ML20215C054
| ML20215C054 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 10/06/1986 |
| From: | Rader R CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1025 OL, NUDOCS 8610100058 | |
| Download: ML20215C054 (22) | |
Text
.,
j o25
.,s J
DOCKETED USHRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION N (U -8 P4 :31 Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing BoaidiflE " T
.,ty voMLiin.,, c r J:r.!
BR A!;C.
In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
LICENSEE'S ANSWER TO MOTION TO REOPEN BY DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC.
Preliminary Statement On September 23, 1986, intervenor Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc.
(" Del-Aware")
filed a motion seeking to reopen the record with regard to the First Partial Initial Decision
("PID") in this proceeding.
Del-Aware now wishes to liti-gate one contention it previously abandoned at hearings and two denied by the presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board" or " Board") after issuance of the First PID.
For the reasons discussed below, Licensee Philadelphia Electric Company (" Licensee") opposes Del-Aware's motion to reopen and litigate its previously abandoned or denied contentions.
Inasmuch as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
("NRC" or " Commission") has long since taken final agency action on the first PID, and the time for judicial review has also long since expired, no jurisdiction exists to 8610100058 861006 PDR ADOCK 050003S2 G
- e reopen and relitigate the First PID.
Second, Del-Aware's motion falls far short of the necessary showing for reopening under 10 C.F.R. S2.734.
In its earlier denials of Del-Aware's successive motions to
- reopen, this Board rejected much the same arguments now raised by Del-Aware in the instant motion.
Nothing has changed in the interim to warrant a different result.
Accordingly, Del-Aware's motion should be denied.
Argument I.
No Jurisdiction Exists To Reopen The First PID And Litigate Del-Aware's Previously Abandoned Or Denied Contentions.
As Del-Aware acknowledges, its motion to reopen per-tains to findings by the NRC regarding the Point Pleasant diversion project, by which Licensee will obtain supplemen-tary cooling water for the Limerick Generating Station
(" Limerick").
The environmental impacts of operating the supplementary cooling water system were decided in Licens-ee's favor in the First PID.1 The Appeal Board af firmed that decision, subject to a remand on two issues which was concluded.2,/
- Also, the Appeal Board denied long ago 1/
Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-83-ll, 17 NRC 413 (1983).
2_/
- Limerick, supra, ALAB-785, 20 NRC 848 (1984).
On
- remand, the Licensing Board rejected proposed contentions by Del-Aware relating to the impact of the l
supplementary cooling water system upon salinity levels of the Del-Aware River and a newly designated Historic I
(Footnote Continued)
I
' e
~
Del-Aware's motion to " set aside" the First PID based upon
~
allegedly new evidence showing that Licensee "will be unable I
to operate both units at Limerick or to rely on the Point Diversion for supplementary cooling water." !
The Pleasant Commission declined to review any aspect of the First PID.
Del-Aware chose not to appeal final agency action by the Commission with respect to its two litigated con-I tentions, its various motions to " set aside" the First PID and admit new contentions, and denial of its proposed con-tentions on remand.
Under the applicable law affording Appeals,E!
Del-Aware review in the United States Court of the time for seeking review expired sixty days after the f
Commission declined review of ALAB-785 and ALAB-804.
Accordingly, the last date on which Del-Aware could have sought any judicial review was July 19, 1985.
j The time for seeking reopening or reconsideration after l
final agency action before the Commission depends upon (Footnote Continued)
District in the Point Pleasant area.
Limerick, supra,
" Memorandum and Order" (November 8, 1984).
The Appeal Board affirmed denial of the contentions.
- Limerick, supra, ALAB-804, 21 NRC 587 (1985).
i 3_/
- Limerick, supra, ALAB-785, 20 NRC at 883-84.
The Appeal Board also affirmed the Licensing Board's denial of several post-hearing, late-filed contentions i
likewise alleging new project alternatives or f
questioning its feasibility.
4/
The Commission declined review of ALAB-785 and ALAB-804 on February 22, 1985 and May 20, 1985, respectively.
~
i I
5_/
See 28 U.S.C.
S2342(4); 42 U.S.C. S2239.
i 4,.,-..m,..--,. - _ _ _,.
.-,,__,.,__m.,~,,,g..,,
,,.. --~____. -.. --,_.
%---..,m
whether an aggrieved party seeks judicial review.
It is well settled that the filing of a petition for review in the United States Court of Appeals deprives the Commission of jurisdiction over its final agency action, absent approval proceed. !
