ML20069Q395

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Suppl to Environ Rept (Decommissioning). (Filed in Category C)

ML20069Q395
Person / Time
Site:	Shoreham File:Long Island Lighting Company icon.png
Issue date:	12/31/1990
From:	LONG ISLAND LIGHTING CO.
To:
Shared Package
ML20069Q388	List: ML20069Q386 ML20069Q390 ML20069Q395
References
ENVR-901231, NUDOCS 9101150395
Download: ML20069Q395 (84)

Text

- _ - - - _ - _ - _

Leo 200 Garcen City Plaza Istan Richard M Kessel Garden City, NY 11530 Chairman

, (516) 742 2200 0

December 29, 1990 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn Document Control Desk Washington, D.C. 20555 Attention: Dr. Thomas E. Hurley, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Ret Decommissioning Plan of the Long Island Power Authority for the Shoreham Nucicar Eover Station (Docket No. 50-322)

Gentlemen e As you know, on June 28, 1990, the Long Island Power Authority

(

("LIPA") and the Long Island Lighting Company ("LILCO") jointly applied for an amendment to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission

("HRC") license for the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station ("Shoreham")

to allow transfer of the facility and the license (in a non-operating status) to LIPA. As explained in that application, LIPA will not operate Shoreham as a nuclear facility. Instead, LIPA initially will maintain Shoreham in a defueled, non-operating condition and then will decommission Shoreham pursuant to an NRC-approved decommissioning plan.

By this lotter, LIPA, as the prospective Shoreham licensee responsible for Shoreham decommissioning, transmits to the NRC five copies of the following documents for NRC review and approval LIPA's Shoreham Decommissioning Plan, as contemplated by 10 CFR S 50.82(a); and

LIPA's Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning) (" Environmental Supplement"), as contemplated by 10 CFR $ 51.53(b).

An additional 45 copies ;f the:c hcurm Ls will be transmitted separately to the NRC.

LIPA is authorized to state that IILCO has reviewed the

\ Decommissioning Plan and Environmental Supplement and consents to their submission on the docket.

l 9101150395 PDR 910107 C ADOCK 05000322 PDR

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission O December 29, 1990 d Page 2 The Decommissioning Plan and Environmental Supplement have been prepared by LIPA with the assistance of the New York Power Authority ("NYPA"), Bechtel Power Corporation and Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation (collectively "Bachtol"), and other contractors identified in the Decommissioning Plan. NYPA serves as LIPA's principal contractor for the decommissioning of Shoreham. Bechtel is providing conceptual and detailed engineering services for decommissioning. In addition, LIPA has consulted extensively with LILCo concerning the Decommissioning Plan.

As detailed in the Decommissioning Plan and the Environmental Supplement, LIPA intends to decommission Shoreham by means of the DECON alternative. Decommissioning by the DECON alternative will be safe and cost effective and is particularly appropriate in light of the limited operating history and low levels of radiological contamination at Shoreham. The Environmental Supplement demonstrates that decommissioning Shoreham using the DECON alternative will have no significant environmental impacts and, in fact, will confer an environmental benefit by achieving release of the Shoreham site for unrestricted use in the near future.

p LIPA respectfully requests that the NRC proceed expeditiously Q in its review and approval of the Decommissioning Plan. In view of the limited operation and icw level of radioactivity at Shoreham, the NRC should be able to review and approve the Decommissioning Plan in substantially less time than required for a plant that has operated at full power for an extended period of time. Moreover, given the very substantial costs involved in maintaining Shoreham pending initiation of actual decommissioning, it is critical that the NRC give prompt reviev and approval not only to the Decommissioning Plan, but also to LILCO's January 5, 1990 request to amend Shoreham's NRC license to a possession-only license (POL) or other defueled license and to LIPA's and LILCO's joint License Transfer application filed on June 28, 1990. LILCO presently is expending approximately $150 million per year to own and maintain Shoreham consistent with expressed NRC policies, an amount that ultimately is borne by Long Island ratepayers. Such expenditures for a plant that will never operate strongly counsel axpeditious NRC action on the POL application, the License Transfer apptication and the Decommissioning Plan.

In this regard, while the Decommissioning Plan assumes that the NRC will approve the License Transfer application nn July 1, 1991 and the Decommissioning Plan on October 1, 1991, LIPA wvald be prepared to receive the Shoreham licenne and to commence decommissioning in advance of those dates.

O V 1 l

l 1

• l*

l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission December 29, 1990 O Pag 9 3 LIPA, together with NYPA, Bechtel, LILCO, and other contractors, is prepared to work ceaperatively with the NRC Staff to facilitate consideration of the Decommissioning Plan, the Environmental Supplement and the License Transfer lication.

LIPA would be pleased to meet at the NRC's conve i ce at a technical or management level to discuss these matter s. -

N l' T7 Richard M. :<ei ect William Catacosinos Enclosures O

O

.O i

LONG ISLAND PO'WER AUTIIORITY SIIOREIIAh! NUCLEAR POWER STATION 1

NRC Docket No. 50 - 327 e

O SuretEuENr 10 ENvlRONuENrAt RErORr (DECOMMISSIONING)

I DECEMBER 1990 l

l t.

O

i l

l Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

/\

b TABLE OF CONTENTS List of Tables List of Figures List of Acronyms and Definitions

1.0 INTRODUCTION

AND

SUMMARY

1.1 Purpose

1.2 Background

1.3 Selection of the DECON Decommissioning Alternative 1.4 EnvironmentalImpacts of DECON Decommissioning 1.5 References

2.0 DESCRIPTION

OF THE SITE, FACILITY AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENT 2,1 Site Description

(]

L 2.2 2.3 2.4 General Facility Description Operating History Current Facility Status 2.5 Facility Characterization 2.6 References 3.0 DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIVITIES 3.1 DECON Decommissioning Alternative 3.2 Other Alternatives 3.3 Comparison of Alternatives 3.4 References 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS 4,1 Socioeconomic and Cultural Resources 4.2 Water Resources 4.3 Water Use 4.4 Terrestrial Resources 4.5 Wildlife, Endangered and Threatened Species 4.6 Noise and Aesthetics 73 U l

i i

Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

! 4.7 Local Short Term Uses Versus Long Term Productivity 4.8 Irreversible and irretrievable Commitment of Resources

. 4.9 Unavoidable Environmental Impacts 4.10 References L

5.0 RADIATION EXPOSURE IMPACTS 4

5.1 Worker Radiation Exposure from DECON Decommissioning 5.2 Measures to Malntain Worker Exposure ALARA 4 5.3 Off Site Radiation Exposure From Planned Decomm!ssioning Activities 5.4 _ Radiation Exposure Impacts of Potential Accidents  !

, 5.5- References j 1

6.0 WASTE DISPOSAL l l

6.1 Radioactive Wastes  :

6.2 Non Radioactive Wastes 6.3 Low Level Waste Disposal Options  !

6.4 References 7.0 STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 7.1 Federal Requirements 7.2 Other Requirements 4

7.3 - References e

O li

v;.

Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

LIST OF TABLES 2.1 1 Population of Communities in the Vicinity of Shoreham 2.5 1 Estimated Radionuclide Inventory in the RPV, Internals and Biological Shield Wall 2.5 2 System Contamination Results 2.5 3 Structural Contamination Results 2.5 4 Hazardous MaterialInventory at Shoreham Site 5.3 1 Airborne Radionuclide Releases From Shoreham Decommissioning 5.3 2 Maximum Off Site individual Doses Due to Decommissioning 5.4 1 Accident Dose Comparisons 5.4 2 Accident Release Comparisons 6,1 1 Estimated Radioactive Waste Data for Shoreham Decommissioning O

iii

,,... ,.m .

Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

LIST OF FIGURES 2.1 1 General Location Map 2.1 2 Operation Site and Location Plan with Existing Topographic Contours 4.3 1 Groundwater Monitoring Program O

O i,

1 Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS BWR -

Bolling Water Reactor CHD -

Control Rcd Drive OAW -

Ory Active Waste DOL - Defueled Operating License DOT -

United States Department of Transportation EAB -

Exclusion Area Boundary EPA -

United States Environmental Protection Agency EPP -

Environmental Protection Plan ER OLS -

Environmental Report Operating License Stage ESEERCO -

Empire State Electric Energy Research Corporation FCAF -

Federal Consistency Assessmont Form HEPA -

High Efficiency Particulate Air LILCO -

Long Island Lighting Company LIPA -

Long Island Power Authority LLRW -

Low Level Radioactive Waste LPG - Liquid Propane Gas LSA -

Low Specific ActMty MWe -

Megawatts Electric NESHAPS -

National Emission Standards For Hazardous Air Pollutants NRC -

United States Nuclear Regulatcry Commission

. NRC Gels -

NRC Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities O v

l l

i Supphnent To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

O NSSS .

Nuclear Steam Supply System NYDOS .

New York State Department of State NYPA .

New York Power Authority NYPSC .

Now York Public Servico Commission NYSDEC . New York Stato Department of Environmental Conservation ODCM .

Off. Site Dose Calculation Manual OSHA .

Occupational Safety and Hoatth Administration PAG -

Protectivo Action Guide POL .

Possession-Only License OA .

Quality Assuranco RPV .

Reactor Pressure Vessel SE & SC -

Soll Erosion and Sediment Control Shoreham .

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station SPCC - Spill Provention Control and Counter. measure SPDES -

State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System USAR .

Updated Safety Analysis Report vi O

Section 1. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

V 1.0 INTRODI)CTION AND

SUMMARY

1.1 PURPOSE This " Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning)" is submitted by the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to present an evaluation of the environmental impacts resulting from the decommissioning of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station (Shoreham). This report has been prepared as a Supplement to Shoreham's Environmental Report -

Operating License Stage (ER OLS)m in accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(b) and the guidance in the NRC's final decommissioning rule.* This Supplerrent accompanies LIPA's Decommissioning Plan for Shoreham,* which is simultaneously being submitted to the NRC.

The decommissioning alternative selected for Shoreham and evaluated in this Supplement is the DECON alternative as dest'ibed in NRC guidance.* The analyses presented in this Supplement establish that the DECON decommissioning of Shoreham can be accomplished with no significant environmentalimpacts and that the limited impacts which may occur are well within the limits identified by the NRC in its Final Generic EnvironmentalImpact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities (NRC GEIS).W Accordingly, in connection with the NRC's review

(~ of the proposed Decommissioning Plan, an environmental assessment would be i appropriate, leading to a finding of no significant environmental impacts.

1.2 BACKGROUND

1.2.1 Information about LIPA LIPA is a corporate municipalinstrumentality and a political subdivision of the State of New York. LIPA was created by a New York State statute, the LIPA Act.* LIPA is empowered to assess the needs for gas and electric power on Long Island and to acquire, construct, maintain and operate such generating and transmission facilities as it deems desirable in order to maintain an adequate electric and gas supply on Long Island. LIPA is also specifically authorized by the LIPA Act to acquire the Shoreham plant. Upon such acquisition, LIPA is required to close and decommission the p'. int as a nuclear facility and to investigate and develop non nuclear alternative uses, if any, for the plant.

On February 28,1989, Governor Cuomo, representing the State of New York, and the Long Island Lighting Company #(LlLCO), the present Shoreham licensee, entered into a Settlement Agreement under which LILCO agreed not to operate p 11 v

~

Section 1. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning, the Shoreham plant and to transfer the license and certain areas and Dunc:ngs of the Shoreham site to LIPA. Thereafter, on Apnl 14,1989, LIPA and LILCO entered into an Asset Transfer Agreement

• Under which LILCO reiterated its agreement never to operate the Shoreham plant and to transfer it to LIPA. The Sett!ement Agreement and the Asset Transfer Agreement (hereinafter referred to conect;ve!y as the ' Settlement") have been approved by the Board of Directors and shareholders of LlLCO, the Board of Trustees of LIPA and the State of New York Public Service Commission. The Settlement became effective on June 28,1989, when LILCO's shareholders voted to approve it.

The Settlement establishes the basic framework pursuant to which the Shoreham plant will be transferred to LIPA, and LIPA will subsequently decommission tne Shoreham plant. In addition, LIPA and LlLCO have also entered into a Site Cooperation and Reimbursement Agreement (Site Agreement) *' The S;te Agreement, among other things, describes: the Cooperative efforts between LIPA and LILCO in connection with the license transfer, maintenance and decommissioning of the Shoreham plant; LILCO's agreement to make LILCO employees available after the license transfer to continue to work on Shoreham related matters to the extent feasible; and LlLCO's agreement to fund the Shoreham plant's maintenance and decommissioning. The Site Agreement was executed on January 24,1990, and is fully in effect.

O LIPA has also entered into a Management Services Agreement

• With the New York Power Authority (NYPA), Under the Management Services Agreement, NYPA is providing technical and management services to LIPA with respect to the maintenance and decommissioning of the Shoreham plant.

On June 28,1990, LIPA and LILCO jointly submitted a license transfer t.menoment request" to the NRC requesting that LILCO's Shoreham license be amended to authorize transfer to LIPA, Upon the NRC's approval of the license transfer amendment request, LIPA will be responsible for carryina out the safe and orderly maintenance and decommissioning of the Shoreham p'ar.t, acting then as the plant owner and licensee.

This Supplement reflects earlier environmental analyses prepared by LIPA. On November 1,1990, LIPA issued a Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement regarding the selection and implementation of the DECON decommissioning alternative at Shoreham in compliance with the requirements of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act,U" 12

i Section 1. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning) c')

L This Supplement is submitted to the NRC by LIPA as the prospective Shoreham Scensee with ultimate responsibility for Shoreham's decommissioning. LIPA was assisted in the preparation of this Supplement by NYPA, LILCO, Bechtel Power Corporation and Bechtel Associates Professional Corporation.

1.2.2 Facility Status The Shoreham plant is located in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York, about 50 miles east of New York City on the north shore of Long Island.

The Shoreham plant occupies about 80 acres of an approximate 500 acre site owned by LILCO. In addition to the plant, the site contains two combustion turbine generation facilities and two diesel generation facilities.

A description of the site and its environs is given in Section 2. For comprehensive descriptions of

• alte and its environs, reference is made to the ER OLSN , the Updated Safet) .,ysis Report (USAR) "8) and reports filed with the NRC such as semi annual .n,luent and environmental monitoring reports."*

On April 21,1989, the NRC granted a license (NPF 82) authorizing LILCO to

, operate the Shoreham plant at full power. In light of the Settlement, however, LILCO has never operated the Shoreham plant at full power, in fact, LILCO commenced defueling the Shoreham plant shortly after LILCO's shareholders voted to approve the Settlement and comp %ted that task on August 9,1989. The Shoreham plant has remained in a defueled state since that time.

The Shoreham plant was tested by LILCO only briefly at low (under 5%) power.

Due to this limited operating history, the radioactive contamination at Shoreham is quite limited. Aside from the nuclear fuel which presently is stored in the spent fuel storage pool, LIPA estimates that the total radioactive inventory at Shoreham is about 602 Curles. All but about 3 millicuries of this is confined to the reactor pressure vessel (RPV) and internal RPV components, primarily the shroud, the upper core support structure and the instrument dry tubes All but approximately 50 millicuries of the RPV activity is neutron induced activity contained within the metal crystalline structure. The remainder is deposited within the material surface oxide film as surface contamination. The foregoing radiological estimate is based upon a comprehensive radiological survey"* of the facility performed by LILCO in 1990 to determine the extent of contamination and the radiation levels in Shoreham's contaminated systems and structures. Further data on the facihty's radiological status are presented in Section 2.5.

(O 13

%)

l

Section 1. Supplement to Environmental Report (Docommissioning)

At the present time, the Shoreham plant still holds a full power opera'.ing license, although by Confirmatory Order dated March 29,1990, the license was modified such that LILCO may not load fuel into the vessel without tha NRC's pnor approval.00 At the present time, LILCO has requested the NRC to amend Shoreham's license further to a defueled operating I! cense (DOL) or possession only license (POL)"U and it is such a DOL or POL which LIPA expects to be transferred to LIPA pursuant to the license transfer amendment request.

1.3 SELECTION OF THE DECON DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVE 1.3.1 Decommissioning Terminology The NRC has described three main alternatives for decommissioning nuclear facilities. These are identified as: DECON, SAFSTOR and ENTOMB.* DECON is the method in which the equipment, structures and portions of a facility and site containing radioactive contaminants or activated materials are removed or decontarninated to a level that permits the site to be released for unrestncted use shortly after cessation of operations. SAFSTOR is the method in which the nuclear facility is placed in a ecndition that allows the facility to be safely maintained for some interim SAFSTOR period, and then decontaminated or disposed of after the O SAFSTOR period. ENTOMB is the method in which radioactive contaminants are encased in a structurally competent material such as concrete. The entombed structure is appropriately maintained and placed under continued surveillance until the radioactivity decays to a level permitting unrestricted release of the property.

1.3.2 Selection of DECON LIPA proposes to decommission Shoreham using the DECON alternative and will be prepared to commence implementation of its DECON Decommissioning Plan promptly after receipt of NRO approval. A number of factors support the selection of the DECON alternative; o Using DECON, the radioactive contamination at the Shoreham plant will be reduced in the near future using commercially available methods for decontamination and/or dismantlement and disposal of radioactive portions of the plant, thus eliminating a potential health, safety and environmental risk, and releasing the site for unrestricted use. The use of DECON decommissioning will maximize LIPA's flexibility in selecting uses for the Shoreham site in the relatively near 1-4 1

Sectlen 1. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning) future and in carrying out its statutory mandate, o The DECON decommissioning of the Shoreham plant will permit the use of personnel who are knowledgeable about the Shoreham plant and its operating history, if the decommissioning of the Shoreham plant were deferred (as would be the case if SAFSTOR or ENTOMB were used), there would be increased likelihood that personnel unfamiliar with the plant would have a major role in its decommissioning, perhaps increasing costs and the likelihood of inadverient exposures to radioactivity due to their lack of familiarity with the plant, o Due to the limited radioactive contamination of the Shoreham plant, DECON decommissioning can be accomplished with no significant impacts from radiation exposure to the decommissioning workers and with minimal risk of any radiation exposure to the public.

o DECON decommissioning will eliminate the need for long term monitoring, security, surveillance and maintenance of the Shoreham plant and the costs associated therewith, o DECON decommissioning of the Shoreham plant is not expected to be any more expensive than deferred decommissioning. In fact, DECON decommissioning should prove to be less expensive than deferred decommissioning, given the uncertainties related to costs of maintaining the plant over a long period and the uncertainties associated with predicting future waste disposal costs, o No significant environmental impacts are expected to result from the DECON decommissioning of the Shoreham plant.

While certain impacts have been identified such as potential worker exposure to radioactivity and the need to transport and dispose of radioactive waste these impacts are expected to be minimal for the Shoreham plant. Further, the mitigation measures described hereafter will further reduce the level of these potential impacts.

1-5 s

_ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . - . - - - _ _ - - - - - - - - _ _ . _- - - - - - _ - - - - - a.

Section 1. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

LIPA has determined that there are no preferable alternatives to DECON decommissioning of the Shoreham plant.

There is no alternative of "no action," i.e., maintaining the Shoreham plant in a shut down condition in compliance with NRC regulations but without proceeding to decommissioning. LIPA is obligated under the LIPA Act to decommission Shoreham once it becomes the owner of the plant. NRC regulations similarly make clear that once it is decided that a plant will no longer be operated, it must be decommissioned. Finally, it is not appropriate to incur the substantial costs associated with maintaining the Shoreham plant in its current condition.

The deferred decommissioning alternatives SAFSTOR and ENTOMB are not preferable to DECON decommissioning. Deferred decommissioning would result in minimal benefits when compared to DECON decommissioning. Deferred decommissioning is beneficial primarily in instances where the licensee wishes to avoid the disruption of another nuclear facility at the site, or where it is judged to be beneficial to allow a period of radioactive decay prior to actualimplementation of decommissioning activities in order to reduce worker exposures to radioactivity.

For the Shoreham plant, neither of these conditions exists: the site has no other nuclear facility; and radioactivity levels at the Shoreham plant are already O sufficiently low to ensure that worker exposure to radiation during decommissioning will be low.

Further, deferred decommissioning would result in the continued presence of radioactive contamination at the Shoreham site for a prolonged period of time, making it more difficult to use portions of the Shoreham site for other purposes (and perhaps even precluding use of portions of the site for a period of time), and creating the need for long term security, surveillance, monitoring and maintenance of the plant to ensure no inadvertent exposures to radiation. In addition, deferred decommissioning would mean that in the future, the actual decommissioning activities would likely be undertaken by personnel who are less familiar with the Shoreham plant, meaning that more time ant raining would be required.

1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF DECON DECOMMISSIONING The DECON decommissioning of the Shoreham plant will be accomplished with no significant environmentalimpacts. This result is not surprising, since the NRC in the NRC GEIS considered the various tasks associated with the decommissioning of a nuclear power plant that had operated at full power for a long period of time (30 years), and concluded that the decommissioning of such O

Section 1. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

O plants can te carr.ed out W thout any significant environmental impacts. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the decommiss:ening of the Shoreham plant, which operated for only the equiva!cnt of two full pcwer days, can be carried out without any significant environmental imoacts. UPA has not identled any site specific factors pertaining to the Shorenam plant which would a!!er the conclusion of the NRC GEIS or indicate that any significant environmental irroacts would result from Shoreham decommissioning activities.

As discussed in detailin Section 4.0, the non radiolog; cal environmenta imcacts from Shoreham's DECON decommissioning are temporary and are not significant.

Principal environmental effects are shght increases in noise levels in the immeciate vicinity of the site, truck traffic to and from the site for hauling equipment and wastes, and the possibility of some dredging of the intake canalif tne spent fuel is moved by targe.

Fuel movement would not constitute part of decommissioning, since under NRC guidance;21 the disposition of spent fuelis outsioe the scope of decommissioning.

In any event, however, dredging, if it were to occur, would result in no significant environmentalimpacts, due particularly to the f act that any dredging would occur in an area which has been dredged previously. Finally, no significant socioeconomic impacts or impacts to local cultural, terrestrial or aquatic resources have been identified.

The principal radiation exposure impact is the est; mated collective dose to decommissioning workers: about 190 person rem for the proposed DECON alternative. This exposure is not considered to be a significant impact. By way of comparison, this is much less than the average annual occupational exposure from an operating boiling water reactor (BWR), reported to be about 430 person rem (1989 average for all operating U.S. BWRs)M' or 469 person rem (for the reference BWR),W The largest occupational risk associated with decommissioning the Shoreham plar,.

is related to the risk of industrial accidents in carrying out the DECON decommissioning. No significant impacts are expected. Again, by way of comparison, the level of effort and the associated risk to carry out DECON decommissioning will be much less than for the original Construction of the facility, which required on the order of 10 Million construction person hours.

Radiation exposures to off site individuals from both postulated accidents and expected conditions are estimated to be insignificant. The maximum exposures to an individual from the most severe postulated accident are 1.08 millirem whole O

I 1

4 Section 1. Supplement to Environmental Report (Docommissioning)

O body and 93.9 millirem to the skin. These are 0.11% ana 1.9%, respectively, of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Protective Action Guide (PAG) levels for protection of the public from accidents at nuclear facihties. The 50 year whole body and organ (lung) doses to the maximum exposed off site individual from expected airborne releases due to decommissioning operations are 1.82 x 10 4 millirem and 2.03 x 10" millirem, respectively. Both of these are very small fractions (less than 0.0004% and 0.0014%, respectively) of the annual dose levels established by the NRC in 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix i as design guides for maintaining off site exposures from routine releases of radioactive materials as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA).

Doses due to the release of radionuchdes in liquid effluents have not been estimated for Shoreham decommissioning because these will be neglig!ble in comparison to those permitted under the Shoreham full power Tecnnical Specifications.

Finally, no significant impacts are expected from the disposal / burial of Shoreham's low level radioactive waste. The total volume of Shoreham low level waste which may need to be disposed of has been conservatively estimated at about 79,300 cubic feet. In fact, the actual volume is expected to be far less, since the 79,300 cubic feet estimate assumes that all contaminated systems and the RPV and its internals will be sent to a burial facility, it is expected that many of these portions may be decontaminated to below the proposed release criteria (such criteria are described in Section 4.2 of the Decommissioning Plan) and thus will not need to be sent to a burial facility. In addition, LIPA will further reduce the volume of wastes by utilizing volume reduction techniques.

LIPA believes that given the relatively low level of contamination of the Shoreham wastes and their small volume (particularly compared to a reference BWR after 30 years of operation), it should be possible to dispose of such wastes off site in a prompt manner during DECON decommissioning. However, if for any reason some portion of these wastes needs to be stored temporarily on site, adequate space exists and no significant environmentalimpacts are anticipated.

Despite the fact that no significant environmental impacts are expected from Shoreham's DECON decommissioning, LIPA will take steps to ensure that even insignificant impacts are minimized. Thus, in addition to complying with applicable 18

t r

4 Section 1. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning) i i regulations, such as those of the NRC (e.g.,10 CFR Parts 20,61 and 71) and the i Department of Transportation (DOT) (49 CFR), LIPA will also take certain additional measures:

I o LIPA will implement a Soll Erosion and Sediment Control (SE&SC)

Plan to ensure that site activities do not affect the water quality of surrounding areas.

4 c LIPA willimplement a Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (SPCC) Plan to ensure that fuels, oils, chemicals and other potentially 4

harmful substances will be stored and handled in a safe and secure manner.

o LIPA will minimize air quality impacts through a variety of means, including assurance that work areas will be paved or covered with gravel, and through implementation of other dust control measures.

o LIPA will implement a waste management program to minin'.ze the

~

generation of waste and to control the spread of contamination.

-o LIPA will implement a fire and industria! safety program.  !

1 1

I h

p 1-9 0

,v,.r... -y,....- c -,,.y.._r--..vw.. ,-y,w,m_,,,,,,-#,,,,,.- ..,,,..,,...,m.,.<,-,_--__ -

.vw-, -v,-,--,-.c-,<c - ,,,,7-n-,,-.--%.--., g

__ _ . .. . - . . _ _ _ = _ _ _ - - . _ .

i Section 1. Supplement to Envlionmental Report (Decommissioning)

(Q J

1.5 REFERENCES

1. Long Island Lighting Company, "Appheant's Environmental Report.

Operating License Stage Shoreham Nuc! ear Power Station Unit 1,* Docket No. 50 322, Rev,4, Octooer 1979.

2. Final Ru!o, 'Genert.l Requirements for Decommissioning Nuclear Facilities,"

53 Fed. Reg. 2C18 (1988),

3. Long Island Power Authority, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station, Decommissiordng Plan, Docket No. 50 322, December 1990.

4. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Generic Environmenta! Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuc! ear Facilities," NUREG 0366, August 1988.

5. Long Island Power Authority Act, New York Public Authorities Law Section 1020,.cf fag. (McKinney Supp.1990).

6. Settlement Agreement - LILCO Issues, dated February 28,1989.

O 7. Amended and Restated Asset Transfer Agreement, between LILCO and V LIPA dated as of June 16,1988, as Amended and Restated as of April 14, 1989.

8. Site Cooperation and Reimbursement Agreement by and between ULCO and LIPA, dated January 24,1990,

9. Management Services Agreement between LIPA and NYPA, dated January 24,1990.

10. " Joint Application of Long Island Lighting Company and Long Island Power Authority for License Amendment to Authorize Transfer of Shoreham,"

Docket No. 50 322, License No. NPF 82, June 28,1990.

11. Long Island Power Authority,"FinalGeneric Environmentallmpact Statement for the Decommissioning of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,"

November 1990, 1 10

Section 1. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

12. Long Island Lighting Company,

• Updated Safety Analysis Report -

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station," Docket, No. 50-322, Revision 3, June 1990.

13. Long Island Lighting Company, " Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1," Docket No. 50 322, February 28,1990.

14. Long Island Lighting Company, *Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Operational Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Report: January 1 to December 31,1989," April 1990.

15. Long Island Lighting Company, "Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Site Characterization Program Final Report," May 1990; Addendum 1, June 1990; Addendum 2, August 1990.

16. " Confirmatory Order Modifying Ucense (Effective immediately)," Docket No.

50 322, License No. NPF 82, March 29,1990, 55 Fed. Reg.12258 (April 5, 1990),

17. Long !sland Lighting Company,

• License Change Application, Operating O' License NPF 82, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station," Docket 50 322, transmitted a the NRC via SNRC 1664, January 5,1990,

18. Inside NRC, Volume 11 McGraw Hill, Inc., August 13,1990.

1-11 i

Section 2. Supplement To Environmental Roport (D3 commissioning) i 2.0 _D_ESCRIPTION OF THE SITE FACILITY AND LOCAL ENVIRONMENT

! 2.1 SITE DESCRIPTION 2.1.1 Site Location and Description The information presented in this Supplement updates LILCO's previous ER OLS.0)

The Shoreham site is located in the Town of Brookhaven, Suffolk County, New York, on the north shore of Long Island as shown on the General Location Mao (Figure 2.1 1). The site is approximately 50 miles east of the La Guardia Airport.*

The developed portion of the Shoreham site, wnich includes the Shoreham plant i

structures, comprises 80 acres, and is located within a larger parcel of about 500 acres which is entirely owned by LILCO. The approximate 500 acre parcel is

bounded on the north by Long Island Sound and on the east by the Wading River marshland, it is bounded on the west by a parcel of approximately 420 acres known as the Shoreham West property, also owned by LILCO, and on the south by highway Route 25A. The 500 acre Shoreham site property is divided across its midsection by North Country Road which branches off Route 25A cbout three miles west of the site and rejoins Route 25A about three miles east of the site. The i road is about 1,500 feet from the Shoreham Reactor Building at its closest pointJ" l . Figure 2.12 shows the Shoreham site plan and the location of the Reactor l ( Building and other major facilities on the developed portion of the site.

Approximately 18 acres of the site's developed area will be used during decommissioning and are referred to as the Project Area. Eleven of these acres will be transferred to LIPA as set forth in the Asset Transfer Agreement.*

The site is hilly, varying from beach level at Long Island Sound to elevation 200 l- feet midway between North Country Road and the southern border of the site.

l Except for the developed portions, the site is mostly wooded with wetlands alona l- the east and west boundaries extending as much as 1,300 feet from the shore.UI L

L The nearest location accessible to the public is approximately 600 feet NE of the ,

i Reactor Building and along Wading River Creek east of the east plant access road -

(New Bea.h _ Road). This area is within the site property, but is accessible from the

' Riverhead Town beach A parking lot used by Brookhaven Town residents for access to a small section of= Brookhaven Town beach located north of the Shoreham site lies to the immediate northeast of the Shoreham controlled area fence. The nearest accessible location on propeny not controlled by LILCO is a nature conservancy which adjoins the Shoreham site to the east about 1100 feet L from the Reactor Building. The nearest residence is located on the beach about 1500 feet NE of the Reactor Building.W LO L

21

l Section 2. Supplemont To Environmental Report (Decomm'ssioning) l 2.1.2 Population Distribution The area within 10 miles of the site is compnsed o,f parts of three Suffolk County towns: Brookhaven, Riverhead and Southampton." It should be noted that towns in New York State are politi0al subdivisions of counties similar to towrahips in many other states. Table 2.11 provides current population data for communities which lie within a 10 mile radius of Shoreham. These are reported in the 1990 LILCO Long Island population survey.* The current estimated total population within a 10 mile radius of Shoreham is 148,040 (derived from the 1990 LILCO survey). This is consistent with the 10 mile projected 1990 population contained in Shoreham's USAR* of 145,382. Current populations of the four communities in the immediate vicinity of the site are about 10 per cent less than the 1990 projections contained in the ER OLS.m 2.1.3 Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters A survey of land use in the vicinity of Shoreham has been conducted annually since 1978 W in support of LILCO's environmental monitoring program. These surveys include location of nearest residences, vegetable gardens and dairy animals within the 16 compass land sectors surrounding the Shoreham plant.

Data from the most recent survey are used in the assessment of impacts from Shoreham's decommissioning.

O The past decade has seen an increase in land devoted to residential use in the vicinity of the site and in the greater Suffolk County region. This is evidenced by a population increase of about 140 % within a 10 mile radius of Shoreham between 1970 and 1990, in the four communities nearest Shoreham, a 187% increase occurred over the same p*eriod. This is based on data from the LILCO 1990 Long Island Population Survey.

Land use patterns have not undergone significant changes in the immediate vicinity of the site since Shoreham's construction, However, new residential development has occurred along Valentine Road to the southwest of the site and along North Country Road on both the east and west approaches to the site. This is generally low density development with lot sizes of one half acre or greater. It is estimated that between 15 and 20 new residences have been constructed within one quarter mile of the site boundaries during the 1980's. However, several neighboring sections along North Country Road remain unimproved, i.e., wooded or grassy with no residences or other structures.

A combustion turbine generator known as the Brookhaven Combustion Turbine facility was added by LILCO to the adjacent Shoreham West property in 1989. This parcel was previously zoned for industrial use by the Town of Brookhaven, and thus, this addition was consistent with the planned land use. The facility, O

22

l Section 2. Supplement To Environmental Report (D: commissioning) l l

g comprised of several turbine generators with a total capacity of 240 megawatts, Q occupies about 15 acres of the 420 acre property.

2.2 GENERAL FACILITY DESCRIPTION As described in the USAR,* the plant consists of a BWR nuclear steam supply system (NSSS) and a turbine generator, both furnished by the General Electric Company. The balance of the plant was designed by the Stone & Webster Engineering Corporation. The plant was designed to provide a gross electrical output of 849 megawatts electric.

The principal buildings and structures at the Shoreham site include the following:

1. the Reactor Building, which houses ue F,r V and associated auxiliary and safety systems, the primary containment st*ucture, the biolot '.at shield, the spent fuel storage pool and the fuel handling equipment;

2. the Turbine Building, which houses the turbine generator, condenser and associated systems;

3. the Control Building, which houses several rooms with safety systems, and the Control Room from where plant operations are conducted:

4. the Radwaste Bu!! ding, which houses the solid and liquid radioactive waste treatment systems;

5. the Screenwell Building, which allows the plan' to draw water from the Long Island Sound to supply the condenser with cooling water and contains the necessary pumps and filters required by the circulating water system; and

6. the Office and Service Building and Office Building annex, which house the office space for the managerial and clerical stsft and the Technical Support Center; and 7, the Security Building, which houses plant security operations.

In addition to the nuclear generating facility, the site contains a peak power gas turbine facility, an internal combustion peak power generator and an emergency diesel generator. These facilities are not part of the licensed facility.

2,3 OPERATING HISTORY The Shoreham plant achieved initial criticality in February 1985. Low power testing commenced in July 1985. The plant was testeo intermittently at power levels not 3 exceeding 5% of full power for approximately two years. The Shoreham plant has (G

23

Section 2. Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning) 4

_ not operated since June 1987. This operating history corresponds to

] approximately two effective full power days average ful burnup.*

, 2.4 CURRENT FACILITY STATUS The Shoreham plant is, overall, unchanged from the description in the USAR.*

! The fuel was removed from the reactor core in August 1989 and placed in the  !

l spent fuel storage pool Staffing has been reduced significantly from the level required to support the facility during power operations, and application has been J made to the NRC to reduce facility security and surveillance requirements to levels 1 commensurate with a non operating defueled reactor.* However, as discussed in LILCO's Defueled Safety Analysis Report,* security, survoillance, fire protection, i

radiation protection, safety, emergency preparedness and safeguards measures for the reactor fuel are still required and will be met as long as the fuel remains on site.

1 LILCO has evaluated and is planning to implement early in 1991 a " soft" chemical

, decontamination program to decontaminate five of the nine contaminated plant 4

systems discussed in Section 2.5.1.2 below. LILCO has selected a technique that has been used at operating nuclear plants, a process which can be used without causing irreversible damage or degradation to the plant equipment. In addition,-

! LILCO is using the existing Shoreham plant staff to manually decontaminate various areas of the plant including the suppression pool and reactor head cavity._

it is anticipated that there will be several benefits to LIPA resulting from LILCO's decontamination program, including the possible reduction in the overall scope of decommissioning and dismantlement (i.e., under the assumption tivt levels of contamination in plant systems and structures can be reduced below acceptable criteria for unrestricted access to the site). Such decontamination efforts are being closely monitored by LIPA and will be factored into LIPA's detailed engineering and planning activities for decommissioning.

2.5 FACILITY CHARACTERIZATION l 2.5.1 Radiological Characterization of Facilities and Equipment Estimates of plant radionuclide inventories have been determined for the RPV and associated intemals and plarit systems and structures as a result of LILCO's site characterization program completed in May 1990.8 - Surface contamination and  !

radiation levels of RPV components, plant systems and _ structures were obtained from radiation and contamination survey measurements, in situ activation of the RPV and components were calculated using the ORIGEN code, the RADCOR code _-

and Shoreham's fuel power history, and then adjusted to measured values for certain components.

oO I

24 L

1 - - _ - _ - _ = . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Section 2. Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning) 2.5.1.1 Reactor Pressure Vessel O Table 2.51 shows the calculated in situ activation product inventory of the RPV and its components as of July 1990. The total calculated inventory of 602 Curies is comprised of over 97% Fe 55 and Co-60 and trace amounts of ottier radionuclides. The core shroud, top guide plate and SRM/lRM dry tubes contain over 96% of the activated nuclide inventory.

2.5.1.2 Plant Systems Nine plant systems (or portions thereof) were found to contain surface radioactivity contamination in excess of levels specified in NRC criteria for unrestricted release of materials following decommissioning (Regulatory Guide 1.86).0" These are:

Control Rod Drive Process Sampling Core Soray Residual Heat Removal Reactor Water Cleanup

- Liquid Radwaste Fuel Pool Cleanup Condensate Demineralizer Reactor Recirculation O Tab!e 2.5 2 summarizes estimated surface contamination levels for the above systems. The activity is comprised of predominantly Co-60, with other trace radionuclides. Ratios of fixed to removable contamination are comoarable to those for the RPV. The total radioactivity content of the surface contamination in the nine systems is estimated to be approximately 3.3 millicuries.*

2.5.1.3 Structural Contamination

%Jioactive surface contamination in excess of Regulatory Guide 1.86 cnteria was w:d on surfaces in the following structures and areas:

Dryer Separator Pool Reactor Head Cavity Pr: mary Containment Radwaste Laydown Area Equipment / Floor Drains and Sumps The total activity of the surface contamination in these structures and areas of the plant is estimated to be less than one milliCurie.* Most of the activity is in the reactor head cavity and in a small number of building floor sumps. Table 2.5 3 provides a summary of structure surface contaminatica levels as of May 1990.

9 25

l-Section 2. Supplement To Environmental Report (D commissioning) o The spent fuel storage pool is assumed to be contaminated in excess of ij Regulatory Guide 1.86 criteria, but was not included in the recent facility characterization measurements as it contains the no change fuel, and could not be drained for contamination surveys.

F 2.5.1.4 Facility Radiation Dose Rate Levels Dose rates throughout the facility are very low compared to normal plant operating levels and the reference BWR, General area dose rates are less than 0.5 mrem /nr.

2.5.2 Radiological Characterization of Site and Environs 2.5.2.1 Site Characterization Data for the radiological characterization of Shoreham's outdoor areas were obtained from LILCO's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program.W These measurements of radioactivity in air, precipitation, ground water and soil, and of direct radiation disclose no radioactivity above background levels.

2.5.2.2 Envluanental Characterization Shoreham's Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program reports the results of

.(O) comprehensive measurements of radioactivity concentrations in terrestrial, aquatic and atmospheric media as well as direct radiation in the vicinity of Shoreham.W These measurements extend to a 20 mile radius from the site. In add; tion, measurements of plant radioactive effluents are reported semi annually.("'

The environmental monitoring program has reported concentrations above detection lim .s for sev6.al man made radionuclides in soil and surface water in the Shoreham vicinity (H 3, Sr 90, Cs 137) during the 1985 90 period. Kr-85 has been reported above detectable levels in air samples as well. However, none of these nuclides detected in environmental samples have been detected in Shoreham effluents. The levels are consistent with those associated with world wide fallout from weapons testing and the Chernobyl accident, and are not attributable to Shoreham's operations.

Radionuclides due to Shoreham's operation during the 1985 87 time period have been detected in liquid effluents but at concentrations well below regulatory limits.

For example, during the fourth quarter of 1989, about to microCuries (total activity) were reported to have been released in liquid effluents.(") This activity was contained in 5 million liters total volume of water released from the plant during the period. The level of activity concentration is a factor of about 10,000,000 below the applicable release limit in Shoreham's licenso. No airborne or gaseous activitf D was measured in plant air exhausted to the environment during 1989 or 1990.0 b

l 2-6

Section 2. Supplement To Environmental Roport (Dccommissioning) g 2.5.3 Facility Hazardous Waste and Industrial Materials iQ An inventory of materials present at Shoreham in April 1990 is conts;ned in Table 2.5 4. These materials include fuel oil, acid and caustic chemicals used in support of Shoreham's operations and stored in bulk quantities on site. No " mixed waste" (i.e., waste containing both hazardous materials and radioactive materials) exists at Shoreham.

Five material spills, none of which involved radioactive materials, have occurred since plant operations were initiated in 1985. Four of the incidents involved No. 2 fuel oil. The quantities spilled ranged from one to 500 gallons. In the fifth incident, 30 gallons of tube oil were spilled. In allinstances, the sp* ills were promptly cleaned up and reported to the appropriate regulatory agency.

1 P 1

b l

l l

l l

l v

l l

l 27

Section 2. Supplement To Environm:ntal Report (Decommissioning)

()

2.6 REFERENCES

1. Long Island Ughting Company, " Applicant's Environmental Report, Operating License Stage Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1," Docket No. 50-

, 322, Revision 4, October 1979.

2. Long Island Lighting Company, " Updated Safety Analysis Repcrt -

Shoreham Nuclear Power Station," Docket No. 50 322, Revision 3, June 1990.

3. " Amended and Restated Asset Transfer Agreement," between LIPA and LILCO, dated as of June 16,1988, and amended and restated as of April 14, 1989.

i

4. Long Island Ughting Company "Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Operational l Radiological Environmental Monitoring Program Annual Report January 1 to December 31,1989," April 1990, 1

l S. Long Island Lighting Company, " Population Survey 1990," June 1990.

6. Long Island Lighting Company, Nuclear Engineering Division, Calculation No, p C RPD-476, "Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Core Thermal Power after l

1s Startup Testing," Revision 0, November 21,1988.

- 7. Long Island Lighting Company, " License Change Application, Operating License NPF 82, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1, Docket l No. 50 322" January 5,1990.

8. Long Island Lighting Company, "The Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Defueled Safety Analysis Report," Attachment 3 to SNRC 1664 from W.E.

Steiger to the NRC, January 5,1990.

9. Long Island Ughting Company, "Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Site Characterization Program Final Report," May 1990; Addendum 1, June 1990; l

Addendum 2, August 1990.

l 10. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regule. tory Guide 1.86, " Termination

) of Operating Ucenses for Nuclear Power Reactors," June 1974,

11. Long Island Lighting Company, " Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1 Docket No. 50 332,"

, February 27,1990.

'g w

28 l

Section 2. Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

' Table 2.1 1 Population of Communities in the Vicinity of Shoreham Community Distance (milesY" 70 Census 80 Census 90 Estimated Shoreham 2.2 W 524 555 595 East Shoreham 1.0 SW 2046 3817 4312 Ridge 5.0 SW 2335 8977 12204 Manorville 8.7 SSE 1602 6548 9410 Yaphank 9.0 SSW 2210 3020 6295 Brookhaven Lab 5.9 S 343 2057 205 Gordon Heights 8.0 SSW 1307 1590 2195 Middle Island 6.7 SW 2620 5703 8894 Coram 9.3 SW 6875 24752 31089 Rocky Point 3.*'VSW 3734 7012 7997 Sound Beach 5.5 4878 8071 9060 Miller Place 6.7 % m . 4413 7877 9401 Mt. Sinal 9.1 W 2157 6591 9116 Port Jefferson 11.0 W 5795 6731 7873 Pt. Jefferson St. 11,7 WSW 14808 17009 18485 Wading River 1.0 SW 2768 4405 4935 Calverton Roanoke 7.0 SE 3832 4952 5974 Totals 62247 117815 148040 Note:

1. Miles from community or town center to Shoreham.

From Geogrophia Map Co. Inc.,

"Geogrophia, Street Atlas. of Suffolk County Long Island, New York",1987.

O ,

29

Section 2.: Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning) h Table 2.51 Estimated Radionuclide Inventory in the RPV, Internals and Biological Shield WallN Activity, Ouries (2)

(3) Total Comoonent H3 C 14 Fe 55 _Co-60 Ni59 NI63 Others Curies Core Shroud 0.0381 0.0043 118.6620 47.3915 0.0283 3.9020 - 170.0263 Jet Pumps 0.0018 0.0002 5.5189 2.2041 0.0013 0.1815 - 7.9077 Top Guide Plate 0.0744 0.0084 232.1502 93.6200 0.0553 7.6298 0.2349 333.7731 Core Support 0.0017 0.0002 5.2119 2.0816 0.0012 0.1714 -

7.4680 Spray Header - -

0.0010 0.0004 - - -

0.0015 SRM/lRM Dry Tubes -

0.0023 50.7000 21.4000 0.0107 1.55 1.7600 75.4230 CRD Guide Tubes -

0.0002 3.9600 1.6800 0.0008 0.121 0.1370 5.9000 Mirror Insulation - -

0.1304 0.0521 -

0.0043 - 0.1868 Vessel Cladding - -

0.0921 0.0368 -

0.0030 - 0.1319 Vessel Wall 0.0002 - 0.3272 0.0114 -

0.0004 0.0133 0.3525 Biological Shield 0.0099 - 0.3805 0.0100 -

0.0006 0.4010 Total by Isotope: 0.1261 0.0156 417.1342 168.4878 0.0977 13.5641 2.1452 601.5708 Percent of Total: 0.02 % 0.00 % 69.34 % 28.01 % 0.02% 2.23% 0.36 %

Note:

-(1) Calculated neutron induced activities as of July 1990.

(2) The activities of the core shroud, top guide plate RM/lRM dry tubes, and CRD guide tubes have been normalized to exposure rate measurements.

Normalization has not been performed for any other component.

(3) includes Mn 54 for the dry tubes and guide tubes. For other components, include isotopes with less than 0.01% contribution to total activity.

I 2 10

l Section 2. Supplement To Environmental Report (Docommissioning)

Table 2.5 2 System Contamination Results Average Surface Contamination Estimated Tot 91 Surface Systems dom /100cm 2 Activity uci Reactor Recirculation 14,000 250 Control Rod Drive 8,000 300 Residual Heat Removal- 12,000 430 Core Spray 47,000 720 Uguld Radwaste 2,400 160 Reactor Water Cleanup 28,000 620 Fuel Pool Cleanup 26,000 790 Condensate Demineralizer 6,000 26 Process Sampling 12,000 23 O

O i

2 11

Section 2. Supplement To Environmental Report (Dccommissioning) l Table 2.5 3 O

STRUCTURAL CONTAMINATION RESULTS Average Total Maximum Total Surface Surface Contamination Contamination 2 2 Structure (DPM/100 cm ) (DPM/100 cm )

Primaty Containment < 1,000 3,000 Contaminated Equipment / 5,000 11,000 Floor Drains and Sumps Dryer / Separator "I < 1,000 2,000 Storage Pool Reactor Head Cavity 9,000 78,000 Spent Fuel Storage Pool (2)

Radwaste Laydown Area 11,000 55,000 (1) At time of site characterization, there were several inches of water in the pool. Values shown are for pool walls.

(2) The Spent Fuel Storage Pool and Spent Fuel Storage Racks are assumed to be contaminated in excess of Regulatory Guide 1.86 limits.

O 2-12

l Section 2. Supplsm nt To Environmental Report (Dscommissioning) l

( Table 2.5 4 Hazardous MaterialInventory at Shoreham Site TANK IDENTIFICATION NO. DESCRIPTION OUANTITY 1N52 TK 094 Caustic Measuring Tank 50% Sodiurn Hydroxide 10D @

1N52 TK 095 Acid Measuring Tank 93% Sulfuric Acid 10D $

1N52 TK 035 Concentrated Acid Storage Tank 93% Sulfuric Acid SIS @

1N52 TK 036 Concentrated Caustic Storage Tank 50% Sodium Hydroxide STS @

1N52 TK 149 Waste Neutralizing Tank Acid / Caustic (pH 2.0 to 12.0) 2 KID @

1W23 TK 208 Sodium Hypochlorite Tank 12.5% Sodium Hypochlorite 2XID @

1M43 TK 033 Diesel Fire Pump Fuel Oil Day Tk #2 Fuel Oil 275 W 1M41 TK 081 A Aux Boller Fuel Oil Storage Tanks #2 Fuel Oil 3EID @

1M41 TK 0818 Aux Boiler Fuel Oil Storage Tanks #2 Fuel Oil 3EID @

1M43-TK 153 Phosphate Storage Tank Sodium Phosphate 13)cf 1R43 TK 132A DG 101 Fuel Oil Storage Tank #2 Fuel Oil 6@

1R43 TK 1328 DG 102 Fuel Oil Storage Tank #2 Fuel Oil ATID @

1R43 TK-132C DG 103 Fuel Oil Storage Tank #2 Fuel Oil 42(ID @

1R43-TK 135A DG 101 Fuel Oil Day Tank #2 Fuel Oil 20 @

1R43 TK 1358 DG 102 Fuel Oil Day Tank #2 Fuel Oil 2Dc@

1R43 TK-135C DG 103 Fuel Oil Day Tank #2 Fuel Oil 2Dcp 1M43 TK 076 CO2 Storage Tank CO 2 125tm 1

2 13

m I

.~,._.

/,/

V coC

, s% ,

y) /

N t w YORx s,

L0NG

\ -

u, V%

.+ C l Qq -

+ q.

81ms

- Mene,og

v. ,

~

w Q 44Udw

.a.

7 w:;.y  !,,

/ a +...s

~

e  ;

n

~

/*

.c New y,7 ,_

n p , e s

%ettyn aig

- AT e

sexe. .,3 i

f  ; ,  ! l

• so ,, a -% . .,

%w u

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

1 I i i a i i I I CN 4 + BL OC5 _

' ISL ANO SOUNO O l 5.o uN =

g , , , ,

g( A N 0 l k[

& Ek%})

5' \ T SHOREHAM A , - _

y t 1[ orc,3ic /~f*

x ,

k W- M r.,

SI

~

APFRTURE CARD N

OggA Also Available On Apet ture Canl AN TlC m: is Figure 2.1-1 GENERAL LOC ATION MAP Supplomont To Environmental Report - Shoreham Decommissioning i , ,

, ;,_ i , ,

910115 0395L 0 l , ,

g

• % c+ n g

L0yg l # l .4 y p SOyyg g

fm L b

.f dwa 7

a ..

m- .;2 ..

x a, --

~

' N 44.

"M##te

,2 d ,e,ct  ;

s "t?;y e

-T t. _

T , ,

81\

s 7 i

T

$/ ,91 [re

/ ,7

/

y(/ Q.

xf, <

e+

a

~

/ r

+

t' - s p) e

fkfY/ n fjj - J a ': : i

~ ~ ~ N

cN" so4"* .I .I b ig;;;,g $b

,}y

',,,o 2[( N\

k,Yl- '

e, _

V7 -

p N

. ] c c

I '

(*,\($

y

_,g g\ Km j>, +

~ '"' ~

,_ A J p-4 4c

-r- _..

- eeces e*i 6.at 1 -l fJ w

,Q'* (~

• Q Ceyf

.%g N

,i LOCATION PLAN KEY PLAN SI APERTl;RE CARD

\ho AvaihM- ()n Anerto Figure 2.1-2 OPERATION SITE AND LOCATION PLAN WITH EXISTING w ex ex TOPOGRAPHIC CONTOURS t-FE ET Supplement To Environmental Report - Shoreham Decommissioning 910115 0 3 9 5'0 Z.

Section 3. Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

. (%

C 3.0 DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVES AND ACTIVITIES This Section describes the decommissioning alternatives avaliable to LIPA, and the activities associated with the selected alternative, DECON. It also provides an evaluation of the available alternatives and discusses why DECON was selected.

3.1 DECON DECOMMISSIONING ALTERNATIVE LIPA has selected the DECON alternative for the decommissioning of the Shoreham plant. The DECON alternative which is reflected as LIPA's selected alternative throughout this Supplement is defined by the NRC as follows:

DECON is the alternative in which the equipment, structures, and portions of the facility and site containing radioactive contaminants are removed or decontaminated to a level that permits the property *to be released for unrestricted use shortly after cessation of operations.

The basis for sciection of DECON over the other potentially available alternatives, SAFSTOR and ENTOMB, includes a number of key factors. First, the limited power history of the Shoreham plant and the low levels of contamination and activation support the use of DECON. Given the limited amount and extent of contamination f'i and activation, DECON will be much easier to implement at Shoreham than at V other plants with more substantial operating histories, based on a review of the NRC's generic evaluation of BWR decommissioning.* Second, by use of DECON, the existing radiation hazards at the Shoreham plant can be eliminated in the near term, releasing the site for alternative uses. This will maximize flexibility in selecting future uses for the site. Third, the selection of the DECON alternative will enable LIPA to use existing LlLCO personnel, familiar with the Shoreham plant and its operation, to perform many of the decommissioning activities. Particularly because of the relative ease with which DECON can be implemented at the Shoreham plant and the other advantages described, the other decommissioning alternatives, SAFSTOR or ENTOMB, are not preferable.

LIPA intends to decontaminate and dismantle Shoreham's plant systems, components and structures to the extent necessary to assure the removal of the Shoreham plant irrevocably from service as a nuclear generating facility and to permit release of the facl'bj for unrestricted use. LIPA is contemplating the use of a wide range of decontamination and dismantlement techniques to achieve this objective.

The following is a more detailed dt.scription of the decommissioning activities planned at the Shoreham plant.

O)

( 3-1

Section 3. Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

O The major activities to be performed during Shoreham's decommissioning have been divided into the following work categories:

1. System and Structure Decontamination and Dismantlement;

2. Segmentation of the rieactor Pressure Vessel and Internals;

3. Radwaste Management;

4. Area Cleanup and Decontamination; and

5. Final Radiation Survey.

3.1.1 System and Structure Decontamination and Dismantlement LIPA intends to decontaminate and dismantle Shoreham's plant systems and structures to the extent necessary to permit release of the facility for unrestricted use. LIPA is contemplating the use of a wide range of decontamination and dismantlement techniques to achieve this objective.

I Decontamination techniques to be employed by LIPA are consistent with those used routinely throughout the nuclear industry. In situ chemical decontamination, ultra high pressure water lancing, abrasive grit blasting and a variety of manual techniques are all expected to be used by LIPA during the course of Shoreham's decommissioning. In addition, LIPA is closely evaluating the off site decontamination services discussed in Section 6.

LIPA is also evaluating industry accepted and field proven processes for the dismantlement of Shoreham's plant systems and structures. Such techniques will range from simple, manually operated power bandsaws used to sever small bore piping through more sophirticated techniques such as diamond wire saw cutting which will be used to sever the large bore piping connections to the RPV. The selected options, as well as LIPA's continued evaluation of available technology, will reflect careful consideration of the radiological aspects associated with their intended application.

3.1.2 Segmentation of the Reactor Pressure Vessel and Internals Radiological characterization of the Shoreham site has revealed that the majority of radioactive material resulting from the plant's limited period of operation is contained within the RPV internals. The RPV and internals will be decontaminated 32 1

l l

l Section 3. Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

O U to the extent practicable, and contaminated portions will then be segmented, packaged and shipped for off site disposal as described in Section 6.0.

Segmentation of the more highly activated reactor internals will be performed using underwater, semi automatic plasma arc and metal disintegration machining equipment. The RPV shell will be severed into ring sections using the diamond wire saw. The ring sections will then be cut into pieces appropriately sized to permit their safe and efficient handling, packaging and shipping using either the diamond wire saw or some thermal cutting technique.

3.1.3 Radwaste Management LIPA has estimated that approximate;y 79.300 cubic feet of radwaste will be generated as a result of Shoreham's decommissioning. Section 6.0 describes

' IPA's plans for processing, packaging, shipping and disposing of Shoreham's radwaste in accordance with applicable federal and state regulations. As described in Section 7.0 of the Decommissioning Plan, radwaste related activities will be governed by UPA's Quality Assurance (OA) program.

Volume reduction is a key aspect of UPA's plan for managing Shoreham's radwaste. Through an aggressive campaign of decontamination, waste segregation pd and other industry proven waste processing techniques, LIPA anticipates that Shoreham's radwaste can be consolidated so that only a relatively small portion of the 79,300 cubic feet estimate will require disposal at a licensed radwaste burial facility.

3.1.4 Area Cleanup and Decontamination Precautions will be taken to preclude the spread of contamination to the vast majority of plant areas which are presently clean. However, various areas throughout the plant which are affected by the decontamination and dismantlement activities will be surveyed and decontaminated, as required, following the completion of decommissioning activities.

3.1.5 Final Radiation Survey A final radiation survey (i.e., termination survey) will be conducted on all suspected and known contaminated or activated structures, systems, components, equipment, on site grourris and adjacent environs upon completion of the decontamination and dismantlement activities. The final survey will demonstrate that the site meets the criteria for unrestricted release.

33 l

Section 3. Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

O V The survey will involve an evaluation of the site, the development of a sampling program, and the controls to be used over virtually all aspects of the survey to assure valid results. The site will be divided into survey blocks and characterized.

Specific media to be sampled will be determined, and the methods of sampling will be evaluated. Instrumentation appropriate to detecting gamma or beta gamma radiation in and on various media will be used. Limitations of processes and instruments will be ovaluated. Laboratory analysis will incorporate statistical methods in their evaluations, and all data will be taken, collected, processed, analyzed, stored, retrieved and interpreted under LIPA's OA program.

3.1.6 Schedule The entire decommissioning effort is expected to take 27 months from approval of the Decommissioning Plan by the NRC through completion of LIPA's decommissioning activities, it is expected to require an average of about 590 people, including craft labor, staff and management. l 3.2 OTHER ALTERNATIVES By definition, decommissioning is the removal of a nuclear facility safely from ,

service and the reduction of residual radioactivity to a level that permits release of l the property for unrestricted use and termination of the license. The potential (V3 decommissioning alternatives to DECON are SAFSTOR and ENTOMB. The l following is a description of these alternatives and an evaluation of their suitability l for the Shoreham plant. The "no action" alternative is also discussed.

3.2.1 SAFSTOR SAFSTOR is an alternative in which the nuclear facility is prepared and maintained in a condition that allows the nuclear facility to be safely stored for a period of  ;

years and subsequently decontaminated to levels that permit release of the site for I unrestricted use. SAFSTOR consists of 1) a short period of preparation for safe I storage (cp to 2 years after final reactor shutdown); 2) a variable safe storage period of continuing care consisting of security, surveillance and maintenance (up l to 60 years after final shutdown depending on the type of facility); and 3) a short  ;

period of deferred decontamination. SAFSTOR also requires, among other things, modifications to the facility to ensure the security of the buildings against intruders and to ens containment of radioactive or toxic material. Several subcategories l of SAFSTOR are possible

1.

l 1. Custodial SAFSTOR requires a minimum cleanup and decontamination effort initially, followed by a period of continuing

)

I n 1

) 3-4 I

I l

73 Section 3. Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning) care with the active systems (principally the ventilation system) kept in service throughout the storage period. Full time on site surveillance by operating personnel and security forces is required to carry out radiation monitoring, to maintain the equipment and to prevent accidental or deliberate intrusion into the facility or the dispersal of radioactivity beyond the confines of the facility,

2. Passive SAFSTOR requires a more comprehensive cleanup and decontamination effort initially, sufficient to permit deactivation of the ventilation systems during the continuing care period. The structures are secured and electronic surveillance is provided to detect accidental or deliberate intrusion. Periodic monitoring and maintenance of the integrity of the structures is required.

3. Hardened SAFSTOR requires comprehensive cleanup and decontamination and the construction of barriers around areas j containing significant quantities of radioactivity. These barriers must be of sufficient strength to make accidental intrusion impossible and deliberate intrusion extremely difficult. Surveillance requirements are limited to detection of attack upon the barriers maintenance of the a o integrity of the structures and to infrequent monitoring.

~)

All categories of SAFSTOR require some positive action at the conclusion of the period of continuing care to release the property for unrestricted use and terminate

-the license for the possession of radioactive materials. Depending on the nature of the nuclear facility and its operating history, the necessary action can range ,

from a radiation survey that demonstrates that the radioactivity has decayed and the property is releasable, to dismantlement and removal of residual radioactive materials. These latter actions, whatever their magnitude, are generically identified

. as deferred decontamination.

SAFSTOR is used as a means to satisfy the requirements for protection of the public while minimizing the initial commitments of time, money, occupational radiation exposure and waste disposal space. In addition, SAFSTOR may have  ;

some advantage where there are other operational nuclear facilities at the same site and may also become necessary in situations where there is a shortage of radioactive waste disposal space off site, Also, in highly contaminated facilities and/or facilities with large amounts of activation products, there is the potential for incurring larger occupational radiation exposures if DECON decommissioning is performed immediately after shutdown. However, as a result of decay of this ]i radioactive material during a SAFSTOR period, reductions in personnel exposure and reduction in the volume of radioactive material for disposal may be achieved j

nv 3.s l

l J

Section 3. Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning) by deferring major decontamination efforts for a number of years.

3 Under SAFSTOR, the reduced initial effort (and cost) of the preparation of safe storage is negated by the need for continuing surveillance and physical security to ensure the protection of the public. Maintenance of the facility's structures and an ongoing program of environmental surveillance are also necessary. The duration of the storage and surveillance and dismantlement period would be expected to last about 50 years for Shoreham.

At the end of the period of safe storage, several activities will remain to be performed before the facility can be released for unrestricted use, in most cases, radioactivity in some systems and areas within the facility will still be above levels acceptable for unrestricted release of the facility, necessitating the removal, packeging and disposal of selected materials at a licensed disposal site.

Deferred decontamination involves disassembly, removal and transport of toe materials containing the radioactivity to a disposal site. Further action following termination of the NRC license and release for unrestricted use, such as disassembly of the various non radioactive systems and use or demolition of the buildings, would be optional.

g A major disadvantage of SAFSTOR is the potential unavailability of personnel familiar with the facility at the time of deferred decontamination. More time and training to familiarize new personnel with the plant would be needed. Other significant disadvantages include the fact that all or portions of the site remain unusable for an extended time period. The uncertainties concerning future regulatory requirements and the continuing need and cost of maintenance, security and surveillance.

Under normal circumstances where a plant has operated at full power for many years, SAFSTOR, by allowing a period of radioactive decay, could lead to a significant reduction in radiation exposure to decommissioning workers. The Shoreham plant, however, is considerably different from the facilities which are decommissioned at the end of their planned life. The contamination and activation of systems, structures and components at the Shoreham plant resulting from low power testing for a limited period of time, while necessitating some decontamination and dismantlement, did not result in radiological conditions comparable to the conditions at the normal end of reactor life. At Shoreham, radiation levels are already quite low, resulting in the ability to carry out DECON decommissioning without significant radiation exposures. Thus, the major advantage of SAFSTOR over DECON is not applicable to the Shoreham plant.

