ML20214Q443

Memorandum & Order Granting Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal Proceedings & Posing Questions to Parties.Served on 861204

ML20214Q443
Person / Time
Site:	Midland
Issue date:	12/03/1986
From:	Bechhoefer C Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
To:	CONSUMERS ENERGY CO. (FORMERLY CONSUMERS POWER CO.), NRC OFFICE OF THE GENERAL COUNSEL (OGC), SINCLAIR, M.P.
References
CON-#486-1752 78-389-03-OL, 78-389-3-OL, OL, NUDOCS 8612050158
Download: ML20214Q443 (5)

Text

~

sfl59J SERVED DEC -4 1986 1

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DOCKETED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION USNRC ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ,86 DEC -4 A10:15 Before Administrative Judges Charles Bechhoefer, Chairman GFFE 7 n , ar- r Dr. Jerry Harbour . 00CKEI!;4u 4 Mvu.

Gustave A. Linenberger B W CH

) Docket Nos. 50-329 OL In the Matter of 50-330 OL CONSUMERS POWER COMPANY )

)- (ASLBP No. 78-389-03OL)

(Midland Plant, Units 1 and 2) )

) December 3, 1986 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (Granting Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal Proceedings and Posing Questions to Parties)

On July 11, 1986, Consumers Power Co. (CPC) filed a motion seeking, inter alia, authorization to withdraw its operating license application and dismissal of the operating license (0L) proceeding. Our Memorandum and Order of September 26, 1986 deferred action on those aspects of the motion, pending preparation by the NRC Staff and consideration by us of an Environmental Assessment. We provided 30 days from date of service of the Environmental Assessment for parties to file coments.

The Staff served its Environmental Assessment on November 17, 1986.

(Two inspection reports on which the Environmental Assessment relied were served prior to that date.) Comments would thus be required to be filed by December 22, 1986. On November 24, 1986, however, CPC filed a Motion to .~v,)edite Completion of Withdrawal Proceedings, seeking to 8612050158 861203 ~

PDR ADOCK 05000329 G pon

- - - _ . -. -- - - - DSP1 -

s 6

2 shorten the coment period so that comments would be in our hands by the close of business on December 11, 1986.

At CPC's suggestion, we convened a conference call on December 3, 1986. Participating were F. Williams (for CPC), A. Hodgdon (for the NRC Staff), Ms. Mary Sinclair (Intervenor), and R. Reichel (for the State of Michigan). (Ms. Barbara Stamiris, another Intervenor, was contacted by the Board and indicated that she had no objection to the shortening of the comment pericd and no desire to participate in the conference call.)

After a brief discussion, it was agreed that the comment period would be shortened so that all comments would be in our hands by close of business December 11, 1986. CPC's Motion to Expedite Completion of Withdrawal Proceedings is thus granted.

During the conference call, we also posed several questions derived from the reports underlying the Environmental Assessment, to be answered by CPC and (as appropriate) the Staff (with other parties also invited to submit responses or coments). (One of those questions was supplemented by an inquiry suggested by Ms. Sinclair). The questions concerned two items identified by the Staff's inspection report dated November 14, 1986.

1. The first of these items concerns the structures supported by underpinning. The November 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 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)." See also October

-s s

3 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 CPC) for a gas-fired cogeneration facility. The Board wishes to be apprised:

a. In addition to possible soil washouts, would there be other concerns about standing water in the excavations?

b. What steps are appropriate to alleviate these conditions?

c. In particular, in the event that the site is used for a gas-fired cogeneration facility, will the dewatering be continued?

d. Has CPC committed itself (or will it comit itself) to taking such steps, if the pond were to be re-filled?

2. The second of these items concerns the emergency cooling water reservoir (ECWR). The November 14, 1986 inspection report states (at p.

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 [the ECWR] to preclude eutrophication and an undesirable mosquito breeding habitat." The report adds that "[t]his regulatory responsibility should be assumed by the MDNR [ Michigan Department of Natural Resources] under the revised NPDES Permit."

The 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 produce the desired result?

I L

.i e

4

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 result? In that connection, the SER lists the probable maximum flood at el. 631.5 ft. ms1 and (with wind-wave runup) at el. 635.5 ft. ms1. See SER 9 2.4.3.1.

c. Does the MDNR have jurisdiction to impose such a condition in the event the Midland site is completely abandoned prior to any industrial use?

d. Has CPC committed itself (or will it commit itself) to install such a gravity drain in the event of complete site abandonment?

3. Since both of the foregoing conditions depend upon the next usage of the site, does CPC intend (or will it comit itself) to inform the Staff when (a) it begins construction of the gas-fired facility, (b) it places suc5 facility into operation, and (c) in the alternative, it determines not to pursue its plans for a gas-fired facility and, as a result, determines 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 established above for comenting on the Environmental Assessment.

(Copies of this Memorandum and Order are being provided to CPC and the Staff on December 3,1986, and are being express-mailed to Ms. Sinclair and the State of Michigan that same date.)

, l ':

t 5

IT-IS SO ORDERED.

FOR THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD dn $& '

Charles Bechhoefer, Chapn ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 3rd day of December,1986.

i s - , , . , - - - - , , . - , , - , . . . ~ . , , - _ , , , - . - . , - - - - - , , . - , - - - , -,- - - - - - -