ML22196A035
| ML22196A035 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 07/21/2022 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML22189A092 | List: |
| References | |
| M220721 | |
| Download: ML22196A035 (8) | |
Text
Doug True Sr. Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute July 21, 2022 Industry Perspectives on Part 53 NRC Commission Briefing
Context
©2022 Nuclear Energy Institute 3 Utility Carbon Emission Commitments Source: ABB Velocity Suite, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, utility press releases.
100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 CO2 Emissions (million metric tons)
AEP AES Alliant Ameren Avangrid Avista CenterPoint Energy CMS Energy ConEd Dominion DTE Energy Duke Energy Entergy Evergy Exelon FirstEnergy Green Mountain Power Idaho Power Madison Gas & Electric National Grid NextEra Energy NiSource NRG OG&E Energy PG&E Pinnacle West Platte River Power Authority PNM Resources Portland General Electric PPL PSEG Puget Sound Energy Sempra Energy Southern California Edison Southern Company Talen TVA Vistra Energy
©2022 Nuclear Energy Institute 4 Nuclear powers potential role in meeting their companys decarbonization goals:
Recent Survey of NEIs U.S. Utilities
- - NEI utility member companies produce nearly half of all US electricity
>90% of fleet expects to operate to at least 80 years 90 GW of new nuclear opportunity by 2050s Translates to nearly 300 SMR-scale plants SLR GW SMRs
©2022 Nuclear Energy Institute 5 Nominal 163 GW INL/DOE Model Triangulating on Nuclear Demand - Grid Only Nominal 400 GW 1,200 SMRs 200 GW 900 SMRs 100 GW 300 SMRs High Cost 57 GW 92 GW NEI Member Survey NEI Survey Scaled to All of U.S.
Nominal 133 GW 219 GW High Cost Nominal 60 GW 336 GW Constrained Vibrant Clean Energy Model SURVEY MODELING Installed New Capacity Number of 300MWe SMRs 300 GW 600 SMRs
Progress on Part 53
©2022 Nuclear Energy Institute 7 NRC Staff should be commended for commitment to Commission schedule and efforts to keep stakeholders informed on Staff direction
- Industry continues to desire NRC address major concerns regarding viability Inclusion of efficient alternative approaches is essential
- Insufficient time to fully assess Framework B, but currently it appears to not be technology-inclusive or performance-based, and unlikely to result in fewer exemptions than Parts 50/52 Industry feedback indicates that additional burden in Part 53, that does not enhance safety, makes it less desirable than Part 50/52 Progress to Date An unused Part 53 will not help meet our decarbonization objectives
©2022 Nuclear Energy Institute 8 What is best course to a Part 53 that will be used?
Does Part 53 achieve the needed efficiency?
Would a single framework, consistent with industry recommendations, be easier and quicker to develop?
Does Part 53 appropriately reduce burden on plants that can be shown to be substantially safer?
Does Part 53 facilitate or limit the export of U.S. technologies?
How will industry concerns on key open policy issues be addressed?
QHOs in Regulation, Facility Safety Program, ALARA, etc.
Key Commission Decisions Ahead