ML20004E451

Requests That ASLB Take Immediate Action to Stop Const at Facility Until Listed Items Resolved.Risk of Low Level Radiation Has Increased & Facility Site on Flood Plain Increases Potential Hazard to Public Health & Safety

ML20004E451
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	06/01/1981
From:	Gadle S MAPLETON INTERVENORS
To:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
NUDOCS 8106120203
Download: ML20004E451 (2)

Text

2120 Carter .ivenue, St. Paul, Minnesota 55108 Telephone: 646-5005 St;bJ.Gadler,P.E.

00CKETtwt.:aza / s PROD.(UTIL FAC, ,hhM, , <f June 1, 1981 [ //\

f-/

DOCKETE3 USN U e 6 JUN 10198f * ~3 The Honorable Charles Bechhoefer .

I'/] g U":!:#^?$wemy Chairman of the Atomic Safety and Licensing B ard '#K [887 -

1. W 7 3.tvice Nuclear Regulatory Commission  % Nih b QD h Washington., DC 20555 O, '[

D

Dear Judge Bechhoefer:

In relation to the Consumer's Power Company, Midland Nuclear Plant Docket Number 50-329 and 50-330, serious questions continually arise with respect to the As an example, recent data shows improper siting of the Midland Nuclear Plant.

that the risks of low level radiation is greater than what was believed to be the case only one year ago.

Science Magazine for 22 May, 1981 also indicates that radiation is even more toxic to human beings than was believed.when the Midland Plant was sited within the city of Midland.

~

Furthermore, the plant was sited 8.n the flood plain of the Tittabawassee River, which increases the potential hazard to public health and safety over and above the new radiation hazard by this improperly sited nuclear plant.

l The Mapleton Intervenors sincerely believe that the Atomic Safety Licensing Board should take immediate action to stop construction of the Midland Nuclear Plant for the followiag reasons:

1. Siting of plant within the city of Midland in viclatien of'NRC f siting rules and. regulations. _

l

2. Disregard of the hundred year flooding potential of the river in

- - ~ ~bdilding 'the plant on the unstable flood plain.

l

3. Sinking of buildings and instability of underground piping as pointed out in NRC inspections of the plant.

as

4. Questionable quality control procedures in building the plant, pointed out by NRC inspections.

5. A probable potential for liquification anc /or decomposition and de-stabili=ation of the type of foundation composition in construction at this site.

6. Questionable stability of soils, sand and rock in which foundation footings are sited.

7.

The necessity to eliminate liquification potential due to the general water conditions in the applicant's suggestion of a permanent dewater-ing system for the plant's site.

8. The potential crustal uplift resulting from cavern salt and brine extraction and other man-made underground activities.

8106120'603 p gaf G 5t o 1

-