ML20054K032
| ML20054K032 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde  |
| Issue date: | 06/23/1982 |
| From: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8206300318 | |
| Download: ML20054K032 (205) | |
Text
- _ _ _ _ _.
C R IG l h/ A L NCC' TAR REGULATORY COMM SSICN O BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
'.n te Mar::ar cf: :
ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al. : DOCKET NOS. 50-528 OL
June 23, 1982 ?AGIS: 20.20 to 2222 CA*I:
AT: Phoenix, Arizona
.unetsox /'
M, REPORMG e 400 Virginia Ave., S.W. Wast:in g==, D. C. 20024 Telachc=e : (202) 334-2245 8206300318 820623 PDR ADOCK 05000528 PDR T
2020 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA lll 2 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3 -
X lll 4 In the Matter of: :
5 ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al.: Docket Nos.
_______..--________x 8
9 Courtroom 1 U.S. Courthouse and Federal 10 Building 230 North First Avenue 11 Phoenix, Arizona 12 Wednesday, June 23, 1982 Evidentiary hearing in the above-entitle'd matter (l) 13 14 was resumed, pursuant to recess, at 10:00 a.m.
15 BEFORE:
16 DR. ROBERT M. LAZO, ESQ., Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 17 DR. RICHARD F. COLE, Esq., Member 18 DR. DIXON CALLIHAN, Esq., Member 19 20 21 22 4D 23 24 (p
25
a 1
2021 1 APPEARANCES:
() 2 ON BEHALF OF THE JOINT APPLICANTS, ARIZONA PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY, et al:
- 3 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 LYNNE BERNABEI, Esq.
Harmon & Weiss 9 1725 I Street N.W.
Suite 506 10 Washington, D.C. 20006 i
11 i ON BEHALF OF THE REGULATORY STAFF:
12 LEE SCOTT DEWEY, Esq.
() 13 Office of the Executive Legal Director Nuclear Regulatory Commission 14 Washington, D.C.
15 16
) 17 18 19 20 al 21 22 (2) 23
! () 24 25
l 2022 (
1 C0NTENTS
() 2 WITNESSES DIRECT CROSS REDIRECT RECROSS DIRE 3 Edwin E. Van Bruitt, Jr.
By Ms. Bernaba! 2025 2156
() 4 By Mr. Gehr By Mr. Dewey 2151 2147 5
6 John Robert McCain By Ms. Bernabei 2161 7 By Mr. Gehr 2172 8
9 EXHIBITS 10 Staff's IDENTIFIED, IN EVIDENCE REJECTED 11 6 2023 2024 12 Joint Applicants'
~
JJ 2154
(]) 13 14 Intervenor's 15 XXXV 2099 16 XXXVI 2139 2134 17 XXXVII 2144 18 XXXVIII 2218 _
2222 19 20 21 9
22
(:)
23 C) 25
2023 1 PROCEED INGS O 2 <io o? e.m.>
3 JUDGE LAZO: Would the hearing come to order, 4 please?
5 MR. DEWEY: Judge Lazo, perhaps we could get into 6 a housekeeping item before we get back in the regular 7 process.
8 JUDGE LAZO: Fine.
9 MR.JDEWEY: The Staf f has the supplement number 10 two to the Saf ety Evaluation Report. This is the May, 1982 11 edition that went sent to the Board recently, and that the 12 parties also received copies of, and at this time, we would O '3 ttxe to tatroauce eue e exatate= tato the recora- or orter 14 these Exhibits into the record.
15 JUDGE LAZO: May we get that out? What is the 16 date of that document?
17 MR. DEWEY: May, 1982.
18 JUDGE LAZO: May, 1982. All right, and have you 19 provided the reporter with copies?
20 MR. DEWEY: Yes, sir. I am doing that.
21 JUDGE LAZO: We will mark that as Staff Exhibit 22 Number 6.
23 (The document referred to was 24 marked as Staff Exhibit No. 6 25 for identification.)
1
r '
- ,, t' i, l
2024, .s. ,
1 JUDGE LAZO: Are t re any objections to the
() 2 receipt into evidence of Sta(f Exhibit Number 6?
3 MR. GEHR: No objection. !
() 4 MS. BERNABEI: No objection.
5 JUDGE LAZO: e ry well, it may be received.
tr t ,
6 ' (Staff Exhibit No. 6 was there-7 upon received into evidence.)
8 MR. GEHR: If the; Board please, at the last 9 session, we introduced the water reclamation studies as 1G Joint Applicants ' Exhibit BB,l with the commitment to supply 11 sufficient copies for the repo5ter. I have those copies and 12 will make arrangements with tne reporter today to either ship
(~T s_/
13 them to a place of his desiro(or to let them carry them back 14 himse lf . '
I
! 15 JUDGE'LAZO: Very well. My records show that BB 16 has been received in evidence.
1 i
17 MR. GEHR: Yes.
18 JUDGE LAZO: And CC.
19 MR. GEHR: Yes.
20 J.6GG LAZO: Which was 'also supplied. Ms.
21 Bernabai, 3r s ccu ready to proceed?
22 MS. BERNABEI: Yes, I am. We have some maps, just (v+)
23 a housekeeping detail here, we have some maps which I believe 24 are Intervenor's XXX, XXXI, and XXXII?
I O-l 25 JUDGE LAZO: Yes, those were returned to you so l
2025 I that some additional information could be inserted?
(])
2 MS. BERNABEI: Yes, we have done that. I believe 3 we have done it at least for the Board's copies. I believe O 4 for everyone else, too, but I would give you those at this 5~ time.
6 JUDGE LAZO: Fine. If you would return those, 7 XXXI and XXXII also have been received. in evidence. Thank 8 you very much, Counselor.
9 MS. BERNABEI: Intervenor calls Mr. Van Brunt to 10 the stand.
II Whereupon, 12 E.E. VAN BRUNT, JR.
- 13 was called to the witness stand by the Intervenor and, having
() 14 been first duly sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
15 DIRECT EXAMINATION 16 BY MS. BERNABEI:
P 17 Q Good morning, how are you doing?
18 A Fine.
19 Q For the record, could you state your name and 20 business address?
21 A My name is Edwin E. Van Brunt, Jr. I work for 22 ' Arizona Public Service Company, P.O. Box 2166, Phoenix, 23 Arizona.
() 24 Q And, Mr. Van Brunt, what is your present position?
25 A My present position is vice-president, nuclear
}
2026 1 projects management.
() 2 0 And what are your duties and responsibilities in 3 that position?
() 4 A I am responsible for engineering and construction 5 activities related to the Palo Verde Nuclear Generating 6 StatiAN.
7 0 And could you detail some of those duties and 8 responsibilities as you understand them?
9 A I am generally responsible for all of the 10 engineering activities that are undertaken, either by my own 11 staff or our subcontractors. I am also responsible for the 12 construction activities of our subcontractors.
13 0 Now, you were deposed by Intervenor, is eutt
[]}
14 correct, on April 23 and April 26?
15 A Yes, ma'am.
16 0 okay, and during that deposition, I asked you
! 17 some questions and you answered some questions about the j 18 ultimate heat sink, the quality of water used at Palo Verde, l
19 and the anticipated needs for water at Palo Verde, is that 20 correct?
21 A That is my recollection.
rg 22 0 Can you describe for us your participation in the V
23 Palo Verde project, that is, when you began work on the 24 project, what year, and what your capacity'was at that time?
25 A I came to work for Arizona Public Service Company
2027 1 on March 12, 1972. I was hired as manager of nuclear
() 2 services, and in that capacity, I was responsible for all of 3 the engineering and construction-related activities that
() 4 Arizona Public Service Company might enter into in the 5 future.
6 As the project developed, I was given -- I was 7 promoted into a number of positions, which have ended up in 3 the one I have now, and I have continued to have the 9 engineering and construction, among other responsibilities, 10 over that period of time, as they relate to Palo Verde.
11 Q And it is fair to say, is it not, that you are 12 familiar with the water reclamation studies, that is the
({} 13 circ u~ lating water test f acility, the demonstration plant, and 14 the lab tests that were conducted'for those studies?
15 A I am generally familiar with them; not in any 16 detail.
L 17 0 Okay, but during that period of 1973 and 1974, i
i 18 you did receive reports from Bechtel about the progress of I
19 those studies?
20 A Yes, ma'am.
l l 21 Q Okay, Mr. Van Brunt, I am going to refer you to 22 what.has been marked as Intervenors' Exhibit XXVIII.
23 A Can you tell me what it is?
24 Q This is a statement that was prepared by you.
25 I believe it is a speech dated November 17, 1977.
2023 1 A Is that the same statement that is attached to O 2 my ertiaevie2 3 Q That is correct.
O 4 a ree, me em.
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 0 23 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 0
u 24 O
25 l
2029 O o tr you ~111 de r wita e- 1 - trvtas to riaa 2 your affidavit. Hold on a second.
3 (Counsel finds affidavit.)
4 Okay, now, you stated, do you not, in your affi-5 davit that the document is a written copy of an oral presen-6 tation'that you made at a public meeting on November 17, 1977, 7 before the 208 Plan Committee of the Maricopa Association of 8 Government.
9 A Yes, ma'am.
10 Q And that is true?
II A Yes, ma'am. -
12 Q You state in this document that at the time of 13 presentation, you believed the effluent requirements for O I4 each of the Palo Verde units was 21,000 acre feet per year, ,
15 is that correct?
16 A Could you refer me to a page in the document?
17 Sure.
Q 18 A I will find it myself.
19 I am referring to page 6 of the document.
Q 20 (Witness consults doc nent. )
21 A That is correct. I indicated that at that time 22 since the design was substantially complete that our best 23 estimate of our effluent requirements will be about 21,000 acre feet per year per unit.
Q You also indicate that your prior estimate was O
2030 1 35,000 acre feet per year for each of the Palo Verde units.
{)
2 Is that correct? On that same page.
3 A When we started the project and made our initial O 4 estimates without the benefit of detail design, not even 5 having identified the power level for the reactors or anything 6 else, we concluded that our maximum order requirements would 7 be on the order of 35,000 acre feet per year.
8 Q And what year was that estimate made?
9 A I would estimate in late 1972 or early 1973.
10 0 In your affidavit explaining this presentation, 11 you note that there is a 13 per cent increase in the figures, 12 from the 21,000 to the figure of 35,000 acre feet per year 13 that is due to your use of the assumption that the plants
( 14' would operate a't 100 per cent capacity. Is that right?
15 A It's -- but -- -
16 Q Is that not in fact what your affidavit says that 17 is attached as part of that exhibit?
18 MR..GEHR:, What part of his affidavit?
19 BY MS. EERNABEI:
20 Q You have before you, do you not, Mr. Van Brunt, the 21 affidavit that is part of that exhibit?
22 A Yes, ma'am.
23 Q Do you not state in that affidavit that one of the I') 24 reasons for the' increase -- in fact, 13.5 per cent of the i 25 reason for the increase is because an assumption to the larger 1
2031
' risure we= ** t there wou1a be too ver ceat cee city for ene 0
2 plant or the plants?
3 MR. GEHR: The affidavit shodld speak for itself.
4 What does it say?
5 THE WITNESS: Well, basically, what this affidavit 6 indicated was that there were a number of numbers that were 7
computed for different purposes, and with regard to computing 8 __
9 BY MS. BERNABEI:
10 Mr. Van Brunt, not to interrupt you, but I am talk-Q II ing specifically about a statement in the affidavit that talks 12 about 13.5 per cent, and that increase is due to an assumption 13 of 100 per cent capacity. Is that not your statement in the O' I4 affidavit?
15 A I am looking -- I do not see anything about 100 16 per cent capacity, ma'am.
17 Q How about page 4, paragraph 8.
18 Yes, ma'am.
A That is what I am looking at.
Q Do you want to read the third sentence in that 20 paragraph?
21 A The one that starts, "This means?"
l Q That is right.
23 A "This means that instead of assumping the power level of 3610 megawatts thermal (which is 95 per ce.nt of 25
! the requested authorized level of 3800 megawatts thermal).
2032 1 It is prudent for contractual purposes to assume that each 2 unit is operated at maximum design power level of 4100 mega-3 watts thermal. This approach would increase the effluent O 4 requirement by about 13.5 per cent." And then it goes through 5 a numerical computation.
6 Perhaps I misspoke. The difference between the two Q
7 figures is due, then, to an assumption for the larger estimate 8 that each unit is operating at the maximum design power level 9 og 4100, 10 MR. GEmt: Objection. She just referred to two 11 figures, and I have heard in the last few minutes about ten 12 figures.
13 .MS. BERNABEI: I am talking about the two figures 14 for water needs at Palo Verde.
15 MR. GEHR: Well, what are they?
16 MS. BERNABEI: I think this witness knows what 17 we are talking about.
18 MR. GEHR: I think it'is proper to have the record I9 clear as to what numbers we are talking about.
20 I believe Mr. Van Brunt, if he does MS. BERNABEI:
II not understand the question can say that he does not under-22 stand the question.
23 THE WITNESS: Would you please repeat the question?
24 BY MS. BERNABEI:
25 Q Mr. Van Brunt, both in the document, which is a O
2033 1 written copy of your oral presentation and in your affidavit, 2 there is spoken of two estimated water needs for Palo Verde, 3 is that correct? One from 1972-73, and one from 1977 when O 4 you gave this oral presentation.
5 A All right. In 1972-73, you are talking about the 6 35,000 acre feet per year per unit number?
7 That is right.
Q 8 A And then in the time of the presentation in 1977, 9 you are talking about the approximate 21,000 acre feet per 10 year number. Is that correct?
II Q That is correct.
12 A Those are the two numbers you are referring to?
13 Yes, ma'am, that*is correct.
I4 Q Those are the two numbers. And those are two es-15 timated water needs for Palo Verde units?
16 A That is correct.
17 For the two different historical time periods.
Q 18 A Yes, ma'am.
19 Now, the difference between those two figures you Q
20 explain in part in paragraph 8 of the affidavit, on page 4.
II Is that not correct?
22 MR. GEHR: Objection.
23 JUDGE LAZO: What is your objection, Mr. Gehr?
24 MR. GEHR: It assumes facts not in evidence.
25 Mr. Van Brunt stated that the 35,000 acre feet per year per O
2034
' u=1t e=et ete meae i=
O 72 .73 was established at the time 2 they did not even know the size of the unit.
3 p MS. BERNABEI: But this is cross-examination.
G 4 MR. GEHR: Well he -- let us not mischaracterize the 5 testimony.
6 MS. BERNABEI- I am not characterizing the testi-7 mony.
8 MR. GEHR: You must not assume facts that are not 9 in evidence.
10 MS. BERNABEI: It is not a rule of cross-examina-II tion. I am asking him about his understanding and what this 12 paragraph of the affidavit means. His understanding at this 13 time.
14 MR. GEHR: The affidavit spe'aks for itself. He has 15 no reference to 35,000 --
16 JUDGE LAZO: It is not just the affidavit, Mr. Gehr.
17 We are also talking about the other part of Exhibit XVIII, 18 which includes Mr. Van Brunt's statement.
19 MR. GEHR: At no time in Exhibit -- well, Exhibit 20 XVIII has no relationship t.o -- is not established by any 21 evidence here that the design level of 4100 megawatts thermal 22 has any relationship to 35,000 acre feet per year. It was 23 made in 1972-73, and she is asking a question on that assump-O 24 eien, end I em seving thet is not esteb11shed in evidence.
' She is trying to establish that in JUDGE LAZO:
A U
2035
(] 1 evidence.
2 JUDGE LAZO: You may proceed.
- 3 MR. GEHR: But he has already testified that when
\/
4 he made that 35,000 estimate that he did not even know the 5 size of the unit.
6 JUDGE LAZO: That is correct.
7 BY MS. BERNABEI:
8 Q Mr. Van Brunt, can you answer the question?
9 A I am afraid I have forgotten the question.
10 Q Is in fact one of the assumptions underlying the 11 estimate of 35,000, or if we talk about acre feet per year, 12 35,000 acre feet per year for each unit, is not one of the 13 assumptions of that that the plants would be operating at 14 maximum design power level of 4100 MWt?
15 A I do not believe there sas any direct relationship 16 between the 4100 megawatts thermal that w;as used in this 17 computation and the 35,000 acre feet number that was developed 18 back in 1972 or '73 as the case may be.
19 0 Well, then, perhaps you could explain in paragraph 20 8 --
21 A In my affidavit?
22 Q That is correct, page four of the affidavit.
23 A Yes, ma'am.
() 24 Q In this you say, " Assumptions to be used" -- and 25 I am quoting from the first sentence in the paragraph:
O
2036 1
" Assumptions to be used at arriving at conservative contrac-2 tual commitments should be based on estimate peak requirements 3 under adverse conditions."
O 4 Now, does that statement - " Assumptions to be used 5 ils arriving at conservative contractual commitements" -- does 6 that any relation at all to the number 35,000 acre feet per 7 year that is stated in the oral presentation?
8 ///
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 O 24 25 O
2037 A
i jl 1 A I do not believe that this Paragraph 8 has any 2 relationship to the 3,500-acre-foot number. This is dealing 3 with our specific computed numbers that we made in 1977 and
{)
4 was trying to indicate the contractual basis for -- of the 5 basis for other discussions that were going on to come up 6 with a maximum needed number based on the computations we 7 had made here.
8 Q So, therefore, this paragraph in this affidavit 9 is not an attempt to explain the differences between those 10 numbers.
11 A No, it's to indicate the basis for the computation 12 of the, what is it, 2,600-acre-foot per month number.
13 Q It is not intended to serve that purpose, to ex-
'O 14 plain the basis for the computation.
15 MR. GEHR: He just answered the question.
16 THE WITNESS: I said it was intended to explain 17 the basis for the difference between -- let me get the num-18 bers -- the number of 2,180 acre feet per month, which was .
19 used for one set of analyses, and the 2,600-acre-foot per 20 unit per month number that was used for a different set of 21 purposes. It's not dealing with the difference between 22 35,000 acre feet per year and 21,000 acre feet per year.
23 Q Okay, so we're dealing with the difference between
() 24 25 and 21, rounded off.
25 A Twenty-six and 21. Let me --
O
[ 2038 Well, I'm talkling about page 6. On that you
(]) 1 Q 2 state 25,000 acre feet per year.
3 A Page 6.
4 Q I'm working from page 6 where we have all three 5 figures.
6 A Okay, it's the difference between the 21,080 acre 7 feet per unit in the very last line and the 2,600 acre foot 8 per unit per month indicated in the fifth line from the bot-9 tom.
10 0 I have 26 on my copy.
11 A Isn't that what I said? I thought I said --
12 Q I have 25 on my copy, excuse me. Is that what 13 we're talking about?
14 A I have 26 on mine, ma'am.
15 MR. GEHR: It's 26 on mine.
16 BY MS. BERNABEI:
17 Q On page 6 of your oral presentation?
18 A Oh, I'm sorry, I'm on my affidavit. Whoops, okay.
19 Q It is 25, is it not?
20 A Twenty-five what? Twenty-five thousand, that says.
21 I was talking twenty-five hundred.
22 MR. GEHR: Twenty-five thousand what?
23 THE WITNESS: Acre feet per year.
() 24 BY MS. BERNABEI:
25 Q That's correct. Now, just to make sure I O
2039 i
O 1 understand, th t par graph, paragraph 8 in your affidavit, 2 is trying to explain that difference. And I don't think 3 it matters -- Is that correct? The difference between 4 25,000 and 21,000?
5 MR. GEHR: Objection. He has stated repeatedly 6 that the calculation he made in paragraph 8 of his affidavit 7 was to explain the numbers that appear on page 6 of his affi-8 davit in paragraph 12.
9 MS. BERNABEI: I'm trying to find out what rela-10 tionship this affidavit has to Intervenor's Exhibit, that II is the oral exhibit, XVIII -- that is, the oral presenta-12 tion.
13 This commenced when Intervenor asked for authen-14 tication of this document. And the Applicants responded 15 with an affidavit from Mr. Van Brunt explaining the document.
16 And I think I have a right to understiand his explanation.
17 And that's what I'm trying to find out, exactly how his 18 affidavit authenticates or describes this document.
19 If it's unrelated, then I think he should state 20 so. But I believe it is related.
21 MR. GEHR: That is not correct, Mr. Chairman.
22 Her request for requiring admission and production of docu-23 ments asked for an explanation of the statement, the follow-0 24 ine etetement: 1n the everese edverse emmmer monthe, we 25 expect our effluent requirements to peak at about 2,600 acre O
2040 ;
1 feet per unit." She wanted an explantion of that.
()4 2 She never asked for an explanation about 35,000 3 acre feet per year, that number, and never asked for an O 4 explanation of the 25,000 acre feet number. She wanted to 5 know about the 2,600 acre feet per unit number. That was 6 responded to in Mr. Van Brunt's affidavit.
7 JUDGE LAZO: That appears to be correct, Ms. Ber-8 nabei. Your response of April 19 --
9 MS. BERNABEI: Okay, that's fine. We'll work with 10 those figures, then. That's fine.
11 JUDGE LAZO: Very well.
12 BY MS. BERNABEI:
i I3 Q Okay., so that statement is an attempt to explain 14 the difference between the 26 acre' feet per unit that you 15 stated on page 7 --
16 A Which document are we in now?
17 Q We're in your oral presentation of 11/17/77.
l 18 A Yes, ma'am.
19 Q -- and the 1750 acre feet per unit that's also 20 noted on that page.
21 A Yes, ma'am.
22 Q Okay, so basically the difference we're talking 23 about is an estimated need the depends on average monthly
() 24 uses versus an estimated need based on average adverse sum-25 mer months.
MR. GEHR: Do you understand that question?
2041 1 BY MS. BERNABEI:
2 O I'm reading from page 7, and I'm trying to under-3 stand what the difference between those two numbers are, O) 4 those two estimates.
5 A We have an average consumptive use rate, which 6 is 21,000-plus acre feet per month.
7 MR. GEHR: Twenty-one per month?
8 THE WITNESS: Twenty-one thousand per year. I'm 9 sorry. The numbers are so similar.
10 But from a contractual viewpoint when you're con-11 tracting for effluent, you have to base it on the maximum 12 usage that you're going to require in the maximum month.
13 So we developed what our maximum usage would be under the 14 worst set of circumstances, both from a power viewpoint and 15 from an environmental or a meteorological viewpoint. And 16 that number is 2,600.
i 17 BY MS. BERNABEI:
18 Q Twenty-six hundred acre feet --
l Twenty-six hundred acre feet per unit.
19 A 20 Q Okay, why don't we do them in the-same units.
21 You have 21,000 acre feet per year. Why don't you give the 22 other figure in acre feet per year, sir?
l 23 A I'd rather we deal with the units, by unit.
() 24 Q Well, we can deal with them either way. But they 25 both should be in the same units, don't you agree?
I
2042
() 1 MR. GEHR: Objection. He has just explained that 2 he has to acquire a contract for enough effluent to meet 3 his peak month requirement. And he stated that amount is L
4 2,600 acre feet per month. Now, there's no need to convert 5 that into annual numbers which gives you a totall different 6 annual consumptive use.
7 BY MS. BERNABEI:
8 Q Mr. Van Brunt, would you prefer to work with them 9 per month, acre feet per month?
' 10 A I think the specific question my affidavit was II dealing with was addressed to me by month. And I think I 12 would rather deal with it by month since I responded to that
, 13 and it's easier to convert between the affid'avit and the O 14 other.
15 Q No. problem. What are the two numbers, then, using 16 acre feet per month?
17 A The average monthly usage, 1750 acre feet per unit 18 per month.
19 Q And how about under adverse conditions and --
20 A Twenty-six hundred acre feet per month per unit.
l 21 Q Twenty-six hundred?
I 12 A Yes, ma'am, 2-6-0-0.
l l 23 Q Okay, now returning to paragraph 8 of your affi-() 24 davit, that indicates, does it not, that 13.5 percent of 15 the difference between those two figures has to do with i [)
ss i
1 r
l l
t
2043 l different assumptions about capacity?
{}
2 A Yes, ma'am.
3 Q And the differences in capacity that we're talking
()
t 4 about is the difference between, for the lower figure, a 5 95-percent power level and a maximum design power level of 6 4,100 MWt.
7 A Yes, ma'am.
8 Q Now, you also note in your affidavit -- and I 9 believe you stated here today -- that another part of the 10 difference between those two figures is due to an assumption 11 for the larger figure of adverse weather conditions.
12 A Yes, ma'am. An allowance, I might say, not an 13 assumption.
} 14 Q An allowance, fine.
15 Now, can you figure for us.if 13.5 percent is due 16 to a difference in peak level, how much of the difference 17 is due to the difference in average weather conditions?
18 l
19 20 21 l
22 23 i
(]) 24 25 O
1
2044 1 A You want me to go from the 1750 to the 2600?
() 2 Q That is correct.
3 A Assuming that 13 percent, thirteen and a half
() 4 percent is with the power level?
5 0 Right.
6 A I don't have my slide rule or anything else here.
7 0 An estimate is fine.
8 MR. GEHR: Well, what are we comparing here? Are 9 we comparing averages, which is what the 1750 is, to a peak?
10 JUDGE COLE: Ms. Be';nabei? I am confused about 11 how the 13 and a half percent fits into the calculations that 12 involves 1750 and 2600, because that 13 and a half percent came from the, as I see it, from the 4100 megawatts to the
(]) 13 1
i 14 3610 megawatts, which are not really the same figures as 15 1750 and 2600.
16 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I believe hat is what he 17 testified to. What I am trying to find out is the-- why there 18 are dif ferent figures in this document, in terms of the water 19 need estimates, and I believe he testified that the dif ference 20 between the 1750 and the 2600 was in part due to different 21 peak leve l_s : peak power levels, and different meteorological 1
22 conditions. That is not true?
l
(])
23 JUDGE COLE: I still don't see hoe the 4100 comes 24 in, because I believe he testified how he arrived at the
)
25 4100, and I think these are just different figures, the 2600
2045 1 and the 1750.
O
(_) 2 MS. BERNABEI: Both of those, I believe, are 3 estimated water needs for Palo Verde, per month, and I am
() 4 trying to --
5 MR. GEHR: Objection. Excuse me.
6 MS. BERNABEI: One is based on different 7 assumptions, or was reached at in a way that was different 8 than the prior one. I believe he said that the higher 9 number was reached for conservative contractual commitments .
10 That was the purpose of making that estimate, .and I am merely 11 trying to find out why there are differences between the two.
12 figures,..in other words, what the assumptions were, so that
(]) 13. the two figures are different, what different assumptions 14 underlie those two figures.
15 MR. GEHR: But if you are comparing peak month 16 in one case', you must compare that at the 4100 megawatt 17 level, you must compare that with a peak month for the 3610, 18 and not an average over a year. Mr . wan Brunt's statement 19 said, evaporation and mother nature does not permit us to 20 use averages. Evaporation rates increase with rises in i 21 temperature.
22 MS. BERNABEI: That is the point. I am trying to
[]}
23 find out how much they rise with temperature. In other 24
{} words, I am trying to find out the difference between the 25 average and the maximum. Well,the average in the adverse
2046 g meteorological conditions. How much of a difference that
() 2 makes in their calculations .
~
3 JUDGE COLE: I guess I thought he had answered
(]) 4 that, and as I understand it, that answer is the difference 5 between 1750 and 2600.
6 MS. BERNABEI: I believe a part of that is due not 7 to the meteorological conditions, but the peak power. level, g but I could ask him.
