CONTACT: Steven D. Bloom, NRR

 301-415-1313

POLICY ISSUE

INFORMATION

January 12, 2005 SECY-05-0013

FOR: The Commissioners

FROM: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

SUBJECT: SEMIANNUAL UPDATE OF THE STATUS OF NEW REACTOR LICENSING

ACTIVITIES AND FUTURE PLANNING FOR NEW REACTORS

PURPOSE:

This paper informs the Commission of the staff’s new reactor licensing activities since the

issuance of SECY-04-0117, “Semiannual Update of the Status of New Reactor Licensing

Activities,” dated July 9, 2004, and describes upcoming planning challenges associated with an

increased interest in licensing activities.

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.

Attachment 1 describes recent design certification review activities, early site permit (ESP)

review activities, pre-application activities for new reactor designs, and supporting infrastructure
The Commissioners -2-

development. Interactions with stakeholders, including international and intergovernmental

activities, are also discussed.

Recent developments within the U.S. and abroad have increased attention on the possible

licensing and construction of new reactors. The Department of Energy’s recent announcement

of a cost sharing program in support of a combined license (COL) demonstration project for the

development of a COL application in the U.S., as well as the commitment of two European

nations to build new reactors over the next several years, has elevated the interest of nuclear

vendors and electric generating companies. As a result, there is an increased number of

requests for regulatory interactions which could lead to one or more applications for new

licenses. The staff is actively engaged in discussions with various stakeholders to identify

possible unanticipated 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:

Status of New Reactor Licensing Activities

The staff has completed a number of activities since the last status update paper and continues

work on several key regulatory products in connection with new reactor licensing. Notable

accomplishments include the completion of the technical review of the Westinghouse Advanced

Plant 1000 (AP1000) design certification application on September 13, 2004, and continued

progress on the review of the ESP applications filed by Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC

(Dominion), for the North Anna ESP site, by Exelon Generation Company, LLC (Exelon), for the

Clinton ESP site, and by System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI), a subsidiary of Entergy

Corporation, for the Grand Gulf ESP site.

On October 27, 2004, the staff issued the pre-application safety assessment report (PASAR)

for the Atomic Energy of Canada, Limited (AECL) Technologies Inc. Advanced CANDU Reactor

700 (ACR-700). During a public meeting on August 17, 2004, the NRC staff discussed the

process and expectations for a design certification application. The NRC staff emphasized that

testing and the results of those tests were an important part of any design certification

application that would be submitted to satisfy the requirements of 10 CFR 52.47. During the

meeting the NRC stated that the overall review schedule will be issued after receipt of the

design certification application and that the review would likely take between 42 and 60 months.

The staff is continuing the pre-application review for the General Electric (GE) Economic and

Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR). By letter dated November 19, 2004, GE formally

notified the staff of their intent to submit an application for design certification of the ESBWR in

June 2005. GE requested that the design certification be completed in 30 months. The NRC

responded by letter dated December 7, 2004, and reiterated that design certification reviews

are estimated to range from 42 to 60 months depending on the complexity and uniqueness of

the design, efforts completed during the pre-application phase, whether policy issues need to

be addressed, availability of NRC resources, and the priority assigned to the review.

The staff is addressing regulatory infrastructure issues to support the above and additional

anticipated reviews. As resources allow, the staff is also working on long-lead-time
The Commissioners -3-

infrastructure issues in order to facilitate the review of non-light-water reactors (non-LWRs). 

Detailed status updates of all new reactor activities can be found in Attachment 1.

Two items of note during this update period include the status of the staff’s effort associated

with the Title 10, Part 52, of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 52) rulemaking

activity and the staff’s progress in resolving the treatment of operational programs in the

licensing process (i.e., Programmatic Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria

(ITAAC)).

10 CFR Part 52 Rulemaking

The staff has proposed a rulemaking to revise 10 CFR Part 52 based on lessons learned during

previous design certification reviews and on discussions with external stakeholders about the

ESP and COL review processes. The proposed rule was published for comment in the Federal

Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR 40025). Due to the nature of the comments received and the

extent of the changes necessary to address the comments, the staff plans to forward a revised

proposed rule package, rather than a final rule, to the Commission by May 31, 2005. The staff

has extended the schedule for completing the Part 52 proposed rule package, mainly as a

result of the deferral of a significant portion of the staff’s work on the Part 52 rulemaking to

support higher priority work on other rulemakings: Part 2 (Hearing Process), Part 20

(Controlling Disposition of Solid Materials), § 50.69 (Risk-Informing Special Treatment

Requirements), § 50.46 (ECCS), and § 50.48 (Fire Protection Manual Actions). In addition, the

staff continues to make progress on a technology-neutral, risk-informed and performancebased regulatory framework for new reactor licensing.

Treatment of Operational Programs in the COL Process

In a May 14, 2004, staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for SECY-04-0032, “Programmatic

Information Needed for Approval of a Combined License Without Inspections, Tests, Analyses,

and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC),” the Commission directed the staff to complete its work on

the information necessary for the COL application for each of the programs for which the staff

had previously assumed ITAAC would be required (fire protection, training, quality assurance

during operation, fitness for duty, access authorization, radiation protection, physical security,

licensed operator, and reportability) and present its results to the Commission by December 31,

2005.

In a November 9, 2004, public meeting with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) and other

external stakeholders to discuss COL application issues, the staff discussed a proposed

approach to fully describe an operational program in a COL application and address operational

programs which will not be implemented prior to the issuance of a combined license. This

approach proposes that the COL application should include final safety analysis report (FSAR)-

level information for operational programs and, where necessary, supplemental information to

fully describe these programs (the May 14, 2004, SRM states that “fully described should be

understood to mean that the program is clearly and sufficiently described in terms of the scope

and level of detail to allow a reasonable assurance finding”). Commitments regarding

implementation of those programs that were not implemented when the COL is issued will be

captured through license conditions, which is similar to the process used in license renewal. 

The staff intends to continue holding public meetings with NEI and other external stakeholders

to discuss the information needed to fully describe each of the operational programs listed
The Commissioners -4-

above, as well as the remaining operational programs listed in SECY-02-0067, “Inspections,

Tests, Analyses, and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) for Operational Programs (Programmatic

ITAAC).”

By letter dated September 15, 2004, NEI forwarded its latest proposal regarding the remaining

outstanding issues associated with Emergency Planning (EP) ITAAC. The staff and NEI held a

public meeting on November 9, 2004, to discuss NEI’s proposed EP ITAAC. The NRC staff is

preparing a written response to the NEI letter.

External Influences and Future Planning

The strategic plan lists new reactor activities as one area in which external influences will play a

key role in the Agency’s ability to achieve its strategic goals. Notable events include the

Department of Energy’s awards for participation demonstration projects for licensing new

nuclear plants. In addition, NEI has requested additional effort to resolve generic COL issues

to support early business decisions by prospective COL applicants. Lastly, Framatome ANP,

Inc. (Framatome) and Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR) (Pty) Ltd. have submitted letters to

the staff indicating their interest in pre-application interactions and design certification for their

respective reactor designs.

Three consortia have received Department of Energy (DOE) awards in response to a

November 2003 solicitation of interest for participation demonstration projects for licensing new

nuclear plants. The first consortium consists of Dominion Resources, AECL Technologies Inc.,

Hitachi America, and Bechtel. In mid-March 2004, this consortium submitted a proposal to

DOE to demonstrate the NRC process for licensing the construction and operation of new

nuclear power plants. This submittal was based on the ACR-700 design at the North Anna site. 

On November 4, 2004, DOE announced that this consortium had received one of its Nuclear

Power 2010 program awards. Based on current information, the staff plans to budget

resources for the review of a possible COL application in FY 2007. However, several industry

trade press articles have indicated a COL application for a facility may be submitted as soon as

mid-calendar year (CY) 2006.

