ML24354A067
| ML24354A067 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Nuclear Energy Institute |
| Issue date: | 12/18/2024 |
| From: | O'Neill M Nuclear Energy Institute |
| To: | NRC/SECY/RAS |
| References | |
| PR-51, NRC-2020-0101, 89FR80797 00031 | |
| Download: ML24354A067 (1) | |
Text
From:
O"NEILL, Martin To:
RulemakingComments Resource Cc:
O"NEILL, Martin; AUSTGEN, Kati
Subject:
[External_Sender] NRC-2020-0101 (RIN 3150-AK55) -- Nuclear Energy Institute Comments on NRCs Proposed Rule, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors Date:
Wednesday, December 18, 2024 11:12:33 PM Attachments:
NEI Comments on NRC Proposed New Reactor GEIS and Rule (12-18-2024).pdf
Dear NRC Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff,
Please find attached to this email the Nuclear Energy Institutes comments submitted in response to the NRCs Proposed Rule, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors, 89 Fed. Reg. 80,797 (Oct. 4, 2024). Please confirm receipt of these comments.
Please contact me by email (mjo@nei.org) or phone if you have any questions regarding this submittal. We appreciate the opportunity to submit comments.
- Regards, Martin ONeill Martin J. ONeill l Associate General Counsel Nuclear Energy Institute 1201 F Street NW, Suite 1100l Washington, DC 20004 P: 202.739.8139 M: 240.305.0331 nei.org This electronic message transmission contains information from the Nuclear Energy Institute, Inc. The information is intended solely for the use of the addressee and its use by any other person is not authorized. If you are not the intended recipient, you have received this communication in error, and any review, use, disclosure, copying or distribution of the contents of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by telephone or by electronic mail and permanently delete the original message. IRS Circular 230 disclosure: To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS and other taxing authorities, we inform you that any tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties that may be imposed on any taxpayer or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any transaction or matter addressed herein.
Martin J. ONeill Associate General Counsel Phone: 202.713.8139 Email: mjo@nei.org NRC-2020-0101 (RIN 3150-AK55)
December 18, 2024 Secretary of the Commission ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, DC 20555-0001 Submitted via email to Rulemaking.Comments@nrc.gov
Subject:
NEI Comments on NRCs Proposed Rule, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors, 89 Fed. Reg. 80,797 (Oct. 4, 2024)
Dear Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff:
The Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) is pleased to provide comments on the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commissions (NRC) proposed revisions to its Part 51 environmental regulations, draft NUREG-2249, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors (NR GEIS)
(ML24176A220), and related draft guidance. The NR GEIS - and the codification of its generic findings into NRC regulations - are intended to make NRC environmental reviews of new nuclear reactor license applications more efficient by identifying those environmental issues that are expected to be common, or generic, to the construction, operation, and decommissioning of many new nuclear reactors. This approach avoids the need to reproduce the same analyses each time a license application is submitted and allows applicants and NRC staff to focus future environmental review efforts on site-specific issues.
NEI supports both the NR GEIS rulemaking and the NRCs broader efforts to provide a stable, predictable, and efficient environmental review process for new reactor applications. Avoiding delays in the licensing process, including the agencys National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review, is essential to fostering technological innovation and expeditiously deploying new nuclear plants, consistent with multiple nuclear-related laws enacted over the last five years. Those laws include, for example, the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act of 2019 (NEIMA) and the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act).
Our detailed comments are provided in the Enclosure to this letter. They generally convey support for the NR GEIS and proposed rule. NEI believes the NR GEIS will be integral to efficient NRC reviews of many expected new reactor license applications and become a foundational document like the License Renewal GEIS and Continued Storage Rule GEIS. In this regard, the NRCs draft regulatory analysis may substantially underestimate the potential benefits of the NR GEIS rulemaking. Moreover, use of the NR GEIS is consistent with recent laws aimed at streamlining and expediting the NEPA review process, including the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA) amendments to NEPA and Section 506 of the ADVANCE Act. The NR GEIS will help the NRC meet numerous congressional directives in those laws.
Given the importance of the NR GEIS, the NRC should seek to optimize its benefits by clarifying that it applies to all new reactors, including new research and test reactors and reactors located on non-
NRC Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff December 18, 2024 Page 2 2
traditional sites. In addition, we recommend that the NRC include limited work authorizations within the scope of licensing actions covered by the NR GEIS and rule. The NRCs use of bounding values and assumptions for reactor design features and site conditions (i.e. plant and site parameter envelopes) in the NR GEIS should be conducive to implementing these recommendations.
Our comments identify a number of other substantive concerns and/or recommendations.
The NRC proposes to treat Need for Power as a separate Category 2 issue requiring fairly detailed quantitative analysis. Such an analysis is not legally mandated by the Atomic Energy Act or NEPA; i.e., neither statute requires monetization and comparison of benefits and costs (i.e., cost-benefit analysis). Nor is it necessary given the clear need for new nuclear capacity in the U.S., related national policy objectives and congressional imperatives, and an applicants need to describe the Purpose and Need for a proposed facility as its own Category 2 issue.
The NR GEIS and its implementing guidance should make clear that the No Action Alternative must include an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action. This analysis is required by Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA, as revised by the FRA.
Severe Accidents should be classified as a Category 1 issue based on existing NRC bounding analyses of severe accidents prepared as part of the License Renewal GEIS. For related reasons, the NRC also should remove Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives (SAMDAs) from the NR GEIS as a separate issue requiring evaluation by applicants.
Consistent with recent modifications its license renewal-related guidance, the NRC should revise its NR GEIS implementing guidance to clarify that any site-specific discussion of climate change impacts (a Category 2 issue) should address only reasonably foreseeable climate change impacts and do so in proportion to their significance, consistent with NEPAs rule of reason.
NEI appreciates this opportunity to comment on the NRCs proposed NR GEIS and rule and hopes these comments help inform the NRCs rulemaking efforts. If you have questions concerning this letter, please contact me at 202.739.8139 or mjo@nei.org.
Sincerely, Martin J. ONeill Martin J. ONeill Associate General Counsel
Enclosure:
Nuclear Energy Institute Comments on the NRCs Proposed Rule Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors
1 Nuclear Energy Institute Comments on the NRCs Proposed Rule Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors 10 CFR Part 51 [NRC-2020-0101; RIN 3150-AK55]
December 18, 2024
1 Table of Contents A. The New Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement (NR GEIS) and Rule Are Needed to Meet Key National Policy Objectives and Congressional Directives.................................................. 1 B. The NR GEIS Will Facilitate the NRCs Implementation of Multiple ADVANCE Act Provisions in Addition to Section 506................................................................................................................ 2 C. NRCs Reliance on the NR GEIS and Rule Are Consistent with NEPA, the ADVANCE Act, Judicial Precedent, and Established NRC Regulatory Practice.................................................................... 4 D. The NRCs Draft Regulatory Analysis May Underestimate the Quantitative Benefits of the NR GEIS and Associated Rule........................................................................................................... 5 E. The NR GEIS and Rule Should Apply to All New Reactors, Including New Research and Test Reactors and Reactors Located on Non-Traditional Sites................................................................ 6 F. The NR GEIS and Final Rule Should Include Limited Work Authorizations........................................ 7 G. The NRC Should Consider Removing Need for Power as a Separate Category 2 Issue Requiring Detailed Analysis of Power Market Conditions............................................................................... 9
- 1. Neither the Atomic Energy Act Nor NEPA Requires Detailed Need-for-Power Analysis or a Quantitative Cost-Benefit Analysis.......................................................................................... 9
- 2. Numerous Studies Demonstrate the Clear Need for New Nuclear Capacity in the U.S................ 11
- 3. Any Project-Specific Need-for-Power Considerations Can Be Addressed As Part of the Purpose and Need Statement for the Proposed Action............................................................ 12 H. The NRCs Draft White Paper Energy and System Design Alternatives Should Help to Streamline Applicant and NRC Discussions of These Topics......................................................................... 13 I.
NRC Guidance Should Address the Need to Discuss the Negative Environmental Impacts of the No Action Alternative................................................................................................................. 16 J. The NR GEIS Appropriately Classifies Greenhouse Gas Emissions as a Category 1 Issue............... 17 K. Discussion of Climate Change Effects Must Be Governed by NEPAs Rule of Reason................... 18 L. Severe Accidents Should Be Classified as a Category 1 Issue Based on Existing NRC Bounding Analyses of Severe Accidents.................................................................................................... 19 M. Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives (SAMDAs) Should Be Removed From the NR GEIS as a Separate Issue Requiring Evaluation........................................................................... 23 N. The Final NR GEIS Should Reflect Current Advanced Reactor Fuel Cycle Developments................ 24 O. The Proposed 10-Year Review and Update Cycle for the GEIS and Rule Is Appropriate.................. 25
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 1
A. The New Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement (NR GEIS) and Rule Are Needed to Meet Key National Policy Objectives and Congressional Directives As the demand for electricity continues to grow, the U.S. nuclear industry will play a crucial role in meeting the nations energy security, grid reliability, economic development, and environmental goals via the long-term operation of the current power reactor fleet and the deployment of new reactors. As such, Congress has sought to bolster both public and private sector efforts to develop, license, and commercialize new nuclear technologies. For example, the Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017 (NEICA) authorized testing and demonstration of advanced reactors with private and public funding and cost-share grants to help fund advanced reactor licensing activities.1 The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) of 2019 directed the NRC to develop a technology-inclusive licensing framework (proposed 10 CFR Part 53).2 As noted in the draft NR GEIS, in a June 25, 2019, letter to the NRC Chair, Senators John Barrasso and Mike Braun urged the NRC to develop a GEIS as a critical step to facilitate the deployment of new nuclear technologies and to demonstrate NRCs commitment to transform and innovate.3 They noted that [a] GEIS is another important action that aligns with NEIMAs advanced nuclear reactor requirements, and will reduce cumbersome regulatory barriers, expedite the environmental review process, and enable market deployment of innovative nuclear technologies.4 This is especially important given recent U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and White House pronouncements that at least 200 GW of net new nuclear capacity is needed by 2050.
Congress also has recognized the need to improve the efficiency of federal environmental reviews to support the development of domestic energy resources, including nuclear energy. On June 3, 2023, President Biden signed the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (FRA).5 Section 321 (Builder Act) of the FRA includes important amendments to NEPA that are intended to expedite the permitting process for infrastructure projects. Among other things, the FRA amendments established time and page limits for environmental impact statements (EIS) and environmental assessments (EA) with which all federal agencies must comply. The NR GEIS will be crucial to the NRCs ability to meet these page limits and deadlines for its NEPA reviews of new reactor license applications.
On July 9, 2024, the President signed into law the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act), which includes provisions to modernize NRC regulations and reduce investment and deployment costs for new reactors.6 Section 506 directs NRC to submit a report to Congress within 180 days that describes the NRCs efforts to facilitate efficient, 1 Nuclear Energy Innovation Capabilities Act of 2017 (NEICA), P.L. 115-248 (Sept. 28, 2018), www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/97.
2 Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA), P.L. 115-439 (Jan. 14, 2019), www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/senate-bill/512.
3 Letter from U.S. Senators John Barrasso and Mike Braun to NRC Chairman Kristine Svinicki at 1-2 (June 25, 2019) (ML19176A444).
4 Id. at 1.
5 Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, P.L. 118-5, § 321 (Builder Act) (amending 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.),
https://www.congress.gov/118/plaws/publ5/PLAW-118publ5.pdf.
6 Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy Act of 2024 (ADVANCE Act), Pub. L. 118-67, div. B (July 9, 2024), https://www.congress.gov/118/plaws/publ67/PLAW-118publ67.pdf. See also NRC, Streamlining and Efficiencies - Additional Efficiency Considerations Directed by the ADVANCE Act, https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/licensing/ecoe/modernizing/efficiencies.html#add.
