ML20085M562
| ML20085M562 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Vermont Yankee File:NorthStar Vermont Yankee icon.png |
| Issue date: | 06/28/1990 |
| From: | VERMONT YANKEE NUCLEAR POWER CORP. |
| To: | |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110181 | |
| Download: ML20085M562 (26) | |
Text
_ _ _ _ _
V 4
JLA % C W d cLobG
[Cudf/t1 RC1 p
UTILITY SITE Yf rAwe:,Y.\\
Nctw V' o e b
LO3 ~7 /4tO ENCLOSURES L
%ALutrA Cl) 3 i (.o Demu e b o M len TS 97 e$$2*$84gjv 62e 1437 C PDR
WASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS 1his portion of the questionnaire is designed to gather information about the waste management practices in use today, as well as those techniques, practices and programs which may be planned, taking into consideration the i
High Level Waste Repository and facilities developed pursuant to the Low level Radioactive Waste Poiicy Amendments Act of 1985.
The information 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 + arm (an additional 20 years beyond the original licensing term), utilities thich 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 ccmpleted 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 ctses, please indicate if responses apply to more than one unit.
Information filed with your state compacts or LLRW management agency may prove a useful reference when completing this portion of the questionnaire.
Based on our pilot study, the Waste Management questions should take approximately 8 man-hours to answer.
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.
The original fuel racks have been replaced twice to provide higher density packing in the scent fuel pool. This will presently provide storage until 1998.
NUMARC Page 1
WASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS (cont.)
B.
Control rod repositioning, No C.
Above ground dry storage.
No D.
Longer fuel burnup, VY is now operating on an 18-month cycle E.
Other (please identify).
2.
Do you plan on continuing the use of these GLrrffa 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?
Additional storage will be :ecessary for the post-1998 time 3.
Which of the following techniques for at-reactor storage do you anticioate using until off-site spent fuel storage becomes available and how?
No analysis has been done.
Dry storage casks may be used.
A.
Re-racking of spent fuel.
B.
Control rod repositioning.
C.
Above ground dry storage.
D.
Longer fuel burnup.
E.
Other (please identify).
4.
Will the techniques described above be adequate for continued at-reactor storage of spent fuel for the operating lifetime of the l
plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal, or are you developing other plans? -This is not known.
5.
Do you anticipate the need to acquire additional land for the storage of l
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 sentencts) l Probably not, but an analysis has not been done.
6.
Do you anticipate any additiona_] construction activity on-site, or immediately adjacent to the power plant site, associated with the HUMARC Page 2 i
WASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS (cont.)
continued at-reactor storage of spent fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal? (yes/no)
If dry casks are used, a pad or building would be needed.
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)
See #6.
B.
Low level radioactive waste management questions:
1.
Under ;he 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 licer e renewal period be available to your plant (s)?
If so, what is the basis for this conclusion?
Legislation has passed in Vermont which provides for an in-state site if a compact arrangement is not available.
l 2.
If for any reason your plant (s) is/are denied access to a licensed l
disposal site for a short period of time, what plans do you have for l
continued LLRW disposal? VY is presently denied access and has been storage waste on-site since early 1989. The i
storage is in concrete modules on a pad.
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 vol_ume) is managed by:
A.
Waste conipaction?
95 B.
Waste segregation (through special controls or segregation at 40 radiation check point)?
l C.
Decontamination of wastes?
m D.
Sorting of waste prior to shipment? _
40 l
E.
Other (please identify) l Sea attached NUMARC Page 3
_ _ _ ~ -
WASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS (cont.)
4.
In a couple of pages, please describe the anticipated plans for LLRW management to be utilized by your plant (s) during the remainder of the operating license and through the license-renewal term. What percentage of your anticipated waste (by volume) will be managed by:
There are no plans to change our methods.
A.
Waste compaction?
B.
Waste segregation (through special controls or segregation at radiation check points)?
C.
Decontamination of wastes?
D.
Sorting of waste prior to shipment?
E.
Other(pleaseidentify) 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 license renewal?
If so, how much land? When would this acquisition occur? Where? t.f answer is "yes", 3-4 sentences)
No.
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?
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, incl'iding a 20-year period of license renewal?
(yes/no)
No 8.
If you answered yes to question 7, briefly describe this construction r.ctivity (e.g., storage areas for steam generator components or other materials exposed to reactor environment).
HUMARC Page 4-
l WASTE KANAGEMENT QUESTIONS (cont.)
l 9.
To provide information on future low level waste streams which may effect workforce 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 for the plant?
If so, please describe these activities. Also, what types of modifications do you anticipate to be necessary to achieve license renewal operation througn a 20-year license renewal term?
None are anticipated.
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 waste during the license renewal period?
HUMARC Page 5
RESPONSE-TO WASTE MANAGEMENT-QUESTION 3 Low level waste at-Vermont Yankee presently is in one of three: forms; dry active waste, spent resin, and irradiated, components (mostly control rods and LPRM's).
Dry active waste is-initially surveyed in plastic bags.
Bags that read over 10 mrem /hr are taken directly to the compactor room where they are compacted into approximately 100 cu-ft metal boxes to a density of about 40 lbs/cu-ft.
Bags that read less than 10 mrem /hr are tcxen to a sorting area.