Accordingly, the by the Court of Appeals to Commission ruled in Diablo Canyon that "[u]nder 28 U.S.C.
S2347(c) the Commission should
- not, without judicial
- approval, reconsider a
decision after the filing of a
petition for judicial review."1 In those cases in which a petition for review has not been filed, the Commission's jurisdiction to reconsider or reopen final agency action does not run indefinitely.
- Rather, as the Commission determined in St.
- Lucie, its jurisdiction is co-extensive with the 60-day period in which a party may file a petition for judicial review in the Court of Appeals.8_/
With respect to the First PID, that jurisdic-tion ceased to exist on April 23, 1985 as to all but the two remand issues, and on July 19, 1985 as to those issues.
6/
Public Service Company of Indiana, Inc.
(Marble Hill
~
Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-493, 8 NRC 253, 258-59 (1978).
7/
, Pacific Gas and Electric Company (Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), CLI-65-14, 22 NRC 177, 179 (1985).
8_/
Florida Power and Light Company (St.
Lucie Nuclear Power
- Plant, Unit
- 2),
CLI-80-41, 12 NRC
- 650, 652 (1980).
(
I
\\
_3_
- Thus, the Commission no longer has jurisdiction to reconsider or reopen in the adjudicatory proceeding its final agency action with respect to matters encompassed by the First PID.
Even if the Commission itself had jurisdiction, this Board cannot exercise jurisdiction which was previously delegated, but long ago expired upon the issuance of the First PID and passage of time for reconsideration.
II.
Del-Aware Has Not Met Its Heavy Burden To Reopen The First PID On Its Abandoned And Denied Contentions.
Under 10 C.F.R. 52.734, a motion to reopen a closed record must meet three criteria:
(1)
The motion must be timely, except that an' exceptionally grave issue may be considered in the discretion of the presiding officer even if untimely presented.
(2)
The motion must address a signif-icant safety or environmental issue.
(3)
The motion must demonstrate that a materially different result would be or would have been likely had the newly proffered evidence been considered i
initially.
Additionally, the motion "must be accompanied by one or more affidavits which set forth the factual and/or technical i
l bases for the movant's claim" that the three criteria have been met.1#
- Where, as
- here,
" multiple allegations are i
i 9_/
i
.m.__
-. _, _.. _. ~,_,. _ _, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _. _,, _ _ _. _ _, _ _ _ _ _.. _.
involved, the movant must identify with particularity each issue it seeks to litigate and specify the factual and/or technical bases" in support of its claims.10/
Finally, a motion to reopen "which relates to a
contention not previously in controversy among the parties must also satisfy the requirements for non-timely contentions in S2.714 (a) (1) (1-v). "E!
Del-Aware's motion is deficient on its face because it does not discuss the reopening criteria in terms of the three new contentions it wishes to raise.
- Also, no affidavits with supporting factual or technical bases have been filed to show compliance with the criteria for reopening.
Further, Del-Aware has not even attempted to address the factors for admitting late contentions.
A.
Modification Of The Bradshaw Reservoir Involves No Significant Change.
The first matter raised by Del-Aware concerns an application by Licensee before the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources
(" DER") requesting an amendment to DER Permit No. DAM 09-181.
Licensee proposes to redesign and thereby reduce the capacity of the Bradshaw Reservoir as previously approved by DER in State permit proceedings.12/
10/
Id.
M/
M/
The permit for the Bradshaw Reservoir and two related DER permits for construction of Licensee's (Footnote Continued)
_7 Del-Aware asserts that the reduced capacity of the reservoir will entail "significant destabilization of the reservoir" and impede "the applicant's ability to regulate flows into the east branch of the Perkiomen Creek (to which the reservoir would discharge), thereby i'ncurring signifi-cant and adverse erosive effect due to rapid changes in discharge rates into the water body."El No competant basis in the fields of hydraulics or hydrology or any related scientific or engineering disci-pline has been of fered by Del-Aware to support these alle-gations, let alone to show that any "significant safety or environmental issue" has been raised.
- Indeed, the only evidence submitted by Del-Aware is Licensee's application, which itself expressly establishes that the modified reservoir "will not significantly change the environmental effects evaluated with the original reservoir" and "will not include any changes which will alter the DER's Division of i
i (Footnote Continued) supplementary cooling water system were approved by the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board, as affirmed i
by the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, in Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc. v. DER, 1984 EHB 178 (1984), aff_'d, 503 A.2d 348 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1986), Etitions for allowance of appeal pending (Pa., filed May 15, 1986).