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 2
timely, and predictable environmental reviews of nuclear reactor license applications. It identifies numerous potential measures for achieving this objective, including the expanded use of generic environmental impact statements (emphasis added).
Accordingly, NEI believes that the NRCs Purpose and Need Statement in Section 1.1 of the NR GEIS should reflect the foregoing national policy considerations and legislative directives. The NRCs ongoing and future implementation of the 2023 NEPA amendments and ADVANCE Act Section 506 directives also could influence the implementation of this proposed rules requirements. Thus, at a minimum, we believe these considerations warrant meaningful discussion in the Statements of Consideration (SOC) and Regulatory Analysis for the final rule.
B. The NR GEIS Will Facilitate the NRCs Implementation of Multiple ADVANCE Act Provisions in Addition to Section 506 In finalizing the NR GEIS, proposed rule, and related guidance, the NRC should acknowledge the role those documents may play in implementing other sections of the ADVANCE Act in addition to Section 506. Given their nexus to the environmental review process, those sections include:
Section 206, Regulatory issues for nuclear facilities at brownfield sites, directs the NRC to identify and report on regulations, guidance, or policy necessary to license and oversee nuclear facilities at brownfield sites, including sites with retired fossil fuel facilities, and at retired fossil fuel sites where one or more electric generation facilities are retired or scheduled to retire. The NRC must consider how existing site infrastructure can be reused and how early site permits, plant parameter envelopes, or standardized applications for similar sites may be used for licensing. The NRC also must develop and implement strategies to enable and support licensing of nuclear facilities, considering matters relating to existing emergency planning, environmental data and reviews, decontamination and remediation, community engagement, and historical experience with energy use at the sites. (Emphasis added)
Section 207, Combined license review procedure, directs the Commission to establish and implement an expedited procedure for issuing COLs under 10 CFR Part 52 for applications that make use of reactor designs and sites previously approved by the NRC.7 The NRC must, to the maximum extent possible, complete the technical review and safety evaluation and the final EIS or EA within 18 months after the design is accepted for docketing. Within two years, the NRC must complete any necessary public hearings, and within 25 months, the agency must issue a final decision on the COL application. (Emphasis added)
Section 208, Regulatory requirements for micro-reactors, directs the NRC to, within 18 months, develop performance-based and risk-informed guidance and strategies for licensing and regulating micro-reactors, taking onto account their unique size, source terms, and simplified design characteristics. It further provides that, within three years, the NRC must implement these strategies and guidance within its existing regulatory framework, via its proposed Part 53 licensing framework, or through another pending or new rulemaking.
(Emphasis added) 7 Specifically, the expedited procedure will apply to COL applications that reference (1) an NRC-certified design or a design that is substantially similar to a design of a nuclear reactor for which the NRC has issued a COL, an operating license, or a manufacturing license; and (2) sites on which a licensed commercial nuclear reactor operates or previously operated, or that is directly adjacent to a site on which a licensed commercial nuclear reactor operates or previously operated and has site characteristics that are substantially similar to that site.
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 3
Section 505, Nuclear licensing efficiency, directs the NRC to establish techniques and guidance for evaluating applications for licenses for nuclear reactors to support efficient, timely, and predictable reviews of applications for those licenses to enable the safe and secure use of nuclear reactors. For applications for new facilities to be located at an NRC-licensed production facility or utilization facility site, the Commission shall, to the extent practicable, use information that was part of the licensing basis of the licensed production facility or utilization facility. (Emphasis added)
The NR GEIS and rule should prove useful in meeting some, if not all, of these ADVANCE Act directives. Section 206, for example, refers explicitly to environmental reviews and the use of plant parameter envelopes. Section 505 cites the need for tools that support efficient, timely, and predictable licensing reviews - one of the express purposes and expected benefits of the NR GEIS.
With regard to Section 206, the use of plant and site parameter envelopes developed by NRC staff subject matter experts are fundamental to the NR GEIS. As summarized therein:
In this GEIS, the NRC staff uses the values and assumptions in a technology-neutral plant parameter envelope (PPE) for a new nuclear reactor to evaluate the environmental impacts of constructing and operating a nuclear reactor. In addition, this GEIS assumes that a new reactor might be built anywhere in the United States and territories that meets the requirements of the NRCs siting regulations. To accommodate this broad range of siting possibilities, the staff developed a site parameter envelope (SPE) that provides limiting values and assumptions related to the site.8 As detailed in our June 2020 scoping comments, NEI fully supports the NRCs use of bounding values or parameters for reactor design features and site conditions that are based on the numerous sources of information listed in Section 1.3 of the draft NR GEIS.9 Importantly, those sources include, among others, other NRC GEISs (e.g., the License Renewal GEIS and Continued Storage GEIS) and prior new reactor-related EISs issued since 2006 (see, e.g., draft NR GEIS Table 3-3 (listing EISs reviewed by the NRC staff)).
While brownfield sites may present some unique, site-specific issues, including the possible presence of legacy contamination and ongoing remediation activities, the NR GEIS should still prove useful.
That is, the proposed facility and brownfield site may meet or be bounded by the relevant values and assumptions in the PPE and SPE that support the generic finding for certain Category 1 issues, thereby reducing the scope of any necessary site-specific analysis.10 Notably, the NRC staff already has signaled its intent to leverage the NR GEIS (subject to further direction from the Commission) in performing environmental reviews for micro-reactors. In Enclosure 2 to its October 2024 preliminary white paper on Nth-of-a-Kind Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment, the NRC staff has proposed a multi-option timed-phased approach to micro-reactor licensing that begins with a micro-reactor design-specific GEIS (Option 2a, Design-Specific Generic 8 Draft NR GEIS at 3.
9 See Letter from Marc Nichol, NEI, to NRC, NEI Comments on Scoping of an Advanced Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement (June 30, 2020) (ML20183A009).
10 Importantly the draft NR GEIS notes that an applicant may be able to incorporate by reference all or part of the generic analysis provided in the GEIS and focus on providing the additional project-specific information needed, both for Category 1 issues that are not bounded by the PPE/SPE and Category 2 issues. The NRCs draft Regulatory Analysis reflects some consideration of brownfield site scenarios as part of the NRC staffs uncertainty analysis.
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 4
Environmental Impact Statement) that could be tiered from the NR GEIS. In implementing Option E3 (Generic Micro-Reactor Online Portal with a Streamlined NEPA Process), the NRC staff notes that it could develop a set of bounding micro-reactor PPE and SPE values derived from the NR GEIS.11 For these reasons, NEI recommends that the NRC include some discussion of the potential role and importance of the NRC GEIS in implementing multiple directives contained in the above-referenced sections of the ADVANCE Act. If this discussion is not included in the NR GEIS itself, then it should be included in the final rules SOC, at a minimum. The ADVANCE Act also should be added to Appendix F (Laws, Regulations, and Other Authorizations) of the NR GEIS.
C. NRCs Reliance on the NR GEIS and Rule Are Consistent with NEPA, the ADVANCE Act, Judicial Precedent, and Established NRC Regulatory Practice The NRCs development of a GEIS that generically evaluates the environmental impacts associated with a broad range of new reactor designs is a permissible and pragmatic approach under NEPA. So, too, is the NRCs decision to optimize the NR GEISs value by codifying its findings in Part 51 so that the GEIS can be consistently relied upon by applicants and the NRC staff. The FRA amendments to NEPA and Section 506 of the ADVANCE Act further support this conclusion, as they expressly call for the expanded use of programmatic environmental documents (NEPA Section 108) and generic environmental impact statements (ADVANCE Act Section 506(a)), respectively.
As noted in the proposed rules SOC, [t]he use of a GEIS for meeting the NRCs NEPA obligations and the concomitant codification of generic findings into an NRC regulation has been upheld by Federal courts.12 Indeed, the U.S. Supreme Court has underscored the NRCs broad discretion to structure its NEPA inquiries, and found that when there are environmental effects that would be essentially similar for all or a commonly identifiable subcategory of nuclear plants, [a]dministrative efficiency and consistency of decision are both furthered by a generic determination of these effects without needless repetition of the litigation in individual proceedings.13 Multiple U.S. Courts of Appeals have applied the Supreme Courts Baltimore Gas holding. The First Circuit has noted, in the context of NRC license renewal, that the NRCs divergent treatment of generic and site-specific issues is reasonable and consistent with the purpose of promoting efficiency in handling [its licensing]
decisions.14 The Third Circuit affirmed the NRCs License Renewal GEIS analysis of the risk of sabotage to nuclear power plants.15 The D.C. Circuit also has affirmed the generic analysis method under NEPA in two separate contexts - license renewal and continued storage of spent nuclear fuel.16 11 NRC, Preliminary White Paper, Nth-of-a-Kind Micro-Reactor Licensing and Deployment Considerations at 19-21 (Sept. 2024)
(ML24268A310).
12 NRC, [GEIS] for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors, 89 Fed. Reg. 80,797, 80,801 (Oct. 4, 2024) (Proposed Rule).
13 Balt. Gas & Elec. Co. v. NRDC, 462 U.S. 87, 101 (1983) (The generic method chosen by the agency is clearly an appropriate method of conducting the hard look required by NEPA.) (citations omitted).
14 Massachusetts v. United States, 522 F.3d 115, 119-20, 127 (1st Cir. 2008); see also Massachusetts v. NRC, 708 F.3d 63, 68 (1st Cir.
2013) (As to the second mechanism for environmental impacts that are not plant-specific, but instead apply to all like plants, the Supreme Court has held that the NRC is permitted to make generic determinations to meet its NEPA obligations.) (citation omitted).
15 N.J. Dept of Envtl Prot. v. NRC, 561 F.3d 132, 143 (3d Cir. 2009) (The NRC rules codify these generic findings, and by regulation, license renewal applicants are excused from discussing generic issues in their environmental reports.).
16 See Natural Res. Def. Council v. NRC, 823 F.3d 641, 645 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (noting that 10 CFR 51.53(c)(3)(ii)(L) constitutes a generic determination, via rulemaking, that one SAMA per plant is sufficient to uncover most cost-beneficial measures to mitigate both the risk and the effects of severe accidents, thus satisfying [the Commissions] obligations under NEPA); New York v. NRC, 824 F.3d 1012, 1019 (D.C.
Cir. 2016) (citing New York v. NRC, 681 F.3d 471, 480 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (stating that the cornerstone of our holding was that the NRC may generically analyze risks that are essentially common to all plants so long as that analysis is thorough and comprehensive, and that [i]n this case, we are convinced that the NRC has met that standard).
