ML051150252
| ML051150252 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 04/08/2005 |
| From: | Bauer S Arizona Public Service Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 102-05246-SAB/TNW/CJJ | |
| Download: ML051150252 (8) | |
Text
LAMS Palo Verde Nuclear Scott A. Bauer Department Leader, Tel. 623-393-5978 Fax 623-393-5442 Mail Station 7636 PO Box 52034 Generating Station Regulatory Affairs e-mail: sbaueraapsc.com Phoenix, Arizona 85072-2034 102-05246-SAB/TNW/CJJ April 8, 2005 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Mail Station: P1-37 Washington, DC 20555-0001 Dear Sir.
Subject:
Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS)
Units 1, 2, and 3 Docket Nos. STN 50-52815291530 Annual Environmental Operating Report 2004 Enclosed please find a copy of the Annual Environmental Operating Report for 2004.
This report covers the operation of PVNGS Units 1, 2, and 3 during 2004, and is being submitted pursuant to Section 5.4.1 of Appendix B to the Operating License.
No commitments are being made to the NRC in this letter. Ifyou have any questions, please contact Thomas N. Weber at (623) 393-5764.
Sincerely, SAB/TNW/CJJ Enclosure cc: B. S. Mallett (all w/o enclosure)
M. B. Fields G. G. Warnick A. V. Godwin A member of the STARS (Strategic Teaming and Resource Sharing) Alliance Callaway
- Comanche Peak
- Diablo Canyon
- Palo Verde
- South Texas Project
- Wolf Creek 25
ENCLOSURE 2004 Annual Environmental Operating Report
2004 Annual Environmental Operating Report I. INTRODUCTION The Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) is located in Maricopa County, Arizona, approximately 50 miles west of the Phoenix metropolitan area.
The PVNGS site comprises approximately 4080 acres. Site elevations range from 890 feet above mean sea level at the southern boundary to 1030 feet above mean sea level at the northern boundary. The station consists of three pressurized water reactor electrical generating units. Units 1 and 3 have a rated thermal power of 3876 MW per Unit. Unit 2 has a rated thermal power of 3990 MW.
PVNGS was issued low power operating licenses NPF-34, NPF-46 and NPF-65 for Units 1, 2 and 3 by the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) on December 31, 1984, December 9, 1985, and March 25, 1987, respectively. The Unit 1 full power operating license NPF-41 was issued June 1, 1985. The Unit 2 full power operating license NPF-51 was issued April 24, 1986. The Unit 3 full power operating license NPF-74 was issued November 25, 1987. Appendix B to these operating licenses is entitled the "Environmental Protection Plan (Non Radiological)". The Environmental Protection Plans (EPP) for each of the current operating licenses are identical.
The EPP purpose is to provide for protection of environmental values during construction and operation of the nuclear facility. The principal objectives of the EPP are as follows:
(1) Verify that the station is operated in an environmentally acceptable manner, as established by the FES (Final Environmental Statement) and other NRC environmental impact assessments.
(2) Coordinate NRC requirements and maintain consistency with other Federal, State and Local requirements for environmental protection.
(3) Keep NRC informed of the environmental effects of facility construction and operation and actions taken to control those effects.
This Annual Environmental Operating Report is required by Section 5.4.1 of the EPP. This report describes the activities during a specific calendar year related to the PVNGS EPP. For purposes of this report, references to the EPP are considered to be the EPP of NPF-41, NPF-51, and NPF-74.
Page I of 6
2004 Annual Environmental Operating Report II. ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING SUMMARIES AND ANALYSIS A. Cultural Resources Section 4.2.1 of the EPP requires that an archaeological survey be performed when final alignment of the PVNGS-to-Saguaro transmission line is completed.
As of the date of this report, plans for this transmission line have been indefinitely suspended. Therefore, there has been no activity with regard to this requirement of the EPP.
B. Terrestrial Ecology Monitoring As communicated in a letter from William F. Conway, APS, to NRC, dated December 30, 1991, the salt deposition monitoring program was discontinued at the end of 1991.
111. PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Section 3.1 of the EPP allows changes in station design or operation or the performance of tests or experiments affecting the environment provided that such changes, tests, or experiments do not involve an unreviewed environmental question and do not involve a change to the EPP. Changes, tests, or experiments in which all measurable non-radiological effects are confined to the on-site areas previously disturbed during site preparation and plant construction or in which the environment is not affected are exempt from the evaluation and reporting requirements of Section 3.1.
Section 3.2 of the EPP also exempts changes, tests, or experiments, which are required to comply with other Federal, State, or local environmental regulations.
Eleven (11) design and operation changes were evaluated in 2004 to determine if they involved either an unreviewed environmental question or constituted a change in the EPP. Table 111-1 summarizes the results of these evaluations. None of these changes involved an unreviewed environmental question or a change in the EPP.
IV. EPP NON-COMPLIANCES There were no instances of non-compliance with the EPP identified during 2004.
V. NON-ROUTINE REPORTS There were no non-routine reports required by Section 5.4.2 of the EPP submitted during 2004.
Page 2 of 6
2004 Annual Environmental Operating Report TABLE III - I
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2004 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 04-005 DFWO 2664678 Unit 2 Cooling Tower Changes to cooling tower The FES identifies that based on The maintenance work consisted of Distribution Basin Panel operation or equipment could current cooling tower design, there are a like-for-like repair of existing Repair affect offsite impacts evaluated no adverse environmental impacts equipment already evaluated in the in the FES and drift-monitoring Identified. The proposed change does FES. The change, therefore, will program. not change the tower design airflow or have no adverse environmental water flow rate or velocity and, impact as previously determined in therefore, will not affect cooling tower the FES.
operations.04-007 DMWO 2608627 Cooling Tower Concrete Extending the cooling tower The FES identified impacts associated There was no unreviewed Apron Extension apron has the potential to affect with cooling tower 'discharges' to the environmental question because emissions from the cooling environment. Cooling tower operation the scope of work performed would towers. was previously reviewed. The not cause any significant increase modification reduced the potential for in emissions. The towers will discharges from the cooling towers due continue to be operated in to tower overspray, and, therefore, accordance with county caused no real change to cooling tower regulations. The change, therefore, operation. The work performed would will have no adverse environmental not cause a significant increase in impact as previously determined in emissions and the original impact the FES.
assessments remained valid.04-012 DFWO 2653538 Unit 3 Cooling Tower Basin The cutting of the tower basin The FES identified impacts associated There was no unreviewed Wall Cutting wall has the potential to affect with cooling tower 'discharges' to the environmental question because emissions from the cooling environment. Cooling tower operation the scope of work performed would towers. was previously reviewed. The not cause any significant increase modification reduced the potential for in emissions. The towers will discharges from the cooling towers due continue to be operated in to tower overspray, and, therefore, accordance with county caused no real change to cooling tower regulations. The change, therefore, operation. The work performed would will have no adverse environmental not cause a significant increase in impact as previously determined in emissions and the original impact the FES.
assessments remained valid.
Page 3 of 6
2004 Annual Environmental Operating Report TABLE III - 1
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2004 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 04-013 AFCR 04-0237, Security Modification Work activities associated with The FES does not address portable There was no unreviewed 38, 39, 40; Upgrade Project the security modification emission sources. The equipment environmental question because DMWO 2653713, upgrade project require the use rented / contracted will be permitted in the equipment operation and 2653703 of portable combustion accordance with county regulations. maintenance activities will be equipment and earth moving conducted in accordance with operations. These activities can The earth moving activities associated county regulations. In addition, the increase airborne emissions. with the construction of the facility were area to be disturbed was previously discussed in the FES and no adverse identified in the FES.
environmental impacts were identified.
The scope of the proposed work activities would be less than those already evaluated in the FES.
Therefore, there are no adverse Impacts as long as activities are conducted in accordance with county regulations.04-017 DMWO 2541320 Install U1 and U3 Old The construction of the Unit 1 The FES does not address portable There was no unreviewed Steam Generator Storage and Unit 3 Old Steam emission sources. The equipment environmental question because Bldgs Generator Storage Facilities rented / contracted will be permitted in equipment operation and requires the use of portable accordance with county regulations. construction activities will be combustion equipment and conducted in accordance with earth moving operations. The The earth moving activities associated county regulations. In addition, the use of portable combustion with the construction of the facility were area to be disturbed was previously equipment could Increase discussed in the FES and no adverse identified in the FES.
airborne emissions due to the environmental impacts were identified.
combustion of fossil fuel. Earth The scope of the proposed work moving operations could activities would be less than those increase airborne emissions already evaluated In the FES.
due to fugitive dust. Therefore, there are no adverse impacts as long as activities are conducted in accordance with county regulations.
