ML19331A595

Responds to to Dl Ray.Discusses NRC Scope of Authority & Responsibility.Nrc Regulatory Authority Confined to Radiological Health & Safety,Common Defense & Security, & Antitrust Considerations

ML19331A595
Person / Time
Site:	Palisades, Midland
Issue date:	03/04/1975
From:	Anders W NRC
To:	Ralls W, Rosenberg W, Sculthorp L MICHIGAN, STATE OF
Shared Package
ML19331A597	List: ML19331A595 ML19331A602
References
NUDOCS 8007180671
Download: ML19331A595 (16)

Text

-.

_m-..,.

n w,p 4..

i

-c(.

4*;..

. ~,. _,

L, s.'1:0

,,,, e 1ja ) V g

O c-THIS DOCUh1EM Conwyg

~~~

P00g f

Mr. '4 f i l i m ,. Oos enha rn, Chaiman Mr. Lenton G. Sculthorn, Comissioner Mr. '.Jilliam R. Ralls, Comissioner Public Service Ccamission o oas i 4ai, of Co.6 rc=

Lw Cutiding Lansing, Michigan a 913 Gentlemen:

This is in reolv to vour letter to Chairman Rav. dated Movedor C 1974 a reply to questions i-a ser. fortn on page 2 of your letter ius ieen prcparad by tt.a C =1:sica's staff and h on:lc:0d. f s I = sur? yru will appreciate, the matter of Consumers Power Company's compliance 41t'i m Ccrr.ission's ;uality assurance reculatic.ns at "idland r.ay cccc bcfore the Cc=hnien for adjudicatc*y ecisien within tne con.te.vt of 'l formal hearinq, end a reply on the &erits of this eutter from the

"-tsi~ *Suld not ' c r wrhte $t +M s t4~'.

Cuestions S and 6 on cace 2 of your letter raise inferentially auestions of the Comission's scope of autnority as contrasted with that of otner governmental bodies. Matters of efficiency and reliability of energy sources are within the general area of responsibility of the Energy Research and Development Administration.

In contrast, the functions of the Nuclesr Regulatory Comission are regulatory in nature. Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Comission's substantive regulatory authority is eenfined essentially to matters of radiological health and safety, the common defense and security, and certain antitrust cons!Jarations.

"r. Jar that Act, the Cc=1ssion has not h:en ac:Orded-regulatory responsibility for allocating financial burdens among util-ities and their contractors.

Some special considerations are applicable, however, with respect to l

the matter of reliability. The Commission is required under the National l

Enviromental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to examine the construction and l

operation of a nuclear power plant to determine whether any adverse envi-rotunental impacts are justified in light of the benefits of the facility.

In most cases, the principal benefit that is identified is meeting dem for electric power. The extent of such demands, and alternative means for meeting the demands, are discussed in the Comission's environmental impact statements prepared pursuant to NEPA.

M i

300';I80 ()

n.c

~.

,. a

,o 9

A e

+

Addressees 2-A decision by the Conrlission to issue a construction pomit or operating license for a nuclear power plant following a full flEPA review in these cases reflects a judgment that the plant will be sufficiently reliaule to produce the electric p1.<er that has been asses cd as the banefit of the licensing action and :nat is needed to balance any adverse environ-

==ntal i..@dccs.

a'inilu we woulu be coacannsd if pient operaciva in day given =:a did r.ot cc:: port. tith this judg. ant,.ic hava not prcr.ulgatad any general standards in this crea of reliability since the level of benefit required to balance anY environf'1 ental imoact Varies deDendino upcn the n:ture and exter.t of the impact: in the parti:ular cr o.

Sce.a of the Co::uission's nuclear safety regulations do have an i:. pact on raliabili:y.

Ter example, tha qualit/ csarance r2quirer.ent: 3et forta in 10 CFP. Part 50, A;;pendix 3, provide coafidenc2 that = fatj-relateu sysceias as.o coinponents will perfonii t.ieir iuriccion soi.isioctoriis i

= rti:2.

Eine: 11 :=y =n: pr:per f= ti:r.fr. Of th: :=: :;;ta:

ano co.wooents is essential for reliaoie oaerntion. cooaliance wii.a c.ie citud qcality assuranca require... cots serves ta enneace reliability.

A merrt)er of the tiRC staff will be calling you shortly to detemine now S cln DOS rCCJUaj 1,0 '/0;r r0 4EC;

~.0

.6 k:.-p t i"fO rC;.6 d;' 0.0 d; ' J.,.; U :,

OdSis.

Siacaraiy, Cri';ir.213ird I D7 7,'i11in: A. Ar."J M William A. Anders Chairman

Enclosure:

Paply to questions 1-4 GDe 9

.Y.,

Distribution: Chairman t pg d f',

SECY (3) #75-1600 Gladys Ertter DR 7877 f

./

L. V. Gossick ko4

//db/d E. Case

/'

H. Shapar.

D. Knuth E. Triner W. Besaw ED0 R/F ID Central Files 4 S

Jauls a 2/ /75 bd._

ELD f

PLA._

PLA._._

EDO..

L

.3

' = =

• Besaw/pt Tr,iner Gossi. ___Q' k,

th _._ _

Shap_t_

.u. n. -,,

2/- /75._._._2/%V75..

J g/.19/ 75 - ___ 2/_ /75 2/g\\y.75 2/M/ 75---

..n

• Foran MC.3na (Rev. W.55) MCM 0240 fr u. e.'so"vsanisant paintine orricus se74.eas.tes

^

REGULATORY STAFF REPLY TO QUESTIONS 1-4 1.

