ML19331E178
| ML19331E178 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 08/27/1980 |
| From: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Herbert D AFFILIATION NOT ASSIGNED |
| References | |
| 800327, NUDOCS 8009090040 | |
| Download: ML19331E178 (10) | |
Text
-&
, jun nt;pt
,og UNITED STATES 8
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION o
y WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
'k.
.,/
AUG 2 71980 Ms. Diane Hebert 2505 E. Sugnet Midland, Michigan 48640
Dear Ms. Hebert:
Your" letter of May 7,1980 to President Carter has been referred to me for reply. Your letter asks several questions regarding the safety, cost, and need of the Midland Nuclear Power Plant being constructed by Consumers Power Company (the applicant) in Midland, Michigan.
SAFETY Your concerns regarding safety include several questions about the quality of workmanship by Bechtel personnel. You note that quality control problems exist at the plant, and th t the diesel generator building has experienced abnonnal settlement. Assurance of quality is a significant part of the review performed by the NRC for the applications by utilities for construc-tion pennits and operating licenses and throughout subsequent plant opera-I tion.
A description of our quality assurance responsibilities is provided in Enc'chure 1.
To further supplement this infonnation for Midland, I would add that specialists from the regional offices of our Office of Inspection and Enforcement perfonn scheduled and unannounced field inspections which are directed to implementation aspects of the program.
Also, a resident inspector from that office is assigned to the Midland plant site on a full time basis. As you have noted, and as should be expected from an effective quality assurance program, 2he Midland plant quality assurance program being carried out by the uti't ; and its contractor Bechtel, has caught numerous deficiencies during the construction process a,nd has assured that appropri-ate dispositions and remedial actions were implemented. Of course, since plant construction and our review for operating licenses have not been com-l pleted several deficiencies may have been identified by the quality assurance l
program but not yet closed out. The significant point is that the deficiencies are detected, are receiving appropriate corrective attention in a timely
(
manner, and will be resolved before. licensing and operation of the plant.
l The settlement of the diesel generator building to which you refer is ~ ne example o
j of a deficiency _ that has been detected but that is eqC yet closed out. The deft-ciency was first detected by Bechtel quality ass' ~ hce personnel in July l
1978 when measurements of foundation settlemed % icaud that settlement j
rates in excess--of earlier projections wer o r ig.
Extensive investiga-tions by the applicant and Bechtel have bn W > a teing conducted and are i
6 being reported to the NRC staff for review jnd evaMtien. Some remedial actions to improve the foundation support of the diesei ganerator building e
have already been completed while other corrective measures for this and other I
THIS DOCUMEiii CONTAINS POOR QUAUTY PAGES l
3009090U.10
=-
s
.Ms. Diane Hebert ~
AyG 3 71980 '
s I
~
affected structures at the site have been proposed. On December 6, 1979 we t
c issued an NRC order which wot.'d modify the construction permits by prohibiting certain soil construction activities pending (1) the submission of an amend-ment-to Consumers Power Company appifcation seeking approval of certain remedial actions and (2) issuance of amendments to the construction permits
. authorizing those remedial actions. The applicant rquested a hearing on that order and a notice of opportunity for participation in the hearing was published in the Federal' Register and in several' newspapers in the Midland area.
Although the evidentiary hearing date has not been set at this time, a prehear-ing conference-has been. scheduled for September 10, 1979.. Enclosed for your 3
infonnation is a copy of the Order and Notice of Prehearing Conference.
You note that the nuclear plant is located one mile from downtown Midland and ask if a law has been passed that would preclude construction of nuclear power plants this close to a populated area. No such law exists which would preclude construction for facilities like the Midland Plant which filed an application j
for construction permit before October 1,1979. On June 30, 1980 the Congress enacted Public Law 96-295 which authorized appropriations to the Nuclear t'
Regulatory Conunission for fiscal year 1980.
Section 108 of that appropriations g
Bill directed the Comission to develop and promulgate regulations establishing.
demographic requirements for nuclear power plants. The Bill states that these regulations are to specify demographic criteria for facility siting, including i
maximum population' density and population distribution for zones surrounding the i
nuclear facility without regard to any design, engineering, or other differences among such facilities. -The regulations are also to take into account the feasibility of all actions outside the facility which may be necessary to pro-tect public health and safety in the event of-any accidental release of radio-active material from the fact 11ty which may endanger public health and safety.
However, the Bill states-that the regulations are not intended to apply to any facility for which an application for a construction pennit was filed on or before October 1, 1979. The application for construction permits for Midland Plant Units 1 - and 2 was filed January 13, 1969 and construction pennits were l
issued December 15, 1972 and amended May 23, 1973.- Nevertheless, the question arises as to whether additional safety features and changed operating procedures l-should be. required -for plants. licensed on sites that do not meet the new cri-L teria. The question of I Nensed reactors and reactors under construction in areas of high ' population density-is being considered in a series of proceedings i
ordered on May 30, 1980 concerning Indian Point Station. 'The Commission has directed the staff to review existing sites in order to examine whether addi-
.tional modifications in operating procedures, design, or equipment might be i-necessary. For plants such 'as the Midland Plant Units 1 and 2 that already have construction pennits, this-review would be in the fann of a repo"t submitted to p
4 the Commission for its consideration in making case-by-case decisions. This matter is further discussed in the enclosed advanced notice of ruleinaking regard-(
. ing " Modification of the Policy and Regulatory Practice Governing the Siting of
)
Nuclear Power Reactors"', and the enclosed related report NUREG-0625, " Report on the' Siting Policy Task Force".' Yot will note from these two documents that one i
4
~.
