ML19330A159
| ML19330A159 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 09/08/1972 |
| From: | Restrick J CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| To: | Goodman C, Hall D, Murphy A Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007150925 | |
| Download: ML19330A159 (2) | |
Text
_
P
~
aco.6ua,uc56_O
' ~
veu.a u MSG 30 Consumers 1"b-k y
POWBf n...,. P. a.. e,..,
(.
me P,e
..n
.n i.'
C0mpally Generst Counset a...,.l.,, e e General Anane, robert J. Byers
' N. E. Clark neral OHeces-212 mst acnigan Avenue. Jacason. %cnigan 49201. Area Coce S17 788-OSSO C. E. Merrett O. K. Petersen September 8, 1972 O2.","."M.",",
$sna Attorne s Judd L. Bacon filen 5. Bass E*""o.'o[,",'*"
DOCKET NOS. 50-329 AND 50-330 Cesondy E. Hagen Paula O. Hosich Wayne A. Kirkby Albert D. McCallum w.n.Mme Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chairman Dr. Clark Goodman d**"""""'*"
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Professor of Physics I,*,"ld " ",* *d Columbia University School of Law University of Houston A. T. us,y.
Box 38, h35 West ll6th Street 3801 Cullen Boulevard New York, New York 10027 Housten, Texas 7700h Dr. David B. Hall Los Alamos, Scientific Laboratory P. O. Box 1663 Los Alamos, New Mexico 875hk Gentlemen:
Attached hereto is the corrected page which was refer-enced in our letter of September 8, 1972 and omitted from that filing through oversight.
Respectfully yours, l
j
.r JKR/pb John K.
estrick y m;:.:... (v<
a
- a n
s 1,'072 :s Y esi R
-\\
a e x Nh e
8007150 7) g g
56 3699-3700). Even the Mapleton Intervenors conceded that the NOAA-Safety Guide No. 4 modeli were good in the absence of on-site data (Tr. 3684). The Board finds that the use of Safety Guide No. 4, with-out the application of special restrictive conditions, is sufficiently conservative when applied to the Midland Plant site, in view of the explicit conservatisms in the Safety Guide No. 4 method, the well venti-lated atmospheric characteristics of the site as implied by the analy-sis of the Tri-City Airport data, the favorable experience with this type of analysis at other sites and the absence of any unusual site-sensitive topographical or meteorological problems which would impede diffusion.
67 The Board also notes that the acceptability of the pro-posed meteorological program of the Applicant (PSAR Applicant's Ex.1-C, p.1.00-1) was generally confimed by the Mapleton Intervenors ' wit-nesses, Mr. Watson (Tr. 3471) and Dr. Epstein (Tr. 3646), with minor reservations regarding whether the tower used for meteorological measure-ments would be operated with the cooling pond in place, the proper height of the tower, whether multiple towers were desirable and whether a vind tunnel model should be built. With regard to one of these reserva-tiens, the NOAA vitness concluded that a vind tunnel model of the Plant and cooling pond as proposed by Dr. Epstein would not produce useful re-sults (Tr. 3723). Since the conclusion of the hearing, the AEC has pro-mulgated Safety Guide No. 23, Onsite Meteorology Programs. This guide describes the requirements of an acceptable ensite meteorological pro-6 ram. Such a program is considerably more extensive than that-pro-posed by Applicant in the PSAR. The Board concludes that the Staff should i
1 require Applicant to conduct a meteorological progr:m of the scope described i
1
)
m
_