ML20054D613

Application for Amend of CPPR-130 & CPPR-131,extending Completion Date from 820601 to 841001 for Unit 1 & from 831101 to 860401 for Unit 2.EIA Supporting Extension Request Encl

ML20054D613
Person / Time
Site:	Byron
Issue date:	04/19/1982
From:	Delgeorge L COMMONWEALTH EDISON CO.
To:	Harold Denton Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
3412N, NUDOCS 8204230196
Download: ML20054D613 (5)

Text

~

Commonwealth Edison N

/

l

, on) First National Plata. Chicago. Illinois

(

l Addr:ss R; ply to: Post O'fice Box 767 Chicago, Illinois 60690 April 19, 1982 N

O t

Mr. Ha rold R. Denton, Director 8

9 Of fice of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission NECElVED p]

APR 221982m-b' Washington, DC 20555 mIky #

Subject:

Byron Station Units 1 and 2 28 Cons truction Permit Ex tensio n E

NRC Docket Nos. 50-454 ano 50-455 9

~

References (a):

December 31, 1975 letter from D. B.

Vassallo to Byron Lee, Jr.

Dear Mr. Denton:

Pursuant to the provisions of 10 CFR 50.55(b), Commonwealth Edison hereby requests amendment of the Byron Station Construction Permits CPPR-130 and CPPR-131 issued by reference (a).

For the reasons delineated below, we request that tne " latest completion date" be revised from June 1, 1982 to October 1, 1984 for Byron Unit 1 and from November 1, 1983 to April 1, 1986 for Byron Unit 2.

Thi s amendment involves only a change to construction completion dates.

In our opinion it does not involve a significant hazard consideration.

The need for an extension of time oeyond the present construction permit completion dates is a result of an extended construction period, despite the fact that construction has continued without interruption since its inception.

The longer period has resulted principally from the need to install larger quantities of material and equipment than originally contemplated as well as changes in NRC regulatory requirements, some o f which resulted from the NRC's response to the Three Mile Island incident.

The need for extension is also based upon improvements in the manner in which we are implementing NRC requirements.

These changes have increased the amount of design work and installation labor required to complete the installation of each component, pipe, cable, and structural memoer.

These additional measures have been and are being implemented a t a pace consistent with the Company 's need to spread financing requirements more evenly throughout the construction period in order to keep annual financing requirements within the Company's capabilities.

Although the requested revised completion dates extend beyond the dates by which Edison currently expects to load fuel at Byron Units 1 and 2, this letter does not represent a change to the current fuel load schedules.

The revised completion dates reflect a conservative estimate of actual completion of the units.

This has been done to avoid the necessity o f having to request another construction completion date extension at some future time shouldg(

any unanticipater1 delays in construction actually occur.

g i

82042306p

H. R. Denton April 19, 1982 r

i Attached is a proposed " Finding of No Significant Impact" prepared by Commonwealth Edison tc address the environmental impact of the extension of these construction permits.

Three (3) signed originals and thirty-seven (37) copies of this submittal are provided for your review and approval.

Enclosed is a check in the amount of $1600, submitted in accordance with the fee schedule defined in 10 CFR 170.22.

Very truly yours, L

.d J L. O.

DelGeo rg e Director of Nuclear Licensing Im SUBSCHIBED and SWOR to before me thish Jay of h ;* L 1982 L 0-4fr

)

u

" ~ ~

Notary Public

}

3412N 4

l

~~

l

a ENV IRO NMENTA L IMPACT APPRAISAL SUPPORTING THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF THE DATES FOR COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION OF BYRON STATION, UNITS 1 AND 2.

COMMONWEALTH EDISON.

UNIT 1, CPPR-130 - UNIT 2, CPPR-131, DOCKET NOS. 50-454, 50-455 t

1.

Description or Proposed Action The action requested is the issuance of an ORDER pertaining to Byron Station Units 1 and 2.

