ML20092C210
| ML20092C210 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 02/03/1992 |
| From: | William Cahill TEXAS UTILITIES ELECTRIC CO. (TU ELECTRIC) |
| To: | NRC OFFICE OF INFORMATION RESOURCES MANAGEMENT (IRM) |
| References | |
| TXX-92041, NUDOCS 9202110339 | |
| Download: ML20092C210 (7) | |
Text
a' El""*.*
OO Log # TXX-92041 h
j File # 231 10101 Ref. # 10CFR50.55(b)
Febtudry 3. 1992 wimm J. cabut,Jr.
cm, m ems.a U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attn: Document Control Desf Washington, D. C.
20555
SUBJECT:
COMANCHE PEA': STEAM ELECTRIC STA140N (CPSES)
UNil 2 DOCKET NO. 50-446 RE"UEST FOR EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERHtT NO. CPPR-127 REF:
- 1) USNRC letter, Christopher I. Grimes to William G. Counsil dated November 18, 1988,
' Order Extending the latest construction complrition date of Comanche Peak Unit 2 "
" TV Electric letter TXX-88482 f rom W. G. Counsil tc USNRC dated June 6, 1988.
Gentlemen:
By this letter, Texas Utilities Electric Company (TV Electric) applies for an extension of Construction Permit CPPR-127, under the provisions of 10CFR50.55(b),
for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station, Unit 2.
As established by Commission Order on November 18,1988 (Rof erence 1), the ictest completion date presently reflected in CPPR-127 is August 1,1992.
TU Electric hereby requests that the latest completion date be extended to August 1,1995.
TV Electric submits that good cause exists for the conste. tion permit extension.
As discussed in Reference 2 TV Electric's previous regt.s for an extension of
- the latest construction completion date was predicted upen an estimated one-year suspension in construction, beginning in April 1988.
The purpose of the suspension was to allow TU Electric to concentrate its resources on completion of Unit 1.
Unit I was not licensed until February 1990, and TV Electric did not resume significant design activities for Unit 2 until June 1990.
Thus, the
. period of suspension l w m longer than was estimated in Reference 2.
This longer period reflecteo t w time needed to complete construction and startup of Unit 1.
In Reference 1, 'he NRC previously found that there was " good cause" for suspension of construction of Unit 2 to allow concentration of resources on the completion of Unit 1.
For the same reason, the additional period of suspension constitutes good cause for TV El ect ric 's current request for extension.
The requested extension of the latest date for completion of construction is for three years, from August 1, 1992 to August 1, 1995.
TV Electric currently estimates completion of construction in December 1992.
An extension until g
~
i \\
i 9202110339 920203 PDR ADOCK 05000446 4m N. O!ive Street LB. 81 Danas. Texas 75201 A
TXX-92041 Page 2 of 2 August 1,1995 will provide for a period of continuous construction and testing plus a contingency period for any unanticipated delays. As such, this extensic-is 'for a reasonable period of time" in accordance with 10CFR50.55(b).
Finally, the requested extension of the construction permit involves no significant hazards because it does not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident, create the possibility of an accident of a type di ferent from any previously evaluated, or involve a significant decrease in the margin of safety. Ra'her, it simply extends the completion date.
Accordingly, TV Electric requests that the Staff dispense with prior notice of issua,ce of the extension, in accordance with 10CFR50.92(a).
A proposed Environmental Impact Appraisal prepared by TV Electric i; attached.
This appraisal supports determination that the construction permit extension 4
will result in no significant environmental impact.
In accordance with 10CFL170.21. TV Elec+ric must pay the full cost for Staff review of the construct ton permit extension application.
Payment will be made upon notice by the Cons ission in sccordance with 10CFR170.12.
Sincerely,
!h William J. Cahill, Jr.-
RSB/vid Attachments c - Mr. R. D. Martin, Region IV Resident Inspectors, CPSES (2)
Mr. M. B. Fields, NRR i
l l
Attachment I to TXX-92041 Page 1,of 1 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.In'the Matter of
)
)
Texas utilities '
ctric Company
)
Docket Nos. 50-446
)
(Comanche Peak Steam Electric
)
Station, Unit 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT William J. Cahill, Jr. being duly sworn, hereby deposes and says that he is broup Vice President, Nuclear of TV Electric, the lead Applicant herein; that he is duly authorized to sign and file with the Nuclear ;egulatory Commission this request for the extension of the la'est :onstruction completion date presently reflected in Construction Permit No. CPPR-127 for the captioned facility: that he is f%miliar with the content thereof; and that the matters set forth therein are true and corre.t to the best of his knowledge, information and belief.
/
/fA4L n
IIflTiam J. Cahill[/Jr.
/
f Group Lice Presideit Nuclear STATE OF TEXAS
)
)
COUNTY OF DALLAS )
Subscribac and sworn to before me.
.a this
. 3rd _., day of Febtita rv
, 1992.
4 h
)
Notar Public y
__-_______-__m_-_.-_m_.._.m_
l
~
Altachment 2 to TXX 92041
-Page 1,'of 4 ENVIRONMENTAL MiPACT APPRAISAL SUPPORTING THE REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC STATION, UNIT 2 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CPPR-127 DOCKET NO. 50-446 1.
Descriotion of and Need for ProDosed Action The action requested is the issuance of an extension to the construction permit for Comanche Peak Steam Electric Station (CPSLS),
Unit 2.
This would extend for 36 months the latest date for completion Jof-Unit 2.
The need for the proposed action arises from the
-requirement in NRC regulations (10CrR50.55(a)) that each construction permit state the latest date for completion, and from the fact that
~
construction and preoperetional testing have not yet been completed.
For-approximately 25 monthr., TU Electric redirected its resources principally to Unit 1 in order to complete construction and startup of that unit.
As a result, additional' time is now needed to complete construction of Unit 2.
11.
- Descriotion of the Probable Environmental Imoects of the FropoSad Ac_ tion The environmental. impacts associated with construction of the Comanche Peak facility-are associated with both units and have been previously evaluated and discussed in the NRC Staff's Final Environmental
' Statement (FES), issued in June 1974, which covered the construction of both units.
One of the environmental impacts, groundwater withdrawal, isLthe subject cf a construction permit condition and-will be discussed further telow.
Since the proposed action-concerns the extension of the. construction p?rmit, the impacts involved are all non-radiological and are associated with continued construction. -There are not new significant impacts associated with the proposed action.
All activities will take place within the facility..will not result in impacts to previously undisturbed. areas, and will not have any significant additional environmental impact.
However, there are impac+s that would continue dur;ing the completion of f acility construction.
p we Te r
g
-... ~ ~. - -
~..
4A,ttachment 2 to TXX 92041
=Page 2,of-4' The FES identified four major environmental impacts due to the-construction of both units.
Three of the four major environmental construction impacts discussed in the FES have already occurred and are not affected by this proposed action:
o Construction related activities have disturbed about 400 acres of rangeland anti 3,228 acres of land have been used for the construction of Squaw-Creek Reservoir.
o-The initial set of transmission lines and the additional planned line as discussed in the FES are completed.
o Pipelines have beon reloceted and the railroad spur and diversion and return lines between Granbury and Squaw Creek Reservoir have been ccmpleted.
The fourth major environmental impact addressed in the FES is the community impact which would continue with the extended construction of the facility. zThe requested extension only involves impacts previously considered, with none of these impacts greater than those previously considered.
These impacts flow principally from the prolonged presence of-construction workers into the surrounding communities in Hood and Somervell' counties.
The current work force level of approximately 6650 represent the tota; on-site work force (i.e, TV Electric and contract personnel supporti1g-Unit 1 and 2 2:tivities).- This number represents a decline of.850'from the peak work force on site at the end of the construction phase of Unit 1, and will continue to decline as Unit 2 construction nears completion.
it should be noted that 85% of the total-work force are contractors and consultants who do not live in the
. area;and use only temporary quarters during the work week. (i.e., even-while they are present there are no extended impacts associated with the arriv.J _ of families or services necessary to support permanent residents).
In sum, the only community impacts which wonid accompany this extension would be those'which extend the total time the local community is affected by the present demand for:public services, As
-such, the maintenance of the work force level for the additional-months requested should not result in significant additional impacts.
In addition, it should be noted that only 4500-personnel-are associated full time with1the Unit 2 Construction Permit extension and the remainder ate required to support the operation of Unit _1 or split
'their time between Units 1 *nd 2.
iAttachment' 2 to TXX4'2041
.Page;31of14:
Another impact, the subject of a construction permit condition, is groundwater withdrawal, At the present time, non potable water for
- construction activities is being supplied from treated lake water. The construction permit for Comanche' Peak Unit 2 includes a condition that the annual. average groundwater withdrawal rate not exceed 40 gpm.
This will confirm that corrent groundwater withdrawal rates are within the limit established by the construction' permit.
Thus, continued construction will have no significant impact on groundwater.
As background, tha NRC Staff's environmental impact appraisal for
' Amendment 2 of Construction Permit Nos. CDPR 126 and CPPR 127 was based e
upon a maximum withdrawal of 6.57 x 10 gallons during the construction per iod of five years at a rate of two hundred fif ty (250) gallcns per minute (see'TUGC0 letter TXX-3547 from R. J. Gary to H. R. Denton dated July 26.-1982).
For the following reasons the Staff's appraisal is still unchanged for the total groundwater to be withdrawn through August 1, 1995.
First, as of July 1, 1987, approximately 5.12 x 10' gallons of groundwater had been withdrawn -(see TV Electric letter TXX-6589 from W. G. Counsil to the hRC dated July 22, 1987).
Second, the measured groundwater withdrawal from July 1987 through December 1991 8
was measured at approximately 56.7 million (0.57 x 10 ) gallons.
Third, even assuming a maximum groundwater withdrawal of torty (40) gallons per minute from January 1, 1992 through August 1, 1995, for all groundwater sources (this withdrawal rate is authorized by Amendment 6 to Construction permits CPPR 126 and CPPR-127), there would be 8
approximately 75.3 million (0.75 x 10 ) gallons withdrawn, Totaling the above, results in a conservative estimate of the total groundwater 8
withdrawal of 6.44'x 10 gallons for the period through August 1, 1995.
which. is less than the 6.57 x 10' gallons origir, ally evaluated und authorized by the NRC staff.
As required by the contruction permit, environmental monitoring has been conducted.
In the.past, a number of groups have identified concerns regarding the potential enviro.'." ental impacts of several closed landfills at CPSES that.contain relatively small amounts of hazardous wastes.
Because these landfills are pre-existing conditions, any environmental impacts fevm the landfills,will not be attributable to the extension of the construction completion date for Unit 2.
.Furthermore, any impacts from the. landfills will occur regardless' of whether the construction completion date is extended..and an extension will not have any adverse ef fect son any impacts from the landfills. Therefore, the landfills in question have no relevance to the extension of the construction completion date for Unit 2.
In conclusion, there have been no unreviewed adverse environmental impacts associated with construction and none are anticiDated.
)'
~
~,w,,.
___._.._m.__.
.A,ttachmentc2 to TXX-92041 Page 4 of 4 111.
Alternatives A possible alternative to the proposed action would be for the Commission to deny the request, If this alternative were selected, TV Electric would not be' able to complete construction of the f acility, resulting in the denial of the benefits to be derived from the production of electric power, in addition. this alternative would not eliminate the environmental impacts of-construction which have already been incurred.
If construction were not completed on the CPSES Unit 2, while operation continued at CPSES Unit 1. the amount of site redress activities that co'11d be undertaken to restore some of the area to its natural state would be minimal.
The resulting environmental benefit.
'if any, would be significantly outweighed by the economic losses from denial of the use of a f acility that is nearly complete.
Therefore, this alternative is not reasonable.
IV.
Alternative Use of Resources This action does not involve the use of resources not previously conside ed--in FES.
V.
Conclusion and' Basis for Findinc of No Sianificant imDact 0n the. basis of the above.-it is concluded there will be no significant environmental impact attributable to this requested action other than those~already predicted and dascribed in the FES CP issued in June,
- 1974, P
'