ML20062M999

Notice of Corrections to Joint Applicants 820726 Proposed Initial Decision.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20062M999
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	08/16/1982
From:	Bischoff C BISCHOFF, C.A., JOINT APPLICANTS - PALO VERDE
To:
References
NUDOCS 8208200273
Download: ML20062M999 (30)

Text

o =

h h -

00CKETED i,' USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ~ '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION..

.N2 ASO 19 PI:56~

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOh(f[3 5gf3[p,(',

E

.1 RANCH  :

i In the Matter of )

) '

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE )

COMPANY, et al. ) Docket Nos. STN 50-528

) STN 50-529 (Palo Verde Nuclear ) STN 50-530 Generating Station, )

Units 1, 2 and 3) )

)

NOTICE OF CORRECTIONS TO PROPOSED INITIAL DECISION PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY JOINT APPLICANTS In reviewing the " Proposed Initial Decision Pre-pared and Submitted by Joint Applicants," dated July 26, 1982, Joint Applicants identified several typographical and other mistakes. Accordingly, Joint Applicants hereby submit the following corrections to such document.M Page Line Correction 8 14 Change " June 14" to " June 4".

"p. "p.

18, fn. 12 7 Change VI-247" to VI-7".

l 29 6 Insert "; see JA Ex. Q, p. 36 l between "69" and ")".

i l

M Revised pages incorporating the corrections described herein are attached hereto. The revised pages should be substituted for the same-numbered pages in the " Proposed Initial Decision Prepared and Submitted by Joint Appli-cants," dated July 26, 1982.

8208200273 820016 A PDR ADOCK 05000 g (J Q

e =

Page Line Correction 32, fn. 13 5 Insert "for" between " priority" and " CAP".

33 18 Change "659,000" to "649,000".

33 25 Change "VI-3" to "VI-30".

33 25 Change "659,000" to "649,000".

33 26 Change "633,000" to "623,000".

33 26 Change "within 1/2" to "less than".

34 1 Delete "of 1% of".

41 8 Insert "17," between " Findings" and "117-19".

45 15 Change "58" to "49".

47 12 Change "Id., see JA Ex. H" to "Hulse, ff. Tr. 404, p. 2".

48 8 Change "Id." to "JA Ex. H".

49 7 Insert "is placed in operation" between " purchased" and ",.".

50 9 Change " percent" to "%".

51 15 Add "(Findings 5, 11)" after "mgd.".

54 2 Change "60" to "64".

54 4 Change "60" to "64".

58 23 Change "p. IV-4" to "p. IV-3".

63 23 Insert "-75" between "474" and ";".

67 5 Change "573" to "673".

67 20 Insert "(Id. at 658-60)." between.

" credits.Cand "Between".

67 26 Delete "the record is".

o ..

Page Line Correction 68 1 Insert "the record is" before

" termed".

69 19 Change " Glendale operates 22" to " Glendale operates 17".

71 22 Change "M." to "Juetten, Tr.".

72 27 Change "20" to "2200".

73 4 Change "; see M." to ",". t 73 5 Delete "at".

73 27 Change "Id." to Steiner, Tr.";

change " Tsee M. at" to ",".

75 10 Change " M." to "Steiner, Tr.".

83 23 Insert "WGB-10," between "pp."

and "WGB-12"; delete "WGB-18,".

83 24 Change "WGB-20" to "WGB-17A".

85 5 Change "Part 4, Table 3-2, p. 4-17'I ~

to "Part 5, Table 4-2, p. 5-6".

I 85 21 Change "p. 1" to "p. 2".

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 16th day of August, 1982.

By J Arthur C. Geer Charles A. Bischo 3100 Valley Bank Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 Attorneys for Joint Applicants e .*

that Agreement No. 13904 is invalid under the reclamation laws of the United States and that the cities who are par-ties to such agreement do not have the authority to cell wastewater effluent derived from water captured under such laws.

Intervenor by motions to defer issuance of a no-tice of hearing and for postponement of the hearing sought to inject the substance of the Indian Community's complaint ,

into this proceeding. The Board ruled, however, that the issue of the validity of Agreement No. 13904 would not be accepted in this proceeding.E/ Oral rulings were made on April 27 and May 14, 1982, denying the admissibility of evidence respecting the Indian Ccmmunity's claim. The bases for such ruling are set forth in the Boardis June 4, 1982 Memorandum and Order. Intervenor requested certification of this question to the Appeal Board on June 21, 1982, which request was denied [ granted] by the Board's Memorandum and Order of , 1982.

While the Board considers that its June 4, 1982 Memorandum and Order is dispositive of the issue, the fol-lowing observations are relevant. As noted, the Board is aware that the Department of the Interior and the Secretary are contesting the Indian Community's claims. Under such circumstances it is improper for this Board to entertain a E/ See Board Memorandum and Order, April 13, 1982.

Second, with respect to new regional plants which might divert sewage from the 91st Avenue Plant (Northeast Plant and East Mesa Plant),1SI McCain testified that there were no plans to construct such plants, that they were merely topics of conversation among municipalities and that they would not be necessary until the turn of the century.