The second consortium consists of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Toshiba, GE,

Bechtel, United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), and Global Nuclear Fuel-Americas

LLC. This consortium submitted a proposal to DOE on April 23, 2004, to conduct a detailed

study of the potential construction of a two-unit GE/Toshiba-designed advanced boiling water

reactor (ABWR) nuclear plant at the Bellefonte site. On May 23, 2004, DOE announced that it

will fund half of the $4.25 million cost of the study. TVA has stated that it will decide whether to

file a COL application following completion of the study in April 2005.

The third consortium, NuStart Energy Development LLC (NuStart), consists of nine energy

companies and two nuclear reactor vendors. The energy companies are Constellation

Generation Group, Duke Energy, Electricité de France (EDF) International North America,

Entergy Nuclear, Exelon Generation, Florida Power & Light Company, Southern Company,

Progress Energy, and TVA. The nuclear reactor vendors are Westinghouse Electric Company,

LLC (Westinghouse), and GE. On April 26, 2004, this consortium submitted a proposal to DOE

to demonstrate the NRC process for licensing the construction and operation of new nuclear

power plants. The consortium is considering Westinghouse’s AP1000 design and GE’s

ESBWR design. The Bellefonte site is one of several sites being evaluated by the consortium. 
The Commissioners -5-

On November 4, 2004, DOE announced an award to NuStart. NuStart plans to select a final

reactor technology and a proposed site by 2007. By letter dated December 7, 2004, NuStart

stated that the consortium will be submitting at least one COL application in 2008. The letter

also stated that they would be initiating pre-application discussions in early 2007. The letter

further stated that NuStart may elect to submit two COL applications, one for each of the two

technologies.

Since November 2004, there has been an increased level of interaction between the nuclear

industry and the staff focusing on future plans for pre-application interactions, design

certifications and COL applications. The staff has held several meetings with NEI and external

stakeholders to discuss resolution of generic issues associated with COL applications. In a

public meeting on December 8, 2004, NEI informed the NRC staff about industry’s plans for

new licensing activities for FY 2006, and how the NRC’s licensing priorities correspond to these

industry plans. NEI stated that up to 3 COL applications could be submitted in the late 2007 to

2008 timeframe. They stated that their COL application guidance would be submitted shortly

and requested NRC endorsement by August 2005, assuming resolution of all outstanding

generic COL issues in 2005. The NEI guidance, NEI 04-01, was formally submitted on

December 21, 2004, to the NRC for review and comment. NEI stated that prospective COL

applicants would be hesitant to move forward on COL pre-application activities until the new

Part 52 rules were in place. NEI recognized that, once the 10 CFR Part 52 rulemaking was

completed, the guidance would have to be revised. 

In its letter dated December 2, 2004, Framatome informed the NRC staff of its intent to initiate

pre-application discussions regarding the EPR reactor design. Framatome indicated that it

wishes to start these interactions with the staff in FY 2005. Additional information regarding its

pre-application plans is expected in February 2005. Framatome projects submittal of a design

certification application for the EPR design in 2008.

On November 3, 2004, the NRC staff held a public meeting at NRC headquarters with PBMR

(Pty) Ltd. to discuss its activities and plans and its request to begin PBMR pre-application

interactions with the NRC. By letter dated November 11, 2004, PBMR (Pty) Ltd. proposed a

schedule for pre-application interactions beginning with a planning phase (phase 1) from

November 2004 through June 2005 followed by phase 2, which would consist of technical

exchange on key issues and documentation of NRC positions, from July 2005 through

December 2006. Lastly, PBMR (Pty) Ltd. discussed its schedule, which is intended to enable

the company to submit a design certification application for the PBMR design in early 2007.

CONCLUSIONS:

New reactor licensing activities are currently focused on reviewing applications for design

certification and ESPs and on preparing for a COL application. The staff continues to develop

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. The staff will also

continue to reach out to all stakeholders to ensure openness in these activities. Future

planning assessments have identified several challenges associated with the expectations of

the industry for short design review schedules, multiple pre-application reviews and COL

applications. In addition to the expected near-term applications, the staff has identified 
The Commissioners -6-

challenges associated with regulatory preparedness for Generation 4 Designs (e.g., PBMR). 

Specifically, the staff will need to develop appropriate technical and regulatory capabilities, both

for internal staff and our contractors, to accommodate the review of these advanced

technologies.

RESOURCES:

Agency resources assigned to new reactor licensing activities appear sufficient to complete

work planned during the FY 2005-2006 budget cycles. The budget for New Reactor Licensing

for FY 2005 is $13,210K in contract support and travel and 104 FTE. The FY 2006 budget

request for New Reactor Licensing is $13,980K in contract support and travel and 104 FTE. To

develop budget estimates for FY 2005-2006, the staff considered information and experience

gained in pre-application reviews, along with application schedule information provided by

prospective applicants. However, recent communications from additional applicants indicate

that the Agency will need to prioritize work to focus on regulatory products and infrastructure

elements that are aligned towards 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 staff may defer

the design certification review of reactor designs such as the PBMR, IRIS and EPR until such

time that these designs are clearly aligned with a domestic partner. However, the staff will

continue to engage with prospective applicants through pre-application interactions, and will

remain cognizant of international activities associated with advanced reactors as part of the

knowledge management process.

In the FY 2006 budget process, highest priority for new reactor licensing resources were given

to activities in support of COL applications. Therefore, the staff will focus on certifying the

AP1000 design, completing the ESP reviews, and reviewing the ACR-700 and ESBWR

designs. The staff will give lower priority to various other design certification and preapplication activities that the 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 regardless of their visibility or the desires of the prospective applicants. Additional

funding of these activities will be considered during the FY 2007 budget process.
The Commissioners - 7 -

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.

/RA/

Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director

 for Operations

Attachment: Semiannual Update of the Status of New

Reactor Licensing Activities - December 2004
The Commissioners - 7 -

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.

/RA/

Luis A. Reyes

 Executive Director

 for Operations

Attachment: Semiannual Update of the Status of New

Reactor Licensing Activities - December 2004

cc: SECY

OGC

DOC

OCA

OPA

CFO

DISTRIBUTION: RNRP RF WITS 200100018 SBloom LDudes WBeckner FGillespie

ADAMS ACCESSION NUMBER: ML042920455

OFFICE PM:RNRP SC:RNRP Tech Ed BC:IIPB

NAME SBloom LDudes PKleene SRichards

DATE 11/18/04 11/19/04 10/21/04 11/29/04

OFFICE PMAS PD:RNRP D:DRIP RES

NAME CCarpenter WBeckner DMatthews (FGillespie for) CPaperiello (MMayfield for)

DATE 11/30/04 11/19/04 11/29/04 12/30/04

OFFICE OIP OCFO OGC D:NRR

NAME EDoroshuk JFunches (DDrucker for) KWinsberg JDyer

DATE 11/30/04 1/3/05 1/3/05 1/4/05

OFFICE EDO

NAME LAReyes

DATE 01/12/05

OFFICIAL RECORD COPY
The Commissioners

Attachment 1

Semiannual Update of the Status of

 New Reactor Licensing Activities

December 2004

INTRODUCTION

This attachment to the December 2004 update of the status of new reactor licensing activities

summarizes the status of the Advanced Plant 1000 (AP1000) design certification review, the

early site permit (ESP) reviews, pre-application activities for other reactor plant designs,

regulatory infrastructure development, and stakeholder interactions.

DESIGN CERTIFICATION

Upcoming applications to certify the Advanced CANDU Reactor 700 (ACR-700) and Economic

and Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR) reactor designs are expected to require

considerably more resources than the AP1000 review. The three reactor design certifications

completed in the 1990s (ABWR, System 80+, and AP600) required 65 to 120 full-time

equivalent (FTE) per design for the staff’s technical reviews over a period of about nine years. 

About $5.5 million was expended on contractor activities, including testing required for the

AP600 review. The AP1000 review has taken advantage of the previous AP600 review, and

the resource expenditures have been in line with the estimates given in SECY-01-0188, “Future

Licensing and Inspection Readiness Assessment,” dated October 12, 2001 (30 FTE and $1.5

million). Similar precedents do not exist for the ACR-700 or ESBWR, so a higher level of effort

is anticipated for these reviews than for the AP1000 review.

Advanced Plant 1000 (AP1000)

On March 28, 2002, Westinghouse Electric Company LLC (Westinghouse) submitted its

application for final design approval (FDA) and standard design certification for the AP1000

design. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff issued its design certification review

schedule on July 12, 2002, establishing the milestones and target dates for the review.

On June 16, 2003, the AP1000 draft safety evaluation report (DSER) was issued with 174 open

items. The staff issued the final safety evaluation report (FSER) and FDA on September 13,

2004. It may be possible to complete the final design certification rule earlier than the

scheduled date of December 2005, since the final AP1000 design control document (DCD) was

submitted on time on September 7, 2004. As the cover letter to the FSER stated, completion of

the rulemaking will depend on the extent of any post-FSER design changes warranting NRC

staff review, any additional regulatory requirements codified prior to the completion of the

design certification rulemaking, and potential impacts of other high-priority agency review

activities. The staff provided the final schedule for the remainder of the design certification

process when the FSER is issued. The milestones and their target due dates are listed below.
The Commissioners - 2 -

AP1000 Milestone Target Date

Issue initial requests for additional information (RAIs), not

including security and safeguards issues

September 30, 2002 (complete)

Westinghouse response to the RAIs December 2, 2002 (complete)

Staff informs Westinghouse of RAI status February 28, 2003 (complete)

Issue draft safety evaluation report June 16, 2003 (complete)

Westinghouse to provide responses to all open items,

and the NRC staff to determine whether these

responses are acceptable

March 31, 2004 

(April 29, 2004, actual)

Westinghouse submits Revision 14 of the AP1000 design

control document

September 7, 2004 (complete)

Issue final safety evaluation report September 13, 2004 (complete)

Issue final design approval September 13, 2004 (complete)

Complete design certification rulemaking December 2005

The staff is continually assessing the resources needed to support the AP1000 design

certification. Thus far, the resource estimates have been consistent with the estimates given in

SECY-01-0188.

Adjustments to the resource requirements are made using the staff’s planning, budgeting, and

performance management (PBPM) process, with consideration of other agency needs and

priorities.

COMBINED LICENSE (COL)

Three consortia have received Department of Energy (DOE) awards in response to a

November 2003 solicitation of interest for participation demonstration projects for licensing new

nuclear plants. The solicitation indicated that a decision would be made in mid-calendar

year (CY) 2004. However, DOE’s response for two of the three consortia was not announced

until early fiscal year (FY) 2005.

The first consortium consists of Dominion Resources, AECL Technologies Inc., Hitachi

America, and Bechtel. In mid-March 2004, this consortium submitted a proposal to DOE to

demonstrate the NRC process for licensing the construction and operation of new nuclear

power plants. This submittal was based on the ACR-700 design at the North Anna site. On

November 4, 2004, DOE announced that this consortium had received one of its Nuclear Power

2010 program awards. The schedule for the submission of the ACR-700 design certification

was delayed six months because of the slippage in the announcement of the DOE award. 
The Commissioners - 3 -

Based on current information, the staff plans to budget resources for the review of a possible

COL application in FY 2007. However, industry trade journals are indicating that a COL

application for the facility may be submitted as soon as mid-CY 2006.

The second consortium consists of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), Toshiba, General

Electric (GE), Bechtel, United States Enrichment Corporation (USEC), and Global Nuclear FuelAmericas LLC. This consortium submitted a proposal to DOE on April 23, 2004, to conduct a

detailed study of the potential construction of a two-unit GE/Toshiba-designed advanced boiling

water reactor (ABWR) nuclear plant at the Bellefonte site. On May 23, 2004, DOE announced

that it will fund half of the $4.25 million cost of the study. Following completion of the study in

April 2005, TVA will decide whether to file a COL application.

The third consortium, NuStart Energy Development LLC (NuStart), consists of nine energy

companies and two nuclear reactor vendors. The energy companies are Constellation

Generation Group, Duke Energy, Electricité de France (EDF) International North America,

Entergy Nuclear, Exelon Generation, Florida Power & Light Company, Southern Company,

Progress Energy, and TVA. The nuclear reactor vendors are Westinghouse Electric Company,

LLC (Westinghouse), and GE. On April 26, 2004, this consortium submitted a proposal to DOE

to demonstrate the NRC process for licensing the construction and operation of new nuclear

power plants. The consortium is considering Westinghouse’s AP1000 design and GE’s

ESBWR design. The Bellefonte site is one of several sites being evaluated by the consortium. 

On November 4, 2004, DOE announced an award to NuStart. NuStart plans to select a final

reactor technology and a proposed site by 2007. By letter dated December 7, 2004, NuStart

stated that they will be submitting at least one COL application in 2008, and anticipates initiation

of pre-application discussions in early 2007. NuStart may elect to submit two COL applications,

one for each of the two technologies, depending on the outcome of their site selection efforts

and the availability of funding. NuStart stated in their letter that they will provide the NRC with

its detailed plans and schedule by November 1, 2005. Depending on NuStart’s plan and

schedule, if a COL application references the ESBWR technology, the staff may need to

accelerate its ESBWR design certification review schedule.

EARLY SITE PERMITS (ESPs)

The staff received ESP applications in September and October 2003 from Dominion Nuclear

North Anna, LLC (Dominion), for the North Anna site; Exelon Generation Company, LLC

(Exelon), for the Clinton site; and System Energy Resources, Inc. (SERI), a subsidiary of

Entergy Corporation, for the Grand Gulf site. All three applications were accepted for docketing

in late 2003, and the staff’s safety and environmental reviews of the applications are in

progress. The staff held environmental scoping meetings at all three sites. In addition, the staff

has conducted quality assurance inspections and environmental and safety audits at all three

sites, as part of its review of the applications.

The staff developed Review Standard (RS)-002 “Processing Applications for Early Site

Permits,” to provide guidance to staff reviewers on the process for reviewing an ESP

application. On May 3, 2004, RS-002 was issued after Commission’s review and approval. It

provides detailed direction for managing and conducting ESP reviews and expands upon

existing regulatory guidance.
The Commissioners - 4 -

With regard to the ongoing ESP proceedings, Federal Register notices of hearing and

opportunity to petition for leave to intervene were published for all three ESP applications. 

Subsequently, petitions to intervene were received on all three ESP applications. For the

Dominion application, the petitioners were Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League, Nuclear

Information and Resource Service (NIRS), and Public Citizen. The same groups petitioned to

intervene in connection with the Exelon ESP application, along with two other groups, the

Environmental Law and Policy Center and the Nuclear Energy Information Service. Four

organizations petitioned to intervene in the SERI ESP application proceeding; consisting of the

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Claiborne County, Mississippi

Branch; NIRS; Public Citizen; and the Mississippi Chapter of the Sierra Club.

On March 22, 2004, the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board

Panel established an Atomic Safety and Licensing Board (ASLB) for the proceedings. An initial

prehearing conference was held on June 21-23, 2004, for all three applications. On August 6,

2004, the ASLB issued rulings in each of the three proceedings, admitting portions of two

environmental contentions in the North Anna proceeding, one environmental contention in the

Clinton proceeding, and denying intervention in the Grand Gulf proceeding. Three separate

ASLBs were then established in the three proceedings. Mandatory hearings and hearings on

contested issues are expected to be held beginning in late 2005, after completion of the staff’s

review for the three ESP applications. Each ASLB is working out details of timing and conduct

of the hearings.

In the process of performing the reviews of the three ESP applications, the staff has identified

several generic issues. While the staff had worked with stakeholders prior to ESP application

submittal to identify and resolve possible review issues, the first-of-a-kind nature of these

reviews resulted in additional issues surfacing during the detailed reviews of the applications.

One issue that arose during review of the applications is associated with “major features” of

emergency plans. The regulations in 10 CFR 52.17(b) allow an ESP applicant several options

regarding submittal of emergency planning information. An applicant must identify physical

characteristics unique to the proposed ESP site that could pose significant impediments to the

development of emergency plans. In addition, an applicant must describe contacts and

arrangements made with local, State, and Federal government agencies with emergency

planning responsibilities. An applicant may, in addition, propose major features of the

emergency plans that can be reviewed and approved by NRC in consultation with the Federal

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), in the absence of complete and integrated

emergency plans. The staff met with the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) on issues related to: 

(1) the level of regulatory finality associated with emergency plan major features approved in an

ESP; (2) industry concerns regarding the staff’s guidance for review of major features in ESP

submittals; and (3) the level of detail of staff evaluation of existing elements of established

emergency preparedness programs relevant to and provided (or incorporated by reference) in 

ESP applications (typically associated with nearby operating reactors). The staff has set forth

its position on these matters in a letter to NEI dated November 9, 2004. NEI has requested a

meeting with the staff in January 2005 to discuss industry reaction to this letter. Resolution of

these issues will contribute to the staff’s review of the three pending ESP applications.

Another issue that arose following submittal of the applications involves seismic analyses. Two

of the three ESP applicants (Dominion and Exelon) initially submitted applications that

contained a new “performance-based” methodology for determining the Safe Shutdown
The Commissioners - 5 -

Earthquake Ground Motion for the site. The staff had not previously reviewed this methodology

and informed the applicants that the choice to use this method could result in a delay in

completion of the staff’s seismic reviews for their respective ESP applications. Dominion

subsequently elected to rely on the staff approved methodology in the regulatory guide and

revised its application accordingly. Exelon elected to continue to rely on the new methodology. 

The staff informed Exelon that this will likely delay issuance of the staff’s FSER by three months

because of the need for the staff to review the new methodology in addition to reviewing

Exelon’s implementation of that methodology for the Clinton ESP site. The schedule for the

FSER and resulting impact on the overall ESP schedule will be reevaluated after Exelon

provides this additional information. Nonetheless, the staff intends to issue the DSER for

Exelon on the current schedule.

The staff has also experienced some delays in completion of the environmental reviews

required by 10 CFR Part 52. In the case of Dominion’s application, the applicant was more

than two months late in fully responding to the staff’s RAIs. The staff was able to compress its

schedule by one month to partially compensate for this delay, but a one-month review schedule

slip was required. Then on July 15, 2004, Dominion submitted a major revision to its

environmental report. Ultimately, these factors led to an additional one-month schedule slip in

completion of the staff’s environmental review of Dominion’s application. Because the staff

reviewers are largely the same for all three applications, this has resulted in a delay of two

months in completion of the environmental reviews of the Exelon and Entergy ESP applications

as well. These delays are not expected to impact the overall ESP schedules.

Major remaining schedule milestones for the staff’s review of the three applications are shown

in the table below. These dates are the most recent published dates, and they reflect the

previously discussed delays in completion of all three environmental reviews. They do not,

however, reflect delays in completion of the seismic review for the Exelon application which

cannot be determined until the applicant provides additional information. In all cases, the

mandatory hearing and Commission decision processes are assumed to require a total of

12 months after completion of the staff’s safety and environmental reviews.

ESP Milestone

Dominion

North Anna

Exelon

Clinton

SERI

Grand Gulf

Draft environmental impact

 statement (EIS) issued to

 EPA

10/14/04

12/10/04 C

12/27/04

3/04/05 T

2/25/05

4/29/05 T

Draft safety evaluation report

 (SER) issued

12/20/04 C 2/10/05 T 4/7/05 T

Final EIS issued 6/16/05

8/12/05 T

8/25/05

10/21/05 T

10/21/05

12/23/05 T

Final SER issued 6/16/05 T 8/25/05 T 10/21/05 T

C - Complete

T - Target

Crossed out dates are from last update
The Commissioners - 6 -

PRE-APPLICATION ACTIVITIES

The most significant factor affecting resources and schedules for the ACR-700 and ESBWR

applications is the quality of the applicant’s submittal and whether it is supported by sufficient

testing and by research and development where necessary. The level of effort is also affected

by the nature and significance of the differences in these designs compared to previously

certified or licensed designs, the extent of the applicant’s test program, and whether policy

issues need to be addressed. Applications which do not adequately demonstrate how the

design meets regulatory requirements will take more time and effort to review.

Early in the planning process the staff takes steps to ensure that personnel with necessary

skills are available to review the applications when they are received, and that everyone

understands the schedules and priorities for these reviews. Planning for the upcoming

applications emphasize early and thorough identification of issues and the development of tools

to maintain detailed status information on the hundreds of questions and issues expected to

arise in the course of the reviews. The staff is developing tools to assist with composing safety

evaluation report input, resulting in more consistent documents. These improvements will help

accomplish the agency’s goal of efficient, effective, realistic, and timely reviews.

Economic and Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR)

The GE ESBWR is a 1550 MWe reactor that uses natural circulation for normal operation and

has passive safety features. On April 18, 2002, GE requested a pre-application review of the

ESBWR and proposed that the pre-application review be conducted in three phases. During

Phase 1, GE and the staff discussed the scope, schedule, and resource estimate for the preapplication review. Phase 2 of the pre-application review included assessment of the technical

basis for passive safety systems and the analysis methodology for loss-of-coolant accidents

(LOCAs). Phase 3 of the pre-application review will include a continuation of the methodology

review for transients including Anticipated Transients Without Scram (ATWS) and will address

selected topics related to the design certification application.

In support of Phase 2 of the pre-application review, GE submitted topical reports regarding the

ESBWR test and analysis program description, the ESBWR test program, the SBWR test

program, the qualification of the TRACG computer code analysis method, the application of the

TRACG code to the ESBWR design, ESBWR scaling, and the ESBWR design description. On

August 19, 2004, based on the staff’s review of these submittals and GE’s response to the

staff’s RAIs, the staff issued a safety evaluation (SE) regarding the application of the TRACG

computer code for ESBWR LOCA analyses (nonproprietary version, ML043000285). The staff

concluded in the SE that TRACG, including the methodology for applying the code to the

ESBWR, is an acceptable evaluation model for ESBWR LOCAs and that TRACG is acceptable

for referencing during the design certification review of the ESBWR, provided the conditions

specified in the safety evaluation are met.

On October 8, 2004, GE submitted information related to the application of the TRACG code for

ESBWR anticipated operational occurrences (AOOs). GE submitted its topical report regarding
The Commissioners - 7 -

the application of TRACG to ESBWR Thermal-Hydraulic Stability on December 9, 2004, and

plans to submit a topical report regarding the application of TRACG to ESBWR ATWS for staff

review. These submittals will be reviewed by the staff during Phase 3 of the pre-application

review being performed in FY 2005.

On October 12 and 13, 2004, the staff held a public meeting with GE to kick off Phase 3. GE

presented its approach to several technical and regulatory issues, including the proposed use

of design acceptance criteria (DAC) for piping, instrumentation and control, and human factors

engineering; issues related to site parameters including seismic high frequency exceedance

and tornado wind speed; possible need for exemptions to regulations such as general design

criterion (GDC) 38; requirements for 72 hour capability of safety systems; issues related to

probabilistic risk assessment and severe accident analysis; issues related to the form and

content of the DCD; and design certification review schedule considerations and impacts.

Additional dialogue is expected in these areas in the coming months.

By letter dated November 19, 2004, GE formally notified the staff of its intent to submit an

application for design certification of the ESBWR in June 2005. GE requested the NRC to

make the ESBWR design certification review a priority and to complete the design certification

withing 30 months to support utility desires to submit a COL application in 2008, and to support

DOE’s Nuclear Power 2010 initiative. The staff has previously communicated an estimated

schedule for design certification reviews of 42 to 60 months (including rulemaking) in 

SECY-01-0188, “Future Licensing and Inspection Readiness Assessment,” dated

October 12, 2004. A schedule for the ESBWR design certification review will be published after

an application is received and accepted for review.

GE’s letter also confirmed its plan to submit additional pre-application submittals regarding the

application of the TRACG code to ESBWR for ATWS in January 2005, and to support

resolution of specific issues related to the submittal of the design certification application

including the use of design acceptance criteria.

Advanced CANDU Reactor 700 (ACR-700)

The ACR-700 is an advanced CANDU (Canada Deuterium Uranium) design that has horizontal

fuel channels passing through a heavy-water moderator tank. As with other CANDU designs,

the ACR-700 is designed to be refueled during power operation. The reactor system, coolant

pumps, U-tube steam generators, and pressurizer of the ACR-700 have features similar to

pressurized-water reactor (PWR) designs in the United States.

The ACR-700 will also have features that make it significantly different from operating CANDU

reactors. The ACR-700 utilizes light water as the coolant in the fuel channels, whereas

operating CANDU reactors utilize heavy water. The ACR-700 is designed to have a negative

void reactivity coefficient so that if boiling occurs in the fuel channels, the reactor power will

decrease. The negative void coefficient for ACR-700 will be achieved by using slightly enriched

uranium in the fuel and neutron-absorbing dysprosium elements in the fuel assemblies. Natural

uranium fuel is used in operating CANDU reactors. The reactor core will be smaller than in

operating CANDU reactors with fewer fuel channels.
The Commissioners - 8 -

The staff has used a multi-phased approach to conduct the ACR-700 pre-application review. At

present, two phases have been completed. Phase 1, which consisted of a series of

familiarization meetings to give the staff an overview of the advanced CANDU reactor design,

was completed in July 2003. The Phase 2 review obtained more specific and detailed

information about the ACR design. Phase 2 was completed by October 27, 2004, with the

issuance of the pre-application safety assessment report (PASAR) (ML042110074).

The main objectives of the ACR-700 pre-application review have been met. The pre-application

review of the preliminary design of the ACR-700 allowed the staff to identify technical and

regulatory issues early and determine whether it was possible to successfully complete the

standard design certification review. On the basis of the review of the materials submitted by

AECL, including responses to RAIs, the staff determined that the applicant will need to study a

number of technical issues in more detail to reach satisfactory conclusions for design

certification. The staff expects that the review and evaluation of the ACR-700 design will be

more challenging, will use more resources, and take longer than the review of a typical lightwater reactor design. Nonetheless, based on the information provided, the staff is confident at

this time that AECL can satisfactorily address the issues identified during the pre-application

review.

The staff briefed the Advanced Reactor Steering Committee (ARSC) (discussed later in this

attachment) on September 13, 2004, on the major issues identified in the ACR-700 PASAR

including the staff’s recommendation to adopt a probabilistic event selection for the ACR-700

risk-informed reactor accident classification scheme, a mechanistic fission product source term,

and the staff’s recommendation to evaluate the acceptability of using Canadian design codes

and standards if American Society of Mechanical Engineers Code (ASME Code) requirements

are not applicable or need to be supplemented. The results of the preliminary design coolant

void reactivity (CVR) analysis, the application of core damage frequency guidelines to address

limited core damage accidents (LCDAs) and severe core damage accidents (SCDAs), and the

fuel design certification process for the ACR-700 CANFLEX fuel was presented. The ARSC

recommended an information SECY be developed which summarizes the results of the preapplication review to prepare the Commission for the review of the ACR-700 design certification

application.

The staff briefed the Advisory Committee for Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) on October 7, 2004,

on the issues identified in the PASAR and requested a letter on the ACRS assessment of the

ACR-700 design and whether a design certification review could be successfully completed. 

On October 14, 2004, the ACRS issued a letter on the review of ACR-700 pre-application safety

assessment report. The ACRS agreed with the staff’s assessment of the issues reviewed

during the pre-application phase and identified issues which were of most interest to them. 

These issues were thermal hydraulics, reactor kinetics, probabilistic risk assessment, severe

accidents, long-term cooling, software, materials, fire protection, and on-line refueling.

By letter dated October 1, 2004, AECL stated that the submittal date for the ACR-700 design

certification application would be delayed (the target date was March 31, 2005). The delay was

attributed to a delay in receipt of DOE’s response to Dominion Energy’s proposal for the North

Anna COL Project. AECL explained that once DOE’s position was known, the ACR-700 project

schedule would be reviewed and a new submittal date for the application would be determined. 

AECL requested continued NRC engagement in the pre-application process during the

proposed transition phase and stated it remained committed to proceeding with the ACR-700

design certification process. The new list of focus topics of the transition phase include: 
The Commissioners - 9 -

reactor physics codes and CVR, evaluation models for design basis accidents, fuel, safety

analysis, thermal/hydraulics, and Class 1 pressure boundary. Now that the awards have been

made, the NRC staff is awaiting a new proposed schedule from AECL.

The October 1, 2004, letter also outlines AECL’s objectives for the transition phase, which is the

period of time between the pre-application period and the design certification review. The letter

also discussed the objectives for the remainder of the pre-application period, including the

resolutions of the issues identified during Phase 2 of the pre-application review, which are

critical to achieving a quality submittal of the ACR-700 design certification application by AECL.

The staff will develop detailed resource requirements and a schedule for the ACR-700 design

certification after receiving a complete design certification application from AECL. The resource

requirements and schedule will consider the complexity and uniqueness of the design, focus

topics and issues resolved during the pre-application phase, whether policy issues need to be

addressed, the availability of NRC resources, and the priority of the review.

International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS)

On September 3, 2004, Westinghouse submitted a topical report on the phenomena

identification and ranking table (PIRT) for the IRIS small-break-loss-of-coolant accident

(SBLOCA). Westinghouse developed this report while planning the IRIS experiments and

analyses and has requested that the NRC review the PIRT. The NRC staff is discussing this

review with Westinghouse.

Framatome ANP Activities

In its letter dated December 2, 2004, Framatome informed the NRC staff of its intent to initiate

pre-application discussions regarding the EPR reactor design. The EPR is a large (4300 MWt)

pressurized water reactor with active safety systems. Site preparation for construction of an

EPR is underway at the Olkiluoto site in Finland, while EDF has chosen the Flamanville site in

France for construction of its first EPR. Framatome indicated that it wishes to start preapplication interactions with the staff in FY 2005. Additional information regarding its

pre-application plans is expected in February 2005. Framatome projects submittal of a design

certification application for EPR in 2008.

There have been no interactions between Framatome and the NRC staff regarding the

SWR-1000 reactor design. Future updates will omit this topic until there have been additional

interactions between Framatome and NRC.

Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR)

The General Atomics Company (GA) GT-MHR design is an approximately 300 MWt helium

reactor design based on high-temperature gas-cooled reactor (HTGR) technology. The

GT-MHR design uses helium to cool ceramic-coated fuel particles contained in fuel compacts

inserted in graphite fuel elements.

There have been no formal interactions between GA and the NRC staff regarding the GT-MHR

in the last 12 months. GA has informally told the staff it plans to terminate GT-MHR
The Commissioners - 10 -

pre-application review interactions with the NRC and refocus its gas reactor design and

development effort on the Very High Temperature Reactor (VHTR) project. NRC has asked GA

to formally inform the NRC, via letter correspondence, of its decision to terminate GT-MHR preapplication interaction activities.

Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR)

The PBMR is a 110 MWe modular high-temperature helium-cooled reactor. By letter dated

February 18, 2004, PBMR (Pty) Ltd. notified the NRC that it intends to apply for design

certification of the PBMR once it has completed enough of the detailed design for a PBMR

demonstration plant to be built in South Africa. In the letter, PBMR (Pty) Ltd. asked to initiate

discussions with the NRC to plan the scope and content of a PBMR pre-application review. 

PBMR (Pty) Ltd. asked to have a management meeting with NRC to discuss the PBMR project

and the basis for its request to begin pre-application interactions with the NRC in advance of a

PBMR design certification application. On November 3, 2004, the NRC staff held a public

meeting at NRC headquarters with PBMR (Pty) Ltd. to discuss its activities and plans and its

request to begin PBMR pre-application interactions with the NRC. The discussion topics

included the progress of the PBMR program in South Africa, the schedule for PBMR

development programs in South Africa and the U.S., proposed PBMR technical topics for preapplication discussions, the interests of U.S. and foreign utilities in the PBMR, and coordination

of planning activities between PBMR (Pty) Ltd. and NRC.

By letter dated November 11, 2004, PBMR (Pty) Ltd. provided a detailed discussion of the

objectives, key issues, and schedule envisioned for the PBMR pre-application effort as

described to the staff in a public meeting on November 3, 2004. They proposed a schedule for

pre-application interactions beginning with a planning phase (Phase 1) from November 2004

through June 2005 followed by Phase 2, which would consist of technical exchange on key

issues and documentation of NRC positions, from July 2005 through December 2006. Lastly,

PBMR (Pty) Ltd. discussed its schedule, which is intended to enable the company to submit a

design certification application for the PBMR design in early 2007. The NRC staff plans to

evaluate the scope, schedule and needed resources for both the PBMR pre-application

interactions and the PBMR design certification review work in the context of the NRC’s

planning, budgeting, and performance management process.

REGULATORY INFRASTRUCTURE

10 CFR Part 52 Update

The staff has proposed a rulemaking to revise 10 CFR Part 52 based on lessons learned during

the previous design certification reviews and on discussions with external stakeholders about

the ESP and COL review processes. The proposed rule was published for comment in the

Federal Register on July 3, 2003 (68 FR 40025). Due to the nature of the comments received

and the extent of the changes necessary to address them, the staff plans to forward a revised

proposed rule package, rather than a final rule, to the Commission by May 31, 2005. The staff

has had to extend the schedule for completing the Part 52 proposed rule package as a result of
The Commissioners - 11 -

the deferral of a significant portion of the staff’s work on the Part 52 rulemaking to support

higher priority work on other rulemakings, namely, Part 2 (Hearing Process), Part 20

(Controlling Disposition of Solid Materials), § 50.69 (Risk-Informing Special Treatment

Requirements), § 50.46 (ECCS), and § 50.48 (Fire Protection Manual Actions).

Construction Inspection Program (CIP) Development

The CIP development team is in the process of issuing three inspection manual chapters that

describe the various aspects of the program for inspection of new reactor construction under

Part 52. Inspection Manual Chapter (IMC) 2502, “Pre-Combined Operating License

Inspections,” has been reviewed by the regional offices and is scheduled for issuance by the

end of 2004. IMC 2502 describes the types and scope of the inspections to be done in support

of the review of the COL application. The scope includes the first-of-a-kind engineering

inspections to review design engineering activities that are not covered by the 10 CFR Part 52

design certification process. Two additional IMCs are currently in the review process and are

scheduled for issuance in Spring 2005. IMC 2503, “ITAAC Inspections,” will verify ITAAC and

IMC 2504, “Non-ITAAC and Programmatic Inspections,” will evaluate the licensee’s operational

programs. In addition, IMC 2504 will describe the inspections to support transition to operation,

including inspections during the testing phase and inspections to ensure the new plant is ready

to be monitored under the reactor oversight process for operating reactors.

The staff has made progress in developing an approach for overseeing nuclear component

suppliers for new plant construction. The staff met several times with the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA) to discuss the FAA’s use of “resource targeting,” a method by which

oversight and inspection resources are assigned to the suppliers whose components present

the greatest potential risk to safe flight. The risk determination is made based on a multifaceted

evaluation of a supplier’s quality program and the component being fabricated. The staff has

successfully adapted the FAA’s “resource targeting” approach and plans to use it to identify

which of the suppliers of components used in new reactor construction should be inspected. 

The CIP Development Team has briefed the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR)

management on how NRC could use a resource-targeting approach to identify suppliers to be

inspected and how this approach would improve the staff’s ability to define the level of effort

needed to oversee suppliers. However, the details of how supplier inspection and oversight will

actually be accomplished remain to be defined. Additionally, the agency will need to evaluate

staff expertise in NRR and the regions with respect to supplier inspection before assigning

responsibility for overseeing suppliers.

The CIP development team continues to explore ways to efficiently but effectively inspect the

construction of a new reactor. The success of the inspection program depends on ensuring

that the most critical areas are inspected. The team has identified the need to consistently

select the most significant ITAAC for inspection regardless of the design. Working with the

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES), the team has prepared a statement of work for

the development of a methodology that can be used by the Regions as they develop their

inspection plan for a construction project. The methodology will select the most important

ITAAC for inspection. Using a common methodology will provide the same level of assurance

that the plants have been successfully constructed even if the inspection plan varies among

projects. The staff expects to have one of the national laboratories complete the work in

FY 2005.
The Commissioners - 12 -

Combined License Issues

NEI 04-01, Revision D, “Draft Industry Guideline for Combined License Applicants Under

10 CFR Part 52,” was sent to the NRC in a letter dated December 21, 2004. The letter also

included a revised list of generic COL issues that industry would like to resolve before receipt of

the first COL application. The staff continues to work with external stakeholders to identify and

resolve COL issues. Some of these issues are being resolved by the CIP framework document

and the 10 CFR Part 52 rulemaking. Others will be addressed through NEI 04-01 and public

meetings between the NRC, NEI, and other external stakeholders. The remaining issues,

which include modular plant licensing issues, will be addressed at a later date.

Regulatory Treatment of Operational Programs in the COL Process (formerly Programmatic

ITAAC)

In a May 14, 2004, staff requirements memorandum (SRM) for SECY-04-0032, “Programmatic

Information Needed for Approval of a Combined License Without Inspections, Tests, Analyses,

and Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC),” the Commission directed the staff to complete its work on

the information necessary for the COL application for each of the programs for which the staff

had previously assumed ITAAC would be required (fire protection, training, quality assurance

during operation, fitness for duty, access authorization, radiation protection, physical security,

licensed operator, and reportability) and present its results to the Commission by December 31,

2005.

In a November 9, 2004, public meeting with the NEI to discuss COL application issues, the staff

discussed a proposed approach to fully describe an operational program in a COL application

and address operational programs which will not be implemented prior to the issuance of a

combined license. This approach proposes that the COL application should include final safety

analysis report (FSAR)-level information for operational programs and, where necessary,

supplemental information to fully describe these programs (the May 14, 2004, SRM states that

“fully described should be understood to mean that the program is clearly and sufficiently

described in terms of the scope and level of detail to allow a reasonable assurance finding”). 

Commitments regarding implementation of those programs that were not implemented when

the COL is issued will be captured through license conditions, which is similar to the process

used in license renewal.

The staff intends to continue holding public meetings with NEI to discuss the information

needed to fully describe each of the operational programs listed above, as well as the

remaining operational programs listed in SECY-02-0067, “Inspections, Tests, Analyses, and

Acceptance Criteria (ITAAC) for Operational Programs (Programmatic ITAAC).” These include

the remaining quality assurance operational programs, containment leak rate testing,

maintenance rule, inservice inspection and inservice testing, and equipment qualification

(emergency planning will have ITAAC and therefore will not be a subject of these meetings). 

The staff will identify the information needed to evaluate operational programs as part of the

review of a COL application, recognizing that many of the programs will not be fully developed

and implemented when a COL is issued. The staff plans to report the results of its work and its

interactions with external stakeholders to the Commission in a SECY paper prior to December

31, 2005.
The Commissioners - 13 -

Emergency Planning (EP) ITAAC

In SECY-04-0117, the staff stated that it had developed draft proposed EP ITAACs for a COL in

consultation with the Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management

Agency (DHS/FEMA). SECY-04-0117 noted that the staff had issued a letter proposing the EP

ITAAC for comment and held a transcribed public workshop to discuss the EP ITAAC. Since

the last semiannual update, the staff held meetings with the NEI on June 2 and July 30, 2004,

to refine the proposed EP ITAAC. During the July 30, 2004, meeting the staff and NEI agreed

on a resolution path for the majority of issues associated with finalizing the EP ITAAC. NEI

sent the staff a letter, dated September 15, 2004, that contained NEI’s latest proposal regarding

the remaining outstanding issues associated with EP ITAAC. The staff and NEI held a public

meeting on November 9, 2004, to discuss NEI’s proposed EP ITAAC. The NRC staff will

provide a written response to the NEI letter based on the discussion which occurred during the

meeting, which resolved the outstanding issues.

