ML24151A110
| ML24151A110 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Hermes File:Kairos Power icon.png |
| Issue date: | 05/24/2024 |
| From: | Rani Franovich Nuclear ROSE Consulting |
| To: | Daniel Barnhurst Office of Administration |
| References | |
| 89FR32462 00004, NRC-2023-0138 | |
| Download: ML24151A110 (1) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 5/30/24, 7:07 AM Received: May 25, 2024 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. lwl-mq3k-mchw Comments Due: May 28, 2024 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2023-0138 Kairos Power, LLC Receipt of Construction Permit Application Comment On: NRC-2023-0138-0005 Kairos Power, LLC; Hermes 2; Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact Document: NRC-2023-0138-DRAFT-0004 Comment on FR Doc # 2024-08964 Submitter Information Email:rani@nuclearrosellc.com Organization:Nuclear ROSE Consulting, LLC General Comment See attached file(s)
Attachments May 24 2024 Formal Comment on Hermes 2 Draft EA 5/30/24, 7:08 AM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/80518aa3-faf0-462b-b2ec-020949d13f9e blob:https://www.fdms.gov/80518aa3-faf0-462b-b2ec-020949d13f9e 1/1 SUNSI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Antoinette Walker-Smith, Peyton Doub, Mary Neely Comment (4)
Publication Date:4/26/2024 Citation: 89 FR 32462
May 24, 2024 Daniel Barnhurst, Chief, Environmental Project Management Branch 3 Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission
Subject:
Comment on Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Construction Permits for the Kairos Hermes 2 Test Reactors, Draft Report [Docket ID NRC-2023-0138]
Dear Mr. Barnhurst:
I write to commend the NRC staff for preparing an Environmental Assessment (EA) in lieu of a more labor-intensive Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for this proposed Federal action. The cost and schedule efficiencies gained by this approach are likely substantial. I also respectfully submit this comment letter pursuant to the solicitation1.
I.
Purpose and Need The NRCs draft EA acknowledges the purpose and need for the Hermes 2 reactor: to demonstrate Kairos Powers fluoride salt-cooled, high temperature reactor (KP-FHR) technology.
This represents a logical progression of the first Hermes demonstration reactor, for which Kairos Power received a construction permit in December 20232. Construction and operation of the Hermes 2 test reactor will similarly provide invaluable experience and insights to support design of future commercial reactors using this technology.
II.
Impacts are Small and Not Significant The NRC staff evaluated the cumulative environmental impacts associated with the construction, operation, and decommissioning of Hermes 2, in combination with past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions or projects, and concluded the level of impact would be small3. The small impact level and FONSI are well-supported by the staffs assessment. The NRC staff also concluded that the potential direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts from Hermes 2 would not be significant and, therefore, assigned a preliminary Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI).
1 https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/26/2024-08964/kairos-power-llc-hermes-2-draft-environmental-assessment-and-draft-finding-of-no-significant-impact 2 https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/non-power/new-facility-licensing/hermes-kairos.html 3 https://adamswebsearch2.nrc.gov/webSearch2/main.jsp?AccessionNumber=ML24103A002, Table 5-1
2 III.
No-action Alternative The NRC assessed the environmental impacts of not issuing a permit to construct the proposed Hermes 2 test reactor, noting:
The applicant could still build Hermes but would not have the ability to test elements of the Hermes 2 design absent from the Hermes design, such as the intermediate cooling loop. While forgoing the opportunities provided by Hermes 2 might not necessarily preclude future development of reactors using the KP-FHR technologies, it could slow or impede safe and efficient development of the technology.4 While these detrimental outcomes of the no action alternative are worth mentioning, others warrant equal consideration.
- a. The No-action Alternative is Not Environmentally Benign When the NRC issued its draft EIS for the initial Kairos Hermes test reactor, I and others submitted comments on the characterization of the no action alternative5.
I strongly encourage the NRC to more fully and holistically examine and characterize the substantial adverse impacts of taking no federal action, not just for the Hermes test reactor but for all major federal actions involving any reactor, any nuclear power generation, from either the currently operating fleet or future generations of nuclear technologies.6 The NRC staff responded that the draft EIS adequately characterizes the environmental impacts of the no action alternative7 by:
- 1. acknowledging the purpose and need for the proposed action in Section 1.2;
- 2. concluding the applicant would not have an opportunity to test the new technology, and that missing this opportunity could slow or impede the safe and efficient development of the technology8 in Section 4.1;
- 3. providing a cost-benefit analysis for the proposed Hermes project that presents several possible benefits of the proposed Hermes project that would be foregone should the applicant be denied a construction permit (CP) and could not build the project9 in Section 4.3; and
- 4. noting that the no action alternative would not meet the purpose and need for the action10 in Section 4.4 of the draft EIS.
