ML20079M953

Responds to NUMARC Survey in Support of NRC License Renewal Rulemaking Covering Aquatic Resources,Socioeconomic Questions & Waste Mgt Questions

ML20079M953
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	11/11/1991
From:	ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
To:
References
RTR-NUREG-1437 AR, S, WM, NUDOCS 9111110014
Download: ML20079M953 (16)

Text

• ~

4p+_.. y-a. -- A m- -e o-.%

LAW ~4~ ^AMLa'" '

d-,.66M-b m.8,,Ra<4J--=' '

Ms..mA h4' geb

• m~ m a AbnuAn2 a AAJman-=..-Am~4Ms4mn_Am.,sa--a4 AlIIII 3

7 j b f) ._

SITE 7 o Y4ldto I,2,3 ENCLOSURES , (L44m1 NO C%W:.lbM I

i en u-War O

N P

a 9111110014 911111 PDR NUREO 1437 C PDR

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

l .

ATIACl!MRiI 64u_alic .Rc3_q_um Aquatic Resource Questions:

Question

1. Post-licensing modifications and/or changes in operations of intake and/or discharge systems may have altered the effects of the power plant on aquatic resources, or may have been made specifically to mitigate impacts that were not anticipated in the design of the plant. Descrite my such modifications and/or operational changes to the condeaser cooling water intake and discharge systems since the issusnee of the Operating 1.icense.

F.espon g Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNCS) Units 1, 2, and 3 utilir.e treated < f fluent f rom the cit.ies of Phoenix and Tolleson for condenser cooling water. Cooling tower blowdown is discharged to on site, lined evaporation ponds. Therefore, there are no potential impacts on aquatic resources, regardless of modification to these systems. Makeup and discharge ayatems are conunon to all three units.

Q93331211

2. Summarize and describe (or provide documentation of) any known impacts on aquatic resources (e.g., fish kills, violations of discharge permit conditions) or National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) enforcement actions that have occurred since issuance of the Operating 1.icense, llow have these been resolved or changed over time? (The response to this question should indicate whether impacts are ongoing or were the result of start-up problems that were subsequently resolved.)

R M PJ a n PVNCS c')es not require an NPDES permit due to design and operation as a "zero discharge" site. Barring catastrophic failure of evaporation pond dams, there is no potential for impacting aquatic resources.

Question 3, Changes to the NPDES permit during operat ion of the plant could indicate whether water quality parameters were determined to have no significant impacts (and were dropped from monitoring requirements) or were subsequently raised as a water quality issue. 1 Ptovide a brief sun. mary of changes (and when they occurred) to the NPDES permit for the plant since issuance of the Operating License , y

_n ATTACILKfM Aquatic 113.gource LG9. tit 1DVt!D Resnonse This queption does not apply since PVNGS does not have nor require ,

an NPDES permit.

Question

4. An examination of trends in the effects on aquatic resources monitoring can indicate whether impacts have increased, decreased, or remained relatively stable during oporation. Descrito and summarize (or provide documentation of) rvsults of monitoring of water quality and aquatic biota (e.g., related to NPDES permits, Environmental Technical Specification, site-specific monitoring required by federal or state sa,encies). Vhat trends are appsrent over time?

EtJtrattar PVNGS Environmental Technical Specifications have never required water quality or aquatic biota monitoring and PVNGS does not have an NPDES permit, as discussed in previous responses. PVNGS does have a Groundwater Quality Protection Perait issued by the State of Aris.ona which requires water quality monitoring, but this is for preservation of groundwater rupplies and is not an aquatic resource issue.

Qpestion

5. Summarize types and numbers (or provide docamentation) of organisms entrained and impinged by the condenser cooling water system since-issuance of the Operating License. Describe any seasonal patterns associated with entrainment and impingement, llow has entrainment and impingement che.nged over time?

Pawonse Since PVNGS utilizes treated sewage e ifluent for condenser cooling, organism entrainment or impingement 1. not possible.

Question

6. Aquatic habitat enhancement or restoration efforts (e.g. , anadromous fish runs) during operation may have anhanced the biological '

communities in the vicinity of the plant. Alternatively, degradation of habitat or water quality raay have resulted in loss of biological '

i resources near the site. Describe any changes to aquatic habitats (both enhancement and degradation) in the vicinity of the power plant since the issuance of the Operating License including those that may

AIIAGCiMI Arinah e Resp _urgs i IGenLLtunuO have resulted in different plant impacts than those initially r predicted.

B_ttimnRI Since PVNGS is a "zero discharge" plant, thete have been no aquatic habitat changes, neither enhancement or degradation, since the issuance of the Operating License.

Qye s t lett

7. Plant operations may have had positive, negative, or no impact on the use of aquatic resources by others, llarvest by commercial or recreatinnal fishermen may be constrained by plant operation.

Alternatively commercial harvesting may be relatively large compared with fish lossess caused by the plant. Describe (or provide documentation for) other nearby uses of waters affected by cooling water systems (e.g. , swimming, boating, annnat harvest by commercial and recreational finheries) and how these impact have changes since issuance of the Operating Lic.ense.

Response

Evaporation ponds which impound liquid diucharges from P"NGS units do not suppot t fishing and are closed to boating, swimming or other recreational purposes.

Question

8. Describe other sources of impacts on aquatic resources (e g.,

industrial discharges, othet power plants, agricultural runof f) that could contribute to cumulative impacts. What are the relative ~

contributions by percent of these sources, including the .

cor.tributions due to the power plant, to overall water quality degradation and losses of aquatic biotc?

B162cDJS As indicated in rer.ponses above, PVNGS is designed c.nd operated as ,

a "zero disenarge" facility and does not contribute in any way to water quality degradation or Soss of aquatic biota. Any impacts on aquatic resources would therefore be due to other sources.

l

~ '

^" - __-- . __

4-ATIAC1!5f-If!

Aguatic Respj,17tsg (Continued)

Oneatign

9. Provide a copy of your Set. tion 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Report required by the Clean Vaste [ sic] Act. What Section 316(u) and (b) determinations have been made by the regulatory authorities?

Response

As a "zero discharge" facility, PVNGS is not required to prepare a Section 316(a) and (b) Demonstration Report, therefore no determinations have been made by regulatory authorities.

-r-~- --.__4 .. . , _ _ , . _ . _ . . , _ ._

. _ _ _ . - . - - - . _ = - - - - . - - - . - - . . . -

(

4 NIIACllMENT Eocineeonomic_Qoestjpfls_4ll Util_lijta 91te s t ion

1. To understand the importance of the p? M and the degree of its socioeconomic itapacts on the local region, estima13 the number of permanent workets on-site for the tnost recent year for which data are available.

Pattriin 3,340 (based on year-to-date 1990 average) i question

2. To understand the icportance of the plant to the local region, and how that has changed over time, estimate the average number of permanent workers on site In five year increments starting with the issuance of the plant's ,

Operating Licens6 If poasible, provide this information for each unit at a plant site.

St at1T.IlR 3,426 (based on 198b and 1987 average)

Ouestion f

3. To understand a potentisi impact cf continued operation for an additional 20 years beyond the original licensing term, please provide for the following three cases:

A, a typical planned outage B, an ISI outage; and C. the lar3est single outsge (in terms of the number of workers j involved) that has occurred to dato.

an estimate of additional t orkers involved (for the entire outage and for

! anch principal task), length of outags, enths and year in which work occurred, and cost. Also, ut ima t;.g occupational _ doses received by permanent and temporary workers during each principal tasx, A,- M1 - February 1988 - June 1988 (124 days)

Approximately $25 million Outage CL'- Info not available t

B. N/A C. VJ. - April 1989 l- Current expenditure to date $71.3 million Outage CL - Average 316 l

a.-._-..--_.-.-.,--.--.-..w-..--.- - . - -,-.- . - . -

i ,-

) t ATHCmt.E

"N7? '  !

l Socioeconomic Ouestions All Utilities I (Continued) 1' l l ]

l Question I .

4 To understand the plant's fiscal importance to specific jurisdictions, for 1980,1985, and the latest year for which

data are available, estinate the entire plant's taxable assessed value and the amount of taxes paid to the state and  !

j to each. local taxing jurisdiction. (See attached) f Y

j Fesponse j 4

f i,

The fiscal importance to specific jurisdictions can best be determined by computing the percentage of assessed value  ;

i of the entire jurisdiction as it relates to the plant. .

[

i

> The source for this computation is the Arizona Tax Research Foundation book of Property Tax P.ates and Assessed Values  !

for 1980, 1985 and 1989. (Total value for each jurisdiction is equal to the value in the ATEA book plus the value

for Salt River Project.)

, i

)

For years prior to 1989 the valuation used for the plant included all class 2 properties (electric, gas, phone and [

j water) located inside the Ruth Fisher School District. No breakdown by each Pelo Verde Participant was done prior l

}

to 1989. The distortion caused by including these is beliesed to be minical, based on the difference between the l

total class 2 valuation .nd the value identified for the plant participants in 1989. ,

! I f The tax liability for each jurisdiction is determined by multiplying the value shown by the t u rate that was adopted.

) i

% 5 l

3 I

i' I

! I r

i . I

(

i j

I i

=

s'  ;

ATTAC1DfENT Socioeconomic Orestions All Utilities (Continued) ,

i FICURES ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY NOT EXACTLY MATCH INDIVIDUAL TAI STATEMD,'TS.

Plant

% of Total Adopted Tax Levied '

i Year Jurisdiction Assessed valuation Plant Valuation Valuation Rate on Plant 1980 State $ 8,196,311,265 S 341,222,806 4.16%. 0.0125 5 4.265,285 ,

County S 4,095,294,156 S 341,222,806 8.33% 0.0198  ! 6,756,212 ,

Community College S 4,095,294,156 S 341,222,806 8.33% 0.0092 S 3,139,250 i School $ 343,257,615 S 341,222,806 99.41%

0.0014 S 477.'12 Total 0.0429 S 14,638,458 [

1985 State $14,245,784,251 S1,147,312,438 8.05% 0.0040 $ 4,589,278 j Count,- S 8,481,086,943 $1.147,319,438 13.53% 0.0161 S 18,471,843 i i

Community College $ 8,481,086.*'3 S1,147,319,438 13.53% 0.0082 $ 9,408.019 School 4 1,153,440,295 $1,147,319,438 99.04% 0.0019 $ 2.179.907 Total 0.0302 $ 34,649,047 j 1989 State $21,814,796,117 S2,173,544,610 9.96% 0.004700 S 10,215,660 county $15.275,139,359 S2.173,544,610 14.23% 0.021850 $ 47,491,950 l Community College $15,275,139,359 $2,173,544,610 14.231 0.007508 S 16,318,973  ;

School S 2,197,946,799 S2,173.544,610 98.89% 0.012630 $ 27.451.868 -

Total 0.0466*' S101,478,451 )

I ma%% . w

i 4

4 $.

ATTACIDiFEI Wast e Ma_Dagtment Ouestions A. Spent Fuci Questions:

Qite s tion

1. Which of the fol.oving guttant techniques for at-reactor storage are you using and how?

A. Re-racking of spent fuel B. Control rod repositioning C. Above ground dry storage t D. Tonger fuel turnup E. Other (please identify)

Eesponso None of the techniques listed are currently used at Palo Verde. Our three spent fuel pools each have a capacity of 1329 fuel assemblies, but we are currently licensed only to utilize every other position (blocking devices are installed in prohibited locations to prevent insertion of fuel assemblies).

Question

2. Do you plan on continuing the use of these current technioues for at-reactor- storayu of spent fuel during the remaining time of your operating license or do you expect to chan i or modify them in some way?

BtaP_QIlia +

V3 vill have to begin utilizing adjacent locations within the next four to five years because we vill be approaching the current licensed capacity. A study is-being performed to analyze options.

An alternate method which could extend our storage capacity is fuel pin consolidation.

Question 7

3. Which of the techniques for at-reactor storage do you antic 1gatg f using until off-site spent fuel storage becomes evailable'and how?

A. Re-racking of spent fuel B. Control rod repositioning C. Above ground dry storage ,

D. Longer fuel burnup E. Other (please identify) l

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

4 ATl&GlLMI E VAILg_jin_tlag.ement Oue s tiEUA (CondButsil Eeapotiga No firta reconnendations have yet been formulated. The most viable solutions are probably those described in (2) above or extended fuel burnup. Our fullest of three spent fuel pools is currently at about 28% of licensed capacity (that U. tit is starting its third fuel cycle).

6.x Ouestion

4. Vill the technique darscribed above be adequate for continued at-reactor storage of spent fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renewal, or are you developing other plans?

Response

This question has not yet been considered.

i Question

5. Do you amc ic. t , :e the need to acquire addit _Lonal land for the storage of spimt. . .i .or the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-yea e ne . ?f license renewal? If so, how much land? When would this ac tis ion occur? Where7 4

Re spo:is e The site area is 4000+ acres, so it is not likely that we would have to acquire additional land; however, this question has not been considered.

Question 6.- Do you anticipate any additional constructigp activity on-site, or intaediately adjacent to the power plant site, associated with the continued at-reactor storage of spent fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20 year period of license renewalf Ree m se This question has not been considered.

