ML20039D943
| ML20039D943 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 12/31/1981 |
| From: | Chipman G ENERGY, DEPT. OF |
| To: | Palladino N NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20039D944 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8201060363 | |
| Download: ML20039D943 (58) | |
Text
~
}
To h-
/4 p1
&l Cf N
g Department of Energy
- 1 gg-
, 4 93 Washington, D.C. 20545
%::Qa
.m
'9 W
Docket No. 50-537 g
Kw, N_ S02N HC GotY
-?.Ec'D CHRr."-
M Honorable.Nunzio J. Palladino A
A8 Chatman
'81 EC 31
- 13 g '
M CEC 812_:tf.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
~
Washington, D.C.
20555 0F F C V.n c:::
Dear Mr. Chaiman:
'$[cf3*'
In response to the Commission's Order dated December 24, 1981, the Department of _ Energy (D0E),'for itself and on behalf of its coapplicants Project Manage-ment Corporation and the Tennessee Valley Authority, hereby files with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) currently available documentation supporting the factual representations in the November 30, 1981, 10-C.F.R.
Section 50.12 request.
Applicants believe that the November 30, 1981, request contained sufficient documentation,. in and of itself, to support the factual representations made therein. The factual representations related to the Section 50.12 factors are contained in the Applicants' Site Preparation Activities Report (SPAR),
which describes the site and project status, the proposed site preparation ~
activities and the environmental effects thereof, redress actions that could be taken if the Commission ultimately denies a Construction Permit, and the effects of delay.
In turn, the SPAR relies upon and lists numerous references as'the basis for its discussion. Further, it 'should be-emphasized that most of the analysis presented in the SPAR was based upon the existing _ analyses and data documented in the Applicants' Environmental Report (ER) and NRC's March 1977 Final Environmental Statement-(FES) for the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project.
The ER has been updated, and the parties to the c
suspended Construction-Permit proceedings have received all amendments.
Accordingly, applicants submit that sufficient documentation is already available to the Commission and the parties to the suspended Construction i
Permit proceedings.
In the interest of expediting the review process and facilitating comment by interested persons and agencies, we are submitting additional documentation in two enclosures. The first enclosure (Enclosure A) is intended to provide a detailed. cross-reference-to the' ER and FES and/or additional backup infor-mation.
It identifies each factual subsection of the SPAR, the corresponding portions of the ER and FES that support the ' subsection, and/or where appro-priate, provides an expanc'ed explanation of the basis for the conclusion (s) drawn.
The second enclosure (Enclosure B) consists of a list of the specific documents that-~ are referenced in and provide'the. support for the factual representations in the SPAR. Copies of those documents are-provided in accordance with Enclosure B and the distribution list enclosed hereto.- %
_S 8201060363 811231 If
~
PDR ADOCK 05000537
'O PDR w
J
{'
1 9
2-The Applicants appreciate the opportunity to provide the additional
-information enclosed hereto,- and will respond to each of the specific
- questions in Enclosure A to the' Commission's December 24, 1981, Order on or before January 18, 1982.
Sincerely, y,
. s Gordon L. Chipman, Jr. -
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Reactor Programs Office of Nuclear Energy 2 Enclosures
)
I) ? w haq l,
s.
1 '
-ATTACHMENT A To DOE Letter to NRC Commissioners dated December 31,.1981 DOCUMENTATION SUPPORTING THE SPAR The documentation supporting the factual represen-tations in the Section 50.12 request is contained in the SPAR.
In response to the Commission's request,. there lLs here provided an identification of additional supporting documentation and/or backup information for each section, and, as appropriate, each subsection of the SPAR.
1.
Section 1 (Introduction) and 2 (Site Description and Status) -- The documentation for.each factual representation consists of references 1-1 to 1-7 and 2-1 to 2-55 listed in Section 8 (References) of the SPAR.
See also Attachment B, and discussion of SPAR Section 7 in paragraph 6 below.
2.
Section 3 (Description of Activities) - Each subject comprising the description of site preparation activities in:
the SPAR is supported by counterpart sections and subsec-tions of the FES, and pages of the ER, all of which are shown on the attached Table 1.
I TABLE 1 l
SPAR Sictirn 3--Discriptirn af Sitt Pr'parstirn Activittas Section 4, ER thru Amend..X Section 4. FES SPAR Ref below are Ref, below are Ref. Below are item to Page numbers to Section numbers to Section numbers Overall Description 4.1-1, 4.1-3, Fig. 4.1-3 4.1, Fig. 1 3.0, 3.1, Fig. 3-1 Acreage 4.1-1, 4.1-2, 4.3-1 4.2.1, 4.4.1 3.0, Table 3.1 Clearing, Grubbing, Stripping 4.1-1 4.2-1 3.1 4.2 1, 4.6.1.1(1) 3.1 Burning 4.1-2, 4.2-1.
r 4.2.1,4.3.4.4.1,-4.6.1.1(9I, 3.2, 3.3 Sedimentation 4.1-11, 4.1-14 4.6.2b-Disposal 4.1-2, 4.1-6, 4.1-12, 4.2.1, 4.4.2, 4.6.1.1 3.3, 3.5.6 4.1-7. 4.2-5 (1,6,7 and 8)
D;;st Control 4.1-12,,4 y-13 '
,4.6.1.1(11) 3.5.4 1
4.1-11 I/
4.2.1,4.3,4.6.1.1(9) 3.3, 3.5.5
/
Fire Protection Excarstion 4.1-1, 4.1-1C) 4.2.1,4.6.1.1(3) 3.0 (See Noi? 1),
Table 3.2 l
Quarry '
4.1-2, 4.1-3, 4.3-3 4.1,4.2.1,(32 acre borrow 3.1, 3.3, 3.7 pit now not to be used),
4.4.1 (see note 2)
Temporary Facilities 4.1-1, 4.1-4 4.1 3.3, 3.4.3, 3.4.4,'
3.4.5 Uttif tles. Temporary 4 1-6, 4.1-13 4.3,4.6.1.1(8) 3.3, 3.5.1, 3.5.2,.
3.5.3, 3.5.4, i'
3.5.6 i
utilities Permanent 4.1-13 (',ee, Note 3) 4.3 3.3, 3.5 3, 3.5.6 Roads. Fennacent 4.1-5, 4.1-2, 4.1-4 4.2.1, 4.4.2 Table 3.1, 3.4.1 Roads, Temporary 4.1-1, 4.1-4 4.6.1.1(12) 3.3, 3.4.4 Rattroad 4.1-5 4.2.1, 4.4.2 3.3. Table 3.1, 3.4.2 Earge Factitty 4.1-5, 4.1-14,.4.1-15 4.4.2,4.6.1.1(5),4.6.1.2(2) 3.3, Fig. 3.1, 4.6.2 d Table 3.1 Surveys 4.1-15 (Biological)
Fig. 3.2, 3.6 (Field)
Note 1: The comparison of excavation volumes in Section 3.0, SPAR, does not include the 570,500 cu yd to have been obtained
+
from off-s1te.
Note 2: Quarry is now on-site and requires 45 acres.
Note 3: Current water use is now 60.000 gpd.
tI s
s,
\\.
l s
i
> b 8
k/
~%
/
^
! J s
s4 c
A' kt-
.e o
.g-4 5-3.
Section 4 (Environmental Effects of Site Preparation) -
In what'follows, the documentation supporting each subsec-
~
tion of Section 4 of the SPAR is' identified.
The references 5
-provided below to sections of the applicants' Environmental 6'
Report as-the documentaticn supporting the SPAR include F
Amendments 9~and 10-as appropriate.
t.
/.1;.1 Impact on Terrestrial Ecology
'i
- e 4
J-
)
p.
?'
The environmental impact assessment provided in this section
- /,
of ;the SPAR was bas'ed on information contained-in the fol-
~
lowing sections.of the NRC' Final Environmental-Statement (NtfREG-0139) :
Section 4.2.1 (Impacts ~on Land Use.- Onsite s
i r
S V.-
'and Immediate Vicinity,Lpages 4-3, 4-4) and;Section 4.4.1-s.
w<
f> '
,w '(Ecological Impacts - Terrestrial, page 4-5).
Sections of
~
i,{
"the applicants' Environmental Report were also-relied 7,
upon:
specifically, Section 2.7.1 (Terrestrial Ecology, t-pages 2.7-1 through 2.7-38ww) and Section 4.1.1.6 (Impacts on Terrestrial Ecology, pages 4.1 -7 through 4.1 -9).
l~
The applicants' impact assessment of the proposed site 7
.,preparation activiti.es also reflects updated ecological data d
from an August 1980 reconnaissance survey which indicated-s that-no significant changes to the-ecology of the site had
~
. /
4 L
~
v a
'w
~c
" [%
N
^
w
t..
.i P
6-occurred since'the FES was issued.
This survey was refer-enced in the SPAR, and is being provided.'
See Attachment B, and reference 2-22.
4.1.2 Impact on Aquatic Ecology The environmental impact assessment provided in this section of the SPAR.was based on information contained in Section' 4.4.2-(Ecological Impacts - Aquatic, pages 4-5 and'4-6)oof the FES issued by the NRC.
Sections of the. applicants' Environmental Report were also relied upon:
specifically, Section 2.7.2 (Aquatic Ecology, pages 2.7-39 through 2 7-871-) and Section 4.1.2.3 (Impact on Aquatic Ecology, pages 4.1 -14 and 4.1 -15).
