ML20079N404

Response to NUMARC Survey in Support of NRC License Renewal Rulemaking

ML20079N404
Person / Time
Site:	Diablo Canyon
Issue date:	08/27/1990
From:	PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
To:
References
RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110216
Download: ML20079N404 (20)

Text

b

' h M kb e..

0 o

^

UTILITY I c C I bl.c ras 4 b \e ckri c_ O SITE 3;c\Ao ENCLOSURES knsu;er5 -fz) S(>c[,$e(WArwI< .

nv bed [crn) t W Gems-gesen 4

f e

b.,

44 6

4 9111110216 900027 PDR NUREQ 1437 C PDR

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

s fp pG&E Letter No. NUMARC-90-006 3

ENCLOSURE NUMARC SURVEY SOCIOECONOMIC OUESTIONS FOR THE CA_SE STUDY SITES A.. Employment and Expenditures

1. -To understand the importance of the plant to local communities, and how that han changed over time, provida estimates of total plant expenditures, by local community, for equipment, materials, and services used in normal operations for the most recent year data are available.-

PG&E Response:

For'the year 1989, the most recent. year data is available, plant expenditures for equipment, materials, and services in the San Luis Obispo and Santa Maria California areas is estimated at 9.2 million-dollars.

2. To understand the possible effect of-the plant on the local econocy, how do the average salaries paid to

-plant: employees compare to average salaries for

, comparable jobs, if they exist, in the local area l (e.g., engineers, secretaries, custodial personnel, electronics technicians, maintenance journeymen, food service employees)?

j PG&E Resoonse:

~

In' general, the average salaries-paid to: plant--

l personnel are significantly-higher than for-comparable

. positions within the' local 1 area. A recent study completed by the San Luis:Obispo Chamber of Commerce

. indicates that the average family-income for the

, immediate county area in-1989 was-$35,722 and the L median income'was $30,257.

, For plant employees during 1989, the average base L . salary for_ clerical employees was $34,445, janitors L $30,030, maintenance. machinist $45,465, and electronics technician $46,820.

5002S/0085K- l L

3.. To understand the possible effect of the plant.on the local economy, what programs has-the utility sponsored

-in~the-local area to improve employment opportunities,_

such as hiring policies, job training programs, or industrial recruitment.

PG&E Resoonse In the local area the Company is heavily involved in community a:tivities and charitable organizations. The  !

Company hat. Also contributed in areas of child care,-

education land social' awareness. Whenever possible the-company focuses recruiting activities on candidates from the local erea.

4. To understand the importance of the plant to specific jurisdictions near the plant, what is the current distribution, by city and county or-zip code of ,

residence, of permanent workers on site?

PG&E Resoonse The following table represents the distribution of PG&E employees on site-(permanent and contract).that live in the 934XX postal area code, which represents the-San-Luis Obispc County area.

Note: Contract workers cannot be separated from this distribution since they are on PG&E's payroll.

f

.h 5002S/0085K' - _ _ _ . __ __ _ . _ ,.

?

4 Zip code Location EInnlovee Count 93401 501 93402 159 93403 19 93404 4 93405 25 93406 11 93407 1 93409 1 93410 1 m 93412 6 93420 415 93421 2 93422 265 93423 8 93424 91 93426 1 93427 1 93428 7 93429 1 93430 10 93432 8 93433 202 93434 2 93436 5 93437 1 93438 1 93439 1 93440 2 93442 43 -

93443 2 93444 57 93445 76 93446 90 93447 1 93448 4 93449 140 93451 2 93452 1 93453 20 93454 165 93455- 63 93456 5 93457 1 93461 1 93463 1 93465 45 93466 1 93476 1 93483 2 5002S/0085K -3 -

B. Taxes

1. What types of local taxes must be paid on the plar.t and property?

2. To what jurisdictions are these taxes paid?

3. What types of state taxes must be paid on the plant and property?

4. For each tax type, please estimatt- the total amount the utility paid to each relevant state and local jurisdiction in 1980, 1985 and 1989 (or the most recent year for which data are available).

EQ&E Response:

The response to these four questions was sent in a PG&E letter to NUMARC dated July 6, 1990. The PG&E letter number was NUMARC-90-004.

5. Have major plant modifications or refurbishment affected the plant's taxable assessed value?

PG&E Response:

Yes.

6. Would an extended outage for major plant modifications or refurbishment result in a temporary cessation or reduction of tax payments to state and/or local governments?

PG&E Response:

No. However, some tax structure modifications would be expected for outages that extend beyond one year.

7. Would tax payments cease in the event of plant decommissioning?

PG&E Response:

No.

I 5002S/008BK -4 -

l l

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

4-

-4

-C. Public~ Services 1._ Please 33timate the. total annual plant expenditure _for each fee-paid public service-(e.g., water, sewer, etc.)  :

in five year intervals since plant operations-began.

PG&E Resoonsat-PG&E does not use_ municipal water or sewage services at

~the_Diablo canyon Units 1 and 2 site due to the remote location of the plant. PG&E holds permits to operate self-contained water and sewage facilities at the Diablo canyon site. The facilities are operated by contracted pelaonnel.

I 5002S/O'085K . . _ . _ . . _ . . - - . . -. . _

/

4 e

d UTILITY (i t s hi t I$ t( 4 6lrekrit (o SITE l'i n b\ e On .s i i n n (i nil s

\ and 1 l~

ENCLOSURES _CLS ui4 M h c1 Lu t ', nt%t i e ,--- _

.. (N h r k n e nk b 5tCH\o [n n a, e n \ o ta r r P\r,$

F,'n<1 f<oor&

Th erad E 6 L cb Ibni er.rS 4 hree, rem Unlon,I d l'omh 3 Qic'er Inhie $ frochec 3 I b (b) O men s & r c4,en i

i  %

PGLE Letter No. NUKARC-90-004 ENCLOSURE A NUKARC SURVEY RASTE_BMAGEMENT COESTIONS A. Spent fuel questions:

1. Which of the following current techniques for at-reactor storage are you using and how?

A. Re-racking of spent fuel.

B. Control rod repositioning.

C. Above ground dry storage.

D. Longer fuel burnup.

E. Other (please identify).

EGLE Resoorse:

Both spent fuel pools at the Diablo Canyon Plant have been re-racked and now provide adequate spent fuel storage capacity to around the year 2008.

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

EGLE Resoonse:

Other techniques for spent fuel storage will be required during the later years of operation. No firm decisions have been made on the techniques that will be used, however, above ground dry storage and fuel rod consolidation appear to be the most likely choices at this time.

3. Hhich of the following techniques for at-reactor storage do you antitioate using until off-site fuel storage becomes available and how?

A. Re-racking of spent fuel.

B. Control rod repositioning.

C. Above ground dry storage.

D. Longer fuel burnup.

E. Other (please identify).

PGLE Resoonse:

Because we have adequate storage in our spent fuel pools for the next 15 to 20 years, no firm decisions have been made on the at-reactor spent fuel storage technique that may be used. Presently above ground dry storage appears to be the most promising. He may also consider fuel rod consolidttion.

32575/0084K _

l *b t

4. Hill 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 of license renewal, or are you developing other plans?

EGLE Resoonse:

Above ground dry storage and fuel rod consolidation could provide adequate storage capacity for all spent fuel produced during the operating life of the plant and a twenty year renewal period.

5. Do you anticipate the need to acquire additional land for the dry 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 sententes)

PGLE Resnonse:

The current plant site at Diablo Canyon is large enough that no additional land would need to be acquired to implement dry storage of spent fuel.

6. Do you anticipate any additional construction activity on-site 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)

PGLE Resnonse:

Yes.

7. If you answered yes to question 6 briefly describe this construction activity (e.g., expansion of fuel storage pool, building above ground dry storage facilities)

PG&E Responig:

The construction anticipated would be building en above ground dry storage facility.

B. Low-level radioactive waste management questions:

1. Under the current scheme for LLRH disposal (i.e. LLRH Policy Amendments Act of 1985 and regional rompacts) is there currently or will sufficient capacity for wastes g5nerated during the license renewal period be available to your plant (s)? If so, what is the basis for this conclusion?

32575/0084K __

r PGLE Resppnig:

We believe that adequate disposal capacity will be available for the low-level radioactive waste generated by our nuclear power plant through its decomissioning. The basis for this belief 13 the progress that has been made in developing a new low-level waste disposal facility for the Southwestern Compact. Diablo Canyon Power

-Plant is located in California, which is a member of the Southwestern Compact. California is the host state for-the Complet's low-level waste disposal facility from about 1992 till about 2022. After that date Arizona will be the host state for the next 30 year period.

California has selected a site for the Southwestern Compact's disposal facility in the Mohave Desert. Licensing activities are in progress and the disposal facility is scheduled to become operational in late 1991.

2. lf-for any reason yotr plant (s) is/are denied access to a licensed disposal site for a short period of time what plans do you have for continued LLRW disposal.

PG&E Rgsoonse:

If Diablo Canyon was denied access to a disposal site, we would store any waste generated on-site until disposal capacity became available again. A new radwaste storage building was constructed at the plant during the 1980's, with adequate capacity for five years of on-site storage at current waste generation rates.

3. In a couple of pages, please describe the specific methods of LLRH management currently utilized by your plant. What percentage of your IFLEED1 LLRW (by volume) is managed by:

A. Haste compaction?

B. Haste segregation (through special controls or segregation at radiation' check point)?

C. Decontamination of wastes?

D. Sorting of waste prior to shipment?

E. Other (please identify)

PCLE Resnonse:

l Management techniques are utilized that are appropriate for each waste stream. A description of the various techniques used at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant is provided below:

Typical cry waste. generated in the radiologically controlled portion of the plant is collected in different colored containers. Trash that is expected to be clean is collected in green waste containers.

This trash is collected and monitored to identify any significant radioactivity. If no significant radioactivity is detected, the 32575/0084K . . - - -

i 1

3 waste is shipped to an off-site contractor. The contractor performs a more sensitive survey of the trash for radioactivity. If any radioactivity is detected, it is disposed of by the contractor as LLRH, if radioactivity is not detected, the waste is disposed of a routine solid waste. Most of this waste is disposed of as routine solid waste and not radioactive waste.

Dry trash that is expected to contain radioactivity is collected in containers that are colored yellow and labeled as being for radioactive waste. This material is sorted on-site to remove non-incinerable items. The incinerable waste is then compacted (to reduce shipping costs) and shipped to a contractor's LLRH incinerator. The contractor burns the waste in the incinerator with ash from the incinerator being disposed of as LLRH.

Non-incinerable dry trash (e.g., plastics) is compacted on-site and shipped to a LLRH disposal facility.

Large metal items are sent to a contractor's off-site fact 11ty for survey and free release or decontamination. The decontaminated metal is salvaged for reuse and any metal that cannot be adequately decontaminated is disposed of as LLRH.

Het waste sonsists of ion-exchange media, cartridge filters and sludges. This material is typically solidified or encapsulated using cement on-site. After verification of adequate solidification, the material is shipped to a LLPH disposal facility.

The percent (by volume) of LLRH at DCPP managed by various techniques is as follows:

A. Hsste Compaction? 78%

B. Haste Segregation (through special controls or segregation at radiation chect point)? 2D1 C. Decontamination of wastes? 11 D. Sorting of waste prior to shipment? 981 E. Other (Incineration)? 46%

F. Other (Solidification)? 1%

4. In a couple of pages, please describe the anticinated plans for LLRH management to be utilized by your plant (s) during the remaining of the operating license and through the license renewal term. Hhat percentage of your anticinated waste (by volume) will be managed by:

A. Haste compaction?

B. Haste segregation (through special controls or segregation at radiation control point)

C. Decontamination of wastes?

D. Sorting of waste prior to shipment?

E. Other (please specify) 32575/D084K _ ______

PG&E Resoonse:

Presently we have no firm plans to change our current LLRH management practices. Our best guess at future LLRH management would be a continuation of present practices. However, looking at historical trends, changes in LLRH management should be expected.

