ML20252A077
| ML20252A077 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 10/20/2020 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards |
| To: | |
| Jack Cushing | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML20252A075 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML20252A077 (28) | |
Text
Page 1 of 28 Resolution of Public Comments on Draft COL-ISG-029 The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a notice of opportunity for public comment on this interim staff guidance (ISG) in the Federal Register (FR) (85 FR 11127) on February 26, 2020, for a 75day comment period. Three commenters provided comments, which the NRC considered before issuing this ISG in final form.
Comments on this ISG are available electronically through the NRCs electronic Reading Room at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of the NRCs public documents. The NRC received comments from the following individuals or groups:
Letter No.
ADAMS No.
Commenter Affiliation Commenter Name 1
ML20065L110 Anonymous Anonymous 1 2
ML20065L166 Anonymous Anonymous 2 3
ML20148M327 Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
NEI The comments and the staff responses are provided below.
Page 2 of 28 Anonymous Comment 1-1 I am interested in seeing how fast these reviews and licenses can be issued as the agency moves closer toward rubber stamping whatever the industry and commission politics want.
Maybe they can shoot for 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> or 1 week for a metric goal. The agency being viewed as the "gold standard" in the world was due to careful reviews and intentional processes and procedures to minimize significant risks to the public. As that changes to get faster to save the industry more money, that standard will change also. Less budget = Less staff = Less reviews/inspections = Less findings/violations/issues = Less complaints from the industry =
Happy Commission = Happy Senior Managers with larger performances bonuses (NRC/Industry).
Anonymous Comment 2-1 A beneficial outcome of this will be faster reviews. Watch as NRC executives leave the agency to work for companies who will benefit and work in these areas of the industry so they can continue to benefit from the reductions in regulations, license reviews, inspections, and issues that have been reduced.
Response to Comments 1-1 and 2-1: The NRC staff appreciates these comments but disagrees that this ISG will contribute to less rigorous environmental reviews for the Agency.
The NRC environmental review process for microreactors constitutes a careful review that fully considers possible impacts to environmental resources and follows established NRC review processes. Environmental reviews of micro-reactor applications will meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and its associated laws, regulations, policies, and procedures. Consistent with NEPA, the ISG strives to tailor NRC environmental reviews to a level appropriate with the reduced potential for environmental impacts from microreactors while still ensuring the depth of review necessary to protect environmental resources. The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of these comments.
NEI Comment 1 The draft guidance is specific to micro-reactors. However, many of the technical issues and other considerations included in the guidance are not unique to micro-reactors. Other advanced reactors also have comparatively lower risk profiles. They rely more on passive systems and inherent characteristics used to control power and prevent radioactive releases. The 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.
NEI Recommendation The draft guidance should be expanded to include other advanced reactors. Alternatively, the NRC should develop similar guidance for other advanced reactors that similarly accounts for their unique technical considerations and comparatively lower potential impacts relative to the current fleet of LWRs.
.The NRC agrees that guidance is necessary for the environmental reviews of other larger advanced reactors and will consider including it in a future revision to NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants: Environmental Standard
Page 3 of 28 Review Plan, or other staff-initiated efforts. The NRC disagrees with the recommendation to expand the guidance in COL-ISG-029 to include other advanced reactors. The NRC prepared this guidance for microreactors specifically to provide the staff with direction on evaluating micro-reactors that use significantly fewer resources than a large reactor does.
The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 2 As written, the lack of specificity and broad statements do not provide clarity on the level of detail needed to demonstrate whether a micro-reactor applicant would include specific information or not.
NEI Recommendation Clarify the ISG similar to COL/ESP-ISG-026, Interim Staff Guidance on Environmental Issues Associated with New Reactors, with more detail on 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.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with this comment. A crosswalk would not be useful because of the differences between specific applications. An issue that is important at one site may not apply at another site. Therefore, preapplication interactions between the NRC and the potential applicant are the best way for an applicant and the staff to exchange information on the level of detail needed in a specific environmental report (ER).
The NRC encourages preapplication interactions between a potential applicant and the NRC staff. As stated in COL-ISG-029 Preapplication interactions could assist with determining the appropriate scope and scale of an ER. Early interactions among the applicant and staff and their respective contractors should be used to establish clear communications and mutual understanding of the review scope and to identify key areas of significance in the draft application. Preapplication interactions between prospective applicants and the NRC staff conducted in accordance with Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51.40, Consultation with NRC staff, can help set the scale of environmental field surveys before making substantive commitments of time and resources. Preapplication meetings and interactions need to be well focused and cover specific features, topics, and issues that are expected to be technically complex, unique, novel, or challenging from a policy perspective.
The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 3 The draft guidance acknowledges in the Purpose section, Page 2, Line 11, that a unique characteristic of micro-reactors is the ability to [use] mitigation to reduce impacts. However, this mitigation concept is not further discussed in the draft ISG. New technologies and design approaches will allow micro-reactor applicants to significantly mitigate potential environmental impacts, and credit should be given for such efforts.
Page 4 of 28 Following the issuance of Council on Environmental 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).
NEI Recommendation The NRC staff should add a section to the ISG instructing the NRC staff to consider proposed mitigation efforts for environmental impacts discussed in the Environmental Report, and the conditions upon which applicants proposed mitigation measures can be relied upon to reduce the scope of an environmental analysis (e.g., if an applicant proposes methods to offset impacts on wetlands, then analysis of impacts on wetlands may be commensurately reduced in scope).
NRC Response The NRC agrees in part and disagrees in part with this comment. COL-ISG-029 directs the staff to be familiar with COL/ESP-ISG-026, Environmental Issues Associated with New Reactors, issued August 2014, which contains detailed guidance on mitigation. The staff will include the mitigation guidance from COL/ESP-ISG-026 in COL-ISG-029 to address the comment about mitigation guidance. The NRC can also consider mitigation required by another agency in assessing impacts to resources.
With regard to the wetland example used in the recommendation, the NRC has a memorandum of understanding with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to cooperate on NRC environmental reviews. The type of mitigation that would best reduce the scope of a wetland review is complete avoidance of wetlands, and given the small footprint of a microreactor, this could be easier to achieve than for a large LWR. If an applicant proposes compensatory wetland mitigation, the USACE would evaluate the mitigation in the joint environmental impact statement (EIS) issued by the NRC and the USACE.
Text to be added Mitigation: The NEPA document should be written to be clear when mitigation measures are or are not reasonably foreseeable. A mitigation measure can be considered reasonably foreseeable if, for example, it is 1) required by the NRC as a license condition (e.g., a requirement imposed pursuant to 10 CFR 50.54(aa)), 2) required or likely to be required by another regulatory agency (e.g., USACE), or 3) mitigation that the applicant has stated to the NRC (e.g., in the Environmental Report) that it would perform. Where mitigation measures would be required by a license condition, that should be clearly stated in the NEPA document.
