ML20148L822

Repts Results of Meeting & Site Visit W/Util.Appl Was Questioned on 3 Items:Flooding,Groundwater Levels & post-CP Item Re Ongoing Seepage Study.Answers Were Provided to First 2 Items & Study Is Being Made of the Third Question

ML20148L822
Person / Time
Site:	Palo Verde
Issue date:	11/13/1978
From:	Gonzales R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Hulman L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 7811200362
Download: ML20148L822 (3)

Text

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

d y

f29,. 4 r

U .M CD M ATES UUCLEAR PMULATO3Y COTT/RslON I h., ,.

f h N

%f .~.+.< . .

f;ovember 13, 1978 Docket Nos. STN 50-592 I and STN 50-593 MEMORANDUM FOR: L. G. Hulman, Chief Hydrology-Meteorology Branch, DSE FROM: R. O. Gonzai a , Hydraulic Engineer Hydrology-Meteorology Branc , DSE THRU: W. S. Bivins, Leader 86 Hydrologic Engineering [drec n, HAB,1 DSE

SUBJECT:

MEETING AND SITE VIslT - PALO VERDE NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION On October 17-18,-1978 the undersigned and W. S. Bivins visited the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station which is located about 36 miles west of Phoenix, Arizona. The purpose of the trip was to meet with the applicant, Arizona Public Service Company (APSC) and its consultants to discuss the application for a construction permit to construct two addi-tional units; and to visually inspect the site. Although the meeting was mainly for gathering and exchanging information between NRC and the APSC, the general public was given the opportunity.to attend and be in-volved in the proceedings. Public attendance was very disappointing; only.four persons identified themselv a as not representing APSC, its consultants or NRC. Only.one of thest persons verbally expressed concerns J about the project.

We. questioned the applicant about three items: flooding, groundwater levels and a post-CP item from Units 1, 2 and 3 concerning an ongoing seepage study. The applicant provided answers for the first two items and advised us that the seepage study for Units 1, 2 and 3 will not be completed until the end.of the calendar year; at which time.it will be submitted to NRC for review. The seepage analyses for Units 4 and 5 1 will be based on the results of this seepage study. At the.present time, SER input for Units 4 and 5 is due by January 9, 1979. .The applicant's late completion of its study will necessarily impact on this schedule in that the seepage question will have to an unresb1ved issue in the SER input.for Units 4 and.5. Because of.this,.the applicant will try to hurry-up the study. However, no firm (earlier) date could be l identified by the applicant. ,

781120039t -

\

.a -- , , -.

.-.+ .._n._ - .- - . - . _ , . -

L. G: Hulman During the site visit, we made a visual inspection of the area where units 4 and 5 will be located. We were advised that 225 borincsranging in depth from 29 feet to 400 feet have been drilled for units 4 and 5.

There wasn't any activity at the unit 4 site but at site ik. 5, instru-  ;

ments were being installed in several wells to conduct pumping tests. '

Next came an inspection of construction activities at units 1, 2 and 3.

Unit 3 is about 30 percent complete and ready to accept the reactor vessel, which was due to arrive at the site that week; unit 2 is about 8 percent complete and unit 1 is just a hole in the ground. I We then investigated a diversion which has been constructed. between two small hills at the northeast corner of the site. This structure intercepts flood flows from East Wash and rechannels them along the east boundary of the site away from the plant. It appears that the diversion has already been ef fective in diverting water away from the site as evidenced by sediment deposition and a slight displacement of some of the channel riprap. There is a newly constructed hard surface road that runs normal to the East Wash diversion. Three corregated metal culverts have been installed under this roadway to pass East Wash flows.

During a severe flood, such as the Probable Maximum Flood, it is pos-si bi t. that these culverts could become clogged with sediment, rocks l and debris causing water to pond behind the road embankment eventually l flowing over the road or causing a wash out. This issue is now being l pursued with the applicant, j

^

We then inspected the excavation for the make-up water storage pond for units 1, 2 and 3. During review of the PSAR for units 1, 2 and 3, the l applicant was advised that prior to constructing this storage reservoir  !

the seepage study was to be completed and an effective solution for ,

controlling seepage had to be proposed by the applicant and approved l

by NRC. As mentioned previously, the seepage study will not be completed until the end of the year. When reminded of this, the applicant responded that the reservoir area had been the source of borrow material for the construction site. About 2,800,000 cubic yards had been used as material

.for the East Wash embankment and other construction fill had been obtained from the area. Further, several more feet of material have to be removed before the storage reservoir will be the required size. Thus, the ap-plicant concluded that construction had not begun on the reservoir;-

• material had just been borrowed from the area.

The rest of the day was spent looking at the physical plant layout. We noted that a 600 ton crane is at the site ready to lift and place the reactor vessel into the containment uil d ' .

A y

onak ulic Enginee , HES Hyd ology-Meteorology Branch, DSE cc: See attached list i

\

6 .

o

\

L. G. Hulman cc: R. Denise W. Bivins R. DeYoung D. Mu'ar R . Bu.

B. Stri .t R. Gonzales NRC PDR Local PDR ACRS (18) e 4

\

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