ML19275A240
| ML19275A240 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 09/24/1979 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19275A235 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7910030373 | |
| Download: ML19275A240 (4) | |
Text
.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL SUPPORTING THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE DATES FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF LA SALLE COUNTY STATION, UNITS NO. 1 AND 2 (CPPR-99 and CPPR-100)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY DOCKET NOS. 50-373 AND 50-374 1.
Description of Proposed Action The action requested is the issuance of an ORDER pertaining to the LaSalle Ccunty Station (LSCS), Units No. 1 and 2.
The ORDER would extend for 15 and 18 months the latest dates for completion of Units No. 1 and 2, respec-tively.
The construction permit for Unit 1 (CPPR-99) would be extended from a latest completion date of March 31, 1980 to June 30, 1981, the corstuc-tion permit for Unit 2 (CPER-103) would be extended from a latest comple-tion date of December 31,.980 to June 30, 1982, 2.
Summary Description of tha Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action The environmental impacts associated with construction of LSCS have been previously addressed in the NRC staff's final environmental statement, con-struction permit stage (FES-CP) issued February, 1973, addressed in the NRC staff's final environmental statement, operation license stage (FES-OL) issued November, 1978, and determined by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in their Initial Decisions dated September 5, 1973 (6 AEC 645) and March 18, 1974 (7 AEC 289), and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board in their decisions of October 19,1973 (ALAB 153, 6 AEC 821, af firmed
}cr} [h )
6 AEC 1072), and April 15, 1974 (ALAB 193, 7 AEC 423).
we-7910030
< 4.1
The Atonic Safety and Licensing Board identified in the Initial Decision the following five major effects due to construction:
A.
Dredging and construction of facilities on the Illinois River will have an impact on the river bottom and channel.
B.
The construction of the cooling lake and the station itself will involve major earthmoving and will generate some noise and dust.
C.
Short-term traffic problems may occur.
D.
Ancillary activities such as transmission line and rail spur construction, and the increased use of local roads may create minor impacts.
E.
Station-related const uction will temporarily remove ninety acres of land from agricultural production.
The first two construction-related effects noted above have already oc-curred. The dredging and construction of river facilities were completed in 1975. The major ea. nmoving activities were completed in 1976. There-fore, breause these major construction effects nave already occurred, the construction permit extensions will not add to impacts in these areas.
In respect to the third effect, the construction work force has already peaked during the third quarter of 1978, thus, local community-related im-pacts (such as traf fic congestion) have already reached a maximum and are now declining.
In relation to the fourth c nstruction effect noted above, the rail spur has been completed, station-related heavy components have already been
\\o )
2
transported to the site and all the transmission line construction, except for a twelve (12) mile gap on the LaSalle-Plano line, will be completed by the end of 1979. Commonwealth Edison will minimize impacts associated with the construction of the remaining 12 miles and, therefore, they are ex-pected to be minor (see Chapter 12 of the FES-CP).
The last effect (#E) mentioned above will generally be postponed as a re-sult of the construction permit extensions. However, 120 acres of land on the station site have already been returned to agricultural production.
In summary, the environmental impact resulting from extending the construc-tion permits will be either a postponement or continuation of certain iden-tified and evaluated impacts mentioned above (effects C, D and E above) or have already occurred (effects A and B).
The Appeals Board highlighted another impact due to construction: The cre-ation of the cooling lake which resulted in the removal of approximately 2058 acres of arable farmland rrom agricultural use.
This impact has al-ready occurred, and the extension of the construction permits, therefore, will result in no further adverse effect relative to changes in land use.
Subsequent to construction of the cooling lake, significant erosion was identified downstream from the station site along the banks of a drainage creek called Armstrong Run.
Commonwealth Edison has committed to a mitiga-tion program (see letter dated May 25, 1978, from Cordell Reed of Common-wealth Edison Company to V. A. Moore of the NRC), which will reshape and reseed portions of the run and together with establishing vegetation on the dike will insure maximum flows in the run will be less than precon-struction levels. The mitigation agreement between the landowner and
)
29 P
J
- s
t Commonwealth Edison is in its final stage of approval and the mitigation plan should be in effect during the fall of 1979.
On May 23, 1979, in a letter from C. Reed to 0. Parr, the NRC was notified of the existence of erosion on certain portions of the make-up and blow-down water pipeline corridor.
Reshaping of the affected areas occurred it. August of 1979, followed by seeding in September. The construction per-mit extensions would not result in any additional erosion impacts.
3.
Conclusion and Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the above, it is concluded that there will be no signifi-cant impacts attributable to the requested action other than those already predicted and described in the FES-CP issued in February, 1973, the FES-OL issued in November, 1978, the Board's Initial Decisions issued in September, 1973 and March, 1974, subsequent Appaal Board Decisions, or described herein.
", ", )
]_9
-