In any event, the May, 1982 MAG Update indicates that, even if such regional plants were in existence in 1985, there i would be a need for further expansion of the 91st Avenue l l

Plant and more than enough effluent available at such plant to meet Palo Verde requirements. (Finding 37).

With respect to potential exchanges of effluent for Indian CAP water, McCain testified that (1) the prob-ability that such exchanges would be necessary before the turn of the century was low, (2) the exchanges would require the construction of sewage treatment plants on or near the Indian reservations where effluent could be used, (3) the use of the proposed exchange ratio of 2-to-1 until 2005 ,

would impede the development of exchanges prior to that time 12/ The Northeast Plant would be located on or near the i

Salt River Indian Reservation so that the exchange of ef-l fluent for Indian CAP water would be feasible. (McCain Tr. !

2193; JA Ex. LL, p. VI-4). The East Mesa Plant would be located so that effluent could be exchanged for agricultural water of the Roosevelt Water Conservation District. (McCain Tr. 2351; JA Ex. LL, p. VI-7). Juetten and McCain also

testified that consideration has been given to the exchange of effluent from the existing 23rd Avenue Plant for SRP ,

agricultural water of the Roosevelt Irrigation District.

(Juetten Tr. 670-1; McCain Tr.~2184, 2352-7).

l l

e s Project (CAP FEIS) (JA Ex. Q) as the " proposed agency action." The proposed allocations to all M&I users amount to about 639,000 acre-feet / year, including 100,000 acre-feet obtained in exchange for effluent. The balance of the CAP water has been allocated for non-Indian agriculture and miscellaneous uses. (Findings 65, 69; JA Ex. Q, p. 36).

During periods when the amount of CAP water avail-able is less than the average supply conditions (1,300,000 acre-feet / year), the allocations are subject to reduction depending upon a system of priority classifications. Non-Indian agriculture and miscellaneous uses have the lowest priority and, therefore, are subject to reduction first.

Approximately 20% of the total amount allocated for Indian uses have been given the next lowest priority. The balance of the Indial. allocations and M&I allocations (not in excess of 510,000 acre-feet / year) have the highest and equal prior-ities. Thus, allocations to these two categories are sub-ject to reduction only after uses in all lower priorities has been eliminated. In such an event, the allocations to these two categories will be subject to reduction on an equal percentage basis. (Finding 70).

The total amount allocated to all non-Indian M&I users (639,000 acre-feet / year) was based on the availability of 800,000 acre-feet / year of CAP water (expected to be available two out of three years), and deducting therefrom 1

the amount of the CAP allocation to Indian uses not subject l ._- - -

r s the probabilities that more CAP water will be available in the Phoenix area than will be needed.

Similarly, there is some uncertainty that the Multi-Cities will take in a timely manner the steps neces-sary to receive and treat the CAP water to which they are entitled.13/ However, such an uncertainty is more than bal-anced by the fact that failure to do so decreases their ability to maintain that they have taken all reasonable steps to develop sources of water available to them -- a prerequisite condition which must be met before Section 21 may be implemented.

Beyond the 1985-90 time period the Board concludes that (i) it is very remote that shortages of CAP water would occur that would impact the Multi-Cities until sometime sub-sequent to 2010, and (ii) even when there is a shortage con-dition of CAP water, it is unlikely that a critical water shortage would be incurred by the Multi-Cities which would trigger Section 21.

l The first of these conclusions is based on the l

fact that (1) the M & I allotments are predicated upon pro-l i jected populations in the year 2034, and (2) the need for i

1 the use of such allotments will not exist until such pro-13./ There is some testimony in the record respecting uncer-tainties in the funding and construction of distribution facilities for non-Indian agricultural users. Any such uncertainty, however, would not impact the Multi-Cities, because they have a higher priority for CAP water.

r .-

jected population is actually reached. If it is assumed that the population growth in the CAP service area occurs in equal numerical increments over the 50-year period of pro-jections (i.e., at steadily decreasing percentages), then the requirements of municipal M & I users in 25 years (2009) ,

will be only one-half their requirements in 50 years (2034),

which under the proposed allotments will be slightly less than 495,000 acre-feet / year. (JA Ex. Q, p. 35) Thus, in the year 2009, the CAP requirements of municipal M&I users would be only about 247,000 acre-feet / year. Assuming all other M&I users are then using their full allotments, or about 144,000 acre-feet / year (JA Ex. Q, pp. 35-6) then the total M & I usage would be about 391,000 acre-feet. As-I suming also that the Indians are also then using their full allotments of 310,000 acre-feet / year without any exchanges, of which approximately 52,000 acre-feet has a lower priority than M & I users, the total usage of first priority CAP water would be 649,000 acre-feet / year. Assuming, as Inter-venors suggest, that the regional plants are constructed by 2010 (the Northeast Plant for exchange for Indian CAP water and the East Mesa Plant for exchange for firm agricultural water) (Finding 29), the net effect of reduction of Indian t

l priority CAP water and substitution of firm agricultural water would be to reduce CAP usage by about 23.2 MGD, or 26,000 acre-feet / year (JA Ex. LL, p. VI-30) or from 649,000 to 623,000 acre-feet / year -- an amount which is less than l

l p .*

the firm, dependable supply of CAP water under the worst historic conditions of 630,000 acre-feet per year. (Finding 68).

