ML19234A216
| ML19234A216 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/20/2020 |
| From: | Jack Cushing NRC/NRO/DLSE/RENVB |
| To: | |
| Cushing J | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20054B832 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML19234A216 (15) | |
Text
ML19234A216 -DRAFT DRAFT MICRO-REACTOR APPLICATIONS COL-ISG-029 Environmental Considerations Associated with Micro-reactors Interim Staff Guidance (For Comment)
ML19234A216 *Concurrence via e-mail 17 OFFICE QTE NMSS/REFS/ERNR PM NMSS/REFS/ERNR BC NMSS/REFS/ERNB/BC NAME
- Jay Dougherty Jack Cushing Ken Erwin
- Cinthya Roman-Cuevas DATE 12/19/2019 01/09/2020 01/09/2020 9/6/19 OFFICE NMSS/REFS/D NRR/DANU/ARLB/PM NRR/DANU/ARLB/BC NSIR/RSB/BC NAME John Tappert Mallecia Sutton
- Ben Beasley
- Michele Sampson DATE 02/20/2020 01/10/2020 11/5/2019*
10/30/2019 OFFICE NMSS/DFM/D*
OGC NRR/DANU/D NAME
- Andrea Kock Megan Wright*
- John Monninger DATE 10/28/2019 01/09/2020 11/15/2019
ML19234A216DRAFT Page A-1 ISSUANCE STATUS 1
Draft for Comment 2
PURPOSE 3
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staff is preparing for the environmental 4
reviews1 of prospective design, license, and permit applications for advanced nuclear power 5
reactors (advanced reactors), including micro-reactors. Characteristics shared by designs 6
referred to as micro-reactors include the low potential for transients and accidents, low potential 7
for radioactive releases, low potential consequences from radiological release, small building 8
and site footprints, operating power levels on the order of tens of megawatts-thermal or less, 9
and increased reliance on passive systems and inherent characteristics used to control power 10 and prevent radioactive releases.
11 The purpose of this interim staff guidance (ISG) is to modify existing guidance and provide 12 supplemental guidance to assist the NRC staff in determining the scope and scale of 13 environmental reviews of micro-reactor applications. The guidance highlights unique 14 considerations for micro-reactors in each resource area typically covered in the staffs 15 environmental review. This document also offers guidance on scaling the analyses. The staff 16 should be familiar with the following guidance documents that may inform the preparation of a 17 prospective applicants environmental report (ER):
18 NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power 19 Plants: Environmental Standard Review Plan 20 COL/ESP-ISG-026, Environmental Issues Associated with New Reactors, issued 21 August 2014 22 NUREG-1537, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of 23 Non-Power Reactors 24 Final ISG augmenting NUREG-1537, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing 25 Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, Chapter 19, Environmental 26 Review 27 The NRC staff may also consider the guidance in this ISG along with that in Regulatory Guide 28 (RG) 4.2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations, when preparing 29 EISs. A micro-reactor may have a limited impact during the construction and operation phases 30 of the facility, and this fact could support streamlined documentation and reduce review times.
31 This ISG focuses on identifying considerations and approaches to simplify and shorten the 32 environmental reviews for micro-reactors relative to the environmental reviews that the NRC has 33 1
The regulations at Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 51.20, Criteria for and Identification of Licensing and Regulatory Actions Requiring Environmental Impact Statements, require the preparation of an environmental impact statement (EIS) or a supplement documenting the NRC staffs environmental findings for issuance of an early site permit (ESP) or a combined license (COL) under 10 CFR Part 52, Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants, or for issuance of a construction permit (CP) and operating license (OL) for a nuclear power reactor under 10 CFR Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities. Applicants for micro-reactors will most likely file applications for COLs or ESPs under Part 52 or for CPs or OLs under Part 50. As such, 10 CFR 51.20 applies and requires that the staff prepare an EIS for those licensing actions.
