AVAILABILITY OF REFERENCE MATERIALS

IN NRC PUBLICATIONS

NRC Reference Material

As of November 1999, you may electronically access

NUREG-series publications and other NRC records at

NRC’s Public Electronic Reading Room at

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

Publicly released records include, to name a few,

NUREG-series publications; Federal Register notices;

applicant, licensee, and vendor documents and

correspondence; NRC correspondence and internal

memoranda; bulletins and information notices;

inspection and investigative reports; licensee event

reports; and Commission papers and their attachments.

NRC publications in the NUREG series, NRC

regulations, and Title 10, Energy, in the Code of

Federal Regulations may also be purchased from one

of these two sources.

1. The Superintendent of Documents

 U.S. Government Printing Office

 Mail Stop SSOP

 Washington, DC 20402–0001

 Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov

 Telephone: 202-512-1800

 Fax: 202-512-2250

2. The National Technical Information Service

 Springfield, VA 22161–0002

 www.ntis.gov 

 1–800–553–6847 or, locally, 703–605–6000

A single copy of each NRC draft report for comment is

available free, to the extent of supply, upon written

request as follows:

Address: Office of Administration, 

 Printing and Mail Services Branch

 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

 Washington, DC 20555-0001

E-mail: DISTRIBUTION@nrc.gov 

Facsimile: 301–415–2289 

Some publications in the NUREG series that are 

posted at NRC’s Web site address

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs

are updated periodically and may differ from the last

printed version. Although references to material found

on a Web site bear the date the material was accessed,

the material available on the date cited may

subsequently be removed from the site.

Non-NRC Reference Material

Documents available from public and special technical

libraries include all open literature items, such as

books, journal articles, and transactions, Federal

Register notices, Federal and State legislation, and

congressional reports. Such documents as theses,

dissertations, foreign reports and translations, and

non-NRC conference proceedings may be purchased

from their sponsoring organization.

Copies of industry codes and standards used in a

substantive manner in the NRC regulatory process are

maintained at—

The NRC Technical Library 

Two White Flint North

11545 Rockville Pike

Rockville, MD 20852–2738

These standards are available in the library for

reference use by the public. Codes and standards are

usually copyrighted and may be purchased from the

originating organization or, if they are American

National Standards, from—

American National Standards Institute

11 West 42nd Street

New York, NY 10036–8002

www.ansi.org 

212–642–4900

Legally binding regulatory requirements are stated

only in laws; NRC regulations; licenses, including

technical specifications; or orders, not in 

NUREG-series publications. The views expressed

in contractor-prepared publications in this series are

not necessarily those of the NRC.

The NUREG series comprises (1) technical and

administrative reports and books prepared by the

staff (NUREG–XXXX) or agency contractors

(NUREG/CR–XXXX), (2) proceedings of

conferences (NUREG/CP–XXXX), (3) reports

resulting from international agreements

(NUREG/IA–XXXX), (4) brochures

(NUREG/BR–XXXX), and (5) compilations of legal

decisions and orders of the Commission and Atomic

and Safety Licensing Boards and of Directors’

decisions under Section 2.206 of NRC’s regulations

(NUREG–0750).
 

 

 

 

 NUREG-1835

 Supplement 1

Safety Evaluation Report

for an Early Site Permit (ESP)

at the North Anna ESP Site

Manuscript Completed: November 2006 

Date Published: November 2006 

Division of New Reactor Licensing 

Office of New Reactors 

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, DC 20555-0001

iii

ABSTRACT

The final safety evaluation report (FSER) (NUREG-1835, “Safety Evaluation Report for an Early

Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site,” issued September 2005) documents the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff’s technical review of the site safety analysis

report and emergency planning information included in the early site permit (ESP) application

submitted by Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion or the applicant), for the

North Anna ESP site. By letter dated September 25, 2003, Dominion submitted the ESP

application for the North Anna site in accordance with Subpart A, “Early Site Permits,” of

Title 10, Part 52, “Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses

for Nuclear Power Plants,” of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 52). The

North Anna ESP site is located approximately 40 miles north-northwest of Richmond, Virginia,

and is adjacent to two existing nuclear power reactors operated by Virginia Electric and Power

Company, which, like Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC, is a subsidiary of Dominion

Resources, Inc. In its application, Dominion seeks an ESP that could support a future

application to construct and operate one or more additional nuclear power reactors at the ESP

site.

The NRC staff has prepared this supplement to the FSER because Dominion amended its ESP

application in Revisions 6, 7, 8, and 9. In Revision 6, which the applicant submitted to the NRC

on April 13, 2006, Dominion described a new approach for cooling its proposed Unit 3. Under

the revised approach, Unit 3 would use a closed-cycle cooling system, rather than the originally

proposed once-through cooling system. Dominion also planned to increase the power level of

both proposed Units 3 and 4 from 4300 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 4500 MWt (the designed

maximum power of a General Electric Economic and Simple Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR))

with a total nuclear generating capacity of up to 9000 MWt.

This supplemental FSER includes the NRC staff’s analysis of the safety aspects of constructing

and operating a closed-cycle cooling system for Unit 3 and the increase in power for proposed

Units 3 and 4. This supplement presents the results of the staff’s review of information

submitted in conjunction with the ESP application. The staff has identified, in Appendix A to this

supplement, certain site-related items that an applicant will need to address at the combined

license or construction permit stage, should it desire to construct one or more new nuclear

reactors on the North Anna ESP site. The staff determined that these items do not affect the

staff’s regulatory findings at the ESP stage and are more appropriately addressed at later

stages in the licensing process. In addition, Appendix A to this supplement also identifies the

proposed permit conditions that the staff recommends the Commission impose, should the

NRC issue an ESP to the applicant.

In this supplement, the staff has evaluated only the safety aspects of the changes in cooling

design and the increase in power level presented in Revisions 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the ESP

application. This supplement contains only those sections and/or chapters of the FSER that are

affected by the changes presented in Revisions 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the ESP application. The NRC

revised Appendix A and provides it in its entirety for clarity and ease of inclusion in any ESP

that the NRC may issue. 

v

CONTENTS

Abstract.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi

1. Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1-1

2. Site Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.3 Meteorology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-1

2.4 Hydrology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-4

11. Radiological Effluent Release Dose Consequences from Normal Operations. . . . . . . . 11-1

11.1 Source Terms. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

11.1.1 Technical Information in the Application.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-1

11.1.2 Regulatory Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3

11.1.3 Technical Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-3

11.1.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-6

15. Accident Analyses. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-1

15.1 Technical Information in the Application. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-1

15.2 Regulatory Evaluation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-4

15.3 Technical Evaluation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-5

15.3.1 Selection of DBAs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-5

15.3.2 Design-Specific (Assumed) ÷/Q Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-6

15.3.3 Site-Specific ÷/Qs.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-6

15.3.4 Source Term Evaluation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-7

15.3.5 Radiological Consequence Evaluations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-8
vi

15.4 Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15-10

19. Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19-1

Appendices

A Permit Conditions, COL Action Items, Site Characteristics, and A-1

Bounding Parameters

B Chronology of Early Site Permit Application for the North Anna Site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . B-1

C References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C-1

D Principal Contributors. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . D-1

E Report by the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1

Tables

11.1-1 Staff’s Summary of 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I Dose Objectives

and 40 CFR Part 190 Environmental Dose Standards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11-2

15.3-1 Staff’s Proposed Site-Specific ÷/Q Values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15-9
Applicants may also choose to seek a construction permit and operating license in accordance with 1

10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” instead of using the 10 CFR Part 52

process.

vii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The staff has revised this executive summary to reflect the changes Dominion Nuclear

North Anna, LLC, presented in Revisions 6, 7, 8, and 9 of its early site permit application for

proposed North Anna Units 3 and 4. 

On September 25, 2003, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an

application from Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion or the applicant), for an early site

permit (ESP) for two units located adjacent to the North Anna Power Station, Units 1 and 2. The

North Anna ESP site is located approximately 40 miles north-northwest of Richmond, Virginia,

and is adjacent to two existing nuclear power reactors operated by Virginia Electric and Power

Company, which, like Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC, is a subsidiary of Dominion

Resources, Inc. 

Title 10, Part 52, “Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for

Nuclear Power Plants,” of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 52) contains

requirements for licensing, construction, and operation of new nuclear power plants. These 1

regulations address ESPs, design certifications, and combined licenses (COLs). The ESP

process (Subpart A, “Early Site Permits,” of 10 CFR Part 52) is intended to address and resolve

site-related issues. The design certification process (Subpart B, “Standard Design

Certifications,” of 10 CFR Part 52) provides a means for a vendor to obtain NRC certification of a

particular reactor design. Finally, the COL process (Subpart C, “Combined Licenses,” of 10 CFR

Part 52) allows an applicant to seek authorization to construct and operate a new nuclear power

plant. A COL may reference an ESP, a certified design, both, or neither. It is incumbent on a

COL applicant to resolve issues related to licensing that were not settled as part of an ESP or

design certification proceeding before the NRC can issue a COL.

The safety evaluation report (SER) (NUREG-1835, “Safety Evaluation Report for an Early Site

Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site,” issued September 2005) describes the results of a

review by NRC staff based on Revision 5 of the ESP application submitted by Dominion for the

North Anna site. The staff’s review verified the applicant’s compliance with the requirements of

Subpart A to 10 CFR Part 52. 

The NRC regulations also contain requirements for an applicant to submit an environmental

report pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, “Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic

Licensing and Related Regulatory Activities.” The NRC reviews the environmental report as part

of the Agency’s responsibilities under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as

amended. The NRC presents the results of that review in a final environmental impact

statement, which is a report separate from the final safety evaluation report (FSER).

In accordance with 10 CFR Part 52, Dominion submitted information in its ESP application that

includes (1) a description of the site and nearby areas that could affect or be affected by a

nuclear power plant or plants located at the site, (2) a safety assessment of the site on which the

facility would be located, including an analysis and evaluation of the major structures, systems,
 The applicant has also submitted information intended to partially address some of the general design 2

criteria (GDC) in Appendix A, “General Design Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants,” to 10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic

Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.” Only GDC 2, “Design Bases for Protection Against Natural

Phenomena,” applies to an ESP application, and it does so only to the extent necessary to determine the safeshutdown earthquake (SSE) and the seismically induced flood. The staff has explicitly addressed partial compliance

with GDC 2, in accordance with 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1) and 10 CFR 50.34(a)(12), only in connection with the applicant’s

analysis of the SSE and the seismically induced flood. Otherwise, an ESP applicant need not demonstrate

compliance with the GDC. The staff has included a statement to this effect in those sections of the FSER that do not

relate to the SSE or the seismically induced flood. Nonetheless, this FSER describes the staff’s evaluation of

information submitted by the applicant to address GDC 2.

viii

and components of the facility that bear significantly on the acceptability of the site, and (3) the

proposed major features of emergency plans. The application describes how the site complies

with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 52 and the siting criteria of 10 CFR Part 100, “Reactor Site

Criteria.”2

On April 13, 2006, Dominion submitted Revision 6 to its application, which included a revised site

safety analysis report (SSAR) and environmental report. In Revision 6, Dominion proposed (1)

changing its cooling design for proposed Unit 3 from a once-through cooling system, as

described in previous versions of the SSAR, to a closed-cycle system and (2) increasing the

maximum power output per unit from 4300 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 4500 MWt for proposed

Units 3 and 4 (hereafter referred to as Units 3 and 4). Under the revised cooling system

approach, Unit 3 would use a closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system. Unit 4 will

use the dry cooling system, as originally proposed. The proposed increase in power level

corresponds to the revision of the designed maximum power (4,500 MWt) of a General Electric

Economic and Simple Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR), one of the reactor designs included in

the plant parameter envelope and evaluated in the FSER. The NRC staff decided to prepare a

supplement to the FSER to evaluate the impact of the above changes. The staff, in its review of

Revision 6 of the application, requested additional information from Dominion. Dominion

responded to the requests for additional information (RAIs) and on June 21 and July 31, 2006,

submitted Revisions 7 and 8, respectively, to the application, which included the necessary

information from the RAI responses.

This supplemental FSER includes the NRC staff’s analysis of the safety aspects of constructing

and operating a closed-cycle cooling system for Unit 3 and the increase in power for Units 3

and 4. This supplement presents the results of the staff’s review of information submitted in

conjunction with the ESP application. The staff has identified, in Appendix A to this supplement,

certain site-related items that an applicant will need to address at the combined license or

construction permit stage, should it desire to construct one or more new nuclear reactors on the

North Anna ESP site. The staff determined that these items do not affect the staff’s regulatory

findings at the ESP stage and are more appropriately addressed at later stages in the licensing

process. In addition, Appendix A to this supplement identifies the proposed permit conditions

that the staff recommends the Commission impose, should the NRC issue an ESP to the

applicant.

In this supplement, the staff has evaluated only the safety aspects of the change in cooling

design and the increase in power level presented in Revisions 6, 7, 8, and 9 of the ESP

application. This supplement contains only those sections and/or chapters of the FSER that are

affected by the changes presented in Revisions 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the ESP application. The staff

has revised Appendix A and provides it in its entirety for clarity and ease of inclusion in any ESP

that the NRC may issue. 
ix

The NRC’s Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards (ACRS) reviewed the bases for the

conclusions in this supplemental report. The ACRS independently reviewed those aspects of

the application that concern safety, as well as this supplement to the safety evaluation report,

and provided the results of its review in the report dated October 13, 2006. Appendix E includes

a copy of the report by the ACRS on the final safety evaluation, as required by 10 CFR 52.53,

“Referral to the ACRS.”

xi

ABBREVIATIONS

ABWR advanced boiling-water reactor

a acre

ACR-700 Atomic Energy of Canada Advanced CANDU Reactor

ADAMS Agencywide Documents Access and Management System

ALARA as low as is reasonably achievable

ALI annual limits on intake

ALWR advanced light-water reactor

ANS alert and notification system

ANSI American National Standards Institute

ANSS Advanced National Seismic System

AP1000 Westinghouse Advanced Plant 1000

ARA Applied Research Associates

ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers

ASHRAE American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers

ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers

ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials

BRH Bureau of Radiological Health

BWR boiling-water reactor

CCW component cooling water

CDE committed dose equivalent

CEDE committed effective dose equivalent

CEUS central and eastern United States

CFR Code of Federal Regulations

CFS cubic feet per second

CLB cleanup waterline break

COL combined license

COVRERP Commonwealth of Virginia Radiological Emergency Response Plan 

CP construction permit

CPT cone penetrometer test

CVSZ Central Virginia seismic zone

DAC derived air concentration

DBA design-basis accident

DCD design control document

DEIS draft environmental impact statement

DEM Department of Emergency Management

DOE Department of Energy

DSER draft safety evaluation report

EAB exclusion area boundary

EAC evacuation assembly center

EAL emergency action level

EAS emergency alert system

ECFS East Coast fault system

EDE effective dose equivalent

EDP engineering department procedure

EDPI engineering department instructions

EDS engineering design spectrum

EIS environmental impact statement
xii

EMI Emergency Management Institute

ENS emergency notification system

EOC emergency operations center

EOF emergency operations facility

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

EPDS electronic procedure distribution system

EPIP emergency plan implementing procedure

EPRI Electric Power Research Institute

EPZ emergency planning zone

ER environmental report

ERDS Emergency Response Data System

ERO emergency response organization

ESBWR Economic and Simple Boiling-Water Reactor

ESE east-southeast

ESIM evacuation simulation model

ESP early site permit

EST earth science team

ETE evacuation time estimate

ETSZ Eastern Tennessee seismic zone

FAA Federal Aviation Administration 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

FLB feedwater line break

FPS feet per second

FRERP Federal Radiological Emergency Response Plan

FRMAC Federal Radiological Monitoring and Assessment Center

FRP Federal Response Plan

FS factor of safety

FSER final safety evaluation report

ft foot/feet

gal gallon

GBU Global Business Unit

GDC general design criterion

GE General Electric

GIS geographic information system

GPM gallons per minute

GSA Geological Society of America

GT-MHR Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor

HEAR hospital emergency and administrative radio

HEC Hydrologic Engineering Center

HMR hydrometeorological report

HPN health physics network

Hz hertz

IEM Innovative Emergency Management, Inc.

in. inch

in./mo inch per month

INPO Institute of Nuclear Power Operations

IRIS International Reactor Innovative and Secure Reactor

ISFSI independent spent fuel storage installation 

ISO International Organization for Standardization

KI potassium iodide
xiii

km kilometer

kPa kilopascals

ksf kip(s) per square foot

lb pound

lbf/ft pound-force per square foot

LFA lead Federal agency

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

LOCA loss-of-coolant accident

LPZ low-population zone

LWR light-water reactor

m meter

M&TE measuring and test equipment

MCVH Medical College of Virginia Hospitals

MEI maximally exposed individual

mi/h miles per hour

MIDAS meteorological information and dose assessment system

MMI modified mercalli intensity

mrem millirem

MSL mean sea level

mSv millisievert

MWt megawatt thermal

NAEP North Anna Emergency Plan

NAPS North Anna Power Station

NBU Nuclear Business Unit

NCDC National Climatic Data Center

NDCM Nuclear Design Control Manual

NDCP Nuclear Design Control Program

NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum

NE northeast

NEI Nuclear Energy Institute

NEP nuclear emergency preparedness

nmi nautical mile

NMSZ New Madrid seismic zone

NNE north-northeast

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NPSEPT Nuclear Power Station Emergency Preparedness Training

NQAM Nuclear Quality Assurance Manual

NRC U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

NRRL nuclear-required records list

NSSL National Severe Storms Laboratory

NUPIC Nuclear Utility Procurement Issues Committee

NWS National Weather Service

OBE operating-basis earthquake

ODEC Old Dominion Electric Cooperative

OL operating license

OREMS Oak Ridge Evaluation Modeling System

OSC operational support center

OW observation well

PAG protective action guideline

PAR protective action recommendation
xiv

PAZ protective action zone

PBMR pebble bed modular reactor

PGA peak ground acceleration

PMCL protective measures counterpart link

PMF probable maximum flood

PMH probable maximum hurricane

PMP probable maximum precipitation

PMWP probable maximum winter precipitation

PNNL Pacific Northwest National Laboratories

PO purchase order

PPE plant parameter envelope

PPR potential problem reporting

PQAM project quality assurance manager

PSHA probabilistic seismic hazard analysis

psi pound per square inch

PWR pressurized-water reactor

QA quality assurance

QAPD quality assurance program description

QAPP quality assurance program plan

RAA remote assembly area

RAI request for additional information

RAP radiological assistance program

REI Risk Engineering, Inc.

RERP radiological emergency response plan

RERT Radiological Emergency Response Team

RIC Richmond International Airport

RG regulatory guide

RQD rock quality designation

RS review standard

RSCL reactor safety counterpart link

s second

S south

SCC State Corporation Commission

SCR stable continental regions

SCS Soil Conservation Service

SE southeast

SEI Structural Engineering Institute

SER safety evaluation report

SF scale factor

SPT standard penetration test

SQAP software quality assurance plan

SRCC Southern Regional Climate Center 

SSAR site safety analysis report

SSC structure, system, and component

SSE safe-shutdown earthquake

SSHAC Senior Seismic Hazard Advisory Committee

SW southwest

SWR service water reservoir

TEDE total effective dose equivalent

TLD thermoluminescent dosimeter
xv

TSC technical support center

UFSAR updated final safety analysis report

UHF ultra-high frequency

UHS ultimate heat sink

ULF ultra-low frequency

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USBR United States Bureau of Reclamation

USGS United States Geological Survey

VCU Virginia Commonwealth University

VDEM Virginia Department of Emergency Management

VDGIF Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries

VDH Virginia Department of Health

VSP Virginia State Police

VT Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

WHTF waste heat treatment facility

ZPA zero period acceleration

ADAMS is the NRC’s information system that provides access to all image and text documents that the 3

NRC has made public since November 1, 1999, as well as bibliographic records (some with abstracts and full text)

that the NRC made public before November 1999. Documents available to the public may be accessed via the

Internet at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams/web-based.html. Documents may also be viewed by visiting the

NRC’s Public Document Room at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. Telephone

assistance for using Web-based ADAMS is available at 800-397-4209 between 8:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m., eastern

standard time, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The staff is also making this safety evaluation

report available on the NRC’s new reactor licensing public Web site at

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/north-anna.html.

1-1

1. INTRODUCTION

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion or the applicant), filed an application with the

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), docketed on October 23, 2003, for an early site

permit (ESP) for a site the applicant designated as the North Anna ESP site. The proposed site

is located near Lake Anna in Louisa County, Virginia, approximately 40 miles north-northwest of

Richmond, Virginia.

The Dominion ESP application includes the site safety analysis report (SSAR), which describes

the safety assessment of the site, as required by 10 CFR 52.17, “Contents of Applications.” The

public may inspect copies of this document via the Agencywide Documents Access and

Management System (ADAMS) using ADAMS Accession No. ML032731517. Dominion

3

subsequently revised the application to address requests from the NRC staff for additional

information. The applicant submitted SSAR Revision 5 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052150226)

to the Commission by letter dated July 25, 2005. Throughout the course of the review, the staff

requested that the applicant submit additional information to clarify the description of the

North Anna site. Based on SSAR Revision 5, the staff issued NUREG-1835, “Safety Evaluation

Report for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site,” in September 2005. 

In NUREG-1835, the staff documented its review of the site seismology, geology, meteorology,

and hydrology, as well as the hazards to a nuclear power plant that could result from manmade

facilities and activities on or in the vicinity of the site. NUREG-1835 also documented the staff’s

assessment of the risks of potential accidents that could occur as a result of the operation of a

nuclear plant or plants at the site and evaluated whether the site could support adequate

physical security measures for a nuclear power plant or plants. In NUREG-1835, the staff also

evaluated whether the applicant’s quality assurance measures are equivalent in substance to the

measures discussed in Appendix B, “Quality Assurance Criteria for Nuclear Power Plants and

Fuel Reprocessing Plants,” to Title 10, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization

Facilities,” of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 50). The staff also evaluated the

adequacy of the applicant’s program for compliance with 10 CFR Part 21, “Reporting of Defects

and Noncompliance.” Finally, the staff reviewed the proposed major features of the emergency

plan that Dominion would implement if a new reactor(s) is eventually constructed at the ESP site. 

The NRC would need to review the complete and integrated emergency plan in a separate

licensing proceeding.
1-2

In a letter dated October 24, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML052980117), Dominion notified the

NRC that it had conducted additional evaluations of cooling water alternatives for a potential

third nuclear reactor at its North Anna site. Based on those evaluations, Dominion decided to

modify its approach for cooling a third unit from the base case currently described in the

North Anna ESP application. The revised approach would reduce both thermal impacts and

water consumption associated with Lake Anna. The applicant is taking this action partly in

response to concerns that State regulatory bodies and local residents have raised. Under the

revised approach, the proposed Unit 3 would employ a closed-cycle cooling system that would

not use the 3400-acre waste heat treatment facility to dissipate waste heat. In addition, the

evaporative loss of water from Lake Anna associated with cooling a third unit would be reduced

from that previously considered.

In a letter dated November 22, 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML053260619), Dominion notified

the NRC that it had selected the General Electric economic and simple boiling-water reactor

(ESBWR) design for the preparation of a combined license (COL) application, thereby

increasing the power level of the proposed Units 3 and 4 (hereafter referred to as Units 3 and 4)

from 4300 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 4500 MWt. Dominion stated that the revised cooling

approach will allow operation of an ESBWR at its full proposed design power level of 4500 MWt

without thermal impact on the lake.

On January 13, 2006 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060250396), as described in Dominion letters

dated October 24 and November 22, 2005, Dominion submitted a supplement discussing the

modified approach for cooling a potential third unit at the North Anna ESP site. In addition, it

also adjusted the North Anna ESP application plant parameter envelope (PPE) to reflect an

increased core thermal power value of 4500 MWt (and corresponding estimated electrical

output). Dominion stated that a future Revision 6 of the North Anna ESP application would

ultimately incorporate the information contained in the supplement.

On April 13, 2006, Dominion submitted Revision 6 (ADAMS Accession No. ML061180180) to its

application, which included a revised SSAR and environmental report. In Revision 6 to the

North Anna ESP application, Dominion proposed (1) changing its approach for cooling Unit 3

from the once-through cooling system, as described in previous versions of the SSAR, to a

closed-cycle system and (2) increasing the maximum power output per unit from 4300 MWt to

4500 MWt for Units 3 and 4. Under the revised cooling system approach, Unit 3 would use a

closed-cycle, combination wet and dry cooling system. The proposed increase in power level

corresponds to the revision of the designed maximum power (4,500 MWt) of an ESBWR, one of

the reactor designs included in the PPE and evaluated by the NRC in the FSER. 

The staff, in its review of Revision 6 of the application, requested that Dominion provide

additional information. By letters dated June 21 and July 31, 2006, Dominion submitted

Revisions 7 and 8 of the application (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML061870030 and

ML062140009), addressing the staff’s requests for additional information (RAIs). By letter dated

September 12, 2006, Dominion submitted Revision 9 of the application (ADAMS Accession No.

ML062580096). In this revision, Dominion decided to reduce the bounding value for tritium

activity release (associated with the ACR-700 design) to ensure that the tritium concentration in

liquid effluents resulting from normal operation is less than both the 10 CFR Part 20 limit and the

EPA drinking water standards.
1-3

The staff decided to issue Supplement 1 to the FSER to evaluate the proposed cooling design

change to Unit 3, the increase in the power level from 4300 MWt to 4500 MWt for Units 3 and 4,

and changes to the application in Revisions 6, 7, 8, and 9.

This supplement includes the NRC staff’s analysis of the safety aspects of constructing and

operating a closed-cycle cooling system for Unit 3 and the increase in power for Units 3 and 4. 

The staff has identified, in Appendix A to this supplement, certain site-related items that an

applicant will need to address at the COL or construction permit stage, should it desire to

construct one or more new nuclear reactors on the North Anna ESP site. The staff determined

that these items do not affect the staff’s regulatory findings at the ESP stage and are more

appropriately addressed at later stages in the licensing process. In addition, Appendix A to this

supplement identifies the proposed permit conditions that the staff recommends the Commission

impose, should the NRC issue an ESP to the applicant.

This supplement contains the sections and/or chapters of the FSER that are affected by the

changes in the cooling design and the increase in the power level. The supplement section

numbers may not be consecutive, but match the FSER sections that are being revised. 

Sections 2.3 and 2.4 of this supplement contain the evaluation of the impact of changes in the

cooling design and increase in power. Chapters 11 and 15 of this supplement replace

Chapters 11 and 15 of the FSER (NUREG-1835). The staff has revised Appendix A and

provides it in its entirety for clarity and ease of inclusion in any ESP that the NRC may issue. 

Appendix A to this FSER supplement lists the site characteristics, permit conditions, COL action

items, and the bounding parameters that the staff is recommending that the Commission include

in any ESP that the NRC might issue for the proposed site. Appendix B to this FSER details a

chronology of the principal actions and correspondence related to the staff’s review of the ESP

application for the North Anna site. Appendix C lists the references for this FSER, Appendix D

lists the principal contributors to this report, and Appendix E will include a copy of the

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards report.

The NRC has made the application and other pertinent information and materials available for

public inspection at the NRC’s Public Document Room at One White Flint North,

11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland. The application and this SER are also available at

the Louisa County Public Library, 881 Davis Highway, Mineral, Virginia, as well as on the NRC’s

new reactor licensing public Web site at

http://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-licensing/esp/north-anna.html. 

2-1

2. SITE CHARACTERISTICS

2.3 Meteorology

Section 2.3 of NUREG-1835 describes in detail the meteorological setting of the North Anna

ESP site, technical information contained in the site safety analysis report (SSAR), requests for

additional information (RAIs) and their resolution, the regulatory basis for the staff safety

evaluation, the staff’s technical analyses, including independent verification by the staff of the

meteorological site characteristics in Appendix A of this SER supplemental, and the staff’s safety

conclusions. This section of the SER supplement contains the staff’s evaluation of the safety

aspects of meteorological conditions at the North Anna ESP site affected by changes to the

proposed Unit 3 normal plant cooling system design through Revision 9 of the SSAR.

In Revision 9 of the SSAR, the applicant stated that the proposed Unit 3 normal heat dissipation

system would use a closed-cycle, dry and wet hybrid cooling system for cooling the circulating

water system. A separate service water cooling system would use a closed-cycle wet cooling

tower to dissipate waste heat from auxiliary heat exchangers not cooled by the plant circulating

water system. This is a change from earlier versions of the SSAR, which stated that the

proposed Unit 3 would use a once-through cooling system that would withdraw water from the

North Anna Reservoir, circulate it through the condensers, and return the water to the reservoir

via the waste heat treatment facility (WHTF).

Revision 9 of the SSAR offers no change in the proposed Unit 4 normal plant cooling system. 

The proposed Unit 4 would use a closed-cycle cooling system with dry cooling towers.

The only meteorological section affected in this SER supplement is Section 2.3.2, Local

Meteorology.

2.3.2 Local Meteorology

2.3.2.1 Technical Information in the Application

In Section 2.3.2 of the SSAR, the applicant addressed, among other items, the potential

influence of construction and operation of a nuclear power plant or plants falling within the

applicant’s plant parameter envelope (PPE) on local meteorological conditions that might in turn

adversely impact the plant or plants or the associated facilities. The applicant also provided a

topographical description of the site and its environs.

In Revision 9 of SSAR Section 2.3.2.3, the applicant stated that the increase in maximum daily

surface water temperature in Lake Anna resulting from operation of the proposed Unit 3 cooling

tower system would be negligible and would not impact the ongoing moderation of temperature

extremes and alterations of wind patterns by the lake. The applicant also stated that the

increase in the formation of fog induced by the discharge of cooling water to the lake because of

the operation of the proposed Units 3 and 4 would be negligible.

In Revision 9 of SSAR Section 2.3.2.3, the applicant also stated that the operation of the wet

cooling towers for the proposed Unit 3 may result in moisture deposition in the immediate vicinity

of the towers because of drift and condensation of vapor near the discharge at the top of the

towers. In addition, periodic fogging may occur around and downwind of the towers when

atmospheric conditions are conducive to fog formation. The convective and conductive heat
2-2

losses to the atmosphere resulting from the operation of the proposed Unit 4 closed-loop dry

tower system could also result in localized increases in overall ambient temperature. The

applicant concluded that it would consider the potential impact on the design or operation of the

proposed unit(s) from any increase in the local ambient air temperature or moisture content

induced by the cooling tower as part of detailed engineering.

In its letter dated March 2, 2006, the staff asked the applicant whether large-scale cut and fill

activities would be needed to accommodate the additional land area used for the wet and dry

cooling tower system for Unit 3. In its response letter dated April 13, 2006, the applicant revised

Section 2.3.2.4 of the SSAR to define better the topography in the area of the defined ESP plant

footprint and the necessary cut and fill activities in the proposed cooling tower area. The

applicant stated that, should additional units be constructed, a portion of the currently

undeveloped area of the ESP site would be cleared of existing vegetation and subsequently

graded to accommodate the proposed units and the ancillary structures. No large-scale cut and

fill activities would be needed in the area of the defined ESP site footprint to accommodate the

proposed units since much of the area to be developed is already relatively level. Undulating

surfaces in the area of the planned cooling towers would be leveled to accommodate the towers. 

Therefore, the applicant expects that terrain modifications associated with development of the

ESP facility would be limited to the existing North Anna Power Station (NAPS) site and would not

impact terrain features around the lake and valley or significantly alter the site’s existing gently

undulating surface, which is characteristic of the Piedmont region of Virginia.

2.3.2.2 Regulatory Evaluation

NUREG-1835 sets forth detailed regulatory evaluation of the application. This section of the

ESP supplement focuses only on the change in approach to the proposed Unit 3 normal cooling

presented in Revision 9 of the application.

Section 1.8 of the SSAR presents a detailed discussion of the applicant’s conformance to NRC

regulations and regulatory guidance. The applicant identified the applicable regulations as

General Design Criterion (GDC) 2, “Design Bases for Protection Against Natural Phenomena,” in

Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 100.20(c), and 10 CFR 100.21(d). The applicant

identified the applicable regulatory guidance as Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.70, “Standard Format

and Content of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants - LWR Edition,” and Review

Standard (RS)-002, “Processing Applications for Early Site Permits.” The staff reviewed this

portion of the application in accordance with the guidance identified by the applicant to

determine if the application complies with the identified regulations, with the exception that an

ESP applicant need not demonstrate compliance with the GDC with respect to site meteorology. 

2.3.2.3 Technical Evaluation

In versions of the SSAR preceding Revision 9, the applicant noted that it was not possible to

predict with certainty the warm air transport and dispersion from the proposed Unit 4 dry cooling

tower to specific plant features because the design of the plant was not known at the ESP stage.

Therefore, the staff determined that the potential impact of the proposed Unit 4 dry cooling

towers on the design and operation of the ESP facility should be considered as part of detailed

engineering and receive further evaluation at the time of the COL application. This became

COL Action Item 2.3-1. 
2-3

In Revision 9 of SSAR Section 2.3.2.3, the applicant stated that it would consider as part of

detailed engineering the potential impact on the design or operation of the proposed unit(s) from

any increase in the local ambient air temperature or moisture content induced by the cooling

towers for Unit 3 or 4. Since the specific layout and design of the ESP facility is not now known,

the staff agrees that it is not possible to predict accurately the impact of either the Unit 3 or Unit

4 cooling tower plumes on specific plant features. The staff has determined that the COL or

construction permit (CP) applicant also needs to consider the potential impact of moisture and

salt deposition resulting from drift and condensation on plant design and operation as part of

detailed engineering. Based on this submission, the staff is revising COL Action Item 2.3-1,

which now provides that the COL or CP applicant should consider as part of detailed engineering

the potential impact on the design or operation of the proposed unit(s) of any cooling-towerinduced local increase in (1) ambient air temperature, (2) ambient air moisture content, or (3)

moisture and salt deposition.

In connection with revised COL Action 2.3-1, the staff finds that any effect cooling towers might

have on local meteorological conditions can be treated as a design issue because such impacts

are unlikely to have more than a minor effect on plant design as demonstrated by currently

operating plants with cooling towers. Accordingly, such effects will be appropriately

characterized and will not represent a potential threat posing an undue risk to Units 3 and 4.

Because of the limited and localized nature of the expected terrain modifications associated with

the development of the ESP facility, including the proposed Unit 3 and 4 cooling tower systems,

the staff finds that these terrain modifications, along with the resulting plant structures and

associated improved surfaces (except for the proposed Unit 3 and 4 cooling towers as described

above), will not have enough impact on local meteorological conditions to affect plant design and

operation. 

2.3.2.4 Conclusions

As described above, the applicant has presented and substantiated information on local

meteorological and topographic characteristics of importance to the safe design and operation of

a nuclear power plant or plants falling within the applicant’s PPE that might be constructed on

the proposed site. The staff has reviewed the information provided and, for the reasons given,

concludes that the applicant’s identification and consideration of the meteorological and

topographical characteristics of the site and the surrounding area meet the requirements of

10 CFR Part 100, 10 CFR 100.20(c), and 10 CFR 100.21(d) and are sufficient to determine the

acceptability of the site, with COL Action Item 2.3-1. The staff’s conclusion relative to

meteorology as put forth in NUREG-1835 remains valid for Revision 9 of the SSAR.
2-4

2.4 Hydrology

NUREG-1835 describes in detail the hydrologic setting of the North Anna ESP site, technical

information contained in the SSAR, RAIs and their resolution, the regulatory basis for the staff

safety evaluation, the staff’s technical analysis, including independent verification of the water

budget by the staff, and the staff’s safety conclusions. This SER supplement contains the staff’s

evaluation of safety-related aspects at the North Anna ESP site affected by changes proposed

by the applicant to the design of the Unit 3 normal plant cooling system through Revision 9 of the

SSAR.

In Revision 9 of the SSAR, the applicant stated that the proposed Unit 3 normal heat sink would

use a closed-cycle, dry and wet hybrid cooling tower system for cooling the circulating water. A

separate service water cooling system would use a closed-cycle wet cooling tower to dissipate

waste heat from auxiliary heat exchangers not cooled by the plant circulating water system. The

applicant stated that the maximum instantaneous makeup water flow rate for Unit 3 wet towers

would be 49.6 cfs, which would be withdrawn from Lake Anna. During normal operation, a

maximum instantaneous blowdown discharge of 12.4 cfs from the wet towers would be

discharged to Lake Anna via the WHTF.

Revision 9 of the SSAR offers no change in the proposed emergency cooling systems for

Units 3 and 4. Both of these emergency cooling systems would use mechanical draft cooling

towers over a buried water storage basin, if the selected reactor design needs an independent

water source for its ultimate heat sink (UHS).

2.4.1.1 Technical Information in the Application

In Revision 9 of the SSAR, Section 2.4.1, the applicant changed the proposed design of the

circulating water cooling system for Unit 3 from a once-through cooling system to a closed-cycle,

dry and wet hybrid cooling tower system. The applicant proposed that makeup water would be

supplied from Lake Anna and blowdown would be discharged to Lake Anna via the WHTF. The

applicant stated that the plant service water cooling system for the proposed Unit 3 would use a

separate wet cooling tower system.

The Unit 4 normal plant cooling system, which would use closed-cycle, dry cooling towers,

remains unchanged. The applicant estimated the makeup water requirement for the Unit 4 dry

towers to be about 1 gpm (0.002 cfs), which would also be supplied from Lake Anna using

separate pumps located inside the new intake structure. The service water cooling system for

Unit 4 would use separate dry cooling towers.

In Revision 9 of the SSAR, Section 2.4.7, the applicant stated that the proposed Units 3 and 4

separate the normal and emergency cooling water systems. The applicant attested that there

are no interconnections or interreliance between normal and emergency cooling systems. The

applicant also stated that the proposed normal cooling systems for Units 3 and 4 are reliable and

would not be affected by ice formation in Lake Anna.

In Revision 9 of the SSAR, Section 2.4.7, the applicant described the conditions needed for

formation of frazil ice, including a water temperature below 32 EF, a rate of supercooling greater

than 0.018 EF per hour, turbulent flow with flow velocity of approximately 2 fps, and an absence

of surface ice sheet. The water temperature at the NAPS intakes during the winter months has

historically been above freezing as indicated by data obtained by Virginia Power as part of its
2-5

thermal monitoring program. Even in the presence of turbulence resulting from winds, with the

existing units operating and discharging warm cooling water to the lake, frazil ice would not be

expected to form at the intakes for the proposed units. However, in case Units 1 and 2 do not

operate for a prolonged period during a severe winter, frazil ice could form near the new intakes

as a result of supercooling. The applicant stated that the new intakes would be designed with an

intake velocity of 1 fps or less to reduce turbulence-induced conditions for frazil ice formation. 

The applicant also stated that under extreme conditions, with Units 1 and 2 not in operation,

formation of frazil ice near the new intakes would not affect safety-related facilities adversely

since the UHS would still be available with its independent water storage facility to shut down

and maintain the plant in a safe mode.

In Revision 9 of the SSAR, Section 2.4.10, the applicant stated that it would provide rip-rap

protection of slope embankment at the makeup water intake location for the new units to protect

against wave erosion, although the intake is not a safety-related facility.

In Revision 9 of the SSAR, Section 2.4.11, the applicant stated that Lake Anna would provide

the makeup water needed for cooling towers for the new units. The design of the intakes would

be based on an elevation of 242 ft mean sea level (MSL), the plant shutdown low-water surface

elevation in Lake Anna for all units including the proposed Units 3 and 4, with sufficient margin to

ensure safe operation during low-water events.

The applicant updated its water budget analysis to reflect the proposed changes to the Unit 3

normal plant cooling approach. The applicant’s minimum calculated water surface elevations in

Lake Anna for the existing units (only existing Units 1 and 2 running at a plant capacity factor of

93 percent) and proposed (existing units as before, new Unit 3 operating with a 96 percent

capacity factor, and Unit 4 operating with no need for makeup water and no blowdown

discharge) for the assumed scenarios are 245.1 and 244.2 ft MSL, respectively.

2.4.1.2 Regulatory Evaluation

NUREG-1835 sets forth a detailed regulatory evaluation of the application. This section of the

ESP supplement focuses only on the change in approach to Unit 3 normal cooling proposed in

Revision 9 of the application.

Section 1.8 of the SSAR presents a detailed discussion of the applicant’s conformance to NRC

regulations and regulatory guidance. The applicant identified the applicable regulations as

GDC 2 in Appendix A to 10 CFR Part 50, 10 CFR 52.17(a), 10 CFR 100.20(c),

10 CFR 100.23(c), Section IV(c) of Appendix S to 10 CFR Part 50, and 10 CFR 100.21(d). The

applicant identified the applicable regulatory guidance as RG 1.70 and RS-002. The staff

reviewed this portion of the application for conformance with the applicable regulations and

considered the corresponding regulatory guidance identified above, with the exception that an

ESP applicant need not demonstrate compliance with the GDC with respect to the hydrological

description of the site.

2.4.1.3 Technical Evaluation

This section describes the staff’s review of the applicant’s submission in Revision 9 of the SSAR. 

This review focused only on safety-related aspects that may be affected by the change in

approach to proposed Unit 3 normal cooling.
2-6

In Revision 9 of the SSAR, the applicant changed the approach for normal plant cooling design

and proposed that the design of the Unit 3 circulating water cooling system would use a dry and

wet hybrid cooling tower system. The staff reviewed the applicant’s revised water budget for the

proposed approach for normal cooling for Unit 3. Since the applicant did not propose any

change to the emergency-cooling-related function of the UHS, the staff safety review focused on

two key parameters that can indicate the potential for frequent and sudden reliance on the Unit 3

UHS. These are (1) the frequency of lake water surface elevation dropping to the shutdown

level of 242 ft MSL when all units are in operation and (2) the velocity with which the lake water

surface elevation drops to the shutdown level of 242 ft MSL. The staff estimated the frequency

of reduced water surface elevations in Lake Anna by examining data collected for the 25-year

period between 1978 and 2003.

Using PPE values for operation of ESP Unit 3 and the historical record for other conditions, the

staff conservatively estimated that the minimum level of Lake Anna during the 2001–2002 critical

period of draught (the two consecutive driest years from 1921-2004) would have been 242.9 ft

MSL. This elevation value is above the shutdown elevation (242 ft MSL) for both ESP Unit 3 and

NAPS Units 1 and 2. The staff also determined that the rate of drop in water surface elevation

of Lake Anna in the presence of new Units 3 and 4 will be gradual and will allow sufficient time

for safe shutdown of Unit 3. The staff used a natural evaporation rate of 5.6 in./mo from the

literature, a Unit 3 evaporation rate of 1.9 in./mo based on the PPE value, an existing NAPS

units’ evaporation of 5.6 in./mo based on a conservative assumption that all heat load from the

existing units would go towards latent heat of vaporization, and an equivalent reduction in the

Lake Anna water level of 1.5 in./mo resulting from a minimum release of 20 cfs over the dam. 

Summing these amounts results in a maximum effective evaporation rate of 14.6 in./mo. Using

this conservative evaporation rate, the staff estimated that it would take 49 days for water

surface elevation in Lake Anna to drop from 244 ft MSL to 242 ft MSL. Therefore, the staff

concludes that water surface elevation in Lake Anna does not fall rapidly and that sufficient time

will be available to plant operators before the low water surface elevation shutdown threshold is

reached to plan a shutdown of the proposed Unit 3 without endangering its safety, even under

severe drought conditions. The staff concludes, therefore, that the safety conclusions in

NUREG-1835 do not change as a result of the applicant’s submission in Revision 9 of the

SSAR.

The maximum makeup water for the wet cooling portion of the Unit 3 cooling system is 49.6 cfs,

which would be withdrawn from Lake Anna. Based on this information, the staff is withdrawing

COL Action Item 2.4-3, which was based on once-through cooling Unit 3 and is no longer

relevant to the staff’s conclusions. Instead the staff is proposing a new controlling PPE for

makeup water for the Unit 3 cooling system, the value of which would be a maximum makeup

water withdrawal rate of 49.6 cfs. The staff had also previously identified three other controlling

PPE values with respect to the Unit 3 once-through cooling system, namely, maximum cooling

water flow rate of 2540 cfs, maximum inlet temperature of 95 degrees F, and maximum

temperature rise of 18 degrees F. With the closed cycle wet and dry cooling system proposed

by the applicant, the parameters related to maximum inlet temperature and the temperature rise

are no longer necessary as bounding parameters. For the same reason, the maximum makeup

water bounding value replaces that of the maximum cooling water flow rate. Therefore, these

parameters are removed from Appendix A, Section A.4.

Buried storage reservoirs with their associated mechanical draft cooling towers will provide the

UHS if the selected reactor design for the proposed Units 3 and 4 needs an independent source
2-7

of water. These reservoirs are completely independent of Lake Anna except for their initial filing

and periodic replenishment.

2.4.1.4 Conclusions

As described above, the applicant has provided information pertaining to the hydrology of the

site in Revision 9 of the SSAR. Therefore, the staff concludes that, with the noted bounding

PPE values, the applicant has met the requirements regarding hydrology in 10 CFR 52.17(a),

10 CFR 100.20(c), 10 CFR 100.23(c), and 10 CFR 100.21(d) with respect to the matters

discussed above. The staff concludes that, subject to the bounding PPE values discussed

above, the staff’s conclusions relative to hydrology as put forth in NUREG-1835 remain valid for

Revision 9 of the SSAR. 

11-1

11. RADIOLOGICAL EFFLUENT RELEASE DOSE CONSEQUENCES

FROM NORMAL OPERATIONS

11.1 Source Terms

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff has reviewed the information on

radiological dose consequences caused by gaseous and liquid effluents that may be released

from normal operation of the plant that was provided by reference in Site Safety Analysis Report

(SSAR) Section 2.3.5.1, SSAR Tables 1.3-7 and 1.3-8, and included in the Environmental

Report (ER), Section 3.1 (Table 3.1-9), and Section 5.4 (Tables 5.4-9, 5.4-10, and 5.4-11) of the

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC (Dominion or the applicant), early site permit (ESP)

application, Revision 9. The purpose of the evaluation is to determine whether site

characteristics are such that radiation doses to members of the public would be within applicable

regulatory requirements, as summarized in Table 11.1-1.

11.1.1 Technical Information in the Application

The applicant provided information on the radiological impacts on members of the public from

gaseous and liquid effluents that would be generated as a normal byproduct of nuclear power

operations. The applicant described the exposure pathways by which radiation and radioactive

effluents can be transmitted to members of the public in the vicinity of the site. The estimates on

the maximum doses to the public are based on the available data on the reactor designs being

considered using the plant parameter envelope (PPE) approach in which the bounding liquid and

gaseous radiological effluents were used in assessing impacts on the public. The applicant

evaluated the impact of these doses by comparing them to applicable regulatory limits.

Using the PPE approach, Dominion provided a list of fission and activation products that may be

released in liquid and gaseous effluents from the postulated two new units. The applicant

evaluated the impacts from releases and direct radiation by considering the probable pathways

to individuals, populations, and biota near the proposed new units. The applicant also calculated

the highest dose from the major exposure pathways for a given receptor.

If built, the postulated two new units at the North Anna ESP site would release liquid effluents

into the waste heat treatment facility (WHTF) and Lake Anna through the discharge canal used

for the currently operating units. The applicant considered the following liquid pathways:

ingestion of aquatic food; ingestion of drinking water; exposure to shoreline sediment; and

exposure to water through boating and swimming. Exposures associated with crop and pasture

irrigation were not considered because the use of water from Lake Anna was deemed negligible

for this purpose.

Dominion also considered gaseous pathways, including external exposure to the airborne plume,

external exposure to contaminated ground, inhalation of airborne activity, and ingestion of

contaminated agricultural products, in its application.
11-2

Table 11.1-1

Staff’s Summary of 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I Dose Objectives and

40 CFR Part 190 Environmental Dose Standards

Regulation

Type of

Effluent Pathway Organ

Dose Limit

(mrem/yr per unit) 

10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix I *

Liquid all total body 3

all any organ 10

Gaseous all total body 5

all skin 15

Radioiodines &

Particulates

all any organ 15

Gaseous gamma air dose n/a 10***

beta air dose n/a 20***

40 CFR Part 190

**

all all total body 25#

all all thyroid 75#

all all any other

organs

25#

Notes:

* Appendix I dose objectives are defined for the maximally exposed individual (MEI).

** Dose limits are defined for any real member of the public. Under NRC requirements, this

standard is implemented under 10 CFR Part 20.1301(e).

*** Air doses are expressed in mrad/year instead.

# 40 CFR Part 190 dose limits are for the entire site and apply to all operating units. 
11-3

The applicant calculated the dose to the maximally exposed individual (MEI) from both the liquid

and gaseous effluent release pathways, and calculated a collective whole body dose for the

population within 50 miles (80 km) of the North Anna ESP site.

11.1.2 Regulatory Evaluation

NRC regulations require that applicants for an ESP address the characteristics of the proposed

site that could affect radiation doses to a member of the public from radiological effluents. In

SSAR Section 1.8.1, the applicant identified the applicable NRC regulations as Title 10,

Section 52.17(a)(1)(iv), of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 52.17(a)(1)(iv)). 

Specifically, this regulation states that an ESP application should describe the anticipated

maximum levels of radiological effluents that each facility will produce during normal operations.

Furthermore, 10 CFR 100.21(c)(1) requires that site atmospheric dispersion parameters be

established such that radiological effluent release limits associated with normal operation from

the type of facility proposed to be located at the site be met for any individual located off site. 

The staff reviewed this portion of the application for conformance with applicable regulations.

11.1.3 Technical Evaluation

During normal operation, small quantities of radiological materials are expected to be released to

the environment through gaseous and liquid effluents from the plant.

11.1.3.1 Gaseous Effluents

The applicant calculated the estimated dose to a hypothetical maximally exposed member of the

public from gaseous effluents using radiological exposure models based on Regulatory Guide

(RG) 1.109, Revision 1, “Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine Releases of Reactor

Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I,” issued

October 1977; the GASPAR II computer program (NUREG/CR-4653, “GASPAR II - Technical

Reference and User Guide,” March 1987); and RG 1.111, Revision 1, “Methods for Estimating

Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from

Light-Water-Cooled Reactors,” issued July 1977. Section 2.3.5 of the SSAR discusses the

derivation of the atmospheric dispersion parameters, and presents the specific values of the

dispersion parameters used in the applicant’s radiological dose assessment.

Dominion calculated the gaseous pathway doses to the MEI using the GASPAR II program at

the nearest site boundary, nearest vegetable garden, nearest residence, and nearest meat cow. 

The milk exposure pathway was not considered because there are no reported cows or goats

used for milk production in the near vicinity of the site (within a 5-mile radius). In Table 1.3-8 of

the SSAR and Table 5.4-7 of the ER, the applicant provided an estimate of the radiological

source term associated with gaseous effluents that may be released from normal operation of

the plant. The applicant developed estimates of gaseous radioactive effluent concentration

levels based on a composite of the highest activity levels of individual radionuclides it anticipates

to be released from alternative reactor designs under consideration. These releases reflect

composite estimates based on the advanced boiling-water reactor (ABWR), Advanced Plant

1000 (AP1000), Atomic Energy of Canada Advanced CANDU Reactor (ACR-700), and the

economic and simplified boiling-water reactor (ESBWR) reactor designs, with the ABWR

gaseous effluent source term scaled up to a power rating of 4300 MWt from the certificated

design of 3926 MWt, and the ESBWR source term increased by a 25 percent margin. The

ESBWR is rated at 4500 MWt. This approach results in a slight increase in the assumed
11-4

release rate of those radionuclides for which the ABWR and ESBWR designs were assumed to

be bounding. 

The gaseous effluent releases are used to estimate doses to the MEI. Tables 5.4-3 through

5.4-5 of the environmental report include other inputs to the GASPAR II program, including meat

and vegetable production rates, atmospheric dispersion and ground deposition factors, receptor

locations, and the assumed consumption rates of food products by the MEI.

Tables 5.4-9 and 5.4-10 of the environmental report present the gaseous pathway doses to the

MEI calculated by the applicant. The applicant calculated gaseous pathway doses to the MEI,

including a maximum annual dose to the total body doses of 0.014 milliSievert (mSv)

(1.4 millirem (mrem)) at the nearest residence from the plume; 0.021 mSv (2.1 mrem) at the

nearest site boundary from the plume; 0.0031 mSv (0.31 mrem) at the nearest site boundary

from inhalation (teen); 0.011 mSv (1.1 mrem) at the nearest garden (child); 0.002 mSv

(0.2 mrem) at the nearest residence from inhalation (adult and teen); and 0.00079 mSv

(0.079 mrem) for the nearest cow meat location. Dominion calculated a maximum annual dose

to the thyroid of 0.13 mSv (13 mrem) for the child based on the location of the nearest garden. 

These calculated doses satisfy the 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I Sections II.B and II.C dose

objectives for the MEI. The staff performed an independent evaluation of gaseous effluent

pathway doses using the GASPAR II code and the applicant’s input data and calculated similar

results. See applicable dose criteria in Table 11.1-1.

The applicant also estimated bounding gaseous effluent radionuclide concentrations for

receptors assumed to be located at the exclusion area boundary (EAB) in demonstrating

compliance with gaseous effluent release concentration limits of 10 CFR Part 20, “Standards for

Protection Against Radiation.” The effluent concentration limits are contained in Table 2

(Column 1) of Appendix B to Part 20, under “Annual Limits on Intake (ALIs) and Derived Air

Concentrations (DACs) of Radionuclides for Occupational Exposure; Effluent Concentrations;

Concentrations for Release to Sewerage.” The applicant’s results are presented in Table 5.4-7

of the environmental report and fall below the concentration limits of 10 CFR Part 20,

Appendix B. The staff performed an independent evaluation of the estimated effluent

concentration levels using the applicant’s data for the source term and ÷/Q at the EAB and found

similar results. 

Under the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1301(e), the applicant also demonstrated compliance with

the environmental radiation standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under

40 CFR Part 190, “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power

Operations.” The applicant’s results, based on the above doses, are therefore acceptably

derived, and are presented in Table 5.4-11 of the environmental report for the MEI.

The applicant’s results of 6.4 mrem/yr (0.064 mSv) for the whole body, 27 mrem/yr (0.27 mSv)

for the thyroid, and 11 mrem/yr (0.11 mSv) to bone are smaller than the maximum doses

specified in 40 CFR Part 190.10(a) of 25 mrem/yr whole body, 75 mrem/yr thyroid, and 25

mrem/yr any other organ. See Table 11.1-1.

Based on the above, the staff concludes that the applicant has provided a bounding assessment

in demonstrating its capability to comply with the regulatory requirements in 10 CFR Part 20

“Standards for Protection Against Radiation,” and Appendix I, “Numerical Guides for Design

Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to Meet the Criterion “As Low as is Reasonably

Achievable” for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents,” to
11-5

10 CFR Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities,” given atmospheric

dispersion parameters set forth in Section 2.3.5 of NUREG-1835.

11.1.3.2 Liquid Effluents

The applicant calculated the estimated dose to a hypothetical maximally exposed member of the

public from liquid effluents using radiological exposure models based on RG 1.109 and the

LADTAP II computer program (NUREG/CR-4013, “LADTAP II - Technical Reference and

User Guide,” April 1986).

Dominion calculated liquid pathway doses using the LADTAP II program for various activities,

including eating fish and invertebrates assumed to be caught at the end of the discharge canal;

drinking water from Lake Anna; boating and swimming; and using the shoreline for recreational

purposes. In Table 1.3-7 of the SSAR and Table 5.4-6 of the ER, the applicant estimated the

radiological source term associated with liquid effluents that may be released from normal

operation of the plant. The applicant developed estimates of liquid radioactive effluent

concentration levels based on a composite of the highest activity levels of individual

radionuclides it anticipates to be released from alternative reactor designs under consideration. 

These releases reflect composite estimates based on the ABWR, AP1000, ACR-700, and the

ESBWR reactor designs, with the ABWR liquid effluent source term scaled up to a power rating

of 4300 MWt from the certificated design of 3926 MWt, and the ESBWR source term increased

by a 25 percent margin. The ESBWR is rated at 4500 MWt. This approach results in a slight

increase in the assumed release rate of those radionuclides for which the ABWR and ESBWR

designs were assumed to be bounding. 

The liquid effluent releases are used to estimate doses to the MEI. Tables 5.4-1 and 5.4-2 of

the environmental report include other parameters used as input to the LADTAP II program,

including effluent discharge flow rate, site-specific dilution flow rate, and transit time to receptor.

