ML19283B780
| ML19283B780 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07001729 |
| Issue date: | 02/21/1979 |
| From: | Engelhardt T NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Thomas R AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19283B781 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7903190346 | |
| Download: ML19283B780 (1) | |
Text
NRC PUBLIC DOCUMENT ROOM 9
1%
h b A,&
s 4
V UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 4
7
,h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION A
igs In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-488
)
STN 50-489 (Perkins Nuclear Station
)
STN 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
)
INTERVENORS' FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
(
March 5, 1979 i
e
+
i i
i 4
7903260 3 Y4
ITNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMTSSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman Dr. Walter J. Jordan, Member Dr. Donald P. deSylva, Member In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-488
)
STN 50-489 (Perkins Nuclear Station,
)
STN 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3)
)
INITIAL DECISION Alternate Sites Issue 1.
On April 5, 1978, this Board issued an order which asked the parties to comment on the state of the record in this proceeding in regard to the evaluation of alternative sites.
In response to this Order the NRC Staff and Applicant argued that the consideration of alternative sites in the record was adequate.
Intervenors argued that the alternate site question had not been properly considered and contended further that a cite for the proposed nuclear plant on Lake Norman should be further considered.
l 2.
On June 15, 1978, the NRC Staff moved to reopen the j
record in this proceeding for additional evidence and considera-j tion of the issue of alternative sites. 'On June 14, 1978, this l
Board granted the Staff's motion and reopened the record in this proceeding.
sites had the potential for lake cooling in addition to cooling towers (Tr. pp. 3105 and 3107).
Dr. Gilbert further admitted that the site at Lake Norman E was more level than the Perkins site and that the Staff did not know if the Applicant actually owned the land at the Lake Norman E site (Tr. pp. 3109 and 3110).
In regard to a consideration of water and its availability at the Lake Norman sites compared to the Perkins site, Dr. Gilbert testified as follows:
Question:
Now, Mr. Gilbert, in considering the E site, and considering Perkins, were you aware of the fact when you made your independent analysis that Duke has four dams upstream from Lake Norman to con-trol the river flow, the Catawba basin north of Lake Norman?
Answer:
I am aware that there is some control by Duke of the water flowing above.
Question:
Alright, but that is not mentioned in any of your testimony or your analysis, is it?
Answer:
I Frankly, Mr. Pfefferkorn, water is not an issue i
in this particular analysis.
We are agreed that Lake Norman is potentially licensable with cooling l
towers.
Question:-
Well, are you saying that it doesn't matter that you didn't consider the water availability in considering the site alternatives?
l
[
Answer:
We did consider water availability.
We consider them all licensable with cooling towers.
Question:
Alright, but are you saying that you didn't evaluate any of them differently?
You didn't use He cited pact few years and had taught two courses in ecology.
articles written as the result of his research or any other no
- i N
articles since his thesisJin 1973 (professional qualifications of Dr. James McBrayer, pp. 1 and 2).
Dr.
H.E.
Zittel has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Vanderbilt University and participated in the preparation of nuclear plant environmental impact state-ments for the NRC (professional qualifications of H. E.
Zittel)..
6.
The Staff witnesses admitted that their role was to criticize, verify, supplement and seek a different assessment in these reopened hearings (Tr. 3083).
In regard to what information was.used other than that provided by Applicant, ' Staff witnesses mentioned a land use and population and data bank and certain open literature on streams (Tr. p.
30-56).
Dr. Gilbert mentioned using the Final Environmental Impact Statement and was vaguely familiar with a New York State utility matrix system for evalua-ting sites (Tr. p. 3080 and 3082).
In its testimony the Staff used no detailed matrix system to illustrate or explain its infor-mation, evaluation and conclusions 1(see Staff testimony following Tr. p. 3049).
Dr. Gilbert and the other members of the Staff panel stated that there were no strict guidelines for the weigh-i ing and rating of alternative sites.
Mr. Robertson further admitted that he was not in a position to answer whether the i
United States geodetic survey figures on stream. flows was a reliable basis for predicting adequate water supplies in the I.
future (Tr. p. 30-96).
1 7.
Dr. Gilbert testified that no additional reservoir f
would be required for the siting of the Perkins Plant at either Lake Norman Sites D or E and that each of these Lake Norman
-4_
i
l The Staff filed no further supplemental information or analysis to the testimony of October, 1978.
4.
On January 28, 1979, and continuing through February 2, 1979, this Board held evidentiary hearings in Mocksyille, North Carolina, on the issue of alternative sites and certain generic issues which will be discussed later in this document.
5.
The Staff evidence was the combined effort of five persons.
Mr. Gilbert is in charge of reviewing environmen-tal reports for the Nuclear Regulatory Ccmmtission and the prepara-tion of environmental impact statements.
As part of his responsibilities Mr. Gilbert has reviewed all of the applications in this Perkins proceeding and coordinated the issuance of the draft and Final Environmental Impact Statement which included an alternate site discussion,which is the subject of this reopened hearing @rofessional qualifications of Robert A.
Gilbert, p.
1; following Staff testimony at Tr. 3049).
Dr. Gough received a Ph.D. in botany from the University of Wisconsin.
Dr. Gough stated that he performed no tests before setting forth his testimony and that he was not familiar with EPA studies of eutrophication in North Carolina lakes before setting out his testimony (Tr. 3004).
Mr. Robertson is an engineer and was responsible for the water impact sections of the Environmental Impact Statements for the Perkins Plant i
(statement of professional qualifications Roy C. Robertson, j
i j
p. 1).
Dr. McBrayer has a Ph.D. in ecology from the University 1
of Tennessee.
Dr. McBrayer indicated in his professional qualifications that he had done research in ecology over the l
any judgment as to water availability and water control?
Is that what you are saying?
Answer:
Water, in terms of cooling towers, is a go-no-go situation.
And, in this case, they are all "go" with the possible exception of the Broad.
8.
Mr. Robertson of the Staff testified that the storage volume of High Rock Lake is 250,000 acre feet and Lake Norman is 1,093,600 acre feet and that the consumption of water by a nuclear facility such as Perkins would amount to approximately 27,000 acre feet during the recreational months of the year (Tr. pp. 3115 and 3118).
Mr. Robertson further testified as follows:
Question:
Now Mr. Robertson, when you made your independent evaluation of this material submitted to you by the Applicant, starting in August of this year, did you consider in comparing and contrasting the Lake Norman sites with the Perkins site that the amount of water consumed by cooling towers from Lake Norman would be a much smaller percen-tage of the total water in Lake Norman as opposed to High Rock, under the same circumstances?
In other words, the percentages, because of the greater volume of Lake Norman, did you consider that difference?
Answer:
i j
No, that was not vital to our analysis.
Our concern was whether there was-an adequate supply of water l
to supply the cooling tower.
I j
Question:
But, wouldn't an analysis of the adequate supply of water consider the amount of supply and the effect of your evaporation on the water supply?
Answer:
Well, if both sites had adequate water, then other j
factors, the decision of whether it was suitable or not, would hinge on other factors in the water i
supply.
{
Subsequent to'the Board's order reopening this 3.
the NRC Staf f addressed a short series of questions proceeding, to the Applicant on July 30, 1978, which were responded to on August 7, 1978, and an additional short series of questions on August 18, 1978, which were responded to on September 25, 1978 (see Tr. 3069, 3070, and 3078).
The information supplied by Applicant was included in Staff Exhibit 10 in this proceeding and which consisted of site studies by the Applicant in 1973 and January of 1978, and a supplemental study of the Perkins site in August of 1978.
The Staff reviewed this material,.
checked some of the information with available public information and made a trip to approximately eight of the total one The Staff hundred sites in the Applicant's site inventory.
then wrote its opinion in the form of proposed testimony. dated the 13th day of October, 1978 (Tr. p. 3049).
Subsequent to filed interroaa-the date of this proposed testimony Intervenors toratories addressed to the Applicant on the 10 day of October, and a Response to the proposed testimony on the 13 day of
- 1978, December, 1978.
The Intervenors on the 13 day of November, 1978, filed a Request for Discovery through the month of January, 1979, I
and a suggested hearing date of March 1, 1979.
The Applicant filed a request for a hearing in December of 1978.
