ML20078F544

Motion to Terminate Appellate Jurisdiction Retained in ALAB-482 & ALAB-540 Re Environ Effects of Radon Releases from U Mining & Milling for Fuel.Issue Now Moot.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20078F544
Person / Time
Site:	Cherokee
Issue date:	10/04/1983
From:	Carr A DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN, DUKE POWER CO.
To:	NRC ATOMIC SAFETY & LICENSING APPEAL PANEL (ASLAP)
References
ALAB-482, ALAB-540, NUDOCS 8310110068
Download: ML20078F544 (26)

Text

. - - - . ..

October 4,1983 EE N?c UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION '0 All:29 B$ FORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING AP In the Matter of DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. STN 50-491

) STN 50-492 (Cherokee fluclear Station, ) STN 50-493 Units 1, 2, and 3) )

MOTION OF DUKE POWER COMPANY TO TERMINATE A9 PELLATE JURISDICTION ,

Duke Power Company (" Duke") requests that the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board terminate its appellate jurisdiction with respect to Cherokee Nuclear Station retained in ALAB-482 and J

4 ALAB-540 on the environmental effects of radon releases from the mining and milling of uranium for reactor fuel and dismiss as 4

moot so much of the proceedings before it as pertains to Cherokee.

Duke has attached to this Motion a letter to Harold R. Denton, dated September 21, 1983, which explains that the Board of Directors of Duke Power Company voted earlier this year to teminate construction of Unit 1 of Cherokee Nuclear Station. Units 2 and 3 had been previously cancelled in November 1982. In this letter, Duke tendered back to the NRC the Cherokee construction pemits and asked that the dockets be deleted. Therefore, Duke moves that this Board teminate and dismiss as moot, without prejudice, the appellste proceedings with respect to Cherokee. See Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station,

. Units I and 2), ALAB-723, 17 NRC (slip op.) (April 14,1983).

0310110068 031004 PDR ADOCK 05000491 I G PDR

- - - -- . . - - - _ _ . . . _ . _ . _ .- . __ GO[ i

_2_

I The Appeal Board took up jurisdiction in Cherokee and sixteen related proceedings over the issue of the environmental effects of the release of radioactive radon gas (Rn-222) to the atmosphere resulting from t'he mining and milling of uranium for reactor fuel. See Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3), ALAB-480, 7 NRC 796 (1978) (incorporating the radon record in Perkins, LBP-78-25, 8 NRC 87 (1978) in Cherokee and sixteen other licensing cases).

Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. 2.717(a) (as construed in Metropolitan Edison Co. (Three Mile Island Nuclear Station, Unit No. 1), ALAB-699, 16 NRC 1324 (1982)), the Licensing Board's jurisdiction terminated when the exception to its last partial initial decision was filed.

M. at 1326-27. The Licensing Board's decisions on all issues concerning Cherokee except the radon question were affirmed as modifiedl by the Appeal Board. See Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3), ALAB.482, 7 NRC 979 (1978). The Appeal Board retained jurisdic-tion over the radon issue - the only remaining issue in Cherokee .

l M. at 981, see also Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic I Power Station) ALAB-540, 9 NRC 428, 435 (1979).

l l

l t

1 l The Appeal Board made a " minor amendment" to one of the Licensing Board decisions to substitute for the phrase

" anchored to bedrock" the more accurate phrase " founded on bedrock and/or fill concrete." See Duke Power Co. (Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3) ALAB-482, 7 NRC 979 981 l (1978).

~_ ._ , - .. . _ . _ _ _ , . , , , _ , _ _ _ . _ _ , _ , _ _ . . _ _ _ , . _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - . , . _ . _

1 3-II 4

In Peach Bottom, ALAB-540, 9 NRC 428 (1979) the Appeal Board consolidated and ordered heard first those five radon proceedings with active intervention, while Cherokee and the other cases without intervenors contesting the radon issue were held in abeyance.

In Philadelphia Electric Co. (Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station)

ALAB-640, 13 NRC 487 (1981), the Appeal Board adopted radon release vilues for use in the licensing proceedings. The Appeal Board also announced its intention to begin review of the associated health .

effects of such radon release values. Id, at 544-45.

On November 19, 1982, the Appeal Board issued ALAB-701 which ruled on the health effects issue and held that the. environmental effects of these radon releases were insufficient to tip the NEPA balance against operating the facilities. Philadelphia Electric Co.

(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station) ALAB-701, 16 NRC 1517 (1982).

