ML20083K142
| ML20083K142 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | North Anna  |
| Issue date: | 12/29/1978 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20083K136 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901100345 | |
| Download: ML20083K142 (2) | |
Text
i l
~
~
vs
?
t-ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL
[
BY THE DIVISION OF SITE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUPPORTING EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT NO. CPPR-78 FOR NORTH ANNA POWER STATION UNIT 2 00CKET NO. 50-339 F
l l
A.
Description of the Proposed Action The proposed action is the issuance of an order relative to extension of the construction completion date for North Anna Power Station Unit 2 from November 1, 1978, to December 1, 1979. This action was requested by the Virginia Electric and Power Company in a letter dated September 26, 1978.
The NRC staff has reviewed the request and found that good cause has been shown for extension of the co.nstruction pemit completion date for Unit 2 by 13 rronths (see attached Safety Evaluation).
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, April 1973) and FES Addendum (November 1976) and by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in its Partial Initial Decision (LBP-74-39, October 30, 1974) and Initial Decision (LBP-75-70, December 5,1975). The only environmental impacts possibly resulting from the extension of Unit 2 construction time would be those due to adding 13 months to the total time the area is subjected to temporary construction impacts and continued occupational exposure of the construction workers to radiation from the operation of Unit 1.
These impacts are addressed below:
1.
Essentially all construction impacts on the area have already occurred since the buildings have been completed and the major '
components have been installed. The work force of several thousand persons has declined to several hundred and will I
continue to diminish. Thus, only minimal impacts on the comunity.
l are likely to result from the extended construction time.
2.
During the period between startup of Unit 1 and completion of Unit 2, the construction personnel working on 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 than l
10 man-rems. This is very small compared to about 125,000 man-rems /
l yr received from natural radiation by the population within 50 miles l
of the plant. Furthemore, there is little need for construction workers to enter radioactive facilities shared by Units 1 and 2, since they were completed prior to operation of Unit 1.
Consequently, no significant impact on construction workers from Unit i radiation is expected.
9011003 [
-...,.-c.
2
. ?
a, C.
Conclusion and Basis for Neoative 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 3
to be insignificant, the proposed action would result in no impacts that were not considered in the Commission's FES and FES Addendum and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board decisions (LBP-74-39 and LBP-75-70).
The Nuclear Regulatory Commission therefore concludes that no environ-mental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared, and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
e..
a
.g 9
< / m; _..
.- A 5 ? f & $ : y,,A k h Q p Q p h 59,;_s,. G k ix[.w..
t
. w,.%.e,.
.m. m t n.,,. n. um n >
y,,.,~ mye ogc5, m, - j.
g,T
.}
p
{
o. n. gd...m,
.. a
. m :.
. m,..
e_p.
x,n;ce..
mgQp.,
h
. g 7 ; ;,y..
-t.-
L
- 7. -. ; g g.
l
.pg.,
r; p e, y gia.
.,p t_
. !_ j'_ [ }.,'%%'f,,'g,l,j
~
d{.
^
} l _,,
- ~
....., 5
.e j,;.,.rk;N
%q.:
e.- 4,12
- r..
y,...,.
v.
.f-('_
g
.t
-.. i.'.' * }
.)
.1, A k',.. '-
- ?'
f:~- 4 wp '.; 3
- b..........,U,3, 2
f I
b bE h[
k.
? $$@$
y li.
... g. s,. m ; p.. y, p. ;.
mw.
y w.g..
4
- -9
. e.ebumeee ae.
w.
um
_ _. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _