ML26034C169
| ML26034C169 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Kemmerer File:TerraPower icon.png |
| Issue date: | 03/09/2026 |
| From: | Jeremy Bowen Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Download: ML26034C169 (0) | |
Text
1
SUMMARY
RECORD OF DECISION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-613 CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION FOR THE PROPOSED KEMMERER POWER STATION, UNIT 1 BACKGROUND By letter dated March 28, 2024 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML24088A059), TerraPower, LLC (TerraPower), on behalf of US SFR Owner, LLC (USO), a wholly owned subsidiary of TerraPower, submitted an application to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC, the Commission) for a construction permit (CP) pursuant to Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, that would allow the construction of a Natrium advanced reactor (Natrium reactor) at a site in Lincoln County, Wyoming, designated as Kemmerer Power Station, Unit 1 (KU1). Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 United States Code [U.S.C.] 2011 et seq.), and its implementing regulations authorize the NRC to issue CPs for production or utilization facilities. To issue a CP, the NRC is required to consider the environmental impacts of the proposed action under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) (NEPA). The NRCs regulations that implement NEPA in 10 CFR Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions, describe several types of actions that would require an environmental impact statement (EIS). Issuance of a CP to construct a nuclear power reactor is identified in 10 CFR 51.20(b) as one such type of action.
Applicants for NRC licenses are required under 10 CFR 51.45, Environmental report, to submit an environmental report (ER) containing a description of the proposed action, a statement of its purposes, a description of the affected environment, and specific information needed by the NRC staff to evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action. A USO ER with information needed to assess the potential environmental impacts of the proposed action of CP issuance was submitted as part of the CP application.
Consistent with 10 CFR Part 51, the NRC staff published a Notice of Acceptance for Docketing for the CP application in the Federal Register (FR) on June 4, 2024 (89 FR 47997, ML24143A018), and a separate FR notice of the NRC staffs intent to prepare an EIS and conduct a scoping process on June 12, 2024 (89 FR 49917, ML24109A021). Issuance of the scoping notice initiated a 60-day scoping period. On July 16, 2024, the NRC staff held a scoping meeting. The NRC report entitled Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Process, Summary Report, Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1 Construction Permit, Kemmerer, Wyoming, issued November 2024, presents the comments received during the scoping process (ML24274A253).
The NRC staff conducted a virtual audit to verify information in the USO ER and to discuss with USO other information such as new testing data. During the audit, the NRC staff reviewed specific documentation and discussed specific information needs with USO staff and contractors. The information needed and the pertinent points from the audit are documented in the NRC staffs audit summary report, dated November 25, 2025 (ML25273A048).
After the scoping period and environmental audit, the NRC staff compiled its findings in a draft EIS (ML25154A651). In accordance with 10 CFR 51.73, Request for comments on draft environmental impact statement, the public comment period for the draft EIS took place from
2 June 20, 2025, through August 4, 2025 (90 FR 26333). During that time, the NRC staff hosted a public meeting on July 22, 2025, in Kemmerer, Wyoming, and collected public comments (ML24222A592). On October 21, 2025, the NRC issued the final EIS as NUREG-2268, Environmental Impact Statement for the Construction Permit Application for Kemmerer Power Station Unit 1, Final Report (ML25287A017). Comments related to the environmental review received during the comment period and the NRC staffs responses are provided in appendix H to the final EIS.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102, Requirement to provide a record of decision; preparation, and 10 CFR 51.103(a)(1)-(4), the NRC staff has prepared this summary record of decision (ROD) to accompany its Federal action on the KU1 CP application. This ROD incorporates by reference materials contained in the final EIS in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(c).
DECISION The NRC process for reviewing applications for CPs consists of two parallel reviews. The safety review evaluates the applicants ability to meet the NRC safety requirements. The NRC staff documents the findings of the safety review in a safety evaluation. The KU1 CP application safety evaluation was issued on November 30, 2025 (ML25329A252), and concluded, in part, that applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and NRC regulations have been met. The environmental review, governed by NEPA and the requirements in 10 CFR Part 51 (TN10253), evaluates the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. The results of that evaluation are documented in an EIS. The NRC considers the findings in both the safety evaluation and the EIS in its decision to grant or deny a CP.
The final EIS, which is incorporated by reference here, documents the NRC staffs environmental review of the KU1 CP application. As presented in chapter 6 of the final EIS, after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, the review team recommended, unless safety issues mandate otherwise, that the NRC issue the requested CP to USO. The NRC staff concluded, consistent with 10 CFR 50.40, Common standards, that the issuance of this CP would be in accordance with NEPA and the NRCs regulations implementing NEPA in Subpart A, National Environmental Policy ActRegulations Implementing Section 102(2), of 10 CFR Part 51 and that all applicable environmental requirements have been satisfied.
The Commission conducted an independent review of the sufficiency of the NRC staffs safety and environmental reviews, and in Commission Legal Issuance (CLI)-26-5, dated March 4, 2026, the Commission made safety and environmental findings based on the record as a whole. Regarding safety matters, the Commission found, in part, that the KU1 CP application meets the applicable standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 and NRC regulations. Regarding environmental matters, the Commission found that the NRC staffs environmental review was reasonably supported in logic and fact and sufficient to support the conclusions in the final EIS. Therefore, the Commission agreed that the relevant requirements of NEPA and the applicable regulations in 10 CFR Part 51 have been satisfied with respect to the KU1 CP application. Based on its independent consideration of the final balance among conflicting factors contained in the record and after weighing the environmental, economic, technical, and other benefits against environmental and other costs, and considering reasonable alternatives, the Commission found that the KU1 CP should be issued. Accordingly, on March 09, 2026, the NRC issued CP No. CPAR-1 authorizing the construction of KU1 at the KU1 site in Kemmerer, Wyoming. The CP is effective upon issuance.
3 AGENCY ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES The final EIS includes information on a broad range of issues that may be regulated by other Federal, State, or local agencies or Tribes. As documented in the final EIS, USO must obtain and maintain permits from other Federal, State, or local agencies or Tribes in order to construct KU1. For example, USO is required to comply with a State-issued general permit for stormwater discharges associated with construction activity. Best management practices (BMPs) and other requirements imposed by this permit would ensure that runoff during construction of the proposed facility will meet applicable State water quality standards.
The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) has entered into a memorandum of agreement (MOA) with the NRC to be a cooperating agency in the preparation of the EIS for the KU1 CP application. Under the MOA, the NRC is the lead Federal agency. The goal of this agreement is the development of one EIS that serves the needs of the NRC CP decision process and the DOE decision on whether to provide financial assistance to USO, through TerraPower, to demonstrate the Natrium reactor. As a cooperating agency, the DOE is part of the environmental review team with the NRC staff and its contractor staff and is involved in all aspects of the environmental review, including scoping, public meetings, public comment resolution, and EIS preparation. The EIS is intended to provide information to support the DOEs financial assistance decision, as will be documented in the DOEs ROD.
In the final EIS, the NRC staff evaluated the environmental impacts of constructing, operating, and decommissioning KU1 at the KU1 site. The NRC staff contacted Federal, State, Tribal, regional, and local agencies to solicit comments on the draft EIS. In addition to considering the environmental effects of the proposed action, the NRC staff considered reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, which it determined to be the no-action alternative and building KU1 at alternative sites.
The final EIS discusses the environmental impacts of various exemptions from the NRCs regulations. After issuing the final EIS, the NRC staff identified an additional exemption needed to enable the applicant to use the safety classification process described in Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) 18-04, Revision 1, Risk-Informed Performance-Based Technology Inclusive Guidance for Non-Light Water Reactor Licensing Basis Development, issued August 2019 (ML19241A472), as endorsed by NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.233, Revision 0, Guidance for a Technology-Inclusive, Risk-Informed, and Performance-Based Methodology to Inform the Licensing Basis and Content of Applications for Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Non-Light-Water Reactors, issued June 2020 (ML20091L698). The NEI 18-04 safety classification process provides a means of identifying the most safety-significant safety-related structures, systems, and components at a facility. Identifying such structures, systems, and components is a programmatic process without environmental impacts. Therefore, the consideration of this exemption would not affect the conclusions of the final EIS, and the environmental impacts of the exemptions would continue to be encompassed by the analysis in the EIS.
Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended (NHPA)
(54 U.S.C. 306108), requires Federal agencies to consider the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and consult with the appropriate parties. Issuance of a CP is a Federal undertaking that requires compliance with NHPA section 106. In accordance with 36 CFR 800.8(c), the NRC initiated NHPA section 106 consultation with the Wyoming State Historic Preservation Office (WY SHPO), the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP),
4 and 30 federally recognized Tribes. The NHPA implementing regulations are located at 36 CFR Part 800, Protection of Historic Properties.
PURPOSE AND NEED As identified in section 1.2 of the final EIS, USO proposes to build, demonstrate, and operate the Natrium reactor to enhance grid reliability and ultimately replace electricity generation capacity in the service area if PacifiCorp chooses to retire existing coal-fired facilities. USO, through TerraPower, participates in the DOE Advanced Reactor Demonstration Program (ARDP), the goal of which is to speed the demonstration of advanced nuclear reactors through cost-shared partnerships with U.S. industry. The need for the proposed action is highlighted by two main objectives: (1) replacing the electricity generation capacity of retiring coal-fired plants and (2) enhancing grid reliability in the region. Therefore, the proposed action would address immediate local energy demands in a carbon-neutral manner and advance technological innovation in the nuclear energy sector.
The purpose of the DOE action is to comply with the DOEs statutory mandates in the fiscal year 2020 Further Consolidated Appropriations Act and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act to select and fund the demonstration of advanced reactors through cost-shared partnerships with U.S. industry. The TerraPower Natrium Demonstration Project was selected by the DOE under the ARDP. The DOE action is needed to respond to TerraPowers request for financial assistance through the cost-shared partnership to complete construction activities for KU1, as described in the final EIS, which would further the design and construction of TerraPowers Natrium reactor under an NRC CP.
