ML20083H215
| ML20083H215 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 01/09/1984 |
| From: | Rader R CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Brenner L, Cole R, Morris P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401130078 | |
| Download: ML20083H215 (9) | |
Text
_
6 LAW OFFICES 00CSETED GONNER & WETTERHAHN. P.05NRC 1747 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N. W.
TSOY n. coww En. Ja.
WAS!!!NOTON. D. C. 20000 M Anu J. w zTraRN AHN
= a =1=I " = ^ ""
84 JE 12 A10:18 IMORgM. OLnOM AlcH A. MOOR E. J R.
C O M E NT H. PL' N L -
[g (EhI {,]{
Q
'*%,* U"N......
January 9, 1984
<eO >.aaanOO g
BR t.NCH c ABLE.*.D D R EN N: ATOMLAW Lawrence Brenner, Esq.
Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. Peter A. Morris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 Gentlemen:
Enclosed is a copy of the " Petition to Reopen and for Reconsideration and, to Set Aside Prior Orders, and to Take Other Action as Appropriate" filed by Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc. before the Delaware River Basin Commission on September 2i 1982.
We refer to this petition by Del-Aware at page 16, footnote 24 of " Applicant's Answer to Request by Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc. for Admission of New, Late Filed Contentions V-30, V-31, V-32, and V-33,"
filed on December 29, 1983.
t Sincerely, Robert M. Rader Enclosure cc:
Service List 8401130078 840109 PDR ADOCK 05000352 G
PDR 3 s03
SEP 81982 4
i BEFORE THE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN CO. MISSION
)
IN RE: NESHAMINY WATER RESOURCES
)
Docket No. D-65-76-CP AUTHORITY AND PHILADELPHIA
)
ELECTRIC COMPANY'S WITHDRAWAL FROM )
Docket No. D-69-210-CP THE DELAWARE RIVER AT POINT
)
PLEASANT.
)
Docket No. D-79-52-CP
)
PETITION TO RECPEN AND FOR RECONSIDERATION AND, TO SET ASIDE PRIOR ORDERS, isND TO TAKE OTHER ACTION AS APPROPRIATE Del-AWARE, Unlimited, Inc.,
Val
- Sigstedt, Honorable Rita
- Banning, Limerick Ecology
- Action, Del:uare
' Ta '. e r E..orgcncy Group, Hutton Focycling Cea.1ition, Phyllis 7.itzer, Richard McNutt, Mary Ellen Noble, Virginia Forrest, C.
J.
Gi horc, Anne P. Carney, Judy Zipkin, Jcne and Falton Ccoss, Lee Goldborg, Carla Van Dyk and l'ichelle and Graham Kinn an, by their a f. t o r n e y s, petition this Honerable Cr - -i u:uen to reopen and set aside its Orders in the within procee c'ing s,
purstant to Ecction 3.8 of the Corpact a.d Fccticns 2-1.4, 2-1.7, 2-4.16 of t he Fules, and t he -
inici
- t e F r. _ r.'u r e Act, 5 U.S.C.
$701 et neq.,
and aver cs t '.c
- is theroof the following:
1.
On February 18,
- 1981, this Cc:-imion granted
" final" approval, under Section 3.8 of the Ccmpact and to the inclusion in the Ccmprehensive Plan, of the preposed Neshaminy 17ater Recources Authority nd Philadelphia Electric Company withdrawals via an intake at Point
s t
o
- Pleasant, Pennsylvania, of 95
- mgd, subject to certain l
understandings, conditions, and limitations.
I 2.
7.11 or most of the Petitioners were objectors l
regarding the foregoing Orders.
3.
No construction has been initiated in reliance on the above-mentioned Orders.
4.
Reconsideration, reopening, and recission is war-ranted and necessary in the public interest for the follow-ing _ rcasons, all of which have come into existence and/or been newly recogni;:ed since February 18, 1981:
A.
This Commission's Level B Study, and the dra f t 5
Roccrrendatiens of the Parties reaarding Interstate 9asin O.agonent, and Packground Rr-port, issued in July,
- 1982, reflect a recognition of the inability of the Delattare River Fasin to reliably sustain the proposed w i t h d r c.wa l without unacccptable adverse offects on the water quality and *:ater use needs of the Basin.
