ML20040A731
| ML20040A731 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/28/1981 |
| From: | Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040A725 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201220015 | |
| Download: ML20040A731 (2) | |
Text
o,
,g q
p 4.-
V A
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL BY THE DIVISI0f! 0F LICENSING SUPPORTING EXTENSI0ll 0F CONSTRUCTIOH PERMIT HOS. CPPR-81 AHD CPPR-82 MIDLAND PLANT UNITS 1 A!!D 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT APPRAISAL Description of Proposed Action By letter of July 22, 1981, Consumers Power Connany filed a request with the Huclear Regulatory Connis ion (NRC) to extend the completion dates specified in Construction Pemit Nos. CPPR-M and CPPR-82 for the Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2.
The action proposed is the issuance of an order providing for an extension of the latest con-pletion dates of the construction pemits fron October 1,1982 to and including December 1,1984 for Unit 1, and fran October 1,1981 to and including July 1,1984 for Unit 2.
The NRC staff has reviewed the application and found that good cause has been shown for the requested extension of the completion dates specified in Con-struction Permits CPPR-81 and CPPR-82 for the Midland Plant Units 1 and 2, respec-tively (see attached Safety Evaluation by the HPC staf f).
Environnental Inpact of the Proposed Action A.
Need for the Facility The need for and direct benefits of this plant, as discussed in the Final Environmental Statenent published in March of 1972 for the construction pernit review was to serve econonically the growinq electrical load in the area with emphasis on the improvenent of electrical systen reliability and replacenent of fossil fired generation which did not meet air pollution standards. Since preparation of the Final Environnental Statement, the load has grown slower than projected at that tine. Thus, the plant delay as requested by Consumers Power Company will not have an adverse inpact on the electrical systen reliability or replacenent of fossil fired generation.
The need for and benefits of the plant to serve economically the load and to improve systen reliability continues as before except that the emphasis of the need has now shifted tn reduce production costs rather than to inprove reliability.
B.
Conmunity Socioeconomic Incacts The connunity socioeconomic impacts of construction were treated in the Final Environnental Statenent (FES-CP) for Midland and were updated, along with the coverage of operating impacts, in the final supplement to the FES-CP.
Construction inpacts which will be experienced during the proposed extension omcr >
sume#
8201220015 811228 PDR ADOCK 05000329 outy G
. l...
.i.
NRC FORM 318 IIO HOI NRCM O240 OFFICIAL RECOFiD COPY
' " '9s%329 a2
T t
c k s N
S per{od will F-11 within the range of irpacts previously discussed and found fs aceeptable, on belance. Extension of the construction period will, however, contribute te a higher employment rate within the region and delay the full P
tax benefits which will accrue -to local jurisdiction once operation of Units 1 and 2 ikgins.
R C.
Heural Lesourcas Ig,act y
The inpact on natural resources during site preparation and plant construc-tion wqre treat.-d in the Final Enviroxental Statenent - Construction Pernit
\\i Stage nFES-CP) for !!ioland. flo additional sources of potential iripacts have beert identif-te6 in this review. Also, site inspections by the Office of Inspection'and-Enforceneni have not identified construction inpacts which were unantidipated or sirmificantly greater than those described in the FES-CP. Extension of the constrection schedule does not alter the staff's previcus assessnnt which found the impacts of construction on natural resources to be ecceptable.
- m asis for HeIutive,,cclaration r
is of the foregoing analysis and the !!PC staff safety evaluation, it is uded that *h9 icpact attributable to the proposed action will be confined to those alresty psiicted and described in the Connission's FES-CP issued in 1972.
Having made' this corclusion, the Cenission has further concluded that no environ-mental inpact staterent for the proposed action need be prepared, and that a negative declaration to this effect is appropriate.
DEC 2 51981 Dated.
l AM?'
omen dL!,L?il a CU.C.U),7.....
CUccnanb.....
5.NEZL'.......
...... ~. ~...
sunuu o
....... ~.
~...
~~ ~
.?.5.?,!.?
S!55 omy
..... ~ -
. ~ ~ ~ ~ -
nnc rosu ais oow; nncu oua OFFIClAL RECORD COPY us m issi_ n a m
DISTRIBUTION OF EXTENSION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT COMPLETION DATE FOR MIDLAND PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 Docket Nos.~50-329/330 NRC PDR 50-349/356 Local PDR
/
y
'M TERA
~
'I NSIC 4
EECEJVED l
'g DEC30198w 3
I L. Schneider, TIDC (10) rY $nc$
'#Y=iu"*
I&E (3)
MPA l
T. Barnhart (4) Authority Files R. Diggs, LFMB I. Dinitz, SP OELD l
R. Tedesco E. Adensam i
R. Hernan i
l
.