ML19234A216DRAFT Page 2 previously performed for other nuclear facilities, such as large light-water reactors (LWRs). This 1
ISG outlines what the NRC staff considers to be an appropriate scope and level of detail for the 2
specific aspects of an environmental review needed to document a micro-reactor licensing 3
action. A micro-reactor may have some, but not necessarily all, of the following characteristics:
4 Occupies only a small area of land, disturbs only previously disturbed lands, or both.
5 Uses zero or only small quantities of resources, such as water or fuel.
6 Releases zero or only small quantities of emissions to the environment.
7 Avoids environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and floodplains.
8 Avoids areas with cultural, historic, or environmental justice significance.
9 Avoids habitat for threatened or endangered species.
10 Uses mitigation to reduce impacts.
11 Involves only low levels of employment for both construction and operation.
12 Uses simpler designs than those for large LWRs, with limited interfaces with the exterior 13 environment.
14 While this ISG is designed to aid the NRC staff in developing a micro-reactor EIS, the staff 15 recognizes the value of this guidance as a supplemental source of insight into the NRCs 16 environmental review process that can inform the development of an applicants ER. Applicants 17 should scale their level of effort appropriately when preparing ERs, commensurate with the 18 significance of the impact on the resource area being addressed.
19 The scope of this ISG is limited to environmental review considerations specific to 20 micro-reactors, such as the following:
21 preapplication interactions 22 purpose and need for the proposed project 23 size of the proposed project and resources used 24 land use 25 water resources 26 terrestrial and aquatic ecology 27 socioeconomics and environmental justice 28 historic and cultural resources 29 need for power and alternatives 30 meteorology and air quality 31 radiological and nonradiological health 32 postulated accidents 33 severe accident mitigation alternatives (SAMAs);
34 acts of terrorism 35 fuel cycle impacts, transportation of fuel and waste, and continued storage of spent fuel 36 cumulative impact analysis 37 consistency with safety licensing documents 38
ML19234A216DRAFT Page 3 incorporation by reference 1
The NRC staff will continue to look for other opportunities to effectively streamline 2
environmental reviews and work with prospective applicants to identify opportunities to 3
streamline ERs and still meet the NRCs regulations.
4 Preapplication Interactions 5
Preapplication interactions could assist with determining the appropriate scope and scale of an 6
ER. Early interactions among the applicant and staff and their respective contractors should be 7
used to establish clear communications and mutual understanding of the review scope and to 8
identify key areas of significance in the draft application. Preapplication interactions between 9
prospective applicants and NRC staff conducted in accordance with 10 CFR 51.40, 10 Consultation with NRC Staff, can help set the scale of environmental field surveys before 11 making substantive commitments of time and resources. Preapplication meetings and 12 interactions need to be well focused and cover specific features, topics, and issues that are 13 expected to be technically complex, unique, novel, or challenging from a policy perspective.
14 Early preapplication engagement may provide the NRC staff insight on how to best prepare to 15 efficiently and effectively review a submittal. For example, the detailed characterization of 16 terrestrial and aquatic habitats and seasonal observations of flora and fauna described in 17 RG 4.11, Terrestrial Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations, and RG 4.24, Aquatic 18 Environmental Studies for Nuclear Power Stations, may not be necessary for projects that 19 disturb only a few acres. Purely reconnaissance-level evaluations using only published and 20 online data sources and perhaps a single site visit may be adequate for certain resource areas, 21 depending on the characteristics of the proposed new micro-reactor and site. The scope of site 22 characterization and environmental baseline surveys should be tailored to what is essential to 23 take a meaningful, hard look at licensing alternatives. Preapplication interactions among 24 prospective applicants, their consultants, and NRC staff subject matter experts provide an 25 opportunity to appropriately scale an environmental review and accurately estimate needed 26 review time and resource allocations. ERs comprising concise or qualitative 27 reconnaissance-level evaluations by qualified subject matter experts for most environmental 28 resource areas may be adequate for many micro-reactors with minimal potential for impacts.
29 BACKGROUND 30 Historically, the NRC has licensed nuclear facilities, including large LWRs, that involved the 31 construction of dozens of buildings and other structures comprising the use of hundreds of 32 acres. Large LWR projects had the potential to fundamentally transform surrounding 33 landscapes, stream and river systems, and rural communities. The NRC staff anticipates that 34 the construction footprints for micro-reactors will be small, that water consumption may be zero 35 or limited to a small amount per day for potable purposes, and that construction and operation 36 may involve a limited number of workers. Furthermore, many of these micro-reactors may be 37 sited within existing developed areas that lack sensitive environmental resources. As such, 38 when compared to a large LWR, a micro-reactor is likely to require a smaller amount of data 39 and analysis for most environmental issues.
40 APPLICABILITY 41 This ISG is applicable to the environmental reviews for micro-reactor licensing actions.
42 Specifically, this ISG applies to environmental reviews for micro-reactors associated with limited 43
ML19234A216DRAFT Page 4 work authorization, construction permit, and operating license applications submitted under 1
10 CFR Part 50, and with ESP and COL applications under 10 CFR Part 52. Elements of this 2
ISG may also apply to some larger advanced reactor projects with limited environmental 3
interface. However, the applicability to non-micro-reactors would need to be discussed during 4
the preapplication phase.
5 GUIDANCE 6
Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project 7
The NRC staff develops the purpose and need statement, informed by the applicants 8
objectives2 as stated in the applicants ER, and this statement is the basis for the evaluation of 9
the need for the project and for establishing a reasonable set of alternatives to the proposed 10 action. Alternatives that do not meet the purpose and need statement are not considered 11 reasonable alternatives and are not analyzed in detail. For micro-reactors, the applicant may 12 request licensing for purposes other than or in addition to electric power production, and the 13 NRC staff considers the purpose of the project as identified by the applicants ER in developing 14 the purpose and need statement in the NRCs EIS.
15 Size of the Proposed Project and Resources Used 16 The NRC staff anticipates that a micro-reactor will have a small footprint and use limited 17 resources. If the micro-reactor site encompasses no more than a few acres, then the amount of 18 information and level of data collection needed to describe the site and the impacts resulting 19 from the footprint of disturbance may be limited. In addition, because of the small facility size, 20 the applicant can potentially select a site that avoids impacts to some resources, such as 21 wetlands, floodplains, sensitive habitats, or historic and cultural resources. The following 22 sections discuss the analysis of specific environmental resources for a micro-reactor.
23 Land Use 24 Micro-reactors might have a small land use footprint, consisting of only a few acres, thus 25 affecting minimal land and land-based resources, such as farmland, forests, and minerals. As 26 such, micro-reactors may be sited to avoid floodplains, wetlands, park land, and prime or unique 27 farmland. The application should scale the methodologies in these guidance documents, as 28 appropriate, for micro-reactors to reflect the anticipated land area affected and land-based 29 resources used. The applicant may need to use certain guidance for a consistency 30 determination under the Coastal Zone Management Act if a micro-reactor is sited in a 31 State-designated Coastal Zone. The ER will need to evaluate whether building and operation of 32 the micro-reactor is consistent with applicable zoning and land use plans. If the applicant 33 proposes to locate a micro-reactor on a site containing, or adjacent to, sensitive land resources, 34 such as wetlands or prime or unique farmland, then the applicant should follow existing 35 guidance for considering possible impacts to those resources.
36 Water Resources 37 Micro-reactors might not use cooling water and might not require building or operating intake or 38 discharge structures or pipelines. If this is the case, the ER will not need to analyze the 39 2
The Council on Environmental Qualitys (CEQs) regulation at 40 CFR 1502.13, Purpose and Need, defines purpose and need as follows: The statement shall briefly specify the underlying purpose and need to which the agency is responding in proposing the alternatives including the proposed action.
ML19234A216DRAFT Page 5 associated impacts. A brief evaluation may be sufficient to document that the water demands 1
can be met without noticeably affecting surface and ground water resources. It may also be 2
necessary to briefly document the use of best management practices in accordance with State 3
or local guidelines to minimize potential erosion and sedimentation.
4 Terrestrial Ecology 5
Micro-reactors might affect terrestrial habitat and important species and their habitats.
