ML041110862
| ML041110862 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 04/09/2004 |
| From: | Bauer S Arizona Public Service Co |
| To: | Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| 102-05083-SAB/TNW/CJJ | |
| Download: ML041110862 (10) | |
Text
Scott A. Bauer Department Leader Regulatory Affairs Tel: 623/393-5978 Mail Station 7636 Palo Verde Nuclear Fax: 623/393-5442 P.O. Box 52034 Generating Station e-mail: sbauer@apsc.com Phoenix, AZ 85072-2034 102-05083-SAB/TNW/CJJ April 9, 2004 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 50-528/5291530 Annual Environmental Operating Report 2003 Enclosed please find a copy of the Annual Environmental Operating Report for 2003.
This report covers the operation of PVNGS Units 1, 2, and 3 during 2003, 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. If you have any questions, please contact Thomas N. Weber at (623) 393-5764.
Sincerely, SAB/TNW/CJJ/kg Enclosure cc: B. S. Mallett (all w/o enclosure)
M. B. Fields N. L. Salgado 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 Be2v5
ENCLOSURE 2003 Annual Environmental Operating Report
2003 Annual Environmental Operating Report 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) of 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 1 of 8
2003 Annual Environmental Operating Report
- 11. 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.
Ill. 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.
Twelve (12) design and operation changes were evaluated in 2003 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 2003.
V. NON-ROUTINE REPORTS There were no non-routine reports required by Section 5.4.2 of the EPP submitted during 2003.
Page 2 of 8
2003 Annual Environmental Operating Report TABLE III - 1
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2003 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 03-014 WO 2448498 WRSS April 2003 Pipeline & Maintenance activities The FES does not address There was no unreviewed and 2444414 Manhole Inspection and associated with the inspection portable emission sources. The environmental question Repair and repair require the use of equipment purchased / rented / because the equipment portable combustion equipment, contracted will be permitted in operation and maintenance earth moving operations, and accordance with county activities will be conducted abrasive blasting / coating regulations. in accordance with county operations. These activities can regulations. In addition, the increase airborne emissions. The earth moving activities area to be disturbed was Maintenance and repair will also associated with the construction of previously identified in the disturb offsite areas. the facility were discussed in the FES.
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 FES does not address abrasive blasting / coating operations. 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 construction right of way of areas disturbed during initial construction. The FES identifies that routine maintenance may occur in these areas.
Page 3 of 8
2003 Annual Environmental Operating Report TABLE III - 1
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2003 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 03-018 T-MOD T-Mod cooling tower fan Changes to cooling tower The FES identifies that based on The design change is a like-2581784 replacement for performance operation or equipment could current cooling tower design, for-like replacement of testing affect offsite impacts evaluated there are no adverse existing equipment already in the FES and drift-monitoring environmental impacts identified. evaluated in the FES. The program. The proposed change does not change, therefore, will have change the fan design airflow rate no adverse environmental or velocity and, therefore, will not impact as previously affect cooling tower operations. determined in the FES.
The modification is considered a like-for-like replacement.03-019 DFWO Remove Cooling Tower The louver removal and cutting The FES and salt drift monitoring There was no unreviewed 2580193 Louvers and Cut Tower Basin of the tower basin wall has the program identified impacts environmental question Wall potential to affect emissions associated with cooling tower drift. because the scope of work from the cooling towers. Cooling tower operation was performed would not cause previously reviewed. The scope any significant increase in of work caused no real change to emissions. The towers will cooling tower operation. The continue to be operated in scope of work performed and the accordance with county number of louvers removed would regulations.
not cause a significant increase in emissions and the original impact assessments remained valid.03-022 WDP-SL-645 Install automated Sprinkler Installing a sprinkler system that The use of WRF treated effluent There was no unreviewed System in Sludge Landfill that uses Water Storage Reservoir for dust control is not expressly environmental question uses Reservoir Water water for dust control has the identified in the FES. However, because the equipment potential to affect effluents Reservoir seepage is mentioned operation and maintenance released to the environment. in the FES - Construction and no activities will be conducted adverse environmental impacts in accordance with state were identified. The installation of county regulations.
a sludge landfill sprinkler system and the use of Reservoir effluent for general site dust control do not exceed the effluent discharge rate already evaluated in the FES -
Construction. Therefore, there are no adverse impacts as long as activities are conducted in accordance with state and county regulations.
Page 4 of 8
2003 Annual Environmental Operating Report TABLE III - 1
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2003 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 03-034 WO 2576168 Sludge Landfill Clearing Land clearing activities The earth moving activities There was no unreviewed associated with operation, associated with the construction of environmental question maintenance and use of the site the facility were discussed in the because the equipment Sludge Landfill involves earth- FES and no adverse operation and maintenance moving operations. These environmental impacts were activities will be conducted activities can increase airborne identified. The scope of the in accordance with county emissions. Land clearing is proposed work activities would be regulations. In addition, the performed to open a new area less than those already evaluated area to be disturbed was for sludge disposal. in the FES. Therefore, there are previously identified in the no adverse impacts as long as FES.
activities are conducted in accordance with county regulations.
With respect to land use, the potential to disturb archeological sites or harm endangered vegetation / animals were evaluated. The actual construction site was inspected and no archeological or endangered species of plants / animals were identified.
Page 5 of 8
2003 Annual Environmental Operating Report TABLE III - 1
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2003 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 03-036 PCWO WRSS October 2003 Pipeline Maintenance activities The FES does not address There was no unreviewed 2626921 Refurbishment associated with the pipe section portable emission sources. The environmental question repair require the use of equipment purchased / rented I because the equipment portable combustion equipment contracted will be permitted in operation and maintenance and earth moving operations. accordance with county activities will be conducted These activities can increase regulations. in accordance with county airborne emissions. regulations. In addition, the Maintenance and repair will also The earth moving activities area to be disturbed was disturb offsite areas. associated with the construction of previously identified in the the facility were discussed in the FES.
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.03-037 DFWO Remove Cooling Tower The louver removal and cutting The FES and salt drift monitoring There was no unreviewed 2582205 Louvers and Cut Tower Basin of the tower basin wall has the program identified impacts environmental question Wall potential to affect emissions associated with cooling tower drift. because the scope of work from the cooling towers. Cooling tower operation was performed would not cause previously reviewed. The scope any significant increase in of work caused no real change to emissions. The towers will cooling tower operation. The continue to be operated in scope of work performed and the accordance with county number of louvers removed would regulations.
not cause a significant increase in emissions and the original impact assessments remained valid.
Page 6 of 8
2003 Annual Environmental Operating Report TABLE III - 1
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2003 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 03-042 DFWO Remove Cooling Tower The louver removal and cutting The FES and salt drift monitoring There was no unreviewed 2608623 Louvers and Cut Tower Basin of the tower basin wall has the program identified impacts environmental question Wall potential to affect emissions associated with cooling tower drift. because the scope of work from the cooling towers. Cooling tower operation was performed would not cause previously reviewed. The scope any significant increase in of work caused no real change to emissions. The towers will cooling tower operation. The continue to be operated in scope of work performed and the accordance with county number of louvers removed would regulations.
not cause a significant increase in emissions and the original impact assessments remained valid.03-045 DFWO Install Cooling Tower Cable The cable restraint system has The FES and salt drift monitoring There was no unreviewed 2626882 Restraint System to prevent the potential to affect emissions program identified impacts environmental question the outboard beams from from the cooling towers. associated with cooling tower drift. because the scope of work falling off Cooling tower operation was performed would not cause previously reviewed. The scope any significant increase in of work caused no real change to emissions. The towers will cooling tower operation. The continue to be operated in scope of work performed would accordance with county not cause a significant increase in regulations.
emissions and the original impact assessments remained valid.03-049 MEE 03695 Cooling Tower Fan Gearbox Changes to cooling tower The FES identifies that based on The design change is a like-Substitution operation or equipment could current cooling tower design, for-like replacement of affect offsite impacts evaluated there are no adverse existing equipment already in the FES and drift-monitoring environmental impacts identified. evaluated in the FES. The program. The proposed change does not change, therefore, will have change the fan design airflow rate no adverse environmental or velocity and, therefore, will not impact as previously affect cooling tower operations. determined in the FES.
The modification is considered a like-for-like replacement.
Page 7 of 8
2003 Annual Environmental Operating Report TABLE III - 1
SUMMARY
OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIONS PERFORMED DURING 2003 FOR PLANT DESIGN AND OPERATION CHANGES Log # Title Description Analysis Interpretation Evaluation 03-053 APP #P-3507- Install on-site and off-site Maintenance activities The earth moving activities There was no unreviewed 100388 Monitoring Wells for APP associated with the well drilling associated with the construction of environmental question Implementation activities require earth moving the facility were discussed in the because the equipment operations. These activities can FES and no adverse operation and maintenance increase airborne emissions. environmental impacts were activities will be conducted Well installation will also disturb identified. The scope of the in accordance with county offsite areas, proposed work activities would be regulations. In addition, the less than those already evaluated area to be disturbed was in the FES. Therefore, there are previously identified in the no adverse impacts as long as FES or is privately held activities are conducted in property that was thoroughly accordance with county inspected for environmental regulations. impacts.
With respect to land use, the potential to disturb archeological sites or harm endangered vegetation / animals were evaluated. The actual construction site was inspected and no archeological or endangered species of plants / animals were identified.03-054 DFWO Replace nozzles in the CW The nozzle replacement in the The FES and salt drift monitoring There was no unreviewed 2650364 Cooling Tower Distribution cooling tower distribution deck program identified impacts environmental question Deck has the potential to affect associated with cooling tower drift. because the scope of work emissions from the cooling Cooling tower operation was performed would not cause towers. previously reviewed. The scope any significant increase in of work caused no real change to emissions. The towers will cooling tower operation. The continue to be operated in scope of work performed and the accordance with county number of nozzles replaced would regulations.
not cause a significant increase in emissions and the original impact assessments remained valid.
- FES - Final Environmental Statement, ER-OL - Environmental Report, Operating License Stage Page 8 of 8