ML20054J887
| ML20054J887 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206300162 | |
| Download: ML20054J887 (291) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ .
7" D V "
^
~l u
NCC:.IA.R RIGCLATORY COMM SSICN W .u<_.) _:s h/
l>
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING SOARD 1
i l
3 de .v2. ::nr cf: :
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al. : DOCKET NOS. 50-528 OL
D .
y r:
, June 25, 1982 PAGIs: 2455 thru 2710 AT: Phoenix, Ari::ena Q QFN 13 5
\
ALDERSON REPORTLYG
> F-N 400 vi:Ti nia Ave., S.W. Washing ::, C. C. 20024 h Telephcne: (200) 554-2245 Si'OaJ00162 8?O62'i PDR ADOCk 050005be P1)R
2455 O-
' u"1rso sr^rss or ^xsn'c^
2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X 4 In the Matter of: Docket Ncs.
- 50-528 OL 5 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al., 50-529 OL 50-530 OL 6 (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3)
- 7
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _x 8
Courtroom 1 9 U.S. Courthouse & Federal Building to 230 North First Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 11 Friday, June 25, 1982 13 Evidentiary hearing in the above-entitled matter 14 was resumed, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m.
15 BEFORE:
16 DR. ROBERT M. LAZO, Esq., Chairman, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board DR. RICHARD F. COLE, Esq., Member DR. DIXON CALLIHAh, Esq., Member 20 21 22 23 t
()
/
24 25 O
2456 i
APPEARANCES:
2 ON BEHALF OF THE JOINT APPLICANTS, ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al.:
) ARTHUR C. GEHR, Esq.
4 CHARLES A. BISCHOFF, Esq.
Snell & Wilmer 5
3100 Valley Bank Center Phoenix, Arizona 85073 6
7 ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENOR, PATRICIA LEE HOURIHAN:
8 LYNNS BERNABEI, Esq.
9 Harmon & Weiss 1725 I Street, N.W.
Suite 506 10 Washington, D.C. 20006 II
- ON BEHALF OF THE REGULATORY STAFF
I2 LEE SCOTT DEWEY, Esq.
EDWIN J. REIS, Esq.
II fg Office of the Executive Legal Director
(_/ g Washington, D.C.
15 16 17 18 19 l
! 20 21 22 23
( 24 25
, O l
INDEX 2457
(} 1 WITNESSES: DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS VOIR DIRE 2 EMANUEL LICITRA RAYMOND GONZALES 3
() 4 By Mr. Dewey 2460 By Ms. Bernabei 2463 2461 2508 5
RAYMOND GONAZLES 6
By Mr. Dewey 2519 2562 7 By Ms. Bernabei 2524 2571 8 WILLIAM G. BINGHAM 9 By Mr. Gehr 2577 2682 By Ms.1Bernabei 2593 2679 10 By Mr. Dewey 2673 11 EXHIBITS: IDENTIFIED IN EVIDENCE 12 JOINT APPLICANTS 13 I (~' DD ---
2690
\-) 14 EE - ---
2690 i FF ---
2690 i 15 JJ ---
2458 16 l
INTERVENOR 17 XLI 2510 2691 18 19 STAFF
! 20 7 ---
2462 8 2679 2681 21 22 23 1
() 24 l 25 i
O
2458 O
O I .P,3 Q g E E E I,,N,g g 2 (9:30 a.m.)
3 JUDGE LAZO: Would the hearing come to order, 4 please.
5 Let the record show that Counsel for Joint Appli-6 cants has supplied the Board and the parties with a copy of 7 the exhibit which has been identified as Joint Applicants' 8 Exhibit JJ. This is the six-page document with a cover 9 letter and attached report by Mr. Leonard Halpenny that was 10 referred to earlier.
Ii Do we understand that there are no objections to 12 the admission into evidence of this document?
13 MS. BERNABEI: No objections.
O 14 MS. DEWEY: No objections.
15 JUDGE LAZO: Very well. It may be received.
16 (The document referred to was 17 -
received into evidence as 18 Joint Applicants' Exhibit JJ.)
l l
I9 JUDGE LAZO: The Intervenors yesterday made an i
20 oral motion for leave to brief the matter which we discussed 21 regarding additional evidence relating to the negotiations 22 which had gone on regarding the agreement. What is that, 23 139047 O 24 Ma. GEHa: Yes.
25 JUDGE LAZO: Agreement 13904. We will deny that O
2459 O i motion. 1e te moot.
2 We will now rule that the specifics of the now-3 terminated negotiations are not relevant to the matter at 4 issue, and no additional evidence will be adduced regarding 5 the specifics of those negotiations. They are in the nature 6 of offers laid on the table during settlement efforts, and 7 as we see it, there is no need for such matters to become 8 a part of the official record in this case.
9 In order to preserve your rights of appeal, 10 Mr. Gehr, you may make a proffer of proof and make a state-II ment concerning the matter so the record will show what in 12 your opinion Mr. Hulse would have said had he been permitted I3 to testify in this matter.
O 14 MR. GEHR: Thank you. I intend i't. I'will do 15 so at the cime we put in our rebuttal.
16 JUDGE LAZO: Very well.
17 Now, unless there are any further housekeeping 38 matters from the parties, we are ready to proceed.
19 Mr. Dewey?
20 MR. DEWEY: Yes, sir. At this time Staff calls 21 as its witnesses Emanuel Licitra and Raymond Gonzales to 22 answer questions regarding the status of the operating is-23 sues for the open heat sink -- the open issue there.
0 24 fjj 25 jjj O
2460 1 Whereupon,
[}
2 EMANUEL LICITRA 3 RAYMOND GONZALES O 4 called as witnesses by Counsel for the Regulatory Staff, hav-5 ing first been duly sworn by the Chairman, were examined and 6 testified as follows:
7 DIRECT EXAMINATION 8 BY MR. DEWEY:
9 Q Mr. Licitra, is this a copy of your professional 10 qualifications?
11 A (WITNESS LICITRA) Yes, it is.
12 Q Do you have any changes to make to these quali-13 fications at this tims?
14 A No, I do not.
15 MR. DEWEY: Your Honor, I wish to offer into evi-16 dence the professional qualifications of Emanuel Licitra.
17 JUDGE LAZO: I do not believe we have them.
18 MS. BERNABEI: We have not seen them either.
19 MR. DEWEY: I believe I sent copies to the Board 20 with my letter.
21 JUDGE LAZO: Perhaps I misspoke.
22 MR. DEWEY: If you do not have a copy,.I tnink I 23 have a few extras.
24 JUDGE LAZO: Yes, I am sorry. They were enclosed
({}
25 with counsel's letter dated June 11.
)
l
i 2461 1
1 MR. DEWEY: The Staff will now tender Mr. Licitra 2 and Mr. Gonzales to answer questions regarding the ultimate 3 heat sink.
4 MS. BERNABEI: May I voir dire for a minute here?
5 JUDGE LAZO: Yes, surely.
6 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 7 BY MS. BERNABEI:
8 Q Can you outline, the two of you, Mr. Gonzales and 9 Mr. Licitra, your respective responsibility with regard to 10 this project?
II A (WITNESS GONZALES) Yes, I am the one that is 12 responsible for doing the hydrologic review related to the 13 spray ponds. We determine -- or I determine if the source of O 14 water is sufficient to comply with the Regulatory Guide and 15 other Commission Regulations.
16 A (WITNESS LICITRA) Okay, I am the Project Manager 17 for Palo Verde, and what I will be covering are those areas 18 of the Regulatory Guide beyond the scope of hydrology, such 19 as specific design features, if they come up.
20 JUDGE LAZO: Do you have further --
21 MS. BERNABEI: Yes, I do.
22 Has this been introduced as an exhibit, or is this 23 just for our information?
O 24 MR. DEWEY: Whet,ehe grofessione1 que11ficetions2 MS. BERNABEI: Yes.
2462
({) 1 MR. DEWEY: We just introduced it.
2 MS. BERNA'J EI: Okay. And what number is it?
3 MR. DEWEY: Number 7.
4 JUDGE LAZO: Professional qualifications of 5 Emanual Licitra is Staff Exhibit No. 7 -- has been identified 6 as Staff Exhibit No. 7.
7 MR. DEWEY: Yes, and we wish to offer that into 8 evidence.
9 MS. BERNABEI: No problem.
10 MR. GEHR: No objections.
II JUDGE LAZO: Very well. It may be received.
12 (The document referred to was 13 received into evidence as
. 14 Staff Exhibit No. 7.)
15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
() 24 25 O
~ . .
2463 O I caoss zx^a1a^r1on 2 BY MS. BERNABEI:
3 Q Mr. Licitra, perhaps I should start out asking 4 you some questions, because we have spoken before, and I 5 think we can maybe lay a little foundation for my other ques-6 tions.
7 We spoke about a week ago, last Friday, is that 8 right?
9 A (WITNESS LICITRA) That is correct.
10 0 I believe you said, and you should correct me if II I am wrong, that the Applicants currently demonstrated that 12 they have a 26- to 28-day supply of water in the two spray 13 ponds with redundant trains. Is that correct?
O I4 A That is correct. Under adverse conditions.
15 Under adverse conditions.
Q 16 A Assuming no make-up.
17 Q Correct.
18 Now, I understand that you had said that 26 to 28 A
19 days is sufficient or would satisfy the Staff under the 20 following condition: if the primary source, or what is 21 labeled the " primary source" in these proceedings and in 22 my discussions with you, which is essentially no new source 23 of water, will be available to ensure the continued capabili-O 24 ty of the sgrey gond, even in the event of certein edverse 25 conditions. Is that correct?
O
2464
() 1 A The way you phrased the question, it sounded like 2 you threw in another source of water, and~I do not believe 3 we were talking about another source of water.
4 Q Well, we are talking about ensured capability of 5 the spray ponds beyond 26 to 28 days. Is that correct?
6 A That is correct.
7 And we are talking about a source of water to Q
8 ensure that capability. Is that correct? And it is labeled 9 as a " primary source" but in the FSAR and in your discussions 10 with me.
11 A The source of water that I believe we were refer-12 ring to is a make-up source.
13 Q Correct.
O '14~ A Okay. .
i 15 0 And that has been labeled "the primary source" in 16 the discussions in the FSAR, is that correct?
17 A I believe they refer to domestic wells as a pri-II mary source, that is right.
19 Now, I believe you said to me that this source, Q
20 the primary source, to ensure capability of the spray ponds 21 beyond the 26- to 28-day period will be sufficient if it can 22 be demonstrated or if Applicant can demonstrate that it will 23 be there under certain adverse conditions.
() 24 A That is correct.
I 25 Now, I believe you also said that that basically Q
O
2465
() 1 means, and 7 am trying to quote you, "if they can show that 2 this one source of water will be there when they need it."
(} 3 4
A That is right.
Q Okay, just so we are talking about the same thing.
5 I also understood from you that if they cannot demonstrate 6 that it will be there when you need it, that is, under cer-7 tain adverse conditions, it is possible and is likely that 8 the Staff would require a back-up source to that water.
9 A Well, we would look for where the water would 10 come from. I do not know if we would call it a back-up II source, but we would like to have a source of water, yes.
12 Q And it is likely that that would be a different 13 source than the primary source?
C) 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
(:)
2466
("T_1 1 A (WITNESS LICITRA) If the source they have identi-
%/
2 fied is not going to do it, then it would be a different 3 source, yes.
O 4 Q Fine. Now, what we're essentially talkilng about 5 is the primary source to insure capability beyond 26 to 28 6 days being there under certain -- I believe your words were 7 " adverse conditions."
8 A That's correct.
9 Q And I believe you also told me that that meant 10 to you certain adverse conditions, and I believe you fur-11 ther called them " design bases occurrences," or that they 12 have also been called that. Is that correct?
13 A That's correct.
14 Q And just to categorize ^the type of thing we're 15 talking about, they would be things like earthquakes, torna-16 dos, floods, meteorological conditions, severe meteorologi-17 cal conditions, or perhaps winds. That's the category of 18 things that fall inside a design basis occurrence.
19 A Yes, and these are described in the Regulatory 20 Guide.
l l 21 Q Okay, can you show us where in the Regulatory 22 Guide they are described?
23 A What exhibit is this, so I can reflect that in O 24 the record 7 25 Q Yes, I'll find it for you in just a second, sir.
i L
2467
( I Okay, we're talking about Intervenor's XII.
}
2 A Okay.
3 Q And where in Intervenor's XII do you find these O 4 design bases occurrences?
5 A If you turn to page 1.27-2 of the exhibit and you 6 look at the last paragraph on the left side of the page, 7 and I will read from the Regulatory Guide:
8 "The sink safety functions may be provided by 9 natural or manmade features. More than one source may be 10 involved in the sink complex in performing these functions 11 under different conditions. Because of the importance of 12 the sink to safety, these features should be ensured during 13 and following the most severe natural phenomena postulated 14 for the site (e.g., the Safe Shutdown' Earthquake, design 15 basis tornado, hurricane, floods, or drought). In addition, 16 the safety function should be ensured during other applica-17 ble site-related events such as river diversions, reservoir 18 depletions, ship collisions," et cetera.
i 19 Q " Airplane crashes, or oil spills."
20 Okay, now I think you aiso told me that for any l
l 21 particular site, you may not require that the primary source 12 be available for all these occurrences. In other words, 23 you make a determination that is site-specific. You figure
() 24 out for a particular site which design-bases occurrences 25 are relevant.
2468
() 1 A Which could affect the ultimate heat sink. They 2 would all be relevant if they had an effect.
- 3 Q Okay. I believe you also told me that as far as ss 4 you knew, you had not yet -- and I'm meaning you, the NRC 5 Staff had not yet -- determined which of these design 6 basis occurrences were relevant for Palo Verde which could 7 affect the primary source of water to ensure capability of 8 the spray ponds beyond 26 to 28 days.
9 MR. GEHR: Objection.
10 WITNESS LICITRA: I don't believe I said that.
11 BY MS. BERNABEI:
12 Q Okay. When I spoke to you, what you did say dur-
. 13 ing the meeting in December - : as to your knowledge there 14 had been no discussion of specific events that had b'een --
~
15 there had been no events that were defined as relevant to 16 Palo Verde at that time.
17 A (WITNESS LICITRA) At the December appeals meet-18 ing?
19 Q Yes.
20 A Well, as I mentioned to you, I was not at that 21 meeting or the details of what occurred at that meeting.
22 Q But I was subsequently informed by Mr. Dewey --
23 and I assume that's after talking to you and Mr. Gon-() 24 zales -- that specific events were not discusssed at that 25 meeting.
/~T
\>
2469
(')
v 1 MR. DEWEY: Wait a minute. I don't think I speci-2 fically said that. I don't recall, but I don't remember 3 saying that.
O 4 MS. BERNABEI: I asked you the question --
5 MR. DEWEY: Well, I'll tell you what. Mr. Gon-6 zales was at the meeting. Why don't you ask him what was 7 discussed.
8 MS. BERNABEI: I'm just saying what was repre-9 sented to me after asking you three or four times.
10 BY MS. BERNABEI:
11 Q Well, Mr. Gonzales, were there specific events 12 discussed at that meeting?
13 A (WITNESS GONZALES) I don't really remember. But 14 I think ff'I had a transcript of that meeting, I would be 15 surprised if specific events weren't discussed.
16 Q So you believe there were specific events, but 17 you can't remember them right now.
18 A I think there were, yes.
19 Q Okay, let me ask you this. Has the NRC Staff come 20 to a determination of what design-basis occurrences are 21 relevant for Palo Verde?
22 MR. GEHR: Objection. I thought we were in voir 23 dire. And this is clearly not voir dire. This is cross-() 24 examination. And the testimony has not even been introduced.
25 MS. BERNABEI: Oh, this isn't voir dire. I assumed O
2470 I this was the questioning about the ultimate heat sink.
5' )
2 MR. DEWEY: That's right.
3 JUDGE LAZO: Do you have voir dire?
4 MR. GEHR: No.
5 JUDGE LAZO: And you have completed your voir dire, 6 Ms. Bernabei.
7 MS. BERNABEI: Certainly. I assumed we were on 8 questioning. I'm a little surprised.
9 BY MS. BERNABEI:
10 Q So what I understand, just to back up -- you be-11 lieve they were discussed at the December 10th meeting.
12 You can't quite remember what was discussed. But is it fair 13 to say that the design-basis occurrences relevant to this 14 site have not yet been determined? Determined by the NRC 15 Staff.
16 A (WITNESS GONZALES) I think it's fair to say that, 17 yes.
18 Q In your opinion, since you seem to have been at 19 the last meeting, in your opinion at this time, what design-20 basis occurrences do you think would be relevant for Palo l
21 Verde?
22 A I think that the only design-basis event that's 23 relevant for Palo Verde is an earthquake.
l l
() 24 Q All right. Now just to make sure I understand l 25 you, you do not believe floods are at all relevant to Palo
()
l
2471
(] 1 Verde.
2 A I know floods are not relevant.
3 Q Okay. Do you believe tornadoes are?
4 A If we're talking about the groundwater being a 5 source to provide the capability for cooling after 30 days, 6 I do not think that a tornado would be able to render both 7 wells inoperable.
8 Q How about rendering one well inoperable?
9 A If you only had one well, it has sufficient pump-10 ing capacity to provide the cooling water that's required 11 after the 27th day. -
12 Q Now, you have considered tornadoes, however, in 13 terms of some of the equipment. That is, the spray nozzles 14 concerned with the spray ponds. Is that corr'ect?
15 MR. DEWEY: Objection. That's way beyond the 16 scope of the purpose of putting these witnesses on the stand.
17 They were not going to get into spray nozzles and all other 18 types of things. I think that we have gone beyond the scope 19 of the contention just be letting these witnesses be here 20 in the first place.
21 MS. BERNABEI: I'm just trying to find out why 22 chose the safe-shutdown earthquake, and they did not choose 23 other design-bases occurrences, especially when they did
(]) 24 consider tornadoes with respect to other parts of the spray 25 pond. I'm just trying to find out the basis for their O
2472
() I decision for excluding certain other design-bases occur-2 rences.
fs 3 JUDGE LAZO: Well, we will overrule the objection.
()
4 BY MS. BERNABEI:
5 Q Mr. Gonzales, you did consider tornadoes, did you 6 not, with respect to certain damage to the spray-pond equip-7 ment? The spray nozzles, specifically.
8 A (WITNESS GONZALES) In my area of responsibility, 9 which is the determination of the adequacy of the water 10 supply, I did not. I think that Mr. Licitra is better quali-11 fied to answer that question.
12 Q Okay. What I'm asking you, though, specifically 13 is your area of responsibility, you did not consider a tor-14 nado as possibly affecting both wells or renderi6g both wells 15 inoperable. You did not consider it a design-basis occur-16 rence such that it had to be considered in terms of the 17 primary source of water.
18 A I considered that the ability of a tornado to knock 19 out both wells was not a reasonable event to consider.
20 Q Okay. Now, Mr. Licitra, it's fair to say, is it i
l 21 not, that you -- as opposed to Mr. Gonzales -- you considered i
22 tornadoes sufficiently important to provide against tornado 23 damage to the spray nozzles on the spray ponds.
() 24 A (WITNESS LICITRA) When you refer to me, you are 25 referring to the NRC Staff, I presume.
O t) l l
2473 0 o ra t' correct- 8=t there evee r there te some 2 division of responsibilities. I'm referring now, as Mr.
q 3 Gonzales pointed out, to your area of responsibility. And
'J 4 he appeared to say that you were responsible for the safety 5 functions of the equipment.
6 A That I would address it.
7 Q Would you address it, sir?
8 A The issue of tornadoes that we considered really 9 deals with a certain aspect of tornadoes called " tornado 10 missiles," and it deals with the design of the sink itself, 11 not with the water supply to the sink.
12 Q Okay. Now, I guess my question -- and this would 13 be to both of you -- is why, if it were considered important
'" 14 enough to the design of the spray ponds, are tornad'oes not 15 considered important enough to the water supply? I'm pre-16 mising my question on the fact that the equipment -- that 17 is, the well and delivery system for the spray ponds -- is 18 an important part of the primary source of water.
19 MR. DEWEY: Objection. I think we have gone be-20 yond the scope of the water issue at this point and are 21 getting into -- Mr. Licitra has stated that this is an area 22 of responsibility that has been looked at by other portions 23 of the staff. And I don't see why we should be going down O 24 thee roed. We cen t brine the whe1e steff here to testify
, 25 today. We are accommodating Ms. Bernabei in the first place.
2474 T3.1g 1 MS. BERNABEI: I think either one of these C 2 gentlemen could answer the question, probably Mr. Gonzales.
3 I am just simply asking in terms of the safety equipment Q 4 connected with the spray ponds, tornadoes were considered, 5 why weren't they considered in terms of the water source?
6 Since they appear to be part of the same system.
7 MR. DEWEY: Because that is another area of 8 responsibility which is beyond the scope of the areas of --
9 MS. BERNABEI: No, I think they are responsible ---
10 As I understand it, and perhaps they can correct me if I am 11 wrong, Mr. Licitra is involved in the design and perhaps 12 safety equipment part of the spray ponds. Mr. Gonzales is 13 involved with the hydrogeologic or those . kind of 14 considerations, whet'her the water is available, and it'seems 15 like one of those two people should be knowledgeable about 16 why tornadoes were not considered.
17 MR. DEWEY: Mr. Licitra is the overall project 18 manager. There are more special groups that consider the --
19 BY.MS. BERNABEI:
20 0 Well, perhaps I can ask you, Mr. Licitra. Why 21 were they considered in terms of the safety equipment, spray 22 nozzles, and not considered in terms of the possibly cutting 23 off the source of water for the spray ponds? What was the 24 distinction you made in your mind?
25 A (WITNESS LICITRA) I am sorry. I don't understand
l 2 1 the question. 2475
() 2 O We are talking about now why the tornadoes are 3 not a design basis occurrence such that you have to worry
() 4 about them rendering the wells inoperative. Now, you said 5 that in your responsibility, theyswere considered in terms of 6 possible damage tornado missiles could do to the spray 7 nozzles, as I understand. Why were they considered 8 important enough, tornadoes -- why were tornadoes considered 9 important enough for you to take them into consideration in 10 terms of damage to the spray nozzles, but not important 11 enough to take into consideration with possibly rendering 12 wells inoperative, which also involves some well equipment, 13 a pump, a delivery system.
(])
14 MR. DEWEY: I still object. The section which is 15 involved , in the spray nozzles, will ensure that those 16 problems are taken care of, so there is no interlapping 17 between that area, which is apples, and this area, which is 18 oranges.
19 Ms. BERNABEI: I am not questioning whether or 20 not the spray nozzles are good enough. That is not what I am 21 asking. What I am asking is why did you take it into 22 consideration in terms of possible damage to the spray pond 23 equipment, but you didn't take it into account in determining 24 a design basis occurrence for the ultimate heat sink? I 25 assume there is a very simple answer to this.
- r. ., , . , . . - , , . - - - - _, .,, 7-. - , - - - - -
2476 3 1 JUDGE LAZO: Let the witnesses answer.
() 2 WITNESS LICITRA: Okay, I am still not quite 3 sure I understand what your question is, Ms. Bernabei?
() 4 BY MS. BERNABEI:
5 0 Isn't it true that you took into account 6 tornadoes, you know, tornadoes are tornadoes are tornadoes, 7 I assume. You took into account tornadoes in determining 8 whether or not the equipment, certain equipment, spray 9 nozzles, were adequate for the spray ponds at Palo Verde, 10 did you not?
11 A (WITNESS LICITRA) That is an area that is on 12 the Staff review, and it concerns an assessment of whether
[]} 13 the spray nozzles can withstand tornado missiles.
14 0 Okay.
15 A Okay, and it doesn't deal with water supply.
16 0 I understand that.
17 A Okay.
18 Q Now, however, you are dealing or considering --
19 A And that is something we are considering, and the 20 Applicant is considering, and it is an area that we are 21 continuing to review.
22 Q And I have no problem with that area.
23 A Okay.
24 Q But what I am saying is, you consider tornadoes
'5 in connection with that equipment, is that correct?
l
4 1 A Yes. 2477
() 2 Q Now, what I am asking you is, why didn't you 3 consider tornadoes wi,th respect to water supply? Water
() 4 supply in terms of ensuring continued capability of the 5 spray ponds beyond 26 to 28 days?
6 MR. DEWEY: Asked and answered. Mr. Gonzales 7 just answered that question.
8 MS. BERNABEI: I didn't understand his answer.
WITNESS GONZALES:
~
9 I think you are ta1 king about 10 two different things here.
11 BY.MS. 2SRNABEI:
12 0 Okay.
A
(]) 13' (WITNESS GONZALES) One, you are talking about 14 to'nado r damage to equipment during the first 30 days of 15 cooling. ,
16 0 26 to 28 days, to be specific.
17 A Okay, 26 to 28 days. There could be some 18 tornado damage to the spray heads possibly. That is what the 19 Applicants is looking at. In those first 26 days, we do not 20 think you could postulate a situation where you have any 21 damage to the water supply. You couldn' t damage the water 22 supply.
(])
23 Q But could you damage the equipment that either
- 24 pumps the water in the water supply, or delivers that water,
("s}
s 25 that is what I am asking you.
2478 5 l A It doesn't matter. You have the water supply in
() 2 the spray ponds during those initial 28 days.
3 Q Okay, but we are talking about now after. The
() 4 Reg Guide is talking about -- is it possible that this 5 supply of water, that is, these two wells, whichnare _the 6 primary source, could they be rendered inoperable by a 7 tornado?
8 A I think that is irrelevant at this point, because 9 the Applicant has stated, he has assumed that he is going to 10 lose both of those wells .
11 Q Only during an earthquake. I am talking about 12 tornadoes now. What the Applicant has provided in Mr. Van
(]) 13 Brunt's letter, and when Mr. van Brunt testified, I believe 14 he said, we only considered an earthquake, SSE, a safe 15 shutdown earthquake. We didn't consider other design basis 16 occurrences . We don't think we have to.
17 Now, it may be possible the same rationale would 18 apply to a tornado, but they haven't considered it, and I 19 think he pretty clearly said that, and what I am asking you 20 is, does the Staff require the same kind of analysis to be 21 made for another design basis occurrence, thatfis, actornado?
22 And I believe your answer has been no.
[])
23 A (WITNESS GONZALES) No, my answer --
24 MR. DEWEY: No, that is not what the answer said,
[)
25 I believe .
2479 6 1 WITNESS GONZALES: My answer is that I cannot O 2 postulate a situation where a tornado would damage the wells 3 during those initial 26 days, so it' was -- a tornado was 4 considered not to be applicable in this case.
5 BY MS. BERNABEI:
6 0 Okay, that is even though you did consider a 7 tornado of sufficient important to require the Applicant to 3 examine possible damage to spray nozzles? That is all I am 9 trying to understand.
10 A (WITNESS LICITRA) The answer is, we do consider 11 tornado missiles in this ultimate heat sink design, yes.
12 But tornadoes do not affect the water supply.
() 13 0 They do not af fect the pumps or the delivery 14 system?
15 A And damage -- if there were damage to the spray 16 nozzles, it does not affect the water supply.
l l 17 Q That wasn't my question. My question was, l
18 couldn't a tornado damage the pump and the delivery system 19 providing water to the spray ponds after 26 to 28 days, in 20 the same way it could damage a spray nozzle?
l 21 or did you consider that?
l .
({) 22 A No. It would not damage any other equipment.
23 Q And why is that?
24 A Because it is protected from tornado missiles.
({}
25 0 And there are no other adverse effects of
2480 7 g tornadoes, to you mind, that could cause that kind of 2
damage?
3 A I an't think of any other adverse effects.
4 Q Okay. Now, in terms of other design basis 5 ccurrences, we have already said you don't consider a 6 tornado one of those occurrences, right? We are talking 7 ab ut the ultimate heat sink. Tornadoes were not considered g as a design basis occurrence such that the primary source had 9 to withstand that?
10 A (WITNESS GONZALES) Tornadoes were considered not gg to be applicable in this case. They were considered.
12 0 Okay, how about hurricanes? No hurricanes?
A 13 A This is not in the regions where we have U
34 hurricanes. .
15 0 Okay. And you have already ruled out floods, I 16 believe? ,
17 A Yes.
(
18 Q You don't think floods are relevant?
39 A Yes.
20 Q Now you are f amiliar, though , generally, with gg the meteorological conditions in this area?
I 22 A Generally, yes.
23 0 Okay, now, you do know that there have been 24 severe floods within the last five years in this area?
25 A Id , yes.
2481 8 1 Q Okay, but I assume what you are saying is for the
() 2 particular site, there is no flooding problem?
3 A That is correct.
) 4 Q Okay, now another design basis occurrence which 5 is listed as a possibility in this is drought. Did you 6 consider drought with1 respect to drought?
7 A I don't think that a drought would affect the 8 water supply in the spray ponds. There will be a 9 technical specification that assures that those spray ponds 10 are kept full at all times.
11 Q Now, isn't what we are really talking about, 12 drought being a design basis occurrence, for providing
( }) 13 continued capability beyond 26 to'28 days? That is, from the 14 two wells. We are not talking about the spray ponds per se, i
15 we are talking about the two wells at this point, aren't we?
16 A I don't know what we are talking about at this 17 point.
18 Q Well, the Applicants have said that their 19 primary source of water to ensure capability beyond 26 to 20 28 days are two wells.
l Isn't that what Mr. Van Brunt's 21 letter of June 17 said?
l () 22 A (WITNESS GONZALES) The reason I am looking is 23 I don't recall that he mentioned a primary source. I think l
() 24 that the letter just states that it is a source.
25 Q Okay, but the FSAR talks about primary source, l
t l _ _. - - - --
2482 1
and I think Mr. Licitra has said we could label it that.
() 2 MR. DEWEY: Yes, but the regulatory -- excuse me, 3 I can make a clarification. The Regulatory Guide doesn't
() 4 talk about primary source.
5 MS. BERNABEI: No, I know it doesn't, but I think 6 that is what it has oeen called here.
7 MR. DEWEY: And I don't want you to be putting 8 words in this witness's mouth that the primary is a 9 requirement here, by that kind of language.
10 MS. BERNABEI: Well, what I was talking about 11 with Mr. Licitra is that what has been termed primary source 12 in this proceeding in the FSAR, and I believe even by Mr.
{])
13 Van Brunt on the stand is, is the water available to ensure 14 capability of the spray ponds after 26 to 28 days.-
15 BY MS. BERNABEI:
16 Q Regardless of what it is called, Mr. Gonzales, 17 we are talking about two wells, aren't we, as the. source of 18 water to ensure capability of the spray ponds beyond 26'to <
19 28 days?
20 A (WITNESS GONZALES) No, I don't think that is 21 correct.
{) 22 O Okay, what are we talking about, then?
23 A What we are talking about is that the source of 24
) water to provide capability past the 26 to 28 days is the 25 regional aquif er.
=
2483 1 Q Okay, and that doesn't involve wells at any time?
() 2 A Pardon?
3 Q Part of that is not wells, then, you are saying?
4 A I am saying thrst the source of water is the 5 regional aquifer. The wells are a method of transporting the 6 water from the source to the spray ponds.
7 0 And therefore, you would not consider them part 8 of the source of water, essentially?
9 A I would not.
10 Q Therefore, well, let me ask yoe this. Mr. Van 11 Brunt goes on at some length in his letter to talk about the 12 supplies on the site, the availability of people to drill
() 13 wells of necessity. To you that would be irrelevant, as long 14 as there is an aquifer there, because that is basically the 15 source of water?
16 In other words, the techniques to drill a well 17 are really irrelevant to what we are talking about, to 18 ensure capability of the spray ponds beyond 26 to 28 days?
19 A I think that we are talking about a reliable 20 source of water, and what the Applicant is saying, that in 21 his estimation, the regional aquifer is a very reliable i
() 22 source of water.
23 Q Regardless of pumps, drilling, delivery systems?
(]) 24 In other words, that is not part of your concern?
25 A It is part of my concern, but it is not part of l
~
2484 1
the source of the water.
2 0 so just to make sure I understand you, you are 3 saying it is an incidental part of your concern. The real 4
concern is that the water is under the ground.
5 A Well, I don't think it is incidental. We want 6
the Applicant to assure us that they have the capability of 7
a source of water, and in addition to that, we want to have 8
some indication that they will have the capability of getting 9
the water from the source to the spray pond.
10 Q Well, then maybe we are arguing about semantics.
11 We are talking about capability. We will use your words.
Il Capability to ensure water in the spray ponds beyond the O i3 2e ee 28-dey period 2 14 A That is correct.
15 Q okay, now the capability in your. words includes 16 the source of water, which is the regional aquifer, and the 17 equipment, which I would call the pump and the delivery 18 system. -
19 A That is correct.
20 Q Now, the capability is what is required by the 21 Regulatory Guide and the Staff, is that correct?
O 22 ^ eerdoa?
23 Q The capability is required, capability as you O 24 have usee it is required by ehe staef and the seguieeory 25 Guide?
I
2485 1 A I don't think it is required in the Regulatory O 2 Guide. I think it is a.. recommendation or a suggestion.
3 Q But that is the capability, as you have defined O 4 it, is a recommendation in the Begulatory Guide?
5 A It is a suggestion in the Regulatory Guide, 6 yes.
7 Q And the Staff has made it a requirement, is that 8 correct?
9 MR. DEWEY: Objection. He said it is a --
10 MS. BERNABEI: No, no. I am asking him about 11 the Staf f as opposed to the Regulatory Guide now.
12 BY MS. DERNABEI:
() 13 Q Has the Staff made that a' requirement?
That 14 appeared to be what Mr. Licitra said.
15 A Requirement for what?
16 Q A requirement to satisfy the Staff that the 17 ultimate heat sink is in f act up to snuf f, up to the l
18 regulations?
19 JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Bernabei, I am reluctant to 20 interrupt, but we are a bit confused as to where you are 21 going here. You started this line of questioning by going O 22 is _/ through the list and then saying, now, how about a drought, 23 and are you --
() 24 MS. BERNABEI: I am getting --
25 JUDGE LAZO: Are you examining -- pardon me.
2436 1 Are you examining the witness regarding the effect of a
() 2 drought on the pumps and the delivery system?
3 MS. BERNABEI: I am. I am trying to get back
(]) 4 to that point, because I just want to make sure that I 5 understand that he -- what he thinks is required. I will 6 return to that question, though.
7 BY MS. BERNABEI:
8 0 Okay, Mr. Gonzales, what we have to examine, or 9 what you have to examine is the effect of design basis 10 occurrences on the capability, as you have defined it, of 11 the Applicant to provide water after 26 to 28 days?
12 A (WITNESS GONZALES) That is what we asked the
(' 13 . Applicant to provide, yes..
14 0 Okay. Now, it is your position that'a drought is 15 not a design basis occurrence for this site that could be 16 relevant to determining whether there is an ensured capability 17 to provide water beyond 26 to 28 days?
18 A I think that -- .
19 MR. DEWEY: That is not what he said.
20 MS. BERNABEI: I am asking. Perhaps I am wrong.
21 WITNESS GONZALES : I think that a drought is a 22 phenomenon that has to be considered. I do not think that a 23 drought would have a significant ef fect on the source.
24 BY MS. BERNABEI:
25 Q No, I am talking about capability now. I am
2487 1 returning to your phrase. We are talking about the effect 2 of design basis occurrences on capability, and capability 3 affects both source and equipment or delivery system, right?
4 A (WITNESS GONZALES) And in addition to that, I 5 think that part of the capability is showing that in fact 6 they can implement it within a specified time.
7 Q Okay, and what I am asking you, is a drought'is 8 not a design basis occurrence that in your mind could 9 affect the capability of the Applicant to ensure, through the 10 primary source, these two wells, water to the spray ponds 11 beyond 26 to 28 days?
12 A I think that a drought is an event that has been
() 13 considered, but it is not the design basis event, because 14 there is one that clearly is more severe.
15 0 And that is an earthquake?
16 A And that is an earthquake.
17 0 So in other words, you feel that any 18 considerations about drought would be subsumed into your 19 consideration about the earthquake?
20 A I think that the earthquake encompasses all 21 other events that might be considered.
22
(}) 0 Therefore, it is Staf f 's position that all you 23 have to consider is an earthquake?
24
(]) A No, the Staff position is that we required the 25 Applicant to consider various natural phenomena, and they r._
2488 1 have determined that the critical one, the one that would O 2 impece your editie r, your cagesi11ev, wou1a he en eerthauake.
3 Q And is the Staff in concurrence with that, that O 4 1e, enae that is the oa1r ae isa de t occurreace ehet aeea-5 to be considered by the Applicants?
6 A We did not receive this June 17 letter, at least 7 I didn't see it, until Monday morning. I have looked at it 8 in a cursory manner, and it appears to me at this time that 9 they have addressed all our concerns.
10 Now, we have not written off on it at this time, 11 because my management has to agree with me, but I think that 12 I am in a position to recommend that the proposal in this Q 13 June .17 letter is acceptable.
So in other words, your position is, independent 14 Q 15 of your supervisor who may have a different position, your 16 position is that the only event that the Applicants must 17 demonstrate as a design basis occurrence as used in the Reg 18 Guide, is an earthquake?
19 MR. DEWEY: That is not what he said.
20 BY MS. BERNABEI:
21 Q Well, is that not what you said?
22 A (WITNESS GONZALES) That the only design basis 23 event is an earthquake?
24 Q As I understand it, the Applicants have to 25 demonstrate that the wells can remain operable even under
2489 1 certain design basis occurrences, and the only ones that you O 2 think need to be considered at this point is an earthquake?
3 A No, I think they have assumed that the wells O 4 will not remain operable after a design basis event. They 5 have assumed, conservatively, I think, that both of those 6 wells would be inoperable.
7 Q But in Mr. Licitra's terminology, this letter 8 demonstrates that all the design basis occurrences relevant 9 to the site have been taken care of. That is, an earthquake 10 is the only one that needs to be considered in terms of 11 demonstrating that if the two wells are rendered inoperable, 12 water would still be available af ter 26 to 28 days?
( 13 A I don't know what the 'pplicant A considered. We 14 have considered all of the possible ev'ents, natural events 15 that could occur, and we have come to the conclusion that 16 the earthquake, a severe earthquake that would knock out
, 17 both of your wells, would encompass all other natural events .
18 Okay.
Q Now, do you know, and I don't know if you 19 were here for Mr. Van Brunt's testimony or not. Were you?
20 A I was not.
21 Q Okay. I asked him about whether or not they
(~)s
's, 22 had considered the fact that an earthquake may disturb the 23 hydrogeologics, the hydrogeology underneath the site. Do I
() 24 you know if they have considered that?
25 A I do not.
_ .o
2490 1 0 okay, do you believe it might?
() 2 A I would suspect that it might have some effect.
3 0 Do you think it would be important to consider
() 4 in determining the validity of Mr. Van Brunt's solution to 5 the open item on the NRC'n list?
6 A Which is -- there is several open items.
7 Q The ensured capability beyond 30 days of the 8 ultimate heat sink? .
9 A The impact of an earthquake on the --
10 Q Hydrogeology.
11 A On the hydrogeology?
12 Q Do you think that might be something they should
(]) 13 have considered? .
' ~
14 A I think it is a consideration, yes.
15 0 And it is fair to say you don't know whether they 16 considered it or not, at this point?
17 A I do not know if they considered it or not.
18 We had been informed in this June 17 letter that there are 19 hydrogeological consultants, have looked at the problem, and 20 I would assume that one of the things they looked at is
! 21 what impact an earthquake would have on the level of that 22 aquifer.
23 Q But you don't have any information on that?
24 A I do not.
[}
25 Q Do you know if they considered whether or not I
5 2491 1 well drillers or other people needing to drill wells af ter 2 'n earthquake would be willing to go to the site of a 3 nuclear plant to drill wells? Do you know if that was a
() 4 consideration in coming to this solution?
5 A I do not know if they. considered that, but I 6 can't possibly think of any reason why a well driller 7 wouldn't want to come on site and make some money, in a drilling a well.
9 Q Even after an earthquake, and perhaps its 10 af tershocks, you couldn't imagine any reason why someone 11 wouldn't want to come to the site of a nuclear plant?
12 A I think the Applicant has indicated in their
() 13 June 17 letter that there 'are well drillers in several 14 directions, California,'New Mexico, Arizona, and I think that 15 was there to be an earthquake, there would be one driller 16 f rom some direction that would have no reluctance to come 17 in onsite to drill the well.
18 Q Regardless of the severity of the earthquake, 19 because we are talking about a safe shutdown earthquake, 20 which I assume is the severest earthquake you can assume 21 for this site? You are talking about even in the case of a safe shutdown earthquake?
(]) 22 13 A Yes.
24 MR. GEHR: Objection.
{~}
25
2492 1 BY MS. BERNABEI:
() 2 Q Do you know if the Applicants ever asked --
3 MR. GEHR: Objection, please.
() 4 JUDGE LAZO: What is the objection, Mr. Gehr?
5 MR. GEHR: We are talking about severe 6 earthquakes, and I don't know what a severe earthquake is 7 for this site. That is a different question.
8 MS. BERNABEI: Well --
9 MR. GEHR: A severe earthquake somewhere else '
10 may be totally -- is a totally different kind of an 11 earthquake, so I do not believe that the question was proper 12 without defining what a severe earthqt:ake was.
MS. BERNABEI:
(]) 13 Well, we are talking about the 14 safe shutdown earthquake, which --
15 MR. GEHR: Well, that is -- very good, if severe 16 earthquake means a safe shutdown earthquake, that is a 17 defined term.
l
, 18 JUDGE LAZO: I think Counsel indicated that it l
19 would be a more severe earthquake than an operational l
l 1
20 earthquake.
21 MS. BERNABEI: Right.
22 BY MS. BERNABEI:
)
l 23 Q Mr. Gonzales, do you know whether the Applicant l 24 considered the willingness of people to come to the site
-)
25 after an earthquake of the magnitude of a safe shutdown
f 2493 1 earthquake?
() 2 A (WITNESS GONZALES) I don't, but in their June 17 3 letter they indicate that they have discussed it with some
() 4 of the well drillers.
5 Q Do they indicate whether or not they have 6 discussed the willingness of the people to come af ter an 7 earthquake?
8 A Well, no, I don't know.
9 Q Now, do you know -- well, you know that the 10 Applicants have a number of monitoring wells operating at 11 the site at this time? You know that, don't you?
12 A I think they have monitoring wells for
(]) 13 environmental purposes .
14 Q And can you describe what that means?
15 A Well, I am not aware of all the monitoring wells 16 that they have, but they do have wells for monitoring -- one 17 thing they are looking at is seepage from the evaporation 18 ponds, for example.
19 Q Do the monitoring wells serve any other purpose?
20 A If they do, I don't know what they are.
I 21 0 Do you receive the results or reports on any l
22 problems the wells may encounter? And I am talking about l
(])
23 monitoring wells, or any other wells out at the site.
(} 24 A I don't. I don't know if anybody in NRC would 25 receive those kinds of bits of information. They could be
2494 1 Possibly included in annual reports.
2 3
O 4 5
6 7
8 9
10
- 11 l
12 O n 14 f
' 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0 22 u
24 O
25
2495
()1 1 Q But wouldn't it be one of your areas of concern 2 if in fact the Applicants were finding certain hydrogeologic 3 conditions that they didn't anticipate? That would be a 4 concern of yours, wouldn't it?
l 5 A (WITNESS GONZALES) No, it would not.
6 0 Well, let me ask you this. They have done exten-4 7 sive studies. Or they have done studies, as are included 8 in the FSAR, about the hydrogeologic conditions at the site.
9 Is that right?
10 A Yes, they have.
11 Q Okay, and you are generally familiar with those.
12 A Generally, yes.
- 13. Q Now, it's fair to say, is it not, that prediction 14 about where you are going to find water in the regional -
15 aquifer is dependent in some sense on your knowledge of the 16 hydrogeology of the area.
17 A I don't think that the studies that they've done,
! 18 the hydrogeologic studies, if you will, that they have done 19 were necessarily done to define any water supply. Generally 20 those things are done for design of the founcations of the 21 structures.
22 Q Well, regardless of the purpose for them, 23 wouldn't they be important in determining where the regional n
() 24 aquifer was underneath the site, at the site?
25 A In terms of whether the groundwater will affect
!(
i
\
2496
() I the design of the structures, yes, I think that it would 2 be considered. But the regional aquifer is not part of the 3 safety system.
4 0 Well, it does have something to do with the ulti-5 mate heat sink, doesn't it? In other words, it's a primary 6 source of water for insuring capability of the --
7 A No.
8 Q -- spray ponds beyond 26 to 28 days.
9 A No, the primary source of water is the spray ponds.
10 Q It's the regional aquifer, I believe.
11 A No, the primary source of water is the water in 12 the spray ponds. That is the only thing that has to be Seis-13 mic Category 1.
14 Q Right. We're talking about now -- and I'm using 15 " primary source" in the way it's used in the FSAR, that is, 16 the source of water' to ensure the capability of the spray 17 ponds beyond 26 to 28 days.
18 A That's right.
19 Q Okay, now, that is the regional aquifer.
20 A Yes.
21 Q Okay. And the capability includes the equipment 22 as well as this source. The equipment to get the water from 23 the regional aquifer to the spray ponds.
, () 24 A That's right.
25 Q Okay. What I'm saying is wouldn't the hydrogeology
)
2497
() 1 or knowledge of the hydrogeology of the area be impor-2 tant in determining where the regional aquifer is?
3 A Yes, I think they have determined where that re-4 gional aquifer is. They have determined that the water level 5 is somewhere between 150 and 250 feet below ground level.
6 The level of the aquife r is down that far.
7 Q Okay. There .s some variation. In ott.er words, 8 150 to 250 --
9 A Well, the site encompasses a larger area. And 10 I would assume that there is fluctuations in the water level.
11 Q Okay. Now, if they were encountering any prob-12 lems with any of their wells -- and we have information that 13 there are problems with clay being clogged in some of the O 14 wells. I'm giving you a hypothetical. If you understood 15 that there were problems with some of the wells, wouldn't 16 that indicate to you that they didn't have complete know-17 ledge of the hydrogeology of the area? Or they had somewhat 18 incomplete knowledge of the hydrogeology of the area?
19 A If they had problems with the wells?
20 Q Yes.
21 A No, I think that that could be inadequate design 22 in the wells themselves.
23 Q But there is also a possibility it could be insuf-n i
(_) 24 ficient knowledge about the hydrogeology.
25 A Well, I don't think you ever have absolute knowledge A
V
2498
() 1 of what the ground or the strata below the ground surface 2 is like. You could never possibly drill enough holes to 3 determine that. So there is always going to be some uncer-4 tainty.
5 Q Okay. So in the same way, there would be some 6 uncertainty, when you dug a well, whether you would find 7 the regional aquifer, wouldn't there? At least some uncer-8 tainty.
9 A If you're asking me could you drill a well and to hit a dry hole? I think that's what you're asking me?
11 Q I think that's what I'm asking you.
12 A I don't think that that could happen at the site.
13 The regional aquifer is very extensive. It covers an area 14 of some 400 square miles.
15 Q But if you don't know -- as you just said, you 16 can never know completely, because you can't dig enough 17 holes, the hydrogeology of the area -- it is possible you 18 could dig a dry hole, couldn't you?
19 A Yes.
20 Q That is, you wouldn't find the regional aquifer.
21 MR. DEWEY: Objection. He just answered that they 22 would hit the regional aquifer.
23 MS. BERNABEI: Well, he has said a couple things.
A)
(, 24 WITNESS GONZALES: I think it's possible but very 25 improbable.
., 2499 I BY MS. BERNABEI:
{]}
2 Q Okay. Do you have any feeling about the proba-3 bility? It is 90 percent? Eighty percent? That you would O 4 hit the regional aquifer?
5 A (WITNESS GONZALES) No, no.
6 Q No probability.
7 A No probability.
8 Q And you haven't done any studies on the probabil-9 ity.
10 A For this case? No.
11 Q For this site.
12 A No, not to determine what the probability is that 13 you will hit a dry hole if you drill a well. No.
) 14 0 would you consider it important if wells that were 1 .
l 15 being done currently on the site are encountering problems?
16 Would.you consider that important information to help you 17 determine your probability?
18 A I'm not aware that they are drilling new wells 19 on site.
20 Q Right. But if you were informed or had certain 21 information about wells encountering problems, that could 22 be important information in determining the probability you 23 are talking about.
() 24 A If they were having problems drilling the well?
25 Q Problems with the wells.
O
1 2500
(~T 1 A With the existing wells?
, \_/
2 Q Right. I'm just asking you a hypothetical.
3 A Well, I -- You could possibly have many, many
() 4 problems with a well.
5 Q Right, right. But there is a possibility that 6 if they are having problems with current wells, that that 7 could be an indication that you -- that would be some evi-8 dence about the probability that they wouldn't reach the 9 regional aquifer on digging a well. That would be some evi-10 dence on that.
11 A I guess -- I 7ss you could -- If you stretch 12 your imagination sufficiently, I guess you could say that 13 that could be a possibility.
14 Q Well, not even stretching your imagination. You 15 said that you don't know a hundred percent what is under-16 neath the ground. You don't know the hydrogeologic struc-17 tures or the hydrogeology of the area one hundred percent.
18 A Right, you never know it a hundred percent.
19 Q And some evidence of what it's like is usually 20 gotten from drilling a well. Isn't that right?
21 A No, I don't think that you drill wells to find 22 out what the formations are. You drill --
23 Q But they can provide you with some evidence about
() 24 it.
! 25 A -- test borings.
L a ,
l 2501 I
() 1 Q Well --
2 A And you do tests on the core samples you take.
3 Q But if the wells are encountering problems, that 4 could be some evidence about the hydrogeology of the area.
5 A I think that there is some evidence that there 6 are perhaps small pockets of material in that regional aqui-7 fer that could possibly have some impact on a well. But 8 those are isolated pockete.
9 If you were going to put in a well, you would pro-10 bably drill a pilot hole and find out exactly what you got 11 there before you drill a well. And based on this, the pro-2 12 bability that that well will be a good one is very reliable.
13 Q, And how long would it take you to drill the test O 14 well, or the test well as you would define it?
l 15 A I would think that you could drill that pilot hole 16 in a matter of days.
17 Q Just to make sure I understand, you can't be a 18 hundred percent sure of the hydrogeology of the area until 19 you drill the well.
20 MR. DEWEY: He has answered that question about--
21 MS. BERNABEI: I won't ask --
22 JUDGE LAZO: I think this is getting repetitious.
23 BY MS. BERNABEI:
() 24 Q Let me ask you -- and I don't know, perhaps it 25 would be Mr. Licitra that could answer. Will the pump and
2502 1 delivery system associated with the assured capability for T'}
2 the spray ponds beyond the 26- to 28-day period have to be
,, 3 safety-grade equipment?
4 MR. DEWEY: Objection. I think we are going be-5 yond. When we get into all this other type of equipment, 6 we are going beyond the scope of what these witnesses are 7 here to testify about and what she should be permissibly a allowed to ask questions on. We could run down every bit 9 of safety grade equipment and make new contentions out of 10 every one of them. This is evidently what Ms. Bernabei is 11 trying to do.
12 MS. BERNABEI: I'm just trying to find out what 13 the requirements are.
() 14 JUDGE LAZO: Well, I think that has been answered.
15 But at any rate, you have inquired into the effect of tornado 16 missiles, and floods, and drougts on the pumps and other 17 equipment. Let the witnesses answer the question.
18 Do the pumps in the safety system have to be 19 safety grade?
i 20 WITNESS LICITRA: The pumps that deliver the water 21 supply from the ultimate heat sink to remove heat from the 22 plants have to be and are safety grade.
23 BY MS. BERNABEI:
() 24 Q How about the pumps for the two wells that would 25 ensure capability beyond 26 to 28 days?
,+
2503 )
() 1 A (WITNESS LICITRA) You said about the ultimate 2 heat sink. The pumps are not part of the ultimate heat sink.
, 3 Q I'm talking about the ensured capability, as 4 defined by Mr. Gonzales.
5 Is the equipment related to that? Which I assume 6 would be the pumps for the wells and the delivery system 7 to the spray ponds, however that is accomplished. Would j 8 those have to be safety-grade equipment?
9 A You are talking about the delivery system from 10 the aquifer to the spray ponds. And the answer is no.
11 Q And how about the delivery system from the pumps 12 to the spray ponds?
13 (No response ~.) .
O 14 Q You were talking about from the aquifer --
15 JUDGE LAZO: I thought he just said that.
16 BY MS. BERNABEI:
17 Q That's the whole thing, okay. None of that has 18 to be safety grade.
19 A (WITNESS LICITRA) None of the makeup source to 20 the spray ponds has to be safety grade. That's correct.
21 Q Did you consider, in determining that under certain l
22 condition the 26- to 28-day supply of water in the spray 23 ponds was sufficient, that Palo Verde is located in a very i,
() 24 arid part of the country?
25 A Are you talking about meteorological conditions?
O l
1
I 2504 O i o re1 kine ebout ceteore1oeice1 conditions.
2 A Yes, that was considered.
3 Q Now, the 26 to 28 days is somewhat below the 30 4 days required or the 30 days suggested or recommended in 5 the Regulatory Guide. Is that right?
6 A It's below 30 days.
7 Q It's below 30 days.
8 Now, wouldn't there be a consideration that because 9 of the adverse meteorological conditions -- and I'm talking 10 about " adverse" in the sense of higher evaporation rates, 11 high temperatures, low humidity -- wouldn't that lead the 12 NRC Staff to conclude that perhaps there should be higher 13 requirements for the spray-ponds in terms of capacity?
14 A No.
15 0 And why is that?
16 A Because it is already considered in evaluating 17 how much water supply you have.
18 Q What I'm asking you is since it is a recommenda-19 tion, wouldn't you consider that perhaps more water were 20 needed because it's an arid area of the country with high 21 temperature, low humidity?
22 A You're talking about two different things.
23 MR. DEWEY: Objection. He just answered your 24 question.
25 JUDGE LAZO: That's correct. He has answered the U)
2505 question.
(]) 1 2 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I didn't believe --
3 JUDGE LAZO: He said it had already been consi-O 4 dered in sizing the spray ponds.
5 MS. BERNABEI: I'm not sure that answers my ques-6 tion. My question was why they didn't require at least 30 7 days or more, because of the arid nature of this area.
8 JUDGE LAZO: Do you want to repeat the answer?
9 WITNESS LICITRA: Well, I think what you're say-10 ing, Ms. Bernabei, is that in a dry climate a 26-day sup-11 ply is more water than in a wet climate. And that has been 12 taken care of.
13 MS. BERNABEI: No --
14 WITNESS LICITRA: There is the more water. And 15 that is what results in a 26- or 27-day supply.
16 BY MS. BERNABEI:
17 Q No, that's not what I'm asking. What I'm asking 18 is the Regulatory Guide recommends a 30-day supply under 19 certain adverse meteorological conditions.
20 A (WITNESS LICITRA) It doesn't say " average."
21 Q " Adverse."
22 A Oh, " adverse."
23 0 Under adverse -- isn't that what it says?
m 24 A yes.
25 Q Okay. Now, what we have is a 26- to 28-day supply
2506 in these spray ponds under adverse meteorological conditions.
{ 1 2 A That's correct.
3 Q Now, because of the nature of the area, the scar-
' C) 4 city of water, the extreme temperatures of this area, wouldn't 5 it make sense that perhaps the NRC would require a greater 6 supply than the 30-day supply, not a lower supply in the 7 spray ponds?
8 A I don't agree with that.
9 Q And why is that, sir?
10 A Because a 26-day supply or a 30-day supply is an 11 approximate number. It's not an exact number.
12 O Therefore, 26 to 28 days is about the 30, is about 13 the same as 34.
() 14 A That is correct.
15 MS. BERNABEI: Okay. I have no other questions.
16 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Gehr, do Applicants have cross-17 examination of these witnesses?
18 MR. GEHR: No cross-examination.
l 19 JUDGE CALLIHAN: I have one question. Is either 20 of you gentlemen aware of when the aquifer that has been 21 alluded to so much this morning was discovered, or first J
12 observed, or evaluated? Or, putting it differently, when 23 were the wells -- are there wells presently drilled into 24 the aquifer?
(])
25 WITNESS GONZALES: I don't know exactly the period O
O
2507 of time that they have been using water from that aquifer.
(]) 1 2 But it has been many, many years.
- 3 JUDGE CALLIHAN: So there are wells operable at 4 this moment that tap that aquifer.
5 WITNESS GONZALES: Absolutely.
6 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you. No further questions.
7 JUDGE LAZO: I just had one queston. There has 8 been some discussion of some problems with wells. And I 9 think counsel for Intervenor mentioned silting, or clay, 10 or something of that sort. Would it make a' difference whe-11 ther or not the well had a casing, or was not cased, as far 12 as that type of problem?
13 WITNESS GONZALES: I think that when you have prob-14' lems with' silting, it means that the small particles which 15 make up the silt clog your filters.. And by doing so, the 16 water cannot flow into the well. And you lose, you may --
17 The capability of being able to draw water from that well 18 may be affected in some way. These wells are cased.
19 JUDGE LAZO: Would a monitoring well be cased?
20 WITNESS GONZALES: I think yes. I think tant all 21 wells -- The wells that would be on site are high-quality 12 wells. I would think that most of these wells are cased.
23 JUDGE LAZO: Very well, thank you.
() 24 Mr. Dewey?
25 MR. DEWEY: I have no questions.
2508 i
(} 1 MS. BERNABEI: I have one question that follows 2 up on yours, Mr. Chairman.
3 FURTHER CROSS EXAMINATION
- /~T V 4 BY MS. BERNABEI:
5 Q You said, Mr. Gonzales, that you believe most of 6 the wells are cased.
7 A (WITNESS GONZALES) I think that most of the wells 8 on site that are going to be used during operation are cased.
9 Q Now, wouldn't that indicate that if there were 10 problems, problems could arise from unexpected hydrogeolo-11 gic conditions and not from problems with the wells them-12 selves.
13 A No, I think that indicates that good engineering
() 14 practice in installing wells is that you case them. That 15 provides you with a good, reliable well that you don't have 16 to worry about.
i 17 Q I understand. But then I'm saying if there are 18 problems that arr encountered with the wells that are cased, 19 isn't it likely that the problems come from the geologic 20 conditions and not from the well itself?
21 A When you design a filter for a well, you take a 12 core sample and you perform tests on the material you take 23 out of the hole. And you design your well filter such that
() 24 you minimize the possibility, if you will, that the small 25 particles of silt or whatever it may be, clay, will not clog (N
G
2509 That is the basis on which you design the I
(]) 1 your filters.
2 well filters.
r- 3 Q I understand. So what I'm saying is that if there t
4 are problems even after those carefu'l designs, wouldn't that 5 indicate to you that you have encountered something unex-6 pected? And it's not'the problem of the well or the cas-7 ing?
8 A I don'.t think -- If you sampled your soil, which 9 is what you would do when you drill the well, you are not 10 going to run into problems. You are going to case that well 11 in an area where you don't have any silt or fine clays.
12 You screen the well. What you do is the well cas-13 ing will be solid. It'll be a solid piece of metal -- or O 14 plastic in some cases. And you screen it in the area, talk-15 ing about vertical levels', where you want to draw your 16 water. And you can be selective in putting the slotted por-17 tion of the casing. You are going to have a slotted por-18 tion of casing, and you put that in the area where you are 19 not going to have those kinds of problems.-
20 Q So wells that are cased w'ill not have these pro--
21 blems, is essentially your answer.
22 (No response.)
23 Q Or should not have these' problems.
/
(_) 24 A Well, that's not an absolute conditions. Wells 25 that are installed correctly, you minimize the possibility
w.-
-2510 '
I of having problems with wells by doing tests,'by testing ,
s +
~
i 2 before you drill the well. -g 4 l s
3 0 But in general, wells that are cased shou,1d nct."
s s .:s m- .
a b
6 r., i 4 have problems with clay.
i ,
,( s
/
, . . ~__
5 A Yes, in general that's true. G .s , ( [, y %
g, -
g-6 Q Okay,-I'm going to give yc,u what.I*gu,ess I've ..,,
4-1 j- 3 7 marked as Intervenor's XLI? XLII? XLI,lI? thins. . -
s %
ss -
, i >
'* ws
',. .., s 8 (Intervenor's' Exhibit XLI was ,
x 6 T-
- 9 '
markedfoh'f.dentifi'caEion.) s. ..- -
g ,
s i
s to 'X s ,
[3 '
T v
, d'
'~ , a
'c '
, ' ~ r. , l h*h ' g 12 s l ..' 1- % , s - a,
' +
s , T ,, i
/ f i g.' .i jh .. $, m '] , D ,4 .'
,' ; Q
\ [ - y'i. '.
. 4- ,
i4 ,
.i ,4 ,
s - r 1, , ( s . - Y5 4-5 ,
) g; lg , l,= -
3,
'. . . + , " 1 ,
* *-d ~.[ \
16 - A. i , D, ,
; ,. 09 .A 17 l ; ,
a
}g _y
't .\ .
/ OA s \. s .s '. . , ._.
19 , Mg f , s s 4 7 L+
%4 f 20 -
A s . . , 7 21
*s f ,
q t s. a y w 4 9, -
,~
g
, , s .-
3 *, s 9 %+ - 1 A} a , , , 24 - - g . c. .; . o -d ,l" s . s - 25 k* s
. g k g f
}
1 2 i s $
,, 4
\. ,\ \^
.'.+ ' ,
.3 2
< . 0[ k, w
t j
,( ~,g;s.
' I;l
) '.. ,.
j i .s , s'( , ' :]) '
-)
s j i 4 61% \
,)
n . 1
'.)- "
'3, Jr . .v (_
*s
'f s
- h -
2511 0 < reuse.) 2 JUDGE CALLIHAN: May the Board see what we are 3 going to be talking about, please? 4l MS. BERNABEI: Sure. It is part of the PSAR. It 5 is specifically the bottom of page 2.4-82T and the top of 6 2.4-82U of the PSAR. 7 (Pause.) 8 BY MS. BERNABEI:
' ' Mr. Gonzales, have you had a chance to read that Q
10 yet? {, II A .(WITNESS GONZALES) Yes. 12 O Okay, this indicates, does it not, that wells, or i 33 at least drilling -- well, it appears that wells with casing
'OV ' '
34 encounter problems with clay. Is that correct? l 15 A What portion are you looking at? 16 I am talking about the bottom of page 2.4-82T and Q I7 And I am talking about Amend-the first paragraphs 2.4-82U. IU ment 19 of the PSAR dated December 8, 1978, for the record. l I' Yes, that is what it says. A
' 20 Okay, now, I believe you said that wells with 0
21 casing usually do not encounter these problems. 22 I thought that we were specifically talking about A 23 the wells that will be used for assuring capability beyond
, 24 20-some days.
25 Well, I am talking about wells in general. Q
'O
l i 2512 1 A We are talking about wells in general? 2 Q Yes. Do you think that that is -- in other words, 3 these are wells at the site, as you understand it, is that O 4 correct? 5 A That is right. 6 Now, as I understand it, these are monitoring Q 7 These are not wells that reach down into the regional wells. 8 aquifer. 9 A That do not reach the -- ? Yes, that is what it 10 appears to me too. 1I Q What I am asking you is if there are problems 12 being encountered with these kind of wells? That is, wells 13 reaching into the perching area, which is I assume what these
~
14 wells are. IS A I think that what it says here is that problems 16 were encountered while they were drilling the wells. These 17 were not production wells. I8 I understand. I understand that, sir. But what - Q I9 I am saying is that there were problems encountered with 20 clay in the drilling of these wells. 21 l MR. DEWEY: I wish you would let the witness I finish his statement. He starts to say something, and you 23 cut him off immediately before he can finish his statement. 24 I move that the witness be allowed to finish his comment. 25 MS. BERNABEI: I am sorry. I did not mean to O
2513 O 1 interrupt him. 2 JUDGE LAZO: Had you completed your answer, sir? 3 WITNESS GONZALES: I think I had. 4 BY MS. BERNABEI: 5 Q Okay, in other words, these are wells -- well, 6 there were problems encountered with wells being drilled on 7 the site according to this Amendment 19 of the PSAR. 8 MR. GEHR: Objection. 9 BY MS. BERNABEI: 10 Q Is that what this indicates? II A (WITNESS GONZALES) May I have the question again, 12 please? 13 0 Yes, the PSAR indicates, does it.not, that there 14 are problems involved with certain wells being drilled at 15 the Palo Verde site. 16 MR. GEHR: Objection. 17 JUDGE LAZO: Does this document talk about wells 18 that are being drilled at the site? 19 That have been drilled. MS. BERNABEI: 20 JUDGE LAZO: All right. l 21 MR. GEHR: The language in the document says 22 that the problems resulted during drilling. 23 Well, I think it goes on. I think MS. BERNABEI: O 24 it encomgesses more then ehee. Ie in rece my euestion is 25 wrong, I think Mr. Gonzales could tell me. O
2514 O ' 8' as asan^8sr= 2 Q This talks about certain problems encountered in 3 drilling wells at the site, is that correct? 4 A That is correct. (WITNESS GONZALES) 5 Q The problem as outlined in the paragraph I have 6 just pointed out to you in Intervenor's XLI is a problem 7 with clogging by clay, is that correct? 8 A Intervenors XLI, you say? 9 Q This document that you have before you, sir. 10 A This document says that there were problems en-II countered during drilling of wells. 12 O And we are talking about wells with casing in
'3 this instance, are we not?
' O I4 A Yes,'that is what it indicates here. 15 Q And your prior answer was, I believe, that in most 16 cases wells with casing do not encounter these kind of pro-17 blems. II A I think that what I was saying is -- what I said 19 is that filters which surround the casing are designed based 20 on what is discovered during these bore-hole evaluations, 21 and the filters are designed to prevent clogging of the > 22 slotted portion of the casing. These wells did not have 23 any filters. O 24 Q okey, sir, in other words,ehe grob1 ems emcountered 25 here you would not expect to find with wells with filters? O
2515 () 1 A That is correct. 2 Q These wells apparently, because they are encom-3 passed in the December 8, 1978 Amendment, were probably O 4 completed around that time, is that correct? 5 A What time is that? 6 Q I am talking about the date on the amendment, 7 December 8, 1978. 8 A I would think that they were drilled sometime 4 9 before December 8, 1978. 10 A (WITNESS LICITRA) Ms. Bernabei, if you look at it the sentence you are referring to, on page 2.4-82, going 12 on to page U, you will note that there is a bar on the sen-13 t ence saying it was Amendment 8. 14 Q That is correct. 15 A Which I suspect was filed much prior to December 16 '78, the date shown here. December of '78 represents the 17 latest amendment change, which was probably 17. 18 Q The bar, I assumed, indicates the new material. 19 Does it not? 20 A No. 21 Q You think the bar indicates the old material? 22 A On, 19. Nineteen appears to be the latest amend-23 ment, and that is the date of the page. () 24 Q Right. 25 A The date of the latest amendment. O V
2516
/7 I Right, but the bar on the side, I assumed -- oh, V Q 2 I see what you mean. That is probably the eighth amendment 3 is what you are talking about?
4 A That was changed or provided in Amendment 8. 5 Maybe it was just modified slightly. 6 But it is -- I understand what you are saying, Q 7 b ut in fact, it is still good as of 1978. In other words, 8 it has not been changed? 9 A As of that date, it was still good. 10 Okay. 0 II Let me ask you this, then, Mr. Gonzales. The 12 problems you are saying encountered here are problems for 13 test wells or best borings?
- O I4 A (WITNESS GONZALES) In reading this para' graph, 15 that is what it appears to me to mean.
16 0 These problems, therefore, should not be encoun-I7 tered with wells that are built based on these test wells? 18 The wells that are going to be used -- the two A I9 wells or the three wells that we are talking about were not 20 drilled by the Applicant. Those were existing wells that 21 have been refurbished by the Applicant. They have been i 22 reliable, I would assume, ever since those wells were 23 drilled for obtaining irrigation water. ! O 24 Q But Mr. Van Brunt's letter also speaks about wells l 25 that might be drilled in the future, is that not right? O
2517 O i A vee. ne -- essumine both of the we11s, or 11 2 three wells were to be rendered inoperable, they are propos-3 ing to drill another well. 4 Right, and what I am trying to get at is the Q 5 reliability of that proposal. And one of the things I am 6 asking you is at least in some test wells they have en-7 countered problems with clay. 8 A They have encountered problems in the perch water 9 table is what this appears to me to be saying. 10 Q Let me ask you this: if they are encountering ] Il problems with wells, whether it is the perch water table 12 or wells to go to the regional aquifer at the present time, 13 would that indicate to you that there may be a problem in O 14 their knowledge about the hydrogeology of'the area? 15 A It would indicate to me that whoever drilled the 16 well did not have sufficient information on wb.ch to design 17 the well itself, the filter, the -- trying to determine where 18 they put the slotted portion of the casing, that sort of I' thing. I do not think it would have any bearing on the 20 wells that are already on the site. 21 Q It could, though, could it not? Not the wells 22 It could already on the site, but drilling a new well. 23 indicate a lack of knowledge about the hydrogeology of the 24 area. 25 A I think that if they are going to drill a new O
2518 O i we11, they ere soins to dr111 it feir1r c1ose to the other 2 one. I think that in that situation they have a fairly good 3 knowledge of what actually is there. I do not think they 4 go ahead and blindly drill a well in some other area. There 5 would be no reason to do that. 6 Q How about after an earthquake? 7 A I do not see -- the plant is not built on a 8 fault. I do not see -- you might have some ground shaking 9 perhaps, but I do not think you -- nothing would happen due 10 to an earthquake to affect the location where you drill this 31 well. 12 0 In other words, the witness -- I believe you 13 testified before it might affect the hydrogeology of the I4 area. 15 A It might affect it in the sense that perhaps 16 that could be some shaking of the sedimentary unit perhaps. 17 Not a dislocation or a shifting? Could that not Q i 18 occur? I9 A The plant is not built on a fault. I do not 20 think there would be any shifting of the -- no, I do not. 21 Q Okay, thank you. 22 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Mr. Gonzales, referring to 23 Intervenor's Exhibit XLI which has just been under discus-24 sion, is there anything in that document that says to you 25 that wells -- operating wells at the site have had any l0 l l l t I
2519 () I problems? 2 WITNESS GONZALES: I do not think this exhibit 3 talks at all about operating wells. These were the wells O 4 that were dug during the preconstruction investigation. 5 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you. 6 JUDGE LAZO: Any more questions? 7 (No response.) - 8 JUDGE LAZO: Very well. Mr. Licitra, we are 9 going to excuse you at this moment. 10 (Whereupon, Witness Lucitra was excused.) II JUDGE LAZO: Why do we not take our morning recess , 12 15 minutes, please. I3 (Brief recess.) O I JUDGE LAZO: Will'theh}earingcometoorder,, 15 Please? 16 Mr. Dewey, are you ready to proceed?
' MR. DEWEY: Yes, sir.
18 Mr. Gonzales now will present his prepared 19 testimony. 20 DIRECT EXAMINATION j BY MR. DEWEY: 22 Q Mr. Gonzales, do you have before you a document which is entitled, " Testimony of Raymond O. Gonzales on
, Contention 5," dated March 15, 1982?
25 A Yes, I do. (
2520 O o 18 this aocument two e ses in 1easta? 2 A Yes. 3 p Q Is there also attached thereto a copy of your V 4 professional qualifications consisting of two pages? 5 A Yes, there is. 6 At this time, do you have any changes to your Q 7 testimony? 8 A Yes, I do have some changes. 9 The first of these is on page five. First of 10 all, I think I owe Mr. Steytler the courtesy of spelling II his name correctly. On the eighth line from the bottom, the 12 first word is Robert. The second word is Steytler. There 13 should be a "t" between the "y" and the "1." Os I4 Two lines down from there, which is the. sixth 15 line from the bottom, the line reads, " Contention Number 5," 16 and "these flow" -- that " flow" should be plural. It should 17 be " flows." 18 The next clarification is on page eight. On the 19 eleventh line from the top, which is the third line of the 20 answer, the first complete answer on that page, the line 21 begins with " Average of about 18.9 million gallons per day 22 per unit." I would like to change 18.9 to 56.8, and I would 23 And I like to put the number 3 between "per" and " unit." would like to change " unit" to " units." So the line reads, 25
" Average of about 56.8 mgd per three units."
O
2521 O coiae aowa tro- enere rive 11ae , ene 11ae des 1== 2 with the word "will." "Will be about 0.3 mgd." That "3" 3 should be a "4." So the line reads, "Will be above 0.4 mgd." 4 On the next line I want to change 18.9 to 56.8. 5 So the line reads, "to the water requirement of 56.8 mgd." 6 On the next line, " requirement of about 19.1 mgd" 7 should be changed to " requirement of about 57.2 mgd." And 8 I want to put a period after "mgd" and delete the rest of 9 that line, which is "per unit," period. "For three units," 10 comma, "the requirement." Delete that. And on the next II line, delete "is 57.2 mgd (3 X 19.1 mgd)." So the line 12 reads, or going to the beginning of that sentence, it reads, I3 " Adding this amount to the water requirement of 56.8 mgd O I4 results an in average effluent requirement of about 57.2 mgd. l 15 And the next sentence is "EROL" and continue. 16 Those are the only changes that I desire to make I7 on my testimony. I8 All right, Mr. Gonzales. With these changes that Q I9 you have indicated, do you attest to the accuracy of your testimony and all other statements contained therein are true 21 and correct to the best of your belief? A Yes, I do. MR. DEWEY: Your Honor, I move that the testimony O 24 of Mr. Raymond Gonzales be accepted into evidence as if read 25 into the record. O
2522 () 1 JUDGE LAZO: Are you proposing that it be inserted 2 directly into the transcript as if read -- 3 MR. DEWEY: Yes, I have given the reporter the 4 required number of copies. 5 JUDGE LAZO: Are there any objections? 6 MR. GEHR: No objection. 7 MS. BERNABEI: No objection. 8 JUDGE LAZO: Very well, the testimony of Raymond 9 L. Gonzales on Contention No. 5, together with the attached 10 two-page qualifications as corrected may be inserted directly II into the transcript and incorporated in the transcript. 12 (The documents referred to, testimony of Raymond 13 O. Gonzales on Contention No. 5, together with attached two-O 34' page qualifications, follow:) 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 ' ( 24 25 O I
. 03/15/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA O NUCLEAR REGULATORY COPfi!SSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE . Docket Nos. STN 50-528 COMPANY,--ET AL. . STN 50-529 STN 50-530 (Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2 ar,d 3)
TESTIMONY OF RAYMOND 0. GONZALES ON CONTENTION 5 Q. Please state your name and position with the NRC. A. My name is Raymond O. Gonzales and I am employed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Conunission as a Hydraulic Engineer in the Division of Engineering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. A copy of my statenent of professional qualifications is attached hereto. Q. What is the purpose of your testimony? A. The purpose of this testimony is to respond to Contention 5 which states: Applicants will not have an assured supply of useable treated municipal effluent for cooling purposes for Unit 3 of the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station (PVNGS) during months of peak reactor need for the first five years of operation. Q. Upon what does the Intervenor base this contention? A. In explaining this contention, the Intervenor refers to a 1979 report by the Corps of Engineers (C0E) which is included as Appendix C to O the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) Final Environnental Impact O
i i l Statenent for the Maricopa Association of Governments Point Source Metro O Phoenix 208 Wastewater Management Plan (July 1979). In its report, the COE concluded that if the PVNGS used a maximum amount of cooling water, there would be an insufficient amount of water for Unit 3 in 1986. In reaching this conclusion, the COE assumed that the amount of effluent which the PVNGS will use for cooling water during the peak water-use summer month when atmospheric conditions result in the highest evaporation rates, will also be the monthly amount the station will use during the rest of the year when atmospheric conditions aren't as severe. Q. When will the greatest amount of effluent be necessary for PVNGS? A. The PVNGS will probably use the most amount of cooling water during the summer months when evaporation rates are highest. Historically June is the month when atmospheric conditions result in the highest evaporation rates (ER-OL Section 3.4-1). The monthly demand for effluent for the PVNGS will be dependent on the average capacity factor at which the three units operate in any month and the atmosphere conditions; however, assuming that the PVNGS is operated at a constant capacity factor during the entire year, it is expected that June will be l the month of peak reactor needs. A constant capacity of 95 percent was assumed for the purpose of determining the adequacy of effluent l availability. Q. From where will cooling water for PVNGS be obtained? A. The prinary source of cooling water for the PVNGS is waste water effluent from the City of Phoenix 91st Avenue Sewage Treatment Plant and from the city of Tolleson Sewage Treatment Plant. Effluent will be O
O tr'"'a"ed a'a'" "' ' '" "' "r c" " ""*- ""' then be treated and stored in a 750 million gallon storage reservoir. - The contract with the City of Phoenix for the sale of effluent for O use at the PVNGS provides that up to 140,000 acre-feet / year (AF/yr) of optioned effluent may be used at the PVNGS. If the amount of effluent available at the 91st Avenue plant is insufficient to meet the requirenents of the contract, effluent from the City of Phoenix 23rd Avenue Sewage Treatment plant is to be made available for use at PVNGS. Thus the 91st Avenue plant is the primary source of water and the 23rd Avenue plant is a secondary source. At the present time, however, there is no means by which effluent from the 23rd Avenue plant can be transported to the PVNGS. The effluent contract is subject to the availability of such amounts after satisfaction of prior commitments. O v The agreement between Arizona Power Company, the Salt River Project and Tolleson for the delivery and purchase of up to 8.3 nillion gallons per day of treated effluent to the Palo Verde pipeline for use by the PVNGS was entered into on June 22, 1981. An intake structure is currently under construction for use in inputting the Tollesou effluent into the pipeline. Q. What studies have been made regarding effluent availability from the 91st Avenue plant? A. Projections of sewage effluent production from the 91st Avenue plant were made in 1979 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the Maricopa Association O of Governments (" Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) on the MaricopaAssociationofGovernments(MAG)PointSourceMetroPhoenix208 O l
4 Wastewater Management Plan," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1979 " MAG 208 FEIS"). The pro.iections of this effluent flow in million , gallons per day (mgd) are: O 1980 1983 1985 1986 1990 1995 2000 91st Avenue 84.5 98.0 102.9 105.0 113.7 124.3 137 It should be pointed out that the 1986 flow at 105.0 mgd was obtained by linear interpolation between the 1985 and 1990 values. In addition to the 1979 MAG Study, the City of Phoenix in 1979 also made its own independent projections of 91st Avenue effluent flows. These projections, are slightly higher than the MAG projections (ER-OL Section 5.6.1.1.2). They are (in mgd): 1980 1983 1985 1986 1990 1995 2000 91st Avenue 89.5 103.6 113.0 117.8 136.7 160.3 183.8 O These projections are set out in a letter from Robert B. Steytler, Assistant Director, City of Phoenix Wastewater Operations, to Mr. Terry Hudgins, Arizona Public Service Company, September 20, 1979. The 1986 amount is also a linear interpolation between 1985 and 1990 values. Q. Is there reason to believe that the 1979 MAG Study projections may be too low? A. The 1979 MAG projections were prepared on the basis of the l Arizona Department of Economic Security (ADES) population projections ! made in 1977, population allocations made by MAG, wastewater unit flows developed in the MAG 208 Water Quality Management Program (MAG 208 Program) and waste flow reduction projections also developed in the MAG 208 program. More recent population projections (July 1978) made by O i
.s-the ADES, showed a slightly larger population for the year 2000 and an earlier staging of population growth. Since these 1978 population :
projections indicated a higher population than what was expected when the O t1AG sewage effluent projections were made in 1979, it was reasonable to assume that there would probably also be a correspondingly higher amount of sewage effluent available than what was projected by MAG. This possi-bility was supported by the fact that in 1980, the actual flow from the 91st Avenue plant was actually 88.5 mgd in contrast to the 84.5 mgd projected by MAG for 1980. (PVNGS Units 1, 2 and 3 Environmental Report -
, Operating Licensing State (ER-OL), Section 5.6.1.1.2.2).
Q. Have the MAG and Phoenix Studies been updated? A. In September 1981, both liAG and Phoenix revised their 1979 sewage effluent projections. These are contained in the following studies: " MAG 208 Point Source Plan Revision, Eastside Area Analysis, Local vs. Regional", September 1981, James Fulton-Consultant, John Carrolo Engineers; Dibble and j Associates; " Flow Projection Comparison, MAG 208 Study vs. Phoenix Waste-water Division Projection in MGD," August 26, 1981, prepared by Robert Steyler. These latest nrojections show more sewage effluent available than what was projected in the COE-EPA Study referred to in Contention No. 5. These flow are (in mgd): 1985 1986 1990 1995 2000 MAG 103.6 106.7 119.0 133.4 151.5 Phoenix 128.1 134.2 158.8 189.1 221.2 The 1986 flows were obtained by linear interpolation between the 1985 and 1990 values. As these revised estimates show, it is now expected that j O i i l
. the 91st Avenue plant will produce between 106.7 mgd and 134.2 mgd.
These amounts exceed the present plant capacity of 90 mgd. However, the 91st Avenue plant is currently being expanded. This expansion, which is expected to be completed by 1983 (City of Phoenix), will give the 91st Q Avenue plant a total capacity of 120 mgd. Q. Based upon these new estimates, what will be the total amount of effluent available from the 91st Avenue plant to PVNGS in June 1936? A. In determining whether there will be an adequate supply of effluent for the PVNGS in 1986, it is more conservative to use the MAG projection which is the lower of the two 1981 updated projected values i.e., 106.7 mgd. This amount is a monthly average. In order to determine whether there will be a sufficient amount of effluent in June 1986, this average amount has to be adjusted to account for the fact that monthly effluent production at the 91st Avenue plant is not constant throughout the year. A monthly breakdown of 106.7 mgd is not available; however, there is a monthly breakdown for the 1979 MAG projected flow of 105 mgd. This breakdown is contained in Exhibit C (prepared by Greeley and Hansen) of a study entitled, " Effluent Flow Projections By Greeley and Hansen (January 1980) of the City of Phoenix 23rd and 91st Avenue Waste-water Treatment Plants Draft Residuals Management Facility Plan, Volume 5 - Phase C, Effluent Discharge Assessment" by Arthur Beard Engineers and Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc. (August 1980) ("The Greeley and Hansen Report") which shows that projected effluent production for 1986 at the 91st Avenue Plant (inmgd)is: O O
. 7-Monthly Average O Jaa Feb
*.6 99.8 -
Mar 101.9 Apr 101.9 O May Jun 102.9 102.9 l Jul 106.1 Aug . 108.2 Sept - 115.5 Oct 112.4 Nov 107.1 Dec 105.0 TOTAL = 1260.3 Average = 1260.3/12 = 105.0 mgd As this breakdown shows, it is estimated that in June 1986, the 91st Avenue plant will produce about 102.9 mgd of effluent or about 98 percent of the average monthly effluent production of 105 mgd. Using this percentage and the more current projections of effluent for 1986, the amount of effluent which will be available in June 1986 ranges from a O h4gh of 131.5 mgd (98x of 134.2) to a iow of 104.6 mgd (98: of 106.7). Not all of this effluent, however, will be available for use by the PVNGS. There are other contracted users of sewage effluent who have prior commitments. These are: BuckeyeIrrigationDistrict(BID) 28.8 mgd l Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD) 6.5 mgd TOTAL 33.3 mgd In addition, the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory (WCL) has a prior commitment of 1.1 mgd. However, this has not been used since 1978 when the Lab's research facilities were washed out by flood waters. O O
Assuming that the WCL does not use its commitment in the future, there will be between 71.3 mgd (104.6 mgd - 33.3 mgd) and 98.2 mgd, . (131.5 mgd - 33.3 mgd) available for use by the PVNGS in June 1986. O However, since the 91st Avenue plant has a capacity of only 120 mgd the available effluent will more realistically be between 71.3 mgd and 86.7 mgd (120 mgd - 33.3 mgd). Q. How much cooling water will be required by the PVNGS units in June 1986? A. It is estincted that the PVNGS condenser cooling water system, which will use effluent from the 91st Avenge plant, wil require an 54,8 /myd jota 3 average of about M (ER-OL, Table 3.3-1). However, to determine the total amount of water required, an allowance must be made to account for water lost in transporting effluent by pipeline, for water losses at the reclamation plant, and for losses due to seepage and Q evaporation at thy storage reservoir. It is estimated that these losses 0.V will be about W mgd (ER-OL,T .5 8 sections 3.3 and 5.6). . Adding this amount to the water requirement of W mgd results in an average effluent SP. A requirement of about M mgd
. (ER-OL sections 3.3 and 5.6, - Note that in Figure 3.3-1 of the ER-OL sheet 2 of 4, the required effluent amount is
! 39,700 gallons per minute. To convert gpm to mgd, divide by 694; i.e., 39,700 + 694 = 57.2). Plant demand, however, is not constant. In the sunmer months the requirement will be greater than 57.2 mgd while in the winter, it will be less. As previously discussed, the PVNGS will require a O mex4=u= e=ouat or coo'4a9 weter ia auae. 8 sed uPoa the cree 1er ead "easea l report, the PVNGS monthly cooling water requirement for 1986 (in mgd) is: O
9_ January 26.2 O February March 25.6 39.0 -
~
April 40.2 ! May 66.3 Q June July 70.2 69.3 August 69.3 September . 65.1 October - 63.0 November 40.8 December 53.7 Thus, the projected peak cooling water requirement for June 1986 for PVNGS is 70.2 mgd. Q. What are your conclusions with respect to the cooling water requirements for PVNGS? A. As I have stated, the projected cooling water requirement of the PVNGS in June 1986 is 70.2 mari. This is the month of greatest need in the year when the availability of sufficient cooling water in the first five years of operation is open to the greatest question. As I have stated, if the Phoenix effluent projections are accurate, there will be
' about 86.7 mgd available for use by the PVNGS in June 1986. This amount is considerably more than the 70.2 mgd required for operation of all three units of the PVNGS. If the MAG projections are accurate, there will be about 71.3 mgd available for use by the PVNGS. This is also more than the required 70.2 mgd.
Based on this, it is my opinion that there will be sufficient usable treated municipal effluent from the 91st Avenue Plant, for operation of Units 1, 2 and 3 of PVNGS during months of peak reactor need for the first five years of operation. O
In making this evaluation, I considered only the effluent to be available from the 91st Avenue clar.t. In addition to the 91st Avenue , plant, there will also be additional effluent, up to 8.3 mgd available from the city of Tolleson and up to 750 million gallons of treated water stored in the onsite water supply reservoir, which will make even more cooling water available. - , O I O O
. Raymond 0. Gonzales Hydrologic Engineering Section '
Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Branch Division of Engineering Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Professional Qualifications .. . O I am a Hydraulic Engineer in the Hydrologic and Geotechnical Engineering Brani:h / of the Division of Engiheering, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. j 0 , I received my formai educationai trainin9 at New Mexico state university wher. - I received a B.S.C.E in 1965. I also attended an eleven month training program-sponsored by the Board of Engineers for Rivers and Harbors of the Corps of Engineers in Washington, D.C. My experience prior to joining NRC, consists of seven years as a Hydraulic Engineer (hydrology), three years as a Water Resources Planner, and one year as a Construction Engineer, all with the Corps of Engineers in Albuquerque, New Mexico; San Francisco, California and Washington, D.C. I joined the NRC in February 1978 as a Hydraulic Engineer. In this capacity, I review and interpret the hydrologic and hydraulic aspects of applications for nuclear facility construction permits and operating licenses. These facilities include nuclear reactors, uranium mills, fuel fabrication plants and low level waste repositories. More specifically, I review the adequacy of flood protection designs of plants; detennine the adequacy of safety related water supplies, and evaluate the dispersion and dilution characteristics of surface and groundwater supplies; and aid in coordinating and developing bases for criteria and standards concerning the safety and environmental characteristics of nuclear, facilities related to hydro'ogic engineering. From 1975 to 1978, I was a W'ater Resources Planner with the Corps of Engineers in Albuquerque, New Mexico. I was' responsible for managing planning studies O for flood control, irrigation, hydropower, water supply, fish and wildlife and recreation. In addition. I was responsible for coordinating study input from various planning disciplines including econcmists, hydrologists, designers and environmentalists, and for preparing cost estimates for planning programs. From 1974 to 1975. I attended an eleven month training program with the Board of Rivers and Harbors in Washington, D.C. This training was for the purpose of obtaining specialized knowledge of planning principles and techniques necessary for conducting studies of water and related land resource utilization. Classroom work included courses in economics, hydrology, ecology and environmental awareness. From 1973 to 1974. I was a resident construction engineer responsible for several Corps of Engineers w'ater resources construction projects in New Mexico, Kansas - and Texas. g- e 3' O - O _ . .. l l
i..
~ ~
Raymond O. Gonzales . (]) From 1966 to 1973, I was a Kydraulic Engineer with the Corps of Engineers in . Albuquerque, New Mexico and San Frahcisco, California. During the early part - of this period, (1966 to 1970) I assisted in hydrologic engineering studies of Corps of E6gineers projects in New Mexico, Colorado, Kansas. Texas and Northern l c ' " ' '" ' ' ' O data for use in '" 'planning
' ' " " dand
' d 'design " ' ' ",estima'
' ' "d " ting
" '" long-term
" ' h' d '*' water
*S ' " availability
' "d "* , '
- determining hypothetical flood events for use in sizing structures such as dams. -
channels, and levee systems, and preparing portions of Hydrologic Engineering reports. In the last part of the pe,riod (1971 to 1973) I was Head of a Hydrology Section. In this capacity. I was responsible for planning, scheduling and assigning studies of water resources projects to engineers and technicians in the Section. g e 8 e () . eo e
2523 A (_j l MS. BERNABEI: May I just ask a point of procedure? 2 This has sort of been handled differently for 3 different witnesses. Is pretrial testimony always included 4 in the transcript? 5 JUDGE LAZO: It is a desirable way to do it, be-6 cause then it is directly in front of the cross examination 7 rather than in a big bag of exhibits. However, it generally 8 requires 15 or 20 copies, depending on how many transcripts 9 are being prepared, and many times, the parties will only 10 have two or three sufficient to make it an exhibit, but not II enough to put into the transcript. 12 MS. BERNABEI: I see. But there is no set pro-I3 cedure. Everyone that needs it will have it? 7s ' O I4 JUDGE LAZO: There really is no set procedure. 15 As we said, it is preferable, I think, to have it in the 16 transcript'. Then it is right there on the same day. 17 MS. BERNABEI: I understand. I8 MR. DEWEY: I have several questions I would like i 19 to ask Mr. Gonzales at this time. 20 BY MR. DEWEY: 21 Q Mr. Gonzales, in your testimony which was filed on 22 March 15, 1982 in this proceeding, you listed the 1981 MAG 23 study as being the most recent MAG estimates with respect () 24 to effluent availability from the 91st Avenue Plant. Since 25 the time your testimony was filed, has there been any more C) s-1 l
2524 O I recent a^o undete2 4 2 A Yes, there has. In 1972, the MAG updated its 3 208 Report, and that Report has revised effluent projections. 4 MR. GEHR: Did you say '72? 5 THE WITNESS: I am sorry. I may have said 1972. 6 I meoa 1982. 7 In 1982 MAG revised its 208 Report. 8 BY MR. DEWEY: l ' Does this update adversely affect your conclusions Q 10 with respect to whether there will be a sufficient effluent II available for Palo Verde? 12 A It does not adversely affect my conclusions. The I3 new population - .I'm sorry -- effluent projections indicate 4
] I4
~
that there will be a slightly greater amount of effluent 15 produced by the 91st Avenue Plant. 16 MR. DEWEY: At this time, the Staff presents 17 Mr. Gonzales for cross examination. I8 JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Bernabei? 19 CROSS EXAMINATION 20 BY MS. BERNABEI: l l 21 Mr. Gonzales, in reaching your conclusion that Q 22 there is an assured supply of water for Palo Verde, did you 23 consider the contract for effluent Agreement No. 13904? l i ! ) A I considered that the contract was a valid one. 25 Q Did you read the contract? O V l
2525 1 A No, I have not read the contract. (]) 2 Q Did you know that Section 21 provides that the 3 cities can draw back water in times of -- refuse to deliver O 4 water to Palo Verde in times of critical need? 5 A I became aware of that provision since I have 6 been here in these proceedings. 7 But you reached the conclusions as outlined in
, Q 8 your pretrial testimony prior to reading the contract, is 9 that correct?
10 A Yes, I assumed that that contract was a valid 11 document. 12 Q And that was prior to having read Section 21 of 13 the contract? O \/ 14 A Yes, that is correct. 15 Q Did you prior to reaching the conclusions in your 16 pretrial testimony ever talk to either Mr. Bill S'tevens or 17 Mr. Robed:McCain of the Arizona Municipal Water Users 18 Association? 19 A No, I did not. 20 Did you speak to any representative of the cities Q 21 that are signatories to the contract? 22 A I did not. 23 Do you know, as you sit here today, that Mr. Bill 0 () 24 Stevens in his limited appearance statement and Mr. Bob 25 McCain have said that the cities may and would pull back O
.s 2.526 x
I water -- refuse to deliver water -- 2 MR. DEWEY: I object. 3 MS. BERNABEI: If I could finish my sentench.,- 4 Mr. Dewey. 5 BY MS. BERNABEI: ' 6 Do you know, as you sit here now, that \ both Q 7 ' Mr. Bill Stevens and Robert McCain have said that the ,c.ities' , 8 willrefusetodeliverwatertoPaloVehdeif'thereisa , 9 critical need for water in the cities. Did you know that? 10 MR. DEWEY: I object. i II JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Dewey? , 12 MR. DEWEY: Yes, sir. I do notibelievelany I3 statements by Mr. Stevens are in evidence. I doin$t think - O s 14 it is appropriate to ask Mr.'Gonzales and putfit ,cnto the 15 record about what Mr. Stevens's statements are. It'is ; ire-- ; 16 trial statement was not allowed in evidence. sSo I thi~nk I7 that should be stricken. Ms. Bernabei!s reference to ! 3 g Mr. Stevens's statement. I' JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Bernabei's reference? 20 . MR. DEWEY: Her reference to Mr. Stevens. , 21 \ JUDGE LAZO: Yes.s , 22 I have the same objection to the ques-MR. GEHR: tion. It should be impermissible to go through~the back door 24 and try to introduce statements made on a limited appea'rance 25 which are unsworn and get them into the record ~in that' manner .
/ l . .
g_
.y
2527 Q I JUDGE LAZO: We agree with Counsel for Staff 2 that the reference to Mr. Stevens's statement is not part 3 of the background information which Mr. Gonzales would have 4 including'anything he learned while he was in this hearing 5 room upon which he would base an opinion. 6 MS. BERNABEI: But he may answer the question with 7 regard to Mr. McCain, I assumej 8 JUDGE LAZO: Yes, if he was present and heard 9 Mr. McCain, that would be part of the background material 10 upon which he would use to form an opinion. II BY MS. BERNABEI: 12 Q Can you answer the question, Mr. Gonzales? 13 A I was here yesterday when Mr. McCain testified. O 14 I do not recall the exact words he used in, describing or 15 defining whether or when or what conditions would be con-16 sidered in invoking Section 21. I did hear him make 37 reference to Section 21, 4 i 18 0 Did you -- in other words -- did you hear him ! I' say that he did not believe there was an assured supply of 20 water for Palo Verde? 21 I object, Your Honor. Mr. Gonzales MR. DEWEY: l 22 has testified that his testimony is based upon the contract i 23 It is not necessary for him to now be asked being valid. 24 questions about what other witnesses in this proceeding
' Staff will stipulate that Mr. Gonzales's i
might have said. O
2528 O ' ee eimoav 1e de ea eote1r oa ese reto verae ooaereoe deias 2 a valid contract and for the amount of effluent that is 3 scheduled to be furnished. d so it is not necessary that this witness go 5 through the list of everybody who has testified in this pro-6 ceeding and being asked whether he considered their state-7 ment or things of this nature. We will stipulate. 8 JUDGE IAZO: No, we are not going to permit that. 9 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I am trying to find out if 10 in fact he has before him certain information that other II witnesses have testified, whether or not that will change 12 his opinion. I believe I am entitled to ask him those 13 questions. O. 14 JUDGE IAZO: Yes, I understand what it is you are 15 trying to do, and I think that is a perfectly valid question. 16 I think it can be done in one question. 17 Mr. Gonzales prepared this testimony in March. I8 He has stated here today that he still sponsors it. It has ' 19 not changed. But I think you are entitled to ask him if he 20 has heard anything during this proceeding which would make 21 him change his mind. 22 MS. BERNABEI: Well, the reason I would like to 23 go through it perhaps somewhat specifically is he may have 24 heard some things. He was not here for all of the proceed-25 ings. He was here for the first week. O p - - - - - , - - - , - - - - - e , -. , n.- .- , -
i
; 2529 O 3 coos t^zo: Taet 1 war there te ao =eea to so 2 through the seriatim. You can ask him whether he has heard 4
3 anything during the time he was here that would lead him 4 to change his opinion. l 5 MR. DEWEY: Even that would be an unreliable 6 basis because Mr. Gonzales has only been here for a few days. 7 JUDGE LAZO: Well, if he has heard anything to 8 cause him to modify his opinion, then he should say so, e.nd 9 then he could explain what it was. 10 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I would like to do it the II other way, because I think that really -- and that should be 12 allowed. That is within the scope of cross. 13 I will do it the way Chairman recommends, noting O 14 my objection for the record. 15 JUDGE LAZO: Your objection has been noted. 16 BY MS. BERNABEI: 17 Mr. Gonzales, have you been here for -- you have Q 38 been here for, I believe, just yesterday for part of this I'
- hearing, is that correct?
20 I was here during the first week of this hearing A 21 and yesterday, that is correct. l 22 You listened, I suppose, to the testimony of the O 23 witnesses that testified during those days, is that correct? l 24 Yes, I did. A Q Did any testimony that you heard make you change O l l
2530 O ' your oeinion tn t there is an assured suv91 7 of weeer for 2 Palo Verde? 3 A I am a technician, if you will, and in that 4 capacity, I have no basis for assuming that a contract is 5 invalid. I have to base my decision, my opinion, on whatever 6 information is provided to me, and in doing so, I have to 7 assume that that contract is valid. 8 The other end of the spectrum would be to assume 9 that it is not, and then in that situation, I guess, the 10 conclusion would be that perhaps there will not be any water II at all. I can only go to one extreme or the other. Either 12 there is the water or there is not. I cannot -- I have no 33 basis for' assuming that a certain portion'of that water O 14 could be used for other purposes. 15 So essentially what you are talking about in your 0 16 testimony is not whether there is an assured supply of water 17 for Palo Verde but whether there is a physical supply of I8 effluent discharge from tl.a 91st Avenue Treatment Plant? 19 I think what I am saying in my testimony is that A 20 if that contract is valid, it is my opinion that there will 21 be sufficient effluent available to operate all three units. 22 And am I correct -- have you read Section 21 of Q that contract, assuming the contract is valid? A No, I have not read Section 21. Q And therefore, you know nothing about Section 217 O
2531 1 A That -- no, that is not true. I know a little 2 something about Section 21 because I have been sitting in 3 on these hearings yesterday and the first week, and it O 4 was mentioned also. 5 0 And what do you understand about Section 217 6 A I understand Section 21 is -- 7 MR. GEHR: Objection. 8 JUDGE LAZO: I do not believe this calls for a 9 legal conclusion, Mr. Gehr. He saidhe heard Section 21 dis-10 cussed. Why do we not let him say what he understands it Il to mean? 12 MR. GEHR: Well, that is the peculiar thing about 13 it. I am not sure that Section 21 was discussed by a witness. 14 yesterday. 15 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. McCain certainly discussed it. 16 MR. GEHR: Yesterday? 17 MS. BERNABEI: He was here during the first week I8 of hearings as well, and I believe it was discussed ex-19 tensively the first week of hearings. 20 MR. GEHR: Well, I do not know what " extensively" 21 means. It was discussed on that day, yes. 22 But the statement that she referred to earlier 23 as having been made yesterday, that Mr. McCain gave an opinion O 24 thet there wee no eesured sugg1r beceuse of 21, wee done the 25 day before yesterday. O
.__av 2532 O as 88anA88 : raere wee e etetemeat re terder.
2 I asked him specifically in considering all the MAG figures, 3 do you, Mr. McCain, still consider that there is no assured 4 supply of water for Palo Verde, and he said, "Yes, that is 5 still my opinion." 6
; JUDGE LAZO: But he did not mention Section 21.
7 MS. BERNABEI: No, but 1 believe this witness -- 8 you can ask Mr. Gonzales. 'I think he was here the first week 9 of hearings, and I would be surprised if it was not discussed 10 the first week of hearings. I would be very surprised. II In fact, I think Mr. Hulse's testimony had a lot 12 to do with 21 of the contract. It was on Wednesday of that 13 week. O 14 MR. DEWEY: The point is, whatever his conclusions
'15 were, were going to be based only on a small portion of the I'
r.ecord without this witness having total perspective. This I7 witness has not attempted at all to verse himself on any of I8 the claims made by different parties. This witness's only I' purpose was to do what he just stated, and that is to prepare 20 testimony assuming that the amount of effluent available 21 from the contract would be made available. That was his 22 only purpose. I do not think that his opinion as to the 23 little bits of this proceeding that he might have heard is 24 relevant, and further more, it is beyond the scope of his 25 prepared testimony. O 4 l
2533 Q 1 MS. BERNABEI: Okay, then, I believe the witness 2 misspoke. I am willing to accept what Mr. Dewey said that 3 all he is going on is the figures laid out in the contract, 4 but this witness says that he is assuming the contract is 5 valid, and I -- 6 JUDGE LAZO: That is different. 7 MS. BERNABEI: That is different. 8 JUDGE TAZO: No, I mean that he may assume that 9 the contract is valid, and we are not going to go into 10 validity, but he is assuming that the amount of effluent that 11 the contract calls for will be delivered. i 12 MS. BERNABEI: I think that is right. 13 JUDGE LAZO: And he is stating that will be more O 14 than sufficient to cool tihe plant. 15 MS. BERNABEI: I agree with you, but -- 16 JUDGE LAZO: He is not addressing the question of 17 assured supply as it relates or might relate to Section 21 at 18 all. So why do we not just stay away from that. 19 MS. BERNABEI: Well, that is really what I wanted 20 to have him say, but I do not believe that is what he said. 21 JUDGE LAZO: No, I think he did say that, but -- 22 MR. DEWEY: I will stipulate to that. 23 MS. BERNABEI: You will stipulate? Fine. I have O 24 no grob1em, then. 25 JUDGE LAZO: Okay. O
/
2534 O as 88an^8sr= oxer, we ~111 worx out the etteu1 - 2 tion. I have no problem. I believe he was testifying that 3 there was an assured supply of water. I assume that what 4 he is testifying to is that there will be in his opinion 5 the amount of water specified in the contract that is needed 6 for cooling three units. I have no problem. 7 Okay. JUDGE LAZO: 8 BY MS. BERNABEI: 9 Mr. Gonzales, in readhing your opinion, what docu-Q 10 ments or figures did you review? II I used A I used the MAG study. I used the FSAR. 32 the Environmental Report. I used the report that was pre-13 pared by EPA and the Corps of Engineers on the Section 208 O 14 Study, I believe it was. 15 0 You did not do any independerit studies of any 16 sort? Is that correct? , 17 No, I did not. A
'I Q Essentially, with the exception of the EPA Study, I'
in large part you relied on positions of the Applicant, is O that correct? 21 I relied on information provided by the Applicant, A 22 and I did certain calculations to assure myself that in fact 23 some of the values that they are coming up with are at least '
- ballpark figures, if you will.
25 O
, l 2535 1 Q Now in terms of the projections you considered or l () 2 reviewed, you basically reviewed or considered the 3 projections that were considered relevant by the Applicants, () 4 is that correct? 5 A No, I think that what I tried to do is use the 6 most current projections of effluent. In my not knowing, 7 not being a demographer, I think that the reason that people 8 update projections is to get a better handle on future 9 trends, and in that situation, it w&s my feeling at that 10 time that the more current projections should be the mors 11 reliable ones. 12 Q Do you know if there are projections other than 13 (]) the ones you reviewed, that is, the MAG projections and the 14 City of Phoenix projections? Do you know if there's any 15 other projections for effluent that are available, that -- 16 A The only projections that I am aware of are the 17 MAG projections and the projections that have been made by 18 the City of Phoenix. 19 Q Now, turning to page five of your prefiled 20 testimony, do you rave that before you, sir? 21 A I do. 22 o can you explain to me how you reached the (]) 23 figures for -- the MAG figures or the MAG projections for 24 1985, 1990, 1995 and the year 2000? [ 25 A Those figures were obtained from the MAG 208 l
2536 T8,2g i Point Source Plan Revision, East Side Area analysis, Local 2 versus Regional, September, 1981. 3 MR. DEWEY: Are you on page five? Would you give 4 a line or a part of the page, or where you are referring to? 5 MS. BERNABEI: I am with'the figures on the page. 6 MR. DEWEY: On page five. Do you have the 7 March 15, 1982 copy here? 8 MS. BERNABEI: I have page five of the prefiled 9 testimony. 10 MR. DEWEY: Oh, I am sorry. My page -- 11 MS. BERNABEI: Oh, are different? 12 MR. DEWEY: No, it wasn't different. The . () 13 printing made the six look like a five on my-page. 14 MS. BERNABEI: I am at page five. 15 MR. DEWEY: I am sorry. Okay. 16 BY MS. BERNABEI : 17 Q Now, can you explain to me how you reached the 18 MAG projections that are down here, that for 1985, 1990, 19 1995, and the year 2000? 20 A Yes. I obtained those from the September, 1981 -- 21 I am sorry, from the MAG 208 Point Source Plan Revision, 22 ({} the east side area analysis, local versus regional, September 23 1981. []} 24 Q And do you have that document with you? 25 A No, I don't.
3 2537 1 Q oka t. Let me show you an Exhibit then. Now, I () 2 have just handed you, Mr. Gonzales, what is marked as 3 Applicants' Exhibit D. Are the figures contained in that n 4 (_/ Exhibit the figures from which you reached your RAG 5 projections that appear on page five? 6 A The total shown here is, from my understanding 7 of this, is that it includec not only what goes into the 8 91st Avenae wastewater treatment plant, but also from the 9 23rd Avenue plant, and I suspect that if I -- what I am 10 doing here is that I am taking the 127.04 which appears -- 11 which is a total, and subt'racting the flow from the 23rd 12 Avenue wastewater treatment plant, and that should, I think, () 13 give me the flow out' of the 91st Avenue. plant. 14 Q That is what we thought, but the numbers don't 15 seem to work out. That is why I am asking you if this is in 16 fact where you got your figures? 17 MR. DEWEY: Which are you talking about, Mr. 18 Gonzales ? You said -- 19 MS. BERNABEI: I am just talking about.the MAG 20 figures. 21 MR. DEWEY: Yeah, but I think he is talking (} 22 about the 1980 chart there when he said 127.04, and his 23 table on page five doesn't refer to 1980, so -- {) 24 BY MS. BERNABEI: 25 Q Mr. Gonzales, I have just shown you Applicants'
4 } Exhibit GG, is that correct? () 2 A That is -- 3 0 What is marked? That is my folder. It is () 4 whatever would be marked on there. 5 JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Bernabei, what was the first 6 Applicants' Exhibit you showed the witness? - 7 MS. BERNABEI: It was DD, but I thought this 3 might be easier to work off of. 9 THE WITNESS: I believe this is Exhibit G. 10 MS. BERNABEI: G, right. 11 THE WITNESS: Is that right? 12 JUDGE LAZO: And the first one was D, as in -- () .13 MS. BERNABEI': D.as in Dog. 14 JUDGE LAZO: -- dog . All right, thank you. 15 MS. BERNABEI: David. 16 MR. DEWEY: What page did you re'fer, on Exhibit 17 GG, did you refer -- 18 MS. BERNABEI: No, no. I am sorry. It is 1-G. 19 I misspoke. 20 MR. DEWEY: 1-G. 21 MS. BERNABEI: G as in George. () 22 BY MS. BERNABEI: 23 0 I understandyou worked up different figures. I (]) 24 am just trying to find out, if we assume those figures are 25 correct, can you tell me if in f act you had reached the same
i l l 1
,2539 l
5 1 MAG figures that you have here, at least for'.1985 and 19907 () 2 A This table is titled " wastewater flow projections , 3 1972 to 1990, of estimated uncommitted effluent available () 4 from the 91st Avenue wastewater treatment plant." 5 My testimony has total flows out of the 91st 6 Avenue plant. 7 0 okay, but you don't have the book out of which 8 you -- the figures from which you got that? 9 A I don't have it with me, no, I don't. 10 , Q Now, the prior Exhibit, Exhibit D, were those 11 'the same figures you used, or in other words, are those the 12 source of the same figures?
.(]) 13 A I don't really know what the source of the 14 figures in Exhibit D is.
15 0 I think it is included in the footnote. 16 A The Table is entitled " flow projection comparison, l l 17 MAG 208 study versus Phoenix wastewater division projection 18 in MGD." I don't see anywhere on this document where it , 19 tells me what these -- for what year these numbers were ( 20 computed. 21 0 okay, so you don't know whether that Exhibit in {) 22 fact are the projections off which you are working? 23 A I don't know that. l l 24 0 okay, well, let's go on, then. I assume that
)
25 that was -- were the figures that you were working off of,
i l 2540 6 1 since that was under cover letter of Mr. Steytler, but let's
'- 2 just leave that for a moment and go on to page seven of your 3 p, refiled testimony.
( 4 Now, at the bottom of the page, you talked about 5 prior commitments, or certain commitments of effluent to the 6 Buckeye Irrigation District and the Arizona Game and Fish 7 Department, is that correct? 8 A That is correct. 9 0 Okay, now can you review your number for the 10 Buckeye Irrigation District? That says 28.8 million gallons i 11 per day, is that right? 12 A That is correct.
~ ( ). 13 Q Now, is that the corre~ct number?
14 A I'believe that it is, yes. 15 0 And where did you find that number? 16 A I don't recall where that number came from. It 17 came from one of the documents that I used to prepare my 18 testimony. I don't really remember specifically which one it l 19 was. l
- 20 0 Okay, well then, if you add up 28.8 committed to 21 the Buckeye Irrigation District, and the Arizona -- excuse 22 me, 6.5
- million gallons per day committed to the Arizona
(]) 23 Game and Fish Department, you should get 35.3 million gallons 24 par day, is that correct? l {]} 25 A That is correct.
2541 7 1 Q And you have down here the total is 33.3 million 2 gallons per day, isn't that right? 3 A That is correct. 4 Q So you have made an arithmetic mistake on page 5 seven? 6 A It appears that that is the case, yes. 7 0 okay, going on to page eight, now Mr. Gonzales, 8 do you have any objection if from this point forward, we use 9 the corrected figure of 35.3 MGD? 10 A I don't know that -- I am not exactly sure that 11 that 33.3 MGD is not correct. It's possible that either the 12 6.5 MGD is in error, or perhaps the 28.8. I don't know O 13 which of those numders 1e incorrece. 14 Q Well', is it fair to say that on the top of page 15 eight, all these figures would be changed, in terms of water 16 commitment, if in fact it were 35 -- excuse me, 35.3 MGD l 17 instead of 33.3 MGD? In other words, almost all those 18 figures would be dif f erent, that is, the 71.3 MGD, the 19 98.2 MGD, and later on, the 71.3 MGD and the 86.7 MGD, those 20 numbers would all be changed if in f act the prior commitments 21 were larger by 2.0 MGD? O 22 ^ ruose au ders wo=1a de cheasea whether the 33 3 23 MGD was bigger or smaller. L Q 24 0 Well, isn't what in fact you say, that you -- 25 isn't what you say here assuming that the Water Conservation
2542 8 1 Laboratory does not use its commitment in the' future, there () 2 will be between 71.3 MGD and 98.2 MGD? 3 A That is correct. () 4 Q And the way you get that figure is by subtracting 5 out prior commitments from available effluent, is that 6 correct? 7 A subtracting prior commitments from projected -- 8 Q To the Buckeye Irrigation District and the 9 Arizona Game and Fish Department? 10 A Right, subtracting those from projected effluent -- 11 Q Available. 12 A -- availability, yes. (]) 13 0 So, in other words, all those numbers would be 14 somewhatsmallerifinfactthenumberwere33.3[nsteadof 15 35.37 16 A The number is 33.3. 17 0 If it were 35.3, I misspoke, instead of 33.3? 18 A If it was 35.3 instead of 33.3, those numbers 19 would be 2 MGD less than what is shown there. 20 Q Now, moving down to your answer in paragraph 21 three, you say, do you not, that the PVNGS condenser cooling 22 []} system will use ef fluent, using ef fluent from the 91st 23 Avenue treatment plant, and I am paraphrasing a little bit [} 24 without loss of meaning, will require an average of about -- 25 well, now it has changed to 56 MGD per three units, is that
2543 9 ] right? 2 A That is right. 3 Q Now, to this amount of need, you add certain O 4 1oeees, which you origina117 eeeimeeed ee 0.3, end you wou1d. 5 now up to 0.4 MGD, is that correct? 6 A What happened there is I rounded off, and when I 7 added up the numbers, they didn't turn out to' equal 57.2, so 3 in order for the numbers to add up to that value, instead of 9 rounding the losses down to 0.3, I had to round them up to 10 2.4. 11 JUDGE COLE: You mean to zero point four? 12 THE WITNESS : 0.4, yes, sir. O is "S- 88""^88 e v " wit 1 *ve ce a =taute - 14 am a little co'nfused with your changed figures. That is why 15 it is taking me a few minutes. 16 BY MS. BERNABEI: 17 Q Now, I assume what you are saying here is that the 18 losses are 0.4 MGD for all three units, is that right? 19 A Those are -- those losses have nothing to do 20 with how many units you have operating. Those are the 21 losses for water losses at the reclamation plant, and for 22 seepage and evaporation at the storage reservoir. That is 23 part of the reason that I had to make these changes here. 24 Those losses will be constant regardless of how many units 25 you have operating.
2544 10 1 Q Well, wouldn't they be dependent in some sense () 2 on the amount of water that is being supplied? In other 3 words, there would be greater losses if more water were () 4 supplied, isn't that somewhat logical? 5 A There would be more losses where? 6 Q If there were more water being provided? In 7 other words, seepage losses, or evaporation losses, or 8 whatever you are considering here, would be greater if you 9 are talking about a larger amount of effluent provided for 10 cooling purposes? 11 A I think that there could be some variation in the 12 losses, but I think that 0.2 million gallons per -- I am () 13 sorry, 0.4 million gallons per day is a reasonable estimate, 14 is a reasonable average estimate. 15 0 And that is regardless of the number of units 16 being provided cooling water, or regardless of the amount 17 of water being provided, period? 18 A That is true. 19 Q So in other words, your losses are not determined 20 on a certain percentage loss of the water provided. It is 21 simply an amount, no matter how much water is provided? 22 A []) It is an average amount, regardless of the amount 23 of water being provided. 24 Q How did you find that number? {) 25 A well, the pipeline, about 78 percent of that t __
2545 i 11 1 pipeline is gravity flow. I think that the pipeline is 1 () 2 about 36 and a half miles long. About 28 and a half of that 3 is gravity flow. Those portions of the pipe under gravity () 4 flow would experience minimal losses. 5 The portion of that pipeline where you would 6 expect losses 'to occur would be in the portion under 7 pressure, which is this side of the Hasayampa Pumping 8 Station. 9 So, I determined -- at least I satisfied myself 10 about what those losses would be, and then I estimated what 11 I thought would be the loss in the reclamation plant, and I 12 4 added those together, and I felt in my opinion that 0.4 13 (]) million gallons per day would be a reasonable estimate of
'14 evaporat' ion losses at the reservoir -- yes -- and evaporation 15 at the storage reservoir.
16 The storage reservoir is lined. Loss of - .; 17 seepage losses, as long as that liner is intact, should be 18 minimal. Evaporation losses, I satisfied myself that the 19 evaporation losses were also reasonable. l 20 Q So in other words, you did your independent 21 investigation, this 0.4 MGD does not come from the ER OL 22 Sections 3.3 and 5.6?
)
23 A we ll, yes , it does. I just satisfied myself that 24 that was a reasonable number. 25 0 From -- i
( 2546 i A We don't -- NRC does not conduct investigations. () 2 All we -- all I do is conduct an audit of the Applicants ' 3 submittal. A V 4 Q Well, let me ask you this. The way this was 5 originally, prior to your changes here this morning, the way 6 this was originally written up, and you should correct me if 7 I am wrong, was that each reactor or cooling system would 8 require an average of 10.9 MGD per unit, and added to that 9 was a loss for each reactor of 0.3 MGD, that was per unit? 10 A That is correct. 11 0 Okay, now, what you did is you added the 12 condenser cooling requirements to the estimated losses to (]) 13 get 9.1 MGD per unit, that is; the water requirement for 14 each unit, is that right? That is what you did 15 originally when you did these^ figures? 16 A No, originally -- if you look at what I had 17 there before, it didn't make any sense. 18 Q Well, I think you maybe made a mistake. I think 19 it made sense. I think there was just a mistake originally. 20 21 22 (2) 23 24 (1) 25
i 2547 1 A It was a mistake originally. If you look at the ({)-1 2 last number I changed there, which is 19.1 million gallons 1 3 per day -- (:) 4 Q It was supposed to be 19.2, wasn't it, per unit? 5 A Um - [ 6 Q In other words, there was an ari,thmetic mistake, 7 as we understand it. Adding 18.9 and .3 mgd, you should 8 have come up with 19.2 mgd per unit. 9 A That's correct, yes. 10 0 Okay, so when you changed it, you somehow have 11 reduced -- Well, just to understand you, there was an arith-I 12 metic mistake made in the prefiled testimony as originally 13 outlined. You do acknowledge that. 14 In other words, the requirements for one reactor 15 should be 19.2 mgd per unit instead of 19.l'mgd per unit. 16 (No response.) 17 Q And again I'm just adding 18.9 mgd plus .3 mgd, 18 which are the numbers noted in your original prefiled testi-f 19 mony. , 20 A Right, that's correct. i 21 Q Okay, now, as I understand it, what you have done 22 is put in figures for all three reactors and not used per-23 unit figures. Is that correct? l j () 24 A Initially I used the total figure for losses and 25 added that to each unit. And that is not the case. The l l
2548 1 losses, in my estimation, are going to be fairly constant [} i 2 whether you operate one unit or whether you operate all three 3 units. That is the reason that I made these clarifications. O 4 Q But you also added differently this time, in addi-5 tion to make the clarification you're talking about. Is 6 that right? 7 A Well, there's a difference here because instead 8 of adding the losses to each unit, I'm adding the total 9 losses to all three units. 10 Q I understand that. But your loss -- what you 11 consider in terms.of losses has gone down, if I am correct 12 and I understood your prefiled testimony, from .9 mgd to 13 .4 mgd. It has been greater than halved. ( 14 A My intention when I filed this testimony was that
- 15 the total losses would be 0.3.
16 Q For all three reactors. 17 A Yes, for all three reactors. 18 Now, that 0.3 was the result of rounding down. 19 When I did that, the numbers didn't add up to the total amount . 20 So that's why I had to change that to 0.4. It was my inten-21 tion at that time that 0.3 mgd would be the total losses 22 for all three units because, as I said, that would be -- 23 it would be fairly constant. 24 Do you find that someplace in either ER 3.3 or (]) Q 25 ER 5.6? Could you find that for me? In other words, where O
2549 {} 1 it says the total losses are .4 mgd, or, rounded down, .3 2 mgd? 3 A In my testimony? O 4 Q No, I'm asking you in the actual ER. If we could 5 have a few minutes, I don't have the pages before me. But 6 I think we could find them. 7 (Pause.) 8 BY MS. BERNABEI: 9 Q Have you found it, Mr. Gonzales? 10 A Pardon? 11 Q Have you found it in the ERES? 12 A Yes. The only problem here is that the flow rates 13 are listed in gallons per minute. Mine has been in gallons b s_/ 14 per day. 15 0 You are talking about Figure 3.3-1 now? 16 A 3.3-1. 17 Q And that's Sheet 204? 18 A Yes. 19 Q Okay. Now, I'm asking you about the losses 20 basically. Where on this do you find the losses? 21 A The miscellaneous pipeline and reclamation plant 12 losses are node .2, the second item on this figure. 23 Q And you used, I assume, the average flow rate {} 24 losses? 25 .A Yes, I did. O
2550 So in other words, this would be a figu're for aver-({} 1 Q 2 age losses, not a conservative figure. 3 A I think that -- I don't know what you mean by 4 " conservative." I think that the conditions that were used 5 to define average flows are cc..-ervative under normal oper-6 ations. 7 Q Well, it looks like from this figure that maximum , 8 flow, you would have greater losses. Wouldn't you? In fact, 9 you'd have considerably greater losses -- 20 mgd. Or, excuse 10 me, this is acre feet. Twenty acre feet. No, I'm sorry. 11 It's 20 gallons per minute more. That's a significant in- , i 12 crease, isn't it? 13 A I think that from my understanding of the maximum 14' flow rate, those numbers were determined assuming a power 15 level of 4,100 megawatts, which is,.I believe, 108 percent J 16 of the authorized power. 17 In addition to that, they assumed maximum meteoro-18 logical conditions. They assumed that the plants would 19 operate 12 months a year with no time out for maintenance 20 or refueling. And I think that those are -- In my testi- - 21 mony, in determining whether there is going to be an adequate 22 supply of water, I am trying to do this under normal condi-23 tions. I felt that those conditions that are assumed in () 24 determining maximum flow rates were not reasonable. I'm try-25 ing to come up with a reasonable estimate of water supply ()
2551 l {} availability under normal operating conditions. 2 The average flow rate that I used assumes that 3 the plants, the three units, are operating at 95 percent O 4 of authorized power under average meteorological conditions, 5 with one month out for refueling and/or maintenance. 6 Q So it's fair to say that in all respects, average 7 figures are not anything other than that. 8 A That's correct. 9 Q Going down on page 8, you get to your required to effluent amount by using the same figure, do you not -- 11 3.3-1? 12 A Yes, I do. 13 0 Can you actually get to your required effluent () 14 amount ' through the average-flow rate? Is that right? The 15 gallons per minute? 16 A That's correct. 17 . Q Have you checked how this average flow rate, or j 18 the amount that you derived using this average flow rate 19 -- how that compares with the estimated requirements as 20 spelled out in acre feet per year by Mr. Bingham? Which 21 I believe is 21,350 acre feet per year. It's in 5.6-2 of 22 the ER. 23 A I'm sorry, will you restate your question, please? 24 0 Yes. Have you checked how this figure, 39,700 {'} l 25 gallons per minute, compares with what Mr. Bingham has O
2552 I {} 1 testified to and what's included as the ER page 5.6-2 re-quirement per unit of 21,350? 2 3 A In my testimony I didn't -- This number of 57.2 4 was used as a basis for attempting to determine what portion 5 or how that average number would be affected, or would be 6 increased, in the month of June. And that is.an average 7 number that is used. I don't really know how it compares 8 to 21,000 acre feet per year? Is that what you said? 9 Q That's right, per reactor, 21,350 acre feet. 10 You don't know how it compares, in other words. 11 But is it fair to say that these are average fi-12 gures which you have here? The 39,700 gallons per minute? 13 Those are average figures for effluent requirement. () 14 A You said 39,000? 15 0 39,700 gallons per minute. 16 A Where do I have that? I'm sorry. I can't -- 17 Q On the bottom of page 8 at the bottom, the last l 18 six or seven lines. t l 19 A Oh, okay. l 20 Q Okay. Now essentially you're saying the required ( 21 effluent amount is 39,700 gallons per minute, right? l 22 A Yes. l 23 Q And that is not a conservative figure. That's () 24 fair to say. It's the average figure. l 25 A It's -- It's average, assuming those conditions l t O l l l l
2553 O i thet 1 described for you. 2 0 And that's not a conservative figure. 3 MR. DEWEY: Objection. I think that he answered 4 the question. He said that it's average insofar as the condi - 5 tions were concerned that he described. i 6 JUDGE LAZO: That was his answer, counsel. 7 MS. BERNABEI: Okay, well, then I'll ask him ano-8 ther question. 9 BY NS. BERNABEI: 10 0 You speak on page 2 of yoar prefiled testimony j; about a source of cooling water for Palo Verde being efflu-12 ent from the Tolleson sewage plant. Is that right? 13 A That's correct. O 14 0 Do you know if at this time there is a pipeline 15 built from that sewage treatment plant to Palo Verde? 16 A I believe that the answer to that question is no, 17 there is not a pipeline from Tolleson sewage treatment plant 13 to the Palo Verde station. 19 0 Do you know whether at this time there is a pipe-20 line built from the 23rd Avenue treatment plant to the 90th 21 Avenue treatment plant? 22 A I know that there is not a pipeline from the 23rd 23 Avenue plant. 24 0 To the Palo -- 25 A To the Palo Verde station. O
? -.
,H -
'2554
('S lJ 1 Q And do you know if there isa pipeline from the 2 23rd Avenue plant to the 91st Avenue treatment plant? _ () 3 A I was not aware of that until I heard it yesterday. 4 Q So in other words, when you wrote this testimony s 5 up, you weren't aware of that. 6 A I was not aware of that. 7 MS. BERNABEI: I have no other questions. 8 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Gehr, do Join; Applicants have s 9 any questions? 10 MR. GEHR: I don't have any questions.\
\
11 JUDGE COLE: Just a couple of questions, Mr. Gon-
~
12 zales. On page 9 of your testimony, the top part'of the ,
\ - 13 page, you list the Palo Verde monthly cooling water, require-14 ments for'1986, based upon a Greeley an'd Hansen report.
15 And my question has to do with arithmetic and how it compares 16 with your figure of 57.2 mgd. If I add _up all of these 17 figures, I do not get 57.2. I get 52.4 mgd. Could you ex ',
/
18 plain to me why that is different, sir? - 19 THE WITNESS: Yes, I think I can. These numbers 20 that are shown on this tabulation show that from January 21 to April, you will have two units operating. It is, estimated 12 that Unit 3 will come on line in May of 1986. Sothk'reaso'n 23 that you don't get the number -- The reason that 52.4 is - O x/ 24 smaller is because from January to April, you have two units s 25 operating. From May to December, you have..three units ,
, /.
'. +
; e .;
, ,~
2555
- () 1 operating.
2 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. Thank you. 3 Now getting back to some of the questions that (} 4 Ms. Bernabei asked you about losses, in the final environ-5 mental statement there was a reference to average evaporation 6 losses. And I believe the figure there was something on 7 the order of three meters per year or 120 inches per year. 8 We have an 80-acre lake. And if we apply that 9 evaporation rate to that lake, we would get an estimate that to is considerably higher than .4 mgd. 11 My question, sir, is did you look at the evapora-12 tion rate on the lake? And how did you take that into ac-13 count? () 14 THE WITNESS: It has been some time since I did 15 this. But it is my recollection that when I was looking 16 at this, I looked at the Climatic Atlas, which is a publica-17 tion, I believe, by the National Weather Service. And at 18 that time I think that the evaporation shown on those charts 19 is about 100 to 120 inches, which is about 10 feet. 20 Those numbers are for what is known as Class A 21 pan evaporation, which usually evaporation from a pan, from 22 a small pan -- A Class A pan is a container, circular con-23 tainer that is maybe 10 feet across and maybe a foot to 18 24 inches deep. And the evaporation losses off this small 25 container are usually larger than off of a large body of O
i 2556 l water. As a rule of thumb, 70 percent of the pan evapora-(]) I 2 tion is considered a good estimate of lake evaporation. 3 If I take 70 percent of six feet, I get -- 4 well, let me do it this way. You said 120 inches. Is that 5 correct? 6 JUDGE COLE: I believe it was three meters per 7 year, was the figure that I recall, sir. 8 THE WITNESS: Okay, so 70 percent of that would 9 be about 84 inches. That would be the total evaporation. 10 Now, to that you have to add the average annual 11 precipitation. I think also in that Climatic Atlas the nor-12 mal annual precipitation for the Phoenix area is about 18 13 inches. So if I subtracte the 18 from the 84, I get about G' kl 14 -66 inches. 15 I think you said the reservoir evaporation is-- 16 The reservoir er poration in C figures is .4 mgd, which is -- 17 JUDGE COLE: It's about 280 gallons a minute. Is THE WITNESS: 280 gallons per minute, okay. 19 And I think what you did there is you -- that's 20 the evaporation that's supposed to occur off the 80-acre 21 lake. Is that correct? 22 JUDGE COLE: Well, that was all the losses; .4 23 mgd is 280 gallons a minute. l ( )) 24 My concern was if I take a look at the figures 25 that I saw on average evaporation rate, even considering the l (2) i
2557 () I difference between lakes and small pans, it indicates to 2 me that the evaporation would be even larger than the .4 3 'mgd. {' ) 4 THE WITNESS: Okay. Well, let's do it this way. 5 I said that if you take 70 percent of the 120 inches, let's 6 say, you get -- 7 JUDGE COLE: Well, I don't know what the 120 is. 8 That might be the maximum annual. I don't know. 9 THE WITNESS: That's the three meters that you 10 were talking about. 11 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. But I don't know 12 what that figure is. They said evaporation rate. Now, whe-13 ther that was the peak evaporation rate of the annual total O 14 evaporation rate -- I assume that's what it would be. 15 THE WITNESS: What I'm saying is that the numbers 16 in that Climatic Atlas are for Class A pan evaporation. 17 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. 18 THE WITNESS: And from my recollection, that was 19 about 100 inches, something like that -- 110, 120 inches 20 perhaps. 21 But doing this, let's assume 100 inches, because 22 that's an easy number to handle. 23 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. 24 THE WITNESS: If I take 70 percent of that, I get 25 70 inches, which is about six feet. O I
i 2558 l l l 1 Okay, now let me take that six feet and subtract 2 what I seem to remember was the precipitation. And that 3 gives me four and a half feet. 4 Now I'll get back to what the Applicants used here. 5 And I'll take -- I think you said it was 280 acre feet?
- 6 JUDGE COLE
- Well, it's an 80-acre lake.
7 8 9 10 - 11 3 12 13 - O 14 15 16 i 17 18 19 20 21 1 23 24 1 25 O t
2559 1 THE WITNESS: Okay, so -- (Pause.) 2 I do not know. All I remember is when I looked at O 3 that -- 1 took the total evaporation that I thought was about 4 six feet per year. I subtracted the rainfall and came up 5 with about four and a half feet per year. Then I took the 6 reservoir evaporation and seepage, which was 180 gallons per 7 minute, added the pipeline and reclamation plant losses, 8 which were equal to 70 gallons per minute, and that gave me 9 250 gpm, which is .36 million gallons per day. 10 JUDGE COLE: Well, my question is, sir, you might II have made an arithmetic mistake, because if you evaporated 12 four and a half fee on an 80-acre lake, that is over 4,000 13 acre feet,and 4,000 acre feet is'more than 400 gallons a I4 minute. 15 THE WITNESS: If I evaporate how much, now? 16 JUDGE COLE: You said four and a half feet based 17 upon your estimate, and it is 80 acres. 18 THE WITNESS: Four and a half, that is what I said . Now, I took -- let me go a bit further here. O If the 180 gallons per minute are equal to about 21 290 acre feet per year -- if I divide that by 80 acres, that 22 gives me three and a half feet -- 3.6 feet per year, which is 23 p what the Applicant was telling me that the evaporation is 24 going to be. JUDGE COLE: I did not mean to get this involved O ; 1 l
2560 1 in this. Let us say that the evaporation losses were twice 2 as high as you estimated, would that make an impact on your Q 3 assessment of the situation? 4 THE WITNESS: We are talking about a plant re-5 quirement of 64,000 acre feet per. year for three units appro-6 ximately. And we are talking about evaporation in terms of 7 300 acre feet per year. If we double that, it is 600 feet 8 per year. That compared to 64,000 is about one per cent. I 9 do not think it would make any difference. The evaporation 10 losses are a small amount of the total. II (Pause.) 12 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Just one question, Mr. Gonzales, I3 please, for the record. I4' You remarked earlier in your testimony about'your 15 sources of information, and I think it says somewhere in 16 your testimony that you used a MAG Report for what year? 17 THE WITNESS: Well, in my testimony, I had pro-I8 jections of effluent from different reports. The first one I9 I mentioned was a '79 208 Study. 20 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Seventy-nine, all right. That 21 is what I wanted. 22 And you said that it has now been updated? 23 THE WITNESS: It has been updated twice since -- 24 JUDGE CALLIHAN: And I just want to identify -- 25 we have Applicants' Exhibit LL, with which you may not be O
l 2561 1 1
- I familiar, but it says Water Quality and Management Program, 2 Point Source Plan Update, May, 1982. Is that the update
() 3 to which you referred? 4 THE WITNESS: No. 5 JUDGE CALLIHAN: No, okay. 6 THE WITNESS: It was a previous one which showed 7 projections of effluent that were slightly smaller than what 8 is shown on that report. 9 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Do your knowledge, do we have 10 in the record as an exhibit the more recent one to which you II referred, more recent than 19797 12 THE WITNESS: Yes, the 1982 Update is more recent
-13 than what I used. )
14 JUDGE CIALLIHAN: Is that the one you spoke of IS earlier in your testimony this morning? 16 THE WITNESS: The one I used was the 1981 MAG 208 17 Study. I8 JUDGE CALLIHAN: And we do not have it? I9 THE WITNESS: We do not have it. It has not been 0 -- 21 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you. THE WITNESS: I do not believe it has been intro-3 duced into evidence. 24 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you. I just wanted to 25 correlate if we had it. Thank you very much. = 0
2562 1 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Dewey, do you have any redirect? 2 MR. DEWEY: I do. O $ aso1ater ex^a1"^2 on 4 BY MR. DEWEY: 5 Q Mr. Gonzales, I would like to show you Joint 6 Applicants' Exhibit R, which I believe has been introduced 7 as an agreement concerning the Buckeye Irrigation District 8 of 1971 and the Applicant. Excuse me. Buckeye Irrigation 9 District and the City of Phoenix for the sale of effluent. 10 Do you want to turn to page three, pleaw ? II (Witness turns to page three of document.) 12 Would you read the paragraph in the middle of the I3 page entitled Item 2: Guaranteed Effluent. 14 A Yes. 15 "The Guaranteed Effluent. To the extent that 16 operations of the plant shall produce sufficient effluent, 17 the City shall deliver'to Buckeye in each calendar year for I8 a period of forty (40) years after the effective date I9 hereof, 30,000 acre feet of effluent, which 30,000 acre feet 20 of effluent shall include effluent in lieu of and in ex-21 change for stored water to which Buckeye might otherwise 22 assert appropriative rights." 23 Q All right. That is far enough. Can you convert 24 that 30,000 acre feet per year to a million gallons per day? A Acre feet to million gallons, is that what you O
2563 O i eeid2 2 Q Yes. 3 A I believe that is about 9,775 million gallons. 4 Q Million gallons per day, Mr. Gonzales? 5 A Well, this is 30,000 acre feet. It is a -- oh, 6 per year, okay. 7 Q Per year, yes. 8 A And you want million gallons -- 9 Q Per day. 10 A -- per day? Okay. Acre feet -- okay, I thought 11 that was -- all right. 12 JUDGE COLE: I believe there was testimony in the 13 record that indicated the conversion factor as just 1.12, is 14 it'not? 15 MR. DEWEY: I have a factor of a slightly dif-16 ferent factor. 17 THE WITNESS: Acre feet per year to million 18 gallons per day is a factor of 8.92 times 10-4 . The number 19 you were talking about yesterday was converting million 20 gallons per day to acre feet per year. The other way around. 21 (Pause.) 22 That is -- 30,000 acre feet per year is equal to 23 about 26.8 million gallons per day. 24 BY MR. DEWEY: 25 0 All right, sir. Could you also look at Table 22
2564 O i in the re1e verde -- no, this 1e sxhibie C of the Gree 1er end 2 Hansen Report, dated January of 1980, and this is Joint {) 3 4 Applicants' Exhibit C. I would like to show you a copy of that. 5 (Witness reviews document.) 6 Turning to page C-6, which is Table C-2, would 7 you look on the page and see if there is an indicated commit-8 ment for the Buckeye Irrigation District? 9 A Yes, there is. 10 Q What commitment is that? 11 A Table C-2 of what we referred to as the Greeley 12 and Hansen Report shows that the monthly average flow pro-13 ection for the Buckeye Irrigation District is 26.8 million 14 gallons per day. 15 Q All right, and that is the same amount that you 16 just computed -- tabulated in your tabulations, is that 17 correct? 18 A That is correct. 19 All right, Mr. Gonzales, turning back now to your Q 20 testimony to page seven, I believe there was some confusion 21 with respect to the numbers regarding Buckeye Irrigation 22 District and the Arizona Game and Fish Department's prior 23 commitments and that those two columns did not add up cor-24 rectly. Based upon the 26.8 million gallons per day for 25 Buckeye Irrigation District, did this not tabulate to the
2565 O i seme eote1 numser you hed before, which wes 33.3 mi11 ion 2 gallons per day? 3 A Yes, it does. 4 0 Would you judge, then, that the 28.8 is a typo-5 graphical error, where someone typed in "8" rather than 6 typing "6?" 7 A I suspect that was the case. 8 Q All right, then, the rest of your figures would 9 remain the same, then. There would not be any changes, over 10 on page eight, for example? II A That is correct. 12 MR. DEWEY: That is all the questions I have. 13
- JUDGE LAZO: Any further questions?
O I4 MR. GEHR: No. 15 MS. BERNABIE: I have a few. 16 JUDGE LAZO: Are these follow-on questions based I7 on what we have -- MS. BERNABEI: There is something I think we have to get into, and I was not sure of the tables. If I re-20 ferred him to Applicants' Exhibit D.-- it has to do with, II I believe, some more arithmetic mistakes in his testimony. 22 JUDGE LAZO: Well, now, you said you had completed 23 your examination, counselor. What -- 24 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I think they are fairly 25 important in that this exhibit has had more than a couple O
2566 i O I arithmetic mistakes, and these go to the MAG projections 2 which are essential to his analysis in this. They are con-(]) 3 tained in page five, and perhaps we could have a recess so 4 he could determine whether or not they are mistakes, but 5 our computations show, and I was not sure exactly where he 6 got his figures. He was not able to tell me. It was in 7 fact in Applicants' Exhibit D, and I wanted more time to 8 examine that, but it does appear that he got his figures from 9 what has been introduced as Applicants' Exhibit D and that 10 there are mistakes in all the MAG figures. II MR. DEWEY: First of all, the attorney here is 12 testifying rather than anyone else, and I do not believe -- 13 MS. BERNABEI: I do not want to testify. I want ( }. 14 to ask him -- . II MR. DEWEY: -- that you have asked him about 16 Applicants' Exhibit D and these figures. 37 MS. BERNABEI: I did, but he did not seem familiar 18 with it. I wanted to verify that I was in fact looking at 19 the same set of numbers that he had used to base his cal-20 culations. I did not want to question him if in fact the 21 figures were not the same figures, but it does appear that
-- at least our calculations show that there are mistakes 23 in at least four of these MAG figures given on page five, and 24 I would just like a chance to see if we are right.
25 JUDGE LAZO: Will you, Ms. Bernabei, discuss this b a l l
2567 ( I matter with counsel for the Staff during our luncheon 2 recess? () 3 MS. BERNABEI: No problem. 4 JUDGE LAZO: And we will give you five minutes 5 when we return to see if you can clarify this matter. 6 MS. BERNABEI: Okay. That will probably be most 7 productive for everyone. 8 JUDGE LAZO: Very well. We will recess until
! 9 2:30.
10 (Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the hearing was re-II cessed for lunch, to reconvene at 2:30 the same day, 12 June 25, 1982.) 13 - () 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 23
} 24 25 1
2568 l I 1 _A _F _T _E _R _N _O _O _N _S _E _S _S _I _O _N 2 2:31 P.M. 3 JUDGE LAZO: Would the hearing come to order, 4 please. 5 Ms. Bernabei, you have some further interrogation 6 of Mr. Gonzales? 7 MS. BERNABEI: Interrogation? No that bad. 8 MR. DEWEY: Your Honor, before we get started, Ms. 9 Bernabei had forfeited -- well, she had completed her cross-10 examination. However, in order to clarify the record in case 11 there are any possible mistakes, we will allow Ms. Bernabei 12 to ask some questions to Mr. Gonzales. However, we do trust, 13 in the interest of keeping this hearing moving, that they will O 14 be of a limited number so we don't get' bogged down in this 15 matter. Because she has completed her cross examination. 16 JUDGE LAZO: Yes, we mentioned that earlier. 17 Were you able to clarify any of these matters dur-18 ing the recess? 19 MS. BERNABEI: Yes. In fact, I think what happened 20 is the testimony -- I believe it's a little misleading. 21 Basically what I think Mr. Gonzales did, he took one set of 22 figures from one document and the other set of figures from 23 another document. And I assumed that the projections were () 24 all taken from the same table, because there were MAG projec-25 tions on that table.
i i 2569 () 1 My understanding is cleared up. 2 MR. DEWEY: Well, in that case, I'll explain one 3 thing further. On page 5, going down to Mr. Gonzales' /} 4 references, with respect to his figures at the bottom of the 5 page, there should be an "and" after the word " associates." 6 Now, that is one, two, three, four, f;7e, six, seven, eight, 7 nine, ten -- ten lines from the bottom. In other words, 8 after the word " associates," you add the word "and." After 9 the semicolon, "and" comes in. So there are twoa different 10 cites. One of them is the John Carrolo Engineers cite, and 11 the other is the "and Flow Projection Comparison, MAG 208 12 Study vs. Phoenix Wastewater," is another cite. 13 Thdt might have been part of your confusion too, ( )- 14 Ms. Bernabel. 15 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I don't believe it was my con-16 fusion. I believe it's the confusion of the testimony. 17 MR. DEWEY: All right. 18 MS. BERNABEI: But the figures are taken from two 19 different places, and there are MAG figures in both. In 20 other words, there are MAG figures that ata represented by 21 the Applicant, and then there are MAG figures in the Flow 22 Projection Comparison. 23 JUDGE LAZO: I'm afraid, Mr. Dewey, you have not () 24 helped. 25 MR. DEWEY: I'm sorry, Your Honor. Well, I was just O
2570 () 1 pointing out that the cite which Mr. Gonzales uses to cite 2 his figures with --
/~ 3 JUDGE LAZO: Well, how would it read if it were to L)'
4 be correct? 5 MR. DEWEY: All right. I'll go from the top of the 6 page. 7 JUDGE LAZO: That's better than from the bottom. 8 MR. DEWEY: Right. The question: "Have the MAG l 9 and Phoenix Studies been updated?" 10 All right. Seven lines from there -- excuse me, 11 five lines from there is the word " Associates." 12 JUDGE LAZO: We see the word " Associates," yes. 13 MR. DEWEY: All right.
~
After the word Associates (2) 14 is a semicolon. 15 JUDGE LAZO: Correct. 16 MR. DEWEY: Then you insert there, after the semi-17 colon, "and." 18 JUDGE LAZO: The word "and," a-n-d. 19 MR. DEWEY: The word "and." 20 JUDGE LAZO: Very well. 21 MR. DEWEY: That shows that there's a second cite 22 there. 23 JUDGE COLE: Well, is there also supposed to be a i ) 24 semicolon after " John Carrolo Engineers"? i 25 MR. DEWEY: That's supposed to be -- the Dibble and j
_.y__ _ - _ . _ _ _ . 2571 () 1 Associates, I believe, is the same report as the John Carro-2 lo Engineers. 3 MS. BERNABEI: What might clarify the record -- and [} 4 Mr. Gonzales can give the citation -- is this first set of 5 MAG figures. I think they're from 1981. 6 RECROSS EXAMINATION XX 7 BY MS. BERNABEI: 8 Q Those are contained in the ER, is that correct? 9 Section -- 10 A That's correct. 11 Q And do you know the section? 12 A I believe it is Section 5. Let me make sure. 13 (The witness checks the document.) O 14 JUDGE LAZO: 11 of the 'bOLG figures cross? 4 15 MS. BERNABEI: Just one set. 16 THE WITNESS: They are contained in the ER on page 17 5.6-2(a). 18 JUDGE LAZO: Which data are we referring to, 19 please? 20 MS. BERNABEI: The first of the two that have been 21 delineated. 22 THE WITNESS: Both the numbers -- On page 5 I have 23 effluent projections for both MAG and Phoenix. They are both () 24 in the environmental report. The reference is given in the 25 environmental -- O
2572 () 1 JUDGE LAZO: Are all the years shown? 2 THE WITNESS: Yes. The numbers that I have shown {) 3 are directly out of the environmental report. 4 MR. DEWEY: Excuse me. Except for 1986, which was 5 a projection. Is that right? 6 THE WITNESS: That's an interpolated value between 7 the 1985 and the 1990 projections. 8 BY MS. BERNABEI: 9 Q But the City of Phoenix are also contained in what 10 has been labeled as Applicants' Exhibit D. That is, Flow 11 Projection Comparison, as prepared by Robert Steytler. That 12 is also contained in that. 7s 13 JUDGE LAZO: In the exhibit, please?
'J 14 MS. BERNABEI: D.
15 JUDGE LAZO: D, very well. 16 MS. BERNABEI: As in " David." 17 JUDGE LAZO: Yes. 18 MR. DEWEY: Now, does that clear up that matter 19 now? 20 I have one further request. 21 MS. BERNABEI: I have one further question. 22 MR. DEWEY: Oh, I'm sorry. 23 MS. BERNABEI: That does directly relate to Mr. 24 Dewey's redirect. 25
- . - . - - - - - ~ . - - . - . . . _ . - _ . . _
l
)
2573 I) ss 1 BY MS. BERNABEI:
~
2 Q I believe you stated a figure for the rainfall in 3 Arizona, average annual rainfall? (]) 4 A I said that I seem to remember that it was about 5 a foot and a half annually. 6 Q If I told you it was about 7 inches, would that be 7 correct? I think that's the right figure. 8 A I don't know. I don't have the climatic atlas with 9 me. It could be seven inches. 10 0 Would that change some of your figures here? 11 A No. In response to Dr. Cole's question I was able 12 to find out what I did to check the Applicants' number. And 13 maybe if I explain to you what I did, this will provide some () - 14 clarification. 15 I wasn't aware of the number for evaporation in the 16 environmental statement. So when I was checking the number, 17 as I said this morning, I found that the evaporation was 18 about 120 inches, which is ten feet. The number given in the 19 Climatic Atlas, I believe, is pan evaporation. I took 70 20 percent of that, which gave me seven feet for lake evapora-21 tion. I subtracted a foot and a half of rainfall. And now 22 you're saying that maybe that number may not be correct. 23 That gave me five and a half feet, which I multiplied times 24 80 acres and came up with 448 acre feet per year. 25 I compared that against the Applicants' number, O
2574 () I which is also given in my testimony, of .4 million gallons 2 per day. Converting that with a factor of 1.12 times 10 {} 3 gives me also 448 acre feet per year. 4 I think what threw me this morning was I think you 5 mentioned a number somewhere around 4,000. 6 JUDGE COLE: Four hundred, I-meant. 7 THE WITNESS: Okay. So those two numbers were just 8 about the same. So based on that, I assumed -- or I conclu-9 ded that there was a reasonable number. 10 If I take ten feet and disregard any rainfall, it 11 makes a very small difference, less than one percent. It 12 wouldn't have any significant difference on what I have con-13 cluded here. O - 14 BY MS. BERNABEI: 15 Q But it could make as much as a one-percent dif-16 ference in terms of loss. 17 A One percent, yes. 18 MS. BERNABEI: Thank you. 19 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Dewey? 20 MR. DEWEY: Yes, sir. My redirect was going to be 21 what Mr. Gonzales just answered with respect to Dr. Cole's 22 concern. So I don't have any further questions. 23 JUDGE LAZO: Okay. ( 24 MS. BERNABEI: Can I note for the record that Mr. 25 Dewey and I spoke about a stipulation about the relevance of O
2575 () I this witness's testimony. And Mr. Dewey can correct me if 2 I'm wrong, but I believe he has agreed that Mr. Gonzales has 3 not testified as to whether or not there is an assured sup-4 ply of water. He has testified, based on his calculations 5 with the MAG figures, that there will be, based on the MAG 6 figures, a supply of water equal to the contractd-for amount 7 for three reactors. 8 MR. DEWEY: I think Ms. Bernabei has stated it cor-9 rectly. But my only point is that Mr. Gonzales' testimony 10 is solely predicated on the fact that the contracted amount 11 will be available, the contracted amount from the 92nd Avenue 12 plant and any other sources. So. And he does not attempt 13 to go into, or he did not factor in any possibility that O 14 those amounts would not be there. Is that correct? 15 MS. BERNABEI: I would differ a little bit. I 16 think he didn't consider the contract at all. He just con-17 sidered the physical availability from 91st Avenue treatment 18 plant, working with the MAG figures. 19 I have no problem with his testimony being limited 20 to that. 21 22 23
) 24 25 O
2576 S12 1g 1 MR. DEWEY: I don't think we have any difference O 2 here. You are concerned about Section 21, and he did not 3 consider Section 21. C) 4 MS. BERNABEI: And he did not consider the 5 contract, as I understand it. 6 MR. DEWEY: The contract was his starting point 7 to get the amounts of the e fluent that would be available 8 under the contract. 9 MS. BERNABEI: I don't think he used the contract 10 at all. 11 MR. DEWEY: I think he stated that -- 12 MS. BERNABEI: In his testimony, as I read - f~) A/ 13 perhaps it is quibbling, but I don't think the contract is. 14 in here at all, or of' any relevance. 15 JUDGE COLE: I think he stated he did not read 16 the contract. 17 MS. BERNABEI: Yes. 18 MR. DEWEY: This is correct, but the contract:-- 19 the amounts from the contract are what his starting amount 20 was, the amounts that were supposed to be available. 21 MR. GEHR: When we talk about the contracted () Il amount of ef fluent, that amount is much larger than is 23 required. It is 140,000 acre-feet, so if you say the () 24 portion of the contracted amount, I will go along with that. 25 JUDGE LAZO: Can we agree that we each know what
2577 2 1 the stipulation means without having it reduced to writing? O 2 MR. DEWEY: Yes, sir. I believe with the 3 clarifications each of us have made. O 4 JUDGE LAZO: Very well. Mr. Gonzales, we thank 5 you for your testimony.- 6 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 7 JUDGE LAZO: And you may be excused. 8 Now, Mr. Gehr, do you have any rebuttal 9 testimony? 10 MR. GEHR: Yes, I have Mr. Bingham, who has 11 previously testified in this matter, will you take the 12 stand, please?
'() 13 Whereupon, 14 WILLIAM G. BINGHAM 15 was recalled to the witness stand by the Joint Applicants 16 and, having been previously duly sworn, was examined and 17 testified further as follows:
18 JUDGE LAZO: Welcome back. 19 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 20 DIRECT EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. GEHR: () 22 Q Would you state your name, please ? 23 A My name is William G. Bingham. () 24 Q Have you previously testified in these 25 proceedings?
3 2578 1 A Yes, I have. O 2 Q And you have also been sworn previously? 3 A Yes. 4 Q Mr. Bingham, have you prepared any testimony that 5 you would like to submit? 6 A Yes, I have. 7 Q Is that a copy _of the testimony you prepared? 8 A Yes, it is. 9 ha. GEHR: May.the record show that Mr. Bingham's 10 testimony he is about to give has been distributed to the 11 parties and the Board, and sufficient copies for incorporation 12 of that testimony have been given to the reporter. O 13
\_/ BY MR. GEHR: .
14 Q Mr. ' Bingham, do you have any correctionsyyou would 15 like to make in any portion of your testimony? 16 A Yes, I have one. 17 0 would. you proceed, and explain what that is, and 18 where it is? 19 A Yes, I will. The change is on page ten, line 20 two, the last word in the sentence is " rubber," and it 21 should be changed to " epoxy," e-p-o-x-y. (]) 22 Q And you have no other changes to make? 23 A I do not. () 24 Q Mr. Bingham, if I asked;you the questions set 25 forth in this testimony, would you give the answers stated
2579 4 I therein? 2 A Yes, I wou ld . 3 Q Are those answers true and correct to the best of ; 4 your knowledge? 5 A Yes, they are. 6 MR. GEHR: If the Board please, I would like to 7 incorporate in the record as though read Mr. Bingham's 8 testimony which bears the caption " Rebuttal testimony of 9 William G. Bingham." 10 MR. DEWEY: No objection, 11 MS. BERNABEI: I am going to object at this time 12 until after questioning, cross.-examination . It is not so 13 much the testimony, but some of the Exhibits, which I will 14 note were not turned over to Intervenor during discovery. 15 JUDGE LAZO: The testimony was not turned over 16 to Intervenor until when, did you say? 17 MS. BERNABEI: The documents. Well, perhaps I 18 should make a motion to strike at this time. Exhibit DD to 19 this prefiled testimony concerns the Circulating Water 20 Test Facility. We had numerous discussions with Mr. Bischoff 21 about discovery, now two months ago. We were turned over a () 22 number of documents, test reports concerning the Circulating 23 Water Test Facility, the bench tests, and the demonstration O 24 91aat-25 We were never at any time given this consulting
I I 2580 l 5 1 report, although we asked for all the documents they had, l
) 2 and I would move to strike on the grounds we weren't allowed l
3 discovery on it, and it comes in at rather a late date.
) 4 On the same grounds, I would move to strike 5 Exhibit FF, which is a revised design of the water 6 reclamation system.
7 JUDGE LAZO: Now, as to the testimony itself, 8 would you repeat your objection, please? 9 MS. BERNABEI: Okay. I object on the grounds 10 that it does incorporate by reference -- 11 JUDGE LAZO: I wonder -- I am sorry, maybe you 12 should turn that microphone a little bit. () 13 MS. BERNABEI:. Is this better? 14 JUDGE LAZO: I guess we turned it down a bit. 15 MS. BERNABEI: Okay. Is this.better? 16 JUDGE LAZO: Somewhat. Thank you. 17 MS. BERNABEI: Okay. I move to strike the 18 Exhibits, and I guess I would have to move to strike from the 19 testimony any references to Exhibits DD and FF, on the 20 ground that they were not provided to Intervenor during 21 discovery, and since we made numerous requests for them, I 22 (]) must believe at this point that it was a deliberate refusal 23 to turn them over. 24 We did receive a number of documents which were (]} 25 the results of tests, bench tests, Circulating Water Test 1
2581 6 1 Facility, and demonstration plant tests, and at no time was O 2 this document that is now being offered to explain the 3 tests given to Intervenor. O
\l 4 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Gehr, what is the situation 5 regarding Joint Applicants' Exhibits DD and FF?
6 MR. GEHR:. Well, as you -- as the Board well 7 knows, there was no formal discovery conducted in this g respect. There was no formal request for production of 9 documents. Ms. Bernabei and Mr. Bischoff had numerous 10 conversations on the telephone, and in meetings, and requests 11 were made. 12 To our knowledge, we have complied with every , () 13 request that she has' made, except one, which was made this 14 week. Now, maybe it was last Friday, I am not sure. But in 15 any case, we have done the best we can to comply with every 16 request we made, and if she has some documented basis on 17 which she -- which would identify this document as one we 18 should have produced, then I think I would be prepared to 19 discuss it, but to my knowledge, we have complied with her 20 requests. 21 MS. BERNABEI: I -- () 22 MR. GEHR: Excuse me just one more minute. And i 23 I don't think that under the circumstances that the -- whether () 24 or not it was produced, or whether or not it was produced, 25 two Exhibits, that that is a proper basis for rejecting them. l 1
t' 2582
% /
() 1 MS. BERN ABEI: I would note someth'ing else, and , 2 I do not say thfa lightly. The documents we received, and 3 we did receive numerous documents, to start off -- we made (]} 4 requests over and cver again about documents concerning the , 5 water reclamation c:acility. We did have aniexpert come in 6 and testify, and he did leave all the results. And I,have 7 asked Mr. Bischoff numerous times. He did provide me with
- 8 a box of documents about that big. ; ,
9 I would note that I have questions, and 1'say 10 this very tentatively, about the authenticity of this docu-Il ment. All the documents we c'eceived from Bechtel were noted 3 t 12 with big black marks ca the' side of the documents. 'We re ' 13 ceived them from some rffice in California. We' received (~T , v 14 numerous copies of some of LSa documents, but they all had j ' 15 big Bechtel numbers onthe side. - , 16 What the origin of this document is, I do not 17 know. But it obviously was not kept in their files'because t - 18 we have received no document from Bechtel th'at did not have 19 big black numbers on the side. 's r 20 Andifit^1s-ibportantenoughtolaccompany ; j 21 Mr. Bingham's testimony here today, I thinIwedeserveto ~ '
~
22 get it in discovery. If it -was m6intained in some filed 23 that were considered unimportant orrif it \ was maintainedxin () 24 ~ any files at all, I do not think i't shoul
~
be admitted into 25 this proceeding. I think"thero is some question about the : () l' - 7
, i 1
l t
. 8 ) . % , -- e
2583 O ' aueneneicity of tais document considerine it does noe eveear 2 to have been in regular Bechtel files and we never received 3 it in discovery. 4 JUDGE LAZO: Well, Mr. Gehr is saying that you 5 never asked for it in discovery. l 6 MS. BERNABEI: We did. We did. I would ask l 7 for that same representation from Mr. Bischoff. 8 MR. BISCHOFF: As Mr. Gehr has mentioned, 9 Ms. Bernabei did make numerous requests, and we did our ut-10 most to comply, and as she stated, we supplied her with II numerous documents. And I do not recall the questions. We 12 did provide her with test results which was one of the 13 principal things that she was interested in, and I do not O s 14 believe that this ' consulting report provides test results. 15 MS. BERNABEI: This provides, as-I understand it, I 16 an evaluation of their tests by an independent consultant. 17 It seems very important, and it is certainly important 18 enough for them to use it to rebut our expert testimony. I' Under the circumstances, I do not think there could be any 20 question that this was relevant to my request. , 21 I can go back in my dairy and note the telephone 22 s calls, note the requests when I was here in Phoenix. It 23 can only be -- it is ingenuous to claim I did not ask for U 24 this document. I did not know it existed, by date, if it 25 existed, or by subject matter. P O
~
2584 O I
^11 1 em savine is thee there can be no doube 2 in Mr. Bischoff's mind that I wanted documents of this sort.
