ML20040D700
| ML20040D700 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1982 |
| From: | JOINT APPLICANTS - CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR |
| To: | NRC COMMISSION (OCM) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20040D696 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8202020167 | |
| Download: ML20040D700 (98) | |
Text
e- c t 'n
- - s ATTACHMENT-I APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. AND TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMENTS i
l l
Dated: January 28, 1982 l
l 8202020167 820128 PDR ADOCK 05000537 C PDR
__ _ _ . _ . _ . . . _ _ , _ . _ _ _ . . _ . . __. _ , ~ . . . _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ . . - . . . ~ _ . _ . _ , . _ . . . . _ - . _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . .
r zo- --
t 'a
. TABLE OF CONTENTS I. AS A MATTER OF LAW. THE COMMISSION SHOULD GRANT THE APPLICANTS' SECTION 50.12 REQUEST......................................
A.- The Applicants Will Complete All NRC Licensing Procedures ...............
B All Relevant Roquirements of NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act Will Be Met...
C. Section 50.12 is an Established Element of the Commission's Licensing Process Which~is Clearly Applicable to the CRBRP...................................
- 1. Irrespactive of the Commission's LWA Regulations, Section 50.12 Remains a Longstanding Part of the Commission's Regulations...........
- 2. Section 50.12 Applies to the Circumstances of This Case.........
- 3. The Atomic Energy Act Requires that Section 50.12 be Available to the CRBRP.......................
II. AS A MATTER OF POLICY, THE COMMISSION SHOULD GRANT THE APPLICANTS' SECTION 50.12 REQUEST................................
V7 i 1 A. The Congressional Mandate for Expeditious Project Completion Establishes a Compelling Basis for the Commission's Exercise of its Section 50.12 Authority.............
B. Grant of the Request Will '
Result in Substantial Cost Savings to the Taxpayer.................
C. Applicants Have Acted with Due Diligence...............................
D. Further Delays are Not in the Public Interest.....................
III. AS TO EACH OF THE SECTION 50.12 FACIORS, THERE IS NO REAL CONTR3VERSY AS TO RELEVANT MATTERS OF FACT...............
A. The Environmental Impacts cf the Proposed Site Preparation Activities Are Unchanged from NRC's 1977 FES, and Will Not Be Significant.............
- 1. The Environmental Effects of Site Preparation Activities Have Received a Full Review.............
- 2. The~ " Issues" of Environnental Impact Identified by NRDC are Not Significant....................
B. Redress Is Feasible.....................
C. No Reasonable Alternatives Will be Foreclosed by Conduct of the Proposed -
Site Preparation Activities ............
D. Further Delay Will Contravene the Public Interest.........................
APPENDICES:
- 1. Annotated Summary of ER Changes.........
l 2. Oak Ridge Consolidated Site Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant Project (Prepared by the Tennessee Valley Authority)..............................
_7 1 1 APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC. AND TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMENTS In considering the Applicants' Section 50.12 request in light of NRDC's comments, the Commission should focus its attention on four fundamental points. First, Section 50.12, is a longstanding part of the Nuclear Regula-tory Commission's (NRC) regulations, and its application to CRBRP will not obviate a single step of the Commission's licensing process. Second, the request does not involve any safety-related work, nor does the proposed site preparation work have significant environmental implications. The NRC's 1977 Final Environmental Statement (FES) concluded that the environmental effects of site preparation activities would not he significant (FES at 90-23), and the Applicants' Site Preparation Activities Report (SPAR) shows that this conclu-sion remains valid in regard to this request. In addition, the SPAR (Section 4.8) commits to implement a detailed set o f impact control measures, which in turn incorporate conditions recommended by Section 4.6 of the FES. Third, Applicants have estimated that grant of the Section 50.12 request will yield substantial project cost savings. The Applicants have even employed NRDC's methods for analyzing delay costs, with appropriate assumptions and input data, and have confirmed this result. Fourth, there is nb real controversy as to relevant matters of fact, but instead, the
T7 ,
2 record has narrowed the controversy to matters of law and policy. With these four points in the foreground, this Response will proceed to demonstrate that: I) as a matter of law, the Commission should grant the' request; II) as a.
matter of policy, the Commission should grant the request; and III) as to each of the four Section 50.12 factors, there is no real controversy as to relevant matters of fact.
S
r r; I. AS A MATTER OF LAW, THE COMMISSION SHOULD GRANT THE APPLICANTS ' SECTION 50.12 REQUEST NRDC's legal comments rest upon three fundamental misconceptions: A) if the Section 50.12 request is granted, CRBRP will not complete NRC's licensing procedures; B) if the Section 50.12 request is granted, CRBRP will not satisfy the requirements of NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act; and C) the Section 50.12 request itself represents an extraordinary variance from standard NRC licensing procedures. Comments of Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. and the Sierra Club in Opposition to Applicants' Exemption Request under 10 C.F R. S 50.12, dated January 18,1982 [hereinaf ter NRDC 1
Comments], at 2. / Each of these misconceptions are addressed below
!. The Applicants Will Complete All NRC Licensing Procedures NRDC's first misconception is the foundation for three arguments: 1.e., that grant of the Section 50.12 request will: 1) vitiate a demonstration of licensability (NRDC Comments at 15-18); 2) erode public confidence in the 1/ The Attorney General of Tennessee filed comments on his behalf which share misconceptions A) and C) above. See Memorandum in Opposition to Applicants' Request for Exemption Under 10 C.F.R. 5 50.12 [ hereinafter A. G.
memo], dated January- 15, 1982. The discussion in Sections I.A. and I.C. below also responds to the Attorney General's comments.
. 1 project (NRDC Comments at 19-22); and 3) prematurely fore-close NRDC's contentions (NRDC Comments at 22-23) .
NRDC apparently misunderstands the relationship between Applicants' Section 50.12 request and the remaining elements of the NRC licensing process for CRBRP. If the .
Section 50.12 request is granted, the CRBRP will still undergo and satisfy all_ elements of NRC's licensing proce-dures. Specifically, the CRBRP will:
- a. Seek and obtain all findings necessary for a Limited Work Authorization-2 (LWA-2) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.10(e)(3)(i)-(ii) .
- b. Seek and obtain all findings necessary for a limited Work Authorization-1 (LWA-1) pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 5 50.10(e)(1)-(2) as a prerequisite condition to an LWA-2. See 10 C.F.R. S 50.10(e) (1)-(3) .
- c. Seek and obtain all findings necessary for a.Construc-tion Permit (CP). See 10 C.F.R. S 50.35.
In short, although site preparation work would proceed upon grant of the Section 50.12 request, the CRBRP will still undergo j[Ll NRC j Staff reviews and hearings related to all applicable environnental and radiological health and safety matters undcr NEPA and the Atomic Energy
[ Act. Thus, the frailty of NRDC's three arguments is evident:
l
s L
- 1. Since all steps of the NRC process will be completed, 2
licensability will be completely demonstrated."/
- 2. Since all steps of the NRC process will be completed, it is inconceivable that public confidence can be 3/
eroded.-
- 3. Since al.1 steps.of the NRC process will be completed, none of NRDC's contentions will be foreclosed. None of NRDC's contentions in the suspended construction permit proceedings relate to any matter of fact relevant to the proposed site preparation activities, or to any of
-2/ In an attem to show an apparent contradiction with Applicants'ptSection 50.12 request, NRDC quotes from a Breeder Reactor Corporation pamphlet which states that the " Clinch River Plant will be licensed under the same Federal regulations that apply to all commercial nuclear power facilities." NRDC Comments at 19 n.8.
There is no contradiction. Section 50.12 applies to commercial nuclear power reactors,.and procedurcs available to those reactors must he available to the CRBRP. See Sections I.C.1.-3. below.
--3/ To the extent that NRDC implies that grant of the request will undermine electric utility coniidence in the project (see NRDC Comments at 19-21), it should be emphasized that the Project Management Corporation, which represents the interests of the 753 domestic electric systems in the project, has joined in the Sec--
tion 50.12 request and supports it wholeheartedly.
Moreover, a broad base of public support for the Sec-tion 50.12 request has been expressed by the duly elected representatives of the public in the region of the site. The Governor of the State of Tennessee, and the governing bodies of at least four counties and cities in the vicinity of the site have filed written statements in support of the request. The Tennessee Attorney General is not elected, but is appointed by the Supreme Court.
. b 4/
the four Section 50.12 factors.- Moreover, since the Licensing Board has recontly lifted the suspension of 5/
the CRBRP hearings,- NRDC will have the opportunity to be heard on its contentions in the upcoming LWA-2 hearings. Its LWA-1 contentions, including its contention advancing the ultimate legal conclusion that 6/-
an LWA-1 is illegal for first-of-a-kind plants,- will
-4/ NRDC asserts that grant of the Section 50.12 request would foreclose at least two of its contentions. NRDC Comments at 22 (citing its December 16, 1981 Memorandum at 21-23). Examination of the prior memorandum dis-closes that NRDC refers to only two types of conten-tions: 1) 1(o) (an LWA is illegal for first-of-a-kind reactors); and 2) 6(b)-(c) and 10(a)(5) (site suitabil-icy and national alternative sites). See NRDC December 16, 1981 Memorandum ("NRDC Memo") at 22-23. As to the first, it is simply an ultimate legal conclusion which will not be foreclosed from the LWA proceeding. Licen-sing Board Order, April 6, 1976 at 8. As to the second, it raises issues which are not necessary condi-tions for grant of the Section 50.12 request, and which will be addressed in the LWA proceedings. Licensing Board Orders April 6, 1976; October 5, 1976. Appli-cants also note NRDC's assertion that grant of the Sec-tion 50.12 request entails a " serious risk of prejudic-
- ing site suitability issues which are at the heart of l the case". NRDC Comments at 23. This is clearly l incorrect since site suitability issues will be consid-
! ered in the upcoming LWA hearings.
5/ See Licensing Board Order, dated January 18, 1982.
-6/ See NRDC Comments at 9. The Licensing Board's April 6, 1976 Order admitting contention 1(e) in the LWA pro-i ceedings found that it was premature for resolution until after the LWA hearing and that there was no necessity to defer the LWA proceeding until after a final safety evaluation became available. Board Order, April 6, 1976 at 8. The Board concluded that "[t]o whatever extent health and safety matters may later require a modification of LWA findings, the Intervenors (Continued)
7
. 1
. \
be considered in the hearings since LWA-1 findings are a prerequisite condition for LWA-2 findings.
B. All Relevant Requirements of NEPA and the Atomic Energy Act Will Be Met NRDC's second misconception -- that the grant of the Section 50.12 request would violate NEPA (NRDC Comments at 23-30) and the Atomic Energy Act (NDRC Comments at 2) --
has produced two assertions: 1) the environmental record is out of date (NRDC Comments at 24-25; 27-29), and 2) there is significant new information regarding safety and programma-tic considerations (NRDC Comments at 25-27 and 38-41).
First, there is simply no change in the conclu-sions of the 1977 FES in regard to site preparation activi-7/
ties.- The environmental record is complete and up to date wfff'have an opportunity to urge that information omit-ted in the NEPA analysis because the staff review was incomplete, affects the ability of the Board to make the findings required for LWA authorization." Id.
-7/ NRDC points to the CEQ guidelines and implies that NRC's 1977 FES is out-of-date and requires supplemen-tation. NRDC Comments.at 25 n. 12. Contrary to NRDC's assertions, the CEQ guidelines suggest, but do not require, that an agency review impact statements Tor currency every five years. Moreover, the 1977 FES would need supplementation only if there were: 1) sub-stantial' changes in the proposed action, or 2) signifi-cant new information relevant to environmental con-cerns. 40 C.F.R. S 150 2. 9 (c) (1 ) . The Applicants have shown, and NRDC has not seriously contested, that the conclusions of the 1977 FES are unchanged with respect to site preparation activities. Applicants' Answers, Question / Answer 9(a) [ Environmental impact estimates]
at 29-39. Although the Commission need not reach this issue in connection with the Section 50.12 request, (Continued)
, n in all material respects. See Applicants' Answers, Questions / Answers 4-5 at 13-19; Applicants' Answers,
! Question / Answer 9(a) (Environmental impact estimates] at 29-
- 39. NRDC's specific assertion in regard to the status of the Applicants' Environmental Report-(ER) warrants particu-8
'lar emphasis here. / NRDC relies upon Applicants ' November i
! 27, 1981 submission to the NRC, which it characterizes as "a 30-page summary of changes to the CRBR design which have
, occurred since 1977 and the expected environmental effects j of those changes", as support for its. assertion that the 9/
~
environmental record is out of date.- On its face, this
, summary shows tha t: 1) none of the changes require addi-l l tional updating in regard to site preparatibn activities; Appendix 1 hereto also shows that the changes in the
. project and the available new information have no significant effect on the~ environmental conclusions of l the FES. In these circumstances, the FES as a_whole-
! remains valid, and supplementation would not be '
required. See Environmental Defense Fund v. Marsh, 651 F.2d 983 (5tE Cir. 1981); Warm Springs Dam Task Force
- v. Gribble, 621 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1980); Monarch Chenical Works, Inc.~v. Thone, 604 F.2d 1083-(8th Cir.
1979); National Indian Youth Council v. Andrus, 501 F.Supp. 649 (D.N.M. 1980), aff'd sub nom., National Indian Youth Council v. Watt, No. llF-7077, Slip Op.
(10th Cir. Nov. 12, 1981).
-8/ NRDC overstates the case when it asserts.that the Com-l mission cannot rely upon Applicants' information in i making its Section 50.12 decision. NRDC. Comments at 28-29. The weight of authority is to the contrary.
E.g., Lake Erie Alliance for the Protection of the Toa,st of Canada v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No.79-110, Slip Op, p.16-18 (W.D. Pa. November 23, 1981).
9/ NRDC comments at 28 n. 14.
t
. ~ _ __ _
. e
_9 and 2) none of the changes'are environmentally significant in regard to site preparation or other project 10/
activities.--
NRDC's argument that there is significant new information relating to a) safety, and b) programmatic considerations, is totally irrelevant. As to safety, the Section 50.12 re_qu,est does not seek authorization to conduct 11/
safety-related construction.-- Even if significant new safety information did exist, that information will be fully considered in connection with the N2C Staff's safety review, and where appropriate, in connection wt?.h the forthecming 14/
LWA-2 and CP hearings.-- In regard to programmatic
~~~10/ An annotated copy of the summary is attached hereto for the Commission's information as Appendix 1.
"-11/ NRDC cites 10 C.F.R Part 50, Appendix Q for the pro-position that the Commission cannot rely upon the 1977 FES and SSR. NRDC Comments at 29 n. 15. This is irre-levant. Appendix Q applies to early site approvals and is clearly irrelevant to the CRBRP application. Even so, it merely requires a re-examination of findings after five years, and the passage of five years obviously does not per se invalidate Appendix Q findings.
"~-14/ NRDC states that resolution of safety issues is essen-tial before any construction work on the CRBRP site may proceed. NRDC Comments at 27 n.13. We agree. The Section 50.12 request will not involve any actual facility construction work, and will have no effect on the ultimate resolution of safety issues. NRDC also claims that the Commission cannot draw reasonable con-clusions regarding site suitability without a complete analysis of the adequacy of the design. NRDC Comments at 27 n.13. Although NRC's 1977 Site Suitability Report indicates that this NRDC claim is dubious, it is (Contf.nued)
. , 's b
- 10 -
considerations, it seems that NRDC's memory has not bridged the pause in the project. The Commission's August, 1976 decision, overruling the admission of NRDC's contentions 10 and II, expressly held that programmatic considerations were 13/
excluded from NRC's review of the CRBRP.--
C. Section 50.12 is an Established Element of the Commission's Licensing Process Which is Clearly Applicable _to th,e CRBRP NRDC 's third misconception is reflected in its characterization of the Section 50.12 request as an
" extraordinary variance from standard licensing." NRDC Comments at 2. Section 50.12, however, is a established procedure which is clearly applicable to CRBRP.. It.is a longstanding part of the Commission's regulations; it applies to the circumstances of this case; and the Atomic Energy Act requires that Section 50.12 be available to the i
! CRBRP.
~-a1so irrelevant. The Commission need not reach site suitability issues under Section 50.12. In any event, NRDC will have its day in court during the LWA proceed-ings. Licensing Board Order, April 6, 1976 at 8.
l 13/
~~~
United States Energy Research and Development Adminis-tration, et al. (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant),'
CLI-76-137 4 KRC 67 (1976) . NRDC points out that DOE l has decided to prepare a supplement to the LMFBR Pro-
- gram Environmental Statement (ERDA 1535), and that the l Section 50.12 request is premature until that process l is completed. NRDC Comments at 24 n.10. This is a matter which is within DOE's responsibility and is not within the purview of NRC's review of CRBRP. Clinch--
River, 4 NRC at 92.
- a.
- 11 -
- 1. Irrespective of the Commission's LWA Regulations, Section 50.12 Remains a Longstanding Part Of the Commission's Regulations We are pleased that NRDC now recognizes that "there may be certain cases where the exemption retains vitality" and "there would ramain some circumstances in 14/
which its invocation would be appropriate".-- In spite of this, the Applicants will summarize the rulemaking history of Section 50.12 as it relates to site preparation activi-ties.
Prior to the enactment of NEPA, Construction Permit applicants could conduct site preparation activities 15 without prior Commission approval.- / Aftar the enactment
! of NEPA and the decision in Calvert Cliff's Coordinating 1
Committee v. AEC, 449 F.2d 1109 (D.C. Cir. 1971), the AEC promulgated Section 50.10(c).
The court in Calvert Cliffs required the AEC to revise its rules to permit the consid-eration of environmental matters in AEC licensing decisions, l
and held that the Commission must prepare an Environmental Impact Statement in connection with the issuance of a Construction Permit. In response to Calvert Cliffs, the AEC issued new regulations which required a full environnental l
l review and Final Environmental Statement (FES) prior to
,1,4/ NRDC Comments at 4 and 5, respectively.
15/ See L.M. at 10-11.
I I
. o issuance of a Construction Permit. The new regulations prohibited " commencement of construction" prior to the issuance of a Construction Permit. Since " commencement of construction" was defined to include " leasing of land,
. excavation or other substantial action that would adversely affect the environm'ent of a site," these regulations effectively prohibited site preparation prior to a Construc-tion Fernit. 10 C.F.R. 550.10(c).
Because this prohibition could adversely affect plants for which site preparation had already begun under then existing AEC regulations on March 21, 1972 (37 Fed.
Reg. 5745) the AEC promulgated Section 50.10(d), which pro-vides that persons conducting site preparation activities without a Construction Permit as of March 21, 1972, may submit reasons why they should be permitted to continue.
This enabled plants for which site preparation had already begun to continue these activities, pending completion of the Construction Permit proceeding, based upon the con-sideration and balancing of the following factors.
(i) Whether continuation of the activities will give rise to a signifi-cant adverse impact on the environment and the nature and extent of such impact, if any; (ii) Whether redress of any adverse environmental impact from con-tinuation of the activities can reasona-bly be effected should such redress be necessary;
. -e (iii) Whether continuation of the activities would -foreclose subsequenc adoption of alternatives; and (iv) The effect of delay in con-ducting such activities on the public interest, including the power needs to be served by the proposed facility, the availability of alternative sources, if any, to meet those needs on a timely basis, and delay costs to the applicant and to consumers.
10 C.F.R. S 50.10(d) (2)(1)-(iv) .
At the time it promulgated Section 50.10(d), the AEC also promulgated Section 50.12(b), which reflected a conscious AEC policy decision to preserve its discretion to authorize site preparation for cases in which construction had not already started. As the AEC stated:
In making this relief [under Section 50.10(d)] generally available only to those persons who have commenced actual site preparation activities prior to the effective date of these amendments, the Commission realizes that in individual cases, particularly those instances where plants are in an advanced stage of development, but where no site prepara-tion work has yet been started, undue hardship may be incurred. In those situations, relief may be sought by requesting a specific exemption under sec. 50.12. Although it is expected that specific exemptions will be used only sparingly for this purpose, appro-priate relief may be granted in parti-cular cases where the facts so warrant and a favorable determination can be made with respect to the specified envi-ronmental considerations listed in the new sec. 50.12(b).
37 Fed. Reg. 5746 (March 21, 1972).
, e .
14 -
As the agency proceeded to-implement NEPA in the two years after Ca,1 vert Cliffs, the exper,ience gained indicated that the Section 50.10(c) prohibition against site preparation prior to a Construction Permit did not reflect an appropriate balance of policy considerations. In order to reduce the delay and accompanying hardship caused by Section 50.10(c), the AEC on April 24, 1974 (39 Fed. Reg. 14506), promulgated Section 50.10(e) under which new plants might obtain " limited work authorizations" for site prepara-tion activity prior to issuance of a construction permit.
Under Section 50.10(e) the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regu-lation may authorize site prepara'; ion work if the Staff has completed its FES on the issuance of the Construction 16/
Pe rm i t .--
At the time it considered and adopted Section i
50.10(e), the AEC also considered limiting Section 50.12.
It suggested that, with the relief provided by Sections 50.10(d) and 50.10(e), Section 50.12 might well be unneces-sary. In its notice of proposed rulemaking for Section
---16/ 10 C.F.R. S 50.10(e)(1) . In addition, the presiding officer must make environmental findings and site suitability findings after a hearing. 10 C.F.R.
l 5 50.10(e) (2) . Safety related work may be performed if, in addition to the findings on environmental fac-tors and site suitability, the presiding officer finds no unresolved safety issues involving the increment of work requested. ~10 C.F.R. 5 50.10(e)(3).
l e
- 50.10(e), the AEC proposed adding the following amendment to Section 50.12.
(c) No person will, prior to issu-ance of any initial decision as provided by 2.76a of this chapter, be granted an exemption from the requirements of sec.
50.12(c) pursuant to this section to authorize the conduct of activities prior to the issuance of a construction permit that exceed in scope the activi-ties described in sec. 50.10 (e) (1 ) .
39 Fed. Reg. 4583 (Feb. 5, 1974). The scope of activities described in 5 50.10(e)(1) covers, in fact, site preparation activities. Although the AEC considered removing the autho-r_it_y, in Section _50.12 to sanction activities beyond site REePagatip,n,, it is significant that it_did not even consider r.j;pp_a,1,i_ng_,t_h_,e_a_u_ thor.ity_in Section 50.12 to permit s ite preparation activities prior to issuance of a construction permit. In fact, in promulgating the final rule, the AEC rejected even the proposed amendment, stating:
The amendment to sec. 50.12 of 10 C.F.R. Part 50 has been deleted as unnecessary in light of the Commission's policy of granting exemptions from sec. 50.10(c) sparingly and only in cases of undue hardship.
39 Fed. Reg. 14507 (April 24, 1974). Thus, the AEC 17/
expressly reserved and the NRC has maintained-~ the broad 17/
After the Energy Reorganization Act became effective and transferred the AEC's regulatory responsibilities to NRC, the NRC adopted Section 50.12, along with the balance of Part 50, without change. See 40 Fed. Reg. 8788 (March 3,1975) .
l
, c authority to authorize site preparation, and even facility construction, under Section 50.12. In short, the Commis-sion's Section 50.12 procedure has clearly survived the promulgation of its UWA regulations.
- 2. Section 50.12 Applies to the Circumstances of This Case Based on their " review of Commission precedent,"
NDRC " suggests that there are only three situations in which an exemption might properly be granted": 1) where an LWA would otherwise be warranted, but the LWA procedure itself is not available from some reason; 2) to allow additional activities under an existing UWA: and 3) to obtain an exemp-tion from procedures other than those of Section 50.10(e).
, NRDC Comnents at 5. NRDC's analysis of Commission precedent is simply incorrect.
18/
First, NRDC cites Wolf Creek and Duke Power --
for the proposition that 50.12 might apply only where the LWA procedure is unavailable. In Wolf Creek, sup,ra, the Commission never expressly or impliedly limited a Section 50.12 request to instances in which a LWA was unavailable.
In Wolf Creek, the parties were awaiting an initial decision of the Licensing Board when the Commission, in respo.nse to 18/ Kansas Gas and Electric Co., Kansac Power and Light Co.
(Wolf Creek Generating Station, Unit 1), CLI-76-20, 4 '
NRC 476 (1976); Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-74-22, 7 AEC 659 (1974) .
Natural Resources Defense Council v. NRC, 547 F.2d 663 (D.C.
Cir. 1976), issued its General Statement of Policy and pro-hibited the issuance of all construction permits and, limited work authorizations pending promulgation of an interim rule on the environmental effects of the uranium fuel cycle.
Because the initial decision of the Licensing Board was therefore postponed indefinitely, the Applicant filed a Section 50.12 request with the Commission to begin site preparation.
In discussing the request, the Commission noted that it had, on the date of the decision, issued interim procedures to govern the assessment of fuel cycle impacts, thus lifting the previous prohibition against the issuance of LWA's and CP's. Because the Licensing Board had completed the hearing process and had only to consider the fuel cycle impacts issue, there obviously was no need for the Section 50.12 request. Moreover, because the Board was intimately familiar with the issues involved, the Commission requested the Board to treat the Section 50.12 request as a request for a limited work authorization.
In contrast, as a result of the four year suspen-sion, the Licensing Board is not intimately familiar with the issues involved here and no decision on an LWA is pre-sently pending or expected in the near future. The present
proceeding simply bears no resemblance to the circumstances in Wolf Creek.
i Similarly, in support of its theory that where the LWA procedure is available a Section 50.12 request is inappropriate, NRDC erroneously reads Duke Power'Co. as a case in which the "the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board in effect converted the Section 50.12 request into a LWA pro-ceeding." In fact, the Licensing Board did not " convert" a Section 50.12 request into a LWA proceeding. Rather, the applicant specifically requested a LRA from the Director of Regulation after the promulgation of 10 CFR 550.10(e). For its part, the Licensing Board did not discuss Section 50.12, but merely made the findings required by Section 50.10(e).
Second, NRDC asserts that Duke Power Co. (Catawba Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2), CLI-75-9, 2 NRC 180 (1975),
supports the proposition that Section 50.12 "might be used to obtain an exemption from procedures other than those of 22 Section 50.10(e)."- / Unfortunately, in Duke Power, the Commission did not consider the scope of Section 50.12 but instead waived the requirements of Section 50.46(a)(c) pursuant to 10 C.F.R S 2.758, holding, as required by
~~~22/ Although the proposition asserted by NRDC is unexcep-tional and, pursuant to Section 50.12(a), correct, it in no way limits the Section 50.12(a) and 50.12(b) pro-cedures. Indeed, NRDC's statement broadens the appli-cability of Section 50.12.
Section 2.758, "that application of 10 CFR 50.46(a)(3) in this case would not serve the purpose for which that regula-tion was adopted...." Id. at 186-87.
Finally, NRDC relies upon , Gulf States Utilities C_omyany_, s_upr_a , for the proposition that Section 50.12 may be used to allow activities in addition to those under an existing LWA. In that case, the Commission, summarily granted a Section 50.12 request, noting that the request was unopposed and the requested activities were not considered to have any adverse environmental impacts. More impor-tantly, the Commission did not, as NRDC suge,ests, discuss the scope of Section 50.12 or in any way Itmit its application.
Rather than rigidly limiting the scope of Section 50.12, the Commission precedent quite clearly demonstrates that the Commission has decided to consider each Section l 50.12 request on a case-by-case basis pursuant to the i criteria established in Carolina Power & Light Co.,
(Shearon-Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3 and 4)
CLI-74-22, 7 AEC 939 (1974) and Wash _i_ngton Public_ _ Power Supply System _(WPPSS Nuclear Project Nos. 3 and 5), CLI 20/
11, 5 NRC 719 (1977) .--- Moreover, in Shearon-Harris, the Commission, in discussing Section 50.12, stated:
20/~In its Order of December 24 1981 the Commission concluded that Section 50.1$ reauests must be con-sidered on a case-by-case basis. See Order at 6-8 n.2.
It is manifestly in the public interest to have such an exception or exemp-tion.
See United Ludlum YteeT Co States v. Allegheny-
, TOW Y.ST 747, 784 87
~(T9M)'; PermTaiiIrsin Area Rate Cases,
~
390 U.S. 737, 784-87 (1968); WAIT Radio
~19W)-~ This is true especially where, as here, benefits to the public will result from the sice preparation work....
Id at 944.
The Applicants' November 30, 1981 Legal Memoran-dum, S PAR, and December 31, 1981, and January 18, 1982 submissions show that the Section 50.12 request meets all of the requirements of the Commission's case law. In light of the " benefits to the public [which] will result from the site preparation work," grant of the request is manifestly in the public interest.
- 3. The Atomic Energy Act Requires that Section 50.12 be Availab_1,e. _to the CRBRP NRDC argues that Section 50.12 cannot apply to 4
"first-of-a-kind" reactors such as CRBRP. The apparent basis for the argument is NRDC's contention that the LWA procedure does not apply to first-of-a-kind reactors, and a fortiori, Section 50.12 cannot apply. NRDC Comments at 9.
Neither Section 50.12, nor its rulemaking history, nor the applicable case law contain t scintilla of authority for the proposition that it cannot be applied to first-of-a-21/
kind reactors.-~ As Applicants have shown in detail in
e
- 21 -
their January 18, 1981 submission, the Atomic Energy Act requires that if procedures are available to commercial reactors, they must be equally available to Section 104b reactors such as CRBRP. Applicants' Answers, Questions /-
Answers 1-2, at 1-4. Since both the LWA procedures and Section 50.12 are clearly applicable to commercial 22/
reactors ~~ both must he equally applicable to CRBRP.
21/ NRDC cites the personal view of one former AEC Commis-sioner, expressed in a 1973 speech, that he would not favor granting exemptions for first-of-a kind demon-stration plants. NRDC Comments at 8 n.4. Aside frem the fact that this was only the personal view of one Commissioner and not the Commission itself (cf. Appli-cants' Answers, Question / Answer 1-2[c], note **, at 5-6), it should be emphasized that these views were expressed prior to the publication of both the proposed and final LWA rules. In spite of this, the proposed and final LWA rules and their accompanying Statements of Considerations are conspicuously silent concerning any limitation on the applicability of Section 50.12 to first-of-a kind plants. When the Commission issued the final LWA rule, which preserved its Section 50.12 authority, it must have had that Commissioner's per-sonal view before it. Thus, the absence of any limita-tion on the applicability of Section 50.12 is conclu-l sive evidence that the Commission never intended any such limitation.
22/ See Section I.C.1. above. NRDC apparently suggests
~~-
that the LWA procedures could not apply to CRBRP prior to completion of a full safety review. NRDC Comments at 8. The Commission need not even reach this issue now. It is plainly irrelevant to the Section 50.12 request, because the request does not involve safety-related work. Moreover, NRDC will have ample oppor-tunity to make that argument in the upcoming LWA proceedings. Licensing Board Order, April 6, 1976 l at 8.
II. AS A MATTER OF POLICY, THE COMMISSION SHOULD GRANT THE APPLICANTS' SECTION 50.12 REQUEST NRDC argues that Section 50.12 should not apply in light of the circumstances attending the request. In this context, we are exposed to NRDC's view of the governing policy considerations and its claim that the circumstances are not exigent. Specifically, NRDC argues that: 1) there is no Congressional mandate for the Commission to apply Section 50.12; 2) further delay will make, rather than save money for the project; 3) the Applicants' actions belie the existence of an emergency; and 4) the delay during the past five years was beneficial to the project. NRDC Comments at 9-14; 30-43. The Applicants submit that these arguments are without merit.
A. The Congressional Mandate for Expeditious Project Completion Establishes a Compelling Basis for the Commission's Exercise of its Section 50.12 Authoritt In arguing that there is "no mandate in law for the Commission to deviate from standard licensing practice",
intervenors apparently fail to understand Applicants' posi-tion with regard to the Congressional and Executive mandates for expeditious Project completion. Applicants have never suggested that either Congress or the President mandated that the Commission deviate from its established proce-dures. More importantly, Applicants have not requested the Commission to engage in any procedures which are not already 1
l , .
authorized pursuant to the Commission's own regulations.
Simply stated, Auplicants have requested that, in fulfilling the mandates for expeditious Project completion, the Commis-sion should utilize its established Section 50.12 procedures 23/
and permit the conduct of site preparation activities.---
Given the clarity of the mandate from both the Congress and the President, it is hardly surprising that NRDC makes virtually no attempt to seriously address the 24/
legislative history of the CRBRP.~- Instead, it argues
~~-23/ NRDC implies that it is entitled to an adjudicatory hearing as a matter of law. NRDC Comments at 30 n.17.
While they are entitled to an adjudicatory hearing on their contentions under Section 189(a) of the Atomic Energy Act, they will have that opportunity in the forthcoming LWA hearings. See Section I.A. above. We t
also note that there is no dispute between the Appli-cants, NRDC or the Commission on the point that there is no statutory requirement for a hearing on the Sec-tion 50.12 request. December 16, 1981 Transcript at 48; December 24, 1981 Commission Order at 4-7.
