ML20136E971

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Forwards Request for Addl Info Re Site Stabilization Plan. Recommends Site Insp of Transmission Lines & Railroad Spur to Check Soil Stabilization.Cancellation Schedule Encl
ML20136E971
Person / Time
Site: 05000000, Cherokee
Issue date: 05/24/1984
From: Ballard R
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To: Knighton G
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20136E200 List:
References
FOIA-85-362 TAC-54651, NUDOCS 8406010454
Download: ML20136E971 (4)
v • d • e


Text

{{#Wiki_filter:.--_ _ 

                                      ^ -              -                -- -

_ ^ - 

             . ., Y.

i J** **'s, UNITLD STATES 

                  .,                t                       NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION W                                          waswincTos. o c. 2osss

{, 4s[** k ****** . MAY 14 W 4.. Docket No. 50-491 . s N MENORANDUM FOR: George Knighton, Chief Licensing Branch #3, DL FROM: Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch, DE IS

SUBJECT:

CHEROKEE CANCELLATION - SITE STABILIZATION PLAN 

'   E                                              (TAC #54651)

T . 

   .(                    On April 29, 1983 Duke Power Company tendered to NRC Construction Pemits' i                     numbered CPPR-167, CPPR-168, and CPPR-169 for Cherokee Nuclear Station Units 1, 2, and 3.           That transmittal included Duke Power Company's Stabiliza-tion Plan for the Cherokee site. They requested that NRC delete the dockets for those projects. The Environmental Engineering Section (EES) has started reviewing the Stabilization Plan at the request of the Division of Licensing.                                     -

This memorandum identifies infomation EES will need to complete its review.

We have reviewed requests to teminate several other projects. From this i ; experience we have developed a draft list (Enclosure 1) of the general infonna-
   ~~   .
                        . tion which EES considers in reviewing a request to teminate a project. We have examined the Cher6kee submittal for completeness as measured against the items on the list. Among the items that are still needed for Cherokee is a site plan showing the features identified in items 1 and 2 of the list. These features

's i are described in the Duke plan. However, showing locations on a drawing will be helpful.. Secondly, more specific schedules for activities noted under items 2, 4, and 5 of Enclosure 1 should be provided. Finally, the interest of other pemitting , agencies shoul.: be identified as requested by item 6. Before we complete our review, the reviewer, Dr. Gemainand LaRoche,)shoul the rail-the roadsite including)the spur R0Won (7 miles to check forsoil thestabilization. transmission lines This (20.5bemiles should done after Duke Power has provided the additional infomation that was mentioned above. I Qc'/ E /24 

        * . a George Knighton                                                      ;;g ;. 4 g We note that the CP for Unit 1 expires in May but that the other:. CP.5 expire in 1986 and 1989 (see enclosure 2). If this has any bearing on the review schedule, please advise us.

sWWYMd R nald L. Ballard. Chief Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering

Enclosures:

As stated cc: T. Novak W.,Johnston R,-Samworth G. LaRoche t a p 

   '4 O

e i i e

ENCLOSURE 1 

   ,     1 REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION e

FOR ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW OF PROJECT TERMINATION 

               ,                                   1.      Provide a site plan showing areas (including transmission corridors) t
           -{                                              disturbed by construction-related activities. Identify the specific 2                                              use of each disturbed area.            Estimate acreage for each such disturbed
           'I                                             area.

2 J i 2. Identify on the site plan all structures. Indicate which structures 3 will be removed and which will remain. Provide a schedule for removal ij of structures and describe the method of debris disposal. i 3. Describe the status of the site, with particular attention to disturbed areas and to related erosion and runoff control measures. 

* 's    '-l
4. Describe plans for future use of the site to the extent that such plans i

have influenced the selection of site restoration activity, if any. 

             .:                                           {ndicate the anticipated schedule for future use and describe how the future
 , .]                                          _ ,

use influences the proposal for restoration work. 

     ; 4 S'                                         5.       Describe proposed restoration activities, if any, including procedures 4

and schedules for grading, seeding, and planting which will be done to 

                                                        . leave the site in a stable condition.
6. Indicate what permits and approvals will be needed from other federal, state.

t or local agencies for any of the site restoration work. L. 

     &w i

l.- 

                                                                  ~

1 8 i l.: - lt - \ .