The updated ecological data from an 1980 reconnaissance survey, which is. reference 2-22 August to the SPAR and is being provided by Attachment B hereto, were also relied upon.
e 4.1.3 Impact on Lcnd Use The environmental impact assessment provided in this section of the SPAR was based on information contained in FES Sec-tion 4.2.1 (Impacts on' Land Use - Onsite and Immediate Vicinity, pages 4-3 and 4-4).
Sections of the applicants' Environmental Report were also relied upon:
specifically, Section 2.2 (Regional Demography, Land and Water Use, paged 2.2-1.through 2.2-55) and m
I.
7-7 Section 4.1.1 (Effects on Land Use, pages 4.1-2 through 4.1-E T
6).
El Tij
")'
hf In the FES (Section 4.2.1, page 4-4), the NRC staff estab-R lished a requirement for an environmental evaluation of a h
quarry if the applicant decided to proceed with such 3
j.(i, plans.
Such an evaluation has been provided in the Environ-rS hj mental Report (Section 4.1.1.1, page 4.1-3) and summarized nj in Section 4.1.3 (pages 4-9, 4-10) of the Site Preparation J
F Activities Report.
1 W
k
[]
4.1.4 Impact on Soils l!
The environmental impact assessment provided in this section of the SPAR was based on information contained in FES Sec-1 tion 4.2.1 (Impacts on Land Use - Onsite and Immediate Vicinity, pages 4-3 and 4-4) and Section 4.3 (Impacts on
{
Water Use, page 4-5).
Sections of the applicants' Environ-mental Report were also relied upon:
specifically, Section 2.4 (Geology, pages 2.4-1 through 2.4-31), and Section 4.1.1 (Effects on Land Use, pages 4.1-2 through 4.1-12).
4.1.5 Impact on Water Resources The environmental impact assessment provided in this section of the SPAR was based on information contained in FES
e-3 8
Section 4.3 (Impacts on Water Use, pages 4-4 and 4-5).
Sections of the. applicants' Environmental Report were also relied upon:
specifically, Section 2.2.3 (Water Use, pages 2.2-12 through 2.2,14) and Section 4.1.2 (Ef fects on Water Use, pages 4.1 -13 through 4.1 -15).
4.2 Solid and Liquid Waste Disposal The environmental impact assessment provided in this section of the SPAR was based on information contained in FES Section 4.2.1 (Impacts on Land Use - Onsite and Immediate Vicinity, pages 4-3 and 4-4) and FES Section 4.4 (Ecological Impacts, pages 4-5 and 4-6).
A sections of the applicants' Environmental Report was also relied upon:
specifically, Section 4.1.1.4 (Chemical Wastes, page 4.1-6).
See also Section 3.0 of the Site Preparation Activities Report (Description of Activities, pages 3-1 through 3-19).
4.3 Sanitary and Other Waste Treatment and Processing The environmental impact assessment provided _ in this section of the SPAR on conventional garbage and sanitary waste was based on information contained in FES Section 4.2.1 (Impacts on Land Use - Onsite and Immediate Vicinity, pages 4-3 and 4-4) and FES Section 4.4.2 (Ecological Impacts - Aquatic,
s 9
pages 4-5 and 4-6).
A section of the applicants' Environ-mental Report was also relied upon:
specifically, Section 4.1.1.5 (Sanitary and Other Wastes, pages 4.1-6 and 4.1-7).
4.4.
Impact on Historical and Archaeological Features The environmental impact assessment provided in this section of the SPAR was based on information contained in FES Sec-tion 4.2.1 (Impacts on Land Use - Onsite and Immediate Vicinity, pages 4-3 and 4-4).
Sections of the applicants' Environmental Report were also relied upon:
specifically, Section 2.3 (Regional Historical, Scenic, Cultural, and Natural Landmarks, pages 2.3-1 through 2.3-14) and Section 4.1.1.7 (Impact on Human Habitation, page 4.1 -11).
4.5 Impact on Aesthetic Values The environmental impact assessment on aesthetic values
.provided in this section of the SPAR was based on informa-tion contained in FES Section 4.5.5 (Aesthetic, page 4-16) and FES Section 4.5.6 (Dust and Noise, page 4-17).
Sections of the applicants' Environmental Report were'also relied upon:
specifically, Section 4.1.1.7 (Impact on Human Habitation, pages 4.1-9 through 4.1-11).
w 4.6 Identification of Unique or Special Hazards See NRC Final Environmental Statement and the applicants' Environmental Report consider fire protection in FES Section 4.2.1 (page 4-4) and ER Section 4.1.1.7 (page 4.1-11),
respectively.
4.7 Economic and Social Effects of Proposed Activities The assessment of economic and social effects provided in this section of the SPAR drew on the NRC Final Environmental Statement and the applicant's Environmental Report assessments of the complete CRBRP construction program.
Also the FES used demographic characteristics based on 1970 census data and 1980 population estimates whereas actual 1980 census data are now available and have been used in the, in the Site Preparation Activities Report.
assessment 4.
Section 5 (Redressability of Impacts) -- Attached hereto j
as Table 2 is the supporting basis for the calculations of l
redress costs and salvage values contained in Section 5 of the SPAR.
The figures in the SPAR (page 5-7) for temporary construction and support facilities and redress of quarry and stockpile areas were misstated, and are correctly stated by Table 2.
The analysis of redress costs in the SPAR assumes that the general site is redressed, that the i
excavation and quart 7 are backfilled that the crushing i
f
l 4
- 11
- facility and temporary plant. facilities are removed, and that construction utilities and' railroad and barge facilities are left intact.
More detailed calculations,
-including a further breakdown of costs for. a range of options _for redressing'the site, will be submitted by January 18, 1982 as part of applicant's answer to Question l
10 in Attachment A of the Commission's Order of December 24, 1
1981.
I-5 4
r J
f p -,
4,_',-,.-,---...,.-,
.,..........,-,-.,._.,.._.,.,-_..._.........-,.....,-...__.,,,_,.._.__s
,... -. _ _.,..,, -. - -,. -... ~. -
C
.12 -
BASIS FOR REDRESS COSTS Cost-A.
Redress General Site Clearing, Grading and
$5.4H Excavation consisting of 1.
Backfill - 1,000,000 cy at $4.50/yd.
(
$4.5H )
2.
Grading, dressing
.484,000 sy at $.10/yd.
(
.048) 3.
Topsoil - 823,000 sy at $. 81/yd.
(
.670) 4.
Landscape - 170 acres at $1500/ acre
(
.255)
B.
Remove-Temporary Construction and Support
$1.4H Facilities,' Redress Quarry and Stock-pile Areas consisting of Quarry and stockpile area 1.
Topsoil and seed 43 A at $1500/ acre
(
.065) a.
b.
Backfill 400,000 cy at $1.75/yd.
(
.700) c.
Remove-crushers
(
.114) 2.
Concrete Batch Plant
(
.030) 3.
TVA Substation
(
.100) 4.
Temporary Services-(
.050) 5.
Administration Building
(
.150) 6.
On-Site Warehouse
(
.080) 7.
Craft Change House
(
.030) 8.
Other Misc. Buildings
(
.050)
Redress Total
$6.8R C.
Salvage Value Salvage Value, New Cost Salvage Value End of Job'(88 1.
Concrete Batch Plant
$4.085
$2.347
$.834 2.
Quarry Equipment 5.001 2.381
.863 3.
Heavy Equipment, Light 5.864 4.690.
2.000 Equip., Small Tools 4.
Administration Building 3.154 1.100 Remains 5.
TVA Substation
.750 450
.178 6.
On-Site Warehouse 2.099 1.050
' Remains 7.
Other Misc. Facilities, 10.908 1.408
.261 Materials Delivered but not yet incorporated Totals
$31.861R
$13.326R
.$4.136H
- 13 5.
Section 6 (Foreclosure of Alternatives) -- Since the discussion speaks for itself, there are no underlying I
documents.
6.
Section 7 (Effect of Delay on Public Interest) -- The SPAR (Section 7) states that design work is approaching 90 percent completion and engineering research and development is approximately 95 percent-complete.
Further, as of the 3
end of fiscal year 1981, more than -$ 500 million worth of hardware has been delivered or is on order with suppliers.
Supporting documentation is attached hereto as Appendix 1.
The SPAR (Section 7) states that the Project has undergone an extensive licensing review by the NRC.- The major elements of supporting documentation for that point are:
- 1.. The NRC's February,1977 - Site Suitability Report which found the site to be suitable from the stand-point of radiological hea'lth and safety. '
2.
The NRC's March,1977 FES which concluded that the action called for was construction of the
[
} CRBRP.
More particularly, the NRC's FES concluded -
p that the. environmental effects of site preparation' activities would not be significantL (FES,- at page 9-i}
23).- The SPAR (Section 4) shows tbst_this conclusion
~
holds' true today.-
O J
E s--e g-t
,y,.,
.m-e r -
-s -Y
,(
6-
- 14 The SPAR (Sections 7 and 1.3) estimated that, absent authorization to begin cite preparation activities by April 1, 1982, the Project would (1) incur additional delays for a period of one-to-two years and (2) incur additional costs in the range of $ 120-240 million over the period of delay.
In estimating the duration of delay, three cases were compared:
(a) approval of the Section 50.12 request to permit site preparation activities by April 1, 1982; (b) the NRC Staff's schedule which estimated the issuance of a LWA I by August-September, 1983; and (c) the Staff's estimate of fourteen (14) months for a LWA increased by an assumed additional delay of one year.
Comparing Case (a) to Case b) indicates that approval of the Section 50.12 request uld avoid or save some fourteen (14) months on the Project schedule.
Comparing Case (a) to Case (c) results in an expected savings of approximately twenty-six (26) months.
Based on these comparisons, the SPAR estimated a range of delay of twelve (12) to twenty-four (24) months.
Ia estimating the cost of delay, the Project con-servatively approximated both the effects of inflation and the cost impact on certain Project activities which are
15 -
particularly cost sensitive to delay without regard to inflation. /
Because of the obvious importance of the delay costs to the Section 50.12 request, the various contractors associated with the Project are presently engaged in a further analysis of the cost impact of delay in order to narrow the range of costs.
More detailed calculations regarding delay costs will be submitted by January 18, 1982 as part of applicants' answer to question 9 of Attachment A of the Commission's Order of December 24, 1981.
- 7. Section 8 (References) -- See Attachment B.
- /
As an initial point of reference it should be noted that the CRBRP Project cost estimates are expressed in year of expenditure dollars and include the effects of inflation through application of a standard assumed eight'(8%) percent escalation factor.
Consistent with the Proj ect cost estimating principles, as well as the fiscal realities of the appropriations process, it is clearly appropriate to consider the effects of inflation in estimating the cost impact of delay for this pro-ject.
It should be noted that in Carolina Power & Light Co. (Shearon Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4) LBP 74-18, 7 AEC 538 (1974) the Licensing Board accepted an inflation factor applied to total proj ect cost _as an appropriate measure of the. cost of delay.
On a similar basis of total Project cost, the estimated cost of delay for the CRBRP Project would be about 4 20 million per month (8% escalation on roughly 43 billion total cost).
I-e
! :~
br:
r--
l..E,
( ::'
1b see F.*:.
Fr l::..
- r.j H.91 I.r.(t p
' ::2 e
! = '.D
- t
- t V::
...?
..a k:$
L ;.
I- - 1 1L.'
l.
(1 l:
lT l3 M
vs i:2 ft r1 A
r1 4
APPENDIX 1 o
Il i
't
(
H I
I P
c
---e.,
__-+M-pM
'd 1.
95 i
11.-.
- 3..
i I-t The.following information concerning design, development-and testing, and component procurement is en' closed :
(1). Summary status of CRBRP systems design-(2)
Summary status of AE drawing completion.
(3)- Summary status of CRBRP development and testing (4)
Summary status of CRBRP Major Component procurement t
d r
e
,)
w w
W 4
e a
A -;
b J
_d 1
m.
"~
9 0
SUMMARY
STATUS OF.CRBRP SYSTEMS DESIGN 7,
Planned Current FY-82 FY-83 FY Total Total Number of CRBRP Systems 47 47
'~
47 47 471 j
Number Completed thru Conceptual Design (30% complete) 45 2*
0 0
47 l'
Number Completed thru Preliminary J.
Design (60% complete).
43:
2
,2 0
47 i
Number Completed thru Final Design (90% complete) 1 9
28 9
47
- Conceptual design initiated in FY-82 on two new systems ~(Emergency Support Facilities, and Simulator) per NRC requirements 4
4 I
l W
i
6
SUMMARY
STATUS.OF A/E DRAWING COMPLETION TOTAL FINAL DWGS-CONSTRUCTION FINAL DWGS FINAL DWGS DWGS AT COMPLETED DWGS COMPLETION COMPLETION-COMPLETION AS OF 10/1 COMPLETED IN FY82 IN FY83 NUCLEAR 1506 1042 431 291 181 ELECTRICAL
-5345 4302 2967
- 547, 448-CIVIL /STRUCT 1293 1020 1020 178 133 MECHANICAL 409 399 180 7
2 HVAC 300 276 187 19 5
ARCHITECTURAL 114 104 94 8
2 TOTAL 8967 7143 4879 1050 771 8
r t-i
~- iv -
[7. *[.
'Sunmary Status of CRBRP Davalopment'end Testing:
4 h
The CRBRP design has utilized to the maximum the existing and e
i-evolving LMFBR technology. :The-design is supported and verified
[
. here needed, through development and testing. 'The total costs-at w
f completion of.the projected development-and testing which is now about 957. complete are $223M.
All supporting development.and testing as presently conceived is scheduled for completion by the end of
{
FY-83.
Following is a breakdown of development efforts in four I
broad categories:
Systems & Analysis - These programs provide test data of systems, ancillary subsystems and assemblies under simu-lated rea'ctor conditions to provide verification of design data.
Analyses are conducted to determine if all design requirements are satisfied.
The system and analysis testing programs are 94% complete.
Fuels & Materials - These programs provide' test data for CRBRP fuel and blanket assembly thermal and. hydraulic characteristics under reactor operating conditions.
The fuel and materials testing programs are 977.. complete.
Components - These programs provide performance testing of systems and components developed for the CRBRP.
The components testing programs are 95"/. complete.
Safety - These programs provide testing ccmbined with analysis to verify safety systems of CRBRP.
The
-y safety testing programs are 92% complete.
The table shows the status of completion of the various elements of this program.
In addition to the above development and testing programs which are conducted by the CRBRP Project, the DOE also' sponsors development testing programs which are generic to the LMFBR industry.
CRBRP maximizes the utilization of data from these development programs.
Approximately 95% of the required data from these development programs have been completed.
4
CRBRP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS --PERCENT COMPLETE FY 80 FY 81 FY 82 FY 83
' Components 88.5 94.8 98.8 100 Safety 76.5 91.9 98.6 100 i
Fuels an'd Materials 81.0 97.3 99.1 100 i
Systems and Analysis 77.0 94.4 99.4-100 Total 80.0 94.6 98.9
.100 e
P
.7 j
SUMMARY
STATUS OF CRBRP MAJOR COMPONENT PROCUREMENT (A) CRBRP MAJOR COMPONENT COMPLETIONS COMPLETIONS COST ($M)
DELIVERY DATE
' CORE SUPPORT STRUCTURE 4.9 4/78 COLD LEG CHECK VALVES (3) 5.0 11/78 PROTOTYPE PUMP DRIVE SYSTEM 2.9 12/78 SCRS PROTOTYPE (1 of 4)
'3.0 12/78 IHX GUARD VESSELS (3) 3.3 1/79 REACTOR GUARD VESSEL 3.7 1/79 PUMP GUARD VESSELS (3) 3.7 2/79 PLUG DRIVE AND CONTROL SYSTEM 1.2 5/79 IVTM PROTOTYPE 3.0 5/79
' PRIMARY SODIUM OVERFLOW VESSEL 2.2 10/79 REACTOR VESSEL 22.8 12/79 SODIUM DUMP TANK (3) 3.2 1/80 l
HEAD BULL GEAR AND BEARING ASSEMBLY 1.0 4/80 l
CLOSURE HEAD RISER (WELDED & BOLTED) 2.8 5/80
-1 SET OF 3 UNITS EVST GUARD VESSEL 1.9 5/80 l
EVST BULL GEAR AND BEARING 1.0 5/80 DEAERATOR
.3 5/80 h
1.0 5/80 i
CONDENSER TUBES i
........_, m u a nt i,,,,,,,
W COMPLETIONS'
)
COST ($M)
DELIVERY DATE CONDENSATE PUMPS
.3-7/80 SECONDARY CONTROL ROD SYSTEMS PROTOTYPE 2 3.1 7/80 INTERMEDIATE IIEAT EXCHANGERS (3 of 3) 38.1 10/80 PLANT PROTECTION SYSTEM EQUIPMENT 3.0 11/80 SODIUM PUMP DRIVES (6 of 6) 12.9 12/80 RECIRCULATING PUMPS 1.4 1/81 STEAM DRUMS 1.7 3/81 REEDWATER llEATERS (10) 2.4 4/81~
' PRIMARY CONTROL ROD DRIVE MECHANISM 11.1 6/81 REACTION PRODUCTS SEPARATOR TANKS 2.1 7/81 IN AND EX-CONTAINMENT TANKS.
1.0 7/81 PROTOTYPE STEAM GENERATOR 69.2 8/81-SCRS PROTOTYPE 3 1.8 8/81 PROTOTYPE SODIUM PUMP.
32.8 9/81 TOTAL 247.8 8
- 1 R
t
(B) MAJOR COMPONENTS ON ORDER COMPONENTS ON ORDER TOTAL ESTIMATED DESCRIPTION COST ($M)
SCHEDULED o PRIMARY CONTROL ROD EQUIPMENT CONTROL PANELS 2.0 6/82 o CONDENSER 1.1 4/82 o EVTM GRAPPLE AND GRAPPLE DRIVE (2 GRAPPLES - 1 DRIVE) 1.5 2/82 o EVST 14.8 2/82 1
o SCRS PROTOTYPE 4 1.8 1/82 o PROTECTED AIR COOLED CONDENSER 3.5 9/83 o THERMAL INSULATION 7.3 9/83 o EM PUMPS 4.2 4/84 o llEATER POWER AND CONTROL PANELS 2.1 4/82 o REACTOR CLOSURE IIEAD 17.0 5/82 o EVAPORATORS 1.1 8/82 o RADWASTE SOLIDIFICATION SYSTEM 3.9 9/82 o CONDENSATE POLISIIING 1.3 11/82 o TURBINE GENERATOR 36.0 12/82 o POLAR CRANE 4.0 11/82 i
V 9
n (B) MAJOR COMPONENTS ON ORDER-COMPONENTS ON ORDER TOTAL ESTIMATED j
DESCRIPTION COST ($M)_
-SCHEDULED-o' BUILDING SERVICE CRANES
'3.6
'1/83 o UIS. SHROUD TURBING 1.8 3/83 o IHTS EXPANSION TANKS (3) 3.3 4/83 o DUPLEX RUPTURE DISC ASSEMBLIES;(15) 1.3
.4/83 o AUX F/W PUMP TURBINE DRIVE.
.8 4/83 o SAFETY RELIEF VALVES 2.6 5/d3 o THERMAL TRANSIENT VALVES 6.1 6/83 o CHILLERS 2.3 6/83 o SG FEED PUMPS 2.7-7/83 o NUCLEAR FILTER UNITS - FABRICATION 1.2 10/83 o AIR BLAS2 HEAT EXCHANGER 3.5 12/83 o UIS 10.6 3/84 o MAKE-UP WATER TREATMENT PLANT
.9 4/84 o INTERMEDIATE SODIUM PUMP 23.5 10/84 o HIGH PRESSURE BLOWERS - FABRICATION
.3-10/84 o DIESEL GENERATORS 15.7 12/84
'M o ELECTRONIC SECURITY SYSTEM 1.6 1/85
-t o NORMAL COOLING TOWERS 9.1 6/85 o ?RIMARY SODIUM PUMP
~23.4 7/85
......., e u,__
yg g.
,g,
.~
j..
i (B) MAJOR COMPONENTS ON ORDER COMPONENTS ON_ ORDER TOTAL ESTIMATED DESCRTPTION COST ($M)
SCHEDULED o CONTAINMENT VESSEL 46.0 7/85 s
TOTAL 2f0.0 3
I M
H-
ATIACHMENT B To DOE Letter to NRC Commissioners dated December 31, 1981 LIST OF REFERENCE DOCUMENTS FOR CRBRP SITE PREPARATION ACTIVITIES NOVEMBER, 1981 REPORT REFERENCES FOR
SUMMARY
AND CONCLUSIONS 0-1 Letter from W. Kenneth Davis, Deputy Secretary DOE, to Dr. J. N. Palladino, USNRC, dated August 13, 1981.
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 1.0
- 1-1 Final Environmental Statement related to construction and operation of Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Docket No. 50-537, NUREG-0139, February 1977.
- 1 -2 Ibid, Chapter 9, Alternatives, pg. 9-23.
~~*/. Denotes documents-already available to parties to suspended proceedings or readily available from.public sources.
17 -
- 1 -3 Site Suitability Report by the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission in the Matter of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant, Docket No. 50-537, March 4, 1977.
- 1 -4 Ibid,Section I.B, Summary Conclusions, pg. I-7.
1-5 Letter from W. Kenneth Davis, Deputy Secretary DOE, to Dr. J. N. Palladino, USNRC, dated August 13, 1981.
- 1-6 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Pub. L.
No.97-35).
- 1 -7 House Conference Report No.97-208, 97th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 at 827-(1981).
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 2.0 2-1 Telecon, Mrs. Louise Dunlap, Oak Ridge Chamber of Commerce,.to Scharre, P.,
TVA, July 1981.
- 2-2 Thornbury, W.D., Principles of Geomorphology, John Wylie and Son,s, New York, 1960.
2-3 Letter, Harper, H.L.,
Director of' Field Services, Tennessee Historical Commission to Roark, R.,
Division of Reservoir Properties, TVA, 5 June 1973.
2-4 University of Tennessee, Site Survey Records for Roane County, Tennessee, on file, McClung Museum, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, no date.
- / Applicants will respond on or before January 8, 1982.
. seedm' A
2 18 -
b 2-5 Schroedl, G.
F., Salvage Archaeology in the Clinch i
River Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor Plant Area, Report submitted to TVA and PMC.
- 2-6 Rodgers, J., The Tectonics of the Appalachians,
si g
'Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1970.
1 2-7 McMaster, W.M., Geologic Map of the Oak Ridge 1j Reservation, Tennessee, ORNL-TM-713, Oak Ridge 1
National Laboratory, Health Physics Division, Oak Ridge, Tennes s ee, 1963.
- 2-8 '
Tennessee Valley Authority, Watts Bar PSAR, 1970, NRC Docket No. 50-390/391, Section 2,8 (Geology).
2-9 Tennessee Valley Authority, Foundation Investiga-j.
tions, Clinch River Site, 1973.
2-10 Milici, R.
C., The Stratigraphy of Knox County, Tennessee, G.S.A. Southeastern Section Meeting at Knoxville, Tennessee Division of Geology, Bulletin 70, April 11-14, 1974, pp 9-24. 11 Clark, G.M.,
Some Geomorphic Aspects and Problems Related to the Area, Tennessee, G.S.A. Southeastern Section lieeting at Knoxville, Tennessee Division of Geology, Bulletin 70, April 11-14, 1973, pp 1-8.
l 2-12 Ke11 berg, J.J., _ Engineering Geology of Knox County, l '-
Tennessee, G.S.A., Tennessee Division of Geology, Bulletin 70, 1973.
i I
W
'19 -
2-13 Rodgers, J.,. Geologic Map of East Tennessee with Explanatory Text, Tennessee Department _.of Conser-vation, Division of Geology, Bulletin 58, Part II, Nashville, Tennessee, 1953, pp 11-148.
2-14
- Rodgers, J., Chronology of Tectonic Movements in the Appalachian Region of Eastern North America, American Journal of Science, Vol 265, No. 5, 1967, pp 408-427.
2-15 Personal communication on Valley and Ridge Geology, Moneymaker, R.H.,
Chief Geologist (retired),
Tennessee Valley Authority, to Carter, R.,
Law Engineering Testing Company,1973.
2-16 Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Water Control Planning Hydraulic Data Branch, Drainage Areas for Streams in Tennessee __ River Basin, Report No. 0-5829-R-2, Knoxville, Tennessee, March 1970.
2-17 DeBuchannanne, G. D. and Richardson, R.M.,
Groundwater Resources of Eas t Tennessee, Tennessee Department of Conservation, Division of Geology, Bulletin 58, Nashville, Tennessee, Part 1, 1956.
^
2-18
- Bradburn, D.M., Forest Management Plan, ERDA Oak Ridge Reservation: 1976-1980, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division Pub -
lication No. 1056 (ORNL/TM-5833), June 1977, 58 pp.
- /-
Copies of relevant pages are provided.
4 s
. 2-19 Type Map of TVA and LMFBR Site:
Portions of Forest Management Compartments Nos.13 and 14:
1,364 acres, April 1973.
2-20 Parr, P.D. and Taylor, F.G.,
Plant Species on the Department of Energy-Oak Ridge Reservation that are Rare, Threatened or of Special Concern, Journal of
~
the Tennessee Academy of Science, Vol. 54, No. 3, July 1979, pp. 100-102.
2-21
.Ayensu, E.S. and DeFilipps, R.A.,
Endangered and Threatened Plants of the United States, Smithsonian Institution and World Wildlife Fund, 1978, pp. 180-182.
2-22 Energy Impact Associates, Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecology Reconnaitsance Surveys, August 1980, Clinch River Breeder Reactor Site, November 1980, 50 pp.
Radford, A.
E.,
Ahles, H.E. and Bell, C.R.,
Manual of
- 2-23 the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas, University of
~
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, 1968.
2-24
- Fernald, M.L.,
ed., Gray's Manual of Botant, 8th edition, D. Van Nostrand Co., New York, 1950, Corrected by Rollins, R.C., 1970, pp 483, 484 and 486.
2-25 U.S. Department of Interior, Fish and' Wildlife Service, Republication of List of Endangered andt
/
z
\\
r
'. 4
- 21 Threatened P.pecies and Correction of Technical Errors in Final Rules, Federal Register Vol. 45, No. 99, 10 May 1980, pp 33767-33781.
2-26 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission, Endangered or Threatene'd Species, Proclamation Number 75-15 (12 June 1975) as amended by Proclamations 77-4 (13 May 1977), 78-14 (22 September 1978) and 78-20 (draf t),
Nashville.
2-27
- Tuttle, M.D.,
Population Ecology of the Gray Bat
~
(Myotisgrisescens) Philoptry, Timing and Patterns of Movement, Weight Loss During Migration, and Seasonal Adaptive Strategies, Occasional Papers No. 54, Museua of Natural History, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas, May 12, 1976, pp. 1 -38.
2-28 Telecon, Beimborn, W.A.,
EIA, to Humphrey, S.,
Florida State Museum, 5 April 1979.
2-29 Barbour, R.W. and Davis, W.H.,
Bats of America, University Press of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, 1969, pp. 63-66, 88-95.
j 2-30 Howell, J.C. and Dunaway, P.B.,
Long Term Ecological l
-Study of the Oak Ridge Area:
II. Observations on the Mammals with Special Reference to Melton Valley, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 26 l
October 1959.
l l
[
t,
=..
M g.-
22 -
E
.2-31
- Story, J.D., Unpublished list of mammals observed or f-j trapped on the Oak Rid e Reservation, -Environmental 8
h-Sciences Division of the Oak Ridge National 1-j.
Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee.
ii j
2-32 Letter, Story, J.D.,-Environmental Sciences Division, 3
- ]. -
ORNL, Oak Ridge, Tennessee to Webb, J., ~ Tennessee a
Wildlife Resources. Agency, Nashville, Tennessee, 19 fj December 1978.
- ) -
2-33 U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Sport j
Fisheries and Wildlife, Fish and Wildlife-Service, i
{)
Threatened Wildlife of the United States: 1973 Edition, Resource Publication 114, March 1973, pp.
L 124-125,=127-128, 162-163 and 203.
2-34 Tennessee Valley Authority, Division of Forestry, Fisheries and Wildlife Development, A Checklist of Birds of the Tennessee Valley, January 1974.
2-35
- Johnson, R.M., The Herpetofauna of the Oak Ridge Area, ORNL-3653, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, December 1964.
2-36
- Woosley, L.H.,
Jr., Taylor, M.P., Toole, T.W. and
- Wells, S.R.,
Status of the Nonradiological Water Quality and Nonfisheries Biological Communities in the Clinch River Prior to igg.3truction of the Clinch River Breeder Reactor El gg t_;975-1978, Tennessee Valley Authority, C.
_ta ga, Tennessee and Muscle w+
=-
3 ,
=
Shoals, Alabama, February 1979, 143 pp. and h
appendices.
21 2-37 Letter, Linton, H.D., Clarion State College, Clarion, y
Pennsylvania to Tweed, S.M., WESD, 23 March, 1975.
2-38 Harlan, J.R." and Speaker, E.B., Iowa Fish and A
J Fishing, Iowa St. Printing Bd.,
1956.
?
j 2-39
- Martin, R.E., Auerbach, S.I. and Nelson, D.J., Growth 9}
i and Movement of Smallmouth Buffalo, Ictiobus bubalus 3
(Rafinesque), in Watts Bar Reservoir, Tennessee, a
j ORNL-3530, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge,
?;
Tennessee, 1964.
F
]
2-40
- Jaco, B.D., and Sheddan, T.L.,
TVA Fish Population 1
i Monitoring - LMFBR Demon.ytration Project, Unpublished Report, 11 January, 1974
- 2-41
. Federal Register, Vol. 39, No. 3, 4 January 1974, pp 1171-1175.
2-42 Tennessee Wildlife Resources Commission Proclamation, Endangered or Threatened Species, Proc. No. 75-15 (June 12, 1955) as amended by Proc. 77-4 (May 13, i
1977), Proc. 78-14 (September 22, 1978) and Proc. 78-20 (draf t).
2-43 Tennessee Valley Authority, unpublished gill net data, Kingston Steam Plant, 1975.
=
. 9 2-44 Telecons, Heitman, F.,
Lake Eufalla Fishery Management Unit, Lake Euffala, OK, with Wagner, D.J.,
Energy. Impact Associates, October 15, 1980.
- 2-45
- Smith, P.W.,
The Fishes of Illinois,' University of Illinois Pre'ss, Urbana, 1975, 314 pp. -
2-47 Trip Report, Wagner, D.J.,
Energy Impact Associates, 19-20 August, 1980.
2-48 Telecon, Loar, J., Dr. Oak Ridge National Laboratories, with Wagner, D.J.,
Energy Impact Associates, 14 August, 1980.
2-49 Tennessee Valley Authority, unpublished rotenone survey data for Watts Bar Reservoir, 1949-1980.
2-50 Telecon, Myhr, A., Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, with Wagner, D.J.,
Energy Impact Associates, 20 October, 1980.
2-51 Telecon, Coutant, C,.C.,
Dr., Oak Ridge National Laboratories, with Wagner, D.J.,
Energy Impact Asso-ciates, 23 October, 1980.
2-52 Telecon, Cheek, T.,
Tennessee Technological University, with Wagner, D.J.,
Energy Impact Associates, 21 October, 1980.
- /
Copies of relevant pages are provided.
h:
2 Telecon, Van Den Avyle, M.,
Dr., Tennessee 3
j-j Technological University, with Wagner, D.J., Energy
}
Impact Associates, 13 October, 1980.
5 2-54
- Fletcher, J.W., Assessment of Adult Larval Fish I;
Populations of the Lower Clinch River Below Melton M
M Hill Dam, M.S.
Thesis, Tennessee Technological 4
- i University, Cookeville, December 1977, 90 pp.
il 2 Scott, E.M., " Clinch River Sauger Study", unpublished-j manuscript, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1980, 15 pp.
2 i
i-j_
REFERENCES FOR SECTION 4.0
?
4-1 Noise from Construction Equipment and Operation Building Equipment and Homt Activities, NTID 300.1, i
U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, December 31, 1971.
4-2
- Bradburn, D.M., Forest Management Plan, ERDA Oak-Ridge Reservation:
1976-1980, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Environmental Sciences Division Publica-tion No. 1056, June 1977 (ORNL/TM-5833), 58 pp.
4-3 Stone and Webster Engineering Corporation, Clinch L
River Breeder Reactor Plant Project, Construction Environmental Monitoring Program, May 31, 1977, 7 pp.
plus appendices.
ND
i REFERENCES FOR.SECTION 7.0 7 -1 Letter From W. Kenneth Davis, Deputy Secretary DOE, to Dr. J.N. Palladino, USNRC, dated. August 13, 1981.
- 7-2 Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (Pub. L.
No. 97-35).
- 7-3 House Conference Report No.97-208, 97th Cong.,1 st Sess., 2 at 827-(1981).
7-4 President Ronald Reagan, "The President's Policy Statement on Nuclear Power," October 8, 1981.
=
M
=
. DISTRIBUTION LIST i
21 d
The Honorable Nunzio J. Palladino 1
]
Chairman 2
a U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1
3 Washington, D.C.
20555 The Honorable Peter Bradford Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission li 3
Washington, D.C.
20555 n
The Honorable Victor Gilinsky Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 The Honorable John F. Ahearne Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555 The Honorable Thomas F. Roberts Commissioner U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20555
t
. s, 3
y 1.
./
28 -
,.I[,
Marshall E. Miller, Esquire
' Chairman A(omic Safety.&. Licensing Board U.d. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.c 20545 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr.
Director Bodega Marine Laboratory.
University of C'alifornia.
~
P.O. Box 247 Bodega Bay, California 94923 Mr. Gustave A'._Linenberger Atomic Safety & Licensing Board
~
,U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Washington, D.C.
20545 t
Daniel Swanson,- Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20545 l
[
.. - ~
.x
- ~
(I 29 _
Stuart Treby, Esquire Office of Executive Legal Director U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
' Washington, D.C 20545 Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington,'D.C.
20545 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel-U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C.
20545
' i '.
'~.,.
Docketing & Service Section Office of the Secretary U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Was'; lngton, D.C.
20545 (3 copies)
William B. Hubbard, Esquire Assistant Attorney General State of Tennessee Office of the Attorney General 422 Supreme Court Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219
30 -
Oak Ridge Public Library Civic Center Oak ~ Ridge, Tennessee 37820 Lewis E. Wallace, Esquire Division of Law f',
Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Dr. Thomas Cochran Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
1725 v.ye Street, N.W., Suite 600 Washington, D.C.
20006
~,
Mr. Joe H. Walker 401 Roane Street Harriman, Tennessee 37749 Ellyn R. Weiss Harmon & Weiss 1725 Eye Street, N.W., Suite 506 Washington, D.C.
20006 6
l'
,c' a
- 31. -
Lawson McGhee Public-Library 500 West Church Street Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Luther M. Reed, Esquire
~*
. Attorney for the' City-of Oak Ridge 253 Main Street, East Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Herbert S. Sanger, Jr., Esquire General Counsel Tennessee Valley Authority Knoxville, Tennessee 37902 Barbara A. Finamore, Esquire Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.
1725 Eye Street, N.W.,. Suite 600
}.
Washington, D.C.
20006 Eldon V.C.-Greenberg Tuttle &-Taylor 1901 L Street, N.W.
Suite 805 i
Washington, D.C.
20036
-l 4
.--,,.-l-
Commissioner James Cotham a
Tennessee Department of Economic r
.s.1 and Community Development I
. Suite 1007
~.,
Andrew Jackson Building Nashville, Tennessee 37219
- Denotes delivery by hand, or express nail of packages including Attachments A and B.
All other indicated distri-butees'have been provided Attachment A, and only the list of the documents comprising Attachment B.
,~
t
\\
=
5 I
1.
r fo' s?
r
i,...%?i.9.c m =>o m c Q_
m c cn.VE D T
- I>7 THE SECRETARY OF ENiRGY J7 h
WASHINGTON. D.c.205Ei g; n,' -h LI S IO
-I 4
g,
.t.
m..Ri
/
0.C.
f.,.
g REFERENCE U
s
\\
0-1, 1-5, 7-1 A g 1981
,.g 4g,
[,
-.-s
,,G.y
(,
r:.'"j.L*1 Dr. J. K. Palladino l.h'
\\3A -
.... :!'~~
l w
! w,
\\/
fb
~~
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission h A 'JC e g gI *
'N V
Washington, D.C.
20555 4
u.s. w 6
w%ubm
Dear Dr. Palladino:
h,'>,
,' 's.._
The Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant (CRBRP) pnfect is a key step in the development of the Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) and is a vital d(ement in fulfilling the Department of Energy's nuclear mission.
Tne
.itremelyphigh priority attached to this project by the Administration was
.,Necently confimed and endorsed by the Congress in the Omnibus Reconciliation Act.
Congress has stated its intent that the CRBRP should be constructed in a timely and expeditious manner as set forth in the existing project; arrange-In light of this clear mandate to proceed, I am focusing on what is ments.
needed to accelerate the first major project milestone, namely comencing site preparation.
An essential step in proceeding with CRBRP is to reestablish interaction.
between the Project Office and the NRC staff on the review of project safety documentatier..
issues sumarized by HRC in a letter dated Novemaer 9,1978.The Project O 6 -.
If NRC requires additional infomation or wishes to identify further residual i res, it is crucial for us.to know at the earliest po:;sible date.
~
now that forming a knowledgeable, experienced staff will oe a challenge in ht cf,,-the urgent-priority of licensing light water reactors.
If there is thing we can do to help in that regard please do not hesitate to ask.
We stand ready to provide extensive brieftngs for NRC staff and to loan expert laboratory personnel.
I hope you can designate an NRC representative as soon as pessible who can interact with the Department of Energy to plan for an efficient safety review of the projcet. '
Thank you very much for your attention to this ma.ter.
We can work together responding to the Administration and Congressional mandate co complete con -
struction of the Clinch River Reactor.
it O 15 C. E Sincerely,
-='dii3 c.C'rd-fv',
g h Fit v-n-3 W. Kenneth Davis
- 9. s 0
Deputy Secretary f
-STUB 270215110813 PDR ADOCK 05000537 4
PDR I
REFERENCE 2-1 ys
-.22/.
e/
es, e-g w
We p
e-e.
w Mh 496 8'
... _. -..--.= -.
_-. pa_..w..
4 A
' l M
A. $<. WXd. #
$/
._.?.
.ez & n..._s...,.,M
. -.r.J A.. - _z.
tx S.
j
- 3. ?..
S
.{
~
l e....
...uu m.
.. m Me.
44
.een eeam. e.
Me--=w mm
- hw
.Wm e-..
.e.-Mgeogh ee e
e w..m:me.h.he..ea.-
e 4
eing.
4m*.Mg a
h eks.ee w emmemi..e+4e
- ee e.*
p em.
e-sam e e erm a ee eie ey w
r ee & g.h-mamm.
+
.-6.4 ee e
e W-=
p.=
e==es-e e.
em ew.
es.
.Oe 6MN w.
.e
$Wem
.ghw e.w e
.c w.m.. hee.e gm. * *
-e-
, gun w
,p ms, yg e.
ae h.
.e*eause.
a
--e-u.e-..-..e ww.
4 m.ee4
, ami
,=
e..
.--ewe--o, O
,.e..
.... -,....i Q
waeWe me-oe e.
M
-. m as M
.m
{( ;.,
j c..
n
,,[l!fj$,kj(s
-~
'r
' g-e.u-s(.g[
b>!.
k
[e a
w >. = z 5 ;
F
./ g a-3 x:
t
,1
- e n --.
W Wnl x
%qN s,
s,.
S $il
'l.sb 3E+$
.nGW/ /s. 4
'l s.
x ge t-r m.< q
- g 8:
i u
M
/ g e ' {/, -
4;g, ggg, 11 u p,
, 1;
- 3. 7-k<.
N..< x
,u,n i'
t u
4 j
1, oo ua t
. zo os
> n3 a r ge gi '
n o' ' \\>
!/, 5 5 is p
)
,N,,
43 5 [-
u z
s, f
,A i,
3g 2-
\\ / '-
.N-
/
a U
El N
1 s
o
>= im WF
&y
' ' ',$[/
['/!'ll/
s 30
'.;o:6).. h-
.h '/(
, i 'i.
(( y. i;( o 9fli O
AY.
V
, g. 4
'..pf\\-7 Gs
%;'~ gf ; f.. y
~
- i. y.;n
.;\\\\..\\-
! '- M g
,s.
', 3, e A r( //.(l' ::= I
~
I i
y0
.'N
. N '., S t h, (
s
/
.s r
n
- ,5'..1 o
hy\\.k J'qi \\
m
~- : -
. ' f
. N.
t.
\\ J 7d,,. \\ \\ (
. 7,; ;, s '
x!
- 1..M
.1 p,c' 7g j.
u
.r
.f?> g
, :. sy.
. M I h $p,..,,
,.9.;$d 2j
. i I
a ::
- d. ': :,.n., yx a:y'.
f h
~
- .;4;,_,g 9
- i x
Og W
'l 1
1,;1hLf:.dq! gig.
y i
S.V
~
,/
.Ni
%y\\ 4.yu M
,1}G g s
m?h%. w' w{ p l?g-i x...s t.
1
- r
? ;;.. p.
- /,i @, ' ( N
,4 17.
!y.
g s
Q- '
1 Q-Q
.y g
.. c
~..
.J
\\
p:0 1
.a..
. i. y '. <,
e' g'y$t,o ap,
i w
e...,
I
'h'hm,t
- K4,yj c.
e s$"?ml'], ;:.$
$j $lg$.h x4),,
- V
c+
0' i
.eg
].qy i: %- en
=e 9,;A.~.
c^~C. M--
-c:
ss%h
)
C3 C. -,. & W.~.. Q,,,,;.;' ' '
,./s
" "(p g Ww:.=m, ;Me-
/
. mm..,
1
= &n=.e_g:.m m ~y.>
wm h~a"'-- - bbt29mK
N h k
$ & f cl [ -y ['
2111125520 '4., t.15IGrICc'IlCI!!mtS5tGit e; ~
<~
C REFERENCE 2-3 STATE LIBRARY ANo Acch vES BUILDING NASHVILLE 37219
'-
- f
- 8
.&a a
/)).dd%CmA M MN
$',5M*/c ', r"^o"U."..c.-
June 5, 1973
),TAAN f
n 'lc-ut m bbIn A
.a-,c p~U ~'h '
u
'j
.b Mr. Robero Roark Recreation Resources Branch Division of Reservoir Properties Tenne'ssee Valle'y Author $ ty Knoxville, Te,nnessee 37902 y
i l-- - --
Dear Bob:
y_-
This will acknowledge receipt of the caterial or' f ~.,
m-the Clinch River Liquid Metal Fast Breeder Reactor j.
"~
Plant Area in Roane County.
- I-l'-- / L From the information submitted, it does no+-
appear that an'y structuM s of historical significance or any archaeological sites that would qualif7 for the.
.Ic7 Nationa.L Register would be affected.
However, the
~ ' ' ~#A State Archaeologist should concent on this aspect.
4 n,?.b s d,hslc d h6 E'
'b :
cot 4 TROL LEVEL Sincerely,
--Docume t, SY n
/b!d f M
~
T SWEC GARS 1GBB Herbert L. Harpar 383 ELE:s so.
XC: Condon W. Ben, Jr.,.40h EB-K (per~Fequest 11/15/73)bs g
e e
d
c n..
.,.. - ~..
...~.,e n
a-.w..
'~ d-6 s
REFERENCE 2-5 epRP a 3 ~ ll Ll l
SALVAGE IJtCHAEOLOGY IN TEE i
CLINCH RIVER LIQUID IIETAL FAST'3REEDER REACTOR PLANT AREA i
ij A Resaarch Proposal to The Tannossca Valley Authority i
and
[
The Project lianagccant Corporation from
- g Gerald F. Schroedl Research Assistant Professor Departncnt of Anthropology University of Tennessee, Knoxvillo 1
i't
)
l i
l CONTROL LEVEL 2 Document, Systems SWEC ER 5 '.G80 CRBRP
.t
{
..i Tue.
oud36/
no.
i
,1
- i l
- l. t
'.l l'
[,-
3
't-x
. Introduction-t I
- i
. Archaeological reconnaissance'of the Clinch River Liquid Metal Fast Brocdcr Reactor Pltat Area -(hercaf ter U23R) produced 6 prehistoric Accrican j
, Indian. sites and 5-historic Euro-Accric'an sites (Schroed1'1972, 1973).
Dc-L*
toiled maps were made of two Euro-American farnhouses and their associated b.
structures (sites 40RE121 and 40RE120) (Tho=cs'1973). The remaining historic
' sites: the Ecnsicy Cc=etery (40KE119),~ an isolated
- log structure- (40RE123),
and a third farmhouse (40RE122)' vere photographed but not mapped. 'Excminatio'n of the historie sites indicates that encavations are not required at sites
- l 40RE119, 40RE120, 40RE121, and'40REI23. Recoval of the surface vegetation to locate additional structures 'and to better define the known structures is necessary at site 40RE121. Furthercore, excavation.of'the well at this site vould undoubtedly provide cultural rc:ains which would date the:
~
construction and occupation of the farm..Although excavations are not-a]-
necessary at site 40RE123,-detailed drawings, measurenants and photographs F
are necessary for determining the age and function of the building.
'1 j
During the fall of'1972 and spring of 1973 test excavations were conduct-ed at all the prehistoric sites in the UIFBR area. No culture bearing
)
= deposits which would justify further investigation were located at 40RE104,
-,1 40RE105,-and 40RE106. Therefore, no further excavation is required at these 1
sites. Diagnostic cultural remains were recovered from shall~ midden deposits
- }'
at 402E108 and. test excavations show.that undisturbed cultural remains likely occur at site 40RE107. Undisturbed burials and stratified mound ~ deposits-dl occur at 40RE124. Therefore, excavation of sites-40RE107, 40RE108, 40RE124, j
40RE121, and additional documentation of site 40RE123 is proposed. to couplete
[
the archaeological and historic field research in the UEBR area.
Statecent of Problem and Justification
'Prchistoric Sites 1
The most important prehistoric site recorded in ths LMFBR area is 40RE124, i
a Late Foodland Period burial mound. Virtually every Accrlean Indian burial' and cercmonial cound in East Tennessee has been~ sariously disturbed by.
plowing, erosion, and relic collectors. Site 40RE124 is a rare exception; q
4 tha nound ' deposits have not been substantially eroded; the' mou.d has not been plowed; and unti1~1973 relic colicetors had not plundered it.
Even I-though TVA crected an 8 foot fence enclosing the mound-in April 1973, relic
[
collectors located the cound and removed at 1 cast one burial before tha fence 1'
could be co=pleted. Furhter vandalisn'has not occurred, but past experience
!~ j.
suggasts that once located by collectors few sounds re=ain undisturbed.
Ij Consequently, cuch valuable inforcation concerning cound construction and l.{:
mortuary practices are lost..
1 L'l Burial mounds in East Tennessca have received considerabic archaeological
- j attention for nearly a century (Thocas 189?, Moore 1915).. but most excavations t
were conducted during tha 1930's and 1940's before the advent of' radiocarbon Lj dating techniques.- Until 1W., there.vas only one radiocarbon data available ki from a burial cound in East Ten:.tssee. 'Since then excavations have been iV conducted at the Mcdonald sita (,0RH7) in the Uatts Bar Nuc1 car Poucr Plant on the Tennessee River, barely.4L miles south of the UCER area, whera 13 radiocarbon dates were sacured from three burial mounds (Schroadl nd.). These l]
j dates have provided a fir =er control of the te= poral distribution of burial counds in East Tennessaa. At the sa=c tica they have' raised soca important
- 'g questions concerning the relationship batucan Late Woodland Period burial-l-I.
cound utilization and subsequent Early liississippian cultural developcent.
L.F Generally, it has been hypothesized that tha use of-burial counds terminated 11 Lac about A.D. 900 and that this date marks the end of-Late Woodland Period
_ cultural' development;and the beginning of a completely new cultural 1 pattern-l,;
' the Early Mississippisti (cf.( Lowis.and Knoberg 1946). ' Radiocarbon dates froc-
2 the Mcdonald site, however, suggest that the use of burici counds continued well cftc A.D. 1000. Thus, cdditional radioccrbon dates are neccesary for clarifying the tceporal end cultural relationchip between the Late Wood 1:nd Pariod and Earl.y Miccissippica Period occupaticas in East Tennesceo. Excavetion of sito 40RE124 should provide cuch needed ::dio-I carben dates for helpfus solve this probic=.
I i
A substantici nu=ber of burials have been execvated fros Late Uoodland Period coundc. Although most were carefully daccribe(., drawn, and photographed, synthesis of these data c d detailed studies of cortuary practicos, cound constructio:i techniques, cud analysis of the skelcral populations has been lacking. A study of Late Woodlend Period nortuary practices using data fron l-counds excavated in the 1930'c and 1940's cud cupple=ented with infor=ntion j
f:;c the Mcdonald site was recently initia:pd (Burnett 1972, 1973). This g
ctudy, however, has been hindersd, because 'the majority of counds fro which data crc available were dacaged by erosion, plowing, and relic collectors
.,ll prior to controlled scientific investigation end thus reandering it virtually i=possible to integrate data from a co=pletaly undisturbed context. Excavation of site 40RE124 should provide a unique opportunity for investigating the i
cc plete burial pattern and nortuary practices at a single cound. This will I
greatly enhance and clarify cristing data.
Ii!
Site 40RE103 represents an Early Woodland Period occupatio:i and it is l.
11 haly;th:t 40RE107 also is an Ecrly Woodland Period site. A =ultitude of-li archaeological sites in East Tennessee are grouped as Early Woodiend occupc-I tions because they contain similar licastena and crushed quartzite te=pered ceramic asse=blegas and cicilar projectile point assemblages. Until recently t
cultural adaptations to particular local environ = ants and the tonporal and l
geogrcphical differences between thase adaptations within the Woodland Period l
had not been considered (cf. Chcp=cn 1973, McCollough and Faulkner,1973).
j These differences cust be considered if a core preciso. definition of the i
Early Uoodland Period is to be achieved. Detailed analysis of the cercaic
'j cnd lithic asss=blages from 40RE107 and 40RE108 and even core i=portantly l
cnalysic of the faunal and botanical re=ains, both shown to be present at cita 40RE108, will provide an initial basis for studying the Early Woodland Period cultural adaptations clong the lower Clinch River. Furthernore, the context of these data should help deter =ine particular activity crecs and t
patterns of site utilization.
Since little is prese:\\tly known cbout Woodland l
Period occupation on the. lower Clinch River, excavation of 40RE107 and
'\\
40RE108 chould provide important co=parative materici which night help j
determine possible cultuici relationships between Woodland Period sites in the Mciton. Hill and Norric Reservoirs with those of the main Tennessac River Valley (cf. McNutt cod Fischer 1960, McNutt and Grahan 1961, and Webb
~
1938).
Historic Sites The historic settle =ent and life style of tha people of East Tannessee and adjacent areas is e unique aspect of A=arican culture. Lika many of the legends, folklore,' folk resedies, and craf ts of this ragion, tha caterici acpcets of this lifa style are being lost. As'econc=le develop =ent of the region occurs and codern construction increases, cat.y houces, barns, sheds, okchouses 'cnd other structures characteristic of Appalachia are bsing dcotroyed. Efforts to record or salvage such ctructures h:ve not kept.
pace with their destruction. Sitas 40RE121 and 40RE123 offer the possibility of docu=cnting a c:all aspect of tha Euro-A=arican settlacent of East Tennessee.
9
3 Site 40RE121 offers t'ha pos~ibility of investigating a probable dicerate singic family settic=cnt. Encavations to locate poscible additional structures and to more clearly define the known structurcs are required en co=plete the docu=cntation of this site and to aid interpretation of the functional relatiocchips betucen the recorded features. The voll chould be encavated becauca such features of ten contain otratified refese layers and artifactual rc=ains useful for dating the initial construction of historic structurcc. Further ex,-ination of site-40RE123 would provide details of log constructica techniques and possibly indicate when the structure was built. Trese data would also help deter =ine the buildings function.
Su==ary of Troposed Investigations Archaeological investigationc in the LHF3R area are proposed at three prehistoric sites. Additional but c=allar excavations are propoced for a single historic site with additional photographs, data 11ed drawings, and
=assurcnonts being made at a second hictoric sito.
Excavation.of~ site,40RE124 is proposed in order to:
(1) investigate the co=plete burial pattern of a Late Woodland Puriod
=ound (2) collect additional infor=ation concerning =ortuary practices
(;) secure radiocarbon dates for deter =ining the age of tha =ound (4), provide conparative dates for further investigating the relation-
- ship of Late Woodland Period and Early Mississippian cultural develop =ent in East Tennessac Encavations at sites 40RE107 and 40RE108 are proposed in order to:
(1) provide botanical and faunal =aterial for deter =ining cultural adaptations to local environnants (2) provide cultural =sterials to gain a better understanding of the l
Early Woodland occupation on the lower Clinch River (3) deter =ine diserate site activities and patterns of site utilization Surface stripping of the vegetation and excavation of the well at sito 40RIl21 is pro ' sed in order to:
(1) loca: rossible additional structures (2) : ore ciaarly delineata the known. structures (3) define the functional relationship batvaan str'uctures (4) date the occupation Photogr,cphs, =cacure=ents, and detailed drawings of site 40RE123 arc proposed in order to:
(1) docu=ent the construction technique (2) deter =ine the function of the ctructure
, (3) possibly date the. structure Ti=a Table Field Work Utilizing two ten =an c cws, the above proposed arechaeological excavations and relatcd activities in the IMF3R area should require approy4-mtely 12 weeks.
Becaucc. tha principal, investigator in involved in other TVA-Univercity of Tennassee 'crcFacological projects until approxi=stely 15 Septa =ber 1973 and othcr Ecy personnel currently are involved in si=1lar projects, it is proposed that ficidwork in tha LMFER area begin on 1 October 1973 and ter=inato 1
4 Jcnuary 1974. The following schedule of execvations is tentatively proposad.
As work progresses necessary cdjust=cnts in this schedule will be.made as ncoded.
It should be noted that a total of 2-vachs is being scheduled to account for setting up a field headquarters, cicaring cite arcas, setting
'i up screcas, shelters, etc; and allowins tics for Thanhagiving and Christ =cs Holid ys.
Inclement vcather during the-fall and vintar =onths cnd fluctuaticas in the Uatts. 3ar Den pool level =ay delay verk at tines. These 1
factors are tentatively accounted for in this 2 unek period, but additional delays could occur.
l-i j
Tentative Schedule of Field Work a
i Crew Site Uceks Anticipated Operational Total I
and Delay Tice i-1 40RE107 3
j 40RE108 7
2' 12 i
i 2
40RE124 8
I 40RE121 1
2 12
{
40RE123 Laboratory Analysis _
s' Usshing, cataloging, processing and analyzing the volume of cultural rc= sins, hu=an skeletal remains, faunal re=ains and botanical. specimens cxpected to be recovered from the LMFBR arca excavations will require 6 to p
j 9 months of laboratory work. Cc=plete and detailed analysis of the botanical and faunal re=ains will depend uped the availability and
- current l
co==it=ents of known experts in thase fields.
Preparatica of-a final report including site caps, drawings, and photographs will' take 3 to 6 months.
I All the personnel involved with the analysis will be full time students and none will be abic or expected to devote their co= plate attention to the LMF3R data. The principal investigator and assistant' director are currently co=sitted to the analysis, intc;pretation, and reporting of archaeological work in the Tellico and Normandy D.= Reservoirs. Further-core, it is expected that both will have full time co= it=ents to these projects during the su==er of 1974; For these reasons it is anticipated that a final report on the IMFER axcavations can not be completed until 1 January 1975,at the earliest.
Personnel Principal Investigator and' Project Director Gerald F. Schroedl, Research Assistant Professor, University of Tennassee, e
Knoxville:
Dr. Schroedl obtained his Ph.D. in anthropology fres Washington State University in 1972. He has.had 8 years experience excavating c=d analyzing archaeological =sterials. During the past 7 years.he has' super-vised archaeological field creus. Since 1971 he has been in charge of ficidwork cnd the analysis of archaeological caterials frem the Tc111co Da= Reservoir and the Watts Bar Nuclear ?cwer Plant area.
M e
.a
- Assistent Director Lee S. Wallace, Graduata student, University of Tennessee. Department of Anthropology:
Mr. Wallate rcccived-his B.A. fro = the University of Tennessec ' in 1970 cnd has had two years of archaeolosical field cnd Icboratory experience. During the past year he has participated in nuneroue site survcys cad has been re=ponsible for analyzins portions of the data fro:
.the Nor=andy Das Reservoir. During the su==cr of 1973 he was a field supervisor and in charge of excavations at site 40CF32 in the Nor andy -
Reservoir.
Research-Assistants Jcces Hibbs:
Mr. E1bbs graduated with honors from Oregon State University 1,n June 1973. He has had 2. full seasons of archaeological field work--one in Oregon and one in Tennessee. Ec will be enrolled as a graduate student in Anthropology at the University of Tennessee following fieldwork at the LMFBR.
Patricia Cole; Ms. Cole graduated from the University of Tennessee in
- June,1973 where she was Phi Beta Kappa.
She will be enrolled as a graduate student in Anthropology at the University of Tennessee beginning in Septe=ber
[
1973. Ms. Cole has had two su==ers of archaeological' field experience.
In addition, she has spent the past two academic years analyzing hu=an skeletal rc=ains from Tennessee and Kansas.
{
Equipment The =ajority of equip =cnt required for undertaking archaeological work 3
in the LMF3R area will be drawn from IVA-University of Tennessee archaeological projects which will not be operating during the fall of 1973.
It is expected that additional equip = cat not presantly available from these projects will either be loaned by TVA, as has been done on previous and continuing projects
'I or purchased through funds budgeted in this proposal. Vehicles will be rented from the University of Tennessee Motor Pool.
In addition, the University will provide laboratory and storage space.
i 3
e i
(
i r
e 1
i l
-- l
6 PROPCSID SUDGIT FIELD OPERATIONS Salaries Principal Investi6ator and Project Director
$ 3,300 3 months @ $1100.00/ month Assistant Director 2,550 3 months @$850.00/ month Two Field Fore =en 3,600 12veeks@$150.00/veek Sixteen Crev =en 15,360 12 weeks,40 hrs /vk.@$2.00/hr.
Cook 960 12 weeks, 40 hrs /V4. @ $2.00/hr.
Subtotal
$25,770 Subsistence and Housing Per dien for principal investigator
$7.CO/ day for 60 days h20 Subsistence for Crev
$3.oO/ person /dayfor60 days 2,880 Rental of field headquarters and Crev Acco=odations -
500 Utilities including phone 500 Material and Sutclies Film and processing 500 Other supplies and local services 2,000 (supplies, rental of backhoe, and equip =ent not previded by TVA)
Transcortation 1 carryall @.ll/=ile, estimated 2000 riles 220 1 half ton pick-up @.lO/ mile, esti=ated 2000 miles 200 3 sedans @.o9/=ile esti=zted total 7000 =iles 630 Subtotal
$ T,650 AKALYSIS Laboratory Personnel Two half-tima Research Assistants e
@ $4,500 each for 9 tenths 9,000 Three laboratory cssistants 36 veeks, 20 hrs /14. @ $2.00/hr.
4,320 1 draftsman, 10 vks. 20 hrs /14. @$2.00/hr.
400 1 photographer,10V.<s.20 hrs /wk.@$2.00/hr.
400 Radiocarbon Dates 10 dates @ S120.00 each 1,200 Faunal and 3otanical Analysis 300 publication of Reuort
.$16,d,20 1.000 Subtotal m
m
...m..mm m
-m m
.- e
+
o OVERICADS onCa==us(643%of$14,120) 9,o79 cff Ca= pus (30.6% of $23,770) 7,886 FRD;GE BEEFITS 10%.of Principal Investigator's Sale _y 330 1% of all other salaries 366-CONTDiGENCY AILOWANCE 1,897 TOTAL BUDGET
. $69,998' UNIVERSITY SHARE (Contributed overhgad $16,965 less.
$39,890x30%)J1 A,998
$65,000 TOTAL CONTRACT g In addition University is contributing the part-ti=e services of the Head, Depart =ent of. Anthropology, part-ti=e services of the Principal Investigator during the analysis-report publication period, field vehicles' except for operating costs, and certain laboratory and storage facilities.
2/ D5es not include equip =ent, supplies, and' services provided by TVA.
Approved:
4 Dr. Gerald F. Schreedl Research Assistant Professor Principal Investigater Dr. Willia = M. Bass Head, Depart =ent of Anthropology A
Dr. Hilton A. S=1th Vice Chanceller for Research
.er-F m.
m
8 References Cited Burncte, Walter J.
1972 Investigations into the Eanilton Culwre of East Tennessee.
MS, on file McCluna, Muccus, University of Tennassec, h oxville.
1973 Investigations into the itenton Culturo Part II: Coding and Conpilation of Data. MS, on file McClung Museus, University of Tcunessac, Knoxville.
Chapnan, Jefferson 1973 The Icchouse Botto: Sita - 40E23. 113, unpublished Master's i
Thesis, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. -
L l
Lewis, T.M.N. and Madeline h cberg l
1946 Eivscoea Isl=d. University of Tcunessco Press, Knexville.
McCollough, Major C. R. and Charlos E. Faulkner 19,73 Excavation of tha Higgs and Doushty Sites I-75 Salvage Archaeology.
.Tc=essac Archaeological Society, Miscellaneous Paper No.12, Knoxville.
\\ McNutt, C. E. and F. W. Fischer 1960 Archaeological Investigations in the Upper Malton Hill Reservoir,
(
Anderson County, Tennesssa, 196'O. Report subnitted to the National Park Service. Knoxville.-
(
\\ McNutt, C. E. and J. Bennat Grahan 1961 Archaeological Investigations in the Lovar Melton Hill Reservoir; Anderson, Knox, Loudon and Roane Counties, Tennessee, 1961.
Report subnitted to the National Park Service. Knoxville.
Moore, C1srance 2.
1915 Aboriginal Sites en the Tennassee River. Journal of the Acade=y of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, second series, Vol.16,
? art 3.
Philadelphia.
s.
Schroedl,. Gerald 7.
1972 Archaeological Reconnaissance and Test Excavations in the Clinch River Liquid Matal Fact 3reeder Reactor Plant Site Ares.. Report 3
sub' itted to the Tennescac Valley Authority, Knoxville.
1973 Test Excavations at 40RE124 in the Clinch River Liquid lietal Fast Breeder Reactor Plant Area. Report subnitted to the Te=essee Valley Authority. ' Knoxville.
~ d.
Radiocarbon Dates fron Thrca Eurial Mounds at tha McDoncld n
Site in East Tennessee.
MS, accepted for publication in the Tennessee Archaeologist. Knoxville.
Tho=as, Cyrus 1894 Report on the 15 cad Explcrations of the Bureau of Ethnology.
Twelf th Annual Reoort of the Bureau of !ccrican Ethnolog.
k'ashington, D. C.
~
9 Thomas, Prentice M.
-1973 A Map of Two Hictoric Sites in the Clinch River Liquid Metal Fast 3reeder Reactor Plant Area, Ronne County, Tc=assaa.
Report submitted to the Tennescae Valley Authority. Knoxville.
Webb, William S.
1938 An Arch:cological Survey of ~ the Norric Ecsin in Easter Tc=cssee.
Burocu of Anorican Ethnology, Bullatin 118. Washington, D. C.
9 4
9 e
'm' e
O
)
.