ML20138Q899
| ML20138Q899 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000000, Clinch River |
| Issue date: | 03/23/1984 |
| From: | Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | King T Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20136E200 | List:
|
| References | |
| FOIA-85-362 NUDOCS 8512300067 | |
| Download: ML20138Q899 (1) | |
Text
.. -.... -....
DISTRIBUTION:
EHEB RDG EHEB File NAR 231994
[g,J j
RSanworth
/
d4rtaRoche Docket No. 50-537 NOTE FOR:
T. King Acting Director CRBR Prdgram Office-THRU:
William V. Johnston, Assistant Director Materials, Chemical 1 Environmental Technology Division of Engineering FROM:
Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering 3
SUBJECT + CONTACT POINT FOR CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR SITE REDRESS 1
According to the Commissioners' Nemo and Order of August 17, 1982, the MRC has a commitment to see that the CRBR site is redressed in an environmentally acceptable manner. While the technical expertise for reviewing redresstand restoration activities resides in the Environmental and Rydrologic Engineering Branch, we do not normally asstsne responsibility for initiating or managing
,g,
activities of this type.
Because much of this work will not be started for a year and because the CRBR Program Office will be eliminated this month, we suggest that an NRC contact be identified and that DOE be advised who within NRC will be responsible for
. followup work on the Comissioners' Order.
i OngnetsignedbyRonald LBallard i
Ronald L. Ballard, Chief
,a Environmqntal & Hydrologic Engineerina Branch Division.'of Engineering
~B512300067 851203 PDR FOIA BELL 85-362 PDR D..h....&. 6. F dE. /.".f, m
(..,n.E.,8p.',-
.....DEiEH,.m... D. EF
"'5*
.D.
E EB z
. [.. BSamworth.
RLBa la d, WVJohnston
.... a.h......$,
G..Rgchelws..
~ " " " *
..Q
.3420/8.4..
3!.g.84
., sys4.,.
3/.084
. j;..{.
~*
OVERSIZE DOCUMENT PAGE PULLED SEE APERTURE CARDS NUMBER OF PAGES:
ACCESSION NUMBER (S):
85 /9 SocoGr 7-o /
%Pu-Q%
l l
l I
APERTURE CARD /HARD COPY AVAILABLE FROM RECORD SERVN:ES BRANCH,TIDC FTS 492-8989 i
~__ _._.
dMN '
I APR 3 0 B64 i
i Docket No. 50-537 MD10RANDUM FOR:
T. King, Acting Chief j
CRBR Program Office l
FRG1:
Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental & Hydrologic i
Engineering Branch, DE
SUBJECT:
REVIBl0FPROPOSEDCLINCHRIVERBREEDERREACTOR(CRBR)
SITE REDRESS PLAN We have reviewed the CRBR site redress plan submitted March 5,1984. We find the proposed course of action generally acceptable but recomend
_that DOE consider two modifications.
The proposed action addresses site specific concerns in an acceptable manner.
Existing erosion and sediment control facilities will remain in place and will be maintained untti the site is completely redressed. Site redress will corsnence this year on those areas that will not foreclose the option of developing the site for generalized industrial use. The site will be subject to insoection by USEPA for compliance with NPDES pemit requirements.
3..
i In granting an. exemption for 10 CFR 50.10 pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12 to 1
initiate site preparation the Commissioners' Herrorande and Order of August 17, 1982 accepted DOE's claim that the site was redressable and therefore the Commission could grant in part the requested exemption. The
~
redress plan submitted on March 5,1984 is not identical to the site redress plan provided to the Conmission in the DOE Site Preparation Activities Report of June 1982, because all facilities proposed at that time i
and pemitted (by Commissioners' Memorande and Order of 8/17/82) have not been completed or even begun. The main differences are: (1) the barge facility and sewage treatment plant were not even started; (2) the area for the quarry was cleared and grubbed but quarrying was never started; and (3) the railroad bed was cleared, grubbed and leveled, but the ballast was 3
not applied.
The two recomended modifications to the redress plan are:
(1) DOE should report to NRC on the status of the site prior to starting the final filling, grading and redress since completion of redress will likely be delayed. The report at that time should include a schedule for specific final redress of the site, and (2) the redress plan should be revised as appropriate to reflect consideration of alternative use if the site is retained by DOE.
If another
.m i
E/i9 A.
r f, fu.
4 T. King f.I'.
user is not found, the immediate use of the site will be to. incorporate it into Oak Ridge's Forestry Management Program.
This usage might merit some revision to the redress plans.
For example, optimal forestry usage might make it desirable to retain one or more of the sedimentation ponds.
These ponds would also be beneficial for wildlife.
Additionally, for forestry management objectives, certain areas, such as the craft parking lot, might be of greater potential value if covered with soil to an appropriate depth rather than if left covered with limestone aggregate.
A second visit to the site was made on April 24, 1984 to accompany the intervenor's representative, Dr. Edward E. Clebsch.
Also present on this site visit was Mr. John Wojtowicz, a water quality expert with the State of Tennessee, Mr. George Edgar, lawyer for the applicants, Mr. Peter Gross and Mr. Jerry Wing of the CRBR Project Office, and Mr. Paul Leech, NRC.
This tour did not result in the identification of a need for a change in the redress plan.
- Thi.sl review was performed by G. LaRoche.
p 9M f '. :- cd by a
j y Ronald L. Ballard, Chief Environmental & Hydrologic Engineering Branch Division of Engineering cc:
S. Turk, ELD W. Johnston R. Samworth G. LaRoche DISTRIBUTION:
Docket Files EHEB Rdg EHEB File RBallard s_{
DE:EHEB /
DE:EHEB
- 7HEB n GlaRoche:ws RBSamworth RLBallar W 4/27/ 84 4/ /84 4A/84
..-e..-,,m
~ ~ -
-