ML20079N413
| ML20079N413 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 01/25/1984 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8401300211 | |
| Download: ML20079N413 (28) | |
Text
-
. l 4
s DOCKETED USilRC 84 #N 27 A10:25 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISS g Before the Atomic Safety and Licen$ikgYbbkh '
In the Matter of )
)
Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352
) 50-353 (Limerick' Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
APPLICANT'S ANSWER TO REQUEST BY DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC. TO REOPEN AND ADMIT NEW, LATE FILED CONTENTIONS V-35 AND V-36 Preliminary Statement On December 29, 1983, Applicant Philadelphia Electric Company (" Applicant") filed its opposition to the request by Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc. (" Del-Aware") to reopen the record to consider four new, late-filed contentions, designated V-30, V-31, V-32, and V-33. In general, those proposed late contentions related to the viability of the Point Pleasant diversion plan for providing supplemental cooling water for the Limerick Generating Station (" Limerick").
Subsequently, Del-Aware filed a new request to reopen the record and admit late-filed contentions V-35 and V-36.1/
1/ The failure of Del-Aware to designate its pleadings with clarity and to serve them properly upon the parties has been the source of much confusion. On January 17, 1984, Applicant's counsel received a letter dated Jenuary 11, 1984 from Mr. Sugarman forwarding a request for late filed Contention V-34. Only the cover (Footnote Continued)
~
8401300211 840125 PDR ADOCK 05000352 9 PDR 3
t 9
As Del-Aware frankly admits, the two proposed late con-tentions raise "the same general issues that have been raised for many months by intervenors" in the form of other proposed late contentions.2/ Indeed, the proposed con-tentions in the instant application are virtually the same as others previously rejected, and a:e supported solely by an Initial Decision by Administrative Law Judge Isador Kranzel of the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission
("PUC") in the Bradshaw Reservoir pumphouse case.3_/
The presiding Atomic Safety and Licensing Board ('Li-censing Board" or " Board") is therefore faced with the very (Footnote Continued) letter, however, was received. Applicant therefore requested that the proposed contention and any attachments be forwarded. See letter dated January 17, 1984 from Troy B. Conner, Jr. to Robert J. Sugarman.
No pleading designated Contention V-34 was ever received. On January 23, 1984, Applicant's counsel received from Mr. Sugarman a copy of Del-Aware's
" Request to File Late Filed Contention or to Reopen,"
which contained proposed late Contentions V-35 and V-36. The latter document indicated service on January 12, 1984 but was postmarked January 18, 1984.
Applicant's counsel checked with the Staff, and was informed by Mr. Rutberg that the Staff likewise had never been served with any proposed late Contention V-34, and had obtained a copy of proposed Contentions V-35 and V-36 from the Board's office.
2/ Del-Aware's Request to File Late Filed Contention or to Reopen at 2 (January 12, 1984).
3/ In re Application of Philadelphia Electric Company for a FTilding of Necessity, Etc., Docket No. A-00103956, Initial Decision (December 12, 1983) ("PUC Initial Decision"). The decision was issued as an enclosure to a cover letter dated December 19, 1983.
narrow question of whether an Initial Decision of a PUC Administrative Law Judge, now on appeal to the PUC Commis-sioners, provides any legal basis for reopening a closed record in a licensing proceeding before the Nuclear Regu-latory Commission (" Commission" or "NRC"). Clearly, it does not. Because Del-Aware has failed to satisfy the requirements for reopening the record and admitting late contentions, its application for two new, late contentions should be denied.
Argument As noted, the presently proposed contentions are, in essence, a reformulation of earlier versions previously rejected by the Board, which sought to litigate alternative water ' supply sources for Limerick. The Board denied one such contention because, under NEPA, the NRC need not
" consider alternative cooling systems unless it can be shown that they are made possible only if Unit 2 is deleted, and there is a basis in support of a contention that they could have significantly smaller environmental impacts than the proposed Point Pleasant diversion river follower system."A The Board denied a subsequent contention which asserted that t
certain " legal obstacles" involving other permitting
~4/ Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), " Memorandum and Order (Denying Del-Aware's Petition to Amend Contentions)" (January 24, 1983) (slip op. at 9).
.. - - . _- - _ _ - =.-. - -.
i authorities might preclude operation of the Point Pleasant diversion. /
The issue of other alleged " legal obstacles" to imple-menting. the Point Pleasant- diversion and the issue of environmental impacts resulting from operation of one versus two units at Limerick were also raised by proposed late Contentions V-32 and V-33, respectively.6/ With regard to Limerick Unit 2, Applicant notes that it notified the Pennsylvania PUC on January 24, 1984 that the Company will complete construction of Unit 2 after Unit 1 is placed in 5/ See Limerick, aupra " Memorandum and Order Denying Del-Aware's Motion to Reopen the Record" _(June 1, 1983)
(slip op. at 9 n.3).
6/ The first and third sentences of proposed Contention V-35 are essentially unintelligible. Applicant does not understand whether the contention alleges that there will only be enough water from the Point Pleasant diversion for one unit, or asserts that supplemental cooling water for one unit must be obtained elsewhere
'because of alleged environmental impacts from the diversion, or something else. Certainly, this Board has no obligation, especially at this late date, to recast this confused language into something comprehensible. See, e.g., Carolina Power and Light Company (H.B. Robinson Steam Electric Plant, Unit 2) ,
Docket No. 50-261-OLA, " Memorandum and Order (Report on Special Prehearing Conference Held Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.751a)" (April 12, 1983) (slip op. at 4); Texas Utilities Generating Company (Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Units 1 and 2), Docket Nos. 50-445 and 50-446, " Rulings on Objections to Board's Order of June 16, 1980 and on Miscellaneous Motions" (October 31, 1980) (slip ope at-7).
i commercial operation. Limerick Unit 2 is scheduled for commercial operation in 1990.1/
Insofar as proposed Contention V-35 alleges a substan-tial likelihood of significant erosion (presumably in the East Branch Perkiomen Creek, the subject of litigation before the PUC), this was covered initially in proposed Contention V-16c and then again in proposed Contention V-31.8_/
As indicated by the Commission in the recent Catawba decision,9/ a clear demonstration that an intervenor has
" diligently uncover [ed] and appl [ied] all publicly available information to the prompt formulation of contentions"El is the sine qua non for admitting a late contention. As the Commission carefully emphasized:
[T]he institutional unavailability of a licensing-related document does not establish good cause for filing a contention late if the information was available early enough to provide the 7/ For the Board's information, attached is a copy of the Applicant's " Response to Order Dated December 23, 1983," filed with the PUC on January 24, 1984. Also attached is a related press release by the Company.
8/ See generally Applicant's Answer to Request by Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc. for Admission of New, Late Filed Contentions V-30, V-31, V-32 and V-33 at p. 7 ,
(December 29, 1983). I 9_/ Duke Power Company (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-83-19, 17 NRC 1041 (1983).
10/ Id. at 1048.
, basis for the timely filing of that contention.M/
Accordingly, the dispositive factor is not when the PUC decision was issued, but rather whether the evidence proffered in the proceeding was itself available at an earlier time. Inasmuch as Del-Aware itself was the adver-sary opposing Applicant in the PUC proceeding, it is incon-testable that it had such information available at a far earlier date than the issuance of the decision itself.El The issuance of an Initial Decision by the PUC Adminis-trative Law Judge in some respects favorable to Del-Aware does not, therefore, render the underlying testimony in that proceeding "new" in any sense. Moreover, Del-Aware's suggestion that there might be, in the NRC licensing pro-ceeding, a " factual challenge to the findings of the PUC"13/
wrongly implies thet the Applicant and NRC Staff, as parties, or the NRC, as a federal regulatory agency, might 11/ Id. (Emphasis added)
-12/ See generally Applicant's Answer to Request by Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc. for Admission of New, Late Filed Contentions V-30, V-31, V-32 and V-33 at pp.
14-15 (December 29, 1983). As noted therein, the same witnesses, more or less, were proffered by Del-Aware in hearings before the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board ("EHB") in a hearing commencing on March 29, 1983, and a hearing before the PUC commencing on March 17, 1983. The administrative appeals in both the EHB and PUC cases were filed in July 1982.
M/ Del-Aware's Request to File Late Filed Contention or to Reopen at 2 (January 12, 1984).
we t%
be bound in some way by the findings of the PUC Administra-tive Law Judge. Such an attempt to bind parties to the NRC proceeding and the NRC itself to findings by the FUC is wholly unsupported by any legal authority.
The cover letter dated December 19, 1983 enclosing the proposed initial decision clearly states that no final decision of the PUC has been issued. Exceptions were filed by Applicant and Del-Aware which were denied by the Adminis-trative Law Judge on January 13, 1984. The Initial Deci-sion, now final, is subject to review by the PUC Commission-ers. As noted, Applicant and intervenors have filed ap-peals.
More important, there is absolutely no authority cited by Del-Aware which binds the NRC itself as a federal regu-latory agency to the evidentiary findings of a State agency such as the Pennsylvania PUC.14/ Certainly, the PUC has no special expertise in evaluating environmental impacts attributable to the Point Pleasant diversion plan, and no
-14/ By contrast, the Commission has spoken unambiguously whenever it has found that the NRC is bound by the findings of a coordinate federal agency, e.g., findings by the Environmental Protection Agency's determination I on effluent limitations pursuant to Section 511 (c) (2) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, 33 U.S.C. S1371 (c) (2) . Public Service Company of New Hampshire (Seabrook Station, Units 1 and 2),
CLI-77-8, 5 NRC 503, 543 (1977).
a deficiency has been demonstrated in the Staff's analysis for Limerick.15/
In failing to demonstrate the requisite " good cause" for lateness, Del-Aware has likewise failed to meet the other four requirements for admitting late contentions and has not even discussed the requirements for reopening a closed record. In the interest of brevity, Applicant hereby incorporates by reference its previous discussion of these points, including its observation that the Licensing Board lacks jurisdiction to consider any late contentions proposed by Del-Aware inasmuch as all such matters are now pending before the Appeal Board.16/
Aside from these infirmities, moreover, the proposed contentions are wholly lacking in basis. Contrary to the allegation in proposed Contention V-35, the Administrative Law Judge did not determine that "an operating license cannot issue for Limerick Unit 1, since there is in adequate
[ inadequate?] cooling water available."E Rather, the
-15/ See Draft Environmental Statement for Limerick, NUREG-0974 (June 1983). As noted in Applicant's previously filed opposition to Del-Aware's other late contentions, Del-Aware provided its comments on the Limerick DES by letter dated August 15, 1983.
16,/ See generally Applicant's Answer to Request by Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc. for Admission of New, Late Filed Contentions V-30, V-31, V-32 and V-33 (December 29, 1983).
17/ Del-Aware's Request to File Late Filed Contention or to Reopen at 1 (January 12, 1984).
Q PUC's proposed Initial Decision permits the operation of one 8,000 gallon electric motor driven vertical turbine type pump for a period of one year and, assuming no significant adverse environmental effects, provides that additional capacity may be obtained by a new application.18/
As to the Blue Marsh alternative, the Administrative Law Judge did not find that Blue Marsh was " adequate" to supply cooling water for Limerick, but merely required Applicant to " file an amended application with DRBC (Delaware River Basin Commission] to insure alternative sources of supply, whether it be from the Blue Marsh Reser-voir or from the City of Philadelphia h the event that interruption of water supply occurs because of floodina or erosion."El This condition clearly relates to the adequacy of cooling water supplies, not environmental impacts.
Moreover, it is far from clear what action DRBC would take upon any application to use Blue Marsh water, even assuming that this particular condition survives administrative and M/ PUC Initial Decision, supra, at 26.
M/ PUC Initial Decision at 27 (emphasis Specifically, the PUC found that the DRBC Commissioners added).
were reluctant to provide any water from Blue Marsh to Applicant and would, at most, concur in permitting up to 20-25 percent of available Blue Marsh capacity to be utilized for Limerick. The PUC found that this amount would equal about "40 percent of the needs of one unit at Limerick in the worst drought year records, assuming maximum consumption throughout that period by Limerick." Id. at 24.
e judicial appeals. Accordingly, nothing in the PUC Initial Decision justifies admission of the additional late con-tentions proposed by Del-Aware.
Conclusion For the reasons discussed more tully above and in Applicant's opposition to proposed late contentions V-30, V-31, V-32, and V-33 the Board should deny Del-Aware's instant request to file proposed late Contentions V-35 and V-36.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
/- / u8. C rnm , .
ju n Tro B. Conner, Jr.
Robert M. Rader Counsel for the Applicant January 25, 1984
p
,Y BEFORE THE PENNSYLVAN I A PUBL IC UT IL ITY COMMI SS ION PH ILADELPH I A ELECTR IC COMPANY : Dock e t I-80100341 L IMER ICK NUCLEAR GENERAT ING :
STAT ION INVEST IGAT ION :
RESPONSE TO ORDER CATED DECEMBER 23, 1983
- 1. Under date of December 23, 1983, your Honorable Conmi ssi on has ordered :
"l. That the Response to Order dated June 10, 1983 filed by Philadelphia El ect ri c Conpany i s hereby rej ect ed as not being in compliance with our June 10, 1983 Order.
- 2. That the Philadelphia Electric Company inform t h i s C ommi s s i on of its decision to suspend const ruct i on of Limeri ck Uni t 2 pending completion of Unit I, or to cancel construction of L iraeri ck Un i t 2, or to continue
! construction with in t ernal l y genera t ed funding, in light of the conclusions of r
the Supreme Court 's Judgment and Opinion j and those of our pri or Order of August 27, 1982 within 120 days of the entry of this Opinion and Order, and provide an explanation thereof.
I i
i
(
2 e
b s
- 3. That " comp l e t i on" a s u t i l i zed in our Opinion and Order of August 27, 1982 specifically connotes actual commercial operation of Limerick Unit I.
- 4. That con si dera t i on of Philadelphia El ect ri c Company 's conserva t i on p l an is hereby severed from the instant proceeding and consolidated with our Generi c El ect ri c Ut i l i t y Con serva t i on and Load Management Investigation at Docket No. 1-820360."
- 11. Under date of December 23, 1983 in a companion Opinion and Order, your Honorable Commission, rej ect ed the Securities Certificate filed by the Ph i l adel phia El ect ri c Company at S-834987 with respect to the $1.1 b i l l i on Limeri ck Credi t Agreement.
I l l . PECO has caref ul ly considered the Commission's Order dat ed December 23, 1983. In response it respectfully advises the Commission as follows:
PECO el ect s to suspend construction of Limeri ck Uni t 2 pending completion of Unit I as completion is defined in pa rag raph 3 of the December 23, 1983 Order. In this connection the following further explanation i s appropriat e:
(a) Upon the issuance of the Commi ssi on 's Order accepting this Response, PECO will schedule those expenditures on Limeri ck Un i t 2 wh i ch a re p ermi t t ed in the f ourth paragraph of page 25 of the Commission's August 27, 1982 Order to cover
a incremental costs attendant upon shutting down construction of Limeri ck Uni t 2 and maintaining that unit in a safe condition pending the resumption of construction, including (i) costs of terminating presently ef f ect ive const ruct i on contracts, (ii) costs of protecting the site from the elements, (iii) costs of completing.certain portions of the proj ect so that con st ruc t i on nay be resumed efficiently, and (iv) costs t o prot ect the safety' of the public or the construction employees. .A more detailed description of these expenditures is set forth in Appendix A hereto.
(b) PECO will accrue AFUDC relating to the present investment in Limerick Unit 2 and the expenditures described in subpa rag raph (a ) Eb ov e . Said AFUDC is estimated to be approxima t el y $6.0 million/ month and is permitted by the f ourth paragraph of page 25 of the Commi ssi on 's August 27, 1982 Order as wel l as by footnote 22 on said page.
IV. Suspension of the const ruct i on of Limerick Unit 2 l
pursuant to the Commi ssi on 's December 23, 1983 Order, as more f ul ly described in Paragraph 111 abovt, will necessi ta t e the following changes in Limerick Unit 2 costs and construction as compared with the Const ruct i on Schedul e and Financing Plan whi ch was filed by PECO in i t s Response to the June 10, 1983 Order of the Commission:
(a) PECO's total 1984 construction budget will be reduced by about $140 million,and the 1985 construction budget will be $137 million lower.
(b) The Commercial operation date of Limerick Unit 2 will be delayed approximately 18 months from October 1988 t o Apri l ~ 1990.
. (c) The estimated completed cost of Limerick Unit 2 (excluding common plant) will increase by about $550 million or from $2.4 billion based on a 1988 serv i ce date to $2.95 billion based on a 1990 serv i ce da t e.
(d) The estimated completed cost of common plant will increase by abou t $100 million or from $1.3 billion to $1.4 billion.
(e) The suspension of Limerick Unit 2 construction will result in approximately 2200 additional layoffs at the Limerick site by the end of 1984.
(V) By way of explanation, PECO advises the Commi ssi on that it has elected the suspension option because additional base-load generating capacity will be needed by PECO by the early 1990's.
In electing the suspension option, PECO has chosen not i
to seek appel lat e revi ew of the Commi s- l on 's Decemb er 23, 1983 Order. However, there are legal bases for sucn review. The Supreme Court did not affirm on a broad scale the jurisdiction of the Public Utility Commission to interfere with PECO's
e const ruct i on programs. I t s Judgment and Opinion simply states that t he Commi s s i on nay u s e its Securities Certificate power to rest ri ct the use of the proceeds of securi t i es where in its judgment the issuance of those securities and their expenditure f or the purposes proposed would be a threat to the financial integrity or credit and prospects of the utility involved. This statutory judgment certcinly must be based upon the secu ri t i es proposed to be issued and the current evidence of the impact of such securities upon PECO's financial int egri ty and credi t . In addressing the Securi t i es Cert i f i ca t e of PECO in connection with the $1.1 bi l l i on Limeri ck Credi t Agreement at S-834987, the Commission has not made such a judgment. Instead, the Securities Certificate is rejected on the basis of findings and conclusions reached in the August 27, 1982 Order.1/ In addition, the Commi ssi on 's Order rests upon the August 27, 1982 f indings and conclusi ons concerning " simultaneous construction of Limerick l Units I and 2." It ignores the rationale for those findings; 1/ In footnote 15 of its Order, the Commi ssi on specifically states that it is not ruling on the Securities Certificate for the Limerick Credit Agreement, and that it will con si de r this proposed financing "only for the purpose of determining j wh e t h er it const i tut es an accep tabl e response to our June 10, 1983 Order." December 23, 1983 Order, p. 18.
I i
I
! l l
l
i.e., the financial condition of PECO and the extent to which the Limeri ck Credi t Agreement provides a solution to that rationale.2/
Unf ortunat ely pract i cal realities make appellate review i mp ossib l e regardless of the legal position which might ce taken by t he Company . Review of t he Commi ssi on 's December 23, 1983 Orders elther in the Commonwealth Court or the Supreme Court, or both, would involve months of delay. Moreover, at most the appellate courts would send the ma t t er back t o the Commi ssi on for further proceedings in accordance with the correct view of the Commission's limited jurisdiction and rol e as described above.
Further delay in proceedings before t h e Commi s s i on wou l d b e inevitable. By the time any conclusion was reached, the efficient and sk i l l ed work crews a t the site would have been lost and the Limeri ck Credi t Agreement would be of doubtful continuing
! The specific references to the Limeri ck Credi t Agreement itself in the December 23, 1983 Order are obscured in a discussion concerning its impact on f u t ure Commi ssi on act i on j
which the Commission itself acknowledges it cannot by l aw have.
The Order concludes wi th vague ref erences to the fact that caution is required because of the magnitude of the probl em and speculation that even under the Limerick Credit Agreement, PECO's financial condition could worsen. Nothing in the Securities Certificate record supports these commen t s nor do the comments justify the rej ect i on of the Limerick Credit Agreement without f indings based on sub s t an t i a l evidence that its impact will be adverse to the Company 's f i nanci a l condition.
validity. For all practical purposes, PECO would have been forced to suspend Limerick Unit 2 until Limerick Unit I was complete'd and in conrne rci a l operation in any event.
Vl. The Conuni ssi on 's Order dat ed Decenter 23, I983 contains at pages 24 and 25 a nunber of reconrnenda t i on s . For clari ty of the record PECO responds t o said, recommendat i ons as folIows:
(a) PECO i s negot iat ing a Limeri ck Credi t Agreement with a consortium of banks consistent with the Conuni ssi on 's Order. If such negot lat I ons are successf ul , PECO will f i l e a Securi t i es Cert i f i ca t e relat ing thereto.
(b ) PECO is devoting every possibl e resource t owa rd s t h e compietion of Limerick Unit I and conynon p l an t . The Unit Is on schedul e and on budget f or conrnerci a l operation in l April 1985. However, there are a nunber of uncertaint i es beyond l
the control of t h e C ompany wh i ch may impact the ultimate scheduling of that Un i t 's conrnerci al opera t i on da t e a s wel I as its total cost. Under these ci rcumstances, PECO cannot agree to accept a maximum ra t e base val ua t i on for Unit I and coninon p l an t .
Indeed the establishment of a maximum ra t e ba se va l ua t i on a t this time would increase the risk to investors and could jeopardize l PECO 's ab i i i t y to raise the necessary capital for Unit I.
I i
I i
O Moreover, PECO should have the same right to due process on that i ssue as the Commi ssi on ca l l s f or in its fourth recommendation discussed in subpa rag raph (d ) bel ow.
(c) PECO agrees t o undertake to include the changes recommended f or any new Limeri ck Credi t Agreement to the extent that such changes wi l l b e a c cep t ed by the lending banks.
(d) PECO acknowl edges that Commission approval of.
any Securi t i es Cert i f i ca t e associat ed wi th the Limeri ck proj ect sub sequ en t l y filed and the acceptance of any sub s equ en t filing as
, being in cansl iance wi th the Commi ssi on 's out standing June 10, 1983 Order do not in any way const i tut e approval for rate making purposes of any el emen t of the Limeri ck Proj ect and that such det ermi na t i on s mu s t take place at the proper time and in the proper p roceedings.
