ML20210M706

Forwards Licensee Response to Rl Anthony 860305 Request That License NPF-39 Be Suspended.Anthony Failed to Assert Any Matter Requiring Action Under 10CFR2.206

ML20210M706
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	06/13/1986
From:	Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-#187-2141 2.206, NUDOCS 8702120614
Download: ML20210M706 (20)

Text

r f:

g 5/Yl _

lln%,$Q[db~ lob 0 law orrscss CONNER & WETTERHAHN. P.C. 00CMETED 17 4 7 P E N N S Y LVA N I A AV EN UE. N w. UNC WA S H I % O TO N. D. C. 2 0006 mioS T wien oS June 13, 1986 '87 JAN -7 P3 54 CERN Ah S SCH NOS F S R

• 88088833 3800 -

C ASLS ADOSSSS; ATOseLaw Mr. Darrell G. Eisenhut Acting Director Office of Nuclear Reactor .

Regulation 1 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Genarating Station, Units 1 and 2) ,~

Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 Dear Mr. Eisenhuts

~ on June 2, 1986, the NRC noticed in the Federal'Regis-ter at 51 Fed. Reg. 19803 its receipt of a petition filed by Robert L. ' Anthony on March 5, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 1986 with the Commission 550.100. The petition requested that the NRC suspend the operating license issued to Philadelphia Electric Company for its Limerick Generating Station, Unit-

1. In a letter from you to Mr. Anthony, dated May 27, 1986, you stated that the matter had been referred to you for 'a response pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206.

\ttached are the Licensee's comunents in response to Mr.

Anthony's request. For the reasons stated therein, Mr.

Anthony quires action under has wholly failed to assert any matter which re-Section 2.206. There has been no violation of the Environmental Protection Plan for Limerick inasmuch as none of the recent revisions to the docket 4 decisions of the Delaware River Basin Commission cited by Mr. Anthony involves an unreviewed environmental question regarding operational s

affect the environment.

activities which may significantly As discussed in the attached comments, two of the three provisions for interim supple-i mental cooling water supplies in 1986 recently granted by DRBC in its docket revisions (substitution of dissolved

' oxygen monitoring for temperature constraints and availabil-ity of water allocations from other generating units on the Schuylkill) were previously granted in 1985.

1 The third provision for interim supplemental cooling water supplies recently granted by DRBC for 1986 (releases from Borough of 8702120614 860613 PDR

! P ADOCK 05000352 PDR -

7 Bo a-

. - s- ,

Darroll G. Eiconhut June 13, 1986 Page 2 Tamaqua Reservoirs). None of these revisions involves an unreviewed environmental question regarding operational activities which may significantly affect the environment.

As also explained in the attached comments, DRBC itself determined that the temporary changes in its docket de-cisions for Limerick would have no significant environmental impact. Our analysis also shows that no significant en-vironmental impact reportable under the Environmen t.a1 Protection Plan would occur under the revised docket de-cisions. As always, the Licensee will provide any further information desired by the Staff in reviewing this matter.

Accordingly, Mr. Anthony's petition under Section 2.206 should be denied.

Sincerely, D

, j S G ,2 > < W > .. 't .

t Troy 6nner, Jr.

Counsel for Philadelphia Electric Company TBC/dlf Enclosure cc: Eugene J. Bradley, Esq.

i i

9 l

l t ,

i I

_ . - . - _ . . _ . . _ . - . - . , _ _ _ _ , , , _ _ _ , _ . , , _ _ _ _ . _ . , . _ , . .m., ,, . . _ _ _ _ _ -_.,_..,_,,m, , , , , _ , , _ _ _ _ . , _ , _ . , _ , - _ , _ , , , _ , _ , . _ _ _ . , , , _ _ . . - . , _ _ _ _ , _ - . , , ,

COMMENTS OF PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ON PETITION BY ROBERT L. ANTHONY UNDER 10 C.F.R. $2.206 RELATING TO REVISED DOCKET DECISIONS OF THE DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION FOR TEMPORARY SUPPLEMENTAL COOLING WATER SUPPLIES IN 1986 FOR THE LIMERICK GENERATING STATION This is the third in a series of petitions under 10 C.F.R. 52.206 filed by Robert L. AnthonyM with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") with regard to temporary supplemental cooling water supplies for the Limerick Gen-erating Station, Unit 1 (" Limerick"), owned and operated by Philadelphia Electric Company (" Licensee").

Mr. Anthony alleges in his most recent petition, as he I

has in the past, that certain applications filed by Licensee with the Delaware River Basin Commission ("DRBC") have violated license conditions contained in Facility Operating License NPF-39, Appendix B, known as the Environmental

~

1/ Mr. Anthony states that he is filing his petition on behalf of Friends of the Earth (" FOE") , but gives no evidence that (1) any particular member of FOE has expressly authorized that organization to represent the member's interests in the petition filed by Mr. Anthony or that (2) FOE has ' authorized Mr. Anthony to represent

, the organization in the same matter. See Houston Lighting and Power Company (Allens Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 1), ALAB-535, 9 NRC 377, 390 I

(1979); Texas Utilities Generating Company (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units , and 2), LBP-79-18,  !

9 NRC 728 (1979); Detroit Edison Com)any (Enrico Fermi

'tomic A Power Plant, Unit 2), LBP-79-;., 9 NRC 73, 75-77 (1979).

I i

Protection Plan ("EPP"). On this basis, Mr. Anthony has requested the NRC to suspend the operating license.

The first in this series of requests under Section 2.206 by Mr. Anthony was filed on October 1, 1985, asking the NRC to require Licensee to withdraw an application then pending before DRBC- which sought temporary changes in existing docket conditions for the withdrawal and consump-tive use of water for Limerick Unit 1, during the remainder of 1985, when existing docket conditions would otherwise preclude withdrawal. Specifically, Licensee had sought permission from DRBC, for the balance of 1985, to withdraw water from the Schuylkill River for consumptive use at Limerick Unit I when.the flow at the Pottstown gage exceeds 415 cfs and dissolved oxygen ("Do") levels exceed values incorporated in Docket No. D-69-210 CP (Final) (Revised)

(May 29, 1985).O Subject to various conditions to ensure water quality for downstream users, DRBC approved the

~

2/ The license was issued by the NRC to Licensee on August 8, 1985 for Lime' rick Unit 1.

3,/ See Petition to Require PECo to Comply with the nequirements of License NPF-39, Appendix B, Para. 3.1 and 5.3 and to Withdraw an Application to DRBC to Lower

, Schuylkill Flow Restraint and to Permit Releases from i

, Beechwood Pit (October 1, 1985).,

~

4/ The application submitted to DRBC on September 20, 1985 was furnished :to the NRC by Licensee's counsel on i

I September 23, 1985.

I l .

1

request for a temporary (balance of 1985) reduction in the Schuylkill flow limitation to 415 cfs.E subsequently, the Acting Director denied the relief

, requested by Mr. Anthony in his petition of October 1, 1985.

In that decision, the Acting Director stated his expectation that the Licensee would examine any docket revision "in light of the terms of the license conditions set out above[,) . .

._make the appropriate determinations" required by the EPP and "should the activity involve an unreviewed environmental question, . . . obtain prior NRC approval.b/

Mr. Anthony filed the second in this series of Section

2.206 requests on January 17, 1986, similarly contending that an application filed by Licensee with DRBC on' December 16, 1985 violated certain EPP provisions.2/ That applica-tion sought, for 1986, the withdrawal of Schuylkill River water for consumptive use at Limerick Unit 1 by (1) tempo-rary substitution of in-stream monitoring of Do levels in 1

lieu of the existing 59'F temperature constraint and (2) i i

) ' ~

5/ See Docket No. D-69-210 CP (Final) (Rev. No. 4)

(October 30, 1985).

6/ Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generatinq

! Station, Units 1 and 2), DD-85-18, 22 NRC 870, 872 (1985), quoting Limerick, supra, DD-85-8, 21 NRC 1561, 4

1566 (1985).

l 1

2/ *See Appeal by R.L. Anthony / FOE to the Director, NRR, to

! Requ'.re (Licensee] to Comply with the Requirements of >

l License No. NPF-39, Appendix B, in Applying to DRBC

, (January 17, 1986).

t '

's

. -4 _

transfer of the existing consumptive use allocations of l Titus Generating Station, Units 1, 2 and 3 and Cromby j Generating Station, Unit 2 to Limerick Unit 1. These alternative sources would be utilized when existing docket limitations would otherwise preclude the consumptive use of Schuylkill water for Limerick.8_/

In his January 17, 1986 petition, Mr. Anthony asserted, inter alia, that the application involved an unreviewed environmental question and required NRC approval prior to submission. By letter dated January 28, 1986, Licensee replied to the petition, noting that an evaluation "to 1

, determine whether DRBC's authorization involves any unre-viewed environmental question . . . cannot be performed until the Licensee has had an opportunity to review DRBC's ,

analysis in its decision, if favorable, as well as any 1 l conditions imposed in granting the requested au-thorization."EI '

In dismissing the January 17, 1986 petition and finding no need for a formal decision, the Director stated that Mr.

Anthony "had failed to allege any present violations by PECo F

<i .

i j 8_/ A copy of this application was furnished to the NRC by Licensee's counsel on January 24, 1986.

i 9/ Letter from Troy B. Conner, Jr., counsel for the Licensee, to Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation at 3 (January 28, 1986).

i e;

e"m*9*&&y=---*e*y3% % y-- wwp,t"T"9'-e*mv'CNvm"'ww-'eem--**WT'-enNw"9' W w W v"w'M-rw-r'*wt"vWWeM=r-W*'"-WP"'8-+-*'w"7--"**""-*"-t9'"-Nv' e W WW-'T

4 of any NRC requirements including license conditions."UI The Director observed that "the requirements of EPP are triggered at the time PECo would take any proposed actions and so there could be no non-compliance until the actions were taken."NI The Director therefore concluded that "there is no need for the NRC to act" or issue a formal decision on the matter.NI Following his two earlier petitions, Mr. Anthony filed a third petition on this subject on March 5, 1986, which the Staff is now considering. Mr. Anthony contends that Licens-ee violated the Limerick EPP by implementing the docket revisions granted by DRBC for temporary relief in 1985 and by applying for similar relief for 1986. In particular, Mr.

Anthony alleges that the Licensee's operation of DO moni-toring equipment to obtain data in compliance with the i

revised DRBC docket decision for Schuylkill withdrawals required prior approval by the NRC under the EPP.

ImplementasIan of the relief granted by DRBC in its revised docket decisions has, of course, required Licensee to consider the potential applicability of the EPP's report-4 ing and approval provisions under EPP 13.1. On the basis of M/ Letter from Harold R. Denton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to Robert L. Anthony j (February 26, 1986).

11/ Id. e

1 12/ Id.

4 l

l i

its analysis discussed below, Licensee concluded that no provision of the Limerick EPP had been triggered by the temporary DRBC docket revisions. Mr. Anthony apparently claims, however, that yny revision of the DRBC dockets, no matter how environmentally insignificant, would necessarily trigger the EPP's provisions. His interpretation is plainly wrong because it conflicts with the unambiguous text of the EPP.

Thus, EPP 13.1 states in relevant part:

Before engaging in additional con-struction or operational- activities which may significantly affect the environment, the licensee shall prepare and of record such an environmental evaluation activity. . . . When the evaluation indicates that such activity involves an unreviewed environmental question, the licensee shall provide a written evaluation of such activity and obtain prior NRC approval. When such activity involves a change in the EPP, such activity and change to the EPP may be implemented only in accordance with an appropriate license amendment as set forth in Section 5.3 of this EPP.