M/
Del-Aware's Motion to Reopen at 2-3 (September 23, 1986).
Dam Safety's previous review of the safety and engineering aspects of the project."14/
Moreover, the NRC has repeatedly held that the mere application by Licensee to another agency for certain action with respect to its supplementary cooling water system does not create a
basis for reopening under the NRC's requirements.In ALAB-785, the Appeal Board affirmed the Licensing Board's denial of Del-Aware's motions to reopen, which sought to raise the impact of decisions in other agency proceedings.
The Appeal Board stated:
Moreover, Del-Aware would have us act on the basis of rulings of other federal and state entities concerned with various aspects of Limerick and the
[ Point Pleasant Diversion]
project.
Apart from the facts
- that, in many instances, these rulings are not final and that overall the situation is rather dynamic, we must decide only the federal questions before us, without being unduly influenced by the decisions of others with differing concerns and responsibilities.
Accordingly, we deny Del-Aware's motions to set aside the 14/
Application for Dam or Water Obstruction Permit, filed by Philadelphia Electric Company on July 2,
- 1986, Attachment A (description of proposed modification to Permit No.
DAM 09-181).
The Department of Environmental Resources in its Environmental Assessment Point Pleasant Water Supply Report and Findings Project (August 1982), its basic review document for the ' Point Pleasant project, found at page 88 that
" [ t] he proposed Bradshaw Reservoir complies with all
- design, operating and safety standards established under the Pennsylvania Dam Safety and Encroachments Act."
The applicable portions of this document are attached as Appendix A.
}
Board's partial initial decision on the basis of new evidence. M/
Further, Del-Aware has not shown why Licensee's appli cation before the Pennsylvania
- DER, if
- granted, would significantly affect the outcome of this proceeding if reopened.
Del-Aware does not point to any finding or conclusion in the Limerick Final Safety Analysis Report or Environmental Report - Operating License Stage that would be affected.
It also fails to point out any factual finding or legal determination in the closed record of this proceeding which would be affected.
Accordingly, Del-Aware has wholly failed to demonstrate the existence of any significant safety or environmental issue, or that the outcome of the proceeding would be changed if the record were reopened.
Del-Aware has also failed to address the criteria for late-filed contentions.EI M/
- Limerick, supra, ALAB-785, 20 NRC at 884 (footnote omitted).
16/
Although Del-Aware asks that Contention V-16b be reinstated,. it is readily apparent that the contention
~
it now seeks to litigate raises an entirely different matter i.e.,
the
- impact, if
- any, of reducing the capacity of the Bradshaw Reservoir.
This may be compared with Contention V-16b as
- admitted, which alleged a
" substantial risk of groundwater contamination and hydraulic saturation due to seepage from the Bradshaw Reservoir and the transmission mains."
Limerick, supra, LBP-82-43A, 15 NRC 1423, 1486 (1982).
- Second, although Contention V-16b was
- admitted, Del-Aware voluntarily abandoned it at the hearing.
In (Footnote Continued)
B.
Del-Aware's Other Contentions Were Previously Denied And Need Not Be Reconsidered.
Del-Aware also seeks admission of new contentions which are the same or similar to issues it raised before the Appeal Board in motions to " set aside" the First PID.
In one contention, Del-Aware now alleges that reduction in the an " erosive capacity of the Bradshaw Reservoir will create effect on the Perkiomen."
In another contention, Del-Aware proposes to litigate "the availability of alterna-tives to the
[ Point Pleasant]
water dive r sion. " --
Del-Aware has shown no basis for reconsidering the Appeal Board's rejection of these issues more than three years ago.
Without any scientific or engineering verification to support its
- claim, Del-Aware asserts that reducing the capacity of the Bradshaw Reservoir will create
" rapid changes in discharge rates" into the East Branch Perkiomen (Footnote Continued) the midst of the proceeding, Del-Aware conceded that "we just have no basis upon which to contest that [the findings of the project's engineer, a witness at the hearing] at this point" (Tr. 2033).
The stipulation of dismissal was entered (ff.
Tr.
2370-71).
Once abandoned, the contention was on the same footing as any other " contention not previously in controversy among the parties" within the meaning of 10 C.F.R.
S2.734(d), which requires satisfaction of the lateness crit.eria.
