ML19282B623

Forwards Corrected Pages 3,5, & 8 to Licensee'S 790221 Answer to Joint Intervenors' Petition for Review of ALAB-518

ML19282B623
Person / Time
Site:	Hope Creek, 05000355
Issue date:	02/27/1979
From:	Conner T CONNER, MOORE & CORBER
To:	Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY)
References
NUDOCS 7903160011
Download: ML19282B623 (4)

Text

. . .

. I.Aw orrIczs F'*- "'

- 7- W U CosxEa.MoonE & ConaEn 1747 PENNSTLVANIA AvzNUE. N. W.

Taorm.cowwza an.

Aacs A. Mooms.dn' WASIIINGTON. D. C. 20006 7{ [ 2[{,j

^

3o333T J. CoEBBB '

~ 4.bk*

mamE J. TTEREAEN %3( ?L.- .?W {

nowALD 4. aAtstav.JR.

mo= ==T w. =Am == February 27, 1979 taoas .ss-ssoo E EIT H H. E LL13 h amarsTrum m ma CABLE ADDEES S: ATOwLAW h

/

gh @' T 5)

Mr. Samuel J. Chilk 2!- -

Secretary

~

h

• Q United States Nuclear {g #

Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 .,

, e In the Matter of Public Service Electric and Gas Ccmpany -

and Atlantic City Electric Company (Hope Creek Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)

Dear Mr. Chilk:

The copies of " Licensee's Answer to Joint Intervenors' Petition for Review of ALAB-518" filed February 21 inadvertently omitted the footnote numbers which apply to pages 3, 5 and 8.

We have enclosed those corrected pages.

Sincerely, l

/ I

/ WY, k -

Troy &.

B Conner, Jr.

J TEC:dr Enclosures cc: Service List 7 9 0 316 0 Oil ,

was clearly not erroneous and does not warrant Ccmmission re-view. See Section 2.786 (b) (2) (iii) . As set forth below, the Appeal Board's resciution of the factual issues and its appli-cation of fact to law are fully supported by the record.

I. Backcround This proceeding began in 1969. On November 4, 1974, con-struction permits were issued authorizing construction of the Hope Creek facility, conditioned, inter alia, Ly n the comple-tion of a study by Licensee of interaction between river traffic and safety features of the plant. Although the scope of the remanded proceedings initially included all river .

. traffic, focusing primarily on LNG, the Intervenors new limit their petition to shipments of butadiene and vinyl chloride.

N On Apr41 13, 1978, the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

(" Licensing Board") in the captioned proceeding issued its "Second Supplemental Initial Decision," finding therein that the probability of a f1 - hle vapor ' cloud reaching the Hope Cre'ek plant site frcm an accident in the Delaware River was so small that such an event need not be considered in the design of the plant. LBP-78-15, 7 NRC 642, 698-699 (1978). In addition, it reaffirmed its previously stated conclusion that the environmental impacts associated with such an accident "are so remote and speculative that there is no need to prepare and circulate a L/ Intervenors do not centest any f 4 d4,gs of the Appeal Beard with respect to LNG traffic. Petition for Review at 10 n. 4.

The Boards have used the term liquefied petroleum gas (" LPG")

as defined by the Ccast Guard to include propane, butane and butadiene. ALAB-518, slip op. at 3 n. 7, LBP-78-15, 7 NRC at 677.

shipments noting that the Board had selected a value of 10 ships per year proposed by the Staff for butane rather than the Licensee's figure of two per year. It accepted the Licensee's figure of 10 per year for butadiene as the Licensing Board had done.-2/ It concluded that the Licensing Board's estimate for butane was " conservative, perhaps overly so," noting that the "per ship risk to the Hope Creek plant is about the sare" for vessels carrying either. Noting that "the potential for future propane traffic was accounted for," the Board concluded that _

the estimate of total LPG traffic was reasonable. ALAB-518, slip op. at 11-13.

Vinyl chloride was included by Licensee in its analysis, and subsequently by both the Licensing Board and the Appeal Board, despite the fact that it is not included in the Coast Guard's classification of LPG. The Appeal Board accepted the Licensing Board's finding that the figure used for the number of transits per year will continue into the foreseeable future as projected by those receiving the shipments. LBP-78-15, 7 NRC at 697; Tr. 3043-44.

Thus, it is clear that the Appeal Board, contrary to Inte.~.

venors' contentions, did not ignore the potential for growth in butadiene and vinyl chloride, but resolved the issue in a manner consistent with the record before it. Despite repeated

-2/ In noting that the shipments of butadiene were limited to present traffic, the Board allowed no credit for the testimony that there was no basis for expecting the number of shipments to increase in the foreseeable future after discussions with the users. Tr. 3044, 3078-79.

Intervenors produced no evidence to support their contention that the ignition factor accepted by the Licensing Board and the 3/

~

LBP-78-15, 7 NRC at 671. Hence, Appeal Board was incorrect.

this factual issue is not reviewable under Section 2.786 (b) (4) (ii) .

III. Suuulemental Environmental 2nuact Statement The Appeal Board correctly applied the controlling case law to the question of the need for a supplemental environmental im-pact statement in this proceeding. ALAB-518, slip op. at 51-52.

Intervenors admittedly do not challenge the proposition of law that environmental impact statements need not discuss remote and speculative impacts of the project. Nor did they challenge the acceptance of the standards found in NUREG-75/087 for safety purposes. There is no logical reason why NEPA should require more than the safety provisions of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commission's safety regulations and none was ever put forward by the Intervenors. ALAB-518, slip op. at 52. The appropriate inquiry under NEPA is not whether an environmental effect is theoretically possible but whether it is reasonably probable.

The Commission's long-standing practice in this regard, as stated by the Appeal Board in Nm-*bam states power crepany (Prairie Island Nuclear Gencrcting Plant, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-455, 7 NRC 41, 48-49 (1978), is that:

". . . the environmental review mandated by NEPA is subject to a ' rule of reason' and as such need not ' include all theoretically

-3/

Intervenors reliance on a single cut-of-context questi.on as support for the contention is misplaced. See ALAB-518, slip op, at 36-37.