ML051050031: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(StriderTol Bot change)
 
(2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
| issue date = 07/06/2005
| issue date = 07/06/2005
| title = Response to NEI Letter Dated 2/10/2005, Concerning Industry Feedback and Position on the Extent of NRC Environmental Reviews at the Combined License Stage When an Applicant References an Early Site Permit
| title = Response to NEI Letter Dated 2/10/2005, Concerning Industry Feedback and Position on the Extent of NRC Environmental Reviews at the Combined License Stage When an Applicant References an Early Site Permit
| author name = Beckner W D
| author name = Beckner W
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DRIP/RNRP
| author affiliation = NRC/NRR/DRIP/RNRP
| addressee name = Heymer A
| addressee name = Heymer A
Line 15: Line 15:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:July 6, 2005Mr. Adrian HeymerNuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006-3708
{{#Wiki_filter:July 6, 2005 Mr. Adrian Heymer Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006-3708


==SUBJECT:==
==SUBJECT:==
RESPONSE TO NEI LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2005, CONCERNINGINDUSTRY FEEDBACK AND POSITION ON THE EXTENT OF NRC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AT THE COMBINED LICENSE STAGE WHEN AN APPLICANT REFERENCES AN EARLY SITE PERMIT
RESPONSE TO NEI LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2005, CONCERNING INDUSTRY FEEDBACK AND POSITION ON THE EXTENT OF NRC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AT THE COMBINED LICENSE STAGE WHEN AN APPLICANT REFERENCES AN EARLY SITE PERMIT