Therein the Board noted that "(a)lthough the conclusions reached here are equally applicable to the proceedings before us in which the radon issue was not placed in controversy (including Cherokee) we will abide the event of possible Commission review of this decision before taking formal action in those proceedings." ALAB-701 at 1529, ,

n.23.

~

The Commission is currently holding in abeyance its decision to review ALAB-701 pending its determination whether to initiate a further rulemaking to amend the mill tailings regulations and, if such a In the interim, the rulemaking is initiated, pending its conclusion.

Commission has directed Licensing Boards to continue to defer consideration

- - - = - - - -- r , .,m-, -.- _ y , ._ -.er--. _ -..- ., - ,.... --# +m, , , - w- , . _ - -,

p of radon issues and to issue appropriately conditioned licenses pending decision on the review of ALAB-701. See Philadelphia Electric Co.

(Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station) CLI-83-14 17 NRC ,(slipop, at 10-11) (May 27, 1983).

III Therefore, there is no matter currently pending before the Commission involving the Cherokee facility. There is no matter currently pending before a Licensing Board concerning Cherokee, because ALAB-482 affirmed the Licensing Board's Cherokee decisions except as to the radon issue (as to which the Appeal Board retained jurisdiction).

See Cherokee, ALAB-482, 7 NRC at 981. However, as long as the Appeal Board continues to abide the event of possible Comission review of the contested cases, uncontested cases such as Cherokee remain pending before the Appeal Board on the radon issue.

Accordingly, Duke now moves on grounds of mootness to terminate the appellate jurisdiction retained in Cherokee ALAB-482, and Peach Bottom, ALAB-540, with regard to any possible radon issue in Cherokee, and to dismiss this proceeding without prejudice. See Public Service Co. of Oklahoma (Black Fox Station, Units 1 and 2) l ALAB-723, 17 NRC (slip op. at 2-3) (April 14, 1983).

4 Respectfully submitted.

Albert V. Carr,:Jr.

DUKE POWER COMPANY P. O. Box 33189 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 J. Michael McGarry, III DEBEVOISE & LIBERMAN 1200 Seventeenth Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20036 October 4,1983 Counsel for Duke Power Company, et. al.

$$$kD UNITED STATES OF AMERICA S!f *29

~'

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION ,

t BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING APPEAL BOARD In the Matter of )

) .

DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. STN 50-491

) STN 50-492 (Cherokee Nuclear Station, ) STN 50-493

. Units 1, 2, and 3) ).

NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Notice is hereby given that the undersigned attorney herewith enters an appearance in the above-captioned proceeding. In accordance with 10CFRS2.713(a),thefollowinginformationisprovided:

Name: Albert V. Carr, Jr.

Address: P. O. Box 33189 422 South Church Street Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Telephone Number: 704/373-2570 Admissions: Supreme Court of Virginia District of Columbia Court of Appeals Supreme Court of North Carolina Name of Party: Duke Power Company Respectfully submitted.

Albert . Carr, r.

Attorney for e Power Company Dated: October 4, 1983

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'03 In the Matter of ) . . ,

BCT ~5 N1 :29

) .:. .: - .

DUKE POWER COMPANY ) Docket Nos. STN 50-491

) STN 50-492 (Cherokee Nuclear Station, ) STN 50-493 Units 1, 2, and 3) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE i I hereby certify that copies of " Motion of Duke Power Company To Terminate Appellate Jurisdiction" and " Notice of Appearance of Albert V. Carr, Jr.", dated October 4,1983, in the captioned matter, have been served upon the following by deposit in the United States mail

this 4th day of October, 1983:

Allen 5. Rosenthal, Chairman James W. Burch Atomic Safety and Licensing Director Appeal Board Nuclear Advisory Council U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission 2600 Bull Street Washington, D.C. 20555 Columbia, South Carolina 29201 Dr. John H. Buch Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Board Panel V. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 Charles A. Barth, Esq. Mr. Scott Stuckey

. Counsel for NRC Regulatory Staff Docketing & Service Section Office of the Executive Legal Director Office of the Secretary U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Washington, D.C. 20555 Washington, D.C. 20555 M. Richbourg Roberson, Esq.

