ML19242D087

Forwards Summary of Nov 1978 Meeting W/American Elec Power. Suggests That Util Be Contacted Re Status of Plans for Const of Proposed Plants

ML19242D087
Person / Time
Issue date:	07/18/1979
From:	Vassallo D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Koehne J - No Known Affiliation
References
PROJECT-666H NUDOCS 7908140489
Download: ML19242D087 (6)

Text

s,

/,L '/') ( g$

M j o arcoy fi

. k.,

UNITED STATES y y > v, c g

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g.) 7 ' y WASHINGTON D. C. 20555

'N.'... #

Jijt i 81979 Mr. John L. Koehne, Jr.

Route 1, Box 284 Shipman, Virginia 22971

Dear Mr. Koehne:

Your letter of June 21, 1979 to tne Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (formerly the Directorate of Licensing) inquired as to the status of and requested copies of correspondence concerning American Electric Power's (AEP) plans for a proposed nuclear power plant to be located in Nelson County, Virginia near Norwood.

Enclosed is a copy of a sumary of a meeting we held with AEP in November nf 1978.

You will note that at the time the meeting was held, the proposal for a nuclear plant was in the very early planning stages.

Our understanding f.s that AEP plans to submit in the spring of 1980 an application for early review of one or more site suitability issues related to the construction of a nuclear power plant.

However, since we have had no official confirmation of this in the past few months, you may wish to contact AEP directly regarding the status of their planr.

Sincerely,

/

/

D. B. Vassallo, Acting Director Division of Project Management Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation

Enclosure:

Meeting Summary dated January 3,1979 7908 9 9

tbRRECyg o

UNITED STATES

! jh,'ij,, y',h NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION g u [,/ - y WASWNG TON D. C. 20555

9. tM2 4

c

/

JAN 3

,979 4

+....

APPLICANT:

American Electric Power FACILITY:

Central Virginia 162

SUMMARY

OF llEETING WITH A3ERICAN ELECTRIC PCc.ER l

Representatives of American Electric Power (AEP) met with members of the staff on November 1, 1978 to discuss ASP plans for a nuclear plant, and associated facets of the NRC review process.

An attendance list is attached.

The major subjects discussed are summarized below.

1.

Standardi:ntion Prairam For informa tional purposes, the staf f reviewed brie fly its s tandard_:ation progran including the following principal area-:

i 1

I History of standardization I

Concepts of standardization l

NRC organization for review Examples I

Resultant reduction of effort Effect on schedules Recent changes to the standardi:c. tion program.

j 2.

AEP plans Eegarding i New Nuclear Blant I

AEP indicated a desire to improve their coal-nuclear power generation mix.

Toward this end, they propose undertaking a program to receive a construction permit for a nuclear plant probably in the central Virginia area.

After receiving a CP, a decision would then be j

made on building that plant, based on factors inciuling cost, schedule, and regulatory climate, which would all I

presumably be better defined at that time.

In order to benefit from the standardi:stion program,-

AEP has requested bids f om the feur domestic reactor uc.ndors based on the following " standard" plants:

Ccabustion Engineering Palo Verde Babcock 6 Nilcox Pebble Springs C rnc r ' E '. ^ c t r i c 5'.cgit r

West [nghouse

$NUPPS k.,-

l i a.

1

/

's s

i

JAN 3 1979 I i

i AEP is attempting to evaluate the licensability, operability, and constructability of such plants, as well as the potential for design duplication at the selected site.

Their generclized schedule.was tentatively identified as follows:

j I

5/1/79 Complete evaluation process, select " standard" plant design, select site, maHe initial decision to proceed further, 5/1/80 Tender application for CP.

j l

3.

Licensing Situation For possible Standard plant Designs A discussion ensued on the licensing situation for e

each standard plant candidate.

P 1o Verde 2

AEP is considering a design referencing CESSAR-80 with a custom balance-of-plant design, sinilar to Palo Verde.

Differences from Palo Verde would be identified in their application using color-coded pages in the PSAR.

It was noted that none of the Palo Verde plants are replicatable -- Units 1, 2 and 3 are too old (docketing nust be within 3 years of base plant SER), and Units 4 I

and 5 are themselves replicates and as such may not be again replicated.

