ML20085M531

Answers to Questions Re Socioeconomic & Waste

ML20085M531
Person / Time
Site:	Salem, Hope Creek
Issue date:	11/11/1991
From:	Public Service Enterprise Group
To:
References
RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110128
Download: ML20085M531 (13)

Text

• g \/

UTILITY I lt 0 ic G U t c t' h k FChrt t N c5 SITE b c\e m a ml (4 eof fr ,-t $

ENCLOSURES FA n% # C s d,,p & p e s \ , f, n 5 SM((@qogk.

D.8 O tLW

• O'DJKIIfL 0.tMkov) kiEl Io cu)

V U l

9111110128 911111 PDR l- $k37 h

T ANSWERS TO SOCIOECONOMIC QUESTIONS QUESTION 1 The estimated number of permanent workers on site (contractor and PSE&O) for 1989 was 3,500 people.

QUESTION 2 Artificial Island encompasses three operating reactors and all associated corporate support. This additional corporate support is not directly asst.gnable to each plant site.

1975-1980 - 800 1981-1985 - 3,000 1986-1990 - 4,000 QUESTION 3 A. Typical Planned Outage - These data are f rom flope Creek's Second refueling outage which began in October 1989 and lasted 64.4 days. The cost of the outage was S10.797 million in capital and $16.0 million in O&M. Exposure for the outage was 293.9 person-rem. Please see the attached breakdown of the doses for Design Change Packages (DCPs),

non DCPs, General radiation work permits (GRWPs), and In Service Inspection (ISI). Also attached is a table detailing exposure for specific tasks. An estimate of additional workers involved is 750. A breakdown of additional workers for each principal task is not available.

QUESTION 4 See Attached Tax Data Table I

l 1

. .t f ,

l PIGURE 23

.r 4 #

4 t

i COMPARISON OF GOAL V8. ACTUAL DOqp i

Person-Rem i l

Estimated Actual DCPs- 59.089 37.182 i

Non-DCPs 115.817 171.529 GRWPs- 18.000 8.731 ISI 25.000 17.255 217.906-- 234.697 DCPs added 1.510 Non-DCPs added 57.758 P

Total 293.965 .

f k

4 b

.h F-23'

J  ;

t

\

. FIGURE 24 -

' . NOPE CREEK BBCOND REFUBLING OUTAGE NATOR JOB OVERAGES  !

Person-Rem .j 4

Activity Estimated Actual Difference Comments [

, 1. Reactor Disassembly,- [

Refueling & Reassembly' 31.700 64.'755 33.055 dose rates, respirators

2. Rad Pro Routine Work 4.359 11.731 7.372 dose rates

~

I

3. Operations High' Rad l

. Reactor Building. N/A 4.216 4.216 planning i

4. Cavity / Equipment Pool Decon 6.686 10.761 4.075 dose rates

'5. Visual Exam of RWCU '

j Snubbers N/A 3.500 3.500 planning f 1

6. Replace SRVs 5.966 9.320 3.354 man-hrs and dose rates

[

7. Remove, Replace, t i RepairGS' System ,

{ Valves N/A 3.041 3.341 planning l

)  !

j 8. Type "A" ILRTs N/A 2.520 2.520 planning l i

i 9. Rework Valves to I

Support LLRT. Failures N/A 2.239 2.239 planning [

I: i I'

10. Repack RWCU System  !

< Valves-'in Drywell N/A. 2.172 2.172 planning 1

i j F-24  !

< i f

I m.,. _ , __ . _- _ _ _ . . _ _ _ _ _ _. __ _ . . - - .. !

