ML20063L242

Ack Receipt of NRC Re Updated Status of Eis.Eis May Not Be Scoped Broadly Enough to Include Full Range of Environ Impacts of Project.Scoping Meeting Should Be Arranged or Decision Reached Re Point Pleasant Diversion

ML20063L242
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	05/17/1982
From:	Sugarman R SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES
To:	Lewis S NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC)
Shared Package
ML20063L241	List: ML20063L240 ML20063L242
References
NUDOCS 8209090013
Download: ML20063L242 (2)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:t 5 .- ~ m. un-a -n. Am h jf, :[ ;3

3; 3,_,

,g;gg .e.

~;*

1 Il May 17, 1982 Stephen II. Lewis, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff U.S. Nuclear liogulatory Commission 1:ashington, D.C. 20555 i f Re: Philadelphia Electric Company I n o.c_k_e_t _N o s_.. 50-352 and_.50-_353-

Dear Steve:

Thank you for your letter of May 6, 1982. I appreciat e your advising me of the updated status of the Pnvi ro:imenta l Impoet Statement. li o'. m m r, coming as it did, in proximity to Mr. Sch. ene.f r 's l e t t er of Ispri l 30, 1982, to Mr. Bauer, it enhances my concern that the stalf will not be able to scope the EIS broadly enough to i nc l urie the full range of environmental irpact s of the project, ac it prm ently exists. As you know, it has b<on our position, and t.e think it is incontrovertible, that i:Eco's role in the Point Ple>< ant <liversion is such as to m ko it a PFCo project. Mo2eaver, PEco is the owner and ope ra t or of the prtposed B r: a d c h a w r<servoir and t ran: mi ss ion line to the Perkiomen, as well .s the operator of the diver sion d( >wn the Perkioren.

either Point Ileasant nor its ascociated facilities is accounted for within the EPOL, and Mr.

Schwencer's l e t. t e r indicates that the intended scope of the ntaff revicw of fhe EHOL is 1.mited to the ame atea as ihat covered in the EROL, Certainly, it is possible for one to ini eu pt et :o ne of the questione as inviting PEco to brooden the r eport ing, but since it is a substantial change, if that were really int ended, it would seem to me the langoage would have Lcon more clear. If I am wrong on that, I shall be happy to be cor 2 e ct ed. Im uming, as I indicuted, that ihe ;taff is not diri, ting PEco to submit i n for mat ion regarding ihe ont i re i:pnetod area, I believe that a late su.aer or early fall witing will not a f for d the staff ample opportunity to 1.i k e int o occi'unt the co:cc n t s of the members of the public offered at the jret:ing in :caping t he DES and requiring the additional r. U \\O ~ gqg... ~ ' #, u. v 8209090013 820903 {DRADOCK 05000352 PDR . '\\ g\\,~ ef). O. b, s l, Ci) m7 1

pw~ -- -- -- _,. _ ~. u n ', ( t e ~ _.H .t; w, data from PFCo. At the moment, I do not contend that that 7e,;g timing is not sufficient to afford opportunity to factor in ' y:- c or:m.e n t s relating to areas that have already been well defined i and on which PECO has a3 ready submitted information.

However,

'fy in view of the time it has taken PECo to prepare the EROL and N-the time that it has taken the staff to respond with questions, 9 as well as the time it will take PECo to respond to those fg quest ions, it is clear that to wait until September to broaden { the scope of the DES, or to consider such action, would M effectivoly delay completion of the DES by six to nine months. 9 If this occurs, vihe t her admittedly or not, the Commi::sion will 1 ;. be under considerable pressure to shortcut its coa.pliance with "3.. the rules and with NEPA. In the ci2cumstances, on behalf of Del-Aware, I . ~.j, cubmit that it is c: sontial that a scoping meeting be scheduled ^. ' ~ as quickly as one can be arranged, or alternatively, that the g ~? staff make a present decision that the scope of the DES should Nll include Point Pleasant and associated f a c i lit ies, and request 7 the neces sa ry.i n forma t i on from PEco at this time. Again, I approciate your conside ration, and look [ I forward fo hearing from you. [ ~ S i r,c rely, \\ J \\6 Fobert J. og,jarnan 7 RJS/lr cc: Service List ty Q <c-1 = IO j rl, ) Y, w s l i l 1 1 l l I I I (', NM - D \\d t. L

f* Y fG (,- ,,p-o UNITED STATES nL - EN NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 3...( n

t p s,e m s m o m a c m sss Sftl JUN 8 1982 e

sw y June 2, 1982 .M Robert J. Sugarman Sugarman & Denworth pW Suite 510 North American Building 121 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19140 In the Matter of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353

Dear Mr. Sugarman:

This letter is in response to your letter to me of May 17, 1982 in which you cxpressed "cnhanced" concern that "the staff will not be able to scope the EIS broadly enough to include the full range of environmental impacts of the project, as it presently exists." You stated that your increased concern was based upon a letter from Mr. Schwencer of the NRC Staff to Mr. Bauer of PECo, dated April 30, 1982, when considered in conjunction with my letter to you of May 6,1982 indicating that the environmental site visit had been rescheduled from May 1982 to sometime in the late sunaer or early fall of 1982. [For your further information, the environmental site visit is presently scheduled for the period of August 17-20,1982.] With respect to Mr. Schwencer's letter you have stated the following: "Neither Paint Pleasant nor its associated facilities is accounted for within the ER0L, and Mr. Schwencer's letter indicates that the intended scope of the staff review of the EROL is limited to the same area as that covered in the ER0L." You are operating under a misperception of Mr. Schwencer's letter that I would like to take this opportunity to correct. The requests for additional information transmitted by that letter do not cover the areas of water use, water quality and aquatic and terrestrial ecology. Questions in those areas will be transmitted to PECo at a later date, but prior to the environmental site visit. There is no basis in Mr. Schwencer's letter, therefore, for your conclusion that the Staff accepts the Environmental Report as containing all of the information which the Staff considers necessary for its evaluation of the impacts of station operation, including the impacts of water diversion to support operation of the Limerick Station, on water use, water quality and aquatic and terrestrial ecology. We suggest you withhold your judgment on that point until you have reviewed the Staff's requests for additional information in these subject areas. In this regard, please bear in mind that under Comission regulations (10 C.F.R. Q 51.23(e)) a draft environmental statement prepared in connection with the issuance of an operating license "will cover only matters which differ from, or which ,h hN

.j '& ' i JG? r y + 3s4 l'Yh$ - ~ ~ i s w ?&? A reflect new information in addition to, those matters discussed in the final environmental impact statement prepared in-connection with the issuance of

f the construction permit."

In view of the May 1983. scheduled issuance date for the DES, we believe that _ issuance of questions on the areas discussed above prior to the environmental site visit and the Staff's follow-up questions (presently scheduled for issuance on November 5,1982) after the enviromental site visit and the receipt' of answers to the first set of questions will afford ample opportunity for evaluation of the full scope of impacts which.the Staff considers to be part of its environmental review of this operating license application. The i schedule will also permit full Staff consideration of the points raised in the public meeting, previously discussed in our exchange of letters, to be ) held some evening during the environmental site visit. I trust that the information provided is responsive to your concern. Please feel free to contact me if you have any remaining questions regarding this . matter. 3 i Sincerely, k bW1m ] 3-Stephen H. Lewis Counsel for f;RC Staff cc: Lawrence Brenner, Esq. Mr. Frank R. Romano Dr. Richard F. Cole Judith A. Dorsey, Esq. Dr. Peter A. Morris Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr. Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq. Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq. Mr. Marvin I. Lewis James M. fleill, Esq. i Joseph H. White III Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Thomas Gerusky Dir., PA. Emer. Man. Agency l John Shniper Robert L. Anthony p L Alan J. flogee W. Wilson Goode [ William A. Lochstet Charles W. Elliott, Esq. ( Walter W. Cohen Atomic Safety & Licensing Board h Robert W. Adler Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Panel Steven P. Hershey, Esq. Docketing & Service Section Donald S. Bronstein, Esq. I 4 I i i ~ 7 i -c...,,..,.m-. ...,...-- _. _, - -.. ~, ~ ,..w, m ,r -, m._,.,, r

hR Le t

p. R.