-"-24/ See L.M. at 14-22; Appendix A. NRDC attempts to side-
' step the legislative history by relying upon the post-enactment views of individual legislators. NRDC Com-ments at 9. Applicants rely upon, inter alia. the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, tIie accompanying Conference Report, and the contemporaneous remarks of the fl.oor managers of that legislation. L.M. at 19-22. Applicants have already shown that Conference Report and floor managers remarks are entitled to con-trolling weight, whereas the views of the individual legislators relied upon by NRDC are not. Applicants Answers, Questions / Answers 1-2[c] at 4-6, notcs
- and
- at 5-6. NRDC also characterizes the floor statement of Congresswoman Bouquard as those of an individual legislator. The Congresswoman chairs the Congressional Subcommittee with jurisdiction over CRBRP authoriza-tion, and as such, was a floor manager of the bill.
o
- i r
l l
f that Congress "knows well how to exempt projects, for exam-ple, from the usual process of environmental review," and relies upon two statutes in which Congress exempted activi-ties from certain agency procedures. NRDC neglects to point out, however, that in each instance there were rua estab-lished agency procedures comparable to 10 C.F.R. 550.12.
In the case of the Alaska Natural Gas Transporta-tion Act, for example, Congress was forced to create a pro-cedura to expedite selection of an applicant to construct the Alaskan pipeline because the FPC did not have such 25 procedures. - /
NRDC also refers to the Federal Aid Highway Act, 23 U.S.C. S 101 et_ses.., apparently for the proposition that a Congressional mandate to " accelerate the construction of the Federal aid-highway systems. . . ." does not create a regu-latory exemption procedure. NRDC Comments at 14. We agree that a mandate for expedition does not create an exemption procedure where one does not already exist. Where an
---25/ H.R. Rep. No. 94-1658, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. 23 (1976),
reirinted in U.S. CODE CONG. & AD. NEWS 6649.
TimiH rly,-l~n the case of the Energy Supply and Envi-ronmental Coordination Act, 15 U.S.C. 5 792 et seq.,
which NRDC cites at page 13 of its Comments, there were no established procedural regulations which could he used to fulfill the Congressional mandate for expedition.
.o .
25 -
agency's established procedures provide a method for ful-filling t' Mngressional mandate, however, that method 26/
should be utilized. --
Finally NRDC cites the Deepwater Port Act of 1974, 33 U.S.C. 55 1501-1524, as an example of Congress establishing specific timetables in order "to mandate speedy licensing." NRDC implies that in the absence of such a timetable, Congressional and Executive mandates for expedi-tion should be disregarded.
The Deepwater Port Act of 1974 was enacted "to establish a licensing and regulatory program governing off-shore deepwater port development...." S. Rep. No. 93-1217, 96th Cong., 2d Sess. 1 (1974) reprinted in, U.S. Code Cong. &
Ad. News 7529. The legislation established a single set of procedures (including a timetable for activities) in order to alleviate the difficulties caused by licensing require-ments of nultiple agencies. Id. at 7536.
26/ NRDC implies that the court in Lathan v. BrineLar, 505 F.2d 677 (9th Cir. 1974) (en baiicT, R]eHsd ,the argu-ment that the language of'2T F.~57C. 5 101(e) mandated a regulatory exemption. In fac t, the issue was not
, before the court and neither the section of the statute nor the language of the statute was mentioned by the court. In contrast, in the case of the CRBRP Project the Commission already has in place an established pro-cedure for expediting the project in accordance with the Congressional and Executive mandates. Plainly, no purpose is served by Congress enacting procedures which have already been established by the Commission.
. u In the case of the CRBRP Project there is a cen-tral agency involved in the licensing process. The NRC is responsible for licensing the project and already has estab-lished procedures, which include Section 50.12, for carrying out licensing in an expeditious manner. Hence, Congres-sional action with regard to the Deepwater Port Act of 1974 is simply irrelevant to the issue before the Commission.
In summary, the NRDC's argument regarding the Congressional and Executive mandates, as well as their supporting citations, are plainly irrelevant. Both Congress and the President have mandated expeditious project completion -- a fact which NRDC does not dispute. This mandate, taken together with the other exigent and excep-tional circumstances, establishes a compelling basis for the Commission's exercise of its Section 50.12 authority. L.M.
at 14-26.
I l B. Grant of the Section 50.12 Request Will Result in Substantial Cost Savings to the Taxpayer There is no disagreement regarding certain ele-ments of delay costs. In particular, the following ecst j elements are accepted by NRDC:
- 1. Inflation. NRDC Comments at 32; I
Komanoff Statement at 2.
l l 2. The time value of money. NRDC l Comments at 32; Komanoff Statement at 1, and 2-6.
I l
27 -
- 3. The cost of maintaining the manag-erial and administrative staff during the delay period. NRDC Comments at 33; Komanoff Statement at 6,7.3_0/
Although agreeing with Applicants' regarding the foregoing elements of the cost of delay, NRDC nonetheless (
claims that " Applicants fail to take into account 'the time value of money'". NRDC states that, "when the time value of money is taken into account, inflation related costs of delay vanish, because of offsetting savings from postponing expenditures." NRDC Comments at 32 (Quoting from the statement of Charles Komanof f) . According to NRDC, a one year delay in Project completion will save the Project 29/
approximately $30 million.-- The Applicants will show, however, that if NRDC's methods of analysis are applied with appropriate assumptions and input data, NRDC's own analyses show substantial increased costs associated with project delay, and confirm the conservatism of Applicants' delay cost estimates.
30/
~~
In addition, Mr. Komanoff estimates that the alterna-tive cost of fossil fuel generation of power should be taken into account. Because the pr TVA provides that pcwer will be pur,oject agreement chased by TVA at with its avoided costs to the extent available, there will not be any additional costs to the project.
"--39/ NRDC's argument, of course, reduces to the conclusion that the Government should never undertake any capital projects in light of the resulting cost savings attributable to delay.
Applicants agree entirely that there is a time value of money which should be taken into account in cal-culating the costs of delay. Unfortunately, NRDC fails to understand that in calculating the cost or saving from delay, not only unexpended funds but also expended funds must be taken into account. In fact, the Project incurs a substantial cost on expended funds as a result of any delay in beginning site preparation activities -a fact ignored by NRDC. NRDC's analysis also neglects to account for the Pro-ject losses as a result of the deferral of revenue. When the realistic and complete factors are taken into account, it is clear that no cost benefit will accrue to the project as a result of a one year delay. Had NRDC's analysis considered all project costs associated with the delay, it necessarily would have concluded that the costs of delay far exceed any potential cost savings.
Although the precise methodology used by NRDC in arriving at a cost savings of $30 million is difficult to discern, Applicants presume that NRDC attempted to discount anticipated project expenditures by 11 percent per year in order to arrive at the present worth of anticipated expenditures through project completion. Of course, as noted earliar, NRDC ignored (1) past expenditures on the Project and (2) losses resulting from the deferral of reve-nue. For purposes of this analysis, Applicants have
employed NRDC's methodology and have calculated the " time value of money" based on an eight percent inflation rate and 32/
an eleven percent rate for the time value of money."-
Unlike NRDC, however, Applicants have taken into account not only anticipated expenditures, but also past expenditures and the deferral of revenue for a one year period.
i l
l i _ _ _
32/
Applicants, of course, continue to rely on their earlier cost submission made in Response to Question 9 of the Commission's Order of December 24, 1981.
l t - .. . -. . -. . - _ . - _,
The following chart (Chart A) provides a present worth analysis of anticipated project expenditures consistent with NRDC's analysis. As shown by the chart, a oneheardelayintheproject schedule will result in added inflation of $136.2 million. The net effect after dis-counting anticipated expenditures to present worth, is a
$30.2 million savings.
bd 1 .. - _ _ _ _ __m.___m __ .___ __ ___ __-.__-_.m__________
GART A -
PRESENT WORIH ANALYSIS OF -
ANTICIPA'IED PROLJECT EXPENDTIURES (In Millions 5) 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 '1 URAL Anticipated Expenditures YOE 70.7 165.8 201.6 323.4 324.2. 170.9 89.0 75.5 76.6 73.2 50.0 51.5 29.9 -
1702.3 Present W rth Factor */ 1.00 .900 .812 .731 .659 .593 .535 .482 .434 .391 .352 .317 .286 .258 Pr@sent Worth of Expenditure 70.7 149.2 163.7 236.4 213.6 101.3 47.6 36.4 33.2 28.6 17.6 16.3 8.55 -
1123.2 DELAY Anticipated Expenditures (Inflated at 87.) 76.4 179.1 217.7 349.3 350.1 184.6 96.1 81.5 82.7 79.1 54.0 55.6 32.3 1838.5 Present Worth of Expenditure 68.8 145.4 159.1 230.2 207.6 98.8 46.3 35.4 32.3 27.8 17.1 15.9 8.33 1093.0 ADDED EXPENDTIURE DUE 'IO INFIATION: 1838.5 - 1702.3 = $136.2 million PRESENT WDR111 OF ADDED EXPENDTIURE: 1093.0 - 1123.2 = ($30.2 million)
- ] 'Ihe present worth factor used in this analysis asstancs an 11 percent discomt rate as suggested by NRDC.
31 -
The following two charts consider the elements of the " time value of money" neglected by NRDC. Chart B shows the interest on past expenditures at an assumed rate of eleven percent. In arriving at the total past expenditures the imputed interest accrued during the past seven years was added to the total cost. Chart C calculates the project loss due to the deferral of revenue for a one year period.
s
CHART B INitxtsr ON PAST EXPENDI'IURES-(In Millions S) 1
'1 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 Total Expenditures 29.9 70.1 140.2 184.4 166.2 175.1 189.4 192.9 $1148.2 Interest Factor at 117. 2.30 2.08 1.87 1.68 1.52 1.37 1.23 1.11 Expenditure and l Interest to 1982 68.8 .145.8 262.2 309.8 252.6 239.9 233.0 214.1 1726.2 Cost of Annual Interest $1726.2 x .117. = $189.9 of Expended Capital at 11*4 1
OlART C ..
~
PRESENT WOR 111 OF IJDSS OF REVDUE UUE 'IO 1 YFAR DEIAY (In Millions $)
Initial Criticality 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Total i
Revenues 42.1 67.0 97.9 144.3 159.4 100.5 - 611.0 IV Factor at 11% .482 .433 .391 .352 .317 .286 -
, Discoinited Revenues 20.3 29.0 38.2 50.8 50.5 28.7 - 217.5 Initial Criticality 1990 Revenues (inflated at 87.) 45.4 72.4 105.7 155.8 172.2 108.5 659.8 IV Factor at 117. .433 .391 .352 .317 .286. .257 Discounted Revenues 19.7 28.3 37.1 49.4 49.2 27.9 211.6 PRESENT NOR'I110F IDSS OF REVENUES: $217.5 - $211.6 - $5.9 Million
l -
l i
As these two charts demonstrate, in the event of a one year delay in the project schedule, the project and i
ultimately the taxpayer will incur additional costs of
$189.9 million resulting from an additional year of interest accrual on past expenditures. In addition, the project will lose $5.9 million from the one year deferral of revenues.
A complete analysis which accounts for the " time value of money" results in the following project costs and savings due to delay:
Net Savings on Anticipated Expenditures $30.2 Interest on Past Expenditures $189.9 Loss Due to Deferral of Revenue $5.9
.In summary, in the event of a one year delay, the project will incur substantial increased costs. The ele-ments of the delay costs on a yearly basis include: (1) increased management costs in the amount of $42.3 30/
million ;-- (2) inflation in the amount of at least $88.8 31/
m illion ;--- (3) using NRDC's analysis methods, interest on 32/
expended capital on a net basis of $23.5 million;-- and (4) jyl/ See Applicants' Answers at 77.
31/ See Applicants' Answer at 46, 78. .
~~~32/ The net interest on capital of $23.5 million was derived by deducting the gross cost savings attributa-ble to a one year delay from the interest costs on expended capital. Applicants' previous submittal estimated this value at $43.9 million. Applicants Answers Question 1 Answers 9(a)-(b), Appendix C. The additional refinements suggested by NRDC's methods of anal sis provided a basis for the more rigorous anal sis herein.
losses due to the deferral of revenuo in the amount of $5.9 nillion. As these analyses demonstrate, the range of costs estimated in the SPAR of $120-240 million is clearly conservative.
C. _The_ Applicants Have Acted with Due Diligence NRDC has attempted to construct an argument that the exigent ciccumstances are of the Applicants' own mak-ing. As NRDC would have it, the Applicants should have sought resumption of the licensing proceedings at an earlier date. NRDC Comaents at 37-38. Although Applicants believe that this argument is of doubtful relevance, in the interest of accuracy of the record, a brief response is provided.
The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act, which authorizad funding for the project, was signed into law on 33 August 13, 1981."'/ Immediately thereafter, DOE contacted 34/
NRC in order to reopen the review of the application.~~
From that point forward, both organizations began the reor-ganization and scale-up necessary to move ahead toward pro-ject completion.
The fiscal year 1982 appropriation for the project was, delayed in the last session of Congress, as were all
~~-33/ The Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, Pub. L.
1 No. 97-35.
3]i/ NRDC Comments at 37-38.
- rw- - - + -
federal appropriations for the forthcoming fiscal year.
Cons equently, it was necessary for the Congress to resort to two continuing resolutions between the commencement of the new fiscal year (October 1, 1981), and November 23, 35 1981.~ / The Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act of 1982, which provides fiscal year 1982 funding for CRBRP, passed the House and Senate on November 20 and 21, 1981, respectively.
As of November 21, 1981, the Applicants had a high degree of certainty that the project's appropriation was 36/
s ecured . -- The Applicants then moved immediately to effectuate the direction of the President and Congress for expeditious project completion. On November 30, 1981, the Applicants filed the Section 50.12 request. On November 30, 1981, DOE initiated the procurement process for selection and award of site preparation contracts. Applicants' Answers, Question / Answer 11 at 95-97. These actions were taken to maximize the cost savings to the taxpayer and minimize further unrecoverable delays in the project. In simplest terms, these actions reflect prudent management
"--35/
Pub. L. No. 97-51 (October 1, 1981); Pub . L. No . 97-85 (November 23, 1981).
36/ The President signed the Energy and Water Development Appropriation Act into law as Pub. L. No. 97-88 on December 4, 1981.
. o 37/
a c t ion ,-- and due diligence in moving the project 38 fo rwa r d .-"'/
D. Further Delay,s are Not in the Public Interest NRDC argues that the licensing pause of the past five years was the result of a deliberate policy of the prior Administration, and in any event, has been beneficial to the project. From this , NRDC urges that there is no need for relief to overcome the effects of the past ee years.
NRDC Comments at 43.
Applicants submit that this is beside the point.
Although the project was able to make design improvements during the five year pause in the project, it could also have.made them if the project had continued on its pre-April 1977 course to completion. Although the pause substantially increased project costs, the Applicants must now look forward. In this regard, the project has ample direction.
From the President, the Applicants have clear direction to complete the project. From the Congress, Applicants have:
37/ See NRDC Comments at 37 n.24. .
--38/ NRDC points out that DOE's actior.3 to prepare for resumption of NRC's review of CR3RP fall within the category of planning actions. NRDC Comments at 37-8 and n.24 It should be noted that DOE's actions, particularly as they involve its programmatic planning activities, fall outside the scope of NRC's review of the CRBRP. Energy Research and Development Administra-tion, et. al., (Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant),
36 -
- a. Actions to fund the project in each of the past four years in spite of the previous Administration's active efforts to terminate the project. L.M. at 17-18; Appendix A at 9-25,
- b. A mandate for expeditious project completion. L.M. at 14-22; Appendix A; Applicants' Answers at 1-12.
These directions conclusively' establish that i further delay is_not in the public interest.
III. AS TO EACH OF THE SECTION 50.12 FACTORS, THERE IS NO REAL CONTROVERSY AS TO RELEVANT MATTERS OF FACT NRDC has attempted to forestall favorable findings on each of the four Section 50.12 factors. Upon examination of those arguments, it is apparent that there is no real controversy as to relevant matters of fact. Rather, there I
is basic agreement on the pertinent facts, and any remaining i
a controversy revolves ~round the ultimate conclusions or implications one might draw from these facts. In this context, we will proceed to consider NRDC's arguments with respect to each of the four factors, and show that each of these arguments is without merit.
