ML24226A245
| ML24226A245 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kemmerer File:TerraPower icon.png |
| Issue date: | 08/12/2024 |
| From: | Lloveras L Breakthrough Institute |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| NRC-2024-0078, 89FR49917 00034 | |
| Download: ML24226A245 (1) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 8/13/24, 7:26 AM Received: August 12, 2024 Status: Pending_Post Tracking No. lzr-fw36-pkdu Comments Due: August 12, 2024 Submission Type: Web Docket: NRC-2024-0078 US SFR Owner, LLC; Construction Permit Application Comment On: NRC-2024-0078-0006 US SFR Owner, LLC.; Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1; Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement Document: NRC-2024-0078-DRAFT-0034 Comment on FR Doc # 2024-12810 Submitter Information Email:leighanne@thebreakthrough.org Organization:The Breakthrough Institute General Comment See attached file(s)
Attachments TerraPower Env. Rev._actual comment.docx 8/13/24, 7:26 AM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/b208cd19-9cda-4b9f-9b3c-3565e1be5138 blob:https://www.fdms.gov/b208cd19-9cda-4b9f-9b3c-3565e1be5138 1/1 SUNSI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Patricia Vokoun, Josh Borromeo, Deion Atkinson, Stephanie Devlin-Gill, Mallecia Sutton; Roel Brusselmans, Antoinette Walker-Smith, Mary Neely Comment (34)
Publication Date:6/12/2024 Citation: 89 FR 49917
August 12, 2024
Subject:
Comment on SFR Owner, LLC.; Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1; Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement. [Docket ID NRC-2024-0078].
The Breakthrough Institute (BTI) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the scope of environmental review for the Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 and to express our support for the facilitys construction. BTI is an independent 501(c)(3) global research center that advocates for appropriate regulation and oversight of nuclear reactors to enable the new and continued use of safe and clean nuclear energy. BTI acts in the public interest and does not receive funding from industry.
Overall, the scope of this environmental review should be limited to the impacts that are attributable to the licensed facility. There are also two specific topics that should be addressed.
The No-Action Alternative The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) amendments of 20231 mandates consideration of the negative impacts of the no-action alternative:
...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 in the case of a no action alternative, that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal.
Instead of only considering the positive impacts of not building Kemmerer Unit 1 (e.g.
construction activities will not occur), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must now also consider the negative impacts. Such impacts could include the emissions from the alternative energy sources that will need to be used (likely fossil fuels) and the corresponding public health consequences. The local utility has indicated that fossil-fueled power plants in the area will be retained instead of retired as planned due to expected increases in demand.2 If Kemmerer Unit 1 2 PacifiCorp, 2023 Integrated Resource Plan Update, April 1, 2024, https://www.pacificorp.com/content/dam/pcorp
/documents/en/pacificorp/energy/integrated-resource-plan/2023_IRP_Update.pdf at Page 12.
1 Public Law No: 118-5, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3746.
plant does not go forward there is high confidence that more fossil retirements will be deferred or reveresed to meet demand.
In addition to its responsibilities under NEPA, the NRC also needs to consider the full breadth of impacts of the no-action alternative in order to meet the mandate in the Atomic Energy Act of enabling nuclear energy to make the maximum contribution to the general welfare.3 This recognition of the benefits of nuclear energy was emphasized in the recently passed ADVANCE Act, which stated that licensing and regulation of the civilian use of radioactive materials and nuclear energy be conducted in a manner that is efficient and does not unnecessarily limit the benefits of civilian use of radioactive materials and nuclear energy technology to society.4 Threshold for the Use of an EA and 10 CFR 51.20(b)
NEPA was amended to consider when to use an environmental assessment (EA) versus an environmental impact statement (EIS). Now, an EA should be used when the action by a federal agency does not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment, or if the significance of such effect is unknown.5 This means that there should be a determiniation whether an EIS is truly necessary. One of the NRCs regulations (10 CFR 51.20(b))
requires the NRC to use an environmental impact statement in order to issues a permit to construct a nuclear reactor, regardless of the potential impact of that reactor. This does not allow for the flexibility in environmental review that is required by NEPA. The NRC does not have a process in regulation for determining the appropriate level or environmental review as required by NEPA.6 The scope of the EIS for this project should include why the NRC decided to use an EIS and not seek an exemption from 51.20 to allow the use of an EA based on expected effect, and how that determination was made.
BTI appreciates the opportunity to express our support for Kemmerer Unit 1 and to comment on the scope of the environmental review for the project.
6 The NRC staff recently recommended revising 10 CFR 51.20 to conform with NEPA. In the meantime, they plan to make a determination on a case-by-case basis. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2407/ML24078A010.pdf.
5 42 USC 4336(b)(2).
4 Public Law No: 118-67, Sec. 501, https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/870.
3 42 USC 2011(a).
Sincerely, Leigh Anne Lloveras Nuclear Energy Analyst The Breakthrough Institute