ML20093D286

Petition for Reconsideration of Sections of ALAB-785 Re Discharges Into East Branch Perkiomen Creek.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20093D286
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	10/05/1984
From:	Sugarman R DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC., SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#484-387 ALAB-785, OL, NUDOCS 8410110182
Download: ML20093D286 (7)

Text

f.- .

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOLKE3D NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC- SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAM 001 -9 N1 MB In the Matter of  :

0 ,E'.T. Y.I. Cj5 [ ~

Philadelphia Electric Company  :

Docket No.0363g2g,0.L' '"

50-353-DL (Limerick Generating Station,  :

Units I and II)  :

PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION Del-AWARE Unlimited, by its counsel, hereby petitions for reconsideration of certain aspects of ALAB 785.

These are directed at certain legal conclusions of the Board, especially those related to discharges into the East Branch Perkiomen Creek, and alternatives, EAST BRANCH PERKIOMEN As submitted to the Licensing Board, in October, 1981, Del-AWARE formulated its contention NoV-16 to the Licensing Board as follows:

1

' The discharge of the water into the Perkiomen, and into the Schuylkill will cause toxic pollution and thus substantially and i

adversely affect fishing and drinking water supplies. The discharge into the Perkiomen will also cause destabilization, flooding and otherwise adversely affect the Perkiomen.

In addition, Del-AWARE stated the basis of its I

contention as follows:

Basis: EPA water quality surveys show the Delaware River to be extremely toxic. There is no such showing as to Perkiomen or Schuylkill water. Applicant and DRBC have wholly f ailed to review this. EPA has made

._ ' - no determi7ation, and DER's water quality L

determination in connection with the NWRA intake does not address A pp lica n t 's discharges and is under appeal in the 8410110182 841005 PDR ADDCK 05000352 O PDR L

Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board.

In its' June 1, 1982 Order, the Board found the contention and basis inadequate. (Slip Opinion, pp 98-99)

Long afterward, in the Sprlng of 1984, Del-AWARE obtained a copy of a PECo 1972 memo indicating that the Company had clearly opted to cause erosion in the East Branch in order to obviate'the biological concerns which NRC scientists had expressed with regard to channelization, (the intent up until then).

A copy of this memorandum was furnished to the Licensing Board and to this Board. (Motion of July 5, 1984, refiled August 6, 1984)

In its appeal to this Board, Del-AWARE assigned as error a refusal of the Licensing Board to admit the contention.

The opinion of this Board at ALAB 785 was ambiguous as to whether it ref erred to this issue. At one point, page 26, it refers to the Contention V16 as related to impact on " receiving streams". This refers to the East Branch Perkiomen; in the context of the contention as formulated by Del-AWARE, there is no other interpretation. In addition, the ALAB 785 authorizes Del-AWARE to reformulate its contentions originally advanced as V16; it does not distinguish between the Del-AWARE formulation and subsequent ' revisions.

Nevertheless, Del-AWARE is concerned that, because of the reference to " salinity" repeatedly in ALAB 785, which is not a problem in the East Branch Perkiomen, the parties and Licensing Board may construe the Board's remand as limited to salinity in i-2 I

L.

the Delaware River,. and not to include .the " receiving streams" as

'. originally proposed by Del-AWARE in contention V-16.

~

In. addition to this uncertainty, ALAB 785 does not reflect any disposition of the motion regarding the East Branch Perkiomen, and indeed does not mention the East Branch Perkiomen

> by_'name as.a water quality contention. Del-AWARE therefore respectfully requests that the Appeal Board clarify and

. reconsider its decision so as to make it clear that Contention V-16 should have been admitted, and to allow hearings thereon, or to permit a' reformulated contention.

s

. ALTERNATIVES t

- The Appeal Board, in ALAB 785, has f allen victim to a misuse of . statistics, and has therefore found that there is no factual basis for the consideration of alternative's by the r

' Licensing Board. (ALAB 785, at 5 8-60) The fallacy-relates to the assertion by applicant and others supporting the project-that' with one unit rather than two, Limerick would still require water

, sources' other. than the Schuylkill (under existing restrictions)

'almost as many days of each year as with two units. So far, the statement.is true.