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 5
As a practical matter the NRCs established use of GEISs and associated Part 51 rulemakings demonstrates the viability and efficacy of the generic analysis method under NEPA. To date, the NRC has prepared GEIS documents for at least five activities.17 Collectively, these GEISs have substantially reduced applicant and NRC resource expenditures, consistent with NEPAs focus on providing a reasonably thorough discussion of the significant aspects of the probable environmental consequences of a proposed action.18 The NRCs draft Regulatory Analysis indicates that the NRCs generic analysis of Category 1 issues and codification the resulting generic impact conclusions similarly will yield substantial cost savings and procedural efficiencies.19 As discussed in the Proposed Rules SOC, such efficiencies include, among others, enhancing stability and predictability of the licensing process, improving public understanding and confidence in the licensing process, and assisting the Commission in resolving recurring complex methodological and policy issues.20 D. The NRCs Draft Regulatory Analysis May Underestimate the Quantitative Benefits of the NR GEIS and Associated Rule Although the NRC staff has prepared a detailed and robust regulatory analysis that considers both quantitative costs and benefits as well as qualitative factors, the analysis may significantly underestimate the quantitative benefits implementing the NR GEIS rule. Specifically, in its draft Regulatory Analysis, the NRC staff assumed that implementation activities would apply to 20 applications submitted under the rule during the first 10 years after the rule is issued (i.e., 2026 to 2036). Using this assumption, the staff determined that the proposed rule alternative and associated guidance would result in undiscounted total net savings for the NRC and applicants up to $40.1 million or $2.0 million per application if the NR GEIS is fully utilized.21 NEI believes the volume of new reactor license applications that may rely on the NR GEIS during the cited 10-year period could be more than double that assumed by the NRC staff. The demand signal for more nuclear power has been strong for several years. However, it has been greatly amplified by surging demand for electricity that is being driven by investments in new manufacturing, industrial, bitcoin mining, and artificial intelligence (AI), and data center facilities. According to DOEs September 2024 Advanced Nuclear Liftoff report, U.S. nuclear capacity has the potential to triple from ~100 GW in 2024 to ~300 GW by 2050.22 The growing demand for electricity and need to decarbonize many sectors has led to a resurgence of interest in nuclear power. There are many dozens of companies designing advanced reactors in the U.S. and abroad. Some of these companies have filed applications with the NRC or are engaged in pre-application activities with the NRC. Notably, NEI recently issued an updated its Futures survey of member companies that operate the nations 94 operating reactors and one company that is 17 Those GEISs relate to (1) the relicensing of nuclear power plants, (2) the handling and storage of spent nuclear reactor fuel, (3) the decommissioning of nuclear facilities, (4) radiological criteria for license termination, and (5) in-situ uranium recovery facilities. See NRC Guidance for NEPA Reviews, https://www.nrc.gov/about-nrc/regulatory/licensing/ecoe/nepa-environment-analysis/guidance.html.
18 WildEarth Guardians v. Mont. Snowmobile Assn, 790 F.3d 920, 924 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting City of Sausalito v. O'Neill, 386 F.3d 1186, 1206 (9th Cir. 2004)).
19 NRC, Draft Regulatory Analysis for the 10 CFR Part 51, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Licensing of New Nuclear Reactors Proposed Rule at xiii-ix, 4-1 to 4-2 (Sept. 2024) (ML24176A218) (Draft Regualtory Analysis).
20 Proposed Rule, 89 Fed. at 80,800-01.
21 Draft Regulatory Analysis at 3-4, 4-1. The NRC staff notes that the list of expected applications submitted in the 10 years following the issuance of the rule (through 2036) is based on the updated, proprietary information of expected applicants provided to the NRC.
22 DOE, Pathways to Commercial Liftoff: Advanced Nuclear (Sept. 2024), https://liftoff.energy.gov/advanced-nuclear-2/.
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 6
recommissioning a shutdown reactor, for a total of 95 units.23 Among other things, the survey updated information on plans and interest in new nuclear, yielding the following key insights:
The members surveyed continue to see the need for 100 GWe of new nuclear by the 2050s to support their reliability and decarbonization needs.24 Nearly half of the companies surveyed indicated that interest in and planning for new nuclear plants have increased. No companies indicated a reduced level of interest.
While the 2023 survey had mainly focused on small modular reactors, the 2024 survey indicated interest in large reactors. This interest is consistent with the significant increase in load projections in some regions. Two companies also identified plans for micro-reactors.
The 2024 survey also showed a significant increase in the number of early site permits (ESP) and construction permits (CP) anticipated to be prepared by the end of this decade. Over a dozen ESPs and a roughly equivalent number of CPs were reported. This planning also extended into the first half of the 2030s with a similar level of interest. As shown in the table below, there is reported interest in pursuing approximately 23 ESPs, 18-19 CP and 8 combined licenses (COL) over the next 10 years.
Number of NRC Submittals New Nuclear Activities 2025-2029 2030-2034 New ESP 10-11 10-11 Update ESP 3
Construction Permit 9
9-10 New COL 2
6 E. The NR GEIS and Rule Should Apply to All New Reactors, Including New Research and Test Reactors and Reactors Located on Non-Traditional Sites The NRC seeks feedback on whether it has clearly articulated the applicability of the NR GEIS to new reactors, and whether its proposed revisions adequately address all licensing scenarios associated with evaluating the environmental impacts of permitting and licensing new nuclear reactor construction and operation.25 As an initial matter, NEI supports the Commissions direction to the staff to make the GEIS applicable to any new nuclear reactor application, provided the application meets the values and the assumptions of the plant parameter envelopes and the site parameter envelopes used to develop the GEIS.26 This approach (in contrast to limiting the GEIS to advanced nuclear reactors as defined in NEIMA) will help optimize the utility and benefits of the NR GEIS.
In referring to any new nuclear reactor application, the Commission did not distinguish between commercial reactors and non-power research and test reactors (RTRs). NEI believes that the NR 23 NEI, The Future of Nuclear Power - 2024 Update Survey (Oct. 2024), https://nei.org/www.nei.org/files/f9/f9922ae5-98cb-449c-a004-785ef37b8105.pdf.
24 The NEI member companies included in the survey are responsible for less than half of the total power generation in the U.S., so the total U.S. need for new nuclear is likely far greater than 100 GWe.
25 Proposed Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. at 80,808.
26 SRM-SECY-21-0098 at 1 (Apr. 17, 2024) (emphasis added).
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 7
GEIS should apply to both categories of new reactors - i.e., commercial and RTRs to fully leverage the information and analysis contained in the GEIS and maximize efficiency. Indeed, it is possible, if not likely, that a proposed RTR facility and site will meet or are bounded by the relevant PPE and SPE values and assumptions in the NR GEIS. Notably, in its EIS for the Kairos Hermes 1 test reactor CP application, the NRC concluded that impacts on all resources from construction, operation, and decommissioning of the Hermes facility at the proposed site would be SMALL.27 Additionally, the NRC staff was able to prepare environmental assessments and findings of no significant impact (FONSI) for the Hermes 2 CP application and Abilene Christian Universitys (ACU) CP application for a proposed molten salt research reactor (MSRR).28 The latter will be the first deployment of the Natura MSR-1, a 1-MW thermal graphite-moderated, molten fluoride salt research reactor. The draft NR GEIS, in fact, contains references to the Hermes 1 and ACU projects.
Looking forward, it is likely that additional new non-power reactor applications may be submitted to the NRC, as well as applications for new power reactors that may be licensed by the NRC but are located on non-traditional sites (e.g., on military installations, university-owned lands, retired fossil sites). Ensuring that the NR GEIS can be used by applicants and the NRC for these application types would further the NRCs goals of performing efficient and consistent environmental reviews. Thus, NEI recommends that the NRC make appropriate revisions to the draft NR GEIS, rule, and guidance to clarify that they apply to the full gamut of new reactor applications (power and non-power).
F. The NR GEIS and Final Rule Should Include Limited Work Authorizations The NRC requests comments on whether it should expand the NR GEIS and the proposed rule to include NRC approval of LWAs for new nuclear reactor applications.29 NEI believes that it would be beneficial to make the NR GEIS and rule applicable to LWA requests in addition to ESP, CP, and COL applications. Although the LWA is a discrete regulatory approval, there is a clear nexus between an LWA request and the other application types, including overlap in the types of environmental impacts considered in the NRCs associated EISs.
To understand this relationship, some regulatory background is helpful. The LWA process allows CP, ESP, and COL applicants to request approval to perform certain limited construction activities before the issuance of a CP or COL. An ESP applicant may include a request for an LWA as part of a complete ESP application in accordance with 10 CFR 2.101(a)(1)-(a)(4).30 A CP or COL applicant may submit a request for an LWA either as part of a complete application under 10 CFR 2.101(a)(1)-
(4) or as a partial application under 10 CFR 2.101(a)(9) (i.e., phased application).
Section 50.10 governs the issuance of LWAs and specifies the information to be included in an LWA application.31 As relevant here, the LWA application must include an environmental report in accordance with the applicable section(s) of 10 CFR 51.49 (Environmental ReportLimited Work 27 NRC, Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit for the Kairos Hermes Test Reactor; Final Report (NUREG-2263)
(Aug. 2023) (ML23214A269).
28 NRC, Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact for the Construction Permits and Environmental Review Exemptions for the Kairos Hermes 2 Test Reactors; Final Report (Aug. 2024) (ML24284A191); NRC, Environmental Assessment for the Construction Permit Application for the Abilene Christian University Molten Salt Research Reactor (Jan. 2024) (ML23300A053).
29 Proposed Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. at 80,808.
30 Note that an ESP holder also may submit a request for an LWA as an application for an amendment to the ESP in accordance with 10 CFR 52.39(e).
31 Section C.2.18 of RG 1.206 discusses the required contents of an LWA application in greater detail.
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 8
Authorization). Further, the LWA applicant must include a site redress plan that describes the scope of the actions to be taken following suspension of construction activities and addresses the mitigation of impacts resulting from the performance of construction activities. The primary purpose of the site redress plan is to address activities that were authorized under the LWA (e.g., the placement of piles and installation of foundations), in the event the LWA holder terminates construction, the NRC revokes the LWA, or the underlying COL or CP application is withdrawn or denied.
To issue an LWA, the NRC must prepare an EIS.32 Depending of the LWA application pathway chosen by a CP, COL, or ESP applicant and the scope/contents of the supporting environmental report, 10 CFR 51.76 (Draft environmental impact statementlimited work authorization) permits or directs the NRC staff to prepare an EIS for the larger licensing action (i.e., for the CP, COL, or ESP):
Section 51.76(a) provides that if the LWA application is submitted as part of a complete CP or COL application, then the NRC may prepare a partial draft EIS that is limited to the activities proposed to be conducted under the LWA. Alternatively, the NRC may prepare a complete draft EIS for the CP or COL application, as applicable.
Section 51.76(b) provides that if a phased application is submitted under 10 CFR 2.101(a)(9),
then the draft EIS for part one of the application may be limited to consideration of the activities proposed to be conducted under the LWA and the proposed redress plan. It further provides, however, that if the environmental report contains the full set of information required to be submitted under section 51.50(a) or (c), then an [EIS] must be prepared for the CP or COL application, applicable.
Section 51.76(c) provides that if the LWA application is submitted as part of an ESP application, then the NRC will prepare an EIS in accordance with section 51.75(b) for the ESP application, but also must address the activities proposed to be conducted under LWA.
In short, depending on the circumstances, NRC regulations allow, and in some cases require, the NRCs NEPA analysis for an LWA request to be combined with or subsumed within the EIS for the broader licensing action - i.e., CP, COL, or ESP issuance. It thus makes logical sense for the NRC to expand the NR GEIS and the proposed rule (and their associated efficiency and cost saving benefits) to include NRC approval of LWAs. That is, if an LWA applicant can demonstrate that its proposed project meets or is bounded by the PPE and SPE values and assumptions for a given Category 1 issue in the NR GEIS, then it should be able to rely on the generic findings for that issue in preparing the environmental report for the LWA application. Likewise, the NRC should be able to rely on the generic findings for that Category 1 issue in preparing its supplement to the NR GEIS. NEI agrees with the NRC that any decision to expand the NR GEIS and rule to include NRC approvals of LWAs should cover both stand-alone (i.e., partial or phased) LWA applications and LWAs request submitted as part of an CP, COL, or ESP application.33 It does not appear that the NRC would need to make major substantive changes to the NR GEIS to include LWA approvals. The NR GEIS uses a technology-neutral PPE and SPE to evaluate the environmental impacts of building, operating, and decommissioning a new reactor. As used in the NR 32 The staff also must make positive findings on safety, compliance, and technical qualifications for the LWA activities, and the presiding officer must make environmental findings and find there are no unresolved safety issues relating to LWA activities that constitute good cause for withholding the LWA. The LWA process also includes a mandatory hearing and a contested hearing opportunity.
