ML19350C617
| ML19350C617 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Perkins  |
| Issue date: | 04/01/1981 |
| From: | NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8104060420 | |
| Download: ML19350C617 (90) | |
Text
AP ar l
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2
NUCLEAR RE F-U LATO RY COMMISSION 3,
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL EOARD 4
5 e
3n 3
6' e-I
-x g
R 7
In the matter of:
Docket Nos. 50-488 g
1
+
l 8!
DUKE POWER COMPANY, 50-489 0
l Perkins Nuclear Station, 50-490 d
=
9i Units 1,
2 and 3 i
l e
g.10
-x
- i_E E
11 i i
B l
g 12 l Fifth Floor Hearing Room, y
j 4350 East-West Towers, E
13 4350 East-West Highway, E
3ethesda, Maryland.
E 14 i wy-Wednesday, April 1,
1981.
I
.2 15 wx j
16 The above-entitled proceeding co nve ned at 10:00 W
1 17 l 1
a.m.,
pursuant to notice,_before the Atomic Safety & Licensing l
5 18 '
' Appeal Board.
=
w I
19 i APPEAL BOARD MEMBERS:
wM 20 ALAN ROSENTHAL, Chairman.
l
.DR.
JOHN BUCK, Member.
21.j MR. THCMAS MOORE, Mamber.
'l I
' 22 l 23 24 l i
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
f(bWd60
I 1
l 2
1 APPEARANCES:
1 2
For the Ao p lican ts:
3 J.
MICHAEL MC G A R R 't, ESQ.
Deveboise & Lieberman 4!
1200 17th Street Northwest 1
Washington, D.C.
i i
e-5!
I y
l
-and-3 6!
a g
l JOHN LANCHE, FSQ.,
{
7 WILLIAM.L. PORTER, ESQ. (Not Present) g.
Duke Power Company.
S 8
M 4
d i
d 9I For the Intervenors Mary Apperson Davis, et al.
10 WILLIAM G.
PFEFFERKORN, ESQ.
Z P.
O.
Box 43 E
11 winston-Salem, North Carolina 27102
<3 l
i
'd 12 i
.-and-x
=
i.
E ' 13 !
DAVID SPRINGER, ESQ.,
- 2
'The Point Far:
E 14 I Route 4 w-l Mo c k s vi 1.le. North Caro lina.
C3 r
15 l For Se NRC Staff:
16 4
s M
i SHE. MIN E.
TURK, ESQ.,
p 17 '
Office of the Executive Legal Director s
l U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission 5
18 washington, D.C.
=
b 19 A
i
- 20 '
I l
. 21 '!
l T
22 I i
i
'23 '
24 l
'25 i
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
2-A 1
C
-.T E N_. T.S
-.O N
.2 3
. oral A rgu::te n t of:
Page:
4i WILLIAM G.
PrErrERKOFN, On behalf of the Int e rve no rs.
5 2
5 N
OAVID SPRINGER,-
l 64 On behalf of the Int erve no rs.
27 R'
l R.,
7j J.
MICHAEL MC GARRY, l
-On behalf of the Applicant.
32 8 I
~
N d
SHERWIN TURK, 9'
Cn behalf of the NRC Staff.
46 2
10 WILLIAM c. PrzrrERKoan, On behalf of the Intervenors.
68 I
E.
11
<t
'J
-12 z=
9
.E -13 E
14'i
?
i E
i
-2 15'l
=z f
16 ;
ad j
~
17 a.
M tm 18 s
=
[=
.E
-19,i
=
l 20
'l
,21,j 1
. 22 '
1 24.
- 25~
i s
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
C-
3 l
1 P R oC E E D I N G S 1
2 l
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
This Board is hearing cral 3
argument this morning on the appeal of Int e rveno rs Mary Apperson 4
Davis and the Yadkin River Committee on the February 22, 1980 5'
partial initial decision rende re d by the Licensing acard in this g
n U
]
6! construction permit proceeding involving the p ropos ed Perkins R
l
~ '
- R 7'
Nuclear Facility.
-j 8!
The argument is governed by the terms of our order d
d 9
of January 13, 1981 as amended on January 22.
Each side has 2
10 been-allotted one hour for the presentation of argument.
The z=
i E
11j intervenor-appellants.may reserve a portion of their time for
<3 d
12 :
rebuttal.
zx i
- ~13 -
I will now call upon counsel to identif themselves a*
l 3* -14 formally for the record, and we will start with Mc. Pfefferkorn.
ww
'z 2
15-MR. PFEFFERKCRN My name is William G.
Pfefferkorn w
16-of-the winston-Salem North carolina sar.
ke i.
6 17 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL: -Thank you, Mr. Pfefferkern.
az
- u2 18 Mr. McGarry?
=H X
19 ;
~
MR. SPRINGER:
I am David Springer, admitted to 20 I eractice in 'the Suoreme court of the United States and the i
1 21,
State of california.
i 22 l CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Thank you, Mr. Springer.
I 23 '
Mr. McGarry?
.24l MR. MC GARRY:
My name'is Michael McGarry, and I 25 :,
am representing' Duke Power company.
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 4
t-
i 4
1 With me at counsel table today are Mr. John Lanche 2
and Mr. Don Blackman o f Dukea Power.
3 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Mr. Turk.
4 MR. TURK:
Mr Chairman and members of the Board, my l
5 name is Sherwin Turk, and I represent the NRC Staff today, e
h j
6 With me at counsel table is Mr. Stuart Treby, who is Assistant l
R 7l R
Chief Hearing Counsel for the NRC Staff.
N l-8 CHAIRMAN RCSENTHAL:
Thank you.
d(
9 setore you start your argument, Mr. Pfefferkorn, I 2C 10 m ight note that the secretary to this Board was furnished within E
l
=
g 11 i the last one half hour copies of a motion filed by the Intervenors l
3
-l j
12 l to reopen the record and remand for further proceedings.
=
1 E
13 !
Even though there is no certificate _of service aa
!.'14 accompanying this motion, I assume that copies of the motion wk 2
15 were furnished to counsel for the Applicant and Staff.
W 1
3 16 l Obviously coming as it does, at the eleventh and a g
d l
6 17 i half hour, we will not expect the Staff or Applicant to address
-a-z 1
w-
.=
18,
this motion during the course of the argument.
-P l
4 g
i 19 !
I might note, Mr. Pfefferkorn, that it seems to me 4
. 20 ;
from a hasty. reading _
of the1 motion that it is coming ve ry late I
21 in the day.
I don't know precisely when you discovered the i
22 l facts alleged in the motion, but I would have thought that 23 l on some rea sonable incuiry that they could have been ascertained 24 considerably prior ' to1 yesterday or the day before.
- 15 ~
I woul'd also -no te that-there is no indication in the 1
l
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
E
5 1
motion as to what the source of these maps which are appended i
2 lto the motion was.
That m a y*,
however, be that this is clear 3
to your adversaries.
4 In any event, the motion will not be considered in l
e 5
connection with the oral argument this mo rn ing.
We will, however, e9]
6!'
expect the Staff and Applicant to respond to the motion within E
2 7
the time provided by the Rules of Practice of the Commission.
A
{
8 With that, Mr. Pfefferkorn, you may proceed.
j d-i d
9i ORAL ARGUMENT OF WILLIAM G.
PFEFFERKORN, ESQ.,
2 Cy 10 ON BEHALF OF INTERVENORS.
z l
h 11 '
MR. PFEFFERKORN:
May it please the Appeal Board, I B
'J 12 !
would~like to allot 20 minutes of rebuttal time and also to z-l
=
m j
13 al'lo t 10 minutes of the re=2ining 40 minutes o f my argument to a
f 14 Mr. Springer, who appears with me as an attorney in this E.
i 2, 15 matter.
-He has previously appeared as co-counsel with me in this sz g"-
16 case, and he is with me here today.
l ji 17 i CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
I take it Mr. Springer is sx 6m 18 ;
admitted to the Bar in. North Carolina?
=
1 w
t 19 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Yes, your Honor, he is a practicing u
M 20 _
lawyer admitted be fore the Supreme Court of the United States,
~
21 !
and I take it that's by way of being admitted before the State 22 l
~of North Carolina.
23 '
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
I assume he was admitted to-24l ' the'Bar'of[ North Carolina before he was a dmi tt ed to the Bar of l~
25,
the Supreme Court of'the United States.
That's normally the way
~1 1
l
' ALCERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
T b_'
..i.'.
6 I
it runs.
2 MR.
PFEFFERKORN: *Well, I don't know.
3 C HA IRMAN ROSENTHAL:
If his first admission was to 4
the Bar of the United States Supreme Court, that is a rather 5
g unusual and unprecedented event.
9
]
6 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, that's like our former Senator R
2 7
Ervin who went to Harvard Law School and took the third ye ar M
8 first, and then the second year, and finished with the first dd 9
year.
3 10 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
In any event, on your representa-3 II tion that Mr. Springer is admitted to the Bar somewhere, we will 3
12 E
authorize him to participate.
=
l 13 l g
MR. PF EF F ERKO RN :
All right.
1 I4 I think.I would first like to touch on the overall
.I uz
^
15 3
scope of what we are here to address today, and I made copies of, 2
d I0
~in addition to the motion which I will not mention directly, A
C 17 g
-l because the'other parties will answer it, but it does go to z
{ 18 some confusion about the site - at Lake No rm an.
C
'O.
bf ~II l However, I attached copies, and these are.from the M
0
. record in th i s case, and the copies that I attached were' furnished II by Duke' Power Company as.part of the discovery which we held 22 - j before the January.1979 h e a r'i ng.
1 23ll What I :have attached copies of-is a map. showing
~24l
~
.the two river basins in-North Carolina.
25 MR..MCORE:
What exhibit number is the. matte r to i
- i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
7 1
i which you are referring there?
2 MR._PFEFFERKORN: 'Well, I made copies of a portion 3
of the map which was introduced as Duke Power's Exhibit --
4 MR. MOORE:
Was it admitted in evidence?
e 5
MR. PFIFyERKCRN:
It was admitted in evidence.
It's N
3 6
part of their site package when they were producing a number of
.n A
7 sites in 1973, and again in 1973, the*" used this map, and the n
2 8l N
l map basically shows running in parallel the two river basins.
d 9
.g The reason for having this map is to illustrate
-yc 10 our reason for being here, our reason for initially getting into g
3
=
i E
11 this matter, which was the cuestion of water use, water cuantity g
6 12 3
and water cuality in North Carolina.
What we have in North 4
- ~ 13 '
'j Carolina in the Piedmont area are these two river basins:
the E
14 '
ld YadP,in River ~ Basin, which ru ns parallel to the Appalachian k
9' 15 !'
E Mountains and then turns south down into 5cuth Carolina to the s
~ ' '
'j-16
. coast, and then you have the Catawba River Basin, which runs
'Y 17 d
basically the same course parallel tc the mountains, then dcwn a
wm '18 south,-and the rearon for making this. point et the outset is f
o' 19 j.
.that the Catawba Basin, as was testified to a'c the hearings
=below, north of Lake No rman has. a half million acrefeet of i
21 l l
storage capacity.
22 !
Now on the'Yadkin, on the.other hand, you only have i
1 23 j
one_ reservoir, and that is the W.' Carr Scott. Reservoir, and.
24l the< amount'of storage in thel W.
Carr Scott Reservoir is-slightly
~
~ 15 -
Lover 100,000 acrefeet, approximately 20 pe rcent Hof all the water 1
i I
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
3 I
storage north of Lake Norman.
1 21 Now you will also' notice that Lake Norman has 1 million 3
acrefeet.
That million reans that you have a 1,500,000 acrefeet 4
of water storage whi'ch can bear on the decision as to whether or 1
i 5'
g not there is a proper site for a nuclear plant on Lake Norman; n
0 whereas at the Perkins site, where Perkins is located, you only n
b 7 'i have that very small reservoir far, far up toward the mountains, w
n2 8'i the Scott Reservoir.
M d"
9 I The reason that is impo r t an t is because the Board 2
Og. 10 below tried to justify its opinion by saying, well, in the Yadkin 4
Z=
II valley you don't have as such pcwer being produced as you do
. it.
12 in the Catawba, and therefore it seems like it is sort of fair E=
5 13,
to put a nuclear facility or some sort of facility over on the 3
i I4 Yadkin.
wz l
^
15 !'
[
Well, the reason there is nothing on the Yadkin is z-d I0 because you don't have the water capacity storage.
You haven't i
N II
-had it, and as I pointed out in my exceptions and pointed out xsa 3
18,
before this Appeal soard, there is poetic justice involved here C
-9~
b II E-in that Duke prevented the construction cf a half =illion acre-M 20l feet o f water. impoundments on the Yadkin Rive r north of the 1
21 :
Perkins site in the 1930s and '40s.
1 22 ]
This information was brought out, argued and discussed.
I 23 g a y,. n o t having that storage, that explains the 24 o
- reason that if the Perkins Plant is put on the catawba Basin, 25 someone could-argue, well, the catawba already has-some of ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
9 1
these, and the re f ore the ratios are different.
2 Well, obviously the ratios are di f f e r en t, but tf 3
you consider the water storage in the Catawba, the ratios would 4
not be different in the sense that it would be perfectly logical e,
5 to place a nuclear plant where you had water storage, so tha:
nn j
6 you have water re gula tion and you are nc - faced with the problems
-n 2
7 that you have on the Yadkin which, from the ce5 i n n i n e.
o' this M
8 case, was whether or not the Yadkin River could sustain the
=M d
d 9
cooling towers such as were required at the Perkins site.
- 2..
Yg 10 You see, there is no provision at the Perkins site z=
j 11 fo r anything but. this carter creek seservoir.
B 4
12 on the nor=an size, there is ne need for an additional "z
=
. E ' 13 t=poundsent.
You've get 1 =illion acrefeet there, and : would
=.
=g 14 just like to point out-that-on the 1:o rra n site wher= you've go:
a2 I
15
.all of that. water,.yeu've got the possibility of either cooling xz g(.16 towers or -- and we know th i s is happening now -- the possibility s
- p -17 ;
of using lake cooling, uz 18 Now that's an open question, and again the Board
=w
+
k
.g 19 ;
below
---the two'probably most aignificant mistakes they made, M
20 one was this unreal. comparison o f.wa ter b as ins which did not 21 take.into account water storage and water regula tio n, but i
idl' the second one was they did not.take into account the fact-L23 that Ouke Power co=pany won the case with the other utility 24
- companies,- known as Accalachian vs. Trane,.which. threw.out the 25
. regulations requiring cooling towers.
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
10 1.
So the situation we are in now is a case-by-case I
2 method.
The matter is unde rgo ing review.
There are no new 3
regulations about that, so that indeed by the time this plant if it is ever built, we don't think it ever will be -- but 4
I e
5 if it is_ built, there will be time and I think the record Ea j
6l shows, that by 1993, when the McGuire Plant, which is using lake R
R 7
cooling on Lake Norman -- when that plant goes into effect, M
j 8
they will know exactly whethe or not additional lake cooling dd 9
can be used at Lake Norman.
2 C
g 10 CRAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Mr. Pfefferkorn, this is your 3_
g 11 contention that this record held the finding that there would be 3
g 12 inadequate water at the proposed site to provide the necessary 5
l j
13 ' j cooling, or simply that there is more water, as you see it, m
l 14 available at the Lake No rma n site, and for that reason alone, n
'2 15 the Lake Norman' site has to be taken as thecbbviously superior aa j
16 site?
w i
17 MR. PFEFFERKORNf It compels a finding that Lake az 5
18 Norman is and was obviously superior, and not that E
19 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
On what basis?
Is it on the R
20l basis of l
21 MR. PFEF FERKO RN :
Comparison with the Yadkin site.
22 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Is there more water in Lake 23 Norman?
Is that it?
l
- 24 ' l MR..PFEFFERKORN: 'There's more wate r, there's more 25; water regulation.
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
J
t 11 1
C HA I RMA N ROSENTHAL:
Well, what difference does that 2
make if in fact there is eneugh water at the Yadkin River site 3
to provide the cooting needs of the plant at that site?
4 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Secause ccmpared to the Norman site,
=
5' the site at the Yadkin -- that is the Perkins site -- poses a M
i n
3 6
strain on the water re sources at the Yadkin site, which does not e
R" 7l
. exist at the Norman site.
w M
j 8
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
What do you mean by strain?
O 9l MR. PFEFFERKORN:
As the entire proceedings in this 20g 10 matter have shown, it was a very long and complicated process z=j 11 before the state did not completely step in and block the construc-3 d
12 tion of this plant.
z
,=
j ~ 13
- n o ther words, the state held many hearings en this 3
2 i
g 14 matter.
The -impact-on the Yadkin River was a matter of great 1
w.
z
-l
-r: 15 ;
concern in these proc e e d ing s.
5 l
--:j 16,
sy simply at some point reaching a conclusion that W
y 17-the Yadkin' j us t barely passed -- it scored a 72 or 75 --
wzwm.
18 to turn around, and if you didn't h av e alternate site analysis,
=
9'[
19 l then of course we wouldn't be here, and you would never know
'M 20 whether or not it's a good idea to have aD passing be sufficient i
21 for a nuclear plant.
'U DR. 3UCK:
Mr. Pfefferkorn,.how f ar do you take this?
i 3G '
-Are you. telling.me'that if youfhave a choice between Lake 24 '
Superior and the Atlantic Ocean, you are forced to take the l
25,
Atlantic oceanLas your-cooling source?
-1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
w__.
12 1
1 MR.
PFEFFERKORN:
Well, if --
l 1
2 DR. BUCK:
I'm asking just that one question alone, 3
because I want to know whether you are telling me that you must 4
take the largest quantity of water.
5 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, you must take the obviously e
E N
h 6
superior site.
R I
R 7l DR. BUCK:
That's not my question, sir.
You are M
I
.j 8!
saying because Lake Norman has more water than the Yadkin River d
m; 9l set-up does, you must find the Lake Norman site obviously bg 10 superior.
E l.11 I am saying let's extend th i s thing.
If you had a 3
J 12 choice be tween Lake superior and the Atlantic Ocean, obviously 5
=
l y
13 the Atlantic Ocean is bigger.
Are you telling me that obviously m
]l 14 '
then becomes a superior site?
E
.r 15 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
That's right.
There's no question Wz j
16 about that, d
6 -17 DR. BUCK:
On what basis?
~
W l
8 E
18.
MR. P F EFF ER KO RN :
On the basis that this body in the P
h 19 Pilgrim case says that the Staff must truly understand the M
. 2@
salient features of the new location and that the Licensing 21 Board cannot backstop the Staff's re sp ons ib ility.
' 22 In this case, the Staff totally overlooked this 23 l difference in the-water between the Yadkin and Lake Norman, and 1
SW I am saying this record compels -- you are asking NM CHAIRMAN ROSENTRAL:
Excuse'me for interrupting, but
-i l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
13 1
if I understand your response to Dr. Buck's question, it is that i
~2 any time there are two sites, let's say all o ther respects more 3
or less equal, one site has a greater amount of water available 4
than at the other site, that as a matter of -- I guess you e
5 would be saying law, the site that has the most water has to be M4 3
6 regarded as obviously superio r to the,oth er s ite.
e R
l 2
7 That would be true even if, as was the case with Dr.
2 g
8 Buck's hypothetical example, both sites had enormous quantities d
to them.
Lake superior, as the Atlantic Ocean, d
9 of water available i
h-10 has a great, amount of wate r, even though obviously the Atlantic
.s E-
))
Ccean has more than Lake Superior does.
B d
12.
Now. if that's your position, I would like you to z
,=
i 5
13, elaborate on the legal foundation for it, because frankly I'm
=
E 14 '
having-some trouble following you.
dW 2
15 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, I think the purpose of the az y ' 16
' alternate site analysis is to protect the environment, and if W
p 17 a choosing a site which can take the impact =uch better than some az 5
18~
other site if that choice chooses the site which will impact E
19 with less strain and with less severity on the wate r re sources, M
20! ' then obviously'that site has to be chosen.
21 Now we've got-to be careful that in using the analogy i
l 22 - !
of the ocean to-Lake Superior, you're saying in that case I
23,
Superior is sort of'like an ocean, so th e re.f o r e they're both p
24l up to -- one is 90 and the other. is 95.
1 l
25.;
What I'm s ay ing, ' thou gh, is that in this case you are I
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
14 1l!
not dealing with both sites that are as copious as your analogy.
2
'I think that analogy is helcful, though, to understand that other 3
things being equal, and if both the sites will create water I
4 problems of quality and quantity, then I th in k that if it's I
e 5,
something that is obv io u s and the substantial superiority is I'
a 8
6l there, which we think is the case here, then this record compels R
I g
7 li a different result.
X I
5 8 !
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
I thought your argument was n
I d
d 9l not so much that you had to take the site with the larges t amount Y
10 of water, but it was in th is instance the use of the Yadkin 5
l 5
11 River site would produce a strain on the source utili=ation in
<3 d
12 that area, which would not be true with Lake No rman.
Is that E=
d 13 it?
s
'E.
14 i MR. PFEFFERKORN:
That's right.
a i
l 3
.2 15 CHAI RM A N ROSENTHAL:
Now i f - t ha t '. s the position, w
3 3.
16 j North Carolina has. approved, has it no t, the use of the Yadkin i
M i
i 17 River site from a water utilization standpoint?
w 3
18 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Yes, but Morth Carolina, of course,
'C~t 19 l did not make an environmental alternate site analysis R
l I
20 required by the National Environmental Policy Act.
21.
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Did the Licensing Board or the 22 l Staff assume that it would put a strain on the Yadkin River l
t 23 Basin water resources.co.put that plant.there, in circumstances 24,
'where the state authorities apparently concluded that the plant 25 would be co mpa t ib le with the water utilization?
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
15 1
MR. PFIFFERKCEN:
That's because it's a different
-2 question.
3 In other werfs, until you have an al.ernate site, 4
the state sim;1y did not face this cue s tion.
In other words, e,
5 this is a different is su e, and that is sue is for the staff n
M.]
6 of the NRC to =ake and, of course, for the Licensing Board to n
5 M
74 make, and now is for this soard to make.
And based on this w
I NI 8'
record, we say it compels a different result because of the M
d d
9 obvious superierity.
20 10 we think that standard is shown in this case to be z=
g 11 an inappropriate standard.
The superiority standard the R
.j.12 '
si=ple superiority -- is a better standard, and we think that
-=
-s '13 the substantial superiority standard dees get into perhaps
. =.
~ h 14,
a discussion about questions such as we are raising here, Hz 2
15 wherea s' the state was not faced with this issue.
Just like the az y
16
- state was not faced the Board below -- a nd it was just sort 2
i 17 of unbelievabl that they actually used the finding of a letter, uzw=
18,
a hearsay letter by Mr. senton that was introduced in the
=
N 19 record, and said, well, you can't use cooling-towers at Lake g-M 20 Norman.
21 '
That is not the case.
No one kncws what can be used 22 '
at Lake Norman until such ti=e as the issue is p re s ent ed to i
-'23'l
~ the appropriate body,:and'it's not appropriate for the Licensing 24 - l Board'or'for this Board to seize on that in f o rma t io n, which 4
25 againLis just' sert of obvious hearsay conclusory kind of i
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
1 16 1
information that I do n ' t think the Board in other cases has 2
allowed to be the support f o'r a major op in ion such as this.
3 In other words, thatone o p in io n by the state is 4
saying it's a hypothetical thing, to start with.
Nobody has g
5 presented the issue to them, and what's inte res ting about this N
h 0
matter, you remember Dr. Medina said it would only take two or R
R 7
three weeks to run a medel to de termine whether Lake Norman, even M
0 with the othernplant, can be a satisfactory to use to the d
9 once-through cooling and not waste the water through consumption.
29 5
10 Duke has so ear refused to do that.
They finally Il admitted on cross examination at this hearing that they had not 3
s" 12 run that; that they had only run the model for the plants that
=3 5
13 are now under construction; that they had not run it, even though 2
i
=
E I4 l' it would only take two or three weeks.
g 15 C HA IRMAN RosENTHAL:
what is there in the record z.
d I0,
that compels the finding that us e o f the Yadkin Rive r Basin site W
i i
17 '
l for a nuclear power plant would occasion a severe strain on g
s5' 18 the water resources in that~ area?
E 19 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
The f act ' that a special reservoir g
O I known as the Carter Creek Reservoir has to be put in as part of 21
-the Perkins Plant is indication in the record that the river 22 : _ flow cannot take.the Perkins Plant in its present state.
-l 23 l-CHA IRMAN ROSENTHAL:.Supposing it can't in its present' state;-what's the problem with creating the reservoir?
25 !
If the creation of the re s e rvo ir would relieve the strain on i
t
-i
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
17 1
utilization in that area, what's the problem?
2 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, the pooblem, of course, is 3
that that is something that does not have to be done at Lake 4
Norman, so you have an obvious difference.
=
5 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, it's a difference, but
]
6 the question remains, is it a significant difference?
What R
A 7
does the record disclose as to the environmental effects of A
I j
8' constructing this reservoir?
dn 9
MR. PFEFFEPKORN:
Well, the e nvironme ntal e f f e cts of
-Y 10 constructing the reservoir involve obviously the effect on the a_
I g
Il land there, where it has to be constructed.
It started out 3
(
12 as an 18,000 acre lake and it's gon e up,I think -- the most 5
l 13 ;
recent one was 26,000 acrefeet.
E-l l -14 As I say, the Carter Creek Reservoir only provides b-i
=
1 g-15 for river flows below 1000 cubic feet pe r second, and it's az g' ~ 16 interesting that above that level, say 1400 cubic feet per d
- 6. 17 '
sound, 1500 cubic feet per second, the design of this plant is a-i z
M ' 18 to withdraw, according'to its pumps, up to 300 cubic feet per
=
P 19 second, or 25 percent of the. river flow.
R 20 Now all of the studies haveishown this will have 21 an effect on.the. water quality as well as quantity.
I want to 22,
move'to.the water quality issue, because this is the one thing i
23 !
.that.was to' tally overlooked by the Staff.
24 The Sta ff admitted that it did not have any 13 i information when it examined 'the other. site as to the effect of 1
l
' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1 18 1
wa te r quality.
When it examined the fact that you've got more 2
water control, a larger impoundment on the Catawba Basin, and 3
i that th e r e f o re the water uality issue would be ob vic u s ly 4
superior on that impoundment, even if you didn't use the lake e
5i 3
{
cooling, if you had to use cooling towers, because you had the n-6 availability of the water there.
R l
R 7;
j Whereas on the Yadkin, we introduced the entrification n
i 8
8l 1
survey done by the EPA, and the Staff admitted that they did not d
i
=
9 take that into account.
They admitted they did not take into g
5 10 g
account the future water uses on the Yadkin issue.
E 11 j j
In fact, they admitted that their position in this d
12 y
entire matter was that once the Perkins site passed some minimum m:
13 '
E site -- ence they decided that thev. thouaht there was a sufficient E
14 l y
water there-th e y d id n ' t examine in comparison to the No rman z,
9 15 E
site as to whether or not one was Letter than the other.
z 16 l
In other words, they simply said, well, we're going d" ' 17 ' -to give them both the highest mark, and there again, of course, I z
5 18
=
pointed that out to the Licensing Board, and the Licensing Board g
19 1 j
j admitted that there was this rule of a pass-fail analysis by the 20li Staff, and the Staff admitted it.
-21.1 i
I don't see'how the alternate site analysis.by the i
1 22 D Staff ~can,ever pass the NEPA standards.if, in fact, they didn't 23
~
look at both of them and assign some sort of.value to each one.
- 24 !
All they said was, well, af ter considering the Perkins 25.
site, the Perkins site, they said, was a good enough site or was l
i.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
19 1
so-good tha t no other site could be any better.
That's admitted 2
by at least two or three o f '*.h e i r witnesses.
3 C HAIRMA N ROSENTHAL:
Was the Licensing Board's 4
analysis subject to that same infirmity?
=
5 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Yes, it certainly was.
In other 5
h 6
words, the Licensing Board tried to do what this Board in Pilgrim, R
7 at page 799, said the Licensing Board could not do.
It said:
Xj 8
"It is not a Licensing Board's function to d
d 9
backstop the Staff's re s pon s ib ili t y for conducting 2
10 NEPA analysis.
The Board is an independent cheer s
l l
11 on the Staff."
B y
12 And th e.t is crucial to this appeal, because in this 3
I a
\\
g 13 '
case the Licensing Board said that the Staff analysis was a
14 inadequa,ei that it was shallow, superficial; it says the same wk 2. 15 th in g s about that Staff an alys is that I said in the fall, in ax j
16 ;
october of 1978.
I wrote a long letter when they submitted W
6 17,
.the evidence in writing.
I got it in th e mail, we sat down w-z h
IS and we analyted it and we pointed out 10 things that were wrong
~
1.
6 i
~ things I have been talking to you about.
About 2
19 l with.it; the same M
20 lj the failure to consider the difference in water impact on the 21 l
,two basins.
I 22l I sent that to them in October of
'78, and when they.
SU ' '
came in in. January, they hadn't changed their testimony, never
' 24 - f changed ' the ir testimony.
15 At the hearing we not only had the man from Duke ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
20 1
University who is probably the wate r expe rt in the state of l
2l North Carolina in terms of background and training, but we also 3
had a man who worked a matrix on it, and there again both of 4
those witnesses showed that the Staff simply did not carry out e
5 an alternate site analysis, because in effect they just im p ing e d M
n j
6 themselves.
G-R 7
They themselves said, well, we consider the Perkins M
g 3
site there is nothing further to look at an alternate site I
d d
9;l on this.
So they admitted in the ir own testimony that they I
i 10 did not make an alternate site analysis which we think is 3
E 11 required, that they have to take a hard look at these alternative
<3
'J - 12 sites, and that the water issue was the critical issue.
E
~E 13 Now that brings ur just peint abcut what they really 3
,=-
,z 14 l said is they weren't going to conside r water issues being any a
6k 2
15 different, and so they started talking about some other things, az 16 j and that's the reason for my motion today, becaus e there is some 3_
l i
y.17 l
' question on the maps that I have shown attached to that =otion, a-3 5
18
'"E" side on Norman is shown in three different places.
.Cl 19 DR. auCK:
Mr. Pfefferkorn, before we get in to that, M
20 can we go back to everification f or a moment?
21.
Maybe '-I mis read the record, but EPA cic a study of 22 the Yadkin River near Perkins on eutrification?
23 MR, PFEFFERKORN:
Yes, it did a study of High Rock.
I 24 Lake, which is --
i
~ 53,
DR.-BUCK:
Wait a minute, that's'High Rock Lake.
My
~
1 l
- ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
21 1
question was not High Rock Lake.
My question was the Yadkin I
2 River at the Perkins site.
5 3
How far downriver from Perkins site is High Rock Lake?
4 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
If you look at it on a may, it's e
5 about eight miles going straight.
Now as the river curve s, I h
3 6,
think it's more than that.
I think the other side says 16 miles; e
I R
R 7
I don't know.
N l
8 DR. BUCK:
One would have to look at the river flow, d
d 9
would one not?
10 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well,I th i'nk that it's not very i
1 E
11 '
far downstream from the Perkins site.
In the Final
<3 l
12 Environmental Impact Statement and everything else, there has m
9 4
E 13 been no dispute in this case that drawing out the water upstream E
i l
14 from the Yadkin R'iver in effect there is going to have an effect i
2 15 j on water quality and quantity in High Rock Lake.
w E
i I
j 16 DR. BUCK:
Are there any other streams going into d
i i
17 !
the Yadkin River as tributaries between the Perkins site: and a
l E
5 -18 I the High Rock Lake?
=
l p
i 19 j MR. PFEFFERKORN:
The South Yadkin River.
A much I
20 smaller s tre am.
21 I DR. BUCK:
Well, how much smaller?
What's the l
22 volume of water there?
23 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
I think it's less than -- it's 24 not'the same i
25 ;
DR. BUCK:
You don't know?
i i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
22 1
MR. PFEFFERKCRN I don't know the exact figure, but 2
I
'ould say maybe one-third as much it is considerably less.
I w
3 or something of that sort.
4 DR. BUCK:
Is that what the record says?
MR. PFEFFERKORN:
It's in the record 3
6 e
DR. BUCK:
Well, I'm t ry in g to find out what the R
A 7
record says.
Do you know?
X i
8 M
MR. PFEFFERKCRN:
It's in the record, I'm sure of d
that, and 3
F to j
DR. BUCK:
Aren't there some other streams?
=
5 11 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Of course, Abbotts Creek comes into 3
d 12 '
z one part of High Rock Lake.
4:
13 DR. SUCK:
What else?
Isn't there one very close to a
E 14 '
g the Perkins site? 'On the map, it see=s to me that I have seen k
h i
= ore than one coming in there.
3-16 My question comes down to this:
What is the volume 2
F 17 g
flow of the Yadkin River as it enters the High Rock Lake, as a
5 18 compared with the volume flow at Perkins?
=wH 19 n
MR. PFEFFERKCRN:
Well, I would say it's certainly 91 4
' 20 l obviously supe rior amount or substantial a=ount.
It is in --
an
+
I
' 21 !
DR. SUCK:
Do you know the volume flow in the Yadkin 22 l
campared to the volume flow through Lake No rm an ?
23 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Yes, I'm f'amiliar with that
.e.
24 i i
It's approximately the same, according to the record.
I think 25 one_shows an average cf 2800 and the other is 2600.
.l i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
23 I
d 1
CR. BUCK:
- 4hich is which?
2 MR. PTETFIRKORN :
- - - cubic feet per second.
3 Lake Nor=an, they say, is 2600, but of co ur s e with 4
all the river control you have there
=,
5 DR. BUCK:
Let's look at the flow of the water.
No e
M
]
6 matter what the control is, there's a certain flow in the water
-2 E
7 somewhere along the line, an average flow, and I'= locking to M
8 find the average flow.
So the ficw through the Yadkin is dn 9
greater?
k E
io MR. PrErIRKcRN:
- hat's right.
I=
E 11 DR. BUCK:
Oo you take into consideration as to the
<B
{
12 availability of coo ling and that sort of thing?
,=
E 13 MR. PTEFFERKORN:
You take it into consideration also a
l 14 with~your water storage and water regulation.
wk i
15 DR. BUCK:
6kay.
Now is the holding pond -- Carter az y
16
. Creek or something, is that on the Yadkin Rive r, or is that 2
y 17 on a tributary to tha Yadkin?
wa 18 MR. PTEFFERKCR3:
It's on a tributary just off of th e
^
C 19 Yadkin River, north of the plant.
h 2C.
DR. SUCK:
Okay.
Oc you know what the level of 21 eutrification, if there is any, is at the Perkins-site on the
.Yadkin River?
Is.there any indication that there is no fish life 23 or anything of that nature there?
24 MR. PFEFFERKCRN:
No, there is fish life, but there l
. 25 is' indication'thatiit's a weakened. strain.
In other words, when I
l l
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
u 1
24 I
the state studied this matter, there have been fish kills on 2
the Yadkin Rive r right at th'at site.
3 In other words, there is 4
DR. BUCK:
From what source?
5
=
MR. P F EFF ER Kc RN :
From releases.
There was one occa-5 0
sion when it was from the city of Winston-Salem.
There have R
b 7
been other occas ions when it was a combination of factors: run-X 0
off from farming and construction and things of that sort.
But d
d 9
DR. BUCK:
What effluent from the site do you consider 2
.10 would contribute to the eutrification?
E II MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, I think the concentration R
12 g
by eliminating up to 25 percent efthe river flow, you will 4
5 I
concentrate the remaining icad in that river.
I think that was a
h I4 the testimony that everyone really agreed on in this proceeding, Ej 15l-th'at it would affect, by reducing the quantity of water, you a
[
I0 would concentrate the material that is the load of suspended l
17 '
,'j solids and other things in the river, which affects its oxygen z
$ '18 l' content and other things.
.~
i, 19 l So that is the primary effect of this.
g 1
20l DR. BUCK:
How do you do that?
If you pull river e
21l water out, that contains suspended solids, doesn't it?
Do you l
i 22 I i
manufacture suspended solids in the plant?
l 23 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
No, but you've-got less water going 24 l 1
on down the river.
In other words, you've got solids coming in-
.(
25 all along.the river.
I mean the river is subject to quite a bit i
i i
1 ALD'ERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
w
25 1
of strain by the city of Winston-Salem and other cities in that 2,
area.
And the point is by raducing 25 percent of the river flow, 3
you're obviously weakening the river that is already having 4
problems at the present time, and these are all on record in a
h j
6 of course, the EPA an aly s is was done on High Rock Lake, 1
2 7
which is just a short distance downstream.
Nl 8
DR. BUCK:
What do those suspended solids contribute da 9
to eutrification?
10 MR. PFEFFERKORN I'm talking about just the condition s.
2 11 of the water.
<t d
12,
DR. Buck:
I'm talking about eutrification.
zmn E
13 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, I have to take it fr:m the E
l 14 excerts.
I'm not an expert.
They're the ones who gave the a
2 15 '
testimony throughout this matter, a2 j
16 DR. BUCK:
That's one thing that bothers me, I W
g 17 couldn't find anything in there where anybody had a specific ua R
18 !
elaim as to what it was in the driluents or lack of effluents
.C 19 or whatever from the Perkins Plant that was going to have any X
4 20 ;
significant.effect on eutrification, first of all, of the river
.o i
21l itself; and secondif, on nigh Point.
I 22 l Maybe I missed this in the record, but I couldn't 23 find any statement by you r. people, for example, as to what it 24j
'was they were. considering that.would have this impact on 23,
.eutrification on High Rock Point. -- High Rock Lake.
i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
26 1
MR. PFEFFERKORN:
I th ink most of that information was 2
probably generated at the p re vi ous hearings and was referred to 3
at these hearings.
I don't think there was any cuestion but 4
what it was just a matter of how much.
Whether it was e
5 considered significant er not, act there was no question there 5
g 6
was going to be'an effect on the quality of the water going into R
i 7
High Rock because o f this removal of the quantity of wate r at N
j 8
the Perkins Plant, i
d
=
9 DR. BUCK:
But you don't know any specific point in rn 10 the record where that was stated?
I=
g 11 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
In the Final Environmental Impact 3
d 12 State =ent, there's a statement to that effect, and I think it 2
3 I
i 13 I
. points out that the phosphorus there are scme chemicals that E
l 14 ;
will he. going in.
n 2
15 !
They just say, well, compared to the rest of the a.
s j
16 phosphorus load of the river, it will not be any significant m
6 17 i amount and things of that sort, as I
18,
DR.' : SUCK:
Is phosphorus being put out continuously 7
C 19
.during operation?
I 4
20 l MR. PFEFFERKORN:
I think mos t of the phosphorus e
21 goes in at the beginning.
_There are several chemicals that i
22 ;
will be coming out at the start-up of,-the plant.
' 23 DR. BUCK:
-It's clean at the beginning?.
j l
24 l
'MR.
PFEFFERKORN: 'That's right.
l
'23
.DR' BUCK:
And *. hat's it?
1 4
I
'l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
I7 1
MR. PFEFFERKORN:
I'm not sure for what period of time 2
that takes place, but I thin that is in the Final Environmental 3
Impact statement.
4 DR. BUCK:
All right.
Thank you.
e 5
C H AI RM AN RCSENTHAL:
Mr. Pfefferkern, you have taken 3
M j
6 half an hour.
I gather you wanted to leave 10 minutes for Mr.
l R
7I springer?
Ml 8
MR. PFEFFERKCRN:
Yes, sir.
d
=
9 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
We will hear from Mr. Springer.
Z h
10 ORAL ARGUMENT OF DAVID SPRINGER, 3
I 11'l ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENORS.
i I
~4 12 ;
na. SPRINGER:
First I would like to th a nk the Z
r 3
1 j
13 '
Hearing _ Panel for allowing this opportunity to address you.
9 8
i i
14 l I would like to start off by going directly to the I
1 b
=
r 15 question which Dr. Buck was asking about the Atlantic Ocean and ss j
16 Lake superior.
W 6
17 My understanding is that the issues in this case sm 5
18 :
is swhether or not Staff has implemented the purposes for which
(
l 19 j the Nuclear Regulatory Commission was created.
R 20 Those purposes, as I understand it, _are to save. energy, 21 to lower the cost of energy, and probably as an adjunct, but not 22 specifically in NRC, is to protect, if possibic, the waters of 23 the United States.
24 )
These three items are three of the major problems that 25 ;
face the nation today.
i l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
23 1
Now, the doctrine by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 2
as I understand it, is that staff must try -- staff must try 3
to implement these obj ectives, and not only must they try, but 4
they must try very hard.
g 5
Now going directly to cr. Buck's question, we find 0
6 on page 33 of the record in the opinion of the Board, they R
2 7l set out that one of the chief concerns of the Board and major s
j 8
concern of the Intervenors is the water problem, and on page 34 dn 9
of the record they say:
2 C
10 "We are disappointed with the staff's failure 3
j 11 to address this important issue either in the original 3
g 12 proceeding with a fcotnote, or in this reopened hear-4 1
E 13 I ing."
E l
l 14 I when a staff witness was asked by Applicant's uz 2
15 i counsel his opinion -- I'm paraphrasing this he says, "I
l w
8 j
16 l couldn't answer that question.
That would involve a knowledge W
y 17 {
of the basin that I have not developed."
- :azf 18 '
Now if that's trying, and trying hard, I don't know.
C h
19,
The other issue, as I see it, the major issue is M
i 20l the issue of the alternace site.
The Final Impact Statement says 21 ouke maintains at the construction and operation of a baseload 22 !
the rmal ge nerating facility on an existing or newly-built 23 ',
-lake using the lake for cooling water condenser as the most 24 l practical and economic method, and is environmentally accertable.
- 25,
In, oth e r wo rds, Duke.is saying that the purposes'for
'l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
2
29 I
which the Nuclear Regulato ry Commission was founded, w as set up, 2f are best accomplished by oney-through lake cooling, and they 3
say why the Yadkin River site was selected.
i 4
Therefore, it appears highly unlikely that any one of g
5I the four schemes for lake cooling could receive the necessary n
l 1
3 0) regulatory approval in the timeframe th at would ensure availability 2
7l M
of additional ge n e.ra ting capacity to meet Duke's projected load M
S 8I g-commitments, da 9
i Now this reaaon for not saving energy, for not
,2
+
10 i
reducing the cos ts of electricity, for not conserving water, z
II no longer exists.
The Perkins station is not even scheduled, B
Y I2 and certainly the Nuclear Regulatory Commission Staff should i
m m
~
13 recommend that the Commiss.on try, and try hard, to save the s
l 14 I energy, lower the costs, conserve the water, by seeing -- by w
I k
j 15 taking a hard, even-handed look at the availab ili ty of condenser 8
i E
I6 '
cooling.
i N
II !
Now what they did was to rely solely on a letter of a m
z a
b II sub-employee of the~ state, and I hear repeatedly by the C
I 19 i
_ Appellate Board and from'the Hearing Board and from Duke and X
20!
from Staff that this is the position of the state of North Carolina 1
i II !
It is not the position of the state o f North Carolina, l
i 22 l The record is very clear that the Environmental Management l
23 '
in fact, no one-in the state of North Carolina Commission 24[
has the authority to speak for the state insofar as the use of 25 the waters of-the state are concerned, except -- except with a i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l
30 1
declaration of the capacity to use area, and.this was not done.
l 2
I'm afraid I'm pr]ssing my time.
3 CHAIRMAN POSENTHAL:
You've got a few minutes.
4 DR. BUCK:
The state has approved the use of the e
5 Yadkin River, has it not?
2 l
6 MR. 3PRINGER:
No, sir.
7 DR. BUCK:
You mean they have not looked at this at g
j 8'
all?
d
=
9' MR. SPRINGER:
They looked i
n 10 DR. scCK:
Duke has not made any application or anythin g El 11 like that for a power plant on the Yadkin River?
3 l
f 12 l MR. SPRINGER:
No, sir.
Absolutely not.
You will
=
m
= -13 find in the record an opinion of the Attcrney General that says
==
l,14 and you will in Duke Power's legal briefs to th is Commission --
wk 2
15 l that absent the declaration of.the capacity to use ares, the as 16 state has no authority to regulate the use of water or give g
2 y
17 permission or deal in any way with water.
And I would be very as 5
18 happy to furnish specific references to substantiate this state-Ch 19 m e n t '.
g M
4
%) l DR. BUCK:
I would like to have those.
i 1
21 ~ !
MR. SPRINGER:
All right, sir.
When may I send them l
i 22 l in?
1 23 '
. ira. stCK:
In the next few days.
24 MR'.
SPRINGER:
okiy..All'right.
l
~
25 I-have a great deal more, but i
l s:
' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
31 1
C HA IRMAN ROSENTHAL:
You've get about twc minutes.
2 MR. SPRINGER:
IT is patent in the opinion of the 3
Board that they say this is a decision that there is no other 4
cooling-tower-only site that is obviously superior.
There is g
5 no finding, and it is specifically not mentioned co= paring Lake e
N g
6 Norman with the once-through cooling, with the cooling tower site
-n 7
at the Yadkin River.
M l
l 8'
Now I gather frc= the questions, Or. Buck, that you J
d 9
are somewhat of a water expert.
Now cbviously if --
Z 10 DR. BUCK:
That's news to
=e, sir.
z=
E 11 (Laughter.)
<R
'd 12.
CHAIRMAN RCSENTHAL:
He*11 take credit fo r it.
Z=
l m
g 13 MR. SPRINGER:
But ~ anybody, any water expert-you turn m-a
.g 14 to, you say if you were going to cool a big ther=al plant, would w
'N r
15 '
you like to use the nor=al flow of a big river that's classified az j 16 as th e =ost important na tur al resource in the stater or would d
y.17 you rather go over and use'the huge lake that has impounded the azwh 18 flood waters and put those flood waters to use, rathe r than
.?
m 19 consuming your basic assets, your normal flow of the rive r?
M 20 This is so elementary it seems ridiculeus to argue.
-21 DR. SUCK:
I would think there would be a few fisher-22 '
men who would argue with that, sir.
13 '
'MR. SPRINGER:
Okay.
I thank the Commission very much 24 ;
'for their time..
~
l 23 l CHAIRMAN ~ ROSENTHAL:
Thank you.
i, ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
32 I
All right, Mr. McGarry.
2 CRAL ARGUMENT OF }. MICHAEL MC GARRY, 3
ON BEHALT OF THE APPLICANT.
4 MR. MC GA'RRY:
An alternate site analysis is to g
5 consider many things.
This Board today indeed, the Intervenor n
M 0
has focused on basically one factor, and that is the water R.
6' 7l supply adequacy issue.
X i
8 I A
C HA I RMA N ROSENTHAL:
It's an i=portant factor, isn't d
i 9
it?
2 nC 10 6
MR. MC GARRY:
It certainly is.
In fact, the record z=
k II reflects that with respect to Duke's treatment of this issue, 3
12 E
63 percent of the factors that Duke examined were water-related.
=
i i
- g. 13 Duke submits that the matte r has been properly z
z 6
I4,
considered.
It's im*po rta nt, and I think this Board's questions az
^
15 6
have properly delineated between the two aspects of this z
d I0 consideration.
W F
17 g
The first is the water supply question.
The second a
w 3
18 is the water quality question.
R 19 The Applicant.has provided information relative to 20 stream flows and to reservoir' levels.
That information demonstrater 2I'j with respect to the sites that are under consideratien, that l
l 22-1
-is -
adequate water supply.
.there an 23 The staff has reviewed that infor=ation, independently 24l verified it, referred to'~reconnaisance level information, and 25 determined that indeed the Applicant is correct
-1 l
' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
I l
33 I
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
What do you mean by adequate?
2 I gather that,there is more ' water available in Lake Norman than 3
there is in the Yadkin River sin.
Or do you challenge that?
4 MR. MC GARRY:
Absolutely correct.
I do not challenge
=
5 it.
2-e jl
]
6 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
All right.
So what your opponent A
7 is saying is that this is a very important factor, the avail-Xl 8l ability of greater amounts of water in Lake Norman, because d
l q
9 the claim is that the Perkins facility would put a strain on the I
10 water resources in the Yadkin River Basin.
3_
l II MR. MC GARRY:
Let's address that.
I respectfully 3B y
12 '
disagree.
5 I
j 13 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
What does the record specifically a
I4 reflect?
D i
g 15 l Well, before you get to that, supposing that your z
l d
I6 opponent was correct in that regard, that this would put a M
N I7 strain on water-utillration in the Yadkin River Basin.
How a
f
'3 IO much weight would be attached to that?
E I 9 l1 p
MR. MC GARRY:
I would say that's an important g
5 20 l consideration.
I 21 l'
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Okay.
So you recognire the 22 question that whether th e re is or is not a strain is important?
i 23 '
MR. MC GARRY:
Yes, sir.
24_ j noe.s now focus on future wate r use, I believe is 25 the. issuer-is that correct?
l l
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
V-
34 1
CHAIRMAN RCSENTHAL:
Well, I assume so.
Unfortunately, 2
we don't know at what point }n the future, and we don't know at 3
this juncture when, if ever, the facility will be built.
4 MR. MC GARRY:
Let me take you to 2020.
The Applicant 5
provided testimony in a previous hearing -- not the hearing on N
3 6
alternative sites and that testimony was referred to as the e
E A
7' Water use Report.
3 j
8 In there the Applicant thoroughly examined the future d
=
9 water use on the Yadkin Rive r out to the year 2c20.
2 b
10 What does that tell us?
That tells us that with i=
3 11 the upstream utilization of the Yadkin River, plus 76 percent
<3
- J 12 operation of the Perkins Nuclear station, that 4.2 percent of z=-
E 13 l the river will be utilized.
Assuming average flow at the Yadkin E
l 14 '
college gauge, which is six miles above the facility, that figure af.15 is 2880 cfs.
s*
j g
16 A 4.2 re duct io n leaves us with 2757 efs in the year e
~ d 17 2020, passing past Perkins.
s Ek 18 Now let's address the second part of that question, G
19 '
what is the downstream use.
The record reflects in the Water R
2d.j use Report-that in the year 2020, the downstream us e o f the i
21 Yadkin River, the consumptive use, will be 71.6 efs.
22 We submit that there is adequate water for future 23 '
water users out to the year 2020.
That's Applicant's study.
24 You have asked,. sir, what the record reflects.
The 25-record reflects the Environ = ental Management Commission's.
I
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
t
l l
35 I
determination that there is adequate water.
2 DR. BUCK:
What E'gvironmental Management Commission is 3
this7 4
MR. MC GARRY:
The State of North Carolina.
5 g
DR. BUCK:
Thank you.
0' MR. MC GARRY:
They have *boroughly examined this i
-n b
7 issue under their capacity use jurisdiction.
The capacity use N!
O jurisdiction is a statutory creature of the state of North j
d 9
Carolina, wherein the state takes it upon itself to determine z@
i 6"
10 I whether or not conditions exist that jeopardize now or threaten 3
II to jeopardize present and future water uses.
R 12 i
i If it determines that is the case, the state then
=
1 3
5 13 ;
declares that river basin, that area, a capacity use area.
m E
14 1 a
What is the effect of that determination?
The effect w
I k
i j
15 '
is that any future use of that water may not b e had absent an z
d I0 application and a grant o f a pe rmit by the state.
W I
l Under this authority, the state commissioned its a
18 '
staff to prepare a report, and it is an extensive report.
E 19 l Therein the state analy:ed present usea and future uses of the 9M 20 I
Yadkin River.
21 <
It de termined that the Yadkin River was good with I
22 !.j respect.to future water use and present water use and that a 23 '
capacity use designation area was unnecessary.
24 ;i CHAIRMAN RCSENTHAL:
That was factoring the plant in?
25 ;
MR. MC GARRY:
Yes, sir, i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
t
36 1
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
And making what kinds of assump-2 tions as to further industrial or residential development in the 3
area?
4 MR. MC GARRY:
Without specifically -- let me Just
,e 5
rephrase that, sir.
8jj 6i cannot recall what specific a s s umpt io n s they made R
R 7
with respe.t to future water use, except that they d1early stated Nl 8
that there was adequate water for future water users with dd 9
Perkins in operation.
I h
10 Now : can further address it, if you will permit me z=
i j
11 in a minute to address the framework study by the state of 3
I j
12 North Carolina, because they do shed some light on that que s t io n.
m 13 And, indeed' they determined that there is a wet E
=
14 industry area available below the Perkins facility, and they g
E 2
15 assume that Perkins will be in operation, and this area is well i
s 1
z 16 l over twice the size of an area associated with the Catawba River B
A i
17 sasin.
sa 6h 18 I believe this Board in its examination of the record
-C 19 l is quite aware of the discussions and my cross-examination of i,
20 l cr. Medina in this regard.
21 Ge tting back to the Environmental Management 22 l Commission proceeding, after they commissioned their staff, 1
23 their staff returned with this document.
They held a public 24 ;
=eeting, and thereafter they held two public hearings.
i 25,
As a result of this entire' procedure, they came to i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
37 1
the same conclusion as their staff did; that it was not necessary 2
to declare a capacity use araa.
3 That, with the imposition of the conditions that 4
are re ferenced by this Licensing Board, which had been accepted e
5 by the Applicant, that present and future water users are hj 6
adequately provided for.
R I
R 7
Now the third piece of infor=ation contained in our M
j 8
record is the North Carolina Framework study.
This was prepared d
d 9
for the cove enor by the then-Department of Natural Environmental 10 Resources.
It's an analysis of the water system of the entire 3l 11 state, and it places heavy emphasis on future water users.
3 y
12 And as I have indicated, they have considered the
,a 13-operation of perkins, the operation of McGuire, and they have
- m
~i ag.14 determined that the rive r basins in North Carolina are adequate 2
15 in respect to future water use, with one exception, the upper az g
16 Cape Fear Basin, and that is not of moment with respect to the e
d '17 issue wa are now discussing.
i a
z 6m 18 CHAIRMAN RCSENTHAL:
I thought I heard your opponent
=
9.
19 indicate.that North Carolina had f ound the water situation to be
-l I
t 20 marginally acceetable.
I think he indicated that a grade of "D"
l 21 I or ~something had been assigned to it.
What about that?
22 l MR.
'4 C GARRY:
.I'm not aware of that.
If it were 1
23 marginal,-it would clearly seem to me that they would have 24
-declared 1a capacity use area.
They did not.
25.
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
So there is nothing in those 1
~
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.'
36 1
studies or, more accurately, the results of the studies to 2
indicate that the state thought this was close to'the bo rde r?
3 MR. MC GARRY:
Absolutely not.
4 MR. MOORE:
Is there anything to prevent the state e
5 at some future point, say a decade from now, declaring a capacity 3
6 use area?
e g
a 7
MR. MC GARRY:
There is nothing to prevent the state M
j 8
from doing that.
They continue to examine the issue.
That's d
n 9
why I submit the Board should take comfort in the Applicant's 10 analysis.
It takes us to the year 2000, and giving the flows z
2 11 I have given, taking an average flow of 2757, and future users
<3 y
12 4 are only going to use 71.6 cfs of that amount.
=
5 13 C HA I RMAN ROSZNTHAL:
What assumptiens did the E
l 14 Applicant make with respect to further residential or industrial n
2 15 development?
w X
j 161 My-impression is, and I could be quite wrong, that n
't; 17 that area of North Carolina is regarded as very attractive, and az5 '18 with a consequence that there well might be appreciable further E
19 d eyelopment.
.R 20 MR. MC GARRY:
We regard it as very attractive, sir.
21 The 1980 census, if you will permit me to make an 22 ;
. extra-record statement,- reflects our projections of growth were i.
23 '
somewhat~ op t i.,i s t i c',
and I think 'you can take official notice
'l 24 !
that North Carolina did not' receive an additional Congressional 25 '
seat as a result'of the 1980 census.
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
39 1
I can si= ply tell you that we made very a pp ro p ri a t e 2
considerations for population growth and for future industrial 3
use.
It is contained in the second day of the transcript back 4 ~
in April 1976.
It's the Water Use Report, and I direct your g
5 attention there, because it clearly sets forth the assumptions nN j
6 that we made.
7 Having just read that document about two or three days Xl 8
ago, I was very impressed with those assumptions.
d=
9 CHAI RMAN ROSENTHAL:
You night add here what you I
10 considered using that 71.6 efs, please.
2=
E 11 MR. MC GARRY:
I imagine this would be directed to
<R y - 12 industrial uses.
I am not certain
=
m=
13 DR. BUCK:
Oo you have any =emory at all as to what I
h 14 percentage would be industrial uses and what kind of industrial I
I 15 uses, and so on?
wz 16 MR. MC GARRY:
I believe if we were to go back to that g
W
' d 17
_ transcript, which I indeed have here with me, I believe there is az N
18~
a percentage breakdown of industrial use.
I believe that's E
C 19 i the case.
I'll examine that when I sit down.
R 20 CaAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
What about the eutrification 21 point?
22 '
MR. MC GARRY:
~Yes, that's been one of the favoreds 23 ;
in-this proceeding.
And again we have to return to a previouc 4
i 24 '
proceeding. o r previous hearing, and that is the'1976 hearing.
l
. 25
-tutrification was an extremely big topic, if you will.
1
-i 1
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
40 1
We presented exhaustive testimony on entrification, 2
and the Board determined t h a*. w i t h respect to Intervenor's 3
contention, which was that Perkins will cause eutrification 4
and fish kills, in paragraph 80 of the October 1978 partial e
5 initial decision, which I just happened to have here 5
]
Just coincidental.
E R
7 (Laughter.)
Kl 8
MR. MC GARRY:
The Board finds that the testimony of dn 9
Staff and Applicant biologis ts is probative and convincing that Y
10 the operation of Perkins will not significantly add to the aj 11 eutrification of High Rock Lake, or appreciably add to the fish 3
y 12,
kills.
=
13 There was another issue raised back in the '76 E
14 proceedings, and that was the impact on the drawdown levels of s
i 2
15 i H igh Rock Lake.
Again we presented exhaustive testimony which az j
16 indicates that the drawdowns will be minimal.
2 d
17 Now, as I mentioned at the outset,,we looked to wz 18 numerous factors and an alternate site review, and we have E
19 properly focused on water considerations, but I believe the
-M 20 record reflects that in the final analysis that there are other 21-factors that if we focus on Lake No rman - that weigh against 22 declaring Lake Norman an o bviously superior site.
I 23 l The terrestrial ecology conditions, the aesthetics 24 i and the socio-economic impacts vere factors that were identified 25,
and explained by the Staff as weighing against the Lake No rman I
J l
-j ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
41 I
site.
2 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAI:
Meaning in those factors the 3
Yadkin River site is preferable, or is it simply that it's a wash-4 out?
5 MR. MC GARRY:
In our analysis, in the Phase I siting N
0 report, which was submitted with our Augus t '78 filings with 2
2 7
the staff, we started with 100 sites, worked down to 38, and M
0l finally arrived at 10.
d q
9 Those 10 sites include the Lake Norman "E"
site.
K 10 We think all of those 10 sites are good sites.
We th' ink Perkins z
=
l II is a good site.
We don't think any of the 10 sites are obviously 3
I2 li superior to Perkins.
=
i 3
i 13 g
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Well, that doesn't quite respond m
E I4 to my question.
If you take out water altogether and you are now E
i j
15 l looking at the other f actors, some of which you enumerated a minut a z
d I6 or two ago, what in your judgment does the record establish as d
1 I7 to the comparative merits of the Lake Norman site and the II proposed site on the Yadkin River?
E!
I9 MR. MC GARRY:
I think the record reflects the Perkins g
20!
site is obviously superior to the Lake Norman site, if you exclude 21 the water issues.
22l Again the basis for that is the focus on the endangered 23 '
species, which Dr. McBrayer of the Staff focused upon.
There i
are more presumed endar.gered species on the Lake Norman' site, 1
25 four vs. one at the Perkins site.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
42 i
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Did the Licensing Board so find 2
that water to one side, the Tadkin River Basin site would be j
3 obviously superior to Lake Norman?
4 MR. MC GARRY:
I don't believe that the Licensing Board 5
made that specific finding.
I know they =ade the finding that 39 3
6 there was no obviously superior site to Perkins, because it e
R R
7' wasn't just the Lake Norman site.
obviously that was before 3
j 8
them, but there were numerous sites.
You asked me what the dd 9
record reflected, and cr. Mearayer specifically at 3349 makes 2
h 10 this statement.
Also higher land values associated with the 3
g 11 Lake Norman site vis-a-vis the Perkins site, in that there are B
d 12 businesses and new homes in the Lake No rm an area, and the land z
,=
E 13 !
is not as desirable at the Perkins site.
E i
l 14 '
The recreational use of the Lake Norman site was aI i
15 considered in the Staff's judgment to be greater at the Lake s3 16 Norman site than opposed to the Perkins site.
g-e f
y 17 The number of people at the Lake No rma n site were
.ax w2 18 greater than the number of people at the Perkins site.
_C 19 ;
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
How do you understand the X
20 Licensing Board's definition of the term "obviously superior"?
21 As I recall it, the Licensing Board's decision came 1
22 '
down sub s e que nt to our sterling' decision, but prior to the 3G Commission's_ ratification of our interpretation of "obviously 24 superior."
25l MR. MC GARRY:
Just an aside, and why I'm smiling is
-l s
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
43 1
you asked me a definition, and I've just been through a hearing 2
where we spent one month on s definition of a credible accident.
3 The witnesses were having fits of what's a credible accident.
4 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Now we defined "o bv io u s ly e
5 superior" as meaning s ub s ta n t ia lly superior, and the Commission Aa g
6 upheld that interpretation of the term.
E' j
R 7
- was just curious as to whether in your view the 1
N j
8 Licensing Board applied that interpretation of the phrase.
d d
9 MR. MC GARRY:
Yes, they were obviously aware of 40g 10 your decision because the Staff moved to reopen on the basis 3j 11 of St. Lucie, Pilgrim and Seabrook, and as we went throughout 3
y 12 this hearing, references were made of these cases, and that m
l h" 13 i would be my impression of their interpretation.
8 1
l 14 If I may have a moment, just so the record is clear 5
2 15 with respect to the'1983 issue of Lake Norman and the modeling.
wa g
16 The record reflects that it will be necessary to take the actual 2
6 17 data of the operation of McGuire Unit 1 and 2, as well as the wz 5
18 Marshall Steam Station.
0 19 At the time this record was put together, that was k
I 20 1983.
I think this Board can take official notice that neither 21 i McGuire unit is operating yet, and 22 CHAIRMAN ROSENTH AL:
You have hopes.
23 MR. MC GARRY:
I certainly do.
24 (Laugh te r. )
25 :
High hopes.
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
44 1
And that Unit No. 2 right now is scheduled for 2
operation in early 1983, so *ee are ta lk ing about a 1985 time-3 frame.
4 A question was asked about the flows of the rivers.
e 5
Lake Norman, the record reflects, is 2600.
The record reflects 5
l 6
that the Yadkin college gauge has 2880, but when we get down to E
7 High Rock Lake, and that water leaves that dam, it's over 4000 cfs.
X j
8 Another question was raised concerning phosphorus.
d 9
DR. BUCK:
Most of that water comes in above the High i0 10 i Rock Lake, does-it?. There is nothing going in, $ dst quite at El 11 '
the dam, or anything of that nature?
3 y
12 ;
MR. MC GARRY:
I think the big contributor in my m
i E
13 <
recollection was the South Yadkin, which is well before it.
E l
14 OR. BUCK:
Okay.
m E
15 -
MR. MC GARRY:
With respect to phosphorus, the w
i i
z
/
16 record will reflect it is added at the very beginning of initial e
i 17 operation, and then no longer.
wz 18 The, question was raised concerning whether Duke has
=
s 3
19,
made any application relative to the state.
Well, yes, they have.
M i
20]
The North Carolina Utility Commission gave them a certificate i
21 of: convenience and necessity.
22 we have a 402 NPDS permit with respect to construc-23 tion.
We have a 401 certificate.
24l
- think : can summarize by saying that the record 25 reflects that from the Applicant's point of view, there is no I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
45 I
obviously superior sitta to Perkins.
We made th i s determination.
2 It was made, and.,the record 'so reflects, in our August '78 3
filings that the judgment from the Applicant's point of view 4
was made by civil engineers, terrestrial biologists, aquatic 5
biologist, electrical engineers, planners, geologists, real 0
estate appraisers, meteorologists and mechanical engineers.
R
\\
2 7l The Staff reached a similar conclusion, and that X
0 determination was made by a panel of experts steeped in d
9 environmental review.
I 10 The state made similar findings.
l
_s k
II The North Carolina Utility Commission made findings 3
d 12 z
relative to alternate sites, because indeed there were al te rn a t e m
i 3
1 13 j
site submittals made to them.
And on page 6,
No.
4, and on page E
14 l 12, there is reference to alternate sites.
g k
2 15 '
The Intervenors presented testimony.
Their te stimony aa d
Ib basically consisted of the maxtrix of Dr. Lipkin.
I believe W
6 17 that the cross-examination of Dr. Lipkin, even to the casual s.
k 18 observer, will lead one to the conclusion that the weight given l3 l
19-g t o Dr. Lipkin's testimony should not measure up to the weight 20 l l
g iv e n to the Applicant, the Staff, and the state positions.
I 21 j
Thank you very much.
l l
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
We will take a 10-minute recess 23 before hearing from the Staff.
24]!
(Recess.)
C HAI RMAN ROSENTHAL:
Mr. Turk.
J l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
46 I
MR. SPRINGER:
Mr. Chair =an, if I =ay, I'd like te 2
make a correction.
When I w?a s talking about withdrawals, 3
as far as withdrawal and consumption there are a few energency 4
p rovis ions.
5 I would also like.to mention that the Re s olut io n 76-41 l' h
3 0
is a finding that at that time there was no need for regulation, R
b I
and the resolution specifically provides that it'will be reviewed X
0 not less than once every five years, and it is up for review d
9 this year, and I would be very pleased to furnish the Ccamission a
10 '
a copy of that resolution, which I think is in the record.
s=
II i.
CHAIRMAN RCSENTEAL:
Thank you, Mr. Springer.
B 12 f
CRAL ARGUMENT OF SHERWIN TURK,
=
m j
13 CN BEHALF CF THE NRC STAFF.
m I4 MR. TURK:
Before commencing my presentation, I c
^
l5 j
would'like to =ake a brief introductory state =ent.
a d
IO As I see this case, it essentially raises two n
N II questions:
s E
I II The first, was the Staff's review of the Applicant's c
b 19 data, was the Staff's analysis o f the alternate site issue 20 adequate?
21 And second, is there some other site which is 22 obviously superior to the'Perkins site on the Yadkin River?
23 CHAIRMAN RO S ENTHA L:
On the first of those issues, 24 the Licensing soard didn' t have too many charitable things to 25-say about the Staff's review, did it?
4 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
47 1
MR. TURK:
Well, you're correct, as to the explicit 2
denigation of certain aspects of the Staff's review.
3 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
That's charitably put.
4
( Laughte r. )
=
5 MR. TURK I think the important point to note, though, 5
j 6
is that what the Licensing Board appeared to do was really just R
d 7
to criticize the particular aspects of the Staff's review which A
j 8
gave it pause, and otherwise it accepted the Staff's review d
=
9 and found that it was adequate.
10 I think if we look at all the different statements E
l 11 by the Licensing Board where tney discuss the inadequacies of B
g 12 the Staff review, we find it's limited to a few small areas,
=
2:
13 and that otherwise the broad parameters cf alternate site a
l 14 reviews are not really disturbed by the Licensing Board.
They n
2 15 do accept the Staff's analysis.
wz 16 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Looking at Licensing Board g
W y
17 Finding No. 48, ih.'which they characteri:e the Staff's analysis a3 18 of alternate sites as having been subject to serious short-I
~
19 '
comings, it is difficult for me to see how the Staff's analysis M
20 could have been given much credit by the Licensing Board under 21 those circumstances.
22 i MR. TURK. Well, I think the important point is that 23 !
the shortcomings which were observed by the Licensing Board 24 l are explicitly stated, and aside from that, they do rely on the 25,
Staff's analysis of alternative sites.
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
48 1
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
They may have done that, but do 2
you perceive an inconsistenc'/ between, on the one hand, finding 3
that the staff's analysis was subject to serious shortcemings; and, 4
on the other hand, placing reliance on that analysis?
1
=
5' It would seem to me offhand very difficult to rely 5
]
6 to any significant extent on alternate site analysis if that R
R 7
analysis had serious s ho r t com in gs.
X l
8 Maybe it's a matter of semantics or definition of d
d 9
terms.
I myself would find it very difficult to place reliance 10 on analysis af te r I have found that the analysis was seriously 3
l 11 l deficient.
(
12 '
MR. TURK:
Again : think the point is that the m
,5 13 '
shortcomings are limited in scope, and they are specifies 117 m
I4 i discussed by the Licensing Board, and I would like to address n
g 15,
each of them in turn.
If you'd like me to do that now, I will.
\\,
z 16 The point which I would like to make is that aside g
e i
17 from these limited areas in which the Licensing Board did not aa h
18 accept what the Staff had done, the Staff's alternate site c
19 review was adequate; and further, to the extent that there M
20 may hcve been any ina de qua cy, that inadequacy was corrected by 21 the Licensing Board's findings in the areas which gave it pause.
22 This_is something which the Licensing soard, of 23 course, is fully entitled to do under the NEPA doctrine.
It is 24 not the Staff's work which must be the final commission action, 25l but rather the staff's FEs as it is supplemented, to whatever i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
k.m
l l
49 l
1 extent, by the Licensing Board and by this Appeal Board and by i
2 the Commission, if necessary}
3 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
We did hold in Pilgrim, did we 4
not, that the Staff has a certain re spo ns ib ility, notwithstanding i
e 5
the fact that ultimately it was the agency itself that is charged M
8 6l with the duty of undertaking a satisfactory NEPA analysis?
e E
i R
7j MR. TURK:
Yes, that's e n t i re ly true, and what the N
j 8
Appeal Board said in Pilgrim was that it is the Staff's job dd 9
to provide the baseline and the important review o f alte rnate z"
h 10 sites.
But the Licensing Board is entitled to fill in the inter-E i
j' 11l stices wherever necessary, unless that is to such a large extent 3
I f
12 '
that the whole FES is rendered inadequate, or that some significant
=
l 13 l portict of the FES is rendered inadequate, which I do not believe
=
ag 14 l is the case here, nor do I think the Licensing Board found that 2
15 was the case, either.
mz j 16,
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Was it the case in Pilgrim?
. ad i
i 17 i MR. TURK:
In Pilgrim, the Staff had failed to visit wz 18 any particular sites, and they had made a general regionalized n{
19 '
approach to sites, rather than conducting specific site analyses, M
20 and I think that is what troubled the Appeal Board primarily in
. 21 ;
Pilgrim, and that is why th'e Staff's wor'c was rejected there.
22 Here, of course, we had Staff visits to all of the 23 !
final ~ slate of sites.
We had Staff reliance upon independent f
a
'24 sources of'information.
We had Staff gathering reconnaisance 25 level data from' reports which were' published in the field, from ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
50 1
U.S.
Geological Survey data, from discussions with state officials i
2 and with the Applicant.
Yoc do not have the problem here that 3
you have in Pilgrim, or that you had in St. Lucie or, for that 4
matter, where the same kind of generalized approach was taken.
e 5
where we had a hard look taken by the Staff looking A
I 9
]
6l at site specifics, at the final slate of sites, which were found 7l R
to be reasonably presented by the Applicant.
M j
8!
Now I would like to address the Licensing Board's d
I
- 9. l decision, but before I do, I'd like to just conclude my opening
=
,2 Cg 10 remarks.
E j
11 j One of the things that is mentioned in the Intervenors' 3
i j
12 l brief'is that the obvious superiority standard is inadequate, 3
I l
l l
13 i it's the wrong standard.
m j
14-what the Intervenors would h ave you do is reject E
2 15 this Appeal Board's and the Commission's obvious superiority i
W i
M j
16 l standard in favor of a standard of plain superiority or simple l
6 171 superiority.
a 6m 18 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
I don't think you need to get E
19 l into that.
This Board spoke on th e standard and the Commission 3
i 20 !
affirmed last May our interpretation of the obviously superior 21 standard which, after all, as you know, had its; genesis in a 22
-Commission decision itself.
-So I think you can assume that 23 we will. apply the standard as we' understood it, and the Commission 24 has now said we understood it correctly.
23 MR. TURK:
I understand that, Mr. Chairman.
The point
-i
' ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC.
51 1
I would make, though, is that the only reason why the Intervenors 2
would try to change that sta dard is because they themselves 3
probably realize that looking at one parameter of a site, looking 4
only at hydrology or water aspects, where other data shows that 3
5 that particular site wa s not superior, is not the way you over-R 3
6 come a proposed site.
e E
{
7 CHAIRMAN RO S ENTHA L :
Well, it depends upon how N
j
-8 significant the factor is in a particular case.
d=
9 MR. TURK:
That is correct.
E 10.
CaAIRxaN RoSENTsat:
I could see circumstances in I
l
=
5 11 which the water fact 3r would be dispositive, notwithstanding
<R d
12 how the sites might compare in other regards.
3
_3 13 MR. TURK:
I agree with you entirely.
It is for z-i E
14 '
that reason that the Staff in this case de te rmin ed th at the u
2 15 broad site was marginal, because there was what appeared to be az 16 an inadequate efs flow to sustain a large th e rmo nucl e a r station.
g W
hl 17 i On the other hand, in perryman, Newboldt Island, in az N
18 Green County, the Staff de te rmin e d that there was some site A
19 that was obviously superior for other reasons, but basically X
20 because'the significant parameter which concerned those sites 21 I was so inferior as to require some other site for the siting cf 22 :
the. plant.
23l
.Now here I don'c think there is any way that the 24 I
-Appeal soard can conclude the mere fact that Lake No rm an is 1
25 larger than High' Rock Lake, where the water f lo w s actually to a
-l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
52 1. lesser quantity, and where water quality will not be affected 1
1 2l by the operation of the Perkgns Plant, and where water use in the 3
future has been determined by reliable, competent state agencies 4l to
,e adequate, even with the Perkins Plant in operation.
e 5
I don't see any way we could find that Lake Norman Mn l
6l is obviously superior to the Perkins s ite.
R I
8 7'
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
In.your analysis of the Perkins Nj 8
site, you assumed unree units, I think?
d d
9 MR. TURK:
Excuse me?
2 C
10 l CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Your analysis of the Perkins site I_
j 11 from a water sufficiency standpoint assumed that there would be j
-3 y. 12 l all three units built at that site?
E y
13 MR.
"RK:
That's co r re c t.
That is the proposal 8
i l
14 i which was submitted by the Applicant.
That is the proposal we 2
15 reviewed.
w i
8 l
g 16 i very briefly, let me just review what the Staff M
6 '17,
de termined based upon the Applicant's data.
w 18 l 2
The Staff' requested additional information from the m
=
5 19 l Applicant on its own motion to reopen the record in order to g
M 20-determine whether there were alternate sites which were obviously 21 superior to the Perkins site.
22 ;
Based upon our independent analysis o f -that data, and i
~
23
based upon our reference to independent sources, and based upon 24l our. independent conclusion as to whether or not there was 25 another site which was obviously superior to Pe rkins, we i
-l
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
53 1
determined that there was no other site which was so obviously 2
superiorly.
3 In fact, the ultimate conclus ion was that variations 4
between sites were present; that there were gradations of no e
5 major significance; and that the differences between; sites j
6 were minor.
i R
b 7l CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Why did you re ly on the North E
l
.)
8i Carolina studies with respect to the adequacy of the water supply d
d 9
on the Yadkin River?
2 h
10 MR. TURK:
The Staff's primary concern was whether z=
1 g
11 ]
the plant could be operated safely; whether there was an adequate 3
i j
12 l stream flow to maintain the safety of Perkins.
=.
1 0
13 This is co ns i s t e n t with the information we request 3
14 from Applicants in Reg Guides
- 4. 2 and 4. 7, and is consistent
-x 2
15 with the safety function of the Staff.
~
aa j
16 In terms of looking at whether there would be future w(
17'l
-- I assume you're talking about the future wate r us e on the az 5
18 Yadkin River?
E 19 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Yes.
R 20 MR. TURK:
What we did there, from the testimony in 21 I the record, is we took that information from the_ state agencies I
i 22 !
' subjectively into consideration.
We did not perform our' own i
23 future water use analysis.
24 What we did was we relied upon the evidence and the 15 record of the state agencies which are competent and authorired ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
54 1
to determine the adequacy of future water for the state of North 2
Carolina.
3 This type of reliance, I think, is fully consistent l
4 with decisions in Shearon Harris and the dictum in the Seabrook i
g 5
decision by the Commission, and is also consistent with the 3
6l Appeal Board's finding in the Delaware River Basin Commission l
-n 2
7 decision of Limerick.
3 l
8 The Staff has no expertise in determining whether 1
4 I
9l indus try will develop further downstream on a river.
We do make c
i C
10 determinations of population growth where we base that decision 3_
j 11 upon historic data, but as to whether or not industries will 3
j ~ 12 relocate in an area, that's something beyond the Staff's expertise.
x-i 3
13.i and something that : believe we are entitled to rely upon state i
5 8
i h
14
' findings for the basis of our decisions.
i 2
15 Now the second water question, of cours e, whi'h'is c
az
- g 16 i of significance, is whether once-through cooling is an alternative d
y 17 j on Lake Norman, az 18 What we have heard primarily from the Intervenors is h
i 19 ' j that the Staff relied solely upon a hears ay letter by Mr. Denton --
k l
20 l excus me, Mr. Benton l
21 (Laughter.)
22 of the State Department of Natural Resources &
23
. Community Development.
That is-not-true.
The Staff made 24) inquiry of state agencies.