The ORDER would extend the latest completion date of Unit 1 by 28 months and the latest completion date of Unit 2 by 28 months.

2.

Summary Description of the Probable Impacts of the Proposed Action The environmental impacts associated with construction of Byron have been previously addressed in the NRC staff's final environmental statement, construction permit stage (FES-CP) issued February, 1974, and determined by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in their partial initial decision-Environmental and Site Suitability Matters dated December 6, 1974.

The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board identified in the Initial Decision the following major ef fects due to construction:

A.

Station related construction will disturb 300 acres of the site.

Of this, 150 acres would serve as an improved habitat for small mammals, deer and birds, owing to the exclusion of farmers and hunters.

B.

Construction activities of the intake and discharge structures will have a temporary effect upon the Rock

]

River due to siltation caused by dredging.

C.

Construction of the station and development on the 300

< Ore site will generate noise and dust.

5 D.

Dewatering of the construction site will have an effect on groundwater.

E.

Short-term traffic problems may occur due to construction activities.

F.

Transmission line construction associated with station development will create minor impacts.

G.

Impacts may occur to eight acres on the pipeline corridor due to construction which were tentatively identified to contain possible archeological artifacts.

It was recommended that these areas be tested for archeological significance prior to pipeline corridor construction.

H.

Area surface runoff from the construction site may have an impact upon streams of the area.

.- With respect to Item A, the extension of construction activities on the site would delay the return of the 150 acres not used for station facilities back to agriculture productiveness or restoration to a natural state.

Construction related effects identified in Items B and D noted above have already occurred, were monitored and the effects were found to be localized.

Therefore, the construction permit extensions would not add impacts in these areas.

In relation to construction e f fect C noted above: major excavations and structures, the make-up and blowdown pipelines, and ancillary structures are completed and additional noise and dust would not be generated as a result of extending the con-struction permit.

The granting of the required construction permit extension would extend noise and dust from other sources such as parking lots for construction workers and construction roads.

These sources are, however, continually treated for dust control.

With respect to Item E, listed above, the construction work force has already reached a maximum and is now declining.

With respect to Item F, three transmission lines are to be cons tructed for Byron Station.

The Byron East transmission line is partially completed (the 6.5 mile portion extending east from the station to the Nelson-Cherry Valley transmission line is complete and the remaining 15.3 miles to the Cherry Valley Transmission Substation is scheduled to be constructed in 1983).

The Byron South transmission line is under construction and will be completed in 1982.

The Byron Wempleton transmission line construction has started and will be completed in 1983.

The extension of the construction schedule will delay the minor impacts of construction discussed in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Initial Decision.

Less land will be committed due to the selection and use of single shaf t structures for tangent and light angles (up to 130) rather than the wide based lattice steel towers specified in the original environmental report, thus reducing the impact on farming activities.

Item G recommended testing of the eight identified archeological sites on the pipeline corridor.

Further investigations of the sites showed that three were of archeological importance.

These sites have been, and will continue to be, protected from construction impacts.

The remaining five were found to consist of only scattered surf ace finds and the archeological consultant and the State Historic Preservation of ficer determined that protection from construction impact was not required.

An exten-slon of the construction permit will not result in additional impacts to archeological resources.

. With respect to Item H, area surface runof f due in part to construction is circulated through an oil separator to the wastewater collection basin where suspended solids settle out prior to discharge.

A construction permit extension would extend the period that construction related runoff would be treated and released.

Frequent discharges of water into the Woodland Creek have affected two landowners downstream from the plant.

.These effects have been mitigated by installation of culverts in the motocross raceway area and a bridge over the creek in a subdivision.

The quantity of water from precipita-tion discharged is no longer a fontion of construction activities.

3.

Conclusion and Basis for Finding of No Significant Impact On the basis of the above, it is our opinion that there will be no significant impacts attributable to the requested action.

4 i

3412N r

t i

L i

i I

-~,

m

.w-.

.w

. w r..

.