ML20136F009

Provides Environ Review of Applicant Request to Withdraw OL Application.No Significant Detrimental Environ Impact on or Offsite Provided Applicant Continues to Implement Restoration Plan as Submitted

ML20136F009
Person / Time
Site:	05000000, Zimmer
Issue date:	06/20/1984
From:	Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Youngblood B Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML20136E200	List: IA-85-362, Submits Board Questions Re Identification of Alternate User for Site.Board Will Reschedule Conference Call or Establish New Procedure for Response to Questions ML20136E196 ML20136E341 ML20136E597 ML20136E604 ML20136E747 ML20136E892 ML20136E971 ML20136F009 ML20136F072 ML20136F459 ML20136F659 ML20136F902 ML20136G060 ML20138Q830 ML20138Q876 ML20138Q881 ML20138Q890 ML20138Q899 ML20138Q904
References
FOIA-85-362 NUDOCS 8406260472
Download: ML20136F009 (2)

Text

_ .- -_. _

l, '5 s ,

)

UNITED STATES

[{ga ) ,.,ucg'o (g NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g ;p WASHINGTON. D. C. 20555 t c g . 4.+.../ JUN 2 01984 Docket No. 50-358

' ~

MEMORANDUM FOR: B. J. Youngblood, Chief Licensing Branch #1, DL.

FROM: Ronald L. Ballard, Chief .

. Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch, DE

SUBJECT:

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW 0F APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHORAW THE ZIMMER OL APPLICATION By motion dated March 20, 1984 filed with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board, Cincinnati Gas and Electric Company requested the issuance of an order authorizing the withdrawal of the application to operate Zimmer as a nuclear plant. The NRC staff's response to this motion, dated April 9,1984, advised the Licensing Board that the technical staff is conducting a review of the site to determine whether any conditions for the protection of the environment are necessary.

To accomp1ish a thorough environmental review we requested additional information regarding site restoration from the applicant on May 3, 1984. The information

', was transmitted to NRC by letter dated June 1, 1984 by James R. Schott, Zimmer Site Manager.

After evaluation of the additional information a site visit was made by Dr. Germain LaRoche on June 11-12, 1984. The primary objective of the site

~

.. visit was to determine whether the site restoration plan considered all -

i critical site areas. A particular effort was made to inspect areas of the site which potentially could be subject to continued erosion and contribute silt to surface waterbodies, as well as identify areas where standing water could result in saturated soils. The entire site, including the sedimentation pond was examined. The two areas with meteorological towers, which are offsite, were also examined.

The applicant's site restoration program consists of five components:

(1) removal of all trailers and temporary buildings not believed useful for conversion of the site to a coal burning facility; (2) grading; (3) the addition of crushed rock; (4) limited modification to site drainage patterns; and (5) reseeding bare areas. All rented trailers were already removed from the site at the time of the site visit. All applicant-owned trailers had been moved from where they were being used and were stored in parking areas prior q fg (, . .] .i]m

( ,,.,.s1 6s

. N i

B. J. Youngblood JUN 2 0 E34 to sale. All cinder blocks, on which the trailers had rested were neatly piled and identified. These areas were now ready to be. regraded, have additional crushed rock added or be seeded as shown on applicant's submittal of June 1, 1984 plate 2. Dr. LaRoche did not identify any area that required attention that was not covered in the applicant's restoration plan.

In addition, Dr. LaRoche flew the transmission lines from the Zimmer station "to the Silver Grove substation and from the Silver Grove' substation to the Terminal Line substation. These transmission lines are currently energized and will continue to form part of the applicant's transmission grid. Outside of a few areas where trail bikes apparently have killed the herbaceous vege-tation and soil erosion was evident, the R0W's are in excellent condition.

The applicant will harrow and reseed the eroded areas.

Provided the applicant continues to implement the restoration plan as submitted, there will be no significant detrimental environmental impact on or offsite during the period in which the site is sitting idle awaiting the start of construction activities related to conversion of the site to a coal burning facility.

The restoration plan specifies that seeding should take place no later than the first week in October and for most trailers and miscellaneous buildings to be removed by the end of December 1984. It is recommended that NRC terminate its interest in the pro,iect as soon as grading and seeding, as described in the restoration plan, is completed.

Since Region III stated they would monitor site restoration activities (May 4, 1984 Memorandum from James G. Keppler to William J. Dircks), this memo should conclude EHEB's involvement in the termination of the project.

p>ra6/$ Wk R aid L. Ballard, Chief Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering cc: T. Novak W. Johnston R. Samworth G. LaRoche J. Keppler, Reg. III

_--- - . _.