Future LLRH management decisions will be driven to a large extent by the pricing schedules of the new LLRH disposal sites under development. If disposal costs are based primarily on the volume requiring burial then there will continue to be pressure for greater volume reduction. If disposal costs are based on the quantity of radioactivity in the waste then the need to reduce volume will diminish.

The future availability of LLRH processing facilities located outside of the Compact region will also impact LLRH management practices.

The feasibility of Below Regulatory Concern (BRC) disposals is another factor that could have a significant impact on LLRW management practices. Expanded use of incineration and the development of new waste management technologies will also impact future LLRH management practices.

He anticipate that LLRH generated at Diablo Canyon in the future will be managed by the following techniques (percent by volume):

A. Haste Compaction? 78%

B. Haste Segregation (through special controls or segregation at radiation check point)? 20% .

C. Decontamination of wastes? 1%

0. Sorting of waste prior to shipment? 981 E. Other (Incineration)? 46%

F. Other (Solidification)? 1%

5. Do you anticipate the need to acquire Lt11tional land for the storage of LLRH 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? Hhere? (if answer is "yes", 3-4 sentences)

PGtE Reseense:

No, there does not appear to be a need to acquire additional land.

Adequate space is available on the existing plant site for anticipated LLRH storage. ,

6. To provide information on the timing of future low-level waste streams, if you answered yes to question #9, over what period of time are these activities contemplated?

32575/0084K PGLE Resoonte:

The only modification presently anticipated that would significantly impact low-level waste volume is steam generator replacement. If replacement of Steam Generators is required, this veuld work would probably occur in around 10 to 15 years.

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

PG&E Resnaatg:

Yes.

8. If you answered yes to question 7, briefly describe this construction activity (e.g., storage areas for steam generator components or other materials exposed to reactor environment).

PG&E Resoonse:

Additional construction will probably be required for a structure to house steam generator components. Additional construction may also be required to provide for mixed (radioactive and hazardous) waste treatment and storage activities.

9. To provide information on future low-level waste streams which may effect vnrkforce levels, 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 of the plant? If so, please describe these activities. Also, what types of modification do you anticipate to be necessary to achieve license renewal operation through a 20-year license renewal term?

PGLE Resoonse:

It is likely that steam 9,i.erators will need to be replaced at Diablo Canyon. This is the only modification / refurbishment presently anticipated that would significantly impact waste volumes.

The modifications required for license renewal are not yet well defined. He see no reason to expect that Diablo Canyon would be different from similar Pressurized Hater Reactors. EPRI research indicates that some of the most likely items that may require replacement at PHRs include: certain electrical cabling, thimble tubes, control rod clusters, control rod drive mechanisms, and incore instrumentation.

l 3257S/0084K - - _- - -_--_--_--___ -______ .. . .

PG&E Letter No. NUMARC-90-004 4

ENCLOSURE B

!MLARC SURVEY AOUATIC RESOURCE OUESTIONS

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 agra. tic resources, or may have been made specifically to mitigate impacts that were not anticipated in the design of the plant. Describe any sucl modifications and/or operational changes to the condenser cooling a.'er intake and discharge systems since the issuance of the Operating .icense.

PG&E Resoonse:

To control macro biofouling organisms (e.g., mussles, etc.), the Diablo Canyon was originally designed to utilize periodic heat treatments of the cooling water conduits. This "demusseling" operation was to occur on an approximately once per month basis. However due to concern over thermal discharge during this demusseling operation, the 1985 NPDES Permit contained a provision (D.6) which required PGLE to " evaluate alternative demusseling techniques, and propose to the Regional Water Quality Control Board a method to reduce the discharge temperature to 86 degrees F."

To accomplish this, biological studies were conducted to determine the required temperature, duration, and frequency of heat treatment.

Simultaneously, an engineering study of modifications to the discharge structure was undertaken. A physical model was built and operated, resulting in several proposed modifications of the structure. These included two rectangular cutouts in the septum which divides the two unit's flows, and a weir or sill at the base of the discharge, designed to promote crossover of the flows by increased hydrostatic backpressure.

During heat treatment the flow of the heated side is reduced by a factor

, of four. The cutouts and weir promote mixing of the two flows prior to entry into the receiving water.

, Over the course of operation of the plcnt, PGLE has been working on ways to reduce the frequency of heat treatment. This has an unquestionable positive environmental effect, as well as the economic benefit. The FES predicted that each unit would be heat treated monthly, based on experience at other PG&E plants. Using biological monitoring, growth models, and measurements of ambient conditions, we developed a predictive

-method which reduced the use of heat treatment to less than twice per year per unit. In recent times, PG&E has found that manual cleaning during refueling outages followed by mid-cycle manual cleaning during forced or planned curtailments may be cost beneficial and more effective compared to periodic heat treatments. Using this strategy, a heat treatment has not been performed since January, 1989. If this strategy works out well in the future, PG&E may completely negate environmental effects due to elevated temperature during heat treatment.

32575/0084K J

2. Summarire and describe (or provide documentation of) any know 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 rasc1ved or changed over time? '(The response to this question should indicate whether impacts are ongoing or were the result of start-ut problems that were subsequently resolved.)

PGLE Resoonst:

There have been no significant impacts to aquatic resources sinc? the start-up operations at DCPP.- A number of NPDES violations have been reported to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RHQCB). These violations are considered minor and did not result in any enforcement actions. One such incident was the accidental release of ferric sulfate into the Intake Cove. This resulted in the eventual loss of approximately 12 fish. No effects on invertebrates or alga

• were observed. Another incident was the discovery of several dead red abalone during a routine field survey in the area near the discharge structure. A total of 20 dead And 70 live abalone were observed.

The_cause of the mortality was attributed to a combination of the ,

high ambient seawater temperatures that were occurring at the time, the combined two unit discharge temperature, and the recent heat

-treatment of one of the units. Although numerous heat treatments have been conducted since, no similar occurrence has been observed.

The mortality was_ in keeping with predictions of thermal tolerance made for both normal operation and heat treatment scenarios.

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. .

PG&E ResDonse:

The 1990 MPDES permit contains a number of changes to the Monitoring and Reporting Program. -These changes were reductions in the monitoring of specific chemicals and reductions in the monitoring frequencies. =Such reductions were sought because the chemical was

^

not detected.in the discharge or the concentration of the chemical in the discharge remained constant and did not approach the concentration limit allowed.

32575/0084K -- . .

4

4. An examination of trends in the effects on aquatic resources monitoring can indicate whether impacts have increased, decraased, 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, Environmental Technical Specifications, site-specific monitoring required by federal or state agencies). What trends are apparent over time?

PG&E ResD0115e:

The DCPP aquatic resource monitoring is contained in the " Thermal Effects Monitoring Program". This program is comprised of study elements which include intertidal monitoring, subtidal monitoring, fish monitoring and physical environmental monitoring. At this time, the changes to the aquatic environment due to power plant operation have not been fully quantified. As changes are still underway and a stable post operation equilibrium has not been established, we are unable to report the impact of DCPP as indicated by the trends of aquatic resources since start-up operation.

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?

EGLE Resoonse:

The DCPP 316 (b) report has been attached to this survey. Please refer to Chapters 3 and 4 of this report which specifically addresses entrainment and impingement.

6. Aquatic habitat enhancement or restoration efforts (e.g., anadromous 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 r. ear 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.

PG&E Resoonse:

DCPP, in a cooperative effort with the California Department of Fish i and Game, constructed an artificial reef. This project has proven to '

i be an enhancement to the aquatic habitat. Rockfish density studies l comparing whether young of the year recruitment at the artificial

! reef site would compare favorably to the natural eef habitat indicate a significantly greater recruitment to the artificial reef.

There is no data which indicate the impact of the artificial reef on the overall marine populations, i 32575/0084K 1 l

t

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 issuance of the Operating License.

PG&E Resoonse:

The area offshore Diablo Canyon supports an active sportfishery.

Although the adult fish harvested in the sportfishery exist in an environment clearly removed from possible power plant effects, the larvae and juveniles of many species which inhabit the nearshore area -

may be subject to the combined effects of impingement and entrainment, as well as the effects of the discharge. The Diablo Canyon Fisheries Program was initiated in 1979 to evaluate the sportfishery in the vicinity of DCPP, both in terms of catch and effort. Over the course of the study, the methodology remained unchanged.

The final report on the fisheries program concluded that although there were definite trends in the sportfishery catch data, none appear related to the operation cf the power plant.

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 poter plant, to overall water quality degradation and losses of aquatic biota?

, 19 E Resconse:

l l DCPP is located in a remote area along the central coastline of California. There are no industries surrounding the plant whose discharge could cause a cumulative effect to the aquatic resources.

There is , however, some runoff which is contributed by neighboring areas of agriculture. This contribution would be considered negligible.

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

PG&E Resoonse:

Copies of the DCPP 316 (a) and (b) report are provided.

32575/0084K i

At the present time, no determination has been made by.the regulatory authorities pertaining to the DCPP 316(a) Determination Report. The

- Regional Water Quality Control Board has determined from the 316(b) report,. submitted April 28.-1988, that the plant's intake structure reflects-the Best Technology Avhilable for minimizing adverse environmental impact. This d6 termination is stateti in the DCPP NPDES permit, Order 90-09.

P J

32575/0084K . . . .

PGSE Letter No. NUKARC-90-004 ENCLOSURE C NUKARC SURVEY SOCIOECONOMIC OUEST10NS

1. To understand the importance of the plant and the degree of its socioeconomic impacts on the local region, estimate the number of permanent workers on-site for the most recent year for which data re available.

PGLE Resoonse:

There are currently 1300 permanent workers at Diablo Canyon Power Plant as of June 1990. This figure represents personnel for Units 1 and 2.

2. To understand the importance of the plant to the 1o:31 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 Doeratina License. If possible, provide this information for each unit at a plant site.

PG&E Resoonse:

At the time of issuance of the DCPP Unit 1 Operating License in 1985, the average number of permanent workers on site was 764.

3. To understand the potential impact of continued cperation for an additional 20 years beyond the original licei.. ng term, plesse provide for the following three cases:

A) a typical planned outage; B) an 151 outage; and C) the largest single outage (in terms of the number of workers involved) that has occurred to date an estimate of additional rorkers involved (for the entire outage and for each principal task), length of outage, months and year in which work occurred, and cost. Also, estimate occupational doses received by permanent and temporary workers during each prircipal task.

'fGLE Resoonse:

The requested information for items A and C above is provided in the following matrix for Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2. In reference to item B, Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2 has not had 157 outages and therefore the information required for this case is n9t applicable. Principal tasks are incorporated into the data for the respective outage.

3257S/0084K ,

1 I

l

Unit Outage Additional Workers Dose Outage Period Duration for Outage Received Cost (approximate) 8-29-86 See I to 12-29-86 123 Days 1000-1500 260 rem Note 1 4-3-87 See 2 to 7-14-87 102 Days 1000-1500 348 rem Note 1 3-6-88 See 1 to 7-13-87 129 Days 1000-1500 436 rem Note 1 9-17-88 See 2 to 12-7-38 82 Days 1000-1500 412 rem Note 1 10-6-89 See 1 to 12-15-89 70 Days 1000-1500 409 rem Note 1 3-4-90 See 2 to 4-30-90 57 Days 1000-1500 265 rem Note 1 Note 1. Outage costs at Diablo Canyon Units 1 and 2, isolated from annual expense budgets, are not available at this time.

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.

Ef4E_Reimonie:

The following cnart represents the requested tax data for DCPP tinits 1 and 2 for the years 1980, 1985, and 1990:

1980 1985 1990 Taxable Assessed Value $371,200,000 $3,309,489,622 $5,824,527,393

-Property Taxes Paid to San Luis Obispo County 7,741,297 18,405,279 34,132.316 Property Taxes Paid to Other California Tax Codes 9,074,101 23,547,454 27,104.831 32575/0084K . . .

- _ - - - - _ - - _ _ - _ _ - -