ML20108B168

Advises That No Basis Exists for Granting Exemption from Requirements of 10CFR50,App a Re Tornado Impacts on Cooling Towers Indicated in .Supporting Transcript Pages Encl.Related Correspondence

ML20108B168
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	11/08/1984
From:	Sugarman R PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC, SUGARMAN & ASSOCIATES
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
CON-#484-138 ALAB-785, OL, NUDOCS 8411150335
Download: ML20108B168 (6)

Text

<-

Wp080@

00CKET NUMBEft ,_

PROD. fi UL FA0.c.=w.r n.

.._[p 4/

=

3.M 2 -

f)-jfjd A.)

SUGARM AN, DENWORTH & HELLEGERS ATTO R N E YS AT L AW

'ROBERTJ.SUGARMAN netn rL3oR. CEN TER PLAZA gy,yg g3g JOANNE R. DENWORTH IOl NORTH BROAD STREEk $ ]} [,- 12Or {ENNSYLVANIA AVENUC. N.WW.

JOHN F. HELLEGERS PHILADELPHIA. PENNSYLVANIA 19107 o COBIN T. LOCKE (215)758 9733 ROSCRT RAYMOND ELUOTT. P.C.*

COUNSEL emo puettro see 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

' 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 l

turn, is dependent on the Point Pleasant diversion 96% of the

! time. In that letter, PECo also tendered its draft SER revision, 8411150335 841100 PDR ADOCK 05000352 G PDR Qgy

p . ,,

e- . 1 I

Mr. Harold Denton 2 November'8, 1984 ')

.in which it represented that such sources were the basis, in

..part, f or an exemption f rom the provisions of 10 CPF 50 Appendix-DR.

' ~

Of course, it is well known to this Gommission, 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 pol,1.ution discharge p6rmits 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.

Sinperely, N

Robert J. N ugerman r07.rjsII/sp

- - cc: Service List 1

I!

l-I:

. =e i

?

g- 949 i

t e

, j 1

1 have been readily apparent -- in fact, it was not, to t

2 the Board -- that there was additional material outside 3 of the subsections. referenced in the testimony.

l 4

2 .

, (The documents previously 5

marked Exhibits 1, 1A, t

! 6

. and 1B for identification 7

vere received in 8

i evidence.)

• g JUDGE BRENNEB a- I take it you about to move.

10 the supplementary testimony into evidence also, Nr.

11 Conners correct?

12 HR. CONNER: I would like to say that we are 13 offering this matarial only as it applies to the three 34 contentions for this proceeding. And we do, in fact, 15 off er in evidence Applicant's testimony on the water 16 issues, and Exhibits 1, 1A, and 1B, .aus described.

1 17 JUDGE BRENNER: All right. They are admitted, J

f, 18 subject' to the opportunity I have permitted Mr. Sugarman i

i tg with respect to part of Exhibit 1, and that is the h '

20 questions and ansvers in' the appendix which were j 21 separately identified.

We vill bind in the sup'plemental t

i . zt testimony.

- i j 23 (The information referred to, the supplemental

. 24 testimony, follovss) l 25 e ,

EfiI

.}' i-h

.g 02.}Y

?

:.

,4 .

AL.DERSON REPORTING COMPANY,INC, a mamua we . - - -~ ~ ~ ~ ^ ~ ^ ^ ' ~ ' ~ ~

'e

,I. ,is? ~

.,. ' p;w t

. ,~

d UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 2{Nif$!

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION d

%:q$

If Sefore the Atomic Safety and'Licensina B'oard

.->:W)i^f if ,

3;

.n . 1 V W ga Matter of ) ,

fi] P ,

adelphia Eleccric Company

)

) Docket Nos. 50-352 l

.M s .- ) 50-353 7],9 tskf1 and 2)

]

rick Generating Station, )

)

n -> 1 e . .

O APPLICANT'S TESTIMONY ON " WATER ISSUES" j

panel - Vincent S. Boyer, W. Haines Dickinson -

l Philadelphia Electric Company E. E. Bourquard - E. E. Bourcuard Associates, Inc.

a

- Paul L. Harmon - RMC, Inc.

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

1.' On. March 17., 1981, Philadelphia Electric Company gapgCO") submitted its application for operating licenses for the Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2

(" Limerick") . The application consists of 'its farmal portien , the Final Safety Analysis Report ("FSAR") and the T.nvironmental Report Operating License Stage ("EROL") and amendments thereto. (Boyer) *

2. Inasmuch as this is the first evidentiary hearing in the captioned proceeding, the Applicant offers 'the

, application as Applicant's Fvhibit 1 (A. Ex. 1). The

' J s sections of EvMbit 1 pertinent to the contentions discussed q .

'below are EROL SS 2.4.'2.3, 2.4.3.4, 2.4.6, 2.4.7.1.4, App.

l* Princioal witness (es) .

)

I

__ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . - _ _ _ -- . - - . , , - - - , . - , . _ _ - . . _ . - _ . , , . . , .m.. , . _ . . _ . . . . _ - . _ . . . . - _ _ - , _ . . - - . _ , , . s . , ,. . _-

4.' "

• % ,. " e-

% g WI nd Phasinc of Construction at Point Pleasant

-I f The -Licensing has

. MN a:p N 55.. Board requested Applicant to J

• D8 +$y 7

it with information regarding the considerations i

15,'lk

.Jp .Mf ticablesh to the timing of the construction of the Point

..m

• .#9

' y #hasant diversion and to identify documentation of these itd? h .

3.-

3 gesiderations. , (Boyer)

~.

.;$c $ 56. It is estimated that completio'n of the entire Point

. .y p project as it relates to Limerick will take

'. hissant

'*3 hpproximatelytwoyears. (Boyer) ,

57. Fuel loading for L'imerick Unit 1 is currently schedu ed to commence between July, and October 1984. The ccepletion of preoperational testing will require the avai . ability of supplemental cooling water from Point pleasant at least three months prior to the fuel loading date. Accordingly, it is necessary to commence construction i

[ December 15, 1982 as scheduled in order to meet existing n

I deadlines. (Boyer) t 58. The final Section 3.8 approval granted by the I

3 DRBC provided as a condition of the approval the following:

J .

N. Construction excavation and maintenance dredging in the Delaware i River must be performed between November

! and March to reduce the potential for impact on migrating juvenile and adult shad. [DRBC Docket No. D-65-76 CP (8)

. (February 18, 1981)]

I DRBC has therefore required that NWRA. undertake excavation 1

h work in the river between November and March. It is necessary to begin the portion of construction in the l 1

I I

a

., - 20 -

t try g

'g pware River during the winter months of 1982-83 so that

- , ~

}.jf d?

.) {. y

' er work can be completed during the winter of 1983-84.

.J.

$'poyer)

,r..

There is no reasonable assurance that: all of the

$ 59

?

in the river can be completed' within a

, NI fgnstruction work ,

't be performed during high

'pgle' winter because work cannot owing to increased river flow velocity.

gio9 periods, Accordingly, it is necessary that river construction work begin this winter as scheduled. (Boyer) of September 9, 1981 from E. E.

60. The letter Bourquard to the Corps of Engineers discusses phasing of constru'ction work. Although there is some flexibility in the time for performing the particular work designated for f.each of these phases, any delay in starting . construction c

1 cause a commensurate delay in its completion.

1 i will I

j Regardless of any planned phases of construction work, n'PA i must abide by the restrictions imposed by DRBC which limit l

river excavation to the winter months of November through E March. (Boyer) 1

(

e

. l r

e 9 .- _