ML20147C425

Confirms 781009 Site Visit Re Environ Rev of Appl for Constr Permits for Subj Facil.Forwards Visit Schedule & Questions for Tech Meeting

ML20147C425
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	10/03/1978
From:	Regan W Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Van Brunt E ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE CO. (FORMERLY ARIZONA NUCLEAR
References
NUDOCS 7810130012
Download: ML20147C425 (10)

Text

.

p?A P1r

• 'E j UNITED STATES p- t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20585

% , , , . #,8 OCT 3 1978 Docket Nos. STN 50-592 and STN 50-593-

. Arizona Public Service Compant ATTN: Mr. E. E. Van Brunt, Jr.

Vice President, Construction Projects P. 0. Box 21666 .

Phoenix, Arizona 85036 Gentlemen: ,

This' letter will confirm earlier conversations with-your staff establishing -

the week of.0ctober 9, 1978 for the staff's site visit to be carried out as part of the environmental review of your application for construction permits for the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 4 and 6.

The visiting team will consist of the NRC's Environmental Project Manager (EPM), Dr. Robert A. Gilbert, and members of the Argonne National Labora -

tory (ANL) team assigned to this project. In addition, other members of the regulatory staff will accompany the EPM for portions of the visit.

For planning purposes you can expect ten people from ANL and three or four from Washington.

The enclosed schedule is proposed for the site visit and is for your >

general information and guidance. A list of questions which will form "

the agenda for a meeting between our staffs on October 13 is also enclosed for your information.

Sincerely, l -/

Wm. H. Regan, J ,, Chfef Environmental Projects Branch 2 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis

Enclosures:

1. Site Visit Schedule

2. List of Questions 7?/@ 3##/A 9

Arizona Public Service Company 3 gg73 cc: Arthur C. Gehr, Esq.

Snell & Wilmer 3100 Valley Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 O

a i.

e PROPOSED SCHEDULE FOR SITE VISIT Date Activity October 9, 1978 Visit to proposed site for Palo Verde Units 4 and 5 and to some alternate sites.

October 10.1978 Visit to remaining alternate sites.

October 11, 1978 Visit to local areas. .

October 12, 1978 Visit to state agencies during.the day. Evening public meeting from 7:30 PM to 10:00 PM.

October 13, 1978 Working discussion meeting with Applicant personnel. Open to public.

I t.

1 PALO VERDE. NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 4 AND 5 DOCKET NOS. STN 90-592 AND STN 50-593 4

SITE VISIT AGENDA -

, QUESTIONS ,

Cooling' System

1. Indicate the approach range and mode of operation of the cooling 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 partial plant loads.

2. Do the fans use dual-speed motors? If so, indicate air flow rate and cooling range and approach when using reduced' fan speeds.

3. Section 2.4.2.3 - Indicate the scheduled use of the essential spray pond system during non-emergency periods (hours per year ofoperation,testingcycles,etc.).

4. Section 6.1.3 - The description of the LVPM and F0G models in the ER-CP are insufficient for staff evaluation. Please provide a more ,

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- i TM-S-185,datedJuly1974). Ha'e v there been changes in the models since the ER-CP was prepared? If so, discuss.. "

5. Please provide full documentation that the models do accurately simula.te .

cooling tower effects. (plume. rise, plume length, fogging, changes in  !

humidity, drif t deposition) for circular mechanical-draft towers. Have any model validation' studies been made since the ER-CP was prepared?

If so, describe.

6. 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 FOG model. . Indicate which procedure was used to-prepare each of the tables and figures. Also, how do the two plume rise., '

values compare for a given set of meteorological / tower data?

7. _ . Describe the changes'made in the computer ~ codes or procedures used as a i

= result of changing from linear to circular cooling towers.

j

8. 'P' lease describe more completely the p'rocedure used to calculate plume rise from a cluster of 3 towers, and from all 15 towers atzthe site. .l .

9. Describe' how is the buoyany heat. flux term. F, is calculated.

1 w

- 2'-

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

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

12. 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, wetting, salt deposition on plants,

~

switchyards, structures, etc.) from these towers. Have any traffic acci.-

dents been caused by tower-produced fogging, road wetting or icing? Has the salt drift caused any problems with switchyards, vegetation, car finishes, etc.) Compare these impacts with those predicted for PVNGS.

13. Section 4.1.4.3 Does the model predict fogging on any of the public roads in the area? If so, give the predicted frequency. Do observations of fogging from the operating towers in the Phoenix area support or refute your conclusion that there will surface fogging 1 km downwind of the PVNGS towern? . .

14. Table 5.1 Wh.at is the source for the drift drop size spectrum? The drop sizes are quite small when compared to other published ~ spectr's for mechanical - drift towers, including data on circular towers by Moore el a_1 (Cooling Tover Environment - 1978).

15. What will be the size of the largest droplets in the drifts? #

2

16. Drift estimates for round and rectangular mechanical draft cooling lowers have changed from ER-CP PVNGS 1,2,3 to ER-CP PVNGS 4,5 with this fact being evident in ground deposition model pred'ctions. Total drift deposi-tion for fan-assisted natural draft cooling towers has altered appreciably as well. What is the new drift estimate for this type of cooling tower?

17. The main condenser is designed to remove 9200 million Btu per hour from the turbine exhaust steam. The plant cooling water system removes approxi-mately 191 million 8tv 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'. mentioned systems. Please substantiate this apparent discrepancy. I s.

Hydrolooy and Water Use

1. Please provide loan copies of refere' n ces 1 thru 7 for Section 5.7.3 of the ER.

l

2. Page 5.7-3 2nd Paragraph. The discussion of recharge rate does not 'i include induced infiltration of river water resulting from well-pumpage. Explain what differences in recharge rates would occur if this source of recharge was eliminated.

3. In connection with question 2 above, provide locations and' pertinent date on the BID wells near.the Gila River (e.g.; depths, aquifer tapped, pumping rates, potential yields, etc.).

4. Provide the supplemental' material concerning makeup water supply alternatives, as cited in the ER.

Cooling System Chemistry and Non-Radioactive Wastes

1. Section 3.6.1. Provide system volume.and approximate quantities of oil,, grease, dirt, ammonia and 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

.0.2% acid inhibitor will be added to the feedwater system. Specify organic acid and inhibitor and volume of solution to be employed.

3. Section 3.6.2.2. Indicate type and annual quantities of biocides and heavy metals expected in the cooling tower drift.

4. Section 3.6.2.2. Will blowdown be continued during the period when hypochlorite is injected into the circulating water system?

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

the circulating water to inhibit formation of scale on the condenser,.

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.

6. Section 3.7.1.1. It is stated that an identical package treatment plant will be added to'the two existing plants, each with a rated '

capacity of 18,000 gpd. Does this mean that the capacity of the exist-ing plants will be decreased from 25,000 gpd (as stated in PVNGS 1, 2 & 3 ER, Section 3.7.1.1.)?

Social Impact .

Several questions in this section refer to Palo Verde, Units 1, 2 and 3.

It should be understood that this information is being requested, only

'to assist in validating the predicted.' incremental impacts of Palo Verde, Units 4 and 5. ,

, , . , ., _____.l_______________.__ ____.E____.___

1. Provide a summary of the following information on the existing con-struction force for Units 1, 2, and 3.

a. current area of residence

b. martial status.

c. number of children

d. percentages of local and new resident employees (i.e., breakdown of local people hired as compared to people who moved to area for a job)

2. Is the applicant aware of any employees on the construction force for Units 1, 2, and 3 who have contracted Coccidioidomycosis. If*yes, indicate the numbers of persons affected.

3. Provide an estimate of the maximum and. average noise levels at the closest residence to the construction site for Units 4 and 5, based on experience with Units 1, 2, and 3.

4. Update Sections 5, 9 giving the physical (mothball entombment, etc.)

and cost options as of 1978.

5. If an additional pipeline for makeup water will be necessary, will there be any land use in excess of those described in ER for 1, 2, 3 or in the NRC Final Environmental Statement? If yes, please explain.

If yes, explain any plans for identification of archaeological resources that may exist on the involved land.

6.

Supply description of methodology used in Appendix 28; e.g., how were ,

sites located, and how were below-ground excavations carried out. and what is the evidence that no archarological sites will be impacted by.

construction and operation of Units 4 and 5, as claimed on page 8.2-8.

7. Fill in the following table beginning with the first year of construc-tion on Units 1, 2, 3 and ending with full start-up of Units 4 and 5:

NUMBER OF CONSTRUCTION.KOR12RS Units. Units Uni'st Year 1. 2, 3 4, 5 1,2,3,4,5 NLMBER OF OPERATIONAL WORKERS Units Units

• Units Year 1,2,3 4.-5 1,2,3,4,5 '

- - - - - . _ _ - _--- - - - - -- - . - - n - -, - -- - -- -:

6-8.. Describe any major wo n 'o'ct. t;:vtable, social or etonumic effects, if any, which have occurred .a twuucting Units 1, 2, and 3, 6nd which differ significantly from the predictions in the ER for Units 1, 2, and 3 or the NRC Final Environmental Statement.

