ML20237B411
| ML20237B411 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Peach Bottom  |
| Issue date: | 03/02/1977 |
| From: | Jay Collins Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Karmon W, Scinto J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8712160242 | |
| Download: ML20237B411 (46) | |
Text
r q
i
- o 4
m i
l s
MAR 2 1977 l
Docket Nos. 50-277/278 MBORANDUM POR:
J. Scinto, Office of the Executive Legal Director j
W. Kamen, Office of the Executive Legal Director 1
Orfginal mined b T}ED:
'A. Vollmer, Assistant Directer for Site Analggas gs% y:
i FROM:
J. Collins, Chief. Effluent Treatment Systems tranch, DSE l
SJ1LTECT:
DSE TESTIMONY FOR PEACH B7TTGf AT0 HIC POhER STATION, UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3, WITH RESPECT TO APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART S0 Enclosed is the DSE Staff testimony prepared in response to the U.S. Court of Appeals Decision (No. 74-1923) in the matter of Peach Cottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Mos. 2 and 3, dated December 9,1"75.
The staff testimony provides the cost-benefit analysis reouired by Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part SO, specifically requested by the Court of f
Appeals and a determination of conformance with the individual dose desian Q objectives set forth in Sections II.A II.B, and II.C of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Based on our evaluation, we concinded that the liquid sn:1 ;;aseous redwaste treatment systems presently installed at Peach Botton, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, l
are espable of rosicing releases of radioactive materials in effluents to l
"as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the require-meats of 10 CPR Part 50.34a and confom to the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part S0.
In addition, our evaluation has shown that no additional sugments can be added to the existinr, liquid and gaseous radwaste treatment systems that cas, for a favorable cost-benefit ra:io, effect reductions in dase to the popalation reasonnbly entpected to be within 50 miles of the Peach Botton Station.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY JOHN T. COLLINS l
John T. Co111ms, Chief I
e712160242 770302' Rffinest Treatment Systems trench PDR ADOCK 0500 7
Divisies of Site Safety and P
Bavironmental Analysis.
^ p *0 m
auslesure-t.
ast Testimesy 49ISTRIEUTION 2
DSCKET FILES 54-277/278' -
[~esi%hge 2 '
.j g:p, g "1RR REABING j DSE:SA g jp w LTS5 READING
'RVollme
.t; e
~y a
RSE REABING
!i <offIf7,
,1T0811TN9 FCardile:do TuIke
- dil W$eger' _
hSC$}BfB PSE:ETE DS,E:ETSB QSE:ETSB DSh:',9Y,A DSE:ETSB C E
.me s,
Mn d ins w,
'02/23/77 02/ W /77 024//77 02 d 77 Of/J /77 OJ/2 /77
O 0
0
.m.* x s.m P.= P r.* r." P.* P F 9 8' 8's R E R !i E C 9EP 8'
14:14niinfran@08B-[E pa 3233 84(4gye8 I
I.5
e b')
MAR 2 977
'- x J. Scinto M. Karmen cc:
H. Denton D. Muller W. Gammill D. Eisenhut K. Goller L. Crocker W. Kreger L. Hulman G. Lear B. Grimes E. Markee F. Congel T. Verdery M. Bell W. Burke F. Cardile m
l I
O (m
t
-~
'q
~
\\
UllITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMfilSSION BEFORE THE AT0tilC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Company, )
Docket Nos. 50-277 (Peach Bottom Atomic Power
)
278 Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3
)
)
NRC Staff Evaluation of the Radioactive
, -.s j
'}
Haste Treatment Systems Installed At Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,
\\,/
Unit Nos. 2 and 3 With Resnect to the Renuirenents of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 I.
INTRODUCTION On fiay 5,1975, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission announced its decision in the rulemaking proceedino concerning the numerical guides for design objectives and limiting conditions for operation to meet the criterion "as low as is reasonably achievable" for radioactive material in light-water-cooled nuclear power reactor effluents. This decision is set forth (1) in Appendix ! to 10 CFR Part 50.
The Commission noted, in the Statement of Considerations, "that the new rule provided one acceptable method of establishing compliance with the 'as low as is reasonbly achievable' renuire-(2) ments of 10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a."
,m v
G
. ~
4 On December 31, 1975, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued its mandate in York Committee for a Safe Environment vs (3) l the Nuclear Reculatory Commission (No. 74-1923) in the matter of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, remandina the case to the Commi-ssion for further proceedino. The Court of ADoeals ruled "that the Commission's
'as low as is practicable' regulations (10 CFR Part 20.1,10 CFR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a) recuire an individualized analysis of the cost and benefits of reducino radioactive emissions from the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station."
The Court of Appeals further stated, "it does not apnear that such an individ-ualized analysis was ever performed and the Commission's decision did not rest on a findino that no further reductions in radioactive emissions would nroduce a favorable cost-benefit ratio." The Court of Anoeals remanded the case to the Commission in order to allow such an analysis to be performed and to determine whether to modify the operatino licensino for the Peach Bottom reactors to require additional emission control ecuipment.
II. DISCUSSION The purpose of this testimony is to present the results of the NRC staff's detailed evaluation of the radioactive waste treatment sytems installed at Peach Bottom Atonic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3,1) to reduce and maintain releases of radioactive materials in licuid and caseous effluents to 'as low as is reasonably achievable' levels in accordance with the reauf rements of 10 CR Parts 50.34a and 50.36a, 2) to meet the individual dose design objectives set forth in Section II. A, II.R, and II.C of Appendix I iO I
t_.
\\
' *4 to 10 CFR Part 50, and 3) to provide the results of the cost-benefit analysis reauired by Section II.D of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 and in response to the Court's decision.
Section V.B.1 of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 reouires the holder of a license authorizing operation of a reactor for which application was filed prior to January 2,1971, to file with the Commission by June 4, 1976; such information as is necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas "as low as is reasonably achievable," includino all such information 6O as is required by 50.34a (b) and (c) not already contained in his application.
In accordance with the requirements of Section V.B.1 of Appendix I, the (4)
Philadelphia Electric Co. (PECO) filed with the Commission on June 4,1976
-(5, 6, 7, 8, 9,10,11) and in subsequent submittals the necessary informa-tion to permit an evaluation of the Peach Rotton Station, Unit Hos. 2 and 3, with respect to the requirements of Sections II. A, II.8, and II.C of Appendix I. In these submittals, PECO elected to show conformance with the (12)
Commission's September 4,1975 amendment to Appendix I in lieu of per-forming a detailed cost-benefit analysis as reautred by Section 11.0 of Appendix I.
I t
Y %
.I III. NRC STAFF'S EVALUATION The NRC staff has performed an independent evaluation of the licensee's
~
proposed method to meet the requirements of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part
- 50. The staff's evaluation consisted of the following: 1) a review of the information orovided by the licensee in his June 4,1976 and subse-auent submittals; 2) a review of the radioactive waste (radwaste) treatment and effluent control systems described in the licensee's (13)
Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) and amendments throuch Amend-ment No. 33 (July 1976); 3) the calculation of expected releases of radioactive naterials in liouid and gaseous effluents (source terms) for the Peach Bottom facilities; 4) the calculation of relative concentration (X[Q) and deposition (D/0) values for the Peach Bottom site; 5) the calculation of individual doses at or beyond the site boundary and the population doses within a 50 mile radius of the Peach Bottom Station; and
- 6) the calculation of the cost-benefit ratio for poter.tial radwaste systen augments. The staff's evaluation is discussed in detail in the followino caragraphs.
A.
Radwaste Treatment and Effluent Control Systems The radwaste treatment and effluent control systems installed at the Peach Bottom Station have been previously described in Section 8.0 of (14) the staff's Safety Evaluation Report (SER) dated Auoust 11, 1972, and in Section III.2 of the Final Environmental Statement (FES), dated (15)
April 1973.
Unit Nos. 2 and 3 have separate but identical paseous radwaste treatment systems and share a common liouid radwaste system.
There have been no changes in the paseous radwaste treatment systems l.
1x_
' from those described in the SER and FES. The liouid radwaste treat-ment system has been modified from that described in the FES. The modification consists of a filter / demineralized (Powdex) installed upstream of the mixed bed demineralized in the clean waste (low-conductivity) subsystem and the installation of. a filter / demineralized (5)
(Powdex) in the dirty waste (high conductivity) subsysten.
These modifications were considered in the staff's evaluation.
Based on more recent operating data at other ooeratinn nuclear power reactors, which are applicable to Peach Bottom Station, and on
.(
changes in the staff's calculational models, new liouid and naseous source, terms have been generated to determine conformance with Appendix I.
These values are different from and replace those oiven (15) in Tables III-5 and III-6 of the FES.
The new source terms, shown in Tables 1 and 2, were calculated using the model and methodology (16) described in NUREG-0016.
In making these determinations, the staff considered waste flow rates, concentrations of radioactive materials in the primary system and eouipment decontamination factors consistent with those expected over the 30 year operating life of the plant for normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences. The principal parameters and plant conditions used in calculating the new liouid and caseous source terms are oiven (15) in Table 3 and replace those civen in Table III-3 of the FES.
r A
i h
^[
\\
v
' i The staff also reviewed the operating experience accumulated at Peach Botton Station in order to correlate the calculated releases i
given in Tables 1 and 2 with actual observed releases of radio-active materials in liouid and gaseous effluents. Data on liouid -
and caseous effluents are contained in the licensee's Semi-Annual Operating Reports covering the oeriod of 1974 through 1976. A summary of these releases is oiven in Table 4.
The actual release i
data provided by the licensee in his reports are the releases for Unit Nos. 2 and 3 combined, as indicated in Table 4, whereas the cal-culated releases shown in Tables 1 and 2 are on a per reactor basis.
e
(
Peach Bottom Unit No. 2 reached initial criticality in Septenber 1973, and commerical ooeration in May 1974. Unit No. 3 reached initial criticality in August 1974, and commerical operation in December 1974.
Since the staff does not consider effluent data from the first year of operation to be representative of the long term ooeratina life of the plant, only effluent release data from 1976 (Units Nos. 2 and 3 combined) were used in comparino actual releases from Peach Bottom Station with (17) the calculated releases.
The effluent data from 1976 show a liouid release of approximately 2.8 Ci/yr/ station or 1.4 Ci/yr/ reactor. The staff's calculated release is 4.4 C1/yr/ reactor which is based on desian information provided by (4) the licensee concerning the fraction of liquid waste discharged from O
m:D 7
the plant and the fraction of liquid waste recycled. The licensee has provided revised values of these fractions based on operating (10) experience.
Using these revised values, the staff calculated a liouid release of approximately 1.6 Ci/yr/ reactor. However, since the licensee does not believe that the plant had operated at conditions that (8) are representative of long term operations, the staff used the cal-culated value of 4.4 Ci/yr/ reactor to determine conformance with Appendix I.
In the staff's evaluation of the actual iodine releases in gaseous effluents
/"'
from the Peach Botton Station, the values for the fourth ouarter of 1976
(
were excluded since during this period the standby oas treatment (HEPA/
charcoal filtration) system was used to treat effluent releases from the reactor building resulting in lower than normal values. As a basis of comparison, the iodine releases for the first three cuarters were extrapolated to cover a full year. Based on this extrapolation, the actual releases were approximately 0.57 Ci/yr/ reactor, which is in close agreement with the staff's calculated release of 0.69 Ci/yr/ reactor.
(18,19,20)
In three separate letters, the licensee has indicated that most of the activity released from the station has been from the building ventilation systems (reactor and turbine buildings 1 as a result of eouipment leakage, specifically reactor water cleanup (DWCU) system (19, 20)
(
equipment leaks and main condenser area leaks.
In two of these letters, the licensee has indicated that most of the activity released was the i
4
- ( *
^
result of leakape from the reactor water cleanup heat cxchancers.
In view of this, the actual releases have been weighted more toward i
the reactor buildino than the turbine building than is indicated by the calculated releases given in Table 2.
To correct this condi-tion, the licensee has committed to install welded seals on the heat exchanger flanges. When this corrective action has been completed, l
it is expected that the iodine releases will more closely approximate the calculated iodine release given in Table 2.
Comparison of the actual releases for noble cases, tritium and particulate from the Peach Bottom Station niven ih Table 4 show reasonable anreement with the staff's calculated releases oiven in Tables 1 and 2.
Based on the above discussion, the staff believes that the calculational model reasonably characterizes the actual releases of radioactive materials in liquid and gaseous effluents from Peach Bottom, Unit Nos. 2 and 3.
These calculated releases were used in the staff's dose assessment j
discussed in Section III.C of this testimony.
B.
Meteorology The staff has made reasonable estimates of average atmospheric disper-sion conditions for the Peach Bottom Station usino an atmospheric dispersion model appropriate for long-term releases. The model used hy the staff is based upon the " Variable Trajectory Model" described (21) in Regulatory Guide 1.111.
N.)
l L
a A.
This model approximates a continuous release by dividino the plume
~.
into discrete seaments released at frecuent intervals such that the resultina concentration estimates are reasonably representative of the concentration from a continuous ooint source release throuahout the annual period. The transport and diffusion of each plume segment causes the dispersion of.the effluent. Concentration averaaes are calculated by determining the contribution of each element to the points over which it passes. This model has the capability of j
tracking the plume segments, and therefore, the entire plume, as j
the wind field and, correspondingly, the plume vary spatially and temporally over the region of interest. For continuous caseous releases from the plant vents, a mixed release mode (part elevated and part around level) was assumed, based on field tests by the licensee (22) at the Peach Bottom site.
Both continuous and intermittent caseous releases from the offgas stack (considered to be elevated) were also evaluated.
The estimates presented are based on annual meteorological conditions, usina the vertical temperature difference between the 75-and 320-foot levels of the Peach Bottom Station meteorological tower for representing atmospheric stability. Wind speed and direction were recorded at the 75-foot level for the plant vent releases and at the 320-foot level for the offgas stack releases. The one year of data used, calendar year 1969, collected from Peach Bottom Weather Station No. 2, was selected by the licensee and examined by the staff and found to be reasonably representa-tive of long term conditions expected at the site. The 1969 data were the most complete one year period of wind and T data available.
L
O V
Table 5 lists relative concentration and deposition values used in the staff's dose assessment discussed in Section III.C below.
C.
Individual and Ponulation Dose Assessment i
The staff's dose evaluations considered the following three effluent cateoorfes: 1) Dathways associated with radioactive materials released in liou'id effluents to the Susouehanna River, 2) pathways associated with noble ' cases released to the atmosphere, and 3) Dathways associated with radioiodines, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium released to the atmosphere.
The mathematical models used by the staff to perform the individual and (23)
.. y /
population dose calculations are described in Reculatory Guide 1.109.
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with the release of radio-active materials in liouid effluents was based on the maximum exposed individual. For the total body dose, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be an adult whose diet included the consumption (23) of fish (21 Kg/yr) harvested from the Susouehanna River in the immediate vicinity of the plant discharoe and use of the shoreline (23) alono the Susouehanna River for recreational purposes (12 hr/yr).
I For the organ dose, the staff considered the maximum exposed individual to be an infant whose diet included drinkino water (510l/yr) from i
i the Suscuehanna River via the city water supply at Chester, Pennsylvania.
j L
The dose to the population living within fifty miles of Peach Bottom Station due to radioactive materials released in liouid effluents was based on the following parameters:
- 1) at the year 2000, 1.2 million people will be receivina their drinkino water from the Susouehanna (2a, 29)
River downstream of the Peach Bottom Station,
- 2) the year 2000 population within fifty miles of the Peach Botton Station was estinated (24) to consume 35,000 kilocrams of edible fish harvested from the Susouehanna River and to spend 5 nillion man-hours alona the shoreline (25) for recreational purposes.
The dose. evaluation of noble gases released to the atmosphere included calculations of the beta and gamma air doses, total body dose, and skin dose at site boundary. The maxinun noble cas doses at the site boundary were found at 0.25 miles N relative to the Peach Botton Station.
The dose evaluation of pathways associated with the release of radio-iodines, particulate, carbon-14, and tritium to the atmosphere was also based on the maximum exposed individual. For this evalatuion, the staff considered maximum exposed individual to be an infant whose diet included the consumption of milk (330) /yr) from a cow grazing at 1.3 miles SSW of the Peach Bottom Station. The evaluation further considered that the cow grazing at this location received (7) pasturage equivalent to four and one-half months per year of total diet from grazing.
The calculated dose to the population livina within fifty miles of Peach 7
(
Bottom Station due to the releases of noble gases, radioiodines, carticu-s lates, carbon-14, and tritium.was based on the following parameters:
n-U.,
- 1) at the year 2000 the population within fifty miles of the Peach I
(24)
Bottom Station.is estinated to be 5.3 million oeople;
- 2) 1 billion liters of milk, 54 million kiloarams of meat, and 53 million kiloarans of veaetables will be produced within 50 miles of the Peach Bottom (26, 27)
Station;
- 3) all of the production estimated in (2) above except 320 million liters of milk would be consumed by the population within (23) fifty miles;
- 4) milk animals would receive oasturage equivalent (7) to four and one-half months per year of. total diet fron grazina; and 5) thirty percent of the milk produced would be used for cheese (26, 27) production.
D k
Usina the dose assessment parameters noted above and the cancellated releases of radioactive materials in liauid effluents aiven in Table 1, the staff calculates the annual dose or dose commitment to the total body or to any organ of an individual, in an unrestricted area, to be less than 3 mrem / reactor and 10 nrem/ reactor, respectively, as shown in Table 6.
Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of radioactive materials in gaseous effluents aiven in Table 2, and the appropriate relative concentration (X/0) value given in Table 5 the staff calculated the annual gamma and beta air doses at or beyond the site boundary to be less than 10 mrad / reactor and 20 mrad / reactor, respectively, as shown in Table 6.
O
- - - - _ - _ - _ - _ - _. -. _ ~. _
.,/
i Using the dose assessment parameters noted above, the calculated releases of radioiodine, carbon-14, tritium, and particulate aiven in Table 2, l
and the appropriate relative concentration (X/0) and deposition (D/Q) values given in Table 5, the staff calculated the annual doses or dose commitment to any oroan of the maximum exposed individual to be less than 15 mrem / reactor as shown in Table 6.
D.
Cost-Benefit Analysis (1)
Section 11.0 of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50 reouires that licuid and caseous radwaste systems for linht-water-cooled nuclear power reactors include all items of reasonably demonstrated technolocy that, when added to the system sequentially and in order of diminishing cost-benefit return, can, for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, effect reductions in dose to the population reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor.
The staff's cost-benefit analysis was performed usina 1) the carameters described in Section III.C of this testimony and the Doculation dnses summarized in Table 7; 2) the analysis procedures outlined in Penulatory (28)
Guide 1.110;
- 3) the cost carameters given in Table 8; and 4) the capital costs of potential radwaste system auements as provided in Regulatory Guide 1.110 and as provided in A,onendix A to this testimony.
