ML20085M573

Responses to Questions Re Waste Mgt,Aquatic Resources & Socioeconomic Impacts

ML20085M573
Person / Time
Site:	Surry, North Anna
Issue date:	11/11/1991
From:	VIRGINIA POWER (VIRGINIA ELECTRIC & POWER CO.)
To:
References
RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110191
Download: ML20085M573 (18)

Text

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

i 1,TILITY \)i red M c s kc> cJ e r t

SITE ,__fi)_or+ h S n n Q I 4 1 O nCl b u rN ho uac r i

ENCLOSURES CAS u3 cc 5 ke au r s kaen s ( SRetch rn r r\4A Doca b na $ nE AmnmentS S o rru, Powec) qmfhment d Ses,e m 3 10 c3 e, x-4 a p,e + aan.ns 5 hh td i ( $ O<' fd orYk n f\ C- OQC 21 bem Po mu e Mebn -

I bn',\-$ \ n nd "L C oo lnt

{ dnf t r-~ [- /\kc k C M4 O cano c no c, ( s - p 2-0 w o ts nm r# po r.n ,pc, , .,

1 9111110191 911111 PDR NUREG 1437 C PDR

[

?

Attachment A North Anna Power Station (NAPS)

WASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS A. Spent Fuel Questions:

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

A. Re-racking of spent fuel.

B. C:ntro! r:d r:p:c!!!:n!ng.-

C. Above ground dry storage.

D. Longer fuel burnup.

E. Other (please Identity).

North Anna currently utilizes high density neutron absorber spent fuel racks. The units run on an 18 month cycle.

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

Yes, we expect to continue to use these current techniques.

3. Which of- the -following techniques for at-reactor storage do you

.anticinate using until off site spent fuel storage becomes available and- how?

A.--Re racking of spent fuel.

C. C:ntr:l r:d r:p::!!!:n!ng..

C. Above ground dry storage.

D. Longer fuel burnup.

E. Other (please Identify).

NAPS _has fuel rack ' storage capacity until 1998, at which time a DOE storage facility is anticipated. If a DOE-facility is unavailable, above ground dry cask storage similar to Surry may be necessary.

4. Will- the techniques described above- be adequate- for continued at-reactor storage of spent fuel for the operating Illetime of the plant, including the 20-year period of IIcense renewal, or are you developing.

Other plans?

Yes, assuming that the DOE spent fuel storage facility is available in 1998.

5. Do you anticipate the need to acquire additional land for the storage of ' spent-fuel for the operating Ilfetime of the plant,- including the 20-

-year period of license renewal? If so, how much ' land? When would this acquisition occur? Where? (If answer Is "yes", 3-4 sentences)

Page 1 of 12

o 4

No.

Y. S. Do you anticipate any additional construction activity on-site, or immediately odjacent to the power plant site, associated with the continued at-reactor storage of spent fuel for the operating Ilfetime of the plant, including the 20 year period of IIcense renewal? (yes/no)

Yes,if the DOE Spent Fuel Storage Facility is not available in 1998.

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)

Potential exists that concrete pads may be needed if above ground dry cask storage is needed by 1998.

Page 2 of 12 l

l 4

B. Low level radioactive waste management questions:

1. Under ihn current scheme for LLRW (I.e. LLRW Pollcy Amendments Act of 1985 and regional compacts) Is those curra' ' , 'r will sufficient capacity for wastes generated during the IIcer 'n ewal period be ava!Iable to your plant (s)? If so, what Is the be* v 1Is conclusion?

Yes. assuming the South East Compact LLRW facility is amlable by 1993.

2. If for any reason your plant (s) is/are denied access to a IIconsed divposal site for a short period of Ilme, what plant, do you have for continued LLRW disposal?

There k currently no temporary LLRW storage facility on site. NAPS has planned and. ally constructed a rad waste facility. Work was stopped on this facility in 1980. f work were started again the facility would te completed in approximately 2.s years from the start date. The completed facility would include the capability to temporarily store packaged waste 'or approximately one year.

3. In a couple of pages, please describe the specific methods of LLRW management currently utillzed by your plant. What percentago of year

. current LLRW (by volume) Is managed by:

4. Waste compaction? ~50%

B. Waste segregallon (through special ~._u%

controls or segregadon at radiation check point)?

C. Decontaminallon of wastes? .~ 15 %

0. Sorting of waste prior to shipment? ~ 5%

E. Other (please identify)? ~25% incineration The majority of LLRW clean up activities are handled off site by vendors. LLRW is sent off site for high pressure compaction / Incineration. Contaminated metals are sent to an off-site vendor for decontaminahon, and waste oilis incinerated off site.

North Anna currently sorts clean waste at its Waste Segregation Facility, with clean waste disposed of locally and LLRW sent off site. Resins are de-watered on site and chipped off site for burial. Filters are placed in high integrity containers and sh!pped off site for disposal.

Pane 3 of 12

4. In a couple of pages, please describe the antic,'!'ated plans for LLRW management to be utilized by your plant (s) during the remainder of the operating IIconse and through the renewal term. What percentage of your anticloated waste (by volume) will be managed by:

A. Waste compaction? ~ 32%

B. Waste segregation (through special ~._k%

controls or segregation at radiation check point)?

C. Decontaminallon of wastes? ~15%

0. Sorting of waste prior to shipment? ~ 5%

E. Other (please Identity)? ~45% incineration The proposed Radwaste facility (currently on hold) would include the following capabilities: asphalt solidification, high pressure compaction, decontamination shop and storage areas. This facility would provide 'Se capability to reduce the volume of radioactive waste generated and shipped off site for disposal.

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

No, assuming the South East Compact LLRW tacility is available by 1993.

6. To provide Information on the timing of future low level waste streams, if you answered yes to question #9, over what period of !Ime are these activilles contemplated?

See response to question 9.

7. Do you anticipate any addlllonal construction activitv, on-site, or Immediately adjacent to the power plant site, associated with tempciary LLRW storage for the operating lifetime of the plant, includlag a 20-year period of IIcense renewal? (yes/no)

Yes.

x Page 4 of 12

l s

, I B. If you answorod yes to question 7, brlofly describe lhls construction activity (e.g., storage areas for steam generator components or other material exposed to reactor environment). I NAPS has partially constructed a rad waste facility, Work was stopped on this-facility in 1989. Work is expected to be re started in the future,

9. To provido Information on future low level wasto streams whlch may offect work force levels, exposure, and wasto compact planning, do you anticipale any major plant modificallons or refurbishment that are Ilkely to generate unusual volumes of low level radioactive waste prior to, or during, the re IIconsIng period of the plant? 11 so, please describe these activillos. Also, what type of modifications do you anticipato 10 be nscossary to achieve Ilconse renewal operation through a 20 year IIconse renewal term?

NAPS is currently planning to start a Steam Generator repair program in 1995 with anticipated completion in 1996.

l l

l l

Page 5 of 12.

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

f Attachment A North Anna Power Station (NAPS)

AQUATIC RESO_URCES QUESTIOiG

1. Post IIcensing modifications and/or changes in operallons of Intake and/or discharge systems may have allered the effects of the power plant on aquatic resources, or may have boon made specifically to mitigate Impacts that were not anticipated in the design of the plant.

Describe any such modificallons and/or operational changes to the condenser cooIIng water intake and discharge systems since the issuance of the Operating License.

No modifications or changes in operation, which effect aquatic resources, have been made since the issuance of the Operating License .

2. Summarize and describe (or provide documentation of) any known Impacts on aquallc resources (e.g., fish kIIIs, violallons of discharge permit condillons) or National Pollutant Discharge Eliminallon System (NPDES) enforcement actions that have occurred since issuance of the Operating License. How have these been resolved or changed over time? (The response to this question should Indicate whether Impacts are ongoing or were the result of start up problems that were subsequently resolved.)

Minor violations of the NPDES permit havn occurred since the issuance of the Operating License. These violations we.0 due to operations of the sewage treatmem plant, a leak of chemical cleaning acid, or discharge of resin inadvertently. These items were subsequently resolved and there are no ongoing enforcement actions.

A successful 316(a) demonstration was made at Lake Anna to show that plant operations, particularly with regard to discharge of heated cooling water, has no significant impact on aquatic life.

Page 6 of 12

e

3. Changes to the NPDES permll during operation of the plant could Indicate whether water quailly 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 issuance of the Operating License.

Numerous changes to the NPDES permit have been made in the areas dealing with operational changes and new discharges. The only significant monitoring parameter changed was in 1985. Iron and copper monitoring requirements were

-deleted for boiler blowdown.

4. An examination of trends In the effects on aquallc resources monitoring can Indicate whether impacts have Increased, decreased, or remained relallvely stable during operation. Describe and summarize (or provide documentation of) results of monlloring of water quality and aquatic blota (e.g., related to NPDES permits, Environmental Technical Specifications, site specific monlioring required by federal or state agencies). What trends are apparent over time ?

Pre operational and post operational environmental studies have been conducted at NAPS. These studies have been documented in various reports. The results of these studies have shown no appreciable harm to the aquatic ecosystem of Lake Anna due to the operation of the power station.

5. Summarize types and numbers (or provide documentation) of organisms entralnad 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?

Impingement and entrainment numbers and types are reflective of the species of fish in Lake Anna (reference 316(a) report included with this survey response).

Seasonal variations in impingement numbers are generally highest in winter when lake temperatures drop below forty degrees F and threadfin shad (D.ofosoma oetenense) become moribund and are then subject to being impinged.

Page 7 of 12

6. Aquallc habitat enhancement or restorallon efforts (e.g., anadromous fish runs) during operation may havs enhanced the biological communilles in the vicinfly of the plant. Alterna!Ively, degradation of habitat or water quality may have resulted In loss of biological resources near the slie. Describe any changes to aquatic habitals (both enhancement and degradation) In the vicinity of the power plant since the Issuance of the Opetaling License Including those that may have resulted in different plant Impacts than those Initially predicted.

Ari oxtensive enhancement program is continuing in an effort to create fish habut and improve waterfowl nosting habitat.

Currently, nineteen fish structures have been completed in Lake Anna. Also,in the downstream portion of the North Anna River, below the dam for Lake Anna, transplants of river weed have been made to establish aquatic habitat in the river where there historically has been none. Additionally, stockings of fingerling smallmouth bass (Microoterus dolomieui) have been made to supplement the current fish population.

Nesting boxes for wood ducks were constructed and placed at strategic locations around Lake Anna to create improved nesting habitat for this native species o'i waterfowl.

7. Plant operallons may have had posillve, negative, or no Impact on the use of aquallc resources by others. Harvest by commercial or recreational fishermen may be constrained by plant operallon.

Alternatively, commercial harvesting may be relallvely large compared with fish loss caused by the plan t. Describe (or provide documentation for) other nearby uses of waters affected by cooIIng water systems (e.g., swimming, boating, annual harvest by commercial and recreallonal fisherles) and how these Impacts changed since the issuance of the Operating License.

The construction and operation of the North Anna Power Stations is responsible for the existence of Lake Anna. The North Anna River prior to inundation was severely impacted by acid drainage from old mine tailings on Contrary Creek which flowed into the North Anna River. This situation provided little in the way of fishing or recreational benefits. A portion of the North Anna River valley was ficoded in 1972 and formed Lake Anna. In 1976, the State Water Control Board initiated a program to reclaim a section of the Contrary Creek watershed area. Formation of Lake Anna and the Water Board's reclamation project have contributed to lessening of the acid mine drainage problem from Contrary Creek.

The creation of Lake Anna generated a new recreational area and provided a economic boost for the surrounding counties and their residents. Real estate, boating, fishing, swimming, camping, and sailing have all benefitted from the lake.

The operation of the power plants has in no way detracted from any of these activities.

Page 8 of 12

e

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 relallye contribullons by percent of these sources, including the contributions due to the power plant, to overall water quality degradellon and losses of aquatic biola?

There are no other industrial discharges or intakes on the lake. Agricultural runoff has not been quantified. The acid drainage from Contrary Creek was reduced by a State reclamation project initiated in 1976.

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) determinallons have boon made by the regulatory authorities?

A copy of the 316(a) and 316(b) reports are included in this package.

The 316(a) demonstration for NAPS was accepted by the Virginia Water Control Board in 1986 as being successful, and the 316(b) type reports have been determined to be satisfactory.

i l '

l l

l 1

I l

Page 9 of 12 i

1 1

e Attachment A North Anna Power Station (NAPS)

SOClOECONOMIC QUESTIONS

1. To understand the Importance of the plant and the degree of Its cocloeconomic Impacts on the local region, estimalg the number of permanent workers on sIto for the most recent year for which data are a vailable.

For the year ending December 1989, the North Anna Site employed between 545 to 595 people. In fall of 1989 the Company completed a resource allocation program, and the Station's staffing increased by 35 40 additional people. This number does not include Corporate support personnel.

For the current year (1990), average manpower levels have increased to 625 640 permanent positions due to additional authorized staffing positions and filling vacant positions.

2. To understand the Importance of the plant to the local region, and how that has changed over time, estimate the average number of permanent workers on slle, In five year Increments starting with the Issuance of the plant's Operating License. If possible, provide this Information for each unll at a plant slie.

The following numbers are five year averages for the permanent staff at the North Anna site.

1986 - 1990 595 1981 - 1985 535

-1978 - 1980 385*

• NAPS 1 at 100% power 4/1/78, NAPS 2 at 100% power 8/21/80 l

l Page 10 of 12

t

3. To understand the potential Impact of continued operation for an adallinnal 20 years beyond the original licensing term, please provide the following three cases:

A) U lyp!ccl planned outage B) en ISI outage; and C) the largest singic outage (In terms of the number of workers involved) that has occurred to date. An estimate of addllional workers involved (for the entire outage and for each principal task), length of outage, months and year in which c9ch occurred, and cost. Also, gs timate occupallonal doses received by permanent and temporary workers during each principal task.

See attached Table " Outage Manpower and Cost Estimates".

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

The North Anna Power Station Units 1 & 2 are located in Louisa County, Virginia.

1HH0 12a5 1920 Assessed value $796 M. $1,044 M.* $1,432 M.*

Property taxes $3.2 M. $4.2 M.* $7.7 M.*

• Excludes 11% ownership by Old Dominion F!ectric Cooperative effective in 1983.

NOTE: Figures are for total county, however, the power plants muke up the vast l majority of assets in the county.

l l

l l

Page 11 of 12

OUTAGE MANPOWER AND COST ESTrfviATES Outage Workers - Principal Whent Occupational Outage involved Tasks Length Dose Cost Comments CASE A: Typical Planned'

- 600 permaent (1) Refueling Dec 1990 / Total outage (1)O&M - 20 mdion

• Informaton supled for Outage - Surry site pemomel 60 days

• goal 450 man-rem (2) Capaal - 19 miibon upcoming FallOutage Unit 1 (2) Maintenance

- Refuel: (pnmanly con- whit.h should reflect (3) Steam Generator

- 300-500 Inspections 50 man-rem structen costs typical for future outages comractor personnel - SG Activrties: for plant mods & Normat scheduled (4) Plant Mods "

for orecutage and 75 man-rem includes pre- outage runs from 48-60 i nutage work - Maintenance & outage prepa- days.

Mods: raton) 325 man-rem C ASE B:ISI Outage - - 575 permanent (1) Refueling April 1987 / Average for two (1) O&M - - t0 year ISI work was  ;

spread over two outages y North Anna Und 1 site personnel (2) Maintenance 71 days o Aages -

750 man 4em 1987: 17 mc 1989. 23 mi in '87.19 outage was in 10 year inspection (3) ISI 0 - 500 contractors (4) Steam Generator Feb 1989 / -ISI actrvities: extended due 13 exten- i e personnel at inspections 140 days ** 90 man-rem (2) Capital - srve work on steam l N outage peak (5) Plant Mods - S/G Actnnties: 1987: 15 mi- generators due to a  ;

100 man-rom 1989. 23 mi f aded plug and leaking  ;

O

• - Refueling: tube. TypicalISI H 50 man-rem ou' age is planned for

" - Maintenance & 75 days.

Mods:

500 man 4em Approximate!y (1) Steam Generator Feb 1979 / SG Replacement Caprtal Cost:

C ASE C: Largest S.ngle Outage - Surry 1600 covered a!I work Replacement 18.5 months 2.140 man-rem i

Unit 2 - Steam at its peak. This number (1) $94 mdion -

l includes approximately (2) lEB 79 02 and Balance of Work: SC Replacement t Generator Replacement 400 permanent site 79-14 seismic 560 man-rem. (2) 595 minen -

Outage personnel. Mods Balance of outage mods (3) Short term TMI Mods O&M Cost:

(4) Plant backf:ts (1) Totaldunng 1979 &

1980 - 21 mdion Assume 50% outage related cost l

. ~

l I

3 .

T 4,

Attachment B Surry Power Station (SPS)

WASTE MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS A. Spent Fuel Questions:

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

A. Re-racking of spent fuel.

-B.-Gentrol-rod-reposilloninge C. Above ground dry storage.

D. Longer fuel burnup.

E. Other (please identity).

The Surry high density spent fuel racks are currently at capacity. Additional spent fuel storage was added in an above ground dry storage facility. Surry operates on 18 month cycles.

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

Yes, we plan to continue the use of these techniques.

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

A. Re racking of spent fuel.

B;--Gontrel-rodnepeellioning.-

C. Above ground dry storage.

D. Longer fuel burnup.

E. Other (please Identity).

The same techniques identified in the response to question 1 are expected to be used. The above ground dry storage facility will be at capacity in 2010.

i i

l Page 1 of 12 l

Y f'

4. Will the techniques described above be adequate for continued al-reactor storage of spent fuel for the operating IlletIme of the plant, ,

including the 20 year period of IIconse renewal, or are you developing 1 other plans?

Yes, assuming that the DOE spent fuel storage facility is available in 1998. l S. Do you anticipate the need to acquire additional land for the storage of spent fuel for the operating lifellme of the plant, including the 20-year period of IIconse renewal? If so, how much land? When would this acquisillon occur? Where? (11 answer is "yes", 3-4 sentonces)

No.  ;

G. Do you anticipato any addllional construcilon activlLe on site, or \

Immediately adjacent to the power plant site, associated with the '

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

Yes

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

Surry currently has one above ground dry cask storage pad at the ISFSI site.

Current licensed capacity allows for two additional pads to be constructed, as necessary, to meet storage needs.

I l

l Page 2 of 12 l

s

?

D. Low level radioactive waste management questions:

1. Under the current scheme for LLRW (I.e. LLRW Policy Amondments Act of 1985 and regional compacts) is thoto curronlly or will sufficient capacity for wastos generated during the licenso renewal period be avaIlable to your plant (s)? It so, what Is the basis for this conclusion?

Yes, assuming the South East Compact LLRW facility is available by 1993.

2. If for any reason your plant (s) is/aro donlod eccess to a Ilconsed disposal site for a short porlod of Ilmn, what plans do you have for continued LLRW disposal?

Surry will complete construction this year on a rad waste facility which has the capability to temporarily store approximately one year of packaged waste. The new f acility is expected to be operational by mid 1991.

3. In a couple of pagos, please describe the specific molhads of LLRW management currently utIIIzed by your plant. What percentago of your current LLRW (by volumo) is managed by:

A. Wasto compaction? ~60%

B. Wasto segregation (through special ~ 5%

controls or segregation at radiation check point)?

C. Decontamination of wastes? ~25%

0. Sorting of wasta prior to shipment? ~_k%

E. Other (please Identity)? ~ 5% incineration The majority of LLRW clean up activities are handled off site by vendors. LLRW is sent off site for high pressure compaction / incineration. Contaminated metals are sent to an off site vendor for decontamination, and waste oilis incinerated off site.

Surry plans to sort clean waste, with clean waste disposed of locally and LLRW sent off site. Resins are de watered on-site and shipped off site for burial. Filters are placed in high integrity containers and shipped off site for disposal.

39.\LI6 Y

l Page 3 of 12

t T.

4. In a couple of pages, please describe the anticloated plans for LLRW management to be utilized by your plant (s) during the remainder of the opetaling IQense and through the renewal term. What percentage of your unticioAnd waste (by volume) will be managed by:

A. Waste compaction? ~35%

0. Waste segregation (through special ~ . 5%

contro!w or sagregation at radhstion check point)?

C. Decontamination of wastes? ~25%

0. Sorting of waste prior to shipment? .~ 5%

E. Other (please Identify)? ~30% incineration The Radweste facility (operational in 1991) includes the following capabilities:

asphalt solidification, high pressure compaction, decontamination shop and storage areas. This facility would provide the capability to reduce the volume of radioactive waste generated and shipped off site for disposal.

8 5. Do you antscIpale the need to acquire additional Innd for the storage of LLRW for 'se operating Ilfetime of the plant, including a 20 year per!ad of IIcourse renewal? If so, how much land? When would this acquisillon occur? Where? (If answer is "yes", 3 4 sentences)

, No, assuming the South East Compact LLRW facility is available by 1993.

6. To provide Information on the Ilming of future low level waste streams, 11 you answered yes to question #9 , over what period of Ilme are these activilles contemplated?

See response to item 9.

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

No. Operation of the facility is expected in 1991, but construction of the rad waste facility is complete.

Page 4 of 12

?

l B. If you answorod yes to question 7, brie!Iy describe this construction activlly (e.g., storage areas for steam generator components or other material exposed to reactor environment).

N/A.

9. To provido information on futuro low level waste streams which may offect work force lovels, exposure, and wasto compact planning, do you anticipale any major plant modifications or refurblshment that are Ilkely to generato unusual volumes of low level radioactive wasto prior to, or during, the re IIcensing period of the plant? If so, please describe those activillos. Also, what type of modificallons do you anticipato to be necessary to achlovo IIconso renewal operation through a 20 year licenso renewal term?

Yes. Surry plans to replace the current controls rods with new control rods. This activity would be expected to generate above normal amounts of LLRW. This activity is expected to be completed for both units by mid 1991.

l i

l l

Page 5 of 12

- - -. --.