ML25211A172
| ML25211A172 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 99902028, Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Issue date: | 08/07/2025 |
| From: | Carolyn Lauron NRC/NRR/DNRL/NLIB |
| To: | Jardaneh M NRC/NRR/DNRL/NRLB |
| Shared Package | |
| ML25211A165 | List: |
| References | |
| NEI 25-06 | |
| Download: ML25211A172 (4) | |
Text
Enclosure 3 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
SUMMARY
OF THE JULY 22, 2025, PUBLIC MEETING WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE TO DISCUSS EARLY SITE PERMIT RENEWAL GUIDANCE (NEI 25-06)
Meeting Summary The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held an observation public meeting on July 22, 2025, with representatives from the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) to discuss the guidance in NEI 25-06, Revision 0, for implementing the Early Site Permit (ESP) renewal requirements in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.1 The hybrid public meeting had in-person and remote attendees from NEI, the public, and NRC staff. No decisions or commitments were made during the public meeting.
The NRC issued the public meeting notice on July 1, 2025, and posted it on the NRC public meeting website.2 The NRC updated the meeting details on the NRC public meeting website with the NEI presentation materials.3 Michele Sampson, Director of the Division of New and Renewed Licenses at the NRC provided opening remarks to express the NRCs goal to conduct its review as efficiently as possible to implement the regulatory requirements by ensuring the review is conducted at the right time so that the information and findings will be meaningful and useful. She noted that ESPs provide a valuable tool on the acceptability of a site for future reactors through a construction permit (CP) or combined license (COL). She further affirmed that the NRC is very open to the NEI idea of piloting the graded approach to ESP renewal in the near term and to work through next steps to develop more meaningful and effectiveness of the guidance.
Spencer Klein from NEI, with support from Martin ONeill, presented the general approach to renewing the ESP under current regulations followed by the NEI proposed streamlined approach to renewal of the ESP. The following bullets summarize key points from the presentation:
An ESP approves a site or sites for one or more nuclear plants for incorporation into a CP or COL. The ESP site safety conclusions are meant to be tiered into or incorporated into the CP or COL application. It is common practice to get an ESP and not move 1
Letter from S. Klein to M. Sampson, NEI Guidance for Implementing the Requirements of 10 CFR Part 52 for Early Site Permit Renewal, dated June 9, 2025, Agencywide Documents and Access Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML25171A132.
2 U.S. NRC, 07/22/2025 Nuclear Energy Institute Guidance for Implementing the Requirements in 10 CFR Part 52 for Early Site Permit Renewal, dated July 1, 2025, ML25199A092. Public Meeting Schedule: Meeting Details l NRC.gov 3
NEI, Industry Guideline for Early Site Permit (ESP) Renewal (NEI 25-06), dated July 22, 2025, ML25198A359.
2 immediately into construction to allow the permit holder to determine what nuclear plant would meet the needs.
For ESP renewal, current regulations require licensees to bring up to date the information and data contained in the original ESP. The NEI guidance proposes that ESP renewal applications only address information that has been materially changed since the original application.
Current regulations provide timely renewal protection such that an ESP remains valid if a renewal application is submitted not less than 12 months and no more than 36 months from the expiration date. NEI noted that the NRC has granted exemptions from the 12-month period to establish timely renewal protections.
The ESP application is required to include design information related to structures, systems, and components, as well as site-specific parameters related to site safety, environmental protection, and emergency planning. The ESP application may include a request for limited work authorization (LWA).
NEI expects that the site characteristics and design parameters to be identical to the previous site safety analysis report (SSAR). There may be some changes related to external hazards or local demography as well and quality assurance (QA) and emergency preparedness (EP). NEI offered that the NRC staff review could be optimized on differences from original and updates to analysis.
NEI noted that updating the environmental report (ER) would be a significant cost and proposed that renewal applications use reliable preexisting data as opposed to using contractors for extensive data collection.
NEI proposes that if there is no new and significant information the renewal application should state that. The ER should follow the structure of the original application and should supply information related to significant impacts. In addition, the applicant should state the new and significant information and describe the process for evaluating the information. NEI noted precedence in the Vogtle Units 3 and 4 ER and the Kairos Unit 2 ER.
NEI proposed renewal considerations for an LWA issued with the ESP, EP, QA and departures and exemptions in the original ESP. The considerations included a statement in the renewal application if there are no changes. Because QA is periodically updated, the renewal application should state the latest version and if there are any delegations to other organizations. NEI anticipates that the physical characteristics and surrogate design information should be similar, if not identical, to those in the original ESP application, and that large portions of SSAR should be identical.
NEI proposed a streamlined approach to ESP renewal that includes considerations for requesting an exemption to extend the permit for an additional 20 years, simplifying the renewal review process, and updating the information in the ESP.
NEI concluded the presentation with its request for the NRC to endorse its guidance and to consider a future rulemaking to extend the duration of an ESP to 40 years, similar to the direct final rule issued to extend the duration of design certification (DC) to 40 years.
