ML20067A850

Reply to Del-Aware 821117 Response to ASLB Request for Info Re Flows in Schuylkill River.Response Inaccurate & Exceeds Scope of ASLB Limited inquiry.Del-Aware Is Cluttering Record W/Erroneous & Irrelevent Matl.W/Certificate of Svc

ML20067A850
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	11/29/1982
From:	Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:
Shared Package
ML20067A849	List: ML20067A847 ML20067A850
References
NUDOCS 8212020339
Download: ML20067A850 (10)

Text

.

00f/ETED L',tlRc

'82 DEC -1 P12:08 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

'[c*!.d:0I.f5CRE tan NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l

'- UN a SEftvicr uTt41!C4 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)

)

APPLICANT'S REPLY TO DEL-AWARE'S RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S REQUEST FOR INFORMATION REGARDING FLOWS IN SCHUYLKILL RIVER Preliminary Statement During the course of the hearings in the above captioned proceeding, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(" Licensing Board" or

" Board")

requested that Applicant provide certain information regarding flows in the Schuylkill River.

The Board requested this information in order to assist it in ruling on the admissibility of proposed Contention V-24, a late contention submitted by Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc.

(" Del-Aware")

relating to one versus two-unit operation at Limerick.

The Board also requested data with respect to changes in the water supply available in the future.

The Board apparently wanted to ascertain whether additional storage on the Schuylkill will increase the availability of Schuylkill water for Limerick's e

8212O20339 821130 PDR ADOCK 05000352 O

PDR

use in the future.

Applicant answered the Board's request on November 9, 1982. S On November 17, 1982, Del-Aware filed a response with information that far exceeded the scope of the Licensing Board's limited inquiry.

Moreover, the information submitted by Del-Aware is inaccurate.

Del-Aware has used the Board's request as a vehicle to clutter the record with erroneous and irrelevant statements regarding so-called

" alternatives" to the Point Pleasant diversion.

Applicant submits the following information to clarify the record.

Argument Among the " alternatives" to Point Pleasant suggested by Del-Aware is the use of more Schuylkill River water than is currently available under the terms of the DRBC order.

More Schuylkill water could be used, Del-Aware alleges, because the temperature restraints on the use of the Schuylkill are

-,/

2

" completely arbitrary."

Del-Aware then addresses the

-1/

On November 23, 1982, after that submission was filed with the Board, the Delaware River Basin Commission

("DRBC")

adopted a resolution denying a petition of Delaware Water Emergency Group, Del-Aware Unlimited, et al.,

to reopen its proceedings granting approval to the Point Pleasant project.

Applicant provided the Board and the parties with copies of this resolution and related documents on November 26, 1982.

In response to allegation 4-C at pp. 5-6 of the " Staff Response to Petitioner's Factual Allegations of September 24, 1982," the Staff concluded that "The difference in the number of days in which Schuylkill River flows would be available for one versus two units is insignificant.

-2/

Del-Aware's Response to Licensing Board's Request for Information Regarding Flows in Schuylkill River (hereinafter " Delaware's Response") at 3.

merits of the 15' C temperature restriction imposed by the DRBC in Docket No.69-210 CP on Applicant's use of Schuylkill River water.

This discussion is completely irrelevant to the Board's request for information and to the proposed contention.

There is no conceivable justification for Del-Aware's attempt to ask this Board to review or consider any restriction imposed by the DRBC to determine alleged arbitrariness.

The temperature restriction was imposed upon Applicant by the regulatory agency with jurisdiction over Applicant's use of Schuylkill River water.

It is clearly not the function of the Board in this proceeding to consider the merits of this restriction, which is necessarily tied up with DRBC's water allocation function and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the Licensing Board. The removal of this restriction cannot be considered an " alternative" to use of Delaware River water.

Del-Aware's suggestion that flows from the Blue Marsh Reservoir could be made available for Limerick is likewise

_3_/

Mr. Hansler did not, in fact, suggest in his testimony before the Board that any change in this restriction is i

contemplated.

Del-Aware's suggestion to the contrary is a mischaracterization of the record.

Del-Aware Response at 3.

4/

Thus, Del-Aware's statement that deletion of this requirement would assure PECO of Schuylkill River water at "most, if not virtually all, times" is irrelevant.

It is also inaccurate and Del-Aware offers no basis for this sweeping assertion.

In fact, flow restrictions alone would prevent use of Schuylkill River water on many occasions.

See letter of October 6,

1982 from Gerald M. Hansler to Judge Brenner,

_4_

baseless.

Applicant discussed with the DRBC in the early planning stages of Limerick the possibility of using flows from Blue Marsh and was informed that this water could not be made available for Limerick. --

Contrary to Del-Aware's assertion, the memorandum to Commissioner Banning of Montgomery County, Pennsylvania attached as Exhibit D to its filing is inconclusive as to allocation from Blue Marsh and does not suggest that the water could be made available for Limerick.

Further, the portions of the transcript cited by Del-Aware do not suggest that Blue Marsh releases would be made available to Limerick.

DRBC has not allocated flows from Blue Marsh Reservoir to Limerick, and has not indicated that such flows will be made available in the future.

It should also be noted that all releases from storage into the Schuylkill would not necessarily be included in a determination of whether flows are sufficient to permit withdrawals for Limerick.

The relevant DRBC docket decision specifically provides:

Schuylkill River water at the plant may be used for consumptive use when flow (not including future augmentations of flow from Commission sponsored projects) as measured at the Pottstown gage is in excess of 530 cfs (342 mgd) with one unit in operation and 560 cfs (362 mgd)

~5/

See attached letter of October 25, 1976 from James F.

Wright, Executive Director of the DRBC, to Mr. Joseph Banta, Borough of Pottstown, stating that Blue Marsh will be needed to meet the requirements of commercial and industrial users in the Schuylkill River, without consideration of Limerick.

See also " Staff Response to Petitioners Factual Allegations of September 24, 1982,"

DRBC, November 23, 1982 at 5-6.

with two units in operation (emphasis added).

6/

Del-Aware asserts that Applicant has

" refused" to consider development of other facilities on the Schuylkill, specifically the Red Creek Reservoir. d!

Even as indicated in Del-Aware's Exhibit I,

a portion of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement

(" Draft EIS")

for the proposed Merrill Creek Reservoir project on Merrill Creek in Harmony Township, Warren County, New Jersey, DRBC, July 1972, Red Creek was considered.

However, after carefully weighing the potential benefits of each alternative, Merrill Creek was selected as the superior alternative.

In selecting Merrill Creek as the preferable alternative, the DRBC stated that Red Creek:

[C]aused adverse impacts on the human environment and resulted in a reservoir of the poorest water quality.

The process of site selection resulted in the choice of Merrill Creek as the preferred site.

Merrill Creek provided a site that had minimal impact on the human environment, involved the smallest loss of land, and created a reservoir of superior water quality.

It offered the l

most reasonable compromise of all factors considered:

environmental

concerns, geotechnical feasibility,

cost, flexibility, and potential for satisfying recreational needs. _8_/

_6_/

DRBC Docket No. D-69-210 CP at 5 (March 29, 1973).

]/

Del-Aware Response at 5.

-8/

Draft EIS for the Proposed Merrill Reservoir Project on Merrill Creek in Harmony Township, Warren County, New Jersey, DRBC, July 1982 at 2-92.

Del-Aware's estimate of cost savings which would result from eliminating Point Pleasant as a source of water for Limerick is inaccurate and without foundation.

Even without Applicant's participation, the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority

("NWRA")

would construct the Point Pleasant diversion.

Moreover, to develop a new reservoir site at this time could require several years to obtain the necessary land and complete engineering studies, plans and specifications.

This would delay the availability of water for Limerick and would hardly result in cost savings.

None of the " alternatives" suggested by Dol-Aware is economically feasible.

Conclusion The "information" submitted by Del-Aware with respect to alternatives to the Point Pleasant diversion is irrelevant to the Board's limited request and erroneous.

Proposed Contention V-24 should be denied.

Respectfully Submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

dea.]ii. 0mm,Ge 14h<0.

