ML20053D133
| ML20053D133 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Black Fox |
| Issue date: | 06/02/1982 |
| From: | Thessin J NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20053D134 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8206040113 | |
| Download: ML20053D133 (8) | |
Text
~
}
o 06/02/82 UNITED STATES OF AMEP,ICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSICN BEFORE THE AT0filC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD In the Matter of
)
)
PUBLIC SERVICE COMPANY OF OKLAH0MA,
)
Docket Nos. STN 50-556 ASSOCIATED ELECTRIC'C00 PERATIVE, INC.
)
STN 50-557 AND
)
WESTERN FARMERS ELECTRIC COOPERATIVE,
)
INC.
)
)
(Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2)
)
REPLY OF NRC STAFF TO APRIL 29, 1982 ORDER I. INTRODUCTION As a result of Applicants' April 6,1982 motion to withdraw their application to construct Black Fox Station and to terminate the pending license proceeding, the Licensing Board has before it the question of whether or not to impose on the withdrawal of the application to construct the Black Fox nuclear power plant appropriate terms for redressing the site.
Applicants Public Service Company of Oklahoma, Associated Electric Cooperative, Inc., and Western Fanners Electric Cooperative contend that a final judgment on site redress should be held in abeyance pending their decision concerning the future use of the Black Foxsite.1/ As a consequence, Applicants believe that termination of 1/
Response to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Order, dated May 14,
~
1982, at 2.
4
' Q
...t ysce.~
pu ryg g etn tM L_.----
8206040113 820602 D 50 1
~
PDR ADOCK 05000556 C
PDR Q Tl
\\,
(
l this proceeding and withdrawal of their application should be made subject to a condition that they submit a plan for NRC staff review and approval within a reasonable time after the end of 1982.2/
The Staff, while welcoming Applicants' commitment to redress the Black Fox site in a fashion consistent with its future use,' believes that a more specific course of action must be defined and imposed on the Applicants as a condition for the termination of this proceeding and the withdrawal of their application. As discussed below, the Staff believes that the termination ~ of this application must be made contingent on certain specific terms for stabilizing erosion on the Black Fox site.
II. BACKGROUND On April 6,1982, the Applicants moved to terminate the pending ccnstruction permit proceeding and withdraw their construction permitapplication.3/ The Applicants' motion followed a February 16, 1982 announcement that they were cancelling the Black Fox Station nuclearproject.S/
2/
Id., at 2-3.
-3/
Motion for Termination of Proceeding and Withdrawal of Application,
^
dated April 6,1982 (" Motion for Termination").
4/
Id., at 3, parc. 5.
Y
l In its response to Applicants' motion for termination, the NRC Staff indicated that the Licensing Board should defer ruling on the motion until after the Board had received (a) additional information from the Applicants on the nature and extent of site preparation activities 3
already undertaken and of the restorative measures, if any, which they propose to undertake and (b) replies from the other parties on Applicants' response.E/ The Staff also indicated that it foresaw no reason why Applicants' motion to withdraw their construction permit application and terminate the resulting proceeding should not eventually be granted without prejudice.
In an Order dated April 29, 1982, the Licensing Board required the Applicants to report on their site prepara-tion activities and their intentions regarding site restoration.
The Applicants, in a May 14, 1982 response to the Board's Order, described in an attached affidavit of Dr. John West the status of various site preparation activities Applicants had undertaken, but indicated that no specific site redress activity would be proposed until after a decision had been made concerning the future use of the Black Fox site.0I Applicants offered, however, to submit a site redress plan to the Staff "within a reasonable time after the end of 1982."1/ On
-5/
Response of NRC Staff to Applicants' Motion for Termination of Proceeding and Withdrawal of Applicant, dated April 26, 1982.
6_/
Response to Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Order, dated May 14, 1982.
~
7/
Id. at 2-3.
May 28, Applicants filed a second affidavit of Dr. West, which described certain activities Applicants would undertake to control erosion in the vicinity of the barge slip and the inclined RPV haul road.
This is the Staff's reply to the Applicants' Response, as supplemented, and to the Licensing Board's April 29 Order.
III. DISCUSSION 1.
In instances where a hearing on an application has been noticed, a Licensing Board, pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 9 2.107(a), is empowered to condition the withdrawal of that application on such terms as appropriate. This authority extends to the imposition of terms concerning site restoration.8/ The Staff believes that any conditions imposed upon withdrawal of the application should be specific, address anticipated adverse impacts from the site as it now exists, and be decided upon at termination and not left to the " review and approval"E/
of the Staff at some future date.
Decisions potentially subject to dispute, such as the approval of a plan which is currently without any definition, should not be deferred until after this Licensing Board's j
jurisdiction has terminated.
I
-8/
Toledo Edison Co. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-622, 12 NRC 667 (1980); further opinion ALAB-652, 14 NRC 627 (1981); see generally, Philadelphia Electric Co. (Fulton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2), ALAB-657, 14 NRC 967 (1981).
9/
See Applicant's Response, supra, at 3.
/
y 4
The Board, however, should not hold Applicants' motion for withdrawal and termination in abeyance until a plan for site redress is submitted.
Sufficient information now exists for the Licensing Board to grant Applicants' motion to withdraw their application and terminate this proceeding, subject to specific terms for site redress.
As the Applicants indicate in Dr. West's first affidavit, a.-
significant level of activity to prepare the site has already taken place. Amor.g' other things, the Applicants have excavated a portion of the site to depths of approximately 35 to 45 feet below grade and have constructed a wastewater holding pond, an engineered drainage system, and a barge slip facility along the river bank. The Applicants apparentlyconcedethebesirabilityofsomesiteredressE/andcommit themselves "to maintain the Black Fox Station site in an environmentally prudentmanner."E This commitment should form the basis for specific terms that ensure that the Black Fox site will be maintained in a manner which stabilizes onsite erosion. As the attached affidavit of Dr. Germain LaRoche of the Staff indicates, affirmative efforts to control erosion in the area of the barge slip facility and the associated roadway and in other scattered.
areasI2I affected by site preparation and plant construction activities l
_10/ Applicants' Response, supra, at 2-3.
11/
Id. West Affidavit, at 9, para. 14.
[
~
12/ These are the areas of the engineered drainage system, the area surrounding the helicopter pad, and the areas along the access roadway and the railroad rights-of-way.
See attached affidavit of Dr. LaRoche at para 5.
would protect the site and surrounding areas against detrimental environ-mental impact. The amount of effort which would be required to ensure the stability of the site does not appear to be substantial.
If, however, the site were not maintained in a stabilized condition, the potential for erosion would not be insignificant.1_3]
The appropriate course is for the Licensing Board to impose condi-tions on the withdrawal of this application which specifically indicate what redress of the site should be performed. The conditions which the Staff proposes are designed (a) to prevent future environmental harm caused by site preparation and construction activities which have now terminated and (b) to be consistent with the possibility that the Applicants may use the Black Fox site for some other purpose in the future.
Therefore, the Staff believes that the following terms for site redress should be imposed on Applicants' withdrawal of their application and the termination of this proceeding:
- 1) The channels along the inclined RPV haul road and the slopes along both sides of the barge slip and of the inclined RPV haul road shall be stabilized to control erosion.
-13/ The soils of the site's central complex area "are characterized by a high runoff rate and high erodability during a moderately intense rainfall." Final Environmental Statement Related to Construction of Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2, NUREG-0176, February 1977, at p.
4-1, para. 4.1.1.1.
7-2)
Efforts shall be undertaken to ensure the long-term stability of the soils in the eroded portions (a) of the engineered drainage system, (b) of the area surrounding the helicopter pad, and (c) of the areas along the access roadway and railroad rights-of-way.
If these terms are imposed, the Staff does not believe that Applicants should be required to submit a further plan for redress of site after they decide on the site's future use.
2.
As a consequence of its favorable decision on environmental and site suitability issues, the Licensing Board authorizcd the NRC's Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to issue a Limited Work Authorization (LWA-1)totheApplicants.1S/ An LWA-1 was issued pursuantto10C.F.R.@50.10(e)(1),andlateramendedthreetimes.SE/
Although a valid LWA-1 exists, its need has been mooted by Applicants' decision to terminate the Black Fox project.
By its terms, the LWA-1 issued to Applicants would terminate only if the pending application for a construction permit were denied; this Authorization contains no provision for its expiration in a case where the Applicants withdraw their application before it has been passed upon by the NRC. Therefore, the Board, in allowing the withdrawal of this
---14/ Public Service Co. of Oklahoma, et al., (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2), LBP-78-26, 8 NRC 102, 175!T77F (July 24, 1978).
---15/ The Limited Work Authorization was granted on July 26, 1978.(43 Fed.
Reg. 3397 (August 2, 1978)) and subsequently amended on September 6, 1978, November 30, 1978, and July 24, 1979. Applicants initiated only a few of the activities allowed in the third amendment.
Applicants' Response, West Affidavit, supra, at 2, para. 2.
1
/
,m,,
n.,
,m.
application and the termination of this licensing proceeding, should make clear that it is also authorizing the Director of Nuclear' Reactor Regulation to withdraw Applicants' Limited Work Authorization.EI IV. CONCLUSION For the reasons stated above, the Staff believes that the Licensing Board should terminate this proceeding and allow Applicants to withdraw their application for a construction permit for Black Fox Station without prejudice, s'ubject to the terms for the protection of the environment noted above.
In addition, the Licensing Board should authorize the Director of Nuclear Reactor Regulation to withdraw Applicants' Limited Work Authorization, as amended.
Respectfully submitted, James H. Thessin Counsel for NRC Staff Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 2nd day of June 1982
-16/ This authorization was also provided by the Licensing Board in the Davis-Besse proceeding.
See Toledo Edison Co., et al. (Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Units 2 and 3), Slip op. (August 28,1981).