ML19273B904
| ML19273B904 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/1979 |
| From: | ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19273B883 | List: |
| References | |
| ENVR-790531, NUDOCS 7906180486 | |
| Download: ML19273B904 (99) | |
Text
.
PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 4 & 5 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CONSTRUCTION PERMIT STAGE 8
SUPPLEMENT NO. 2 MAY 1979 2354 112 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY PROJECT MANAGER AND OPERATING AGENT 79061 so '/4
F hh [
P. O. B O X 216 6 6 PHOENIX, ARIZON A 85036 June 4, 1979 PVNGS-289-JMA/DBK Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
Subject:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 4 and 5 File: FF-79-054-026 Docket Nos: STN-50-592/593
Dear Sir:
Arizona Public Service Company (APS) as Project Manager and Operating Agent for Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) Units 4 and 5, is submitting herewith for your review 41 copies of Supplement 2 of the PVNGS 4 and 5 Environmental Report pursuant to the requireaents of 10CFR50. 30. (c) . (1) . (iv) .
This Supplemen,t provides an alternative supplemental water source evaluation.
Resp Ari ly subm' eh ,_
b i'c S vicffCo. c By:
vM ON Edwin E. Van Brunt, Jr.
APS Vice President Nuclear Projects ANPP Project Director On its own behalf and as agent for all other joint applicants 2354 113 Q 79osososo z
Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation PVNGS-289-JMA/DBK June 4, 1979 Page 2 State of Arizona )
) ss.
County of Maricopa )
Subscribed and sworn to before me this [/ day of NY 1979.
x.
,/ Notary Public My Commission Expires:
Nj Coraminic.1prares Jam 23, 1383 cc: (See Attachment) 2354 114
cc:
Robert M. Lazo, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Gilinsky Docketing and Service Section U. S. Nuclear Regulatory U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Quentin J. Stober Vincent MacKenzie, Esq.
Research Associate Professor Janice E. Kerr, Esq.
Fisheries Research Institute J. Calvin Simpson, Esq.
University of Washington California Public Utilities 400 Northeast 15th Avenue Commission Seattle, Washington 98195 5066 State Building San Francisco, California 94102 Mr. Larry Bard Steven Schinki P. O. Box 793 Counsel for NRC Staff Tempe, Arizona 85281 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comnission Washington, D.C. 20555 George Campbell, Chairman C. S. Pierson Maricopa Count.y Board of Assistant Attorney General Supervisors 200 State Capitol 111 South Third Avenue 1700 West Washington Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Donald G. Gilbert Kathryn Burkett Dickson Executive Director Mark J. Urban Arizona Atomic Energy Commission Counsels for the California 2929 West Indian School Road Energy Resources Conservation Phoenix, Arizona 85017 and Development Commission 111 Howe Avenue Sacramento, California 95825 Tom Diamond Allan R. Watts 1208 First National Bank Bldg. Rourke & Woodruff El Paso, Texas 79901 1055 N. Main Street, Suite 1020 Santa Anna, California 92701 2354 115
PVNGS-4&5 ER INSTRUCTION SHEET INSTRUCTION SHEET The title page for Supplement No. 2 may be discarded. Follow the removal and insertion instructions for the six volumes.
Insert Sup.
Section Remove Original Pages No. 2 Pages Volume I Front Matter ---
Supplement No. 2 Letter Supplement No. 2.Instruc-tion Sheet A/B A/B thru thru M/ blank M/N xi/xii xi/xii Chapter 1 1.1-1/1.1-2 1.1-1/1.1-2 Volume II Front Matter xi/xii xi/xii Volume III Front Matter xi/xii xi/xii Volume IV Front Matter xi/xii xi/xii 2354 116 1 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER INSTRUCTION SHEET Insert Sup.
Section Remove Original Pages No. 2 Pages Chapter 3 Figure 3.9-9 Figure 3.9-9 Volume V Front Matter xi/xii xi/xii Chapter 9 9.2-25/9.2-26 9.2-25/9.2-26 Figure 9.2-3 Figure 9.2-3 Volume VI Front Matter xi/xii xi/xii Chapter 10 10.i/10-ii 10.i/10-li Tab 10B k Appendix 10B 23SA II O
2 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Issue Page Issue Volume I Title O(a) 1.2.9 S-1 Letter (5 pages) O 1.2-10 S-1 Letter (3 pages) S-1(b) 1.2-11 S-1 Letter (3 pages) S-2(c) 1.2-12 S-1 Intro 1 O 1.2-13 S-1 2 O Table 1.2-1 S-1 3 O Table 1.2-2 S-1 Instruction Sheet Table 1.2-3 (5 pages) S-1 (12 sheets) S-1 Instruction Sheet Table 1.2-3A (2 pages) S-2 (12 sheets) S-1 List of Effective Pages Table 1.2-4 (14 pages) S-2 (12 sheets) S-1 1-i S-1 Table 1.2-5 1-ii S-1 (64 sheets) S-1 1-iii S-1 1-iv S-1 Volume II l-v S-1 Title O 1.1-1 O iii S-1 J.1-2 S-2 iv S-1 1.2-1 S-1 v S-1 1.2-2 S-1 vi S-1 1.2-3 S-1 vii S-1 1.2-4 S-1 viii S-1 1.2-5 S-1 ix S-1 1.2-6 S-1 x S-1 1.2-7 S-1 xi S-1 1.2-8 S-1 xii .-2
- a. Original issue, March 1978.
2354 118
- b. Supplement 1, September 1978
- c. Supplement 2, May 1979.
A Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Issue Page Issue 1-1 S-1 Appendix 1G l-li S-2 (6 pages) S-1 1-111 S-1 Appendix lH 1-iv S-1 (6 pages) S-1 1-v S-1 Appendix II Table 1.2-6 S-1 (12 pages) S-1 Table 1.2-7 S-1 Appendix lJ Table 1.2-8 (56 pages) S-1 (17 sheets) S-1 Appendix 1K Table 1,2-9A (21 pages) S-1 (5 sheets) S-1 Appendix lL Table 1.2-9B (98 pages) S-1 (5 sheets) S-1 Table 1.2-10A Volume III (2 sheets) S-1 Title O Table 1.2-10B (3 sheets) S-1 Title iii S-1 S-1 g
1.4-1 S-1 iv S-1 1.4-2 S-1 v S-1 1.4-3 S-1 vi S-1 1.4-4 S-1 vii S-1 Appendix 1A viii jg S-1 (34 pages) S-1 ix S-1 Appendix 1B x S-1 (10 pages) S-1 xi S-1 Appendix 1C xii S-1 (6 pages) S-1 Appendix 1M Appendix 1D (36 pages) S-1 (6 pages) S-1 Appendix 1N Appendix lE (8 pages) S-1 (6 pages) S-1 Appendix 10 Appendix 1F (12 pages) S-1 (26 pages) S-1 Appendix 1P (8 pages) S-1 g
B Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Issue Page Issue Appendix 1Q 2.2-2 O (34 pages) S-1 2.2-3 O Appendix 1R 2.2-4 O (8 pages) S-1 2.2-5 0 Appendix 1S 2.2-6 0 (28 pages) S-1 2.2-7 O Appendix 1T 2.2-8 0 (60 pages) S-1 2.2-9 O Appendix 1U 2.2-10 0 (18 pages) S-1 2.2-11 0
?.ppendix IV 2.2-12 O (140 pages) S-1 Figure 2.2-1 O Figure 2.2-2 O Volume IV Figure 2.2-3 O Title S-1 Figure 2.2-4 0 lii S-1 Figure 2.2-5 0 iv S-1 Figure 2.2-6 0 v S-1 Figure 2.2-7 0 vi S-1 Figure 2.2-8 0 vii S-1 Figure 2.2-9 0 viii S-1 Figure 2.2-10 O ix S-1 2.3-1 S-1 x S-1 2.3-2 S-1 xi S-1 2.3-3 S-1 xii S-1 2.3-5 2354 120 S _1 2-i S-1 2.3-6 S-1 2-11 0 2.3-7 S-1 2-iii O 2.4-1 0 2-iv O Figure 2.4-4 0 2.1-1 S-1 2.5-1 0 2.1-2 S-1 2.5-2 O Figure 2.1-1 O Figure 2.5-8 O Figure 2.1-2 O Figure 2.5-9 2.2-1 O (5 sheets) O C Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Issue Page Issue llh 2.6-1 0 2.7-33 0 2.6-2 0 2.7-34 0 2.7-1 0 2.7-35 0 2.7-2 0 2.7-36 0 2.7-3 O Figure 2.7-1A O 2.7-4 O Figure 2.7-2A O 2.7-5 O Figure 2.7-3A O 2.7-6 0 2.8-1 0 2.7-7 0 2.8-2 0 2.7-8 O 2.9-1 0 2.7-9 0 2A-1 0 2.7-10 0 2B-1 0 2.7-11 0 2B-2 0 2.7-12 0 2B-3 0 2.7-13 0 2B-4 O 2.7-14 2.7-15 O s 2B-5 2B-6 O lll O
2.7-16 0 2B-7 O 2.7-17 O 2B-8 0 2.7-18 0 2B-9 0 2.7-19 0 2B-10 0 2.7-20 0 2C-1 0 2.7-21 0 2D-2 0 235A 12I 2.7-22 0 2E-1 O 2.7-23 0 2E-2 0 2.7-24 0 2F-1 0 2.7-25 O 2F-2 0 2.7-26 0 2G-1 0 2.7-27 0 2G-2 0 2.7-28 0 3-i O 2.7-29 0 3-11 O 2.7-30 0 3-lii S-1 2.7-31 2.7-32 0
0 3-iv O lll 3.1-1 O D Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Issue Page Issue 3.1-2 0 3.5-15 O Figure 3.1-4 O 3.5-16 0 Figure 3.1-5 0 3.5-17 O Figure 3.1-6 O Figure 3.5-6 O Figure 3.1-8 0 3.6-1 O Figure 3.1-9 0 3.6-2 O Figure 3.1-10 0 3.6-3 O Figure 3.1-11 0 3.6-4 0 Figure 3.1-12 0 3.6-5 0 3.2-1 O Figure 3.6-1 0 3.3-1 O Figure 3.6-2 O Figure 3.3-1 Figure 3.6-3 0 (4 sheets) O Figure 3.6-4 0 3.4-1 O Figure 3.6-5 0 3.4-2 0 3.7-1 0 3.4-3 0 3.7-2 0 3.4-4 0 3.7-3 0 3.4-5 0 3.8-1 S-1 Figure 3.4-1 0 3.9-1 S-1 Figure 3.4-2 0 3.9-2 S-1 3.5-1 0 3.9-3 S-1 3.5-2 0 3.9-4 S-1 3.5-3 0 3.9-5 S-1 3.5-4 0 3.9-6 S-1 3.5-5 0 3.9-7 S-1 3.5-6 0 3.9-8 S-1 3.5-7 0 3.9-9 S-1 3.5-8 0 3.9-10 S-1 3.5-9 0 3.9-11 2354 122 S-1 3.5-10 0 3.9-12 S-1 3.5-11 O 3.9-13 S-1 3.5-12 0 3.9-14 S-1 3.5-13 0 3.9-15 S-1 3.5-14 0 3.9-16 S-1 E Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Issue Page Issue gg 3.9-17 S-1 3A-6 0 3.9-18 S-1 3A-7 0 3.9-19/3.9-20 S-1 3A-8 0 3.9-21/3.9-22 S-1 3A-9 0 3.9-23/3.9-24 S-1 3A-10 0 3.9-25 S-1 3.9-26 S-1 Volume V 3.9-27 S-1 Title S-1 3.9-28 S-1 iii S-1 3.9-29 S-1 iv S-1 3.9-30 S-1 v S-1 3.9-31 S-1 vi S-1 3.9-32 S-1 vii S-1 3.9-33 S-1 viii S-1 3.9-34 S-1 ix S-1 3.9-35 S-1 x S-1 ggg 3.9-36 S-1 xi S-1 3.9-37 S-1 xii S-1
- 3. > -38 S-1 4-i S-1 3.9-39 S-1 4-ii S-1 Figure 3.9-1 S-1 4.1-1 O Figure 3.9-2 S-1 4.1-2 O Figure 3.9-3 S-1 4.1-3 O Figure 3.9-4 S-1 4.1-4 O Figure 3.9-5 S-1 4.1-5 O Figure 3.9-6 S-1 4.1-6 0 Figure 3.9-7 S-1 4.1-7 O Figure 3.9-8 S-1 4.1-8 0 Figure 3.9-9 S-2 4.1-9 0 3A-1 0 4.1-10 3A-2 0 4.1-11 2354 123 s-1 O
3A-3 0 4.1-12 0 3A-4 0 4.1-13 O 3A-5 0 4.2-1 S-1 ll) p Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Issue Page Issue 4.2-2 S-1 5.1-5 0 4.2-3 S-1 5.1-6 0 4.2-4 S-1 5.1-7 0 4.2-5 S-1 5.1-8 0 4.2-6 S-1 5.1-9 0 4.2-7 S-1 5.1-10 0 4.2-8 S-1 5.1-11 0 4.2-9 S-1 5.1-12 0 4.2-10 S-1 5.1-13 0 4.2-11 S-1 Figure 5.1-1 0 4.2-12 S-1 Figure 5.1-2 0 4.2-13 S-1 Figure 5.1-3 0 4.2-14 S-1 Figure 5.1-4 0 4.2-15 S-1 Figure 5.1-5 0 4.2-16 S-1 Figure 5.1-6 0 4.2-17 S-1 Figure 5.1-9 0 4.2-18 S-1 Figure 5.1-10 0 4.2-19 S-1 Figure 5.1-11 O 4.2-20 S-1 Figure 5.1-12 0 4.2-21 S-1 Figure 5.1-13 0 4.2-22 S-1 Figure 5.1-14 0 4.2-23 S-1 Figure 5.1-15 0 4.2-24 S-1 Figure 5.1-16 0 4.2-25 S-1 Figure 5.1-17 0 4.2-26 S-1 Figure 5.1-18 0 4.3-1 O Figure 5.1-19 0 5-i O Figure 5.1-20 0 5-11 0 5.2-1 0 5-111 0 5.2-2 0 5-iv 0 5.2-3 0 5.1-1 0 5.3-1 0 5.1-2 0 5.3-2 O}f j}f 5.1-3 0 5.3-3 0 5.1-4 0 5.3-4 O G Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Issue Page Issue g 5.3-5 0 3 0 5.3-6 0 4 0 5.4-1 0 5 0 5.4-2 0 6 0 5.4-3 0 7 0 5.4-4 0 8 0 5.4-5 0 9 0 5.4-6 0 10 0 5.5-1 O 11 O 5.6-1 S-1 12 0 5.6-2 S-1 13 0 5.6-3 S-1 14 0 5.7-1 O 15 0 5.7-2 O 16 0 5.7-3 0 17 0 5.7-4 5.7-5 0 0 18 O g 19 0 5.7-6 0 20 0 5.7-7 0 21 0 5.7-8 0 22 0 5.7-9 0 23 0 5.7-10 0 24 O Figure 5.7-2 0 25 0 5.8-1 0 26 0 5.9-1 0 27 O SA-1 0 28 O SA-2 0 29 0 5B-1 0 30 0 Title Page O 31 2354 125 0 Table of Contents O 32 O List of Tables O 33 O List of Figures O 34 0 1 0 35 0 g 2 0 36 O H Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Issue Page Issue 37 0 7-i O 38 O 7-11 0 39 0 7.1-1 0 40 0 7.1-2 0 41 0 7.1-3 0 6-1 0 7.1-4 0 6-11 0 7.1-5 0 6.1-1 0 7.1-6 0 6.1-2 0 7.1-7 0 6.1-3 0 7.1-8 O 6.1-4 0 7.1-9 0 6.1-5 0 7.1-10 0 6.1-6 0 7.1-11 0 6.1-7 0 7.1-12 0 6.1-8 0 7.1-13 0 6.1-9 0 7.1-14 0 6.1-10 0 7.1-15 0 6.1-11 0 7.1-16 0 6.1-12 0 7.1-17 O 6.1-13 0 7.1-18 O 6.1-14 0 7.2-1 O 6.1-15 0 7.2-2 0 6.1-16 0 8-1 S-1 6.1-17 0 8-11 S-1 6.2-1 0 8.1-1 S-1 6.3-1 0 8.1-2 S-1 6.3-2 O 8.1-2a/8.1-2b S-1 6.3-3 0 8.1-2c S-1 6.3-4 0 8.1-2d S-1 6.3-5 0 8.1-2e S 6A-1 0 8.1-3 2354 1260-1 6A-2 0 8.1-4 0 6B-1 0 8.1-5 0 6B-2 0 8.1-6 O I Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Issue Page Issue h 8.1-7 O 9.1-2 S-1 8.1-8 0 9.1-3 S-1 8.1-9 0 9.1-4 S-1 8.1-10 0 9.1-5 S-1 8.1-11 S-1 9.1-6 S-1 8.1-12 O 9.1-7 S-1 8.1-13 S-1 9.1-8 S-1 8.1-14 S-1 9.2-1 S-1 8.1-15 S-1 9.2-2 S-1 8.2-1 S-1 9.2-3 S-1 8.2-2 S-1 9.2-4 S-1 8.2-3 S-1 9.2-5 S-1 8.2-4 0 9.2-6 S-1 8.2-5 0 9.2-7 S-1 8.2-6 0 9.2-8 S-1 8.2-7 O 9.2-9 S-1 S-1 8.2-8 0 9.2-10 8.2-9 0 9.2-11 S-1 8A Title S-1 9.2-12 S-1 8A-i S-1 9.2-13 S-1 8A-li S-1 9.2-14 S-1 8A-1 S-1 9.2-15 S-1 8A-2 S-1 9.2-16 S-1 8A-3/8A-4 S-1 9.2-17 S-1 8A-5 S-1 9.2-18 S-1 8A-6 S-1 9.2-19 S-1 8A-7 S-1 9.2-20 S-1 8A-8 S-1 9.2-21/9.2-22 S-1 8A-9 S-1 9.2-23 S-1 8A-10 S-1 9.2-24 S-1 9-1 S-1 9.2-25 2354 127 S-1 9-11 S-1 9.2-26 S-2 9-111 S-1 9.2-27/9.2-28 S-1 h 9.1-1 S-1 9.2-29 S-1 J Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Issue Page Issue 9.2-30 S-1 vi S-1 9.2-31/9.2-32 S-1 vii S-1 9.2-33/9.2-34 S-1 viii S-1 9.2-35/9.2-36 S-1 ix S-1 9.2-37 S-1 x S-1 9.2-38 S-1 xi S-1 9.2-39 S-1 xii S-1 9.2-40 S-1 10-1 S-1 9.2-41 S-1 10-11 S-2 9.2-42 S-1 10-iii S-1 9.2-43 S-1 10-iv S-1 9.2-44 S-1 10-v S-1 Figure 9.2-1 S-1 10.1-1 O Figure 9.2-2 S-1 10.1-2 O Figure 9.2-3 S-2 10.1-3 0 Figure 9.2-4 S-1 10.1-4 O Figure 9.2-5 S-1 10.1-5 O Figure 9.2-6 S-1 10.1-6 0 9.3-1 S-1 10.1-7 0 9.3-2 S-1 10.1-8 0 9.3-3 S-1 10.1-9 0 9.3-4 S-1 10.1-10 0 9.3-5 S-1 10.1-11 0 9.3-6 S-1 10.1-12 O 9.3-7 S-1 10.1-13 O Figure 9.3-1 S-1 10.1-14 0 9.4-1 S-1 10.1-15 0 9.4-2 S-1 10.1-16 0 10.1-17 O Volume VI 10.1-18 O Title S-1 10.1-19 2.554 128 O iii S-1 10.1-20 O iv S-1 10.1-21 O v S-1 10.1-22 O K Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Issue Page Issue g 10.1-23 0 10.2-12 S-1 10.1-24 0 10.2-13 S-1 10.1-25 0 10.2-14 S-1 10.1-26 0 10.2-15 S-1 Figure 10.1-1 O 10.2-16 S-1 Figure 10.1-2 O 10.2-17 S-1 Figure 10.1-3 0 10.2-18 S-1 Figure 10.1-4 0 10.2-19 S-1 Figure 10.1-5 0 10.2-20 S-1 Figure 10.1-6 O 10.2-21 S-1 Figure 10.1-7 0 10.2-22 S-1 Figure 10.1-8 O 10.2-23 S-1 Figure 10.1-9 O 10.2-24 S-1 Figure 10.1-10 O 10.2-25 S-1 Figure 10.1-11 O 10.2-26 S-1 Figure 10.1-12 0 10.2-27 S-1 g Figure 10.1-13 0 10.3-1 O Figure 10.1-14 O 10.4-1 O Figure 10.1-15 0 10.5-1 O Figure 10.1-16 O 10.6-1 O Figure 10.1-17 0 10.6-2 O Figure 10.1-18 0 10.6-3 0 Figure 10.1-19 O 10.7-1 O 10.2-1 S-1 10.8-1 O 10.2-2 S-1 10.9-1 S-1 10.2-3 S-1 10.9-2 S-1 10.2-4 S-1 10.9-3 S-1 10.2-5 S-1 10.9-4 S-1 10.2-6 S-1 10.9-5 S-1 10.2-7 S-1 s-1 10.9-6 2354 129 10.2-8 S-1 10.9-7 S-1 10.2-9 S-1 10.9-8 S-1 10.2-10 S-1 10.9-9 S-1 g 10.2-11 S-1 10.9-10 S-1 L Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Issue Page Issue 10.9-11 S-1 10B-2 S-2 10.9-12 S-1 10B-3 S-2 10.9-13 S-1 10B-4 S-2 10.9-14 S-1 10B-5 S-2 Figure 10.9-1 S-1 10B-6 S-2 10.10-1 O 10B-7 S-2 10.10-2 O 10B-8 S-2 10.10-3 0 10B-9 S-2 Figure 10.10-1 0 10B-10 S-2 10A-1 S-1 10B-ll S-2 Executive Summary S-1 10B-12 S-2 Table of Contents S-1 10B-13 S-2 S-1 10B-14 S-2 S-1 10B-15 S-2 S-1 10B-16 S-2 S-1 10B-17 S-2 S-1 10B-18 S-2 S-1 10B-19 S-2 S-1 10B-20 S-2 S-1 10B-21 S-2 S-1 10B-22 S-2 S-1 10B-23 S-2 S-1 10B-24 S-2 S-1 10B-25 S-2 S-1 10B-26 S-2 S-1 10B-27 S-2 S-1 10B-28 S-2 S-1 10B-29 S-2 S-1 10B-30 S-2 S-1 10B-31 2354 130 S-2 S-1 Annex A S-1 (14 pages) S-2 3-1 ll-i O 10B-1 S-2 11-ii O M Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES Page Issue h ll-lii S-1 11.1-1 O 11.2-1 S-1 11.3-1 O 11.3-2 S-1 11.3-3 S-1 11.3-4 S-1 11.3-5 S-1 11.3-6 S-1 11.3-7 S-1 11.3-8 S-1 11.3-9 S-1 11.3-10 S-1 11.3-11 S-1 11.4-1 S-1 12-1 12-li 0 0 12.1-1 O 12.1-2 O 12.1-3 0 12.1-4 0 12.1-5 0 12.1-6 0 12.2-1 0 2354 13I 12.2-2 0 12.2-3 0 12.3-1 0 12.4-1 O 12.5-1 O 12.6-1 O 13-i O 13-1 O O N Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER CONTENTS (Cont'd) 9.2 ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING THE CREATION OF NEW GENERATING CAPACITY 9.2.1 SELECTION OF CANDIDATE AREAS 9.2.2 CANDIDATE SITE - PLANT ALTERNATIVES 1 9.
