ML20140A696

Petition to NRC to Find Util in Violation of Conditions of License NPF-39,to Stay Operation of Reactor Immediately & Suspend License Until Complete Compliance W/License in Any Proposal to Revise Water Controls

ML20140A696
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	01/17/1986
From:	Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
To:	Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8601230309
Download: ML20140A696 (4)

Text

i y.3. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ... DIRECTOR OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION Re: PHILA.ELEC. CO. Licorick Gon.Sta. Unito 1 & 2 DOCKET No: 50-352,353 January 17,1986 APPEAL BY R.L. ANTHONY /F0E TO THE DIRECTOR, NRR,TO REQUIRE PHILA.ELEC. TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF LICENSE NO.NPF - 39. APPENDIX B,IN APPLYING TO DdBC.

We are in receipt of a Public Notice and a Public Hearing on 1/22/86 from the Delaware River Basin Commission in response to an application by PECo for revisions in the controls on withdrawal of water from the Schu diver for use at the Limerick Station (DRBC Project :D-69-210 CP (Final)ylkillRev. 5)during 1986.

This application by PEco proposes changes in the environmental conditions under which the operation of Limerick effects the Schuylkill River,its aquatio and stream valley life and the drinking water use of communities downstream. Ye are opposed to PECo's application for these revisions because they are requested without reference to the changes in environmental impact they will bring and are in violation,moreover, of the specific provisions of the Environmental Protection Plan 61ch are a part of License No. NPF-39, Appendix B, as set forth below.

VIOLATIONS OF APFENDIX B PROVISIONS: PECo is not in compliance with these sectionsc 1.0 (1) and (3) It did not verify the revisions eill assure operation in compli-anoe with FES and NRC impact assessments,and it does not inform of the environ-mental effects and concerns related to water quality regulated by the NPDES permit.

2.0 Environmental concors and resolutic.a have not been assured for 2.1 (1) blow-down tenperature effect on stream temperature with temperature restraint re-moved,and (2) exceedance of constituents which degrade water quality in the in-ial discharge mixing beyond the criteria,because of the reduction in flow require-ments.

31 Revision 7% flow restraints and temperature limits as well as the requested removal of the3mg/l minimum during the period 3/1/86 to 6/15/86 constitute " opera-tional activities which may significantly affect the environment ". PEco has not prepared an environmental evaluation as required. This section of the Appendir also specifies a written evaluation and NRC approval prior to the application in the case of

• an unreviewed environmental question" such as involved here. Since the change in limits for the river " may result in a significant increase in(any) adverse environmental impacts...in the yES-OL" for the river life and the down-stream users,and the quality standards are to be changed,these are matters " not previously reviewed and evaluated." Such activity involves changes in the EPP and "say be implemented only in accordance with an appropriate license amendment."

PECo is not in compliance because it has not applied for or received a license amendment. Furth e rmore , PEco has not complied with the last paragraph of 3 1.

53 In submitting its application to DRBC, PECo is in violation of this section.

PECo has failed D request changes in the EPP to cover the revisions applied for, and it has not sought or gained NRC " approval of the proposed changes in the form h of a license amendment." PEco is in violation of this section in proceeding to y8

- implement the changes by applying to MBC without receiving a license amendment.

@@ We call upon the Director to implement his statement of policy in DD-85-8 clo 21 NRC 1561 (1985),1.e."should the activity involve an unreviewed environmental p question the Licensee must obtain prior NRC approval". The Director also aptly points out that "the requirements of the EPP are triggered at the time of the Li-(

3 oensee proposed action." (DD-85-8)

RELIEF.We petition the Director to find that PECo is faviolation of the conditions

@@ of Licesse NPF-39 in its application to DRBC,and,therefore,to stay the operation sto of the Limerick reactor immediately and suspend the license until PECo is in com-plete compliance with the license in any proposal to revise the water controls.

ce: NRC Commiss., Docketing,ASLAs , DREC, PECo ed, F. Romano, LEA, Others on Serv. List. Re[octfullya Dox o'y an,Pa.

0$ef

r Ms. Susan Weisman, Secreta ry Box 186 Moylan,Pa 19065 Delaware River Basin Commission January 17,1986 Box 7360 West Trenton,N.J. 08628

Dear Ms. Weisman,

I am responding to the Comuisesion's notices of 1/6 and 1/7/86 on behalf of myself and Friends of the Earth in the Delepare Valley in opposition to the application of Philadelphia Electric Company to revise the controls on the use of Schuylkill River water at the Limerick nuclear plant,D-69-210 CP (Final)

Revision 5 We went on record last spring and fall against the substitution of dissolved oxygen controls for the 590F temperature limitation and against lowering the flow limits and using the water allotments of other plants on the river . We ,

otill oppose these revisions in themselves as environmentally dangerous but w e also remind thy Commission again that the agreement originally worked out with PEco was based on their free acceptance of the river follower principle. It oppears to us to be a breach of good faith and even a breach of contract that PECo now delibertely remoGaces this basio principle. Since PEco has developed the habit of applying for exceptions to the principle whenever there is low flow on the Schuylkill, it appears that PECo's requests to the Commission of 1985 and 1986 will be continued eash year ,perhaps for the life of the Limerick plaat.

We urge the Commission to deny PEco's present application. If the Commission does not refuse, the integrity of its contracts will become suspesi and the impression will be established in the basin area that the Commission's contracts can be manipulated at the will of companies like PECo which can bring potest financial and political pressure to bear on DRBC. Needless to say we are con-vinced that the public interest will be overriden if DRBC succumbs to this kind of one sided pressure. '

We are enclosing a copy of our letter to L3BC dated 3/28/85 and a copy of our appeal to ERC dated 1/17/86. The points in the former are still valid and represent our current position. We hope the Commission will give adequa~te weight to these points. The appeal to NRC will antify URBC that we believe PRCo is violating the conditions of its operating license for Limerick by applying for the revisions. We believe NRC will grant the validity of our move to have the public protected by the enforcement of the license requirements,and proceed to suspend the license for Limerick until PEco is in compliance.

Cc: KRC, PBCo Respectfully yours, Gov.Thornburho, Gov. Kano ,

Penna.

w Jersey Congressmen R. Edgar and P.Kostmeyer L . bt bW/

U.S. Secretary of the Interior Robert L.^nthony L J

~

E2. Sucan W3icann, Sacrotary Box 196 Roylan ,Pa.19065

Js1 pug;0 e River Basin Com71osion " arch 28, 1985 Box 73t West Trsnton,5.J. 08628

Dear re. Weisman,

As an intervenor in the NRC licenaing procedings for Philadelphia Electric Company's Limerick Nuclear plant, we have been representing citizen health and cafety interests 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 3/15/85, seeking DR3C's authorization to change the standar ds for the Schuylkill River and to provide cooling water by releases 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.

We 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 a tion by the Commission.

At the moment we surmarize our opposition to PEco's application under the following he adings:

1. 3R3C set its standards for the Schuylkill af tar careful study and these should not be changed,even temporarily,without a ne , environmental impact study.

~

2. A te:porary permit could certain1y lead to a lon'ger tars one,since there is uncertainty over the status of the Pt. Pleasant diversion and continuing litigstion.

3. The City of Ehila. has offered to sell water to PECo. The possibility of accelerating this connection could provide a temporary,and a permanen t, solu-tion of the supplemental water supply.

4 If DMBC decided that using its water reserves for Limerick cooling was a proper use of area water,it only arrived at this conclusion on the baais of combining water from the Delaware with.the Schuylkill. Providing water fro =

the Schuylkill alone, the Commission, wisely never authorized and this decision ohnuld no-t be =cdified in any way.

5 PEco has not demonstrsted that it has explored alternatives,such as unter from the City of Phila. ( See PECo Attachment 2.)

6. Other users will be enda gered n as FECo intimates in Attach. 2 (1) in stating that consu=ptive use will make the Schuylkill "largely unavailable for such (PECo) withdrawals during the period June to Oc tober.1995. " DR3C made the water unavailable to protect water resources on a sound basis.

- 7. Nothing hos changad to modify DER Secre tary R. A.Luksa's position quots3 in Attach. 2 (3), " Green Lane is not large enough to meet the combined needs of PS4 Co. and Limerick."

9. Me a suring dissived oxygen levels is not a substitute for the 59 0 tempers-ture constraint. Higher temperatures impact the biological life of the river.

9. A dissolved oxygen restraint should be added to the Schuylkill standards, not substituted for the 59 limitation.

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.

I I

11. We oppcse PEco's application as it would degrade the Schuylkill and im-peril essential water reserves.

Cc: NRC- ASLB Judges, Staf f, Docketing - Respectfully submitted, PECo,PM , FEY.A, Angus Love ,0thers on Limerick Serv. [,

[e u):; D E L AW A R E A lV E R SASIN COMMISSION j

g f%,.,(} / p a sox 7360 l p i \7 ) j WEST TRENTON. N EW JE AS EY 08628

. 2

/ 1509: 883 9500

=c ~ ,/ ,

~

M C ACQuamTERS LOCATION 25 STATE PoLtCE Omivg GERALDf(HAN5LER Em EcuTivE cimECT3R WEST TRENTON. N J NOTICE OF COMMISSION MEETING AND PUBLIC HEARING Notice is hereby given that the Delaware River Basin Commission will hold a

(

public hearing on Wednesday. January 22, 1986 beginning at 1:30 p.m. in the Goddard Conference Room of the Commission's offices at 25 State Police Drive, West Trenton, New Jersey. The hearing will be part of the Commission's regular business meeting which is open to the public.

Y An informal pre-meeting conference among the Commissioners and staff will be open j for public observation at about 11:30 a.m. at the same location.

Applications for Approval of the Following Projects Pursuant to Article 10.3, Article 11 and/or Section 3.8 of the Compact: ,

1. Philadelphia Electric Company D-69-210 CP (Final) Revision 5. An application by the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) to temporarily, during 1986, revise portions of the Limerick Electric Generating Project as included in the Comprehensive Plan and to approve the temporsry changes under Section 3.8 of the Compact. The proposed revisions consist of (1) a substitution of dissolved oxygen controls 5.1 mg/l and instantaneous of 4.2 ag/1) in lieu of the existing 59{ average of F temperature limitation to determine the availability of Schuylkill River water and (2) a transfer of the current consumptive use of water at existing operating generating stations to new consumptive use at the Limerick Generating Station. The approval of the transfer is requested for such periods during 1986 when flow or dissolved oxygen constraints would otherwise prevent the withdrawal of water for consumptive use of Limerick Unit I. The application requests that 3.5 million gallons per day (mgd) be transferred from Titus Generating Stations Units 1, 2 and 3 and 1.7 mgd from the Crosby _ Generating Station Unit No. 2 to allow the consumptive use of 5.2 mgd at Limerick Generating Station. Similar revisions were previously approved by DRBC in the fall of 1985 for a temporary period ending December 31, 1985. However, the applicant (PECO) I has requested that the DRBC-imposed requirement of 7.0 mg/l minimum of dissolved oxygen during the period March I to June 15 not be a condition of approval for 1986. The Limerick Electric Generating Project is located in Limerick Township, Montgomery County, Pennsylvania.

2. Cetty Pipeline Inc. D-79-37 (Revised). Approval is sought for various revisions in the design, construction, and operation of the 23-mile long,16-inch diameter, petroleum products pipeline that was installed between Cetty 011 Refinery, Delaware City, New Castle County, Delaware and the Sun Pipeline Twin Oaks Pump Station in Marcus Hook, Delaware County, Pennep tar.ia. The principal changes involve: testing pressures; distances between th pipeline and other buried lines; methods used to protect the pipeline when i t aalled beneath stream beds; and the final cost of the project. Changes were a de to conform with the requirements and guidelines of the U. S. Department of Transportation.