==Dear Mr. Heymer:==
==Dear Mr. Heymer:==


The staff is responding to your letter of February 10, 2005, which provided the industryfeedback and position on the extent of the NRC's environmental inquiry at the combined license(COL) stage assuming that an applicant references an early site permit (ESP). While this letter focuses on the relationship between the ESP and COL environmental reviews, the staff's views on these matters apply equally to a construction permit (CP) or operating license (OL) application referencing an ESP.The staff considered the information provided in the white paper, ?Environmental Review at theCOL Stage of Nuclear Plant Licensing," attached to your February 10, 2005, letter outlining the basis for the industry's position that there should be no re-review in a COL proceeding of environmental issues that were evaluated in issuing an ESP referenced in the COL application. We believe that a portion of the underlying bases for industry's view is not consistent with the NRC's regulations and the applicable case law interpreting the National Environment Policy Actof 1969, as amended (NEPA). In particular, inasmuch as an ESP and a COL are major federal actions, an environmental assessment (EA) is not a sufficient environmental inquiry on which to base an action on an ESP or COL application. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.20, both actions require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).The NEI white paper, however, does state positions that are consistent with the practice thatthe NRC staff envisions for its environmental inquiry on a COL application. First, 10 CFRPart 52 does provide finality for previously resolved issues. Under NEPA, the COL environmental review is informed by the EIS prepared at the ESP stage and the NRC staffintends to use tiering and incorporation-by-reference whenever it is appropriate to do so. The staff agrees that a COL applicant must address any other significant environmental issue notconsidered in any previous proceeding, such as those issues deferred from the ESP stage to the COL stage (e.g., the benefits assessment).
The staff is responding to your letter of February 10, 2005, which provided the industry feedback and position on the extent of the NRCs environmental inquiry at the combined license (COL) stage assuming that an applicant references an early site permit (ESP). While this letter focuses on the relationship between the ESP and COL environmental reviews, the staffs views on these matters apply equally to a construction permit (CP) or operating license (OL) application referencing an ESP.
A. Heymer- 2 -For an early site permit, the NRC prepares an EIS that resolves numerous issues within certainbounding conditions. These issues are candidates for issue preclusion at the COL, CP or OL stage. If the issue could be deferred and the ESP applicant elected to do so, e.g., the benefitsassessment, then the COL applicant would be required to address the issue in its COL, CP, or OL application. A COL, CP, or OL application must also demonstrate that the design of thefacility falls within the parameters specified in the ESP. In addition, the application shouldindicate whether the site is in compliance with the terms of the ESP. The information supporting a conclusion that the site is in compliance with the ESP should be maintained in an auditable form by the applicant. While the NRC is ultimately responsible for completing anyrequired NEPA review, for example, to ensure that the conclusions for a resolved ESP environmental issue remain valid for a COL action, the COL applicant must identify whether there is new and significant information on such an issue. A COL applicant should have a reasonable process to ensure it becomes aware of new and significant information that may have a bearing on the earlier NRC conclusion, and should document the results of this processin an auditable form for issues for which the COL applicant does not identify any new and significant information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.70(b), the NRC is required to independently evaluate and beresponsible for the reliability of all information used in the EIS, including an EIS prepared for aCOL. In carrying out its responsibilities under 10 CFR 51.70(b), the staff may (1) inquire intothe continued validity of information disclosed in an EIS for an ESP that is referenced in a COL application and (2) look for any new information that may affect the assumptions, analysis, or conclusions reached in the ESP EIS. The initial burden to assess newly identified information and those issues that were deferred tothe COL, CP or OL application falls to the applicant. The applicant is required to provide information sufficient to resolve any other significant environmental issue not considered in the ESP proceeding, either for the site or design, and the information contained in the applicationshould be sufficient to aid the Commission in its development of an independent analysis (see 10 CFR 51.45). Therefore, the environmental report must contain new and significant information on the site or design to the extent that it differs from, or is in addition to, that discussed in the ESP EIS. NEI disagreed with NRC staff statements in the January 18, 2005, meeting that environmentaltopics resolved in an ESP are subject to
The staff considered the information provided in the white paper, ?Environmental Review at the COL Stage of Nuclear Plant Licensing, attached to your February 10, 2005, letter outlining the basis for the industrys position that there should be no re-review in a COL proceeding of environmental issues that were evaluated in issuing an ESP referenced in the COL application.
?re-review" if a COL application referencing an ESP issubmitted and new and significant information exists. The staff, in the context of a COL application that references an ESP, defines "new" in the phrase "new and significant information" as any information that was not contained or referenced in the ESP application or the ESP EIS. This new information may include (but is not limited to) specific design information that was not contained in the application, especially where the design interacts withthe environment, or information that was in the ESP application, but has changed by the time ofthe COL application. Such new information may or may not be significant.
We believe that a portion of the underlying bases for industrys view is not consistent with the NRCs regulations and the applicable case law interpreting the National Environment Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). In particular, inasmuch as an ESP and a COL are major federal actions, an environmental assessment (EA) is not a sufficient environmental inquiry on which to base an action on an ESP or COL application. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.20, both actions require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).
A. Heymer- 3 -Over the last year, the staff has attempted to explain the relationship between theenvironmental review of an ESP application to that of a COL application referencing the ESP by analogy to the license renewal environmental review process. The staff believes the analogy especially useful because the license renewal process is well-established and clearly understood. Since there appears to be some confusion regarding this analogy, we believe a brief explanation of the similarities of the two processes is warranted.For license renewal, the NRC prepared a generic EIS (GEIS) that resolved more than 60 issuesfor all plants based on certain bounding assumptions; these were termed Category 1 issues. If a license renewal applicant identifies new and significant information with respect to a Category 1 issue, it documents its assessment of that information in its application. If theapplicant determines that such new information is not significant, or that there is no such newinformation, the applicant documents the bases for these determinations in an auditable formand makes the documentation available for staff inspection. If there is new and significant information on a Category 1 issue, the staff limits its inquiry to determine whether such information changes the Commission's earlier conclusion set forth in the GEIS. In any event, the staff may inquire into whether the applicant has a reasonable process for identifying new and significant information on Category 1 issues.Similarly, in the NRC environmental review process for a COL application, the COL EIS bringsforward the Commission's earlier conclusions from the ESP EIS and articulates the activities undertaken by the NRC staff to ensure that an issue that was resolved can remain resolved. Ifthere is new and significant information on a previously resolved issue, then the staff will limit itsinquiry to determine whether such information changes the Commission's earlier conclusion.
The NEI white paper, however, does state positions that are consistent with the practice that the NRC staff envisions for its environmental inquiry on a COL application. First, 10 CFR Part 52 does provide finality for previously resolved issues. Under NEPA, the COL environmental review is informed by the EIS prepared at the ESP stage and the NRC staff intends to use tiering and incorporation-by-reference whenever it is appropriate to do so. The staff agrees that a COL applicant must address any other significant environmental issue not considered in any previous proceeding, such as those issues deferred from the ESP stage to the COL stage (e.g., the benefits assessment).
Environmental matters subject to litigation in a COL proceeding mainly include (1) those issues that were not considered in the previous proceeding on the site or the design, (2) those issuesfor which there is new and significant information, and (3) those issues subject to the change or waiver process in 10 CFR Part 52.Notwithstanding that, in the context of renewal, the GEIS resolves Category 1 issues throughrulemaking and an ESP resolves environmental issues through an individual licensing proceeding, the staff believes that the license renewal practice is similar to the Part 52 process in which a COL application references an ESP. In conclusion, the NRC staff has determined that a COL is a major Federal action and, inaccordance with 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC must prepare an EIS on that action. If there is no newand significant information on an issue resolved at the ESP stage, then the staff will tier off fromthe ESP EIS and disclose the NRC conclusion. We appreciate the effort that was made toarticulate the industry's position and draw attention to this element of the COL licensing A. Heymer- 4 -process. We believe that our environmental review practice has engendered the public'sconfidence in the license renewal arena and that it serves as a model to achieve the same end with respect to any future COL applications.Please contact Joseph Colaccino at 301-415-2753 or jxc1@nrc.gov if you have any questions.Sincerely,/RA/William D. Beckner, Program DirectorNew, Research and Test Reactors Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor RegulationProject No. 689 cc:  See next page


