ML20072H421
| ML20072H421 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1983 |
| From: | Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Brenner L, Cole R, Morris P Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| RTR-NUREG-0737, RTR-NUREG-737, TASK-2.E.3.1, TASK-3.D.3.4, TASK-TM NUDOCS 8303290438 | |
| Download: ML20072H421 (2) | |
Text
____________
s DOCKETED LAW OFFICES USN?C CONNER Se WETTERHAHN, P.C.
1747 PENNSYLVANIA AVENU N. W.
MR 28 A11:51 TzOr n. CONNER. aR.
WAS111NGTON. D. C. 200 M A2K J. W ETTE RH A N N R O B E_R T, M. R A D E R INOBID M. OLSON a5hEh
- eEEi.#*
March 23, 1983 0$diiscIiE VIDE
,o, coewan ERANCH Not anwerTan sw a c.
Judge Lawrence J. Brenner Judge Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Board Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Judge Peter A. Morris Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353 Gentlemen:
As a result of a telephone discussion with Judith Dorsey, counsel for Limerick Ecology Action
(" LEA"), I wish to provide a clarification to the attachment of my March 1, 1983 letter to the Licensing Board which addressed the status of conditionally admitted contentions.
Ms. Dorsey noted that Contention I.33(G) should have referred to Item II.E.3.1 of NUREG-0737 instead of Item II.E.4.1.
While this item is applicable only to pressurized water reactors, I understand that LEA wishes to pursue whether the vessel level instrumentation for Limerick which is a boiling water reactor complies with Regulatory Guide 1.97, Rev.
2.
Compliance with this regulatory guide is also the subject of Contention I.34.
As indicated in the status column for that contention, a discussion of compliance with this Regulatory Guide was added to Section 7.5 of the FSAR via FSAR Rev. 16 (January, 1983).
8303290438 830323 PDR ADOCK 05000352 v
0 PDR
Judga Lawrence Bronner Judge Richard F. Colo Judge Peter A. Morris March 23, 1983 Page 2 Secondly, Ms. Dorsey states that the status column for Contention 33(L) which refers to Item III.D.3.4 of NUREG-0737 describes only the toxic chemical monitoring system.
She contends that the contention is also meant to address compliance of the control room with General Design Criteria 4 and 5.
While there is some question that such contention may be read in this manner, by way of information to the Board, compliance with these General Design Criteria are addressed in Section 3.1 of the FSAR which remains unchanged since its original submittal.
If the Board or any party has any questions concerning this matter, please let me know.
Sincerely, Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for Philadelphia Electric Company MJW:sdd cc:
Service List
.. - _ _