ML20094A454

Applicant Opposition to Del-Aware Unlimited,Inc & Friends of the Earth Motions for Stay of ASLB 840829 Second Partial Initial Decision Authorizing NRR to Issue Low Power Testing License.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20094A454
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	11/02/1984
From:	Rader R CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#484-893 OL, NUDOCS 8411060425
Download: ML20094A454 (47)

Text

.

. ,k Y h

D?8M,Py eo UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 04 N9y -p upp ,32 NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of )

.)

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352 00-

) 50-353 O L--

(Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR STAY BY DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC.

AND FRIENDS OF THE EARTH i

Troy B. Conner, Jr.

Mark J. Wetterhahn Robert M. Rader Conner & Wetterhahn, P.C.

Suite 1050 1747 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20006 Counsel for the Applicant Philadelphia Electric Company of Counsel:

Edward G. Bauer, Jr.

Eugene J. Bradley Philadelphia Electric Company 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 November 2, 1984 B411060425 841102 PDR ADOCK 05000352 0 PDR

- m-, -, -- , , , ,,n,--.--g , ,en- --w, e ..m,-s v..g,

r

.O-Table of Contents Page Preliminary Statement . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Argument . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 I. Del-Aware Has No Standing and The Appeal Board Lacks Jurisdiction With Regard to the Issues Del-Aware Has Raised . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . 2 II. Del-Aware's.and FOE's Arguments Do Not Meet the-Requirements for a Stay and Do Not Justify a Suspension of the Low-Power License . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 A. Requirements for a Stay . . . . 8 B.- Del-Aware Has Failed to Show that it is Entitled to a Stay . . . . . . . . . . . 9 C. FOE's Late-Filed Motion for a Stay is Without Merit . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

s 1

-e Table of Citations Cases Page Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2) , CLI-81-27, 14 NRC 795 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8,'14 Anthony 17. Philadelphia Electric Company, No. 84-3409 (3d Cir., July 12, 1984) .. . . . . 14 Delaware Water Emergency Group v. Hansler, 536 F. Supp. 26 (E .D . Pa. 1981), aff'd mem., 681 F.2d 805 (3d Cir. 1982) . . . . . . . 11 Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations, CLI-81-4, 13 NRC 298 (1981) . . . . . . . . . . 8 Florida Power and Light Company (St.

Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. i

2) , ALAB-579,11 NRC 223 (1980) . . . . . . . . 6 Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2), CLI-78-3, 7 NRC 307 (1978) . . . . . . . 13 Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick '

Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

LBP-83-ll, 17 NRC 413 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . 2 Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-726, 17 NRC 755 (1983) . . . . . . . . . . 7 Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-765, 19 NRC 645 (1984) . . . . . . . . . . 14 Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

LBP-84-31, 20 NRC (1984) . . . . . . . . . 1,4,13 Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

ALAB-785, 20 NRC (1984) . . . . . . . . . . 3,6,9 l i

1

. I Page Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-493, 8 NRC 253 (1978) . . . . . ....... . . . . . 8 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),

CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1-(1978) . .... . . . . . . . 13 Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) ,

ALAB-513, 8 NRC 694 (1978) .. . . . . . . . . . 6 United States Department of Energy (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) ,

ALAB-721, 17 NRC 539 (1982) . . . . . . . . . . 8,14 Virginia Electric and Power Ccmpany (North Anna Nuclear Power Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-551, 9 NRC 704 (1979) . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . 6 Memorandum and Orders Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) ,

" Order" (April 26, 1984) . .. . . . . . . . . . 14 Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

" Memorandum and Order Rejecting Late-Filed Contentions from FOE and AWPP, Denying AWPP's Second Request for Reconsideration of Asbestos Contention, Denying AWPP's Motion to Add a PVC Contention and Commenting on an Invalid Reference in Del-Aware's May 17, 1984 Filing" (August 24, 1984) .. . . . . . . . . . 3,4,6, 9,10 Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

" Order Regarding FOE Motion to Set Aside Partial Initial Decision and Motion to Reopen Record" (September 7,1984) . . . . . . . 12 Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

" Order" (October 10, 1984) .. . . . . . . . . . 3,6

- o.

Page-Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2),

" Memorandum and Order" (October 15, 1984) . . . 1,5,10 Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) ,-

" Order" (October 29, 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . 2 Regulations 10 C.F.R. S2.206~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10 C.F.R. 52.788 . . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . 8,12 Miscellaneous

" Answer to Applicant's Motion for Affirmation of Authorization" (October 10, 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

" Applicant's Motion for Confirmation of Authorization to Issue Low-Power License Confirming its Oral Motion by Telephone Conference Call on October 3, 1984)"

(October 3, 1984) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

, Letter Dated September 4, 1984 from John S. Kemper, Vice President,

Engineering and Research, Philadelphia Electric Company to Albert Schwencer, Division of Licensing, Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Letter Dated October 19, 1984 from Vincent S. Boyer, Senior Vice President, Nuclear Power, Philadelphia Electric

Company to Albert Schwencer, Division of Licensing, Nuclear Regulatory Commission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Philadelphia Electric Company, Limerick Generating Station, DRBC Docket No.

D-69-210 CP (March 29, 1973) . . . . . . . . . . 11 Philadelphia Electric Company, Limerick Cenerating Station, DRBC Docket No.

D-69-210 CP(Final) (November 5, 1975) . . . . . 11 NRC RAI 410.70 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

- iii -

i l

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

, Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board In the Matter of )

).

Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352

) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

APPLICANT'S OPPOSITION TO MOTIONS FOR STAY BY DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC.

AND FRIENDS OF THE EARTH Preliminary Statement On . October 25, 1984, intervenor Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc. (" Del-Aware") tiled a pleading which purported to appeal an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (" Licensing Board") Memorandum and Order, dated October 15, 1984.

Del-Aware also scught a stay of that decision, which con-4 firms the Licensing Board's Second Partial Initial Decision

("Second PID"' , dated August 29, 1984, which, in turn, had authorized the Director of Nucleac Reactor Regulation to issue a license permitting fuel load and low-power testing up to five percent rated power for the Limerick Generating Station (" Limerick") .1

~

1/ Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), LDP-84--31, 20 NRC (August 29,'1984).

i

m -

1' On October 23, 1984, Robert L. Anthony, for himself and for Friends of the Earth in the- Delaware- Valley (collectively " FOE") filed an appeal of the Licensing Board's Second PID and petitioned the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board (" Appeal Board") to stay the au-thorization of'a low power license for Limerick.E! Appli-cant, Philadelphia Electric Company ("PECO"), opposes the requested relief in both instances.

Argument I. Del-Aware Has No Standing And The Appeal Board Lacks Jurisdiction With Regard To The Issues Del-Aware Has Raised.

Del-Aware's participation as an intervenor in the instant proceeding has been limited to issues associated with the supplementary cooling water system for Limerick.

The First PID issued by the Board disposed of Del-Aware's contentions relating to this system.1/ Subsequently, the Appeal Board reviewed this decision and, except for two 2/ By Order dated October 29, 1984 (slip op. at 1-2), the Appeal Board noted that the low-power license for Limerick had issued on October 26, 1984, and that it would therefore treat both FOE's and Del-Aware's stay requests as motions to suspend the underlying authorization for the low-power license. The Board ordered the other parties to respond to "the two motions in one document." The Board ordered the other parties to " respond to the two motions in one document." Id. at 2 n.2.

3_/ Limerick, supra, LBP-83-11, 17 NRC 413 (1983).

)-

aspects not at issue in Del-Aware's instant appeal and request for a stay, affirmed the First PID in ALAB-785.b On August 24, 1984, well after the issuance of the First PID', but before ALAB-785, the Licensing Board issued a

' Memorandum and Order which specifically addressed Del-Aware's claims regarding the issuance or a low-power license for Limerick.b In that Order, the Licensing Board reiterated its previous finding "that jurisdiction over Del-Aware's claims regarding the supplemental cooling water system now lies with the Appeal Board, as part of its appellate review of our March 8, 1983 Partial Initial Decision (P . I . D . ) " 6_/ The Licensing Board then stated:

The only matter deserving comment at this point is the possible inference (it is far from clear) trom Del-Aware's May 17 filing before us that a low power license could not be issued until it is either certain that the proposed Point Pleasant diversion found acceptable by this Board will be tinally approved by State and local authorities, or that an alternative supplemental cooling system 4/ Limerick, supra, ALAB-785, 20 NRC (September 26, 1984). In an Order dated October 10, 1984, the Appeal Board denied a petition by Del-Aware for reconsideration of two other aspects of ALAB-785.

5/

~

Limerick, supra, " Memorandum and Order Rejecting Late-Filed Contentions from FOE and AWPP, Denying ,

AWPP's Second Request for Reconsideration of Asbestos Contention, Denying AWPP's Motion to Add a PVC Contention and Commenting on an Invalid Inference in Del-Aware's May 17, 1984 Filing" (August 24, 1984)

(slip op. at 22-25).

6/ Id. at 23.

r will be proposed by the . Applicant and litigated betore us. We disagree.7/

The Licensing Board . therefore held that " issuance.of a low

. power or even a full power _ operating license would provide no basis to alter our' decision not to consider any further supplemental-cooling water system issues which depend on the predictive assumption that the proposed Point Pleasant

. diversion will not be completed."8,/

On August 29, 1984, the Licensing Board issued its Second PID, which authorized the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, upon making the findings required under 10 C.F.R. 550.57(a), to issue to Applicant "a license or licenses to authorize low power testing (up to five percent at rated power of each unit) of the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2."1 Del-Aware did not appeal either the August 24, 1984 Memorandum and Order or the Second PID.

Subsequent to the issuance of the Second PID, the NRC Staff indicated its belief that the Director of Nuclear 7/ Id. The Licensing Board then explained that the supplemental cooling water system is needed only to optimize commercial operation of the Limerick plant, and not for safe shutdown. The Board emphasized that Del-Aware had provided no basis "for finding that low power testing cannot be conducted at least at times (particularly from the fall of '84 into the spring of

'85), it not at all times, through use of the primary Schuylkill River cooling water intake." I_d. at 24.

8,/ Id. at 25.

! 9/ Limerick, s_upra, LBP-84-31, 20 NRC (August 29, 1984) (slip op. at 264).

l 4

. - - - , - - . , ., .n- , - - , , - - - - , - - - , , - - ,--..,.-.,y ---,- -,

1 Reactor Regulation could not issue a low-power ' license without an order .from the Licensing Board determining that the possible resubmission and litigation of the two contentions permitted by ALAB-785 would not preclude license issuance. b On October 15, 1984, the Licensing Board issued a Memorandum and- Order determining that it had y jurisdiction to confirm its authorization to the' Director, that the supplemental cooling water system is indeed unre-lated to low-power testing and that the Appeal Board had not intended to stay the issuance of a low-power license in permitting Del-Aware an opportunity to pursue its unrelated contentions. b The Licensing Board therefore confirmed its Second PID to authorize the Director to issue the low-power license.

Del-Aware now purports to appeal the October 15, 1984 Memorandum and Order, but nothing it raises relates to the issue decided by the Licensing Board in its October 15 Order. As noted, that Order dealt with the possible resubmission and litigation of two new contentions on salinity impacts in the Delaware River and esthetic impacts in the Point Pleasant Historic District. Del-Aware lacks

-10/ See " Applicant's Motion for Confirmation of Authorization to Issue Low-Power License Confirming Its oral Motion by Telephone Conference Call on October 3, 1984" at 2 (October 3,1984) .

s 11/ Limerick, supra, " Memorandum and Order" (October 15, 1984).

1

=

standing to raise . the different .' matters addressed in the instant appeal', and the Board lacks- jurisdiction to hear them..

Del-Aware's first point on appeal relates to_ operation.

of an allegedly " unapproved. supplemental cooling water- ,

system."- This cryptic reference is ' unclear,E but the Appeal Board in ~ ALAB-785 disposed of this issue against Del-Aware,E 'as did the Licensing Board in its August 24 Memorandum and~ Order.E Del-Aware's second point, which discusses tornado impacts on the - Limerick cooling tower,E! does not even pertain to any proposed or admitted contention. The Appeal Board certainly has no residual jurisdiction to consider such a contention.El Likewise, the Licensing Board may 12/ In denying reconsideration or ALAB-785, the Appeal Board noted its previous criticism of the quality of Del-Aware's pleadings and its' caveat that Del-Aware must bear the risk or such shortcomings. Limerick, supra, ALAB Order (October 10, 1984) (slip op, at 3).

13/ Limerick, supra, ALAB-785, 20 NRC (September 26, 1984) (slip op at 61-64).

M/ Limerick, supra, " Memorandum and Order" (August 24, 1984) (slip op. at 25).

M/ As discussed at page 10, infra, nothing concerning the supplementary cooling water system is safety-related.

16/ Florida' Power and Light Company (St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant, Unit No. 2) , ALAB-579, 11 NRC 223 (1980);

Virginia Electric and Power Company (North Anna Nuclear l Power Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-551, 9 NRC 704 l (1979); Public Service Company of New Hampshire  !

(Footnote Continued) l

x -

s. -

consider only the contentions authorized ~by ALAB-785, plus i.

- emergency . planning . contentions , which were - not - decided 'in the First or Second PID's.E 'Any' such issues ' must- be pursued ~ by a ' request ~for relief 'under _10_ C.F.R. Section 2.206 now that the Appeal. Board lacks jurisdiction and the license has issued.EI It is unclear what-Del-Aware's third point attempts-to raise.. _ It -is ~ equally difficult 'to discern any _ particular

~

environmental or safety issue from the previous pleading to which~ Del-Aware refers. E In any event, this point plainly does not relate to either of the two issues remanded to the Licensing Board pursuant to ALAB-785 and thus covered by the

~ Board's October 15 Order. Del-Aware lacks standing to raise those matters, nor _ can Del-Aware now appeal earlier orders for which the time to appeal has long since elapsed.

(Footnote Continued)

(Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-513, 8 NRC 694 (1978).

-17/ Cf. Limerick, supra, ALAB-726, 17 NRC 755 (1983)

Explaining jurisdiction to rule on a motion to reopen an initial decision).

H/ See note 16, supra.

19/- See Del-Aware's- " Answer to Applicant's Motion for XTfirmation of Authorization" (October 10, 1984).

, r. - --

,; x 7

.II. Del-Aware's And FOE's Arguments Do' Not Meet The Requirements For A Stay m EAnd Do Not-Justify A Suspension Of The Low-Power License'.

'A. ~ Requirements For A Stay lIn determining whether to grant or deny an application for a-. stay, the Appeal Board is required, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.788(e), to consider:

(1) Whether the moving' party has made.  !

, a strong showing that it is .likely to prevail.on the merits; (2) Whethe r- - the party will be irreparably -injured unless a stay is granted; (3) Whether- the granting of a stay would. harm other parties, and (4) Where the public interest lies.M/

As the moving parties, Del-Aware and FOE bear the burden of B

persuading the Appeal Board that they are entitled to a stay.-- Neither Del-Aware nor FOE have met this burden as to any of the four governing criteria and, accordingly,

. their respective applications for a stay should be denied.

20/ See generally Alabama Power Company (Joseph M. Farley I Nuclear Planti, Units 1 and 2) , CLI-81-27, 14 NRC 795, 796-97 (1981); Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations, CLI-81-4, 13 NRC 298, 301 (1981); United States Department of Energy (Clinch River Breedor Reactor Plant) , ALAB-721, 17 NRC 539, 543 (1982).

-21/ Farley, supra, CLI-81-27, 14 NRC at 797. Public Service Company of Indiana (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2) , ALAB-493, 8 NRC 253, 270 (1978).

e w - - - , ,.,.,~-n.,---,-,--,---L, --,--g.,,,.--,.-~ww,ee.g.,--mm,-nn,-e- g- e --,n.,g-,---,.mw---rw--,,,,-m, y--v,,-,,n,.,

e -

_9_

B. . Del-Aware'Has Failed To Show That It Is Entitled To A Stay.

Even if the Appeal Board finds that it has jurisdic-tion, Del-Aware's arguments concerning impacts associated with the Point Pleasant diversion and the possibility -that it might not be completed have previously been rejected.

Its new argument, that'the supplemental cooling water system is necessary for the safe shutdown of the plant, is-incor-rec t '. . Nor has Del-Aware satisfied the other criteria for a stay, much less suspension of an operating license.

As discussed above, the Appeal Board in ALAB-785 and the Licensing Board in its August 24, 1984 Memorandum and Order conclusively rejected Del-Aware's argument that possible obstacles to completion of the Point Pleasant diversion necessitate further evaluation of an alternative to the supplementary cooling water system. Further, as the Licensing Board recently reiterated, the supplementary cooling water system is necessary only for the optimal operation of the Limerick plant, not safe shutdown or even low-power testing:

It is not needed for even full power operation for certain times of the year (generally the fall through spring months when low flow and high water temperatures do not preclude use of the Limerick plant's Schuylkill River water intake). It also is not needed for safe operation of the plant, as the ultimate heat sink for safe shutdown is the onsite spray pond.

Issuance of a low power operating license would not change this.

Del-Aware provides no basis, nor does

one appear, for finding that low power testing cannot be conducted at least at times.(particularly from the fall of '84 into the spring .of '85), if.not at all times,- through use of the primary Schuylkill River cooling # water in-take.2_2f Del-Aware cites no factual basis to support its claim that Applicant "had expressly relied ' upon the supplemental cooling water system - for this purpose (for a safe shutdown in the event of destruction through tornado impact of the ,

1 cooling tower] in the SER." Reference to the discussion of ,

this issue in Limerick SER 53.5.2 reveals no discussion c the supplementary cooling water system. Indeed, in a recently submitted draft revision to the FSAR, Applicant made clear that there is no reliance upon Perkiomen, Creek water sources for safe shutdown capacity. Perkiomen sources necessarily include water supplied via the East Branch Perkiomen via the Point Pleasant diversion. In amending its answer to NRC RAI 410.70, Applicant stated:

While an additional source of water is available from the pump station provid-ing the Perkiomen makeup supply located at a distance of approximately 8 miles from the plant site, no reliance is being placed on this intake for the purpose of safety analysis or the safety licensing basis for the facility.23f 22/ Limerick, supra, " Memorandum and Order" (October 15, 1984) (slip op. at 4) , quoting " Memorandum and Order" (August 24, 1984) (slip op. at 24).

~

23/ See letter de 4 October 19, 1984 from Vincent S.

Boyer, Ser Vice President, Nuclear Power, (Footnote Continued) i l

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

_, ~. - . -

f

, 4 "'

Moreover, it has long been understood that Schuylkill River water would be availablo even in the very unlikely event that it were needed to achieve a safe shutdown of the

. plant. In approving the allocation of Schuylkill River water for the facility, the Delaware River Basin Commission expressly stated: "Both sets of constraints (limiting Schuylkill withdrawals to certain river water temperatures and flows, and to meet applicable water quality standards) would be suspended in the event of any operational emergency requiring a shutdown of the plant." b Accordingly, Del-Aware's argument is without factual basis, even assuming (Footnote Continued)

Philadelphia Electric Company to Albert Schwencer, Division of Licensing, Nuclear Regulatory Commission (copy attached). This amendment of the FSAR reiterates the fact that Perkion.an water sources need not be considered in assuring a safe shutdown capacity for the plant. A draft of this revision had been provided to the NRC Staff by letter dated September 4, 1984, which stated that both Schuylkill and Perkiomen makeup water would be available, but did not state that Perkiomen water was necessary for safety purposes. The later FSAR revision submitted with Mr. Doyer's October 19, 1964 letter makes it clear that, even if the Limerick spray pond (i.e., the ultimate heat sink) is temporarily lost, adequate makeup water can be provided solely from the Schuylkill.

~

24/ DRBC Docket No. D-69-210 CP, Philadelphia Electric Company, Limerick Nuclear Generating Station (March 29, 1973) (page 5) . This decision was incorporated by reference in the final decision auchorizing use of Schuylkill River water in DRBC Docket No.

D-69-210 CP (Final) (page 15) (November 5, 1975).

Copics of both decisions are provided for the convenience of the Board. Those decisions were reviewed and affirmed by the federal courts in Delaware Water Emergency Group v. llansler, 536 F. Supp. 26 (E.D.

Pa . 19 81) , aff'd mem., 681 F.2d 805 (3d Cir. 1982).

o

-?

that Del-Aware has standing to raise this safety issue.

Finally, the averment of alleged " environmental and safety implications of the low power testing without the supplemental cooling water system" is entirely too vague to justify a stay. The earlier pleading to which Del-Aware refers is merely a. collection of arguments previously rejected as to the necessity for the NRC to redo its environmental analysis based upon the possibility that the supplementary cooling water system as planned might not be available. Thus, Del-Aware has failed to show that it is likely to prevail on the merits and has not even attempted a showing on the remaining three requirements for a stay.

Those three criteria weigh against Del-Aware for the reasons discussed with respect to FOE's petition for a stay, infra.

C. FOE's Late-Filed Motion .vr A Stay Is Without Merit.

Preliminarily, FOE's motion for a stay of LBP-84-31 is very late. FOE had filed a motion for a stay of that decision with the Licensing Board on September 1, 1984, which the Licensing Board denied on September 7, 1984.EI Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. S2.788(a) and (h), FOE was required to appeal the denial of its stay request within ten days of its l

l

~

25/ Limerick, supra, " Order Regarding FOE Motion to Set Aside Partial Initial Decision and Motion to Reopen Record" (September 7, 1984).

r o

. service.- See Metropolitan Edison Company (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 2) , CLI-78-3, 7 NRC 307, 308 n.2 (1978); Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2) , ' CLI-78-1, 7 NRC 1, 30 n.44 (1978).

Accordingly, FOE's motion for a stay should be denied.

Aside from being late-filed, FOE's motion also fails to meet the criteria necessary to support a stay. With regard to the first factor, FOE asserts, without more, that "[t]he reactor building is not able to withstand overpressures from postulated external explosions." The Licensing Board, however, found that this claim has no merit. b FOE has added nothing here that would justify a different conclu-sion. Accordingly, FOE, the party with the burden of persuading the Appeal Board that it is entitled to a stay, has not'made any showing that it is likely to prevail on the merits.

FOE's unsupported claim that " nuclear fuel was not brought to the plant in accordance with NRC regulations, and AEA and NEPA," and its accompanying statement that its appeal of this issue is pending in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, clearly do not warrant a stay. The fact that FOE has appealed the Commission's denial of its contention 26_/ Limerick, supra, LBP-84 .31, 20 NRC (August 29, 1984) (slip op. at 76).

that new fuel should not be stored onsite El certainly does not indicate that it is likely to prevail on the merits.

More importantly, the Commission and the Third Circuit have previously rejected virtually identical requests by FOE for a stay.EI The matter is now before the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Having previously considered and rejected such request, this Appeal Board now lacks jurisdic-tion to reconsider this matter.E As to the second factor, relating to irreparable injury, FOE provides absolutely no basis for its claim that

"[ilf Limerick is operated, an inexorable process will start which will threaten my safety, increase electric rates, impair [the] regional economy, and force me to move from the area." In the absence of affidavits or other evidence to support these bald assertions, no finding of irreparable harm, perhaps the most critical of the four criteria,El can be made.

With respect to the third and fourth factors, as recognized by FOE, the granting of a stay would obviously p/ Limerick, supra, ALAB-765, 19 NRC 645 (1984).

28/ Limerick, supra, Commission Order (April 26, 1984);

Anthony v. Philadelphia Electric Company, No. 84-3409 (3d Cir., July 12, 1984).

l 29/ See note 16, supra.

~

30/ Farley, supra, CLI-81-27, 14 NRC at 797; Clinch River, supra, ALAB-721, 17 NRC at 543.

1 i

delay low-power testing and, ultimately, commercial opera-tion of Limerick, thus inflicting serious harm upon the Applicant. Likewise, it is not in the public interest to delay the licensing of Limerick in order to explore what has previously been determined to be meritless claims postulated by FOE. Accordingly, FOE's late-filed motion for a stay should be denied.

Conclusion For the reasons discussed above, Del-Aware's and FOE's respective petitions for a stay should be denied.

Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.

Troy B. Conner, Jr.

Mark J. Wetterhahn Robert M. Rader Counsel for Applicant November 2, 1984 l

l 1

s s

?

l UNITED STATES OF AMERICA '

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

.In the Matter of )

)

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 " Applicant's Opposition to Motions for Stay by Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc. and Friends of the Earth," dated November 2, 1984- in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following fby deposit in the United States mail this 2nd day of November, 1984:

• Christine N. Kohl, Esq. Dr. Richard F. Cole Chairman Atomic Safety and Atomic Safety and Licensing Licensing Board Appeal Board ,

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Dr. Jerry Harbour

• Gary J. Edles Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Appeal Board Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Atomic Safety and Licensing

• Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy Appeal Panel Atomic Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Appeal Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Helen F. Hoyt, Esq. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Chairperson Atomic Safety Commission and Licensing Washington, D.C. 20555 Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

• Hand Delivery

^

i

.j l

o Ann P. Hodgdon,-Esq. Angus Love, Esq.

Counsel for NRC-Staff 107 East Main Street Office of the Executive Norristown, PA 19401 1 Legal Director '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory- Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.

Commission Sugarman, Denworth & -l Washington, D.C. 20555 Hellegers 16th Floor, Center Plaza Atomic Safety and Licensing 101 N. Broad Street-Board Panel Philadelphia, PA 19107 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Director, Pennsylvania Washington, D.C. 20555 Emergency Management Agency Basement, Transportation Philadelphia Electric Company and Safety Building ATTN: Edward G. Bauer, Jr. Harrisburg, PA 17120 Vice President &

General Counsel Martha W. Bush, Esq.

2301 Market Street Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.

Philadelphia, PA 19101 City of Philadelphia Municipal Services Bldg.

Mr. Frank R. Romano 15th and JFK Blvd.

61 Forest Avenue Philadelphia, PA 19107 Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Spence W. Perry, Esq.

Mr. Robert L. Anthony Associate General Counsel Friends of the Earth of Federal Emergency the Delaware Valley Management Agency 106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 Washington, DC_ 20472 Mrs. Maureen Mulligan Thomas Gerusky, Director Limerick Ecology Action Bureau of Radiation P.O. Box 761 Protection 762 Queen Street Pottstown, PA Department of Environmental 19464 Resources 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.

Charles W. Elliott, Esq. Third and Locust Streets Brose and Postwistilo Harrisburg, PA 17120 1101 Building lith &

Northampton Streets James Wiggins Easton, PA 18042 Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq. Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory P.O. Box 47 Commission Sanatoga, PA 19464 Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 l

l l.

L r

l

& I i

Zori G. Ferkin Commonwealth.of~ Pennsylvania Governor's Energy Council ,

P.O. Box 8010 u

-1625 N. Front Street  ;

Harrisburg, PA 17102 Timothy R.S. Campbell Director Department of Emergency Services 14 East Biddle Street West Chester, PA 19380 Mr. Ralph Hippert Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency B151 - Transportation Safety Building Harrisburg, PA 17120 s

Nils N. Nichols l-1 l

I

[# DOCKET NO. D-69-210 CP

i l

DELAWARE AlVER DASIN COMMISSION r.

Philadciphia Electric Connpany Limerick Nuclear Generating Station Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania PROCEEDINGS l

l t

This is on application submitted by the Philodelphin Electric Company to the Deloworc River Bosio Commission on March 5,1970, for review of a project to withdraw surface water and discharge wastewater used in the operusion of a proposed nuclear-fueled steom-electric generating station consisting of two nuclear units. By letter dated July 30,1971, the Philadelphia Electric Company amended its original opplication to include emergency shutdown water supply. Moonwhile, o special public hearing on the project, together with the concurrently pending Newbold Island project, was held by this Commission on July 16, 1970. This hearing was for the stated purpose of receiving testimony on the effects of these two projects on the water resources in the area.

The opplication was reviewed for inclusion of the project in the Comprehensive Plon cnd approval under Section 3.8 of the Delaware River Basin Compoet. The ap hos also filed two opphcotions, for on industrial waste permit covering effluents from the 3

• proposed station and for a stream encroachment permit for intoke and oulfoll structures, with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Resources.

(Po DER). These are expected to be forwarded to the Commission under Administrative Agreements, offer action 'ay the deportment.

An opplicotton for o construction permit is pending before the Atomic Energy Conimission as Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESCRIP TlON Purpose -- The purpose of this project is the constructinn and operation.of a nuclear power plant with two units having a net electiical cupacity of 1100 meguwatts each, with circulating cooling water for the secom ruibines to he fumidied from cooling towers with makeup water to be drown from the Schuylkill River or Perkiomen Creek.

Location -- The project will be located on o 587-ocre site on the east bank of the Schuylkill River, in Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Penmylvania, about 1.7 miles south of the neorest port of the Borough of Poliitown. A water intoke structure will be located on the Schuylkill River or river mile 92.47 - 48.22 and a blowdown and liquid waste discharge structure will be located at river mile

92.47 - 47.94.

i An additional water intoke structure will be located on Perkiomen Cicek at river m

92. 47 - 32.3 - 10.5, from which water will be pumped by pipeline to the power plant site.

\ .

31fA

6 .

2.

Service Arco -- The Philadelphia Electric Company will be the sole owner

~of the Limerick project and the power developed at the plant will be distributed s throughout its service area. The power will also be available for transmission to other areas via the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Maryland inscrconnection.

Physical features -- (a) Facilitics: The main facilities at the site will be-two reactor buildings, two turbine buildings, two hyperbolic cooling towers, admin-istrative building, service buildings, fuel handling building, and water treatment building.

The principal structures involved in the cooling water system are:

(1) Water intake structures, both on the Schuylkill River and on the Perkiomen Creek to furnish non-consumptive needs and makeup water to cooling towers. The applicant states that these intake structures will be designed, installed, operated and maintained in accordance with all state, federal and Commission requirements.

(2) Two hyperbolic natural-draft cooling towers, each approximately 475 feet in diameter at the base and 500 feet high.

(3) Pumping stations and pipelines to move the required quantities of water.