2.3 REFERENCES
9.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES BASED ON COST EFFECTIVENESS
- 10. PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 10.1 COOLING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.1.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED 10.1.2 ALTERNATIVES REJECTED 10.1.3 MONETIZED COSTS 10.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.1.5 ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRADEOFFS 10.
1.6 REFERENCES
10.2 PLANT MAKEUP WATER SYSTEM 10.2.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 10.2.2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 10.2.3 ALTERNATIVE SELECTED 1 10.
2.4 REFERENCES
10.3 DISCHARGE SYSTEMS 10.4 CHEMICAL WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.5 BIOCIDE TREATMENT 10.6 SANITARY WASTE SYSTEM 10.6.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 10.6.2 MONETIZED COSTS 10.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS j}}
}}ff j
10.6.4 SUPPORTING DETAILS 10.7 LIQUID RADWASTE SYSTEMS 10.8 GASEOUS RADWASTE SYSTEMS 10.9 TRANSMISSION AND WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM FACILITIES 10.9.1 ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE FACILITIES 10.9.2 WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE PIPELINE FACILITIES 10.
9.3 REFERENCES
10.10 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES xi Supplement No. 1 September 1978
PVNGS-4&5 ER CONTENTS (Cont'd) 10.10.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES 10.10.2 MONETIZED COSTS 10.10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.10.4 SUPPORTING DETAILS APPENDIX 10A EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE USES FOR EFFLUENT FROM 1 THE 23RD AVENUE AND 91ST AVENUE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT 2l APPENDIX 10B ALTERNT.TIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION
- 11.
SUMMARY
OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
11.1 INTRODUCTION
11.2 BENEFITS 11.2.1 DIRECT BENEFITS 11.2.2 INDIRECT BENEFITS 11.3 COSTS 11.3.1 DIRECT COST 11.3.2 INDIRECT COSTS (g
11.4 CONCLUSION
S
- 12. ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS 12.1 STATUS OF LICENSES, PERMITS AND APPROVALS 12.2 STATUS OF TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PERMITS 12.3 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 401 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED 12.4 STATUS OF CONTRACTS WITH STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES 12.5 STATUS OF MEETINGS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AND CITIZEN GROUPS 12.6 CITIZEN GROUP RECOMMENDATION
- 13. REFERENCES 2354 133 O
xii Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER
- 1. PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY 1.1 GENERAL INFORMATION This Environmental Report (ER) is submitted in support of the joint application for construction permits for two nuclear power units. The two units are to be located at Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) and are hereinafter referred to as PVNGS-4&5. Each unit is to have a nominal net generating capacity of 1,270 megawatts and is to be a replicate of PVNGS-1,2&3. Units 1,2&3 at PVNGS are now under construction pursuant to Construction Permit numbers CPPR-141, CPPR-142, and CPPR-143, issued in NRC Dockets STN 50-528, STN 50-529, and STN 50-530, respectively. The scheduled dates for commercial operation of all the PVNGS units are as follows:
A. Unit 1 - May 1, 1982 D. Unit 4 - May 1, 1988 B. Unit 2 - May 1, 1984 E. Unit 5 - May 1, 1990 C. Unit 3 - May 1, 1986 0 The joint application is filed by Arizona Public Service Company (APS) on its own behalf and as agent for the other joint appli-cants identified in the application. Subject to the receipt of approvals and authorizations required by law (refer to sections 12.1 and 12.2 of this ER) , the joint applicants (sometimes re-ferred to as " participants") will jointly own PVNGS-4&5 as ten-ants in common with undivided ownership interests in the respec-tive percentages set forth in the joint application. Pursuant to the Amended PVNGS Replication Agreement, dated as of February 1, 1978, (a copy of which is included with the General Information accompanying the joint application as Appendix 1A to section 1), APS is the Project Manager and Operating Agent of the PVNGS-4&5 project and in such capacities will have the full authority and responsibility to engineer, design, construct, operate and maintain PVNGS-4&5 and to file and prosecute all 1- - 2354 134
PVNGS-4&5 ER GENERAL INFORMATION applications for licenses, permits, and authorizations necessary therefor. The PVNGS-4&5 project is neither a corporate entity, a partner-ship nor a joint venture. It is a jointly owned facility, con-sisting of all equipment, structures, nuclear fuel, and all other property and rights that are or may be used or useful in the op-eration and maintenance of the facility. The PVNGS-4&5 project also includes a share of the common facilities to be shared with PVNGS-1,2&3, but excludes all transmission lines. Each joint owner has the sole and exclusive right to a percentage, equal to its ownership interest of the generating capability of each unit 0 of PVNGS-4&5. Accordingly, no sales of power will be made by the project or by APS as agent for other participants in PVNGS-4&5. Instead, all sales of power and energy from each unit of PVNGS-4;5 will be made by the several joint owners, individually, to their respective customers. O Collectively, the PVNGS-4&5 Participants provide, either at re-tail or wholesale, a substantial portion of the power needed by the public in Arizona, west Texas, southern New Mexico, southern Nevada, and southern California. In addition, APS wholesales power to Mexican utilities for distribution in Mexico; such sales are less than 1 percent of total APS sales. 2354 135 2 0 1.1-2 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER CONTENTS (Cont'd) 9.2 ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING THE CREATION OF NEW GENERATING CAPACITY 9.2.1 SELECTION OF CANDIDATE AREAS 9.2.2 CANDIDATE SITE - PLANT ALTERNATIVES 1 9.
2.3 REFERENCES
9.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES BASED ON COST EFFECTIVENESS
- 10. PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 10.1 COOLING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.1.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED 10.1.2 ALTERNATIVES REJECTED 10.1.3 MONETIZED COSTS 10.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.1.5 ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRADEOFFS 10.
1.6 REFERENCES
10.2 PLANT MAKEUP WATER SYSTEM 10.2.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 10.2.2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 10.2.3 ALTERNATIVE SELECTED 1 10.
2.4 REFERENCES
10.3 DISCHARGE SYSTEMS 10.4 CHEMICAL WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.5 BIOCIDE TREATMENT 10.6 SANITARY WASTE SYSTEM 10.6.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 10.6.2 MONETIZED COSTS 10.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.6.4 SUPPORTING DETAILS 10.7 LIQUID RADWASTE SYSTEMS 10.8 GASEOUS RADWASTE SYSTEMS 10.9 TRANSMISSION AND WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM FACILITIES 10.9.1 ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE FACILITIES 10.9.2 WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE PIPELINE FACILITIES 10.
9.3 REFERENCES
2354 136 10.10 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES !1 xi Supplement No. 1 September 1978
PVNGS-4&5 ER 10.10.1 CONTENTS (Cont'd) RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES lll 10.10.2 MONETIZED COSTS 10.10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.10.4 SUPPORTING DETAILS APPENDIX 10A EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE USES FOR EFFLUENT FROM 1 THE 23RD AVENUE AND 91ST AVENUE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT 2l APPENDIX 10B ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION
- 11.
SUMMARY
OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
11.1 INTRODUCTION
11.2 BENEFITS 11.2.1 DIRECT BENEFITS 11.2.2 INDIRECT BENEFITS 11.3 COSTS 11.3.1 DIRECT COST 11.3.2 INDIRECT COSTS
11.4 CONCLUSION
S
- 12. ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS 12.1 STATUS OF LICENSES, PERMITS AND APPROVALS 12.2 STATUS OF TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PERMITS 12.3 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 401 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED 12.4 STATUS OF CONTRACTS WITH STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES 12.5 STATUS OF MEETINGS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AND CITIZEN GROUPS 12.6 CITIZEN GROUP RECOMMENDATION
- 13. REFERENCES 2354 137 O
xii Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER CONTENTS (Cont ' d) 9.2 ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING THE CREATION OF NEW GENERATING CAPACITY 9.2.1 SELECTION OF CANDIDATE AREAS 9.2.2 CANDIDATE SITE - PLANT ALTERNATIVES 1 9.
2.3 REFERENCES
9.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES BASED ON COST EFFECTIVENESS
- 10. PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 10.1 COOLING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.1.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED 10.1.2 ALTERNATIVES REJECTED 10.1.3 MONETIZED COSTS 10.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.1.5 ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRADEOFFS 10.
1.6 REFERENCES
10.2 PLANT MAKEUP WATER SYSTEM 10.2.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 10.2.2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 10.2.3 ALTERNATIVE SELECTED 1 10.
2.4 REFERENCES
10.3 DISCHARGE SYSTEMS 10.4 CHEMICAL WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.5 BIOCIDE TREATMENT 10.6 SANITARY WASTE SYSTEM 10.6.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 10.6.2 MONETIZED COSTS 10.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.6.4 SUPPORTING DETAILS 2354 138 10.7 LIQUID RADWASTE SYSTEMS 10.8 GASEOUS RADWASTE SYSTEMS 10.9 TRANSMISSION AND WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM FACILITIES 10.9.1 ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE FACILITIES 10.9.2 WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE PIPELINE F?.CILITIES 10.
9.3 REFERENCES
10.10 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES xi Supplement No. 1 September 1978
PVNGS-4&5 ER 10.10.1 CONTENTS (Cont'd) RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES lll 10.10.2 MONETIZED COSTS 10.10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.10.4 SUPPORTING DETAILS APPENDIX 10A EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE USES FOR EFFLUENT FROM 1 THE 23RD AVENUE AND 91ST AVENUE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT 2l APPENDIX 10B ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION
- 11.
