ML17156A559

Comment (3) of Nima Ashkeboussi on Behalf of Nuclear Energy Institute on Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations

ML17156A559
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute
Issue date:	05/31/2017
From:	Ashkeboussi N Nuclear Energy Institute
To:	Cindy Bladey Rules, Announcements, and Directives Branch
References
82FR10502 00003
Download: ML17156A559 (32)

Text

~I NIMA ASHKEBOUSSI Director, Fuel Cycle Programs 12oiTitreet;"iilW;suife Hoo--*- -

Washington, DC 20004 NUCLEAR ENERGY INSTITUTE P: 202.739.8022 nxa@nei.org nei.org cfl/J6/ 02-t:J if

tJ ' ~~

~rKl~StJ.,,o I~ ( ..... ~

c:::

May 31, 2017

()  :-;T~

rn '

0 Ms. Cindy Bladey J Office of Administration Mail Stop: OWFN-12H08 m

......... ~

-f?

• 2:

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 0 VI w

rn (f)

Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

Comments on Draft Regulatory Guide DG-4026, "Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations" (Docket ID NRC-2017-0041)

Project Number: 689

Dear Ms. Bladey:

On behalf of the Nuclear Energy Institute's 1 (NEI) members, we appreciate the opportunity to comment on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) draft regulatory guide DG-4026 for the "Preparation.of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations" (Docket ID NRC-2017-0041). The proposed draft is a revision to Regulatory Guide 4.2, Revision 2. The stated purpose of this regulatory guide is to provide guidance to applicants on the acceptable format and content of environmental reports submitted as part of an application for a permit, license, or other authorization to site, construct, and/or operate a new nuclear power plant. The revision incorporates the changes from environmental statutes, 10 CFR Parts 50, 51, and 52, the interim staff guidance from COL/ESP-ISG-026 and COL/ESP-ISG-027, review guidance from NUREG-1555,"Environmental Standard Review Plan", and lessons learned since RG 4.2, Revision 2 was issued in 1976. We appreciate the extension, provided for submitting comments and the public meeting held on April 20, 2017, which provided an overview of the changes. The attachment to this letter provides both general and specific comments for NRC consideration. Our overarching concern remains the Need for Power requirements in Chapter 8 and the Cost-Benefit Analysis in Chapter 10.

Need for Power

• Compared to the conventional large light water reactors in operation today, the power produced by small modular and advanced reactors can be used for applications other than production of electricity, such as The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is the organization responsible for establishing unified industry policy on matters affecting the nucle~r 1

energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEl's members include all entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect/engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations and entities involved in the nuclear energy industry.

NUCLEAR. CLEAN AIR ENERGY SUNSI Review Complete

=

Template ADM - 013 E-RIDS= ADM-03 -:s-. D e<VJ5 Add=~tJUf?~(e-xt?)

_ ~XJ)1D)

Ms. Cindy Bladey May 31, 2017 Page 2 hydrogen production, desalination, and steam production for process heat applications. NRC should not be evaluating business cases and system planning needs of applicants; rather their focus should be on reactor safety and environmental analysis. DG-4026 places an excessive requirement to consider the "need for power", even if that is not the intended benefit of the project. Furthermore, DG-4026 seems to preclude justification of a project exclusively for greenhouse gas reduction, fuel diversity, grid stability, or mission-critical applications by referring to these as "ancillary benefits." The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) does not require that an environmental impact statement consider "need for power" explicitly, but rather dictates an evaluation of the project based on a cost-benefit analysis. In light of this information, industry recommends accounting for the use of power for applications other than the production of electricity in the purpose and need statement. Such consideration would be fully compatible with the current regulations and the Commission's continued interest in a need for power analysis, as a need for power analysis need not be limited to electrical power. These changes to DG-4026 would accommodate the need for power analysis for types of commercial nuclear plants beyond a simple electrical power plant.

While the NRC staff has taken previous industry comments 2 relating to COL/ESP-ISG-026 and incorporated those comments in that ISG and DG-4026, NRC's guidance documents, including this draft regulatory guide, are heavily weighted towards the relationship between electric utilities and state public utility commissions.

Much of this is due to the limitations in the NRC's regulations relating to need for power. DG-4026 references a denial to a petition for rulemaking (68 FR 55905). However, in that context the Commission stated:

"Thus, at most, the petitioner's argument would call for a supplement to the requirements of 10 CFR part 51 to address nuclear plants built by unregulated, non-electric utility entities, rather than the wholesale elimination of NRC requirements to consider the need for power" (68 FR 55910).

The Commission recognized the potential tension between its regulations and guidance when considering need for power outside regulated markets. Industry continues to believe that further revisions to DG-4026 will likely be necessary to address the following issues:

• Previous industry letters discussed the limitations of analyzing the need forpower within a defined service area and the associated need for power analysis. DG-4026 should be expanded to includ.e other scenarios. For example, nuclear power plant generation companies in wholesale markets can contract with utilities with power purchase agreements. In such situations, the resulting service area is a single customer. In the case of a small modular reactor, the owner and operator of the plant could contract with a national lab or military base to purchase power. These situations would satisfy the need for power for those customers but may not fit within the traditional construct of a service area and the need for power analysis that would follow.

2 November 14, 2103 letter from Anne Cottingham, NEI, to Cindy Bladey, NRC, "NEI Comments on NRC Draft Interim Staff Guidance ISG-026 and ISG-027" (ML13347B125).

Ms. Cindy Bladey May 31, 2017 Page 3

• NRC staff realized that an analysis in wholesale markets should not depend on a deficit of supply of electricity. Therefore, on Page 130 of DG-4026, the.NRC staff provided the following guidance for applicants to follow in receiving a favorable "need for power" assessment even without the deficit of supply:

• Option 1, the market-based or auction analysis, discusses how proposed plants can bid into the markets and, if needed, the market will instruct them to operate. NRC then relates this to "baseload capacity factors." Baseload plants have an economic incentive to bid $0 into the energy market and take whatever the market provides them because the plant will be operating no matter the situation. This option appears to be created for units operating at the margin, which historically have been natural gas plants. This could be an option for nuclear plants that may want to operate flexibly and at the margins, and not always-on baseload power. This option appears to be In opposition to the economic incentives the energy markets have created. We ask NRC to clarify this option.

• Option 2, the agreement option, appears to fall apart under the last item "documentary evidence of the agreement between the applicant and the ISO/RTO".

Any agreements between the ISO/RTO and plant operator will not be available until the time frame in which the plant is ready to bid into capacity markets. This timeframe may vary from one-to-three years out from the capacity market taking place (e.g., in PJM, a capacity market for 2020 will take place in 2017). A nuclear plant, in the application phase, is ahead of that timeframe. Industry recommends removing this item from the guidance.

Cost-Benefit Analysis NUREG-1555 guides the staff to review internal costs as discussed in Section 10.6.2 of this Draft Regulatory Guide. The financial information expected is overly burdensome and may not be completely calculable by the applicant at the time the Environmental Report is prepared. In fact, years may pass before the applicant will obtain financing. Industry asks staff to provide the regulatory basis for this requirement. Alternately, as part of its safety review under 10 CFR 52.27, 10 CFR 50.33, and Part 50 Appendix C, the NRC reviews the financial qualifications of applicants for Combined Licenses. In April 2015, the NRC staff issued a draft regulatory basis document (ML15111A270) to propose changes to financial qualification requirements from "financially qualified" to "appears to be financially qualified". South Texas Project Units 3 and 4 requested (ML15140A077) and received an exemption (ML16040A174) allowing them to receive their licenses under the proposed new standard. Industry recommends that for the purposes of NRC's NEPA review under 10 CFR Part 51, the information in Section 10.6.2 should be explicitly derived from the safety revielft{ under 10 CFR Parts 50 and 52 and no additional burden should be placed upon the applicant beyond what is already reviewed in the Safety Evaluation Report.

Ms. Cindy Bladey May 31, 2017 Page 4 Thank you for your consideration of these comments and the comments attached. We look forward to seeing how these comments are addressed in the final guidance. Please contact me if you have any questions.

Sincerely, Nima Ashkeboussi Attachment c: Mr. Robert Taylor, NRO/DSEA, NRC Ms. Jennifer Davis, NRO/DSEA, NRC Mr. Edward O'Donnell, RES/DE, NRC

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 1of28 Comments on DG-4026 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

1. General The draft presents considerable growth in regulatory Areas for consolidation and elimination of guidance. For example, the draft is 173 pages. RG 4.2, redundancy should be identified; including the Rev 2 is 100 paqes. NEI 10-07 Rev 1 is 50 oaaes. removal of sections identified in this attachment.

2. General The revision should clearly state the extent to which the Provide clarification as indicated.

guidance in RG 4.2 Supplemental 1, "PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REPORTS FOR NUCLEAR POWER PLANT LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATIONS" is to be retained or  ;

incoroorated within this document.

3. General The Purpose statement is that this guidance is specific to Provide clarification as indicated.

applications for a "new nuclear power plant". Clarification is needed as to the implications of siting a new power plant in conjunction with existing (brownfield) facilities, whether nuclear or other industrial tvne facilities.

4. General The draft guide, in many locations, refers to a 40-year Revise to the more general "lifetime" of the plants lifetime for the plants. However, plants are currently being to provide flexibility for applicants in their designed and approved .for 60-year lifetimes and reviewed permitting and analyses.

for second license renewal out to 80 vears.

5. General The text discusses the applicability of the Guidance to Clarify the applicability of this guidance to large Large Light Water Reactors and Light Water SMRs. The non-light water reactors.

text identifies non-applicability to non-Light Water SMRs, however the text is silent on the subject of non-light water Larae reactors.

6. General In defining terminology and describing the purpose and DG-4026 should allow for the production of thermal need statement, only the production of electricity is power in the form of steam or heat for applications addressed. Other uses for power (hydrogen production, other than electricity generation, particularly in the desalination and steam production for process heat purpose and need statement.

applications) are not provided for in the purpose and need statement. For example, Section 8.0 requires that "The need for power analysis should be limited to the

Attachment D.ocket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 2 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation discussion of the suoolv and demand for electricitv."

7. General This extensive RG revision should be reconciled with No specific revision to the DG.

NUREG-1555, as the agency is undertaking for RG-1.206 and NUREG-0800. Guidance to applicants and the staff should be maintained in lock step to the maximum extent practical.

8. General A footnote or parenthetical clarification would be useful to Annotate DG accordingly.

indicate that circumstances could dictate variability in certain aspects of this DG, e.g., if an applicant is *a federal*

agency, where NEPA or Executive Order responsibilities might mirror or replace those of other federal agencies, or where the applicant might be exempt from certain reoulations or oermit requirements.

9. General Section 2.6.2 includes a discussion of protected The DG should be updated to reflect the most information for cultural resources. There are other topics current information regarding information to be that the staff acknowledges should be protected from withheld under 10 CFR 2.390.

inadvertent disclosure (e.g., certain well and drinking water intake information).

10. General It's not clear that NRC performed a Cumulative Impacts Describe the NRC's evaluation that the DG avoid Considerations review of DG-4026. unnecessary and cumulative impacts of NRC regulatory actions and process changes and does not represent an expanded scope over current guidance.

11. Section A. The revision needs to be clear that this guidance only Provide clarification as indicated.

INTRODUCTION applies to the initial issuance of a permit, license, or other Purpose authorization. (ER guidance for license renewal is described in RG 4.2, Supplement 1, Revision 1). Proposed new Appendix C covers aspects of SMR deployments but not non-LWRs and non-electricity use.

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 3 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

12. Section A. Some discussion is needed to address potential brownfield Provide clarification as indicated.

INTRODUCTlON applications, whether adding existing electricity production Applicable or process heat applications.

Regulations (1 51 bullet last sentence)

13. Section A. It's not clear that the content of DG-4026 has been Clarify to what extent the revised DG-4026 is INTRODUCTlON, revised and updated to make it consistent with the other intended to replace or supplement other existing Related Guidance listed guidance. For example, what if the activities/scope NRC guidance?

described in RG 4.11 (Terrestrial Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations) go beyond those described here? In that scenario, wouldn't the applicant be subject to unnecessarily duplicative "requirements" (bearing in mind that this is guidance) and inconsistent expectations re level of detail?

14. Section A. RG 4.24, "Aquatic Environmental Studies for Nuclear Suggest adding as indicated INTRODUCTlON, Power Stations," is not Included in the Related Guidance Related Guidance documents.

NRR Review Standard RS-002, Attachment 3, "ESP Scope and Associated Review Criteria for ER:" is not included.

15. Section B. Two ISG documents are described. It is noted that the Incorporate the ISG guidance, to the extent the DISCUSSION ISG are to be subsumed into this revision, yet that has not guidance remains valid, within this revision .to RG Background occurred. (For example, Section 2.7.2.) 79 FR 52373 4.2 notes: The NRC staff intends to incorporate the final ,*

approved COL/ESP-ISG-026 into the next revision of the Environmental Standard Review Plan and related guidance documents.

16 . .Section B. The last sentence includes "climate change" with guidance Clarify the NRC's participation in that activity and DISCUSSION included in Section 2. The last sentence in Section 2.7.1 what guidance an applicant should infer from the Background mentions the "latest U.S. Global Change Research report.

Program Report" as guidance yet does not draw in any applicable guidance from the Research Program Report.

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 4 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

17. Section B To what extent do the international codes and standards Clarify extent to which this DG is informed by non-Harmonization with alter NRC policy, regulation, or guidance? Is it NRC's NRC-endorsed codes and standards and/or the International Codes policy to harmonize with these standards? Historically this extent to which this DG is intended to indicate and Standards has not been the case. General statement as made on Pg. conformance with IAEA or other non-US 11 (i.e., "[u]se of this RG would, in general, be consistent requirements.

with the principles and basic aspects of environmental impact assessment described in the IAEA Technical Reports Series and Safety Guides on health and environmental impacts and site evaluation.') are not very compellina.

18. Section B "This RG addresses, in part, the use of one or more codes Assess this language for whether it is appropriate Documents or standards developed by external organizations, and for this DG.

Discussed in Staff other third-party guidance documents. These codes, Regulatory Guidance standards and third-party guidance DG-4026, Page 12 documents may contain references to other codes, standards or third-party guidance documents ("secondary references'). If a secondary reference has itself been incorporated by reference into NRC regulations as a requirement, then applicants must comply with that standard as set forth in the regulation. If the secondary reference has been endorsed in an RG as an acceptable approach for meeting an NRC requirement, then the standard constitutes a method acceptable to the NRC staff for meeting that regulatory requirement as described in the specific RG."

10 CFR 51 is a procedural rule. Asserting that a code or standard invoked in this RG constitutes a compliance obligation for all aspects of that and secondary codes and standards does not seem appropriate.

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 5 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

19. Section C.I. Standard Design Approvals and Manufacturing Licenses Include as indicated Summary should also be discussed; this comment also affects Appendix A.

20. Section C.I. Clarify that "station" may not include collocated facilities Clarify as indicated Summary within the site. This is contrary to statement that "existing or proposed facilities not associated with the production of electricity are considered part of the station."

' ' Also clarify distinction between "station" and "plant."

Also, see other comments regarding "production of .

electricity" as the presumed purpose for a plant, i.e.

address definitional implications of co-location (for examole. with industrial facilities) for process heat use.

21. Section, C.I. Under "PLANT," the term "unit" is mis-defined. Delete "Generally, unit is used only when the Summary applicant is proposing a multi-unit plant for large liqht water reactors.".

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 6 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

22. Section C.I "UNIT", The definition of "unit" should be expanded to address Edit as described Page 18 modular SMRs and advanced non-LWRs. Furthermore, alignment should be achieved between all of the sections.

For example:

Section 3.3, "Building Activities" uses "module assembly" when describing construction/assembly of "pieces" to be installed as an integral piece. This is consistent with DG-4026 being large LWR-centric in scope.

Section 4.9, "Radiological Health" paragraph 2 addresses providing estimated annual dose to construction workers in a new unit or "module construction area" as a result from radiation from onsite radiation sources such as existing plant(s). In the first bullet at the end of Section 9 states that" .... the ER should include the following:" "the physical layout ... co-located reactor modules ... fl Appendix C defines an SMR as a "reactor unit" with nominal output of 300MWe."

23. Section C.V. The DG states, "Applicants are required to consider Delete "any." The statement as written overstates Mitigation of Adverse alternatives available for reducing or avoiding any adverse the regulatory requirement in 10 CFR 51.45(c).

Imoacts effects as described in 10 CFR 51.45(c)."

24. Section C.V, first This paragraph states the applicant "provide the reason Delete "The applicant should provide the reason paragraph under the why the mitigation measures are considered reasonably why the mitigation measures are considered bullets foreseeable." There does not appear to be a regulatory reasonably foreseeable."

basis for this requirement; CEQ regulations do not use "reasonably foreseeable" in the context of mitigating measures. While the examples of what is considered a reasonable mitigation measure are useful, the basis for an obligation to justify why a mitigating measure is reasonable is not clear.

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 7 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

25. Section C.VIII. The use of "in qualified terms" is unclear. Clarify or eliminate the term "qualified" Presentation of Applicant Information

26. Section C.VIII. The DG requires submittal of "description and NRC staff/management should establish clearer Presentation of documentation of any computer modeling codes that are guidance for when analytical results must be Applicant used to support analyses in sufficient detail to allow the reproduced by the staff.

Information NRC staff to reproduce the model results."

The combination of "any" and "reproduce the model results" constitutes an excessive regulatory burden. There is no regulatory basis for the staff to reproduce the results of every model employed, but rather to reproduce results on a sufficient sample basis to reach a reasonable assurance finding. The practice that has evolved where NRC staff request docketed I/O files for a substantial subset of computer codes used in an application represents and undue burden an increases the size of the docketed application, sometimes by tens of thousands of oages.

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 8 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

27. Section C.VIII. The DG states: Clarify existing language by reinforcing:

Presentation of "Information obtained from publications or other

• References and other supporting Applicant information from the literature should be concisely information are not required to be placed Information summarized and documented using references to original "on the docket," but are appropriate for data sources. Where the availability of original sources review in an audit setting, that support important conclusions is limited, the sources

• Copyrighted information is not expected to should be adequately summarized in the application and be submitted by the applicant.

should be available for auditing in the applicant's records.

• Information not suitable for public In all cases, information derived from published results disclosure should be withheld pursuant to should be clearly distinguished from information derived 10 CFR 2.390.

from the applicant's field measurements.

"The information the NRC uses to conduct and inform its NEPA environmental reviews, including information in the ER, must be publicly available, as appropriate. Therefore, applicants should ensure that the information included in the ER can be made publicly available." In practice, these reasonable requirements have been translated into recent requests by the staff for virtually all references from the application to be filed "on the docket," even for information already publicly available. Review of this information during an audit has not been sufficient. Also, "publicly available" does not mean an applicant is obligated to provide copies for the staff or members of the public (e.g., consensus standards are publicly available, but often require purchase).

Better guidance is needed for applicants and staff to understand what "publicly available" means, and when an applicant is required to "docket" supporting information such as references. Clarification also is warranted regarding making copyrighted or publicly withheld information available to the staff.

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 9 of28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

28. Chapter 1, Section The DG discusses certain alternatives to "baseload Restate the regulatory basis that is associated with 1.2 Purpose and electricity," but states inappropriately that "it is the evaluating the purpose of the project, and Need production of electricity that allo).'Js the project to be alternatives to that project, without restricting the justified in terms of benefits." A nuclear plant that does project to electricity production as the sole basis for not produce electricity, but rather is dedicated to justification in terms of benefits.

desalination, district heating, or other process heat

)

applications would not be subject to an analysis comparinq aqainst electrical qeneration alternatives.

29. Chapter 2, Section The 151 paragraph notes: "Definition of vicinity and region Some consistency is warranted.

2.1 Land Use is left to the discretion of the applicant; however, as a general suggestion, a typical distance limit of a 6-mi radius from the site perimeter can be used for vicinity ...

Granted, this is for environmental considerations, the basis for a "6 mile" recommendation should be considered in light of other distances that are specified in other NRC guidance (for example, see safety and emergency planning guidance). Such guidance directs an applicant to provide site data that is to be used in specified models.

While the SO-mile radius is described in multiple other sections of this draft, the "6 mile" recommendation only appears in this one section.

30. Chapter 2, Section While the 3'° paragraph does recognize industrial use, the NRC should provide additional clarification.

2.1 Land Use 2"d paragraph does not and is directed solely at traditional electricity producing NPPs. (see also section 2.1.2) Some clarifications are warranted for consideration of implications of offsite impacts due to industrial co-location uses.

31. Chapter 2, Section This section suggests that while NRC recognizes that new This section of the guidance is unfairly burdensome 2.1.2 Transmission- transmission lines and corridors may not be constructed or for the applicant. During the last several years Line Corridors and owned by the applicant (paragraph 1), the applicant is still there has been inconsistent NRC treatment of Other Offsite Areas responsible for providing a discussion of certain land use transmission lines in an EIS - particularlv the

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 10 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation information relating to new transmission-related facilities, question of how much an applicant can be who would build them and own them "and the associated expected to know about transmission lines being process for obtaining approved rights of way" - plus built (or to be built in future) by regional planned routing, etc. transmission organizations (not the applicant.) The issue was litigated at NRC in connection with the Fermi 3 COL application. DG-4026 does not appear to reflect the most recent NRC position.

32. Chapter 2, Section The section on Transmission-Line Corridors discusses (1) Eliminate use of"construction" regarding non-2.1.2 Transmission- construction activities focusing primarily on new TL NRC-licensed activities Line Corridors and corridors and facilities. (2) To clarify that certain information is also Other Offsii:e Areas expected for alterations to existing lines/corridors, add "(or significant changes to existing lines and corridors)" between "new transmission lines and corridors" and "are relevant" in the last sentence of the first oaraciraoh.

33. Chapter 2, Section This section introduces the term "Region of Interest The DG would benefit from a close "scrub" of such 2.2 Water Resources (ROI)" as compared to terms used in Sec. 2.1, e.g., "site," terms to ensure they are being used/ applied "vicinity," and "region." Mixing of these terms and consistently. Staff should consider a "site-related differing definitions could lead to confusion on just what terminology" summary as an aid to ensure area is beinci examined for each section. consistent usaae.

34. Chapter 2, Section This bullet (and similar statements in other terrestrial and The generally acceptable range of 5-10 years is 2.3.1 Terrestrial aquatic ecology sections) says that "[s]tudies would appropriate, but should be applied consistently Habitats, 3rd bullet ideally show the condition of the ecological resources that throughout the DG.

exist no more than 5 to 10 years prior to NRC receiving the application," and requests justification for use of older data.

Yet the staff routinely questions use of data marginally older than five years, and suggests that "two to five years" should be the threshold for consideration of "new and sianificant" information (e.a., in develooing a COLA

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 11of28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation incorporating an ESP).

See also comment on Appendix A Pq A-2 Sec. A.2 below.

35. Chapter 2, Section The DG requests "[i]dentification, when possible, of Change to:

2.3.1 Wetlands, last whether each wetland is under the jurisdiction of the bullet Clean Water Act or applicable State or local wetland "Identification, when. practical, of whether each protection laws." wetland is under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water Act or applicable State or local wetland protection "When possible" over prioritizes this information. laws (note that a jurisdictional determination may not have been made at the time of an aoolication)."

36. Chapter 2, Section This section states that the application should discuss Justification or clarification should be provided for 2.4, Socioeconomics where the majority (80 percent or more) of socioeconomic the 80 percent threshold identified.

impacts will be experienced.

37. Chapter 2, Section Section 2.4 is explicit on how to analyze trends of Clarify the level of data (qualitative or quantitative) 2.4, Socioeconomics demographic data and when the data analysis should that applicants should provide for the three bullets begin and end (analyzing two decennial censuses past and on page 39 that will meet staff expectations.

extend forward to at least one past the expected license period of the proposed project). With respect to section 2.4.2, the draft guidance is less explicit but still requests for trend data.

38. Chapter 2, Section Staff is basing their methodology for performing Staff should cite either the ESRP or ISG or other 2.5, Environmental Environmental Justice reviews through an office guidance documents that require public Justice instruction. participation. There also appears to be two cited Office instructions can be changed internally and are office instructions, "LIC-203, Rev 2" in Section 2.5 meant to be desk guides for the staff. and "LIC-203, Rev 3." in Section 2.5.1. This editorial mistake should be corrected. (Rev. 3 is cited in the References)

39. Chapter 2, Section The DG discusses requirements for summarizing "informal Clarify use of "informal" and documentation 2.6.3 Consultation consultations," but it is not clear whether the usage of expectations for such consultations.

"informal" and "formal" is intended to be the same as used in Appendix B, Sec. B.1 (pg B-1). Correspondence with the SHPO and affected tribes for examole miaht not

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 12 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation be considered "informal" from the information presented in this section.

40. Chapter 2, Section The last bullet discusses Attachment 1 to COL/ESP-ISG- Provide status of this ISG moving forward.

2.7.2 Air Quality 26. The status of this ISG is unclear. See 78 FR 56750; 78 FR 68101 (reopening of comment period); and 79 FR 52373. See also August 25, 2014 ISG which is marked as "Final". rML14092A4021)

41. Chapter 2, Section According to the EPA, "In the United States, there are no Sections 2.8.4 and 5.8.4 should be deleted from 2.8.4 federal standards limiting electromagnetic fields from this DG. Assessment of electromagnetic fields Electromagnetic power lines and other sources to people at work or should not be required until/unless definitive Fields home." What is the regulatory basis for requiring an evidence of a hazard is provided.

assessment of "acute effects from exposure" or "long-term and or chronic exposure" to such fields, or implying an adverse impact in light of the lack of objective evidence linking Chapter 5, Sec 5.8.4 exposure to such impacts? What guidance is available for Chronic Effects of meeting the requirements set forth in this section of the Electromagnetic DG?

Fields NUREG-1437 states repeatedly that no conclusive evidencei'has been presented identifying such exposure as hazardous. It is not appropriate, therefore, either to imply such hazards exist (as inclusion of its assessment under "non-radiological health" does), or to saddle applicants with the ongoing burden and uncertainty of continuing to have to orove a neaative.

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 13 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

42. Chapter 2, Section The DG describes requirements for a greenfield site only Clarify where/whether greenfield considerations are 2.9 Radiological in these two sections. Are there other areas where relevant to other sections to distinguish Environment and greenfield considerations are important? environmental data requirements for licensing of Radiological expansions on existing plant sites versus on Monitoring greenfield sites.

And Chapter 5, Section 5.9.6 Radiological Monitoring

43. Chapter 2, Section The 5'" bullet mentions NEI 07-07. As described in the NEI Industry initiatives that fall outside the scope of 2.9 Radiological transmittal, this industry guidance document is "a NRC requirements should not be d;awn into a Environment and voluntary initiative on ground water protection. The formal RG.

Radiological purpose of the initiative is to improve nuclear industry Monitoring programs for preventing, detecting and responding to inadvertent releases of radioactive substances that may result in low but detectable levels of plant-related materials in ground water. Such releases are well below the NRC's limits to ensure protection of public health and safety and fall outside the scope of specific regulatory requirements."

0

44. Chapter 3, Section The 3' bullet on Air Interfaces should address potential Revise to address potential applications that use air 3.4.1 Plant- applications that use air as the ultimate heat sink. as the ultimate heat sink Environment Interfaces during Operation.

45. Chapter 4, Section This section requires discussion of activities that are not Change title of this section to "Environmental 4.0 Environmental "construction" pursuant to NRC regulation. Impacts from Construction and Preconstruction Impacts from Activities" Construction of the Proposed Project Make anv necessary conforminq changes within the

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 14 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation text of this section, ensuring proper jurisdictional boundaries (between NRC-regulated construction and non-NRC-regulated preconstruction) are maintained.

46. Chapter 4, Section ' Section 4.4.3 and 5.4.3 requests the applicant to utilize Recommend that the guidance allow for other 4.4.3 and Chapter 5, industry standard input-output models to quantify the benefits be allowed to be discussed that can be Section 5.4.3 benefits to the community. The guidance suggests calculated using input-output models such as expected direct and indirect employment effects and output, consumption, housing prices, etc. These direct and indirect income effects. benefits can then be carried forward to the benefit-cost balance in Chapter 10.

47. Chapter 4, Section Refers to "multi-modular reactors" - but this term is not Clarify or define the term of multi-modular reactor, 4.9 well defined. to distinauish from modular construction terms.

48. Chapter 5, Section Clarify that this section is more concerned with electric Change title to "Electric Shock Impacts" 5.8.3 Acute Effects shock than "exposure to EM fields" by amending the of Electromagnetic section title.

Fields

49. Chapter 5. Section The text should be expanded beyond that of "radiological Revise to account for other radiological sources 5.9 Radiological sources from operation of the proposed facility" to include potentially on the site.

Health during potential radiological sources from co-located facilities, Normal Operation such as existing coal piles or coal slurry ponds (for re-oowerina oroiects) or other industrial uses.

50. Chapter 5, Section The last paragraph references an NRCP report (reference Provide updated report, if there is one available.

5.9.3 Impacts to 68). That reference is to "National Council on Radiation Members of the Protection and Measurements (NCRP), 2009, "Ionizing Public Radiation Exposure of the Population of the United States," NCRP Report No. 160, Bethesda, MD," which summarizes 2006 data. Is there more recent data available?

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 15 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

51. Chapter 5, Section Sentence "This value can either be estimated from the Revise to include PSAR/FSAR for plants that are 5.9.4, Occupational design control document (DCD) for the reactor design or licensed under Part 50.

Dose to Workers from doses to workers at operational units at the site."

Only applies if the plant is licensed under Part 52, however if the plant is licensed under Part 50, the PSAR/FSAR is the source of information.

52. Chapter 5, Section The list of wastes here is more comprehensive than the Suggest that the lists of wastes to be addressed be 5.10 Nonradioactive similar list in Section 4.10 although most wastes are the consistent in both sections.

Waste same during construction and operation differing mainly in volume.

53. Chapter 5, Section 5.11, para. 1 Section 5.11 states, "The applicant's evaluation should Change to "The applicant's evaluation should be be performed in accordance with the current version of performed in accordance with the latest version NRC guidance documents." of NRC guidance documents available 18 months These evaluations take a significant amount of time to prior to submittal of their application" to allow develop, revise, and maintain. Applicants should have time to prepare the application.

some window of time to assure the evaluation does not need to be re-performed when new NRC guidance comes out just prior to the submittal/docketing/approval of their application.

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 16 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

54. Chapter 5, Section 5.11, Para. 1 and Section 5.11 states, "The evaluation should be generic Provide guidance as to what will be accepted as Section 5.11.2, para. for design certifications... " and Section 5.11.2 states, "generic" site specific inputs for design 2 'The environmental risks of severe accidents (i.e., Level certification evaluations.

3 PRA) should consider all severe accident types from the Level 1 PRA, apply all source terms from the Level 2 PRA, and should be generic for DCs and site-specific for all other applications."

What does it mean to do a generic evaluation when many inputs are of a site specific nature? What is generic weather, land use, watershed, crops, population distributions, etc.? In the past, design certification applicants have selected previously constructed sites to gather generic values which resulted in questions asking for evidence as to why the site over a specific time period is representative or generic (for example, RA!

No.: ER 1-8428 from APR1400 design certification).

These RAis on generic site specific values have taken the industry siqnificant time and resources to address.

55. Chapter 5, Section The paragraph has an odd number of parentheses. Add a closed parenthesis or otherwise fix 5.11.1 first bullet tvooqraohical error.

56. Chapter 5, Section Criteria are called out here: "comparison of the DBA doses Revise to ensure that correct regulations for DBA 5.11.1 with review criteria given in regulations (i.e., 10 CFR dose criteria are called out.

52.79(a)(l), and 10 CFR 100.21, "Non-Seismic Siting Criteria) and standard review plans (i.e., SRP criteria, Table 1 in SRP Section 15.0.3 of NUREG-0800, Ref. 57)."

However it is understood that 10CFR50.34 and RGl.183 are the prevailing regulatory references for dose criteria for DBAs.

57. Chapter 5, Sec The DG should apply risk-informed insights and NEPA's Develop guidance on establishing "severe accident" 5.11.2 Severe "reasonablv foreseeable" standard consistentlv. Where a assumptions when core damaqe has been

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 17 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation Accidents design can demonstrate convincingly that its maximum precluded above, say, 10-0 per reactor-year.

credible (which actually exceeds "reasonably foreseeable)

event does not involve an uncovered core, there should be no obligation to deterministically assume significant core damage in postulating beyond design basis events.

Further, the DG should establish a cutoff frequency beyond which severe accident consequences - e.g. 10 need not be considered. (Requiring consideration of extremely rare events is not consistent with a "reasonably foreseeable" standard, and sends an inaccurate message to the public about the relative risks of nuclear qeneration.)

58. Chapter 5, Section The discussion of Level 1/2/3 PRAs is specific to large The RG should address technology differences 5.11.2 Severe LWRs and has no comparable meaning with advanced between (SMRs) and advanced non-LWRs.

Accidents non-LWRs.

Note, Appendix C Small Modular Reactor Design does describe some differences between large and small reactors. The discussion presented in the Appendix, while useful, does not address technology differences between small water-cooled designs (SMRs) and advanced non-LWRs.

59. Chapter 5, Section The 3'0 bullet should append the listing of "NU REG/CR- Revise guidance to clarify alternative options to 5.li.2 Severe 6613, "Code Manual for MACCS 2: Volume 1, MELCOR code.

Accidents Users Guide," MELCOR Accident Consequence Code System (MACCS2 code)" with "or equivalent" as MELCOR was developed specifically for large LWRs and may not be appropriate for use with advanced non-LWRs.

Similar comment on other references to PRA within the draft.

60. Chapter 5, Section Section 5.11.2 states, 'The risks should be estimated Provide explicit guidance as to what would be 5.11.2 para. 3 using an acceotable methodology that uses onsite and considered an acceotable methodoloov or clarifv

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 18 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recomm'endation regional meteorology, population, and land-use data." that applicants may use other final guidance for This section does not explicitly elaborate on what would interactions between the applicant and staff.

be considered an acceptable methodology

61. Chapter 5, Section Section 5.11.2 states, "The applicant should provide... list Provide exception to this expectation to provide 5.11.2, para. 3, of severe accident release sequences and their associated source terms induced by earthquakes for design second bullet core damage frequencies from the Level 1 PRA and source certification applications, or otherwise qualify the terms for internally initiated events, fire events, flooding statement or provide guidance on how COLAs and events, low power arid shutdown events, and externally DCAs are to fulfill this expectation.

initiated events (e.g., high winds and earthquakes) as determined from the Level 2 PRA" Design Certification Applications are not required to have a seismic PRA and COLAs are not required to have a seismic PRA until first fuel loading.

Furthermore, it is difficult for an applicant to provide this information without a "generic" seismic hazard curve for the US in absence of site soecific information in* a DCA.

62. Chapter 5, Section Section 5.11.2 states, "The applicant should provide ... Clarify what methodology in NUREG/CR-6613 is 5.11.2, para. 3, third description of the methodology in NUREG/CR-6613". being referred to and do not request applicants to bullet NUREG/CR-6613 is not a methodology document per se. duplicate descriptions of methodologies in their It is unclear what methodologies from NUREG/CR-6613 applications if the methodologies are already Section 5.11.2 is requesting. Assuming the guidance is referenceable in the NUREG itself.

updated to clarify this specifically, it is then unclear why each applicant should redundantly duplicate and transcribe portions of NUREG/CR-6613 into their application instead of simply stating certain methodologies from certain portions: of the NUREG were utilized.

NUREG/CR-4551 provides methodology. Should it have been mentioned in this bullet?

63. Chapter 5, Section Section 5.11.2 states, "The applicant should Clarify that these files are to be provided during an 5.11.2, para. 3, third provide... input and output files used in the analysis should audit and not formally submitted or placed on the bullet be provided to the NRC staff for confirmatory review". docket.

It is unclear how these are to be orovided to the NRC staff

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 19 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation for confirmatory review. That is, whether these files may be audited or whether they need to be placed onto the docket.

64. Chapter 5, Section Section 5.11.2 states, "The applicant should provide ... Recommend maintaining the NE! 05-01 guidance, 5.11.2, para. 3, sixth description of the demographic and population data used or otherwise provide guidance that is closer to a bullet in the analysis based on the 50-mi population estimate for median year of plant lifetime based estimate rather the year operation is expected to cease". than an estimate for the year operation is expected NEI 05-01 recommends the population estimate be for a to cease.

year in the second half of the period of extended operation. An estimate closer to a median date of operation will typically be more realistic compared to an

• end-of-operation date-based estimate (since population typically grows with time, but the hypothetical accident could occur at any time in the plant's life). Additionally, from a practical standpoint for design certifications, an estimate looking 60 or 80 years into the future demographic and population is less reliable and harder to obtain than an estimate looking 20 or 40 years into the future.

65. Chapter 5, Section Section 5.11.2 states, "The applicant should provide ... Rescind the expectation to provide a comparison of 5.11.2, para. 3, description of the comparison of the core damage the applicant's reactor against current-generation twelfth bullet frequencies estimated for the reactor to those for current- reactors. If not rescinded, provide applicants with generation reactors and the comparison of the population guidance (preferably an easily referenceable table dose risks to the mean and median values for current- of data) describing the current-generation reactor generation reactors undergoing license renewal". data.

What is the practical benefit or necessity of giving this comparison? If the staff still find this request necessary, it would be beneficial for them to provide a reference document that will be periodically updated that contains the average CDF and dose risks from current-generation reactors. Otherwise, many applicants could choose a varietv of different reactors thev deem as reoresentative

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 20 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation to compare against, which could lead to inconsistencies and significant time spent by applicants assembling this data and assurinq it is what the staff wants.

66. Chapter 5, Section Section 5.11.2 states, "The applicant should provide ... Rescind the expectation to provide early fatality 5.11.2, para. 3, description of individual (i.e., early fatality and latent and latent cancer risks from low probability high thirteenth bullet cancer) risks". consequence severe accidents.

Are estimates of latent cancer from low-probability events If not rescinded, provide a specific basis for the required for NEPA? It is understood that the council on request.

environmental quality (CEQ)'s regulations implementing If not rescinded, provide explicit guidance as to NEPA have a complex legal history with respect to what methods would be acceptable for the interpretations, but the precise reason for the requested calculation of the number of early fatalities and level of detail desired by NRC for early fatality and latent latent cancers.

cancer estimates from severe accidents should be given if other agencies regulating competing energy industries do not require similar levels of detail in their NEPA analyses.

For example, in Warm Springs Dam Task Force v. Gribble in 1980, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals found that a discussion of the consequences of a dam failure (i.e., a low probability high'consequence event akin to a severe accident) was unnecessary, stating, "Everyone recognizes the catastrophic results of the failure of a dam; to detail these results would serve**no useful purpose.". At issue is that if oil pipelines and solar cell manufacturing complexes are including estimates of how many cancers may occur from hypothetical oil spills and hazardous waste spills, then it would be proper for the nuclear industry to follow suit. However, if the oil, coal, and solar industries are not discussing latent cancer effects in their NEPA related documents then it would be unfair and projecting a false image to the public of the relative risks of nuclear power for nuclear power related EIS's to discuss cancer effects when it is reasonable to soeculate that similar cancer risks

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 21of28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation exist for other forms of energy.

If offsite dose from low probability high consequence events are already requested and NUREG/1530 $/REM values already implicitly take into account consequences from early fatality and latent cancer effects, then the general intent-of the request may already be met without explicitly listing the number of estimated early fatalities and latent cancers.

