ML20071A052
| ML20071A052 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 02/14/1983 |
| From: | Steptoe P CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE |
| To: | Bechhoefer C, Cowan F, Harbour J Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20071A055 | List: |
| References | |
| ISSUANCES-OL, ISSUANCES-OM, NUDOCS 8302180390 | |
| Download: ML20071A052 (3) | |
Text
-
J c
I ISHAM, LINCOLN & BEALE i,
COU865ELORS AT LAW 4
k THIttt Nt37 esATICIGAL PLAZA CM6CA40. ILulectSteser 1130 CTic t. ps W flos T
T= -
February 14, 1983 In the Matter of
)
I
)
Docket Nos. 50-329-OM l
CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY
)
50-330-OM
)
)
50-329-OL (Midland Plant, Units 1
)
50-330-OL and 2)
)
Charles Bechhoefer, Esq. '
Dr. Jerry Harbour Atomic Safety & Licensing Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Board Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com-mission mission Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20555 i
Dr. Frederick P. Cowan 6152 N. Verde Trail Apt. B-125 Boca Raton, Florida 33433
Dear Administrative Judges:
Enclosed is Applicant's testimony on Sinclair
~
Operating License contention 14.
The testimony of Mr.
Evans and Mr. Sommers corrects the confusion which l
lies at the heart of the contention by showing that the l
i referenced DES and FES discussions of cooling pond per-i formance were not based on studies from "a substantially different climatic region".
While Applicant believes the Evans and Sommers testimony is sufficient to answer the gist I
8302180390 830214 PDR ADOCK 05000329 m
T PDR g>
Q/
\\
Adminictrctiva JudgOc February 14, 1983 Page 2 of Sinclair contention 14, we also include the testimony of John Bradley which shows that the fogging and icing experience at Dresden, which Ms. Sinclair apparently concedes is in a similar climatic region of the country as Midland, does not contra-dict the conclusions in the FES and DES.
We wish to remind the Board that the general issue of fogging and icing at Midland was extensively litigated at the construction permit stage of this proceeding and is res judicata.
While Mr. Marshall at one point was given the opportunity to submit a fogging and icing contention based on changed circumstances or new in-formation, he has fai.*ed to do so and the general issue of fogging and icing is not in this proceeding.
Instead, the narrow issue before this Board, as raised by Sinclair Contention 14, is whether there has somehow been improper reliance on a study from "a substantially different climatic region" in the re-ferenced portions of the DES and FES.
While it is not directly relevant to this con-tention, Applicant wishes to inform the Board that the Michigan Water Resources Commission has determined at the request of the Tittabawassee Township and Mr. Vincente Castellanos to hold evidentiary hearings with respect to the Midland NPDES Permit.
My understanding is that Intervenors in this proceeding will have an opportunity to participate l
I
\\
L
Adminiotrativa Judgsa i
Febrttary 14, 1983
(
Page 3 in those state hearings.
The NRC, of course, is precluded by law from reviewing the adequacy of effluent limitations and other requirements established under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the NPDES permitting system, except insofar as it weighs the environmental effects of such restrictions in its NEPA cost-benefit balance.
Tennessee Valley Authority (Yellow Creek Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2)
ALAB-515, 8 NRC 702 (1978).
e's Sinc,erel,
/_
f s
PPS:es Phi p P. St pt enc.
t
_ _ _ _.., _ _ _ _ _, _