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 NRC/NRR/NRLPO
To:	Simard R Nuclear Energy Institute
Gilles N, NRR/DRIP/RNRP, 415-1180
References
Download: ML032100049 (8)

Text

September 3, 2003 Dr. 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 OF AN EARLY SITE PERMIT

Dear Dr. Simard:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you of our understanding and expectations regarding the form 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 applicants may 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 ESP applicants 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 PPE approach 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 staffs ability to determine, based on that information,

R. Simard that an application for an ESP meets the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commissions regulations.

With regard to the draft ESP that was attached to your April 30, 2003, letter, we believe that the types 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 the staff 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 Commission deems appropriate and necessary. As we have stated in the past (e.g., in our letter of June 17, 2003, on the subject, Resolution of Early Site Permit Topic 13 (ESP-13), Guidance for ESP Seismic Evaluations), ESPs will contain a license condition requiring the reporting of any 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 an Existing Site, the staff is considering ESP conditions for sites with an existing reactor that would require the ESP 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 conditions or limitations on an ESP at this time.

Please contact Nanette Gilles of my staff at 301-415-1180 if you have any questions on this matter.

Sincerely,

/RA/

James E. Lyons, 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

R. Simard that an application for an ESP meets the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act and the Commissions regulations.

With regard to the draft ESP that was attached to your April 30, 2003, letter, we believe that the types 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 the staff 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 Commission deems appropriate and necessary. As we have stated in the past (e.g., in our letter of June 17, 2003, on the subject, Resolution of Early Site Permit Topic 13 (ESP-13), Guidance for ESP Seismic Evaluations), ESPs will contain a license condition requiring the reporting of any 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 an Existing Site, the staff is considering ESP conditions for sites with an existing reactor that would require the ESP 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 conditions or limitations on an ESP at this time.

Please contact Nanette Gilles of my staff at 301-415-1180 if you have any questions on this matter.

Sincerely,

/RA/

James E. Lyons, 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 Distribution: See attached Accession No. ML032100049 OFFICE PM:RNRP SC:RNRP OGC/NLO PD:RNRP NAME NGilles LDudes DCummings JLyons DATE 8/14/03 8/14/03 8/29/03 8/29/03 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY

ESP-Generic Mr. Eddie Grant Exelon Generation cc: 200 Exelon Way, KSA3-E Kennett Square, PA 19348 Mr. David Lochbaum Union of Concerned Scientists Mr. James F. Mallay, Director 1707 H Street, NW Regulatory Affairs Suite 600 FRAMATOME, ANP Washington, DC 20006-3919 3315 Old Forest Road Lynchburg, VA 24501 Mr. Paul Gunter Director of the Reactor Watchdog Project Mr. Ernie H. Kennedy Nuclear Information & Resource Service Vice President New Plants 1424 16th Street, NW, Suite 404 Nuclear Plant Projects Washington, DC 20036 Westinghouse Electric Company 2000 Day Hill Road Mr. Ron Simard Windsor, CT 06095-0500 Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 Dr. Regis A. Matzie 1776 I Street, NW Senior Vice President and Washington, DC 20006-3708 Chief Technology Officer Westinghouse Electric Company Mr. Russell Bell 2000 Day Hill Road Nuclear Energy Institute Windsor, CT 06095-0500 Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Mr. Gary Wright, Director Washington, DC 20006-3708 Division of Nuclear Safety Illinois Emergency Management Agency Mr. Thomas P. Miller 1035 Outer Park Drive U.S. Department of Energy Springfield, IL 62704 Headquarters - Germantown 19901 Germantown Road Mr. Vince Langman Germantown, MD 20874-1290 Licensing Manager Atomic Energy of Canada Limited Mr. James Riccio 2251 Speakman Drive Greenpeace Mississauga, Ontario 702 H Street, NW, Suite 300 Canada L5K 1B2 Washington, DC 20001 Mr. David Ritter Rod Krich Research Associate on Nuclear Energy Vice President, Licensing Projects Public Citizens Critical Mass Energy Exelon Nuclear and Environmental Program 4300 Winfield Road 215 Pennsylvania Avenue, SE Warrenville, IL 60555 Washington, DC 20003 Patricia Campbell Mr. Tom Clements Winston & Strawn 6703 Guide Avenue 1400 L Street, NW Takoma Park, MD 20912 Washington, DC 20005 Mr. Paul Leventhal Nuclear Control Institute 1000 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 410 Washington, DC 20036

Mr. Jack W. Roe Dr. Glenn R. George SCIENTECH, INC. PA Consulting Group 910 Clopper Road 130 Potter Street Gaithersburg, MD 20878 Haddonfield, NJ 08033 Dr. Gail H. Marcus Arthur R. Woods U.S. Department of Energy Enercon Services, Inc.

Room 5A-143 500 TownPark Lane 1000 Independence Ave., SW Kennesaw, GA 30144 Washington, DC 20585 Mr. Thomas Mundy Ms. Marilyn Kray Director, Project Development Vice President, Special Projects Exelon Generation Exelon Generation 200 Exelon Way, KSA3-E 200 Exelon Way, KSA3-E Kennett Square, PA 19348 Kennett Square, PA 19348 Mr. Ed Wallace, General Manager Mr. Joseph D. Hegner Projects Lead Engineer - Licensing PBMR Pty LTD Dominion Generation PO Box 9396 Early Site Permitting Project Centurion 0046 5000 Dominion Boulevard Republic of South Africa Glen Allen, VA 23060 Ms. Vanessa E. Quinn, Chief Mr. George Alan Zinke Radiological Emergency Preparedness Project Manager Branch Nuclear Business Development Department of Homeland Security/FEMA Entergy Nuclear 500 C Street, SW M-ECH-683 Washington, DC 20472 1340 Echelon Parkway Jackson, MS 39213 Mr. Charles Brinkman Westinghouse Electric Co.

Washington Operations 12300 Twinbrook Pkwy., Suite 330 Rockville, MD 20852 Mr. Marvin Fertel Senior Vice President and Chief Nuclear Officer Nuclear Energy Institute Suite 400 1776 I Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-3708

Distribution:

Hard Copy RNRP R/F AFernadez PUBLIC ACRS JLyons JMoore RidsNrrOD (JDyer) RNRP Grp.

LDudes JTappert RidsNrrAdip (JCraig) BZalcman NGilles TKenyon RidsOgcRp AKugler JWilson, RLEP