ML19305A745
| ML19305A745 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | LaSalle  |
| Issue date: | 12/26/1979 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML19305A732 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8002130140 | |
| Download: ML19305A745 (2) | |
Text
O
+f,., o, UNITED STATES 8 y 3.c, h
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 5,*g\\M
.E WASHING TON, D. C. 20555 o'Qi'
%.v..../
EflVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL i
BY THE DIVISI0ft OF SITE SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS I
SUPPORTING EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMITS CPPR-99 AND CPPR-100 i
COMMONWEALTH EDIS0N COMPANY LASALLE COUNTY STATION, UtlIT NOS. 1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-373 AND 50-374 Description of Proposed Actinn By letter dated September 24, 1979, Comonwealth Edison Company (CECO.) filed a reque'st with the Nuclear Regulatory Comission (NRC) to extend the latest dates for completion of construction of the laSalle County Station, Unit Mos.1 and 2, as specified in Construction Permit Nos. CPPR-99 and CPPR-100.
The action pro-posed by the permittee is the issuance of an Order providing for extension of the latest construction completion dates from March 31, 1980 to June 30, 1981 for Unit No. I and from December 31, 1980 to March 31, 1982 for Unit No. 2.
The staff's Final Environmental Statement (FES) relating to the construction of the LaSalle County Station, Unit Nos.1 and 2, was published in February 1973 in support of issuing the construction permits.
Environmental Impact of the Proposed Action By order of the Director of Project Management of the NRC on May 31, 1978, the latest completion dates for the construction of the LaSalle County Station were extended from June 1,1978, to March 31, 1980, for Unit 1 and from June 1, 1979 to December 31, 1980, for Unit 2.
The staff evaluation and Environmental Impact Appraisal accompanying this Order set forth the reasons for delay and the environmental impacts of the delay.
The reasons for Commonwealth Edison's request for a further delay are labor strikes and additional NRC requirements related to plant safety.
The principal environmental impacts of this further delay are related to economic and socio-economic considerations. These considerations are similar to those involved in the previous extension of the construction completion date.
In the economic analysis, the relevant economic variables are (1) fuel costs and (2) operation and maintenance costs, as they compare to those for other sources of replacement power. This economic comparison overwhelmingly i
8002130
/
4 favors operating the LaSalle units. The capital costs associated with these alternatives are considered sunk costs and do not enter into the cost / benefit balance. This balance remains favorable to the continued construction and operation of the LaSalle Station even though it is clear that the delay necessitated by safety considerations will result in increased construction costs and corresponding increases in power costs to rate payers.
The other main environmental impact is rocio-economic.
The proposed extension 1
will extend the total time the region is subjected to temporary construction impacts. However, the community impacts expected during the extension period should be considerably less than those experienced to date because construction activity peaked in the third quarter of 1978 and has steadily declined since. -
Moreover, extension of the permits should not result in impacts which have not already been identified by the staff, and may result in a moderation of impacts compared to those associated with a more compressed construction schedule.
Finally, because of the delay, construction costs will increase resulting in a larger flow of local payrolls and tax revenues into the local economy thus compensating somewhat for the anticipated extension in community impacts. On balance, the staff finds no significant change in community impacts resulting from the extension.
Conclusion and Basis for Negative Declaration On the basis of the foregoing analysis and the NRC staff evaluation, it is concluded that there will be no significant impact attributable to the proposed action other than those predicted and described in the previous extension of May 31,1978, and in our FES of February 1973 and as it was updated by changes and corrections to the FES during the constr.ction permit public hearings. The Commission further concludes that no environmental statement for the proposed action need be pre-pared, and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
Dated:
DEC 2 G 1373 I
1
..-m v
--m.,
.~
,