The analysis assumed direct releases into the water body. 

Tables 5.4-8 and 5.4-10 of the environmental report present the liquid pathway doses to the MEI

calculated by the applicant. The applicant calculated liquid pathway doses to the MEI, including

a maximum annual dose to the total body of 0.0081 mSv (0.81 mrem) for the adult. Dominion

calculated a maximum annual dose to the thyroid of 0.0068 mSv (0.68 mrem) for the infant, and

a maximum annual dose to the bone as 0.025 mSv (2.5 mrem) for the child. These calculated

doses satisfy the 10 CFR Part 50 Appendix I, Section II.A dose objectives for the MEI. The staff

performed an independent evaluation of liquid pathway doses using the LADTAP II code and the

applicant’s input data and found similar results. See applicable dose criteria in Table 11.1-1.

The applicant also estimated bounding liquid effluent radionuclide concentrations for receptors

assumed to be located at the end of the discharge canal in demonstrating compliance with liquid

effluent release concentration limits of 10 CFR Part 20. The effluent concentration limits are

contained in Table 2 (Column 2) of Appendix B to Part 20. The applicant’s results are presented

in Table 5.4-6 of the environmental report and fall below the concentration limits of 10 CFR

Part 20, Appendix B. The staff performed an independent evaluation of the estimated effluent

concentration levels using the applicant’s data for the source term and dilution factor and found

similar results.

Under the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1301(e), the applicant also demonstrated compliance with

the environmental radiation standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under
11-6

40 CFR Part 190. The applicant’s results, based on the above doses, are therefore acceptably

derived, and are presented in Table 5.4-11 of the environmental report for the MEI.

The applicant’s results of 6.4 mrem/yr (0.064 mSv) for the whole body, 27 mrem/yr (0.27 mSv)

for the thyroid, and 11 mrem/yr (0.11 mSv) to bone are smaller than the maximum doses

specified in 40 CFR Part 190.10(a) of 25 mrem/yr whole body, 75 mrem/yr thyroid, and 25

mrem/yr any other organ. See Table 11.1-1.

The staff concludes that the applicant has provided a bounding assessment in demonstrating its

capability to comply with the regulatory requirements in 10 CFR Part 20 and Appendix I to

10 CFR Part 50.

11.1.4 Conclusions

As set forth above, the applicant provided information adequate to provide reasonable

assurance that it will control, monitor, and maintain radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents from

the ESP site within the regulatory limits described in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table 2, as

well as maintain them at levels that are in accordance with the effluent design objectives

contained in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50, Sections II.A, II.B, and II.C. Under the requirements

of 10 CFR 20.1301(e), the applicant also demonstrated compliance with the environmental

radiation standards of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, under 40 CFR Part 190. 

As further set forth above, the staff has independently confirmed the adequacy of the applicant’s

dose consequence calculations from normal operations. A combined license (COL) or

construction permit (CP) applicant that references an ESP for the North Anna site should verify

that the calculated radiological doses to members of the public from radioactive gaseous and

liquid effluents for two new units which may be built at the North Anna site are bounded by the

radiological doses included in the ESP application and reviewed by the NRC staff, as described

above. This includes any changes made to address differences in reactor design used to

calculate radiological doses (e.g., basis of the liquid and gaseous radiological source terms, and

liquid effluent discharge flow rates and site-specific dilution flow rates). Exposures associated

with crop and pasture irrigation were not considered because the use of water from Lake Anna

was deemed to be negligible for this purpose. However, should local land-use information reveal

that the use of water from Lake Anna becomes significant in irrigating crops and pastures, the

COL or CP applicant should consider this pathway in the application and confirm that the

associated doses are in compliance with applicable NRC criteria. In addition, detailed

information on the solid waste management system used to process radioactive gaseous and

liquid effluents will be necessary to reflect plant and site-specific COL design considerations.

These items are addressed collectively in COL Action Item 11.1-1.

Based upon these considerations, the staff concludes that radiological doses to members of the

public from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents resulting from the normal operation of one or

two new nuclear power plants that might be constructed on the proposed ESP site do not

present an undue risk to the health and safety of the public. Therefore, the staff concludes, with

respect to radiological effluent releases and dose consequences from normal operations, that

appropriate long-term atmospheric dispersion coefficients have been established at the 
11-7

proposed site is acceptable for constructing one or two units falling within the applicant’s

bounding site-specific PPE, and that the site meets the relevant requirements of 10 CFRPart 52,

“Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power

Plants,” and 10 CFR Part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria.”

 As discussed later in this section, the applicant referenced a version of the AP1000 design 4

available at the time it submitted its ESP application. Westinghouse subsequently revised the AP1000

design before the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff’s issuance of a final safety evaluation

report (SER) for the AP1000 design certification. 

 The ESBW R considered by the applicant is based on Revision 1 of the ESBW R Design Control 5

Document, Tier 2, submitted by GE in January 2006. The applicant increased the accident source terms

by a factor of 1.25 to accommodate uncertainties because the NRC has not yet completed its design

certification review.

15-1

15. ACCIDENT ANALYSES

15.1 Technical Information in the Application 

In Chapter 15, “Accident Analyses,” of the site safety analysis report (SSAR), the applicant

analyzed the radiological consequences of design-basis accidents (DBAs) to demonstrate that

new nuclear units could be located at the proposed early site permit (ESP) site without undue

risk to the health and safety of the public, in compliance with the requirements of Title 10,

Section 52.17, “Contents of Applications,” of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR 52.17)

and 10 CFR Part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria.” The applicant did not identify a particular reactor

design to be considered for the proposed ESP site. Instead, the applicant developed a set of

reactor DBA source term parameters using surrogate reactor characteristics. The applicant

used these parameters in conjunction with site characteristics for accident analysis purposes to

assess the suitability of the proposed ESP site. These plant parameters collectively constitute a

plant parameter envelope (PPE).

The applicant developed a PPE using seven reactor designs (five water-cooled reactors and two

gas-cooled reactors), though it used source terms for only three of these designs as inputs to its

DBA analyses. The water-cooled reactors included in the PPE were (1) a version of the

Westinghouse Advanced Plant 1000 (AP1000), (2) the certified General Electric (GE) Advanced

Boiling-Water Reactor (ABWR), (3) the Atomic Energy of Canada Advanced CANDU Reactor

(ACR-700), (4) a version of the GE Economic and Simple Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR), and

(5) the Westinghouse-led International Reactor Innovative and Secure (IRIS) reactor. The

ACR-700 is light-water cooled but heavy-water moderated. The two gas-cooled reactors are

(1) the General Atomics Gas Turbine Modular Helium Reactor (GT-MHR) and (2) the Pebble

Bed Modular Reactor (PBMR). The applicant stated that the PPE values are not intended to be

limited to these reactor designs but rather to provide a broad overall outline of a design concept

and to include other potential reactor designs if they fall within the parameter values provided in

the PPE. 

In selecting DBAs for dose consequence analyses, the applicant focused on three light-water

reactors (LWRs), the certified ABWR, a version of the AP1000, and a version of the ESBWR to

4 5

serve as surrogates. The applicant stated that it selected these three reactor designs because

they are (or are based on) previously certified standard designs and have recognized bases for

postulated accident analyses. Using source terms developed from these three designs, the

applicant performed and provided radiological consequence analyses for the following DBAs:

• pressurized-water reactor (PWR) main steamline break 

• PWR feedwater system pipe break
15-2

• locked rotor accident

• reactor coolant pump shaft break

• PWR rod ejection accident 

• BWR control rod drop accident

• failure of small lines carrying primary coolant outside containment

• PWR steam generator tube failure

• BWR main steamline break

• PWR and BWR loss-of-coolant accidents 

• fuel-handling accident

• BWR cleanup water line break 

The applicant presented the dose consequence assessment results in SSAR Chapter 15,

“Accident Analyses.” SSAR Table 15.4-1, “Summary of Design Basis Accident Doses,”

summarizes the postulated radiological consequences of the DBAs identified above at the

proposed exclusion area boundary (EAB) and the low-population zone (LPZ) boundary. The

potential doses set forth in the table would be within the radiological dose consequence

evaluation factors set forth in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1). The applicant provided the accident-specific

source terms (release rates of radioactive materials from the ESP footprint (PPE values) to the

environment) and resulting site-specific dose consequences for each DBA in Tables 15.4-3

through 15.4-31 of the SSAR. 

In Request for Additional Information (RAI) 15.4-1, the staff noted that Westinghouse revised its

atmospheric dispersion factors (÷/Q values) in the AP1000 design control document (DCD) since

the applicant submitted the North Anna ESP application, and asked whether the applicant

planned to use the updated values in revising its application. The applicant responded that it

had elected not to update the ESP application to incorporate the latest ÷/Q values in the AP1000

design certification. The applicant further stated that site-specific doses would be updated, as

necessary, in any combined license (COL) or construction permit (CP) application, after

selection of a specific reactor design.

In RAls 15.4-2 and 15.4-3, the staff noted that SSAR Section 15.4 provides total effective dose

equivalent (TEDE) values for the ABWR design, while the ABWR design is certified with the

thyroid and whole body doses specified in 10 CFR Part 100. The staff asked the applicant to

compare these doses. In its response, the applicant stated that it would revise the SSAR to

include the thyroid and whole body doses from the ABWR DCD, in addition to the estimated

TEDE values. The applicant incorporated this information into its application in Revision 3. 

In RAI 15.4-4, the staff asked the applicant to provide references and explain the methodology it

used to determine time-dependent activity releases for each DBA. The applicant provided the

requested references. In its response, the applicant stated that the respective DCDs present the

methodologies used for calculating time-dependent releases for the ABWR and AP1000. These

methodologies are approved as acceptable in 10 CFR Part 52, Appendix A and Appendix D for

the ABWR and AP1000, respectively. 

In RAI 15.4-5, the staff asked the applicant to provide, for each DBA, the doses it used for the

EAB and the LPZ for the AP1000 and the ABWR, as well as the ratios of site-specific ÷/Q values

to design certification ÷/Qs used. In its response, the applicant stated that it would revise the

dose tables in SSAR Section 15.4 to show the ÷/Q values and doses from the AP1000 and

ABWR DCDs, in addition to the ratios of site-specific ÷/Q values to design certification ÷/Q

values. The applicant incorporated this information into its application in Revision 3. 
15-3

In RAI 15.4-6, the staff asked the applicant to clarify whether the 0- to 2-hour EAB doses

presented in the SSAR are for the 2-hour period with the greatest EAB doses and, if they are

not, to provide the doses for the 2-hour period with the greatest EAB doses. In its response, the

applicant stated that the greatest EAB dose occurs during the first 2 hours of the accident for all

AP1000 accidents evaluated in SSAR Chapter 15, except for a loss-of-coolant accident (LOCA).

As indicated in Section 15.6.5.3.8.1 of the AP1000 DCD, the period from 1 to 3 hours yields the

greatest EAB dose for a LOCA. In view of the accident progression sequences for the designs

used in the DBA dose assessment, the staff agrees with the applicant’s conclusion. The

applicant incorporated this information into its application in Revision 3. 

In Supplemental RAI 1, dated May 12, 2006, the staff asked the applicant to provide the activity

release for the period giving the highest 2-hour dose at the EAB for four ESBWR DBAs;

(1) failure of small lines carrying primary coolant outside containment, (2) main steamline break

(equilibrium activity), (3) LOCA, and (4) fuel-handling accident. In its response, the applicant

stated that the maximum EAB dose occurs between 2 and 4 hours for the failure of small lines

carrying primary coolant outside containment, the first 2 hours for the main steamline break and

fuel-handling accidents, and between 2.6 and 4.6 hours for the LOCA. The applicant provided

RAI Tables 1-1, 1-2, and 1-3 showing the activity releases for the periods giving the highest

2-hour dose at the EAB. 

In Supplemental RAIs 2, 3, and 5, the staff asked the applicant to verify that the activity releases

were correct, and to calculate the resulting doses for three ESBWR DBAs; (1) failure of small

lines carrying primary coolant outside containment, (2) main steamline break (equilibrium

activity), and (3) fuel-handling accident. In its response, the applicant changed the methodology

for calculating all ESBWR DBA doses to the methodology used by the staff. Instead of applying

÷/Q ratios to DCD doses, the ESBWR DBA doses are calculated directly based on the activity

releases. The staff is currently reviewing ESBWR DBA doses provided by GE, the ESBWR

vendor. The TEDE from an isotope for a given time period is calculated by adding the

committed effective dose equivalent (CEDE) from inhalation and the effective dose equivalent

(EDE) from external exposure. The CEDE is calculated by multiplying the isotopic activity

released by the site ÷/Q value, the breathing rate of the individual located offsite, and the

effective inhalation dose conversion factor from Federal Guidance Report 11, “Limiting Values of

Radionuclide Intake and Air Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation,

Submersion, and Ingestion,” issued 1988. The EDE is calculated by multiplying the isotopic

activity by the site ÷/Q value and the effective submersion dose conversion factor from Federal

Guidance Report 12, “External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil,” issued 1993. 

These methodologies follow the guidance in RG 1.183.

The applicant used the revised dose calculation methodology described above for all ESBWR

DBAs, and produced the same doses as calculated by the staff. Revision 9 of the SSAR gives

the revised doses in Tables 15.4-5d, 15.4-12b, 15.4-19b, 15.4-19c, 15.4-23b, 15.4-29,

and 15.4-31. 

In Supplemental RAI 4, the staff asked the applicant to provide a reference for the activity

releases for the ESBWR LOCA presented in SSAR Table 15.4-23a. In its response, the

applicant stated that it had obtained the releases from a formal correspondence from GE to

Dominion dated March 1, 2006. The applicant provided a copy of the correspondence. 

In Supplemental RAI 7, the staff asked the applicant to (1) explain why the SSAR analyzes the

ABWR feedwater system pipe break (FLB) while the ABWR DCD does not analyze it and
15-4

(2) provide supporting information (activity release and dose calculation table) for the FLB with

references for this information. The staff also asked the applicant to provide the supporting

documentation for the ABWR cleanup waterline break (CLB) accident. In its response, the

applicant stated that the ABWR DCD lists both feedwater and cleanup line break accidents even

though it does not report the doses for the FLB, but simply refers the FLB to the CLB stating that

the doses for the FLB bound those for the CLB. The ESBWR DCD evaluates both the FLB and

the CLB, and the applicant added these two DBAs to Table 15.4-1 of the SSAR. For

completeness, the applicant also added these two DBAs for the ABWR in the SSAR,

Table 15.4-1. The applicant revised SSAR Table 15.4-1 in Revision 9, with a new note which

states that the ABWR DCD indicates that the CLB bounds the doses for the FLB. The applicant

also provided the supporting documentation for the ABWR CLB in SSAR, Revision 9,

Tables 15.4-5a and 15.4-5b. 

In Supplemental RAI 8, the staff asked the applicant to revise the SSAR to reflect any changes

in activities and doses as a result of the above supplemental RAIs. The applicant has revised

the SSAR accordingly in its Revision 9. 

15.2 Regulatory Evaluation 

In SSAR Section 1.8 and in SSAR Chapter 15, the applicant identified the following applicable

NRC regulations and guidance regarding reactor accident radiological consequence analyses: 

• 10 CFR 52.17

• 10 CFR Part 100

• 10 CFR 50.34, “Contents of Applications; Technical Information”

• Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.3, “Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological

Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors," issued

June 1974

• RG 1.25, “Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential Radiological Consequences of

a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and Storage Facility for Boiling and

Pressurized Water Reactors,” issued March 1972 

• RG 1.145, “Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence

Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants,” issued November 1982

• RG 1.183, “Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents

at Nuclear Power Reactors,” issued July 2000

• NUREG-0800, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for

Nuclear Power Plants,” issued July 1981 

• TID-14844, “Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites,” issued

March 1962

• Review Standard (RS)-002, “Processing Applications for Early Site Permits,” issued

May 3, 2004
15-5

The staff reviewed SSAR Section 1.8 and Chapter 15 for conformance with the applicable

regulations and considered the corresponding guidance, as identified above. In its evaluation,

the staff used the dose consequence evaluation factors found in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) that

contribute to determining the acceptability of the site in accordance with 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1).

The regulations at 10 CFR 52.17(a)(1) require that ESP applications contain an analysis and

evaluation of the major structures, systems, and components of the facility that bear significantly

on the acceptability of the site under the radiological consequence evaluation factors identified in

10 CFR 50.34(a)(1). In addition, the ESP site characteristics must comply with the requirements

of 10 CFR Part 100. The regulations at 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1)(ii)(D) require the following for a

postulated fission product release based on a major accident:

• An individual located at any point on the boundary of the exclusion area for any 2-hour

period following the onset of the postulated fission product release would not receive a

radiation dose in excess of 25 rem TEDE. 

• An individual who is located at any point on the boundary of the LPZ and who is exposed

to the radioactive cloud resulting from the postulated fission product release (during the

entire period of its passage) would not receive a radiation dose in excess of 25 rem

TEDE.

Because the applicant has not selected a reactor design to be constructed on the proposed ESP

site, the applicant used a PPE approach to demonstrate that it meets these requirements. A

PPE is a set of plant design parameters that are expected to bound the characteristics of a

reactor(s) that may be constructed at a site, and it serves as a surrogate for actual reactor

design information. As discussed in RS-002 and in Chapter 1 of the SER (NUREG-1835), the

staff considers the PPE approach to be an acceptable method for assessing site suitability. For

the purposes of this analysis, the applicant proposed a fission product release from the PPE

(ESP footprint) to the environment, and the staff reviewed the applicant’s dose evaluation based

on this release. 

15.3 Technical Evaluation 

The applicant evaluated the suitability of the site under the radiological consequence evaluation

factors identified in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) using bounding reactor accident source terms and dose

consequences as a set of PPE values based on three surrogate designs, as well as site-specific

÷/Q values based on the ESP footprint. The following paragraphs describe the staff’s review of

each aspect of this evaluation. 

15.3.1 Selection of DBAs 

The applicant selected the DBAs listed in Section 15.1 of NUREG-1835 based on the proposed

AP1000 reactor design, the certified ABWR design, and the proposed ESBWR design. The

applicant indicated that it chose these three reactor designs because they have (or are based

on) previously certified standard designs and have recognized bases for postulated accident

analyses. The staff finds that the applicant selected DBAs that are consistent with the DBAs

listed and analyzed in NUREG-0800 and RG 1.183. The applicant did not omit any applicable

DBA identified in these guidance documents. Therefore, the staff finds that the applicant

provided an acceptable DBA selection for evaluating the compliance of the proposed ESP site

with the dose consequence evaluation factors specified in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1). The applicant

stated that, because of their greater potential for inherent safety, it expects the DBAs of the
15-6

other reactors being considered for the proposed ESP site to be bounded by those DBAs

analyzed in the proposed AP1000 and ESBWR and the certified ABWR DCDs. While the staff

has not reviewed in detail designs other than the proposed AP1000 and certified ABWR, it

believes that conclusions drawn regarding the site’s acceptability based on the AP1000, ABWR,

and ESBWR designs are likely to be valid for the other reactor designs that the applicant is

considering. If a COL or CP application referencing any ESP that might be issued for the North

Anna ESP site is filed, the applicant will confirm, and the staff will evaluate, whether the source

term considered here bounds that of the design proposed in the COL or CP application. 

15.3.2 Design-Specific (Postulated) ÷/Q Values

The staff here discusses the ÷/Qs postulated in the ABWR and AP1000 design certification

proceedings because the applicant used these ÷/Qs in its analysis as follows. To support its

accident analyses based on the ABWR as a surrogate design, the applicant used the postulated

÷/Q values in the certified ABWR DCD. In evaluating the AP1000, however, the applicant used

those ÷/Q values in the proposed (surrogate) AP1000 DCD that were under review by the staff at

the time the North Anna ESP application was submitted. Westinghouse subsequently revised

the ÷/Q values in the AP1000 DCD. Consequently, the postulated ÷/Q values and the calculated

design-specific doses used in the North Anna ESP application may differ from those associated

with a certified API000 DCD. Nonetheless, the staff determined that the PPE values for the

postulated ÷/Q values associated with the surrogate AP1000 design used by the applicant in its

accident analyses are reasonable and, therefore, that they are adequate to demonstrate that a

reactor with design characteristics similar to an AP1000 could be sited at the proposed ESP site. 

Section 15.4 of the SSAR lists the ÷/Q values the applicant used for the version of the AP1000

and the certified ABWR that it considered. The staff compared the ÷/Q’s postulated for the

ABWR and AP1000 to those measured for the North Anna ESP site as described below in

Section 15.3.5.

Design-specific ÷/Q values were not used in calculating the DBA doses for the ESBWR. Rather,

the DBA doses were calculated directly from activity releases using site-specific ÷/Q values.

This subject is discussed in more detail in Section 15.3.5.

In Table 1.3-1 of the SSAR, the applicant also listed a set of design-specific postulated

÷/Q values, some of which neither the applicant nor the staff had used in their radiological 

consequence evaluations. The staff finds that the ÷/Q values in Table 1.3-1, with the exception

of those used in the applicant’s dose assessments in Chapter 15 of the SSAR, are not needed to

assess the suitability of the proposed site. 

15.3.3 Site-Specific ÷/Q Values

The staff reviewed the applicant’s site-specific ÷/Q values and performed an independent

evaluation of atmospheric dispersion in accordance with the guidance provided in Section 2.3.4

of RS-002. The ÷/Q values indicate the atmospheric dilution capability. Smaller ÷/Q values are

associated with greater dilution capability, resulting in lower radiological doses. The radiological

consequences are thus inversely proportional to the ÷/Q values. The applicant provided the

site-specific ÷/Q values used in its radiological consequence analyses in Table 1.9-1 of the

SSAR, and the staff discusses and evaluates its ÷/Q values in Section 2.3.4 of NUREG-1835. 
15-7

The applicant used the atmospheric dispersion computer code PAVAN, described in the 1982

report NUREG/CR-2858, “PAVAN: An Atmospheric Dispersion Program for Evaluating Design

Basis Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials from Nuclear Power Stations,” to derive its

site-specific ÷/Q values. Section 2.3.4 of NUREG-1835 indicates that a copy of the input files

used by the applicant to execute PAVAN can be found in the applicant’s response to RAI

2.3.4-1. The staff describes the PAVAN code calculations for the North Anna site in more detail

in Section 2.3.4 of NUREG-1835. The staff finds the ÷/Q values to be acceptable, as described

in Section 2.3.4 of NUREG-1835. The staff intends to include these site-specific ÷/Qs in any

ESP that the NRC may issue for the North Anna ESP site. 

15.3.4 Source Term Evaluation 

To evaluate the suitability of the site using the radiological consequence evaluation factors in

10 CFR 50.34(a)(1), the applicant provided a set of bounding reactor accident source terms as a

set of PPE values based on (1) the surrogate AP1000, 4386-megawatt thermal (MWt) ABWR,

including 2 percent ECCS evaluation margin, and the ESBWR design source terms (as

explained below) and (2) the site-specific ÷/Qs based on the ESP footprint. The source terms

are expressed as the timing and release rate of fission products to the environment from the

proposed ESP site. The dose consequences are then derived from the source terms using

established methods.

The surrogate AP1000 source terms are based on the guidance provided in RG 1.183. The 

methodologies and assumptions used by Westinghouse, the AP1000 vendor, in its radiological

consequence analyses are consistent with the guidance provided in RG 1.183. The resulting

doses calculated for the surrogate AP1000 design using the postulated site parameters meet the

dose consequence evaluation factors specified in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) (i.e., 25 rem TEDE).

The methodologies and assumptions used by GE, the ABWR vendor, in its radiological

consequence analyses for the ABWR design are consistent with the guidance provided in

RGs 1.3 and 1.25. The ABWR source terms are based on the guidance in TID-14844. As set

forth in the ABWR DCD, the resulting doses for the ABWR reactor design using the postulated

site parameters meet the dose consequence evaluation factors specified in 10 CFR 100.11,

“Determination of Exclusion Area, Low Population Zone, and Population Center Distance,” which

are 300 rem to the thyroid and 25 rem to the whole body. While the requirements of 10 CFR

100.11 are not applicable to an ESP, the staff notes that the Commission, in promulgating the

final rule in Appendix A, “Design Certification Rule for the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water

Reactor,” to 10 CFR Part 52, “Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined

Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” stated the following:

The Commission has determined that with regard to the revised design basis

accident radiation dose acceptance criteria in 10 CFR 50.34, the ABWR design

meets the new dose criteria based on the NRC staff’s radiological consequence

analyses, provided that the site parameters are not revised.

“Standard Design Certification for the U.S. Advanced Boiling Water Reactor Design,” Final Rule,

62 Fed. Reg. 25800, 25819-820. Accordingly, the certified ABWR design, in conjunction with

assumed site parameters, meets the dose consequence evaluation factors specified in 10 CFR

100.11, as well as those specified in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1).
15-8

In its site-specific DBA radiological consequence analyses, the applicant scaled the ABWR

source terms and the resulting doses from the power level, certified under Appendix A to

10 CFR Part 52, of 4005 MWt to 4386 MWt for its version of the ABWR. The applicant used a

linear scaling method. Because the fission product release rate is directly proportional to the

fission product inventory if mitigating processes remain the same, and because the fission

product inventory is directly proportional to reactor power, the staff finds this scaling

methodology to be acceptable for the purposes of this evaluation. 

The ESBWR source terms are based on the guidance provided in RG 1.183. The 

methodologies and assumptions used by GE, the ESBWR vendor, in its radiological

consequence analyses are consistent with the guidance provided in RG 1.183. Dominion

increased the activity levels for ESBWR DBA analyses by 25 percent to accommodate

uncertainty in its design because the design certification review is not complete. The resulting

doses calculated for the ESBWR design using the North Anna ESP site-specific ÷/Qs meet the

dose consequence evaluation factors specified in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) (i.e., 25 rem TEDE).

15.3.5 Radiological Consequence Evaluations

In determining the potential radiological consequences resulting from DBAs for the ABWR and

the AP1000 at the proposed site, the applicant used the site-specific ÷/Q values in conjunction

with the DBA radiological consequences and the postulated ÷/Q values provided in the certified

ABWR DCD and the surrogate AP1000 DCD. The certified ABWR and the proposed API000

designs met the radiological consequence evaluation factors identified in 10 CFR 50.34 (a)(1)

with their postulated ÷/Q values.

The applicant used the ratios of the site-specific ÷/Q values to those postulated in the ABWR

DCD and AP1000 DCD to determine and demonstrate that the radiological consequences at the

proposed site meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34, “Contents of Applications; Technical

Information.” The estimated site-specific ÷/Q values for the proposed site are lower than those

postulated in the ABWR DCD and AP1000 DCD, i.e., reflect greater dispersion than assumed in

the design certification proceedings. The certified ABWR and the proposed AP1000 designs

met the radiological consequence evaluation factors identified in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) with their

postulated ÷/Q values. Accordingly, the resulting DBA radiological consequences at the

proposed site are lower than those provided in the ABWR DCD and AP1000 DCD and,

therefore, meet the requirements of 10 CFR 50.34. 

Review of the ESBWR design certification by the staff is not complete. Therefore, ESBWR DBA

dose calculations were performed using the modified source terms (125 percent of proposed

DCD values) and site-specific ÷/Q values rather than using doses from the design document and

the ratios of site-specific ÷/Q values to design ÷/Q values. The applicant used PAVAN to derive

its site-specific ÷/Q values. Using these ÷/Q values, the proposed ESBWR design meets the

radiological consequence evaluation factors identified in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1).

The staff has verified the design-specific source terms the applicant provided and finds them to

be consistent with those evaluated (or being evaluated) by the staff as part of the design

certification reviews. Further, the staff finds that the references provided by the applicant and

the methodology it used to determine the timing and release rate of fission products to the

environment (and consequent radiological consequences) from the proposed ESP site are

acceptable. Therefore, the staff finds the source terms from the PPE (ESP footprint) themselves
15-9

to be reasonable and acceptable. The staff intends to include the site-specific x/Q values listed

as site characteristics in Appendix A in any ESP that the NRC might issue for the North Anna

site. 

Table 15.3-1 identifies the following site ÷/Q values as appropriate for inclusion in any ESP that

the staff might issue for the North Anna ESP site. 

Table 15.3-1 Staff’s Proposed Site-Specific ÷/Q Values

Location and Time Interval ÷/Q Value

0 to 2 hour EAB 2.26E-4 s/m3

0 to 8 hour LPZ 2.05E-5 s/m3

8 to 24 hour LPZ 1.36E-5 s/m3

1 to 4 day LPZ 5.58E-6 s/m3

4 to 30 day LPZ 1.55E-6 s/m3

RS-002 calls for the staff to perform a confirmatory radiological consequence calculation. The

design-related inputs to the applicant’s dose calculation for the AP1000 and ABWR designs

were directly extracted from design documentation previously submitted to and reviewed by the

staff in connection with design certification applications. Because the applicant simply used the

ratio of the site-specific ÷/Q values to the postulated design ÷/Q values, the staff did not consider

an independent calculation to be useful or necessary and, therefore, did not perform one. For

the ESBWR, the staff performed confirmatory dose calculations using the isotopic release rates

provided by the applicant and site-specific ÷/Q values. The results of these calculations confirm

that the dose calculations performed by the applicant are correct.

The staff believes that basing the radiological consequences of the DBAs at the proposed site

on the AP1000, ABWR, and ESBWR designs is likely to be valid for the other reactor designs

the applicant is considering. Whether the final reactor design selected by the applicant at the

North Anna ESP site is in fact bounded by the acceptance made here would be subject to review

during the staff’s consideration of any COL or CP application. In accordance with

10 CFR 52.79(a)(1), at the COL stage, the staff will evaluate whether the design of the facility

falls within the parameters specified in an ESP, if one is issued for the North Anna ESP site. 

Based on the above evaluation of the applicant’s analysis methodology and inputs to that

analysis, the staff finds that the applicant’s conclusion that the radiological consequences for the

chosen surrogate designs comply with the radiological consequence evaluation factors of

10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) is correct. 

Based on the ESBWR source term and ÷/Qs evaluated above, the applicant calculated

radiological consequences at the EAB and the LPZ boundary. The applicant performed these

calculations using the methodologies specified in RG 1.183 which the staff has identified as

acceptable for this purpose. The results obtained by the applicant are below the TEDE does

specified in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(I). Accordingly, the staff finds that the applicant’s conclusion that

the radiological consequences for the ESBWR design complies with the radiological

consequence evaluation factors of 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) is correct.
15-10

15.4 Conclusions 

As described above, the applicant submitted its radiological consequence analyses using the

site-specific ÷/Q values and PPE source term values and concluded that the proposed site

meets the radiological consequence evaluation factors identified in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1).

Based on the reasons given above, the staff finds that the applicant’s PPE values for source

terms included as inputs to the radiological consequence analyses are reasonable. Further, the

staff finds that the applicant’s site-specific ÷/Q values and dose consequence evaluation

methodology are acceptable. Therefore, the staff concludes that the proposed distances to the

EAB and the LPZ outer boundary of the proposed ESP site, in conjunction with the fission

product release rates to the environment provided by the applicant as PPE values, are adequate

to provide reasonable assurance that the radiological consequences of the DBAs will be within

the radiological consequence evaluation factors set forth in 10 CFR 50.34(a)(1) for the proposed

ESP site. This conclusion is subject to confirmation at the COL or CP stage that the design of

the facility specified by the COL or CP applicant falls within the values of site characteristics and

plant parameters specified in any ESP that might issue for the North Anna ESP site. 

The staff further concludes that (1) the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed ESP site is

suitable for power reactors with source term characteristics bounded by those of the ABWR (at

4386 MWt), AP1000, and ESBWR without undue risk to the health and safety of the public and

(2) the applicant has complied with the requirements of 10 CFR 52.17 and 10 CFR Part 100. 
19-1

19. CONCLUSIONS

In accordance with Subpart A, “Early Site Permits,” of Title 10, Part 52, “Early Site Permits,

Standard Design Certifications, and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants,” of the

Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR Part 52), the staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory

Commission (NRC) reviewed the site safety analysis report and emergency planning information

included in the early site permit (ESP) application submitted by Dominion Nuclear North Anna,

LLC, for the North Anna ESP site. On the basis of its evaluation and independent analyses as

discussed in this supplement and NRC technical report NUREG-1835, “Safety Evaluation Report

for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site,” the staff concludes that the

North Anna ESP site characteristics comply with the requirements of 10 CFR Part 100, “Reactor

Site Criteria,” with the limitations and conditions proposed by the staff in this supplement and

NRC technical report NUREG-1835 for inclusion in any ESP that might be issued. Further, for

the reasons set forth in this supplement and NRC technical report NUREG-1835, the staff

concludes that, taking into consideration the site criteria contained in 10 CFR Part 100, a

reactor, or reactors, having characteristics that fall within the parameters for the site, and which

meets the terms and conditions proposed by the staff in this supplement and NRC technical

report NUREG-1835, can be constructed and operated without undue risk to the health and

safety of the public. For the same reasons, the staff also concludes that issuance of the

requested ESP will not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and

safety of the public. If issued, the North Anna ESP may be referenced in an application to

construct or to construct and operate a nuclear power reactor, or reactors, with a total

generating capacity of up to 9000 megawatts (thermal) at the ESP site, subject to the terms and

conditions of the permit.

A-1

APPENDIX A

PERMIT CONDITIONS, COL ACTION ITEMS, SITE CHARACTERISTICS,

AND BOUNDING PARAMETERS

A.1 Permit Conditions Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2

Definition.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2

Section 2.1 - Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-2

Section 2.4 - Hydrology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3

Section 2.5 - Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-3

A.2 COL Action Items Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4

Definition.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4

Section 2.1 - Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4

Section 2.2 - Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and Military Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-4

Section 2.3 - Meteorology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5

Section 2.4 - Hydrology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-5

Section 2.5 - Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-7

Section 11.1 - Radiological Effluent Release Dose Consequences from Normal Operations. A-8

Section 13.6 - Industrial Security.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-9

A.3 Site Characteristics Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-10

Definition.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-10

Section 2.1 - Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-10

Section 2.3 - Meteorology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-11

Section 2.4 - Hydrology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-18

Section 2.5 - Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-21

A.4 Bounding Parameters Table. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-22

Definition.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-22

Section 2.4 - Hydrology.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-22

Figure 1 The proposed facility boundary for the ESP site.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-23

Figure 2 Selected Horizontal and Vertical Response Spectra for the Hypothetical Rock

Outcrop Control Point SSE at the Top of Zone III-IV Material. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A-24
A-2

A.1 Permit Conditions

Permit Condition: The Commission's regulation in 10 CFR § 52.24 authorizes the inclusion of limitations and conditions in an ESP. 

A permit condition is not needed when an existing NRC regulation requires a future regulatory review of a matter to ensure adequate

safety during design, construction, or inspection activities for a new plant. The staff is proposing that the Commission include eight

permit conditions, which are set forth below, to control various safety matters. 

Permit

Condition

No.

SER

Section Description

2.1 - Introduction

1 2.1.2 The NRC staff proposes to include a condition in any ESP that might be issued in connection with this application

to govern exclusion area control. This permit condition would require that approvals called for by State law for,

among other matters, agreements providing for shared control of the North Anna ESP exclusion area, be obtained

and the agreements executed before construction of a nuclear power plant begins under a construction permit or

COL referencing the ESP. 

2 2.1.2 The NRC staff proposes to include a condition in any ESP that might be issued in connection with this application

requiring that the ESP holder obtain the right to implement the site redress plan before initiating any activities

authorized by 10 CFR 52.25 .
Permit

Condition

No.

SER

Section Description

A-3

2.4 - Hydrology

3 2.4.1 The NRC staff proposes to include a condition in any ESP that might be issued in connection with this application

requiring that an applicant referencing such an ESP in an application for a fourth proposed unit use a dry cooling

tower system during normal operation.

4 2.4.13 The NRC staff proposes to include a condition in any ESP that might be issued in connection with this application

requiring that an applicant referencing such an ESP design any new unit’s radwaste systems with features to

preclude any and all accidental releases of radionuclides into any potential liquid pathway.

2.5 - Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering

5 2.5.1 The NRC staff proposes to include a condition in any ESP that might be issued in connection with this application

requiring that the ESP holder and/or an applicant referencing such an ESP replace weathered or fractured rock at

the foundation level with lean concrete before initiation of foundation construction.

6 2.5.1 The NRC staff proposes to include a condition in any ESP that might be issued in connection with this application

prohibiting the ESP holder or an applicant referencing such an ESP from using an engineered fill with high

compressibility and low maximum density, such as saprolite.

7 2.5.4 The NRC staff proposes to include a condition in any ESP that might be issued in connection with this application

requiring that the ESP holder and/or an applicant referencing such an ESP perform geologic mapping of future

excavations for safety-related structures, evaluate any unforseen geologic features that are encountered, and

notify the NRC no later than 30 days before any excavations for safety-related structures are open for NRC’s

examination and evaluation.

8 2.5.4 The NRC staff proposes to include a condition in any ESP that might be issued in connection with this application

requiring that the ESP holder and/or an applicant referencing such an ESP improve Zone II saprolitic soils to

reduce any liquefaction potential if safety-related structures are to be founded on them.
A-4

A.2 COL Action Items

COL Action Items: The combined license (COL) action items set forth in the SER and incorporated herein identify certain matters

that shall be addressed in the final safety analysis report (FSAR) by an applicant who submits an application referencing the

North Anna ESP. These items constitute information requirements but do not form the only acceptable set of information in the

FSAR. An applicant may depart from or omit these items, provided that the departure or omission is identified and justified in the

FSAR. In addition, these items do not relieve an applicant from any requirement in 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 that govern the

application. After issuance of a construction permit (CP) or COL, these items are not controlled by NRC requirements unless such

items are restated in the preliminary safety analysis report or FSAR, respectively.

The staff identified the following COL action items with respect to individual site characteristics in order to ensure that particular

significant issues are tracked and considered during the review of a later application referencing any ESP that might be issued for

the North Anna ESP site. 

Action

Item No.

SER

Section Subject To Be Addressed Reason for Deferral

2.1 - Introduction

2.1-1 2.1.1 A COL or CP applicant should provide latitude, longitude, and Universal

Transverse Mercator coordinates for new units.

Exact unit locations not known at ESP

stage.

2.1-2 2.1.2 A COL or CP applicant should make arrangements with the appropriate

local, State, Federal, or other public agencies to provide for control of the

portions of Lake Anna and the WHTF that are within the exclusion area.

Such arrangements not required at

ESP stage.

2.2 - Nearby Industrial, Transportation, and Military Facilities

2.2-1 2.2.2 A COL or CP applicant should perform an evaluation of industrial hazards,

if any, associated with this site.

No hazard present, but zoning could

allow them during ESP term.

2.2-2 2.2.3 A COL or CP applicant should assess design-specific interactions

between the existing and new units and, if necessary, propose measures

to account for such interactions..

New unit design and specific location

not known at ESP stage
Action

Item No.

SER

Section Subject To Be Addressed Reason for Deferral

A-5

2.3 - Meteorology

2.3-1 2.3.2 A COL or CP applicant should consider as part of detailed

engineering the potential impact on the design or operation of the

proposed unit(s) of any cooling-tower-induced local increase in (1)

ambient air temperature, (2) ambient air moisture content, or (3)

moisture and salt deposition.

Cooling tower location and design not

known at ESP stage.

2.3-2 2.3.4 A COL or CP applicant should assess dispersion of airborne radioactive

materials to the control room.

Control room location and design not

known at ESP stage.

2.3-3 2.3.5 A COL or CP application should verify specific release point

characteristics and specific locations of receptors of interest used to

generate the long-term (routine release) atmospheric dispersion site

characteristics.

Exact release points and receptor

locations not known at ESP stage.

2.4 - Hydrology

2.4-1 2.4.1 A COL or CP application should provide the NRC for review the layout of

intake and discharge tunnels and the construction techniques to be used

before commencement of construction activities.

The feasibility of the use of the existing

discharge tunnel from the abandoned

units is not known at the ESP stage. 

2.4-2 2.4.1 A COL or CP applicant should develop a plant shutdown protocol for

proposed Unit 3 when water surface elevation in Lake Anna falls to 242 ft

MSL

Future uses and therefore low-level

frequency not known at ESP stage.

W ater surface elevation of 73.8 m

(242 ft) MSL is the applicant-proposed

shutdown level for the new units.

2.4-3 2.4.1 W ithdrawn W ithdrawn

2.4-4 2.4.2 A COL or CP applicant should show that the ESP site is graded such that

any flooding caused by local intense precipitation will be discharged to

Lake Anna even in the event that any and all active drainage systems may

be blocked and unable to function. 

Detailed design of the plants, including

the site grade are beyond the scope of

an ESP review.
Action

Item No.

SER

Section Subject To Be Addressed Reason for Deferral

A-6

2.4-5 2.4.2 A COL or CP applicant should show that all safety-related structures are

located at elevations above the maximum water surface elevation

produced by local intense precipitation, or that adequate flood protection

measures are in place to ensure their safety. 

Certain locations within the ESP site

area can be at the flood elevation of the

site in response to local intense

precipitation. It is not feasible to

determine flooding protection needs at

the ESP stage in response to local

intense precipitation because final site

grade and drainage patterns are not yet

known. 

2.4-6 2.4.4 A COL or CP applicant should demonstrate that the UHS reservoirs are

designed so as to satisfy the NRC’s regulations.

Detailed engineering design of

underground UHS reservoirs, should

they be needed, to preclude uplift due

to buoyancy is not within the scope of

ESP review.

2.4-7 2.4.4 A COL or CP applicant should demonstrate that the UHS storage basins

provide storage sufficient to meet 30-day emergency cooling water needs

accounting for any and all losses including but not limited to seepage,

evaporation, and icing for the selected plants, if the selected plant designs

includes a UHS. Programmatic provisions should be provided for plant

shutdown when the liquid water volume in the UHS storage basin is

inadequate. 

Detailed engineering design of

underground UHS reservoirs, should

they be needed, to ensure adequate

capacity is not within the scope of ESP

review.

2.4-8 2.4.8 A COL or CP applicant should address whether Lake Anna or the W HTF

will be used for safety-related water withdrawals. 

The ESP water budget analysis relies

on independent UHS reservoirs only,

but need for a UHS is not known at the

ESP stage.

2.4-9 2.4.10 A COL or CP applicant should adequately address the issue of slope

embankment protection during design of the intake structure. 

Safety of intake structure from slope

embankment failure is a part of intake

structure design, which is beyond the

scope of an ESP review.
Action

Item No.

SER

Section Subject To Be Addressed Reason for Deferral

A-7

2.4-10 2.4.11 A COL or CP applicant should identify the most restrictive cooling water

needs to account for the frequency of low-flow conditions and related

minimum water elevation in Lake Anna and propose corresponding

actions. 

Technical specifications for safe

shutdown of the plant due to low water

conditions are based on consideration

of the details of the design of the

normal cooling water heat sink that are

not available at the ESP stage.

2.5 - Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering

2.5-1 2.5.1 A COL or CP applicant should perform additional borings to identify any

weathered or fractured rock beneath the new foundations.

Exact unit locations not known at ESP

stage.

2.5-2 2.5.4 A COL or CP applicant should submit plot plans and the profiles of all

seismic Category I facilities for comparison with the subsurface profile and

material properties.

Exact unit locations and design not

known at ESP stage.

2.5-3 2.5.4 An ESP holder and/or a COL or CP applicant should submit excavation

and backfill plans for NRC review.

Exact unit locations and design not

known at ESP stage.

2.5-4 2.5.4 A COL or CP applicant should assess groundwater conditions as they

affect foundation stability or detailed dewatering plans.

Exact unit locations and design not

known at ESP stage.

2.5-5 2.5.4 A COL or CP applicant should perform additional soil column amplification

/attenuation analyses.

Exact unit locations not known at ESP

stage.

2.5-6 2.5.4 A COL or CP applicant should provide analysis of the stability of all

planned safety-related facilities, including bearing capacity, rebound,

settlement, and differential settlements under deadloads of fills and plant

facilities, as well as lateral loading conditions.

Exact unit locations and design not

known at ESP stage.

2.5-7 2.5.4 A COL or CP applicant should provide design-related criteria pertinent to

structural design.

Exact unit locations and design not

known at ESP stage.
Action

Item No.

SER

Section Subject To Be Addressed Reason for Deferral

A-8

2.5-8 2.5.4 A COL or CP applicant should provide specific plans for each proposed

ground improvements technique it plans to employ so that the staff may

determine whether the chosen techniques will ensure that Zone IIA

saprolitic soils will be able to support safety-related foundations.

Exact unit locations and design not

known at ESP stage.

2.5-9 2.5-4 A COL or CP applicant should determine the average shear-wave velocity

of the material underlying the foundation for the reactor containment and

verify that it is equal to or exceeds that of the chosen design.

Site average shear-wave velocity of the

Zone III-IV bedrock slightly less than

design value provided at ESP stage.

2.5-10 2.5.5 A COL or CP applicant should conduct a more detailed dynamic analysis

of the stability of the existing slope and any new slopes using the safeshutdown earthquake (SSE) ground motion. 

Locations of safety-related structures

relative to the existing or new slopes

not known at ESP stage.

2.5-11 2.5.5 A COL or CP applicant should provide plot plans and cross

sections/profiles of all safety-related slopes, and specify the measures

that it will take to ensure the safety of slopes and any structures located

adjacent to the slopes.

Locations of safety-related structures

relative to the existing or new slopes

not known at ESP stage.

11.1 - Radiological Effluent Release Dose Consequences from Normal Operations

11.1-1 11.1.4 A COL or CP applicant should verify that the calculated gaseous and

liquid effluent concentrations and radiological doses to members of the

public from radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents for any facility to be

built on the North Anna site are bounded by the radiological doses and

gaseous and liquid effluent concentrations included in the ESP application

and reviewed by the NRC. The COL applicant should also include in the

radwaste (gaseous and liquid effluents) system all items of reasonably

demonstrated technology that affect reductions in population dose to

maintain doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) in accordance

with 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, II.D.

Specific details of how the new facility

will control, monitor, and maintain

radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents

not known at ESP stage.
A-9

13.6 - Industrial Security

13.6-1 13.6 A COL or CP applicant should provide specific designs for protected area

barriers.

Exact locations and design of barriers

not known at ESP stage.
A-10

A.3 Site Characteristics

Site Characteristics: Based on site investigation, exploration, analysis and testing, the applicant initially proposes a set of site

characteristics. These site characteristics are specific physical attributes of the site, whether natural or man-made. Site

characteristics, if reviewed and approved by the staff, are specified in the ESP. The staff proposes to include the following site

characteristics in any ESP that might be issued for the North Anna site. 

Site Characteristic Value Definition

2.1 - Introduction

Exclusion Area Boundary The perimeter of a 5000 ft radius

circle from the center of the

abandoned Unit 3 containment

The area surrounding the reactor, in

which the reactor licensee has the

authority to determine all activities

including exclusion or removal of

personnel and property from the area

Low Population Zone 6 mile radius circle centered at the

Unit 1 containment building

The area immediately surrounding the

exclusion area which contains

residents

Population Center Distance 8 miles The minimum allowable distance from

the reactor to the nearest boundary of

a densely populated center containing

more than about 25,000 residents
Site Characteristic Value Definition

A-11

2.3 - Meteorology

Ambient Air Temperature and Humidity

Maximum Dry-Bulb

Temperature

2% annual exceedance 90 °F with 75 °F concurrent wetbulbThe ambient dry-bulb temperature

(and coincident wet-bulb temperature)

that will be exceeded 2 percent of the

time annually

0.4% annual

exceedance

95 °F with 77 °F concurrent wetbulbThe ambient dry-bulb temperature

(and coincident wet-bulb temperature)

that will be exceeded 0.4 percent of

the time annually

100-year return period 109 °F The ambient dry-bulb temperature that

has a 1 percent annual probability of

being exceeded (100-year mean

recurrence interval)

Minimum Dry-Bulb

Temperature

99% annual

exceedance

18 °F The ambient dry-bulb temperature

below which dry-bulb temperatures will

fall 1 percent of the time annually

99.6% annual

exceedance

14 °F The ambient dry-bulb temperature

below which dry-bulb temperature will

fall 0.4 percentof the time annually

100-year return period -19 °F The ambient dry-bulb temperature for

which a 1 percent annual probability of

a lower dry-bulb temperature exists

(100-year mean recurrence interval)
Site Characteristic Value Definition

A-12

Maximum Wet-Bulb

Temperature

0.4% annual

exceedance

79 °F The ambient wet-bulb temperature that

will be exceeded 0.4 percent of the

time annually

100-year return period 88 °F The ambient wet-bulb temperature that

has a 1 percent annual probability of

being exceeded (100-year mean

recurrence interval)

Basic Wind Speed

3-s Gust 96 mi/hr The 3-s gust wind speed at 33 ft above

the ground that has a 1 percent annual

probability of being exceeded

(100-year mean recurrence interval)

Design-Basis Tornado

Maximum Wind Speed 260 mi/hr Maximum wind speed resulting from

passage of a tornado having a

probability of occurrence of 10-7

per year

Translational Speed 52 mi/hr Translation component of the

maximum tornado wind speed 

Rotational Speed 208 mi/hr Rotation component of the maximum

tornado wind speed

Radius of Maximum Rotational Speed 150 ft Distance from the center of the

tornado at which the maximum

rotational wind speed occurs
Site Characteristic Value Definition

A-13

Maximum Pressure Drop 1.5 Ibf/in2 Decrease in ambient pressure from

normal atmospheric pressure resulting

from passage of the tornado

Maximum Rate of Pressure Drop 0.76 Ibf/in2/s Rate of pressure drop resulting from

the passage of the tornado

Winter Precipitation

100-Year Snowpack 30.5 Ibf/ft2 Weight of the 100-year return period

snowpack (to be used in determining

extreme winter precipitation loads for

roofs)

48-Hour Probable Maximum Winter Precipitation 20.75 in. of water Probable maximum precipitation during

the winter months (to be used in

conjunction with the 100-year

snowpack in determining extreme

winter precipitation loads for roofs)

Ultimate Heat Sink Ambient Air Temperature and Humidity

Meteorological Conditions Resulting in the

Minimum Water Cooling During Any 1 Day 

78.9 °F wet-bulb temperature with

coincident 87.7 °F dry-bulb 

temperature

Historic worst 1-day daily average of

wet-bulb temperatures and coincident

dry-bulb temperatures

Meotorological Conditions Resulting in the

Minimum Water Cooling During Any Consecutive 5

days 

77.6 °F wet-bulb temperature with

coincident 80.9 °F dry-bulb

temperature

Historic worst 5-day daily average of

wet-bulb temperatures and coincident

dry-bulb temperatures resulting in

minimum water cooling

Meteorological Conditions Resulting in the

Maximum Evaporation and Drift Loss During Any

Consecutive 30 Days 

76.3 °F wet-bulb temperature with

coincident 79.5 °F dry-bulb

temperature

Historic worst 30-day daily average of

wet-bulb temperatures and coincident

dry-bulb temperatures
Site Characteristic Value Definition

A-14

Meteorological Conditions Resulting in the

Maximum Water Freezing in the UHS Water

Storage Facility

322 °F degree-days below freezing Historic maximum cumulative degreedays below freezing

Short-Term (Accident Release) Atmospheric Dispersion

0–2 hr ÷/Q Value @ EAB 2.26 × 10 s/m3 The 0–2 hour atmospheric dispersion -4

factor to be used to estimate dose

consequences of accidental airborne

releases at the EAB

0–8 hr ÷/Q Value @ LPZ 2.05 × 10 s/m3 The 0–8 hour atmospheric dispersion -5

factor to be used to estimate dose

consequences of accidental airborne

releases at the LPZ

8–24 hr ÷/Q Value @ LPZ 1.36 × 10 s/m3 The 8–24 hour atmospheric dispersion

-5

factor to be used to estimate dose

consequences of accidental airborne

releases at the LPZ

1–4 day ÷/Q Value @ LPZ 5.58 × 10 s/m3 The 1–4 day atmospheric dispersion

-6

factor to be used to estimate dose

consequences of accidental airborne

releases at the LPZ
Site Characteristic Value Definition

A-15

Long-Term (Routine Release) Atmospheric Dispersion

Annual Average Undepleted/No Decay ÷/Q Value

@ EAB, east-southeast, 0.88 mile

3.7 x 10 s/m3 The maximum annual average EAB -6

undepleted/no decay ÷/Q value for use

in determining gaseous pathway doses

to the maximally exposed individual

Annual Average Undepleted/2.26 Day Decay ÷/Q

Value @ EAB, east-southeast, 0.88 mile

3.7 x 10 s/m3 The maximum annual average EAB -6

undepleted/2.26 day decay ÷/Q value

for use in determining gaseous

pathway doses to the maximally

exposed individual

Annual Average

Depleted/8.00 Day Decay ÷/Q Value @ EAB, eastsoutheast, 0.88 mile

3.3 x 10 s/m3 The maximum annual average EAB -6

depleted/8.00 day decay ÷/Q value for

use in determining gaseous pathway

doses to the maximally exposed

individual

Annual Average

D/Q Value @ EAB, east-southeast, 0.88 mile

1.2 x 10 1/m2 The maximum annual average EAB -8

D/Q value for use in determining

gaseous pathway doses to the

maximally exposed individual

Annual Average

Undepleted/No Decay ÷/Q Value @ Nearest

Resident, north-northeast, 0.96 mile

2.4 x 10 s/m3 The maximum annual average resident

-6

undepleted/no decay ÷/Q value for use

in determining gaseous pathway doses

to the maximally exposed individual
Site Characteristic Value Definition

A-16

Annual Average Undepleted/2.26 Day Decay ÷/Q

Value @ Nearest Resident, north-northeast, 0.96

mile 

2.4 x 10 s/m3 The maximum annual average resident

-6

undepleted/2.26 day decay ÷/Q value

for use in determining gaseous

pathway doses to the maximally

exposed individual

Annual Average Depleted/8.00 Day Decay

÷/Q Value @ Nearest

Resident, north-northeast, 0.96 mile

2.1 x 10 s/m3 The maximum annual average resident

-6

depleted/8.00 day decay ÷/Q value for

use in determining gaseous pathway

doses to the maximally exposed

individual

Annual Average

D/Q Value @ Nearest

Resident, north-northeast, 0.96 mile

7.2 x 10 1/m2 The maximum annual average resident

-9

D/Q value for use in determining

gaseous pathway doses to the

maximally exposed individual

Annual Average

Undepleted/No Decay

÷/Q Value @ Nearest Meat

Animal, southeast, 1.37 mile

1.4 x 10 s/m3 The maximum annual average meat -6

animal undepleted/no decay ÷/Q value

for use in determining gaseous

pathway doses to the maximally

exposed individual

Annual Average Undepleted/2.26 Day Decay

÷/Q Value @ Nearest Meat Animal, southeast,

1.37 mile

1.4 x 10 s/m3 The maximum annual average meat -6

animal undepleted/2.26 day decay ÷/Q

value for use in determining gaseous

pathway doses to the maximally

exposed individual
Site Characteristic Value Definition

A-17

Annual Average

Depleted/8.00 Day Decay

÷/Q Value @ NearestMeat Animal, southeast,

1.37 mile

1.2 x 10 s/m3 The maximum annual average meat -6

animal depleted/8.00 day decay ÷/Q

value for use in determining gaseous

pathway doses to the maximally

exposed individual

Annual Average

D/Q Value @ Nearest Meat Animal, southeast,

1.37 mile

3.1 x 10 1/m2 The maximum annual average meat -9

animal D/Q value for use in

determining gaseous pathway doses to

the maximally exposed individual

Annual Average

Undepleted/No Decay ÷/Q Value @ Nearest Veg.

Garden, northeast, 0.94 mile

2.0 x 10 s/m3 The maximum annual average -6

vegetable garden undepleted/no decay

÷/Q value for use in determining

gaseous pathway doses to the

maximally exposed individual

Annual Average

Undepleted/2.26 Day Decay ÷/Q Value @ Nearest

Veg. Garden, northeast, 0.94 mile

2.0 x 10 s/m3 The maximum annual average -6

vegetable garden undepleted/2.26 day

decay ÷/Q value for use in determining

gaseous pathway doses to the

maximally exposed individual

Annual Average

Depleted/8.00 Day Decay

÷/Q Value @ Nearest Veg. Garden, northeast,

0.94 mile

1.8 x 10 s/m3 The maximum annual average -6

vegetable garden depleted/8.00 day

decay ÷/Q value for use in determining

gaseous pathway doses to the

maximally exposed individual
Site Characteristic Value Definition

A-18

Annual Average D/Q Value @ Nearest Veg.

