ML20235B552

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Advises That Directorate of Licensing Determined That Site Preparation Activities in Progress Prior to 720321 May Continue Pending Decision Re Issuance of Cp.Discussion & Findings by Directorate Re Request & Fr Notice Encl
ML20235B552
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Zimmer
Issue date: 07/21/1972
From: Giambusso A
US ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION (AEC)
To: Dickhoner W
CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC CO.
Shared Package
ML20235B311 List: ... further results
References
FOIA-87-111 NUDOCS 8709240141
Download: ML20235B552 (10)
v • d • e


Text

- - --- -- - - - - - - - - --

1

. .. ~ .

. . 1 DOCtE"  : '

..  : I -

ENVIRON, FILE (N5PA) 3 JUL 213972 j Docket Ho. 50-358 i gg

\

The Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company i ATTH: Mr. W. H. Dickhonor )

Vice President ,)

P. O. Pox 960 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 Gentlemen:

In accordance with the provisions of Section 50.10 of 10 CPR Part 50 of the Commission's regulations, as adopted on March 21, 1972, you ,

furnished to the Cocanission a Statement of Reasons relating to the i site preparation activities you are performing at the Zimmer site.

The Directorate of Licensing has considered your submission and has determined, after considering and balancing the factors in Section 50.10 of 10 CFR Part 50 that site preparation activities in progress prior to March 21, 1972, may continue pending a decision concerning issuance .

of a construction permit. The basis for this determination is set l forth in a document entitled " Discussion and Findings by the Directorate of Licensing, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, Relating to a Request to continue certain Site Activities at the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station Prior to the Completion of the NEPA Environmental Review.

AEC Docket No. 50-358," a copy of which is enclosed, l

Sincerely, )

/ g J 2 J S & Ao/c q A. Giambusso, Deputy Director for Reactor Projects Directorate of Licensing

Enclosures:

1. Discussion and Findings
2. Federal Register Notice (Determination) p cc: Sea attached page i

\

\

\

ph 8709240141 870921 PDR FOIA MENZB7-111 PDR

m -

y is I

Cincinnati Gas and Ele 6trie Co. , 2 j gl 21 1972 '

l l

cc: John H. Inskeep..V. P. Distribution:

. Columbus & Southern Ohio AEC PDR Electric Co. Local PDR 215 North Front Street Docket n e g l I

Columbus, Ohio 43215 RP Reading L Reading ,

l: Troy B. Connor R. S. Boyd 1 Reid & Priest BWR-2 Files  !

1701 K Street, N. W. BWR Branch Chiefs i Washington, D. C. 20006 W. Haass G. Owsley l

William J. Moran Vice President & General Counsel The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Co.

P. O. Box 960 Cincinnati, Ohio 45201 William G. Porter, Jr.

Porter, Icanley, Treffinger & Pratt 37 West broad Street Columbus,-Ohio 43215 Robert B. Killen, President The Dayton Power and Light Co.

P. O. Box 1034 Dayton, Ohio 45401 Julian de Bruyn Kops, General Counsel The Dayton Po'.ter and I.ight Co.

P. O. Box 1034 Dayton, Ohio 45401

-(Retyped 7/13/72) omcc> .L: BWR,~,1,(h BW

,2 , ,,

,'," , , , , , ,,, ,,, g ,6, C,,,,, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

summ,(, owsley:ma oy ,AGih L,: RP,p[6us so

. %.g . _ . . . . . . . . . . . ,

onc> 6/ly72 6 % 72 , )/zt /72 f/[Q72  %. .,l. . ,

n>rm ac.us av. e-u) uu.om uonm,an.mna,m.-eu m

.s 1

-l N

Doc No. 50-358

\

\.

the C ATTN:

cinnati Gas sad glectric company fir. W. R. Dickhoner Vih President '

P. O. Box 960 Cincinnati, o 45201 Gentlemen:

In accordance with th revisions of Se of the Commission's read ations, as ad pted on Marchson 50.10 of 10 C 21, 1972, you fuinished to the Commissi N a State site preparation.activitte t of Reasons relating to the you are reforming at the Zimmer. Plant.

The Directorate of Licensing determined, after considering a considered your submission and has of 10 CFR Part 50 that site p opd balancing the factors'in Section 50.10 ation activities in progress prior.

to March 21, 1972, may cont us pe ing a' decision concerning issuance of a construction permit. The basis or this determination is set forth in a document' eat ed " Discuss-of Licensing, U. 8. At c Energy Conmi and Findings by the Directorate to Continue certain. to Activities at t lon,' Relating to a Request Power Station Prior o the Completion of t Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear AEC Docket No. 50-358," a copy of which is e closed.NEPA Environmental Rev 1 Sincerely, A. Giambusso, Deputy rector for Reactor Projects Directorate of Licensing i E closures:

Discussion and Findings 2.

Federal Register Notice (Determination) ,

cci See attached page i , j 1

L______._________________ _ __

.'d

,' g ' .

l

. \

E U

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS BY THE DIRECTORATE OF LICENSING

.{

U.S. ATO'IIC ENERGY C0!DfISSION RELATING TO A REQUEST TO CONTINUE CERTAI!: SITE ACTIVITIES AT THE

.WM. H. ZD0!ER NUCLEAR POWER STATION PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF THE NEPA ENVIRO.'O! ENTAL REVIEU AEC DOCKET NO. 50-358

'1

7 l'. 0 INTRODUCTION:

-The Atomic; Energy Commission (AEC, or Commission) published in the '

Federal Register'(36 F.R. 22848)-on December 1, 1971, proposed revisions to Section 50.10 of 10 CFR Part 50 which would redefine the " commencement of' construction" as that term is applied to production and utilization-facilities subject to Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50. The revisions to-Section'50.10, which became an effective rule on March 21, 1972, defined'

" commencement of construction" to include any_ clearing of land, excava-

' tion, or other-substantial action that would adversely. affect the natural' environment of the site and construction on nonnuclear facilities. How-ever, chang ~es desirable to the temporary use of the land for public recreational uses, necessary borings to determine foundation conditions, or other f preconstruction monitor,ing to establish background information _

r-related to'theLsuitability_of thF sites or to the protection of the environmental values are not considered to be construction.

'In view of.the fact that persons may-have already begun activities that were previously permitted pursuant to Section 50.10(b), but wh1ch are now prohibited by the revisions to Section 50.10' adopted on March 21, 1972, the revisions include provisions whereby the Commission may author-ize continuation of those activities upon consideration and balancing of certain specified environmental' factors.

ByapplicationdatedApril6,19h0,TheCincinnatiGas& Electric Company, Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company, and The Dayton Power and Light Company (applicants) requested a license to construct

a. nuclear. power plant to be called the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power Station (Zimmer) on the Ohio River in Clerment County, Ohio. The AEC _

regulatory staff has completed a radiological health and safety review of the proposed facility and reported its conclusions in a Safety Evaluation dated February 18, 1972. A public hearing before an Atomic

-Safety and Licensing Board was held on June 1-2, 1972. The public hearing was an uncontested proceeding. On May 15, 1972, the AEC issued a Draf t Environmental Statement relating to the proposed construction of Zimmer. A decision concerning issuance of a Construction Permit for the Zimmer plant is expected in late Fall, 1972.

In response to the publication on March 21, 1972, of the adopted revisions to Section 50.10 of 10 CFR Part 50, the applicents submitted letters dated March 31, 1972, and April 19, 1972, setting forth reasons

~

why ' site preparation activities already in progress should be continued pending a decision concerning issuance of a construction permit.

'3

g. ,

o' f 4

, t r, . . . . . .

l I

i 2.0. COMPLETION OF NEPA REVIEW

(

The ongoing NEPA environmental review for the Zimmer station, including l the issuance by the Commission of a final detailed statement on the j environmental considerations specified in Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50, L

is estimated to be completed in September 1972 with a decision concerning the issuance of construction permits for the facilities by about November ,

[ 1972. Should the actual NEPA review for this case not be completed as  !

set forth above, the site preparation activities already underway would not significantly add to the environmental impact that would result had the review been completed as presently scheduled.

We have taken these considerations into account in balancing the appli-cable environmental factors. Wa:have concluded that, if a significantly longer time period were required to complete our NEPA review, it would )

not affect our determination that the limited site preparations already I begun by the applicant may be continued pending completion of the NEPA I environmental review specified in Appendix D of 10 CFR Part 50.

3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DURING THE PROSPECTIVE REVIEW PERIOD i i

Site preparation activities which were in progress prior to March 21, i 1972, .and for which permission to continue is requested are listed with the applicants' estimated completion percentage on March 21, 1972 as follows:

Completion on Activity March 21, 1972

a. Grading of the power plant site - - - - - - - - - - 70%
b. Construction and permanent roads --------- ,50%
c. Site drainage - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 90%
d. Source of potable water system ---------- 50%
e. Temp o ra ry pow e r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50%
f. Fencing - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 60%
g. Construction parking lot -------------

90%

h. Soil borings ------------------- 90%
1. Deep well pumps - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 50%

. . , y, ,

I f j. Excavation and recompaction in the circulating water piping, reactor, and turbine generator a re as - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - '60%

k.

Excavation of borrow pit ------------- 5% i

'1 - 1. Outside laydown storage _ area ----------- 75%

- m. River terminals and related facilities ------

10%

n. Temporary construction buildings and related facilities ---------------- 30%

Site preparation work was stopped in late 1971 because of delays imposed by the new requirement for a NEP,A review prior to reaching a decision in regard to cons truction permit' issuance. .The applicants plan to  !

resume these activities in the Summer of 1972.

, The principal environmental impact of site preparation has already occurred and continuation of these activities will not give rise to additional.significant adverse impact on the environment. The site activities requested to be continued will have some effect on the environment . However, this impact will generally be temporary in nature. In fact, as grading and drainage are completed to final i

elevations, seeding and planting will enhance, rather than degrade the environment.

, River preparation activities such as dredging for the river terninal or intake structure had not been initiated prior to March 21, 1972 and there are specifically c::cluded from site preparation activities which will continue prior to the date a decision is reached regarding issuance of a construction permit.

The environmental impacts resulting from these continued activities will be those normally expected to be associated with any major con-struction project of this typc, including those related to vehicular traffic and the noise, dus t, 'and vastes generated by site preparation activities. Since construction of the plant will not be completed

. during the projected NEPA review period, there will be no adverse impact en the environment uith respect to the release of liquid and

- gaseous radioactive effluents or of the discharge cf heated water, I

l t

i _ 9

1 e

1 since such activities would be associated with the operation of a completed nuclear facility.

Redress of any adverso environmental impact should such occur, associated with continued site preparation activities could readily be accomplished since none of the activities involve permanent above ground structures. The proposed site could therefore be ' essentially returned to its original state if necessary at no increase in the cost of redress as a result of continuation of the activities discussed herein. .

4.0 FORECLOSURE OF ALTERNATIVES Because of the present status of site preparation and the limited nature of the activities that the applicants wish to continue, we-conclude that continuation of th'e activities described herein will not foreclose any reasonable alternatives during the ongoing NEPA environmental review period.

5.0 EFFECTS OF DELAY ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST If continuation of site activities were not allowed until after a decision concerning the issuance of a construction permit the plant operation schedule would probably be delayed. The applicants have estimated that the delay would result in the facility not being available for the Gummer of 1977 as needed.

We conclude that should tha power from Zimmer not be available on schedule or soon thereafter, the public's interest in the availability of adequate, cconendcal electric power would not be served, since (1) power might not be available when needed, and (2) when power is available the additional costs of such power would be passed on to the customers. ,

6.0 COSTS OF DELAY The applicantshra indicated that a delay in completion of activities currently underway until af ter a decision concerning the issuance of a

. cons truction permit could result in an eight conth delay in the start of commercial operation of the facility. Such a delay would result in additional cos ts to the app]icants, and ultimately to the cus tomers.

The applicants further . estimated that an eight month delay would result l in the following additional costs: '

  • a *

, ~5- -

i I

Cost in millions of $~

a. Capital for Construction:

'14

b. Higher fuel, operation:and maintenance costs 12 c.

Interest on earlier investment to bring a planned fossil plant on line sooner ~

6

.- TOTAL 32 We periodconcur that these expected cott increases are reasonable for this

'of delay.

7.0 ~ BALANCING OF FACTORS We have taken into consideration and balanced the factors set Section 50.10 and the Davis-Besse factorl/ in making a determination

.whether'or not to permit continuation of site activities at the site pending completion of the NEPA environmental review.

(1).The scope of the work to be performed is such that it is not likely that such activities will have a significant adverse environmental impact.

(2)

Redress of such environmental impact as might result from the site activities to be performed would not require significant additional cost and time for abandoning the project.

(3)

The site activities that would be authorized to be continued pending completion of the NEPA review would not foreclose subsequent adoption of alternatives.

(4)

The effepts on the public interest of delay in the completion ifofathe Um. H.

favorable Zimmer Muclear construction PowerisStation permit decision reached.could be substant Increased construction and interest costs could result from such a delay.

1/

This factor arises from the Court decision concerning the Davis-Besse application. >

to which additional " irretrievable commitments" of financia

.during the NEPA review period might affect the full ;;;PA review decision.

4 /* $4 6- -

(5) In the context of balancing environmental harm and economic cost of abandonment, the cormitment of funds that would result if the current activities underway were permitted to continue is not likely to affect the eventual decision that will be reached upon completion of the NEPA review. The cost associated with the site activities permitted by such a continuance (about $2,000,000) is a small percent of the total cost of the project (about $330,000,000).

Considering this, we have concluded that authorizing continuation of these activities would not preclude the option of abandonment.

8.0 DETERMINATION Af ter balancing the factors described herein, we have determined that continuation of the activities in progress prior to March 21, 1972, at the Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Poder Station site should be authorized prior to a decision concerning the issuance of a construction permit for the facility.

This determination shall have no bearing upon the subsequent granting or denial of a construction permit for the proposed Wm. H. Zimmer

, Nuclear Power Station and any site preparation activities shall be performed entirely at the risk of The Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company, Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric Company, and The Dayton Power and Light Company. -

. l

}

l, l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ . _. _ _ - . .)

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20235B552&oldid=3192753"