ML20040C299
| ML20040C299 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 01/12/1982 |
| From: | Muir J AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040C285 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201270501 | |
| Download: ML20040C299 (6) | |
Text
._ _
,4 i
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
, ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE )
COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. STN 50-528
) STN 50-529 (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating ) STN 50-530 i Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) )
)
AFFIDAVIT OF JACK MUIR ON CONTENTION NO. 5 STATE OF ARIZONA )
) ss.
County of Maricopa )
I, Jack Muir, being duly sworn, upon my oath state as follows:
- 1. I am employed by the City of Tolleson as its.
Director of Wastewater Utility.
- 2. In such capacity I hold overall responsibility for I
- the planning, engineering, construction, and operation of waste-water treatment facilities for the City of Tolleson.
- 3. This affidavit is made with reference to that cer-tain " Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Wastewater Effluent" among the City of Tolleson, Arizona Public Service Company, and Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, dated June 12, 1981, as amended.
- 4. Tolleson owns, operates and maintains a wastewater treatment plant (" Plant") situated 1/4 mile south of Arizona State 8201270501 820115 l PDR ADOCK 05000528 0
l PDR 1
2 Route 85 and 1/4 mile west of 91st Avenue at which Tolleson treats raw sewage collected from sources within and outside of the corporate boundaries of Tolleson and produces treated wastewater effluent suitable for discharge into the Salt River.
- 5. The present capacity of the Tolleson Plant, including the expansion completed in December, 1981, is 8.3 million gallons per day, or approximately 9,300 acre-feet per year.
- 6. The projected output of the Tolleson Plant in 1986 is approximately 8,400 acre-feet, or 700 acre-feet per month (average).
b -
L 'ACK MUIR U-Subscribed and sworn to before me this [N -/_. A. day of (C / t o ^^ ' / - , 1982.
s o
/ -l !
, , m ... .( ~
r 4P2 e,aL.
l Notary Public p My commission expires:
,, , ...p c:
- 12 USS l
l Attachment 11
}
Intervenor's Answer to Applicant's
) First Set of Interrogatorieu
- June 26, 1981
/
_-. . -- -. . = = _
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA o
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD t In the Matter of )
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE )
DOCKET NOS. STN 50-528 COMPANY, et al., ) 50
) 0-5 0 (Palo Verde Nuclear Gener- )
ating Station, Units 1, 2 )
and 3 )
)
)
INTERVENORS ANSWERS TO APPLICANT'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORTES GENERAL Answer to Interrogatory No. 1.
The parties have agreed that the Intervenor may have an additional period of time within which to respond to the Request for Admissions. The date for said Response will be set by agreement of the parties.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 2.
See Answer to Interrogatory No. 1. above.
CONTENTION NO. 1. '
Answer to Interrogatory No. 3 .,
The term " transfer factors" as used in Paragraph 1.a of the Explanation to Contention No. 1 means that fraction J
/e r n 2.-<3&
yyr(., , p-Q&(])M .
x
~
isotopes are expected to be released from PVNGS during normal operations.
CONTENTION NO. 5 Answer to Interrogatory No. 26.
Subsequent to the filing of Contention No. 5, Inter-venor has discovered new information regarding EPA's require-ments for the 91st Avenue plant. Les Watson, Acting Assistant Superintendent for the 91st Avenue plant has told Intervenor that as of April, 1981, the EPA requirements have been met at the 91st Avenue plant. As a result of the discovery of this new information, the Intervenor would like to withdraw Paragraph 3 of Contention No. 5.
Answer t'o Interrogatory No. 27. .
See Answer to Interrogatory No. 26 above.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 28.
Intervenor cannot answer this question until discovery is completed.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 29.
.. No. (At the time of the filing of the Contention).
Additional studies, calculations or analyses, however, obtained through discovery may support the contention.
CONTENTION NO. 6B Answer to Interrogatory No. 30.
Yes.
Answer to Interrogatory l'o. 31.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has proposed
Answer to Interrogatory No. 69.
See. list of documents attached.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 70.
Intervenor has not determined at this time which exhibits will be used.
Answer to Interrogatory No. 71.
See Answer to terrogat N . 70 above.
DATED this V; day of ,upef,f 981.