The NRC staff also noted that further exploration of the no action alternative could be speculative and therefore beyond the scope of a proper National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) analysis. No changes were made to the EIS in response to this comment.11 In light of the NRC staffs willing speculation and assessment of reasonably foreseeable future actions and 4 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2410/ML24103A002.pdf, p. 4-1, lines 38-42 5 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2321/ML23214A269.pdf, pp. G-8 to G-11 6 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2321/ML23214A269.pdf, p. G-9 7 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2321/ML23214A269.pdf, p. G-8 8 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2321/ML23214A269.pdf, p. G-8 9 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2321/ML23214A269.pdf, p. G-8 10 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2321/ML23214A269.pdf, pp. G-8 to G-9 11 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2321/ML23214A269.pdf, pp. G-9
3 projects throughout the draft EA, and a determination that it is reasonably foreseeable that climate change may alter the affected environment described in [Section 3.12]12, these comment responses seem arbitrary.
- b. The No-action Alternative Precludes Demonstration of KP-FHR Reactor Technology for Reliable, Baseload Generation I and others submitted comments on the Hermes draft EIS to emphasize the importance of demonstrating the KP-HTR technology for commercial deployment:
NRC's issuance of an operating license or construction permit is a necessary major federal action to demonstrate an option that mitigates global warming, health effects of fossil alternatives, and threats to the nation's energy security.
However, public health and safety are undermined when the federal government takes no action,... takes too long, or charges the applicant excessive review fees that disincentivize rapid deployment of safe new nuclear technologies.13 In response to this and other similar comments, the NRC staff suggested renewable sources of energy could offset the negative impacts of the no-action alternative:
The technology proposed for demonstration by the Hermes project is not the only advanced nuclear reactor technology under consideration at this time, and there are other possible ways that use of fossil fuels could decrease in the future (e.g., increased renewable energy generation). Such a broad perspective for evaluating the ramifications of differing energy generation technologies is beyond the scope of possible environmental consequences of a specific project such as Hermes. Hence, no changes were made to the EIS in response to these comments.14 This response dismisses altogether the distinction that renewable sources are intermittent, whereas nuclear energy provides reliable baseload generation. A word search of the final EIS for Hermes and the draft EA for Hermes 2 reveals that neither includes the terms baseload, base-load or base load.15 The term reliable occurs only twice in the draft EA for Hermes 2, and this is in reference to preventing or mitigating postulated accidents (Section 3.1.11). It is not clear why demonstrating a technology for reliable, baseload generation was not characterized as beneficial in the final EIS for the Hermes test reactor or the draft EA for the Hermes 2 test reactor.
The no-action alternative does not serve society's interest in realizing the benefits of clean, safe, reliable, base-load nuclear generation.
- c. The No-action Alternative is Detrimental to the Environment and Society Urgent concerns about the public's general welfare warrant careful examination. Among them are energy insecurity in the face of increasing projected demands (e.g., data centers and artificial intelligence) that outpace supply. Failure to license, construct, or operate safe, emission-free commercial reactors absolutely is detrimental to the environment and society.
12 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2420/ML24103A002.pdf, p. 3-43 13 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2321/ML23214A269.pdf, p. G-9 14 https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2321/ML23214A269.pdf, p. G-11 15 The terms baseload and base load appear only in public comments recorded in the final EIS for Hermes.
4
- d. The NRC Must Consider Negative Impacts of the No-Action Alternative Even before the NRC issued the final EIS for the Hermes test reactor in August 2023, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) had passed16. This legislation calls for a revision to NEPA, including insertion of a provision that environmental reviews will include:
(a)(3)(B)(iii) a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action, including an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action [emphasis added] in the case of a no action alternative, that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal17 By law, the final EA for Hermes 2 must include a description and characterization of the negative environmental impacts of the no action alternative, consistent with this legislation.
IV.
Summary The Hermes 2 demonstration project is a significant step toward commercial deployment of the KP-FHR technology. However, the NRC staff's characterization of the no-action alternative does not fully consider the lost benefits and reasonably foreseeable harms associated with a decision not to permit construction of the Hermes 2 reactor.
The Hermes 2 final EA presents an opportunity for NRC staff to shift the paradigm and depart from its long-standing practice of characterizing the no-action alternative as environmentally benign or beneficial. In this and other licensing reviews, any environmental benefits of the no-action alternative are eclipsed by environmental harms.
The no action alternative perpetuates global climate change, degrades environmental quality, harms human health, exacerbates grid instability and energy shortages, and undermines national security interests. These substantial negative impacts to the local, national, and global community must be duly considered in all environmental reviews undertaken by the NRC and reflected in the Agencys EISs and EAs, including the final EA for the Hermes 2 test reactor construction permit.
Sincerely, Rani Franovich Former NRC Staff and Principal Consultant Nuclear ROSE Consulting, LLC 16 The FRA became public law on June 3, 2023 (https://www.congress.gov/118/plaws/publ5/PLAW-118publ5.pdf) 17 https://www.congress.gov/118/plaws/publ5/PLAW-118publ5.pdf, Title III - Permitting Reform, Sec. 321.
BUILDER ACT, 137 STAT. 38