33 Proposed Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. at 80,808.
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 9
GEIS, the term building is defined to include the full range of preconstruction (building activities not within the NRCs regulatory authority), and construction and installation activities (building activities within the NRCs regulatory authority).34 The PPE and SPE values and assumptions do not differentiate between preconstruction and construction activities and include the impacts of both activity types. Moreover, as NR GEIS notes, certain land use, water quality, and ecological impacts from new nuclear reactors would occur principally during the preconstruction and construction phases of the project. The NR GEIS analyzes such impacts generically to the extent practicable and, in doing so, considers related mitigation measures and best management practices that could be used to avoid, minimize, rectify, reduce, eliminate, or compensate for adverse impacts.35 G. The NRC Should Consider Removing Need for Power as a Separate Category 2 Issue Requiring Detailed Analysis of Power Market Conditions The NR GEIS identifies multiple non-resource-related Category 2 issues, two of which are the (1) purpose and need for the proposed action and (2) the need for power that may be generated by a proposed new reactor.36 Chapter 8 of Draft Regulatory Guide DG-4032 (proposed Revision 4 to Regulatory Guide (RG) 4.2, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Reactors) provides detailed, prescriptive guidance to applicants on preparing a need-for-power analysis. DG-4032 states that [t]he need-for-power analysis should fully describe and characterize the physical, geographic, regulatory, and administrative provisions and constraints which affect the current and forecast supply of and demand for power, and be in sufficient detail to fully demonstrate how the proposed project would supply some or all of the service areas future need for power.37 NEI requests that the NRC consider whether a separate and detailed need-for-power analysis is still needed in view of applicable legal requirements, the clear demand for new nuclear power nationwide, related national policy objectives, and an applicants need to articulate the purpose and need for a proposed facility as its own Category 2 issue. We discuss each of these considerations below. Based on this discussion, we recommend that the NRC eliminate Need for Power as a separate Category 2 issue and include a more concise discussion of the need for power (as relevant to a specific project) in the Purpose and Need Statement for a proposed action.
- 1. Neither the Atomic Energy Act Nor NEPA Requires Detailed Need-for-Power Analysis or a Quantitative Cost-Benefit Analysis In discussing the need for power issue, the draft NR GEIS states: The Atomic Energy Act requires the social and environmental consequences of the civilian use of nuclear materials be weighed against the benefits that their use would provide.38 The NR GEIS, however, does not cite any specific AEA section in support of this assertion. Section 8.0 of DG-4032, which provides guidance to applicants on analyzing the need for power in their environmental reports, quotes, in part, subparagraph (c)(6) of the AEA Section 105 (Antitrust Provisions).39 Section 105(c)(6) states in full:
34 Draft NR GEIS at 1-3.
35 Id. at 1-5.
36 Id. at 1-10 to 1-11, 1-18 (Table 1-1), 4-27 (Table 4-1). The NRC has provided guidance on these topics in several current and proposed new/revised guidance documents.
37 DG-4032 at 143.
38 Draft NR GEIS at 1-10.
39 DG-4032 at 143 (quoting AEA Sec. 105(c)(6)).
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 10 In the event the Commissions findings under paragraph (5) is in the affirmative, the Commission shall also consider, in determining whether the license should be issued or continued, such other factors, including the need for power in the affected area, as the Commission in its judgment deems necessary to protect the public interest. On the basis of its findings, the Commission shall have the authority to issue or continue a license as applied for, to paragraph (5) of this subsection. Such advice shall include an explanatory statement as to the reasons or basis therefor.40 The NRCs reliance on this provision appears misplaced, insofar as Section 105(c)(6) relates to an antitrust review that the NRC was formerly required to conduct as part of the licensing of commercial reactors.41 Section 625 of Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct 2005) provided that the NRCs authority to conduct an antitrust review does not apply to an application for a license to construct or operate a nuclear power plant that is filed on or after the date of enactment.42 Consequently, the NRC has no antitrust review authority or responsibility with respect to applications for new nuclear power plants. In an October 2005 final rule, the NRC eliminated its antitrust review requirements for new reactors.43 Thus, AEA Section 105(c)(6) cannot reasonably be construed as requiring any need-for-power analysis, much less one performed for purposes of complying with NEPA.
NEPA itself does not require the NRC to perform a detailed need-for-power analysis for commercial reactors. In fact, Section 107(d) of NEPA, as added by the 2023 FRA amendments, states only that
[e]ach environmental document shall include a statement of purpose and need that briefly summarizes the underlying purpose and need for the proposed agency action.44 CEQs implementing regulation at 40 CFR 1502.13 contains the same language.
Historically, the NRC has attributed the need-for-power analysis requirement to judicial interpretations of NEPA concluding that Federal agencies must balance environmental costs against the anticipated benefits of the action in the EIS.45 In denying a 2002 NEI petition for rulemaking involving this issue, the Commission elaborated on this point:
In the past, the NRC equated the need for power with the benefits of the proposed action. Need for power is a shorthand expression for the benefit side of the cost-benefit balance, which NEPA mandates for a proceeding considering the licensing of a nuclear plant.46 The Commission further noted that in the case of construction of a new nuclear power plant, the NRC must assess the need for power to accurately characterize the cost (i.e., environmental impact) and benefits associated with the proposed action.47 40 AEA Sec. 105(c)(6), 42 USC 2135.c.(6).
41 See Alabama Power Co. v NRC, 692 F.2d 1362, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 816 (1983) for a description of the earlier scheme for antitrust review.
42 Energy Policy Act of 2005, P.L. 109-58 (Aug. 8, 2005), 42 USC § 16005.
43 Price-Anderson Act Financial Protection Regulations and Elimination of Antitrust Reviews, 70 Fed. Reg. 61,885 (Oct. 27, 2005) (to be codified at 10 C.F.R. pts. 2, 50, 52, and 140) (The final rules changes in the regulations remove all antitrust review requirements and references to the discontinued antitrust review.).
44 42 USC 4337(d) (emphasis added).
45 NRC, Nuclear Energy Institute; Denial of Petition for Rulemaking, 68 Fed. Reg. 55,905, 55,909 (Sept. 29, 2003).
46 Id. (citations omitted) (emphasis added).
47 Id. at 55,910.
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 11 While NEPA is generally regarded as requiring a weighing or balancing of the environmental costs against the economic, technical, or other public benefits of a proposed action, an agencys EIS (or an applicants environmental report) need not contain a formal or mathematical cost-benefit analysis.48 NEPA contains no reference to cost-benefit analysis. In fact, the courts and the CEQ have distinguished between cost-benefit balancing and cost-benefit analysis. The latter is a quantitative analytic technique in which benefits and costs are monetized and a numerical ratio is obtained. The courts have not construed NEPA to require a cost-benefit analysis.49 As one court noted, NEPA permits, at most, a narrowly focused, indirect review of the economic assumptions underlying a federal project described in an impact statement.50 The CEQ has stated that NEPA does not require a cost-benefit analysis where all monetized benefits and costs are directly compared.51 With regard to cost-benefit balancing, the Commission has recognized that NEPAs theme... is sounded by the adjective environmental: NEPA does not require the agency to assess every impact or effect of its proposed action, but only the impact or effect on the environment.52 Thus, the
[d]etermination of economic benefits and costs that are tangential to environmental consequences are within [a] wide area of agency discretion.53 In the case of economic benefits, a key consideration
... [is] whether the economic assumptions of the FEIS [or ER] were so distorted as to impair fair consideration of the projects adverse environmental effects.54 Accordingly, when it comes to the NEPA cost-benefit balance, the Commissions primary concern is that misleading information on economic benefits of a project could skew an agencys overall assessment of a projects
[environmental] costs and benefits, and potentially result in approval of a project that otherwise would not have been approved because of its adverse environmental effects.55
- 2. Numerous Studies Demonstrate the Clear Need for New Nuclear Capacity in the U.S.
As a clean, carbon-free, and highly reliable power source, new nuclear power is clearly needed to meeting rapidly growing electricity demand while simultaneously avoiding further carbon-intensive emissions. Indeed, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has concluded that nuclear energy will play a role in the transition to a clean energy economy by fundamentally enabling our nations targets for clean, carbon-free electricity as well as non-electric energy markets, giving us the potential to decarbonize many industrial sectors in the United States and abroad.56 DOEs September 2024 Advanced Nuclear Liftoff Report notes that multiple system-level decarbonization modeling exercises have concluded that regardless of renewables deployment, significant new nuclear power is required 48 Idaho v. ICC, 35 F.3d 585, 595 (D.C. Cir. 1994); Trout Unlimited v. Morton, 509 F.2d 1276, 1286 (9th Cir. 1974) (noting that an EIS does not require a formal and mathematically expressed cost-benefit analysis in economic or monetary terms); Sierra Club v. Stamm, 507 F.2d 788, 794 (10th Cir. 1974) (rejecting the view that an EIS requires the fixing of a dollar figure to either environmental losses or benefits).
49 See David R. Mandelker, NEPA Law and Litigation §§ 10.24 to 10.25 (2d ed. 1999 & 2008 Supp.).
50 S. La. Envtl. Council, Inc. v. Sand, 629 F.2d 1005, 1011 (5th Cir. 1980) (emphasis added).
51 CEQ, National Environmental Policy Act Guidance on Consideration of Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change; Notice of interim guidance; request for comments, 88 Fed. Reg. 1196, 1211 (Jan. 9, 2023) (CEQ 2023 GHG Guidance).
52 La. Energy Servs., L.P. (Claiborne Enrichment Ctr.), CLI-98-3, 47 NRC 77, 88 (quoting Metro. Edison Co. v. People Against Nuclear Energy, 460 U.S. 766, 772 (1983)).
53 Id. at 89 (quoting S. La. Envtl. Council, 629 F.2d at 1011).
54 Id.
55 Id. (citing Hughes River Watershed Conservancy v. Glickman, 81 F.3d 437, 446 (4th Cir. 1996))
56 DOE, Q&A: Acting Assistant Secretary Dr. Kathryn Huff Shares Her Vision for the Future of Nuclear Energy (June 24, 2021),
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 12 by 2050 - at least 200+ GWe or triple our current capacity - is needed to reach net-zero.57 The White Houses November 2024 Nuclear Energy Deployment Framework sets a target of 200 GW of net new capacity by 2050.58 The need for nuclear generation is only increasing with the rapid buildout of datacenters, clean tech factories, and other electricity-intensive industrial facilities that by themselves will require the addition of many gigawatts of capacity to the U.S. grid.59 Thus, the conclusion that substantial new nuclear generating capacity is needed is already well documented.
This growing recognition of nuclear powers value and benefits has prompted unprecedented bipartisan support for nuclear power at both the federal and state government levels. This support is evidenced by landmark federal legislation and billions of dollars of related appropriations, including NEICA, NEIMA, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 (H.R. 4366), and the ADVANCE Act of 2024.60 Many states also are pursuing legislative, regulatory, and policy initiatives aimed at deploying new advanced nuclear reactors. In short, the clear demand for new nuclear capacity, nuclear energys proven environmental and other benefits, and widespread governmental support for nuclear energy suggest that there is little risk of distorted or skewed cost-benefit balancing by the NRC.
- 3. Any Project-Specific Need-for-Power Considerations Can Be Addressed As Part of the Purpose and Need Statement for the Proposed Action In view of the above, there appears to be no legal or practical need for the NRC to include a separate, detailed need-for-power analysis in its EISs (or EAs) for new reactors. Consistent with NEPA, the NR GEIS states that an applicant must describe in its environmental report the purpose and need for its proposed action - i.e., the reasons for developing the project.61 The NRC staff uses that information to inform its development of the NRCs purpose and need in its supplement to the GEIS. As the NR GEIS further notes, defining the purpose and need is a critical step in the development of an environmental document for the purposes of meeting NEPA requirements because it establishes the need for the action and the range of reasonable alternatives that must be considered.62 Furthermore, [w]hen an agency is asked to sanction a specific plan[], the agency should take into account the needs and goals of the parties involved in the application.63 In applying this principle in NRC proceedings, the Commission has emphasized that a federal agency may appropriately accord substantial weight to the preferences of the applicant and/or sponsor in the siting and design of 57 DOE, Advanced Nuclear Liftoff Report at 11.
58 White House, Safety and Responsibly Expanding U.S. Nuclear Energy: Deployment Targets and a Framework for Action at 8-9 (Nov.
2024), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/US-Nuclear-Energy-Deployment-Framework.pdf.
59 See, e.g., Halper, Evan, Amid explosive demand, America is running out of power, The Washington Post (Mar. 7, 2024),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2024/03/07/ai-data-centers-power/; Kearney, Laila et al., US electric utilities brace for surge in power demand from data centers, Reuters (Apr. 10, 2024), https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-electric-utilities-brace-surge-power-demand-data-centers-2024-04-10/#:~:text=Longer%20term%20power%20demand%20from,over%2035%20GW%20by%202030.
60 Indeed, Section 501(a) of the ADVANCE Act directs the NRC to update its mission statement by July 9, 2025, to specify that the licensing and regulation of radioactive materials and nuclear energy for civilian purposes be conducted in a manner that is efficient and does not unnecessarily limit - (1) the civilian use of radioactive materials and deployment of nuclear energy; or (2) the benefits of civilian use of radioactive materials and nuclear energy technology to society. (Emphasis added).
61 Draft NR GEIS at 1-10.
62 Id.
63 Citizens Against Burlington, Inc. v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 196 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (citing La. Wildlife Fedn v. York, 761 F.2d 1044, 1048 (5th Cir. 1985) (per curiam) ([N]ot only is it permissible for the Corps to consider the applicants object; the Corps has a duty to take into account the objectives of the applicant's project. Indeed, it would be bizarre if the Corps were to ignore the purpose for which the applicant seeks a permit and to substitute a purpose it deems more suitable.); Roosevelt Campobello Intl Park Commn v. EPA, 684 F.2d 1041, 1046-47 (1st Cir. 1982) (EPAs choice of alternative sites was focused by the primary objectives of the permit applicant.)).
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 13 the project, and thus may take into account the economic goals of the projects sponsor.64 If an applicants economic goals include generating electricity for sale to various customers or end users, then its purpose and need statement will reflect that fact. An applicant will not seek to build and operate a plant unless it believes that there is a need for the electricity or other plant outputs (e.g.,
heat, steam), and that the electricity or other products can be sold at a competitive rate. Moreover, as the NRC has recognized, the regulatory authority over licensee economics (including the need for power) falls within the jurisdiction of the states and, to some extent, within the jurisdiction of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) or other federal agencies.65 Accordingly, NEI recommends that the NRC consider addressing the need for power as part of the agencys discussion of the purpose and need for the proposed action and doing so in a much more concise fashion, making use of incorporation by reference as appropriate. FERC, for example, has taken this approach in its hydropower licensing proceedings. FERC guidance allows for a Purpose of Action and Need for Power section and states:
This section presents the need (both project-specific and regional) - for the power the project would generate, including total energy and capacity needs, and fossil fuel displacement, and shows why providing that energy is important. Cite any plans or reports used to project future power demand and explain how the project satisfies or would help satisfy these power demands. If the applicant is not a utility, discuss only the regional need for power, and include the amount of power to be sold and, if known, identify the purchasers.66 NEI believes the NRC could take a similar approach by briefly describing and incorporating by reference recent demand for power reports or analyses (e.g., annual integrated resource plans), ISO or RTO power market analyses, state utility regulatory filings, other relevant regional reports or resource assessments. Like FERC, the NRC could devote 1-2 pages to the need-for-power discussion rather than an entire chapter of its site-specific EIS.
H. The NRCs Draft White Paper Energy and System Design Alternatives Should Help to Streamline Applicant and NRC Discussions of These Topics The NRCs rulemaking package includes a draft Energy and System Design Mitigation Alternatives White Paper (White Paper) (ML21225A754). The White Paper describes the potential environmental impacts of various alternatives to the construction and operation of a new nuclear reactor, including energy alternatives requiring and not requiring new generation capacity. It also includes descriptions of potential system design mitigation alternatives that have the potential to reduce resource impacts associated with such projects, with a focus on cooling water system (heat dissipation) design 64 Hydro Resources, Inc. (P.O. Box 15910, Rio Rancho, NM 87174), CLI-01-4, 53 NRC 31, 55-56 (2001) (quoting Citizens Against Burlington, 938 F.2d at 197; City of Grapevine v. Dept of Transp., 17 F.3d 1502, 1506 (D.C. Cir.), cert. denied, 513 US 1043 (1994))
(emphasis added). See also Canyons v. U.S. Forest Serv., 297 F.3d 1012, 1030 (10th Cir.2002) (Where the action subject to NEPA review is triggered by a proposal or application from a private party, it is appropriate for the agency to give substantial weight to the goals and objectives of that private actor.).
65 NRC, NUREG-1437, Vol. 1, Rev. 2, Generic Environmental Impact Statement (GEIS) for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants; Main Report, Final Report at 1-15 (Aug. 2024) (ML24086A526).
66 FERC, Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing, Preparing Environmental Documents: Guidelines for Applicants, Contractors, and Staff at 3 (Sept. 2008), https://www.ferc.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/PreparingEnvironmentalDocuments.pdf. See, e.g.,
FERC, Office of Energy Projects Division of Hydropower Licensing, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Hydropower License, Goldendale Energy Storage Project - FERC Project No. 14861-002 (FERC/EIS-0331F) at 4 (Feb. 2024) (providing one-page discussion of the need for power), https://elibrary.ferc.gov/eLibrary/filelist?accession_number=20240208-3036.
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 14 mitigation alternatives for large light water reactors. The White Paper notes that much of analysis therein was developed using information in new reactor EISs prepared by the NRC staff, including NUREG-2179, Environmental Impact Statement for the Combined License for the Bell Bend Nuclear Power Plant, as well as NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Rev. 0 (1996) and Rev. 1 (2013). Both DG-4032 and draft ISG-COL-030 reference the White Paper, and the Proposed Rules SOC states that an applicant could rely upon the information provided in the White Paper, as appropriate, in preparing its environmental report.67 NEI appreciates the NRC staffs development of the White Paper and supports its use by new reactor license applicants in preparing their environmental reports. As the NRC staff noted in a July 2023 report on alternatives analysis under NEPA, the discussion of energy alternatives in recent EISs had become lengthy and repetitive.68 The draft NRC GEIS aptly notes that identifying a reasonable range of technically and economically feasible alternatives to a proposed new reactor facility is an inherently project-specific inquiry that requires consideration of information about a given facility. Nonetheless, the draft White Paper analyzes many of the more common energy alternatives, such as those involving the use of natural gas, renewables such as wind and solar, demand-side management, and various combinations of other fuel types and nuclear. Thus, for projects seeking to provide significant quantities of electricity, relevant portions of the White Paper may be incorporated by reference in applicants environmental reports and NRCs NR GEIS supplements. This practice should increase efficiency and streamline the NRCs discussion of this Category 2 issue, thereby furthering its ability to comply with the page limits and deadlines in Section 107 of NEPA. It also is consistent with the ADVANCE Acts directive to identify opportunities to streamline the Commissions analyses of alternatives, including the Commissions analysis of alternative sites.69 NEI notes that Commission approval and future staff implementation of certain recommendations contained in SECY-24-0046, Implementation of the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 National Environmental Policy Act Amendments (May 30, 2024) (ML24078A013), could affect how the NRC analyzes energy alternatives and alternative sites for new reactor license applications. As revised by the FRA, Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA states that an agencys EIS must include discussion of:
(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 in the case of a no action alternative, that are technically and economically feasible, and meet the purpose and need of the proposal.70 As amended by the FRA, NEPA now generally refers to the proposed agency action (as distinguished from the phrase proposed action used in the pre-2023 version of NEPA) and includes the word Federal before resources in section 102(2)(C)(v).
67 Proposed Rule, 89 Fed. Reg. at 80,811.
68 NRC, Evaluation of the NRCs Alternatives Analysis Process for National Environmental Policy Act Reviews at 7 (July 21, 2023)
(ML23180A265) (Enclosure 1 to SECY-23-0068 (ML23180A266)). The NRCs EISs for the numerous COL applications reviewed in the early to mid-2000s, for example, contained lengthy discussions of alternative energy sources and alternative sites, notwithstanding each applicants clear intention to build and operate a new nuclear reactor(s) at a specific site, and the NRCs lack of regulatory authority over the alternative energy sources and sites.
69 Section 506(b)(2)(G) of the ADVANCE Act explicitly directs the NRC to consider opportunities to streamline the Commissions analyses of alternatives, including the Commissions analysis of alternative sites.
70 42 USC 4332(2)(C)(iii) (emphasis added).
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 15 As detailed in Enclosure 1 to SECY-24-0046, the staff has recommended, in Option 1.b, to generally limit the proposed agency action to the regulatory or licensing decision (e.g., whether to issue an operating license). Furthermore, the NRCs consideration and analysis of the irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources involved in the proposed agency action would be limited to Federal resources.71 As the staff notes, if approved by the Commission, this approach would improve the efficiency of NRCs NEPA reviews by narrowing the scope of those reviews to be consistent with the current text of NEPA and CEQ regulations. As SECY-24-0046 further explains:
The staff would evaluate the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the agencys regulatory or licensing decision. In most cases, the reasonable range of alternatives to the regulatory or licensing decision would be defined as and limited to the no action alternative (i.e., not issuing the license) because not engaging in regulatory or licensing decisions is the only reasonable alternative to the agency action. The staff would analyze the reasonably foreseeable environmental effects of the no action alternative (including negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action). The environmental effects of the no action alternative may include the environmental impacts from termination of operation and decommissioning, energy conservation, and energy imports, as well as replacement energy options and alternative nuclear material production, processing, and storage. Under this option, the staff would likely consider replacement energy options as reasonably foreseeable consequences of the no action alternative instead of as alternatives to the proposed agency action. However, the NRC generally would not consider alternatives to the proposed action that the agency does not have the authority to implement (e.g.,
siting and energy alternatives).72 As explained in SECY-24-0046, many proposed actions and alternatives thereto are currently analyzed under NEPA in terms of the applicants and/or societal purpose and need rather than the NRCs purpose and need. For new nuclear power plant license applications, this results in a purpose and need statement typically framed around a need for electrical power, with a resulting set of alternatives that would also achieve the stated need for additional electrical power, including other forms of power generation.73 Thus, alternatives considered in new and advanced reactor licensing EISs have commonly included, as applicable, a no action alternative, site alternatives, energy generation alternatives, and system design alternatives. Commission approval and staff implementation of the approach recommended in SECY-24-0046, which is based on the staffs reading of NEPA Section 102(2)(C)(iii), would obviate discussion of energy and site alternatives and focus the NRCs analysis on the proposed action and no action alternative.74 If this occurs, then the 71 SECY-24-0046, Encl. 1 at 6.
72 Id. at 6 (emphasis added). See also id., Encl. 7 at 3 (Other alternatives such as locating the proposed action at alternative sites would not be considered.).
73 Id. at 1.
74 Notably, even prior to its amendment in 2023, NEPA did foreclose an agency from analyzing in detail only two alternatives (i.e., one action alternative and the no action alternative, as NEPA does not impose a numerical floor on alternatives to be considered. Native Ecosystems Council v. U.S. Forest Serv., 428 F.3d 1233, 1246 (9th Cir. 2005) ([T]o the extent that [plaintiff] is complaining that having only two final alternatives - no-action and a preferred alternative - violates the regulatory scheme, a plain reading of the regulations dooms that argument. So long as all reasonable alternatives have been considered and an appropriate explanation is provided as to why an alternative was eliminated, the regulatory requirement is satisfied.). See also N. Idaho Cmty. Action Network v. U.S. Dept. of Transp., 545 F.3d 1147 (9th Cir. 2008) (Under these circumstances, we hold that the Agencies fulfilled their obligations under NEPAs alternatives provision when they considered and discussed only two alternatives in the 2005 EA.); Citizens Against Burlington v. Busey, 938 F.2d 190, 199 (D.C. Cir.
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 16 NRC would need to revise accordingly its Part 51 regulations, as well as any relevant discussion in the NR GEIS and implementing guidance.
I. NRC Guidance Should Address the Need to Discuss the Negative Environmental Impacts of the No Action Alternative As noted above, Section 102(2)(c)(iii) of NEPA provides that an agency must include an analysis of any negative environmental impacts of not implementing the proposed agency action in the case of a no action alternative. In SECY-24-0046, the NRC staff states that it is ensuring the analysis of the no-action alternative discusses reasonably foreseeable negative environmental impacts, per NEPA section 102(2)(C)(iii).75 Thus, NEI recommends that the NRC identify this new requirement in the NR GEIS and implementing guidance (i.e., RG 4.2 and COL-ISG-030). In addition, both applicants and the staff likely would benefit from some specific guidance on how to analyze reasonably foreseeable negative environmental impacts of the no-action alternative.
As a general matter, nuclear power plants have net beneficial environmental effects. In 2023 alone, U.S. nuclear-generated electricity avoided approximately 439 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions that would otherwise have come from fossil fuel-fired generation units. It also emits no greenhouse gas or criteria air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, particulate matter, and mercury, and has among the lowest overall life-cycle impacts of any electricity generation source.76 Due to its high energy density, nuclear power also has a much smaller geographic footprint than other energy generation sources, including renewables.77 As a result, nuclear power helps avoid adverse climate change, air quality, human health, land use, and ecological impacts that may disproportionately affect vulnerable communities. Thus, the no action alternative likely would entail the loss of these benefits, albeit on the scale of an individual plant.
DOEs October 2024 Final HALEU EIS provides some useful insights on this topic. Section 2.6.2 (No Action Alternative) states, in relevant part:
Under the status quo, existing electrical generation capacity would continue to operate.
Traditional electricity generation sources, including LWRs, hydroelectric, solar, wind and fossil-fueled plants, would continue to be relied on to supply our nations energy demand and energy security.
This could have adverse impacts on meeting [greenhouse gas (GHG)] reduction goals.
The full-lifecycle GHG emissions of coal and natural gas-power generation sources are substantially higher than for nuclear power. For instance, coal generates 820 grams (g) of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per kilowatt-hour (g CO2e/kWh) of electricity, while natural gas produces 490 g CO2e/kWh. Even hydroelectric and solar produce lifecycle emissions at 24 g CO2e/kWh and 41 g CO2e/kWh, respectively. In contrast, nuclear power produces 12 g CO2e/kWh (Schlmer et al., 2014). Therefore, using coal or natural gas (and even hydroelectric and solar) to generate electricity would result in 1991) (holding that the FAA, in approving a citys plan to expand an airport, complied with NEPA in publishing an EIS that discussed in depth only the two alternatives of approving the expansion and not approving it).
75 SECY-24-0046, Encl. 1 at 5.
76 See DOE, Advanced Nuclear Liftoff Report at 8; IAEA, Nuclear Power and Sustainable Development, at 50-51 (2016), http://www-pub.iaea.org/MTCD/Publications/PDF/Pub1754web-26894285.pdf; see also National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL), Life Cycle Assessment Harmonization, https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/life-cycle-assessment.html.
77 DOE, Advanced Nuclear Liftoff Report at 11 and Table 8.
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 17 higher GHG emissions. Those higher GHG emissions from non-nuclear power could contribute to a greater rate of climate change.78 Notably, DOE also estimates that electrical power generated by HALEU-fueled advanced nuclear reactors could result in 94% to greater than 99% lower CO2e emissions, compared to power generated from combinations of existing sources.79 These emissions differences would be more pronounced where power generation introduced into a region by the HALEU program displaces more higher-emitting fossil fuel generation sources than lower-emitting renewable generation sources.80 Finally, it bears emphasis that new nuclear power plants may have multiple benefits beyond providing electricity to the grid. Such benefits could include complying with environmental regulations (e.g., site remediation); replacing retired power plants; meeting federal and/or state energy policy goals, including those aimed at decarbonization or GHG reduction; increasing diversity and reliability of U.S.
electrical generation; bolstering energy independence and national security; demonstrating new technologies; and by-production of other commercial products (e.g., hydrogen, steam, heat for use by industrial or chemical facilities).81 Thus, the no action alternative could have direct and indirect negative environmental impacts associated with the loss of these benefits (e.g., due to continued heavy reliance on, or even increased use of, fossil fuel generation sources).
J. The NR GEIS Appropriately Classifies Greenhouse Gas Emissions as a Category 1 Issue Given nuclear energys net beneficial climate effects, and consistent with NEPAs rule of reason and the concept of proportionality, NEI contends that that applicants and the NRC should not need to devote inordinate resources to analyzing GHG emissions and climate change-related effects. As the CEQ notes in its 2023 GHG Guidance:
As with any NEPA review, the rule of reason should guide the agencys analysis and the level of effort can be proportionate to the scale of the net GHG effects and whether net effects are positive or negative, with actions resulting in very few or an overall reduction in GHG emissions generally requiring less detailed analysis than actions with large emissions.82 NEI agrees with the NRC staffs conclusion that the contribution of GHG emissions from total plant life-cycle activities to national emissions is a Category 1 issue. Specifically, the staff concluded that, as long as the PPE assumption associated with GHG emissions is met, the GHG impacts from building, operating, conducting the fuel cycle, transporting fuel and waste, and decommissioning of a 78 DOE, Final Environmental Impact Statement for Department of Energy Activities in Support of Commercial Production of High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium (HALEU) (DOE/EIS-0559), Vol. 1 at 2-36 (Oct. 2024) (Final HALEU EIS), https://www.energy.gov/ne/haleu-environmental-impact-statement.
79 Id. at 2-39, 4-5.
80 Id. at 4-5. The expected benefits of using HALEU fuel include, for example, the ability to design smaller reactors that use different coolants and generate more power per unit of volume, improved fuel utilization due to higher burnup, improved thermal efficiency with higher operating temperatures, longer operating cycles, shorter refueling periods, inherent safety features, and reduced fuel waste volumes.
See id. at 1-3; DOE, Pros and Cons Analysis of HALEU Utilization in Example Fuel Cycles (ANL/NSE-22/21) (June 2023),
https://doi.org/10.2172/1985692.
81 See, e.g., DG-4032 at 164.
82 CEQ 2023 GHG Guidance, 88 Fed. Reg. at 1204-05.
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 18 nuclear reactor can be generically determined to be SMALL.83 The generic analysis documented in Appendix H to the NR GEIS can be relied on without applying any mitigation measures.
NEI also supports applicant and staff use of the NRCs draft Recommendations for an Applicant to Calculate Activity Data for Greenhouse Gases Estimates (GHG Estimates) (ML21225A768), which provides guidance to nuclear reactor license applicants on estimating GHG emission for their proposed facilities. The GHG Estimates document provides a simpler method than the method described in RG 4.2 Rev. 3, which an applicant can use to meet the PPE value from the NR GEIS (which, as noted above, is based on the analysis contained in Appendix H of the NR GEIS). DG-4032 references the GHG Estimates documents as one acceptable means of demonstrating that a proposed new reactor facility meets the PPE value specified in the NR GEIS and Part 51. The use of the simplified method provided in the GHG Estimates document is consistent with the NRC staffs goal of enhancing the efficiency of its environmental reviews.
K. Discussion of Climate Change Effects Must Be Governed by NEPAs Rule of Reason In the NR GEIS, the NRC staff has classified climate change as a Category 2 issue. The staffs rationale is that climate change can cause changes in the affected environment around a new reactor project, potentially influencing the level of impacts on resources affected by the project. Therefore, the staff notes, climate change effects are location-specific and cannot be evaluated generically. 84 NEI provided extensive comments on this issue in response to the NRCs draft GEIS for license renewal (NUREG-1437, Revision 2), which the NRC issued in final form earlier this year. We incorporate those comments by reference insofar as they are germane to new reactor licensing.85 In short, we continue to believe that climate change is more appropriately considered as a cumulative impact (not its own Category 2 issue), or as part of the discussion of the affected environment used in evaluating the impacts of the proposed licensing action (to the extent climate change effects on the environmental baseline conditions described in an applicants environmental report and the NRCs supplemental EIS may be reasonably discerned based on reliable data).
NEI recognizes that the NRC staff disagreed with the foregoing position and is unlikely to reach a different result in the context of new reactor licensing. Nonetheless, there are aspects of our prior comments with which the staff agreed, and which warrant mention here. The staff agreed that the NRCs climate change impact analyses should and must be governed by NEPAs rule of reason, use the best information reasonably available, recognize relevant scientific uncertainties, and be limited to reasonably foreseeable impacts or effects.86 It further agreed that clarity is needed in the NRCs guidance to applicants and staff with regard to the treatment of GHGs and climate change impacts.87 In response to NEIs comments, the NRC staff indicated that it made the following changes to Section 83 See Draft NR GEIS at 3-17 to 3-20, 4-5 (Table 4-1), G-6 to G-7 (Table G-1), Appendix H (Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimate for a Reference 1,000 MWe Reactor). The staff relied on the following PPE assumption to reach this conclusion:
GHGs emitted by equipment and vehicles during the 97-year reactor GHG life-cycle period would be equal to or less than 2,534,000 MT of CO2(e). Appendix H of this GEIS contains the staffs methodology for developing this value, which includes emissions from construction, operation, and decommissioning. As long as this total value is met, the impacts for the life-cycle of the project and the individual phases of the project are determined to be SMALL.
84 See Draft NR GEIS at 1-9 to 1-10, 1-18 (Table 1-1), 4-27 (Table 4-1).
85 See NEI Comments on NRC Proposed Rule - Renewing Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses - Environmental Review, Attachment 1 at 7-17 (May 2, 2023) (ML23123A407) 86 NUREG-1437, Rev. 2, Vol. 2, Appendix A (Comments Received on the Environmental Review) at A-259.
87 Id. at A-256.
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 19 4.12 (Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change) of NUREG-1555, Supplement 1, Revision 2, the NRCs Environmental Standard Review Plan for License Renewal (ESRP-LR):
Revised Section 4.12.5 to reiterate that climate change impact analyses prepared by the NRC staff appropriately focus on and discuss reasonably foreseeable climate change impacts and that they be evaluated in proportion to their significance.88 Revised Section 4.12.3 to provide an area of interest to be considered. Specifically, the staff added a geographic scope under studies and monitoring programs. Regarding the list of climate change indicators, the staff noted that the list provides examples, and recognized that not all may apply to every nuclear power plant site. The NRC thus revised the list to include and/or.89 Revised Section 4.12.5 to clarify that climate change parameters can include those that are listed. The NRC also agreed with NEIs recommendation that the statement concerning climate change projections in Section 4.12 of should also reference the climate models used and thus made clarifying changes to Section 4.12.5.90 NEI requests that the NRC staff include these principles and clarifications/revisions in the NRCs implementing guidance for the NR GEIS, including any future updates to NUREG-1555, Environmental Standard Review Plan (ESRP) for New Site/Plant Applications.