9 JUDGE COLE: Okay.
10 BY MS. BERNABEI:
11 0 Mr. Van Brunt, is part of the difference between 12 those two figures a consequence of different assumptions
('N 13 about peak ~ power levels during those periods, or is that U
14 due entirely to adverse meteorological conditions?
15 A The difference between the figures and -- is not 16 a single ef fect. Part of it is power. leval. Part of it is 17 adverse environmental conditions, but-I think we are mixing 18 things up here. You have to look, if you look at my affidav-19 it, at the basis upon which we computed the numbers, if 20 you look at paragraph nine, it shows you the basis for 2180, 21 and we get to comparing like months. And then you will find 22 out what the assumptions were if you work back.
23 And my assumption, I will just tell you flat out, 24 on an allowancefor atmospheric conditions was five percent, 25 right or wrong.
2047 1 There is nothing mysterious about that.
() 2 o okay, can you tell us -- so your -- is it fair 3 to say that five percent of the difference between those
() 4 two figures is adverse meteorological conditions?
, 5 A Five percent of the number -- the_ difference 6 between 2180, which is the number I was talking about in my 7 affidavit in paragraph nine, the 2600 number, is five percent.
8 The balance of 13 and a half percent is power level.
9 That is what I said in the affidavit. Now, when 10 you back in the other document, the presentation, you are 11 not looking at the same kind of a comparison. You are look-12 ing at not comparing like numbers. You are looking at
(]} 13 - apples and cucumbers .
14 Q Now, the 21 eight or (sic) acre-feet, you are 15 saying that that should replace the 2600 acre-feet per year 16 we are talking about, so we should be talking about a 17 difference between 1750 and --
18 A Say that again now?
19 0 Yeah. What I am trying to find out is some of the 20 figures you are comparing here. This affidavit, just to put 21 a framework on this, as I understand it, was an attempt to 22 explain certain dif ferences in water needs --
t 23 A That is right.
24 0 -- different estimated water needs that appeared 25 in your oral presentation, is that correct?
2048 1 MR. GEHR: Objection. I think the affidavit
() 2 does explain. It doesn't attempt to. It accomplishes that.
3 JUDGE LAZO: Can you answer the question, sir?
() 4 THE WITNESS: I was waiting for an answer, and I 5 have already forgotten the question. I am very sorry.
6 BY MS. BERNABEI:
7 O The affidavit explains some differences in 8 estimated water needs for Palo Verde, is that right?
9 A Yes, ma'am.
10 Q Now, what differences in water needs are we 11 talking about?
12 A We have got different kinds of averages that we
() 13 are talking about. You have got an annual average where you 14 just take the 2160 -- 2100 number, round number, and divide 15 it by 12, that is one average.
16 0 Uh-huh.
17 A Andryou have got a monthly average.
18 Q Right.
19 A And then you have got a maximum monthly average, 20 and those are all dif ferent numbers, okay? And when we are 21 talking in my presentation that I made in 1977, on page seven, 22 the 1750 is the monthly average for a year, just taking 23 2160 and dividing by 12, 2100 I should say, I am sorry.
24 MR. GEHR: 21,000 divided by 12?
25 THE WITNESS: Yes ma'an -- yes, sir.
2049 I 1 BY MS. BERNABEI:
() 2 Q That is where you get the 1750 acre-feet?
3 A Pardon me, ma'am?
() 4 Q That is where you get the 1750 acre-feet?
5 A Yes, ma'am.
6 Q Okay, now --
i 7 A Then if you go back into paragraph nine of my 8 affidavit, I am now talking about the maximum monthly 4
9 average, which is 2180, which --
- 10 0 I am sorry, would you say that once again, sir?
11 A When you get into my affidavit --
12 Q Right.
A -- on paragraph nine --
(]) 13 3
14 Q Right.
15 A -- I am talking about our estimated maximum 16 monthly usage, normal, a normal operation, 95 percent power j 17 leve l, so forth and so on. At --
18 Q And when you are talking about maximum monthly 19 usage, what do you mean?
20 A The amount of water that would be required under i
21 the assumptions I made there, which was in the month of June,
{) 22 I think it was, and at 95 percent power level.
23 Q So we are talking about an average June, is that i
24 what you are saying there?
25 A Yes, average June, I guess that is how you would
l l 2050 1 characterize it.
2 0 And just to make sure I understand you, can you 3 tell us how you calculated that figure, in other words, what - -
( 4 A 2180?
5 0 Yes.
6 A I didn't calculate it at all. It came out of 7 the documents ref erenced there.
8 0 I mean in terms of what monthly temperatures, or 9 what monthly --
10 A I don't remember the underlying meteorological 11 data that went into it. It refers to table one, page 5-2 of 12 the Draf t Environmental Statement for Palo Verde Units 4 and
() 13 5.
14 MR. GEHR: I think that subject has been 15 thoroughly covered by Mr. Bingham, as to how he calculated 16 monthly averages.
17 BY MS. BERNABEI:
18 0 okay, so this is -- is it fair to say, Mr. Van 19 -Brunt, this is an average June. I think you said that was a 20 fair characterization?
21 A It is an average June, which is our maximum 22
(]) usage by months during the year.
23 0 okay.
24 A If there is such a thing as an average June.
(]}
25 Q But there is still a 95 percent capacity rate
2051 1 you are talking about here?
O(_/ 2 A Yes, ma'am, based on the 3800 megawatts thermal.
3 Q Right. Now, the third figure would be the 2600
() 4 acre-feet per unit?
5 A Yes, ma'am.
6 Q Per month.
7 A Yes. Do you want me to tell you how I got that?
8 Q Yes.
9 A okay. What I did then was I said, okay, we were 10 talking about 95 percent capacity factor, at a maximum 11 authorized limit of 3800 megawatts thermal. We said okay, 12 fine, we will now go from that to 100 perceht capacity factor
(]) 13 and we also go to the maximum design power of the plant, not 14 the licensed power, but the maximum design power of the 15 plant, core power, of 4100, and that is a 13 and a half 16 percent increase.
17 And then in addition to that, I added in a 18 five percent allowance to allow for meteorological variations ,
19 0 When you are talking about meteorological i
20 variations --
21 A Temperature, humidity, whatever.
22 Q And it is five percent up?
}
23 A Yes, ma'am.
24 Q Five percent increase?
(v-}
25 A Five percent increase. That is strictly an
2052 1 allowance. That is my judgment as to what it would be.
(]) 2 And it -- I think if yeu examine the data, you will find that 3 it was a conservative allowance.
(]) 4 0 Okay, and what your document -- or excuse me, 5 your oral presentation and the affidavit explain is that the 6 larger figure was used for conservative contractual
- 7 commitments, that is, to ensure that your contract provided i
8 you with a margin in terms of your water needs for the 9 plants ?
10 A It assured us that we had adequate water during 11 the month of maximum usage.
12 0 Mr. Van Brunt, do you have any of the exhibits 13 that have been introduced in front of you? *
[]} .
14 A I may have some of them, but I don't have them 15 marked by exhibit number. If you can kind of describe them, 16 I may or may not have them.
17 0 Sure. Okay, Mr. Van Brunt, if you would look at 18 what has been marked as Applicants' Exhibit T, which I l
19 believe was an Exhibit introduced with Mr. Bingham's testimony .
20 It is labelled WGB-2.
21 A Can you show it to me? I don't know whether I (s 22 have that with me or not.
G 23 Q Sure. Now, you were here for Mr. Bingham's
- 24 testimony, were you not?
25 A I was here for most of it. I don't think I was
2053 1 here for all of it.
() 2 O Okay, I am talking about when he testified , the 3 beginning of the last set of hearings. That would be in late 4 May.
5 A I probably was here. I don't remember.
6 0 You would be f amiliar with his testimony in any 7 case, would you not?
8 A Generally.
9 0 Now, with that Exhibit in front of you, and what 10 you remember of his testimony, isn't it true that when Mr.
11 Bingham was asked how the water needs, or the estimated water 12 needs, were determined for Palo Verde, that is, what average meteorological conditions meant, he said that he was talking
(]) 13 14 about not an average June, but a June on the hot side? Do 15 you remember that testimony?
16 MR. GEHR: Objection. I think we have had so 17 many mischaracterizations of what the testimony has said, I 18 want to refer to the precise statement that Mr. Bingham 19 stated, and present that to the witness.
20 JUDGE LAZO: Do you have a transcript reference?
21 MS. BERNABEI: Yes, I do. I wou?,d like to ask hin 4
{} 22 if he remembers testimony such as that.
23 THE WITNESS: Honestly, not that specific piece 24 of testimony.
25 ///
2054 I BY MS. BERNABEI:
() 2 O okay, do you remember what he did testify to in 3 terms of what kind of a June he considered?
() 4 A Pardon me?
5 0 Do you remember what kind of June he considered 6 in his estimates?
7 A Not specifically.
8 0 so you don't -- you don't remember the --
9 A I don't know how Mr. Bingham characterized it.
10 I remember you discussed the June situation, but I don't 11 remember how he characterized it.
12
(]) 13 ,
14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
() 22 n
() 24 25
2055 Okay, now on transcript page 1208 -- Do you have
( )1 1 Q 2 a copy of the transcript?
3 A The answer is no, I don't have a copy of the tran-4 script.
5 Q I think you will in a minute, sir.
6 MR. GEHR: I want the record to show that page 7 1208 is part of the cross-examination, not part of his 8 direct.
9 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Can I have the date of that 10 transcript, please?
11 THE WITNESS: It's May 26, sir.
12 JUDGE CALLIHAN: Thank you very much.
13 BY MS. BERNABEI:
14 'O Now I'd like you'to re'ad that page if you would, 15 sir.
16 A Out loud or to myself?
17 Q To yourself first.
18 (The witness read the page indicated.)
19 BY MS. BERNABEI:
20 Q Have you had a chance to review that, Mr. Van 21 Brunt?
22 A I read very slowly.
23 Q And carefully, I'm sure.
() 24 (The witness continued to read.)
25 THE WITNESS: Yes.
O
2056 BY MS. BERNABEI:
ll) 1 2 O Okay, he says, does he not -- and I'm referring 3 to lines 7 through 10 -- that the average meteorological O 4 conditions to reach the 21,000 acre feet per year is reached 5 "by looking at a larger spread of data" -- and I'm reading 6 from the answer - "such as the 60 years at Buckeye or 7 Gila Bend," and that"this is on the high side as far as 8 water consumption was involved"?
9 A I don't know about the 21,000-acre-feet number 10 that you quoted. I didn't go back and look whether that's 11 the underlying basis for this question or not. I'll quote 12 what he said. He said, "No, I didn't. What I said was that 13 if you look at a much larger spread of data such as the 60 14 years at Buckeye or Gila Bend, that you would find that this 15 is on the high side as far as water consumption was in-16 volved."
17 Q Okay, if you will review, Mr. Van Brunt, the few 18 pages before that in WGB 4 and 5, the exhibit T '. . . . ; just 19 given you, Applicants' Exhibit T, can you tell me what his 20 testimony is -- that is, what that answer relates to?
21 MR. GEHR: Objection. There is no need to go 22 through Mr. Bingham's testimony and ask this witness as to 23 what Mr. Bingham meant.
lll 24 MS. BERNABEI: I think if he has different testi-25 mony than Mr. Bingham, then maybe we should find out why.
O
2057
() 1 MR. GEHR: No, that's -- the question is -- I 2 don't understand that's a reasonable basis for cross-examina-3 tion. Mr. Bingham's testimony is what it is.
[}
4 JUDGE LAZO: Well, counsel has explained the pur-5 pose for this line of questioning, and we think it's a rea-6 sonable one.
7 MR. GEHR: I haven't found out any difference.
8 What is the difference? There hasn't been a foundation that 9 there is a difference.
10 MS. BERNABEI: He explained that the 21,000 acre 11 feet per year was what he has called an annual average.
12 MR. GEHR: Beg your pardon, that is not what he 13 said. He said he took the.21,000 approximately from the O 14 references cited in,that particular statement in his aff~i-15 davit.
16 MS. BERNABEI: I believe h called it an annual 17 average, at least on a monthly basis.
18 BY MS. BERNABEI:
19 0 Mr. Van Brunt, is the 21,000 acre feet per -
20 year -- that is an annual average. Is that correct?
21 A Are we talking about acre feet per year?
22 Q Acre feet per year.
23 A Twenty-one thousand acre feet per year, in round
() 24 numbers. I think the real number is 21,350. But anyway.
25 0 Round numbers.
O V
l i
2058
([) 1 A Those are consumptive usage in any year. It's 2 not an average or anything else. It's consumptive usage.
s 3 0 The consumptive usage based on average meteorologi-U cal conditions. Is that not true?
4 5 A It's based on the conditions by month, as I under-6 stand it.
7 Q But it's based on what has been phrased by Mr.
8 Bingham as " average meteorological conditions" in his 9 affidavit, is that not right?
10 MR. GEHR: Mr. Bingham's --
11 THE WITNESS: That I'm not sure.
12 JUDGE LAZO: I think you misspoke, counselor, as 13 far as the affidavit is concerned. -
14 MS. BERNABEI: It's the affid'avit that's submitted 15 in these proceedings that he was attempting to explain with 16 this exhibit.
17 JUDGE LAZO: YOu say Mr. Bingham's affidavit.
18 MS. BERNABEI: That is correct.
19 MR. GEHR: What affidavit did Mr. Bingham submit?
20 MS. BERNABEI: Mr. Bingham submitted an affida-21 vit -- Well, let me say this. It was an affidavit -- I'm 22 not sure if it was Mr. Bingham or Mr. Van Brunt --
in connec-23 tion with the motion for summary disposition. And in that O
q,/ 24 he used the words " average meteorological conditions." I 25 believe it was Mr. Bingham.
O
2059
() 1 Subsequently, he testified at this hearing, and 2 he tried to explain what average meteorological conditions r 3 were. As part of his explanation as I understood it -- it V] 4 was on page 1208 of the transcript -- he said he believed 5 the average meteorological conditions meant high-side 6 meteorological conditions.
7 MR. GEHR: That is not what Mr. Bingham said.
8 Again we're mischaracterizing the record. Mr. Bingham in 9 his testimony stated the basis for arriving at the 21,350 10 acre feet per year per unit. He then used some other data 11 which covered a longer span time which had a different result .
12 MR. DEWEY: I believe the affidavit was the Van 13 Brunt affidavit. .
O 14 MR. GEHR: No, she's referring to -- She 15 suddenly switched affidavits to an affidavit attached to 16 the motion for summary disposition.
17 MS. BERNABEI: Well, that was the basis on which 18 he testified at this hearing in the last, well, the last 19 two sets of hearings.
20 I'm trying to find out basically if this witness 21 disagrees with Mr. Bingham, or their testimony is --
22 MR. GEHR: Why don't you ask him that question?
23 JUDGE LAZO: All right, why don't you proceed.
() 24 BY MS. BERNABEI:
25 Q Mr. Van Brunt, the 21,000 acre feet per year is O
2060 I consumptive use assuming average meteorological condi-(])
2 tions. Is that correct?
3 A I guess I'm not sure that I would -- The term O 4 " average meteorological conditions" really doesn't mean any 5 particular thing to me, and I don't remember, if Mr. Bingham 6 used those words, what he was referring to either.
7 My understanding of the 21,000 is that it is com-8 puted, based on the average meteorological conditions that 9 occur by month through the year. And it's the expected con-
! 10 sumptive usage that we expect of water during a year of oper-11 ation at the Palo Verde plant.
12 Now, if that's characterized as average meteoro-13 logical conditions, so be it. I cannot relate to that
(~h (s/ - 14 general term.
15 Q But when you say average-monthly conditions, you 1
16 mean the average temperature for each month.
17 A I didn't say temperature. I said the_ conditions, 18 whatever they may be -- humidity, temperature, or whatever 19 it is. If we average January, February, March and so forth 20 and come up with an average month, and then we calculate 21 for the year, we come up with the 21,350 acre feet consump-22 tive usage. Now, if that's how we've characterilzed that 23 average annual usage, so be it. I don't relate to those 24
(]) words. That's my understanding of how the numbers were com-25 puted.
O V
2061 O o oxav eine-2 MS. BERNABEI: Can I have a few minutes --
3 THE WITNESS: If Mr. Bingham said something 4 different, then maybe we don't understand each other.
5 MS. BERNABEI: Can I have just a few minutes?
6 JUDGE LAZO: Yes, surely. Let's suggest, though, 7 that we seem to be building a somewhat confused record here.
8 And we're wondering if it might expedite matters to put Mr.
9 Bingham at the witness table as a panel with Mr. Van Brunt.
10 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I think Mr. Bingham has had Il several chances to testify. What I'd really like to do is 12 compare this witness's testimony to testimony that's already 13 in the record. Mr. Bingham has had substantial opportunity 14 to amend his testimony several times or revise it. I think 15 I should'have the opportunity to question this witness.
16 He has been at these hearings. He is intimately familiar 17 with what we're talkilng about here. In fact, during the 18 deposition I asked him these specific questions.
19 MR. GEHR: I think the purpose of cross-examina-20 tion is to get at the truth and get at a clear and complete 21 record. I think the Chairman's suggestion has merit; it 22 will accomplish that effect.
23 JUDGE LAZO: Well, if you object to the procedure, O 24 counee1er, then we won't insist ugon it. our enir thoueht 25 was that it might clarify the record.
O
2062 I
()8 MS. BERNABEI: Okay. Could I have a few minutes?
2 JUDGE LAZO: Yes. How much time do you think you I would like?
4 MS. BERNABEI: Five, 10 minutes.
5 JUDGE LAZO: Ten minutes?
6 MS. BERNABEI: Yes, 10 would be great.
7 JUDGE LAZO: All right.
8 MS. BERNABEI: Thank you.
9 JUDGE LAZO: Then we'll go off the record. We'll 10 recess for 10 minutes.
II (Brief recess.)
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
() 24 25 O
2063 JUDGE LAZO: Will the hearing come to order, please.
({} 1 2 BY MS. BERNABIE:
3 Q Mr. Van Brunt, just to recapitulate a little bit, 4 you gave me three figures in terms of consumptive water use, 5 in acre feet per month per unit. Is that correct?
6 A I think I quoted a number that came out of the pre-7 sentation I made in 1977 of 1750, which computes out to about 8 21,000 acre feet per year, which is the consumptive usage, 9 and I think I gave you what we call the maximum monthly usage, 10 if you like, during operational purposes of 2180, and we 11 calculated a maximum-maximum number, if you like, which is 12 used for contractual negotiation purposes of 2600. Those are 13 the three numbers you are talking about?
14 0 Okay, except they were described a little bit dif-15 ferently the last time you described them, I believe. The 16 last time you described them, I think the 2180 acre feet per 17 month was described as a monthly average. In other words, 18 it was reached by using monthly averages.
19 A No. Well, the 2180 -- let me just be sure. The 20 2180 came right out of the -- I think I read to you what it 21 was. If you look at paragraph 9 in my affidavit on page 5, 22 2180 came out of that table in the Unit 4 and 5, environmen-23 tal state. If I characterized it in some words -- that is
() 24 why characterizations give me some trouble. I deal with the 25 specific numbers. That is the --
O
2064 1
Q The 2180?
2 A Twenty-one-eighty is for June.
3 Q And the 2180 is under the assumption, is it not, O 4 and I am quoting from that sentence, " average atmosphere con-5 ditions during the month of June?"
6 A Yes, ma'am.
7 Okay, and that is what you are calling -- what are Q
8 you calling this now?
9 A Just what you read I will call that.
10 Q Okay, the 2180, in other words, is with the assump-11 tion that there were average atmospheric conditions during 12 the month of June?
13 A As stated in paragraph 9 of my affidavit.
O i4 Ma. cEuai Thet is noe the en1y essumgeien.
15 BY MS. BERNABEI:
16 Okay, another one of your assumptions is that each Q
17 unit is operating at 95 per cent power level?
18 Yes, ma'am.
A I9 Q Okay. Now, can you refer to what has been marked 20 as Joint Applicants' Exhibit T-WGB-4?
21 (Witness refers to exhibit.)
22 A Yes, ma'am.
23 Now that has, does it not, a figure that is very Q
24 close in terms of 95 per cent -- it is very close to your 25 2180, is that right?
O
2065 Q 1 There is a 2114?
2 A Twenty-one four- -- yes, ma'am.
3 Q And I assume hat that was -- do you know how that O 4 figure was reached? Do you remember?
5 A Twenty-one-fourteen?
6 Q Yes, sir.
7 A No, ma'am, not in detail.
8 You were in the courtroom, were you not, on May 26, when 9 Mr. Bingham testified?
10 A I was here in and out. I made phone calls. I have 11 been in and out during the proceedings. Whether'I was here 12 when he talked about that specifically or not, I do not remem-13 ber.
~
~
14 Q Have you reviewed his testimony with your counsel 15 or with him after that?
16 A No, ma'am.
17 But you understood, did you not, at that time gen-Q 18 I am talking about that erally what he was testifying to?
19 specific day, now, May 26th.
20 A Well, I have a general idea what his overall testi-21 mony was, yes.
22 If you would refer to the transcript, pages 1205 Q
23 through 1208.
24 (Witness refers to transcript.)
25 A Yes?
l 2066 I
] 2 MR. GEHR: Just a minute, please.
BY MS. BERNABEI:
3 Could you view that, sir?
Q O 4 (Witness reviews transcript.)
5 Have you finished, Mr. Van Brunt?
6 A I have read it, yes, ma'am.
7 Do you understand the testimony?
Q 8 A Generally.
9 MR. GEHR: I do not think --
10 MS. BERNABEI: I think he is familiar with this II area. He understands what Mr. Bingham is talking about.
12 THE WITNESS: There is an awful lot of questions I3 and answers and jumping around, I'll tell you.
ym d 14 BY MS.'BERNABEI:
15 Yes, well let us see how far we can get.
Q I0 MR. GEHR: Just a minute. This cross examination 17 is related to Mr. Bingham's direct examination, specifically, 18 WGB-4. Now, if we are going to be pursuing this line of I'
questioning, which I think is very unproductive, then I want 0 the witness to be able to look at Mr. Bingham's testimony in 21 total, including his direct.
Mr. Bingham's statements in this section, pages 23 1205 through some other number, is only a portion of what
~
O 24 Mr. Binehem's testimony es to how he deve1oged the 21,350 25 acre feet per year number. How.he computed the average O
i
2067 i meteorological conditions that he took into account.
O 2 MS. BERNABEI: That is true. That is true. All 3 I am asking this wituess is it is a figure very close to his,
) 4 and he appeared to use different assumptions in reaching it, 5 and I just want to clarify that that is in fact true.
6 We are talking about a specific exhibit that was 7 Well exP lained by Mr. Bingham. In fact, Mr. Bingham explains 8 it some more in this part of the testimony. And Mr. Van Brunt 9 is familiar with it.
10 JUDGE LAZO: But if it has been well explained, what 33 is the point of going into it with this witness?
12 MS. BERNABEI: I would like to ask him if he can 13 exPl ain what I understand are differences between the two testimonies, what he has testified.to here today and what
(]) 14 15 Mr. Bingham has testified to.
l 16 I can make a proffer as to exactly what --
17 hm. GEHR: I think it is --
18 MS. BERNABEI: It is basically Mr. Bingham said he 19 used different meteorological conditions than this witness l 20 has testified to, and they came to a very similar number. I 21 am trying to figure out exactly.
12 JUDGE LAZO: Well, if that is in the record, then
! 23 why do we have to pursue it here with Mr. Van Brunt?
24 MS. BERNABEI: He might have explanation. If he
{}
25 does, I would like to hear it. Maybe we are wrong.
l l
l
2068 1 If the testimony conflicts, then I think we are 2 entitled to ask for an explanation. Perhaps he cannot ex-3 plain it. Perhaps he can. That is all I am asking. This is O 4 cross examination.
5 I would also note for the record that --
6 JUDGE LAZO: Now, you keep referring to cross 7 examination. Mr. Van Brunt is your witness.
8 MS. BERNABEI: He is an adverse witness. He was 9 called as an adverse witness, not as a direct witness. He 10 obviously is a high-ranking member in APS, and has made many II submittals, and is probably the person at APS most intimately 12 familiar with this project.
13 JUDGE LAZO: Sut is it proper to ask him his
.r'% ' I4 understanding of what Mr. Bingham meant wh'en he gave those L'
15 answers?
16 MS. BERNABEI: These are all statements, whether 17 it is by Mr. Bingham or Mr. Vari Brunt or some other witness 18 or the Applicants that I believe Applicants have sponsored in 19 some sense, and that if the testimony of Mr. Bingham is 20 different than the testimony of Mr. Van Brunt, we are en-21 titled to probe into why that testimony will be different.
22 If there is an explanation, it may be an explanation.
23 JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Bernabei, we think that if you are 24 O soias to eursue ente 11ae or suestioatas, you enou1a rirse ee-25 tablish a foundation for it. Let us find out what are these O
v i
2069 I alleged differences that you are probing at this point. You 2 have not stated what those differences are, nor hts anyone es-3 tablished what those differences are. Let us proceed on that O 4 basis.
5 MS. BERNABEI: I think what we have gotten to is 6 two very similar figures in terms of acre feet per month.
7 And Mr. Van Brunt has said yes, in fact, his 2180 is very 8 close to the 2114 that appears on WGB-4 in Applicant's Ex-9 hibit T.
10 JUDGE LAZO: All right. Whether that is close or II very close no one has argued, but we know what those two 12 figures are. Now, what other differences are involved?
13 MS. BERNABEI: Well, the proffer would be that whati O i4 ewo witnesees heve ee1d in terms of the essumptions ehout 15 meterological conditions are underlying those two numbers are 16 different.
17 MR. GEHR: What are the difference that they have I8 stated. It ought to be clear from the deposition and from 19 Mr. Van Brunt's testiltony that he was generally familiar with 20 this numbers, that he did not do *he calculation. He relied 21 on Mr. Bingham to do them. Now, that is perfectly well known.
22 MS. BERNABEI: Except we are talkin7 back in 1977, 23 and he has sworn out an affidavit in this proceeding explain-24
(]~ ing differences in numbers, and he explained them again today, and he shows an understanding of the differences between the O
2070 2180, 1750 and 2600, and I think we are entitled to going to
() I 2 the trouble of trying to explain this in something that is 3 introduced in this proceeding why there are different esti-4 mates for water needs for Palo Verde, and if the water needs 5 -- how they reach >d those water needs, in other words, how 6 he reached his figure as Executive Vice President or Vice 7 President of APS and how Mr. Bingham reached his figures.
8 And if they reached them in different ways, then I think we I are entitled to know that.
'* ///
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 i 19 i 20
- 21 1
j 22 l 23 24
(])
- 25 O
1
2071 Q l MR. GEHR: Mr. Van brunt has said that the 21,350 V
2 acre feet per year is the number that he used, and it is a s
3 95 per cent capacity factor for the hottest operating in the 4 month -- he used that number.
5 MS. BERNABEI: I do not believe that is what he has 6 testified to. He said there was a --
7 MR. GEHR: That is what his affidavit said. And he 8 has repeated it several times.
9 MS. BERNABEI: I do not believe that is what his 10 affidavit says.
II MR. GEHR: His affidavit refers to the ER table.
12 MS. BERNABEI: His affidavit refers, Mr. Gehr, on 13 page 5, paragraph 9, to " average atmospheric conditions O
v 14 during the month of June." That is not a hot June or a bad 15 June or anything else. That is average atmospheric condi-16 tions during the month of June. ,
17 Now, what we are trying to figure out --
18 JUDGE LAZO: I thought we had established that the 39 month of June is generally the hottest month o.f the year.
20 But there are different Junes. This MS. BERNABEI:
21 comes down to Mr. Bingham's testimony. There are normal Junes, there are warm Junes, and there are very hot Junes.
23 And what we tried to probe with Mr. Bingham, and we never 24 received any confirming documents one way or the other, is 25 what kind of a June he used. And those temperatures can O
2072 1 range. The differences in temperature alone, without the 2 other atmospheric conditions being considered, is -- can be 3 30', and that is substantial enough. And we asked O 4 Mr. Bingham, "Are you talking about a normal June? Are you 5 talking about a hot June? Or are you talking about a warm 6 June?"
7 I believe Mr. Bingham said, and this is what is 8 reflected in his testimony -- he surveyed 60 years of histori-9 cal data, 40 to 60 years, and he used numbers on the hottest 10 side. He used hot Junes. I asked him if that was a maxi-11 mum, the hottest June? "Did you use those figures?"
12 He said, "I can't say that I didn't." And then he 13 promised to try to figure ou.t exactly what figures he did use.
() 14
~
And Mr. Van Brunt says, "No, we used an average ,
15 June." June is the hottest month of the year, but "we used 16 an average June." That is what he has testified to.
17 JUDGE LAZO: That is correct.
18 MS. BERNABEI: Now, the two figures are almost 19 identical, and we would like to know what the assumptions 20 underlying those figures are. What we have in the record is 21 Mr. Bingham saying that the assumption underlying in WGB-4 22 this 2114 -- the assumption that he used a hot June, perhaps 23 a maximum June within his historical data. What we have 24 Mr. Van Brunt saying is that the 2108 that he used was in
(])
25 fact based on the assumption of an average June, not a hot
2073 I June, not a warm June, an average June.
2 JUDGE COLE: You mean 2180.
3 MS. BERNABEI: Twenty-one-eighty, right.
4 JUDGE COLE: Let us not get too many numbers in 5 here.
6 MS. BERNABEI: Right, 2180, thank you.
7 And in fact, the 2180 appears to be higher than the 8 2114. And he used an average June, not a hot June. And I 9 would note that the Applicants have not provided us with the 10 documents talking about what kind of June Mr. Bingham was II talking about.
12 Dr. Callihan went into extensive colloquy here I3 with Mr. Bingham to determine exactly what documents we O i4 needed. Therefore, I think we ere entie1ed to en exg1aneeion.
15 MR. GEHR': That is such a terrible mischaracteriza-16 tion of Mr. Bingham's testimony it is shocking. Mr. Bingham's 17 testimony, as shown on WGB-4, shows the PVNGS basis for II June '74 '75. Eighty-eight, I think it's 2123, and that is I9 what he used. Then he also showed what the differences were 20 for the year June '76, June '77, June '78. And it shows that 21 the average temperature for that month of 89, 90 and 90 res-22 pectively.
23 Now, in this cross examination, Ms. Bernabei brought 24 out the fact that there was a month, some month in June, in 25 which the high temperature on one day was 118*, and now she O
2074 O I just tried to convert that ll8*-day peak temperature to an V
2 average for the month.
3 MS. BERNABEI: No, I am not --
O 4 MR. GEHR: That is ridiculous. She mentioned the 5 30*. That is the only way that she can get there.
6 MS. BERNABEI: I am --
7 MR. GEHR: Now, excuse me, he has told you the basis 8 was 88*. Then he compared it with what happened subsequently, 9
and he also compared that number with what had happened under 10 previous recorded data over 60 years from Gila Bend and 45 II years from someplace else, in Phoenix or wherever it was --
12 Buckeye. And he compared those. And he showed that the 13 number he had selected was slightl'y above those averages if A
V 14 he had taken the 60-year Gila Bend' data.
15 MS. BERNABEI: He did not say "slightly." He said 16 "a high June." I asked him, "Well, it is below the maximum, 17 is it not, sir?"
38 And he said, "I could not say that. It's on the 19 high side."
0 Those are his exact words, and I was trying to get 21 the documents underlying it to understand how he got to his 22 figure on WGB-4.
23 And if we turn to page 1208, and I asked him, "Okay, O 2*
so the fleuree you used were the hottest aune thee you have 25 in your recorded historical data?"
O
2075 I He said, answer: " Yeah. You have to go to WGB-4 2 and that gives you the water consumption. That is correct."
3 And then we asked him for the documents underlying O 4 the 40 to 60 years' historical data and what kind of tempera-5 ture and meteorological condition data he used. And there is 6
an extensive discussion with Dr. Callihan and Mr. Bingham 7
about what exactly we had requested. And we have never re-8 ceived that.
9 If he is reaching a lower figure than Mr. Van Brunt 10 using higher meteorological conditions, I think we are en-II titled to some kind of an answer.
12 JUDGE LAZO: I think we are wasting a lot of time I3 here. I think if you proceed with your questions, we will 14 give you a few minutes to pursue this line of questioning.
15 BY MS. BERNABEI:
16
~
Q Mr. Van Brunt, have you read 1205 through 1208 of I7 the transcript of Mr. Bingham's testimony?
18 A A while ago, yes.
I9 He testified, did he not, that the assumption under-Q 20 lying WGB-4 in Applicants' Exhibit T, at least in part, was 21 an assumption or a use of a hot June.
22 A Could you give me a specific reference? There was a lot of interaction that went on in the transcript.
l Q We are talking -- let us start out with 1205, page 25 1205.
O l
i
2076 1 A Okay.
2 Q Now, Mr. Bingham testifies at the bottom of that 3 page, does he not, about using 40 to 60 years of available Uc 4 data.
5 (Witness reviews transcript),
6 A Wel1, he indicates -- I will read it. "I would say 7 that in general that the make-up resulting from those Junes 8 or those calculations were perhaps 20 per cent higher than if 9 I used 40 or 60 year data that are available." That is what to he said.
Il Q And what does he mean by that?
12 MR. GEHR: Objection. He cannot know what 13 Mr. Bingham meant by his testimony.
O i4 JuoGE tAzO We w111 suseein the os3ece1on.
15 BY MS. BERNABEI:
16 Wel1, he did look at 40 or 60 years of data, is Q
17 that right, Mr. Van Brunt?
18 A According to what he -- no -- I guess it infers 19 that he did. He said, "It is higher than if I used 40 to 60."
20 I presume he must have looked at 40 to 60 to make that state-21 But it does not really say he looked at it, though.
ment.
22 And he is saying that the meteorological data that Q
23 is for the June that he used to get to his 2114 on WGB-4 --
24 MR. GEHR: Objection.
' Let me finish my question, Mr. Gehr.
MS. BERNABEI:
O 5
2077 1 BY MS. BERNABEI:
2 O He said that that was -- the make-up resulting from 3 those Junes he used in his calculations was 20 per cent O 4 higher than if he used the 40-to-60-year spread of data.
5 MR. GEHR: Objection.
6 JUDGE LAZO: Sustained.
7 Counselor, you may ask him to read what Mr. Bingham 8 said, but not to infer what Mr. Bingham meant.
9 BY MS. BERNABEI:
10 Q All right, would you read on page 1205 the answer II at the bottom of the page.
12 A I will read it again:
33 "No, I don't have any documents. I looked at the O
, i4 deee for Buckeye from 1893 to 1957, for ghoenix from 1941 to 15 1970, for Litchfield Park (ph.) from 1918 to 1957, for i
16 Gila Bend from 1893 to 1957, and the Palo Verde data from 17 1974 to 1981. And I would say that in general that the make-18 l up resulting from those Junes, or those calculations, was 19 perhaps 20 per cent higher than if I used the 40- or 60-year
(
20 data that are available."
21 Q Okay, now going to page 1206, Mr. Gehr interjects, 22 does he not, an interpretation of my question, and I would 23 ask you to read Mr. Gehr's first statement on that page.
f A At line 4?
C That is correct.
O
2078 p
v 1
A "She also asked whether yours was a very average 2 or a very hot or a very average June, and I think he answered 3 that question."
O 4 Q Now, I say at that point, after Mr. Gehr's state-5 ment, do I not, "He said it was somewhat hotter," is that 6 correct?
7 A That is what it says.
8 And then I asked Mr. Bingham, do I not, whether Q
9 that is right.
10 A That is right. You say, "Is that right?" And he II -- Mr. Bingham answers yes.
12 Q And I asked again. "And it was abdve the average, 13 is that right?"
O i4 A se enswers, res, me.em.-
15 And then I ask, "But it was not the maximum?" do I Q
16 not?
17 A And he says, "I don't know."
18 Q Which implies it may be the maximum, is that cor-I9 rect?
20 A I -- it says, "I don't know that."
21 Q Does that not indicate, what you have just read, 22 that Mr. Bingham and talking about and reaching his 2114 23 figure on WGB-4 an above-average June?
2*
O Ma. GzBa: ohsectioa.
JUDGE LAZO: She is asking what does that mean to O
2079 1 this witness.
2 MR. GEHR: But the point is, and that is why I 3 wanted him to have an opportunity to read Mr. Bingham's Np 4 direct testimony, because she is mischaracterizing the 2114.
5 That is not the number that Mr. Bingham used. It is very 6 clear that he used '74, '75 data as a PVNGS design basis, 7 and that is the number 88, and it comes out to a make-up 8 load of 2123, which is not corrected for evaporation losses 9 in the reservoir and other losses. And that is how you got 10 up to the 2180. And that is further explained in II Mr. Bingham's testimony.
12 When she starts talking about comparing 2114, which 13 has absolutely nothing to do with it, or averages of other O
'd 14 time periods, I do not know what we are getting at.
15 MS. BERNABEI: Mr. Gehr can explain this witness's 16 testimony and other forms -- he can do this on redirect. All 17 I am asking him is essentially whether it does not indicate 18 that in his calculations, the WCB-4, Joint Applicants' Ex-19 hibit T, that he used hotter than average June temperatures.
20 That is a very simple question.
21 We will JUDGE LAZO You have asked the question.
22 overrule the objection.
23 The question is what does that indicate to 24 Mr. Van Brunt.
THE WITNESS: It indicates to me that the numbers he O
2080 1 used were higher than he might have computed if he used a 2 40- to 60-year data.
3 BY MS. BERNABEI:
O 4 Q Does it not also indicate that he used an above-5 average June in terms of temperature for meteorological con-6 ditions?
7 A Meteorological conditions in general? Yes, I guess 8 so.
9 Mr. Van Brunt, you are familiar in some detail, are Q
10 you not, I believe I have asked you this question before --
II with the demonstration plant for circulated water test 12 facility and the laboratory tests conducted during 1973 and I3 '747 p" 14 A I am' familiar with it, not in,any great deatil.
I 15 But you did receive frequent and regular reports Q
16 on those tests that were conducted during that period, did 17 you not? ,
18 MR. GEHR: Asked and answered.
19 JUDGE LAZO: It i's,a different question. Have you 20 responded?
21 Oh, I am sorry.
THE WITNESS: Yes.
MS. BERNABEI: He did respond yes.
23 THE WITNESS: I think I answered yes, that I had 24 l received reports.
25 JUDGE LAZO:
Thank you.
O l
I n n - - ., -, -e-
2081 I BY MS. BERNABEI:
2 Q Mr. Van Brunt, you were familiar generally in 1977 3 with an idea that was being considered by several people that 4 groundwater, that is, Buckeye Irrigation District groundwater, 5 could be used for cooling purposes at Palo Verde?
6 MR. GEHR: What was that question? What time?
7 Would you repeat the question?
8 JUDGE LAZO: It was 1977.
9 MR. GEHR: Could I ask the reporter to read it back, 10 please?
II JUDGE LAZO: Sure.
12 (Reporter plays back question.)
I3 $HE WITNESS: I hesitate to answer. " Groundwater"
'r I4 was what was bothering me. My recollections were it was 15 tailings from irrigation.
16 BY MS. BERNABEI:
I7 TaiIing:: from irrigation. That is fine.
Q 18 A Which would have come possibly from groundwater or I9 could be water that the Buckeye Irrigation Company had taken 20 out of the river into their system, which would be sewage 21 effluent basically.
Q But one of the considerations of grounwater, is 23 that not right?
O
^ 1 ao noe seeoirioe11v remember erouaaweter- Thet
$ 25 could'be correct. My recollections were tailings, but I O
2082 1
have no recollection of using groundwater directly, in other (GN 2
words, just taking water, pumping it out of the ground and 3 putting it into our pipeline. That is not to say that that O 4 may not have been a consideration. I just do not remember 5 that particular aspect. I know that we -- somebody had 6
suggested to us that we might take tail waters that had 7
already been used for irrigation and use it.
8 Q The tailings, if they were used at Palo Verde -- how 9
would they get to you? In other words, would it be through 10 groundwater or directly from the river?
II A As I remember, it was suggested that the tail waters 12 which are now discharged someplace into the river -- we would 13 somehow pick those up and get them into our system from some O i4 kind of e structure or something. .
15 Q And how would you pick those up? In other words, 16 would it be through recharge and picking up --
II A No, it would be directly picking up, as I remember.
18 Q Okay. (Pause)
I9 There whs an idea, was there not, that posbibly 20 Palo Verde could use CAP water, or that Applicants could use 21 CAP water, Central Arizona Project water for use at Palo Verde. Is that correct?
23 A It was suggested that in order to -- as an idea 2*
O eo e11miaate some or ene coaeumgeive use or weeer, enee we 25 have once-through cooling using Central Arizona Project water.
O V
2083
() 1 In other words, take either by canal or viaduct or pipe or 2 something, water directly out of the Central Arizona Canal, 3 which runs quite a number of miles north of Palo Verde, 4 run it to the plant, run it through our condensors and then 5 put it back into the Central Airzona Project system.
6 And is it fair to say that for both those alterna-Q 7
tives that were being considered, Joint Applicants, and pre-8 dominantly APS did not want to use those alternatives? That 9 __
10 A I do not think that is fair to say. I think that II we very carefully analyzed those alternatives and concluded 12 that they were not technically practical or could not or would 13 not be available in the time frame that we expected that the O,
I4 Palo Verde units would'go on line.
IS
///
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
()
25 O
2084 Now, is it not true that in terms of the Buckeye
(]pl 1 Q 2 Irrigation District water, whether it be effluent or whether 3 it be groundwater, that one of your considerations was the O 4 quality of that water? One of the considerations of why 5 you did not want to use that water for Palo Verde.
6 A Quality of water is always a consideration, and 7 it was in that case, yes.
8 Q And what was your concern?
9 A Well, specifically, the constituents that would 10 be in that water, be they spec,ific or in general total dis-11 solved solids, and whether they would be compatible with 12 the design of our water reclamation facility which had been 13 based upon the effluent that was expected to be discharged
() 14 from the 91st Avenue sewage treatment plant.
15 Q And when you're saying that, you're saying essen-16 tially that the quality of water may not be similar to or 17 may be worse than the effluent discharged from 91st Avenue, 18 and thereft. e not be able to be treated in your treatment 19 plant on site.
20 A I don't think "similar" has anything to do with 21 it. What we have to do is we have to look at the specific 22 constituents, the specific ranges of total dissolved solids, 23 and all the other considerations, and find out whether that 24 is compatible with our plant. Whether it's similar to the
(])
25 water that's discharged from 91st Avenue or not is really O
l I
2085 1 irrelevant. You have to look at the specifics of the situ-(]}
2 ation.
3 Q Okay, and the specifics of the situation for the O 4 Buckeye water were that the water was not suitable for the 5 on-site treatment plant. Is that not right?
6 A As a replacement for the sewage effluent that we 7 planned to get from 91st Avenue, that's correct. I think 8 we did look that we could mix small quantities of that water 9 with it.
10 0 Can you explain to us what made it unsuitable for 11 treatment at the on-site facility?
12 A In specifics, no. I don't remember the specific 13 problems,.other than the plant was designed for a certain
~
14 range of characteristics and that the water that we got from 15 Buckekye Irrigation Company didn't fit that range of charac-16 teristics particularly.
17 Q Now, the facility on site, as has been explained 18 here, I believe, is designed to take into account five bad 19 actors. In other words, the design basis is to take care 20 of five bad actors. Is that the way you understand it, Mr.
21 Van Brunt?
22 A That's the way I understand it. But you're getting 23 into an area -- I have general knowledge of that plant.
() 24 I'm not specifically knowledgeable in the details of the 25 computations, nor do I consider myself to be knowledgeable O
U
2086 1 in the chemical area.
T])
2 Q But that's generally how you understand it.
3 A There are certain constituents, five or however O 4 many, that have to be considered in the design of that plant.
5 I think the characterization of five was something developed 6 in this hearing. But.
7 Q And, therefore, is it fair to say that when you 8 were concerned about the water from Buckeye, that one of 9 your concerns was that the five bad actors, as they have 10 been called, or the five constituents -- there was some 11 problem with those.
12 MR. GEHR: Objection.
13 BY MS. BERNABEI:
() ~14 Q If you know, sir.
15 MR. GEHR: Objection. He has already answered 16 that question, 17 JUDGE LAZO: I think he has answered the question, 18 counselor.
19 MS. BERNABEI: That he doesn't know?
20 JUDGE LAZO: Well, the record -- Essentially I 21 recall that that's what he said, he really didn't know.
12 MS. BERNABEI: Okay.
23 BY MS. BERNABEI:
() 24 Q Could there be any other problems -- and I'm talk-25 ing now about the quality of water from Buckeye -- that would i
2087 1 lead you to reject it as a replacement for effluent for use 2 at Palo Verde?
3 And I'm talking now in terms of your water treat-4 ment facility on site.
5 A I honestly don't know.
6 Q Excuse me?
7 A I honestly don't know.
8 Q Okay. So is it fair to say there might be a prob-9 lem with five bad actors, but you don't know if there are 10 other characteristic --
11 A I don't specifically remember, nor do I think at 12 the time I was really specifically knowledgeable about the 13 specific problems associated with the tail waters from Buck-14 eye Irrigation Company, other than to understand that it 15 wasn't generally compatible with our plant and woul'd cause 16 us some great difficulty, and we could not use it as a single 17 source of water.
18 Q floweve r , in 1977 you said, did you not, that water 19 beyond the TDS range of the effluent that you were consider-20 ing might not be able to be used at Palo Verde because of 21 the water treatment facility on site?
22 A Can you give me a specific reference to where I 23 said that? I've said a lot of things over a lo;t of years.
24 Q If you could refer to Intervenor's Exhibit XVIII, C4 25 the same oral presentation.
- _A
2088 I A Oh, okay.
2 Q At page 5.
3 A Okay.
p U 4 Q And I'm talking about the last paragraph on page 5 5.
6 A The very last paragraph?
7 Q Yes.
8 A Do you want me to read it? I'll be glad to.
9 That's what I said at that time, and obviously it was my 10 understanding at that time.
11 O Okay, you can read it into the record.
12 A "Any redesign effort undertaken at this late 13 date in order to process water beyond the design range of
() 14 TDS or with new characteristics such as pesticides a'nd new
~
15 organics would not only cause extensive delays, bringing 16 about exhorbitant increases in cost, they could also serious-17 ly impair our ability to meet the electric energy needs of 18 our customers."
19 Q That's enough, sir. That's the part I was con-20 cerned with.
21 A Okay.
22 Q Then that continues onto page 6, does it not, what 23 you just read?
(} 24 A Yes, ma'am.
25 Q The sentence you just read -- I guess it's all O
2089
(} 1 one sentence. That indicates that water beyond teh 2 design range of TDS may not be able to be treated at the
,_ 3 water reclamation facility on site. Is that correct?
V 4 A That is correct.
5 0 It also indicates that water with new characteris-6 tics, such as pesticides or new organics, may not be able 7 to be treated by the water reclamation facility on site.
8 A That's correct.
9 Q And this statement that you made was in November 10 of 1977, is that right?
11 A Yeah, I believe that's correct. November 17?
12 I forget the date.
13 Q Now, the bulk of the studies, the Water Reclamation 14 Studies was conducted in 1973 and '74. Is that correct?
15 A I -- I'll accept your -- I don't know if that's 16 true. I don't remember the exact range of the studies.
17 We certainly started them in the '73 '74 period after we 18 had consummated a contract with the City of Phoenix. I 19 think the studies probably ran longer than that, I but I 20 don't remember the exact length of time.
21 Q But it's fair to say in any case that the design 12 bases of the water reclamation facility on site, the one 23 that exists there today, was pretty much fixed by the time 24 you made this oral statement.
(])
25 A I think my statement clearly states that, and that
2090 Q 1 much of the equipment had been ordered, and we were into 2 construction on it.
3 Now, as you understand the use of cooling waters Q
O 4 at Palo Verde, the waters essentially can be concentrated 5 up to 15 or 20 times prior to blowdown, is that correct?
6 A You're talking now condensing cooling water, is 7 that correct?
8 Q That's right.
9 A We talk about running it up to 20 cycles of con-10 centration, yes, ma'am.
11 Q And basically the design bases, if we can use 12 those words, is that they can be concentrated -- that's what 13 you mean by cycles of concentration -- up to 15 to 20 times.
14 A That's right. '
15 Q Now, I believe you've said in your deposition as 16 well that the quality of water that comes to the plant will 17 determine in some sense the quantity of water that must be 18 used.
19 MR. GEHR: At what page?
20 THE WITNESS: I hc te to be troublesome, but could 21 you give me a reference?
22 BY MS. BERNABEI:
23 Q Okay, I'm talking about your deposition now.
] 24 A Yeah, I understand that. I have that in front 25 of me. I just --
O
2091 I Q You may have it more readily available than I.
2 A Well, you're welcome to use it.
3 MR. DEWEY: In the interest of moving this hearing 4 along, it seems like this area has been thoroughly covered 5 by previous witnesses in this hearing. I'm just wondering 6 how much detail -- how much time Ms. Bernabei is going to 7 want to spend on this.
8 JUDGE LAZO: Perhaps you could explain, Ms. Berna-9 bei. Is this not repetitious of other testimony in this 10 proceeding?
II MS. BERNABEI: I don't think it's going to be re-12 petitious. I'd be surprised if it were.
13 JUDGE LAZO: I beg' your pardon?
(O
_./ 14 MS. BERNABEI: 'I'd'be surprised if it were. And 15 it shouldn't take very long.
16 BY MS. BERNABEI:
17 Q Have you found anything that talks abotit the I8 quality / quantity relationship?
19 A I haven't been looking. I'm very sorry.
20 MR. GEHR: I think that's the cross-examiner's 21 problem, not the witness's problem.
22 MS. BERNABEI: Well, if you would give me a few 23 minutes, then I'll find it.
O 24 <eeuse.)
25 MS. BERNABEI: If you can give me a few minutes --
O
2092 1 I had it here. And I'm afraid in switching, I lost the
{}
2 pages.
3 JUDGE LAZO: Well, do the best you can.
O. 4 (Pause.)
5 BY MS. BERNABEI:
6 Q Mr. Van Brunt, you said during your deposition, 7 did you not -- and I'm referring to page 57 --
8 A What page?
9 Q Page 57, and we're talking about April 23, 1982.
10 Perhaps we should start about page 56, the bottom 11 of page 56.
12 A Yes, I have it.
13 Q Now, 56 and 57 you indicate, do you not, or you
()
14 state that the amount of water needed for Palo Verde is 15 related to the quality of that water. Is that correct?
16 A Say that again?
17 Q Sure.
18 A I thought you said the quality of the water was 19 related to the quality of the water. Is that what you said?
20 Q I said the quanity of water is --
21 A Oh, the quantity of water. I'm sorry.
12 Q I'll restate the question.
23 You state, do you not, in your deposition that 24 the quantity of water needed at Palo Verde for cooling pur-(])
25 poses is related to the quality of water.
() .
i
2093 1 A Yes.
2 Q And you believe that to be true. Is that right?
3 A Yeah.
O o 4 Q You'll have to speak into the microphone, I believe .
5 A Yes, I believe that's right.
6 Q Now, what we're talking about here is the quality 7 of the water coming to the site from the 91st Avenue treat-8 ment plant, is that correct?
9 A In looking at this, what I was looking at was the 10 product coming out of the water rec facility, which is a 11 function of the input to the water rec facility.
12 Q Okay. So what you're talking about specifically 13 in your deposition is what we probably could call the ef-
- (~T k/ 14 fluent from your on-site water reclamation facility.
15 A I think I siad the lower the inlet TDS the towers, 16 the more times we can recycle the water before we have to 17 discharge. And based on a demonstration, we can run at 15 18 to 20 cycles. If I came at a lower number, then I could 19 run and use less water.
20 Q I believe you also stated here that the quality 21 of the water that's effluent from the water reclamation 22 facility is in some sense dependent on the quality of ef-23 fluent that comes from the 91st Avenue treatment plant into
() 24 the on-site reclamation facility.
25 MR. GEHR: Where is that?
2094
() 1 MS. BERNABEI: He just stated this, I believe.
2 BY MS. BERNABEI: i f3 3 Q Is that generally true?
tJ 4 A No, I didn't talk -- I was talking about the 5 quality of water out. I didn't talk about the quality com-6 ing in.
7 Now, the water coming in -- If you want to cate-8 gorize " quality" as the constituents that are in the water, 9 then I would accept that. But it would be -- the quality 10 of the water coming out would be a function of the water 11 coming in or the constituents of the water coming in.
12 Q Okay, fine. That's what I understood you to say.
13 Therefore, is it fair to say that if the quality --
L- 14 and we'll talk about the constituents as an " indicator of 15 quality. If the quality of water is worse coming from the 16 91st Avenue treatment plant to the water reclamation facil- .
17 ity, that that will have -- and I assume in the direction 18 of worse quality -- that will have an effect on the water 19 coming out of the water reclamation facility on site.
, 20 MR. GEHR: Are you saying -- Was the question that 21 he had said that?
22 MS. BERNABEI: I'm just asking if that's true 23 right now.
() 24 THE WITNESS: The -- how shall I categorize it --
25 the constituency of the water coming in has an impact, direct O
2095
() I impact, on the constituency of the water coming out of the 2 plant. The water reclamation facility now we're talking 3 about. If you go in the worst direction of constituents,
$, s_)
4 whatever they may be -- and don't ask me what they are, be-5 cause I don't know --
6 Q That's okay.
7 A -- then you would have a lesser output from the 8 plant -- or, let me put it this way, a higher level of ad-9 verse constituents coming out and, therefore, probably could 10 not have as many cycles of concentration. Or it could have 1
11 as many; but you'd get to a higher level quicker.
l 12 Q Do you know how you would measure that difference 1
13 that you've just talked about? That is, how you would mea-O 5J 14 sure a decrease in quality, in te'rms of those constituents, 15 in the effluent from the 91st Avenue treatment plant, and 16 how that impacts on the cycles of concentration in the cool-17 ing towers.
18 A When you say " measure," do you mean the specific 19 instrumentation I would use? I'm not sure what you mean 20 by " measure the difference."
21 Q I guess I'm talking about equations or calcula-12 tions.
23 A No. I have not gotten into that detail.
() 24 Q But you do know that the calculations have been 25 made, i
2096 1 A Yes.
, k_T
/
2 Q So just to make sure I understand, your testimony
. 3 then is that the quality of effluent from the 91st Avenue O 4 treatment plant prior to its entrance into the reclamation 5 facility can impact on the cycles of concentration.
6 MR. DEWEY: Your Honor, I object. Mr. Bingham 7 spent very long periods of time going into all these area 8 of how when the water comes in it can be treated, and there-
, 9 fore you can lower all these levels of these various con-10 stituents. We've gone over that, and over that, and over 11 that.
