ML19227A247: Difference between revisions

From kanterella
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
 
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 16: Line 16:


=Text=
=Text=
{{#Wiki_filter:Early Site Permit (ESP)Application ReviewClinch River Nuclear Site Overview PanelAugust 14, 2019 Panelists*Fred Brown  
{{#Wiki_filter:United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of:                  TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application)
-Director, Office of New Reactors*Anna Bradford  
Commission Mandatory Hearing Docket #: 05200047 Exhibit #: NRC-016-R-MA-CM01                  Identified: 8/14/2019 Admitted: 8/14/2019                          Withdrawn:
-Deputy Director, Division of Licensing, Siting and Environmental Analyses 2 Overview of Staff's Review of the Early Site Permit Application
Rejected:                                      Stricken:
*Summary of Early Site Permit Application (ESPA)*Overview -Safety Review
Other:
*Summary of Safety Findings
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY                                          Docket No. 52-047-ESP (Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application)
*Overview -Environmental Review
Revised Hearing Exhibit Revised Exhibit Number: NRC-016-R Exhibit Revision Date: August 12, 2019 Revised Exhibit
*Summary of Environmental Findings
 
*Overview of Panel Presentations 3
==Title:==
Staff Presentation Slides - Overview (Aug. 2019)
 
Early Site Permit (ESP)
Application Review Clinch River Nuclear Site Overview Panel August 14, 2019
 
Panelists
* Fred Brown - Director, Office of New Reactors
* Anna Bradford - Deputy Director, Division of Licensing, Siting and Environmental Analyses 2
 
Overview of Staffs Review of the Early Site Permit Application
* Summary of Early Site Permit Application (ESPA)
* Overview - Safety Review
* Summary of Safety Findings
* Overview - Environmental Review
* Summary of Environmental Findings
* Overview of Panel Presentations 3
 
Clinch River ESPA
Clinch River ESPA
*In May 2016, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted the ESP application  
* In May 2016, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted the ESP application
*In December 2016, application accepted  
* In December 2016, application accepted for docketing and detailed technical review 4


for docketing and detailed technical review 4
Clinch River ESPA (cont.)
Clinch River ESPA (cont.)  
* TVAs request:
*TVA's request:Permit approval for a 20
Permit approval for a 20-year term Approval for a plume exposure pathway (PEP) emergency planning zone (EPZ) sizing methodology 2 major features (onsite) Emergency Plans and exemption requests for site boundary and 2-mile PEP EPZs
-year termApproval for a plume exposure pathway (PEP) emergency planning zone (EPZ) sizing methodology2 major features (onsite) Emergency Plans  
* ESPA does not establish a PEP EPZ 5


and exemption requests for site boundary and 2-mile PEP EPZs
*ESPA does not establish a PEP EPZ 5
Clinch River ESPA (cont.)
Clinch River ESPA (cont.)
*If the ESP is issued, the NRC would be approving the Clinch River Nuclear Site as a suitable site for the potential construction and operation of two or more small modular reactor (SMRs)
* If the ESP is issued, the NRC would be approving the Clinch River Nuclear Site as a suitable site for the potential construction and operation of two or more small modular reactor (SMRs)
*An ESP does not authorize construction or  
* An ESP does not authorize construction or operation 6
 
Clinch River ESPA Safety Review
* Site Safety Evaluation Characteristics of the proposed site Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE)
Major features emergency plans PEP EPZ size methodology for use by combined license (COL) or construction permit (CP) applicant 7


operat ion 6 Clinch River ESPA Safety Review
*Site Safety EvaluationCharacteristics of the proposed sitePlant Parameter Envelope (PPE)Major features emergency plansPEP EPZ size methodology for use by combined license (COL) or construction permit (CP) applicant 7
Clinch River ESPA (cont.)
Clinch River ESPA (cont.)
*TVA has not chosen a specific reactor design for the siteA PPE can bound a variety of  
* TVA has not chosen a specific reactor design for the site A PPE can bound a variety of technologies TVA PPE based on four SMR designs TVA PPE for site based on two or more SMRs with a maximum capacity of 2420 MWt (800 MWe) 8
 