In SECY-04-0117, the staff stated that it expected to develop a SECY paper for the

Commission by the fall of 2004. The staff and industry interactions were very productive and

led to a successful resolution of all EP ITAAC issues. Therefore, the staff will be including a

section in the Programmatic ITAAC SECY paper, on the resolution of EP ITAAC rather than

submitting a separate paper.

COL Application Guidance

In SECY-04-0117, the staff informed the Commission that NEI had begun developing guidance

for preparing COL applications. NEI submitted Revision 4 of NEI 04-01, “COL Application

Guidance,” in December 2004. The staff expects to meet with NEI to discuss NEI 04-01. In

2005, NEI expects to address NRC comments, incorporate additional COL application and

process guidance, and seek NRC endorsement of NEI 04-01, Revision 1. NEI expects that the

process for obtaining NRC endorsement of NEI 04-01 will be similar to the process which led to

the NRC’s endorsement of NEI 95-10, “Industry Guideline for Implementing License Renewal,”

in Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.188, “Standard Format and Content for Applications To Renew

Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.” NEI believes that such a schedule will support

preparation and submittal of a COL application in the 2006-2007 timeframe.

The staff has budgeted resources to support these generic review activities for COLs. The

resources may be revised, depending on the timing and the scope of the work involved.

Advanced Reactor Steering Committee (ARSC)

The ARSC, a joint RES/NRR management team, continues to review activities associated with

advanced reactor pre-application reviews, design certification reviews, and advanced reactor

research infrastructure development. The steering committee, with the support of a Technical

Advisory Group (TAG), reviews research activities necessary to support design certification

reviews, including the agency’s independent assessments of new reactor designs and the

development of the technical bases for regulatory requirements. Recent ARSC meetings have
The Commissioners - 14 -

focused on the staff’s efforts to develop a technology-neutral licensing framework, resolution of

non-light-water reactor (non-LWR) policy issues, including integrated risk and containment

performance requirements and criteria, issues identified during the ACR-700 pre-application

review.

Non-LWR Policy Issues

In SECY-03-0047, “Policy Issues Related to Licensing Non-Light-Water Reactor Designs,”

dated March 28, 2003 (ML030160002), the staff discussed options and provided

recommendations for Commission consideration on seven fundamental policy issues with

respect to licensing non-light-water reactor designs. The staff stated in the SECY paper that

four of the issues would be included in the development of the framework for future plant

licensing. The four issues are the definition of defense-in-depth, the use of a probabilistic

approach to establish the licensing basis, the use of scenario-specific source terms for licensing

decisions, and whether to revise the emergency planning zone. The other three issues are how

requirements for non-LWRs relate to international codes and standards, the implementation of

the Commission’s expectations for enhanced safety in future non-LWRs, and the possibility of

licensing plants that do not have a pressure-retaining containment building.

The June 26, 2003, SRM in response to SECY-03-0047, provided direction on

recommendations on the seven policy issues. The Commission approved the staff’s

recommendations on the four issues addressed in the framework, but rejected the staff’s

recommendation on international codes and standards. On the remaining two issues, the

Commission asked the staff to: (1) provide further details on the options for, and associated

impacts of, requiring that modular reactor designs account for the integrated risk posed by

multiple reactors, and (2) develop functional containment performance requirements and

criteria, and submit options and recommendations to the Commission.

In SECY-04-0103, “Status of Response to the June 26, 2003, Staff Requirements

Memorandum on Policy Issues Related to Licensing Non-Light-Water Reactor Designs,” dated

June 23, 2004 (ML041140521), the staff provided a status report on the integrated risk of

multiple reactors and containment performance requirements and criteria. The staff also held

discussions with the ACRS on these issues and solicited stakeholder input via public meetings

and workshops. The discussions have elicited additional views. The staff intends to consider

the ACRS’ and other stakeholder’s feedback in further assessing these issues. Options and a

recommendation on these two issues will be included in the paper planned for December 2004,

on the technology-neutral framework for new plant licensing (discussed below).

Advanced Reactor Framework Development 

The objective of the regulatory structure for new plant licensing is to provide a technologyneutral risk-informed and performance-based approach to enhance the effectiveness and

efficiency of new plant licensing in the longer term (beyond the advanced designs currently in

the pre-application stage). The staff is developing a regulatory structure with four major parts:

(1) a technology-neutral risk-informed and performance-based framework that will give the

staff guidance and criteria for developing technology-neutral requirements,
The Commissioners - 15 -

(2) the content of a set of technology-neutral risk-informed and performance-based

requirements based on the guidance and criteria established in the technology-neutral

framework,

(3) a technology-specific framework that will provide guidance and criteria for the staff on

applying the technology-neutral framework on a technology-specific basis, and

(4) technology-specific regulatory guides to show licensees how to meet the technologyneutral regulations on a technology-specific basis.

To date, the staff has made substantial progress in developing the framework. The staff is

developing the framework in a hierarchal fashion, using guidance in the Commission's policy

statements (i.e., Commission’s Policy Statement on Severe Accidents, 50 FR 32138,

August 8, 1985; Commission’s Policy Statement on the Regulation of Advanced Nuclear Power

Plants, 51 FR 24643, July 8, 1986; and Commission’s 1986 Reactor Safety Goal Policy,

51 FR 28044). Supporting criteria and guidance are being developed to help achieve the

top-level objectives in a risk-informed and performance-based manner and to provide the

technical basis for developing a set of technology-neutral requirements for new plant licensing. 

In this regard, the framework will be used to implement the Commission’s direction in the SRM

of June 26, 2003, on the four approved non-LWR policy issues discussed in SECY-03-0047.

The staff conducted several public meetings in the May 2003—July 2004 period. The most

recent public meeting, held on July 27 and 28, 2004, was attended by approximately 50 people,

including representatives from the nuclear industry, public interest organizations, vendors,

academia, DOE, national laboratories, consultants, and the NRC staff. The feedback on the

framework was positive and indicated general agreement with the need for a framework and

the conceptual bases for the framework. The attendees expressed a desire to comment on the

draft framework when it is issued for public comment. In addition, the staff has had several

discussions with the ACRS (both the full committee and the subcommittee on Future Plant

Designs). The verbal feedback from the committee has been positive, indicating that the staff

has made significant progress and is asking the right questions. The committee stated its

interest in future staff briefings and its desire to support the staff. The staff plans to interact

with both ACRS and external stakeholders on a regular basis.

The staff will complete the draft framework and provide it concurrently to the Commission and

to the public for review and comment by the end of December 2004. The staff will also provide

preliminary recommendations on new policy issues for Commission consideration and will

provide final recommendations after the public review and comment period.

High-Temperature Gas-Cooled Reactor (HTGR)

In August 2004, RES published NUREG/CR-6844, Volumes, 1, 2, and 3, “TRISO-Coated

Particle Fuel Phenomenon Identification and Ranking Tables for Fission Product Transport Due

to Manufacturing, Operations and Accidents.” The PIRTs identify and rank the significant

factors, characteristics, and phenomena associated with the integrity and fission product

release of HTGR fuels. This NUREG documents the results of work that was initiated in

FY 2002 in anticipation of a potential HTGR COL or design certification application. If the NRC

receives an application to license or certify an HTGR, the TRISO fuels PIRTs report will provide

significant input to the NRC in its effort to develop an infrastructure of data, analytical codes,
The Commissioners - 16 -

methods, and expertise to effectively review HTGR fuel safety performance. The staff obtained

comments on the PIRT’s report from international experts in TRISO fuel technology.