As a basis for the cost-benefit analysis, the staff used the interim values of $1,000 per total body-man-rem and $1,000 per man-thyroid-rem contained in Section II.D of Appendix I as a measure of acceptability
for. reduction in dose achieved by the potential radwaste system ava-ments. The staff's analysis is based on 1975 dollars; i.e., neither the costs nor the interim values are escalated for the credicted effects.of inflation. Since the worth of a man-rem or man-tbyroid-rem to the public is subject to the same fluctuations in value as the cost of equipment to reduce radioactive emissions, the staff believes this approach to be reasonable. Operation and maintenance costs aiven in Regulatory Guide 1.110 were apolied to retrofitted eouipment since these factors are independent of whether the eauipment was backfitted or included in the original design.
p For the liquid radwaste systems, the augments evaluated included a demineralized, an evaporator, and additional tankaae. For the caseous radwaste systems, the augments evaluated included charcoal and HEPA filtration of process systems and building ventilation systems, addition of charcoal adsorbers to the main condenser off-cas system, and use of clean steam on the turbine gland seals. The capital costs of these aup-ments are provided in Tables A-1 and A-5 of Regulatory Guide 1.110 and in Table 2 of Appendix A to this testimony.
Using the methodology described above, the total annualized cost (TAC) for each radwaste system augment exceeded the $1,000 per total body man-rem or $1,000 per man-thyroid-rem cost-b'enefit ratio. The most l
effective gaseous radwaste auament considered was charcoal /HEPA filtra-O tion of the reactor building ventilation system exhaust, however, the m
. calculated total annualized cost of the auoment resulted in a cost-benefit ratio of $2,400 per man-thyroid-ren which exceeds the $1,000 per man-thyroid-ren criteria. The most effective liauid radwaste auament considered was the addition of a 50 anm denineralizer to the liauid radwaste system; however, the calculated total annualized cost of the augment resulted in a cost-benefit ratio of $2,000 per thyroid-man-rem which exceeds the $1,000 per thyroid-man-ren criteria.
l Based on the staff's cost-benefit analysis, there were no cost-effective radwaste system augnents that can be added to the systems presently installed at Peach Bottom Station, linit flos. 2 and 3, that, for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, can effect a reduction in the dose to the population reasonably exnected within 50 miles of the reactor.
IV.
EVALVATION FIflDINGS Based on the forecoina evaluation, the staff concludes that the radwaste treatment systems installed at Peach Bottom Station, Unit Mos. 2 and 3, are capable of reducina releases of radioactive materials in liauid and caseous effluents to "as low as is reasonably achievable" levels in accordance with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 50.34a and, therefore are acceptable.
The staff has performed an independent evaluation of the radwaste systems installed at Peach Bottom Station, Unit Hos. 2 and 3.
This evaluation has shown that the installed systems are capable of maintaining releases of radio-active materials in liquid and caseous effluents durina normal operation including anticipated operational occurrences such that the individual dose G
.will not exceed the numer1:al dose desian objectives of Sections II.A, II.8, and II.C, of Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
9" g'~~s j
J In accordance with Section II.D of Appendix I, the staff has performed a cost-benefit analysis which shows that no additional auoments can be added I
to the presently installed systems at the Peach Bottom Station that will effect a reduction in the dose to the pnpulation within a 50 mile radius of the station for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
Frank Congel, Section Leader Richard Emch Radiological Impact Section Radiological Impact Section Radiological Assessment Branch Radiological Assessment Branch Division of Site Safety and Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Environmental Analysis l
Earl Markee, Section Leader Leta Andrews Meteorology Section Meteorology Section Hydrology-Meteorology Branch Hydrolocy-Meteorology Branch Division of Site Safety and Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Environmental Analysis Michael J. Bell, Section Leader Frank Cardile Systems Analysis Section Systems Analysis Section Effluent Treatment Systems Branch Effluent Treatment Systems Branch Division of Site Safety and Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis Environmental Analysis John T. Collins, Chief Millard Myers Effluent Treatment Systems Branch Consultant to NRC Division of Site Safety and Oak Ridge National Laboratory Environmental Analysis i
O i
L:
TABLE 1 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN LIQUID EFFLUENTS FROM PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 Nuclides Ci/Yr/ Reactor Nuclides Ci/Yr/ Reactor Corrosion 6 Activation Products Fission Products Na-24 2.2(-1)a Ru-103 2.2(-3)
P-32 2(-4)
Rh-103m
- 2. I (-3)
Cr-51 5.2(-1)
Ru-105 2.8(-3)
Mn-54 7.5(-3)
Rh-105m 2.8(-3)
Mn-56
- 6. 6 (-3)
Rh-105 1.4 (- 2)
Fe-55 1.1(-1)
Ru-106 2.7(-3)
Fe-59
- 3. 2 (-3)
Rh-106 3.2(-4)
Co-58 2.5(-2)
Ag-110m 5.5(-4)
Co-60 5.2(-2)
Ag-110 1(-5)
Ni-63 1.1(-4)
Te-129m 4.2(-3)
Ni-65 4 (-5)
Te-129 2.7(-3)
- 5. 8 (-1)
Te-131m 5(-3)
Zn-65 2.2 (-2)
Te-131 9.1(-4) 2n-69m 4.3(-2)
Te-132 8 (-3) 2r-95
- 1. 4 (-3)
I-132 3.3(-3)
Mb-95 2 ' 3)
I-133 7.9(-1)
W-187 1.2(-2)
I-134 3(-5)
Np-239 5(-1)
Cs-134 2.9 (-2)
Fission Products C
36 1 2)
Br-83 3.2(-4)
Cs-137 6.2(-2)
Sr-89 1.1(-2)
Ba-137m 3.5(-2)
Sr-90 6.5(-4)
Ba-139 4(-5)
Y-90 1.9( 4)
Ba-140 4(-2)
Sr-91
- 4. 7 (-2)
La-140
- 1. 8 (~ 2)
Y-91m 3(-2)
La-141 5.9( 4)
Y-91 6.7(-3)
Ce-141
- 3. 4 (-3)
Sr-92
- 1. 7 (- 3)
La-142 4(-5)
Y-92 1.6(-2)
Ce-143 1.6(-3)
Y-93
- 5. 2 (-2)
Pr-143 4.2(-3) 2r-95
- 7. 5 (-4)
Ce-144
- 5. 5 (-3)
Nb-95 7.6(-4)
Pr-144 3.2(-4)
Zr-97
- 1. 4 (-4)
Na-147 3(-4) 3 Nb-97m 1.4( 4)
All Others 1(-5)
Nb-97 1.4 (-4)
Total Mo-99 1.5(-1)
(except H-3) 4.4 Tc-99m 2.1(-1)
H-3' 43 a - Exponential notation; 2.2(-1) = 2.2 x 10-1 b - Nuclides not specifically identified above are calculated to be less than 10-5 Ci/yr and are included under the category of "All Others".
TABLE 2 CALCULATED RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIALS IN GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 (Ci/Yr/ Reactor)
Building Ventilation Ej or ea Vc Nuclides Reactor Turbine Radwaste Offgas Vent Pump Total Kr-83 a
a a
a 48 a
48 Kr-85m 6
68 a
a 84 a
84 Kr 85 a
a a
270 a
a 270 Kr-87 7
130 a
a 290 a
430 Kr-88 6
230 a
a 290 a
540 Kr-89 a
a a
a 1200 a
1200 Xe-131m a
a a
170 a
a 170 Xe-133m a
a a
1400 4
a 1400 Xe-133 130 250 10 73000 120 2300 76000 Xe-135m 92 650 a
a 35 a
780 Xe-135 68 630 45 620 320 350 2000
-137 a
a a
a 1500 a
1500
-138 14 1400 a
a 1200 a
2600 I-131 3.4(-1)b
- 1. 9 (-1) 5 (-2) 3.7(-2) 4. 7 (- 2) 3(-2) 6.9(-1)
I-133 1.4 7.6(-1)
- 1. 8 (-1) 1.3(-2) 1.8(-1) a 2.5 Cr-51 6(-4) 1.3(-2) 9(-3) c e
c 2.3(-2)
Mn-54 6(-3) 6(-4) 3( 2) c e
c 3.7(-2)
Fe 59 8(-4) 5(-4)
- 1. 5 (- 2) e e
c 1.6(-2)
Co-58
- 1. 2 (-3) 6(-4)
- 4. 5 (-3) e e
c
- 6. 3 (-3)
Co-60 2(-2) 2 (-3) 9(-2) e e
c 1.1(-1)
In-65 4 (-3) 2(-4)
- 1. 5 (-3) e e
c 5.7(-3)
Sr-89 1.8(-4) 6(-3) 4.3(-4) c e
c 6.6(-3)
Sr-90 1(-5) 2 (-5) 3(-4) e e
c
- 3. 4 (- 4)
Zr-95 9(-4) 1(-4) 5(-5) c c
c 9.5(-4)
Sb-124 4 (-4) 3(-4) 5 (-5) c e
c 7.5(-4)
Cs-134 8 (-3) 3(-4)
- 4. 5 (-3) e e
c 1.3(-2)
Cs-136 6(-4) 5(-5)
- 4. 5 (-4) c c
c 1.1 (- 3)
Cs-137 1.1(-2) 6(-4) 9(-3) c e
c 2.1 (-2)
Ba-140 8(-4) 1.1(-2) 1(-4) e e
c 1.2(-2)
Ce-141 2(-4) 6(-4)
- 2. 6(-3) e e
c 3.4 (-3)
C-14 a
a a
9.5 a
a 9.5 43 H-3 43 Ar-41 25 e
e c
c c
25 a - less than 1.0 Ci/yr noble gases, less than 10 Ci/yr for iodine,
~
b - exponential notation; 3.4(-1) = 3.4 x 10"I e - less than 1% of total for nuclide
TABLE 3 PRINCIPAL PAP.AMETERS AND CONDITIONS USED IN CALCULATING RELEASES OF RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL IN LIQUID AND GASEOUS EFFLUENTS FROM PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 (Per Unit)
Reactor Power Level (MWt) 3440 Plant Capacity Factor 0.80 Offgas Release Rate 60,000 Noble Gases, Ci/see After 30-min. Decay Iodine-131, Ci/yr, Downstream of Main Condenser Air Ejectors 5
Primary Coolant System 5
Mass of Coolant in Reactor Vessel (1bs) 5.5 x 10 4
Mass of Steam in Reactor Vessel (1bs) 2.1 x 10 5
Cleanup Demineralized Flow (1bs/hr) 1.4 x 10 Steam Flow Rate (1bs/hr) 1.4 x 10' Condensate Deminerali:er Flow (1bs/hr) 1.4 x 10 Number of Main Condenser Shells 3
Air Inleakage to Main Condenser, cfm/shell 10 Building Ventilation System Decontamination' Factors HEPA Filter, Particulate 100 2" Charcoal Adsorbers, Iodines 10 Gaseous Waste Holdup Times Offgas Systems (hrs) 83 Gland Seal Vent (hrs) 0.03 Decontamination Factors (DF)
I Cs, Rb Other Nuclides 2
Equipment Drain System 10 20 10 Floor Drain System 10 2
10 s
TABLE 4 SUhtiARY OF LIQUID AND GASEOUS RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENTS FOR PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 (Releases for 1974-1976, Units 2 6 3 Combined)
I) 1976 1974( ' )
I) 1975 Total (Ci/yr)
(Ci/yr)
(Ci/yr)
Liquid Releases Total Activity (except tritium) 0.95 0.93 2.8 Tritium 10 31 74 Gaseous Releases Noble Gases 250 13,000 209,400 Iodine-131 0.001 0.034 0.94 Tritium 5.6 0.31 27 Particulate 0.0006 0.003 0.039 (1) Releases from 1974 are for Unit No. 2 alone since Unit No. 3 was not operating during this period.