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

< b AILLcJLMJ2tT Vatte Management.Questic.01 If9J111D11 tid Qnta.t ion

7. If you answered yes to question 6, briefly describe this construction a c ti.v 1 t y , ,

Re spaular N/A based on answer to question 6.

1

---

,,,-w3.-...- -, p. ...e.,, , v- +,.g.-,,,y - - , -,-.,.,r-., ..f,,f- 7.---e-,.r,., ,

.,7~, - ,y4, p,r--.y,,rg,. ., emmy. ry. y ,,w-, **-.9y

__. _ _ _ . _ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . - _ . ._.m._____ . . _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

i ATTACllMhMT Iftv-Leyc1,_Radtoictiye Vaste MapjacJRtnt B. Los level Radioactive Waste Management Questions Question

1. (Inder the current scheme for LLRV disposal (i.e., LLRV Policy AmendmSnts Acc of 1985 and regional compacts) is there currently or will sufficient capacity for vastes generated during the license renewal period be available to your plant (s)7 If so, what is the basis for this conclusion?

SWlP2/21R AFS is e nenber of the Southwestern low Level Radioactive Vaste Disposa' Compact which is scheduled to have its disposal site

'pera tiona'. in late 1991. The site in licensed for 30 years- with provisions for e..cension and/or construction of a new facility. The oxistc.cc of the coupect and the current 1!. censing status ensures '

that. vat.n disposal facilities will be available.

Ouestion

2. If for any reason your plant (s) is/are denied access to licensed disposal site for a short period of time, what plans do yov have for  ;

continued LLRV disposal?

Recnonse Our_ facility currently has.on-site storage capacity for stora! of vaste that would be generated over a two year period at current vsste generation rates. It is unrealistic for us to believe that access would be denied for a period of time that vould exceed our storage capacity. Future plans include the construction of additional storage areas to enhance our management capability for storage and reuse of radioactive material. This capacity along with our current program of vaste minit.tzation ad1s a further hedge against any potential problem which would prevent access to our disposal facility.

Questio_n .

-3. In-a couple of pages, please describe the specific methods of LLRV.

uanagement currently utilized by your plant. What percentage of your current LIRV (by volume) is managed by:

I

,o ATIAG1EEt l@tif vc1 Rahaet ivs._VEi.p_}{4ya.Engent

.(Qtillimitdl A. Vaste compaction?

B. Vaste segregation (through spacial controls or segregation at radiation check point)?

C. Decontamination of vastest D. Sorting of vaste prior to shipment?

E. Other (please identify)

Brealls.r.

An administrative control procedure implements the Radwaste Support and Radioactive Vaste Minimizetion Programs. Included in this procedure is the Radwaste Problem Report which may be used by all personnel to identify activities and/or conditions that generate abnormal or excessive volumes of radioactive vaste.

To ef fectively minimize all waste materials and reduce resultant radioactive vaste, systematic controls have been established to dispose of .raste generated within Radiological Control Areas RCAs).

uaste ar.d vaste like materials and/or unused materials generated within RCAs vill be considered for potential release from the 'CA.

Thts material which represents about 75% of all the dry active m 9 generated on-site is sorted and segregated to reclaim any reusabre items inadvertenely discarded and to remove any non-radioactive matetial which can be disposed of as non-radioactive vaste. Vaste which mast be disposed of as radioactive waste is generally processed via our on-site supercompactor. Incorporated into our Chemical Control Program are provision.; 'rhich control the generation of vaste which could become " Fixed Vaste" if radioactive contaminated These two programs mak, up the. major rast.agement programs utilized to handle dry active vaste.

For liquid or vet vaste, we have an inleakage reduction program which is oegigned o detect sbnormal liquid inleakage into the liquid radioactive was.:e system. This program is used to identify potential areas where excess?ve inflow is occurring and thus allows a means to see that necessary repairs or operations changes take place.

Liquid inleahge is processed primarily by evaporation.

Demineralizers and flitration are used to a lesser extent, Evaporator concentrate.s are solidified with cement accor. ling to applicable regt la tions . The volume of waste generated by solidification et evaporator concentrates or other liquids represents about 54% of the total vaste generated on-site. Dewatered resin makes up about 91 of all vaste generated on-site. Rosins are disposed of normally in strong tight containers but highly activated resin or filters are disposed of in "high integrity containers" per appropriate regulations. Filters represent about 1% of the sites total volume. Ve have one additional type of wante that we

0 p

ATIACILMENI lanicul_Ra310AC1111 VA t1EJiaDantment LGentinUtil categorize dich we call " vet vaste." This vaste is made up of mainly damp mops and rags used to decontaminate plant equipment.

These are dried and placed in absorbent meterial then shipped to an approved disposal site. This vaste stream accounts for about 4% cf the site's vaste total. Following are typical percentages of various waste streams:

Vaste Compaccion 20 - 32% of all vaste generated Vaste Segregation 75% of all dry active vaste (DAV)

Decontamination 25% of all DAV and tools l Sorting of v ste included in segregation Other Solidified 54 67% of all vaste Devatered resin 9% of all vaste Filters it of all vaste Wet Vaste 4% of all vaste ht1110n

4. In a couple of pagen. please describe the anils.ipated plans for LLRV -

management to be utilized by your plant (s) during the remainder of the operating 11aense and through the license reneral term. What percentage of your anticipated (by volume) vill be managed by:

A. Vaste compactiot.P Vaste segregation (through special controls or segregation at B.

radiation check point)?

Decontamination of vastes?

C.

D. Sorting of vaste prior to shipment?

g. Other (please identify) ,

BAE2DAR

- As explained above, our program is an ongoing program. The previous

-answer provides the basis for our future plans. Ve vill continue to evaluate new technologies and methods which may reduce the volume of vaste from a specific waste stream. As you know, any change in the percentage of one vaste stream will effect the percentage of the remaining vaste streams. An example of this is our current evaluation of liquid volume reduction (LVR) equipment. The current (January - April, 1990) percentaae for two vaste streams are 671 solid vaste and 23% dry active vaste (DAV), compactible and noncompactible. If the current LVR equipmet.t works as designed and was utilized to process the same vaste the percentage vould thange to 34% solid and 48% DAV. While no change to the: vaste volume of DAV occurred, the percentage changed based on a change to the solid vaste stream. As can be seen from this example, the percentages given should only be used as a general guideline.

.iTItt01(MKb IRY. .le.ye1 Racliqaet iye Watig,,)ig.ttenRttit IEmitimttal Oueation

5. Do you anticipate the need to acquire additional Innd for tho storage of spent fuel for the operating lifetint, ef the plant, including a 20 year period of license renewaif If so, how much land? When vould this acquisition occurf Wheref B.taPPAta No additional land will be needed. Our f acility is located on e 4000 acre site.

Quest [pn

6. To provide information on the timing of future low-level vaste streams, if you answered yes to question #$. over what periods of time are these activities contemplated?

Response

Not applicable.

$11eStion

7. Do you anticipate any addjlippe.1 constr sqtion activity on-site, or immediately adjacent to the power plant site, associated with the continued et-reactor storage of spent fuel for the operating lifetime of the plant, including a 20-year period of license renovalf B1122!1.12 Yes ihttElinD

8. If you answered yes to question 6, briefly describe this construction activity.

Re sr>onf_n APS is currently - evaluating the construction / modification of an additional maintenance f acility. Associated with this facility would te additional storage areas for radioactive material, as indicated in question 2 above. Tnis area could be used to store low-level radioactive vaste if the need arose.

v a

t A1ILc11gtf7 l#tv leve1. E4dioACI.$ve Vaputhiinanement (Cont intte.d1 Question

9. To provide information on future low level vaste streams which may effect workforce levels, exposure, and waste compact planning, do you anticipate any major plant modifications or refurbishment that at'e likely to generate unusual volumes of low-level radioactive waste prior to, or during, the relicensing period for the plant? If so, please describe these activities. f.lso, what types of modifications do you anticipate to be necessary to ach'

• license renewul operation through a 20-year license renewal tem?

Response

No normal or planned activities which would increase our volume of ,

vaste are planned at this time.

C. Mixed Low-Level Radioactive Waste t Q1ttAtl2n i

1. If your plant generates mixed LLRV, how is it currently being stored and what plans do you have for managing this waste during the license renewal period?

B,0 ppons e Our plant has produced a small volume of potentially mixed waste.

This volume represents only about, .01% of our annual volume. It is being stored in accordance with all applicable regulations in our current radioactive waste storage areas, We have implemented a chemical control program which controls the genet stion of mixed vaste ,

by requiring the appropriate management of any waste product. This program is being utilized to ensura that substitute chemicals are used to replace hasardous chemicals whenever possible. It is anticipated that the mixed waste disposal issue will be resolved prior to any licensing ren nal effort and beforo a large volume of mixed waste is generated. .

eL b

l l

. . . . . _, . _ _ . , , _ . . . , . .,m, ., . . - -