In'a conference i
call on November 22,1978,this board set a hearing date of January 22,
f 1979.
On the 1979, which was subsequently moved to January 29, I
20 day of January, 1979, the Intervenors prefiled the testimony of Dr. Miquel Medina of Duke University and Dr. Alan Lipkin of l
Winston-Salem State University.
On the 16 day of January, 1979, the Applicants prefiled the testimony of Mr. Donald Blackmon.
Question:
Are you saying that you basically agree with Dr. Gilbert, that you just didn't really con-sider the difference in effect because of the amount of the water once you decided enough is e
enough, you didn't go into how much effect it would have, did you?
Answer:
No.
Question:
Alright, so the fact that Lake Norman has a much larger reservoir and contains over four times as much water supply was not considered by you or Dr. Gilbert or anybody in the analysis of alternative sites in your testimony for this year; is that right?
Answer:
Well, as I said earlier, we felt like other factors had considerably more importance.
Question:
Is it your testimony that the factor of upstream control such as that present on the Catawba Basin by Duke Power Company, is that a factor that you didn't consider important in looking at these alternative sites?
Answer:
That's true.
(Tr. p. 3120).
Mr. Robertson further admitted that he did not penalize the Perkins. site in his evaluation on account of the need to construct an additional reservoir known as the Carter 4
Creek Reservoir at the Perkins. site and that he considered l
l Perkins an equivalent site to Norman in regard to the water use i
i and water impact question (Tr. pp. 3122 hnd 3123).
I 9.
Staff witness Dr. Gough testified that high turbidity and high nutrient loading is higher in High Rock Lake than it is l
7-
in Lake Norman and that from the standpoint of turbidity and nutrient loading the water quality at High Rock Lake is poor (Tr. p. 3126).
Dr. Gough admitted that his written testimony did not show whether the lower water quality at High Rock Lake compared to Lake Norman was a factor in his evaluation and con-clusions.
10.
Staff witness Dr. Robertson testified that he did not consult the North Carolina water framework study done in 1977 in order to evaluate the alternative sites and that he did not consider future water uses in the Catawba and Yadkin River Basins (Tr. pp. 3139 and 3141).
Dr. Gilbert admitted that his evaluation of alternative sites in regard to water use and impact used a threshold test which meant that, if a particular site was satisfactory, it got the highest rating and there could be no differences in rating beyond a satisfactory level.
In short, Dr. Gilbert stated that if a particular site was satis-factory from a water point of view it got the highest rating and no site could be more satisfactory on this crucial question (Tr. p. 3149).
11.
Staff witness Gough stated that there was no explicit weighing of factors in his analysis and witness Zittel stated that the two short form charts used by Staff witnesses <
were adequate,even though the possibility of additional charts i
was admitted by Dr. Zittel (Tr. pp. 3168 and 3169).
Dr. Zittel i
further admitted that there were no time. constraints en the work by the Staff (Tr. p. 3175).
Dr. Zittel further stated that the Staff witnesses never received a copy of the Intervenors' interrogatories, which were filed on the 10 day of October, 1978.
i 12.
Dr. Zittel stated that he was familiar with matrix systems for evaluation of plant sites but did not identify P.ny of these systems and stated that there was no ultimate method (Tr. p. 3178).
13.
Staff witness Zittel stated that the understand-ing of the Staff regarding the standard for determining whether or not an obviously superior site existed was such that, since no significant effects were determined from the Perkins siting there could not be an obviously superior site.
Dr. Zittel only qualified this definitional impasse with the hypothetical case of a site in which "all of the impacts would be absolutely minimized, you couldn't get any smaller."
(T. p. 3216).
14.
The Staff panel of witnesses admitted through the staff attorney that they could not prepare a matrix evaluation of the alternative sites in this proceeding similar to the evalu-ations done by the Applicant,Dr. Joplin and Dr. Lipkin for the reason that this would not represent what they actually did and for the reason that they d i d not understand their task to rank the sites and compare and contrast the sites with each o ther (Tr. pp. 3265 and 3267).
15.
Staff witness Gough admitted that the eutrophica-tion water problem at High Rock Lake downstream from the Perkins site was not considered in any detailed sense in his comparison of the Perkins site with other sites (Tr. p. 3280).
Dr. Gough further admitted that he had no detailed information on water i
quality for either the Catawba Basin or the Yadkin Basis in reaching his conclusions (Tr. p. 3281).
Dr. Gough further admitted that he obtained no information in regard to future water uses in his evaluation (Tr. p. 3284).
Dr. Gilbert admitted that the Staff made no independent analysis of all twenty-five potentially licensable sites listed by the Applicant other than the eight which are mentioned in the filed testimony
( Tr. p. 3 2 8 6 ).
Witness Gough admitted that EPA Region IV, Working Paper 381, listed High Rock Lake as having the most problems of eutrophication of all of the sixteen lakes analyzed in North Carolina and rated Lake Norman as only number 6.
In addition to that, two other lakes in the Catawba Basin were rated 5 and 7, whereas Badin Lake, which is below High Rock, is listed as number 15.
The EPA Working Paper indicates that according to the Vollenweder analysis the phosphorous loading level is dangerous above 1.52 and High Rock Lake shows 7.98.
16.
Staff witness Dr. Gough admitted that the data is inadequate to rank the Lake Norman sites against the Perkins site and that he is unable to make a judgment as to which is the best site (Tr. p. 3345). Witness Gough further stated that since Perkins had been determined to have no significant impacts it would not be possible for him to find an obviously superior site anywhere (Tr. p.
3346).
17.
Dr. Miquel A. Medina, Jr. and Dr. Alan H.
Lipkin testified for the Intervenors.
Dr. Medina has a Ph.D. in environmental engineering sciences from the University of Florida.
Dr. Medina has been involved in design and construction as an engineer and in research regarding water questions.
He is an assistant professor of civil engineering at Duke University and has taught graduate and undergraduate courses in dynamic hydrology, water resources engineering and environmental resources management.
Dr. Medina has conducted research in storm water modeling for the EPA and National Science Foundation.
He has been a consultant for private industry and public agencies.
He has authored or coauthored seventeen technical papers and publications.
His courses at Duke University at the graduate level include the study of the dynamics of a current's circu-lation and distribution of water, hydrometeorology, geophysical fluid motion, precipitation, surface runoff and stream flow, infiltration, water losses, hydrograph analysis, catchment characteristics, hydrologic instrumentation and computer simulation models.
His course in pollutant transport systems involves the study of the distribution of pollutants in natural water in the atmosphere, difusive and advective transport phenomenon within the natural environment and through manmade articifical conduits and storage treatment systems, analytical and numerical prediction methods.
He also teaches a course in environmental resources and management, which includes the standards.and criterion for evaluation of environmental resources and the management of these resources.
In this course the emphasis is placed on water, its distribution, estimated use, role of federal agencies, and water quality legis-laoion, parameters of pollution, sources in control and water resources projects (professional qualifications of Dr. Medinia l
following his testimony at Tr. p. 3436).
18.
Dr. Medina testified that he had assisted in i
preparing impacts statements and that he was testifying as a i
l f
paid consultant and that he favored nuclear power (Tr. p. 3395 i
i and p. 3396).
Dr. Medina stated that he had reviewed the t
I information supplied the Applicant, which is set out as Exhibit 10 i
I l
t
! i
of thi's proceeding.
He also stated that he had examined the Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Perkins Site and the North Carolina Water Resources Framework Study issued in 1977 and other information from open literature (see p.
1 of Medina testimony).
Dr. Medina further stated that he personally inspected the Yadkin River Basin from the Yadkin College gauge down the River past the Perkins site all the way to the High Rock Reservoir and on below to the Tucker Town Reservoir.
He also stated that he has personally inspected the Lake Norman sites (Tr. p. 3444).
Dr. Medina testified that the alternate site evaluation by the NRC Staff was inadequate and that the Lake Norman site and the Wateree site were clearly superior (see p.
1 of Medina testimony and Tr. p.
3445).
Dr. Medina testified that the basis for his conclusion of the obvious superiority of Lake Norman was the difference in size between Lake Norman and High Rock which are the affected reservoirs, the flow rates and the control of water flow in the respective Catawba and Yadkin Basins, and the lack of the requirement for a Carter Creek Reservoir at the Lake Norman sites (Tr. p.