H/
Del-Aware's Motion to Reopen at 5 (September 23, 1986).
Presumably, Del-Aware is referring to the East Branch Perkiomen Creek, which will receive releases from the Bradshaw Reservoir.
18/
Id.
l Creek.EI Nothing in the application states that pumping rates at the Bradshaw Reservoir or discharge rates into the East Branch will be changed as a result of reducing the reservoir's capacity.
Del-Aware cites earlier decisions of the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board and,the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission relating to the potential for erosion in the East Branch, but ignores the fact that the Appeal Board in ALAB-785 was well aware of these decisions and ruled that they provided no basis for reopening.EI As to the availability of project alternatives to provide a different source of cooling water for Limerick, Del-Aware relies upon a temporary revision of Docket No.
D-69-210 CP (Final) issued by the Delaware River Basin Commission ("DRBC") on April 29, 1986.
In this decision, DRBC expressly states that the purpose of the application 19/
Id. at 3.
20/
Limerick, supra, ALAB-785, 20 NRC at 883.
Del-Aware also fails to state that the decision of the PUC Administrative Law Judge was overturned by the full Commission.
The matter is now pending before the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.
As to the decision of the Environmental Hearing Board, Licensee determined that the instream velocity permitted for discharges into the East Branch would not interfere with Licensee's operation of its supplementary cooling water system.
Inasmuch as Licensee accepted the Environmental Hearing Board's restriction of instream velocity in the East Branch to avoid erosion, there is nothing left to litigate.
Licensee remains bound by DER's restrictions on instream velocity, regardless of the configuration of the Bradshaw Reservoir.
"is to obtain temporary relief, through December 31, 1986, from two existing docket limitations and thereby increase the frequency that water may be withdrawn from the Schuylkill River for evaporation at Limerick Unit
- 1. " - !
There is no suggestion in this decision that the temporary relief afforded Licensee to increase the frequency that 2Y$
Schuylkill water would be available for withdrawal at y
Limerick in any way provides a realistic, long-term alterna-tive to the Point Pleasant diversion project.
In ALAB-785, the Appeal Board denied Del-Aware's motion to reopen the First PID on the basis of alternatives to the Point Pleasant diversion project, including Schuylkill River alternatives such as the Blue Marsh Reservoir. --
- Moreover, Del-Aware has previously raised essentially the same con-tention as the one here before the Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 52.206.
In a petition filed November 21, 1984 and supplemented on February 11, 1985 and March 28, 1985, Del-Aware:
refers to an application filed by the Licensee with the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) for interim supplemental cooling water and urges that the interim solution proposed by the Licensee constitutes a long-term or permanent solution superior to that 2_1/
DRBC Docket No. D-69-210 CP at p.
1 (Final)
(Rev. 5)
(April 29, 1986).
Licensee has kept the NRC fully informed as to its applications before DRBC and has routinely transmitted a copy of pertinent decisions.
22/
Limerick, supra, ALAB-785, 20 NRC at 883.
~.
currently planned,
- namely, the (Point Pleasant Diversion]
Project.
In es-sence, the supplement urges that there are alternatives to the PPD Project which are superior to that Project from an environmental perspective including the interim proposal suggested by the Licensee and urges.that those alterna-tives be examined and adopted for permanent use in supplying supplemental cooling water for the Limerick facili-ty.2_3/
Noting that Del-Aware's " allegations are simply a repetition f
of claims made over a number of years which have been repeatedly rejected by every forum which has dealt with them," b the Director denied relief.
Now, Del-Aware is once again before the Licensing Board seeking to litigate exactly the same matter.
None of the materials attached by Del-Aware to its motion demonstrates that the matter has been timely submit-ted.
No factual or technical support is provided for the allegations that reducing the capacity of the Bradshaw Reservoir will result in a new potential for erosion in the East Branch.
The partial, interim relief granted Licensee by DRBC for 1986 also fails to show the existence of an
~
alternative to the Point Pleasant diversion project.
- Thus, Del-Aware has failed to raise any significant safety or environmental question.
Finally, Del-Aware makes eo showing 2_3/
Limerick, supra, DD-85-8, 21 NRC 1561, 1562-63 (1985).
24/
Id. at 1566.
?
.n-,
,-,-,,g--,---,
- O that the outcome of the proceeding would be different if reopened to consider these matters.
Conclusion The Commission and its adjudicatory boards lack jurisdiction to reopen the adjudicatory record which concluded with final agency action on the First PID.
Therefore, this Board may not consider Del-Aware's motion to reopen.
In any event, the motion is wholly without merit.
Del-Aware has failed to meet the regulatory criteria for reopening a closed record, provide any factual, technical or scientific information supporting its
- motion, or even address the criteria for admitting new late contentions.
Accordingly, the motion should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
h.
4 Troy B.
Conner, Jr.
Robert M. Rader Nils N. Nichols October 6, 1986 i
r l
l
,,, _ p. ?.M ;.';g$ *,
- y " '..,i! %,. r
[...L W'*.:.
?T.j fi.M; >,
.g
., A,
+/
phi.'
j',
G,57.4/dYEt s. 'd APPENDIX A-E,.[ 'bh <
e,
..e wg e.,
7:
a kk 'le) Ah-l ~ :
'hs}$_
y&.-
g;y
- 1..
- i y, ~[*. h
..'!~n :?!Jti '-
AET,y'-
~
i
_3.,,w.-
gc,
.s...
j?
ENVRONMENTAL
~
i
~
V,A, ASSESSMENT 4 s
. 3d i'*.A..
REPORT AND F NDINGS
~t,
s*
9' 1
PO NT PLEASAN. O WATER SUPPLY PROJE
. WL,;
- a n x.;
.4 o
~ a ;s y_
e1
-CI
- j
-m.:.'
1-W 4':= ag a.
t J.3:d; ;iy.
-F
~'#'4, COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA
..)i n.s.,,
v "E.'
iDEPARTMENT OF L
~ f.] ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
^
i u :..
, w" T g
.~1M' i
m.g s, a,
>W.
a s.
(3)
Bradshaw Reservoir 9
1 y
The Department's Division of Dam Safety has conducted a careful review of the safety and engineering of the Bradshaw Reservoir.35 (a)
Geology The bedrock underlying the site is Lockatong Argillite, characterized by dark grey 1
"I color, fine texture and its bedded and fractured nature. The top surface of the bedrock is highest in elevation in the borrow area, southeast of the reservoir area and adjacent to the Point Pleasant Pike. The elevation of the rock falls off to the north toward the Delaware
.I River and toward highway 413. The bedrock in the reservoir area rises and falls with the surface topography.
Overburden is uniformly an impermeable silty clay averaging 6.5 feet in depth. Zones e
of weathered shale frequently found on top of the bedrock are badly broken and thin bedded.
These thin bedded zones belong to the parts of detrital cycles which are 14 to 20 feet thick and recur frequently and persist laterally. The badly broken parts are associated with fractures and will be linear and narrow and separated by wider areas of tough, massive rock.
The geology of the site and design are adequate to provide a suitable dam foundation.
(b)
Seepage l
Although the solid argillite is impermeable, bedrock in the site is weathered and fractured, allowing secondary porosity and transmissivity of groundwater. Therefore, the entire reservoir floor will be covered with a 2-foot thick impermeable blanket liner
}
composed predominantly of clays and fine silts.
-6 The estimated permeability of the proposed clay liner is 1 to 5 x 10 cm/sec. For the area of the proposed reservoir, this would limit seepage from Bradshaw Reservoir to a rate in the range of 0.1-0.5 mgd. This rate would be further limited by the tight rock formations and low transmissivity of the Lockatong, and relatively high groundwater tables in the area.
Any " mounding" of groundwater in the Bradshaw Reservoir vicinity, due to seepage, is l
likely to be minor. Because of low transmissivity rates of the Lockatong, gradients of seepage flow to the groundwater table will be steep. Assuming the water table lies at
- f. u n e* ;
n.
GfR '
'p 4.m l
3 se,;-
- 4 d,.., p, j,.
i.,
e D2 ENVIRONMENTAL
~
D~
n_r ASSESSMENT 1 REPORT AND FINDINGS ik POINT PLEASANT 41 WATER SUPPLY PR
~;.y y
' \\
.2?[
l4-
- 4. -
i e
es;
'd m!
y A^"l,,.q d'-
I.' COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA Od; *
.4
- l'
~
DEPARTMENT OF i
~ 6 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
} +mp;g
.,.)
h
~.paye..A -
J 4
3.wg:.,
47AE.,
i
' in ;'. '"., W 1 s..
,4; d
<r 30 feet below ground surface (as evidenced by the elevation of nearby springs and streams),
i the seepage " mound" will most probably extend well within 100 feet of the reservoir edge.
Even with greater transmissivity rates, the effects of a " mound" would reach out a f
maximum of no more than 1000 feet.
The elevation of groundwater could impact wells, septic systems, springs and base-ments if located within the zone of mounding.
However, no wells, septic systems, structures, or significant springs are located within the maximum probable area of influence (100 to 1000 feet) from the reservoir.
As noted previously, sampling of the Delaware River water in the vicinity of Point f
Pleasant does g evidence the existence of significant levels of toxies or priority pollutants. Almost all priority pollutant parameters analyzed were at or below detectable
~ #
limits. Even if some seepage of water transferred from the Delaware occurs at Bradshaw Reservoir, such seepage should have no measurable effect on the quality of groundwater in the area.
y Under DER's dam classification system, Bradshaw has been determined to be small size with significant hazard potential (C-2). In accordance with current regulations, the spillway design flood for this dam is in the 100-year to 1/2 PMF frequency range.
~
Since the reservoir is off-stream, the uncontrolled drainage area behind the embank-I ment is limited to the surface area at top of dam level (18.8 acres). Sources of inflow to the reservoir are (1) rainfall on the reservoir surface, and (2) water pumped from the Point Pleasant Pumping Station.
An emergency spillway, designed to pass the maximum inflow to the reservoir from the Point Pleasant Pumping Station, will be provided to prevent embankment overtopping in the event of pump control failure.
Freeboard has been provided above the emergency i
spillway design high water level to store all of the rainfall from the 1/2 PMP event without m'
W overtopping the embankment.
b The dam will be constructed as an earthfill embankment. A cutoff trench will be f
l excavated to impervious material along the centerline of the dam, with a bottom width of 7.5 feet and 1 to 1 side slopes.
-- r b
m' Embankment side slopes will be 3 to 1 upstream and 2.5 to 1 downstream, except at
=
the pumping station intake. The upstream side slope at the intake will be 2 to 1.
The top a
width of the dam will be 14 feet. The dam crest will be at elevation 438.0. Stone riprap and a filter blanket will be placed on the entire upstream slope for erosion protection. A toe drain will be incorporated into the entire length of the downstream slope.
Two 12-foot wide access ramps will be formed into the embankment. One will be located on the western portion of the downstream slope. The other will be located on the 1
southeastern portion of the upstream slope.
A 20-foot wide roadway paved with asphaltic concrete will provide vehicular access to the pumping station. The roadway will run in a westerly direction from the Danboro-Point Pleasant Pike, onto the crest of the dam, and will terminate at a parking area adjacent to the pumping station.
s Stability analyses of the dam were carried out utilizing soil parameters determined in laboratory tests on soil samples taken at the site.
The stability of the upstream and downstream slopes at the maximum section were evaluated by computer simulation. Corps of Engineers Program 741-11-F5030, " Slip Circle Slope Stability with Side Forces" was utilized to evaluate steady state seepage and sudden
=
drawdown conditions. The minimum factor of safety found under the steady state seepage condition was 1.54.
The minimum factor of.afety found under the sudden drawdown condition was 1.77. These are greater than the mi umam factors of safety recommended by the Corps of Engineers Manual, EM-1110-2-1902, " Stability of Earth and Rock-Fill Dams".
}
The Department has found the method and schedule of operation adequate to assure safe operation of the dam. As noted previously in this report, water level in Bradshaw Reservoir will be maintained within the range of 52 MG (at elevation 431.8) and 70 MG (at elevation 435.0) by controlling the operation of the Point Pleasant Pumping Station. Pumps at Point Pleasant will be automatically controlled to maintain water level in Bradshaw
]
Reservoir as withdrawals are made. In the event of failure of the pump control system, causing continuous pump operation and resulting in above-normal pool levels in the
, ]
reservoir, alarms would be sounded at two remote locations and the pumps would be manually shut down. If the pumps could not be shut down, the emergency spillway would
}
overflow, thus protecting the dam from overtopping.
T _
F
!l An Operation and Maintenance Manual for the reservoir and pumping station will be prepared by PECO's engineer during the construction phase of the project and will be subject to this Department's review and approval prior to start-up of reservoir operation.
An i
emergency warning system and evacuation plan will be submitted to and approved by the Division of Dam Safety and local emergency management officials prior to commencement of storage of water in the reservoir. PECO will be required to submit annual reports regarding the condition of the dam, certified by a registered professional engineer, to the Division of Dam Safety on or before October 1 of each year.
