ML20023A810
| ML20023A810 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 10/15/1982 |
| From: | Hodgdon A NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8210200040 | |
| Download: ML20023A810 (10) | |
Text
.'
4 10/15/82 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY Docket Nos.
50-352'
)
50-353 (LimerickGeneratingStation,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO DEL-AWARE'S MODIFIED CONTENTION V-24 INTRODUCTION During the on-the-record discussion concerning Del-Aware's proposed Contention V-24, the Board ruled that Del-Aware would be allowed to focus and refine the proposed contention (Tr. 1724).
On October 14, 1982, the Staff received a copy of Del-Aware's modified Contention V-24 (Copy attached).
For the reasons set forth earlier by the Staff at the hearing on October 4,1982, and for the additional reasons set forth below, the Staff continues to oppose the admission of Contention V-24.
DISCUSSION Before addressing whether Del-Aware's proposed Contention V-24 as nodified meets the criteria set forth in 10 C.F.R. @ 2.714(a), the Staff r.otes that the Board's ruling with respect to the modification was limited to clarification and refinement (Tr.1724).- It appears to the Staff that Del-Aware has expanded its original Contention V-24 to include i
j matteis originally within its proposed Contentions V-22 and V-23 and has expanded the basis accordingly.
To-the extent that V-24 is expanded, the l
ATED ORIGlyAIjt 1
' DES p
b210 20 g 0 9eo cemm M
~
Staff submits that the Board should not consider the modified contention,
)
i In any event, it is clear that it lacks an adequate basis and specificity and, thus, should not be admitted.
A cornerstone of Del-Aware's support for this contention is the Opinion and Order issued on August 27, 1982, by the Pennsylvania Publi.c Utilities Comission.' Del-Aware submits that the PaPUC determined that only one unit should be built at the Limerick site and implies that the PaPUC ordered Philadelphia Electric to cancel Unit 2.
It is quite clear, however, that PaPUC did not order Philadelphia Electric to cancel Unit 2 but rather gave the utility the option to determine whether to cancel the unit or suspend construction until after completion of Unit 1 (PaPUC Opinion and Order at 24i.
On this basis, the Staff considers this aspect of the contention to be unfounded.
Del-Aware also submits that the DRBC has determined that Merrill Creek is "(a) necessary to offset the water depletion attributed to PPD, not merely to supply water to Limerick, because sustainable levels are less than thought in 1975." This part cf the contention is lacking in both specificity and basis and goes beyond the scope of V-24 as initially submitted.
No support is provided for the conclusion that Merrill Creek _
is necessary to offset the water depletion attributable to the Point Pleasant Diversion.
The PaPUC opinion merely " notes" that construction of the Point Pleasant Pumping Station and the Merrill Creek Reservoir will be necessary to provide Limerick with the necessary water (PaPUC Opinion and Order at 6) but does not conclude that they are interdependent. The DRBC has not determined that Point Pleasant may not operate without Merrill Creek.
In fact, present plans call for Merrill g-
k.
,. Creek's availability well after Unit I has begun operation.
As the Board has noted, the Appeal Board has determined that a decision concerning the alternative of a supplemental reservoir was specifically left for the DRBC.
Special Prehearing Conference Order, June 1, 1982 at 53, citing 1 NRC li3 (ALAB-262) at 206.
The construction of the Merrill Creek Reservoir was not and still is not a condition precedent to the construction and operation of the Point Pleasant Diversion and neither projectdependsupontheexistenceoftheother.1/
Del-Aware submits, as additional support, that the DRBC staff disclosed that Merrill Creek "will' involve spring and sumer skimming
~
which, when combined with Point Pleasant, will adversely affect oyster spawning and public water supply, and dissolved oxygen levels." Again,-
this allegation does not provide a basis for the modified contention and goes beyond Contention V-24 as initially proposed.
First of all, if spring and summer skimming is indeed a problem, it is a matter directly related to the environmental impact of Merrill Creek and is not directly related to the Po %t Pleasant Diversion. Secondly, the Board har ruled consistently that this type of effect is within the jurisdiction of the DRBC.
Finally, Del-Aware alleges that a new determination as to "whether
.p.
Limerick continues to have a positive benefit / cost ratio and whether other water supply alternatives are preferable" will be required.
Del-Aware appears to confuse the cost / benefit analysis for the Limerick facility with. the cost / benefit analysis for the Point Pleasant Diversion,
-1/
See Affidavit of Robert A. Flowers, Executive Director, Neshaminy.,
Water Resources Authority (NWRA), submitted with Applicant's Objections to Special Prehearing Conference Order, June 17, 1982.
(Copy attached.)
c
,,.., ~
n e
, 4,..:
~
which forms but a small part of the overall analysis.
No explanation or development is given with respect to how the cost / benefit balance will be' affected if in fact two units are not ultimately constructed at the Limerick site.
t Accordingly, insofar as the resubmitted Contention V-24 raises t
concerns regarding Merrill Creek, it is without basis and is lacking in specificity.
Furthennore, it goes beyond the scope of the contention as l
initially submitted.
j CONCLUSION For the reasons set forth above, the Staff submits that the Board shouldrejectContentiohV-24.
i Respectfully submitted, m 9. No el j
v Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff Dated in Bethesda. M3ryland this 15th day of October 1982 l
v I
I i
i i
i
+
V
~.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO DEL-AWARE'S MODIFIED CONTENTION V-24" in the above captioned proceeding have been served this date in-hand on the persons identified below by an asterisk.
Service will be made upon the remaining persons by deposit in the United States mail, first class, or as indicated by double asterisk through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system this 15th day of October 1982:
Lawrence Brenner, Esq., Chairman (2)*
Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
Administrative Judge Vice President & General Counsel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission -
Philadelphia Electric Company Washington, D.C.
20555 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Dr. Richard F. Cole
- Administrative Judge Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.
Washirgton, D.C.
20555 Conner and Wetterhahn 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Dr. Peter A. Morris
- Washington, D.C.
20006 Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Washington, D.C.
20555 6504 Bradford Terrace Pniladelphia, PA 19149 Mr. Frank R. Romano Air and Water Pollution Patrol James M. Neill, Esq.
61 Forest Avenue Associate Counsel for Del-Aware Ambler, PA 19002 Box 511 Dublin, PA 18917
. Judith A. Dorsey, Esq.
Lirrerick Ecology Action Joseph H. White III 1315 Walnut Street, Suite 1632 8 North Warner Ave.
Philadelphia, PA 19107 Bryn Mawr, PA.
19010
a
~
Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Walter W. Cohen Power Consumer Advocate Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud, Co-Director Office of Attorney General 433 Orlando Avenue 1425 Strawberry Square State College, PA 16801 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Thomas Gerusky, Director Robert W. Adler Bureau of Radiation Protection Assistant Counsel Dept. of Environmental Resources Comonwealth of Pennsylvania, DER 5th Floor, Fulton Bank _ Building 505 Executive House Third and Locust Streets P. O. Box 2357
'Harrisburg, PA 17120 Harrisburg, PA 17120
~
Director Stecan P. Hershey, Esq.
Pennsylvania Emergency Management Law Cer.ter North Central Agency Basement, Transportation & Safety Beury Building 3701 North Broad Street Building Philadelphia, PA 19140 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
Robert L. Anthony
~
Sugarman and Denworth Friends of the Earth of the Suite 510 Delaware Valley North American Building 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 121 South Broad Street Moylan, PA 19065 Philadelphia, PA 19107 Alan J. Nogee Donald S. Bronstein, Esq.
The Keystone Alliance The National L6wyers Guild 3700 Chestnut Street -
Third Floor Philadelphia, PA 19104 1425 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Charies W. Elliott, Esq.
123 N. 5th Street, Suite 101 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board **
Allentown, PA 18102 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C.
20555 W. Wilson Goode Managing Director Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal City of Philadelphia Panel **
Philadelphia, PA 19107 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Corraission Washington, D.C.
20555 Sec retary**
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission ATTH:
Chief, Docketing & Service Br.
Washington, D.C.
20555 1
o q
m Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff 9
=
e.
.p FACSIMILE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the. Atomic.Saferv and Licensine Board In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelchia Electric Comeany
)
Docket Nos. 50-252
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF ROBERT A. FLOWERS G2::. ~
Q.f' Robert A. Flowers, being duly sworn according to law,
. deposes and says:
1.
I am t.he Executive Direc cr of the Nashaminy Water Resources Authority and have been authorized by NWRA-to make th:.s affidavit on its behalf.
2.
In Docket No. D-65-76 CP (S), issue'd February 16,
- 1981, the Delaware River Basin Commission
- c. ave fi..n.al approval under Section 3.8 of the DRSC Ccapact to the construction of proposed modifications to the Neshaminy Creek Watershed Plan, which included construction of the Point. Pleasant Pumping Station and.related
- ansmission lines, which will furnish supplemental water supplies to m
water-short areas of Central and Bucks Counties.
m.
t G=r F
W g
e O
-y (v
,9 m
.. e h$g 3
These ec=penents constitute a
portien of tha gs.
overall Poin: Pleasant diversien plan, which was approved in Docket No. D-65-76 CP (S) and Docket No. D-79-52 CP, also issued on Feb_7ary 18, 1981.
The latter decisien granted final Section 3.E approval to the ce=penents of the Point Pleasant diversion plan applicable. to the Philadelphia Electric Cc=pany.'
r.n.w is ce==1 tet to construct the Nesha iny Water Supply System authorized'by Docket No..D-65-76 CP (8) with or without Philadelphia Ile.ctric Cc=ranv.
~
a
- = _.
'2Ls
- t...=. %.
/s/
~
Rooer: A.
Flowers Swern to and subscribed before
=e this 16th day of June, 1982.
/s/
Irma R. Backhouse Notary PUD 1:C My cc==ission expires June 12, 1986.
[ SEAL) 6 4
e.$
FACSIMILE W*'-
y' me'**
~
1'.
/...
/
L.'
v
.... +
l TO:
- hm Hod don
?
9
...?.'
', FRO 5t Ingrid Olson
. ~ ~
7.--
.DATE:
14/14/82 7
[
~
.r_
i
- Oi::tober 12, 1982 l
R, i
.: :-.. ^
f.
- x.?
- -
V -- 34.
The OL. Appl.ioation is based on the CP
= '.
~
approval-for two units.
the ALAB based its CP appi.c.wal of
'the river folli:nrer. method on.a. favorable BC ratio.
- However, newly changed circumstances and newly disclosed facts make D
I this conclusion obsolche and.an inappropriathe basis for I
(
proceedini.
Specifically, the Pennsylvania P.G.C. deter--
J mined on August 27, 1982, bat only one tmit should.be
{
,... v.
-.- : built, and the DRSO -staff disclosed in July and August,
. :: s..
Ef,JF
~ 1982,. that Merrill. Creek :(a).is necessary to offset.the p :: ~...
not merely to supply i
- water depletion. attributable. to PPD, 1
~~
water to Limerick', because sustainable levela are J.ess' than r,. :.2...
7-thought in 1975,.-and.(b) rwill involve spring and summer
? g...
m/
- H-ing which, when combined with PPD, vill adversely
~
offect oyster-spmrairag and public water supply, and.
f dissolved oxygen levels., This decrease in levels of benefit combined with increased costs renders the SCIts a
. ~.
a-poor solution, adversely affects the 1975 benefita/ cost l
conclusions, and requires a new finding as to whether, Limerick continues to have a positive benefit / cost ratio, and whether other water supply alternat,1ves are preferable. '
In particular, Sch M.11 River alternatives are available.
- h...
and preferable, both frem an econcaic 'and environmental l-
.. ' ~
.. - -, ;~
perspecti.ve.
. I *-
j.rs -
~
('...*..
~ '.
...i.--
.; l '.
a~
\\~
~
. _ y. -
- w:. :
,x
.z..
._.___u__j_,.__.,.._...
r....
o
.Bnninr P3 PDC Order,,.
u3t 27, 1982e #Alterda-(1973,,1979,) inclu: ling TAKS. ' Doooments
, tiva Studiac of PECO included in Delaware Proposed Exhibit ~D--97; Pinh e:nd wildlife
..v..
L e.t t e r,. -
1y 1taufmann and McCoy proposed testf wty (eEcluded)y
/
' ( Drc.f t DRBC 18th Mater Resources Prtsram (Sept. 1982): Draft
-)#
=
Recos=cendations. and Backkround Report (Guly, 1982); Marr M
. Creek Draft ET.B (July, 1982); DasO Reply to Staff Question'Y (Sept. 198'2)7 K CC Responte to Staff E 240.9 (Sept. 19
}.
=.
~*-
s a.-
..1-
~
.... ~..;.n
. ? 3.
.: ?.
u, i
. =.,..
- p.C.
....;.............5-,...
.:......a.......... ~.. -
-.* y.. - y- -..
~.. ~
..i-rv z.~
. :....,. ~
.s.
... ~
f.~
y:
. n.. s
-, - - ~.
= - -
,. ~. g..
a.
. :. *=*
.~
.,..a.
y.. -'g,..
. s...
-r r..., s..
s......
ve%,.
p.;
g,- ~
s.
.=..
.a....
... :...e..
.-.%.,.;'.e..
,:.~.,-
- * * ~
s.* :*.-
me
,.,*.... ~.. *
.. =. -
./**.
...g.
4
+
=.
....e p
...-g.
.p.;.
- . =. -
... ;. a.
.. *.. = =,.
.- m.--
.;~
-=
-?.
-i-
===.%.
+
y j
i
- . ~..
l 9
m
~
~
=...
+
.. a.;.
....s~.
. e.;:._
=.
- 4.,
.v.
<~ -
.. =
.e,*
l
- j..L
.....;....a
...v.-3.,,,
........-.r,
.v
., ~... '...
=..n.
.~
. S..
y:g.. '
'-G
. ;.y.yy'y.
?.;
... s
'. -2: - ~
. ~.:s.. *..
.... - - =.
a ~
.n.
y e w4=_-
..s,.,e.....
g.
...n.-
~..%.,.
P.-
s.'
- d..~ 4.
. r-
~-
i.,....
4...-
.g m...
- ~
, ~..
p..
a.
g.,
4,,..J.... -
r...
.~*..l
=
.,~
., ~.,....
z.
~.. >.
.s
_....,.5-
~.......
. ~..
~..k..
w...,...
. ~.....
...... c
- .a.
.-,e.... - ~
../...
~.-
~
..