ML20211L618
| ML20211L618 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/11/1986 |
| From: | Hodgon A NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20211L620 | List: |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1873 OL, OM, NUDOCS 8612160107 | |
| Download: ML20211L618 (5) | |
Text
/r73 i
7 P U [' r C..
dd' dd DOCKETED USNEC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGUL ATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR LF :
U C
In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUf.1ERS POWER COMPANY
)
)
50-330 OM & OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSE TO LICENSING BOARD'S QUESTIONS OF DECEMBER 3,1986 In a Memorandum and Order of December 3, 1986, the Licensing Board directed the Staff to provide responses, as appropriate, to three questions raised by the Board in relation to Consumers Power Company's rec, nest to terminate the Midland operating license proceeding.
The Staff's responses to the Board's questions and the affidavit of Gary D. Staley, hydraulic engineer, who prepared the Staff's responses, are attached to this pleading.
Respectfully subnitted, W
Ann P. Hodgdon Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this lith day of Decenter,1986 ptA18681St!S$g9 C
2so 7
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
CONSUf.1ERS POWER COMPANY
)
)
50-330 OM a OL (Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2)
)
NRC STAFF RESPONSES TO LICENSING BOARD'S QUESTIONS IN ITS MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF DECEMBER 3,1986 Q1.
'Ihe first of these iteis concerns the structures supported by un-derpinning. 'Ihe Novenber 14, 1986 report states (at p.- 7) that "if the cooling pond is ever re-filled, something will have to be done to the partially cocpleted underpinning to alleviate the possibility of soil washouts (the positive Fradient would induce flow to the excavated area, thus possibly making the building unstable)." See also October 28, 1986 inspection report, at p. 3.
We understand that the cooling pond would be re-filled in the event the site were to be used (as currently proposed by 0 0) for a gas-fired cogeneration facility. 'Ihe Board wishes to be apprised:
a.
In addition to possible soil washouts, would there be other concerns about standing water in the excavation?
b.
What steps are appropriate to alleviate these conditions?
l c.
In particular, in the event that the site is used for a I
gan-fired cogeneration facility, will the dewatering be continued?
d.
Has CPC committed itself (or will it commit itself) to tak-ing such steps, if the pond were to be re-filled?
RESPONSE
The NRC staff's environmental assessments address offsite environ-mental effects.
The status of the Midland Plant's auxiliary building underpinning / foundation could not lead to any adverse environmental ir pacts offsite.
This being the case, any concern for the auxiliary build-
l 4 l
ing foundation is a safety concern.
Other federal agencies (such as OSHA) are responsible for new construction and alternate uses.
a.
From an environmental viewpoint, the soil washout under the turbine building could lead to the development of " sinkholes" outside the fenced excavated area that workers or visitors could fall into.
- However, such an occurrence is a very low probability event.
The Staff is not aware of any other environmental concerns as long as the foundation ex-cavation is adequately fenced.
b.
Since the " conditions" are contingent on future actions by CPC, the only appropriate steps would be commitments from CPC that are tied to its future plans, whatever they may be.
If CPC relinquishes control of the site, the excavation should be backfilled, c.
The Staff does not consider it appropriate to respond to this question.
d.
The Staff does not consider it appropriate to respond to this s
question.
Q2.
We second of these itans concerns the emergency cooling water reservoir (ECVR). He November 14, 1986 intpection report states (at p.13) that "if CPCo were to corrpletely abandon this site, it would be necessary to provide a gravity drain for this portion of the pond [the IDR] to preclude eutrophication and an undesirable mosquito breeding Imbitat." h e report adds that "[t]his regulatory responsibility should be assuned by the KNR [ Michigan Department of Natural Resources] under the revised NPDES Permit."
he Board wishes to be apprised:
a.
What are the elevations in ft. msl of the bottom of the ECWR and the normal level of the Tittabawassee River near the cooling pond?
Is the difference in levels (if any) sufficient to assure that a gravity drain will pro-duce the desired result?
-~
=. = ~..
b.
What is the difference in levels (if any) in the event of flooding up to the level of the probable maximum flood?
Would a gravity drain work in that event, and with what results?
In that connection, the SER lists the probable I
maximum flood at el. 631.5 ft. msl and (with wind-wave runup) at el. 035.5 ft. mal.
See SER I 2.4.3.1.
c.
Does the MDNR have jurisdiction to impose such a condi-I tion in the event the Midland site is completely aban-doned prior to any industrial use?
d.
Has CPC committed itself (or will it commit itself) to in-stall such a gravity drain in the event of complete site abandonment?
RESPONSE
a.
The bottom of the Emergency Cooling Water Reservoir (ECWR) is at elevation 596 ft. mal (FSAR Section 2.4.8).
The bed of the Tittabawassee River in this vicinity is 582 to 584 ft. mal (FSAR Figure 2.4-17).
Average monthly flows in the Tittabawassee River are between 500 and 3600 cfs (ER Table 2.4.2).
A low flow rating curve (discharge vs stage) for the river is not immediately available; however, a site topographic map indicates that the normal water level in the river is about elevation 595 ft. mal.
Therefore, the ECWR would drain under normal river flow conditions.
If there is a problem with drainage from i
the ECWR during normal river flow conditions, then the alternative would l
be to backfill all or a portion of the excavated pond area or install a flap gated outlet to preclude river flow from entering the ECWR, b.
During high flows on the Tittabawassee River, the river water would flow into the ECWR and the main pond through the subject gravity drain (unless gated) and the gated main pond outlet (outlet 001) if the gate is open.
The depth of ponding in the ECWR and the main pond would be contingent on the size of the pond outlets and the duration of the river flood.
The process of partially filling and emptying the cooling
~
pond with river water would result in some silt deposition in the pond and some fish would probably be trapped on the emptying cycle.
4 It appears that the best alternative would be to backfill the ECUR with soil and provide positive drainsge through the main pond out-l let.
This alternative would have no adverse environmental impacts offsite and it may kJso be the least costly alternative other than doing nothing.
c.
By telecommunication of 12/4/86, the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) advised the NRC staff that MDNR lacks the authority to require the CPC to provide gravity drainage or backfill for the ECWR prior to abandoning the site.
The MDNR did not indicate what, if any, Michigan agency has such authority.
However, the NRC staff understands that the State of Michigan may be filing a response in which this matter is addressed.
d.
The Staff does not consider it appropriate to respond to this question.
Q3.
Since both of the foregoing conditions depend upon the next usage of the site, does CPC intend (or will it cmmit itself) to inform the Staff when (a) it begins construction of the gas-fired facility, (b) it places such facility into operation, and (c) in the alternative, it de-l termines not to pursue its plans for a gas-fired facility and, as a re-sult, detennines to abandon the facility or convert it to another industrial use.
CPC and the Staff (and other parties who wish to do so) should provide responses to these questions in the same time frame as estab-lished above for conmenting on the Envirormental Assessment.
(Copies of i
this Memorandtsn and Order are being provided to GC and the Staff on Decmber 3,1986, and are being express-mailed to Ms. Sinclair and the State of Michigan that sane date.)
RESPONSE
The Staff daes not consider it appropriate to respond to this l
question.
l i
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _