ML20141L788

NEI - Comments on Draft Micro-Reactor Applications COL-ISG-029, Environmental Considerations Associated with Micro-Reactors

ML20141L788
Person / Time
Site:	Nuclear Energy Institute, 99902028
Issue date:	05/20/2020
From:	Nichol M Nuclear Energy Institute
To:	Kenneth Erwin Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
Download: ML20141L788 (17)

Text

MARCUS R. NICHOL Senior Director, New Reactors 1201 F Street, NW, Suite 1100 Washington, DC 20004 P: 202.739.8131 mrn@nei.org nei.org May 20, 2020 Mr. Kenneth T. Erwin Environmental Review New Reactors Branch Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001

Subject:

NEI Comments on Draft Micro-Reactor Applications COL-ISG-029, Environmental Considerations Associated with Micro-Reactors Project Number: 689

Dear Mr. Kenneth T. Erwin:

The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)1 appreciates the opportunity to comment on Draft Micro-Reactor Applications COL-ISG-029, Environmental Considerations Associated with Micro-Reactors. Streamlining the NRCs environmental reviews is important to ensure the efficient and effective licensing of advanced reactors. The NRCs draft guidance provides useful clarification of the staffs expectations and is part of a broader set of actions that are needed in order to streamline NRCs environmental reviews, as discussed in our March 2020 white paper, Recommendations for Streamlining Environmental Reviews for Advanced Reactors.

While the draft guidance is written to be specific to micro-reactors, we note that many of the technical and other considerations informing the guidance are also applicable to other advanced reactors. In developing performance-based guidance for environmental consideration, the NRC should expand the scope to include other advanced reactor technologies that also have comparatively lower risk profile. We further note that this guidance establishes a scope of environmental considerations that would be appropriate for inclusion in the NRCs effort to develop a technology-inclusive advanced nuclear reactor generic environmental impact statement (ANR GEIS).

1 The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is responsible for establishing unified policy on behalf of its members relating to matters affecting the nuclear energy industry, including the regulatory aspects of generic operational and technical issues. NEIs members include entities licensed to operate commercial nuclear power plants in the United States, nuclear plant designers, major architect and engineering firms, fuel cycle facilities, nuclear materials licensees, and other organizations involved in the nuclear energy industry.

Mr. Kenneth T. Erwin May 20, 2020 Page 2 COL-ISG-29 provides a high-level discussion of the conditions that warrant alternative approaches to addressing environmental topics; however, it lacks the level of detail needed to clarify how an applicant can demonstrate that the reactor design meets these conditions and what alternative approaches would be acceptable. We request that the NRC provide additional detail to clarify the staffs expectations similar to COL/ESP-ISG-026, Interim Staff Guidance on Environmental Issues Associated with New Reactors. Clarity and benefit of the guidance can be enhanced by incorporating the following key principles:

• NRC environmental reviews should recognize the potential environmental benefits that advanced reactors would have on mitigating global climate change.

• NRC environmental reviews should credit compliance with the NRC license and other federal, state, and local environmental permits to eliminate duplicative reviews, and should be based on the presumption that such compliance is known to result in small or positive environmental impacts.

• NRC environmental reviews of advanced reactors should consider that the fuel cycle impacts may be very limited and could be bounded by current analyses for LWRs.

• The alternative site analyses should consider only those sites that are realistic and within the NRCs jurisdiction.

More detailed comments are included in the Attachment. We look forward to engaging with the NRC in your continuing work to streamline environmental reviews. If you have any questions concerning the industrys comments, please contact me or Kati Austgen (202.739.8068; kra@nei.org).

Sincerely, Marcus Nichol Attachment c: Mr. John D. Monninger, NRR/DANU, NRC Mr. Benjamin Beasley, NRR/DANU/UARL, NRC Ms. Mallecia Sutton, NRR/DANU/UARL, NRC Mr. Jack Cushing, NMSS/REFS/ERNRB, NRC NRC Document Control Desk

Nuclear Energy Institute Comments on Draft Micro-Reactor Application COL-ISG-029, Environmental Considerations Associated with Micro-Reactors Note: Some comments include the use of underline/strikethrough to show recommended changes to text in COL-ISG-029.

