5 manhours will be increased by 25%. This value is y _-
i-1 f, ABB Impell Report No. 0920 208-01, Revision 0 PaGe A22 t
j l
1 increases by a factor of 1.15 for installation in contaminated areas (PC's required). The cost per manhour for outage work is estimated i
1 i
as $27.04/manhour.
/. [(2 welds /ftng)(6 fing or valves /line)(8 lines)(5 mnhr/ftng))
J x [(1.25)(1.15)($27.04Imnhr)) = $18,658 x 1.41 = $26,307 The cost per manhour was provided in 1992 dollars. Therefore, in order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is muhlplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
/. The welding cost is ($26,307)(1.08) = $28,412 USE $29,000 j
29,000/27.04 = 1073 man-hours USE 1100 man-hours Pipe Supports:
It estimated that a total of 4 seismic supports per line will be l
required. Two new supports on each line to accommodate the increased weight of the new valves, and two new or modified supports to accommodate the change pipe wall thickness.
FPC Letter NEA88-1572 estimates the manhours to install seismic restraints for 2%" piping as 15 manhours. This value is increases by a factor of 1.15 for installation in contaminated areas (PC's required). The cost per manhour for outage work is estimated as $27.04/manhour.
1 l
/. (4 supports /line)(8 lines)(15 manhours / support)(1.15)($27.04/mnhr)
= $14,926 x 1.41 = $21,046 The cost per manhour was provided in 1992 dollars. Therefore, in order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
/. The support installation cost is ($21,046)(1.08) = $22,730 USE $23,000 23,000/27.04 = 851 man-hcure USE 850 man-hours Cable:
It is estimated that each of the valve will require 250' of 600V power cabling which is routed in conduit from the valve to the MCC. It is estimated 300' of 120V sble (wiring) will be required for the control wiring to the control rooni to operate each valve; 125' of which will be routed in conduit and 150' of which wili be routed in cable trays.
Lastly, it is estimated that 100* of 600V cable will be required
l, ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 PaGeA23 l
between the control room and the MCC in a cable tray. This yields a total of 400' of 600V cable and 300' of 120V cabie for each valve.
FPC Letter NEA88-1572 estimates the manhours to pull 600V power cable as 0.59 manhours per linear foot in contaminated areas, and
)
I the manhours to puli 120V instrumentation cable as 0.26 manhours per linear foot in contaminated areas. The cost per manhour for i
i outage work is estimated as $27.04/manhour.
.. (4 valves) x [(400 ft)(0.59 mnhrs/ft)+(300 ft)(0.26 manbrs/ft)) x
($27.04/hr) = $33,962 x 1.41 = $47,887 i
The cost per manhour was provided in 1992 dollars. Therefore,in i
order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The cable installation cost is ($47,887)(1.08) = $51,718 USE $52,000 52,000/27.04 - 1923 man hours j
USE 1950 man-hours f
Cable Terminations:
It is estimated that the power cable from the valves to the MCC will be shielded three conductor cable l
requiring four terminations at each end, that the instrumentation cable will be shielded two conductor cable requiring three terminations at each end, and that the cable from the MCC to the control room will be five conductor cc51e requiring 10 terminations at each i
end. Therefore, there will be (2)(10+4) = 28 600V terminations per valve and (2)(3) = 6120V terminations per valve.
FPC Letter NEA88-1572 estimates the manhours to terminate 600V cable as 1.80 manhours in contaminated areas, and the manhours to terminate 120V as 1.08 manhours in contaminated areas. The l
cost per manhour for outage work is estimated as
$27.04/manhour.
i
($27.04/hr) = $[6,152 x 1.41 = $8,674.5.. (4 valves) x (6 te
~
The cost per manhour was provided in 1992 dollars. Therefore, in i
order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
- i., ABB Impeli Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page A24
.. The cable termination cost is ($8,674.5)(1.08) = $9,368 l
USE $9,500 9,500/27.04 = 351 man-hours USE 350 man-hours Conduit Supports:
It is that conduit supports will be required every ten feet and at the start of the conduit run. All conduit is expected to be under 2" in diameter. As addressed under Cable Installation above,125' of the control wiring per valve will be routed in conduit, and 250' of
~
the 600V power cable will be routed in conduit. This yields a total of 375' of conduit per valve. With a support every ten feet and one at the start of the conduit run, 39 conduit supports per valve are required.
FPC Letter NEA88-1572 estimates the manhours to install a simple safety related conduit support as 21 manhours in contaminated areas (Safety related supports are assumed for anti-falldown purposes). The cost per manhour for outage work is estimated as $27.04/manhour.
.. (4 valves)(39 supports)(21 mnhrs/ support)($27.04/hr) = $88,583 x 1.41 = $124,902 The cost per manhour was provided in 1992 dollars. Therefore,in order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
.. The conduit installation cost is ($124,902)(1.08) = $134,894 USE $135,000 135,000/27.04 - 4993 man-hours USE 5000 man-hours Scaffolding:
Scaffolding will be erected for this alternative. Present day scaffolding costs are estimated to be $100K. Scaffolding costs are ($100,000)(1.08) = $108K USE $110,000 110,000/27.04 = 4068 man-hours USE 4100 man-hours Based on the above, the total installation cost for Alternative 3 is estimated to be $450,000. USE $450,000 AND A TOTAL OF 16,810 MAN-HOURS.
i 5
., ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page A25 6.
Construction Support -
It estimated that a construction support for 5 weeks at 120 hours0.00139 days <br />0.0333 hours <br />1.984127e-4 weeks <br />4.566e-5 months <br /> per week (one mechanical and one electrical engineer) will be required for this modification. At a hourly rate of $50/hr, the construction supervision cost will be:
600 hrs /120 - 5 weeks 5 x 1.41 - 7.05 7.05 wks x 120 hrs /wk x $50/hr = $42,300 x 1.08 - $45,684 USE $46,000 46,000/50 = 920 man hours USE 920 man-hours 7.
General Administrative Cost -
In addition, the General Administrative Cost is estimated at $3500 (0.3% of the total cost).
Use $3,500.
8.
Removal -
This modification will require the removal of approximately 200 ft of 2-1/2" piping (see piping installation above). It is estimated that the cost of removal of piping will be 2.75 man hours per linear foot. Therefore, the cost is:
(200 ft)x2.75mnhrs/ftx($27.04/hr)x(1.08)=$16,062 x 1.41 - $22,647 Use $23,000 23,000/27.04 - 850 man-hours USE 850 man-hours 9.
Annual O&M Costs -
Operations: No cost (insignificant)
Maintenance:
It is estimated that cach motor operated valve (MOV) will be lubricated and groomed once every 18 months.This lubrication inspection and grooming is estimated as a 2-person,4-hour job for each valve, or 8 hours9.259259e-5 days <br />0.00222 hours <br />1.322751e-5 weeks <br />3.044e-6 months <br /> for each valve. Therefore, this task will take 32 manhours every 18 months, or 64 manhours every three years.
It is also estimated that the valves will be disassembled and inspected / rebuilt once every three years. A diagnostic test will be performed prior to and following disassembly. FPC Letter NEA88-J
l, ABB Impell Report No. 0920 208-01, Revision 0 PaGe A26 1572 estimates the manhours to install a 2%" motor-operated valves as 5 manhours. Therofore, it estimated that it will take 5 manhours to remove and 5 manhours to install each MOV for disassembly and inspection; a total of 10 manhours per valve. In addition, it is estimated that the diagnostic testing for each valve will take 4 manhours; a total of 8 manhours per valve for as-found and as-left testing. Lastly, it is estimated that disassembly, inspection, and reassembly of each valve will take 16 manhours per valve.
Therefore, this study estimates that each valve will require 34 manhours of diagnostic and inspection maintenance every 3 years.
Therefore, this task will take 136 manhours every three years.
The cost per manhour for outage work is estimated as
$27.04/manhour. This manhour estimate has been increased by a factor of 1.15 for installation in contaminated areas (PC's required).
Based on the above, the cost of maintenance for Attemative 3 is:
[(136 mnhr)+(64 mnhrs)) x (1.15)($27.04/mnhr) - $6,219 x 1.41 -
$8,769 This cost is the current estimated cost of the maintenance for the MOV's. In order to adjust this cost to a 1994 value, the above cost is multiplied by 1.08 to account for a cost increase of 4% for 2 years.