A. The Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Site Preparation Activities Are Unchanged from NRC's 1977 FES, and Will Not Be Significant NRDC's position relies upon two arguments: (1) the environmental effects of site preparation activities alone, without regard to the effects associated with y,,-.
g.9.wg-----i 3 -,y. -- , , , , ,
. l completion of CRBRP, are significant enough to warrant a full environmental review; and (2) not only are the impacts "non-trivial", there remain numerous issues with respect to environmental impacts which remain to be resolved. NRDC Comments at 44-47. In what follows, it will be shown that neither argument has merit.
- 1. The Environmental Effects of Site Preparation Activities Have Received a Full Review NRDC advances the proposition that the environ-mental ef fects of site preparation activities alone, without regard to the effects associated with completion of CRBRP, are significant enough to warrant a full environmental review. NRDC Comments at 44-46. This argument relies upon
- a string of case law citations, all of which support the proposition that an environmental statement is required for j major federal actions which may have significant adverse effects on the environment. NR
- C Comments at 45-46. We agree with this proposition, but, for at least three rea-sons, it is beside the point in the circumstances of this case.
First and foremost, it should be emphasized that a Final' Environmental Statement (FES) has already been com-pleted which examines all elements of the CRBRP project --
design, construction, and operation. NUREG - 0139 (February 1977).
38 -
Second, the 1977 FES concluded that the environ-mental effects of site preparation activities would not be 39 /
significant. FES at 9-23; See FES Section 4.- In addition, the SPAR (Section 4.8) commits to implement a.
detailed set of impact control measures which in turn incorporate those conditions recommended in Section 4.6 of NRC's FES.
Third, the SPAR shows that with respect to each element of proposed site preparation activities, the con-clusions of the FES remain valin today. Applicants' Answers, Question / Answer 9(a) [ Environmental impact esti-mates] at 29-39.
On this basis it is clear that site preparation activities were the subject of a complete environmental review and the environmental effects of those activities will not be significant. NRDC's argument, therefore, has no merit.
l 2. The " Issues" of Environmental Impact Identified by NRDC are Not Significant NRDC argues that not only are the impacts of site 40/
preparation activities "non-trivial," -- but there remain 39/ See L.M. at 28-30 for a complete analysis of the appli-ca51e law and circumstances bearing on this point.
40/
~~
NRDC argues that "in a slightly different context" the Commission has established a standard requiring that activities must have an impact "so trivial" that "no conceivable harm" could occur. NRDC Comments at 44, note 28. The context referred to by NRDC was not slightl It was entirely different, and (Continued) y different.
numerous issues with respect to environmental impacts which remain to be resolved. NRDC Comments at 44-47. In support of this, NRDC has submitted a statement by Mr. Clebsch which purportedly sets out four issues involving " disturbing omis-sions of detail" and " serious shortcomings" in the SPAR.
NRDC Comments at 46-47. Applican:s note that these four issues are the only " substantive issues raised by NRDC, and that accordingly, the Commission should draw the inference that the analysis in the SPAR is otherwise satisfactory.
Even the cost cursory examination of each of these four cri-ticisms, however, demonstrates that the issues identified by 41/
NRDC and their resolution are not significant matters.--
NRDC first claims that the SPAR fails to disclose the route and environmental effects of the proposed sewage
~--
11ndded , inapposite. NRDC relies on Kansas Gas & Elec-tric Co. (Wolf Creek Nuclear Generating Station. Unit No. 1), CLI-77-1, 5 NRC 1, 12 (1977) in this regard.
NRDC's reliance is misplaced for two reasons. First, Wolf Creek involved a section 50.10(c) proceeding, UTifc}i iii completely different from a Section 50.12 pro-ceeding and is governed by different regulations and case authority. Second, the Commission expressly qualified the standard enunicated by the Appeal Board in Wolf Creek to include the requirement that redressa-bility be considered in assessing the significance of environmental impacts. NRDC fails to mention this or the fact that the environmental impacts of site prepa-ration for CRBRP are fully redressable. ,See L.M. at 28-32,
"-41/ As to NRDC's additional suggestion that there is no basis for Applicants' assertion that activities will meet applicable federal and state regulations (NRDC Comments at 47), see Applicants' Environmental Report, Chapter 12; FES Chapter 1.4.
discharge line and the permanent water line between the CRBRP and the Bear Creek Water Plant. NRDC Comments at
- 47. The water line will connect the CRBRP to the existing Bear Creek Water Plant. Figure 3-2 of the SPAR shows the terminus of this water line. This water line will follow existing roads for the entire length of the line. There-fore, any environmental effects will coincide with and be limited to the effects of access road construction on the site, and the water line will not result in environmental impacts beyond those associated with the access road. The sewage line connects the sewage treatment plant to the CRBRP discharge outfall, which will also be used for cooling tower blowdown. The sewage treatment plant location and the terminus of the sewage line (discharge outfall) are shown in Figure 2-3 of the. SPAR. This line must necessarily traverse a cleared site area, and the environmental effects of the line will not result in significant environmental impacts beyond those already associated with clearing, grubbing, grading and excavation. As shown in Chapters 4 and 12 of l the Environnental Report and SPAR 4-3, Applicants' monitor-l ing and mitigation program will ensure proper handling of sewage discharges. Thus. NRDC's issue is simply not significant.
Second, NRDC claims that the SPAR fails to discuss the method of handling discharge from the sewage treatment
- 41 -
plant and quarry. NRDC Comments at 47. The method of hand-ling discharge from the sewage treatment plant is, as dis-cussed in the preceding paragraph, adequately covered in the S PAR, and in any event, not a significant issue. The method of handling quarry discharge is addressed in Section 3.7 of the SPAR. Again, NRDC's assertions are simply unfounded.
Third, NRDC claims that the SPAR fails to indicate the capacity of the siltation ponds, based on Mr. Clebsch's concern that the siltation ponds are not designed to accomo-date 100-year floods. NRDC Comments at 47. Mr. Clebsch's statement, however, ignores or fails to understand that standard engineering practice (in conformance with EPA regulations , 40 C. F.R. S 423.34) provides for construction of siltation ponds to handle a twenty-four hour storm having a ten year recurrence interval. The 100-year flood consid-eration is not applicable here. Thus, NRDC's claim is again incorrect.
Fourth, NRDC claims that the SPAR does not dis-close the impact control measures to be employed to protect the natural terrain and other environmental values. NRDC Comments at 47. Section 4.8 of the SPAR describes the Applicants' site preparation activities impact control measures. This assertion appears to be based on Mr.
Clebsch's opinion that Applicants will be unable to carry out their mitigation efforts and to implement the construc-
- . i tion monitoring program. Applicants are bound to develop the CRBRP site in accordance with the commitments in the SPAR, and the Commission should not presume that it cannot and will not enforce those commitments.
The SPAR is a thorough and accurate assessment of the environmental impacts of CRBRP site preparation and a clear statement of Applicants' commitment to mitigate any impacts. NRDC has simply failed to raise any significant issues regarding the conclusions in the SPAR B. Redress Is Feasible NRDC argues that the Applicants' case is deficient because "they have not submitted, nor have they represented I
that they will submit, any information demonstrating the 42/
feasibility of redress."-- NRDC Comments at 48. Absent such information, NRDC expresses doubt that the " work can be 43 accomplished effectively.'"- / NRDC Comments at 48.
~
~~~42/ NRDC also suggests that the information submitted con-cerning costs was not detailed enough (NRDC Comments at
- 48). Although we find this bald assertion of question-able value, additional information is now available which provides an even more detailed breakdown of and basis for the costs. Applicants Answers, Question /
Answer 10 at 80-94.
43/
"~~
NRDC also raisee a rhetorical question concerning the basis for Applicants' position that the site is dedi-l cated for industrial use. Appendix 2 hereto provides
- documentation for that position.
l
Applicants submit that NRDC's argument is without merit. First, it is clearly within the state of today's technology and the capability of modern construction equipment to backfill an excavation, compact it, grade, and landscape.
Second, it is not even necessary that the Commis-sion nake findings as to feasibility or cost of redress. In Shearon-Harris, the Licensing Board held that a plan of redress was not necessary and the cost of redress is irrele-vant under Section 50.12. Indeed, where as here the Appli-cants are committed to conduct redress, that commitment was 44/
held to be sufficient.--
C. No Reasonable Alternatives Will be Foreclosed by l
Conduct of_t,he Proposed Site Preparation Activities NRDC starts with the " nice judgment" that grant of the Section 50.12 request "will create a ' mind-set' that the project is a fait accompli which can no longer be halted or l-modified." NRDC Comments at 48-49. NRDC's ephemeral 45/
expression of this argument-'- can be reduced to two very 44/
~~
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's decision was upheld by the Commission. Carolina Power & Light Co.
! (Shearon-Harris Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1, 2, 3, and 4), CLI-74-22, 7 AEC 939, 945 (1974) .
45/
This notion is also reflected in NRDC's mind-set that
" moving earth -- digging a hole -- is going to have an impact, however intangible, on project momentum." NRDC (Continued) l I
i .
basic points: (1) conduct of the activities will foreclose design alternatives (modify); and (2) conduct of the activi-ties will foreclose the alternative of abandonment (halt).
NRDC attempts to bootstrap its arguments with a string of case law citations which purportedly stand for the proposition that any expenditure of millions of dollars will foreclose alternatives ner se In regard to foreclosure of design alternatives, it should be emphasized that the site preparation activities Applicants propose are very limited in scope. No construc-tion of permanent facilities of the plant, much less safety-related construction, is proposed. Therefore no design alternatives would be foreclosed by conduct of the site preparation activities.
In regard to abandoning the CRBRP Project, site preparation will not foreclose that alternative. 10 C.F.R.
S 50.12(b)(3) . See Coalition For Safe Nuclear Power v. AEC, 463 F.2d 954 (D.C. Cir 1972). Given the low cost of site preparation relative to total CRBRP Project costs (S88 million versus S3.2 billion), the conduct of site prepara-tion activities would not foreclose the alternative of 46/
abandonmen t .-"'
Comments at 49.
46/ Moreover, like the case of Aberdeen & Rockfish R.R. v.
SCRAP, 422 U.S. 289 (1979), site preparation will not _
result in an irretrievable commitment of resources y (Continued)
I :
The cases relied upon by NRDC are clearly inappo-site. In these cases, the project work involved actual project construction. See Warm Sp_rjngs Dam Task Force _v.
Gribble 417 U.S. 130 (1974) (dam construction); Steinberg,
,v . Brinegar, 511 F.2d 489 (2d Cir.1975) (bridge and highway construction); Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Corgs. of Engineers, 325 F.Supp. 749 (E.D. Ark.1971) (dam construc- -
47/
tion) .-- The courts found that such work precluded fair consideration of alternatives. In contrast, CRBRP site pre-paration will involve no construction of safety-related or permanent f'acilities. By its very limited nature, site pre-paration simply cannot interfere with consideration of all types of alternatives, including design alternatives for CRBRP. Thus, contrary to NRDC's assertion, there is no potential of foreclosure of alternatives by permitting site preparation.
~
bididse, as demonstrated in the SPAR, site preparation will result in insignif.'. cant environmental impacts, is redressable and involves only a fraction of the total CRBRP project costs.
47/ NRDC also cites Stop H-3 Association v. Volpe, 349 F.Supp. 1047 (D. Haw. 1972) which involved highway design and engineering. Unlike that case, however, all-CRBRP design work is either necessary for evaluation of the impacts of site preparation activities, or expressly permitted by the applicable NRC regula-tions. 10 C.F.R. S 50.10(b)-(c).
D. Further Delay,Will Contravene the Public Interest NRDC argues that delay in conducting site prepara-tion is in the public interest NRDC Comments at 51-54. In arriving at this conclusion, NRDC fails to address the Executive and Congressional mandate for expeditious compic-tion of the CRBRP project, the insignificant environmental impact of site preparation, and its redressability. Rather, NRDC rests its analysis upon the proposition that courts purportedly "have not hesitated to enjoin major projects pending full environnontal review." NRDC Comments at 52.
In the first instance, NRDC's case citations are 48/
s imply irrelevant. -- In connection with the Section 50.12
"-~48/ Although the Commission need not reach this issue NRDC's case citations do not represent the weight of authority. See Jicarilla Apache Tribe of Indians v.
Morton, 471 TT7d 1275 (9th Cir. 1973); City of South Pasadena v. Volpe, 418 F. Supp. 854 (C.D. Cal. 1976);
Citizens for Mass Transit Against Freeways v. Brinegar, 357 F. Supp.1269 (D. Ariz. 1973); Environmental Defense Fund, In c . v . Froehlke, 348 F. Supp. 338 (W.D.
Mo.), aff'd, 477 F.2d 1033 (8th C5.r. 1973);
Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Armstrong, 352 F.
Supp. 50 (N.D. Cal. 1972). See also Sierra Club v.
ICC, 1978 Fed. Carr. Cases 1 82,768 (D.C. Cir. 1978).
In balancing equities in these NEPA cases courts consider all the facts and circumstances involved, including the significance of environmental impacts, the foreclosure of alternatives, the effect on the ultimate decision in a proceeding, the agency's good faith in complying with NEPA, the public inter.st, and the costs of enjoining all work. See cases cited supra. These factors -- which are essentially equi-valent to four factor test of Section 50.12 -- allow courts to assess realistically whether work should l proceed.
1
i
'82 JDi 28 P/ :/6
~
.i 1 APPENDICES TO APPLICANTS' RESPONSE TO NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL, INC.
AND TENNESSEE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S COMMENTS f
i
{'
(
a
, _ . . - . - - - . . - ~ . . , _ _ _ . _ . _ , _ - _ - - - - - - , . . . , - _ . _ . - . , . - _ - - _ .
o .
APPENDIX 1 Annotated Sum: nary of ER Changes
y CRIRP ENVIRONNENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 1 A ER .
SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONNENTAL EFFECT ..
._.._____.._.____.___m_ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _
1.0 TJ BE PROVIDED Heterogeneous core replaces homogeneous core arrangement (See Section 3.8). This Section will also address the supplement to the LMFBR Program Final Environmental Statenert.
2.1 2.1-1 thru 2.1-10 Plant
- Construction site acreage increased. Plant See Section 4.0 arrangements updated. Five impounding ponds were identified and located on Figure 2.1-3.
2.2 TO BE PROVIDED Evaluation of demographic changes in process. Changes will be provided in a future amendment.
2.3 No change.
2.4 2.4-15 thru Geols.gy Changed to trovide data for 24 additional Environmentally inconsequential.
2.4.22 boreholes, taken from September 1976 to June 1977.
2.5 2.5.1 2.5.1 thru 2.5-10 River updated river levels, flows, temperatures, Environmentally inconsequential.
etc.
2.5.2 2.5.2.1 No change.
2.5.2.2 No change.
2.5.2.3 ,
No change.
2.5.2.4 2.5-18 Ground- Established plesometric gradient. Environmentally inconsequential.
water *
'2. 5. 2. 5 '
No change.
2.5.2.6 No change. .
2.5.2.7 No change.
2.6 2.6-1 thru Neteor- Updated to include data accumulated Environmentally inconsequential.
2.6-99 ology .using permanent meteorological tower.
9 e
e
- e
- }~ CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 2
( 15 ER SECTION REVISED ITEMI DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT ..
l 1
e 2.7 ,
2.7.1 2.7.1.1 2.7-la Forest Incorporates ORNL forest management No change in estimated environmental Mana g e- activities f rom 1976 through 1980. effects for CRBRP. Nitigation measuree f or Southern Pine Beetle and Pitch Canker Infestations.
ll 2.7.1.2 No change.
2.7.1.3 2.7-7 thru Flora Update vegetation inventory reporting. Environmentally inconsequential.
2.7-9 2.7-24, ~37 Flora Correct pine designation. Environmentally inconsequential.
2.7-381, -38m Flora Revise category designation from Environmentally inconsequential.
" threatened" to " rare" to reflect current terminology.
2.7.1.4 2.7-380 thru Fauna Update wildlife occurrence data. Environmentally inconsequential.
. 2.7-38t 2.7-38ee Insects Updata reporting concerning insect Environmentally inconsequential.
pe st s .
2.7-38ff Fauna Revised to include possibility of Occurrence on CRBRP site not confirmed.
eastern cougar occurrence on Oak Also, cougar home range is sufficiently Ridge Reservation. extensive to absorb ef fect or CRBRP l Installation. Environmentally inconsequential.
I 2.7-38g9 ' Avifauna Adde mention of osprey nest occurrence Osprey nesting at CRBRP site has not been at Watts Bar Lake. observed. Environmentally -
- inconsequential.
2.7.1.5 No change. ,
Avifauna Update classification of American Occurrence of nesting at site has not
( 2.7.1.5 2.7-38tt osprey. been observed.
2.7 .1.7 2.7-38ww Surveye Report on 1980 reconnaisesnce Environmentally inconsequential.
surveys.
2.7.2 l
' 2,7.2.1 No change.
. 2.7.2.2 No change. _
I
PAGE 3
)g CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT EEVIEW d
ER REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE
- ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT .. ,
SECTION 2.1.2.3 No change.
Report of occurrences of the blue Occurrence not reported near Site.
2.7.2.4 2.7-879 Fish sucker in Watts Bar Lake. Blue Environmentally inconsequential.
sucker is identified as a threatened species.
2.7-87h Repcrt on 1980 reconnaissance surveys. stocking activities have resulted in 2.7.2.5 Aquatic reported increases in gametish. No
-871 Surveys
- change in estimated environmental effects due to CRBRP.
2.8 2.8-1 thru Back- Complete update reflecting latest Data better characterizes the actual ground ORNL, WA and stallar organization site and the surrounding areas.
2.8-109 Environmentally inconsequential.
Radia- studies and scientific papers.
tion 9
9 e
e e
o e
9 e
e
CRIRP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 4 CI ER SECTION REVISED ITEM. DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT ,,
3.0 3.1 3.1-1 External A five foot high animal fence was added Precludu small animals from plant site and Appear- at a distance of 33 feet from the and restrict them to more natural ance security fence. environs. Environmentally inconsequential.
3.1.1 3.1-2 Plant Gatehouse, circulating water pump house Environmentally inconsequential.
Bldg. & and fire protection pump house were Facili- identified. The switch yard relay house ties was added.
The configuration and location of the Environmentally inconsequential, emergenc revised.y cooling tower structure were 3.1.2 3.1.4 elant Five foot high animal fence added. Environmentally inconsequential.
Site 3.1.3 3.1-4 Other The size of paved parking area was Environmentally inconsequential.
Facill- reduced for accommodation of 155 cars ties instead of 250 before.
,3 .2 .
3.2.1 No change.
3.2.2 3.2-3 Core Replaced homogeneous core with hetero- Het change judged to be insignificant.
geneous arrangementresulting in eliminating one fuel enrichment zone (was 2 now 1), reducing number of fuel assemblies from 198 to 156, reducing number of radial blanket assen-blies from 150 to 132, adding 82 inner blanket assemblies, and increasing Pu en-richment in fuel assemblies from 18.7-32%
to 32-336.
3.2.3
- No change.
3.3 3.3.1 3.3-1 Overall Average annual consumptive water use Environmentally inconsequential.
Plant figures were revised to be consistent with -
those in Tables 3.3-1, 3.3-2 and 3.3-3.
3.3.2 3.3-2 Cooling Flowrate to cooling tower f rom condenser Slight increase in plume size will not
. Tower increased from 209,200 gpa to 212,200 gps. produce signficant environmental impact. .
3.3.3 3.3-2 Process 'Added makeup water treatment system Environmentally inconsequential.
. Water . .
Treatment System e
CRORP ENVI*.ONMENTAL REPORT CEVIEW PAGE 5 d
En ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ..
{
SdCTION All process waste water including floor Results in higher quality of water l 3.3.4 3.3-3 Weste Water drains, go to Waste Water Disposal System discharged.
Disposal instead of being routed to either cooling ~
System tower basin or neutralization and settling facilities.
3.3-3 Radwaste Uplated description. See section 3.5.
3.3.5 Systems Potable Potable water is supplied by DOgas Bear Environmentally inconsequential.
l 3.3.6 3.3-4 I Water Creek Road Filtration Plant instead of Sources the Make-up Water Treatment System.
Tzblo 3.3-5 Plant Increase in plant make-up flow rate Environmentally inconsequential. o l 3.3-1 Flow- from 5835 gpa to 6145 gpa.
rates During Increase in cooling tower evaporation Environmentally inconsequential.
Maximum rate from 3475 gpa to 3623 gpe. L Power Increase in cooling tower drift rate Environmentally inconsequential. .l from 105 gpa to 106 gpe.
- Increase in cooling tower blowdown rate Environmentally inconsequential.
l irom 2210 gpa to 2306 gym. g Decrease in Process Waste Treatment Environmentally inconsequential.
flow rate from 125 gpa to 110 gpe.
Waste Water Disposal System Flowtate Environmentally inconsequential.
designed at 100 gpe. .
Increase in plant discharge rate from Environmentally inconsequential.
2,251 gpa to 2,411 gpe.
Increase in total consumptive use of Environmentally
- inconsequential.
- river water from 3,584 gpa to 3,733 gpe. ,
e e
G e
' e t
- e
Chr CO2RP ENVIROHNENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 6
(~I ER SECTION REVISED ITEM: DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT ,,
l T-ble 3.3-6 Plant Increase in Plant Make-up Flowrate Environmentally inconsequential, g 3.3-2 Fl ow- from.2,361 gpa to 2,527 gpm.
rates During Increase in cooling tower evaporation Environmentally inconsequential.
Minimum rate f rom 1,390 gpa to 1,450 gpe.
Power Increase in cooling tower blowdown rate Environmentally inconsequential.
from 884 gpa to 925 gpa.
Decrease in process water treatment flow- Environmentally inconsequential.
rate from 125 gpa to 110 gpe.
Waste Water Disposal System flowrate Environmentally inconsequential.
designed at 100 gpm.
Increase in plant discharge rate from Environmentally inconsequential.
925 gpa to 1,030 gpm.
Increase in total consumption use of Environmentally inconsequential.
river water from 1,436 gpa to 1,496 gpe.
T:ble 3.3-7 Plant Increase in plant makeup flowrate from Environmentally inconsequential.
3.3-3 Flow- 625 gpa to 715 gpe.
rates During Increase in cooling tower blowdown Environmentally inconsequential.
Tem- flowrate from 221 gpa to 231 gpa.
porary Shutdown Increase in cooling tower eva Environmentally inconsequential.
rate f rom 348 gpa to 363 gpe.poration Decrease in process water treatment Environmentally inconsequential.
flowrate f rom 125 gpa to 110 gpe.
Waste Water Disposal System flowrate Environmentally inconsequential.
designed as 100 gpe.
Increase in plant discharge flowrate Environmentally inconsequential.
from 262 gpa to 336 gps.
Increase in total consumptive use Environmentally inconsequential.
of river water from 363 gpa to 378 T ble 3.3-8 Plant Seasonal Flowrates in Table have been Environmentally inconsequential. ,
3.3-4 Water adjusted to reflect present design.
Usage
. Seasonal .
Variation.
e g W
A CRBIP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CEVIEW PAGE 7 9 -
ER SECTION REVISED ITEN DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT **
l 1
3.4.1 3.4-1 Cooling Updated Nakeup water addition to 6035 gpe. Environmentally inconsequential.
Tower ,
3.4.2 3.4-3 River Design flowrate for river water pumps Environmentally inconsequential.
Water decreased from 10,000 gpa each to 9,000 gpa Pumpe each.
3.4.3 No change.
T:ble 3.4-5 Heat Heat rejected from a cooling tower Environmental'ly inconsequential.
3.4-1 Dissipe- increased f rom 2.172 x 109 BW/HR to tion 2.256 x 109 BW/NR.
Design Parameters
& Conditions T ble 3.4-6 Component Updated Design Parameters. Environmentally inconsequential.
3.4-2
~
Desc rip-tions T ble 3.4-8 Cooling Average monthly ccoling tower blow- Environmentally inconsequential.
3.4-4 Tower down temperatures increased slightly.
Blowdown Temper ature 3.5 (ALL CHANGES TO SECTION 3.5 THAT ARE DESCRIBED BELOW WILL BE PROVIDED IN A FUWRE ANENDNENT TO THE ER.)
3 . 5 .1 ' No change.
3.5.1.1 No change.
3.5.1.2 3.5-3 Filter A filter deleted from the 11guld Environmentally inconsequential.
radwaste system.
- 3.5.2 ,
3.5.2.1 3 .,5 -7 Noble The 39A r and 41 Ar produced by direct The additional Argon from this source in Games activation of 38Ar and 40Ar is now negligible and the environmental, impact included in the radioactive source terms is considered insignificant. .
used for design work.
3.5.2.2 3.5-8 Treat- Design has been changed so that 85g from The site boundary Leta skin dose is a ment RAPS la no longer bottled but is pr5 cessed increased by appronia..cely a factor of 2, and thru CAPS and released to H&V. but Release due the to 8pKtential for accidental esposure storage and shippin is System removed. fhenetchangeinenvfronmental effects is judged to be insignificant. .
i
O CR.Rp EnV ROunEnTAt RE, ORT REV1Ew rAc5 e uf)
ER SECTION REVISED ITEM - DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT ,,
Previously all leakages of cover gas or The site boundary beta and gamma doses are recycled cover gas were processed through increased: a slightly adverse ef fect. The , ,
CAPS. How most of the celle containing beta dose increased by approminately 1.5, components which could leak cover gas vent gamma dose by approminately 3.
to M6V.
i 3.5.2.3 3.5-9, 10 Tritium The tritium removal unit has been Environmentally inconsequential.
I Removal redesigned.
System i
! 3.5.2.4 3.5-11 Head The reactor cover gas leakage rate The site boundary beta and gamma doses 1 Seals was reduced from 0.012 SCC per minute are decreaseds a slightly favorable
- to 0.0044 SCC per minute. environmental effect.
l The diffusion of Tritium through The additional radioactivity contributed i piping walls into PHTS and aualliary by the small amount of Tritium diffusing
! Na cells has been added to design through piping walls is insignificant i assumptions. Any significant amount compared to the radioactivity contained of Tritium has been included in the in the cover gas which is assumed to leak current radiological source terms. Anto cells at the rate of I cc/ min. The impact is judged insignificant.
3.5.2.5 2.5-12 Release Ventilation exhaust rates at radiological Higher exhaust rates could potentially Points release points have been revised. Examples have more environmental impact due to are the release point in the SGB Inter- shorter hold-up of radionuclides, mediate Bay which increased from 50,000 However, the doses resulting f rom SCFM to 64,000 SCFM and the exhaust point plant releases remain well below on top of the RCB which increased from guideline limits.
415,000 SCFM to 418,000 8CFM.
4 This change in temperature range will Ventilation euhaust temperature ranges have no impact. Density variations which at radiological release points have could release more or less radioactive increased. An example is a release material are accounted for in the pre-point in the RSS that did have a range ceding changes in exhaust rates.
of 65or to 120or and now ranges from 550F to 1400F.
The CAPS Reactor Service Building H&V No environmental impact for normal Enhaust has been deleted. CAPS now release. Improved protection against exhausts through the RSS exhaust with release of above normal radioactivity safety-related exhaust radiation monitors. f rom the plant due to of f-normal con-ditions - a slightly favorable ef fect.
RAPS process components have been moved No environmental impact for normal from the RSS to the RCa. operation. Improved protection against release of radioactivity from the plant following RAPS accidents - .
a slightly favorable ef fect.
e e
8 e
gy CRBRP ENVIRONME3TAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 9 ER
- SECTION REVISED ITEN' DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFBCT "
3.5.2.6 3.5-13, -14 RAPS Revises gaseous release data based on No environmental impact f or normal relocated RAPS, updated burnup and release operation. Improved protection point data, and most recent meterology. against release of radioactivity from the plant following RAPS accidents -
a slightly favorable ef fect.
3.5.2.7 3.5-14, -15 salance Turbine generator building ventilation Env1.ronmentally inconsequential, of Plant exhaust location change from elevation 905'6" to 878'0", release rate decrease a from 17,500 cfm to 8,000 cfs, exhaust 1 l
flow velocity increase from 585 feet / min.
, with a temperature range of 85 to 1200F ;
d to 900 feet / min. with a temperature range from 550F to 1200F.
Plant Service Building ventilation exhaust location changed f rom elevation 830'0" to 831'2". .
Number of release points decreased from 2 to 1.
3.5.3 3.5-15 Solid solid radweste muipment is now Environmentally inconsequential.
3.5.3.1 Radweste is now identified as including
.5.3.2) system a cement filling station, a decenting station, Equip- a concentrated waste collection tank, a drumming ment station, a filter handling machine anc a compactor. (See also Tables 3.5-10 and 3.5-11).
3.5.3.3 3.5-15 Noncom- There will be a total of 82 (instead Environmentally inconsequential.
, patible of 202) 55 gallon drums per year used to store solida the low activity, non-compactible solide of Red- af ter treatment at the solid radwaste '
waste system.
- System ,
3.5.3.4 3.5-16 Radio- There are nov 2 drums of waste metallic Environmentally inconsequential. j active sodium per year with an activity level
- Sodium of 20 C1/ drum instead of 6 drums / year with an activity level of 1.5 C1/ drum stored and/or processed on site. ,
3.5.3.5 3.5-17 Sodium The disposal of sodium bearing waste, Environmentally inconsequential.
Bearing which was not previously identified, Solide has been selected. No currently .
licensed of f-site disposal f acility will accept sedium bearing wastes, therefore, for of f-site disposal of these wastes, the sodium will be removed. Where sodium removal is not practical, the waste will be stored on-site.
. Activ- Individual primary cold trap contained Environmentally inconsequential.
ity acti ity of Tritium increased f rom 8.7 x 10 C1 to 1.85 s 5 C1 and activity of
, fission and corrosion products increase from 1 x 103 C1 to 1.41 a 105 C1. The
/T CRaRP BNyIRONMENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE IS
~
/Y)
ER ,
SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONSENTAL EFFSCT .. ,
contained activity will not be removed ,,
or released f rom thg cold traps. The g EVST cold trap contained activity increased from 6.7 x 10J C1. The Tritium activity ,
increased from 150 C1 to 180 C1. ,
7:ble 3.5-18, ,
IALL Some of the assumptions that Table 3.5-1 Environmentally inconsequential.
t 3.5-1 -19 System had been based upon have changed:
- 1) Intermediate activity concentration for the first rinse computed assuming 104 (instead of 40%) of plated out activity and 100% of sodium activity adhering to the process components is dissolved in 100,000 (instead to 37,000) I gs11ona of water per year.
' 2) Processed components involve an average I annual volume of 3,200 (instead of 14,700) l gallons.
T:ble 3.5-20 IALL Some of the assumptions that Table 3.5-2 Environmentally inconsequential, i 3,5-2 thru -22 System had been based upon have changed: a
- 1) Iodina DP=104 included. Monitoring Lank volume decreased from 2,500 gallons to 2,400 gallons.
- 2) Iodine DF-104 included. ,
T:ble 3.5-23, IALL Some of the assumptions that Table 3.5-3 Environmentally inconsequential. l 3.5-3 -24 System had been based upon have changed:
Lgg Activity Liquid Wasta Amausptionas Iodine DF=104 and Tritium DF=1 included.
1)
Intermediate Activity Liquid Maata Amaumptionap ,
- 1. Liquid waste discharged to the common plant discharger (instead of the coolant water blowdown stream) . Iodine DF-104 and Tritium DF=1 included.
Table 3.5-31 Espected Values in table have been changed to Environmentally inconsequential.
3.5-10 Weight, reflect current design.
Volume _
and Total estimated volume of solid radweste Activity generated decreased from 3,094 f t 3 /yr to
- of Solid 2,865 f t3/yr. e-
. , Radweste
N CRBRP ENVIRONNENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 11 10 ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAE. EFFBCT ..
1 Total estimated weight of solid radweste generated decreased from 2.6 x 105 lbs/yr.
to 1.9 x 103 lbs/yr.
Total estimated activity of solid radwaste generated decreased from 6.6 x 104 C1/yr. to 3.2 x 103 C1/yr.
Table 3.5-32 Espected Espected containers per' year of solidified Environmentally inconsequential.
3.5-11 Solid 11guld radweste decreased f rom 170 to 135. -
Radwaste Ship- Espected containers per year of filters and ments resins decreased from 120 to 30.
For year Figure 3.5-33 Basic Inlets of collecting tanks now include Environmentally inconsequential.
l l 3.5-1 Flow filters, i Design Figure 3.5-37 Basic Completely revised to reflect vendor Environ =antally inconsequential.
l 3.5-5 Flow design.
Design 3.6 No change.
3.6.1 No change.
3.6-3 Sodium Capability of injecting sodium hypu- Environmentally inconsequential.