9. Update Section 5.8, particularly 5.8.2 and 5.8.4, giving next best alternative uses of water and land, together with an estimate as to their monetary value.

10. 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 what year's dollars?

Does Table P.1.6 exhaust the entire expected property payouts? If not, please list y a remainder. ,

11. It is acknowledged that there is a time difference between when the placement of value occurs (buildings, etc.) and when the 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 information on how these paid revenues have changed the expenditure patterns on public services by the different taxing jurisdictions.

12. Please supply copies of references 13,14, and 22 from Sectior. 2.2.

13. List recreational facilities within 10 miles $f the plant and estimated number of annual visitations. ,

14. Prepare a table such as the at;tached sample for towns, cities, and trailer parks with populations less than 30,000 in 1970 and v,. thin 30 miles of the site (this excludes the city of Phoenix). Provide information for the most current year available. If information is unavailable as stated in Table 2.2-2, enter "N. A. " . If infonnation is not applicable, enter "0". ,

Ecolocical Impact

1. How sLsceptible to erosion are the soils of'the PVNGS site (PVNGS 1, 2, and 3 ER Sect. 2.7.2.15)? Evaluate the success' of mitigative measures for con-trolling 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 -12)? A7e 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)?

3. If it ever becomes necessary to drain the reservoirs, where would the contained

, water be diverted?

4. Has the areal extent of ma'rsh habitat along the Salt-Gila watemay changed materially since September 19757 How did the most current applicant analysis reach the conclusion that 55% of the marshland would be temporarily lost by" diverting effluent to pvt 1GS (PVNGS 4&5 ER, p. 5.7-4)?

5. Explain what infonnation and assumptions were used, and what was the method-ology that led to the conclusion that phreatophyte habitats will be minimally affected (PVf1GS 4&5 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 (Dioodomys stechensi) considered to be 1:ess than along the alternate route (PVtlGS 4&S, Suppl.1, p. 4.2-4)? Please provide details that lead to this conclusion. .

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

Loma route. .

8. Provide the ecological data utilized in screening of potential sites, identification of candidate sites, and the selection of the proposed site.

9. Please provide loan copies of references 9.2-9 through -11.

10. Are the environmental factors (land use, ecology, and demography) considered secondary factors in the ranking matrix system of evaluating candidate a'reas-(PVf1GS-4&5, suppl. 1. Table 9.2-2)?

11. If available provide the results of ecological studies conducted at the -

[ .Gillespie Dam alternate site in 1974, 1975 and any subsequent years. "

12. . Provide a legend for Figure 9.2-6 (Gillespie Dam site).

53. Provide any available ecological information on the transmission routes from the Gillespie Dam, Bouse,. Sentinel, and Snowflake alternate rites;

14. b a nuclear plant were constructed at Gillespie Dam,.what environmental mitigative measures would be nec'essary to protect the ecologically sensitive areas at the site (PVf(GS 4&S, Suppl.1, p. 9.3-7).

15. The endangered Brown Pelican has been observed at the PVf1GS site (PVNGS 4&5 ER, p. 2.7-26). Has any determination been made as to the availability

. t of habitat for this species in the vicinity o,f PVNGS (including the billespie 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?

16. Will waterfowl use of the station reservoirs be monitored on a regular basis?

If so, provide details of the anticipated monitoring program.

1

• . i

17. 1)iscuss the sampling design used for rare or endangered species, particularly with reference to its statistical basis (i.e.; frequency of sampl%g and total numbers of samples). Provide summaries of sampling data that pertain t'o rare or endangered species.  ; -

18. Are the buildings at PVNGS being used as roosting sites by bats (ref. PVNGS -

4 and 5 ER, p. 2-7.13)? This .my be established by a daytime survey of the buildings.

19. 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-f t/yr) .

Cultural Resources

1. Provide details of any infonnation currently available concerning the

' cultural resource survey for site identification and the main site, alternate sites, pipeline and transmission co ridors. This may include a detailed discussion of survey methods, description of the activity structure and function of the resources that have baen identified, and criteria for J

. evaluation of s,ignificance of each . resource. ~ '

2. Where resource s,urveys hav'e not yet been completed, provide details of the methods to be used in site location and evaluation and the survey schedule.

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

4. 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.

5. Provide copies of all correspondence received by the company discussing their cultural resource program for site location, evaluation, mitigation, and protection.

{

{