3 And I think it is evidenced by the things he did turn over 4 to me, which was a box of test results, a letter to Mr. Van 5 Brunt that is in the record that summarizes test results, 6 the water reclamation studies, the underlying bases for 7 those. I do not think there could be any doubt in his mind 8 that I would want this kind of a document if he had it. 9 MR. GEHR: I think that, you know, we have gone 30 through this before, that for some reason, Ms. Bernabei II thinks that everybody knows what is in someone else's mind. 12 And that is not the case. 13 JUDGE LAZOi Well, I can understand that there O 14 can be confusion about requests. 15 Ms. Bernable, you have'not just received these 16 two proposed exhibits today. You have had them for some 17 time. II MS. BERNABEI: I have had them since the 15th of I' the month. I am not claiming I am unprepared to question 20 him. I am claiming I never got them in discovery and they 21 should be stricken for that' reason. 22 I am also questioning the authenticity of the 23 document to some extent since they do not appear to have been O 24 maintained in regular Bechtel files. There are no numbers on the side of this document as were numbered every Bechtel p) u 1 l l
2585 I document we got. 2 JUDGE LAZO: Well, then, we will not rule on the Q 4 3 admissibility of these documents at this time. Let us see what comes out in the examination and cross examination. 5 If there is a question of authenticity, perhaps 6 that can be rectified. If it cannot, then we will be faced 7 with dealing with that. 8 MS. BERNABEI: Okay. 9 MR. GEHR: I have my request standing to have 10 the testimony incorporated into the record as though read. II JUDGE LAZO: I see no reason why we cannot put 12 it into the transcript -- incorporate it into the transcript 13 1, __ O 14 MS. BERNABET: If it is admitted into evide'ce. n 15 It is not admitted into evidence yet. 16 JUDGE LAZO: I think we can incorporate it into 17 the transcript as if it was read. If you move to strike 18 portions of it, the transcript will show that. O MS. BERNABEI: Fine. 20 JUDGE LAZO: Therefore, we will direct. the 21 reporter to incorporate the rebuttal testimony of Mr. William 22 D. Bingham directly into the transcript as if read. 23 (The document referred to, the rebuttal testimony O 24 o,s,. ,1111,m o. sim,s,m, ,o11, ,,3 25 O
's 3f[
l 1 i O 1; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 4j In the Matter of: ) Docket Nos. STN 50-528 I ) 5 Arizona Public Service ) STN 50-529 Company, et al. ) 6 ) STN 50-530 (Palo Verde Nuclear ) 7 Generating Station, ) Units 1, 2 and 3) ) 8 ) 9 REBUTTAL TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM G. BINGHAM 10 Q. Please state your name and business address. 11 A. My name is William G. Bingham. My business address is 12 11445 South Lakewood Blvd., Downey, California 90650. I O 13 Q. Are you the sue WHHa G. Bingham who testified on i 14 behalf of Joint Applicants in these proceedings on l 15 April 30, May 25 and May 26, 1982? 16 A. Yes, I am. 17 Q. What is the purpose of your rebuttal testimony? 18 A. The purpose of my rebuttal testiL.sny is to respond to 19 the testimony of William Paul Robinson, who testified 20 on behalf of the Intervenor in these proceedings on 21 May 28, 1982. In this connection my testimony will 22 1 deal with the following matters: 23 1) the circulating water tests - objectives and their 24 intent, structure, key parameters, and results and O 25 conctueione, 26l , i l E
l O 1 2) the flexibility available in the design and opera-2 tion of the circulating Water System ("cWS") for 3 the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station 1 4 ("PVNGS"); and . l 5 3) the reliability of the Palo Verde Water Reclama- ! 6 tion Plant ("WRP"). 7 Q. What were the specific objectives of Joint Applicants', 8 circulating water test studies? 9 A. As stated on page 5-1 of Part 5 of Joint Applicants' 10 Exhibit BB, they were: 11 "[1] Verify the practicality of operating the 12 plant circulating water systems at 15 cycles O 13 using the specified reclaimed wastewater, 14 [2] Identify potential plant operational problems is associated with this level of operation, 16 (3] Determine the in-cycle treatment requirements 17 for the plant circulating water system, and 18 [4] Determine relative corrosion rates for can-19 didate condenser tube and tube sheet ma-20 terials." 21 Q. Please explain each of the four objectives and their 22 intent in greater detail. O 23 A. Regarding ob3ective 1, 1 xnew that severa1 power p1 ants 24 utilized municipal wastewater for condenser cooling at rhese p1 ants are O 2s 2. s to s cyc1.s of concentration. 26 described in Table 4-1, page 1-30, Part 1, of Jnint f i
- _ _ _ _ . - _. . - .- - _ - . . =_. __ _
l O 1l Applicants' Exhibit BB. I also knew about experience I 2i at thermal power plants operating with surface water 3 for condenser cooling at 8 to 15 cycles of concentra-4 tion. This experience is described in Table 4-2, page 5 1-31, Part 1, of Exhibit BB. This convinced me that 6 there was a sound basis upon which to proceed with 7 design of the CWS for PVNGS. However, since there was 8 a lack of experience with the use of municipal waste-9 water at cycles of concentration greater than five, I 10 developed a program to prove that such usage was prac-11 tical. I was particularly interested in identifying 12 key design parameters and demonstrating that there 13 would be no unexpected synergistic effects. This was 1 14 the intent of Objective 1. 15 Because there was a lack of experience with the 16 use of municipal wastewater at cycles of concentration 17 greater than five, I established Objective 2 to iden-18 tify potential plant operational problems, such as 19 growth of algae or slime, microbiological fouling of 20 the condenser, or foaming due to laundry detergents. 21 , objective 3 dealt with system in-cycle treatment 22 design. I wanted to verify that standard circulating O 23 water system chemica1 tre tment practices wou1d be 24 adequate for the treated wastewater in the Palo Verde Q 25 CWS. 26 < - O 1 Regarding Objective 4, at the time of the studies, l 2 corrosion due to seawater was becoming recognized as a , O 3 prob 1em at coasta1 power p1 ants and desa1 ting p1 ants. 4 I set up Objective 4 to determine whether the copper 5 alloy materials currently in use for condenser 6 tubing -- admiralty and copper-nickel -- would ade-7 quately withstand corrosion in the CWS or whether 8 titanium would be required. The test program was 9 designed to supplement data from operating plants and 10 existing literature. l 11 Q. How were Joint Applicants' tests structured to achieve 12 these four intended objectives? O 13 x. we actua117 ran two trees of circu1atin, water test 14 programs. One utilized the circulating water test 15 facility ("CWIF") located at the 91st Avenue Sewage 16 Treatment Plant and was conducted as shown in Figure 17 5-4, page 5-19, Part 5, of Exhibit BB. The other was a 18 Bench Scale test program conducted as shown in Figure 19 I 5-5, page 5-20, Part 5, of Exhibit BB. 20 The CWIF was set up to closely simulate the key 21 parameters necessary to meet the intended objectives. ;
)
22 It contained the essential components of a typical O 23 vower 91 ant circu1atin , water system (heat source, heat 24 exchanger, cooling tower, circulating water pump, Pi ping, and controls for operation, makeup and blow-Q 25 2e .....
\.--
O 1l down). A line diagram of the CWTF is shown in Figure 2 5-1, page 5-14, Part 5, of Exhibit BB. The circulating water in the CWTF was heated and 3l 4 evaporated to produce a concentrated solution similar 5 to that of an operating system. The makeup water was 6 effluent produced by the reclamation demonstration 7 plant. The CWIF also included loops for sampling and 8 material coupon testing as well as chemical injection 9 lines in the cooling tower basin. 10 The CWTF tests concentrated the treated wastewater 11 and circulated that water through the heat exchangers 12 and the tower. This permitted evaluation of per-0 13 formance re1ative to obsective 1. A series of tests l 14 were run with varying chemistr'ies (cycles, scale in-15 hibitors, corrosion inhibitors, and ammonia content) to 16 see if problems developed. This allowed an evaluation 17 with respect to objectives 2 and 3. Two different 18 types of heat exchanger materials -- admiralty and 19 titanium -- were used in the tests. Coupon and gal-l 20 vanic series tests for a number of materials were 21 l included to provide corrosion data relative to ob-22 jective 4. O 22 rue senca scate testins was set up to corroborate 24 the CWTF and to look at accelerated corrosion. A line diagram of the Bench Scale test facility is shown in Q 25 A column 26 Figure 5-3, page 5-16, Part 5, of Exhibit BB. I l l i l l i
1 0 1! served as a small, forced draft ecoling tower. The l 2l ' tower basin was a two-liter beaker containing a heating O 3 coi1 to preheat the circu1atin, water. The coi1 was 4 part of a separate water-filled loop with a pump and a 5 temperature controlled water bath. A pump circulated 6 the cooling water through a single tube heat exchanger 7 to the top of the column. The heat exchanger tube 8 could be changed to test different materials. Effluent 9 from the demonstration reclamation plant was shipped to 10 the laboratory for testing. This laboratory apparatus i 11 was suitable for testing a wide range of materials 12 under a broad spectrum of chemistries and permitted O 13 settins up extreme conditions taatt wou1d not de ex-14 pected in a power plant. 15 Q. Was it your intention that the circulating water test 16 facilities model the Palo Verde CWS? Please explain. 17 A. No. There was no need to construct complete scale 18 models since the design and operating criteria for cir-19 culating water systems had been well established over 20 many years based on the design, construction and opera-21 tion of hundreds of thermal power plants of all sizes 22 in the United States and elsewhere. Just as the size O 23 of operating power p1 ants had increased from the 50 MW 24 range to the 1100 MW range, there had been a commensu-25 rate increase in the size of circulating water systems. f 26 Thus, practical operating experience had given us the l O 1l confidence that we did not have to consider design 2I scale in the objectives for the CWTF. The four ob-3 jectives described previously were the only reasons for 4 the circulating water tests. We conducted fundamental 5 testing to assure that we could reliably use treated 6 municipal wastewater in our standard circulating water 7 system design at cycles of concentration greater than 8 five. i 9 Q. What key parameters did you consider and why did you 10 select them? i 11 A. The key parameters are tube flow velocity, the tem-12 Perature rise of the circulating water in the condenser O 13 < heat exchanser), circu1ating water chemistry, ana 14 geometry in the context of scale formation, fouling and 15 corrosion. 16 17 Tube flow velocity is relevant to surface effects 18 associated with corrosion and deposition. It deter-19 mines whether protective oxide films would be stripped 20 away or whether the geometry of the surface-flow inter-l 21 face would be conducive to deposition of suspended or 22 supersaturated material. The flow velocities agreed 23 closely between the CWTF with titanium tubes (7.1 to 24 8.0 feet per second) and the Palo Verde CWS, which also has titanium tubes (7.8 feet per second). We were not Q 25 concerned with the volumetric flow rate in gallons per 26 i .
; I 1 minute but the relevant parameters of flow. Volumetric 2 flow rate is meaningless in this context.
O 3 We a1so considered circu1ating water temperature 4 rise in the condenser. This relates to the tendency of 5 scale to form at the contact between the circulating 6 water and the hot condenser tubes. The CWIF and Bench 7 Scale tests simulated summer conditions for the CWS 8 (nominal 30' F rise in the condenser) since the cir-4 9 culating water temperature rise is highest in the i 10 summer months. Both tests had condenser (heat ex-i 11 changer) outlet temperatures (119' F) that agree with i 12 the outlet temperature projected for the CWS (119' F). 13 We considered chemistry and set up the circulating 14 water tests to ensure that the choice of design mate-15 rials and treatment methods would handle high concen-16 trations of potential problem constituents. , Particular 17 attention was paid to those constituents customarily 18 encountered with municipal wastewater. We ran the 19 tests at high factors of concentrations with extremes 1 20 in pH and ammonia. We verified that our design had l 21 adequate margin to handle fluctuations in circulating 22 water chemistry. Since testing used actual demonstra- , 0 23 tioa 91 =t ere1= eat =a eaco 9 a extreme = in circu-24 lating water chemistry, the testing established that the Palo Verde CWS will function properly. Q 25 26 .....
O 1, We also considered geometry in the context of l 2 scale formation, fouling and corrosion. The CWIF heat O 3 exh m er was configured in a m-er simuar to the 4 tube /tubesheet arrangement found in typical condensers. 5 I am satisfied we adequately explored geometry in the 6 tests. 7 Q. Mr. Robinson testified that galvanic corrosion testing 8 reported in Exhibit BB did not include titanium. (Tr. 9 at 1625, lines 1-5.) Did the galvanic corrosion tesc-10 ing include titanium? 11 A. Yes. As I testified earlier, galvanic testing included 12 titanium. (Tr. at 1300, lines 13-15.) O 12 c. Is there a conc 1usion that can be drawn from the cor-14 rosion tests? Please explain. 15 A. On the basis of the tests, we found that corrosion for 16 the concentrated treated wastewater conditions in the 17 CWTF was similar to that for seawater conditions. 18 Accordingly, we were not limited to the corrosion data 19 base established in the tests. Instead, we made use of 20 the wealth of data established by corrosion experience 21 with seawater. 22 Q. Please summarize the provisions to minimize corrosion O 23 rou h v 1nctuaed in the aesisn of the cws. 24 A. The condenser tubing,is titanium, which has not experi-enced corrosion in circulating water systems; the tube-Q 25 sheet and pump impellers are aluminum bronze. Selec-26 9_ i l
l i O 1' i tion of this combination is supported by experience at 2i operating plants. The condenser water boxes are rubber 3 lined in accordance with standard practice. The cool-4 ing towers and the CWS canal are concrete. The piping 5 is either concrete or lined carbon steel to protect 6 against corrosion. Material specifications also in . 7 clude allowances for corrosion. 8 Q. Please summarize the circulating water system test re-9 sults and conclusions. 10 ' A. The results and conclusions of the CWIF and Bench Scale
~
11 tests are reported in Part 5 of Joint Applicant's 12 Exhibit BB. 13 In summary, operation of the CWTF showed no pit-14 ting, corrosion or hard scaling of the admiralty tube . 15 heat exchangers during initial CWTF testing. There 16 was, however, a persistent condition of sludging in the 17 water which included oxides and salts of copper and 18 iron with moderate to heavy organics. 19 Sludge formation was at first thought to be due to 20 ammonia leaching of copper in the system. Accordingly, 21 the decision was made to extend testing with a reduc-22 l tion in system copper-bearing components and with O 23 maxeup water of ammonia content 1ess than 1 ppm cas u). 24 The inspection following the fourth test at in-creased flow velocities revealed the continued forma-Q 25 26 tion and deposition of sludge on tuba and tube sheet i
i I l O 1l surfaces, though in lesser quantity than in previous 1 2 tests. The tubes were in good condition except for the 3 soft sludge deposition. With the low ammonia content 4 of makeup and circulating water, it became apparent 5 that occasional low pH conditions and inadequate 6 chlorination control were responsible for the sludge 7 problem. Copper was being leached from nails in the 8 tower fill and possibly from other components. Iron 9 was being leached from the unprotected tower structure 10 and from cast iron components. 11 Accordingly, the original tower fill was replaced 12 with new fill, the tower structure was coated, and O 13 bronze end cast iron components were reg 1 aced. a 14 hypochlorite metering pump was added to enhance 15 chlorine control, and steps were taken to reduce or 16 eliminate acid leakage which had caused excursions to 17 low pH. 18 The fifth and sixth field tests with improved pro-19 cess control of the circulating water pH and the shock 20 chlorination treatment led to minimal fouling and 21 sludging problems, even with an increase to 20 cycles 22 of concentration. It was concluded that higher ammonia 23 content was probably permissible in the presence of 24 copper alloys if biological activity and pH were con-This was verified 1ater by the taboratory O 25; tro11ed. 26 ! Bench Scale tests. l O 1 I Prior to the start of the seventh field test, the > 2 admiralty tubed heat exhangers we. e removed and re-O 3 91 aced with titanium tubed heat exhangers. The seventh 4 and subsequent field tests were all operated at 20 5 cycles of concentration and at a further increase in 6 flow velocity. The ammonia level of the makeup water 7 was increased to 5 to 10 ppm (as N) in the seventh and 8 eighth tests. The circulating water ammonia content 9 ranged from 13 to 97 ppm (as N) without any sludge 10 formation. Post-test inspection of the titanium tubes 11 showed a very light, chalk-like, soft deposit on the 12 , last two inches of the discharge end of the tubes with O 13 the bu1k of the surface in a c1ean and arishe condi-14 tion ~. No pitting or corrosion was observed. 15 The ninth and tenth field tests were performed 16 , using 25 to 35 ppm ammonia (as N) in the makeup water. 17 The circulating water ammonia content ranged from 34 to 18 158 ppm (as N) with no sludge formation. Post-test 19 inspection of tubes revealed clean and bright surfaces 20 as in the previous tests. Again, no pitting or cor-21 rosion was observed. 22 The final four tests had provided eight weeks of O 23 continuous, successfu1 operation with an arrar of cor-24 rosion test coupons exposed to the circulating water. 25 Analysis of all corrosion data acquired during the test 2e . . . . . .
r
. I O 1 program indicated a similarity of corrosion tendencies 2 between seawater and concentrated makeup water. , 3 Coupon corrosion tests of candidate tube and tube 4 I sheet materials resulted in the following relative 5 ranking of materials:
6 1. Titanium 7 2. Stainless steel (SS) 304 8 3. Monel alloy 400/405 9 4. Nickel aluminum bronze 10 5. .70-30 cupro-nickel l 11 6. Aluminum bronze l 12 7. 90-10 cupro-nickel O u 8. admire 1ty 14 9. Copper, EC grade 15 10. Muntz 16 11. Steel alloy 1020. 17 In summary, field tests with the CWTF conclusively 18 demonstrated that the Palo Verde CWS can be operated at 19 20 cycles of concentration without scale formation or 20 excessive condenser tube fouling or corrosion. The 21 tests did not foreclose operation at cycles of concen-i l 22 tration greater than 20. The water chemistry for this O 23 type of overation usine rec 1 aimed municipa1 wastewater 24 has been adequately defined. Standard circulating water system treatment will control the water chemistry. Q 25 26 - - i 1 _
O 1 Titanium tubes were specifically tested during the 2 Bench Scale tests under conditions simulating an acid O 3 va excursion in Tests no. 7 throush so. 9. no s1udeine 4 or scaling resulted, and no corrosion or pitting was 5 detected, with the circulating water at 20 cycles and 6 at a pa range of 2.5 to 5.0. Makeup water ammonia was 7 at 30 ppm (as N). 8 Ammonia concentration had a moderate effect on , 9 corrosion rates of admiralty and 90-10 cupro-nickel. I 10 It had no effect upon titanium and 300 series stainless I 1 11 steel. I 12 The Bench Scale tests confirmed the field test
~
O la resuits in ter=s or ter che-istry, contro1 of studse 14 formation, tube scaling and corrosion. The Bench Scale 15 tests also did not foreclose operation at cycles of 16 concentration greater than 20. 17 The tests demonstrated that titanium is the proper 18 tube material and that the circulating water system 19 can be operated at 20 cycles of concentration. Spe-20 cific test results are provided in appendices C-6 and 21 C-7 of Exhibit BB. 22 Q. Mr. Bingham, were you satisfied that the circulating O 23 weter tests echieved the four intended ch3ectives2 24 A. Yes, I was. However, I was also interested in having 25 an independent evaluation of the tests. For this 26 reason Bechtel contracted with the Nalco Chemical l
i s 1l Company to independently review the testing methodology 2 and results. I am providing their report as Exhibit DD 3 as marked for identification and attached hereto. 4 Q. Did the Nalco report confirm your conclusions that the 5 tests achieved the four intended objectives? 6 A. Yes, the Nalco report confirmed that the Bench Scale 7 and CWTF test program to evaluate scaling was adequate 8 to represent the circulating water at 15 and 20 cycles , 9 of concentration as compared to the specified feed, and 10 that the CWTF testing was adequate to evaluate corro-11 sion and the use of chlorination to control slime and 1 12 microbiological fouling organisms. () 13 Q. Mr. Robinson has testified that the constituents in the
". 4 treated wastewater concentrated at varying rates in the 15 CWTF and that, as a result, the chemistry of the 16 treated wastewater should be evaluated further to de-17 termine how such varying rates of concentration will 18 affect the operation of the Palo Verde CWS. (Tr. at 19 1652, lines 10-14; Tr. at 1655, lines 3-8, lines 15-22; 20 Tr. at 1658, lines 6-16; Tr. at 1659, lines 5-14.) Mr.
21 Bingham, do you have an opinion as to whether the chem-22 istry of the treated wastewater should be evaluated ( 23 further? Please explain. - 24 A. I do not believe further investigations are warranted. () 25 I consider the discrepancies between the test data and 26 - - - - 1 _l
1 I O 1; the theoretical projections for a closed, steady-state l 2! system to be not significant. 3 We were testing a simulation of an actual cir-4, culating water system and not a hypothetical, closed, 5 steady-state system. The testing was dynamic. We 6 added chemicals and varied feed concentrations. 7 Therefore, our testing just cannot be compared to the 8 type of controlled experiment that a research chemist 9 would use to test a scientific hypothesis. That was 10 not our purpose. 11 In our tests we were trying to confirm our ability 12 to deal with actual concentrations of potential problem 13 constituents by chemical control, selection of mate-14 rials, or otherwise. We were not trying to prove that i
~
15 precise multiples of concentration of the potential 16 problem constituents would occur. In fact the cycles 17 of concentration do not determine a limit for the 18 operation of the CWS. 19 Q. Do you know of any concrete evidence that supports your 20 conclusions that the Palo Verde CWS can be operated at i 21 at least 20 cycles of concentration without scale 1 22 i formation, or excessive fouling or corrosion? ! 23 A. Yes. I have reviewed operating plant experience at 24 several power plants in the Southwest. Each of the Q 25 plants, with one exception, was designed by Bechtel. have had a table prepared which compares the estimated I 26l I l I l l
i : I i .
.i 4
i. ) l ] O 1l chemical concentrations for Palo Verde to those of the I i .l 2 other plants. This table has been identified as Joint 3 Applicants' Exhibit EE and is attached hereto. The I 4 experience reflected on Exhibit EE represents more than i ! 5 one hundred plant years of operation. The water 6 source, condenser tube material and measured values of ^ 7 concentrations of the potential problem constituents I i 8 for these operating plants are shown. Exhibit EE j 9 indicates values for PtNGS which are identical to WRFS 10 Table 4-2. Inspection of the operational data shows 11 that Palo Verde's chemistry is well within the envelope 12 of the concentrations of the potential problem con-13 stituents for these operating plants except for l 14 phosphate. Phosphate is not expected to present any 1 l 15 operational concerns based on operating experience at ! 16 Southwestern Public Service Company and Burbank as 17 shown in Tables C-8-2 and C-8-3, pages C-8-4 and C-8-7, I 18 respectively, Appendix C of Exhibit BB. The projected i i 19 concentration of phosphate for Palo Verde is below the 20 phosphate concentrations for these two plants. In my ! 21 opinion this comparison shows that Palo Verde could l 22 operate at cycles of concentration above 20 without 23 excessive scaling, corrosion, or fouling. 24 Q. Intervenor's Exhibit XXVII, Table WPR-3, identifies l O 25 11mitations- for the product of the concentrations of calcium and sulfate and the product of calcium and 26 i _ __. . _ _ _ .
. l . -l l
O 1 i alkalinity. Mr. Bingham, what is your opinion as to i I the validity of the stated limits? 2l i O 3l A. Page WPR-3 of Intervenor's Exhibit XXVII identifies a 4 limit of 500,000 for the product of the concentrations l 5 of calcium and sulphate. This value is only a small 6 fraction of the values for the operating plants shown l 7 in Exhibit EE. Page 25 of Intervenor's Exhibit XXVIII 8 and Mr. . Robinson's testimony at page 1696 in the 9 transcript both characterize the value as a " rule of 10 thumb." I conclude that the value of 500,000 does not 11 constitute a limit at all and that the Palo Verde CWS 6 12 will operate properly at the level of 2 x 10 shown in 13 Exhibit EE since this level is substantially below 14 values encountered in operating plants. 15 Page WPR-3 also described a limit from Inter-16 venor's Exhibit XXIX of 41,600 for the product of 17 calcium times alkalinity. Exhibit EE shows that even 18 though the Palo Verde CWS is below this value, there 19 are plants operating substantially above this value. I I 20 ; conclude this value also does not constitute a limit. I 21 l Q. Mr. Bingham, is the plant designed with sufficient 22 l flexibility to deal with variations in concentrations 23 of the constituents in the influent to the WRP? Please 24 ! explain. I O 25
^- v- rn war i= a iea a ror v ri ste Proo == t1o-26 ,
rates, variable chemical addition rates, and variable 1
i Q 1 recycle processing. Thus, a broad range (a factor of 2 two) of inlet constituent concentrations can be ac-O 3 commodated while still achieving the quality specifi-4 cations for the treated effluent being supplied as 5, makeup to the CWS. 6 Normally, the WRP will send water to the reservoir 7 at a better quality level than required by the quality 8 specifications. In addition, the reservoir provides l 9 dilution volume that will tend to mask any short-term 10 fluctuations in the WRP effluent. I 11 The CWS provides additional flexibility. We have 12 incorporated the capability for the addition of such 13 items as acid, scale inhibitors, antifoam agents, and 14 chlorine. This will permit operation without scaling 15 at concentrations above the specified water quality. 16 Q. There has been considerable discussion of the relia-17 bility of the WRP as described in Exhibit BB. Is the l 18 reliability of the WRP as constructed the same as 19 j stated in Exhibit BB? 20 A. No. l 21 Q. Why not? 22 A. We modified the design of the WRP. As shown in the O 23 attached Exhibit er as marxed for identification, we no 24 longer have a three module design. We now have a i O 2s gera11 1 arran,ement of ective components sized to 26 , permit design capacity to be realized with any one of I i
O 1! the parallel paths out of service. Further, reservoir 2 capacity was not included in the WRP reliability O 3 studies. Any estimate of the overall reliability of 4 the supply of treated makeup would need to consider the 5 reservoir. 6 Q. Mr. Robinson testified as follows regarding TDS: 7 "The Nestor article [Intervenor's Ex-hibit XXVI] notes that in high velocity 8 flows, the total dissolved solids can be a significant contributor to corrosion 9 and pitting and it may be just the total dissolved solids irrespective of the 10 specific may be significant according to that document." (Tr. at 1644, lines l 11 21-25; Tr. at 1645, line 1.) l 12 Do you agree with Mr. Robinson's interpretation of the 13 Nestor article? 14 A. No. In my opinion the testimony incorrectly character-15 izes the article for at least two reasons. The second 16 page of Intervenor's Exhibit XXVI states: 17 "On the other hand, high velocity water streams, especially those high in dis-18 solved and suspended solids or dissolved and entrained gases, often damage pas-19 sive oxide films, causing extreme local-ized corrosion. An example or a metal 20 that is prone to impingement attack caused by high velocity is copper." 21 (Emphasis added.] 22 First, the article does not state that TDS, alone, i 23 can be a significant contributor to corrosion. 24 Second, Mr. Robinson has incorrectly applied this 25 article to Palo Verde since the Palo Verde condenser 26 tubes are titanium, not copper. The oxide film of l l . 1 \
I i .. I j . : 4
- O 1l l
titanium is tightly adhering and quickly repairs itself i l l
- 2) upon damage.
O 3 Q. Does this conclude your rebuttal testimony? [ 4 A. Yes, it does. 5 ; 6 l 1 7 8 i 10 11 12 0 13 14 15 . 16 . i 17 ; 18 ! 19 20 l 21 , 22 23 24 25 26 4i 1
2586 O I MR. GEAR On =v coer the testimony had attached 2 to it the two exhibits, Applicants' Exhibits DD -- three 3 exhibits, excuse me. Joint Applicants' Exhibit DD, Joint 4 Applicants' Exhibit EE, and Joint Applicants' Exhibit FF. 5 Should those be separated from the testimony or incorporated 6 with the testimony? 7 JUDGE LAZO: I prefer to separate them and keep 8 ithem with the other exhibits. 9 MR. GEHR: I will offer those, in light of the 10 Board's recent ruling to defer or the ruling on the exhibits, II I guess, until cross examination has been completed? 12 JUDGE LAZO: Yes. 13 MR. .GEHR: I will defer offering them until cross O I4 ~ examination is completed. II BY MR. GEHR: 16 Q Mr. Bingham, would you give us a brief summary 17 of the substance of your testimony? II A Yes, I will. 19 My testimony today explains in some detail the 20 limited and specific objectives and excellent results of the 21 circulating water tests conducted in 1973 and 1974. The 22 main objective of the tests was to verify the practicality 23 of operating a circulating water system at 15 cycles or O 24 fectors of concentretion using city of ,heenix rec 1eimed 25 wastewater. O l
2587 O ^aotaer i=vorteat obseotive we= to aeter tae 2 relative corrosion rates for various condensative materials. 3 Our objectives did not include modeling the circulating 4 water system to scale. 5 As explained in my pre-filed rebuttal testimony, 6 that was completely unnecessary. Our tests were very tho-7 rough. We performed two types of tests. 8 On the first test, we constructed a circulating 9 water test facility in Phoenix. In the second test, we 10 performed a laboratory bench scale test program in II California. 12 The test results were excellent. Operation ir I3 the Palo Verde circulating water system up to 20 cycles I4 or factors of concentration about scale formation, fouling 15 or corrosion was confirmed by our tests. In addition, the I0 test results indicated that titanium would be the number 17 one choice f'or the condensor tubes at Palo Verde in order I8 to resist corrosion. I9 Palo Verde uses titanium condensor tubes. As 20 was done for the water reclamation facility where the design 21 was reviewed by consultants and an independent design review 22 board, our circulating water test procedures and results were 23 reviewed by an independent consultant and confirmed as 24 acceptable. 25 As is our normal practice, we have continually O
2588 (]) 1 updated our knowledge of the industry and its practices in 2 the area and find that since my review of operating ex-Perience available in 1974, four new power units using {) 3 4 municipal wastewater for cooling have been put into operation . 5 In addition, I have reviewed data on several 6 Power plants currently operating at cycles or factors of 7 concentration of 10 to 40. 3 Finally, I have reviewed data reflecting nearly 9 90 years of titanium tube condensor operation including to approximately 10 years of experience at the Arthur Kill 11 Station which uses titanium tubes and aluminum bronze tube 12 sheets like Palo Verde. 13 In my opinion, all of this operating data con-
- Cs 14 clusively confirms that Palo Verde can operate in a satis-15 factory manner well beyond 20 cycles or factors of concen-16 tration.
17 Finally, my testimony touches upon the flexibility 18 available for operating the Palo Verde Circulating Water 19 system and the greatly improved reliability of the Water 20 Reclamation Plant resulting from implementation of the design 21 changes recommended in the earlier reliability study and 22 by the independent design review board. 23 To summarize, I believe that our circulating () 24 water tests performed in 1973 and 1974 identified all areas 25 that needed to be tested, used appropriate testing procedures , O) v l
t ~f 1 I 2589' O i and achieved exce11ene test resu1ts. , o 2 I also believe that the extensive power plant ,. Q V 3 operating data for titanium tube condensors has confirmed , 4 the results of the 1973-197( circulating water tests.' h.n' 5 my opinion, the Palo Verde Circillating Water Systen. is ;more .
. '/
6 than adequate to reliably operate in cycles or factors of 7 concentration of 20 without excessive scaling, foulin.g ,,or ' 8 corrosion of system components and heat exchanges. , 9 Q Mr. Bingham, when you previously testified in 10 this matter on May 26, Judge Cole asked a number of questions II of you respecting the evaporation rate from the storage . 12 reservoir. I3 MS. BERNABEI: Where are you, Mr.'Gehr? 14 MR. GEHR: Yes, it is transcript from May 26 at 15 pages 1305 through 1307. 16 BY MR. GEHR: 17 Q At the conclusion of that -- during tEhe course I8 of that discussion, you indicated that you would have to I9 look to -- on page 1307 you stated, "I believe that the an-20 swer that I gave you before is probably the best answer 21 without some fu- ier review." 22 s .h t. ' n subsequently, Judge Cole said, "All 23 right, sir. if ya find that your answer is different from O 24 thee, cou1d you then eevise the soerd.. 25 Are you prepared to do so now? I
l l l 2590 l O ' ^ vee, 1-2 /// O ' 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 O 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 0
2591 T14, 1g 1 0 Proceed. 2 A Yes. There was considerable discussion on this 3 point earlier in the day, and I thought, Judge Cole, perhaps 4 I could clear up the matter. 5 JUDGE COLE: Thank you. 6 THE WITNESS: And make sure that the calculations 7 are understandable. 8 JUDGE COLE: Okay. 9 THE WITNESS: First of all, on the -- there are 10 two issues that I would like to cover. One is, what are the 11 correct evaporation rates, and second, to explain the 12 unaccountability that we had in the actual number that was O 13 presented, end with regerd to the ectee1 dete, 1 heve gone
~
14 to the PVNGS FSAR, page 2.4-88, where the data are given, 15 and if I could, I will just read that, for your information. 16 Evaporation rates for the site area were 17 developed using the published data listed in references 18 29, 30, 31 and 32, and I will give you those in just a 19 moment. 20 JUDGE COLE: I have a copy of the document. 21 THE WITNESS: You have the copies, fine. 22 The average lake evaporation rate is 72.4 inches 23 per year, and it is as shown on table 2.4-22 of the same O 24 documene. 25 The average precipitation for the site vicinity
2g 1 is 7.4 inches per year, as given in table 2.4-23. 2592 2 Based on the above, a net evaporation rate of 3 65.0 inches per year is used in the reservoir design. m 4 Now, there is another issue that is important, 5 and taat is that in the early days of design, the reservoir 6 w.s not lined, and that is -- I believe has been resolved 7 in an answer to a question. It is on page 3A_4, supplement 8 two, of the PVNGS ER-OL. 9 MS. BERNABEI: .What was that number, Mr. Bingham? 10 THE" WITNESS: Which one, the page number? 11 MS. BERNABEI: Yeah. Well, the whole thing. 12 THE WITNESS: Page 3A-4. () 13 MS. BERNABEI: Three A as in apple?
~
14 THE WITNESS: Yes. It is in Appendix 3A, Ms. 15 Bernabei, and it is question 3A.9, or NRC question 291.2, f 16 and what we did, of course, was to line the reservoir, and 17 that reduced the seepage rate from 12 inches per year to 18 essentially zero. So if you use those numbers today, you 19 should calculate in the neighborhood of -- well, I have 20 0.387 million gallons per day. 21 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. Thank you very Q 22 much. 23 MR. GEHR: Mr. Bingham is ready for -- offered (} 24 for cross-examination. 25 JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Bernabei?
2593 3 1 CROSS-EXAMINATION 2 BY MS. BERNABEI: 3 Q Mr. Bingham, starting on page five of your () 4 rebuttal testimony, line 24, you attempt, I believe , to 5 explain one of the purposes of the bench scale testing, 6 is that right? 7 A That is correct. 8 Q When you state the bench scale testing was set 9 up to corroborate the CWTF and to look at accelerated 10 corrosion? 11 A Yes. 12 Q Now, that purpose is not listed, is it, in this () 13 Nalco Chemical Company letter of June 26, 1974? 14' A Well, let us look. I don't remember. WeII, 15 looking at the letter, which is -- on my copy it is the 16 second page of Exhibit DD -- we start with several items that 17 were looked at, such as, do we have enough data to formulate 18 a cooling water treatment program, is the quality of the 19 data collected correct -- 20 Q okay, I am talking specifically about your 21 statement, that the bench study was set up in part to 22 (]) corroborate CWT tests for accelerated corrosion. Is that 23 purpose stated anywhere in that letter? {} 24 A No, it is not. 25 Q Is it stated anywhere in the project report that
d 2594 4 1 follows? ( 2 A Well, I believe that it is implied, at least, on - - 3 in item number three, titled " corrosion control," which is, R. k/ 4 let us see -- 5 0 What page is that? 6 A Four pages back into the test report from the 7 consultant, where he says, I believe you have accumulated 8 sufficient data on corrosion rates of the several metals and 9 alloys, so forth. 10 Q But that is about the pilot -- 11 A And indicated that you -- upon which to base a 12 selection of proper materials for construction of the cooling () 13 system? .
~
14 Q Right, but that isn't stated as a purpose of the 15 bench scale facility. I believe in this document, the ' 16 purposes are stated right up front, on the first page, and 17 they talk about deposition studies, isn't that right? 18 A Well, it says it was set up to corroborate the 19 CWTF and to look at accelerated corrosion. i 20 0 I am just talking about accelerated corrosion. t 21 That is not stated to be a purpose of the bench scale facility (]) 22 tests at any point, is it? 23 A Not in those words. () 24 Q Not in any words similar to those either, is it? 25 A Well, I suggested that if you read that first
5 2595 1 paragraph of thre!., that at least to me that means the same () 2 thing. 3 , Q Well, that is not talking about purposes any 4 () 4 more. It is talking about operation, isn't it? Isn't that 5 the -- two? 6 A That is not my understanding. 7 Q That is talking about purposes? 8 A I believe it does review the purpose, yes. 9 Q Where does that purpose, that is, to test for 10 accelerating corrosion, where does that appear anywhere in 11 the water reclamation studies, as a purpose of the bench 12 tests, the bench laboratory tests? () 13 A Well, let us see. 14 0 I believe the purposes are the objectives. 15 A Well, I am looking, and I will give you a 16 reference. On page 5-1 of the Water Reclamation Facility 17 Part five, we have the objectives or purposes. There is 18 four of them. 19 0 Okay, you will have to wait for us to get them. 20 I am afraid we don't have our copy, so if we could share 21 with the Applicants? 22 A ({} I would be happy to. 23 Q Mr. Bingham, where does it say that the bench
'T 24 (G scale testing, and I am not talking about the Circulating 25 Water Test Facility. I am talking about the bench scale
2596 6 1 testing, as you say in your prefiled testimony, was supposed 2 to.look at accelerated corrosion? 3 A When I had the testimony -- excuse me, page 5-1 4 written, it wasn't terribly clear, although it was intended 5 to be covered under determining relative corrosion rates for 6 candidate tubes and tube sheet materials, and what I intended 7 to do in my rebuttal testimony is to explain the intent of 8 what I meant when we put together the section five or part 9 five of Exhibit BB. 10 0 Well, I am asking yyou. a much simpler question. 11 What I think you have just pointed out to me comes from 5-1 12 of Part five of Exhibit BB, and that explains, if I . () 13 understand it, the purposes of the Circulating Water Test 14 Facility. Now, I am asking you where you find in any part 15 of the water reclamation studies that a purpose of bench 16 scale testing is to look at accelerated corrosion. 17 That is what your prefiled testimony says. 18 A I understand, and I can only say again, Ms. 19 Bernabei, tha' what I was doing in the prefiled testimony was 20 to explain the intent of the objectives in the water 21 reclamation f acility so everyone could better understand what ([) 22 we were doing. 23 0 Well, so this is really a misstatement. What (]) 24 you meant to say on page five is not the bench scale testing, 25 but the Circulating Water Test Facility was to look at
7 1 accelerated corrosion. 2597 O 2 A Please state that again, I am not sure I -- 3 Q Page five of your prefiled testimony. G 4 A Let me go to five a minute. 5 Q You have just pointed out- *o me, has to do with 6 the purpose of the Circulating Water Test Facility, not che 7 purpose of the bench scale testing, that is right? Is that 8 correct? 9 A What I hoped I_said was that from reading the 10 words in 5-1, wnich were written in 1974, that I wanted to 11 clarify the intent at that time, so that we knew that not 12 only were we doing the circulating water test, but we also O V l'3 did the bench test to corroborate our results, to make sure 14 that we had a good understanding of the corrosion rates, 15 relative corrosion rates, or quote, " accelerated corrosion 16 rates." 17 0 But nowhere in the water reclamation studies does 18 it state that a purpose of the bench tests was to determine 19 or to look at accelerated corrosion. You can't find a place, 20 can you? 21 A I haven't looked. 22 Q But as of this time, you don't know of any place? 23 A I don't know. O 24 o oker, geee seven. 25 A Excuse me?
