COMMISSION BRIEFING SLIDES/EXHIBITS

BRIEFING ON STATUS OF

NEW REACTOR ISSUES - COLS

OCTOBER 16, 2006
State Certification and Cost

Recovery Rules for Nuclear

Facilities

Sam J. Ervin, IV

Commissioner, North Carolina Utilities Commission

4325 Mail Service Center

Raleigh, North Carolina 27699

Telephone: (919) 733-6056

E-mail Address: ervin@ncuc.net

1
Issue Overview

• What authority do state commissions or

other regulatory agencies have to review

proposals for the construction of new

nuclear facilities?

* What rules govern the recovery of costs

associated with the planning, construction,

and operation of new nuclear facilities?

2
State Commission Procedures

" State commissions.must address these issues in

compliance with the procedural requirements set forth in

state law

" Typically, state commissions make decisions following

adversary proceedings in which interested parties have a

right to present evidence and to otherwise advocate the

adoption of the positions that they espouse

" State commissions must make their decisions on the

basis of an analysis of the evidentiary record in light of

controlling legal principles

* State commission decisions are subject to appeal to the

appellate courts in the relevant state

3
Status of State Regulation

" States divided in the manner in which the

electric industry is regulated

• Sixteen states and the District of Columbia have

restructured their electric industries in an attempt

to convert the generation function into. a

competitive business

" Remaining states have retained the traditional

industry model, in which utilities that have been

awarded monopoly territories provide bundled

service to end user customers

4
Traditional Regulation

• Utility is assigned a franchised service territory in.

which it has the exclusive right to provide retail

service

Utility is obligated to provide adequate service at

a reasonable rate in-its franchised service

territory

• Utility is subject to pervasive rate and service

quality regulation by a state regulatory agency

for the purpose of protecting customers

5
Traditional Rate Regulation

1. Ascertain the utility's rate base, which consists of the reasonable

cost of the utility's property used and useful in providing utility

service, less accumulated depreciation

2. Determine the appropriate debt and equity capital cost rate that

the utility should be allowed to collect from customers

3. Multiply the utility's rate base as determined in Step 1 by the

capital cost rate established in Step 2

4. Ascertain the utility's reasonable operating expenses, including

salaries, depreciation, and similar costs

5. Add the utility's allowable aggregate capital costs as determined

in Step 3 to the utility's allowable operating expenses as

determined in Step 4 to produce the utility's total revenue

requirement

6. Design rates to allow the utility to collect its overall revenue

requirement as determined in Step.5 from customers in a nondiscriminatory manner

6
Electric Restructuring

• Attempts to assure adequate generation service at

reasonable prices by using competitive forces rather

than regulatory oversight

" Allows entry by non-utility entities into the generation

business

" Requires utility. to provide delivery service to customers

subject to regulatory control

• Allows customers to purchase generation service on the

open market at prices set by market forces

" Requires some entity, usually the incumbent utility, to

serve as provider of last resort for those customers that

do not or are unable to shop for power

7
Establishing the Cost of Generation

Service in Restructured States

• Customers in restructured states that elect to

shop for power pay a market-based price

" Most residential customers in restructured states

receive default service

" Default service priced in different ways in

different states, with some states retaining

traditional regulation for default service and

others acquiring generation service for default

customers through an auction process

8
Certification Requirements in

Traditionally-Regulated States

• State law in traditionally-regulated jurisdictions

requires a utility to obtain a certificate from a

state agency before beginning to. construct and

operate a generating facility

• Utility is required to show that the proposed

facility is needed to meet anticipated future load

and represents the least cost way to serve that

anticipated load

* Purpose of certification in traditionally-regulated

states is to prevent costly-overbuilding

9
Certification Requirements in

Restructured States

" Extent to which certification requirements persist

in restructured states varies from jurisdiction to

jurisdiction

* Illinois does not require non-utility generators to

obtain a certificate before constructing a new

generating facility

• Virginia appears to lighten the standard required

for certification of a generating facility. that will

not be included in utility rate base

10
Cost Recovery Under Traditional

Regulation

• Costs associated with a new generating facility eligible

for use in establishing rates when the facility becomes

commercially operable

* Capital costs, including an allowance for funds used

during construction, are included in establishing the.

utility's rate base

• Operating expenses,. including depreciation, included in

establishing allowable operating expenses

• Certain costs may be disallowed in the event that any

portion of the plant's capacity is determined to be

excessive or any costs incurred in constructing the

facility were unreasonably or imprudently incurred

11
Cost Recovery in a Restructured

Environment

• Generators recoup costs associated with the provision of

service to customers that shop for power in the marketbased prices charged to those customers

• Generators recoup costs associated with serving default

customers through the mechanism approved by the

applicable state commission for the provision of such

service

- In Michigan, default service is priced in a manner reminiscent of

cost-based regulation

- In Pennsylvania, utilities providing default service procure generation through an RFP process, so that the cost of

generation is incorporated into each generator's bid

- In Maryland and New Jersey, the price of default service is

determined through an auction process, so that the cost of

generation is incorporated into each generator's bid

12
Impact of Regional Transmission

Organizations on Cost Recovery

• Regional Transmission Organizations that operate day-ahead and

real-time generation markets exist in the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, New

England, New York, and Texas

• RTO areas contain both restructured and traditionally-regulated

states

• Utilities and other customers have the option of purchasing power through RTO markets instead of operating their own generating

facilities or obtaining power from other sources

* Price of power sold through RTO markets is based on bids

submitted by participating generators, with all generators receiving

the price paid to the generator with the highest accepted bid

* Marginal generation in RTO markets tends to be gas-fired or coalfired, resulting in prices for power purchased through such markets

that exceed the marginal operating cost of nuclear generation

13
Other Cost Recovery Mechanisms

• Other options for the recovery of costs

associated .with designing, licensing,

constructing, and operating new nuclear units

exist in certain traditionally-regulated states

• Some states permit the inclusion of construction

work in progress in rate base

• Other states have adopted or are considering

other cost recovery mechanisms in anticipation

of new nuclear construction

14
Iowa

Iowa Utilities Board may determine "in advance" "the

ratemaking principles that will apply when the costs of an

electric generating facility ... are included in regulated

electric rates"

• Approach only applicable to facilities "with a nameplate

generating capacity equal to or greater than three

hundred megawatts"

• IUB not "limited to traditional ratemaking principles or

traditional cost recovery mechanisms" in determining the

appropriate method for cost recovery in such instances

• Cost recovery issues associated with new generating

facilities must be resolved before construction can begin

15
Florida

" Florida PSC is required to approve an alternative cost recovery mechanism

for costs resulting from the construction of a new nuclear facility that allows

for recovery of preconstruction costs and carrying costs on the utility's projected construction cost balance

* Any utility that brings a new nuclear unit into commercial operation is

entitled to include the projected cost of such a facility in. base rates using the

utility's existing allowed return

* In any ratemaking proceeding in which a utility seeks to include the costs

associated with a new nuclear generating unit in rates

- Otherwise applicable competitive bidding rules do not apply

- Issuance of a determination of need creates a presumption that the facility is

needed to provide service to the public - Costs associated with the construction of the facility in question can only be

disallowed for imprudence, -with a decision to proceed with construction following

a determination of need conclusively presumed to be prudent and with any cost

increases due to events beyond the utility's control not subject to disallowance

16
Georgia

• Georgia PSC has allowed Georgia Power to accumulate

up to $51 million in costs associated with efforts to obtain

an Early Site Permit and a Combined Operating License

in Account 183, Preliminary Survey and Investigation

Charges

• Upon certificate of a new nuclear generating facility by

the Georgia PSC, the amounts recorded in Account 183

shall be transferred. to a CWIP account

• In the event that a new nuclear facility is not certified, the

prudently incurred amounts in Account 183 shall be

deferred until the utility's next general rate case,. at which

point the Georgia PSC will determine the appropriate

ratemaking treatment for those costs

17
North Carolina

• Duke Energy Carolinas has requested the North

Carolina UC in a pending proceeding to

- Find "that work performed... to ensure the availability of nuclear

generation by 2016 is prudent and consistent with the promotion

of adequate, reliable and economical utility service to the citizens

of North Carolina" and the policies expressed in the North

Carolina Public Utilities Act

- Provide "expressly that Duke Energy Carolinas may recover-in

rates, in a timely fashion, the North Carolina allocable portion of

Development Costs prudently incurred for work done in the

development of new nuclear generation through December 31,

2007, whether or not a new nuclear facility is constructed"

18
Status of New Reactor and

Combined License Issues

Industry Briefing of NRC Commission

Oct. 16, 2006
I

Industry Panel

" Marvin Fertel, Chief Nuclear Officer, NEI

" J. Barnie Beasley, Chairman & President, Southern

Nuclear Operating Company

" James J. Sheppard, President, STP Nuclear Operating

Company

" Joe C. Turnage, Senior Vice President, Constellation

Generation Group

" Eugene S. Grecheck, Vice President, Nuclear Support

Services, Dominion Generation

NRE I

~~i, 1 -f"-•
Other Industry Representatives

" Scotty Hinnant, Chief Nuclear Officer, Progress Energy &

Chairman of NEI New Plant Working Group

* Steve Byrne, Chief Nuclear Officer, SCANA

" Karl Singer, Chief Nuclear Officer, TVA

" Mike Blevins, Chief Nuclear Officer, TXU

" Randy Hutchinson, Senior Vice President, Entergy Nuclear

" Marilyn Kray, President, NuStart Energy

" John Polcyn, Amarillo Power

" Ron Affloter, Vice President, Areva

" Steve Hucik, General Manager, GE Energy, Nuclear

" Ed Cummins, Vice President, Westinghouse

3 L
Level of Standardization in

COL Applications.

Average Level of Standardization for All DCWG

COL Applications

Standard for All COL Applications 65%- 75%

Standard with Limited Number of Site

Specific Differences 10%-20%

Site Specific Information 5%-15%

Total 100%

rJE: I

4
API000 Design-Centered

Working Group

STATUS REPORT TO

NRC COMMISSIONERS

October 16, 2006

Barnie Beasley

Chairman &. President, Southern Nuclear

Operating Company

5
API000 DCWG Interactions

" Pre-Application Meetings Scheduled once every six weeks

* Purpose: to further define COL application requirements and

addresskey technical issues.

* Early meetings effective in framing and defining key issues

(e.g. application formatting, security, emergency planning).

* Focus areas for future meetings include:

PRA level of detail & COL application level of detail

" Pre-Application "Technical Reports"

• Purpose is to provide early review of design and open items to

promote standardization

e 34 of 71 Westinghouse and DCWG reports submitted and

being reviewed

e On schedule to submit all reports by mid-2007.

6
Industry Standardization

* DCWG approach fully embraced

" High levels of standardization in licensing

applications

* Design being reviewed to identify further areas

where standardization may be achieved

" Operational program descriptions being

developed industrywide. Examples include:

Training & Security

* Challenges exist to fully complete and articulate

guidance and understandings between NRC and

industry to assure stability and predictability

IJ I

.7
ABWR Design-Centered Working Group Status Report

STATUS REPORT TO

NRC COMMISSIONERS

October 16, 2006

Joe Sheppard

President, STP Nuclear Operating Company

8
ABWR DCWG

* DCWG Principles

* Minimize departures from DCD

• Employ generic section templates

• Optimize regulatory process

" Pre-application meetings with NRC

• Initial meeting July 27, 2006, Second meeting Oct. 18, 2006,

" DCWG Project Design Review Board (PDRB)

