ML20148U438

NRC Needs More Definitive Info to Support Utils Alternative Site Analysis & a Demonstration That Site Selection Methodology Remains Valid in View of Plant Deferral

ML20148U438
Person / Time
Site:	05000449, 05000448
Issue date:	11/29/1978
From:	Ballard R Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
To:	Scoville J POTOMAC ELECTRIC POWER CO.
References
NUDOCS 7812070049
Download: ML20148U438 (4)

Text

.-

w p Rig b

o UNITED STATES fyy h Q 3 gm g poghj f"

~

'^

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

'~

{ ;-

WASHINGTON, D. C. 20555 t

o.% -

/

NOV 2 31978 Docket Nos. 50-448 and 50-449 Potomac Electric Power Company ATTN:

J. J. Scoville, Vice President Nuclear Engineering and Environmental Affairs 1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, D. C. 20006 Gentlemen:

As you may be aware, recent licensing proceedings (e.g., Seabrook and Piigrim) have placed increased emphasis on the rationale and support of the site selection process utilized for location of nuclear power plants.

Tqis, in turn, has necessitated staff review of the site selection process and choice of siting alternatives for other nuclear power plant projects which are currently active.

In our review of Douglas Point, we note that one of the four principal criteria utilized in the candidate site selection process was that the site be suitable for development and construction leading to initial power generation in 1979-80. With deferral of construction this criterion would no longer be applicable. Our review further indichtes that serious consideration of certain geographic regions was foregone on the basis of the now inapplicable criterion, and that some of 13 site regions which were initially examined were ultimately rejected on this basis.

The staff has determined that in view of the record and recent Appeal Board decisions, additional and more definitive information is needed to support the alternative site analysis for Douglas Point. The staff will require sufficient information to assure itself through independent evaluation as to the adequacy of the site selection process to identify alternative candidate sites that are among the best that could reasonably have been found. Therefore, it is necessary that you demonstrate that your site selection methodology remains valid in view of plant deferral.

As a matter of information, it should be pointed out that under the early site review (ESR) procedure, a choice is provided as to the number and type of site related. issues to be covered.

You may wish to consider the elimination of alternate sites from the ESR, and limit the application to matters such as hydrology and geology. However,

-78120700%

p

Potomac Electric Power Company NOV 2 91973 should you decide to proceed with alternative site issues under the prese t ESR, it is necessary that we receive an explanation of the methodology used in the site selection process with full supportive information. This more definite explanation of methodology encompasses a satisfactory reply to comments on the site selection process made within this letter.

Please advise this office as to your intentions in proceeding with alternate site issues under the present ESR, and your anticipated schedule for providing the NRC staff with a more definitive description of the methodology used in this site selection process. Assuming a complete response, the staff anticipates its re-analysis of alternate sites to require three to four months of effort which includes the preparation of testimony on this subject.

Should you have any questions, please contact Mr. Richard Watkins, the Project Manager for Douglas Point. We may be reached at (301) 492-8430.

Sincerely, c'

f.-

Ronald L.'Ballard, Chief Environmental Projects Branch 1 Division of Site Safety and Environmental Analysis cc: See next page

Potomac Electric Power Company Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station

~ Docket Nos. 50-448 & 50-449 George F. Trowbridge, Esquire Philip J. Mause, Esquire Shaw, Pittman, Potts & Trowbridge Environmental Defense Fund 1800 M Street, N. W.

152518th Street, N. W.

Washington, D. C. 20036 Washington, D. C.

20036 Alan G. Kirk II, Esquire Honorable Andrew P. Miller Vice President & General Counsel Attorney General Potomac Electric Power Company Commonwealth of Virginia 1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

1101 East Broad Street Washington, D. C.

20006 Richmond, Virginia 23219 J. Philip Smith, Esquire Mr. Edward J. Wojciechowicz Potomac Electric Power Company Route 1, Box 248 1900 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.

White Plains, Maryland 20695 Washington, D. C.

20006 A. Kevin Fahey, Esquire The Honorable Edward Lawson Headquarters, U. S. Marine Corps Special Assistant Attorney General Counsel for the Commandant Department of Natural Resources Washington, D. C.

20380 Tawes State Office Building (C-4) 580 Taylor Avenue The Prince George's Environment Annapolis, Maryland 21401 Coalition Box 61 The Honorable Frederick S. Fisher Hyattsville, Maryland 20781 Assistant Attorney General Commonwealth of Virginia John K. Keane, Jr., Esquire 1101 East Broad Street People's Counsel Richmond, Virginia 23210 Eastern Building - Suite 100 5010 Sunnyside Avenue Robert A. Vanderbye, Esquire Beltsville, Maryland 20705 7807 Cliffside Court Springfield, Virginia 22153 Elizabeth S. Bowers, Esq. Chairman Atomic Safety and Licensing Board f$foraCleanPotomac U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission tizen o

Washington, D. C. 20555 3720 Finsbury Park Drive Silver Spring, Maryland 20902 Mr. Glenn 0. Bright Atomic Safety and Licensing Board William H. Carroll', Jr.

Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Co M ssion Headquarters, U. S. Marine Corps Washington, D. C. 20555 Counsel for the Commandant Washington, D. C.

20380 Dr. Richard F. Cole Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Frederick.Xelly, Esquire U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 15 School Street Washington, D. C. 20555 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 J

Douglas Point Nuclear Generating Station Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regula3ory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Dr. John H. Buck Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555 Richard R. Salzman, Esq.

Atomic Safety & Licensing Appeal Board U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C. 20555