|
---|
Category:Calculation
MONTHYEARML17188A2692017-03-16016 March 2017 Enclosure 14 O LR-N17-0044 and LAR H17-03 - Calculation SC-BB-0525, Hope Creek Heat Balance Uncertainty Calculation, Revision 5 LR-N17-0044, Enclosure 14 O LR-N17-0044 and LAR H17-03 - Calculation SC-BB-0525, Hope Creek Heat Balance Uncertainty Calculation, Revision 52017-03-16016 March 2017 Enclosure 14 O LR-N17-0044 and LAR H17-03 - Calculation SC-BB-0525, Hope Creek Heat Balance Uncertainty Calculation, Revision 5 ML15030A2422014-09-22022 September 2014 Appendix a, Mass Flux Calculations ML12284A4272012-10-0404 October 2012 PSEG Early Site Permit Application, Calculation of Multiplier Effects for Er Section 10.4 ML1023710192010-08-12012 August 2010 Attachment 14.2 of Calculation H-1-ZZ-MDC-1880, Rev 4 ML1023710182010-08-10010 August 2010 Calculation H-1-ZZ-MDC-1880, Rev. 4, Post-LOCA Eab, LPZ & CR Doses ML1034404512010-04-23023 April 2010 Document: Ansys Input Files and Calculation Package Drafts LR-N10-0355, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Rev. 25 for Pseg Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station2010-04-16016 April 2010 Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Rev. 25 for Pseg Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station ML1100701702010-04-16016 April 2010 Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Rev. 25 for PSEG Nuclear LLC Salem Generating Station LR-N10-0355, Hope Creek, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Revision 252010-04-16016 April 2010 Hope Creek, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Revision 25 ML1100504172010-04-16016 April 2010 Hope Creek, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Revision 25 ML1013003732009-10-27027 October 2009 Attachment 1, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Revision, 24 LR-N10-0140, Salem - Attachment 1, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Revision, 242009-10-27027 October 2009 Salem - Attachment 1, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Revision, 24 ML1013903162009-09-0202 September 2009 Calculation H-1-ZZ-MDC-1880, Revision 3, Post-LOCA Eab, LPZ and CR Doses, Attachment 5 to LR-N10-0163 ML1013003712009-08-0606 August 2009 Attachment 1, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Revision 23 LR-N10-0140, Hope Creek - Attachment 1, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Revision, 232009-08-0606 August 2009 Hope Creek - Attachment 1, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Revision, 23 ML1013003742009-08-0606 August 2009 Attachment 1, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Revision, 23 LR-N10-0140, Salem - Attachment 1, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Revision 232009-08-0606 August 2009 Salem - Attachment 1, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Revision 23 ML1100504142009-08-0505 August 2009 Hope Creek, CC-AA-309-1001, Rev. 3, Hc Class 1E 125 Vdc Station Battery & Charger Sizing LR-N10-0355, Hope Creek, CC-AA-309-1001, Rev. 3, Hc Class 1E 125 Vdc Station Battery & Charger Sizing2009-08-0505 August 2009 Hope Creek, CC-AA-309-1001, Rev. 3, Hc Class 1E 125 Vdc Station Battery & Charger Sizing ML1013003702009-06-0909 June 2009 Attachment 1, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Revision 22 LR-N10-0140, Salem - Attachment 1, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Revision 222009-06-0909 June 2009 Salem - Attachment 1, Offsite Dose Calculation Manual, Revision 22 LR-N09-0099, Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, Page 181 Through End2009-05-31031 May 2009 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, Page 181 Through End LR-N09-0099, Hope Creek, and Salem, Units 1 and 2, 2008 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, Cover Through Page 1802009-05-31031 May 2009 Hope Creek, and Salem, Units 1 and 2, 2008 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, Cover Through Page 180 ML0912803782009-05-31031 May 2009 Hope Creek, and Salem, Units 1 and 2, 2008 Annual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, Cover Through Page 180 LR-N09-0074, Letter from Jeffrie Keenan of PSEG Nuclear L.L.C., NRC Decommissioning Funding