(b) Water Requirements: ' he water requirements of the plant are made up of consumptive, non-consumptive, and emergency shutdown use as follows:

s Consumptive Use Non-consumptive Use I unit 2 units I unit 2 units Normal Coeroting Average rate - cfs (mgd) 27 (17.5) 54 (35) 10 (6.5) 20 (12.9)

Maximum rate - cfs (mgd) 33 (21.3) 65 (42) 12 (7.8) 22 (14.2)

Emergency Shutdown

• Average rate - cts (mgd) 31 (20)

Maximum rate - cfs (mgd) 38 (24.7)

ACTlON BY ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION 5TAFF The applicant, in accordance with established procedures, has applied to the Atomic Energy Commission for a construction permit (which would ultimately be followed at a later stage by on operating permit). During the course of the proceedings before the AEC, staff concluded that it would not be appiopriate to assume at this time  ;

that the large quantiti'es of water required by the project would necessarily be available j from the Tocks Island Dam and Reservoir which has been designed by the Corps of Encin- '

eers but is still awaiting clearance from the CEQ. Accordingly, the AEC Director of

{

Licensing, on November 30,1972, wrote to the applicant stating:

)

l

• (Emeracncy Shutdown the - Eis use assumes both cooling towers knocked out by h6k

"In view of this uncertainty, you are sequested to furnish evidence of a firm commilment, not contingent an the approval of the Tocks Island proicct, from the Delaware River Dosin Commission to allocate the required amount of wotor for plant operation. The regulatory staff will not recommend that a construction permit for Limerick Generating Storion be issued until all appropriate and necessary permits, certification, and allocation to ossure on adequate supply of water have been obtained  !

from the Delaware River Basin Commission. "

Effect of NEPA -- The applicant, thus barred from further consideration by  ;

the AEC, pending resolution of its water supply problem, thereupon pressed this' Commission for favorable action upon its long pending opplication for opproval under Section 3.8 of the Compact, upon which a special public hearing had been held in July 1970, in view of the NEPA, however, the Commission, as a federal-interstate body, connot opprove the project until the full disclosure provisions of NEPA have been satisfied.

In December 1972, o draft environmental statement was circulated by the AEC stoff in accordance with opplicable guidelines. This Commission and 12 other federal, state end local ogencies have been requested to comenent on the draft statement (o document of some 500 pages). Such comments have been prepared by this Commis-sion's staff and are about to.be opproved by the Commission for forwarding to AEC.

~

The AEC draft statement of December 1972 concledes as follows:

"7 On the basis of the analysis and ovaluation set forth' in this Statement, ofter weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits of Limerick Station, Units 1 and 2, against environmental costs and considering ovoilable alternatives, it is concluded that the action coiled for under NEPA and Appendix D to 10 CFR Port 50 is the issuonce of a construction permit for the facility as described subject to the following conditions for protection of the environmen t. . . '

"8. This Draft Environmental Statement has been prepared based upon the assumption that the Delaworo River Onsin '

Commission will issue o permit for allocation of an adequate water supply for the Point Plcosant Diversion pioicct.

Sorious questions have been raised concerning this assumption.

We have concluded that until the question of water avail-obility is resolved, we will not continuo lho licensing process further than inuing the Draft Environmental Statement and evoluoting the resulting comments."

% l l

yWk

1

.s .

, t

• Q 4

$ji

' sentence of the Draft Environmental e concluding State Delaware River Oo.in Cornmission to act upon s collingthe uponwater the s 2.(

will be prepared.opplication before this Commission before a fi ental impact statement i] .'

proceed under NEPA in the obsence of a fin Section 102 of NEPA. at it may lowfully mpact statement under

]3- Section 5(b) of the CEO Guidelines in the environm er bring that process to o conclusion unless this process sessment rs acts.

Commission will not fi t l .

i l

of some form of action which would resolve the legitimate concerns of AEC.

comply wi n by this Commission uniquely complicated type of project The problem is peculiarly related to under consideration is irwolved and the major federal actions signifi , where more than one agency i

human environment are dividedcantly butoffecting inter-related the quality ofamong the th l CEQ Guideilnes for the preparation of Section 102 stateme te l

have suggested the use of a " lead agency" . n s underconcept these circumstances CEQ has advised as follows: i i "Whichever procedure is followed, the two critical tions inherent in the provisions of Section considero-5(b) are before any of the porticipating irreversible action with respect to the proj ment or or age s ect.

1 Ass'n v. Stans, 23 ERC 1418 (10th Cir.1971) pet'See 1 pending, 40 USI.W 3444 No. 71-1133, n for cert. 6,1972 "

• Mar.

i the legal and administrative constroints which ay of proceeding, given hThis Commission to consider the water supply aspects of the oave be of such consideration in such a way that its action will hpplication unless under and Section 102until on of NEPA. environmental ave no evolvation environmental effect of the en opprovals which are required under the Delowere RiThis co may proceed, and by making any water allocation ver Bosin Compact before the lead agency.occeptance by the CEO of the environmental impac irreversible in its effect on the human environmentIn r major nor the C

{

the proceeding before this Commissionporticularly

. os "Icod agency" with in vie i

l l

'Some case, 452 p gg ,

challenged was w;,hdraw ' r gr nted but dismissed as moot offer action

.... '5.

s FINDINGS i l

% According to the Commission's projections of water demand throu0h out the basin and of the available water supply, there would be insufficient supply without the Tocks Island Reservoir to meet the needs of the opplicant together with other basinwide needs.

(See staff report, " Water Demonds in the Delaware River Basin as Related to the Tocks

. Island Reservoir Project - November 1971", and Section 2-3.4 of the Comprehensive Plan,Section X, Water Quality Standards for the Delaware River Basin.)1Ee doctrine of equitable opportionment would not permit the approval of the water supply aspects of the application under such circumstances, unicss other compensating sources of water supply are developed To require the opplicant to await the outcome of the environmental and economic assessment of the Tocks Island project which is currently under way, however, could greatly prejudice the pt,blic interest in having adequate electric power supplies available to meet the antic-ipoted demand. Since it will be several years before the project will actually need a water supply, and the Tocks Island questions con meanwhile be resolved one way or the other, it would be both equitable and prudent to perrnit the proicct to proceed, given the safeguard of an alternative source of water supply if Tocks Island were not to be available.

Within this framework of decision, the Commission finds:

Sources of Water Supply

1. Schuylkill River .

) Schuylkill River water at the plant site may be used for nonconsumptive use whenever the effluent discharged back to the river meets all applicable water quality standards.

Schuylkill River water at the plant may be used for consumptive use when flow (not including future augmentations of flow from Commission-sponsored projects) as measured at the Pottstown gage is in excess of 530 cfs (342 mgd) with one unit in operation and 560 cfs (362 mgd) with two units in operation with the following exceptions:

(a) There shall be no withdrawols when river water temperatures below the Limerick station are above 150 C except during April, May and June when the flow as measured at the Pottstown gage is in excess of 1791 cfs (1158 mgd).

(b) Use of the Schuylkill River will be limited to a withdrawal lhot wiil result in on effluent that mccis all applicable water quality standards.

Le constraints on nonconsumptive use of Schuylkill River water aie necessary to prevent violation of total dissolved solids, strearn quality objectives and effluent quality requirements of the Commission's water quality regulations. The constraint on consumptive use of Schuylkill River water is to protect water quantity and water quality below the Limerick Station. Both sets of constraints would be suspended in the event of any operational emergency requiring a shutdown of the plant.

-w -- - - , - -

w,uv-, - y -

---rwy -

l 6.

2. Perkiomer. Creek .

Perkioman Creek wotor may be used when flows os measured at the Groterfoid gage are in exc;ss of 180 cis (116 mgd) with one unit in operation and 210 cis (136 mgd).

with two units in operation, exclusive of any water pumped from the Deloworo River.

The constraint on the use of Perkiomen Creek water would permit the use only when.the flow at Groterford was above the long-term me lion flow of 150 cfs.

3. Delowere River The Delowere River, as augmented for the purpose of water supply by upstream reservoirs moy be used via the Point Pleasant pumping facilitics, o pipeline, the East 8mnch of Perklomen Creek and Perkiomen Creek with the limitalions timt such use will not reduce the flow as measured at the Trenton gage below 3000 cfs (1940 mgd), and that such use will not be permitted when the flow as measured at the Trenton gage is less then 3000 efs (1940 mgd), provided that onnually offer pumping from the Delowere i River hos commenced, the rote of pumping will be maintained at not less than 27 cfs (17.5 mgd) throughout the normal low flow season for the protection of aquatic life in Perklomen Creek and its East 8mnch regardless of ultimate downstream consumptive use requirements. During periods of high natuml flow in East Bronch Perkiomen Cruk, i

pumping from Point Pleosant shall be kept of a level so os not to aggravate high water levels.-

s lhis constroint would prohibit the use of the Delaware River wat'er when such use would reduce the flow in the river at the Trenton gage below 3000 cfs, which is required to meet the salinity objective in the estuary of 250 mg/l at mile 92.47 (mouth of the Schuylkill River).

Other The facilities, techniques and procedures for the disposal of liquid, solid and gaseous westes, os described in the opplication and supporting documents, and their effect on water quality, and the odequacy of the opplicant's proposed program of monitoring the environment contiot be evolunted without on environmental Impact statement required by low. .

DECISION

l. Full considemtion of the project, os described above, including Compro-hensive Plan addition and section 3.8 review, is deferred pending iho completion of an envienmental impact slotement as required by low. '

11. The wotor supply footures of the proioct are enndilinnally apprnved within the limitotions of the above Findings, and subject to lho following conditions:

o. Approval is subject to all conditions imposed by the United States Atomic Energy Commission and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, l ond it is subject to further review and modifications in accordance with the findings of on environmental imnnet <tntement, fnr whiels the Atemie Fne,mo l'ammi *ine (*. the E_ _ _____

n

b. Whenever the flow constraints cited in the almvc Findings prevent the opplicant from operating the plant at full load, the oppliennt shall operate the plent only at such parenniones of full lood as the available water supply allows,

, os determined by the Commission.

c. Prior to January 1,1977, the Commission will, in its sole discretion, determine the odcquacy of the then existing storage fucilitics on the Delaware River or its tributaries together with additional storage to be built to supply all needs (including the opplicant's) for water supply from that source by the year 1980. If the Commission then determines that the storage will not be adequate for all projected needs of the basin, the applicant will build or cause to be built, at its own expense, et a location opproved by the Commission, for service in 1980, a reservoir of sufficient storage copocity to assure the water supply needed for consumptive use by the Umcrick l

plant, during periods when such use would reduce the flow in the Delowere River at the Trenton gage below 3000 cis. Storage and release of water in such facility will, be under the Commission's regulation, at the expense of the opplicant. \

d. Beginning one year prior to the first commercial operation date of Unit 1 of the Limerick plant, the applicont will pay for metered quantities of water withdrown thereafter at the several locations described above. The price of waters so token from the Schuylkill River, Perkiomen Crock, and the Delaware River will be determined in accordance with the Commissions' water supply policy, heretofore adopted or os moy be omended hereafter.

Ill. Prior to any use, withdrawol or taking of water pursuant to this decision, the opplicant shall re-submit the project pursuant to Section 3.8 of the Compact, and this decision shall not be construed to commit the Commission to any porticular final action nor will such action be token unless and until it is justified by a finti environ-mental impact statement.

SY THE COMMISSION i

DA TED: March 29,1973 I

l

+4rA \

l c __ _

9I.

,) . . '

4 e DOCKET NO. D-69-210 CP (Final) m ..

DELAWARE RIVER BASIN COMMISSION Philadelphia Electric Company Limerick Nucicar Generating Slotion Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania i

PROCEEDINGS

, This is on application s.ibmitted by the Philadelphia Electric Company to the Delowere River Bosin Commission on March 5,1970, for review of a project lo withdraw surface water and dischorge westewoter used in the operation of a proposed nuclear-fuclod stoom-ulvetric generating stotion consisting of two nuclear units. By letter dated July 30,1971, the Philadelphia Electric Company amended its original application to include emergency shutdown water supply. The oppli-collon was reviewed for inclusion of the project in the Comprehensive Plan and approval under l Section 3.8 of the Delowere River Sosin Compact.

A special public hearing on the project was held by this Commission on July 16, 1970.

l This heoring was for the stored purpose of receiving testimony on the effects of the proicct on tne water resources in the oreo. A second public hearing was held on January 23,1974 to hear oddi-

~

tional testimony on the project. '

.- I

h. , _W

! - '* The project has been approved by the Pe'nnsylvania Department of Environmental Resources,

. out it is withholding its permit until the project is opproved by the Delowere River Basin Commission.

'.g. .4. .' . 3.dMID . . ,Q I The Atomic Energy Commission (now Nuclear Regulatory Commission) was responsible os lood egency, for proporing the Envimamental Impact Statement. It decided to stop proceedings until this Commission gave odequate assurance that on odequate wotor supply would be available for the project. As a result, this Commission opproved the proicct for withdrawal of surface water subject to conditions,os specified in Docket D-69-210 CP on March 29,1973 (herein " decision of March 29,1973"), subject to a finot onvironmental imr.act statement.

l The Atomic Energy Commission filed its Final Environmental Impact Statement with the Council on Environmental Quality in . November,1973 and issued on initial Decision authorizing the release of the construction permits on June 14, 1974. Tl e Final Environmental Impact Statement has been appealed through the Nuclear Regulatory Commission ("NRC") proceduros of review by l

the Atomic Sofety and Licensing 8oord (" Licensing Board") and the Atomic Sofoty and Licensing Appeel Boord ("Appool Board"). The declaion of the Appeal Board beenme administrosively final on May 23,1975 and appeal therefrom is now pending in the Uniled States Court of Appools for the Third Circuit. Meanwhile the project is under construction.

The opplication is now again before this Commission for final decision, consistent with the findings and conclusions of the decision of March 29,1973.

! - )' *

~

yerA

- - - _ _ - - _ _ _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . ___ ..,.----,-%, - - - . . . , - - _ . . . , _ . , , . - - _ _ - , _ - - - - , ,7,, _ . , ,. ,,_,,y-,,_,,,,_,,,.___%,.,m,7

i. . .

D-69-210 CP (Final) Sheet 2 Proceedings l

. m.

t The present phase of Commission consideration was initiated when the Commission published notice of intention to act upon Docket No. D-69-210 CP (Supplement No.1) at its July 31,1974 meet-ing, and objections were filed by the Environmental Coalition on Nuclear Power (" objector"). The Executive Director acting under the Administrative Manual, deferred further consideration by the Commission, and scheduled on adversary hearing on the objections. The Chairman of the Com-mission oppointed Honorable Sidney Goldman as hearing examiner, and Judge' Goldman conducted a hearing upon the objections on August 14, 1974. At the hearing, o voluminous record of rele-vont documents were marked in evidence by consent, including pertinent parts.of the testimony taken before the Atomic Energy Commission (now Nuclear Regulartory Commission).

The hearing examiner has submitted on able and scholarly report. It was duly served upon the applicant, the objector cnd counsel to the Commission. Pursuant to the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, the objector filed objections to the report, requesting oral argument before the Commission. Meanwhile on August 18, 1975 Judge Goldman, by letter to the Executive Director, reported that he had thoroughly reviewed the objections and found no reason to amend his report. The Commission heard oral argument by counsel for the obiccior and the opplicant on August 27, 1975. The Commission's decision on this aspect of the cose is incorporated below.

DESCRIPTION

~

d. Purpose.-- The purpose of this project is the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant with two units having a net electrical capacity of 1,055 megawatts each, with circulating cooling water for the steem turbines to be furnished from cooling towers with make-up water to be drown from the Schuylkill River or Perkiomen Creek.

Location.--The project will be located on a 587 acre site on the cost bank of the Schuyl-kill River, in Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, about i .7 miles south of the nearest part of the Borough of Pottstown. A water intake structure will be located on the Schuylkill River at river mile 92.47 - 48.22 and a blowdown and liquid waste discharge structure will be le-l cated at river mile 92.47 - 47.94. An additionnl water intoke structure will he located on Perm; men Creek at river mile 92.47 - 32.3 - 10.5, from which water will be pumped by pipeline to the power plant site.

Service arco.-- The Philadelphia Electric Company will be the sole owner of the Limerick project and the power developed at the plant will be distributed throughout its service arco. The power will also be available for transmission to other orcos via the Pennsylvania-New Jersey-Mary-land Interconnection.

e l

$1&

n, - - . -

---

z.,- - s- yg ..m-w e em-g y -.,m, -pq%- -,.-wye-,-wm9--w- pmyy9

. .~ .  ;

D-69-210 CP (Final) She:t 3 Description 5 .

a Physical features. (c) Facilitics.-- The main facilities at the site will be two reactor buildings, two turbine buildings, two hyperbolic cooling towers, administrative building, service {

buildings, fuel handling building, and water treatment building.

The description of the cooling water system and the proposed operating water requirements remain as described in Docket D-69-210 CP, March 29, 1973. A copy of that Docket Decision is attached hereto for re~erence.

Other facilities of major concern to this Commission because of potential substantial effect on the water resources of the Boain ore os follows:

1. Water intoke structures- The intake structuso pioposed for withdrawal of water from the Schuylkill River will permit water to enter the front and sides through trash bars. The water then posses through traveling screens into o pipeline to the pump station. The intake on Perkiomen Creek will be similar but the pumps will be installed in the structure housing the intakes.

Both structures are designed to limit the velocity of the water opproaching the trav screens to o maximum of 3/4 foot per second.

2. Wostewater discharge structure- The wastewater dischoice structure will be of the multi port diffuser type. Wastewater will be pipod to the center of the Schuylkill River and then w flow into a 30 inch diameter diffuser pipe heading toward the shore. The diffuser pipe will have 400 one inch diameter outlet holes to insure rapid mixing and will be installed in the river bed.

Liquid wastes will be discharged via this diffuser outfall and will consist of the follow-ing:

o. Liquid radioactive wastos (rodwostes) will bc handled by four basic aqueous li-quid collection and treatment subsystems and on enviionment discharge subsystem. The collection and treatment subsystems are: (1) the equipment-drain subsystem for low-conductivity wastes purity water); (2) the floor-drain subsystem for high conductivity wastes; (3) the chemical-drain sub-system for solution wastes; and (4) the laundry-drain subsystem for cleaning-ogent wastes.

Tanks, equipment, and piping that contain liquid rudioactive wastes are en-closed within rodwoste areas in buildings or tunnels and are shielded where acquired to permit operation, inspection, and maintenance. Any equipment that handles potentially radioactive water located outside the olont building structures will be enclosed within water-tight dike struc-tures.

In the event of leaks, spills, or overflows from this equipment, sumps would collect liquid t from each such dike structurcs, and the liquid would be either drained by gravity to the liquid rod-waste system for processing or would be released to the storm scwcrs if, offer testing for Gross radic-octivity, these liquids met the criteria for releosc to the envisonment. Any spi' loge, leukoge, or overflows that occur within the building will be contained in the buildin0, ti ,s assuring no re-leases to the environment.

) .

p.y -- - ,-m y ,--e.*- - - - - - e t .*i,-t-w. g-mi ey--y-en as- M---w a- w- -we,--e-w-,usmywevam.,se amm-s-+we-w-a+g-+.wsi m

--ewme-% gw,, ewe-w -um - - -

Sheet 4 D-69-210 CP (Final)

Description - Ciquid radioactive wastes Normally, aqueous liquid rodwostes from the Limerick Station would be released only from the leundry drain subsystem. These liquids will be diluted with cooling-tower blowdown before being released to the Schuylkill River. The resulting concentration of any rodwestes dis-charged into the river will be less than one percent of the maximum permissible concentration (ex-

~

ciuding tritium) of 1 X 10 7#Ci/ml. specified in the AEC regulations (10 CFR 20). The amount of liquid radio-active wastes discharged will normally not exceed 0.00545 mgd.

b. Cooling tower blowdown. Consumptive evaporative losses of water in the cool-ing towers will require overage blowdown of 13.0 mod. Because the dissolved solids content of .

Schuylkill River water is considerably higher than that which would be drawn from the Perkiomen Creek, the moximum increase in dissolved solids content is expected to occur os a result of blow-down discharges to the Senvylkill when 100% of make-up water is drawn from that stream. This increase in concentration is expected to overage about 11.6% just below the blowoff discharge pipe or 50 mg/l (430 mg/l to 480 mg/l). However, this concentration will be diluted by flow from the Perkiomen further downstream so that overall overage incrcose in concentration at that point will amount only to 4%.

When the measured flow at the Pottstown gage is less than 342 mgd (530 efs) when-one unit is operating or 362 mgd (560 cfs) when both units are operating, make-up water will be taken from Perkiomen Creek. Water taken from Perkiomen Creek will have a lower co 3 dissolved solids and therefore the b!cwdown will have lower dissolved solids concentra e critical low flow in the Schuylkill River, the blowdown willincrease the dissolved solids concentro-tion in the Schuylkill River opproximately 2.5%.

