ML20106F873

Forwards Portions of 850116 Hearing Transcript Re J Kemper 850116 Testimony Concerning Supplemental Cooling Water from Sources Other than Point Pleasant.Requests Review Into Matter Due to Risk of Rising Costs,Per 10CFR50,App a

ML20106F873
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	02/11/1985
From:	Sugarman R DEL-AWARE UNLIMITED, INC., SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8502140126
Download: ML20106F873 (16)

Text

.r. s e SUGARM AN, DENWORTH & H ELLEGERS ATTO R N E YS AT L AW COBERT J. SUGARMAN ISTH FLOOR, CENTER PLAZA SutTE S35 12 0 NS E E,N.E JOANNE R. DENWORTH 101 NORTH BROAD STREET JOHN F. HELLEGERS PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19 07 caoan 737 44eo

' COBIN T. LOCKE (215) 75t 9733 ROBERT RAYMOND ELUOTT, P.C.*

COUNSEL

• N D OselTTED SN PA, February'- 11 1985

'Mr. Harold ~Denton Director Division of Nuclear. Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Pe: In the Matter of the Philadelphia Electric Co.

(Limerick), Docket Nos. 50-352, 50-353 Request Under 10CFR g2.206, 50 Fed. Reg. 1650

Dear Mr. Denton:

Since receiving your notice of publication in the Federal Register as of January 15, 1985, I have received additional information documenting that PECo's plans to obtain supplemental cooling water sources have advanced beyond the speculative stage, and are in fact,.quite concrete.

Specifically, before Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, in docket no. 1840381,..on January 16, 1985, John Kemper, Vice President of Philadelphia Electric Co., and a fre-

.quent authoritative provider of information from PECo to the NRC, testified as a witness on behalf of the Company, and stated '

that of'the supply sources, "the major.one is Blue Marsh".

At page 1874, Mr.- Kemper testified that ' Philadelphia Electric "is going to go to the Delaware River Basin-Commission later this year and seek approval ~ for an interim supply of-supplemental cooling ' water .other than what would be provided by

' Point Pleasant."

A. copy off the relevant portion of the transcript-

-referred'to is attached.

.For your further information, in Bucks County Common Pleas Court, PECo witnesses' testified that the Company planned to i'

approach.the'DRBC for supplemental cooling water for=1985.

ff$

op

s'

s ;w Mr.,H ro.ld Danton 2 Februnry 11, 1985 t, By not presently instituting whatever review is required, your Commission is running the risk that up to $1 million per day may be lost due to the lack of supplemental cooling water-in the summer of 1985. The f act that PECo does not wish to have this. matter litigated, because of its overriding desire to keep the pressure on for Point Pleasant, should not deter this Commission from avoiding regulatory delay, consistent with the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, appendix A.

Sincerely,

) ,:,0 l fMr

[l5b, l Robert J. Sugarman Counsel for Del-AWARE .

Unlimited, Inc.

ril.rjsII/sp Enclosure

/

.__m_. _ _ _ . __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . .

W .

l c .

i uErORE RECElVED 2

THE PENNSYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSJRN 221985 3 I 4

l S.D.All ,

In re: I-840381 - Limerick Unit No. 2 Nuh e'ai' '

5 Generating Station Investigation. Further Hearing.

6 1

I 8

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania ,

9 January 16, 1985

.30 11

• 1 1

12 - ----

^

13

('

l 14 15

, Pages.1720 to 1954, inclusive 16 1

st 17 ,

Pt - ----

18 19 20 21

. HOLBERT ASSOCIATES

' 22 EUGENE W. HOLBERT Suite 401, Kunkel Building 23 301 Market Street Ifarrisburg, Pennsylvania 17101 24 ,

'1

, ,e 7. p ,

M , <

.. . C5i r.. ,

k . _

. 1720 1 BEFORE THB P5NN'SYLVANIA PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION 2

~

3 1/1 In re: I-840381 - Limerick Unit No. 2 Nuclear 4 Genere ting Station Investigation. Further hearing.