WHEREFORE, PECO respect f ul l y requests that your Hon orab l e C ommi s s i on :
(a) Accep t thi s Response to the Commission's Order dat ed December 23, 1983; (b) Find that PECO has comp l i ed wi th your Honorabl e Commi ssi on 's Order da t ed December 23, 1983; (c) Close the Investigation at t h i s D ock e t .
Respect f ul l y submitted, PH ILADELPH I A ELECTR IC COMPANY g < ,- .
/
j..
J.,H. Austin, Jr., P re s i d en t Date:
-8
APPENDIX A SCHEDULE OF PROPOSED EXPEND ITURES NEEDED FOR SUSPENSION OF L IMER ICK UN IT #2 AS PERMITTED BY PUC ORDER OF AUGUST 27, 1982 Expenses Per Month A. COSTS OF PROTECT ION OF S ITE, EQU IPMENT, BU ILD INGS, AND SYSTEMS FOR UN IT #2
- 1. Wa rehouse services and long term maintenance of Unit #2 equipment and material: $ 250,000 .
Most of the permanent plant equipment and mat erial s have been received f or Uni t #2.
This equipment has either been installed in the plant, or is being stored in an offsite warehouse. To maintain the 8
9 t egri t y and warran t y of the equipment in st orage and meet NRC requirements, a preventat ive maint enance program has been implemented. The scope of t h i s p rog ram includes rotat ing equipment shafts, maintaining l ub ri ca t i on l evel s and adhering to nenufacturer's maintenance requi remen t s and hea t and humidity limits. An accurate record of meintenance is also required.
- 2. Services for temporary and permanent Unit
- 2 buildings: $ 185,000 i
l The Unit #2 st ructures and buildings, l
both t empora ry and permanen t , must be neintained to ensure that existing building services reneln in operating condition for con s t ruct i on resumption, personnel protection and long-term maintenance. These building services
! include air, water, construction gases, heat, electric power and s e rv i c e s ,
communications, st orm rel a t ed act ivi t i es,
, environmental control, and fire l protection.
l
- 3. Security guard serv i ce f or power bl ock,
! off-site and site warehouses, t empora ry offices, and outdoor st orage areas: 3 100,000 l
)
APPENDIX A
., Pcgo 2 Expenses Per Month Guard serv i ce mu s t be maintained to p rov i de fire watch and security patrols to prevent vandalism or unauthorized pliferage of currently installed and stored materials, facilities, and warehouses.
- 4. Engineering support during suspension period: $ I25,000 A staff of Bechtel home office engineer s is required to respond to questions raised by site maintenance activities noted above, various licensing regulatory a'g en c i e s , equipment nenufacturers and the interaction between Units I and 2. The group will also maintain completed design calculations, drawings, and specifications.
- 5. Insurance costs for Unit #2 pernenent and t emporary bui ldings and equipment: $ 100,000 .
- 6. Philadelphia E:ectric Conpany engineering and supervisory support: $ I35,000 A minimum staff of Philadelphia El ect ri c personnel will be assigned to Unit #2 to nelntain license requi remen t s and to supervise, review and inspect activities being performed by others as not ed above.
Th i s - g roup will also maintain and re-evaluate on an ongoing basis outstanding cont ract s and purchase orders for suspended activities.
Total $ 895,000
, , . , , , - - . , , _ . - - ----,--y g-,, e.m-, yy .,n ,-,,,,m. ,,,---w. -
--,--w
)
APPENDIX A Pcge 3 One Time Expenditures at Time of Sumnension B. COSTS OF CONTRACTUAL COAS41TMENTS AND OBLIGATIONS
- 1. Material and equipment that has been ordered for Unit #2: $ 3.4M procurement of ma j or ma t e ri a l and equipment for Units I and 2 were purchased on the same orders t o assure similarity of uni t s and to minimize total plant cost s. Although most of the material and equipment have been received, a small amount is in fabrication and scheduled to be delivered and paid for within t h e n ex t _ f ew mon t h s .