Staff Attorney Attorney General's Office Post Office Box 11549 Columbia, South Carolina 29211

.tll$ '

klh '

/b l-Albert V. Carr, Jr.

r , . - - , , , , , - _ - , , - _ _ . , , _ , , , _ ~ _ _m . , , _ , _ , , _ . , _ . , _ _

DUKE POWER COMPANY 00CKETED E1.r.cTitic UnxTntt. Ilox 33189. Cn.utt.orrr. N. C. w:42 US!;Rc

t. c c A a

,,; '. c:::n j3 001 6 Aliao a

v: . . . . .

t i September 21, 1983 Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. L. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Re: Cherokee Nuclear Station Docket No. 50-491 Files: P81-1412.06, CK-1472.00 On April 29,- 1983 Duke Power Company's Board of Directors announced cancell-ation of Cherokee Unit 1. Cherokee Units 2 and 3 were cancelled on November 2, 1982. Load forecasts based on current and predicted econ ~omic conditions indicated that Unit 1 would not be needed until 1995. To stretch construction out to that date would increase the total cost of the unit appreciably due to accumuiating interest charges.

The Board of Directors' reassessment of Cherokee Unit i led to the following conclusions which necessitate cancellation:

1. Unit l's generating capacity can probably be provided more economically by other types of generation.

2. Duke's existing coal and nuclear units will probably cover baseload requirements for the balance of this century.

I

We hereby tender to you Construction Permit numbers CPPR-167, CPPR-168, and CPPR-169 for Cherokee Units 1, 2, and 3. We request that you delete these dockets.

We have enclosed six (6) copies of Duke Power Company's stabilization plan for the Cherokee site.

Ver truly yours, l

L. C. Dail, Vice President Design Engineering Department

JHM/pam

Harold R. Denton Page 2 -

September 21, 1983 Enclosure cc: Darrell G. Eisenhut Cnarles Barth, Esq.

Divis. ion of Licensing USNRC US!1RC Washington, DC 20555 Washi~ngton, DC 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Dr. John H. Buck Appesi Panel Atomic Safety & Licensing USNRC Appeal Panel Washington, DC 20555 USNRC Washington, DC 20555 Atomic Safety & Licensing Board Panel Dr. Donald P. DeSylva USNRC School of Marine and Atmospheric Washington, DC 20555 Science University of Miami Office of the Secretary Miami, FL 33149 USNRC Washington, DC 20555 Dr. Walter H. Jordan 881 West Guter Drive Ronald L. Ballard Oak Ridge, TN 37830 Environmental Engineering Branen USNRC Annette L. Vietti Washington, DC 20555 USNRC Washington, DC 20555 bec: A. V. Carr N. A. Rutherford R. B. Priory S. B. Haaer W L. Porter S. K. Blackley D. E. Lennon C. J. Wylie W. R. Stimart D. H. Denton, Jr.

L

/'gnB#fCp 'o, UrJIT ED ST AT E S I \." r -' ?,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY CO:Jr.ilS SION i WASHirJG T Old. D. C. 20:55 5c. -t/;'., -[u e*,/'v ,$

%, ' v f Decec.ber 30, 1977 -

..,++

Dxket Nos. STN 50-491 STd 50-492 STN 50-493

• Duke Power Company .

Attn: Mr. W. H. Owen, Vice President Design Engineering P. O. Box 2178 Charlotte, North Carolina 28242 Gentlemen:

SUBJECI: ISSUMCE OF CONSTRUCTION PEP.'IITS FOR CfEFGEE NU~ LEAR STATION -

1 Pursuant to the Partial Initial Decision dated !!ay 21, 1976, M.endment of Partial Initial Decision dated March 17, 1977, Supplemental Partial Initial Decision dated July 26, 1977, Order dated June 23, 1976 (unpublished) and Partial Initial Decision dated December 30, 1977, by the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the Nuclear Regulatory Co::.Tiission has issued Construction Permits Nos. CPPit-167, CPPR-168 ,

and CPPR-169 to Duke Power Company. These permits authorire the construction of the Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3, ,

to be located in Cherokee County, South Carolina, t

Copies of the construction permits, and a related notice 4nich has been forwarded to .the Office of the Federal Register for publication, are enclosed.

Sincerely, jW $5.rl *

1. /

Roger S. Boyd, Director Division of Project" Management Office of nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosures:

1. Construction Permits CPPR-167,168, and 169

2. Federal Psgister Notice ces w/ enclosures:

See page 2 v

s' "/* ,u,, .

o UN87ED STATES

• E[D c.I*g e NUCLEAR REGULATORY COf.W.lf,SION

$L ,.f4 E '

WASHING Ton, D. C. 20555 DUYE PCGER CCOLDA.*.T!.

