ML20062C692

Requests Addl Info in Order That Review of Appl Can Continue:Az State Water Plan Phase II & III as Available, Mag Documents on Water Resources Mgt for Maricopa County & Phoenix Area Water Resources & Supply Planning

ML20062C692
Person / Time
Site:	Cherokee
Issue date:	11/02/1978
From:	Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
References
NUDOCS 7811130145
Download: ML20062C692 (11)

Text

-. . . - . . . . . . - - - .

' MRC. P)/L

1. "*% unm_o sTArms i g f *g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION wAsmwarca, o.c.20ses 3

i \+, *... / -

r _. y 2 E ~

Docket Nos. S (50-492 1

I and STN 50-493' {

4 Arizona Public Service Company o ATTN: Mr. E. E. Van Brunt, Jr. .'

Vice President, Construction Projects P. O. Box 21666 Phoenix, Arizona 85036 Gentlemen:

{

During the week of October 9-13, 1978, members of the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission's (NRC) environmental review staff and its consultants visited your area to examine the proposed site of.Palo '

Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 4 and 5 and alternative sites for these units.

As a result of the visit and subseouent discussions, we require additional infomation in order that our review of your application can continue. The information requested is described in the enclosure to this letter and is organized in a disciplinary fomat.

To avoid delay in our review, the infomation identified in the enclosure must be submitted by November 10, 1978. If you cannot submit the additional infomation by this date, please inform us within seven days after receipt of this letter of an alternate date

k. for submittal so that we may schedule our review accordingly.

Sincuely

m. H. Regan, r. Chief i Environmental Pro ects Branch 2 Division of Site Safety and ,.

Environmental Analysis

Enclosure:

Additional Information cc: Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 i

781113 0 / VSi A L

3

_ . _ _ _ _ _ .+. . _ . . _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ . _ _ _m._..

j . ,

t t

i I REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION f

1

' l ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPAi.Y PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION, UNITS 4 &'5 -

1, i  !

DOCKET NOS. STN 50-492, AND STN 50-493 i

i I

e 4

Hydrology and Water Use  !

\ <

1. Please provide loan copies of the following:  ;

a. Arizona State Water Plan, Phases II and III as available, Arizona Water Commission. l

b. " MAG" documents or studies on water resources management  ;

and planning for Maricopa County. (MAG, Maricopa Association i L

of Governments)

c. Phoenix area water resources and supply planning documents l concerning, sources, allocations, projected supply, use and treatment and reuse for the anticipated future growth of the Phoenix area.

2. Makeup water supply alternatives are discussed in Chapter 10 of the ER; however, no discussion is provided for any combinations  !

of off site groundwater with effluent. In view of the relatively

. high quality of this groundwater, the reduction in groundwater ,

usage that could be realized if combinations were used, and i possible attendant reductions in water use impacts, the use of ,!

such combinations would appear to be viable alternatives to that 4

(_ proposed in Chapter 10. Provide an analysis of effluent / groundwater  !

combinations as water supply alternatives for Units 4 and 5. l

3. Please provide loan copies of references 1 thru 7 for Section 5.7.3 i

, of the ER. l t

4 4. Page 5.7-3 2nd Paragraph. The discussion of recharge rate does not

! include induced infiltration of river water resulting from well-  :

pumpage. Explain what differences in recharge rates would occur l i

l if this source of recharge was eliminated. l

. r l 5. In connection with question 2 above, provide locations and pertinent i 4 data on the BID wells near the Gila River (e.g.; depths, aquifer j tapped, pumping rates, potential yields, etc.).  :

l t

l l

i

}

i

, , , - . , ,,w.. ,, - - ,,, u

Cooling System Chenistry and Non-Radioactive Wastes

1. Section 3.6.1. Provide system. volume and approximate quantities of i oil, grease, dirt, sanonia .sud other preoperational cleaning wastes

to be discharged to the evaporation pond.

2. Section 3.6.1. It is stated that a 3% organic acid solution with l 0.2% acid inhibitor will be added to the feedwater system. Specify i organic acid and inhibitor and volume of solution to be employed.

3. Section 3.6.2.2. Will blowdown be continued during the perio'd when hypochlorite is injected into the circulating water system?

4. Section 3.6.2.2.. It is stated that a dispersant will be added to

^

the circulating water to inhibit fonnation of scale on the condenser (T and heat exchange tubes. What dispersant will be used? Identify the chemical constituents of the dispersant, specify the concen-trations that will be used, and explain the treatment schedule.

5. Section 3.6.1. A 0.2% solution of Acid Inhibitor (Dow Chemical Co. A145) will be added to the feedwater system. Provide toxicity data on the Acid Inhibitor.

6. Section 3.6.2.2. It is stated that a concentration of 20 to 40 parts per million of Nalco Chemical Company Dispersant 345 will.be main-tained to inhibit scale formation on the heat exchanger tubes and condenser. Provide toxicity data on this dispersant and estimate loss via drift and blowdown.

7. Identify the type of fill to be used in the cooling towers.

(

8. Wha't is the estimated maximum sanitary sewage flow during the peak

.. labor force (3400) period. Give the maximum capacity of the sanitary treatment plant (s)..

9. Section 3.6.2.1. Estimate organic concentrations (biodegradable and nonbiodegradable) in.the influent to the Water Reclanation i

Plant; and estimate removal efficiencies of biodegradable and nonbiodegradable organics for each process in the treatment scheme.

i 10. Section 3.6.2.1. Identify the types of filtration media that will j be used in the Water Reclamation Plant.

l 11. Section 3.6.2.1.3. Is any pond liner other than clay being i considered for use in the evaporation ponds?

h i

. 7.9?b d * *'*'tCJ.t w. .- , , . - #% t *b P*we W w ^

_am-o r w,

_ _ _ _ _ __.___m._ -

t

. . . . _ _ _ _ .._ _ ._ _ _ _- __ .-- - -~

I .

i f

.j .

Cooling System i 1. Indicate the approach range and mode of operation of the cooling

• i towers (number of towers used, fans used, water flow rates, water

and air temperatures, etc.) for off-design atmospheric conditions (air temperatures well below the design wet-bulb of 750 F) and for-i partial plant loads.

l

2. Section 2.4.2.3. Indicate the scheduled use of the essential spray pond system during non-emergency periods (hours per year of operation, testing cycles, etc.).

3. Section 6.1.3. The description of.the PVPM and FOG models in the ER-CP are insufficient for staff evaluation. Please provide a more n detailed description of the two models (as used to prepare the

(

_' tables and figures in the ER). .(The staff has a copy of the NUS-TM-S-185, dated July 1974). .Have there been changes in the models since the ER-CP was prepared? If so, discuss.

4. Please provide full documentation that the models do accurately simulate cooling tower effects (plume rise, plume length, fogging, changes in humidity, drift deposition) for circular mechanical-draft towers. Have any model validation studies been made since the ER-CP was prepared? If so, describe.

5. Plume rise in the LVPM model is determined using a cumulus cloud model, while one of Brigg's equations (the exact formula not stated) for plume rise was used in the F0G model. Indicate which procedure was used to prepare.each of the tables and figures. Also, how do the two plume risk values compare for a given set of meteorological /

_ tower data?

6. Please describe more completely the procedure used to calculate plume rise from a cluster of 3 towers, and from all 15 towers at the site. . . . . . . .

7. Describe how the buoyancy heat flux term, F, is calculated.

8. Estimate the salt deposition rates for circular towers for two and five units. ,

9. Support the claim made on Page 6.1-20 of the ER-CP " agreement between the model predictions and field observations obtained from operating cooling towers is good."

10. The applicant has had considerable experience with operating mechanical draft cooling towers in the Phoenix area, including units near highways, homes, factories, etc. Describe the observed

environmental impacts of the cooling tower effluents (fogging, I

1 wetting, salt deposition on plants, switchyards, structures, etc.)

l

j ,

j 1

4

-4_

from these towers. Have any traffic accidents been caused by i j tower-produced fogging, or road wetting. Has.the salt ,

i

! drift caused any problems with switchyards, vegetation, car i i finishes,etc.) Compare these impacts with those predicted for i

! j PVNGS. ,

(  ! 11. Section 4.1.4.3-1. Does the model predict fogging on any of the  !

4 public roads in the area? If so, give the predicted frequency. Do '

j observations of fogging from the operating towers in the Phoenix j area support or refute your conclusion that there will.be surface i e fogging 1 km downwind of the PVNGS towers? i ,

i i

12. Table 5.1-4. What is the source for the drift drop size  :

1 spectrum. The drop sizes are quite small wher. c cpared to other  :

1

() published spectra for mechanical - drift towers, including data on circular towers by Moore et al (Cooling Tour Environment -

l l

l 1978).

13. Drift estimates for round and rectangular mechanical draft

. cooling towers have changed from.ER-CP PVNGS 1,2,3 to ER-CP PVNGS 4,5 with this fact being evident in ground deposition model

.! predictions. Total drift deposition for fan-assisted natural '

draft cooling towers has altered appreciably as well. What is .

the new drift estimate for this type of cooling tower? l

. i

14. The main condenser is designed to remove 9200 million Stu per hour from the turbine exhaust steam. The plant cooling water  !

system removes approximately 191 million Stu per hour from the '

turbine and nuclear cooling system. The cooling system dissipates

heat at a maximum of approximately 9200 Btu / hour from the two  ;

j  ; mentioned systems. Please substantiate this apparent discrepancy. ,

e > ~

i-  !

! Meteorology [

1. As currently proposed, 1.he Palo Verde site will include five units I which are more than are currently located at any other site in the [

i 2

United States. Discuss the anticipated impact of the combined j

. operation of Units 1-5 on local atmospheric conditions as i

; related to the environment such as heat dissipation effects and I modifications in atmospheric dispersion. I

j Social Impact

Several questions in this section_ refer to Palo Verde, Units 1, 2 and 3. l l It should be understood that this information is being requested only  !

! to assist iis validating the predicted incremental impacts of Palo Verde, I

Units 4 and 5.  :

l l l

I I

e , =

. . _ _ . _ , _.. . . . - _ _ _ _ . _ - . . . _ . _ , _ . - - . . _ - . _ - - - - . . - _ _ _ _ ~ _ _ - . _ _ . . . - . . . _ _ _ ._ .. .

i l

I l  ;

! i 1. Provide estimates, along with their basis, of the maximum and ,

} average noise levels which will be associated with construction i of Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 4 and 5 at the .

closest residence .during a variety of wind conditions and '

! construction operations.

l 2. Please provide a copy of the contract between the City of

Phoenix and the applicant for the purchase of sewage effluent. .

i

3. Describe the emergency procedures and services that will'be provided for personnel accidents at the site (e.g.,'anbulance service,first-aid,etc.).

4

4. Will the fire protection facilities at the site be expanded during '

ps. the construction of Units 4 and 57 If yes, please describe.

5. Describe the current hiring practices of workers. Include any-activities directed toward hiring local residents and minorities.  ;

i

6. Provide the results of all studies conducted in Arizona since 1970 that were contracted by the applicant regarding public attitudes about atomic energy and/or the Palo Verde facilities.

7. Describe t$e following transportation items: '

a. efforts by the applicant to reduce traffic accidents'by its i workers (e.g.; educational programs and posters)  ;

b. use of busses for transporting workers l

> t

c. . proposed construction of highway ramp on Interstate 10 at  ;

i Winterburg Road Will any of these various transportation items be changed by the  !

construction of Units 4 and 57 If so, give the details. .

8. Provide a summary of the following information on the existing  !

! construction force of Units 1, 2, and 3. f i

a. marital status of manual workers f b. number ' / children of manual workers t

i

, c. percentage of manual employees who relocated to the Phoenix l area t

i e

^

,I -i ,

9. Provide a discussion if and how applicant will employ the construction force of Units 1, 2, and 3 for Units 4 and 5. ,

) 10. Provide information from the applicant's records, if available, i for:

i --number of residen'ts in trailer parks near the site i --any planned trailcr parks near the site i i

• 11. Is the applicant aware of any snployees on the construction force for Units 1, 2, and 3 who have contracted Coccidioidomycosis. If l yes, indicate the nwnbers of persons affected.

12. Update Sections 5, 9 giving the physical (mothball entombment, etc.) and cost options as of 1978.

13. Fill in the following table beginning with the first year of construction on Units 1, 2, 3 and endino.with full start-up of Uni;s 4 and 5:

NUMBER OF CONSTRUCTION WORKERS Units Units Units '

Year 1,2,3 4, 5 1,2,3,4,5 ,

t i

I kJ NUMBER OF OPERATIONAL WORKERS  :

i i Units Units Units I Year 1,2,3 4, 5 1,2,3,4,5 l 1 +

i t

i l i 14. Describe any major work force, timetable, social or economic effects,

, if any, which have occurred in constructing Units 1, 2, and 3, and

, which differ significantly from the predictions in the ER for Units '

? 1, 2, and 3 or the NRC Final Environmental Statement.

15. Update Section 5.8, particularly 5.S.2 and 5.8.4, giving next best alternative uses of water and land, together with an estimate as to their monetary value, i

t

1 .

j 1 i

16. How much in taxes have been paid thus far for Units 1, 2, and 3,

?

and to what government entities? For Table 8.1.6, are the tax .

yields money to be paid in each year of operation? If so, in i what year's dollars? Does Table 8.1.6 exhaust the entire expected property payouts? If not, please list the remainder.

17. It is acknowledged that there is a time difference between when l the placement of value occurs (buildings, etc.) and when the j

assessment of value is made and the obligation to pay property taxes occurs. Please provide your estimate of the time lag (as it related to Units 1, 2 and 3) and provide any infonnation on how these paid revenues have changed the expenditure patterns on public services by the different taxing jurisdictions.

( 18. List recreational facilities within 10 miles of the plant and '

estimated number of annual visitations.

t

~

Ecoloaical Imoact

1. How susceptible to erosion are the soils of the PVNGS site (PVNGS 1, f

2, and 3 ER Sect. 2.7.2.15)? Evaluate the success of mitigative measures for controlling erosion during construction of PVNGS 1, 2, and 3.

2. What are the typical densities of Russian thistle (Salsola kali) on the sites where it has invaded (PVNGS 4&5 ER p. 2.7-7 to 7 )?

Are steps other than biological control being carried out or will they

, be carried out to manage Salsola (PVNGS 4&5 ER p. 4.1-12)? -

I 3. If .it ever becomes necessary to drain the reservoirs, where would the contained water be divertedi

4. Has the areal extent of marsh nabitat along the Salt-Gila waterway changed materially since September 19757 How did the most current i

applicant analysis reach the conclusion that 55% of the marshland would be temporarily lost by diverting effluent to PVNGS (PVNGS 4&5 ER, p. 5.7-4)?

. 5. Explain what information and assumptions were used, and what was

-; the methodology that led to the conclusion that phreatophyte -

! habitats will be minimally affected (PVNGS.4&S ER, p. 5.7-2 to -3).

! Please provide loan copies of references 5.7-1 through -5.

! 6. Why is the potential impact along the Devers-Mira Loma route upon the Stephen's Kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stechensi) considered to be less than along the alternate route (PVNG5 4&5, suppl. 1, p. 4.2-4)?

Please provide details that lead to this conclusion.

l l l

l

- . - - - _ _ _ --. ~ ~ .

1 i

)

i-1

7. Provide any available maps of land use and vegetation for the Devers-Mira Loma route. .

l 8. Describe the existing construction water pond used to store

! pumped groundwater at PVNG51, 2, and 3, if this or a similar i pond will be used during the construction of Units 4 and 5. Age,

! size, capacity, withdrawal / filling rates, aquatic fauna and i flora would be suitable parameters for discussion, although the discussion need not be restricted to these items.

9. The endangered Brown Pelican has been observed at the PVNGS site (PVNGS 4&5 ER, p. 2.7-26). Has any determination been made as to the availability of habitat for this species in the vicinity of PVNGS (including the Gillespie Dam vicinity) and the area to be affected

( by the station? What is the likelihood that this bird will use the water storage reservoirs and the evaporation ponds?

10. Are the buildings at PVNGS being used as roosting sites by bats (ref. PVNGS 4 and 5 ER, p. 2.7-13)? This may be established by a daytime survey of the buildings.

11. Provide an analysis of incremental impacts to aquatic biota (especially fishes) in the Gila and Salt Rivers as a result of increased water use for PVNGS 4 and 5 (43,000 acre-ft/yr).

Land Use

1. Provide loan copies of all land use information collected for evaluation of the following candidate areas: Sentinal Plain, Hassayampa Valley, Ronegras Plain, and Upper Little Colorado

( River Valley; as referred to in ER, pg. 9.2.24.

Economics, Cost-Benefit and Need for Power

1. Why do the costs given in Table 8.2.1 of the ER not match the explanation of internal costs given in paragrap'18.2.17 Reviewer suggests that the information developad by filling out Tables 1, 2, 3 of Reg. Guide 4.2 would provide a complete under-standing of the cost section (8) of the ER.

i

2. Why are the specific methods used in forecasting peak demand and energy for 4, 5 different from those used in 1, 2, 37

3. Does the WSCC forecast peak demand and energy requirements? If so, could reviewer see such a forecast?

i

- . ., 9

-.- : .-..l i

I i

j

4. Have the increased demands for electricity due to copper mining and irrigation, which were forecasted in the ER for 1, 2, 3, -

i materialized?

5. Why is the potential for use of Arizona coal and slurry pipeline

transportation not treated in greater depth than is indicative in the ER for 4, 57

!l Why does the ER for 4, 5 simply refer to the 1, 2, 3 ER in its i 6.

discussion of spent fuel shipping and storage and not reflect the change in federal attitude toward the uses for spent fuel?

. Early in 1977, reprocessing of LWR fuel for reuse in LWR's was forbidden by the President and D0E. This policy will require

( . greater storage capacity at reactors and ultimately at a federal (or industrial) repository. The effect of these regulations and policies could change plans for spent fuel st3 rage at PVNGS 1-5.

Some discussion of this should be in the 4, 5 ER.

Cultural Resources - PVNGS 4 & _5

1. Provide a copy of the document entitled, "Sumary Statement on Data Recovery Procedures at the Palo Verde Plant Site" (Report No. A-75-4 dated December 28,1977), to the State Historic Preservation Officer for her comments. Supply copies of her coments which should indicate if any sites or districts are -

eligible for the National Registet*. If so, provide descriptions of these sites and/or districts as well as relevant documentation.

2. Provide details of any infomation currently available concerning the cultural resource survey for site identification and the main

(, site, alternate sites, pipeline and transmission corridors. This may include a detailed discussion of survey methods, description

< of the activity structure and function of the resources that have been identified, and criteria for evaluaticn of significance of each resource.

3. Where resource surveys have not yet been completed,. provide details of the methods to be used in site location and evaluation and the survey schedule. ,

i 4. Provide the details of any mitigation programs for cultural resources located on the site in areas that cannot be avoided during j construction and operation. r

! 5. Provide the details of any monitoring / protection programs for site culture resources that will be preserved and protected during the construction and operational phases of the project.

i i

I o

- -- y ,e -- - e, u n y,g 4

4 l '

i

6. Provide copies of all correspondence received by the company i discussing their cultural resource program for site location, -

r evaluation, mitigation, and protection. -

l Cultural Resources - Devers-Mira Loma Transmission Lines and Sub-Stations t

? ' l. Provide details of any information currently available concerning ,

j the cultural resource survey for the Devers-Mira Loma transmission

corridors and sub-stations. This may include a detailed discussion

~

of survey methods, description of the activity structure and function of the resources that.have been identified, and criteria

. for evaluation of_ significance of each resource.

2. Where resource surveys have not yet been completed provide details  !

of the methods to be used in transmission line and sub-station i

( -- '

location and evaluation and the survey schedule.

3. Provide the details of any mitigation programs for cultural i resources located on the transmission corridors and sub-stations in areas that cannot be avoided during construction and maintenance.

4. Provide the details of any monitoring / protection programs for cultural resources that will be preserved and protected during the construction and operational phases of the project.

5. Provide copies of all correspondence received by the company discussing their cultural resource program for transmission line and sub-station location, evaluation, mitigation, and protection.

e sm i

, I. 1 I

i

,I 1.- - . .. ..- . - . _ . _.

_ - _ . -_. .- .. .