ML19344A150
| ML19344A150 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/07/1977 |
| From: | Lieberman J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8008060437 | |
| Download: ML19344A150 (15) | |
Text
-
2/7/77 e
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD fp C C CTY**
In the Matter of-
)
N "f "
V FEB 7 1977
- CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY Docket Nos 0-3
-330 c; " "" V17 (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
S'"
.g ADDITIONAL NRC STAFF'S ANSWERS TO.
INTERROGATORIES OF INTERVEN0RS DATED JANUARY 3',
1977 By order of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (Board), dated February 2, 6
1977, the NRC Staff (Staff) was directed to supplement the Staff's January 3,1977 Interrogatories of the Intervenors other than Dow Chemical Company by providing answers to interrogatories 9 and 10.
4 The Staff's answers to these interrogatories are attached as Attachement A.
The affidavits of F. S. Echols and Raymond R. Powell, which certify thattheNRCresponsesare.trueandcorrecttothebestoftheirknowleEge, are attached as Attachments B and C, respectively.
Respectfully submitted, I
NW James Lieberman Counsel for NRC Staff
-Dat'ed.at Bethesda, Maryland this 7th day of February, 1977 i8.0080e,op3G h
o
}
ATTACHMENT A INTERROGATORY NO. 9
)
The latest' documented Status of Generic Items Relating to Light-i Water Reactors, Report Ho. 4, is the April 16, 1976 letter from the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards to the U.S. Regulatory 4
' Commission.
This report identifies'those specific items which have been cited specifically by-the Advis7ty Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS).
In the Report No. 4 certain generic items are identified as resolved or unresolved to the acceptance criteria cf the ACRS.
(a)
The Table in cad below provides a listing of all ACRS generic items.
Except for items indicated with NA (not' applicable) all items apply to the Midland plant.
All numbering of generic items in this interroga-.
~ tory response are identical to the numbering used in the April 16, 1976 Report No. 4.
(b)
The manner and met!od of resolution for the Group I, IA, IB, and IC (resolved items) are given in the April 16, 1976 Report No. 4.
Also in the-Report No. 4 a description of the manner and expected resolution
-is provided for.the ACRS (unresolved items) in Groups II, IIA, IIB, and IIC.
The attached NRC letter to the Chairman of the ACRS dated January 31, 1977 is the latest NRC Status Report as to the manner and expected resolution of the generic items.
e e
..nn-,
n,,
m 4
_(c & d)
I have reviewed each of the items in Groups I, IA, IB, IC,. II, IIA, IIB, and IIC of the April 16, 1976 Report No. 4 which.will-apply to the Midland Plant' Units 1 and 2.
The following table summarizes the cost and cons ruction time estimated to be required for the t
modification.
In addition, the table provides the estimated -date for resolution of-generic matters using the NRC Status Report to the ACRS dated January 31, 1977.
S 6
9 6
6 g
G I
i a-w
~
y g
w
m-Table 1 POTENTIAL IMPACT ON MIDLAND PLANT
~
Date -
Revised i
ACRS Items Cost' Construction Time of Resolution s
I-l None None
' Resolved in I-2 None None ACRS letter-I-3 Moderate None of December I-4 None None 18,~1972 I-5 Minimal None I-6 None None I None None I-8 Moderate None
-I-9 None None I-10 Minimal None I-ll None None I -NA NA I-13 Minimal None I-14 NA NA None I-15 None I None None I None None I-18 None None I-19 None
-None 1
I-20 Minimal
'None I -Minimal None I None None I-23 None None I-24 None None I-25 None~
None
'IA-1 None None Resolved in 1
IA-2 Minimall None.
ACRS letter IA-3 Minimal None of February IA-4 Significant_
4-12 weeks 13, 1974 None None IA-5 IB None-None-Resolved in
-IB-2 None None ACRS letter IB Moderate
-None of March IB-4
.NA NA 12, 1975 IB-5 None None IB-6 Minimal None-IB-71~
None
.None m
I
. - -. ~.
~
e ~ ~
IC-1 NA NA Resolved in IC-2 None None ACRS-letter i
IC-3
- None None of April IC None None 16, 1976 II-I Significant 4-12 weeks 1978
~
II-2' None None 1978 II-3 None None 1978 II-4 Minimal.
None 1978 II-5 Moderate
-None l
1979 II-6 None None 1978 II-7 Hone None open II-8 N/A N/A II-9 None None 1978 l
II-10 N/A N/A II-ll Moderate Hone T977 IIA-1 None None 1977 IIA-2 N/A
. N/A 2
IIA-3 N/A N/A IIA-4 None None 1978 IIA-5 Minimal None 1978 IIA-6 None None 1978 IIA-7 Moderate None 1978 IIA-8 None None open l
IIB-1 N/A-N/A IIB-2 N/A N/A l-IIB-3 N/A N/A l
IIC-4 N/A N/A IIC-1 None None 1978 IIC-2 Significant 2 to 4 weeks 1978 IIC-3 Moderate None 1978 IIC-4
- Hone None 1979 IIC-5 Moderate None-1978 l
IIC-6 Moderate None 1978 Open IIC-7 None None IIC-8 N/A-N/A I
Legend:
- Cost Construction Time None O
No schedule -Impact Minimal-
< $100,000 Moderate
$100,000 - $1,000,000 Significant.
$1,000,000. - $3,000,000 Not applicable N/A N/A G
w r
a
Using ~ the above table, estimated cost impact to the Midland Plant could be in the rar.ge of 4.9 million to 19.1 million dollars.
The January 31st letter to ACRS provides the latest report on the ACRS generic items.
Included within this report is the status of Staff activity for each item and an estimate, where available, of the completion time to resolve each item.
Only three items (IA-4, II,1 and IIC-2) have the potential for impacting the construction schedule.
These J
items are expectedLto be resolved prior to the current construction completion date for the Midland ' Plant. The estimated time to complete the modifications necessitated by these three items would be in the range of 10 to 28 weeks.
These items could be done concurrent with current construction,.and therefore, would not necessarily extend the construction schedule.
i In addition to the generic items specifically identified in the April 16, 1976 ACRS letter, two additional items are currently being considered as possible additions-to the ACRS generic items list.
' These are:
- l. -Interface requirements for design of standard plants.
This matter would have no effect on either the cost or schedule of the Midland Plant.
i
+
I a-W-
4 E-
, N
m._
a
-s
. Integrity of hermetic. seals on equipment and instrumentati$n l
2.
inside containment.over the life of the plant.
This matter will probabTy be resolved by procedures-to assure -
proper, periodic checks of the components using hermetic seals in.which case it would have no-impact on the p_lant scheduling l.
and a minimal impact on costs.
l l
]
O l
l i
L I
....A__.____--
_l_
_m..m A__m_
m..
_ - - ~
.A____m m
ATTACHMENT A 4
9 Interrogatory No. 10 4
In'the Draft Supplement of Januiry~1977, the Staff re-examined alternat.ives to the Midland ' Nuclear Facility.
primarily because of fuel availability :
and technological problems the Staff concluded that most alternatives were not viable options to a nuclear facility scheduled for the early 1980's.
The viable alternatives examined consisted of' coal fired plants utilizing either high or low' sulfur coal.
In the March 1972 Midland FES the Staff considered economic and environ-
^
mental factors-associated with the proposed facility and the co'al.
alternatives.
Based on an evaluation of these environmental and economic
' factors, the Staff determined 'that the proposed nuclear project was i
preferred over'the alternatives considered.
A complete update of coal and nuclear economic. costs is presented in the Staff testimony and in..
L the' Draft Supplment of January 1977.
In addition, the environmental costs of the nuclsar fuel cycle have been revised.
The Staff concluded, i
that based,an this re-evaluation of economic and environmental factors, the originalicost-benefit balance presented in the FES remains valid.
4
- The environmental costs associated with the coal f0el cycle, as presented
- in the Phipps Bend, Black Fox and Koshkonong FES's, will be presented in-
. the Final Supplement to t'le Midland FES.
This analysis of the coal fuel
'=;
..a
../^
. a.....--
.. - cycle will not change the coal v. nuclear analysis in the Draft Supplement since costs associated with the coal fuel cycle can _only detract from the coal alternative.
Costs and benefits that have changes or which were not considered in- '
~
the March 1972 Midland FES are presented below.
. Direct benefits of the project are the electricity and steam produced-by the Midland ' facilities.
. Local benefits include:
- 1. ' Direct Tax Benefit from the Midland Nuclear Facility -- The
~
State and local taxes are a function of assessed value.
The
-higher cost of the Midland' facility will result in significantly higher tax revenue to thos taxing jurisdictions.
~
7 2.
Labor Force -- Estimates of total work force requirements at the. Midland plant have increased substantially.
The increased work force should help to reduce the' local unemployment rate 4
which as of 1976 was at about 9%.
It should be noted that
. construction employment will-result in additional jobs in the area in-order to accommodate the higher flow of. personal incere.
4 r
'D,,
4 W
.4
y ---
L.
^
.L 4
-s
- These considerations were not used in determining the cost-benefit balance _ because they a're in strict economic terms transfer payments from those paying for the. electricity-produ'ced _(the price-of which
~
is_ adjusted to recover the taxes and payroll) to those people residing 1
~
near the: facility.
The costs which have changed or which were not considered in the. original FES are as follows:
- Plant cost.L. have risen substantially since the March 1972 FES.
The Staff has taken these increased costs into account in its Draft Supplement and also in Staff testimony for this suspension proceeding.
1 Environmental effects of nuclear fuel cycle were considered in the original FES.
However, these impacts have been reassessed:in the Draft. Supplement -in light of Table S-3 of 10 C.F.R. s51.20 and the Court of Appeals' decision _in Aeschliman v. NRC.
Costs to the~ local community.due-to the Midland facility work force are llikely_to have: changed. 'The peak work force. estimate has increased.-
The. impact from this' increase upon local services and facilities will i be~ assessed in the Final Supplement.
Items to be considered ~here will include: schools, health services,_ housing, traffic, etc.
(
E= 4
.w.
E k. A h. =. [.
~
__.i ~
- V.
4-
+..
Other costs that have not changed are-listed below:
1.
Foggi_ng and icing.
j 2.
1.and - requirements..
3.
Commitment of irreversible and irretrievable resources.
l 4.
Relocation of residences.
1:
2 5...Ecologica1' impacts.
4 The Staff believes that the reassessment of changed costs as presented above will not change the original conclusion of the cost-benefit analysis as presented in the March-1972 FES.
4 4
1 9 -
s e
a O
.)
t 4
T 5
6-8
[.
ATTACHMENT B 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 F. S. ECHOLS-F~. S. Echols deposes and says under oath as follows:
1.
I am the Environmental Project Manager fot Midland Plants', Units 1 and 2 in the Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analys's, U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
As Project Manager for the Midland Plants, Units 1 and 2, I am responsible for coordi.nating and supervising the' Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation's evaluations 'of the continuation of the construction pennits in light of the issues remanded for consideration by the court in Aeschliman v. USNRC (D. C. Cir., July 21,1976).
4 2.-
The answer to interrogatory 10 was prepared by me or undar my j
supervision.
I hereby certify that the answer given is true and accurate to the best of my knowledge.
j i
~
F.-S. Echols Subscribed and sworn toLbefore me this day of February,1977 1
1 Notary Public My Commission _ Expires b
.a
.s
' 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 RAYMOND R. POWELL Raymond R. Powell deposes and.says under oath as follows:
-1.
I am the Licensing Project Manager of the Midland Plant l'r'ts 1 and 2 in the Light Water Reactors Branch No. 4, Division of Project Manager, U. S.. Nuclear Regulatory Comission.
I am responsible for the safety aspects.of the post construction permit reviews, for the Midland Plant Units -1 and 2.
2.
The answer to interrogatory 9 was prepared by me or under my supervision.
I hereby certify that the' answer given is true and
- accurate to the best of my knowledge.
, ,/
9
.hn:n)/
.I:WL
'Raymond R. Powell Subscribed and sworn to before 1
me this ' 4% day of February,1977
'hrm.Q O. h W NotaryPublQ My Commission Expires /\\.o. \\. Angc Q' % -
..M w #. A
_w 4 -
EEw.--e_.
n_
~.
~...
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY C0tfiISSION t
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 February 7, 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 7th day of February, 1977:
1 Frederic J. Coufal, Esq., Chairman Honorable Curt T. Schneider Atomic Safety and licensing Board Attorney General U. S. Nuclear Rer
/ Commission
- tate of Kansas Statehouse Washington, C. C.
.~.5.
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. Lueboa 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,1I111nois 60611 Dow Chemical, U.S.A.
. Michigan Division Judd L. Bacon, Esq.
Midland, Michigan 48640 Consumers Power Company 212 West Michigan Avenue.
Mr. Steve Gadler Jackson,: Michigan' 49201 2120 Carter Avenue St. Paul', Minnesota 55108
\\
4 y-.
+-......,..-,
,....~
s
.. R. Rex Renfrow III, Esq.
Atomic. Safety and Licensing David.J. Rosso Esq.
Appeal Panel
. Isham, Lincoln & Beale U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 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. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Board Panel Washington, D. C.
20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
/
W 44 ef Richard K. Hoefling Counsel for NRC Staff f
m-w
-O U
?'cs.,;,4__,i i
.x
~
_