.,..-...-._.___-.__.._...,___.-m
Ms.LDiane Hebert AUG 2 71980 t
of the several goals of the change in NRC reactor siting policy and criteria v
L is "to take into consideration in siting the risk associated with accidents beyond the design basis (Class 9) by establishing.~ population density and dis-tribution criteria". Regarding this goal, I am enclosing a statement of interim policy entitled " Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969" which became effective July 13, 1980.
Pursuant to this interim policy, our draft environmental statement for Midland
' Plant. Units 1 and 2, when issued sometime in.1981, will include consideration of Class 9 accidents..You will also note that these matters are of significance f
(;
to emergency. preparedness. The NRC has an active program for upgrading emer-6 gency preparedness around all nuclear power' plants. On December 7, 1979 President Carter transferred responsibility to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to head up all offsite emergency plans in all states with operat-ing reactors, including Michigan. 'The NRC works closely with FEMA in this regard.
Upon completion of its review for the Midland site, FEMA will present its findings on the adequacy of offsite emergency plans to NRC, and the NRC will I
then make the final licensing decision.
g You also express corcern that products produced by the Dow Chemical Company i
using steam from the nuclear plant might become contaminated with radioactivity.
The review of the Midland application for construction permits by our predecessor agency, the Atomic Energy Commission, and that of the Advisory Committee 'on Reactor Saf3 guards, included review of the Midland plant design provisions to monitor for and preclude radioactivity in the' steam furnished to Dow.
The AEC review concluded that these provisions provide adequate assurance that leakage i
of radioactivity into this steam will be extremely low and that radioactivity in,this steam will be essentially at acceptable natural background levels.
$)
The ACRS, stated that "the proposed system of reboilers will provide substantial additional assurance that leakage of primary system radioactivity into the
. export (or process) steam can be maintained at an extremely low and insignifi-cant level and that the export steam can be maintained essentially at natural L
L) background levels". A copy of the ACRS letter is enclosed. A detailed descrip-3 tion of the process steam evaporator system designed to provide physical F
separation between the secondary system steam of the nuclear plant and the L
tertiary steam for export to Dow is given in Section 10.4.10 of the Midland FSAR.
The process steam radiation monitoring program described in FSAR Section i
11.6 provides.for. continuous online measurements and periodic laboratory samp1-ing of radioactivity levels, which permits timely corrective action to prevent introduction of radioactivity from the power plant into the process steam. Our review of these detailed' systems and programs for the operating license applica-
[
tion is presently nearing complction and has revealed no significant cause of concern.
[
Costs and Need t~ '
'Your letter cites a statement by Mr. Stephen Howell of Consumers Power Company
[
in the Flint Journal on' March 7,1980 that the cost of the Midland project
=
L i
4 L
Ms. Diane Hebert AUG 2 71980
.?
could go as high as six or even ten billion dollars. We are aware that for the last few months the applicant has been reviewing projected increases in plant costs due in art from NRC requirements flowing from the lessons learned from the accident at Three Mile Island, Unit 2, from other recent regulatory require-ments.from increased interest rates and other causes. More recent projections provided us by the applicant on June 13, 1980 indicate that the canpleted plant will cost about 3.1 billion dollars.
),
As no'ted in the Wall Street Journal on March 7,1980, the applicant has recently O'
concluded that completion of the two-unit plant will provide the lowest cost electric power and most assured source of additional generating capacity of the alternatives available. The Board of Directors of Consumers Power Company has announced its intention to continue the project as planned. Dow is continuing to study alternatives to buying steam from the nuclear plant and to date has not announced any change in its plans.
Your letter raises several points as to the need for the Midland nuclear plant and states that Consumers Power Company has never been able to show the need for it in Michigan. Our review of plant need is addressed in Section 4.5 of the enclosed copy of NUREG-0275, " Final Supplement to the Final Environment State-ment Related to Construction of Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2".
This study concluded that the energy and peak load projections made by Consumers Power Company and the Michigan Electric Coordinated System were reasonable, and the applicant had appropriately planned the system capacity expansion via the Midland plant to meet its projected need. Energy conservation was also consid-ered in that study and was determined not to be a viable alternative to constructing the Midland Plant.
s 6
I trust this letter is responsive to your concerns. A copy of all correspondence associated with our licensing review of the Midland plant, as f:
t well as the Safety Analysis Report with amendments, the Environmental Report with amendments, hearing records and other documents, are available for exam-P ination at the Grace Dow Memorial Library,1710 West St. Aadrc;:: Ocad, Midland, l
L Sincerely,
?
i e
h
. G. EiseAiut, Director Division of Licensing
Enclosures:
r u
See next page B
y
=
e =. -
Ms. Diane Hebert AUG 2 71980
Enclosures:
(
1.
Quality Assurance 2.
Order and Notice of Perhearing Conference 3.
ACRS letter, 9/23/70-4.
NUREG-0275 5.
Modification of the Policy and' Regulat'ory Practice Governing-the Siting of Nuclear Power Reactors.
o.
NUREG-0625 7.
Nuclear Power Plant Accident. Consideration Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, Interim Policy Statement, dated June 9, 1980 t
8
'e b
4 B
D L-w I
r r
t 5
,-.r-.-
-r, s-
=.
M O
f I
6
' $~ Las Lu, JYu.Juu
~G aoh 4acw.de.1,p l
k 1L w w s y da' l
.u -
q w
Anwpm-~pg na J K.Aaaol m fhp.&v
~~
e a
/
'A b
a m
-n y(xA g
]
eeC sczo.
Am 67tA Y& 77z de n
Mu 7)'LEsdda-ped,
~
&.K.AeAl cladet b
yh n k,J 0
wa Agaeo 6
uf K be eAL4&c-4$
- &am, &
AudLL 20 4h-
!th a
sweg w w~
of Awa6_gy Mw an -df-gAA y
zs %
A so Au 47e k.A
}
lGrx s 2 % e 2 u' 6
MA mA m
max 3
i-vzef y, "?
- 21-4. d A Q
{
I
-4 Jr w w
p- &
a m
h4
.y
\\
Yuea~ ped ~< s O 7Le~7u L
9 g
?
4F e
.Au-,6#9 c (A i
w fu s6ng24s
&L 2 L ??e<< / & n s,p & Yg n k r ac
-,6f oK l' s
K p4/dN W664&si
{
an
//
/
J]
- t al W f
4Y 0 WA S
</ m (d.l t -< - A b
b)EC.dMa.-c >
f Do W n x &
a my n spuzy
.sa A-t. ens s
UK AcdA M &
A&
0-Asa 6 Anw AM 72~
b
~ 97.YLY^77 AAx
?
& m 37%
wao o A < N i h e A < d-x e-a g &A fyticAjn y
YEW w K
l l
an rw &
esa.s
.s-=e
' Acre crx-L l sy e//
d MM AA l
\\
7rAet 6 tac & ~ga g
l
. A zWo m am-M44'
.sede w -
D a n - { m cor o ne-w n ) a MA ws v
C.J
.l W-U-7%6 %
W a
C<m a m e.
. <4A zun.
.6.uw,b a saz ML 4ec" f/ccf>v em aa
? sns i
- w M.
aogsmo g 25 hea) $,denuN -C 6.
6< eA &
/ef 6at e:-ri22de e L.
f"W" 8
l a
nyt,a A ac -
26a?2askmas <A w
- 6oo vradfa cA>dLo~
AA h <2 b a A p%/jronu m pg~Ane
?
w r
D p m C +n. D n c. L k
.mO m
a vs.
&D-cc >->ww &W f
mj
- s. my a-am
' pm glo -
a
,, 2.as.ce 22" o-
- c< r-m M
! h e A a p J
s&a k
as~? />V& scaK as a
-do fresszc-e.-
. -u peede-e -
d & a c-nes f
.2
[
4 L' 8en zMLs m 12,
'-/tr or m
addoew Z;W-a d.% s Aa yr ue&&
wee f<w y&
dB^w-gnpMo 4
As wm.
?
e a b-a n a ~ ~ yl w o ~
G _w -x 2i
/ y>ccdx -
n~-
c-hef - M d;2-c $ A zc>C s 1
. q A, g n a n.7 nen-k n
cXs snAr O c c. f gtto g
/
J' tz $ d de,h/ dan. em i
b7Xdd ed MV- $ Ye-c=r--dx-c- -
7 D
dM$$
Y jn s
~ s - ~ &a a% msy-L A
& m 2 y
A DzYw 4Y"""
,a o,e s + J - a _ w x
Ju suuuy U-k 77ui-;Ll'y,w.
. dan ds 4 ai tin al-An 860 aw AfAm y
9 L @ d orv_
g y
j
- i. !,
d YLt226(
?llt Yacb
%K at' 6xoum l
09m Jn mm c
Jan
.a/m so
,%GW L;6 it.- StYc
'rt '
h l
3
.40 mA we
.~
de.-
Gm&cArme., MA1d J deaAaM-Fo A%
% w A n M >.
a n,%tw a
as-A Jar f
%s
& a.gbr/c M u -Q 2~
o e 2 e' A a g. 2 o s - CLw - w O w da n aL %
nsc cn
,,4As.a.ft s an m e<.s.>
Ae
.d?che>y
&w e)Y.
E em f
]
d ef/>2od-m-a$av X ad ALb A
x4
-a~
m a
4y u_&
i sm 7
J p
a c m @ $e. w s
-x t
=
/M d2 Y
b M$
.Y r
/'
Pg
/
_ax n,
e s, +
w
/19id/mmcli /IZL-
>'