ML20040F992
| ML20040F992 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1982 |
| From: | Gonzales R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040F986 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202110051 | |
| Download: ML20040F992 (12) | |
Text
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 4
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
.s In the Matter of ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE Docket Nos. STN 50-528 COMPANY, ET AL.
STN 50-529
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -
)
STN 50-530 (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF RAYt10ND 0. GONZALES ON CONTENTION 5 I, Raymond O. Gonzales, being duly sworn, state as follows:
1.
I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission as a Hydraulic Engineer in the Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A copy of my statement of professional qualifications is attached hereto.
2.
Contention 5 states:
Applicants will not have an assured supply of useable treated municipal effluent for cooling purposes for Unit 3 of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) during months of peak reactor need for the first five years of operation.
3.
In explaining this contention, the Intervenor refers to a 1979 report by the Corps of Engineers (C0E) which is included as Appendix C to the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Final Environmental Impact Statement for.the Maricopa Association of Governments Point Source Metro Phoenix 208WastewaterManagementPlan(july 1979).
In its report, the COE concluded that if the PVNGS used a maximum amount of cooling water, there would be an insufficient amount of water for Unit 3 in 1986.
In i
m202110051 820209 PDR ADOCK 05000528 O
_2_
reaching this conclusion, the COE assumed that the amount of effluent which the PVNGS will use for cooling water during the peak water-use summer month when atmospheric conditions result in the highest evaporation rates, will also be the monthly amount the station will use during the rest of the year when atmospheric conditions aren't as severe.
4.
The PVNGS will probably use the most amount of cooling water during the. summer months when evaporation rates are highest. Historically June is the month when atmospheric conditions result in the highest evaporation rates (ER-OL Section 3.4-1).
The monthly demand for effluent for the PVNGS will be dependent on the average capacity factor at which the three units operate in any month and the atmosphere conditions; however, assuming that the PVNGS is operated at a constant capacity factor during the entire year, it is expected that June will be the month of peak reactor needs. A constant capacity of 95 percent was assumed for the purpose of determining the adequacy of effluent availability.
5.
The primary source of cooling water for the PVNGS is waste water effluent from the City of Phoenix 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant I and from the city of Tolleson Sewage Treatment Plant. ! Effluent I
will be transported by pipeline to an onsite water reclamation plant.
It will then be treated and stored in a 750 million gallon storage reservoir.
-1/
The contract for sale of effluent for use at the PVNGS provides that up to 140,000 acre-feet / year (AF/yr) of optioned effluent may be used at the PVNGS.
If the amount of,' effluent available at the 91st Avenue plant is insufficient to meet'the requirements of the contract, effluent from the City of Phoenix 23rd Avenue Sewage Treatment plant is to be made available for use at PVNGS. Thus the 91st Avenue plant is the primary source of water and and the 23rd Avenue plant is a secondary source. At the present time however, FOOTNOTE CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGE
. 6.
Projections of sewage effluent production from the 91st Avenue plant were made in 1979 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (C0E) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Maricopa Association of Governments (" Final Environmen al Impact Statement (FE- ' on the
~
Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG) Point Source Metro Phoenix 208 Wastewater Management Plan," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1979 " MAG 208 FEIS"). These projections are shown in Table 1.
Table 1 1979 MAG Projected Effluent Flows at the 91st Avenue Plant in Million Gallons Per Day (mgd) 3/
1980 1983 1986 1990 1995 2000 91st Avenue 84.5 98.0 105.0 113.7 124.3 137 FOOTNOTE CONTINUED FROM PREVIOUS PAGE
-1/
there is no means by which effluent from the 23rd Avenue plant can be transported to the PVNGS. The effluent contract is subject to the availability of such amounts after satisfaction of prior commitments.
-2/
On June 12, 1981, Arizona Power Company, the Salt River Project and Tolleson entered into an agreement for the delivery and purchase of up to 8.3 million gallons per day of treated effluent to the Palo Verde pipeline for use by the PVNGS. An intake structure is currently under construction for use in inputting the Tolleson effluent into the pipeline.
