ML20092B713
| ML20092B713 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 06/18/1984 |
| From: | Wetterhahn M CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20092B717 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8406200343 | |
| Download: ML20092B713 (3) | |
Text
__
s a.b OCCKETEn WI.c p
'84 JJN 20 40:24 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BeforetheAtomicSafetyandLicensingBoard{.j';g
!a:I:S' In the Matter of
)
)
Philadelphia Electric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-352
)
50-353 (Limerick Generating Station,
)
Units 1 and 2)
)
APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO AWPP'S SECOND MOTION FOR RECONSIDERhTION OF THE DENIAL OF A CONTENTION RELATING TO ASBESTOS On June 8,
- 1984, Air and Water Pollution Patrol
("AWPP") moved the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, in effect, to reconsider its denial of a contention related to the use of asbestos in the Limerick Generating Station cooling towers. /
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
(" Licensing Board") had summarily denied a previous request for such reconsideration on March 27, 1984.
As discussed below, this present motion should be similarly denied.
AWPP has simply failed to state with any degree of specificity and with reference to the Board's ruling the particular manner in which the Board allegedly misinterpret-ed the facts before it or the governing law.
AWPP has not shown in its motion, with any specific reference to its
- /
The pleading was entitled "AWPP moves the Board re-open the AWPP asbestos question and the use of ' judgement' by Mr. Boyer and Mr. Wetterhahn."
h O
2 0
4 original plead.ing, argument in support of the contention or to the Board's ruling, how the Licensing Board failed to adequately deal with the contention, as originally l
submitted.
Th'e general referencea to the health effects of asbestos and repetition of arguments already considered concerning the cooling towers cannot support the motion for reconsideration.
Next, AWPP alleges that Applicant answered incorrectly 2
when asked as to the presence of asbestos at locations other than the cooling tower, but cites no record citation for such question or response.
Applicant's review of the record i
indicates that there was neither such a general question asked nor any answer given by Applicant which could be reasonably interpreted as having given the response alleged.
AWPP asserts that a 1977 inspection report (Inspection 50-352/77-06; 50-353/77-06) supports its motion.
Reference,
I to that inspection report indicates that the NRC had den-ignated as an open item a
matter concerning the construction, storage and handling of certain pipe spools.
The matter only peripherally refers to the use of asbestos in a portion of the material used to cover the pipe during in-place storage.
This matter is apparently isolated and is unrelated to the use of asbestos in the facility itself.
In any event, AWPP had this inspection report available to it when it submitted its contention originally; therefore, it does not support the motion for reconsideration.
l
t 3-i For the above stated reasons, the second motion for reconsideration should be denied.
Respectfully submitted, CONNER & WETTERHAHN, P.C.
Mark J. Wetterhahn Counsel for the Applicant June 18, 1984
,