ML20079M950
| ML20079M950 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Harris, Brunswick, Robinson  |
| Issue date: | 11/11/1991 |
| From: | CAROLINA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, NLS-90-159, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110013 | |
| Download: ML20079M950 (25) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _.
t NLS 90 159 ATTACILMENT B Carolina Power & Light Company Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Unit Nos. 162 NUFAv0 Aquer.ic Rasour:es Survey Responses 9111110013 911111 PDR NUREG 1437 C PDR
CAROLINA POWER & LIGliT COMPANY BRUNSWICK PLANT NUMARC AQUATIC RESOURCES SURVEY
Background
The Dnww n i ru 3 6 a two unit nuclear station located in North Carolina adjacent to the Cape Feii Nw a w te mouth of th: Cape Fear River, its two units were placed in commercial ;fga % b th. > ember 1975 and March 1977, respectively. The plant's present cooling r/G r Murat* s cooling water predominantly from the surface layer of the Cape Fear River thi0agh rn appritimately three mile long intake canal and channel that bisects Snows Marsh, it discharges that cooling water to the Atlantic Ocean through an approximately six mile long discharge canal..nd two 2000 foot long submerged outfall pipes.
The original BSEP cooling system design consisted of a river intake and a river discharge. With this design, heated water would have been returned to the Cane Fear River, liowever, in early 1969, the Federal Water Quality Administration (the predecessor agency to the United States Em'ironmental Protection Agency [ EPA)) and other regulataty reviewers expressed concern over the potentially adverse effects of discharging heated water to the Cape Fear River. As a result, Carolina Power & Light (CP&L) agreed to construct a $43 million open-ocean dischatge cooling system to the Atlantic Ocean in lieu of the river discharge.. However, not withstanding the approval of the Federal Water Quality Administration and the United States Fish and Wildlife Service of the cooling system design, the EPA issued a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES Permit) for Brunswick Plant in December 1974 which, pursuant to Sections 316(b),301 and 402(a) of the Clean Water Act, required that natural draft cooling towers be constructed and in operation by mid 1978.
CP&L contended at that time that no decision regarding additional cooling system modifications should be made until adequate biological data had been gathered and assessed. The Company then undertook specific studies after the cooling system became operational to determine if the plant was actually depleting Walden Creek and Snows Marsh (areas immediately adjacent to the mouth of the intake canal) of populations of aquatic organisms, as had been alleged in the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Final Environmental Statement for the Brunswick Plant. Beginning in September 1976 and continuing through August 1978, a comprehensive biological study program was conducted in order to obtain adequate data to reach a reasoned decision concerning the estuary wide effects of the existing once through cooling system. With the expiration of the 1974 NPDES permit in early 1980, a review of all available data in conjunction with issuing a new permit was conducted.
In early January 1981, CP&L successfully reached a settlement with the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management and the EPA which eliminated the need for construction of cooling towers at the plant. Regarding withdrawal of water from the h
t Cape Fear Estuary (CFE), the stipulations of the permit were that:
1.
A permanent fish diversion structure be built and maintained at the mouth of t
the intake canal.
2, Fine mesh screens be installed on two of the four traveling screen assemblies on each unit and a system be constructed to return impinged organisms to the estuary.
3.
Seasonal reductions in water flow be instituted, in 1987, a renewal of the permit allowed for an increase in water flow with the addition of a third fine mesh screen on each unit.
I l
L-
i RESPONSES TO Nt> MARC AQUATIC RESOURCE SURVEY OUlWl'lONS llRUNSWICK PLANT j
Several environmental reports including a 316 demonstration document, the NRC FES, and a series of CP&L emironmental monitoring reports serve as the basis for CP&L's response to the NUMARC survey for the Brunswick Plant. These reports will be referred to frequently in responding to each question.
1.
Post licensing modifications and/or changes in operations of intake and/or discharge systems may have altered the effects of the power plant on aquatic resources, or may have been made specifically to mitigate impacts that were not anticipated in the design of the plant. Describe any such modifications and/or operational changes to the condenser cooling water intake and discharge systems since the issuance of the Operating Ucense.
Response
}
Three modifications have been made at the Brunswick Plam to reduce fish and shellfish losses due to entrainment and impingement. One modification was the construction of a fish diversion structure at the mouth of the intake canal to prevent larger organisms from entering the canal (CP&L 1982 pg 71,1983 pg 6 5, and 1985 Appendix A pg A 1). Another modification was the installation of fine mesh (1 mm) screens on the intake travelling screens (CP&L 1985 App. A pg A 2,1988 pg 3 6).
As part of this modification, a return system was also installed to return organisms impinged on the intake screens to the estuary (CP&L 1985 pg 81 & Figure 1.3, and 1985a pg 5). The third modification was the initiation of flow minimir.ation regimes to reduce the amount of water withdrawn from the estuary for cooling purposes (CP&L.1985 App. A pg A 2 A 4,1988 pg 3 6 and 3 7).
2.
Summarine and describe (or prwide dammentation of) any known impacts on aquatic resources (e.g., fish kills, violations of discharge permit comiitions) or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) enforcement actions that have occurred since issuance of the Operating Ucense. How have these been resolved or changed over time? (The response' to this question should indicate
- whether impacts are ongoing or were the result of start-up problems that.were subsequently resolved.)
Response
Specific NPDES permit violations at the Brunswick Plant have been related i
to difficulties with the intake structure fine mesh screens. The permit requires
~
the use of fine mesh traveling screens. Initial problems arose with the attachment mechanism used to hold the screens to the screen frame. The attachment system has been modified to reduce the severity of the problem.
Also the pumps have tripped off line when the screens became clogged with w -w E-~, Eve ~ u--w - w+= 1*
e=M***-
- -"*-N*""
- ~ '
,o.m,.,-,,-,w.,mm,r,
..,ymsm~em,.-
eve--. w w
,w.w.
w.e-.r e-w w w-r r-
4 detritus or marine organisms in a bloom situation.
During the past 11 years,19 sea turtles (17 loggerheads and 2 Kemp's tidleys) have died as a result of being impinged on the trash tacks at the 13runswick Plant.
Ilowever, a recovely program implemented by CP&L has captured and released 31 turtles unharmed during the same period.
A $1,200.00 fine was paid by CP&L to the State of North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, DMslon of Coastal Management for an accidental discharge of dredge spoil material from the intake canal by a dredging contractor into a 0.6 acre tidal wetland. The fine was issued on June 26, 1987 and paid by CP&L on July 13, 1987. The area was restored by CP&L in compliance with the requirements of the Coastal Area Management Act.
Impacts to fisheries from plant operation are described in Question 5.
-3.
Chimges to the NPDES permit during operation of the plant ccmid indicate whether water quality parameters were detetmined to have no significant impacts (and were dropped from monitoring requirements) or were subsequendy raised as a water quality issue. Provide a brief summary of changes (and when they occurred) to the NPDES permit for the plant since issuance of the Operating Ucense.
Response
The changes in the permit for Brunswick Plant to date have been related to 316 issues. Since the plant was completed in the mid 1970's when 316 issues were the primary emphasis for power plants, the original permit reflected EPA's 316 concerns and required cooling tower construction. After several appeals, hearings, and emironmental studies related to 316 (a) and (b)
(discussed in response to question 9 and others), the permit was modilled to allow severr.1 modifications to the intake system as an alternative to cooling towers. Those modifications were completed in the early 1980's and have generally resolved the issue of 316 thermal effects (and related intake effects),
subject to on going studies.
f
)
4.
An examination of trends in the effects on aquatic resources monitoring can indicate whether impacts have increased, decreased, or remained relatively stable during operation.
Describe and summarize (or provide documentation of) results of monitoring of water quality and aquatic biota (e.g., related to NPDES permits, Emironmental Technical Specifications, site-specific monitoring required by federal or state agencies). What trends are apparent over time?
Response
Actual water quality has not been measured on a regular basis.