Where applicable, the NRC staff should specify what Federal, State, or local laws require the mitigation measures, or if there is (or is expected to be) a Federal, state, or local permit that requires the particular measures. The NRC staff should clearly explain the requirements that are being imposed by the regulatory agency with authority over the resource and state how the staff relied on the mitigation to determine the impact level by discussing how the mitigation will be accomplished and whether it is expected to lower the impact level. For example, for a project where a wetlands mitigation plan is required by a state permit issued to the applicant
Page 5 of 28 and/or by state laws and regulations, the NRC staff should consider this information in the NEPA review document.
If the applicant committed to mitigation measures in the environmental report or other documents submitted to the NRC under oath or affirmation, that may be sufficient for the NRC staff to rely on that mitigation to determine impact levels, provided the NRC staff documents in the NEPA document why it concludes that the mitigation is reasonably foreseeable. For example, if the applicant states that it plans to use construction best management practices (BMPs) that are not required by a license condition or another State or Federal permit, then the staff should rely on this mitigation if it can document that these BMPs are standard industry construction practices. BMPs can also be relied on if they are integral parts of the project.
Documentation may take the form of asking the applicant to provide additional information to help determine if these practices are reasonably foreseeable. NRC staff should ask, for example, whether these same practices been used by the applicant on other large construction projects.
If mitigation would result in a change in impact level for one or more resource areas, it is particularly important that the staff document the basis for concluding that this mitigation is reasonably foreseeable. NEPA instructs agencies to discuss environmental issues in accordance with their significance. If a mitigation measure is particularly important to an impact determination, it may be appropriate to ask more specific requests for additional information of an applicant to obtain more details on the proposed mitigation plan. If the available information does not clearly demonstrate whether the mitigation measure is reasonably foreseeable and the non-implementation of that mitigation would result in a change in an impact level, then the staff should provide two impact levels; one with and one without mitigation (Example: The impact from traffic would be MODERATE without the traffic mitigation and SMALL with the mitigation).
Because NEPA allows agencies to account for uncertainty, it may be appropriate to discuss why there is uncertainty in a particular analysis or state which impact is more likely to occur. If the non-implementation of mitigation would not alter the impact level, then the staff should provide the impact level without the mitigation and state that the mitigation, if enacted, would further reduce/minimize impacts (Example: The impact from traffic would be SMALL without mitigation, but implementation of a traffic management plan would further reduce impacts within the SMALL category.
The NRC changed the final ISG to add the above text on mitigation.
NEI Comment 4
- 4. Purpose, page A-1, first paragraph Consistent with Comment No. 1, above, the description provided in this paragraph would also largely apply to other advanced reactors.
NEI Recommendation Add the following, Although this ISG solely applies to micro-reactors, some of the unique enhanced 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.
NRC Response: The NRC agrees with allowing advanced reactors other than micro-reactors to use the COL-ISG-029 guidance, provided the applicant justifies the applicability of the guidance to their application. This comment is similar to NEI comment 13, and COL-ISG-029 was changed to use the recommended language in comment 13 below.
Page 6 of 28 NEI Comment 5 Purpose, page A-1, first paragraph, line 9 The reference to power levels may be misleading insofar as it suggests that larger power levels necessarily equate to larger environmental impacts. In fact, the power level has very little correlation to the environmental impacts and is an inappropriate parameter for establishing the applicability of this guidance.
NEI Recommendation Eliminate language operating power levels on the order of tens of megawatts-thermal or less as one of the qualifying characteristics.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with the comment. Larger power levels do equate to larger use of resources and greater environmental impact. For example, a microreactor, due to the small amount of power it generates, may not use cooling water or very little cooling water in comparison to a large reactor. The impacts on water use and aquatic biota from a microreactor would therefore be much less than for a large reactor because the greater use of water correlates to the power level of the reactor.
The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 6 Purpose, page A-1, line 23 The reference to NUREG-1537 for non-power reactors which may have equal, or greater, core power levels than micro-reactors, highlights an opportunity to compare and contrast the two to identify similarities that can be used by applicants in assessing micro-reactor environmental impacts.
NEI Recommendation Expand discussion of how consideration of environmental impacts for non-power reactors in NUREG-1537 (and the final ISG augmenting NUREG-1537) can be used by micro-reactor designs.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with this comment. The NRC recognized NUREG1537, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, issued October 2012, and the other guidance documents listed in COL-ISG-029 as all having value in assessing the environmental impacts of microreactors and instructed the staff to be familiar with these guidance documents. COL-ISG-029 provides guidance on how to scale down the review for a microreactor, and an expanded discussion of how consideration of environmental impacts for non-power reactors in NUREG-1537 can be used by micro-reactor designs would provide no additional information of value that is not already included in other guidance documents referenced in COLISG029.
The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 7
Page 7 of 28 Purpose, page A-1, line 25 The reference Final ISG augmenting NUREG-1537, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, Chapter 19, Environmental Review does not appear to be readily available to the public. Ensure that this ISG appears on the NRC website with the other Interim Staff Guidance Associated with Research and Test Reactors.
https://www.nrc.gov/reading -rm/doc-collections/isg/research-test-reactors.html, Accessed April 28, 2020.
NRC Response The NRC agrees with this comment. The Final Interim Staff Guidance Augmenting NUREG-1537, Part 1, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors: Format and Content, for Licensing Radioisotope Production Facilities and Aqueous Homogenous Reactors, dated October 17, 2012, incudes Chapter 19, Environmental Review, is available in ADAMS under Accession No. ML12156A069.
The NRC changed the ISG to provide the ADAMS accession number for the reference.
NEI Comment 8 Purpose, page A-1, footnote 1 Some advanced reactors will be used for purposes other than electric generation, such as the generation of hydrogen or the use of heat by a co-located industrial facility instead of, or in addition to, the generation of electric power. The NRC may not be obligated by regulation to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for all micro-reactors; micro-reactors are more analogous to research reactors than to large utility scale nuclear power plants.