. . . . .. _ .~.. _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _..___...~.____._.m.m ____._.__._______m._._,

l 4

FIGURE 26 l

l l

HkDDEDH MOM-DCP OTTRaGEs >1 FEeEOM-88N

, 1 Actual Dome Recalved ,

1. Operations High Rad - RB 4.216

2. Visual Exam of RWCU Snubbers 3.500

3. Remove,. Replace, Repair 'GS' Systea-Valves 3.041

4. Type "A" ILRTs 2.520

'5. Rework Valves to Support LLRT i Failures 2.239

6. Repack RWCU Systen Valves in Drywell 2.172

7. Repair _ Leaking Flange on 26-03 2.168

8. LLRTs in RB HRAs 2.127. .

9. Remove, Replace, Inspect Torus Snubbers 2.097

10. Repack "AB" System Valves 2.074 '

11.- Install Safety Railing / Cage Around Iadder in Drywell 1.859

12. Repair Remote CRD Removal Machinn 1.791

13. Asphalt Processing - Exclusion Area Entries 1.581

14. Install and Repair "BB" System Valves 1.490

15. Replace Recirc Pump Mech. Seal- 1.461

16. ;Limitorques and PMS-RB HRAs 1.205 .

. 17. IAC.PMs.and Calibrations 1.196 -

i T

1 F-26

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

. s*

ARTIFICI AL ISLAND TfsX DATA P.S. SFe.NE 1980 1985 1989 19,626,199 23,873,600 24,929,600 Base Real Estate Tax Assessed Valuation Real Estate Taxes Paid to Lower Alloway 231,589 381,977 516,043 Creek Township Gross Receipts and Franchise Taxes Paid 99,799,285 112,463,732 112,622,120 to State 4,000,000 6,300,000 6,300,000 Amount Apportioned by State to Lower Alloway Creek Township from Gross Receipts and Franchise Taxes

/

ATTACHMENT 1 PSE&G op9ratos three nuclear plants in the stato of New Jersey and is responsible for the safe storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel /

High Level Wasto (SNF/HLW) generated by them. The three units are Salem 1 and 2 (PWRs) and Hope Creek Unit 1 (BWR). The units are located on one site and are protected by one sito fence. At the current spent fuel dischargo rato, Salem 1, 2 and Hope Crook are projected to lose their " Operational" Full C, ore Reservo (OFCR) by the year 1996, 2000, and 2006 respectively.

Answer to NUMARC Ouestion A.1 Presently, all the spent nuclear fuel and high level waste SNF/HLW from the Salem Units 1 and 2 (PWRs) and Hope Creek Unit 1 (BWR) are stored in spent fuel pool racks. As sufficient in-pool storage capacity currently exists, PSE&G has not constructed any above ground dry storage facility to store the spent fuel.

Additionally, PSE&G is attempting to reduce the spent fuel discharges by designing reload cores using higher enrichment and longer fuel burnup.

Answer to NUMARC Ouestion A d PSE&G will continue to store spent fuel in pools as long as it is operationally and economically feasible. However, the lack of timely performance by the DOE to pick up spent fuel prior to the loss of OFCR at the three units will require the installation of additional spent fuel storage capacity to maintain plant operability.

Answer to NUMARC Ouestion A.3 thru A.5 PSE&G has recently developed a spent fuel storage strategy to meet the short and long term storage needs of the Salem and Hope Creek Units. The short term solution is expected to provide sufficient additional storage capacity until the year 2005 and the long term until the plants are retired including plant life extension to reflect 40 years from the initial operation of the units. The additional 20 year period of license renewal beyond l

the 40 years of plant operation was not considered in the current strategy. However, it can be easily included because of the modular expansion feature of the various dry storage techniques that have been evaluated.

The key recommendations of the spent fuel storage strategy that are currently being implemented are as follows:

1. PSE&G is performing a detailed technical suitability, licensability and economic study to determine the feasibility of converting the unfinished Hope Creek

N 4

Unit 2 Reactor Building into a spent fuel storage pool.

This is a unique option available to PSE&G to meet its spent fuel storage requirements. This facility adjoins the Hope Crcok Unit 1 and is within the existing secured site area. It is presently abandoned. This option can meet life of plant needs of all three units.

Doponding upon the economics of this option, it could be a desirabic choice compared with rod consolidation or dry storage methods such as cask, horizontal modules, or vertical vaults. This study is scheduled to be completed by 1990.