Affected Section Comment/Basis Recommendation

1. General The draft guidance is specific to micro-reactors. The draft guidance should be expanded to include However, many of the technical issues and other other advanced reactors. Alternatively, the NRC considerations included in the guidance are not unique to should develop similar guidance for other advanced micro-reactors. Other advanced reactors also have reactors that similarly accounts for their unique comparatively lower risk profiles. They rely more on technical considerations and comparatively lower passive systems and inherent characteristics used to potential impacts relative to the current fleet of control power and prevent radioactive releases. The LWRs.

draft guidance also mentions the low power levels and small site footprints for micro-reactors as basis for the guidance. Some other advanced reactors also have low power levels compared to current light water reactors (LWRs) and may often be sited at locations already in industrial use, minimizing new environmental impacts.

2. General As written, the lack of specificity and broad statements Clarify the ISG similar to COL/ESP-ISG-026, do not provide clarity on the level of detail needed to Interim Staff Guidance on Environmental Issues demonstrate whether a micro-reactor applicant would Associated with New Reactors, with more detail on include specific information or not. what specific types of information the NRC expects a micro-reactor applicant to include and what would not be needed. It could be helpful to establish a crosswalk between the guidance provided and the pertinent sections of an applicants Environmental Report and/or the staffs Environmental Impact Statement.

3. General The draft guidance acknowledges in the Purpose The NRC staff should add a section to the ISG section, Page 2, Line 11, that a unique characteristic of instructing the NRC staff to consider proposed micro-reactors is the ability to [use] mitigation to reduce mitigation efforts for environmental impacts impacts. However, this mitigation concept is not further discussed in the Environmental Report, and the discussed in the draft ISG. New technologies and design conditions upon which applicants proposed Page 1 of 15

approaches will allow micro-reactor applicants to mitigation measures can be relied upon to reduce significantly mitigate potential environmental impacts, the scope of an environmental analysis (e.g., if an and credit should be given for such efforts. applicant proposes methods to offset impacts on wetlands, then analysis of impacts on wetlands may Following the issuance of Council on Environmental be commensurately reduced in scope).

Quality (CEQ) Guidance in 2011, Appropriate Use of Mitigation and Monitoring and Clarifying the Appropriate Use of Mitigated Findings of No Significant Impact, the US government has generally embraced reliance on mitigation measures to lessen environmental impacts and the resultant scale of NEPA reviews.

Other NRC guidance documents also include more detailed discussion of mitigation and its use by applicants to reduce potential environmental impacts. See, e.g.,

COL/ESP-ISG-026; NRC, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Office Instruction LIC-203, Rev. 3, Procedural Guidance for Preparing Environmental Assessments and Considering Environmental Issues (June 24, 2013); Regulatory Guide 4.2, Rev. 3, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations (Sept. 2018).

4. Purpose, page A-1, Consistent with Comment No. 1, above, the description Add the following, Although this ISG solely applies first paragraph provided in this paragraph would also largely apply to to micro-reactors, some of the unique enhanced other advanced reactors. safety characteristics of micro-reactors are also available in other advanced reactors. Therefore, this ISG, in whole or in part, may be applicable for other advanced reactor environmental licensing considerations.

5. Purpose, page A-1, The reference to power levels may be misleading Eliminate language operating power levels on the first paragraph, line 9 insofar as it suggests that larger power levels necessarily order of tens of megawatts-thermal or less as one equate to larger environmental impacts. In fact, the of the qualifying characteristics.

power level has very little correlation to the environmental impacts, and is an inappropriate parameter for establishing the applicability of this guidance.

Page 2 of 15

6. Purpose, page A-1, The reference to NUREG-1537 for non-power reactors Expand discussion of how consideration of line 23 which may have equal, or greater, core power levels than environmental impacts for non-power reactors in micro-reactors, highlights an opportunity to compare and NUREG-1537 (and the final ISG augmenting contrast the two to identify similarities that can be used NUREG-1537) can be used by micro-reactor by applicants in assessing micro-reactor environmental designs.

impacts.

7. Purpose, page A-1, The reference Final ISG augmenting NUREG-1537, Ensure this ISG appears on the NRC website with line 25 Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for other Interim Staff Guidance Associated with the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, Chapter 19, Research and Test Reactors.

Environmental Review does not appear to be readily https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-available to the public. collections/isg/reserach-test-reactors.html Accessed April 28, 2020

8. Purpose, page A-1, Some advanced reactors will be used for purposes other Add clarifying language that micro-reactors to be footnote 1 than electric generation, such as the generation of utilized in the generation of electric power are hydrogen or the use of heat by a co-located industrial subject to the requirements of 10 CFR 51.20 and facility instead of, or in addition to, the generation of therefore an EIS will be required. Add language electric power. The NRC may not be obligated by that indicates non-power reactors may be subject regulation to prepare an environmental impact statement to a different level of NEPA analysis and will be (EIS) for all micro-reactors; micro-reactors are more handled on a case-by-case basis (unless and until analogous to research reactors than to large utility scale the relevant NRC regulation(s) are revised to allow nuclear power plants. the use of categorical exclusions and/or Environmental Assessments for micro-reactors).

Note that as recommended in NEIs White Paper, Recommendations for Streamlining Reviews for Advanced Reactors, for all advanced reactors, NRC should revise 10 CFR 51.20 to eliminate the list of NRC licensing actions that require an EIS and allow for the flexibility to use environmental assessments (EAs) and categorical exclusions for those licensing actions.

9. Purpose, page 2, Many of the resources listed as environmental review NRC should insert language that acknowledges lines 22-38 considerations are regulated by other agencies. NEPA is applicant compliance with the NRC license and intended to ensure that agencies consider the significant other federal, state, and local environmental environmental consequences of proposed actions and permits is known to result in small or positive inform the public about agency decision making. environmental impacts. NRC could request that Page 3 of 15

Agencies must use reliable existing data and resources, applicants demonstrate the compliance with other but are not required to undertake new scientific and federal, state, and local regulatory and permit technical research to inform their analysis. NEPA reviews requirements as a part of their review.

should presume that the applicant will apply for, comply with, and meet conditions associated with all applicable federal and state licenses and permits.

The ISG should be based on the presumption that applicant compliance with the NRC license and other federal, state, and local environmental permits is known to result in small or positive environmental impacts. See, e.g., NUREG-1437, Rev. 1 at 3-138 (Nuclear power plants are required by the NRC to operate in compliance with all applicable environmental laws, regulations, and permits, therefore minimizing the impact on the environment, workers, and the public.); Progress Energy Fla., Inc. (Levy County Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2), LBP-13-4, 77 NRC 107, 217-18 (2013) (noting that NRC may properly assume that an applicant or licensee will comply with concrete and enforceable conditions and requirements imposed by statutes, regulations, licenses, or permits issued by competent federal, state, or local governmental entities).

10. Purpose, page 2, line The NRC historically has defined an LWR severe accident The NRC should modify the ISG to reflect the 32 as an accident involving multiple failures of equipment or reasonable expectations that: (1) micro-reactor function, whose likelihood is generally lower than design- designs will not involve credible severe accident Severe Accident basis accidents but where consequences may be progression sequences; (2) deterministic (e.g.,

Mitigation Alternatives, higher. See NUREG-1437, Vol. 1 at 5-1 (1996); NUREG- maximum hypothetical/credible accident) analyses page 7, line 22 1437, Rev. 1 at 1-27 (2013). Thus, by definition, severe may suffice; and (3) SAMDA/SAMA analyses of the accidents are postulated events whose probability of type conventionally conducted for large LWRs occurrence is so low that they are excluded from the (typically using full-scope PRA methods) are not spectrum of design-basis accidents postulated by NRC expected to be necessary for micro-reactors. If the regulations. Moreover, they involve multiple failures that NRC decides to retain SAMDA-related guidance in may result in changes to the reactor core configuration the ISG for micro-reactors, then it should make and significant radionuclide releases from the damaged clear that any decision to conduct a SAMDA core. See id. For LWRs licensed under Part 52, Section analysis will be made on a case-by-case basis, and Page 4 of 15

