ML24274A253

Scoping Summary Report, Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 Construction Permit, Kemmerer, Wyoming

ML24274A253
Person / Time
Site:	Kemmerer File:TerraPower icon.png
Issue date:	11/22/2024
From:	Daniel Barnhurst NRC/NMSS/DREFS/EPMB3
To:
Shared Package
ML24271A023	List: ML24271A031 ML24274A253
References
Download: ML24274A253 (22)

Text

Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process Summary Report Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 Construction Permit Kemmerer, Wyoming November 2024 U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Rockville, Maryland

2 A. Objective The purpose of this report1 is to provide a concise summary of the determination of the scope of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) staffs environmental review of US SFR Owner, LLCs (USO) construction permit (CP) application, incorporating stakeholder inputs. This report briefly summarizes the issues identified by the scoping process associated with the NRC staffs review of USOs CP application.

The remainder of this report is structured as follows:

B. Introduction/Background C. Scoping Process and Objectives D. Comments Received During the Scoping Period E. Significant Issues Identified F. Determinations and Conclusions B. Introduction/Background On March 28, 2024, TerraPower, LLC (TerraPower) on behalf of USO submitted to the NRC an application for a CP to construct a Natrium Reactor Plant at a greenfield site in Lincoln County, Wyoming that will be called Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1. The Kemmerer Unit 1 site is located near the Naughton Power Plant owned by PacifiCorp, approximately 3 miles south of Kemmerer, WY.

As part of the application, TerraPower, on behalf of its wholly owned subsidiary USO, submitted an environmental report (ER) (ML24088A072) prepared in accordance with the requirements of Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 51. The ER focuses on potential environmental effects from the construction of a new nuclear generating unit at the site. It also includes an evaluation of the environmental consequences of alternatives, including the proposed action and any mitigating actions that may be taken. The NRC regulations implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, are contained in 10 CFR 51, Subpart A. In addition, the NRC follows the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations to the extent set forth in 10 CFR 51.10 and 10 CFR 51.14(b). The NRC regulations related to the environmental review of CP applications are contained in 10 CFR 51.

The NRC staff is preparing an environmental impact statement (EIS) is conjunction with the USO application. The proposed action is NRC approval of the USO application to construct a new nuclear power generation facility, a Natrium Power Plant, to be located at the new site. The EIS will include an evaluation of the environmental impacts of the proposed action, including the no-action alternative and alternatives available for reducing or avoiding adverse environmental effects in accordance with NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plan for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. It also will address alternative energy options. In addition, the staff is conducting a safety review of the USO application in accordance with NUREG-0800, Standard Review Plan for the Review of Safety Analysis Reports for Nuclear Power Plants.

1 The NRCs requirements for conducting the scoping process and for preparing a scoping summary report are found at 10 CFR 51.29, Scoping-environmental impact statement and supplement to environmental impact statement.

3 The USO application and all other public documents relevant to the Kemmerer Unit 1 CP application are available in the NRCs Web-based ADAMS, which is accessible at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who encounter problems in accessing documents in ADAMS should contact the NRCs Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or via e-mail at pdr.resource@nrc.gov.

For additional information, the NRC staff has made available a public website with specific information about the Kemmerer Unit 1 CP application at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/new-reactors/advanced/who-were-working-with/applicant-projects/terrapower.html. This website includes application information, the licensing review schedule, opportunities for public involvement, project manager information, and other relevant information. In addition, important documents are available at the Federal rulemaking website, https://www.regulations.gov under Docket ID NRC-2024-0078.

C. Scoping Process and Objectives On June 12, 2024, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.26, the NRC initiated the scoping process by publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement (ML24109A021) in the Federal Register (89 FR 49917). The NOI notified the public of the staffs intent to prepare an EIS and conduct scoping for the CP application.

Through the notice, the NRC also invited the applicant; Federal, Tribal, State, and local government agencies; local organizations; and individuals to participate in the scoping process by providing oral at the public meetings and/or submitting written suggestions and comments no later than August 12, 2024.

A public scoping meeting was held at the South Lincoln Training and Events Center, 215 State Highway 233, Kemmerer, Wyoming, on July 16, 2024. The NRC staff announced the meeting in local newspapers and outlets (the Kemmerer Gazette and the Cowboy State Daily) as well as the NRC public website. The participants included the NRC staff, NRC contractors from Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, representatives from TerraPower and USO, U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) staff, the news media, local government officials, and members of the public.

Approximately 28 members of the public attended the scoping meeting. Oral comments were recorded at the public meeting. A summary of the scoping meeting was prepared and includes a list of attendees, transcript of the oral comments, public meeting notice, and NRC presentation slides. The summary of the scoping meeting is available (ML24222A597).

The scoping process provides an opportunity for public participation to identify issues to be addressed in the EIS and highlight public concerns and issues. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.29(b), this scoping summary report provides a concise summary of the determinations and conclusions reached as a result of the scoping process. The NRCs objectives of the scoping process were to:

Define the proposed action that is to be subject of the EIS.

Determine the scope of the EIS and identify significant issues to be analyzed in-depth.

Identify and eliminate from detailed study those issues that are peripheral or that are not significant or that have been covered by prior environmental review.

4 Identify any environmental assessments (EA) and other EISs that are being prepared or will be prepared that are related to, but not part of, the scope of the EIS being considered.

Identify other environmental review and consultation requirements related to the proposed action.

Identify parties consulting with the NRC under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), as set forth in 30 CFR 800(c)(1)(i).

Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of the environmental analyses and the Commissions tentative planning and decision-making schedule.

Identify any cooperating agencies and, as appropriate, allocate assignments for preparation and schedules for completing the EIS to the NRC and any cooperating agencies.

Describe how the EIS will be prepared, including any contractor assistance to be used.

The NRC staffs determinations and conclusions regarding the above objectives are provided in Section F below.

D. Comments Received During the Scoping Period The NRC received comment submissions from 123 individuals. Table D-1 provides a list of commenters who provided comment submissions (i.e., non-form letter submissions) identified by name (if provided), affiliation (if stated), the correspondence identification (ID) number, the comment source, and the ADAMS Accession Number of the source. The staff reviewed the scoping meeting transcript, and all written material received to identify individual comments.

Each comment was marked with a correspondence ID, which is a unique identifier consisting of the comment source and a comment number (specified in Table D-1). For example, comment 3-1 would refer to the first comment from the third comment source. This unique identifier allows each comment to be traced back to the source where the comment was identified.

Table D-1. Individuals Providing Comments During the Scoping Comment Period Commenter Affiliation Correspondence ID Source Document ID Adams, Paul 0020 regulations.gov ML24179A023 Amelse, Jeffrey 0011 regulations.gov ML24172A033 Amelse, Jeffrey 0016 regulations.gov ML24172A048 Amelse, Jeffrey 0022 regulations.gov ML24184A005 Ames, Mary 0062 Email ML24222A684

5 Commenter Affiliation Correspondence ID Source Document ID Anderson, Shannon Powder River Basin Resource Council 0035 Email ML24207A127 Anonymous, Anonymous 0009 regulations.gov ML24172A181 Anonymous, Anonymous 0019 regulations.gov ML24178A062 Anonymous, Anonymous Oregon Conservancy Foundation 0035 Email ML24207A127 Anonymous, Anonymous Montana Environmental Information Center 0035 Email ML24207A127 Anonymous, Anonymous Healthy Environment Alliance of Utah (HEAL Utah) 0035 Email ML24207A127 Anonymous, Anonymous Snake River Alliance 0035 Email ML24207A127 Anonymous, Anonymous Nuclear Information and Resource Service 0035 Email ML24207A127 Anonymous, Anonymous Nuclear Energy Information Service (NEIS) 0035 Email ML24207A127 Anonymous, Anonymous Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy (PHASE) 0035 Email ML24207A127 Anonymous, Anonymous Oregon Physicians for Social Responsibility 0035 Email ML24207A127 Anonymous, Anonymous 0044 Email ML24201A031 Anonymous, Anonymous 0112 regulations.gov ML24226A026 Authors, Multiple 0091 Email ML24226A046 Bailey, Tom 0106 Email ML24226B204 Balin, Diane 0006 regulations.gov ML24172A176

6 Commenter Affiliation Correspondence ID Source Document ID Balin, Jerry 0006 regulations.gov ML24172A176 Ballard, Robert 0033 Email ML24207A124 Balthasar, Lawrence 0064 Email ML24222A728 Banks, Wesley 0078 Email ML24222A896 Barfield, Ellen 0077 Email ML24222A851 Berndt, Michael 0095 Email ML24226A087 Bigler, Gregory 0021 regulations.gov ML24184A003 Bishop, Terry 0041 Email ML24207A155 Bogen, Doug 0068 Email ML24222A759 Brady, Theresa 0102 Email ML24226A550 Brand, Steven 0003 regulations.gov ML24172A069 Breitweiser, Sharon 0014 regulations.gov ML24172A041 Brown, Jae 0004 regulations.gov ML24172A074 Brown, John 0018 regulations.gov ML24172A049 Burke, Robert 0012 regulations.gov ML24172A036 Burke, Tracey 0081 Email ML24223A014 Campbell, Bruce 0085 Email ML24226A016 Caponi, Nancy 0103 Email ML24226A686 Carlson, Suzanne 0084 Email ML24223A053 Case, Dudley 0032 Email ML24207A123 Clements, Tom Savannah River Site Watch 0089 Email ML24226A041 Collins, Hunter 0010 regulations.gov ML24172A182

7 Commenter Affiliation Correspondence ID Source Document ID Corwin, Marshall 0048 Meeting Transcript ML24212A204 Crosson, Mike 0046 Email ML24204A134 Cruz, John 0053 Email ML24222A131 Davis, Shellee 0080 Email ML24223A008 DeMare, Joseph 0098 Email ML24226A129 Doman, Jamie 0048 Meeting Transcript ML24212A204 Dougherty, James 0063 Email ML24222A725 Douglas, Alan G.

0037 Email ML24207A149 Driscoll, John Brian 0034 Email ML24207A126 Dunsey, George 0058 Email ML24222A641 Egolf, Jamie 0026 Email ML24206A249 Espe, Garth 0008 regulations.gov ML24172A180 Fields, Sarah Uranium Watch 0116 regulations.gov ML24226A246 Futrell, Sherrill 0079 Email ML24222A908 Gibson, Kenneth 0104 Email ML24226A922 Gordon, Alison U.S. Geological Survey 0047 Email ML24207A129 Gubbins, Phillip 0024 regulations.gov ML24198A010 Guimarin, Elizabeth 0082 Email ML24223A025 Gunter, Cheryl 0048 Meeting Transcript ML24212A204 Hanson, Art 0110 Email ML24232A041 Helling, Steve 0114 regulations.gov ML24226A031

8 Commenter Affiliation Correspondence ID Source Document ID Hershberger, Vernon 0036 Email ML24207A128 Hershberger, Marilyn 0036 Email ML24207A128 Higginbotham, Ross 0039 Email ML24207A153 Hinckley, Joseph 0001 regulations.gov ML24165A227 Hourcade, Catherine 0083 Email ML24223A034 Howard, J.W.

0093 Email ML24226A066 Johansen, Bill 0043 Email ML24201A029 Johnson, Abigail 0069 Email ML24222A765 Kerbs, Daniel 0017 regulations.gov ML24172A055 Kersting, John 0061 Email ML24222A665 Klein, Frederick 0094 Email ML24226A082 Lane, Andy 0005 regulations.gov ML24172A078 LaPlaca, Nancy 0023 regulations.gov ML24198A164 Laverty, Annamaria 0066 Email ML24222A745 Lawien, Patrick 0007 regulations.gov ML24172A177 Layser, Brett 0013 regulations.gov ML24172A038 Lee, Michel Council on Intelligent Energy & Conservation Policy and Promoting Health and Sustainable Energy 0087 Email ML24226A020 Letendre, Michael 0070 Email ML24222A790 Lloveras, Leigh Anne The Breakthrough Institute 0115 regulations.gov ML24226A245 Lobell, Joan 0076 Email ML24222A843

9 Commenter Affiliation Correspondence ID Source Document ID Loew, Kellan 0107 regulations.gov ML24221A082 Logan, Christopher 0097 Email ML24226A128 Lyman, Edwin Union of Concerned Scientists 0109 Email ML24226A029 Malven, Tania 0060 Email ML24222A649 Mansfield-Wells, Julie 0086 Email ML24226A018 Martin, Martha 0101 Email ML24226A353 McBride, Kent 0002 regulations.gov ML24172A057 McCallister, Blaine 0092 Email ML24226A058 McCoy, Melissa U.S. EPA 0090 Letter ML24226A044 Mcfarland, Mitch 0100 Email ML24226A167 McKee, Sarah 0055 Email ML24222A520 Merz, Elizabeth 0054 Email ML24222A496 Miller, Bonnie 0027 Email ML24207A115 Miller, Charles 0059 Email ML24222A647 Montague-Judd, Danielle 0073 Email ML24222A816 Morris, Joni 0031 Email ML24207A122 Morris, Joni 0117 Email ML24253A190 Newberry, James 0056 Email ML24222A526 Nicholson, Nick 0030 Email ML24207A121 Nieland, Thomas 0067 Email ML24222A746 Olson, Barb 0071 Email ML24222A800

10 Commenter Affiliation Correspondence ID Source Document ID Paloma Hernandez, Hannah 350 MT 0111 regulations.gov ML24233A302 Pearson, Laura Green River Livestock 0049 Email ML24218A053 Pritchard, Dale 0029 Email ML24207A119 R, S 0045 Email ML24204A133 Rath, John 0074 Email ML24222A819 Reade, Deborah 0051 Email ML24221A305 Reyer, Thomas 0057 Email ML24222A538 Roby, Maryann 0096 Email ML24226A117 Rose, Kathryn 0065 Email ML24222A739 Schaeffer, Claudia 0099 Email ML24226A137 Schneider, George 0052 Email ML24222A130 Schultz, Will Wyoming Game & Fish 0113 regulations.gov ML24226A028 Sedgeley, Ryan 0042 Email ML24211A146 Shipley, Andrea 0108 Email ML24228A100 Sipes, Peter 0025 regulations.gov ML24198A162 Solow, Lewis 0040 Email ML24207A154 South, Eric Coalition of Local Government 0088 Letter ML24226A025 Sparks, Amber 0038 Email ML24207A151 Swearingen, Will 0105 Email ML24226B150 Swenson, Ruth 0050 Email ML24220A038 Tichy, Gerald 0075 Email ML24222A829 Walsh, Ralph 0015 regulations.gov ML24172A043

11 Commenter Affiliation Correspondence ID Source Document ID Weber, Karen 0028 Email ML24207A117 Weinsaft, Kathy Wyoming Rural Water 0048 Meeting Transcript ML24212A204 Wilson, Wes Be The Change Colorado 0072 Email ML24222A806 Wolf, Davis 0048 Meeting Transcript ML24212A204 A total of 354 individual comments were received during the scoping period. Comments were consolidated and categorized according to a resource area or topic. Table D-2 identifies the distribution of comments received by resource area or topic.

Table D-2. Distribution of Comments by Resource Area or Topic Section(s)

Resource Area or Topic Comments D.1.1 Accidents 19 D.1.2 Air Quality 2

D.1.3 Alternatives 29 D.1.4 Cumulative 2

D.1.5 Ecological Resources - Aquatic Resources 2

D.1.6 Ecological Resources - Terrestrial Resources 6

D.1.7 Environmental Justice 5

D.1.8 Fuel Cycle and Waste Management 44 D.1.9 General Environmental Concerns 30 D.1.10 Geology 2

D.1.11 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change 6

D.1.12 Historic and Cultural Resources 6

D.1.13 Human Health 3

12 Section(s)

Resource Area or Topic Comments D.1.14 Land Use and Visual Resources 3

D.1.15 Noise 1

D.1.16 Socioeconomics 18 D.1.17 Transportation 7

D.1.18 Water Resources 13 D.2.1 Process - Licensing Action 21 D.2.2 Process - NEPA 17 D.2.3 Support for Project 25 D.2.4 Opposition for Project 32 D.2.5 - D.2.9 Outside Scope 61 A summary of the comments received is provided below. Comments were grouped based on being in scope or out of scope, and comments with similar themes were further sub-grouped to capture the resource concerned. Each comment submittal was uniquely identified and when a submittal addressed multiple issues, the submittal was further divided into separate comments with individual tracking identifiers.

D.1 Comments on the Resources Areas D.1.1 Comments Concerning Accidents Comment Summary: Several commenters expressed concerns on the operational safety of the proposed Kemmerer Unit 1. These commenters asked the NRC to include an analysis of the severe accident consequence on public health and safety and the environment, provide emergency management information, and evaluate the cost of an accident in the Kemmerer Unit 1 CP EIS. Other commenters expressed concerns on severe accident scenario analysis presented in the Environmental Report for Kemmerer Unit 1. Several commenters questioned the safety of the sodium-cooled technology proposed for the Kemmerer Unit 1 facility and molten salt reactors in general.

Comments: (68-1), (73-1), (87-2), (87-10), (90-9), (97-8), (97-8), (109-3), (109-8), (109-9), (29-3),

(42-8), (49-1), (53-2), (62-2), (89-8), (93-2), (97-5), (109-4)

D.1.2 Comments Concerning Air Quality Comment Summary: Commenters provided recommendations for performing an air quality impact analysis in the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for the Kemmerer Unit 1 CP.

13 These recommendations include characterizing existing air quality for criteria pollutants and visibility metrics, the inclusion of a project emission inventory, an analysis of potential fugitive dust emissions, and the requirements for an air permit. Furthermore, the commenters stated that impact analysis for air quality should consider impacts to air from radioactive and non-radioactive emissions during construction, testing, operation, non-operation, transportation, and decommissioning.

Comments: (90-10); (116-3)

D.1.3 Comments Concerning Alternatives Comment Summary: Commenters raised several concerns regarding alternatives for the Kemmerer Unit 1, including (a) the need to analyze alternative reactor designs, (b) the need to address the adverse impacts of the no-action alternative, (c) the need to address the environmental impacts and cost effectiveness of renewable energy alternatives, and (d) the use of nuclear energy in regard to U.S. climate goals and energy strategies.

Comments: (11-2), (16-1), (29-4), (89-6), (2-2), (6-8), (18-2), (20-2), (20-4), (22-1), (27-6), (32-5),

(42-9), (48-3-5), (48-3-7), (50-1), (51-5), (54-1), (55-1), (60-1), (61-2), (85-4), (91-6), (93-5), (98-2), (98-4), (99-3), (103-1), (103-3)

D.1.4 Comments Concerning Cumulative Impacts Comment Summary: Commenters requested that a cumulative impacts and environmental consequences be included in the DEIS for the Kemmerer Unit 1 CP. The commenters stated the analysis should include the incremental effects of the action when added to the effects of other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable actions. The commenters also stated the analysis should also include the cumulative effect that the project would have towards climate change abatement.

Comments: (90-5), (91-8)

D.1.5 Comments Concerning Ecological-Aquatic Resources Comment Summary: The Wyoming Game and Fish Department (WGFD) provided information concerning Federally listed threatened or endangered or State listed Species of Greatest Conservation Need (SGCN) aquatic species that may occur within or near the Kemmerer Unit 1.

The department provided recommendations to the minimization of impact to fishes, minimization of impact from stormwater runoff, and the prevention aquatic invasive species spread.

Comments: (113-5), (113-7)

D.1.6 Comments Concerning Ecological-Terrestrial Resources Comment Summary: The WGFD provided information concerning Federally listed threatened or endangered or State listed Species of SGCN terrestrial species that may occur within or near the Kemmerer Unit 1. The department provided important wildlife considerations and associated recommendations to be implemented to reduce any potential impact. These included recommended impact minimization requirements for big game crucial ranges, protection of species of greatest concern, minimize the spread of noxious weeds and invasive annual grasses, minimize the use of artificial lighting, and reduce risks posed by electrical power lines.

14 Another commenter commented that the DEIS should include an analysis describing the potential impact to vegetation and wildlife and special status species.

Comments: (13-1), (13-4), (113-6), (113-8), (116-11), (116-14)

D.1.7 Comments Concerning Environmental Justice Comment Summary: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) recommends using the Federal Environmental Justice (EJ) Interagency Working Groups (IWG) Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews to guide EJ analysis. Other commenters described the potential impacts to low-income and minority communities within the region of the proposed Kemmerer Unit 1. Furthermore, commenters recommended aspects that should be included in an EJ impact analysis.

Comments: (87-5), (90-16), (90-17), (90-18), (116-10)

D.1.8 Comments Concerning Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Comment Summary: Commenters expressed concern about radioactive waste, nuclear safety, transport, and stated that there is no long-term solution for the storage of spent nuclear fuel.

Several commenters provided information on the radiological decay of material and history of spent fuel storage in the United States. One commenter discussed the uniqueness of spent fuel from the proposed facility versus spent fuel from light-water reactors. Commenters requested that the DEIS analysis include the uranium mining, milling, processing and production of fuel for the proposed facility. Additionally, commenters requested that both long-term and onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel, radiological waste transport and storage, and the impacts of sodium-bonded metallic fuel be described and analyzed in the DEIS.

Comments: (6-3), (7-2), (26-2), (27-2), (29-1), (32-2), (34-1), (42-4), (46-3), (50-3), (51-3), (58-1),

(69-1), (78-1), (87-4), (89-12), (91-10), (91-12), (97-3), (108-1), (116-18), (27-4), (32-3), (34-3),

(42-5), (51-7), (53-1), (67-1), (76-1), (81-2), (85-3), (89-5), (89-9), (89-10), (89-11), (91-9), (97-2),

(97-4), (99-2), (101-2), (106-2), (109-5), (109-6), (114-6)

D.1.9 Comments with General Environmental Concerns Comment Summary: One commenter expressed concerns about the history of sodium cooled reactors and the need to address environmental, economic, and public health impacts of severe nuclear accident with these types of reactors. Several commenters expressed concerns about the siting of the Kemmerer Unit 1 in Wyoming and requested more information on why this site was selected. One commenter expressed concerns with water rights associated with the proposed facility. Other commenters expressed concerns about the role of nuclear energy in response to climate change, the cost of the proposed reactor and associated impact to taxpayers, and speed at which the proposed reactor technology is being implemented. One commentor expressed concerns about the uncertainties and risks with small modular reactors and advanced reactors.

Comments: (46-1), (48-3-6), (51-1), (52-1), (59-1), (66-1), (68-2), (70-1), (71-1), (74-1), (75-1),

(76-2), (80-2), (81-1), (82-1), (87-1), (88-1), (89-3), (91-1), (91-5), (91-13), (93-1), (93-6), (96-1),

(99-1), (100-1), (111-1), (111-3), (114-1), (116-1)

15 D.1.10 Comments Concerning Geology Comment Summary: Commenters expressed concern about the earthquake activity of the region and potential impacts to soil resources that should be discussed in the DEIS.

Comments: (46-2), (116-12)

D.1.11 Comments Concerning Greenhouse Gases and Climate Change Comment Summary: Several commenters expressed concern that the Kemmerer Unit 1 would contribute to climate change through greenhouse emissions during construction or not make a difference in climate change in the amount of time needed to develop the technology. Additional comments were concerning the need for a greenhouse gas emission and climate change analysis in the EIS and recommendations for how that analysis should be performed. The EPA EJ recommended that the DEIS should apply the interim guidance provided by the CEQ to address potential climate impacts, mitigation, and adaption issues. The EPA also recommended that the DEIS summarize the social cost of greenhouse gases.

Comments: (90-15), (98-1), (98-3), (102-1), (108-2), (116-4)

D.1.12 Comments Concerning Historic and Cultural Resources Comment Summary: Several commenters expressed concern about historic and cultural resources requesting that the NRC consult with Tribal nations and the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office. One commenter requested that the NRC ask the Navajo Nation about their opinion of nuclear power plants. The EPA recommended that NRC consult with all potentially interested Tribal nations during the development of the DEIS and incorporate feedback from Tribes when making decisions regarding the project. Further comments described the information that needs to be included in a historic and cultural resource impact assessment.

Comments: (49-3), (64-1), (85-5), (88-7), (90-19), (116-7)

D.1.13 Comments Concerning Human Health Comment Summary: The EPA requested that the analysis of human health impacts attributed to the proposed facility including an analysis of background radiation, safety standards, and public and worker health from vehicle emissions and radiological emissions. One commenter expressed concerns on impacts to water and farmland from lethal chemicals.

Comments: (107-4), (48-3-3), (90-8)

D.1.14 Comments Concerning Land Use and Visual Resources Comment Summary: Commenters requested that the EIS include an analysis of the visual and scenic impacts of proposed facility. Commenters stated that the analysis should include a dark skies analysis and provide alternatives to minimize potential impacts. In regard to land use, commenters requested a description of the existing land use authorizations and potential impacts to public access, existing infrastructure, and consequences for the proposed size of Kemmerer Unit 1.

Comments: (34-4), (116-8), (116-13)

16 D.1.15 Comments Concerning Noise Comment Summary: A commenter requested that the DEIS described and analyze potential noise impacts from the construction and operation of Kemmerer Unit 1.

Comment: (116-6)

D.1.16 Comments Concerning Socioeconomics Comment Summary: Commenters expressed concerns about the social and economic impacts to the local community. Several commenters expressed concerns of the cost to taxpayers from the subsidies for the proposed Kemmerer Unit 1. One commenter expressed concern that rural towns are often predated by companies and politicians with hope for better economy, but often doesnt materialize. Several commenters expressed concerns that an increase population would also increase the potential for criminal activities. Several commenters discussed the potential impacts in regard to the cost to job creation, population growth, local housing, government services, and infrastructure of the proposed Kemmerer Unit 1.

Comments: (5-2), (22-2), (27-5), (32-4), (42-10), (45-2), (46-4), (46-4), (48-4-1), (48-5-1), (49-2),

(85-6), (87-6), (88-3), (89-4), (91-14), (92-2), (116-9)

D.1.17 Comments Concerning Transportation Comment Summary: Commenters stated that the NRC should evaluate the transportation of nuclear fuel, sodium, and other materials to/from the proposed Kemmerer Unit 1. Commenters expressed concerns related to the transportation risk on roadways and rail lines. One commenter requested the NRC evaluate in the DEIS the transportation of fuel from/to the proposed Kemmerer Unit 1, transportation of liquid and solid radioactive and hazardous waste off site, transportation impacts associated with construction, operation, and decommissioning of Kemmerer Unit 1, and the transportation impacts of workers/visitors to the facility over time.

Comments: (81-3), (91-15), (108-3), (27-3), (93-4), (105-2), (116-5)

D.1.18 Comments Concerning Water Resources Comment Summary: Several commenters expressed concerns on groundwater and surface water. These concerns include potential contamination to groundwater and surface water sources, potential impacts to the Hams Fork River and North Fork Little Muddy Creek, the anticipated water use at Kemmerer Unit 1, long term monitoring, and wetlands. The EPA recommended that the DEIS include a groundwater and surface water resources impact analysis. The EPA stated that the analysis should include effects on water quality, water chemistry, streambank stability conditions, wetland and riparian area vegetation cover and composition, soil conditions, stressor identification, and discharges.

Comments: (49-4), (107-3), (116-16), (29-2), (34-2), (44-2), (48-3-1), (88-8), (90-11), (90-12),

(90-13), (90-14), (116-15)

17 D.2 Non-Technical and Comments Outside the Scope of the Environmental Review D.2.1 Comments Concerning Process - Licensing Action Comment Summary: Commenters expressed concern about the licensing process for the Kemmerer Unit 1 CP. Several commenters expressed concern that construction activities had already begun at the site and asked the NRC to discuss preconstruction activities versus construction activities in the EIS. Commenters asked that a thorough environmental and safety review of the proposed activities be performed. Several commenters expressed concern that the licensing process is not transparent to the public and requested that the NRC have a publicly transparent review process and use up-to-date information when performing the review processes. One commenter provided information related to the sodium-cooled reactor design and asked that a protype be used before the Kemmerer Unit 1 CP is issued.

Comments: (1-1), (1-2), (14-3), (24-2), (35-1), (62-1), (74-2), (85-1), (87-7), (89-7), (90-2), (91-3),

(91-4), (92-1), (93-3), (97-1), (109-2), (111-2), (111-4), (114-3), (114-7)

D.2.2 Comments Concerning Process - NEPA Comment Summary: Several commenters expressed concern regarding the efficiency of the staffs environmental review. The Coalition of Local Governments commented that the NRC should take advantage of existing analyses to the extent possible, including the DOE EA for the Test and Fill Facility, to help streamline the review. Additionally, the Coalition of Local Governments requested to be a cooperating agency in the development of the DEIS. Additional commenters provided information on the role of cooperating agencies in the NEPA process, offered assistance in the preparation of the EIS, described the requirements for an EIS, the consultation requirements, and the inclusion of mitigation strategies in the EIS. One commenter requested that the NRC include timelines and an impact if timelines are not met in the DEIS.

The EPA recommends that the DEIS include a range or reasonable alternatives and focus on areas of concern.

Comments: (80-1), (88-4), (88-5), (88-6), (88-9), (89-1), (90-1), (90-3), (90-4), (90-6), (90-7),

(91-2), (91-7), (95-1), (103-2), (116-2), (116-20)

D.2.3 General Comments in Support of the Licensing Action Comment Summary: Commenters expressed general support for nuclear power and specific support for the Kemmerer Unit 1 project. The commenters expressed support for nuclear power because it (a) reduces carbon emissions and is a form of clean energy, (b) is safe, (c) creates jobs in the local community, (d) diversifies Wyomings energy portfolio, and (e) hasa smaller footprint than alternative energy sources.

Comments: (3-1), (4-1), (5-1), (8-1), (9-1), (10-1), (12-1), (13-1), (15-1), (17-1), (18-1), (18-4),

(20-1), (24-1), (25-1), (36-1), (37-1), (39-1), (40-1), (41-1), (43-1), (45-1), (48-2-1), (88-2), (115-1)

D.2.4 General Comments in Opposition to the Licensing Action Comment Summary: Several commenters expressed general opposition to nuclear power and specific support for the Kemmerer Unit 1 project and requested NRC not issue a CP. The commenters expressed opposition to nuclear power and the proposed project because of (a) the design of the project is unproven, (b) the environmental and safety issues with nuclear

18 energy, (c) use of radioactive materials and subsequent wastes, (d) the lack of transparency from the applicant and the NRC, (e) the potential geological hazards with the site, and (f) the cost of the nuclear energy and impact to tax payers.

Comments: (1-4), (2-1), (6-1), (14-1), (21-1), (23-1), (23-3), (26-1), (30-1), (31-1), (32-1), (42-1),

(42-7), (44-1), (53-3), (57-1), (61-1), (63-1), (65-1), (79-1), (84-1), (86-1), (94-1), (97-10), (101-1),

(104-1), (106-1), (106-3), (107-1), (107-5), (110-1), (112-1), (117-1)

D.2.5 Comments Concerning Outside Scope - Safety Comment Summary: Commenters discussed the impact and preparedness of local public safety and emergency resources to respond to the sites needs. Several commenters raised concern safety with regards to the reactor design, acts of terrorism, nuclear proliferation and public safety were raised. Several commenters expressed concern about Kemmerer Unit 1 being used as a breeder reactor for plutonium production. One commenter requested that an independent Nonproliferation Impact Assessment be performed for Kemmerer Unit 1.

Comments: (6-5), (6-4), (7-1), (11-1), (11-3), (14-2), (16-2), (18-3), (20-3), (28-1), (42-2), (48 2), (87-3), (87-8), (87-9), (97-7), (105-4), (109-1), (114-4), (1-3), (6-2), (6-7), (89-2), (89-13), (89-14), (89-15), (97-9), (109-7), (114-2)

D.2.6 Comments Concerning Outside Scope - Energy Costs Comment Summary: Commenters raised awareness about the cost of nuclear energy and financial impacts of the project. Several commenters raised concerns with financial disclosure of the applicant. One commenter discussed alternative energy options and the related cost of nuclear energy.

Comments: (15-2), (17-2), (27-1), (33-2), (42-3), (42-6), (50-2), (51-2), (51-4), (105-1), (105-3)

D.2.7 Comments Concerning Outside Scope - Need for Power Comment Summary: Commenters expressed concern on optional energy technologies and the need for power to support artificial intelligence.

Comments: (22-3), (72-1)

D.2.8 Comments Concerning Outside Scope - Aging Management Comment Summary: Commenters raised concerns about the long-term management and life expectance of nuclear facilities. Additional commenters raised concerns about decommissioning costs and future impacts attributed to abnormal incidents.

Comments: (6-6), (91-11), (97-6), (114-5)

D.2.9 Comments Concerning Outside Scope - Miscellaneous Comment Summary: Commenters raised concern about long term spent fuels storage, transmission lines, nuclear safety, cost effectiveness of nuclear power, opinions of the applicant, climate change, and resource management. One commenter expressed concern about the political pressure related to Kemmerer Unit 1.

19 Comments: (7-3), (23-2), (33-1), (33-3), (34-5), (36-2), (47-1), (48-1-1), (49-5), (49-5), (52-2),

(83-1), (85-2), (107-2), (110-2)

E. Significant Issues Identified After the NRC staff considered and grouped comments according to resource area/topic, the NRC staff identified the significant issues raised during the scoping period that bear on the proposed action or its impacts, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.29. A summary of the significant issues, including each commenters unique identifier, are provided below.

Accidents Concerns were expressed regarding operational safety of the proposed Kemmerer Unit 1 and questioned the safety of the molten salt reactors. As such, commenters requested an analysis of the severe accident consequence on public health and safety and the environment.

Comments: (68-1), (73-1), (87-2), (87-10), (90-9), (97-8), (97-8), (109-3), (109-8), (109-9), (29-3), (42-8), (49-1), (53-2), (62-2), (89-8), (93-2), (97-5), (109-4)

Ecological Resources Concerns were expressed regarding several federally listed endangered or threatened species that may exist adjacent to and in the general project area. As such, the commenter requested the analysis of describing the potential impacts to vegetation and wildlife and special status species.

Comments: (13-1), (13-4), (113-6), (113-8), (116-11), (116-14)

Historic and Cultural Resources Concerns were expressed regarding the presence of a cultural resource and requested the NRC consult with Tribal nation and the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office concerning Kemmerer Unit 1.

Comments: (49-3), (64-1), (85-5), (88-7), (90-19), (116-7)

Socioeconomics Concerns were expressed about the social and economic impacts to the local community includes the cost to taxpayers, increased population, and impacts to local housing and government services.

Comments: (5-2), (22-2), (27-5), (32-4), (42-10), (45-2), (46-4), (46-4), (48-4-1), (48-5-1), (49-2),

(85-6), (87-6), (88-3), (89-4), (91-14), (92-2), (116-9)

Water Resources Concerns were expressed regarding potential impacts to the Hams Fork River and North Fork Little Muddy Creek. As such, commenters requested that analysis performed as part of the EIS look carefully at those potential impacts.

Comments: (49-4), (107-3), (116-16), (29-2), (34-2), (44-2), (48-3-1), (88-8), (90-11), (90-12),

(90-13), (90-14), (116-15)

20 F. Determinations and Conclusions (1) Define the proposed action The NRCs proposed action in this instance is to determine whether to issue a CP to USO for the construction of Kemmerer Unit 1.

(2) Identify the scope of the statement and significant issues to be analyzed in the EIS The environmental consequences of the proposed action include: (1) impacts associated with construction activities of Kemmerer Unit 1; (2) impacts of various alternatives to the proposed action; (3) direct and indirect impacts to resources from construction activities; (4) cumulative impacts of the proposed action; and (5) resource commitments associated with the proposed action, including unavoidable adverse impacts, the relationship between short-term use and long-term productivity, and irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources.

The NRC staff delineated and grouped comments according to resource area/topic (see Section D). The comments will be addressed in the DEIS, as appropriate, as discussed in Section D of this report.

The NRC staff reviewed all comments received and categorized each as general in nature, outside scope (beyond the scope of the CP environmental review), or in-scope (the comment is applicable to the environmental review). The NRC staff considered all relevant in-scope comments as part of this review.

In addition, the NRC staff will describe, in Chapters 2 and 3 of the DEIS, the following topics generally mentioned in the scoping comments:

Accidents Air Quality Alternatives Ecology - Aquatic Resources Ecology - Terrestrial Resources Environmental Justice Fuel Cycle and Waste Management General Environmental Concerns Geologic Environment Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change Historic and Cultural Resources Human Health

21 Water Resources Other scoping comments will also be considered, as discussed below.

(3) Identify and eliminate from detailed study issues which are peripheral or are not significant or which have been covered by prior environmental review The NRC staff received several comments that were either general in nature or otherwise beyond the scope of the proposed action of whether to issue the Kemmerer Unit 1 CP. These included comments from organizations and individuals generally in support of or against the Kemmerer Unit 1 CP.

Site-specific environmental conditions are considered when siting nuclear power plants. This includes the consideration of meteorological and hydrologic siting criteria, including Probable Maximum Precipitation criteria, as set forth in 10 CFR Part 100, Reactor Site Criteria. The NRC regulations require that plan structures, systems, and components important to safety be designed to withstand the effects of natural phenomena, such as flooding, without loss of capability to perform safety functions. Further, nuclear power plants are required to operate within technical specifications in accordance with the NRC operating license, including coping with natural phenomena hazards. The NRC conducts safety reviews prior to allowing licensees to make operational changes due to changing environmental conditions. Since the scope of the environmental review is a CP, specific structures, systems and components, and technical specifications for operation have not yet been identified. However, these components and specifications will be evaluated during the Kemmerer Unit 1 operating license application review.

The NRC staff will not consider or evaluate any issues in the DEIS which do not pertain to the staffs environmental evaluation or are beyond the scope of the CP. Comments that have designated as out of scope are identified in Section D of this report.

(4) Identification of related EA and Other EIS The NRC has not identified EAs or EISs that directly address an NRC issued CP for Kemmerer Unit 1. However, the DOE issued an EA/finding of no significant impact (FONSI) on May 1, 2024, for the TerraPower Test and Fill Facility, located directly north of the Kemmerer Unit 1 site. This EA/FONSI can be used as a reference in the preparation of the DEIS, as appropriate.

(5) Other Environmental Review and Consultation Requirements Concurrent with its NEPA review, and consistent with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC staff is consulting with affected Indian Tribes, the Wyoming Historic Preservation Office, and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to fulfill its Section 106 obligations under the NHPA.

The EPA recommended including the Federal (EJ) IWGs Promising Practices for EJ Methodologies in NEPA Reviews to guide the EJ analysis and related elements. The NRC follows applicable regulations and guidance in the development of the DEIS, including performing EJ analysis in accordance with the NRCs Policy Statement on the Treatment of EJ Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions (69 FR 52040).

(6) Indicate the relationship between the timing of the preparation of environmental analyses and the Commissions tentative planning and decision-making schedule

22 The NRC staff plans to issue a DEIS for public comment in June 2025. The 45-day comment period will offer an opportunity for participants, such as the applicant; interested Federal, State, and local government agencies; Tribal governments; local organizations; and members of the public to provide further input to the agencys environmental review process. Comments on the DEIS will be considered in the preparation of the final EIS, which the NRC staff anticipates issuing in February 2026. The NRC staff is completing its safety review and will document findings in a safety evaluation report (SER) it anticipates issuing in August 2026. The findings in the EIS and SER will be considerations in the NRCs decision to issue or deny USO request for the CP for Kemmerer Unit 1.

(7) Identification of Cooperating Agencies DOE has been identified by NRC staff as a cooperating agency prior to the initiating the scoping process. DOEs NEPA reviews, including the Test and Fill Facility EA (DOE/EA-2217) and the Preliminary Activities EA (DOE/EA-2264) will be incorporated by reference into NRCs DEIS.

During the scoping process, the NRC staff did not identify any additional Federal, State, local or Tribal agencies as cooperating agencies for this DEIS.

(8) Describe how the EIS will be prepared, including any contractor assistance to be used Upon completion of the scoping process, the NRC staff will compile its finding in a DEIS. The DEIS will be made available for public comment. Once public comment period is complete, the NRC staff will amend the DEIS, as appropriate, and will prepare and publish a final site-specific EIS. The NRC will then prepare and provide a Record of Decision in accordance with 10 CFR 51.102 and 10 CFR 51.103.