The Board's conclusion that, even when there is a shortage condition of CAP water, it is unlikely that a critical water shortage would be incurred that would trigger Section 21 is based upon the following analysis.

The record is unmistakably clear that CAP water is not the sole source of water for the Multi-Cities. Within the SRRD the availability and adequacy of SRP Water, both surface and developed, and groundwater developed by the Multi-Cities have been discussed. (supra, pp. 19 et seg.).

Outside the SRRD, the Multi-Cities have the right under the Groundwater Management Code to drill welle anywhere within their service areas and withdraw and overdraft groundwater (Finding 56; JA Ex. Q, pp. 14, C-8). Urbanization of agri-cultural lands will provide sources of water. Additionally, the cities may purchase and retire agricultural land and

acquire the grandfather rights to groundwater associated therewith and may take other measures to acquire water. (JA I

l Ex. Q, p. C-2) The use of these sources was assumed in the i

preparation and development of the proposed CAP allocations.

l (JA Ex. Q, p. C-2).

l Thus, a shortage of CAP water from time to time- -

would not a fortiorari entitle the Multi-Cities to implement Section 21. Section 21 is not tied to CAP water alone nor p -

validity or the CWTF and Bench Scale tests. (Findings 113-16).

Accordingly, the Board is of the opinion that Applicants' estimate of the effluent requirements to operate the Palo Verde units at 95% capscity factor 11 months of a year with one month out for refueling, eqpivalent to an annual capacity factor of 87%, is reasonable and does not understate the needs for effluent. (Findings 17, 11~!-19).

D. Relationship between Effluent Supply and the Ulti-mate heat Sink.

Intervenor has raised the question whether or not the supply of effluent is critical to the safe shutdown of the Palo Verde units under either normal or accident condi-tiens. Some of the confusion respecting this matter may stem from Amendment 8 to the Palo Verde Final Safety Analy-sis Report (FSAR) (JA Ex. W; see also Int. Ex. XIV) filed in March, 1982. This amendment changed the section of the FSAR (59.2.5.4) which deals with the safety evaluation of the ultimate heat sink for each Palo Verde unit and stated in effect that the domestic water system, supplied with water from on-site wells, was the primary source for makeup to the essential spray ponds and that the reservoir holding treated effluent was a backup source. The change also stated that procedures for utilizing these sources would be available 60 days prior to fuel load.

? .*

FINDINGS OF FACT i

1. Contention No. 5, as accepted for litigation in this proceeding, reads as follows:  ;

" Applicants will not have an assured supply of usable treated municipal ef-fluent for cooling purposes for Unit 3 of PVNGS during months of peak reactor need for the first five years of opera-tion."

2. During the course of the proceeding, the scope of Contention 5 was expanded to include all three units, the impact of effluent quality on the quantity of effluent re-quired, and the relationship, if any, between safety and the treated effluent to be used for condenser cooling. (Tr. at 329-31, 333-34, 337, 345-49). -

3. Extensive testimony was presented during the hearing dealing with the supply of treated effluent for cooling purposes at PVNGS. W b Joint Applicants' witnesses were: Russell D. Hulse, Vice President of Resources Planning for Arizona Public Service Company; Richard Leo Juetten, Manager of Water Resources and Services for the Salt River Project Agricul-tural Improvement and Power District;. Wesley E. Steiner, Director of the State of Arizona Department of Water Re- -

sources; John Schaper, attorney for Buckeye Irrigation Company and Buckeye Water Conservation and Drainage Dis-trict; Robert B. Steytler, Assistant Director of the Water and Sewer Department for the City of Phoenix; William G.

Bingham, Project Engineering Manager for Bechtel Power Corporation; and Jack Muir, Director of Wastewater Utilities for the City of Tolleson. Intervenor's witnesses were:

William L. Lorah, Vice President of Wright Water Engineers; (footnote continued on next page) i sww a,

b i

5. Effluent from the 91st Avenue Plant will be obtained for PVNGS pursuant to " Agreement No. 13904, Option and Purchase of Effluent," dated April 23, 1973, among the Cities of Phoenix, Glendale, Mesa, Scottsdale, Tempe and the Town of Youngtown (" Multi-Cities"), Arizona Public Service Company ("APS") and Salt River Project Agricultural Improve-ment and Power District ("SRP") (" Agreement 13904"). Pur-suant to Agreement 13904, APS and SRP may purchase up to 140,000 acre-feet / year from the 91st Avenue Plant, when available after satisfaction of specific prior commit-ments, E and, when not available at the 91st Avenue Plant, from the 23rd Avenue Plant. (Hulse, ff. Tr. 404, p. 2).