2. In parallel with the Hope Crcok Unit 2 study PSE&G is also in the process of preparing Salem 1 and 2 rcracking specifications and requesting vendor bids for this project. Preliminary estimates indicate that it is possible to increase the total number of storage cells by about 400 in cach of the two Salem pools by replacing the current high density racks with higher density racks. If rcracking appears to be operationally and economically attractivo, then implementing this option would provide sufficient storage capacity for Salem 1 until 2004 and Salem 2 until 2008.

3. If both the Hope Crock Unit 2 conversion and the rcracking options are deemed not feasibic, then PSE&G would consider dry storage options such as cask storage and horizontal concrete modules (NUHOMS) to provide additional ensite storage capacity. Both these options would require acquisition of additional onsite land.

Preliminary indications are that sufficient real estato is available onsite both inside and outside the protected area depending upon the dry storage option selected. However, we have not expended any effort in determining the amount of land and its location for these options.

Answer to NUMARC Ouestions A.6 - A.7 PSE&G anticiputes additional onsite construction activity if any one of the three storage expansion options, i.e., conversion of Hope Creek Unit 2 Reactor Building, cask storage or horizontal modules is found feasible and is implemented. As these projects are still in the study phase, the details of construction activity are unknown at the present time.

WASTEMANAGEMENTQUESTIONS(cont.)

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

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)

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 wastes generated during the license renewal period be available to your plant (s)? If so, what is the basis for this Conclusion? If the current plans for the Northeast Compact remain valid, we will have adequate capacity.

2. If for any reason your plant (s) is/are denied access to a licensed dispos. 1 site for a short period of time, what plans do you have for continued LLRW disposal? on-site storage.

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:

A. Waste compaction? so-60s B. Waste segregation (through special controls or segregation at radiation check point)? 40t C. Decontamination of wastes? 1 - 2t D. Sorting of waste prior to shipment? 20s ,

E. Other (please identify)

M*7G: hr AnAcHs r>

NUMARC Page 3

WASTEMANAGEMENTQUESTIONS(cont.)

4. In a couple of pages, please describe the anticioated plans for LLRW managementtobeutilizedbyyourplant(s)duringtheremainderofthe operating licer.se and through the license renewal term. What percentage of your anticioated waste (by volume) will be managed byi A. Waste compaction? so - so, B. Wastesegregation(throughspecialcontrolsorsegregation j at radiation check points)?  ;

C. Decontamination of wastes? 1 - 2t D. Sorting of waste-prior to shipment? 204 E. Other(pleaseidentify) _

t/0TGISn dwncato.

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

Not anticipated.

6. Tc 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?

N/A

7. Do you anticipate any additional construction activity, on site, or '

immediately adjacent to the power plant site, associated with +

temporary LLRW storage for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal? hno) l l

! 8. If you answered yes to question 7, briefly describe this construction I

activity (e.g.,storageareasforsteamgeneratorcomponentsorother materialsexposedtoreactorenvirorment).

Internal refurbishment of acandoned buildinge to accomodate interim radwaste storage facility.

NUMARC Page 4

s' Y l

$3 /Epott er"4s Ewenmno.o Description Low level radioactive waste at Artificial Island consists of accumulated trash (called Dry Active Waste (DAW)), miscellaneous scrap materials, some irradiated reactor instrumentation, ar,d spent ion-exchange resins which have been contaminated with radioactive nuclides. Examples of DAW includes rags, plastic, paper, wood, and metal. The spent ion-exchange resins are generated from the salem and Hope Creek water clean-up systems. The radioactive nuclides that are present as contaminants are clasrified as " low level" because the quantity is low and they will dtcay to insignificant quantities within the projected life span of the off-site disposal facility.

Present Handling Hethods The waste produced here at Artificial Island is handled in two ways. The dry trash is placed-into " Sea-Land" containers (either 40'x8'x8'or 20'x8 'x8') and sGut to a vendor that incinerates or supercompacts the waste. This results in volume reduction ratios between 6:1 to 300:1. The resin wastes are either solidified using the bitumen process system, which reduces the volume of radioactive waste that will be buried, or dewatered in large, specially designed disposal containere. The in-house volume reduction systems are not used at the present time. They are maintained operable in the event that vendor services are unavailable. The current practice is to ship for disposal as soon as a load is accumulated.

