ML19263C608
| ML19263C608 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Summer  |
| Issue date: | 01/30/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19263C602 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7902270439 | |
| Download: ML19263C608 (4) | |
Text
.
4 UNITED STATES
[
g'
'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION y
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 z
t
' s,,, *#j ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE DIVISION OF SITE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUPPORTING EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT CPPR-94 VIRGIL C. SUMMER NUCLEAR STATION DOCKET NO. 50-395 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL Description of Proposed Action By letters dated December 10, 1976 and January 14, 1977 the applicants, South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Carolina Public Service Authority, filed a request with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) to extend the completion date specified in Construction Fermit No. CPPR-94 for the Virgil C. Sumer Nuclear Station. The action proposed is the issuance of an order providing for an extension of the latest completion date of the construction permit from January 1,1978 to December 31, 1980.
The staff's Final Environmental Statement relating to the Virgil C.
Summer Nuclear Station which was published in January 1973 determined a demonstrated need for power and assumed comercial operation of the facility within the year-period 1977 to 1979. The original completion date as given in Construction Permit CPPR-94 for completion of anstruction of the project was January 1, 1978.
The pennittees now plan to have the proposed ur,'t in comercial operation by December 31, 1980. The permittees attribute the present delay to con-struction factors outside the permittaes' control, including design piodifications due to regulatory review and recognized improved engineering The revised completion date reflects a reasonable period for practices.
allowance of uncertainties in time estimation for completion of the project.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action A.
Need for Power The pennittees are now scheduled to complete construction and begin operation of the facility by December 31, 1980 and will have a net 790227o4 39
, electrical output of 900 MWe. The staff has reassessed the need for the Virgil C. Sume-Nuclear Station with respect to its planned operation ir.1980.
First, the staff finds the power estimates and projections contained in the Final Environmental Statement issued in January 1973 not to be significantly changed in view of present prediction technology, and continuing uncertainties as to national energy policies and conservation practices.
In contrast, the staff finds very significant consequences to be the possible result of construction delay. These include:
1.
Reduced reserve margins of South Carolina Electric & Gas Company and South Cr.dina Public Service Authority in meeting sumer peak loads. This will result in an extended reliance upon more obsolete and inefficient turbine p<.aking equipment that would otherwise be retired if the nuclear station were to be operational at the earlier date. Added expense and material utilization would result from increased use of fossil fuels. South Carolina Electric & Gas Company reports that in order to maintain reserve criteria for 1979, it has comitted 60 megawatts capacity to the South Carolina Public Service Authority. The presently proposed delay (and particularly beyond the peak period of 1980) would further accentuate the power reserve capacity needs of the South Carolina Public Service Authority.
2.
Lowering of reserve margin available in maintaining the Southeastern Electric Reliability Councils, Virginia-Carolina Subregica (VACAR) and on adverse effect on the national and regional fuel conservation policy.
In accord with the VACAR Reliability Agreement among member companies, member companies may request power capacity for emergency needs. Nu contractual reserve margin responsibility presently exists within the VACAR subregion, thereby accentuating the need for the plant in maintaining the VACAR reserve margin and overall reliability of power service to the st:bregion.
B.
Social and Economic Imoacts The Final Environmental Statement for the Virgil C. Summer Nuclear Station issued in January 1973 includes 60 assessment of
- potential environmental, economic and comunity impacts due to site preparation and plant construction. The only environmental impacts possibly resulting from the requested extension would be those due to transposing the impacts in time or extending the total time the regional comunity is subjected to temporary construction impacts. The staff concludes that environmental impacts associated with construction of the plant and described in the FES, i.e., housing, school facilities, and transportation are not affected by the proposed extension.
The remote location of the construction site results in the comuting of esser:tially the entire work force from larger towns in the region, such as Columbia and Greenville. The utility is disposed to ma'ntain a reasonable continuity of work force which will have little or no economic impact on the local comunity or the larger nearby cities in tems of overall employment and aggregate tax revenues and expenses. Mir.or and temporary effects due to direct construction activities will be extended over the delayed construction period, however, no ill effects would be expected of significance with the mandated control procedures set forth in the Final Environmental Statement for the construction stage.
No significant change in socio-economic impact is expected to result from the requested extension of the term of the Construction Pennit.
Summary, Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration The NRC staff has reviewed the total environmental effects which may result from the requested extension by the applicant of the latest completion date of the existing construction pennit for the Virgil C.
Sumer Nuclear Station.
The permittees, because of design modifications and regulatory review beyond its control, has requested extension of the Construction Permit from January 1, 1978 to December 31, 1980. The staff in conducting its assessment has concentrated principally upon possible impacts due to need for power and socio-economic considerations as these factors are judged to be of most relevance and importance in assessing any effects of plant delay.
On the basis of the foregoing analysis and the NRC staff evaluation, it is concluded that there will be no environmental impact attributable
-4 to the proposed action other than that already predicted and described in the Comm'ssion's FES issued in January 1973 and the Board's Initial Decision of March 19, 1973. Having made this conclusion, the Commission has further concluded that no environmental impact statement for the proposed action need be prepared, and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate. The subject change to the construction permit is judged not to be a major Federal action significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Dated: Januw,, a,1979