TMIA Press Advisory 08/09/2007

Press Advisory

August 9, 2007

Eric Epstein: ericepstein@comcast.net (717)-541-1101

SRBC Nuclear Water Permit Challenged; NRC Ruling Not to Examine Water Use Appealed

Eric Epstein, Chairman of Three Mile Island Alert, Inc. filed a challenge to PPL Susquehanna’s Surface Water Withdrawal Application before the Susquehanna River Basin Commission (SRBC), and appealed the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s (NRC) refusal to investigate water use issues associated with the uprate of the Susquehanna Steam Electric Station. (Filings at tmia.com)

Epstein formally filed the Petition in Opposition to PPL Susquehanna’s, LLC Application for Surface Water Withdrawal Request to Modify Application 19950301-EPU-0572 at the Susquehanna River Basin Commission on August 1, 2007, and formally requested a Public Input Hearing.

Mr. Epstein said, “PPL’s Application should be held in abeyance until the SRBC investigates the potential of the uprate to harm the fragile, unique, and endangered aquatic system that is the Susquehanna River.” Epstein noted, “Lack of regulatory coordination establishes a dangerous precedent, and could constitute de facto approval of PPL’s ‘grandfathered’ water use permits.” Mr. Epstein charged:

PPL never received approval from the SRBC for the 2001 uprate.
PPL uses public water as a key component in a profit making enterprise but failed to file an application with the Public Utility Commission.
The SRBC should coordinate with the NRC and address the 2001 and 2006 uprates.
PPL needs to provide an action plan in the event the proposed uprate creates competing water demands in “water budgeted” areas.
The SRBC should condition PPL’s application on water conservation measures.

On August 5, 2007, at the NRC, Mr. Epstein appealed the Atomic Safety & Licensing Memorandum and Order In the Matter of PPL SUSQUEHANNA LLC; Docket Nos. 50-387 -388), Units 1 and 2.

Mr. Epstein stated, “After repeated requests and attempts to resolve numerous water use, water safety, and interagency issues with PPL Susquehanna and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, it has become apparent to Mr. Epstein through filings, petitions, responses, and oral argument, that neither the NRC or PPL will address outstanding issues and noncompliance violations, and deemed these challenges ‘outside the scope’ of the present Nuclear Regulatory Commission uprate proceeding.”

Mr. Epstein contended:

The NRC must investigate the impact of the Environmental Protection Agency’s 316 (a) and (b) compliance milestones on PPL’s present request or provide an action plan to defeat site-specific aquatic challenges.

The NRC should physically inspect the intake pipes and request six month inspection be built into the Reactor Oversight Process to make sure corrosion and bio-fouling at the River Intake Structure flow meters are defeated.

PPL never received approval from the Susquehanna River Basin Commission for the 2001 uprate. PPL is currently in violation of SRBC regulations.

PPL’s failure to apply and receive necessary approvals for the SRBC undermines the veracity of commitments to resolve pending water use issues.

The NRC should coordinate with the SRBC and address the 2001 and 2006 uprates.

Finally, the NRC must examine the impact of a possible water budget enacted by Act 220 on PPL’s 2006 uprate request. Act 220 of 2002 mandates that the DEP update the state water plan by 2008.