ML20214D395
| ML20214D395 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Beaver Valley |
| Issue date: | 11/17/1986 |
| From: | Rubenstein L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20214D398 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8611240064 | |
| Download: ML20214D395 (3) | |
Text
.
s 7590-01 UNITED STATFS NUCLFAP REGULATORY COMMISSION Dt'09ESNE LIGHT COMPANY CLEVELAND ELrCTRIC ILLUMINATING COMPANY OHIO EDISON COWANY TOLEDO EDISOY COMPANY DOCKET NO. 50-417 NOTICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is considering issuance of an extension of Construction Permit No. CPPR-105 to Duquesne Light Conpany, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company, Ohio Edison Company and Toledo Edison Company (the Pemittees), for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2 located in Shippingport, Pennsylvania.
ENVIRONVENTAL ASSESSMENT Identification of Proposed Action: The extension would change the expiration date of Construction Permit CPPP-105 from December 31, 1986 to December S1, 1987 The extension is responsive to Duquesne Light Company's application for extension dated July 30, 1986.
The Need for the Proposed Action: The proposed extension is needed because the completion date of Beaver Valley finit P has been postponed for the following reasons:
(1) reduced projected electric power need
(?) increased regulatory requirements (3) the permittees' financial problems (41 additional time needed to fully test and evaluate portions of the project.
8611240064 861117
{DR ADOCK 05000412 PDR
. Environmental Irpacts of the Proposed Action:
The proposed extension will not allow any work to be perforned that is not already allowed by the existing corstruction permit. The prcbability of accidents has not been increased and post-accident radiological releases will not be greater than previously determined, nor does the propcsed extension otherwise affect radiological plant effluents. Therefore, the Commission concludes that there are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with this proposed extension.
With regard to potential non-radiological irnpacts, the proposed extension involves features located entirely within the restricted area as defined in 10 CFR Part 20.
It. doas not affect non-radiological plant effluents and has no other environmental impact. Therefore, the Conrnission concludes that there are no significant non-radiological environmental impacts asscciated with this proposed extension.
Alternatives,to the Proposed Action: As required by Section 102(2)(El of NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4332(P.)(EI), the staff has considered possible alternatives to the proposed action. The only possible alternative to the propcsed action is not to renew the construction permit. This alternative would lead to a change in status and would result in a greater impact on Duquesne Light personnel and the environment (the project is currently more than 95%
complete).
Therefore, there is no appropriate alternative to the proposed action.
Alternative Use of Resources: This action involves no use of resources nct previously considered it, the Final Environmental Statement (construction permit and operating license) for the Beaver Valley Power Station, Unit No. 2.
3-Acencies and Persons Consulted: "ihe NPC staff reviewed the permittees' request and did not consult other agencies or persons.
FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT The Commission has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed extension.
Based upon the foregning environmental assessment, the staff concludes that tha proposed action will not have a significant e#fert on the quality o' the human environment.
For further details with respect to this action, see the request for the extension dated July 30, 1986, which is aveilable for public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Poom, 1717 H Street. N.V.,
Washington, D.C., and at the R. F. Jones Penorial Library, 663 Franklin Avenue, Aliquispa, Pennsvivania 15001.
Deted at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of November,1986.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMISSION W~.
LJAm Lester S. Ru nstein, Director DWR Pro.iect Directorate #2 Division o' PWR Licensing-A