ENCLOSURE 2 CHEROKEE NUCLEAR STATION CANCELLATION SCHEDULE Date CP Date Cancellation Unit Docket No. CP No. Expires Announced 1 50-491 CPPR-167 May 31, 1984 April 29,1983 2 50-492 CPPR-168 Nov. 30,1986 Nov. 2, 1982 3 50-493 CPPR-169 May 31,1989 Nov. 2, 1982 f*b 

   +

e 

      -.        :                    ~ . - .   - -.- -. .-.         . - . . -                        . - .-       -.- .   ..    .

J 

       '                 *                                                                                                              . Kabute .

e UNITED STATES 

       '.*              8            N                      NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

{ ,I WASHINGTON, D. C. 20666 

                           %*...[                                                       DEC                 8 1382 l
;                            MEMORANDUM FOR: Albert Schwencer, Chief Licensing Branch #2, DL FROM:               Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental Engineering Branch, DE

SUBJECT:

PROCEDURE FOR CANCELLING CP'S FOR HARTSVILLE B,1&2, AND PHIPPS BEND 1&2 NPP , -y As you requested by note dated November 9, 1982, we have reviewed your memorandum related to procedures for cancelling the captioned'TVA facilities 

    ",                       and have the following suggestions.

i Based on our experience at Bailly and Black Fox, we believe NRC's responsibility under NEPA can be met by assuring that an applicant proposing cancellation of a CP take the steps necessary to avoid future offsite environmental impacts resulting from construction activities.and that any detrimental visual impact be reduced to a minimum. The procedure should be written in such a way that an applicant execute the required measures in a timely manner for NRC's final inspection and disposition. 

  ]                          During the recent Black Fox exercise, we provided criteria from which the i ;                           applicant devised a site disposition plan. The applicant's plan for with-
    -                        drawal of CP was evaluated by personnel from EEB's terrestrial ecology section .

for adequacy. A site visit ensured that all potential environmental impacts were addressed and that proposed mitigative actions could be executed in a timely manner. - { With regard to Hartsville and Phipps Bend, a disposition plan should be prepared for each site. The plans should identify all disturbed areas and , provide specific corrective measures that will be taken. For example, all-disturbed areas should be stabilized to prevent soil erosion; solid waste and any toxic materials should be disposed of according to EPA regulations and local ordinances; and temporary structures should be dismantled unless they will be part of the future use of the site. Details of the plan should ' include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: (1) Provide the actual hectares or acres for each land use/ land cover type. Disturbed areas should be described in terms of land use/ land cover type and the hectares or acres 

                                                                                          -                 . '         a    ,,   s
                                                                              &M(91No @e7( & / c-i E /27

Albert Sc%encer DEC 8 1982 displaced, e.g., the number of acres of famland used for temporary facilities; the r.aber of acres of pasture used-to construct a cooling pond or towers; the nasaber of acres of woodland cut to build a railroad spur, etc. Specify the stage of construction by plant component if appropriate, e.g.. ' percentage completion of power block, transmission system. l switchyard and rights-of-way cleamd, water supply system installed and operational, etc. Identify those modifications which, by their nature, preclude other land uses, e.g., a rip-rapped barge slip, a large cooling pond, the creation of i a reservoir by damming a river, etc. i (2) Describe how the site will be redressed to control offsite ' envimnmental impacts. This should be done for each disturbed portion of the site, e.g., the disposition of piled topsoil, restoration of laydown areas, and reseeding i to control soil erosion. If plans include future utiliza- 

                 - .. tion of disturbed areas for other purposes, they should be described.

(3) Describe plans for future use of the site. Specify those site modifications which are compatible with the planned use, e.g., the excavation for the containment building may be used in the construction of a fossil fuel electric generating plant, and those which are not, e.g., the engineered drainage system may have to be modified to accMate a 

.                        planned industrial complex etc. Also, state what will be done with those modifications not compatible with future use, e.g., the cement plant will be dismantled, the area will be
               -         graded and seeded.                                                                .

We recomend that this procedure be adopted for all subsequent CP withdrawal actions. ygc,tg ug.:::. .. .- -

"N?

DISTRIBUTION: Ronald L. Ballard Chief Central Files . Environmental Engineering Branch EEB Rdg Division of Engineering DRMuller RLBallard/ FILE GlaRoche o,,,m , b 

              # t na...... dQf.ya....          ......................            ........................              .......................                     .......................  ....................,

sumue > iLA80che.;ws... ..RL . d. . ..... . . . . . . . . . . . ....................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - amy }.2LBLB2......... .12L....LB2.. .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........................ ........................ ................... 

                                                   -__-                                                                                                                                             .}}
Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML20136E971&oldid=3374792"