As compared with normal AEC procedures, has the AEC taken special precautionary measures to assure adequate construction at Midland Nuclear gower Plant? What changes, if any, have been instituted specifically for Midland because Bechtel is the constructor?

The Commission has taken several special precautionary measures at Midland to assure compliance with the Commission's quality a:surance regulations. The Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Aopeal Board imposed several special conditions relating to Consumers Power Company's quality assurance program at Midland in its March 26, 1973 decision (ALAB-106, RAI-73-3 at 182). These conditions called for Consumers to file periodic reports, either with the Appeal Board or Staff, on Consumers' quality assurance activities. The Appeal Board

~

requested that, for its information, copies of all reports required to be filed with the Staff be forwarded to the Appeal Board by the Staff on a timely basis, together with any comments that the Regulatory Staff may have. The Appeal Board also indicated it desired to receive Staff comments on a report required to be filed directly with the Appeal Board, and these conments were requested to l

include the results of any Staff inspection of Consumers. The Appeal Board also indicated it would closely monitor the activities of Consumers and its architect-engineer, Bechtel Corporation, with l

respect to Consumers' quality assurance program.

l f

,___.w,

..w

_,,-y y

e.

- In addition, from the beginning of construction, the Commission's normal inspection program was augmented.

Instead of conducting inspections quarterly (normal inspection frequency for plants in the initial stage of construction) inspections were conducted approximately monthly. This extended effort was directed primarily at evaluating the overall quality assurance program and its implementation but also included:

Site cleanup and adequacy of foundation work completed in a.

December 1970 under special authorization frem the AEC.

b.

Requalification of existing site materials.

Requalification of the onsite concrete manufacturing plant.

c.

d.

Installation of reinforcement steel and concrete placement practices.

Review of non-conformance reports generated by Consumers e.

Power Company and Bechtel Corporation for proper identification and resolution of deficiencies and for generic quality assurance / quality control implementation considerations.

Following identification of cadwelding problems in November 1973, which led to the Show Cause Hearing conducted. by the AEC in July 1974, the frequency, scope, and depth of inspections were increased.

Twenty inspections have been performed by the Comission since the issuance of the construction permits.- Twelve of the 20 inspections were conducted after the identification of the cadwelding deficiencies.

Since the resolution of the cadwelding problems, our inspections have

. not disclosed any significant deficiencies. However, certain allegations have been made anonymously by workers at Midland regarding quality assurance matters. The Staff (following its nomal procedure in such matters), initiated an investigation of these charges, however, the investigation has been closed because the Staff was unable to locate a witness to substantiate the allegations. The Commission has not instituted any changes in its inspection program for Midland because Bechtel is the constructor.

2.

In light of the Palisades experience, is Bechtel capable cf perfoming its Midland activities in compliance with AEC requirements?

3.

Recognizing past concern on the part of AEC, what is AEC's present opinion with respect to the quality of Consumers Power Company in construction of Midland?

The response to quertions 2 and 3 has been ccmbined since under the Commission's regulations, Consumers Power Company has over-all responsibility for the implementation of a proper quality assurance program at Midland. This responsibility includes i

assuring that contractors such as Bechtel (the constructor) are implementing a quality assurance program which satisfies Commission i

l l

requirements. The Atomic Safety ard Licensing Board concluded after a full show cause hearing, and after considering the capabilities of Bechtel as constructor, that Consumers Power Company is implementing its quality assurance program in compliance with Comission regulations, and that there is reasonable assurance that such implementation will

i

~

, continue throughout the construction process (Initial Decision of September 25,1974, RAI-74-9 at 584-610).

At the hearing, experts from the Comission Directorate of Regulatory Operations, testified that although there had been problems regarding past performance, Consumers' had faced up to the problems, and that reasonable assurance now exists that compliance with the Commission's quality assurance requirements would continue throughout the construction period. However a petition for reconsideration of this decision filed by the Saginaw-Sterra group of intervenors is pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and exceptions to tne Initial Decision of September 25, 1974, may still be filed by the intervenors. As a result, there has been no final Comission decision on the matter.

4.

In the opinion of the Cdmission, will the Midland plant work reliably to provide electric power in an efficient manner to Michigan?

An assessment of this matter is set forth in the Atomic Safety 1

and Licensing Appeal Board's Decision of May 18, 1973 regarding Consumers' application for construction permits for the Midland plant (ALAB-123, RAI-73-5 at 331).

In that decision the Appeal Board held that the hearing record included specific information on the reliability of nuclear power plants which indicated that the reliability of nuclear plants such as Midland and fossil plants are roughly equivalent.

. The Staff has recently prepared a number of general studies regarding nuclear power plant availability and capacity factors.

These are enclosed for your information. While these studies support the Appeal Board's conclusion that the reliability of nuclear plants such as Midland and fossil plants are equivalent, it is expected that the continued application of stringent quality assurance requirements will result in improved nuc1 car plant reliability.

Enclosures:

1.

ALAB-106 2.

ALAB-123 3.

May 1974 00E-OS-002, January 1974 00E-ES-001 (USAEC Office of Operations Evaluation)

y:

-t w.-

3 4

4.<_.,

-.~ -..

.M wr e

ti-w.

Distribution:

OGC. Files.(Beth/Gtown) m_

~....~n Conmissioner Anders (SECY) (3) 75-1600 Docket Files) 50-255 50-329 Mr. William G. Rn=enberg. Chairman PDR (2)

-Mr. L. nton G. Sculthorp, Conumissioner LPDR (2)

Mr> William R. Ralls, Commissioner Gladys Ertter DR7877 Pubifc Servica Ccr=1:sien LMMuntzing Department of Commerce LVGossick ECase I.e.w Builcting HShapar Lansine. Michigan 48913 JBecker MMalsch c nti. n:

This is in reply to ye.ur letter to Chairmen Ray, dat.-d '*ovember G,19 74.

A rnply to questions 1-4 set forth on parc 2 of ycur letter h.s been nrroared by th., D r musion% Regulatory St.if and is encteseri. M ! mr aura you will anoreci te, the matte.r us Cons.umers Pmver Company's compli.nce with the-

":mr!: !cr': qur.!!?/ u: ur n-e

~-nleder.: at "!dinr.d -- ry re c 5 + - n S:

Cemr. ission for adjudicatory decisien within the centert cf a form,1 hearing,

'rd.' ~- ly en +ha marim c f + hie m-t9r i em the Commir : fen m!c' r.at be p-reprie at this time.

/

\\

/

Questions 5 and 6 on page 2 of your letter raise inferentially questions of the Comadssion's scope of authority as contrasted'with that of other revern-mental bodies.. Under the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, the Com-mission's substantive regulatory authority is conSned essentially to mattera of radiologicalhealth and safety, the comunon defense and security, and i

certain antitrust considerations.. Onder that Act, the Commission has not been accorded regula%ry responsibility for allocating financial burdens among utilitius and their contractors.

Somewhat different consfasvations are applicable, however, as respects the matter of reliability. The Commission is required under the National Enviren-mental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to examine the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant to determdne whether any adverse environnientalimpacts are justified in light of the benefits of the facility. In most cases, the principal I

.=e.*+

l I

l l

,. ben. fit that in identined is treeting demands for. lectric power. und the extent of such desnands, and altern,tive m. essa (cr meeting the demands are discussed in the Cm..ission's enviren:n~ntal in p3ct st,t -mants preparn! pursuant te.NEPA.

A decision by the b..r. r-1.::t' n tc tr u- - c n-**n-tian p-r**4e 'r lic~naa for a nucIcar pcwcr pl::nt following c full NEPA r' vi-w in theae cance renects a iudg-

..;r.t th-t *be r!*r ill ha 'i"#ficientiv ratishla :n nreduce the -lectric twnnrer tha t has br-u anac :s ee a, un. b.-ned t u. J..: '.I. c o.hw MLn 'lat !c n c de :' *-

b it m-c 'ny adve -as= environment:>l imnacts. While w-* w :uhi be ccncerned if p' nt eper,tien !.n vr.'r < ! van c m did imt c<rt' ort with this iudraant. '7+ have n-e pvn-tilpt-il ny ~merni standards in tht= wrm ni reti..hiliw sinu th.: levd ni beneG 6 4.yuis al L., L '.a.w. any a n ti'. '.n

nt I '.

' M "1

' ?.-r -nd!r g nrr r

.,,,;aa.;n s'. ;;. na

• -r~'-"'"7--"""""-

.4..

D N on the C.. aJr.!b,iGn's nut.!C G: ::%iy rv;ul. tict19 '3 s I*

T e*

tS I U.p.K t.'. t a i. C -

ability. Ter c::c.2: pb:, the qtolity assurance requirement.4 ne:t !crth in 10 CFR

" n.-t 50. A ~ c - d!

'I nra*ide ene'iccnce-that nf tv--a t-r! evsts-r t nd c< m-8 pv... sits :.111 purkrm th::r runc9r. < s'm av'T in wr m-eine.- m w nv.,,

7

.p. r rup:-tienin<. : tha e a sven" and.wtu nent, is

mnth! k r 3 -!L.ble.

c-

~~~'+ - ~t- ~^-" ~'**

.>:r.tt u n..:.i. c';.m e.:, w'2. '.

U t' c,u.': P/

-e

-oh.nc r Lbility.

A mur..bor.! diu Tu gul den Str.h!!! be en"!n; 7-u -hr -+',r +' datamina how we can bcst respcmd to ycur request in be kept informed on a continuing basie.

Sincerely.

William A. Anders Commissiemer F

Enclosure:

Reply to questions 1-4 SEE PREVIOUS YELLOW FOR CONCURRENCES rr

.+.,e-gw-a

/

OGC DL R0 -

.. DR.

Ha1(ch/115

-.._M.

% /._. Mb-

~--*I r

r.,

1/ [V75 --

1 Al3/75 h.-/75~

U

-/75 1/~.

/75 a'<*

ronii 4tc.m ia. 9 m arc.w oz.o

J

),'

,,)

v a

. e-Distribution:

OGC Files (Beth/Gtown)

Chaiman (SECY) (3) 75-1600 Docket Files) 50-255 50-329 Mr. William G. Itcsenberg, Chairman 50-330

/.r. Lcnen C. S culthm. C m~i"!""""

PDR (2)

~r. ?.'1111a= R. R lle, Cc- -'i==im *r LPDR (2)

Public Scr dce Cemmissien G1adys Ertter DR7877 n o.s,rwant of Cnmmerce LMuntzing lev nutiding LVGoSSick Lanaing, Michignn 48913 ECase HShapar J8ecker C< nt1< r~ n:

M:ialsch

,., 3 s. s.,

7 }.7. -....,-

1,... a...

Cl-,5 *nm e E sv. d.1 f.=(I ' M utli 0 er 8. I974.

.e*

A r.sn;y ta cucations 1-'i set ferth en p.we 2 ci your 1-aa !.a. ' ma prmr. red by th-Commission's Regulatory Statf and is enclosed. As I am sure you vitd m-rci,te, th. r,ttry of C<msumere. Powr r Crepsrv's cetroliance with the C.n..nicci,;n'a quthty accura-ca ~cuinion. e e nn r-v o.x be.or.-

C n r.i~ston tor adjudiceiory <iecision within the wn..st in a cr:nr1 hu.rin;;;,

ad

..p;y ;u I:. r cl' < f CI.- Y '

• c '- fr : -- + - Sm ' -- * --- - - +' ~ + b a

,porcpri ste at thic time.

Questions 5 and 6 en page 2 ef y ur letter ??iae infer-- tially <te-stians of p

the Comntissien's scope of authority as contrasted with that of other govern-mental bodies. Under the Atomic Energy Act oi1954, as amended, the Conc-s mission's substantive regulatory authority is conaned essentially to matters of radiological health and safety, the com=cn defense and security, and certain antitrust eensiderations.

\\

\\

Under that Act, the Comadsston has not been accorded regulatory aapon-sibility for allocating Snancial burdens among utilities and their contractors.

Somewhat diffevent considerations are applicable, however, as respects the matter of reliability. The Commission is required under the National Environ-mental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) to examine the construction and operation of a nuclear power plant to determine whether any adverse environmental impacts are justined in light of the beneate ci the facility. In most cases, the principal benent that is identined is meeting demands for electric power, and the extent of such dessands, and alternative means for meeting the demands are discussed in the Comedesion's envirosamentalisepact statements prepared punnant to NEPA.

,..m._--._.r,,.,,._-

.f e

f n --

- A decisien by the Corrnission to issue a construction permit nr license for a nuclear pow-r plant following a full NEPA review in thes:e cartes refl.= cts a judg-ment that the plant will be sufficiently reliable to preduce the electric power that has 'ocen a<ses. sed as the hen.. fit ci the licensing acticn that 12 needed to Laience way.dvaa n nvirunu nu.1 h..p.u..

..u.4e w e w ouau ao caa6:.u uw ph.nt operation in.uiy given ca.au did not curr. port wi-h thi-4. judgm nt, we have not prorr 21 gated a'ny general standards in this area of reliability since the IcVel cf b:ndt reg: ired i sh:1 n:: n; n.-ir:nr :nt:11;-b::t -4.

d pene'! -~, rpen the nature.,nd ey. tent nt the irrpacts in the pneticular cosa.

9 - ci the C.,rrni.-icn's nue!r"r "6 fy ~ mihHaw de '-rn i w e+ -r r?i-r shility. For t arpl:, *he qu41ty "murance r quir. rer*

'-th in '^ "'

Pnrt 50, Appendix H, prevnia conticence rh. r -n.ety-reiut -d nyet< m.ind v n'-

p..n - n i. ;;'. p. w a,.'... m.

.u u w...a

_ue.

...y.a...im.

.......a

.a p.cp r 1.cticnin:: :f 1 ::r.:. ;:::*.t.en:*

n :- ncnt, 3 - -- :n& 2 f r r-t' 'i-p-r-tice c~ pli nce ~! h +ha ci+ -d < mat

~~~,2--

~

~~mi-~

-- -.-- - m enhance relinbility.

/

/

\\

A IneL'.'Oe*r Of die Reyu; tury.'; 6.; wi.1 :>e c41'.13in v..u.1,<,r t:v :. <:et rr: :n. :i. w Cr.n D t ? r ',*k'Cnd 00 'i'r U,r "* 0 W 1* *n b e %.

• iD b"'r-r d "r c' ndi U!n'Y I'r'i' "I'

s a

Cin ceraly.

/

J

/

Ghairinen-dnied-dd'I

Enclosure:

Reply to questions 1-4 i

&p.

f(t" !@

19Q,hdf ~

kV f

o u.-

.._0GC R0'

-DR Ma.lschlShapar

~

11 175.

1/_._. / 75 -

l1//f-/75-1/-/75

-1/-/7r _ _

...s.-

r Foesn AEC.)ls (Rev. 9 5)) AICM 02:0 c' *s se av es.:

s ee.a e4

• ...a,..,.-..

_ _ _ ' W

... :. /

REGULATORY STAFF REPLY TO QUESTIONS 1-4 1.

As coinpared with normal AEC procedures, has the AEC taken special precautionary measures to assure adequate construction at Midland Nuclear Power Plant? What changes, if any, have been instituted specifically for Midland because Bechtel is the constructor?

AEC has taken several special precautionary measures at Midland to assure compliance with the Commission's quality assurance regulations.

The Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board imposed several special conditions relating to Consumers Power Company's quality assurance program at Midland in its March 26, 1973 decision (ALAB-106, RAI-73-3 at 182). These conditions called for Censumers to file periodic reports, either with the Appeal Board or Staff, on Consumers' quality atsurance activities. The Appeal Board requested that, for its information, copies of all reports required to be filed with the Staff be forwarded to the Appeal Board by the Staff on a timely basis, together with any comments that the Regulatory Staff may have. The Appeal Board also indicated it desired to receive Staff coments on a report required to be filed directly with the Appeal Board, and these comments were requested to include the results of any Staff inspection of Consuners. The Appeal Board also indicated it would closely monitor the activities of Consumers and its architect-engineer, Bechtel Corporation, with respect to Consumers' quality assurance program.

+,, _.-

In addition, from the beginning of construction, the AEC's Directorate of Regulatory Operations' normal inspection program was augmented.

Instead of conducting inspections quarterly (normal 1,nspection frequency for plants in the initial stage of construction) inspections were conducted approximately monthly. This extended effort was directed primarily at evalua-ting the overall quality assurance program and its implementa-tion but also included:

a.

Site cleanup and adequacy of foundation work completed in December 1970 under special authorization from the AEC.

b.

Requalification of existing site materials.

c.

Requalification of the onsite concrete manufacturing plant.

d.

Installation of reinforcement steel and concrete placement practices.

l e.

Review of non-conformance reports generated by Consumers l

Power Company and Bechtel Corporation for proper identifica-tion and resolution of deficiencies and for generic quality assurance / quality control implementation considerations.

Following identification of cadwelding problems in November 1973, which led to the Show Cause Hearing conducted by the AEC in July 1974, the frequency, scope, and depth of inspections were increased.

l l

l l

l

Twenty inspections have been performed by the AEC since the issuance of the construction permits. Twelve of the 20 ins-s pections were conducted after the identification of the cad-welding deficiencies.

Since the resolution of the cadwelding problems,.our inspections have not disclosed any significant deficiencies. However, certain allegations have been made anony-mously by workers at Midland regarding quality assurance matters.

The Regulatory Staff (following its normal procedure in such matters), is conducting an investigation of these charges and that investigation is still in progress.

The AEC has not ins-t tituted any changes in its inspection program for Midland because Bechtel is the constructor.

2.

In light of the palisades experience, is Bechtel capable of performing its Midland activitics in compliance with AEC requirements?

3.

Recognizing past concern on the part of AEC, what is AEC's present opinion with respect to the quality of Consumers Power Company in construction of Midland?

The response to questions 2 and 3 has been combined since under the Commission's regulations, Consumers Power Company has over-all responsibility for the implementation of a proper quality assurance program at Midland. This responsibility includes assuring that contrac. tors such as Bechtel (the constructor) are

u l

i implementing a quality assurance program which satisfies Comission requirements. The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board concludeo after a full show cause hearing, and after considering the capabilities of Bechtel as constructor, that Consumers Power Company is implementing its quality assurance program in compliance with Commission regulations, and that there is reasonable assurance that such implementation will continue throughout the construction process (Initial Deci-sion of September 25,1974, RAI-74-9 at 584-610).

At the hearing, experts from the Commission Directorate of Regulatory Operations, testified that although there had been problems regarding past performance, Consumers' had faced up r

to the problems, and that reasonable assurance now e::ists that compliance with the Commission's quality assurance requirements would continue throughout the construction period. However a i

petition for reconsideration of this decision filed by the Saginaw-Sierra group of intervenors is pending before the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, and exceptions to the 4

Initial Decision of September 25, 1974, may still be filed by the intervenors.' As a. result, there has been no final Comission decision on the matter..There is also the matter of the pending investigation referred to in response to question 1.

4.

In the opinion of the AEC, will the Midland plant work reliably to pgvide electric power in an efficient manner to Michigan?

An assessment of this matter is set forth in the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board's Decision of May 18, 1973 regarding Consumers' application for construction permits for the Midland plant (ALAB-123, RAI-73-5 at 331).

I.1 that decision the Appell Board held that the hearing record included specific information on the reliability of nuclear power plants which indicated that the reliability of nuclear plants such as Midland and fossil plants are roughly equivalent.

The Regulatory.itaff has recently prepared a number of general studies regarding nuclear power plant availability and capacity factors. These are enclosed for your information. While these studies support the Appeal Board's conclusion that the reliability of nuclear plants such as Midland and fossil plants are equivalent, it is expected that the continued application of stringent quality assurance requirements will result in improved nuclear plant reliability.

Enclosures:

1.

ALAB-106

~

2.

ALA8-123 3.

May 1974 00E-05-002, January 1974 00E-ES-001 (USAEC Office of Operations Evaluation)

-