ML19331A547
| ML19331A547 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 03/04/1977 |
| From: | Hoefling R NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007180647 | |
| Download: ML19331A547 (9) | |
Text
.
ROs UllITED STATES ~OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
ADDITIONAL NRC STAFF'S ANSWERS TO INTERR0GATORIES OF INTERVENORS DATED JANUARY 3,1977 By Order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board) on March 2, 1977, the NRC Staff (Staff) was directed to supplement the "NRC Staff's Answers to Interrogatories of Intervenors Dated January 3, 1977" filed on January 27, 1977.
The Staff's supplemental answers to these interrogatories are attached as Attachment A.
The affidavits of F. S. Echols and Sidney Feld, which certify that the NRC responses are true and correct to the best of their knowledge, are attached as Attachments B and C, respectively.
Res ctfully submitted,
^
/
c Richard K. Hoefling
/
Counsel for NRC Staff D!ted at Bethesda, Maryland this 4th day of March, 1977 Ju 8007180[$7
.. TACHMENT A Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 78 (b) The specific testimony which discusses coal capital cost estimates was presented at this proceeding on February 16, 1977 following Tr. 4509 and is entitled "NRC Staff Testimony of Sidney E. Feld on Coast of Midland v. Coal Alternations." There at pages 2 and 3, I discuss the basis for my capital cost estimates and indicate my references. Copies of these references have been made available to the Intervenors in tnis l
proceeding.
(c)
In preparing the second paragraph of my response, I relied upon Table 5.1 of the Draft Supplement to the Final Environmental Statement related to construction of Midlan/ Plant Units 1 and 2 - January 1977 (NUREG-0157). As can be seen from that Table, the capital cost of the Midland facility of $1.67 billion is equal to the high sulfur coal However, if one capital cost of $1.27 billion plus $400 million.
considers the additional cost components needed for an adequate evaluation, namely 0&M costs, Fuel costs, Taxes, Insurance, Decommissioning and Interim Power, it can be seen that if the $400 million were added to the most economical alternative, namely low sulfur coal, the total of $4.94 billion would exceed the Midland facility total of $2,816 billion by over i
$1 billion.
- ~,
~,
wr,,---.
,,y--,n---
ATTACHMENT A Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No.12 In the event steam would not be supplied to Dow, the staff would not recommend that the facility be constructed as presently designed.
The applicant would have to revise its application to reflect a modification of Unit No.1 to all electric use if that option was chosen.
The application would then be reviewed with respect to safety and environmental (NEPA) issues.
The staff would lot nropose to the applicant any changes in design, schedule, location or costs.
The applicant would submit its proposal for staff review and assessment.
i v---
-,---e
-+
,y-
,e
-g
---+- -
i ATTACHMENT A t
Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No. 13 l
l to For the period 1976 through 1984, the annual environmental costs the Midland, Michigan and surrounding community from pollution emissions from the present facilities which Dow uses to generate electricity or steam is equal to zero dollars per year. The previous response to this i
interrogatory identified the only potentially harmful pollutants as sulfur l
i and particulates. Table 5.6-1 of the Licensee's Environmental Report j
Supplement indicates that Dow's fossel fired units are presently emitting about 10,000 tons / year of particulates and about 40,000 tons / year of S0 ; this applies for coal.
The worse case involves the use 2
The sulfur content of coal used is about 3 times the limit of of coal.
1% sulfur content. The 1% limit will apply by the end of the year.
If low sulfur coal, oil or gas were used exclusively, the harm to the environ-ment from particulates and sulfur would remain zero, and the quantitites of particulates and S02 emitted would be reduced.
As stated in the previous response, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Chief of the Air Pollution Control Division, Michigan Department of Natural Resources indicated that because of generally favorable meteorology and the Supplemental Control System begun in 1976, no public health hazard exists. The Federal Amb ent Air Quality Standards, which establish limits on concentrations of pollutants in air, are being met for both particulates and sulfur even though the EPA stack emission No environmental standards are exceeded by up to a factor of about 10.
l harm from these pollutants have been identified by the Environmental Protection There are no Agency or State of Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
l environmental costs to assess.
s Supplemental Response to Interrogatory No.13 (cont'd.)
As stated in the previous response, the answer to this interrogatory is based upon a telephone conversation with LoJager, Chief, APCD, Michigan Department of Natural Resources and a meeting with EPA rapresentatives in Chicago, Illinois on 1/20/77.
Subsequent conversations with the In addition, the Licensee's ER above parties reaffirm that response.
Supplement, Table 5.6-1 was used.
l
(
(
l e
ATTACHMENT B UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0)NISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of Docket Nos.
2 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY (Midland Plants, Units 1 and 2) f AFFI0AVIT OF F. O. ECHOLS F. S. Echols deposes and says under oath as follows:
1.
I am the Environmental Project Manager for Midland Plants, Units 1 and 2 in the Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
As Project Manager for the Midland Plants, Units 1 and 2, I am responsible for coordinating and supervising the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's evaluations of the continuaticq of the construction pennits in light of the issues remanded for consideration by the court in Aeschliman v. USNRC l
(D. C. Cir., July 21,1976).
l l
l 2.
The Supplemental answers to Interrogatories 12 and 13 were prepared by me or under my supervision.
I hereby certify that the answers given are true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
- f. 6. Echols Subscribed and sworn to before me this @ day of y,1977.
Oma n. WAR NotaryPublicQ My Commission expires AL L tct11 Q\\
ATTACHMENT C UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plants, Units 1 and 2)
)
AFFIDAVIT OF SIDNEY FELD Sidney Feld deposes and says under oath as follows:
1.
I am a Regional / Environmental Economist in the Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
I am responsible for eviewing and analyzing the Applicant's Environmental Report Supplement and for the preparation of the cost benefit section of the Staff's Environmental Statement and the Staff's testimony on need for power and conservation.
2.
The supplemental answer to Interrogatory 7B was prepared by me or under my supervision.
I hereby certify that the answers given are true and correct to the best of my knowledgei Sidney Feld i
Subscribed and sworn to before me this day of Janucay, 1977 Notary Public My Comission Expires
_. ~ _ _ -. _ _ _
m UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
Docket Nos. 50-329
)
50-330 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of " ADDITIONAL NRC STAFF'S ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF INTERVENORS DATED JANUARY 3,1977," dated March 4, 1977, in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or air mail, this 4th day of March 1977:
Frederic J. Coufal, Esq., Chairman Honorable Curt T. Schneider Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Attorney General U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission State of Kansas Statehouse Washington, D. C.
20555 Topeka, Kansas 66612 Dr. J. Venn Leeds, Jr.
Ms. Mary Sinclair Atomic Safety and Licensing Board 5711 Summerset Street 10807 Atwell Midland, Michigan 48640 Houston, Texas 77096 Harold F. Reis, Esq.
Dr. Emmeth A. Luebke Robert Lowenstein, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Lowenstein, Newman, Reis &
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Axelrad Washington, D. C.
20555 1025 Connecticut Avenue Washington, D. C.
20036 Myron M. Cherry, Esq.
1 IBM Plaza L. F. Nute. Esq.
Chicago, Illinois 60611 Dow Chemical, U.S.A.
Michigan Division '
Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
Midland, Michigan 48640 Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue
..,,a,.
w,-+-
m R. Rex Renfrow, III, Esq.
Atomic Safety and Licensing David J. Rosso, Esq.
Appeal Panel Isham, Lincoln & Beale U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 6
One First National Plaza Washington, D. C.
20555 Suite 4200 Chicago, Illinois 60603 Docketing and Service Section Office of the Secretary Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nucisar Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D. C.
20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
/
Richard K. Hoefling /
g Counsel for NRC Staff /
//
I i
1
.