L. Severe Accidents Should Be Classified as a Category 1 Issue Based on Existing NRC Bounding Analyses of Severe Accidents Section 3.11.2.3 of the draft NR GEIS identifies severe accidents as a Category 2 issue. It further states that [b]ased on the analysis in the FSAR/PSAR regarding severe accidents and PRAs, if a new reactor design has severe accident progressions that involve radiological or hazardous chemical releases, then an environmental risk evaluation must be performed.
NEI requests that the NRC reconsider its designation of severe accidents as a Category 2 issue. As defined in the NR GEIS, a Category 2 issue is one for which a meaningful generic analysis of environmental impacts is not possible because the issue requires consideration of project-specific information.91 With regard to nuclear power reactor severe accidents, such an analysis does exist in Chapter 5 (Environmental Impacts of Postulated Accidents) of the1996 License Renewal GEIS (LR GEIS).92 That analysis documents the NRCs assessment of the impacts of postulated accidents at nuclear power plants on the environment, including design-basis accidents and severe accidents (e.g., those with core damage). Based on that analysis, the NRC concluded that [t]he probability-weighted consequences of atmospheric releases, fallout onto open bodies of water, releases to groundwater, and societal and economic impacts from severe accidents are small for all plants.93 88 Id.
89 Id.
90 Id.
91 Draft NR GEIS at 1-5.
92 NRC, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Final Report (NUREG-1437, Vols. 1 and 2) (May 1996) (ML040690705 and ML040690738) (1996 LR GEIS).
93 1996 LR GEIS, Vol. 1 at 5-115.
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 20 The 1996 LR GEIS analysis was a Level 3 probabilistic risk assessment (PRA), in which the NRC considered dose and health effects of accidents (population dose risk, latent fatality risk, and prompt fatality risk) (see sections 5.3.3.2 through 5.3.3.4), economic impacts of accidents (see section 5.3.3.5), and the impact of uncertainties on results (see section 5.3.4). The estimated impacts were based upon the analysis of severe accidents at 28 nuclear power plants, as reported in the EISs and/or final environmental statements prepared for each of the 28 plants in support of their operating licenses. To address uncertainties, the 1996 LR GEIS analysis used 95th percentile upper confidence bound (UCB) estimates whenever available. The 1996 LR GEIS analysis concluded that the probability-weighted consequences and impacts were small compared to other risks to which the populations surrounding nuclear power plants are routinely exposed.94 In Revision 2 of the LR GEIS, issued in August 2024, the NRC updated its assessment of postulated accident risk, as the NRCs understanding of accident risk has further evolved since the issuance of the 1996 LR GEIS and 2013 LR GEIS (Revision 1).95 In Appendix E to the 2024 LR GEIS, the NRC considered current information about plant-specific PRA results and other relevant risk information to assess their potential impacts on the conclusions in Chapter 5 of the 1996 LR GEIS.96 For example, the NRC considered new internal events information, new source term information, use of BEIR VII risk coefficients, external events, low power and shutdown events, power uprates, higher fuel burnup, and new information about spent fuel pool accidents. Appendix E, Table E.5-1 of the 2024 LR GEIS (pp. E-94 to E-96) summarizes NRCs findings on these issues, including the following:
The environmental impacts estimated using more recent and realistic source term information are expected to be much lower than the impacts used as the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS (i.e.,
the frequency-weighted consequences). The early fatality risk is orders-of-magnitude less than the NRC safety goal, and the latent cancer fatality risk is well below the NRC safety goal.97 The internal events CDF has decreased, on average, by a factor of 4 to 6. However, the reduction in environmental impact is substantial, ranging from a factor of 2 to 600 and, on average, is about a factor of 30 lower when compared to the expected PDR value reported in the 1996 LR GEIS.
Explicit consideration of the risk from all hazards in the 2024 LR GEIS shows that the probability-weighted dose consequences are bounded by the 1996 LR GEIS estimates. Table E.3-1 in Appendix E of the 2024 LR GEIS (pp. E-9 to E-11) shows that the estimated total PDR, which accounts for severe accidents initiated by internal events and external events during at-power operation, for each plant that has performed a SAMA analysis, is bounded by the corresponding 95 percent UCB population dose reported in the 1996 LR GEIS for each 94 The probability-weighted consequences of a severe accident are equal to the population dose risk (PDR), which is the core damage frequency (CDF) multiplied by the population dose (PD). As noted in footnote 4 of Appendix E to the 2024 LR GEIS, the correct terminology is frequency-weighted consequences because the accident consequences are multiplied by the core damage frequency. Since the 1996 LR GEIS used the term probability-weighted consequences, the 2024 LR GEIS uses these terms interchangeably.
95 NRC, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Final Report (NUREG-1437, Rev. 2, Vols. 1-3)
(Aug. 2024) (2024 LR GEIS) https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/staff/sr1437/r2/index.html.
96 See 2024 LR GEIS, Vol. 3. Appendix E (Environmental Impact of Postulated Impacts).
97 As shown by the NRCs SOARCA study, the environmental impacts estimated using more recent and realistic source term information are expected to be much lower than the impacts used as the basis for the 1996 LR GEIS (i.e., the frequency-weighted consequences). See State-of-the-Art Reactor Consequence Analyses (SOARCA) Report (NUREG-1935) (Nov. 2012) (ML12332A057).
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 21 plant.98 The predicted 95 percent UCB population dose values from the 1996 LR GEIS are higher for each plant by factors ranging from 3 to over 1,000 and are on average a factor of 120 higher than the corresponding total PDR values from the license renewal SAMA analyses. The population-weighted consequences reported in the 1996 LR GEIS are the basis for the determination therein that the environmental impact of severe accident risks is SMALL.
The 1996 LR GEIS 95 percent UCB predicted values for early fatalities and latent fatalities are derived from the estimated radiological doses to the population. Thus, those values also are very conservative based on the updated information from the license renewal SAMA analyses.
Based on the detailed analysis presented in Appendix E, the NRC determined that the probability-weighted consequences estimated in the 1996 LR GEIS remain bounding after consideration of new and applicable plant-specific information and other relevant information. In fact, using site-specific Level 3 PRAs performed as part of license renewal SAMA analyses, all of the evaluated plants demonstrated that the environmental probability-weighted consequences had decreased.99 NEI recognizes that the LR GEIS analysis of severe accident impacts considers large light-water reactors (LWRs) making up the current operating fleet. We further acknowledge the NRC staffs statement in the draft NR GEIS that it cannot prejudge the level of safety of a new reactor design a priori and, therefore, cannot rule out the need for a postulated accident analysis in future license applications.100 Nonetheless, from an environmental risk perspective, NEI contends that any new reactors licensed by the NRC, including light-water SMR and advanced non-LWR designs, would be bounded by the LR GEIS analysis of severe accident impacts. From a safety perspective, such reactors will be licensed to meet safety requirements that are at least as strict as those applicable to the current operating fleet, and provide reasonable assurance of adequate protection to public health and safety. Moreover, new reactor applicants presumably will have developed plant-specific PRAs (or other appropriate accident analyses) and considered mitigation design alternatives consistent with applicable NRC safety requirements and related guidance. As such, NEI is not suggesting that the NRC prejudge the level of safety of a new reactor design or forego postulated accident analyses that are needed to support the NRCs safety findings under the AEA and related NRC safety regulations.
Notably, Section 3.11.2.4 of the draft NR GEIS notes that [i]t is expected that for severe accidents the probabilistic risk assessment provided in the safety analysis would have CDFs that would likely be substantially less than the CDFs associated with the current reactor fleet, and that for non-LWR SAMA screening and assessments, event or release category frequency could be used in place of CDFs.101 Publicly available data corroborate these points. For example, Table 2-1 (PRA-Related Information for Use in Preliminary Screening Analyses) of NUREG/BR-0058, Revision 5 provides PRA-related information (including Average Internal Events CDF per reactor year) compiled from 98 Table E.3-1 reflects plant-specific SAMA analyses, in which the external events multiplier is multiplied by the estimated PDR for internally initiated events to develop the license renewal SAMA total plant PDR. As indicated in footnote (b) to Table E.3-1, data were obtained from the applicable plant-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, unless otherwise noted. Where applicable, the SAMA PDR was adjusted using the external events multiplier, which was developed on a plant-specific basis using the best available information and guidance at the time of the plant-specific SAMA analysis. The NRC also considered newer information from plant-specific reviews that included updated estimates of external risk in Section E.3.2 of Appendix E.
99 2024 LR GEIS, Vol. 3, App. E at E-6, E-84.
100 Draft NR GEIS at 3-140.
101 Draft NR GEIS at 3-142 (emphasis added).
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 22 SAMA analyses that were conducted for nuclear power plant license renewal environmental reviews.102 For the PWR designs, the Average Internal Events CDF per reactor year values range from 2.1E-05 to 3.9E-05. For the BWR designs, the Average Internal Events CDF per reactor year values range from 2.9E-06 to 3.0E-05. Table 2-1 also includes At Power Internal Events CDF per reactor year values for the three NRC-certified designs for which an associated combined license (COL) to build and operate has also been issued by the NRC. Those values are 1.6E-07 (ABWR -
GEH), 2.4E-07 (AP1000), and 1.7E-08 (ESBWR), which are roughly two orders of magnitude lower than those of current operating reactors.
Table 5.11-22 from the Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 Environmental Report (Rev. 0), as excerpted below, shows how the estimated Accident Frequency and Population Dose Risk for the proposed Natrium 840 megawatts thermal pool-type sodium fast reactor compare to those of Generation III and newer, large LWRs.103 The Accident Frequency is bounded by these other LWR designs (which, in turn, are bounded by the CDFs for the current operating fleet), and Population Dose Risk is roughly two to three orders of magnitude lower. Based on the results of its Level 3 PRA, the applicant concluded that environmental impacts of severe accidents are anticipated to be SMALL.104 Table 5.11-22 Comparison of the Natrium Designs Severe Accident Impacts to Advanced Large LWRs Plant Design Accident Frequency (per reactor-yr)
Dose Risk (person-rem/reactor-yr)
Kemmerer 1 Natrium 1.4 x 10-8 1.5 x 10-4 Turkey Point 6 & 7 AP1000 2.4 x 10-7 2.7 x 10-1 Fermi 3 ESBWR 1.7 x 10-8 3.2 x 10-2 Comanche Peak 3 & 4 US APWR 1.2 x 10-6 3.0 x 10-1 Calvert Cliffs 3 US EPR 5.3 x 10-7 3.5 x 10-1 Note: Data from other plants are from the respective combined license applications.
In view of the above discussion, NEI believes there is sufficient technical basis for treating severe accidents as a Category 1 issue in the NR GEIS. Namely, the 1996 LR GEIS analysis of severe accidents, as augmented and updated by the 2013 and 2024 LR GEISs, will bound the frequency-weighted consequences of postulated severe accidents for new reactors, thereby providing the meaningful generic analysis needed to support a Category 1 designation.
