ML19284A616

Resolution Opposing Licensing & Const of Facility Based on Tremendous Consumption of Water by Cooling Towers & Large Increase in Electricity Rates

ML19284A616
Person / Time
Site:	Perkins
Issue date:	02/13/1979
From:	Cranford T, Mcaulay H MONTGOMERY COUNTY, NC
To:
Shared Package
ML19284A615	List: ML19284A614 ML19284A616
References
NUDOCS 7903150112
Download: ML19284A616 (3)

Text

. . ,, . rs ip

~ ~, &:. T '4 STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA # ,C ghg7#gk COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY g gy g hs RESOLUTION REGAR0 LNG PROPOSED PERKINS NUCLEAR STATION WE. the MONTGOMERY COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, being concerned with the welfare of our people, the economic growth of our County, the conservation of our water, the protect'~rt of the auality of our water, avoiding increases in electric rates and conservation of energy believe that:

uMEAEAS, our economic growth, our tax base and the health and welfare of every citizen is dependent on an adequate supply of pure water, the cheapest electric rates possible consistent with adequate supply and the conservation of ene r gy , and

'.NEREAS, cooling towers at the proposed Perkins Nuclear Station will:

a. Consume up to 72 million gallons of our water sucolv a day witi resultant decrease in water quali ty.

The Nuclear Regulatory Cormission Staff found that "A flow of 830 cfs should be adequate to fulfill needs of all present downstream users of this

.ater; w ever, if future water needs for the river grow significantly critical water snortages could develop." We believe Montgomery County will grow signifi-cantly resulting in future critical water shortages.

b. Cooling towers at Perkins nill cost around 200 million dollars more to build tnan ooen cycle cooling.

Quae Power told the Federal Court that with cooling towers the ac=er requirerents " and penalties mean that about 2% more fuel must be burned ano 3; , ore capacity must be built to supply the same amount of electricity." The Persins Station will cost approximately l+.3 billion dollars with a total cost for cooling towers of a::aroximately 200 million dollars.

c. scolino towers at Perkins will result in a este incresse accroxi-Tati'a 10-Tre ecoling towers alone will cost rate payers well over 1.5 billion

- .;cliars over t*e life of tne station, according to Marvin Wooten, f o rme r Cha : eran ,

790315011%

o e

N. C. Utilities Commi ssion, Staf f of North Carolina utilities Commission and the Att:rre,s for '4ortn Carolina,

d. Cooling towers waste energy.

I The proposeo Perkins Station approximately 54 of a 3800 Mw station.

2 6 more fuel must be ourned for technical vaccum proolems and 31 of the energy produced goes to oower the towers. This wasted energy over the life of the Perkins Station amounts to more energy than Duke has sold in nost of ene years l of its eAistence.

l. Alternate site with once through cooling.

e.

The wel fare of Montgomery County, its tax base, Its water, its future is better served cy economic growth and tne electric rates its citizens must pay

- avoiding these mater and energy wasting, rate escalating cooling towers at Yaakin River Perkins. Duke has sites for a Lake Norman Perkins which Duke in the future Our intends to build using water, rate and energy saving once througn cooling.

rate payers are already paying for this coollag capacity. Duke Power Company and Johns Hopkins University in conjunction with tne N. C. Wildlife Commission 9

estaallsned Lake norman as fully capable of once through cooling the Perkins Station in multiple units of 12SCMw or otherwise.

WHEREAS. studies involving a Yadkin River Perkins Station has not taken into account the probacility of increased consumption of Yadkin River Vaters up-stream ' rom the proposed Perkins Station site which may have an adverse effect upon the operation of the proposed nuclear station if located on the Yaakin River, and whEREAS, fulfillment of the goal of energy consarvation precluding the need for an additional nuclear station is more desirable than the construction and location of the proposed Perkins Station, and WHEREAS, the econometric models used by Duke Power Company in fore-casting tne growth in energy demands have proved to be erroneous as evidenced by Dume Power Company reports to the North Carolina Utilities Commissicn. These reports reflect a lower level of power demand than the levels of cemand originally forecasted - a possible result of energy conservation measures.

\ . - .

NCW. THEREFORE, SE IT RESOLVED THAT:

1. The 'tuclear Regulatory Commission is respectfullr requested to fully develop the cost-oenefit analysis of open/ closed cycle cooling for a Perkins Station on Lake Norman as compared to a tower cooled Yadkin-Perkins, and

2. The EnvIronnental Management Comission be respectfully request 9d to hold public hearings as to the availability of open cycle cooling at one of j Duke's reserved sites on Lake florman and the cost-benefit of open cycle cooling for a Lake Norman Perkins as compared to a tower cooled Yadkin River Perkins.

This the day of Feeruary, 1979 MONTGOMERY Cout4TY

~ r SY: >

M. Page McAulay, Chairman Montgomery County Board of Commissioners

,' f ATTEST:

7'/ ,

7- // ,

U .i b'V A -y w < &

7nad cranford ~' . \

Clerk to the Board \!

\

i I

i (S E A L )

.