* Charter Completed Sept. 26, 2006

• First PDRB meeting Sept. 27, 2006

• Second PDRB meeting Oct. 11, 2006

N9E: i

9,' ••
Overall Schedules

* Quality applications per DG- 1145 & SRP could reduce

42-month approval schedule

* Environmental review appears to be critical path

• Candidate for process improvement consistent with NEPA

requirements

* Opportunities to further improve regulatory certainty and

licensing effectiveness by incorporating measures used in

license renewal & LES licensing proceedings

* Recent LWA rulemaking proposal will ensure regulatory

focus is maintained on issues that have safety significance

10 NE I
U.S. EPR Design-Centered

Working Group

STATUS REPORT TO

NRC COMMISSIONERS

October 16, 2006

Joe Turnage

Senior Vice President, Constellation Generation Group

N' I

]!t
Concurrent DCD'and COLA

Preparation and NRC Review

" Provides unique advantages

* A higher level of integration between the COL application

and DCD texts can be achieved - easier to review

e Minimizes COL information items

* Substantial NRC staff interaction (35+ meetings held or

being planned)

* 20+ reports submitted/plan to be submitted

* Presents unique logistical requirements

* Need to ensure that changes to DCD are properly and timely

reflected in COL application and vice versa, as necessary

* Objective is to provide the conditions needed for

the NRC to conduct an effective and efficient

review of the reference COL application

INE~

12
Generic Issues

" Appreciate NRC expediting the schedule for issuance of

essential NRC guidance documents (Reg. Guides & SRPs)

e Industry - NRC interactions regarding these guidance

documents are critical in assuring quality applications

" Timely NRC review and acceptance of digital I&C

designs is crucial to the industry

* Simulators need to be ordered in 2009.

e Each DCWG needs to have an integrated plan with the NRC

to ensure issues are identified and resolved on a schedule

that meets industry's timetable

13
ESBWR

Design-Centered Working Group

STATUS REPORT TO

NRC COMMISSIONERS

October 16, 2006

* Eugene S. Grecheck,

Vice President, Dominion Generation

N4 I

14
ESBWR DCWG Schedules

n -Pre Application meetings

w COLA submittals to NRC:

" November 2007-Grand Gulf and North Anna

* Both applications will reference ESP's

" May 2008-River Bend (S-COL)

a ESBWR DCD revisions to NRC:

* October 2006-Revision 2

* Design changes and COL item resolution

o February 2007-Revision 3

* Incorporate RAI responses; resolve more COL items

n Concurrent DCD and COL reviews

5E I
DG-1 145 Perspective

" Commendable effort by the NRC staff

* Seven workshops yielded improved understandings, interactions

need to continue

*] Progress made but issues remain, some beyond the

scope of DG- 1145

" Plant-specific PRA issues.

" Environmental Report

" Seismic

" Quality applications: meeting DG 1145 plus the SRP

16
Conclusion

m NRC staff and industry working on developing predictable

implementation processes for Part 52

* Continue to interact on:

" Developing standardized COL applications

" SRP Updates and Reg. Guide revisions and development,

including DG- 1145

* I&C and Human Factors

* Making further improvements to the licensing process

LWA rulemaking

* Industry believes that quality COL standardized applications

could be reviewed and approved in 27 months

" Benefit of intensive pre-application interactions (few RAIs)

" Schedule for approval of second wave of standardized

applications should be shorter

17E I 17 •
••, Union of Concerned

Scientists

Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions

NUCLEAR REVIVAL

OR

NUCLEAR RE-RUN?

October 16, 2006

David Lochbaum

Director, Nuclear Safety Project
ACRONYMS

AEC- Atomic Energy Commission

AEOD - Office of Analysis and

Evaluation of Operational Data

ASP - Accident Sequence

Precursor (i.e., "near-miss")

BL - Bulletin

EA - Enforcement Action

FPC - Federal Power Commission 2
11

ACRONYMS (cont)

LER- Licensee Event Report

LLTF - Lessons Learned Task

Force

GL - Generic Letter

H&I - Harassment and intimidation

IN - Information Notice

NEI - Nuclear Energy Institute
I'

ACRONYMS (cont)

NRC - Nuclear Regulatory

Commission

QA - Quality Assurance (e.g, 10

CFR 50, App. B stuff)

ROP - reactor oversight process

SALP - systematic assessment of

licensee performance

4
I,

ACRONYMS (cont)

TVA Tennessee Valley Authority

UCS - Union of Concerned

Scientists

i REDACTED':.: .
Iq

REGULATORY VIEW

NRC, and AEC, did an excellent

job of establishing regulations

and expectations.

NRC, and AEC, did an inadequate

job of enforcing regulations and

expectations.

6
•q

VIEW BASIS

Example: Davis-Besse LLTF

Total of 51 recommendations for

revised/expanded NRC processes

Overwhelming majority (43)

involved enforcement, rather than

establishment, -of appropriate

regulatory requirements.

7
REGULATORY GOAL

NRC must match its high level of

performance in establishing

regulatory requirements with

equal capability in enforcing

those requirements.

8
CONSTUCTION PHASE

QUALITY MIRROR

US House hearing 11-19-1981 on

"Quality Assurance in

Nuclearplant Construction"

Chairman Udall chronicled the

quality assurance breakdowns

at Diablo Canyon, South Texas

Project and Zimmer and posed

four questions.

9
CONSTRUCTION PHASE

QUALITY QUESTIONS

1)How did these quality assurance

failings occur?

2)Why did these failings go so

long undetected by the owner

utilities and the NRC?

10
CONSTRUCTION PHASE

QUALITY QUESTIONS

3)What is being done to minimize

the likelihood ....of future failings

of this kind?

4)How are we to be sure that

completed plants have in fact

been constructed-in accordance

with the Commission's

regulations?
CONSTRUCTION PHASE

QUALITY ANSWERS

1)How did these quality assurance

failings occur?

Ineffective management.

12
CONSTRUCTION PHASE

QUALITY ANSWERS

2)Why did these failings go so

long undetected by the owner

utilities and the NRC?

Ineffective management and

ineffective oversight.

13
CONSTRUCTION PHASE

QUALITY ANSWERS

3)What is being done to minimize

the likelihood of future failings

of this kind?

Failings were minimized by the

phase-out of nuclear plant

construction programs. Last

nuclear plant licensed (Watts

Bar) had failings. 14
WATTS BAR

RETROSPECTIVE

NRC issued operating license

for Watts Bar on 02/07/1996.

TVA certified to NRC on

02/2011985 that Watts Bar was

ready to license.

TVA "missed" by 4,004 days:

longer than the desired

licensing and construction time

for new reactors. 1
CONSTRUCTION PHASE

QUALITY ANSWERS

4)How are we to be sure that

completed plants have in fact

been constructed in accordance

with the Commission's

regulations?

No such assurance. Sources:

SECY-90-365, IN 92-65,

AEOD/T97-01, IN 98-22, SECY00-0141, NUREG-1275, RG 1.186
VIEW BASIS REVISITED

The serious problems

encountered at Diablo Canyon,

South Texas Project, and Zimmer

did not result from NRC having

inadequate regulations, but from

NRC have inadequate

enforcement of adequate

regulations.

17
REGULATORY GOAL

NRC must match its high level of

performance in establishing

regulatory requirements with

equal capability in enforcing

those requirements.

i8
DESIGN &

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES

" BWR offgas explosions BL 78-03

" Environmental qualification BL

79-Olb

* Piping supports BL 79-02

* Counterfeit parts BLs 83-07 &

88-05

• Maine Yankee EA-96-299

19
MORE DESIGN &

CONSTRUCTION ISSUES

" Fire barrier systems BL 92-01

" ECCS pump clogging BLs 93-02,

95-02, 96-03, and 03-01, IN 96-59

* Steam generators IN 79-27, IN

80-36, IN 82-06, IN 82-14, IN 84-49,

IN 85-65, BL 88-02, IN 88-31, IN

88-99, BL 89-01, IN 89-33, IN 89-

65, GL 95-03, GL 97-06, IN 98-27,

IN 01-16, IN 02-02 20
CONSTRUCTION PHASE

INSPECTIONS

NUREG-1789:"Since the NRC has

limited resources and uses a

sampling inspection

methodology, reduction in

inspection effort may occur when

reviews have identified effective

program implementation that

provides high confidence in the

license's quality control process."

21
CONSTRUCTION PHASE

INSPECTIONS (CONT)

NO!

History of AEC/NRC oversight of

nuclear plant construction and

operation is a recurring theme of

misplaced, unjustified confidence

in licensee's processes.

Quit pinching pennies and losing

millions!

22
ITAAC

NOTHING BETTER

AEOD/T97-O1, "Design Errors in

Nuclear Power. Plants"

* 3,439 LERs with design errors

between 1985 and 1995.

*2% of LERs contained design

errors significant enough to be

reviewed under the ASP program

23
ITAAC

NOTHING BETTER

NUREG-1275 v14, "Causes and

Significant of Design-Basis

Issues at U.S. Nuclear Power

Plants"

• 70% of design errors 1985-1997

date back to original licensing

• 60% of ASP events in 1997

involved design errors 24
CONSTRUCTION PHASE

OVERSIGHT

Regulatory oversight for existing

reactors during their

construction was conducted

under SALP and its predecessors.

NRC tossed. SALP and went to

ROP for existing reactors. NRC

needs construction phase ROP.

25
CONSTRUCTION PHASE

ROP

Because irradiated fuel won't yet

be on site, a risk-based ROP

would be all Green all the time.

Thus, a performance-based ROP

is needed during the construction

phase to differentiate between

adequate and inadequate

outcomes.

26
CONSTRUCTION PHASE

GENERIC

COMMUNICATIONS

Problems with generic

implications identified along the

frenetic, no-holds-barred

construction schedules must be

promptly communicated by NRC

to all applicable entities.

27
CONSTRUCTION PHASE

SECURITY

At reactors under construction

adjacent to operating reactor(s),

NRC must require personnel and,

vehicle access controls long

before fuel arrives onsite.

28
SECURITY BY DESIGN

(o) CUNAI&INMIt. Bu.r.

(D MAII IEAMI/I.I "UI IJd

PELlIlRhIL01i APIA

(D AUtILIAR WI LiG.

Q CONTROL. BLD.1.

G) FUEL HANtULI ULM,.

1101 •lACHIEiL StOP

6•3 IILASTE BLDG..

63 SOLID RACAS1E S"TORAL

M-I: CWhD.1.tf E SIOT1RAOE TASK

M-1: REACTOR MKAKUP tiz0 1IG. 1TA1k

4.J: AtfuctIIIc h 1SG. IANX

0 IURBINE ELM.

.( MtAhI ST1Am/[CEDWATER

PE•IETRATION AR.EAS

O AUXILIARY BUILDIr

(INCLUODS CONTROL ROOM)

HE IIALTH PHIYSICS AREA, SHOWER

ANIO LOCZER ROOMS

O FUlEL HUDLING BLDG.

QRAO11ASTE BLDG.

S 0LID RAWAST STORACE

(D WA SAFETY EQUI PMENT BLDG.0

" ""* SAFETY EqJIPIHENiT ELM.

( "D A DIESEL GENERATOR SLOG.

1"3 DIESEL CEhERATOR BLOG.

63 HOT MACHIINE SHOP

T-1: REACTOR MAKEUP 1420 STG. TANK

Baseline Standard Plant Modified Plant Layouts Separated Safety Buildings

and Containment Penetrations 29
CONSTRUCTION PHASE

DRUG-FREE

WORKPLACES

Energy Policy Act provided

subsidies for reactors, not opium

dens. The drug and alcohol

provisions of 10 CFR Part 26

must apply during construction

to prevent recurrence of the ..

30
CONSTRUCTI-ON PHASE

DRUG CULTURE

Huge and preventable problems

afflicted Seabrook, Shearon

Harris, and others during

construction because lots of

temporary workers with lots of

cash lacked appropriate adult

supervision.

31
t

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

SAFETY CULTURE

Huge. and preventable problems

afflicted Wolf Creek, Comanche

Peak, Watts Bar, and others

during construction because

allegations were handled

retrospectively rather than

forthrightly.

32
| 'Jm

CONSTRUCTION PHASE

ALLEGATIONS

NRC's investigations of H&I

allegations are untimely.

Investigations into H&i

allegations during construction

need to be completed before

startup, not by decommissioning.

33
0 I S.

BACK TO THE FUTURE

To dispel any notion that these

"sins of the past" have been

corrected, -consider:

* vibration problems afflicting

Quad Cities and Palo Verde

* pressurizer heater design errors

at Palo Verde and Waterford

*faked surveillance tests at Byron

34
11 ., a

REGULATORY GOAL

NRC must match its high level of

performance in establishing

regulatory requirements with

equal capability in enforcing

those requirements.

35
a* ' - a

BACKUP SLIDES

36
NUCLEAR NUMBERS

Nuclear reactors ordered

Construction permits issued

Operating licenses issued

Operating licenses ended

253

175

130

26

Sources: NEI & NRC

37
NUCLEAR NUMBERS

Nuclear Power Plants Cancelled Since 1970

MEMO_-

1972 (4 PLAINTS)

Perryman 182

Varplanrk 1&2

1974 (7 PLANTS)

Tyrone 2

Cuanlcassee 1&2

Vidal 1&2

Wogte 3.4 (0%. 0t)

1975 (14 PLANTS)

Fermi 3

Pilgrim 3

Barton 3&4

Fufton 1&2

Orange 1&2

St. Rosalie 18,2

Somerset 1&2

Summit 1&2

1977 (10 PLANTS)

Ft. Calhoun 2

Sears Isle

Barton 182

Douglas PoInt 18&2

South Dade 1&2

Surry 3&4 (0%, 0%)

1978,(14 PLANTS)

Haven 2

North Coast 1

Zimmer 2

1978 - CONTD

Blue Hills 1&2

Sundesert 1 &2

South River 1.2 & 3

Atlantic 1, 2,3 & 4

1979 (8 PLANTS)

Greene County

Tyrone 1 (0%)

New England 1.&2

Palo Verde 4&5

Stanislaus 18.2

1980 (16 PLANTS)

Forked River (6%)

Haven 1

North Anna 4 (4%)

Sterling (0%)

Davfs.Besse 253 (0%, 0%)

Ede 1&2

Greenwood 2&3

Jemesport 1 82 (0%, 0%)

Montague 2&3

New Haven 18.2

1981 (6 PLANTS)

Bailly (1%)

Callow" 2 (1%)

Hope Creek 2 (18%)

Pilgrim 2

Harris 3&4 (1%, 1%)

1982 (18 PLANTS)

Aliens Creek 1

North Anne 3 (9%)

1982 - CONTD

Vandalla

Black Fox 1&2 (0%. 0%)

Cherokee 2&3 (0%, 0%)

Hartsville B1 &2 (17%, 7%)

Pebble Springs 182

Phippa Bend 2&3 (25%, 5%)

WNP 4&5 (24%, 16%)

Peridns 1, 2 & 3

1083 (6 PLANTS)

Cherokee 1 (18%)

Clinch River (1%)

Clinton 2 (0%)

Harris 2 (4%)

Skagit 182

1984 (10 PLANTS)

River Bend 2 (0%)

Zimmer 1 (97%)

HartsvIlle AI&2 (44%, 34%)

Marble Hill 18&2 (60%, 37%)

Midland 1&2 (O5%, 8,%)

Yellow Creek 1&2 (35%, 3%)

1988 (2 PLANTS)

Carroll 1&2

1089 (1 PLANT)

Seabrook 2 (23%)

1•9 (1 PLANT)

Grand Gulf 2 (33%)

38

NOVEMBER 1993 CER CORPORATIOtN 950 Orfer Drive

Las Veuas. fvata 89119
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

"No evidence. has been found to

support industry statements that

citizen opposition and regulatory

changes have been the primary

causes for rising costs, and

construction delays."

US House Committee on

Government Operations

39
INDUSTRY

PARTICIPATION

"To the contrary, FPC statistics

show that mismanagement is

more of a determinant than

regulatory changes and citizen

opposition."

US House Committee on

Government Operations

40
if- - I'

STATUS OF

NEW REACTOR

ISSUES

October 16, 2006

Luis Reyes, Executive Director

for Operations
. A .