There the waste is removed from the bags and individually checked for radioactivity.
Clean waste is released as normal trash, and waste that is found to be contaminated is taken to the compactor room and treated as above.
During periods when disposal space is available, these boxes are stored ina warehouse until about 10 accumulate.
A truckload of 10 is then shipped for burial.
Since'early 1989-no burial site has been available to Vermont Yankee, so onsite storage has been used.
The storage method used is.a concrete module sitting outside on a gravel pad.
These modules hold 8 boxes each, Resin waste is held in phase separators after it is i
backwashed from the demineralizers.
To prepare the resin for disposal, a slurry of resin'is sent to a centrifuge. The I
centrifuge separatts the resin and water and deposits the dry resin in a 158 cu-ft high integrity container which is in a-transport cask.
The resin is manually compacted periodically during the filling process. When the cask is full, it is sealed, decontaminated, then transferred to a flatbed trailer.- If disposal space is available the cask is shipped for burial.
If not, the liner is transferred to a storage module as above with the DAW,.
The modules each hold 3 high integrity containers.
Irradiated hardware is stored in the spent fuel pool and is removed for disposal every several years.
Because of the very_high radiation levels on these components they must be transferred to a heavily shielded cask under water, in the fuel-pool.
The-cask-then is-removed from the pool, decontaminated,.and loaded on-a special flat-bed trailer for transport to_the burial facility.
_ - _ _ = ~ _ -. _. -..
SOCIOECONOMIC QUESTIONS FOR ALL UTILITIES This portion of the questionnaire is designed to 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 Socioeconomic questions should take approximately 40 man hours to answer. The majority of that time is expected to be dedicated to Question No.3.
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 are available.
247 as of June 1,1990 2.
To understand the importance of the plant to the local region, and tow that has changed over time, estimats 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.
See attached 3.
To understand the potential impact of continued operation for an additional 20 years beyond the original 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 c: curred, and cost. Also, estimate occupational doses received by permanent and temporary workers during each principal task.
See attached NUMARC Page 1
SOCI0 ECONOMIC QUESTIONS (cont.)
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.
l STATE OF MUNICIPALITY VERNON BRATTLEBORO VERMONT
- l-1 I
II I
TAX ASSESSED TAX ASSESSED YEAR VALUE TAXES PAID VALUE TAXES PAID TAXES PAID 1980 164,136,258 1,313,090 2,670,540 1985 177,951,307 2,040,746 2,800,600 67,214 1,492,634 1989 493,532,693 3,486,315 7,670,200 227,805 908,488-
- Taxes are assessed on the Net Utility plant including nuclear fuel, as per the annual report to the Public Service Board, times 1.9%, less property taxes paid to municipals for the prior year.
I l.
l l
l l
l NUKARC Page 2 l
~ _ _, _ _ _ _ _
a RESPONSE TO SOCIOECO!10MIC QUESTIOtt 2 I
Vermont Yankee is a single asset, operating company with it's only reason for existence being the operation of the power plant.
The plant began operations in 1972.
In-1982 a corporate. office facility was established in a neighboring town approximately 10 miles from the site.
Two figures are given for the periods since 1982, the plant only, and the plant and corporate office personnel.
Period Average employees 1972-1976 102 1977-1981 146 1982-1986 203 273 1987-1990 242 340 rurther information on staffing is provided in the attached memo dated 6/28/90.
e
=, -
,*w,
-r
.w---...wv..
em. - - - -.w,r-
.,-..r-.
r,
-.--e,--....--r--
m
~
-w
,,-----.-i
. - -. _.. -. ~,. -...,...
i MEMORANDUM-TO: DEAN WEYMAN DATE: JUNE 28, 1990 FROMt KATHY CASEY
SUBJECT:
STAFFING ANALYSIS THE FOLLOWING TOTALS REPRESENT FUQ-TIME AUTHORIZED STAFFING AT VERMONT YANKEE FROM 1972 - PRESENT.
YEAR NUMBER OF PLANT POSITIONS TOTAL COMPANY POSITIONS i
89)21 1972 10 1973 106 )
102 r.
1974 1975 l
1976 112s 1977 1223 i
1978 125 1979 143 s, i
1980 166 (
-)
1981-175) 1983 18 219f's 1983 192 247 1984 200 2(
263 1985 212 310 1986 22%
330
'1987 236T 337
1988 242k 340 1989 2431 341 1990 247./
345y CCORPORATE OFFICES ESTABLISHED ON FERRY RD.,
BRATTLEBORO.
1
4 RESPONSE TO SOCIOECONOMIC QUESTION 3 CASE As-To answer this question, the 1989 refueling outage was-used as the typical planned outage.
It occurred February 10 through April 8, 1989.
There-were approximately 800 badged contractors on site for th outage.
The total dose received during the outage was 175 man-rem.
The total time and dose expended on 29 jobs is listed on the attached ALARA report dated 7/6/89.
The cost of the outage exclusive of replacement power costs was $19.1 million, i
CASE B Vermont Yankee does not have specific ISI outages, but distributes the ISI work throughout regular refueling outages.
No further response on this case will be given.
CASE C:
The largest single outage at vermont Yankee was the outage to replace the recirculation system piping.
It occurred from September 21, 1985 through July 2, 1986.
