ML20074A745

Supplemental Motion to 830202 Motion for Declaration That NEPA Analysis Inadequate & for Continuance of Proceedings. Joint Applicant Responses to Interrogatories Lacked Meaningful Data on Salt Deposition

ML20074A745
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	05/13/1983
From:	Berlin K WEST VALLEY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION COUNCIL, INC.
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8305160032
Download: ML20074A745 (13)

Text

. . - _ -

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD

[ \ ! Q~

In the Matter of ) 'N .

) t[s5 Nost Q

ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY ) 9-Z Docket,W ' STN50-530 50-529 (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating ) g k-Station, Units 2 and 3) ) g

},

pdh4 9,,, g g

./

WEST VALLEY AGRICULTURAL PROTECTIQN' QUNCIIo Vf0 / .k .S' SUPPLEMENTAL MOTION FOR DECLARA'PIQETHA A ANALYSIS IS INADEQUATE AND FOR CONTINUANCE OF PROCEEDINGS On February 2, 1983, West Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc. (" West Valley") submitted its Motion for Ruling on i Contentions, for Declaration that NEPA Analysis is Inadequate and for Continuance of Proceedings. The first portion of that Motion, which requested rulings on the admissibility of West Valley's outstanding contentions, is now moot. As requested by the Board at the prehearing conference, the parties reached general agreement by stipulation, dated March 30, 1983, on these outstanding issues.

That stipulation, which identifies the issues agreed upon by the parties for litigation and their remaining differences, is now before the Board for its consideration.

The latter two portions of the Motion are still pending j

l before the Board. In accordance with the Board's ruling at the prehearing conference, discovery has proceeded pending its decision on West Valley's Motion. During the discovery process, West Valley obtained new information, or more precisely learned of the lack of information to support the limited EIS discussion of possible salt damage to crops, leading to the submission of this Supplemental Motion.

8305160032 830513 PDR ADOCK 05000529 D

G PDR ,

2 As set out more fully in the accompanying Memorandum, in its First Set of Interrogatories to Joint Applicants, West Valley sought detailed information concerning available studies and data on the amount and effects of salt deposition on crops grown in the PVNGS region. The inability of Joint Applicants to specify additional data on these issues beyond the coverage in the Environmental Reports and Statements that this Board has previously identified as sparse (see Memorandum and Order of December 30, 1982 at 13), demonstrates again the defects in the environmental analyses for the PVNGS facilities. Relevant portions of the Interrogatories and Answers are attached as Exhibit 1.

In light of this further corroboration of the lack of j meaningful data on salt deposition provided in Joint Applicant's responses to our interrogatories and the failure of the NRC staff to come forward with additional data since West Valley's intervention, West Valley urges the Board to rule the environmental analysis performed to date inadequate under NEPA and to order a continuance of discovery until further NEPA studies, including results of the Crop Study currently in progress at the University of Arizona and other necessary salt drift analyses, are complete.

Respectfully submitted, Dated:

Kenneth Berlin Attorney for Intervenor West l

Valley Agricultural Protection Council, Inc.

2550 M Street, N.W.

Washington, D. C. 20037 l (202) 429-8501 __ __ ,

Js-- a  ;-L_m L ___ _ A Aa-- m- ea-__a - - --- _ . -_ m .-. .

l

• e EXHIBIT 1 i

l 4

I k

l I

i

(

i

'/-

f.. l, li

l li il 1 ll UNITED STATES OF AMERICA I!

2 ll NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION li 3

4 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD i 1 0f 6

)

7 In the Matter of )

! ) Docket Nos. STN 50-529 8l ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY

) 50-530 .

j )

9; }

! (Palo Verde Nuclear )

10 I Generating Station, )  !

Units, 2 and 3) )

., !: Il ;! )  ;

5 1 i d ;j 12 il 3 $$ b JOINT APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO i 13[

i jj{ WEST VALLEY'S FIRST SET OF INTERROGATORIES s :: l' i

.- !! 14 d. i 15b PREFACE AND GENERAL OBJECTIONS il 16 ll ti 17 f 1. CFR 52.740(b)(2) provides that a party may  ;

18 ,i obtain discovery of documents and other tangible things l l

l 19! 1 otherwise discoverable and prepared in anticipation of liti-i 20 1; gation or for the hearing by or for another party's repre-21 sentative only upon a showing that the party seeking dis- ,

22 !; covery has substantial need of the materials and is unable 23 llc without undue hardship to obtain the substantial equivalent i

24 ) of the mateials by other means. Joint Applicants therefore 25 object to those interrogatories which request an identifica-26 tion of documents to the extent that such an identification 4

INTERROGATORY NO. 15

15. State whether it is your position that the ER and EIS fully evaluated salt drift quantity and deposition patterns from the spray ponds.

ANSWER APS prepared the PVNGS-ER following the guidance provided by NRC's Regulatory Guide 4.2. The EIS is an NRC document and as such the EIS evaluations are not subject to APS control.

INTERROGATORY NO. 16

16. If your answer to Interrogatory 15 is yes, state the basis for your contention and list each page in the ER, EIS and hearing record which you believe supports your position.

I ANSWER t

I

1) ER-CP, figure 3.3-1.

2) ER-CL, figure 3.3-1.

l

INTERROGATORY NO. 22 .

22. Identify:

a) The person most familiar with the rea-sons why the FOG model was chosen over other models which describe salt drift deposition patterns.

b) All documents which relate or refer to why the FOG model was chosen over other models which de-scribe salt drift deposition patterns.

ANSWER a) Morton I. Goldman.

b -) None

INTERROGATORY NO. 29A 29A. Describe the monitoring program you plan to implement to determine the quantity of salt emitted from the PVNGS and its impact on area agriculture, including, but not limited to:

a) How you plan to monitor the salinity ot the drift emitted from the (i) cooling towers, (ii) spray ponds and (iii) evaporation ponds.

b) How you plan to monitor the size and quantity of the salt particles emitted from the (i) cooling towers, (ii) spray ponds and (iii) evaporation ponds.

c) How you plan to monitor the salt drift per acre as a function of the distance and direction from the plant.

d) How you plan to monitor the impact of salt drift from the plant on area agriculture. '

e) What baseline monitoring studies, in addition to those described in Interrogatory 29, you plan to l

! undertake prior to operation of PVNGS Unit 1 to determine l

current salt conditions.

f) How you plan to monitor each of the factors described in a-e over the life of the plant.

g) How you plan to verify the accuracy of the monitoring and associated analysis used in determining salt drift per acre as a function of the distance and direc-

! tion from the plant.

ANSWER a)(i) The salinity of the drift emitted from the cooling towers will be detrained by periodically sampling the circulating cooling water in the cooling tower basin.

(ii) and (iii) There are no plans to monitor salinity of the spray ponds and evaporation ponds for the purpose of determining drift salinity.

b)(i), (ii) and (iii) There are no plans to implement a monitoring program to monitor drift mass or drift droplet size distribution or the size and quantity of salt particles emitted from the cooling towers, spray ponds or evaporation ponds. .

c) See the Salt Deposition and Impact Monitoring Plan for the PVNGS Units 1, 2 and 3, February 1983.

d) See the Salt Deposition and Impact Monitoring Plan for the PVNGS Units 1, 2 and 3, February 1983.

e) See the Salt Deposition and Impact l Monitoring Plan for the PVNGS Units 1, 2 and 3, February l

1983.

f) See the Salt Deposition and Impact l

Monitoring Plan for the PVNGS Units 1, 2 and 3, February l 1983. The monitoring program will be conducted until the impacts of plant operations are determined.

g) See the Salt Deposition and Impact l

Monitoring Plan for the PVNGS Units 1, 2 and 3, February 1983.

i INTERROGATORY NO. 33

33. State whether water desalinization was con-sidered as a salt drift mitigation strategy prior to the completion of the EIS-OS.

ANSWER Water desalinization was not considered as a salt drift mitigation strategy prior to the completion of the EIS-OS.

INTERROGATORY NO. 35 3S. State whether you are now considering or have considered since the completion of the EIS-OS water desali-nization as a salt drift mitigation strategy.

ANSWER Water desalinization has not been and is not being considered as a salt drift mitigation strategy.

INTERROGATORY No. 37

37. State whether blowdown treatment and water recirculation were considered as salt drift mitightien strategies prior to the completion of the EIS-OS.

ANSWER Blowdown treatment and water recirculation were not considered as salt drift mitigation strategies prior to the completion of the EIS-OS.

INTERRCGATORY NO. 39

39. State whether you are now considering blow-down treatment and water recirculation as a salt drift miti-gation strategy.

ANSWER Blowdown treatment and water recirculation are not now being considered as a salt drift mitigation strategy.

INTERROGATORY NO. 47

47. Describe the maintenance plans for the PVNGS cooling tower drift eliminators.

ANSWER The maintenance plans for the PVNGS cooling towers have not yet been written. APS intends to use the Marley Cooling Tower Company's Operation and Maintenance Instruc-tions Manual as guidance for developing future APS plans.

INTERROGATORY No. 51.

51. Identify each person who works for:

i) NUS ii) Marley iii) Bechtel iv) Joint Applicants v) Any other entity with knowledge of consideration of alternative cooling tower drift elimination systems as well as the person at Marley most familiar with Marley's cooling tower drift elimination system.

ANSWER (i) NUS: No one (ii) MARLEY: Those persons listed in response to Interrogatory 3(i)(a); J. D. Holmberg has the most knowledge . about Marley's cooling tower drift elimina-tion system.

(iii) BECHTEL: No one (iv) APS: No one

INTERROGATORY No. 52

52. State whether prior to the completion of the EIS-OS Joint Applicants conducted or had conducted for them any studies on the tolerance of crops grown within 10 miles of the PVNGS to aerosol salt deposition.

ANSWER There were no such studies conducted.

INTERROGATORY NO. 55

55. If your answer to interrogatory 54 is yes, describe that information for each of the crops grown in the vicinity of the PVNGS.

ANSWER, The information is contained in the ER-CP, Section 5.4.2, and in reference No. 35 to that section.

I