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
8/13/24, 7:26 AM blob:https://www.fdms.gov/b208cd19-9cda-4b9f-9b3c-3565e1be5138SUNSI Review Complete
Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 As of: 8/13/24, 7:26 AM ADD: Patricia Vokoun, Received: August 12, 2024 Josh Borromeo, Deion Status: Pending_Post PUBLIC SUBMISSION Atkinson, Stephanie Devlin-Gill, Mallecia Tracking No. lzr-fw36-pkdu Sutton; Roel Comments Due: August 12, 2024 Brusselmans, Antoinette Walker-Smith, Mary NeelySubmission Type: Web
Comment (34)
Docket: NRC-2024-0078 Publication US SFR Owner, LLC; Construction Permit Application Date:6/12/2024 Citation: 89 FR 49917 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
blob:https://www.fdms.gov/b208cd19-9cda-4b9f-9b3c-3565e1be5138 1/1 August 12,2024
Subject:
Comment on SFR Owner, LLC.;Kemmerer Power Station Unit1;Notice ofIntent To Conduct Scoping Processand Prepare Environmental Impact Statement.[Docket IDNRC-2024-0078].
TheBreakthrough Institute(BTI)appreciatesthis opportunity tocomment on thescope of environmental review for theKemmerer Power StationUnit 1 and toexpress our support forthe facilitysconstruction.BTIisanindependent 501(c)(3)globalresearchcenterthat advocates for appropriateregulation and oversight ofnuclear reactorsto enable thenew and continued use of safeand clean nuclear energy.BTIactsin thepublic interestand does not receivefunding from industry.
Overall,thescope ofthisenvironmental review should be limitedto theimpacts that are attributabletothe licensedfacility.Therearealsotwo speci"c topicsthatshould be addressed.
TheNo-Action Alternative
TheNational Environmental PolicyAct(NEPA) amendments of 20231mandates consideration of
thenegative impacts ofthe no-actionalternative:
...areasonablerangeofalternativestotheproposedagency action,includingananalysisofany negativeenvironmental impactsofnot implementing theproposed agency actioninthecaseofa no actionalternative,thataretechnicallyandeconomicallyfeasible,andmeetthepurpose and need oftheproposal.
Insteadof onlyconsidering the positiveimpactsof not buildingKemmerer Unit 1(e.g.
constructionactivitieswillnotoccur),the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must now also considerthe negativeimpacts. Such impacts could include theemissions from thealternative energysources that willneed tobe used (likelyfossilfuels)andthecorresponding publichealth consequences. The localutilityhasindicatedthat fossil-fueledpower plantsin thearea willbe retainedinstead ofretiredas planned due to expected increasesin demand.2 IfKemmerer Unit1
1PublicLawNo:118-5,https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3746.
2Paci"Corp,2023IntegratedResourcePlanUpdate,April1,2024,https://www.paci"corp.com/content/dam/pcorp
/documents/en/paci"corp/energy/integrated-resource-plan/2023_IRP_Update.pdfatPage12.
plantdoes not goforward there ishighcon"dence that more fossilretirementswillbe deferred orreveresedto meet demand.
Inaddition toitsresponsibilitiesunderNEPA, theNRC alsoneeds toconsider thefullbreadth of impacts oftheno-actionalternativeinorder tomeet themandate in theAtomic Energy Act of enablingnuclear energy tomake the maximum contribution tothe generalwelfare.3This
recognitionofthe bene"ts ofnuclear energy was emphasized inthe recentlypassedADVANCE Act,whichstated thatlicensingand regulationof thecivilianuseof radioactivematerialsand nuclearenergy be conducted ina manner thatisecient and does notunnecessarily limit the bene"ts ofcivilianuseof radioactivematerialsand nuclear energy technologyto society.4
Thresholdfor theUse ofan EA and 10 CFR 51.20(b)
NEPA was amended to considerwhen touse an environmental assessment (EA)versusan environmental impact statement (EIS).Now,an EA should be usedwhen the actionby afederal agencydoesnot havea reasonablyforeseeablesigni"canteectonthequalityofthehuman environment,orifthesigni"canceofsucheectisunknown.5This means thatthereshould be a
determiniation whether an EISistrulynecessary.One ofthe NRCsregulations (10CFR 51.20(b))
requirestheNRC touse anenvironmental impact statement in orderto issuesapermit to constructanuclear reactor,regardlessofthepotential impact ofthat reactor.Thisdoesnot allow forthe"exibilityinenvironmental review thatisrequiredby NEPA. The NRC does not havea processinregulation fordetermining the appropriate levelorenvironmental reviewas required byNEPA.6
Thescope ofthe EISfor thisprojectshould includewhy the NRC decided touse an EISand not seekan exemption from 51.20toallow theuse ofan EA based on expected eect,and how that determination was made.
BTIappreciatesthe opportunity toexpressour support forKemmerer Unit1 and tocomment on thescope ofthe environmental review forthe project.
342USC2011(a).
4PublicLawNo:118-67,Sec.501,https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/senate-bill/870.
542USC4336(b)(2).
6TheNRCstarecentlyrecommendedrevising10CFR51.20toconformwithNEPA.Inthemeantime,theyplantomake a determinationonacase-by-casebasis.https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML2407/ML24078A010.pdf.
Sincerely,
LeighAnne Lloveras NuclearEnergy Analyst TheBreakthrough Institute