PowerPoint
PERMITTING CHALLENGES FOR
THE NEW GENERATION OF
NUCLEAR POWER PLANTS
Ping Wan
Bechtel Power Corporation
Ninth Nuclear Utility Meteorological Data Users Group Meeting
October 2003
Applicable Regulatory Process
10 CFR Part 52 Process
• Design Certification
• Early Site Permitting
• Combined License
(Only design certification process has been demonstrated.)
2
Licensing Process Comparison
3
Major Parts of An ESP
Application
• Part 1 – Administration Information
• Part 2 – Site Safety Analysis Report
• Part 3 – Environmental Report
• Part 4 – Emergency Response Plan
4
Key Features of ESP Process
• To demonstrate the suitability of a site without defining and evaluating the acceptability of a particular plant design
• An ESP is in effect for 10 to 20 years.
5
Permitting Challenges
• ESP Application Format and
Content
• Maintaining flexibility in deployment of future nuclear technologies
• Selection of ESP Site
• Concept of Alternative Site
Review
6
Application Format & Content
• No specific regulatory guidance documents available
• Most ESP Applicants follow the
Format & Content of the NRC Staff
Standard Review Plans:
– NUREG 0800
– NUREG 1555
– NRR RS-002 (draft)
7
Technology Flexibility
• Develop A Technology Neutral
Approach that Provides a Broad
Overall Outline of a Design
Concept.
• Employ Plant Parameter
Envelop Concept.
8
Technology Flexibility
• PPEs are the single largest (or smaller) value for each parameter, based on engineering, safety and environmental Conservatism.
– Review Current advanced nuclear technologies
– Collect vendor information
– Define and select bounding plant parameters
9
Advanced Nuclear Power
Plant Designs
• ABWR ( Boiling Water Reactor )
• ESBWR (Boiling Water Reactor)
• AP-1000 (Pressurized water Reactor)
• ACR-700 (Light Water Cooled Reactor)
• IRIS (Next Generation PWR)
• PBMR (Pebble Bed Modular Reactor)
• GT-MHR (Gas Turbine Modular Helium
Reactor)
10
Technology Flexibility / PPE
• Not to be limited to the seven designs
• To provide a broad overall outline of a design concept
• To include other potential designs if they can be demonstrated to fall within the parameter values provided in the PPEs
11
ESP Site Selection
• Deregulation of Power Industry
• Concept of “ Region of Interest ” for
New Electric Power Generation
• Merchant Plant Operates in
Competitive Marketplace
• The decision for an ESP Site is
Fundamentally a Business
Decision.
12
ESP Site Selection
Benefits of Co-locating at an
Existing Nuclear Plant Site
• Extensive site information and environmental studies
• Existing infrastructure
• Reduce Environmental Impacts and
Construction Cost
• Local community acceptance
13
Alternative Sites Review
Objective : To verify there are no
“Obviously Superior Sites”
• Identification of Candidate Sites
• Evaluation Criteria
• Site Ranking Process
14
Candidate Sites
Site Criteria
• Not pose significant issues
• Not degrading local resources
• Not significantly impacting the surrounding environment
• Not to be located in proximity to major population centers
15
Candidate Sites
Sites Considered:
• Greenfield - Undeveloped Sites
• Brownfield – Previously Developed
Sites
• Federal Facility Sites
• Existing Nuclear Power Plant Sites
16
Evaluation Criteria
• Environmental (local population, groundwater, ecology, waste)
• Sociological ( Socioeconomic benefits, environmental justice, land use)
• Engineering (site size, cooling water source, seismic, environmentally sensitive areas)
• Economic (electricity/market projections, transmission line access, stakeholder support)
17
Site Ranking Process
• Ranking Criteria
• Weighting Factors
• Overall Site Merit Scores
18
Summary of Challenges
• Technology Flexibility –
Conservatism Inherent in PPE Concept
• “ Region of Interest ” for Power
Generation –
NRC Acceptance
• Co-locating at an Existing Nuclear
Power Plant Site –
Full Justifications Required
19