-~3/
1986 flows were obtained by linear interpolation between the 1985 and 1990 values.
2-
_4 7.
In addition, the City of Phoenix / also made its own inde-4 pendent projections of 91st Avenue effluent flows. These projections, shown in Table 2, are slightly higher than the MAG projections (ER-OL Section5.6.1.1.2).
Table 2 1979 Phoenix Projected Effluent Flows at the 91st Avenue Plant, 1980-2000 (in mgd) 1980 1983 1986_/
1990 1995 2000 3
91st Avenue 89.5 103.6 117.5 137.1 160.3 183.8 8.
The MAG projections in Table 1 were prepared on the basis of the Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES) population projections made in 1977, population allocations made by MAG, wastewater unit flows developed in the MAG 208 Water Quality Management Program (MAG 208 Program) and waste flow reduction projections also developed in the MAG 208 program. Mor.e recent population projections (July 1978) made by the ADES, showed a slightly larger population for the year 2000 and an earlier staging of population growth (page 2-4 of EPA's MAG 208 FEIS).
Since these 1978 population projections indicated a higher population than what was expected when the MAG sewage effluent projections were made in 1979, it was reasonable to assume that there would probably also be a 4/
Letter from Robert B. Steytler, Assistant Director, City of Phoenix Wastewater Operations, to Mr. Terry liudgins, Arizona Public Service Company, September 20, 1979.
t i
l l
)
' correspondingly higher amount of sewage effluent available than the MAG values shown in Table 1.
This possibility was supported by the fact that in 1980, the actual flow from the 91st Avenue plant was larger than the flow projected by MAG. This flow was 88.5 mgd (PVNGS Units 1, 2 and 3 Environmental Report - Operating License Stage (ER-OL), Section 5.6.1.1.2.2).
The MAG projected flow for 19M from Table 1, is 84.5 mgd.
9.
More recently, Septenber 1981, both MAG _/ and Phoenix / revised 5
6
- their 1979 sewage effluent projections. These latest projections, shown in Table 3, show more sewage effluent available than what was projected in the COE-EPA Study referred to in Contention No. 5.
Table 3 1981 MAG and Phoenix Projected Effluent Flows at the 91st Avenue Plant (1985-2000) (in mgd) 1/
1985 1986 1990 1995 2000 MAG 103.6 106.7 119.0 133.4 151.5 Phoenix 128.1 134.2 158.8 189.1 221.2
~5/
MAG 208 Point Source Plan Revision, Eastside Area Analysis, Local vs. Regional, September 1981, James Fulton, Consultant; John Carrolo Engineers; Dibble and Associates.
-6/
Flow Projection Comparison, MAG 208 Study vs. Phoenix Wastewater Division Projection in MGD. August 26, 1981.
Prepared by Robert Steyler.
7/
1986 flows were obtained by linear interpolation between the 1985 and 1990 values.
2-5
As shown in table 3 above, it is expected that in 1986, the 91st Avenue plant will produce between 106.7 mgd and 134.2 mgd. These amounts exceed the present' plant capacity of 90 mgd. However, the 91st Avenue plant is currently being expanded. This expansion, which is expected to be completed by 1983 (City of Phoenix), will give the 91st Avenue plant a total capacity of 120 mgd.
10.
In determining whether there will be an adequate supply of effluent for the PVNGS in 1986, it is more conservative to use the MAG projection which is the lower of the two projected values shown in Table 3, i.e., 106.7 mgd. This amount is a monthly average.
In order to determine whether there will be a sufficient amount of effluent in June 1986, this average amount has to be adjusted to account for the fact that monthly effluent production at the 91st Avenue plant is not constant throughout the year. A monthly breakdown of 106.7 mdg is not available; 8
however, there is a monthly breakdown / for the 1979 MAG projected flow of 105 mgd. This breakdown is shown in Table 4.
