ML20127C294
| ML20127C294 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 11/07/1984 |
| From: | King T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Sherwin Turk NRC OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE LEGAL DIRECTOR (OELD) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20127B595 | List: |
| References | |
| FOIA-85-362 NUDOCS 8411160428 | |
| Download: ML20127C294 (3) | |
Text
.
I
.. o.
i
- ~
+
UNITED STATES
['
O
g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
.-l WASHINGTON, D. C. 20B66 k...../
November 7,1984 MEMORANDUM FOR:
Sherwin E. Turk, Deputy Assistant Chief, Hearing Counsel 3, Office of the Executive Legal Director FROM:
Thomas L. King, Chief, ARG, Division of Safety Technolgoy, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
COMMENTS ON APPLICANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS THE CRBR PROCEEDING The subject motion, dated October 19, 1984, was reviewed. My coments and evaluation are provided below.. The motion contained copies of two documents pertaining to CRBR site redress activities. These were:
1)
The CRBR Site Redress Plan (Attachment A of Applicants' motion) submitted to the NRC for approval on March 5,1984. This document was approved by NRC with coment (in a June 6,1984 letter from T. Speis to F. Gavigan) and contains those requirements which the Applicants comitted to NRC to implement in redressing the CRBR site.
The DOE /TVA/PMC Site Redress Planning) Task Force Report (Exhibit B 2) of Attachment F of Applicants' motion dated January 1984.
This document was referenced in an August 31, 1984 agreement between DOE and TVA (Attachement F of Applicants' motion) as the document DOE would use for redress of the CRBR site.
My review of the two documents described above indicates that there are substantial differences between them in detail and content. These differences are listed in the enclosure to this memorandum and are all of the nature of specific comitments which appear in the NRC approved plan but which are not contained in the DOE /TVA/PMC report.
Accordingly, there is some confusion regarding which plan the Applicants intend to follow in their redress activities. They should be requested to clarify this matter.
If their response is that the NRC approved plan is the one to be followed, then I have no disagreement with their motion to dismiss the CRBR proceeding.
If their response is that they are working to a site redress plan different than the one we approved then I cannot concur in their motion.
4
, If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me.
Thomas L. King, Chief Advanced Reactors Group Division of Safety Technology Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
As stated cc:
T. Speis, DST R. Stark, DL R. Samworth, DE
./
7 Enclosure DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NRC APPROVED CRBR SITE REDRESS PLAN AND DOE /TVA/PMC SITE REDRESS PLANNING TASK FORCE REPORT A comparison of the requirements for CRBR site redress, as stated in the CRBR Site Redress Plan.(approved by NRC on 6/6/84), versus the requirements I
stated in the DOE /TVA/PMC CRBR Site Redress Planning Task Force Report (referenced in the August 31, 1984 agreement between DOE and TVA on redress of the CRBR site) indicate apparent differences.
These differences are listed belcw and are all of the nature of specific commitments which appear in the NRC approved plan but are not contained in the DOE /TVA/PMC report:
NRC APPROVED PLAN DOE /TVA/PMC REPORT i
Pgs. 12-13, Section 5.2 includes criteria requiring:
a)surfacestabilizationto Not Included j
assure erosion control, l
l b) de-energizing and removing the on-site Not Included l
meteorological station.
Pgs.15-17, Section 5.6 includes comitments requiring:
a) grading and seeding to limit erosion Not Included and transport of sediment, b)accesstotheHensleyCemeterybe Not Included maintained during redress activities.
l c) excavation from borrow areas in such Not Included a fashion as to prevent run-off directly into the Clinch River, d)compactionoffilledinareas, Not Included e)removaloffoundationsfortemporary Not Included buildings and batch plant, f) stabilization of re-graded areas Not Included f
by seeding or with aggregate, g) removal of treatment ponds after Not Included site has stabilized, h)inclusionofthesiteintheDOE Not Included forestry management program.
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _