ML20132A910
| ML20132A910 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Cherokee  |
| Issue date: | 09/12/1985 |
| From: | Thompson H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | DUKE POWER CO. |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20132A889 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8509260051 | |
| Download: ML20132A910 (5) | |
Text
. _ _ -
Enclosure 1 7590-01 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of )
)
Duke Power Company ) Docket Nos.: STN 50-491, Cherokee Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2 & 3) STN 50-492 i
) and STN 50-493 ORDER REV0 KING CONSTRUCTION PERMITS AND TERMINATING PROCEEDINGS i
4 1.
On December 30, 1977, the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission (Commission) issued Construction Permits Nos. CPPR-167, CPPR-168 and CPPR-169 to Duke Power Company, authorizing construction of three nuclear power reactors at a site in eastern Cherokee County, South Carolina. A Limited Work Authorization had been issued by the Commission on July 28, 1977.
II.
On September 21, 1983, Duke Power Company surrendered the construction permits i
and requested that the dockets be deleted. The letter indicated that Cherokee 2 and 3 were cancelled November 2, 1982, and Duke Power Company's Board of Directors announced cancellation of Cherokee Unit 1 on April 29, 1983. A stabilization plan was also transmitted by the September 21 letter. Duke Power ,
Company also filed a motion to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board on October 4,1983, requesting termination of its appellate jurisdiction.
. III.
Duke Power Company stated that the site stabilization plan transmitted by.
i its September 21, 1983 letter "provided for stabilization of the site for the hN A -
[
. _ _ _ , _ _ - , _ __ _ _ ._. _. . - _ ~
d
_2-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." Based on its review of the site stabilization plan, responses to a request by the staff for additional information, staff inspection of the site, and a commitment by Duke Power Company to regrade and reseed two areas along the transmission corridor right-of-way, the staff concludes that there will be no significant detrimental environmental impact to of fsite areas. For further details concernir.g the staff's review, see the report of the review of the Site Stabilization Plan attached to the letter to Duke Power Company dated September 14 1985.
By Memorandum and Order dated October 12, 1983 (ALAB-745), the Atomic 1
Safety and Licensing Appeal Board granted the motion by Duke Power Company.
IV.
For the reasons set forth above, it.is hereby ordered that Construction Permits Nos. CPPR-167, CPPR-168 and CPPR-169 are revoked.
This Order is effective upon issuance.
FOR THE NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION O
H L. Thompson, Jr. frector Di sion of Licensing Dated at Bethesda, Maryland, this 12th day of September,1985.
t I
Enclosure 2 Report of Inspection of the Cherokee Nuclear Power Plant Site of Adequacy of the Stabilization Plan Introducticn On April 29, 1983,. Duke Power Company's Board of Directors announced cancellation of Cherokee Unit 1. Cherokee Units 2 and 3 were cancelled on November 2, 1982.
On September 21, 1983 Duke Power Company tendered Construction Permit numbers CPPR-167, CPPR-168 and CPPR-169 for. Cherokee Units 1, 2 and 3, and requested that these dockets be deleted. Enclosed with this letter was a stabilization plan for the Cherokee site. The NRC staff initiated a review of the stabilization plan in late 1983.
As a result of its review of the Cherokee Site Stabilization Plan, the NRC staff issued a formal request for additional information on June 14, 1984. Duke Power provided the requested information in a letter dated September 27, 1984.
In addition, a request was made for an aerial photograph of the Cherokee site, showing the layout of the site and the existing land use/ land cover onsite and -
in the surrounding area. The aerial photograph was submitted on April 22, 1985.
On April 11, 1985, the NRC staff visited the Cherokee site to (1) examine the environmental condition of the site, (2) evaluate the potential environmental impact on the offsite of abandoning construction of the nuclear power plant and (3) determine whether the stabilization plan submitted by Duke Power considered all critical site areas. '
Evaluaticn The applicant stated that the site stabilization plan transmitted by its September 21, 1983 letter "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 bc }ncorporated into that use."
Duke Power personnel have recently indicatea that the Cherokee site consists of 1,575 acres, i.e., the area within the chain link fence. (The September 21, 1983 letter states that the site consists of 2,200 acres. The other 625 acres are Duke Power Company lands outside of the fenced area which were not utilized as part of the Cherokee NPP construction.) Of the 1,575 acres, approximately 1,200 acres were physically modified in varying degrees during plant construction in the period 1976 to 1980.
On April 11, 1985, the whole site was ' inspected by the NRC staff and was found to be well stabilized except for 2 small areas along the transmission corridor right-of-way and the excavation of Unit 2. The two small areas drain into the proposed nuclear service water reservoir and not directly offsite. Nevertheless the erosion is severe enough that it is not likely to heal itself. At the site visit, Duke Power personnel agreed to regrade and reseed these two areas. Even though there is considerable erosion occurring in the Unit 2 excavation there is no way for the eroded material to be transported offsite. Therefore, the staff has no basis to require that this area be stabilized.
2-In addition, the NRC staff inspected the full seven mile length of the railroad 4
spur. No serious erosion was observed. '
j Conclusion
) Based on its review of. the site stabilization plan, the responses to a request i for additional information, and its inspection of the site and the commitment by Duke Power to regrade and reseed 2 areas along the transmission corridor right-of-way, the NRC staff concludes that there will'be no significant detrimental environmental impact of offsite areas.
i i
i i
l i
i l
. _ . . .+m-~ , . , ~ _ < - . , __<.._,r- . _ _ . _ . . - - - - _ . _ - . -, . . _ - . . _. -,, -
. . - _ . _ , - , . . . m
StP J 01985' t
REVOCATION OF CHEROKEE UNITS 1, 2 AND 3 CONSTRUCTION. PERMITS DISTRIBUTION
- Docket filee50-491/492/493 4 '
NRC PDR Local POR :
PRC System NSIC LB#3 Reading JLee HRood i '
TMNovak JSaltzman, SAB CBarth, OELD CMiles HRDenton JRutberg
, AToalston WMiller, LFMB JPartlow BGrimes EJordan LHanmon EBctcher, SSPB TBarnhart.(12)
IBailey 1
i
.I h
j i
1 4
5 1
i i
I l , . _ . ._ _ __ . _ , .. . . _ . . . _ . . .