6 Micro-reactors could be sited to avoid wetlands, riparian habitats, critical habitats, or habitats 7
potentially containing threatened or endangered species. The ER will not have to address 8
potential impacts to terrestrial features that are avoided. Micro-reactors also might not require 9
transmission lines, pipelines, heavy haul roads, or other linear development features. If such 10 linear development is not contemplated, then the ER will not have to consider possible effects 11 on terrestrial habitats distant from the site. It will always be necessary for the NRC staff to 12 consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to comply with Section 7, Interagency 13 Cooperation, of the Endangered Species Act. However, it may be possible to resolve potential 14 concerns from a micro-reactor project affecting little or no terrestrial habitat through informal 15 consultation.
16 Aquatic Ecology 17 If micro-reactors do not use cooling water and do not require building or operating intake or 18 discharge structures or pipelines, the staff will not have to address such issues as entrainment, 19 impingement, or entrapment of aquatic biota or thermal discharges. If a micro-reactor is sited 20 away from surface waters and associated floodplains and stream valleys, the ER will not need 21 to characterize potential impacts from sedimentation or erosion. Micro-reactors also may not 22 require transmission lines, pipelines, heavy haul roads, or other linear development features. If 23 such linear development is not contemplated, then the ER will not have to consider possible 24 effects on surface water features distant from the site. It will always be necessary for NRC staff 25 to consult with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries Service to 26 comply with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. For projects sited in coastal areas or 27 near large rivers, the staff may need to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service as 28 well to comply with the Magnuson-Stevens Act. However, it may be possible to resolve 29 potential concerns from a micro-reactor project affecting little or no aquatic habitat through 30 informal consultation.
31 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice 32 Micro-reactors may have limited numbers of construction workers and operational staff, and 33 therefore may not require extensive demographic and employment analyses. The evaluation 34 should be scaled as appropriate to reflect the employment levels and demand for regional 35 services such as housing, schools, police, and fire. The scope will depend on the extent of 36 project activities, and the focus of the analyses should consider only those areas affected by the 37 project and the distances at which impacts of building and operating over the expected license 38 term may occur.
39 Historic and Cultural Resources 40 Applicants for micro-reactors may propose to disturb only a small footprint of land, which may 41 correspond to a small area of potential effects (APE) on historic and cultural resources. Based 42 on the size of the APE, it may be possible to site a micro-reactor to avoid or minimize impacts to 43
ML19234A216DRAFT Page 6 historic and cultural resources. However, the process for assessing effects to historic properties 1
and historic and cultural resources, along with the associated consultation under Section 106 of 2
the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, is the same as for other reactor projects. The 3
implementing regulations at 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties, serve as a 4
guide for gathering information and assessing the effects to historic properties. A small APE 5
may expedite the review process. The scope of the impact evaluation depends on the potential 6
presence and significance of resources within the APE. For example, siting on previously 7
disturbed land could potentially reduce the likelihood of discovering archaeological resources.
8 Need for Power and Alternatives 9
The applicant should base the discussion of the need for electrical power on the guidance in 10 RG 4.2. However, a micro-reactor application might include additional purposes, such as 11 generating power in a cogeneration arrangement or exclusively producing specific products 12 (e.g., potable water, hydrogen gas). In each case, the NRC staff will determine the need for the 13 proposed end-user products. RG 4.2 provides several options to demonstrate the need for 14 power. For instance, if an applicant were to seek a license for the cogeneration of electricity 15 and the desalination of salt water for human consumption, the applicant would have to establish 16 the need for the electricity in a manner similar to that currently discussed in RG 4.2. Similarly, 17 the plan to produce potable water would trigger a second need analysis to determine whether 18 the relevant service area needs the water that would be produced. This additional need would 19 also trigger a second set of alternative analysesin this case, for alternative ways to supply the 20 societal need for potable water (e.g., drilling wells, creating reservoirs, or piping in water from 21 where it is more abundant). Early in the preapplication process, the NRC staff should determine 22 whether the applicant anticipates including purposes for the proposed facility beyond the 23 commercial sale of electricity.
24 Meteorology and Air Quality 25 Micro-reactors may have limited potential air emissions and limited potential contribution to 26 global climate change. For specific data requirements, the environmental review of potential 27 meteorology and air quality impacts from micro-reactors will likely rely on the same information 28 provided for the safety review and not require additional monitoring data or dispersion modeling.
29 If a micro-reactor operates without cooling towers, then analyses of cooling tower drift, 30 shadowing, fogging, and icing will not be necessary. The applicant should scale, as 31 appropriate, any analysis of atmospheric emissions from construction and operations based on 32 the review procedures in NUREG-1555 to the expected level of emissions. However, the staff 33 may rely on other documents as appropriate for its global climate change review and findings.
34 Nonradiological Health 35 If a micro-reactor has a small size, simple design, minimal staffing, and limited resource use, it 36 may pose a limited nonradiological risk to human health and safety. As such, simple analyses 37 of potential nonradiological impacts may be sufficient. A small footprint, limited workforce, and 38 design considerations may result in a streamlined health analysis. If a micro-reactor can 39 operate without cooling water discharges, it would have a limited potential to elevate 40 surface-water temperatures conducive to pathogens. If limited vehicular use is necessary to 41 build and operate a micro-reactor, transportation safety considerations may be minimal.
42
ML19234A216DRAFT Page 7 Additionally, micro-reactors may not require transmission lines; thus, the ER may not need to 1
consider the effects of electromagnetic fields over distant landscapes.
2 Radiological Health 3
Micro-reactors may have limited, or zero, radiological releases during normal operations from 4
liquid, gaseous, and solid radioactive waste systems, as driven by the design. Current guidance 5
and procedures for assessing radiological health still apply if the applicant anticipates 6
radiological releases. The staff should also consider incorporation by reference of the safety 7
findings since the micro-reactor applicant would still have to demonstrate that plant operations 8
are within the dose limits of 10 CFR Part 20, Standards for Protection Against Radiation. The 9
environmental findings must also address the areas cumulative population exposure for 10 comparison with the natural background radiation level and address doses to nonhuman biota.
11 The staff should complete this part of the environmental assessment using the same analytical 12 tools as applied to the radiological health safety findings.
13 Postulated Accidents 14 The risks from micro-reactor accidents may be limited. As with radiological health, the 15 micro-reactors design will drive the staffs environmental evaluation of postulated accidents for 16 the micro-reactor. In evaluating the radiological releases from postulated accidents, the staff 17 will consider the designs safety features and analyses, including the results of a probabilistic 18 risk assessment, as appropriate, and as presented in the applicants safety analysis report. The 19 NRC environmental reviewers will coordinate the review of such postulated accidents with the 20 NRC safety reviewers.
21 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives 22 A particular micro-reactor design may not have credible severe accidents associated with it.3 In 23 such a case, the NRC staff will not need to assess the offsite environmental impacts from 24 severe accidents or evaluate the benefits and costs of SAMAs. The ER should provide 25 information, including appropriate references to the accident analysis contained in the safety 26 analysis report, to support the assertion that a SAMA evaluation is not needed. The NRC staffs 27 EIS must document whether or not the conclusions reached in the safety evaluation report 28 support the applicants safety accident analysis. However, if the micro-reactor design has 29 credible severe accidents, a SAMA evaluation will be necessary. The current guidance for 30 SAMAs is based on several documents, including NUREG/BR-0058, Regulatory Analysis 31 Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory 32 Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook, issued January 1997, with industry guidance for 33 license renewals provided in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 05-01, Severe Accident Mitigation 34 Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis, Guidance Document, Revision A, issued November 2005.
35 If the design includes credible severe accidents, the applicant should perform a SAMA 36 screening, and the NRC staff will determine whether a SAMA evaluation is necessary. In 37 considering the results of the screening, the NRC staff should determine the cost benefit of 38 performing a SAMA evaluation. This screening process should be based on the available risk 39 information from the safety analysis report and apply the cost formulas as a first step rather than 40 a last step, as prescribed under current review practices. If the resulting maximum benefit cost 41 3
The NRC staff will determine whether credible severe accidents are associated with a particular micro-reactor design based on the staffs review of information presented in an applicants safety analysis report.
ML19234A216DRAFT Page 8 will clearly not exceed the implementation cost of any design alternatives, then the 1
environmental finding of no potentially cost-beneficial SAMAs is reasonable.
2 Acts of Terrorism 3
Previous Circuit Court decisions addressed the circumstances under which the NRC must 4
assess the environmental impacts from potential acts of terrorism and sabotage. The United 5
States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the NRC could not categorically refuse to 6
consider the consequences of a terrorist attack in an analysis under the National Environmental 7
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA). The Commission thereafter stated it will adhere to the courts 8
decision for licensing actions for facilities subject to the jurisdiction of that Circuit. The court 9
decisions related to NEPA evaluations of terrorist attacks and the NRC staffs subsequent 10 evaluations to address them are discussed in Section E.3, Accident Risk and Impact 11 Assessment, of Appendix E, Environmental Impact of Postulated Accidents, to NUREG-1437, 12 Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Revision 1, 13 issued June 2013, and in Section 4.19, Potential Acts of Sabotage or Terrorism, of 14 NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent 15 Nuclear Fuel, issued September 2014. In circumstances under which the NRC is required to 16 address acts of terrorism and sabotage, the staff evaluation will apply a process for reaching an 17 environmental finding for this impact unless the micro-reactor applicant can demonstrate that 18 the design features that provide physical protection of the reactor make acts of terrorism remote 19 and speculative. This section presents two options for the staff to consider for the 20 environmental review.
21 The first method is to determine whether an act of terrorism would have a similar result as a 22 bounding licensing-basis event evaluated under the safety review. NUREG-1437 and 23 NUREG-2157 state that the staff should assess whether a postulated accident evaluated under 24 the safety analysis from internally initiated events or external hazard events would be bounding 25 for a potential act of terrorism.
26 A second method could be applied if the postulated accidents evaluated as part of the safety 27 review cannot provide the bounding scenario. In this case, the NRC environmental reviewer 28 should coordinate with staff in the NRC Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response to 29 determine the parameters for an act of terrorism to be applied in the environmental review. The 30 environmental impacts from this act of terrorism should be evaluated and the resulting 31 hypothetical radiation dose be determined for an individual at the site boundary and at any other 32 desired offsite locations. A calculated dose to an individual at the nearest site boundary could 33 be applied for comparison to be consistent with the regulatory dose requirements at the time of 34 the application.
35 As part of either assessment option, the NRC staff should discuss how such acts could be 36 mitigated by the applicants plans for complying with the physical protection requirements under 37 10 CFR Part 73, Physical Protection of Plants and Materials, that provide reasonable 38 assurance that the risk from sabotage is small. The resulting environmental finding should then 39 be based on a combination of the applicants plans for satisfying the security requirements and 40 the assessed environmental impacts.
41 Fuel Cycle Impacts, Transportation of Fuel and Waste, and Continued Storage of Spent Fuel 42 The NRC staff has evaluated fuel cycle impacts for LWRs, as documented in 10 CFR 51.51, 43 Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental DataTable S-3, Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle 44
ML19234A216DRAFT Page 9 Environmental Data. However, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.51, only an ER for LWRs can 1
include Table S-3. For reactors other than LWRs, the application must contain the basis for 2
evaluating the contribution of the environmental effects of fuel cycle activities for the reactor 3
(10 CFR 51.50(b)(3)). The staff should discuss during preapplication interactions how the 4
applicant will address the fuel cycle impacts for the specific project.
5 The NRC has generically evaluated the environmental impacts of the transportation of fuel and 6
waste in 10 CFR 51.52, Environmental Effects of Transportation of Fuel and Waste 7
Table S-4, Table S-4, Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste To and From 8
One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor, for LWR fuel that meets certain entry 9
conditions specified in 10 CFR 51.52(a). Additionally, in NUREG-2157, the NRC evaluates the 10 environmental impacts of the continued storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond the licensed life for 11 the operation of LWRs. In 10 CFR 51.23, Environmental Impacts of Continued Storage of 12 Spent Nuclear Fuel Beyond the Licensed Life for Operation of a Reactor, the NRC specifies 13 that NUREG-2157 is deemed incorporated into the EIS for a new reactor. However, 14 NUREG-2157 did not evaluate the storage of spent nuclear fuel from non-LWRs. The NRC staff 15 will address spent fuel storage for micro-reactors and other non-LWRs on a case-by-case basis 16 and document its findings in the appropriate safety documentation and EIS.