-8/
Arthur Beard Engineers, Inc. and CampDresser & McKee, Inc., City of Phoenix 23rd and 91st Avenue Wastewater Treatment Plants Draft Residuals Management Facility Plan, Volume 5 - Phase C, Effluent Discharge Assessmeat (August 1980, Exhibit C, Effluent Flow Projections, Greeley and Hansen (January 1980).
I 2-
' Table 4 Projected Effluent Production for 1986 91st Avenue Plant (in mgd)
Monthly Average Jan 96.6 Feb 99.8 Mar 101.9 Apr 101.9 May 102.9 Jun 102.9 Jul 106.1 Aug 108.2 Sept 115.5 Oct 112.4 Nov 107.1 Dec 105.0 TOTAL =
1260.3 Average =
1260.3/12 = 105.0 mgd
- 11. As shown in Table 4, it is estimated that in June 1986, the 91st Avenue plant will prooice about 102.9 mgd of effluent or about 98 percent of the average monthly effluent production of 105 mgd. Using this percentage and the more current projections of effluent for 1986 from Table 3, the amount of effluent which will be available in June 1986 ranges from a high of 131.5 mgd (98% of 134.2) to a low of 104.6 mgd (98%
of106.7). Not all of this effluent, however, will be available for use by the PVNGS. There are other contracted users of sewage effluent who have prior commitments. These are as follows:
Buckeye Irrigation District (81D) 26.8 mgd Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) 6.5 mgd
%TAL 33.3 mgd In addition, the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory (WCL) has a prior commitment of 1.1 mgd. However, this has not been used since 1978 when the Lab's research facilities were washed out by flood waters.
1 w
w
' 12. Assuming that the WCL does not use its commitment in the future, there will be between 71.3 mgd (104.6 mgd - 33.3 mgd) and 98.2 mgd (131.5 mgd - 33.3 mgd) available for use by the PVNGS in June 1986.
r..
Howaver, sin'ce the 91st Avenue plant has a capacity of only 120 mgd (see paragraph 9) the available effluent will more realistically be between 71.3 mgd and 86.7 mgd (120 mgd - 33.3 mgd).
13.
It is estimated that the PVNGS condenser cooling water system,
' which will use effluent from the 91st Avenue plant, will require an average of about 18.9 mgd per unit (ER-OL, Table 3.3-1).
However, to determine the total amount of water required, an allowance must be made to account for water lost in transporting effluent by pipeline, for water losses at the reclamation plant and for losses due to seepage and evaporation at the storage reservoir.
It is estimated that these losses will be about 0.3 mgd (ER-OL, sections 3.3 and 5.6).
Adding this amount to the water requirement of 18.9 mgd results in an average effluent requirement of about 19.1 mgd per unit.
For three units, the requirement is 57.2 mgd (3 X 19.1 mgd).
(ER-OL sections 3.3 and 5.6, - Note that in Figure 3.3-1 of the ER-OL sheet 2 of 4, the required effluent amount is 39,700 gallons per minute. To convert gpm to mgd, divide by 694; i.e.,
39,700 + 694 = 57.2). Plant demand however is not constant.
In the summer months the requirement will be greater than 57.2 mgd while in the winter, it will be less. As stated in paragraph 4 above, the PVNGS will require a maximum amount of cooling water in June. Table 5 shows the PVNGS monthly ~ cooling water requirements }or 1986.U
-9_
Table 5 PVNGS Cooling Water DemandU for 1986 (in mgd)
January 26.2 February 25.6 March 39.0 April 40.2 May 66.3 June 70.2 July 69.3 August 69.3 September 65.1 October 63.0 November 40.8 December 53.7
- 14. As shown in table 5, the cooling water requirement of the PVNGS in June 1986, is 70.2 mgd. As described in paragraph 12, if the Phoenix effluent projections are accurate, there will be about 86.7 mgd available for use by the PVNGS in June 1986. This amount is considerably more than the 70.2 mgd required for operation of all three units of the PVNGS.