The time required to accumulate a truckload is dependant on the plant's operational condition, which is approximately weekly during the plant's outage and every month during operation.

4, 1987 - 1989 Disposal Volumes l

The services and technology for volume reduction (supercompaction and incineration) are relatively new. Coupled with the aggressive waste minimization programs implemented at our i nuclear plants, we have significantly reduced the volume that Salem and Hopa Creek disposed of during this period, as reflected below: ,

1987 1988 1989 20,545 cu.ft. 17,191 cu.ft. 9460 cu.ft.

The approximate disposal costs associated with these volumes during this time frame averaged about $80-100 per cubic foot.

Legislated Allocation Volumes The Low Level Radioactive Waste Policy Amendments Act of 1985 assigned maximum volumes for generating (LLRWPAA) facilities. PSE&G was allotted 136,293 cubic feet for the 1986 1989 time period. We have used approximately 50% of the allocation for the period, and the remaining will be added to the volume that we could ship to--the burial facilities for the next three years, 1990-1992.

[ .

l l

l 0

I i

e, , ~ , , , , , , - --

e hY/k.%tDMds h%41Tu/

Artifisisi Island Low-Lavel Radioactive Storace Strateav PSE&G does not want to store its low-level radioactive waste on Artificial Island.

At the end of 1992, the three existing licensed burial sites will close. At that time, PSE&G will have 2 options, either to have the state of New Jersey contract with a newly opened facility or to store its wasta. As of this writing, there are no sites that will be opening in the next year, although there are tro or three sites t'et are tentatively scheduled to begin operation in 1991 or 1992. Sacause of difficult political hurdles involved deal with eccess to these sites PSE&G does not anticipate that the near future use of these facilities will be available to out-of-state generators. Therefore, PSE&G's strategic plan for the management of low-level radioactive waste involves the refurbishment of unused space on Artificial Island. Due to the high emotional intensity associated with radioactive waste, PSE&G does not feel that constructing a storage facility elsewhere in New Jersey is prudent. PSE&G plans to have this storage capacity available by the and of 1992.

PSE&G hab completed a preliminary engineering study of the anticipated capacity for a 5-year period. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission currently limits the storage of low-level radioactive waste to 5 years, so PSE&G's plan is similarly structured for this time frame. The most viable alternative of the several engineering studies entails minimum construction (less than 6 months). PSE&G nill not further pursue this direction until the privilege of disposing radioactive material is in danger of revocation.

Volume Reduction The major component to reduce radioactive vaste disposal costs has been the reduction of the volume that is buried. PSE&G, in has been involved in an concert aggressive with volume the nuclear reductionindustrylgn campa since the early 1980s. On an industry basis, this emphasis on reducing volume has produced a reduction of the low-level radwaste volume by a factor of one-half. PSiiG has mirrored this feat. Wa have decreased tne volume of low-level radioactive waste from a 1983 high of 73,000 cubic feet -o a 1988 volume of 24,000 cubic feet. PSE&G and the nuclear industry are quite proud of this accomplishment, particularly when viewed in the light of adding more generating

< units (e.g., PSE&G's Hope Creek Station).

PSE&G and the nuclear industry are continuing this aggressive effort on radwaste volume reduction. We have contracted a "supercompaction" volume reduction service which can reduce one of our forms of radioactive waste (dW active waste) by one-half. This service will also be incinerating some of our radioactive waste in the near future and smelting out metallic waste within the next year. These three methods, working in synergy with PSE&G's volume reduction practices, will produce the lowest technically feasible voluse.

The Low-Level Radwaste Policy Amendments Act mandated that generators practice volume reduction and decreed goals for generators. PSE&G was proactive in beginning aggressive radwaste volume reduction before it became mandatory. The two legislated goals for maximum allocated volume are December 31, 1989 and December 31, 1992. PSE&G has met the first goal (we will use approximately 45% of the allocated volume), and the ,

forecast for the 1992 goal is optimistic. Through continued i efforts to reduce the volume of low-level radioactive wasta, PSE&G will exceed the macond vnlumatric nnal.

. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _