ML17297B715

Petition of West Valley Agricultural Protection Council,Inc to Intervene,Request for Preparation of Supplemental or Revised Eia & Request for Reopening Record.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML17297B715
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	10/13/1982
From:	Berlin K AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML17297B716	List: ML17297B715 ML20027C411
References
NUDOCS 8210150512
Download: ML17297B715 (42)

Text

~

'w~~/g.JZ-M UNiTED S ATES OF P~!ZR C.

NUCLEAR R""GULATORY COttLiiISSXON / /

+6~

BEFORE THE ATOMiC SAFETY AND LiC NSiNG BOARD

)) L/-8P in the Hatter of )

)

ARIZONA PUBLiC SERU CE COHPANv, ) Docket Nos. STN 50-528 et al. STN 50-529 i..'g

)

) STN 50-530 (Palo Verae Nuclear Generating )

Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) )

PETITiON TO iNT" RV N AND REQUEST -" OR PR" PARATION at OP SUPPLEHENTAL OR RrViSED ENViRONiA!ENTAL iHPACT STATEHENT, HEARiNG AND OTHER REL"EP Nest Valley Agricultural Protection Council, inc. '(lie s -'n

'ts own D nal -.

or! Deha1 -,

0 ' s  !<< .;!Oe s a!Q on A

~ rc c i,

~ 'L Gtner A s s 17iL la.: v s 3. tuc I ed I !ie re ov:

(A) petitions fo ' vta to intervene '.-. the above-oroce d'..".g as c par ty of reco" d; (B).,recuiests that the Nucl ear Recul a tor v 'o<<miss i o>>

(NRC ) oreoa. e a ev 'i sea ol SupoleT ent" 1 Env i oi!iilentaJ. L Stat e.!=i. t analyz i g the substailtLal new ' for ma t }on t subiil 1 ted wl zn th1S petition tha" sai-'rift ro!l! the cooling towe s, spray Popes anc evaoox at ioil oor!cs at the Pal o Verce N'lclea"'ener It St-"'o.! I Units 2 and 3 (col ective y 1 1 PVNGS I seoarc ely PV Va or >V3) will cause ~<<ajor env'onmenta aa;age tO Sur rouna 'g aa r i Cu j tu a 1 CroP1 cna; (C) recuests tna t tne Atoniic Sa e f tv and Licens'g Boa== (ASLB) "copen tho r ecora oi! this 'ensing proceealng a..d

'.!s c,

'o

, ~ 4 cn Va '

ev s ccnt=n alla C ~ S CL

0 t

I t

1 I ~

l I

I l

cooling towers, spray ponds and evaporation ponds at PVNGS must be modified to reduce salt drift to a level that poses no threat to the agricultural crops growing on the surrounding land; and (D) seeks the relief set forth in this petition.

Attached to>> this Petition are affidavits and repor'ts documenting each of the petitioner's contentions and a memorandum P

of law in support of this petition.

INTEREST OP WEST VALLEY

1. Nest Valley is a nonprofit corporation formed in 1982 by farmers in i~faric'opa County, Arizona, to take appropriate act'on to prevent or rectify harm to area agriculture from nonagricultural sources.

2. , West Valley has 56 armer members producing-.

$ 96,000,000 of agricultural produc'ts per year and owning'5 percent of the farm land in the area occupied by Nest Valley members.

3. The PVNGS is located in, Naricopa County, Arizona in an area whose agricultural cropland is among the riches" in

\

the nation.

P All Nest Valley members are located within the area likely to be affected by the salt deposition problem which is the

.suoject of the Contentions in this petition.

4, The salt depos'ion problem which is the subject .

of the conten't ions in this peti tion threatens the agr icultural productivity of all farms within the area occupied by Nest Valley

'L ~

members, and thus the environmental effects of PVNGS directly thr'eaten the financial livelihood of all West Valley members.

5. West Valley has a right. under 10 C.F.R. Section r

2.714 to be made a party to this proceeding.