The fallacy is the assertion that that fact has anything "to do with the feasibility of Schuylkill River alternatives. The

-feasibility of Schuylkill River alternatives, M fact, is not determined by the relative number of days that water _ is required; it is controlled principally by the amount of water required in .a year. One unit at Limerick would use approximately 20 mgd; two units-would use.approximately 40 mgd; therefore, with one unit at Limerick, . half as much supplemental cooling water is needed as 3

1 1

I I

with two units. Since reservoirs, including but not limited to Blue Marsh Reservoir, are available, the number of days of demand and the demand each day are of little importance.

If this fallacy is corrected, it becomes clear that,  !

contrary to the conclusions of the Licensing Board and to this j Board's ALAB 785, the difference between two units and one unit, in terms of need for supplemental cooling water, represents a dramatic (50%) differential.

It was based on this fact that appellant Del-AWARE sought to show the Licensing Board that Blue Marsh Reservoir, together with other Schuylkill River Sources, would clearly pro-vide an adequate alternative for one unit at Limerick, but not clearly _for two units. This alternative had not been considered

~

in the FES at either the construction or licensing stage. The reason was that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and DRBC had

~

-informally indicated to PECo in 1969 and 1970 that they would not allocate all of water supply storage in the reservoir to one large industrial user. (See Eg DRBC E15 p.4, (1973) Of course, in so stating, they were-assuming two units at Limerick.

(Similarly, Mr. Hansler's testimony purported to present only his views, and is not conclusive), nor does he comment on the liklihood of changes in the current restrictions.

By definition, it follows, that with one unit at Limerick, only half of the water supply storage would be involved. Moreover, as Del-AWARE showed in its previous submissions, the water supply storage at Blue Marsh has been significantly modified, such that there is now 25% more storage.

Thus, the dramatic differential in water requirements 4

in one unit versus two units makes it possible, both physically and within policies of water resource agencies, to consider the Blue Marsh as a full or partial alternative for one unit at Limerick.

In these circumstances, the Licensing Board should have admitted a contention based on the increasing probability that only one unit at Limerick will be constructed. At least,

. pursuant to NEPA, the probability of Limerick being only one unit is sufficient to require identification and consideration of such an alternative.

These facts, combined with the support of Fish and Wildlife Service for the use of Blue Marsh, thus demonstrating the feasibility of its use in. relation to the effect on other interests, ' requires its consideration.

CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing, intervenor Del-AWARE Unlimited-respectfully requests that this Board reconsider ALAB 785 in the respects indicated, and issue a modified opinion accordingly.

Res ctfully submitted,

\ ..

ROBERT U.* S M$N Counsel for ehvenor -

Del-AWARE Unl ited Of Counsel:

Sugarman, Denworth & Hellegers 16th floor, Center Plaza 101~ North Broad Street

Philadelphia, PA 19107 215-751-9733 Date

October 5, 1984 r35.rjsII/sp 5

l L_

- UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARDCKETEG v5NRC In the Matter of  :

Philadelphia Electric Company : 3 El M8 (Limerick Generating Station, : G.rfiz 3r SEca c ,.

Units I and II)  : 00CMEilNG & SEfe/iG BRANCH CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the fore-going Petition for Reconsideration by mailing a copy of the same to the following persons this 5th day of October, 1984.

Christine N. Kohl, Esq., Chairman Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Gary J. Edles Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Administrative Judge U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ann Hodgdon, Esquire Benjamin H. Vogler, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Troy B. Conner, Jr. Esquire Conner and Wetterhahn

~

1747 Pennsylvania Avenue Washington, D.C. 20006 Edward G. Bauer, Esquire 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 e

e n

Atomic Snfaty and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nucle &4 Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Charles W. Elliott, Esquire Brose and Poswistilo 1101 Building lith & Northampton Streets Easton, PA 18042 Martha W. Bush, Esquire Kathryn S. Lewis, Esquire 1500 Municipal Service Building 15th and J. F. Kennedy Blvd.

Philadelphia, PA 19107 John.E. Flaherty, Jr., Esquire Fred T. Magaziner, Esquire Lois Reznick, Esquire 3400 Center Square West 1500 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19102 Jay M. Gutierrez, Esquire U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 i

d N . '29 % U Ufd(i,)*

Dated: October 5, 1984 Yobert J. Sugarman I