ML19290C890
| ML19290C890 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 12/26/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19290C884 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002150010 | |
| Download: ML19290C890 (3) | |
Text
.
4 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE DIVISION OF SITE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUPPORTING EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. CPPR-105, FOR THE BEAVER VALLEY POWER STATION, UNIT 2 DOCKET N0. 50-412 A.
, Description of the Proposed Action The proposed action is the issuance of an order relative to extension of the construction completion date for Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, from February 1, 1980 to December 31, 1984. This action was requested by the Duquesne Light Company in a letter dated May 9, 1979. The NRC stai. has reviewed the request and found that good cause has been shown for extension of the construction permit (see attached Safety Evaluation).
Approval of this extension requires a reexamination of the necd for power and community impact assessments performed in accordance with the CP environmental review.
B.
Environmental _Imoacts of the Proposed Action The environmental impacts associated with construction of Unit 2 were addressed in the NRC staff's Final Environmental Statement (FES, July 1973). The staff has completed the reexamination of the need for power and community impact as follows:
Need for Power The. Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit 2, will be jointly owned by the Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company (CtL), Duquesne Light Company (DL),
Ohio Edison Company (OE), and the Toledo Edison Company (TE). These utilities are members of the Central Area Power Coordinating group (CAPC0).
Joint planning of generating units through the CAPC0 agreement has been in effect since 1967 and among other accomplishments results in an orderly growth in power supply to meet the power demand in each service area.
Because of the high degree of coordinated planning among these utilities, the need for Beaver Valley, Unit 2, is assessed in terms of the enlarged CAPC0 service area.
The applicant has requested that the construction permit be extended to December 31, 1984 with a proposed commercial operating date of May 1, 1984 The newly proposed commercial operating date represents approximately a 8002150
. six and one-half year delay from the applicant's initial plans and about a thirty-eight sonth delay from its revised projection submitted to the NRC in mid-1976.
These delays are consistent however with the lower load growth experienced since 1973 and the applicant's latest projections for the future.
The staff has reviewed CAPCO's latest capacity plans and demand projections and concludes that Beaver Valley, Unit 2, can be delayed to May 1984 with-out adversely affecting reliability on member systems.
The staff bases this conclusion on its review of an independent forecasting model which provides electrical energy demand projections pertinent to the CAPC0 region. These forecasts were prepared for the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission by the Energy Divisio of the Oak Ridge National Laboratory.1 The forecasts are based on the OML State-level Electricity Demand (SLED) forecasting model2 with key updates to capture revised projections on fuel 3
prices, income, and population. These updated results show electricity demand in Ohio growing at between 3.0% and 5.35% per annum between 1977 and 1985, with a base case (a most likely scenario) of 3.67%. Assuming that demand growth in Ohio is representative of growth in the CAPC0 system (note - approximately 74% of CAPCO's energy requirements are in Ohio) and that energy sales and peak load will grow at approximately the,
same rate, we estimate that under our base case, the Beaver Valley. Unit -
2 will be needed for reliability purposes by the summer of 1984.
Community Impacts The proposed extension will result in a shift in community impacts in time and extend the total time the region is subjected to these temporary construction impacts. At the present time, the c3nstruction labor force associated with Beaver Valley, Unit 2, approximates 1425 workers.
However, the construction of the unit does not appear to have had any significant adverse effects on human activities near the plant beyond occasional traffic congestion. This relatively favorable situation is due to the site's proximity to the Pittsburgh area labor pool and the 1.
Sensitivity Analysis of Electrical Power Demand Growth in Ohio, W. S. Chern, B. D. Holcomb, ORNL, Energy Division, May 21, 1979.
2.
Regional Econometric Model for Forecasting Electricity Demand by Sector and by State, ORNL, Energy Division, W. S. Chern, et al., October 1978.
3.
Fuel price update from - Energy Information Administration, U.S. D.0.E.,
Annual Report to Congress, Vol. II, Appendix: Summary Data Inputs and Forecasts for 1985 and 1990, Washington, D.
C., September 1978.
Income and population update from - National Planning Association, The Geography of Growth, 1967-1990 Vol. i: Summary, Washington, D.C., December 1978.
- e
. preference of the construction labor force to commute to the site. As a result, stress or hardship on the local infrastructure such as on schools, housing, and public facilities have not materialized.
During the early stages of the extension period, the construction labor force is expected to peak at about 2000 workers and steadily decline thereafter.
Based on the experience to date the applicant expects that ir-movement within 20 miles of the site will be limited to about 150 workers at the peak.
The staff views the increment from present levels small and does not expect any signi ricant increase in community impacts.
Moreover, it is likely that the extension may result in a moderation of impacts compared to those associated with a more compressed schedule.
On balance, the staff finds no significant change in community impacts resulting from the extension, During the period prior to startup of Unit 2, the remaining construction and startup personnel at Unit 2 may be exposed to sources of radiation from the operation of Unit 1.
The NRC staff estimates that the integrated dose to such workers would be less thar 13 man-rem.
This is very small compared to about 400,000 man-rems / year received from natural radiation by the population within 50 miles of the plant. Consequently, no signifi-cant impact on such workers from Unit I radiation is expected.
C.
Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration On the basis of the foregoing information and evaluation, the NRC staff finds that, with the exception of the impacts noted above, which are judged to be insignificant, the proposed action would result in ao impacts that were not considered in the Commission's FES.
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission therefore concludes that no ;nvirocmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared, and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
.