ML20127C014

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Discusses R Sugarman Complaint Re NRC 840417 Telcon W/Util Re Const Status of Supplementary Cooling Water Sys.Util Telcon Notes Contradict NRC Telcon Notes.R Sugarman Argument Distorted & Inaccurate.Draft NRC Response Encl
ML20127C014
Person / Time
Site: Limerick  Constellation icon.png
Issue date: 08/27/1984
From: Schwencer A
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Eisenhut D
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20126G559 List:
References
FOIA-85-103 NUDOCS 8409040021
Download: ML20127C014 (6)
v • d • e


Text

_

AUG 2 7 1994 NOTE T0: D. G. Eisenhut, Dir.ector Division of-Licensing -

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation THROUGH: T. M. Novak, Assistant Director for Licensing Division of Licensing FRCM: A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing

SUBJECT:

R. SUGARMAN COMPLAINT ABOUT STAFF TELECON WITH PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ON APRIL 17, 1984 An intervenor in the Limerick proceedings, Mr. R. Sugarman, has recently taken the position in a letter to Chairman Palladino dated July 26, a letter to the ASLB dated July 13, and a motion b~efore the ASLAB dated August 3 that the NRC staff had engaged in an " improper contact with.PECo, concealed from intervenors and tne public, and contrary to the staff's public representations, and to 10 CFR 27.80."

The contact referred to was an April 17, 1984 telephone conversation between A. Schwencer, J. Lehr, M.J. Campagnone of the NRC staff and T. Robb, and H. Dickenson of PECo. The purpose of the call was to gain information on the status of construction of the Point Pleasant Diversion System, the Supplementary Cooling Water System (SCWS) approved to divert water from the Delaware River, through a reservoir and pipelines and down the Perkiomen Creek to the plant for operation of the main cooling towers. This diversion would be needed during warm weather months when temperature / flow limitations preclude taking such water from the Schuylkill River adjacent to the plant.

A portion of Mr. Sugarman's July 13, 1984 letter to the ASLB, stated that the PECo telecon notes " intimated that the Commission might not grant license to PECo if it does not have off-site water and cannot run the plant in the absence thereof." This is contrary to what the notes actually indicate.

As reflected in ,the notes, I indicated that we did not have specific infor-mation on PECo's plans for doing startup operations in the event such operations were conducted at a time of non-availability of either the Schuylkill River adjacent to the plant or the SCWS. Our notes (taken by John Lehr) indicated that the applicant said that in this event all low power (up to 5%) testing could take place using the inventory in the cooling tower basins. The.tel. econ notes support that the staff entertained putting the above on the record, but the applicant preferred that this not be done.

There is nothing of substance in the notes which indicates that the staff has

' treated the issues in any manner varying from publicly stated positions.

m WP-

With respect to Mr. Sugarman's concern that the contact was " informal" it had the same degree of formality that all telephonic conversations between the staff and the applicant have. There is nothing to mislead the public in this issue since any decision by the NRC would be based on information available to all parties.

With respect to Mr. Sugarman's concern on the circulation of notices of meeting, the notes make no mention of a meeting, nor was a meeting even discussed. .

Also, with respect to this informal " contact" being contrary to practice and' regulation, enclosed 'are two responses, one issued by the Applicant on August 2,1984, to Mr. Chilk and one, in draft, to be issued by the NRC staff to the Appeal Board on August 27, 1984, in response to Mr. Sugarman's above mentioned motion. In both of these responses, it's. pointed out that Section 2.102(a) for Rules of Practice expressly states that the staff may request any one party to the proceeding to confer with the staff informally.

In summary, I believe Mr. Sugarman's arguments regarding the telecon notes present a very distorted and inaccurate image of the nature, content and propriety of the communication which took place.

A. Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch No. 2 Division of Licensing

Enclosures:

1. NRC staff notes
2. Applicant 8/2/84 letter
3. Draft NRC staff res o, C.ws/Th DL i N2/BC Distribution:

fl .a o i . . . ~ ASchwencer - ' vak Docket File 4/ fo" //84 84 PCR System 8/y/ LB#2 Reading As'. EMES'?[ / P. Shuttleworth

4. Lettrh'ff' R. Martin -

gjl AD/L. P. Obrien DL#646 e

l NRC Staff Notes l

l w~ ** * * . * * ..

J __

~

Y fl k . __ . - . . $. ' .

& M ... -

__j _ . _ . _

g . . . . e _... _.... ..

l J SE4 w A42.Q J 4.dfhpm 2-Q.x/u.0'a C- 9 A stL &_ M OAw?

^

% 4....; .

w .

C l fQ dLo1)<.- A i. % y ..25h. m,. O fu& _ _.

f_jV. 3& L1c .o _

i l .

10 A 8, L tk D .. AYs LltLk ' fax-0 0

~ ~ . _ . . . _.