In addition, this value is divided by 3 years to an estimated yearly cost:
.. The annual maintenance cost is ($8,769/3 yrs)(1.08) = $3,157 USE $3200 per year 3200/27.04 = 118 man hours USE 120 man-hours 10.
Decontamination Costs - Since Alternative 3 prevents the loss of reactor coolant, no contamination is expected. Therefore, no decontamination costs are expected.
11.
Repair / Replacement Costs - No repair or replacement costs are expected since none of the cooling water system is damaged. Since the replacement of the RCP is not included in this report, r.o repair / replacement costs are included in this attemative.
12.
Inspections - No inspections are expected since inspections were assumed to be necessary only for damaged or potentially damaged systems. The prevention of the loss of reactor coolant protects the cooling water system from any damage.
-d, ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Pa0e A27 i
Once again, the RCP inspections are not included in this report, since the RCP's are common to all three options and evaluation of the RCP damage is beyond the scope of this evaluation.
13.
Replacement Power Cost - Using FPC Engineering Economy Manual, the lost j
power (760 MW is listed for 1992 and beyond) times the 1994 replacement power 1
l rate of $36.80/MW hr for one (1) month (30 days) yields a replacement power cost
)
of:
l 760 MW x $36.80/MW hr x 30 days x 24 hrs / day = $20,137K (in 1994 dollars) 1 4
l I
i i
i 4
?
r l
A ra 6
M 9
to l
+
F
-4 5
b 1
9 e
l
+
9 F
1 na J
4 4
4 c
4 h ce H c
eD D
1 m
2 4
4
- m 4
l l
9 e 4 v
v o
o e
d N
N o 4 2
s 7
m 2
2 l
4 a
t 9
c pe O
S-72 l
4 l
j m 4
p g
e u
S A
9 2
m 4
4 g
g u
u A
A 1
m a
l 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4
4 4 4 4
4 4 4 lu lu 4
tu 4
4 4
4 4
lu su lu lu iu lu J
4 9
4 9
9 9
9 4
4 4
4 4 a 4
4 4
1 n
1 n
n n
n n
1 1
1 1
s 1
4 u
u u
u u
u i
i 4 4 A
9 l
1 4
4 4
4 4
4 d
- m i
= -
i M
n n
M 9
7 u
u 7
7 7
7 7
1 4
4 t
1 1
1 1
1 0
3 n
4 4
l i
e j
1 1
u 4
J 4
a y
a l
i M
-3 y
4 1
a 9
M r
p A
1 i
l 2
4 4
r 9
p 9
r r
A a
e M
4 M
9 4
4 r
l 2
a 2
4 4
a M
l 52 1
i m 0
ra b
6 1
M e
e F
F 4
52 a
be F
0' c
4 l
4n t
n e
i a a J
m 4
s l
3 c
9 e 9
D 8 n 1
2 o Ana ec g3 ad P o
.M y
n d o u d t
nSa D
o innoe tan c r aI e
)
e A-d.
oie m
e i
z t
n n
o pruk
- a e
n o
n a
is
)i a
e n
),
M s
n ea r
la u
r e
r s
e y
s.
e t
n c.
C mV i
r
=
a le s
r n
g g
a c
u e
T is u
S d
n S( e-w W
h d
ta C
w c
a
)
n o
f p+
e s
(
i A
r r
o F
o C
w e
s r
P n
)
(
n s
o t
y 1
c o
s r
U D
s k
e F
eae n
o ic c
is
(
S P
v s
M c.
F R
n T
e o
o p
M is n
wvR i
C tu a
t g
o D p
r is n
D i
5, t
C h
r fB g
e c
y e
lo n
o:
e is n
g t
a g
9 r
c o
e n e
t i
i d
y le A
o 0 te n
e e
o 2
n w e -; D la tu t
H la a
n u
s R
V P
c e
w i
B n
e d
s n
a R M icr r
p ip e
R Pm e
a C
o r
h v
D c
a
(
o s
c e v s d n
o r
y a
e s
v e
u t
R e
w e
n D M
n 5
O R P s s
't l
p a e s
a F
f t
t n
R b
6 8
e o
o n
V to P
m P.
atsd u k 4 o
o t: R n l
A e
y e e
ie n
a A
n m
e P D e i W @- ts 0 0 o
u e
w s
e m
e $ ro o
o u
u s
o ism
- e. W -
C n n la m
g e
A M
x u
0 a o
p m e
e e
lo u
r l
p R p
N e
dya C
1 m
a t
w u
i o
e o
M C
M n
r v
r M M p r n
t c h p e r
it e
e e
v e
c n
r e
- - u o
d s
e c d
h i
n o
p c
r e
e e
t s
l o M T
P
- F I
1 8
l S
V g o D
l E
i S
is c
t c
e e
ts o
lo o wn m
t uq R l
e FsA n F C S M E
D I
S I
le le i
P C
n n
n I
g
J
_.w.
I l
~
t j
4 a
l i l l
~
~
4 i
e.
5 k
n i
2 E
i n
n i
y g gg] j 3
i t
81
. {
f TI l {j{!.....
~
1 1
i
~ )*
~
.. 1
. l h
k l
2 Il gli l l l
j
a e
i
- , ABB Impell Report No. 0920 208-01, Revision 0 Page A30 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION SHEET DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE
ALTERNATIVE NO:
1 Maintain the existing SW System Configuration EXPECTED LIFE OF PROPOSED PROJECT:
f REQUIRED LIFE OF PROJECT:
PROJECT ESTIMATE:
SOURCE OF DATA a
Material
$0.00 John McCarthy b.
Labor
$0.00 John McCarthy c.
Engineering
$0.00 John McCarthy d.
Contract Engineering
$0.00 John McCarthy e.
Construction Supv.
$0.00 John McCarthy f.
GAC
$0.00 John McCarthy g.
Rernoval Costs
$0.00 John McCarthy h,
Salvage Value
$0.00 John McCarthy Total Project Estimate:
$0.00 John McCarthy ANNUAL OPERATING COST:
$0.00 John McCarthy ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST:
$0.00 John McCarthy CASH FLOW MONTHS AFTER W.O. APPROVAL AMOUNT _
N/A ANNUAL COST EVALUATION: N/A
4
- -, ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Page A31 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION SHEET l
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE:
ALTERNATIVE NO:
2 Install relief valves on the SW System inlet and outlet lines of RCP seal cooler.
)
EXPECTED LIFE OF PROPOSED PROJECT: 25 years J
REQUIRED LIFE OF PROJECT: 25 years l
PROJECT ESTIMATE:
SOURCE OF DATA a
Material
$219,000 John McCarthy b.
Labor
$167,000 John McCarthy c.
FPC Engineering
$ 23,000 John McCarthy d.
Contract Engineering
$210,000 John McCarthy e.
Construction Supv.
$ 23,000 John McCarthy i
f.
GAC
$ 1,900 John McCarthy g.
Removal Costs
$0.00 John McCarthy l
h.
Salvage Value
$0.00 John McCarthy Total Project Estimate:
$643,900 John McCarthy i
ANNUAL OPERATING COST:
$0.00 John McCarthy ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COST:
$1,000 John McCarthy CASH FLOW
{
MONTHS AFTER W.O. APPROVAL AMOUNT Not Projected 1
4 ANNUAL COST EVALUATION: N/A 4
O, ABB Impell Report No. 0920-208-01, Revision 0 Pa0e A32 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION SHEET DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVE:
ALTERNATIVE NO:
3 install check valves in the inlet lines and automatic isolation valves in the outlet lines of the RCP seal ccolers.
EXPECTED LIFE OF PROPOSED PROJECT: 25 years REQUIRED LIFE OF PROJECT: 25 years PROJECT ESTIMATE:
SOURCE OF DATA a
Material
$340,000 John McCarthy b.
Labor
$450,000 John McCarthy c.
Engineering
$ 45,000 John McCarthy d.
Contract Engineering
$238,000 John McCarthy e.
Construction Supv.
$ 46,000 John McCarthy f.
GAC
$ 3,500 John McCarthy g.
Rernoval Costs
$23,000 John McCarthy h.
Salvage Value
$0.00 John McCarthy Total Project Estlinate:
$1,145,500 John McCcrthy ANNUAL OPERATING COST:
Insignificant John McCarthy ANNUAL MAINTENANCE COS,
$3,200 John McCarthy l
CASH FLOW MONTHS AFTER W.O. APPROVAL AMOUNT Not Projected l
l l
ANNUAL COST EVALUATION: N/A
{