EOCKET NO. S'm 50,491

• CHER3EEE hTCLEAR STATION, U:!IT 1 CC::STRUCTIC:; PER'iIT Construction Permit No. CPPR-167

. 1. The Nuclear Regulatory Comnission (the Comission) having found that:

A.

The application for construction permits complies with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the rules and regulations of the Coraission: there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the perrait will be conducted in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Co=nission; and all required notifications to other agencies or bodies have been duly made; B. The Duke Power Company (the applicant) has described the proposed design of the Cherokee ;7uclear Station, Unit 1 (the facility), including, but not limited to, the Fincipal architectural and engineering criteria for the design, and has identified the major features or components incorporated therein for the protection of the health and safety of the

. . Public;

- . C. Such further technical or design information as may be required to complete the safety analysis, and which can reasonably be left for later consideration, will be supplied in the Final Safety Analysis Report; D. Safety features or components, if any, which require research and develognent have been described by the applicant and the applicant has identified, and there will be conducted, a research and develognent program reasonably designed to resolve any safety questions associated with such features or components; 4

, , -e ,-

w re-,--,---,,n

, , , , , , . , . , , - w - ,- ---

e

, $ UN!TED ST ATES y *r',',,

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COf.i.'.ilSSION

/E

$\; g@(O W ASHINGTon. D. c. 2cs55 -- . .

DUKE P"X;ER COMP;g 1

_DIFfr NO. S?3 50-492

_CHER3KEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNIT 2

_ CONSTRUCTION PER*iIT -

Construction Permit No. CPPR-168 l.

The Nuclear Regulatory Cc=ission (the Cormaission) having found that: '

A. The apolication for construction permits complies with the requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the rules and regulations of the Co.rtnission; there is reasonable assurance that the activities authorized by the permit will be conducted in compliance with the rules and

' regulations of the Commission; and all required mtifications to other agencies or bodies have been duly mace; B. The Duke Power Company (the apolicant) has described the proposed design of the Cherokee Nuclear Station, Unit 2 (the ,

facility), including, but not limited to, the principal architectural and engineering criteria for the design, and has identified the major features or components incorporated therein for the protection of the health and safety of the .

public; C. Such further technical or design information as nay be required

.to complete the safety analysis, and which can reasonably be left for later consideration, will be supplied in the Final Safety Analysis Report; D. Safety features or components, if any, which require research and develop ent have been described by the applicant and the applicant has identified, and there will be condu:ted, a research and development program reasonably desig:ed to resolve any safety questions associated with such features or components;

, - - - , ,m. -,..-.y m. - rm - .#, ,,.., _- ., -__- , -. -

y

1. >2 ticg'o, .

UNITED $TATES

'g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

r. g e e j WASHWG Tog. D. C. 20555

....+

f DUKE POWER CGP MiY D3~C 10. S~nt 50-493 CliEFCKEE NUCLEAR STATIG , U';IT 3 CQ;STRUCTIQI PEPMIT Construction Permit No. CPPR-169

. 1. The Nuclear Regulatory Comission (the Comission) havir.g found that:

A. The application for construction permits co: plies with the recuirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and the rules and regulations of the Comission; tnere is reasonable assurance that the accivities authoriced by the permit will be conducted in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Comission; and all required notifications -

to other agencies or bodies have been duly made; B. The Duke Power Company (the applicant) has described the '

proposed design of the Cherokee Nuclear Station, Unit 3 (the facility), including, but not limited to, the principal architectural and engineering criteria for the design, and has identified the major features or components incorporated

' therein for the protection of the health and safety of the public;

^

C. Such further technical or design information as may be required to complete the safety analysis, and which can reasonably be 4 left for later considerc._ ion, will be supplied in the Final Safety Analysis Report; D. Safety features or components, if any, which require research and develo; cent have been described by the applicant and the applicant has identified, and there will be conducted, a research and development program reasonably designed to resolve any safety questions associated with such features or components; ,

e

1. . . .

. e I '

u 4

E. On the basis of the foregoing, there is reasonable assurance that ti) such safety questions will be satisfactorily resolved at or before the latest date stated in the application for completion of , construction of the pro;x) sed facility, and (ii) taking into consideration the site criteria contained in 10 CFR Part 100, the proposed facility cah be constructed and operated at the proposed location without undue risk to the health and safdty of the public;

! F. The applicant is technically gaalified to design and construct the proposed facility; c

G. 'Ihe applicant is financially qualified to design and construct the proposed facility; *

.H. The issuance of a permit for the construction of the facility will not be inimical to the co=cn defense and security or to the health and safety of the public; and

, I. After weighing the environmental, economic, technical and other benefits of the facility against environmental and other costs

' and considering available alternatives, the issuance of a '

+

construction permit subject to the conditions for protection of the environment set forth herein is in accordance with -

Appendix D to 10 CFR Part 50 (currently known as 10 CFR Part 51) of the Co :nission's regulations and all applicable recairements have been satisfied, s

2. Pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (the Act), and Title 10, Chapter I, Ccdet of Federal Fsegulations, Part i; ^

50, " Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities", and pursuant to the Initial Decisions of the Atomic Safety and Licensing

, _ Board dated May 21,1976, March 17,1977, July 26,1977, and

__^ ,

December 30, 1977, and unpublished Order dated June 23, 1976, the Comission hereby issues a construction permit to the applicant for a utilizction facility designed to operate at a core thermal

. power of 3800 megawatts as cescribed in the application and amendments thereto (the application) filed in this matter by the applicant and as more fully described in the evidence received at the public

~

hearing upon that application. The facility, known as the Cherokee Nuclear Station, Unit 1, will be located on the applicant's site ' " -

-u- ~ 'in eastern Cherokee County, South Carolina. '

- - ^ ' ' '

3. This permit shall be deemed to contain and be subject to the conditions specified in Section 50.54 and 50.55, of said regulations; is subject to all applicable provisions of the Act, and rules, regulations, and ord#rs of the Comission now or hereafter in effect; and is subject to the conditions specified or incorporated below: ,

w -

_<+,m 3---- er, - - - - - - - . - , , , * , . - - g---_y-, _,,,,m,~v e g w r ,. , - , , g c- - w- - . - - g---

e A. The earliest date for the completion of the facility is Te h ry ?S 1983, and the latest date for completion is

. ay G1, 1984.

B. 'Tne facility shall be constructed and located at the site as described in the application, in Cherokee County, South Carolina.

C. This construction permit authorizes the applicant to construct the facility described in the application, as a ended, and the hearing record, in accordance with the principal archi-tectural and engineering criteria and comitments set forth therein.

D. This permit is subject to the following conditions for the protection of the environcent: -

(1) te applicant shall take the necessary mitigating actions, including those su=arized in Section 4.5 of the Final Environmental Statement, during constructica of the facility, associated transmission lines, and railroad spur to avoid unnecessary adverse environmental impacts from construction activities.

(2) The applicant shall submit a detailed erosien control plan

.to be approved by the Comission prior to initiation of -

any construction activitics. The plan must consider the concerns of tne Comission's staff as set fcrth in the Final Environmental Statement and identify those areas where serious erosion could occur as a result of clearing and construction. The plan must describe in detail, for

. each of these areas separately, the acticas that will be taken to control erosion.

(3) Ictal residual chlorine shall not exceed 0.2 mg/l at the point of discharge of the cooling tower blowdown.

(4) Before engaging in a construction activity not evaluated by the Comission, the applicant will prepare and record an environmental evaluation of such activity. Den the evaluation indicates that such activity may result in a significant adverse environmental impact that was not evaluated, a 6 -

. for that is significantly greater than that evaluated in the '

Final Environmental Statement, the applicant shall provide a written evaluation of such activities and obtain prior approval of the Director of Projee; Management for the activities.

i i

_4 . . . .

(5) W.e applicant shall establish a control prcgram which shall l include written procedures and instructions to control all construction activities as prescribed herein and shall provide for periodic management audits to determine the

' , adequacy of implementation of environmental conditions.

The applicant shall maintain sufficient records to furnish evidence of compliance with all the environmental conditions

'in the Final Environmental Statement.

(6) If unexpected harmful effects or evidenc.e of serious damage

- are detected during facility construction, the applicant shall provide to the staff an acceptable analysis of the w problem and a plan of action to eliminate or significantly

, reduce the harmful effects or damage.

(7) The applicant shall not remove any major components of the .

radwaste treatment system without replacing them with components to maintain equivalent overall system performance capability.

The final design must be found acceptable by the Co:mnission prior to issuance of an operating license.

(8) The applicant shall preserve approximately is actes of the 17.2 acre mountain-laurel hardwood stand which is the applicant's proposed scheme as described in the affidavit of L.C. Dail, dated December 8,1976 (applice.t's Exnibit 9 in the hearing record). .

~

(9) The applicant shall maintain a flow of water through the Ninety-Nine Islands Dam imediately upstream of the Cherokee nuclear blowdown discharge so that the total residual chlorine concentration in the river after mixing will never i

7;.

be greater than 0.04 ng/1.