A proposed change, test or experiment

shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed i

environmental question if it concerns:

(1) a matter which may result in a significant increase in any

' adverse environmental impact previously evalu-

!' ated in the FES-OL, environmental impact appraisals, or in any decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; or (2) a significant change in affluents or power level; or (3) a matter, not previously reviewed and evaluated in the documents specified in (1) of this Subsection, which may have a significant i

adverse environmental impact. (Emphasis added.]

l

4 In other words, the reporting and prior approval requirements of EPP 13.1 are not triggered unless there is some "significant adverse" impact on the environment, regardless of whether the impact under consideration is a significant increase in some environmental impact previously evaluated or a significant new environmental impact not previously evaluated.

Under this standard, Licensee did consider the appli-cability of EPP 13.1 with respect to the 1985 docket re-visions by DRBC before it implemented each revision and has done so for the 1986 revisions, which it intends to imple-ment once the plant is returned to service. b The DRBC j docket decisions and underlying record of the applications themselves reflect that agency's environmental analysis of the proposed changes to facility operation and demonstrate l that the revised dockets do not contain any matter which I i

will have a significant adverse environmental impact.

The most recent docket decision contains two provisions for Schuylkill withdrawals in 1986 which constitute, in essence, the same temporary relief granted for the latter part of 1985.

In Docket No. D-69-210 CP (Final) (Revised) 1 (May 29, 1985), DRBC approved temporary substitution of DO monitoring in lieu of the 59'F temperature restriction on

~13/ Limerick Unit I was taken off line on May 2, 1986 for

. routine tests and maintenance.

I I

,,p-.-..,-r---- ., ,me,.+..--,,m__

.g Schuylkill withdrawals contained in the original docket.E l The purpose of the temperature constraint was explained as follows in that decision:

Exhibits introduced into the hearing record . . . addressed the rationale for the 59'[F] trigger restriction. In those exhibits, it is pointed out that DRBC's reason for the 59 ' (F] limitation relates to protection of an acceptable dissolved oxygen standard; and further, that higher water temperatures increase f the biological demand rate which in turn reduces the dissolved oxygen concen-tration.M/

Thus, substituting a DO restriction on Schuylkill withdrawals produces a result environmentally consistent with DO levels achievable by the existing temperature constraint. In choosing the Do standard, DRBC not only ensured compliance with water quality standards, but also applied more restrictive standards for protection of fish and aquatic -life in the Schuylkill. This two-tiered Do standard for Limerick withdrawals was recommended by the Pennsylvania Fish Commission.E Moreover, because DO varies over the day, and a number of hours are required to shut down plant operations if the DO criteria were M/ The request for the release of varying amounts of water from other Schuylkill water supply storage was denied.

~ 15/ DRBC Docket No. D-69-210 CP at p. 5 (Final) (Revised)

(May 29, 1985).

16/ Id. at 7.

9 e

- , - _ r.-- - - , , __

• 9-i i

triggered, DRBC created a margin of safety by adding an incremental value to each of the DO values established. E !

On this basis, DRBC concluded:

The objective of the 59' temperature limitation contained in the docket decision, original i was to prevent the '

Limerick project from dissolved oxygen conditions in the aggravating Schuylkill ods. The River during critical peri-temporary substitution of direct each critical dissolved oxygen monitoring at downstream location is consistent with that objective.

In addition, the dissolved oxygen monitors will provide data, not otherwise avail-able to the water resource agencies, for better management of the Schuylkill l

River.H/

DRBC therefore approved the temporary (balance of 1985) substitution of DO standards for the existing 59'F tempera-ture constraint and a monitoring system for recording DO data within 200 feet of each dam on the Schuylkill River located below the Limerick intake.N# As DRBC's analysis demonstrates, no increase in previously evaluated impacts or any new impact resulted from this docket revision because it merely provided a more direct means to achieve desired DO I

levels in the Schuylkill River.

Subsequently, DRBC issued Docket No. D-69-210 CP (Final) (Rev. No. 2) (August 13, 1985). That decision f

17/ Id. at 8.

I 18/ M. at 11.

19/ Id. at 12.

l

f approved the transfer, through the balance of 1985, of the existing consumptive use allocations of Schuylkill basin waters from currently operating generating stations on the Schuylkill (Titus Units 1, 2 and 3 and Cromby Unit 2) to Limerick Unit 1. This transfer would be operative whenever existing flow constraints on Schuylkill withdrawals for Limerick Unit I would otherwise preclude such withdrawals.

Like the earlier docket revision, this approval by DRBC did not involve any increase in any previously evaluated en-vironmental impacts or any new impacts.

As DRBC noted, the purpose of the then existing flow constraint on withdrawalsM was two-fold, .i.e., "to protect water quantity and water quality below the Limerick Station."M# DRBC found that " operation of all units will be coordinated and the total consumptive use will not exceed the consumptive use that is currently available for the existing operating units."M I Thus, no change in the volume of consumptive use resulted.

2_Of The originally approved docket provided that Schttylkill water (not may be used for consumptive use only when flow including future augmentations of flow from Commission-sponsored projects) at the Pottstown gage

, exceeds two units.

530Docket cfs forNo. one Limerick unit and 560 cfs for D-69-210 CP at p. 3 (Final)

,Rev.

( No. 2) (August 13, 1985).

l 21/ id.

22/ Id. at 2.

4

L..

1 I

In evaluating impacts of the transferred consumptive uses on downstream users, DRBC found that the 23-mile stretch of the Schuylkill between the Titus plant and the downstream Limerick plant would be enhanced by the increase l

in stream flow over that distance. The decrease in otream '

flow from Limerick to the Cromby plant, nine miles below Limerick, would amount to only one percent of the Q 7-10 fl0" for that stretch.EI Accordingly, transfer of the Titus/Cromby consumptive use allocations to Limerick result-ed in negligible changes upon the Schuylkill flow regime.

As to impacts on water quality in the affected stretch-es of the Schuylkill, DRBC found that only minor fluc-tuations in the level of total dissolved solids ("TDS")

would result:

The transfer of the location of the consumptive use from Titus to Limerick will result in a slight lowering of total dissolved solids level in the Schuylkill River between Titus and Limerick. At a flow of 360 cfs and with the Titus units operating, the TDS level averages about 375 mg/l and calculations indicate that if the three units were shut down, the TDS should drop to 370 mg/1. At Limerick, when operating with a consumptive use of 5.2 mgd, the TDS would increase from 370 mg/l to 378 mg/l and below Cromby there should be no change in TDS resulting from the proposed transfer.M/

-23/ Id. at 4 O flow is a low daily flow which equals T seven c.onsdebkive day flow so far below average that its expected recurrence is ten years.

24/ Id.

I i i i

--12-- -

Accordingly, DRBC determined that impacts upon water quality were likewise insignificant.

In response to an application by Licensee submitted December 16, 1985, DRBC considered and approved, through December 31, 1986, essentially the same docket revisions it had previously approved for the latter part of 1985, i.e.,

temporary substitution of DO monitoring for the 59'F temper-ature constraint and the transfer of consumptive use allo-cations from other Schuylkill generating units.EI This approval entailed a review of its previous analyses and ap-provals and the adoption of additional conditions appropri-ate to Licensee's request. Specifically, DRBC approved DO monitoring for 1986, subject to an enhanced DO standard to provide special protection for spawning areas during the period of March 1 to June 15, 1986.EI Similarly, DRBC approved transfer of the Titus/Cromby consumptive use allocations for Limerick during 1986, subject to conditions restricting withdrawals based on the time those units had been shut down. E These temporary docket revisions for 1986 were based upon DRBC's review of its earlier evaluation of 25/ See Docket No. D-69-210 CP (Final) (Rev. No. 5) (April E 1986). A copy of this decision was furnished to the NRC by Licensee's counsel on May 13, 1986.