6. Agreement 13904 is an option agreement pur-suant to which APS and SRP may acquire up to 35,000 acre-feet / unit for a maximum of four units of the Arizona Nuclear Power Project. (Hulse, Tr at 463). Agreement 13904 pro-vides, however, that APS and SRP may unilaterally transfer any portion of the option effluent not required for any of the four units to any other electric generating unit wher-ever located. (JA Ex. H, Section 6.1) The contract is basically a requirements type of contract. APS and SRP are l entitled under the contract to take whatever quantity of l

effluent is required for the operation of the power produc-E The prior commitments are identified in Board Finding 31, infra.

l l .*

tion facilities, up to a maximum of 140,000 acre-feet / year.

(Hulse, Tr. at 464).

7. Under the terms of Agreement 13904, the Multi-Cities obligated themselves not to construct any other sewage treatment plant within a specified area until such time as the combined capacities of, and the effluent avail-able from, the 91st and 23rd Avenue Plants are sufficient to meet their obligations under Agreement 13904. (JA Ex. H, Section 7.3). The latest available projections of efflueat from the 91st and 23rd Avenue Plants indicate that the effluent available will exceed all current contractual re-quirements by approximately 1995. (JA Ex. LL, p. IV-3, Table IV-1). Accordingly, the contractual constraint on the development of other sewage treatment plants is projected to be eliminated by that time.

8. The price for effluent obtained pursuant to Agreement 13904 consists of annual option payments of $1 per acre-foot for the quantity of effluent actually available for sale during the prior year until such time as construc-tion permits for the electric generating units are issued.

At such time as construction is authorized, the annual option payments are increased to $2 per acre-foot. The price for effluent actually delivered under the options is 40% of the price established for Central- Arizona Project

(" CAP") water sold for municipal and industrial uses ("M&I Water"), but not less than $20 per. acre-foot, nor more than l .*

S30 per acre-foot. If effluent is delivered prior to the establishment of the price for CAP M&I Water, the price for such effluent is $20 per acre-foot. (JA Ex. H, Sections 6.5, 6.6, 8.2).

9. By its terms Agreement 13904 will terminate 40 years after the last generating unit for which the efflu-ent is purchased is placed in operation, or December 31, 2040, whichever occurs first. (JA Ex H, Section 4). Option payments have been made to the Multi-Cities in the amount of

$1,200,000. (Hulse, Tr. at 466). Effluent is currently being delivered to PVNGS for construction purposes. (Id. at 468). Agreement 13904 has been and is currently being treated by the parties thereto as a valid and subsisting contract.

10. The design capacity of the 91st Avenue Plant is 90 million gallons per day ("mgd"), and it has treated successfully up to 120 mgd. The design capacity of the 23rd Avenue Plant is 37.2 mgd, and it has treated successfully 40 mgd. (Steytler, Tr. at 846; McCain, Tr. at 2278; JA Ex. LL,

p. III-13). The capacity of the 91st Avenue Plant is cur-rently being expanded to 120 mgd. (Steytler, Tr. at 847; McCain, Tr. at 2275). The expansion is scheduled to be operational in the summer of 1982. (Steytler, Tr. at 847).

An additional expansion to 150 mgd is planned and scheduled for completion by 1986. (Steytler, Tr. at 847; JA Ex. LL,

p. III-20).

11. On June 12, 1981, the City of Tolleson, APS and SRP entered into'an " Agreement for the Sale and Purchase of Wastewater Effluent" ("Tolleson Agreement"). Under the Tolleson Agreement, APS and SRP are obligated to purchase and accept (a) all of the sewage effluent produced through the operation of the Tolleson Plant in excess of the sum of 2.0 mgd (i.e., 186 acre-feet / month) committed for the pro- i duction of sod adjacent to the Tolleson Plant (" Committed Effluent") and 10% of the amount of effluent in excess of the 2.0 mgd reserved by Tolleson (" Reserved Effluent") and (b) any amounts of the Committed Effluent not actually sold, and of the Reserved Effluent not actually used or otherwise disposed of by Tolleson, but not to exceed 8.3 mgd, or 9,300  !

acre-feet / year. The obligation to purchase does not apply to effluent from the Tolleson Plant that does not meet minimum quality requirements specified in Tolleton's NPDES discharge permit issued by the Environmental Protection Agency or other requirements imposed by law.- The Tolleson Agreement was amended on November 12, 1981. (Hulse, ff.

Tr. 404, pp. 5-6; see JA Ex. J, pp. 1-3, 7; JA Ex. KI.

12. The price for effluent obtained under the j

Tolleson Agreement is the greater of (i) $35 per acre-foot, plus an adjustment as defined in the Tolleson Agreement, l (ii) 45% of the price' per acre-foot for CAP M&I Water, or (iii) 100% of the price per acre-foot paid under Agreement -

m*

l L'

r -

-t e

13904. (JA Ex. J, Section 2.1). There is no ceiling or maximum price as in Agreement 13904.