~ .

S, > E. In accordance with the requirements i. posed by the October 8,1976 JJ Order of the United States Court of Appeals, for the District 3 of Colu-bia Circuit in Natural Resources D3fense Council v.

9 Nuclear Reculatory Commission, No. 74-1385 and 74-1586 (cert.

i granted suo nom yermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corc. vs. Natural Resources Defense _ Council, 45 U.S.L.W. 3570, Feccuary 22, 1977) that the Nuclear Reguistory Commission "shall male any licenses ru granted between July 21, 1976, and such time when the mandate 3Y '

is issued subject to the outcome of such proceedings herein",

n. ' the construction permit issued herein shall be stbject to tha Mi outcome of such proceedings.

> "'i 4. This permi~t is subject to the limitation that a lice:se authorizing m operation of the facility will not be issued by the Cc=nission unless

[h r .

I

. u. . *

.,e' ?

d If J..

~

45- '

(a) the applicant submits to the Comission the complete Final Safetv Analysis Report, portions of wnich may be submitted'and evaluated from time:to time; (b) the Cc=ission finds that the final design provides reaspnable assurance that the health and safety of the public will

, not be endangered by the operation of the facility in accordance with procedures approved by it in connection with the issuance of said license; (c) the Comission finds that operation of the facility will be in accordance with 10 CFR Part 51 of the Comission's reculations and all applicarle regairements are satisfied; and (d) the applicant submits proof of financial protection and executes an indemnity agreement as regaired by Section 170 of the Act.

5. This permit is effective as of its date of issuance and shall excire

, on the latest completion date indicated in paragraph 3.A above. "

FDR TiiE !!UCLEAR REGULATORY CC".'iISSION j b> l: - .-

Roger S. Boyd, Dir,ector Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Date of Issuance: .

December 30, 1977 F

e g .

~

0 E.

e y.- , ,. - , ,-y,- , v- ,- e - - -- , ---g -- ----r . m-=-

w , , , ---e ,~,- ,-w w.c-. , y

UNITED STATES NUCLEG REGJIRIORY CO'.'4ISSION . .

DTKUt !CS. STN 50-491, SIJ 50-492. SI 50-49'3

- DUKE PChTR CCt*PA';Y CHETOKEE NUCLEAR STATION, UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Partial Initial Decision

. dated May 21, 1976, Amendment of Partial Initial Decision' dated lurch 17, 1977, supplemental Partial Initial Decision dated July 26, 1977, unpublished Ord'e r dated June 23, 1976, and Partial Initial Decision dated December 30, 1977,'of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, the Nuclear Regulatory .

Cc.anission (the Commission) has issued Construction Permits Nos. CPPR-167, CPPR-168, CPPR-169 to Duke Power Company for construction of three pressurized water nuclear reactors at the applicant's site in eastern Cherokee County, South Carolina.

The proposed facility is known as the Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 and 3. Each unit is designed for a rated power of 3E00 megawatts thermal with a net electrical output of 1280 megawatts. ,

The Initial Decisions are subject to review by an Atonic Safety and k.icensingAppealBoardpriortotheirbecomingfinal. Any decision or action taken by an Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal soard in g

connection with these Decisions may be reviewed by the Ccrission.

The Co::raission has made appropriate findings as required by the

" Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (tne Act), and the Ccamission's .

- rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set forth in the .

e s

yw -- - -g wvyr- + --,-y y w - -- - - -

w. .-w-= , - - 1

.. .4 . .

2- . .

construction permits. The application for the construction permits complies with the standards and regairements of the Act and the Comissiort's rules and regulations.

Each construction permit is effective on the date of issuance.

The earliest date for completion of Unit 1 is February 28, 1983, and the latest date for completion is May 31, 1984. The earliest date for completion of Unit 2 is August 31, 1985, and the latest date for completion is November 30, 1986. The earliest date for completion of Unit 3 is February 29, 1986, and the latest date for completion is May 31, 1989.

Tne permits shall expire on the latest date for completion of each unit.