17 Cumulative Impact Analysis 18 Micro-reactors may have operational and physical characteristics (e.g., small footprints) that 19 minimize the size of the area affected by the micro-reactor project, thereby more narrowly 20 focusing the scope of the cumulative impact analysis. If the micro-reactor project does not 21 impact a resource, then the NRCs environmental review will not need to discuss or provide a 22 cumulative impact analysis for that resource.
23 Consistency with Safety Licensing Documents 24 Micro-reactor designs must satisfy the applicable technical requirements of 10 CFR Part 50, 25 10 CFR Part 52, and 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria, as well as the public and 26 occupational health requirements of 10 CFR Part 20 and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix I, 27 Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation To Meet the 28 Criterion As Low as is Reasonably Achievable for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled 29 Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents, as applicable. The NRC environmental reviewers for the 30 radiological impact assessment should closely coordinate the review with the NRC safety 31 reviewers. To the extent practicable, the radiological impacts presented in the applicants ER 32 should be consistent with the safety analysis report.
33 If a micro-reactor applicant also submits requests for exemption from any safety regulations, the 34 ER and the EIS must assess the environmental impacts of the exemption requests.
35 Additionally, confirmatory calculations in support of the NRC staffs safety review could be 36 informative for assessing offsite impacts under the environmental review. The staff should 37 review and coordinate any differences between the applicants safety and environmental 38 documents and document those differences in its findings.
39 Incorporation by Reference 40 Reviewers are encouraged to use incorporation by reference to reduce the length and amount 41 of time needed for environmental reviews. Incorporation by reference may be especially useful 42
ML19234A216DRAFT Page 10 in keeping environmental review documentation on a scale appropriate for micro-reactors.
1 Appendix A to this ISG provides guidance on the use of incorporate by reference.
2 IMPLEMENTATION 3
4 The NRC staff will use the information discussed in this ISG to evaluate the potential 5
environmental impacts of micro-reactors on the various resource areas in relation to their 6
significance.
7 CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW ACT 8
Discussion to be provided in final ISG.
9 References 10 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and 11 Utilization Facilities.
12 Code of Federal Regulations, Title 10, Energy, Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations 13 for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions.
14 Fixing Americas Surface Transportation Act, Title 41, 42 U.S.C. § 4370m et seq.
15 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 4321, et seq.
16 Office Instruction NRO-REG-100, Acceptance Review Process for Early Site Permit, Design 17 Certification, and Combined License Applications, Revision 2, December 18, 2014 (ADAMS 18 Accession No. ML14078A152).
19 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 05-01, Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives (SAMA) Analysis, 20 Guidance Document, Revision A, November 2005 (ADAMS Accession No. ML060530203).
21 NEI 10-07, Industry Guideline for Effective Pre-Application Interactions with Agencies Other 22 Than NRC During the Early Site Permit Process, Revision 1, January 2013 (ADAMS Accession 23 No. ML13028A392).
24 COL/ESP-ISG-026, Environmental Issues Associated with New Reactors, August 2014 25 (ADAMS Accession No. ML14092A402).
26 NUREG/BR-0058, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 27 Commission, Revision 4, September 2004 (ADAMS Accession No. ML042820192).
28 NUREG/BR-0184, Regulatory Analysis Technical Evaluation Handbook, January 1997 29 (ADAMS Accession No. ML050190193).
30 NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 31 Plants, Revision 1, June 2013 (ADAMS Package Accession No. ML13107A023).
32 NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants:
33 Environmental Standard Review Plan.
34
ML19234A216DRAFT Page 11 NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent 1
Nuclear Fuel, September 2014 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14196A105 and ML14196A107).