SUGARM AN & DENWORTH ATTOR N EYS AT LAW Surft 803 trol PLNh$YLVANBA AvC NUC.N W RO B E RT J. SUG AR M AN suet C 5 5 0, N O R T ** A M E R t C A N En ug g D g NG wA$M NG T ON. D C,0004 JOAN NE R.DENWORTH I2: SOUTH BROAD ST RECT 8' G 8' -***O PH I LA D E LP H IA. P E N N SYLVAN I A 19107 (265) 546-0562 ROBERT RAYMON D ELLIOTT, P. C.* COUNSEL e seOT aDas ef f f D ese PA. June 28, 1982 Stephen H. Lewis, Esquire Counsel for NRC Staff U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Application of Philadelphia Electric Company _, Docket Nos. 50-352, 50-353

Dear Steve:

Thank you very much for your letter of June 2, 1982. It does indeed reassure me, as you hoped. I am also reassured by Mr. Schwencer's letter o f. June 23, 1982, addressed to Mr.

Bauer, in which Mr.

Schwencer requests that the terrestrial resources site visit include the pumping station and riparian areas near cooling water intake and discharge structures. I assume that the latter reference includes Point Pleasant, and that the scope of the terrestrial resources visit will include the Bradshaw Reservoir and the transmission main as well as the immediate vicinity of the pump station. I would appreciate being kept closely informed as to scheduling. If appropriate, I would also like to suggest that the Advisory Council on Hic-toric Preservation, and the State Historic Preservation Office be included in the list of agencies, as well as the Township of Plumstead. May I question, however, the omission of requests in the terrestrial resources section regarding the National His-toric Landmark and the historic archeological sites and historic district in Point Pleasant. Perhaps these will be included in another section of the EROL, but if not, I would hope that they would be addressed with the informational l questions, as well as the site visit. l l / j r &;w7e w n

i. 's Stephen H. Lewis, Esquire

• June 28, 1982 Also, regarding your reference to 10 C.F.R.

951. 23 (c), I would like to note again that the elements at issue here were not addressed at all in the CP stage, and therefore their in-clusion in the project is in toto a change. I therefore hope, and would like confirmation, that the Point Pleasant elements will not be restricted to physical changes since 1975. I await your further advice. Sin ere.y, 9 Robert J. Sugarman RJSlem cc: Service List

r ( SUGARM AN & DENWO RTH hurin AT 10R N CY S AT LAW susu nos r

• Nia an Nuth w RO B ERT J. SUG AR M AN S vet E S e o, No n TM AMcHeCAN nust oe NG
• *S HING TON,0 C 2 0004 JOAN NE R.DENWORTH 12 f S OUT H D RO AD S T R E ET acas ta,...s o P H I LA D E LPH I A, P E N N SYLVAN I A 19 t O 7
• (2 8 5) 5 4 6 - O e 6 2 HOB ERT RAYMON D ELLIOTT, P. C.*

COUNSEL . ~ o,. o., n.... July 16, 1982 Mr. A. Schwencer Chief, Licensing Branch #2 Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Re: Del-Aware-NRC, Docket Nos: 50-352/353; Rea,uest for Additional Information - Point Pleasant Diversion Plan (July 9, 1982)

Dear Mr. Schwencer:

I have received a copy of your letter of July 9, 1982 addressed to Mr. Edward Bauer, relating to the Point Pleasant Divorsion Plan. I wish to comment to you concerning the intentions of the staff with respect to the dimensions of its inquiry concerning the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan. Your request indicates that the staff will " consider any environmental impacts associated with changes to the Point P]easant Diversion Plan". It does not indicate clearly whether this includes the addition of the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan to the scope of the staff's inquiry as a change in the

plan, but the implication is that only physical changes in the plan since issuance of the construction permits will be included in the staff's evaluation.

Such a limitation on the scope of inquiry by the staff is unjustifiable, in Del-Aware's view, under the Board's decision of June 1, 1982, and the facts and Jaw. I, therefore, wish to urge upon you the recognition of the fact that the Point Pleasant Diversion Plan was not considered at all (except with respect to increased water diversion) in 1974 because it was assumed that Point Pleasant would be built with or without Limerick. Since that is no longer the case, it is necessary for the staff to review Lf

"i"'??T .. Et s Mr. A. Schwencer Page 2 July 16, 1982 Point Pleasant ab initio, and to evaluate the environmental impacts of the plant as a whole, as well the alternatives thereto. In view of the Board's accelerated consideration of contentions related to operational impacts associated with changed circumstances regarding Point Pleasant and the $2.206 Request filed by Del-Aware, both referenced in the second paragraph of your letter, it is respectfully submitted that your inquiry should be broadened to include these considerations, and that broadening should take place immediately. Sincerelyg ( 4 O N Robert J. Sugarman RJS/nk cc: Service List O

u. t Consumptive loss of Water - Most of the water pumped to the North Branch j - Neshaminy Creek will return to the Delaware River. There will be some loss through consumptive water supply use and through evaporation from the reservoir but these losses are ex;xcted to be small. ,The water pumped to the East Branch Perkiomen Creek for the Limerick - nuclear power plant will be lost by evoperation to the atmosphere from the cooling towers proposed for the plant. This loss will be matched by water from the Beltsville Reservoir during those periods of the year outlined in the Limerick water supply conditions (see Description of Proposed Action). This loss will affect the scheduling of future water users which must be balanced against the salinity controls for the Delaware River. The regulations devel-oped by the Delaware River Basin Commission for water use at Limerick cre intended to offset the impact from consumptive loss. The consumptive loss is considered to be a moderate advene impact only due to the present Icck of maior water supply reservoirs. Future reservoirs con entirely offset this impact. 3 Drawdown of Supplying Reservoirs - The consumptive use of water, as well cs the diversion in general will normally cause some summer drawdown on the supplying reservoirs, in this case Beltsville. The drawdown will have on ad-verse offect on recreational use and the esthetic value of the reservoir shoreline of a temporary nature. Recreational facilities scheduled for reservoirs cre designed to adjust to periods of drawdown. Greater lengths of beach are ex-posed, boat launching becomes slightly more difficult and the waters edge tends to become untidy. Experience hcs proven, however, that these adverse effects i do not prevent recreational use of the reservoirs. The drawdown is considered to be a very slight cdverse impact. 9 Intake Entrapment - The design of the facility has not reached the stage where on adequate technical evaluation can be made of this titre. The applicant has been mcde owere of the problem and the design will be carefully reviewed by the Commission to assure minimal equatic loss due to entrapment. Esthetics of Pumping Station - The pumping station facility is isolated in an area of excellent visual quality. Temporcrily construction will adversely effect the immediate vicinity of the station with equipment, movement, noise, and exposed excavotion. When construction is completed however, the pumping station should blend reasonably well with the existing environment. For several m 34 '**4 ime s=-r.-----_-__ ~

i ( I years the newness of the facility and the freshn ss of the landscaping will be apparent. In time the facility should not be noticeable. The loss of esthetic value therefore is considered to range from very slight to no im-i pact over time. Beneficial increased Water Flow in Creeks - The overall ecological conditions of the creeks will be greatly enhanced as a result of the increased water flow if the water level fluctuations are kept to a minimum. Presently, parts of both the North Branch Neshaminy Creek and East Branch Perkiomen Creek dry up during the summer months. Fish in these areas can exist only in the pools remaining in the stream bed. The divenion will increase the fisheries potential in both creeks as a result of the continuous minimum flow proposed. The increased velocity of the water flow in the East Branch Perkiomen Creek will not be on advene impact due to the many dams existing in the Creek bed. it is anticipated that all aquatic life presently existing from Sellersville downstrecm will remain in vastly improved conditions. From Sellenville upstream to the discharge point certain of the small aquatic life may be altered due to the increased flow but, generally, on enhancement of aquatic life is also anticipated. The increased flows would also provide the minimum low flow cugmentation necessary for the sewage treatment facilities on the Neshaminy and Perkiomer Creeks to meet their required standards of stream discharge. The effluent requirements, as ordered by the Sanitary Water Board, Pennsylvania Depart-ment of Health on April 30,1970, are:

1) The five (5) day biochemical oxygen demand (carbonaceous, nitrogen-ous, and other oxygen consuming substances) of the raw sewage or industrial wastes shall be reduced by at least 95% before discharge to the receiving stream.

2) The total soluble phosphate measured as PO4 of the treated sewage or industrial wastes effluent shall not exceed 0.50 mg/l as an average of 7 conse-cutive-day samples or 1.0 mg/l at any time.

3) The effluent shall otherwise meet all requirements of secondary treatment for biodegradable wastes and its equivalent for nonbiodegradable wastes as defined in the Rules and Regulations of the Board.

35

I ygg, _, q p 4 % L./ r. is,k s , gf' ,p

• b-J 44 ka, e-c.a:q-,g a

h/ ",_-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ q't & '.,: + ;'L.tp P 1:eshaminy Watershed Proj ec t will provide an adequate water ,G M kW) 43;7 supply not only to a significant area, 'o u t also to a major gg .mc g $. w 7 segment of the population in the Commonwealth of Pennsyl-yg my vania. !!c w York State has in the past supported the pro- ]y 2 - i+, 1y \\ ~ ? #5, ject as a component of the Delaware River Basin Commission s' g ,I

;u ?

Comprehensive Plan. The proposed modifications to the yJf.,, mpg tret proj e c t are based on the increased need for unter and are Wyt mqm Wiv: - <r - R:@E a prudent approach, and I? e w York State continues to sup-M9,,.r., n port this project with a favorable vote. %Q

v, -

CM With respect to the Philadelphia E]ectric ),k. 'r ,. 3 Q'h, R' Coupany portion of the docket, I? e w York State in the past q w. , <eu has also supported this project as an elenent of the 1, m .w: Delaware River Basin Commission's Comprehensive Plan. The .. 3 l-L proposed increase in capacity of the reservoirs does not _I ^ h;.;. represent a major change in the project, and I?ew York

x.

• y w

State intends to vote affirmatively for this portion also. 12 1 COM.MiSSJONER THIBB1TT: Mr. Chairman, I

4

.; p have four communications.. The first is from the Executive KIIY r34 4 - ; Director to NHC; the second,from NHC to the Executive V e.; ,-n

.b

{ ('.", Director; the third, the letter addressed to me from EPA -4

wy 4

4 which you took the 1iberty to read;

cod, finally, a com-J.q,

, p ;p l p munication from EPA to NHC. I respectfully 'requesd that l2,., . a.' 3 uith the exception of the EPA letter the Secretary read &. n 's-a* \\s ( r

...a l:.. y..+.;. ' 'y 7 ~ Q 45 %;.5 %;EJrw: m .mu. 1;;w

n& @

communications. 79 tg.s these 1.mM g SECRETARY WHITALL: This is from Mr. Hansle? wy %n.?; @m$ to :ir. Eisenhut of NRC: Q. 2g .y "This is to confirm our recent conversation jXQ t (M? concerning the Limerick nuclear generating plant o.n the 3f:4 Js

d

> m -1 understand- ]a:p Schuylkill River in Pennsylvania. It is my s

LQ

',>y ing that the :Juclear Begulatory Connission intends to ~.. th.Y } 'f 'e.vironmental Impact Statement on the opera- [SU) En

= f -{

prepare an w.- w% ting license aspect of the Limerick p3 ant which is now gg e Q k t s. i 36lc t under construction. If this is the case, it would be q ;, m r, very much appreciated if you could so inform me in ,9 ~in7 possible. The D e l a v.' a r e River Basin .[ 9:~ writing as soon as a Commission intends to.t e t on the Point Pleasant Pumping s

c..

Station project, an adjunct to Liiaerick, within the, -m r,_______-.-- near future." g

• nd then i) e gives our telephone number.

4 The second letter, replying to Mr. H r. n s l e r, is from iir. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing of

[3 a

p egs the Div5sion of Licensing of NRC, r-n d the date. is December T

. e. 3; 16, which is one day following the date of the previous y ,y .74 , c, v -y letter. This is in response to your letter of Z December 15, 1900 to.Mr. Darre] Eisenhut concerning the ^ ^ ' ~ i~#. i r

n.

r-L- iqq. y V ~ 46 M "A

n..

r b. o.-% 3.yg, g %- 4 5 - Z 7UWJl preparation of an Er.vironmental Impact Statement for Mp% g O the Limerick generating station during the Nuclear Regu-P5f2l ! 3 If e,+<.>. , /.,; :.~ 1 C s.;;g;.& v latory Commission operating license review. 'A s re-y f{l .....c e. \\ $ih' 'ph q [. 'f! - quired by NRC regulation contained in 10CFR Part S1, ll( mm.w m applicants for an operating license must submit an Wff x n.. Q.". e -4 f-Environnental Report which will be reviewed by NBC as G NJ - s

n. ;

~'t ~ : part of its National Environmental Policy Act review a5V .,,. p' - r e o. u i r e m e n.t s.

.,w, g

m.,,;_;;$

,O%. ;%.. " Eased upon the applicant's Environmental wr g A,, ~,3 s,, dw; p- -M Report the NHC staff will review the environmental i c -- /MS'$ w a.ml, r.2 sy n pacts ersociated with the operation of the LGS, includ-sw <.s g.. p, w%;, - %s,%,. s.'.u.,J ._~ ing those f aci 3 ities that are required to support its s! a n:.p .% y,a

• t sa?]
• operation,.

This review will s p e c i f i c a 'l l y consider in- . J.J) . s.

3.. ~

n formation and data that have been developed subseouent ^ to the issuance of our final environnental s ta te:;e n t [c i. > i ,+ 4 7 for the construction permits. After completion of this 'i l . ;.: 7 i review both draft and fi na l environmental statements ' 'N.3 wil1 he issued." .s/ 6 w:.mc. %w@: i s g:, x: s u,_s.:. 4W The remaining 3etter is addressed 10 Mr. "li. ;..f: p. Tedesco of the NRC from Mr. George Pent, Chief of the i~. n." 'f *;

• y' 3

vy En v i rc r:ne n t a l Impact Branch of EPA, end it is dated Feb-ruary 1 */, 3OP]. ~. i t. I ~ ? l l ~ ~~' { = I

(J,) ..,.. ~% a n .M. i O 47 y; ~ .,q** c' A-Q. tF '. + " Philadelphia Electric Company's Limerick ~ %f< , w w. [-r -mg> nuclear facility is a complex project that has been con-7 J. (.,id ,...:w M.y g$,1, T We have recently been invol" c trover sial for many years. -l' ~ s l}, g in numerous meetings with the' Delaware River Basin Coc- [$$$ 9,. W@4. ^ mission concerning plans to permit diversion of water . w%w c .s fy[ :-. f NT w: um cool-g Jpyj from the Delaware River, in part for supplemental w w}m Q. ' Q +3 ,y5 %,g particularly ing water supply for the facility. We are w ~ DP,.., concerned with the consumptive use of scarce water re-a N w ' ' ' p3 ~ ~/ ;,. sources, the nechanisms for provision of the necessary ,.j: . ~, -..e ~. storage, and the physical and biological impacts on 7 ' + ! 4 :Ja i w e n: n,::0 40 ~3, the natural streans which will convey the flows to a 4 [, 64-&l?? V::P:9M i .ii " y~p%, p himerick. . :og "The re fo re > we were pleased to hear from N:m ~ c t ,s o.. wM.1..,~ N the DHBC, from Dr. Sam Worth at NRC in Washington, and i

n..,

M from the article quoting you in the Philadelphia In- ~ 2 -+.*a n em to pre- } '. qu$rer, February 10, 1981, that NRC is planning = 4 c Environmental T:'pa c t Statement- -o draft and final SW pare [,{ license operating s u p p l e m e n t. s prior to issuance of an g-.y:.. j;t a i e. ? ' $5K E[ M...fg. for himerick. w;g "We were also ' encouraged to note that you review of the lupacts of the sup'ple-l.y

n

y

{ -11 will be including- ~ ---- nental cooling water diver $on. DHBC has indicated l,,q Q y,- . c... .i that they would l i5 e to consult and c o o r d i naic w i th you so h-- - - -- m.m ,;C =te r, e 'i '1' a.5 + k e-D.. I

u 4 A -- d h O ..e~.,.. -- c ,e of the EIS. g j Environ-portions National c. p those 'l required by the on "lince, as the EIS, we will be, reviewing Act, EPA scoping meet-mental Policy projtet in the participate raised in would like to we have concerns Q. the so as to address timely am in a u, w _; ings resolution

9. s g for their Q7-the past and provide forward looking 2w a";py, j.

We are f EIS preparation. %x@e fashion'during .%g : f f [. <A- [m%"-' eM working,with you." n~w.; .a f tpir-f( to with-

yp

n

Chairman, w CYNe Mr.

No COMMISSIONER TRIBBITT: Mygtj%4 g,tf which 7; w:,oemA communications - s%p"ta m that those q I request record. 4v 6 hearing out objection read be made part of this public %mT,. i from the W ':v. have been objections $MQ: fag CHAIRMAN PICCO:.Any -~ record of the 4;:i. % w?@ entered as part .s

%N#'s will be l

if I They > 9%:,#rmste (None)

Chairman, fpanel?

TRIBBlTT: ,, wu '1 gl%.st. Mr. COMMISSIONER 7; Erg oth ?r . :w it... federal government just as i 7 ~ Q ~,~' i behalf of the to m In trying might on themselves: ,a e x p r e s s.i n g = 47,M.. Commissioners federal agencie s are , r.. N 4 J. A*].. A of various ~ m board such Q 4 y%;c r e s p o r1 s ib i ] it i e s

p._

the correlate regulatory 5 n.W ; ;A. a dM that may be before with' a subject sometimes W e? fffn;h on any C o raini s s i o n $q6May R!iver Basin and as the Delaware jurisdictions,

Q';c,g; 97;d]

$

and &y:. authorities ? on E,reat many o p i. n i o n s had been one yp ; g.: time

3. m who for some of those

?N%.} EPA being'one it is quite I .._,.n with objections, .v e. to voice j;_2W, of.the leading agencies 17 that dated February x ?% M connunication ,-] with this l%b clear to ne .%.M{p 2 3 *+ 1 M y h y C 36pC" .l

g. wg A

=~ . 4.; + q y& _, ' y; - M iF l n W4. ! g 49 p[ya j n 1% h and they are m with diversions f f N+Y.% particular problem f3 has no ooking directly to NRC for any EIS's relative to the sub-Ae Qx_ ) ? ~ ulator:r y~~~~ -.... ~ _. . _ _...... -p a r t i c ul a r 'r e g#' us and not to this w. P&: n ect matter be fore h f M.h.,i? p gency. the federal r ep r e.- es circumstances M Under those C.m.ar T vote e a f f i r m a t_i v.e j, W;^$i well cast an .m if q%w m sentative feels he can very y;ppJ " " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ " * ' ' ~ Commission. 1:nN%yl*%k ~ i.% @% before the

1. 96 on the,

. two matters ' COMMISSIONER EICHLER: I woul d lik e to point se . $i@iD ye wM. snj QE Pennsylvania ermsx; from tty celleague m ou't initially that when my Mggt 0:k % & mentioned that he did not think there would be any more Q ?@di&g VD$ need for power plants in the fresh water part of the Basin Wiwgh p%y(pj and then he went on to say % Ws.c;n .+ I held my breath for a moment;

• di,-

.u,. located in the Ohio and --c c.& W m:QjQ that he t h'o u gh t they could be i"u' e& to hear that. r gratified I was to t Susquehanna. a great deal of attention ,f,j::.;. We have paid =- g '] attende i personally I t p j. C o nur,i n s i o n. these dockets before the f Q Q' and have looked at the record .7 y 2@.7 m;. the hearing in Kulpsville dM [ 7$NA studied the project to a great i;; C.t#J ry extensively and have (fiSUN very extent, and I.have felt that it is one of the most comple x < E.:9M.p:; i

v

y that has l;jiQf i important projects l ;g _.

m. c and certai nly one of the most l' T, %

come before the Commicsion in the time that I hav < y ,;7.fa m

1. +

.,b ~:1;C it. It was with that jn mind that we spent as much time ~ _~. a c ,,' k;; ~~ looking at this as we did. e n. s;, n_ 4"# T in Delaware Y;R.f.u b - -.. ~ -.. ~ - Q/ylfl(L+ r %}}