The Level B 5:tudy and the Recem-mndations specifically ackntwledge that the prcpeced withdrawal will further expand depletive withdcr;als beyond the capacity of Easin supplics to p. cent calinity ccnt&m-ination, and to insure against exec r mve dienol'ced exygen sags in drought and severe drought conditions, in violation of the present salinity and dissolved exygen standards, in the absence of substantial addit.4 enal s t u r c.g e capacity.
Thus, when joined with existing uses, there is r.o t adequate
.ater to support the preposed use.
In tS ce ci: cuns tc.,ces,
Ccrrission must rescind the above-r,entiened Orders.
s'
.a: :7 '
B.:
There is.no present or. forseeable likelihood th'at the new offsetting storage proposed in the Level B Study and-
.Recommenda'tions can and will be provided.in full, or at least, there is-nc ~ commitment to do so, and prerequisite environmental reviews are.not yet completed, thus legally precluding a present decision.
Moreover, the Commission's environmental studies of Marrill Creek show that withdrawals for storag'e would exacerbate present inability to reliably l
' meet salinity standards.
Other proposed storage projects l
have not been' studied and/or present similar or,ther problems.
Implementation of the proposed Point Pleasant L
withdrawals in the absence of a
determination of approvability and feasibility of the necessary replacement or-additional storage, would practically preclude the no build option, which must be preserved in order to make reaningful environmental decisions regarding the proposed replacement.and additional storage.
- C.
The-proposed depletive uce for Lir erick Unit 2 is not a beneficial use of the waters.
Tnc decision of the Pennsylvania Fublic Utility Ccricsion at Docket No.
160:00431,- on August 27,
- 1982, represents a dacision by Tennsylvania that present or near-term construction of Limerick Unit is not in the public interest.
This finding requires recission-or' suspension of the Order with regard to
- 23. mgd for Unit - 1, and implementation of an alternative available to supply the' needs for eccling Unit 1,
which would not ' further harm the Delaware River, including (a).
=
e o
6 placing the already constructed cooling towers in series, (b) providing alternative storage in the Schuylkill River Basin, deemed less desirable for two units, but more desir-able than Poinc Plecsant for one unit, and which might be directed by this Commission in the public interest, (c) utilizing storage available at the Blue Marsh Reservior, and (d) utilizing other potential local sources of supply in the Schuylkill River Basin, directly or indirectly under the control of this Commission.
D.
Relevant agencies have identif~
~ an adverse im-pact on a National Historic Landnark and on very significant archeological sites, which might require, pursuant to pro-i cedures set forth by the Advisory Council on Historic Pre-servation, in situ preservation of the archeological findr as a result of preproject test digging and studies or entail i
loss of significant unique resources.
E.
Contrary to expectation, it is new clear that in its present location, the intake will adversely affect Lower l.
Black Eddy, a spawning and nursery area, and an important shere fishing area, through the creation of turbidity and through entrainment and impingnent, thus destroying a
significant habitat for American shad, a major cpecies, and other species.
F.
The National Marine Fisheries Service has id e n t i-l fied the probable presence of shortncsed sturgeon, an endan-gered
- species, in the nursery and/or spawning
- stages, rendering them subject to injury by the
- project, and
n recemnended further studies to determine such effects.
While NMFS believed that the intake design would limit exposure, its finding was based in part on the erroneous information supplied to it that the intake would not operate at maximum velocity when river flows are lower than 3,000 cfs (Trenton).
G.
Philadelphia Ent ric Company h;;
identified TCE's, and the Environmental Protection Agency has identi-fied significant amounts of other toxic materials, in the Delaware River from the Lehigh confluence downstream, and 1
including Point Pleasant, which would adversely impact the Perkiomen and Neshaminy Creeks, and cause toxicity in those creeks and the groundwater aquifers, since the Perkiomen is a recharge stream in some reaches.
H.