2 RG 4.7, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations.
3 RG 4.2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations.
4 DG-1353, Guidance for a Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based 5
Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, 6
Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light-Water Reactors, April 2019 (ADAMS Accession 7
No. ML18312A242).
8
ML19234A216DRAFT Page A-1 Appendix A 1
Incorporation by Reference Guidance for an Environmental 2
Impact Statement 3
4 Purpose 5
6 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) promotes measures to streamline internal 7
processes to improve efficiency. Efficiency measures include those aimed at optimizing the 8
environmental reviews performed by the NRC staff. One initiative to streamline the 9
environmental review process and reduce unnecessary repetition of previous analyses is to 10 incorporate by reference publicly available documents. This appendix provides methodologies 11 for incorporating previous analyses by reference into environmental review documentation.
12 13
Background
14 15 Consistent with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 51.95(a), the NRC staff 16 may incorporate by reference any information contained in a final environmental document 17 previously prepared by the NRC staff that relates to the same facility. Additionally, 18 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related 19 Regulatory Functions, Subpart A, National Environmental Policy ActRegulations 20 Implementing Section 102(2), Appendix A, Format for Presentation of Material in 21 Environmental Impact Statements, states, in part, that the technique of incorporation by 22 reference described in 40 CFR 1502.21, Implementation, of the Council on Environmental 23 Qualitys (CEQs) regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 24 (NEPA) may be used as appropriate to aid in the presentation of issues, eliminate repetition, or 25 reduce the size of an environmental impact statement (EIS). The CEQ regulation at 26 40 CFR 1502.21, Incorporation by Reference, states the following:
27 28 Agencies shall incorporate material into an environmental impact statement by 29 reference when the effect will be to cut down on bulk without impeding agency 30 and public review of the action. The incorporated material shall be cited in 31 the statement and its content briefly described. No material may be 32 incorporated by reference unless it is reasonably available for inspection by 33 potentially interested persons within the time allowed for comment. Material 34 based on proprietary data which is itself not available for review and comment 35 shall not be incorporated by reference. [Emphasis added]
36 37 These regulations allow NRC technical reviewers to comply with the requirements of NEPA by 38 referring to materials already published elsewhere.
39 40 General Staff Guidance 41 42 When incorporating by reference, technical reviewers should adhere to the following three 43 principles to meet the criteria of 40 CFR 1502.21:
44 45
ML19234A216DRAFT Page 2
- 1)
Specificity: After ensuring that reference material is publicly available, identify the 1
documents that are being incorporated by reference and specify the section or page 2
range, or both, that is being incorporated.
3 4
- 2)
Summarize: Provide a summary of the information being incorporated by reference.
5 6
- 3)
Address new information: Identify and discuss any new information relevant to 7
environmental concerns and bearing on the proposed action or its impacts that was not 8
considered in the documents being incorporated by reference.
9 10 Environmental reviewers are encouraged to incorporate by reference any relevant information 11 from other publicly available documents (from the NRC, applicant documents submitted for the 12 record, or any other reputable source, such as other governmental entities or academic 13 institutions). The staff must only incorporate by reference documents that are publicly available 14 and properly cite them in the EIS reference list. Incorporating material from applicant 15 documents (such as the environmental report and safety analysis report) may be appropriate.
16 The staff should not, however, incorporate by reference conclusions from the applicants 17 environmental report.
18 19 The regulations at 10 CFR 51.41, Requirement to Submit Environmental Information, state 20 that [t]he Commission will independently evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of any 21 information which it uses. As such, the staff is responsible for evaluating and verifying the 22 reliability of the information that is incorporated by reference.
23 24 Generic Example 25 26 When NRC technical reviewers desire to use incorporation by reference for applicable 27 documents, the staffs review document should contain a clear statement to that effect. For 28 instance, at first usage in an EIS, the staff can accomplish incorporation by reference by using 29 language similar to the following:
30 31 Where appropriate, the NRC staff has summarized and incorporated by 32 reference material from the EIS for [XXX].
33 34 At the first appearance of each document incorporated by reference, the text should fully spell 35 out the title, and the EIS reference list should properly cite each document mentioned.
36 37 38