ML20058E373

Submits Merb Subcommittee Rept on Draft Eis.Evacuation Plan for Dow Facility Inadequate.Fogging Issue Needs Clarification

ML20058E373
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	07/21/1982
From:	Barnes G, Hartung R, Hoffman C MICHIGAN, STATE OF
To:	Hernan R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
NUDOCS 8207280190
Download: ML20058E373 (2)

Text

_

July 21 1982 0

NRC DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT MERB Subcommittee Report Gerald Barnes Rolf Hartung Carol Hoffman -

The subcommittr:e has reviewed the draft environmental impact statement (EIS) on the Midland Nuclear Power plant.

It is the subcommittee's view that the EIS either does not address or addresses inadequately several major issues.

It is the subcommittee's intent to elicit adequate response to these issues prior to the publication of the final EIS.

1.

There is not an adequate evacuation plan for the Dow facility included in the EIS since numerous chemical reactions will continue to occur.

If an emergency occurred and there is a need for evacuation, response to date has been that Dow would send in " volunteers" to monitor the reactions.

Is this either legal or adequate planning?

2.

The EIS states that fogging will not cause traffic problems because the fog would be above the roadways. There is inadequate documentation for this conclusion and further need for clarifying the dimensions of the fogging issue.

3.

Further explanation is needed of the authority of the NRC to make con-clusions regarding water quality for a Michigan facility. NRC's state-ments that the Michigan issuance of a permit would degrade the water quality is also of concern. The state of Michigan questions this authority and denies that water quality will be degraded.

4.

FERMI II and the Midland plant are the only two urban nuclear plants in the country and therefore are located close to higher population centers.

The quality assurance requirements for the infrastructure of nuclear plants are b?. sed on an experience with more rural plants.

Is there additional quality control, engineering, or monitoring necessary to accommodate the urban location of this facility?

5.

Presently, FERMI II, Palisades and Big Rock Nuclear plants have inadequate

~

storage space. The NRC and/or DOE seem not to have solved nuclear storage on a long-tenn basis as yet. Would the NRC and/or DOE consider the temporary storage of nuclear material from these other Michigan plants at the Midland site?

In addition, two other issues not yet addressed by the NRC were noted in the early draft of the MERB subcommittee report, i.e., the waterfowl issue and the exclusion area of the Tittabawassee River.

Gdoh 82072tH)190 B20721 PDR ADOCK 05000329 D

PER

~-

1 STATE OF MICHIGAN

\\

t f DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE I

$ny YM b

[2E SIDi k h P.O. Box 30004

[4jghg g

",^

[*

m

• g[(.j [/l113QQh p

LANSING MICHIGAN 48909 J122&i

~

'L'C'4ect :, ;,17., :{:

j e

dib ui L

• H

{

Mr. Ronald Hernan E

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation' A-d Division'of. Licensing g

Nuclear Regulatory Conunission 1

Washington DC 20555

[

h 5i F

I t

i

__1~_m___,__.-

mm am

-4 9

m

>