13. The design capacity of the Tolleson Plant is 8.3 mgd, or 9,300 acre-feet / year. The Tolleson Plant is cur-rently treating 6 mgd, or 6,400 acre-feet / year. (Muir, Tr.

at 1034-35).

14. APS and SRP have dedicated to the operation of PVNGS as much of their entitlement under Agreement 13904 as is required for such operation. (Hulse, ff. Tr. 404, p.

2). APS and SRP have also dedicated their entitlement under the Tolleson Agreement to the operation of PVNGS. (Id. at 0). Accordingly, the Applicants have existing contrac't ural

^

commitments - for the supply of wastewater effluent in the maximum aggreg _ mount of approximately 149,000 acre-feet / year, or 133 mgd. (Findings 5, 11).

15. Effluent has been delivered to the PVNGS site from both the 91st Avenue Plant and the Tolleson Plant via the 36.5-mile underground pipeline originating at' the 91st Avenue Plant. (Bingham, Tr. at 1296-97).

L B. Cooling Water Requirements

16. The condenser cooling water requirements 7 for each unit at PVNGS have .been estimated to be 21,350, acre-feet / year (19.0 mgd), or 64,050 acre-feet / year (57.2 mgd) for all three units. This estimated requirement is based on the use of average ambient meteorological conditions and '

the assumptions thatJ (a) each PVNGS unit will operat'e at a

{

t w

l .*

viewed by Joint Applicants, and led to an approximately 20%

higher comsumptive use than would be calcul'ated using 64 i years of data from Buckeye, 30 years of data from Phoenix, 40 years of data from Litchfield Park, 64 years of data from Gila Bend, and 8 years of onsite data. (Bingham, Tr. at 1205, 1212-13). Makeup requirements for June are higher than in any other month of the year. (JA Ex. T, p. WGb-3).

22. The quantity of makeup required for the Circulating Water System ("CWS") is also dependent on the cycles of concentration of the constituents in the water in the CWS. (Bingham, Tr. at 936; see JA Ex. U Revised, p.

WGB-6 (Revised S/24/82)). Under steady state conditionh the relationship is:

MU flow = c 1 (59,100 acre-feet / year) where: MU flow = makeup flow for all three PVNGS units in acre-feet / year, C = cycles of concentration of the constituents in the water in the CWS, and 59,100 = evaporation plus drift (three acre-feet / year units, 95% power, one month shutdown in December).

(Int. Ex. IX, Bingham, Tr. at 1147-48, 1183-84).

This relationship is graphically shown on page WGB-6 of Joint Applicants' Exhibit U Revised.

C. Effluent Projections

23. In 1979, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the U. S . Environmental Protection Agency prepared projec-such plants were not given in the 1982 update because the

, plants were not part of the selected point source plan.

(Id., p. III-23; McCain, Tr. at 2309-10). Projections of effluent from the 91st Avenue Plant, assuming such plants are constructed, were prepared and included in the 1982 update. (JA Ex. LL, p. IV-4, Table IV-2).

30. In 1986 it is anticipated that 7.5 mgd, or 8,400 acre-feet / year, or 700 acre-feet / month, will be pro-cessed through the Tolleson Plant. This projection is based ,

on population projections for the City of Tolleson, usage of 75 gallons per capita per day for domestic wastewater, plus existing contracts for the treatment of both domestic and industrial wastes. (Muir, Tr. at 1035). Based on this projection, the minimum amount available at the Tolleson Plant for use at PVNGS is 4.95 mgd, or 5,540 acre-feet / year.

D. Effluent Availability for PVNGS

31. The existing commitments for effluent dis-charged from the 91st Avenue Plant are 30,000 acre-feet /

year, or 26.8 mgd, for the Buckeye Irrigation Company

("BIC"), 7,300 acre-feet / year, or 6.5 mgd, for the Arizona

! Department of Game and Fish ("ADGF"), and 140,000 acre-feet /

year for PVNGS. (Hulse, ff. Tr. 404, p.4; see JA Ex. H,

p. A-1; JA Ex. LL, p. IV-3, Table IV-1) . On a monthly basis, these commitments are 2500 acre-feet / month for BIC and 600 acre-feet /atonth for ADGF. (Hulse, Tr. at 438-39; Schaper, Tr. at 806-07).

Uncommitted Effluent in excess of the Option Effluent, have been ex-  ;

hausted; (c) Reasonable steps have been taken to conserve the water supply in the cities; and (d) Reasonable notice of the critical need has been given to Participants.

When the critical need expires, or when other reasonable sources of water become available, Cities can no longer refuse to deliver Effluent under the terms of this Agreement. The Cities shall use their best efforts to resume deliveries of Effluent hereunder at the earliest practical time in the event such deliveries are interrupted in ac-cordance with this Section 21." (JA Ex.

H, Section 21).

43. Section 21 has at no time been invoked by the Multi-Cities which are parties to Agreement 13904. (Hulse, Tr. at 474-75; McCain, Tr. at 2237).