3455, testimony of Dr. Medina at p. 2).
Dr. Medina further testified that the average flor rates which were Iclied upon in the-Yadkin Basis, where there is no reservoir control by I
the Applicant is extremely unreliable in that no risk analysis was done by the Applicant in regard to the Yadkin flow rates, I'
which was an additional weakness in the Perkins site (Tr. p. 3459).
I Dr. Medina testified that he had studied for his Ph.D. under one i
of the professors who designed the.Ryan and Harleman model which i
had been used by the Applicant to measure the environmental 1
r,
4
impact of lake cooling on Lake Norman and that a computer model of a proposed Perkins Plant on Lake Norman could be run in two to three weeks and should be done to determine the likelihood of using surface cooling as an alternative to cooling towers on one of the Lake Norman sites (Tr. pp. 3701, 3702, 3703, and 3704).
Dr. Medina further testified that the Lake Norman site was preferable on account of the greater volume of Lake Norman which provided four times the dilution factor as that of High Rock Lake (Tr. p.
3696).
9 i
i I
f 13 -
i
19.
In answer to Board questions Dr. Medina summarized his position as follows:
Question by Dr. Jordan:
Are you saying - and I don't want to put words in your mouth - are you saying that in the view of the large storage capacity, both at Lake Norman and the lakes above Lake Norman, that the fluctuations on the river from mean flow will be smaller; therefore, there will be fewer times when the flow will be down to 1,000 cubic feet a second?
Answer:
That's not in the river, sir.
You have above Lake Norman a dam, Lookout Shoals, and below -
downstream the bottom part of Lake Norman, you have Cowans Ford Dam.
What that essentially means is that you have upstream and downstream control, so you can make up any water that is lost from that stream by a release, for example, from Lookout Shoals, or by reducing that release at Cowans Ford Dam.
It's a perfect situation.
You have the most perfect control you can possibly have over a reservoir.
Question:
So are you saying, therefore, that even the flows in the river are essentially the same and there-fore the number of people, industries that could l
be supported, are perhaps somewhat similar.
t l
Answer:
The reliability?
l Question:
I The reliability of the water supply is very much higher?
Answer:
Yes sir.
I i
t
Question:
In your opinion, then, is this a distinct plus for locating a nuclear or other plant, cooling tower or once through, on Lake Norman, rather than on the Yadkin River?
Answer:
Yes sir. Because supposing that for operating conditions, it turns out that there is more consumptive use than anticipated or for what-ever reason you can increase the release upstream or decrease the release downstream, you have total control of your amount of water.
Other than evaporation, which you really don't have control over, unless you spread chemical polymers over the surface, and that's very expensive.
Question:
Have you seen where the Staff or the Applicant has taken this into account and rated Lake Norman, therefore, better in this respect, considerably better than Yadkin?
Answer:
I have not seen anywhere a discussion about upstream, downstream control, and the reliability of the water supplies.
Question:
Would you say this was an inadequacy of the Staff's evaluation?
Answer:
I would.
20.
Dr. Allen H. Lipkin is an Assistant Professor of Chemistry at Winston-Salem State University.
He received u Ph.D.
6 in organic chemistry and has been teaching general chemistry, organic chemistry, investigations and research in chemistry, and t
seminars in chemistry since 1973.
He has been a consultant for I
I 3
private and public agencies, ar' specifically has been involved in organic synthetic procedures, glassware, glass blowing and glass sculpture, and he has set up analytic procedures for cer-tain metals.
He has written four publications in addition to his thesis and is an active chess champion (professional qualifications of Dr. Lipkin attached to the testimony of Dr. Lipkin).
Dr. Lipkin testified that the Staff evaluation was deficient in many particu-lars and prepared a detail matrix which was based upon an article written by Mr. Joplin of Florida Power and Light Company, which was obtained from the files of Duke Power Company.
Dr. Lipkin factored the Applicant's raw material into the Joplin matrix and in certain portions of the matrix factored in his own evaluations and reached the conclusion that there were several sites obviously superior to the Perkins site.
(See testimony of Dr. Lipkin and attached exhibits following record page 3436, and the testimony of Dr. Medina).
Dr. Lipkin testified that he considered the Perkins site to be an adequate site, but that the other sites which he evaluated in his matrix were better sites.
(Record page 3513).
Dr. Lipkin explained that he used the Joplin method and Duke Power Company infor..;ation as much as possible and that he supplemented this with his own knowledge of the material provided by the Applicant in Exhibit No. 10.
(Tr. 3554 and 3556, Tr. 3605 and 3614).
Dr. Lipkin identified some of the obvious factors of comparison between Lake Sarman and the Perkins site for the considerable differe_nce in size of the two reservoirs and the possible l
4 versatility of once through cooling at the Norman site (Tr. 3527 and 3530).
He also referred to the requirement of a Carter Creek impoundment at the Perkins site which was not required at the Lake Norman sites.
Dr. Lipkin further pointed out that the Joplin matrix which he used was conservative on the crucial water question in that the Joplin matrix only provided for a 32% consideration of water matters and the Duke matrix provided for approximately twice that much consideration to water (Tr. 3645).
The Lipkin matrix rates the Perkins site at 168 and the Lake Norman E o
at 202, which represents, according to Dr. Lipkin and his use of the Joplin matrix and the Applicant's information, an obvious superiority for the Lake Norman site (Tr. 3645).
21.
Dr. deSylva applied the Joplin-Lipkin matrix using only Duke Power figures and making no allowance for differing evaluations and considerations which were recommended by Dr.
Medina and by Dr. Lipkin and reached a result that placed Lake Norman D site at 127 and the Perkins site at 116.
Mr. Donald Blackmon of Duke Power Company subsequently testified that by using the Joplin-Lipkin matrix with Duke information such as had been done by Dr. deSylva, but with the additional elimination of i
f certain cost penalties which might be considered economic rather 4
{
than environmental he came to a conclusion that Lake Norman D 4
would be rated 175 and the Perkins site 168.
(Tr. 3844).
This reanalysis by Mr. Blackmon using the Joplin-Lipkin matrix did i
not provide any changes based upon the evidence adduced at the j
hearing with regard to the obvious differences in water impact
between Lake Norman and the Perkins site (Tr. 3859).
Mr. Blackmon and Mr. Dail from Duke Power Company mentioned some numerical figures which they had derived from the fact that there were more thermal power plants in the Catawba basin than the Yadkin basin and that the number of megawatts produced per unit of 7-0-10 flow was approximately twice as much in the Catawba basin (Tr. 3677).
However, Mr. Dail and Mr. Blackmon returned to the stand the following day and revealed that the Applicant owns and controls more than 500,000 acre feet of water storage capacity in the Catawba basin upstream from Lake Norman and excluding Lake Norman, which is twenty times the amount of owned and controlled water storage capacity which is projected for the Carter Creek reservoir upstream from the Perkins site (Tr. 3849).
Mr. Dail further testified upon his return to the stand that Duke Power Company had not run the computer model on Lake Norman to test the sufficiency of the lake for surface cooling of a nuclear plant at either sites D or E (Tr. 3841).
22.
The Staff witnesses conceded upon.being recalled to testify that the Perkins water pumps could withdraw up to i
25% of the stream flow from the Yadkin when the flow was above j
i 1,000 CFS, and that the pumps were designed to pump up to 300 CFS I
from the river in order to supply the holding ponds and fill the i
Carter Creek reservoir.
The pumping of 300 CFS would violate the criteria set out in the Duke Power matrix and discussion which f
limited a consideration of sites to those where water use would i
not exceed 10% of the average flow of the river (Tr. 3094 and 3095).
I i
i 23.
The Board makes the following additional findings: (a) The Staff evidence was not sufficient to sustain its burden of proof under the Environmental Policy Act.
The Environmental Policy Act and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission require that the Staff engage in an independent, critical and sensible analysis of alternate sites.
The Staff assumed that the Perkins site had passed the water impact hurdle and therefore they blindly followed the Applicant's position that no differentiation or weighing between the Norman sites and the Perkins site could be done in regard to the water impact.
The Staff did not properly understand that common sense and honest inquiry require that all of the examined sites receive a grade on this test and that the alternate site review course is not a pass / fail matter.
The Staff failed to organize its presentation in such a fashion that it could be discussed and analyzed in a rational way.
It is no excuse that subjective judgment is involved in the alternate site process.
The Staff panel presented an incomplet.
- ' uninformed series of impressions.
There was no attempt to use a recognized matrix such as that used by the Applicant, by Dr. Joplin, by New York State Utilities, by Dr. Lipkin, and by other anonymous groups referred to by Dr. Zittel.
Therefore, the Staff has not per-i
{
formed its required function in this matter.
(b)
The Intervenors t
have presented evidence that definitively shows the several 1
f obvious areas of comparison between the Perkins site and the Lak.2 i
Norman sites which must resolve the issues in this reopened hearing.
1 Dr. Medina and Dr. Lipkin were operating under obvious limitations t
of time and resources.
Despite these limitations, or perhaps on t
account of these limitations, these witnesses focused on the two main issues of this alternate site review:
(1) The obvious water impact, and (2) the cumulative impact of many f. actors.
Dr.
Medina based his evaluation that Norman was a much better site on the simple and obvious facts of water quantity and water control.
Dr. Lipkin took all of the Duke information and organized it according to Joplin's unbiased matrix that was extremely conser-vative on the water question.
The Perkins site revealed its chronic weaknesses under various reruns with the Joplin matrix.
The matrix result confirmed the obvious differences in water impact.
(c)
The Applicant has made a valiant effort to save the Perkins site in which it has invested much engineering and legal resources.
Fortunately, the Perkins plant is a twin to the Cherokee plant, which is now under construction, and therefore the plans are being utilized. Also, there has been no limited work permit granted in the Perkins case and therefore no construction monies have been expended.
The argument by Applicant for equivalent burdens to the river basins might carry some weight if'other things were equal, however, the water storage factors are completely out of balance and explain rather easily the 1
greater production of megawatts in the Catawba basin.
Perhaps I
when additional water storage is constructed upstream on the l
Yadkin the potential for harm to the water quality in the Yadkin will be lessened so that a Perkins type facility can be judiciously i
sited.
Until that time, the Board cannot ignore the obvious i
advantages and significant superiorities which support the siting l
1 B
1 I ;
of the Perkins plant on Lake Norman.
This finding is not based upon the present ability to use surface cooling for a Perkins facility on Lake Norman.
However, Applicant has not run the computer models which could definitely rule in or out such a possibility, and the future legal regulations could ease or be changed, therefore, the potential or possibility for at least some amount of lake cooling, while not necessary to this finding, does provide future versatility which could never come to pass at the Yadkin site.
24.
In light of all the above specific findings, the Board finds that consistent with the Environmental Policy Act and Commission decisions, alternate sites were not adequately addressed by the Staff, but that the record has been made suffi-cient by the Intervenors and the Applicant to find that there are sites obviously superior to the Perkins site.
Generic Safety Issues 25.
The Staff witness Mr. Moon testified that many safety issues remained unresolved in regard to its analysis of j
the proposed Perkins plant (Tr. 3903).
Mr. Moon further tesitifed that no nuclear plant on the size and magnitude of the Perkins t
plant had yet gone into operation for verification or testing I
by actual performance (Tr. 3904).
26.
In response to questions by the Board, Staff witnesses testified that there were unresolved questions in many of the categories and in regard to many items in the cate-i gories and that these questions were on the present record unresolved (Tr. 3925 and thereafter).
i s
i 27.
On cross-examination Staff witness Crocker admitted that the findings of the Rasmussen Report, which is also referred to as WASH 1400, were used in corroboration of some of the Staff's findings (Tr. 3960).
28.
The Board finds that there are too many unresolved safety questions at this time in the record of the proceeding and that the extent of the effect of the previous Rasmussen Report has not been fully determined and therefore thic matter of the general safety questions is not ripe for a decision at this time.
Conclusions of Law 29.
The Board has reviewed the record of this proceed-ing and concludes that the Staff review of alternative sites has not been adequate and that the review of the generic safety issue is not yet ready for determination.
30.
The Board concludes that the Lake Norman D and E sites are obviously supperior to the Perkins site.
31.
The application of Duke Power Company for a Construction Permit must be denied.
Order 32.
Based upon the Board's findings and conclusions and 4
l pursuant to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 as amended, and the Commission's Regulations,. it is ordered that the application by Duke
}
Power Company to construct the Perkins Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, at the Perkins Yadkin site be and the same is hereby denied.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Walter H.
Jordan, Member Donald P.
deSylva, Member
)
i Elizabeth S. Bowers, Chairman UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD Elizabeth S.
Bowers, Chairman Dr. Walter H. Jordan, Member Dr. Donald P. deSylva, Member In the Matter of
)
)
DUKE POWER COMPANY,
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-488
)
STN 50-489 (Perkins Nuclear Station,
)
STN 50-490 Units 1, 2 and 3)
MOTION TO REOPEN THE RECORD AND FOR ADDITIONAL HEARINGS NOW COME the Intervenors and move that the record in this matter be reopened and that further hearings be scheduled in regard to the questions raised by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission reevaluation of the reactor safety study known as the Rasmussen Report, or WASH-1400, which reevaluation and change in position was issued on January 19, 1979, and which reevaluation discredits and invalidates the use of said Rasmussen Report as a reliable tool in licensing nuclear i
plants, and in support of this Motion Intervernors refer to the initial partial decision in this matter of October 27, t
1978, which stated in a portion as follows:
They did not consider accidents which involve failure of the containment vessel because a Staff study, WASH-1400, has concluded that such accidents are exceedingly improbable.
This section of the initial partial decision as well as other references in the record to WASH 1400, as well as refer-ences to WASH-1400 in the generic issue hearing on February 2, 1979, indicate that this faulty study has influenced much of the analysis and many of the significant conclusions reached heretofore in this matter and therefore it is necessary to have an additional discovery period and hearing.
Also, the Intervenors have recently received a review of regulatory actions and Staf f positions which rely on the WASH-1400, which is dated December ll, 1978, and finds that.the WASH-1400 has permeated the entire infrastructure of Staff analysis and communications and therefore is additional reason for airing this matter prior to any final decision.
The Intervenors further move to reopen the record and for further hearings in regard to geology, seismology, founda-tion and ground water hydrology investigation in that the record of these proceedings at the Davie County Public Library does not include the primary source material for the investigations 4
mentioned above and in fact contain a notation that on March 8, d.
1974, inspection in regard to these matters was r
This the b day of March, 1979.
(
N William G. Pfefferkorn
" // /
Attorney for Intervenors V f OF COUNSEL:
PFEFFERKORN & COOLEY, P.A.
Post Office Box 43 202 West Third Street Winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102 Telephone:
(919) 725-0251 i
s CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of Motion to Reopen the Record and for Additional Hearings and Intervenors' Further Supp]emental Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law.
in the above-captioned matter have been served on the 5 t'n following by deposit in the United States mail this day of March 19 79.
Elizabeth S. Bowers Charles A.
Barth, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Regulatory Staff Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Executive Legal U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Donald P.
deSylva Associate Professor of William A.
Raney, Jr., Esq.
Marine Science Special Deputy Attorney General Rosenstiel School of Marine State of North Carolina and Atmospheric Science Department of Justice University of Miami Post Office Box 629 Miami, Florida 33149 Raleigh, North Carolina 27602 Dr. Walter H. Jordan William L. Porter, Esq.
881 West Outer Drive Associate General Counsel Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Duke Power Company Post Office Box 2178 Chairman, Atomic Safety Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 and Licensing Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Mr. Chase R.
Stephens Commission Docketing and Service Section Washington, D.C.
20555 Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairman, Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Appeal Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mr. J. Michael McGarry, III a
Washington, D.C.
20555 Debevoise and Liberman 700 Shoreham Building 806 Fifteenth Street t'
Washington, D.C.
20005 d
~~
William G.
Pfefferkor'n
(
1:
Attorney for Intervenor.s PFEFFERKORN & COOLEY, P. Aw _ _
!{
Post Office Box'43 I'
Winston-Salem, N.C.
27102 Telephone: (919) 725-0251 i;'
i.
I