Also, various computer codes may be used that implement various health physics models (threshold vs linear no-threshold) to estimate latent cancer risk and it may be possible for applicant's methods to be valid, but not consistent with assumptions implicit in other health effect related guidance (such as NUREG/1530).

67. Chapter 5, Section Section 5.11.3 footnote 13 states, "NE! 05-01... provides a Clarify the ways in which the staff perceives NE!

5.11.3, para. 2, template for completing SAMA analysis in support of 05-01 could be used in an improper manner when footnote 13. reactor license renewal. If applied as a guidance applied to new reactor applications, or rescind the document for new reactor applications, the applicant request that NE! 05-01 be re-justified by every new should justify its use in the ER". reactor applicant.

NE! 05-01 has been applied as a guidance document for new reactors in the past successfully. What particular portions of NEI 05-01 does the staff believe are inapplicable to use as a template for new reactor applications? It seems imprudent, and potentially confusing, to request each applicant to re-justify the use of this SAMA guidance document when alternative guidance documents are not recommended or existent.

68. Chapter 6, Section Editorial: "(in gal or m3)" appears to be missing the Revise to use superscript on cubic meters.

6.1.2 suoerscriot on cubic meters

69. Chapter 6, Section The 2"0 bullet provides an incorrect reference to COL/ESP- Correct the incorrect references and verify all 6.3 ISG-26 (reference 16 versus the correct reference 14). A references are correctly applied throughout the Decommissioning quick review indicates that the referencinq of this and document.

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 22 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation other documents is incorrect for multiple entries.

70. Chapter 7, Section This section has a good explanation of how to establish Ensure direction in the guidance is consistent with 7.0 Cumulative the geographic area for cumulative effects. However, the staff expectations regarding the relationship (if any)

Impacts guidance provided does not comport with recent direction of the cumulative impacts geographic area to the from the staff that the cumulative geographic area for direct/indirect impacts geographic area.

each resource needed to match the direct/indirect qeoqraphic area.

71. Chapter 8, Section Consistent with the comment on Sec. 1.2, above, the DG An analogous set of evaluation guidance should be 8.0 Need for Power inappropriately REQUIRES consideration of "need for developed for non-electricity production.

power," even if that is not the intended benefit of the project. Other uses such as desalination or other process The staff has expressed reluctance to develop this heat applications are ignored. guidance owing to a lack of stated applicant interest in non-electricity applications. However, at Additionally, the DG seems to preclude justification of a a minimum, the guidance should acknowledge project exclusively for greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction, purposes other than "need for power" and not fuel diversity, grid stability, or mission-critical applications require consideration of "need for power" in those by referring to these as "ancillary benefits." instances.

NEPA does not require that an EIS consider "need for The guidance should also restate non-baseload power" explicitly, but rather dictates an evaluation of the justifications such as GHG reduction, fuel diversity, project based on a cost-benefit analysis. etc., acknowledging the option that they may not be solely "ancillary benefits," but may actually constitute a sufficient purpose and need of their own.

Conforming changes will also be needed elsewhere, e.q. in Sec. 9.2.

72. Chapter 8, Need for The need for power should consider non-electrical power Delete reference to electricity where guidance can Power applications as well (e.g., cogeneration and industrial be applied directly to non-electrical power heat). Much of the guidance in Section 8 can be applied as applications. For guidance specifically applicable to is, with removal or expansion of discussion specific to electrical power, add discussion that accommodates electrical power. other types of power qeneration.

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 23 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

73. Chapter 8, Section These sections provide guidance assuming new, greenfield Revise guidance to address construction at 8.1 Description of applications. Further discussion, or at least locations other than greenfield sites.

the Applicant's acknowledgement, should be added to address Power Market repowering applications. Similar comments are raised in AND Section 8.2 conjunction with Chapter 9, Environmental Impacts of Power Demand Alternatives.

74. Chapter 9, Section The DG uses the term "environmentally preferable" here Check each instance of "environmentally 9.2 Energy and in several other places. The NRC standard is that no preferable" to confirm that such usage does not Alternatives clearly superior site has been overlooked. An implication create a higher criterion/threshold than ensuring no that a "higher" standard such as "environmentally clearly superior alternative has been overlooked.

preferable" may not be appropriate.

75. Chapter 9, Section The guidance states: The guidance in this section is appropriate, but 9.3.3 Potential Sites should be reinforced with the staff and their "An applicant is not expected to conduct detailed contractors. The issue may warrant amplification environmental studies for potential sites; only preliminary here or in NUREG-1555.

investigations using reconnaissance-level information. 21 A reconnaissance-level investigation should take account of information that is readily available over the Internet or from other sources (e.g., existing studies and State and Federal agencies).

21

'Reconnaissance-level information' is defined as information that is available from the applicant, governmental, Tribal, commercial, and/or public sources.

Reconnaissance-level information does not normally require the collection of n'ew data or new field studies.

Reconnaissance should include more than just a literature search for issues that are critical to the evaluation of sites.

So, for example, reconnaissance should include contact with the water-management agency about water availability in most cases, as discussed in the most recent version of RG 4.7. The amount and aualitv of information

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 24 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation must be sufficient based on the expert judgment of the reviewer to make the required determination for which the information is needed."

This standard is appropriate, but has not been applied consistently in recent environmental reviews, where applicants have been requested/ required to develop analyses for alternative sites beyond that considered "reconnaissance level."

76. Chapter 9, Section The DG states: Amend this portion of the guidance to indicate 9.3.5 Proposed and additional analyses beyond reconnaissance level is Alternative Sites "The evaluation of the cumulative impacts at the required only in the event of a clear indication that alternative sites should be similar to that for the proposed recon-level information could result in overlooking site, except that reconnaissance-level information is used clearly superior site.

for the alternative sites. If, however, initial efforts to draw a clear differentiation between the proposed site and any alternative site proves inconclusive, then reconnaissance-level information can be expanded to include information obtained through more in-depth information gathering or visits to the affected region."

The NRC standard is that an obviously superior site has not been overlooked. So if a recon-level analysis does not draw a clear differentiation, the regulatory basis for requirinq more analysis is not clear.

77. Chapter 9, Section The wording for Socioeconomics and Environmental Clarify with "If a specific topic within socioeconomic 9.3.5 Socioeconomic Justice subsections (If a socioeconomic topic is important [or EJ] analyses is important enough for significant and Environmental enough for a discussion in the proposed site analysis, that discussion within the proposed site analysis, that Justice same topic should be considered for each alternative site) same topic should be considered for each could be taken to mean that these analysis are optional alternative site. Alternative site analysis may be for the proposed site. However, as written, Sections 2.4 & limited to the extent to which the topic(s) has the 2.5* 4.4 & 4.5; 5.4 & 5.5 qive detailed requirements for potential to indicate clear site superiority."

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 25 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation these assessments that do not sound optional.

Additionally, this guidance should be reconciled against the language in Sec. 9.3.3-9.3.S regarding the use of reconnaissance-level information (i.e., the importance of a specific topic within socioeconomic and EJ analyses need not necessarily drive characterization of an alternative site beyond reconnaissance level, except in the case of a clear indication that an alternative site could be clearly superior.

78. Chapter 9, Section This portion of the DG is vague as to intent and when it is Provide clarification on what constitutes "unusual 9.4.3 Other System applicable. circumstances" and/or what criteria should be used Alternatives to determine if such circumstances exist.

79. Appendix A, Sec. A.1 The DG appendix states: "An applicant for an ESP should While this language is seemingly innocuous, it Early Site Permits review previous applications along with associated should be balanced with an acknowledgment of the requests for additional information (RAis) to gain an need for regulatory stability and objective criteria to understanding of the level of detail needed to receive an be met from one application to the next.

ESP."

While this is reasonable advice, the trend has been toward ever-increasing application content, "informed" by prior applications in a feed-forward fashion that has the net effect of increasing regulatory burden. For regulatory burden to grow as plant designs increase margins of safety is counterintuitive and contrary to efficient reaulation.

80. Appendix A, Sec. A.2 The DG appendix states: "All the information described in The staff should establish consistent guidance on Combined License Part C, with the exception of alternative sites, should be the "age" threshold for "new and significant" Referencing an Early reviewed by the applicant to determine if any new and information that recognizes the value of an ESP and Site Permit significant information has become available since the the need for regulatory stability.

issuance of the ESP EIS. If new and significant information has become available, the applicant must include it in the ER for the COL referencina the ESP."

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 26 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation Additional guidance is needed in determining the "shelf life" for environmental data. While the DG says in other locations (e.g., Sec. 2.3.1) that "studies Work ideally show the condition of the ecological resources that exist no more than 5 to 10 years prior to NRC receiving the application," it has more often been the case that the staff have suggested that data older than two to five years must be "refreshed" for a COLA.

With a typical review time of 3+ years for an ESP, if data must be refreshed after two years, then an ESP is of highly questionable value vis-a-vis finality for site findings, contrary to the statement in Sec. A.1 that "[t]he ESP process is meant to resolve [site-specific environmental safety and emergency planning] issues well in advance of when a decision is made to build a nuclear power olant."

81. Appendix B, With the exception of the final paragraph, this appendix Consider moving this information to NUREG-1555, Consultations provides direction almost exclusivelv to the staff. or include appropriate ouidance to applicants.

82. Appendix C Very little of the guidance in this appendix is unique to Consider folding the content of Appendix C into the SMRs. In particular Sec. C.7 offers guidance that is main body of the DG, with emphasis on the aspects generic in almost every case to multi-unit LLWRs as well. of the guidance that are of particular interest to small reactors.

Secs. C.1 through C.6 offer useful insights that, if this

• appendix is absorbed into the main DG text, would make sense to highlight. Similarly, Sec. C.7.9 is helpful for smaller reactors (SMRs or otherwise). But the balance of the appendix includes guidance that is generally applicable to anv desion.

83. Appendix C Appendix should be reviewed for consistent/appropriate Review/revise as indicated usage of terms "unit" and "module"

84. Appendix C The DG appendix states "An SMR is a reactor unit with a To avoid confusion and maintain consistencv with

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 27 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation introductory section nominal output of 300 MW(e) or less that is able to be other usage by NRC, change to:

factory fabricated and transpprted to the site for assembly of components and operation." This is not a formal "An SMR is generally considered to be a nuclear definition, and an SMR is not typically thought of as only a plant consisting of one or more reactor units, with a single unit. Further, SMRs are not necessarily "factory nominal output of 300 MWe or less per unit. SMRs fabricated," although many modules are. may also include use of construction modules fabricated offsite and transported for assembly at the olant site."

85. Appendix C, C.1 The subsections of this section should be renumbered Renumber as indicated Licensing Scenarios from C.2 through C.6 to C.1.1 through C.1.6 (or similar) to reflect the fact that they are subsections of the C.1 topic.

86. Appendix C, Section Section C.3 states, "An applicant could request licenses for Elaborate on and clarify how future modules are C.3, para. 1 one or more modules and inform the NRC that it intends determined to be reasonably foreseeable or not.

to request licenses for additional modules in the future.

Under this scenario, the proposed action would include only the modules for which licenses are requested. The applicant should provide sufficient information to allow the NRC to determine whether the additional modules are reasonably foreseeable for the purposes of evaluating cumul<!tive impacts. For the additional modules to be treated as reasonably foreseeable, the siting study submitted with the original application should include consideration of all the modules."

It is unclear how the NRC would determine whether the additional modules are reasonably foreseeable. Would it be tied to a certain period of time in which the modules would be installed? For example, it could be stated that reasonably foreseeable is if a requested additional module is to come on line 15 years or less after initial module and any time greater than 15 years is not reasonably foreseeable.

It seems a determination on foreseeability would be

Attachment Docket ID NRC-2017-0041 Page 28 of 28 Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation unnecessary if it is understood that, by definition, if the applicant put the future module in the siting study (or elsewhere in the application) they foresaw it (and therefore was reasonably foreseeable) and if they didn't then it was unforeseen (and therefore not reasonably foreseeable).

87. Appendix C, C.4 Two The DG appendix states: "An applicant may request a Restate along the lines of:

or More Separate license for a certain number of modules without the siting License Applications analysis and ER considering additional modules at that site "In certain circumstances, a licensee or applicant as reasonably foreseeable. The ER (and the NRC's EIS) may identify the need for additional modules will only consider the modules requested. If an applicant subsequent to the initial application, which could submits a subsequent application for additional modules, create the option of a subsequent application for the ER will have to address all of the issues in this RG additional modules not considered as reasonably including alternative sites and alternative energy." foreseeable in the original siting analysis and ER.

The initial ER (and the NRC's EIS) will only consider This section identifies a scenario where a license for the modules requested. If an applicant submits a additional modules may be sought at a later date, but not subsequent application for additional modules, the identified in the original application. The description of ER will have to address all of the issues in this RG regulatory risk for this scenario would benefit from including alternative sites and alternative energy."

clarification.

88. Appendix C, Section The 4tn paragraph states that "an applicant may propose Staff must justify this need and the regulatory C.7.9 to use excess heat for industrial processes or station basis. Additionally, clarify the impact of having to heating as an additional purpose for the proposed project, submit alternative sites for "military, government, or provide a secure energy source for military, or critical industrial facilities" when such facilities government, or critical industrial facilities. In these cases, present brownfield applications.

the applicant must still submit alternative sites."