44. The Multi-Cities which are parties to Agree-ment 13904, prior to any interruption in the supply of effluent under Section 21, must exhaust all reasonable i

sources of water, including any uncommitted effluent in excess of the effluent required at PVNGS. (Hulse, Tr. at 471, see JA Ex. H, Section 21.l(b)). There is currently

! excess effluent available at the 23rd Avenue Plant in the amount of 38,000 to 40,000 acre-feet / year. (Hulse, Tr. at 471-73).

45. If a critical need develops, the five cities j'

which are both members of the Arizona Nunicipal Water Usera l

Tr. at 654-55). The water resources of Glendale outside the SRRD are adequate over the short term, that is, until the arrival of Central Arizona Project water, baced on the ex-cess capacity of Glendale's wells located outside the SRRD.

(Id. at 655, 673).

53. The City of Scottsdale lies both inside and outside the boundaries of the SRRD. (_Id. at 656-57). That portion of Scottsdale inside the SRRD is served by the City of Phoenix and by Scottsdale wells and SRP wells. (Id. at 656-57; see McCain, Tr. at 2179, 2379). The water rescurces of Scottsdale outside the SRRD are welle. (Juetten, Tr. at 657). The water resources of Scottsdale outside the SRRD are adequate over the short term based cn the excess capac-ity of its wells. (Id. at 657-58).

54. The City of Phoenix is located both inside 2nd outside the SRRD. (Id. at 640). The water resources for Phoenix inside the SRRD are surface waters received from SRP and wells located on member and non-member lands. The  ;

water resources for Phoenix outside the SRRD are city wells and gate water credits. (Id. at 658-60). Between 1948 and 1952, gates were installed on Horseshoe Dam. (Id. at 691).

Phoenix paid $800,000 for the construction of these gates and by contract acquired rights to the water that accumu-lates behind the gates. (Id. at 660, 683). The storage ,

capacity behind the g&tes is 73,032 acre-feet. (Id. at 687).

The amount of water storad against the gates is recorded and

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

i the record is termed " gate water credits." ( M. at 659-61). ,

Gate water may be used by Phoenix either inside or outside j

! the SRRD. ( M.. at 663). The quantity of water available to  ;

Phoenix from the gate water credits varies from time to time  !

l and is dependent on runoffs from precipitation on the Verde l t '

River watershed. ( Id. at 661, 684-85). Cate water credits i

declined throughout the summer of 1981 and stood at approxi-  ;

1 I

mately 16,000 acre-feet at the end of January,1982. (M.  :

i at 664). Storms and runoff occurring in March of 1982 re-i sulted in an accumulation of gate water credits such that i Phoenix had approximately 95,000 acre-feet of gate water as  ;

4 I

i of May 1, 1982. (M. at 671). i l 55. Joint Applicants' Exhibit 0 is an estimats of the gate water balance for the City of Phoenix at the end of each year through 1985 based on the city's annual demand, t existing wells, plans for new wells, plans for conservation i

and implementation of certain SRP programs. (JA Ex. O, I

Juetten, Tr. at 665-73). The City of Phoenix will be con-t structing several new wells within the next five years.

l (Juetten,.Tr. at 662; McCain, Tr. at.2179). Phoenix will >

also be reducing its per capita consumption through conser-( vation. (McCain, Tr. at 2180). Significant conservation. ,

\

savings can be made through improved domestic irrigation i

practices. (McCain, Tr. at 2324). Such_measuree should have no impact upon sewage flows. (Id. at 2325). The SRP programs refer to several programs being implemented by SRP .

d b

4' I

. .. ,, -- . . . . , - -, - - - - . , . . . , , . - - , - , - ~ - . . . . . . . , w. , , - ,

and Phoenix to assist the city with its water supply to '

areas outside the SRRD. (Juetten, Tr. at 668). With the new wells, conservation and implementation of SRP programs, Phoenix will be able to meet its demand and still have a credit balance in its gate water account at the end of 1986, I assuming that no additional gate water credits are accumu-lated. (Id. at 673 ) .

56. In order to drill a new well, the city must obtain a permit from the Arizona Department of Water Re-sources ("ADWR"). (Juetten, Tr. at 696; Steiner, Tr. at 787; McCain, Tr. at 2211-12). ADWR has no authority to deny a permit to a city as long as the city is drilling the new well within its service area. (Steiner, Tr. at 787). There have been no denials of service area permits by ADWR with respect to Phoenix, Glendale, Scottsdale, Tempe and Mesa.

(McCain, Tr. at 2212).

57. The City of Phoenix operates approximately 130 wells, Scottsdale operates 19 wells, Tempe operates 9 wells, Mesa operates 22 wells and Glendale operates 17 wells. (!!ccain, Tr. at 2350).

58. Groundwater pollution has resulted in the closure of some existing wells. The Arizona Department of Health Services ("ADHS") found two wells in Phoenix, two wells in Scottsdale and three wells in Tempe to have levels of trichloroethylene ("TCE") above state action levels.

(Int. Ex XXX, at 5). The two wells in Scottsdale and two of cities to deliver water of acceptable quality. (Swanson, Tr. at 1850). However, the cities have been able to meet consumer demand. (Id. at 1849-51; see Id. at 1881).

61. Intervenor's witness Lemmon testified about groundwater contamination from existing landfills along the Salt River. Based on numerous assumptions, Mr. Lemmon esti-mated that 700,000 to 800,000 acre-feet of groundwater within two miles of each side of the Salt River along a 20-mile length could be contaminated over the next 20 years.

(Int. Ex. XXXIII, pp. 4-7; Lemmon, Tr. at 1984-89). The City of Phoenix apparently had three wells within the four-mile band which were operational in 1980, and the City of Scottsdale apparently had a standby well within such band. i (Lemmon, Tr. at 1919-21). Groundwater which may be con-taminated from existing landfills could be made useable for l

drinking water with proper treatment. (Id. at 1922).

! 62. In 1981, the cities of Tempe, Mesa, Glendale, Scottsdale and Phoenix collectively used 255,156 acre-feet of water received from SRP. The quantity of water available to such cities during that period was 266,787 acre-feet plus 71,220 acre-feet of special pump rights. None of the cities used its full SRP entitlement in 1981. (Juetten, Tr. at 676-77, JA Ex. P). The condition of excess resources over usage for those areas- of the five cities lying within the SRRD is expected to continue as the cities continue to ur-banize the agricultural areas. (Juetten, Tr. at 677; Steiner, Tr. at 754-55; McCain, Tr. at 2216).

G. Central Arizona Project

1. Allocations

63. The Central Arizona Project (" CAP") is a federal reclamation project. The purpose of the CAP is to develop and bring into central Arizona most of the State of Arizona's remaining entitlement to Colorado River water.

(Steiner, Tr. at 741).

64. The CAP consists of basically three aqueducts and associated pumpir.g facilities and reservoirs. The aque-duct from the Colorado River to Phoenix is known as the Granite Reef Aqueduct and will extend from Lake Havasu at the Colorado River to a point just east of the Phoenix area near the Granite Reef Dam. The Salt-Gila aqueduct extends from Granite Reef Dam to the Picacho Reservoir 20 miles south of Coolidge between Phoenix and Tucson, and is ex-pected to be completed in 1986. The Tucson aqueduct extends from the Picacho Reservoir to the Tucson area, and is expected to be completed in 1989-90. (Id. at 743-44; JA Ex. ;

Q, p. 1). The Granite Reef Aqueduct is divided into 12 reaches. Nine of those reaches have been completed. The remaining three reaches are under construction. The three pumping plants along the Granite Reef Aqueduct are under construction. The Granite Reef Aqueduct is expected to be completed and able to deliver water by 1985. (Steiner, Tr.

at 743). It is expected that CAP water will be used in the Phoenix area beginning in 1985. (Id. at 744-45; McCain, Tr.

at 2179, 2199-2200).

65. CAP waters are to be' allocated to Indian uses, non-Indian municipal-industrial ("M&I") uses, in-cluding uses for mines and electric generating stations, and non-Indian agricultural uses. (Steiner, Tr. at 746, 773-74). The Secretary of Interior has the responsibility to decide how the allocations are to be made. Each Secre- ;

tary of Interior since 1969 has requested the State of Arizona to recommend the allocations, except as to Indian uses. The State has done so, and it is expected that the Secretary of Interior will rely on the Arizona recommenda-tions. ( M. at 746-48).

66. The Bureau of Reclamation has completed and issued a Final Environmental Impact Statement on Water Allo-cations and Water Service Contracting for the CAP (" CAP FEIS"). (Steiner, Tr. at 747; JA Ex . Q ) . The proposed agency action identified in the CAP FEIS incorporates the Arizona recommendations sent to the Secretary of Interior in January, 1982. (Steiner, Tr. at 748; JA Ex. Q, pp. 9,15).

67. The Arizona recommendations for M&I uses in-cluded allocation figures only for the year 2034, the last year for repayment of CAP costs by CAP water. users. How-ever, M&I users will be permitted to take some or all of their 2034 allocation as early as 1985 as determined by agreement among the cities, Secretary of Interior, and Central Arizona Water Conservation District. In general, M&I users are not expected to require their full entitlement until around 2010. (Steiner, Tr. at 749-50, 794-95).

(630,000 acre-feet of firm supply and 170,000 acre-feet of non-firm supply), and deducting therefrom the amount of the CAP allocation to Indian uses not subject to reduction and allowances for exchanges. A! ADWR estimates that M&I users could have a maximum shortage of CAP deliveries of 20% in some years. (Id. at 752-54). In those years where shortages in CAP deliveries may occur, there would be increased ground-water withdrawals to meet M&I demand. (JA Ex. Q, p. C-20). .

t CAP water in excess of the Indian and non-Indian M&I uses has been allocated to non-Indian agriculture. (Steiner, Tr.

at 754). The CAP allocation for the Multi-Cities is 174,848 acre-feet / year, of which the Phoenix allotment is 116,239 acre-feet / year. (JA Ex. Q, pp. 34-35).

70. During shortages, CAP deliveries would first be reduced until exhausted to all non-Indian agricultural and miscellaneous uses. If further reductions are necessary, 25% of the Gila River Indian Tribe and 10% of other Indian agricultural uses would be reduced until exhausted. Finally, the remaining Indian agricultural uses would be reduced pro-rata with no more than 510,000 acre-feet of M&I uses. (JA Ex. Q, p. 20, Table 2, fn. 6; Steiner, Tr. at 754, 774-76).

21/ The Secretary of Interior has allocated approximately 310,000 acre-feet / year for Indian uses, both agricultural and non-agricultural. (Steiner, Tr. at 742-43). A portion (about 52,000 acre-feet / year) of this allocated amount is subject to reduction in periods of shortages prior to re-ductions in non-Indian M&I uses, and another portion-(esti-mated to reach 100,000 acre-feet / year by 2034) is subject to exchange for effluent other than effluent required to meet existing contracts. (See Board Findings 70, 74-78).

4 +-

I' Plant which could cause scale formation, fouling, corrosion and contribute to biological growths were calcium, magne-sium, silica, phosphorus and ammonia (hereinafter collec-tively referred to as " problem constituents") . (Id. at 3 ;

see JA Ex. Y).

97. During 1973-74, approximately 1000 samples of 91st Avenue Plant effluent were taken and tested for the problem constituents. The average concentrations of the problem constituents obtained from those tests in mg/l were 52.9 for calcium (as Ca), 22.9 for magnesium (as Mg), 28.8 for silica (as SiO2), 22.1 for phosphate (as PO 4) and 30.9 for ammonia (as N). (Bingham, Tr. at 1078; JA Ex. U Re-vised, p. WGB-5). ,

98. From 1976 on, samples of 91st Avenue Plant effluent have been analyzed by Controls for Environmental Pollution ("CEP"), consultant for Joint Applicants.

(Bingham, Tr. at 941). The concentrations of the problem constituents as measured by CEP through December 1980 in mg/l were between 40 and 50 for calcium (as Ca), between 20 and 30 for magnesium (as Mg), about 33 for silica (as SiO 2)'

about 7.0 to 7.5 for phosphate (as P) and from about 20 to 30 for ammonia (as N). (Bingham, Tr. at 943, 945, 950, 951; ,

JA Ex. U Revised, pp. WGR-10, WGB-12, WGB-14, WGB-16, WGB-17A). The average values of the analyses made from 1976 to 1980 in mg/l were 46 for calcium (at Ca), 24 for mag-nesium (as Mg), 28 for silica (as SiO2), 22 for phosphate 102. Design concentrations of the problem constit-uents in the output of the WRP in mg/l are 70 for calcium (as CACO 3), 8 for magnesium (as CACO 3), 10 for silica (as SiO2), 0.5 for phosphate (as PO4) and 10.0 for ammonia (as N). (JA Ex. BB, Part 5, Table 4-2, p. S-6).

103. The circulating water test studies conducted by Joint Applicants had four objectives:

"[1] Verify the practicality of operating the plant circulating water systems at 15 cycles using the specified reclaimed wastewater,

[2] Identify potential plant oper-  ;

ational problems associated with this level of operation,

[3] Determine the in-cycle treat-ment requirements for the plant circu-lating water system, and

[4] Determine relative corrosion rates for candidate condenser tube and tube sheet materials." (JA Ex. BB, Part 5, p . 5-1; Bingham, ff. Tr. 2585, p. 2).

104. Two types of circulating water test programs were conducted. One program employed the CWTF located at the 91st Avenue Plant. The other program employed a Bench Scale testing apparatus. (Bingham, ff. Tr. 2585, p.4).

105. The CWIF contained the essential components of a typical power plant circulating water system, including a heat source, heat exchanger, cooling tower, circulating water pump, piping, and controls for operation, makeup and blowdown. (Id. at 4-5; see JA Ex. BB, Part 5, p. 5-14). In the CWTF tests, the treated wastewater was concentrated and

an.

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 ) STN 50-530 Generating Station, )

Units 1, 2 and 3) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Notice of Cor-rections to Proposed Initial Decision Prepared and Submitted by Joint Applicants" have been served upon the following listed persons by deposit in the United States mail, prop-erly addressed and with postage prepaid, this 16th day of August, 1982.

Docketing and Service Section U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Chairman, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors l

111 South Third Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85004 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 l

J ...

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Robert M. Lazo, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety and  :

Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 ,

Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing  !

Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory ,

Commissian Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Dixon Callihan Union Carbide Corporation P.O. Box Y Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Lee Scott Dewey, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Edwin J. Reis, Esq.

Office of the Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Rand L. Greenfield, Esq.

Assistant Attorney General s P.O. Drawer 1508 Santa Fe, New Mexico *87504 Lynne Bernabei, Esq.

Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.

Suite 506 Washington, D.C. 20006

= f Charles A. Bisefioff (f

, ..