ML20050B921
| ML20050B921 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 03/15/1982 |
| From: | Gonzales R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20050B894 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8204070558 | |
| Download: ML20050B921 (12) | |
Text
03/15/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE Docket Nos. STN 50-528 COMPANY, ET A..
)
STN 50-529
)
STN 50-530 (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating
)
Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND 0. GONZALES ON CONTENTION 5 Q.
Please state your name and position with the NRC.
A.
My name is Raymond 0. Gonzales and 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 statenent of professional qualifications is attached hereto.
Q.
What is the purpose of your testimony?
A.
The purpose of this testimony is to respond to Contention 5 which states:
tuplicants 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.
Q.
Upon what does the Intervenor bare this contention?
A.
In explaining this contention, the Intervenor refers to a 1979 report by the Corps of Engineers (C0E) which is included as Appendix C to tne Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Final Environmental Impact C204070558 820315 PDR ADOCK 05000528 T
PDR i
. Statement for the Maricopa Association of Governments Point Source Metro Phoenix 208 Wastewater Management Plan (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 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.
Q.
When will the greatest amount of effluent be necessary for PVNGS?
A.
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.
Q.
From where will cooling water for PVNGS be obtained?
A.
The primary source of cooling water for the PVNGS is waste water effluent from the City of Phoenix 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant and from the city of Tolleson Sewage Treatment Plant.
Effluent will be I
. transported by pipeline to an onsite water reclamation plant.
It will then be treated and stored in a 750 million gallon storage reservoir.
The contract with the City of Phoenix for the 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 the 23rd Avenue plant is a secondary source. At the present time, however, 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.
The agreement between Arizona Power Company, the Salt River Project and Tolleson for the delivery and purchase of up to 8.3 nillion gallons per day of treated effluent to the Palo Verde pipeline for use by the PVNGS was entered into on June 22, 1981. An intake structure is currently under construction for use in inputting the Tolleson effluent into the pipeline.
Q.
What studies have been made regarding effluent availability from the 91st Avenue plant?
A.
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 Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) 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"). The prn.iections of this effluent flow in million gallonsperday(mgd)are:
1980 1983 1985 1986 1990 1995 2000 91st Avenue 84.5 98.0 L02.9 105.0 113.7 124.3 137 It should be pointed out that the 1986 flow at 105.0 mgd was obtained by linear interpolation between the 1985 and 1990 values.
In addition to the 1979 MAG Study, the City of Phoenix in 1979 also made its own independent projections of 91st Avenue effluent flows.
These projections, are slightly higher than the MAG projections (ER-0L Section5.6.1.1.2). They are (in mgd):
1980 1983 1985 1986 1990 1995 2000 91st Avenue 89.5 103.6 113.0 117.8 136.7 160.3 183.8 These projections are set out in a letter from Robert B. Steytler, Assistant Director, City of Phoenix Wastewater Operations, to Mr. Terry Hudgins, Arizona Public Service Company, September 20, 1979. The 1986 amount is also a linear interpolation between 1985 and 1990 values.
Q.
Is there reason to believe that the 1979 MAG Study projections may be too low?
A.
The 1979 MAG projections 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. More 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. 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 correspondingly higher amount of sewage effluent available than what was projected by MAG. This possi-bility was supported by the fact that in 1980, the actual flow from the 91st Avenue plant was actually 88.5 mgd in contrast to the 84.5 mgd projected by MAG for 1980.
(PVNGS Units 1, 2 and 3 Environmental Report -
Operating Licensing State (ER-0L), Section 5.6.1.1.2.2).
Q.
Have the MAG and Phoenix Studies been updated?
A.
In September 1981, both MAG and Phoenix revised their 1979 sewage effluent projections. These are contained in the following studies: " MAG 208 Point Source Plan Revision, Eastside Area Analysis, Local vs. Regional",
September 1981, James Fulton-Consultant, John Carrolo Engineers; Dibble and Associates; " Flow Projection Comparison, MAG 208 Study vs. Phoenix Waste-water Division Projection in MGD,"
August 26, 1981, prepared by Robert Steyler. These latest orojections show more sewage effluent available than what was projected in the C0E-EPA Study referred to in Contention No. 5.
These flow are (in mgd):
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 The 1986 flows were obtained by linear interpolation between the 1985 and 1990 values.
As these rev' sed estimates show, it is now expected that
. 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.
Q.
Based upon these new estimates, what will be the total amount of effluent available from the 91st Avenue plant to PVNGS in June 1986?
A.
In determinit 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 1981 updated projected values 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 1926, 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 mgd is not available; however, there is a monthly breakdown for the 1979 MAG projected flow of 105 mgd. This breakdown is contained in Exhibit C (prepared by Greeley and Hansen) of a study entitled, " Effluent Flow Projections By Greeley and Hansen (January 1980) of the City of Phoenix 23rd and 91st Avenue Waste-water Treatment Plants Draft Residuals Management Facility Plan, Volume 5 -
Phase C, Effluent Discharge Assessment" by Arthur Beard Engineers and Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (August 1980) ("The Greeley and Hansen Report")
which shows that projected effluent production for 1986 at the 91st Avenue Plant (in mgd) is:
. 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 As this breakdown shows, it is estimated that in June 1986, the 91st Avenue plant will produce 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, 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% of 106.7).
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:
Buckeye Irrigation District (BID) 28.8 mgd Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) 6.5 mgd TOTAL 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.
- ~
. 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.
However, since the 91st Avenue plant has a capacity of only 120 mgd the available effluent will more realistically be between 71.3 mgd and 86.7 agd (120 mgd - 33.3 mgd).
Q.
How much cooling water will be required by the PVNGS units in June 1986?
A.
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-0L, 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
'l Figure 3.3-1 of the ER-0L 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 previously discussed, the PVNGS will require a maximum amount of cooling water in June. Based upon the Greeley and Hansen report, the PVNGS monthly cooling water requirement for 1986 (in mgd) is:
, 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 Thus, the projected peak cooling water requirement for June 1986 for PVNGS is 70.2 mgd.
Q.
What are your conclusions with respect to the cooling water requirements for PVNGS?
A.
As I have stated,-the projected cooling water requirement of the PVNGS in June 1986 is 70.2 mad. This is the month of greatest need in the year when the availability of suff-icient cooling water in the first five years of operation is open to the greatest question. As I have stated, 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.
Based on this, it is my opinion that there will be sufficient usable treated municipal effluent from the 91s?. Avenue Plant, for operation of Units 1, 2 and 3 of PVNGS during months of peak reactor need for the first five years of operation.
~ In making this evaluation, I considered only the effluent to be available from the 91st Avenue olant.
In addition to the 91st Avenue plant, there will also be additional 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, which will make even more cooling water available.
.l F
.e Raymond O. Gonzales Hydrologic Engineering Section 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'Engiheering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
r 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 ex>erience 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 permits and operating licenses. These facilities include nuclear reactors, uranium mills, fuel fabrication plants and low level waste repositories. More specifically, 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 was~ responsible for managing planning studies for flood control, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, fish and wildlife and recreation.
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 o' 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.
t From 1973 to 1974, I was a resident construction engineer responsible for several Corps o_f Engineers w'ater resources construction projects in New Mexico, Kansas and Texas.
J-i l
I oo e
O
,k -
Raymond O. Gonzales.
Frnm "966 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 E6gineers projects in New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas, Texas and Northern California. This included collecting.and analyzing hydrologic and meteorologic data for use in planning and design, estima't'ing long-term water availability, detennining 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 pe,riod (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.
.g O
!~
4
?
M e
O e
4 e
i