I NuStart - Grawl Giolif (MS) ill: uEl-n IMITI III I

EPR Program Review Dei-j Co-fiait

i~lr-C lvrt lifs AD M ""- - IS

r Ul C0L3n 5 .- "o

AL- Miabama

* NC - North Carolina

SC,- South Carollhl'

FL - Fbi Ida.

GA- Geortla

VA- MVrGinia

LA- Lostilana,

MD - estrytand

TX - Teas'

I Uni Slar-Nine Nile Pti NY i M " . FijjjffoWý

EABWR ProgramI Review HearinSouth Carolina E&G -South

Carolina Electric & Ga v FPL---Florlda PoAer a Ught I - I Amaillo o~kr ., ea I i - - - - - - HGarina~- a&L I 33 fl4 -*-. *gUu, wrnn~tflYI ~

outerF LJLcibI[I I views

.I., -Hearina,

i c3.1.3 i•_11.[.1u[• i•_n f•J i'a J~::• .ril Iftl mJL~lII I• !ll lnfzq#z

October 16, 2006 Commission Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues 2
Integrated Transition

* Success for both offices

* Balanced human resources

* Timed for:

- Knowledge management

- Completion of existing casework

- Support of new applications

October 16, 2006 Commission Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues 3
Integrated Transition

* Strong management teams

" Supports consistency

" Applying lessons learned

" Hiring to Fiscal Year 2008

needs

October 16, 2006 Commission Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues 4
Qualification Plans

* Develop qualified regulators

* Train large numbers

" Apply standard process

, Transfer knowledge

October 16, 2006 Commission Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues 5
Current Application

Review Activities

* Early site permits for Clinton,

Grand Gulf, North Anna, and

Vogtle

* ESBWR design certification

October 16, 2006 Commission Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues 6
Draft Guide - 1145

• Draft issued September 7

* Public comment period

ending October 21

- Issue final guide with final

rule, January 2007

October 16, 2006 Commission Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues 7
Standard Review Plan

and Regulatory Guides

* Revise by March 2007

* Multiple public meetings

October 16, 2006 Commission Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues 8
Pre-application

Review Activities

Topical reports related to

EPR, API000 designs, and

Quality Assurance programs

October 16, 2006 Commission Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues 9
Pre-application

Review Activities

* Inspections related to site

characteristics for potential

Combined License applicants

* Meetings with design-centered

working groups

October 16, 2006 Commission Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues 10
Status of Rulemaking

* Part 52 final rule - due to

Commission October 31., 2006

* Limited Work Authorization

supplemental proposed ruleStaff Requirements

Memoranda issued 10/2

(Public 10/3)

October 16, 2006 Commission Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues 11
Status of Rulemaking

* Security Assessment proposed

rule sent to Commission 9/28

* Physical security proposed

rule to be published late

October

October 16, 2006 Commission Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues 12
Status of Rulemaking

* Fitness for duty final rule to

Executive Director for

Operations 12/1812006

* Section 20.1406 proposed rule

due to Commission 3/3012007

October 16, 2006 Commission Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues 13
pý

Integration and

Coordination

" Business Process Integrator

* Outreach briefings:,

-Council on Environmental

Quality

- Congressional Staff

* Master Integrated Schedule

October 16, 2006 Commission Briefing on Status of New Reactor Issues 14
Preparedness for New

Reactors

October 16, 2006

Karen D. Cyr

General Counsel
REORGANIZATION

* Created New Reactor Programs

Division - April 2006.

-Provides advice and counsel to

NRR/NRO on new reactor

licensing matters

2
STAFFING STRATEGIES

Attorneys & ParaprofessionalsContinuous hiring process:

* Honor Law Graduate Program

* Lateral hiring

3
READINESS STRATEG IES

* Establishing GG-15 team leader

positions to supervise designcentered teams

* Enhancing office-wide training in

core skills

4
READINESS - cont.

* Enhancing Knowledge

Management processes

* Plan for surge capacity from other

divisions to accomplish work

5