NEI Recommendation Add language that indicates non-power reactors may be subject to a different level of NEPA analysis and will be handled on a case-by-case basis (unless and until the relevant NRC regulation(s) are revised to allow 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.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with this comment. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.20, Criteria for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental impact statements, an EIS is required for a COL, an early site permit, or a construction permit. As mentioned in the comment, the NRC would need to undertake rulemaking to change 10 CFR 51.20 to allow for an EA instead of an EIS for a COL. The NRC is currently considering appropriate exemptions to 10 CFR 51.20 for the staff to complete EAs for certain environmental reviews, if appropriate, as well as possible changes to the rule itself. Further, COL-ISG-029 was not written for non-power reactors and the inclusion of the additional language suggested by the commenter is not needed since the non-power reactors are outside the scope of this ISG. The environmental review guidance for non-power reactor is Final ISG augmenting NUREG-1537, Guidelines for Preparing and Reviewing Applications for the Licensing of Non-Power Reactors, Chapter 19, Environmental Review. The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
Page 8 of 28 NEI Comment 9 Purpose, page 2, lines 22-38 Many of the resources listed as environmental review considerations are regulated by other agencies. NEPA is intended to ensure that agencies consider the significant environmental consequences of proposed actions and inform the public about agency decision making.
Agencies must use reliable existing data and resources but are not required to undertake new scientific and technical research to inform their analysis. NEPA reviews 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 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).
NEI Recommendation NRC should insert language that acknowledges applicant compliance with the NRC license and other federal, state, and local environmental permits is known to result in small or positive environmental impacts. NRC could request that applicants demonstrate the compliance with other federal, state, and local regulatory and permit requirements as a part of their review.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with the recommended language. Compliance with permits does not necessarily mean there will be small or positive impacts.
Furthermore, not all environmental resources are covered by Federal or State permit requirements, and the only consideration of possible impacts to those resources would be through NEPA. For example, not all wetlands or types of wetland impacts are subject to permit requirements and impacts to many rare species are not covered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) or State regulations.
The staff does consider permits that the applicant has obtained from other agencies and assumes compliance with the permit in determining the environmental impacts. The guidance on mitigation in response to comment 3 directs the staff to consider permits from other agencies in determining impact levels. The NEI recommendation that the NRC could request that applicants demonstrate the compliance with other federal, state, and local regulatory and permit requirements as a part of their review may not be practicable because an applicant may not have all the permits, and therefore an applicant could not demonstrate compliance with a permit it does not have. The NRC regulation at 10 CFR 51.71(c) requires the draft EIS to list all Federal permits, licenses, approvals, and other entitlements that must be obtained in implementing the proposed action and will describe the status of compliance with those requirements, but it does not require an applicant to have all the permits before licensing.
The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
Page 9 of 28 NEI Comment 10 Purpose, page 2, line 32 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives, page 7, line 22 The NRC historically has defined an LWR severe accident as an accident involving multiple failures of equipment or function, whose likelihood is generally lower than design-basis accidents but where consequences may be higher. See NUREG-1437, Vol. 1 at 5-1 (1996);
NUREG-1437, Rev. 1 at 1-27 (2013). Thus, by definition, severe accidents are postulated events whose probability of occurrence is so low that they are excluded from the spectrum of design-basis accidents postulated by NRC regulations. Moreover, they involve multiple failures that may result in changes to the reactor core configuration and significant radionuclide releases from the damaged core. See id. For LWRs licensed under Part 52, Section 52.79(a)(38) makes this clear, insofar as it refers to severe accidents as involving challenges to containment integrity caused by core-concrete interaction, steam explosion, high-pressure core melt ejection, hydrogen combustion, and containment bypass.
NEI recognizes that the requirement to consider severe accident mitigation design alternatives (SAMDAs) (the term SAMAs is typically used for existing LWRs seeking license renewal) is a NEPA-based requirement derived from a judicial decision (see Limerick Ecology Action v. NRC, 869 F.2d 719 (3rd Cir. 1989)) and implemented through certain regulations in 10 CFR Part 51.
However, the NRCs concept of credible severe accident progression sequences (and related SAMDAs) does not appear to 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.
NEI Recommendation The NRC should modify the ISG to reflect the reasonable expectations that: (1) micro-reactor designs will not involve credible severe accident progression sequences; (2) deterministic (e.g.,
maximum hypothetical/credible accident) analyses may suffice; and (3) SAMDA/SAMA analyses of the type conventionally conducted for large LWRs (typically using full-scope PRA methods) are not expected to be necessary for micro-reactors. If the NRC decides to retain SAMDA-related guidance in the ISG for micro-reactors, then it should make clear that any decision to conduct a SAMDA analysis will be made on a case-by-case basis, and that any such analysis (if deemed necessary) is appropriately tailored to the much simpler design and accident phenomenology of a micro-reactor. In addition, the NRC should retain the discretion to exclude consideration of SAMDAs on the basis that postulated severe accidents are remote and speculative for a given design. See Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 66 Fed. Reg. 10834, 10839 (Feb. 20, 2001) (In reviewing licensing actions outside of the license renewal context, it may be possible for the NRC to conclude that certain severe accident scenarios are remote and speculative and do not warrant detailed consideration for the purposes of the NEPA review for that particular NRC action.).
Page 10 of 28 NRC Response The NRC disagrees with the comment. The staff cannot prejudge the safety of microreactor designs a priori and, therefore, cannot rule out the need for a SAMDA analysis on future license applications. Please note that the quoted sentence from Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) states that the accident source term may be similar for micro-reactors and existing non-power reactors [emphasis added]. The phrase may be similar is not a guarantee that the source term will always be like existing nonpower reactors. The staff also notes that the anticipated operating regimes of the microreactor designs currently being developed generally differ from NRC licensed nonpower reactors. Many nonpower reactors operate at sub-boiling temperatures, are positioned in a relatively large water pool, have thermal neutron spectra, and have limited operating times. Existing information on micro-reactor designs indicate they would have operating regimes with much higher operating temperatures, fast neutron spectra, different heat sink designs, and with plans for continuous operations (i.e., potentially 24/7 365-day operations).
The staff understands that several microreactor developers intend to design a reactor with a significantly reduced risk profile than has been designed for large LWRs. However, the designs safety analysis report must adequately demonstrate that reduced risk profile. The intent of this section of the ISG is to recognize the analysis from the safety analysis report and to apply such risk information in a simpler SAMDA screening process based on the reactor design and then based on site conditions, if necessary. This decision as to whether a SAMDA assessment is necessary for a micro-reactor as provided in the ISG is clearly to be made on a case-by-case basis for a specific reactor design by applying a simple screening process to demonstrate the potential magnitude of the maximum benefit.
The staff would like to reemphasize the importance of preapplication discussions permitted under 10 CFR 51.40 concerning the subject of SAMDAs and the screening of SAMDAs provided in the ISG.
The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 11 Purpose, page 3, lines 2-4 The draft guidance states: The NRC staff will continue to look for other opportunities to effectively streamline environmental reviews and work with prospective applicants to identify opportunities to streamline ERs and still meet the NRCs regulations.
NEI Recommendation One option in micro-reactor siting could include a permit by rule approach for units without a credible severe accident scenario. This permitting option is used extensively in EPA-regulated air 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.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with the comment in the context of this ISG. While, the NRC is looking for opportunities to streamline environmental reviews, the proposal to permit by rule would require rulemaking and is therefore outside the scope of the ISG. However, the permit by rule recommendation may be further evaluated by the staff in future rulemaking activities.
Page 11 of 28 The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 12 Preapplication Interactions, page 3, lines 22-24; Purpose and Need for the Proposed Project, page 4, lines 7-15; Need for Power and Alternatives, page 6, lines 9-24 There are two would-be project proponents for advanced reactors: governmental authorities and private corporations, both of whom, as a practical matter, are unlikely to change their business plan based on the NRCs alternative analysis. Consider that: (1) if the impetus to increase or generate power reflects a governmental decision (for sites in which energy facilities are regulated by a public utilities commission or co-located on government property), the need for power analysis has already been performed by the government applicant; or (2) if the impetus to provide power, either electric or non-electric, is a private party decision, the project proponent would have already performed the analysis and will bear the risk of the need for power associated with the project. Further, for many new reactor projects the selected site will be the only site available, for example it may be co-located with an existing generation source, providing heat to an industrial facility, or providing secure power to a Federal facility. Similarly, for non-electric applications such as process heat and desalination, the market would make the decision regarding whether to use nuclear technology and, if so, what type should be used.
NEI Recommendation As recommended in NEIs White Paper, Recommendations for Streamlining Reviews for Advanced Reactors, for all advanced reactors, NRC should reduce burdensome alternative site analyses by limiting the scope of the analyses to those that are realistic and within the NRCs jurisdiction.
NRC should clarify in this ISG that the reasonable alternatives analyzed must meet the purpose and need of the proposed project and should be analyzed with the lens of what is actually feasible, based on the purpose and need of the applicants goals and the agencys statutory authority.
Per CEQs proposed rulemaking and federal/NRC case law, the alternative(s) considered should be limited to those that are technically and economically feasible, and which meet the purpose and need for the proposed action, as defined by the applicant. That is, the NRC staff should give substantial weight to the preferences of the applicant and/or sponsor in the siting and design of the project.
NRC Response The NRC agrees with this comment in part. The draft ISG stated, The NRC staff develops the purpose and need statement, informed by the applicants objectives as stated in the applicants ER, and this statement is the basis for evaluating the need for the project and for establishing a reasonable set of alternatives to the proposed action. Alternatives that do not meet the purpose and need statement are not considered reasonable alternatives and are not analyzed in detail.
The staff added the following statement to the ISG for clarification:
Reasonable alternatives include those that are practical or feasible from the technical and economic standpoints using common sense. A reasonable alternative may be outside an agencys regulatory authority, such as energy alternatives (e.g., coal, wind, solar, natural gas). This alternative would still need to be evaluated if it meets the purpose and need statement for the project.
However, if the purpose and need statement were to demonstrate a certain
Page 12 of 28 advanced reactor technology to generate electricity, alternative energy such as coal, wind, solar, or natural gas would not be a reasonable alternative because it does not meet the purpose and need statement. Alternatives that do not meet the purpose and need statement would not be considered reasonable alternatives and would not be analyzed in detail.
NEI Comment 13 Applicability, page 4, lines 2-5 The draft guidance states: Elements of this ISG may also apply to some larger advanced reactor projects with limited environmental interface. However, the applicability to non-micro-reactors would need to be discussed during the preapplication phase. The guidance does not state what aspects of the guidance would not apply to advanced reactor projects. For example, one aspect that might be different would be the number of construction workers.
NEI Recommendation [red text is NEI recommended changes]
The guidance could be clarified by changing the two quoted sentences, to state, Elements of this ISG may also be applicable apply to other some larger advanced reactor projects with limited environmental interface. However, the applicability to non-micro-reactors would need Applicants are encouraged to be discussed this applicability during the preapplication phase.
NRC Response The NRC agrees with this comment and has made the recommend changes in the ISG.
NEI Comment 14 Size of the Proposed Project and Resources Used, page 4, lines 18-20 The statement, If the micro-reactor site encompasses no more than a few acres, then the amount of information and level of data collection needed to describe the site and the impacts resulting from the footprint of disturbance may be limited, is misleading. The relevant metric is the site area that is disturbed, not necessarily the entire site that may be owned or leased by the applicant.
NEI Recommendation Revise as follows, If the micro-reactor site disturbs encompasses no more than a few acres, then the amount of information and level of data collection needed to describe the site and the impacts resulting from the footprint of disturbance may be limited.
NRC Response The NRC staff agrees with the comment. The NRC changed the text to read, If the microreactor site disturbs no more than a few acres (either permanently or temporarily), then the amount of information and level of data collection needed to characterize the affected resources and the impacts resulting from the footprint of disturbance may be limited.
Page 13 of 28 NEI Comment 15 Land Use, page 4, line 25 The term, few acres, should be quantified.
NEI Recommendation NRC should provide a defined basis for a quantitative value, such as less than or equal to 10 acres in lieu of few acres.
NRC Response The NRC staff disagrees with the comment. The establishment of a precise quantitative threshold could limit the utility of the ISG by preventing applicants and the staff from considering the context of specific microreactor projects. The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 16 Land Use, page 4 The draft guidance includes guidance relative to land use. The guidance discusses the small footprint expected at a micro-reactor site. However, the guidance does not discuss the situation where a micro-reactor (or advanced reactor project) may select a site already in industrial use.
Selecting a site that is already in industrial use 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.
NEI Recommendation The draft guidance should include a discussion of efficiencies that can be gained in the environmental review process when an applicant selects a site that is already in industrial use, such that greenfield environmental impacts related to land use and other resources are unlikely.
NRC Response The NRC staff agrees in part with this comment. Because of the expected small land area required for most microreactors, the staff agrees that many microreactors might be sited entirely within existing industrial sites or within sites repurposed for energy production. See the NRCs response to comment 23 with regard to historic and cultural impacts. The staff will add a paragraph to the Land Use section of the ISG that reads as follows:
Because micro-reactors may require only a small area of land, it may be possible to site them entirely within existing or former industrial areas without requiring the dedication of land otherwise available for nonindustrial uses or the disturbance of natural habitats or cultural resources. The discussions of impacts on land use, terrestrial and aquatic ecology, and cultural resources may be simplified for microreactors sited in this manner. However, the possible presence of
Page 14 of 28 contaminated soils, ground water, and other environmental media resulting from former industrial operations at those sites may need to be considered.
NEI Comment 17 Land Use, page 4, lines 33-36 The draft ISG states that If the applicant proposes to locate a micro-reactor on a site containing, or adjacent to, sensitive land resources, such as wetlands or prime or unique farmland, then the applicant should follow existing guidance for considering possible impacts to those resources.
