ML20050C606

Forwards Comments Re Facility Des.Addl Info Should Be Provided Re Withdrawal of Intake Water from Tittabawasse River & Plant Decommissioning

ML20050C606
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	04/05/1982
From:	Backley B ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
To:	Adensam E Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
82025, NEPA-DE-NRC-F06, NEPA-DE-NRC-F6, NUDOCS 8204090157
Download: ML20050C606 (3)

Text

.

D5 4 O @

UNITED STATES [ [g

• p /g'%,g ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENC' E-

[' '<> }*p g REGION V g (/

v 230 SOUTH DE AHBORN ST p g. *y

/s

-A 4f CHCAGO. ILLif4 DIS 60604 /'

k ano M O hY TO A[TETION OF:

Ms. Elinor G. Adensam, Chief Licensing Branch No. 4 5 APR 1982 Division of Licensing n U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission /

Washington, D.C. 20555 RE: NEPA-DE-NRC-F06014-MI (82025)

Dear Ms. Adensam:

We have completed our review of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) related to the operation of Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2, Midland County, near Midland, Michigan. The proposed action is the issuance of operating licenses to Consumers Power for the startup and operation of Midland Units 1 and 2. It is estimated that Unit I will be ready for fuel loading in December of 1983, and Unit 2 will be ready for fuel loading in July of 1983. Unit I will pro-duce 505 megawatts of elecricity and process stream for the Dow Chemical Company, while Unit 2 will produce 852 megawatts of electricity.

Based upon our review of the Draft EIS, we have no major environmental concerns related to the operation of the Midland Power Plant. Therefore, we have rated the Draft EIS as LO-2. This means we lack objections to the operation of the two pressurized water reactors, but we request that additional information be provided concerning the withdrawal of intake water from the Tittabawasse River and the decommissioning of the plant. Notice of the availability of our comments will be published in the Federal _ Register, in accordance with our responsibility under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act to inform the public of our views on other agencies' projects.

We appreciate the opportunity to review this Draft EIS. When the Final EIS is published, please forward three copies to this office. If you have any questions regarding our comments, please contact Mr. Bill Franz, at FTS 886-6687 or commercially, at 312/886-6687.

Sincerely yours, Barbara Taylor Bac cy, Chief Environmental Review Branch Planning and Management Division oq Attachment 8

//

8204090157 820405 DR ADOCK 05000329 PDR

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Comments Related to the Operation of Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2 This draf t environment 1 impact statement (EIS) was prepared to assess the impacts related to the issuance of operating licenses to the Consumers Power Company for startup and operation of the Midland Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, in Midland County near Midland, Michigan. The two generating units consist of pressurized water re-actors, steam turbine generators, a heat dissipation system and associated auxillary facilities. Unit I will produce approximat21y 505 megawatts of electricity, plus, process steam for the Dow Chemical Company; Unit 2 will produce 852 megawatts of electricity. Unit 2 will be ready for fuel loading in July of 1983, and Unit 1 in December of 1983. Nater for condenser cooling will be withdrawn from the Tfttabawasse River and waste heat will be dissipated in a 880 acre cooling pond.

Water Quality Impacts Makeup water for the cooling system will be withdrawn from the Tittabawesse River.

The intake structure design includes trash racks and traveling screens with a 3/8 inch mesh to prevent debris from entering the cooling system. Since the construc-tion license was issued, newer designs for intake structures have been developed.

One of these designs is a fine mesh wedge-wire screen that is bulkhead mounted.

The final EIS should discuss whether or not this design could still be installed at the site to minimize fish impingement and reduce maintenance costs at the site.

Radiation Impacts The dr' aft EIS stated " Experience as demonstrated by calculations, has shown all individual dose commitments (greater than 0.1 mrem /yr) for radioactive effluents are accounted for within a radius of 80 km from the plant". The final EIS should provide information on monitoring experiences at operating pressurized water reactors, which support the conclusions regarding the radioactive effluents being accounted for with an 80 km radius.

The draf t EIS stated that decommissioning does not usually involve environmental impacts that are unique to a specific project and technology for decommissioning, is well in hand. The EIS should note that there has been no decommissioning of a nuclear power plant to date; therefore, there has been no precedent. It may be assumed that by the time the Midland Plant is ready to be decommissioned, some experience will have been gained from decommissioning other plants. Further-more, the draft EIS does not address the disposal of the highly radioactive material within the reactor core. Under existing standards, these contaminated materials would not be accepted at a shallow land burial site. The final EIS should identify the impacts associated with the decommissioning of a nuclear reactor and note that formalized precedures have not yet been develooed.

The Nuclear Regulatory Commissioin has indicated in hearings before the House Subcommittee on Energy that pressurized water reactors are subject to leaks in the steam pressure lines. The final EIS should address whether or not these leaks will occur specifically at the Midland Plant and whether this results in increased radiation releases to the environment, and if the releases pose a health risk to persons living near the Midland Plant.

The draf t EIS indicated the Safety Evaluation Report will be available in May of 1982. When this report is available, please send us two copies.

- - = .i.

Additional Comments Icing of the roads near the cooling pond may occur during winter months at the Midland Plant. The final EIS should discuss whether or not additional salting of the roads will be required and what the resulting water quality impacts will be.

I