( )From Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit No. 2, Semi-Annual Operating Report No. 2, January 1, 1974 through June 30, 1974; and from Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit No. 2 and Unit No. 3, l
Semi-Annual Operating Report No. 3, July 1, 1974 through December 31, 1974.
( From Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit No. 2 and Unit No. 3, l
Semi-Annual Operating Report No. 4, January 1,1975 through June 30, 1975; and from Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit No. 2 and Unit No. 3, l
Semi-Annual Operating Report No. 5, July 1, 1975 through December 31, 1975.
l (4)From Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit No. 2 to t Unit No. 3, 1
Semi-Annual Effluent Releases Report No.1, January 1,1976 through June 30, 1976; from Letter from J. Hankins, Vice President, Electric Production, Philadelphia Electric Co. to P. Nelson, Region I, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, USNRC, January 3,1977; and from Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit No. 2 and Unit No. 3, Semi-Annual Effluent Releases Report No. 2, July 1, 1976 through December 31, 1976.
l
e Q l
(
(
e/
RD 3
2 t
1 5
ne t
)
)
t 8
7 i Q
(
(
m/
rX 8
8 e
t 8
1 n
I S
e
)
)
N s
)
)
0 0
O a
8 9
1 1
I e
T l Q
(
(
(
(
t A
e/
8 5
3 9
L RD ns
,e U
1 3
1 4
iarr C
s ogea L
u p - h W
A o
f tkS C
u
)
)
)
)
ef ocS 3
n 6
7 8
7 s o a
E i Q a
ht s SD t/
(
(
(
(
eecse l h a l
ON nX 5
8 7
1 et eei DA o
C 2
7 8
1 r
h m f ot N2 cot 3
I i
f f nt o1 DS ioc EO cieSd SN et p n
U
)
pas sa T
i st ee m
) I nrl N QN
(
ee i
/ ll D
e 5
0 0
hih ms t rt e
2 3
4 2
4 2
(
c>
a "(
o i 2. i l
N n
0 1
0 1
0 1
6 o
w NO t c 1 m OI t) 5 I T se 0
i s 1
t rnd5 TA ic E
I T D r ct on2 L
SS u
x eeia B
O o
pmt 0
A PR S
5 soaE eecNd T
EE DW m
2 rgoN e.
l t s O
e DP r
=
h e sat N
nF th recn
)
it ol oe AC o(
6 w
ti l v I
i
) M t
W E
E opm QO c
N S
N S
N S
(
dt e et
/T e
S N
N 5
e c0 si XA r
cee4 on 2
nurt h u
(
i M
D eD Ot r
d e
NO e
nd sh OT n
f.
aeat I 1 T0 o
en
,tas m A 8
/
/
/
i ro R
l r
n n
n t
i scro T i o
e e
e a
st t oor NC t
d d
d t
i anl tf EA p
y r
y r
y r
o re p
CE e
r a
r a
r a
n revse NP c
a G
a G
a G
od rcy O
e d
/
d
/
d
/
l ti t oel C
R n
e n
e n
e a
psit re u
c u
c u
c i
ennp v
E f
o n
o n
o n
t coueei V
o B
e B
e B
e n
ec,cmt I
d d
d e
r eac T
e e
i w e
iw e
i w n
rk rs e A
p t
s o t
so t
so o
hec p
L y
i eC i
eC i
eC p
cd aees E
T S
R S
R S
R x
anthh e E
E ust t r R
a b
pmr) u yh
)
k kP/c e
)
c) c a
.see s
s as a
a su t u t cs e
t o S o S aa l
nu u
V es e
en s n s
l r eR Vi ai a
.eh c
t Gt Gh r re t n
- n
- c 4
up i o f o f e42 oy nC fC fM(
ST U(
O(
O
(
TABLE 6 COMPARISON OP CALCULATED DOSES FROM PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 WITH SECTIONS II. A, II.B, AND 11.C OF APPENDIX I TO 10 CFR PART SO (Doses to Maximum Individual)
Appendix I Dose Calculated Design Objective Doses Pathway (Per Reactor)
(Per Reactor)
Liquid Effluents Dose to total body from all pathways 3 mrem /yr 0.18 mrem /yr Dose to any organ from all pathways 10 mrem /yr 0.47 mrem /yr Noble Gas Effluents Gamma dose in air 10 mrad /yr 1 mrad /yr Beta dose in air 20 mrad /yr 0.79 mrad /yr Dose to toth1 body of an individual 5 mrem /yr 0.69 mrad /yr Dose to skin of an individual 15 mrem /yr 1.3 mrem /yr a
Radioiodines and Particulate In Gaseous Effluents Dose to any organ from all pathways 15 mrem /yr 13 mrem /yr aCarbon-14 and tritium have been added to this category.
e TABLE 7 a
CALCULATED DOSES TO POPULATION FOR COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 Total Body Thyroid Pathway (man-rem / reactor)
(man-rem / reactor)
Liquid Effluents 0.5 21 Gaseous Effluents 12 65
" Based on the year 2000 population expected to be with a 50 mile radius of the Peach Bottom Station.
TABLE 8 PRINCIPAL PARAMETERS USED IN THE COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS PEACH BOTTOM ATOMIC POWER STATION, UNIT NOS. 2 AND 3 8
Labor Cost Correction Factor, FPC Region 1 1.6 b
12.5%
Cost of Money a
0.1288 Capital Recovery Factor "From Regulatory Guide 1.110, Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors (March 1976).
bFrom Reference 29 l
l
?
REFERENCES 1.
Title 10, CFR Part 50, Appendix 1, " Numerical Guides for Design Ob.iectives and Limitina Conditions for Operation To Meet The Criterion
' As low As Is Reasonably Achievable' for Radioactive Material In Licht-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents," Federal Reaister, V.40 p.19442, May 5,1975.
2.
Opinion of The Commission, Docket No. RH 50-2, Numerical Guidance For Desian Objectives and Limitina Conditions For Operation To Meet The Criterion, ' As low As Practicale' For Radioactive Material in Licht-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents, April 30, 1975.
3.
United states Court of Acceals For The District of Columbia Circuit, No. 74-1923, York Committee For a Safe Environment, V.11.S. Nuclear Reculatory Commission, Petition For Review of an Order of The II.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Decided December 0, 1975.
4 Letter, E. Bradley, Philadelphia Electric Co., to 8. Rusche, Director, ONRR, USNRC, " Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Docket Nos. 50-277/278, June 4, 1976.
9
. Letter, E. Bradley, Philadelphia Electric Co., to G. Lear, Chief, 5
Operatina Reactors Branc.h No. 3, Division of Operatina Peactors, OMR, USNRC, " Peach Botton Atonic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3," Docket Nos. 50-277/278, Auaust 23, 1976.
6.
Letter, E. Bradley, Philadelphia Electric Co., to G. Lear, Chief, Operating Reactors Rranch No. 3, Division of Operatino Reactors, ONPR, USNRC, " Peach Botton Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3," Docket Nos. 50-277/278, September 2,1976.
7.
Letter, E. Bradley, Philadelphia Electric Co., to B. Rusche, Director, ONRR, USNRC, " Peach Rottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3,"
Docket Nos. 50-277/278, September 30, 1976.
8.
Letter, E. Bradley, Philadelphia Electric Co., to R. Rusche, Director, ONRR, USNRC, " Peach Botton Atomic Power Station, Unit Hos. 2 and 3,"
Docket Nos. 50-277/278, November 30, 1976.
9.