3-6

n Section 3. Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning) in short, there is no significant benefit from the SAFSTOR alternative in the case of the Shoreham plant and there are significant disadvantages.

3.2.2 ENTOMB ENTOMB would involve the complete isolation of radioactive materials from the environment by means of massive concrete and metal barriers until the radioactive materials have decayed to levels which permit unrestricted release of the facility.

These barriers must prevent the escape of radioactive materials and prevent deliberate or inadvertent intrusion. The length of time the integrity of the entombing structure must be maintained depends on the inventory of radicactive nuclides present.

ENTOMB for a BWR plant would typically be limited to the containment because its unique structure inherently lends itself to entombment and because it contains most of the radioactive materials in the facility. Other buildings associated with a reactor must be decommissioned by another method such as DECON It is possible, however, to move some radioactive components from other buildings to the containment and ENTOMB them there, rather then shipping them off site.

Two approaches to ENTOMB are possible, in the first approach, the RPV internals y and their long lived isotopes are entombed, along with other radioactive material.

This results in less cost and radiation dose because the RPV and its internals will not have to be removed, dismantled and transported to a waste repository. It will also, however, result in the requirement for a continuing NRC license and surveillance for an indefinite period of time because of the presence of the long-lived isotopes, in the second approach, the RPV internals, with their long lived isotopes, are removed, dismantled and transported to a radioactive waste repository. This results in more cost and radiation exposure, but offers the possibility that surveillance and the NRC license could be terminated at some earlier time, thereby releasing the entire facility for unrestricted use. At the outset, a careful inventory of radioactivity would need to be made to ensure that only relatively short lived isotopes were present.

In both ENTOMB approaches, as much solid radioactive material from the entire facility as can be accommodated is sealed within the containment. All openings to the exterior of the containment are sealed. Radioactive material outside the containment is removed which permits release of the remainder of the facility for unrestricted use. Radioactive materials not entombed would have to be packaged and transported to a disposal site.

O O 3-7

l I

J l

Section 3. Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

In appropriate circumstances, the advantage of ENTOMB is the reduction of occupational and public exposure to radiation compared to DECON. Its advantage over SAFSTOR is that little surveillance is required, and less land is required for the disposal of contaminated waste material. However, these advantages in the case of the Shoreham plant are minimal due to the already low level of contamination and limited waste volume. ENTOMB on the other hand is disadvantageous because the long term integrity of the entombing structure must be assured; further, the ENTOMB alternative limits use of portions of the site.

3.2.3 No Action The "no action" alternative, i.e., maintaining Shoreham in a shut down condition while complying with NRC requirements but not proceeding with decommissioning, is not a feasible alternative. Once c nuclear plant _ owner decides to cease operation, the plant must be decommissioned. NRC decommissioning regulations mandate the preparation of a decommissioning plan within 2 years of the date that a nuclear facility ceases operation.10 CFR 50.82(a). The "no action" alternative was rejected in the NRC GEIS.N In addition, New York law requires-LIPA to decommission the Shoreham plant. Pub. Autti Law 1020.h(9). Further, it would be wasteful of ratepayer money to continue to h nur costs to maintain Shoreham when LIPA will never operate the facility.

3.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES l _ The preceding discussion reveals that the DECON alternative is the preferable alternative available to LIPA As noted, "no action" is not an available alternative and the chief reason for selecting SAFSTOR or ENTOMB, _ reducing potential:

radiation exposures by allowing a period of _ radioactive decay, is of limited applicability to the Shoreham plant since radiation levels are already low. Moreover, L because of the low levels of contamination and activation, the volume of low level radioactive waste will be much smaller than predicted for a plant which is at the end of its normal operating life.* This considerably reduces the impacts associated with the commitment of land area for disposal of low level radioactive waste.

Thus, by use of DECON, the radioactive contamination at the Shoreham plant can be eliminated in the relatively near term, releasing the site for alternative unrestricted uses. This will maximize flexibility in selecting future uses for the site.

! DECON will also allow LIPA, to use personnel familiar with Shoreham and its operation during decommissioning.

DECON decommissioning of the Shoreham plant is not expected to be any more 3-8

_. l Section 3. ~ Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning) expensive thartdeferred decommissioning. In fact, DECON decommissioning should prove to be less expensive than deferred decommissioning, given the uncertainties related to costs of maintaining the plant over a long period, the ]

uncertainties associated with predicting future waste - disposal costs and 'I uncertainties about future regulatory requirements.

1 l

I 1

.I v

i 1

3-9

Section 3.-- Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning) 3,4 REFERENCES 1, 'U.S. Nuclear. Regulatcry Commission, " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement of Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities," NUREG 0586, August 1988, 2, H. D Oak, et al., " Technology, Safety, and Costs of Decommissioning a Reference Bolling Water . Reactor ' Power Station," (prepared for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission by Pacific Northwest Laboratory), NUREG/CR 0672, June 1980; Addendum 1, July 1983; Addendum 2, September 1984; and Addendum 3, July 1988.-

1 l

l l

l O  !

h 3-10 m

l.'_._ .

_ _ . ~ .

Section 4. Suppl 3 ment To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

I 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS

- [m In accordance with 10 CFR 51.53(b), this Supplement presents new information or significant environmental changes associated with the implementation of the selected DECON decommissioning alternative. This material, therefore, updates LILCO's previous ER OLS. As such, the Supplement does not reiterate the extensive discussion of the site's flora and fauna found in the ER OLS.

This section discusses potential environmental impacts of decommissioning activities on the local site surroundings and the regional economy. It is based upon the Decommissioning Plan,N a supporting engineering study,* a generic environmental analygis performed by LIPA under New York's State Environmental Quality Review Ac+, the NRC GEIS,W and available descriptions of the current environmental and socioeconomic characteristics of the site and vicinity and the eastern Long Island region. The discussion focuses on the selected alternative, DECON, 4.1 SOClOECONOMIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES The existing setting for discussion of impacts on socioeconomic and cultural resources is described in Section 2.0. Impacts of the decommissioning are considered in terms of potential effects on regional population growth and (q) distribution, recreation, historic and archaeological resources and aesthetics No significant Imoacts resulting from Shoreham's decommissioning have been identified.

4.1.1 Socioeconomic Impacts Decommissioning is expected to be completed over a 27 month period and to employ an average of 590 persons annually, with a peak work force of approximately 650 (this includes management, support staff and contractor personnel). The temporary nature of the project and the limited work force support the conclusion that no significant demographic shifts will result from the decommissioning.

Similarly, decommissioning activities are not expected to have any significant effects on the regional economy, due to the limited size of the decommissioning work force and the short (2 to 3 years) decommissioning schedule.

It is anticipated that a significant portion of LIPA's decommissioning staff will be carried over from LILCO's existing site work force. There are approximately 400 people employed by LILCO at the plant, including engineers, technicians and clerical staff. It should be noted that the Shoreham property is not being aban-doned, and that other activities on the property will continue to be performed

/3 following Shoreham's decommissioning. LILCO owns and operates several V internal combustion power generating facilities at the Shoreham site, totalling over 4-1

. . ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ .m.________ _

Section 4. Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning) 300 megawatts. These facilities supply electne power to the east end of Long Island and provide reserve for peak electrical demands, it'is probable that most construction workers will be drawn from regional Long Island labor pools. The total construction work force of Long Island in 1990 '

consists of approximately 50,000 persons. Although contractors may bring in specially skilled technicians to perform certain tasks, it is expected that much of the decommissioning labor force would be drawn from Long Island.

Decommissioning is not expected to have a significant impact on regional or. local employment and unemployment rates, whether the work force is drawn from the Long Island population or frora outside of the area. For comparison, the construction of Shoreham employed a maximum of 3,700 workers, and the plant would_ require a staff of about 760-permanent workers if it were in' operation.

Operating nuclear power plants employ approximately 1,000 people during routine maintenance outages. Relative to these employment levels, the decommissioning workforce at Shoreham will be small. Due to the specialized nature of the task; and the small labor force required, no significant impacts are anticipated on local or regional Long Island labor markets or demand for services.

Decommissioning will not place any significant additional demands on community _

services. Water supply exists on site from wells with state and _possibly local permits. Sewage treatment also occurs on site under a state permit. Security services and fire prevention are provided under NRC guidelines. Fire protection support for the Shoreham site is maintained under a mutual assistance agreement between the site and the Wading River Fire District and this will continue to be in effect during the decommissioning period.

The surrounding communities have sufficient housing capacity to absorb any-

demands for short term- housing. The _ number of workers required to decommission the plant is less than the number required for plant operation, and

'is well below the level already experienced during construction of the-facility.

Therefore, the influx of decommissioning workers will not present an unprecedented short term population increase.

4.1.2 Cultural Resources impacts to cultural resources are considered in terms of potential effects on regional population growth and distribution; community services; transportation facilit6s; land use; recreation; historic and archaeological resources; and aesthetics.- No significant impacts are expected.

L 4.1.2.1 Demographics n As discussed earlier in Section 4.1.1, no significant demographic shifts will result V- from the decommissioning.

1 42

_X Section 4.

Supplement To Environmental R eport (Decommissioning) 4.1.2.2 Community Services Decommissioning Shoreham will treatment services andsolid wastcommunity ser security services all exist on site mands on site;it will be hauled performed. e disposal.

and dispose. Water Construction supp,ly, ewage sewaw debris entand 4.1.2.3 d of by a private contractor as ise disposed of currently being Transportation Facilities i

\ Commuting workers and constructi

{

t

\

to the Shoreham site were origiuse existing LILC ng will place are more nallythan designed adequate for theto peak meof s constructip 3,700 decommissioning workforce;tho on workforce local traffic. Average daily ettraffi the demands presented a y in by th Extension, and Route 495 se demands will present no significant i porary major site accesscroute." countscurrently on Routetange 25A, theon William Floyd P mpacts frcm arkway about 12 800 shifts will not constitute The additional a significant ,

commuterin alongvehicl o 25,900 the commuter traffic tocrease Shoreham will flowes over ehting traffic be sispread i over thr The existing LILCO access mlar to the existing LILCO traffic. Rather, road terminus of the William Floyd Pa k .

Wading River rand wayfunnelling Extension.traffic All

, neartruck residential streets inmEthe site will thediuse traffic this froe ac vehicles will comply with existing st rectly toamajor transportation of. hazardous n d highways.ast Shoreham and decommissioning. radioactive These truck materials. ate mapproximately the and federal 80 reg Shoreham's decommissioning s h of transportation ovements c edule.

methods, will routes beandcompletio rom the uration of distributed 4.1.2.4 Land Use nning that willinclude a final dete material quantities.

n n

No significant negative impacts Shoreham's decommissioning LIP .

on land use are anticipated as a r current restriction, A will own therebyapproximately resulting rary, decommissioning will free la cres of eleven esult of the ainoriginal S nd from Most of the activities a associated net enhancement of the environm previously disturbed land is availablradioactive with the exce ti wa with decommissioning, p on of p ace within thesecause .

18 te, no acre Project A 4-3

Section 4. Suppl::m:nt To Environm:ntal Report (D2 commissioning)

( 4.1.2.2 Community Services Decommissioning Shoreham will not place any significant edditional demands on comrnunity services such as fire and police protection, water supplies, sewage treatment services and solid waste disposal. Water supply, sewage treatment and security services all exist on site. Construction debris will not be disposed of on-site; it will be hauled and disposed of by a private contractor as is currently being performed.

4.1.2.3 Transportation Facilities Commuting workers and construction vehicles required for decommissioning will use existing LILCO site access roads and parking areas. As parking and access to the Shoreham site were originally designed for the peak construction workforce of 3,700 and the operating staff of the plant, the transportation facilities already in place are more than adMate to meet the demands presented by tne temporary decommissioning workforce; those demands will present no significant impacts on local traffic. Average daily traffic counts on Route 25A, the William Floyd Parkway Extension, and Route 495 currently range from about 12,800 to 25,900 along the major site access route.* The additional commuter vehicles spread over three shifts will not constitute a s!gnificant increase over existing traffic flow. Rather, n commuter traffic to Shoreham will be similar to the existing LILCO traffic.

The existing LILCO access road extends from the site to Route 25A, near the terminus of the William Floyd Parkway Extension. . All truck traffic from the site will use this access road, thereby avoiding residential streets in East Shoreham and Wading River and funnelling traffic dirnay to major highways. All waste removal vehicles will comply with existinc otate and federal regulations regarding the transportation of hazardous emd radioactive materials it is estimated that approximately 80 truckloads of low level radioactive waste will result from tha decommissioning. These truck movements will be distributed over the duration of Shoreham's decommissioning schedule. A . plan will be developed upon completion of final engineering and planning that willinclude a final determination of transportation methods, routes and material quantities.

4.1.2.4 Land Use No significant negative impacts on land use are anticipated as a result of Shoreham's decommissioning. LIPA will own approximately eleven acres of the original Shoreham site. Tc the contrary, decommissioning will free land from current restriction, thereby resulting in a net enhancement of the environment.

Most of the activities associated with decommissioning, with the exception of n radioactive waste disposal, will take place within the 18 acre Project Area. Because C previously disturbed land is available for laydown within the Shoreham site, no 1

44

Scotlon 4., Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning) g_ impacts to undisturbed areas on site or ofi site are expected. Existing recreational, Q conservation and residential areas adjacent to the Shoreham site, and public access to unused portions of the site, will also be unaffected. No significant changes in rates of residential or industrial development of land are expected to occur because of Shoreham's decommissioning.

DECON decommissioning would allow.the adaptation or modification of plant structures for industrial or administrative use, or for dismantling of the existing structuroc for other land uses. The DECON option would maximize flexibility in selecting uses for the entire Shoreham site in the relatively near future. With the DECON method, no limitations will be placed on land use development in the Project Area or on adjacent lands.

The Shoreham site is included within the established boundary of the New York State Coastal Zone Mar agement Program. A Federal Consistency Assessment Form (FCAF) discussing potential DECON decommissioning effects on the coastal zone will be submitted to the New York State Department of State (NYDOS),

Coastal Zone Management Program. The FCAF will support LIPA's certification that Shoreham DECON decommissioning will not hinder achieving any uf the New York State coastal policies encoded at 19 NYCRR 600.5, and that in fact it should -

enhance them.

l f% lt may prove to be necessary to dredge the intake canal to facilitate removal of the

-V spent fuel. Any intake canal dredging will be performed in accordance with Army

-Corps of Engineer's . dredging regulations, .and other applicable regulatory requirements regarding water quality certifications and tidal wetlands, including those administered by the NYDOS Since_the intake canal has been dredged in the past by LILCO (most recently in the winter of 1988 89), LIPA expects, based

.on current information, that any further dredging would involve no impacts not previously found to be permissible and consistent with New York coastal policies.'

L If dredging is found to be necessary, LIPA will obtain any necessary authorizations and will ensure that it is carried out in a manner that minimizes impacts.

-4.1.2.5 Recreational Resources The decommissioning of the Shoreham plant is expected to result in no significant impacts to any recreational or conservation areas in the vicinity of the site.

Wading River Marsh will be protected from all decommissioning activities through The 1988 89 dredging by LILCO was to a depth sufficient to allow clearance by an ocean goin'g barge. However, sediment which has accumulated since then may require some additional dredging to allow barge clearance. This is a matter which will be investigated further in the future via depth measurement prior to O1 shipment in order to determine whether additional dredging actually will be required.

p 4-4 l

Section 4. Suppl:m:nt ~^ Environmental Report (Decommissioning) the application of Erosion and Sediment Control and Spill Pres . . tion Control and Countermeasure Plans. These plans and other mitigation measures planned by LIPA are described in Reference 3. Both Shorehamr 'Mch and Wading River Beach will continue :o bc open to the public tnroughou a ,ommissioning as will St. Joseph's Villa and the interpretative trails in Wading Creek Marsh.

4.1.2.6 Historical and Archaeological Resources No impacts to archaeological or historic sites will occur as a resu!t of decommhsioning the Shoreham plant. Decommissioning activities will be confined to the impcoved portion of the Shoreham site which was cleared, filled, graded and paved durmg the original construction of the facility. No decommissioning work is expectee to occur on undisturbed lands. The trucking route to and from the Shoreharn plant does not pass any historic sites, as described below.

According to the historic resources listed on the National Register of Historic Places for the Town of Brookhaven, neither the project site, nor any site within a one half mile radius of the project site, contains any currently listed historic sites.*

During original construction, no archaeologically significant material was discovered or reported at the site,M 4.2 WATER RESOURCES 4.2.1 Aquatic Ecology Study This section discusses the aquatic data collected in the vicinity ',3f Shoreham during a 12 year period beginning in 1977 and ending in December 1988. The aquatic ecology study was intended to continue until initial converted to an operational monitoring program?8 The study wasplant operation discontinued and to in 1989.

Th-c study's objective was to characterize and quantify the vicinity's aquatic ecosystem. This would provide baseline information to evaluate subsequent effects of plant operation on the aquatic environment. This study was carriad out in accordance with the scope of work published in the ER OLS and the NRC's Final Environmental Statement for the Shoreham station, Study results were reported pproximately annually.

The 1988 report,(s) the last full year of the study, discussed the following major disciplines: water quality / chemistry, macrobenthos, biofouling monitoring, megabenthos, ichthyoplankton, and fisheries Samples were collected on a regular basis from Long Island Sound within a 3 tu 4 mile radius of the Shoreham site. The primary goal of the report was to present the composition of I

communities and population levels of dominant species. They are viewed from the 45

l l

Scotion 4. Supplem:nt To Envircnmental R: port (Decommissioning)

O perspective of time (by month, season and year) and from the perspective of

) spatial distribution, such as offshore vs. nearshore and diffuser vs. control localities. Another goal was to quantify the natural variability in community composition and population densities.

4.2.2 Decommissioning impacts i Decommissioning activities will occur primarily wm n. . existing buildings and parking lots and should therefore result in no adverse impacts on water resources. The waters f.,f Long Island Sound and Wading River Marsh will not be impacted by Shoreham's decommissioning. Specific measures, such as implementation of an l

SE & SC Plen* Will be taken to ensure that runoff from the parking and laydown areas will be controlled and directed to temporary settling basins. Discharges from these or other locations will be monitored for compliance with the site's State Po!!utant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) Permit. I The current LILCO SPCC Plan details specific measures for all storage and l handling of fuels. LIPA will follow, and modify, if required, the measures outlined in the SPCC Plan. Chemicals and other hazardous substances are stored by LlLCO in a facility approved under Suffolk County Article 12 regulations.* The intent of Article 12 is to safeguard Suffolk County water resources by controlling or abating pollution from existing toxic waste or hazardous material sources and from new sources,

(']/

c Removal of the fuel from the Reactor Building will have no adverse effect on an aquatic resources of the area. However, if barge transport is chosen to ship the fuel, thea may be some minor impacts. This is because, for reasons already discusseo in Section 4.1.2.4, it may be necessary to dredge the intake canal to accommodate an ocean going barge. No significant impacts are expected to the littoral zone or the immediate marine environment.

4.3 WATER USE Decommissioning of Shoreham will not place any additional demands on plant services such as water supplies and sewage treatment services. These water supply and sewage disposal systems all already exist on site. Wells exist under New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) Permit Nos.

l 36S36,36837 and 36838. Therefore, no new systems need to be developed or l expanded.

A ground water monitoring program was established at the site in 1986 to assess the effects (if any) of Shoreham's operations on ground water quality. Shoreham's Facility Operating Ucense No. NPF 82, Appendix B . Environmental Protection Plan

(] (EPP), required LILCO to establish this ground water monitoring program when the U plant began operating above 5% power. Shoreham has three station supply wells 46 L

S:ction 4. Supplem nt To Envirtnmental Rep:rt (Decommissioning) r- that are used for plant make up and domestic use. LILCO's ground water

( monitoring program was intended to demonstrate that the plant's operation would not adversely impact offsite private water supplies either due to excessive drawdown or saltwater intrusion. The NRC reviewed and aporoved this monitoring program in March 1986. The EPP will be U4.pted for use by LIPA during decommissioning.

The NRC approved ground water monitoring program consists of three monitoring wells and a control well. The wells were installed during the first quarter of 1986.

The monitoring wells were located approximately 400 feet to the south southwest (M 1),900 feet to the south (M 2) and 2,100 feet to the north (M 3) of the plant's supply weiis (S 36836. 36837 and 36838). The control well (C 1) is 1,500 feet to the southwest of the supply wells. Figure 4.31 Illustrates the locations of the monNring wells.

LILCO began inonitoring these wells prior to operation above 5% power, even though the program was not required, to provide technician training in sampling procedures and to establish background data below 5% operation. Samples were taken quarterly at wells M1, M2 and C1 and monthly at well M3. Samples were analyzed for chlorides, Ph and conductivity. The monitoring program was halted in June 1989 after LILCO's shareholders approved the Settlement. The monitoring program did not uncover any adverse impacts on groundwater due to Shoreham's

, limited operation.

The primary water use attributed to decommissioning operations will be for the maintenance of the work force. As discussed previously, an average of 590 persons annually and a peak force of 650 persons over a 27 month period wil! be required. The decommissioning phase will coincide with a net decrease in site demands due to the decrease in plant staff in the post operating period. The peak decommissioning work force is significantly less than for the plant construction and operational phases. Some consumptive water ud9 is expected for dust control and possibly for equipment cooling. This will be considerably less than the water use which occurred during plant construction. On th s basis, no additional site water supply or sewage disposal capacity is required to '".:pport the decommissioning.

Water use for personnel and for operation of the combustion generating facilities will continue at a level reduced from that experienced during Shoreham's operating period.

The Wading River Marsh is a state listed significant habitat, and is designated as potentially significant for wil:,fe. During the decommissioning, the SE&SC and SPCC Plans will be implemented to prevent any indirect impacts to the marsh.

f3 U

47

Section 4. Suppl m:nt To Envircnmental Report (D commissioning)

<- 4.4 TERRESTRIAL RESOURCES Decommiss:oning is not expected to impact the site's vegetation or .vildlife, Since decommissioning will occur on developed areas of the site, no Odigenous vegetation will be removed from the site during decommissioning.

The proposed action is consistent with the land use projections in the Brookhaven Town 1987 Master Plan. The plan shows that the site and surrounding LILCO owned properties are zoned for industrial use."

4.5 WILDLIFE, ENDANGERT AND THREATENED SPECIES Decommissioning is not expected to adversely impact any of the New York State listed endangered, threatened and special concern species, none of which were recorded at the site or surrounding environs, during or since the original construc-tion of the facility.M However, several threatened and endangared plant species listed on the State Nationallnventory Program database are thought to be present in the vicinity of the Shoreham site. Although the exact location of these occurrences is not known, a recent survey indicates that there is little possibility that the previously disturbed 18 acre Project Area supports any of these plants.

,e Furthermore, the Project Area is covered with structures, asphalt and gravel.

t No natural habitat which harbors sensitive species exists on land areas directly involved with decommissioning activities. Noise and other activity associated with decommissioning activities are not expected to have significant impacts on wildlife species in the surrounding non developed areas.

No marine wildlife will suffer significant impacts as a result of any necessary grading and filling in the vicinity of the cooling water intake canal. Any required temporary filling will be in accordance with Army Corps of Engineers and other applicable permit requirements, which normally account for minimizing impacts to marine fauna.

4.6 NOISE AND AESTHETICS Noise will be generated from possible outdoor decommissioning activity and operation of equipment transport and waste hauling trucks. Sound level estimates for ' decommissioning activities were made utilizing methods described in the Empire State Electric Ener Construction Noise Guide."gy Research Corporation (ESEERCO) Power Plant (3

V 1

48

l l Section 4. Suppl: ment To Envir0nm:ntal R purt (D commissioning) c The major equipment and expected sound levels are listed in the table below:

Sound Level Eauloment IDb(All at 50 Feet Diesel erigines (250 hp) 85 Concrete truck 84 Bulldozer 83 Cherry picker 83 Engine driven air compressor 74 Welding machines 73 Truck Crane (intermittent for unloading major equipment) 82 Flatbed and other trucks (delivery) 84 Hand held tools (gririders, etc.) 80 Compactors 82 Hearing protection is required for on site personnel in the vicinity of such equipment. Off site personnel or fauna are not expected to be adversely affected as sound pressure will be significantly attenuated over the distance from the equipment to off site locations. The cound pressure level generated by a noise source decreases with increasing distance from the Jource due to scund wave divergence, absorption by ground cover and shielding by intervening structures.02)

I s

The nearest residence is located approximately 1,500 feet from the Reactor Building in the community of Wading River, it was conservatively estimated by the LILCO Environmental Engineering Division, using standard noise level estimation techniques, that the anticipated sound level at this distance during peak uperations will be 62 Db(A),

Wading River (in the Town of Riverhead) has no applicable noise level standards, but the Brookhaven Town noise code limits noise level at the receiving propgrty line to 65 Db(A) during the day, and to 50 Db(A) at night and on weekends.

Decommissioning activities will generate higher than normal (but intermittent and temporary) utilization of roads for heavy equipment, trucks and tractor trailers.

These vehicles will access the site from Route 25A via the LILCO owned site access road (nat North Country Road). Thus, the noise impact of heavy equipment traffic on the neighboring community will be negligible, Visual impacts from decommissioning activities are expected to be minor, No land clearing is anticipated and no further access development will be necessary, since the necessary access roads, parking areas and lay down areas currently exist.

Decommissioning visual impacts will be limited because the work will be shielded p from view by existing site structures The major portion of the work is confined to

( the interiors of the existing buildings Since the major structures will remain in 49

1 Scction 4. . Supplem:nt To Environmental Report (Decommissioning) 1 l

p place after decommissioning, the overall appearance of the Shoreham facility will i

V remain virtually unchanged.

4.7 LOCAL SHORT TERM USES VERSUS LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY l

The short term use of the Project Area by local workers and site staff is not expected to increase significantly e adversely affect the productivity of the local socioeconomic structure of Shoreham Wading River.

4.8 IRREVERSIBLE AND IRRETRIEVABLE COMMITMENT OF RESOURCES Resources which may be committed as part of the decommissioning of the Shoreham plant include, but may not be limited to, the following:

I

• Fossil Fuel

• Timber

• Steel Asphalt Concrete Electricity Land Use l

Fossil fuel will be required to provide space heating and cooling of buildings at the

,e site during decommissioning, and to operate machinery and motor vehicles, it will i

be stored in and supplied from existing on site storage facilities.

Minor amounts of - steel, concrete and timber may be committed for decommissioning activities. In addition, asphalt may be required to upgrade Old

• Beach Road for spent fuel transport to the barge loading area (if barge transport is used).

I Electricity will be committed for operation of power equipment necessary for i decommissioning. This will be supplied by LILCO generating facilities through y existing transmission lines. Disposal (i.e., burial) of epproximately 79,300 cubic  !

t feet of radioactive wastes (without volume reduction) from the RPV and radioactive systems represents a potentially irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources (burial site capacity and land use).

I 4.9 UNAVOIDABLE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS DECON decommissioning may have several minor but unavoidable impacts. If Old Beach Road is upgraded, there may be a minimal amount of soil erosion as a result of the removal of " weedy" vegetative cover or old road surface. For a short -

period of time, soil may be exposed and subjected to the elements. Utilizing -

g generally accepied engineering and re grading practices, these potential short term soil erosion effects will be minimized.

L 4 10 L

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

SCction 4. Supplem:nt To Environmental Report (Decommissioning) p Unavoidable short term aesthetic impacts include the temporary presence of s

construction equipment and the ocean barge (if barge transport is used).

A local short terrn deterioration of air quality due to construction vehicle emissions and dust may be unavoidable. Minor emissions of fugitive dust would be the only observable impact of decommissioning on ex6 ting air quality. The use of excavation equipment and equipment movement on unpaved areas are primarily responsible for generating dust emissions. However, much of the Project Area is paved or covered with structures or gravel. Application of water as a dust suppressant is a technique that can be employed if necessary. Dust emissions can further be limited by covering exposed areas, storage piles, etc. when not being used. Once the preparation phases are complete, dust emissions would be expected to decline significantly.

Construction traffic is als e factor which can contribute to fugitive dust. Such emissions generated during the project are expected to be relatively minor.

Minimizing speed and vehicle traffic in unpaved areas would serve to reduce dust emissions.

Noise associated with DECON decommissioning is also short term and unavoid-able, although such impacts should be minor as discussed M Section 4.6. Further, most of the decommissioning activities will be performed indoors.

O V Any filling or dredging to provide access for a barge will, if necessary, be minor.

However, some benthic organisms, such as mo!iusks, tube worms, etc., may be buried. This impact is considered minor and short term.

Lastly, non radioactive demolition waste material will be generated. This material will be generated by the removal of structures inside the Reactor Building and Radwaste Building to gain access and clearance for removal of radioactive components. Concrete reinforcing steel material can be removed and recycled as scrap steel. A fraction of the concrete matrix and soil gravel debris volume can be recovered and recycled for clean construction fill. The remainder will be disposed of in a landfill approved for disposal of commercial wastes.

O 4 11

Section 4.

Supplement To Environmental Report (Docommissioning) 4.10 REFERENCES 1.

Long Island Power Authority, *Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Decommissioning Plan," December 1990.

2.

Stone and Webster Engineering Corp., *Shoreham Nucleai Power Station Reactor Pressure Vessel Disposition Alternatives," May 19M.

3.

Long Island Power Authority, " Final Generic Environmental impact Statement for the Decommissioning of the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station," November 1990.

4 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities," NUREG 0586, August 1988.

5.

Suffolk County Department of Public Works, " Traffic Volume Maps," 1978 as amended.

6.

Brookhaven Historic District Advisory Comml: tee, " National Register of Historic Places for the Town of Brookhaven" (undated).

7.

Long Island Lighting Company, " Applicant's Environrnental Report.

Operating License Stage Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1,"

Docket 50 322, Revision 4, October 1979.

8.

Long Island Lighting Company, "Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Aquatic Ecology Study" (1977 to 1988).

9.

County of Suffolk New York, "Suffolk County Sanitary Code, Article 12 -

Toxic and Hazardous Materials Storage and Handling Controls," as amended.

10.

Town of Brookhaven, New York, " Zoning Code and Official Zoning Map,"

Brookhaven, NY,1987 as amended.

11.

Balt, Deranek, and Newman Inc., " Empire State Electric Research Corporation 1977, Power Plant Construction Noise Gulde," Report No. 3321, 12.

John G. Rau and David C. Wooten,

• Environmental impact Analysis Handbook," Mc Graw Hill Inc., New York 1980.

O 13. Town of Brookhaven, " Chapter 50, Code of the Town of Brookhaven -

Noise Control," Brookhaven, NY.

4 12

e 1

no $0uND O ,,o LO WS s O

p o-

, 1 OY I

M crp i

~~3 L

l " 0 l '-

( 6 q \

A,/ SHOREHAM PL. ANT I

l M J f< f

.s uou l I es-ssesr i

e e-ssess aw ,_

N N

% -A N k _m o A, o _

e erAncw nraw swwym E dMPouNO MTFM Ad:W/7t:Wr%43 WE4t.s FIGURE 4.3-1 i

l GROUNDWATER l MONITORING O eROoa^u .

Supplement To Environmental Report - Shoreham Decommissioning s

. .._. -_._ _ __- _ _____..___ -_ __.._._.-___ _ _ __.--. ._ __ .-~_ _ ._.~.-_.-_--.... . _

Secti:n 5. Supplement To Envirtnmental Report (Dectmmissitning)

O 5.0 RADIATION EXPOSURE IMPACTS J

This Section addresses the radiation exposure to workers and the public resulting  :

from the DECON decommissioning of the Shoreham plant. Both routine  ;

decommissioning activities and postulated accidents are discussed. The estimates presented show that there will be no significant environmentalimpacts associated ,

with radiation exposure.

5.1 WORKER RADIATION EXPOSURE FROM DECON DECOMMISSIONING l 1

It is estimated thnt the planned DECON alternative will result in a collective dose i of 180 person rem to personnel performing decommissioning work. The dose  ;

estimate is based on task breakdowns, labor estimates and dose rates from  ;

conceptual planning and engineering studies, including References 1, 2 and 3.

The task dose estimates utilize a combination of calculated and measured exposure rates and prospective stay times. Each task collective dose estimate

, assumes.an effective overall average exposure rate for the entire task. It is assumed that the dose rates are generally spatially uniform in the work areas and are due primarily to Co 60 gamma radiation.

L The major contributor to personnel exposure is the segmentation and removal of l5 the RPV, estimated to result in about 158 person rem. Other decontamination and l dismantling of systems and structures and onsite handling and packaging of i radioactive waste are estimated to result in an additional radiation exposure of about 22 person rem. Estimates for these and the other tasks are conservative, not taking into account the effect of about two years radioactive decay before the '

decommissioning activities take place and not taking credit for exposure reduction measures which will be implemented as part of the radiation protection and ALARA programs which will be in effect.

I L

The transportation of the Shoreham plant decommissioning waste to a low level radioactive waste disposal facility would result in low levels of exposure to the

, transportation workers, it is conservatively estimated that an adoitional exposure i of about 10 person rem to the transportation workers would result from about 80 truck shipments. These estimates conservatively assume the maximum allowable Department of Transportation (DOT) dose rate limits during transport.

p 5.2 MEASURES TO MAINTAIN WORKER EXPOSURE ALARA Personnel radiation protection during Shoreham decommissioning activities will be provided by a comprehensive framework of policies, organizational responsibilities and procedures for radiation protection adapted from those originally developed for the operation of the Shoreham plant. A radiation protection program will also 5-1

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

Secti:n 5. Supplement To Envir:nmental Report (Deccmmissioning)

[V be implemented for decommissioning which draws upon the above, the eMensive industry experience base in plant modification work in raciological envirenments and experience from other recent decommissioning and dismantling projects.

LIPA's radiation protection program is further desenbed in the Shoreham Decommissioning Plan.")

ALARA reviews and exposure reduction techniques, such as shielding, decontamination and process and administrative controls applied to decommissioning work tasks, will be used to helo further reduce personnel radiation exposure. Refined dose estimates will be prepared in conjunction with development of detailed engineering and work procedures. These estimates will be used to prioritize exposure reduction efforts focusing on tasks with the greatest potential for reduction in individual and co'lective personnel doses.

Specific measures contemplated for dose reduction during the segmentation and removal of the RPV include decontamination, installation of temporary shielding, use of remotely operated equipment and undenvater cutting. Other measures such as mockup training for workers on high exposure tasks, sequencing of tasks, use of video communication and remote monitoring equipment will also be applieo as appropriate to reduce personnel exposure time in radiation fields.

The program to protect workers will ensure that expo Jres to individuals from internal and external radiation will be ALARA and below tne limits in 10 CFR 20.*

Workers will receive training ;n decommissioning project radiation protection requirements and procedures. A dedicated radiation protection staff will perform monitoring of work areas, maintain radiabon area access controls, provide personnel dosimetry and administer a radiation work permit system which establishes specific personnel protection requirements for work tasks. Dose tracking will be performed to monitor individu~J and collective dose accumulations as the work croceeds.

5.3 OFF SITE RADIATION EXPOSURE FROM PLANNED DECOMMISSIONING ACTIVITIES The NRC GEIS* has determined that potential radiation exposure to persons living in the vicinity during the end of life DECON decommissioning of s large BWR should be negligible. Because of Shoreham's limited operation and low level of radioactive contamination, the radiation exposure to people living in the vicinity during Shoreham decommissioning is expected to be well within this analysis for the reference BWR, and therefore likewise expected to be negligible. Nevertheless, a conservative analysis has been performed which provides an upper bcund estimate of exposures to the public.

O V

l 52

Section 5. Supplement To Environmenta! Rep:rt (Dec:mmissi:ning)

O 5.3.1 Exposure Pathways As was done in the NRC GEIS* and its technology basis study,* doses to off site individuals have been estimated due to the airborne release of radioactive materials during decommissioning activities. Doses due to the release of radionuclides in liquid effluents have not been estimated because the sources and potential liquid release paths will be extrernely limited in comparison to those in existence during Shoreham's operation and post shutdown periods. These releases were extremely low. For example, totalliquid releases reported for the second half of 1989 were 5

a factor of 10 below Shoreham's operating license Technical Specification limits for the last half of 1989.M lt is anticipated that prior to the start of decommissioning by LIPA, the plant liquid radwaste system will be decontaminated by LILCO. The liquid radwaste system will be isolated from decommissioning activities during decommissioning to prevent contamination. All potentially contaminated liquids generated will be collected, monitored and, if necessary, processed by mobile radware processing systems. All resulting effluents will be monitored and main.ained :hin limits established for the post operation period.#

Dose calculation methods and exposure pathways utilized in the analysis of off site exposures during decommissioning 3 are similar to those in Shoreham's Off site Dose Calculation Manual (ODCM). Exposure pathways considered are:

v o inhalation of radionuclides o Standing on contaminated ground o ingestion of leafy fresh and stored vegetables o Drinking milk Inhalation rates and other usage factors in the calculations are taken from the ODCM? Doses due to the pathways are calculated for individuals at the nearest locations for each pathway identified in the ODCM.

5.3.2 Radionuclide Releases The BWR decommissioning technology study # estimated the airborne radioactive releases during DECON decommissioning of an end of life reference BWR plant.

This study estimated plant radioactive material inventories, contamination levels and dose rates throughout the reference BWR facility, and based on these, estimated releases which could occur during each step of the decommissioning process.

Similarly, airborne releases for the DECON decommissioning of Shoreham have p been estimated. This information was developed in two parts: a) estimated V airborne releases due to RPV segmentat.m activities in the Reactor Building;*

1 5-3

i Section 5. Supplem:nt To Environm:ntel Report (D: commissioning)

O and b) estimated airborne releases due to all other Shoreham decommissioning activities.UU The results of these airborne release esimates are provided in Table 5.31. The total amount of radioactive materials estimated to be released during Shoreham cecommissioning is less than 5 percent of the total estimated releases for decommissioning of the reference BWR using the immediate dismantlement approach.

5.3.3 Estimated Exposures to Maximum Exposed Individuals Estimated doses to maximum exposed individuals are given in Table 5.3 2. Doces are reported for the critical ago group for the whole body and for each organ.

Doses are calculated as 50 ycar committed dose equivalents in accord with approved models and assumptions for calculation of doses from routine power effluent releases.02) The calculated maximum whole body dose is 1.82 x 10 5 millirem to a child. The calculated maximum orps dose is 2.03 x 10" millirem to

+

the lung of a teenager. These 50 year doses are compared to the annual exposure limits in the 10 CFR 50 Appendix I design objectives.U') As can be seen in Table 5.3 2, the calculated maximum whole body and organ doses are only very small fractions (less than 0.0004% and 0.002%, respectively) of the Appendix I annual exposure limits.

' 5.3.4 Population Doses From Decommissioning Activities The collective whole body dose from planned decommissioning activities to the population living within 50 miles of Shoreham is conservatively estimated to be 5.34 x 10'8 person rem.UM" This estimate is based on the 1990 summer population (and its distribution) and atmospheric dispersion factors reported in Shoreham's I USAR.00 5.3.5 Population Dose From Waste Transportation The radiation exposure to the public from the transportation of the Shoreham plant decommissioning waste to a low level radioactive waste disposal facility was also conservatively estimated. The estimate used NUREG/CR 0672 assumptions #

such as the location of maximum exposed individual and population density. The population dose from transportation was conservatively estimated to be 0.7

-person rem, 5.4 RADIATION EXPOSURE IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL ACCIDENTS Various potential accidents which might occur during decommissioning have been examined. These include on site accidents and accidents during transport of radioactive wastes which could occur off the Shoreham site. The analysis of these O postulated accidents used conservative approaches in determining the quant. ties 54

_ . _ __ _ _ -- _ - _ _ _ _ _ .~. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

l l Sectirn 5. Supplement To Envircnmental Report (Doctmmis:lening) 4-O of radionuclides released, the transport of the released materials and in the 1

calculation of doses. Further details of the analyses are contained in the Shoreham i Decommissioning Plan.W The accident analyses described in the Decommissioning Plan are listed below; other accident scenarios postulated would be enveloped by these events:

o . Waste Container Drop o Combustible Waste Fire o Contaminated Sweeping Compound Fire o Vacuum Filter Bag Rupture o Oxyacetylene Explosion o Explosion of Liquid Propane Gas Leaked from a Front End Loader o Contamination Control Envelope Rupture o Fuel Damage Accident o Effects of Natural Catastrophes o Breach of Physical Security Measures The on site accident analyses results are provided in Table 5.41, and show that no _significant exposures to members of the public would result from on sita O accidents. The highest calculated doses were 1.08 millirm whole body and 93.9 4

V millirem to the skin of the maximum exposed individuallwated at the site exclusion area boundary (EAB) during the worst case postulated fuel damage accident. All other accidents analyzed yleid exposures approximately 7300 times lower for wholo body doses and 3400 times lower for organ doses.

The limiting calculated doses tolndividuals resulting from the decommissioning accidents are also compared in Table 5.41 to the doses published by the EPA for determining when to take protective actions in the event of an accident involving exposure of members of the public.M PAGs are given as ranges: 1 to 5 rem to the whole body and 5 to 25 rem to the thyroid of an individual. (Note: the critical organs-for postulated Shoreham decommissioning accident doses-are the lung and, in one case, the skin. Comparison is made to the EPA thyroid dose PAG because it is considered to be representative of organ dose guidance.) ;The highest doses calculated for postulated Shoreham decommissioning accidents are.

less than 0.11% and 1.9% of the EPA PAG tower whole body and organ limits,

respectively.

Low level radioactive wastas from Shoreham decommissioning will be packaged in accordance with applicable NRC and DOT requirements, and shipped by truck 3: > to licensed low level radioactive waste disposal facilities. Evaluation of postulated accidents involving. truck transportation -of radioactive wastes packaged in '

( accordance with these criteria can be found in Reference 6. These evaluations

. . . ~ . . -.. . a.- . . - - . = . - . -. .

Section 5. Supplement TO Envir;:nmental Report (Decommissioning) would be representative of the range of postulated accidental impacts from shipment of Shoreham decommissioning waste materials.

The impacts of even the most severe radioactive waste transport accident, as evaluated in Reference 6, are a small fraction of the EPA PAGs.

Table 5.4 2 provides a comparison of off site releases for postulated Shoreham decommissioning accident scenarios to the NRC's analysis of the reference BWR.

In all comparable scenarios, the projected releases from postulated decommissioning accidents at Shoreham are below the reference BWR cases.

The only postulated event where the reference BWR release estimates could be exceeded is again the highly conservative worst case fuel damage accident, the consequences of which are still small fractions of the EPA PAGs as noted above.

Based on the above, it is concluded that there are no significant radiological consequences to the general public nor to the workers from postula'..d credible accidents during the planned decommissioning operations at Shoreham.

The accident analyses demonstrate that no adverse public health and safety or environmental impacts are expected from accidents which might occur during Shoreham's decommissioning operations.

r~3 Furthermore, doses from postulated Shoreham decommissioning accidents are V also considerably smaller than those associated with accidents postulated to occur dt' 'g the licensed full power operation of Shoreham. On this basis, it is concluded that postulated decommissioning accidents at Shoreham would not involve any significant radiological consequences and no significant environmental impacts.

O O

l 56

i Secticn 5. Supplement To Environmental Report (Dec:mmissigning)

FG u

5.5 REFERENCES

1. Long Island Power Authority,"Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Decommissioning Plan," December 1990.

2. Stone and Webster Engineering Corp., "Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Reactor Pressure Vessel Disposition Alternatives," May 1990. .

3. Long Island Ughting Company, "Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Site Characterization Program, Final Report," May 1990; Addendum 1, June 1990; Addendum 2, August 1990.

. 4. Code of Foderal Regulations, Title 10 Part 20, " Standards for Protection Against Radiation."

6. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, " Final- Generic Environmental Impact

• Statement on Decommissioning of Nuclear Facilities," NUREG 0586, August 1988.

6. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ' Technology, Safety and Costs of

/7 Decommissioning a Reference Bolling Water Reactor Power Station," NUREG/CR-d- 0672, June 1980.

7.- Long Island Ughting Company,

• Semiannual Radioactive Effluent Release Report, Shoreham Nuclear Power Station Unit 1," Docket No. 50 322, February 27,1990.

F

^

8. Revised Technical Specifications to Replace thosa of Attachment 2 to SNRC 1664,"

transmitted via LILCO letter SNRC 1752 from John D. Leonard, Jr. to U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, August 30,1990,

9. Long Island Ughting Company, >Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Shoreharn Nuclear Power Station Unit No.1," Revision 16, July 1990,

10. Bechtel Calculation No. 900 139 " Normal Releases For Shoreham Decommissioning," December 20,1990.

- 11.-

Long Island Ughting Company, Nuclear Engineering Dept.- Calculation,- CCI No.

036612, 'Off Site Dose Estimates During Dismantlement Decommissioning of Shoreham,". September 1990i

12. U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory P.ude 1.109, " Calculation of Annual Doses to Man From Routine Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance With 10 CFR Pr. o0, Appendix 1," Revision 1, October n 1977.

J 5-7

1 l

i S:ction S. Suppl:m:nt To Environmental R: port (Decommissioning) l l

l l 13. Code of Federal Regulations Title 10 Part 50, Appendix 1, " Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion 'As Low As is Reasonably Achievcble' for Radioactive Material in Light Water Cooled l Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents."

14 Long Island L 1 t :j Company, " Updated Safety Analysis Report Shoreham Nuclear Power Station,", Docket No. 50 322 Revision 3, June 1990.

15. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, " Manual of Protective Action Guides and Protective Actions for Nuclear Incidents," EPA 520/ 75 001, September 1975.

l l

O l

l I

O L

54 l

ahae J 1 4

i Secticn 5. - Supplement To Envircnmental R: port (Decommissioning) r i n

i

' Table 5.31 O Altborne Radionuclide Releases From Shoreham Decommissioning l

i Curies Released b I i i 1

Other  !

f,igpMg .RPV Seamentation ActMties .I.qta.I r l Co 60 1.28 E 4 - 2.02 E 4 ' 3.30 E 4 i l Mn 54 0.00 E 0 5.48 E 6 5.48 E 6 s

Fe 55 3.11 E 4 8.85 E 6 3.20 E 4 r

Ni63 9.61 E 6 2.92 E 7 9.90 E 6 H3 1.24 E 4 0.00 E 0 1.24 E 4 C 14 2.48 E 5 0.00 E 0 2.48 E 5 O NI59 6.50 E 8 0.00 E 0 6.50 E 8 l

8.14 E 4 l

l-O

i. -

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

l Section 5. Suppl m nt To Environm:ntal Report (Decommissioning)

O Table 5.3 2 Maximum Off Sito Individual Dosos Due to Decommissioning Age Group Organ 50 year 10CFR50 App. I Dose (mrem) Design Guide (mrem /vr)

Child Total Body 1,82 E 5 5 Child Bone 5.41 E 5 15 Child Thyroid 6.32 E 7 15 Teen Lung 2,03 E 4 15 Adult GILLI '!.44 E 5 15 O

O l.