~

- Q M n ddd~ AfdJ- % O T P M ) . . . _ _ . .

. . i. Pbr c29Q.n.saA$ v da C. S. PA. a'. .-

J e M . & 2?P m A p pA )._G le_6 g.jp + 9 p a.)

.....Q -M.sL2.w..(8 9 .O AM -

.)_. A U C f f . h ..L w .._. w D p . 1 n c . 9 . h D(..... ..

p) ..1L./JA A.61.p 9 A .

iL -

Psc a L . M .J.a y g. 4 .,A & J L .q qa .

A bc & nk.

/w;n a wM.n.JJQ A q.. i u n : % t (7; . s pPMj).. g i d h / vm X&~

L Bw232+ " .._. . . . _ . . . . . . . . . . . . - . . - . = . . _.

j Q

f. 7XPoc4.AsLI.mA J 2 U s f k a L . ... . - \

A.J s %A saa.0 4mp g,Le2pa . /p.i 1

1 -

I D I N N A E S I n 3 5 G E E R M N @ Ill F M M 7 d F d i $ )

id-ElWes9WSM3fSWER4E@3T(4!L*feiy%W4@@!!!Mitf##sR?$9EiMW; l a " =,y _.

--)

.i a.

',t,s.'

'*y

'*L

. Cia

'f Y.l@ , WA L- l @I  % Y N...

~

L r s ajam aaraup~

~ t',c A P u c

" ~

Oe e6.

, a

..i A 2 a t n>tJ L \- ' '

..._._ LWc0W9cLBc4 L Ex(Da w A L /(9 d <MIK 4 & 7z mm <J 2% #_ d a a A o ~L L," usa. 'O & fu?% (s-/RJd ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

_. m t:4Lb k a JrueL .

d M L .50)l U d a n 2 A en & cN~ '

4& J M A e t A a. J A Afm / G M l af ~

w h n a u . w & w cs,u %

AL-51 i LAUiA n aaA L199

.sg)Alcd w_ cm &ALJ t~ $9b1Jad W.

&J-.'M J <d en 28*) ek'_ r L4& - '

k

._a 3- Sqfw}st. d .jgink Qd,Ac e M >

naa ,J L a e. M u

_ . .  %. ro-xs4 o nAJ AJ i~ w wd2 BL -

Am

_.L&d Mu'RA l- ef & Au n $ Od3A Y .n p.p&E.7dn.A % & dfd,liA p,4.

~MLAA12pt ad tjkAJL AcA~~ L '-A #

.6 afin -(LP MAU a #.id Je L 6f DJ

.h he9 n)792, akJ- ' '

AM

-un

I I

.. .i.

  • h hM P 'cA '

ll1 . Re s 2y , a~91. Eg L n aLJ<AL~

./ % t t

k

)p.p,EALQ adu haaAS)&cQ. L .~A yfnaf,Puc are n

. _. .) ~2n a qg i ucL aa.M

l. p ss- p p a c g& ( 4gn~jd sgAs r we yr.-

4 e<,

4 V A

? EL.44 JA mL b1R & eg+ L i @ A d y A A E. (*. a d .o s 2 # A L i .a. < ic~R M M :g A s %-fugg4-c-S T[ p'seJ.$1:dKpt_oNaM ... .

asua w a k.. ya p A s c,u

!i . ..

  • .. .A ums. e er .

u Ak ss-2 sad,42KPM. _. . . . . .

FL J %p & & G n.gO~ O n V

J MaclDSL...L2-k Ajd!!6= 4f y cm r d aJJ bel-t r-p.&64. an dw u;pd ? Y tw h_a- g Qw' f af& 14f.,Ah,),6.alyL-j u

1i bapicnd4 q nm, beA y& watmtcAsprLr n i .

BL.LA-4 g 5 bescwon a)~ upLL2

+ i -

sis & Mc 48a2 L9 4 ki~&thi.4a A O <- JLk />s.fr AdA .A .a G .d' CAD c s s .c e # .a. san

~ *}. m ArL_q/<M. fLw.JJoA Pv4L L . K& i

. m & 4?

1 i . M *

, e

  • h 's

-. .O em.gegog e , .6 4. .ee e --am ..e .g.. . 9.+ -

A A ~ # ' i'

  • A

-f d 6 3- T- 1 -- - -

K Pa .uxm xa . ..

- ....._....& 'C $

0 -

. . . . . . _ ._. .e . ..., .

- n M A . m a e a L _._-....

_ o/ __

_1..

ana / L 0 _ _

'A / % n.o o 5/m/pt/

t O

e e

LAW OFFICES 'V-

' ~

GONNER Oc WETTERHAHN. P.G. ,[ .

g Tsov e. cow s tR. J R.

M ASM J WCTTERHAHu  % AS HINGTON. D. C. 2 0000 ._

R$ 0 E "4 7 M RADER INGHID M. CLSON ARCH A. M OO R E. J R. g, ROCCGT H. P L* R L erree-a.at 19021833 3S00

.e,............ '

August 2, 1984 ,,u , ,,y,,,,. ,,, _

u c e r- l NC Q^

Mr. Sarhuel J. Chilk S~ecretary hy kwa U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555

[viff]

pp 4

In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)

Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353

Dear Mr. Chilk:

This letter is on behalf of Applicant Philadelphia Electric Company in response to the. letter to Chairman Palladino from Robert J. Sugarman, Esq., dated July 13, 1984. Mr. Sugarman stated that his letter supplements "our letter of May 23, 1984." Initially, we did not know whether Mr. Sugarman was referring to his letter to Miss Hodgdon of the Office of Executive Legal Director or to Mr. Denton, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, both dated May 23, 1984. Later, when furnished a copy by the Staff, we re-alized that Mr. Sugarman was referring to a letter to the Commissioners. We had not received a copy from Mr.

Sugarman.

In the same regard, Mr. Sugarman states at the outset that he is enclosing " correspondence directed to the Licens-4 ing Board and the Appeal Board," which was not attached to the copy of the letter mailed to us. Therefore, we have no idea what particular correspondence Mr. Sugarman has now furnished the Commission (or the Boards) , or whether the Applicant has ever received it. It.is difficult to under-stand why Mr. Sug.arman persists in failing to serve the parties and their counsel with documents furnished to the Commission in view of the admonition by the Deputy General

. Counsel by letter dated July 5, 1984 to do so. The Deputy 3{

rage a General Counsel reminded Mr. Sugarman at that time that the NRC Docketing and Service Branch had already advised him that the failure to serve all parties with such materials constitutes a prohibited ex parte communication. ,

b Mr. Sugarman states that the NRC Staff "has had a secret contact with PECo" regarding supplemental cooling f  :

water for Limerick. It k ,

is claimed that this informal P

" contact" is " contrary to practice and regulations." As you ~[

l l

are aware, the Commission's rules against g carte commu- l nications under 10 C.F.R. 52.780 do not apply to contacts between the NRC Staff and an applicant. The Commission's l i boards have consistently ruled that the NRC Staff may confer ,

l off the record with any party to a proceeding. See, e.a., 1 Public Service Comoany of Indiana, Inc. (Marble Hill Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-493, 8 NRC 253, 269 j (1978); Northeast Nuclear Enerev Comoany (Montague Nuclear l

Power Station, Units 1 and 2), LEP-75-19, 1 NRC 436, 437 .

l (1975). Indeed ,~ Section 2.10 2 (a) of the Commission's Rules  ;

of Practice expressly states: "The staff may request any 3 ,

j one party to the proceeding to confer with the staff in- - 1 i formally." -

(

Finally, Mr. Sugarman refers to a decision rendered by l

the Pennsylvania Environmental Hearing Board on June 18, ,

l 1984 regarding compliance with the Clean Water Act in the '

diversion of water from the Delaware River to the East Branch Perkiomen Creek. This is also the subject of a letter from Mr. Sugarman to Mr. Denton dated July 13 con-cerning his previous letter dated May 23, 1984. Mr. Denton i responded to the May 23, 1984 letter, rejecting Mr.

Sugarman's position. Mr. Sugarman's July 13, 1984 letter requests that both his recent and previous letters now be treated nunc pro tunc as a " proper application under Section 2.206." In our view, which we shall communicate to the l

' Staff, this attempted procedure is not authorized by Part 2.

A contrary interpretation would permit anyone making an allegation to the Staff to invoke the formidable processes of 52.206 in any ins'tance in which the Staff found his i.

allegations to,be unwarranted.

l Nonetheless, in view of Mr. Sugarman's pending petition for relief before the Director, we shall respond to the i

Director accordingly. .

In any event', Applicant notes that Mr. Sugarman's l

' stated " understanding" regarding the need to treat diverted water in order to comply with water quality standards is unsupported by any finding or ruling by any cognizable l

l 1

n4-a 2, 1: .,

. . - + . Page 3 agency, incli2 ding the Environmental Hearing Board. Rather, this conclusion is evidently based upon the opinion of certain engineers employed by Bucks County, which is presently in litigation against Applicant with regard to completion of the Point Pleasant project.

Accordingly, the matters raised by Mr. Sugarman are without merit and will, in any event, be addressed more formally by the Director in his decision pursuant to Section 2.206.

Sincerely, Troy . Conner, Jr.

Counsel for Philadelphia Electric Company 4 TSC/dlf cc: Service List i

4 i

.) **=

l i

o e

,t I

i r a

-e v- vw- ---rr- '---r--+*

v p-- - - - g w- www - v- v - w -- 3--c -e-v, ir-, - - - -wr -

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20127C014&oldid=3467218"