ML20063L240

Urges Initiation of Proceeding to Reopen & Reconsider CPs for Facilities.Request Based Upon Concern That No Thorough Evaluation of Point Pleasant Diversion Will Be Made W/O Change in Scope of Review

ML20063L240
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	09/03/1982
From:	Sugarman R SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20063L241	List: ML20063L240 ML20063L242
References
NUDOCS 8209090010
Download: ML20063L240 (4)

Text

.

o

'l SUGARM AN & DENWORTH ATTOR N EYS AT LAW suitt oos susTE sio, NORTH AM ERICAN sue (DING ROB ERT J. SUGARM AN JOANNE R.DENWORTH 128 SOUTH BROAO STREET (aon m 44eo PH ILAD ELPHIA. P EN N SYLVANI A 19107 (215) 54 6-0662 ROBERT RAYMOND ELLIOTT, P. C.*

COUNSEL

• N oneessto en en September 3, 1982

. Mr. Harold Denton Director li Division of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1 Washington, D.C. 20555 I

RE: Philadelphia Electric Co.

, 50-352 j 50-353

Dear Mr. Denton:

l This will supplement my letters to you dated July 6, j 1982, and August 13, 1982, regarding the necessity for reopening and reconsidering the construction permits for the above projects in light of the changes thereto, and the

present conditions.

l l

Recently, in reviewing documents produced by Philadelphia Electric Company, we discovered a letter written by NRC staff dated January 5, 1981, copy enclosed, in which NRC staff committed to engage in a thorough review of the Point Pleasant diversion at the OL stage, due to the unavailability of detailed information at the CP stage. In our view, this letter makes it clear that there must be a thorough review of all aspects of the Point Pleasant diversion, and not only limited to so-called operating impacts, or those arising from " changes".

Despite the staff's intention, as expressed in the January 5, 1981 letter, it appears that such will not be the case, based on the Licensing Board SPCO of June 1, 1982 reaffirmed in its July 14, 1982 Order. The Board held that consideration will be limited to operating effects and to changes since the original CP proceeding.

in responding to our July 6, 1982 letter the staff in its At the same time, CQ3 July 9, 1982 letter to PECO, limited its information request  ;

i to project changes since the 1973-75 period.

8209090010 820903 PDR O ADOCK 05000352 PDR

1 Mr. Harold Denton Page 2 September 3, 1982 The foregoing suggests that consideration of effects will be limited to those resulting from project changes since the earlier plan.

Indeed, in its response dated August 20, 1982, PECO not only construed the staff request in this limited fashion, but further limited itself to a comparison of the environmental impacts of the changes, and further indicated that the DRBC proceedings could be cited in lieu of discussing the actual impacts in many cases.

In this posture, there appears to be no assurance of the thorough environmental consideration committed by the staff in its letter of January 5, 1981, and also committed to the DRBC and EPA, as reflected in the DRBC proceedings of February 18, 1981. (Copy enclosed)

While there was an Environment Impact Statement in 1973, the staff relied on the DRBC EIS for matters regarding the Point Pleasant diversion, and the DRBC EIS said that the details were not sufficiently developed to evaluate the impacts of the intake at Point Pleasant. (DRBC EIS, at p34, copy enclosed)

Thus, unless present plans are changed, there will have been no thorough review of the Point Pleasant diversion at any time. Dramatic changes continue to occur. Most importantly, I wish to bring to your attention the action of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission on August 27, 1982 i ordering Philadelphia Electric Company to cancel or suspend construction on Unit 2. I request that the staff take note of this action by the Pennsylvania PUC that Unit 2 is not needed and will not be built at any time certain as determinative of the need and necessity for the construction.

In the context of our pending Request to Suspend, etc. it requires new consideration of alternative sources of cooling water supply in light of the necessity for only half of the previously required supplemental water cupply.

Also, I request that you take cognizance of the recent action of the Delaware River Basin Commission in accepting its Level B Study, and publishing its staff findings in the draft Background Report on Interstate Water Management in July, 1982, indicating that reevaluation of the adequacy of water in the Delaware River to support depletive uses without unacceptable consequences has led to a determination that l

such resources are inadequate.

l

Mr. Harold Denton Page 3 September 3, 1982 In addition, the Level B Study also establishes that depletive withdrawals in the non-tidal section of the river adversely affect dissolved oxygen levels at the upper end of the estuary, which is crucial to the passage of fish through that section of the river.

