ML20215E730
| ML20215E730 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Midland |
| Issue date: | 12/17/1986 |
| From: | Bechhoefer C, Harbour J, Linenberger G Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| To: | CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.) |
| References | |
| CON-#486-1935 78-389-03-OL, 78-389-3-OL, LBP-86-39, OL, NUDOCS 8612230094 | |
| Download: ML20215E730 (11) | |
Text
.- - _
n -
M35 LBP-86-39 00CMETED UStlPC UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 86 DEC 18 A10:34 ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD CFF:q ' ~ ~
EE;t n a , ..
Before Administrative Judges Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman Dr. Jerry Harbour Gustave A. Linenberger SERVED DEC 181986
) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL In the Matter of 50-330 OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY )
) (ASLBPNo. 78-389-03 OL)
(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )
) December 17, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Authorizing Withdrawal of Operating License Application and Dismissing Operating License Proceeding)
On July 11, 1986, Consumers Power Co. (CPC), the Applicant in this
. operating license (OL) proceeding, filed a motion for authorization to withdraw its application for operating licenses, for dismissal of the OL proceeding, and for termination of the then-pending Order of Modification (0M) proceeding. In our Memorandum and Order (Motion to
> Dismiss / Terminate Proceedings), dates September 26, 1986, LBP-86-33, 24 NRC , we dismissed the OM proceeding as moot but deferred action on the OL application and proceeding pending preparation, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 51.21, of the Staff's Environmental Assessment (EA) and the receipt of comments (if any) on that EA by other parties.
8612230094 DR 861217 ADOCK 05000329 3Soz-
( s. ~
's .
2 The Staff served its EA on November 17, 1986. By our Memorandum and Order (Granting Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal Proceedings and Posing Questions to Parties), dated December 3,1986 (unpublished), we provided that comments on the EA were to be in our hands by close of business December 11, 1986. We also posed certain question to various parties, to be answered by the same date. We received timely responses from CPC and the Staff, each dated December 11, 1986 (CPC Response; Staff Response). No other party has responded.
The Staff response was supported by the affidavit of Gary B. Staley, an NRC hydraulic engineer.
After considering all the material filed, we are authorizing the Staff to permit CPC to withdraw its application for operating licenses -
and are dismissing the OL proceeding. Although we are imposing no terms or conditions, we expect CPC to honor certain commitments (described
~
below) which it has made.
A. BACKGROUND The background of the withdrawal request is set forth in LBP-86-33 and need not be repeated. Suffice it to say that, in July 1984, CPC for financial reasons discontinued all construction at the Midland facility, and that in the Spring of 1986 it determined to abandon the nuclear project. It now plans to convert the facility to a gas-fired cogeneration project, in partnership with Dow Chemical Co. and others.
CPC's withdrawal motion is governed by 10 C.F.R. Q 2.107(a), which provides:
k, '*
b 3
(a) The Commission may pennit an applicant to withdraw an application prior to the issuance of a notice of hearing on such terms and conditions as it may prescribe, or may, on receiving a reque:.t for withdrawal of an application, deny the application or dismiss it with prejudice. Withdrawal of an application after the issuance of a notice of hearing shall be on such terms as the presiding. officer may prescribe.
In considering the withdrawal motion, we have been mindful of NRC's responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act (and the implemnting regulations in 10 C.F.R Part 51) to consider environmental impacts which may stem from the withdrawal. In doing so, we have examined CPC's July 11, 1986 motion (including attached affidavits), the Staff's EA, two inspection reports on which the EA is based (dated October 28, 1986 and November 14, 1986, respectively),theenvironmental report (ER) prepared by CPC, dated October 2,1986 (titled " Midland Site Stabilization Report"), and the responses of CPC and the Staff to our
,- December 3, 1986 inquiries.
- As we understand it, CPC is taking steps to convert a ' portion of the partially constructed facility to a gas-fired cogeneration facility, but site construction (e.g., demolition of unnecessary buildings and extension of fill area for gas turbines) would begin no earlier than 1987. The nuclear steam supply systems and other buildings and components of the project which are not usable for the gas-fired plant would be abandoned. ER at 1; November 14, 1986 Inspection Report, at 3-5. The cooling pond would be used for the gas-fired facility and such
0
- s. -
6 4
use would be controlled by an NPDES permit (under the jurisdiction of the Michigan Department of Natural-Resources (MDNR)).
B. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF WITHDRAWAL According to the Staff's EA, the Midland site was found to be adequately stabilized and there were no areas where erosion could lead to detrimental offsite environmental impacts. In addition, the Staff determined that the planned underpinning work to support the auxiliary building had been completed; and that, in the two years since construction shutdown, the auxiliary building has experienced virtually no movement except for seasonal variations with temperature. Moreover, physical barriers are in place to prevent unauthorized access to the The cooling pond was drained in 1984-85 underpinning area. EA at 3.
and currently remains in that state. November 14, 1986 Inspection Report, at 10-13.
The Staff further inspected the transmission line corridor from the plant to the Tittabawassee substation and from that substation to the Kewowa/Thetford substation at several locations. It determined that the corridors are predominantly through farmland that has reverted to its natural state since construction, and that there is "no evidence of any adverse environmental impact." November 14, 1986 Inspection Report, at 15-17; EA at 2.
Finally, the Staff found that the site cannot be used as a utilization facility (EA at 3). It concluded that the termination of the existing construction permits (and the concomitant withdrawal of the
3
.o W , l 5
OL application and dismissal of the OL proceeding) would "not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment" (EA at 4).
After examining the environmental submissions, we determined that two items in the Staff's November 14, 1986 inspection report warranted further exploration. Therefore, we posed certain questions concerning those items in our December 3,1986 Memorandum and Order. The items are relevant in alternative situations: one if the plant were to be used for the gas-fired facility, the other if it is not to be so used and is abanconed. Wc will discuss these items seriatim.
- 1. Underpinning excavations. The first item concerns the situation where the cooling pond is re-filled, as would occur if the plant were to be used as a gas-fired cogeneration facility. The Staff's November 14, 1986 inspection report states (at 7) that "if the cooling pond is ever re-filled, something will have to be done to the partially completed underpinning to alleviate the possibility of soil washouts (the positive gradient would induce flow to the excavated area, thus possibly making the building unstable)." To the same effect, see the October 28, 1986 Inspection Report, at 3.
We asked questions seeking to delineate the extent of any problem (i.e., washouts or stagnant water), the nature of any corrective action, and CPC's intent to carry out such action. CPC indicated that it had not yet determined what steps were appropriate but that "[t]he contractor selected to do the design and construction work for the gas-fired cogeneration facility will be required to complete the Midland soils remedial program in a way that addresses such concerns and assures
s-6 that the structures, facilities and surrounding areas will be stable and suitable for their intended use in the contemplated plant" (CPC Response, at 2). CPC further made the commitment that "[i]f the site is used for a gas-fired cogeneration facility, the contractor will be required to take the appropriate steps" (M. at 3).
In its December 11, 1986 response to our' questions, the Staff opines that a soil washout under the turbine building could lead to the development of " sinkholes" outside the fenced excavated area into which workers or visitors could fall. It characterizes this possibility as "a
- very low probability event." Nonetheless, it suggests that comitments from CPC to alleviate such conditions would be " appropriate." Staff Response, at 2.
We understand the aforesaid comitment by CPC to be broad enough to encompass the " sinkhole" condition referenced by the Staff. We also understand the comitment to be broad enough to encompass areas of the auxiliary building beyond those to be utilized in the gas-fired facility. As so construed, we accept such comitment and find it to be sufficient to obviate the need for our imposing a specific condition to that effect on the withdrawal of the application for operating licenses or on dismissal of the OL proceeding.
We note that, in our December 3,1986 questions, we inquired whether the permanent dewatering system would be utilized for the gas-fired facility. CPC responded that it would not be so used (CPC Response, at 2). Since the dewatering system was planned to be used to meet NRC safety requirements and was not planned for environmental
o-l N- l 7
reasons--indeed, the potential environmental impacts of the system were among the matters previously considered by us--we have no reason to .
expect that the failure to use the system for the gas-fired facility will result in any adverse environmental impacts.
- 2. Emergency Cooling Water Reservoir. The second item concerns the drainage of the emergency cooling water reservoir (ECWR), in the event the site were not used for a gas-fired facility and were abandoned prior to any other industrial use. The ECWR consists of a small, depressed portion of the 800 acre cooling pond, in the northeast portion of that pond (SER, 5 2.4.5). The ECWR presently does not drain by gravity, and rainfall accumulation must be pumped (November 14, 1986 Inspection Report, at 14). The inspection report states (at 13) that "if CPCo were to completely abandon this site, it would be necessary to provide a gravity drain for this portion of the pond [ECWR] to preclude eutrophication and an undesirable mosquito breeding habitat." The report adds that "[t]his regulatory responsibility should be assumed by the MDNR under the revised NPDES Permit."
Our December 3,1986 questions sought information concerning the effectiveness of the gravity drain and the jurisdiction of MDNR to require its installation in the event of site abandonment. Such a drain would apparently be effective. But the Staff and CPC indicate that MDNR may lack the authority to requ..e CPC to provide gravity drainage (or, alternatively, backfill) for the ECWR prior to site abandonment (Staff Response, at 4; CPC Response, at 5).
(, .
5 -
8 Nonetheless, CPC has made a comitment that "[i]n the event the site is completely abandoned, CPC0 will modify the ECWR by backfilling and then trenching to the #003 outfall structure on the east side of the cooling pond, so that the entire ECWR can be gravity drained" (CPC Response, at 5). We find this comitment to be satisfactory. Given this comitment, we need no explicit condition to assure that, if the site were abandoned, the drainage of the ECWR would not lead to untoward environmental consequences.
- 3. Other environmental questions. The Staff's December 11 response to our questions observes that, if CPC relinquishes control of the site, the excavation for the underpinning should be backfilled (Staff Response, at 2). Although we did not inquire whether CPC would comit to such backfilling, we note that CPC has recognized its responsibility for the site as long as it maintains its ownership. In our view, such responsibility would include placing the excavation for the underpinning in a condition where it would pose no significant threat to the human environment, either by backfilling or by some other means of control (e.g., barriers) (see ER, at 3).
We would expect CPC to take steps of this type. But we perceive the Staff to have authority to alleviate the effects of the abandonment of nuclear structures. Because we did not raise this matter in our December 3,1986 inquiry, we are not imposing any conditions with respect thereto. But since we regard a condition requiring backfilling or other means of control as appropriate, we would have no objection to
t I
b.
9 the Staff's imposing a condition of this type which it finds to be warranted.
We note that the record of this proceeding reflects certain other comitments _ of CPC--e.g., the November 14, 1986 inspection report observes (at 9) that CPC has comitted to dispose of debris from the Poseyville Laydown Area in a licensed landfill area when certain temporary facilities are removed. Our emphasis in this Memorandum and Order on comitments made to us in CPC's December 11, 1986 response should not be construed as limiting any commitments which the Staff may have obtained or as precluding the Staff from imposing such environmental conditions as it finds warranted.
- 4. Reporting to the Staff. Because the Staff's environmental responsibilities depend on CPC's eventual use of the site, we inquired concerning CPC's intent to advise the Staff of such use. CPC stated that it would advise the Staff "when conversion [i.e. actual
- construction] to a gas-fired facility begins or, alternatively, when the site is abandoned" (CPC Response, at 6). This comitment is satisfactory.
C. ORDER Based on the foregoing, and the entire record, it is, this 17th day of December,1986 ORDERED:
- 1. The NRC Staff is authorized to permit the withdrawal of CPC's OL application, subject to such conditions as it finds to be warranted.
s.
}
- 4 10
- 2. The OL proceeding is dismissed.
- 3. No conditions are imposed hereby, but the foregoing authorization and dismissal are premised on CPC's commitments as described herein.
- 4. In accordance with 10 C.F.R. 55 2.760, 2.762, 2.764, 2.785, and 2.786, as amended, this Memorandum and Order shall become effective imediately and will constitute the final action of the Commission thirty (30) days after issuance hereof, subject to any review pursuant to the above-cited Rules of Practice. Any party may take an appeal from this Memorandum and Order by filing a Notice of Appeal within ten (10) days after service hereof. Each appellant must file a brief supporting its position on appeal within thirty (30) ciays after filing its Notice of Appeal (forty (40) days if the Staff is the appellant). Within thirty (30) days after the period has expired for the filing and service of the briefs of all appellants (forty (40) days in the case of the
~
~
Staff), a party who is not an appellant may file a brief in support of, or in opposition to, any such appeal (s). A responding party shall file a single, responsive brief only, regardless of the number of appellants' briefs filed.
6
's 11 THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
>A a bw]A I,J Charles Bechhoefer, Chairp8n A NISTRATIVE JUDGE Jefry Ha t4/
ur
& keta /
ADMINI TIV JUDGE 4., w stave A. Linenteidger A MINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 17th day of December, 1986 1
e Y
e m