- However, tempert,te and salinity conditions in the estuary adjacent to the 13runswick Plant have been monitored weekly since 1982. Additional informelon can be found in CP&L 1983 section 2.0 volumes 1 and 2, CP&L 1984 section 2.0, CP&L 1985 section 2.0, CP&l 086 section 2.0, CP&L 1987 section 2.0, CP&L 1988 section 2.3.1, CP&L 1989 section 2.3.1 and CP&L 1990 section 2.3.1.
Trends in fish and shellfish populations in the Ccpe Fear Estuary vary from year to year. In most cases, the decreasing or increasing trends were probably caused by changes in fish at d shellfish immigration patterns as a result of freshwater inflow or poor recruitment of larvae to the estuary and not to plant operation. In 1989, twenty nine of forty time. series analyses showed that the density ofindividual species of larvae recruiting to the estuary remained stable or increased over the past 13 years. Similar results were noted for older fish and shellfish in the rnarshes where 26 of 32 time series analyses indicated stable or increasing populations over the past nine yeats. Additional information can be found in CP&L 1982 section 4.0, CP&L 1983 section 4.0 volumes 1 and 2, CP&L 1984 section 4.0, CP&L 1985 section 5.3.6, CP&L 1986 section 4.3.4, CP&L 1987 section 4.3.4, CP&L 1988 section 2.3.5, CP&L 1989 section 2.3.5, and CP&L 1990 section 2.3.5.
5.
Summarize types and numbers (or provide documentation) of organisms entrained and impinged by the condenser cooling water system since issuance of the Operating License.
Describe any seasonal patterns associated with entrainment and impingement. How has entrainment and impingement changed over time?
Response
Originally the types and numbers of entrained organisms followed the same seasonality patterns observed in the river (CP&L 1985 pg 9 2 9 3,1985a pg 19).
However, after the installation of fine mesh screens and the implementation of Dow-minimization, the observed peak abundance period for organisms entrained did not necessarily correspond to peaks observed in the river larval fish program (CP&L 1988 pg 3 4,1990 pg 3-2). To obtain numbers entrained, please refer to the entrainment rate tables contained in CP&L 1980 through 1990. Numbers oflarvae impinged can be obtained from the percent survival table presented in CP&L 1985 through 1990.
There was also a shift in impingement to smaller organisms due to fine mesh screen installation and the construction of the fish diversion structure (CP&L 1985a, pg 24).
Ilowever, the type and number and seasonal distribution of impinged organisms still generally rcflects their abundance in the estuary adjacent to the plant (CP&L 1980 p 6-62 6-64). Impingement rates of larger organisms may be higher during the winter months as a result of lower water temperatures (CP&L Interpretive Report 1980 p 6-45).
The numbers and sizes of organisms impinged have decreased as a result of plant intake modifications (CP&L Interpretive Report 1985 p 30). Impingement per million cubic meters of water pumped m 1988 decreased 787c by number and 797o by weight compared to the pre diversion structure period from 1977 to 1982 (CP&L Annual Report 1989 p 3 7).
6.
Aquatie habitat enhancement or restoration efforts (e.g., unadromous fish runs) during operation may have enhanced the biological communities in the vicinity of the plant. Alternatively, degradation of habitat or water quality may have resulted in loss of biological resources near the site. Describe any changes to aquatic habitats (both enhancement and degradation) in the vicirdly of the power plant since the issuance of the Operating License including those that may have resulted in different plant impacts than those initially predicted.
Response
Aquatic habitat enhancement at the Brunswick Plant site has occurred as a result of an intake stru:ture modification which returns live organisms to the estuary. A 3.24 hectare impingement return basin was constructed in 1983 near the plant to receive intake screen wash water. This basin is part of the system designed to increase the survival of impinged organisms at the Brunswick Plant. The basin was dredged to a level similar to that of a nearby tidal creek and joined this creek via an open:ng in the dike. Water depth, tidal action, substrate, fringe vegetation, temperature, and salinity in the return basin are similar to those of the adjoining tidal creek. Studies began in 1984 to compare the return basin and individual statiens in the adjacent creeks indicate population abendances and seasonal distributions of most species of fish and shellfish in the basin were simila. E er greater than those of the middle and upstream marsh areas. These results inonte hat the return basin is being utilized by transient estuarine organisms in the saac nanner as other upstream nursery habitats. Additional information can be foun j in CP&L 1985 section 5.3.7, CP&L 1986 section 4.3.5, CP&L 1987 section 4.3.3, CP&L 1988 section 2.3.4, CP&L 1989 section 2.3.4, and CP&L 1990 section 2.3.4,
7.
Plant operations may have had positive, negative, or no impact on the use of aquatic resources by others, liarvest by conunercial or recreatiomd fishermen may be constrained by plant operation. Alternatively commercial harvesting may be relatively large compared with fish kuses caused by the platit.
Describe (or provide documentation for) other nearby uses of waters affected by enoting water systems (e.g., swimming, boating, annual harvest by commercial and recreational fisheries) and how these impacts have changed since issuance of the Operating Ucense.
Response
Harvest by commercial fishermen is estimated to be relatively large compared to fish and shellfish loss due to Brunswick Plant operation. Imsses of penneic shrimp, blue crab, croaker, spot, and menhaden due to plant operations were less than 0.17% of the North Carolina Southern District Commercial Landings during 1984 (CP&L Interpretive 1985 p 23).
8.
Describe other sources of impacts on aquatic resources (e.g., industrial discharges, other power plants, agricultund runofI) that could contribute to cumulative impacts.
What are the relative contributions by percent of these sources, including the contributions due to the power plant. to overall water quality degradation and Irwscs of aquatic biota?
Response
An in depth review of the water quality of the Cape Fear River can be found in Chapter 5 of the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development and U.S. Water Resources Council's Status of Water Resources in the Cane Fear River Basin Cape Fear River Basin Study,1983. Included in the report is a discussion of the major point source discharges and non point source pollution. Chapter 9 of the report Energy and the River discusses CP&L's four power plants in the Cape Fear River Basin.
Because the Dnmswick Plant discharges only to the Atlantic Ocean, there is no discharge to the river to contribute to water quality degradation.
l f
i 9.
Prwide a copy of your section 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Report required ty the Clean W:,ste ', sic) Act. What Section 316(a) und (b) determinations have tren made by the regulatory authorities?
Response
l The Brunswick Plant 316 Demonstration document is a very detailed set of icports with over twenty volumes. More concise reports summarizing the results of the studies are two Interpretive Reports (CP&L 1980 and 1985).
The N.C. Division of Emironmental Management and the EPA determined that the Brunswick Plant could be operated wi hout cooling towers as long as t
intake modifications were installed to provide for reasonable protection of the environment.
n 5
T E
r r-r(a e,--
,--.q-,
y-e.2-e.-es,w
.y y-,
- e.,.,,
--v.-
-,,,,eo,,-,,.g,,w.--
+4c
-g-%*-
w"w,ev -w m--v=**e
~--vtmm+'+-+ew-ve,- + -* - * + ~ --
- vw*
--+-ev#***'Wr"--
DOCUMENTS CITED CP&L 1980a.
1979 monitoring program. BSEP Cape Fear Studies, Supplement 1.
Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
19801,. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Cape Feat Studies, Interpretive Report, January 1980. Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
_._1982. Brunswick Steam Eiectric Plant annual biological monitoring report,1981.
Carolina Power & Light Company, New flill, NC.
1983. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant annual biological monitoring report,1982.
Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
y 1984.
P
,ick Steam Electric Plant 1983 biological monitoring report, 1983.
Care'
.ower & Light Company N'ew Hill, NC.
_.1985a. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1984 biological monitoring report. Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
1985b. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant, Cape Fear Studies, Interpretive Report.
Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
1986. Brunswick Stea:a Electric Plant 1985 biological raonitoring report. Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
1987. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1986 biological monitoring report. Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
._._1988. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1987 biological monitoring report. Camlina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
1959. Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1988 biological monitoring report. Carolina Power & Light Company. New Hill, NC.
1990.
Brunswick Steam Electric Plant 1989 environmental monitoring report.
Carolina Power & Light Company, New Hill, NC.
NCDNR&CD and USWRC.1983. Status of water resources in the Cape Fe. River basin.
Nortt. Carolina Departmem of Natural Resources and Community Developraent and United States Water Resources Council, Raleigh, NC.
ATTACHMENT 2 RESPONSES TO NUMARC QUESTIONNAIRE TO SUPPORT PART 51 RULE CHANGE SOCIOECONOMIC QUESTIONS Carolina Power & Light Company BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT I
UNIT NOS. 1& 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-325 & 50-324/ LICENSE NOS. DPR-71 & DPR-62 Responses Apply to Entiro Site J
..w,.
~w
,~,,e
+
i SOCIOECONOMIC IMPACT OF DSEP 1.
Estimate the number of permanent workers on-site for the most recent year for which data are available.
For 1989, a total of 963 permanent CP&L workers and 520 contractor personnel were on-site at year end.
2.
Estimate the average number of permanent workers on site, in 5 year increments, starting with the jssuance of the plant's Operating Licw4.
1976:
Approximately 350 1981:
591 1986:
837 1990:
963 3.
Provide for the following 3 cases:
A.
a typical planned outage B.
an ISI outage C.
the largest single outage (in terms of # of workers involved) to date (1) estimate of additional workers involved (2) length of outage (3) months and year in which work occurred, and cost (4) exposure Items A and B can be concidered the same at DSEP.
ISI is performed on a 50/50 outage split, with the ILRT done on one of the-outages.
This only adds approximatelv week to the outage schedule.
Therefore, the outage d'
x would be approximately 10-11 weeks duration, dependi'-
wtather ILRT would be done.
A. and D.
(1)
Approximately 500 additional workers are utilized.
A.
and B.
(2) 10-11 weeks A.
and B.
(3)
As BSEP has 2 units, these dates vary depending on the year.
No typical schedule is followed, but duration is based on an eighteen month operational cycle between outages for each unit.
Cost would be between 9-10 million dollars.
4 '
4 A.:_and B.
(4)
Exposure "pected-on a
typical outage would be approximat=ly 500 Man Rom, based on future estimatos.
The most typical outage to date was the 16 week outages for U/1 and U/2 om 1987 and 1988.
Total exposure for these outages was 1400 Man Rom for each_ of these outages.
A partial job specific estimate is given below:
Jah Exposure (Man Rem)
Refuel Floor Activities 50 Insulation Removal / Replacement 30
- Reactor Bldg. Valve Maintenance 25 Drywell Valve Maintenance 25 Drywell Cleanup 25 Shiciding Support 20 LLRT/ILRT 18 Recirc. Pipe Chemical Decon 18 i
Servics Water System Insp.
18 CRD Removal / Replacement 15 IGSCC NDE 40 I&C Trouble Tickets (Not in Drywell) 40 Drywell Scaffolding 12 Inaccessible Snubbers' 9
I&C Undervessel Maintenance 9
SRV Rebuilding 9
General Area Supervisory, Houcekeeping,_
80 Surveillance, ana support activities C.
(1)
Approximately 1450 additional persons were on site for the majority of the oucago.
C.-
(2) and (3) 229 days was the duration of this outage, and it took place between 3/12/84 and 10/26/84.
-C.
(4).
Total exposure for this outage was 2738 Man Rom.
No job specific breakdown is 1available.
Total cost of this outage was approximately 21 million-dollars.
e ATTACHMENT 4 RESPONSES TO NUMARC QUESTIONNAIRE TO SUPPORT PART 51 RULE CilANGE WASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS Carolina Power & Light CoInpany H.
B.
ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 BRUNSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1&2 SHEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Responses Apply to Entire Site at All Three Plants
RESPONSE TO NUMARC SURVEY IN SUPPORT OF 10CFR51 ANPR A.
SPENT FUEL QUESTIONS PJ.E Mif IEiE 1.
A.
Reracking of spent fuel Completed Completed N/A B.
Control rod repositioning No No No C.
Above ground dry storage Yes No No D.
Longer fuel burnup 60,000 60,000 30,000
!GD/MTU MVD/MTU
!CDAmJ E.
Transshipment Late 1990 Yes Receipt Plant 2.
A.
Continue technique No Yes Yes B.
Change or modify Yes No No 3.
A.
Reracking of spent fuel B.
Control rod repositioning No No No C.
Above ground dry storage Maybe Maybe No D.
Longer fuel burnup 550,000 160,000 560,000 MWD /MTU MVD/MTU FfADAm)
E.
Transshipment Yes Yes Yes 4.
Techniques Adequate 1.
Operating license Yes Yes Yes 2.
20-year extension No No No 2.
Other plans No No No 5.
Acquire additional land 1.
Operating license No No No 2.
20-year extension No No No
6.
Additional construct activity 1.
Operating license No No No 2.
20-year extension Yes Yes Yes 7.
Amplification on Question 6 Should additional at-reactor spent fuel storage be required beyond the operating license, it vil' most likely be provided through above ground dry storage facilities or such other means as mav be technologically and economically acceptable.
4
/
B.
LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS YES ASSUMING Ti!E COMPLETION OF A SOUTilEAST COMPACT SITE FOR IJW 1.
LEVEL WASTE BURIAL.
(TilIS APPLIES TO ALL THREE PLANTS) 2.
COMPACTION, TilEN STORAGE IN AIR ABOVE GROUND STORAGE BUILDING / FACILITY.
POSSIBLE INCINERATION, TilEN STORAGE !"
BUILDING.
(TIIIS APPLIES TO ALL TilREE PLANTS) 3.
SEE NfTACHMENT 4.
SEE ATTACIIMENT
$k;p n
- 5. NO
-e h
6.
NA 7.
YES 8.
NO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TO DATE.
IN PRE-PLANNING w TO 9.
NO MAJOR PLANT MODIFICATIONS OR REFURBISilMENTS filt.T OR GENERATE UNUSUSAL VOLUMES OF LOW-LEVEL RADIOACTIVE WA"'"'
~
DURING, THE RELICENSING PERIOD FOR ALL THREE PLANTS.
PROBABLY JUST RECIRCULATION SYSTEM MODIFICATIONS, BUT NONE YET ANTICIPATED.
se 9
I i
NUMARC QUESTIONNAIRE SPECIPIC METNODS OF RW MANAGEMENT &
% CURRENT LLRW BY VOLUME IS MANAGED BY:
B.N.P.
[ Brunswick Nuclear Project)
< 10%
A.
COMPACTION:
50-60%
B.
WASTE SEGREGATION:
0 C.
DECONTAMINATION OF WASTES:
3-4% current 25-30% prior D.
WASTE SORTING: (CLEAN VS. CONTAMINATED.)
61%
E. OTHER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:
SPECIFIC METHODS A. Compacts higher activity D. A.W / filters and non incinerable low activity radwaste to conserve space & reduce number of packages stored onsite.
B.
Radwaste is segregated at the point of generation where practical. Clean or unnecessary packaging, bracing or containers are removed prior to entry into the power block area. Radwaste is also further segregated at the point of packaging for shipment.
C. Have onsite decon capability. Do not usually decontaminate waste products, unless it is cost justifiable. Decon priorities are on job / mod related components and tools / equipment.
D. Radwaste is sorted based on dose rates of the waste. If a waste iu <= 5 Mr/hr it is sorted to remove the items that cause the waste to be > 1mR/hr. Waste that is <= 1 Mr/hr is frisked to remove any clean waste from the contaminated wastes. Radwaste from known high contamination areas are not usually frisked.
E. Strive to keep the contaminated square feet of plant space to a minimum to prevent the generation of radioactive waste / material.
Have aggressive radwaste volume reduction program that attempts to eliminate generation of unnecessary radwaste and reduce the amount of radioactive material (tools & equipment) that become contam-inated. All low activity dry active waste is sorted / segregated and shipped to S.E.G.,
Inc.
for further volume reduction prior to burial.
l
ANTICIPATED PLANS FOR LLRW MANAGEMENT &
% OF ANTICIPATED LLRW VOLUME MANAGED BY:
B.N.P.
< 10%
A.
COMPACTION:
> 70%
B.
WASTE SEGREGATION:
0 C.
DECONTAMINATION OF WASTES:
< 10%
D.
WASTE SORTING: (CLEAN VS. CONTAMINATED.)
>61%
i OTHER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:
SPECIFIC PLANS A.
Do not foresce any change in current methods.
B.
Do not foresee any change to current methods.
C.
Do not foresee any change to current methods. Will keep up with changes in technology and change practices as necessary.
D.
Do not foresee any change to current methods. Will keep up with changes in technology and change practices as necessary. Also have to factor in the cost benefit of waste sorting / frisking.
If technology changes so it is cost prohibitive to.3 ort and frisk you may see a reduction in this area. Also, as control methods get better we should see less clean waste in the contaminated waste stream therefore eliminating the need to remove clean material.
E.
Do not foresee any change to current methods. Will strive to keep plant contaminated square footage to a minimum. Also plan to keep an aggressive volume reduction program for further up front elimination of radioactive waste. Plans are to keep sending low activity radwaste to S.E.G.
for reprocessing & volume reduction until current technology offers improved processing.
1
)
NUMARC QUESTIONNAIRE SPECIFIC METHODS OF RW MANAGEMENT &
% CURRENT LLRW BY VOLUME IS MANAGED BY:
R N.P.
(H.B. Robinson Nuclear Project) 0 A.
COMPACTION:
60-75%
B. WASTE SEGREGATION:
1-5%
C.
DECONTAMINATION OF WASTES:
70%
).
WASTE SORTING: (CLEAN '
CONTAMINATED.)
75%
E.
OTHER MANAGEMENT PR-SPECIFIC METHODS A.
No onsite compactior reduce radwaste volume.
B.
Radwaste is segregated at
.o y
m? generation where practical. Clean or unnecessary package,g, bracing or containers are removed prior to entry into the power block area. Radwaste is also further segregated at the point of packaging for shipment.
C. Onsite decon is job specific. Do not usually decontaminate waste products, unless it is cost justifiable. Decon priorities are on job / mod related components and tools / equipment.
D. Radwaste is sorted based on dose rates of the waste. If a waste is <= 5 Mr/hr it is sorted to remove the items that cause the waste to be > 1mR/hr. Waste that is <= 1 Mr/hr is frisked to remove any clean waste from the contaminated wastes. Radwaste from known high contamination areas are not usually frisked.
E. Strive to keep the contaminated square feet of plant space to a minimum to prevent the generation of radioactive waste / material.
All low activity Dry active waste is sorted / segregated and shipped to S.E.G.,
Inc. for further volume reduction prior to burial.
ANTICIPhTED PLANS FOR LLRW MANAGEMENT &
% OF ANTICIPATED LLRW VOLUME MANAGED BY:
R.N.P.
O A.
COMPACTION:
> 75%
B. WASTE SEGREGATION:
1-5%
C.
DECONTAMINATION OF WASTES:
< 70%
D. WASTE SORTING: (CLEAN-VS. CONTAMINATED.)
75%
E.
OTHER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:
SPECIFIC PLANS A.
Do not foresee any onsite radwaste compaction for volume reduction.
B.
Do not foresee any change to current methods.
C.
Do not foresee any change to current methods. Will keep up with changes in technology and change practices as necessary.
D. Do not foresee eny change to current methods. Will keep up with changes in technology and change practices as necessary. Also have to factor in the ' cost benefit of waste corting/ frisking.
If technology changes so it is cost prohibitive to sort and frisk you may see a reduction in this area. Also, as control methods-get better we should see less clean waste in the contaminated waste stream therefore eliminating the need to remove clear. material.
E.
Do not fore.see any change to current methods. Will strive to keep plant contaminated square footage to a minimum. Plans are to keep sending low activity radwaste to S.E.G.
for reprocessing &
volume reduction until current technology offers improved processing.