Thus, these changes together should lead to a determination by the NRC that the CP proceedings must be reopened, and reexamined in light of the present factual circumstances, leading to a determination that the depletive use of the water for Limerick Units 1 and 2 is no longer supportable, based on the findings of the PUC and DRBC.

Also, I would like to call your attention to the recent identification of various toxic substances in the Delaware River water, which is proposed to be transported into the Neshaminy and Perkiomen Creeks as a result of the project, this being information which was not available or considered at the CP stage. While seemingly this is a change in circumstance which should warrant consideration in the OL proceeding, the Board has indicated that absent a showing that the transfer of toxics is attributable to a change in the project design, this matter is foreclosed as having been decided at the CP stage. (Order of June 1, 1982, Order of July 14, 1982, at 10-11.) Yet this clearly seems a change in circumstance which requires consideration.

Finally, I would like to note for your attention the Board's Order of July 14, 1982, holding that impacts of the project on the Point Pleasant eligible historic district and the Delaware Canal, aricing through blasting and defacement of the area, are construction rather than operating impacts.

Since the review of the intake and the Point Pleasant aspects of the diversion were limited to the matters available to and reported by the DRBC, and the DRBC had no details on these subjects, design not having been far enough advanced at that time, these matters should further be considered as a change in the CP record requiring reconsideration of the conditions on the permits.

For more than a year now, by correspondence and at the Prehearing Conference, Del-AWARE has been calling on the NRC to conduct a thorough environmental review of the Point Pleasant project. For more than a year, we have been told that such a review would be forthcoming. (Correspondence inclosed) Only in June, 1982 were we informed that nstruction impacts should be separately addressed. Now that we have filed a formal Request under S 2.206, as suggested by the Licensing Board, and have seen the l

i

3 7 ..

-  ? ,

~

Mr. Ilarold Denton Page 4 Septehber 3, 1982

.=

proceedings as they are developing, it..is clest that unless ~--

there is a substantial change in the thrust-and~ scope ofs the review, there will be no thorough evalua' tion 'of the Point Pleasant diversion. At the same time, the applicant han -

suggested that construction will begin en Decembe.r 15, 1982, thus as a practical matter prejudicing, if not ' foreclosing, opportunity for remedial action af ter that Eime.

In view of the necessity to address these satters in a timely fashion, I urge you to immediately initiate proceedings as requested in our letter of August 13, 1982. '

Specifically, I ask you to initiate a proceeding in the Commission. In the event of your failure to do,so promptly; --

we will have to consider other options that may be'6psn~_to-us.

Thank you for your consideration. , s S' cerely _

i

% n' fN Robert J.' ugai2man

~

RJS/amh -

• \ 4 Enclosures , ,

s 9 -

=

(*

%, *e. y

,A.

p ,,

k l

~~

s

4. @i r*[,-'

=

4 .

• =.&

+

h

g 3 ...,,c. .,. m ..is , t.,,y t.t.... ... . . . a'

v. e.un.n... m. o a:.<u..> jn g,i .f j 3; av

?.? ( '

.se j ~ ~ (. .

c. : .o;;.;,. *~

o I >i utn:i: A i : . ,;g:,,;.,,3 JiiH  : r...ii et Hos. 50-352 L

and 50-353 lit J -J b' "d Id k~' ~--~~

JAN 0 S 1981

> -- -. ... _ q Mr. Vincent Boyer ,

Senior Vice Presiderd -

Nuclear Operations Philadelphia Elec t ric Company 73D1 Market Street Ph il.idelphia , Pennsylvania 19101 Deac Mr. Doyer:

SUBJfCT: Lll.L41CK RISr, ASSr% MENT S TUDY This is to thar.k jou .for your December 9,1980 presentation at Pot tstown, Penn .ylv.mia on your h -imerick R{ s k Assessment Study. 1.'e a re look ing forward io rec eipt of the final rnport so that we may be able to review the results in more det ail especially with rega rd to the proposed changes being considered fo r t he L imer ic k st at ion t o improve t he sa fety margins.

P.ct. u .e of the impor t a nce that the NRC places on yonr Risk Assessment Study fur t imerick we again reques t t hat ynu submit your final report as soon as po.sible.

In this regaid,' ue belit ve that it unuld be inappropria t e to com.ence review of your 1%AR prior to receipt. of your final Risk Assessuent S t udy Report . At the lot es t, the final report of the Risk Assessment. Study J

.huold be provided a< a part of your i SAR when it is tendered. -

During the course of the publ-ic meeting held on December 9, several specific issues were raised tha't will. receive part icular a tiention by the s t a f f.

~ ?,rcordingly, you should include a discuss ion of each of these mat ters whenever you ! em!cr your l SAR.

lA) The first arca doncerns a.mrw ncy preparedness as it ef fec t s special inst it ut iens. Rec o9n i z i ng tha t r m ergt ocy perparedness is an ongoing

..r t ivity, 3 0u shuuld p> ovide .uch infor ma t ion in your application paying pat ticular o ttention t o t hose local considera t ions that were discussed a t the public meet ing.

( Q Cooling water supply; and t he divers ion of Delauare River water was dis-

- msed by several participants at the meeting. He recognize that j,he [

finM design of the diversion project was not completed when the 1 inal favironmental Statement was issued for ynor Construction Permits. There-fore, the staff vill t horoughly review the environment al mpac ts

.mociated with ' diversion of Delaware River ua t er. This area should also be thoroughly diwussed in your icodered applicat ion.

N i/

m' ~' uasoM A t

/, ~u:-

• - ' JAh' O 5 1981 c

/ u i

'[c r

E  :!

(

)

The construction of one of the facilities structures was stated to be located on the right-of-way of a public road that runs through the site. inc A specific discussion, 1

i in your application. *

~ L

'~

{

J

)

During the course of construction at the site, the staff expressed'some It concern about the final design and construction of the spray pond.

is our undcrstanding that this will be the ultimate heat sink and therc-  ;

fore must be designed and constructed in compliance with appropriate f regulations and guides. You should address the subject thoroughly in i

f your tendered application so that the staf f can provide an adequate and wy timely review of this item in view of our understand'ing that construction f of the spray pond will start next spring.

i

-you have any questions, please contact the. Project Sanager, D. Sells at n? a!

r: .

01) /192-7792.

b '

Sincerely, Rd 2W

- - Q h 3 .AjaD h ym P,obert L, Tedesco, Assistant Director . phy

%sy for 1-icensi,ng ,

Division of Licensing y.@.'

7 Je . .

t TZ"

_- ; [^!?}

l' w" t' .

q q

> q iSw.

i 2

- , <e 1

M

)

... ..Y.

.V "

i cg f 60

W

.. ;f Pfry f fO:.

%fC

-7.- 7 J

e e s. , -

\M m,,

M $.

t+ -

- . L. d

,; s u , .

I.

. g '5

~

0 .

June 4, 1981 Mr. Robert L. Tedesco Assistant Director for Licensing Department of Licensing U.S. I;uclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear I.:

t. Tedesco:

I represent Del-AWARE Unlimited, Inc., a member-ship organization which is concerned with those aspects of the Philadelphia Electric Company nuclear facility at Lim-erick, Pennsylvania uhich involve diversion of water from the Delaware Fiver. I:y clients have been particularly con-corned with the consumptive use of scarce water resources, mechanisms for provision of storage, and the physical and biological impacts on the affected streams, including the Delaware, the 1:eshaminy, and the Perhiomen, uhich will be attributable to the proposed system.

We understand from various sources that the I;RC uill shortly be studying this proposed diversion in con-nection with a supplement to the EIS for an operating per-tsit for the Lir.:erick plant. 1:y clients have a number of concerns and facts which have not been addressed or con-sidered in the prior invironmental Impact Statement, which, in our view, reouire a further Environmental Impact State-nent, including an interdisciplinary study and opportun-ity for full public comment, prior to the filing of any supplcraental EIS or any supplement to the EIS. The in-forn,ation that we have is unclear as to uhat is envisioned by NRC, as well as to when opportunities will be provided for public input, concerning the scope of the studies and the procedures to be followed , as well as the disciplines to be involved. I would appreciate being inforr.ed as to your plans and the current status, and request that ny client be included in project planning and inplerantation, as appropriate.

Sincerely

e' I-L[a.-e.q-

..  ! i. '

1 June 19, 1981 Mr. Robert Tedesco Assistant Director for Licensing Department of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

Dear Mr. Tedesco :

Enclosed is a copy of my letter of June 4, 1981, regarding an Environmental Impact Statement Supplen,ent for the Philadelphia Electric Company proposed nuclear facil-ity at Limerick, Pennsylvania, requesting to be notified as to the present status and your plans for this matter.

I would appreciate receiving a reply to this letter.

Sincerely, Robert J. Sugarnan

(* .

\

[<t>? .

.,g f*

UNITED STATES

' Y~

g

~

y y ; .,, g g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ~

,' ;C W ASHING TON, D. C. 20555 9

'=*** l'juN 2 2.1981 Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 Mr. Robert J. Sugarman Berle, Butzel, Kass & Case 45 Rockefeller Plaza New York, New York 10111

Dear Mr. Sugarman:

Reference is made to your letter of June 4,1981, relative to the diversion j of water from the Delaware River for the Limerick Generating Station (LGS).

We are currently conducting an acceptance review of the application for operating licenses for LGS tendered on March 17, 1981. If it is determined that the application contains sufficient information to initiate a licensing review, it will be docketed. After docketing, members of our staff will 1-conduct a visit to the LGS site to review the expected environmental impacts

of the proposed plant. During that visit, we will invite participation by interested members of the public which, in effect, constitutes the scoping

! process envisioned by CEQ. We will place you on the distribution list for our correspondence and thus you will be notified of this meeting.

Allocation of water in the Delaware River Basin is under the authority of the Federal Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC). Philadelphia Electric Company -

(PECO) applied to that Commission for the required approval to obtain water necessary for the Limerick plant. This allocation was included in the DRBC's "

Comprehensive Plan for which the DRBC issued an Environmental Impact State-i ment in 1973. More recently the DRBC issued an environmental assessment on the i

final review of ther proposal by PEC0 for a reservoir pumping station and water transmission line project. On February 15, 1980 a negative declaration was i

issued by DRBC based on the environmental assessment of the PECO water project.

t You may wish to obtain the documents mentioned above from DRBC for further i information.

l Sincerely, i

kOg i Robert L. Tedesco, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing

[

l -

,af .f/6flTf0/85 l

k.

Cl! ANGE Ol' ADI;R L: .

ItOltEllT J. S UG AllM AN SUGARMAN AND DENWORT.

ATTOHNEY AT LAW SUITE 510 RM'rmmmmm NORTH AMERICAN BUILDING xistax4: x .xos % 4 0.12 x 121 SOUTil BROA1) STREET g .g I'HILADELPlilA. PA. 19107 (215) 54(A)162 2 3 3 3 fl AIN!!HIDGE NTHEET 1201 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N.W.

Plf!LA 1)ELPHI A. PENNNYLVANI A 1914 6 January 15, 1982 w^"HINuroN. n.c. 20o04 (235) 732-5488 (202) 737-4400 Stephen H. Lewis, Esq.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Executive Legal Director k'a s h i n g t o n , D.C. 20555 RE: Limerick Generating Station Docket 50-352, 50-353

Dear Mr. Lewis:

On June 22, 1981, Mr. Robert Tedesco informed me that I would be included in the distribution list for correspondence, and would be invited to a scoping meeting following docketing of the above application (copy enclosed). I have heard nothing fur-ther on this aspect of this matter.

I would appreciate your advising me of the present status of this sa a t t e r .

In view of the ongoing progress of the proceeding, I am copying the service list.

-1 Sincerely,9 ,

s N m . Q ,, - . . _

\- / s -

Robert .J. Sugarman RJS:nw Enclosure cc: Service List QWYO

,pa asc ,

o UNITED STATES

• E\ Eg

• /, C g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D. C. 20555 Q ' Fj February 4, 1982 Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.