In FY 2005, RES will continue activities related to “HTGR Knowledge Management.” This will

include: (a) maintaining and updating the staff’s cognizance of domestic and international

developments in safety-related aspects of HTGR technology, (b) ensuring that the HTGR

analysis tools developed are documented and retrievable for future use by the staff, and (c)

preserving and transferring the knowledge gained from the staff’s earlier efforts on HTGR

technology. For these HTGR knowledge management activities, the staff is allocating 0.5 staff

FTE and $100K of contract funding. This is consistent with Chairman Diaz’s FY 2005 budget

guidance in his memorandum to the Commissioners dated June 20, 2003. Further, within this

revised level of funding, resources should be targeted to monitor international activities related

to gas-cooled reactor technology. The staff believes that this approach recognizes the high

uncertainty of the nature of future designs and the timing of applications for new reactor

construction.

Instrumentation and Control (I&C)

In March 2004, RES and NRR staff members participated as observers in a workshop held by

the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI)/Utility Hybrid Human System Interface Working

Group. This group meets periodically to evaluate the industry’s need for additional guidance

and research in the area of digital I&C system upgrades for present nuclear power plants

(NPPs) and future advanced reactors. As a result of input from this group, EPRI recently

published “Interim Human Factors Guidance for Hybrid Control Rooms and Digital I&C

Systems” as a draft document. During the workshop, these draft guidelines and their current

status were discussed, along with future efforts. The development of the guidelines is funded in

part through the DOE Nuclear Energy Plant Optimization (NEPO) project. Representatives of

various NPPs, utility organizations, and industry consultants and vendor organizations

presented current and planned digital I&C system upgrades. While the pace of digital I&C

safety system modernization has been slow, applications have been increasing in the last 2 to

3 years.

Human Factors

The RES and NRR staffs participated in a workshop to identify and preliminarily prioritize

research issues related to the role of operators in advanced reactor systems. These research

issues had been developed in a research project, the “Development of Insights Report on the

Role of Human Performance in Advanced Reactors,” which was sponsored by the NRC and

performed by Brookhaven National Laboratory. Five external subject matter experts (three with

U.S. industry experience and two from other countries) participated in the workshop. The

attendees concluded: (1) the research was comprehensive and identified most of the major

issues, (2) the human performance issues should be reorganized to better reflect their

importance and to make them more meaningful, and (3) while the preliminary prioritization was

appropriate, there was a consensus that developing methods, models, and tools for human

performance evaluation is crucial to the success of NRC review of advanced reactor design

processes. The participants also recommended that NRC hold a formal prioritization workshop

with a larger group of subject matter experts. A workshop is being planned for FY 2005.
The Commissioners - 17 -

Structural and Seismic Accomplishments

In February 2004, RES staff traveled to Japan (Tokyo and Tadotsu) to exchange information

and gather Japanese data on the seismic performance of deeply embedded or buried

structures and to develop the technical basis for the safety evaluation of the deeply embedded

or buried structures that have been proposed for some advanced reactor designs. The RES

staff also visited the Tadotsu Laboratory, which contains the world’s largest “shake table” for

testing structural models against simulated earthquakes to determine their seismic resistance.

Meetings to exchange information were held with the Japan Nuclear Energy Safety (JNES),

Nuclear Power Engineering Corporation (NUPEC), Tokyo University, Tokyo Electric Power

Corporation (TEPCO), Kajima Corporation, and Tokyo Gas. The focus of the meetings was

experiments conducted, and actual earthquake data recorded, at a deeply embedded nuclear

unit owned and operated by TEPCO. JNES is currently planning an international collaborative

research program on deeply embedded structures and would like to have NRC join the effort.

Representatives from Tokyo Gas summarized the design, construction, and analysis of the

world’s first and largest completely underground liquified natural gas tank, which was

constructed in late 2003. During the site visit to Tadotsu Laboratory, the travelers observed the

fragility capacity test of a full-scale horizontal-shaft pump. The horizontal-shaft pump was

typical of pumps used in nuclear plants. The test setup contained a full piping loop. The plant

was operating at normal conditions when it was subjected to an earthquake five times the

recorded level of the 1995 Kobe earthquake, 0.8g. The initial test results indicated that the

horizontal pump did not sustain any damage. RES staff plan to analyze information collected

during the trip and follow up on the proposal to join the international collaborative test planned

by JNES.

ADDITIONAL STAKEHOLDER INTERACTIONS

International Cooperation

The staff stated its intention to engage in international cooperation efforts for new reactor

designs in a staff paper to the Commission, “International Cooperation on New Reactor

Designs,” (ML031740205). Consistent with the staff’s intention, NRC and the Canadian

Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) have conducted a series of meetings to discuss the

feasibility of collaborating in the parallel CNSC/NRC design reviews of the ACR-700 design. 

The NRC and CNSC recently renewed their long-standing information exchange agreement

and have used this agreement to sign a communication protocol on technical cooperation and

on the exchange of technical information during the ACR-700 review.

The CNSC staff participated in the NRC PIRT meetings on the ACR-700 design to assist the

PIRT panel. The staff participated in a series of meetings with CNSC to discuss the status of

the ACR-700 preliminary design results on the coolant void reactivity analysis. The

international collaboration with CNSC continues to make optimal use of regulatory resources

and to accelerate the staff’s acquisition of knowledge of CANDU safety technology. The staff

requested background information from CNSC to understand the Canadian requirements for

the safety analysis of CANDU nuclear power plants and the differences to the ACR-700

licensing basis document. The CNSC also provided, at the staff’s request, copies of the report

on the re-evaluation of measurements of the power coefficient of reactivity for the MAPLE-1

reactor and a copy of an annual fuel performance report. Information received from CNSC is
The Commissioners - 18 -

used as background material to accelerate the staff’s knowledge of generic CANDU safety

issues, and operating experience. Each agency will make its own independent assessment of

the ACR-700 design based on information provided by the applicant and each agency will make

its own final safety determination.

The staff also continues to seek opportunities to interact with and, where appropriate, initiate

cooperative programs with other agencies and organizations. Such organizations include the

Japan Atomic Energy Research Institute (JAERI), and National Nuclear Safety Administration

(NNSA), the regulatory authority of the People’s Republic of China (in the area of HTGR

technology).

The NRC and NNSA are working to develop a joint research agreement on HTGR technology. 

In addition, a workshop with NNSA was held in July 2004, on the design certification process.

NRC is also supporting meetings sponsored by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA),

including various Coordinated Research Projects dealing with advances in fuel technology for

HTGR and the effects of near-field earthquakes on nuclear facilities.

Looking ahead, the NRC will interact with various parties in France and South Africa if formal

EPR and PBMR pre-application programs are approved.

Department of Energy

RES senior management met with representatives of DOE’s Office of Nuclear Energy in

July 2004, to discuss issues related to nuclear reactor research. DOE discussed plans related

to the new “Idaho National Laboratory,” which will include the research and development (R&D)

elements of INEEL plus ANL-West; DOE’s objective is to make INL into a world-class nuclear

R&D laboratory. DOE also provided updated information on plans for the so-called Next

Generation Nuclear Plant (NGNP). DOE will, in the near future, be soliciting interest in

participating in this program. DOE will then formally request NRC’s involvement in reviewing

aspects of the NGNP R&D effort. In this regard, DOE requested further discussion with NRC

on the issue of appropriate quality assurance for NGNP activities. DOE also gave a brief

update on the progress of the DOE-supported initiative to develop COL applications for nearterm deployment. Finally, NRC and DOE discussed the renewal of the memorandum of

understanding (MOU) on cooperative research between RES and DOE/NE. The MOU expired

in August 2004. RES expressed interest in expanding the scope of the agreement to include

access to data from DOE’s international cooperative research programs. DOE stated that this

will not in principle pose a problem and that the two parties will work together to develop a new

MOU.

NRR and RES staff met with representatives of DOE's Office of Nuclear Energy in

September 2004. DOE provided a status update on their Nuclear Power 2010 and

generation IV initiatives, and discussed current activities related to the NGNP program. DOE

proposed future interactions with the NRC to discuss regulatory issues associated with the

proposed NGNP. DOE also discussed an ongoing activity to identify potential regulatory

implications associated with the implementation of new construction techniques including

modular construction.