Home > Electronic Reading Room > Document Collections > Commission Documents > Commission Papers (SECY) > 2005 > SECY-05-0139

POLICY ISSUE
(Information)

SECY-05-0139

August 4, 2005

• PURPOSE
• BACKGROUND
• DISCUSSION
• CONCLUSIONS
• RESOURCES
• COORDINATION

PURPOSE:

This paper informs the Commission of the staff's new reactor licensing activities since the issuance of SECY-05-0013, "Semiannual Update of the Status of New Reactor Licensing Activities," dated January 12, 2005, and describes key activities and accomplishments, as well as upcoming planning challenges associated with an increased interest in licensing activities. The attachment provides a more complete history of new reactor projects.

BACKGROUND:

In SECY-01-0188, "Future Licensing and Inspection Readiness Assessment," dated October 12, 2001, the staff assessed its technical, licensing, and inspection capabilities, and described enhancements to support new reactor licensing. The staff also committed to give the Commission semiannual updates of the status of new reactor licensing activities.

The attachment describes recent design certification, early site permit (ESP), and pre-application review activities for new reactor designs, and supporting infrastructure development. Interactions with stakeholders are also discussed.

As stated in SECY-05-0013, interest in new reactor licensing and construction continues to grow. As a result, there have been more requests for regulatory interactions which could lead to one or more combined license (COL) applications for new licenses. Recent examples of this renewed interest are the Department of Energy's (DOE's) cost-sharing agreements with Dominion Resources and NuStart Energy Development, LLC (NuStart) to support COL demonstration projects for the development of COL applications in the United States. A public meeting was held with Duke Energy on March 14, 2005, to discuss planning for their possible COL application. In addition, Southern Company and Constellation Energy have submitted proposals to DOE to evaluate submitting ESP applications. The staff continues to engage potential applicants on their schedules for anticipated applications in order to identify resource challenges affecting both current and reasonably foreseeable budgets. The staff will continue to give higher priority to activities that could culminate in the submission of one or more COL applications consistent with current planning and budgetary assumptions.

DISCUSSION:

Herein the staff highlights key activities, accomplishments, and planning challenges; a more complete history of all new reactor projects is provided in the attachment .

Key Activities and Accomplishments in New Reactors

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has accomplished a number of activities since the last status update paper and continues work on several key regulatory products in connection with new reactor licensing. These products included the publication in the Federal Register on April 18, 2005 (70 FR 20062), of the proposed design certification rule for the AP1000 design. In addition, the NRC staff is drafting a new proposed rule for Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Part 52 (10 CFR Part 52), and conforming changes throughout Title 10.

The staff continues to develop and utilize detailed schedules and resource models for the management of new reactor licensing activities in this highly dynamic environment. The staff used these tools to make resource adjustments when the General Electric (GE) Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR) design certification (DC) application was delayed from June 2005 to August 2005. The staff also reallocated resources originally targeted for the Advanced CANDU Reactor 700 (ACR-700) design certification application to other NRC activities when that application was not received in March 2005, as planned.

The staff's interactions with external stakeholders during the past six months include approximately 10 separate public meetings related to developing the regulatory infrastructure for new reactor licensing. Specifically, the topics of these meetings included the development of the construction inspection program, NRC review of the Nuclear Energy Institute's COL application guideline document, the review of operational programs included in a COL application, and the development of inspections, tests, analyses, and acceptance criteria (ITAAC) for emergency planning. These public meetings have lead to the issuance of the inspection manual chapter (IMC) on the pre-combined license phase, as well as progress on the two remaining IMCs for ITAAC and non-ITAAC inspections. In addition, the NRC staff has provided both written and oral comments on the industry's draft COL application guideline document, discussed in detail the information needed to review certain operational programs in a COL application and the implementation of these programs, and developed ITAAC for emergency planning.

In accordance with project schedules, draft safety evaluation reports (SER) and draft environmental impact statements (EIS) have been issued for the Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion) ESP application for the North Anna ESP site, the Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon) ESP application for the Clinton site, and the System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI), a subsidiary of Entergy Corporation, ESP application for the Grand Gulf site. In addition, on June 16, 2005, the staff issued the final SER on schedule for the ESP application filed by Dominion.

The staff has implemented a successful public outreach effort for the environmental review of the ESP applications. This has been demonstrated by the substantial turnout by members of the public for the local public meetings on the draft EIS for each site and the significant number of public comments submitted during the public comment periods. This greater than anticipated public involvement has resulted in the staff adjusting the schedules for all three ESP applications.

The staff has taken action to address the large number of comments received and to minimize the effect on the schedule for the three ESP reviews. The actions taken include (1) development of a database of staff responses to generic issues in support of comment resolution for ESP environmental reviews, (2) transfer of license renewal work to a different contractor than the one presently supporting ESP reviews, to make additional contractor resources immediately available, and (3) adjustment of the timing and consolidation of activities to perform more steps in parallel across project lines and to reflect the actual level of stakeholder involvement.

In SECY-05-0013, the staff indicated that the highest priority is to be given to ESPs expected to be referenced in COL applications. Based on our understanding of industry interest, the North Anna ESP site is the primary site being considered by the Dominion-led consortium for a COL application. The Grand Gulf ESP site is one of six sites under consideration by NuStart Energy Development LLC for a COL application. At this time, the staff is not aware of any COL under consideration that would reference the Clinton ESP site. Therefore, the staff has determined that the SERI ESP application review will be given priority over the Exelon review, as reflected in the table of ESP milestones on page 6 of the attachment .

The staff will take actions to implement further improvements and to address long-term resource issues associated with environmental reviews. These include: (1) recruiting additional environmental staff to deal with growth in the new reactor licensing arena, (2) obtaining contract support in addition to the multi-laboratory infrastructure in place, and (3) creating a new environmental review section. In addition, the staff is considering temporarily utilizing resources from the high-level radioactive waste disposal program, investigating potential infrastructure improvements, and incorporating lessons learned on the current ESP reviews into subsequent reviews to avoid future schedule delays.

Planning and Prioritization

Uncertainty in industry plans and schedules continues to challenge the development of realistic planning and budget assumptions. Table 1 lists the NRC staff's anticipated activities for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 and FY 2007. The activities listed for FY 2008 reflect the NRC staff's best estimates for applications based on industry requests.

To accommodate the increased FY 2008 projected new reactor licensing work, a significant investment in additional resources is needed in the near term. Plans include supplemental funding from Congress in FY 2006 and increased budget in FY 2007, to hire and train the necessary staff for anticipated new reactor licensing reviews in FY 2008, and to continue updating the regulatory infrastructure (e.g., Standard Review Plan) to effectively support multiple simultaneous new licensing reviews.

The NRC staff will schedule and prioritize new reactor activities consistent with the Commission's guidance in its May 10, 2005, staff requirements memorandum (SRM). The COL application reviews would be staggered to maintain resources for operating reactor licensing activities and to make the most efficient use of staff and contractor teams in the review process. The NRC staff will look to identify additional efficiencies and lessons learned to enhance the efficiency of the COL application reviews and reduce the duration of the stagger between applications. DC applications for near-term deployment, such as those aligned with a domestic partner, would be given the next priority after COL applications. After DC applications, priority would be given to ESPs that will be referenced in a COL application.

To further refine the planning and resource strategies for new reactor licensing activities and to effectively manage the agency's staffing expansion, the NRC staff is developing a planning/coordinating team which will include members from the Offices of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Nuclear Regulatory Research, Nuclear Security and Incident Response, Human Resources, Information Services, and Administration. The objectives of this team will be to develop integrated hiring and training plans, coordinate the facilities, equipment, and supervisory overhead necessary to support the new staff, and to manage the completion of the regulatory infrastructure work needed for efficient COL reviews. In addition, the team will engage the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and potential applicants to establish a schedule for submittal of new reactor applications (similar to the schedules that were established for license renewal), and develop specific guidelines for the industry to adhere to the NRC's prioritization plan.

Recent correspondence from additional potential applicants indicates that the agency will need to prioritize work to focus on regulatory products and infrastructure elements that are aligned toward near-term national goals. This planning focus may not meet the needs or expectations of applicants pursuing longer term licensing activities or seeking NRC approval to facilitate deployment of advanced reactor designs abroad. Specifically, the NRC staff may defer the DC review of reactor designs such as the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor, the Advanced CANDU Reactor 700, and the International Reactor Innovative and Secure until these designs are clearly aligned with a domestic partner. However, the NRC staff will continue to engage with prospective applicants through pre-application interactions and will remain cognizant of international activities associated with advanced reactors consistent with the Commission's advanced reactor policy statement and the guidance in the May 10, 2005, SRM.

In anticipation of reviewing the Part 52 applications, the NRC staff will be reviewing the NRC's Standard Review Plan (NUREG-0800), other guidance documents, and office procedures to develop an integrated plan for updating licensing review guidance documents. This plan will identify which documents will need to be updated and will include a schedule for completion of such updates. The updates will be based on a prioritization of guidance documents that need to be revised and focus on updating the most critical items first. The NRC staff will provide this updated plan to the Commission.

CONCLUSIONS:

New reactor licensing activities continue to be focused on reviewing applications for DC and ESPs and on preparing for the review of multiple COL applications. The NRC staff is planning for the necessary resources to accelerate the development of the technical infrastructure needed to complete these reviews and the regulatory infrastructure that will make the licensing process more efficient and effective in the future. These resources are expected to be in place to review the anticipated COL and DC applications expected in FY 2008. The NRC staff will also continue to interact with applicable stakeholders to ensure openness in these activities, and to ensure that any future planning incorporates the most up-to-date information about industry submission schedules.

RESOURCES:

As part of planning for the anticipated number of COL and DC applications expected in FY 2008, the NRC has determined that an additional investment to acquire personnel and develop infrastructure in FY 2006 and in FY 2007 is necessary. These resources will be used to accelerate the development and revision of the regulatory infrastructure that will be required when the first COL application review is commenced.

Agency resources assigned to new reactor licensing activities are sufficient to complete work planned for the FY 2006-2007 budget cycles, based on current planning assumptions, only if the supplemental funding of $20 million for FY 2006 and the FY2007 budget request are provided. To develop these budget estimates, the NRC staff considered information and experience gained in pre-application reviews, along with application schedule information provided by prospective applicants.

The supplemental FY 2006 and FY 2007 funding will be utilized to accelerate efforts for technical development and regulatory infrastructure, for human capital investment, for recruitment, additional office space, computers, and security.

In the FY 2006 budget proposal, the highest priority for new reactor licensing resources was given to activities in support of COL applications. Therefore, the NRC staff will focus on reviewing the ESBWR design, and completing the three ESP reviews already under review, and starting the Southern ESP review. In FY 2007, the NRC staff will continue reviewing the ESBWR design and the Southern ESP, and start a COL application review and a Constellation ESP review. In FY 2006-2007, the NRC staff will give lower priority to various other DC and pre-application activities that the NRC staff does not expect to be referenced in potential COL applications in the foreseeable future. Based on the prioritization discussed above, the existing FY 2006 budget estimate does not support a significant level of effort on these lower priority reviews.

COORDINATION:

The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resource implications and has no objection.

Attachment:

Semiannual Update of the Status of New Reactor Licensing Activities - July 2005

Privacy Policy | Site Disclaimer
Thursday, February 22, 2007