A copy of (1) the Initial Decisions dated May 21, 1976, March 17, 1977, July 26,1977, and December 30, 1977; (2) Construction Permits Nos. CPPR-167, CPPR-168, and CPPR-169, (3) the report of the Advisory Comittee on Reactor Safeguards dated April 14, 1977; (4) the Office Nuclear Reactor Regulation's Safety Evaluation Report (NUREG-0189) dated March 1977, and Supplement 1' dated July 1977; (5) the Preliminary Safety Analysis Report and amen 3.ments thereto;

'(6) the applicant's Environmental Report dated June 17, 1974 and amendments thereto; (7) the Draft Environmental Statement dated March 1975; (8) the Final Environmental Statement (NUREG-75/089) dated October 1975, are available for public inspection at the Comission's Public Document Room at 1717 H Street, N. W., *dashington, D. C. 20555, and at the Cherokee County Library, 300.E. Rutledge Avenue, Gaffney, South Carolina 29340. A copy of the construction permits may be obtained upon request addressed to the

, - r - - y- v g,- -- , - - , , ,- , -w- - -- g,

. . . . r* . '

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Cc=ission, Washington, D. C. 20555, Attention:

' Director, Division of Project Management .

Copi,es of tne Safety Evaluation Report and supplement, and the Final Environmental Statement may be purchased, at current rates, from the National Technical Information Service, Department of Ccm.merce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, Virginia 22161.

Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 30th day of Dece:ber 1977.

EOR THE ITJCLEAR REGJGIORY Colt 4ISSION Origin.'.l sicued b7 :.

Harley Silver, Acting Chief Light Water Reactors Branch 4 Division of Project Management O

e O

+

h e

e 9 '

S 0

e e

DUKE POWER COMPANY Cancellation of The Cherokee Nuclear Station August 1983 l

l l

l I

. . I, TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NO.

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background 1 1.2 Scope of Plar. I t

1.3 Limitations of Plan 1 2.0 SITE STABILIZATION PLAN 2.1 State of Completion at Cancellation . 2 2.2 Existing Site Conditions 3

, 2.2.1 Excavations 3 2.2.2 Storage Facilities 4 2.2.3 Dams / Ponds 4 2.2.4 Plant Physical Facilities 4 2.2.5 Transmission Corridors 5 2.2.6 Transportation Facilities 5 2.3 Site Stabilization Activities 2.3.1 Excavations 5 2.3.2 Storage Facilities 6 2.3.3 Dams / Ponds e 2.3.4 Plant Physical Facilities 6 2.3.5 Transmission Corridors 7 2.3.6 Transportation Facilities '7

. - 1 Cancellation of The Cherokee Nuclear Station

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUi!D The Cherokee Nuclear Station' site is located near Gaffney in north central South Carolina, approximately 40 miles southwest of Charlotte, N.C., and 21 miles east of Spartanburg, S.C. Duke Power Company announced plans for the three unit Cherokee Nuclear Station on February 2o,1974. After receiv-ing limited work authorization from the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, on May 28, 1976, Duke broke ground on July 1, 1976. The Construction Permits were granted December 30, 1977, and the first concrete pour was made on February 16, 1978.

After several delays in the construction schedule, the Cherokee Nuclear Sta-tion was formally cancelled by decision of the Board of Directors on April 29, 1983. Units 2 & 3 were previously cancelled in 1982.

1.2 SCOPE OF PLAN This plan outlines the existing condition of the Cherokee site and the activities necessary to stabilize the site with respect to erosive forces and unauthorized access. It should not be construed as a plan to restore the site to preconstruc-tion conditions. The plan provides for stabilization of the site for the short-term and control of unauthorized access and prevention of unauthorized use.

The plan will remain in effect until the most appropriate long-term use of the site is determined, at which time it will be incorporated into that use.

1.3 LIMITATIONS OF PLAN At present m h y activities associated with original construction and licensing

2 d

of the Cherokee Nuclear Station are being conducted under several permits issued by State and Federal regulatory agencies. In conjunction with plant cancellation, Duke is now in the process of reviewing the need for these perm-its and whether action to modify, renew, or cancel wit 1 be necessary.

t Although' detailed descriptions of these activities are not addressed herein, examples of the permits within this category include the following:

NPDES Permit issued by S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC-DHEC).

Section 404 Permit issued by Corps of Engineers.

Section 10 Permit issued by S. C. Water Resources Commission.

Air Quality Permit issued by SCDHEC.

FAR-Part 77 Permit issued by Federal Aviation Administration.

Site monitoring under Duke's Control Program to Limit Adverse Environmental Ef-fects During Construction is also under review. Commitments agreed upon with -

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Environmental Protection Agency under ,

this program will be modified as necessary to provide a complete stabilization I

of all site facilities.

2.0 SITE STABILIZATION PLAN 2.1 STATE OF COMPLETION AT CANCELLATION Construction activities for Unit 1, including facilities considered common to all three units, were 17.8 percent complete just prior to the cancellation of Units 2 and 3. Except for the partially completed powerhouse excavations, progress on Units 2 and 3 was essentially zero. The following listing indicates the approximate percentage of structural concrete work completed for the major structures for Unit i and for common facilities. .. . ,

A e- - - --- - - ,-,--,,,m, , , , , - . m#-w. + . . , , . - , - y .., w, , - - - - . -c -9.,-.vr <y-- -e. ,.y.,,p*-rrT--'-rrw r- Nve em--em--

' * ^ ' ~ ~

u. i. '

3 Cobon Unit 1 Structure 53%

Reactor Building 24%

Auxiliary! Building i

73%

Turbine Building Condenser Cooling Water Pump 955 Structure 51%

Service Building

• 100%

Nuclear Service Water Pump Structures 100%

' Makeup Intake Structure 64%

Nuclear Service Water Cooling Towers 100%

Nuclear Service Water Spillway 86%

Nuclear Service Water Cable Tunnels

( 2%

' Yard Valve Structures

• Facilities considered common to all three units before ca 2 &-3.

This equipment will

~ Some equipment has been installed in the plant buildings.

Also, buried piping and electri:al conduits and be removed at Duke's option.

' trenches, either permanent or temporary, will have ends sealed a

-place, unless they can be economically salvaged.

i.j:

(3 2.2 EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS 2.2.1 EXCAVATIONS L v y.

Approximately one-half of the land surface of the total 2200 acre comprised of graded yards or building site excavations, borrow are and earth embankments where the original terrain was physically nod

"~ -

ing degrees during plant construction operations in the period 197 e

. . .. .- 4 2.2.2 STORAGE FACILITIES Approxima.tely 200 acres of the site is currently being used as open stor-age areas for construction materials. These storage areas generally have been surfaced with gravel. Additionally, two - 200' x 400' and two - 200' x 200' warehouses are used for material and equipment storage. Al'1 are equipped with operational fire protection systems. The two larger warehouses are fully heat-ed,'and one is also partially cooled.

2.2.3 DA115/ PONDS 1

Ponds impounded by dams cover approximately 300 acres of the site. Additionally, runoff and groundwater has created ponds in several major excavations. All of the permanent water-retaining earth structures are essentially complete.

, 2.2.4 PLANT PHYSICAL FACILITIES The Cherokee site facilities include several partially completed permanent ware-houses, and many other temporary construction buildings and facilities already 4 in place and useable. All construction buildings are serviced with utilities.

i Six wells of drinking water quality, two temporary electrical substations, approximately 700 acres of graded and graveled parking and storage areas, a permanent fire protection main, and a package sewage treatment system are a-mong the functional on-site facilities.

1

. , . . -- . ~ . - - . , - . . . , , , , , , - , , - . . , _ . - . - . - . . . - , , . . - . - _ . - . . . . - , , , - - . - . . - - , - , . . , , , - . - - . -

-5

' The CCW Cooling Tower yards are graded and graveled and most of the large diameter underground cooling water pipe located between the tower yards and the turbine buildings is installed.

A permaneht aerated lagoon sewage treatment s'ystem is partially comoleted.

Some permanent underground storm drainage piping, primarily in the Unit 1 yard area, is in place.

4 2.2.5 TRANSMISSION CORRIDORS

-Transmission corridors associated with the planned high-voltage transmission lines from plant switch yards are sufficiently cleared to accommodate con-struction of tower structures from the system to the site.

2.2.6 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES l A newly constructed railroad spur provides rail access to the site. A

. recently improved paved state highway provides good vehicle access from the major interstate highway, I-85, at Gaffney. Numerous ungraveled, graveled and paved roads provide additional access to areas within the site.

2.3 SITE STABILIZATION ACTIVITIES 2.3.1 EXCAVATIONS Backfill will be placed in any unstable excavated areas as required and addition-al grading will be performed to provide drainage for ponded areas if their exist-ence is ccnsidered an environmental problem. Grass cover will be established in all areas except gravel surfaced areas, concrete slabs, and buildings. Areas excavated to rock are considered stable and will not require further treatment.

, - , - , , - ,-_m - ,._._%%4rr%_m. .~ % -,..y.,y n , y y ,,,.y,.,- , ,. y,.. r-,.,,._,.m,,- -

, --%,,,,,-,,--r.,. - , -.,_-.,-,,_-y_,,,- - _ . - . . -