There were approximately 1450 badged contractors on site at that time. A graph of contractors on rite during the period 1981-1986 is attached for additional information.
The total dose received during the outage was 2275 man-rem.
A breakdown of time and dose expended is given in the attached ALARA report dated 7/3/86.
The cost of this outage, exclusive of replacement power costs was $66 million, of which $42.4 million are directly associated with the changeout of the recirculation pipe.
3 e
-. _.,, _, ~ _
[4ttechment 111.A2.Ua FINAL ALARA REP 0RT 1985/86 RPRP OUTAGE JULY 3, 1986 PAGE 1 JOB INDEX : RPRP INITIAL EST REVISED EST TOTAL DATE FOR MAN-HR: REM MAN-MR: REM MAN-MR: REM LAST ENTRY O
1 - REPLACE RX BO'170M MEAD DRAIN (N-15) MK 3001
-COMPLETED-8'1 604.0 : 51.4 239.7 : 20.4 536.6 : 1 04/30/86 010502 :
y@es G
2 - CAVITY DECON
-COMPL 57.0 :
1.7 0.0 :
0.0 401.3 :
3.4 06/25/86 010601 :
3 - REACTOR DRYEF ASSEMBLY VISUAL INSPECTION
-COMPLETED-5.6 :
1.3 42.0 :
4.6 56.4 3.1 04/01/86 010701 :
4 - TIP TUBING REPLACEMENT
-COMPLETED-320.0 :
9.9 276.5 :
4.4 256.2 3.4 07/02/86 010801 :
5 - TIP DRIVE REPLACEMENT
-COMPLETED-82.0 :
0.3 0.0 :
0.0 73.0 :
0.3 07/02/86 010802 :
6 - LPRM CABLE CMANGEOUT
-COMPLETED-16.0 :
2.4 1912.0 : 11.7 2081.4 : 12.0 07/09/86 010803 :
-COMPLETED-7
,SRM/IRH REPAIR 16.0 :
4.0 84.0 :
4.6 1235.9 : 11.9 05/19/86 010804 :
8 - LPRM PROBE REPLACEMENT
-COMPLETED-16.0 :
2.4 32.0 :
2.4 132.9 :
1.2 05/01/86 010805 :
l 9 - DEFUEL AND REFUEL REACTOR VESSEL
-COMPLETED-1440.0 :
3.6 0.0 :
0.0 1584.1 :
3.7 05/29/86 010901 :
10 - (MISC. REFUEL WORK)
-COMPLETED-010999 : ---
0.0 :
0.0 0.0 :
0.0 1521.5 :
6.9 07/09/86 11 - REACTOR VESSEL INTERNALS PREP & IN9PECTIONS
-COMPLETED-011101 :----
1994.0 : 16.4 2624.5 : 20.0 4944.6 : 34.4 05/14/86 12 - n.wHATER SPARGER INSPECTION
-CANCELED-498.0 : 16.3 0.0 :
0.0 79.5 :
0.5 04/10/86 011102 :
13 - DISASSEMBLE REACTOR VESSEL AND COMPONENTS
-COMPLETED-1296.0 :
3.9 0.0 :
0.0 902.0 :
8.6 09/28/85 011401 :
14 - LEAK RATE TESTING (RX ENGINEERING & OPS)
-COMPLETED-0.0 :
0.0 0.0 :
0.0 63.9 :
0.4 05/22/86 011402 :
15 - ISI REACTOR MEAD AND FLANGE
-CANCELED-103.7 :
4.4 0.0 :
0.0 0.0 :
0.0 011403 :
16 - REASSEMBLE REACTOR VESSEL
-COMPLETED-720.0 : 11.1 0.0 :
0.0 8_'.8
- 10.8 06/26/86 011404 :
17 - MOVAT INSPECTION IN DRYWELL
-COMPLETED-l~20.0 7.8 285.0 : 10.0 476.3 : 11.1 06/08/86 020102 :
_ ~.
A-L A R A REP 0RT PAGE 3 JOB-INDEX : RPRP INITIAL EST REVISED EST TOTAL DATE FOR MAN-HR REM MAN-HR REM MAN-HR: REM LAST ENTRY 35 - REMOVE DRYWELL PIPE INSULATION MKWP 4110
-COMPLETED-020513 : yes
- 1056.0 : 30.3 279.3 23.3 504.5 25.7 11/15/85 36 - INSTALL / REMOVE TEMP DW SHIELDING MK 4300
-COMPLUI'ED-020514 : yes 144.0 : 20.9 325.9 : 58.9 667.4 : 34.1 04/30/86 37 - SMALL BORE & INS'IRU. INTRTRNCE RMVL MKWP 5020
-COMPLEI'ED-020515 : yes 226.0 9.5 171.5 : 14.6 352.6 : 15.8 01/31/86 3
38 - STRCT STL & WHP RST INTRFRNCE REMVL MKWP 5040
-COMPLPI'ED-020516 : yes 248.2':
6.3 261.6 : 24.1 553.6 : 23.2 02/04/86 39 - REPLACE D/W PIPE INSULATION MK WP 5050
-COMPLEI'ED-020517 : yes 1690.0 : 21.9 1694.0 : 39.4 2209.2 : 21.7 06/27/86 40 - REMOVE RCR A&B DISCH PIPE MKWP 1213-14
-COMPLETED-020518 : yes 1383.0 : 76.8 648.4 : 54.0 1252.8 : b3.5 12/02/85 41 - REPLACE DH SPRNG CAN HNGRS MKWP 1332-2331
-COMPLETED-iO20519 : yes 358.0 :
6.0 265.5 : 12.6 1129.6-: 15.5 05/13/86 42, INSTALL RCR DIF*.'H PIPES MKWP 1223-1224
-COMPLETED-020521 : yes 3924.7 :149.0 5801.6 :161.2 5878.1 : 97.6 04/08/86 43 - HYDROLA2E RCR PIPE INTERNALS (MK-HNS)
-COMPLEI'ED-020522 : yes 500.0 : 15.0 0.0 :
0.0 302.1 : 13.4 11/01/85 l
44 - DISCONNECT / RECONNECT RECIRC. PUMP THERMOCOUPLES-COMPLETED-020801 : yes 16<0 :
3.8 0.0 :
0.0 48.2 :
0.9 06/30/86 l
45 - INSTALL START-UP MONITORS
-COMPLEI'ED-020802 : yes 692.0 :
5.9 09:
0.0 694.6 :
5.4 07/01/86 l-46 - BASE PLATE RCR PUMP SNUBBERS
-COMPLEIED-021001 : yes 1096.0 :
8.2 0.0 :
0.0 670.1 :
4.2 07/09/86 47 - MK SUPERVISORY TOURS IN DW MKWP 9000
-COMPLLTED-021101 : yes 4944.0 : 34.6 3011.0 : 73.5 4571.6 :109.3 06/24/86 48 - REMOVE CROSS TIE VALVES.(ELECTRIC)
-COMPLETEn-021123 : yes 500.0 :
2.3 0.0 :
0.0 160.4 :
0.3 05/06/86 49 - MACHINE RHR VALVES MKWP 1610,12,14,16,18,20
-COMPLETED-030102 : yes 1159.7 : 18.7 1188.4 : 26.1 1334.1 : 36.3 02/14/86 50
_ REMOVE RMR PIPES 30,31,32 MKWP 2215-17
-COMPLURU--
030501 : yes 484.9 : 15.8 181.2 : 12.6 356.7 : 14.4 06/02/06 51 - INSTALL RHR PIPC 30,31,32 MKWP 2225-27
-COMPLETED-030502 : yes 2767.9,: 31.0 2576.9 : 51.0 2638.4 : 46.9 06/08/86 w
2 sa m
+v e-
ALARA REP 0RT PAGE 5 JOB INDEX :-RPRP INITIAL EST.
REVISED EST TOTAL DATE FOR MAN-MR: REM MAN-MR: REM MAN-MR: REM LAST ENTRY 69 - TRANSMITTER UPGRADES
-COMPLLTED-2038.0 : 13.2 0.0 :
0.0 1872.9 :
4.5 05/14/86 050801 :
70 - FRICTIOtl TESTING OF CRDs
-COMPLETED-0.0 :
0.0 0.0 :
0.0 131.4 :
0.3 06/19/86
-060801 :
71 - REMOVE / REPLACE CRDs
-COMPLETED-48.0 2.0 544.0 : 12.1 868.5 : 10.2 06/08/86 061201 :
72 - PIPE PACKAGING AND DISPOSAL (M)G@ 5200)
-COMPLLTED-070501 : yes 1078.0 :
8.6 1078.0 : 19.3 1043.2 : 19.8 01/28/86 73 - CLEAN COND. PMASE SEP. TANK A&B
-COMPLETED-23.5 :
1.0 0.0 0.0 42.5 1.0 01/06/86 070601 1 74 - MISC. RADHASTE SYSTEM / CASK MANDLING WORK (NO EST. DOSE) 0.0 :
0.0
'O.0 2 0.0 864.8 : 10.8 07/02/86 071199 :
75 - CROSS AROUND PIPING
-COMPLETED-13957.0 :
2.8 0.0 :
0.0 415.7 0.4 01/30/86
.080501 :
76. ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OF MAIN TURBINE
-COMPLETED-14400.0 5.8 0.0 :
0.0 3110.3 :
1.5 01/10/85 081101 :
77 - MOVAT INSPECTION IN STEAM TUNNEL
-COMPLEI'ED-0.0 :
0.0 0.0 :
0.0 157.4 :
0.2 11/14/85 090102 :
78 - REMOVE / REPLACE SAFETY RELIEF VALVES
-COMPLETED-264.0 :
8.4 0.0 :
0.0 288.0 :
6.6 06/26/86 090106 79 - REMOVE / REPLACE MSIV's
-COMPLETED-150.0 :
2.8 383.0 :
1.7 672.3 :
2.9 07/02/86 090110 :
80 - CONDEMIN A-E ELEMENT CMANGEOUT
-COMPLETED-400.0 0.3 400.0 :
1.4 496.6 :
1.3 12/20/85 100401 :
81 - ISI IN DRYWELL
-COMPLETED-100501 : yes 200.0 :
4.0 1295.0 : 40.2 2631.3 : 31.8 06/26/86 82 - ISI NON-DRYWELL
-COMPLETED-95.5 :
1.7 0.0 :
0.0 43.2 :
0.1 03/21/86 100502 :
83 - ECN-3 SEISMIC PIPING REANALYSIS
-COMPLETED-110501 : ---
10730.5 : 79.0 15418.0 : 51.4 17249.8 : 64.5 05/17/86 84 - ECN-8 SEISMIC PIPING REANALYSIS
-COMPLETED-1850.6 :
9.8 2413.5 : 11.5 1484.8 :
4.7 07/03/86 110502 :
85 - SMALL BORE PIPING SUPPORT STP 85.02
-COMPLETED-1613.2 :
4.4 0.0 :
0.0 1207.3 :
2.3 11/17/85 110503 :
l i
ALARA R E-P 0 R T PAGE 7
-JOB INDEX : -RPRP INITIAL EST REVISED EST TOTAL DATE FOR MAN-HR: REM MAN-HR: REM MAN-HR REM LAST ENTRY 103 - DRYWELL GA DECON (MK ONLY) MK WP 5110
-COMPLETED-151103 : yes 2693.0 : 48.0 1899.3 : 83.2 7899.1 2150.6 06/27/86 104 - MK ERCT/RMVFySCAFFOLD (DRYWELL ONLY) MK 9500
-COMPLETSD-151104 : yes 979.0 : 50.7 0.0 :
0.0 2272.1 : 41.2 05/13/86-105 - MISC D/W HATCH WORK
-COMPLLTED-0.0 :
0.0 0.0 0.0 49.0 1 0.7 05/29/86 151105 :
106 - HEALTH PHYSICS COVERAGE IN THE DRYWELL (DOSE TRACKING) 3051.0 : 75.4 16120.2 144.5 14069.1 1131.3 07/03/86 151106 : yes _
107 - DRYWELL ELEC. INTERFERENCE REMOVAL MKh? 5030
-COMPLETED-151107 : yes 320.0 : 10.5 172.0 : 11.8 469.8 : 13.8 11/25/85 108 - RADIOGRAPHY OUTSIDE THE RCA (MK) NO EST.
-COMPLETED-151108 : yes 0.0 :
0.0
- 0.0 :
0.0 464.6 :
0.5 03/19/86 109 - HEALTH PHYSICS GAMMA SCAN
-COMPLETED-30.0 :
0.5 0.0 :
0.0 19.8 :
0.4 10/18/85
$151110 :
110,DRYWELL RESTORATION (MK ONLY) MK WP 4920
-COMPLETED-151112 : yes 2349.0 : 14.1 2139.0 1 27.8 1021.8 : 10.6 06/27/86 111 - DW ELEC AND GEN MAINT (MK ONLY) MKWP 8000
-COMPLETED-151113 : yes 1340.0 : 14.4 780.0 : 19.0 1318.9 : 27.1 04/06/86 112 - REPLACE ELEC INTERFERENCE IN DW MKWP 5070
-COMPLETED-151115 : yes 343.0 :
4.0 325.0 :
3.9 754.1 :
8.1 06/24/86 113 - REFUEL FLOOR GENERAL ENTRY (DOSE TRACKING)
-COMPLETED-0.0 :
0.0 0.Q :
0.0 3500.3 : 16.0 07/03/86 151116 :
114 - MERCURY SANDBLASTING (NO EST. DOSE)
-COMPLETED-0.0 :
0.0 0.0 :
0.0 3336.8 :
1.3 06/27/86 151118 :
115 - FIREWATCH IN DW (MK ONLY)-MKWP 9300
-COMPLLTED-151119 : yes 1550.0 : 22.0 922.5 : 40.8 2593.0 : 36.3 06/24/86 116 - MERCURY MISC DECON(N0 EST. DOSE)
-COMPLETED-0.0 :
0.0 0.0 :
0.0 841.8 :
2.8 06/22/86 151120 :
i 117 --MK HOT TOOL CRIB MKWP 9600
-COMPLETED-y t
151121 : yes 4278.0 :
7.5 4278.0 :
5.0 2834.6 :
6.5 05/02/86 118 - MISC. MK WORK OUTSIDE THE DRYNELL (NO PACK)
-COMPLETED-151122 : yes 0.0 :
0.0 0.0 :
0.0 12192.'3 : 22.0 05/24/86 119 - MISC. OPS IN DRYWELL (DOSE TRACKING)
-COMPLETED-0.0 :
0.0 0.0 :
0.0 345.4 :
3.1 07/03/86 151197 :
,._.s S
~
..sa.e ~s a -
k u
4.w....
4 A~u u
r,.a..-
.---.m-.
a
+-ar~
n s--+a. - -
- k.
x a.--a--
T g
M Cp gamassa t
fE8EEWE
- A
.~ _..G
.T t
, 7 c
~
=
v N
g
'g' 9"
7 vp T.
-st-
+*
.# e
,p g,
s-g%
SIIb
,s
~
w ~.
w s
V W
V e g
.f=*
%se#
s
^.2
~..
a ammmmmmmmmmmmmmmmer?. n 4r m
- - - = -: :
-- :.=~
v (c W
w ;~
'=
1
+s 4
es
~
n k
3 LA
=
e, m y
=se v
es N
- == p C
- w u
WW V
== w#
A
.m_
9 Sumend em
'w mi;..
s.
s y,
.q i
poemen
'5 aume - -w'j ey
- 5..
4
- 4 ww aJ
- g..
- w -
E EEEEEEE L
.,e
__..._.n y-
.m
+,a m
/
~.
4#
m-a e
suunnes y
g tummanus g
. Em i T..
C
^
^
,o.
3 0
e c.
v n
n n
n n
n n
n n
t**
f*"
w w
w e.4
%e we s.e
%e w
'W
- pa. 3
- e. * *.
- i a y w.4
- = _,
g e
w on w
>. g
~$
6 9 68 pq 3
= w
- q[.s.el
l ALARA R E PORT 6-JUL-89 07:50:00 JOB INDEX :
INITIAL EST REVISED EST TOTAL DATE FOR MAN-HR: REM MAN-HR: REM MAN-HR: REM (1)
LAST ENTRY 1 - DRYWELL TIP TUBING REPLACEMENT ---COMPLETE---
010803 :
90.0 :
2.2 0.0 2 0.0 198.9 :
2.4(108.0) 04/13/89 2 - REMOVE & INSTALL LPRMS & IRMS (DRYWELL) --COMPLETE--
010805 :
348.5 :
4.4 0.0 :
0.0 202.8 :
3.0( 67.6) 04/05/89 3 - RX VESSEL LEVEL INDICATOR UPG RADES --COMP 1 ETE--
010806 :
286.6 :
3.4 0.0 :
0.0 167.6 :
2.9( 86.3) 04/05/89 4 - DEFUEL, REFUEL, INSPECTIONS, & SIPPING-COMPLETE-010901 : 2100.0 :
4.6 0.0 :
0.0 1843.2 :
5.1(111.2) 04/13/89 5 - IN VESSEL INSPECTIONS ---COMPLETE---
011102 :
349.0 :
1.8 0.0 :
0.0 228.0 :
1.2( 69.4) 04/13/89 6 - DISASSEMBLE & ASSEMBLE RX VESSEL ---COMPLETE---
011404 : 1574.0 : 12.9 0.0 :
0.0 1406.9 : 11.5( 89.5) 04/13/89 7 - MOV'S OVERHAUL & INSPECTIONS (DRYWELL) ---COMPLETE---
020101 :
112.0 :
2.9 0.0 0.0 79.7 :
1.9( 66.8) 04/05/89 8 - MISCELLANEOUS DRYWELL VALVE WORK ---COMPLETE---
~
020103 :
194.0 :
4.8 254.0 :
9.1 227.9 :
6.8( 74.8) 04/29/89 9-
'A & B' RHR HEAT EXCHANGER TESTING & REPAIR --COMPLETE--
i 030301 :
152.0 :
0.8 956.0 :
8.6 1066.0 :
8.9(103.0) 04/13/89 10 - RCU & CS VALVE OVERHAULS & PM'S ---COMPLETE---
040101 :
602.0 : 10.0 0.0 :
0.0 352.0 :
8.4( 83.6) 04/13/89 11 - HPCI/RCIC DRAIN LINE REPLACEMENT --COMPLETE-~
050501 :
986.0 :
8.2 800.0 :
2.1 370.9 :
1.8( 37.1) 04/05/89 12 - REPAIR HCU VALVES 117,118,126,6127 ---COMPLETE---
~
060102 :
331.8 :
1.0 0.0 :
0.0 318.7 :
0.5( 51.9) 04/05/89 13 - CRD'S: LEAK RATE TESTING, REMOVAL, REBUILD, REPLACE 061201 :
640.4 : 10.6 0.0 :
0.0 579.5 :
9.3( 88.0) 04/13/89 14 - REMOVE / REPLACE TURBINE ROTOR ---COMPLETE---
081101 :
0.0 :
1.0 0.0 :
0.0 2929.1 :
1.0( 98.6) 04/13/89 15 - SRV'S REMOVAL & REPLACEMENT ---COMPLETE---
090101 :
154.0 :
3.6 0.0 :
0.0 130.2 :
2.9( 80.8) 04/13/89 16 - MSIV'S INSPECTION & LUBE ---COMPLETE---
090102 :
276.0 :
1.6 300.0 :
2.0 445.8 :
2.1(104.4) 04/28/89 17 - RRU INSPECTION & MAINTENANCE (DRYWELL)
---COMPLETE---
121101 :
68.0 :
1.2 0.0 :
0.0 99.4 :
1.2(100.5) 04/04/89 percent of estimated done (manrem) utilized to date (1)
. _. ~ -
ALARA R EPORT 6-JUL-89 07:50:00 JOB INDEX :
INITIAL EST REVISE'. SST TOTAL DATE POR MAN-HR: REM MAN UR:E.tM MAN-HR: REM
(%)
LAST ENTRY 18 - DECON ---COMPLETE---
131101 :
592.4 :
6.7 0.0 1 0.0 212.4 :
0.8( 12.5) 04/13/89 19 - ISI (DRYWELL) ---COMPLETE---
150501 : 1702.0 : 44.2 0.0 :
0.0 1243.3 : 29.0( 65.7) 04/05/89 20 - ISI (NON DRYWELL) CLASS 1 ---COMPLETE---
150502 :
417.0 :
1.4 0.0 :
0.0 86.3 :
0.2( 12.9) 04/05/89 21 - ISI CLASS 2 4 3 ---COMPLETE---
150503 : 1985.0 :
9.8 0.0 :
0.0
'1753.2 :
5.0( 51.2) 04/13/89 22 - DRYWELL PAINT IMPROVEMENTS ---COMPLETE---
150614 :
270.0 :
4.6 0.0 :
0.0 311.3 :
6.4(141.4) 04/13/89 23 - SNUBBERS ---COMPLETE---
151102 :
0.0 :
0.5 0.0 :
0.0 27.4 :
0.4( 85.0) 03/02/89 24 - MISCELLANEOUS DRYWELL WORK (DOSE TRACKING) --COMPLETE--
151103 :
0.0 : 18.0 0.0 :
0.0 1595.1 : 16.6( 92.4) 04/13/89 25 - MISCELLANEOUS RX BUILDING WORK (DOSE TRACKING)
COMPLETE-151104 :
0.0 : 18.0 0.0 :
0.0 2657.0 : 10.7( 59.5) 04/13/89 26 - MISCELLANEOUS RADWASTE WORK (DOSE TRACKING) --COMPLETE--
151105 :
0.0 :
3.5 0.0 :
0.0 534.2 :
4.0(115.2) 04/13/89 27 - MISC. TURBINE BUILDING WORK (DOSE TRACKING) --COMPLETE--
151106 :
0.0 :
1.0 0.0 :
0.0 1967.5 :
1.2(122.0) 04/13/89 28 - MISC. REFUEL FLOOR WORK (DOSE TRACKING) ---COMPLETE---
151107 :
0.0 :
8.0 0.0 :
0.0 2255.8 :
7.6( 95.2) 04/13/89 29 - BLOCK WALL MODIFICATIONS & CONDUlT INSTALLATION-COMPLETE-151108 : 1045.0 :
1.5 0.0 :
00 1775.9 :
1.5(103.8) 04/05/89 percent of estimated dose (manrem) utilized to date
(%)
=
4 3
- 1 4,,w-s m-
.. -.. - ~... ~.. -... -.
+
)
m J-E
-W a
m w
m 0-m e
- ~ ~
3 D.
"C fN gi in o.
p-m o) s+
ce to cm rs v
cn x
cd w>r -
CL,
)
- 3. (w c
r-m-
O I
C 6)
G f.0 I
6) gN d
u.
w:-
+
N 0
r
'gl O
H
% nW M).
Ifl A q:9 < :::p; p;49. -
F
- fishdf$:sf$.:.,:.!f 0
_J' "Sipsss Q
(Q H-dl y.
g p..
g-(,f) --
H
- =
5 Q.
O ZW
.x i
o e
g i
ou-0 I
Iy
~7 n
n n
x x
._a x
(
.cf o
rn
- w rs.
. ~J MN w
A CD (O N CD w LAJ.
H-(c w mw i
AQUATIC RESOURCE QUESTIONS SEE ATTACHED TOR RESPONSES This request for information is designed to obtain the utility overview of its power plant's impacts on aquatic resources.
It is D.qi intended to require new surveys, data collection. or extensive new analyses of existing data.
Responses can be based on existing information, for example, by summarization of information contained in monitoring reports, publications, or unpublished files.
The questions should be answered separately for each site operated by the utility.
Documents that may be useful in addressing the folicwing questions are:
o Annual Aquatic Monitoring Report submitted to the responsible State Agency o
Final Environmental Statement o
Annual Non-Radiological Monitoring Report as required by Environmental Protection Plan of Technical Specifications, Appendix B o
Section 316 (a) and (b) Demonstration Report submitted to Environmental Protection Agency Based on our pilot study, the Aquatic Resource questions should takt approximately 40 man-hours to answer.
l 1
1.
Post-licensing modifications and/or changes in operations of intake and/or discharge systems may have altered the effects of the power plant on aquatic resources, or may have been made specifically to mitigate impacts that were not anticipated in the design of the plant.
Describe any such modifications and/or operational changes to the condenser cooling water intake and discharge systems since the issuance of the Operating License.
2.
Summarize and describe (or p: ovide documentation of) any known impacts on aquatic resources (e.g., fish kills, violations of discharge permit HUMARC Page 1
m
.,d A.p
..s M'4h-2.4.A.
m.J.mi8es-**-a
~e-X-h a-JmJd
.-A
_-4 r-.E--*+-
i---""
h..Jed.i*++
4.--._.
AQUATIC RESOURCE QUESTIONS (cont.)
conditions) or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) enforcement actions that have occurred since issuance of the Oparating 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.)
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.
4.
An examination of trends in the effects on aquatic resources monitoring can indicate whether impacts have increased, decreased, or remained relatively stable during operation. Describe and summarize (or provide documentation of) results of monitoring of water quality and aquatic biota (e.g.. related to NPDES permits, Environmental Technical Specifications, site-specific monitoring required by federal or state agencies). What trends are apparent over time?
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 I
impingement changed over time?
l 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 near the site. Describe any changes to aquatic habitats (both enhancement and degradation) in the vicinity of the power plant since the issuance of NUMARC Page 2 l
AQUATIC. RESOURCE QUESTIONS (cont.)
the Operating License including those that may have resulted in different plant impacts than those initially predicted.
7.
Plant operations may have had positive, negative, or no impact on the use of aquatic resources by others.
Harvest by comercial or recreational fishermen may be constrained by plant operation.
Alternatively comercial harvesting may be relatively large compred with fish losses caused by the plant. Describe (or provide documentation for) other nearby uses of waters affected by cooling water systems (e.t _., swiming, boating, annual harvest by comercial and recreational fisheries) and how these impacts have changed since issuance of the Operating License.
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 contributinns due to the power plant, to overall water quality degradation and losses of aquatic biota?
9.
Provide a copy of your Section 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Report required by the Clean Waste Act. What Section 316(a) and (b) determinations have been made by the regulatory authorities?
HUMARC Page 3
RESPONSE TO AQUAT!C RESOURCLjQUE.STIONS 1.
No modifications have been made to mitigate actual impacts.
Hydraulic gate operators and a cooling tower blowdown " spray pond" were added to more pre-cisely control the disiharge of heated condenser cooling water in 1986-00 and 1973, respectively.
2.
- a. One actual documented impact occurred in 1975:
a spill of 10u gallons of 12% Na001 ntar the intake which killed 60 trash fish in the imme-diate area.
- b. Several mi>
technical violations of the NPDES permit (upper) pH limit (6.5-8.0)
$..' total suspended solids limit with no actual biota impact ever resultsag:
1975-1908. The Vermont state pH criteria have been changed (4/90) to 6.5-8,5 and the new limit should seldom, if ever, be violated again barring an acid spill accident.
VY admin controls were placed on pH systems to minimize recurring problems with the previous limit of 6.5-8.0 in effect prior to April 1990.
3.
Principle changes to permit over the years 1972-1990s
- t. A successful 316 a/b Demonstration in 1978 relaxed thermal criteria to allow open cycle (once thru) operation from mid-October to mid-May,
- b. A number of parameters have been dropped from water quality monitoring:
0.0., turbidity, conductivity, and some metals; plus frequency and loca-tion of sampling has been reduced, especially between 00tober 15 and May 15.
- c. Additional monitoring and studies have been added since 1981 by the Ageicy in anticipation of POSSIBLE thermal and intake structure impacts on 2 anadromous species: Atlantic salmon and American shad that are being " restored" to the Connecticut River drainage. No actual impacts to these species due to VY operation have been documented except for the low impingement of 50-60 salmon smolts from 1986-1990.
(This impinge-ment iinpact is considered negligible by State regulatort in Virmont, New Hampshire and Massachusetts, and USFSW).
Aquatic communities have by and large remained stable over the period of VY 4.
operation (1972-1990) and variations in community populations are con-sidered within normal ranges, e.g.,
resident fish species.
There are no significant trends occurring in any taxa of economic or sport value. Seven species of fish were selected as " Representative Important Species." The overall quality of the Connecticut River has improved since 1972.
5.
Fish Impir gement has averaged on an annual basis 25 fish / day since 1974 and consis's of.nninly minnow species and small Centrarchids (see 316 a/b Demonstration of 1978, enclosed).
=
.g.
Impingement and entrainment impacts-are considered negligible by the regu-lators.
Fish impingement rates are highest in April and early May and are a funt-tion of river flows high flow, higher impingement.
Rates in April and May a*e varied and have resched a high of 600 fish / day.
The entrainment of larval fish and invertebrates has remained stable over the years (see 316 a/b, enclosed).
1 1
6.
Atlantic salmo.
J American shad are being " restored" to the Connecticut River and its trisutaries.
The results have been encouraging but hardly stunning - particularly for the Asiantic salmon.
The operation of VY since 1974 has not resulted in any significant changes to aquatic habitats in the Vernon, Vermont area.
In fact, all impacts:
thermal, impingement, and entrainment, have been far less than first predicted by the U.S. AEC in their 1972 EIS and the states of Vermont, New Hampshire, and Hassachusatts Water Quality and Fishery agencies.
i 7.
Plant operations have had no significant impact on aquatic biota of the Vernon, Vermont area.
Sport fishing and boating has increased in the area due to the overall l
improvement of water quality. Winter habitat for water fowl now exists in t
the river due to the winter thermal plume from the plant thermal discharge.
O.
The major impacts to the Connecticut River are from 1) municipal sewage plant effluents: and 2) non-point !mostly agricultural) pollution sources entering the river. Hydroelectric power stations also inflict mortality on migrating shad and salmon via turbine mortality and frequent flow regulation. The fish ladders constructed have resulted in the introduction and range extension of several nuisance species, i.e., lamprey cel.
VY bas got been the cause of any measurable biota degradation (see 316 a/b of 1970, enclosed).
9.
a) Attached:
1978 316 a/b Demonstration (for 10-15 to 5-15) by Binkerd, et. al.
b) An additional 316 a/b Demonstration (for 5-15 to 10-15) by Downey, et.
al. is in draft form and will be finalized in late July 1990.
VY made a successful 316 Demonstration in 1970 for alternate thermal criteria that apply now from 10-15 to 5-15 and is in the process of making a similar 316 Demonstration for the period 5-15 to 10-15 for the 1990 reissuance of the NPDES permit.
The determination will be made by the Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation with input from the
" Vermont Yankee Environmental Advisory Committee " which consists of representatives of Vermont Yankee and Water Quality and Fishery techical representatives from Vermont, New Hampsbire, Massachusetts, and the USFHS.
/dm
- - - - -