ML20085M485
| ML20085M485 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perry  |
| Issue date: | 07/06/1990 |
| From: | NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE (FORMERLY NUCLEAR MGMT & |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110046 | |
| Download: ML20085M485 (16) | |
Text
.__ _ . - . . _ _ . _ _ - _ _ . . . . . _ . . _ __-m . . . . . _ _ _
'd'
, NUMARC Part 51 Questionnaire
.. Perry Nuclear Power Plant - Unit i 4- WASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS July 6, 1990 This portion of the questionnaire is designed to gather infomation about the waste management practices in use.today, as well as those techniques, practices and programs which may be planned, taking-into consideration the
-High Level Waste Repository and faciltties developed pursuant to the Low Laval Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985. The infomation is relevant to both the remaining period of the current operating license and for the license renewal period. Since several of the ~ questions concern projections ~
into the renewal term (an additional 20 years beyond'the original licensing '
ters), utilities which have not yet considered license renewal may not be able to answer these questions. Most questions should be answered in 2 or 3 sentences; some may take a few paragraphs.
- One survey form should be completed for each site. In some instances, a utility may_ choose to respond for the entire site, in other instances it may select to respond separately for each unit on a site because of varying waste
,_ management practices or techniques. In all cases, please indicate if fI
~
' responses' apply to more than one unit.
~
' O[l -
Information filed with your state compacts or LLAW management agency may prove a useful. reference when completing this portion of the questiennaire. ,
Based on our pilot study, the Waste Management questions should take- - ?;*
approximately 8 man-hours to answer.
A. Spent fuel-questions:
l '. Which of the following cumnt techniques for at-reactor starage are you using and how?
A. Re-racking of spent fuel.
Page I MJMARC 9111110046 900706 PDR NUREG 1437 C PDR
. - . ~ , . .. ~ . - - . ~ . ~ . . . . .~ .- . . - .
24
.* NUMARC Part; 51 Questionnaire
- Perry Nuclear Power Plant - Unit ! *
'*; July 6. 1990 idASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS (cont.) .
B. Control rod repositioning.
C. Above ground dry storage.
D. Lonner fuel burnup.
E. - other (please ide ify).[n d'2g4 A ^'% -
npa opva d.
- 2. Do you plan on continutag *.he use of %4e current techniques for at-reactor storage of spent fuel durint, .at remaining time of your ,
operating Itcense or do yoe expect to ch e gr modif Nob fa~al.theminsameway?
- 3. ilhich of the following techniques for at-reactor storage do you anticinate using untti off-site spent fuel storage becomes available and .
how?-
l Re:-racking of spent- fuel. ..
A.
J !. 8 Control rod repositioning. U .
. . . - kbk'/ , >
C.-
. Above ground dry . storage. '
- 9. Longer fuel burnup.
E. Other (please identify).b O! A ElcLAM .
. .- t ,
y, '
4.. Will the tecmiques describec swa 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 yee .
developing other plans? MhM~ ' I.
Do you anticipate the need to accird 1tional land for the storage of-5.
. spent-fuel for the operating 1tfettaa of the plant, including.a 20-year
~
period of license' renewal? If so, how much land? idhen would this .
acquisition occur? ilhere? (if* .1 " yep *,3-4yntences) t A a.
4 Do you. anticipate any. additional enn truction activity en-site, or immediately adjacent to the laat s te associa with the
- p v .
(
l l
Page 2 MSUUtC
^
l L
. . . . - - - . - - . - - . - . . . - . . _ . - - ~ . . - - . .- .~
o NUMARC Part 51 Questionnaire Perry Nuclear Power Plant - Unit-I
. July 6, 1990 ,
'O; L
..- AQUATIC RESOURCE QUESTIONS This request for information is designed to obtain the utility overview of its power plant's impacts on aquatic resources. It is att intended to require new
- surveys, data collection, or extensive new analyses of existing data.
Responses can be based on existing inforsation, for example, by summarization of inforsation contained (in monitoring reports, publications, or vnpublished files. The questions should be answered separately for each site operated by the i;'+11ty.
Doctaments that may be useful in addressing the following questions are:
o-Annual Aquatic Monitoring Report submitted to the responsible State Agency.
o Final . Envirormental Statement o Annual Non-Radiological Monitoring Report as required by Environment.11 Protection Plan of Technical Specifications, Appendix 8 ,
o section 316-(a) and (b) Demonstration Report submitted to Environmental _.,'.i J -
Protection Agency- lif.{[
psed on our pilot study, the Aquatic Resource questions should taka 4
approximately 40 man-hours to answer.
.~y g.
. ^.
- 1. Post-licensing nodifications and/or changes in operatioes of ietake and/or discharge systems may have altered the effects of the power .
plant on aquatic resources, o'r may have"been mace specifically to mitigate impacts that wars not anticipated in the design of the plaat. -
Describe any such modifications and/or operational chaeges to the condenser cooling water intake and discharge systems sieca the
~
- issuance of the operating 1.icense.
No post licensing modifications or changes have been made in the operation of our intake or discharge systems that- have altered the effects of the Perry Plant on aquatic resources. There have been no unanticipated impacts that required changes.
. _ , ~ _ , , . _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ . . . . _ . - _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ . , _ _ _ _ . _ . . _ - _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . _ _ . _ . . _ . -
NUMARC Part 51 questionnaire Perry Neclear Power Plant - Unit 1 July 6, 1990 o
AQUATIC RESOURCE QUESTIONS (cont.)
- 2. Sammmarize and describe (or provide documentation of) any known tapacts on aquatic resources (e.g., fisk kills, violations of discharge permit conditions) or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPOES) enforcement actions that haie occurr-d 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 resolveii.)
The following is a summary of NPDES noncompliances:
1986: The Regenerate Neutralization basin (outfall No. 3IB00016001) exceeded the minimum allovable limit for pH during discharge. The pH dropped to a minimum value of 3.5 S.U. for a period of one hour and fitteen minutes, starting at 0215 hours0.00249 days <br />0.0597 hours <br />3.554894e-4 weeks <br />8.18075e-5 months <br /> on March 13, 1986. This condition vea noted by the shif t chemistry technician whereupon the pump vas immediately secured. The cause of the violation was traced to a faulty reach-rod that is used to isolate the basin during pumping. The reach-rod was replaced and the problem vas corrected.
1987: The Regenerate Neutralization basin (outfall No. 3IB00016001) was below the miniaos allovable limit for pH during discharge. The pH dropped to 5.6 S.U. for a period of approximately three and one half hours starting 1750 hours0.0203 days <br />0.486 hours <br />0.00289 weeks <br />6.65875e-4 months <br /> on October 7, 1987. This condition was noted during a review of the log sheets. The cause of the violation was traced to a faulty recorder unit, which vas replaced and the problem corrected. Subsequent testing shoved that jarring the pH recording instrument vould cause erratic readings. The meter of the instrument, which controis the vaste discharge pump low pH trip, was not af fected by jarring. This indicated that the actual pH of the vaste vnter discharged was probably vithin the EPA limits during the period of releasts, although no records can validate this sinen the recorder printout was out of agreement with the meter.
1989: On March 17, 1989, approximately 100 gallons of a petroleum product were discovered in a storm drain impoundment pond in the Northwest corner of the Perry Plant site. It was estimated that the material entered the pond between 0831 and 1600 on March 17, and was contained in the pond by an impoundment barrier designed specifically for,that purpose. Samsel Services, Inc., of Cleveland vas contacted immediately to expedite the removal of the substance. Sansel arrived by 1830 on March 17 and began cleanup efforts which vere completed over the next several days. An extensive investigation of all possible sources of the material was conducted; however, none was identified. No additional material was detected during subsequent monitoring.
, . _ _ _. _ . -m _ _. _ _ _ _
i iC NUMARO Part 51 Questionnaire I Perry Nuclear Power Plant - Unit I i July 6, 1990
~
AQUATIC RESOURCE QUESTIONS (cent.)
- 2. On May 25,1989, a spill of unknown type and origin was discovered flowing into the stream in the' Northwest corner of the site. Although '
CEI initiated cleanup efforts, the source of the spill was _found to be a drainage pipe leading from a neighboring company's property.
Respensibility for the entire cleanup was assumed by the owners of the neighboring property. CEI nonitored the project closely, working with both the cleanup crew and the Ohio EPA.
On September 21, 1989, approximately 3000 gallots of sulfuric acid were inadvertently added to the cooling tower basin between 0630 and 0700. Most of the acid was discharged through the service water system to Lake Erie via circulating vater system blovdown. It should i be-noted that this release was considered to be an " excursion" of an 1 unintentional and temporary nature, pursuant to 40 Ch. Part 401.17(a)(2). The cause of this incident was the lack of a procedure t!.at clearly specified organizational interf aces and detailed operating instructions to ensure that the task was performed correctly. In addition, plant personnel performing this activity. vere not familiar.vith the flow rate limitations and abnormal system line-up. Since the incident, a new system has been installed to treat circulating water without the use of sulfuric acid. Also, the operator involved was counseled on the need to communicate to supervision unusual field conditions and evolutions not covered in the procedures.
-On October 25, 1989, free available chlorine vas released through the plant discharge tunnel for approximately nine hours, exceeding the NPDES discharge limit of two hours. The average concentration during the release was 0.2'mg/1. The event occurred because the service water chlorination system vas inadvertently placed in continuous additien mode without the dechlorination system operating. To prevent recurrence, all- spplicable technicians and supervisors - received on-the-job and classroom training to further expand system knowledge and ensure corcect- operation, using- the proper procedures,. of all
' chlorination and dechlorination systems. .In addition, applicable plant procedures were reviewed and revised as necessary to ensure that
-t fee vill be no recurrence of this event.
4 l . _ . . . .
__ _ =. . . _ _ -__ _ _ _ - . _ _ . _ - _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ . _ . _ _ _ , _ . . _ __
, NUMARC Part $1 Questionnaire Perry Nuclear Power Plant - Uni-. I July 6 1990 ,
N51ATIC RESC ct QUESTIONS (cont.) l
- 3. Changes to the NPDES permit during operation of the plant could indicate whether water quality parameters were deternined to have ne significant impacts (and were dropped fras 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.
No modifications have been made to our NPDES permit. However, the Ohio EPA has granted approval to use special cooling vnter additives on three separate occasions It is due for renewal in March 1991.
Other issues related to our discharge limitations include three specific approvals granted by the Ohfo EPA. The first var granted in June 1989 tn allow the temporary disch.trge of cooling water additives used for cleaning portions of the circulating vater system. The second was granted in November,1989 to discharge a cooling water additive used to prevent scaling in the circulating vater system. The last' one was granted in June, 1990, to use a water treatment additive for the purpose of controlliing zebra mussels.
- 4. An examination of trends in t's 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, Environmental Technical Specifications, site toecific monitoring required by federal orstateagencies). What trends 3 e a,ctrost over time?
NPDES and Annual Environmental Operating teports are enclosed for 1986 to the present. No trends in impacts on .quatic resources are apparent over time.
, NUMARC Part $1 Questionnaire Perry Nuclear Power Plant - Unit i July 6 1990 AQUATIC RESOURCE QUESTIONS (cont.)
- 5. Summarize types and numbers (or provide documentation) of organisms entrained and leeinged by the condenser cooling water systes since issuance of the Operating License. Describe any seasonal patterms associated with entrainment and ispingement. How has entrainment and tapingement changed over ties?
The condenser cooling vater systes receives vater from the service water system downstream of screens and strainers. For this reason, the condenser cooling water system does not impinge organisms.
Impingement for the service water system has been documented for 1987 and 1988. Y'ese a Fish Impingement Study Reports are attachedt they include graphs depicting seasonal patterns. These two years of data are not sufficient to identify changes over time. Entrainment has not been studied.