The thermal effects of blowdown would be most critical at extreme low flow peri-ods in summer. It is estimated that mid-summer blowdown would have a temperature of 90 F , obout 6.20F obove the river temperature of 83.80F and that hcot added to the river would be about 0.027 x 10 9BTU per hour which is only about 0.17% of the waste hear handled by the cooling tower sys-tem, 99.83% of which would be discharged to the atmosphere. The discharge of blowdown would be from a submerged pipeline with outlets spaced to effect rapid mixing with approximately half the flow of the river. For the design low flow of 149 mgd (230 cis), as measured at Pottstown, the heat content of the blowdown would raise half the design flow, 74.5 mgd (115 cfs), from its back-ground temperature of 83.8 F to about 84.9 F.

c. Chemical odditives. Various chemicals would be added to the water in the station for quality control and for control of fouling organisms on heat-exchanger and piping surfaces. The regeneront wastes from the plant make-up water dcmincrolizing system would be discharged to the river via the blowdown system. The added solids content of the dischoige water due to the use of chemicals will be about 324 pounds per day. This would add on incremental dissolved-solids con-centration of 3.0 mg/l to the 13.0 mgd (20 cis) discharge from the sto' tion. After mixing with the seven-day, ten year low flow of 149 mod (230 cis) as measured at Pottstown, which is expected to have a maximurn dissolved-solids concentration of 500 mg/l, the mixture would have o maximum concentration of 500.29 mg/l. This increment of dissolved solids ndded by the Limerick plant would have no measurable effect on the water quality of the Schuylkill River, y/c A

, . - ---.,v,-.- ,-,,----rw-,w-.-.- ----,,--mm

D-67-210 CP (Final) Sheet 5 0:scriptirn 1

d. Sanitary scwogo wastewater: A small sewage treatment plant will be con-structed to serve the personnel at 'the site. The maximum sewage flow will occur during construc-tion and is estimated to be 37,500 gallons per day. During construction, the treatment plant will operate as o contact stabilization plant, and then, when serving only the permanent personnel, it will be operated using the extended ceration process. The plant is designed to remove 85% of the BOD 5 and 90% suspended solids and the treated effluent will be chlorinated for disinfection. The sewage treatment plant is not of sufficient size to require o Delowore River Bosin Commission re- l view; however, the treatment plant has been reviewed by the Pennsylvania Department of Environ-mental Resources. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources has opproved the pro-ject, but is withholding its permit until the industrial waste discharge permit is issued.

3. Other wastes.-- These wastes include solid and gaseous radioactive wasics (rad-wastes) as follows:

a. Solid rodwestes. Solid rodwostes would include spent domineralizer resins,

- evaporotor bottoms, waste sludges, filter elements, contaminated equipment, and poper, rods, plastic sheeting, and other materials used in decontamination and contamination control. These solid wastes would be placed in containers oppropriate for the different types of waste materials, os opproved by the U.S. Department of Transportation (D.O.T.) for off-sito disposal. All evaporotor bottoms would be immobilized before being placed in containers. Loaded containers would be moni-tored for radiation levels and stored in a special area until shipped to on off-site disposal fccility.

y Solid westes would be disposed of by licensed contrectors in occardance with regulations of the A.E.C., the D.O.T. and the Interstate Commerce Commission (l.C.C.).

b. Goseous rodwostes. The gaseous rodwostes of the proposed Limerick arosion w..

of concern to the Delaware River Bosin Commission because of their potential for contaminating the water resources of the Basin- vio follout of particulate rodwestes corried by the gaseous wastes, or by obsorption of the gaseous wastes by surface water or rain falling within the Basin.

The potentici sources of gaseous rodwestes include the main condenser off gos, primary containment atmosphere, reactor building atmosphere, and gases from chemical laboratories and building services.

Off gas removed from condensers would consist of air shot icoks into the con-densers, radiolytic hydrogen, radiolytic oxygen, and iodioactive noble gases (krypton and xenon).

Radioactive hydrogen and oxygen would be secombined to form water, which would be returned to the plant.

.. )

W/A

e D-69-210 CP (Final) Sheet 6 Description The radioactive air would undergo o delay time of at Icost 30 minutes to allow decay of short-lived isotopes, su 6 as nitrogen-13, nitrogen-16, and oxygen-19.

The remaining gases--oir, krypton, and xenon- would be cryogenically liqui-fled and distilled to separate the krypton and xenon from the air. The separated krypton and xenon would be stored to allow radioactive decoy. After decoy time sufficient to insure that only the long-lived krypton-85 remains, the stored gases would be released to the atmosphere under controlled conditions, vio o vent located at on elevation opproximately 200 feet above local grade elevation.

Release of radioactive gases would be at a rate such that the levels of sodioactivity in these gases would be significantly below the AEC regulations (10 CFR 20). The design of the gescous rodwoste system is based on limiting the off-sito whole-body dose levels to one percent of the level allowed (500 mrem) by the AEC regulations (10 CFR 20).

4. Domestic water supolv- The permanent domestic water supply will be taken from the surface water river intakes. The water will be recated and chlorinated as necessary. Two small wells will be used during construction. The total withdrawal from both wells is less than 100,000 gallons per day and therefore does not require review by the Delowore River Bosin Commission.

5. Dredging- As part of the construction of both intokes, a small amount of stream-bed excavation is necessary.

3 FINDINGS The findings in the decision of D-69-210 CP on March 29,1973 are reaffirmed with respect to the availability of water supply, except shot the Commission by vote of July 31,1975 has eliminated the option of relying upon Tocks Island water supply.

The final environmental impact statement prepared by the Atomic Energy Commission and filed with the Council on Environmental Quality contained the following summary of environmen-tal, impacts:

a. "The Limerick Generating Station and ils substorions are expected to occupy 85 of the 587 ocres of ferm and wood land in the site, requiring the clearing of only a few acres of woods. The adverse effect of the loss of this faimland and wild-life habitat is not grcot since this acreage is on insignificant peicentage of the land committed to these uses in the icgion. Some construction activity in the

! form of site excavation at the location of majoi components of the station has already been accomplished. About 7 ocies of land will he cleared foi a coici-Jor for construction of a transmission line fiom the substo ions to existing trans-mission systems. l.ond activities will be stabilized and seeded with native trees and grosses."

l I

W/.4

-- , - - - - - - . - - - - , , ,,,_,-e ~ w __., ,.

, ,' D-69-210 CP (Fin:1 Shect 7 Findings' P

b. "The use of two natural draft cooling towers to dissipate the waste heat from the 1.imerick stolion will result in the consumptive use of water by evoporation

. and drift at a maximum rate of 65 cubic feet per second (cis) (estimated overage annual rote of 54 cfs). The applicant has icceived a conditional permit from

~

the Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBC) to withdraw this water from the Schuylkill River and/or the Perkiomen Creek, ougmented as necessary by water from the Delaware River. This allocation of water for consumptive use was made by DRBC after full consideratice of the water resources of the Dolowore River Basin in comparison to the present and projected future needs for municipal, in--

dustrial and recreational purposes."

c. " The intake structures in the Schuylkill River and Perkiomen Crcok have been designed to limit velocities to less than 3/4 foot per second in erder to minimize demoge to fish and other aquatic bioto by impingement on intoke screens and entrainment in the cooling water system."

d. " The cooling tower blowdown water will be discharged through a submerged diffuser pipe in the Schuylkill River. The maximum surface excess temperature is expected to be about l'F in summer and 30F in winter. The thermal effect of the discharged water is insignificant."

f9

• e. " Chemicals may be discharged from the plant as water sointions, principolly in the cooling tower blowdown, or os vapor drift from the cooling towers. The chlor-inotion system proposed by the opplicant should result in a total chlorine residual concentration (maximum) of 0.2 ppm in the cooling tower blowdown. Chemical

, deposition from the drift is expected to be insignificant."

4

f. " Construction of the Limerick Generating Station is expected to produce tempor-cry adverse impoets from increased culomotive traffic and construction noise. The modein industriol buildings should have very litric adverso visual impact because of the screening ovoilobic from natural vcyctation. The cooling towcrs orc the  ;

most visible of the plant structurcs, and the thermal plumes from these towers are l

not expected to increase significantly the formation of fog or ice."

I

g. "The censtruction of the plant is expected to result in the employment of more than 2,000 pople in the three years of maxienal oclivity. It is estimated that 70% of these workers will commune fiom neuiby populosion censen and the others I

will reside in the oreo. Local business and school populntion will incicose, but community facilitics appcor to be adequale to accommodule the expected I

growth. The total increase in the numbus of peirnonent icsidents off er com-pletion of construction is expected to be less than 500."

l--

,-n, , , - . - ,e a n,,. - . , - - ,-.,,.no,1-ee. .--,,e --~e,<-m~.,wmv,,--,.,w.-em+- e,,,-,wym,-vm,,<-ey sy 9 vs me-m-nwsee,,,ww-

i

[ D-69-210 CP (Final)-

Findings Sheet 8 3

h. " Unoccupied land on the site will be made available to the public for recico-tional purposes and a public information center will be established. Therefore, the educational and recreational impact within the community is beneficial".

1. "The risk assoi:ioted vith accidental radiation exposure is very low."

j. "No significant environmental impacts within a 50 mile sodius are expected from normal operational releases of radioactive materials. The estim6 cd dose to the population within 50 miles from operation of the plant is 33 man rom /yr, which is less than the normal fluctuation in the 1,200,000 man-rem /yr back-ground dose this population receives."

k. "The coiculated radiation dose to the thyroid of a child from iodioactive iodine via the atmosphere posture - cow milk pathway is within the guidelines of the Atomic Energy Commission for "os low as practicable" emissions of radio-activity from nuclear power plants."

The proposed project is designed to produce o discharge meeting the offluent requirements and stream quality objectives, as set forth in the Water Quality Standards, of the Delaware River -

Basin Commission.

i The project does not conflict with nor adversely offect the Con prehensive Plan, it pro-vides beneficial use of the water re:aurces, is financially and physically feasible, conforms to accepted policy, and does net adversely influence the present or future use and development of the water resources of the Basin.

Objections and Report Thereon by the Hearing Examinor The Report of the heoring examiner referenced above, found four issues raised by the objections to the docket decision proposed for action on July 31,1974:

1. Did the objections os filed specify "particularly the grounds thereof" os required by the Administrativo Manual, Sections 2-3.10 and 2-3.11 ?

2. Does the environmental review process os to woier availohility and the disclosure of AEC's Final Environmental Statement and DRilC's Point Picosant Diversion Environmentul impoet Stuiement justify the Commission's proposed decision (Docket No. D-69-210 CP (Sup-i plement No.1) -- Exhibit 10 for identificosion) under Section 3.8 of the Delaware River Basin Compact and under NEPA?

+W4

= .

. . , _ _ , . , . - - ~ , -- _.e .. _r._ .

.7_ ._, y_-.,., .... ,. ~ p-., , , , ,.-.p. .7-.,r,-

I

, . u-p-4:u ut vmo9 -

., , . Objections and Report---- - Sheet 9

3. What is the status of AEC's Final Environmental Sloiemen the then pending appeal -- i.e., in regard to the " finality" of the FES for purposes of NEPA in light of the CEQ guidelines?

4. In light of the conclusion reached with respect to the previous issues and the initial Decision by AEC on June 14, 1974, is DRBC still free to i

consider the " river follower" mode of operation in its Docket decision? '

i After thoroughly considering the briefs and argumeat on the first issue, Judg concludes omi recommends that one of the four objections filed by the Coalitio enough to olert the Commission as to the Coalition's principal complaint; nomaly -

the Commission has considered a specific reservoir site to moet theo needs .

on of t during low flow conditions, and has subjected the site to the environme NEPA, moy the Commission lawfully approve the application.

Having datormined that this ob-i coeds to deel with each of the remaining three issues (Supplement No.1)." A copy of the complete repor i mission's file in this cose, os is a stenogrophic transcript of the oral orgument of c The merits of the case turn on the viability of what is described as the " rive mode of operation of the power plant.

Q quired by condition "b" of the decision of that Marchis:

29,1973,The " river fol

b. Whenever the flow constmints cited in the above Findings prevent the opplicant from operating the plant at full food, the opplicant shall operate i the plant only at such percentoges of full load as the available water supply ellows, os determined by the Commission.

Counsel for the Coalition osserts "that the record does not support the alternative of a riv lower." Accordingly it,is his argument,thot the project may not be approved under th ments of NEPA unless and until a site for supplementory reservoir storage (condition "c" in decision of March 29,1973) la selected and. subjected to o NEPA analysis. The opplica <

teash to the contrary; that the river follower mode of operation is feasible, and that the is I supplementory storoge is a separate one to which the applicant would oddress it appliestion to the Commission in due course.

The Commission's consideration of the issue thus posed at this timo suggests the ne restote es follows:also condition "c" of opproval stated in Docket No. D-69-210 CP, decided Ma I -

V/FA

_ ,,,_e,.,-. . --.-----,._,_m~ --,,_,,.-,,,,-,+.,-.,.w- ~3-,-._. ,-,.-.,,-._,,m,w,w, -,--.,,c. ,,%w. ,n.-- -w,--,,---s.,,_,--%,,per.--

e

. w-ur .u u u o n.oy .

Objections and Report---

c. - Prior to January 1,1977,.the Commission will, in its sole discrolion, delennino O the odequacy of the then existing storogo facilities on the Delaware River orits tributories togetherwith odditional storage tobe built tosupply all needs(including the applicant's) for water supply from that source by the year 1900. If the Commission then determines that the storage will not beadequale for all projected needs of the Basin, the opplicant will build or couse to be built, at its own expense, at o location opproved by the Comminion, for service in 1980, o reservoir of sufficient storoge capacity to assure the water supplyneeded for consumptive use by the Limerick piant, during periods when such uso would reduce the flowin the Delaware j River ot the Trenton gage below3,000cfs. Storage and release of water in such facility will be under the Comminion's regulation, of the expense of the opplicant.

i At the time of the March 29, 1973 decision, the Toeks Island Dom and Reservoir was a possible source of additional water supply storage from which the depletive needs of the Limerick Storion could be satisfied along with other needs of the Basin. Tl o futuro of the projoct was than in a state of uncertainty, which hos since been resolved by the Commission vote of July 31,1975.

The opplicant is willing to accept water availability limited to the river follower mode of operation. The objector contends that such a mode of operation would be uneconomic and that i supplementory storoge is on inseparable part of the project.

The Commission here deals primorily with issues of wotor supply, and not with issues of nuclear generoting plant economics. From this point of view alone, on the basis of Judge Goldman's

, e report end recommendations, and Commission's independent consideration of the record and argument i M before it, this Commission may conclude that the viability of the river follower mode is on issue in the first instance for the applicant itself and then for the Nuclear Regulatory Comminion. The NRC decided, through its Appeal Board decision which become final on May 23,1975, that the Limerick Station seuld proceed to construction. This decision, which offirmed in part and reversed in part en inittel decision of the NRC's Licensing Boord included certain conditions os to water ovellobility, to which there will be further reference below.

For present purposes, this Commission moy begin with the contention of the opplicant that the river follower mode is foosible, and that the applicant is willing to proceed on that bosis. Never-theless, under this Comminion's powert and practice pursuant to Section 3.8 of the Cornpoet and ~

l Article 13 of the Compoet, conditions may be imposed as part of any project approval. In that con-tent, this Commission's concerns tronscend the issue of " river follower" viability. This Comminion, like the NRC, prefers to avoid the secondary effects of ordering a reduction or interruption of power generation in low flow periods. To that ond, the Commission may well ultimolcly find it necessory to sell for supplementory water supply storage to make up for deplosivo usus by otomic fueled power plants in the Bosin.

D e

4WA

,_ym , _ -____-,.__,__,-7 . - _ _. _ , , , . _ _ , . . - - ,---___.._,w.._,,,,,.,.w.m.._,,--w ,-,--._ , , , -,,,,.,,w,,_-,._.,,-. . , . , - _ _ -, , , _ .- - , , . _ , ...,._..-y_ , _ - _ , . . ~ , - .

, , D-69-210 CP (Final) Sheet 11 Objections and Report---- l l

o >

The objector contends that the Limerick Station "would supply approximately 2,300 megawatts nf power, would supply the copocity for opproximately 50% of the Philadelphia Elec-tric system's base load." Based upon data furnished by the applicont, however, it oppcors that Limerick Unit No. I will be only 10% of Philadelphia Electric's generating ccpocity in 1981 and only 2% of the PJM interconnected capacity at that time (Table I following).

TABLE 1 Generating Copacity of the Philadelphia Elecif ic Company and the PJM Interconnection 1/

Philodolphio PJM Electric (MW) (MW)

(1) Present Generating Ccpacity (as of May 31,1975) 7,508 41,810 ,

(2) Commercial Operation of Limerick Unit 1 (May 1981) 3/ 9, 971 53,3413/

d  % Limerick to Total 10.6% 2%

1 Source: Philadelphia Electric Company 2 The net capacity of each cf the Limerick Units is 1,055 MW.

3 These data include the Summit nuclear fueled generating station, which later .

information indicates will not be built.

The Commission is concerned, however, with the cumulative effect of a mandated shut-down or reduction of generation of all power generating stations under the river follower option, in the Basin. As shown in Table 2, the five generating stations under the river follower option (Limerick, Summit, Hope Creek, Gilbert and Martins Creek) could all be shut down simultaneously and still have sufficient generating capacity including interconnections and reserves to meet the food. More-over Martins Creek already has the use of Lake Wallenpoupack and this source could conceivably be raade available to other utilitics.

An effective use of the resources of the Basin demands that supplementary storogo, as needed for all other generating stations should be coordinated and planned with scicience to the Master Siting Study of Major Electric Generating Projects, Deluware River Basin, 1972 - 1986 (December 1971, os revised through 1975). From the viewpoint of water supply, a total of eight generating sto-tions is involved. Five stations, using 06 cfs (including Limerick), one or may he, subject to the 3000 cfs operating condition by provisions inserted into lho Sections 3.0 dockets. Three of these five

/ stations, using 70.7 cis, are owned by the some three componics ihot nwn the iluce stations which have not been modo subject to the 3000 cfs flow constroint, Salem, Eddystone and Edge Moor.

l 4V7A i 1

j U TABLE 2 Y

. %t 12 ,

Ace. Acc.llent i Plcnt Plant Cop. Cep. cs g

co , . Comeny Plc,t Ceo.

Acc. Plant Ces, by Cc eny Est. Cornp. Comp. os percent Est. PJM PJM perce,t N

Cos. Rese ve of Cc, o. Coo. %1 erw <-w C:s. Reserve of PJM Cep.

II (2) 13) (4 r .* oercent erw ne-ee,t (5) (6) (7) (81=t51/(6)x 100 (9) (10) (lit =i:W is= 100 775 PP&L M ersins Cr. 73 600 8C0 NA NA NA Accumulated Cep. SC3 4IBIO 30.9 1.9 777 GPU Gilbert 133 130 6683 13.8 1.9 PP&L ucrtins Cr. 84 800 I600 6237 55.2 25.4 Accu.,ulcred Cap. 1730 45203 26.3 3.8 78I PECO Limerick Il IC55 IC55 9971 11.4 CPL Sux. nit'l2 / 655 655 3364 28.9 10.6 PECO S v.r.,it #1 19.4 115 IIS 9971 II.4 .

1.1 Accumulated Cep. 3555 53341 21.5 6.'7 i

' ?a2 PECO Limerick f2 1055 2110 10904 PSE&G Hepe Cr. #1 3/ 15.6 19.4 .'

993 990 11*84 20.2 ACE Hcpe Cr. Il 8.8 110 110 2257 18.0 4.9 Accumuleted Cop. 57I0 58477 26.9 9.8 78 4 PSE&G Hope Cr. #2M 990 1930 12174 19.9 16.3 ACE Hepe Cr. '2 110 220 2547 DLP Sur .,it # 2p 17.0 8.6 655 1310 4319 22.9 PECO Su mit f2 32.6 115 230 12050 16.1 1.9 Accu.,ulated Cap. 75SO 62757 23.9 12.1

~1/ Compiled fro., c=t furnis'ned to CR3C by Delcwcre River Sosin Electric Utility Group, September 22, 1975, end .VAAC Repor+, April 1,19 data has been willwithd=wn cl o,;e overwithintir e esd=ys.

recent the Utilities adopt their plans to c'enging conditions and technology; for excr:ple, the Sur:rait Genercring 5;ction 2/ Jsint owrership - CPL (95%); PECO (159a) ,

3/ Joint ownership - PSE&G (90%); ACE (10%)

O O 8 l

t

• a

,d g .

s 4 &

i+ - .

D-69-210 CP (Final) Shest 13 Objections and Report----

1 f

These three stations have on effective depletive use of 10 cfs. It is reasonabic to assume that if l these companies decide to build wolcr supply facilities to meet the requirements of the docket I

. decision for one project, they could satisfy similar requirements for all of their projects easily and economically at the some time. _ For example, Philadelphio Electric Company could readily odd storage space to yield 3.9 cfs for PECO's Eddystone station to any facility provided to meet the 54.3 cfs needed by Limerick. '

l The Commission recognizes that over time changes will be made in the utilitics' plans for some of these generating stations; some may be abandoned and others added. (See Master Siting Study, June 1975). For example, very recent information indicates shot the sponsor has abandoned its present plans for the Summit station. The dato are sufficient, however, to illustrate the cumulo-l tive effect of the river follower mode on available power generating capacity in the Basin, were five stations to be operating under its full constroints. The Commission concludes that the river fol-lower mode is a viable alternative; but it still requires further consideration in the context of overall Basin water resources management.

Following its action of July 31,1975, on the Tocks project, the Cnmmission hos undertaken a comprehensive reexamination of the basic water supply elements of the Comprehensive Plan.

Studies now in progress are reevaluating the base flow criteria (including the flow of 3,000 cfs at' Trenton); the drought frequency planning assumptions; and the prioritics to be accorded competing

)

uses under the new conditions of water supply. The results of these studies could substantially in-fluence the Commission's judgment as to the extent of the need for supplementory water supply stor-age to make up depletive uses by the utilities.

In the present cose the Commission. by its decision of March 29,1973 prescribed the condition that pr:or to January 1,1977, the Commission will, in its sole discretion, determine whether addi-tional water supply storage is required to meet the opplicant's needs, and that the applicont will pro-i vide such storage, if required, for service in 1980 (see Text of condition "c" quoted above). While thor condition reflected the context of uncertainty as to the futurc of Tocks Island, the some condi-tion is now pertinent to the outcome of the Commission's cunent reassessment of its entire water re-source monogement plan without Tocks Island.

in the proceedings before the Nuclear Regulatory Commission which followed this Commission's decision of March 29, 1973, a similar water ovailability condition was included as Section 3.E. (8) of the Construction Permits. That condition requires the oppliennt to take such measures as may be necessory to assure the availability of compensoling water s.omge copocity at the time of initial operation, as may be rcquired by this Commission, and to submit a schedule to accomplish this ob-icclive. On December 19, 1974 the opplicant did submit such a schedule, following review and recommendations by DRBC staff, as follows:

l l

The schedule is based on meeting ihree significont dates: 1 i 1. December 19, 1974, the date when the schedule should he presented to the AEC Director of Licensing (as por the AEC Construction Permit for the Lim-erick Generating Storion).

.mg--m-s--w.v---_-.--~+>.

-- -g--.-,r--w-vr- , . , - , , .- og ,- , , , , ew-eq,e g gne--,g-r-,5my--e

I M; .

y n, - , ..

e D-69-210 CP (Finct) Sheet 14

(  %

Objoctions and report v

2. January 1,1977, the latest date thi DRBC has scheduled for a decision on a decision on the need for o cooling water supply reservoir (as per DRBC Docket for Limerick).

operot;on.3. April,1981, the date when the Limerick plant will begin commerci s

The schedule is devided into phases as follows:

1. Site Selection Studies. The objective of this pho:e is to select the three most promising sites for further study. . Factors to be evoluoted in these studies are cost, environmental impact, and land acquisition and relocation problems. Only reconnoissance-type field work would be scheduled.

2. Evoluotion of Priority Sites. The scope of work and liming for this phase is to select a site, design the project and have ready for transmittal to the proper agencies by January 1,1977, all required dato reports and applications needed to obtain clearance for construction. DRBC established this dato as the latest date to determine the need for the reservoir. Some field surveying, sub-i surface exploration and on-site environmental studies will be required for this

, phase.

3. Land Acquisition, l.cnd acquisition could begin oiler selection of the preferred site. However, there is always the possibility that the site may not be j occeptable to the state and federal reviewing agencies.

4. Project Review, Environmental Review, and Issuance of Permits by

, Responsible Agencies. A period of 16 months beginning January 1,19/7, is shown for this phase. To meet this schedule, the environmental report must bc l submitted soon ofter this date. A draft Environmental impact Statement (EIS) by 1 the lead agency, the review thereof, preparation of a final EIS, and the Council of Environmental Quality Review con be accomplished during this period. All necessary permit opplications will be filed as early as possible during this phase.

~

5. Proconstruction Encincering. Detailed engineering and dato collec-tion will proceed concurrently with the tinvironmenlol review described as Phase

4. The work for this phase will include topographic serveying, sub-surface ex-pioration and detailed design of proicct facilities to produce the engineering plans and specifications required for contract bidding. A bidding period is scheduled ro

follow immediately the review period (Phase 4).

-s g i

-y-, -- _

- _ , . . . , . , _.--,--n m-,--v--+-.---, - - - - - - ,-e--.---- ,..._,.._,,----.---.v-----,-,---u-. -m----m_.--w--_,wa.,,--y-w,e v-

~ '

i D-69-210 CP (Final) Sheet 15 l Objections and report i l

- 1

.3 '

6. - Construction. A period of 30 months is shown on the schedule for construction. Procurement and installation of the electrical and mcchonical equip-ment is the critical item durino this phase. However, it is expected that manufac-turing, installation and Icsting of the equipment con be completed prior to January ,

1,1981. This will permit reservoir releosos to be available, if needed, in the summer of 1981.

. 7. Filling of the Reservoir. A period of five months is allowed for the first filling, ofrer completion in January,1981. This will permit the commercial operation of the Limerick plant scheduled for April,1981, with sufficient water available to meet cooling requirements for the summer of 1981.

It remains to determine what, if any, environmental ecol world value would be vindicated by insisting upon a reservoir site selection now, including NEPA review, rather than following such a schedule as above. The Commission concludes that all of the requirements of NEPA have been satisfied and opproval of the application con proceed at this time.

DECISION

1. The project as described inDocket D-69-210 CP und supplemented above, with the modifications included in the docket decision of March 29,1973 and specified hereinafter, is g hereby added to the Comprehensive Plan.

11. The project is approved pursuant to Section 3.8 of the Compact,' subject to the follow-ing conditions:

oc Approval is subject to all conditions imposed by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (formerly the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission) and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. -

b. Whenever the flow constraints cited in Docket D-69-210 CP (Findings) prevent the opplicant from operating the plant at full load, the opplicant shall operate the plant only at such percentages of full load as the available water supply alle . et determined by the Commis-sion from time to time.

c. Prior to January 1,1977, the Con @ m e in its sole discretion, deter-mine the adequacy of the then existin0 storage facililie3 on the Octuume P,iver or its tributorics together with odditional storogo to be built to supply all needs (including the applicant's) for water supply from that source by the year 1981.. If the Comminion then determines that the stor-age will not be odcquote for all projected needs of the basin, the opplicant will build or cause to be built, at its own expense, at a location oppioved by the Commission, for service in 1981, o reservoir of sufficent stoiogc_ capacity to assure the water supply needed foi consuntptive use by the Limerick plant, during periods when such use would reduce the flow in the Delaware River at

. the Trenton gage below 3,000 cfs. Storage and release of water in such facility will be under l

the Commission's regulation, at the expense of the applicant.

i i . ..

h/A

3

'O.69-210 CP (Fin:1) Sheer 16

). Decisions l

'd.

Beginning one ycor prior to the first commercial operation date of Unit I at the 1.imerick plant, the applicont will pay for metered quantities of water withdrawn the at the several locations dcscribed above.

The price of waters so taken from the Schuylkill River, Perkiomen Creek, and she Delaware River will be determined in accordance wit water supply policy, heretofore adopted or os may be amended hereafter.

e. I Basin Commission. The facility shall be available at all times for inspection by the Delaware the Water Quality Standards of the Delowore River Dosin Comm g.

The Philadelphia Electric Company shall maintain records of suspended solids dischorge and shall furnish a record of net quantities of suspended solids dischoice to the U.S.

Army District Engineer at the completion of each six month period, or at such other frequencie os the District Engineer may require,

h. The discharge of the wastewater shall not inc ase the natural temperature of the receiving during the waters by more than SoF (above the overage daily , emperature gradient disp 1961-66 period), nor shall such dische ge result in r' room temperature exceeding 87'F, except within on assigned heat dissipation crea consistin, of one-half the stream width and-3,500 feet downstream from the discharge point.

i. Sound practices of excavation, backfill, and reseeding shall be followed to

' minimize erosion and deposition of sediment in streams.

j. The turbidity standards for the Delaware River, as established by the Delowere River Basin Commission, may not be exceeded outside of mixing ascos, as described herein:o ch-tonce of 100 feet upstream and 500 feet downstream and 1/2 of the stream width at each discharge and intake structure during their construction.

• k. The Executive Director of the Delaware River Basin Commission may direct o suspension of streambed excavation operations whenever in his judgment the operations are not being conducted in accordonce with this opproval, one adversely o ccting water quality, or are 8

krmful to the passage of anodromous or cotodromous fishes.

-l'. Upon completion of construction of the opproved project, the sponsor shall submit a statoment to the Deloworo River Basin Commission, signed by the sponsor's engineer or other responsible ogent, certifying to the Commission under oath, that the construction has been completed in compliance with the opproved piens and giving the final construction cost of the opproved project.

N

& 14 f

5

• , e e 1 ,

Sheet 17 D-69-210 CP (Final)

Decisions y

m. Any future requirements imposed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency shall supersede the requirements of this opproval insofar as they impose more stringent treatment criterio.

n. This approval shall not take effect unless and until the opplicant shall file with the Commission its undertaking signed by its duly authorized officers and in a form opproved by General Counsel to the Commission, accepting and agreeing to the conditions "b" through "m" above.

Ill. The Executive Director is authorized to issue a water quality certification in accordance with Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972.

BY THE COMMISSION DATED: November 5,1975 e

9 e

1 G e em6e&

- - , - - , , , - , - - - - - - -,- - - -w-. e