ML20071E889
| ML20071E889 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 03/08/1983 |
| From: | Sugarman R DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC., SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071E884 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, NUDOCS 8303140356 | |
| Download: ML20071E889 (6) | |
Text
..
- t..
I f
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
% ?i. T..?.
I j
In the Matter of 03
/gp 77 B0:3p Docket No. 50-352-OL Philadelphia Electric Company :
50-353-OL (Limerick Generating Station, f, g C.,.
Unit I and 2)
REQUEST FOR LATE FILED CONTENTION V-26 1.
Del-AWARE Unlimited, by its
- counsel, hereby requests that the Board give its permission for petitioners 1
to file Late Filed Contention V-26, and avers as the basis thereof the following:
1.
CONTENTION V-26 The parties to the Supreme Court Decree of 1954, 347 U.S.
995 (1954), have just announced the signature of a revised management plan for the Delaware River, which will reduced the minimum flow objective at Trenton to 2,700 cfs, in " drought warning", and to 2,500 cfs in drought conditions, and havc eliminated all minimum flow objectives in times of drought emergency.
As a result, the basis of computa-tion of the reliability of the river follower method as utilized by the Appeal Board in its 1975 decision, and utilized by Applicant and the staff witnesses in this proceeding, i.e.,
the extent oi outage of the
- facility, and the frequency ano seasonality of operation of the intake at flows less than 3,000 cfs,.have been drastically altered.
(
As a
- result, neither the original l
determination of the viability of the river l
follower method, nor the applicant's and staff's evidence concerning the impacts of withdrawals at different seasons (especially in the spawning season and the larval stage) properly address the likely impacts.
8303140356 830308 PDR ADOCK 05000352 0
o.
These matters in combination with those asserted as a basis for Contentions V-22, V-23,,V-24 and V-25, compel the admission. of a late filed contention to consider and dispose of these critical matters.
(Should it be argued that Merrill Creek will maintain the minimum low flow, Del-AWARE points outs that its efforts to consider Merrill Creek in this proceeding have consistently been rebuffed; in any
- event, Merrill Creek would have an in-creased burden to maintain 3,000 cfs flow, which there is no showing it can do,.)
2.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
$ 2. 714 a (1), Del-AWARE sets forth in the following paragraphs its justification for the admission of this Contention.
3.
The parties to the Supreme Court Decree announced there agreement on the new Delaware River Management Plan on February 23, 1983.
Obviously, the reduced flows, drastical-ly affecting the viability of the river follower method, and the relevance of the testimony offered by applicant in support of its contentions that there would be no adverse effect of the intake because the 3,000 cfs minimum flow would protect fish during the spawnir-and larval seasons most of the time, could not have been presented prior to that time, i
4.
It is important to understand that the Delaware f
River Basin Commission has not changed its conditions on 1
3 PECo's withdrawal at Point Pleasant.
That conditions remains that in the absence of compensating releases, PECo must stop withdrawing when the flow in the River drops below 3,000 cfs.
Now that 3,000 cfs has been eliminated in non L'
2
drought conditions by agreement of the pe;rties who consti-tute a majority of the DRBC, it is clear that there will be no maintenance of 3,'00 efs flow.
Even when the objective in non drought conditions, was 3,000, it was violated more than 10% of the time, as recognized in the Appeal Board's deci-sion of 1975.
Now that it is not an objective, it is incredible to think that such a deviation will not dramat-ically increase.
5.
In addition, the Board will recall, the testimony of applicant's witnesses at the hearings regarding the effect of the intake was heavily premised on the applicants position that flows would not drop below 3,000 cfs more than rarely, during the spawning and. larval seasons for American Shad.
Now that the 3,000 cfs has been eliminated, there is no reason to suppose that minimum would be maintained, and there is no basis for believing that the new flow objectives will not be violated as frequently as the old ones were.
6.
There is no other means to protect petitioner's interest.
The argument that the staff makes in its response to Del-AWARE's previous petition, dated February 25, 1983, is
- fatuous, irresponsible, and woefully contrary to the public interest.
The Pennsylvania Fish Commission, it is v
I true, had no alternative, as it stated, to issue a permit for blasting after having been limited in its consideration 3
of the matters it could consider, by the Attorney General of Pennsylvania, to the effects of blasting as such.
Del-AWARE has not appealed before any local Zoning Board; what 1
3
.l.
\\
1 I
happened was that the Township of Plumstead filed suit in
?
Common Pleas Court in Bucks County to stop the project (now pending because it violat'ed local zoning.
As to the DRBC, it did refuse a petition to reopen its proceedings.
l However, there is no showing that the regulations
?
j referred to deals with any other proceeding in any other e
1 body, and is intended in any way to require this Board to abdicate it responsibility under its statutes,.
The staff's effort to drag in such other proceedings, therefore, is 1
E completely unjustified, especially in light of the lack of showing that other agencies will or have the jurisdiction to i
protect the interest sought to be protected herein.
7.
The' petitioners, based on the staff's resistance to any consideration of these issues, are the only ones likely to present the material necessary for the Board to consider these issues.
Again, from the staff's pleadings, it is obvious s
j that no other party will protect the interest asserted by l
petitioner.
]
l j
j 8.
The petitioner's participation will not broaden the proceedings at all.
These proceedings are required to included the full range of appropriate issues related to the operation
- license, including changed circumstances, and petitioner's participation will merely insure that.
For the forgoing reasons, it is requested that the Board permit the filing of Del-AWARE's Contention V-26 as a i
late filed contention.
Sincerely Ol
'g' F g O\\
ROBERT J. 'SUGI4RMAN N
Counsel for Del-AWARE Unlimited, Inc.
Of Counsel:
SUGAPJiAN & DENWORTH 121 S.
Broad Street Suite 510 Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 546-0162 March 8, 1983 57 I
a CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a# copy of the foEc2 going Request For, Late Filed Contention' V-26 by mailing a copy of the same to the following persons this 8gh day of d
March, 1983.
NM J 7 NO:59 Lawrence Brenner, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 2.(k[c"[M.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Richard F. Cole Administrative Judge U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris Administrative Judge U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Ann Hodgdon, Esq.
Benjamin H.
Vogler, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Troy B.
Conner, Jr. Esq.
Conner and Wetterhahn 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C.
20006 Edward G.
Bauer, Esq.
Vice President & General Counsel Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Secretary U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn.:
Chief, Docketing & Service Branch Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 0 O
[
Robert J.
Sugafman
._ - _, ~
-.