12 Now Mr. Van Brunt, who has acknowledged that he 13 does not have as much' expertise in this area, is asked to ,
(I 14 go over this same type of thing'and, it seems to me, repeat-15 ing what Mr. Bingham has already talked about.
16 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I just wanted to make sure 17 I understood his testimony.
18 JUDGE LAZO: All right. But a few moments ago you 19 assured us that this was not going to be repetitious. Thus 20 far you have not produced anything that we haven't already 21 had in the record from another witness.
22 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I'm not sure that's true.
23 But that's fine.
(} 24 BY MS. BERNABEI:
25 Q Referring to Intervenor's Exhibit XVIII -- it's
2097 i page 11 of your oral presentation.
2 A That's my statement again?
3 Q That's right. We've appropriated your statement.
/~T O
1 4 A Which page? l 5 Q Page ll.
6 A Page ll?
7 Q Um hm. Now reading the fourth paragraph --
1 8 A The one that starts, "One result..."? )
9 Q That's corrrect. If you could read that into the 10 record.
13 A Okay. "One result is that we cannot achieve 14 12 to 15 levels of concentrations with a higher saline water.
L 13 Instead the maximum levels of concentration would probably
( J- 34 be in the range of four to five concentrations at best.
15 This would.mean that our consumption of water would increase 16 two- or threefold."
17 Q Okay. Now, what you're essentially saying in 18 that paragraph, if I understand, is that if you had to sub-19 stitute for the effluent you currently believe is available 20 a highly saline water, that --
21 MR. GEHR: Specifically, Buckeye groundwater.
22 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I'm just asking about this 23 one paragraph -- highly saline water.
l l 24 BY MS. BERNABEI:
1 (]) 25 Q -- that in fact your levels of concentration would O
V I
__ _ . - . - - -.-n - - - , ,
i 2098 ;
.?
() I increase, would be in the range of four to five, which would 2 increase your water consumption two- or threefold.
3 A Yes. That's assuming you got -- And the reason 4 you get to that lower is not because you can't concentrate 5 more, as you set a level that you have problems with the 6 scaling in the towers.
7 Q Right.
8 A You can concentrate as much as you want. But.
9 Q But then it's not going to work' properly.
10 A That's right.
i 11 MS. BERNABEI: Okay, thank you.
12 If you would give me a minute, I'm going to move 13 on to something else, another subject.
14 JUDGE LAZO: I'm sorry? You're going to --
15 MS. BERNABEI: Another subject. Please give me 16 a minute. I'm going to be moving on to Mr. Van Brunt's 17 letter of June 17.
18 JUDGE COLE: Mr. Van Brunt, could you tilt your 19 microphone up just a little bit? Thank you.
20 THE WITNESS: Okay.
21 (Pause.)
22 23
() 24 i
25
(~1
2099 i T9,lg i BY MS. BERNABEI:-
2 0 Mr. Van Brunt, I am going to hand you what I have 3 marked as Intervenors ' XXXIV.
4 JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Bernabei, I believe the copies 5 of the photographs from the poster display were identified 6 as XXXIV.
7 MS. BERNABEI: Those were XXXIV? Okay, fine, 8 then this would be XXXV.
9 (Intervenor's Exhibit No. XXXV 10 was marked for identification.)
11 BY EMS. BERNABEI:
12 Q Mr. Van Brunt, can you identify this letter?
O 13 A vee. This wes . e 1eeter detea aune i?, suhmitted 14 over my signature to Mr. Tedesco of the NRC.
15 0 And can you describe for us what the letter is, 16 what it contains?
17 A It provides a response to a question that was 18 raised in the May 10 letter from the Nuclear Regulatory 19 Commission to us.
20 Q And what was that question?
21 A Do you want me to read it?
O 22 o ves, wou1d sust 1tke you to exeteia the eur9ose 23 of the letter, basically.
O 24 A Me 11, it was to respone to a suestien 1eene1fied 25 as small b, regarding ultimate heat sink capacity in the NRC i
2100 2 1 letter to us dated May 10, which reads as follows:
() 2 The APS identifies other sources of water that 3 can be used af ter the spray pond is deleted, including a
() 4 discussion of the effects of initiating event-on the 5 availability of those water sources, of water.
6 Q Okay, now you are familiar with Reg Guide 1.27 7 revision 2, that you are talking about, right?
8 A In a very general way.
9 Q Okay, but in part, this letter was intended to 10 satisfy the Staff as to Applicants' compliance with that 11 Reg Guide, is that correct?
12 A It is to respond to one of their questions that
()
~
13 was related to submittals that we have made 'in response 14 to the design of the ultimate heat sink.
15 Q Now, just to give some background, the ultimate 16 heat sink for Palo Verde are two spray ponds, is that correct, 17 for each unit?
18 A Each unit has -- how shall I categorize it? As 19 a large reservoir with two spray ponds inside of that 20 reservoir, yes.
21 Q Okay, and the two spray ponds -- well, there is 22
(]) a redundant delivery system, is that correct?
23 A Say that again?
() 24 Q There is a redundant delivery system, two trains?
25 A There are two trains, that is correct.
2101 3 1 Q And the capacity of the two spray ponds for each
() 2 unit are 26 to 28 days, is that correct?
3 A The water reservoir that is an integral part of
) 4 the spray ponds provides a 26 to 28-day water supply, that 5 is correct.
6 Q Now, the regulatory guide requires, does it not, 7 that the ultimate heat sink of the spray ponds are, in this 8 case, that the ultimate heat sink provide water -- ensure 9 a supply of water for 30 days, is that correct?
10 MR. GEHR: Objection. The regulatory guide is a 11 guide. I think the Intervenor's Counsel has made that point 12 earlier. It is not a requirement.
'() 13 MS. BERNABEI: I think that is correct. I am 14 just asking him whNther or not that is the language used, 15 that is the requirement in the Reg Guide, or that is what you 16 do to satisfy the Reg Guide.
17 JUDGE LAZO: Well, we will sustain the objection.
18 Perhaps you had better rephrase it to take account of the 19 objection.
20 BY MS. BERNABEI:
21 Q Okay, the position of the NRC as contained in 22 regulatory guide 1.27, revision 2, is, is it not, that the
(}
23 ultimate heat sink should be capable of providing sufficient 24
{]) cooling for at least 30 days?
25 MR. GEHR: Where does it say those words in Reg
2102 4 1 Guide 1.27
( 2 MS. BERNABEI: Okay, I am referring to the third 3 page of that regulatory guide, and I am under C, regulatory
() 4 position.
5 T!!E WITNESS: -Yes. Well, I will read what it 6 says. The ultimate heat sink should be capable of providing 7 sufficient cooling for at least 30 days.
8 BY.MS. BERNABEI:
9 0 Okay, now, the way in which Applicants have 10 satisfied that part, just limiting it to that portion of the 11 Reg Guide, is through the ultimate heat sink you have just 12 described, what has a capacity for 26 to 28 days?
() 13 A That is correct.
14 Q Now, the Staff has told you, has it not, and.I 15 am talking about the NRC Staff, that that 26 to 28 days, even 16 though below 30 days, is suf ficient or acceptable?
17 A That is correct.
18 0 I haven't quite finished my question. Conditioned 4
19 on three things, is that right?
) 20 A Yes.
21 Q And what are those three things?
(]) 22 A In the letter -- let me be sure I have got the
, 23 right place. Okay, the letter of May 10 from the Nuclear
(} 24 Regulatory Commission -- well, it is actually minutes, or a 25 summary of the appeals meeting we held'.on December 8, states i
2103 5 1 as f ollows : The Staff agreed that a 26 to 28-day water
(} 2 supply in the ultimate heat sink pond is acceptable provided 3 that A) The Staf f review concurs with this calculation, O
s_/ 4 B) APS identifies other sources of water that can be used i
5 after the spray pond is deleted, including a discussion of i i
6 the effects of initiating event on the availability of those 1
7 sources of water, and C) APS establishes operating and 3 maintenance procedures that provide assurance that those --
9 these additional sources of water can be used in the event 10 they are needed.
11 0 Okay, is it fair to say that -- is it reasonable 12 to believe that if B and C are satisfied to the satisf action
([)
13 of the NRC Staff, they will in. f act concur with the 26. to 28 14 days?
15 A I certainly hope so.
16 Q Okay, now, this letter provides, I assume, part 17 of the satisfaction of B and C?
18 A Which letter? ,
19 Q This letter of June 17, 1982.
20 A Yeah, that letter is intended to deal with B.
21 0 With B.
MR. DEWEY: What Intervenor Exhibit number is l
(]) 22 l
23 that letter?
() 24 MS. BERNABEI: The one we just labelled, XXXV.
! 25 JUDGE LAZO: Wait a minute. Mr. Dewey, are you
2104 6 1 referring to the May 10 letter?
({) 2 MR. DEWEY: The May 10 letter, yes.
3 MS. BERNABEI: That is XV.
(} 4 MR. DEWEY: Oh, okay. That is what I wanted to 5 know.
6 BY MS. BERNADEI:
7 Q The NRC has required of the Applicants, has it 8 not, that the source, whatever it may be, to provide 9 capability of the heat sink beyond 30 days, in this case 10 beyond 26 to 28 days, be available during certain initiating 11 events, or during certain severe events that could occur at 12 the site? ,
13 A .My recollection is ~ not that they required it to 14 be available during those events, but if those events occur, '
15 that within a reasonable time we can provide alternate 16 sources of water beyond the 30-d'ay period, or 26 to 28-day 17 period.
18 19 20 21
() u
() 25
2105 i S10,1g 1 Q Okay, and they further required that that would 2 he sufficient in terms of continued capability beyond 26 to 3 28 days, if you could demonstrate that they would be available-4 in the case of certain initiating events?
5 MR. GEHR: I think he just answered that question.
6 Why are we repeating questions? Are we trying to stall?
7 MS. BERNABEI: I just wanted to make sure I 8 understood.
9 MR. GEHR: Well, the question was asked and 10 answered.
11 JUDGE LAZO: No, you may answer the question.
12 THE WITNESS: As I understand it, the Staff has Q 13 indicated to us~that if the initiating event causes us to 14 lose the source of water that we have indicated beyond the 15 30-day period, that then we have a method of reinstituting 16 that source within a reasonable period of time, and this 17 letter indicates one method at least of doing that.
18 BY MS. BERNABEI:
19 Q There is another alternative, is there not, to 20 what you just suggested, and that alternative would be to 21 provide a backup source to this primary source?
22 Q A There are a number of alternatives. That might 23 be one.
O o '""' i" "*- i" "^ '- i" i' "
25 A Yes.
I
2106 2 1 Q Okay, and if I could refer you to what has been
() 2 marked as Intervenor's XIV, that is a section out of the FSAR.
3 Okay, now referring to this, as I understand it, from
'() 4 conversations with the Staff, you can satisfy the Staff in 5 one of two ways: showing that what is marked on this Exhibit 6 as the primary source will be there or can be reinstituted 7 even in the event of an initiating event, that is what you 8 first said, is that correct?
9 MR. GEHR: I didn't hear him say anything about 10 a primary source.
11 BY MS. BERNABEI:
12 Q Well, I guess what I am referring you to, Mr.
(]) 13 Van. Brunt, is page two of the Exhibit I just showed you. It 14 is dection - amendment A to the FSAR?
15 A Page 92-94 (c) ?
16 Q That is correct.
17 A Yes.
18 MR. GEHR: I think he has already testified that 19 the June 17 letter was intended to be responsive to the 20 Intervenor's Exhibit XV, the May 10 letter, and it is --
21 those particular paragraphs are quoted.
/~T 22 MS. BERNABEI: I am just trying to find out what
%)
23 is going on here, and I just want to understand what Mr.
24 Van Brunt -- the status of negotiations between Mr. -- we ll, 25 APS, or the Applicants, and the NRC. I believe he has l
_ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ - . _ - - _ _ _ _ - . . _ . --- -- a
2,107 3 1 testified to it. I would just like to basically key in his
() 2 testimony to the words of the FSAR. That is all I am trying 3 to get to.
() 4 MR. GEHR: I didn't know that the Staff and the 5 Applicant negotiated anything.
6 JUDGE LAZO: We will overrule your . objection.
7 BY MS. BERNABEI:
8 0 Mr. Van Brunt, referring to the second page.of 9 this Exhibit --
10 A Yes.
11 0 -- the primary source or what is labelled as the 12 primary source on line four, that is, the domestic water
' (]) 13 system, that is essentially what you are talking about, is it 14 not, in your letter of June 17?
15 A The domestic water system takes its supply from 16 the wells onsite, and we are -- we call that the primary 17 supply if you like, and that is the source of water that we 18 have provided to provide continuity of water supply beyond 19 30 days, or 26 to 28 in this case.
20 0 Okay. Now, one of the ways you can satisfy the a
21 Staff, as you understand it, or satisfy the Regulatory Guide, 22 is to demonstrate that that primary source, the regional
{ 23 aquifer, is available or can be reconstructed even af ter a () 24 certain initiating event, is that correct? 25 A Yes.
2108 4 1 0 Now, another way in which you could satisfy it, O 2 ae I undereeand it, is by demon ereeine ehee there 1e a 3 backup source to the primary source, is~that correct? O 4 ^ neokuesource,oreenersourcee,:resleheete 5 correct. 4 6 0 Okay, so in that case, the. case of,the,second 7 alternative, you would not have to demonstrate that in the 8 event of an initiating event your primary s'urce o would be
~
9 available? In other words, you have a lessor burden on the 10 primary source. ' 11 A I don't know if that is the rea.s'on. You know, 12 if you provide a backup source, youprovidea.babkupsource. 13 0 Okay, what I have understood is that you don't
.]
14 need' the backup source if you can demonstrate the primary 15 source is there, or can be reconstructed even in the event 16 of an initiating event. , , 17 A If that is your understanding, fine. 18 0 Well, I am asking if that is your understanding. 19 A I -- my understanding is that you provide a 1 20 primary source, which we have, and we also indicated thero 21 was a secondary source, or a backup source, to use your 1 22 vernacular, that is indicated here, on this page of the FSAR, I l 23 and that in response to Staff's specific question, which was 24 indicated in those minutes of the appeal meeting, in the May 25 10 letter, they asked us independent of that, what about the
l l
S 1 initiating event to our primary source, and that is what 2109 we
('>T N-2 have dealt with. We are not trying to establish anything i 3 other than to respond to that question. ( 4 Q Okay. So, in other words, responding to that 5 question -- well, is it fair to say that you have responded 6 to the question, but you are not saying anything about 7 whether or not you will further be required to use a backup 8 source? ' Backup is used in this. 9 A We indicated in the letter, I think it is clear, 10 that the primary source of water is the aquifer, and we 11 tap that aquifer through the wells, and we had a specific 12 question as to what the impact of the initiating event would '( ) 13 be on that wells, and what would we do about that, and we 14 describe thar in my letter of June 17. 15 And we are responding to that question, and that 16 is it. 17 Q Okay, so it is fair to say that it may be that 18 you would be required to have a backup source, even after 19 you have a primary source? 20 A Might or might not. There has been av 21 requirement for it. We do have a backup source, but we have 22 ({} never taken any credit for it. 23 Q Okay, so in other words, what could be described
,( ]) 24 as a sort of a fuggy area, or a gray area right now.
25 MR. GEHR: Objection.
2110 6 i BY MS. BERNABEI: ('/ (, s 2 0 You just don't know basically. 3 MR. GE!!R: Objection. () 4 JUDGE LAZO: Sustained. You will have to 5 rephrase that question. 6 BY Ms. BERNABEI: 7 0 You don't know as of this time whether or not you 8 will be required to have a backup source? 9 A We believe that we have provided an adequate 10 primary source, which is all we need to provide, and we have 11 indicated that in the FSAR. We have responded to the Staff's 12 questions on that matter. They have not responded to us yet as to whether that is acceptable, but that -- you k.now, ({) 13 14 that will come. Presuming that it is acceptable, the fact 15 that we have a secondary or backup source is really 16 irrelevant . 17 0 Okay. That is really what I am talking about. 18 And what is your understanding of what is required with the 19 primary source to satisfy the Staff, assuming there is no 20 backup source? 21 A That within some reasonable period of time, that 22 that -- well, that the source would either ride through the (~') U 13 event, or that in some reasonable period of time -- I think 24 the letter demonstrated a reasonable period of time -- that 25 we could reinstitute that source of water.
2111 7 3 Q Now, is it f air to say that the Regulatory () 2 Guide requires that under certain initiating event, this 3 continued capability from the primary source be ensured? () 4 MR. GEHR: Objection. 5 JUDGE LAZO: Sustained. The use of " requires" 6 is objectionable to Counsel for Joint Applicants. 7 BY MS. BERNABEI: 8 0 Okay, does the Regulatory Guide not contain a 9 suggestion or a standard or a recommendation that the Staff 10 would be satisfied if what is labelled here the primary 11 source can be ensured during certain initiating events, that 12 is what we have been calling it here. 13 A Can you -- I don.'t want to be difficult, but can
* {]}
14 you refer me to a specific section of the Reg Guide you are 15 referring to , please? 16 0 No problem. It is page two, 1.27-2, and I am 17 talking about the last paragraph in the first column. 18 A Specifically which little piece do you get to, 19 or which -- 20 0 The sink safety functions may be provided by 21 natural or manmade features -- () 22 A Yes. 23 Q -- and then what f ollows af ter that. 24 A More than one water source may be involved in 25 the sink complex involving these functions under different
2112 8 3 conditions, is that what you are referring to? (]) 2 our response to that part of the Reg Guide, as I 3 understand it, is the fact that we have a 26- to 28-day water (]) 4 supply contained within that complex. The makeup system to 5 that, the primary makeup system to it, doesn't really have 6 anything to do with that other than to fill that part of the 7 system. 3 Q Now, going on, it talks about the functions must 9 be ensured during and following the most severe natural 10 phenomena. . 11 A That is correct, and the water reservoir is 12 designed to take care of that. It provides a 26 to 28-day ){ 13 supply. It is contained. The wells are not involved in that i 14 at all. 15 0 But isn't it true that the ensured capability 16 beyond 30 days also must be able to sustain at least one of 17 these initiating events? 18 A No, I don't think that is true. 19 0 well, let me ask you that. If it is not 20 contained in the Regulatory Guide, isn't that what the Staff 21 told you? 22 A No, I don't think that is true. They asked us 23 what will we do if the initiating event took out the water f 24 supply, and we told them. That doesn't mean it is a 25 requirement. They asked us a question. We told them what we i I
2113 9 1 would do. () 2 Q Okay, well, isn't it true that the Staff has 3 required you in discussions to have a primary source, as it () 4 is labelled in your FSAR, that ensures capability beyond 30 5 days, even in the event of certain initiating events? 6 A I think that the Regulatory Guide indicates that - - 7 well, when we read, a period of 30 days is considered to be 8 adequate for those purposes. This is providing the reservoir. 9 0 I am sorry, sir. Where are you reading from? 10 A On the first page of the Regulatory Guide, under 11 B, discussion, in the one, two, three, fourth paragraph, and 12 the second sentence in that paragraph. A period of 30 days (}) 13 is considered to be adequate for those purposes. In addition, 14 procedures should be available for ensuring continued capa-15 bility of the sink beyond 30 days. 16 0 But hasn't the Staff put a requirement on you in 17 your discussions that the ensured capability be available, 18 the ensured capability beyond 30 days be available in the 19 event of certain initiating events, regardless of what the 20 Reg Guide says? 21 A That is not my understanding. 22 O ("} That is not your understanding. 23 A My understanding is the question from the May 10 {) 24 letter from the NRC, they asked us what we would do if the 25 initiating event somehow disrupted the primary supply, and our
2114 I 10 1 letter of June 17 responds to that question. I don't view 2 that as a requirement. 3 Q Okay, would you define " initiating event," as it
} 4 was used by the Staff, and as it is used by you, in this 5 letter?
6 A In my letter of June 177 7 Q Well, I think in either case, the Staff uses the 8 words, I believe you testified, and you use the words. 9 MR. GEHR: He cannot answer as to what the Staf f 10 meant. He can answer as to what he -- what the letter 11 stated the initiating event could be. 12 THE WITNESS: I believe the initiating event is () 13 the event that initiates.the n'eed for the ultimate heat sink, 14 whatever that may be, and there are certain defined events 15 that are involved in that. Don't ask me to specifically 16 relate them, because I don't remember. 17 BY MS. _ BER!IABEI: 18 Q But there is more than one, is that correct? 19 A There may be.
- 20 0 Okay. In fact, the -- some of the things that 21 may be initiating events are listed in the Reg Guide, is that
() 22 not correct? I am just trying to get an idea of what we are 23 talking bout, what kind of events are -- 24 A (]) Well, you know, if the Reg Guide does, I would 25 agree. Again, you will have to tell me a reference. I did
11 1 not remember that it was in the Reg Guide. () 2 0 Well, we are talking about in 1.27-2, we are 3 talking about certain severe natural phenomena postulated () 4 for the site, and'as I understood it, that is how the Staff 5 used the word " initiating event." 6 A I would accept that. 7 0 You would accept that, okay. 8 MR. GEHR: Objection. It is not -- Mr. Van Brunt 9 can testify about the postulated events that he discussed in 10 his letter. He cannot -- it is not his responsibility to 11 hypothesize what went on in some Staf f member's mind in deal-12 ing with a postulating event (sic.) (]) 13 MS. BERNABEI: I am trying to understand what 14 he believes an initiating event is. 15 MR. GEHR: Well, I think the letter speaks for 16 itself. 17 JUDGE LAZO: We agree with Counsel for 18 Applicants, however, the witness has answered the question. 19 Ms. Bernabei, this is our normal luncheon recess 20 hour, and maybe let us ask what you have left in this area 21 of u2.timate heat sink. It has a tenuous relationship at 22 best with the contention at issue in this proceeding. /']) 23 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I think it was somewhat 24 unclear, exactly how the contentions are phrased, as
)
25 currently admitted, and I assume that whether or not there 1 I
2116 12 1 was adequate water for the ultimate heat sink was one of the llh 2 issues, and whether or not they would have to rely on the 3 reservoir for the ultimate heat sink, reservoir meaning the lll 4 reservoir with treated ef fluent. I think that can only be 5 determined -- 6 JUDGE LAZO: Well, I thought that matter of 7 relying on the reservoir had been put to rest. 8 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I don't think that is true, 9 because as I understand it, there has been no approval by the 10 Staf f of the ultimate heat sink. 11 In other words, they have not stated that they 12 are satisfied with what the Applicant has done, and as I ggg 13 understand it, it may be that if they.are not satisfied, we-14 do not know that at the present time, but if they are not, 15 then it may be that the reservoir will come back into the 16 picture. 17 JUDGE LAZO: Well, that is certainly speculative. 18 Mr. Van Brunt has stated that Applicants expect that the 19 Staf f will be satisfied, but at this point, they don't know. 20 That is true, I. don't know how much farther we can go with 21 this. 22 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I think we can examine a g 23 little bit whether or not this does satisfy what the Staff 24 has asked for. I mean, that was our request. 25 JUDGE LAZO: How can we know that?
l l 2117 13 g MS. BERNABEI: I think we can see what the Staff - - () 2 we can ask him how he believes it does satisfy. He has come 3 up with a very specific, in this June 17 letter, very () 4 specific solution to the problem, in other words, very 5 specific, and I think we are entitled to ask him how he 6 reached this, and whether or not it is a feasible solution, 7 or a feasible answer to the Staf f 's concerns. That is all we g are trying to do. 9 JUDGE LAZO: But I think.he has answered that. 10 He has said he believes its,is a complete answer, and that it 11 will be acceptable. You can ask the panel, Staff panel, when 12 they get on, whether they have had an opportunity to examine () 13 it, and what they believe . it -- 14 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I think -- what is contained 15 in this letter is not substantiated in any way, in other 16 words, in terms of any underlying documents. I think some 17 of the assumptions that underlie this solution are 18 questionable, and that is what I would like to ask him about. , 19 Perhaps they have done studies. Perhaps they have terrific 20 data that suggests that this will work. I think facially, it 21 does not appear that it will work as a solution to the () 22 Staf f's concerns, and that is all I would like him to ask 23 him about, basically how he got to the solution, and some of (~ 24 the weaknesses that we see in this.
'J' 25 I think we are certainly entitled to do this.
2118 14 g This letter arrived in my office on Friday, and it was, as I) 2 Mr. Gehr has pointed out in answer to one of our Exhibits, (s 3 in other words, to try to answer what was an open question of the Staff in Intervenor's XV, and I think we are entitled (]) 4 5 to see if in fact it does answer the Staff's questions. 6 MR. GEHR: But that is not -- that is a totally 7 different question as asking Mr. Van Brunt if this will 3 satisfy the Staff. 9 MS. BERNABEI: That is not what I am going to 10 ask him. I am going to ask him how he. reached this solution, 11 and probe what I think are certain weaknesses in it. That 12 is all I want to do, and I think we are entitled to. If 13 this solution in f act is not adequate to satisfy the Staff, (]} 14 and I believe that it may not be, then'they may very well 15 rely on the reservoir. 16 MR. GEHR: Just a minute. 17 JUDGE LAZO: The question is whether or not the 13 Staff is going to accept this solution. And there is no 19 way that we are going to know that from this witness. 20 MS. BERNABEI: No, the question is whether or not 21 it is a good solution, and what is the basis for the solution 22 That is the question, and he is the one that made up the 3 V 23 so lution , and we are entitled to check the f actual basis and 24 whether it makes sense in terms of providing an answer to 25 the Staff's concern about continued capability after 26 to
2119 15 1 28 days. I think when you are sitting here with an ultimate (]) 2 heat sink that is below the recommended levels of the Staff, 3 and we are talking about a water-scarce area, and we are (]) 4 further talking about an NRC Staff that is not as yet 5 satisfied -- in the final supplement to the SER, they said 6 this remains an open consideration, and I think we are 7 entitled -- the only thing that we have to look at in terms 3 of how they attempt to satisfy the Staff is this letter, and 9 I think we are entitled at a minimum to examine thi's witness 10 as to the basis for this, whether they have done studies, 11 how substantial this answer is. 12 13 ' ({} 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 (:) 23 (2) 25 l
2120 Q 1 JUDGE LAZO: The issue that you wish to proceed 2 with at this time is simply not relevant to the contention 3 that is at issue in this proceeding. It is, as I say, a 3 4 very -- has always had a very tenuous relationship with the 5 contention, and I think that relationship has evaporated. 6 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I think what our contentions 7 were when we asked to amend our contentions to include the 8 safety contention shether or not they'had adequate water to 9 cool Palo Verde. And as I understood this proceeding and 10 the way it was shaped was that exactly what the contentions II were in terms of water were not firmly -- well, they were not 12 firmly stated. And we have talked about the quality of 13 water, and in terms of the. ultimate heat sink, one of the 14 ways we got into the question was because the Applicants 15 indicated -- at least from my' deposition with Mr. Van Brunt -- 16 indicated that the reservoir might serve as a , backup to the 17 ultimate heat sink. 18 JUDGE LAZO: What does quality of water have to do 19 with ultimate heat sink? 20 MS. BERNABEI: It has nothing to do with the ulti-21 What I am saying is that this hearing has l mate heat sink. 22 been expanded to deal with quality of water. That was not 23 in the original contention. And in a similar way, one of the em 24 V concerns with ultimate heat sink was whether or not the re-25 servoir would be used as a backup, and that is, I believe, O
2121 Q 1 what Mr. Van Brunt talked about in his deposition. 2 JUDGE LAZO: Intervenors' Exhibit XXXV does not
- 3 talk about using the reservoir as a backup. ,
1 4 MS. BERNABEI: Exhibit XIII suggests that it may be 5 a backup, and I believe that is what Mr. Bingham testified to. 6 He testified that the procedures have not been determined 7 but that it may serve as a backup. I can find the place 8 in Mr. Van Brunt's deposition, but he clearly states that he 9 believes the reservoir with treated effluent may serve as a 10 backup. It is very clearly stated in his deposition. II MR. DEWEY: What difference does it make if it 12 was used as a backup? 13 MR GEHR: It is a strange thing. On the reservoir, O 14 the reservoir would have to meet the same postulated event 15 that was going to wipe out the wells. It is going to wipe 16 out the reservoir. How can you rely on that? 17 Then you would have to go and say, "I am going to 18 fill up the reservoir." That is ridiculous. We have found 19 we have an aquifer that is not going to run away in case of 20 this initiating event. It is going to be there, and so the 21 only question is in case of the wells being wiped out by the 22 earthquake, we can draw another one, and that is a procedure, 23 and that complies with the Reg Guide and 1.27.