ML051050031     *See previous concurrenceOFFICEPM:RNRPSC:RLEP*OGCSC:RNRPPD:RNRPNAMEJColaccinoAKuglerRWeismanLDudesWBeckner DATE06/29/0506/22/0506/29/0507/01/0507/6/05 Distribution for Letter to A. Heymer Dated July 6, 2005Hard CopyRNRP R/FJColaccino LDudesE-MailPUBLICJDyer (RidsNrrOd)
A. Heymer                                        For an early site permit, the NRC prepares an EIS that resolves numerous issues within certain bounding conditions. These issues are candidates for issue preclusion at the COL, CP or OL stage. If the issue could be deferred and the ESP applicant elected to do so, e.g., the benefits assessment, then the COL applicant would be required to address the issue in its COL, CP, or OL application. A COL, CP, or OL application must also demonstrate that the design of the facility falls within the parameters specified in the ESP. In addition, the application should indicate whether the site is in compliance with the terms of the ESP. The information supporting a conclusion that the site is in compliance with the ESP should be maintained in an auditable form by the applicant. While the NRC is ultimately responsible for completing any required NEPA review, for example, to ensure that the conclusions for a resolved ESP environmental issue remain valid for a COL action, the COL applicant must identify whether there is new and significant information on such an issue. A COL applicant should have a reasonable process to ensure it becomes aware of new and significant information that may have a bearing on the earlier NRC conclusion, and should document the results of this process in an auditable form for issues for which the COL applicant does not identify any new and significant information.
RBorchardt BSheron (RidsNrrAdpt)
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.70(b), the NRC is required to independently evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of all information used in the EIS, including an EIS prepared for a COL. In carrying out its responsibilities under 10 CFR 51.70(b), the staff may (1) inquire into the continued validity of information disclosed in an EIS for an ESP that is referenced in a COL application and (2) look for any new information that may affect the assumptions, analysis, or conclusions reached in the ESP EIS.
FEltawila NRR/ADPT Secretary [RidsNrrAdpt]
The initial burden to assess newly identified information and those issues that were deferred to the COL, CP or OL application falls to the applicant. The applicant is required to provide information sufficient to resolve any other significant environmental issue not considered in the ESP proceeding, either for the site or design, and the information contained in the application should be sufficient to aid the Commission in its development of an independent analysis (see 10 CFR 51.45). Therefore, the environmental report must contain new and significant information on the site or design to the extent that it differs from, or is in addition to, that discussed in the ESP EIS.
NEI 04-01 Reviewers RNRP Group DMatthews BBoger CCarpenter SRichards DCoe TQuay JHannon SWeerakkody JWermiel FAkstulewicz WBateman ESullivan MMitchell TChan JCalvo RJenkins TJKim, EDO MJohnson CCasto MStutzke DRoberts STingen PSekerak DJohnson RMcIntyre SAlexander TMensah (NRR Communication Coord)
NEI disagreed with NRC staff statements in the January 18, 2005, meeting that environmental topics resolved in an ESP are subject to ?re-review if a COL application referencing an ESP is submitted and new and significant information exists. The staff, in the context of a COL application that references an ESP, defines new in the phrase new and significant information as any information that was not contained or referenced in the ESP application or the ESP EIS. This new information may include (but is not limited to) specific design information that was not contained in the application, especially where the design interacts with the environment, or information that was in the ESP application, but has changed by the time of the COL application. Such new information may or may not be significant.
 
A. Heymer                                        Over the last year, the staff has attempted to explain the relationship between the environmental review of an ESP application to that of a COL application referencing the ESP by analogy to the license renewal environmental review process. The staff believes the analogy especially useful because the license renewal process is well-established and clearly understood. Since there appears to be some confusion regarding this analogy, we believe a brief explanation of the similarities of the two processes is warranted.
For license renewal, the NRC prepared a generic EIS (GEIS) that resolved more than 60 issues for all plants based on certain bounding assumptions; these were termed Category 1 issues. If a license renewal applicant identifies new and significant information with respect to a Category 1 issue, it documents its assessment of that information in its application. If the applicant determines that such new information is not significant, or that there is no such new information, the applicant documents the bases for these determinations in an auditable form and makes the documentation available for staff inspection. If there is new and significant information on a Category 1 issue, the staff limits its inquiry to determine whether such information changes the Commissions earlier conclusion set forth in the GEIS. In any event, the staff may inquire into whether the applicant has a reasonable process for identifying new and significant information on Category 1 issues.
Similarly, in the NRC environmental review process for a COL application, the COL EIS brings forward the Commissions earlier conclusions from the ESP EIS and articulates the activities undertaken by the NRC staff to ensure that an issue that was resolved can remain resolved. If there is new and significant information on a previously resolved issue, then the staff will limit its inquiry to determine whether such information changes the Commissions earlier conclusion.
Environmental matters subject to litigation in a COL proceeding mainly include (1) those issues that were not considered in the previous proceeding on the site or the design, (2) those issues for which there is new and significant information, and (3) those issues subject to the change or waiver process in 10 CFR Part 52.
Notwithstanding that, in the context of renewal, the GEIS resolves Category 1 issues through rulemaking and an ESP resolves environmental issues through an individual licensing proceeding, the staff believes that the license renewal practice is similar to the Part 52 process in which a COL application references an ESP.
In conclusion, the NRC staff has determined that a COL is a major Federal action and, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC must prepare an EIS on that action. If there is no new and significant information on an issue resolved at the ESP stage, then the staff will tier off from the ESP EIS and disclose the NRC conclusion. We appreciate the effort that was made to articulate the industrys position and draw attention to this element of the COL licensing
 
A. Heymer                                      process. We believe that our environmental review practice has engendered the publics confidence in the license renewal arena and that it serves as a model to achieve the same end with respect to any future COL applications.
Please contact Joseph Colaccino at 301-415-2753 or jxc1@nrc.gov if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
                                            /RA/
William D. Beckner, Program Director New, Research and Test Reactors Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 689 cc: See next page
 
ML051050031 *See previous concurrence OFFICE PM:RNRP              SC:RLEP*             OGC          SC:RNRP          PD:RNRP NAME JColaccino            AKugler              RWeisman      LDudes            WBeckner DATE    06/29/05          06/22/05            06/29/05      07/01/05          07/6/05 Distribution for Letter to A. Heymer Dated July 6, 2005 LCampbell Hard Copy                                            MItzkowitz, OGC RNRP R/F                                            RWeisman, OGC JColaccino                                          GMizuno, OGC LDudes                                              AKugler TKenyon E-Mail                                              PQualls PUBLIC                                              DNelson, OE JDyer (RidsNrrOd)
RBorchardt                                           External e-mail BSheron (RidsNrrAdpt)                               bhupinder.singh@hq.doe.gov FEltawila                                           tom.miller@hq.doe.gov NRR/ADPT Secretary [RidsNrrAdpt]                     Vanessa.Quinn@dhs.gov NEI 04-01 Reviewers                                 Kenneth.Wierman@dhs.gov RNRP Group                                           James.Purvis@dhs.gov DMatthews BBoger CCarpenter SRichards DCoe TQuay JHannon SWeerakkody JWermiel FAkstulewicz WBateman ESullivan MMitchell TChan JCalvo RJenkins TJKim, EDO MJohnson CCasto MStutzke DRoberts STingen PSekerak DJohnson RMcIntyre SAlexander TMensah (NRR Communication Coord)
ACRS (RidsAcrsMailCenter)
ACRS (RidsAcrsMailCenter)
OPA MEl-Zeftway JBlake RGardner CPaulk


OPA MEl-Zeftway JBlake RGardner CPaulkLCampbellMItzkowitz, OGC RWeisman, OGC GMizuno, OGC AKugler TKenyon PQualls DNelson, OEExternal e-mailbhupinder.singh@hq.doe.govtom.miller@hq.doe.gov Vanessa.Quinn@dhs.gov Kenneth.Wierman@dhs.gov James.Purvis@dhs.gov July 8, 2005Combination List:cc:Mr. Charles BrinkmanWestinghouse Electric Co.
Combination List:                                Mr. Laurence Parme Manager, GT-MHR Safety &
Washington Operations 12300 Twinbrook Pkwy., Suite 330 Rockville, MD 20852Mr. David Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety EngineerUnion of Concerned Scientists 1707 H Street, NW, Suite 600 Washington, DC 20006-3919Mr. Paul GunterNuclear Information & Resource Service
cc:   Mr. Charles Brinkman                        Licensing Westinghouse Electric Co.                   General Atomics Company Washington Operations                       P.O. Box 85608 12300 Twinbrook Pkwy., Suite 330           San Diego, CA 92186-5608 Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Joseph D. Hegner Mr. David Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety Engineer Lead Engineer - Licensing Union of Concerned Scientists               Dominion Generation 1707 H Street, NW, Suite 600               Early Site Permitting Project Washington, DC 20006-3919                  5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 Mr. Paul Gunter Nuclear Information & Resource Service     Mr. Edward L. Quinn 1424 16th Street, NW, Suite 404            MDM Services Corporations Washington, DC 20036                        Utility Operations Division 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 205 Mr. James Riccio                            Laguna Nigual, CA 92677 Greenpeace 702 H Street, NW, Suite 300                 Ms. Lynn Connor Washington, DC 20001                        Doc-Search Associates 2211 sw 1ST Ave - #1502 Mr. Adrian Heymer                          Portland, OR 97201 Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400                                   Mr. Paul Leventhal 1776 I Street, NW                           Nuclear Control Institute Washington, DC 20006-3708                  1000 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 410 Mr. George Alan Zinke                      Washington, DC 20036 Project Manager Nuclear Business Development               Ms. Patricia Campbell Entergy Nuclear                             Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP M-ECH-683                                   1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 1340 Echelon Parkway                       Washington, DC 20004 Jackson, MS 39213 Mr. W. Edward Cummins Mr. Thomas P. Miller                        AP600 and AP1000 Projects U.S. Department of Energy                   Westinghouse Electric Company NE-20, Rm. A286                             P.O. Box 355 Headquarters-Germantown                     Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, MD 20874-1290                  Dr. Robert E. Gamble Manager, ESBWR Ms. Marilyn Kray                            GE Nuclear Energy Vice President, Special Projects           1989 Little Orchard St., M/C 365 Exelon Generation                           San Jose, CA 95125-1030 200 Exelon Way, KSA3-E Kennett Square, PA 19348 July 8, 2005
 
1424 16 th Street, NW, Suite 404Washington, DC 20036Mr. James RiccioGreenpeace 702 H Street, NW, Suite 300 Washington, DC 20001Mr. Adrian HeymerNuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708Mr. George Alan ZinkeProject Manager Nuclear Business Development Entergy Nuclear M-ECH-683 1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213Mr. Thomas P. MillerU.S. Department of Energy NE-20, Rm. A286 Headquarters-Germantown 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, MD 20874-1290Ms. Marilyn KrayVice President, Special Projects Exelon Generation 200 Exelon Way, KSA3-E Kennett Square, PA 19348Mr. Laurence ParmeManager, GT-MHR Safety &
Licensing General Atomics Company P.O. Box 85608 San Diego, CA  92186-5608Mr. Joseph D. HegnerLead Engineer - Licensing Dominion Generation Early Site Permitting Project 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 Mr. Edward L. QuinnMDM Services Corporations Utility Operations Division 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 205 Laguna Nigual, CA  92677Ms. Lynn ConnorDoc-Search Associates 2211 sw 1 ST Ave - #1502Portland, OR 97201Mr. Paul LeventhalNuclear Control Institute 1000 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20036Ms. Patricia CampbellMorgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC  20004Mr. W. Edward CumminsAP600 and AP1000 Projects Westinghouse Electric Company


P.O. Box 355 Pittsburgh, PA  15230-0355Dr. Robert E. GambleManager, ESBWR GE Nuclear Energy 1989 Little Orchard St., M/C 365 San Jose, CA 95125-1030  July 8, 2005Dr. Jack W. RoeVice President Advanced Technologies & Laboratories International, Inc.
Dr. Jack W. Roe                          Mr. Glenn H. Archinoff Vice President                           AECL Technologies Advanced Technologies & Laboratories     481 North Frederick Avenue International, Inc.                     Suite 405 20010 Century Boulevard, Suite 500       Gaithersburg, MD. 20877 Germantown, MD 20874 Dr. Regis A. Matzie Mr. Stephen P. Frantz                    Senior Vice President and Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP             Chief Technology Officer 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW             Westinghouse Electric Company Washington, DC 20004                      2000 Day Hill Road Windsor, CT 06095-0500 Mr. Gary Wright, Manager Office of Nuclear Facility Safety         Mr. Ed Wallace, General Manager Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety     Projects 1035 Outer Park Drive                     PBMR Pty LTD Springfield, IL 62704                    PO Box 9396 Centurion 0046 Mr. Brendan Hoffman                      Republic of South Africa Research Associate on Nuclear Energy Public Citizens Critical Mass Energy     Mr. Dobie McArthur and Environmental Program               Director, Washington Operations 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE               General Atomics Washington, DC 20003                      1899 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 300 Mr. Tom Clements                          Washington, DC 20006 6703 Gude Avenue Takoma Park, MD 20912                    Mr. Russell Bell Nuclear Energy Institute Mr. Lionel Batty                          Suite 400 Nuclear Business Team                     1776 I Street, NW Graftech                                 Washington, DC 20006-3708 12300 Snow Road Parma, Ohio 44130                        Ms. Vanessa E. Quinn, Chief Radiological Emergency Preparedness Mr. Ian M. Grant                          Section Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission       Nuclear & Chemical Hazards Branch 280 Slater Street, Station B             Federal Emergency Management P.O. Box 1046                             Agency/DHS Ottawa, Ontario                           500 C Street, SW K1P 5S9                                  Washington, D.C. 20472 Mr. Edward F. Sproat, III                Mr. Ron Simard Vice President - Intl Projects          6170 Masters Club Drive Exelon Generation                        Suwanee, GA 30024 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348 July 8, 2005
20010 Century Boulevard, Suite 500 Germantown, MD 20874Mr. Stephen P. FrantzMorgan, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004Mr. Gary Wright, ManagerOffice of Nuclear Facility Safety Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety 1035 Outer Park Drive Springfield, IL 62704Mr. Brendan HoffmanResearch Associate on Nuclear Energy Public Citizens Critical Mass Energy and Environmental Program 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20003Mr. Tom Clements6703 Gude Avenue Takoma Park, MD 20912Mr. Lionel BattyNuclear Business Team Graftech 12300 Snow Road Parma, Ohio 44130Mr. Ian M. GrantCanadian Nuclear Safety Commission 280 Slater Street, Station B P.O. Box 1046 Ottawa, Ontario


K1P 5S9Mr. Edward F. Sproat, IIIVice President - Int'l Projects Exelon Generation 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348Mr. Glenn H. ArchinoffAECL Technologies 481 North Frederick Avenue Suite 405 Gaithersburg, MD. 20877Dr. Regis A. MatzieSenior Vice President and Chief Technology Officer Westinghouse Electric Company 2000 Day Hill RoadWindsor, CT 06095-0500Mr. Ed Wallace, General ManagerProjects PBMR Pty LTD PO Box 9396 Centurion 0046 Republic of South AfricaMr. Dobie McArthurDirector, Washington Operations General Atomics 1899 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 300 Washington, DC 20006Mr. Russell BellNuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708Ms. Vanessa E. Quinn, ChiefRadiological Emergency Preparedness Section Nuclear & Chemical Hazards Branch Federal Emergency Management Agency/DHS 500 C Street, SW Washington, D.C. 20472Mr. Ron Simard6170 Masters Club Drive Suwanee, GA 30024  July 8, 2005Mr. Jerald S. HolmFramatome ANP, Inc.
Mr. Jerald S. Holm Framatome ANP, Inc.
3315 Old Forest Road P.O. Box 10935 Lynchburg, VA 24506-0935Ms. Kathryn Sutton, Esq.Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004Ms. Anne W. CottinghamWinston & Strawn LLP 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3817E-Mail:jerald.holm@framatome-anp.commwetterhahn@winston.com gcesare@enercon.com whorin@winston.com}}
3315 Old Forest Road P.O. Box 10935 Lynchburg, VA 24506-0935 Ms. Kathryn Sutton, Esq.
Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Ms. Anne W. Cottingham Winston & Strawn LLP 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3817 E-Mail:
jerald.holm@framatome-anp.com mwetterhahn@winston.com gcesare@enercon.com whorin@winston.com July 8, 2005}}

Latest revision as of 00:08, 15 March 2020

Response to NEI Letter Dated 2/10/2005, Concerning Industry Feedback and Position on the Extent of NRC Environmental Reviews at the Combined License Stage When an Applicant References an Early Site Permit
ML051050031
Person / Time
Site: Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date: 07/06/2005
From: Beckner W
NRC/NRR/DRIP/RNRP
To: Heymer A
Nuclear Energy Institute
Colaccino,Joseph,NRR/DRIP/RNRP,415-2753
References
Download: ML051050031 (8)
v • d • e


Text

July 6, 2005 Mr. Adrian Heymer Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20006-3708

SUBJECT:

RESPONSE TO NEI LETTER DATED FEBRUARY 10, 2005, CONCERNING INDUSTRY FEEDBACK AND POSITION ON THE EXTENT OF NRC ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEWS AT THE COMBINED LICENSE STAGE WHEN AN APPLICANT REFERENCES AN EARLY SITE PERMIT

Dear Mr. Heymer:

The staff is responding to your letter of February 10, 2005, which provided the industry feedback and position on the extent of the NRCs environmental inquiry at the combined license (COL) stage assuming that an applicant references an early site permit (ESP). While this letter focuses on the relationship between the ESP and COL environmental reviews, the staffs views on these matters apply equally to a construction permit (CP) or operating license (OL) application referencing an ESP.

The staff considered the information provided in the white paper, ?Environmental Review at the COL Stage of Nuclear Plant Licensing, attached to your February 10, 2005, letter outlining the basis for the industrys position that there should be no re-review in a COL proceeding of environmental issues that were evaluated in issuing an ESP referenced in the COL application.

We believe that a portion of the underlying bases for industrys view is not consistent with the NRCs regulations and the applicable case law interpreting the National Environment Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA). In particular, inasmuch as an ESP and a COL are major federal actions, an environmental assessment (EA) is not a sufficient environmental inquiry on which to base an action on an ESP or COL application. Accordingly, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.20, both actions require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS).

The NEI white paper, however, does state positions that are consistent with the practice that the NRC staff envisions for its environmental inquiry on a COL application. First, 10 CFR Part 52 does provide finality for previously resolved issues. Under NEPA, the COL environmental review is informed by the EIS prepared at the ESP stage and the NRC staff intends to use tiering and incorporation-by-reference whenever it is appropriate to do so. The staff agrees that a COL applicant must address any other significant environmental issue not considered in any previous proceeding, such as those issues deferred from the ESP stage to the COL stage (e.g., the benefits assessment).

A. Heymer For an early site permit, the NRC prepares an EIS that resolves numerous issues within certain bounding conditions. These issues are candidates for issue preclusion at the COL, CP or OL stage. If the issue could be deferred and the ESP applicant elected to do so, e.g., the benefits assessment, then the COL applicant would be required to address the issue in its COL, CP, or OL application. A COL, CP, or OL application must also demonstrate that the design of the facility falls within the parameters specified in the ESP. In addition, the application should indicate whether the site is in compliance with the terms of the ESP. The information supporting a conclusion that the site is in compliance with the ESP should be maintained in an auditable form by the applicant. While the NRC is ultimately responsible for completing any required NEPA review, for example, to ensure that the conclusions for a resolved ESP environmental issue remain valid for a COL action, the COL applicant must identify whether there is new and significant information on such an issue. A COL applicant should have a reasonable process to ensure it becomes aware of new and significant information that may have a bearing on the earlier NRC conclusion, and should document the results of this process in an auditable form for issues for which the COL applicant does not identify any new and significant information.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.70(b), the NRC is required to independently evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of all information used in the EIS, including an EIS prepared for a COL. In carrying out its responsibilities under 10 CFR 51.70(b), the staff may (1) inquire into the continued validity of information disclosed in an EIS for an ESP that is referenced in a COL application and (2) look for any new information that may affect the assumptions, analysis, or conclusions reached in the ESP EIS.

The initial burden to assess newly identified information and those issues that were deferred to the COL, CP or OL application falls to the applicant. The applicant is required to provide information sufficient to resolve any other significant environmental issue not considered in the ESP proceeding, either for the site or design, and the information contained in the application should be sufficient to aid the Commission in its development of an independent analysis (see 10 CFR 51.45). Therefore, the environmental report must contain new and significant information on the site or design to the extent that it differs from, or is in addition to, that discussed in the ESP EIS.

NEI disagreed with NRC staff statements in the January 18, 2005, meeting that environmental topics resolved in an ESP are subject to ?re-review if a COL application referencing an ESP is submitted and new and significant information exists. The staff, in the context of a COL application that references an ESP, defines new in the phrase new and significant information as any information that was not contained or referenced in the ESP application or the ESP EIS. This new information may include (but is not limited to) specific design information that was not contained in the application, especially where the design interacts with the environment, or information that was in the ESP application, but has changed by the time of the COL application. Such new information may or may not be significant.

A. Heymer Over the last year, the staff has attempted to explain the relationship between the environmental review of an ESP application to that of a COL application referencing the ESP by analogy to the license renewal environmental review process. The staff believes the analogy especially useful because the license renewal process is well-established and clearly understood. Since there appears to be some confusion regarding this analogy, we believe a brief explanation of the similarities of the two processes is warranted.

For license renewal, the NRC prepared a generic EIS (GEIS) that resolved more than 60 issues for all plants based on certain bounding assumptions; these were termed Category 1 issues. If a license renewal applicant identifies new and significant information with respect to a Category 1 issue, it documents its assessment of that information in its application. If the applicant determines that such new information is not significant, or that there is no such new information, the applicant documents the bases for these determinations in an auditable form and makes the documentation available for staff inspection. If there is new and significant information on a Category 1 issue, the staff limits its inquiry to determine whether such information changes the Commissions earlier conclusion set forth in the GEIS. In any event, the staff may inquire into whether the applicant has a reasonable process for identifying new and significant information on Category 1 issues.

Similarly, in the NRC environmental review process for a COL application, the COL EIS brings forward the Commissions earlier conclusions from the ESP EIS and articulates the activities undertaken by the NRC staff to ensure that an issue that was resolved can remain resolved. If there is new and significant information on a previously resolved issue, then the staff will limit its inquiry to determine whether such information changes the Commissions earlier conclusion.

Environmental matters subject to litigation in a COL proceeding mainly include (1) those issues that were not considered in the previous proceeding on the site or the design, (2) those issues for which there is new and significant information, and (3) those issues subject to the change or waiver process in 10 CFR Part 52.

Notwithstanding that, in the context of renewal, the GEIS resolves Category 1 issues through rulemaking and an ESP resolves environmental issues through an individual licensing proceeding, the staff believes that the license renewal practice is similar to the Part 52 process in which a COL application references an ESP.

In conclusion, the NRC staff has determined that a COL is a major Federal action and, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.20, the NRC must prepare an EIS on that action. If there is no new and significant information on an issue resolved at the ESP stage, then the staff will tier off from the ESP EIS and disclose the NRC conclusion. We appreciate the effort that was made to articulate the industrys position and draw attention to this element of the COL licensing

A. Heymer process. We believe that our environmental review practice has engendered the publics confidence in the license renewal arena and that it serves as a model to achieve the same end with respect to any future COL applications.

Please contact Joseph Colaccino at 301-415-2753 or jxc1@nrc.gov if you have any questions.

Sincerely,

/RA/

William D. Beckner, Program Director New, Research and Test Reactors Program Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Project No. 689 cc: See next page

ML051050031 *See previous concurrence OFFICE PM:RNRP SC:RLEP* OGC SC:RNRP PD:RNRP NAME JColaccino AKugler RWeisman LDudes WBeckner DATE 06/29/05 06/22/05 06/29/05 07/01/05 07/6/05 Distribution for Letter to A. Heymer Dated July 6, 2005 LCampbell Hard Copy MItzkowitz, OGC RNRP R/F RWeisman, OGC JColaccino GMizuno, OGC LDudes AKugler TKenyon E-Mail PQualls PUBLIC DNelson, OE JDyer (RidsNrrOd)

RBorchardt External e-mail BSheron (RidsNrrAdpt) bhupinder.singh@hq.doe.gov FEltawila tom.miller@hq.doe.gov NRR/ADPT Secretary [RidsNrrAdpt] Vanessa.Quinn@dhs.gov NEI 04-01 Reviewers Kenneth.Wierman@dhs.gov RNRP Group James.Purvis@dhs.gov DMatthews BBoger CCarpenter SRichards DCoe TQuay JHannon SWeerakkody JWermiel FAkstulewicz WBateman ESullivan MMitchell TChan JCalvo RJenkins TJKim, EDO MJohnson CCasto MStutzke DRoberts STingen PSekerak DJohnson RMcIntyre SAlexander TMensah (NRR Communication Coord)

ACRS (RidsAcrsMailCenter)

OPA MEl-Zeftway JBlake RGardner CPaulk

Combination List: Mr. Laurence Parme Manager, GT-MHR Safety &

cc: Mr. Charles Brinkman Licensing Westinghouse Electric Co. General Atomics Company Washington Operations P.O. Box 85608 12300 Twinbrook Pkwy., Suite 330 San Diego, CA 92186-5608 Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Joseph D. Hegner Mr. David Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety Engineer Lead Engineer - Licensing Union of Concerned Scientists Dominion Generation 1707 H Street, NW, Suite 600 Early Site Permitting Project Washington, DC 20006-3919 5000 Dominion Boulevard Glen Allen, VA 23060 Mr. Paul Gunter Nuclear Information & Resource Service Mr. Edward L. Quinn 1424 16th Street, NW, Suite 404 MDM Services Corporations Washington, DC 20036 Utility Operations Division 28202 Cabot Road, Suite 205 Mr. James Riccio Laguna Nigual, CA 92677 Greenpeace 702 H Street, NW, Suite 300 Ms. Lynn Connor Washington, DC 20001 Doc-Search Associates 2211 sw 1ST Ave - #1502 Mr. Adrian Heymer Portland, OR 97201 Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Mr. Paul Leventhal 1776 I Street, NW Nuclear Control Institute Washington, DC 20006-3708 1000 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 410 Mr. George Alan Zinke Washington, DC 20036 Project Manager Nuclear Business Development Ms. Patricia Campbell Entergy Nuclear Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP M-ECH-683 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 1340 Echelon Parkway Washington, DC 20004 Jackson, MS 39213 Mr. W. Edward Cummins Mr. Thomas P. Miller AP600 and AP1000 Projects U.S. Department of Energy Westinghouse Electric Company NE-20, Rm. A286 P.O. Box 355 Headquarters-Germantown Pittsburgh, PA 15230-0355 19901 Germantown Road Germantown, MD 20874-1290 Dr. Robert E. Gamble Manager, ESBWR Ms. Marilyn Kray GE Nuclear Energy Vice President, Special Projects 1989 Little Orchard St., M/C 365 Exelon Generation San Jose, CA 95125-1030 200 Exelon Way, KSA3-E Kennett Square, PA 19348 July 8, 2005

Dr. Jack W. Roe Mr. Glenn H. Archinoff Vice President AECL Technologies Advanced Technologies & Laboratories 481 North Frederick Avenue International, Inc. Suite 405 20010 Century Boulevard, Suite 500 Gaithersburg, MD. 20877 Germantown, MD 20874 Dr. Regis A. Matzie Mr. Stephen P. Frantz Senior Vice President and Morgan, Lewis, & Bockius, LLP Chief Technology Officer 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Westinghouse Electric Company Washington, DC 20004 2000 Day Hill Road Windsor, CT 06095-0500 Mr. Gary Wright, Manager Office of Nuclear Facility Safety Mr. Ed Wallace, General Manager Illinois Department of Nuclear Safety Projects 1035 Outer Park Drive PBMR Pty LTD Springfield, IL 62704 PO Box 9396 Centurion 0046 Mr. Brendan Hoffman Republic of South Africa Research Associate on Nuclear Energy Public Citizens Critical Mass Energy Mr. Dobie McArthur and Environmental Program Director, Washington Operations 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE General Atomics Washington, DC 20003 1899 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Suite 300 Mr. Tom Clements Washington, DC 20006 6703 Gude Avenue Takoma Park, MD 20912 Mr. Russell Bell Nuclear Energy Institute Mr. Lionel Batty Suite 400 Nuclear Business Team 1776 I Street, NW Graftech Washington, DC 20006-3708 12300 Snow Road Parma, Ohio 44130 Ms. Vanessa E. Quinn, Chief Radiological Emergency Preparedness Mr. Ian M. Grant Section Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission Nuclear & Chemical Hazards Branch 280 Slater Street, Station B Federal Emergency Management P.O. Box 1046 Agency/DHS Ottawa, Ontario 500 C Street, SW K1P 5S9 Washington, D.C. 20472 Mr. Edward F. Sproat, III Mr. Ron Simard Vice President - Intl Projects 6170 Masters Club Drive Exelon Generation Suwanee, GA 30024 200 Exelon Way Kennett Square, PA 19348 July 8, 2005

Mr. Jerald S. Holm Framatome ANP, Inc.

3315 Old Forest Road P.O. Box 10935 Lynchburg, VA 24506-0935 Ms. Kathryn Sutton, Esq.

Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20004 Ms. Anne W. Cottingham Winston & Strawn LLP 1700 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3817 E-Mail:

jerald.holm@framatome-anp.com mwetterhahn@winston.com gcesare@enercon.com whorin@winston.com July 8, 2005

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML051050031&oldid=2594134"