Sugarman and Denworth Suite 510 jM h North American Building 121 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 In the Matter of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353

Dear Mr. Sugarman:

This is in response to your letter to me of January 15, 1982 requesting information on the scheduling of the public " scoping" meeting referenced in Mr. Tedesco's letter to you of June 22, 1981. 'As indicated by Mr. Tedesco, the Staff does intend to hold a meeting in the vicinity of the Limerick plant to receive the views of members of the public on the environmental impacts associated with operation of the Limerick Generating Station.

These views are being sought as part of the process of preparation of the environmental impact statement ("EIS") which the Staff is required to prepare in connection with the licensing of operation of the Limerick facility. 10 C.F.R. 5 51.22, 6 51:26. This meeting is intended, in part, to afford members of the public the opportunity to comment upon the scope of the EIS, although the Commission's regulations do not presently require the Staff to undertake the " scoping" process set forth in the Council on Environmental Quality's regulations. 40 C.F.R. 9 1501.7.

This meeting is currently projected to be held some evening during the periodJjay 11-14, 1982., Since your name appears on the service list for the Limerick prMg, you will be notified of the date, time, and location of the meeting by a notice to be transmitted at least several weeks prior to the date of the meeting. That notice will also state the date, time, and location of a technical _ meeting between the Staff and Applicant to discuss preliminary Staff questions regarding the environ-cental impacts of facility operation. Members of the public will be welcome to attend that meeting as well, but only in an observer role.

~

I RECKEVKD 7

0tM Y FEB 9 1932 L.G. H._1 .1

)  ?

If you have any further questions regarding this process, please do not j hesitate to contact me.

l Sincerely, l

i

//..%w4 l Steph n H. Lewis j Counsel for f4RC Staff cc:

Lawrence Brenner, Esq., Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Peter A. Morris Mr. Frank R. Romano Judith A. Dorsey, Esq.

Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq.

Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.

Mr. Marvin I. Lewis James M. ?!eill, Esq.

Joseph H. White III Environmental Coalition on fluclear Power Themas Gerusky Fent.sylvania Emergency Management Agency John Shniper Robert L. Anthony Alan J. !! ogee W. Wilson Goode William A. Lochstet Charles W. Elliott, Esq.

Walter W. Cohen Robert W. Adler Steven P. Hershey, Esq.

Donald S. Bronstein, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Panel Docketing and Service Section i

] (j3 N p/

(f l [t>R88Cgg 1

y ,,,(f( ,g UNITcD STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Ld&ds

. ' //,. C WASWNGTON, D. C. 20555 / -

i '

May 6,1982 l

Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.

Sugarman and Denworth Suite 510 florth American Building 121 South Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 In the Matter of PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY (Linerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353

Dear Mr. Sugarman:

In a February 14, 1982 letter I advised you that a meeting for the receipt of public input to the environmental impact statement to be prepared by the 14RC Staff regarding operation of the Limerick Generating Station was then scheduled for some evening during the period May 11-14, 1982, as part of the f4RC Staff's environmental site visit. The environnental site visit and public neeting have since been deferred until the late summer or early fall of 1982.

Since the Draf t Environmental Statement (DES) is not scheduled for issuance until May 1983, a late summer or early fall meeting will afford the Staff ample opportunity to take into account the comments of members of the public offered at the meeting in preparing the DES.

As indicated in my previous response, all persons and organizations on the service list for this proceeding will receive advance notification of the date and location of the public meeting. If I can be of any further assistance regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact ne.

Sincerely, Yb LO./A. NYk f Stephen H. Lewis Counsel for NRC Staff cc: see next page p1M

, d, (G'

~,. +. e:.., s (';

(m)

"' L3 t

'T@e @y%s m '

[$

cc:

3 Lawrence Brenner, Esq., Chairman Dr. Richard F. Cole Dr. Peter A. Morris Mr. Frank R. Romano Judith A. Dorsey, Esq.

Mr. Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

Troy B. Conner, Jr. , Esq.

Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.

Mr. Marvin I. Lewis James M. Neill, Esq.

Joseph H. White, III Dr. Judith H. Johnsrud Thomas Gerusky, Director Dir. , PA. Emer. Man. Agency John Shniper Robert L. Anthony Alan J. Nogee W. Wilson Goode William A. lochstet Charles W. Elliott, Esq.

Walter W. Cohen Robert W. Adler Steven P. Hershey, Esq.

Donald S. Bronstein, Esq.

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Secreta ry i

l i