26/ Id. at 6.

1 27/ Id. at 7-8.

4

- 13 = -

environmental impacts 'with respect to the 1985 applica-t' ions.El Therefore, the temporary approvals for 1986, like the 1985 approvals, did not result in any significant adverse impact to the environment.

At the same time, DRBC approved Licensee's request for the releases of water fron the Still Creek and Owl Creek Reservoirs, for 1986, into the receiving streams for subse-quent withdrawal and consumptive use by Limerick Unit 1.EI These reservoirs are owned by the Borough of Tamaqua and are used for municipal water supply. Releases from the Tamaqua reservoirs will be used for Limerick when existing flow or dissolved oxygen constraints restrict the consumptive use of Schuylkill River water  !

DRBC analyzed potential environmental impacts resulting from the release of water for Limerick from the Tamaqua reservoirs. It found that the water to be released would be M/ DRBC's revised docket decisions also considered the

_, environmental benefits of approving the changes, principally, permitting Licensee to continue the ascent-to-power program and commercial operation of Limerick. These benefits are not discussed at length j

here because environmental benefits are not relevant to the requirements of EPP 13.1.

29/ DRBC Docket No. D-69-210 CP (Final) (Rev. No. 6) (April

, 29, 1986). A copy of this decision was furnished to i

i the NRC by Licensee's counsel on May 13, 1986.

30,/ DRBC denied another aspect of Licensee's application

! which sought approval for releases from the Beechwood Pool, a former strip mine controlled by Reading Anthracite. Company, which is presently unused and f filled with approximately 2.2 billion gallons of water.

within the capacity of the receiving streams 'such that no erosion or _ other adverse effects are expected.EI It also found that the water quality of the Tamaqua reservoirs is very good and would actually improve water quality above Limerick. For the stretch of the Schuylkill below Limerick, DRBC determined that Tamaqua releases would have nearly the same impacts as using the approved Point Pleasant diver-sion.N Finally, DRBC found that drawdown of the reser-voirs would not adversely affect embankment stability or the aquatic environment.El on the basis of the evaluation discussed in DRBC's docket revisions as well as its own analyses, Licensee determined that the . temporary changes approved by - DRBC did not trigger any applicable provision of the Limerick EPP.

EPP 13.1 states that Licensee "may make changes in station design or operation . . . affecting the environment provided such activities do not involve an unreviewed environmental question and do not involve a change in the EPP." (Footnote omitted.) As noted, EPP 13.1 defines such a proposed

" change" as follows:'

A proposed change . . . shall be deemed to involve an unreviewed environ-mental question if it concerns: (1) a 31,/ DRBC Docket No. D-69-210 CP at p. 5 (Final) (Rev. No.

.6) (April 29, 1986).

32/ Id. at 7, 10.

33/ Id. at 7-8.

i t

i

matter which may result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated in the FES-OL, environmental impact appraisals, or in any decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board; or (2) a signifi-cant change in effluents or power levels; or (3) a matter, not previously reviewed and evaluated in the documents specified in (1) of this Subsection, which may have a significant adverse i

environmental impact.

Licensee reviewed the approvals granted by DRBC against these criteria. As discussed, the temporary substitution of

(

Do monitoring for the existing 59'F temperature constraint on Schuylkill withdrawals is essentially the same (modified only slightly for the spawning season of March 1 through June 15) as previously approved by DRBC for the latter

. portion of 1985. Similarly, the transfer of consumptive use allocations from the Titus/Cromby units to Limerick for 1986 is essentially the same (slightly modified to take into account shutdown times of the other Schuylkill units) as approved by DRLC for the latter portion of 1985. These

, revisions had only an inconsequential effect on previously analyzed environmental impacts, as DRBC determined in granting Licensee's applications, and therefore did not trigger any EPP provision requiring prior NRC approval.

Nor did releases from the Tamaqua reservoirs for 1986 i

involve an unreviewed environmental question with signifi-

, cant adverse ,

impacts. Tamaqua releases are merely the equivalent of Schuylkill flows which have already been analyzed. Withdrawal impacts upon Schuylkill water quality i

I, t

16 -

and aquatic environment have already been evaluated by the NRC, including Schuylkill withdrawal impacts during the summer months.UI Potential impacts of the releases upon the Tamaqua reservoirs and their aquatic environments were analyzed by Licensee in its application to DRBC and by DRBC in approving the application. These evaluations, as re-flected in the docket revisions, amply demonstrate that no significant adverse environmental impact to the Tamaqua reservoirs and their aquatic environment will result from the releases.

For the foregoing reasons, Licensee determined that there was no requirement under the Limerick EPP to provide a written evaluation to the NRC seeking prior approval for the changes approved by DRBC. Thus, there is no basis for the

relief sought by Mr. Anthony.

j In his petition of March 5, 1986, Mr. Anthony does not state anything to the contrary. He merely recites that Licensee requested and DRBC approved the temporary substi-i tution of DO monitoring for the existing temperature con-straint on Schuylkill withdrawals and the temporary transfer i

34/

~~

See Final Environmental Statement Related to the Operation of Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and i

2, NUREG-0974, at pp. 5-3 to 5-4, 5-9 to 5-17 and 5-28 l .to 5-29 (April 1984) ("FES"). See also Environmental Report - Operating License Stage T'EROL") at pp. 5.1-1 to 5.1-9. Licensee's EROL at 5.1-5, notes that its analyses of impacts upon the aquatic environment are

. applicable to low flow periods, i.e. , sum

ner months .

l

• l!

of consumptive use allocations from other Schuylkill units for Limerick.25,/ Mr. Anthony has failed, however, to furnish any supporting evidence that any applicable pro-vision of the EPP for Limerick has been triggered. He erroneously assumes, without any underlying scientific or technical evidence, that the temporary docket revisions-for 1986 would " result in a significant increase in any adverse environmental impact previously evaluated" or some new "significant adverse environmental impact. 26,/

, Thus, his petition fails to " set forth the facts that constitute the basis for the request."$1/ Absent an adequate showing to pursue the matter, the Director has no obligation to do 35/ Mr. Anthony notes that Licensee requested DRBC to approve withdrawals based upon DO values at five of the six monitoring stations below Limerick. Licensee does not believe that this request, if granted, would have I been reportable under EPP 13.1 or required prior NRC approval under EPP 15.3. Nevertheless, DRBC did not approve this particular aspect of the application, thereby mooting the question raised by Mr. Anthony.

36,/ EPP 13.1.

5 l 32/ 10 C.F.R. $2.206. As the Acting Director previously advised Mr. Anthony in denying a separate Section 2.206 I request, "[a] corollary of the requirement is that the ,

i Petition muret show something more than merely recite facts which the agency has itself developed through inspections, adjudications or notifications. In these latter instances, in the absence of some specific showing to the contrary, it may be presumed that the agency response was adequate." Letter from Darrell G.

Eisenhut, Acting Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor i

Regulation, to Robert L. Anthony (April 16, 1986).

i i

a E- so .El The Director should therefore deny Mr. Anthony's request for relief under 10 C.F.R. 52.206.

5 t

I 38/

See generally Limerick, supra, DD-82-13, 16 NRC 2115, 2171 n.12 and accompanying text (1982). Specifically, the Director "is not required to accord presumptive validity to [Mr. Anthony's] assertion of fact,

. irrespective of its degree of substantiation, or to

. convene an adjudicatory proceeding in order to determine whether an adjudicatory proceeding is warranted." Northern Indiana Public Service Company

~

(Bailly Generating Station, Nuclear-1) , CLI-78-7, - 7 NRC 429, 432 (1978).

t f

. . . _ _,_ _ . . . , _ - . - _ _ . - . - _ _ _ _ _ , . _ . , . - , , _ _ _ - _ ,