- MS. BERNABEI: If it does, that is fine. I just think we are entitled to talk to Mr. Van Brunt about the
i 2122 O . I basis for his letter saying that in fact it satisfies the 2 Reg. 3 I would also note for the record,~I came into this 4 case an attorney for the Intervenor at a very late date, and 5 at that point we did submit contentions. The contention, as 6 I understand it, was before it was refined between Applicants 7 Ms. Hourihan as a pro se litigant and Mr. Dewey, it did 8 include the safety factory. 9 I do not believe she understands the difference be-10 tween environmental and safety functions, and I think it would 11 be very unwise of this Board now to say, "We are not going to 12 look into whether or not the ultimate heat sing at those 13 plants have an adequate supply of water." I have been pro-14 ceeding on the assumption thati if there were any questions, . 15 that the Board, of course, would like to find out whether or 16 not there is an adequate supply of water. 17 We are not asking for a long, extensive discussion, 18 because I do not think the negotiations or the real under-I' standing of what the ultimate heat sink will be is that deep. 20 All we are asking is a chance to question Mr. Van Brunt about 21 what his proposal is to satisfy the Reg Guide, and the fac-22 tual basis underlying that. 23 JUDGE LAZO: All right. O 24 (Beuse.) 25 Ms. Bernabei, we do believe that we should permit
2123 () 1 you to go into this area. 2 Would you give us an estimate of how much time you 3 think it might take? 4 MS. BERNABIE: A half an hour to an hour. 5 JUDGE LAZO: All right. Let us recess for lunch. 6 It is quarter till one. We will return to 2:15. 7 MS. BERNABEI: That is fine. 8 (Whereupon, at 12:46 the proceedings were recessed for 9 lunch, to reconvene at 2:15 the same day.) 10 11 12 13 (:) ,, 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 () 24 25 O
2124 1 AFTERNOON SESS ION 2 (2:17 p.m.) 3 JUDGE LAZO: Will the hearing come to order, 4 p lea se . Are you ready to proceed, Counselor? 5 MS. BERNABEI: Yes, I am. 6 JUDGE LAZO: All right. 7 Whereupon, 8 EDWIN E. VAN BRUNT, JR. 9 resumed the witness stand and, having been previously duly 10 sworn, was examined and testified further as follows: 11 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Resumed) 12 BY MS. BERNABEI: $ 13 Q Mr. Van Brunt, returning to Intervenor's 14 Exhibit XXXV, your letter of June 17, 1982, can you describe 15 to us, as it is described in this letter, the method by 16 which Applicants propose to satisfy Reg Guide 1.27, revision 17 2? 18 A With respects to what aspects of Reg Guide 1.27 19 revision 2? Are you talking about every aspect, or -- 20 Q With respect to the aspect of ensuring 21 continued capability of the ultimate heat sink past 30 days, g 22 or past 26 to 28 days? 23 A I think if you turn to page three of the letter, g 24 we indicate generally a stepwise procedure that we would 25 go through, and some of the things that we would consider
2125 1 in assuring that within a 15-day period or so that we would () 2 have restored the water supnly that has been assumed to have 3 been interrupted for some reason. () 4 As indicated there, at a time after day zer6, 5 probably two to three days, I would speculate, which would be 6 a function of a number of things, how many days it was, it 7 would be a matter of the extent of the damage, the time of 3 the year or some other; things, and that would also be af ter 9 the time.we had determined what the problem was. The first 10 thing we would do af ter this event occurred, whatever it was, 11 that interrupted the service, determine exactly what the 12 extent of the damage was. Assuming t' hat after we find that out, probably within two or three days, we would make some (]) 13 14 decision 'as to mobilization of equipment to construct a new 15 well, and then the letter goes on to describe the 16 investigations that we have made preliminarily to determine 17 the equipment, materials, contractors, et cetera, that are 18 available in the area, and then outline some of the things 19 that we would plan to do to implement the plan to get that 20 well back into service. 21 Q Now, the source of water that you are talking /~5 22 about here would come from the regional aquifer, is that U 23 correct? 24 A That is correct. That is what the letter states.
)
25 Q Could you describe for us in very cimple form the
2126 1 sedimentary levels, or the geohydrological levels at the sitel () 2 A No. I am not familiar with the underlying 3 geology ther than that there is an aquifer. I am not even i () 4 knowledgeable as to how deep it is, although I know it is
; 5 not four or five thousand feet. It is within, I think, under 6 a thousand feet, but I am not sure exactly what it is.
7 Q Do you have any idea at what sedimentary level 3 it is located? 9 A No. 10 0 In terms of the upper, lower, or middle, you have 11 no idea? 12 A No, I do not. I might add.that in preparing this () 13 letter, we used the services of our geotechnical consultant, 14 ERTEC, to do some of this work. 15 0 And where is ERTEC located? ,
. 16 A Long Beach, California.
17 O Now, you speak in this, and I am talking about 1 Ig page three, the first sentence, about a postulated SSE, that 19 means safe shutdown earthquake, is that correct? l 20 A Yes, ma'am. 21 Q Can you explain to us what a safe shutdown l 22 earthquake is for this site, or for any site? 23 A Well, is the 0.2 G level, at this site. 24 Q Excuse me? 25 A It is the 0.2 G level at this site, that is the i i
2127 1 earthquake in which all the structures must be designed to O 2 shue down safe 17 , if thet eertheueke occurs. 3 0 Now, have you postulated any other initiating O 4 eveaes, other ehen the safe shutdown earthaueke2 5 A No, not to my knowledge . 6 0 And is it your understanding that postulating 7 and presenting a so1ution to this one initiating event is 8 sufficient to satisfy the Staff 2 9 A That is my understanding. 10 0 What kind of studies did either APS or the 11 Applicants or your consultant undertake, to determine that a 12 well could be drilled within 50 days af ter a safe shutdown
'C 13 earthquake?
14 A Well, I think the letter outlines generally the 15 studies that were done. As indicated, we contacted our 16 geologic consu1 tant, who has a great deal of experience in 17 this area, and asked him to advise us on the time that would 18 be necessary to complete a well based on their experience in 19 drilling wells, their experience with the site, the knowledge 20 of the situation, and all that kind of thing. l 21 Additionally, we looked into the -- we, when I 22 say "we," I am talking about APS, looked into the number of , 23 well drillers that were available in the general Phoenix l l 24 area.. We also asked our geotechnical consultant based on 25 their knowledge of the couthwestern area of the United States,
2128 1 California, Colorado, et cetera, the number of drillers.that () 2 were available there, and determinesd that there are many 3 drillers that are capable *7of doing this kind of work. We s 4 also had them . contact these drillers and find out what their 5 mobilization times were, and things like that, and based on 6 that, we conclu'ded that 15 days was a reasonable period of 7 time in which we could have the well reinstalled. 8 Q Did either you, meaning APS, or the other 9 Applicants, or your consultant take into consideration that 10 well drillers may not come to the Palo Verde site af ter an 11 earthquake of the safe shutdown size? 12 A I am not aware that we considered tr.ey would not " ([). , 13 come to the. site. We did look into the aspects of whether 14 it was possible to get to the site as a result of this event 15 destroying roads or otherwise, and determined that that was 16 practical, and looked at alternate routes. 17 As f ar as people being unwilling to come to the 18 site, we didn't look at that. 19 Q And going back to the first part of your answer, 20 the alternate sites you considered were an airlif t of 21 equipment, is that correct? () 22 A We looked at that. We looked at alternate 23 routes. 24 o Alternate roads, you are talking about? [) 25 A Yes, ma'am.
2129 1 Q Did you consider that after an earthquake, the 4 () 2 hydrogeologic structures could change, that is, the geology 3 of the earth underneath the site? () 4 A I honestly don't know whether ERTEC looked at 5 that aspect of it or not. 6 Q Now, you have a number of wells at the site at 7 this time, is that. correct, operating wells? 8 A Yes, I believe there are three, two that are 9 operating, and one that is available or a spare, if you like. 10 Q And what is the capacity, the operating capacity 11 of those wells at this time? 12 A I don't remember. I think something like twelve (]) 13 .or 1500 gallons per minute, but I am"not sure. 14 Q And is that the volume or rate at which they are 15 currently operating, or is it somewhat lower than tha.t? 16 17 l 18 . 19 20 21 22 2 C:) 23 24 (Z) 25
2130 g A I believe that is what they are currently operating 2 at. I would have to verify that. 3 0 Now, you have had certain monitoring wells, or de-O 4 watering wells on the site prior to the current time. Is that 5 correct? 6 A We have had a lot of monitoring wells. We have had 7 a few dewatering wells, but they have not been of large capa-8 city. 9 0 Now, as I understand it, with at least some of these 10 wells, and I am not sure which categories, you have enountered 33 some problems with clogging due to clay. Is that correct? 12 A I do not know. I am not aware of -- it may be 13 correct. I do not know. , ( 34 Q Do you know that'you may, in fact, have hired a 15 consultant to deal with the problems caused by clay clogging? 16 I am not'sure that is a technical word, but the wells bsing -- 17 A Clay clog in the well? 13 Q Yes, sir. 19 A We could have. We hire a lot of consultants to do 20 a lot of things, and I do not have a recollection of that spe-21 cific consultant. We have a lot of wells out there that we 22 have put in for a lot of purposes, and we have had difficul-23 ties with some for some for one reason or another. Come to (]) 24 mind -- clogging does not come to mind, but it could very well 25 be. O
2131 Q 1 Q What are some of the problems you have encountered 2 with your wells as you remember them? 3 A Some of the wells we have put in to get water out 4 for dewatering purpose did not have anything to do with 5 supplying water, did'not provide water, or we did not get 6 as much water out of them as we felt we might. The level of 7 the water table did not go down as fast as we thought it would 4 8 Those kinds of things. But those were related to construction 9 only. 10 Q And are you talking about water coming out of the 11 perch ground water? Are you talking about water coming out 12 of the regional aquifers? 13 A This would have been out.of the perched area. ~ 14 Q What are.the other problems that you have en-15 countered with your wells? 16 A Those are the only ones I can remember. 2 17 Q And you do not remember any problems, recent pro-18 blems with wells in terms of clay?
- 19 A I do not, no.
20 Q Now, the problems that you have encountered with 21 your dewatering well in terms of not getting as much water 22 as you had anticipated, does that not indicate to some degree 23 that you are not absolutely certain of the hydrogeologic O 24 eeructuree underneath the site 2 25 A I would not say so. I think that -- we also pointed O
2132 0 1 out in the letter that we had run a test on a well that was 2 in a regional aquifer and demonstrated that we could get, as 3 I remember, 225 gallons a minute out of that well on a con-4 tinued basis over a period of time. That was a test well. 5 Q But if I am not correct, what you are anticipating 6 here is that those -- any wells that is currently operating 7 would be inoperable during -- a safe shut-down earthquake. 8 Let me finish my question, Mr. Gehr. 9 And under those circumstances you would drill -- 10 it is possible that you would have to drill a new well. II A That is correct. 12 0 I am asking you, do not the problems that you have 13 encountered with your wells -- the dewatering wells, to get G O , 14 water out of the perch groundwater -- does this indicate that 15 you are not absolutely certain of the geo- or hydrogeologic 16 area underneath the site? 17 A I do not think so in this particular case, where we 18 are talking about a well that we are proposing to install 19 later on. We are suggesting that we would probably identify 20 three or four areas within probably 4- or 500 feet of the 21 test well that we ran, and that would be the area in which we 22 would install the well. This well that we are -- you know, 23 replacing the well that has been taken out of service for O 24 whetever reeson. And we be1ieve thee ehet wou1d give us e 25 reasonable confidence that that well would operate. O
2133 1 With regard as to whether a seismic event of the (]) 2 type we are talking about here, actually unspecified, would 3 have any effect upon the aquifer or not, I am not really the O 4 right person to ask. And I do not think it would, but I.do 5 not know for sure. 6 Q And as far as you know, your consultant has not done 7 studies on whether the earthquake might affect the geology of 8 the area so -- 9 A I do not think I said that. I said I did not know to whether he had or not. II (Pause.) 12 Q Is it not_true to say that you do not know of any 13 point any the site the exact depth of the aquifer? O s/ m 14 A Do you mean personally? 15 Q Anybody. At any particular point in the site, can 16 you predict with 95-100 per cent accuracy in depth of the 17 aquifer? 18 A I do not think I am qualified to answer.that ques-l9 tion. 20 Q Do you know if you can predict with 95-100 per cent 21 accuracy the layers, sedimentary layers, that you will find 22 above the aquifer? 23 MR. GEHR: Objection. She -- the witness has 24 (]) already answered that question, that he does not know. 25 MS. BERNABEI: I believe it is a different question. A V
2134 O an osaa= no, it -- 2 JUDGE LAZO: Sounds like the same question, counsel. 3 MS. BERNABEI: One has to do with the depth of the 4 aquifer. The other had to do with the layers, the sedimen-i 5 tary layers. 6 JUDGE LAZO: I thought you had asked that earlier. 7 MR. GEHR: Yes, you did. 8 BY MS. BERNABEI: 9 0 Well, you do not know, in other words, Mr. Van 10 Brunt? ~ II A No, I do not. l 12 MR. GEHR: Objection. It has been asked and an-13 swered. . 14 JUDGE LAZO: Twice. 15 BY MS. BERNABEI: 16 Is it fair to say that the sections of the PSAR, "P" Q 17 as in " Peter" and the FSAR that you have noted here that talk 38 about hydrogeologic conditions at the site -- you are simply I' not familiar with those sections, is that correct? 20 A Not as a techical witness. I have read the sec-21 tions, but to testify on them, I would not even presume to 22 testify about. 23 Have you in this letter or in any other studies you Q O 24 heve done determined sy whet de11very system the weter wou1d se
- 25 delivered -- water from the regional aquifer in the case of O
2135 ] 1 initiating, then, of say, shutdown earthquake and which ren-2 ders the existing wells inoperable? 3 A If I understand your question correctly, you want O 4 me to describe to you the system that will get the water from 5 this new well that we are going to install to the ultimate 6 heat sink, is that correct? 7 Q That is correct. 8 A I think as we indicated in the letter, we envisio'ned 9 that we would utilize irrigation piping, something that can be 10 installed rather quickly, to run the pipe from the well to the 11 ultimate heat sink, and in fact we have run that type of that 12 piping over large distances out at that plant site innumerable 13 times during construction.for'various reasons. It is not an 14' uncommon practice in Arizona to run water and irrigation . 15 piping for great distance. 16 (Pause.) 17 Now, the aquifer you are talking about is essen-O 18 tially now used for the domestic water supply system, is that 19 correct? 20 MR. GEHR: The total aquifer? 21 MS. BERNABEI: Well, the regional aquifer that you 22 are going to be using and the two wells that you have des-23 cribed in your letter and now used to service the domestic O 24 weter supg1y eyeeem. 25 THE WITNESS: Let me put it in another way. We b o
2136
' ~ uta etea to tee 1at Lthe same system that would get water O
2 for the domestic water system for this emergency well, if 3 you like, that we are going to install. 4 BY MS. BERNABEI: 5 Q At the present time, that is not a safety-related 6 system, is that correct? 7 A The domestic water system? 8 Q Yes. , 9 A That is correct. 10 Q And I assume there would have to be an upgrade of II that system in order to make-it a safety-related system in 12 the event this were thsed as part of the ultimate heat sink? 13 A I guess I'haVe to take exception to your suggesting O I4 that the wells are part of the ultimate' heat sink. They have 15 absolutely nothing to do with ,the ultimate heat sink. The 16 ultimate heat sink stands by itself. The wells provide the 17 water to initially fill the heat sink, and they provide make-I8 upbeyondthe30-dayperiodor$8-dayperiod. They are not i I9 the ultimate heat sink. 20 Q And you would consider that byen under the circum-21 stances, if they we're used in the circumstances you describe i J 22 in your letter, they would not have to be safety-related? 23 A That is-correct. 24 And you would further say, I assume, that if another Q Jr 25 well were dug in the event these wore rendered inoperable,
'. s .
L 2138 1 MS. BERNABEI: Well, Mr. Hulse for APS signed it. 2 THE WITNESS: No, he did not. 3 ' JUDGE LAZO: Is this relevant, counselor? O 4 MS. BERNABEI: It is not relevant, but it is im-5 peaching material. APS has acknowledged in a consent agree-6 ment, which I did not intend to bring up, that in fact, they 7 violated the Groundwater Act. 8 I was just simply challenging Mr. Van Brunt's 9 statement that APS z.lways complies with the law. 10 THE WITNESS: I think I'said I -- 31 MR. GEHR: Let us get on with the testimony. 12 JUDGE LAZO: Well, let us not argue with the wit-- 13 ness. I4 BY MS. BERNABEI: 15 You said you were talking for yourself. I under-0 16 stand that. 17 Now, the Department of Water Resources has informed 18 you, and I mean APS, that the Groundwater Code does not 19 allow the Department of Water Resources to issue the certi-20 ficate to th.ese rights until after 100-day public review and 21 Is that right? protest period. 22 I do not A You will have to show me the documents. 23 remember.
** ///
0 25
'(O
_)
2139 (Pause.) (}-1 1 2 MS. BERNABEI: Are we on Intervenor's XXXVI? 3 JUDGE LAZO: The last exhibit was XXXV. You are 4 correct. 5 (The document referred to was 6 marked for identification as XX 7 Intervenor's Exhibit XXXVI.) 8 MS. BERNABEI: I'm afraid I don't have copies of 9 all these letters. I thought the witness would probably 10 remember it. 11 MR. GEHR: Objection. Let's identify the document 12 and show it to counsel before we start talking about it. 13 MS. BERNABEI: I'm sorry. O N/ 14 MR. GEHR: 'I thought the question you had asked
~
15 was a question relating to instruct some finding or advice 16 obtained from the Department of Water Resources. This is 17 a letter from Mr. Terry Hudgins to Mr. Don Maughan, Deputy 18 Director of the Department of Water Resources. 19 What does this have to do with Mr. Van Brunt, and 20 how is he expected to know about this? 21 MS. BERNABEI: I thought I would give him a little 22 background. There is a letter from the Department of Water 23 Resources that indicates that they have not yet issued a () 24 certificate for these rights. This letter is what initiated 25 the response from the Department of Water Resources. I /' O
2140 thought I was giving him some background. I can give him (~} v 1 2 the letter from the Department of Water Resources, j 3 JUDGE LAZO: What rights are you talking about, O 4 Ms. Bernabei? 5 MS. BERNABEI: Grandfather rights to run wells 6 out at the site. 7 MR. DEWEY: Can Staff see the exhibit, counsel? 8 Not the exhibit, whatever it is. Are you going to introduce 9 that? 10 (Pause.) 11 BY MS. BERNABEI: 12 Q Mr. Van Brunt, have you ever seen this letter be-13 fore? () 14 A Let me look at it to -- 15 JUDG'E LAZO: I'm sorry. First, Ms. Bernabei, 16 would you full identify it for the record? 17 MS. BERNABEI: Yes, for the record, what is marked 18 as Intervenor's XXXVI is a copy of a letter to Mr. Maughan, 19 I believe it is pronounced, Deputy Director of the Department 20 of Water Resources, date June 4, 1982 from Terry D. Hudgins, 21 Water Resources Consultant to the Arizona Public Service Com-22 pany. 23 JUDGE LAZO: Thank you. () 24 THE WITNESS: I honestly don't remember ever see-25 ing this letter before. It's a recent letter, June 4. In
2141 I fact, I know I've not see it. If it was an older letter, [] 2 I might have. But I have not seen this letter before, f3 3 BY MS. BERNABEI: LJ 4 Q Well, do you have any reason to believe that's 5 not Terry Hudgins' letter? 6 A Oh, no, I have no reason to believe it is not his 7 letter. I just have not seen the letter before. 8 Q Okay. Is it fair to say that letter indicates 9 that the Arizona Public Service Company has asked the De-10 partment of Water Resources for an exptfited review of its 11 applications for grandfather rights? 12 A I'll have to read -- 13 MR. GEHR: Objection. The letter stands for it-O b 14 sdlf, wha'tever it says. Thi's w!I.tiness is not f amiliar with 15 it. He has never seen it. There's no basis on which this 16 witness can testify about it. 17 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I believe he can say'whether 18 or not the letter indicates that. He said he has no reason 19 to believe that Terry Hudgins didn't write the letter. l l 20 MR. GEHR: That doesn't authenticate the letter. l 21 JUDGE LAZO: Well, do we have to read the letter 22 in order to make use of it in the record? Why don't you i 23 simply introduce it. The letter on its face says what it 24 says within the four corners of the document. [] 25 MS. BERNABEI: That's fine. The problem would l
4 2142
~T 1 be, of course, that we'd have to call Terry Hudgins to the (G
2 stand. I was trying to short-circuit calling another wit-3 ness. But if there is no problem with Mr. Van Brunt acknow-O 4 ledging that in fact that's Terry Hudgin's signature and 5 that is a letter that appears to have been written -- 6 MR. GEHR: I have not said that I would object 7 to the admission of that letter. I've just said I don't 8 see why Mr. Van Brunt is being questioned about it. 9 JUDGE LAZO: Well, it has been established that 10 he is not familiar with the letter. He has not seen it be-11 fore. I don't think we can go any farther with it except 12 to ask you, are you now offering it into evidence? 13 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I would offer it into evi-A A-). 14 dence, yes. 15 MR. GEHR: No. objection. 16 MR. DEWEY: Staff wants to know why on its face 17 we didn't see any relevance to the issues here. What pur-
' 18 pose is it being -- What is the relevance of this?
i 19 MS. BERNABEI: Well, the relevance is that the 20 Applicants do not yet have certificates for their grand-21 father rights to run wells out of the site, that those are 22 currently under consideration by the Department of Water 23 Resources. I () 24 We do have another letter from the Department of 25 Water Resources that acknowledges that. I assume we don't 1
, , . , , m , - - - - - - -m-
2143
) I need this witness's testimony if both of those documents 2 are allowed into the record.
3 MR. GEHR: I don't understand what the relevance 4 is even then. This proceeding is concerned with contentions 5 relating to effluent, not groundwater at the site. 6 JUDGE LAZO: The solution that the Applicants 7 have offered for complying with the Reg Guide on the ulti-8 mate heat sink involves the drilling of a new well if there 9 should be an earthquake at the site and it becomes necessary 10 to supply additional water to the ultimate heat sink. Coun-11 selor for the Intervenor is simply stating that at the pre-12 sent time the Joint Applicants have, she alleges, no right 13 to drill any wells at the site. 14 Now, that may be something that you can deal with 15 when the time comes. But as I understand it, that's the 16 purpose for introducing this letter and the one that she 17 wishes to introduce, which will follow it. 18 MR. DEWEY: Well, sir, the letter we just reviewed 19 on its face doesn't give any kind of explanation or idea 20 as to what " grandfather rights" meanss. That letter, it's 21 just a very perfunctory statement that within the four cor-22 ners of the letter just doesn't explain anything about the 23 problem. So I'm not sure if it -- lh 24 JUDGE LAZO: Well, that's a matter I'm sure you 25 will wish to raise when you file your brief.
2144 ,() 1 MS. BERNABEI: I would offer it into evidence, l 2 then, at this time. 3 MR. DEWEY: No objection. 4 JUDGE LAZO: Very well, it may be received. 5 (Intervenor's Exhibit XXXVI, 6 having been previously marked 7 for identification, was re-8 ceived in evidence.) 9 BY MS. BERNABEI: 10 Q Mr. Van Brunt, I'm going to show you now what is 11 marked as Intervenor's Exhibit XXXVI, a June 18, 1982 letter 12 from the Department of Water Resources to Mr. Hudgins in 13 response, according to the first paragraph, to his letter O 14 of June 4, 1982. It is signed by Mr. Maughan, Deputy Direc-
'15 toe, Wastewater Management.
16 JUDGE LAZO: I believe you misspoke, Ms. Bernabei.
~
17 It would be XXXVII. 18 MS. BERNABEI: XXXVII. XXX 19 (The document referred to was 20 marked for identification as 21 Intervenor's Exhibit XXXVII.) 22 MR. GEHR: If the Board please, so we can shorten 23 this, I will waive any objection I have to the introduction () 24 of this Intervenor's Exhibit XXXVII. It is not addressed 25 to Mr. Van Brunt according to the description give to it. O
2145 O i 1e is e very recene 1etter. I have no xno-1edee whether 2 Mr. Van Brunt has knowledge of it. But beyond that one 3 question, get the letter in and get on with the case. 4 JUDGE LAZO: Would you show it to Staff counsel, 5 please? 6 (Intervenor's Exhibit XXXVII was shown to Mr. 7 Dewey.) 8 9 10 11 12 13 O 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 O 24 25 0
2146 T15,1g 1 JUDGE LAZO: I wonder, Ms. Bernabei, since you 2 don't have copies at this time, could we have a look at 3 XXXVI and XXXVII? r~g D 4 MS. BERNABEI: Yes. 5 JUDGE LAZO: And I presume you will be filing l 6 three copies. 7 BY MS. BERNABEI: 8 Q Mr. Van Brunt, one last question. At the present 9 time, do you know whether or not the Applicants have a 10 certificate from the Department of Water Resources for 11 grandfather rights for the site? 12 A No, I don't. i ( 13 MS. BERNABEI: Thank you. I have no further l l 14 questions. 15 MR. GEHR: Is that -- I'll keep quiet. 16 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Dewey, does the NRC Staff have 17 questions of Mr. Van Brunt? 18 MR. DEWEY: Yes, sir. Just a short -- 19 MR. GEHR: Is the cross-examination completed? 20 JUDGE LAZO: I believe so. 21 MR. GEHR: Oh, I thought she was -- had dropped () 22 this grandfather right thing, and I don't know what the status 23 of that letter is. I am confused. That is what I -- () 24 MS. BERNABEI: I understood that the letters are 25 being accepted into evidence, conditional upon us providing
2147 2 1 sufficient copies.
) 2 JUDGE LAZO: That is correct.
3 MR. GEHR: Both of them?
} 4 JUDGE LAZO: Both of them.
5 MR. GEHR: That was something that missed me. I 6 didn't know that Mr. Dewey had an object ion, or whether he 7 was given an opportunity to register one. 8 MR. DEWEY: Well, I don't have an objection to 9 either letter. I wasn't sure that XXXVII was offered. I 10 guess it was. 11 JUDGE COLE: Mr. Dewey, you are going to have to 12 speak up. I don't think your last couple of words got on the
~
(]) 13 record. 14 MR. DEWEY: Oh, sorry. I don't object to either 15 of those lette s. 16 JUDGE COLE: Thank you. 17 MR. DEWEY: I just have possibly one or two 18 short questions. 19 CROSS-EXAMINATION 20 BY MB. DEWEY: 21 Q Mr. Van Brunt, Intervenor Exhibit XVIII was your 22 November. 17, 1977 statement. (]) Can I refer you to page 23 e leven? 24 A Yes, sir. {]) 25 0 I believe you answered several questions from Ms.
2148 3 1 Bernabei with respect to the third paragraph, excuse me, the O 2 fourth paragraph on that page, which talks about maximum
~
3 levels of concentration being in the range of four to five, O 4 concentration. 5 A Yes, sir. That is correct. 6 Q Now, is it possible that those levels of 7 concentration could be improved upon if- the water treatment 8 f acility at the Palo Verde f acility were modified? 9 A Yes, I believe that if we made some modifications 10 possibly significant to the facility as it is presently 11 designed, that the four to five concentrations could 12 probably be improved upon, under those circumstances that 13 are indicated. - 14 0 I also believe you answered some questions by 15 Ms. Bernabei regarding the increased TDS levels, or water in 16 which new characteristics such as pesticides became a -- 17 was introduced. 18 A Yes, that is correct. 19 0 Is it also possible that the facility could be 20 redesigned to take care of those kinds of problems? 21 A Yes, sir. 22 Q Thank you. 23 MR. DEWEY: That is all the questions I have. 24 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Gehr, do you have any questions 25 of Mr. Van Brunt?
2149 4 1 MR. GEHR: Yes, I have a couple. Does the Board 2 have any before I -- 3 JUDGE COLE: Mr. Van Brunt, Ms. Bernabei 4 questioned you at length about possible differences in the 5 cooling water requirements, between your estimates, your 6 statements, and what was contained in some of Mr. Bingham's 7 testimony. Sir, what is your source of information concerninc 8 the cooling water requirements at Palo Verde? 9 THE WITNESS: With regard to the specific 10 numbers I was talking about? 11 JUDGE COLE: Yes, sir. 12 THE WITNESS: Okay, I think if you go to page O 13 five. 14 JUDGE COLE: Of what document, sir? 15 THE WITNESS: Of my affidavit, in item nine. 16 JUDGE COLE: This is Exhibit 18? 17 THE WITNESS: Yes. 18 JUDGE COLE: Intervenor's Exhibit XVIII? 19 THE WITNESS: Yeah, if -- I guess the attachment l 20 to the Exhibit was not a separate Exhibit, so it would be 21 Exhibit XVIII, that is correct. O 22 30o08 cots: ^11 risat- ir-23 THE WITNESS: My affidavit. Page five, item {} 2d nine, I indicate as set forth in Table one, page 5-2 of the 25 Draf t Environmental Statement for Palo Verde Units 4 and 5, l
2150 5 1 the total consumptive water losses from the cooling towers A k- 2 is so much, and that is the source of the 2,180 number that 3 I used as a basis to get up to the 2,600 number that was the 4 other number in question. 5 JUDGE COLE: All right, sir. Well, I was thinkinc 6 about the source as maybe a little more fundamental than l 7 that. That was your source of information? 8 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. 9 JUDGE COLE: Who prepared that document? Who 10 put that information in? 11 THE WITNESS: That information would have been 12 computed by Bechtel through Mr. Bingham's organization, I l l () 13 would expect. . 14 JUDGE COLE: So that if we back it up,.really the 15 source of the information was Mr. Bingham's operation? 16 THE WITNESS: Yes, sir. That is correct. l l 17 JUDGE COLE: All right, thank you. I have no i ! 18 further questions. I j 19 MR. GEHR: May I take five? It doesn't need to 20 be ten,-just five minutes, before I start my redirect? 21 JUDGE LAZO: Surely. Off the record. () 22 (Brief recess.) 23 JUDGE LAZO: Back on the record, please. 25 i
6 1 FURTHER CROSS-EXAMINATION () 2 BY MR. GEHR: 3 Q Mr. Van Brunt, during the course of the ( 4 cross-examination this afternoon, you discussed or you 5 mentioned a pump test that was conducted, of one of the 6 wells at the Palo Verde site? 7 A Yes, sir. 8 Q Would you tell us what the rate of production 9 was acheived during the conduct of that test? 10 A As indicated in my letter of June 17 to the NRC, 11 the well was pumped continuously for four days at a constant 12 rate of 2360 gallons per minute. Then we analyzed the time () 13 versus drawdown, and the results of this test indicated that 14 this aquifer can sustain a pumping rate in excess of the 15 225 gallons per minute ultimate heat sink makeup water 16 requirement for each unit at Palo Verde. 17 Q Does that mean three times that amount? 18 A Yes, sir. That is correct. - 19 JUDGE COLE: Excuse me, Mr. Gehr, three times 20 what amount? 21 BY MR. GEHR: 22 (]) Q Mr. Van Brunt, three times what amount? 23 A Okay, it means that the test demonstrated that (} 24 the aquifer could produce three times the 225 gallons per 25 minute, or 675 gallons per minute.
2152 1 JUDGE COLE: Okay, thank you. 2 BY MR. GEHR: 3 Q Mr. Van Brunt, if you know, were these wells 4 that are being operated today at Palo Verde in operation 5 prior to the construction of the plant? 6 A Yes, the wells, as I understand it, were part of 7 the irrigation system that was used for the property prior to 8 our time of acquisition. 9 In some time after we purchased the site, the 10 wells were refurbished, and have been in operation since that 11 time. 12 Q Who refurbished those wells? () 13 A I believe ERTEC did, our geotechnical consbltant. 14 Q Mr. Van Brunt, would you please turn to 15 Intervenor's Exhibit XVIII? 16 A Yes, sir. 17 0 Page eleven? 18 A Yes, sir. 19 Q This morning during cross-examination the 20 questions were related to the fourth paragraph on that page, 21 in which you indicated that the -- well, would you read the () 22 third full paragraph of that page? 23 A The second part of the feasibility equation is 24 ({} what would the use of the Buckeye groundwater to the -- is 25 what would the use of the Buckeye groundwater do to the Palo
2153 8 1 Verde Plant? 2 Q And would you continue with the next paragraph? 3 A one result is that we cannot acheive the 14 to 4 15 levels of concentration with highly saline water. Instead 5 the maximum levels of concentration would probably be in the 6 range of four to five concentrations at best? 7 0 very well. That is enough. 8 I notice at the top of the page you mentioned a 9 report prepared by Mr. Leonard Halpenny? 10 A Yes, sir. 11 Q Which you had requested be made to respond to a 12 question raised by someone on the MAG committee, or in O . 13 conneceion with the mao committee 9 1en2 14 A Yes, that is correct. 15 Q Was that report of Mr. Halpenny relied upon by 16 you in coming to the range of four to five concentrations 17 that you referred to? 18 A I believe that that report was used as the basis 19 for establishing the quality aspects of the water that would 20 turn to be highly saline. 21 MR. GEHR: If the Board please, I would like to O 22 heve this documene merxed as ,oine Agg11 cants, sxhibit 3,. 23 The document consists of six pages, starting with a Q 24 transmittal letter on the letterhead of Water Development 25 Corporation, signed by Leonard C. Halpenny, and addressed to
l l l 2154 9 1 me.
' O 2 (The document referred to was I 3 marked as Joint Applicants' i
4 Exhibit No. JJ for identifica-5 tion.) 6 MS. BERNABEI: Mr. Gehr, may we either have a ] 7 copy or see the Exhibit? l j 8 MR. GE!!R: Yes, you may. I will let you look at 9 it now. I do not have copies. ! 10 11 l 12
~
O 13 14 l l 15 i 16 17 18 19 20 21 0 22 n O 24 25 .
2155 1 (Pause.) 2 BY MR. GEHR: 3 Q Mr. Van Brunt, will you describe what Joint Appli-4 cants' Exhibit JJ purports to show? Would you read the 5 cover letter, please? 6 A The letter is addressed to Mr. Arthur C. Gehr of 7 Snell & Wilmer. 8 (The witness was instructed to adjust his micro-9 phone.) 10 THE WITNESS: The letter is addressed to Mr. Arthur 11 C. Gehr of Snell & Wilmer. It's reference the statement 12 for the November 17 MAG meeting, and it's dated November 13 14, 1977. b' 14 "
Dear Art,
Enclosed is the final draft of my state-15 ment for November 17th MAG meeting." And attached is a 16 statement that was prepared by Mr. Halpenny. 17 BY MR. GEHR: 18 Q Turning to the second page, does that consist of 19 the report? 20 A The report consists of about five pages, I think. 21 Five pages. 22 Q On the second page does the report indicate what 23 the average total dissolved solids and parts per million O (,/ 24 in 1975 were? 25 A Yes, quoting from the report, it says: "From 1955
- V 1
1 l _
2156 () I through 1975, the average total dissolved solids content 2 in the groundwater decreased from nearly 3,900 ppm to about 3 3,900 ppm." 4 Q And the 3,100 parts per million in 1975 was the 5 basis for your conclusion that is stated in your statement 6 to MAG that the maximum levels of concentrations would pro-7 bably be in the range of four to five concentrations at best? 8 A Yes. My term " saline water" referred to these 9 indicated levels of total dissolved solids. 10 MR. GEHR: I have no further questions. 11 JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Bernabei, do you have any further 12 questioning? 13 MS. BERNABEI: I,have one other question. O 14 REDIRECT EXAMINATION XXX 15 BY MS. BERNABEI: 16 Q Mr. Van Brunt, when you spoke about the continuous 17 four-day pumping of the well in your June 17, 1982 letter, 18 labeled Intervenor's XXXV -- 19 A Yes. Just a minute, let me get it. 20 Okay, yes. 21 Q Now, this pumping, this continuous pumping, was 22 for four days. Is that right? 23 A Yes. It's described in some detail in the Appen-() 24 dix 2-I of the PSAR of that test. 25 Q Now, you have no assurance, do you, that that well
'O
2157 /') can continue to be pumped at that rate over a longer period (_/ 1 2 of time, 15 to 30 days? {} 3 4 A Pardon me, would you please repeat that question? Q Yes. You do not have an assurance, do you, that 5 that rate of pumping can be continued? And I'm giving you 6 a period of 15 to 30 days. From that well. 7 A Based on the analysis that was done, we have no 8 reason to believe that we could not pump that well on a con-9 tinuing basis for that period of time. And it would have 10 a minimum impact, as indicated in the letter, upon the exist-11 ing groundwater supply. 12 Q What analysis did you do to assure yourselves that 13 you could pump at th'at rate for 15 to 30 days? O 14 A I personally did not make the analysis. This is 15 quoted from the testing that was described in PSAR. I did 16 not personally make an analysis of the situation. So I'm 17 not exactly sure what analysis was made. 18 Q Well, it's not contained in the PSAR, Appendix 19 2-I. 20 A What is not? I'm sorry. 21 Q The analysis, to assure that that well could con-12 tinue to pump at that rate for 15 to 30 days. 23 A Okay. () 24 Q Is the analysis contained someplace else that you 25 know about? O
2158 () I A I do not know exactly where the analysis is con-2 tained. 3 Q Could you make that available to Intervenor or 4 the Board? 5 MR. GEHR: Just a minute. The witness testified 6 that there was nothing in the test or the analysis that 7 demonstrated it could not be operated at that. He didn't 8 say that an analysis had been made that it could. There 9 is a great deal of difference in that. 10 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I misunderstood him, then. II BY MS. BERNABEI: 12 Q Mr. Van Brunt, are you saying that there has been 13 no analysis done to show that that well can be pumped at ( 14 that rate for a period of 15 to 30 days? I 15 A I think I would stand on the words of my letter 16 that indicates "The.well was pumped continuously for four 17 days at a constant rate of 2,360 gpm. The time versus draw-18 down was analyzed. The results indicated that this aquifer 19 can sustain a pumping rate in excess of 225 gallons per t 20 minute ultimate heat sink makeup water requirement for each l 21 Palo Verde unit after 27 days of operation of the ultimate 22 heat sink. This sustained rate would pose minimum impact l 23 on the existing groundwater supply." (]) 24 I have no reason to believe that that cannot be 25 achieved. O l l l l . _ _ - _ .
2159 () 1 Q Have you done any analysis other than the time-2 versus-drawdown analysis that is referenced in this letter? 3 A I'm not aware of any other. 4 Q That is the only analysis of which you are aware. 5 A That's the only one I'm aware of. There may have 6 been some done, but I'm not aware of any other. 7 MS. BBRNABEI: Thank you. 8 JUDGE LAZO: Thank you, Mr. Van Brunt. 9 MR. GEHR: Just a minute, I have -- May I -- on 10 the basis of the last question -- 11 JUDGE LAZO: Of course you may. 12 RECROSS EXAMINATION XXX 13 BY MR. GEHR: (~
' 14 l Q Is this well in service today? And does it supply l
( 15 and water to the construction needs of the project? 16 A I don't know whether it's in service or not. 17 MR. GEHR: No questions. 18 JUDGE LAZO: Does anyone have any further ques-19 tions of Mr. Van Brunt? 20 MR. DEWEY: No, sir. 1 21 JUDGE LAZO: Thank you again, Mr. Van Brunt. You 22 may be excused. i 23 (Whereupon, the witness was excused.) () 24 JUDGE LAZO: Ms. Bernabei, are you ready to pro-25 ceed with your next witness?
) '
i 2160 () I MS. BERNABEI: Mr. McCain is going to be our next 2 witness. I'm not sure he's here yet. He said he would be 3 here between 3:30 and 4:00. 4 JUDGE LAZO: Between 2:30 and 4:00? 5 MS. BERNABEI: Three-thirty and 4:00. 6 JUDGE LAZO: Three-thirty and 4:00, 7 MS. BERNABEI: I would just recess until he ar-8 rives. He did say he would be here between 3:30 and 4:00. 9 JUDGE LAZO: Very well. Will you undertake to 10 advise the Board? II MR. DEWEY: Before we take our break, can we have 12 a bench conference, please? I3 JUDGE LAZO: Yes. O 14 MR. DEWEY: The lawyers. II JUDGE LAZO: Yes, you may approach the bench. 16 (Whereupon, there was a bench conference followed 17 by a brief recess.) 18 19 20 21 22 23 () 24 25 O
2161 0 1 JUDGE LAZO: The hearing will come to order, please . 2 Ms. Bernabei? 3 MS. BERNABEI: Intervenor calls John Robert 4 McCain to the stand. 5 Whereupon, 6 JOHN ROBERT McCAIN 7 called as a witness by Counsel for the Intervenor, having 8 first been duly sworn by the Chairman, was examined and 9 testified as follows: 10 DIRECT EXAMINATION II BY MS. BERNABEI: 12 Q For the record, would you state your name and 13 business and business address. O I4 A My name is John Robert McCain. My business address 15 is 1010 East Jefferson, Phoenix, Arizona 85034. 16 Q What is your present position? 17 A I'am Staff Director of the Arizona Municipal Water 18 Users Association. 19 Q What is the Airzona Municipal Water Users Associ-20 ation? 21 A The Arizona Municipal Water Users Association is a 22 voluntary, non-profit corporation composed of the cities of 23 Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, Scottsdale and Tempe, and our O 24 Associeeion eteempts to deve1og unified weeer go11cies for. 25 the urban areas of Maricopa County. O
2162 l iO i o now tone have you been in your gresene position 2 2 A I have been in that present position since the 3 middle of July, 1980. 4 Q Describe your educational background, sir. 5 A I received a Bachelors in Government and Psychology 6 at the University of Arizona in 1966, at which time I left 7 school and for three years I was in the Peace Corps. I re-8 turned to the United States in' 1969 and went to graduate 9 school at the University of Arizona in Political Science. 10 I received a Master's Degree in Political Science in 1973, II and I have completed all of my course work and exams for 12 my dissertation, but I have not completed my dissertation. 13 That is why that call me an ABD -- all but dissertation. O 14 My major area of emphasis in my graduate work was natural 15 resources policy, special emphasis on water, land and energy. 16 Q Have you taught at the university or school? 17 A Yes, for about two years I taught at the University 18 of Arizona, both under-division and upper-division, that is, 19 freshmen through seniors. The classes I taught were Politi-20 cal Parties, Race and Political Behavior, and Environmental 21 Policy. 22 Describe your work experience. Q 23 A Well, my work experience began with after I left O 24 the University of A,1 zone in 19ee. I taught schoo1 1n the 25 Peace Ccrps in Africa, and then, as I said, I returned to O 6 _~- . - . - - - , - , .- _ _ - . - - - ,,y, ,_-__7
2163 O i this country in 1972-73 and took a leave of absence from 2 the University and was a Research Assistant on the Lake 3 Powell Research Project. During that time, I lived for 4 over a hear on the Navajo Reservation, and my immediate 5 superiors were two lawyers, Mr. Neatherford, who is now 6 Executive Director of the John Muir Institute and Monroe 7 Price, who is an expert in Indian Law at U.C.L.A. My speci-8 fic responsibilities were to investigate and analyze the 9 negotiations between the Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of 10 Indian Affairs, Salt River Project on the establishment of 11 the Navajo Power Plant in Page. During that time, I 12 examined the negotiations, and the question of the extent of 13 the Navajo's Indian Winters Rights. V 14 I also during that time prepared a legislative 15 history of the Central Arizona Project that was passed in 16 1968, the reason being the Page Power Plant will furnish 17 approximately 24 per cent of the electricity neede:d to I8 pump and transport Central Arizona Project water into Central 19 Arizona. 20 I returned, then, to the University to (lo some 21 more work on my doctorate degree. My dissertatio,1 topic, 22 I forgot to mention, which is not completed, will be 23 completed someday, but it deals with the political feasibili-C) 24 ty of demand management and water. It is a case study of 25 the situation in Tucson, Arizona, where they tried to O l I
2164 O i institute a meeninefu1 conservation eroerem es e resu1e of 2 a political crisis in water. Basically, it is an examina-3 tion of demand management rather than increasing supplies. 4 While at the University in teaching, I heard about t 5 an opening in Phoenix as a Staff person to the Arizona 6 Groundwater Management Study Commission. I applied for that 7 job and was accepted, and I started to work as a Staff 8 person -- title was Policy Analyst -- in January of 1979, and 9 worked for the Study Commission until approximately the 10 middle of' June. The Groundwater Code was passed June 11 or II 12, 1980. I2 Q And* at the Commission, what were your duties 13 and responsibu .cies? 14 A Basically, educational activities to educate the 15 Commission members on groundwater problems, and towards the 16 end of the thing, when we got right down to the business of 17 drafting the Code, my main responsibility along with the two 18 other Staff members was to take the concepts for groundwater I' management and to turn those into legislative language. 20 Basically, that means the Commission members had a number of 21 ideas which they wanted to be made law, turn into law. And 22 we took those ideas and drafted them into appropriate sta-23 tutory language for the Commission's approval. 24
. After the Commission approved the groundwater 25 management proposed code, it was sent to the legislature, O
_ - . ._____m._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
2165 O ' where it we= v^==ea av overwhei tas $orter aaa it became 2 effective immediately upon the Governor's signature. 3 0 What provisions of the Code did you draft, if any? 4 A I had major responsibility, though I want to stress 5 it was a collaborative effort in all respects, but s had 6 major responsibility in setting up those portions of the Code 7 that dealt with the establishment of the Department of Water 8 Resources irrigation on expansion areas, service area rights 9 and uses, and groundwater withdrawal permits. 10 I participated in other sections of the Code as 11 well, but those were major areas. 12 Q After leaving the Groundwater Commission, what did 13 you do? O 14 A Upon leaving the Groundwater Commission, I took a 15 vacation. Then I started work for the Arizona Municipal 16 Water Users Association. I think it was July 15. It was 17 right about the middle of July, 1980. And I have been there - 18 since. 19 0 What are and what have been your duties and res-20 ponsibilities in your present position? , 21 A Many and varied. I' guess the best way is to'give' 22 you some examples. One of the first duties,I had was coor-23 dinate and develop the municipal application, or statements O 24 of c1eimene, es they were c 11ed, for the ed3udiceeion of the 25 Gila River and tributaries. This was a major water-right O
2166 1 adjudication process which is now on-going, and -- well, we 2 do not know -- State or Federal Court, because the Federal g 3 Court has said that the Arizona adjudication statute is 4 in violation of the State '.onstitution. 5 But I coordinated all of the responses of the 6 City to that and developed unified procedures whereby they 7 submitted stateaents to claimant. 8 one of my other major responsibilities has been 9 the education of member cities in terms of what the Ground-10 water Code means to them, both in the short term and in the 1I long term. Because of my familiarity with the Code, I am 12 a representative of the cities in dealings with the Depart-13 ment of Water Resources. I serve on at least one established O I4 task force, which is Groundwater Measuring Devices, and have 15 coordinated municipal positions and responses to proposed 16 rules and regulations dealing with groundwater measuring 17 devices, service arw rules and regulations, and agricul-18 tural grandfather-right water-duty-type of regulations. 19 I also coordinated and developed unified municipal 20 responses for the application of CAP water, that is, for the 21 allocation process of CAP water. 22 I also prepare position papers, help prepare posi-23 tion papers and things of that sort. Some dealings with h 24 Federal bureaucracies and some dealings with the Congress-25 men / Senators on the basis of common municipal interest in O
2167 1 the Salt River Valley. 2 I expect next year to be more involved in lobbying Q 3 4 at the State Legislature. I was involved in that in the past somewhat, but not to a very great extent. But I expect that 5 to increase this year. CAP contracting process is coming up. 6 I would be involved in that -- attempt to modify some pro-7 visions of the CAP subcontract that has to be signed some-8 time in the future. Analyzing and perhaps developing munici-9 pal positions on CAP financing: there is a possibility that to Arizona may have to finance up to $2 billion worth of water II projects if they expect the Central Arizona Project to be 12 completed on time. Troubleshooting: anytime an individual 33 city has a particular problem with the Department of Water O 14 Resources, I.try and smooth relations and try and see if 15 some accommodation can be reached. 16 There are other things, but it is a variety.
///
18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 l O
2168 T18,1g 1 Q Could you describe for us in very genera 1 terms 2 the structure and purpose of the Groundwater Act? 3 A Well, it is -- in terms of the structure -- 4 MR. GEHR: Is this part of the -- are you moving 5 from the voir dire to substantive testimony? 6 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I guess you could say that. 7 I want to establish his f amiliarity with certain laws, that 8 will affect his testimony. 9 BY MS. BERNABEI: 10 Q Could you describe for us the structure and 11 purpose of the Groundwater Act? 12 A Well, the purpose of the Groundwater Act is to O is so1ve whee is verceivea to de the masor weter eroa1em in 14 Arizona, and that is an imbalance between the dependable 15 supply and the amount of consumption estimated -- . 16 . JUDGE COLE: Excuse me, sir. The amount of 17 what? 18 THE WITNESS: The amount of consumption. 19 JUDGE COLE: Oh. I am sorry. 20 THE WITNESS: The amount of water that is used, 21 and dependable supply. The Department of Water Resources O 22 estimates thae, oh, there 1s somewhere probab1y over ewo ane 23 a half million acre-feet imbalance between the amount of 24 water used and the amount of water that one can depend upon. 25 So that was the major purpose of that, of the code, is the
2169 2 1 attempt to manage the groundwater in the state. The code O 2 iese1e gueneifiee groundweeer rights, which hed never hefore 3 been done in Arizona, and attempts to limit withdrawals. One O 4 entas taae is uaiaue enoue the coae it e1e is taet it aoe 5 only attempts to limit withdrawals, but over a period of 6 years, it through the imposition of progressively more 7 stringent management plans, it attempts to reduce the amount 8 of groundwater that can be withdrawn. 9 In other word, it is an attempt to reduce the 10 amount of a person's right to withdraw groundwater. Most 11 states manage the right, but this code attempts to 12 systematically reduce the rights through the imposition of 13 aver more stringent management plans, based upon 14 conservation. 15 The ultimate goal of the code is the acheivement 16 of safe yield by the year 2025. Safe yield is a management 17 goal, hydrological management goal, in which the amount of 18 groundwater withdrawn will be equal to the amount of 19 groundwater that is recharged naturally and artificially. 20 There is some estimate that in the Central 21 Arizona Project service area, and that is the counties of i 22 Maricopa, Pinnell, and Pima, the amount of overdraft is 23 close to two million acre-feet per year, that is, two 24 millien acre-feet more groundwater is withdrawn than is 25 recharged. In Maricopa County, the amount is approximately,
i 2170 3 1 is close to two, twice the amount of groundwater withdrawn, 2 is twice what it is -- is twice what is recharged, but if 3 one divides Maricopa County into two areas, that is, the 4 area which has surface water supplies, which is the Salt 5 River Project, and that area which does not have surface 6 water supplies, the area dependent solely upon groundwater, 7 the rate of overdraft is about 30 times the amount of 8 groundwater withdrawn. 9 MR. DEWEY: Pardon me. This sounds more like 10 testimony than voir dire. Have we completed the voir dire? 11 JUDGE LAZO: Well, have you completed your 12 qualification of this witness? O is MS. BERu^BEr I heve one more aue eion edout 14 the Central Arizona Project. , 15 BY MS. BERNABEI: 16 Q Are you f amiliar generally with the Central 17 Arizona Project, Mr. McCain? j 18 A Yes, I am. i 19 Q And what is your understanding of that project, 20 and how did you acquire that understanding? 21 A Well, a life-long resident of Arizona, and the O 22 ceatrat ^rizoae Pro $eot we= deea e 1xea about e= 1oas t 23 can remember. I first became aware of it in the late '60s, 1 0 24 when it was a ,ery, very hi, topic, ,ee1,, ,, the 1,w w,, i 25 recently -- it was passed in 1968, authorizing the project.
2171 4 1 As I mentioned previously, I prepared a 2 legislative history of that project for my superiors when I 3 was at the Lake Powell Research Project, and of course during 4 my graduate work, in political science, with an emphasis on 5 natural resources, am intimately familiar with it, because of 6 its water nature. 7 1 have in collaboration with my major professor 8 and with some other people published several articles which 9 deal not necessarily only with the CAP, but with the question 10 of federal water resource development in general, and also 11 one book which deals in some senses with the Central Arizona 12 Project. O 13 The Ceneret Arizone erosece wes a critica1 14 impetus behind the groundwater code. The State of Arizona 15 has consistently been informed, since 1948, by the then-16 secretary Crue, and virtually every secretary after it, 17 including Secretary Andrus, that if Arizona expected the 18 federal government to fund the Central Arizona Project, then 19 they had better get their groundwater laws in place. 20 So, it was certainly a major component of the 21 groundwater deliberations, and I have been intimately O 22 tavo1vea ia the c^r 11ocatioa 9toce==, etace 1 weat to -- 23 on behalf of the cities I represent, since I started work for Q 24 the municipal water users in 1980. 25 0 And could you name the publications you just
2172 1 mentioned, in which you were either the author or the co-2 author? 3 A Exact -- well, policy -- the book, published by
) 4 Resources for the Future, was Policy Responsiveness -- or 5 Policy Representativeness in the Four Corners areas -- Four 6 Corners States, an examination of the state senates in four, 7 the states of Arizona, New Mexico, Utah and Colorado, 8 Federal Water Resources Develop, a history, the Wisdom of 9 Distributive Politics Reconsidered, The Wisdom of the
~
10 Distributive Mode, in the -- I can't remember the exact titles 11 but it dealt with water and energy and things of thqt sort. 12 Q And you are testifying here today pursuant to a () 13 subpoena applied and obtained by Intervenor, is that correct? 14 A That is correct. 15 MS. BERNABEI: That ends my qualification, if 16 there are voir dire questions. 17 JUDGE LAZO: Mr. Gehr? 18 MR. GEHR: Yes. 19 JUDGE LAZO: Any voir dire? 20 VOIR DIRE EXAMINATION 21 BY MR. GEHR: l (]) 22 0 Are you licensed to practice law in any state? 23 A No, sir. (]) 24 0 Do you know what form of government the City of 25 Phoenix operates under?
2173 1 A What form of government? 2 Q Yes. 3 MS. BERNABEI: I am going to object that this 4 doesn't appear to be relevant. 5 MR. GEHR: I think I am entitled to find out 6 what his qualifications are. May I proceed? 7 JUDGE LAZO: You may proceed. 8 MR. GEHR: Without interruption? 9 THE WITNESS: Well, I am not sure I understand. 10 What form, I mean it is -- 11 BY MR. GEHR: 12 0 Do the statutes of Arizona provide for llI 13 different forms of municipal government? 14 A I don't know, sir. 15 0 very well. 16 A The question of municipal government forms is not 17 an area of my expertise. 18 0 very well. Do you know the powers and authorities 19 and duties of city managers of municipal governments? 20 MS. BERNABEI: Objection. Again he is asking 21 for legal advice -- or legal conclusions. 22 MR. GEHR: (l) I asked if he knew. 23 MS. BERNABEI: The witness has said he is not an ggg 24 attorney. I believe that has been established. 25 JUDGE LAZO: Of course it has, but that is not
2174 1 the question, Ms. Bernabei. We will overrule the objection. 2 THE WITNESS: Would you repeat the question, sir? 3 BY MR. GEHR: 4 Q Do you know what the powers, duties and 5 responsibilities of city managers are, of the City of 6 Phoenix? 7 A I do not. 8 Q And other cities -- or any other city which is a 9 member of AMUWA? 10 A I do not know all of the powers and the duties 11 of the city manager. I know that the city manager is 12 ultimately responsible for the day to day operation of city O i3 eovernmene, and ehae he 1e inserumense1 1n deve1oging the 14 city budgets. 15 Q Do you know where the source of the powers of 16 the city manager would come f rom? 17 A I presume it would come from the city charter. 18 I do not know, however. 19 MR. GEHR: I have no further voir dire. 20 MR. DEWEY: Staff has no questions. 21 JUDGE LAZO: No questions? Very well. O 22 o1asce sx^xrnar1ou (ae umed) 23 BY MS. BERNABEI: O 24 o ar acc ta, cea vou exot ta ene so 1 or 25 purpose of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association?
2175 1 A well, as I mentioned before, we are an associatior 2 which represents the five cities of Glendale, Phoenix, 3 Mesa, Tempo, and Scottsdale, and hopes to develop unified I s/ 4 municipal water policies. To that end, we do have some goals 5 that are somewhat long-range, and those are essentially at 6 this point in time to obtain the maximum security possible 7 in the protection -- for the protection of municipal water 8 supplies, and secondly, to obtain the maximum flexibility 9 possible in the management of those water supplies. We are 10 a small organization. I am a staff director without any 11 staff. And we do not engage in long-range water resources 12 planning, nor do we engage in actual management itself. We () 13 are not a technical organization at this time. 14 0 Do you expect that to change in the future, will 15 there be an expansion or change in emphasis of the -- 16 A An expansion of the municipal water users is 17 anticipated, and that will enable us to take on the fsunctions 18 of long-range planning, and water management on behalf of 19 the member cities. 20 Q And how do you envision that long-range 21 planning and management responsibility? In other words, what (]) 22 would that involve, in your eyes? 23 A well, certainly in terms of water supply itself, 24 (]) that would envision the protection, the active protection of 25 existing water supplies under the dominion and control of the
1 2176 1 cities. () 2 It would also envision the acquisition of new 3 water supplies for the cities. It would envision a () 4 coordinated comprehensive management program, heavily based 5 upon the principle of consec~ation, in congruence with the 6 groundwater code. It would er anion also legislative action 7 or rulemaking through the departments, State departments, in 8 an attempt to modify or change what we feel to be 9 restrictions on the management, the wise and efficient and 10 rational management of water resources that the cities now 11 have and that they may have in the future. 12
~
Q And what kind of restrictions are you talking O 13 eboue2 14 A I am talking about restrictions that are 15 contained in numerous places, both in law, in contract, in 16 rule and regulation, academically they are labelled 17 institutional constraints, those types of things. 18 Q And could you give us a couple of examples, so we i l 19 have a feel for what you are talking about? i ! 20 A Well, in terms of problems that are in law, there i l 21 is a problem that exists in the Central Arizona Project l (]) 22 legislation that we hope to have changed sometime soon in the 23 future, that is it would have to be changed in Washington, ' (]) 24 because it is federal law. 25 MR. DEWEY: I object, if we are going to get into
2177 1 a speculative type possible what legislations which might or O 2 might noe ever meterie1ize. 1 ehink -- 3 MS. BERNABEI: I am basically asking him for a O 4 deeinieion or exemp1e or en inseieueione1 consereine, 3uee 5 to help him -- his testimony. He will be testifying, as I 6 understand, about institutional constraints, and I would 7 like everyone to understand what that is. 8 JUDGE LAZO: All right. We will overrule the 9 objection. 10 THE WITNESS: The Central Arizona Project Act 11 contains a phrase, section, that says someone, a person, an 12 entity who receives Central Arizona Project water may not O 13 pump, nor within their legal uthority permit others to 14 pump groundwater for use from within their service area for 15 use outside their service area. That is a management 16 constraint which we feel has possible potential -- 17 speculative -- implications . 18 And an example, many of the cities that I 19 represent pump groundwater from within their service area l l 20 and place it in Salt River Project canals for exchange 21 purposes. Once that water is placed in the Salt River 22 Project canal, sooner or later it leaves that individual 23 city's service area. Such things as that may be difficult to 24 do once a city signs a contract for CAP water. 25
2178 1 BY MS. BERNABEI: 2 Q And the reason that would be an institutional 3 constraint, just to be sure I understand, is because that 4 would have an adverse ef f ect on the flexibility of the 5 cities? I 6 A It would have an adverse effect on the ability 7 of cities to transport water to where it is most needed. 8 9 10 11 12 O 23 14 15 16 - 17 18 19 20 21 Q 22 u 24 O 25
2179 qllL 1 1 Q Can you describe for us the current sources of 2 water, or water resources, of the cities? r] 3 A Currently the cities that I represent, with the
%J 4 exception of Scottsdale, have a mixture of surface water 5 supplies from the Salt and Verde and groundwater supplies.
6 The City of Scottsdale uses groundwater entirely. 7 Q And what are the future water resources of the 8 cities? And I'm talking about the near future, the next 9 5, 10, 15 years. 10 A We anticipate delivery of Central Arizona Project 11 water to Maricopa County in 1985, sometime in 1985. We're 12 hopeful. 13 We also anticipate more and additional well con-I_,i l 14 struction. 15 We are investigating the possibility of the pur-16 chase of the right to withdraw groundwater from areas out-17 side what are known as " groundwater active management areas" 18 under the code. Those are areas in which groundwater will 19 be extensively managed. The code applies, in that sense, 20 only to a portion of the state, but the major population 21 centers. 22 We expect to investigate the purchase of the right 23 to withdraw groundwater from areas some distance from Mari-(_) 24 copa County and hope to transport that groundwater into this 25 area, hopefully by means of the Central Arizona Project n ( ) ms
2180 () I aqueduct. There appears to be excess capacity. 2 There is also the possibility of condemnation of 3 existing rights along the Colorado River at some time in (} 4 the future. 5 There is also conservation. 6 Q Just to back up for a minute, could you explain 7 the last thing you mentioned? Condemnations of certain 8 rights along the river? 9 A Yes. 10 Q Could you explain that? 11 A Arizona has the rights to a certain amount of 12 Colorado River water. Only a portion of those rights are
- 13 now being used, approximately 1.2 million acre feet out 14 of total entitlement of 2.2 million acre feet. Those rights 15 have been in use in some instances since the early 1900's.
16 As agriculture goes out in those areas, it may be possible 17 to purchase some of those water rights, stop the use in that 18 location, and take that water from the Colorado River at 19 the CAP intake. That's basically what I mean by that. 20 And I also think we must recognize that one way 21 to provide additional water supplies for the future is for 22 conservation. And the cities, as a direct result of the 23 groundwater code, will be required to reduce their per-capita
} 24 consumption. And we expect that to provide additional water 25 supplies. .
r V
7 _ 2181 3( ) 1 Q Do you anticipate any use of effluent in ways that 2 it is not being used at this time, to increase water re-3 sources for cities? 4 A Yes. S Q And could you describe those ways? 6 A The Arizona municipal water users in the cities 7 look upon effluent as a water resource, a valuable water 8 resource. We don't try to look at it as wastewater. We 9 look at it as a valuable thing, as a valuable water resource 10 to increase -- as a possibility of increasing the supply 11 of water available to municipalities. That can be done in 12 roughly three ways. 13 First, substitution. That is, where potable water rx U 14 is used for the irrigation of parks, golf courses, greenbelts, 15 we envision using effluent in the future to irrigate those 16 areas. To the extent effluent is used, that means potable
. 17 water is not used, and it can be then saved or used for 18 domestic purposes.
19 Far more preferable is the direct exchange of ef-20 fluent for potable water under the control or ownership of 21 other entities. In that regard industry may offer some 22 opportunities -- 23 Q Now you're talking about -- () 24 A Direct exchange. 25 Q Between the cities and industry. I l l
2182 (O s ,f 1 A Um hm. 2 Q And that would be effluent for -- 3 A For potable water that they control. 4 That may present some possibilities. 5 Far more preferable, however, is the exchange with 6 agriculture, be it Indian or non-Indian. Since agriculture 7 uses close to 90 percent of the water in this state, it's 8 obvious that they present the primary candidate for exchange. 9 And we look at exchanges with agriculture as one way to in-10 crease our domestic supply. 11 The third way is the use of effluent as part of 12 the domestic supply itself. 13 Q And how would that work? A U 14 A That would have to result or work from high levels 15 of treatment or through some process but whereby treated 16 effluent is recharged to the groundwater table, further 17 cleansed by filtration, and then withdrawn at some time in I 18 the future. Those are possibilities that we anticipate may 19 become necessary. At this stage in the game, however, they 20 are not economically feasible. 21 Q Now, backing up to one of the possible future water l 1 l 12 resources, exchanges with agriculture, exchanges of effluent 23 with both Indian and non-Indian agricultural users, could () 24 you explain how those exchanges would take place? 25 A With whom?
)
2183 A Cs,/ 1 Q Well, we'll try Indian agriculture. 2 A They have not yet been finalized -- that is, the 3 exact procedures whereby they would take place.
)
4 The most likely way they would take place would S be through the Central Arizona Project process. Mr. Steiner, 6 when allocating CAP water, assumed that 100,000 acre feet 7 of municipal effluent would be exchanged eventually for 8 100,000 acre feet of Indian CAP water. 9 Q You are talking about Mr. Steiner's recommended to allocations to the Secretary of the Interior. Is that cor-Il rect? 12 A That is correct. 13 That is one way, yes. O 14 The other way would be for municipalities to some-15 how exchange water with existing non-Indian agricultural 16 users. And that -- 17 MR. GEHR: I'm sorry, Mr. McCain, would you repeat 18 that? I didn't hear. 19 THE WITNESS: The other exchange possibility is 20 with existing non-Indian agricultural users. 21 BY MS. BERNABEI: 22 Q And that would basically work the same way as the 23 CAP type of trades that Mr. Steiner is envisioning? () 24 A No, it would not. 25 Q How would that work? O b
2184 () 1 A Which one? 2 Q The second one. 3 A Second one. 4 Q And how do they differ? Basically, I want to find 5 out what the ' differences are between the two. 6 A Well, if I can take the latter, we envision ex-7 change possibilities with non-Indian agriculture based on 8 a one-to-one ratio -- that is, one acre foot of effluent 9 for one acre foot of potable water. And we would exchange 10 it either directly, it could be indirectly, third parties. 11 Two possibilities which are being investigated at this 12 time arc exchanges between -- the possibility of exchanging 13 ef flue nt between the City of Mesa and the Roosevelt Water O 14 Conservation District, and the possibility of exchanging 15 effluent between the City of Phoenix and Roosevelt Irrigation 16 District with the assistance of the Salt River Project. 17 Q Thos~e are the two exchanges that are being con-18 sidered with non-Indian users. Is that correct? 19 A With non-Indian users at this time. The latter -- 20 that is, with RID -- seems more likely at this point in time 21 than the one with Roosevelt Water Conservation District in 22 the east part of the valley. 23 Q Okay. How would the exchanges with the Indians () 24 work? The Indian users. 25 A The exchanges with the Indian users would also O
2185 I work on a one-to-one basis -- that is, one acre foot of (]) 2 effluent for one acre foot of Indian CAP water -- if those 3 exchanges take place after the year 2005. Up to that time, 4 the exchange ratio is two-to-one, two acre feet of effluent 5 for one acre foot of Indian CAP water. So there is a dif-6 ference in the exchange ratio for at least part of the time. 7 The other difference is that whereas an exchange 8 with non-Indian agriculture results in a net gain for muni-9 cipal supplies, exchanges with Indians for their CAP water 10 will result in a net loss for municipal supplies. When I 11 say " municipal supplies," I am referring to the cities I 12 represent. 13 Q And you are talking about net loss in what sense? 14 A In a sense that we will contribute to the 15 effluent pool or to the exchange pool anywhere from 75,000 16 acre feet to 100,000 acre feet per year, and will receive 17 back from that exchange approximately 30,000 acre feet per 18 year. That is an exchange ratio of less than three to one. 19 Q And that is in part true because part of what you 20 get in return is being shared with other M&I users. Is 21 that correct? 12 A Not part of what we get in return. 23 Q Well, part of what is gotten in return for the O 24 eff1uene. 25 A Mr. Steiner proposes to take the effluent, trade O
2186 l
- O
's,/ 1 it with the Indians. The water obtained from the Indians 1
2 is then put back into the M&I pool and is distributed on 3 a pro-rata basis to all M&I applicants for CAP water, regard-
)
4 less of their contribution to the pool. Contribution of 5 effluent. 6 Q Now, I assume the cities would prefer the former 7 trade -- that is, where they got the full benefit of their 8 trading effluent. 9 A That is correct. 10 MR. GEHR: Are those just the cities who are mem-11 bers of AMW, municipal water users? 12 BY MS. BERNABEI: 13 Q You're talking, Mr. McCain, about the cities you O 14 represent in all cases. Is that correct? 15 A Yes, in all cases unless I specifically say other-16 wise, okay? I think that might be easier. But when I use 17 " cities" or " municipalities," pleas assume I'm talking about 18 the five that I represent. 19 Now, what was the question? 20 Q I was just trying to clarify a point about which 21 Mr. Gehr was confused. 22 Now, you were here, I believe, for Mr. Steiner's 23 testimony in a prior set of these hearings? You will have [ \ (_) 24 to answer yes or no. 25 A Yes, I was. O
2187 () 1 Q Now, Mr. Steiner stated that at a certain point 2 in the CAP project, the cities and municipalities will have 3 to trade with the Indians in order for the CAP allocations 4 to work out right. In other words, these trades will be 5 necessary in the scheme of allocations that he has recom-6 mended. 7 MR. GEHR: Objection. 8 JUDGE LAZO: What basis, Mr. Gehr? 9 MR. GEHR: I don't think she has properly char-10 acterized Mr. Steiner's testimony that the cities or any Il cities would be required to exchange. 12 MS. BERNABEI: Well, let me put it another way. 13 BY MS. BERNABEI: O 14 Q I believe he testified that the exchanges between l 15 the Indians and the cities would be essential in order to 16 maintain the schedule of allocations that he has recommended. 17 Is that a fair characterization of his testimony? 18 A I don't know, in the sense that Mr. Steiner does 19 assume that what he has allocated, a total of 640,000 acre 20 feet of CAP water to municipalities -- he does assume that 21 100,000 acre feet of that is, in fact, Indian CAP waer re-22 ceived from the exchange. But I do not -- And I know he 23 presumes or assumes that the effluent exchange is critical () 24 to the CAP process. , 25 Q Critical in what sense? t'%
\-)
2188 h 1 A Well, if there was no exchange through the pool, 2 there would be 100,000 acre feet less water to distribute g 3 to municipal and industrial applicants. 4 And that would affect the cities you represent, Q 5 is that correct? 6 A Well, it would affect us to some extent in that we 7 would not get 30,000 acre feet of Indian CAP water. Well, we , 8 have given up someplace between 75- and 100,000 acre feet 9 of effluent.
- 10 Q At what point in the process are these exchanges II critical, in Mr. Steiner or the Department of Water Resources 12 view?
13 A Mr. Steiner has indicated that he does not expect O I4 these exchanges to take place until sometime after the turn 15 of the century. I am not sure whether he means the total 16 exchange or the beginning, but he has indicated to me that 17 he feels exchanges will be -- 18 Objection. Hearsy. MR. GEHR: 19 JUDGE LAZO: Well, we do not have a jury. He may 20 complete the answer. II THE WITNESS: Mr. Steiner has indicated to me that 22 he feels the exchanges will be necessary somewhere around 23 the year 2010. 24 BY MS. BERNABEI: 25 Do you believe these exchanges will be necessary? Q O
2189 Q 1 A I believe the exchanges will be necessary, yes. 2 O In what time period? Do you agree with p 3 Mr. Steiner, or do you think that at a later or sooner time b 4 they will be necessary? 5 A The Environmental Impact Statement for Central 6 Arizona Project, when talking about the effluent exchanges 7 indicates that they will start in the year 1992. That is 8 the worst possible case according to the Bureau of Reclama-9 tion. 10 Q And what does that mean, " worst possible case?" II A That means when there will be shortages in the CAP 12 delivery to the extent that municipalities, industries and 13 Indians will be forced to share shortages. 14 Q In other words, the premise for the necessity of 15 these exchanges is in part that there will be a shortage of 16 CAP water such that all recipients will have to share losses 17 as the underlying assumption of the exchanges? 18 A I would say that that is correct. 19 When do you think these exchanges will be neces-Q 20 sary? 21 As I said, the Bureau of Reclamation, in the worst A 22 possible case, assumes 1992. Mr. Steiner assumes 2005-2010. 23 If I may, you know, speculate, I would say that O 24 the groeesi11ty of exchenees beine necessery in 1992 is 25 low. The probability of exchanges being necessary by the ) i O !
2190 () 1 year 2005-2010, high. But recognize that is speculation. 2 When you deal with water in Arizona, you deal with 3 probabilities and possibilities, never certainties. [) 4 Q You spoke about cities exchanging effluent with 5 the Indians, either Indians or non-Indian agricultural users, 6 either directly or through third parties. If they exchange 7 it directly, how would that work? What would the procedure 8 be? 9 A With Indians? 10 Q Right. 11 A Well, I suppose that what would happen would be 12 that the Arizona municipal water users on behalf of the City 13 would approach the attorneys for the Indian community and O 14 attempt an exchange. Such would entail, of course, the 15 building of a plant someplace or transporting effluent to 16 that place. And it would be a one-to-one exchange ratio. 17 And the cities who then directly exchange with the Indians 18 themselves would receive full benefit from that exchange. 19 The problem is that Mr. Steiner has represented 20 to Secretary Watt that if any municipality goes out and ex-21 changes effluent for any first-priority CAP water, that is, 12 either Indian or industrial in most caFOs, that that city 23 had its CAP allocation reduced by the amount of the exchange. () 24 Under that situation, there would be no gain in the domestic 25 potable water supply for the municipality. O
._q ,
2191 O i we are hogefu1 ehat Mr. weet 111 noe eccege 2 Mr. Steiner's representation. 3 Q Is it fair to say that there is some dispate be-4 tween the cities and the Department of water Resources on 5 this point? In other words, the cities would like to be 6 able to have the freedom to be able to do it differently 7 than what he has recommended? y 8 A To put it mildly. 9 (Laughter.) 10 Q You mentioned in your answers that a plant would 11 have to be built or a distribution system would have to be 12 set up. Are you talking about the building of a sub-regional 13 wastewater treatment plant? O 14 A Once again, I am confused by the term "sub-region-15 al." I do not really know what that means. 16 Q I guess the way it has been used in this proceed-17 ing, if I could take some liberty, is anything other than ' 38 the 91st Avenue Treatment Plant. In that sense? 19 A Well, yes, there would have to be some additional 20 sewage treatment plants, wastewater treatment plants con-21 structed to effectuate this exchange in an economical 22 fashion. 23 Q And why is that true? In other words, why would O 24 1e be uneconomic without the bu11 ding of those g1 ants, 25 A Because in most cases the location of existing O
2192 O i seweee treatmene 91 enes are e coneidereb1e distence from 2 the site of reuse. That is, the existing plant -- major 3 plant -- the 91st Avenue Plant -- is at the other side of 4 the valley from the Salt River Pima Reservation, and it is 5 on the other side of the mountains from the Gila Indian 6 Reservation. So it is very probable that when the exchanges 7 do take place, they will be through a sewage treatment plant 8 built in the location near or on Indian reservation. 9 0 In other words, you would have to build a new 10 plant, essentially, to locate it near enough to the person 11 or the Indian reservation you are trading with to make it 12 economic, the trade? 13 A It would make it more economical. I suppose if O 14 one is willing to to pay any cost, one can continue to build 15 larger and larger and larger and larger regional plants and 16 then pipe the effluent over the mountain or up the valley, 17 what have you. The cost is a significant consideration. 18 Do you know of any present plans to construct sub-Q 19 regional plants? 20 A Plans? 21 There are no plans to construct sub-regional 22 plants. By " plans," I mean design. 23 Q Mmm-hmm. (Affirmative response.) ( 24 A As far as a topic of conversation, discussion a-25 mong municipalities in this area, yes. O
2193 O ' o what are ehev2 2 A In terms of the municipalities I represent, there 3 has been talk of a northeast plant, which would be located 4 somewhere near or on the Salt River Pima Reservation to S effectuate an exchange with them. There is talk of a south-1 6 east area plant, which would take flows from perhaps Mesa, l 7 Tempe, Phoenix, other communities in the area, to be put on 8 or near the Gila River Indian Reservation, or effluent ex-9 changes with them. 10 Q I believe you testified that the cities consider II effluent a very valuable resource -- water resource. Can 12 you describe some of the reuse options that are being con-13 sidered by the cities for this valuable water resource? v) 14 MR. GEHR: I am sorry, Ms. Bernabei, I did not IS hear your question. Could you repeat it? - 16 BY MS. BERNABEI: 17 I believe you testified, Mr. McCain, that effluent Q 18 is a valuable water resource to the City, and you testified 19 that the reuse options for that effluent are being considered 20 Could you list or describe those? by the City. 21 A Well, reuse options are, as I mentioned before, 22 substitution, that is to use it on green belts -- use it to 23 Exchange we con-irrigate green belts, golf courses, parks. 24 The sider a reuse, exchange effluent for potable water. 25 reuse is, for example, sale. Sale to industries which can i O
2194 O 1 mexe use or erttuene- raere is e1=o some aiscussion or 2 eventual sales of effluent for the Rio Salado Project. 3 Q Thank you. 4 Do you have a copy of Agreement 13904? It is the 5 agreement for effluent between the City and the Joint Appli-6 cants. 7 A Yes, I do. 8 Q That has been marked in this proceeding as Joint 9 Applicants' Exhibit H. 10 Are you generally familiar with this contract? 11 A I am familiar with certain provisions of the con-12 tract. 13 Q Can you describe for us generally what the contract 14 is? 15 A The contract is an instrument between Joint Appli-16 cants and cities for the delivery of effluent. 17 Is delivery of effluent for use of Palo Verde? 0 18 Is that correct? 19 A At least a portion of the effluent on the contract 20 would be used at Palo Verde. 21 Do you know who drafted this contract? Q 22 A I do not know for sure. 23 Q You have an idea of who drafted it? O 24 A I have an idea that it was drafted by either 25 Arizona Public Service, the Salt River Project, or both. O
2195 I Are you familiar with Section 21 of this contract? Q 2 A Yes, I am. Q 3 4 Q Can you describe generally what that provides? A Section 21 provides that the cities may refuse to 5 deliver effluents whenever there exists a critical need in 6 The cities are obligated to i the cities for domestic water. 7 They resume delivery of effluent whenever they are able to. 8 have to examine all other reasonable sources of water and 9 to give reasonable notice, and they have to show that they 10 are hot wasting -- that they are conserving water. II Q How would you explain or describe " critical need" 12 as it is used in this contract? II A Critical need is not defined in the contract. O I4 Q I am asking you as a representative of the City, 15 what does that mean to you? 16 MR. GEHR: Objection. I Your basis is that it is calling for JUDGE LAZO: 18 a legal conclusion? I' MR. GEHR: Yes, sir. MS. BERNABEI: I believe he --
' JUDGE LAZO: Proceed.
BY MS. BERNABEI: 23 Q Is it fair to say, Mr. McCain- you are familiar O u with the contract? I 25 A Certain provisions of the contract. l O i i
2196 O ' o 1ao1uains section 21. 2 You have described as a predicate for the City 3 invoking, or the City affecting Section 21 that there be a 4 critical need in the cities,is that right? 5 A That is what Section 21 says. 6 Q To the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association 7 that represents the cities which are signatory to this 8 contract -- 9 MR. GEHR: Objection. 10 MS. BERNABEI: I have not finished my question. II I would expect Mr. Gehr to offer me the same courtesy that 12 I have offered him to let -- 13 MR. GEHR: I thought you had paused. I misunder-O 14 stood the question. 15 MS. BERNABEI: There was no question. 16 JUDGE LAZO: Proceed. 17 BY MS. BERNABEI: 18 Mr. McCain, you represent the cities which are Q 19 signatories to this contract, is that correct? 20 MR. GEHR: Objection. Mr. McCain has indicated 21 that the cities in his term who are members of AMDWA, 22 Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, consist of five 23 municipalities. There are six municipalities who have O 24 signed Agreement No. 13904. 25 MR. BERNABEI: ' Well, perhaps that is something O
2197 Q 1 you can get into on cross examination. I think I am en-2 titled to ask him the question. And I think I am entitled tc, 3 address the concerns he has raised prior to Mr. Gehr con-O 4 tinuing to talk. 5 I have asked Mr. McCain if he represents the 6 cities signature to this contract. 7 MR. GEHR: Very well. 8 JUDGE LAZO: If he represents the cities -- 9 MS. BERNABEI: Which are signatory to the contract. 10 JUDGE LAZO: All right, you may ask the question. II MR. GEHR: Now does that " cities" mean the same 12 cities that Mr. McCain referred to? I3 JUDGE LAZO: I assume Mr. McCain was going to raise O 14 that point. He has said that anytime he uses the word to 15 mean something differently, he will so state. 16 BY MS. BERNABEI: 17 Q Mr. McCain, can you answer the question for us? 18 A I represent five of the six cities which are sig-I9 natory to Agreement 1394. 20 Q And which City do you not represent? 21 A Youngtown. 22 Q Youngtown. As a representative of the cities, do 23 you believe that this contract provides an assured supply of O 24 weter to Be1e verde 2 . 25 A No. O
2198 () I Q Can you explain your opinion? 2 A I believe it does not provide an ensured supply 3 {) 4 of water to Palo Verde because of the existence of Section 21, which, during times of critical need, allows the cities 5 to withdraw the offluent. 6 Q I assume that means that you think in the future 7 the cities could develop a critical need for water? 8 A It is possible, ye's. 9 Q Now, to explore the basis of your answer, i*f w e 10 can return for a moment to the future water resources that II you described for us -- the future water resources that may 12 be available to the cities. Can you explain in some detail 13 what those future water resources are and the amount to whict, (} g4 water will be available from each of those resources.
' ///
16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 () 25 4 0
2199 T21,1g 1 A I can explain in more detail what the sources O 2 are. I cannot explain what the amounts would be, except in 3 perhaps very general terms. () 4 Q And why is that true, sir? 5 A Because not much is really known in terms of 6 certainty about water. 7 Q Okay. 8 A There is, for example, purchase of the right to 9 withdraw groundwater, in areas outside Maricopa County 10 area. Some people come in and say they have considerable 11 amounts of land for sale. It is unknown until there is a 12 hydrological investigation of what the yield from those () 13 lands may in fact be. It is unknown what the cost of 14 extracting that water will be. It is unknown what the cost 15 of transporting that water will be, but I can identify 16 potential probably possible sources, but in terms of amounts, 17 not in most cases. 18 Q Okay. If we could start out, then, with the 19 future water resources of the cities as you see them? 20 A What was the first one I mentioned, I think was 21 the Central Arizona Project. That is to deliver significant (} 22 amounts of water to Central Arizona, for municipal and 13 industrial purposes, and agricultural, non-Indian and Indian 24 agricultural purposes. 15 That is a source of water which is expected to be'
2200 2 1 available in the Maricopa County area sometime in 1985. () 2 Q And the other future water resources that you 3 have mentioned, at prior times? ( 4 A I have already mentioned, as an example, the 5 purchase of the right to withdraw groundwater elsewhere, 6 purchase of the right -- of existing uses of Colorado River 7 water, new wells, well construction, which will tap 8 additional groundwater sources within active management areas. 9 Ef fluent exchanges, as I have mentioned we have talked about. 10 Conservation, of course, the municipalities in this area use 11 well over 200 gallons per capita per person per day. There 12 is great hope that that amount can be significantly reduced. () 13 To the extent that is reduced, one will be able to supply 14 additional population, and provide water for additional 15 growth that will in fact come to Arizona. 16 Q Now, will those new water resources provide an 17 adequate supply of water for the cities, and we_.are talking 18 about the near future, the next five, ten, fifteen years? 19 MR. GEHR: Objection. 20 JUDGE LAZO: What are your grounds, Mr. Gehr? 21 MR. GEHR: Some of these questions have been 22 predicated on adjectives that are very dif ficult to under-(]) 23 stand. I don't know what adequate means. I don't see how {} 24 the witness can know what adequate means. 25 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I assume if the witness
2201 3 1 doesn't understand the question, he will tell me ,and we 2 will search for words he can understand. 3 MR. GEHR: Well, he can't give an answer whether 4 something is adequate. He will have to define it. 5 JUDGE LAZO: Well, let us find out what his 6 opinion is, t 7 THE WITNESS: My opinion? On what adequate means, 8 or will they in fact be adequate? 9 BY MS. BERNABEI: 10 0 Will they in fact be adequate? 11 A In the next how many years? 12 Q Five to 15 years. () 13 MR. GEHR: Objection, speculative . 14 MS. BERNABEI: We are talking about future 15 water resources here. 16 JUDGE LAZO: Well, no. We are going to overrule - 17 the objection. If he has an opinion, I think we are 18 entitled to hear it. 19 THE WITNESS: In the next 15 years, if the CAP 20 arrives, and I believe it will, in 1985, if there are no 21 water shortages on the Salt and Verde River, if there are 22 available groundwater resources that cities may tap into, (]) 13 in close proximity to their existing service areas, if there 14 is no major complication due to Indian water rights suits, (]) 15 if it looks feasible to purchase and transport water from
2202 4 1 e lsewhere , yes, I would say that the water supplies for the O 2 cities look adequate over the next 15 years. 3 But notice if. It is speculative. I don't think 4 anyone can say for certain. 5 BY MS. BERNABEI: 6 0 So your answer is essentially you cannot 7 determine at this time whether or not the future water 8 resources you have outlined will be adequate to satisfy the 9 needs of the cities? 10 A Not with any certainty. 11 Q And what are some of the uncertainties, or per-12 haps institutional constraints, whatever words you would () 13 like to use, that may cause the water resources not to be 14 adequate to satisfy the cities' needs? 15 A In? 16 Q The next 5 to 15 years? 17 A In terms of which water resource? Potential 18 source? 19 Q Well, we could start with the CAP, talking about 20 the CAP as the first future water resource that you 21 mentioned, what kinds of uncertainties or institutional 22 restraints or problems could you envision that would not (}} 23 make that water available? 24 A okay, we -- what you are saying is what are some (]) 25 of the possibilities that would cause CAP to be short? Or --
2203 5 1 Q To not -- 2 A Or to not provide as much water as is expected, 3 or -- () 4 Q Either. What I am trying to -- I believe your 5 answer was that the cities might have an adequate supply of 6 water according to the future water resources you outlined, 7 and they might not, and that was dependent upon a number of 8 things that were uncertain, a lot of " ifs" in your answer. 9 A OKay. 10 Q And what I am trying to probe now is what those 11 uncertainties are, and if we start with the first water 12 resource, future water resource you mentioned, that was the () 13 Central Arizona Project water, and I sn trying to find out 14 what uncertainties you see with that water resource. 15 A Uncertainties. There is a -- probably I would 16 say low probability, that there may be a delay in the 17 Central Arizona Project itself. There are indications from 18 Washington that -- 19 MR. GEHR: Objection. Indications from 20 Washington is just impermissible hearsay. No source is 21 identified, nothing. 22 MS. BERNABEI: Well, we have heard Mr. Steiner ({} 23 testify about his visits to Washington -- 24 MR. GEHR: Oh, you have not heard Mr. Steiner (~) 25 talk about indications from Washington, and that is no excuse
42U4 6 1 for this witness to testify about it. If-Mr. Steiner did, O 2 why, that is past history. 3 ' JUDGE LAZO: Well, he did not complete his O 4 answer, Mr. Gehr. Let us -- 5 THE WITNESS: Maybe I can -- 6 MR. GEHR: And I want -- I think when he starts 7 testifying about indications from Washington, that is not 8 permissible, and he shouldn't be permitted to continue. 9 JUDGE LAZO: We don't know whether he was going 10 to give examples of those indications or not. Let him 11 complete his answer. l 12 THE WITNESS: I will_try and rephrase it. To the
) 13 best of my recollection, last Thursday, Governor Babbitt and 14 Wes Steiner appeared at the first meeting of what is known 15 as the Plan Six development task force. Mr. Babbitt,'
16 Governor Babbitt and Mr. Steiner, said that there are and 17 there will be funding problems from Washington in terms of 18 the Central Arizona Project, funding problems to the extent 19 that the State of Arizona may have to furnish perhaps $2 20 billion, or $200 million a year over the next ten years in 21 'rder to complete the CAP by 1992. That is one problem. () 22 Another potential problem is the Peripheral 23 Canal defeat in California. The Peripheral Canal was a canal () 24 which to take water around the delta in the northern part of 25 the state, Sacramento, San Francisco area, and transport water
2205 7 1 down to Southern California, that would, for the communities 2 in Los Angeles, San Diego, replace the water that those 3 communities are currently using from Arizona's entitlement to 4 the Colorado River. Once the Central Arizona Project comes 5 on line, California will have to stop taking a certain amount, 6 I would presume, of that water. 7 Since the Peripheral Canal has been defeated, 8 there is a probability, I believe it to be low, that 9 California will not support continuation of the Central l . i 10 Arizona Project. 11 MR. GEHR: Objection. That is total speculation 12 on what California will do. I don't know what California -- O 23 ta nortaera ce11eorata it aiaa e have ear atefiou1er seettas 14 rid of the Peripheral Canal because it didn't seem to care 15 about Southern California. Now we are getting into 16 political matters as to what California will do in Congress, 17 I guess. 18 MS. BERNABEI: The whole Central Arizona -- 19 MR. DEWEY: Yes, sir. We are just talking about 20 politics right now, it seems, and what may or might happen 21 as the result of some act -- something that happened in g 22 California, when in f act Arizona is still entitled to this 23 water whether the canal is built or not, now we are getting 24 into politica1 ramifications. 25 JUDGE LAZO: Perhaps you might tell us, Ms. l
8 1 Bernabei. You are wandering a little f ar afield. 2 MR. GEHR: I move to strike that last portion of 3 the answer relating to the California Peripheral Canal, in 4 its entirety. 5 MS. BERNABEI: Well, I think essentially what he 6 is testifying to is the uncertainties and problems 7 concerned with the CAP water which has been said by 8 Applicants' witnesses to be assured for this area, and he is 9 just saying, I believe, that there are certain uncertainties 10 and trying to describe what those uncertainties are. 11 JUDGE LAZO: Yes, we understand that. You_. asked 12 him to describe the uncertainties. But as we have said, he C 13 seems to be getting rather far afield. l 14 MS; BERNABEI: I think he was talking about the 15 Peripheral Canal, or the defeat of that in California as 16 having an ef f ect -- perhaps we could ask him directly about 17 the effect. 18 BY MS. BERNABEI: 19 0 Could .you explain how that could possibly af fect 20 CAP < waters coming into the valley? 21 JUDGE LAZO: But then it was his conclusion 22 thereafter regarding the future course in California that l 23 was objected to. l 24 MS. BERNABEI: Well, the Central Arizona Project, 25 as this Board is aware, has to do with waters from the l l
2207 9 I Colorado River, which have been a matter of dispute between 2 California and Arizona f or a long t.".me, and a matter of 3 continuing dispute, and I think what this witness is
/7 C/ 4 talking,about is how an event that occurred in California may l
5 affect that. I think it is permissible testimony. He is 6 talking about what is likely to happen to CAP water that is 7 now scheduled or said to come into the valley. He is just 8 talking about one uncertainty. Well, perhaps he can explain. l 9 I don't want to characterize the testimony, because I am not 10 intimately f amiliar with the -- 11 MR. GEHR: This is bizarre, that California ! 12 doesn't support CAP, does that mean that that is the critical () 13 vote in Congress, some Congressman down there in Southern 14 California casts the critical vote, and CAP collapses? Is ! 15 that -- that is so . speculative it is bizarre. 16 MS. BERNABEI: I don't think that is what he 17 has testified to. l
- 18 JUDGE LAZO
- It seemed to be the implication of l
19 his last statement. Let us ask Mr. McCain to explain what 20 he meant by that last answer. l 21 THE WITNESS: What I meant by that last answer 22 is that there is a probability, I believe it to be low, that []) 23 the California Congressional delegation may not suppore 24 continuation of the Central Arizona Project. [} 25 MR. GEHR: Well, that is clear speculation.
1 2208 10 1 JUDGE LAZO: Well, it is -- there may be a (} 2 question as to its relevance, but this is opinion testimony, 3 and that is the gentleman's opinion. () 4 BY MS. BERNABEI: 5 0 Mr. McCain, are there any other uncertainties or 6 problems you see with CAP water coming into the Salt River 7 Valley?
~
8 9 10 11 12 ({} 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 , 20 1 21 22 (1) 23 l l () 24 l 25 l l l
2209 {}-1 1 A There is an additional uncertainty. That has to 2 do with the recent Special Master's decision awarding the 3 Indian Communities along the Colorado River in Arizona addi-O 4 tional water which would have, first, a superior priority 5 to the Central Arizona Project water. That could amount 6 to 120,000 acre feet. 7 Q Per year? l 8 A Per year. 9 The other uncertainties relate to the fact that to Central Arizona Project is last on the line. All other rights 11 to the lower basin Colorado River water are to be satisfied. 12 What is left over is earmarked for the Central Arizona Pro-13 ject. That is, in case of shortage, the Central Arizona () 14 Project share of the Colorado River in the lower basin will 15 be cut off first and will go entirely before any other exist-16 ing rights are cut down. 17 Then there is the uncertainties about the supplies j I8 on the Colorado River, which relate both to weather, drought, 19 and to the rate of upper basin development. 20 Q And what do you mean, the rate of upper basin 21 development? How would that affect the amount of CAP water 22 coming into the valley? 23 A Well, to the extent -- let me back up. The upper 24 []} basin of the Colorado River is currently not putting their 25 full entitlement to use. To the extent they put that full
2210
,] ) 1 entitlement to use -- be it through additional municipal 2 industrial supplies, be it through different industrial uses, 3 be it through energy development, be it through additional 4 Indian claims on upper basin water -- to the extent that 5 happens, there may be an inability to release enough water 6 down the Colorado River into the lower basin to provide for 7 Central Arizona Project supply.
8 Excuse me, to provide for a full supply. 9 Q Are there any other uncertainties connected with 10 CAP water? 11 A Well, I mentioned weather and drought. The flow 12 of the river may be such that, especially if it is a pro-13 longed drought, there will not be enough water in the river 14 to supply the Central Arizona Project, considering that in 15 case of shortage the Central Arizona Project is the first l 16 to go. I ! 17 Q Colorado is the first to go. In case of shortage, 18 Colorado -- the Central Arizona area is the first to go? 19 A The Central Arizona Project is the first one to 20 have their water supply cut. 21 Q Now, moving on to some of the other future water 22 supply resources that you mentioned -- drilling wells, for 23 example -- l () 24 A Yes. 25 0 -- do you see any uncertainties or problems , )
2211 0 1 associated with that as a future water resource? 2 A Yes. 3 Q Describe those, please. 4 A It relates to the groundwater code. The Department 5 of Water Resources holds that a city does not have the right 6 to drill a well unless that well is on service-area land. 7 Service-area land is defined in the code as the area of land 8 actually b*eing served water, plus additions to that land 9 which contain an operating distribution system owned by that 10 city for the provision of domestic water. 11 The Department of Water Resources interprets that 12 statute to say that city can only drill a well on land which 13 is served water. If the city wants to go out and drill a 14 well outside their existing service area, the Department 15 of Water Resources indicates that is a real problem because 16 that land is not being served water. It is kind of a chicken 17 and the egg, which comes first? The service area, or the 18 serving of the water? 19 So in some cases cities will have problems getting 20 a right to drill a particular well, depending upon where 21 they want to drill the well. 22 Q Can you give us an example, either recent history 23 or in the future, concerning whether the cities you repre-O 24 eent -- waere taere wee some kind of a re eriction in ene 25 city drilling the wells they would like? (
2212 4lll 1 A As of this point in time, I know of no request 2 for a service-area well permit which has in fact been denied. (~3 3 There are a number under advisement because the Department \J 4 of Water Resources has yet to promulgate their rules and 5 regulations concerning service-area extensions and the loca-6 tion of service-area wells. When they do that, perhaps 7 there will be some answer. That is their purpose, is to 8 solve that chicken-and-egg problem through the rule and regu-9 lation procedure. But there has been, to my knowledge, no 10 well permits have been flatly denied. Some are under advise-II ment. 12 O When you say "some," how many are you talkilng 13 about? A '\J 14 A I believe -- may I check? 15 Q Sure. 16 A I believe Mesa has one well which is under ad-17 visement. And I believe the City of Phoenix has perhaps 18 five wells for which they have applied for permits for which 19 they have not been granted the permit. But it has not been 20 denied. 21 Q They are under advisement by the Department. 22 A I guess that's the term. 23 Q Are there any other uncertainties or institutional
) 24 restraints on the future water resources that you've described 25 for the cities? /m h
R.]
2213
/~N 1 A That's again what water resourcse? I just hate d
2 to ramble. 3 Q Well, I think you talked about exchanges. O 4 A Well, iln terms of exchanging effluent, I have 5 mentioned the fact of Mr. Steiner's recommendations to the 6 Secretary of Interior which effectively closes -- that is, 7 if they are adopted, would close an avenue of cities exchang-8 ing effluent for first-priority Central Arizona 9 Project water because, under one instance, there would be 10 no increase of the domestic water supply, and in the the 11 other instance, though there would be a 30,000-acre-foot 12 increase, that is offset by the amount of effluent that the 13 cities would have to give up. 14 I have also mentioned other Central Arizona Project 15 constraints that deal with the contract, the repayment con-16 tract itself, and with the legislation itself -- 17 particularly, as I said, the one that restricts pumping with-18 in your service area, restricts the person from transporting 19 that water outside its service area. 20 In terms of exchanging effluent with non-Indian 21 agriculture for non-CAP supplies, that also has -- may have 12 any number of institutional, legal problems. If I can expand 23 on the proposal of the City of Phoenix to exchange effluent 24 (]) with Roosevelt Irrigation District, it is unknown -- that 25 exchange is proposed to happen in the sense of secondary O
2214 () I treated effluent through the Flushing Meadows process 2 developed by Dr. Bower, will be injected into the ground,
/~T 3 there will be additional filtration, and then that water V
4 will then be re-pumped up and placed in the RID canal for 5 agricultural use. 6 There are a number of legal and institutional con-7 cerns about that. The Central Arizona Project legislation. 8 Unknown, for example: does injecting effluent into the 9 ground make that groundwater? And if that is the case, then 10 if it is groundwater, then there may be a problem of pumping 11 it up and transporting it out of your service area. It is 12 unknown, perhaps, even who owns or who has the right to with-13 draw that groundwater whbn it is put.back into the ("% sj 14 ground itself. There are, you know, a number of uncer-15 tainties, none of which are insurmountable. But they are .i 16 concerns, and they have to be dealt with. 17 . 18 19 i I 20 21 22 23 () 24 25 O l
2215 Tjlh1 1 Q Now, a current and future water resource, of 2 course, is the Salt River Project surface water. Is that 7) 3 correct? U 4 A Yes. 5 Q Are there any institutional constraints or uncer-6 tainties associated with'that that might impact on the 7 cities' water resources? 8 A Yes. 9 Q Describe those, please. 10 A The main constraint is one of management flexi-11 bility, as has been testified or has bseen pointed out 12 during the process of this hearing. The cities' service 13 area, that is the area in.which they serve water, is composed I'i kd 14 of two conceptually different types of service areas. One 15 is a service area which can receive Salt River Project water, 16 and the other is the service area which cannot -- called 17 off-project water. It's the off-project /on-project distinc-18 tion. 19 The Salt River Project holds that accordoing to 20 reclamation law, surface water cannot be transported for 21 use outside the reservoir district boundaries unless an 22 equal amount of water is returned into those boundaries. 23 The Salt River Project bylaws saw that groundwater likewise p) (, 24 cannot be pumped from within the reservoir district bounda-25 ries and transported off the reservoir district boundaries bm
l 2216 l2() 1 or for use on non-member lands within the reservoir dis-2 trict boundaries without a like amount of water coming from 3 someplace else and returned to the reservoir district. 4 We conceive of that as a management constraint. 5 It prevents us from transporting the water to where it is 6 most needed. It prevents the rational and efficient use 7 of the water resources in this area. It ends up in having 8 one part of our city face more severe water-supply problems 9 than the others. 10 Q What area are you talking about now? 11 A The off-project areas have a greater possibility 12 of water shortage than the on-project areas. The on-project 13 areas, for all practical purposes there is no water shortage. O 14 Their water supplies appear to be adequate. Off-project, 15 depends; they have a greater possibility of water shortage. 16 Those are examples which we are concerned about. 17 Q Do you consider the pending lawsuit by the Pima-18 Maricopa Indian Community against Joint Applicants and the 19 Secretary of the Interior as an institutional constraint 20 on the future water resources available to the cities? 21 MR. DEWEY: Objection. This is an area where the 22 Board has ruled that we're not going to get into this area 23 of this lawsuit. () 24 MS. BERNABEI: I'm just asking the witness whether 25 or not he feels it's an institutional constraint that may O
2217 () 1 impact on the cities' future water resources. I'm not try-2 ing to litigate the validity of the suit at all. I'm just , l 3 asking if this is one thing he considers when he's trying 4 to figure out what the water resources are that are avail-5 able. 6 JUDGE LAZO: That will be the first and last ques-7 tion you may ask this witness regarding that lawsuit. 8 MS. BERNABEI: Okay. 9 THE WITNESS: I won't ask her to repeat it. 10 (Laughter.) 11 THE WITNESS: It could. 12 BY MS. BERNABEI: 13 Q How? k 14 JUDGE COLE: That's one and a half. 15 MR. GEHR: Always getting into a legal -- clearly 16 a legal problem. ,
. 17 MS. BERNABEI: I'm asking how it enters into his 18 considerations. I'm not asking for a legal opinion.
19 JUDGE LAZO: No, we've previously ruled that this 20 is outside of the scope of this proceeding, and I think we'd 21 'better adhere to our earlier ruling. 22 MS. BERNABEI: Okay. I have another line that 23 I'd like to go into. But I thought perhaps I'd like to intro-() 24 duce one exhibit, and then we could break if you think it 25 is an appropriate time. O
2218 4llI 1 JUDGE LAZO: You are about to change subjects? 2 MS, BERNABEI: Slightly, yes. 3 JUDGE LAZO: How much longer do you think will 4 be required to complete the direct testimony of Mr. McCain? 5 MS. BERNABEI: I'm not sure. Probably about ano-6 ther half-hour, maybe a little longer. 7 JUDGE LAZO: Well, then we'd better adjorn for 8 the day. You want now to introduce another exhibit? 9 MS. BERNABEI: Yes, I think it might be appropriate 10 at this point. - 11 Are we on XXXVII now? 12 JUDGE LAZO: XXXVII was the last one received. 13 MS. BERNABEI: So XXXVIII. O \ 14 (Intervenor's Exhibit XXXVIII 15 was marked for identification.) 16 BY MS. BERNABEI: 17 Q Okay, Mr. McCain, I have given you a copy of what 18 has been marked Intervenor's Exhibit XXVIII for identifi-19 cation. Do you recognize that? 20 JUDGE LAZO: You misspoke, Ms. Bernabei, XXXVIII. 21 BY MS. BERNABEI: 22 Q XXXVIII, I'm sorry. 23 A Yes. /~'g (/_ 24 Q Okay, and what is that document? 25 A It is the limited-appearance statement of Mr. Bill / \
./ )
i l i l l
2219 () I Stevens, Executive Director, the Arizona Municipal Water 2 Users Association, delivered before this Board on April 27, 3 1982. 4 Q And did you have a part in drafting or crganizing 5 this document? 6 A Yes, I did. 7 And is it fair to say that this represents your Q 8 views as well as Mr. Stevens' views? 9 A Yes. 10 MS. BERNABEI: I would offer this into evidence 11 at this time as Intervenor's XXXVIII. 12 JUDGE LAZO: Any objections? 13 MR. GEHR: I object. O kl 14 JUDGE LAZO: On what grounds, Mr. Gehr? 15 MR. GEHR: This is a very blatant attempt to cir-16 cumvent the limited-appearance rule. If Mr. Steverns is 17 the man who made this limited appearance, I want to cross-18 examine Mr. Stevens before this statement is put into the 19 record. I am not satisfied with cross-examining only Mr. 20 McCain. 21 MS. BERNABEI: I believe Mr. McCain has said that 12 these views are his. He had a part, a large part, in draft-23 ing it, and that he will vouch for the statements in this () 24 statement. In other words, he is open to cross-examination 25 on it. I believe under those circumstances, it should be O
2220 1 admitted. 2 MR. GEHR: He cannot substitute for Mr. Stevens 3 for cross-examination on this> including any parts, parti-4 cularly any parts which Mr. Stevens had a part in. 5 MS. BERNABEI: I would note for the record that 6 the way this is captioned is " Limited Appearance Statement 7 of the Arizona Municipal Water Users Association, Bill Ste-8 vens, Director." I believe this is a statement of the Asso-9 ciation. Mr. McCain is here as a representative of the 10 Association. Mr. Stevens' attorney did not feel he was the 11 proper person to speak because of the attorney-client rela-12 tionship with the Association. Mr. McCain, I believe, has 13 testified about almost everything in this statement, and 14 he has adopted all the statements as his own. 15 MR. GEHR: But this is a statement of Mr. Stevens, 16 and I insist on the right to cross-examine Mr. Stevens before 17 this exhibit is admitted into evidence. 18 MR. DEWEY: I have a further cbjection. The state-19 ments here in the limited-appearance statement are matters 20 which have already been testified to by this witness. He 21 sat down, he has listed most of these matters. And if the 22 Intervenor had intended to use this as the statement of this 23 group, then she did not have to go suep by step with all ( 24 these repetitious matters that she has spent the last 25 several hours going through. And that is another reason t
2221 1 it would be inappropriate to allow this into evidence when 2 we have already spent so much time covering all these r.atters 3 already. In other words, it bould amount to an asked-and-4 answered objection for most of this information. 5 MS. BERNABEI: Well, this witness is appearing 6 pursuant to a subpoena. We have not pre-filed testimony 7 because he is not a willing witness. He is not our witness 8 in terms of a direct witness. 9 I believe this statement he says he has had a role 10 in drafting, and he adopts the statements that are mde in 11 here. I think it is quite common if a witness has somehow 12 summarized his views on a subject that is of interest to 13 this Board, as this Board has indicated it is, it's commonly t 14 introduced into the record. All kinds of people's affida-15 vits which were not pre-filed testimony were incorporated 16 into the record. And I'm talking about Joint Applicants' 17 witnesses. And they were led through an extensive direct. 18 JUDGE LAZO: Affidavits of other persons who were 19 not present, Ms. Bernabei? 20 MS. BERNABEI: No, affidavits of people that were 21 present. 22 JUDGE LAZO: Yes, but this is -- I think we have 23 to agree with counsel for Staff and Applicant. This is just i 24 an improper or inadmissible -- Mr. Stevens is not here. 25 It is not sworn testimony. We are going to have to sustain l
i i 2222 l 1 the objections. 2 MS. BERNABEI: Then for the record I would like 3 s to note that the statement is of the Association. Mr. 4 McCain has stated he had a key role in drafting it, and that 5 he does adopt all the statements in this statement as his 6 own. 7 JUDGE LAZO: But there are other objections. As 8 Staff counsel has pointed out, he has already testified. 9 This obviously was meant to be the statement of Mr. Bill 10 Stevens, not Mr. McCain's statement. 11 So it may not be received in evidence. 12 (Intervenor's Exhibit XXXVIII, 13 having been previously marked i 14 for identification, was 15 rejected.) 16 MS. BERNABEI: I assume that we are going to recess. 17 Is that correct? 18 JUDGE LAZO: Yes, we will recess until 9:30 19 tomorrow morning. Thank you. 20 (Whereupon, at 5:41 p.m., the hearing in the above-21 entitled matter was recessed, to reconvene at 9:30 a.m. the 22 following day, June 24, 1982, in the same place.) 23 ( 24 25 t
I l l l NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ! This is to certify that the attached proceedings before the x ( Nuclear Regulatory Commission Atomic Safety and Licens.ng Board in the matter of: Arizona Public Service Company, et al Palo Verde Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1, 2, and 3 Date of Proceeding: June 23, 1982 Docket Number: 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) ( h a bll. r1 Official Repercer (Signature) l ( l
. . .. .. -_ -}}