ML20078G001
| ML20078G001 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 10/05/1983 |
| From: | Matthew Smith PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20078G003 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8310110291 | |
| Download: ML20078G001 (3) | |
Text
.
DOCKETED USNRC 33 OCT -6 N0:I6 c r e.cc, g, -
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
SUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF MAYNARD E.
SMITH IN SUPPORT OF A MOTION FOR
SUMMARY
DISPOSITION REGARDING CONTENTION V-4 Maynard E. Smith, being duly sworn according to law, de-poses and says:
1.
My name. is Maynard E.
Smith.
A statement of my re-sponsibilities and qualifications with regard to the captioned matter is contained in my affidavit dated September 22, 1983, submitted in support of Applicant's Motion for Summary Disposi-tion Regarding Contention V-4 (September 27, 1983).
2.
The affidavit prepared by Mr. Seymour and myself con-tains a number of references.
The critical portions of these documents are either reproduced or specifically referenced in the affidavit.
These references and their use in the September 22, 1983 affidavit are as follows:
8310110291 831005 PDR ADOCK 05000352 G pyn
~
)Y
s Reference Use in Affidavit Gardner & Moon (1970)
- p. 9, 118, Fig.5 Johns Hopkins Univ. (1977) pp.
8, 9,
1!7, Fig. 4 Johns Hopkins Univ. (1976) p.
15, 1 34 Kramer & Seymour (1975) pp.
6, 7, 11 10, 11, 12 Kramer & Seymour (1976) pp.
6, 7, 11 10, 11, 12 Speiser et al. (1979) pp. 6, 7, 110, Fig. 3 Thomson et al. (1981) p.
5, 18 Amer. Elec. Power Svce, p.
14, 131, Fig. 7 Corp. (1974)
Hanna & Gifford (1975-)
p.
15, 134 Hosler (1974) p.
15, 134 While other portions of these references were not specifically utilized and cited, they support and assist in an understanding of the cited portions.
3.
Several sections of the Limerick Generating Station FSAR and EROL documents were utilized in the September 22, 1983 affidavit.
Section 5.1.4 of the EROL contained our conclusion that there would be no significant effects on local airports (page 5.1-21).
This conclusion was based in part on Sections 5.1.4.1.3 and 5.1.4.3.3.2, in which our analysis of cooling tower plume heights and dimensions was presented.
4.
The following sections of the FSAR and EROL provided more general background on meteorology and cooling tower ef-
- fects, which formed the basis of our understanding of the Limerick site meteorology, but did not contribute directly to any specific portions of the September 22, 1983 affidavit:. _
FSAR EROL Section 2.3.1 Section 5.2.2 Section 2.3.2 Section 2.3.1 Section 2.3.3 Section 2.3.2 Section 2.3.4 Section 2.3.5 5.
As stated at paragraph two of my affidavit of Sep-tember 22, 1983, all of the sections noted above were prepared under my supervision and to the best of my knowledge, informa-tion and belief, they are true and correct.
W V
Maynard E. Smith
/
A&
/2 g Notary Public MARTHA L FETERSON Notary Public, S:ato cf New York No. 01 PE-4710A04 Qualified in Suffolk Court /
Commission bpires March 30,1934 f