- 2. Manufacture of electric and pneunatic control panels: $ 2.1M The purchase order for fabrication of the heating, ventilatirg and air conditioning control panels included the panels for both units. Fab ri ca t i on of the Unit i panels is complete. However, the manuf acturer has stated that he will no longer f abri cat e panel s upon completion of all work presently committec. Failure t o proceed wi th Uni t #2 now will result in a need for requalification of a vendor 's QA prog ram and final panel conf igurat i on di f f erences between Uni t s I and 2 wh i ch wi l l cause operator retraining and requalification of the new panel configuration to meet seismic and
[ hydrodynamic loads. To avoid these l problems, fabrication at this time is l
critical, i 3. Progress paymen t s on comp l e t ed subcontracts: $ 4,1M l
Payments are due con t ract ors and manufacturers (other than Bech t el ) for work already completed on Limerick 2, as of this date.
l l
APPENDIX A One Time Pogo 4 Expenditures at Time of Susoension
- 4. Fi eld const ruct i on act ivi t i es: $ 0 3M Currently a small contingent of craftsmen is performing Unit 2 work in the critical path drywell and selected high priority areas. A one week wrapup of thi s work effort is anticipated to complete work in progress, to allow for safe layup and to maintain equipment integrity.
- 5. Bechtel home office billing delay: $ 2 3M A one-mon th b i l l ing del ay exists on engineering work performed in Bechtel's home of,fice.
- 6. Orderly di sposi t i on of design on the drawing board: $ 2 3M The current Bechtel home office engineering underway will require approximately 2 mon th s t o ramp down f rom present staffing levels. This allows for all design presently "on t he board" to be completed and left in a form which will be usabl e upon resumption of engineering.
Total $ 14.5M
APPENDIX A Pego 5 C. COSTS OF TASKS REQUIRED FOR EFF IC IENT CONSTRUCTION RESTART OF UN IT #2 Resumption of engineering prior to commencing construction:
To al l ow f or an efficient construction restart of Unit 2, engineering and planning must resume in Bech t el 's home of fi ce and at the Limeri ck site well in advance of the con st ruct i on start date. The staff must b e a s senb i ed in a g radua l and well organized manner. Experi enced managemen t and engineering personnel must be assigned by Bechtel from other proj ect s as they oecome available, or brought on board as new hires.
We estimate that it will take a period of approximat ely 6 months to complete the staffing process to the level required; to allow the new staf f time t o become familiar with the project status and design rul es; and to perform required engineering and othe pre-construction t a sk s .
Due to the present advanced status of Unit 2, we expect the con st ruct i on craft force to increase rapidly following resumption of con st ruct i on , and to peak at its maximum level within a few months.
We have not ed bel ow the estimated cost of thi s buildup, by month, before the const ruct i on restart date. The figures include the cost of relocating the new engineers and superv i sory peop l e to the Limerick site. Also i n cl ud ed is a small contingent of craftsmen required to provide scaffolding and other support for the fleid engineering effort.
Months Before Construction Restart Estimated Monthly Expenditure 6 $ I,000,000 5 $ 1,600,000 4 $ 2,200,000 3 $ 2,800,000 2 $ 3,400,000 I $ 4,000,000 Six Month Total $15,000,000
(M;.
bs .
PHILADELPHI A ELECTRIC COMPANY MMS from the PUBLIC INFORM ATION Dil'ISION Wp
F0R RELE ASE Tuesday, Januccy 24, 1984 11:00 A.M.
Contact:
Ron Harper, (215) 841-4122 Neil McDermott, (215) 841-4129 PE ELECTS TO SUSPEND CONSTRUCTIO.Y OF LINERICK UNIT 2 Phi'.adelphia Electric Compa'.ty today informed the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (PUC) that tha Company has decided to accept the PUC's option to suspend construction of Limerick Unit 2 until Unit 1 is placed in commercial operation.
The Company's decision not to cancel the nuclear unit was given to the PUC in the form of a response to a Commission order handed down on December 23, 1983.
That order directed the Company to either suspend or cancel construction of Unit 2 or to continue its construction with internally generated funds. ,
The Company said in its respon.se that the decision to suspend construction would delay the scheduled operation date of Unit 2 for 18 months from October, 1983 th Apri1, 1900.
This delay is estimated to increase the cost of Limerick 2, excluding portions of the plant common to Unit 1 er.d 2, by as much as $550 million from $2.4 billion to $2.95 billion, the Company said. The Company will make every effort to ainimize the increase in costs by preparing for an efficient restart of construction as soon as Unit //l goes into co=mercial operation.
more-See reverse sidefor basic PE data.
- l ADD ONE: PE ELECTS TO SUSPEND CONSTRUCTION OF LIMERICK UNIT 2 l
The estimated cost of completing the common plant will increase by about $100 million f rom $1.3 billion to $1.4' oillion, the Company said.
