ML19329F863
| ML19329F863 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 05000463, 05000464 |
| Issue date: | 06/25/1980 |
| From: | John Miller Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Everett J PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8007110274 | |
| Download: ML19329F863 (4) | |
Text
.
L..
[(y** **%e g
,9, UNITED STATES
')er j
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
- /^.C WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555
%,' 8O JUN 2 51930 Docket Nos. 50-463 and 50-464 Philadelphia Electric Company ATTN: Mr. J. L. Ever9tt, President 2301 Market Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19101 Gen timen:
On December 29, 1978, the application of Philadelphia Electric Company to construct a nuclear power plant at the Fulton Site was amended to seek only an adjudicatory early site suitability review. The NRC staff considered the amended application and informally advised Mr. George Hunger of your staff early in 1979 that the application was not acceptable to docket because of deficiencies in the discussion of alternative sites and thus the staff did not initiate a detailed review.
In order for your application for an early site review to u acceptable for docketing, the discussion of alternative sites should be expanded in accordance with the new guidance set forth in the Proposed Rule on Alter-native Site Reviews (45 F.R. 24168, April 9,1980). The principal defect in the submittal is that the selected region of interest fails to meet diversity criteria as set forth in the rule. The staff also needs responses to other questions on alternative sites listed in the enclosure.
In the event that you wish to pursue your early site suitability review application to docketing, we require that you provide responses to the questions concerning alternative sites provided in the enclosure.
If you intend to pursue your application, please advise me of your schedule for submitting the required information.
Sincerel y,
/- ;
sg ;crV' c-7 James R4; Mitier, Chief
/
Standiritu tion and Special M-
. Projects Branch Division of Licensing Office of Neulear Reactor Regulation
Enclosure:
Questions cc: See attached sheet l
80 0 7110 77Y A
Philadelphic Electric Company cc: Mr. Hugh K. Clark, Chairman Gilbert G. Malone, Esq.
P. O. Box 127A Ports, Beers, Feldmann & Malone Kennedyville, MD 21645 145 East Market Street York, PA 17401 Dr. Donald P. deSylva Associate Professor of Marine Theodore A. Adler, Esq.
Science Widoff, Reager, Selkowitz Rosentiel School of Marine and
& Adler Atmospheric Science P. O. Box 1547 University of Miami Harrisburg, PA 17105 Miami, FL 33149 Edward F. Lawson, Esq.
Mr. Gustave A. Linenberger Special Assistant Attorney General Atanic Safety and Licensing Board Department of Natural Resources U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Tawes State Office Building Washington, DC 20555 Annapolis, MD 21401 Lawrence Sager, Esq.
Executive Director Sager & Sager Associates Susquehanna River Basin 45 High Street Commission Pottstown, PA 19464 1721 N. Front Street Harrisburg, PA 17102 York Committee for a Safe Environment George L. Boomsma Dr. Chauncey R. Kepford Save Solanco Environment 433 Orlando Avenue Conservation Fund State College, PA 16801 P. O. Box 64 Quarryville,PA 17566 Eugene J. Bradley, Esq.
Philadelphia Electric Company James A. Humphreys, III 2301 Market Street Barley, Snyder, Cooper & Barber Philadelphia, PA 19101 115 E. King Street Lancastar, PA 17602 Dr. A. Dixon Callihan Union Carbide Corporation Mr. Walden S. Randall P. O. Box Y Riverhill Farm Oak Ridge, TN 37830 R.D. #2 Holtwood, PA 17532 Donald P. Irwin, Esq.
Michael W. Maupin, Esq.
Jean Royer Kahr, Esq.
George C. Freeman, Jr., Esq.
Minney, Mecum & Kohr Hunton & Williams 150 E. Chestnut Street P. O. Box 1535 Lancaster, PA 17602 Richmond, VA 23212 I
Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel W. Jeffrey Sidebottom, Esq.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Barley, Snyder, Cooper & Barber Washington, DC 20555 115 East King Street Lancaster, PA 17602 Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Panel U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, CC 20555 i
ENCLOSURE OUESTIONS REGARDING ALTERNATIVE SITES 1.
According to the Proposed Rale,Section V, 3 (FR 25, 24168, April 9,1980),
the region of interest should be chosen so as to FFoxide a diversity of water sources. This criterion could be met by expanding the proposed region of interest about 30 miles to the east and south to include the coastal areas of Delaware Bay and the Atlantic Ocean. Potential sites near these water sources should be included in the alternative site review.
2.
The alternative site review should include consideration of placing additional reactor units at existing reactor sites, for example, at Hope Creek, Salem, Summit and Peach Bottom. Review these alternatives according to the procr.Mes described in the Proposed Rule.
3.
The discussion in the ESER of alternative sites along the Susquehanna is too brief to pemit the staff to independently evaluate their candidacy.
These sites include Michael's Run, Peach Bottom, Broad Creek, Berkeley, Erb's Mill, Fishing Creek, Muddy Run and Conowingo Creek. More detail should be provided for each site, using all of the criteria listed in the Proposed Rule,Section VI, 2.
4 Explain why the transmission line cor-idor shown in Figure 9.2-2 of the ER passing near the Tohickon site and labelled, "To Branchburg Public Service Electric and Gas Co.", cannot be used for a plant at Tchickon or at other nearby possible alternative sites: New Hope and Washington's Crossing. How would this affect transmission costs?
5.
Explain the problems of using make-uo water for the Chester County or Ranch sites from the proposed Mason-Dixon pipeline. Are there uncertain-ties regarding construction of the pipeline or possible use of the water?
5.
For several potential sites (Seneca Point, Pine Forge, New Hope and Washington's Crossing), the discussions were conclusionary rather than evidentiary. Provide the detail according to all of the criteria listec in the Proposed Rule,Section VI, 2, backing up the conclusions drawn.
(For example, explain what is meant by
- unsuitable topography", " extensive shoreline erosion", order of magnitude of "high" transmission costs, why the Schuylkill River is not a reliable water source for Pine Forge, and approximate dollar estimates of extra costs for the New Hope site.)
7.
Explain why some of the alternative sites for the previously proposed Perryman nuclear plant (Evaluation of Alternative Sites - Perryman Early Site Review, NRC, November 1977) were not included in the consideration
,~
. of alternative sites for the Fulton plant. Scrre of these sites are within the region of interest (See Figure A.5, Page A-9 of the Perryman evaluation).
8.
Provide updated infomation on the availability of the Bainbridge site for power plant development.
9.
How does the Region of Interest selected by the applicant relate to the power pool region and electrical reliability council region with which the applicant is associated? Identify any deficient power areas within the region of interest.
- 10. Demonstrate, using available reconnaissance level infomation in accordance with the guidance in the Proposed Rule, why the 49 pond-lake sites were eliminated as candidate sites.
.