2598 8 1 Q Page seven of your prefiled testimony? 3 0 We are just moving along through here. O 4 x okey. 5 Q Now, you are talking here about tube flow 6 velocity as a key parameter, is that correct? ! 7 A What line are you on? 8 9 10 11 12
- O i3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 0 22 u
i 24 25 I i
2599 O I o tiae 9 enrousa 1s-2 A Nine through 15. 3 I am talking about key parameters. That is cor-4 rect. 5 Q And the key parameter you are talking about there 6 is tube flow velocity, is that right? 7 A That is one of them. 8 Q Okay, now, you state that tube flow velocity is 9 important, or relevant, I believe is your word, because it 10 determines whether first of all, protective outside films II will be stripped away. That is correct, is it not? 12 A That is what it says. 13 Q Now, where in the Water Reclamation Study is that 14 particular parameter discussed? That is, tube flow , 15 velocity? I6 A I would have to look. I am sure it is. I do 17 not have all the volumes here. Would it help if I looked 18 for that particular information? I9 (Pause.) 20 Look at page 5-21, second paragraph. 21 Q I am going to have to look on with you, 22 Mr. Bingham.
' 23 A All right. I am sorry. That is one of many y 24 references. I am sure we can find others in the appendices.
25 Q That does not indicate that you took any tests, O ,
2600 O i does it? 2 A I am sorry. I do not understand. 3 Q The part you just showed me. And I suppose you 4 should read exactly what page it is. That does not indicate 5 any tests you took, does it?
; 6 A It says after the second test, the heat exchanges 7
were changed to a too-fast configuration which increased tube 8 size velocity to five feet per second. 9 Q And the results of those changes are recorded to anywhere in the -- 1I A Yes, they are. They are in the appendices to 12 these reports. 13 And can you find them foi me? Q O I4 A Sure. 15 (Witness examines document.) 16 I am not sure. I seem to be missing something in 17 this document you just handed to me. Let me check again. 18 There is a table that shows the full rates for 19 various tests, and for some reason part of five is missing 20 in this document. Let me see if I have another document that 21 will do it. 22 (Witness examines document.) 23 I have another chart here. I am sure I can find 24 it. (Witness examines document.) O .
2601 l O i oh, I did find it. oker. 2 It is on the same page we were looking at before, 3 521. 4 ' 0 I am sorry, for the record, it is? 5 A It is 5-21. I am looking at the paragraph in 6 the middle which says, "Accordingly, the old tower fill' 7 was replaced. New stainless steel pump provided increase 8 in full rate from 154 to 178 gallons per minute." 9 Q Okay, Mr. Bingham, I will just read into the 10 record what you just pointed out to me. These are the re-II sults, you say, of the tests at different flow rates, is that 12 right? 13 A No, you asked me if there were different flow
.O 14 rates, I thoug'ht, than there were, and I was looking for a 15 chart that shows them by tests. And I did not seem to find 16 that. Maybe my memory is not too clear, but the text does 17 tell what happened.
{ I8 Okay, these describe the tests. Q I would like to I9 see if you have any results from the tests in addition.
- A The test results, yes, those are in Appendix C, 21 I believe.
22 Q And you would have test results for these tests 23 at different flow rates, I assume? O 24 A Well, they would match the flow rate that was 25 appropriate for that test, yes. And if you look, for example , O
2602 O oa 9 se c-87o et te t 7 e=a 8, you wi11 ee the re u1t-2 of the tests. 3 0 And could you read the differences in the tests 4 with different flow rates? 5 A I do not think it is that handy. I~can read you 6 from one set of tests,and I could read you from another that 7 had different flow rates. 8 Well, what I understand here is the new stainless 0 9 steel pump -- and I am reading from page 5 "provided an 10 increase in flow rate from 154 to 178 gallons per minute." II A Yes, that is correct. 12 Q What I would like to know is what the tests showed 13 at those differen't flow rates. What were the different re-O M sults that you found? 15 A How many would you'like to know? I6 Q Oh , any number. I A One? 18 Q We'll just talk about -- well, we will have to I' have more than one to make a comparison, I assume. 20 A Well, if we look at test, I beliere, 1 through 5, 21 or take test 4 maybe -- that was at the lower flow rate, and 22 some of the tests before that are listed on page -- let's see -- it starts -- let me tell you what page it starts with. That would help. Q If anybody had an extra copy of the Water O
2603 1 (]) 1 Reclamation Studies, that probably would be useful. It is 2 a little -- we could share one. 3 A It starts on page C-6-31. And for test 4 it goes 4 through -- let me see how far. C-6-42. So this is the 5 start of test 4, the test results, what was looked at, the 6 various concentrations, and their measurements through time. 7 And then data on post-inspection, what was observed. And 8 then a description of the coupon tests and a chart.. 9 that shows -- this happens to be a table, C-6-7 that shows 10 the coupon results for all the different coupons, what II loot they are in, what their size was, what exposure they 12 had, what their weight loss, or relative indication of cor-13
.rosion was. Then a conversion to corrosion per year and an O 14 engineering judgment of what that meant.
15 0 Where is there an indication of the different 16 results for the different flow rates? 17 A Okay, this is for the one flow rate. This is for l I8 the lower flow rate. Now we go to case 5, and -- oops, I 19 have a page out here. If we go to 5, it has a new flow 20 rate, as we indicated. Or 6 -- we can use either ( 3. And 21
- here it will have the same information, and then when you l
22 get back to the back, there should be a table somewhere. 23 There it is. No, we have gone too far. This happens to s 24 be 7. It should make no difference. And this will show 25 the same type of information. i () 1
.e 2604 O
V I Q Okay, if you would let me review it for just a 2 second? 3 A Sure. 4 MR. GEHR: Ms. Bernabei, I want you to know that 5 I have asked somebody to bring over two copies that I know 6 I have available -- 7 MS. BERNABEI: Thank you. 8 MR. GEHR: -- so more people can look at it. If f 9 you have much more of this, why, I think we might consider 10 having an earlier break -- II MS. BERNABEI: Well, I do have a number of ques-12 tions that will involve the Water Reclamation Study. Un-p I3 fortunately, our copy is not here. Some parts of whdt I am d I4 going to'be referring to, I believe, are Intervenor's 15 Exhibits, but I have no problem waiting for other copies to 16 come in. 17 MR. GEHR: Well, I leave it to the Board. It's II the Board's -- I9 JUDGE LAZO: We have a copy. 20 (Laughter.) 21 MR. GEHR: I get the message. Let us go on. 22 JUDGE COLE: We had to bring it all the way back. 23 (Laughter.) O 24 (Pause.)
///
O
2605 O i av MS. azaNAnz1: 2 Q Mr. Bingham, based on Field Test 5 and Field 3 Test 7, as you pointed out to me, and I am giving you back 4 the Water Reclamation Study -- 5 A Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response. ) 6 Q , Okay, based on those two tests, can you tell me 7 the difference that different tube flow velocities made 8 in the stripping away of protective oxide films between those 9 two tests. 10 A I might be able to. I thought you were looking II at corrosion and not stipping away of the oxide film. 12 O Well, do you not say here on page 7, " Tube flow 13 velocity determines whether - " and.I am quoting'- " pro-O I4 tective oxide films would be stripped away." That is your 15 first reason to examine differences in tube flow velocity, 16 is that not right? 17 A That is one of the reasons, yes. 18 Q So I am asking you to take two tests, and you 19 said those two tests were done at different tube flow velo-20 cities, and tell me what the differences were in terms of 21 stripping away of protective oxide films. 22 A All right. I will try. 23 Q Test No. 5, which is the page you had turned over, O V 24 we talk about the post-test inspection on page C-6-49. And 25 on that page it indicates that February 8, 1974, the system
2606 Q l was shut down for inspection of the heat exchangers. The 2 heat exchanger tubes and other components of the circulating 3 system were very clean. A very light green-gray oxide coat-4 ing formed on the tube sheets when the surface dried. Then 5 it goes on and talks about the percentages of concentration. 6 Test 4 -- 7 Well, I asked you examine Test 5 and Test 7. Q 8 Those are the ones I just read to -- 9 A Five and_7 have the same tube velocity. 10 0 Oh, you told me they did not. Those were the two II you referred me to. 12 A I hope I said 4 and 5 or 4 and 7. I3 Q Four and 7? Okay. Well, why do we not to'go 4, I4 then.. I have not had a chance to read it. 15 JUDGE COLE: I thought he said 4 and 5. 16 BY MS. BERNABEI: 17' O Okay, so you are talking about 4 and 5 now?
- I8 A I was, yes.
I9 Q Okay. 20 A Because that is when the change was made. And if 21 Test 4 is reported on page C-6-40, and it says we go to 4. 22 inspection of the heat exchangers revealed a system of con-23 siderably less deposits than noted during previous inspec-24 tions. Heat exchanger tubes and tube sheets had a very 25 think film of green sludge upon them. Then it goes on and O
2607 O ' eivee the ene1reie. 2 O Does it say anything about oxides? 3 A It says the tube is removed from the second pass
)
4 of the low temperature heat exchanges for metallurgical 5 examination. It revealed no pitting, no local attack. 6 Generally, the tube was in good condition and no indication 7 of abnormal corrosion. 8 Q Does it say anything about oxides in that? The 9 stripping away of oxides or -- 10 A It does not specifically say stripping away of II oxides. 12 Q So in other words, at least in respect to t hose 13 two tests in which you varied the flow rate, one test makes
\- 14 some mention of oxides, and the other makes no mention of 15 it that you can find. Is that right?
16 A Let me look at the other one. (Pause . ) I7 It does not mention it on 4. II Q Okay, from those two tests, and we just took I9 two as an example, the difference in flow rate -- well, let 20 me start over again. At least for those two tests where 21 you used different flow rates, you did not draw any conclu-cions in terms of oxides since one test did not even list 23 anything about oxides. Is that correct? () 24 A What I was reporting were the results. 25 Well, are there any conclusions that you can Q ('s
\-)
(
2608 () I find in the Water Reclamation Studies or any other place 2 from those two tests? Tests 4 and 5. Any conclusions re-3 garding the stripping away of oxide that was in any way 4 related to differences in flow rates? 5 A Can I find it in any place else, is that the 6 question? 7 Q For those two tests. That is my. question. 8 A I can find a summary of the results up in the 9 main body of the report. I would have to look for the exact 10 paragraph where we talk about these. 11 Q I am asking you specifically for these two tests 12 whether you drew any conclusions in terms of the stripping 13 away of oxides with a difference in flow rates.
.( )- 14 A I expect that we did.
15 16 17 18 19 1 20 l 21 l l 22 l 23 () 24 25 ( ' l
2609 T16 ,1g 1 Q But it's not reported, at least for one test in O 2 the water reclamation study? 3 A I don't know. I don't know without looking. And O 4 as a matter of fact, if you read the chronology of the test, 5 where we were headed was towards the higher tube velocity 6 that is used in titanium tube condensers, and we did change 7 condenser materials if you read further in there. 8 ' Q I understand. I am just talking about the two 9 tests we are talkingabout. 10 A I understand. 11 Q And one of the representations made is the tube 12 flow velocity was an important and relevant parameter to 13 consider in these tests, because, and I quote, "It determines 14 whether protective oxide films would be stripped away," and 15 all I am asking you is, for those two tests, and I will let 16 you choose any two tests you want, if you can determine 17 anything from those tests about the stripping away of 18 oxides? 19 A I am sure we could. 20 Q From what you have got in the water reclamation 21 study! n x/ 22 A Yes. 23 0 okay. () 24 A And what I said was that without looking in the 25 detail to see whether it was reported or not, I can't show
2 1 the line and paragraph. 2 Q Can you find it reported anywhere in the water 3 reclamation study? 4 A I can sure try. 5 Q Please do. 6 A Do you want it done now? 7 Q What I would like, if it is reported anywhere 8 in the water reclamation study, that the difference in flow
~
9 rate had any effect on stripping away of oxides, or you drew 10 any conclusions about the stripping away of oxides as a 11 result of flow rate. 12 JUDGE COLE: Ms. Bernabei, I guess I don't know O 13 waet direceton you ere soins in. - 14 Mr. Bingham, wouldn't this manifest itself in an 15 accelerated or decelerated corrosion rate, or increased or 16 decreased weight loss if the layers were stripped away? 17 THE WITNESS: Yes, it would. 18 JUDGE COLE: Is there anything in those two 19 tables that might indicate some differences in that regard, 20 which might be an indication of the effective velocity? 21 THE WITNESS: There might be, and that is what Q 22 I said I would have to look, and I indicated before that we 23 did change from Admiralty twos, which requires a lower flow 24 velocity, otherwise you will indeed strip away the coating 25 or even the metal, to a higher velocity that is in practical
s 2611 3 3 use for titanium tubes, which is in the neighborhood of I r k/ 2 guess seven to eight feet per second. 3 JUDGE COLE: Well, sir, could we look at the 4 Admiralty metal in table C-6-7 on page C-6-41, and the ame 5 metal in table C-6-8 on page C-6-50 -- l 6 THE WITNESS: Yes. l 7 JUDGE COLE: -- and then compare the weight loss 3 and corrosion rates of these two different flow rates? 9 THE WITNESS: We can sure do that. 10 MS. BERNABEI: Would you give those once again? 11 JUDGE COLE: It is pages C-6-41 and 50, the two 12 tables we have been talking about. And I guess we can look () 13 at the 90-10 copper-nickel or the Admiralty, or any others 14 on that page. 15 THE WITNESS: Yes, we can de that, or we could 16 look at Table C-4-5 on C-4-16, which happens to have a materia l l 17 with all the different tests. That might even be a more 13 convenient way to look at that. 19 JUDGE COLE: What page was that, sir? 20 THE WITNESS: That would be C-4-14. I just 21 happened to pick corrosion, coupon corrosion -- well, that is 22 coupon corrosion tests. Well, I think that that would give (~)T r_ 23 you the same idea, and it lists a number of tests, test 4, () 24 test 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 down the side. You see that? 25 JUDGE COLE: Yes, sir.
m - . - - - - 2612 4 1 THE WITNESS: That might be a little easier one 2 to look at, but we can look at the other one, if you prefer. 3 JUDGE COLE: Are you waiting for me, sir? O 4 THE WITNESS: I was waiting for you to find the 1 5 page. 6 JUDGE COLE: I have got the page in front of me. 7 THE WITN$SS: Oh, you have the page. If you 8 look at -- happen to look at .C-4-5, what we have done is 9 look at the corrosion that was noticed for the copper-t 10 nickel, and you can see that they vary, depending upon the 11 samples that were in there, and the pH of the system. If i l 12 you look also at the two pages that you saw, for example, on 13 page C-6-41, you can look at the losses that were reported 14 on test four, and for titanium, you can see there was no 15 visual attack, and I am looking at C-6-41 right now, and let 16 us see, where was the other table? 17 JUDGE COLE: And test four, sir, is the_ lower l 18 flow rate? 19 THE WITNESS: Yes. l l 20 MS. BERNABEI: Do you have any further questions, 21 Dr. Cole? No. l () 22 JUDGE COLE: No, I was just looking at the 23 results of the 90-10 copper-nickel, and it seems that the () 24 increased velocity had -- the corrosion rate and the weight l l 25 loss was considerably less than at the lower velocity, while 1 i
2613 5 1 that is not the case for Admiralty metal. 2 THE WITNESS: That is what it reports. 3 JUDGE COLE: I don't know how to explain that, sir . O 4 I will look to you for that. 5 BY MS. BERNABEI: 6 0 Is it possible there are other variables that 7 would explain? 8 A Yes, there are so many variables, it is very 9 difficult to take one little piece of data and compare it, 10 but what we were trying to indicate;-- or at least I was 11 trying to indicate in my testimony, that we wanted to make 12 sure that we had selected the right velocity, tube velocity Q/ 13 for.the type of material that we were using. 14 JUDGE COLE: And Table C-4-5 indicates the 15 different test conditions that would be responsible for the 16 difference between four and five? I 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. That is correct. 18 BY MS. BERNABEI: l 19 0 I guess what I am asking you is where is the 20 test data that would specifically indicate how changes in 21 test flows -- or excuse me, changes in tube flows -- or how ( 22 did you say it? Tube flow velocities would change corrosion 23 rates, if you use Dr. Col?'s -- () 24 A Well, we were talking originally about corrosion, l 25 and then we got to fouling or stripping of oxides, and now we e I
6 2614 1 are back to corrosion. O O Well, I started off with stripping of oxides. 3 A I see. O 4 Q Because I was following your testimony. 5 JUDGE COLE: But Ms..Bernabei, I.. guess..the2-- the 6 thing about the stripping away of the oxides is it leads to 7 increased corrosion. 8 MS. BERNABEI: That is what I assumed. 9 JUDGE COLE: So I considered'.the_two to be very 10 much related. 11 MS. BERNABEI: No, I understand. And basically 12 what I am trying to find out is where in your tests, if we () 13 use the tests of corrosion, or we use the tests of stripping 14 away of oxides, where in your tests can we determine the 15 effects that different tube flow velocities have on 16 corrosion? How could we determine it from any of these 17 tests? 18 THE WITMESS: I think we can look at some of the 19 data, but again, the tests were set up to really understand 20 how well the titanium tube heat exchanger would perform under 21 the expected conditions, and if you will see, we ran the j () 22 tests as we state in the text, until we were able to receive 23 a titanium tube heat exchanger, and put it into service, and 1 j () 24 we were -- excuse me. We were varying the parameters to look s 25 at them, to get a feel on what would happen to some of the 4 I 1 s _ --
26.15 7 1 materials, and you see page af ter page of test results that O 2 are reported that experts in particular areas can use for 3 their analyses . O 4 BY MS. BERNABEI: 5 o Well, I just want to concentrate on tube flow 6 velocity, and what I would like to see is any results that 7 show that tube flow velocity has any effects specifically on 8 corrosion, or on stripping away of oxides, either one. In 9 other words, these tests, as I see them in the water 10 reclamation studies, show that a whole lot of different 11 parameters have effects on a whole lot of different things, 12 and what I would like to see, if it is'in the water O 13 reclamation study, is any demonstration- of the effects 14 specifically of flow velocities, tube flow velocities, on 15 corrosion or on stripping away of oxides. 16 A I understand what you are looking for, but I am 17 not sure that we have held every other parameter constant and 18 only varied flow velocity. 19 Q Well, is there any indication in here of the 20 effect of tube flow velocity as a separate and distinct 21 parameter on corrosion? Where in this study can I find those 22 re su lts , that would tell me anything about how differences in 23 tube flow velocities affect corrosion? () 24 A Well, you can look at each of the tests, and if 25 you are qualified in the area, I would; presume that you could
2616 8 -1 tend to normalize all the other parameters and focus on one O 2 particular one. 3 0 I guess what I am asking of you, is there any O 4 place in the water reclamation studies that you did that? Is 5 there any indication in this study that you normalized 6 everything .else, and looked at what the specific parameter 7 of tube flow velocity does to corrosion? Is there anywhere 8 in this study that you did that? 9 A No't to my knowledge with regard to normalizing 10 all the other parameters . 11 Q Okay, so there is nothing in the water 12 reclamation . study that indicates that you examined tube flow ( 13 velocity as a parameter. in and of itself that affects 14 corrosion? 15 A Holding every other item normal? 16 0 Yes. 17 A No. 18 Q But I assume you have some. tests somewhere that 19 demonstrate? 20 A Well, we .have the tests, and pu would look at the 21 tests, and from that conclude the results. () 22 Q But they are not in the water reclamation studies? 23 A The tests are in the studies. s 24 Q But there is nothing, as you said, that 25 indicates that holding everything else common (sic) , how tube
2617 i 9 1 flow velocity -- let me finish my question -- .affects 2 corrosion, and I will A?t you finish your answer. There is 3 nothing in there that indicates :that, is there? O 4 A We haven't reported it in that format. 5 Q Okay. Now, in your testimony in page seven and 6 eight, you indicate that it is meaningless -- 7 A I am sorry, you are on seven and eight? 8 Q Right. t 9 A Thank you. 1 10 Q Now, you say in your testimony that it is 11 meaningless to talk about volumetric flow rate, and that what 12 you examined was tube flow velocity. Now, isn't it true.that ( 13 both these rates, tube flow velocity,' and volumetric flow 14 rate, are essentialiy, oh, a measure of the fluid going 15 through the system? 16 A Well, tube flow velocity is not a' measure of the 17 total volume going through the system. 18 0 okay, so -- well, why don't I just ask you the 19 question? What is the difference in your mind between the 20 two, and why is it meaningless to look at one, and ' meaningful 21 to look at the other? ' , () 22 A I thought the question was, were they the same? 23 They are not the same. () 24 Q I understand. You answered that question. I 25 have asked you another one.
10 1 A Okay. 618 2 O Why, as you stated in your testimony, is it 3 meaningless to look at one, but meaningful to look at the 4 other one? 5 A Basically because we are interested in the flow 6 velocity on the tube, and if I had one tube, then I wou1d 7 have a certain amount of flow through the unit. If I had 8 1,000 tubes, I wou1d have to have more flow in order to 9 get the same vetocity through the tube. 10 Q And are you saying that it doesn't make any 11 difference what size tube you have? That would be the 12 conclusion I would draw from your testimony. . O i3 A no, whee I wee indiceeing is ehet it uianie.:meke 14 any difference how many tubes I had, for this exampte. 15 O But how about the size of the tubes? 16 A Well, again, the size of the tubes, like other 17 physical dimensions in the condenser, are important to 18 understand, but as f ar as the velocity through the tube, the 19 velocity of the tube would be the same in my example. f 20 0 I understand that, but what I am saying is,that i l 21 _ the size of the tubes to you makes no difference. It is i O 22 eimg1y the ve1ocity2 23 A Inithis case, that is correct. O' 24 o okey, now you eatk ebout f10w ve1ocities et the 25 circulating water test f acility; with titanium tubes at 7.1 i I m._
2619 11 1 to 8.0 feet per second, is that right? O 2 A Where are you reading from? 3 Q Reading from page seven of your testimony. O 4 A That is correct. 5 Q Okay, and you also state that at Palo Verde, at 6 the actual site, you are talking about tube flow velocity at 7 7.8 feet per second, with titanium tubes? 8 A That is correct. 9 Q Now, turning to Exhibit -- Joint Applicants ' 10 Exhibit DD, marked for identification. Not all of the tests 11 that this independent consultant did were at those flow rates, 12 is that right? C)
^> 13. A Ms. Bernabei, the independent consultant didn't 14 do any tests. What they did was look at all the test results 15 that were_run. ,
16 Q Right, but the tests they did review -- I 17 misspoke. Th'e tests they reviewed, many of them were not 18 done at this high of a flow rate, is that right? , 19 A They were all reviewed at all flow rates. l 20 0 Okay. And taking, f or .examp le , runs -- and I am 21 at the pilot plant f acility now, okay? () 22 A What page are you looking at, please? 23 0 I am looking at the independent review, page two. () 24 A Because I know that there are several pages. Are 25 you looking at the letter, or page two of the report?
2620 12 1 Q Excuse me, it is page three of the independent O 2 report, or independent review. 3 A Page three. 4 Q Now, we are talking about runs number one and 5 two. Now, what is the flow rate for those runs. 6 A Well, that was the smaller of the two values I 7 gave you earlier. I can recover it if you like. Was that 8 page 5-217 9 0 Well, doesn't it state it here? 10 A I don't know. 11 Q Five GPM? 12 A This is through the coupon holders. ( 13 , Q Right. 14 A Not through the condenser tubes. That is 3.7 15 feet per second. 16 Q Right. 17 A Right. Yes? 18 Q So what you are saying is that this wouldn't be 19 comparable? 20 A These are numbers that the consultant has just 21 repeated from the test data that were taken, not yet reported, i () 22 as a matter of fact, 23 0 okay, well, whether or not they are reported in () 24 this report, you are f amiliar with the tests that were done. 25 Were there problems that were encountered running water at a r
l l 13 2621 1 lower rate, in other words, when the flow rate was lower O 2 than the ones that you note on page seven of your testimony? 3 That is, lower than 7.1 to 8.0 feet per second, or lower O 4 than what is going to be actually occurring at Palo Verde, 5 the 7.8 feet per second? 6 A Well, we indicated that there was some 7 undesirable fouling that was noted. I think that is 8 reported in the test results. I am not sure I..could say that 9 we didn't expect that that might not be the case. 10 Q But is it f air to say there would be problems 11 encountered if the tube flow velocity were much below 7.8 12 feet per second in the actual operation of Palo Verde? 13-14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 ! () 22 23 () 24 25
2622 T4hbl 1 A I don't believe so. 2 O Well, isn't that what you said your tests indi-Q
's_/
3 cated? 4 A What we said is if we use titanium, that a flow, 5 by experience, of around seven to eight feet per second ap-6 pears to be the most economical flow to use ce velocity to 7 use -- for many, many reasons. 8 Q Right. But if it were under this slow rate, at a 9 slower flow rate, isn't it possible that you would encounter 10 certain problems that you noted you found in your tests? 11 A Well, my main problem would be I couldn't remove 12 the heat from the plant?
'---s 13 Q That would be the only problem?
i 14 A That would be my major problem. 15 Q You wouldn't have any problems as you found in your 16 tests? 17 A Certainly -- 18 Q With using lower two-flow velocities? 19 A Certainly they would not be significant compared 20 to my other problem. 21 Q And what would those other problems be if you did 22 encounter them? 23 A It would mean to me that my flow had decreased for
. 24 some particular reason. Maybe a pump stopped or something 25 like that would be the major problem. We'd have to go out c
Q
2623 p
- 2) 1 and start the pump up.
2 O Okay, now I'm talking about problems other than ] 3 that. Well, that's the one that has the effect on flow 4 A 5 in the tubes. 6 Q What I'm talking about is problems such as you en-7 countered in your tests when you used a lower two-flow a velocity than the one you've noted here, 7.8 feet per second, 9 with titanium tubes. What kind of problems did you 10 encounter? Regardless of the reason or the source of the 11 decreased velocity. 12 A I found that in the early tests when I was still 13 or my people were still determining basically the chemical O 14 control of the system that if I'was at lower velocities, I 15 would seem some fouling in the tubes. 16 Q Now, do you have a lower limit for reducing two-17 flow velocity to which you can go prior to encompassing the 18 kind of problems you're talking about that you encountered 19 in your test results? 20 A With regard to what? 21 Q To what you were just talking about, fouling. 22 A I don't know of any station operating limit. . 23 Q So in other words, in you mind, there is no lower sj 24 limit under shich you would begin to experience fouling. 25 You haven't determined if there is some lower limit. O
2624 4 3() 1 A Not that has been established, that I know of. 2 Q Mr. Bingham, on page 9 of your testimony you (} 3 4 state -- and I'm quoting from the second sentence - CWTC heat exchanger was configured in a manner similar to the "The 5 tube /tubesheet arrangement found in typical condensers." 6 A That's correct. 7 0 What is the configuration of heat exchanger in a 8 typical condenser? 9 A I have a drawing here. If you would like to come 10 over, I'll show you. 11 Q Is it in anything that I might have? In other 12 words, can you refer everyone to some exhibit? 13 A It might be in the FSAR. I'm not sure. But cer-( tainly it's here if you'd like to see it. 14 15 MR. GEHR: I think you might as well speak out for 16 the record, Mr. Bingham? 17 THE WITNESS: Shall I speak for the record? All 18 right. Shall I identify what I'm looking at? 19 MR. GEHR: Yes, please. 20 THE WITNESS: All right. The first drawing is the 21 tube plate details by the condenser manufacturer. And it 22 shows a cross-section and outlir.e of the arrangement of the 23 tubes.
) 24 The second item that I am showing Ms. Bernabei is photo-25 graphs of the titanium tube heat exchangers, showing the same O
2625 () I configuration that is shown on the drawings. 2 BY MS. BERNABEI:
/~T 3 Q Now, how did you find out what was a typical con-U 4 denser?
5 A Excuse me? 6 Q How did you determine what was a typical condenser?
.7 A Well, what I showed you at this time was our con-8 denser, not a typical one. But there certainly were many con -
9 densers in service that we could receive drawings on from 10 manufacturers who could show you what their condenser looked 11 like. I use the word " typical" in that case. 12 Q And what is typical? Does " typical" mean the one 13 that's most comm'only used in power plants? O 14
~A That's a good definition.
I 15 0 Is that your definition? 16 A That's fine. 17 Q It is? 18 A Yes, that's a good one. 19 Q And did you do a survey to find out what typical 20 condensers are, or is this from your experience? 21 A This is from our experience. 22 Q Okay. Now, is it fair to say that you considered 23 geometry only to the extent that you chose a CWTF heat ex-(- O) 24 changer that was configured according to a typical condenser? 25 That was the extent to which you considered geometry.
2626
<h 1 A Basically, that's correct.
2 Q And you did not consider scale important. Is that p Q 3 right? 4 A I did not include what? 5 Q You did not consider scale important. 6 A Do you mean size? 7 Q Size. 8 A Let me make sure I understand what you're saying. 9 I did not consider it necessary to have, say, a condenser the 10 size of a plant that might take 100 megawatts of heat away, 11 for example. 12 Q Well, iln fact, did you determine the scale to 13 which your circulating-water. test. facility was modeled? The O 14 scale as compared to what you have out at Palo Verde. 15 A- I guess you've confused me with the question. 16 Would you try again, please? 17 Q Sure. We're talking about the geometry that's 18 important with a circulating-water test facility. And I be-l 19 lieve you said that you didn't consider size important in i 20 terms of the validity of the tests. Is that fair to say? l 21 A That's right. Physical modeling size. Yes. 22 Q Now what I'm asking you, what was the physical 23 modeling size as compared to the actual? l 24 A Well, I just showed you the two drawings. 25 Q I would like -- Is it a hundredth? Is it
/~'s V
2627 f 6]' 1 one ten-thousandth? Is it one fortieth-thousandth of the 2 same size as what's actually out at the site? (*) (j 3 A Well, in its total overall volume, it's surely -- 4 I don't know, a hundredth to a thousandth. It's quite small 5 compared to the plant itself. 6 Q Okay. So you're estimating it's about one one-7 hundred-thousandth. 8 A I said one one-thousandth. One one-thousandth. 9 I'd have to calculate it *.o give you a better number. 10 Q Okay. No, that's fine. 11 Now, in your testimony there's a question that 12 says: "Mr. Robinson testified that galvanic corrosion test-13 ing reported in Exhibit BB did not incude titanium." That's 14 on page 9 of your testimony, and that.is'what it says, 15 isn't it? 16 A That's part of what it says. 17 Q If you can wait just one minute -- Well, you're a
/
i 18 captive audience, so I have no problem. 19 (Pause.) 20 MS. BERNABEI: If you can indulge me, I thought I l l 21 had the page here, but I don't believe I do. 22 JUDGE LAZO: It might be an appropriate time to l 23 take our mid-afternoon recess. (
' 24 -
Is that convenient? l l 25 0
! 2628 i !O l i ss. ezannee1: raee s fine. 2 JUDGE LAZO: Very well. We will recess for 15 3 minutes, please. 4 (Brief recess.) 5 6 1 7 l 8 1 10 11 i 12 13 ~ O ~14
~
15 16
- 17 18 l 19 20 1
{ 21 22 , 23 O 24 25 O
2629 () 1 JUDGE LAZO: Will the hearing come to order, 2 please. 3 BY MS. BERNABEI: ['; 4 Q Hi, Mr. Bingham. 5 A How're you doing? 6 Q Okay, on page 9 there's a question, is there not? 7 The first question that appears on page 9. And I'll read. , 8 "Mr. Robinson testified that galvanic corrosion 9 testing reported in Exhibit BB did not include titanium. Did to the galvanic corrosion testing include titanium?" 11 And I'm leaving out the citation there. 12 And you say "Yes."
- 13 Now, it is true, is it not, that the galvanic test O 14 results for titanium are not included in t'he water reclama-15 tion studies?
16 A I'd have to look. But I thought there were tests 17 in the water reclamation facilities book. Did you say some-l 18 thing different? 19 Q Well, I think the tests are there. I think the 20 test results are not. 21 And I was going to suggest that perhaps that's the i 22 way Mr. Robinson's testimony could be interpreted. 23 (No response.)
) 24 Q Let me put it this way. You don't know for a fact 25 that the test results for titanium are in the water
2630 1 reclamation studies. (~)\ u 2 A I'd have t0 look. But it would surprise me if 3 they're not. Os i 4 Q Okay, would you like to look? I believe it's 5 Appendix C, which would be in Volume II. 6 (The witness examined the document.) 7 A On page C-4-10, paragraph C-4.2.4 talks about gal-8 vanic corrosion tests. 9 Q Right, and does it include the test results for 10 titanium? 11 A Well, let's see. 12 Q And could you give me that page number once again? 13 A Sure, C-4-10. l
^r')
'/ -
14 If you look at Table C-4-10 -- let's take a look 15 at that one and see whether titanium is in there. 16 I see titanium in Table C-4-10. 17 Q And there are two references, is that right? 18 A Well, let's see. About halfway down the page, 19 Probe 1 says titanium. 20 Q And then there's another one. l , 21 A There's another one. And let's see if it continues 22 on the next page. 23 Well, those are the two that are reported. () 24 0 Okay. Are there any other ones that you did that 25 were not reported? - l l (
2631 () 1 A I don't know. We have so much data. It's possi-2 ble there could have been. 3 Q But isn't it fair to say that the titanium galvanic (]} 4 tests would be the most important since that was, in fact, 5 your metal of choice that you used in your condenser system? 6 A It certainly is important. 7 Q And wouldn't it be important, if you did more than 8 two tests, that those test results would be included in the 9 Water Reclamation Studies? 10 A I'm sorry, I'm not sure I understand, Ms. Bernabei. 11 Q I asked you whether or not there were more tests 12 done for titanium other than the two that are reported. 13 A And I said I didn't know. O 14 0 Okay. So there may possibly be only two tests 15 reported. 16 Now turning to the bottom of page 9, I'm going to 17 read an answer. Well, I'll read the question also. 18 Question: "Please summarize the provisions to 19 minimize corrosion you have included in the design of the" -- 20 circulating water system - "CWS." 21 Answer: "The condenser tubing is titanium, which 22 has not experienced corrosion in circulating water systems. 23 The tubesheet and pump impellers are aluminum bronze." Then () 24 continuing onto page 10: " Selection of this combination is 25 supported by experience at operating plants." 4 a k
2632 () 1 Now, you include on page 13 a relative ranking of 2 certain materials in terms of their resistances to corrosion, i 3 is that correct?
)
4 A Yes, I do. S Q Now, is aluminum bronze included anywhere in that 6 listing? 7 A Yes, it is. 8 Q And that's at No. 6, is that correct? 9 A That's correct. 10 Q And that would be, is it fair to say, midway down 11 the list? 12 A It's midway down the list. 13 Q Now, can you show me anywhere in the Water Reclama-O. 14 tion Studies where you have done tests for aluminum bronze? 15 A I can take a look and see. Just for aluminum 16 bronze? 17 Q Right. For your metal-of-choice for your tubesheet 18 and pump impellers. 19 (The witness examined the document.) I 20 A If you look on page C-4-4, Table C-4-1, on the i 21 bottom of the page, you will see " aluminum bronze." l j 22 Q Will you give that to me again? 23 A I'm sorry. C-4-4, Table C-4-1, the bottom of the
) 24 page.
25 Q Okay. Now, these are coupon tests. Is that O I l
/
2633 () I correct? 2 A That's correct. 3 Q Now, did you do any tests for the circulating-4 water test facility? 5 A These are from the circulating-water test facility. 6 Q Okay. Did you do any tests that did not involve 7 coupons, in terms of actual equipment? 8 A I'm sorry, I just don't understand your question. 9 Q Did you expose any actual equipment -- in this case 10 we are talking about tubesheets and impellers. Did you do 11 any tests using the actual equipment that you'd be using? 12 A No, I did not. It was not built at that time, or i 13' some of it even purchased. O 14 'O Okay. Or you didn't do that using any smaller-15 scale equipment. 16 A I have smaller-scale equipment, that's correct. 17 We had the titanium tube heat exchangers I showed you the 18 photographs of earlier. 19 Q If you can wait just one second -- 20 A Surely. 21 (Pause.) 22 Q Mr. Bingham, I may be mistaken. Why don't I ask 23 you some other questions, because I may be mistaken in my () 24 assumptions for some of these questions. Okay? 25 A Sure. O
2634 () 1 Q Turning to what has been marked for identifica-2 tion as Exhibit EE, you note on this, do you not, the water 3 sources for certa'a other op? rating plants? 4 A I'm sorry, Ms. Be rr. abei, I couldn't hear you. 5 0 We're talkilng about what has been marked Joint 6 Applicants' EE, an exhibit to your testimony. 7 A EE. Just a moment. 8 I have EE. 9 Q Now, on page 10 of your testimony, you say that 10 selection of titanium and aluminum bronze is supported by 11 experience at operating plants. Is that right? 12 A Yes, that's correct. 13 Q Now, where in this exhibit does it indicate that O 14 that's true? 15 A It's not on this exhibit. 16 Q So there are other plants that aren't indicated on 17 the exhibit? 18 A Yes. I have that information in my notes. If 19 you'd like, I can share that with you. 20 Q Okay. 21 A Fine. I do have an extra copy or two. Would it 12 help? Or shall I just read from this? 23 Q Well, you can just read it into the record if there () 24 aren't too many. 25 A There are a lot. Okay, why don't you ask the ( !
2635 () 1 question again, and I'll make sure I give you the information 2 that you're asking for. 3 Q I guess my question would be: assuming that the {~} 4 selection of titanium for the condenser tubes and aluminum 5 bronze for the pumps and impellers was suggested by experi-6 ence at currently operating plants, as you stated in your 7 testimony, what are those currently operating plants? 8 A The plant that we used at that particular time 9 was the Arthur Kill plant. That's the one I mentioned 10 in my summary this morning. And that had an in-service date 11 of May 1972, which, of course, is prior to the time that we 12 were conducting our tests. It was a 500-megawatt power sta-
- 13 tion. And it was located, let me'see -- It was located on 14 the Arthur Kill, which is a polluted seaw'ter a site between 0
15 Staten Island and New Jersey. 16 Q Okay. Are there any other plants that suggest that 17 this combination of metals would work? 18 A Well, let's see, at that time, or now? 19 Q At that time. 20 A I have both. At that time? 21 Q At that time. 22 A Okay, I'll give you that time. At that time, the 23 Koke(ph) Plant Unit 1 of United Aluminating Company, located ( 24 in New Haven, Connecticut, had aluminum bronze tubesheets and 25 titanium tubes.
2636 O i 0 We11 -- 2 A That was a 445-megawatt power plant. 3 Q Okay. Now what I'm asking you for, again, is where 4 the condenser tubes are titanium -- 5 A And the tubesheets are aluminum bronze. And that's 6 the information I'm giving you. 7 Q Fine, okay. 8 A Would you like some more?
- 9 Q How many are there?
10 A Well, I have at least two or three more. 11 Q Okay. 12 A The next one -- 13 Q And how large a plant was that? 14 A Well, that was 445 megawatts. 15 The next are foreign applications that I do not 16 have the power-plant size available. But one is a power sta-17 tion for a Mobil refinery in the United Kingdom. And ano-18 ther one is for Enel, E-n-e-1, and that's in Italy. 19 Q Now, do any of those use sewage effluent as the 20 source of water? ' 21 A They do not.
- 22 Q Subsequent to the date that these teots were done, 23 '73,'74 and '75, are there any other plants that have used O 24 this combination of metals?
25 A Yes, there are. O
2637 () 1 Q And do any of those plants use sewage effluent? 2 A No, they do not. 3 Q And it is fair to say that for none of the plants 4 that are listed on your Exhibit EE do they use that precise 5 combination of metals. 6 A I'd have to look at another figure that I have, if 7 you permit me to do that, because it isn't indicated there. 8 Q Well, I think we can probably read off your exhibit. 9 Since none of them use only titanium for the condenser mater-10 ial, I assume none of them would match Palo Verde in that 11 sense. 12 A As far as the combination of tube sheets and tubes. 13 Q That's correct. On
\/ 14 A Well --
15 Q Since none of them even match the condensent 16 tubing, I assume none would match the combination. 17 A I was looking at -- Did I have San Onofre on that? t 18 Q Yes, you do. And I believe what it says is that i 19 the condenser material is titanium and copper nickel. 20 A Yes, it has two materials in the condenser. 21 Q So then that wouldn't be similar to Palo Verde. 22 A Well, as far as the titanium is, it would be. l 23 Q But it wouldn't be in terms of -- () 24 A But I don't know what the tubesheets are on that. 25 So I can't tell you for sure, just at least from the
2638 () 1 information I have at hand, whether they're the same. 2 Q Okay. Therefore, it's fair to say that this parti-
-s 3 cular combination of titanium and aluminum bronze to conden-U 4 ser tubes and tubesheets, to your knowledge, has never been 5 used in a power plant that uses sewage effluent for cooling
, 6 purposes. l 7 A That's correct. 8 Q On page 10 of your testimony, you state that the 9 cooling towers -- and I'm on lines 3 and 4 here. "The cool-10 ing towers and the circulating water system canal are con-i 11 crete." 12 That's correct, isn't_it? 13 A That's correct. l* . 14 Q Do you know what kind of concrete? 15 A Yes, I do. ( 16 Q Could you tell me? 17 A It's concrete very similar to the concrete in this 18 building or that's used in normal construction practice. 19 Q Do you know the specific type? 20 A Tell me what you mean by " type," and then I could 21 probably answer your question. 22 Q Well, I'll refer you to page 5 through 8 of Part 23 5, Volume I of the Water Reclamation Studies, which lists () 24 certain types of concrete. And that's what I would do, is 25 ask you to pick one out of there. O
2639 () 1 A Okay, what was the page? 2 Q Page 5-8, Part 5, Volume I. (The witness examined the document.) 3 4 A It's Type 2. 5 Q Type 2? 6 A Yes. 7 Q Okay. Now reading down -- and we're talking about 8 concrete structures in contact wf.ch the circulating water, 9 page 5.8, are we not? 10 A Yes, that's correct. 11 Q Okay. Now, this reads, does it not, that this mix-12 ture -- and I assume they're talking about the mixture of 13 concrete, is that right? I'm reading from about the third O 14 or fourth sentence. 15 A What sentence are you on, Ms. Bernabei? 16 Q Section 4.5 is labeled " Concrete," where you just 17 found -- 18 A No, no, I'm sorry. What line are you reading? 19 What sentence? Just give me a start, and I'll carry from 20 that point. 21 Q I guess it's page 7. Excuse me, it's line 7. 22 A Line 7. 23 Q And we're talkling about a concrete mixture when () 24 it starts out, "This mixture," is that right? 25 A Oh, yes. O
2640 O i o oker. now te eers, This mixture, -- meenine con-2 crete mixture, I assume - "is recommended where the struc-3 ture is in contact with water containing moderate sulfate 4 concentrations." And then in parentheses: "(above 1,000 5 parts per million)." Is that correct? 6 A Yes. 7 Q What is the range that's considered a moderate sul-8 fate concentration? That is, from 1,000 parts per million 9 to how many parts per million is considered a moderate sul-10 fate concentration? 11 A I'm not sure I can put a range on it. Basically, 12 what we do is used manufacturers' experience that made, for 13 example, the pipe or .the t:ooling towers, and use their opera-O I4 tional experience on the mixes. 15 Q And do you have any idea for Type 2 concrete what 16 would be the upper range? , 17 A Offhand, I don't know. But I expect it's consi-18 derably higher than 1,000. 19 Q Could you find that out from any of your documents?
~
20 A Well, we could look at that table that I started 21 to have out and give you some ideas, because we know the 22 plants are operating satisfactorily. Should I do that? 23 0 Well, I'd really like to know the range. In other 24 words, if there is any limit that you know. 25 A Yes, that's what I would do. O
2641 lhh 1 Q Well, what I'd like to know is what the manufac-2 turers say of what the range is. I mean, some indication. ggg 3 A I don't know what that is right at this moment. 4 But I would suspect that if we took the values that are used 5 at plants like Navajo or others that concentrate up to high 6 levels of sulfates, that we could say that certainly that's 7 an acceptable value to use for these purposes. 8 Q Well, I guess I'm asking you what is your limit at 9 Palo Verde. 10 A I do not have a number. 11 Q Will you use a number eventually? Will you deter-12 mine an upper level? 13 A I don't think so. I believe what we'll do is rely 9 14 upon the fine operating experience of these structures tha't 15 there is so much of, and make sure -- and have made sure, 16 I'll say that -- that our criteria fall within those values. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2s O .
2642 O i o 1 am afreid 1 do noe unaerstend whee you meen. 2 You are going to take a survey of plants that are currently 3 operating to see how high they go? 4 A No, what I am saying is that with all the operat-5 ing experience we have with higher cycles or higher concen-6 trations of sulphates that we are talking about at Palo 7 Verde that to my knowledge there have been no serious pro-8 blems with these types of concrete. 9 And I am asking you if you will at some time put Q 10 an upper limit on the sulphate concentration? II A I do not believe so. 12 O In other words, you will basically see how it 13 goes and if you encounter problems, then you will think about 14 it. 15 A No, that is not what I said. What I said was 16 that based upon the experience that we have and the experi-37 ence of very capable manufacturers of these components out II of concrete, that we will use their recommendations and I' assure ourselves that they have justified that they will meet the service in Tempe. 21 Q Do you know if the type two concrete that you 22 have just mentioned is sulphate resistant in any sense? 23 Type two concrete is used throughout the A Sure. t, 24 world for these type structures. Q For use with effluent? O l
2643 O i A ror use with seeweeer. ror use with eff1uene. 2 ror use with all types of environment. 3 Q Therefore, there are some tests or some analyses 4 that show they are sulphate resistant? 5 A I am certain that there are tests that look at 6 these parameters. 7 0 And you do not have them right now? 8 A Not right at my fingertips, no. 9 Q Continuing down, you said the piping is either 10 concrete or lined carbon steel to protect against corrosion? II A That is correct. 12 0 on page 13, carbon steel is not listed. Is it in 13 your relative ranking of material? O~ 14 A Well, there is down toward the end you will see 15 a steel alloy. 16 You would say, then, it is comparable to the steel Q 17 alloy? II l A Yes. 19 And that is at the bottom of the list, is it not? Q 20 A That is correct. 21 That means it -- Q 22 A That is why we coat it. 23 What? Q 24 A That is why we coat it. l 25 Let me just ask you, then, uncoated, it would be Q O
i 2644 O i 1ess reeistant to corrosion then e11 ehose other meteriete i 2 listed above it? 3 A Excuse me. I am sorry? 4 Uncoa t.ed. Without coating. Q 5 What do you coat it with? 6 A Usua11y with an epoxy. 7 And where is that indicated an your testimony? Q 8 A That was the change that I made on page 10, line 9 2. I changed the word " rubber" to " epoxy." i 10 Q But that is not talking about the piping, is it? II A Wel1, there is some pipe connected to the water 12 box that wou1d have that coating in it. 13 Q Wel1, is the way it shou 1d read, then, the piping O . 34 is either concrete or 1ine'd carbon steel coated with epoxy. 15 Is that the way it shou 1d read? l l 16 A It cou1d read that way. I7 Q In other words, what you are te111ng us here is 38 that all piping that is 11ned carbon steel is coated with I' epoxy, is that correct? 20 A What I was trying to indicate that all carbon 21 stee1 is either 11ned or coated with epoxy to protect it 22 from corrosion. 23 0 What I am asking you -- a very simp 1e question -- O 24 is a11 carson stee1, 11ned car 3en stee1, as you said here, coated with epoxy? O
2645 l I A No. But let me explain to help you. The reason 2 I use the words I did is because the concrete pipe has a 3 i"*" i" ** " th"' ** "" 9"*-""*"' **- '""* "*** O 4 liner has about an inch-and-a-half or two-inch coating for 5 lining of concrete to protect it from the effluent, if you 6 will. Or steel pipe, which we have in small connections, to 7 go from concrete to the condensor, we put an epoxy coating 8 inside because that is steel with an epoxy coating. So when I i 9 said to you that it is either lined or coated, that was to 10 indicate to you that it is protected for corrosion purposes. II O So what you are saying is that lining is suf-12 ficient to prevent corrosion for carbon steel? I3 A That is correct. O 14 Q Even !thchcjh c'arbon steel would be considered your 15 bottom of the list-in terms of resistance to' corrosion? 16 A That is correct. II Q Well; let me ask you this: Would you consider it
'I as effective as'if it were coated with epoxy?
I' A Gener' ally, yes, j 20 Q Now, you talk in the middle of page 10 in res-i _ 21 ponse to a question, please summarize the circulating water , 22 system test results and conclusions -- you state in the 3 second sentence in the second paragraph in answer, "There was, however, a persistent condition of sludging in the 25 water which included oxides and salts of copper and iron t
+
/
,c'
2646 O ' with moderate to heavy oreenic.- 2 Do you not? 3 A Oh, yes, I do. 4 Q If you know, what was the average concentration of 5 copper in the water coming into the circulating water test 6 facility? 7 A I do not know. We perhaps could find it in the 8 documents. 9 0 Okay, could you look? 10 A Want me to try? II Q You can give me an estimate. I assume it'-- you 12 can look for it if you think it would not take too long.
' I3 A It is just that I do not remember that number, f.
l-Ve I4 and what we wer'e talking about was the very first test. l And i,j ' 15 I would have to go to the test data or give you an average 16
, value. In fact,. I think if we look at table -- there is a 17 table that has that. Let me just see if I can find it.
I8 Okay. Q I' ' A It is in the books there. 20 Q You said Chapter 3 or Part 37 I . A I am not sure where it is. I was going to look l l 22 at some other data where I might have captured it so that 23 I could give you an idea. MR. GEHR: Someone mentioned Table 3-7 in Part 4. 25 THE WITNESS: Well, okay, or -- some numbers I i .
2647 O i have here on my notes are .o1, .o2 -- 2 BY MS. BERNABEI: 3 Q Where are you, sir? 4 A Well, I happen to be looking at some numbers off 5 of 361 for copper. Maybe there are other tables. Four-one, 6 perhaps has some copper values. Let me check. 7 JUDGE CALLIHAN: What units were you -- point "oh" 8 what? 9 THE WITNESS: Milligrams per liter. 10 JUDGE CALLIHAN: What units milligrams per liter II that -- 12 BY MS. BERNABEI: 13 Q That would be parts per million, right? O 14 A I said milligrams per liter, but that is satis-l i5 factory. Let's see -- 16 (Witness examines document.) 17 MR. GEHR: Page 435. 18 THE WITNESS: Four-three-five you said? 19 MR. GEHR: That is what you heard. 20 MS. BERNABEI: Four-dash-three-five. I think l 21 it is 4-35. l 22 MR. GEHR: Yes. 23 THE WITNESS: Oh, okay, good. Thank you. O 24 Yes, cogger -- we11, there.,e11 different va1mes. 25 Anywhere from .008 up to .18 for different kinds of tests.
2648 O i er MS. 8tRNaezI: 2 O Okay, if we could just do it in parts per million, 3 is that okay? 4 A That is parts per million on milligrams per unit. 5 Q Milligrams, okay. Now, it says here that there 6 was, however, a persistent condition of sludging in the 7 water which included oxides and salts of copper and iron 8 with moderate to heavy organic. Now, I guess what I am 9 asking you is, where would you expect that that copper would to come from that caused the sludging? II A Well, I think we indicated later on in the dis-12 cussion that it may have come from the nails. That is on 13 page 11, line'7. The copper was being leached from nails O 14 in the tower fill and'possibly from other component's. IS Q Do you know what amount of copper was contained i 16 in those test results when you got sludging? I7 A Not off-hand. I can look and see. It might 18 indicate what was in there. 19 If you could, sir. Q 20 A Let me see if I can do that. 21 (Witness examines document.) 22 MR. GEHR: You could try C-6-23. 23 THE WITNESS: Well, I was looking at test 4. 24 Let me look at this 4 That is a little earlier in the test. 25 first. Thank you. . O
2649 O i (Witneee exeminee document.) 2 Test 4 is the one we were talking about. That 3 is on page C-6-32. 4 BY MS. BERNABEI: 5 Q Excuse me. C7 6 A C-6-32. But all that says is that copper was 7 high. And so let us go back to 23 and see if that gives some 8 values of particular -- 9 (Witness examines document.) 10 Now, that is in the tube slude. That would give II you an idea. If you look at C-6-23, you will see there 12 23.2 per cent of copper in sludge, and if you look on page l 13 C-6-40, paragraph C-6.6.2, the fourth line, you will s'ee the O I4 copper percentage is 10 per cent. 15 Q Now, what would that be in parts per million? 16 A Well, it would not because we were looking at the . 17 dry weight of the sludge. i I8 Q Okay, is there any way you could convert that? 19 In other words, I am trying to find out the relative dif-20 ference between when the water goes in and when the sludge l 21 comes out, or forms. 22 I am not sure I could do that, reading from -- A 23 What I am trying to find out is the parts i 0
'-) 24 per million of copper in the sludge. Can you do that?
25 Well, if there were a hundred parts of sludge, A lO l l
2650 1 ten of them would be copper, or 23 of them would be copper. 2 Q Let me ask you this. Do you believe the nails 3 in the circulating water test facility were the cause of 4 this copper -- of the copper deposits in the sludge? 5 A That is correct. 6 Were they the only reason? Q 7 A Well, we thought there was some copper coming 8 from other components that we had in the system during the 9 early parts of the test. 10 0 And what were those components? II A I expect they probably were in some of the piping, 12 some of the fasteners in the towers. Perhaps they were in 13 some of.the pump parts, some of the bearings, perhaps. 14 And what were those made-out of? Q 15 A Copper. 16 They were all made of pure copper? Q 17 They could A Or they might be an alloy of copper. 18 be bronze or brass that has copper in it or a copper alloy I' of some kind. 20 Q Okay, so it is fair to say that there was at 21 least some leaching, you believe, from some of these parts 22 which either contain copper or copper alloy? 23 A Yes. 24 (O
) Q Is it not true that in the facility as built, the 25 tube sheet and pump impellers are aluminum bronze which O
2651 O i coateias coever? 2 A That is correct. 3 Q How can you be assured that that will not contri-4 bute to sludging'of the type you encountered in your circu-5 lating water test facility? 6 A Well, first of all, we talk about sludging, we 7 increase the velocity substantially of over a factor of two 8 almost, or nearly a factor of two, and that will, as we 9 showed in our test, particularly 9 and 10, maybe 8 -- I 10 forget -- that the higher velocity was very effective. We II also changed the chemical treatment system to mitigate the 12 effects of sludge formation. 13 Q So essentially you a're not dealing with the sludge O 14
~
problem in terms of'a different kind of metal used for parts 15 other than the tubing? 16 A What we were trying to do, Ms. Bernabei, was to 17 explain where the copper was coming from. 18 No, I understand that. What I am saying is how l Q 19 can you be assured in your system as_it exists at Palo 20 Verde, that in fact you will not encounter the same problems 21 when you are using aluminum bronze -- 22 A That was the reason for presenting to you the 23 10 years of experience on the Arthur Kill Station and the O 24 19 years of experience that I was about to tell you about -- 25 I did not get to -- on all the other stations. O I
---w- -- -- - - - - - - ~
-..,-9,~ww,~..me...
2652 A (_) 1 Q Okay, so basically, it is not from your test 2 results but rather from your experience from those plants 3 that you draw the conclusion that aluminum bronze will not 4 cause the kind of copper-leaching problem that you encoun-5 tered in your test?
- 6 A. Certainly, that is the most conclusive evidence.
7 Okay, thank you. Q 8 (Pause.) 9 I believe you testified earlier in these pro-10 ceedings that you believed the five so-called bad actors Il the following chemical constituents would concentrate at 12 the same rates, is that correct? l l 13 A I think we had a long. discussion.about that, and O I4
~
I indicated that if we were at steady state, that would be l 15 correct. l l 16 Okay. Q 17 A With one exception, and I think that was ammonia I8 that I talked about. I9 Q Well, the way I remember your testimony was -- and 20 this is working from WGB-3 through WGB-5, not the other ex-21 hibits, that those five bad actors would concentrate at the 22 I~believe I asked the question several different same rate. 23 ways several different times, and you replied, "yes," that () 24 was your belief. 25 That is what I said for the assumptions that I A l l l l
2653 (]) 1 gave you at that time, and later on in the discussions, if 2 you remember, we talked about stripping of ammonia from 3 the cooling tower because you were asking me how come 4 it did not happen for ammonia. 5 Q Right. 6 A And I explained why that was. 7 Q Yes, you believed it was not a steady state. 8 A That is correct. 9 Q Now you state on page 16 of your testimony -- I am to quoting from the second full paragraph: "We are not'trying 11 to prove that precise multiples of concentration of the 12 potential problem constituents would occur. in fact, the 13 cycles of concentration do not determine a limit fo'r the () 14 operation of CWS." 15 I read it correctly, did I not? 16 A You certainly did. 17 Q Now, I assume what you mean here is that you do 18 not believe the five bad actors will concentrate at the same i 19 rate in the actual water cooling system. Is that correct?
- 20 A What I am saying is that there may be some dif-21 ference to a precise number of cycle concentration. That is 12 correct. Or factor, I think we were using the word.
23 Q When do you determine or how do you determine in () 24 that case when you have reached 15 cycles of concentration 25 or 20 cycles of concentration, and do you take one bad actor
2654 () I and concentrate it 15 times? Do you wait until all five 2 bad actors are concentrated 15 times? Or do you pick a 3 specific one and see that it is concentrated 15 times? 4 A Generally, what is done in operating practice is 5 to use a specific element, in this case none of the bad. 6 actors, but chlorine is the one to choose. And generally, 7 that will be used to determine the cycles of concentration, 8 and then you will do periodic analyses of the other elements 9 to determine where they are in relation to the fluid that 10 is being tested. i II If you will let me find an exhibit for a minute. Q 12 (Pause.) I 13
, O .
i4
~
~ '
15 16 17 t 18 19 20 21 22 23 (} 24 25 O
i I T20,1g 1 Q Mr. Bingham, do you have what is marked as 2655 O 2 Intervenor's Exhibit XXVII? 3 A No, I do not. O 4 Q You might have it under a different name. It is 5 certain tables that were prepared by Paul Robinson for use in 6 his testimony. 7 A I don ' t be lieve so . If you could show it to me 8 maybe I might have it. Yes, I have a copy of that. 9 Q okay, referring you to the second page of that 10 Exhibit, which I believe is table 2, do you have that before 11 you, sir? 12 A Yes, I do. 13 Q Now, in fact that is what.is indicated by this 14 Exhibit, is it not, that -- I think I have got the wrong 15 table. Well, I have got the wrong table, so I will go on 16 to another question. 17 A All right. Fine. We don't need this table? 18 0 Okay. Well, I guess what you are saying here 19 today, then, is that you believe that outside of a steady 20 state, the five bad actors and certain other constituents 21 of concern do not concentrate at the same rate? O 22 ^ ves. 23 Q And that the way your cycles of concentration () 24 will be determined is by concentrating levels of chloride to 25 15 levels?
2 1 A Yes, that is correct. 2 Q And page 18, line 10, let me make sure. You 3 talk about and criticize certain limits that Mr. Robinson 4 set out in his testimony, is that correct, on page ten? 5 Excuse me, on page 18? 6 A I don't recall criticizing them. I do talk 7 about them. 8 0 Okay. Well, what you do is you say that in f act 9 you don't believe the limits he has set out are in fact 10 limits, is that correct? 11 A What I said was that the rules of thumb he 12 quoted from a document don't seem to be applicable in light O ia .oe e11 oe the overeeine exeerience thee is evei1es1e. 14 Q And what you further -- well, you state that for 15 concentrations of calcium and sulf ate, that you do not 16 believe his limit of 500,000 is in fact a limit, isn't that 17 correct? 18 A I wasn't aware that he made that a limit. If it 19 is his limit, that would be correct. 20 0 okay, I believe he did make it a limit based on 21 available literature. O 22 A I ehoughe he seid ru1e of thumb. 23 Q Well, I believe he called it a limit, in another
] 24 sense.
25 A Did he? Fine. l l t -
2657 3 1 Q Now, have you done any independent studies that 2 are either in your water reclamation studies or in any other 3 studies that you have, that indicate that that is not a 4 limit? 5 A Yes, I do. 6 0 And what are those? 7 A Those were in the documents we were discussing 8 earlier, and what I have..done is compile data from many 9 operating plants that are operating at levels far in excess 10 of the rule of thumb -- 11 Q But you have collected -- 12 A -- and limits, that Mr. Robinson reported.
-( ) 13 O But you basically haven't done tests on the 14 limits he has described. What you have done is collect data 15 from other plants?
16 A Well, I think that is tantamount to having a test. 17 Q Well, have you done independent tests on the
, 18 water from those plants?
19 A Yes. 20 Q You have? 21 A I personally haven't, but tests were run every () 22 day on water f rom those plants . I have information on that. 23 Q And is that included in the water reclamation 24 i (]) studies? 15 A No, it wouldn' t be. It certainly is included in l
1 2658 4 1 one of the Exhibits. Let me see which one. It is -- some of O k/ 2 that information is on Exhibit EE, and I believe it was with 3 Dr. Cole that we discussed that, the last time I was here, in > (O
./ 4 some detail.
5 0 But it was not -- or these tests or studies were 6 not a part of the 1973-74-75 water reclamation studies? 7 Had you collected this and studied it at that 8 point? 9 A Well, I didn't report it in a document, but 10 certainly we had it available to us, 11 Q Did you have any reports from that time period, 12 on this data? w
) 13 A I am sure we do. .
14 0 Which also have not been turned over to 15 Intervenor. 16 Okay, going on to page 19, you are talking about l 17 the flexibility of the. cooling water system. 18 A Which line are you looking at, Ms. Bernabei? 19 0 okay, it is the second full paragraph on page 19? , 20 A Line eleven, starting with line eleven? 21 Q Right. The CWS provides additional flexibility. 22 (]) We have incorporated the capability for the addition of such 23 items as acid, scale inhibitors, anti-foam agents, and 24 (]) chlorine. Now, there are limits, are there not, on the 25 scale inhibitors you can add during this process? l
2659 5 1 A I am sure there must be. 2 Q Okay, so, in other words, the quality of the 3 water that comes into the reclamation plant is to some 4 degree related to the quality that comes out? 5 A I guess in the generic sense, that would be 6 true. 7 Q Okay, and what I am saying here, is for scale 8 inhibitors and for the other things that you mention here, 9 the acid, anti-foam agents, and chlorine, there are certain 10 limits on how much of those you can add to water to treat 11 it for varying qualities that come into the water treatment 12 facility? () 13 A Well, there are certain limits on the effectivenes s 14 of the chemicals, if that is where you are headed, yes. 15 Q That is my question. And it is true, as Mr. Van 16 Brunt testified during this week, that the quality of the 17 water coming into the reclamation plant onsite, the treatment 18 plant onsite, will to some degree affect the quality of the . 19 water leaving that plant? 20 A I believe that is what he said. 21 Q Do you agree with him? 22 (]) A I really don't know the intent that he was saying 23 it, so it is difficult to say whether I agree or not. If you ({} 24 remember earlier, I indicated that there were margins in the 15 plant that we could add more chemicals, treat it, and still 1
2660 6 1 have the same effluent. I also indicated to you that we O 2 have a large reservoir so you could take, you know, slight 3 increases over, and still not have an impact. O V 4 Q But at a certain point, there will be an impact, 5 won't there? 6 A And we hypothesized that if we took it all away, 7 that we could have something a little greater, and then we 8 would use the flexibility of the circulating water system. 9 Q But at a certain point, there is no more 10 flexibility for the circulating water test facility, isn't 11 that true? Or the treatment plant? 12 A Yes, ma'am, that is absolutely true. I see your 13 point. 14 Q So at some point,- it is going to affect the 15 quality of water coming out? 16 A That is correct. 17 Q Now, on the bottom of page 19, you talk about 18 the modification of the design of the water reclamation plant, 19 is that correct? 20 A Yes, it is. 21 Q And I believe Joint Applicants ' Exhibit FF is the l O 22 modified deeien oe the g1ene, is ehee correce2 23 A No. What that depicts is a diagram used for O 24 re11ehi11er studies to show how the 91ent now wou1d he 25 structured to calculate the numbers, so to speak. l
2661 7 1 O Right. I know. () 2 A Okay. 3 Q And what I would like you to do is to explain, ( -) 4 and I believe you would compare this diagram to page 3.7 -- 5 well, figure 4-1 on page 8.7 of Chapter Eight of Volume One, 6 but I could be wrong. 7 A What would you like me to do? 8 0 I would like you to compare it with the old 9 design. 10 A You would like to compare it, all right. 11 Q I would like you to compare it. And if there is 12 another diagram that is better than the one I have directed - () 13 you to, you should' tell me. 14 A Which one are you -- 15 Q It is figure 4-1, which is on page 8.7. 16 A 8.7 17 Q Excuse me, 8-7. 18 JUDGE COLE: That is the page, sir. You have it 19 in your lef t hand. 20 THE WITNESS: I have it? Okay. The differences -- 21 I will just tell you the dif ferences are that the original 22 study suggested that the modules be intertied, not only in (]) 23 the water reclamation plant, but also at the Hassayampa () 24 pumping station. So if you look at the first diagram -- at 25 the diagram, it says pump one, two, three, four five, and you
2662 8 1 see that they are intertied. p> 2 If you go to the trickling filters, you see TF-1 3 through TF-6, and those are now intertied. You will also (O _) 4 find that the pumps are intertied, and that the first and 5 second stage clarifiers, at least a combination of the two, 6 are intertied. 7 BY MS. BERNABEI: 8 Q Mr. Bingham, just so I understand, the pumps you 9 are talking about are the Hassayampa pump station? 10 A Yes, that is correct. 11 Q And then I am sorry, right after you said that, 12 what did -- you went up to the -- () 13
~
A well, if.you go to the next part that says 14 trickle filters? 15 0 Right. 16 A You will see that all of those six are tied 17 together. 18 0 Yes. 19 A Okay, and if you continue, you see the word 20 " sump," and then there is five more boxes with five more 21 pumps, and if you will look, you will see they are all 22 headered together before they go into the first and second (]) 23 stage clarifiers, so what that means is that if one of the 24 clarifier units is out, you still can run the others, and []} 25 that was a major change f rom the very original design that i
2663 9 1 was looked at that did not have those intertied. 2 Q Now, is this major design modification reflected 3 in the FSAR in any way? (O
/ 4 A I am not sure it is in the FSAR.
5 0 or the ER? In other words, in any submission to 6 the NRC? 7 A If it is described in those documents, it would 8 be described as I just indicated. 9 0 In this new way? 10 A Yes. 11 Q With the major design changes. Okay, that was 12 my question. Is it in those documents? O 23 ^ We11, wou1d have to 1oox-
~
14 0 Or if Counsel can tell you. 15 MR. GEHR: Well, I . don't.have the FSAR here, is 16 my problem. I can't help him. 17 BY MS. BERNABEI: 18 0 What I am trying to get at, is, is this part of, 19 as you understand it, the official submission about the plant 20 to the NRC7 21 MR. GEHR: Wait a minute. Just a minute. I 22 misspoke. I do have the FSAR. 13 THE WITNESS: I am not sure it would be in the 24 FSAR, because it wasn't a safety issue. It might be in the 25 ER, in the description of the water reclamation facilities.
10 2664 1 That is the only place I can think it might be. () 2 MR. GEHR: In Section II? 3 THE WITNESS: I believe so. Maybe you can get () 4 some help, or I can leave and help, if that would do the 5 job. 6 MS. BERNABEI: That is no problem. It is no 7 problem with me. 8 THE WITNESS: Let them look? 9 JUDGE LAZO: Or let you help. , 10 THE WITNESS: Want me to help them? I will go 11 help them. If you will turn to page 3.6-5 of the ER, or come 12 here and look, I will show it to you. ({} 13 . MS. BERNABEI: I am afraid i don't have that. 14 THE WITNESS: Page 3.6-5 discusses the water i 15 reclamation plant and its treatment process, and:then there 16 are tables in the back, figure 3.6-1, which shows a flow 17 diagram, of the treatment, and 3.6-2 shows some of the 18 interties -- now, that doesn't -- that is a;different system. 19 That is all that is in here, is that description, and it tells 20 how it is working. 21 22 i (1) 23 - () 24 1 25
2665 T21,1g 1 Q Well, it is fair to say, isn't it, that the () 2 diagram that you presented with your testimony, that is not 3 included in the ER? () 4 A No, it wouldn 't be, because I put that together 5 as a result of our discussions a couple of weeks ago, to 6 make sure that I had not misspoke when I was here. 7 Q So in other words, this major design review was 8 completed when, or this major design change? 9 A 1974-75-76, in that range. 10 0 So, almost immediately after these studies were 11 completed? 12 A That is right. That is the reason we did the (]) 13 studies, was so we would have the proper information to do a 14 competent design. 15 Q And when were these studies published, sir? 16 A Which ones? 17 0 The water reclamation studies. 18 A Mostly in the year 1975. 19 Q But they did not include the major design change? l l ! 20 A They did not, because they were reporting -- it l 21 was just a logistics problem with writing all the reports to {) 22 compile all the data, and that usually takes, you know, 3 to 23 8 months, or nine months to put together. 24 Q But just to make sure I understand, they did 25 include an outdated design of the plant? Of the water
l l 2 1 reclamation facility? 2666 l Q k- 2 A I don't know what you mean by outdated. 3 Q Well, the one I just referred you to, which was or. () 4 page 8-7, figure 4-17 5 A It did not reflect the present design. 6 Q Even when it was published in '75? 7 A Even when it was published in '75. 8 Q I have one more question., I am just.trying to 9 find the Exhibit that would -- 10 okay, Mr. Bingham, referring you to page 20 of 11 your testimony, you state, I believe, that Mr. Robinson 12 mischaracterizes what has been labelled the Nestor article, () 13 Intervenor's Exhibit XXVI, is that. correct? 14 A What line are you -- oh, yes. That is correct. 15 Q Now, is it your position that -- and I am 16 quoting from the Nestor article, that Mr. Robin (son) has 17 mischaracterized it when he states that total dissolved solids 18 can be a significant contributor to corrosion and pitting, 19 when the Intervenor's Exhibit states, high velocity water 20 streams, especially those high in dissolved and suspended 21 solids, or dissolved and entrained gases, often damage 22 (]) passive oxide films, causing extreme localized corrosion? 23 A That is a little dif ficult for me to follow. 24 could pu tell me what you are looking from, and I can follow {}} 25 it along?
i 2667 3 1 Q Okay, Mr. Robinson testified, and I believe it 2 is quoted accurately, that the Nestor article notes that in 3 high velocity flows, the total dissolved solids, and I am 4 going to emphasize these words, can be a significant 5 contributor to corrosion. Now, you state that that is a 6 mischaracterization of the Nestor article. 7 MR. GEHR: That is an Exhibit, is it not? 8 MS. BERNABEI: Yes, it is Exhibit XXVI. I 9 THE WITNESS: Where are you reading from, Ms. 10 Bernabei? 11 BY MS. BERNABEI: 12 Q' I am reading from;your testimony. () 13 A Oh, I thought you were reading from the article, 14 I am sorry. 15 Q Well, from the Article, we can read from page two, 16 column two. 17 A All right, I have page two, column two. 18 Q Okay, now that states, does it not, high velocity 19 water, streams, especially those high in dissolved and l 20 suspended solids -- 21 A I am not with you. Tell me where you are in O 22 ootumn two. 23 Q I am on the second paragraph. () 24 A It starts with "on the other hand?" 25 Q Right. l t
4 A 2668 1 All right. Go ahead. 2 Q Now, it states that high velocity water streams, 3 especially those high in dissolved and suspended solids, or b ss 4 dissolved and entrained gases, often damage passive oxide 5 films, causing extreme localized corrosion. Now, is it your 6 testimony that that was mischaracterized in Mr. Robinson's 7 testimony, and I am going to emphasize some words in his 8 testimony, the Nestor article notes that in high velocity 9 flows the total dissolved solids can be a significant 10 contributor to corrosion? 11 A Yes, and what I said was that that alone wasn't 12 a concern because he goes on and talks about copper and () 13 high velocities causing problems'with the copper metals, and 14 I was most conc'erned, because on Palo Verde we are not using l 15 copper metals, but we are using titanium. 16 0 Well, I am not talking about the second part of 17 your answer, I am ~ talking about the first part. Doesn't he 18 state, the Nestor article notes that total dissolved solids l 19 can be a significant contributor to corrosion, isn't that 20 what he states? I am using his exact words. 21 A That is what he stated. 22 (]) Q And isn't that a possible interpretation of the 23 first sentence of the Nestor article that you state, leaving (} 24 alone the copper problem?
- 25 A Certainly it is possible to interpret it that l
2669 1 way, and the reason I added the other part, is because I () 2 felt that if we had a copper system, of course, we would be 3 more concerned about what this article says. () 4 Q I understand. 5 A But we do not have a copper system. 6 0 I understand, but the first sentence from Mr. 7 Robinson's statement, standing alone, can be one interpretatic>n 8 of the sentence in the Nestor article, is that fair to say? 9 A It is certainly his interpretation, so I guess 10 yes, it can be one interpretation. 11 Q Thank you, Mr. Bingham. 12 A You are welcome. 13 Q I have'no other questions. (]) 14 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Dewey? 15 MR. DEWEY: Yes, sir. I have a few questions. 16 MS. BERNABEI: Oh, I do have one more question. 17 I am sorry. Not to cut in, Mr. Dewey, 18 BY MS. BERNABEI: 19 0 What has been marked for identification as 20 Exhibit EB -- 21 A EE? 22 Q DD. 23 A I am sorry, I didn't hear that. 24 Q Joint Applicants' DD, the Nalco report? 25 A Yes.
2670 6 1 0 When did you receive that? () 2 A Excuse me. 3 0 When did you receive th'at? () 4 A I can't tell from this copy, but I suspect it 5 was sometime in June, 1974. 6 Q Now, it is fair to say that this was a fairly 7 important report, an independent review of your very 8 expensive water reclamation studies. Is that fair to say? 9 A I cou ldn ' t 1. ear you . 10 0 It is fair to say this was a very. important 11 report, an independent review of your water reclamation 12 studies? () 13 A I am sorry, I am still missing you. Try it 14 again. 15 0 Isn't it fair to say that this letter and 16 report, an independent review of your water reclamation 17 studies, is a very important document? 18 A Well, all of our documents are important. 19 Q This has no special importance? 20 A This is certainly important to me for this 21 particular issue, yes. {) 22 0 Can I ask you if this document were maintained 23 in your usual files at Bechtel? 24 A Is it, did you ask?
)
25 Q Yes.
2671 I A Yes, it is. () 2 Q Okay. And if it were so retained, to your 3 information, why was it not given to Intervenor during the () 4 discovery phase of this proceeding? 5 MR. GEHR: If you know. 6 THE WITNESS: I would expect the reason was that 7 we were just combing through eight or so years of voluminous 8 f ile s , just did not pick up this particular document. 9 BY MS. BERNABEI: 10 0 Well, let me ask you this. Why is it different 11 than any other of your documents, including the fact that it 12 does not have black numbers on the side? 13 A It is not different. []} 14 0 Where are the black numbers? 15 A They are not on this copy. 16 Q And why are they not on this copy? 17 A I suspect that probably when it was put together, 18 we put a clean copy in without the markings on the side. 19 0 Well, Mr. Bingham, we received many originals 20 in discovery, and even the originals, every single original 21 we have has black numbers on the side. p 22 A That is correct. U 23 Q And what I am asking you is, did you white out q V 24 the numbers? 25 A No, I -- maybe I can help you a little bit. I
2672 1 have basically two project engineers reporting to me out of 2 two different offices. The one that reports to me out of 3 our San Francisco office provided all the documents, I 4 believe, that Mr. Bischoff gave you, and in that office I 5 use a microfilming system which has a little number that 6 comes out on the side when we print it. 7 0 Well, these ar e big numbers . 8 A May I finish, please? In our L.A. office we 9 use microfiche, and there we tend to clean up the 10 documents as much as we can, and when we present them, we 11 don't necessarily put all the stuff, but if you would like 12 a copy of that letter that has black numbers, I can give you ( )- 13 a copy that has' black numbers. 14 0 I am sure you can. Let me ask you this. Why is 15 it that this was not included in your direct testimony in 16 this case? 17 A I suspect it was just an oversight. I did not 18 know about it, probably is the best reason at that time. 19 Q You didn't know about the letter? 20 A I didn't remember it. 21 Q You didn't remember this letter? (]) 22 A I did not remember this letter. 23 Q And this letter was an independent review of () 24 your very expensive water reclamation studies? 25 A That is correct, but if you recall, I did not
a - 2673 1 remember the other letter that you presented to me to review () 2, on the bench scale tests. 3 O But that wasn't an independent review. That was () 4 a part of those tests, one in many letters, isn't that , , 5 right? ., 6 A I don't know how to answer that questiort.' 7 0 Okay. ~ 8 MS. BERNADEI: Thank you. 9 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Dewey? - 10 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION 11 BY MR. .DEWEY: 12 O Mr. Dewey, can I refer you to the last paragraph () 13 in page 16 of your rebuttal testimony? In this paragraph, 14 you refer to operating plant experience at several plants-15 located in the southwest. 16 A That is correct. ' 17 0 Was the operating data for these~ plants similar 18 to Palo Verde in that constituents were ,not always - l 19 concentrated at the same level of condentration at sthese f l 20 other plants? #
.a .< -
21 A Yes. I have noticed that',there Ere"home (} 22 differences in the data that we looked at. ! 23 Q And the constituents were concentrating at r's 24 different levels at these other plants? l \_] ' l 25 A It appears that way, yes. l f
,p . A n
/
2674 Now, if I may refer you to page six of your 1 Q () -2 testimony, where you state that there was no need to l 3 construct complete scale models, since the design and () 4 operating criteria for circulating water systems had been 5 well-established over many years. 7 6 Mr. Robinson's criticisms of the tests at the 7 circulating water f acility included the fact that there was
<' A not a sufficiently long period of time involved for the 9 tests, is that correct?
10 A I believe that is correct. 11 Q Do you believe that this past operating 12 experience with other units would ,take care of Mr. Robinson's (]) 13 concerns with respect to the time on it? 14 A I can't speak for Mr. Robinson, but certainly 15 they have taken care of my concerns. , 16 Q All right, sir. You have a copy of Mr. 17 Robinson's testimony, transcript 1617? 18 A I do not. 19 MS. BERNABEI: What was the -- 20 MR. DEWEY: The transcript cite is : 17 . 21 BY MR. DEWEY: {} 22 Q At 1617. 23 A Yes, I have it. 24 Q All right, would you refer to lines 1 through --
)
25 excuse me, lines 16 through 25, and at transcript TR-1618,
2675 1 lines 1 through 67 (m (d 2 A Yes. 3 Q I believe Mr. Robinson testifies in this por' tion () 4 of the transcript that the 12 and 3 months reliability for 5 the water reclamation facility is low, is that correct?! 6 A That is correct. 7 0 In your opinion, as a practical matter, will the 8 Palo Verde electric generators be unable to operate due to 9 systems failure at the reclamation facility, at any time? 10 A They will be able to operate. 11' O What will cause the systems to be able to 12 continue in' operation, if there is some type of difficulty ({} 13 at the water reclamation facility? 14 A The storage in the water reservoir at the site, 15 the water that is stored in the reservoir. 16 0 So you are saying, as a practical matter, the 17 problems at the water reclamation f acility could be remedied 18 while the water in the reservoir was being used? 19 A That is correct. 20 0 Based upon your understanding in the operation 21 of other electric generating facilities, where water {} 22 reclamation facilities are utilized, have you ever heard of 23 any downtime to an electric generator due to the failure at () 24 the water reclamation facility? l 25 A I have not.
2676 1 Q What have you done to keep informed of the () 2 operation of plants using municipal waste waters, in plants 3 operating at high cycles of concentration? () 4 A I have studied, in fact done a detailed study of 5 all those plants since uhe reporting period of 1974, and if 6 you would like, I can go through that information for you. 7 0 Yes, sir. Could you go through it, in summary? 8 A Surely. Again, it is fairly complex, if you 9 would like to look, I do have another copy, if that would 10 help you. 11 Q Okay, I would like to see the copy, and if it is 12 complicated.,, I just wish you would kind of summarize it. We (]) .13- don't want to go into too.much detail. - 14 A First, let us look at the municipal wastewater. 15 MS. BERNABEI: Could we take a look at that, 16 Mr. Dewey? 17 MR. DEWEY: Yes. 18 THE WITNESS: I have another one, if that would 19 help. Anyone else can look at it. 20 MS. BERNABEI: Okay. 21 THE WITNESS: If you just turn to page two of 22 this, it would make it a little easier for me to diccuss it. [} 23 What I have done is look -- made a study looking at the 24 power plant experience with municipal wastewater, and I 25 have, in the fif th column, indicated cycles, since 1974, and _ __,__._.-. __ ~
2677 1 then 1982, so I have put in the data that we had back in O 2 1974, which has been reported in the water plants, and then I 3 have updated it for 1982, and just in summary, if you look O 4 on the firse co1==a, you see -- or excuse,me, the second 5 co lumn , you see the plant name, when it says 3 and 4, that 6 means Unit 3 and Unit 4, or Unit 1 and Unit 2. 7 And then I have listed the power level. I think 8 the important point here that you might want to 3ee is, of 9 course, the plants are running at their higher cycles, range 10 of cycles now, than we reported before, and that there has i 11 been three, four new plants that have gone into operation, 12 and I have given the information on that. You might note Q 13 that I have indicated as a footnote that the cycles of 14 concentration in many cases are limited by discharge limits 15 at those particular sites, and for further information, I 16 have put the condenser tubing materials over on the far 17 column , to show the types of materials that are being used, [ 18 and how that would f all into the ranking of the types of 19 materials we put in the study, so that is the municipal, and 20 I think you asked also another question, did you not, about 21 other operating plants? 22 23 24 25 l
2678 ()-1 1 Q Yes, also for plants which operate at high cycles 2 of concentration. 3 A Right. And if you go to page 1, which is the one 4 just above that one, this is kind of a more complete Exhibit 5 DD that you have. It gives more information. And on this 6 one I have indicated the cycles much the same that I read 7 earlier on. 8 I don't know how much you want me to go through 9 this plant. But in general you can see that many are running 10 at high cycles of concentration and that many are far over 11 the 500,000 rule-of-thumb number Mr. Robinson indicated in 12 his testimony. 13 Q Well, sir, I think it's fair to say that you have 14 looked into this matter to a c'nsiderable o extent. 15 A I believe so, yes. 16 MR. DEWEY: I have no further questions. 17 MS. BERNABEI: May I ask, is this going to be made 18 a Staff exhibit? We didn't mark it. 19 MR. DEWEY: I wasn't intending to. This is the 20 first time I've ever seen this. I don't intend to. 21 MS. BERNABEI: Well, it wasn't marked. I thought 22 perhaps we should mark it as a Staff exhibit to identify it. 23 MR. GEHR: If counsel for the Staff doesn't, I'm () 24 going to when I get my chance. 25 MR. DEWEY: All right. Well -- O
)
l 2679 ( )2 1 MS. BERNABEI: It's probably more appropriate Mr. 2 Dewey do it. 3 MR. GEHR: I agree. [} 4 MR. DEWEY: It's all right with me. I'll make it 5 an exhibit. 6 JUDGE LAZO: This will then become Staff Exhibit 7 No. 8, marked for identification. i 8 (The document referred to was 9 marked for identification as 10 Staff Exhibit 8.) 11 MR. DEWEY: Well, at this time I offer it into evi-12 dence. 13 JUDGE LAZO: Are there any objections? 14 MS. BERNABEI: Can I'just ask a question or two? 15 JUDGE LAZO: Um hm. 16 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 17 BY MS. BERNABEI: 18 Q Mr. Bingham, you prepared this, I presume, in pre-j 19 paration for this hearing today? 20 A All I did was to compile information I had avail-
- 21 able. I did over the time have several telephone calls to 22 fill in blanks that might be useful for any discussions that 23 we have. But generally this is not new data that you see in l
) 24 there. It's published in other sources available to us for 25 a considerable time.
( l l i t _
2680 1 2 Q Well, let me ask you this. On page 3, where does 2 the underlying data come for that? 3 A Excuse me? []
; 4 Page 3. Well, it's labeled page 3.
Q 5 A That was information that was available to us 6 partly back in 1974. And the rest of it, if you look at the 7 next page, comes from an EPRI report -- that's E-P-R-I. 8 0 Yeah, I'm just asking you if you know the original 9 sources for this material.
' 10 A Yes, I tried to indicate that the information from II the Arthur Kill station was given -- came to us from our tube 12 manufacturer. And the information on the inspection of 1980 83 is from the EPRI report in May 1982.
14 Q And the tube manufacturers are whom? 15 A Pardon me? 16 Q The tube manufacturers. 17 A Timet, T-i-m-e-t. They manufacture titanium con-18 denser tubes, 19 Q And that's the only other source for this informa-20 tion. 21 A That's correct. 22 MS. BERNABEI: I have no objection. 23 JUDGE LAZO: Very well. Staff Exhibit No. 8 may n" 24 be received in evidence. l l 25 O
2681 l 1 (Staff Exhibit 8, having been (} 2 previously marked for identifi-3 cation, was received in evi-4 dence.) 5 MR. DEWEY: I have no further questions. 6 JUDGE COLE: Mr. Bingham? 7 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 8 JUDGE COLE: On page 19 on 22 you state you modi-9 fied the design of the water WRP. 10 THE WITNESS: That's correct. 11 JUDGE COLE: Could you briefly describe why the , 12 design was modified? 13 THE WITNESS: Yes, I'a Le happy to.
) 14 When we originally started our design, we had 15 thought that we should modularize the water treatment plant 16 the same as the units. It became apparent very fast, par-17 ticularly with the results of our reliability studies, that I8 we really needed to have inter-ties and redundancy in the 19 systems.
20 So as a result of that, as I indicated, I think, 21 last time I was here, we did add redundant pumps. We added 12 redundant electrical feeders to the equipment. And we added 23 pumps to recirculate the clarifiers to keep the beds up. 24 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. (]} 25 Now, with respect to the Water Reclamation Studies O
~n
2G82 I in general, would it be fair to say that one of the principal (}) 2 purposes of the Water Reclamation Studies was to either serve 3 as the basis for the design of the water reclamation plant 4 or as a backup for the basis of the design? 5 THE WITNESS: It forms the basis for the design and 6 does form the backup also for the design. 7 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. Thank you. 8 I have one more question. It's to Mr. Gehr. 9 In Exhibit BB, Mr. Gehr, I understand the executive 10 summary of the Water Reclamation Summaries is not contained 31 in the volume which we received. And my question is, is that 12 absence the result of the WASH-1400 syndrome or what? 13 MR. GEHR: Well, ever since WASH-1400 I've had a i
~
14 concern about executive summaries. I wasn't aware. i 15 JUDGE COLE: You really don't have to answer that, 4 16 Mr. Gehr. 17 MR. GEHR: Very well. 18 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Gehr, do you have any redirect of 19 Mr. Bingham? , 20 MR. GEHR: Just a couple. 21 REDIRECT EXAMINATION 6:00pm 22 BY MR. GEHR: 23 Q Why, Mr. Bingham, did you have confidence back in 24 (]) 1974 that only two tests of the galvanic corrosion testing 25 involving titanium was adequate?
2683 {} 1 A There were probably two major reasons. One is that 2 we were familiar at the time with what was happening at other 3 plants that had the elements that you talked about, I believe , O 4 aluminum bronze. And also that the experience that was given 5 us based on two years of operation was outstanding; there 6 just absolutely was no problems noted during the inspection. 7 I believe that that, coupled with other experience 8 that we have throughout the Bechtel Corporation, you know, 9 working in concert with our clients, gave me that confidence 10 at that time. 11 Q Does Staff Exhibit 8 indicate any experience with 12 concrete cooling towers? 13 A I'm not sure.
) 14 MR. GEHR: -I have no further questions.
15 JUDGE LAZO: Does anyone have any further ques-16 tions for Mr. Bingham? 17 MS. BERNABEI: I have no further questions. 18 JUDGE LAZO: Very well. 19 MR. GEHR: Did you say you have no further, or you 20 have? 21 MS. BERNABEI: I have no further questions, i 22 I will make a motion to strike at this point. 23 JUDGE LAZO: I'm sorry, you have no further ques-() 24 tions. 25 MS. BERNABEI: I have no further questions. 1
2684 1 JUDGE LAZO: Oh, I'm sorry. (]) 7 2 MR. GEHR: At this time I would like to offer in 3 evidence Joint Applicants' Exhibits DD, EE and FF. 4 MS. BERNABEI: I object to the introduction of DD. 5 I object to the introduction of DD on the basis that it's not 6 authenticated, we don't know where the document came from. 7 And I would also move to strike at the same time 8 any references to that exhibit in Mr. Bingham's testimony. 9 I believe without proper authentication, that this 10 document should not be admitted. II JUDGE LAZO: Well, Mr. Bingham's explanation for 12 it was that it simply was not picked up at the time of -- 13 He was not aware of it. He had forgotten about it.
\
~
sl 14 Do you seriously question whether it came from a 15 Bechtel file? 16 MS. BERNABEI: I think I do. That's why I'm ask-
. 17 ing for authentication.
18 I would note that contrary to Mr. Gehr's represen-19 tations, we made requests over and over and over again about 20 materials of this sort. We received a great many Bechtel 21 documents. And I'm talking about a pile this high of reports 22 and summaries of tests. I believe anything as important as 23 an independent design had to be encompassed within my numer-() 24 ous requests to the Applicants for information. 25 I would also note that in regard to the safety n s-I
1 1 2685 system, there was an independent review, what has been ("} 1 2 called the IDR. And I was immediately given to it on the I l 3 second day after I entered these proceedings. O 4 I think it's incredible that if this report existed, 5 that it was not encompassed within my request. 6 It's the extraordinary circumstances under which 7 this surfaced that have elicited the concern I have about it. 8 And I don't believe I've been given an adequate explanation 9 of why I was not given it in discovery or why it has not sur-10 faced until Mr. Bingham's rebuttal testimony. I believe it 11 was highly relevant to his direct testimony. It's highly 12 relevant to many areas of cross-examination. If this Board 13 remembers, Mr. Bingham'was a witness in the first week of A) (_ 14 proceedings. The cross-examination of Mr. Bingham was not 15 reached until three weeks later. At that time he gave fur-16 ther direct testimony. And the cross of Mr. Bingham was 17 quite extended. At any point during that period of time, I 18 believe this document could have surfaced because it sup-19 ported many of the points that Mr. Bingham was putting across 20 or saying in his testimony. 21 JUDGE LAZO: It could have supported Intervenor, 22 did you say? 23 MS. BERNABEI: No, it could have supported Mr. () 24 Bingham's position during his testimony. 25 JUDGE LAZO: Well, then, if he knew about it, (~ v)
l' 2686 () I surely he would have brought it. Don't you think? 2 MS. BERNABEI: I think it's somewhat incredible 3 that he didn't know about it. It was obviously an indepen-O 4 dent consultant that conducted a review of these very expen-5 sive and very detailed studies. 6 I would also note that Mr. Robinson appeared as an i 7 expert witness. His challenges to the conclusions of the 8 Applicants, which appear to be answered in detail in this 9 design review -- I think if Mr. Bingham had forgotten about to it all during his testimony, it surely would have rung a bell 11 with Mr. Robinson's testimony. And I think it would have 12 surfaced at that point. 13 I have problems wit'h the document surfacing at 14 this point. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 () 14 25 0
2687 O 30o0e t^zo= a ve you oo=9 1 etea vour et te eaev 2 Mr. Gehr, do you have anything to add to your p 3 request that your exhibits be admitted into evidence? d 4 MR. GEHR: Yes, I do. 5 JUDGE LAZO: What about this question'of authen-6 ticity? 7 Oh, on the question of authenticity, MR. GEHR: 8 Mr. Bingham offered to produce a document that had the cus-9 tomary black numbers on the margin, and I have one here, and 10 I really do not think that is what she is concerned about, II if she is concerned about the other thing. But I have that 12 if that is going to resolve the problem. I have a copy that 13 ha's the black numbers in the typical fashion, I guess. O 14 The thing is that I think Ms. Bernabei came into 15 the case late, and she had to take the case the way she 16 And I want you to remember that we did have a found it. 17 formal discovery program a year ago, and we were requested I8 And even to produce all -- a whole -- everything, you know. I' drawings on the Water Reclamation Plan. And we agreed with 20 counsel -- you tell -- where -- the list of documents that 21 you have requested to see, and there are such voluminous 22 ones, you select the ones you want to see. And that went 23 by the Board. All of the sudden when Ms. Bernabei came back 25 in the case, she wanted to amend her Contention, she wanted O i
2688 i O 1 t raise different issues. She wanted to get quality back 2 into the issue which was never there before. And we have 3 to scramble in the last week in the days before the hearing O 4 started to get Mr. Bingham's testimony put together with 5 those little exhibits that he had. 6 But that's the facts of the case. j 7 During this period of time, Ms. Bernabei was 8 telephoning and talking to Mr. Bischoff and relaying requests 9 for specific pieces of information, not general things, but 10 specific pieces. And we did the very best we could to Il respond to that, and she has clearly not demonstrated that 12 she ever asked for reports of independent consultant re-13 views or anything like that. [ I4 Under the circumstances: one, of our good faith, 15 the time, the change in the contention, and also the fact 16 that she has had this document for over a week, and she 17 could prepare her cross examination perfectly well on that 38 document, and she has done so. I think that demonstrates 19 the document should be introduced. 20
. JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Dewey, does Staff have any 21 objection to the introduction in evidence of DD, EE and FF?
22 MR. DEWEY: Staff has no objection. 23 MS. BERNABEI: Mr. Chairman, may I address a few 24 of the things that Mr. Gehr said? 25 I have not said what I said today lightly. I O
2689 1 would note that his representation about their willingness 2 to provide discoverable materials may have been true for the 3 first week of these hearings. We are now talking about two O 4 months down the road from that original hearing. That was 5 the end of April. And during that period, I have continuous-6 ly asked Mr. Bischoff for documents. Whether it was for our 7 expert, Mr. Lorah and Mr. Robinson, whether it was documents 8 for cross-examination purposes, my request for discovery did 9 not stop the first weekend before the first week of these 10 hearings. Number one. II Number two, it is incredible to me that when an 12 independent review of the safety system was handed over to 13 me, and that is a concern of much less degree of this Board. O 14 V It has never been a central issue as the quality of water. 15 That an independent review of the Water Reclamation Studies 16 was not given to me. Many of the reports I received on 17 the Water Reclamation Study were reports of consultants. 18 They were not done by APS. They were not done by Bechtel. 19 In fact, there were a whole series of consultant reports that 20 l were handed to me. There was never any artificial distinc-21 tion. 22 As to whether I made a specific request for any 23 do'cument, of course, that would be impossible since I did 24 I never made any formal not know what documents existed. 25 discovery requests because I assumed that all parties were O l
2690 O 1 proceeding in good faith to turn over whatever they thought 2 would be relevant to the other party. 3 JUDGE LAZO: In order that the record may be O 4 complete, we are going to admit these exhibits into evidence 5 and ask that the objections which you have filed will be 6 noted. 7 (The documents referred to were 8 received into evidence as 9 Joint Applicants' Exhibits 10 DD, EE and FF.) II JUDGE LAZO: I want to ask also about 12 Mr. Bingham's rebuttal testimony which was incorporated 13 directly into the transcript as it read. Ms. Bernabei's O 14 motion to strike"any portion of that testimony which refers 15 to Exhibit DD is denied, and the rebuttal testimony may be 16 received in evidence. I7 Ms. Bernabei, we have two exhibits of yours which 18 I do not believe have been received. Intervenor's Exhibit I9 XLI, the PSAR pages on hydrologic engineering. Are they , 20 being offered into evidence? 21 Yes, I will offer them into evi-MS. BERNABEI: 22 dence. 23 JUDGE LAZO: All right. O 24 Are there any objections to the admission of Intervenor's Exhibit XLI? O
1 l 2691 O (no re voa e-) 2 JUDGE LAZO: As I recall, that was pages from l 3 Amendment 19? O 4 MR. GEHR: Oh, I have no objection. 5 MR. DEWEY: No objection. 6 JUDGE LAZO: Very well, Exhibit XLI may be 7 received. 8 (The document referred to was 9 received into evidence as 10 Intervenor's Exhibit XLI.) . II JUDGE LAZO: And Ms. Bernabei, we do not want to
- 12 forget Exhibit XXXIX.
13 MS. BERNA'BEI: Right. I am going to withdraw d 14 that. Mr. Gehr did give me some information that'I believe 15' indicates the wells are not listed on the register, the wells 16 for the shut-down system. 17 JUDGE LAZO: All right. 18 MS. BERNABEI: So I am going to withdraw that l' exhibit. 20 JUDGE LAZO: I did not want to let it go by 21 without -- MR. GEHR: Since I gave Ms. Bernabei those docu-23 ments, I have also received a complete set of the applica-0 24 tions for every item listed on that document, and they are 25 organized into three fashions: one, monitoring wells; two,
2692 O ' erobe > eaa enree -- r neve to 1oox -- but 1a e11 oe e it 2 is clear that the use is no use of the water. She can look 3 at them if she wishes. bp 4 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I think it is really irrele-5 vant to this proceeding. I think I may tend to disagree 6 with Mr. Gehr, but it is not really relevant to this pro-7 ceeding. 8 JUDGE LAZO: I know the hour is late, but I think 9 we would be remiss if we did not ask whether any of the 10 parties -- oh, we are going to be very remiss if we do not 11 excuse Mr. Bingham. 12 (Laughter.) 13 And thank him for his testimony. 14 We thank you for coming, sir. 15 THE WITNESS: Thank you. 16 (Whereupon, the witness was excused.) 17 JUDGE LAZO: I was thinking about a closing 18 statement, if any of the parties feel that would'be desirable . 19 MS. BERNABEI: I have one more housekeeping matter , 20 and I am not sure exactly how to handle it. 21 I referred in Intervenor's Petition to Certify 22
-- I noted that Mr. Shea had moved to add the Joint Appli-23 cants as defendants in his suit.
O 24 JUDGE tAzO: Mr. Sheeheddone whee 2 MS. BERNABEI: Mr. Shea, who is the attorney for O
^
2693 h 1 Pima Maricopg Indian Community had moved to add Joint 2 Applicants as defendants in his lawsuit. I do have a copy m 3 of his motion which I would like to attach as a supplement 4 to my Petition to Certify, if you have no objection. 5 JUDGE LAZO: Just mechanically, how do you propose 6 to do that? To re-serve it, or -- you want to refer to it 7 in some way. 8 MS. BERNABEI: Right, I could serve it on all 9 the parties here and then file it in Washingtin, I assume. 10 I assume I would need permission to file it since it was not Il filed with the Petition'. That was the only concern I had. 12 I do have enough copies for everyone. II JUDGE LAZO: Well, then, we could treat it as' 14 a supplement or as an exhibit to the -- how did you file? 15 You filed as a petition. It is not a motion, was it? 16 It is a petition, that is correct. MS. BERNABEI: , I7 MR. GEHR: As an attachment to the Petition. Is II that what she is filing it as? I9 JUDGE LAZO: Asked us to make it an attachment 20 to the -- 21 Yes. MS. BERNABEI: 22 JUDGE LAZO: The only think I am thinking is that 23 you should refer to it somehow in the Petition. O 24 MS. BERNABE1: I thinx you ere right. JUDGE LAZO: Now, I have lost my place. But
t 2694 C 1 Mr. Gehr, you did ask for an extension of time to respond 2 to that Petition, and I have forgotten the date you asked 3 for. O 4 MR. GEHR: July 16. 5 JUDGE LAZO: July 16. 6 MR. GEHR: And if she wants to file an amended 7 page, referring or incorporating that -- that will not ex-8 tend my time, though. That is a motion to amend the com-9 plaint? Is that what -- 10 MS. BERNADEI: That is correct. II JUDGE LAZO: Well, let us not complicate this 12 thing too much. I think if you give us the attachment at I3 this time, we will certainly treat it as part of the 14 Petition. 15 MS. BERNABEI: Okay, fine. I do refer to it in I0 a footnote, but I refer to a letter in which I mentioned it.
' MR. GEHR: I do have one more matter.
' MR. DEWEY: So do we.
JUDGE LAZO: Let us just all be patient. 20 Well, why do you not go first, Mr. Gehr, with 21 your additional matter? ! Well, we discussed earlier at the out-MR. GEHR: 23 set of the hearing this morning, the testimony of my request i O 24 to hring Mr. Hu1ee heck to testify. JUDGE LAZO: Right. We offered you an opportunity i O
2695 l {} to make a proffer of proof, and we will not go back on our 2 offer. 3 I would ask -- during the two breaks since then, O 4 I have tried to do some work on it. I have about five 5 or ten minutes' more work I would like to do on it before 6 I present it because I want to present it in complete 7 form. May I have five or ten minutes? 8 JUDGE LAZO: It seems reasonable. 9 MR. GEHR: Thank you. 10 JUDGE LAZO: Well, then we will recess until G:30. 11 Will that be time enough, Mr. Gehr? 12 MR. GEHR: Yes, sir. 13 JUDGE LAZO: All right,'we will be off the record. () 14 (A brief re' cess.) 15 16 17 . 18 19 20 ' 21 l i , e i 23 () 24 25 ()
2696
' ar O avoos t^zo= cear, ere you re ar to vroceea2 2 MR. GEHR: Yes, I am. I apologize for keeping 3 you waiting.
4 Before I start my offer of proof, I would like 5 to call attention to the fact that there are some apparent 6 misconceptions by everyone of what was said at the time 7 Mr. Hulse was on the stand, and in particular, as to what 8 objections and who made them as to cross examination and 9 testimony about negotiating changes in Agreement 13904. 10 On April 28, at page 480, I started to question 11 Mr. Hulse about the negotiation. Mr. Dewey at that time 12 raised an objection that the negotiations were not relevant 13 or germane to these proceedings. Mr. Bernabei disagreed s (V
\
14 with Mr. Dewey at page 481. And the discussion continued 15 through to page 489, at'which point Judge Lazo stated -- I6 let me quote from the transcript: "Well, as far as finan-I7 cial matters are concerned regarding the re-negotiation that's just not a matter we feel has any particular rele-I' As far as the subject of the re-vance to this proceeding. 20 negotiations are concerned, I think probably we've explored 21 Counsel for Inter-it to the depth that we think we should. 22 venors will be able to cross-examine within the scope of 23 I think that should satisfy the direct that you have heard. 24 you. I hope it does." 25 I see no problem."
"MS. BERNABEI:
2697 h 1 " JUDGE LAZO: All right, fine. Mr. Gehr, do 2 you have any further direct testimony of this witness?" 3 Subsequently on the same day, Ms. Bernabei started 4 her cross examination at page 566 of the transcript, and that 5 continued -- I beg your pardon. At page 557 of the tran-6 script Ms. Bernable started her cross examation, saying, 7 "Actually, that was my next line of questioning. Perhaps 8 you would be willing to talk about the contract. Section 21 9 of that contract allows the cities to draw back water at a 10 time of critical need. Is that correct?" II And the discussion from there goes on to the 12 negotiations with Mr. Stevens and various matters relating 13 to those re-negotiations and Section 21 and continuing and O 14 apparently ending at about page 566.
~
15 MS. BERNABEI: May I be able to address this 16 point? I do not want to argue with Mr. Gehr's proffer, but 37 I did not cross-i he has misrepresented my participation. I8 examine Mr. Hulse spe,cifically on the negotiations because 19 the Board and Chairman Lazo said that they were only in-20 terested in the general outline and the subjects involved 21 I followed your ruling and did and not in the specifics. 22 not question him as can be seen from the record about 23 specifics of the negotiation. . rh U JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Gehr, rather than all of the 25 background -- I do not want to limit your offer. O
2698 O I *a orna: 1 we aoe weatia2 to reaew ene aie-2 cussion of yesterday. I accept the Board's ruling. I did 3 not make that statement, but I am stating it now because 4- I think it is relevant to my objection which I will pick 5 up on appeal if necessary and present it if required. 6 I would now like to proceed with my offer of 7 proof. In light of the fact that the Board has ruled that 8 I may not recall Mr. Hulse to the stand, one aspect of the 9 re-negotiations or negotiations of Agreement No. 13904 -- 10 I would like to tender the following offer of proof. II If I were to ask the following questions of 12 Mr. Hulse -- the following question of Mr. Hulse: 13 "Mr. Hulse, you have previously testified that you were a O , 14 member of the negotiating team for APS and Salt River Project 15 respecting changes or modifications of Agreement 13904. I 16 Would you please tell us who were the representatives of 17 the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association in such nego-II tiations?" w I' Mr. Hulse's answer to that question would be: 20 "Mr. Bill Stevens, Mr. Robert McCain, and Mr. Bill Chase." 21 l I would ask Mr. Hulse one more question: "Did 22 the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association at any time 23 offer a proposal to Arizona Public Service Company and Salt 24 River Project to modify Section 21 of Agreement 13904, and 25 if so, please explain the proposal." O l t
2699 O ar. au1ee's re vonee to thet auestion wou1d de 2 as follows: "On March 10, 1982, I received a proposal from 3 the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association dated March 8, 4 1982, which bears the caption ' Proposal: Addendum to Agree-5 ment No. 13904.' This document sets forth eleven separate 6 items, the last of which, or item 11 reads as follows: 7
'll. Section 21. The critical needs section would not 8
apply to any effluent used for cooling purposes for nuclear 9 power production or to any effluent obtained pursuant to an 10 exchange for potable water.' This proposal was the subject II for discussion at a meeting held March 12, 1982, between 12 representatives of APS, including myself, and SRP, and the I3 Arizona Municipal Water Users Associatiort including Bill 14
, Stevens, Robert McCain, and Bill Chase, who happens to be an II employee of the City of Phoenix.
16 Subsequently, by an attachment to a letter dated I April 6, 1982, from Harry E. Mitchell, President of Arizona 18 Municipal Water Users Association and incidentally, also Mayor of the City of Tempe, addressed to Keith Turle (ph.), 20 President of APS, such proposal to modify Section.21 was reiterated as follows: 'APS/SRP asked that the critical 22
. water need provision of the current contract applicable to 23 Palo Verde be waived. Arizona Municipal Water Users Associ-A ation has agreed. (See Item No. 11, attachment one.)' Addi-25 tiona$ly, the waiver is not tied to any fixed amount of O
2700 O I eff1uent. In teea, we groeose to tie te to the amount of 2 effluent used for nuclear power production, Thus, the 3 possibility of the construction of Unit 4 is anticipated, 4 Furthermore, the critical need provision would be waived for 5 any effluent for which cities receive potable water as com-6 pensation. Indeed, AMWUA has offered more than what APS/ 7 SRP have requested." 8 Mr. Hulse would further state that he would be 9 prepared to make available to the Board and counsel and to enter in these proceedings each of the documents he has II referred to. 12 That completes my offer of proof. 33 JUDGE LAZO: Thank you, Mr. Gehr. I4 Do any of the parties wish to make a brief 15 closing statement? 16 MS. BERNABEI: Prior to that, I have one, I guess, 17 I would like to move to keep the record housekeeping matter. 18 open. There is a continuing investigation about the alle-39 gations about improper electrical work at Palo Verde and 20 falsification of records, and I would just move that the 21 record be kept open pending the results of that investigation . l 22 There is also a possible investigation, at least considera-23 tion of one, concerning the death threat that was relayed to f-~ Ms. Hourihan, the Intervenor in this case. MR. DEWEY: May I comment? 1 O I l l - . _ _
4 f . 2701 1 JUDGE LAZO: Yes, surely. < a ! 2 MR. DEWEY: Staff believes it would be diost in-3 appropriate to keep the recdrd open while an NRC in estiga-O 4 tion is pending. If this were the case, records might 5 never be closed because there are on-going investigations 6 regarding nuclear facilities on a continual basis. There 7 is nothing to shcw that t.his investigation warrants any 8 particular significance nsofar as keeping this record open. 9 As I have stated before, the preliminary reports 10 are that no serious matters have been involved'up to this II point. I would further like to point out that the matter of 12 the death threat is particularly inappropriate. These are 13
. matters that are handled by the Federal Bureau of Investiga-O v 14 tion and other State and local authorities and is not 15 really within the jurisdiction of this Commission to inves-16 tigate. i 17 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Gehr, do you wish to be heard II onthesubject?
I9 KR. GEHR: es, I do not believe that it is justi-20 fiable to keep the record open in'this proceeding for either 21 reason. I think the issues which have been admitted for 22 decision in this matter h've a been heard. The case has been 23 taken. The record should be closed. 24 ,/ JUDGE LAZO: The Code of Federal Regulations in 3 2.754 makes;it clear, I think, that it is expected that the (3 L.) L g+ s-
.B 2702 0 1 record would be closed and then proposed findings schedules 2 would be set af ter the closing of the record. You indi-3 cated, Mr. Dewey, I think in a bench conference, if I may 4
. refer to it, that you would expect an oral report that you 5 could convey to the parties by the end of July and a final 6 report by the end of A1 gust in written form which would be 7 put into the Public Document Room.
8 MR. DEWEY: That is expected at the present time, i 9 yes, sir. 10 JUDGE LAZO: So we are talking two months. And 11 that will be well before an initial decision might be 12 prepared in this proceeding. I think that would be plenty 13 of time to re-open the record if the need should arise. O I4 MS. BERNABEI: Mr. Chairman, th5re is a very high 15 legal burden imposed on Intervenor if she wishes to re-open 16 the record, as you noted yourself at the bench conference. 17 Our understanding is different than Mr. Dewey's 18 about both the speed and the comprehensiveness of the NRC 19 investigation about the allegations. We do not feel that it 20 is fair to put a burden on the Intervenor of that nature 21 when the time required for the investigation is dependent 22 on NRC staffing. We can be tolerant to some degree of 23 problems with Federal funding, but if the NRC does not have O 24 adequate Staff to conduct investigations in an expeditious 25 manner, that should not preclude bringing the safety issues O
2703 () I before this Board and licensing of plants prior to examina-2 tion of these issues. 3 What we are asking for essentially is that the
~)
4 record be kept open pending perhaps a preliminary investiga-5 tion at the end of July to see if, in fact, the allegations 6 have been substantiated. That will delay in no way the 7 licensing of this plant. If the allegations are not sub-8 stantiated by the NRC, there is no public basis provided for 9 the contention of which this Board has deferred ruling. I 10 assume that the record will be closed at that point. It II will not delay anyone if the record is kept open another 12 month, and I do think it is unfair to possibly ignore serious I3 safety issues because of inadequate- NRC staffing. What we
) 14 are asking for will not in any way delay the operating li-15 cense -- these proceedings.
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 () 24 25
l 2704 T25,1g 1 MR. DEWEY: I would like to make one more comment
) 2 about Ms. Bernabel's allegations that there has been 3 inadequate NRC staffing. As I indicated at the bench
() 4 conference, over 500 man-hours have already been involved in 5 this matter. Several of--- I think it was last week, there 6 was as many as five NRC investigators involved. It has been 7 receiving top priority. I don't think anyone could ask 8 any more effort than has already been expended, and there is 9 no justification to allege that this investigation is being 10 held open by inadequate NRC staf fing. 11 JUDGE LAZO: Well, I think firs't of all we should 12 point out that our reason for wanting to close the record is ({) 13 so that we can get into the decision-writing process, or 14 decision-writing stage'of the proceeding. The decision by 15 this Board on the contention that has been placed into 16 controversy in this proceeding can in no way trigger the 17 granting of an operating license, because there are other 18 matters which must be determined, and other findings which 19 must be made by the technical staff of the NRC. 20 If there are safety issues that haven't been 21 re so lved , the Staf f would not issue an operating license, 22 (~T
%) nor would the Commission permit it, even if this Licensing 23 Board had signed off favorably on the contention that is at 24 issue.
(~sT x 25 MS. BERNABEI: Well, we haven' t -- perhaps I did
2705 2 1 not state correctly our motion. We understand that the Staff 2 or the NRC as a body would have to make a ruling on the 3 Applicants' technical competence to run a nuclear plant. 4 JUDGE LAZO: That is correct. 5 MS. BERNABEI: It is independent of this Board's 6 decision, and what we would not like is to be put under the 7 burden of essentially proving our contention prior to the 8 results of the NRC investigation coming in, in order to keep 9 the record open. I don't think that is a fair burden to put 10 on us. 11 I have no problem with sending a scheduling -- 12 or complying with the schedule for findings of fact and O is conc 1usions of 1ew on ene contention ti:et is currene1r before 14 this Board, without the introduction of additional evidence. 15 However, if the Board closes the record prior -- 16 well, prior to the end of the NRC investigation, it is almost 17 an impossible legal burden that is put on the Intervenor, 18 even if the investigation shows that there are serious 19 electrical problems , and that I don't think is fair. What I 20 am saying is it won't delay this Board's decision on the 21 contention before it in any way if the record is kept open Q 22 for another month. 23 JUDGE LAZO: Any motion to reopen the record, 24 if it comes while this Board still has jurisdiction, i.e., 25 has not issued an initial decision in this proceeding, would
I l 3 2706 1 be directed to this Board. r) (v 2 MS. BERNABEI: I understand. 3 JUDGE LAZO: And we certainly have discretion to () 4 determine what the burden of proof should be if we feel that 5 there is a serious safety issue involved. You may be very 6 well certain that we would reopen the record promptly. 7 MS. BERNABEI: Regardless of -- 8 JUDGE LAZO: It is a tidier way of handling it 9 to simply close the record now, because there are no serious 10 environmental or safety issues that we know of outstanding. 11 MS. BERNABEI: Well, do I understand you to be 12 saying in that case that the burden that Intervenor would ()- 13 .have to meet would not be as great as the legal burden as 14 spelled ~ out in some of the decision, that is, that Intervenor 15 would have to show that there would be a different result 16 in the licensing proceeding? That is the burden that is 17 spelled out in some of the decisions, which is a very high 18 burden, and what I am arguing is that it is not fair to 19 place Intervenor under that burden because of NRC staffing 20 problems, and the possibility -- 21 JUDGE LAZO: Well, Mr. Dewey has, I think, made (~T %) 22 it clear that the Staff has given this matter a high priority, 23 and it has spent a lot of time on it, so I don't think that 24 this case is any different than any other one as far as [) 25 burden or who should bear it. We have assured you that if
l 2707 4 1 there is a serious safety problem, that we feel confident () 2 that we would find no dif ficulty in reopening the record. 3 So our ruling is that we will close the record () 4 today, this afternoon, and set a schedule for the filing of 5 proposed findings of f act and proposed conclusions of law. 6 Now, before we discuss these dates, and I am 7 sure you are all aware of what the provisions of 754 suggest, 8 I should advise you that the Licensing Boar;s have been 9 revising the standard format for initial decisions. The 10 Chairman of the panel has convinced us that we should improve 11 the readability and comprehensiveness of Board decisions, 12 and accordingly, we are going to follow an initial decision 13 format which basically is comprised of two parts. (]} There 14 will be an opinion section at the beginning, discussing the 15 important issues of the proceeding, and.how they were 16 resolved, and then a findings section composed of two 17 e lements , findings of f act and conclusions of law. 18 The findings section will be the backbone of the 19 opinion, but it is written essentially for lawyers and 20 parties, and of course the appellate bodies. Few others 21 will ever read them. It will be the opinion section where 22 the discussion of the important issues and the reasons are 23 provided. 24 So the findings section should be short, clear
)
25 declarative sentences, with appropriate references to the
2708 5 1 transcript and the exhibits. The opinion section of the O 2 initie1 decision w111 of course refer to the findings ehee 3 support those conclusions . O 4 are there eny auestiene2 5 MR. GEHR: The conclusions of law, are those 6 the ultimate conclusions? 7 JUDGE LAZO: Yes. That will be the last portion 8 of the findings section. What I am saying is that we have 9 been instructed to try to write our opinions or our decisions 10 that way, and it would be most helpful if the parties were to 11 provide their proposed findings and conclusions in that way. 12 I might refer you to the Susquehanna decision, Q 13 which is a pretty good example. I am sorry, I forget the 14 date of that decision. It was in April. 15 Now, Mr. Gehr, the suggested time for Joint 16 Applicants would be 30 days, for the preparation of proposed 17 findings and conclusions. We have some flexibility there. 18 MR. GEHR: Well, if I take 30 days, I come up on. 19 a Sunday, and I would rather have the Monday. Make it 31. 20 I think that is the way the rules provide . If it falls on a 21 Sunday, why you take the -- extend it one day. We will meet 22 that. 23 JUDGE LAZO: What date are you looking at? 24 MR. GEHR: Well, I think it would -- today is the 25 25th. That would be July 26.
2709 6 1 JUDGE LAZO: Monday, July 26. ( 2 MR. GEHR: And we will put things in -- distribute 3 them to the parties by Federal Express, to be sure they have () 4 the maximum time possible to use them. 5 JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Bernabei, we can offer you an 6 additional ten days, more if you are pressed, but -- 7 MS. BERNABEI: What dates are we talking about, 8 with the additional ten days? 9 JUDGE LAZO: What date would that be? Friday, 10 August the 6th? 11 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I' would request one more 12 week, if that is possible. ( ). '13 JUDGE LAZO: Friday the 13th? 14 (Laughter.) 15 MS. BERNABEI: That is fine. 16 JUDGE COLE: Why not the 12th? 17 JUDGE LAZO: Let us just say August 13th. 18 MS. BERNABEI: Okay. 19 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Dewey, do you have a date? 20 MR. DEWEY: I believe the Staff is supposed to 21 receive ten days after the Intervenor files, so I guess that 22 would give us until the 23rd. 23 JUDGE LAZO: August 27? () 24 MR. DEWEY: Well, 23. 25 JUDGE LAZO: Oh, August 23, I am sorry. And if
2710 7 1 Applicants desire to file a reply brief, they may have five () 2 additional days after the Staff has filed its -- 3 MR. GEHR: I think we can make that schedule. () 4 I can make that schedule if it doesn't f all on a Sunday. 5 JUDGE LAZO: Well, why don't we make it August 6 30th. 7 We only have one other thing that we would like 8 to say before letting you all go from whence you came. This 9 has been a hearing, I think, where Counsel have demonstrated 10 a lot of prof essional ability and competence. They have all 11 represented their clients well, and while there were a few 12 moments when you tended to get heated, I think everyone did (]) 13 behave very professionally, and were most helpful to us. ' 14 I hope we have built ar. complete record, and if 15 we haven't, I am sure you will tell us. There were some 16 nights we went home when I thought, Counsel for the Staff is 17 angry with us, and Counsel for Intervenor is not happy, and 18 Counsel for the Joint Applicants don't like us, and I thought, 19 my goodness, we are being even-handed, aren't we? But in 20 all seriousness, I do commend you for your competence and 21 your professional attitude, and the way you handled this 22 proceeding. Thank you all very much, and good day, and those
)
23 who are travelling, safe trip home. Well;..we_aro adjourned. 24 (Whereupon, at 7:07 p.m., Friday, June 25, 1982, 25 the hearing in the above-entitled matter was closed.) t
NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO.T4ICSION This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the
' ,g Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' '7 4 et, al.
the matte *r o*.* Arizona Public Palo Verde Service Nuclear Company $tation, Generating Units 1, 2, and 3 Date of Proceeding: Friday, June 25, 1982 Docket ?Iumb er : 50-528/529/530 OL Place of Proceeding: Phoenix, Arizona were held as herein appears, and that this is the original transcript thereof for the file of the Commission. Horace W. Briggs Official Reporter (Typed)
/ r6t'c h, 1 tic,(($)
Official Reporter (Signature) l I l l l l
?
l l}}