ML20107M799

Suggests Total Lack of Basis for Granting Util 841019 Request for Exemption from App a Requirements Under 10CFR50.12 Re Tornado Impacts on Cooling Towers.Util Shows No Actual Alternative Supplemental Water Source

ML20107M799
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	11/08/1984
From:	Sugarman R SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
ALAB-785, NUDOCS 8411140268
Download: ML20107M799 (6)

Text

__ . _ _ _ _

SUGARM AN, DENWORTH & H ELLEGERS ATTORN EYS AT L AW COBERT J. SUG ARM AN ISTM FLOOR. CENTER PLAZ A SUITE 835 12 0 NN AN E C, NM JOANNE R. DENWORTH IOl NORTH BROAD STREET JOHN F. HELLEGERS PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19107 (aoa) 737 44ao COBIN T. LOCKE (255)754 9733 ROBERT RAYMOND ELLIOTT. P.C.*

COUNSEL

• se aseTTro use pa November 8, 1984 Mr. Harold Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: Application of Philadelphia Electric Company for Exemption from Appendix A Requirements Under 10 CFR 50.12

Dear Mr. Denton:

We have received a copy of PECo's letter to you dated October 19, 1984, seeking an exemption from the requirements of 10 CFR 50 Appendix A relating to tornado impacts on the cooling towers. PECo's letter, in essence, states that inadequate pro-tection of the cooling towers from tornado ef fect is excusable because alternative water systems exist to supply cooling water for maintenance and normal operations. In its letter, PECo references "a number of other sources".

PECo's latest letter is an inadequate and inpermissible basis for the allowance of the exemption. PECo is totally non-communicative as to the source of numerous other water sources.

In previous filings with the Commission, PECo has consistently stated that its alternative water source is-the Delaware River, via the Point Pleasant diversion. PEco has never provided any basis to the Commission for believing that it has an alternative supplemental water source. In fact, in numerous filings before the Commission and in testimony, e.g., testimony of Boyer at the supplemental cooling water hearings, October, 1982, Tr.p. follow-ing p. 949, PECo has consistently taken the position that it is e dependent on the Point Pleasant diversion for supplemental cool '

ing water.

Consistently with this, in his letter J. Kemper to A.

Schwencer, September 4, 1984, PECo represented that it would secure alternative water from the Perkiomen intake, which in turn, is dependent on the Point Pleasant diversion 96% of the time. In that letter, PECo also tendered its draft SER revision, 84i1140268 8411og p DR ADOCK 05000352 PDR

[*I

Mr.' Harold Denton 2 November 8, 1984 in which it represented that such sources were the basis, in part, for an exemption from the provisions of 10 CPF 50 Appendix-DR.

Of course, it is well known to this Commission, as stated by the Appeal Board in ALAB 785, that PECo faces consider able obstacles in implementing the proposed Point Pleasant diver-sion. These include requirements for water pollution discharge.

permits imposed on PECo by the provisions of the Environmental Hearing Board decision in Pennsylvania, the requirements for reduced velocity imposed by that Board, and the requirements limiting pumping imposed by the Administrative Law Judge of the Pennsylvania PUC, as well as the determination by Bucks County and the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority not to build the project,.and finally, of course, the decision of the Appeal Board itself.

Accordingly, it is submitted that there is no basis for granting the requested exemption.

Sinperel Robert J. u rman r07.rjsII/sp cc: Service List

- -- ~

949 ';

1 have been readily apparent -- in f act, it was not, to 2 the Board -- that there was additional material outside 3 of the subsections refer =nced in the testimony.

4 (The documents previously 5

marked Exhibits 1, 1A, 6

and 1B for identification 7

vere received in '

8 evidence.)

g }

JUDGE BRENNEB a- I take it you about to move 10 the supplezontary testimony into evidence also, Mr.

11 Conners correct?

12 ER. CONNEBs I would like to say that we are 13 offering this material only as it applies to the three k 14 contentions for this proceeding. And we do, in fact, l 15 offer in evidence Applicant's testimony on the water 16 issues, and Exhibits 1, 1A, and 1B, as described.

17 JUDGE BRENNERa All richt. They are admitted, l

18 subject to the opportunity I have permitted Mr. Sugarman I is with respect to part of Exhibit 1, and that is the I 20 questions and ansvers in' the appendix which were 21 separately identified.

He vill bind in the sup'plemental f 22 testimony. t 23 t

(The information referred to, the supplemental s I

l 24 testimony, follovss) y

. 25 W

.$ ~

k

• )

ALDERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, 400 VIRGINIA AVE S.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20024(202) 554 2345 .

. . .. - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , 4

e ,

1 il f  :

k UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION i .

gefore the Atomic Safety and Licensina Board

.~

'-] ' ge Matter of 2, # adelphia 1

Electric Company ) Docket Nos. 50-352 Wi - ) 50-353 ib rick Generating Station, )

[: . gnits 1 and 2) )

{ ' '

i j

APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY ON " WATER ISSUES" panel - Vincent S. Boyer, W. Haines Dickinson -

Philadelphia Electric Company E. H. Bourquard - E. H. Bourquard Associates, Inc.

Paul L. Harmon - RMC, Inc.

Dr. John Edinger - J.E. Edinger Associates, Inc. i

1. On . March 17, 1981, Philadelphia Electric Company f

("PECO" ) submitted its application for operating licenses for the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2

(" Limerick") . The application consists of its formal portion , the Final Safety Analysis Report ("FSAR") and the i Environmental Report Operating License Stage ("EROL") and ,

(

amendments thereto. (Scyer)* j

2. Inasmuch as this is the first evidentiary hearing in the captioned proceeding, the Applicant offers "the application as Applicant's Exhibit 1 (A. Ex. 1). The l e

l sections of 1:'vhibit 1 pertinent to the contentions discussed below are EROL SS 2.4.2.3, 2.4.3.4, 2.4.6, 2.4.7.1.4, App.

l

}

l Principal witness (es).

1 1

• l H

.z x

{ pc and Phacing of Conntruction at Point Plnasant

.,.e 55- The Licensing Board has requested Applicant to 1 ish it with information regarding the considerations ha W- licable to the timing of the const.uction of the Point

. # :' d

~

• a lk-[easant diversion and to identify documentation of these

, , p$ siderations. (Boyer)

.4-" '

7 56. It is estimated that completion of the entire Point

.~:

', i ' f." pleasant project as it relates to Limerick will take o,- a

'gproximately two years. (Boyer) w 1

57. Fuel loading for Ilimerick Unit 1 is currently scheduled to commence between July ,and October 1984. The coopletion of preoperational testing will require the availability of supplemental cooling water frem Point Pleasant at least three months prior to the fuel loading date. Accordingly, it is necessary to commence construction 1

December 15, 1982 as scheduled in order to meet existing deadlines. (Boyer)

58. The final Section 3.8 approval granted by the DRBC provided as a condition of the approval the following:

N. Constructicn excavation and maintenance dredging in the Delaware River must be performed between November and March to reduce the potential for 1 impact on migrating juvenile and adult I shad. (DRBC Docket No. D-65-76 CP (8) l (February 18, 1981)]

4 s DRBC has therefore required that NWRA undertake excavation work in the river between November and March. It is L

necessary to begin the portion of construction in the h

VT f,

}. puare River during the winter months of 1982-83 so that ,

.e I; 3A yer work can be completed during the winter of 1903-84.

[%.. l ,id

peyer) y i a 59. There is no reasonable assurance that all of the eM i ?

, 5 !hnstruction work in the river can be ecmpleted within a

. 1 gle winter because work cannot be performed during high j

~1 gow periods, owing to increased river flow velocity.

Accordingly, it is necessary that river construction work ,

gegin this winter as scheduled. (Boyer) t

60. The letter of September 9, 1981 from E. E.

l .

Bourgunrd to the Corps of Engineers discusses phacing of c; construction work. Although there is some flexibility in  ;

ili the time for performing the particular work designated for F

any delay in starting construction b each of these phases,

will cause .1 commensurate delay in its completion.

Regardlest of any planned phases of construction work, NWRA nust abide by the restrictions imposed by DRBC which limit I

river excavation to the winter months of November through I,

. I h March. (Boyer) l ,

i!

?

O i

I.

& _ _ . .