52.79(a)(38) makes this clear, insofar as it refers to that any such analysis (if deemed necessary) is severe accidents as involving challenges to containment appropriately tailored to the much simpler design integrity caused by core-concrete interaction, steam and accident phenomenology of a micro-explosion, high-pressure core melt ejection, hydrogen reactor. In addition, the NRC should retain the combustion, and containment bypass. discretion to exclude consideration of SAMDAs on the basis that postulated severe accidents are NEI recognizes that the requirement to consider severe remote and speculative for a given design. See accident mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs) (the Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Petition for term SAMAs is typically used for existing LWRs seeking Rulemaking, 66 Fed. Reg. 10834, 10839 (Feb. 20, license renewal) is a NEPA-based requirement derived 2001) (In reviewing licensing actions outside of from a judicial decision (see Limerick Ecology Action v. the license renewal context, it may be possible for NRC, 869 F.2d 719 (3rd Cir. 1989)) and implemented the NRC to conclude that certain severe accident through certain regulations in 10 CFR Part 51. However, scenarios are remote and speculative and do not the NRCs concept of credible severe accident progression warrant detailed consideration for the purposes of sequences (and related SAMDAs) does not appear to the NEPA review for that particular NRC action.).

apply to micro-reactors, which, as the draft ISG notes, involve simpler designs than those for large LWRs and operating power levels on the order of tens of megawatts-thermal or less. These unique micro-reactor considerations are discussed further in BNL-212380-2019-INRE, Regulatory Review of Micro-Reactors - Initial Considerations, Brookhaven National Laboratory (Feb.

20, 2020). That document notes that the accident source term may be similar for micro-reactors and existing non-power reactors; [t]he expected number of events and accident sequences to be analyzed are small in a micro-reactor design and the process can be made simple without the burden of conducting a full-scope PRA; and that a maximum hypothetical accident [as considered in NUREG-1537] rather than a probabilistic approach to consequence analysis may be appropriate for a micro-reactor. Thus, a thorough deterministic or risk-informed analysis (e.g., transient and accident analysis) as opposed to a severe accident analysis is expected to be sufficient for micro-reactors.

Page 5 of 15

11. Purpose, page 3, The draft guidance states: The NRC staff will continue to One option in micro-reactor siting could include a lines 2-4 look for other opportunities to effectively streamline permit by rule approach for units without a environmental reviews and work with prospective credible severe accident scenario. This permitting applicants to identify opportunities to streamline ERs and option is used extensively in EPA-regulated air still meet the NRCs regulations. emissions in order to reduce administrative burdens associated with routine emission sources. The concept, along with the use of a plant parameter envelope and a site parameter envelope, is discussed in INL/EXT-19-55257, Key Regulatory Issues in Nuclear Microreactor Transport and Siting, Idaho National Laboratory, September 2019.

12. Preapplication There are two would-be project proponents for advanced As recommended in NEIs White Paper, Interactions, page 3, reactors: governmental authorities and private Recommendations for Streamlining Reviews for lines 22-24 corporations, both of whom, as a practical matter, are Advanced Reactors, for all advanced reactors, NRC unlikely to change their business plan based on the NRCs should reduce burdensome alternative site analyses Purpose and Need for the alternative analysis. Consider that: (1) if the impetus to by limiting the scope of the analyses to those that Proposed Project, page increase or generate power reflects a governmental are realistic and within the NRCs jurisdiction.

4, lines 7-15 decision (for sites in which energy facilities are regulated by a public utilities commission or co-located on NRC should clarify in this ISG that the reasonable Need for Power and government property), the need for power analysis has alternatives analyzed must meet the purpose and Alternatives, page 6, already been performed by the government applicant; or need of the proposed project and should be lines 9-24 (2) if the impetus to provide power, either electric or non- analyzed with the lens of what is actually feasible, electric, is a private party decision, the project proponent based on the purpose and need of the applicants would have already performed the analysis and will bear goals and the agencys statutory authority.

the risk of the need for power associated with the project. Further, for many new reactor projects the Per CEQs proposed rulemaking and federal/NRC selected site will be the only site available, for example it case law, the alternative(s) considered should be may be co-located with an existing generation source, limited to those that are technically and providing heat to an industrial facility, or providing secure economically feasible, and which meet the purpose power to a Federal facility. and need for the proposed action, as defined by the applicant. That is, the NRC staff should give Similarly, for non-electric applications such as process substantial weight to the preferences of the heat and desalination, the market would make the applicant and/or sponsor in the siting and design of decision regarding whether to use nuclear technology the project.

and, if so, what type should be used.