Clinch River ESPA Safety Review (cont.)
* In a COL or CP application, when a specific technology is identified ESP PPE values are compared to those of the selected technology If design characteristics of the selected technology exceed bounding ESP PPE values, additional reviews are conducted 9


technologiesTVA PPE based on four SMR designsTVA PPE for site based on two or more
Clinch River ESPA Safety Review (cont.)
* Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Review under 10 CFR 52.23 Subcommittee - May 2018 to November 2018 Full Committee - December 2018 ACRS Report - January 2019
* FSER issued - June 2019 10


SMRs with a maximum capacity of 2420 MWt (800 MWe)8 Clinch River ESPASafety Review (cont.)
Required Findings 10 CFR 52.24(a)
*In a COL or CP application, when a specific technology is identifiedESP PPE values are compared to
: 1. Applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and NRC regulations have been met
: 2. Required notifications have been duly made
: 3. Reasonable assurance that the site is in conformity with the provisions of the AEA and NRC regulations 11


those of the selected technologyIf design characteristics of the selected
Required Findings (cont.)
: 4. Applicant is technically qualified to engage in the activities authorized
: 5. Issuance of the permit will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public
: 6. The findings required by Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been made 12


technology exceed bounding ESP PPE values, additional reviews are conducted 9 Clinch River ESPASafety Review (cont.)
Environmental Review
*Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) Review under 10 CFR 52.23Subcommittee
* Evaluates impacts from the construction and operation of two or more SMRs at the proposed and alternate sites
-May 2018 to November 2018Full Committee
* Review completed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 10 CFR Part 51
-December 2018ACRS Report
* US Army Corps of Engineers cooperated on EIS development 13
-January 2019
*FSER issued -June 2019 10 Required Findings10 CFR 52.24(a) 1.Applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and NRC regulations have been met 2.Required notifications have been duly


m ade 3.Reasonable assurance that the site is
Environmental Review Process Environmental Report Draft                                      Final Supplemental  Environmental          Comment            Environmental Submittals      Impact              Period
* Impact Statement                                  Statement Scoping
* Independent Information
* Opportunity for Public Involvement 14


in conformity with the provisions of the AEA and NRC regulations 11 Required Findings (cont.)
Environmental Review
4.Applicant is technically qualified to engage in the activities authorized 5.Issuance of the permit will not be
* Deferred issues that applicant chose not to address as allowed by regulation:
Cost/Benefit (Need for Power)
Energy Alternatives 15


inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public 6.The findings required by Subpart A of
Environmental Review
* Record of Decision:
States the decision Identifies all alternatives considered Discusses preferences among alternatives States whether NRC has taken all practicable measures, within its jurisdiction, to avoid or minimize environmental harm 16


10 CFR Part 51 have been made 12 EnvironmentalReview
Environmental Review 10 CFR 51.105(a) Findings
*Evaluates impacts from the construction and operation of two or more SMRs at the proposed and alternate sites
: 1. Requirements of NEPA Section 102(2)(A), (C), and (E) and 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, have been met
*Review completed in accordance with the  
: 2. After considering the final balance among conflicting factors in the record of the proceeding, the appropriate action is issuance of the ESP 17


National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 10 CFR Part 51
Environmental Review Required Findings (cont.)
*US Army Corps of Engineers cooperated
: 3. After weighing environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and after considering reasonable alternatives, the ESP should be issued
: 4. The staffs NEPA review has been adequate 18


on EIS development 13 Environmental ReviewProcessSupplemental SubmittalsDraft  En vi ronmental  Impact  StatementScoping*Comme nt  Period**Opportunity for Public InvolvementFinal  En vi ronmental  Impact  StatementEn vi ronmental  ReportIndependentInformation 14 EnvironmentalReview
Overview of Panel Presentations Panel        Issues Discussed
*Deferred issues that applicant chose not to address as allowed by regulation:  Cost/Benefit (Need for Power)Energy Alternatives 15 EnvironmentalReview
* Overview of Safety Review Safety Panel
*Record of Decision:States the decisionIdentifies all alternatives consideredDiscusses preferences among alternativesStates whether NRC has taken all
* EPZ Size Methodology and Exemptions Environmental
* Overview of Panel      Environmental Review 19


practicable measures, within its jurisdiction, to avoid or minimize environmental harm 16 EnvironmentalReview10 CFR 51.105(a) Findings 1.Requirements of NEPA Section 102(2)(A), (C), and (E) and 10CFR Part 51, Subpart A, have been met 2.After considering the final balance
Abbreviations
* ACRS - Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
* AEA - Atomic Energy Act
* CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
* COL - Combined License
* CP - Construction Permit
* CRN - Clinch River Nuclear 20


among conflicting factors in the record of the proceeding, the appropriate action is issuance of the ESP 17 EnvironmentalReviewRequired Findings (cont.)
Abbreviations
3.After weighing environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and after considering reasonable alternatives, the ESP should be issued 4.The staff's NEPA review has been
* EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
* EPZ - Emergency Planning Zone
* ESP - Early Site Permit
* ESPA - Early Site Permit Application
* FSER - Final Safety Evaluation Report 21


adequat e 18 Overview of Panel PresentationsPanelIssues DiscussedSafety Panel
Abbreviations
*Overview of Safety Review*EPZ Size Methodology and ExemptionsEnvironmental Panel *Overview of Environmental Review 19 Abbreviations
* NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
*ACRS -Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
* NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission
*AEA -Atomic Energy Act
* PEP - Plume Exposure Pathway
*CFR -Code of Federal Regulations
* PPE - Plant Parameter Envelope
*COL -Combined License
* SMR - Small Modular Reactor
*CP -Construction Permit
* TVA - Tennessee Valley Authority 22}}
*CRN -Clinch River Nuclear 20 Abbreviations
*EIS -Environmental Impact Statement
*EPZ -Emergency Planning Zone
*ESP -Early Site Permit
*ESPA -Early Site Permit Application
*FSER -Final Safety Evaluation Report 21 Abbreviations
*NEPA -National Environmental Policy Act
*NRC -Nuclear Regulatory Commission
*PEP -Plume Exposure Pathway  
*PPE -Plant Parameter Envelope
*SMR -Small Modular Reactor
*TVA -Tennessee Valley Authority 22}}

Latest revision as of 23:05, 29 November 2019

Official Exhibit - NRC-016-R-MA-CM01 - Staff Presentation Slides - Overview (Aug. 2019)
ML19227A247
Person / Time
Site: Clinch River
Issue date: 08/12/2019
From:
NRC/OGC
To:
SECY RAS
References
52-047-ESP, ASLBP 17-954-01-ESP-BD02, RAS 55162
Download: ML19227A247 (23)


Text

United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of: TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY (Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application)

Commission Mandatory Hearing Docket #: 05200047 Exhibit #: NRC-016-R-MA-CM01 Identified: 8/14/2019 Admitted: 8/14/2019 Withdrawn:

Rejected: Stricken:

Other:

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION In the Matter of TENNESSEE VALLEY AUTHORITY Docket No. 52-047-ESP (Clinch River Nuclear Site Early Site Permit Application)

Revised Hearing Exhibit Revised Exhibit Number: NRC-016-R Exhibit Revision Date: August 12, 2019 Revised Exhibit

Title:

Staff Presentation Slides - Overview (Aug. 2019)

Early Site Permit (ESP)

Application Review Clinch River Nuclear Site Overview Panel August 14, 2019

Panelists

  • Fred Brown - Director, Office of New Reactors
  • Anna Bradford - Deputy Director, Division of Licensing, Siting and Environmental Analyses 2

Overview of Staffs Review of the Early Site Permit Application

  • Summary of Early Site Permit Application (ESPA)
  • Overview - Safety Review
  • Summary of Safety Findings
  • Overview - Environmental Review
  • Summary of Environmental Findings
  • Overview of Panel Presentations 3

Clinch River ESPA

  • In May 2016, Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) submitted the ESP application
  • In December 2016, application accepted for docketing and detailed technical review 4

Clinch River ESPA (cont.)

Permit approval for a 20-year term Approval for a plume exposure pathway (PEP) emergency planning zone (EPZ) sizing methodology 2 major features (onsite) Emergency Plans and exemption requests for site boundary and 2-mile PEP EPZs

  • ESPA does not establish a PEP EPZ 5

Clinch River ESPA (cont.)

  • If the ESP is issued, the NRC would be approving the Clinch River Nuclear Site as a suitable site for the potential construction and operation of two or more small modular reactor (SMRs)
  • An ESP does not authorize construction or operation 6

Clinch River ESPA Safety Review

  • Site Safety Evaluation Characteristics of the proposed site Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE)

Major features emergency plans PEP EPZ size methodology for use by combined license (COL) or construction permit (CP) applicant 7

Clinch River ESPA (cont.)

  • TVA has not chosen a specific reactor design for the site A PPE can bound a variety of technologies TVA PPE based on four SMR designs TVA PPE for site based on two or more SMRs with a maximum capacity of 2420 MWt (800 MWe) 8

Clinch River ESPA Safety Review (cont.)

  • In a COL or CP application, when a specific technology is identified ESP PPE values are compared to those of the selected technology If design characteristics of the selected technology exceed bounding ESP PPE values, additional reviews are conducted 9

Clinch River ESPA Safety Review (cont.)

  • FSER issued - June 2019 10

Required Findings 10 CFR 52.24(a)

1. Applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and NRC regulations have been met
2. Required notifications have been duly made
3. Reasonable assurance that the site is in conformity with the provisions of the AEA and NRC regulations 11

Required Findings (cont.)

4. Applicant is technically qualified to engage in the activities authorized
5. Issuance of the permit will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public
6. The findings required by Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been made 12

Environmental Review

  • Evaluates impacts from the construction and operation of two or more SMRs at the proposed and alternate sites
  • Review completed in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and 10 CFR Part 51
  • US Army Corps of Engineers cooperated on EIS development 13

Environmental Review Process Environmental Report Draft Final Supplemental Environmental Comment Environmental Submittals Impact Period

  • Impact Statement Statement Scoping
  • Independent Information
  • Opportunity for Public Involvement 14

Environmental Review

  • Deferred issues that applicant chose not to address as allowed by regulation:

Cost/Benefit (Need for Power)

Energy Alternatives 15

Environmental Review

  • Record of Decision:

States the decision Identifies all alternatives considered Discusses preferences among alternatives States whether NRC has taken all practicable measures, within its jurisdiction, to avoid or minimize environmental harm 16

Environmental Review 10 CFR 51.105(a) Findings

1. Requirements of NEPA Section 102(2)(A), (C), and (E) and 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, have been met
2. After considering the final balance among conflicting factors in the record of the proceeding, the appropriate action is issuance of the ESP 17

Environmental Review Required Findings (cont.)

3. After weighing environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and after considering reasonable alternatives, the ESP should be issued
4. The staffs NEPA review has been adequate 18

Overview of Panel Presentations Panel Issues Discussed

  • Overview of Safety Review Safety Panel
  • EPZ Size Methodology and Exemptions Environmental
  • Overview of Panel Environmental Review 19

Abbreviations

  • AEA - Atomic Energy Act
  • CFR - Code of Federal Regulations
  • COL - Combined License
  • CP - Construction Permit
  • CRN - Clinch River Nuclear 20

Abbreviations

  • EIS - Environmental Impact Statement
  • EPZ - Emergency Planning Zone
  • ESP - Early Site Permit
  • ESPA - Early Site Permit Application
  • FSER - Final Safety Evaluation Report 21

Abbreviations

  • NEPA - National Environmental Policy Act
  • NRC - Nuclear Regulatory Commission
  • PEP - Plume Exposure Pathway
  • PPE - Plant Parameter Envelope
  • SMR - Small Modular Reactor