.~
NUMARC QUESTIONNAIRE SPECIFIC METHODS OF RW MANAGEMENT &
% CURRENT LLRW BY VOLUME IS MI.NAGED BY:
' Harris Nuclear Project)
H.N.P.
O A.
COMPACTION:
60-70%
B.
WASTE SEGREGATION:
1-5%
C.
DECONTAMINATION OF WASTES:
50-75%
- 0. WASTE SORTING: (CLEAN VS. CONTAMINATED.)
80-85%
E.
OTHER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:
SPECIFIC METHODS A.
No onsite compaction done currently done to reduce radwaste volumes.
B. Radwaste is segregated at the point of generation as practical.
Clean or unnecessary packaging, bracing or other material removed prior. to entering the power block area.
Radwaste is further segregated at the packaging station prior to shipment.
C._Onsite decon is_ job specific. Waste products are not routinely decontaminated. Decon priorities are on job / mod related equipment and tools / equipment.
D. Radwaste is sorted based on dose rates of the waste. All waste that is <.5 Mr/hr is sorted and frisked to remove clean items.
Approximately 50 % er better of this levol waste is finally removed as clean material. Wastes up to 2 mR/hr are sorted to remove all items >
.5 mR/hr. Then the waste is frisked to recover clean material.
E.
Keep contaminated square feet-of plant space to a minimum to prevent generation of radioactive waste / material. All low activity dry active waste is sorted / segregated and shipped to S.E.G.,
Inc.
for further volume reduction prior to burial.
m i
ANTICIPATED PLANS FOR LLRW MANAGEMENT &
% OF ANTICIPATED LLRW VOLUME MANAGED BY:
H.N.P.
+
0 A.
COMPACTION:
>70%
B. - WASTE SEGREGATION:
1-5%
C.
DECONTAMINATION OF '."'TES :
<75%
D. WASTE SORTING: (CLEAN VS. CONTAMINATED.)
75%
E.
OTHER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES:
--~~--
SPECIFIC PLANS A.
Do - not foresee any onsite radwaste compaction for volume reduction.
B.
Do not foresee any change to current methods.
C.
Do not foresee any change to current methods. Will keep up with changes in technology and chenge practices as necessary.
D. Do not foresee any' change to current methods. Will keep up with changes in technology and change practices as necescary. Also have to factor in the cost benefit of waste sorting / frisking.
If technology changes so it is cost prohibitive to cort and frisk, you may see a ' reduction in this area. also, as control methods get
.better we should see less clean waste in the contaminated waste
- stream, therefore eliminating the need to remove the clean
-material.
l E.
Do not foresee any change to current methods. Will strive to l-keep plant contaminated square footage to a minimum. Plant are to keep sending low activity radwaste to S.E.G.
for reprocessing &
volume reduction until current technology offers improved processing.
l -.
l i
I
0 6
ATTACEMENT 5 RESPONSES TO NUMARC QUESTIONNAIRE TO SUPPORT PART 51 RULE CllANGE SOCIOECONOMIC QUESTION # 4 Carolina PoWor & Light Company H.
B.
ROBINSON STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NO. 2 BRUSWICK STEAM ELECTRIC PLANT, UNIT NOS. 1h2 SilEARON HARRIS NUCLEAR POWER PLANT Responso Applios to Entire Site at All Throo Plants
N QUESTID1: 10 understand the plants fiscal 1sportance to specific jurisdictions, for 1980, 1985, and the latest year for which cata are available, estimate the entire plant's taxable assessed value and the aaou.t of tares paid to the state and to each local taxin9 Jurisdiction.
FESF0NSE:
BRUNSWICK HARRIS s0 fin:0M 1980 1985 1939 1920 1985 lis?
1950 1935 1980 IAXABLE ASSESSED VALUE 525,835,352 659,471,367 e49,537,154 4t0.323,107 1.353,522.343 1.385.43: 199 10,237.259 18,210,973 27.7c7,3C4 TAXES FAID 2,239,511 4,187,643 4,124,561 3,821,180 7.9Ee.13e 10.444,922 1,322,:e7 2.194.42:
4,162,575