ML25034A049
| ML25034A049 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/03/2025 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| 12 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML25002A198 | List: |
| References | |
| M250206 | |
| Download: ML25034A049 (1) | |
Text
ADVANCE ACT Environmental Review Efficiency Katy Huff Nuclear, Plasma, and Radiological Engineering UIUC February 6, 2025
Disclaimer(s) 2
American Nuclear Society Recommendations 3
PS 25: High capital costs and long timelines for regulatory approval are unique barriers for new nuclear technologies PS 35: ANS Support[s] the prompt development of a technology-neutral, risk informed, and performance-based licensing framework that will provide effective and efficient regulation of advanced reactor designs.
PS 46: The regulatory framework has proven to be effective in protecting public health and safety, but it is cumbersome and does not take full advantage of technological developments and experience gained from decades of reactor operations.
PS 51: When compared with generally accepted risks posed by other energy industries, the risk from nuclear power is low. Furthermore, use of nuclear power has saved and continues to save lives through avoided emissions. Decisions concerning the use of nuclear energy should appropriately balance risks and benefits, and regulators should adopt a holistic approach to regulation that aligns how we treat risk across various hazards.
PS 51: State of the art safety requires: well-staffed, well-funded safety regulatory authorities, which are responsible for independently assuring operational safety and protection of the environment by utilizing performance-based goals and risk insights derived from analysis and experience
American Nuclear Society Recommendations 4
Bowen & Ponangi Recommendations 5
Pare down two analytical sections of the EISthe need for power and alternatives chapterswhich are not currently adding much value, especially commensurate with their length.
Use a generic environmental impact statement (GEIS) approachwhich has been effective for reactor license renewals and involves dividing the environmental review into issues that are expected to be generic for new reactor projects and therefore can be examined in a simplified manner and issues that need more in-depth, project-specific evaluationsfor new reactor licensing.
Use the more concise environmental assessment (EA) review instrument instead of an EIS for subsequent deployments of a reactor at the same site or to sites with operating reactors or retiring coal plants, as well as for micro-reactor deployments.
Remove the EIS requirement for every new reactor licensing from its Part 51 regulations, which would give the NRC more flexibility to tailor its reviews to the specifics of a given reactor project, better enabling, in particular, use of an EA instead of an EIS.
Bowen & Ponangi Recommendations 6
Bowen & Ponangi Recommendations 7
Bowen & Ponangi Recommendations 8
Bowen & Ponangi Recommendations 9
NRC Staff Recommendations (SECY-24-0046) 10
NAE Recommendation 11 Recommendation 7-4: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission should expedite the requirements and guidance governing siting and emergency planning zones to enable vendors to determine the restrictions that will govern the deployment of their reactors.