In stating that an environmental risk evaluation must be performed for new reactor designs with severe accident progressions that involve radiological or hazardous chemical releases, the draft NR GEIS quotes a June 13, 1980 interim Commission policy statement.105 That interim policy statement, which was issued following the March 1979 accident at Three Mile Island Unit 2, expired on 102 NRC, Regulatory Analysis Guidelines of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Draft Report for Comment (NUREG/BR-0058, Rev. 5) at 2-17 (Apr. 2017) (ML17100A480).
103 TerraPower, LCC, Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 Environmental Report at 5.11-40 (Mar. 2024) (ML24088A072).
104 Id. at 5.11-4.
105 Draft NR GEIS at 3-137 (quoting Nuclear Power Plant Accident Considerations Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969; Statement of Interim Policy, 45 Fed. Reg. 40,101, 41,103 (June 13, 1980),
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 23 September 11, 1980.106 It also has been rendered moot by numerous developments over the last 44 years, including subsequent NRC regulatory actions and technical studies on severe accident risks.
Further, as discussed above, the federal courts have affirmed the NRCs authority under NEPA to generically analyze - including through the use of conservative bounding assumptions - risks or impacts that are essentially common to all plants and to codify those determinations.107 Through the LR GEIS, the NRC has provided a thorough and comprehensive generic analysis that also supports the classification of severe accidents as a Category 1 issue for new reactors.
M. Severe Accident Mitigation Design Alternatives (SAMDAs) Should Be Removed From the NR GEIS as a Separate Issue Requiring Evaluation NEI also recommends that the NRC remove SAMDAs from the NR GEIS as a separate issue requiring evaluation. In the draft NR GEIS, the NRC has classified SAMDAs as a Category 1 issue and established the following PPE value/assumption: If a cost-screening analysis determines that the maximum benefit for avoiding an accident is so small that a SAMDA analysis is not justified based on a minimum cost to design an appropriate SAMDA.108 For the reasons stated below, such an analysis is neither warranted nor an efficient use of applicant and agency resources.
As discussed in Section L above, the highly conservative, bounding analysis in the LR GEIS demonstrates that the frequency-weighted consequences of severe accidents are SMALL for all plants. Additionally, the numerous SAMA analyses performed by license renewal applicants have confirmed the Commissions expectation - as conveyed in the 1996 rulemaking codifying the license renewal SAMA analysis requirement - that SAMA analyses are unlikely to identify major plant design changes or modifications that will prove to be cost-beneficial.109 Indeed, as noted in the 2024 LR GEIS, none of the SAMA analyses performed by license renewal applicants to date has identified plant-specific major cost-beneficial SAMAs that significantly reduce the risk of a severe accident:
[P]lant-specific major cost-beneficial SAMAs that significantly reduce the risk have not been identified in SAMA analyses and almost all currently operating plants having performed a SAMA. This result included consideration of uncertainty, wherein estimated SAMA benefits, developed using the mean point estimate for internal events CDF, were multiplied by an uncertainty factor derived from the ratio of the 95th percentile to the mean point estimate for internal events CDF, which was compared to the estimated implementation cost of the SAMA for the determination of whether it was potentially cost-beneficial. However, as a result of the NRCs ongoing safety oversight, significant improvements in plant safety including reducing the risk of a severe accident initiated by internal or external events have been achieved as a result of processes separate from license renewal, such as post-Fukushima Orders for mitigation of beyond-design-basis 106 Also, unlike statutory provisions, regulations, and orders, Commission policy statements generally do not impose legally binding requirements on the NRC staff or licensees. Although federal courts sometimes find agency policy statements to be tantamount to legislative rules that impose legally binding requirements (and thus subject to judicial review), general policy statements typically serve to advise the public about the manner in which the agency intends to exercise its discretionary authority. See, e.g., Brock v. Cathedral Bluffs Shale Oil Co., 796 F.2d 533, 537 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (A general statement of policy does not establish a binding norm [and instead]
announces the agencys tentative intentions for the future.).
107 New York v. NRC, 824 F.3d 1012, 1019 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
108 Draft NR GEIS at 3-142, 4-21 (Table 4-1), Appendix G at G-13 (Table G-1).
109 NRC, Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses; Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 28,467, 28,481 (June 5, 1996) (noting that any additional plant enhancements identified by license renewal SAMA analyses as cost-beneficial generally would be procedural and programmatic fixes, with any hardware changes being only minor in nature and few in number).
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 24 events. Because these measures have provided additional severe accident mitigation and/or further reduced the risk profile of operating reactors, they decrease the possibility that further SAMA analyses would uncover cost-beneficial SAMAs.110 In a 2016 decision arising from the Limerick license renewal proceeding, the D.C. Circuit made similar observations, noting that SAMAs represent only a minor portion of the Commissions overall regulatory regime - separate and apart from its safety requirements, and that the NRC relies on a myriad of other safety mechanisms to prevent accidents, including ongoing safety oversight.111 The foregoing observations apply a fortiori to new reactor designs, which, in addition to being required to meet all current applicable NRC safety requirements, are expected to include enhanced safety features that will reduce both the frequency and the consequences of core damage events (if not preclude such events altogether).112 The draft NR GEIS acknowledges this in stating that [t]he risks from new reactor accidents may be limited because [a] major emphasis for the development of new reactors is the minimization (i.e., a very low probability of an accident with an offsite radiological or hazardous chemical release) or the elimination of radioactive or hazardous chemical releases from accidents.113 The draft NR GEIS further notes that for new reactors, the probabilistic risk assessment provided in the safety analysis would have CDFs that would likely be substantially less than the CDFs associated with the current reactor fleet.114 As the Commission has noted, [u]nder basic NEPA principles, it is reasonable to tailor the degree of mitigation analysis to the significance of the impact to be mitigated.115 In this case, NEI contends that mitigation analysis in the form of cost-screening analysis for SAMDAs is not necessary given that the frequency-weighted consequences of postulated severe accidents for new reactors are expected to be SMALL (as they are bounded by the LR GEIS), and the unlikelihood that any cost-beneficial SAMDAs that significantly reduce the risk of a severe accident will be identified.
N. The Final NR GEIS Should Reflect Current Advanced Reactor Fuel Cycle Developments The NRC presumably will update the NR GEIS before its publication in final form to reflect significant technical, regulatory, and/or commercial developments that may inform the NRC staffs analyses.
One area NEI wishes to highlight is the advanced reactor fuel cycle and the HALEU supply developments in particular. As indicated above, DOE issued its Final HALEU EIS in October 2024.
That EIS evaluates the potential environmental impacts from activities associated with DOEs Proposed Action, which is to acquire, through procurement from commercial sources, HALEU 110 2024 LR GEIS, Vol. 3, App. E at E-86.
111 Natural Res. Def. Council v. NRC, 823 F.3d 641, 650-51 (D.C. Cir. 2016).
112 Such features include passive safety systems that rely on natural phenomena such as gravity, natural circulation, and inherent material properties rather than active systems or operator intervention. Advanced designs also may incorporate inherent reactivity control mechanisms to prevent criticality accidents. Lower operating pressures also help prevent damage to the reactor core or containment and limit the dispersal of radioactive materials. In addition, advanced reactors may have robust containment structures that can withstand extreme external events (e.g., earthquakes, floods) and/or use advanced fuels (e.g., TRISO) that can withstand extreme temperatures without degradation and contain fission products within the fuel itself. These features provide multiple layers of defense to contain radioactive materials and prevent the release of radionuclides to the environment, even under severe accident conditions.
113 Draft NR GEIS at 3-140. As the NRC has noted with regard to micro-reactors, [a] particular micro-reactor design may not have credible severe accidents associated with it. In such a case, the NRC staff will not need to assess the offsite environmental impacts from severe accidents or evaluate the benefits and costs of SAMAs. COL-ISG-029, Environmental Considerations Associated with Micro-reactors (Oct.
2020) (ML20252A076).
114 Draft NR GEIS at 3-142.
115 Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. (Indian Point, Units 2 and 3), CLI-16-7, 83 NRC 293, 323 n.156 (2016). Cf. See 10 CFR 51.45(b)(1)
(Impacts shall be discussed in proportion to their significance.).
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 25 enriched to at least 19.75 and less than 20 weight percent uranium-235 (U-235) over a 10-year period of performance, and to facilitate the establishment of commercial HALEU fuel production.116 DOE also analyzed, to the extent feasible, the environmental impacts associated with the use of the HALEU that would occur after the Proposed Action activities, including fuel fabrication, use of HALEU in advanced reactors, and spent nuclear fuel storage and disposition. DOE based its bounding impact analyses largely on NEPA analyses for both existing and previously-proposed fuel cycle facilities licensed by the NRC, taking into account the possibility of using existing nuclear facility sites, other brownfield sites, and greenfield sites.
In October 2024, DOE also announced awards of multiple HALEU-related contracts under its HALEU Availability Program. They include contracts with six companies to perform HALEU deconversion and to transform enriched UF6 to other chemical forms, including metal or oxide, for storage before it is fabricated into fuel for advanced reactors.117 DOE also executed contracts with four companies to provide enrichment services for producing HALEU.118 In November 2024, DOE announced a new HALEU transportation package funding opportunity to research, develop, and acquire NRC licensing for HALEU transportation packages.119 Given these developments, the NRC should update Section 3.14 (Fuel Cycle), and Section 3.14.2 (DOE High-Assay Low-Enriched Uranium Availability Program) in particular, of the NR GEIS. In doing so, the NRC should consider whether portions of DOEs Final HALEU EIS (which include discussion of the NRCs draft NR GEIS) might be incorporated by reference to the extent they are relevant to the NRCs assessment of new reactor fuel cycle impacts.
O. The Proposed 10-Year Review and Update Cycle for the GEIS and Rule Is Appropriate The Commission intends to review the material in the NR GEIS and the associated rule and update them, as necessary, on a 10-year cycle.120 NEI believes that 10 years is appropriate, notwithstanding the provisions of Section 108 of NEPA. Section 108(1) provides that an agency may rely on analysis in a programmatic environmental document for 5 years and without additional review unless there are substantial new circumstances or information about the significance of adverse effects that bear on the analysis. Section 108(2) states that an agency may rely on the analysis after five years so long as the agency reevaluates the analysis in the programmatic environmental document and any underlying assumption to ensure reliance on the analysis remains valid.
In SECY-24-0046, the NRC staff notes that its current reevaluation processes, including new and significant information reviews, meet the requirements of the substantial new circumstances and reevaluation requirements in Section 108 of NEPA.121 NEI agrees. Specifically, the NRC already has specific procedures in place for evaluating new and significant information and/or the need to 116 Those activities include the extraction and recovery of uranium ore (from domestic and/or foreign in-situ recovery or conventional mining and milling sources); uranium conversion to uranium hexafluoride (UF6) for input to enrichment facilities; enrichment to HALEU of from 19.75 to less than 20 weight percent U-235 in an NRC-licensed Category II facility; HALEU deconversion from UF6 to uranium oxide, metal, and other forms suitable for use in fuel fabrication in an NRC Category II facility; storage in an NRC Category II facility or facilities of the converted HALEU; transportation of materials between facilities; and DOE acquisition of up to 290 MT of HALEU.
120 Notably, this 10-year interval is consistent with that specified in 10 CFR Part 51, Appendix B for NRC reviews of the License Renewal GEIS and Table B-1.
121 See SECY-24-0046, Enclosure 5: Programmatic Environmental Documents.
NEI Comments on New Reactor GEIS Proposed Rule December 18, 2024 26 supplement an EIS. That evaluation may be documented on a case-by-case basis, e.g., as part of the agencys review of a specific licensing action. As noted in SECY-24-0046, [p]roject-specific EAs and EISs already go through a reevaluation process each time they supplement a GEIS or incorporate previous environmental analyses by reference.122 122 Id. at 4.