ML20093E257

Answer Opposing Applicant Motion for Affirmation of Authorization.Board Should Require Assurance from Applicant That Needed Cooling Water Available Before Issuance of Ol. Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20093E257
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	10/10/1984
From:	Sugarman R DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC., SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
Shared Package
ML20093E241	List: ML20093E238 ML20093E257 ML20093E285
References
OL, NUDOCS 8410120032
Download: ML20093E257 (14)

Text

r:

w -

"~

[' D

/

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA /d ZoCCCD a '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION f- - ,

LE OCT 1M34%5 '

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING BOA wr c.;&

6 s::r.rhanAli.dC sim:nac 6 In the matter of )

)

gjI 'b' \ g s PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY- ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

)

Judge Helen F. Hoyt, Chairman Judge Richard F. Cole

, Judge Jerry Harbour ANSWER TO APPLICANT'S MOTION FOR AFFIRMATION OF AUTHORIZATION

] Intervenor submits ghat the Applicant's Motion under 10 C.F.R. $50.57 should be denied for the following reasons:

1. As determined repeatedly by this Board, the jurisdiction over, supplemental cooling water' issues resides

j. exclusively in the Appeal Board. See Licensing Board Memo.

LBP 83-25 (April 27, 1983), pp. 47 13, rev'd other grounds, ALAB 726. (Jurisdiction must be in one place or the other).

(See also Metropolitan Edison Co. , LBP 82-86, (ship op, at 6, Sept. 29, 1983) 10 C.F.R. $2.764(b) (staff to issue only l-when authorized by an initial decision); See, g ,. Order of l

April 19, 1984, at 3-4). That continues as lo'ng as timely motions for reconsideration, or Petitions to the Commission

. for Review are pending. The action of the Appeal Board in holding-that this Board continued to have jurisdiction over such issues after its PID of March 8, 1983 until exceptions E

&OG9fosh G.

l .

were filed is precedent. (Appeal Board Order of May 2, 1984 (ALAB 726) pp.4-6). Both a Motion for Reconsideration and E an Appeal are pending, and-others may be filed. Copies of the pending Motion for Reconsideration and Petition are attached hereto as Exhibits Al and A2.

2. The question at issue has already been determined by this Board, which determination is law of the case; the existence of an supplemental cooling water system (SCWS) environmentally acceptable to the NRC is a prerequisite of an operating license; the fact that additional alternatives would not require environmental ~ reviews or delay the oper-ating license is irrelevant . The question at hand is whether an operating license can issue where the environ-mentail effect of low power testing will include, in all probability, the effect of an SCWS and no SCWS has been approved, and no jurisdiction is retained to preclude use of the unreviewed SCSS. Were the licensee to propose a license which does not authorize drawing from the Point Pleasant SCWS this could be different.

3. This Board, in its Pretrial Order of June 1, 1982, reaffirmed July 14, 1982, and reiterated in the Board's PID dated March 8, 1983, (page 8) and most recently reiterated in the Board's second PID, dated August 29, 1984, have produced an unbroken chain of precedents stating that the timely consideration of environmental impacts of the SCWS is required, and that the timely consideration requirement necessarily entailed the completion of environmental reviews 2

y - , * - , - - ,.,,,.s--,-m - ,,, ,e - , . _ - . . , , ,

--..,.,,w ,,y -. -,, yry -- ,,.

J o.

prior to implementation of the proposal, especially where the only means of implementing a conclusion that environmental effects are unacceptable is to deny or prescribe conditions on the OL (as was done in the Baord's March 8, 1983 PID). (See, e.g., June 1, 1982, at 82-88; July 14, 1982 Memorandum, at 2-3; PID of March 8, 1983, p.8; PID of. August 29, 1984 p.1) ("all other issues -- which are prerequisite for authorization of the low power operating licenses: - "other" can only relate back to the SCWS issues decided March 8, 1983, and referenced immediately prior to the quote).