Page 4 of 6
2004 Annual Environmental Operating Report TABLE III - 1
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2004 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 04-026 CMWRF 2721730 October 2004 WRSS Maintenance activities The FES does not address portable There was no unreviewed Pipeline Rebuilds associated with the pipe section emission sources. The equipment environmental question because repair require the use of purchased / rented / contracted will be the equipment operation and portable combustion equipment permitted in accordance with county maintenance activities will be and earth moving operations. regulations. conducted in accordance with These activities can Increase county regulations. In addition, the airborne emissions. The earth moving activities associated area to be disturbed was previously Maintenance and repair will also with the construction of the facility were identified in the FES.
disturb offsite areas. discussed in the FES and no adverse environmental impacts were identified.
The scope of the proposed work activities would be less than those already evaluated in the FES.
Therefore, there are no adverse Impacts as long as activities are conducted In accordance with county regulations.
The offsite area that Is disturbed is within the right of way of areas disturbed during initial construction.
The FES identifies that routine maintenance may occur in these areas.04-027 PR #505734 Purchase of Portable The use of portable combustion The FES does not address portable There was no unreviewed Generator equipment could increase emission sources. The equipment environmental question because airborne emissions due to the purchased will be permitted In equipment operation will be combustion of fossil fuel. accordance with county regulations. conducted in accordance with county regulations.04-028 DFWO 2664678 U2 Cooling Tower Changes to cooling tower The FES identifies that based on The design change is a like-for-like Distribution Basin Panel operation or equipment could current cooling tower design, there are replacement of existing equipment Replacement affect offsite impacts evaluated no adverse environmental impacts already evaluated in the FES. The in the FES and drift-monitoring identified. The proposed change does change, therefore, will have no program. not change the tower design and, adverse environmental impact as therefore, will not affect cooling tower previously determined in the FES.
operations. The modification is considered a like-for-like replacement.
Page 5 of 6
2004 Annual Environmental Operating Report I~
TABLE III - 1
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2004 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 04-030 MEE 03757 Replacement of Obsolete Changes cooling tower to The FES identifies that based on The design change is a like-for-like Cooling Tower Fan Drive operation or equipment could current cooling tower design, there are replacement of existing equipment Shaft affect offsite impacts evaluated no adverse environmental impacts already evaluated In the FES. The In the FES and drift-monitoring identified. The proposed change does change, therefore, will have no program. not change the fan design airflow rate adverse environmental impact as or velocity and, therefore, will not affect previously determined in the FES.
cooling tower operations. The modification is considered a like-for-like replacement.04-033 DFWO 2733575 Safety Barrier on Cooling The safety barrier has the The FES and salt drift monitoring There was no unreviewed Tower Distribution Basin potential to affect emissions program Identified impacts associated environmental question because Deck from the cooling towers. with cooling tower drift. Cooling tower the scope of work performed would operation was previously reviewed. not cause any significant increase The scope of work caused no change in emissions. The towers will to cooling tower operation. The scope continue to be operated in of work performed would not cause a accordance with county significant increase in emissions and regulations.
the original impact assessments remained valid.04-041 DMWO 2540917 Unit 31 Power Uprate Increasing the operating power The FES identifies that based on There was no unreviewed level of Units I and 3 has the current cooling tower design, there are environmental question because potential to affect emissions no adverse environmental impacts the power uprate would not cause from the cooling towers. identified. The proposed change (3% any significant increase In power uprate) does not exceed the emissions. The change, therefore, design consideration for Stretch Power will have no adverse environmental generating capacity discussed in the impact as previously determined in FES. The power uprate would not the FES.
cause a significant increase in emissions and the original Impact assessments remained valid.
- FES - Final Environmental Statement ER-OL - Environmental Repot, Op Page 6 of 6