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

Section 5. Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

Table 5.41 Accident Dose Comparisons Whole Body' Organ Accident Type EAB Dose To Percent of EPA EAB Dose to Critical Percent of EPA (On site Accidents Maximum indMdual PAG Lower Dose Organ of An PA3 trm Cue Only) _ (mrem) Umit (I rem) IndMdual (rnrem) Limit ($ rem)

Waste Container Drop 6.48 E 5 6.48 E 6 3.36 E 3 6.72 E 5 Combustible Waste 8.04 E 12 8.04 E 13 1.63 E 9 3.06 E 11 Fire Contaminated Sweeping Compond 5.10 E 11 5,10 E 12 1.03 E 8 2.06 E 10 Fire Vacuum Fil'or Bag 5.30 E 8 5.36 E 9 1.09 E 5 2.18 E 7 Rupture Oxyacetylene 5.70 E-9 5.70 E 10 1.16 E 6 2.32 E 8 Explosion LPG Explosion 1.48 E-4 1.48 E 5 7.76 E 3 1,55 E 4 a) with waste container rupture b) without wast 6 1.36 E 4 1.36 E 5 2.76 E 2 5.52 E 4 container rupture Contamination Control 1.79 E 5 1.79 E 6 1.25 E 3 2.50 E 5 Envelope Rupture Fuel Damage 1.00 E 0 1.08 E 1 9.39 E + 1 1.88 E 0 Accident O Whole body dose as used here is the sum of whole body air submersion dose and whole body inhalation dose (actually, dose commitment).

. . - - - . . . - - _ . - - . - _ .- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - " - - - - - - - "'" ~~

Section 5. Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

O Table 5.4 ?.

Accidont Release Comparisons Accident Type Calculated Off site Calculated Off site (On site Accidents Release From Shoreham Release From the Reference Ontv) (Curles)' BWR (Curiecf Waste Container Drop 3.00 E 4 Not Evaluated Combustible Waste Fire 4.96 E 12 6.0 E 9 Contaminated Sweeping Compound Fire 3.15 E 11 1.1 E 6 Vacuum Filter Bag Rupture 3.31 E 8 S.5 E 4 Oxyacetylene Explosion 3.52 E 9 1.2 E 4 LPG Explosion a) with waste container 6.84 E 4 Not Evaluated b) without waste container rupture 8.40 E 5 8.6 E 3 Contamination Control Envelope Rupture 3.01 E 5 1.4 E 4 Fuel Damage Accident 1.50 E + 3 Not Evaluated Notes: 1) See applicable accident descriptions for assumed radionuclide compositions.

2) Radionuclide compositions for releases from the reference BWR are identified in Appendix E of Reference 6.

O l

Section 6. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning) 6.0 WASTE RLSPOS AL.

6.1 RADIOACTIVE WASTES l 1

Radioactive waste expected to be generated during decommissioning of the )

Shoreham plant will consist of portions of the Reactor Pressure Vessel (RPV) and  !

its internal components, the spent fuel racks and appu:*enances, sumps and floor drains, piping and equipment associated with the various contaminated systems, 3 and any process waste and Dry Active Waste (DAW) generated during the 1 decontamination and dismantling process.  !

Table 6.11 presents the estimated maxiraum burial volumes of the waste by ,

structure or system, with the total activity, average gross concentralons and 10  ;

CFR 61W waste classification shown for each. '

The estimated total burial volurre of the waste is 79,300 cubic feet. This is an unprocessed volume; it is expected that significant volurne reduction -c . ce achleved by sending metallic waste to a licensed decontamination and v .ume reduction vendor. Furthermore,it is expected that some systems will be releasable for unrestricted use as a result o8 planned decontamination efforts described earlier. The waste contains approximately 602 Curies, almost all of which 3 ove

/

to activation of the RPV internals, All radioactive waste is expected to be C! ass A k waste, the lowest hazard category as defined in 10 CFR 61.")

No unusual waste such as mixed waste or contaminated asbestos is expected to be produced during decommissioning. Radioactive wastes containing chelates may be produced during decontamination activities, Precedures will be

' implemented to ensure that burial site requirements for chelates are met.

Radioactive wastes generated during decommissioning will be processed as necessary using temporary systems supplied by experienced vendors. These temporary systems may include portable ventilation systems with High Efficiency Particulate Air (HEPA) filtration for airborne contamination, portable c'emineralizers for kquid waste processing and compactors for volume reduction of dry active waste, it is LIPA's intent to ship contaminated and activated segments to a licensed processing facility for further decontamination l volume reduction and pocsible reuse as shielding material. All radioactive waste will be packaged and shipped in accordance with approved procedures and applicable regu!ations.

p 61 G

1

< , -.w-, , , .. , .+,-m.-.

,y .-

Section 6. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning) c

'v As a result of decommissioning activities, the following radioactive waste will be

[ generated:

(1) The contaminated or activated portions of the RPV anc'its internals will be segmented and packaged in approved thipping containers.

In order to minimize the volume of waste resulting from RPV segmentation, LIPA is planning to empP i one or a combination of the following: (a) chemical decontaminatu,, (b) Ultra high pressure water blasting; and (c) abrasive grit decontamination. Depending on the results of RPV decontamination, those portions of the RPV anc internals which after being surveyed meet the surface contamination release crite b in Regualtory Guide 1.86 and the 5 uR/hr at 1 meter criteria for t'etivated components, will be declared clean and released for unrestricted use. Thus, through an aggressive campaign of decontamination, radiological surveys, and material segregation, LIPA will attempt to release for unrestricted use the majority of the reactor vessel shell which is singularly the largest element of solid radwaste that is listed in Table 6.11.Those portions which do not mesi the release criteria will either be: 1) packaged and shipped to an off site vendor for further processing (i.e., volume reduction) or (2) packaged and sh!pped direct!y for disposal to a licensed burial facility.

(2) System piping and components, which do not meet release criteria after decontamination will be dismantled. The dismantled piping and components, including all contamiriated three inch diameter and smaller piping, will be sent ti a decontamination and volume reduction facility to reduce the overall waste volumes, or will be packaged and shipped to a licensed burial facility.

(3) Activated or contaminated concrete rubble and dust are not expected to be produced during the decommissioning of the Shoreham plant.

Should any such waste be generated, it will be packaged as low specific activity (LSA) material in approved shipping containers and shipped to a licensed burial facility.

(4) Dry Active Waste (DAW) consisting of contaminated paper, plastic, coveralls, etc. will be packaged as LSA materialin approved shipping containers. DAW will be compacted at the Shoreham plant or shipped non compacted to an offsite vendor for volume reduction and packaging. When feasible, DAW will be used to fill void space in other radwaste shipping containers.

o 62 U

l Section 6. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

C' (5) Any contaminated liquid waste generated by decommissioning and dismantling of the Shoreham plant systems, components, and structures will be processed by a temporary processing system in accordance with an approved Process Control Program Vendor supplied portable, temporary liquid radwaste equipment will be used to process this waste resulting from Shoreham's decommissioning.

The waste resulting from the temporary processing system (s) will bt dewatered in high integrity containers or solidified and shipped in approved containers to a licensed burial facility.

Although not specifically considered part of decommissioning, fuel disposal activities will be carefully integrated into the overall plan for decommissioning the Shoreham plant. As discussed earlier, the spent fuel which is the only high level radioactive waste on site, was last irradiated on June 6,1987 and is stored in the spent fuel storage pool. LIPA Is considering three options for the of the Shoreham spent fuel: (1) reprocessing; and (2) transfer of the fuel to another licensed utility; and (3) on site storage. Reprocessing entails the transfer of the fuel from the spent fuel storage pool to licensed casks which would then be shipped off site to a licensed reprocessing facility. LIPA is considering two overseas vendors offering reprocessing services who have provided bids to LIPA. The latter option involves a similar scope of Shoreham plant activities, followed by cask shipment to another domestic licensee.

(J)

On site storage is considered an option of last resort because it would not yield the desired result of rem.ovirig all radioactive material from the Shoreham site.

The NRC has addressed the transport of spent fuel in its Generic Environmental Impact Statement

• on handling and transport of spent fuel and concluded that spent fuel transport would not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts, if selected, the reprocessing option will potentially require dredging of the intake canal for barge loading of the spent fuel. This is discussed further in Section 4.0.

6.2 NON RADIOACTIVE WASTE LIPA does not anticipate that the decommissioning activities would generate any asbestos waste. If generated, any uncontaminated asbestos requiring disposal will be packaged in drums or double lined plastic such that it is non dispersible, and shipped to an approved asbestos disposal facility. Asbestos disposal will be managed in compliance with Occupational Safety & Hea!th Administration (OSHA),

EPA, and NYSDEC regulations, in addition, all non radioactive solid was.e (ie.,

n 63 b

1

Section 6. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning) construction and demolition debris) and hazardous waste generated by Shoreham decommissioning activities will be managed and disposed of in accordance with EPA and NYSDEC regulations.

6.3 LOW LEVEL WASTE DISPOSAL OPTIONS At the present time, Shoreham has access to the existing f acilities (Barnwell, South Carolina; Beatty, Nevada; and Hanford, Washington). These sites may remain available for use until 1993. It is presently expected that the State of New York wi!I not have a permanent LLRW disposal facility in operation by January 1993.

Assuming that the permanent State facility is not available by January 1993, a number of storage and disposal alternatives have been and continue to be considered.

First, it bears noting that any delay in the availability of the permanent New York facility, and not a permanent unavailability of a State of New York disposal facility.

While it is not certain when a permanent LLRW disposal facility will be operational in New York, there is every reason to believe that the State will in the future have such a permanent facility. In this regard, the State of New York has developed an Interim Management Plan for ! . AW, which includes onsite temporary LLRW gs storage, as well as temporary offsite storage of such wastes at several sites within

( the State. The Governor has cer"fied that the Interim Management Plan will be capable of handling all of New York's LLRW generated after December 1992.

Second, LIPA has explored and will continue to explore LLRW offsite disposal and storage options. LIPA will explore whether other States which develop LLRW disposal facilities are amenable 'o accepting some or all of Shoreham's LLRW.

LIPA will also explore whether terc.porary offsite storage facilities are available, such as at another reactor site. Particularly, given the relatively small amount of Shoreham LLRW expected to require disposal, LlPA believes that there may be a number of offsite storage or disposal options available. Despite the current ,

unlikelihood that the States of South Carolina, Nevada and Washington will accept New York LLRW after 1992, LIPA will continue to explore that possibility as well.

Thus, it should not be assumed that Shoreham's wastes will have to remain onsite, if, as expected, New York's permanent LLRW disposal facility is not available in January 1993.

However, if it is decided that ir,terim onsite storage of Shoreham's LLRW is the best alternative, space exists at Shoreham for this purpose. LLRW is currently stored at the Shoreham plant at severallocations, including the Radwaste Building.

It is also possible to store LLRW in a new building which could be built for this 64

I Section 6. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

O purpose in accordance with the guidelines provided by the NRC in Appendix A to Standard Review Plan Section 11.4,

• Design Guidance for Temporary Onsite Storage of Low Level Radioactive Waste "

O 65 O

, Section 6. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

O

6.4 REFERENCES

1. Code of Federal Regulations Title 10 Part 61, Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste."

2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Generic Environmental Impact Statement on Handling and Storage of Spent Light Water Power Reactor Fuel", NUREG - 0575,1979.

O 66

Section 6.0 g)

\'

Supplement To Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

Table 6.11 Estimated Radioactive Waste Data for Shoreham DecommissioningW Average 10 CFR 61 Component / Burial Total Gross Waste System Volume (ft') ActMtv(Ciim Concentration Class RPV and Internals 16,500 601.17 1.28 A Reactor Recire 6,000 2.45E 4 1.44E 6 A Control Rod Drive 500W 3.00E-4 2.12E 5 A Residual Heat Removal 15,100 4.30E 4 1.01E 6 A Core Spray 1,600 7.19E 4 1.59E 5 A Reactor Water Cleanup 9,200 6.16E 4 2.36E 6 A Fuel Pool Clennup 2,500 7.86E 4 1.11E 5 A Condensate 2,000 2.62E-5 4.69E 7 A Demineralizer Process Sampling System 300 2.29E 5 2.69E 6 A

,S

, Spent Fuel Rack and 8,300 5.65E 4 2.40E 6 A V Appurtenances Process Waste & DAW 7,700 negligible unknown, A auumed negligible Demineralizer 3,200 negligible unknown, A Resins / Filters auumed negligible Liquid Radwaste 6,000 1.60E 4 9.14E 7 A Mirror Insulation 400 negligible negligible A TOTALS 79300 601.17 Note:

(1) As of March April 1990, except for the RPV and Internals which are as of July 1990.

(2) Does not include control blades or control rod drives.

l I

i n i Section 7. Supplement to Environmental Report Shamham Decommissioning Q/

7.0 STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH PERMIT REQUIREMENTS 7.1 FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS The planned decommissioning activities that may be subject to federal regulations, permits, licenses, notifications or approvals include:

o Initiation of d6 commissioning o Handling, packaging and shipment of radioactive waste o Worker radiation protection o Handling and removal of asbestos o Disposal of solid and hazardous wastes o Dredging the intake canal (for possible irradiated fuel transportation)

, The majority of these activities are governed by regulations issued by the NRC in l Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Applicable Title 10 regulations are:

l g Part 50(4 as it relates to entinued possessior cf the plant

'~'

> Part 20* for protection aga; 6t radiation Parts 30W for possession of radioactive materials (authority to possess

& 40(") these materials would be subsumed under the Part Sr) license)

Part 51 W for environmental protection Part 61* for disposal of radioactive waste Part 71M (and 49 CFR Parts 171 through 174W) for packaging and transportation of radioactive wasto Parts 70* for pussession of special nuclear material and physical

& 73

• protection of the facility (if the fuel is in the facility during decommissioning) 1 l

LIPA's Decommissioning Plan is also subject to pnor NRC review and approval.

Fol:owing NRC approval, decommissioning will proceed under the conditions established by an order issued by the NRC.

OSHA regulates worker health and safety protectiori during decommissioning under 29 CFR Part 1910 and 1926 regulations pertaining to construction activities"". These regulations include requirements for respiratory protection (non-radiological), hearing protect.'on, illumination, scaffold safety, crane and rigging safety, and fire protection. Asbestos handling and removal falls under regulations in 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926 and EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 61, Subpart

?'s V 7-1'

i Section 7. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning)

Mo2) . Should asbestos be involved in any decommissioning activity it will be handled in accordance with these regulations.

7.2 OTHER HF.OUIREMENTS Permits, approvals and notifications from several state agencies and possibly local agencies may oe required for safety and environmental protection purposes. Some of these relate to specific decommissioning cctivities and others are for existing Shoreham facilities and ongoing activities which are necessary to support decommissioning. Decommissioning activities and related site operations which may fall under state and local jurisdiction include:

o Solid and hazardous waste disposal o Asbestos removal o Asbestos disposal o Industrial safety of personnel o Fuel oil storage o Chemical bulk storage o Plant se'vice water wells

[] o SPDES Fermit a Dredging Shoreham's decommissioning activities will comply, as necessary, with applicable stato 1- local environmental requiroments.

72 1

1

l L

Section 7.. Supplement to Environmental Report (Decommissioning) .

\

t

7.5 REFERENCES

1. Code of Federal R.egulations, Title 10 Part 50, " Domestic -Licensing of 4

Production and Utilization Facilities."

2. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Part 20,." Standards for Protection Ageinst. Radiation."

3. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Part 30, " Rules of General Appliability I to Domestic Ucensing of Byproduct Material." '

4 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Part 40, " Domestic Licensing of-

. Source Material.*

5 . Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10 Part 51_, invironmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.

u 6. Code of Federal Reguistions, Title 10 Part 61, " Licensing Requirements for -  ;;

Land _ Disposal of Radic ctive Waste."

7.. Code of - Federal -Regulations, Title 10. Part 71,. " Packaging and

Transportation of Radioactive Material."

-8.  ? Code of Federal Regulations, Title 49, "Transponation," Parts 171-174, t 5

^

9. Code ..of. FedertE Regulations, Title 10 Part 70, " Domestic- Licensing of

Special Nuclea; Material." a

10. Code of Federai Regulations, Title 10 Part 73, " Physical Pro _tection of Plants [

and Materials "

111. . . Code of Federal Regulations, Title 29 Parts 1910 and 1926,' " Occupational _i Safety and Health Administration " ~ ~

12e Code of Federal: Regulations, Title 40 Part 61,:-Appendix C Subpart.M,-

Environrnental Protection Agency, ". National -Emission Standards! for Hazardous Air-Pollutants"(NESHAPS).

73 a

m t'-w -r@-*ft-e-" f'r w- *