Page 6 of 15

13. Applicability, page 4, The draft guidance states: Elements of this ISG may The guidance could be clarified by changing the lines 2-5 also apply to some larger advanced reactor projects with two quoted sentences, to state, Elements of this limited environmental interface. However, the ISG may also be applicable apply to other some applicability to non-micro-reactors would need to be larger advanced reactor projects with limited discussed during the preapplication phase. The environmental interface. However, the guidance does not state what aspects of the guidance applicability to non-micro-reactors would need would not apply to advanced reactor projects. For Applicants are encouraged to be discussed this example, one aspect that might be different would be the applicability during the preapplication phase.

number of construction workers.

14. Size of the Proposed The statement, If the micro-reactor site encompasses no Revise as follows, If the micro-reactor site disturbs Project and more than a few acres, then the amount of information encompasses no more than a few acres, then the Resources Used, and level of data collection needed to describe the site amount of information and level of data collection page 4, lines 18-20 and the impacts resulting from the footprint of needed to describe the site and the impacts disturbance may be limited, is misleading. The relevant resulting from the footprint of disturbance may be metric is the site area that is disturbed, not necessarily limited.

the entire site that may be owned or leased by the applicant.

15. Land Use, page 4, The term, few acres, should be quantified. NRC should provide a defined basis for a line 25 quantitative value, such as less than or equal to 10 acres in lieu of few acres.

16. Land Use, page 4 The draft guidance includes guidance relative to land use. The draft guidance should include a discussion of The guidance discusses the small footprint expected at a efficiencies that can be gained in the environmental micro-reactor site. However, the guidance does not review process when an applicant selects a site that discuss the situation where a micro-reactor (or advanced is already in industrial use, such that greenfield reactor project) may select a site already in industrial environmental impacts related to land use and use. Selecting a site that is already in industrial use other resources are unlikely.

would likely obviate new environmental disturbances, which should be a basis for limiting the scope of the environmental review. The same logic applies to Historic and Cultural Resources.

17. Land Use, page 4, The draft ISG states that If the applicant proposes to The NRC staff should Revise as follows, If the lines 33-36 locate a micro-reactor on a site containing, or adjacent applicant proposes to locate a micro-reactor on a to, sensitive land resources, such as wetlands or prime or site containing sensitive land resources, such as unique farmland, then the applicant should follow existing wetlands or prime or unique farmland, then the applicant should perform the appropriate analyses, Page 7 of 15

guidance for considering possible impacts to those commensurate with the potential impacts of the resources. micro-reactor, follow existing guidance for considering possible impacts to those resources.

This is potentially too broad a statement. Micro-reactors Analysis of impacts to sensitive land resources are not anticipated to have many (or any) material off- adjacent to the micro-reactor site should continue site impacts. However, the statement above indicates to consider the limited off-site impacts anticipated that if there are sensitive resources simply adjacent to for most micro-reactor designs, and scale the the plant site, the NRC staff should turn back to existing methodologies used in the existing guidance guidance for the analysis. The existing guidance does accordingly.

not adequately consider the negligible off-site impacts associated with next-generation reactor designs, even if such reactors are located in proximity to sensitive land or aquatic resources.

As noted by the NRC staff, microreactors are small industrial facilities, often composed of just one building, that have minimal impacts on the environment. In some cases, micro-reactors could be used to provide resources (e.g., electricity) to unique farmlands. The placement of micro-reactors adjacent to sensitive land resources does not have the same ripple effect as has been of concern with large industrial sites or large-scale construction projects. Additionally, previous guidance associated with environmental analyses of this nature was written with large LWRs in mind and is likely overly burdensome for small projects.

18. Water Resources, In the following statement, Micro-reactors might not use Revise the statement under Water Resources as page 4, lines 38-39 cooling water and might not require building or operating follows, Micro-reactors might not use cooling intake or discharge structures or pipelines, the latter water for operation of the reactor and might not Aquatic Ecology, portion may be misleading. Although this statement require building or operating intake or discharge page 5, lines 18-19 might be true for some subset of micro-reactors, other structures or pipelines.

micro-reactors may use building or operating intake and discharge structures or piping. Similar adjustment should be made under Aquatic Ecology.

Micro-reactors will generally be composed of one building onsite, which will be relatively small when compared to a Page 8 of 15

standard commercial building (e.g., pharmacy, fast food restaurant), and immensely small when compared to a conventional power plant (e.g., nuclear, coal). Thus, there may be some building or operating intake or discharge structures or pipelines. Requiring such micro-reactors to have anything more than an environmental review of building water piping similar to a standard construction building (on par with what is constructed in the U.S. daily) would not be commensurate with the scale of the potential environmental impact.

19. Water Resources, The draft guidance states, It may also be necessary to Please reference the regulatory requirement that page 5, lines 2-4 briefly document the use of best management practices necessitates the inclusion of this information in an in accordance with State or local guidelines to minimize environmental report. Alternatively, delete the potential erosion and sedimentation. It is not clear statement.

which regulatory requirement drives this statement.

20. Terrestrial Ecology Draft guide states: it may be possible to resolve Wherever appropriate, issues pertaining to and Aquatic Ecology, potential concerns from a micro-reactor project affecting unaffected environments should be dispositioned page 5, line 15 and little or no habitat through informal through informal discussions rather than formal line 30 consultation. review processes. Extend this allowance to socioeconomic, environmental justice, and cultural resource topics when circumstances permit such consideration.

21. Socioeconomics and The typically-included category of Socioeconomics and Revise the first sentence as follows, Micro-reactors Environmental Environmental Justice is unnecessary for most micro- may have limited numbers of construction workers Justice, page 5 reactors. As noted by the NRC staff, large construction and operational staff, and therefore may not projects, not just nuclear power plants, have the ability to require extensive any demographic and potentially affect the local and nearby communities they employment analyses; other micro-reactor are sited within. However, micro-reactors are not large applications might require limited demographic and construction projects and have small construction and employment analyses.

operational footprints by the nature of the design. These projects may take as little a month to construct and install in place and no people, or only a few people, onsite to operate. This limited construction and operational staff will not have a noticeable impact on the local communities in terms of demographics and employment.

Page 9 of 15

22. Socioeconomics and Provide more detail on scaled as appropriate to reflect Identify a method for scaling the evaluation and/or Environmental employment levels and demand for regional services a basis for a specific percentage (compared to large Justice, page 5, line LWRs) of employment and regional services that 35 will not require any detailed evaluation.

23. Historic and Cultural Consistent with Comment No. 16, above, siting a reactor The draft guidance should include a discussion of Resources, page 5 at a location already in industrial use would minimize efficiencies that can be gained in the environmental effects on Historic and Cultural resources, and should be review process when an applicant selects a site that reflected in a more efficient environmental review. is already in industrial use.

24. Need for Power and Site selection alternatives are not addressed - clarity Clarify that site selection alternatives may not need Alternatives, page 6 should be added to indicate this may not be necessary to be analyzed for micro-reactors depending on the depending on specific site circumstances. specific circumstances of a site and the purpose and need for the proposed action, as defined by the applicant. Examples are: remote isolated communities, mines, or military bases.

25. Meteorology and Air The guidance recognizes that construction of a micro- Any new guidance must address the carbon Quality, page 6 reactor may have minimal deleterious effect on global avoidance inherent in this technology or point to climate change. However, the section does not discuss where that guidance exists. The document should the potential benefit the micro-reactor (and any advanced include guidance about addressing in the reactor) would have on mitigating global climate change. environmental review the potential benefits of In many cases, micro-reactors are expected to replace micro-reactors and advanced reactors on global diesel generators, which emit high amounts of carbon. climate change.

26. Meteorology and Air The statement, Micro-reactors may have limited Revise as follows, Micro-reactors may have limited Quality, page 6, lines potential air emissions and limited potential contribution potential air emissions and are expected to have a 26-27 to global climate change, could be misleading for a net positive limited potential contribution to reader from the public. Although all projects (nuclear mitigating global climate change.

and non-nuclear) may contribute to global climate change, nuclear projects have a net positive impact on global climate change because of the energy sources they are replacing (e.g., micro-reactor in lieu of diesel generator).

27. Meteorology and Air The draft ISG states, "For specific data requirements, the Clarify the language to incorporate reactors that Quality, page 6, lines environmental review of potential meteorology and air have no associated radiological release outside of 27-29 quality impacts from micro-reactors will likely rely on the the reactor building. For example, For specific same information provided for the safety review and not data requirements, the environmental review of require additional monitoring data or dispersion potential meteorology and air quality impacts from Page 10 of 15

modeling." This is confusing as it suggests that there is micro-reactors will likely rely on the same some monitoring and dispersion modeling required. In information provided for the safety review and not the case of no radiological release outside of the reactor require additional monitoring data or dispersion building, there is nothing to be gained from a dispersion modeling.

model.

28. Nonradiological It is not clear why non-radiological health is included in Revise to indicate that this topic area does not Health, page 6, line this ISG. This type of analysis is not required for other need to be addressed for micro-reactors or provide 35 industrial facilities of this size. The inclusion of this a clear regulatory requirement with the appropriate category for micro-reactors especially is overly legal authority for why this topic must be included burdensome and unnecessary for the reasons already in an environmental report.

mentioned by the NRC staff in lines 36-42 on page 6 and lines 1-2 on page 7. Microreactor licensees would already need to follow the appropriate local, State, and Federal policies on occupational health, as dictated by other agencies, laws, and regulations.

29. Radiological Health, It is not clear why radiological health is included in this Revise to indicate that this topic area does not page 7, line 3 ISG. Most nuclear facilities already have to meet the need to be addressed for micro-reactors (i.e., will requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, which included rely on the same information provided for the consultation from the Environmental Protection Agency. safety review) or provide a clear regulatory Therefore, all onsite and co-located lifeforms are requirement with the appropriate legal authority for protected already by these regulations. It is duplicative why this topic must be included in an and unnecessary to repeat this analysis in the same environmental report.

license application.

30. Postulated Accidents, Micro-reactors may have no radiological impacts outside Include discussion that micro-reactors may not page 7 of the site boundary. This should be generally referenced have radiological consequences beyond the site in the ISG. boundary.

Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives, Other agency documents and initiatives consider that pages 7-8 smaller and advanced reactors may have limited off-site radiological consequences. For example, see NUREG-0849, Standard Review Plan for the Review and Evaluation of Emergency Plans for Research and Test Reactors, and the rulemaking on Emergency Preparedness Requirements for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies.

Page 11 of 15

The staff should also consider referencing any potential changes to population siting requirements, such as discussed in the draft SECY paper, Population-Related Siting Considerations for Advanced Reactors (ML19203A219).

31. Severe Accident Per Comment No. 10, this section should be significantly Per Comment No. 10, this section should be Mitigation modified. If retained, A credible severe accident is not significantly modified. If NRC does not delete this, Alternatives, page 7 defined in reference NUREG/BR-0058 or NEI 05-01 NRC should quantify the screening limit for documents. Footnote 3 does not clarify or provide any credible severe accidents.

specific acceptance criteria or screening limits.

32. Severe Accident Per Comment No. 10, this section should be significantly Per Comment No. 10, this section should be Mitigation modified. If retained, the term safety accident analysis significantly modified. If NRC does not delete this, Alternatives, page 7, appears to be in error. revise with the correct term.

line 29

33. Acts of Terrorism, The section about Acts of Terrorism discusses the case The guidance should clarify the circumstances page 8, lines 16-20 law related to the Ninth Circuit. It is unclear which under which NRC is required to address acts of applicants would need to reach a finding related to terrorism. The Acts of Terrorism section implies terrorism and sabotage in the environmental review. that only applicants for sites located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals would need to address acts of terrorism.

The guidance should clarify that point. Consider revising the current draft ISG language as follows:

In circumstances under which the NRC is required to address acts of terrorism and sabotage (i.e., for proposed facilities located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit), the staff evaluation will apply a process for reaching an environmental finding for this impact unless the micro-reactor applicant can demonstrate that the design features that provide physical protection of the reactor make acts of terrorism remote and speculative.

Applicants for proposed facilities located outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit are not required to assess acts of terrorism, consistent with Commission policy and related case law. See AmerGen Energy Company, LLC (Oyster Creek Page 12 of 15

Nuclear Generating Station), CLI-07-8, 65 NRC 124 (2007), review denied, N. J. Dept of Envtl. Prot. v.

NRC, 561 F.3d 132 (3d Cir. 2009) (holding that terrorist attacks are too far removed from the natural or expected consequences of agency action to require environmental analysis in an NRC licensing proceeding, and declining to follow the Ninth Circuits ruling in San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, 449 F.3d 1016 (9th Cir. 2006).

34. Acts of Terrorism, Further, the referenced Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals Clarify that acts of terrorism do not need to be page 8 case, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC, which addressed in the environmental report for a micro-stated that the NRC could not categorically refuse to reactor.

consider NEPA consequences of a terrorist attack pertained to the dry cask storage installation for spent nuclear fuel at the Diablo Canyon Nuclear Power Plant (DCNPP). Over the lifetime of the DCNPP, there are hundreds of times more spent fuel produced than many micro-reactors will contain in their lifetime. For example, one fuel assembly at DCNPP produces more power than some micro-reactors. Due to the small potential impact of a worst-case sabotage event for a micro-reactor, terrorists would have minimal, to no, impact on public health and safety. Thus, a micro-reactor is not an attractive terror target, substantially less so than a spent fuel installation at a 2.2 GWe nuclear power plant, such as DCNPP. Additionally, a single fully-loaded dry cask has more special nuclear material, including more plutonium, than some micro-reactors. Thus, the legal precedent of San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace v. NRC does not apply to micro-reactors.

35. Fuel Cycle Impacts, The draft ISG essentially states that fuel cycle impacts for The NRC staff should add at the end of this section Transportation of micro-reactor non-LWRs will be evaluated on a case-by- of the ISG: As part of any case-by-case analysis Fuel and Waste, and case basis, and that current LWR analyses do not apply. for front- and back-end fuel cycle impacts, Continued Storage of This level of guidance is insufficient to benefit applicants reviewers should consider as a threshold matter Spent Fuel, pages 8-9 or the NRC staff reviewer. whether the proposed fuel cycle impacts are sufficiently limited that they can be bounded by Page 13 of 15

This guidance should explicitly consider that non-LWR current environmental impact analyses for LWRs.

micro-reactors may be small enough such that their fuel Moreover, reviewers should examine whether fuel cycle impacts are very limited and could be bounded by cycle impacts will be more accurately addressed in current analyses for LWRs. other environmental reviews and need not be duplicated in the current reviewsuch as any This guidance also should explicitly consider that certain reviews by the U.S. Department of Energy (if DOE micro-reactors may get their first fuel loads from DOE, is providing the fuel), or reviews by the NRC related and/or fuel cycle facilities that will themselves be subject to the licensing of future fuel cycle facilities.

to NRC review. These separate actions will entail their own environmental reviews (either the DOE review for providing the fuel, or the NRC review related to construction and operation of the fuel cycle facility). The ISG should recognize that similar fuel cycle impacts may be evaluated as part of those environmental reviews, and should not be duplicated here.

36. Fuel Cycle Impacts, The inapplicability of 10 CFR 51.51 Table S-3 and 10 CFR Acceptable comparable technical bases for Transportation of 51.52 Table S-4 as well as NUREG-2157 followed by environmental impacts of fuel and waste transport Fuel and Waste, and statements regarding preapplication interactions and should be described here so that applicants and Continued Storage of case-by-case basis does not provide useful generic NRC reviewers understand how compliance can be Spent Fuel, pages 8-9 guidance to NRC reviewers or applicants. achieved for non-LWR micro-reactor designs.

37. Fuel Cycle Impacts, This section does not address the possibility that the Revise this section to address unique fuel-in-reactor Transportation of micro-reactor may be transported to the site with fuel in transport aspects of micro-reactors.

Fuel and Waste, and it and may also be transported off-site after end of cycle Continued Storage of with irradiated used fuel inside it.

Spent Fuel, pages 8-9

38. Consistency with The draft ISG states, If a micro-reactor applicant also Provide clarification that this statement is only Safety Licensing submits requests for exemption from any safety applicable to the regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 and Documents, page 9, regulations, the ER and the EIS must assess the include the specific regulatory requirement since lines 34-35 environmental impacts of the exemption requests. This the word must is used.

language is misleading in that some exemptions do not have any impact on the environment. The language suggests that all safety regulation exemptions must be addressed in the ER. As the ER and the EIS address environmental impacts, the exemption environmental impact discussion should be limited to those exemption requests that might have an impact on the environment.

Page 14 of 15

Page 15 of 15