ML17296B056

Requests Site Visit Questions Be Developed on Appropriate Environ Rept Sections by 801215 to Support Des Preparation. Preliminary Review Schedule Encl

ML17296B056
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	11/07/1980
From:	Miraglia F Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Ballard R, Rolonda Jackson, Lear G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8011200147
Download: ML17296B056 (14)

Text

~

a e

Docket N

. 50-528/629/630 qov 7>>+

C,I AI C)

'A

~CAC~

~1(

Ctl C>>In C "I

.- C'

~CA ED YEt~IORANDUN FOR:

R. E. Jackson, Chief, Geosciences Branch G. E. Lear, Chief, Hydrologic 8 Geotechnical Engineering Branch R. L. Ballard, Chief, Environmental Engineering Branch J.

D. Saltzman, Chief, UtilityFinance Branch R. H. Houston, Chief, Accident Evaluation Branch

'H. P. Gamnill, Chief, Effluent Treatment Systems Branch T. D. murphy, Chief, Radiological Assessment Branch H. H. Regan, Jr., Chief, Siting Analysis Branch R. Zussman, Argonne National Laboratory V. Harris, Argonne National Laboratory FROM:

SUBJECT:

F. J. t4iraglia, Acting Chief, Licensing Branch No. 3, DL tlEETING'TO DISCUSS REVIEM OF PALO VERDE ENVIRONl>ENTAL REPORT On September 28, 19?9, Arizona Public Service Company

{APS) filed its Environmental Report (ER) for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3.

The Project f'.anager (J. Kerrigan) was assigned responsibility for reviewing the ER for completeness.

The ER was found acceptable for docketing and was docketed on June

- 18, 1980.

Although detailed acceptance review questions were not developed for Palo Verde, several questions of' general nature were sent to APS.

APS res-ponded to these questions on September 8, 1980.

You are requested to develop site visit questions on the appropriate sections of the ER by December'15, 1980 to support DES preparation.

V A meeting is planned for November 25, 1980 (9:00 am, Phillips Building, Room P118) to discuss the project, the DES preparation, and the division of revie~r respon-sibilities.

In your ER review for developing site visit questions, please provide:

(1)

Staff questions generated by the ER review; and site review agenda for site visit; and (2)

A list of persons and/or agencies to be contacted during the site visit.

Attendance by other agencies

{State and Federal) during the site visit could save time and permit discussion and familiarization with the site by others who might not normally attend.

OFFICE)

SURNAME DATE$

NRC FORM 318 (9 76) NRCM 0240

@>x zoo

]'tp 4U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979.289<69

C f>

I

-s'

2 This information should be forwarded to the Licensing Project hfanager, Janis Kerrigan (Licensing Branch Ho. 3), with a copy to Gerald Gears, Environmental Review Coordinator (Environmental Engineering Branch).

During the OL stage DES review, maximum use must be made of data,

analyses, and conclusions presented by the staff during the CP environmental review.

The present OL review should concentrate on new information and revised regulatory procedures, as required by law or as undertaken in accordance with Executive Orders and as implemented through Environmental Standard Review Plans.

Any items left open or operational impacts identified as potentially significant in the CP stage FES of September 1975 should be-addressed during the OL-DES review.

The Environmental Statement will be prepared by Argonne National Laboratory (ANL), except for those sections addressing radiological impacts, radioactive waste management

systems, certain hydrological issues and meteorology which will be prepared by in-house NRC staff.

The EIS outline that is to be used for this review (Attachment 1) is consistent with the proposed revision of 10 CFR Part 51 which reflects the Corrmission's policy to abide by the procedural regulations of the Council on Environmental guality (dated November 29, 1978) implementing the National Environmental Policy Act.

This format is similar to those being used for the Grand Gulf, waterford, Comanche Peak and Callaway reviews.

In keeping with the CEg regulations, the text of the FES should be limited to 150 pages (not including appendices),

unless the case is of unusual scope or comp'lexity.

Barring unforseen

events, the Palo Verde case should not present any unusual problems.

The CE(j regulations also call for a list of names and qualifications of EIS preparers to be included in the Final Statement.

This will be included in the Palo Verde FES in Section 6.

The review schedule presently is being finalized, but the preliminary.schedule is contained in Attachment 2.

Should there he-any questions or comments concerning the project review assign-

ments, schedule, scope, or approach, notify the Licensing Project Manager (J. Kerrigan, Room 13O, Ext. 27272) as soon as possible.

/~

F. J. Miraglia, Acting Chief.

Licensing Branch No.

3 Division of Licensin'g Attachments:

1.

DES Outline 2.

Environmental Review Schedule cc:

See next page DISTRIBUTION'ocket File (50-528/529/530),

F(1iragl 'a OFFICE P SURNAME DATE$

,=.1.B 9'......,.. EEB

~

JK gea: ch GGe s

li

/8O """1lj (8 glia l'i j'8O GGea I

~ ~

NRC FORM 31& (9.76) NRCM 0240

'0 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 2&9'369

I

~ 1 I

I ll I

Qttqchlqent l~

OL ENVIRONMENTAL STATEMENT OUTLINE AND REVIEW RESPONSIBILITIES COVER', SKEET

SUMMARY

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOREWORD 1.

INTRODUCTION

l. 1 The Proposed Action 1,2 Administrative History

1. 2, 1 Prior Staff Action 1,2,2 Public Participation 1,2.3 Status of Reviews and Approvals 1,3 Related Federal Project Activities 1.4 major Issues and Areas of Controversy 2,

ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED ACTION 2,1 Resume.

2,2 Alternati ves 2,2.1 Benefits of Operating Vis-a-Vis Not Operating the Plant

2. 2,1,1 Pr oducti'on Costs 2,2.1.2 Fuel Diversity 2.2.1,3 Reliability of Service 2,2,2 Costs of Operating Vis-a Vis Not Operating the Plant

2. 3 Conclus ion

i l

3.

a

~

Al'f'ECTED Ef(VIROifhEfiT 3.1 Project Descriptions 3.1.1 External Appearance and Plant Layout 3.1.2 Plant Cooling System

'.1.3 Radioactive-1 aste-l',anagement System 3.1.4 flonradioactive h'aside System 3.1.5 Pov:er Transmission Systems 3.2 Project-Related Environmental Descriptions 3.2.1 Land 3.2.2 l.'ater 3.2.3 Air b.

3.2.4 3.2.5-Teri estrial Ecology

'quatic Ecology 3.2.6 Historic and Archeological Sites 3:2.7 Socioeconomics 4.

ENVIROfiHEfsTAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 4.1 Land Use Impacts 4.2 1.'ater Use and Hydrological Impacts c.

4.3 Air equality Impacts 4.4 Terrestrial Ecology Impacts 4.5 Aquatic Ecology Impacts

)""

~ (Including toe.'er impacts) a ~

b.

C.

r 1

Inclusion of any of these subsectionsis optional and is only required if the current project description is different than that'described in the CP-FES.

Inclusion of any of these subsections is optional and is only required if the current environmental. description is different than that described in the CP-FES.

Inclusion of any of these subsections is optional and is only required if the current analysis of environmental consequences is different than that presented in the CP-FES or v,'as not addressed in the CP-FES.

rs

}

/r 1

I I

lf lf 4.6 Historic and Archeological Site Impact (including visual impact) c ~

4.7 Socioeconomic Impacts 4.8 Radiological Impacts 4.8.1 Radiological Impacts of Normal Operation 4.8.2 Plant Accidents (AEB)*

4.8.3 Uranium Fuel Cycle Impacts 4.9 Decomnissioning 5.

EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION 5.1 heasures and Controls to Limit Adverse Impacts 5.1.1 Project Design 5.1.2 Operating Practices 5.1.3 honitoring provisions-5.2 Unavoidable Adverse Impacts 5.3 Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources 5.4 Short-Term Uses and Long-Term Productivity 5.5 Benefit-Cost Balance 5.5.1 Benefits 5.5.2 Costs 5.5.3 Conclusions 6.

LIST OF PREPARERS Incorporate accident considerations per the statement of. interim policy on accident considerations under JiEPA which became effective June 13, 1980.'.

See preceeding page.

V

~

7.

LIST OF AGENCIES, ORGAtllZATIOt<S, AttD PERSON lS TO 1'HOH COPIES OF THE STATEHENT ARE SENT 8.

STAFF RESPONSES TO COhfffNTS APPEttDIX

J

'1j

Attachment 2

Environmental Review Schedule for Palo Verde EIS Milestone Site visit questions complete with input to LPM Letter to Applicant on ER with list of informal questions Site visit agenda to Applicant Site visit Formal staff questions (gl) to Appl icant Applicant's complete response DES input complete PDES Management review by OELD and DOL complete DES issued, NRC FR notice Public comment period ends LPH receives Applicant and staff responses to comments PFES Management review by OELD and DOL complete Issue FES Date 12/15/80 12/21/80 12/28/80 Reek of 1/5/81 1/19/81 2/17/81 4/24/81 5/15/81 6/12/81 7/30/81 9/15/81 10/15/81 11/05/81 11/25/81 12/18/81

1

<<g I

'I l

4',

6'