Findings As a project to develop water supplies for public water supply and cooling water 1.
purposes, the Point Pleasant Project has a clear need to develop the proposed facilities in or adjacent to the waters of the Delaware River, North Branch Neshaminy Creek, East Branch Perkionen Creek and Pine Run.
The development of the proposed withdrawals is reasonably necessary to serve present purposes and future needs in the service area of the Neshaminy Water Supply System within Bucks and Montgomery Limerick Nuclear Counties, and to supply cooling water for operation of the Generating Station.
2.
The proposed Point Pleasant Project, properly constructed and operated, should present no significant threats to life or property.
The proposed Bradshaw Reservoir complies with all design, operating and safety a.
standards established under the Pennsylvania Dam Safety and Encroachments Act.
The operation of both public water supply releases to the North Branch b.
Neshaminy Creek and releases to the East Branch Perkiomen Creek will be adequately controlled during potential storms and high flows to avoid exacer-bating flood events.
Blasting during project construction will be carefully controlled, limited, and c.
monitored, in accordance with a prescribed plan and procedures, in order to avoid damage to nearby structures, including facilities of the Delaware Canal.
=j J
1 4,,
DOLKETED USNRC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 16 0CT -8 P4 :33 0FFICE OF E.. :. iAs f In the Matter of
)
00CKETING & SEFVif:I.
)
BRANC" 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 " Licensee's Answer to Motion to Reopen by Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc." dated October 6, 1986 in the captioned matter have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 6th day of October, 1986:
Helen F. Hoyt, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Chairperson Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Docketing and Service Section Dr. Richard F. Cole
~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Atomic Safety and Commission Licensing Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Senjamin H.
Vogler, Esq.
Washington, D.C.
20555 Counsel for NRC Staff Office of the General Dr. Jerry Harbour Counsel l
Atomic Safety and U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Licensing Board Commission r
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C.
20555 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 l
l i
l t
Atomic Safety and Licensing Angus Love, Esq.
Board Panel 107 East Main Street U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Norristown, PA 19401 Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Robert J.
Sugarman, Esq.
Sugarman, Denworth &
Philadelphia Electric Company Hellegers ATTN:
Edward G. Bauer, Jr.
16th Floor, Center Plaza Vice President &
101 North Broad Street General Counsel Philadelphia, PA 19107 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 John L. Patten, Director Pennsylvania Emergency Mr. Frank R.
Romano Management Agency 61 Forest Avenue Room B-151 Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Transportation and Safety Building Mr. Robert L. Anthony Harrisburg, PA 17120 Friends of the Earth in the Delaware Valley Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.
106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 City of Philadelphia Moylan, PA 19065 Municipal Services Bldg.
15th and JFK Blvd.
Charles W.
Elliott, Esq.
Philadelphia, PA 19107 325 N.
10th Street Easton, PA 18064 Spence W.
Perry, Esq.
General Counsel Maureen Mulligan Federal Emergency Limerick Ecology Action Management Agency P.O. Box 761 500 C Street, S.W.
762 Queen Street Room 840 Pottstown, PA 19464 Washington, DC 20472 Mark L. Goodwin, Esq.
Thomas Gerusky, Director Pennsylvania Emergency Bureau of Radiation Management Agency Protection l
P. O. Box 3321 Department of Environmental l
Harrisburg, PA 17105-3321 Resources Sth Floor i
Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
Fulton Bank Bldg.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Third and Locust Streets Commission Harrisburg, PA 171.70 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 1
l i
=,
William A. Welliver, Ed.D.
Gene Kelly Senior Resident Inspector Superintendent U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Spring-Ford Area School Commission District P.O. Box 47 199 Bechtel Road Sanatoga, PA 19464 Collegeville, PA 19426 Ralph Hippert Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency B151 - Transportation and Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 Theodore G. Otto, Esq.
Department of Corrections Office of Chief Counsel P.O. Box 598 Lisburn Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Timothy R.S. Campbell, Esq.
Director Department of Emergency Services 14 East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19380 A. Lindley Bigelow Coordinator of Emergency Preparedness Montgomery County 50 Eagleville Road Eagleville, PA 19403 Roy C. Claypool, Ed.D.
District Superintendent Owen J. Roberts School District Administration Building R.D.
1 Pottstown, PA 19464
._ [A _
L Robert M. Rader
___