POLICY ISSUE

(Information)

June 24, 2003 SECY-03-0105

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: William D. Travers

Executive Director for Operations /RA/

SUBJECT: EARLY SITE PERMIT (ESP) APPLICATION READINESS

PURPOSE:

To inform the Commission of the staff’s efforts to prepare for the review of early site permit

(ESP) applications from Exelon Generating Company (Exelon), Entergy Operations, Inc.

(Entergy), and Dominion Generation (Dominion). 

BACKGROUND:

In SECY-03-0005, “Semi-Annual Update of the Status of New Reactor Licensing Activities,”

dated January 8, 2003, the staff committed to inform the Commission of any policy issues

identified during stakeholder interactions and of staff efforts to resolve these issues prior to

receipt of the first ESP application. At this time, the staff has not identified any policy issues

requiring Commission action.

DISCUSSION:

In SECY-02-0076, “Semi-Annual Update of the Future Licensing and Inspection Readiness

Assessment,” dated May 8, 2002, the staff informed the Commission that there were three

prospective applicants for an ESP:

• Exelon stated in a March 1, 2002, letter, that it intended to apply for an ESP by June 2003. 

Exelon announced on April 30, 2002, that the application will be for the Clinton site. 

CONTACT: Ronaldo Jenkins, NRR/NRLPO 

301-415-2985
The Commissioners - 2 -

• As documented in an April 1, 2002, meeting summary (ADAMS Accession No.

ML021010275), Dominion announced that it will apply for an ESP for the North Anna site by

September 2003.

• Entergy stated in an April 15, 2002, letter, that it will submit an ESP application for the

Grand Gulf site by June 30, 2003. Entergy has recently informed the staff that its application

filing will be delayed until July 2003 due to the need to take more time to complete its seismic

evaluations.

Entergy, Exelon, and Dominion have obtained funding from the Department of Energy (DOE) to

offset some of their application costs through the Nuclear Power 2010 initiative, as discussed in

SECY-03-0005. 

ESP Pre-Application Activities

After notification of the utilities’ plans to file an ESP application, the staff undertook the following

pre-application activities: 

• Developed an ESP review standard (as discussed below).

• Developed inspection and administrative procedures necessary to support the ESP review

effort.

• Held public meetings with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and the prospective ESP

applicants on generic issues related to application preparation (as discussed below).

• Developed an integrated work schedule and resource estimates (as discussed below). 

• Visited sites to observe applicant data-gathering activities and to confer with individual ESP

applicants on site-specific issues.

• Reviewed and provided feedback on ESP applicant quality assurance program plans. 

• Held pre-application public meetings near the prospective ESP sites. The purpose of these

meetings was to provide information regarding the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

staff ESP review process and to explain future opportunities for public involvement in that

process. On November 14, 2002, the staff conducted the first near-site pre-application ESP

public meeting in Port Gibson, Mississippi, for the Grand Gulf site. Other pre-application

ESP public meetings were conducted near the Clinton site on March 20, 2003, and near the

North Anna site on April 1, 2003. 

The staff will continue to identify reviewers, establish technical assistance contracts, schedule

meetings with applicants, and interact with the public and other interested stakeholders as part

of the preparations for review of ESP applications.
The Commissioners - 3 -

ESP Review Standard

The staff developed an ESP review standard to (1) clearly define for all stakeholders the scope

of the existing regulatory guidance that is necessary for a review of an ESP application, and (2)

provide a work-planning framework to enhance the quality and efficiency of the ESP review

effort. 

On December 26, 2002, the staff released draft ESP Review Standard RS-002, “Processing

Applications for Early Site Permits,” for public comment and interim use. The public comment

period for the subject document ended on March 31, 2003. The draft document may be found

at ADAMS Accession No. ML023530045. On April 11, 2003, the staff released, for public

comment and interim use, two additional sections of RS-002. The subject areas for these

sections are radiological consequence evaluation and quality assurance. The public comment

period for these sections ended on June 13, 2003. The staff plans to develop the final review

standard by the end of 2003 after reviewing and addressing public comments. With respect to

physical security, the staff issued letters to the three prospective ESP applicants on May 6,

2003, to provide guidance on how security measures should be addressed in their applications

and inform them of the recently revised design basis threat and reactor interim compensatory

measure (ICM) requirements. These letters will be provided to cognizant NRC staff reviewers

in lieu of the near-term development of a review standard for physical security. The staff is also

developing a paper on Security Requirements for New Reactors, which is due to the

Commission in July 2003. The paper will recommend whether additional security design

requirements should be applicable to ESPs and discuss resource estimates associated with

implementation of the staff proposal.

ESP Generic Issues

The staff held frequent public meetings with NEI and the prospective ESP applicants to discuss

generic issues early resolution of which might enhance the timely review and disposition of an

ESP application. A process was developed to document the staff and industry positions. The

principal issues were as follows: 

 quality assurance requirements for ESP information 

 use of the bounding plant parameter envelope (PPE) approach to characterize facility design

 radiological consequence evaluation required by 10 CFR 52.17

 use of the bounding approach for providing fuel cycle and transportation information required

by 10 CFR Part 51

 review of severe accidents and severe accident mitigation alternatives

 alternative site review to meet requirements of 10 CFR Part 52

 form and content of an ESP

While differences remain between the staff and industry positions on some of the topics

discussed, these topics will be resolved during the staff’s review of the site-specific applications. 

If necessary, RS-002 will be revised to reflect the staff’s resolution of these or other topics

addressed in the site-specific reviews. The three prospective ESP applicants have not

indicated that any staff position has impeded or deterred the scheduled filing of their

application. The ESP generic issues are discussed in the attachment.
The Commissioners - 4 -

ESP Review Schedule and Resources

In SECY-03-0005, the staff estimated that the review of an ESP application would take

approximately 33 months from the submittal of the application to the granting of the permit. 

This estimate assumes that the applicant provides a high-quality application and that the issues

to be addressed at the mandatory public hearing are not overly complex or contentious.

The staff has developed an integrated work schedule process which utilizes a planning tool to

document the process steps necessary for the ESP review and to assign critical skills and

resources to each step. 

The staff will continue to closely monitor the status of the potential ESP applications. In the

event of application delays, adjustments to the resource requirements will be made through the

staff’s planning, budgeting, and performance management (PBPM) process, with consideration

of other agency needs and priorities.

In FY 2003, the staff expects to expend about 6.4 FTE and $744,000 to support pre-application

activities and initiation of ESP application reviews. Estimated resource needs increase in

FY 2004 to 19.7 FTE and $4,082,000 for review of the three ESP applications.

CONCLUSIONS:

The staff is prepared to review the ESP applications that Exelon, Entergy, and Dominion are

expected to file in June, July and September 2003. The staff held ESP pre-application public

meetings, to discuss key issues with NEI and the expected applicants. Public meetings were

conducted near the prospective sites to inform the public about the ESP process and

opportunities for public participation. A draft ESP review standard was published to inform

stakeholders of the scope of the staff’s review and to enhance the quality and efficiency of the

ESP review effort. Development of the review standard will continue with the goal of improving

the efficiency, effectiveness, and realism of the subject ESP staff reviews and ensuring that an

appropriate level of safety is maintained for the proposed sites.
The Commissioners - 5 -

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 objections to its content.

/RA/

William D. Travers

Executive Director 

 for Operations

Attachment: Staff Assessment of Key NEI Generic 

ESP Positions
The Commissioners - 5 -

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 objections to its content.

/RA/

William D. Travers

Executive Director 

 for Operations

Attachment: Staff Assessment of Key NEI Generic 

ESP Positions

Accession # ML030870145 *See previous concurrence 

OFC PM:NRLPO Tech Ed* DD:NRLPO* D:NRLPO* D:DSSA*

NAME RJenkins PKleene MGamberoni JLyons SBlack

DATE 5/28/03 04/7/03 4/17/03 4/17/03 5/1/03

OFC D:DIPM* D:DRIP* D:DE* PMAS* NRR

NAME BBoger DMatthews RBarrett MCase WBorchardt

DATE 4/25/03 5/1/03 4/22/03 5/1/03 06/12/03

OFC RES NSIR* NRR OGC* OCFO*

NAME FEltawila-CTrottier

for:

GTracy-JShea for: SCollins JMoore BFicks

DATE 5/20/03 5/20/03 06/12/03 5/22/03 5/7/03

OFC DEDR EDO

NAME WKane WTravers

DATE 06/23/03 06/24/03

 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
Staff Assessment of Key NEI ESP Generic Positions

An early site permit (ESP) is a Commission approval of a particular site to build a nuclear power

plant(s) independent of the facility review. Primarily, the ESP process allows for early

consideration and resolution of site suitability issues. Under the ESP process, siting issues

should be resolved before the applicant invests a significant amount of capital.

The staff will undertake a three-part review of an ESP application based on information

furnished by the applicant as set forth in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section

52.17 (10 CFR 52.17). The three parts of the review pertain to site safety, emergency

preparedness, and environmental impacts. Dominion Generation (Dominion), Exelon

Generating Company (Exelon), and Entergy Operations, Inc. (Entergy), have identified

prospective sites for ESPs and have stated they plan to submit ESP applications to the Nuclear

Regulatory Commission (NRC) in 2003.

The following issues (and regulations) are addressed in this assessment:

1. Quality assurance requirements for ESP information (10 CFR 52.18)

2. Use of the bounding plant parameter envelope (PPE) approach to characterize facility

design (10 CFR 52.17)

3. Radiological consequence evaluation required by 10 CFR 52.17

4. Use of the bounding approach for providing fuel cycle and transportation information

required by 10 CFR Parts 51 and 52

5. Review of severe accident mitigation alternatives and severe accidents

6. Alternative site review to meet requirements of 10 CFR Part 52

7. Form and content of an ESP (10 CFR 52.24)

The detailed discussions of issues on the following pages summarize the issues, the current

regulations, the Nuclear Energy Institute’s (NEI’s) position, the staff’s considerations, and the

staff’s positions. 

1. Quality assurance (QA) requirements for ESP information (10 CFR 52.18)

Issue

What are the QA requirements for ESP information (site characteristics) that may be used in

the design and safety analyses for safety-related systems, structures, and components

(SSCs)? 

Current Regulations

Appendix B to 10 CFR Part 50 states in part that “. . . in this appendix, ‘quality assurance’

comprises all those planned and systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence

that a structure, system, or component will perform satisfactorily in service.”

Attachment
-2-

10 CFR 52.18 states in part that “Applications filed under this subpart will be reviewed

according to the applicable standards set out in 10 CFR Part 50 and its appendices and

Part 100 and its appendices as they apply to applications for construction permits for nuclear

power plants.”

Section 52.39(a)(2) states in part that “[i]n making the findings required for issuance of a

construction permit, operating license, or combined license, or the findings required by § 52.103

of this part, if the application for the construction permit, operating license, or combined license

references an early site permit, the Commission shall treat as resolved those matters resolved

in the proceeding on the application for issuance or renewal of the early site permit . . .” 

10 CFR 52.83 states in part that “. . . all provisions of 10 CFR Part 50 and its appendices

applicable to holders of construction permits for nuclear power reactors also apply to holders of

combined licenses issued under this subpart.” 

NEI’s Position

ESP applicants may apply Appendix B or non-Appendix B alternative quality processes to

provide adequate confidence in the completeness, accuracy, and overall quality of ESP

information. ESP applicants may, but are not required by Section 52.17 to, describe their

quality processes in ESP applications. The NRC should review ESP applications for

completeness and accuracy of the information presented. Unless the ESP applicant commits to

using Appendix B, NRC reviews for compliance with Appendix B would not be appropriate. 

Pre-application submittal of quality process information is at the discretion of future ESP

applicants. ESP information approved by the NRC is appropriate for use in a combined license

(COL) application as provided by 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart C. Existing NRC guidance should

be modified, and the forthcoming ESP Review Standard should reflect that Appendix B is not

mandatory for ESP-related activities.

Discussion

This topic, which is identified as ESP-3 on the list of NEI generic ESP issues, was discussed

during public meetings between NEI and the staff on April 24 and December 5, 2002. 

Subsequently, NEI documented its position on this topic in a letter dated December 20, 2002

(ADAMS Accession No. ML030370058). 

If an applicant were to request a COL, without referencing an ESP, the application, including

data collection, analysis, and evaluation of site characteristics, would have to meet the QA

requirements in Appendix B to Part 50, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.83. If the same applicant

referenced an ESP in its COL application, 10 CFR 52.18 does not explicitly require the ESP

application to meet the QA requirements in Appendix B to Part 50. However, the regulations in

10 CFR 52.39, with certain specific exceptions, require the Commission to treat matters

resolved in the ESP proceeding as resolved in making findings for issuance of a COL. 

Because of this finality, conclusions made during the ESP phase will be relied upon for use in

subsequent design, construction, fabrication, and operation of a reactor that might be

constructed on the site for which an ESP is issued. Therefore, the level of quality used to

control activities related to data collection, analysis, and evaluation of site characteristics should
-3-

be equivalent in substance in the ESP and COL phases. It would not make sense to require a

lower level of quality for a COL that references an ESP than for a COL that does not. 

ESP activities associated with site safety must be controlled by QA measures sufficient to

provide reasonable assurance that future SSCs of a nuclear power plant or plants that might be

constructed on the site will perform adequately in service. For example, activities associated

with data collection, analysis, and evaluation for soil composition, geology, hydrology,

meteorology, and seismology determinations should be subjected to QA controls,

commensurate with the importance of the respective activities to design. Further, important-tosafety information derived from recognized authorities, such as the Census Bureau or the

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, should be controlled using processes for

maintaining data integrity, traceability, document control, evaluation, analysis, and record

storage. 

Staff Position

The staff agrees with NEI that (1) current regulations do not explicitly require implementing a

Part 50 Appendix B program in support of an ESP application; (2) there is no current

requirement for pre-application review of quality processes; and (3) there is no current

requirement to describe the applicant’s quality assurance program in an ESP application. 

However, ESP activities associated with site safety must be controlled by QA measures

sufficient to provide reasonable assurance that future SSCs of a nuclear power plant or plants

that might be constructed on the site will perform adequately in service. For the reasons stated

above, applicants must apply quality controls to each ESP activity associated with the

determination of site characteristics and the generation of safety analyses for safety-related

SSCs. The staff plans to evaluate quality controls for such activities using the criterion that

these controls be equivalent to controls specified in Appendix B. 

Regardless of whether the applicant chooses to submit a QA program description with its

application, the staff will need to evaluate the applicant’s QA controls for information which may

be used in the design and safety analyses of safety-related SSCs. If a description of the

controls is not submitted with the ESP application, these evaluations will be facilitated through

requests for additional information from the staff after the application is docketed. The

evaluations will be supplemented by inspection activities. 

2. Use of the bounding plant parameter envelope (PPE) approach to characterize facility

design (10 CFR 52.17)

Issue

Can a bounding PPE approach be used to characterize facility design in an ESP application? 

Current Regulations

Paragraph (1) of 10 CFR 52.17(a) states in part that “[t]he application must also contain a

description and safety assessment of the site on which the facility is to be located. The

assessment must contain an analysis and evaluation of the major structures, systems, and

components of the facility that bear significantly on the acceptability of the site under the

radiological consequence evaluation factors identified in Sec. 50.34(a)(1) of this chapter.... In
-4-

addition, the application should describe the following: (i) The number, type, and thermal power

level of the facilities for which the site may be used;...(v) The type of cooling systems, intakes,

and outflows that may be associated with each facility....”

Paragraph (2) of 10 CFR 52.17(a) states in part that “A complete environmental report as

required by 10 CFR 51.45 and 10 CFR 51.50 must be included in the application, provided,

however, that such an environmental report must focus on the environmental effects of

construction and operation of a reactor, or reactors which have characteristics that fall within

the postulated site parameters....”

NEI’s Position

A PPE is a set of postulated design parameters that serves as a surrogate for actual facility

design information. For example, design parameters for maximum building height, acreage for

plant facilities, ponds, etc., and cooling water requirements may be specified as PPE values. 

ESP applications would not reference any specific reactor technology, and the resulting ESP

would be applicable for a range of reactor designs, including NRC certified designs, designs for

which NRC certification is currently in progress or contemplated, and future designs. An

application for an ESP using the PPE approach will contain sufficient information (i.e., design

parameters) to support the environmental and site safety evaluations by the NRC staff.

Design parameter values are chosen by the ESP applicant to bound a range of possible future

designs. These values may differ among ESP applicants. For example, PPEs may differ due

to differences in the technology options considered by each applicant and differences in

margins that may be applied to account for uncertainties in design parameter information

provided by reactor vendors. 

The PPE approach will represent composite parameters not indicative of any specific reactor

design. Bounding PPE values would be accepted as presented in the ESP application. NRC

approval and endorsement of PPE values will not be requested and is not necessary (i.e., PPE

values will not be reviewed for conformance to a specific design). 

Granting of an ESP by the NRC does not indicate NRC approval of the site for any specific

plant or type of plant. Rather, a PPE-based ESP indicates that the site is acceptable for

construction and operation of a plant or plants having characteristics that fall within the site

characteristics and design parameters approved in the ESP. ESP applicants bear the risk that

the design ultimately selected for the site might fall outside the approved envelope in one or

more respects. 

It is expected that the information contained in the ESP application will address the information

requested in the ESP Review Standard currently under development. 

Discussion

This topic, which is identified as ESP-6 on the list of NEI generic ESP issues, was discussed

during public meetings between NEI and the staff on July 17 and December 5, 2002. 

Subsequently, NEI documented its position on this topic in a letter dated December 20, 2002

(ADAMS Accession No. ML030370049).
-5-

The PPE approach for ESP is analogous to the suite of postulated site parameters that were

assumed to facilitate the design certification applications. During design certification, actual site

information is not known, but standard plants were designed to the bounding site parameters

specified in the design certification applications.

ESP applicants are compiling design parameter information from reactor vendors into a “PPE

worksheet” to facilitate comparison of data and identification of bounding parameter values for

use in ESP applications. The PPE worksheet will not be provided as a part of the ESP

applications; ESP applications will include only the bounding values determined from the

worksheet. 

Staff Position

The staff agrees with NEI that ESP applicants may use the PPE approach as a surrogate for

actual facility information to support required safety and environmental reviews, with the

following clarifications:

 In a letter dated August 1, 2002, NEI indicated that the information listed in 10 CFR

52.17(a)(1)(i)-(viii) is not required. The omission of this information may complicate the

staff review (resulting in increased review time) and have a bearing on the staff

assumptions and associated staff findings.

 The ESP application information that contains PPE values along with site investigation

efforts (i.e., data and analyses), existing information (i.e., data and analyses) and updated

tectonic and geological information that can impact site hazards must adequately address

the three areas of the ESP review process: site safety, environmental impacts, and

emergency preparedness.

 The staff understands that PPE values may differ among the ESP applicants. It is the

staff’s expectation that margins applied to account for uncertainties in PPE values will be

identified in the application in order to avoid any ambiguity or confusion with the NEI PPE

worksheet or other publicly available PPE information.

 NEI has indicated that the PPE values will represent composite parameters that are not

indicative of any specific reactor design or type. Therefore, the NRC staff review will

determine whether the PPE values are sufficient to enable the NRC staff to conduct its

required review and that the PPE values are not unreasonable for consideration in the

staff findings to comply with 10 CFR Part 52, Subpart A.

 Given that PPE values do not reflect a specific design and will not be reviewed by the

NRC staff for conformance to a specific design, the granting of an ESP by the NRC does

not indicate NRC approval of the site for any specific plant or type of plant. In addition to

the emergency preparedness and environmental impact findings, site approval will be

contingent on the staff’s ability to make a finding, based on the site criteria in 10 CFR

Part 100, that a reactor or reactors having characteristics that fall within the parameters

for the site can be constructed and operated without undue risk to the health and safety of

the public. This finding may result in conditions or limitations on the ESP in specific areas,

as set forth in 10 CFR 52.24. 10 CFR 51.71(d) also requires consideration of alternatives

available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects. The NRC will have to
-6-

carefully consider the application of the PPE approach in order to address this

requirement.

 COL applicants who reference an ESP bear the risk that the design ultimately selected for

the approved site might fall outside of the terms and conditions of the ESP.

 The NRC review will be conducted using the review guidance in the draft ESP Review

Standard (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML023530045 and ML030970186). The NRC review

will result in safety and environmental impact determinations based upon the NRC’s

independent evaluation of the information provided in the ESP application, assumptions or

limitations or both as established by the staff, and independent information developed by

the staff. The staff agrees that a combination of site characteristics and PPE values will

constitute the ESP bases.

3. Radiological consequence evaluation required by 10 CFR 52.17

Issue

What is the guidance for satisfying the 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1) requirement for description and

safety assessment of the proposed facility?

Current Regulations

Paragraph (1) of 10 CFR 52.17(a) states in part: “The application must also contain a

description and safety assessment of the site on which the facility is to be located. The

assessment must contain an analysis and evaluation of the major structures, systems, and

components of the facility that bear significantly on the acceptability of the site under the

radiological consequence evaluation factors identified in Sec.50.34(a)(1) of this chapter. Site

characteristics must comply with Part 100 of this chapter.”

NEI’s Position

The site atmospheric dispersion factor (X/Q) is the site characteristic associated with meeting

Part 100 requirements, and compliance with Section 52.17(a)(1) is accomplished in the ESP

application by determining the site X/Q, including the effect of SSCs, if any, that bear

significantly on that result. At the COL stage, the site X/Q is combined with the release history

information provided in a design certification, or approved during the COL review of an

uncertified design, to determine whether Part 100 requirements are met.

Discussion

This topic, which is identified as ESP-7 on the list of NEI generic ESP issues, was discussed

during a public meeting held on December 5, 2002. Subsequently, NEI documented its position

on this topic in a letter dated December 20, 2002 and April 10, 2003 (ADAMS Accession Nos.

ML030370053 and ML031130074 respectively).
-7-

The NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR Part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria,” present a framework that

guides the Commission in its evaluation of the suitability of proposed sites for stationary power

and test reactors. The regulations recognize the importance of accident considerations in

reactor siting; hence, key elements are the determination of the size of the exclusion area

considering postulated accidents with a large fission product release within containment and the

evaluation of the radiological consequences in terms of doses.

Accident considerations historically have been of key importance in reactor siting. Major

developments in risk assessment, such as the issuance of the Reactor Safety Study 

(WASH-1400), and NUREG-1150, “Severe Accident Risks: An Assessment for Five U.S.

Nuclear Power Plants,” as well as the occurrence of the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 and

the accident at Unit 4 of the Chernobyl reactor in the Soviet Union in 1986, have heightened

awareness, knowledge, and concerns in this area. Siting factors and criteria are important in

assuring that radiological doses from normal operation and postulated accidents will be

acceptably low. In 1996, the NRC amended its regulations to update the criteria used in

decisions regarding power reactor siting (61 FR 65157). In that rulemaking, the Commission

modified source terms and dose calculation requirements that apply primarily to plant design

and relocated them to 10 CFR Part 50. Conforming changes were made to 10 CFR Part 52 to

reflect these changes. 

As articulated in RG 4.7, “General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations,” which

was revised in conjunction with the 1996 rule, both the exclusion area boundary described by

10 CFR 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D)(1) and the low population zone described by 10 CFR

50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D)(2) (both of which are defined in 10 CFR 50.2) depend on site characteristics

and aspects of the plant design. In effect, certain elements of siting and design have been

inextricably linked and remain so. The staff has been consistent in its view throughout the

discussion of this issue.

Dose consequence evaluation factors must be considered as required by 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1).

Pursuant to 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1), doses from postulated design basis accidents (DBAs) are

calculated for hypothetical individuals, located at any point (generally, the closest point) on

(1) the exclusion area boundary for a 2-hour period and (2) the outer radius of the low

population zone for the course of the accident. The effect of these requirements is to set limits

on dose (and on risk) without setting numerical criteria on the size of the exclusion area and low

population zone. Whether the dose criteria would be met at the locations where the X/Q does

not exceed a certain value must be determined using design information.

X/Q further depends on the design through the footprint of the plant (determines the closest

point on the boundary) or through the height of the release or building wake effects in

determining the initial dispersion.

In addition, the staff position in SECY-00-0023, “Rulemaking Plan to Standardize the Process

for Allowing a Licensee to Release Part of Its Reactor Facility or Site for Unrestricted Use

Before Receiving Approval of Its License Termination Plan,” articulates the following with

respect to meeting 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) requirements:

In 100.21, the NRC established a list of criteria that must be met by applications for

reactor site approval. The evaluations demonstrating that a site met the criteria

were based, in part, on the size, as well as the location of the site. Performing a
-8-

partial site release could potentially affect the results of the evaluations. The criteria

that need to be reexamined to assure continued compliance with the requirements of

50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D) include: (1) radiological effluent releases; (2) radiological dose

consequences of postulated accidents; (3) potential hazards associated with nearby

transportation routes, industrial, and military facilities; (4) security plan adequacy; 

and (5) emergency plans.

Regulatory guidance exists for carrying out the necessary evaluations. In many 

cases, a change in the size of the site will not change the conclusions of the original siting

approval. However, the details of a licensee’s evaluations for site approval need to

be checked to assure that the criteria continue to be met... 

Further, SECY-00-0023 states:

In 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D), the NRC requires reactor licensees to evaluate the offsite

radiological consequences of postulated fission product releases. The requirements

limit the maximum dose to no more than 25 rem TEDE [total effective dose

equivalent] in 2 hours for an individual on the boundary of the exclusion area. 

Maximum dose is also limited to 25 rem TEDE to an individual located at any point

on the outer boundary of the low population zone who is exposed to a radioactive

cloud resulting from the postulated fission product release during the entire period of

its passage. The definition of these boundaries, unlike the site boundary, does not

depend on ownership of the land in question. Performing a partial release [of the

reactor facility or site for unrestricted use] would not necessarily change the results

of a licensee's evaluation of offsite consequences from a postulated release, but the

details of the calculations would have to be checked to assure that the criteria

continue to be met.

Staff Position

The NRC staff does not agree with the NEI position. Part 100 requirements, which are defined

as the siting requirements for Part 52, must be met for the Commission to approve “a site or

sites for one or more nuclear power facilities separate from the filing of an application for

a...combined license for such a facility” (Section 52.11), and therefore must be addressed at the

ESP stage. While the meteorology is solely dependent on the site, the X/Q has a dependency

on the plant parameters (height of buildings for evaluation of the building wake effects) and the

footprint of the plant (for determination of the closest approach of the release to the boundary). 

Therefore, X/Q alone cannot be used to meet the criteria for radiological dose consequences of

postulated accidents as required by Section 52.17(a)(1) and as set forth in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1)

because both site characteristics and design information are necessary in order to perform the

required assessment.

Pursuant to 10 CFR 52.21, the NRC will evaluate whether, taking into consideration the site

criteria contained in 10 CFR Part 100, a reactor or reactors having characteristics that fall within

the parameters for the site can be constructed and operated without undue risk to the health

and safety of the public. In order to make such an evaluation the NRC staff requires complete

radiological dose consequence information to ascertain the radiological risks associated with

the proposed facility.
-9-

If an ESP applicant pursues the PPE approach, the staff expects the application information to

include the bounding reactor accident source terms, in addition to X/Q values, so that the staff

can evaluate the acceptability of the site under the radiological consequence evaluation factors

identified in Section 50.34(a)(1).

4. Use of bounding approach for providing fuel cycle and transportation information required

by 10 CFR Parts 51 and 52

Issue

To what extent can Tables S-3 and S-4 of 10 CFR 51.51 and 51.52 be used to determine the

environmental impacts associated with fuel cycle and transportation activities in ESP

environmental reports?

Current Regulations

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.45, 51.50, and 52.17(a)(2), an environmental report prepared by

the applicant for an ESP should provide sufficient information regarding any environmental

impacts associated with the production and transportation of reactor fuel. However, light-water

reactor (LWR) applicants are expected to rely on the regulatory framework at 10 CFR 51.51

and 51.52 by including Tables S-3 and S-4 in their environmental report. For other-than-LWR

applicants, the environmental impacts of the production and transportation of fuel must be

described in the environmental report in sufficient detail to provide information on the

cumulative environmental, socioeconomic, and human health impacts associated with the fuel

cycle and fuel transportation.

NEI’s Position

Subject to NRC review in ESP applications, mitigating factors associated with modern fuel cycle

and transportation practices may be credited in evaluations to demonstrate that environmental

impacts identified in Tables S3 and S4 are representative of the bounding fuel cycle and

transportation parameters identified for ESP. Like other bounding parameters in ESP

applications, and consistent with understandings established in connection with the PPE

approach, it is expected that the NRC staff would review bounding fuel cycle and transportation

parameters for ESPs to determine that they are not unreasonable. Detailed NRC technical

review for ESPs would focus on applicant evaluations demonstrating that bounding fuel cycle

and transportation impacts for ESP fall within those of Tables S3 and S4. Subject to review

and acceptance of the evaluations presented in ESP applications, the NRC would be expected

to conclude in its final EIS that applicants have adequately addressed the requirements of

NEPA/Part 51 and that fuel cycle and transportation impacts evaluated for ESPs are bounded

by those of Tables S3 and S4. 

Discussion

This topic, which is identified as ESP-8 on the list of NEI generic ESP issues, was discussed

during public meetings between NEI and the staff on July 17, 2002, and March 29, 2003. NEI

documented its position on this topic in a letter dated May 7, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No.

ML031470219).
-10-

The fuel cycle and fuel transportation impacts for non-LWR power reactors could be different

from those addressed in 10 CFR Part 51. Absent a rule, each COL and ESP applicant

referencing a non-LWR would have to submit information on these impacts in their

environmental report. The NRC staff would have to address the impacts in the EIS.

Independent of issues raised by NEI, the NRC staff has previously identified the need for

rulemaking to revise Tables S-3 and S-4 in 10 CFR 51.51 and 51.52. However, the staff

believes that any effort to undertake generic rulemaking on non-LWR-specific fuel cycle and

fuel transportation issues would be premature. 

Staff Position

As noted above, ESP applicants who plan to utilize LWR designs are expected to rely on the

regulatory framework at 10 CFR 51.51 and 51.52 by addressing Table S-3 and S-4 applicability

in their environmental report.

For other-than-LWR applicants, the staff must review design-specific environmental impacts. 

The discussion of impacts would serve as a starting point for the NRC’s independent

assessment and should provide sufficiently detailed information on the cumulative

environmental, socioeconomic, and human health impacts of the fuel cycle and fuel

transportation. The fuel cycle and fuel transportation impacts for non-LWR power reactors

could be different in magnitude or in kind from those addressed in 10 CFR Part 51.

In the event that an ESP application references non-LWR fuel cycle and transportation impacts

the staff expects that sufficient information will be provided to allow the staff to meet its

regulatory obligations.

5. Review of severe accident mitigation alternatives and severe accidents

Issue

To what extent should an application for an ESP consider severe accidents and the mitigation

of such accidents?

Current Regulations

Paragraph (2) of 10 CFR 52.17(a) states in part: “A complete environmental report as required

by 10 CFR 51.45 and 51.50 must be included in the application, provided, however, that such 

environmental report must focus on the environmental effects of construction and operation of a

reactor, or reactors which have characteristics that fall within the postulated site parameters....”
-11-

NEI’s Position

NEPA consideration of severe accident issues should be addressed as part of design

certification and/or COL proceedings, not at the ESP stage. 

Discussion

This topic, which is identified as ESP-12 on the list of NEI generic ESP issues, was discussed

during public meetings on August 22, December 5, 2002, and March 26, 2003. Prior to the

December 5, 2002, meeting, this issue was limited to the consideration of severe accident

mitigation alternatives. Subsequently, NEI documented its position on this topic in a letter dated

December 20, 2002 (ADAMS Accession No. ML030370068).

NEI considers severe accidents and associated mitigation alternatives as a design issue which

should be deferred to the COL stage. In particular, the three prospective ESP applicants have

not selected a reactor technology. 

Staff Position

With respect to severe accident mitigation alternatives, the staff recognizes that if sufficient

design information is not available at the ESP stage, then the NRC review and findings will be

deferred to the COL stage. However, the staff expects the applicant to include a

characterization of severe accident impacts in its environmental report at the ESP stage. 

These positions were articulated in the Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR) ESP Review

Standard, RS-002, “Processing Applications for Early Site Permits: Draft for Interim Use and

Public Comment,” dated December 23, 2002. Attachment 3 to RS-002 discusses the

applicability of certain sections of NUREG-1555, “Standard Review Plans for Environmental

Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants,” October 1999, to the scope and associated review criteria

for the environmental report.

Attachment 3 to RS-002 indicates that Section 7.2, “Severe Accidents,” of NUREG-1555 is

applicable to the ESP review, but acknowledges that Section 7.3, “Severe Accident Mitigation

Alternatives,” requires detailed design information and a design-specific probabilistic risk

assessment. If detailed design information is not available in the ESP application, then the staff

review of and findings on severe accident mitigation alternatives will be deferred to the COL

stage. These sections of the Review Standard also reflect the staff position articulated in

SECY-91-041, “Early Site Permit Review Readiness.”

The staff’s expectation for its review of severe accident impacts, is that the applicants would

develop appropriate risk metrics (using PPE parameters if detailed design information is not

available) based on site-specific characteristics. These risk metrics would be used to determine

the acceptability of the proposed site at the ESP stage. Furthermore, they would be used to

confirm the design acceptability for the site at the COL stage.
-12-

6. Alternative site review to meet requirements of 10 CFR Part 52

Issue

How should the ESP applicant and the staff limit its evaluation of alternative sites?

Current Regulations

Paragraph (2) of 10 CFR 52.17(a) requires an ESP applicant to include in its environmental

report an evaluation of alternative sites to determine whether there is any obviously superior

alternative to the site proposed.

NEI’s Position

The NRC should limit its consideration of alternative sites to existing nuclear sites controlled by

the applicant and to the applicant’s discussion of generic green-field and industrial sites to

confirm the presumption that no obviously superior site exists. This approach would focus the

review of alternative sites on those serving the private applicant’s needs, consistent with the

most recent court decisions. The review would also be focused on those sites that a

reasonable person would clearly favor. The approach would similarly result in a more efficient,

meaningful, and reasonable review by avoiding a wasteful evaluation of alternatives that an

applicant has no intention, means, or wish to develop.

Discussion

This topic, which is identified as ESP-18a on the list of NEI generic ESP issues, was discussed

at public meetings between NEI and the staff on July 17 and December 5, 2002. 

Subsequently, NEI documented its position on this topic in a letter dated December 20, 2002

(ADAMS Accession No. ML030370065). In addition, NEI submitted supplemental comments

on Petition for Rulemaking (PRM) 52-2 on this same subject in a separate letter dated

December 18, 2002. Both letters contained essentially the same information, but in the

December 18, 2002 letter, NEI requested that the Commission address the issue generically

because it has implications beyond ESP applications.

NEI cited both legal and policy reasons to justify the action by the staff to limit its required

NEPA analysis of alternative sites to those that are pertinent in the context of the specific

license application that is before the staff. NEI contends that because of the obvious

advantages of an existing nuclear site over nonnuclear sites for the addition of new nuclear

units, including the preexistence of essential infrastructure, it is expected that no nonnuclear

site would be found to be obviously superior.

Staff Position

At this point, the staff, in general terms, agrees with NEI that the current NEPA case law

suggests that a Federal agency, acting on a private entity’s permitting request, may limit its

review of alternatives according to the proposal before the agency. Nevertheless, the

objectives of the action may not be defined in such artificially narrow terms that only one

alternative would accomplish the stated goals. See Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey,
-13-

938 F.2d 190, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1991). Therefore, it is the applicant’s obligation to demonstrate, in

its environmental report, that its bases for limiting its alternative site analysis are reasonable.

The staff agrees that an ESP applicant need only consider the alternative sites within its region

of interest. The applicant, however, must demonstrate that the region of interest, as the

applicant seeks to define it, is reasonable. In cases where the proposed facility would not have

a determined service area, the ESP applicant would have to articulate a reasonable means of

defining the region of interest.

The staff understands the industry position with respect to the advantages of adding additional

new nuclear units to an existing nuclear site over building the units on a nonnuclear site. The

superiority of alternative sites in comparison to the proposed site will be addressed on a

case-by-case basis. NUREG-1555, Section 9.3, lays out the staff’s methodology for identifying

obviously superior alternative sites. The staff expects that an ESP applicant’s environmental

report will set forth the bases for the applicant’s determination that none of the alternative sites

is obviously superior to the proposed site.

7. Form and content of an ESP (10 CFR 52.24)

Issue

What will be the form and content of an ESP?

Current Regulations

Section 52.24 of 10 CFR states in part that “... the Commission shall issue an early site permit,

in the form and containing the conditions and limitations, as the Commission deems appropriate

and necessary.” 

NEI’s Position

NEI developed a sample ESP that follows the form of a construction permit issued for a facility

licensee under Part 50, with the content modified to demonstrate the nature of the conclusions

that the NRC should make in the ESP context. 

Discussion

This topic, which is identified as ESP-22 on the list of NEI generic ESP issues, was discussed

during public meetings on August 22 and December 5, 2002. A sample form and content ESP

document was transmitted to the staff as an attachment to the issue resolution letter dated

December 20, 2002 on ESP Topic ESP-6, “Use of the Plant Parameter Envelope (PPE)

Approach” (ADAMS Accession No. ML030370049). NEI documented its final position on this

topic in a letter dated April 30, 2003 (ADAMS Accession No. ML031270382).
-14-

Staff Position

Although the staff has agreed to provide comments on the sample ESP document developed by

NEI, it is premature to discuss specifics on the permit structure at this point. As the staff review

of ESPs progresses and issues are resolved, the staff will engage its stakeholders on the form

and content of the ESP.