ML20004B899
| ML20004B899 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 05/20/1981 |
| From: | COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO. |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20004B898 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8106010267 | |
| Download: ML20004B899 (3) | |
Text
-~
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL SUPPORTING THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE
_ DATES FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UNIT 1 (CPPR-99)
COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY DOCKET NOS.__50-373 1.
Descri?* ion or proposed Action The action requested is the issuance of an ORDER pertaining to the LaSalle County Station (LSCS), Unit No.
1.
The ORDER would extend for 10 months the latest date f or completion of Unit No.
1.
The construction permit for Unit 1 (CPPR-99) would be extended from a latest completion date of June 30, 1981 to April 30, 1982.
2.
Summary Description of the Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action The environmental LSCS have been previously addressedimpacts associated with construction of in environmental statement, the NRC staff's final construction permit stage (FES-CP) issued February, 1973, addressed environmental statement, in the NRC staff's final operation license stage (FES-OL) issued November, 1978, and determined t;' the Atomic Satety and Licensing Board in their Initial c'-isions dated September 5, 1973 (6 AEC 645) and March 18, 1974 (7 AEC 289), and the Atomic Sa'ety and Licensing Appeal Board in their decisions of October 19, 1973 (ALA8 153, 6 AEC 821, aftirmed 6 AEC 1072), and April 15, 1974 (ALAB 193, 7 AEC 423).
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board identified in the Initial Decision the following tive major effects due to construction:
A.
Dredging anc 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.
8106 010 il(/"l
. E.
Station-related construction will temporarily remove ninety acres of land from agricultural production.
The first two' construction already occurred.
related effects noted above have facilities were completedThe dredging and construction of river in 1975.
The major earthmovin.g activities were completed in 1976.
Therefore, because these major construction effects have already occured, the construction permit extensions will not add'to impacts in these areas.
In respect to the third effect, has already peaked during the third the construction wo~rk force quarter of 1978, thus, local community-related already reached impacts (such as traffic congestion) have a maximum and are now declining.
In relation to the fourth construction effect noted the rail spur has been completed,
- above, components have already been transportedstation-related heavy I
to the site and all transmission line structure construction has been completed conductor stringing is scheduled to be completed prior June 30, and 1981, the current Construction Permit (CPPR-99) expiration date.
The last effect (#E) mentioned above will I
generally be postponed as a result of the construction permit extensions.
i However, 120 acres of returned'to argicultural production. sand on the station site have already been In summary, the environmental impact resulting from extending the construction permit will be either a postponement or continuation of certain identified and evaluated impacts mentioned.above (effects C, 0, and E above) or have already occurred (effects A and B).
The Appeals Board highlighted another impact due to j
construction:
The creation of the cooling lake which resulted in the removal-of approximately 2058 acres of from agricultural use.
arable farmland the extension of the construction permits,This impact has already occurr and therefore, will result in no further adverse effect relative to changes in land l
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.
The run has been reseeded insures maximum flows in the run will beand vegetation has been e that less than preconstruction levels.
This construction effect has been l
corrected and should not recur.
. 8 On May 23, 1979, in a letter from C. Reed to 0. Parr, the NRC was notifieo of the existence of erosion on certain portions of the make-up and blowdown water pipeline corridor.
Reshaping of the affected areas occurred in August.of 1979, followed by seeding in September.
The construction permit extensions would not result in any additional erosion impacts.
The blowdown line ruptured on January 23, 1980 at Station 125 + 00 (about 2 miles from the Illinois River).
The water flowed across Edison property damaging a driveway and depositing silt in a drainage ditch.
The pipeline was repaired by February 12, 1980.
The driveway was repaired and ditch dredged in March, 1980. 1The pertinent areas were reseeded in June 1980.
1 This construction effect has been corrected and should not i
recur.
The monitoring program at groundwater observation wells around the cooling pond have indicated a general rise in' water levels.
We will continue to monitor these wells until it has been determined if it is a construction ettect or not.
If it is a construction effect, methods to alleviate the situation will be investigated.
In as much as the cooling pond has been filled since.1978, the effect, if any, will have already occured and extension.of the cons +.ruction permit would not result in any additional impacts.
3.
Conclusion and Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact t
On the basis of the above, it is concluded that there will j
be no significant impacts attributable to the requested action other than those already predicted and described in the FES-CP issued in February, 1973, the FE5-OL issued in November, 1978, the Board's Initial Decisions issued in September, 1973 and March, 1974, subsequent Appeal Board Decisions, or described
(
herein.
l 2035N i-I i
I