ML20107M941

Response to Motion to Dismiss Proceeding Re Revocation of Lwa.Authorization of Revocation of LWA & That Proceedings Be Dismissed W/O Prejudice Recommended.Certificate of Svc Encl

ML20107M941
Person / Time
Site:	Clinch River
Issue date:	11/08/1984
From:	Sherwin Turk ENERGY, DEPT. OF, CLINCH RIVER BREEDER REACTOR PLANT
To:	Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
References
CON-#484-111 CP, NUDOCS 8411140354
Download: ML20107M941 (8)

Text

__

' 'I 11/08/84 k

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA r m :-

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD ' 713 P1 :C5 In the Matter of )

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROJECT PANAGEMENT CORPORATION ) Docket No. 50-537-CP (TENhESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY )

)

(Clinch River Breeder Reactor Plant) )

NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PROCEEDING On October 19, 1984, Applicants United States Department of Energy (D0E), Project Management Corporation (PMC), and the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) filed " Applicants' Motion to Dismiss Proceeding" (" Motion"),

in which they requested that the " Board authorize revocation of the LWA, and the proceedings be dismissed without prejudice, subject to the condi-tions set forth in the redress plan and the Staff's letter approving that plan," referring to Attachments A and E to their Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the NRC Staff (" Staff") supports the Applicants' Motion and recommends that the Board authorize revocation of the LWA and that these proceedings be dismissed without prejudice, subject to the condi-tions set forth in the Applicants' final site redress plan and the Staff's letter approving that plan (see Attachments A and E to Applicants' Motion),

and ' subject to the additional assurances contained in Attachments 2 and 3 hereto.

okk 0 O s  ;

In their Motion, the Applicants correctly recite the fact that their final site redress plan was submitted for Staff review by letter of March 5, 1984 (see Attachment A to Applicants' Motion), and that the Staff approved that plan, subject to certain conditions, as set forth in a letter dated June 6, 1984 (Attachment E to Applicants' Motion). 1/ In addition, the Applicants recite the fact that "D0E and TVA have executed a Supplemental Agreement under which DOE agreed to redress the site and obligated the funding necessary to effectuate redress," referring to Attachment F to their Motion (Motion, at 2).

In reviewing the documents attached to Applicants' Motion, the Staff noted that certain provisions contained in the site redress plan approved by the Staff are not explicitly recited in the Supplemental Agreement executed between DOE and TVA, nor are they recited in the earlier Task Force report attached to and cited in that Agreerrent (Attachment F to Applicants' Motion and Exhibit B thereto). Because of these apparent inconsistencies, as set forth in Attachment I hereto, the Staff has sought additional assurances from DOE and TVA as to their commitment to comply with the provisions of the final site redress plan and the Staff's approval thereof. By letters dated November 6 and 7, 1984, DOE and TVA have now provided the additional assurances requested by the Staff (see Attachments 2 and 3 hereto). Both DOE and TVA state that they are com-mitted to redress the site in accordance with their final site redress 1/ The Staff's letter approving the Applicants' site redress plan subject to certain conditions, attached to Applicants' Motion as Attachment E, was transmitted to the Licensing Board by letter dated June 18, 1984.

~

plan and the conditions stated in the Staff's approval thereof, and that the plan and the Staff's approval thereof "will be controlling" over the Supplemental Agreement and will " govern site redress" (Id.).

Based upon the additional assurances which have now been provided by DOE and TVA, as set forth in Attachments 2 and 3 hereto, the Staff does not oppose the Applicants' Motion. Accordingly, the Staff recom-mends that the Licensing Board authorize revocation of the LWA and that these proceedings be dismisseo without prejudice, subject to the con-ditions set forth in the Applicants' final site redress plan and the Staff's letter approving that plan (Attachments A and E to Applicants' Motion), and subject to the additional assurances contained in Attach-ments 2 and 3 hereto.

Respectfully submitted, Ahd TL Sherwin E. Turk Deputy Assistant Chief Hearing Counsel Dated at Bethesda, Maryland this 6th day of November 1984

'. Attachment 1 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN NRC APPROVED CRBR SITE REDRESS PLAN

~

AND DOE /TVA/PMC SITE REDRESS PLANNING TASK FORCE REPORT

~

'8.j .

A comparison of the requirements for CRBR site redress, as stated iri the;,

CRBR Site Redress Plan .(approv2d by NRC on 6/6/84), versus the requirements'S stated in the DOE /TVA/PMC CRBR Site Redress Planning Task Force Report (referenced in the August 31, 1984 agreement between DOE and TVA on redress of the CRBR site) indicate apparent differences. These differences are listed below and are all of the nature of specific commitments which '

appear in the NRC approved plan but are not contained in the DOE /TVA/PMC report:

NRC APPROVED PLAN DOE /TVA/PMC REPORT Pgs.12-13, Section 5.2 includes criteria requiring:

a) surface stabilization to Not Included assure erosion control, b) de-energizing and removing the on-site Not Included meteorological station.

Pgs.15-17, Section 5.6 includes comitments requiring:

a) grading and seeding to limit erosion Not Included and transport of sediment, b) access to the Hensley Cemetery be Not Included maintained during redress activities, c) excavation from borrow areas in such Not Included a fashion as to prevent run-off directly into the Clinch River, d) compaction of filled in areas, Not Included e) removal of foundations for temporary Not Included buildings and batch plant, f) stabilization of re-graded areas Not Included by seeding or with aggregate, g) removal of treatment ponds after Not Included site has stabilized, h) inclusion of the site in the DOE Not Included forestry management program.

Attachment 2 Department of Energy

• Ook Ridge Operations '

P. O. Box U Ook Ridge, Tennessee 37831 November 6, 1984 'M P! 13 P1 :05 Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555

Dear Mr. Denton:

With regard to Docket No. 50-537CP, this is to clarify and reaffirm our commitments in regard to redress of the Clinch River site. We are committed to redress the site in accordance with' the final site redress plan submitted by letter dated March 5, 1984 (Attachment A to Applicant's Motion to Dismiss Proceeding, dated October 19, 1984), and the staff's letter approving that plan, dated June 6, 1984 (Attachment E to Applicant's October 19 Motion). In the event of any inconsistency between Exhibit B to Attachment F of Applicant's October 19 Motion and Attachments A and E thereto, we confirm our commitment that Attachments A and E will be controlling over Attachment F and govern site redress.

Sincerely, J. 6ULA)

Stanley W. Ahrends Acting Director CRBRP Project cc: Service List

Attachment 3 TENNESSEE VAM.EY AUTHoCtry moxviu.r. mNcour s7eos WOV 7 1984

's ' 13 P175 h

Mr. Harold R. Denton, Director Office of Nuclear Rasetor Regulation U.S. Noelear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 Re: Dociet No. 50-537CP

Dear Mr. Denton:

This is to claeify and reaffirm TVA's comLitments in regard to redress of the Clinch River Breeder Esactor Project site. Applicants, including, as Compplicant, T7A, have comitted to redress of the site in accordance with the final site redress plan submitted by letter dated March 5, 1984 (Attachment A to Applicants' Nation to Disales Proceeding dated October 19, 1984) and the Staff's letter approving that plan dated June 6, 1984 (Attachment E to Applicants' October 19 Motion). In the event of any inconsistency between Exhibit B to Attachment F of Applicants' October 19 Motion (Supplessental Agreseent between **fA and DOE

• dated August 31, 1944) and Attachments A and E thereto, we confirm our commitment that Attachments A and E will be controlling over Attachment F and govern site redress.

Sincerely, W. F. Willis 4 -

General Manager cc: Service List l

1 i

An Es.e4 Cocorbnity Emptcyw

, - , , . - - , - - .,, -- , -,g,--m- .. - - . - , , ,_m .,.-s, -.-. w. - ., -+.-,,,.,,m-, --..-y ,--, - - . , ,c, -w--

v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOAR 63? ,?/13 P1 :05 In the Matter of ) ,

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 1 Docket No. 50-537 PROJECT MANAGEMENT CORPORATION )

TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY )

(ClinchRiverBreederReactorPlant) )

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that copies of "NRC STAFF'S RESPONSE TO APPLICANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS PROCEEDING" in the above-captioned proceeding have been served on the following by deposit in the United States mail, first class or, as indicated by an asterisk, through deposit in the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's internal mail system, this 8th day of November, 1984.

Marshall Miller, Esq., Chairman

• William M. Leech, Jr., Attorney General Administrative Judge William B. Hubbard, Chief Deputy Atomic Safety and: licensing Board Attorney General U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Michael D. Pearigen, Assistant Attorney Washington, DC 20555 General

. . Michael E. Terry, Esq.

Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger* 450 James Robertson Parkway Administrative Judge Nashville, TN 37219 Atomic Safety and Licensing Board U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Lawson McGhee Public Library Washington, DC 20555 500 West Church Street Knoxville, TN 37902 Dr. Cadet H. Hand, Jr., Director Administrative Judge R. Tenny. Johnson Bodega Marine Laboratory . Leon Silverstrom University of California Warren E. Bergholz, Jr.

P. O. Box 247 William D. Luck Bodega Bay, CA 94923 U.S. Department of Energy 1000 Independence Ave., S.W.

William E. Lantrip, Esq.

Room 6-B-256 City Attorney Washington, DC 20585 Municipal Building i P. O. Box 1 Project Management Corporation l Oak Ridge, TN 37830 P. O. Box U Oak Ridge, TN 37830 1

l

2. -

George L. Edgar Director Thomas A. Schnotz Clinch River Breeder Reactor Newman and Holtzinger, P.C. Plant Project Suite 1000 1615 L Street, N.W. U.S. Department of Energy Washington,, DC 20636 Washington, DC 20585

~.

Barbara A. Finamore Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Dr. Thomas B. Cochran Board

• S. Jacob Scherr U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comission Natural Resources Defense Washington, DC 20555 Council, Inc.

1725 Eye Street, N.W. Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

• Washington, DC 20006 U.S. huclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 Manager of Power .

Tennessee Valley Authority Docketing and Service Section*

819 Power Building Office of the Secretary Chattanooga, TN 37401 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555 hdad) N WR Sherwin E. Turk Counsel for NRC Staff k

9 l

l

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _