ML19263C195

Forwards Testimony of DB Blackmon Pursuant to 10CFR2.743(b) to Be Introduced at 790129 Hearing Along W/Alternate Site Documents Previously Furnished to Aslb.Finds Fair Assessment of Alternative Sites Shows None Superior

ML19263C195
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins
Issue date:	01/16/1979
From:	Lansche J DUKE POWER CO.
To:	Bowers E, Desylva D, Jordan W Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 7902080307
Download: ML19263C195 (5)

Text

a r m ~..

'.Y,3.?Q.Q *

• _.. -.. - -...... -

s a

Durm Powzn GoxPANY LEGAL DEPARTME3 r P. O. Box r"M 33180

\\ F I *,

GInsnr.vTTE, N. G. ce242 aonn s. Lanscyt/

ro.. v 1.a r.

as ses t.= r s c.c.at :$/.sn,- <"Y j*.9]1

.,g 7 g January 16, 1979

-g=

,b 99\\

C.

Q A

s,,,,, C. <.<

A':,,

/d..'

C' s.

t' x**

xN

-/

x f :,.~..- Q-g xesj w Elizabeth

. wwers, Esq.

Dr. Donald P. deSylva Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Associate Professor of Marine Board Science U.

S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rosenstiel School of Marine Washington, D.

C.

20555 and Atmospheric Science University of Miami Dr. Walter H.

Jordan Miami, Florida 33149 881 West Guter Drive Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Re:

In the Matter of Duke Pcwer Company (Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)

Docke t No s. STN 50-488, STN 50-489 & STN 50-490

Dear Members of the Board:

Attached hereto is the written testimony o f D.

3.

Blackmon.

Applicant is serving copies of this testimony pursuant to 10 CFR 2.743(b) which it anticipates introducing at the forthcoming hear-ing.

It is noted that the testimony makes reference to alternate site information that has previcusly been furnished to the Ecard and parties.

Applicant intends to introduce these documents as exhibits in this proceeding.

Very truly yours,

' W b' -

/*

YJohn E. Lansche JEL/fhb Attachment cc:

Charles A.

Barth, Esq.

Mrs. Mary Apperson Davis William A.

Raney, Jr.,

Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensi.-

William G.

Pfefferkorn, Esq.

Board Panel J.

Michael McGarry, III, Esq.

Chairman, Atomic Safety & Licensin

.st. Chase R.

Stephens Appeal Board 790208 o-2pg (f

account the economics of standardization, would be to purchase six identical uni ts of the 1200 Mie class.

Sased upon studies completec in connection wi th tne Catawba Nuclear Sta-tion, Duke had previously decided that nuclear-fueled additions would be the most econon.ical and environmentally acceptable baseload additions for the ser-vice area.

Accordingly, Duke's site selection process had as its goal the se-lection of the two best si tes for nuclear unit additions. At the same time, Duke was aware that the 1972 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments would lead to the promulgation by E?A of regulations concerning alternate methods for waste heat dissipation from steam electric generating staticns.

Duke did not want to be placed in the position of having to use cooling towers when lake cooling may be a viable option.

At the same time, Duke did not want to be in the posi tion of selecting si tes on exis ting or new lakes when regula-tions may require cooling towers.

For these reasons Duke v as seeking.vailable nuclear generation sites suitable for either lake cooling or cooling tower was te heat dissipation meti.ods.

Seconc5/, Duke was seekir; sites that would be suitable only for the cooling tower al ternative.

An initial revie.v of Duke's region of in:eres t, i.e.,

the Duke ?c.aer Com-pany service area and the immediately adj acent areas, was performed using the exis ting inventory of sites.

Also, preliminary screenin ; was acccept ished to locate additional site areas.

The primary screening factors were water avail-ability, access to the existing transmission network, irstitutional f acto rs,

and the locations of other sites. This review and scresning eventually led to nine site areas and a variety of identified sites with suitable condenser cooling at :ernatives.

Reconnaissance level information was utilized in th e

_2_

e e--

.. r_%,. '

.,s

.Y ya, TESTIMONY

.j OF W

O}

D. B. BLACKMON Lc.

DESIGN ENGINEER, civil AND ENVIRONMENTAL DiVISIO?J;

~

DESIGN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DUKE POWER COMPANY PERKINS NUCLEAR STATION NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION HEARING JANUARY 29, 1979 On July 14, 1978, this Atomic Safety and Licensing Board reopened this pro-coeding pursuant to the NRC Staff's request to take further evidence on the S taf f's review of al terna tive s i tes.

On July 20 and August 18, 1978, the Staff reques ted in formation from Duke pertaining to this reopened issue.

On August 3, August 31, and September 27, 1978, Duke responded to such requests.

Copies of these documents have been served upon the Board and parties. This tes t i mony incorporates the above-referenced Duke responses which provide the details of Duke's site selection process leading to the selection of tha Per-kins site.

The details describe the methodolcgy employed, address the screen-ing and selection process including site elimination and selection critnia, provide the underlying factuci data upon which Duke premised its site evalua-tion, and reasonably and adequately identify potentially licensable sites for power genera:Ing facilities in and about the Duke service area.

The Perkins Nuclear Station Site was selected in April 1973 based upon studies performed in the latter half of 1972 and early 1973 In late 1971 Ouke completed a load forecast which indicated the need for additional gen-erating capacity in the 1981-1990 time frame.

The forecast indicated a need for approximately 7000 MWe of baseload unit capacity additions in :he 1931-1934 time frame.

Since Duke had previously pur:hased both fossil and nuclear units

^

in the 1100 MWe range, i t was decided that an optimum plan, taking in to

evaluation and each of the sites was considered for specific site-opening cost determinations.

Completed system water use studies, transmission system studies, and con-clusions and decisions regarding waste heat dissipation led to the selection of the Perkins site for one of the two plant sites as described in Duke's Construc-tion Permit Applicatien submitted in March 1974.

The review of Duke's siting evaluation by the NRC Staf f was reported in their Environmental Impact Statement. This statement indicated that based on a comparison of the actual speci fic si tes, there was no si te obviously superior to Perkins.

In mid-1976, Duke initiated a thermal station siting program.

The objec-tive of this program was to select the two best fossil and two best nuclear site alternatives for the baseload generation needs in the period af ter the commercial operation of the Perkins uni ts.

This study is designed to comcle-ment existing siting guidslines and regulatiens.

The study has been utilized by the NRC Staf f in their recent review of sites alternative to Perkins.

They conclude that "No al ternative si te stands out as one which could be rated as obviously superior."

In addi tion their report states:

"Ve therefore, have reaf fi rmed our conclusions con-tained in the FES that ncne of the alternatives considered is obviously superior to the Perkins site as a reasonable and licensable site for the 3840-MWe (net) nuclear station proposed by the applicant, Duke Power Company, based on en-vironmental considerations.*"

(fcotnote omi tted)

In conclusion, it is to be emchasized that Duke has twice conducted envi-renmental analyses which consider specific actual al ternative s i tes as opposed to generalized ones. These analyses provide sufficient in fo rma t ion to suppert a finding that alternative sites have been fairly assessed en an objective ba-sis and that there is no si te obvicusly superior to Perkins.

_4