The NWRA use is not a beneficial use in that (1)
Local suppliers in Warminster and Warrington no longer need Delaware River water because Pennsylvania DER has determined that the cater quality in their local wells is suitable for human consumption as a rcsult of treatment.
t (2)
Contrary to previous i n f cma t ion,
this Cormnission 's ground water study has established the availability of adequate new groundwater sources in local aquifers to supply Bucks and ::entgomery County needs.
(3)
Use of these resources would add to rather than deplete river flows, and thus aid in =ceting, water quality and use objectives.
-S-
.o.
i' (4)
The dedication.of Lake Nockamixon for drought
. flow augmentation in the River makes it no longer detrimental to use ' Lake Nockimixon for drought flow augmentation of' local water supply rather than of the Delaware River, contr&ry to the situation in 198fi.
I.
The approvals should be reopened and reconsidered as a result of the individual and cumulative impact of all Lof these
- factors, which require a
finding that the withdrawal.is not a beneficial use of the water, that there is not adequate water available to permit them, and that L1 css consumptive alternatives are available in light of the I
changing economic and water needs within the Delaware River
{-
Basin, - and this Commission's ccheern over the cumulative l
effect of depletive withdrawals in-the Delaware River Basin.
l 5.
In its 1981 decisions,; expressly and in subsequent I
l correspondence,_ this Commission nade it clear that it was t
leaving resolution of matters relating to historic impacts Land local effects of the intake on fish to the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and NMFS.
- Thus, the 1981 decisions thenselves require reconsideration and reevaluation in light
'of the. prcsont state of ;.he record on those catters, as described in paragraph 4.
6.
In its 1981 PECO decisiens, this Ccmmission or at least-its foderal member. deferred final determination of the
_ Limerick withdrawal,
' including determination of the i
' environmental issues.related
- thereto, to the
':uc lea r l
Regulatory Commission.
In that the Point Pleasant dive,rsion f
i '
r 4
a-x&
is no longer financially viable. without the Limerick subsidies, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission has recognized
^
the need. t'o - evaluate certain environmental impacts of the diversion in more depth.
However, the NRC Board has held that this Commission's determination as to the environmental impacts of ~the allocation of Delaware River water to Limerick ~ (as ' distinguished from the specific aspects of the diversion) in February 1981 is' final.
In that thic Commis-sion or at 'least its federal member did not so finally determine,'.it.lis necessary for this Commission to reconsider
' ts, prior determination in light of the significance now i
placed on it by-the NRC, which is inconsistent with this
.Cemmission's action as,of February 1981.
The present state of the record is that since neither Commission has accepted responsibility _
for setting forth and weighing all the environmental effects and full range of benefits and costs
-with respect to the Point Pleasant diversion, no such disclosure-or weighing purc: ant to the National
. Environmental-Policy Act is or will have been made by any agency unless this Cormicsion dccs so.
6.
As a result of the foregoing, the decisior s repre-seated 'and reflected in the above-mentioned dockets in February, 1981, are no longer in the public interest, are incompatible with' the Compact and the Corrais sion 's Compre-
-hensive Plan, and must be reconsidered, revised, rescindad, and reopened.
. t......
m
f
)
7.
In light of the foregoing, implementation of the project as approved vill substantially and adversely affect the petitioners, their members, the environment, and the interest of users of the river throughout the Delaware River Basin, and therefore cannot be permitted to stand, consis-tent with the Compact, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Historic Preservation..c t Amendments of 1980, the Endangered Species Act, the Fish and Wildlife Coordina-tion Act, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the River and Harbors Act, and the Atomic Safety and Licen-sing Act, and the regulations thereunder, respectively.
.-lli E R E F O R E,
petitioners request that the Com:nis sion
~
rcopen, and, after hearing, set aside, and rescind its Or-decs of February 1981 in these proceedings, and award such other relief as may be just and appropriate, including l
attorney's fees and costs.
1
\\
RGBERT J.
SUGAR".AN4 Attorney for Petitioners Of Counsel:
SUGARMAN & DENNORTH Suite 510 121 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 546-0162 HAROLD A.
LOCKWOOD, Jr Lockwood, Reid, Bolger & Keller 2126 Land Title Building Philadelphia, PA 19110 September 2, 1982 73 _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _