PERMITTING CHALLENGES FOR THE NEW GENERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS

1. PERMITTING CHALLENGES FOR THE NEW GENERATION OF NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS Ping Wan Bechtel Power Corporation Ninth Nuclear Utility Meteorological Data Users Group Meeting October 2003

2. Applicable Regulatory Process 10 CFR Part 52 Process • Design Certification • Early Site Permitting • Combined License (Only design certification process has been demonstrated.)

3. Licensing Process Comparison

4. Major Parts of An ESP Application • Part 1 – Administration Information • Part 2 – Site Safety Analysis Report • Part 3 – Environmental Report • Part 4 – Emergency Response Plan

5. Key Features of ESP Process • To demonstrate the suitability of a site without defining and evaluating the acceptability of a particular plant design • An ESP is in effect for 10 to 20 years.

6. Permitting Challenges • ESP Application Format and Content • Maintaining flexibility in deployment of future nuclear technologies • Selection of ESP Site • Concept of Alternative Site Review

7. Application Format & Content • No specific regulatory guidance documents available • Most ESP Applicants follow the Format & Content of the NRC Staff Standard Review Plans: • NUREG 0800 • NUREG 1555 • NRR RS-002 (draft)

8. Technology Flexibility • Develop A Technology Neutral Approach that Provides a Broad Overall Outline of a Design Concept. • Employ Plant Parameter Envelop Concept.

9. Technology Flexibility • PPEs are the single largest (or smaller) value for each parameter, based on engineering, safety and environmental Conservatism. • Review Current advanced nuclear technologies • Collect vendor information • Define and select bounding plant parameters

10. Advanced Nuclear Power Plant Designs • ABWR (Boiling Water Reactor) • ESBWR (Boiling Water Reactor) • AP-1000 (Pressurized water Reactor) • ACR-700 (Light Water Cooled Reactor) • IRIS (Next Generation PWR) • PBMR (Pebble Bed Modular Reactor) • GT-MHR (Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor)

11. Technology Flexibility / PPE • Not to be limited to the seven designs • To provide a broad overall outline of a design concept • To include other potential designs if they can be demonstrated to fall within the parameter values provided in the PPEs

12. ESP Site Selection • Deregulation of Power Industry • Concept of “Region of Interest” for New Electric Power Generation • Merchant Plant Operates in Competitive Marketplace • The decision for an ESP Site is Fundamentally a Business Decision.

13. ESP Site Selection Benefits of Co-locating at an Existing Nuclear Plant Site • Extensive site information and environmental studies • Existing infrastructure • Reduce Environmental Impacts and Construction Cost • Local community acceptance

14. Alternative Sites Review Objective : To verify there are no “Obviously Superior Sites” • Identification of Candidate Sites • Evaluation Criteria • Site Ranking Process

15. Candidate Sites Site Criteria • Not pose significant issues • Not degrading local resources • Not significantly impacting the surrounding environment • Not to be located in proximity to major population centers

16. Candidate Sites Sites Considered: • Greenfield - Undeveloped Sites • Brownfield – Previously Developed Sites • Federal Facility Sites • Existing Nuclear Power Plant Sites

17. Evaluation Criteria • Environmental (local population, groundwater, ecology, waste) • Sociological (Socioeconomic benefits, environmental justice, land use) • Engineering (site size, cooling water source, seismic, environmentally sensitive areas) • Economic (electricity/market projections, transmission line access, stakeholder support)

18. Site Ranking Process • Ranking Criteria • Weighting Factors • Overall Site Merit Scores

19. Summary of Challenges • Technology Flexibility – Conservatism Inherent in PPE Concept • “Region of Interest” for Power Generation – NRC Acceptance • Co-locating at an Existing Nuclear Power Plant Site – Full Justifications Required