Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: TUESDAY, March 26, 1991 TAG: 9103260216
SECTION: VIRGINIA PAGE: B1 EDITION: STATE
SOURCE: MARGARET CAMLIN CORRESPONDENT
DATELINE: RICHMOND LENGTH: Medium
"We haven't seen it yet," said board Chairman Bidgood Wall of the ground-water plan Hadson turned in March 7. "We want to have a chance to read and study it and see if it addresses the issues we voted to address."
Hadson had hoped the plan would be approved Monday, but the board instead tabled a decision until its June 25 meeting.
At issue is a key condition state officials demanded of Hadson when they granted a water-withdrawal permit in December. Because the company plans to use ground water as a backup for cooling operations, the state wants proof that company wells would not draw water from the Maury River.
Hadson will not be allowed to draw water from the river when its flow is less than 200 cubic feet per second.
To satisfy the board's condition, Hadson conducted a pumping test of one well in Buena Vista for seven days in December and January. The tests showed that no water was withdrawn from the river.
But the most water that could consistently be pumped from the well in one week without drawing from the river was 550 gallons per minute. Hadson will need 900 gallons a minute to run the coal-fired, 60-megawatt power plant, according to Vice President Robert Kennel.
Kennel has said a second well about 300 feet away also will be used for backup if the primary well fails.
The company also plans to build one or two reservoirs that would hold 40 million gallons of water, Kennel said Monday. The reservoirs would supplement the ground water as a backup during dry spells.
Rockbridge County officials have urged the board to reject Hadson's ground-water plans.
They maintain that the river and ground water form an interconnected system. Because ground water and streams feed into the river, when ground water is withdrawn the river's flow is reduced, Assistant County Attorney Leanne Shank wrote in a letter to the board dated Friday.
She criticized Hadson for not including a plan for its reservoirs, which may not be feasible because of the area's topography, she said. The area is marked by sinkholes, swallow holes and other unstable conditions, according to the county's expert, Edgar Spencer, a professor of geology at Washington and Lee University.
The water-withdrawal permit would not require Hadson to build reservoirs. If the company decided not to use them, ground water would be the only backup, Shank said.
The county also took issue with the timing of Hadson's testing: It rained in late December and January. Hadson should test its wells when weather conditions are dry, Shank said.
But Hadson's consultants contend there is plenty of ground water to use during drought conditions. They also say the company's withdrawal of ground water will not affect domestic wells in the area.
But Spencer pointed out that one of the domestic wells monitored dropped 10 feet to 12 feet during the testing.
"How these wells and the more numerous wells farther northeast will be affected by continuous pumping over long periods of time . . . during drought is unknown," Shank wrote to the board.
Spencer said more household wells along Virginia 704 and 631 should be monitored during future long-term tests.
Hadson has until April 26 to submit the final part of its ground-water plan to the board. Kennel said the company has developed a plan for the reservoirs, but this will instead be submitted to the state Department of Conservation and Recreation for approval after the water permit issue is settled.
The board also extended until May 31 the period for public comment on the ground-water plan. Board members said any other comments on Hadson's plans should be sent to the state attorney general's office because the case is under litigation.
The county has appealed the water board's decision to issue the permit to Hadson.
But the attorney general's office, acting on behalf of the water board, is trying to have the lawsuit dismissed. State law does not give the county the right of appeal, the attorney general's office has said.
A Rockbridge County circuit judge will decide the matter. A court date has not been set.
If a judge throws the case out of court, this would mean "every citizen would be prohibited from participating in the process," County Attorney Wayne Heslep said Monday. "That means everybody's cut out of the process except the regulator and the applicant. If that's the case, why have public hearings, public input?"
by CNB