ML20198M939
| ML20198M939 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 01/09/1998 |
| From: | Larry Wheeler NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20198M942 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9801200169 | |
| Download: ML20198M939 (4) | |
Text
__
pa aug g*-
d UNITt*D STATES g
j NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION t
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20h0001 k.....
January 9, 1998 FACILITIES: Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtel) and U.S. Generating Company
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF MEETING WITH BECHTEL POWER CORPORATION AND U.S. GENERATING COMPANY ON POTENTIAL REGULATORY CONSIDERATIONS RELATED TO ESTADUSHit."3 FOSSIL FUELED POWER PLANTS AT DECOMMISSIONING NUCLEAR POWER PLANT SITES On December 9,1997, at 1:00 pm, the NRC staff met with representatives from Bechtel Power Corporation (Bechtei) and their business partner, U.S. Generating Company at NRC headquarters in Rockville, Meryland. The meeting was in response to an October 22,1997, letter to the NRC staff from Bechtel requesting a meeting to discuss regulatory requirements, processes and reviews reibted to the potential construction and operation of a fossil fired generating plant on an NRC licensed nuclear power reactor site. Enclosure 1 is a list of persons who attended the meeting. Enclosure 2 is the October 22,1997, letter.
Bechtel clarified that their interest was limited to only those nuclear power plants where the licensee gives notice of their intent to permanently cease power operations. No specific plant was identifiou during the meeting as a site where a fossil f acility wan planned.
Bechtel and U.S. Generating Co. provided their vislor' of how a fossil facility could replace an existing nuclear f acility (with fossil plant construction possibly taking place even during the final stages of nuclear plant operations). For example, the fossil plant would likely make little or no use of the nuclear island, but the sharing of existing cooling systems, switchyard and transmission lines, diesel generators and some buildings would likely become part of a fossil repowering program. It was also noted thtt the sharing of certain support services (i.e., fire brigado, security force) would also be considered. The existing main turbine would likely not be used by the fossil plant. A fundamental consideration by Bechtel and U.S. Generating for any fossil repowering project would be whether the candidate site was a single unit or a multi-unit nuclear f acili'y, The staff identified several potentialissues that would have to be evaluated as part of a fossil repowerino proposal. For example, there would be a need to be an evaluation of p//
possible new accident scenarios (such as leaking natural gas diffusing and exploding in the vicinity of the spent fuel pool, and hazards associated with construction, such as the proximity of hazardous construction materials or the potential for a construction crane to fallinto the switchyard or some otner part of the existing site). The staff also pointed out h- ((h that, considering the potential for certain nuclear plant systems to be shared, controls would have to be in place to ensure that modifications to the fossil plant do not invalidate q
the nuclear plant licensing basis, it was further noted that the impact of the fossil plant on grid stability would have to be evaluated, and General Design Criterion 17, with respect to y
j offsite power, still applies to nuclear plants that are shut down.
i
~
9001200169 900109 PDR TOPRP EECBECH d-.,_ h 2 thlik[
C PM
/
{ ((
h
-y
2-
' January 9,1998 There was no suggestion that the issues identified by the staff represented a comprehensive description of issues that would have to be addressed in a fossil repowering i
proposal. There was an attempt to identify one or more appropriate ways in which a.armal proposal should be forwarded to the NRC when the fossil repowering concept is sufficiently -
developed (such as in a topical report). However, there was insufficient information available at this meeting to address this interest in a meaningful way. The staff made the observation that, in spite of numerous uncertainti6s at 1 present time, there is no reason
. that the staff is aware of to rule out the possibility thLi a fossil repowering project can be successfully completed.
ORIGINAL SIGNED BY: S'Jeiss for Louis L. Wiimeler, Senior Project Manager fJon Power Raactors and Decommissioning Project Dir6 torate Division of Rea tor Program Management Office of Nuclet' Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated E-MAIL HARD COPY SCollins/FMiraglia EHylton DWheeler RZimmerman PUBLIC JRoe PDND r/f SWeiss AHodgdon, OGC NRC Participants JShepperd iCentral Files 3 DOCUMENT NAME: G.\\SECWWHEELERi1209MTG. SUM t
,.e.i
.. a.e thi. de. nn.at, inee.t. in the t I *o* - copy withoue encio.ur..
- - copy with.ncio.ur.. w - No copy
't l OFFICE PDND' PM l E POND /A lE PDND (A)SC 'l PDND'D M/_ ;
l l
l
' ] NAME DWheeler EM _ /
MMesnik p<T 4
- I swm y W l
l DATE I I l i l' / 'M i i % I 't 5'
( l 'YI l
OFFICIAL RECORD COPY '
n A
~~
. _. _ - - - _.. ~. - _ _ _ _.
)
i 2
)
There was no suggestion that the issues identified by the staff represented a comprehensive description of issues that would have to be adoressed in a fossil repowering proposal. There was an attempt to identify one or mere appropriate ways in which a forma!
proposal should be forwarded to the NRC when the fossil repowerir:g concept is sufficiently developed (such as in a topical report). However, there was insufficient information available at this meeting to address this interr'st in a meaningful way. The staff made the observation that, in spite of numerous unce'tainties at the present time, there is no reason
- that the staff is aware of to rule out the possibility that a fossil repowering project can be successfully completed, J
Louis L. Wheeler, Senior Project Manager Non Power Reactors and Decommistioning Project Directorate Division of Reactor Program Management -
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Enclosures:
As stated s
I 4
e f
J.
o i.+-p y
r r
y L
I BECHTEL' POWER CORPORATION and U.S. GENERATING COMPANY l
- MEETING WITH NRC STAFF
' DECEMBER 9,1997 LIST OF ATTENDEES hlflC S. Weiss NRC/NRR/DRPM/PDND, Director (301) 415 2170
- M. Masnik NRC/NRR/DRPM/PDND, Section Chief-(301) 415 1191
' T. Johnson NRC/NMSS/DWM, Section Chief (301) 415 7299
- P. Gill.
NRC/NRR/DE/EELB, Section Chief (301) 415 3316 L. Wheeler.
NRC/NRR/DRPM/PDND, Sr. Proj. Mgr.
(301) 415-1444-R. Dudley NRC/NRR/DRPM/PDND, Sr. Proj. Mgr.
(301) 415-1116-A. Hodgdon f6RC/OGC, Attorney (301) 415-1587 J. Tatum NRC/NRR/DSSA/SPLB, Sr. Rx, Sys. Engr.
(301) 415 2825 D. Jackson.
NRC/NRR/DSSA/SPLB, Rx Sys. Engr.
(301) 415-8548 R. Jenkins NRC/NRR/Dd/EELB, Electrical Engineer (301) 415 2985 T. Fredrichs NRC/NRR/DPRM/PDND, Proj. Mgr.
(301) 415 1112 J. Minns NRC/NRR/DRPM/PDND,' Proj. Mgr.
(301) 415 3166
+
R. Burrows NRC/NRR/DRPM/ POND, Proj. Mgr.
(301) 15-2497
' I-Bechtel Power Caro./U.S. Generatina Co.
D. McCormack U.S. Generating Co., Exec. Consultant (301) 280-6739 D. Beckham U.S. Generating Co. Director, Env. Lic.
(301) 280 6757 R.Ng Bechtel Power Corp., Principal F" 'ier (301) 228 6265 Public D. Stellfox McGraw Hill Compsnies, Inc.
(202) 383-2162 N.' Chapman Service for Evaluating Regulatory Changes (301) 417-3771 R. Schmidt.
NUS Information Services (301) 468-6425 4
y w.
.a-..
a
d-s Bechtel 5325 Spectrum D've Fredenck. Maryland 21703-8388 (301)417 3000 October 22,1997 Dr. Seymour H. Weiss Office of Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 24555
Dear Dr. Wc,
iss:
In accordance with a recent telephone discuccion with Mr. M. Macnile, we are reque< ting a meeting with the NRC
- staff to discuss the regulatory requirements, processes, and reviews related tn the potential construction and operations of a fossil fired generation plant on an NRC I; censed nuclear power reactor site.
Our sision is that a licensee would hav.: submitted certifications of permanent cessation of power operations and removal of the fuel from the reactor vessel prior to the operations of the fossil generation plant. The nuclear power plant may be operating during the construction of the fossil plant. We are also interested in discussing the regulatory implications of using select systems (e g., the senice water system or electrical switch yard) of the nuclear power plant, especially when a nuclear plant consists of multiple reactor units and some of which will continue to be operated at power. We would also like to explore options where the fossil plant is located in the radiation control area, restricted area, protected area, or owner controlled area of the NRC license plant site. The use of common site senices and facilities such as for fire protection, security, emergency response, emironmental and effluent monitoring is another area ofinterest.
We emision that the meeting should take no more than two hours. In addition to representatives from Bechtel Power Corporation, representatives from the US Generating Company, our business partner, would be attending and participa:irg in the meetirig.
Bechtel appreciates your consideration of this request. I have asked Mr. Ray Ng of the Bechtel staff to follow up with Mr. Masnik to arrange a date, time, and location for the meeting. We expect the meeting will be held in NRC
. offices in Rockville, Maryland.
If there are any questions conceming this letter, please do not hesitate to call me at (301) 228-6253.
. Sincerely.
h bYJJ(o L K. Fossum -
General Manager
. cc:-
M. Masnik R. McCormack, US Generating H. Rubin, US Generating
[cch% Power Corporallon