ML20138Q881
| ML20138Q881 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Zimmer |
| Issue date: | 10/03/1984 |
| From: | Kintner L Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136E200 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-362 NUDOCS 8512300052 | |
| Download: ML20138Q881 (2) | |
Text
3 p,a %qk UNITED STATES I
,g g
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION l'*
a jj WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 e
j Q CT4,/
OCT 3 N MEMORANDUM FOR:
D. G. Eisenhut, Director 4
{
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation j
Division of Licensing THRU:
T. M. Novak, Assistant Director p
4) l for Licensing y
P Division of Licensing i
B.J.Youngblood, Chief @[
bv f
Licensing Branch No. 1
/
Division of Licensing i
FROM:
L. L. Kintner, Project Manager l
l Licensing Branch No. 1 Division of Licensing
SUBJECT:
PLAN OF ACTION FOR WITHDRAWAL OF ZIMMER OL APPLICATION AND CANCELLATION OF CONSTRUCTION PERMIT 3
The Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) by its August 29, 1984 Memorandum i
and Order (enclosed) authorized the withdrawal of the Zimmer OL application subject to the implementation by Applicants of their site restoration plan 4
and verification by staff that the site restoration has been completed by r
February 28, 1985.
According to NRC Inspection Report 50-358/84-05, the applicants have renoved the new fuel from the site, the main steam lines and main feedwater lines have been severed and capped, and control rod drive mechanisms are being removed.
The ASLB is satisfied that the nuclear steam supply system has been adequately modified to prevent its utilization of special nuclear material.
The licenses for source, byproduct and special nuclear materials (except l
fuel) will be terminated by Region III after appropriate disposal of the 7
material, and a final radiation survey of the site (expected to be completed l
in December 1984).
The fuel license will be terminated by the Office of l
Nuclear Materials Safety and Safeguards upon receipt of a request from CG8E to terminate the license (expected February 1, 1985).
The Zimmer Site Restoration l
Program consists of:
l 1.
Removal of trailers and temporary buildings not useful for conversion to j
a coal fueled' unit.
(Trailers have been removed from site; temporary buildings will be demolished and debris removed by October 1984.)
2.
Limited grading prior to reseeding.
3.
Addition of crushed rock on bare areas that are not seeded.
l 4.
Modification of drainage patterns at two borrow areas.
l 5.
Reseeding of bare areas onsite and on transmission line right-of-ways (first week of October.)
The applicant has scheduled the site restoration work to be completed by i
Jecember 1984.
05123o0052 851203 PDR FOIA N/7 PDR s
i DELL 85-362
~
I
[
00T 3 1994 -
The plan of action for completion of the withdrawal of the application for operating license is:
l Oct. 15, 1984 - LB-1 Branch Chief signs Federal Register Notice withdrawing l
the application for an operating license, i
i 4
February 15, 1985 - Region III makes inspection to verify satisfactory completion of restoration work.
j February 28, 1985 - Using inspection report OELD & NRR will verify completion i
of site restoration work to ASLB.
Subsequent to completion of the site restoration work, steps will be taken to terminate the construction permit.
By letter dated November 24, 1982,.
CG&E requested that the latest construction completion date of December 31, 1982 specified in the construction permit be extenc'ed to December 31, 1984.
The NRC staff has not acted on that request, because the basis for it was continually changing during 1983.
The License Fee Management Branch is in the process of billing utilities including Zimmer, for fees from the issuance of Construction Permit to June 23, 1984 and thereafter they will be billed every six months. This is in accordance with the new rule for 10 CFR Part 170 issued on June 20, 1984.
The Licensee Fee Management Branch h'as been advised of the forthcoming withdrawal of Zimmer ano Cincinnati Gas & Electric Company will be billed every six months until the project is completely closed out.
The plan for canceling the construction permit is:
March 30, 1985, Director, DL issues Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for prcposed cancellation of the construction permit.
April 30, 1985, Director, NRR issues Order canceling construction permit.
May 1, 1985, LFMB will be contacted when dismissal order has been signed and they will collect aay fees due to NRC.
E L. L. Kintner, Project Manager Licensing Branch No. 1 1
Division of Licensing I
cc:
R. Diggs R. F. Warnick W. T. Crow R. F. Ballard S. Treby
EOc Lo5v/R."b c
o.
)( %
4 t'NITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGllLITORY C0t't1ISSION ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD
- Xdr i
Before Administrative Judges:
up.fi l
John H Frye, III, Chairinan Gustave A. Linenberger Dr. Frank F. Hooper
'84 AGO 30 A8:48
)
$$ili$S.:-
In the Matter of
)
W NC"
)
Docket No. 50-358-OL THE CINCINNATI GAS & ELECTRIC
)
i COMPANY, el al.
)
(ASLBP No. 76-317-01-OL)
)
(Wm. H. Zimmer Nuclear Power
)
~A Station, Unit 1)
)
August 29, 1984 e,, ;.'.
' ~ '
)
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER s
(Rulino on Applicant's Motion tn Withdraw Aoplication)
I On March 20, 1984, Applicants moved for an Order authorizing wi+.hdrawal of their application for an operating license for this facility and dismis' sing this proceeding.
In support of their motion, Applicants represented that:
- 1) All fuel would be removed from the site by August 31, i
1984;
- 2) The nuclear steam supply system would be modified to i
prevent its operation as a " utilization facility" (defined by 4 11(cc) i j
of the Atomic Energy Act) by:
i a) severing and welding caps on the two main feedwater lines and four main steam lines; and b) removing the control rod drive mechanisms; a
- 3) The balance of the plant will be used to the extent possible as part of a fossil-fired generating station; and I *.
O M
(q i
G PDR
\\,~j
~
1
- 4)
Applicants have no objection to the dismissal of the application "with prejudice."
Only the NRC Staff responded to this motion.
In its April 9, 1984, response, Staff points out that 9 11 (cc) of the Atomic Energy Act de. fines a " utilization facility" as one which is capable of making use of special nuclear material.
Therefore, according to Staff, because the facility is essentially complete, it must be disabled so that it cannot make use of special nuclear material.
Staff found that the modifications which Applicants represented they wnuld make would accomplish this purpose.
Staff therefnre urged that the motion be granted subject to the condition that these modifications be made and to the condition that the fuel be shipped from the site by August 31, with implementation of the conditions to be verified by Staff.
Staff also noted that it had no objection to dismissal of the application with prejudice and urged that we include such a condition.
~
Staff gave no reasons for this position.
Finally, Staff noted that it was reviewing the site to determine whether conditions for the protection of the envircnment were necessary.
Staff indicated that it would advise the Board of its conclusions in this regard.
On August 2, 1984, Applicants filed certain information with the Board relevant to their motion.
In this filing, Applicants advised us that they had shipped their fuel off-site and had accomplished the i
modifications tc the nuclear steam supply system which they represented i
they would make.
Applicants therefore renewed the reouest contained in O
I
-3 i
their motion.
On August 7, the Board Chairman wrote counsel for l
Applicants indicating that the Board would act on the motion promptly upon receiving Staff's conclusions with regard to the need for conditions to protect the environment, j
On August 17, the Staff filed a further response to the Applicants' motion.
Staff noted that it had conducted an inspection and verified that the feedwater and main steam lines had been severed and capped, and that the Applicants were in the process of removing the control rod drive mechanisms.
During the inspection, Staff verified that the fuel had been removed from the site.
This inspection was conducted from April 27 through July 16, 1984.
Staff attached a copy of Inspection Report 50-358/84-05 to its response.
1 Staff also advised us that it had reviewed certain additional I
information relevant to environmental protection which Applicants furnished in response to Staff's request and had visited the site.
~
Staff concluded that, based upon this review, withdrawal of the application should be conditioned on implementation of Applicants' June 1, 1984, restoration plan (which was furnished with the infnrmat' ion Staff requested), such implementation to be verified by Staff.
Staff furnished its environmental review and the affidavit of Germain la Roche in support of it's conclusion.
After receiving Staff's August 17 response, we inquired of Applicants' counsel whether he wished to reply and were informed that he did not.
e 9
. - _, ~. _ _.,. _.
=, -,
_m-
t 1
We agree with Staff that it is necessary that the nuclear steam supply system be modified to prevent its utilization of special nuclear
~
material and that the reactor fuel be shipped off-site.
We a re satisfied that these steps have been accomplished.
Having heard no objection from Applicants, we will condition our authorization to withdraw the application on implementation of the June 1,1984, site restoration plan, such implementation to be verified by Staff, i
Applicants do not object to the authorization of withdrawal of the application with prejudice and have included such a provision in the.
draft order accompanying their motion.
That provision states that the authorization is "... with prejudice to future reapplication by the Applicants for the construction and operation of any nuclear power facility at the same site."
Staff, without elaboration, urges that the authorization be so conditioned.
Ordinarily such a condition wculd only be imposed if substantial prejudice would otherwise result to a party who opposed the application.
See Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (North Coast Nuclear Plant, Unit 1) ALAB-662,14 NRC 1125 (1981) and l
Philadelphia Electric Co. (Fulton Generating Station, Units 1 and 2)
ALAB-657, 14 NRC 967 (1981).
Here no party has seen fit to attempt to make such a showing.
And despite years of consideration.of both the construction permit and operating license, no final agency decision has been rendered which disaporoves these applicants, this site, or this reactor.
In these circumstances, we view the attachment of such a condition to the authorization to withdraw the application as unnecessary.
Therefore we have not included such a condition.
~
. In consideration of the foregoing, it is this 27th day of August, 1984, ORDERED that:
1 Applicants' motion for authorization to withdraw their application I
and for termination of this proceeding is granted subject to the condition that Applicants are to implement their June 1,1984, site restoration plan and Staff is to verify that this has been accomplished within six months of the date of this Memorandum and Order.
Dr. Hooper concurs but was unavailable to sign this Memorandum and Order.
THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD p
w(mch Gu tavY A. Linenb_ery.r INISTRATIVE JLT a 4
nH ye, III, Chairman IN TIVE JUDGE Bethesda, Maryland August 29, 1984 i
e
,,._..y,
,m..
_- -.