4. The Board also recognized the interrelationship between the prospective operating license date (no exception

, being made for low power operating) and the inception of construction of the supplemental cooling water system, and thus with the completion of construction; and the Board recognized, on being' so informed, by the applicant, that supplemental cooling water would be necessary for low power testing. (Testimony of Vincent Boyer, following Tr. p. 949, at 157; October 4, if82)

5. Even assuming that the Board determines to reach the issue, despite lack of jurisdiction and despite the fact that it has already decided the question, the Board should .

deny the Motion for the reason that the Applicant has chosen to stubbornly persist in an Application under 10 C.E.F.

$50.57 even though it cannot operate in accordance with the Application, even if granted operating privileges. The 3

U_ _ .. N-_ _ N .- . . . .

' application (EROL 2.2 and SER -

rev. Sept. 4, 1984) represents that supplemental water will be available for operations and cooling tower backup, respectivrily. This is not true. Thus, the draft OL cannot be issued because applicant cannot operate in accord with the Application, as required by 10 C.F.R. $50.57 (c) and 10 C.F.R. 50.57 (a) (1) ,

(a) (2) , and (a) (3) .

6. As stated by the applicant in amending its SER on on September 4, 1984, Open Issue No. 2 (Kemper to Schwencer) regarding cooling tower backup, the supplemental cooling water system is a safety related as well as an environmental component of the proposed operation. The Perkiomen intake is expressly relied on therein for emergency water, but

. since the flow of -the Perkiomen is not available to appli-cant most of the year, this necessarily entails dependence on Point Pleasant. (E . g. , EROL, at 3.3-3, Question E 240.3

~

~

. (Section 2.4-3) following TR 950.) (Perkiomen only available 4% of days.)

7. In these circumstances, giving special consider-ation to applicant's cries of urgency would be rewarding bad management. As stated in the Appeal Board's September 26, ALAB 785:

There is no question that PECo has some formidable obstacles to surmount if it is to operate both Limerick Units 1 and 2 in the manner currently proposed. Whether PECo will change its plans to effect an easier resolu-tion of the problems confronting it is a matter for PECo's management, and possibly its shareholders, to decide. (ALAB 785, at 62) 4 l

4 Indeed, it is clear on the face of the rectrd,' and on the basis of other evidence offered by the applicant elsewhere, that supplemental cooling water from the Delaware (or else-where) may or will be necessary for the low power testing, or at the very least, will be necessary in the likelihood that such testing extends into May, 1985, and later.

Contrary to the unsupported statement in the Applicant's Motion, nowhere in the application or the record is it or can it be shown that the Applicant will or can conduct low power testing without cooling water other than from the Schuylkill and Perkiomen, as presently restricted. Such an

.important fact cannot be presumed.

8. Moreover, as recognized in this Board's Order of August 29, 1984, the Board's authorization for low power testing applies to both Unit I and Unit II, so that even if Unit I does not require fuel for low power testing, and even if the grant ~ of ' low power testing does not of necessity l

entail the ultimate grant of operating license, which would l

l. so involve supplemental water; then clearly, the authoriza-tion to issue a low power license for Unit II will entail the use of supplemental cooling water. (Order, p. 264. )

9. The Operating License proposed for issuance by the staff confirms the invalidity of present authorization:- it would state, contrary to fact, that alternatives have been studied and an ultimate cost benefit evaluation has been made. (See Letter to Bauer, October 2, 1984, and draft OL enclosed.)

5

10. In the alternative, the Board would be authorizing I

a useless or frivolous act in- allowing low power testing, when full operations will require supplemental cooling water, and no supplemental cooling water system has com-pleted environmental review by this Board. The cost and

benefits cannot be subsumed in any existing overall cost benefits evaluation, ,as contemplated by the Board's PID, since no such overall' cost benefit evaluation can be made while no determination has been made that the impacts of the supplemental cooling water' system are immaterial or de minimus, in light of ALAB 785.

11. In pleadings and testimony before the Bucks County Court, PECo itself acknowledged that the supplemental cooling water system was a necessary element in the operating license determination. Reference is made to Testimony of Vincent Boyer before the Bucks County Court, November 29, 1983, and, e.g., deposition testimony by Messrs. Bradley and Pyrih (Trial Transcript not prepared) .

I

12. Similarly, the staff has acknowledged the need for consideration of the environmental impacts of the supple-mental cooling water system prior to issuance of the operat-l ing license (even if not safety related) . This occurred in a letter from William Dircks to Congressman Kostmayer, dated I

April 2, 1984, pages 1 and 3 and in a staff decision by Harold Denton dated June 29, 1984, fn.2. Both suggest review of cooling water systems (they are referring to substitute . systems), could delay Limerick's operating 6

i

. i' license. See also PECo Memo of Informal telecon with NRC staff, 4/17/84. Surely this must be as true of Point Pleasant as it.is of alternatives, where the Appeal Board .

has now determined.that complete consideration has not been

- given to the impacts on the Point Pleasant Historic District and the Delaware River salinity, as well as possibly Del- .

. aware River water quality and the Perkiomen Creek.

13. Applicant's unsubstantiated argument that it will suffer losses of $1 million daily by delay also cannot be accepted as true. ^t assumes two unproved facts:

_ one is that Applicant will ultimately succeed in getting a license at all. Applicant's seco'nd assumption of fact, equally unstated, is that operating Limerick will be more economical than shelving it. In fact, Applicant has failed to inform the Board that on September 28, 1984, the Pennsylvania PUC j

granted a petition filed by Applicant to insure that if and when Limerick'I comes -on line, ratepayers will absorb the

interest cost retroactively to the present. In these circumstances, it may a matter of economic indifference to Applicant when Unit I goes on line. Nor can it be argued that the Board should be concerned about the alleged cost of delay to the ratepayers, since there has never been any finding in these proceedings or otherwise, based on current cost of the proposed generating station as compared to fossil fuel cost for applicant's existing plants, that the utilization of Unit I will result in a cost savings to the ratepayers. To presume the damage to Applicant or its

. 7

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

o a-

~

ratepayers from delay, therefore, is either to assume that Unit I will go on line, thereby prejudging matters at issue in these proceedings, or that it should go on line in the ratepayer.'s interest, thereby prejudging a cost benefit analysis which has not been, made. Nor can it be assumed that delay will result in net cost to ratepayers, even if Unit 1 goes on line eventually; delay may save money. Nor can this be considered an academic question, in light of the conclusion of the State of New York regarding Shoreham, that it may be more economically for the ratepayers to abandon a completed nuclear facility, rather than operate it. Note that the argument here is not that the Board should conclude

- that Limerick I is not economic, and/or that acceleration is i

not beneficial; but only that no assumption can be made by ,

this Board in passing upon the Applicant's Motion.

14. Intervenor submits that the time has finally arrived at which serious consideration must be given, by the appropriate organ within the NRC, to a sound and responsible i

supplemental cooling water program for Limerick. Appli-l l

cant's assurances and claims have proven worthless. In 1983, PECo assured the Appeal Board that all permits for Point Pleasant had been issued, and that Point Pleasant could be constructed, in good time to meet the needs of l Limerick, including those for low power testing. Repeated 1

statements of like kind have been made, but what has emerged instead, including what has emerged in the Appeal Board of this Commission, shows that an ill-conceived project, 8

(

l i . _ . __,_. ___ _ , ,

planned without regard to such environmental effects as channelization, intake location, pollution importation into

upstream creeks, impacts on valuable historical resources, and inconsistency with water quality objectives, has turned into a race to find compromises to patch-up the scheme, as these effects have been gradually uncovered. Rather than a full history of adequate environmental review, there has been, on the contrary, a patchwork scrambling to cover up problems as new problems arise, in what may be called the most extraordinary coverup since Watergate. (See Memo of 12/15/72, previously furnished to Baord 7/5/84.)

