ML20136D861

Memorandum & Order Referring Rl Anthony & Friends of the Earth 851112 Motion to Reopen Contentions V-3a & 3b Re Possible Effects of Gas or Petroleum Pipeline Explosion on Facility Structures to Commission.Served on 851119

ML20136D861
Person / Time
Site:	Limerick
Issue date:	11/19/1985
From:	Shoemaker C NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
To:	Anthony R ANTHONY, R.L., FRIENDS OF THE EARTH
References
CON-#485-244 ALAB-823, OL, NUDOCS 8511210382
Download: ML20136D861 (4)

Text

__ _ _ _ _ _ _

e ! r p UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

[ED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION k7 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOAR'D OI/p crr.~ Pg p, Administrative Judges: B 0: q, 0cljf[d'/ 4 t -4.

- / ann;~p, Christine N. Kohl, Chairman November 19//c1985' Gary J. Edles (ALAB-823)

Dr. Reginald L. Gotchy 1

) I In the Matter of )

• nVLu NOV 191985

)

PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY ) Docket Nos. 50-352 OL

) 50-353 OL (Limerick Generating Station, )

Units 1 and 2) )

)

Robert L. Anthony, Moylan, Pennsylvania, intervenor pro se and for intervenor Friends of the Earth.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER On October 22, 1985, we issued ALAB-819, 22 NRC ,

completing our appellate review of numerous issues raised in connection with the Licensing Board's second partial initial decision in this proceeding. See LBP-84-31, 20 NRC 446 (1984). Among the issues we addressed was the Board's disposition of contentions V-3a and V-3b, raised by intervenors Robert L. Anthony and Friends of the Earth

( Anthony / FOE) . Those contentions concerned the possible effects of a gas or petroleum pipeline explosion on structures at the Limerick nuclear plant. We considered the many arguments raised on appeal by Anthony / FOE and found none to have merit. We thus affirmed the Licensing Board's determination that the Limerick structures are adequate to 8511210382 851119 PDR ADOCK 05000352 G PDR TS o 2-

o u l

i 2 i

withstand the postulated explosion scenarios. See ALAB-819, l

22 NRC at -

(slip opinion at 78-100).

Anthony / FOE, in a motion filed November 12, 1985, now ask us to reopen the record on contentions V-3a and V-3b and to stay the operation of Limerick Unit 1. The basis of their motion is an October 31 letter from applicant Philadelphia Electric Company (PECo), enclosing a recent Licensee Event Report (LER). That report (No.85-080) notes a potential condition not previously covered by the plant's operating or emergency procedures -- a postulated cooling tower basin break with resultant entry of water into the lower elevations of the plant control structure due to the present status of Unit 2 construction and grading. Such an event could affect the Control Structure Chilled Water Systems (used to remove heat from areas such as the main control room through the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system), but assertedly would not prevent the safe shutdown of the plant. According to Anthony / FOE, this new information undermines the Licensing Board's conclusions regarding the ability of safety-related structures to withstand such flooding. See LBP-84-31, 20 NRC at 490-92.

Because ALAB-819 affirms the Board's partial initial decision, Anthony / FOE seek our reconsideration of ALAB-819 in light of the information contained in LER No.85-080. We no longer have jurisdiction over matters relating to contentions V-3a and V-3b, however, and therefore refer m - w - - - - s w - ,~e- , , + n -w

= 3 3

Anthony / FOE's motion to the Commission for its consideration.

As we have noted on several past occasions, the Commission's Rules of Practice provide no ready answer to questions concerning the division of authority and jurisdiction among the various decisionmaking entities within the NRC. Similarly, we could locate no case precedent directly applicable to the situation presented by Anthony / FOE's motion. Our decision in Metropolitan Edison Co.

(Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1),

ALAB-699, 16 NRC 1324 (1982), however, addresses a closely Irelated issue. In that case, an intervenor filed a motion with the Licensing Board, seeking reopening of certain issues that Board had decided previously in one of several partial initial decisions. Because intervenor's motion was a

submitted after the filing of exceptions to that Licensing L Board decision -- thereby initiating Appeal Board review --

l we concluded (in agreement with the Licensing Board) that l jurisdiction over the motion to reopen rested with us rather i

than the Licensing Board.

L That reasoning provides a fair and workable solution to i

the problem here. Two petitions for review of ALAB-819 have 4

already been filed with the Commission (one by PECo on a

November 5, and the other b!y intervenor Limerick Ecology g Action on November 8), thereby triggering the Commission's consideration of that decision, . including our rulings in

a . ..

4 connection with Anthony / FOE's' contentions V-3a and V-3b.

Therefore, the Commission is logically the proper entity within'the adjudicatory chain that should consider Anthony / FOE's motion to reopen on these same contentions.

Anthony / FOE's November 12, 1985, motion to reopen is therefore referred to the Commission.

It is so ORDERED. --

FOR TIIE APPEAL BOARD 9

b. a C. Jehp Sh6emaker Secretary to the Appeal Board i

a S

4 4

4

., ,,-- r- .. - . . ,, ,, . = . , , ,,,-,.---e. - ----e-- - ,- _,n . , , ,,, , a