ML20032B683
| ML20032B683 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 10/26/1981 |
| From: | Check P Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Longenecker J ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8111060067 | |
| Download: ML20032B683 (10) | |
Text
,
{
Sqy[
E 3, Q. L.
/
1. ; ;'hN October 26, 1981 k-I 6
L r
OCT 2 71981*
y v.5. C 'fs f "
SI Docket No.: 50-537
/Cl i 'q< / / g g i $,
tir. John Longenecker NE 561 Department of Energy Washington, D.C.
20545
Dear Mr. Longenecker:
SUBJECT:
REQUEST FOR ADDITI0tlAL INFORMATION FOR EllVIR0fftENTAL REVIEW 0F THE CRBR APPLICATION Please provide, in an amendment to the Environmental Report, the infonnation identified in the Enclosure for our review of your application for a permit to construct the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant.
In the event that some of the information requested is adequately provided in your Amendment 9 to the Environmental Report just received, an appropriate response for such items is to refer to their locations in the document.
This information is requirca by November 13, 1981, in order to maintain our schedule for the review.
If you will not be able to respond in time, please inform us prior to that date as to when your submittal can be expected.
Sincerely.
Origiaal Signed oy Paul S. Check Paul S. Check, Director CRBR Program Office Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc: Service List 8111060067 811026 PDR ADOCK 05000537 c
lcJZ A
.g p> /
/6/
N-
.M c
s NbbM WMdghPMN:M GR W
o,nc,p suame) Plee,ch/,bm P5huttlewdrtt C pa(
P
.19.M.81 W#L8L....
.FSE,.ht... 10g7.81....
om>
nec ronu m oo.em r.ncu om OFFIClAL RECORD COPY us w. % -- m m
Distribution October 26, 1981 Occke File bec:
Local PDR Applicant Service List CRBR File NSIC TERA TIC E. Case D. Eisenhut R. Vollmer R. Mattson S. Hanauer T. Murley J. P. Knight W. Johnston D. Muller P. Check W. Kreger L. Rubenstein F. Schroeder M. Ernst ACRS (16)
OI&E (3)
S. Treby (OELD)
J. LeDoux, I&E V. Moore B. Grimes C. Thomas P. Leech R. Stark W. H. Foster R. Woodruff
- 8. Morris I&E Region II ED0 L. S. Tong 1
Licensing Assistant - P. Shuttleworth i
NRC Participants
{
J. A. Olshinski, IE: Reg. II R. E. Ireland, NRC - Idaho R. Ballard W. Regan i
A. Toalston R. Jackson H. Lowenberg i
I
---r-
,, - e m,
e -
i
. October 26, 1981 cc: Marshall Miller, Esq., Chairman Alan Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Atomic Safety and Licensing U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Appeal Board Washington, D.C.
20555 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 Mr. Gustav A. Linenberger Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esq.
U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission General Counsel Washington, D.C.
20555 Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Of rector Bodega Marine Laboratory University of California William M. Barrick, Esq.
Suite 250 P. O. Box 247 Capitol Hill Building Bodega Bay, California 94923 Nashville, Tennessee 37219
~
Stuart Treby,
' Chase Stephens, Chief Daniel Swanson Docketing and Service Section Office of the Executive Office of the Secretary Legal Director U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissic, Washington, D.C.
20555 Washington, D.C.
20555 Dr. John H. Buck William B. Hubbard, Esq.
Assistant Attorney General Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board State of Tennessee U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of the Attorney General Washington, D.C.'
20555~
422 Supreme Court Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219 Rcbert G. Staker Oak Ridge Public Library Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary Civic Center for Nuclear Reactor' Programs Department of Energy Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D.C.
20545 Luther M. Reed, Esq.
Barbara A. Finamore Attorney for the City S. Jacob Scherr of Oak Ridge Ellyn R. Weiss 253 Main Street, East Dr. Thomas B. Cochran Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
1725 I Street, N.W.
Lawson McGhee Public Library Suite 600 l
500 West Church Street Washington, D.C.
20006 Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 L. Ribb George L. Edgar, Esq.
LNR Associates Morgan, Lewis & Bockius Nuclear Power Safety Consultants 1800 M Street, N.W.
8605 Grimsby-Court Washington, D.C.
20036 Potomac, Md.
l l
l
NRC Request for Additional Information Needed for Environmental Review of CRBR CP Application Geology and Seismology 230.lR The geology and seismology literature search needs to be updated. The latest reference in the bibliography is 1974. Considerable research in geology and seismology has been done since that time (i.e., Appalachian C0 CORP line; recent studies of the Oilos County Earthquake by Bollinger presented at the Earthquakes and Earthquake Engineering meeting in September,1981 in Knoxville, Tenn.; TVA Appalachian Study; Studies re-lated to the Charleston, S.C.1886 earthquake; site investigations at TVA and other nuclear projects in the region; studies of other recent and historic Appalachian earthquakes; etc.).
l 230.2R Based on the site investigation data presented in the PSAR, the upper siltstone horizon of Unit A, within.which the. structure foundations. are 4
to be placed, is relatively devoid of solution features below foundation grade. However, it is not that obvious that the underlying limestone unit of the Chickamauga group, Unit A and the much deeper Knox group do not contain significant cavities. Determine the maximum size cavity, based on regional studies of karst features in these rock units, that l
j could exist beneath the plant without being detected by the investigations performed. Evaluate the capability of the foundation rock unit (Unit A, upper siitstone) to bridge such cavities.
230.3R Furnish a map and summary discussion of the relationship between the l
Pleistocene-Pliocene high terrace deposits and geologic structures at the site, particularly the shear zone encountered in core borings.
l l
l
. 230.4R What is the current status of the radioactive waste injection well on the Oak Ridge Reservation approximately 4 miles east of the site?
230.5R The geology section for the Clinch River site in the Alternate Site write-up should be updated.
It is written as if only four core borings have been drilled there and the geologic conditions are unknown. This can be done by referring to Chapter 2.4.
Ecology 1
290.lR Provide a succinct summary and discussion in table form, by ER section, of differences between currently projected station design and environmental effects (including those that would degrade, and those that would enhance environmental conditions) and the effects discussed in the environmental report submitted in 1975, Amendments 1 through 7.
290.2R Describe any changes in station design that would result in a change in the water quality of the station blowdown or station water use, or in water intake or discharge structures.
290.3R Identify and make available for staff inspectior, during the site visit any l
new or updated information pertaining to water quality, water use, aquatic biology, or terrestrial resources in the vicinity of the site published or generally available since submission of the ER. Sources of this l
information should include, but not limited to, DOE, ORNL, TVA, University of Tennessee at Knoxville, State of Tennessee, U. S. Department of the l
Interior, local governments, or regional planning groups.
l I
. 290.4R Identify and describe any post-1976 differences in uses of the Clinch River by others. Provide current plans of TVA for regulation of flow in the Clinch River noting especially any plans for maintenance of a minimum flow past the site.
290.5R Provide any additional information on the population levels, spawning activity, or other site specific information on Corbicula sp. known to inhabit the Clinch River in the vicinity of the site.
290.6R Provide an estimate of the maximum probable yearly recreational harvest of finfish, shellfish and molluscs harvested from waters downstream of the station to the Mississippi River that potentially could be contaminated by radionuclides due to a maximum probable accident. The harvest estimates should be summarized by species and location of capture (water body segment) and provide an explanation of how the estimate was obtained.
290.7R Using data from the last 5 years from National Marine Fisheries, or the States within the Tennessee and lower Ohio watersheds, provide an estimate of the maximum probable yearly commercial tarvest of finfish, shellfish, and molluscs harvested from waters downstream of the station to the Mississippi River that potentially could be contaminated by radio-nuclides due to a maximum probable accident. The harvest estimates should be summarized by species and location of capture (water body segment).
Provide an explanation of how the estimate was made.
_ 290.8R Indicate if any federally recognized threatened or endangered soecies have either been reported from the site or the immediate vicinity or historically known from the site and recently placed on the list of protected species since issuance of the ER.
i 290.9R Give the status of the NPDES permit, the Clean Water Act 401 certification, and other permits and approvals required prior to station operation.
Regional Impact Analysis 310.lR Provide current data on purchases of materials (concrete, lumber, stone, 4
sand, etc.) and services (excluding local construction labor) to be made in the four-county impact area during the construction period.
310.2R Provide current data on labor force requirements and schedules, intra-structure capacity and demand, tax rates and fiscal resources, population, land use, and competing construction projects.
l Economic Analysis 320.1R Provide updated economic comparison of Clinch River and viable hook-on sites. Level of detail should be consistent with data presented in Table 9.4 of the CRBR FES. Original source of this data was letter to NRC from A. R. Buhl, CRBR Project Office, January 10, 1977, also, see ER Section 9.2.6.2.
l l
320.2R Discuss capacity losses and age of turbines associated with each hook-l on arrangement identified in response to Q.320.1.
t
320.3R Update those sections of Appendix E (Amendment VII - February,1977) to the CRBR-ER dealing with costs of delay associated with relocating the proposed plant. Specifically, provide new cost data for Tables 1 and 2 of Appendix E for all alternatives previously considered plus the costs associated with a move to potential sites on the TVA system.
Additional discussion should include new Clinch River schedule, estimated
)
months of delay associated with move, and date corresponding to reference time 0.
Also, if timing requirements of the project are still important, identify new critical dates for commercial operation and decision on full-scale LMFBR commercialization.
320.4R Provide updated $ estimates of the program benefits associated with
' LMFBR commercialization (see Program FES (ERDA-1535), Table III F-10 of Volume 1, and Section 11.5.1 of the ER). Also, provide $ estimate of the loss of benefits associated with the delay assumed in response to Q3.
(See Buhl, Dec. 29,1976, p. 31 for estimate based on 52 month delay).
320.5R Provide current estimate of operating revenues expected during demonstration period from sale of energy to TVA system and revenues from potential 30 year operating life.
Identify all underlying assumptions used in making these calculations.
320.6R Review Section 8 -- Need for the Proposed Facility -- of the CRBRP FES (NUREG 0139) and based on post 1977 developnents regarding the CR project identify all revisions and updates necessary to make this section factually consistent with the current :tatus of the program.
i
,____m
. 320.7R Update the internal costs of the CR project. Maintain level of detail in Section 8.3.1 including Table 8.3-1 of the ER. Also, indicate portions of the internal cost to be borne by federal <
government, participating utilities, etc.
320.8R Provide updated justification for excluding other energy sources as viable alternatives to CRBRP. Currently, ER Section 9.1 dismisses depletable energy resources based on energy growth rates, nuclear
~
expansion plans, costs, and estimates of energy resource stocks, all reflecting 1975 expectations.
In addition, as a result of the passage of time and advances made in implementing the larger next stage demonstration LMFBR, provide justification for not considering this as a viable alternative energy source.
320.9R Update economic cost analyses developed in support of your decisions regarding alternative plant designs. Specifically Sections 10.1.5 (Tcbles 10.1-9 and 10.1-10),10.2.5 (Tables 10.2.1 and 10.2-2),
10.3.5 (Table 10.3-2) and 10.6.5.
Fuel Cycle, Waste Management & Safeguards 750.lR Since there are no known commercial plans for participating in the CRBR fuel cycle on a licensed basis, it appears that the fuel cycle related to CRBR will have to be carried out by 00E in its own unlicensed facilities. Accordingly, it will be necessary for DOE to project its plans for carrying out the fuel cycle functions related to processing, safeguarding and transportation of fuels and for managing the handling and disposal of wastes.
rJL.A_,
J n.
. J l
In this regard, please provide an amendment to the environmental report that describes DOE's planned program and facilities for such j
r functions related to CRBR, including estimates of the resource uses and effluents and assessments of the potential effects, including radiological, resulting from such activities. This report will serve as the basis for NRC to perfonn its independent evaluations of these functions for CRBR licensing purposes.
i i
i 1
)
I' i
r l
.