ML19206A960
| ML19206A960 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Crane  |
| Issue date: | 12/09/1972 |
| From: | US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19206A946 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7904210659 | |
| Download: ML19206A960 (6) | |
Text
-
AMENDED DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS BY THE DIRECTORATE OF LICENSING U. S. ATOMIC ENERGY CCMMISSION RELATING TO CONSIDERATION OF SUSPENSION PENDING NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONAL CONSTRUCTICN PERMITS FOR THE THREE MILE ISLAND NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION UNITS 1 AND 2 METROPOLITAN EDISON COMPANY, JERSEY CENTRAL POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY, AND PE.NNSYLVANIA ELECTRIC COMPANY 00CXET NOS. 50-2S9 AND 50-320 DECEMBER 9, 1972 I
w 790421065il
m 1.0. IiC'ICCUCTION The purpose of :nis Discussion and Findings is to address :ne question of whe ner or no: the suspension order halting construction of the Juniata transmission line for the Three Mile Islanc Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, issued February 7,1972 pursuant Oc Section E of Appendix 0 of 10 CFR Part 50, should be lifted.
On December 7,1971, the Director of Regulation of the Atcmic Energy Cc=ission published in the FEDERAL REGISTER, 36 F.R. 2326?, a determination to suspend construction activities involving the off-site portion of the transmission lines for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, pencing ccmpletion of such portions of an environmental review under the Cc=ission's regulations 'mplementing :ne National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 0, as related to
- nese matters. As noted in the determination, the Director of Regulation servec upon Metropolitan Edison Ccmpany anc Jersey Central Power !. Light Company (licensees) an order to show cause wny the above-mentioned construction activities involving the off-site particn of tre transmission lines for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, should not be suspended pending ccmp'e: ion of the NEPA environmental review. The basis for this action was given in " Discussion anc Findings by the Division of Reactor Licensing, U. S. Atcmic Energy Cc=ission, Relating to Consideration of Suspension Pending NEPA Environmental Review of the Provisional Construction Permits for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2," dated November 22, 1971.
Among other things, the order to show cause providec that the licensees might, within tnirty (30) days of the date of the order, file a written answer to the order under oath or affirmation. On Decemoer 23, 1971, the licensees filed a timely answer requesting that the order to shcw cause be reconsidered. The answer included new information in a document entitled " Answer to Show Cause and Supporting Statement of Facts Relating to the Transmission Lines for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2."
Upon consideration of the licensees' answer to the order to show cause, it was decided that the Director of Regula: ion's determination should be modified so as to provide for the suspension of construction activities involving the off-site portion of only the Juniata transmission line for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Unit 2, pencing ccmpletion of the NE?A environmental review relating to :nese matters.
An order was served on the licensees suspending such construction activities on February 7, 1972, based on the modified findings as dis-cussed in the " Supplement to Discussion and Findings by the Division of Reactor Licensing, U. S. Atcmic Energy Commission, Relating to Consideration of Suspension Pending NE?A Environmental Review of tne Provisional Con-struction Permits fcr tne Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and 2" cated February 4,1972.
C' M
2 The staff has cceplated its assessment of the environmental impact of the Three Mile Island Sta 4cn including an evaluation of tna proposec Juniata transmission line. These findings are publisnec in the document entitled " Final Environmental Statement, Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2" dated December,1972, 2.0 Cetermina tion Upon reconsideration, in. light of information developed from the environmental review, as set forth in the Final Environment <1 Statement, we have determined that the suspension order issued by the Director of Regulation on February 7,1972 involving off-site right-of-way clearing and construction of the Juniata transmission line may be liftec. A formal " Determination" to this effect is being forwarded to the FEDERAL REGISTER for publication.
In reaching this determinati;n we have cs tidered and balanced the criteria in paragraph E(2) of Appendix D along with the Davis-Besse factor.1 3.0 Environmental Imcact Durino the Proscective Review Period The TMI Unit 2-Juniata 500kV transmission line extends 7.16 miles from the TMI 500kV line, west of the Suscuehanna River, between Juniata and Peach Bottom. The proposed right-of-way will occupy about 170 acres, half of which is farmland and the remainder woodland and river crossing.
Six homes must be acquired, and condemnation proceedings undertaken for the 1.26 miles of right-of-way not already owned or covered by easements.
From TMI the proposed route would run southeast and south for about 1-3/4 miles, paralleling or utilizing existing right-of-way for most of this distance, and then cross the Susquehanna River. The point chosen for the river crossing is adjacent to crossings by foer other transmission lines, the furthest 1/2 mile away, so visual impact wil' not be significantly altered.
IThis factor dealt with cy the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columcia Circuit in Coalition For Safe Nuclear Power v. AEC, No. 71-1396 (April 7,1972) concerns tne cegree to whicn adcitional irretrievaole ccanitments of financ.al resources, associatec with the requested activities during the NEPA review period, might affect the decision based upon the full NEPA review.
(50'((OE5
3 West of the river the route traversen 172 mile of wecded ?rcsei tv owned by the Applicant to a point opposite an existing substation, where it begins a parallel run with an existing 230 kV line for about 3 miles.
Near tne substation, crossina of a state highway is required, and since there is considerable strip cevelopment along the road, impact en hcces and/or ccamercial property is unavoidable. The route chosen, paralleling the existing right-of-way, will necessitate the purchase of four hcmes located en that read. The final T.ile of the line diverts frem the 230 kV parallel in order to avoid a juncture with the Juniata-Peach Gottom line at a point which wculd have required acquisition of a number of hcmes. This section traverses open farmland.
Rcute selection has followed, to the extenc possible, tne recc=encations of the U. 5. Departments of Aqriculture and Interior specified in their bo ule: " Environmental Criteria for Electrical Transmission Sys: ems."
Selective clearing procedures will be in accordance with these quicelines and with the Applicants' own guidelines as described in :ne document
" Specifications for Right-of-way Clearing," Metropolitan Edison Company, (1969).
Since a large proportion of the land traversed by the Station transmission lines is open farmland, and selective clearing procedures which largely retain icw growing trees and shrubs have been used in the woodland sections, the.mpact en wildlife is expected to be minimal.
4.0 Foreclosures of Alternatives Durine the Proscective Review Pericd Construction activities associated with the right-of-way cleering and installation of transmission lines during the prospective review pericd would not foreclose alternate routes or alternate river crossing designs.
Mcwever, in light of information developed from tne environmental review, we have concluded that the proposed design and routing of the Juniata transmission line is the preferable approach from a cost-benefit perspective.
5.0 Effects of Delav The T'4I-Juniata transmission line is designed oath to increase transmission reliability from the Unit 2 plant and to provide a section of a thirc west-east link between mine-mouth coal fired plants in Wes ern Pennsylvania and power consumers in Eastern Pennsylvania. Delays in completion of the TMI-Juniata link beyond early 1975 would entail possible restricticns in the full utilization of the generating capacity of Unit 2, and result in a failure of the Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Maryland Interconnection
?cwer Pool to meet Mid-Atlantic Area Coordination Cc=ittee reliabil" ty criteria.
G3-246
~
M 4
The estimated time required for clearing and construction for the Juniata transmission line is about 23 =cnths. Further delays in startinc con-struction wculd require an accelerated construction scnedule to mee: :ne early 1975 completion ceadline. Costs associated with acc.itional delays are estimated to be $15,0C0 per month, resulting frca the need for an accelerated construction senedule.
6.0 Davis-Besse Factor Currently no clearing or construction has been initiated on the Juniata transmission line. Expenditures to date total $110,000 and the total cost of the line is estimated to be approxinately $2,000,000. Total cost of the Three Mile Island Station is estimated to be S780 million, of which 5402 million has already been spent or comnittec.
The transmission line expenditures are insignificant in comparison to the funds already spent or committed for the plant as a wnole and would not influence any decisions reached regarding the Plant based on the full NEPA review.
7.0 Balancinc cf Factors Pursuant to Section E of Appendix 0 to 10 CFR Part 50 and the Davis-Sesse factor, in making a determination whether to continue the suspension of off-site right-of-way clearing and construction of transmission lines for the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Staticn pending completion of tne NEPA environmental review which must include completion of the public hearings and issuance of a final decision, we have taken into consideration and balanced tne following:
7.1 The environmental impact associated with off-site clearing of rignt-of-way and construction of transmission lines during the remaining NE?A review period is not considered to be substantial or unduly adverse. Such minor effects as are incurred will be of a temporary nature.
7.2 Transmission line clearing and construction during the remaining NEPA raview pericd would not foreclose alternate routes, although substantial monetary ccsts might be incurred as a result of such activities. However, as a part of the ongoing review, feasible alternatives have already been considered in detail and it has been concluded that the proposed design rapresents the preferable approach.
7.3 Delay in initiation of clearing and construction activities related to tne off-site transmission lines will have a severe impact upon the public interest.
Continuation of suspension until completion of the full NEPA environmental review coulc prevent full and reliable utilization of 'the Unit 2 out::ut anc would jecpardize reliable transmission of power frca Western to Eastern Ptnnsylvania.
Y 2Q
5
- 7. 4.I The proposed expenditures for the transmission line cleaning and con-struction activities are insignificant wnen coccared to tne 5;C2 million already spent or committed to date. The irretrieval transmission line commitments involved in the period projected for ccmpletion of the NEPA review have been evaluated in detail and found acceptable as proposed.
Accordingly, it is concluded that expenditures for right-of-way clearing and construction activities for the off-site transmission lines during the period of time necessary to complete the NEPA review would not affect the decision based upon the full NEPA review.
8.0 Findino After balc.ncing the factors concerning environmental iccact, foreclosure of alternatives, the effects of delays, and the influence on a final decision of irretrievable ccmmitments of financial resources, we find that the activities involving off-site right-of-way clearing and construction of transmission lines at the Three Mile Island Nuclear Generating Station Unit 2 need not be suspended.
9 h