5 6 '

verbatim report of hearing held in the

, 7 Penthouse Conference Room, State Office

^

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  ;

4 8

Wednesday, 9 January 16, 1985 at 10:00 a.m.

10 BEFORE -

11 .

ALLISON K. TURNER, ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE t 12 h 1

( 13 $

't , APPEARANCES: l{

14 p 2

VERONICA A. SMITH,-ESQ., and /

15 DANIEL P. DELANEY, ESQ.  !;

! U il Post Office Box 3265 i 16 y North Office Building 1 Harrisburg,' Pennsylvania 17120 2

(" 17 Appearing on behalf of PUC Prosecutory Staff I 18 5

2 9 t d 19 MORGAN, LEWIS & BOCKIUS

'. ROBERT YOUNG, ESQ., [

l _ _. - - 20 JAY H. CALVERT, ESQ., - -

}

WILLIAM ZEITER, ESQ., h BRUCE MARKS, ESQ., and [

li 21 PAUL H. ZOUBEK, ESQ. _ _ _

g 2000 One Logan Square p

] ~~ '

2 22 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 3_

23 Appearing on behalf of Philadelphia }

Electric Company

,7 24 4

25

, 1721

~

1 1/2

~

APPEARANCES (Continued):

' 2 DAVID WERSAN, ESQ.,

3 IRWIN POPOWSKI, ESQ., and SCOTT RUBIN, ESQ.

4 1425 Strawberry Square Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17120 5

j Appearing on behalf of Office of Consumer Advocate

/) 6 t 7 ZORI FERKIN, ESQ., and i ROGER CLARK, ESQ. -

8 Post Office Sox 8010 Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17070 9

Appearing on behalf of Governor's Energy Counsel Staff 10 11 MARTHA BUSH, ESQ., and K ATH RYN LEWIS, ESQ.

12 1500 Municipal Services Building 15th and J.F.K. Boulevard 13 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 j.

s,. Appearing on behalf of City of Philadelphia 14 15 DAVID KLEPPINGER, ESQ., and EDWARD J. RIEHL, ESQ.

16 100 Pine Street Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17108 17 Appearing on behalf of Philadelphia Area Industrial Energy Users Group 18 19 STEVEN P. HERSHEY, ESQ.

Community Legal Services

,_, . _ __ _ . 20 . 5219 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19131

.,' 21 Appearing on behalf of CEPA and ACORN

~

22 ANDRE DASENT, ESQ.

23 900 Bourse Building Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 24 Appearing on behalf of Utility Users Committee 25

1722 1/3 I ND EX 2

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY'S TESTIMONY, CONTINUED Direct Cross _ ReDr ReCr

- Professor Anita A. Sum-ers --- 1723 1726 ---

4 John S. Kemper --------------- 1779 1783 6 PECO STATEMENTS Mkd. Rec'd.

7 3 ---------------------------------- 1725 1725 8 ---------------------------------- 1783 1783 10 9

AAS EXHIbI.TS 10 1 th ru 5 , inclusive --------------------- 1725 1725 11 12 JSK EXHIBITS 13 1 thru 4, inclusive --------------------- 1783 1783

/

(

14 OCA-EXHIBITS 15 59 ---------------------------------- 1813 ----

16 4

17 CITY EXHIBITS

'~

18 3 ---------------------------------- 1825 ----

19 4 ---------------------------------- 1831 ----

~5~ ---------------------------------- 1833 ----

• F 6 ---------------------------------- 1834 ----

, 21 22 23 24 25

1794

'- L*

3

• l' O. In light of Judge Garb's order, 4.o you

~

2 believe that there are any other obstacles to the 3' completion of the Point Pleasant project at this time? -

4 MR. CALVERT: I object to that question only ,

2:

5 to the extent that it asks this witness for some 6 sort of a legal interpretation.

Finish your objection.

7 JUDGE TURITE R :

{.

8 MR.'CALVERT: I only object to the question h i

9 to the extent that it seeks this witness to give a $

i 10 legal opinion or to express an opinion on legal f:

3:

11 aspects. But to the extent that it doesn't, then I a-12 don't object. -

C-13 MR. POPOWSKY: I was really asking more in  ?-

_? >

14 terms of the company policy or the company position I n:

e 15 without getting into the legal ramifications of f i' 4 16 whether, for example, there would be an appeal of y-J 17 Judge Garb's order. My question was does the company ,

?

4 18 believe there are any other obstacles to the completion {,

t 19 of the Point Pleasant project as planned now, that in k

20- light of Judge Garb's order. ('

(,

21 JUDGE TURNER: I believe he can speak for the 4-i

'~

22 company. He is certainly in a responsible management I 23 position, so he would know the company's policy.

~

o 24 MR. CALVERT: I agree. My only point is that 7 s company policy might have to do with the legal aspects j 5

1

- n

K-12-2 1795 1

of that policy. As long as that.'s underetood, I am 2 willing to have the witness answer the question.

3 JUDGE TURNER: I would assume the objection is 4 withdrawn. You can answer the question.

' 5 THE WITNESS

The question, as I understand it, 6 is Judge Garb has come down with his decision which 9

7 says that the Bucks County and the Neshaminy Water 8 Resources Associates should get on with the construc-9 tion of Point Pleasant and move forward. The only one 10 that I know of that we are still waiting to hear from --

11 and with respect to going ahead with the project, there 12 was a PUC hearing on a certificate of necessity for 13 the pumphouse at Bradshaw, and Judge Kranzel, as I S ..

14 remember, handed down a decision. And trying to stay 15 on top of this, I believe we have appealed it, put in i 16 our position on it; the other parties have. And we 17 are still waiting to-ha,ve that answer to that appeal.

i .

18 So right now, my understanding, they should 19 start to do the construction. If we would get relieved

~

20 ,

of Judge Kranzel's decision on the pumphouse, then we 21 would be ready to go.

" MR. POPOWSKY: Okay.

23 JUDGE TURNER: So Judge Kranzel's determination 24 was negative on the certificate; he recommended denying 25 the certificate?

F

l'2- 3 ' ~

1796

," , 1 THE WITNESS: To my understanding, your Honor, 2 there was a confusion. He said okay, but there was a 3 confusion about the number of pumps. And we have an 4 order from the DRBC to keep the flow in the Perk?. omen 5 River. We have to maintain a flow. And to do that, 6

we need two pumps, but he only said we can use one 7

pump. So it's very confusing to us as to what we can a do and not do.

9 Please, I am in the engineering and construc-

-to tion.

g JUDGE TURNER: I understand. I think you have 12 answered my question. Thank you.

13 BY MR. POPOWSKY:

34 Q. In fact, Mr. Kemper, the company asked for permission for four pumps; isn't that. correct?

A. I d n't recall. There will be four pumps 6

at the Bradshaw pumping station. There's four at the 18 Perk and four at Bradshaw.

g Q. Would all four pumps be needed for Unit 1 or only tao for Unit 1 and two for Unit 2?

A. I believe, looking at the way the system is designed, two could handle it. But because.of maintenance and spares and whatnot, you need three pumps for one unit.

Q. And as of now, the company has approval e

l

. . - 4

. 1798

l . 1.

and then you're into appeals. And that's the legal 2

world. I don't know about that.

3

- 0.- .What will the company do for supplemental 4

cooling water for Limerick 1 this summer? Or you indicated that the Bradshaw at least wouldn't be ,

~8 completed until the end of the year under your 7

schedule. And by the way, the reason I asked --_well, let me sc, ratch that.

9 When will the company -- what will the company 10 do for supplemental cooling water for Limerick 1 prior 11 to the time the Bradshaw and Point Pleasant projects 12 are completed?

g- 13 ~

A. We hope to go to the DRBC and request an (d-14 alternate supply.

15

, (Transcript continues.,on Page 1799.)

16 17 e.

18 18

. .a - -

. 20 .

3 21 b'

• n

?- M i

24

't 4

^

, 1799 s - - . .

,1

/13/1/ -

G Have you done that yet?

N:

J'- 2- A No, we have not.

3-G And you don' t know what the response of the 4

DRBC will be 'to that?

_ 5' A No, we do not.

((l: 6 4 Can Limerick 1 achieve commercial operation, d

7 that is complete all the required testing without a l; a -supply of supplemental cooling water?

-9 A Yes. But let me ' amplify on thait.

ll

,n to- Right now. Limerick is just'. finishing up its 3o- 11 .five-percent power run and will be finishsd by the bt G 12 end of the. month. If we were not.in the evacuation ca.

'.; f

. 13 plan proceedings, we .~.would then be able to start on ~~

d

}u l4~ 14 up and go to full power and,get to commercial within

[ o 15- about five months.-

. Now, what'gets to-be the problem is the NRC.has.

Nf. . 17. . gi-vetEus a fu11 power .' license , but liniited . to five-*

w

k is . percent, and untill we 'get the ' evacuation hearings Loverf K

$ i9 and the - decision down, my; general understanding is that?

O Nj we ' re le f t T at'this five-parcent power _ level. "

3,

w. -

+

.fI 21 S the plant will be ~ sitting there :while these

?r e

w -weeks and months; go -. by, we '.re waiting for the decision.. - . -

22 . .

q.;

3 .OnceEwe:get that decision, then.Le;can'go.

. .24 But, youlsee, ' the - box you ' re getting into come

<V 25 IMay,.the Schuylkill, River will be. going up in a'

[,

,{,

.- U; '

a

')

/ g

^

.2 s

~ '~ - - ._. , ,

j.g:. ,

1800 I$ 113/2L' temperature.and down in flow, and we will not be able

- < 2 to have power operation at the plant. And that's why-

] ~

3

. we plan this sprine or in th'e near future to ask for sup- -

if e W

• plemental water supply from the DRBC so that if -we are B w 5.

?! - in this trip we can then get this supplemental water on V 4 6 an-interim basis just for this one summer, and then be 3

((

.s 7

able to go on from then on.

8 g But given the ' schedule of current NRC hear-

.4.

q

" 8

'ings and assuming that you don' t. get an interim supple-10 4 mental water source, you would,-in effect, have to put 11 a halt to your full power testing or to the testing 12 required to bring the plant into commercial operation

,7; 13 in May, and :this: halt would extend until about Octoberj 14 is-that correct, at which time you:would have to resume 15 testing at that point?

) 16 A The're are periods and there are times where-4- 17 we may be able to ; get some power operation, .becau'se a

.g :18 we . can :take flow from the ~ Perk 1 omen at' certain river.

.19 flows. There is several- days out lof the year where the.

l_ __._.. __20 :. flow:_on_ the Schuylkill is . not satis f actory, but- the

,- 21 - Perkioner. is.. ,

1

• ~'

22 But it'would be an interim; it wouldn' t be' a . con-t: -

23 - .tinuingioperation. It would be very disruptive.

'h 24 .g Do you-have an estimate, .if you had -jus t

~

a assumed hypothe ticallyl -that the company does.not receive 9

1. ,

t 4.

U' _. . _ . . _ . - _ . . _ , , . . . , . . . _ , .

r-

' 1825 I5/9' .

A Yes.

2 g could you tell us what possibilities you have

'3 considered or studied as interim supply sources, if

' " any, that would be available to you?

5 A I didn' t understand the question. ,

6 g Do you have any options of interim supply sources that you have considered?

7 8 A Yes.

9 0 And what are those supply sources?

10 A The major one is Blue Marsh.

11 g I would like to show you a document, and I 12 do have copies for counsel.

if 13 JUDGE TURNER: Are you going to mark this?

~ 't w 14 MS. BUSH: Yes, your Honor. I_would like to 15 mark that as City Exhibit 3, please.

16 JUDGE TURNER: It may be so_ marked.

17 (City Exh'ibit No'. 3 was marked U for identification.)

a 18 ,

19 'BY MS. BUSH:

g Are you familiar with this correspondence 21 from Mr. Dinton, Director, Office of Nuclear Reactor 22 Regulation, to Mr. Sugarman, counsel on behalfaof 23 Del-Aware , D-e- 1-dash- A-w-a-r-e?

24~ A- To my' knowledge, I have'never seen this a before.

y , .. _ _ . . - --

~ '

1826 15/1d Then let me ask you this question.

O 2

=

Would I be correct that any supplemental interim 3

[ l} ,

water supply source that would be hoped to be put in r 4 4

i operation by Philadelphia Electric Company would re-E 5 quire NRC approval under NEPA?

= .'

6 JUDGE TURNER: What is NEPA?

~

7 i

MS. BUSH: National Environmental g lotey Act, 8 if you know. '

(

9 THE WITNESS: I can't answer that.

r _

$ 10 BY MS. BUSH:

• F y 11 C Would you agree that one of the major sub-12 jects of litigation in the licensing proceeding has

$ ( 13 been whether the NRC is required to review the environ-y L 14 mental impacts of the current supplemental cooling water L

E 15 system, if you know? 5

= J b 16 A That's right.

a 17 g It has beeri? O s is A Yes. -

19 G I had one clarifying question that I wanted e ~ .

E --

-to ask you, Mr. Kemper, about the Merrill Creek. Is _

g '

q 21 that a reservoir? 3 i

[

~~

22 A Yes.

K  :

1 5 23 0 Could you explain for the record what role that 5 i[ 'i

$ 24 plays in the supplemental cooling system? I

~

-I The Delaware River Basin Commission has 25 A a-U E &

e e

.s a _ _ .

-m _. .

g j

• g

. . g-1874 e A

~ . =

Would you accept, subject to check?

. 1 j Q. .'4

(

2 A. Yes, subject -- I am sure -- I believe it d 5

must be in there, but I can't say specifically. [

{ -

# -t j Q. Let's move on.

~

5 Is it your understanding, again subject to g

-; --1 4

6 check, that the source of supplemental cooling water _

4 7 that is evaluated in the FES is the Point Pleasant? F j 8 A. That is correct.

8 Q. Now, you have testified that Philadelphia (A 10 Electric is go'ing to go to the Delaware River Basin a 11 Commission later this year and seek approval for an m

12 interim supply of supplemental cooling water other h

jg 13 than what would be provided by Point Pleasant. Is $e s.. g i

14 th.at correct? 9 e

15 A. That's correct. m -

i 16 Q. Now, should the Limerick station in fact

-j -

operate utilizing a source of supplemental cooling s.

17 -

g' 18 water other than Point Pleasant, the environmental $

i 5 i 19 impacts of that alternative source would not have been f.u i

reviewed by the NRC; is that correct? E j -- 5 d i 3 21 A. That's correct. =

.s So therefore, is it your understanding that j

.j 22 Q. _-

r, 3

_ 23 an amended or revised environmental statement would be

' 8 i3 i 24 necessary with regard to that? =

I a l

25 A. I believe it would. l ii!

l a 1

rj  ;

^

1875

,. . j Q. And that's a process that takes some time, f 2 doesn't it?

A. It could.

4 Q. Now, on some earlier questions by Mr.

Popowsky, you indicated that with regard to Gilbert 6

Commonwealth's estimates of the costs of a coal plant Philadelphia Electric added a 15 percent contingency 8

above and beyond the contingency proposed by Gilbert.

s Is that correct?

I

. A. That is correct.

" Q. And just hypothesize for a moment that 12 Philadelphia Electric was considering building a 13 brand new nuclear plant rather than finishing a 30

{

14 percent completed nuclear plant. In your opinion, 15 would Philadelphia. Electric add a 15 percent contingency?

16 A. At least.

17 Q. It could add more in the case of a new t

18 nuclear plant, might it not?

-i l8 Depending where you are in the licensing A.

'M process --

9 21 I am talking, sir, about a brand new nuclear-Q.

22 plant, starting from ground zero.

23 MR. CALVERT: For which you just have a con-24 ceptual design?

25 MS. FERKIN: Very well stated, Mr. Calvert.

_. .