ML19263B214
| ML19263B214 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Palo Verde, 05000514, 05000000, 05000545, Skagit |
| Issue date: | 01/03/1979 |
| From: | Silver H Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901150016 | |
| Download: ML19263B214 (6) | |
Text
.
b UNITE D STATES M
3 ko.f;,k NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION e
j WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t %'
SN3 1979
.c APPLICANT:
American Electric Power FACILITY:
Central Virginia 162
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER Representatives of American Electric Power (AEP) met with members of the staf f on November 1, 1978 to discuss AEP 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.
Standardization Program For informational purposes, the staf f reviewed briefly its standardization program including the following principal areas:
History of standardization Concepts of standardization NRC organization for review Examples Resultant reduction of effort Effect on schedules Recent changes to the standardization program.
2.
AEP Plans Regarding A New Nucicar Plant AEP indicated a desire to improve their coal-nuclear p wer 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 made on building that plant, based on factors including cost, schedule, and regulatory climate, which would all presumably be better defined at that time.
In order to benefit from the standardization program, AEP has requested bids from the four domestic reactor vendors based on the following " standard" plants:
Combustion Engineering Palo Verde go'g y Babcock 6 Wilcox Pebble Springs 77,
50Ff g General Electric Skagit P
Westinghouse SNUPPS
{7 S o 55V' 79011500/6 ho-K
JM 9 NlQ
. AliP 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 generalized schedule was tentatively identified as follows-5/1/79 Complete evaluation process, select " standard" plant design, select site, make initial decision to proceed further, 5/1/80 Tender application for CP.
3.
Licensing Situation For Possible Standard plant Designs A discussion ensued on the licensing situation for each standard plant candidate.
Palo Verde AFP is considering a design referencing CESSAR-80 with a custom balance-of-plant design, similar to Palo Verde.
Differences from Palo Verde would be identi fied in their application using color-coded pages in the PSAR.
It was noted that none of the Palo Verde plants are replicatable -- linits 1,
2 and 3 are too old (docketing must be within 3 years of base plant SER), and Units 4 and 5 are themselves replicates and as such may not be again replicated.
However, if the application were to include a System 80 NSSS and a custom BOP, our review would be somewhat simplified, and no questions would be expected on the System-80 portion.
Skagit_
AliP would propose to replicate the entire Skagit plant.
We noted that such an application would have to be docketed by 9/1/80 (see above schedule), and as in all replications, it would be subject to a qualification review.
_3_
v1 9 lm Pehhle Springs AEP had considered re ferencing BSAR-205 with a Pebble Springs BOP design.
We noted that Pebble Springs can no longer be replicated under our rules, and AEP then suggested the application might re fe rence 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 r,roblems since PebbJe Springs did not re ference BSAR-205.
SNUPPS It was pointed out that SNUPPS re fers to RESAR-3, which is no longer replicatable.
Referencing the SNUPPS (or any o ther) FSAR for the AEP plant is not acceptable under our standardization policy.
RESAR-3S could be referenced with a BOP identical to the SNUPPS design, which would be similar to the situation described under Palo Verde above.
We pointed out that, in general, use o f a well-known plant design (not a re ferenced standard) might be beneficial i f the design were recent.
Further discussions took place on a number of other ques t ions 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 feature, o f NUREG-029 2 to facilitate the review o f this plant.
The process should begin one year in advance of the expected tender of the applications, or approximately April or May, 1979.
Our intent would he to maintain the same reviewers fo r the actual review as t he pre-tendering e f fort, and hoth the safety and environmenta1 aspects a;.
included in che entire process.
(The NRC intends to prepare further documenta t ion within a few months to define our e f fort during the pre-tendering phase.)
Af ter tende ring, we would conduct an expanded 60-day acceptance review, then issue an SER within six months.
The hearing process would of course follow.
Potential benefits and problems of near-site meetings and other features of this procedure were discussed.
JnN 3
- U3 4
Siting AEP stated that a contractor has been surveying sites in central Virginia, mostly along the James and Roanoke rivers, but others as well.
Their criteria include engineering, economic, envi ronmen t a l, and sociological factors.
One potential site was identified as an area at the confluence of the Tye and James rivers.
We noted that the Environmental Report must identify and describe (reconaissance-level data) alternate It sites resulting f r om the s ite-screening process.
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 the power demand are not precluded by select ion o f the region of interest.
(We noted that the staff is submitting to the Commission very soon a paper on this matter, and that Commission action may include open meetings and possible rule-making.)
Miscellaneous AliP asked what would be the minimum amount of meteorological data which could be acceptable by docketing, considering the shortended review time contemplated.
(In a subsequent we informed AEP that 6 months t e l ephone conve rs a t i<..t,
of 90; recovery data is the minimum required, but that less than one year of data may necessitate asrumptions by the staf f which might unnecessarily penalize the v ign.)
Staff Closing remarks were made by AEP and the sta f f.
contacts at this time were identified as follows:
lin v i ronment a l :
Bennett L. liaricss (EPM)
W i l l i am 11. Regan, Chie f, Environmental Projects Branch No. 2
M'
^,
Safety:
liarley Silver (LPM)
Domenic B. Vassallo, Assistant Di rector
-t_rs, DPM for Ligh t Water Ret o
d ta
- //
i.
liarley, Silver, Pr6j6~ct h ger Light Kater Reactors Branch No. 4 Divi. ion of Project Management
e r.. i 3
- p; Al.1-
- NRC MiiliT INC November 1, 1978
- 11. Silver NRC J.
IIe l t eme s NRC V.
Moore NPC h'. Regan,.i r.
NRC S.
Groves Bechtel R.
Vassar Bechtel
.I. Ilu r l ey Bechtel
.I. Del Percio AEPSC J. O'Neill
- haw, Pittman R..lurgensen AEP B.
lia r l e s s NRC S.
Varga NRC M.
Karman NRC R.
Boyd NRC F.
Schroeder NRC R.
1)cYoung NRC S.
Milioti AEP G.
Charnoff Shaw, Pittman D.
Bauer AEP J.
Ti11inghast AEP
.I.
Dolan AEP D.
Muller NRC D.
Vassallo NPC h'. Kane NRC M.
Frnst NPC
A f1E E T iliG, sum!!ARY
.f Af1 3 1979 y [ DockcLfile i
fiRC PDR '
f
~~ L oc: 'PDR Tl!
fiRh Reading IWR #4 file E. Case R. Boyd R. DeYoung D. Vassallo J. Stolz K. Kniel 0 Parr S. Varga
- l.. Crocker D. Crutchfielri F. Willianr.
R. l4attson li. Denton D. lioller Project flanager:
II. Silver Attor ney, ELD fi. Service IE (3)
ACRS (16) 1.. Dreher S. Rubenstein flRC
Participants:
J. IIeltemes V. Moore W.
R e y,a n it. liarless M.
Karman 1:. Schroeder it. 1)efoung 11 Muller W.
Kane M.
lirnst W. Gammi11