Letter, E. Bradley, Philadelphia Electric Co., to B. Rusche, Director, ONRR, USNRC, " Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Hos. 2 and 3,"
Docket Nos. 50-277/278, December 3,1976,
- 10. Letter, V. Boyer, Philadelphia Electric Co., to 8. Rusche, Director, ONRR, USNRC, " Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Hos. 2 and 3,"
Docket Hos. 50-277/278, December 22, 1976.
.O ~-
~.
- 11. Letter, E. Bradley, Philadelphia' Electric Co., to B. Rusche, Director, ONRR, USNRC, " Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Hos. 2 and 3,"
j Docket Nos. 50-277/278, February 3,1977.
- 12. Title 10, CFR Part 50, Amendment to Paraaraph 11.0 of Aopendix I,
]
Federal Recister, V. 40, n. 40816, September 4,1975 i
l
- 13. Final Safety Analysis Report, " Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station,"
i Philadelphia Electric Company, August 1970.
]
- 14. Staff of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, " Safety Evalution of the Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3," Docket Nos. 50-277/278, Washington, D. C., August 11, 1972.
- 15. Staff of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, " Final Environmental Statement Related to The Operation of Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Hos. 2 and 3,"
Docket Nos. 50-277/278, Washinaton, D.C.,
April 1973.
/~'N
- 16. NUREG-0016, " Calculation of Releases of Radioactive Materials In Gaseous 1
(V) and Liouid Effluents from Boilinc. Water Reactors (BWR-GALE Code)," April 1976.
- 17. Peach Botton Atomic Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3, Semi-Annual Effluent Release Reoort No.1, January 1,1976 thru June 30, 1976; Semi-Annual Effluent Release Report No. 2, July 1,1976 thru December 31, 1976; and Letter, J. Hankins, Philadelphia Electric Co., to P. Nelson, Region I, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, January 3,1977.
- 18. Letter, M. Cooney, Philadelphia Electric Co., to J. O'Reilly, Director, Reaion I, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, USNRC, " Technical Specification 3.8.C.3.a and b Unique Reportina Requirements - Plant Iodine and Particulate Release Rate Exceeded Four Percent of Technical Specification 3.8.C.2 Averaced over a Calendar Ouarter", July 30, 1976.
- 19. Letter, M. Cooney, Philadelphia Electric Co., to J. O'Reilly, Director Region I, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, USNPC, "Uninue Reportina Requirements - Plant Iodine and Particulate Release Rate Exceeded Four Percent of Technical Specification 3.8.C.2 Averaged Over a Calendar Quarter", November 17, 1976.
- 20. Letter M. Cooney, Philadelphia Electric Co., to J. O'Reilly, Director Region I, Office of Inspection and Enforcement, USNRC, " Unique Report for Plant Iodine and Particulate Release Rate Exceeded Four Percent of Technical Specification 3.8.C.2 Averaged Over the Fourth Calendar Quarter of 1976", December 9,1976.
V
- 21. Regulatory Guide 1.111, " Methods of Estimatino Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents In Routine Releases From Light-Water-l Cooled Reactors," March 1976, b.
I 1
A-
' ;(
. s j
i ]
l
- 22. Philadelphia Electric Company, " Unit 2 Vent Plume Behavior, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station," March 1974.
- 23. Regulatory Guide 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses co Man from Routine Releses of Reactor Effluents For The Purpose of Evaluating Compliance With 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I," March 1976.
- 24. Environmental'Recort, Operating License Stace, Philadelphia Electric Co., Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Unit Hos. 2 and 3, Docket Nos.
50-277/278, June'1971.
- 25. The 1970 Survey of Outdoor Reaction Actiities, Preliminary Report, United States Department of the Interior, Bureau of Outdoor Recreation, February 1972.
- 26. Maryland Agricultural Statistics - 1974, Annual Sumnary for 1973, Marylano Department of Agriculture, June 1974 O,'
- 27. Crop a>.1d Livestock Annual Summary - 1973, Annual Summary for 1973, Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture.
- 28. Regulatory Guide 1.110, " Cost-Benefit Analysis for Radwaste Systems For Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors," March 1976.
- 29. " Water Consumption Study for Baltimore Water Service Area for the Period 1970-2020," Jack Pearson, Analyzer Office of the Baltimore Water Service, November 1971.
I I
m('k l
1 L-
__ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ j
k APPENDIX A Retrofit Costs for Radweste Systems i
for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors I
Introduction Section 11.0 of Appendix I, "Humerical Guides for Desion Objectives and l
Limiting Conditions for Operation to tieet the Criterion 'As low As Is Reasonably Achievable' for Radioactive Material in Licht-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents," to 10 CFR Part 50, "Licensina of Produc-tion and Utilization Facilities," requires that licuid and gaseous radwaste systems for licht-water-cooled nuclear nower reactors include all items of reasonably demonstrated technoloqy that, when added to the system (Q
sequentially and in order of diminishing cost-benefit return, can, for
- /
a favorable cost-benefit ratio, effect reductions in dose to the ponulatinn reasonably expected to be within 50 miles of the reactor. Values of $1000 per man-rem and $1000 per man-thyroid-rem are given in Appendix I as interim criteria for the cost-benefit analysis. Deaulatory Guide 1.110, " Cost-Renefit Analysis.for Radwaste Systems for Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactors,"
describes a procedure acceptable to the NRC Staff for performino a cost-benefit analysis for liouid and gaseous radwaste system connonents and presents capital costs for potential auoments to radwaste systems to show conformance with the reoutrements of Section !!.D of Appendix 1.
The costs oiven in Reculatory Guide 1.110 are based on augmentation of radwaste systens durina the initial design phases of the nuclear station (construction permit stage of NRC review).
Section V.B.1 of Appendix I recuires that, for each licht-water-cooled r
nuclear power reactor constructed pursuant to a permit for which applica-tion was filed prior to January 2,1971, the holder of the permit or a L
.G 2
license. authorizing operation of the reactor file with the Commission by June 4,1976 such information as is necessary to evaluate the means employed for keeping levels of radioactivity in effluents to unrestricted areas as low as is reasonably achievable, including all such information as is required by 50.34a (b) & (c) not already contained in his application.
If a cost-benefit analysis is performed for a reactor for which an applica-tion for a' construction oermit was filed prior to January 2,1971, to meet the requirements of. Appendix 1, the general procedures niven in Regulatory Guide 1.110 may be used. However, these reactors are either under construction (operating license stage of NRC review) or are already operatino, and the capital costs for a retrofitted auament to a reactor in these staces are different from those cresented in Regulatory Guide 1.110. This apDendiX provides guidance for determining the total capital costs of several potential augments to radwaste systems for reactors under construction and in operation.
METHODOLOGY Cost estimates for the retrofit of radwaste systems at reactors under con-struction or in operation were made using similar bases, methods, and data as are presented in Reaulatory Guide 1.110 and considered factors i
which could affect the cost of retrofitted eauipment. The principal factors influencing costs peculiar to retrofittino that were considered in this analysis are buildino space requirements, schedules, interface with
)
i V
o
- h V
existina systems, change order costs, and special craft labor reauire-ments.
The costs of retrofitting radwaste systems vary widely due to differences in layout and available soace for individual plant desians, and dependina f
on refueling and maintenance schedules for individual reactors. Therefore, for the purposes of this appendix, the followina assumptions were made that would result in costs at the low end of the expected range of costs.
It was assumed that space was available in existina buildinos to house the system augment, and that a new building would not be recuired to accommodate the y
augmented system. The cost estimates for retrofittino were developed assumina that the work could be performed (or conoleted) and tested during an annual
)
I outage for plant scheduled repairs and refuelina. Time to place the augment in operatina condition was assumed to be available. No charae for downtime for retrofitting was added to the retrofit cost.
In the event that the assumptions considered above do not describe the condi-tions at a particular reactor, the costs for auamented radwaste systems will be higher than those estimated in this apoendix. Therefore, if a radwaste system augment can not be made for a favorable cost-benefit ratio, usina the capital costs in this Appendix, it is unlikely that it can be added to any actual system for a favorable cost-benefit ratio.
i l
~
A 4
I Cost estimates for the retrofit of radwaste systems at reactors after the initial desian stage were made usina the following procedure. Each auoment j
case is reported in like categories of craf t labor (L), purchased eauip-ment (E), and site materials (M). To these items are added spare parts and a contingency allowance on these four items. Direct cost is the total of these five categories of cost. The direct cost estimates were developed by considering such factors as hardware, design, labor, building space, and interfaces with existing systens. These factors were compared with industry 1
experience which permitted the staff to determine relationships of labor, naterials, eauipment, and total directs.
/g\\
t Manpower required for security, fire protection, operational interface with construction, craft orientation, and materials handlina was also considered in developing the costs for operatina reactors.
The breakdown of indirect costs are presented in Table 1 for a plant in the initial design phase, for a plant under construction, and for a plant in operation. The first component of the indirect costs is the craft labor overhead (fringes, burdens, etc.), construction facilities, equipment, and services. The second component is for engineering and construction manaae-ment, and the third component is other owners costs, such as property taxes and insurance.
Interest during construction is an applicable indirect cost for reactors under construction, but was not considered for an operating reactors due p
to the relatively short duration of the plannina and construction of the retrofit. For retrofitting while a plant is under construction, the indirect costs include a charge for change-order expense.
The indirect cost for the retrofit to an ooeratino reactor was determined to be a fixed cost instead of the percentaae value noted in Regulatory l
Guide 1.110, because the indirect costs for a retrofit project for a nuclear reactor in the operatina stage are relatively independent of the direct and labor costs.
In order to confirm the validity of important inputs used in developino the cost estimates presented in this appendix, the major areas of the costs were reviewed with representatives of utilities, eouionent vendors, and architect engineering firms and were found to be in the rance of those actually being encountered.
RESULTS Retrofit costs for ten radwaste system augments considered most likely to be added to a reactor whose application for a construction permit was received before January 2,1971, were evaluated. The radwaste system auoments that were considered in this evaluation are listed along with the components of their capital cost in Table 2.
Capital costs were determined following the Accounting Systen given in EkDA-108, which is the same system used in Regulatory Guide 1.110. As in Regulatory Guide 1.110, all costs are presented in 1975 doll ars. Neither the costs nor the interim criteria are escalated for the predicted effects of inflation, since the worth of a man-rem or man-thyroid-rem to the public is subject to the same fluctuations in value as the cost of equipment to reduce radioactive effluents.
4 4
Six of the radwaste system aupnents, considered in Table 2, were previously i
considered in Regulatory Guide 1.110, and orocess eouionent costs for these augments are taken from that guide. Costs for the followina four avaments-were newly developed for this analysis: the PWR stean generator blowdown heat exchanger (Item No. 7); the PWR waste cas decay tank vent HEPA filtration -
systen (Item No. 8), and the HEPA/ charcoal filtration system for the BWR main condenser offaas system, both as new construction (Item No. 91, and-as an adaptation of an existina filter (Item No.10). The principal components of the capital costs of these items are oiven in Tables 3 throuch 12.
O g--
o
~
'.~
c e
t v
ne e
o ac l
b l n b
a Pa 0
0 0
i h
0 0
0 o
d i
e oC 0,
0, 0,
l d
n in 0
0 0
o u
t o 3
6 1
e l
ai N
c rs n
ee I
pD r
O e
tup mo-t C
s n
At i
S e
n o
T nc
- a s
p N
on t
l E
ia N
th a
a d
TP n
s r
cC
%C P
e i
t u
9 0
1 5
0 E r m
n A
rn 1
2 3
0 C e g
t t
ta 0
N w u
M si 5
Oo a
o t
E ns CP m
T oe
,c s
e l
S CD ni t
t a
h Y
or s
s t
S it o
y o
tc c
s t
E ae T
rl t
e r
1 S
e tE c
t e
A s
s -
e s
v
)
E W
a m5 r
a o
L D
h d
i na7 i
w c
B A
P b
l b
ie9 d
d T
tn a
mt1 a
o A
R R
sg a
a a
d c
dS f
r t
A e
o O
oi i
f n e
d F
Cs 9
0 1
5 l
e 1
2 3
p tou t
h e
S eD p
n J
n t
t T
s a
es e
s me c
r u
S al r
o j
t pt O
Ba oa8 e
f d
o t
n l m0 p
a C
i ei1 e
(
vt -
e d
d T
i C
n E
I n
n esA h
i n
R o
o DED t
u a
R c
i i
D t
t dtE e
s I
N c
c ns t
l r
s u
u aol a
a a
es r
r C a c
r e
I i e t
t h
u i
e y
tc s
s cl n d
n ii n
n raa n
e 4
l v o
s o
auM i
g et r
i r C
t C
sps s
a o
ce s
e f
aS d
o g
e e 'r R c g
s F
n C
n d
a i
e ne a
a nn s
r g
yos t
0 oa g
r u
n gCU n
e 1
i nt e
D a
r e
l tt in n
h erV c
b n
cn re w
t Cs noI r
a o
ue em O
s t
Ef e
c rm ee e
ns e
p i
d t p ng r
r ge
.es l
e e
p s
S.d a si ia e
e iu oh h
p a
nu gn h
t sq oq na t
n ee UCP T
A B
I DR a
b c
d r
l ll!1(l
\\jI
n 0
o 1
i t
1 a
1 tp
.G 2
6 1
7 7
2 4
4 5
1 e
a OU 5
5 9
8 3
3 8
2 4
2 i
d d
A 2
1 2
1 2
2 2
1 1
a u
G n
a S
y LA
.G.
4 0
7 4
6 5
r s
4 3
o i
t CU 3
7 4
1 t
o A
1 2
1 1
a t
T l
i u
E 7
2 3
9 8
6 g
e S
1 4
4 9
5 2
e c
A 1
2 1
R n
i B
n s
i t
n n
e e
)
v m.
.G 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
3 i
gt OU 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
(
g un A
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 1
1 8
ae y
m S
l sp T
s ii C
u hu E
R
.G 0
3 9
E 4
5 8
o.
t q CU 6
3 0
S 4
6 1
i" e
I v-r D
A 1
e-of N
r*
f o I
p s we t
I
's 0
8 5
2 5
4 ta ot I
A 5
1 9
4 2
5 o
l e nd l
I 8
e sp 5
sr i
E te g
S st t n A
on si C
ce ot 3
.G.
2 6
1 7
7 2
4 4
5 3
cs OU 5
5 9
8 3
3 8
2 4
1 t e i
A 1
1 1
1 1
ns t x ea ce mc e S
5 T
1 4
7 8
2 2
1 7
ip rn e i a S
C us d
G 7
O E
C I
CU 1
3 3
6 5
8 1
qa nf R
EB I o A
1
)
)
L D
2 3
A
(
g TI6 E
PO S
7 4
8 1
3 2
A A
6 2
2 5
3 7
CWO B
1 2
Y s
R i
t E
B MT Ps t5 Co I
M HD B
( c T
5 I
.G.
3 0
7 9
7 9
6 5
1 I
Cn A
t PC U 5 OU 1
3 3
5 4
6 0
1 3
I R o
)7 A
1 1
1 e.Hi t
s t
E 9
a gf a 1
huor E
8 1
6 6
8 7
pA e
T 1
ep 1
n.go S
.G A
IgCU 5
2 0
3 1
4 gC a W
A 1
i t n D
s.si A
e R
d0Ls E
f S
3 4
7 3
4 3
1Oi O
A 5
1 9
3 1
4 l 1.( r a
C i1 no N
t ot O
i ei c S
ndta I
Ii ce R
uur P
.G.
9 6
4 9
0 3
8 9
4 2
nGr A
M OU 3
2 5
2 9
5 7
1 i
t n yse O
A srnh C
ioow t c R
ra t
O 8
.G 6
6 2
6 4
4 5
ol rn A
CU 1
1 3
2 3
3 t uee c gd m L
A aenp
)
eRui 2
r u
(
nnq ES 4
0 1
4 9
9 niie A
1 1
3 2
1 2
e hnsr B
l weio v
f A
l l
ti-P a
a ngos r
A E
on o
e tt e
P t
H co c
mscs i
E n
ri rg paao r
rn H
a r
w r
at an i
ec t
o ao
/
T e
or e
hc hi u)r s
hi l
o z
l e t
Cu Ct qw een.
d Ct ae y
t i
Bg l
/r
/s i e A
a oe a
l n
i At Ai rr ct c
t a
ra F
Ps Px r vh g n
E e oewu l
ot rs e
r r
oh Eo H
f r A a
tl ay D
e e
t c s
o ci hS V
n aa a
c t
t c
eF C
s t
rE G
s spr sCn.
r j
/n a
u e
ew eae tt eO r
u y
a EA mo G
e nt e
Ge Gdt sl m gT h
P fi D
ea t
- n al o
p N
C r
ct 3
Ge s
f -
f i
cfi.
gE iE a
t M
H e
f r f rF ou) n A/
0r f
h P
m W
Oe Oe qw M
i an t
tA
- eee l
e l
0t t
gA t a 0i 0
ew R
Rl tlP eg i s
sarv u
T s o 5l 0
0 t o W
Wi i
SFM i
t at oe 3
Pc 1F 6
5 Sd P
BF ssf r I
0 I
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1
I
,l L
N u xr r r i n
x e
o A et P t
I E
N N
G UA 6
5 1
1 2
0 0 0 0 2
7 2
0 5
5 6 3 1
0 5
1 1
1 2
O 5Q 5
S L G 7
A U 0
4 T A 9
2 1
3 4
O 4
1 6
1 7
6 3
)p}~
1 T
C 5
F E
M S
9
'2 1
6 7
7 0
7 E
A 4
1 6
6 5
1 1
T B
)f}
S Y
S TS G
NR U
EO A
6 9
5 8
3 MT S
6 7
3 1
3,~
1 TC L
u[
AA A
O EE I
RR r
)
R 7
m T
e 0
E u
R b
0 T
l EA r
0 A
G
, o o
1 M
U s
/
A 4
4 8
0 8 \\[C d
T 4
4 1
5 j
A 5
N 7
E C
3A.
l 9
M RD a
1 P
- s E
E o
(
I 5
r t LFL c
U E
BOO r
Q S
4 4
8 5
3 7
i c 0
3 A
O a
E A
4 4
5 D e 4
9
)f}
TTC h
B E -
C ER HE n
ST o
A T
G EW U
0 6
6 3
9 2
1 3
T -
3 A
1 1
AT MH I G O
TI SL e
l E
R y
e a
R O
S t
TO B
G o
SF A
U t
L A
O C
5 8
3 3
6 ](J 1
1 t
L n
C A
e T
m s
O g
5 r t T
u E
7 i c A
S A
5 8
3 1
4 D e 0
4 1
2 o
j {j f
B 1
1 )
n S
L o
M O
E R
i t
T T
g p
S N
i Y
O ir T
S C
D s
c N
E S
N L p
s T
E G
C T
G E 0
S I
I S
e N
M N
I D
M E
N I
N V
O S F T S 5
E M
G P
O R
C E
S T S
3 T
P I
I I
E D &
O C T
I I
S P
T S
T C
E S
fQ E
E N
A R
T N
R I
F E
D
)
l R
O U
S A
S L
Y C
G Q
A D
T L
T A
C E
N F D
e I
C e
G T
E C
A O
E I
R O T N L
t S
I P
T G
D E
A I
A S
N A
M S
I I
U R
B N
E E I
T 3nt D C
R T
E U
I L
N G C L O
E A
O A T
C L
O T
C R
S T
A of I
b S
S E
A N
T G
I S
T R
U S
N L
P O
O N M S O Or0 I
P B
A I
E S
C T
E M A T a0 C2 o
1.
1.
5
?.
3 D D
]
2 D
.N
'~'
n
.[
i S
e I
E en T
ti O
a N
crg L
n o
G i
7 9
6 0
0 0
0 6
U 6
ot 9
6 5
5 1
ni 3
1 5
6 3
1 0
5 A
d 1
1 1
d O
a S
L G
3 1
6 7
5 3
0 A
U 5
6 3
3 5
3 3
7_
K 3
7 1
5 T
A 4
1 O
T
)
C
)f t
i s
n 3
2 1
1 2
2 4
5 [
8 2
U E
5 5
2 2
7 [
1 4
M S
E n
A 0
4 T
o B
)
f) 1 S
i Y
t S
a n
r o
G TS t
i NR U
0 ot 3
5 2
5 0
0 0
s l
EO A
2 1
3 l
i 1
ni MT F
S d
3 1
a t
TC L
d AA A
A O
a o
I T
EE P
)
R RR E
T H
0 E
ee R
0 T
A 0
A G
S l
1 M
U 0
1 5
8 3
1 E
o
/
A 5
2 5
E a
)
)
1 2
f 1
T C
c 1
1 1
m r
5 N
U 7
E C
4 iN a
A h
9 M
E RD C
1 P
^
E
(
I s
L 1
1 3
1 4
5
(
0 4
FL r
U E
5 5
5 5
B 1
1 7
1 2
A OO o
Q S
E A
7 1
1 0
[(e T
O t
TC c
B
)
E -
e ER j
HE E
n ST o
A r
G i
EW U
6 ot 6
2 3
7 9
6 s
i T -
A A
ni 1
2 l
AT d
a t
MH d
I G R
O a
o T
TI W
SL P
E R
e R
O e
TO B
G S
SF A
U 3
3 4
1 2
3 3
6 ]
)_
O L
A 1
1
[
C t
L n
C A
e T
m O
g
% {
8 8
9 l
0 5
T u
E 3
3 2
5 5
A S
1 7
j 1
A 0
0 f
B o
)[
, )
n S
L o
M O
E R
i A
T T
t P
S N
p
.E Y
O i
rH T
S C
D r
o E
S N
L N
c t,
s Tal E
G C
T G
E e
Nra M
N I
S I
I S
N V
O S
F T
S D
M E ao N
S I
E Mpc G
P O
R C
E S
T T
I I
I E
D O
C h
T Per mV S
S P
T S
T C
E O
I I
Sa R
U S
A S
L Y
C G
h C
QeC A
D T
L T
A C
E N
F D
I I
Er E
N A
R T
N R
I F
E D
G T
E C
A O
E I
R O
T N
L u,
I P
T G
D E
A I
A t r N
A M
S I
I U
R B
N E
E I
T Sse D
C R
T E
U I
L N
G C
L O
Eit Coa L
O T
C R
S T
A I
A O
A T
I S
S E
A N
T G
N S
T OMe U
S N
L P
O O
N A
S O
R H
P B
A I
E S
C T
E M
A T
o o
i.
5.
).
)
)
)
2 3
,lll!!!
1!!J t
- u xb e
y nl 1
sap ef p m
S d
u e
2 E
ut s t
T l s I
O cut N
nao n
I h n I
n o
G i
U 3
ot 4
5 5
7 4
1 0
0 0
0 1
A 8
ni 1
2 2
6 9
6 3
1 0
9 d
1 1
1 2
d O
a s
S
% t L
G 0
5 6
5 7
1 8
5 c
9 7
1 A
U 8
2 1
2 3
7 e
K 0
4 T
A 1
1 r
S 1
2 O
i T
D C
){}
E 0
5 5
5 6
2 8
5 5
3 1
H S
8 2
1 1
2 7
9 4
E A
1 1
2 T
m B
S
) e Y t S s n y o TS G S i NR U ot 5 0 5 1 6 7 1 A EO n 7 ni 1 9 4 3 l MT S d 1 a o TC L d t i AA A O o t a EE I T a RR ) R r 0 E e T t R 0 T e l mA 0 A G S i 1 M U E F 1 8 2 2 5 8 8 6 L / A 7 8 1 0 )f} T C A 1 U 5 N P .N 7 E C 9 M E A lI 1 P RD E / E ( I L l FL U E B a 1 0 2 2 5 8 9 7 5 r 2 9 A OO Q S o 7 8 9 7 7 6 O E A D 1 T c B TC r E - )}} a ER l h iE C n ST o G A m i U EW f 2 ot 9 5 6 8 4 l T - A c 1 ni 1 3 1 5 a AT d t Mt 0 O T d o iG I 0 a TI 0 SL t 5 E R e 1 R O S TO B G SF A U 0 2 3 4 9 3 2 ) O L A 2 3 } f 1 1 C t L n C A e T m O g T u E 0 2 3 3 8 3 1 5 3 4 A S 2 3 7 2 5 1 1 A f B ){} o n S L o M O i E R t T T p S N i Y O r T S C D c N E S N L s T E G C T G E e N M N I S I I S N V O S F T S D M E N I S E M G P O R C E S T T P I I I E D a O C TS I I S P T S T C E C R O U S A S L Y C G C Q A D T L T A C E N F D I E E N A R T N R I F E D R 0 T N L G T E C A O E I I P T G D E A I A S N A M S I I U R B N E E I T E D C R T E U I L N G C L O C L O T C R S T A I A O A T I S S E A N T G N S T O R U S N L P O O N A S O P B A I E S C T E M A T 1. ). 5 5 ? 3 D D 3 2 D
\\ll] no N br a g ece 1 C is l k .p b m t t a e c c S nl l t e e E ae0 T i I l l O Te5 a g g t1 v n e e N 1S a I N N G U 0 6 2 8 9 7 0 0 0 0 7 A 5 1 6 1 8 6 3 1 0 8 1 1 O s t S L G 3 7 2 2 0 2 5 c 2 4 A U 2 2 5 1 6 7 e K 5_ 1 m T A S 1 O T l f} C m - s E 3 '7 2 2 5 7 r 2 9 d 4 9 M S 2 2 5 5 i E A D c T B )f} S YS G s T S k U 0 5 4 9 0 9 l N R n A 4 4 1 5 a E O a t M T T S T6 o T C L A A y A O e E E a I ) R t t R R c T e 0 E e S R D 0 T 4A 0 A G ]LN ]j} M U 0 9 1 0 6 6 d 1 s 1 / A 2 3 3 a T h G 5 N 7 E C 6 A 9 M E R D 1 P E ( I LB F L U E 0 9 1 0 3 3 5 5 8 2 5 A O O Q S 2 3 3 7" T O E A e T C 3 B b) E t E R F H E S T 0 G A 0 U 0 1 8 9 0 9 s E W 6 T A 1 1 2 l 1 A T a t m, M H I G O o T I T S L l E R ee eG R O T O B G S S F A U 8 1 2 4 6 O L A 5 1 2 2 )\\ ~ C 2 t L n C A e T n O g - s 8 1 2 2 4 5 rt 7 1 T u E 5 2 2 7 i c 1 4 A S 1 Dc A 2 f B )[) o n S L o M O E R i t T T p S N Y O ir T S C D c N E S N L s T E G C T G E e N M N I S I I S D M E H I N V O S F T S E M G P O R C E S T I I I E D O C T P I I S P T S T C E R U S A S L Y C G Q A D T L T A C E N F D I E E N A R T N R I F E D R O T N L G T E C A O E I S N A M I P T G D E A I A S I I U R B N E E I T I L N G C L O E D C R T E U C L O T C R S T A I A O A T I S S E A N T G N S T O R U S N L P O O N A S O P B A I E S C T E M A T ?. 3. ) 6 B 7 D D D 0 2 D
N N a 0" l N N W 46 A l GUA 2 7 2 1 6 7 0 0 0 0 7 2 5 1 9 4 3 6 3 1 0 3 1 1 2 O tc S L G % e A U 8 5 0 3 9 2 5 p K 4 6 T A 2 1 4 5 7i S 4 9 D O )[] T C re s g~ ~ 5 n E 5 8 H e S 0 0 0 3 3 7 E d A 2 1 3 3 D 2 5 T n B ) [ S o Y C S n TS i G NR a U EO M A 4 1 6 1 6 7 MT S 2 3 1 4 .y TC o L Q, AA t A O EE I RR t ) R T n 0 E R e 0 T EA V 0 A G M U c. 1 k / A 2 7 6 5 3 8 J 1 1 n T a 5 N T 7 E C i 9 M 7, h 1 P nD E E s ( I A O F E A 1 1 . ]~ 5 ~ LrL a U E l Q S 7 6 3 1 4 7 ~ 1 5 BOO 1 2 T T' C B }f} E - r ER o HE t ST a A r G EW e U T - n A 8 6 6 0 0 0 AT e ,j 1 3 6 3 9 MH G I G O TI m SL a { E e R R t O TO S B G SF A U L A 6 8 4 8 6 4 ] O C 1 2 3 [ t L n C A e T m O g s 5 r t T u E A S 3 4 7 2 9 7 i c 4 3 A 1 1 1 d e 1 3 ) f B o f} n S L o M O i E R t T T p S N i Y O r T S C D c N E S N L s T E G C T G E I S I I 5 e N M N D M E N I N V O S F 1 S E M G P O R C E 5 T S T P I I I E D & 0 C T I I S P T S T C E S N E E N A R T N R I F E D U S A S L Y C G R O Q A D T L T A C E N F D I C G T E C A O E I R 0 T N L I P T G D E A I A S N A M U R B N E E I T S I I E D C R T E U I L N G C L O C L O T C R S T A I A O A T I S S E A N T G N S T OR U S N L P O O N A S O P B A I E S C T E M A T 5. i. 5. ) ) ) ) ? 3 )
