ML19289C535
| ML19289C535 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Allens Creek File:Houston Lighting and Power Company icon.png |
| Issue date: | 01/08/1979 |
| From: | Froelich R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 7901170297 | |
| Download: ML19289C535 (3) | |
Text
,
Q
. y j,?x : t~/
4 UNITED STATES
<(l'.i
/
t NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION j
j wassincron, o. c. 20sss
^ %f./ I q%..... '
JAN 81979 DOCKET flUMBER: 50-466 APPLICANT:
Houston Lighting and Power Company FACILITY:
Allens Creek fluclear Generating Station Unit No.1
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF JANUARY 3, 1979 MEETIf1G INTRODUCTION The NRC staff met with representat'ives of the Houston Lighting and Power Company (HL&P) on January 3, 1979, in the NRC staff offices in Bethesda, Maryland. The purpose of the meeting was to outline the. staff's require-ments for additional data relative to specific alternative sites to the Allens Creek site, and to determine what additional specific site data, if any, were available from HL&P.
BACKGROUND The staff had informally notified HL&P on December 12, 1978, that additional staff analyses of specific alternative sites to the Allens Creek site would probably be required. This aosition was further explained to HL&P repre-sentatives on December 20, 19/8, at which time it was agreed to sched'ule a meeting to discuss the staff's needs. The meeting.was set for January 3, 1979, and a meeting notice was subsequently issued. On December 29, 1978, the staff received a document from HL&P entitled " Nuclear Power Plant Siting Study" with the message that this study was to be considered at the January 3 meeting.
MEETING
SUMMARY
The staff explained that although HL&P had adequately defined a region of interest and candidate areas within that region, several of the areas had been evaluated only on the basis of their general characteristics. The staff had determined that there were no apparent attributes of these candidate areas that would suggest that sites obviously superior to the Allens Creek site could be identified. However, we had recently concluded that additional deomonstration of this conclusion would be needed. Barring special circumstances, tnis additional demonstration would require the ider.tification and evaluation of specific alternative sites in each of these areas. Those candidate areas requiring specific site information were identified.
HL&P discussed the nuclear power plant siting study, and. observed that the study did identify specific sites in some of these areas. The study was reviewed, and it was concluded that with two principal exceptions, specific 790117o;t37
P 2-sites for the candidate areas of concern were aow identified and could be evaluated by the staff. HL&P agreed to provide a specific site for one area, but argued that for the other area (the San Jacinto Basin),
no water could be made available for power plant cooling, and thus that no sites could be identified. The staff accepted this argument subject to an independent verification of water availability in this basin.
HL&P was informed that we will establish a schedule for our visits to selected alternative sites identified in the nuclear power pl utt siting study after we have completed our analysis of this document. n;&P was instructed to make a copy of the document available in the local Public Document Room.
/
'* j,y/
J r,-
R. W. Froelic, Project Manager Environmental Projects Branch 1 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis
Enclosure:
List of Attendees
ATTEilDEE LIST, ALLEt15 CREEK ALTERf1ATIVE SITE MEETIrlG
~JAtlUARY 3, 1979 R.W. Froelich NRC R.W. Felton TERA Corp.
R.L. Ballard flRC E.A. Turner HL&P F.J. Hebdon flRC W.F. McGuire HL&P S. Schinki flRC D.R. Betterton HL&P J. Cannon ORf!L C.T. Biddle Baker & Botts R.H. Culp Lowenstein, flewman J.R. flewman Lowenstein, fler.Tnan
___ _