Status Report for Salem, Hope Creek & Peach Bottom Generating Stations2009-03-31031 March 2009 Letter from Jeffrie Keenan of PSEG Nuclear L.L.C., NRC Decommissioning Funding Status Report for Salem, Hope Creek & Peach Bottom Generating Stations ML0821104192008-07-23023 July 2008 Calculation S-1-FHV-MDC-0705, Revision 5, Fhv System Heating and Cooling and Air Flow Determination. ML0708711122007-02-19019 February 2007 Calculation 0108-0342-JFL-01, Rev 0, Analysis of CCW Supply Temperature During LOCA Recirculation. ML0712905632007-02-16016 February 2007 Calculation HC-31Q-301, Rev 0, RPV Steam Dome Dynamic Pressure Sensor Data Reduction, Including LCR H05-01, Rev 1, Updated Attachment 7, Steam Dryer Evaluation Provided in Attachment 5 ML0707906522007-02-14014 February 2007 Calculation S-C-SF-MDC-1810, Rev 7, Decay Heat-up Rates and Curves. ML0709601112006-12-0707 December 2006 Calculation No. SC-SE-0002-2, Average Power Range Monitor (APRM) Channels A-F and Rod Block Monitors (RBM) Channels a and B, Attachment 3 ML0631101812006-08-0808 August 2006 Attachment 4 - Calculation No. H-1-BG-MDC-1859, Revision 1, Instrument Line Pipe Break Accident. ML0631101942006-08-0808 August 2006 Attachment 8 - Calculation No. H-1-AE-MDC-1868, Revision 1, Feedwater Line Break Accident Outside Primary Containment. ML0631101882006-08-0707 August 2006 Attachment 6 - Calculation No. H-1-ZZ-MDC-1929, Revision 0, Fuel Handling Accident Radiological Consequences. ML0631101902006-08-0707 August 2006 Attachment 7 - Calculation No. H-1-CG-MDC-1795, Revision 4, Control Rod Drop Accident Radiological Consequences. ML0622303242006-05-18018 May 2006 Attachment 6, Calculation S-C-ZZ-MDC-1920, Rev. 41R0, 'Fuel Handling Accident Radiological Consequences Evaluation. ' ML0622102362006-04-0202 April 2006 Supplement to Request for License Amendment Ultimate Heat Sink, Calculation No. EG-0047, Rev. 4 ML0605402982005-12-0707 December 2005 Calculation EG-0047, Rev. 3, Hope Creek Generating Station Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Limits. ML0526502192005-09-13013 September 2005 Rev. 0 to Calculation 0108-0236-01 LR-N05-0424, Attachment 1, Calculation S-1-SJ-MDC-1539, Revision 2, Accumulator Pressure Decay Time During Discharge Test.2005-08-12012 August 2005 Attachment 1, Calculation S-1-SJ-MDC-1539, Revision 2, Accumulator Pressure Decay Time During Discharge Test. LR-N08-0308, Attachment 3 - Salem, Units 1 and 2 - Calculation S-2-SJ-MDC-1394, Rev. 5, Accumulator Pressure Decay Time During Discharge Test.2005-07-20020 July 2005 Attachment 3 - Salem, Units 1 and 2 - Calculation S-2-SJ-MDC-1394, Rev. 5, Accumulator Pressure Decay Time During Discharge Test. ML0509801462005-04-0404 April 2005 Decontamination Port, Reactor Recirc Vibration Acceleration Estimate ML0509801992005-04-0202 April 2005 Decontamination Port, Reactor Recirc Vibration Data Analysis ML0509801952005-04-0202 April 2005 Decontamination Port, Fatigue Crack Growth Evaluation ML0509801312005-04-0101 April 2005 Decontamination Port, Natural Frequency of Loop B Port ML0509801122005-04-0101 April 2005 Decontamination Port, Harmonic Stress Analysis of Loop B Port ML0500600222004-12-30030 December 2004 'B' Recirculation Pump Stuffing Box Measurements Summary ML0500601142004-12-23023 December 2004 Design Change Package 80062466 Revision 3 Extended Power Uprate Piping Vibration Monitoring, Installation Package, 12/23/2004 ML0500600742004-11-0303 November 2004 Structural Integrity Associates, Inc. HC-06-301 Hope Creek Recirculation System Vibration Testing (Vtd 326747) 11/03/2004 ML0500600542004-10-19019 October 2004 Design Change Package 80062466 Revision 1 Extended Power Uprate Piping Vibration Monitoring Installation Package, 10/19/2004 2017-03-16
[Table view] Category:Graphics incl Charts and Tables
MONTHYEARML23249A2662023-09-0606 September 2023 Attachment 2: Salem Pavan Input File ML23249A2632023-09-0606 September 2023 Attachment 1: PSEG Site Hourly Meteorological Data (2019 - 2021), Salem/Hope Creek Finalized Hourly Meteorological Data 2019 ML23249A2642023-09-0606 September 2023 Attachment 1: PSEG Site Hourly Meteorological Data (2019 - 2021), Salem/Hope Creek Finalized Hourly Meteorological Data 2020 ML23249A2652023-09-0606 September 2023 Attachment 1: PSEG Site Hourly Meteorological Data (2019 - 2021), Salem/Hope Creek Finalized Hourly Meteorological Data 2021 LR-N23-0050, Attachment 5: Hope Creek Pavan Output File2023-09-0606 September 2023 Attachment 5: Hope Creek Pavan Output File ML23249A2682023-09-0606 September 2023 Attachment 4: Hope Creek Pavan Input File ML23249A2672023-09-0606 September 2023 Attachment 3: Salem Pavan Output File ML17335A1182018-01-25025 January 2018 Documentation of the Completion of Required Actions Taken in Response to the Lessons Learned from the Fukushima Dai Ichi Accident LR-N17-0034, Salem Generating Station, Units 1 & 2, Revision 29 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Table 4.1-1 Through 4.1-32017-01-30030 January 2017 Salem Generating Station, Units 1 & 2, Revision 29 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Table 4.1-1 Through 4.1-3 ML17046A3072017-01-30030 January 2017 Revision 29 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Table 3A-1 (Deleted) LR-N17-0034, Salem Generating Station, Units 1 & 2, Revision 29 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Table 3.8-1 Through 3.8-112017-01-30030 January 2017 Salem Generating Station, Units 1 & 2, Revision 29 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Table 3.8-1 Through 3.8-11 LR-N17-0034, Salem Generating Station, Units 1 & 2, Revision 29 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Table 3A-1 (Deleted)2017-01-30030 January 2017 Salem Generating Station, Units 1 & 2, Revision 29 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Table 3A-1 (Deleted) ML17046A2962017-01-30030 January 2017 Revision 29 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Table 3.8-1 Through 3.8-11 ML17046A3112017-01-30030 January 2017 Revision 29 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Table 4.1-1 Through 4.1-3 LR-N16-0161, Flood Hazards Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) Report Submittal2016-12-30030 December 2016 Flood Hazards Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) Report Submittal LR-N16-0112, Flood Hazards Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) Report Submittal2016-12-29029 December 2016 Flood Hazards Mitigating Strategies Assessment (MSA) Report Submittal ML16320A4842016-11-15015 November 2016 Public Telecon Regarding LAR to Upgrade Power Range Neutron Monitoring System (Meeting Handout) ML16231A1102016-08-16016 August 2016 Updated Issues List for 08/16/2016 Public Telecon Regarding LAR to Upgrade Power Range Neutron Monitoring System Meeting Handout ML16116A2352016-03-15015 March 2016 Meeting Summary for Public Teleconference Between PSEG LLC and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Hope Creek Generating Station - Power Range Neutron Monitoring System Digital Upgrade LAR HCGS Numac Upgrade - Open Item DOC-0006-2118 Ri ML16056A1392016-03-11011 March 2016 Correction to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Analysis of Licensees' Decommissioning Funding Status Reports ML16102A2772016-03-11011 March 2016 Submittal of Annual Incidental Take Report ML15238B7042015-09-10010 September 2015 Interim Staff Response to Reevaluated Flood Hazards Submitted in Response to 10 CFR 50.54 Information Request - Flood Causing Mechanism Reevaluation ML15243A4472015-09-10010 September 2015 Master Report - Tables 1 and 2 ML15243A5022015-09-10010 September 2015 Interim Letter Tables 1 and 2 ML15238B6552015-09-10010 September 2015 Interim Staff Response to Reevaluated Flood Hazards Submitted in Response to 10 CFR 50.54(f) Information Request - Flood-Causing Mechanism Reevaluation ML15030A2952014-09-22022 September 2014 Table 04, Groundwater Measurements and Elevations - First Quarter 2014 ML15030A2822014-09-22022 September 2014 Figure 16, Salem Unit 2 - Tritium Concentrations in Water Recovered Through Seismic Gap Drain Operation ML15030A2962014-09-22022 September 2014 Table 05, Groundwater Analytical Results (1.22.2003 Through 3.31.2014) ML15030A2982014-09-22022 September 2014 Table 06A, Groundwater Tritium Analytical Results for Well AC ML15030A2992014-09-22022 September 2014 Table 06B, Groundwater Analytical Results for Well AC ML15030A3002014-09-22022 September 2014 Table 07, Unit 1 Seismic Gap Drain Tritium Analytical Results ML15030A3012014-09-22022 September 2014 Table 08, Unit 2 Seismic Gap Drain Tritium Analytical Results ML15030A2832014-09-22022 September 2014 Table 01, Well Construction Details ML15030A2812014-09-22022 September 2014 Figure 15, Salem Unit 1 - Tritium Concentrations in Water Recovered Through Seismic Gap Drain Operation ML15030A2802014-09-22022 September 2014 Figure 14, Historic Tritium Recovered Through Well Field Operation ML15030A2762014-09-22022 September 2014 Figure 11, Station Wind Summary - Q1 2014 ML15030A2752014-09-22022 September 2014 Figure 10, Precipitation Measurements ML15030A2512014-09-22022 September 2014 Figure 9, Salem Generating Station Hydrogeologic Cross Section E-E' ML15030A2502014-09-22022 September 2014 Figure 8,Salem Generating Station Hydrogeologic Cross Section D-D' ML15030A2942014-09-22022 September 2014 Table 03, Effluent Data Tritium Activity ML15030A2842014-09-22022 September 2014 Table 02, Sample Collection Schedule - First & Second Quarter 2014 ML15030A2492014-09-22022 September 2014 Figure 7, Salem Generating Station Hydrogeologic Cross Section C-C' ML15030A2482014-09-22022 September 2014 Figure 6, Salem Generating Station Hydrogeologic Cross Section B-B' ML15030A2472014-09-22022 September 2014 Figure 5, Salem Generating Station Hydrogeologic Cross Section A-A' LR-N12-0366, Kld TR-499, Revision 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Appendix K-76 Through K-1492012-11-28028 November 2012 Kld TR-499, Revision 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Appendix K-76 Through K-149 ML13052A6822012-11-28028 November 2012 Kld TR-499, Revision 0, Development of Evacuation Time Estimates, Appendix K-76 Through K-149 ML12284A4272012-10-0404 October 2012 PSEG Early Site Permit Application, Calculation of Multiplier Effects for Er Section 10.4 LR-N12-0027, Submittal of RCS Dei Graphs Report2012-03-0202 March 2012 Submittal of RCS Dei Graphs Report ML11181A1872011-06-29029 June 2011 Attendance Sheet for 06/29/2011 Public Meeting to Discuss Observations and Lessons Learned of the Pilot Application of the Nuclear Energy Institute'S ML1030002022010-05-0303 May 2010 1R20 NRC Items of Interest Punchlist 2023-09-06
[Table view] |
Text
VAL 10.4.1.3-001 Page 1 of 5 VAL 10.4.1.3-001 Calculation of Multipliers for Section 10.4 Based on 2006 NEI Reporta Estimated 2004 Indirect/Induced Effects Estimated Operation and Construction PSEG Site Indirect/Induced Effects Projected Percent of Purchases for Projected Projected SGS/HCGS Average Cost Average 2005- 2005-2008 New Plant Projected New Projected Projected Average Average Average Purchases Output New per 2008 Total (Adjusted to Plant New Plant Expenditures Construction Construction Political Jurisdiction 2004c Output Multiplier Employment Employment Purchasesd Purchasesd 2200 Mwe)e Output Employment for Constructionf Output Employment Federal Delaware $ 14,100,000 $ 4,900,000 0.35 49 $100,000 $7,618,649 0.98 $ 4,571,189 $1,588,569 16 $ 14,373,333 $ 4,994,988 50 New Castle $ 14,100,000 $ 4,400,000 0.31 41 $107,317 $6,773,114 0.88 $ 4,063,868 $1,268,158 12 $ 12,906,667 $ 4,027,612 38 New Jersey $ 54,800,000 $ 126,100,000 2.30 1072 $117,631 $72,307,481 9.34 $ 43,384,489 $99,831,826 849 $ 136,986,667 $ 315,219,319 2680 Cumberland $ 816,000 $ 900,000 1.10 10 $90,000 $2,285,912 0.30 $ 1,371,547 $1,512,736 17 $ 4,400,000 $ 4,852,941 54 Gloucester $ 6,100,000 $ 4,700,000 0.77 52 $90,385 $8,351,326 1.08 $ 5,010,796 $3,860,777 43 $ 15,840,000 $ 12,204,590 135 Salem $ 3,700,000 $ 11,700,000 3.16 121 $96,694 $5,779,051 0.75 $ 3,467,431 $10,964,578 113 $ 11,000,000 $ 34,783,784 360 b
Pennsylvania $ 87,600,000 $ 37,200,000 0.42 555 $67,027 $105,793,142 13.67 $ 63,475,885 $26,955,513 402 $ 200,493,333 $ 85,141,005 1270 ROI $24,716,000 $21,700,000 0.88 224 $13,913,642 $17,606,249 185 586 TOTAL DE, NJ, and PA $156,500,000 $168,200,000 1.07 1676 $111,431,564 $128,375,908 1267 4000 a
Nuclear Energy Institute, Economic Benefits of Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations: An Economic study by the Nuclear Energy Institute, September 2006, 48 pages.
