ML032100049

Resolution of Early Site Permit Topic 22, Form and Content of an Early Site Permit

ML032100049
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date:	09/03/2003
From:	Lyons J E NRC/NRR/NRLPO
To:	Simard R L Nuclear Energy Institute
Gilles N V, NRR/DRIP/RNRP, 415-1180
References
Download: ML032100049 (8)

Text

September 3, 2003Dr. Ronald L. Simard Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 1776 I Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20006-3708

SUBJECT:

RESOLUTION OF EARLY SITE PERMIT TOPIC 22, FORM AND CONTENT OFAN EARLY SITE PERMIT

Dear Dr. Simard:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of our understanding and expectations regarding theform and content of an early site permit (ESP), and the nature of envisioned NRC findings for an ESP that is based on the plant parameters envelope (PPE) approach (generic topic ESP-6).

This topic, which is identified as ESP-22 on the list of Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) generic ESP issues, was discussed at public meetings between August 22, 2002, and March 5, 2003.

Subsequently, NEI documented its position on this topic in a letter dated April 30, 2003. In your April 30, 2003, letter, you indicated that the NRC staff has agreed that, "ESP applicantsmay use the PPE approach as a surrogate for actual facility information to support required safety and environmental reviews" (Letter to R. Simard, February 5, 2003, on the subject "Resolution of Early Site Permit Topic 6 (ESP-6), Use of Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE)

Approach").

You also indicated that, in discussions on the PPE approach, the pilot ESPapplicants emphasized the importance of common understandings concerning ESP findings because it is these findings that will determine the future value of an ESP, e.g., in a combined license (COL) proceeding. In addition, you provided an enclosure to your letter containing a draft ESP for NRC review and comment. You indicated that detailed comments are not necessary at this time but that your primary interest is NRC feedback confirming that ESP findings envisioned by the staff are equivalent in substance to those you have proposed. You also requested that the staff identify conditions, terms, and limitations of a generic nature that the staff foresees specifying in ESPs.You are correct in stating that the NRC staff has agreed that ESP applicants may use the PPEapproach as a surrogate for actual facility information to support required safety and environmental reviews. However, as was stated in our February 5, 2003, letter on ESP-6, should the information listed in Section 52.17(a)(1)(i)-(viii) not be provided in an ESP application, it may complicate the NRC staff review, perhaps resulting in increased review time, as well as having a bearing on the staff assumptions and associated staff findings. Since NRC review of the pilot ESP applications will be first-of-a-kind reviews the staff cannot, at this point in time, say definitively how ESP findings will be structured or what terms and conditions the Commission may need to include in an ESP. The content of the ESP findings and any necessary terms and conditions will depend largely on the scope and depth of information provided by the ESP applicants and the staff's ability to determine, based on that information, R. Simard- 2 -that an application for an ESP meets the applicable standards and requirements of the AtomicEnergy Act and the Commission's regulations. With regard to the draft ESP that was attached to your April 30, 2003, letter, we believe that thetypes of findings presented in your draft ESP are generally representative of the types of findings the staff envisions for an ESP, although the staff cannot, at this time, comment on the specific wording of the findings. The staff notes, however, that it is the combination of site characteristics and PPE values that will comprise the ESP bases for comparison with the design of the actual plant proposed for the site at the COL stage. Therefore, the staff believes that the ESP should contain or reference both the site characteristics and the PPE values. In addition, the staff emphasizes that, given that PPE values do not reflect a specific design and will not be reviewed by the NRC staff for correctness, the granting of an ESP by the NRC does not indicate NRC approval of the site for any specific plant or type of plant.With regard to additional conditions and limitations on an ESP, it would be inappropriate for thestaff to attempt to identify every condition and limitation that may be necessary for ESPs prior to raising this topic to the Commission, since, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.24, the Commission will issue an ESP, "in the form and containing the conditions and limitations, as the Commissiondeems appropriate and necessary.

" As we have stated in the past (e.g., in our letter of June17, 2003, on the subject, "Resolution of Early Site Permit Topic 13 (ESP-13), Guidance for ESPSeismic Evaluations

"), ESPs will contain a license condition requiring the reporting of anyinformation the ESP holder has identified as having a significant implication for public health and safety. Also, as we stated in our letter of August 11, 2003, on the subject, "Resolution ofEarly Site Permit Topic 19 (ESP-19), Effects of Potential New Units at an Existing Site

," the staff is considering ESP conditions for sites with an existing reactor that would require theESP holder to notify the operating plant licensee and the NRC prior to conducting any activity authorized under 10 CFR 52.25(a).

The staff cannot identify any additional generic conditionsor limitations on an ESP at this time.Please contact Nanette Gilles of my staff at 301-415-1180 if you have any questions on thismatter.Sincerely, /RA/James E. Lyons, Program DirectorNew, Research and Test Reactors Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationProject No. 689 cc: See next page R. Simard- 2 -that an application for an ESP meets the applicable standards and requirements of the AtomicEnergy Act and the Commission

's regulations. With regard to the draft ESP that was attached to your April 30, 2003, letter, we believe that thetypes of findings presented in your draft ESP are generally representative of the types of findings the staff envisions for an ESP, although the staff cannot, at this time, comment on the specific wording of the findings. The staff notes, however, that it is the combination of site characteristics and PPE values that will comprise the ESP bases for comparison with the design of the actual plant proposed for the site at the COL stage. Therefore, the staff believes that the ESP should contain or reference both the site characteristics and the PPE values. In addition, the staff emphasizes that, given that PPE values do not reflect a specific design and will not be reviewed by the NRC staff for correctness, the granting of an ESP by the NRC does not indicate NRC approval of the site for any specific plant or type of plant.With regard to additional conditions and limitations on an ESP, it would be inappropriate for thestaff to attempt to identify every condition and limitation that may be necessary for ESPs prior to raising this topic to the Commission, since, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.24, the Commission will issue an ESP, "in the form and containing the conditions and limitations, as the Commissiondeems appropriate and necessary.

" As we have stated in the past (e.g., in our letter ofJune 17, 2003, on the subject, "Resolution of Early Site Permit Topic 13 (ESP-13), Guidancefor ESP Seismic Evaluations

"), ESPs will contain a license condition requiring the reporting ofany information the ESP holder has identified as having a significant implication for public health and safety. Also, as we stated in our letter of August 11, 2003, on the subject, "Resolution of Early Site Permit Topic 19 (ESP-19), Effects of Potential New Units at anExisting Site

," the staff is considering ESP conditions for sites with an existing reactor that would require theESP holder to notify the operating plant licensee and the NRC prior to conducting any activity authorized under 10 CFR 52.25(a).

The staff cannot identify any additional generic conditionsor limitations on an ESP at this time.Please contact Nanette Gilles of my staff at 301-415-1180 if you have any questions on thismatter.Sincerely, /RA/James E. Lyons, Program DirectorNew, Research and Test Reactors Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationProject No. 689 cc: See next pageDistribution: See attachedAccession No. ML032100049OFFICEPM:RNRPSC:RNRPOGC/NLOPD:RNRPNAMENGilles LDudesDCummingsJLyonsDATE 8/14/03 8/14/03 8/29/038/29/03OFFICIAL RECORD COPY ESP-Generic cc:Mr. David LochbaumUnion of Concerned Scientists 1707 H Street, NW Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006-3919Mr. Paul GunterDirector of the Reactor Watchdog Project Nuclear Information & Resource Service

1424 16 th Street, NW, Suite 404Washington, DC 20036Mr. Ron SimardNuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708Mr. Russell BellNuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708Mr. Thomas P. MillerU.S. Department of Energy Headquarters - Germantown 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, MD 20874-1290Mr. James RiccioGreenpeace 702 H Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001Rod KrichVice President, Licensing Projects Exelon Nuclear 4300 Winfield Road Warrenville, IL 60555Patricia CampbellWinston & Strawn 1400 L Street, NW Washington, DC 20005Mr. Eddie GrantExelon Generation 200 Exelon Way, KSA3-E Kennett Square, PA 19348Mr. James F. Mallay, DirectorRegulatory Affairs FRAMATOME, ANP 3315 Old Forest Road Lynchburg, VA 24501Mr. Ernie H. KennedyVice President New Plants Nuclear Plant Projects Westinghouse Electric Company 2000 Day Hill Road Windsor, CT 06095-0500Dr. Regis A. MatzieSenior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer Westinghouse Electric Company 2000 Day Hill Road Windsor, CT 06095-0500Mr. Gary Wright, DirectorDivision of Nuclear Safety Illinois Emergency Management Agency 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, IL 62704Mr. Vince LangmanLicensing Manager Atomic Energy of Canada Limited 2251 Speakman Drive Mississauga, Ontario Canada L5K 1B2Mr. David RitterResearch Associate on Nuclear Energy Public Citizens Critical Mass Energy and Environmental Program 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20003Mr. Tom Clements6703 Guide Avenue Takoma Park, MD 20912Mr. Paul LeventhalNuclear Control Institute 1000 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20036 Mr. Jack W. RoeSCIENTECH, INC.

910 Clopper Road Gaithersburg, MD 20878Dr. Gail H. MarcusU.S. Department of Energy Room 5A-143 1000 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20585Ms. Marilyn KrayVice President, Special Projects Exelon Generation 200 Exelon Way, KSA3-E Kennett Square, PA 19348Mr. Joseph D. HegnerLead Engineer - Licensing Dominion Generation Early Site Permitting Project 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060Mr. George Alan ZinkeProject Manager Nuclear Business Development Entergy Nuclear M-ECH-683 1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213Mr. Charles BrinkmanWestinghouse Electric Co.

Washington Operations 12300 Twinbrook Pkwy., Suite 330 Rockville, MD 20852Mr. Marvin FertelSenior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708Dr. Glenn R. GeorgePA Consulting Group 130 Potter Street Haddonfield, NJ 08033Arthur R. WoodsEnercon Services, Inc.

500 TownPark Lane Kennesaw, GA 30144Mr. Thomas MundyDirector, Project Development Exelon Generation 200 Exelon Way, KSA3-E Kennett Square, PA 19348Mr. Ed Wallace, General ManagerProjects PBMR Pty LTD PO Box 9396 Centurion 0046 Republic of South AfricaMs. Vanessa E. Quinn, ChiefRadiological Emergency Preparedness Branch Department of Homeland Security/FEMA 500 C Street, SW Washington, DC 20472 Distribution

Hard CopyRNRP R/FAFernadezPUBLICACRS JLyonsJMooreRidsNrrOD (JDyer)RNRP Grp.

LDudesJTappertRidsNrrAdip (JCraig)BZalcman NGillesTKenyonRidsOgcRpAKuglerJWilson, RLEP