Garden, northeast, 0.94 mile

6.0 x 10 1/m2 The maximum annual average -9

vegetable garden D/Q value for use in

determining gaseous pathway doses to

the maximally exposed individual

Annual Average Undepleted/No Decay X/Q Value;

Annual Average Undepleted/2.26 Day Decay X/Q

Value; and Annual Average Depleted/8.00 Day

Decay X/Q Value @ Nearest Cow-Milk.

Annual Average D/Q Value @ Nearest Cow-Milk.

No value provided

No value provided

The milk exposure pathway was not

considered because there are no

reported cows or goats used for milk

production in the near vicinity of the

site, within 5 miles. See discussion in

ER Section 5.4. 

Same as above.

2.4 - Hydrology

Hydrology

Proposed Facility Boundaries Appendix A, Figure 1 (FSER

Figure 2.4.14-1) shows the

proposed facility boundary using

its corners numbered 1-8 and also

lists the geographical coordinates

of these points in Virginia State

Plane Coordinate System using

NAD 83 Datum. The coordinates

are expressed in feet.

ESP site boundary map

Minimum Lake Water Level 242 ft MSL Low water surface shutdown elevation

for operation of NAPS Units 1 and 2,

and of proposed Unit 3
Site Characteristic Value Definition

A-19

Maximum Elevation of Ground Water 82.3 m (270 ft) MSL or 1 ft below

the free surface, whichever is

higher

The maximum elevation of ground

water at the ESP site

Flood Elevation 82.3 m (270 ft) MSL Maximum flood level at the ESP site

due to a PMF in Lake Anna’s

watershed, simultaneous failure of

upstream storage reservoirs, and

coincident wind-wave action.

Local Intense Precipitation 46.61 cm (18.35 in)/hour and

15.42 cm (6.07 in) in 5 minutes

Maximum potential rainfall at the

immediate ESP site.

Frazil and Anchor Ice The ESP site has the potential for

formation of frazil and anchor ice.

Accumulated ice formation in a

turbulent flow condition.

Maximum Ice Thickness 43.4 cm (17.1 in) thick Ice sheet thickness at Lake Anna

(based on maximum cumulative

degree-days below freezing of

178.8 EC (321.8 EF))

Maximum Cumulative Degree-Days Below

Freezing

178.8 EC (321.8 EF) A measure of severity of winter

weather conditions conducive to ice

formation (computed using air

temperature data from Piedmont

Research Station)

Hydraulic Conductivity 1.0 m/d (3.4 ft/d) Ground water flow rate per unit

hydraulic gradient.
Site Characteristic Value Definition

A-20

Hydraulic Gradient 0.03 m/m (0.1 ft/ft) Slope of ground water surface under

unconfined conditions or slope of

hydraulic pressure head under

confined conditions.
Site Characteristic Value Definition

A-21

2.5 - Geology, Seismology, and Geotechnical Engineering

Basic Geologic and Seismic Information

Capable Tectonic Structures ------ No fault displacement potential within

the investigative area

Vibratory Ground Motion

Design Response Spectra Appendix A, Figure 2

(FSER Figure 2.5.2-6)

Site Specific response spectra

Stability of Subsurface Materials and Foundations

Zone III W eathered Rock

(205ft - 298ft)

Minimum Bearing

Capacity

16 ksf Allowable load-bearing capacity of layer

supporting plant structures

Minimum Shear W ave

Velocity 2000 ft/sec

Propagation of shear waves through

foundation materials

Zone III - IV Minimum Bearing

Capacity

80 ksf Allowable load-bearing capacity of layer

supporting plant structures

Minimum Shear W ave

Velocity

3300 ft/sec Propagation of shear waves through

foundation materials

Zone IV Bedrock

(188ft - 298ft)

Minimum Bearing

Capacity

160 ksf Allowable load-bearing capacity of layer

supporting plant structures

Minimum Shear W ave

Velocity

6300 ft/sec Propagation of shear waves through

foundation materials
A-22

A.4 Bounding Parameters

Plant Parameter Envelope: A plant parameter envelope (PPE) sets forth postulated values of design parameters that provide design

details to support the NRC staff’s review of an ESP application. A controlling PPE value, or bounding parameter value, is one that

necessarily depends on a site characteristic. As the PPE is intended to bound multiple reactor designs, the actual design selected in

a combined license (COL) or construction permit (CP) application referencing an ESP would be reviewed to ensure that the design

fits within the bounding parameter values. Otherwise, the COL or CP applicant would need to demonstrate that the design, given

the site characteristics in the ESP, complies with the Commission’s regulations. Should an applicant reference an ESP for a design

that is not certified, the applicant would need to demonstrate that the design’s characteristics fall within the bounding parameter

values.

Bounding Parameters Value Definition

2.4 - Hydrology

Maximum Cooling W ater Flow Rate - Unit 3 49.6 cfs Maximum instantaneous withdrawal rate

from the North Anna reservoir.

Minimum Site Grade 82.6 m (271 ft) MSL Finished site grade
A-23

Figure 1 (Figure 2.4.14-1) The proposed facility boundary for the ESP site
A-24

Figure 2 (Figure 2.5.2-6 (SSAR Figure 2.5-48A)) Selected Horizontal and Vertical Response Spectra for the Hypothetical Rock Outcrop

Control Point SSE at the Top of Zone III-IV Material
Revision 0 and Revision 1 of the application are contained in the same ADAMS *

package. Revision 1 of the application provides changes to Revision 0 to remove proprietary

information from the application.

B-1

APPENDIX B

CHRONOLOGY OF EARLY SITE PERMIT APPLICATION

FOR THE NORTH ANNA SITE

This appendix contains a chronological listing of routine licensing correspondence between the

staff of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) and Dominion Nuclear regarding the

review of the North Anna early site permit application under Project No. 719 and

Docket No. 52-008.

Revisions to the North Anna Early Site Permit Application

Rev. Date Accession Number

0 September 25, 2003 ML032731517

1 October 2, 2003 ML032731517

*

2 July 15, 2004 ML042010010

3 September 7, 2004 ML042590082

4 May 12, 2005 ML051450310

5 July 31, 2005 ML052150226

6 April 13, 2006 ML061180220

 7 June 21, 2006 ML061870043

 8 July 31, 2006 ML062140009

 9 September 12, 2006 ML062580096
B-2

Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

10/06/2005 ML052800406 2005/10/06-Email dated 10/6/2005

from Dominion to NRC, transmitting

response requests for additional

information submitted by NRC July

20, 2005.

8 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC 05200008 

10/06/2005 ML052790657 2005/10/06-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application Response to

Supplemental Request for Additional

Information.

6 Page(s)

Letter Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/Docume

nt Control

Desk

05200008 

10/24/2005 ML052980117 North Anna Early Site Permit

Application Planned Revision to Unit

3 Cooling Water Approach.

4 Page(s)

Letter Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/Docume

nt Control

Desk

05200008 

10/26/2005 ML053330014 2005/10/26-Email dated 10/26/2005

from Tony Banks, Dominion, to NRC

Regarding the North Anna ESP

Letter to VDEQ with Updated

Cooling System Approach.

5 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC 05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-3

11/02/2005 ML053000566 Modification of the Cooling System

for Dominion Nuclear North Anna

ESP Site.

7 Page(s)

Letter NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL

Dominion

Resources

Services, Inc

05200008 

11/17/2005 ML053330016 2005/11/17-E-mail dated 11/17/2005

between Tony Banks, Dominion to

NRC regarding Dominions North

Anna Site ESP Wetlands Letter to

Army Corps of Engineers.

14 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC 05200008 

11/22/2005 ML053260619 North Anna Early Site Permit (ESP),

Application Submittal Schedule for

ESP Application.

4 Page(s)

Letter Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/Docume

nt Control

Desk

05200008 

11/22/2005 ML053330013 2005/11/22-Email dated 11/22/2005

from Margaret Bennett, Dominion, to

NRC submitting North Anna

application submittal schedule for

ESP application supplement.

6 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC 05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-4

12/05/2005 ML053210054 Revision to the North Anna Early

Site Permit (ESP) Issuance

Schedule.

6 Page(s)

Letter NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL

Dominion

Resources

Services, Inc,

Innsbrook

Technical Ctr

05200008 

12/12/2005 ML053540012 2005/12/12-Summary of Telephone

Conference with Dominion Nuclear

North Anna, LLC to Discuss Revising

the Early Site Permit (ESP)

Application.

7 Page(s)

Meeting

Summary

NRC/NRR/ADRO

/DLR/REBA

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

05200008 

01/13/2006 ML060200120 2006/01/13-E-Mail re: North Anna

ESP Supplement.

329 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NR

BA

05200008 

01/13/2006 ML060250396 2006/01/13-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application Supplement to

Address a Modified Approach to Unit

3 Cooling and to Ensure the Plant

Parameter Envelope Remains

Bounding.

327 Page(s)

Letter, Report,

Miscellaneous

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/Docume

nt Control

Desk

05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-5

02/10/2006 ML060390208 2006/02/10-North Anna ESP

Application Review Schedule.

10 Page(s)

Letter,

Request for

Additional

Information

(RAI)

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NRBA

Dominion

Resources,

Inc

05200008 

02/15/2006 ML060620148 2006/02/15-E-Mail re: Telecon Draft

Talking Points.

14 Page(s)

E-Mail NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NRBA

Dominion

Generation

05200008 

03/02/2006 ML060610065 2006/03/02-North Anna, Request for

Additional Information, Results of

Review of the Supplement to the

ESP Application for the North Anna

Site.

16 Page(s)

Letter,

Request for

Additional

Information

(RAI)

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NRBA

Dominion

Resources

Services, Inc

05200008 

03/02/2006 ML060790469 2006/03/02-E-Mail re: Dominion

Participants on Recent Phone Calls.

3 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NR

BA

05200008 

03/08/2006 ML060790473 2006/03/08-E-Mail re: Attendees for

Friday Meeting at NRC.

2 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NR

BA

05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-6

03/10/2006 ML060860087 2006/03/10-Attachment 4 - North

Anna ESP Application 3/10/06

Dominion/NRC Meeting, Docket No.

52-008 - Meeting Handout.

24 Page(s)

Meeting

Briefing

Package/Hand

outs

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NRBA

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

05200008 

03/10/2006 ML060860363 2006/03/10-Attachment 5 - NRC

3/2/06 Additional Information Needs

and Discussion.

18 Page(s)

Meeting

Briefing

Package/Hand

outs

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NRBA

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

05200008 

03/13/2006 ML060650396 2006/03/13-North Anna, Request for

Additional Information, ESP

Application for the North Anna Site.

5 Page(s)

Letter,

Request for

Additional

Information

(RAI)

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL

Dominion

Resources

Services, Inc

05200008 

03/16/2006 ML060810259 2006/03/16-E-Mail re: Fwd: Draft

Meeting Summary.

30 Page(s)

E-Mail,

Meeting

Summary

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NRBA

Dominion

Generation

05200008 

03/20/2006 ML060900316 2006/03/20-E-Mail re: Re: Fwd: Draft

Meeting Summary.

2 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NR

BA

05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-7

03/22/2006 ML060900297 2006/03/22-E-Mail re: North Anna

Early Site Permit Application - March

10 Meeting Documents.

46 Page(s)

E-Mail, Slides

and

Viewgraphs

Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NR

BA

05200008 

03/23/2006 ML060900311 2006/03/23-E-Mail re: Invitation -

NRC/GE Call on MACCS2 Inputs

(Mar 23 04:00 PM EST in 2-SW-A).

3 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NR

BA

05200008 

03/24/2006 ML060900312 2006/03/24-E-Mail re: One More

Comment.

2 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NR

BA

05200008 

04/01/2006 ML060950586 2006/04/01-E-Mail re: Re: Fwd: Draft

Meeting Summary.

2 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NR

BA

05200008 

04/03/2006 ML061040608 2006/04/03-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application, Response to

NRC Question 10.q - Water Budget

Analysis Spreadsheets.

4 Page(s)

Letter Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/Docume

nt Control

Desk

05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-8

04/03/2006 ML061040611 2006/04/03-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application, Revised Cooling

Analysis #24830-G-042, Attachment

2.

5 Page(s)

Spreadsheet

File

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/Docume

nt Control

Desk

05200008 

04/03/2006 ML061040612 2006/04/03-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application, Revised Cooling

Analysis #24830-G-042, Attachment

3.

5 Page(s)

Spreadsheet

File

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/Docume

nt Control

Desk

05200008 

04/05/2006 ML060960290 2006/04/05-E-Mail re: Fwd: 06-198

NRC Question 10.g - Water Budget

Analysis Spreadsheets.

7 Page(s)

E-Mail, Letter Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR,

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NR

BA

05200008 

04/05/2006 ML061670032 2006/04/05-Dominion North Anna

Early Site Permit Application NRC

Question 10.g - Water Budget

Analysis Spreadsheets.

7 Page(s)

E-Mail,

Environmental

Impact

Statement

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC 05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-9

04/11/2006 ML060860307 2006/04/11- 03/10/2006-ummary of

Category 1 Meeting w/ Dominion

Nuclear North Anna, LLC, Regarding

the Supplement to the North Anna

ESP Application.

8 Page(s)

Meeting

Summary

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NRBA

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

05200008 

04/13/2006 ML061290145 2006/04/13-E-Mail re: North Anna

ESP Application, Revision 6.

94 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NR

BA

05200008 

04/13/2006 ML061040523 Email from J. Hegner Forwarding

Cover Letter to Revision 6 to the

North Anna ESP Application.

94 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC 05200008 

04/13/2006 ML061210194 04/13/2006-E-Mail re: North Anna

ESP Application, Revision 6.

94 Page(s)

E-Mail, Letter Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL

05200008 

04/13/2006 ML061180220 2006/04/13-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application Response to NRC

Questions and Revision 6 to the

Plant Application.

92 Page(s)

Letter, Report,

Miscellaneous

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/Docume

nt Control

Desk

05200008,

PROJ0719 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-10

04/30/2006 ML061180194 2006/04/30-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application Revision 6, Cover

through Page 2.5.4A-66.

532 Page(s)

Report,

Miscellaneous

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC 05200008,

PROJ0719 

04/30/2006 ML061180218 2006/04/30-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application - Part 3 -

Environmental Report Page 3-3-1

through Part 4 Page 4-1-9.

560 Page(s)

Environmental

Report

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC 05200008,

PROJ0719 

04/30/2006 ML061180206 2006/04/30-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application - Figure 2.5-46

through Table 1, Appendix B.

155 Page(s)

Quality

Assurance

Program,

Report,

Miscellaneous,

Updated Final

Safety

Analysis

Report

(UFSAR)

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC 05200008,

PROJ0719 

04/30/2006 ML061180210 2006/04/30-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application - Part 3 -

Environmental Report Table of

Contents through Figure 2.4-6.

110 Page(s)

Environmental

Report

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC 05200008,

PROJ0719 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-11

04/30/2006 ML061180214 2006/04/30-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application - Part 3 -

Environmental Report Page 3-2-94

through Page 3-2-263.

170 Page(s)

Environmental

Report

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC 05200008,

PROJ0719 

04/30/2006 ML061180205 2006/04/30-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application - Figure 2.5-15

through Figure 2.5-45.

32 Page(s)

Map, Report,

Miscellaneous

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC 05200008,

PROJ0719 

04/30/2006 ML061180203 2006/04/30-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application - Page 2-2-329

through Figure 2.5-14.

97 Page(s)

Report,

Miscellaneous

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC 05200008,

PROJ0719 

05/01/2006 ML061460201 2006/05/01-E-Mail re: Fwd: Site

Tour/Audit.

4 Page(s)

E-Mail NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NRBA

Dominion

Generation

05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-12

05/02/2006 ML061240029 2006/05/02-Transmittal Letter -

Notice of Intent to Prepare a

Supplement to the Draft

Environmental Impact Statement for

an Early Site Permit (ESP) At the

North Anna ESP Site (TAC No.

MC1128).

13 Page(s)

Letter NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL

Dominion

Resources

Services, Inc

05200008 

05/04/2006 ML061230005 2006/05/04-North Anna ESP

Application Review Schedule.

7 Page(s)

Letter NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL

Dominion

Resources

Services, Inc

05200008 

05/05/2006 ML061460205 2006/05/05-E-Mail re: Re: Telecon

5/01/2006.

2 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NR

BA

05200008 

05/05/2006 ML061460206 2006/05/05-E-Mail re: North Anna

ESP Application Revision 6 Review

Schedule Letter dated 5/04/2006.

10 Page(s)

E-Mail NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NRBA

Dominion, US

Dept of

Energy (DOE)

05200008 

05/10/2006 ML061460212 2006/05/10- E-Mail re: North Anna

ESP Rev. 06 RAI Letter dated

5/10/2006.

11 Page(s)

E-Mail NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NRBA

Dominion

Generation

05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-13

05/10/2006 ML061290142 2006/05/10-Request For Additional

Information (RAI) Regarding

Revision 6 of the ESP Application for

the North Anna Site.

9 Page(s)

Letter,

Request for

Additional

Information

(RAI)

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL

Dominion

Resources

Services, Inc,

Innsbrook

Technical Ctr

05200008 

05/12/2006 ML061320447 2006/05/12- 05/03-04/2006

Summary of Site Audit to Support

Review of Early Site Permit

Application for the North Anna Site.

11 Page(s)

Meeting

Summary

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

05200008 

05/17/2006 ML061310198 2006/05/17- 05/01/2006 Summary of

Telephone Conference With

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC,

Regarding North Anna ESP Review.

7 Page(s)

Note to File

incl Telcon

Record,

Verbal Comm

NRC/NRR/ADRO

/DLR/REBA

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

05200008 

05/24/2006 ML061510131 2006/05/24-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application, Response to

NRC May 10, 2006 Request for

Additional Information May 12, 2006

Site Audit Summary Report

Comments, and NRC Site Audit

Follow-up Questions.

66 Page(s)

Letter Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/Docume

nt Control

Desk

05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-14

05/24/2006 ML061670026 2006/05/24-Dominion North Anna

Early Site Permit Application

Response to NRC May 10, 2006

Request for Additional Information,

May 12, 2006 Site Audit Summary

Report Comments and NRC Site

Audit follow-up Questions.

70 Page(s)

E-Mail, Letter Dominion

Generation

Battelle

Memorial

Institute,

Pacific

Northwest

National Lab,

NRC

05200008 

05/24/2006 ML061580522 2006/05/24-E-Mail re: Dominion May

24, 2006 Response to NRC RAIs re

North Anna ESP Application.

69 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

Battelle

Memorial

Institute,

Pacific

Northwest

National Lab,

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NR

BA

05200008 

05/30/2006 ML061530400 2006/05/30-Comment (12) submitted

by Dominion Nuclear North Anna,

LLC, Eugene S. Grecheck on

Proposed Rules PR-1, 2, 10, 19, 20,

21, 25, 26, 50, 51, 52, 54, 55,

72,73,75,95, 140, 170 and 171 re

Licenses, Certifications, and

Approvals for Nuclear Plants.

23 Page(s)

RulemakingCommentDominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/SECY/R

AS

05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-15

06/07/2006 ML061580174 2006/06/07-Summary of Telephone

Conferences With Dominion Nuclear

North Anna, LLC Regarding North

Anna ESP Review.

10 Page(s)

Meeting

Summary

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

05200008 

06/08/2006 ML061730363 2006/06/08-E-Mail re: References -

RAIs 4 and 6 of RAI Letter dated

5/10/2006.

2 Page(s)

E-Mail NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NRBA

Dominion

Generation

05200008 

06/08/2006 ML061670058 North Anna Early Site Permit

Responses to RAI About ESBWR

LOCA Radiological Analysis in

Reference to RAI 4 and 6 in

5/10/2006 Letter.

7 Page(s)

Calculation, EMail,

Environmental

Impact

Statement

Dominion

Generation

NRC 05200008 

06/08/2006 ML061730360 2006/06/08-E-Mail re: Telecon

Summary dated 6/7/2006-North

Anna ESP Application Revision 06.

11 Page(s)

E-Mail NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NRBA

Dominion

Generation

05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-16

06/08/2006 ML061670056 North Anna Early Site Permit

Request for Additional Information

Reference - RAIs 4 and 6 of RAI

Letter dated 05/10/2006.

5 Page(s)

E-Mail,

Environmental

Impact

Statement

Dominion

Generation

NRC 05200008 

06/08/2006 ML061670042 2006/06/08-North Anna Early Site

Permit RAIs 4 and 6 of RAI Letter

Dated 05/10/2006.

8 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC 05200008 

06/08/2006 ML061730364 2006/06/08-E-Mail re: Re:

References–RAIs 4 and 6 of RAI

Letter dated 5/10/2006.

14 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NR

BA

05200008 

06/21/2006 ML061840360 2006/06/21-E-Mail re: 06-507

Response to NRC Questions and

Revision 7 to the North Anna ESP

Application.

22 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NR

BA

05200008 

06/21/2006 ML061870043 2006/06/21-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application, Response to

NRC Questions and Revision 7 to

the North Anna ESP Application.

18 Page(s)

Legal-Affidavit,

Letter

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/Docume

nt Control

Desk

05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-17

06/30/2006 ML061870047 2006/06/30-Transmittal of North

Anna Early Site Permit Application,

Revision 7.

2220 Page(s)

Environmental

Report, Final

Safety

Analysis

Report

(FSAR),

Letter,

LicenseApplication for

Construction

Permit DKT 50

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/Docume

nt Control

Desk,

NRC/NRR

05200008 

07/06/2006 ML061660030 2006/07/06-Ltr. - Notice of

Availability of the Supplement to the

Draft Environmental Impact

Statement for an ESP at the North

Anna ESP Site.

13 Page(s)

Letter NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

05200008 

07/18/2006 ML061990240 2006/07/18- Summary of Telephone

Conference and the Site Audit with

Dominion Nuclear North Anna LLC

Regarding the North Anna ESP

Review.

12 Page(s)

Letter,

Meeting

Summary

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-18

07/18/2006 ML062230231 07/18/2006-E-Mail re: Telecon

Summary dated 7/18/2006-North

Anna ESP Application Revision 07.

14 Page(s)

E-Mail,

Meeting

Summary

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NESB

Dominion

Resources

Services, Inc

05200008 

07/31/2006 ML062350100 07/31/2006-E-Mail re: Fw: 06-631

Response to NRC Questions and

Revision 8 to the North Anna ESP

Application (Letter and Enclosures 1

and 2 Only).

27 Page(s)

E-Mail, Letter Dominion

Generation

NRC,

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NE

SB

05200008 

07/31/2006 ML062140010 2006/07/31-North Anna Early Site

Permit Application Response to NRC

Questions and Revision 8 to North

Anna ESP Application.

25 Page(s)

Letter Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/Docume

nt Control

Desk

05200008 

08/07/2006 ML062280472 Comment (W2) of Eric Cantor, on

Behalf of the Dominion Power,

Supporting Dominion’s Early Site

Permit (ESP) Application for the

North Anna Power Station Site.

1 Page(s)

General FR

Notice

Comment

Letter

Dominion, US

Congress, US

HR (House of

Representatives)

NRC/ADM/DA

S/RDB

05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-19

08/15/2006 ML062350256 Comment (W4) of William M.

Murphey, on Behalf of Lake Anna

Civic Association, on North Anna

Early Site Permit. Listed

Recommendations Should be

Implemented.

4 Page(s)

General FR

Notice

Comment

Letter

Lake Anna Civic

Association

(LACA)

Dominion

Resources,

Inc, NRC,

State of VA,

Dept of

Environmental

Quality

05200008 

08/15/2006 ML062210405 Letter to D. Christian, Dominion re:

Supplement 1 to Final Safety

Evaluation Report for the North Anna

Early Site Permit Application.

7 Page(s)

Final Safety

Evaluation

Report

(FSER), Letter

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL

Dominion

Resources

Services, Inc,

Innsbrook

Technical Ctr

05200008 

09/06/2006 ML062560013 09/06/2006-E-Mail re: Fw: North

Anna ESP Site: Revision to

Wellands Delineation

28 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

Battelle

Memorial

Institute,

Pacific

Northwest

National Lab,

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NE

PB

05200008 

09/12/2006 ML062580099 Transmittal of Rev. 9 to North Anna

Early Site Permit Application.

11 Page(s)

Letter Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/Docume

nt Control

Desk

05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-20

09/12/2006 ML062560365 North Anna Early Site Permit

Application Comments on NUREG1811, Supplement 1 Draft

Environmental Impact Statement for

an Early Site Permit at North Anna

ESP Site.

28 Page(s)

Letter Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

NRC/Docume

nt Control

Desk

05200008 

09/12/2006 ML062650159 09/12/2006-E-Mail re: SDEIS

Comments From Dominion.

32 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NE

PB,

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NE

SB

05200008 

09/13/2006 ML062650163 09/13/2006-E-Mail re: Dominion

North Anna ESPA, Rev. 9.

3 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NE

PB,

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NE

SB

05200008 
Document

Date

Accession

Number

Title/Description

Includes Est. Page Count

Document

Type

Author

Affiliation(s)

Addressee

Affiliation(s)

Docket

Number

B-21

09/13/2006 ML062650165 09/13/2006-E-Mail re: 06-790

Revision 9 to the North Anna ESP

Application.

14 Page(s)

E-Mail Dominion

Generation

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NE

PB,

NRC/NRR/AD

RA/DNRL/NE

SB, Pacific

National Lab

05200008 

09/13/2006 ML062440233 08/15/2006–Summary of Public

Meeting Held To Receive Comments

on the Supplement to DEIS For the

North Anna ESP Application

w/Enclosure 1-List of Attendees.

12 Page(s)

Meeting

Summary

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NEPB

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

05200008 

09/13/2006 ML062440240 Enclosure 2 - Corrected DEIS

Transcript for North Anna Site.

180 Page(s)

Meeting

Transcript

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NEPB

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

05200008 

09/26/2006 ML062620039 09/06 & 08/2006 Summary of

Telephone Conference and Site

Audit with Dominion Nuclear, North

Anna, LLC Regarding the North

Anna ESP Review.

7 Page(s)

Meeting

Summary

NRC/NRR/ADRA

/DNRL/NESB

Dominion

Nuclear North

Anna, LLC

05200008 

C-1

APPENDIX C

REFERENCES

Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC

-----, October 24, 2005, Letter from Eugene S. Grecheck, Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC,

to NRC, Subject: North Anna Early Site Permit Application: Planned Revision to Unit 3 Cooling

Water Approach. (ADAMS Accession No. ML052980117)

-----, November 22, 2005, Letter from Eugene S. Grecheck, Dominion Nuclear North Anna,

LLC, to NRC, Subject: North Anna Early Site Permit Application: Submittal Schedule for ESP

Application Supplement. (ADAMS Accession No. ML053260619)

-----, January 13,2006, Letter from Eugene S. Grecheck, Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC, to

NRC, Subject: North Anna Early Site Permit Application: Supplement to Address A Modified

Approach to Unit 3 Cooling and to Ensure the Plant Parameter Envelope Remains Bounding.

(ADAMS Accession No. ML060250396)

-----, April 13, 2006, Letter from Eugene S. Grecheck, Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC, to

NRC, Subject: North Anna Early Site Permit Application: Response to NRC Questions and

Revision 6 to the North Anna ESP Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML061180220)

-----, June 21, 2006, Letter from Eugene S. Grecheck, Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC, to

NRC, Subject: North Anna Early Site Permit Application: Response to NRC Questions and

Revision 7 to the North Anna ESP Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML061870030)

-----, July 31, 2006, Letter from Eugene S. Grecheck, Dominion Nuclear North Anna, LLC, to

NRC, Subject: North Anna Early Site Permit Application: Response to NRC Questions and

Revision 8 to the North Anna ESP Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML062140009)

-----, September 12, 2006, Letter from Eugene S. Grecheck, Dominion Nuclear North Anna,

LLC, to NRC, Subject: North Anna Early Site Permit Application, Revision 9 to the North Anna

Early Site Permit Application. (ADAMS Accession No. ML062580096)

U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)

-----, TID-14844, ”Calculation of Distance Factors for Power and Test Reactor Sites,” AEC:

Washington, D.C., March 1962. (ADAMS Accession No. ML021750625)

U.S. Code of Federal Regulations

-----, Title 10, Energy, Part 20, “Standards for Protection Against Radiation.”

-----, Title 10, Energy, Part 21, “Reporting of Defects and Noncompliance.”
C-2

-----, Title 10, Energy, Part 40, “Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear

Power Operations.”

-----, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, “Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities.”

-----, Title 10, Energy, Part 52, “Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and

Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants.”

-----, Title 10, Energy, Part 100, “Reactor Site Criteria.”

-----, Title 40, Protection of Environment, Part 190, “Environmental Radiation Protection

Standards for Nuclear Power Operations.”

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)

NUREG-Series Reports

-----, NUREG-0800, Revision 3, “Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis

Reports for Nuclear Power Plants,” NRC: Washington, D.C., July 1981.

-----, NUREG-1835, “Safety Evaluation Report for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna

ESP Site,” September 2005.

-----, NUREG/CR-2858, “PAVAN: An Atmospheric Dispersion Program for Evaluating Design

Basis Accidental Releases of Radioactive Materials from Nuclear Power Stations,” NRC: 

Washington, D.C., November 1982.

-----, NUREG/CR-4013, “LADTAP II - Technical Reference and User Guide,” April 1986.

-----, NUREG/CR-4653, “GASPAR II - Technical Reference and User Guide,” March 1987.

Regulatory Guides

-----, Regulatory Guide 1.3, Revision 2, “Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential

Radiological Consequences of a Loss of Coolant Accident for Boiling Water Reactors,” NRC: 

Washington, D.C., June 1974. (ADAMS Accession No. ML003739601)

-----, Regulatory Guide 1.25 (Safety Guide 25), “Assumptions Used for Evaluating the Potential

Radiological Consequences of a Fuel Handling Accident in the Fuel Handling and Storage

Facility for Boiling and Pressurized Water Reactors,” NRC: Washington, D.C., March 1972.

(ADAMS Accession No. ML003769781)

-----, Regulatory Guide 1.70, Revision 3, “Standard Format and Content of Safety Analysis

Reports for Nuclear Power Plants - LWR Edition,” NRC: Washington, D.C., November 1978.

(ADAMS Accession Nos. ML003740072, ML003740108, & ML003740116).
C-3

-----, Regulatory Guide 1.109, Revision 1, “Calculation of Annual Doses to Man from Routine

Releases of Reactor Effluents for the Purpose of Evaluating Compliance with 10 CFR Part 50,

Appendix I,” NRC: Washington, D.C., October 1977. (ADAMS Accession No. ML003740384)

-----, Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, “Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and

Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water-Cooled Reactors,”

NRC: Washington, D.C., July 1977. (ADAMS Accession No. ML003740354)

-----, Regulatory Guide 1.145, Revision 1, “Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential

Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants,” NRC: Washington, D.C.,

February 1983. (ADAMS Accession No. ML003740205)

-----, Regulatory Guide 1.183, “Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design

Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors,” NRC: Washington, D.C., July 2000. (ADAMS

Accession No. ML003716792)

Other NRC Documents

-----, General Design Criterion (GDC) 2, “Design Bases for Protection Against Natural

Phenomena.”

-----, NRR Review Standard, RS-002, “Processing Applications for Early Site Permits,” NRC: 

Washington, D.C., May 3, 2004. (ADAMS Accession No. ML040700236)

Other References

-----, Federal Guidance Report 11, “Limiting Values of Radionuclide Intake and Air

Concentration and Dose Conversion Factors for Inhalation, Submersion, and Ingestion,” 1988.

-----, Federal Guidance Report 12, “External Exposure to Radionuclides in Air, Water, and Soil,”

1993.

D-1

APPENDIX D

PRINCIPAL CONTRIBUTORS

Name Responsibility

Bagchi, Goutam Hydrology

Tammara Seshagiri Site Hazards

Harvey, Robert B. Meteorology

Dehmel Jean-Claude Normal Radiological Dose Analyses

Lee, Jay Accident Analyses

Munson, Cliff Geology and Seismology

Musico, Bruce Emergency Planning

Prescott, Paul Quality Assurance

Nitin Patel Project Management

Segala, John Project Management

Wunder George Project Management

Tardiff, Albert Security

Contractors Technical Area

Pacific Northwest Laboratory Hydrology, Meteorology, and Normal

Radiological Dose Analyses

APPENDIX E

October 13, 2006

MEMORANDUM TO: Luis A. Reyes

Executive Director for Operations

/RA/

FROM: John T. Larkins, Executive Director

Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards

SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENT 1 TO FINAL SAFETY EVALUATION REPORT FOR

NORTH ANNA EARLY SITE PERMIT (ESP) APPLICATION

During the 536 meeting of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, October 4-6, th

2006, the Committee considered the changes reflected in Revisions 6, 7, 8, and 9 of Dominion

Nuclear North Anna LLC (Dominion) application for an early site permit (ESP). In its revised

application, Dominion proposed: (1) to change the once-through cooling system planned for

Unit 3 in previous versions of the safety site analysis report (SSAR) to a closed-cycle system;

(2) to increase the power levels for Units 3 and 4 to match the designed maximum power

(4500 MWt) of a General Electric Economic and Simple Boiling-Water Reactor (ESBWR), one

of the reactor designs included in the plant parameter envelope; and (3) to reduce the bounding

value for tritium activity release (associated with the ACR-700 design), to ensure that the tritium

concentration in liquid effluent releases is less than both the 10 CFR Part 20 limit and the limit

set in the EPA drinking water standards. By letter dated September 29, 2006, the staff

transmitted Supplement 1 to its final Safety Evaluation Report (SER), which addresses

Revisions 6 through 9 of the North Anna ESP application, to the ACRS for possible review. 

The Committee decided that the proposed changes do not affect its previous conclusions and

recommendations with regard to issuing the ESP, and that additional review of this document

prior to issuance is not necessary.

References:

1. Memorandum dated September 29, 2006, from David B. Matthews, Director, Division of

New Reactor Licensing, NRR, to John T. Larkins, Executive Director, ACRS, Subject:

Transmittal of Supplement 1 to Final Safety Evaluation Report for North Anna Early Site

Permit (ESP) Application.

2. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Final Safety Evaluation Report, “Safety

Evaluation Report for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the North Anna ESP Site,” dated

September 2005 (NUREG-1835).

E-1

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA SHEET

(See instructions on the reverse)

NRC FORM 335

(9-2004)

NRCMD 3.7

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 1. REPORT NUMBER

 (Assigned by NRC, Add Vol., Supp., Rev.,

 and Addendum Numbers, if any.)

NUREG-1835

Supplement 1

3. DATE REPORT PUBLISHED

MONTH

November

YEAR

2006

4. FIN OR GRANT NUMBER

2. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

Safety Evaluation Report for an 

Early Site Permit (ESP) at the

North Anna ESP Site

5. AUTHOR(S) 6. TYPE OF REPORT

Technical

7. PERIOD COVERED (Inclusive Dates)

8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, provide Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and mailing address; if contractor,

Division of New Reactor Licensing

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION - NAME AND ADDRESS (If NRC, type "Same as above"; if contractor, provide NRC Division, Office or Region, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 

Same as above

provide name and mailing address.)

and mailing address.)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Docket No. 52-008, Proiect No. 719

11. ABSTRACT (200 words or less)

NUREG-1835 documents the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff's technical review of the site safety analysis

report and emergency planning information included in the early site permit (ESP) application submitted by Dominion Nuclear

North Anna, LLC (Dominion or the applicant), for the North Anna ESP site. By letter dated September 25, 2003, Dominion

submitted the ESP application for the North Anna ESP site in accordance with Subpart A, 'Early Site Permits," of Title 10, Part

52, 'Early Site Permits; Standard Design Certifications; and Combined Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants," of the Code of

Federal Regulations. Subsequently, by letter dated April 13, 2006, Dominion submitted the revised application changing the 

cooling design for the proposed Unit 3 and increase in the power level for proposed Units 3 and 4. This supplement 1 to

NUREG-1835 documents the staff's analysis of the safety aspects of the cooling design and increase in power level changes.

The North Anna ESP site is located approximately 40 miles north-northwest of Richmond, Virginia, and is adjacent to two

existing nuclear power reactors operated by Virginia Electric and Power Company, which, like Dominion Nuclear North Anna,

LLC, is a subsidiary of Dominion Resources, Inc. In its application, Dominion seeks an ESP that could support a future

application to construct and operate one or more additional nuclear power reactors at the ESP site, with a total nuclear

generating capacity of up to 9000 megawatts (thermal). This SER presents the results of the staffs review of information

submitted in conjunction with the ESP application. The staff has identified, in Appendix A to this SER, certain site-related items

that will need to be addressed at the combined license or construction permit stage, should an applicant desire to construct one

or more new nuclear reactors on the North Anna ESP site. Appendix A to this SER also identifies the proposed permit conditions

that the staff recommends the Commission impose, should an ESP be issued to the applicant.

12. KEY WORDS/DESCRIPTORS (List words or phrases that will assist researchers in locating the report.)

Early Site Permit (ESP) 

Combined License (COL) 

Permit Conditions 

COL Action Items 

Site Characteristics 

Bounding Parameters 

North Anna ESP Site

14. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION

13. AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

unlimited

(This Page)

unclassified

(This Report)

unclassified

15. NUMBER OF PAGES

16. PRICE

NRC FORM 335 (9-2004) PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER

Office of New Reactors

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Washington, D.C. 20555-0001
Printed

on recycled

paper

Federal Recycling Program