3.6.2 Hypo- chlorite into cooling tower basin, chlorite on a continuous or intermittent basis. -
Injection 3.6.3 3.6-4 Demin- Delete limits on desineraliser chemicals. Environmentally inconsequential.
eraliser ,
3.6.4 3.6-5 Sewage chlorine limits set to meet NPDES permit Environmentally inconsequential.
. Disposal limits.
- Figure 3.6-7 Incorporate changes as described in test. Environmentally inconsequential.
3.6-1 3.7 No change. .
3.7.1 3.7-1 Sanitary Addition of pretreatment and extended Environmentally inconsequential.
Sewage aeration of activated sludge. Compa r es System effluent concentrations to NPDES permit
. limits (Table 3.7-1) .
3.7.2 No change.
o O e
CRORP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 12 Y
l)l gn SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFBCT**
3.8 3.8.1.1 3.8-1, -2 Core Replaced homogeneous core arrangement with Decreases the heavy metal commitment Design heterogeneous core arrangement resulting (U or U + Pu) in the aulal blankets in reducing the number of fuel assemblies and core from 5.4 MT to 4.2 NT and
, from 198 to 156, increasing the Pu enrich- from 6.5 MT to 5.2 MT, respectively.
4 ment from 18.7 to 324 fissile to 33.24 Environmentally inconsequential.
total.
1 Deleted option to use natural uranium Environmentally inconsequential.
as alternate material to depleted uranium as feed material for fuel pellets. ,
Revised refueling scheme from replacing Average yearly shipments of fresh approulmately one-third annually to f uel would therefore increase f rom batch replacement of all the fuel and about 33 to 42. Environmentally Anner blanket assemblies at two year inconsequential.
Intervals with mid-interval replacement of 6 inner blankets with fresh fuel assemblies.
- 3.8.1.2 3.8-2 Core Replaced homogeneous core arrangement Increases the have metal (U) commitment
~
Design with heterogeneous core arrangement from 16.4 MT to 21.5 MT. Environmentally resulting in increasing the total number inconsequential.
of blanket assemblies from 150 (radial) to 214 (82 inner and 132 radial).
Revised dimensional parameters of blanket Environmentally inconsequential.
- rode (outside diameter decreased from 0.520 in, to 0.506 in.) and assembly weight increased (from 525 lbs. to 536 lbs.).
Revised refueling scheme from annual Average yearly shipments fresh blanket ref ueling to batch ref ueling at two- assemblies will therefore increase from year intervals. 13 to 35. Environmentally inconsequential.
Figure 3.8.1 3.8-10 Reactor Revised to show heterogeneous core layout. Environmentally inconsequential.
Figure 3.8.2 3.8-11 Fuel Dimensions removed. Environmentally inconsequential.
3.8.2.1 3.8-3, -4 Core Replaced homogeneous cote arrangement Shipping schedule for spent fuel increases Design with heterogeneous core arrangement f rom 8 to 12 shipments per year to one and revised refueling scheme from annual shipment per week. Change judged to
, refueling to batch refueling at two year to be slightly adverse.
Intervals resulting ir. Increasing the average number of fuel assemblies discharged yearly from 66 to 81,
. decreasing the fuel assembly burnup from .
D
l jy CASCP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT EEVIEW PAGE 13 sn ER SECTION REVISED ITEN DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONNENTAL BFFECT ,,
200,000 MWD / Ton average to 80,000 MWD / Ton average, and the peak burnup to 110,000 l l MWD / Ton, decreasing the average burnup i in the axial blankets from 4,000 MWD / Ton l to 2,200 MWD / Ton, and reducing the amount of bred fissile Pu from i kg/assy. to 0.3 to 0.4 kg/assy.
i Revised weight and dimensions of spent fuel Environmentally inconsequential.
shipping cask. .
i 3.8.2.2 3.8-4, -5 Core Replaced homogeneous core arrangement with Increases the number of spent blanket Design heterogeneous core arrangement and revised assembly shipments f rom 3 to 6-7 per year.
refueling scheme from annual to batch Change judged to be slightly adverse.
resulting in increasing the number of blanket assemblies discharged f rom the plant per year from 25 to 70, increasing
- the burnup per assembly from 5,700 MWD / Ton
- to 8,000 MWD / Ton, increasing the average and peak heat generation from I kw average
. -(radial) to 2.6 kw (inner) and 1.6 kw (radial) and f rom 7 kw peak (radial) to 19.7 kw (inner) and 12 kw (radial).
3.8.3 .
3.8.3.1 3.0-5 thru Core Replacement of homogeneous core arrangement change judged to be slightly favorable.
3.8-7 Design with heterogeneous core arrangement results in reducing the number of primary control assemblies from 15 to 9 and in increasing . .
the number of secondary control assemblies from 4 to 6.
If lifetime considerations permit, control Change judged to be slightly favorable.
rods could remain in the reactor f or two cycles, also the drive 11ne lif etime has -
been increased from 10 to 15 years.
Revised configuration of radial shield Environmentally inconsequentials
' assembly f rom stacked hexagonal plates to closely packed gods in a hem duct and .
decreased assembly weight from 750 to
- 360 lbs.
Because of the change to the heterogeneous This greatly reduces the number of ship-core arrangement the lifetime of the first ments of irradiated shield assemblies.
. row of shield assemblies has increased Change judged to be favorable. _
from 3 to 10-to-15 years, part of the second row lifetime has increased from 6-to-12 to 10-to-25 years, and the third *- .
d
\ CR2RP ENVIEDHMENTAL REPOLT REVIEW PAGE 14 A
mR * **
SBCTION REVISED ITEN DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONNENTAL RFFECT .
and fourth rows are not espected to require ,
replacement during plant lifetime. The g number of first row assemblies has been reduced from 72 to 54. ,
3.8.3.2 3.0-8 RAPS Design has been changed so that 85K r is no The site boundary beta skin dose is longer bottled but is processed through increased by approsimately a factor of 2, '
CAPS and released to NEV. but the wtential for accidental esposure due to 85Kr storage and shipping is
- removed the not change in environmental effects is judged to be insignificant.
3.0-8, -9 Primary The tritium levels were updated from 1.8 Naterial will not be released so the Cold a 104 C1 to 1.85 x 105 C1 and the fission changes are judges to be environ-i Trap products and corrosion products increased mentally inconsequential.
i from 1 x 103 C1 to 1.41 x 105 C1. I f Cold traps are to be stored on site since no currently licensed disposal site will l accept sodium-bearing wastes.
l 1 3.9 l 1
No change, j 3[.9-1 3.9-2 No change.
3.9-3 No change. l Flor a Update to account for ORNL forest No change in environmental effects due 3.5-4 3.9-4 management activities since 1976. to CRBRP.
(Table 3.9-1) 3.9-5 No change. l l l 3.9-6 No change.
3.9-7 No change. . .
l 3.9-8 No change. , j 3.9-9 No change. .
er 6
O w
- 9 w
O
i CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 15 4
j$M ER ITEN SECTION REVISED DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIROWNENTAL BFFSCT 4.1 4.1-1, -2 Site
- Deletion of borrow area, increase of Environmentally inconsequential.
, Prep. site temporary acreage to 260 acres 4
and f rom 195 acres r equired f or plant Plant construction, 37 acres inside security
- Cons- barrier, quarry increase from 25 acres to truc- 45 acres, prowlde crusher facility at tion quarry (Table 4.1-1, Figure 4.1-1) .
3 4.1.1 4.1.1.1 4.1-2 Clearing choice to use open burning during site change judged to have a slight negative clearing. environmental effect.
4.1-3, -4 Quarry Escavation depths increased. Change judged to be slightly favorable as Eliminate consideration of borrow pit. quarry location will be preferable to
- borrow pit's. Onsite availability of
! material will reduce offsite hauling requirements.
4.1.1.2 No change.
4.1.1.3 4.1-5 Access Nodify Barge Unloading Facility. Change judged to be slightly favorable.
t Facility Redesign minimises dredging.
4.1.1.4 No change.
4.1.1.5 No change.
4.1.1.6 4.1-7 thru Site Update terrestrial ecological ef f ects Change judged to have slightly negative 4.1-8b Butent of site clearing and construction, environmental effect due to increased (Table 4.2-1 and Table 4.1-3) areas.
Include ORNL forest management plan. No change to estimated environmental effects due to CRBOP.
! Updates impacts on wildlite. No chan e' to estimated environmental effects due to CRBRP.
4.1.1.7 4.1-11 Human
- Eliminates borrow area. Reduces construc- Change judged to be slightly *favorables Activ- tion activ.ities near cemetery, borrow area was in vicinity of Mensley family cemetery.
4.1.1.8 4.1-12 Nati-
- Updates redressability
- Environmentally inconsequential.
gation in light of design changes (i.e, choice of quarry rather Uhan borrow pit, addition of demolition fill
, area, etc.) ,
e e
b CRSRP ENVIRONMENTAI, REPORT REVIEW FA4R 16 ' ,
l ER
'SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT-4.1.2 4.1.2.1 4.1-13 Water Construction water consumption estimates Environmentally inconsequential.
Use have been increased and will be provided Additional water consumption still is only by ER amendment in the near future, a very small fraction of the available Clinch River flow.
4.1.2.2 No change.
4.1.2.3 4.1-15 Barge Relocation and redesign will reduce Change judged to be slightly favorable.
Unioed- dredging.
Ing Facility 4.2 No change.
Table 4.2-9 Trans'-
- Transmission corridor acreages updated. Environmentally inconsequential.
4.2-1 nission Corridor 4.3 4.3-1 thru Re-
- Updated to account for revised affected Het effect of all changes is judged to be 4.3-3 sources areas, and addition of quarry, environmentally inconsequential.
9 l
e e
g, CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAL REPO1T REVIEW FAGE 17 ER GECTION REVISED ITEN DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONNENTAL EFFBCT.
5.1 No change.
5.1.1 No change.
5.1.1.1 5.1-3, -4 Cooling Updated to reflect effects of cooling Change' demonstrates that latest design System system redesign. Produces effects that are enveloped by previous (approved) designs.
5.1.1.2 5.1-5 "No Updated plume configurations to reflect Change falls within effects that are ri ow" effects described in 5.1.1.1. enveloped by previous approvals.
Plumes 5.1.2 5.1-6, -7 Thermal Revised to include ref erence to NPDES HPDES requirements exert positive controls Dis- Permit requirements on ef fluent quality.
Charge S tandards 5.1.3 No change.
5.1.3.1 5.1-12 thru Fish Discusses recent studies of fish Environmentally inconsequential.
Habitat (striped bass and asuger) behavior
, in the Clinch River. Includes habitats, migration and spawning.
5.1.3.2 No change. ,
, 5.1.3.3 No change.
5.1.3.4 No change.
5.1.3.5 No change.
5.1.4 ,
No change.
5.1.5 5.1-22 Con- Update condenser water design flow rate. Environmentally inconsequential.
denser Also updates C11nch River flow data.
Entrainment 5.1.6 No change.
- 5.1.7 No change.
5.1.8 No change.
5.2 Radio- This section is being reviewed to determine logical the signficance of changes to radiological source l Biota term and pathway to warrant re-analysis.
5.3 Radio- This section is being reviewed to determine the logical significance of changes to the readiologcal source .
l . Impact term, pathway and population data to warrant i r e-analy sis.
' .. <) .
CRIRP ENVIEONMENTAL REPORT 4EVIEW pggg 13
]y -
it
, i ER ' .- 1 1SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIROWIENTAL EFFECT ,
' l 5.4 5.4-1 Effects Editorial change to clarify and explain Environmentally inconsequential, of Chem- that an acid f eed system is provided. g ical & Its use would adjust pH for control of Blocide corrosion and scaling, and to assure that Dis- the blowdown is in compliance with the charges the Draf t NPDES permit limits.
4 Defined the limits of chlorine Environmentally inconsequential, concentration.
5.4.1 5.4-2 waste Adde discussion of changes to waste Environmentally inconsequential.
Water water disposal system that have been Disposal previously descrlbed.
5.4.1.1 5.4-4a coolant Total volume dischars.d increased slightly Environmentally inconsequential, system with no changes 1.s chemical concentrations.
Discharge, 5.4.1.2 5.4-5 thru Discharge Changed per cent differential between Environmentally inconsequential.
5.4-4 Plume ambient and blowdown concentrations.
Striped Described bass response to chemical Environmentally inconsequential.
Bass plume.
Water Identifies elements not meeting drinking Environmentally. inconsequential.
Quality water standards at 64 isopleth during periods I of estended no flow.
Included consideration of the more Environmentally inconsequential.
stringent of state or federal requirements.
(Tables 5.4-1, 5.4-2 and 5.4-5).
5.4.2 5.4-12 , Effects Includes discussion of trihalomethanes Environmentally incensequential.
of Bio- (THM's) (Table 5.4-1) cide Dis' charges 5.4.3 , 5.4-12a Storm Instead of being directly discharged The incorporation of this system t Water to the Clinch River via catch basins, provides f urther assurance that dhe I
storm water collected by the roof and yard final ef fluent discharged to the drains is sent via the eterm drainage river via the impounding pound is system to the impounding pounds for within applicable effluent standards.
settlement and ultimate discharge to the The effect is judged to be environ- -
river. Change will be provided in a mentally favorable. .
future amendment.
5.4.4 No change. .
5.4.5 No change.
5.5 ,
No change.
'%% CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAL CEPORT REVIEW PAGE 19 h )
ER EECTiON ret *I8 ED ITE.1 DESCRIMION OF CHAHdE ENVIRONMENTAL RFFECT ,, l Effects' Editorial changs to clarify that a package Environmentally inconsequential.
5.5.1 5.5-1, -2 froe San- treatment plant will be used during the -
itary ccnstruction perioJ. A alcw pand filter
- Wastes unit will be installed following the CRBRP construction period to form a part of the permanent plant for the normal operation of the plant.'
Third paragraph deleted since the des- Environmentally inconsequential.
t cription of the treatment plant is given
+ in Section 3.7.
- Treated effluent discharges will ha . ,
Environmentally inconsequential. I processed to meet the-Draf t NPDES permit lia!ts instead of "all state and rederal -
discharge regulations".
Discharges from cooling tcwer bibwdown were Environmentally inconsequential.
revised to be consistent with Table 3,3-8. .
5.5.2 . No change.
l l 5.6 No change.
5.7 No change.
5.8 No change.
Total acreage committed updated. Environmentally inconsequential.
5.8.1 5.8-1 Plant Site Changes will be provided in a future amendment.
~ Water Water consumption updated to reflect Environmentally inconsequential.
5.8.2 5.8-2 .
Resources latest estimates. ,
~
e 8
e C
e 9
e
CRORP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 20 Y
ER SECTION REVISED ITEM? DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFBCT "
.l 5.8.3 5.8-2 Uhru Core Replaced homogeneous core arrangement Change decreases the heavy metal.
5.8-4 Design with heterogeneous core arrangement commitments in the fuel (U + Pu) resulting in reducing the number of from 6.5 MT to 5.2 MT, reduces the fuel enrichment zones from 2 to 1, stainless steel commitments in the increasing the Pu enrichment in the fuel from 26.3 MT to 20.7 MT. The fuel from 18.7-to-27.1 to 33.26, reducing heavy metal commitment in the blanket the number of fuel assemblies from 198 to went from 21.7 MT (radial & axial) to 156. This change also increases the 25.8 MT (inner, radial 6 axial), and number cf blanket assemblies from 150 increases the stainless steel commitment (radial) to 214 (inner and radial). in the blankets from 17.3 MT to 27.6 MT.
Change judged to be environmentally inconsequential.
Revised Pu isotopic composition to be Environmentally inconsequential.
similar.to FFTP grade instead of char-acteristic of LWR discharge.
Revised refueling scheme from annual This results in increasing the total to batch which results in increasing the heavy metal commitments based on a once total number of fuel assemblies, required through fuel cycles from 20 MT Pu to 27 MT during plant life, from 2,300 to 2,4273 Pu, from 210 MT U to 336 MT U and increasing the total number of blanket from 410 MT stainless assemblies from 850 to 2,142. steel to 600 MT. If reprocessing is t
assumed, then the total not heavy metal commitment of uranium decreases from 17.7 MT to 14.3 MT and the not gain of bred plutonium decreases from 2.* MT to 2.3 MT.
Change judged to be slightly adverse.
5.8.4 No changes.
5.9 5.9-1 Plant
- Permanent plant acreage is increased. Environmentally inconsequential.
Site 6
e e
9 e 0 w e
. W
CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 21 b
ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE INVIRONMENTAL RFFECT.
6.0 No change.
6.1 6.1-1 Pre-con- Changed to indicate that program was Environmentally inconsequential.
struc- conducted. ,
tion -
Monitoring Program 6.1.1
- 6.1.1.1 6.1-1 thru Base- Completion of baseline aquatic monitoring Environmentally inconsequential.
6.1-24 line program description (results of baseline Monitor- program reported in Section 2.7, (Amendment ing VIII).
- Program 6.1.1.2, 6.1-25 thru Pre-con- Provides a summary description and con- Environmentally inconsequential.
6.1-28e struc- clusions of Ohe pre-construction aquatic Change provides data base for deter-tion environmental monitoring, mination of environmental effects due Aquatlo to construction as monitored by the construction environmental monitor 1'ng program.
~
6 .1.'2 6.1 Ground- UNated to incorporate reference to Environmentally inconsequential.
water de pre-construction monitoring program (1976-1977).
6.1.2.1 6.1-29, -29a Pre-con- Provides summary conclusions of the Environmentally inconsequential.
struc- pre-construction groundwater quality Changes provides data base for the tion monitoring program. construction monitoring program.
Ground-water
, Quality 6.1.3 6.1-30 thru Meteor- Updates meteoroloolcal description to Environmental 1v inconseauential.
6.1-33 ology incor porate description, inattunentation Permanent metebrological
. and data acquisition system for the on- facilities will be used during plant site permanent meteorological monitoring construction and operation for on-site stations. meteorological analyses. .
Environmentally inconsequential.
Deletes description of on-site temporary meteorologica'. monitoring station.
6.1.4 6.1.4.1 6.1-35 th r u Geology Provides update of site geology invest- Environmentally inconsequential.
6.1-37 Agation (results provided in Section 2.4).
6.1-38, -39 Land Use. Evaluation of demographic changes in . Environmentally inconsequential.
6.1.4.2
& Demo- pr oces s.
graphic Surveys
4 CRBRP ENVIRONNENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 22
)\ .
d ta SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OP CHANGE ENVIRON 8tENTAL EFFBCT..
e 6.1.4.3 6.1-39 Chru Terres- Provides update discussion of baseline Environmentally inconsequential.
6.1-41 trial terrestrial monitoring program. (Con- '
Ecology clusions provided in Section 2.7).
6.1-42 construc- Provides reference to on-site construction Environmentally inconsequential. '
tion environmental monitoring program.
Monitoring e
6.1.5 No change.
6.1.5.1 6.1-42a thru Precon- Provides complete description and results change is judged to be slightly favorable. i 6.1-43 struc- of pre-construction radiological (river Provides basis for improved determination tion water, groundwater, mediment) monitoring of radiological disturbance as monitored Radio- program. during the construction radiological 4 logical monitoring program.
Monitoring 4
6.2 No change.
6.2.1 8 6.2.1.1 6.2-1 thru Gaseous Updates plant gaseous effluent monitoring Change is judged to be slightly favorable.
6.2-2b Efflu- locations (32 locations from 13 locations. System will provide 4 ents 1 - steam generator building - continuous monitors at those locations
, 9 - reactor containment buildings which could conceivably undergo a 3 - reactor service building significant increase in detectable 1 - radwaste area levels i 1 - plant service building - periodic sampling for areas as t i
14 - turbine generator buildings necessary.
3 - steam generator buildings a
PSB Liquid effluents go to liquid radweste Environmentally inconsequential.
Liquid system for reprocessing.
Effluents a 6.2.1.2 6.2-3 thru Pre-oP Provides current (atmospheric, terrestrial, Environmentally inconsequential.
' 6.2-10 peratlon- aquatic groundwater) radiological monitoring 8 al Rad- programs f or the pre-operational and *
- 1o10g1- operational phases.
cal e l
Monitoring l 6.2.2 No change.
6.2.3 No change.
6.2.4 No change.
, 6.2.5 No change. , e 6.3 6.3-1 Other Deletes monitoring stations at TVA's Environmentally inconsequential. #
Monitor- Eingston steam plant and Sull Run so. . ..- ns.-*
- CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAos 23 ER
((% SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT.
7.1 ( ALL CHANGES 10 SECTION 7.1. THAT ARE DESCRIBED BELOW WILL BE PROVIDED IN A FU'ItlRE AMENDMENT TO THE ER) l 7.1.1
~
7.1.1.1 7.1-1 Meteor- Neterology contained in section 2.6 as ology provided by Amendment IX will be used in the computations.
7.1.1.2 7.1-2 Ohru Nethod- Methodology changes, as appropriate, will be 7.1-6 ology provided. - -
7.1.1.3 No change.
7.1.2 7.1.2.1 No change.
7.1.2.2 7.1-3, -9 Steam The amount of tritiated water released The combined ef fect of these changes is to Drum to the environment is 353,000 lbs. Instead increase the alte boundary whole body dose Valve of 450,000 lbs. f rom 1.77 aren to 5.50 aress both are
( 2.1)
- envronmentally inconsequential.
The tritium concentration has increased from .25 x 10-6 C1/g to .62 x 10-6 C1/g.
Condon- The tritium concentration in the Condensate The short-term downstream tritium concen-
. sate Storage Tank increased to .62 x 10-6 C1/g tration in the Clinch River increased from Storage from .25 x 10-6 C1/g. I la x 10-12 C1/g to 2.89 x 10-12 cgy,
. Tank after Ge postulated leaks both are 1 . Leak environmentally inconsequential.
(2.2) -
l 7.1.2.3 7.1-10 thru RAPS RAPS components moved to RCB. The environmental effects are judged to be 7.1-15 favorable. RAPS leakage is processed through the RCB HVAC.
Radweste The tritium concentration in the The combined effect of these changes is to System storage tank water has increased to reduce th'e postulated spill cleanup time
, Failures .62 x 10-6 C1/g from .25 x 10-6 C1/g. and increase the whole body dose at the (3.1) site boundary to 1.01 x 10-5 mrem from Storage tank cell parameters have 9.4 x 10-6 ares, but both are i
changed such as the. floor area increase environmentally inconsequential.
to 1,000 ft2 from 800 ft2 Sump pump flow capacity increased to 50 gpa from 10 gpe.
I
' Refer to accident number in Environmental Report.
. e 0 e
i
\94 CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAL REPOIT REVIEW PAGE 24 ,
13" .
ER '
CBCTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE .ENVIRONMEETAL BFFBCT ..
l Liquid Tritium concentration in storage tank water The combined ef f ect of these changes is Radwasta has increased due to change in interface to increase the site boundary whole body .
System diffusion coefficients. Concentration is ;
Tank now .62 x 10-6 C1/g in SGS. dose 2.13 from pfrom 5.0 x 10-3is postulated x 10- mrom;accident to both are .
(3.2) environmentally inconsequential. .
Spill cleanup time is reduced to 6.7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />
, by using higher capacity sump pumpe.
7.1.2.3.3 RAPS Accident redefined due to relocation of The environmental effects are judged to be Noble RAPS components, favorable.
Gas Stor-
! age vessel Rupture (3.3) 7.1.2.3.4 Deleted due to deletion of equa11 ation line.
. Rupture of cover gas Equalization Line (3.4)
! 7.1.2.4 7.1-16a thru Sodium Analyses revised to update computations. Environmentally inconsequential. !
t 7.1-21 Fire
- Accidents *
(4.1)
, (4.2) 7.1.2.5 7.1-22 Uhru Fuel The current plant desigh has a higher purge The net ef fect of the changes is to 7.1-24 Failures rate of the cover gas which has reduced the reduce the site boundary whole body (5.1) available Xenon and Krypton activity to dose to a.4 x 10-5 arem from 3.4 x 56,588 Ci from 65,816 C1. 10-4 mees; both are environmentally
{
inconsequential.
~~
I . ' c; a
g e e
G e
l i
i l
1
l\
. CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 25 i
U j SECTION REVISED ITEN DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFBCT l 7.11-24 thru Steam A revised DBL for the steam generator The net ef fect of the changes is to ,
7.1-27 Generator results in 465 lbs. of sodlum mixing with do Tube with water instead of 337 lbs. of sodium. eto 8.3 x 10-2 area fromincreasethesitebounda5ywhol.1xitbodmies.se a
Rupture The tritium concentration in SGS is now both are insignificant.
(5.2) .62 x 10-6 C1/g and in the IHTS is -
4 .13 x 10-6 C1/g. This change is judged to be adverse, l
since this could potentially Deleted the centrifugal separator from result in the release of more sodium-the Sodium-Water Reaction Pressure Relief water reaction particulates into the Subsystem (SWRPRS) . atmosphere. ~.
The duration of the SWRPR venting to the atmosphere was increased from 15.to 28 seconds as a result of an updated TRANSWRAP No change to estimated environmental code analysis of this event. This more effects. i detailed analysis tracks the primary sodium i
'which might leak into the intermediate sodium.
It considers the length of piping between the IHX and the superheater inlet, and the reduced
- sodium flow during blowdown and predicts that no
! primary sodium will reach the superheater during l
! , this event for subsequent release to the atmosphere, i .
r*
1, l
l l
T e .
e *
- e e
9
-n
I
% CRIRP ENVIRONMENTAI REPORT REVIEW PAGE 26 7 ER SECTION REVISED ITEN- DESCRIPTION *OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFBCT.e 7.1.2.6 7.1-28 thru Spent Earliest scheduled time for fuel assembly The combined ef fect of' the changes is to 7.1-32 Fuel handling'is increased to a days from 87 increase the s dy dose Cladding hours. from1.5x10jteboundarywhole stem to 2.13 x 10- areas Failure both are environmentally inconsequential.
in the Revised ORIGEN isotope library was used EVTM to generate fission product inventories.
(6.1)
Spent The same changes that applied to Accident The net result of the changes is to Fuel 6.1 apply here. increase the site boundary whole body cladding dose f or this postulated accident f rom Failure 1.5 stem to 2.1 meen, both are environ-in the EVTH mentally inconsequential.
l (6.2)
Accident- Revised ORIGD4 isotope library was used The combined ef fect of the changes to ally to generator fission product inventories increase the site boundary whole body Opening Revisions were based on newer calculational dose to 1.08 mrem from .07 mrens both a Floor schemes. are environmentally inconsequential.
Valve (6.3) 7.1.2.7 7.1-33 Spent Isotope inventories were revised using The combined ef f ect of the changes is to i-Fuel updated ORIGEN libraries. The ORIGD4 decrease the site boundary whole body dose Cask changes were due to revisions in the to 2.8 x 10-4 mrem from 9.3 x 10-3 mress Drop library calculational schemes. both 'See environmentally inconsequential.
(7.1)
The fuel has undergone an 80 day cooling period instead of 100 days, e
e l
o O
- e 9
j
()Ns CRBRP ENVIROWNENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 27 f'
] ER .
SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL BFFECT-a 7.1.2.8 7.1-34 thru Primary Primary sodium isotope inventory has The combined ef fect of the changes is to 1 7.1-43 Sodium changed due to revisions in the ORIGEN reduce the site boundary whole bgdy dose Drain library calculational schemes. from 9.7 x 10-4 rem to 4.4 x 10-3 reap Tank both are environmentally inconsequential.
Failure cell 102A dimensions have changed. For (8.1) example, the cell volume a 45,000 ft.3 and was 68,000 f t.3 .
The potential sodium spill volume has increased to 35,000 gallons f rom 32,000 gallons.
Primary The postulated sodium spill has been The combined ef fect of the changes is to Coolant reduced to 135,000 lbs. from 193,000. Increase tha site boundary whole body dose i
sodium from 8.3 x 10-4 rem. to 1.25 x 10-2 rems both Spill It was conservatively assumed that the are environmentally inconsequential.
(8.2) aerosol leaked to the RCB was vented directly to the environmental. Previously a leak rate of .1 voll/ day at 10 peig. was assumed as the leak rate.
l I
Ex-Con- The postulated spill has been reduced The net ef fect of the changes is to reduce tainment from 90,000 gal. to 45,000 gal. of sodium. the site boundary whole body dose f rom
, Primary This is the result of a failure of one of 7.9 x 10-3 ren to 4.2 x 10-5 rems both are l Coolant two storage vessels in the cell rather environmentally inconsequential.
Sodium two.
Spill ,
(8.3) The leak rate of aerosol was based on the cell j design leak rate of .6 voll/ day at 3.9 psig.
' rather than 100 volt / day at 10 peig which was Previously used.
Ex-Ves- Aerosol leakage to the RSB from the cell The net effect is to reduce the site sel Stor- was calculated based on a cell design boundary whole body dose from 2.1 x 10-4
. age Tank leak rate of .36 volt / day at 12 pelg, mrem to 4.3 x 10-4 areap both are Coolant- rather than 100 volt / day at 10 phig. environmentally inconsequential.
Rupture This approach will release less aerosol (8.4) into the environment.
Large The SGS tritium concentration has in- The combined effect is to increase the
- Steam creased to .62 x 10-6 C1/g from .25 alte boundary whole body dose to 4.7 mesa Line x 10-6 C1/g. This is the result of from 1.9 meens both are environmentally Break changes in diffusion coefficients across inconsequential.
(8.5) system interface boundaries.
The newer design basis results in 312,000 lbs.
of water being released from the PRV instead of 479,000 lbs. The power relief vent period .
has been increased from 1.5 to 5.7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />.
i i
CRBRP ENVIRONNENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE'20 T) '
l ")
- ER DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONNENTAL BFFBCT ,, .
SECTION REV18BD ITEN 7.1.3 No change.
7.2.1 7.2-1 Hydrogen The total amount of Hydrogen gas stored has Environmentally inconsequential.
Gas nct changeds however, the volume has been Storage restated in terms of standard volume '(28,000 SCF) rather than bottled storage capacity. This change will be provided in a future amendment to the ER.
Oil and Systems / Buildings involved with the Incorporation of these features in station l 7.2.2 New Hazard- atorage, transf er, or loading / unloading design provides further protection against I ous of any oil or hazardous material are spill of oil and hasardous material j Material provided with secondary containment reaching the local environment.
spills systems capable of containing the Environmentally inconsequential.
largest source of an oil or hasardous j 1
atterial spill without any adverse environmental impact. This change will be provided in a future amendment to the ER.
h e
o 9
9 O
4 o
D 9
CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAI. REPORT REVIEW PAGE 29 h SECTION En REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFBCT..
i 00 1 0.1 (All Future) Socio ** Complete ansessment of socio-economic This change is judged to be slightly 8.2 economic parameters of CRBRP plant construction favorable. It provides cussent data 8.3 and operation is being provided in a future base f or evaluation of socio-economic amendment. Assessment is based on assessment.
current construction manpower requirements 1980 census and 1981 community service and infra-structure data.
O e
G y e e
e 5
9 4
d o 8 e *
- t e
i CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT REVIEW FAGE 30 i
W ER SECTION REVISED ITEM' DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT, 5.1 To Be Provided Altern- This section will be addressed in the t;nvironmenta11y unconsequentaal.
supplement to th.e LMFBR Program Final ative Ap- Environmental Statement (PFES). This proaches section of the ER will be revised accordingly.
9.2 To Be Provided Altern- a) Same as Section 9.1 above. Environmentally inconsequential, ative b) For discussion of Hook-on arrangements Sites & refer to response to Question 320.1R
, Plant and 320.2R.
Arrange- c) Further discussion of candidate sites will l ments be provided in the near future.
l d) Section 9.2.5.3.4 will be updated to reflect response to Question 230.5R.
1 i
9 e
9 e
o 8
llll ! ,lI1 ll \' illl!Jl l!l il li T .
C B
F F
E 1
3 L A 9 E T G N A E P R M
O .
R I
V .
N . '
E .
e g .
n a
h c
o N
W E
I V
E C o t
T R r O e P f E e R E R G .
L N R A A 9 T H e.
N C c0 E a2 M F l3 .
N O p O n R N no I O ei V I kt N T as E P t e I u P R sQ R C a B S ho R E t C D e ge ns an ho cp s
oe Nr M
E T
I D
E S
I V
E R
N O
RI ET
- C E e e 8 l . *
- e e
W
, l,ll 1 Ill1I1llll!!lll
CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT CEVIEW PAGE 32 h M .
i SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFSCT -
i 11 No change. No change.
1 j
j 4
1 1
4 1
-l r
(
)
1 i
i G
e f
I i
e e
4 0.
G G
ll jll111l' 1 i l lll e e k
l a
t n
e
, m
, n. e T
on e C
ro ii E vt F
F na el B u 3 db 3 L ea
- A tt E T a G N E
ms A ii P M th N st O e R
I o
nt V i N e S E su ed g '
ns at hc ce f
of .
Ne W
E I
V r E o R
C l T R a R N v O - o P ndr E onp C E Nap G a L N f n A A oot T H ii 9 N C gtm E nar N F il e
- N O tsp O si I N igg I O len V I li N T d t E P eec I ssa P R ion.
R C v pe n B S er o R E runi C D pot s ia estc dtai iilf vmui orgt reeo P pr n s
t i
M m E r T e I P u
D r E h S t I
V 17 E -
R 00 22 11 N
O RI ET C
E 2
- S 1
- 1 e
. W
\ e
( ' tIl l1! I
j CRBRP ENVIRONMENTAI. REPORT REVIEW PAGE 34 i
d ER SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONNENTAL EFFBCT + ,
13 13.0-3 thru Refer- Update to include Amendment IX references. No environmental effects.
13.0-38 ences ,
1 l
4 t
I e
9 e
4 I
9 e
0 0
0
- 0
=
0
CRBRP ENVI!ONMENTAL REPORT REVIEW PAGE 35 W E.
SECTION REVISED ITEM DESCRIPTION OF CHANGE ENVIRONMENTAL RFFECT ..
i 14 14.1-2 thru Clean Incorporates 1977 amendment to the State The change is judged to be slightly (Appen- 14.1-81 Water of Tennessee Water Quality criteria favorable. It provides criteria for
- dix to Act of incorporates the 1977 clean water act CRBRP design for reduction of impact on Section 1977 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution the env,1ronment.
2.5) Control Act.
14 14.3-3 Sauger Frovides update information on spawning No environmental effects.
l (Appen- of sauger. ,
dix to Section 2.7) - -
14 14.6-3 Cooling Updates cooling tower blowdown rate The increase in cooling tower blowdown (Appen- Tower provides current design blowdown is judged to be insignificant compared dix to temperature values. to the Clinch River flow rate, section 10.3) i a
a O
e i
I e
2 i
e S
9 8 e
9 e
= _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ _
NOTES TO APPENDIX 1 TO APPLICANTS' JANITARY 28, 1982 RESPONSE GENERAL NOTES:
. e Table 2 of Attachment A to Applicants' December 31, 1981 submission correlates the applicable scetions of the SPAR, FES, and ER relating to description of site preparation activities.
4 e The discussions at pages 5 '10 of Applicants' December 31, 1981 submission identifies j .the portions of the ER and FES which support each subsection of Section 4 of the SPAR.
e Table 1 (at pp. 15 - 18) of the Applicants' Answers to Questions Set Forth in i Attachment A to the Commission's December 24, 1981 Order (" Applicants' Answers"),
dated January 18, 1982, cross-references Sections 2, 3, and 4 of the SPAR with the applicable portions of the ER and FES.
o The Applicants' Answer to Question 4, at pp. 13 - 14 of Applicants' Answers,-
cross-references the Applicants' SPAR and Legal Memorandum to each of the ,
, 10 C.F.R. 550.12 factors.
e The Applicants' Answer to Question 9(a) (Environmental impact estimates), at pp. 29 - 39 of Applicants' Answers, summarizes the basis for the conclusion 4 that the conclusions of NRC's 1977 FES remain valid today.
l l SPECIFIC NOTES (SEE TABLE ENTRIES):
l
- See Applicants' Answers, Question / Answer 8.
- See Applicants' December 31, 1981 submission at 10; see ER Amendment X.
l .
I -
i I
O O APPENDIX 2 OAK RIDGE CONSOLIDATED SITE CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT PROJECT (Prepared by the Tennessee Valley Authority)
In 1966 the Atomic Energy Co= mission (AEC) designated seven areas within the AEC reservation in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, ,
that it considered for release for private development contingent upon the submittal of suitable plans for industrial utilization. The Tennessee Society of Professional Engineers made a study of these areas and recommended in a report to the City of Oak Ridge that foui of the seven areas be combined into a 1,364-acre consolidated site (hereinafter also called " site"). In 1967 TVA requested that this site be transferred to it to be used for industrial development in cooperation with the City of Oak Ridge. Notice of the transfer was published in the Federal Register (33 Fed. Reg.
l l 4837 (1968)).
The attached map entitled " Clinch River Area - CR 17.OR" was published in 1968 by TVA further establishing the site's availability for industrial use. Shortly thereafter, the Aton Corporation was granted an option to purchase approxi-mately 500 acres of the site. This development prompted TVA to conduct a detailed site study which included possible L highway and rail access, best building sites, grading requirements,
-2 utility service, and flood data. The attached map entitled
" Clinch River Site, Possible Industrial Development Plan" shows some of that study's results.
In 1971, TVA designated six portions of the site totaling approximately 106 acres for development as the Clinch River Industrial Park. The attached Watts Bar Reservation Map (sheet 61D) shows the six tracts, four of which have already been purchased for industrial use, and the remaining acreage which was later reserved by TVA for the construction of the CRERP. The City of Oak Ridge has constructed a package wastewater treatment plant, wastewater collection system, and water distribution system to serve the Clinch River Industrial Park.
A report entitled "Available Industrial Areas - Oak Ridge,
! Tennessee" was prepared in 1971 by TVA For the City of Oak Ridge. That report, which examined the availability of l
I prime acreage for industrial growth in the vicinity of the City, listed the site as the largest area available for
! industrial development (see area 7 of the enclosed. report).
1 l . - . . _ _ .- . . _ .
6
-3 The current scarcity of waterfront property av'ailable for large 1/
scale industrial use- is borne out by a survey of such areas within a radius of approximately 50 miles of the site (see attached map entitled " Waterfront Industrial Sites Within the Vicinity of Oak Ridge"). These areas, for the reasons described below, would not be considered as favorably by industry wishing to establish itself in the Oak Ridge vicinity as would the consolidated site having undergone site preparation activities.
The Carden Farm area, located on the Clinch River, is a 150-acre site consisting of level to rolling farm land. While rail access is available there would be required extensive road ,
construction and construction of utilities. Residential development across the river could limit the types of industries that would be acceptable to the com= unity.
The Eagle Bend area, an industrial park located on the Clinch River, contains approximately 130 acres of land which remain to be developed. Wastewater treatment facilities are lacking
-1/ All of the five areas surveyed are controlled by TVA.
Privately owned waterfront sites available for industrial development within the survey area have either been exhausted or are appreciably smaller than any of the TVA sites.
a .
-4 and the water depth of the river which fronts this acreage is not adequate for commercial navigation.
The Blockhouse Valley area, located on the Clinch River, is a 100-acre tract split in two sections by a county road. While railroad access is available, utilities necessary for industrial use are not. ,
The above three Clinch River areas, all located on Melton Hill Reservoir, are considerably smaller than the consolidated site and thus restrictive to the size and type of industry that might be willing to locate there. In addition to the above disadvantages, . additional lockage for barge ~ traffic would be required through the Melton Hill Dam.
Along the Tellico Reservoir, located on the Little Tennessee River approximately 57 miles from the consolidated site on the Clinch River, approximately 3,000 acres have been reserved for industrial use. Broken into three separate areas, one parcel is being developed into an industrial park with services available. However, the majority of this land has been subdivided into small lots and would be unattractive to those tfpes of industry that would be interested in the consolidat 'd site. . The remainder of the Tellico land lacks
o .
-5 utilities and rail service and considerable expenditure would be required to provide these services. Topography would i
also require careful site selection and/or significant amounts of grading. Also, while the Tellico Reservoir is navigable, there would be required an additional lockage through the. Fort Loudoun Dam. The lock is small and can only handle one barge at a time.
l The Lowe Branch area, located on Watts Bar Lake, contains approximately 350 acres of relatively steep land. Due to the roughness,of the area, it would be very expensive to prepare a large site similar to the consolidated site. While rail access could be extended to the waterfront, any sort of access to the interior would be impractical due to the difference in elevation. Utilities are unavailable.
While each of the above areas possesses some characteristics that may make them desirable for industrial use, each requires additional improvements which in some cases still would not render them comparable to the consolidated site due to their limited size. With the completion of site preparation activities on the consolidated site, i.e., clearing and l grading of 271 acres, construction of access roads, railroad spur, barge unloading facility, and utilities, no other
-6 industrial site within the vicinity of Oak Ridge would be as attractive and salable to those industries seeking a waterfront location.
e G
b '
M CR 17.0R g( .. ,
- 9
) - -' ,b '
/ 4 h, / '
v M,_
g "
n
.L f >; l_ g g -Q
? m; g
< gg 0h p g%{ ,' ,
3 at es 'I . j, ,.
1[
J. ' Qy 7 .
.g, -
p,g s" .
),, 4 y
, 'f ,
j; M CR 17.0R
'Nk. ,, , , g /g { g[x , , , , ,
I i
$ p,4 .
e , .. . 1. .. b.. -. ...
f b'f lk, Q, bb 8888 da u+,, y, b
kf 1
% QI~
Vr )%f f, 4Qf){R 9
9
/ \ '
2;..
, cumnns ,c
.tm us e f g.,% I
~
~~
p ,\
a: . .,,-4
[* C
- s s-.. senwo ,t n g y,, .
POTENTIAL INDUSTRIAL LANDS RfMF#VOfR AND FLOOD DATA )
l N S YtTS.@ D @ O 4 CLINCH RIVER ARE A
! ..a i a .. . .. . . a .. . sa . g&f ' ]%e C R 17.O R j
/
- ::: ::: ::: t .u ; ,,,,, ,,, c sc
- s fg .' 4 j g.
- g. ....
'="'."..='.T='
..,s .. . ,
c . . v ..
5..e s ..
.= v e .. 6 s.ess,
. u ....,a y >g ,g' ,
, ,p ,3 ,3,,,,,,,,
$m sc.6a .e est,
% nNorviLLE lstP eal e j=ti I I 590 G 128
I e * -
.e ..e
.Wo.e .,
M N. $1-.13 ,
68
- 308..
g y
.e p ./
'n . ,- ..c .
.a.
jf,e.j .I,t'.-,.** .
.'..a
/..,.#..-
..g , ;r tJ .
0 - s.6s . . . sat . . s,* .
. ,- r,. .
no.t.. t c..a..e. g. ./ ,
- .. . ... / .
r
% .; ,,... .. .. ..- .\
.i- .
1 e .: 2"". . , .- ,
e: e.!;F,- -
"IA.a..... ... ; . . ', r 1 ~
.(/
s.! < % ' '. ; e ., ,
\ '.s
- 4. \ * ' - ,?,.' :. ,
/ '. ; r r: (*.le g
\ \ . .% . * . . .
\ ,,. Ns. .:t :'. - {p
~
.: d '- -
1
. . .^
~r ,,.. .: .'s .q.........,... . . . . - - - - - -_ _ . . . . _ . .
,....._7
.. l
, .) *
=w '
"".A . . ..,..
k --- e n ** ... .*... e : . ' L, ,
g- ,,.\ -- w ,. . ,
', z.,N '
if 5 . .s. s . y g, 't
\. '.
. .. [ g /. \ ..
,, ~*.* s ..e I
i see) e
.,s.-
. * =r s t f..........
.* . . . . a.
- g. n h*j y .k j - g' . ,.- [ ~. %[., 'Pind ( 34s
.' ' , . 4
,J c-Y
-n
. \ -
- \.,,. ,*
-s ..-
- ='-==-.
/ #
. [ .'f~
d O'.*/""
- ' .' , . .. 6eo8 s...3:
J ' * ..# .
yW ,/ . f ', .'. M 37* gr.,g ..,
.\ .*
,g
,**, ' :., '5
.,N e . \. i ,- /
1 t t'-a s - I y ,, * , . , \
?*
s.T*.R** . . . .. ..a g t;l,= , , .r 1 f.. I .
. ., ' .e-
. b. ,
- A s 6 c.o.(.,.
Mf 'g.is i .s ,
% Q ?.,v.,.f.i...' . . , M. .. ,' .' '.I.... . . . , 4'.) R.. _!.~ 6. 2".). ....
.k, sa ;
6 .
. .a i * \ !., yg '.,*** . , 2. 4. , ,.,
50-t,f } = o f ; \ *. , - , *. ,
st * ,.*,g,. t
.,g..} ***" },3 ,
~~ J ., ~
%' I.,/ ! ,4 ,
W ""~""~.
! srt W
r% c .a @ :r e=.
j; e# y
- t. ..,'.\. '".d,'sh
,e
]', / .,...'
"."..+ ..
g Ch. cc. =. c. =. r*. .
.e p. -
a 4.
44@ ch c N
'"'**~*"*N I
./ . ; *..e
,\. ,,*, r f
'p '
E, . s' f: . r! . ,'a ' . . . . , .l Si s '. '
. r.j * ',9
- t o l [
,,....4..
t >
a t'
. l
.\. '
- s. ;> s tQ ;l l* *,! ~ e'/ ;
,, l l . g e ... s . . r a. , ,,,, , .,
& c.
- / .i,.'
e' f,. ,
en j
t-I se e .. .e . . s ~~ . .
....... . :. ..... m
.g g Jy t, ....,,.....:-,..
c a
uo
.... /.'
. A. \ s..\ .
. e. ..o e, s : . .
c1 O C C
.f g p.'.&........* .,p:\., , .
.* * . as ,,= g g. , g , ,,
.- a, .
- /
c = .
o . --
f .-1 w i ., . . . . . _ . , i s g gg L.1, g.,
l 2,: 8 S .
o.
+
s Q .g: uu 1*~s . ~ .. .
=
D 3 . .
$. S. 3*. .~' t *\
- H e \
- .\ ..
o . . \
e.e .u.
v2 us \
l....... J j \'s s Nb dg s .
-.. s.
s , .
<g .
\, * *
.. , \ '
n s;,. . t. # ,s j f r1 u - .-
ee N e4 N c N
(
.a*
2
......~.d 4 ,c. ss, ,a, e s ...., . .... & . . - , m wwwwaw- -
,, . m e.n ..w.
k\. %, N. .'\"
..b. ,
x.. ) M .m.. . ../ ^QN I sHt w*, . .. " ....*** vj ,s. .., )
88 '
to to u) to (o r21 g
'N 9 9 9 9 w s.,' .
s ,,,. c
- , q,e ' ,i" ),) ' /):> , , / WATTS B A R xxxxxx ,
. a e g. g .n g. e . A ,, , i, :- . . . .,. . :, . e .' . " ..
RESERVATION D naaM
< .:'s.e,* .
p .?
. WATTS B AR RESCRVOIR
- ,,**
- TEN ><tsstt VAu.t r AUTHORITY
,a css r. n.: irsso t'/ ., , ,v I *** *S ^ ^.o eva vc e s ri. c
.g. . , v ,.
. ,.e.a .
~. .- ....-. -
. - _ . . _ . _ . _ . . . .. .. . .. . e. ..
a se et _ , . -. -~
l t
C ' ?. - - - 7tr . @= si4 2 i P $ 3 $ 0 4.a. -
l h4Rdy=..<.y;me.s.w . s-c. .,# .. .g.mzzeper ccagereggs. . .
E
't hk.A z..~n \
i n
t E
w C
y sn x s.
\
i t- g ~. . ... .
a t
" 'c g .A . ~ *'
- ~
a 5 m .7 6 s
E >wo- n
- q ~ 'c <l 1
ji i s
y$
- 1 V4,.p'./T,'
\
w * '
\
x v., . % : , 7 ~ A'%i N y @~2 d: 2g, A. , ,
' 5 N ,4 ips '3 " s M
~3 o -
'v .-
p,,
7, ' h ' k, ;\ . \$
\\, -
> l ; Q3: e-g.g .
i- e i,P ' \;_, f--
'\ '. I
- l:
4- w . /
T \ g g^ , d p P',' ! /
,:/- '
g-pg yl
{
l1 ( .;.,g/gj6*
l'7
'I iEiiii ir .
pj y: ii 2,_ - _-
. .' / '
fNNhTS-ix. 4 w. r$ 4 ' f> ';J d . : I* niii
~' <' 6'; 1
' \ 1 i i
- j[l',9'$;.y\
i e $ i st o s-
- U / .
N i
- >i
! k,,;;I 1: iI il e
\.'s \
... : 1
&_ .&yt h & Q_
- u
, \\}E Yst.p
- ? &i .
, Yk A 5& & lj5..u -. n. , .
..' m V d'4 e', '
'\.*%y
~
"gfoyQf r;f [ab d.trW Q fi W.N p,
&. v. .
&.rK h . .
. - c i
/ ~,., \
.;.e +-
.'ed , ' .... . 21.- 8 '
o --
j __ - - -