I : o i i . iljJ n Bruby' Meydrbcn Arizona Center for Law in the Public Interest
- 112 North Fifth Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85003 (602) 252-4904 Attorney for Intervenor e
t 8
e 4
Attachment 12 Stipulation of Parties Regarding Contentions and Discovery, Explanation to Contention No. 5, dated December 12, 1980 l
l l
l 1
y m .. ,
f UNITED STATES g ...(
~
q, NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- . WASH e NG TON, D. C. 20555 E ., . E t
s,,s'[,/
- December 12, 1980 i
Rcbert M. Lazo, Esq., Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Dixon Callahan Union Carbide Corporation P.O. Box Y , .
Oak Ridge, TN 37630 ..
In the Matter of Arizona Public Service Company, et al.
(Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
Docket Nos. STN 50-528, STN 50-529, STN 50-530 ,
Gentlemen:
At the December 2,1980, prehearing conference in the above proceeding the parties--Intervenor, the Joint Applicants, and the NRC Staff--indicated that they would confer on December 9 and 10,1980, for the purpose of arriving at a stipulation regarding the language of the Intervenor's ,
contentions.
The parties did confer and have executed the attached stipulation. This stipulation indicates agreement of the parties on the language of all of Intervenor's remaining contentions. As explained in the stipulation, the parties
~
have agreed that the contentions set forth in Appendix A to the stipulation are valid contentions. The parties were not able to agree on the validity of those contentions set forth in Appendix B to the stipulation. Pursuant to the agreement reached at the December 2,1980, prehearing conference, the Joint Applicants and the Staff will file their statements of position 'on each of the contentions set forth in Appendix B on or'before December 19, 1980.
Finally, the stipulation suggests a schedule for first round discovery on admitted contentions.
Sincerely.
- A i
' ,! /, "o Qp J.jMcGurren pvm
' Hen Coun el for NRC Staff -
Enciesure As Stated cc: See Page Two
! o 7 Q ,h A ') % a t-LD / f e v/
i 5
I .
i cc w/ encl:
Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.
} Charles Bischoff, Esq.
Ms. Lee Hourihan Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Docketing and Service Section t
1 l
r l
l l
t
.1 l
l 1
i l
l r
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of )
) s ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COM- ) Docket Nos. STN 50-528 PANY, et al., Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station,
) STN 50-529
) STN 50-530 Units 1, 2 and 3. ) > '
_)
STIPULATION OF PARTIES REGARDING CONTENTIONS AND DISCOVERY On August 11, 1980, Patricia Lee Hourihan sub-mitted a timely petition for leave to intervene and a re-quest for hearing in the above-captioned matter for herself as well as on behalf of two other persons, Kevin Dahl and Christopher Shuey. On November 21, 1980, Ms. Hourihan filed a Supplement to Petition for Leave to Intervene and Conten-tions (Supplement) setting forth 28 contentions.
On December 2, 1980, a prehearing conference was held before this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) to consider the petition for leave to intervene -and to per-mit identification of the issues in this proceeding. At the prehearing conference, the Board orally granted the petition to intervene as to Ms. Hourihan, thereby making her a full party to this proceeding. (Ms. Hourihan hereinafter will be referred to as "Intervenor").
CONTENTIONS During the course of the discussion of Inter-venor's contentions at the prehearing conference, Intervenor pp) 99 O) A3 /l N j y vv iy'>
f withdrew Contentions Nos. 19, 24, 25 and 27. With respect to the remaining contentions, it was agreed by the parties--
Intervenor, the Staff of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Staff) and Joint Applicants--that they would confer on De-cember 9-10, 1980, for the purpose of arriving at a stipu-lation. The parties did meet on the stated dates and agreed as hereinafter set forth.
The parties stipulate that the contentions set forth in Appendix A attached hereto are valid contentions.
By such stipulation, however, neither the Staff nor the Joint Applicants admit any of the factual assertions con-tained in such contentions or their bases. The parties also stipulate as to the wording of the contentions set forth in Appendix B attached hereto, although, as to such conten-tions, the Staff or Joint Applicants, or both, object or re-serve their respective rights te object to their acceptabil-ity. Pursuant to the agreement reached at the December 2, 1980, prehearing conference, Staff and Joint Applicants will file, on or before December 19, 1980, their respective re-sponses to the contentions set forth in Appendix B. Conten-tions Nos. 3, 9, 10, 15, 16, 20, 21, and 22 from Inter-venor's November 21, 1980, Supplement are hereby withdrawn.
As to Contention No. 13, the Joint Applicants and Staff further stipulate that they will not contest on grounds of untimeliness any contention (s) filed by Inter-venor respecting the revised emergency plan to be filed by l
l
Joint Applicants if such contention (s) is (are) filed within thirty (30) days after the filing and service of such re- -
vised emergency plan, DISCOVERY The parties also stipulate to the following dis-covery schedule.
Event Time (days)
- 1. Service of Board's postconference 0 order ruling on Intervenor's con-tentions.
- 2. Service by parties of written 30 interrogatories
- 3. Filing of objections to written 45 interrogatories.
- 4. Service of responses to written 60 interrogatories.
- 5. Filing of motions to compel 75 respecting responses to written interrogatories.
- 6. Filing of responses to motion 90 to compel.
l RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED. this 12th day of December, 1980.
l SNELL & WILMER By -
[
Arthur C. Gehf Charles A. Bischoffg 3100 Valley Center i
Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Attorneys for Joint Applicants i
(Ud 80 064lk%L-Patricia Lee Hourihan 6413 S. 26th Street Phoenix, Arizona 85040
- m. / . ;,i' \
i r .: ,\I')l//- b-
. l l
Hepry'U. McGurren Counsel for NRC Staff f
)
1 "I
i b
- - _ _ . . - . , _ . . . . . . _ . _ ._. . . _ . ._ _. _. _ - ~ _ _
APPENDIX A Contentions Stipulated To BE Acceptable CONTENTION NO. 1 (Combines Contentions Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 11 of Intervenor's Supplement) .
Applicants will fail to maintain annual releases of radioactive materials from the normal operation of PVNGS "within the levels set forth as numeral guides for design objectives in Section II" as required by Section IV of 10 C.F.R. 50, Appendix I. (Safety).
EXPLANATION:
- 1. The Applicants have, in their radiological dose evaluation for routine reactor operation, used the models and data discussed in Regulatory Guide 1.109.
- a. Transfer factors listed in Regulatory Guide 1.109 and used to predict nuclide transfer to humans through various plant and animal pathways generally are lower than or at the low end of the values expressed in the scientific literature.
- b. The use of such factors and other data provided in the Guide may underestimate dose equivalents to the populations by factors ranging from 10 to 10,000 per unit.
Designation in parentheses following each contention specifies whether the contention is to be regarded as a
" safety" contention or an " environmental" co~ntention.
1
. _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ - _ _ - _ - - _ - - - _ _ - _ - - - - -- N
4
- 2. The exclusive use of (1) the ground level re-lease model for routine emissions limits maximum concentra-tions of gaseous effluents to points nearer to the site boundary, and (2) the exclusion of an accompanying elevated release model prevents realistic quantification of effluent concentrations at points farther from the site boundary.
- 3. The projected annual release of 2,300 curies per PVNGS unit of gaseous effluents is unrealistically low given (1) the lack of operational experience with CE reac-tors larger than 850 MWe, (2) the less-efficient operational history of pressurized water reactors larger than 1,000 MWe, and (3) the operational history of 16 PWRs which in 1977 re-leased curie-quantities of noble gases in excess (by ranges ;
r from percentages to orders of magnitude) of those projected for each unit of PVNGS, and that five of those 16 plants are '
rated at or above 845 MWe.
- 4. The Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation of the National Academy of Sciences re-portedly now favors the so-called " super-linear" hypothesis of dose-response theory for the actinide isotopes, and an ever-growing number of scientists are supporting it for all nuclides.
CONTENTION NO. 5 (Revision of Contention No. 5 of Inter-venor's Supplement).
Applicants will not have an assured supply of us able treated municipal effluent for cooling purposes for A-2
Unit 3 of PVNGS during taonths of peak reactor need for the first five years of operation. (Environmental).
EXPLANATION:
- 1. In separate documents in 1979, both the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Army Corps of l Engineers questioned the availability of treated effluent to PVNGS from the 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant, listing a number of mitigating factors which could, in concert, act to reduce the amount of effluent available for peak cooling needs at PVNGS. ,
In its response to the NRC concerning the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for proposed PVNGS Units 4 and 5, the EPA said, "
. . . a potentially major problem exists within cooling reactors 4 and 5 (and perhaps #3). . .
See also EPA's final EIS for the Maricopa Associa- l tion of Governments Point Source Metro Phoenix 208 Waste-water Management Plan (July 1979), which includes, as Appen-dix C, a report by the Phoenix Urban Study Office of the
. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on wastewater flows from the l l
91st Avenue and 23rd Avenue treatment plants versus existing commitments for treated effluent from these plants.
Figure C-3 of this latter document shows that under the high estimate of peak monthly reactor needs, ef-fluent availability from 91st Avenue alone would meet only about 50 percent of the needs of Unit 3, in 1986, thereby restricting use of the reactor to one-half of its designated electrical capacity.
A-3
The report also points out that other factors would reduce by some unknown amount the available effluent to PVNGS. These include seepage losses in the effluent transmission pipeline from west of the 91st Avenue plant to the nuclear complex, unacceptable water quality and peak seasonal need conflicts with area agriculture.
Buckeye Irrigation District's (BID) prior commit-ment of 30,000 acre-feet historically has been met on an an-nual average basis, with use higher in summer months when peak demands for PVNGS will be greatest. Should BID be forced to reduce summer irrigation, the economic impact to the agricultural areas it serves will be extensive.
Applicants have contended that the proposed expan-sion of the 91st Avenue plant will more than offset any re-duction in effluent availability to PVNGS caused by certain unquantified, mitigating factors. The proposed expansion has been in limbo because of funding for several years and questions still exist as to when the plant will be enlarged,
, however. Even if funding is found, though, the Corps has estimated that only 10 million gallons per day (mgd) of the expected expansion of 30 mgd will be available in 1986 when Unit 3 is schedule to go on-line.
Applicant also is counting on flows from the 23rd Avenue treatment plant. However, Mcdonald Farms uses a por-tion of the current 36.5 mgd from the 23rd Avenue plant and is believed to have prior rights to a large portion of the A-4
O remaining water. Both the EPA and the Corps insist that the exact quantity of this commitment is unknown and probably -
will be resolved only in a lengthy court battle.
- 2. Applicants have relied on population projec-tions from Phoenix-area cities which are. known to be in-flated over what is considered realistic. Consultants have insisted that population projections in the MAG 208 study are more realistic, taking into account voluntary conversa-tion methods by the public and an ever-decreasing rise in population growth.
- 3. It has been reported that the EPA recently suspended the requirement that the 91st Avenue plant achieve 30 mg/l Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) on a monthly aver-age. Should the requirement not be mandated by the time i PVNGS opens, effluent quality at the nuclear plant will be '
much lower than expected.
CONTENTION NO. 7 (Combint:s Contentions Nos. 7 and 12 of In-tervenor's Supplement).
The Applicants have failed to demonstrate their financial qualifications as required by 10 C.F.R. 550.33(f) and 10 C.F.R. Part 50, Appendix C, because they have inade-quately figured decommissioning costs. (Safety).
EXPLANATION :
The basis for this contention is as set forth for Contention No. 12 in the Supplement.
A-5
CONTENTION NO. 8 (Revision of Contention No. 8 of Inter-venor's Supplement).
f The base mats for Units 1 and 2 are not structur-ally able to support the systems and equipment inside con-tainment, because some of the concrete slump tests performed by Engineering Testing Labs for Units 1 and 2 were falsi-fied. (Safety).
f.
k 1
e i A-6
C i UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY.AND LICENSING BOARD (
In the Matter of )
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE )
COMPANY, et. al. ) Docket Nor. STN 50-528
) STN 50-529 (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating ) STN 50-530 Station, Units 1, 2 and 3) )
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE {
iI I hereby certify that copies of " Joint Applicants' Motion for Summary Disposition of Intervenor's Contention No. 5" have been served upon the following listed persons by deposit ->
in
- the United States mail, properly addressed and with' postage pre-paid, this 15th day, of January, 1982.
Docketing and Service Section h U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission d' Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors l' 111 South Third Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555
- n Ms. Patricia Lee Hourihan 4-/
6413 S. 26th Street ,
i- Phoenix, Arizona 85040 -,
1
/ o 7
Robert.M. Lazo, Esq. -
Chairman, Atomic ' Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Dixon Callahan Union Carbide Corporation P.O. Box Y Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Stephen M. Sohinki, Esq.
Office of'the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissio'n' t Washington, D.C. 20555 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.
Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nulcear Regulatory Commission
. Washington, D.C. 20555
- Rand L. Greenfield', Esq.
Assistant Attorney General P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, New Mexico 87504 f
Charles A. p schof o
g
\
1 e
. .. . J