The suspension will result in the layof f of about 2,200 more construction workers by the end of 1984 than if construction had not been interrupted, thIe Company said.
In its response, the Company stated that it has elected the suspension option rather than cancellation because additional base-load generating capacity will be needed by PE by the early 1990's. At this time, the Company said it can not be assured that there would be sufficient internally generated funds to permit election of the third option.
The Company advised the PUC that it is negotiating a credit agreement with a consortium of banks and will file a certificate with the Commission when the egreement is reached.
The Company also advised the Commission that it is devoting every possible resource towards the completion of Limerick Unit 1 and common plant. The unit is on schedule and on budget for commercial operation in April, 1985.
The Limerick plant is in Limerick Township, south of Pottstown, Montgome ry County, Pa. Each unit has a capacity of 1,050,000 kilowatts.
Under the plan filed with the PUC today, the total cost of the project would be $6.45 billion.
t o
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
Philadelphia Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352
) 50-353 (Limerick Generating Station, )
Units 1 and 2) )
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " Applicant's Answer to Request by Del-Aware Unlimited, Inc. to Reopen and Admit New, Late Filed Contentions V-35 and V-36," dated January 25, 1984 in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail this 25th day of January, 1984:
Lawrence Brenner, Esq. (2) Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Docketing and Service Section Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Office of the Secretary Safety and Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Board Commission U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Washington, D.C. 20555 Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Ann P. Hodgdon, Esq.
Counsel for NRC Staff Dr. Peter A. Morris Atomic Office of the Executive Safety and Licensing Legal Director Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555
. - ..- ~__ . - -- . _. - . - - - _-. = - .-_- _
t a
I' Atomic Safety and Licensing Steven P. Hershey, Esq. l Board Panel Community Legal l U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Services, Inc.
Commission Law Center West North Washington, D.C. -20555 5219 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, PA 19139 Philadelphia Electric Company ATTN: Edward G. Bauer, Jr. Angus Love, Esq.
Vice President & 107 East Main Street 4
General Counsel Norristown, PA 19401 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19101 Mr. Joseph H. White, III 15 Ardmore Avenue Mr. Frank R. Romano Ardmore, PA 19003 61 Forest Avenue Ambler, Pennsylvania 19002 Robert J. Sugarman, Esq.
Sugarman & Denworth Suite Mr. Robert L. Anthony 510 North American Building
! Friends of the Earth of 121 South Broad Street the Delaware Valley Philadelphia, PA 19107 106 Vernon Lane, Box 186 Moylan, Pennsylvania 19065 Director, Penncylvania Emergency Management Agency Mr. Marvin I. Lewis Basement, Transportation 6504 Bradford Terrace and Safety Building Philadelphia, PA 19149 Harrisburg, PA 17120 Phyllis Zitzer, Esq. Martha W. Bush, Esq.
. Limerick Ecology Action Kathryn S. Lewis, Esq.
P.O. Box 761 City of Philadelphia
, 762 Queen Street Municipal Services Bldg.
. Pottstown, PA 19464 15th and JFK Blvd.
Philadelphia, PA 19107 I Charles W. Elliott, Esq.
Brose and Postwistilo Spence W. Perry, Esq.
1101 Building lith & Associate General Counsel Northampton Streets Federal Emergency Easton, PA 18042 Management Agency
- 500 C Street, S.W., Rm. 840 l Zori G. Ferkin, Esq. Washington, DC 20472 l Assistant Counsel
- Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Thomas Gerusky, Director Governor's Energy Council Bureau of Radiation 1625 N. Front Street Protection Harrisburg, PA 17102 Department of Environmental Resources
. 5th Floor, Fulton Bank Bldg.
Third and Locust Streets i Harrisburg, PA 17120 i
l 4
,,,,,.._,,,_-,_--.._.,_-.-.,m,...,,..w..,----y<-, . , , - . , , _ , - , , - , - . , , - , -_ , , - .
~
s
-9 m
Jay M. Gutierrez, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
^
i Region I 631 Park Avenue King of Prussia, PA 19406 4
James Wiggins Senior Resident Inspector U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission '
P.O. Box 47 Sanatoga, PA 19464 .
O
/ rb _
Robert M. Rader i
s 4
1 a
,-..,--,-,.---.,w.--,
,. . - - - -,-, ,-, ..--.,-n , .. , .n. _ ,,,,-_,.3 ., ..y,,, , _ _ , . , ,,-,,_.,,,,--,_p, ,c,_. ,..,--w -, . , _ . .,,,. ,_,nw.y -