ML20116H461

Petition to Order Util to Make Complete Environ Study of Proposed Changes in Delaware River Basin Compact & to Issue Stay

ML20116H461
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	04/29/1985
From:	Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
To:	Edles G, Gotchy R, Kohl C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#285-788 OL, NUDOCS 8505020215
Download: ML20116H461 (2)

Text

8, U.S.tIUCLEAR RECULATLRY con.f.1ISSION... ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD PHIIJ..iLEC. CO. LIVEhICK GEN.STA. Units 16: 2. DOCKET # 50- 352,353 Judge C.H.Echl M

Judge G.J.Edles Dr. R.L. Gotchy WhE R PETITICN TO ALAB BY R.L. ASTHOSY/FGE TO ORDER PECO TO EAKE h0Ed M803 -

-**T L STUDY OF THE Ph0PobE'>

y$IIhoISSUEASTAY. CKAN3ES IN THE DELAVARE HIVEh FAS!N COMPACT A ,, ,_.

00CIET,iM N a h, dRANCH On 3/19/85 PECo forwarded to the Bo a rd a copy of its 3/15/85 application to the Delaware Basin Commission to remove the temperature limits on withdraw-als from the Schuylkill River and to increase releases from the Blue Marsh Resevoir to augment the flow in the river.

We are opoosed to these changes in the River Basin Compact as set forth belew,and we ask t's Board to order PECo to withdraw this appli ction until an evironmental impact study of the consequences of the changes has been conolet-ed and approved by NRC and an opportsnity has been provide to intervenors to present evidence on these impacts. We further petition the Boa rd to issue an immediate stay on any further pursuit by PECo of this application or its imple-mentation.

We point out that this application is in violation of the requirements of Appendix A of NRC Licence NPF-27 issued to FEco on 10/26/84:

3 1 ... Before engaging in additional construction or operational activi-ties which any significantly affect the environment, the licensee shall prepare and record an environmental ev a luation of such activity.

5 3 C' anges in Environmental Protection Plan.

Requests for chqnges in 'the EFP chall include an assessment of the eviron-mental impact or the proposed change and a aupporting justification.

Implementation of such changes in the BPP shall not commence prior to NR C approval of the proposed changes in the form of a licemse amendcent incorporating the appropriate revision to the EPP.

PEco's environmental considerations included in the application are super-ficia.1 and insufficiert,as are those in the Amendment No.1 dated 4/23/85. They do not in any way fulfill the requirement for an environmental impact study or a license amendment incorporating revisions to the EPP as specified in para. 53 A thorough study of the effects on river biological life and downstream users is requir*d.

We note also the Boa rd's state'.ent of 9/26/84 (ALAB - 785, p. 60) " The Board correctly noted that the Blue Marsh Reservoir is not now a real alternative for supplementing the Schuylkill River water for Limerick." FEco's plan to with-draw Blue Earsh water in in contradiction to this.

We enclose our sumnary in opposition to the application sent to DRSC 3/28/85 which adds further points supporting an order by*the Board and an immediate stay.

l cc8 NRC ASLB, Staf f Coun.sel., Docketing, Eespectfully submitted, PEco, DRBC, R.Sugarmen,others on Sorv. List M Pr1M 7- e 47tAA.< MJ Joyir .!S. I F(

8505020215 850429 PPR ADOCK 05000352 y 0 PDR

Ea. Sucan Taicman, Secretary Box 186 Roylan ,Ps.19065

[ 2elenn*e River Basin Comaicaion Box 73$0 West Trenton,5.J. 0862S March 28, 1985 s D;ar Ms. Waieman, As an intervenor in the NRC licensing procedings for Philadelphia Electric Company's Limerick Nuclear plant, we have been representing citizen health and safety interesta under the name of Robert L. Anthony / Friends of the Earth in the Delaware Valley. We recently were provided with a copy of PECo's application ,

dated 3/15/95, seeking Da30's authorization to change the sta9dra ds for the Schuylkill River and to provide cooling water by relea ses from the Blue Marsh reservoir. We wish to inform DR3C of our vital interest in this application and to request that we be admitted as parties and included in written presenta-tions and afforded the opportunity to testify before the Commission.

4 ask that DRBC provide us time to make a thorough study of the impacts of the authorizations requested by PECo ahd to submit our evidence against any change in the present regulations governing the Schuylkill River before any final consider ation by the Commission.

At the moment we sarmarize our opposition to PECo's application under the following he adings:

1. DR3C set its standar ds for the Schuylkill af tar careful study and these should not be changed,even temporarily,without a new environmental impact study.

2. A temporary permit could certain'l y lead to a lon'ger tens one,since there is uncertainty over the status of the Pt. Pleasant diversion and continuing litigation.

3. The City of Ehila. has offered to sell water to PECo. The possibility of accelerating this connec tion could provide a tecporary,and a pe rmanen t, solu-tien of the supplemental water supply.

4 If DMBC decided that using its water reserves for Lizerick cooling was a proper use of area water,it only arrived. at this conclusion on the basis of combining weier from the Delaware with the Schuylkill. Providing water from the Schuylkill alone, the Coamission. wisely never authorized and this decision shnuld not be modified in any way.

5 PR0o has not demonstrsted that it has explored alternatives,such as wcter from the City of Phila. ( See PE0o Attachment 2.)

6. Other users will be enda gered n as TECo intimates in Attach. 2 (1) in stating that consumptive use will make the Schuylkill "largely unavailable for am'u (PEco) withdrawals during the period June to October,1985." DR3C made the water unavailable to protect water r3 sources on a sound basis.

~

7. Nothing ha s chan ge$ to modify DER Secre tary R. A.Luksa's position quotsiin Attach. 2 (3),

• Green Lane is not large enough to meet the combined needs of PS# Co. and Limerick."

8. Mea suring disolved oxygen levels is not a substitute for the 59 0 tempe ra-ture constraint. Higher temperatures impact the biological life of the river.

9. A dissolved orygen restraint should be added to the schuylkill standards, not substituted for the 59 timitation.

10. The current rainfall shortage could progress into a drought. This reinfor-ces the need to conserve water resources and not to modify the present restrictions.

11. We oppose PEco's application as it would degrade the Schuylkill and im-peril essential wr.ter reserves.

Ces FRC- ASLB Judges, Staff, Docketing - Respecffully submitted, PECo,7 0% ,FEVA. An oe Love , C t h e r s on Lim-rick Se rv. jg , 46