ML20079N379

Response to NUMARC Survey in Support of NRC License Renewal Rulemaking

ML20079N379
Person / Time
Site:	South Texas
Issue date:	11/11/1991
From:	HOUSTON LIGHTING & POWER CO.
To:
References
RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110190
Download: ML20079N379 (22)

Text

.

. A 4

UTILITY r're fr, . /d '

dn a- M ) i .o e i

'7

• SITE 5 .< r N I

' 'a 't ~r- 1 ENCLOSURES Co- c 's f , Yi " a n ' ' '

L c,) $ , W r_ s r , .h S, .r'th ' W 'N SD'

,' , $ t e 'b 3 ' kD is, pf*h 1,

i.

e' 9111110190 911111 PDR NUREO l

1437 C PDR

VASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS A. Spent fuel questions:

b 1. Which of the following ntr. test; techniques for at-reactor storage are you using and how?

Response

A. Re racking of spent fuel.

B. Longer fuel burnup.

2. Do you plan on continuing the use of these current techniques for at-reactor storage of spent fuel during the remaining time of your opertting license or do you expect to change or modify them in some way?

Brstonse No alternates planned at this time.

l 3. Which of the following techniques for at reactor storage do you anticipate using until off site spent fuel storage becomes available and how?

.- Response 4

A. Re racking of spent fuel.

B. Control rod repositioning.

C. Longer fuel burnup.

4. Vill the techniques described above be adequate for continued at reactor storage of spent fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period oi license renewal or are you devoleping other plans?

Response

The techniques described above will not be adequate, but alternatives have not been developed.

5. Do you anticipate the need to acquire additional land for the storage of spent-fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal? If so, how much land? When would this acquisition occur? Where? (if answer is "yes", 3 4 sentences)

Response

L.*

T No additional land will be nanded.

.\

A1/033.k15

PaSe 2

, 6. Do you anticipate any additional construction activity on-site, or immediately adjacent to the power plant site, associated with the

. continued at-reactor storage of spent fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20 year period of license renewal? (yes/no)

~

Resoonse Undetermined et this time,

, 7. If you answered yes to question 6, briefly describe this construction.

activity (e.g., expansion of fael storage pool, building above ground dry storage facilities)

Response

Unknown B. Low-level radioactive waste management questions:

1. Under the current scheme for LLRW disposal (i.e., LLRW Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and regional compacts) is there currently or will sufficient capacity for wasces generated during the licenso ~cuewa'.'. period be .

vailable to your plant (s)? If so, what is the ba. s for this i

- conclusice?

Response

6 The State of Texas is planning a LLRW disposal site that will supply the disposal capacity needed, However, it must b3 noted that Toxas facility

- may not be open before January 1,1993, If Texa: is excluded, short-term onsite storage may be necessary,

2. If for any reason your plant (s) is/are denied' access to a licen.ed disposal site for a short period of time, what plans do you have for continued LLRW disposal?

Response

'hort-term onsite storage capabilities .are being examined by site engineering personnel.

A1/033.N15

Page 3

3. In a couple of pages, please describe the specific methods of LLRW management currently utilized by your plant. What percentage of your current LLRW (by volume) is managed by:

Response

a) No waste compaction is utilized at: STPEGS. (0%)

b) Personnel are trained to segregate vaste as contaminated and non contaminated when they dispose of this material. Extensive sorting / segregation to remove non-radioactive material is not performed. (0%)

c) No decontamination of wastes is performed. (0%)

d) Sorting is performed to reuove materials not acceptable at the burial site or offsite processor. Othe rwise , sorting is performed to separate compactable and non compactable for )ffsite processing.

(100%)

e) N/A

4. In a c ;uple of pages, please describe the anticioated plans for LL2W manage.ent to be utilized by your plant (s) during the remainder of the operatit., license and through the license renewal term. What percentage of your anticinated waste (by volume) will be managed by:

_ Response a) No vaste cocpaction will be utilized at STPEGS. (0%)

b) No change from current methodology. (0%)

c) No decontamination of waste is anticipated. (0%)

d) No change from current methodology. (100%) s e) N/A

5. Do you anticipate tha need to acquire additional land for the-storage of spent-fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renawal? If so, how much land? When would this acquisition occur? Vaere? (if answer is "yes", 3-4 sentences)

Resporse No additional land will be needed.

6. To provide information on the timing of future low-level waste streams,

, if you answered yes to question #5, over what periods of time are these activities contemplated?

Rescense N/A A1/033.N15 l

- . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ _ J

Page 4

, 7. Do you anticipate any additional construction activity on-site, or immediately adjacent to the power plant site, associated with the temporary LLRW storage of spent fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20 year period of license renewal? (yes/no)

Response

No

8. If you answered yes to question 7, briefly dascribe this ccnstruction activity (e,5., storaSe areas for steam generator components or other materials exposed to reactor environment),

Response

N/A

9. To provide information on future low level waste streams which may effect workforce lavels, exposure, and waste compact planning, do you anticipate any major plant modifications or refurbishment that are likely to generate unusual volumes of low level radioactive waste prior to, or during, the relicensing period for the plant? If so, please describe these activities. Also, what types of modifications do you

- anticipato to be necessary to achieve license renewal operation through a 20 year license renewal term?

Response

No plans currently.

C. Mixed low-level radioactive waste question:

1. If your plant generates mixed LLRW, how is it currently being stored and what plans do you have for managing this vaste during the license renewal period?

4 4

A1/033.N15 l

AQUATIC RESOURCE QUESTIONS Based on our pilot study, the Aquatic Resource questions should take approximately 40 man hours to answer.

1. Post-licensing modifications and/or changes in operations of intake and/or diccharge 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. Deacribe any such modifications and/or operational changes to the condenser cooling water intake and discharge systems since the issuance of the Operating License.

Response

No significant modifications have been made to the plant intake and discharge systems since the issuance of the OL.

2. summarize and describe (or provide documentation of) any known impacts on aquatic resources (e.g. , fish kills, violations of discharge permit conditions) or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) enforcement actions that have occurred since issuance of the Operating License. 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

Plant operation has not resulted in any known adverse impact on the aquatic environment. During the period August 1989 - August 1990, five fish kills occurred in the STP Main Cooling Reservoir. All five events were restricted to the area near the circulating water discharge.

Investigations by site and-Environmental _ Department personnol-have not been able to determine an exact cause of these events.

In August, 1987, the EPA issued an Administrative Order as a result of alleged permit exceedences at the plant sewage and oily waste treatment systems. Appropriate ccrrective actions were taken and the Order was closed on June 12, 1989. Since commercial operation of Unit 1, isolated

, nonradiological treatment system difficulties have resulted in reportable noncompliant conditions under both the state and federal vastewater discharge permits. There are no continuing noncompliant conditions at this time.

~

e A1/033.N15

Page 2

. 3. Changes to the NPDES permit during operation of the plant could indicate whether water quality parameters were determined to have no significant impacts (and were dropped from monitoring requirements) or were

. subsequently 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 License.

Response

A renewed an amended EPA wastewater discharge permit became effective on August 16, 1988. The renewed permit incorporated several revisions including the implementation of biomonitoring requirements, the lowering of the minimum requirements changes. The changes made to the permit resulted from general regulatory program revisions or applicant requested changes to increase operational flexibility. The changes were not in response to any existing plant specific water quality issue.

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 summarito (or provide documentation of) results of monitoring of water quality and aquatic biota (e.g., relatud to NPDES permits Environmental Technical Specifications, site-specific monitoring required by federal or state

- agencies). What trends are apparent over time?

Resoonse Nekton and plankton were sampled in the Colorado River in 1973 at the planned site of the Reservoir Makeup Pumping Facility (RMPF) . Similar samples vera taken in 1983-85 in front of the RMPF during reservoir filling operations. No significant differences were seen between these

-two sample sets, sn no trends were apparent.

5. Summarize types and numbers (or provide documentation) of organisms entrained and impinged by the condenser cooling water system since issuanec of the Operating License. Describe any seasonal patterns associated with entrainment and impingement. How has entrainment and impingement changed over time.

Response

The condenser cooling water intake is located in the Main Cooling Reservoir and does not impact state waters. Entrainment and impingement at the condenser cooling water intake have not been studied. The RMPF is located on the Colorado River and is th; facility that could have a potential impact on state waters. No studies have been made_since the issuance of the Operating License, but impingement and entrainment

. studies were carried out at the RMPF during reservoir filling operations in 1983-85.

A1/033.N15

Page 3 A list of the impinged species is attached. The most abundant species impinged was Peneaus setiferus, closed fvilowed by Callinects sacidus.

The calculated total weight of all animals impinged per day was

. approximately 10 kg, a negligible amount compared to the populations in the river.

Attached are copies of tables from the study reports showing entrained organisms. Callinects sanidus megalops was the most abundant organism followed by Rhithronanoceus harrisii and Macrobrachium ohione. Due to the limited time of year during which sampling was conducted, no seasonal pattern vns detected. A diurnal pattern was seen, with more animals entrained at night.

6. Aquatic habitat enhancement or restoration efforts (e.g., anadromous fish runs) during operation may have enhanced the biological conmunities 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 vicinity 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

Following is a list of aquatic habitats in the vicinity of the plant and any changes that have occurred in them since issuanca of the OL.

1. Colorado River - no change.

2. Kelly Lake - There is shoreline encroachment by emergent vegetation, which is the normal eutrophic pattera for such a shallow lake.

3. Main Cooling Reservoir - Pumpage has increased the depth of water, shading out some large beds of Potamogeton, replacing them with more open water habitat.

4, Relocated Little Robbins Slough .This ditch has been cleaned out and lined with a porous gravel liner.

5. plant Area Drainage Ditch - Also cleaned out and lined with porous gravel liner.

7. Plant operations may have had positive, negative, or no impact on the use of aquatic resources by others. Harvest by commercial or recreational fishermen may be constrained by plant operation.

Alternatively commercial harvesting may be relatively large compared with fish losses caused by the plant. Describe (or provide documentation for) other nearby uses of waters affected by cooling water systems (e.g., swimming, boating, annual harvest by commercial and recreational fisheries) and how these impacts have changed since issunnee of the Operating License.

Response

Use of nearby waters (Colorado River) is primarily boating, both recreational and barges, and recreational fishing. Plant operations have had no significant impact on these uses.

A1/033.N15

4 Page 4

8. Describe other sources of impacts on aquatic resources (e.g., industrial

~

discharges, other power plants, agricultural runoff) 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 o.erall water quality degradation and losses of aquatic biota?

Eastonse Other sources of potential impact on nearby waters are agricultural runoff and possibly discharges from industrial plants upstream on the Colorado River. No information is available as to the impact of these sources. Discharges from the plant have negligible impact on the river.

9. Provide a copy of your Section 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Report required by the Clean Vaste Act. What Section 316(a) and (b) determination have been made by the regulatory authorities?

Response

The intake structure at the RMPF was approved as Best Available Technology in accordance with Section 316(b) of the Clean Vater Act. No Section 316(b) demonstration has been required to date.

4 9

A1/033.N15

l SOCIOECONOMIC QUESTIONS FOR ALL UTILITIES )

l

~

1. To understand the importance of the plant and the degree of its l socioeconomic impacts on the 1,. cal region, estimate the number of 1

. permanent workers on-site for the most recent year for which data are i available.  !

Response

l There are 1584 permanent workers onsite at the South Texas Project Electric Generating Station (STPEGS).

2. To understand the importance of the plant to the local region, .and how that has changed over time, estimate the average number of permanent -

workers on site, in five year increments starting with the issuance of the plant's Operating License. If possible, provide this information for each unit at a plant site.

Response

It has been less than five years since the issuance of Opereting Licenses.

3. To undetstand the potential impact of continued operation for an

. additional 20 years beyond the oriB inal licensing term, please provide for the following three cases:

A) a typical planned outage; B) an ISI outage; and C) the largest single outage (in terms of the number of workers involved) that has occurred to date an estimate of additional workers involved (for the entire outage and for each principal task), length of outage, months and year in which work occurred, and cost. Also, estimata occupational doses received by permanent and temporary workers during each principal task.

Response

For a typical planned outage 500 additional workers are involved.

STPECS does not perform separate ISI outages.

The largest single outage used 500 additional workers.

Dose estimate is unavailable.

9 A1/033.N15

Page 2

4. To understand the plant's fiscal importance to specific jurisdictions, for 1980, 1985, and the latest year for which data are available, estimate the entire plant's taxable assessed value and the amount of taxes paid to the state and to each local taxing jurisdiction.

Response

1980 8 12_81 8 128.2 Assessed Value 215,038,091 1,068,544,273 2,115,374,018 Advalorem Tax 551,261 11,246,803 21,115,453 (1981)

Sales Tax 2,801,905 4,046,891 3,156,157 e

A1/033.N15

SPECIES IMPINGEMENT AT STP RIVER M A K EllP

. PUMPING FACILITY 1983-85 Penaeus aztecus P. sotiferus P. duorarum Macrobrachtum acanthurus i M. ohtone H, olfersi Palaemoneten kadiakensis P. paludosus Callinectes sa pa dun P.h t t hropa nope us barrisii Micropanope sculptipes Procambarus-blanding1 acutus _

Brevoortta patronus Anchoa matchillt Gambus1a a f f'i n i s Poecilta latipinna

. Menidia beryllina Lepomis cyanellus Cynoseton arenarius Micropogonias undulatus Gobiomorus dormitator Bathygobius soporator Gobiosoma boset Gobtonellus boleocoma G. shufeldtt Achirus Itneatue A. maculatus e

L I

TABLE 18 3

, NUMBER (PER 100 M ) 0F MACR 0 ZOOPLANKTON AND ICHTHYOPLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE SILTATION BASIN BY 0.5-M PLANKTON NET ON 9-10 AUGUST 1983 I

J TAXA TIME (CST) 1100 1640 2230 0450 l

Neanthes succinea 10.3 Pelecypoda juveniles 10.3 Argulus spp. 12.4 Penaeus setiferus postlarvae 12.4 209.8 f Macrobrachium ohione 323.1 149.1 20.5 116.6 Rhithropanopeus harrisii zoeae 48.5 12.4 30.8 93.2 Callinectes spp, megalopa 40.4 51.3 23.3 is E sapidus juveniles 16.2 46.6 ,,

p, Anchoa mitchilli 51.3 1 Gambusia affinis 23.3 I

i

< l 37 1

i 1 - - .. - - - _

TABLE 19 3

NUMBER (PER 100 M ) 0F MACR 0Z00 PLANKTON AND ICHTH(0 PLANKTON COLLECTED IN THE SILTATION BASIN BY 0.5-M PLANKTON NET ON 15-16 SEPTEMBER 1983 4

TAXA TIME (CST) 1100* 1705 2250 0545 Polychaeta larvae 14.1 Pelecypoda juveniles 28.3 t'. licyclors spp. 42.4 Oitnana spp. 14.1

,Per.teus seciferus postlarvae 15.5 283.2 14.1 Macrobrachium ohione 14.9 14.1 Palaemonetes paludosus 14.9 Rhitt.ropanopeus harrisii zoeae 309.1 685.5 466.8 Callint:tes sapidus juveniles 14.1 Gambosia affinis 14.9 l

• No organisms in sample 38

TABLE 12 3

NUMBER (PEP 100 M ) 0F MACR 0 ZOOPLANKTON AND ICHTHYOPLANKTON COLLECTED I'4 THE SILTATION BASIN BY 0.5-M PLANKTON NET ON 6 SEPTEMBER 1984 TAXA TIME (C5T) _

! 0020 0500 ,1030 1615 Sagitta spp. 12.9 Daphnia spp. 25.7

, Acartia tonsa 38.6 Harpactacoid copepodida 38.6

' i' Argulus spp. 12.9 12.9 12.9 Callianassa spp. zoeae 51.4 Rhithropanopeus harrisii zoeae 51.4 77.1 552.7 115.7 Unidentified fish larvae 12.9 l'

4

)

1 I

i h

1 I

ll 21

!H IL I

TABLE 11 I

NUMBER (PER 100 M ) 0F MACROZ00 PLANKTON AND FISH COLLECTED FROM THE RMPF PIPELINE BY 0.5-MM MESH PLANKTON NET ON 4-5 SEPTEMBER 1985 TAXA TIME (CST) g 1600 2405 0450 1045 Argulus spp. 10.8 Penaeus aztecus postlarvae 21.8 21.8 Macrobrachium g antharus juv. 65.5 65.5 M_. ohionc juv. 32.8 425.8 742.4 53.8 Paguridea glaucathoe 43.7 76.4 10.8 Callinectes sapidus juv. 10.9 Rhithropanopeus harrisii ::oeae 32.8 43.7 10.8 Unidentified fish eggs 10.8 1.

Unidentified fish larvae 10.9 l'

Gobiosoma bosci 10.9 P

t t...

I i

I 20

TABLE 12

~

NUMBER (PER 100 M ) OF MACR 0200 PLANKTON AND FISH COLLECTED FROM THE RMPF PIPELINE BY 0.5-MM MESH PLANKTON NET ON 17-18 SEPTEMBER 1985

$ l TAIA _

TIME (CST)

I 1346 1920 0115 0710*

, Polychaeta (Nereidae) 46.6 i i Argulus spp. 9.5 9.3 1 Rhithropanopeus harrisii zocae 18.6 Gambusia affinis 9.3 i

I

? *No organisms caught e

/

,p i

t a

r nR p' m t,t

TABLE 14 1

NUMBER (PER 100 M ) 0F MACR 0 ZOOPLANKTON AND FISH COLLECTED FROP THE RMPF PIPELINE BY 0.5-mm MESH PLANKTON NET ON 8-9 OCTOBER 1985 TIME (CST)

TAXA 1500 2055 0240 0840 Hereidae 9.5 Pelecypoda juveniles 9.5 Sagitta spp. 9.5 9.5 Caligus spp. 9.5 Argulus spp. 18.9 18.9 9.5 Mysidopsis almyra 9.5 Corophium louisianum 9.5 9.5 Penaeus aztecus postlarvae 9.5 P. setiferus postlarvae 47.3 Palaemonetes spp. =ceae 9.5

~

Clibanarius vittatus glaucathoe 37.9 Callinectes spp, megalopa 1059.2 274.6 7092.1 94.7 C. sapidus juveniles 18.9 Rhithropanopeus barris11 =ceae 9.6 18.9 28.4

! Xanthidae megalopa 9.5 Anchoa mitchilli 9.6 104.2 47.3 9.5 Syngnathus spp. 9.5

Micropogonias undulatus 9.5 Cobiosoma bosci 18.9 Microgobius spp. 9.5 1

4 4

i 34

~ ~ " ' ' -

1  : _ ~,, - m,-,.,#.y m ,, mi. .J, .w.:-

l l

TABLE 15 NUMBER (PER 100 M ) 0F MACR 0200 PLANKTON AND FISH RMPF PIPELINE BY 0.5-mm MESH PLANKTON NET ON 22-23 TAYA TIME (CST) 1520 2043 0255 0850 Lumbriculfdae 12.7 Dero spp. 11.1 Diaptomus spp. 11.1 12.7 38.1 UnidentifJed Harpacticoida 33.4 11.1 11,1 Mvsidop11s almyra 101.7 33.4 Corophium louisianum 50.9 11.1

_Penaeus _setiferus postlarvae Callinectes sapidus juveniles 22.2 l

22.2 4 Rhithropanopeus harrisii zoeac 12.7 11,1 Anchoa mitchilli 11,!

12.7 114.4 111.3 33.4 I

e 35

TABLE 16 NUMBER (PER 100 M ) 0F MACROZ00 PLANKTON AND FISil COLLECTED FROM Tile RMPF PIPELINE BY 0.5-mm MESH PLANKTON NET ON 31 OCTOBER - 1 NOVEMBER 1985 TIME (CST) 1400 2025 0220 0840 TAXA l

l l Acartia tonsa 38.3 i

Centro 9nges typicus 9.7

[

Mysidopsis almyra 10.2 9.6 Taphromysis louisianac 9.6 Corophium louisianum 10.2 Peneaus aztecus postlarvac 19.2 9.7 P. setiferus postlarvae 10.2 19.2 9.7 I Palaemonetes spp. zoeae 9.6 9.7 Callinectes spp megalopa 19.2 C. sapidus juveniles 47.9 Micropogonias undulatus 9,6 9.7 s

I i

1 l

l y

'l '

I 1

l

( .i t

I

d TABLE 17 NUMBER (PER 100 M ) 0F MACR 0 ZOOPLANKTON AND FISH COLLECTED FROM THE

• RMPF PIPELINE BY 0.5-mm MESH PLANKTON NET ON 6-7 NOVEMBER 1985 TIME (CST) 1135 1735 0005 0600 TAXA Jellyfish medusae 9.4 9.6 9.6 Caligus spp.

9.7 Argulus spp.

9.7 Mysidopsis almyra Callinectes sapidus juveniles 9.7 29.2 Anchoa mitchilli 37.5 143.8 136.3 86.3 Micropogonias undulatus t

37

TABLE 18 NUMBER (PER 100 M ) 0F MACROZ00 PLANKTON AND FISH COLLECTED FROM THE i -

RMPF PIPELINE BY 0.5-cm MESH PLANFTON NET ON 14-15 NOVEMBER 1985 TIME (CST) 1330 2005 0115- 0800 TAXA Pelecypoda juveniles 12.2 Daphnia spp. 12.5 24.4 Simocephalus spp. 12.2 Diaptomus spp. 49.8 36.7 47.9 24.4 Hemicyclops spp. 12.5 Macrocyclops spp. 36.7 12.0 12.2 Taphromys,is louisianae 24.4 Corophium louisianum 12.5 Hyalella azteca 12.5 4

38