This is potentially too broad a statement. Micro-reactors are not anticipated to have many (or any) material off-site impacts. However, the statement above indicates that if there are sensitive resources simply adjacent to the plant site, the NRC staff should turn back to existing guidance for the analysis. The existing guidance does 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, micro-reactors 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.
NEI Recommendation The NRC staff should Revise as follows, If the applicant proposes to locate a micro-reactor on a site containing sensitive land resources, such as wetlands or prime or unique farmland, then the applicant should perform the appropriate analyses, commensurate with the potential impacts of the micro-reactor, follow existing guidance for considering possible impacts to those resources. Analysis of impacts to sensitive land resources adjacent to the micro-reactor site should continue to consider the limited off-site impacts anticipated for most micro-reactor designs, and scale the methodologies used in the existing guidance accordingly.
NRC Response The NRC staff agrees with the comment and will revise the text in the Land Use section of the ISG as follows:
If the applicant proposes to locate a micro reactor on a site containing, or adjacent to, sensitive land resources, such as wetlands or prime or unique farmland, then the applicant should perform the appropriate analyses, commensurate with the potential impacts of the micro-reactor, following existing guidance for considering possible impacts to those resources. Analysis of impacts to sensitive land resources adjacent to the micro-reactor site should continue to consider the limited off-site impacts anticipated for most micro-reactor designs, and scale the methodologies used in the existing guidance accordingly.
Page 15 of 28 NEI Comment 18 Water Resources, page 4, lines 38-39, Aquatic Ecology, page 5, lines 18-19 In the following statement, Micro-reactors might not use cooling water and might not require building or operating intake or discharge structures or pipelines, the latter portion may be misleading. Although this statement might be true for some subset of micro-reactors, other micro-reactors may use building or operating intake and discharge structures or piping.
Micro-reactors will generally be composed of one building onsite, which will be relatively small when compared to a 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.
NEI Recommendation Revise the statement under Water Resources as follows, Micro-reactors might not use cooling water for operation of the reactor. and might not require building or operating intake or discharge structures or pipelines.
Similar adjustment should be made under Aquatic Ecology.
NRC Response The commenter may have misinterpreted the sentence in the ISG that reads, Microreactors might not use cooling water and might not require building or operating intake or discharge structures or pipelines. The word building in the previous sentence means constructing and not a building like a fast food restaurant or a pharmacy. The NRC staff does, however, note that if a reactor of any size includes construction and operation of intake or discharge structures to carry cooling water to the reactor, the environmental review would require a consideration of impacts to water quantity, water availability, and aquatic ecosystems.
The NRC has clarified the sentence in the ISG as follows:
Micro-reactors might not use cooling water and might not require building constructing or operating cooling water intake or discharge structures or pipelines.
NEI Comment 19 Water Resources, page 5, lines 2-4 The draft guidance states, It may also be necessary to briefly document the use of best management practices in accordance with State or local guidelines to minimize potential erosion and sedimentation. It is not clear which regulatory requirement drives this statement.
NEI Recommendation
Page 16 of 28 Please reference the regulatory requirement that necessitates the inclusion of this information in an environmental report. Alternatively, delete the statement.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with this comment. The States generally require the implementation of best management practices to receive a Clean Water Act Section 401 certification, and such practices may also be a requirement for other State approvals. A Federal agency cannot issue a permit or license without a Section 401 certification. The conditions in the Section 401 certification are, by NRC regulations, a license condition. In addition, best management practices include mitigation of the environmental impact from erosion and sedimentation. As such, this NEI comment seems to be in conflict with NEI comment 3, which asked the NRC staff to add a section to the ISG instructing it to consider proposed mitigation efforts for environmental impacts discussed in the ER.
The regulatory basis for inclusion of this information in an ER is found in 10 CFR 51.41, Requirement to submit environmental information:
The Commission may require an applicant for a permit, license, or other form of permission, or amendment to or renewal of a permit, license or other form of permission, or a petitioner for rulemaking to submit such information to the Commission as may be useful in aiding the Commission in complying with section 102(2) of NEPA. The Commission will independently evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of any information which it uses.
The requirement to include the Section 401 certification as part of the license is in 10 CFR 50.54(aa): The license shall be subject to all conditions deemed imposed as a matter of law by sections 401(a)(2) and 401(d) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C.A. 1341(a)(2) and (d).)
The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 20 Terrestrial Ecology and Aquatic Ecology, page 5, line 15 and line 30 Draft guide states: it may be possible to resolve potential concerns from a micro-reactor project affecting little or no habitat through informal consultation.
NEI Recommendation Wherever appropriate, issues pertaining to unaffected environments should be dispositioned through informal discussions rather than formal review processes. Extend this allowance to socioeconomic, environmental justice, and cultural resource topics when circumstances permit such consideration.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with this comment. The terrestrial and aquatic ecology statements on informal consultation referred to ESA Section 7, Interagency Cooperation, which allows for formal or informal consultation. The sentence referenced in the comment encourages use of
Page 17 of 28 the informal processes for ESA Section 7 consultation to the extent possible before embarking on the longer and more rigorous formal consultation process. The other resource areas indicated in the comment do not require consultation with other Federal agencies. The NRC is also required to consult under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and follows 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties, in conducting its consultation, which does not have a formal and informal process for consultation. The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 21 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice, page 5 The typically-included category of Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice is unnecessary for most micro-reactors. As noted by the NRC staff, large construction projects, not just nuclear power plants, have the ability to potentially affect the local and nearby communities they are sited within. However, micro-reactors are not large construction projects and have small construction and 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.
NEI Recommendation Revise the first sentence as follows, Micro-reactors may have limited numbers of construction workers and operational staff, and therefore may not require extensive any demographic and employment analyses; other micro-reactor applications might require limited demographic and employment analyses.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with the comment. The purpose of the NRCs review is to assess each resource area to support the NEPA requirement for an informed decision on the action. Some analysis must be performed to establish the basis for the determination. Therefore, the claim that a conclusion may be reached with no analysis of the resource area is not reasonable. The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 22 Socioeconomics and Environmental Justice, page 5, line 35 Provide more detail on scaled as appropriate to reflect employment levels and demand for regional services NEI Recommendation Identify a method for scaling the evaluation and/or a basis for a specific percentage (compared to large LWRs) of employment and regional services that will not require any detailed evaluation.
NRC Response
Page 18 of 28 The NRC agrees in part with the comment. The method for scaling the review is preapplication interaction between the applicant and the NRC staff under 10 CFR 51.40 to determine the scale of the review for socioeconomics or environmental justice. Preapplication is encouraged in the ISG. The level of detail of employment and regional services will be determined based on the site and level of employment. The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 23 Historic and Cultural Resources, page 5 Consistent with Comment No. 16, above, siting a reactor at a location already in industrial use would minimize effects on Historic and Cultural resources, and should be reflected in a more efficient environmental review.
NEI Recommendation The draft guidance should include a discussion of efficiencies that can be gained in the environmental review process when an applicant selects a site that is already in industrial use.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with this comment. While siting a reactor at a location already in industrial use may reduce the likelihood of adversely affecting historic and cultural resources, it does not necessarily guarantee that historic and cultural resources are not present or will not be affected.
The magnitude of adverse effects on historic properties and the impact on historic and cultural resources largely depend on what resources are present, the extent of prior and proposed land disturbance, and whether the area has been previously surveyed to identify historic and cultural resources. As discussed in COL-ISG-29, applicants for microreactors may propose to disturb only a small footprint of land, which may correspond to a smaller area of potential effects (APE).
Based on the size of the APE, it may be possible to site a microreactor to avoid or minimize impacts to historic and cultural resources, but the NRC recognizes that this is not always possible. Regardless of the location of the proposed project, National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 review and consultation would still be required.
No change was made to the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 24 Need for Power and Alternatives, page 6 Site selection alternatives are not addressed - clarity should be added to indicate this may not be necessary depending on specific site circumstances.
NEI Recommendation Clarify that site selection alternatives may not need to be analyzed for micro-reactors depending on the 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.
NRC Response
Page 19 of 28 The NRC disagrees with this comment. Alternative sites for micro-reactors are do need to be analyzed. A micro-reactor can be sited at alternative locations even for remote isolated communities, mines, or military bases. The alternative sites can be adjacent to each other, and the applicant would pick the site that would avoid the most impacts. The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 25 Meteorology and Air Quality, page 6 The guidance recognizes that construction of a micro-reactor may have minimal deleterious effect on global climate change. However, the section does not discuss the potential benefit the micro-reactor (and any advanced reactor) would have on mitigating global climate change. In many cases, micro-reactors are expected to replace diesel generators, which emit high amounts of carbon.
NEI Recommendation Any new guidance must address the carbon avoidance inherent in this technology or point to where that guidance exists. The document should include guidance about addressing in the environmental review the potential benefits of micro-reactors and advanced reactors on global climate change.
NRC Response The NRC agrees with this comment. Use of a micro-reactor technology in lieu a fossil fuel energy alternatives may have mitigation effects on climate change that should be discussed in an applicant's, ER. The NRC added the following text to the ISG:
If the project will avoid CO2 emissions compared to alternatives, then the staff should estimate the CO2 avoided by generating the electricity from a microreactor. The staff should calculate the operational CO2 emissions from the microreactor, including emissions from auxiliary boilers or emergency generators, if any. The operational CO2 emissions from an alternate generator the same size should be calculated and compared to the operational emissions from the micro-reactor. State the effects on global climate change of replacing the alternate generator with a microreactor.
NEI Comment 26 Meteorology and Air Quality, page 6, lines 26-27 The statement, Micro-reactors may have limited potential air emissions and limited potential contribution to global climate change, could be misleading for a reader from the public.
Although all projects (nuclear 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).
NEI Recommendation Revise as follows, Micro-reactors may have limited potential air emissions and are expected to have a net positive limited potential contribution to mitigating global climate change.
Page 20 of 28 NRC Response The NRC generally agrees with the comment. The NRC has revised the sentence in the ISG as follows:
Micro-reactors may have limited potential air emissions and if the project is replacing a carbon dioxide (CO2) emitting generator or is built instead of a CO2 emitting generator, then it is expected to have a net positive potential contribution to mitigating global climate change.
NEI Comment 27 Meteorology and Air Quality, page 6, lines 27-29 The draft ISG states, "For specific data requirements, the environmental review of potential meteorology and air quality impacts from micro-reactors will likely rely on the same information provided for the safety review and not require additional monitoring data or dispersion modeling." This is confusing as it suggests that there is some monitoring and dispersion modeling required. In the case of no radiological release outside of the reactor building, there is nothing to be gained from a dispersion model.
NEI Recommendation Clarify the language to incorporate reactors that have no associated radiological release outside of the reactor building. For example, For specific data requirements, the environmental review of potential meteorology and air quality impacts from micro-reactors will likely rely on the same information provided for the safety review. and not require additional monitoring data or dispersion modeling.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with the comment. As with other sections of this ISG, the environmental review will tier or incorporate by reference information, data, and analysis from the applicants safety analysis report and the safety findings reached in the staffs safety evaluation report. The staff cannot pre-judge either the reactor design not having effluent releases or that the staffs safety review would always reach a determination that monitoring data or dispersion modeling is not necessary. If, as a result of its safety review, no additional monitoring data or dispersion modeling is required for the safety analysis, the staff would incorporate that safety finding into its environmental finding. The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 28 Nonradiological Health, page 6, line 35 It is not clear why non-radiological health is included in this ISG. This type of analysis is not required for other industrial facilities of this size. The inclusion of this category for micro-reactors especially is overly burdensome and unnecessary for the reasons already mentioned by the NRC staff in lines 36-42 on page 6 and lines 1-2 on page 7. Micro-reactor licensees would already need to follow the appropriate local, State, and Federal policies on occupational health, as dictated by other agencies, laws, and regulations.
NEI Recommendation
Page 21 of 28 Revise to indicate that this topic area does not need to be addressed for micro-reactors or provide a clear regulatory requirement with the appropriate legal authority for why this topic must be included in an environmental report.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with this comment. The NRCs mission is protection of the public health and safety. CEQ issues regulations that implement NEPA's procedural requirements. CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1501.3(b)(2)(iii)1 state: In considering the degree of effects, agencies should consider the following, as appropriate to the specific action: (iii) Effects on public health and safety, Further, the NRCs regulatory basis for inclusion of this information is found in 10 CFR 51.41:
The Commission may require an applicant for a permit, license, or other form of permission, or amendment to or renewal of a permit, license, or other form of permission, or a petitioner for rulemaking, to submit such information to the Commission as may be useful in aiding the Commission in complying with section 102(2) of NEPA. The Commission will independently evaluate and be responsible for the reliability of any information which it uses.
Nonradiological health considerations impact the public health and safety which, consistent with CEQ guidelines and NRCs NEPA regulations, are therefore considered as part of NRCs environmental reviews.
The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 29 Radiological Health, page 7, line 3 It is not clear why radiological health is included in this ISG. Most nuclear facilities already have to meet the requirements of 10 CFR Part 20, which included consultation from the Environmental Protection Agency. Therefore, all onsite and co-located lifeforms are protected already by these regulations. It is duplicative and unnecessary to repeat this analysis in the same license application.
