ML19344A264

Submits Comments to AEC Submission Re Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusions of Law.Applicant Prepared Table of Contents to Proposed Findings of Fact & Conclusion of Law. Table of Contents & Certificate of Svc Encl

ML19344A264
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	10/05/1972
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 8008070644
Download: ML19344A264 (8)

Text

. a pantneess7 Harold P. Graves Voc3 Presodent and Geneest Counsel J. C. Falahoe

. General Attorney Cobert J. S vers H. E. Clark Genersi Offices 212 West Mecnigan Avenue, Jacuson. Micnigan 49201. Area Coce S? 7 788 0550 G. E. Mertstt O. M. Petersen stuart H. Redne' October 5, 1972 Weltlien E. Wisner Spor Attorneys Judd L. Sacon All:a C. Bass charm o. ca..."

DOCKET HOS. 50-329 A'*D 50-330 C. F. Codbout Sey;ndy E. Hagen Pnh C. Hosich Wiyra A. Kirkby Albert (, McCallum

w. c. riii.

i.rthur 'T. Murphy, Esq., Chairmnn Dr. Clark Goodman C E 7E O

Zvd.Ro Jaa e. smith Columbia University School of Law University of Houston

- A. T. Ud,y.

Box 33, h35 "est ll6th Street 3801 Cullen Boulevard _.

c' New York,'New York 10027 Houstcn, Texas 77004 N N

Dr. David E. Hall Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory P. O. Box lo63 Los Alamos, Newt Mexico 675kh Gentlemen:

Applicant has-reviewed the Staff's submission regarding proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and has the following specific comnents to mnke:

2.

Applicant believes that proposed finding 42 in conjunction with proposed finding kh clearly reflects the fact that' the Staff's approval of the low population zone was based on both calculation of radiation dose and con-sideration of the population distribution around the site.

-3

• dhile Applicant 's Ex.13 does not list any employee populations for Indian Point, it does list employee popula-tions for Zion out to one mile. Applicant believes that it does show important parameters available in the official filings of the three proceedings which support the state-ment made in proposed finding h5 j

k. ' In order to remove the Staff's concern regarding proposed finding h7, Applicant would propese the following revised ___.iing:

"47 The Plant is designed to withstand the prob-able maximum flood (P'E). The PIE is that ficod i

which would result from the calculated probable 800807,0- 4

^

-2

~

October 5,.1972.

LY men stom over the basin under consideration

+'

as determined frem U. S Veather Bureau Hydro-meteorological Peport No. 33 combined with criti-

..' 3 cal conditions of snov cove" and ground vetness

~

favorable to'high runoff rates and breaching of the-four upstream dams on the Tittabavassee

' River.. It is -unlikely that a fifth dam which'is on the Chippewa River would be breached coinci-dent with breaches of the Tittabavassee River dams. However,- Applicant did consider the ef-fect of such a breach and it was found to.be negligible (PSAR Applicant's-Ex. 1-A, 2.4.h and Appendix 2B,' pp. 23-3 and 2B-4; PSAR Appli-cant's Ex. 1-B, p. 2.4-2; Staff Ex. 4, p. 4, para. 2 referencing Staff Response to Saginav Intervenors' Interrogatory 250)."

6..In reviewing this response, it was discovered that there are two proposed' findings numbered 61. The one to which the Staff refers in this ccanent is on pa6e 53 and is correctly numbered. Proposed finding 61 on page 51 is in-correctly. numbered and is actually proposed finding 59 7

The following sentence better reflects the record

~

~~

on diesel generators:

"The Staff concurred in this conclusion but re-

~

quired that test data be supplied to confirm the suitability of this size diesel generator as an on-site emergency power source prior to the oper-ating license reviev (SSE p. k3)."

-14.

Applicant believes that the legal conclusicns proposed on page 267 are proper'and desirable. Conclu-sion 292(4)(e) is derived from Section A.ll(c) of 10 CFR Part 50 and Conclusions 292(h)(a)-(d) are provided in order to clearly set forth the Board's basis for reaching Conclusion 292(4)(e). Applicent contends that this con-clusion;is supported by the record and is in accordance i

vith applicable AEC regulations.

Applicant supports-inclusion of the Staff's exceptions 1, 5, 6, 8, 10, 11 and 13 Applicant'does not specifically object to exceptions 9 and i

12, relying on the Board to set forth its own views following considera-

. tion of Applicant's proposed language and the' Staff exceptions.

l Applicant has recently pre m d for its own use a table of.

i contents to -its proposed findings.of-fact and conclusicns of law. A copy, of,this table of contents has -been attached hereto for the use Jof the' Board and parties.

)

Respectfully yours,

/s/ John 'K. Restrick j

JKR/pb-John K. aestrick

~

'M-

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION In the Matter of

)

)

CONSUMERS PO'wTR COMPANY Docket Nos. 50-329 and 50-330 l

(Midland Plant, Units l' and 2)

)

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of the attached letter to the Board,

. dated October 5, 1972, have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class, this 5th day of October 1972:

Arthur W. Murphy, Esq., Chair =an David E. Kartalia, Esq.

Atcmic Safety and Licensing Board U. S. Atomic Energy Comission-l Columbia University School of Law Washingtcn, D. C. 20545 Box 38, 435 West ll6th Street New York, New York 10027 Milton R. Wes'sel, Esq.

Kaye, Scholer, Fiermana Hays Dr. Clark Goodman and Handler Professor of Physics.

425 Park Avenue

~

University of Houston New York, New York 10022 3801 Cullen Boulevard Houston, Texas 77004

' James N. O'Connor, Esq.

The Dov Chemical Capany l

Dr. David B. Hall -

2030 Dow Center Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Midland, Michigan 48640 P. O. Box 1663

.Los Alamos, New Mexico 87544 MyronM. Cherry,Esq.(2)

Suite 1005, 109 N. Dearborn Street William J. Ginster, Esq.

Chicago, Illinois 60602 Suite 4, Merrill Building Saginav, Michigan 48602 Irving Like, Esq.

l Reilly, Like and Schneider l

Mr. Frank W. Karas (20) 200 West Main Chief, Public Proceedings Branch Babylon, New York 11702 Office of the Secretary of the Camission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel U. S. _ Atcmic Energy Comission U._ S. Atomic Energy Comission Washington, D. C.

20545 washington, D. C.

20545 James A. Kendall, Esq.-

Hon. William H. Ward 135 N. Wav Road' Assistant Attorney General Midland, Michigan 48640 State of Kansas

~

Topeka, Kansas 66612

/s/ John K. Restrick John K. Restrick Attorney Consumers Power Ccnapany

TABLE OF CONTENTS

P_apg, 1

Introduction k

Preliminary Statement Parties-17 Radiological Health and Safety Prehearing Procedures 19 27 Limited Appearances Radiological Health and Safety Hearings and Findings.

29 Technical Qualifications 30 Site 32 ~

~

Site Location 32 Population and Use Characteristics 33 Exclusion' Area and Low Population Zone 34

(,

Exclusion Area 35 Lov Population Zone 35 Population Center Distance 36 Surface Water Hydrology 37 Ground Water Hydrology

.39 Geology 40 Soils-and Plant Foundatiors 41 Seismology h2

=

Meteorology 43 Plant Description 57

. Reactor and Reactor Coolant systems Cr ter a 59 i

i 61 Leak Detection -

i;

..s ;

4 e

a.

PR

. Radiological ~ Health and Safety Hearings and Findings (Contd) t Plant 'ITescription : (Contd) 61 Seismic Design Methods; 62 Reactor Buildings

' Auxiliary Building 6$

Service Water Pump Structure and Diesel Generator Building 65

$o Missile ~ Protection Radiation Shielding 66 Instrumentation and Control 67 Common Mode Failure 67 -

Radiation Monitoring and Control Room 68

~

69 Instrumentation and Control Adequacy i,

Slectrical Systems Descriptions 69 Electric Systems Adequacy 71 Auxiliazy Systems 72-Turbine and Process Steam System 73 Process Steam Monitoring-75 I

to Cooling System L

Engineered Safeguards-76 l

T(

Emergency Core Cooling System Description Renctor. Building Air Recirculation' & Cooline. Synt.em

'(6 Reactor. Building Spray System 79 Hydrogen Control System' 80

Liquid Radioactive Naste. Treatment System.

81

(

i T

d 4

3

Page, Radiological Health and Safety Hearings and Findings (Contd)

Plant Description (Contd)

Gaseous Radioactive Waste Treatment System 83' Solid Radioactive Waste System 85 Radioactive Release Regulations 85 Safety Analysis -

90.

-Emergency Core Cooling System-106

. Quality Assurance 115 Emergency Plan.

121 Research and Developnent 126'~

Financial Qualifications'of Applicant 128 128 Common Defense and Security.'

Environmental Prehearing' Procedures 130

- Environmental-Hearings and Findings 146

~

Site Characteristics 146 Terrestrial Ecology 146 A.

Impact of Site Occupation-151 Aquatic Ecology 156 l

Water Resources Consnission 160 River Water Usage 162 Impact of Intake _of Water 164'.

.Use.of' Lake Huron Water-'

168

' Cooling Pond Size 169-Supplemental. Cooling System 171 4

7 Ea

+

h-P_afge,-

-Environmental Hearings and Findings (Contd)'

i 172 Impact of Nonradioactive Plant Effluents on River 183

~ Radiological: Impact from Nomal. Operation 189' Synergism 201 Radiological Impact from Plant Accidents 2Ch Coolin's Pend Atmospheric Effects 212 Effects of. Decomissioning.

r.

217 Impact from Transportation of ' Fuel 220

. Effect of Themal Releases.to Dow 223 -

Impact of Transmission Lines 226

' Plant Construction Effects 227 Aesthetics 227 Noise 228 l

Historical and Archeological Considerations 228 Monitoring -

' Adverse Effects That Cannot Be' Avoided 230

- Short-Tem Uses and Long-Tem Productivity 230 Irreversible and Irretrievable Comitment of Resources 231 232 Need for Power 239 Altematives -

240 L Alternative Means of Generation 2h6 Alternative Production of Process. Steam 248 Alternative Sites-252 Purchase of Power 253

Alternative Cooling Systems s

Y 4

y s---

r t

(

p...

{

Page t

Enviro = ental' Hearings and Findings (Contd)

Alternate Radioactive Waste Systems 255 Alternative Treatment of Chemical Discharges 256 Cost-Benefit Analysis 257 Cther Agencies 262 Conclusions 265 L

268 Order-l O

4

)

i e

(;'.

t f

I

\\

~

,