If the MAG projections are accurate, there will be about 71.3 mgd available for use by the PVNGS. This is also more than the required 70.2 mgd.
- 15. Based on this, it is my opinion that there will be sufficient usable treated municipal effluent from the 91st Avenue Plant, for operation of Units 1, 2 and 3 of PVNGS during months of peak reactor need for the first five years of oceration.
16.
In making this evaluation, I considered only the effluent to be available from the 91st Avenue plant.
In addition to this, there will also be additi.onal effluent, up to 8.3 mgd available from the city of Tolleson and up to 750 million gallons of' treated water stored in the onsite water supply reservoir.
' 17.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that there will be sufficient water available for cooling purposes for all three units of PVNGS during months of peak reactor needs during the first five years of operation.
N w
Sybscrib and sworn to before me Jathis day of February,1982.
l L
d
[otaryPublic My Connission expires:
/,/f81
(/ G '
i i
k 3*
Raymond O. Gonzales Hydrologic Engineering Section i
Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Professional Qualifications
~
I am a Hydraulic Engineer in the Hydrologic and.Geotechnical Engineering Branch of the Division of' Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
t I received my formal educational training at New Mexico State University where I received a B.S.C.E in 1965.
I also attended an eleven month training program-sponsored by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors of the Corps of Engineers in Washington, D.C.
My experience prior to joining NRC, consists of seven years as a Hydraulic Engineer (hydrology), three years as a Water Resources Planner, and one year as a Construction Engineer, all with the Corps of Engineers in Albuquerque, New Mexico; San Francisco, California and Washington, D.C.
I joined the NRC in February 1978 as a Hydraulic Engineer. In this capacity.
I review and interpret the hydrologic and hydraulic aspects of applications for nuclear facility construction pennits and operating licenses. These facilities include nuclear reactors, uranium mills, fuel fabrication plants and low level waste repositories. More.3pecifically, I review the adequacy of flood protection designs of plants; determine the adequacy of safety related water supplies, and evaluate the dispersion and dilution characteristics of surface and groundwater supplies; and aid in coordinating and developing bases for criteria and standards concerning the safety and environmental characteristics of nuclear-facilities related to hydrologic engineering.
From 1975 to 1978, I was a Water Resources Planner with the Corps of Engineers in Albuquerque, New Mexico.
I tas responsible for managing planning studies for flood control, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, fish and wildlife and recreatior..
In addition, I was responsible for coordinating study input from various planning disciplines including economists, hydrologists, designers and environmentalists, and for preparing cost estimates for planning programs.
From 1974 to 1975, I attended an eleven month training program with the Board of Rivers and Harbors in Washington, D.C.
This training was for the purpose of obtaining specialized knowledge of planning principles and techniques necessary for conducting studies of water and related land resource utilization.
Classroom work included courses in economics, hydrology, ecology and environmental awareness.
From 1973 to 1974, I was a resident construction engineer responsible for several Corps of Engineers water resources construction projects in New Mexico, Kansas and Texas.
g-6 sI" 5
ape
Raymond O. Gonzales 2-From 1966 to 1973, I was a Hydraulic Engineer with the Corps of Engineers in Albuquerque, New Mexico and San Frahcisco, California. During the early part of this period. (1966 to 1970) I assisted in hydrologic engineering studies of Corps of Engineers projects in New tiexico, Colorado, Kansas, Texas and Northern California. This included collecting and analyzing hydrologic and meteorologic data for use in planning and design, estimat'ing long-term water availability,
~
determining hypothetical flood events for use in sizing structures such as dams, channels, and levee systems, and preparing portions of Hydrologic Engineering reports.
In the last part of the period (1971 to 1973) I was Head of a Hydrology Section.
In this capacity, I was responsible for planning, scheduling and assigning studies of water resources projects to engineers and technicians in the Section.
p.
E e
I 3-5 es e
e e
m.-
m.
e e
e -
m c
p