However, if the application were to include a Syste: 30 NSSS and a custon 30P, our review would be somewhat simplified, and no questicas would be expected on the Systea-50 portion.

Skagit ALP would propose to replicate the entire Skagit plant.

'cie noted '. hat such an applicaticn would have to be docketed by 9/1/S0 (see above schedule), and as in all repl?. cations, it would be s ub_iec t t o a c u a1 lei c = H e s-

,~v s

n,

l l

l JAN 3 G79 l

Pebble Springs AEP had considered referencing BSAR-205 with a Pebble Springs BOP design.

We noted that Pebble Springs can no longer be replicated under our r'ules, and AEP then suggested the application night reference BSAR-205 with a custom design BOP which would however be the same as Pebble Springs.

This situation would be.similar to Palo Verde above, but we noted there could be additional interface problems since Pebble Springs did not reference BSAR-205.

SNUPPS It was pointed out that SNUPPS refers to RESAR-3, which is no longer replicatable.

Referencing the SNUPPS (or anyochhcr) FSAR for the AEP plant is not acceptable under our standardization policy.

RESAR-3S could be referenced with a BOP identical to the SNUPPS desica, which would be similar to the situation described under Palo Verde above-We pointed out that, in general, use of a well-known plant design (not a referenced standard) night he' beneficial if the design were recent.

Further discussions took place on a number of other questions on the various options under consideration.

We noted our willingness and availability to discuss the above or any other standardization alternatives at any time.

NUREG-0292 We indicated we would apply the features of NUREG-C:9:

to facilitate the review of thi plant.

The process should begin one year in advance of the expected tender l

of the applications, or appruximately April or May, 1979.

Our intent would be to maintain the same reviewers for the actual review as the pre-tendering effort, and both the safety and environmental aspects are ineluded in the entire process.

(The NRC intends to prepare further documentation within a few months to de fine our effort during the pre-tendi=ing phase.)

After tendering, i

I we would conduct an expanded 60-jay acceptance review, I

then issue an SER within six montns.

ihe hearing nrocaer would nr enn-<e en11ov Pe*an-;,'

ka-anis and prob 1das of near-site neethi ssand other features

of this~udocedure~were " dis cus s e dq, 7 d

L'. !

, g,. 3 gg i

, Siting l

AEP stated that a contractor has been surveying sites l

in central Virginia, mostly along the James and Roanoke rivers, but others as well.

Their criteria l

include enginerving, economic, environmental, and sociological factors.

One potential site was identified as an area at the confluence of the Tye and James rivers.

I We noted that the Environmental Report must identify and describe (reconaissance-level data) alternate sites resulting from the site-screening process.

It I

was suggested that a careful review be made of recent

{

hearing board decisions regarding region on interest, including Seabrook, Pilgrim 2, and also Bailly, St. Lucie 2, Midland, and Sterling.

These decisions indicate, among other things, that it must be shown that environmentally preferable sites which could satisfy I

the power demand are not precluded by selection of the region of interest.

(We noted that the staff is submitting to the Commission very soon a paper on this natter, and that Commission action may include open meetings and possible rule-making.)

Miscellaneous AEP asked what would be the minimum amount of meteorological data which could be acceptable by docketing, considering i

i hhe shortended review time contemplated.

(In a subsequent telephone conversation, we informed AEP that 6 months of 90% recovery data is the minimum required, but that less than one year of data may necessitate assumptions by the staff which mibht unnecessarily penalize the design.)

Closing remarks were made by AEP and the staff.

Staff contacts at this time were identified as follows:

Environmental:

Bennett L. Harless (EPM)

William H.

Regan, Chief, Environmental Projects 3 ranch No. 2 e

p, f

f 'h a I

6 =

• s

.l: r..' b lir a

/

.S.

Safety:

Harley Silver (LPM)

Domenic B. Vassallo, Assistant Director for Light Water Reactors, DPM l

Griginal signed by:

II. Silver i

Harley Silver, Project >!anager i

Light Water Reactors Branch.No.

4 Division of Proj ect Stanagement rt h U fI

_.