NEI Recommendation Revise to indicate that this topic area does not need to be addressed for micro-reactors (i.e., will rely on the same information provided for the safety review) or provide a clear regulatory requirement with the appropriate legal authority for why this topic must be included in an environmental report.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with this comment. This ISG addresses radiological health because it is part of the NRCs mission is to protect public health and CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1501.3 states that agencies should consider the effect on public health and safety. The regulatory requirement to submit this information is found in 10 CFR 51.41. Assessing radiological health impacts is a key aspect of the staffs safety evaluation of a new reactor application for the determination of adequate protection of public health and safety. Thus, decisionmakers and 1 CEQ final rule to update its regulations for implementation of the NEPA (85 FR 43304)
Page 22 of 28 members of the public expect the staffs environmental evaluation to properly address this issue. The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 30 Postulated Accidents, page 7; Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives, pages 7-8 Micro-reactors may have no radiological impacts outside of the site boundary. This should be generally referenced in the ISG. Other agency documents and initiatives consider that 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. 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).
NEI Recommendation Include discussion that micro-reactors may not have radiological consequences beyond the site boundary.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with this comment. There is no absolute guarantee that yet-to-be-built microreactors would have no radiological impacts outside the site boundary, and this cannot be pre-judged by the staff. Additionally, having limited offsite radiological consequences is not the same as having no offsite radiological consequences. The staffs environmental findings must address the nature of the environmental impacts, whether they be limited or no offsite radiological consequences, to properly inform the decisionmaker and provide disclosure to the public.
As for NUREG-0849, microreactors are not the same as research and test reactors. The two generally have different operating regimes or conditions, along with different operational cycles.
Ultimately, the staffs safety evaluation would make the final determination as to the nature of the radiological impacts outside the site boundary, based on the appropriate safety regulations, policies, and guidance documents. As previously discussed, the staffs environmental evaluation would tier from or incorporate by reference the safety analysis and the findings of the staffs safety evaluation report into the environmental findings. Thus, the safety review would address NUREG-0849 and emergency preparedness requirements, and the staff would factor such findings into the environmental findings, as appropriate, for the reactor design and site conditions. The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 31 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives, page 7 Per Comment No. 10, this section should be significantly modified. If retained, A credible severe accident is not defined in reference NUREG/BR-0058 or NEI 05-01 documents.
Footnote 3 does not clarify or provide any specific acceptance criteria or screening limits.
NEI Recommendation
Page 23 of 28 Per Comment No. 10, this section should be significantly modified. If NRC does not delete this, NRC should quantify the screening limit for credible severe accidents.
NRC Response The NRC understands the comment but disagrees with the recommendation. SAMA evaluations are based, in part, on the level of risk for a credible severe accident that is derived from the specific reactor design. As stated previously in the ISG and in prior comment responses, the spectrum of severe accidents that are credible for consideration in a SAMA evaluation will come from the safety analysis as supported by the staffs safety evaluation. This is the meaning of the term credible severe accident in the ISG section on SAMAs as delineated in the footnote. Additionally, other NRC guidance documents use the term credible severe accident. For example, Regulatory Guide 1.183, Alternative Radiological Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at Nuclear Power Plants, states the following on page 1.183-12:
2.3 The [alternate source term] AST must not be based upon a single accident scenario but instead must represent a spectrum of credible severe accident events. Risk insights may be used, not to select a single risk-significant accident, but rather to establish the range of events to be considered. Relevant insights from applicable severe accident research on the phenomenology of fission product release and transport behavior may be considered. [Emphasis added]
This also applies to SAMAs due to dependency on the reactor designs risk spectrum of credible severe accident events for the site under consideration. (Note that probabilistic risk assessments (PRAs) do screen out very low-risk accident progression sequences as not credible severe accidents.) The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 32 Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives, page 7, line 29 Per Comment No. 10, this section should be significantly modified. If retained, the term safety accident analysis appears to be in error.
NEI Recommendation Per Comment No. 10, this section should be significantly modified. If NRC does not delete this, revise with the correct term.
NRC Response The NRC agrees in part with the comment regarding the correct term. As previously discussed, the SAMA section will not be significantly modified in the final ISG. However, the term will be revised to applicants severe accident analysis in the final ISG.
NEI Comment 33 Acts of Terrorism, page 8, lines 16-20 The section about Acts of Terrorism discusses the case law related to the Ninth Circuit. It is unclear which applicants would need to reach a finding related to terrorism and sabotage in the environmental review.
Page 24 of 28 NEI Recommendation The guidance should clarify the circumstances under which NRC is required to address acts of terrorism. The Acts of Terrorism section implies 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 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).
NRC Response The NRC generally agrees with the comment. Essentially, as the comment notes, the staff must address acts of terrorism for applications that are within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The NRC modified the ISG text to add the parenthetical statement provided by the commenter concerning the territorial jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The NRC also made changes in the final ISG to further clarify the staff guidance.
NEI Comment 34 Acts of Terrorism, page 8 Further, the referenced Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals case, San Luis Obispo Mothers for Peace
- v. NRC, which stated that the NRC could not categorically refuse to 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.
NEI Recommendation
Page 25 of 28 Clarify that acts of terrorism do not need to be addressed in the environmental report for a micro-reactor.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with this comment. The NRC prepared this guidance specifically to provide the staff with direction on evaluating the environmental impacts regarding the licensing micro-reactors and not for applicants ER. As previously discussed, the staff must address acts of terrorism and sabotage as part of the NRCs NEPA obligation for licensing actions within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. As noted in the ISG, the staff would coordinate this aspect of the environmental review with the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response. The staff also notes 10 CFR 51.41 directs applicants to submit such information to the Commission as may be useful in aiding the Commission in complying with section 102(2) of NEPA. Thus, since this issue must still be addressed as part of the microreactors licensing, the NRC must still address acts of terrorism as part of the staffs NEPA obligations for projects located within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.
NEI Comment 35 Fuel Cycle Impacts, Transportation of Fuel and Waste, and Continued Storage of Spent Fuel, pages 8-9 The draft ISG essentially states that fuel cycle impacts for micro-reactor non-LWRs will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and that current LWR analyses do not apply. This level of guidance is insufficient to benefit applicants or the NRC staff reviewer. This guidance should explicitly consider that non-LWR micro-reactors may be small enough such that their fuel cycle impacts are very limited and could be bounded by current analyses for LWRs.
This guidance also should explicitly consider that certain micro-reactors may get their first fuel loads from DOE, and/or fuel cycle facilities that will themselves be subject 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.
NEI Recommendation The NRC staff should add at the end of this section of the ISG: As part of any case-by-case analysis for front-and back-end fuel cycle impacts, reviewers should consider as a threshold matter whether the proposed fuel cycle impacts are sufficiently limited that they can be bounded by current environmental impact analyses for LWRs. Moreover, reviewers should examine whether fuel cycle impacts will be more accurately addressed in other environmental reviews and need not be duplicated in the current reviewsuch as any reviews by the U.S. Department of Energy (if DOE is providing the fuel), or reviews by the NRC related to the licensing of future fuel cycle facilities.
NRC Response The NRC agrees in part with the comment, keeping in mind that the ISG is guidance to the staff for assessing the contribution of the micro-reactor to the environmental effects of the fuel cycle activities. While the reduced size of the microreactor can mean a smaller amount of nuclear material is required than would be required for an LWR, the regulations at 10 CFR 51.50(b)(3)
Page 26 of 28 for ESPs and 10 CFR 51.50(c) for COLs stage state, as noted in the ISG, that a non-LWR applicant shall provide the basis for evaluating the contribution of the environmental effects of the fuel cycle activities for the nuclear power reactor. The regulations do not specify the size of nuclear power plant that would require such a basis. Therefore, for the staff to be able to make an environmental finding on the environmental effects of the fuel cycle, the applicant must provide such information regardless of the source of the fuel, be it fuel from the DOE or a commercial source and the quantity of the nuclear fuel.. If using existing segments of the fuel cycle, which have been previously analyzed in Table S3, the applicant should note this in the discussion of the microreactors contribution to the environmental effects.
Regarding NEIs statement that the staff guidance in the final ISG should consider that certain microreactors may get their first fuel loads from DOE, and/or fuel cycle facilities that will themselves be subject to NRC review, the staff has always had the flexibility to factor into its environmental evaluation of the fuel cycle other environmental reviews by the DOE with regard to its involvement, or from another NRC review related to construction and operation of a connected microreactor fuel cycle facility.
The NRC made the following changes to the final ISG based on this comment and NEI comment 37:
The NRC staff will address the transportation of fuel and wastes, along with spent fuel storage for microreactors and other non-LWRs, on a case-by---case basis and document its findings in the appropriate environmental review documentation. The staff should apply the general methodology for assessing transportation impacts, as discussed in NUREG-1555, Section 5.7.2, Transportation of Radioactive Material, and Section 7.4, Transportation Accidents, along with RG 4.2, Section 6.2.1, Components of a Full Description and a Detailed Analysis of Transportation Impacts, assuming the applicant has provided all appropriate information and data. The staff should consider whether microreactor fuel cycle impacts can be bounded by current environmental impact analyses for existing fuel cycle facilities. Moreover, the staff should incorporate fuel cycle impact assessments from other environmental analysessuch as NEPA assessments by the U.S. Department of Energy (if it is providing the fuel) or reviews by the NRC related to the licensing of future fuel cycle facilities that would fabricate microreactor nuclear fuel.
NEI Comment 36 Fuel Cycle Impacts, Transportation of Fuel and Waste, and Continued storage of Spent Fuel, pages 8-9 The inapplicability of 10 CFR 51.51 Table S-3 and 10 CFR 51.52 Table S-4 as well as NUREG-2157 followed by statements regarding preapplication interactions and case-by-case basis does not provide useful generic guidance to NRC reviewers or applicants.
NEI Recommendation Acceptable comparable technical bases for environmental impacts of fuel and waste transport should be described here so that applicants and NRC reviewers understand how compliance can be achieved for non-LWR micro-reactor designs.
Page 27 of 28 NRC Response The NRC agrees with the comment. If the agency pursues rulemaking for 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental protection regulations for domestic licensing and related regulatory functions, the NRC will consider including a fuel cycle table for non-LWRs, similar to Table S-3, Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, in 10 CFR 51.51, Uranium fuel cycle environmental dataTable S-3, and Summary Table S-4, Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste To and From One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor, in 10 CFR 51.52, Environmental effects of transportation of fuel and wasteTable S-4, for LWRs.
NUREG-2157, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel, issued September 2014, did not evaluate non-LWRs. A non-LWR applicant will have to justify that the storage of its fuel is conducted in a similar manner as LWR fuel and, therefore, the impacts are similar to those described in NUREG-2157. This issue will be discussed during pre-application with potential applicants. The NRC did not change the final ISG based on this comment.
NEI Comment 37 Fuel Cycle Impacts, Transportation of Fuel and Waste, and Continued Storage of Spent Fuel, pages 8-9 This section does not address the possibility that the micro-reactor may be transported to the site with fuel in it and may also be transported off-site after end of cycle with irradiated used fuel inside it.
NEI Recommendation Revise this section to address unique fuel-in-reactor transport aspects of micro-reactors.
NRC Response The NRC agrees in part with the comment, keeping in mind that the ISG is guidance to the staff for assessing the contribution of the micro-reactors to the environmental effects of fuel transportation activities. As has been discussed before in the comment responses, there are significant unknowns as to how the advanced reactor developers are going to address various regulatory and necessary infrastructure aspects to actually build an advanced reactor, such as a non-LWR micro-reactor. One of those regulatory and infrastructure unknowns is the transportation of the fuel in an appropriately certified shipment package to the site and away from the site once the used fuel can be shipped for offsite storage, disposal, or reprocessing.
Another unknown is whether a complete micro-reactor with a fully-load core would be shipped to and from the site or as individual fuel components like current LWR fuel shipments. The general methodology applied for past evaluations of new reactor fuel shipments is also applicable for advanced reactor fuel shipments, as discussed in NUREG-1555 Sections 5.7.2, Transportation of Radioactive Material, and 7.4, Transportation Accidents, along with RG 4.2, Section 6.2.1 Components of a Full Description and a Detailed Analysis of Transportation Impacts. However, with many unknowns, especially regarding necessary parameter values to assess transportation accidents, the staff guidance at this time can only account for the expected general methodology for assessing environmental impacts from the transportation of fuel and waste. Changes were made in the final ISG as a result of this comment. See response to NEI Comment 35.
NEI Comment 38
Page 28 of 28 Consistency with Safety Licensing Documents, page 9, lines 34-35 The draft ISG states, If a micro-reactor applicant also submits requests for exemption from any safety regulations, the ER and the EIS must assess the environmental impacts of the exemption requests. This 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.
NEI Recommendation Provide clarification that this statement is only applicable to the regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 and include the specific regulatory requirement since the word must is used.
NRC Response The NRC disagrees with this comment. Exemptions to the regulations, including safety regulations, need an environmental assessment unless it is an exemption that meets the criteria of 10 CFR 51.22, Criterion for categorical exclusion; identification of licensing and regulatory actions eligible for categorical exclusion or otherwise not requiring environmental review. This environmental assessment is satisfied when an EIS is issued by evaluating the impacts of exemptions requested during the application phase as part of the EIS. The NRC did not change the final ISG as a result of this comment.