ML18044A332
| ML18044A332 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palisades  |
| Issue date: | 11/27/1979 |
| From: | Ziemann D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Bixel D CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| TASK-02-01.A, TASK-02-01.B, TASK-02-01.C, TASK-2-1.A, TASK-2-1.B, TASK-2-1.C, TASK-RR NUDOCS 7912180081 | |
| Download: ML18044A332 (20) | |
Text
.. l ~*
.~
"'~'h: <..
ii*-*
~.*
~-.
,,, *. -*.. -_s:*._4BE:~n~N -*
- NRC PDR...
')
.
- L~oca l PDR *;... * *:. : *,,
- ORB. #2 Reading,.
Docket No. 50*255 l *:
- r. -
Mr. *oavid *Bixel
. Nu~lear Licensing Admin1~tr~tor_
Consume~ Power Company **..
\\"
- ~ -
-: ~.
NRR Read~i ng *...
~ *'
- DEi sen hut RHVollmer
- oELD
- >
- 0 I& E ( 3 ),
DLZiemann < * -*
. JSWetmore * * ** *
- . HSini th
., DCrutchfield (2)
- TERA
~
. AC.RS.*(16).'
212 West M.ichigan Avenue Jac_kson, -Mic,higan
- 49?01':... ~ ;;. -
~*
'k; :
Pear Mr. Bixel:
- I
- *R.E:
SEP TOPIC u-1 *. A -. EXCLus1'c>N:AREA Aunl*DRrrv AND CONTROL SEP *TOPIC II* l.B -- POPULATION DISTRIBUTION.
~
s*~p JOP I c n..:1. c *.:.;. POTENTIAL HAZARDS. DUE TO NEARBY HJDUSTR IAL'.
- TRANSPORTATION, ANO MILITARY' FACILITIES' *
{.:.
~
Enclosed are copi~s of o*~*r. draft evaluation o:f three Systematic Evaluation-J>rogram Topics. *:.vou,are requested to examine the facts upon. which the staff has based ~ts evaluation*and. res.pond eith~r-by*confirm.ing that the facts are correct,. '9r by identifying any. errors.
- If in error, please..
supply' corrected Htfonnation for the' docket *.
- Wg.. :*encotirage* yo.u to* s_upply.. "
f.or the docket any other material rel ate<f "to these top,ics *th9t might
. *affect' _the st.aff's evaluatio,n.....
-'*v,our response* within 30 days of th_e 'dat~ you ~cei ve th1 s 1 ~tter is.
requested; If.no*res_ponse is recei.vedwithin-.t'h"t time, we will.*.-*
assume that you ~~v~ -no'* comnerits or c_o.rrection~*.
Enclosures:
Topics II-1.A II-1. B 11-1.c
~c w/encl osures:
s'ee :.next page
~
- * *Sinc~reJy, :*
~-
.* * :uoriginal_S.igned b!
- . Thomffi
.. s
~-. W1ambac_h Dennis*,
- iemann, Chief Operat ng Reactors Branch #2
.-: : Of~.1 s.1 on._of Ope rat 1 ng Reactors
- x:
~.. -.
..~...
- " O~Fl
- . C!E).-.D.Q~: :... ¥...... DOI_':
re.#.~.~DOROO~J
.. *:... *,*...... ~..-. *:.: '.:. :... -.. '.:.. :...... :... *:... '.: :".. **.
suRNAM.E,.JSWetm _.e:at:i:.'HS
- LZie!llann.*:";:. -..... :.. -.......... :*..,..'... '... *.*.................. :... '..':.;.
'DATE._..*J.1.f111... ~.*... i.. llV... }9..._. lJ/..?7/79.....':...'..... *........ :.. *.-.*...... :*.... -.:..... *...... *.... *
---'----'--"----*--*-~----
--:'::u'.s GOVE*RN~~EhJ; PPINTING*OFFICE* 19].g:2.a9:369_,*
~-:*.:
- ~
ur~:TED STATES
- ~~:: :*.-;:...
~
~
.. _)::;.... ~;. /,.:.~
NUCLEAR REGUUHORY cor.*,~:ilSSIOi'l
\\"vASHiNGTOi~. D. C. 20:05:'.
.:-:-=
l'ir. David Bixel Nuclear Licensing Ad8inistrator Consumers Pov:er Conpany 212 West Michigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan l9201
Dear :
.'.r. Bixel:
November 27, 1;7~
RE:
SEP TOPIC. II-1.A - EXCLUSION AREA AUTHORITv A~: CO\\TROL SEP TOPIC II-1.3 - POPULATION DISTRIBUTION SEP TOPIC II-1.C - POTENTIAL HAZARDS DUE*TO ~E~RBY INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES Enclosed are copies of our draft evaluation of three Systemetic Evaluation Program Topics.
You are requested to examine the facts upon which the staff has based its evaluation and respond either by confirr.:ing that.the facts are correct, or by identifying any errors.
If in error, please supply corrected information for the docket.
I-le encourage you to supply
'for the docket any other material related to these :epics that r.:ight affect the staff's evaluation.
Your response within 30 days of the date you receive this le~ter is requested.
If no response is received within that ~ime, we will assume that you have no comments or corrections.
- nclosures:
Topics II-1.*A II-1. 8 I I - 1 *. ~
/
,;,_.1.*J
/.
/*
- i.
Sincerely,
\\/ /"',.... --.*
/
-Dennis L.
Zier~nn, Chief Operating Reactors Branch #2 Di vision of Operating Reactors
.. :::*;~d Six.ei I I t I.:., ~
- i 1er, :squire
- sha-~ Lincoln & Seale C~e First ~atic~al Chicas0, Illinois Pl cZC:
60670
~*':r. ?cul ;.I. Perry, Secretc.ry Ccnsu~ers Power Company*
212 ;est ~ichigan Avenue Jackson, Michigan 49201 J~dd L. Bacon, Esquire Consuners Power Company 212
~est Michigan Avenue
~acksc~. Michigan 48201
~yron M. Cherry, Esquire
$t.;i :e 4501 One 13~'. Plaza Chicago, Illinois 60611 Ms. Mary P. Sinclair Great Lakes Energy Alliance 5711 Summersei Drive
~idl.and, Michigan 48640 Cha~les Bechhoefer, Esq., Chairman Atonic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. c.
20555 Dr. George C. Anderson Department of Oceanography University of Washington Seattle, Washington 98195 Dr. t'.. Stanley. Livingston 1005 Calle Largo Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501
- '21 =:c:zco ?ubl ic Library*
~l~ ~:~:h ?cse Street
- '.:*=~-=zoo, r!:icr.~gar
~9C06 1
- ~ C, Inc.
Richard Schaffstall 17~7 ~ennsylvania Avenue, N. W 5ui':e 1050 ias~ington, D. C.
20006 J
November 27, 1979 PALISADES
- Topic II-1.A - Exclusion Area Authority and Control.**
The safety objective of this topic is to assure that appropriate exclusion area authority and control are maintained by the licensee as required by 10 CFR Part 100.
The review was conducted in accordance with the guidance given in SRP 2.1.2. The capabili~y of the plant to meet the dose criteria of 10 CFR Part 100 at the exclusion area boundary will be evaluated in the design basis. event phase of the SEP review.
The Pa-lisades Plant is located on the eastern shore of Lake Michigan in.
- Covert Township, Van Buren County in the State* of Michigan.
The plant site is approximately 4 1/2 miles south of the city of South Haven,.
Michigan, 16 miles northeast of the twin cities of Benton Harbor and. St.
Joseph, Michigan, and 32 miles west of Kalamazoo.
The site exclusion area is defined by the plant property limits and thus the exclusion area boundary lines are identical to the plant property lines. The exclusion
- area boundary lines are shown in Consumers Power Company Drawing No.
Gl6761 which is reproduced in Figure l of this report. The nearest boundary of ~he exclusion area on the landward side of the plant is
- approximately 2,300 feet measured in a southern direction from the center of the reactor building.
No public highways or railraods traverse the exclusion area.
The licensee owns all of the land within the exclusion area.
(The licensee was requested on August 13, 1979 to verify ownership of the mineral rights within the exclusion area~ No response has been received to date.) Regarding the lakeshore frontage within the exclusion area,
~.
.. the licensee, under Michigan law, owns to the water's edge and has the right to control access to the*lake from the landward side.
The exclusion area is not defined over the waters of Lake Michigan adjacent to the Palisades site. The staff in recent cases involving shore front sites has interpreted the definition of an exclusion area in 10 CFR Part 100 as applying to the entire area surrounding a reactor including the overwater portion.
In these cases, applicants have been requ.ired to make appropriate arrangements to control water traffic within the exclusion area in the event of a-plant emergency.
While the Palisades licensee has not specifically defined an exclusion area over the water, arrangements have been made with the U. S. Coast Guard, as documented in the Palisades Plant Site Emergency Plan, for the contr9l of water traffic in the event of a plant emergency.
The lack of a defined exclusion area over the water adjacent to the plant site* is a deviation from the staff's current interpretation of the criteria in 10 CFR Part 100.
However, the arrangements made by the licensee with the U.S. Coast Guard meet the intent of the criteria and, therefore, we believe that the lack of a defined exclusion area over the water does not* constitute* *a: *significant safety issue for*the* SEP-**revtew;
- It may be necessary for the licensee* to define an exclusion area offshore at. some future datein order to evaluate the atmospheric dispersion characteristics of the site in accordance with ne-W dispersion models which take into account wind directiOn and variable boundary distances for noncircular exclusion areas.
- This issue will be evaluated under SEP Topic II-2.. C.
We conclude that the Palisades licensee has the proper authority to detennine all activities within the exclusion area, as required by 10 CFR Part lOO (ownership of mineral rights will be verified upon receipt of infonnat1on from licensee).
This completes the evaluation of this SEP topic. Since the Palisades Plant site confonns to current licens'1ng criteria, no additional SEP review is required.
- ' I
l I I
I.
A BOUNDARY EXCLUSION AR~
JI.
~.... ~.
I
~
I
....,. **u~:r:o:uu111.~1*
11.Jtdl.w* II Ill llil"JlllMI FIGURE 1
....., **=........... -=-~ ::...,.,......
........... ff~
... ~'"*-
~ Topic II-1.B - Population Distribution November 21~ 1979 The safety objective of this topic is to assure that the low population zone and population center distance specified. for the site are compatible with the current population distribution and are in confonnance with the guidelines of 10 CFR Part 100.
The review was conducted in accordance with the guidance given in SRP 2.1.3.
The* capability of the plant to meet the dose criteria of 10 CFR Part 100 at the.outer boundary of the low population zone will be evaluated in the design basis event phase of the SEP review.
The adequacy of emergency preparedness planning for the area surrounding the,plant including the low population zone will be assessed by the Conunission in a separate review effort.
The land area surrounding the Palisades Plant site. is generally rural in character consisting primarily of fannland and wooded tracts.. Van Buren State Part, a 380 acre facility w.ith overn.ight camping and daytime picnicing facilities, borders the plant site on the north.
The nearest conununity wi~h a population of 1,000 or more is the city of South Haven which is located on the lake shore about 4 1/2 miles north of the plant.
South.Haven had a 1970 Census population of 6,471 and is projected to reach 7,400 by the year 2000(1}, a 14i increase.
The licensee.has recently completed a survey of the population within a.
five-mile radius of the plant. (2) The residential population was estimated by detennining the number of residences within the five-*mile radius and multiplying each residence by an occupancy factor of 2.9 residents per*
house which was derived from earlier utility studies. The licensee
. estimates that*7,340 persons resided within five miles of the plant as of June 1979, a density of 187 persons per square mile assuming that half of the area within five miles is land.
The population estimate has some conservatism in it in that seasonal homes were included in the count of residential structures.
In addition to the number of residents, the licensee has also identifi-ed two transient population groups within the five-mile radfos.
One group consists of industrial workers and the licensee estimates that there are approximately 1,700 workers within five* miles of the plant.
The majority of these workers are located in the South Haven city area. The other transient group consists of seasonal visitors to Van Buren State Park.
The park has a peak capacity of 2,943 which includes both overnight campers and day trippers.
. The nearest population center to the Palisades Plant containing more than about 25,000 residents is stated in the FSAR to be ~he twin cities of Benton Harbor and St. Joseph, Michigan, which are located approximate.ly.
16 miles south of the site. Benton Harbor and St. Joseph had a combined population of 27,523 in 1970 and this population is projected to decrease to 25,000 by the year 2000. (1) The low population. zone specified for the Palisades site is the area within a three mile radius of the plant.(3)
A review of current population estimatesC.2.4) and projected population growth figures(l, 5) for the area surrounding the Palisades Plant, and observations made during a site visit in July 1979, indicate that the population growth in the area since the plant received an operating license in 1971 has been modest and this trend is expected to continue.*
No population center approaching 25,000 residents has developed, or
' appears likely to develop, closer to the Palisades Plant than the designated population center.of Benton Harbor/St. Joseph.
We conclude that the low population zone and population center distances
. specified for the Palisades site remain *val id and the site is in confo.nnance with the distance requirements of 10 CFR Part 100 in that the population center distance *is more than one and one-third times the distance from
'the reactor to the outer 'boundary of the low population zone.'
This completes the evaluation of this SEP topic. Since the plant site confonns to current licensing criteria, no additional SEP review is required.
REFERENCES
- 1.
"Population and Land Use/Cover, Existing and Future Considerations, 11 Southwestern Michigan Regional Planning Conmission,. St. Joseph, Michigan, April 1978.
- 2.
"Palisades 1979 Residential Survey (draft}," letter to F. Kantor, NRC,. from W. J. Beckius, Consumers. Power Company, October ll, 1979.
3*
Safety Evaluation by the Division of Reactor Licensing, USAEC, In The Matter.of Consumers Power Company, Palisades Plant, Docket No. 50-255, March. 6, 1970.
- 4.
"Estimates of the Population of Michigan," prepared by Michigan Department of Management and Budget, Lansing, Michigan.
- 5.
"Population Projections for Michigan to the Year 2000, 11 State of Michigan Department of Management and Budget, Lansing, Michigan, March 1978.
November 27, 1979 Topic II~ l.C. - Potential Hazards Due To Nearby* Industrial, Transportation, and Military Facilties The safety objective of this topic is to assure that.the nuclear. plant is adequately protected and can be. operated with an acceptable degree of
- safety with regard to potential accidents which may occur as the result of activities at nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities.
The review was conducted in accordance ~ith the guidanc.e of SRP's 2.2.1, 2.2.2 and 2.2.3.
There is little industrial activity in the vicinity of the Palisades plant. The nearest concentration of industrial activity is located in the South Haven city area and consists primarily of light manufacturing facilities. Regional planning officials have stated that to their knowledge no industrial developments*are planned for the vicinity of the nuclear ~lant.(l)
The nearest transportation routes to the plant are U~S. Route 31.and
. Interstate 19.6 which pass about 3,600 feet and 4,200 feet, respectively, from the plant at their c.losest point of approach.
The guidance of Regulatory Guide 1.91~ Revision 1, was utilized to evaluate the conse-quences of postulated explosions on these highways.
Regulatory Guide 1.91, Revision 1, has been specifically identified by the NRC's Regulatory Requirements Review Conunittee as needing consideration for backfit on
- operating reactors.
We find that the highway separation distances at Palisades exceed the minimum distance criteria given in the regulatory guide and, therefore, provide reasonable assurance.that transportation accidents resulting in explosions of truck-~ize shipments of hazardous
- 1.
11;,*
_.;.2-materials will not have an advers.e effect on the safe operation of the plant.
Highway accidents invo-lving certafo hazardous. chemicals could theoretically exceed toxicity limits in the plant control room assuming an optimum set of spiJl parameters and atmospheric dis~ersion conditions.
However, the highway separation distances and the _lack of any indication of frequent shipment of hazardous chemicals past the plant in conjunction with the preva i 1 i ng wind patterns in the area provide reasonab 1 e assurance that.
the likelihood of a hazardous chemical spill affecting the operation of the plant* is low.
We are, howev.er, unable to say precisely what the probability of a hazardous chemical accident 'is because detailed infor-
- mation on the size, type, and frequency of ha-zardous chemical shipments past the plant is not available.* It is noted that the control room hab.i tabi 1 i ty systems at the Pali sades Plant do not confonn to current criteria (see Topic Vl-8 for a deta*iled discussion of control room habitability).
The Palisades Plant is thus less equipped to cope with a hazardous chemical accident, if one shou.ld occur, than would be a p 1 ant 1 icensed under current* criteria.
Al though the probability of a hazardous chemical transportation accident affecting plantoperation'is
. low, we believe that the possibility of such. an accident should be one of the factors considered in the *final evaluation of the adequacy of the control room habitability systems for the Palisades. Plant.
This. matter will be evaJuated further under SEP TOpic VI-8, Control Room Habitability.
The nearest railroad other than the spur line serving the plant is the Chesapeake & Ohi.o line about 2 1/4 miles to the east. At this distance,
potential railroad accidents involving hazardous mater-ials are not
- considered to be a credible risk to *the safe* operation of the plant.
The nearest large pipelines to the plant lie in a corridor about three miles southeast. These pipelines include a 30 inch diameter natural gas pipeline and a 10-inch diameter petroleum products pipeline. These pipeli~es ar~ 'tar enough removed to assure that pipeline accidents will not affect the safety of the nuclear plant. There are no gas or oil production fi e'l ds. underground storage. faci 1 i ti es, or refineries in the vicinity of the pla.nt.
There are no large commercial harbors along the eastern shore of Lake.
Michigan near the plant.
Some freight including fuel oil is shipped through St. Joseph harbor about 17 miles to the* south. Major shipping lanes in the lake are located well off-shore, at least 10 miles or more, from the plant.(2) Thus, lake shipping is not consideredto be a hazard to the plant.
The closest airport to the plant is South Haven Municipal Airport, a general aviation facility located approximately three miles northeast.
Ross Field in Benton Harbor, about 15 miles south of the plant, is the nearest airport with scheduled commercial.air ser.vice.
Low altitude federal airways Vl93 and V55 pass about four miles northwest and ten miles east of the plant site, respectively. There are no military training routes within 30*miles of the site. Of the aviation facilities in the area, only South Haven Airport is of concern to the plant.
South Haven Airport has one paved runway and three turf runways.. The paved runway, designated 4.;.22 and thus oriented in a northeast-southwest direction, is 3485 feet long and 50 feet wide.
- The airport is classified by the Federal Aviation Administration as a basic utility airport which indicates that it can acco11111od~te about-~5% of the general aviation prope 11 er fleet under
- 12, 500 pounds.. The main runway. is equipped with medium intensity runway lights. The airport has instrument approach capability* consisting of a straight.-in approach to runway 22 from the*
Pullman VORTAC which is located six miles northeast of the field. There*
is no control tower at South Haven. Municipal.
The airport is used for general aviation activities such as business and pleasure flying and for agricultural spraying operations~ There are currently about 20,000 operations* per year at the facility and 12 to 15 based aircraft exclusive.
of aircraft used for crop dusting.(3,4) The. great.majority of the aircraft are single-engine propeller airplanes which typically weigh on the order of 1,500 to 2,000 pounds.
The regulatory staff, based on evalµations performed in several licensing reviews, has concluded that nuclear power plant structures which are designed to withstand tornado missiles and other design loads can withstand the collision forces imposed by light general aviation aircraft without adver~e consequences. Safety-related equipment located outside of such structures, however, would be vulnerable to a light airplane crash.
Employing the analytical model given in SRP 3.5.1.6, we estimate, on a conservative* basis, that the overall probability of a 1 ight aircraft striking such equipment at the Palisades plant for the present level of operations is about 6 x lo-7 per year which is considered acceP.table
- An OP.eration is defined as either a takeoff or a landing; a "touch-and-go would-be counted as two operations.
I based on the criteria given in SRP 2.2.3.
South Haven Municipal Airport is included in the National Airport System Plan (NASP)(5) which proposes. that South Haven be upgraded from a basic utility to a general utility facility. A general utility airport can accommodate virtually all general aviation propeller aircraft under.
12,500 pounds~ The Michigan State Airport System Plan(6) reconmends
- that South Haven be upgraded first to a general utility and then to a basic transport facility by increasing the runway length and making other improvements *. A basic transport airpo.rt can accommodate general aviation aircraft up to 60,000 pounds, including business jets. In order to evaluate the general findings of the State plan, and to develop specific guidance for local authorities, an airport master plan was prepared in July 1978 by the city of South Haven.(?) This plan, based on projected increases in aviation activities, recommends that South Haven Municipal Airport should. be expanded to basic transport standards by making various improvements to the facility includi'ng the construction.
of a new runway 5,000 feet long and 150 feet wide (designated 5-23).
The master plan contains 20-year forecasts for the based aircraft fleet and the number of operations expected at the airport. It is projected that by* 1995.there will be 36 single-engine (other than aerial application aircraft),. 10 to 20 aerial application, 10 mu.lti-engine (nine reciprocating and one turboprop), and one turbojet aircraft based. at the field. The total number of operations forecast for 1995 is 53,350 of which37,000 will be by general utility aircraft and 950 by basic transport aircraft.
Although there is some doubt whether the projections in the master plan wi 11 be rea 1 i zed due to such factors as the availability of funding and the growth rate of population and industrial activity in the area, we have made a preliminary evaluation of the potential impact on the plant of expansion of South Haven Airport.
In our evaluation, we have assumed that the number of operations increase to the maximum.levels projected in the master plan.
We estimate, on a conservative basis, that the overall probability of a light airplane stri'king, exposed safety-related equipment is about 2x*10-6 per year. This probability level, by itself, is considered by the staff to be only a marginally acceptable value arid, therefore, we have evaluated the likelihood and consequences of an aircraft accident involving the safety-related equipment located outside of hardened concrete structures.
We find that either the likelihood of an aircraft collision with such equipment is acceptabll low, or that alternative equipment and sys.terns are available to take over the function of the damaged components in the event of a light airplane crash. This evaluation is presented in SEP Topic III-4.D, Site Proximity Missiles (to be provided later}.
Aircraft in the basic transport category, i.e., weighing up to 60,000 pounds, can not at presen.t operate at South Haven Airport. The master plan projects that there will be 150 such operations by 1980 and 950 by 1995. It is apparent that the forecast for 1980 is too optimistic (a new* runway will have to be constructed before basic transport aircraft can be accommodated), but it is still possible that the projected levels will be reached at s~me.later date assuming that the recommended expansion
- t*
T of the airport eventually takes place. Therefore, we have made a preli-.
minary evaluation of the risk to the Palisades plant of increasing the capability of South Haven Airport to. handle basic transport aircraft.
Using as a guideline the probability value of 10-7 per year for an*
airplane crash at the plant, and assuming all of the plant structures are at risk, we find that there would be concern if the number.of basic transport.operations began to approach 100 per year.
We will request that the licensee contact appropriate local, State and Federal authorities and monitor aircraft activities at the South Haven Municipal Airport *. In addition to monitoring the activities, the licensee, by maintaining an awareness of planned developments at the airport, may be able to fofluence the selection of flight paths to *
- prevent intentional overflights of the plant area. If there are indicati.ons that traffic in the basic transport category will approach* 100 operations
, per year, we will require the licensee to perform a detailed analysis of the risk of an aircraft accident at the plant including an analysis of the capability of the plant structures and systems to withstand the co 11 is ion effects of se 1 ected design basis aircraft. Analyses* done in previous licensing cases have demonstrated that certain plant structures, depending on such factors as wall thickness and concrete strength, can withstand the collision of aircraft weighing in excess of 60,000 pounds.
We conclude that the Palisades Plant is at present adequately protected
- and can be operated with an acceptable degree of safety with regard to industrial and transportation activities in the vicinity of the plant.
.,. We have, however, identified two issues for additional consideration:
(l) possible hazardous chemical highway transportation accidents which are to be considered.in the overall evaluation of the control room
- habitability system, and (2) the planned expansion of a nearby general aviation airport. Further evaluation of these two issues will be undertaken during the integrated plant review. This completes the evaluation of SEP Topic II-1.C.
- ~
t
.,1..... t r-._-
REFERNCES L
Meeting with John P. Zook and William M. Gebhard, Senior Planners, Southwestern Michigan Regional Planning Commission, St. Joseph, Michigan, July 17, 1979~ 1
- 2.
"Hazard Analysis, Michigani*, prepared by Michigan. Department of State Police, Emergency Services Division, May 1974.
- 3.
Personal communication with Edward A. Mellman, Manager, Aviation Planning Section, Michigan Department of Transportation; September 11, 1979.
- 4.
Personal communication with Robert L. Mueller, Airport Manager, South Haven Municipal Airport, September 20, 1979.
- 5.
"National Airport System Plan 1978-1987 11
, USDOT, Federal Aviation Administration, December 30, 1977.
'Aeronautics Commission, 1973.
- 7.
"Comprehensive Airport Master Plan, South Haven Municipal Airport",
prepared for the City of So'-'th Haven, Michigan~ By R. Dixon Speas Associates, July 1978.