We made inquiry.of the Attorney 25 General's office of North Carolina as to whether once-through I
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
55 1
cooling was a possibility on Lake Norman or in the state of 2
3 The Attorney General referred for answer to the 4
Staff's letter, referred to Mr. Benton this question, and Mr.
g 5
Benton responded that in his view there was no other body of N
h 6'l water within the state of North Carolina or near the state of R
~
R 7
North Carolina other than the Atlantic Ocean which could 2
j 8
adequately support a thermal station with once-through cooling.
d n
9 C HAI RMAN ROSENTHAL:
Now is that opinion expressed, h
10 as I gather it was,lin a letter entitled to any weight?
I take s
j 11 it th at this individual was not a witness in the proceeding, and 3
g 12 was not available for cross-examination of his opinion?
3 y
13 MR. TURK:
This particular individual was not a m
l 14-witness.
wz 2
15 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
What weight, if any, then can wa g'
16 be attached to that letter?
W d
17 l MR. TURK:
We have to look at it along with the W
i z
18 l other evidence.
=
l I
$ ' 19 l o
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Let's take'the letter itself.
X 20 The letter is not entitled to any weight because it was an 21 expression of opinion on the part of someone who was not avail-22,
able for cross-examination, and it would seem to me zero effect
. l.
23 '
-attaches to the letter.
4 24 l MR. TURK:
Well,'let's make a-distinction first.
25 What-you are saying, as I understand you, is not that the letter I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC..
56 1
is inadmissible, because hearsay is not necessarily to be i
2 excluded f rom administra tive* proceedings, but that a cuestion of 3 j what kind of weight we attach to the letter arises.
4 Nowwhen we answer that question, we have to look at l
e 5
what the Assistant Attorney General for the State of North 3
6 Carolina explicitly stated in the record as to the view of the e
E g
7 different North Carolina agencies.
I refer to page 2957 in the M
j 8
record where Mr. Raney, who was the Assistant Attorney Gene ral d
m 9
for the State of North Carolina, states that:
i Og 10 "I think it is accurate to say at this point 3-l 11 that that issue of once-through cc;. ting is not 3
g 12 officially before any state agency, and in my view m
13 i cannot be put officially before any state agency I
i j
14 I without an application by someone who seeks to
'ws 2-15 institute once-through condenser cooling at Lake az j
16 {
Norman."
-e 6
17 l He
'se s on to say:
u z
18 "T
sas been response from the staff a
19 I from the E n'.
vamental Management Commission, R
20 from the Water Quality Division of the Depart-21 ment of Natural Resources & Community Develop-22 ;\\
ment'to inquiries from both the NRC Staff and I.
23 '
from the High Rock Lake Association" 24 i which is the group represented by one of th e intervenor I.
25 ;
counsel.
I i
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
57 I
to the effect that in the Staff's view, 2
Take Norman is not suit'able for once-through 3
condenser cooling."
~4 And he goes on to say:
i 5
g "I
think that is as much of a position as 0
the State of North Carolina can have at this time, R
1
=5 7!
and as much as they would have until, in fact, El 0
someone applies for a permit to put o n ce -th ro ugh d
y 9
condenser cooling in Lake Norman."
2 h
10 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
He is saying that absent a formal 3=
II application, the state will not take an official position on 3
y 12 '
the matter, and that all that is presently available are'the
=
m g
13 opinions of particular state employees which are being advanced 8
l I4 totally unofficially?
t g
15 '
MR. TURK:
It is correct that the state did not take z
E I0 l an official position, based upon there not having been an d
I7 d application for once-through cooling.
e3' IO However, the people who were giving these opinions E
a 19 employed by t'he state of North Carolina within this area j
were 20 l to make determinationa as to whether or not once-through cooling i
2I isla viable alternative.
U j
Now the Licensing Board can only go forward on the 23 !.best evidence available to it.
There is no evidence th at once-l 4
- through cooling is an option on Lake Norman.
And, in fact, the 1
25-positions of the state, although expressed informally, would
- l ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY, INC.
58 1'
indicate that lake cooling is not an option.
2 One other thing t'n. a t needs to be mentioned in this l
3 regard is the fact that the Marsh all Plant, which is a fossil 1
4l fuel plant, exists on Lake Norman, and the McGuire Plant, which 3
5, has not yet been fully licensed -- there is a fuel leading license a
+
g 6;
for McGuire 1 and McGuire 2 has not yet been completed.
Those G
2 7'
plants would have an effect upon the wate rs in Lake Norman, N!
O and the Applicant has taken the position, and the Staff believes da 9
it is a re as o nab le one, that be f o re any once-through cooling
,z L
10 can be considered for Lake No rman beyond what McGuire will be 3
11
'using, we must determine from the facts what impact those two 3
12 '
stations will have on Lake Norman.
,=
g 13 i That is something which could not have been determined a
14 l by the Licensing Board in 1978 or 1980.
The best evidence s.
i 3
1 2
15 i available to it was the position of the state as expressed
. a 3
[
16 informally through its Assistant Attorney General and various 2
' s 17 '
state agencies.
u 6 ' 18 I m
CHAI RMAN ROSENTHAL:
I take it your position is that w
19 the Staff considered all of the in f o rmat io n that was available g
i 3
20l to it with respect to water utilization at these convenient 2I I sites?.
I 22 '
MR. TURK:
That is correct.
What we' did w as we looked I
23 '
to see -what.the,best available technology would be for the l
24 {.different sites, and based upon our unders tanding o f the state's 25l unofficial positien, and' based.upon the existence of McGuire I
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
P
.m
,___w--
59 1
and Marshall on Lake Norman, we de te rmine d that Lake Norman at 2
this time should have been cbnsidered for cooling towe r operation, 3
rather than once-through cooling.
4 There is a lot that has been raised in the briefs I
=
5 which I won't get into because I don't know whether you're l
6l concerned about Dr. Lipkin's application of the Joplin matrix l
8 7
or Dr. Medina's statements that in his view the site on Lake Mj 8
Norman and Wateree were superior.
dd 9
I think that the cross-examination of those two i
C 10 witnesses was thorough, and reveals how much weight can be El 11 given to their testimony.
The Licensing Board, in fact, made k
j 12 l a determination.as to how much weight was appropriate to be 5
I g
13 !
given to.those experts.
m 14 Now let me respond to the question you raised g-2 15 initially, and I apologize for the delay, as to the effect of wa g'
16 the Licensing Board's decision where it critici=es the Staff's 2
6 17_;
review in certain respects.
y 18 what I would like to do is go down a list of E
19,
criticisms which begin to appear at page 328 of the decision 20 in 11 NRC.
21 The first criticism of'the Licensing Board is that 22 the Staff did not use a quantitative matrix, did not make a i
23 quantitative judgment as to which site was preferable or 24 obviously superior based upon a quantitative matrix.
25 The-Staff's position is that as the Commission h as 1
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
60 I
recognized, quantitative judgments cannot be made in a fully 2
t$alking about alternate sites.
accurate sense when we are 3
Instead, what we have is a qualitative j u dgme n t 4
based upon the expertise and the subjective reasoning of our 5
g individuals who do the examination of alternative sites, so that 9
3 6
e I believe the Licensing Board's criticism in this regard should
- E 7
not be given very much weight.
'N2 8
M There are de c is io ns in Se ab ro ok and other cases where d*
9
}.
this lack of a need to rely upon quantitative data or matrices E
10 j
is discussed.
=
E 11 The next finding of the Licensing Board, No. 41, 3
d 12 I z
states that it's not apparent how the Staff cons ide red the impact
^'
13 g
of Carter Creek impoundment.
Well, this is not true.
E 14 '
W The Final Environmental Statement does discuss b-E 15 g
the impact of Carter Creek impoundment, including the displacement z
T 16 3
o f a certain ' number of individuals, the land use which was
-W 6
17,
previously accorded to that particular area of North Carolina, 3
E 18 a
and the impacts of impounding Carter Creek.
=F 19 j
Finding 42 of the Licensing Board states that a
~ 20 !
Staff witness claimed that water quality was cons ide red, but i
21 didn't. state to what extent.
22 Well,-the fact is that,r er quality was explicitly y,
considered-in the FES, and the initial hearing of the Licensing 24 I l
Board in 1978 found in fact-that water quality would not be 25 I affected by the Perkins Plant.
i
'l i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
/
61 1
Now perhaps the Licensing Board had not recalled when l
2 it wrote this finding that it had made that finding in a previous 3
dec is ion, but that is the record.
4 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Going back to Finding 41, how
=
5 much weight did the Staff attach to the fact that a reservoir An
.h 6I would have to be constructed in connection with the use of the K
R 7
Yadkin Rive r site?
Nl 8!
Suppose that while the impact may vary from site to d
n 9
site, nonetheless the construction o f a res ervoir is going to ieg 10 have some environmental impacts.
3_
j 11 l MR. TURK:
That is correct.
\\
j 12 !
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
It's going to consume land, at 3
j 13 o the bare minimum.
8 i
l 14 I MR. TURK:
Entirely correct.
In the Final I
-k 2
15 Environmental Statement, they do discuss those effects, and we aa j
16 determined on balance that there will not be any significant W
p 17 '
.effect, because only a very small number of people will be dis-aa 5
18 '
placed, because the land use was of a very low factor.
It was 5
.I 19 scrub. land, for the most part.
It was not high quality N
20 agricultural land, and on balance we de t e rmin ed there was no 21 real significant impact.
22 I would agree with you, thcugh, that if you have 23 an existing reservoir, then that certainly would lead you to
- 24
.think why build another one when you have one at Lake Norman?
.aut since the effects would not be significant,-I don't see that 25; ALDERSON REPORTING COMP NY, INC.
1 62 i
I affects the obvious superior de te rmin ation.
2 Finding No. 43 discusses the Staff's attribution of 3
weight to terrestrial ecological f a cto rs, and questions why or 4
how the Staff did this differently from the Applicant.
5 g
What the Staff did is consider qualitatively what n
h 0
the impacts would be on the terrestrial ecology and, in fact, a
i E
7 this was one of the reasons why Lake No rman was rated slightly M!
O lower than Perkins by the Staff, because there would be more dy 9
endangered species there, because there was more of an impact 2
C 10 at Lake Norman than at the Perkins site.
E II In Finding 44, the Licensing Board speaks about R
NI i
the frequency and severity of fish kills.
This is s om e th in g m
M l
g 13 i which again was discussed by the Licensing Board in its 1978 m
3 ' 14 '
E decision, where it -found, as the Applicant's attorney has j
15 mentioned, that fish kills would not be increased by the.Perkins a
d I0 plant, to any significant extent.
M l
C 17 '
There was a discussion there of the thermal plumes g
5 3
II
-and how that might affect a very small area in the river, any E
I9 '
e fish which might be presen t, but on balance it was determined M
20 l
that the plant would not have any real significant impact on C
2I fish in the river.
22 while I'm. speaking of fish, let me speak about i
23 eutrification, because the two do go, to some extent, hand in i
2(
hand.
25I The origina'l Licensing soard's decision de te rmin ed ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
i I
63 I
that the plant would not have a significant effect upon 2
entrification,_and I mus t' co';re ct something which has been 3
stated previously by the Applicant's attorney:
4 There will be some minor discharge of phosphorus, 5
g I believe in the fo rm of phosphates, from the plant, but not any 9
3 6
e significant amount.
The finding, I believe, in the FES was that R
oS y
the amount of phosphorus discharged during operation would be M2 8
N less than hal f o f 1 percent of what was existing in the river da I
already.
3 F
10 j
Incidentally, in this regard, the river quality is
=
k II being upgraded now due to recent enactments of the Federal 3
N II Water Pollution' Control Act amendments, and it is anticipated
=3 5
13
.that the Winston-Salem discharges o f wate r and discharges by i
a E
14 g
the finishing plant upstream of the-Perkins site will b e cut M
9 15 -
g-i back, so that the water quality should be expected to improve,
=
1 0
' Bi
.to the best of those persons residing in the area of the Perkins W
g -17 plant.
5
=
18 Finding No. 46 discusses average stream flows and
=
4 8
19 l.
the Licensing Board again states that perhaps some greater n
0 weight should have been given to the fact that one stream flow 21 was greater than another.
In fact, the Yadkin River, which is one of the four 23 ;
major river basins in the area, has a greater average stream i
24 i i. flow than does Lake Norman-and the Catawba River, which runs 25 -
.through it.
i 1
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
64 1
So in this respect, the Perkins site would be superior.
2 F i.} ding 47 -- and we are approaching the critical one discusses the Intervenors' contention that if you're 3
now 4
going to have a drawdown up to 880 cfs flow in the river, then e
5 there should have been more consideration of impact upon the 3a 3
6 river.
R R
7l In fact, the condition which was imposed by the N
i 3
8!
Environmental Management Commission of the State of North n
.d
=
9 carolina requires that the Applicant not draw any water excuse 10 me, not make any net withdrawals from the river, when river flow 3
_E -11 is less than 1000 cfs.
<R d
12 What must happen then is that the Carte r Creek z
29 i
E 13 impoundme.nt must be used.
Water from Carter Creek impoundment
.m i
E 14 must be drawn down, added to the river f lo w, so that by the u
--k 2
If time-it gets to Perkins and through Perkins, the average flow m-3 l
j 16 in the river would not be less than 1000 cfs, or not less than
.s
- d. 17 whatever the existing amount was when it passed the Yadkin River s3 E
18,
college gauge.
=H
- 19,
In Finding 47, the Licensing soard states that if i
~20 the river flow is only marginally adequate, an alternate 21 site.on a river with a much larger flow might well be obviously Zl.
superior.
10 Well, th at ' s true, but' in fact the ~ Yadkin River has a 1
24 j
. higher efs. flow than does ~ the Catawba, so this finding does not i
25,
have any;particular' relevance.
~
'i_
. ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
65 l
1 The Licensing Board continues, however, to state I
2 I that:
3 "We are disappointed with the Staff's failure 4
to address this important issue, either in the original g
5 '
proceeding or in this reopened hearing."
h 3
6, And, in fact, I believe the record will show that this R
R
-7 was fully discussed and stream flows were discussed, and I don't Ml 8
think there is any basis for this Licensing Board's decision d
d 9
or for their finding.
i C
10 - !
Now in that same finding, No. 47, one of the Staff
.2 i
=
l j
11 l witnesses was asked whether he considered future water uses, 3
I I
(
12 and I believe this is something that responded directly to you, E
y 13 Mr. Rosenthal, when you first raised this question.
=
14 In fact, the Staff objectively considered future c
2 15 water uses and relied upon the expertise of the duly-appointed i
a J
i
- 16 I competent agency of the state of North Carolina.
g W-l 6
17 j Finding No. 48 is the one which raises the ultimate u
2h 18 question of whether the Staff's review was adequate.
C 19 I believe that when you look at th is entire decision, R
20-you mu-i note that the shortcomings pointed _out-by the Licensing
-21 Board concern only specific limited aspects of the Staff's 22 a nalysis.
~i 23; There was no criticism of the Staff's o ve rall review.
24 l
-There was no finding that another site is obviously superior, 25 -
and we havento put this-in the context of the entire decision.
I i
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
66 i
The Licensing Board had some problems, but they are 2
not enough to overcome the a'dequacy of the Staff's review.
3 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
You don't interpret the quote 1
4 from Mr. Robertson that appears in Finding 47 as expressing a g
5 staff view that you don't get into the matter o f predicting 8
j 6
future water use?
E i
7l MR. TURK:
I believe that what we have to do primarily nl 8,
is look at what the Staff rormally does.
Reg Guide 4.7, which d
d 9
of course is directed to Applicants, sets forth the kind of Y
10 analysis which the Staff believes it should do with regard to a
I 11 future water uses.
<3 g
12 l CHAIRMAN RCSENTHAL:
Well, that's not the point.
It I
3 g
13 sight be that the Staff would rely on predictions of future a
h 14 l water use made by the state of North Carolina and some other a
I 15l' z
n
=
body, but as I. read this sentence and I would have to say I w.
i z
j 16 haven't gone back to the transcript to deter =ine the context W
d 17 l it would appar to suggest that the Staff does not believe that u
z 1
62 18 <
it is incumbent upon it and its analysis to look at future Q
19 demands for water.
I 20 MR.' TURK:
That is not entirely correct.
Of course,
-1 21 future demands for water is an important consideration.
- Now, 22 l
~
how do you make the determination whether or not water will be
,I 23l adequate?
24 I believe that where'you have a state agency which 25 has made_that determination, as the Commission has stated in
^
i I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC..
I LL
67 1 !
_S e ab roo k, that de te rm inat ion is entitled to substantial weight.
2 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
I unde rs tand that.
What I am 3
trying to get at is whether Mr. Robertson was s ay ing, "We don't 4
make an independent judgment on the matter of future demand fo r e
5 water.
We will rely on those experts in the state of North 8
6 Carolina."
R~
2 7
Or whether Mr. Robinson was saying, as it appears 3
j 8
f rom this sentence that he was s ay in g, that, " Crystal ball-gazing dd 9
in the area of water is a futile pursuit, and therefore in our i
h 10 analysis of sites, we don't consider at all the matter of El 11 l future increases in demands for water. "
3 y
12 What is it?
I d
13 l MR. TURK :
No, that is not correct.
E l
14 !
CHAIRMAN RCSENTHAL:
Well, I don't m e an it's not
-n 2
15
~ correct.
I offered you two alternatives.
One of them has to az 16 be co rre ct,
y; w
li 17 (Laughter.)
uz 18 '
MR. TURK:
I respond to the second alternative.
When E
H 19 you ask whether the Staff feels that it need not gaze into a 20 cryst'al ball and make a prediction of future water needs, that
.(
21 l is not the case.
l 22 !
ruture water needs is an important consideration.
I I
23 i Mr. Robertson, I might' point out, is'not an employee 24 :
of the NRC Staff or of the Commission.
He is a scientist l
I 25 who is employed by Oak Ridge National Laboratory who appeared ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
L
68 l
1 l
1 on behalf of the Staff as a witness whom we proferred, and he 2
does not state authoritatively the Commission position.
3 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
I think your time has expired.
4 MR. TURK:
If I may make one closing statement.
e 5
I believe that the only proper course at this time is 2
]
6 to affirm the Licensing Board's decision, despite its a
2 7
reservations concerning the ade quacy o f.the Staff review, because 3
i j
8 based upon the evidence which was before us, it is supported by d
I d
9 substantial, reliable and probative evidence.
10 CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Thank you, Mr. Turk.
E j
11 Well, Mr. Pfefferkorn, you have 20 minutes for B-
[ 12 rebuttal.
3, I.
E 13 ;
MR. PFEFFERKoRN:
Thank you, sir, aj 14 REBUTTAL ARGUMENT OF WILLIAM PFEFFERKORN, 2
15.
ou sEHALF oF THEINTERVENORS.
E j' 16 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
I would like to first go to th e i
i 17 i issue of future water uses, because this matter is on the a
3 l
6 l
m 18 i record.
E 19 l Mr. Springer, who at th a t time was a witness in the M
20 original proceeding in
'76, the Environmental Management 'commissio n i
i 21 ^
that-heard.this matter did discuss uses, and what is significant 22,
about the case and its posture new is -- of course, there is no 23 l
.date set for e ith e r the start' or the finishing of-the plant, but i
- 24 I_ assume now that the date* hcve been pushed back some 10 or 15 25-
. y e a r s '.
I i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
k
69 1
The question of future wate r use thus becomes much I
2 ! more critical, because all oT the information that I have got 3
for the years 1970, 1990, 2000 and 2020 show from the years 4;
1970 to 2020 approximately a sixfold increase.
l 5 jl About half of that incraase is up to the year 2000, 3
0 3
6l but the increase in the water usage in the Piedmont area there E
' R, 7
in the Yadkin River Basin is going to be much more drastic n
j 8,
after the year 2000 than before.
1 4
?
m 9
~n other words, the projected date of the plant 10,
starting in the 1980s then would be decommissioned maybe in the z.
1 l
11
-year 2010; whereas now it's going to be pushed back, so that 3
(
12 l the operating life of the plant will conflict more with the i
c; j
13 )
increased estar usage.
=
i l
14 I so I really think that's an important point.
2 15 DR. aucK:
You say it's a sixfold increase.
What u
i g'
16 J
figures are you talking about in relation to the Catawba and W
d 17 the.Yadkin?
What ~ is the usage at the present time,iand what u
5
.h 18 is your sixfold on?
Is it on one cubic foot per second or FC
.g 19. j something else?
M 20l MR. PFEFFERKORN:
No, the figures I am using are the I
21 !
-withdrawal rates in the Yadkin Basin in the year 1970.
The l
1 22 '
total is'170 million gallons a day.
I
- 23 '
For the year'1990, it's 271 million gallons a day.
1 24 i
-For the year 2000, it's 344 million gallons a day.
I 23 ;
And for the year 2020, it's 628 million gallons a day.
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l.
L-
70 1
MR. BUCK:
Well, what's the base now?
You're talking 2
millions of gallons a day, a'n d I'm not quick enough to put that 3
into cubic feet and all that sort o f thing instantaneously.
4 I'm trying to figure out where we stand.
We have g c' t a withdrawal 1
g 5'
rate, various withdrawal rates quoted from Perkins, for example, S
l 6
of a few c ub ic feet per second andtthat sort of thing.
R
\\
Right.
3 l
j 8 I DR. BUCK:
Can we put it in that relationship, please?
dn 9
MR. P FEFF ERKO RN :
In other words, the estimate now 2
Ch 10 on the Perkins Plant is it will use between 42 and 70 million i
g 11 gallons per day.
3
(
12 '
Now, as they said, that's more than all of the usage E
i d
13 l up and down the river at the -cresent time.
g I
2 g
14 '
In other words, the city of winston-salem only uses sz 2
15 :
about 6 million gallons a day.
w
(
l j
16 ;
Let me try to illustrate something about these d
i i
17 '
cooling tower plants that I think is very important in these w
x wh 18 proceedings.
19 !
when Duke filed a brief with the Fourth circuit M
20!
court in. Appalachian vs. Trane, it stated that a 10 00 megawatt 21 plant using cooling towers would evaporate from 50 to 70 million 22 gallons a day.
23 l Now if you figure the size of this plant, that puts 24
'it.up to about.250 million gallons a' day.
25-Now they said that was based on a nationwide evaporatien-i l
i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
71 1
figures, that if you factor in a full nation, including the 2
Southwest, the ilorthwest, No theast, the evaporation would be 3
that high.
4 It's interesting in these proceedings of course, 3
5 those figures were reduced down to between 40 and 70 million h
l-6 gallons a day.
About 25 percent of what they a rgued in R
1 2
7 Appalachian vs. Trane that would take place with this type of Nj 8
evaporation.
d
=
9 Now I don't know since these hearings in 1976 whether Y
10 we have a plant this large that has cooling towers so we h ave 2
E 11 more empirical evidence, but at that time there was not a
<W d
12 plant this large, and they were extrapolating f rem othe r plar.ts.
z=
g 13 They admitted that, because this plant, al=est a 4000 megawatt
=
l.14 plant, with all three un its ope rating -- and, of course, the m
2 15,
original hearings in 1976 spent quite a bit of time talking w
i a
16 about that.
g W
d 17 I just'poin: th a t out because --
ws 6m 18 DR. suck:
Let's go back over your figures.
Perkins h
%. 19 is supposed to use 70 million gallons pe r day.
okay?
20 MR. PFEFFERKCRN:
That's right.
21 DR. BUCK:
Now what's the total loss on the catawba 22 River between the let's limit the catawba River to some 23 l reasonable range here, say from five miles above Catawba or 24 j above Perkins,to the bottom of High Rock Point Lake, for 25 example.
can we know how much?
What do your figures. quote for ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
~.
72 1,
that?
I 2
MR. PFEFFERKORN: 'The crucial time that we are 3
concerned about at High Rock Lake is during the recreation months, 4
and the withdrawdl, based on their figures, their reduced g
5 figures on how much the cooling towers use, for the whole N
h 6
summer season amounts to approximately 27,000 acrefeet.
a 2
7 Now High Rock has 250,000 acrefeet.
Lake Norman N
. l 8
has over 1 million acrefeet.
So that wi th d rawa l is about 10 d
d 9
percent of High Rock, and about 2 percent of Lake Norman.
i h
10 DR. BUCK:
But what percentage is it of the flow?
3
_j' 11 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Of the flow, it's approximately 3
(
12 the same percent.
I think it's 2.9 percent of the flow for 3
g 13 !
Catawba, 2.4 percent for the flow of Yadkin.
8 i
l 14 l DR. BUCK:
All righ t.
Thank you.
t a
2 15 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Those are the figures.
In other U
g,*
16 l words, if you I want to come-now to understanding.
Mr. McGarry d
l 6
17 )
stated that below High Rock you had a water flow of around 4000 M
\\
6 18 - l h
cubic feet per-second, and I want to explain to you, that really 5
19 oxplains why we are in the case, you see, because we are between X
I 20 Perkins and below Kigh Rock.
21,
High Rock ' is controlled by rule cu rv e s put on the re I
22 l by the Federal Power Comission, the Federal Ene rgy Regulatccy 23~'
-Commission.
-l 24 l What this case involves and I think it's very l
25 important -
was when'the state was s t'udy ing this, said if we l
l I
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
m-
73 1 ! assume that Alcoa makes the same amount of power that they've 1
2 been making down there in other words, th at they are making 3
down there right now, and we are having some water problems.
We 4
had them in
'77.
We've had four out of the last seven years e
5 water problems at High Rock.
39 3
6 But they said if they continue making that same power e
g
{
7 and Perkins is in effect, they will lose what's called the power 3
l j
8 pool in High Rock.
The drawdown will be significant, a s you d
m 9
can imagine, by the 27,000 acrefeet, approximately 10 percent i
C 10 of the water in High Rock Lake.
3_
E 11 Here's what that means:
<B
{
12 l If they let out below High Rock enough to keep this 3
1 y
13 '
large flow that he's talking about, the large average flow m
W i
g 14 l you see, to get a 40,000 average flow, you've got to have a 2
15 mi.nimum of about 1400 and that's what it is now.
They have to
.ax j
16 let out at least 1400 below the dam of High Rock.
W p
17 But in order to do that, the people on High Rock are a-t 5
18 kind of caught 'n the middle here.
Admittedly, if they keep i
C b
19 l that 1400 down M
there and keep that ave rage up at 4000 below 20 High Rock Lake, you've got to pull the level of th e lake down.
I I
21 That's what we run into in this case, and that's the reason we 22 1 are here, because we are affected by this dynamic between i
23 ' ! Perkins upstream and the fact that the Federal Power Commission i
24l regulates that.
t 25 +
What's going to happen and we brought this out in l
l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
\\
74 1 ! the earlier proceedings is th a t the only way that we are not l
2l just going to be put out of business on High Rock Lake is if 3
Alcoa decides not to make as much power as they're making 4l there, and when that issue came up, they said, "Well, this is l
e 5
something that will be worked out between Alcoa and Duke, as to O
]
6j whether or not there will be some payment,about what is going R
7 to happen to the rule curve."
N I
j 8l Because the rule curve now which protects the lake i
d d
9 level at High Rock is a matter that jus t went into effect in 20y 10 1968, and that is just a rule curve saying when the level gets 3
h 11 down to a certain point, they stop making power.
- j 12,
But nu9 with Perkins going into effect, that point m
m E
13 will be reached much sooner, that the y will h ave to stop making 3
I z
I g
14 j power.
That is in the records in the Final Environmental 5
l 2
15 i Impact statement, and that's, of course, what we're concerned w
i j
16 '
about, because nobody is telling Alcoa they've got to stop d
d 17 making power.
w z
i 18 DR. BUCK:
I'm confused, Mr. Pfefferkorn, because I 5
t s
19 !
thought that was the who'le point of having Carter Creek Reservoir, R
I 20!
was to main tain
-- or what's the purpose of Carter Creek 21 Reservoir?
22 ;
The purpose of. Carter Creek Re servoir was to maintain 23 '
the flow down the Yadkin River past'Perkins such that with t
24l the withdrawal from'Perkins and the loss from Perkins, you would 25 ;
.have, I.believe, more th an 1000 cubic feet per second or some l
- 1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
75 1
such thing as this, something like this, anf this was supposed 2
to be the lowest limit that 'could be controlled or necessary 3
for the cc
.uing operation of Alcoa.
4 Okay.
Now you're telling me that under that 5
circumstance that doesn't happen.
E9
{
6, MR. PFEFFERKCRN:
That's rich'.
In other words E
R 7
DR. BUC K:
Then the record is wrong, because the n
j 8
record says it does happen.
d d
9 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
No, no, no.
If Alcoa agrees to 2
h 10 lose that power and makes no effort to keep making the same 3
E 11 amount of power --
<3 y
12 DR. suck:
sir, I ' m s o r ry, that's -- on the rule m.
3=
13 curve, as I understand the record, Alcoa said, look, that's I
l l.14 fine, as long as we have a certain flow from this thing, and if i
2 15 l you maintain the flow of the Yadkin River past Perkins at w
I
\\
[ 16 !
such-and-such a level, you add in South Yadkin and the o the r M(
17 j streams, and we have sufficient flow.
s z-l b
18 Are you telling me that's wrong?
.7 e
e.[
19 l MR, PFEFFERKORN:
That's wrong.
M 20 DR. suck:
where in the record'does that occur?
21 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
That occurs in the hearing back in 22 197--
23 '
DR. SUCK:
Never mind.
Where'in.the record does it l
24l occur?
I want to-know the-page an' number and the specific 25 f re'f erence as to where that comes in.
k ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
76 1
MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, I don't know tne specific 2
page, but I'll get it for ycj.
It's in April of
'76, tastimony of 3
Mr. Popavitch of Alcoa ab o ut what the effect would be, and 4
whether he says a las t alternative would be seeking a change i
e 5,
in the rule curve for the effect this may have on our electric j
6' production down there.
R R
7 DR. BUCK:
Thank you.
j 8l MR. PFEFFERKORN:
The offect of consumption of water
.d d
9j by the Perkins Plant which will not be protected by Carter 2C 10 Creek.
Carter Creek is to prevent the plant from shutting down.
3 E
11 DR. BUCK:
Was Carter Creek considered
- c. t that time?
<3 d
12.
MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Right.
But Carter Creek will only E
=
y 13 l prevent the plant from shutting down.
That just keeps the plant
=
l 14 l going for 90 some days if it gets below 1000 cubic feet per I
2 15 secon6 chat's only like 3 or 4 percent of the time.
mz j
16 l DR. BUCK:
I understand that, but what I'm asking, M
i i
g' 17 l was Carter Creek at the time you made the statements that you u
.i z
5 18 are saying now, was that in the picture?
1 19 i MR. PF EFFE RKO RN :
Ye's, sir.
M L
20 DR.. BUCK:
And to the full amount?
21 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Yes, sir.
22 DR. BUCK:
And even though it was s till full and I
l
- 23 '
supplying water, he was saying -- the limit we are talking
'24 l about, the-1000 cub ic feet per second water, that that would o
il5
-alter the operation of.the Alcoa plant?
t ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
1;.
77 yl1 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Oh, yes.
There's no question, the record is replete with ihformation about the money lost to 2
3 Alc a, assuming Carter Creek.
It's just been a question th at 4
Duke and Alcoa said they will work that out, and Alcoa said it e
5 will attempt t live with it, and Mr. Popavitch said as a last 5l 6
resort we would consider changing t h e~
rule curve.
That's exactly 7 !
what he said, "We would consider that as our last alternative."
I E
And, of course, that's why we're here, and that's g
N d
=
9 why we' re concerned.
10 DR. BUCK:
Why are you concerned?
Because we don't h av e in other B
w rds, we're not Alcoa.
_d 12 z=
13 DR. BUCK:
That's what I'm wonde ring about, why are 3a g
34 you concerned?
E i
i MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Because Alcoa may figure they can g
15 s
16 save money and Duke can save money by using the lake level to B
j W-I g
37 keep them from losing money.
In other words; they are in the az k
18 business of producir.; power.
E a
19 DR. BUCK:
Well, isn't the lake under a rule curve?
R 20 MR. PFEFFERKORNs Right.
But the question is 21 whether or not th s rule curve will continue to be enforced.
22,
As I say, his statement was they would have to 1
I 23 !
. consider DR. BUCK:
Who enforces the rule curve?
24 i l
MR. PFEFFERKORN:
The Federal Power Commission
'25'i or ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
i 78 jj FERC.
DR. BUCK:
Is thebe any indication that they won't?
2 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, it's a subject to snd I 3
think if they showed they were losing money, and the purpose of 4
the plant is to make electricity for Alcoa's production, then g
5 N
whether or not that rule curve will be continued in effect --
6, 7
C HAIRMAN ROS ENT HAL :
So your injury then would stem nly if F.ERC were to agree to change the rule curve?
8; d
i g
9 MR. PFEFFERKCRN:
Our drastic injury.
There is i
h 10,
g ing to be some change in the lake level and some change in E
l
_ gjj water quality, but it will not be as drastic as it will be if 3
I g
j2 that issue E
=
i s
13 '
C HAIRMAN ROS ENTHAL:
W ill it be as significant E
]
14 without a change in the rule curve?
N k
15 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, we think it will be significant wa 14,
C H AI RM AN ROSENTHAL:
In what respect?
3 i
M l
g*
j7 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, in that the evidence adduced wzg jg at the hearing indicates a drop in the water level of approximately-
~
.a 19 18 inches in certain years, even assuming the Carter Creek i,
gg Reservoir.
gj DR.. BUCK:
Well, you get that now, don't you?
22 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, we've had some problems right I
gg now. with the lake level, that's'true.
But we can't stand another 24
.18 inches, a foot and a half, and that's what the record shows.
25 even.with the Carter Creek.
i l
I ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l 79 In fact, it shows for every six-inch drop in the 2
lake, the re 's 250 acres of the rim of the lake that is affected.
This is part of what I'm saying, you talk about a strain on the 3
4 river.
i 5l DR. BUCK:
What I'm concerned with is why is this
=l l
h 6,
drop in the lake if the Yadkin River is held by th e Carter Creek R
4 g
7 Reservoir above a certain level?
l
~
2 l
2 g1 MR. PFEFFERKOPN:
Because the effect ab o ve that level I
M d
i
=
9!
is still extensive.
You're talking about 25 percent of the z
jg river flow when it's flowing around 15 cub ic feet per second, i
j jj which is low and R
d 12 DR. BUCK:
But there are a certain number of days on Z
5 i
13 i y ur 7-Q-10 situation where it's already below that; isn't that E
l 3
14 l correct?
And if it gets below that point, the plant has to shut d
i k
2 15 l.down, if the Carter Creek Reservoir can't-handle it.
wa jg Isn't that correct?
R d.
MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, they've got 90 some days g.j7,
w2
'g 13 DR. BUCK:
No, I'm asking, isn't that statement C
19 correct?
20 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
That's right.
l 2; I DR. BUCKS. 'Okay,'that's all I wanted.
Thank you.
22 MR, PFEFFERKORN:
But as I say, the purpose of the Carter Creek Reservoir doesnot cover but 3 or 4' percent 23j 24l of.the time that you're talking about the river flow there.
'l i
l 25.
In fact his past winter -- in. fact, four out of the
.i i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
1-
4 80 last seven years, there's been a water problem on the Yadkin y
Basin, even now in 1980 and 1981, w i th low flows and low lake 2
level there at High Rock Lake.
3 Under its present rule curve the rule curve is 4
based on projections from the past which maans that for s ome e
5 M
n reason in the last few years that 4 percent has gotten much 3
6 e
- ~
we've had maybe the 4 percent here since 1976, since this came 7
n 1
I g
g up.
dn 9
aut again, we're talking about a strain on a water z
jg system that's clearly different from any potential strain on E
gj the' Catawba system which is why when you consider, as 3
d 12 sh uld be d ne, but was not done by the Staff in this case, what z
2 l
5 13 i the effect w uld be if Duke had to use the water out of the 5
i g
j4 Catawb-Basin.
We're not just talking about -- but the difference i
a 2
15 l in us ing out of the Catawba Basin is th at, one, they have aa
\\
16 l recreational-development on the Lake Norman site; a nd tw o, they B-W g-j7 '
make power at Cowans Ford at Lake Norman site.
And that's the wag.jg
-reason that when the Chairman of the Licensing Board said she 3
4 5
'didn't understand why we were making this point, she was thinking, 19 4
p M
20.
well, the-fact they own the land would be good because that
~
l 1
21 I w uld-reduce the price of building the plant.
- 2 That's true.
But the point is that Duke develops 23 l recreationally through one of its subsidiaries the land around 24 i Lake Norman, and that is the reason that the site analysis 1
25
- remember,
-pointed out in the brief,.before they got down to site 7
-l ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
31 "E"
on Lake Norman, the; eliminated two other sites on Norman.
I think if you read carefully the way the site analysis was 2
carried ut, Duke does not want to do anything else on Lake 3,
Norman.
4 I mean why else would they not run the modeling?
It e
5 h
6 nly takes two or three weeks.
y 7
Another reason is because they got recreational g
development of property on Lake Norman, and they would rather dn 9
site this over on the Yadkin Basin, and we submit that's an z
h 10 imp rtant consideration and it goes to the bias and the interest a
5 11 '
fa party who is presenting testimony in a contested proceeding.
<*.j 12 I think if you examine the evidence that the Staff, E
13 when they considered these alternatives -- of course, they didn't 3
8 I
g j4 j take that into account along with lots of other thin gs that u
!I were set out and we think were important in terms of considering g
15 n
jg,
the Lake Norman site.
3A g* _j7 I would just like to conclude this is_a letter asg jg that's in the FEC, and I think that it's a -- this is a letter 4
19 from Mr. P hillip s., Chief of the Bureau of Power.
9M l
20l CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
Where is this letter from?
21 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
hit's in the Final Environmental 22 :
Impact Statement, and it's set out in-page A-45, and I think it 23;f indicates the T s ign i fica nce it's on page 7 of this letter 24 from Mr.-Phillips about the it's a letter to Mr. Regan of 1
the NRC, and it-says:
25 ;
4 l
ALDERSON REPORTING CCMPANY, INC.
L 82 gl "The basis for the 32 million kilowatt loss 2
of energy annually from "d,ownstream hydroelectric 3
plants should be given.
In addition, the value of 4) such loss, 120,000, appears to be low, based on e
5 present-day p wer values.
There is also no discus-1 g
4 rion of any loss of dependable capacity of downstream 7l'
-S T
plants.
It would appear that any permit o r subsequent g
license issued for the subject nuclear station should 8l e
d d
9' require the applicant to adequately ecmpensate Yadkin, 10 Incorporated and Carolina Power & Light Company for any c
3 i
jj loss of energy and capacity."
<k d
12 !
Carclina Power & Light has dams below the High Rock 2
l 5
I E
13 dam, and taat.was in the Final Environmental Impact Statement, E
i j
g4 !
and again we are the people caught in the middle o f the production a
I 2
15 f p wer as proposed north on Perkins and, o f cou rs e, below, and 16 the constraints on the lake level there.
W g-37 I'd just like to me ntion one other thing about tr.
N 18 l Lipkin.
As previously pointed out, Dr. Medina being a. hydrologist 4
b 19 looked at this and saw the obvious differences between these two R
20,
basins, and what Dr. Lipkin did is he just took a matrix and t
21 this is the same matrix the Board asked the Staff to do, which 22.
they didn't do -- and he listed the values and he showed wh ere I
i 23 ! he fitted his. value s in, and it's' clear that if you take the 24 l 30 percent'of the values involving water that Mr. Joplin 1
uses, or the 60 percent that Duke uses, of course, it would even 25,
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
t
~
83 y
be higher and more obvious, but Mr. Lipkin took those, and if 1
2 yu just read inhhis chart, 1t helps you understand and that's the reas n f r a matrix, so you can see where a person, 3
I 4
even though the analysis may have opin ie n and be based on 5l experience and have subjective features, when it's spelled out a
5 1
g 6
and put in the form of a column, you can see where the emphasis e
7l 9
1s put, whether someone is taking into account water; if so, how much g
gl N
d
.g 9
DR. BUCK:
Mr. Pfefferkorn, I have a problem.
I 2
@.jg read Mr. Lipkin's testimony and c ross-examination rather il gj l carefully, and my understanding of that was he didn't vis it any i
3
.J 12 l f these sites except I think there was one on Lake Norman and 3
3 13 the Perkins site.
=m j
j4 l He didn't visit any of these sites, did he, other l
2 15 l than those two?
And those were only the day before, after his W
i 3
,a 16 testimony --
3 35 g
37 MR. PFEFFERKCRN:
The day he visited those two sites, az th*t'8 C ##*Ct' it
- 8 18
~~
39 DR. BUCK:
It was 'af ter his testimony had been 20l entered, the day before the hearing, he spent. half an hour at l
I 21
- both, 22 Now_my problem there is how a man makes out data --
l 23l and it was detailed data, down to the second decimal. place, in 24 i some places -- o n some number o f sites on a various number of i
25 environmental effects, without visiting the site.
t i
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
l l
84 MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, in the firs t place, on the j1 rec nnaisance data he had so6e information that --
2 DR. BUCK:
The reconnaisance data if you're going 3,
to do environmental effects of land usage and a lot of these 4
l 5l thur things that were done on that chart, I'm at a loss to know
=
h 6
how a man does that without ever having seen the site.
R 9
3 7
MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, as I say, he did see the i
w I
g most important sites, and he dg 9
DR. BUCK:
Mr. Pf ef f e rkorn, I'm not talking about 2
10 l the m st important sites.
I'm talking about his whole chart, E_
g jj the data he said that he got from a reconnaisance survey when
<R he hadn't even been to the site.
d 12 l E
h 13 Now I don't care whether it's the most important E
]
j4,
sites, it was sites that he was comparing, and he was comparing
.d l
k 2
15 f the two most important sites to a lot of these o ther s ite s.
u
\\
l B.-
16 Now I have difficulty in understanding how an expert W
g*
17 witness.does this.
a*
E 18 l MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, he does it the same way that
=
l H
I 19 !
the Staff tried to do it, except he was more analytical about it.
E M
20]
In other words, they took the same material that l
the Applicant furnish 3d, that's the ma te rial that 21 !
l 22 i DR. BUCK: Did the Staff visit the sites?
I 23 '
MR. PF EFFE RKO RN :
The Staff visited some of the sites, 24 not all.of them.
25 DR. BUCK:
Did - they visit all of the eight sites that i
l ALDEASON REPORTING COMPANY. INC.
=
I 85 l
3l were finally --
l 2
MR. PFEFFERKORN: ',Th e y visited most of the eight; some question about where the location of one of them was.
3 4
DR. BUCK:
Did they visit all of the sites?
5'<
MR. PFEFFERKORN:
They went to some of the sites e
h l
h 6j and they said they spent a few minutes standing around and look in g 9
R l
g 7i and that's about what that amounted to.
I don't think that l
~
3 l
y g
g in other words, the point is the burden is not on us.
In other dg 9
words, we can't get every 2
jg DR. BUCK:
No, the burden is not on you, Mr. Pf ef f erkor:1 c
i 3
5 gj but I think the burden is on a witness to be able to state how
<B d
12 he got some of these numbers, and how he got these numbers without 2
i
=
i' ever having been to the plant, he couldn't answer satisfacterily 13 E
j j4 j on cross examination.
I think it's just a matter of reading a
M 1'
z 2
15 the cross examination, that he obviously could noc a ns w e r th e au 16 questions.
He didn't know.
B 4
2 i
g 37 MR..PFEFFERKORN:
I think if you were de aling with a w
.zg. jg c ase that was as subtle and as close as the Staff is trying to 4'
C l
H 19 4
make it out to be, th at may be true.
But in a case where it's angobvioue point of water usage, I think that's why his analysis, 20{
21 as well-as Dr. Medina's and everybody.else's, is accurate, s
22 l DR. BUCK:
You are putting'your whole case on water i;
i 23 usage.
24 '
MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Well, I think that's the greate r I
25, part.
.That's why_ we're in the case.
l
.i ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
86 j l DR. BUCK:
What is the water usage at some of the 2
ther eight plants that Mr. Lipkin picked up?
MR. PFEFFERKONR:
Some of them were much be tter than 3
4 again than Perkins.
Almost all of them were better.
e 5
DR. BUCK:
How do you know?
A n
h 6
MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Because of the information.
Everybody had the same information on water flow.
You don't get that by 7
(
8 g ing out and looking or anything like that.
d I
g 9l DR. BUCK:
He didn't limit his review to th at, nowcVer.
Z l
h jg He didn't limit his testimony to that, a
3 5
))
MR. PFEFFERKORN:
That's right, he reviewed some R
d 12,
DR. BUCK:
He limit ed his testimony to a lot of 5
l h
13 !
ther things and comparisons; right?
E I
E j4 '
MR. PFEFFERKORN:
Right.
dk 2
15 DR. BUCK:
Okay.
sz MR. PFEFFERKORN:
I just wanted to point out, though, 16 j M
i g
j7 in regard to Dr. Lipkin,-he stated that he had sailed on Lake Ng jg Norman and had been to these sites more than just the one visit 3
w
- b. 19 that he took prior to that time.
He lives in Winston-Salem.
. R.
gg
'None of the Staff people live in the area.
So he was familiar
-21 before this even ever came up as to how the basic outlines and
. 22 what Lake Norman appeared to be from personal examination.
23 MR. MOORE:
I have one quick question.
Downstrear.of 24l Lake Nprman, are there any hydroelectric facilities?
i 25 '
MR. P FEFF E RKORN :
Duke Power Company _ has, of course, i
i l
1 ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
87 i
t jg Lake Norman.
They have several, I think 2
MR. MOORE:
And they all belong to Duke?
3l MR. PFEFFERKORN:
That's right.
4 MR. MOORE:
Th.ank you.
e 5
CHAIRMAN ROSENTHAL:
On behalf o f the Board, I wish j
6l to express our appreciation to counsel for all parties for k7 their presentations, and the appeal of th e Intervenors will d'
i N
A~
s g
stand submitted.
N d
=
9 (Whereupon, at 12:25 p.m.,
the hearing was Y
g to l, adjourned.)
z 2
g 11 m
d 12 l 5
1 g
33 E
l E
14 l 2k i
15 x
I x
1 g
16 l s
6 17 i a
6 l
w 18 '
,19 ;
a 20 21 22-23 l 24 i I
25 '
f 4
l l
ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY, INC.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.W4ISSICN This is Oc certify that the attachec pr00eecings ':efore One I;RC Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board in the =atter Of:
Date Of ?r0ceecing: Aoril 1, 1981 Docket !!u=b er :
? lace of ?roceeding: Beth4sda, Ma riland t
were held as herein appeers, and tha: this is the Original transcrip:
therecf f r the file of the C==ission.
Ann Riley Official Repcr:er (77;ec)
"A I
Cffi0ial Repcr:er (Signa Ure
.