- 8. Aquatic habitat enhancement or restoration efforts (e.g., anadromous fish runs) during operation any have enhanced the biological communities in the vicinity of the plant. Alternativsly, degradation of habitat or ,
I water quality may have resulted te 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 Ucease including those that may have resulted in different plant impacts than those initially predicted.
1 The only char.ae to aquatic habitats of significance is the introduction of zebra aussels fato the Great Lakes and their arrival in the vicinity of the Perry Plant in September,198P. The potential impacts on the plant are similar to those predicted but never realized for the Asiatic clan. Reports on the monitoring program used to !
detect the presence of these species are included in the Annual !
Environmental Operating Report. l
i l
NUMARC Part $1 Questionnaire i Perry Nuclear Power Plant - Unit t l July 6 1990
. i AQUATIC RESOURCE QUEST!0NS (cont.)
I r
- 7. Plant operations may have had positive, negative, or no impact on the use of aquatic resources by others. Hanest by cosenercial oc recreational fishermen may be constrained by plant operation.
Alternatively commercial harvesting may be relatively large compared ;
with fish losses caused by the plant. Describe (or provide doctmentation for) otner nearby uses of waters affected by cooling water systems (e.g., swimming, boating,' annual harvest by coasnercial 'and recreational fisheries) and how these impacts have changed since issuance of the Dperating License.
f f Ln$G&&t4 /%f fill <l410 NicWp Snyci,
- 8. Describe other sources of tapacts on aquatic resources (e.g., industrial discharges, other power plants, agricultural runoff) that could contribute to cumulative tapacts. ht are the relative contributions by percent of these sources, including the contributions due is the '
power plant, is overall water quality degradation and losses of aquatic biotal Other sources of impacts on aquatic resources include an industrial facility immediately to the vest of the Perry Plant and shoreline erosion. Of these impacts, shoreline erosion is the most obvious and seiere. The relative contribution to overall vater quality degradation and loss of aquatic biota is nil for the Perry Plant. No information is available on the impact of the neighboring company's operation. Erosion is a lakevide problem that varies seasonally and yearly. Its in on aq 11,c b. iota, erefore, e pt be dete.rmi.ngd ac uratel . ' C tt4k'WM AA sf Abpc&c'fet'th4A' /
i e4 4
f or m . 4 ciFw Vit 4 a u.h.. .
4/ (EY*1 @c
- 9. ide a copy of your Secties 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Report required by the Cleas Wasta Act. htSection316(a)and(b) determinatiens have been made by the regulatory authorities?
The Perry Plant was not required tc conduct 316 demonstration studies.
This was a result of implementing the best available technology for cooling water systems at the time of construction.
Attachments /Enclosurest l #PDEC hper-te-4986 ta pressat;r AmM"M'h'b" "'
l Annual Environmental Operating Reports 1986 to present Fish Impingement Study Reports 1987 and 1988
,~
Jir n One un-dal--stetement-:1perating hens S agekeivid,I[I d4 MYW7 086'/
SOCICECONOMIC QUESTIONS FOR ALL UTILITIES This portion of the questionnaire is designed te gather information about the .
socioeconomic impacts of nuclear power plants. Where estimates are provided, the estimates should be qualified as appropriate Information contained within your ALARA program updates may prove a useful reference when completing this portion of the questionnaire. Based on our pilot study, the Eocioeconomic questions shcald take approximataly 40 man-hours to answer. The majority of that time is expected to be dedicated to Questn.: k.3.
- 1. To understand the importance of the plant and the degree of its socioeconcaic impacts on the local region, estimate the number of permanent workers on-site for the most recent year for which data are available. /if00
- 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
- ' I workers er site, in five-year increments starting with the issuance of the plant's Operating License. If possible, provide this infonsation for each unit at a plant site. OL (3/37): 27bo 3/92. M /$OO,' noyTN,tr M$*1RW
- 3. To understand the potential impact of continued operation for an .
additional 20 years beyond the original licensing ters, please provide for the following three cases:
A) a typical planned outage; 2@d 7 SG jdy B) an ISI outage; and ncntp/etsuitc/
, C) the largest single outage (in terms of the number of workers involved) that has occurred to date y / onl / A'crt, Ahh 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, estimate occupational doses received by permanent and temporary crkers during each principal task.
EDUUtc Page 1
SOCIOECONOMIC QUESTIONS (cont.)
- 4. To understand the plant's fiscal importance to specific jurisdictions, for 1980, 1985, and the late'st year for which data are available, estimate the entire plant's taxable assessed alue and the amount of taxes paid to the state and to each local taxing jurisdiction.
Totu Reuy.(M!rILA2 W Pd):
Real Pnyd y;Vdae
) gab : MomLLTaga'Yom 4 7/ / nufis, A'f(osufAnt Jaukicsmd Tm-&q.
4 e
- . : . . , : 3.,:[ . . :
..~ . . .. ,; . .
. . . ::. . .- ~
4
. . 'w
.: ::x:.: .-
e e
e Page 2
,s s .
v.rI.
Ie 4 .
t i SOCI0 ECONOMIC QUESTIONS FOR ALL LUILITIES 1 '
This portion of the questionnaire is designed te gather information about the ,
j socioeconomic ispacts of nuclear power plants. Where estimates are provided,
,! the estimates should be qualified as appropriate. Information contained within your ALARA program updatos may prove a useful reference uhen completinq i
! this portion of the quesi;ionnaire. Based on sur pilot study, the i- Socioeconomic questions should take approximately 40 man-hours to answr. Th6 i .
l majority of that time is expected to be dedicated to Question No.3.
l 1. To understand the importance of the plant and the degree of its l socioer.onomic ispacts on the local regios, estimate the number of ;
L permanent workers on-site for the most recent year for which data are I. available. /800 -
(
- 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 '
- I
" workers on site, in five-year increments starting with the issuance of f the plant's operating 1.icense. If possible, provide this information i j for each unit at a plant site. OL (3/37):2700 3/92. M /Soo,' no&h AOA
- 3. To understand the potential impact of continued operation for an . i additional 20 years beyond the original licensing ters, please provide
! for the following three cases:
l A) a typical planned outage; 26009Ay sn ISI outage; and narit h_Wc/
) '
, B) l ,, C) the largest single outage (in terms of the number of workers involved) that has occurred to date y / onl / N'<rt. Aehh f an estimate of additional workers involved (for the entire outage and i ~ -
for each principal task'), length of outage, months and year in which l work occurred, and cost. Also, estimate occupational doses received by i
i permanent and temporary workers during each-principal task'. ,
l Page 1 i- t i' .
l
1 .
4 i
SOCI0 ECONOMIC QUESTIONS (cont.)
- 4. To understand the plant's fiscal importance to specific jurisdictions, for 1980,1985, and the late'st year for which data are available, estimate the entire plant's taxahle assessed value and the amount of taxes paid to the state and to each local taxing jurisdiction.
Tota P m ,( M itll~T2 +
- dud).'
Red Pmpt yVdae W Q)D :
- ImaMaTagu'Yo&/
Y 7ll nuda >, $'f(o& -
Am a n arn d T 4 ~g.
s ' .* .,:( . . . ' .
.- * :: ...n'- ,
3
. : : *.n% .--
. .:. . .. .( .
1 ,
I l
i .
W l
l i
i nunAnc l
Page 2
t
- 7. 17 40 UTILITY f_ f l' AAC b f CIr 'i C < l' Ih "
i N- 0 SITE t' r h ENCLOSURES arw users 40 r < medM nn> ld Q sh (
n t\ qC ( l\ t N' b Pf M o m fnGLfb i -i t 3- /
4 e
s
Y THE CLEVELAND CLECTRIC ILLUMINATING COF PERRY NUCLEAR POVER PLANT MENORANDUM f
The following are my responses to the KUMARC questionnaire to support the Part 51 rule changes B. Low-level radioactive vaste management questions:
- 1. Based upon the uncertainties in the availability of vaste dispocal sites 30 years in the future, it is unknown if there vill be sufficient vaste allocatione during our license reneval period.
- 2. Ferry Plant curre7tly utilites two of thewas If access three existing denied at oneburial facilities of the for the sites, the disposal of radioactive vaste.other site could be used, provided the problem was not one t at the remaining site. If access was denied at both sitescase, In any effortsthe ceuld firstcommence plan of on gaining access to the third burial facility.
action vould be to correct the problem that caused the denial and attempt to regain access. .
3 The first step in our LLRV management program laThis to limit the amount is done of material by preventing entering the Radiological Controlled Area (RCA).
unnecessary entering the RCA.
material, such as packing material, boxes, pallets, etc., f ro This limits the amount magenta paint and are not normally released from the RCA.This segregation is estimated to sav of equipment brought in and out of the RCA.
approxinately 40% is radioactive vaste volume.
This The next step in LLRV management is to reuse as much material as possible.
is accomplished by vashing rags and nop heads so they can be reused several times.
In addition, reusable cloth-type bags are used in applications, such as laundry collection, to minimise the amount of vaste generated by disposing of the single use plastic bags. Of course, protective clothing is laundered and reused many times.
Another LLRV tanagement tool that to uced is the reduction of the amountThis is of done
" clean" waste material that is mixed in with contaminated vaste.All ratorial that is with our Controlled Clean Veste (Green is Clean) program.
not suspected to be contaminated, and was not used in a contanineted area, isThis matori disposed of in green Controlled Clean Vaste containers.
prior to leaving the RCA and then the aggregate is surveyed using a bag Once monitor proven to to ensure no radioactive material was inadvertently disposed of. This contain no radioactivity, the naterial is disposed of in the ioral landfill.
reduces the amount of radioactive vaste by approximately 30*-40%.
9::m:':7 :r to E N. E w r ?*?
Various volume reduction techniques are used to teduce the volute of radioactive vaste shipped for disposal
- a. Corting and segregation - Sorting tables are used during major outages toThis practice is reclaia non-radioactive material trom DAV. All vaste is checked for reusable normal operations because et cost factors.When performed, this saves an equipecnt and r.aterints before disposal.
estimated 50%-60% of the radioactive vaste volume.
- b. On site vaste compaction is used for approximately 12%-50% of our DAV, depending on availability of the compactor, backlog of vante material and manpower considerations, c.
DAV that is not compacted on site, and materials that are not able to be processed on site, are sent to a volunc reduction facility for proecssing.
This processing includes supercompaction, incinerttion and chemical decentanination of equipment. Depending on the type of volume reduction performed, volume reduction factors are on the order of 50:1 to 100:1.
- d. Processed wastes are devatered using a system that providca a 4:1 volumeThis reduction for most resins.
vaste volume et approximately 50%.
4 Anticipated plans are to construct a connon facility for the processing and on-site storage of LLRV. Current methods and practices are expected to be As new processes continued and are expected to result in the saee percentages.
and technologies become available, evaluations vill be performed for incorporation into the existing program.
- 5. Additional land is not expected to be required f or the storage of LLRV, even in a 20 year license renoval period.
- 6. H/A
- 7. Current plana are to review and approve design plans for a LLEV processing and storage f acility to be constructed on site.
B. Storage in the on-site facility vould be for LLIV. both DAV and processed vastes, as well as plant components. Current plans do not include any additional storaEe of irradiated hardware and expended fuel assemblies.
there are no plans for najor
- 9. At this stage in plant life (second fuel cycle),
plant modifications that could generate large quantitics of LLRV.
Page: 2 9c9aM7: 3? to s 06, c T.
C. Mixed low-level radioactive vaste questions 11 you have any questions on my responstis, please call me.
p 4
mm 0
A Paget 3 p,p.g ta r.9r3):1 :3'iPO:EI 06. E' Tif
_ _ - - _ _ _ - - - _ - - _ _ _ - _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . __