ML061290275
| ML061290275 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 04/27/2006 |
| From: | Bauer S Arizona Public Service Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 102-05478-SAB/TNW/CJJ | |
| Download: ML061290275 (9) | |
Text
1, LAP A subsidiaryof Pinnace West Capital Corporation Scott A. Bauer Department Leader Regulatory Affairs Tel. 623-393-5978 Mail Station 7636 Palo Verde Nuclear Fax 623-393-5442 PO Box 52034 Generating Station e-mail: Scott.Bauer@aps.com Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034 102-05478-SABITNW/CJJ April 27, 2006 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001
Dear Sir:
Subject:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
Units 1, 2,and 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-62815291530 Annual Environmental Operating Report 2005 Enclosed please find a copy of the Annual Environmental Operating Report for 2005.
This report covers the operation of PVNGS Units 1,2, and 3 during 2005, and is being submitted pursuant to Section 5.4.1 of Appendix B to the Operating License.
No commitments are being made to the NRC in this letter. If you have any questions, please contact Thomas N.Weber at (623) 393-5764.
Sincerely,
'I SABITNW/CJJ/gt Enclosure cc: B. S. Mallett M. B. Fields G. G.Wamick A. V. Godwin A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance LE6s Callaway u Comanche Peak C Diablo Canyon LIPalo Verde 0 South Texas Project U1 Wolf Creek
ENCLOSURE 2005 Annual Environmental Operating Report
2005 Annual Environmental Operating Report
- 1. INTRODUCTION The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) is located in Maricopa County, Arizona, approximately 50 miles west of the Phoenix metropolitan area.
The PVNGS site comprises approximately 4080 acres. Site elevations range from 890 feet above mean sea level at the southern boundary to 1030 feet above mean sea level at the northern boundary. The station consists of three pressurized water reactor electrical generating units. Unit 3 has a rated thermal power of 3876 MW.
Units 1 and 2 have a rated thermal power of 3990 MW.
PVNGS was issued low power operating licenses NPF-34, NPF-46 and NPF-65 for Units 1, 2 and 3 by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on December 31, 1984, December 9, 1985, and March 25,1987, respectively. The Unit 1 full power operating license NPF-41 was issued June 1, 1985. The Unit 2 full power operating license NPF-51 was issued April 24, 1986. The Unit 3 full power operating license NPF-74 was issued November 25, 1987. Appendix B to these operating licenses is entitled the "Environmental Protection Plan (Non Radiological)". The Environmental Protection Plans (EPP) for each of the current operating licenses are identical.
The EPP purpose is to provide for protection of environmental values during construction and operation of the nuclear facility. The principal objectives of the EPP are as follows:
(1) Verify that the station is operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, as established by the FES (Final Environmental Statement) and other NRC environmental impact assessments.
(2) Coordinate NRC requirements and maintain consistency with other Federal, State and Local requirements for environmental protection.
(3) Keep NRC informed of the environmental effects of facility construction and operation and actions taken to control those effects.
This Annual Environmental Operating Report is required by Section 5.4.1 of the EPP. This report describes the activities during a specific calendar year related to the PVNGS EPP. For purposes of this report, references to the EPP are considered to be the EPP of NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74.
Page 1 of 7
2005 Annual Environmental Operating Report II. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SUMMARIES AND ANALYSIS A. Cultural Resources Section 4.2.1 of the EPP requires that an archaeological survey be performed when final alignment of the PVNGS-to-Saguaro transmission line is completed.
As of the date of this report, plans for this transmission line have been Indefinitely suspended. Therefore, there has been no activity with regard to this requirement of the EPP.
B. Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring As communicated in a letter from William F. Conway, APS, to NRC, dated December 30, 1991, the salt deposition monitoring program was discontinued at the end of 1991.
Ill. PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Section 3.1 of the EPP allows changes In station design or operation or the performance of tests or experiments affecting the environment provided that such changes, tests, or experiments do not involve an unreviewed environmental question and do not involve a change to the EPP. Changes, tests, or experiments in which all measurable non-radiological effects are confined to the on-site areas previously disturbed during site preparation and plant construction or in which the environment is not affected are exempt from the evaluation and reporting requirements of Section 3.1.
Section 3.2 of the EPP also exempts changes, tests, or experiments, which are required to comply with other Federal, State, or local environmental regulations.
Five (5) design and operation changes were evaluated in 2005 to determine if they involved either an unreviewed environmental question or constituted a change in the EPP. Table 111-1 summarizes the results of these evaluations. None of these changes involved an unreviewed environmental question or a change in the EPP.
IV. EPP NON-COMPLIANCES There were no instances of non-compliance with the EPP identified during 2005.
V. NON-ROUTINE REPORTS There were no non-routine reports required by Section 5.4.2 of the EPP submitted during 2005.
Page 2 of 7
2005 Annual Environmental Operating Report TABLE III - 1 - --: - - AE ---
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2005 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 05-024 DFWO Unit 2 Cooling Tower Inboard Changes to cooling tower The FES identifies that based on The maintenance work 2664678 Distribution Panel operation or equipment could current cooling tower design, consists of a like-for-like Amendment 2 Replacement affect offsite impacts evaluated there are no adverse replacement of existing in the FES and drift-monitoring environmental impacts identified. equipment already program. The proposed change does not evaluated in the FES. The change the tower design airflow or change, therefore, will have water flow rate or velocity and, no adverse environmental therefore, will not affect cooling impact as previously tower operations. determined in the FES.
Page 3 of 7
2005 Annual Environmental Operating Report TABLE III - 1
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2005 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 05-025 DMWO Prompt Notification Siren Addition of sirens could affect The placement of sirens/poles There was no unreviewed 2813652 System Upgrade offsite areas not previously offsite was not previously environmental question evaluated in the FES. evaluated in the FES. However, a because the work activities review of NEPA regulations will be conducted in provides a categorical exemption accordance with federal, for actions which are solely state, county and local directed toward minor regulations. In addition, the rehabilitation of existing facilities, area to be disturbed is functional replacement of privately held property that equipment, or towards the was thoroughly inspected for construction of new ancillary environmental impacts.
facilities adjacent or appurtenant to existing facilities (40 CFR 6.107(d)(1)). The installation of the sirens and poles are appurtenant to the existing facility since they are intended to provide emergency planning warning to the areas surrounding the plant site in response to a facility emergency event. Since the property is not federally or state owned, there are no requirements to conduct an environmental assessment or impact statement With respect to land use, the potential to disturb archeological sites or harm endangered vegetation I animals were evaluated. The actual construction site was inspected and no archeological or endangered species of plants / animals were identified.
Page 4 of 7
2005 Annual Environmental Operating Report TABLE III - 1
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2005 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 05-035 DMWO Fire Protection Diesel Pump The diesel fire pump The impacts of combustion There was no unreviewed 2624361 Skid Replacement modification could impact sources used at the facility were environmental question Modification airborne emissions due to the discussed in the FES (reference because the scope of work combustion of fossil fuel. 1)in Sections 5.4.2 and 4.2.6.3 to be performed would not and in Section 3.7.2 and Table 3.8 cause any significant of the Final Environmental increase in emissions.
Statement - Construction Permit Impacts of combustion (FES-CP) (reference 2). The sources have already been Impacts from the combustion by- evaluated. The equipment products were evaluated and located at PVNGS is determined to be within normal currently permitted by ranges expected. Maricopa County and operated in compliance with The implementation of these the permit conditions and changes involves replacing the County Rules. The change, existing fire protection pump therefore, will have no engines with newer technology adverse environmental cleaner burning engines. The impact as previously existing fire protection diesel determined in the FES.
engines are currently permitted by Maricopa County and operate under the existing County Rules.
The function and operation of the replacement engines will not change. Therefore, this will result in reduced emissions over the same number of operating hours.
Therefore, there can be no
._ negative environmental impacts from replacing the existing engines and the conclusions reached in the FES remain valid.
Page 5 of 7
2005 Annual Environmental Operating Report TABLE III-I
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2005 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 05-036 WO 2813996 New 45 ac - Makeup Work activities associated with The earth moving activities There was no unreviewed Reservoir Spoils east of East the new Water Storage associated with the construction of environmental question Wash (originally identified as Reservoir (WSR) construction the facility were discussed in the because the equipment 40 ac in the WO) require earth moving operations FES and no adverse operation and maintenance in a minimally disturbed location environmental impacts were activities will be conducted on the plant site. These identified. The scope of the in accordance with county activities can increase airborne proposed work activities is within regulations. No emissions and impact the site property boundary which archeological or endangered endangered plants or animals. was already evaluated in the FES. species of plants / animals Therefore, there are no adverse were identified in the work impacts as long as activities are area. Inaddition, the area to conducted in accordance with be disturbed was previously county regulations. identified in the FES.
The potential to disturb archeological sites or harm endangered vegetation / animals were evaluated. The actual construction site was inspected and no archeological or endangered species of plants /
animals were identified.
Page 6 of 7
t 2005 Annual Environmental Operating Report TABLE III - 1
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2005 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 05-049 WDP-TB-721 Install New WSR, Intake Work activities associated with The earth moving activities There was no unreviewed Structure and Pipelines the new Water Storage associated with the construction of environmental question Reservoir (WSR) construction the facility were discussed in the because construction require earth moving FES and no adverse activities will be conducted operations. These activities can environmental impacts were in accordance with federal, increase airborne emissions. identified. The scope of the state, county and local proposed work activities is within regulations. An 80-ac In addition, there may be the site property boundary which reservoir was originally built impacts relating to migratory was already evaluated in the FES. and evaluated in the FES birds and water use on site. Therefore, there are no adverse and the same considerations impacts as long as activities are exist for the new 40-ac conducted in accordance with reservoir. New regulations county regulations. since the construction of the original reservoir ensure The original construction of there are minimal and PVNGS involved the construction acceptable impacts to the of a reservoir and was part of the environment. In addition, FES' review and evaluation. The the area to be disturbed was construction of an additional previously identified in the reservoir will have similar impacts, FES.
but of a lesser nature. Current state and county environmental laws regulate release of silt into Waters of the U.S., stabilization of disturbed soil, earthmoving, destruction of Arizona native plants, impoundment of water, and release of water into an aquifer. These regulations allow only acceptable impacts to the environment. Additionally, the new reservoir will be approximately half the volume of the existing reservoir, therefore, the environmental impact will be less.
- FES - Final Environmental Statement, ER-OL - EnvironmentalReport, OperatingLicense Stage Page 7 of 7