b No 2004 employment data available. Numbers derived by subtracting PA employment in Table 3-12 from Other Employment in Table 3-19 of NEI report. NEI Tables 3.1 and 3.6 of NEI report. (473 - 354 = 119) New employment for PA is Table 3-19 total of 674 minus 119 or 555. NEI Tables 3.12 and 3.19 c
No purchases noted in NEI Report for the State of Maryland.
d From Table 2.5-28 e
Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations have a electrical output of 3655 MW (SGS-2390 MWe and HCGS-1265 MWe) and new plant 2200 MWe.
Purchases adjusted by multiplying average 2005-2008 purchases by 2200/3655 or 0.6.
f Based on projected construction cost of $4000 per kW and total overnight cost of $8.8 billion proportioned evenly over six years. Proportion going to each state and county assumed to be the same as for average 2005-2008 purchases.
Economic Benefits of Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations VAL 10.4.1.3-001 Page 2 of 5 Section 3: Economic and Fiscal Impacts The economic and fiscal effects of Salem and Hope Creeks operation go well beyond what the plants spend on employee benefits, purchases, salaries, taxes and wages. They also reflect the strong stimulus that the plants operations provide to key measures of economic activitythe value of electricity production, employment and labor incomein the local and state economies.
Salem and Hope Creeks spending lifts economic activity throughout the local and state economies. Tax payments related to economic activity are another contributing factor. The private sector experiences this effect through increased sales and employment and the public sector through increased tax revenues to support public services.
This report estimated these effects by applying the Impact Analysis for Planning (IMPLAN) model to expenditure data provided by Public Service Enterprise Group (PSEG), operator and part owner of Salem and Hope Creek (for more information on IMPLAN, see Section 6). Each expenditure item was allocated geographically by ZIP code by PSEG.
3.1 Plant Spending in Local Areas Surrounding Salem and Hope Creek Salem and Hope Creek expenditures in the four counties surrounding the plants totaled more than
$170 million in 2004. Of the expenditures in this area, labor represented $145.5 million, while goods and services represented $24.7 million. Spending within this region represents approximately 27 percent of the plants total spending of $617.8 million, and 66 percent of the $256.3 million spent in New Jersey and Delaware.
Table 3-1 summarizes Salem and Hope Creeks spending in each of the four counties surrounding the plants. Total expenditures in Salem County amounted to $58.1 million, including $3.7 million for goods and services and $54.4 million for labor. In Cumberland County, the plants spent approximately $816,000 for goods and services and $17.4 million for labor compensation, amounting to $18.2 million in total expenditures. Salem and Hope Creek expenditures in Gloucester County totaled $44.9 million, including $6.1 million for goods and services and $38.8 million on labor.
Finally, the plants spent $14.1 million for goods and services and $34.9 million for labor in New Castle County, totaling $49 million in expenditures.
Table 3-1. Summary of Salem/Hope Creek Local Expendituresa County/State Purchases Total Compensationb Total Expenditures Salem/N.J. $3.7 million $54.4 million $58.1 million Cumberland/N.J. $816,000 $17.4 million $18.2 million Gloucester /N.J. $6.1 million $38.8 million $44.9 million New Castle/Del. $14.1 million $34.9 million $49 million Local Study Area $24.7 million $145.5 million $170.2 million a Expenditure data provided by PSEG.
b Total compensation includes wages, salaries and fringe benefits.
13
VAL 10.4.1.3-001 Economic Benefits of Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations Page 3 of 5 3.2 Plant Expenditures in States Surrounding Salem and Hope Creek In 2004, Salem and Hope Creek spent $356.4 million in New Jersey, Delaware and Pennsylvania.
Labor represented almost $200 million and goods and services represented $156.5 million. Spending within these states represented approximately 58 percent of the plants total expenditures of
$617.8 million. Table 3-6 summarizes expenditures made by Salem and Hope Creek in each of the three states surrounding the plants.
In 2004, Salem and Hope Creeks expenditures for products and services (including labor) in New Jersey totaled $207 million. The plants spent $152 million on labor and $55 million on goods and services. This total includes $121 million dispersed in the three New Jersey counties surrounding the plants, as well as expenditures of $86 million spent in other areas of New Jersey.
Table 3-6. Summary of Salem/Hope Creek State Expendituresa State Purchases Total Compensationb Total Expenditures New Jersey $54.8 million $152.3 million $207.1 million Delaware $14.1 million $35.1 million $49.2 million Pennsylvania $87.6 million $12.5 million $100.1 million Total $156.5 million $199.9 million $356.4 million a Expenditure data provided by PSEG.
b Total compensation includes wages, salaries and fringe benefits.
18
Economic Benefits of Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations VAL 10.4.1.3-001 Page 4 of 5 3.5 Economic Impacts by Geographic Area Table 3-12 presents summary economic impacts for each of the geographic areas analyzed. The three economic impact variables are:
x outputthe value of production of goods and services x labor incomethe earnings of labor x employmentthe number of jobs provided.
Economic impacts can be divided into two categories: direct and secondary effects. The direct effects reflect the industry sector and geographical distribution of Salem and Hope Creek spending without any subsequent spending effects.
The direct output effects of Salem and Hope Creek Generating Stations consist of the value of power production from the three reactors, which reached $1.15 billion in 2004. The reports authors used 2004 wholesale market values for electricity from Salem and Hope Creek to determine this value.
The report used wholesale prices because they provide a market value for electricity in the region and plant-specific rates are either unavailable or confidential. The wholesale rate used was
$51.95 per megawatt-hour7, which reflects the average 24/7 price for power in the Mid-Atlantic Area Council subregion in 2004. The revenue, or output value, of the plants includes salaries, taxes, plant purchases, investor returns and consumer benefits. It reflects the total output of products and services associated directly with Salem and Hope Creek. This total includes spending on products and services itemized in the tables presented earlier in this section.
Table 3-12. Economic Impacts of Salem/Hope Creek by Area Indirect/Induced Effectsa Area Output Labor Income Employment Salem County $11.7 million $4 million 121 Cumberland County $900,000 $300,000 10 Gloucester County $4.7 million $1.9 million 52 New Jersey $126.1 million $47.7 million 1,072 New Castle County $4.4 million $1.8 million 41 Delaware $4.9 million $2 million 49 Pennsylvania $37.2 million $16.9 million 354 United States $1.7 billion $628 million 14,730 a
Indirect impacts measure the effect of input suppliers on expenditures by Salem/Hope Creek., while induced impacts measure the effects produced by the change in household income resulting from Salem/Hope Creek expenditures.
7 Source: Energy Velocity/InterContinental Exchange 24
Economic Benefits of Salem and Hope Creek Nuclear Generating Stations VAL 10.4.1.3-001 Page 5 of 5 Table T able 3-19. Impact of Salem/Hope Creek on Industries in Pennsylvania Description Output Labor Income Employment Architectural and Engineering Services $13.8 million $8.9 million 151 Owner-Occupied Dwellings $1.4 million $0 Wholesale Trade $1.1 million $400,000 8 Real Estate $1 million $100,000 5 Inorganic Chemical Manufacturing $900,000 $200,000 2 Pump Manufacturing $800,000 $200,000 3 Food Services and Drinking Places $600,000 $200,000 17 Hospitals $600,000 $300,000 6 Offices of Physicians, Dentists and
$600,000 $400,000 7 Other Health Care Providers Overhead Cranes and Hoists $500,000 $200,000 2 Other $15.9 million $18.5 million 473 Total $37.2 million $29.4 million 674 Table 3-19 presents the 10 industries most affected by Salem and Hope Creek spending in Pennsylvania.
Several sectors affected by the plants operations in Pennsylvania are similar to those in New Jersey and Delaware, such as housing, restaurants and health care services. However, because relatively fewer members of the plants employment base live in Pennsylvania, more plant-related services appear in the 10 most-affected sectors in the state, such as nuclear fuel, pump equipment and crane systems.
31