ML19330A122

Sworn Testimony Re Technical Feasibility of Plant Location at Greater Distance from Residential & Populous Areas.Urges Analysis of Proposed Alternate Schemes to Determine Relative Merits

ML19330A122
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	08/11/1971
From:	Eckert E G MAPLETON INTERVENORS, MINNESOTA, UNIV. OF, MINNEAPOLIS, MN
To:
Shared Package
ML19330A118	List: ML19330A117 ML19330A122
References
NUDOCS 8007150894
Download: ML19330A122 (10)

Text

___ - -

{}

%/

~ * ~ "

UdITED STATES OF AMERICA ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSIC:.

BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING BOARD ,

In the Matter of Docket Nos. 50-329 50-330 CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY SWORN TESTIMONY OF Midland Plant, Units I & II Ernst R. G. Eckert STATE OF MINNESOTA sst COUNTY OF HENNEPIN .

I. .

I, Ernst R. G. Eckert, being first duly sworn, depose and say as follows:

My formal education, work experience, past and present positions, professional activities, membership in professional societies are as folicws:  :

Educations Dipl.-Ing. German Institute of Technology, Prague. 1927 Dr.-Ing. German Institute of Technology, Prague 1931 Dr. Habil. Institute of Technology, Danzig 1938 Docent Institute of Technology, Braunschweig 1940 Positions:

' 1966- Regent s Professor and Director, Thermo-Present dynamics and Heat Transfer Division and Heat and Mass Transfer Laboratory, Department of Mechanical Engineering, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, University of Minnesota

, 1955 ' Director, Thermodynamics and !! eat Transfer Division, Mechanical Engineering Department, University of Minnesota 1951 Professor, Mechanical Engineering Depart-ment, University of Minnesota, tiinne. polis, Minnesota 1949-51 consultant, National Advisory Committee Aeronautics, Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory, Cleveland, Ohio 8007150 Q y

~5 .

L' 1945-49 Consultant, Power Plant Laboratory, a

U. S. Sir Force, Wright-Patterson Air Forcs osse, Ohio 1033-45 Professor and Director, Institute for Thermodynamics,(Jerman Institute of Technology, Prague 1938-45 Section-Chief, Aeronautical Research Institute, Braunschweig 1935-38 Lecturer, Institute of Technology, Danzig .

1928-34 Assistant, German Institute of Technology, Prague other experience:

Regist'ered Professional Engineer, State of Minnesota ,

Chairman, Honorary Editorial Advisory Board of _ International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer

. Advisory Consultant, Applied Mechanics and Heat Transfer Divisions of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers U. S. Representative, Aerodynamics Panel of the International Committee of Flame Radiation Editor, Warme und Stoffubertragung,

• . . ... Thermal Science Series, Wadsworta Publishi'g n Company, Belmont, California Co-chairman, Advisory Editorial Board, U. S. A., of Heat Transfer-Soviet Research Vice President of Scientific Council, International Center for Heat and Mass

, Transfer, Yugoslavia Visiting Professor, Purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana U. S. Representative at Assembly for International Heat Transfer Conferences Membership in Societies:

American Society for Engineering Education American Institute of Aeronautics and Astropautics Wissenschaftliche Gesellschaft fur Luft-und Raumfahrt Amer'ican Society of. Mechanical Engineers v... . ,

L. / ., -2.,

..s. ..

1. . . .

f l

Sicpaa Xi.

Pi Tau Sigma e

Tau Deta Pi

. Publications:

Articles: -

AIAA .Tournal A.I.Ch.E. J'u tal Applied Scler'ti'ic ner nrch AY, Jovencl

. Industrial Engineering Chemistry 1

International .Tou nal of IIcat and Mass Transfer Jct Propulsion Journal of the Aerospace Sciences Journal of Ipp' ' ed I:achanics Journal of Dacic Engincering i

Journal of Ilcat Transrol i

Mechanical Engineering National Advisory Com:nittee for As.ronautics National Acronautics and Space Administration Solar rneray Transactions of the AS:C Chemie-Ingenieur-rcchnik La Scuola in Azic:..

Forschung auf de:a Cabietc des Ingenieurwesens 1

Zeitschrift fOr angcuandte I:athentatik und l Physik U"4rmo urd Scoff 0bertragung Books:

Tcchnische Strnhlungaat::taucchrechnuncen.

IJerlin: Vul-Varlcig .

Introductien tc tim '"r.nns fer of IIca t and !! ass, (ua.1.a Awccr 'c ... Dr.J.c, Jr.). U:nt Ycrk:

McGrau IIill ro % Ccrporiy. 2E4 pagca (1950) l l

1 4

l - .

I

, _(Russian Introduction to the Transfer translations of Heat ' and Mass.

Moscow-Leningrac:

~

l National Energetic Publishing. 280 pages (19e7)

,Einfonr9ng Berlin:

in den Uarme-und Stoffaustauch.

Springer-Verlag. 3rd edition (1966)

HeatYork:

New and Mass Transfer, (with R. M. Drake, Jr.)

McGraw-Hill Book Company, Inc.

2nd edition (1959)

Thacry of Heat and Mass Transfer, (with R. M.

ErEde, Jr.) 'ausslan translation). Moscow:

State Energetic: Publishing House. 680 pages Jntr oduction to Heat and Mass Transfer, (trongfer to English of Einfuhrung in den b'arme-und Stoffaustnuch, by J. F. GrofiT'

' New York McGraw-l!tll Ecok Company.

346 pages (1963)

Awards:

Fellow, tieu York Academy of Sciences,1959 Institute of Technolocy Dictinguished 1

' caching Award , University of Minnesota,1965 Western Electric Fund Award Excellence in Iristruction of Engineering Students, 19 6 Gold Medal, conferred by French Institute for Energy and Fuel for Important Contributions to Utilization of Energy and Thermal Sciences, 1967 Dr.-Ing. E.H.

(Honorary doctorate) Institute of Tecnnology, Munich, Germany,May 2, 1968' Doctor of Engineerina (honoris causa) purdue University, Lafayette, Indiana, June 9, 1968

} Doctor of Science (ttonoris causa) University

.

• of Mancnester, Manenester, England, September 10, 1968 Fellow, American Astronautics, 1968Scciety of Aeronautics and Fellow, American Scciety of Mechanical Engineers, 1969 Citations:

Regents' Professor of Mcchanical Engineering, University or Minnesota - Created Dy tne University of Minnesota Board of Regents in recognition of outstanding academic distinction judged of on the scholarly basis of the scope and quality contributions, quality of teach-ing,'and contributions to tha public good.

June 196G.

Max Jakob Award, 1961 (initial recipient)

• "For nis many and vital ccatributions to basic knowledge in heat transfer, made I directly by his experimental and analytical  !

investigations and also in recognition of his I contributions as an outstanding teacher whose enthusiasm and understanding has contributed so widely to the advancement of this important field of engineering science."

II.

MY TESTIMONY. UHICH IN FART IS BASED ON INFORMATION AND BELIEF, IS AS FOLLCWS:

I have had the opportunity to review and refer to the following documents:

o

1. The Preliminary Safety Analysis Report

2. Letter, dated April 1G, 1971, from Mr. Jack O. Horton, i

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Programs, United States Department of Interior, to Mr. Harold L. Price, Dirje ctor of Regulation, United States Atomic Energy Commission.

3. Letter, dated August 27, 1970, from Harold Bosscher, General Manager, Midland Division, Dow Chemical Company, to Mr. Russell C. Youngdahl, Consumers Power Company, Jackson, Michigan.

4. Letter, dated March 18, 1971, from Dr. Sidney R. Galler.

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Environmental Affairs, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Commerce,'U. S.

Government, to Mr. Harold L. Prico, Director of Regulation, United States Atomic Energy Commission.

5. Statement, dated June 29, 1971, to the Michig a State Air Pollution Control Commission, from Dow Chemical Company.

6

.. Report, undated, from Environmental Protection Agency, to (apparently) U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, re Midland Nuclear Plant.

7. Statement, dated April 1971, from, Radiation Office, Environmental Protection Agency, to (apparently)

United States Atomic Energy Commission, re " Environ-mental impact review, Midland Plant Units I & II".

8. Statement, dated November 1970, from U. S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare,.Public Health Service, Environmaatal Health Service, Bureau of Radiological Health, Division of Environmental Radiation and Nuclear Facilitics Dranch, to (apparently)

United States' Atomic Energy Commission, re "Public health review, Midland Plant Units I & II".

e W W e

e d

I

9.

Letter, dated (received by U. S. Atomic Energy Commission) March 31, 1971, from R. Y. Edwards,

, Rear Admiral, U. S. Coast Guard, Chief, Office of Public and International Affairs, Department of

• Transportation, United States Coast Guard, to Mr. Harold L. Price, Director of Regulation, United States Atomic Energy Commission.

Let me begin by saying that I will confine my. testimony to two subjects of concern to the Atomic Energy Commission Atomic Safety and Licensing Board: Site planning of the applicant Consumers Power Company proposed nuclear power plant, Units 1 and 2 and, secondly, the proposed use of process steam produced by the proposed Midland nuclear plant by the Dow Chemical Company in Midland, Michigan. -

My testimony is offered under the auspices of the Mapleton Intervenors, who have, among others, presented testimony to the f,

Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to support the proposition that the Consumers Fower Company proposed plant should be located at some distance fr'om the populated areas to minimize the risk of exposur s of the population to radioactive contamina-tion or danger from a nuclear accident.

l i

On this first question of site planning, my testimony will I be directed to the question of the technical feasibility of f locating the plant at a greater distance than proposed by the applicant Consumers Power Company, while retaining the technical feasibility of delivering process steam to the Dow Chemical Company.

From review of the preliminary safety analysis report and i the other documents listed in my affidavit herein, it is  ;

evident that the applicant consum2rs Power Company believes it I is not technically feasible to deliver process steam to the Dow Chemical Company in the event the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board determines that the plant should be located at 1 a greater distance than proposed by the applicant Consumers Power Company.

l

. e i

I .

t

t The apy.icant Consumers Power Cornpany has taken the

's position, as indicated in its Draft Statement, that "There is

\ no feasible alternative for using another site to produce process steam for Dov. . . . (S)uch a moving of the plant would result in a decrease in both the quantity and quality of the steam supplied to Dow. Delivery of steam from such a distance would require the use of extremely large pipes, which could be considered unaesthetic."

l I

Hy testimony here is directed to this position of the applicant Consumers Power Company. I will briefly discuss some schemes which will permit the location of the Midland nuclear plant some distance from residential and population areas, I

while retaining the technical feasibility of delivering process j steam to Dow Chemical Company.

j According to the present plans of the applicant Consumers Power Company, the proposed Midland nuclear plant will deliver

{ electric power and process steam. Part of that steam

[3,650,000 lb/hr] is used to generate electric power by direct-ing the steam flow through the high pressure part of one of the steem turbines. Each of the nuclear reactors generates l

11,000,000 lb/hr.

l 1

The process steam used to generate electricity is, therefore,

) 16.6 percent of the total amount of steam generated by both l reactors.

The percentage of electricity generated by the process steam is, however,. considerably less because this steam flows through the high pressure part of the turbine only:

whereas, the rest of the steam generates electricity in the low pressure part as well as in the high pressure part of the steam turbines.

The percentage of the electric power generated by the process steam is, therefore, between 4 and 5 percent of the

, total electric power generated by the proposed Midland nuclear plant, depending on the temperature of the cooling water for the condenser.

I

r i FIRST ALTERNATE SCHEME FOR DELIVERY OF PROCESS STEAM FROM A PLANT SITE SOME DISTANCE

. FROM RESIDENTIAL AND POPULOUS AREAS i

The first alternate scheme I propose would require climinat-ing the generation of electric power by the process steam. It is suggested that this is feasible because the process steam generates a comparatively small amount of electricity, to-wit between 4 and 5 percent of the total electric power which would be generated by the proposed Midland nuclear plant. In the event process steam is not used for the generation of electric

' ower, p the total process steam required by the Dow Chemical Company could be ducted from the proposed Midland nuclear plant to Dow Chemical Company at a pressure between 675 psia and ,

1 1050 psia, and could be throttled down at the Dow Chemical

, Company to the required 675 psia and 197 psia respectively.

, Under this first alternate scheme, the pressure at which the steam is transported from the proposed Midland nuclear plan't

to Dow Chemical Company is'sufficiently high to allow a reasonable diameter of pipes required for the transport of I process steam.

! SECOND ALTERNATE SCHEME l FOR DELIVER'1 OF PROCESS STEAM FROM A PLANT SITE SOME DISTANCE

FROM RESIDENTIAL AND POPULOUS AREAS A second alternate scheme which would allow the location of

.. the site of the proposed nidland nuclear plant at some greater distance from residential and populous areas is proposed in the event that it is determined necessary that the same level of generation of electric power as proposed by the applicant Consumers Power Company be maintained. In this second alternate scheme, the reduction of the pressure of. process steam trans-ported to the Dow Chem' i cal Company from 1050 psia to 197 psia could be performed in a separate turbine which itself generates electric power and would be locatcd at the Dow Chemical plant.

i I

i i t.

THIRD ALTERNATE SCHEME FOR DELIVERY OF PROCESS STEAM FROM A PLANT SITE SOME DISTANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL AND POPULOUS AREAS i

i The third alternate scheme which would allow location of  ?

the proposed Midland nuclear plant at a greater distance from residential and populous areas could be accomplished by complete separation of the electric power plant from the system of delivery of process steam to Dow Chemical Company.

The location of the electric power plant could then be planned independently of the location of the Dow Chemical Company. To meet the needs of Dow ' Chemical Company for process steam, a special power plant could be located at the Dow Chem'ical Company, powered by coal gas or oil, to ganarate steam at 675 psia.

A part of this steam could be reduced in pressure to 195 psia in a turbine or in a throttle valve. The electricity produced by a generator connected with the turbine could be used at the Dow Chemical plant or could be sold to Consumers Power Company.

In conclusion, concerning the question of site location of the proposed Midland nuclear plant, my testimony is not directed to the question of capital costs of the various alternate schemes, but is limited to the technical feasibility of the location of tho Midland nuclear plant at some greater distance from residential and populous areas. In view of the 9

technical feasibility of locating the plant at some greater distance, it is suggested that the economy of the various alternate schemes proposed herein be given a detailed analysis by the applicant and the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board to determine their relative merits.

• O 4

9 l

l

f . &

l em Further deponent saith not.

k

(

_ & //$ V hk Eynst R. G. f.ckert / ,

i .

Subscribed and sworn to before me this th day of August, 1971. .

w",<v .. Vtl

• v .

, _ LYN'4.3......

C A971ste _

J . -

I e 44 .

f I . . . . ,.

I 9 A m a em.

l e 0

, f 5

O  %

f i

I

. .