Troy B. Conner, Jr.

Robert M.

Rader 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Suite 1050 Washington, D.C.

20006 202/833-3500 November 29, 1982

j.

• a f

&L y'#c. na,bo del. AWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION J. B. MOCHE f

.4,,.

s, 1 P. O. BOX 7350 MEHANICAL ENGINMNG

/

/

f WEST TRENTON, NEW JERSEY 08528 OCT2 71976 S

(6091 883-9500 Noted s

e g

RefeNeHtpuaRTEns tocatio 4

"Ce r e 2 -

?

25 STATE POLICE ORIVE

. UAMES F. WRIGHT WEST TRENTON, N. J EXECUTIVE OtRECTOR October 25,1976

)

Mr. Joseph Bonto Borough Manager

/

/

Borough of Pottstown King and Penn Streets Pottstown, Pennsylvania 19464 3

Dear Mr. Bonto:

h I have your letter dated October 12, 1976, regarding sites for a water supply reservoir to supply the Limerick nuclear plant during periods of low flow.

j You have made some thoughtful suggestions regarding the selection of a reservoir site to which I would make the following comments.

P With regard to the Maiden Creek Project, recent investigations by both the Corps of Engineers and this Commission now seriously question the economic i

feasibility of developing that particular site. More detailed subsurface geologic study has raised problems not heretofore considered. In any event, both the p

Blue Marsh Project (under construction) and the Maiden Creek Project ( or some

[

other citernative multipurpose project which may be identified) would be needed I

to meet future water supply requirements of municipal and industrial users in the Schuylkill Basin, without consideration of the specific need for the large con-sumptive water use for cooling purposes at the Limerick plant (35 million gallons per day) and at other generating facilities in the Delowere River Basin. More-over, since the Blue Marsh Project will not be completed by the Coips of Engineers until the year 1979, it is not at all likely that a second Federally con-structed reservoir in the Schuylkill Basin could undergo the necessary environ-mental reviews, detailed design and construction phases by anywhere near the l

proposed operational start-up of the Limerick Plant in 1981.

i b

With regard to the culm retention basins of the Commonwealth of,-

g Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) has studied that possi-bility and the results of that investigation are contained in a report " Cooling Water Supoly for Limerick Nuclear Power Station" prepared for PECO by i-

_.g, e.

-~

+ ;'

'.:p n.n; n -

Tippetts-Abbett-McCarthy-Stratton (TAMS) Engineers and Architects - May 1973.

Use of the Douglasville, Sanatoga and Vincent retention basins were studied and

' It was determined that about 2270 acre-feet of storage remained, but by recon-

,l struction and raising of the embankments about 4200 acre-feet could be de-veloped at these sites. These storages compare to the more than 11,000 acie-feet

?.

of storage required to supply the Limerick Plant alone. Therefore, additional storage sites would have to be developed and several were:Investigotad by the Company in the vicinity of 1.imerick. However, total opposition was expressed by the local officials to these sites during the Atomic Energ'e Co y Commission (now Nuclear Regulatory Commission) regulatory hearings and th to abandon further consideration of those sites.

E 4

Regarding your third alternative of a reservoir upstream of Pottstown, the Delaware River Basin Electric Utility Group (DRBEUG) has currently, through a series of discrete screenings of over 100 reservoir sites throughout the Delaware River Basin, identified four highest priority sites for furthei consideration. Two 1

of the four sites are located in the upper Schuylkill River Basin above Rearling -

C ~

on Red Creek and Mill Creek. The status of the studies to date is contained in 4

a report " Site Study for a Water Supply Reservoir", prepared'for DRBEUG by TAMS - August 1976.

This Commission, on Septerr.ber 30,1976, has directed the utilities to proceed to develop on applicciion under Section 3.8 of the

\\,

Compact, supported by on environmental report for the construction of the required storage. The application and accompanying environmental report shall be submitted to this Commission by October 1,1977.$

Rother than considering only the water supply needs of the L,imerici-l Project, the utilities are investigating sufficient'sterage to supply a number 3,,"

l of electric generating plants under construction or proposed in the foreseeable 1,

s future. It is hoped, by incorporating all of the, foreseeable,, future needs into.,,,

one storage project, that environmental and economic impacts can be minimiud,,, b c

's

. Sincerelyf p

James F.

right

.h.

c e

-m s -

.\\

s

/

'3 m

\\N s

a 2 3 3

, The Staff is being sorved by mail and Mr. Sugarman by Federal Express pursuant to an agrenmant by th0 parties.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 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

" Applicant's Reply Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law in the~ Form of An Initial Decision" and

" Applicant's Reply to Del-Aware's

Response

to Licensing Board's Request for Information Regarding Flows in Schuylkill River" both dated November 30,

1982, in the captioned matter have been served upon the

,'\\

following by deposit in the "- Hed States mail, by hand delivery or by Federal Expresr

)ted below, this 30th day

+

of November, 1982:

JudgeeLawrence Brenner (2),

, Docketing and Service Section Atomic Safety and Licensing Office of1the Secretary Board U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulato,ry' Commission Commission Washington, D.C.

20555 Uashington, D.C.

205S5 Ann P.

Hodgdon, Esq.

Judge'Richqr# F. Cole Elaine I. Chan, Esq.

~

N "

At0mic. Safety and Licensing Counsel for NRC Staff Board Dss Office of the Executive U.S;J.Nuk4Dar Regulatory Legal Director Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Wahhington, D.C.

20555 Commission Washington, D.C.

205.y5 JGdge Peter A. Morris Atcmic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Cdosrd f',1 Board Panel a

s U.S. UCol.epr Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissica Commission Washington, 9.C; 20555 Washington, D.C.

20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Philadelphia Electric Company s-y Appeal Panel ATTN:

Edward G.

Bauer, Jr.

~

U.S. Neclear Regulatory Vice President &

commiasion General Counsel s

Washington,_D.C.

20555 2301 Market Street 1,

~

Philadelphia, PA 19101 n

s E

/

v

• ' Hand Delivery a

^

l

s

,s

~,.

6 Mr. Frank R. Romano Walter W. Cohen, Esq.

61 Forest Avenue

. Consumer Advocate Office of Ambler, Fennsylvania 19002.l.1 Attorney General

' 1425 Strawberry Square 5

Mr. Robert L. Anthony

.Ha'rrisburg, PA 17120 Friends of the Earth of s

the Delaware Valley N W. Wfl' son Goode P. O. Box 186

. Managing Director 103 Vernon Lane

<\\

j g.', City of Philadelphia Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 j' Philadelphia, PA Mr. Marvin I. Lewis

. Steven P. Hershey, Esq.

6504 3radford Terrace

'f Community Legal Philadelphia, PA 19149

~

Services, Inc.

Law Center Judith A. Dorsey, Esq.

North Central Beury Bldg.

1315 Walnut Street 3701 North Broad Street Suite 1632 Philadelphia, PA 19140 Philadelphia, PA 19107 P

1 Donald S. Bronstein, Esq.

}

Charles W. Elliott, Esq'.

1425 Walnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 123 N. 5th Street Suite 101 Allentown, PA 18102 Mr. Joseph H. White, III y

8 North Warner Avenue Mr. Alan J. Nogee Bryn Mawr, PA 19010

/'

f, 3700 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19104 Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud j

Co-Director, ECNP 433 e

Robert W. Adler, Esq.

Orlando Avenue State Assistant Counsel College, PA 16801 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

DER

" Robert J.

Sugarman, Esq.

505 Executive House Suga; man & Denworth P.O.

Box 2357 Suite 510 t

Harrisburg, PA 17120 North American Building 121 South Broad Street Thomas Gerusky, Director Philadelphia, PA 19107 Bureau of Radiation Protection James M. Neill, Esq.

Department of Environmental Box 217 Resources Plumsteadville, PA 18949 Sth Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.

Third and Locust Streets Director Pennsylvania Harrisburg, PA 17120 Emergency Management Agency Basement, Transportation and Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 A..

A, Ingrid M.

Olson

• • Federal Express

_ _ _