ML20092P530

Forwards s to a Hodgdon & ASLB Re Misinformation as to Status of Point Pleasant Diversion by Staff.Commission Should Direct That Del-Aware,pending 10CFR2.206 Petition, Identify All Possible Options

ML20092P530
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	05/23/1984
From:	Sugarman R SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES
To:	Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM)
Shared Package
ML20092P526	List: ML20092P530 ML20092P533 ML20092P535 ML20092P537 ML20092P539
References
NUDOCS 8407090059
Download: ML20092P530 (2)

Text

. . .-

.g; .* .

'*% t . k .7  :. -

.... ~

hg.=

.w , . e

= a-pp ; -

AS- SUGARM AN, DENWORTH & H EZDEG-ERS

x. . "

usun'- .

ATTCRN EYS AT :.AW .- --

!. 3('.i...,

T EZ nODERT J. SUGARMAN teh 400R. CCwitm %4'

• suits eas

=iOANNE R. DENWORTH 801 NORTH AROAD STR k,*[ ""

7.e . JOH N F*. H ELLEG ERS PHILADELPHIA. PEN NSYWANIA 19107 trom 737 so a

(*' 58 75' *

. rrr .-:e r ,. ..-

g .; RestN r. Lc enE - i.". .G-T;.3 ;- V F '

~

"Y- nosent nAmono cworr. p.e May 23, 1984 co ,sa.

• esOT ADeerTTED t. DA

% 2 x --

d' =

&d: . - Mr. Nunzio J. Palladino

$F Mj .,

Chairman Nuclear Regulatory Commission

, d.. ' . Washingto1, DC 20555 M- Re: Application of Philadelphia Electric Company 50-352

~

Sear.Mr. Palladino Enclosed is a copy of our letters to the NRC trial

, staff, the office 'of Executive Director, and the Licensing Board.

~ ~

..~ As you can see, your Commission was complately misinformed as to the status of the Point Pleasant Diversion by the staff. The critical difference is that it is not '

protestants or any other intervenors who have put a halt to ,

the progress of the Point Pleasant Diversion by instituting J- legal- proceedings; on the contrary, PECo is totally gg dependent on Bucks County . and the Neshaminy Water Resources 5 Authority to implement the project upon which it depends for W

f~[

supplemental cooling water, brought the project to a halt, as a result of which PECo is and these Authorities have h . seeking judicial relief. la court order has been entered

?_ halting construction es erroneously stated in your staff v54 briefing. -

23 "

~

What this means is, that the applicant has the

. burden of obtaining an order to move the project along. At this time, the Court refused to schedule a hearing, as NE requested by PECo, on the ground.that there is a serious 7 "-' legal issue as to whether PECo has a valid contract with the'

-h un County, which it might enforce . in order to . require the County ' to provide it with water, and which must . first be lo- decided before taking further actics.

nac h

c<

At pg. 3 of the transcript of the April 24th meeting, you. stated that it :is necessary that all potential

.I causes be delayed be identified so that all.possible options ja.o -- can be explored. ' Your letter of: April 2 ,, . to -Congressman Kostmayer, - as well as the staff's previous . responses - to us

' ~

-indicates that. the. Commission will not consider possible.

options ~ in regard this potential delay unless or until

.,4c--g. 7-f p  % ~q g -y.w., +~8'+-e*-3 p v g- w r'**,--

Mr. Nunzio J. Palledino 2 Muy 23, 1984 requested to do so by the applicant. This suggest a dual policy, which enables the applicant to decide not to l consider possible alternatives, .thereby increasing the '

~

pressure . on the Commission and other agencies to direct proceedings in its favor, hy virtuet of allowing time to pass.

In this case, the Company's failure to act, coupled with the Commission's refusal to explore options, was responsible for the Delaware River Basin Commission taking action to possibly reduce the availability of alternatives for PECo, by adopting a drcught management plan which called upon otherwise available sources for the drought relief.

Further prejudice can be anticipated in the 7 immediate future from your Commission's continued refusal to act.

It-is respectfully requested that the Commission direct that Del-AWARE's pending 2.206 Petition, presently before the Commission, and the operating license proceeding, in which the supplemental cooling water issues is presently before the Appeal Board, and the early low fuel operation motion is presently before the Licensing Board, take into account the likelihood of unavailability of Point Pleasant, and, as you so clearly stated on April 24, identify ell--

possible options with a view towards preventing delay. -

It is impossible, in our view, to reconcile the Commission's refusal to explore possible alternatives to Point Pleasant with the Commission's stated policy to do so where necessary to avoid delays in Licensing.

PECo itself has ~ stated that the unavailability of

.' Point Pleasant might cause complications with the NRC licensing process. A copy of the affidavit of Vincent Boyer, Vice President of PECo, to that effect is attached hereto. ,

Sinbr y Robert J.. u rman'

'/vc Enclosures O

e e .

e 6

9

- , , , , m ,---e - .s-.w,w-+,.m- ns e<-