3 The following summarizes the NRC staff questions on the presentation and the NEI responses.
The NRC staff requested clarification on how the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) data would be sufficient to update seismic characterization. NEI responded that it is preparing a submittal for the basis of this approach and that there is sufficient generic data from USGS that should suffice or supplant the need for extensive boring at sites where this work has been done. NEI is also looking at datasets from federal databases that are reliable to supplement the existing data to do confirmatory analysis because it is cost effective for the renewal application. Once an applicant decides to pursue either a CP or COL, the application will bring up to date the information. NEI noted that it submitted a report regarding meteorological data and is in the process of discussing with the staff how the report might be endorsed or incorporate into Regulatory Guide 1.23, Meteorological Monitoring Programs for Nuclear Power Plants.
The NRC staff noted that there are consensus models developed by NRC, USGS, Department of Energy, and the nuclear industry that can be easily implemented using existing ESP data to update the hazards and incorporate into a future CP or COL application. The NRC staff noted that it may be inefficient for an ESP application to propose the use of new data, including data intended for commercial buildings in lieu of site data available to the ESP. NEI acknowledged that the use of new data may have been focused on new sites and new reactors. The NRC staff responded that in some cases, it may make sense to use new data for a new applicant and the NRC will look forward to addressing that later; however, for ESP renewal, it would be much easier to implement the available consensus models with the site data.
The NRC staff requested additional information on how issuing an environmental assessment (EA) instead of an environmental impact statement (EIS) would still meet the current regulations. NEI responded that the proposal is a very streamlined approach that focuses on new and significant information and that the NRC staff prepare an EA in lieu of an EIS as it had for Kairos Hermes 2 and the Palisades Restart, both of which have been completed in 12 months. If an applicant pursues the proposed approach in Appendix A, NEI noted that an EA would be appropriate.
The NRC staff asked how the proposal addresses the required hearings. NEI responded that there would be an opportunity for a hearing if an applicant pursues updating the information described in the main body of the proposal. However, if an applicant pursues the approach in Appendix A and requests an exemption from the renewal regulations, NEI expects a more limited scope hearing. NEI noted that the CP extension was the comparison and basis and noted for previous plants linked at the bottom of Slide 14 of the presentation. The NRC issued a minimal safety evaluation, and assessment and consultations were not required because the CP extension did not change the previous authorizations. NEI also noted that any exemption request would include categorical exclusion to meet the criteria and that granting an exemption to defer the update of information and data to a CP or COL application would result in no significant hazards or no significant changes to an applicant seeking to renew the ESP.
The NRC staff noted the goal of phased licensing is regulatory certainty and asked when changes at the site get dispositioned, in the renewal application or when a CP or COL is pursued. NEI responded that its guidance proposes a streamlined approach for
4 addressing any major changes at the site, but the applicant may decide to address it later when it has more clarity on the project and whether to move forward with it. The NEI guidance gives an applicant the flexibility to decide based on its planning horizons and financials on whether to pursue finality now and incorporate by reference the information in a future in CP or COL, or to defer to a later date or to not proceed.
The NRC staff acknowledged that it received the NEI submission related to meteorological data and noted that most of the current ESP holders have existing units and have operating onsite meteorological monitoring systems. For those sites, there is readily available information that is representative so there would not be a need to use other sources for meteorological data. The NRC staff requested that the document clarify that data from onsite meteorological systems should be used if it is available. NEI responded that it will make that clarification in the document and noted that the three ESPs due for renewal have onsite meteorological data available. NEI noted that the guidance was meant to be inclusive of ESPs for greenfield or brownfield sites where onsite meteorological systems are not available. Similar to a previous comment, NEI noted that if there is a scenario with a gap in available data, its guidance provides for the use of other sources or readily available data.
The NRC asked what near-term ESP holders would use the NEI proposed guidance.
NEI identified the Clinton ESP, North Anna ESP, and Grand Gulf ESP as expiring in the near term. NEI noted that endorsing the guidance document could help other companies. In addition, NEI stated that it had discussions with entities and states on the durability of the permit if they choose to move forward or to wait to see what happens with the industry that would attract developers. NEI noted that NRC staff might consider extending the permit term similar to DCs. NEI described that the NRC had extended CPs multiple times in the past and construction can be deferred indefinitely and a COL that is valid for 40 years could be held on to for decades before the licensee pursues construction without having to complete updates. NEI made a final request that the NRC seek pathways to renew and extend the license terms by rulemaking.
Spencer Klein extended appreciation to the NRC staff for considering the approach and its willingness to pilot the approach and collaborate on this document. Michele Sampson extended her appreciation for the dialogue and exchange of information. She noted that the NRC is looking at its framework more broadly for efficiencies and noted benefit to having clarity on what is required for ESP renewal and piloting one or both approaches in the document might be the way to work on the issues to provide the clarity and near-term resolution for ESPs nearing expiration.
The meeting adjourned at 1:35 PM.