0 noo u e "p N 3 itf = G UA 8 0 7 1 2 8 4 2 0 0 0 0 2 2 2 2 1 8 4 3 6 3 1 0 3 1 1 2 O s t S c L G A U 5 4 6 0 2 7 4 1 % e 5 6 T A 2 1 1 1 6 1 8 5 r K 6 4 7 i S 1 O D T C ) [ E s M S 5 4 5 0 2 6 6 2 5 E 4 6 E A 2 1 1 1 6 7 7 5 2 1 T B S ) ) Y S TS G NR U EO A 2 7 9 6 2 6 3 9 MT S 2 4 2 6 n TC L ou AA A O EE I RR ) R T 0 E e R 0 T 5 EA 0 A G ){) 1 M U / A 0 5 6 6 2 9 8 7 T 2 3 4 r 5 N e 7 E C 8T z 9 M RD i 1 P E E l ( I LFL a U E BOO r Q S 0 5 6 6 2 9 4 3 5 { 2 5 A O e E A 2 3 4 7 g 3 7 u TTC n B )\\ E - i ER m HE e ST D A G s EW m U T - p A 6 3 2 4 5 8 3 i AT g 1 1 3 1 5 a] MH I G 0 O TI 5 SL E R R O TO B G SF A U ) O L A 5 9 0 4 8 6 4 f 1 2 3 C t L n C A e T m O g ] T u E A S 5 9 9 4 7 2 9 5 [ 2 1 2 5 y A 2 2 7 f B )k) o n S L o M O i E R t T T p S N i Y O r T S C D c N E S N L s T E G C T G E e N M N I S I I S D M E N I N V O S F T S E M G P O R C E S T T P I I I E D & O C I I S P T S T C E U S A S L Y C G R Q A D T L T A C E N F D I E E N A R T H R I F E D G T E C A O E I R 0 T N L I P T G D E A I A S N A M I I U R B N E E I T SE D C R T E U I L N G C L O C L O T C R S T A I A O A T I S S E A N T G N S T OR U S N L P O O N A S O I E S C T E M A T P B A o 1. 1. i. i. ) ) ) l 2 )
I -s i e / xc ea ? p ns j o [ i g l sn si At GUA 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 0 0 0 4 6 2 3 2 1 4 4 8 6 3 1 0 8 1 1 1 2 O S L G A U T A O T C E N S E A s T B ian S L n Y on S r ii e n T S q G eC N R n U E O a A 0 7 9 2 0 8 8 6 e M T h S 5 1 1 8 1 0 d ] ) 1 T C c L A A x A O E E E I R R ) R T t 0 E R a 0 T E A e 0 A G T E l 1 M U l / A Tj. l ~ n T w 5 N L o 7 E C h 'D r 9 M l EjE w 1 P o ( I L FL l U E B O O B Q S A O E A s TT C r B ian E o L n E R t ou E a l il iS T r n A e G eC E W n U 8 2 6 8 e T e A 0 3 1 1 1 2 5 2 7 d A T G ) M )(f t I i m O G I a TS L e E t R R S O T O B G S F A U L A O C t L n C A e T m O g T u E A S A f B o l n S L o M O i E R t T T p S N i Y O r T S C D c N E S N L s T E G C T G E e N M N I S I I S D M E N I N V O S F T S E M G P O R C E S T T P I I I E D O C I I S P T S T C E U S A S L Y C G R N Q A D T L T A C E N F D I E E N A R T N R I F E D G T E C A O E I R O T N L A I P T G D E A S N A M I S I I U R B N E E I T E D C R T E U I L N G C L O C L O T C R S T A I A O A T I S S E A N T G N S T OR U S N L P O O N A S O P B A I E S C T E M A T 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 ( l ,llII ifil 1 l i
illll j r e n)/(* d e 1 s re p r oc ym m e n ( S tf e t ea E c t l gw T k I i no O n0 F al N a4 n hl T I 2 ca G U 0 0 4 A 9 3 3 6 6 8 4 1 0 2 1 2 0 1 1 O }CJ 73 S L G A U 8 3 2 6 4 3 7
- s 8
5 T A 1 1 "u 1 3 'l 5 O T p } (()/ C E M S E A T B S Y r S e t T S l G N R i U 0 5 5 6 E O F A 7 1 1 1 1 M T S 0 T C A L A A P A O E E E I T I ) R I R R 0 E R m 0 T n em E A e 0 A G t r m t 1 M U n o x l U 6 9 2 1 6 e s s / A 7 1 ^ 1 e.i m s y T Eo 0 p e 0 Sm S 5 N /h / i r S ? 7 E C ) 1 lK g 9 M u p l a R D n 1 P s E E i ( I E o L F L s U E C 8 B O O s Q S s = A O e E A s s D TT C c B e a w E o c G E R r o H E P r P S T A s G E W a U n d T G A 2 2 2 i e 6 3 9 A T d M H e d u I G t O e l s T I s d c I S L a i ( a_ E W R l E t R O c o. T O R B G n S F W A U I T O P_ L A 1 2 1 4 1 5 i C e-ec t L n C S A e )(A) T m O g T u E A S A f B o i n S L o M O i E R t T T p S N i Y O r T S C D c N E S N L s T E G C T E E e N M N I S I I S D M E N I N V O S F T S E M G P O R C E S T T P I I I E D O C I I S P T S T C E O U S A S L Y C G R Q A D T L T A C E N F D I E E N A R T N R I F E D R O T N L G T E C A O E I S N A M I P T G D E A A S I I U R B N E E I T I L N G C L O E D C R T E U C L O T C R S T A I A O A T O I S S E A N T G S T l t R U S N L P O O N A S O P B A I E S C T E M A T 1. L. 5. 5 ) ) ) ) 2 )
ce C av nh I 0 t, i G U 0 0 5 A 4 3 5 5 3 0 5 5 1 0 4 1 3 1 4 1 1 O }j S L G A U T A O T C re E H t S E l A i B TS F YS no TS i G NR t U s EO c A 2 1 3 2 3 1 0 1 l MT u S 1 2 1 3 at m TC r L AA t A O om T EE s I h RR n ) R o T o 0 E R c 0 T eC EA 0 A G e w 1 M U S e / A ]p) n T 5 N 1 f, l 7 E C a 9 M 1 RD o 1 P E c ( I EFL r U E LOO a Q S B O h E A ATC C B TE - / ER A HE P ST E A H G EW U s T - s A 2 2 2 3 9 5 4 l AT a 1 a MH G t I G O o TI f Ti SL f E O R ee eC R O TO R B G S SF W A U O B, L A C - ]() t L n C A e T m O g T u E A S A f B o n S L o M O i E R t T T p S N m Y O ir f T S C D c c N E S N L s E G C T G E e M N I S I I S D M N I N V O S F T S E G P O R C E S T T I I I E D & O C I r S P T S T C E A( R_ S A S L Y C G A D T L T A C E N F D I I F E D_ E N A R T N R 1 R O T N L i G T E C A O E I 1 I P T G D E A I A hK N A M U R B N E E I T I I I L N G C L O % D C R T E U 0 L O T C R S T A I A O A T 7 I S S E A N T G N S T U S N L P O O N A S O B A I E S C T E M A T l. i 5. 5 ). ). ). ? ). )
cl a, s r pnl o a eie N l a Rt L wA I 2 2 G U 3 8 1 4 6 t A 4 3 6 o 1 2 1 2 r 7 0 0 0 0 2 1 O ) e t l i F S L G e A U t T A u O T l C o s b A L ) S M g s E A n r B T i o S t t Y s c S i a x e sn G i m TS E R NR U 8 8 6 u l 3 2 A 2 2 tl EO t 2 MT p 6 0' 0 0 8 1 0 , oo S TC a r L 1 TC A O AA d o )f} EE A f I ) R RR 0 E T r s 1 e r0 T d t e 0 A G M U ul 1 t / A i l J r, i T Fi a F 5 N 7 E C 2il l 9 M A a 3 1 1 P RD o( E ( I E c FL r e ~ U E L Q S ~ B OO a c E A A O h i TC B T C v E - / r ER A e HE P S ST E s" G l A H l EW U a 1 a T - A 9 3 3 6 8 4 t s o AT a c 0 0 0 0 1 0 2 , o MH G r T a )kf O I G TI f h SL f C E R O / O R A B G TO R P W E A U SF B l L A O l C_ t L n C A e T n O g T u E A S A f B o n S L o M O i E R t T T p S N i Y O r T S C D c N E S N L s T E G C T G E I S I I S e N lM N N V O S F T S D M E iG P O R C E S T S I E M T O T P I I I E D & O C S I I S P T S T C E O U S A S L Y C G R C Q A D T L T A C E N F D I E E N A R T N R I F E D G T E C A O E I R 0 T N L I P T G D E A I A S N A M U R B N E E I T S I I L N G C L O E D C R T E U I I A O A T C L O T C R S T A I S S E A N T G l S T O f R U S N L P O O N A S O I E S C T E M A T P B A ). 1. 1 5. ? ) ) D ) 2 D 5}}