15. The original inspiration for the diversion from the Delaware River was a dam to be constructed far upstream on the Delaware, Tocks Island Reservoir, which would, as it was planned, have provided more secure resources than are available in the Schuylkill River Basin. (See DRBC Approval, 1973 an'd 1975.) The Tocks Island Reservoir does not exist, and will not exist in this generation. On the other hand, Blue Marsh, which was not thought to be avail-l able, because two units at Limerick would require a commit-ment of the entire reservoir, and because it would not be ready on time, has been completed, is ready, and because its waterpool has been enlarged, and Limerick is only one unit, at present, can easily handle. applicant's needs.. (See Goodell Testimony, Exhibit A to. Appeal Board Brief.)

16. Whatever relevance the Point Pleasant construction status and position of the owner Neshaminy Water Resources 9

l

Authority, may have, the' fact is that the project is stopped. The last construc_ tion equipment, a temporary bridge over the historic Delaware Canal, was physically removed, and cut up into pieces, on September 27-28, 1984.

Construction contracts have been terminated. The NWRA and the contr, acted operator and lessee, Bucks. County, Pennsyl-vania, have decided not to build the project.

17. There can be no doubt that PECo has a substitute supplemental cooling water system available under wraps. In July, PECo testified under oath that, with maximum speed, the supplemental cooling water system could be ready in the Spring, only if construction was started. by September 1.

Construction has not been started, it is now October 10th, and there is no prospect for an early start of construction.

Yet, on September '14, 1984, despitethese facts, PECo

testified before a Special Committee of the Pennsylvania General Assembly ' that it is confident that it will have I

supplemental cooling water in the spring. Similarly, while professing to be concerned about Point Pleasant, PECo senior l

executives told rating agencies in June, 1984 and repeated under oath in Bucks County Common Pleas on the witness stand in August, 1984, that they were confident that substitute cooling water sources would be available. (See NWRA Trial

- Exhibits 23) In these circumstances, there is no justifica-tion for refusing to consider these alternatives, there is no urgency, and no need to rush to judgment to permit PECo l

10 l

l ...

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

-e to continue its efforts to implement Point Pleasant through fear.

18. In ALAB 785, the Appeal Board stated that PECo's directors and possibly its shareholders were the parties concerned. The other side of the coin is, whether the NRC will, in that context, reflect a deliberative posture, or permit its processes to be used to permit PECo tio continue to , avoid the need to identify the substitute supplemental cooling water system.

CONCLUSION This Board should not permit the NRC to be stampeded into closing its eyes to reality. Given that review of Point Pleasant by this Board is not completed, that obvious alternatives have not been identified or considered' and that the water is or may be needed for low power testing, fo'r safety as well as environmental reasons, and that PECo holds the key to the door, the Board should not ignore the issues. It should instead, require the applicant to assure the Board that the needed cooling water is now available, prior to authorizing the operating license, even limited to low power testing.

L In any event, for the reasons stated, the Board l

cannot authorize an OL for low power testing.

l The following appendices correspond to the

! numbered points.above, and provide, in the time available to l

I l

l l

11

c.

r.

+

~

the Intervenor, the documented sources for the factual statements in the Answer.

Respectfully submitted, ,

s a/' r ROBERT J.(SUeARMAN Counsel for int'ervenor Of Counsel SUGARMAN, DENWORTH & HELLEGEPS 16th Floor, Center Plaza 101 North Broad Street Philadelphia, PA 19107 (215) 751-9733 Dated: October 10, 1984

'007

.~ . . .

G i

12 l -

r UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

• cv NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ' 1%

/_ J BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY LICENSING BO 4 i

In the matter of ) i OCT 101984> Es

• DocxrnNO&

) (

1 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY )

)

Docket Nos.;5 ME[ 3 .

g M

(Limerick Generating Station, ) b ,

Units 1 and 2) )

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that I have served a copy of the foregoing Answer by mailing a copy of the. same to the following persons this 10th day of October, 1984.

! Judge Helen F. Hoyt, Chairman

• Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

$ Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Judge Richard F. Cole *

~

N Docketing and Service Section

, Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Office of the Secretary i

-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C._20555 I

Judge Jerry Harbour * -MM- Ann Hodgdon, Esquire N i Atomic Safety.and Licensing Board Office of Executive Legal Director l' U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

• Troy B. Conner, Jr., Esq. M

! U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Mark J. Wetterhahn, Esq.

Washington, D.C. 20555 Conner & Wetterhahn 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

, Washington, D.C. 20006

. Philadelphia Electric Company Thomas Gerusky, Director Attn.: Edward G. Bauer, Jr. Bureau of Radiation Protection V.P. & General ~ Counsel Dept. of Environmental Resources 2301 Market Street Philadelphia Fulton Bank Bldg, 5th Floor Third and Locust Streets Phyllis Zitzer, Esquire Harrisburg, PA 17120

' Limerick Ecology Action P. O. Box 761 Thomas Y. Au, Esquire Pottstown, PA 19464 Commonwealth of PA

- Dept. of Environmental Resources

' Hand delivery f

, ,-w,-,..-.-p--. -

-w. . . . , . . - - - , , , - - - . - . . , , , . . - , - . - - . . - , . - . ., .,.-.,,.,-..m. ..---.,m-,..-.-,.w.~,--e- ..---.--,.--,-,-e,--. _ _ _ _

. l DIvid Wersan, Esquire 505 Executive House l ACsistant Consumer Advocate P. O. Box 2357 1 Office of Consumer Advocate Harrisburg, PA 17120 1425 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, PA 17120 Spence W. Perry, Esquire

. Director, Pa. Emergency Mgt. Agency- Associate General Counsel B2sement, Transp. & Safety Bldg. Federal Emergency Management H2rrisburg, PA 17120 Room 840, 500 C St., N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20472 Martha W. Bush, Esquire -

Deputy City Solicitor Robert Anthony City of Philadelphia 103 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Municipal Services Building Moyland, PA 19065 15th & JFK Blvd.

Philadelphia, PA 19107 Marvin Lewis

. 6504 Bradford Terrace Jacqueline I. Ruttenberg Philadelphia, PA 19149 Ksystone Alliance

- P. O. Box 107 Frank Romano Souderton, PA 18964 61 Forest Avenue Ambler, PA 19002 Charles W. Elliott, Esquire Brose and Pswistilo Angus R. Love, Esquire-1101 Building Montgomery County Legal Aid lith and Northhampton Sts. 107 East Main Street l Easton, PA 18042 Norristown, PA 19401 Timothy Campbell, DirectQr Zori G. Ferkin, Esquire Department of Emergency Services Assistant Counsel l_ 14 East Biddle Street. Governor's Energy Council

-Wast Chester, PA 19380 P. O. Box 8010 1625 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102

\

l' ROBERT J..SUGARMAN L

, , ,u

} lg .A  ?

• h i

1 L

O

. . . . . ~ . . . - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ .

.- . . . = . -. ._- - . - - . - _ _ . _

3

()

. UNITED STATES-OF AMERICA 3 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1

l ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD 3 In the Matter of  :

o

. Philadelphia Electric Company  : Docket No. 50-352-OL

.i -

50-353-OL (Limerick. Generating Station,  :

}a Units I and II) .  : -

y PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION il

} Del-AWARE Unlimited, by its counsel, hereby petitions for reconsideration of certain aspects of ALAB'785.

t.

These are directed at certain legal. conclusions of the Board, es'pecially those related to discharges into the East Branch Perk'iomen Creek, and alternatives,

.t EAST BRANCH PERKIOMEN As submitted to the Licensing Board, in October, 1981,

?

r Del-AWARE formulated its contention NoV-16 to the Licensing Board' as follows: .

.. The discharge of the water into the Perkiomen, and into the~Schuylkill will cause toxic pollution and thus substantially and adversely affect fishing and drinking water l.

l 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 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 determination, and DER's water quality

' determination in connection with the NWRA

. intake does not address Applicant's 1 discharges and is under appeal in the I \

g t44 \O4% D 193,

-( ( 4 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 Spring 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 s

Licensing Board and to this Board. (Motion of July 5, 1984, l

refiled August 6, 1984) i g In its appeal to this Board, Del-AWARE assigned as l

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 referred to this issue. At one point, page 26, it 7

. refers to the Contention V16 as related to impact on " receiving i streams". This refers to the East Branch Perkiomen; in the context of the contention as formulated by Del-AWARE, there is no L

_other interpretation. In addition, the ALAB 785 authorizes Del-f AWARE to reformulate its contentions originally advanced as V16; e

i it does not distinguish between the Del-AWARE formulation and subsequent revisions.

Nevertheless, Del-AWARE is-concerned that, because of l .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 1

2 L

j._ - . _ , _ ;____.. _ ._. _ - . - _ . . . _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ . . . - . _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ . . _ . . _ - _ _ _ _ _

y. ..

I 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-i; 4* 16 should have been admitted, and to allow hearings thereon, or 4i ii to permit a reformulated contention.

ALTERNATIVES The Appeal Board, in ALAB 785, has f allen victim to a misuse of statistics, and has therefore found that there is no ll i.{ - factual basis for the consideration of alternatives by the Licensing Board. (ALAB 785, at 5 8-60) The fallacy relates to

{

! the assertion by applicant and others supporting the project that i .

. with one unit rather than two, Limerick would still require water I

sources other than the Schuylkill (under existing restrictions)

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

- statement is true.

The fallacy is the assection that that fact has anything

- to do' with the feasibility of Schuylkill River alternatives. Th'~e l

i feasibility of Schuylkill River alternatives, in f act, is not determined by the relative number of days that water is required;

,I 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

.j(

3 C . _ . . - .. . _ . . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ .

h b .

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 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 clea'rly 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 l

large industrial user. (See Eg DRBC EIS p.4, (1973) Of course, in so stating, they were assuming two units at Limerick.

L j (Similarly, Mr. Hansler's testimony purported to present only his views, and is not conclusive), nor does he comment on the 1

-liklihood of changes in the current restrictions.

b By definition, it follows, that with one unit at I '

Limerick, only half of the water supply storage would be

{

l involved. Moreover, as Del-AWARE showed in its previous I'

submissions, the water supply storage at Blue Marsh has been b

[ significantly modified, such that there is now 25% more storage.

i Thus, the dramatic differential in water requirements t

4

l i .

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 Unlirpited respectfully requests that'this Board reconsider ALAB 785 in the l respects indicated, and issue a modified opinion accordingly.

Res ctfull. submitted, ROBERT 'J.* Sy Counsel for m enor -

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

~ ~~ ~

_..._ ____ ._._ _ ~~ . _ _ . _ . . _ _ _ _ _. _ _. _fi ._. _ .,__.___.__Z~

@ b  :

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of'  :

Docket No. 50-352-OL Philadelphia Electric Company : 50-353-OL

! -(Limerick Generating Station, :

Units I and II)  :

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 Wgshington, D.C. 20555 4 Ann Hodgdon, Esquire Benjamin H. Vogler, Esquire l

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 l 2301 Market Street

(- Philadelphia, PA 19101 i'

Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission I- Attn.: Chief, Docketing & Service Branch Washington, DC 20555

. G G Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear 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 m 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 V D % U ltEl(,%

' Robert J. Sugarman - [

Dated: October 5, 1984 h

[4 f

i

- -