BASIS FOR LATE FXLXNG

6. West Valley has good cause for the untimely filing of their. petition for leave to intervene, in that:

(a) the Environmental Impact . Statements and

'Environmental Reports submitted in this licensing proceeding fail C

to mention any affects on agricultural .crops from salt drift from tne PUNGS; (b) representatives of tne operators of PVNGS at freauent meetings with West Valley members ailed to mention aossible affects on West Valley members'rops f"om salt drif t

=rom the PVNGS; (c) because of these omiss'ons, West Valley members had . no grounds to believe that the salt drift from the. PVNGS threatened their crops until after the final operating license

.hearing for the PVNGS'held in the spring or 1982; (d) because of these omissions, West Valley members nad no avail'able source of information that sal". drift from the PVNGS posed a tnreat to their agricultural crops; (e) because of these omissions, West Valley could not have'nown that the salt 'rift from the PVNGS threatened their c"ops withou" hirinj their own ezaerts to analyze this 'ssue;

(f) West Valley first learned that salt dri:ft from cooling towers can affect crops in newspaper articles written during the spring 1982 final operating license hearing; (g) these newspaper articles only generally raised the issue of salt deposition and provided no factual basic for West Valley members to believe that the salt drift from the PVNGS

\

might affect their crops; (h) because of concern raised by these allegations, however, PVNGS area farmers formed West. Valley and hired experts, whose reports are submitted with this petition, to review the affects'f the salt deposition on their crops; (i) immediately after West Valley received its experts'eports in mid-September 1582, it reta'n=d counsel to file thi petition; 4

(j) . W st Valley intervenec promptly, within the -.

minimum time necessary to prepare i'ts intervention papers, after i" documented the omission in the Environmental Impact Statements and Environmental Repor ts regarding salt dr ift deposi tion.

8. As more fully stated in the contentions. below, the salt drift deposition problem tnreatens the agricultural productivity of some of this nation's richest farmland and requires urgent cons'deration before any decision is made to

.grant an operating license for the PVNGS.

9. No means other than West Valley intervention in',

this petit'ion can guarantee'hat 'PVNGS salt deposition will not dest oy the productivity. of some of this nation's richest r arml and .

10..'est 'I Valley par ticipation will mater ially assist the ASLB in developing a sound record since the ASLB record to date -contains little or= no evidence or analysis of the affects of PVNGS salt deposition on surrounding agricultural cropland and since West Valley i5 submitting substantial evidence on this issue with this pet'ition.

P ll. No existing party to this proceeding has pursued'he salt deposition issue, and no existing party has the legal or

'actual capacity to protect West Valley's interest in this proceeding.

12. As specified in the contentions, the PVNGS operator can solve the halt deposition problem with financially'nd technically feasible changes or additions to the PVNGS;

13. The minor delays that may be incidental to granting this p tition will not prejudice any party, since:

(a) after the completion of the 'nearing on the final operating license, PVNGS notified the NRC on August 13 that it planned to delay operation of PVl for approximately one year;

'I (b) the PVNGS operator does not plan to begin operation on PVl for at least one year, on PV2 for at least two years and on PV3 fo at least tnree years. Xt is technologicallv and financially feasible to 'mplement solut'ons to the salt deposition problem within that time frame;

14. For the above. reasons the final operating license hearing was -premature and was held too far in advance of completion of the PVNGS to meet the requirements of 10 C.F.R.

~

$ 50.57.

CONTENTIONS I. The salt de osition which will result from the operation .of the PVNGS is inadeauatel assessed in the Environmental Reports (ER) and 'Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and vastl understated.

A. The measurement of salt emitted from the cooling tower'is unreliable and understated:

(i) a recent study has shown that the sampling method utilized by the vendor in determining the drif" ratio of the recirculating water in the cooling towers (" drift ratio") can easily be in error by greater than 100 percent; (ii) the ER, EIS and sampling methods utilized in

.. determining the arift ratio rail to recognize wind effects witnin tne fill and drift elimination system; (iii) studies at the Chalk Point, ~maryland, cooling towers freauently monitored tower salinity levels at twice those 1

s"'ated in the towers design features; (iv) the ER, EIS and sampli'ng methoas uti ized in determining the drift ratio fail to measure water distribut'on canal drift losses; and (v) the ER and EIS fail to state how or whether'alt emissions will be monitored or now accurately this will be done.

B The EIS ana ER aiscuss drift related environmental effects only for cooling towers in an as built conaition ignorinc the effects of cooling tower deterioration over the life of the plant:

(i) the EXS and ER fa'1 to demonstrate the existence of a program to maintain the cool'ing towers to avoid deterioration that would increase salt emissions; (ii) the -ER and EXS fail to discuss a monitoring program intended to detect an increase in drift-related environmental effects over the life of tne plant; (iii) studies at the Chalk Point, Maryland, power plant showe'd a sizable increase in salt desposition occurring after. the plant had been in operation for six years; and

.(i'v) cooling tower deterioration problems which affect salt emissions include changes in the geometries of cooling "ower systems such as fill, 'nlet structures, water distribution, drift elimination and structural support.

C. The cool'ng towe drift model utilized at the PVNGS underpredicts salt deposition to o .-s'te properties by a facto o "en o more:

(i) the drif" and salt deposition capabi 'ty of. the model has not been compared to actual measu ements; (ii) the desert climate'f the Palo Verde region is vastlv different from other areas of the United States with the

, re'suit that application of the model to the region cannot be expected to provide accurate results without some veri y'ng exper'ence; (iii) the predictions for tne PVHGS do not exhibit the usual salt"deposition patterns;

( iv.,) the nLode ling procedure used for .the PVNGS und r'Q edicts alt 'eposition

'I on the fa ms owned by "i st Va1 1 ev ai( ~~~ ~ ~

(a) assuming drift droplets are released too high; (b) failing to consider turbulent diffusion of drift droplets; (c) limiting the size of drift droplets; and (d) failing to consider. the effect of plume trapping by elevated temperature inversions; (v) the salt drift predictions for the PVNGS are to another study of a similar tower; low'ompared (vi) a properlv conducted salt drift analysis would

.show the PVNGS model to be unreliable by a factor of from ten to seventy and would consider the consequences of the model underpredict'ng salt depos'tion by those factors.

D. The EA and EIS fa'l to conside effects of changes in. salt Concentrations that are likely to occur over tne lire of PV:

'I (i) at times, the cooling wa er salini y of the'V towers will b higher than assur ed 'n the model; (ii) 'records from the'uckeye Irrigation Co. show some water samples taken from the 'Phoenix sewage effluent which will be utilized at the PVNGS contain twice tne salt cont nt listed in tne .ER and EIS; (iii) tne cooling water source is likely to change over the life of tne plant (from Phoenix sewage ffluent to groundwater. or another water source) leading to much higher.

initial salt concentrations than shown in the model; and

(iv) the operator of PVNGS has applied for and received a permit to drill 49 new wells in connection with the operation of the PVNGS, indicating that it is. prepared to shift from .

Phoenix sewage effluent to far more saline groundwater.

E. The ER'nd ElS fail to consider salt. deposition from the evaporation ponds 'even though 'such salt deposition may equal or exceed the deposition from cooling towers:

(i) based on figures available to Y7est Valley, the blow-off from 100 acres of evaporation ponds will average 23,000 lbs. of salt per day, far in excess of the 14,000 lbs./day the ER

'and ETS estimate will be emitted from, the nine cooling ~owers; (ii) the evaporation pond area at the PVNGS will eventuallv cover several hundrec acres; and (iii) the emissions rom the evaporation ponds are from

a. low-level source that could cause significant off-site salt deposition P. The ER and E:S fail to fully consider the 'mpact of salt deposition from the spray ponds even though such d'eposition may exceed the deposition from he cooling towers:

(i) the anticipated drift rate from the spray ponds is

.as large as that estimated in tne ER as the maximum zor tne threo cooling towers serv'ng each unit at the PVNGS; (ii) the ER unrealistically expects refueling intervals for each tower to be one month per .year when experience at most other similar stations has shown that a larger value would be more realistic;

(iii) the drift distributions from the spray ponds are.

unreliable and the vendors drift source term and drift transport models can be expected to be seriously in error, by as much as a factor of ten; (iv) the ER ."and EIS fail to explain the basis for their spray pond drizt estimates; J

and h

(v) the spatial distribution of drift from spray ponds be concentrated much nearer to the point, of release than 'ould that from cooling towers.

G. The uncertainty in all measurements relied on in the ER and EIS mandates tne preparation of a worst case d ift'nalys's:

i6:>

"atio in error--by -a-gv (i) tne dr f~ measurements may be fac. or of more than 100 percent; drift ratio analys's fails to consider cooling--

tower deterioration over the life of PV; (iii) the cooling towe drif-'odel may be in error by

." a zactor of ten to seventy or more; (vi) the ER and EIS: fail t'o consider evaporation pond salt drift which may exceed the drift from the cooling towers; (v) the ER and EIS fail to measure the zull impact of spray pond drif". even though it may exceed tne drift from the cool'ng towers and even tnough spray pond drift est.'mates may be in error by a factor of ten or more; and (vi) the ER and EIS fail to consider liice y changes in water availability over the life of the P~L GS.

H. A wors't case analysis will show 10-100 times or more the salt drift deposition shown in the ER and EIS.

II. The ER and EIS fail to evaluate the impact of salt on a ricultural cro s.

(A) In other situations where cooling tower .salt emissions might .have had the potential to adversely affect

'surrounding croplands, other applicants have conducted careful assessments of the impact of the cooling towers on crops (edges Vienna and Chalk Point, i~maryland) . Despite the far greater risk of, crop damage from salt in the dry climate surrounding the PVNGS, the applicant did .not conduct such a studv here.

F (B) The agricultural land. surrounding the plant 'is among the richest in the United States witn farms owned by intervenors producing $ 96,000,000 per vear. These farms c'onstitute approximately 85% percent oz tne acreage given '

cropland 'n tne area in which intervenors are located.

(C) The ER and EIS .discuss only the effect of salt on nat'i've vegetation already adapted to high saline land, not on commercially grown agri'cultural crops:

(D) the ER and EIS discuss only the environmental

'ffect of adding additional salt to the soil, not the far more

~

serious effdct from deposition of the sal on he surface of the crops'

l2 l;ll. The salt deposition from the PVNGS will reduce the=

oroductivit of agricultural lands owned bv West Valle mern ers.

(A) Very low salt deposi'tion rates in a dry environment .such as that near the PVNGS may produce the same effects as higher 'alt deposition rates in 'more humid environments which are subject to rain events with higher frequency and greater intensity:

(i) the PVNGS region has a history of a large number of small rain events during the summer, rain events which

~

frequently are of such low intensity that it is unlikely that they would remove salts accumulated on crop leaves; (ii) the climatic conditions at the PVNGS w'll wet the leaves of crops in a manner that will disso've -much of the salt deposit d on the leaves by the PVNGS, causing the movemen" a..

II concentration of the salts along the leaf margins wnere general chlorosis and necrosis would likely occur; and (iii) studies at Chalk Point, Maryland, showed mich higher injury'o croos during a drought year than had 4

been observed during previous years, suggesting that the very dry environment at the PVNGS would create problems similar to tnose observed at Chalk Point 'during the drought; (iv) the salt accumulation on leaves esulting rom the ope r a t ion of the PVNGS would cause plan ts to exh j.bi t symptoms of general drought stress.

l3 (B) The expected salt deposition levels in the area of PVNGS are likely to cause injury to cotton and other crops grown by'est Valley members:

(i) recent studies have established that aerosol deposition of salts from cooling towers can harm agricultural crops:

(a) these studies have established that crops tolerant saline soils may not exhibit the same I'f level of tolerance deposition of salts on leaves; to'.aerosol (b) these studies have established that aerosol salt deposition can harm a variety of crops at comparatively low levels, and at high enough deposition levels can harm virtually all cr'ops; and (c) these studies have establ'shed that a generating station much smaller and utilizing l'ess saline water -'han the PUNGS caused extensive salt damage to native plants grow:ng in

'similar climatic and soil conditions.

salt injury to cot on would:

'ii)

(a) cause a reduction in tne number of boils per plant, and thus a reduction

.in crop 'yields and (b) result in a reduction in leaf area caused by necrosis induced salt injury, reducing the photosynthetic capacity of the plant and reducing the plant's ability to assimulate cellulose fibers resulting in thin-walled, weak and poorlv developed fibers of lower. economic value than normal fibers; (C) Salt deposition from the PVNGS will occur at levels .sufficient to 'cause harm to surrounding agricultural.

crops:

0 (i) studies in the humid eastern United harm to certain plants at deposition levels of 2-4.

States'stablished lbs. per acre per week under climatic conditions where on the average of once a week a heavy rainfall washed all salt from the crops; (ii) in the area surrounding the PVNGS, deposition levels of 2-4 lbs. per acre per week will occur near the plant'nd will be more damaging than similar levels in the eastern I

United States since there will not be sufficient rain to wash the salt from the crops each week; and J

(iii) in areas zurther from the plant where weekly salt aeposxtxon rates are lowe r than 2-4 lbs./acre/weekly, the absence of rain will cause salts to accumulate on croos over a period oz several weeks to levels sufficient t'o cause damage similar to tnat snown in areas with higher we kly salt deposition but witn-higher r'ainfall levels which remove 'that"deposition.

IV. The ER be used and at the EIS undervalue PVNGS.

the cost of the water which will (A) The ER and EIS fail to evaluate properly the economic cost of the water used by the PVNGS since they base their calculations on tne value listed in the water contract the

-iNGS signed for Phoenix sewage efzluent, not the actual value of the water to water users 'n the surrounding area over the life of =

the contract..

(B) =The ER. and EIS fail to consider tne likely increases in the cost of water over the life of the PVNGS:

15 (i) they fail to consider that the sewage effluent contract with 'he City of Phoenix can be cancelled by the city under certain conditions and that the cost evaluation of water over the life of the plapt must reflect that possibility; and (ii) they fail to consider the steeply rising value of water likely in the'uture because of future water shortages in

'the Palo Verdes and broader central Arizona area.

(C) The ER and EIS fail to consider the increased cost of water to other area users resulting from the decrease in water

'availability caused by the PVNGS'peration.

. U.. The ER and ETS fail:to consider the full economic impact of the cool'n towers on the area surroundin PVNGS.

r (A) The ER an" E'ZS =ail to include the value of agr'cultural crops which may be lost from salt damage caused by I

the operation o the PCS.

(B) The ER and Z1S fail to consider the economic'ost of. the agricultural cropland wh'ch may be lost because area farmers cannot replace the water they currently use wnich, after opera"i'ons begin at the PVNGS, the station will use.

(C) The ER and EZS fail to consider the loss to ag>>icultura crop which will result f"om increased water 'usage needs (resulting from the use of more saline water) and pumping costs if local farmers have, to substitute groundwater for the sewage effluen't they are now using wnich PVNGS w'ill use.

,(D),- The ER~ and EZS fail to consider the economic cost I

su>>rounc~rg o ~ trv1 ng to r emo've, e ther ~

16

~ =l 4

considered alone or in combination, salt deposition from agricultural crops.

VI. The ER ana EIS fail to consider technicallv and financiall feasible alternatives that would reduce salt loss from the PVNGS coolin towers.

(A) The water valuation relied on in the EIS as a ground for rejecting cooling tower alternatives vastly understates the value of the water used by PVNGS fo the reasons set forth in Contentions IV and V.

(B) The PVNGS operator can modify the drift elimination bank to increase salt capture efficiency at the pr'ce of relaiiv ly moaest 'ncreases in tne required fan power and fan energv costs.

(C) 'The PVNGS operator can iedesign the cool'ng iowe" s to aecrease water consumption ana thus salt em'ss'ons by:

(i) increasing the fill volume; (ii) reducing tower height; (iii) increasing tower fan power; ana (iv) decreasing recirculating water .temperature chanae arid increasing the difference between the cold water temperature and wet bulb value.

(D) Dry cooling technology should be utilized at ihe I

~

PVNGS to supplement the existing wet cooling towers:

(i) dry cooling technology would impose virtually drift zero'ater demana upon th site and would have virtually no salt emiss ions;

I (ii) dry cooling technology and wet/dry cooling technology have been in commercial use for more than twenty years; (iii) the'R and EXS fail to consider the alternative of supplementary dry 'base load) cooling, an aporoach which is C

far more attractive economically than the alternative of using dry cooling technology for complete power station cooling

'considered and rejected in the EXS; (iv) the use of baseload dry cooling is economical in view of:

(a) the anticipated large increase in demand for and costs o" water. expected in the PVHGS .region during the life .of the c'.ltrac (b) the anticipated ag icultural losses which will

."esult zrom excess salt deposition; and (c) the other econom'c losses set forth in contention (XV) and (V) .

(v) 'he use of dry assistance to the wet cooling tower

'wo'ula also have the benef it of reducing the wet cooling, tow r blowdown flow, with consequent oroportional reductions in the reauired size of the blowdown evaoorarion oonds and thus salt erosion of these ponds; and (vi) the applicant can retrof' tne wet cooling towers

.with baseload dry cooling caoability.

(E) The salt concentration in the cooling towers can be reduced to'afer l'evels if desalinization capacity is add'ed to the cool'..g,tower arrangement:

18 (i) the most effective water flow desalinization arrangement is that of recirculating water flow sidestream treatment in which the blowdown flow is included in the r

s ides tr earn flow. This flow min'imizes the desalinization plant flow rate needed in 'order to accomplish a given level of salt removal; and (ii) based upon estimates available to Nest Valley, the'ost or maintaining the level of cycles of concentration at unity would be approximately 5 percent of the total cost of power from

.the PVNGS.

(F) The PVNGS has failed to conduct or develop a monitoring plan to establish both baseline and post operation data necessarv to analyze .the erfect of PVNGS salt deposition on agricultural crops.

VII. The EIS oreoared bv the NRC should be rev'sed because it fails to analyze adequately tne potential impact of salts on.

a ricultural crops.

(A) . The EIS improperly fails to include a worst case analysis of potential salt drift as described in Contention I(G);

(B) The EIS improperly fails to include a worst case analysis of the effect of salt drift on agricultural crops as cescribed in Contentions II and III; (C) The EIS improperly fails to . analyze the sensitivity, of crops grown in the area o PUNGS to salt drift; and (D) 'The EIS imprope ly and superficially values the water which will be used 'in tho cooling towers, and thus fails to

consider economically'easible alternatives which would reduce emissions from the PVNGS.

'alt Vill. The NRC should ore are a sup lemental EXS based on th' substantial new evidence produced b Hest Valle that.

(A) The cooling tower salt drift estimates in the ER and EES are subject* to error of from 10-100 percent or more and the salt deposition may exceed the amounts listed in the ER and E1S by tnose factors; (B) The salt drift emissions rate likely to occur at the PVNGS has harmed many kinds of agricultural crops and there is need to Study the potential harm to crops grown in the area of the. ";V. GS. These plants, including co'tton, have charac eristi'cs'e which make i" likely that they will harmed by salt drift from PVNCS; and (C) There are reasonable and economically feasible

.alternatives which the PVNGS can consider at this point ir. time wh'ch w' decrease salt emissions rom the PVNGS.

Relief Sou ht Hherefore, Hest Valley respect ully recuests that the ASLB and the NRC:

I

5) ~

g ant its petition to intervene,pursuani to 10 C.F.R. s)2.714 and 2.715; B)'dmit each o the contentions listed above C) prepare a revised or. supplemental EXS analyzing the subs ta..t.'L .new information submitted with this petition tnat

~

20 salt drif t from the cooling towers, spray ponds and evaporation.'onds at the PVNGS will cause major environmental damage to .

surrounding cropland; D) reopen the record in this proceeding to take evidence on issues related to the contentions in the peti'tion; E) supplement the record in this proceeding by incorporating the experts reports submitted with this petition; F) hold a hearing on the issues, related to the contentions in the petition; G) deny PVNGS'eauest for an extension of its construction permit for 'PV1 or make any such permit extension conditioned on solution 'to the salt depos'tion problems raised in the contentions in th~s petition; H) revoke the const uction'ermi" for PV2 and PV3 o" amend. them to include a cordition that the PVNGS operator must.-

solve the salt deposition problems raised in the contentions in.

this petition are solved; I) deny an operating license for PVNGS until tne operator solves the salt deposition problems raised 'in the

'4 contentions in this petition, or condition anv such license on a solution to these problems; and J) grant such other and further relief as the NBC and the ASLB find necessary and appropriate.

I Respectfully submitted, I

Dated:

/ Kenneth Berlin

.Winston & Strawn Suite 500 2550 M St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20037

/'I (202) 828-8400 Attorneys for Petitioner West Valley Agricultural Protection Council, inc..

Sworn to before me this J 3 'dav,/ of October, 1982.

Nota y public

(( .

!, I~

/]

1g l

1 I

1