SUMMARY
OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
11.1 INTRODUCTION
11.2 BENEFITS 11.2.1 DIRECT BENEFITS 11.2.2 INDIRECT BENEFITS 11.3 COSTS 11.3.1 DIRECT COST 11.3.2 INDIRECT COSTS h
11.4 CONCLUSION
S
- 12. ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS 12.1 STATUS OF LICENSES, PERMITS AND APPROVALS 12.2 STATUS OF TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PERMITS 12.3 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 401 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED 12.4 STATUS OF CONTRACTS WITH STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES 12.5 STATUS OF MEETINGS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AND CITIZEN GROUPS 12.6 CITIZEN GROUP RECOMMENDATION
- 13. REFERENCES 2354 I39 9
xii Supplement No. 2 May 1979
O
~
JOCUjV E \. 3 AGE 3J__EJ A\O, 7eums3 NO. OF PAGES REASON: O PAGE ILLEGIBLE: C HARD COPY FILED AT: PDR OTHER
/ /
O BETTER COPY REQUESTED ON Q# AGE TOO LARGE TO FILM:
/ PDR 2354 140 O HARD COPV FILED AT:
OTHER O FILMED ON APERTURE CARD NO.
PVNGS-4&S ER CONTENTS (Cont'd) 9.2 ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING THE CREATION OF NEW GENERATING CAPACITY 9.2.1 SELECTION OF CANDIDATE AREAS 9.2.2 CANDIDATE SITE - PLANT ALTERNATIVES 1 9.
2.3 REFERENCES
9.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES BASED ON COST EFFECTIVENESS
- 10. PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 10.1 COOLING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.1.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED 10.1.2 ALTERNATIVES REJECTED 10.1.3 MONLTIZED COSTS 10.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.1.5 ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRADEOFFS 10.
1.6 REFERENCES
10.2 PLANT MAKEUP WATER SYSTEM 10.2.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 10.2.2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 10.2.3 ALTERNATIVE SELECTED 1 10.
2.4 REFERENCES
10.3 DISCHARGE SYSTEMS 10.4 CHEMICAL WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.5 BIOCIDE TREATMENT 10.6 SANITARY WASTE SYSTEM 10.6.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 10.6.2 MONETIZED COSTS 10.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.6.4 SUPPORTING DETAILS 2354 141 10.7 LIQUID RADWASTE SYSTEbjS, 10.8 GASEOUS RADWASTE SYSTEMS 10.9 TRANSMISSION AND WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM FACILITIES 10.9.1 ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE FACILITIES 10.9.2 WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE PIPELINE FACILITIES 10.
9.3 REFERENCES
10.10 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES xi Supplement No. 1 September 1978
PVNGS-4&5 ER CONTENTS (Cont'd) ggg 10.10.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES 10.10.2 MONETIZED COSTS 10.10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.10.4 SUPPORTING DETAILS APPENDIX 10A EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE USES FOR EFFLUENT FROM 1 THE 23RD AVENUE AND 91ST AVENUE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT 2l APPENDIX 10B ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION
- 11.
SUMMARY
OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
11.1 INTRODUCTION
11.2 BENEFITS 11.2.1 DIRECT BENEFITS 11.2.2 INDIRECT BENEFITS 11.3 COSTS 11.3.1 DIRECT COST 11.3.2 INDIRECT COSTS lll
11.4 CONCLUSION
S
- 12. ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS A?.s CONSULTATIONS 12.1 STATUS OF LICENSES, PERMITS AND APPROVALS 12.2 STATUS OF TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PERMITS 12.3 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 401 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED 12.4 STATUS OF CONTRACTS WITH STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES 12.5 STATUS OF MEETINGS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AND CITIZEN GROUPS 12.6 CITIZEN GROUP RECOMMENDATION
- 13. REFERENCES 2354 ;42 0
xii Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER CONTENTS (Cont'd) 9.2 ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING THE CREATION OF NEW GENERATING CAPACITY 9.2.1 SELECTION OF CANDIDATE AREAS 9.2.2 CANDIDATE SITE - PLANT ALTERNATIVES 1 9.
2.3 REFERENCES
9.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES BASED ON COST EFFECTIVENESS
- 10. PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 10.1 COOLING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.1.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED 10.1.2 ALTERNATIVES REJECTED 10.1.3 MONETIZED COSTS 10.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.1.5 ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRADEOFFS 10.
1.6 REFERENCES
10.2 PLANT MAKEUP WATER SYSTEM 10.2.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 10.2.2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 10.2.3 ALTERNATIVE SELECTED 1 10.
2.4 REFERENCES
10.3 DISCHARGE SYSTh(1S_ 10.4 CHEMICAL WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.5 BIOCIDE TREATMENT 10.6 SANITARY WASTE SYSTEM 10.6.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 10.6.2 MONETIZED COSTS 10.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 23h4 l43 10.6.4 SUPPORTING DETAILS 10.7 LIQUID RADWASTE SYSTEMS 10.8 GASEOUS RADWASTE SYSTEMS 10.9 TRANSMISSION AND WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM FACILITIES 10.9.1 ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE FACILITIES 10.9.2 WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE PIPELINE FACILITIES 10.
9.3 REFERENCES
10.10 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES xi Supplement No. 1 September 1978
PVNGS-4&5 ER CONTENTS (Cont'd) ggg 10.10.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES 10.10.2 MONETIZED COSTS 10.10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.10.4 SUPPORTING DETAILS APPENDIX 10A EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE USES FOR EFFLUENT FROM 1 THE 23RD AVENUE AND 91ST AVENUE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT 2i APPENDIX 10B ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION
- 11.
SUMMARY
OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
11.1 INTRODUCTION
11.2 BENEFITS 11.2.1 DIRECT BENEFITS 11.2.2 INDIRECT BENEFITS 11.3 COSTS 11.3.1 DIRECT COST 11.3.2 INDIRECT COSTS lll
11.4 CONCLUSION
S
- 12. ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS 12.1 STATUS OF LICENSES, PERMITS AND APPROVALS 12.2 STATUS OF TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PERMITS 12.3 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 401 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED 12.4 STATUS OF CONTRACTS WITH STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES 12.5 STATUS OF MEETINGS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AND CITIZEN GROUPS 12.6 CITIZEN GROUP RECOMMENDATION
- 13. REFERENCES 2354 144 O
xii Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATI,VES REQUIRING CREATION OF NEW GENERATION CAPACITY C. Three sites located in the Upper Little Colorado River area A. St. Johns
- 2. Upper Little Colorado River 2
- 3. Snowflake.
Detailed literature reviews and field studies at the nine candi-date sites were performed. The results of these studies are shown in table 9.2-4. In the final process, the restits of the environmental and eco-nomic studies were reviewed. SRP then selected the Snowflake and St. Johns sites for further investigation. This decision was based primarily on economic consideration since these sites were located very close to the coal supply to be used and were considered to be located in the best meteorological area; as a result they ranked higher than any of the other sites in these areas. 1 SRP subsequently selected the St. Johns site for construction of what is now known as the Coronado Generating Station, the first of three 350-MWe units scheduled for commercial operation in 1979. In 1976, Arizona Public Service Company used the information col-lected in the SRP siting study to assist in defining an alternate coal site for use in the late 1980, early 1990 time frame. The Rainbow and Chino sites identified in the SRP siting study were immediately eliminated due to the air quality findings and the proximity of the Chino site to areas of high terrain. At that time (1976) it was decided that all the remaining alternates in the SRP study were viable, but APS concentrated its preliminary investigations exclusively on the Ranegras site. The subsequent enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1977 required the reevaluation of sites identified in the SRP study 9.2-25 2354 145 Supplement No. 1 September 1978
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING CREATION OF NEW GENERATION CAPACITY as viable alternate coal sites. The Upper Colorado River 2 and llk Snowflake sites were not considered further because the major por-tion of the Class I area increment at the Petrified Forest National Park has been allocated by EPA to the Cholla 5 plant. Another result of the Clean Air Act Amendments has been the desig-nation of Maricopa County, Arizona, as a nonattainment area for carbon monoxide and particulates by the EPA. This designation, if not changed, would make development of coal-fired plants at the Hassayampa site, as well as at the PVNGS or Gillespie Dam sites, impractical. The remaining sites, identified as alternates in the SRP study, are the Sentinel 1 and Sentinel 2 sites and the Rane-1 gras site. Using the information obtained from the investigations of SRP (see table 9.2-4), the Sentinel 2 site is shown to be slightly more suitable than the Sentinel 1 site, based on evaluations of air quality, meteorology, and ecology (projected impact of proposed lll roads, railro :.ds and pipelines) , the other factors considered in table 9.2-4 being essentially equal. It has been concluded, based on the SRP study and the preliminary investigations by APS, that the two preferable sites for developing an alternative coal plant are the Ranegras and Sentinel 2 sites. Hereinafter these sites will be refer red to as the Bouse site and the Sentinel site, re-spectively. The Bouse site is located in the Ranegras Plain, as shown in 2 figure 9.2-5. It is situated in the northern portion of Yuma Coun-ty, Arizona, about 110 miles west-northwest of Phoenix. The Sen-tinel site is located in western Yuma County, about 90 miles west-southwest of Phoenix, as shown in figure 9.2-5. Based on present y knowledge of the Bouse site, it is limited in development to about 1500-MWe. This limitation is founded on two basic restrictions: air quality and limited water availability. 2354 146 g f 9.2-26 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
l.
.... , . . . ~
4 ' t* . s D/E f q 4 I. 94 , q ~ e c
.. .. W iM ami . u ,
- h; h. M '. .bva .e **'- aFiacr# ,
. W:: ::8:0:
;8:.
6:::
MT4?:
- 45 '^N:
. .n:.:.:e. m....M:::
e <. ..: ,
. .n....,
,u
.~..a +
. .Rys::gj. . . , .j y.;
. n . .a ,.
r.. m n ,
' a .....
.: 9:.... ::3r4$
- ." ,, ; ' ' x.wp "
wgg\ n lam
. ~
~
.a
~~
h (
' W8 ip;
. 9:
* :e.:.4
,, . .. %iwei j(.f(. . >
,, P~N s Q "'"
/..
s
- .y., f.:Y . . ,::
. \
/^ ::,:, -* . . _ _ \
;. .; i J ,d . ' ." ,',#f. .I "'. t ., i . g (
f ~'
!!!.i:i
- J::q.:; I. M
'.: 4 E.f.:::
. ; t..
' f. [..., h.. w %,,, I ,,;
- u ..k..
C:ali'.
..., . $ @is e u...,,.... ..-. I , . .cn n .e. s ., t , w 1. t cu.n
. e a.m...
- aw y . , e a. *
.: k....; . ,
,....a-
.~e a.,na,, . ., , , ; .,,,,,,. ,
\ .' 2:: L /- *-
g ' ., %:.
,., / %..'
a g ,
- .;.;;;.,;. .I a ha / " d'" k , , ,, ,
C.7
. \ y Nasa Granc a
8 e
% e '"#~'"~'% % % i 1 N'a . .
) urn. " " ' " d*
e s,,,,,,. mg j %# *d ' p- . v ..n e. g
/ \
p 'Mn*
~
q \ .i a \p. 7 g-L t'asas AJ h s ."d 1ucso r . . . -- u .
'- \ c . ,
I w.... I
.re sut:
w o .o * {
\
* . .o
./- cvs -
.n
\..,...., / cm e N :.. : - /
'N.:. 6. - . /
sasia c erz / . rm.ni . S. W.n. ...
~
u
.'s'.../.
.-.~.
ll _.
% g. >^~
! 2354 147
e
\
d
, SCALE
- - 0 20 40
' ~ ~ ' '
NORTH Miles LEGEND: Areas of Groundwater Availability
- 1. HASSAYAMPA VALLEY
- 2. R AINBOW VALLEY
- 3. McMULLEN VALLEY
- 4. HARQUAHALA PLAINS
- 5. R AN EG R AS PL AINS
- 6. ALTAR VALLEY
- 7. LITTLE COLORADO
- 8. BIG SANDY VALLEY N 9. SACR AMENTO VALLEY
- 10. HUALAPAlVALLEY
- 11. YUMA AREA h ., '- Sewage Water Supplies 50-Mile Hadius Central Arizona Project el [ %1 I i NOTE:
U*0 e . The se ae water supply 50 mile radius for Phoenix is centered on the 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant 2354 148 { Supplement No. 2
, May 1979 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 4 & 5 CANDIDATE AREA LOCATION MAP Figure 9.2-3 s
I
\,
PVNGS-4&5 ER CONTENTS (Cont'd) 9.2 ALTERNATIVES REQUIRING THE CREATION OF NEW GENERATING
, CAPACITY 9.2.1 SELECTION OF CANDIDATE AREAS 9.2.2 CANDIDATE SITE - PLANT ALTERNATIVES 1 9.
2.3 REFERENCES
9.3 COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVES BASED ON COST EFFECTIVENESS
- 10. PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 10.1 COOLING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.1.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED 10.1.2 ALTERNATIVES REJECTED 10.1.3 MONETIZED COSTS 10.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.1.5 ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRADEOFFS 10.
1.6 REFERENCES
10.2 PLANT MAKEUP WATER SYSTEM 10.2.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 10.2.2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 10.2.3 ALTERNATIVE SELECTED 1 10.
2.4 REFERENCES
10.3 DISCHARGE SYSTEMS 10.4 CHEMICAL WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.5 BIOCIDE TREATMENT 10.6 SANITARY WASTE SYSTEM 10.6.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 10.6.2 MONETIZED COSTS 10.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.6.4 SUPPORTING DETAILS
}}C4 l4g 10.7 LIQUID RADWASTE SYSTEMS 10.8 GASEOUS RADWASTE SYSTEMS 10.9 TRANSMISSION AND WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM FACILITIES 10.9.1 ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE FACILITIES 10.9.2 WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE PIPELINE FACILITIES 10.
9.3 REFERENCES
10.10 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES xi Supplement No. 1 September 1978
PVNGS-4&5 ER CONTENTS (Cont'd) ggg 10.10.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES 10.10.2 MONETIZED COSTS 10.10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS , 10.10.4 SUPPORTING DETAILS APPENDIX 10A EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE USES FOR EFFLUENT FROM 1 THE 23RD AVENUE AND 91ST AVENUE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT 2l APPENDIX 10B ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION
- 11.
SUMMARY
OF COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
11.1 INTRODUCTION
11.2 BENEFITS 11.2.1 DIRECT BENEFITS 11.2.2 INDIRECT BENEFITS 11.3 COSTS 11.3.1 DIRECT COST 11.3.2 INDIRECT COSTS llh
11.4 CONCLUSION
S
- 12. ENVIRONMENTAL APPROVALS AND CONSULTATIONS 12.1 STATUS OF LICENSES, PERMITS AND APPROVALS 12.2 STATUS OF TRANSMISSION SYSTEM PERMITS 12.3 WATER QUALITY CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 401 OF THE FEDERAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL ACT, AS AMENDED 12.4 STATUS OF CONTRACTS WITH STATE, LOCAL, AND REGIONAL PLANNING AUTHORITIES 12.5 STATUS OF MEETINGS WITH ENVIRONMENTAL AND CITIZEN GROUPS 12.6 CITIZEN GROUP RECOMMENDATION
- 13. REFERENCES 2354 150 0
xii Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER CONTENTS Page
- 10. PLANT DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 10.1-1 10.1 COOLING SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.1-1 10.1.1 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATED 10.1-1 10.1.2 ALTERNATIVES REJECTED 10.1-4 10.1.3 MONETIZED COSTS 10.1-5 10.1.4 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.1-9 10.1.5 ENGINEERING, ECONOMIC, AND ENVIRONMENTAL TRADEOFFS 10.1-16 10.
1.6 REFERENCES
10.1-26 10.2 PLANT MAKEUP WATER SYSTEM 10.2-1 10.2.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 10.2-1 10.2.2 ALTERNATIVES EVALUATION 10.2-4 10.2.3 ALTERNATIVE SELECTED 10.2-23 1 10.
2.4 REFERENCES
10.2-27 10.3 DISCHARGE SYSTEMS 10.3-1 10.4 CHEMICAL WASTE SYSTEM ALTERNATIVES 10.4-1 10.5 BIOCIDE TREATMENT 10.5-1 10.6 SANITARY WASTE SYSTEM 10.6-1 10.6.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED 10.6-1 10.6.2 MONETIZED COSTS 10.6-1 10.6.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.6-1 10.6.4 SUPPORTING DETAILS 10.6-1 10.7 LIQUID RADWASTE SYSTEMS 10.7-1 10.8 GASEOUS RADWASTE SYSTEMS 10.8-1 10.9 TRANSMISSION AND WATER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM FACILITIES 10.9-1 10.9.1 ELECTRICAL TRANSMISSION LINE FACILITIES 10.9-1 10.9.2 WASTEWATER CONVEYANCE PIPELINE FACILITIES 10.9-13 y 10.9.3 REFERENCE 10.9-14 10.10 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL ALTERNATIVES 10.10-1 10.10.1 RANGE OF ALTERNATIVES 10.10-1 MONETIZED COSTS lo to-1 10.10.2 2354 151 10-i Supplement No. 1 September 1978
PVNGS-4&S ER CONTENTS (cont) h Page 10.10.3 ENVIRONMENTAL COSTS 10.10-1 10.10.4 SUPPORTING DETAILS 10.10-2 APPENDIX 10A EXECUTVE
SUMMARY
ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE USES FOR EFFLUENT FROM THE 23RD AVENUE AND 91ST AVENUE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT 2l APPENDIX 10B ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION 2354 152 O O 10-ii Supplement No. 2 May 1979
2354 153 PVNGS-4&5 ER APPENDIX 10B ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION 2354 154 10B-1 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER CONTENTS h Page 10B ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION 10B-2 10B.1 PVNGS CONDENSER COOLING WATER REQUIREMENTS 10B-5 108.2 SEWAGE EFFLUENT AVAILABILITY 10B-6 10B.3 ADDITIONAL WATER REQUIREMENTS 10B-8 10B.4 ALTERNATIVE COOLING WATER SOURCES 10B-8 10B.5 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION 10B-15 10B.6 ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES 10B-19 ANNEX A A PRELIMINARY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF FIVE ALTERNATIVE PIPELINE ROUTES AND FOUR ALTERNATIVE WELLFIELDS 10B-31 Figures 10B-1 Wastewater Treatment Plants 10B-2 PVNGS Peak Water Requirements and Available lll Effluent Under Contract 10B-3 MAG Estimated Effluent Available by Year for Tolleson and Reems Road Sewage Treatment Plants 10B-4 Corridor Vegetation Map of the Water conveyance Routes 10B-5 Supplemental Water Conveyance Pipeline 10B-6 North Tonopah Well Field 10B-7 South Tonopah Well Field 10B-8 South Well Field 10B-9 Centennial Well Field 2354 155 O Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER CONTENTS (Continued) Page Tables 10B-1 Alternative Supplemental Water Supplies Monetized Costs (in Millions of Dollars) 10B-17 10B-2 Vegetative Cover in Alternative Well Field Locations 10B-26 2354 156 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER 10B. ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION h The analyses relating to the use of wastewater effluent from the 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant as the sole or primary source of condenser cooling water for Palo Verde Units 4 and 5 were based on projections prepared by the City of Phoenix Water and Sewer Department of quantities of effluent which would be available for use in the period 1978-2000 at the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) in accordance with the wastewater effluent contract (Agreement No. 13904) between the six municipalities that own the 91st Avenue Plant and Arizona Public Service Company (APS) and Salt River Project. Subse-quent to the receipt of such projections, it was brought to the applicants' attention that studies conducted for the Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Regional Council for the purpose of developing an areawide wastewater manage-ment plan for Maricopa County, pursuant to Section 208 of P.L. 92-500 (Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments lh of 1972), contained conflicting and significantly reduced projections of wastewater effluent from the 91st Avenue Plant. These studies (hereinaf ter the MAG 208 Studies), which were conducted by the Corps of Engineers (COE) with various por-tions being performed by various engineering firms under con-tracts with MAG and COE, led to the initial identification of 36 areawide alternatives which, through the process of review and selection, were reduced to 20 and then to 7 alternatives. These seven alternatives were then broken into two subregional areas (i.e., eastside and westside) for detailed analysis and consideration by the MAG 208 advisory group structure. The MAG 208 advisory group structure consisted of a citizens' advisory group, a technical advisory group, an agricultural advisory group, a management subcommittee, and an executive committee. After receipt of the initial recommendations of the advisory groups, the MAG Regional Council in July 1978 k 10B-2 Supplement No. 2 "Y 979 2354 157
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUFPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION designated three preferred eastside and three preferred west-side alternatives for further study and consideration. Dur-ing the ensuing process one of the westside alternatives was eliminated and four areawide alternatives were presented to the MAG Regional Council for consideration. In November 1978, the Council selected alternative 2 as the approved regional plan for Maricopa County (hereinafter referred to as the " MAG Approved Plan"). Subsequently, in February 1979, the Arizona State Water Quality Control Council approved the MAG Approved Plan. It was adopted by the Governor and submitted to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for review. The MAG Approved Plan ipaludes the following:
- a. Expansion of the 91st Avenue Plant immediately to increase its capacity by 30 Mgal/d providing a total capacity of 120 Mgal/d (135,000 acre-ft/yr).
- b. Later expansion of 91st Avenue Plant to increase capacity to 134.6 Mgal/d (151,000 acre-ft/yr), to serve anticipated requirements through year 2000.
- c. Upgrading the City of Phoenix 23rd Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant from a current rating 31 to 40 Mgal/d (44,800 acre-ft/yr).
- d. Expansion of the City of Tolleson Sewage Treatment Plant to 7.2 Mgal/d (8000 acre-ft/yr). The outfall from the Tolleson Plant is crossed by the PVNGS ef-fluent pipeline at 91st Avenue.
- e. Construction of a new sewage treatment plant at Reems Road near the Gila River with a capacity of 5.4 Mgal/d (6000 acre-ft/yr) to serve the communities of Avondale, Goodyear, and Litchfield Park. The Reems Road Plant is to be located near the Gila River in close proximity to the PVNGS effluent pipeline.
2354 l58 Refer to figure 10B-1 for the locations of these plants. 10B-3 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION Thus, under the MAG Approved Plan the planned capacities by the ggg year 2000 of expanded or new sewage treatment plants situated in proximity to the PVNGS effluent pipeline can be summarized as follows: Capacity acre-ft/yr 91st Avenue Plant 151,000 23rd Avenue Plant 44,800 Tolleson Plant 8,000 Reems Road Plant 6,000 Agreement 13904 requires the delivery of up to 140,000 acre-ft/yr of wastewater effluent when available from the 91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue Plants after satisfaction of prior commitments in the total amount of 37,300 acre-ft/yr. The amount of effluent available in 1990 under Agreement 13904, as projected by the City of Phoenix in 1978, is 44,800 acre-feet from the 23rd Avenue Plant and 122,400 acre-feet from t'he 91st Avenue Plant, or a total of 167,200 acre-feet. In con-trast, the COE in connection with the MAG 208 Studies projected that the total effluent processed at both the 91st and the 23rd Avenue Plants would be about 167,000 acre-feet in 1990 and about 180,000 acre-feet in 1995. Of these total quantities of effluent expected to be processed about 129,000 acre-feet in 1990 and about 142,000 ;Jre-feet in 1995 would be available to satisfy the requirements of Agreement 13904. Both the City of Phoenix and the COE projections utilized the same projections of population growth in metropolitan Phoenix as well as the same water usage factors per household in 1977. However, while both projections included an allowance for the 2354 159 9 10B-4 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION effect of conservation on the use of water, the COE projections assumed significantly larger conservation factors. It is r:ot clear which of the two projections will prove to be more correct, but in light of the potential that effluent proc-essed at the 91st Avenue Plant will be less than originally anticipated, a review of the alternative supplemental water sources has been conducted and the results of such review are set forth in this Appendix 10B. In this connection, however, four points should be noted.
- 1. The MAG Approved Plan does provide sufficient capa-city at the 91st and 23rd Avenue Plants to meet the effluent requirements of five units at PVNGS;
- 2. The projections of the COE do show an adequate supply of effluent for condenser cooling water requirements of PVNGS in 1990 from both 91st and 23rd Avenue Plants;
- 3. The potential deficiency in the supply of effluent from the 91st Avenue Plant is limited in time.
- 4. There are several alternative supplemental sources of water for condenser cooling and ample time to consider and select the most prudent alternative before a commitment must be made.
10B.1 PVNGS CONDENSER COOLING WATER REQUIREMENTS As discussed in section 3.3.1, the per-unit condenser cooling water requirement at the Palo Verde site is 21,350 acre-ft/yr. This requirement is based on the following assumptions:
- a. City of Phoenix wastewater effluent is utilized as the source of condenser cooling water,
- b. Wastewater effluent is delivered to the 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant.
- c. The planned unit capacity factor is 95 percent.
2354 160 10B-5 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION
- d. Annual average ambient meteorological conditions.
- e. No blowdown treatment.
- f. Losses as defined in PVNG3-4&5 ER, figure 3.3-1.
- g. One month allowed for refueling.
If the source of condenser cooling water is other than waste-water effluent, the water requirements will vary depending on the makeup water quality and blowdown quantities required to maintain proper water chemistry in the cooling towers. In addition, water requirements will vary with meteorological conditions and unit capacity factor. For the purposes of this appendix, 21,350 acre-ft/yr will be assumed as the per-unit water requirement, regardless of source, throughout the life of PVNGS. As shown in PVNGS-4&5 ER, table 5.7-2, PVNGS water require-ments vary by month. The sum of the requirements for each month gives the per-unit requirement of 21,350 acre-ft/yr. lll Peak water consumption is in the month of August. Peak water requirements are shown in figure 10B-2 as the August require-ments times 12. In cases where the peak water requirements ' are greater than effluent availability, an effluent shortage will exist in 1 or more summer months of that year. 2354 161 10D.2 SEWAGE EFPLUENT AVAILABILITY Wastewater effluent is available to PVNGS from several sources. The two major sources are the 23rd Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant and the 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant. The availability of up to 140,000 acre-ft/yr has been assured by a contract with the municipal owners of such plants. Other potential smaller sources of effluent are the Tolleson Sew-age Treatment Plant and a planned Reems Road Sewage Treatment Plant. Estimates of effluent quantities from the 23rd and 91st Avenue sources have been made by the City of Phoenix, Water and Sewers Department, and by the COE for the MAG 208 lll 10B-6 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION Water Quality Management Program (l). These estimates vary considerably and are, therefore, presented separately. Esti-mates of effluent quantities from the Tolleson and Reems Road sources have been made by the COE. 10B.2.1 CITY OF PHOENIX ESTIMATES Estimates of the wastewater effluent available from the 91st and 23rd Avenue Sewage Treatment Plants, as prepared by the City of Phoenix, Water and Sewers Department, (2) are presented in figure 10B-2. 10B.2.2 MAG ESTIMATES Estimates of the wastewater effluent available 6 am the 91st and 23rd Avenue Sewage Treatment Plants, as prepared for MAG by the COE, are presented in figure 10B-2. The Tolleson Sewage Treatment Plant currently processes less than 1000 acre-ft/yr and under the MAG plan will be expanded to 8000 acre-ft/yr by the year 2000. Current wastewater ef-fluent discharge from the Tolleson plant is utilized under contract for Turf Production. The proposed Reems Road facil-ity will be sized for 6000 acre-f t/yr. (1) Effluent from these sources, as predicted by MAG, is presented in figure 10B-3. The estimates are based on Arizona Department of Economic Security population projections and a per capita effluent production. Allowances for conservation included in the estimate are as follows: New homes--15 percent reduction beginning in 1980 Existing homes--1 percent /yr reduction from 1980 to 1985 10B.
2.3 REFERENCES
- 1. Maricopa Association of Governments, 208 Water Quality Management Program, Draft Final Plan, December 1978.
2354 162 10B-7 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION
- 2. Letter from A. F. Vondrick, as Water and Sewers Direc- 4 tor, City of Phoenix, Water and Sewers Department, to E. E. Van Brunt, Jr., Vice President, Arizona Public Service Company, August 29, 1978.
10B.3 ADDITIONAL WATER REQUREMENTS 10B.3.1 CITY OF PHOENIX ESTIMATES Based on the City of Phoenix estimates for the 23rd and 91st Avenue plants, as discussed in Section 108.2.1, a short-term effluent shortage during the summer months of 1990-1992 could exist when effluent from only the 91st Avenue Plant is uti-lized. This shortage is discussed in the PVNGS-4&5 ER, sec-tions 10.2.2.1 and 5.7. As shown in figure 10B-2, if effluent from the 23rd Avenue plant is also utilized, no shortage is predicted in any month. 10B.3.2 MAG ESTIMATES Based on the MAG estimates prepared by the COE, an effluent lh shortage exists for approximately 20 years when effluent from only the 91st Avenue Plant is utilized (refer to figure 10B-2). If effluent from the 23rd Avenue plant is also utilized, no shortage is predicted. 10B.4 ALTERNATIVE COOLING WATER SOURCES Section 10.2 discusses alternatives available for condenser cooling water requirements at PVNGS-4&5. Although the dis-cussion presented in section 10.2 is keyed to supplying 100 percent of the cooling water requirements, it does pro-vide useful information in determining the alternatives available for providing the potential water requirements discussed by section 10B.3. Seven alternatives are dis-cussed in section 10.2. 2354 163 . Il> 10B-8 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION The alternatives are as follows:
- 1. Wastewater effluent from the City of Phoenix 91st Ave-nue Sewage Treatment Plant
- 2. Offsite groundwater
- 3. Groundwater from Buckeye Irrigation District (BID) wells supplemented, as necessary, to meet quality requirements for treatment in a water-reclamation facility of similar design to PVNGS-1,2&3, by waste-water effluent from the 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant
- 4. Groundwater from Roosevelt Irrigation District (RID) wells supplemented, as necessary, to meet quality requirements for treatment in a water-reclamation facility of similar design to PVNGS-1,2&3, by waste-water effluent from the 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant
- 5. Existing or future water projects (Central Arizona Project, CAP)
- 6. Agricultural drainage water from the BID supplemented, as necessary, to meet quality requirements for treat-ment in a water-reclamation facility of similar design to that of PVNGS-1,2&3, by wastewater effluent from the 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant
- 7. Maximum available agriculture drainage water from the BID supplemented, as necessary, to meet quantity re-quirements, by wastewater effluent from the 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant Four additional alternatives, a through d, are discussed in section 10.2 for providing supplemental water requirements based upon City of Phoenix estimates of effluent availability.
2354 164 These alternatives are as follows:
- a. Negotiate an agreement with BID to lay off a portion of their allotment (30,000 acre-feet) of 91st Avenue 10B-9 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION effluent during the summer months of 1990 and 1991. h This lay off could then be recaptured during the winter months.
- b. Negotiate an agreement with the City of Phoenix to process raw sewage at the 91st Avenue plant that would normally be processed at the 23rd Avenue plant, thereby making additional effluent available at the 91st Avenue plant.
- c. Utilize onsite or offsite wells to make up only the effluent cooling water requirements,
- d. Use cooling tower blowdown treatment to reduce con-denser cooling water requirements.
The viability of these and related alternatives for makeup of an effluent shortage is dependent upon the amount of sup-plemental water required and, therefore, upon the efflL~nt-availability estimate used. O 10B.4.1 CITY OF PHOENIX Based upon the City of Phoenix estimates (refer to section 10B.2.1) the effluent from the 91st Avenue Plant would be in-sufficient to meet the peak summer requirements for PVNGS-4&5 during 1990 to 1992. Because the deficiency is small and lasts only a few years, alternatives a, b, c, and d are viable alter-natives for obtaining the necessary effluent without acquiring an additional water source. 10B.4.2 MAG ESTIMATES Based upon the MAG estimates (refer to section 10B.2.2) the effluent available at the 91st Avenue Plant is not sufficient for PVNGS-4&5. Therefore it may be necessary to develop a supplemental water source. Alternatives 1 through 7 (section 10B.4) represent sources of supplemental water and suggest other sources of supplemental water that, while too small to O 10B-10 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION provide 100 percent of the condenser cooling water require-ments for PVNGS-4&S as discussed in section 10.2, can provide supplemental water in quantities sufficient to make up short-ages predicted using the MAG estimates. 10B.4.2.1 Alternative 1 If sufficient wastewater effluent is not available at the 91st Avenue Plant, additional effluent is available frc'a the 23rd Avenue Plant in quantities sufficient to make up the MAG-estimated shortages at 91st Avenue. This effluent is com-mitted under the existing contract with the City of Phoeniv.. In addition to the 23rd Avenue Plant, two other sewage treat-ment plants are located or will be located such that their wastewater effluent could be reasonably collected and piped to PVNGS. These are the Tolleson and Reems Road plants. 10B.4.2.1.1 23rd Avenue Plant Under the existing effluent contract up to 140,000 acre-ft/yr of effluent is available for power plant cooling from the 91st and 23rd Avenue Plants. An extension of the ANPP ef-fluent pipeline would be required to make the output of the 23rd Avenue Plant available at PVNGS. This extension would be approximately 10 miles long. 10B.4.2.1.2 Tolleson Plant The Tolleson plant currently produces less than 1000 acre-ft/yr of effluent. Under the MAG plan the Tolleson facility is esti-mated to be expanded to 8000 acre-ft/yr capacity by the year 2000. 2354 166 Currently, effluent from the Tolleson plant is contractually committed to turf production. Its existing effluent pipeline to the Salt River is in very close proximity to the PVNGS ef-fluent pipeline. To utilize this effluent, a structure would 10B-ll Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION be required to connect the Tolleson effluent pipeline and the lll PVNGS effluent pipeline. Utilizing the MAG estimates for plant flow, the Tolleson plant alone will not make up the MAG-estimated effluent shortage at the 91st Avenue Plant (refer to figure 10B-3). 10B.4.2.1.3 Reems Road Plant The output of the proposed Reems Road plant, as estimated by MAG, is presented in figure 10B-3. It is proposed that the plant be located in the immediate vicinity of the PVNGS ef-fluent pipeline, thereby requiring only a structure to connect the Reems Road plant effluent pipeline with the PVNGS effluent pipeline to make the plant output available to PVNGS. The estimated flow from the Reems Road plant, by itself or in combination with the Tolleson plant flow, is not sufficient to make up the effluent shortage predicted by MAG at the 91st Avenue Plant. lll 10B.4.2.2 Alternative 2 Of fsite well fields were studied (l) in conjunction with prep-aration of section 10.2. The study was evaluated for supply of 100 percent of the PVNGS-4&5 condenser cooling water re-quirements. It was determined to be impractical for offsite well fields to supply that quantity of water at PVNGS. Subsequent to this study, another study (2) was performed to determine the possibility of making up the MAG-estimated efflu-ent shortage at the 91st Avenue Plant using offsite/well fields. This study proposed three different well fields, all capable of supplying the necessary effluent. Two of the well fields are located north of the PVNGS site (Tonopah). One well field is located south of the PVNGS site (Centennial). During eval-uation of these well fields, a fourth well field (South) con-tiguous with the south boundary of the PVNGS site was developed. lll 10B-12 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION Each of the four well fields is capable of making up the MAG-y estimated effluent shortage at the 91st Avenue Plant. 10B.4.2.3 Alternative 3 Groundwater used for irrigation in the BID is sufficient to make up the MAG-estimated effluent shortages at the 91st Avenue Plant. If used in these quantities at PVNGS, this water source is compatible with the existing PVNGS Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) design. However, this alterna-tive was originally conceived based upon the substitution of effluent for groundwater. Estimates by MAG indicate that sufficient effluent for this substitution does not exist in the time frame required. Therefore, this alternative would not be feasible. 10B.4.2.4 Alternative 4 Groundwater used for irrigation in the RID is sufficient to make up the MAG-estimated effluent shortages at the 91st Avenue Plant. If used in these quantities at PVNGS, this water source is compatible with the existing PVNGS Water Reclamation Facility (WRF) design. However, this alternative was originally conceived based upon the substitution of effluent for groundwater. Estimates by MAG indicate suf ficient ef fluent for this substitution does not exist. Therefore, this alternative would not be feasible. 10B.4.2.5 Alternative 5 As discussed in section '.0.2.2.4, use of Central Arizona Proj-ect (CAP) water at PVNGb would be a first and only use of this water. Based on the availability of other less valued sources of water, use of CAP water is not considered desirable. Fur-thermore, the allocation of CAP water recommended by the State of Arizona for power production would not furnish sufficient cooling water for PVNGS-4&5 in the time f rame required. (3; 10B-13 Supplement No. 2 2354 168
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION 10B.4.2.6 Alternative 6 g The quality of the BID agricultural drainage water is such that only 12,600 acre-ft/yr could be utilized in the present WRP design. This quantity is insufficient to make up the MAG-estimated effluent shortage at the 91st Avenue Plant. Therefore, the use of BID drainage water in the existing WRv is not a viable alternative for a supplemental water supply. 10B.4.2.7 Alternative 7 Agricultural drainage water from t:. BID is currently under contract with the APS in quantities sufficient to make up the MAG-estimated effluent shortage at the 91st Avenue Plant. Use of this drainage water would require a redesign of the WRF. 10B.4.3 ALTERNATIVE
SUMMARY
10B.4.3.1 City of Phoenix Estimates Alternatives a, b, c, and d of section 10B.4 and section 10.2.2.1 remain viable alternatives to make up the small effluent shortages that may exist at the 91st Avenue Plant based on City of Phoenix estimates. 10B.4.3.2 MAG Estimates As a result of evaluating alternatives 1 through 7 of sec-tion 10B.4 and section 10.2, several alternatives appear viable for makeup of the ?%C-estimated effluent shortage at the 91st Avenue Pl* H 'rhese alternatives are evaluated in section 10B.5 td d,b nine the pref erred alternative (s) . They are different,ateu trom the original seven alteraatives 2354 169 O 10B-14 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION of section 10B.4 by the addition of a superscript. The alter- . natives to be evaluated are: l'. Addition of an effluent pipeline from the 23rd Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant to the 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant 2'. Construction of an offsite well field 7'. Use of BID agricultural drainage water and modifica-tion of the existing WRF design 10B.
4.4 REFERENCES
- 1. Harshbarger & Associates, Groundwater Development Alter-natives, PVNGS 4&5, October 19, 1977.
- 2. Harshbarger & Associates, Potential Grcundwater Develop-ment, PVNGS Units 4&5, Tonopah and Centennial Areas, October 27, 1978.
- 3. Fox, Kel, Chairman, Arizona Water Commission, personal communication to C. B. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior, U.S. Department of the Interior.
10B.5 ALTERNATIVE EVALUATION As discussed in section 10B.4.3, various alternatives exist' for make-up of potential effluent shortages at the 91st Avenue Plant. As the alternatives are dependent on the magnitude and duration of the shortage, i.e., the projected effluent estimates used, the alternatives are evaluated in conjunction with either the City of Phoenix or MAG estimates. 10B.5.1 CITY OF PHOENIX ESTIMATES As the effluent shortage predicted using the City of Phoenix estimates is small, alternatives a, b, c, and d are all con-sidered viable and essentially equivalent. 10B.5.2 MAG F9TIMATES Development ot c ' supplemental water source is required to make up the potential effluent shortages predicted by MAG. As 10B-15 Supplement No. 2 May 1979 2354 170
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION shown in figure 10B-2, this supplemental source must have a peak capacity of at least 2500 acre-ft/mo. Section 10B.4.3.2 summarizes the alternatives available for supplemental water sources. 10B.S.2.1 Alternative l' Based upon both the MAG and City of Phoenix estimates, suffi-cient effluent exists for all five Palo Verde units if waste-water effluent from the 23rd Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant is utilized. The environmental impacts of this alternative are negligible as (1) the right-of-way used for the pipeline has already been disturbed by agriculture over most of its length and (2) excess effluent is predicted to be available for flow in the reach of the Salt River between 23rd and 91st Avenues to support existing habitat (refer to section 10B.6.1). In addition, the use of effluent for condenser cooling water makeup represents a second use of water. The estimated cost for the PVNGS-4&5 Water Reclamation Pacil-ities, including this pipeline, is given in table 10B-l. 1C: .5.2.2 Alternative 2' Fota well fields have been identified that have the capability to me:e up the potential effluent shortage predicted by MAG. These well fields are significantly smaller than the well field ciscussed in the PVNGS-4&5 ER, section 10.2.2.1. While there may be some difficulties in securing the land for any of these well fields, they have been selected to minimize acquisition problems and should present fewer acquisition problems than the well field discussed in section 10.2.2.1. The environmental impacts of any of the four well fields are minor. (Refer to section 10B.6.2.) 2354 171 O 10B-16 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION Table 10B-1
- ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SUPPLIES MONETIZED COSTS (a)
(IN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS) Effluent From Effluent Effluent 23rd and 91st Supplemented Supplemented Avenue Sewage by Offsite by Irrigation Treatment Plants Wells Drain Water Item (Alternative l') (Alternative 2') (Alternative 7') Capital cost 235.4 233 235 Annual operating cost 20.5 20.5 30 Present worth operating cost 173.2 173.2 253.6 Total present ' worth 408.6 406.2 488.6
- a. Costs are for two units, makeup supply piping collection and treatment; discount factor is 0.8981.
2354 I72 10B-17 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION The estimated cost for the PVNGS-4&S Water Reclamation Facil- gg ities, including installation of a well field, is given in table 10B-1. 10B.5.2.3 Alternative 7' The contractual arrangement between APS and BID do not assure a continuous supply of water. Two of the six drainage wells required to furnish the con-tracted 20,000 acre-feet /yr of drainage water are situated in an area designated as a critical groundwater area. It is unclear whether or not the transport of drainage water from these two wells outside the critical area would be per-missible. Further, BID has reserved the right to suspend the use of all or any portion of drainage water by PVNGS whenever (1) the flow in the Gila River at the BID headgates is less than 75 ft3 /s for 7 consecutive days (2) static water levels in any well is lower than 40 feet following a cessa-ggg tion of pumping for 72 hours, or (3) pumping levels in any well falls below 60 feet. Since current flows in the Gila River at the BID headgates are primarily dependent upon ef-fluent flows from the 91st Avenue Plant, a shortage of efflu-ent will probably result in reduction in river flows below the stipulated 75 ft3 /s and result in a suspension of drainage water pumping. The wells required for this alternative are in existence. Therefore, the only construction impacts of this alternative are associated with the collection piping. The estimated costs for the PVNGS-4&S Water Reclamation Facil-ities, including installation of this alternative, are given in table 10B-1. 2354 173 O 10B-18 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION 10B.S.3 ALTERNATIVES SELECTED i 10B.5.3.1 City of Phoenix Estimates Alternatives a, b, c, and d are equally acceptable for makeup of potential effluent shortages predicted by the City of Phoenix. 10B.5.3.2 MAG Estimates Alternatives l' and 2' are comparable in environmental impact and cost. Alternative l' offers the benefit of reuse of water resources. On the other hand, alternative 2' has the advantage of providing a diverse water source that may enhance water source reliability. These alternatives are considered equiva-lent at this time. Alternative 7' is less desirable because of its doubtful availability and higher cost. In addition, it offers no advantage over alternative l' or 2' from an environ-mental standpoint. Therefore, alternative 7' is not evaluated further at this time. Alternatives l' and 2' are essentially equivalent, and remain available to make up potential effluent shortages. 10B.6 ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED ALTERNATIVES An environmental assessment was made of alternative supple-mental water sources that would satisfy the potential need for additional cooling water for PVNGS-4&5. As indicated in section 10B.5, two sources (wastewater effluent from the 23rd Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant, and a well field) were considered. 10B.6.1 PIPELINE ROUTE FROM THE 23rd AVENUE SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT Five alternative pipeline routes from the 23rd Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant which connect to the 91st Avenue pipeline to PVNGS were evaluated (figure 10B-4). 2354 174 10B-19 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION 10B.6.1.1 Description of Alternative Routes k The five alternate routes have approximately the same lengths (9.3 to 10.3 miles), and the area traversed by all routes is essentially flat. Land use along routes 1, 2, 3, and 4 is mostly agricultural. Route 5 is primarily along the bed of the Salt River, crossing natural vegetation with little crop-land along the course of the route.
- 1. Route _l: From the 23rd Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant, this route parallels Lower Buckeye Road for 2.5 miles west of the plant. The route angles west-southwest for about 1 mile, continues west for 5 miles, and turns south where it then joins with the 91st Avenue pipeline.
The route crosses mostly cropland (78 percent) and urban-residential areas (22 percent). The route runs along improved roads adjacent to urban-residential properties for approximately 4 miles of its length lll and crosses cropland for the rest of its length fol-lowing the right-of-way of an overhead transmission line.
- 2. Route 2: This route parallels Lower Buckeye Road for 2.5 miles west of the plant, then angles southwest for about 2 miles towards the main channel of the Salt River. It continues along the riverbed to 75th Avenue, then travels west 2 miles to where it joins the 91st Avenue pipeline.
2354 175 This alternative crosses cropland (67 percent) and urban-residential areas (33 percent) and avoids areas of native vegetation. The route runs along an exist-ing irrigation line that is adjacent to the Salt River for approximately half of the route. It would disrupt urban development land during construction along about lll 10B-20 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION one-third of its length and cropland along most of the rest of the route.
- 3. Route 3: From the 23rd Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant, the route parallels Lower Buckeye Road for 4.25 miles, jogs 1 mile south, then turns west for 3 miles, then south and west again to join with the 91st Avenue pipe-line to PVNGS.
The route crosses cropland (58 percent) and a substan-tial amount of urban-residential area (42 percent). The route runs along improved roads, which are adjacent to cropland and urban-residential properties for its entire length. The route parallels an existing sewage pipeline route for another 4 miles and a transmission line right-of-way for another 4 miles. Construction activities along this route would disrupt the greatest amount of urban-residential property (almost half the route is adjacent to urban development property).
- 4. Route 4: This route parallels Lower Buckeye Road for approximately 8.25 miles and turns south for 2 miles, along 91st Avenue, to connect with the 91st Avenue pipeline. The route crosses cropland (91 percent) and urban-residential areas (9 percent).
- 5. Route 5: This route parallels Lower Buckeye Road for 1.25 miles, then angles southwest into the bed of the Salt River. The route crosses primarily natural hab-itat and undeveloped riverbed. It also runs through some large active gravel pits. The route traverses sparse saltbush habitat with annuals present in scat-tered locations (68 percent). The remainder of the route is urban-residential (23 percent) and cropland (9 percent).
2354 176 10B-21 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION 10B.6.1.2 Archaeological Resources h Refer to annex A of appendix 10B for an archaeological assess-ment of the five alternative pipeline routes. Areas where significant archaeological resources are identified will be mitigated in a manner similar to that used for the PVNGS-4&5 pipeline between the Hassayampa River and the PVNGS site. 10B.6.1.3 Ecological Resources In order to compare the five routes, recent aerial photography (January 1979) was used to prepare a vegetation resource map of the area traversed by the routes (figure 10B-4). Impact analyses were based on information from recent pertinent liter-ature, contacts with regional authorities, vegetation maps, and a field survey of the pipeline routes. In order to discriminate among routes, the primary and second-ary consequences of developing each route were evaluated. The primary ecological impact of all pipeline routes is the lll same: the reduction of habitat within the Salt River channel between 23rd and 91st Avenue as a result of reduced effluent flows. Most of the wastewater effluent presently discharged from the 23rd Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant reaches the Salt River via two canals located west-southwest of the plant. Some of the water is diverted for irrigation, but most is con-tained in a small thread of flow within the channel. This flow supports wetland vegetation that is used by various wild-life soecies, primarily birds (e.g., doves and waterfowl). Because of periodic flooding, most of the vegetation is com-posed of scattered annuals. The deep water table in this sec-tion of the river limits ohreatophyte establishment. (1) The total amount of vegetation growing in the Salt River between 23rd and 91st Avenues is much less than that found along the Green Belt portion of the Gila River. The section is almost devoid of, vegetation because of the lowering of the water table llh 2354 177 10B-22 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE r~'.LUATION and extensive gravel mining operations. The limited vegetation is composed of species that m; ovide some food and cover for wildlife. Stagnant pools of water provide breeding habitat for mosquitoes and outbreaks of botulism have occurred here. This area can be considered relatively unimportant to wildlife because erratic flows and periodic flooding make it a limited and undependable wildlife habitat. Human disturbance in the area (e.g., gravel pits, concrete works, and landfill activ-ities) further reduce its value for wildlife. In addition to the impact of habitat reduction in the Salt River channel, each route would directly affect the areas disturbed by pipeline construction. Only Route 5 affects areas of native vegetation. The remaining four traverse only cropland and urban-residential areas. None of the routes will impact endangered or threatened species, nor will they disturb areas of unique ecological value. The riparian and wetland habitats in the Salt River channel between 23rd and 91st Avenue have some wildlife value. Because the habitat is largely maintained artificially by wastewater effluent and is intermittently available, the overall adverse ecological . impact of reducing it is, therefore, minor. The four pipeline routes that traverse only cropland and urban-residential areas are slightly preferable to the route that includes portions of the Salt River channel. All of the areas disturbed by pipeline routes would be expected to quickly revert to preconstruction conditions. Therefore, essentially no ad-verse impact beyond the loss of wildlife habitat is anticipated during actual pipeline construction. Since development of the 23rd Avenue pipeline will not utilize all of the effluent projected to be available, a portion of theg effluent will reach the Salt River and maintain a portion 2354 178 10B-23 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION of the wetland habitat. Therefore, the adverse impact of water diversion would be reduced or eliminated. 10B.6.1.4 Summary No serious adverse ecological or land-use impacts would result from the construction of any of the five routes being con-sidered. The loss of wildlife habitat in the Salt River chan-nel is minor and may be partially mitigated by excess waste-water effluent from the 23rd Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant flowing in the river channel. The four routes that do not impact native vegetation (routes 1 through 4) are slightly preferable to route 5 which crosses 6.8 miles of sparse salt-bush habitat. Routes 3 and 4 were eliminated from further consideration because they pass through areas of high archaeological sensi-tivity. (Refer to annex A.) O Neither Routes 1 nor 2 was found to have significantly less environmental impact than the other. Therefore, Route 1 was selected as the preferred pipeline route on the basis of engi-neering considerations. (Refer to figure 10B-5.) 10B.6.2 WELL FIELDS Four well field locations were evaluated. Two areas are near Tonopah (north and west of PVNGS) and two are between Centen-nial Wash and the PVNGS site (south of PVNGS). Brief descrip-tions of the well field alternatives follow:
- 1. North Tonopah. This well field encompasses sections 19, 20, 21, 28, and 29 in T2.N, R6.W. Topographic relief is low and the area is crossed by several inter-mittent stream channels (including Winter's Wash) bor-dered with desert riparian habitat (figure 10B-6).
O 2354 179 10B-24 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION Most of the area is either active agriculture or cre-osote scrub vegetation (table 10B-2).
- 2. South Tonopah. This well field includes section 31, 32, and 33 in T2.N, R6.W and sections 4 and 5 in T1.N, R6.W. This well field is generally similar to the North Tonopah well field (figure 10B-7). Native vege-tation types present are desert scrub types and desert riparian (table 10B-2).
- 3. South. This well field is adjacent to PVNGS and extends south and east of it. It encompasses sections 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 23, and 24 in T1.S, R6.W (figure 10B-8).
Desert scrub veget. tion types (creosote bush and salt-bush) dominate the areas of native vegetation with desert riparian along intermittent stream channels
.(table 10B-2). Topographic relief is generally low and human occupation is sparse.
- 4. Centennial. This well field is immediately south o:
the South well field area and includes sections 21,' 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, and 27 in T1.S, R6.W. The South and Centennial well fields overlap (sections 23 and 24). The topographic relief in this area is also relatively low. Much of the area is in active agri-culture (table 10B-2) , but includes desert scrub and desert riparian types in areas of native vegetation (figure 10B-9). 10B.6.2.1 Land Use A minimal amount of land would be disturbed by the development of any of the four well fields and this disturbanea would pri-marily be only duting construction. Only the well head loca-tions and associated ac' cess road would occupy surface land during operations. The land areas involved on this relatively 10B-25 Supplement No. 2 May 1979 2354 180
PVNGS-4&S ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION Table 10B-2 VEGETATIVE COVER IN ALTERNATIVE WELL FIELD LOCATIONS g Vegetative Cover (percent) North South Vegetation Type Tonopah Tonopah South Centennial Active agriculture 28 47 27 47 Abandoned agriculture 1 -- 8 7 Creosote bush 57 34 25 24 Mixed creosote bush / saltbush 4 2 37 17 Saltbush -- 8 -- -- Desert riparian 10 9 2 5 Creosote bush / cactus -- -- 1 -- 2354 10 g O 10B-26 Supplement No. May 197)
PVNGS-4&S ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION permanent basis are basically the same for the four well fields, i The two Tonopah area well fields would disrupt approximately the same amount of natural vegetation land. A greater amount of intensive agricultural land would be traversed by the North Tonopah well field as compared with the South Tonopah well field. The two areas are very similar, the area to the south being preferable because of its greater proximity to the PVNGS site. Nearly half of the South and Centennial well field areas are under intensive agriculture. The majority of the cultivated farmland is in the Centennial area. The South well field area is covered by mixed natural desert vegetation and has the least amount of developed property. This area is the closest to the PVNGS site. 10B.6.2.2 Archaeological Assessment Refer to annex A of appendix 10B for an archaeological assess-ment of the four alternative well fields. It is anticipated that by proper selection of well and collection piping loca- , tions any significant impacts to archaeological resources can be eliminated. 10B.6.2.3 Ecological Resources To compare the four well fields, vegetation resource maps were prepared from 1978 and 1979 color aerial photography. A de-scription of the well fields based on the percent of resource types and wildlife species composition in each area was then preoared. The well fields were then evaluated for ecological impact (based on proposed well field configurations) and sub-sequently compared.(2) Impact analyses were based on informa-tion obtained from vegetation resource maps, recent pertinent literature, contacts with regional authorities, and a field survey of each alternative location. 2354 i82 10B-27 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION O Vegetation in the vicinity of well fields includes crops, creo-sote bush scrub, mixed creosote bush-saltbush scrub, and desert riparian types (figures 10B-6 through 10B-9). Desert riparian (wash) vegetation in the Tonopah area is composed chiefly of palo verde and mesquite. In the Centennial area, riparian vegetation is predominately tamarisk with scattered mesquite and very little palo verde present. Information on vegetation types in the Centennial and Tonopah well field areas is sum-marized in table 10B-2. The areas of native vegetation (noncropland) provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species. Desert riparian vegetation is most important because wildlife is generally more diverse and abundant in it and because it provides habitat for several small game species. Cropland areas, because of their lack of diversity, are of limited wildlife value. They do provide some forage for quail and doves. No endangered or threatened llh species inhabit the region, including the Tonopah well fields. Wildlife species typical of the native habitats in the area' include mourning dove, Gambel's quail, marsh hawk, road runner, black-tailed jack rabbit, desert cottontail, and a variety of lizards and snakes. The desert tortoise occurs north of the proposed Tonopah well field area, but is not known to occur in it. Only small game species are present, and the area does not support important wildlife habitat. The impact on wildlife is generally proportional to the amount of suitable habitat (native vegetation) affected by route development. Less natural vegetation may be disturbed by the South and Centennial well fields than by the North Tonopah or South Tonopah well fields, but some wash (desert riparian) vegetation might be affected. The Tonopah well fields contain a larger percentage of wash habitat than either the South or lh 10B-28 Supplement No. 2 "av 1979 2354 183
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION Centennial well fields (table 10B-2). Since wash habitat is more important to wildlife than other habitats present, the impact of South or Centennial well field development on wild-life is probably less than the impact of development in the Tonopah area.(4) The same wildlife species are present in the South and Cen-tennial area as those that are typical of the Tonopah area. Mule deer may occasionally visit the wash areas, but are not permanent residents. No endangered or threatened species inhabit the region comprising the Centennial well field area. (3) 10B.6.2.4 Summary In a regional context, none of the well fields would result in major adverse ecological or land-use impacts. The region, including all well fields, is already disturbed and consider-ably affected by existing development as is the region includ-ing thE pipeline routes. The native vegetation types present are common throughout southwestern Arizona. None of the project well fields will adversely affect endan-gered or threatened species, nor will they disturb areas of unique ecological value. The impacts of developing any of the well fields are considered to be of minor importance to wildlife. Development of the South well field, south of and contiguous to the PVNGS site, would be slightly more desirable than the other well fields because there is less native vegetation pre-sent and a lower probability of disturbing desert riparian habitat. Because of the proximity of the South well field to the PVNGS site, less area would be impacted by pipeline development from this well field than from the Centennial or either of the Tonopah well fields. The South well field was 10B-29 Supplement No. 2
" Y 979 2354 184
PVNGS-4&5 ER ALTERNATIVE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER SOURCE EVALUATION therefore selected as the preferred well field (refer to figure 10B-8). 10B.
6.3 REFERENCES
- 1. Halpenny, L. (Hyd rolog ist) , Water Development Corpora-tion, Tucson, personal communication to W. J. Clark, NUS Corporation, Sherman Oaks, California, October 6, 1978.
- 2. Harshbarger and Associates, Inc., Potential Ground-water Development PVNGS Units 4&5 Tonopah and Cen-tennial areas, 1978.
- 3. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, " List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants," Federal Register 43(238); pp. 58030-58048, 1978.
- 4. Lowe, C. H., The Vertebrates of Arizona, The Univer-sity of Arizona Press, Tucson, 1964.
2354 185 9 10B-30 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
PVNGS-4&S ER ANNEX A APPENDIX 10B A PRELIMINARY ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF FIVE ALTERNATIVE PIPELINE ROUTES AND FOUR ALTERNATIVE WELLFIELDS ARIZONA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION 2354 186 10B-31 Supplement No. 2 May 1979
i MUSEUM OF NORTHERN ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY A PRELIMINARY ARCHAEOIDGICAL ASSESSMENT OF FIVE ALTERNATIVE PIPELINE ROUTES AND FOUR ALTERNATIVE WELLFI"' DS ARIZONA NUCLEAR POWER PROJECT PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION A-77-120 Prepared by: John M. Anticau Supervisory Archaeologist Museum of Northern Arizona
}}}
March 16, 1979 t
Two projects are under consideration as supplementary water supplies for the Arizona Nuclear Power Project (ANPP) Palo Verde Nuclear Genera-ting Station (PVNGS). The first, in Phoenix, is a pipeline from the 23rd Avenue sewage treatment plant to the 91st Avenue sewage treatment plant, the present origin of a pipeline to the plant site west of Phoenix. Five alternative routes have been proposed. 2 The second, near the plant site, is a well field of 5-7 mi . Four alternative locations have been proposed. On 6 March 1979 Mr. John Mann of Arizona Public Service Company (APS) requested an assessment of the archaeological sensitivity of the proposed project areas. One day each was spent in records search, field inspection, and report preparation. A complete literature and file search was premature, and would be more appropriate once an alternative location is selected. , 2354 188
2 O ARCHAEOLOGICAL SENSITIVITY (Stein 1977) In this report, levels of archaeological sensitivity are defined by the relative probabilities of encountering archaeological sites in specific localities. The relative probabilities, in turn, are estimated f rom the presence or absence in the localities of env:-onmental factors which are believed to have influenced the location of archaeological sites, and from the degree of modern agricultural development. The finer the subdivision of an area into units of potential differe..ial site density, the more precise the prediction of sensi-tivity can occome. A sensitivity rating is not an absolute measure of site occurrence, but rather a probability statement based on a know-ledge of factors influencing the location of prehistoric sites. The levels of sensitivity used in this report are high, moderate, and low. t High Sensitivity: This category applies to known and potential areas of dense pre-historic population or intensive utilization. The destruction of such areas would mean a significant loss of information concerning the cultural resource base. Moderate Sensitivity: These are localities where site density is moderate and the mitiga-tion of impacts are negotiable in terms of costs and public values. O 2354 189
3 It is often feasible to avoid specific archaeological resources within areas of moderate sensitivity. Low Sensitivity: This category refers to archaeological localities where either the known or probable site density is low. Areas of low site density often correspond with regions which lack resources conducive to exploitation. A low sensitivity rating, however, does not necessarily reflect the importance of individual sites within these areas. Pipeline: The principal sources of information concerning archaeological resources in the area of the proposed pipeline are the records compiled and maps prepared by Omar Turney and Frank Midvale. Figure 1 displays the 5 alternative pipeline routes, superimposed on Midvale's map of pre-historic sites and canals in the area. Turney's map is comparable, generally showing more detail in the site areas and less detail in the canal systems. The 2 major prehistoric sites in the proposed pro-ject area are Pueblo del Alamo and Pueblo del Rio, concerning which Turney (1929:91-92) reported: ueblo del Alamo. Village of the Open Park, is but a memory; it stood sn a slight rise of ground, and thus was protected from the flood waters which must occasionally have come down the canal. A few shards only have been preserved; but the owner of the adjoining land has stated that on some years his father sold enough axes and carved stone articles to pay his taxes: so perhaps someone, somewhere, has things which he calls " curios from out West." We found a fire pit made of clay baked in place in the ground, where probably a house had stood. These are frequently found in room floors; a foot across and 5 to 8 inches deep; they seem to have been used only for the purpose of keeping coals over 2354 190 .
i
- L h*b
_, gggy i Totalysi6 Nid _T_ _ . i e
\ N
~
L6 Affif.78106 N-sJa_G60/ O _g./uunl i s
/ . .. . . _ _ . - . . ~ em g *
- Tog Lfp' Sou
' TotLV.c p Cpt f>JA
# 8
, , , , , / . 1 l ,
%a_Ahld 4_L j - - 4 g ..
g._aven:m. _ . _ . . _ _ . _ . . . _ __ _ ..._ .. __ _ .n m v e w v. O ^$ 01 c v as e a t u u v, 1 c m l P. tx t, j CA!)hb D >
% /
r^ / L'OWEtt EUCKIY8 * ~~ -
- I: ~
j & fi' 9. o tht s. b". ,.
..s / -
s , / $
- i
_,e<
~,,
] ,, , ? -
[e ' - k@0AfM.AY . A -' . _ _ _ __ J -
. ;Q- s'
-s 9,it sor) 1
,; ,/ - -s I~
~~ ~ ~~
g f3 f -
#NI' d /151/ ---L [- n['
b -$ ' ~
.F..SOUIFM S. . _ . . _ _ _
w #
, &.4 -. -------#
t mI'
.s y"~""'
Figure 1: Pipeline Routes and Archaeological Sites and Canals as Mapped by Frank Midvale N"
..BASELUiE . ______ ._..
.- tm LT1
. A
~
... . - _ . _ - . . . .- _ ... _. w. . . . . = ....ema_. _.m .
5 night, as little or no ashes are found in or around them. Frequently in room walls are found niches a few inches wide, yet running down two feet deep, which are filled with solid cores of ashes; seemingly some form of a fire place. Pueblo del Rio. Village of the River, has been stripped of its top stories to build a roadway across the western borrow pit and to fill part of the pit to the north. Apparently it was 260 ft north and south and 130 ft wide, and well oriented. Its denuded top rises 15 ft above the bottom of the borrow pits. In grading the pits, red-on-buff pottery was destroyed, but among the articles saved was the finest example of representative carving which the writer has ever seen in this valley. We place it among the medico-religious articles of that people. The stone has the color of catlinite, but it had received a higher polish than is possible to give to the hardest catlinite. It was a normal size membrum virile et testes homini which formed part of a cup, the latter from its form and position would not permit the object to be construed as pure ar t but as a crucible, in which the medicine man may have pre-pared medicines supposed to influence the functions symbolized. Dr. Eliza A. Ingi U.s found a phallic cup forty-three years ago in these ruins, a fine grained, hard granite, elaborately detailed. Similar carvings, but without the cup, have been found in such numbers as to strongly indicate phallic worhsip. There need be no surprise that such worship existed; it is in evidence in the ruins of Central America; we believe that the germ of culture and perhaps an actual migration came to the valley of the Salt from the South. Farthermore, let no one dis-dain the primitive American for his religious beliefs, but first of all examine the primitive religion of every race living in tropical lands the world around , perhaps we have forgotten the religious significance of some of the ceremonies of our own Caucasian ancestors. At this ruin the borrow pits were on the west, north and east of the building; we believe the burial ground lies on the south, although burials have been found east of the eastern borrow pit. The ground to the south would have been dry and well located for burials. One colossal breccia was found in a burial and our finest example of an armlet carved from pectunculus shell and bearing at the hir.'e a beautifully formed frog , came from the north edge of the ruin. Table 1 enumerates areas of archaeological sensitivity along the pipeline routes, and evaluates the relative sensitivity of remains along each route.
}}} l
6 TABLE 1 Pipeline Relative Sensitivity Route 4 3 1 2 5 AREAS OF IIIGli SENSITIVITY
- 1) Pueblo del Alamo and canal 7 x x
\ mi cast, west, or south of 59th Ave. and Iower Buckeye Rd.
- 2) unnamed small ruin 3 x SW of 67th Ave and Lower Buckeye Rd.
AREAS OF MODERATE SEN3ITIVITY
- 3) periphery of Pueblo del Rio 2 x x x x 43rd Ave and lower Buckeye Rd.
- 4) periphery of Cashion Ruin and 2 x x possible canal 91st Ave, and Broadway Rd.
- 5) unnamed small ruin 1 x x x west of 43rd Ave.
- 6) Cashion Canal 1 x x x x x 91st Ave. and Southern Ave. .
- 7) Alamo Canal 1 x east of 75th Ave.
- 8) unnamed canal 1 x x x x Lower Buckeye Rd. between 35th and 43rd Ave.
- 9) same canal 1 x x between 43rd and 51st Ave.
AREAS OF LOW SENSITIVITY all other areas OVERALL SENSITIVITY OF INDIVIDUAL ROUTES 16 11' 9 6 2 2354 193 - O
7 COMMENTS
- 1) According to Turney, the center of Pueblo del Alamo was located NE of the intersection of 59th Ave, and Lower Buckeye Rd.; according to Midvale, it was SE of the intersection and a compound was bisected by Lower Buckeye Rd. Turney did not indicate the canal mapped by Midvale, a canal which possibly extended to the Cashion Ruin. At the present time the site area is agricultural fields. On the grounds of the Orme 230 KV Rec. Sta. SW of the intersection were noted a few surface arti-facts, including redware sherds.
- 2) The small ruin shown by Midvale SW of the intersection of 67th Ave.
and Lower Buckeye Rd. was shown by Turney in all directions from the intersection. At the present time there are no surface indications of archaeological remains and it is likely that most of the site has been disturbed by agricultural development and/or buried beneath the community of Santa Maria.
- 3) Turney's and Midvale's maps agree on the location of Pueblo del Rio, and both indicate that the site did not extend as far south as Lower Buckeye Rd. At the present time there is an area of rolling ground, with some old building foundations and trash dumping, 0.3 mi north of Lower Buckeye Rd. on the east side of 43rd Ave, at the approximate center of the site. At that location Midvale recorded, sketch and photographed, a compound, approximately 200 ft N-S x 120 ft E-W, with farm buildings atop it. At the present time there is also construction on the NE corner of the intersection of 43rd Ave. and Lower Buckeye Rd.
2354 194
8
- 4) Current investigations at the Cashion Ruin (Antieau in press) have not extended east of 99th Ave., as no site was recorded in Section 28, and have failed to locate the large prehistoric canal mapped by Turney as Canal Twelve and by Midvale as Canal Cashion.
- 5) The small ruin west of 43rd Ave. is not shown on Turney's map, nor is the branch canal. At the present time there are pastures and fields from Lower Buckeye Rd. south to the Salt River bottom, a distance of about 0.6 mi. A modern ditch crosses 43rd Ave. and may follow the course of the prehistoric canal mapped by Midvale.
Well Fields Figures 2 and 3 display the 4 alternative proposed well fields near the PVNGS, as well as archaeological sites in the vicinity recorded by Trott (1974). Prehistoric sites included trails, rock enclosures, gravel clearings, and petroglyphs, all on the eastern flanks of the Palo Verde Hills, and surface scatters of sherds and lithics, mainly on the creosote-covered alluvial plains. Historic sites included early 20th century homesteads and labor camps. Other recent work in the area (Kemrer, Schultz and Dodge 1972; Burton 1975; Antieau 1976; Antieau 1977) has demonstrated a similar patterning of prehistoric sites, with lithic quarries, trails, and collecting loci along the south flanks of the Big Horn Mountains to the north of the project area, and artifact scatters interpreted as food processing loci and small habitation sites on the alluvial plain, especially near Centennial Wash. 2354 195 g
9 Except for the NW corner of well field 3, where sites are recorded, the well fields are devoid of rock oatcrops and hills upon and adjacent to which were recorded the majority of the prehistoric sites. In addition, much of the alluvial plain has been subject to agricultural development, probably obliterating surface artifacts scatters. Site classes to be expected in the well fields include artifact scatters and processing and small habitation sites in undisturbed portions of the alluvial plain, and historic sites throughout. Table 2 displays the archaeological sensitivity, by section, of each of the alternative proposed well fields. 2354 196
.< $ s [ .
^ 19 ku 11 ----32-- - 7 5 a ,,,,. f to a
to' , t , % %
. .r ,
. ,,,, v. ,,,,.
.~ ,aw -
~., .~ " " .
f.7- v i
% nri. ;........L. ..
i c , j v .
-'*a -2 .
2, 6 g (\ .,
- pf ,. . . 14....... .
n is 1- #.I.7. . . .z,........ .-,.i r .
.ts i.
l e - r . .. ..... ( ' w , t... I 7 t I . .. ae'. . . . .. .r -'/ , . - zww.._ a" '
= ... s e n . t~,), -
. . . .T. .yr.Q. .,. j y
e
...1.,.
4 . .s e
.i... . , , , . .
g ., . ...-. EI 23 l
- 1)
- 22 22 23 24 . .
l* * %Q : ,,,.. e."o,,
.... g. . _ ,
.. .; , ... e l
. .. . . . . . . .sa .
~21 22 23 22 .. 23 ,,,,,
l .M : 2d'. ,,,3 9 #4 ,,, ** s., ,, a .- ' M .' ** **, ..*., 6- m. ga .. . .. .% r .. 1 ._ , w . . . a ; n. - 9 .: t. ..U: :h.;;4 ; ; m "s. **w8 : w. Ti,n..pah( y . : ... . .%
, . *w'% , . -. . . . - ..
a Y l. a ,
; . .. d. n) . . . .....
** 26 25 30 29 -
'28 27 1
, 27 26 ,
1 WELL FIELD 1 - -
.. . , _ _ . -_ _ .- m < ....c- ,
.. .c f
<f
.# E. , :. . g :
c e
. ,4.. ...31. . .y. 33 '
- 34 35 % : h,: -^
- ff.H . . , , v e.
. 7.s. . 7.j. , 34 35
'. .e. . nm. e. ..
g
, *. ~
be/ a , . . .
'V .s
.- % . 5a-=----*aA'--'""' '
" ~
*^
t ***' .,,. ;r
. .~n .
rg
~ k,' 1 s %-
q.e n ,w .f f
.ero . N. ' g, y g g,
<' 3 2 3 2 N ** t ,
- . g t. v, 5'
Q NN n v ,-
~
, -; T "' %.,,,. WELLFIELd2 II
, & ,../,.
(
.'? 's- I...............4.e.............)"..--.c..H".,*'%I-s--.
A , .l ,=
.e+
J. . I i
,~ .C...,. T, 'C~.
. yd:a p- g r.
~'
. -~_/,, , w-an w.v. . ...
J.^-s>
, -9 e,
J a ,8 c.
\
'~ ,r . d
..... $* .- ~ . h s
i, N I ?, ' s B 9 10 11 1O . _ :12 . 7 i A i
.x
- s,.
Ws j i ,7_f.n.,..A. ~ 3s,. .- i s . g a
+ i
- -'i +,.
v s. . ,, va .u .. . . -- . si _ _
-,a}-.
3'
/ /*
j .,-., %. ",%y ,- -.,.~ m* (_.) *'
. % , j ' -a ,J_
, g,.d . T
- e. 's 1 N (op('s 3 -
, / i .
- ~ ..- s t .
'f15/ \,'. d, '
- . , y L 14 - . Y 13 28 ' 17 -
16 N%s
- 15 14 i i e <* i 4
> . (~ -;', , /
% {
, / & . ,x
- s .~ , . . . x
-%.. g
)P,'A{,.IL'O,., d V,. - E R D i
'~u' M - ['T'**c'3"".Y_b E
{ 4 . - . . , . . _ . , , - s t. i_+-- $_ p ^'
~
e
- f k,Q t . > 3 q, .-
( g q f 'g
)f V
! I w. ,6., , s f' g - [*
= i :
\. .s t
-O " 1 l
q s xmJ. . ~%'-
.s 2Qwoo!x 2S g 24 T f 1% 20 .= '
. .[ ~
22 23
, y) ~ , a '
I Q ., t s w
! 4
,L es Q n N.
s H i L S gum, ' ,4 , ,.U M .-'I . --
'e..
W.11. f Apids' . and 2. s o { FIGURE 2: Q,', , ' Declo'podAgrihtural.AreasShaded.
' 1 N I A
v 27
/ i j [c
> 26 25 1g 30 29 2e .
. x .- ..
p.
- ..a
/~ xs PVNGS **'
.e. . v? ,.:^^ ~. -:< : - '
. .- - .- n. . .
xt . . . . . . - .
, ,s - w w - .,i s. wc
.C.
s e. . u
} IG G ,~ i n "m.; u u . .. ..
u
.... ~ . . .e . j
. v ,
v 0 g/ ' <.n u se { , / ii '6 is j if%, j f{ o 14 l
/ -
{* is l t' 1 < E!p l / : :
,. t:,'~' 5 4. ..J.? : :
0A . V E R D 't
. . + v , q ....'.g .
' to. i,,,, 1
- j.' . - ,
. .; . ,,,. 7 7 er _ ___ % . 9 t _
e
, q w. _ 554 ,f (-
9
/
.I =4 ';
'iy:b y
cg" e s
<: 1 g%-- <. l I , 476*u >
b ' o ,y 24 ( . is 20 **" g . i-22 ,, . ;',3393 s 24 p n j s
#3 A P '. g N
1L L S .._ / g.) e u.,._ _ s._'s . , 544 _.. _._./ c -
- m. r. .( t_ _473
- s. .
-s '
_,f -
'g, L/ '
't.
t s 547 i 5@nE 82fM4 , p g,,, , i
.s s 25 30 29 o :$- ** -4 2{. .
N. 25 'Nf '- 30 49 5B . ; * ' - 501' i - _, 6 # ' .s ,,, 49 -,,
$3 5 . 9
.,, 9% s..i s 491 L i
- . _,,. . _. 7 o ,
T85's! 490 . . _495A .- 4:1; 492 3, 548.' -
+k . ,' .495D i .472 . ' - (,
s O\ , m . n u
.c Tc7 a551 ni x
\ n - .hqi s- t t u95fi "
N"'_\(s ' s i l 93 '
.494 i
.496 m, 3 ,, 3 __i:l m ,. t . >.
1+95E=.. : i a +: <.
* "i-i-r N
4{': 499 4 :=p..479y77j 504 504f495H .p ]445 50& j i ""4ygg ', ., y CO. ; 3 I 2 I i .e
- / i '509 ', {., f} ,
j ; , l ;
._ .. ,.. _ . = t
...;.. . . ._u.. a....-_... ..c. .
.~ n . . . .. n.
,, .. . , . ., S. ,
f ,
<300 .,
....,... 9 HELL FIELD 12 7 8
*..,'d } 10 il 12 p#o .
... Q, , 8
! 49m,9
. 510 .
508.\=550 e ~~. . _ \
. .m .m .n . .. - r .. -
..-_...v.
t Fa.veis 8 * ** Ad .. .r. n, Cese ... 1 n ,i f, 4
.<' / ./. r C
i.*9gg !
, \.y- i l ,
- a. o s
**> 17 , , 16 13 i . to j ,
15
..'s:g ,*
..u
/j . '- ("
. m..
A-f
, i ;. . . . .
, ; . . . . . . , i
;,i ;
. - .m .
l (,
. .p. . .~
i
. p
'.. li -
illf h; w w s '\ .
..., 4 l
, ..--, gg- ,. 7 . . : l. .p/
. Artesigtosi st.t o ,
\ cWLI) FIELD 4 ,.a.. 6. T;-
24 , 19 ' 2I- 22
. .. .. 20 *. e $4 II i, . . . .i s'
- b ! .* f 4 D:
f *W
, : ' ;I; .. . e#
s p 1
.3.
_w : t' r. ::1:
.r. . ,___
#" **? '
%,.em. . *"
mm
.3 -
e..._...._..__
, ,- ll:-
,,,,= .. .
l:l
,-- P C ,
25 . 30 29 'k 'U 27 E .}l:, . l YS: 30 l'D
,, 28: s ,
.., i ...
- a. , : +,. . . . . , - -
m j. ..r _. o. _ . . . n. . pi.,. 2 w: :- ~ _: eM,. ml, / 2354 19s
^
Nu , ,,.
/x.. . , -
, .e l, 36 4' 33 ; *#'s 34 ' 3! 36 31
$,n w' ' ., 3 2 '+
. 31 ._
I l . 'g 3 l
,1 N' i' : -I IVuah*%-
S fk Y'M m-t.4[, a ,**' .' Figure 3: Well Fields 3 and 4, and Archaeological
**" " * <d Sites Recorded by Trott (1974) !
- ]1 ,.,
(all site designations g , prefixed by "Al2, ) . 2 e 33,, t 60 : Developed Agricultura1. Areas Shaded. I [ .i
l- '
12 TABLE 2 Wellfields Section Sensitivity PROPOSED 19 moderate along Winters Wash, low elsewhere WELLFIELD 1 20 low, mostly agricultural T2N, R6W 21 moderate, mostly undeveloped 28 low for NWk, moderate elsewhere OVERALL 29 Moderate for S , low elsewhere SENSITIVITY: IDW PROPOSED 31 low, agricultural WELLFIELD 2 32 low, agricultural T1-2N, R6W 33 moderate for N , low for S\ 4 moderate, high along Fourmile Wash OVERALL 5 moderate, high along unnamed wash SENSITIVITY: MODERATE PROPOSED 10 high, hill with petroglyphs (NA12,496, NA12,498) WELLFIELD 3 11 high, petroglyphs and historic remains g Tls, R6W (NA12,508, NAl2,550, NA12,510) 12 moderate, undisturbed, but no substantial drainage OVERALL 13 moderate for N , Low for S\ , SENSITIVITY: 14 moderate for NWS, low elsewhere MODERATE 15 moderate, high along unnamed wash 23 Icw, agricultural 24 low for W , mo(crate elsewhere PROPOSED 21 low for SW\, moderate elsewhere WELLFIELD 4 22 moderate, high along washes, undeveloped TlS, R6W except for PVNGS RR 23 low, agricultural OVERALL 24 low for W , moderate elsewhere SENSITIVITY: 25 moderate for E\, low elsewhere, agricultural LOW 26 low, agricultural 27 low, agricultural, brush, and trash dumping 2354 199 O
13 REFERENCES CITED Anticau, John M. 1976 An archaeological survey of portions of the Harquahala Valley Flood Control Project. Office of Cultural Resource Manage-ment, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. 1977 An archaeological survey of Reach 6, Granite Reef Aqueduct, Central Arizona Project. Office of Cultural Resource Manage-ment, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. n.d. Hohokam settlement on the Lower Gila: Archaeological Investi-gations along the PVNGS Pipeline. Manuscript in preparation. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Burton, Susan S. 1975 An archaeological reconnaissance survey of the Harquahala Valley Flood Control Project. Office of Cultural Resource Management, Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. Kemrer, Sandra; Sandra Schultz and William Dodge 1972 An Archaeological Survey of the Granite Reef Aqueduct. Arizona Arizona State Museum Archaeological Series 12, Tucson. Midvale, Frank 1976 Papers. Department of Anthropology, Arizona State University, Tempe. . Stain, Pat H., editor 1977 Archaeological Studies of the Liberty to Gila Bend 230 KV Transmission System. Museum of Northern Arizona Research Paper 5, Flagstaff. Trott, J. James 1974 Archaeological Clearance Investigations, Arizona Nuclear Power Project. Museum of Northern Arizona, Flagstaff. Tbrney, Omar A. 1929 Prehistoric Irrigation. Arizona Historical Review, Phoenix. 2354 2l00
^
- m
- fg x , -
{'
']- ,,
\<j!() . . '- '{. ;
'\ %, ~~~,-H ~~
, ~7 ,,
; - .: r" t' . I- e i i -: F
- -+ g, I w,
., ,f - . . . . _ _.I,l . , .<,[r - ~
! .,j jj i - ~/ '
jn l @<
.,L+,.*-*. t -.-
; ,, i , -
4 Q e j - E.*< r_4 s_... .,
,, 1 .
,, ; . ., 4 g w. - -_ L "l
o r g_.
' p-
, I /q L, . l .. . ..,- q j
'i f % b$ t .- f U< D j
q . -h-+ j; 48ar 3 4 N. p r;, t - M,,.) d E _..w. -s . . g h vmmmme.. ~=***" ,
*Y. --
r
, , . , r.-.. .
.~ 7-. .4+
) '
!l ,\J .,'y y .i, l-s
' 9..
&: p.hL. 'p. . r -
g u
~
. -t4- t d H 3 . ig '
-+
._ . 1;. . , p~ .; c.
g4 , w-- bnp}. - I
+,,_4 m;l pfp.4! J- p -& ; e Q. .. j i a,.
u .
. , , . . . , . . - ,-- . - + y a G. g , . -- w . --~ -.-
- e. f
(, ,
'm % y g w. c. ,t. , 5m
'-, Q7 7, .4 3-
,, , . 3 7,
+g_ ili
#g . Q--+4-c.
.. m. n. ,4;,{-44 c. n.,-H. 1., t t; . s x
. tu,. _. ..t m .s: ,y
.." ....u.4..
. e - i;,
; a .r .af -
gg , ,:I
-'Ie m e. -. ..,... , 2 ,;. L.
s i t
#2 _
p~ .
]1. ;et I u?. t
' ) 2; m.(411JT, r.:a . ,: p;:z4< - 3tmd *
\ .~ !
o .,
. m-. n n u_a.r."aa p. n .. rr.. t.,% ,.
c ,~gu q. - ~ _ _ - m.- 3
.w
;t.
p r _a u Qu .x . t w p. x :. , , . . g;.. ~I%,g) a 9,mpt. _M.4. a..,. t-. . ,_ m . j r. -, J, - . ig a. .
., o .g m ,,t m..... i i
.t
-.; m. j 7, . . J,lr , . . .j '. d+ _ I g .-i+ r %
y ,_
- w<<z
.... =- l s-. -
.c y, .
,u g
; ~]. ,i .
!,...... tu m. ; 4.m . .- -
; > 7 - s.s. . _. . .
I
\. d. w . '
~
3 s ,. r , gg,
\s g,, p gy ..._.ce -g, ;.j 3 ,
,, 4 ~
i. N,, i _4 : :, , a p%. u. i e e ,< g ;j
.-..l1. ._. _..a] { .1; .I . g4s i i I ,
z u> E 2 a; tog8 i ~~- ~' c .c r l . ". 4me i. 32- 4~ pgggg _m
,7 .
4 g m m s 1 i
, /
./
. _-m..^1. v 4 ~: %-.
u e rs+ l: m J
' ! t %
- ~
- ;.i l g iM; \ g 1- -
4 br !~. 2354 201
/ '
g
-/ t ,
._- .s ; . . . .. . s .
.I Supplement No. 2 May 1979 A Palo Verde Units 4Nuclear &5 Gene WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANTS Figure 10B-1
2:30 LEGEND Olst + 23rif MAG
. . * * * * * * . 91 st + 23r :1 CITY OF PHOENIX
/,,8./
=== === = 9151 ON L Y Cli Y O F PHOE N I X ..**,
. - = - PVNGS ANNUAll2E D PF AK MONIH WATEH HEOUlHf MEN TS 200 = == == == 91st ON LY MAG A L T F RN A T IV E NO 2 /**/*,
/
/
/
/
/
.**,.**. /
/
/
k _,.****** ,/ /
'S g f g
- /*,...- -
E
.*- 4;. _ . _ . . .. .-.-.
s< ...... ,- O z
*.**.... /
/.
l # }'% .***..* f
/ - . _*
O r f g
'a P f /
f E
. 'p*p
/
/
/
#-),e#
/ .
/ /
e,
/ / I 50 ,r - 'J I
.I g.
.l O
i980 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR NOTE: GUANTITIES AVAILABLE IN EXCESS OF PRIOR COMMITMENTS 2 4 2no UL TO OTHERS IN THE AMOUNT OF 37.300 ACRE FEET / YEAR. Supplement No. 2 May 1979 Palo Vente Nuclear Generating Station Units 4 & 5 PVNGS PEAK WATER REQUIREMENTS AND AVAILABLE EFFLUENT UNDER CONTRACT Figure 10B-2
10 0 -LEGEND TOLLE SON PLANT
=-= = HE EMS HD. PL ANT 8
7
/
s' 6 ' C $ / e u s 7
/
4 / 8 - h / 3
/
/
2 p # p 1 0 1918 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 YEAR 2354 203 Supplement No. 2 May 1979 Palo Vente Nuclear Generating Station Units 4 & 5 MAG ESTIMATED EFFLUENT AVAILABLE BY YEAR FOR TOLLESON AND REEMS ROAD SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANTS Figure 10B-3
R1E R2E iM$hMD:$ . <,, J'~ : L r-3ll 1,/
.,',' j; PHOENIX '
g ,
- . - - p; 3 e . s. -
2
~
ll 1 (( iy,
..@4 ll . g p % 'a f g gw ,. ); ;
1 _x .,evh e_ .x ' p- _ ;,.:..n.;. 6n. " a n.u n.. "<..a.nua..unnenma. nan yan="8'g. :: " d. AVE. SEWAGE PLANT: e*
.._.e m
%_g ..
. -, w. w 2
b ' SM d i
~
n #=:6- i.a' #. Pf i ,'$h,h'[ 8;G f- Z I I8
' ~
#
- C
@S 7 ' g a y r B hlNE 91st AVE.SEWACE PLANT g LEGEND gyN 'I.***.'. TAM ARISK e
h$ mO m P-.
; -- [c SALTBUSH THREEAWN MN O AGRICULTURAL LANDS N O4 9 R ESIDE NTI AL, INDUSTRI AL g Omg ,
AND COMMERCl AL @ $ c2 U m K3 2.5 G ;i;" W ........................ LINK @
- MILES g8 m4 """"~~~ "
1 0 1 2 o oo h Q .@ ALTERNATIVE ROUTES, m 'O N .="m .e as mme LINKIh 23rd AVENUE EFFLUENT PIPELINE NORTH iSCALE ^ N% k gg a s+ LINK h e MO g. oo gg ...........uNxs 50 1-8 SAMPLING STATIONS g = z Z m $'
= $.
eM
., a.~ .- _- , x _,
's Jfc -. e.
Q w > ~~ ~ ~ L q - e-- w - w W..fy
%. ,~.
_ _a; h'$ _, " . , '
,' h.b b; ~. r - '
cm
!^ ,,
l ; c. . . . , 7} 2,. 5
.} -<;g -'-
g .. ,
-s, -
. i 1 ,s N- . ' ~
Nr - .
- ik I 23rd AVE.: . .%g8 i
,N - * ' "
is me : i
>4 m..qm. e
.. .. .ye . 2. .. i. .
i ," " [e.. . . . . ia PLANT 9" : T}~T-
) ' ]
Ta,,,n,a i P'a=p b I
~
,,,m. n.- 8 i ,
, /r ,,
-y-g m :,: n ,. e a . ,, . n,. ,.i &
x *=, } i, t ._. g p
; r .. 'j
) i '-
, fMJ <M Y
. 1. . . a.
q.
" .Essom y sus'nEs }mes se,' aus em mE. %
1 l . je,g'I
}
yfy ,,
! . . . , , ,.i a.1
.{ i:
q s i ..
- 1 4
, e..;-- " yr
, t .,
l ~g "
, l 3
4.__ . .' > M. ,, , J- . , - } , ~ , , u s i, . i
.. r
; '! ' ffT i - ~ ~ . . -1.
~'- ~
m -%.;J TO# HASSAYAMPA b ' 4
- *.---i: ' 4,r.* .-1. A r"-
, e; .2 -
- di - ,s
(% #g'V 5 -1 P_ UMPING STATION Igl E-* t
'g 1 .'. w e % -
i
/
.g_..
o . y m.
- .w% ' , -
y .m x. 3 a. ,
.. . n , n , ,
_x e - I 4 - ., ~ < / g. f.d . i g s
..~
2 3 * '
) I I- t
&,, i r
- .g' V}e?* "* *' " ~p-
'33 4 f.24- g '], y 5 g-{~
...- M[ ~
- <4-t: ,; a .
.s
-y . n< u.. .
.1
.. -I'p
. 4 '
- . l.
~'#-
~1 'l :# $' / -
\
, ',, I
- y I
I a, N n 4 g 1.
. " , ..~4Q ,c ' > e . , 4% N
..,, % ,.,/N ' %15id .-" F C ,' -
K f- [ s fl- T U~f,.w.'; (* iL. ,. ~.. ' 2 , ,.. - - -Of ~~
- 4... .p-- 't } , . . ,3 ,, 5 5, \
, . ~
, ,, .% .Q ,, . .( /- - '-r, 7 c 1 - - r,. . ; :'
, A} . -
.d -
s O p o to ".O c c D < N M e LEGEND MtLES P. >< d -1 1 % 2 3 4 4 U M $ PIPELINE EWE BEE HER EME MER sc = 2 RZ8 El
%~
- u cn d NORTH H M> A " c o Hd y 4 tD M pte O y i M:C o Un d>
H8 @., g N ZM ". m C-') MN 5' 3p LJ1 00 m et C/2 N Z E.
. wo 3* W*
ll3 J W h)
s 0" *
?
t,
, , l ,
. $. P, e
-t b ' -O, - 6. .
9- 13 s is
* 'I - -- !
i..... 6 , ( 15 ,
\ ..e i(, :< -
..., s ,. ,,,, .. ; ,
g u" ," a. *=$ =
~ ..
(* 'h
- 24 b' ,
E$ gn e n 22
. . g 3}_'$ $ '
/ '
(Lgrff _ , . _ _
' ** *l,,- 2t Z '
' w ' ' 24 ,
fW's. & ,,, m 22 ,- [ ~/ s M=^
=n.nF ,,
/
une, c ., s- p a a>. pp_ .. 4-4
/ **
*{
V I' YW $a 6
,b .'%
lilfj'
/ /,u ,\ / _
' " "wd. '
/ nn* / .-l
, 0, %)^N 1 -%^ m .
/M,'~= l /
f 25 30 = < '
- A ,a 27
\l h
- \
E' <q
", q =~
n ?o. a."
~l.;:+:{
A;
=;
I i \
^
a, l l
- l. -
3
' f.' ' $
- jf 4. h <
%, 2 l t 31 / 32 33, k g
) ej u 6.... +--- 34 M, n s, % :
. -p
__.o j i l
/.*> \
i t cw '
, "s*
! n.
_{ n,. D / fp ey I \ ,
+
[
- s , .l . F. /
\. g
'. 6 r '
5 i.. 4 S' e 3 , s~ s. o
\- \ ?f
,, 'S .o** *
- l. *e% b,k
- I l(
N'-
\. - - . _ . *0//.,._ ... .. *>* .' 0" D- '
"Ninters Wells. j .
y 12
. ....s
*' eq\: l i 1-i e .
9 10
. 7 : '9'. k , 1
- c. n . , i % ji j
. ,44
', N*
\ sNuxsl :t. $ !.
"a'"a 2354 206 f///d ACTIVE AGRICULTURE MILES ABANDONED AGRICULTURE 1 2 3 O. %. i Rkaj CREOSOTE BUSH SCALE NORTH
',',' MIXED CREOSOTE BUSH / SALTBUSH w14"
,m DESERT RIPARIAN Supplement No. 2 May 1979 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 4 & 5 NORTH TONOPAH WELL FIELD Figure 10B-6
I
- j. f s.
,, .... .f ,.
13 18 * ^' s '16 g* 15
,i 1 **< ase
...w,,, v. 1
..x
. o.c, ..
. ... i,
.21 24 19 i 20 i ,, 22
**'J ; . ,,,.%_b -, Ql, ,
j 1, 2a 22
,,, 2 : ! , 521 , , ,
w 3/ _ . . . 't,1er .,,uost . . i
- s. ins _.* _
Jn
.a. iur wei >
, .I; ,
)
- : I 28 27 1 25 , 3o
- i d
29
.,' );
'tr )
1i '
.o
* 'e,9.
y^ -yy w, , y'
/ .
ac e- ; l
.b 3. \
7.n.. f:_p 1
- m. ..
mv _ - n ., . . ~
. r.
..s 6 , ,3 i
;;;4;; , 3
%..gs,,s .'
a ..
,,, w __
., . ~.... . ..
'N #
Ninters Wells. ji y 12
- w. .7. s q'l q>
. Nj e - .
9 10: j.-' 9- l Ll ' c,,,,'.i . . % , g., p: 2 3 ria N , , , ,
..,n . %ml uce~o 2354 207 f//// ACTIVE AGRICULTURE k#~; } CREOSOTE BUSH O. %.
1 2, 3
* ,", MIXED CREOSOTE BUSH / SALTBUSH NORTH SCALE f{.'iv .,'] DESERT RIPARI AN Supplement No. 2 SALTBUSH May 1979 Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 4 & 5 SOUTH TONOPAH WELL FIELD Figure 10B-7
~
, -s ! p0 l N ' , k l 5 +y. d .3 2 1 ;/6
$. j' l
* * _e
. _ _ _ _ _ ,1__.. ._._4_.._4_. ,
, , ,2** , , , f 4 #*
i
/, WWed .# . . . . . .
, ,,y) e f
p os ] . 4 . . ,. . =
*y j i -.. . . . . .
B ,
- 9 l 10
~ '* 2 11 . .. . .
. ' ).
o .. .#f" "T," '
,gW); ^, ,!, ci ..?", '
f . .. 3 9 _s . i. . . .. p . g. . .I
-.n. l, .. . _ . _ . **
C ~' ** la .' ' _ ,O '._ ,
'* >+
2
\ .Xe . ' yf L. . ",. n .- . . .+
f,"E - 6. C a f ,- .. ',=
- *h*
g,,3
~'"~Q %n T.. - . bt
. .~ -
A
. . , :~A . ~
>~ a 17 4 16 .. :6L *- ns v ('T I / .^=] , */g /
71894 } [
- 3 [' '
. ,' i ~
. y l '. g.. l . ,
== es
, , , . . . . _ . _ _ . , , _ _ _m _., ' .
,_. _ .__ _._s+ . _
=
A<G n 3 od . *
~
W z
\ ./
po ,
,..'1 2 22 ,
n' ,,' to I
,.a 4 . *', ,j-]
/ '
u - -tv
,.7"--
/-
/ i n ~
m _ _ _ _~
~
l Jj 9{
,s, *
- s\ >
a * > 29 1 26 25 f7g: 4 27
,h-..,.--
/ . . . .- ..'3o
\
L .
; w.i g ....,,
. p <
_ p.' .<< .. . , . .
' . . _ .m .1.... * **
; ' s _e. _4 _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ .
. A. p%,, , .
!* . L -
tt = l Cres
.r.-
%+<gj
. < s T
( 32 . [ 33
*% 34 3?
36 ( r. 31 a
.'. _ - _ ej % N'z-t.,
2., , Wash _ / . . i f. f ~m @ LEGEND 2354 208 f////] ACTIVE AGRICULTURE MILES O % 1 2 3 ABANDONED AGRICULTURE ' ' ' ' SCALE NORTH
'. A CREOSOTE BUSH / DESERT PAVEMENT ' ' " MIXED CREOSOTE BUSH /SALTOUSH Supplement No. 2 23, .s ,N, DESERT RIPARI AN May 1979 CREOSOTE BUSH / CACTI Palo Verde Nuc! car Generating Station FSAR SOUTH WELL FIELD Figure 10B-8
y < b' 4 l' 2 5 +y, 3 ,, 1 jl6 s ; E , 7.- s* ' - s -- .~f* - - - - , . ' ' ' , :1- -h Y , . N' l '"O . s % I f
.; y
' 3 "
8 ;9 , 10 j .. 11 - 12
.4 .
a i
'"e,o, .
s
. . . jm .
i
...e.
\ .'
.7 . , ,
__7;7
-7. .-- %
s
~
fe ' (@ 17 ,,, 13 18k
' 16 15 ,1 .
g, 'T 14 u+o y- . I
,,-y s' r' -
i .' .* ' (
,I .,
.. .v -
.o.___. . _ .
- .' ~ t' m; Y wn
_, . g ,4
///&, .v Ar -on ,
' ;- g ,.-
r 2 ~, 'T. . y .
~, %. -
20 *% .#2 * ,7Q ^ P g , 19 M,', e. 4
~~#
U 7,,- e- i/
, / ' A .^ O.4 - 1*, . ,
^"
.g
~
* ~ _c. ., _ . _ _ _ ' _ _ _ .
e i,
~
~
,g23,; A~^. -
,y .
29 -
;.; ,, ao a .4 r
~. . . '
j.8 j .[*b, .
.__._g'S . . #" J . . ...
, _s________.
,,a- g%,
y ; h/ N ',
. , ~ m. g -
- a 32 j ( 33 *% 34 35 36 .
31 %a s, e4 f , t.E G E N D f///] ACTIVE AGRICULTURE O, %, 3 1, 2, ABANDONED AGRICULTURE SCALE NORTH
# f f' CREOSOTE BUSH / DESERT PAVEMENT ,',', MIXED CREOSOTE BUSH / SALTBUSH Supplement No. 2
[Ny*}} DESERT RIPARIAN Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station Units 4 & 5 CENTENNIAL WELL FIELD Figure 10B-9 l}}