PROPOSED FEDERAL ACTION The proposed Federal action is for the NRC to decide whether to issue a CP under 10 CFR Part 50 to USO, a wholly owned subsidiary of TerraPower, that would allow the construction of KU1. USO is required to apply for a separate operating license under 10 CFR Part 50 for authorization to operate KU1. The NRC would perform an additional environmental review for that operating license application.
The KU1 site is approximately 290 acres (117.4 hectares) in Lincoln County, Wyoming, approximately 3 miles (mi) (4.8 kilometers [km]) south of the City of Kemmerer, Wyoming, and approximately 3.8 mi (6.1 km) southeast of the existing Naughton Power Plant, comprising two coal units (Naughton 1 and 2) and one natural gas unit (Naughton 3).
NRC EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION Section 102(2)(C) of NEPA1 states that EISs are to include a detailed statement on the environmental effects of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action. The NRC staff examined the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts from constructing, operating, and decommissioning KU1 on the following resource areas: land use and visual resources, air quality, hydrology and water resources, aquatic ecological resources, terrestrial ecological resources, historic and cultural resources, socioeconomics, public and occupational health, nonradiological waste management, transportation of radiological material, uranium fuel cycle and radiological waste management, and postulated accidents. The consideration of 1
NEPA was amended in June 2023 by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023. The NRC staff determined that the final EIS is consistent with the requirements of that act.
5 cumulative impacts accounted for other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable projects that could affect the same resource areas. The NRC staff also evaluated in the final EIS the environmental impacts of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed action, which were (1) the no-action alternative (i.e., denying the CP application) and (2) building the proposed Natrium reactor at two different locations. The alternatives evaluation helped the NRC staff to weigh the costs and benefits of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action.
To guide its assessment of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to the proposed action on each resource area, the NRC uses three levels of significance for potential impacts: SMALL, MODERATE, or LARGE, which are defined as follows:
SMALLEnvironmental effects are not detectable or are so minor that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important attribute of the resource. For the purposes of assessing radiological impacts, the NRC has concluded that those impacts that do not exceed permissible levels in the NRCs regulations are considered SMALL.
MODERATEEnvironmental effects are sufficient to noticeably alter important attributes of the resource but not to destabilize them.
LARGEEnvironmental effects are clearly noticeable and are sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
The final EIS presents the NRC staffs analysis, which considers and weighs the environmental impacts of the proposed action at the KU1 site. The NRC staff determined that the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts from constructing, operating, and decommissioning KU1 at the KU1 site would be SMALL for all resource areas except for socioeconomics, historic and cultural resources, and terrestrial ecological resources.
EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES In chapter 4 of the final EIS, the NRC staff considered the following alternatives to constructing, operating, and decommissioning KU1 at the KU1 site :
the no-action alternative construction of KU1 at the Naughton 12 site adjacent to the Naughton Power Plant approximately 2.7 mi northwest of the KU1 site construction of KU1 at the Jim Bridger 22 site in Sweetwater County, Wyoming i.
No-Action Alternative Under the no-action alternative, discussed in section 4.1 of the final EIS, the NRC would not issue the CP, and KU1 would not be constructed. USO could not build the proposed Natrium reactor to demonstrate its design features and safety functions. As such, the purpose and need for the proposed action would not be met. While not building KU1 might not necessarily preclude the future development of reactors using Natrium technologies, it could slow or impede the safe and efficient development of the technology. None of the environmental effects associated with the NRCs authorization of construction of KU1 would occur under the no-action alternative. However, preconstruction impacts evaluated by the DOE in the 2024 Test and Fill
6 Facility and the 2025 Preconstruction environmental assessments could occur. Additionally, under the no-action alternative, the proposed site would remain available for other government or private industrial development projects, and many of the environmental impacts resulting from land disturbance and building new industrial facilities on the site might still occur in the future.
The no-action alternative is the only alternative considered by the NRC staff that does not satisfy the purpose and need stated in the final EIS.
ii.
Alternative Sites The NRC staff independently evaluated the process used by USO for screening potential alternative sites, which followed a systematic methodology by applying exclusionary criteria appropriate to the proposed facility. The NRCs site-selection guidance calls for a systematic process to evaluate a broad range of potential sites and determine specific sites to analyze in detail. Based on its evaluation, the NRC staff concluded that the method used by USO to identify regions, States, cities, and, ultimately, alternative sites was reasonable and logical and adequately satisfied applicable NRC guidance.
The applicant followed the process described in section 9.3 of the ER to evaluate potential sites for the proposed facilities. The process followed applicable NRC guidance, including RG 4.2, Revision 3, Preparation of Environmental Reports for Nuclear Power Stations, issued September 2018 (ML18071A400); RG 4.7, Revision 3, General Site Suitability Criteria for Nuclear Power Stations, issued March 2014 (ML12188A053); and NUREG-1555, Standard Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants. The process also followed industry best practices, such as the Electric Power Research Institutes Advanced Nuclear Technology: Site Selection and Evaluation Criteria for New Nuclear Energy Generation Facilities. This process involved defining business objectives and a region of interest (ROI),
screening the ROI to identify candidate areas, identifying potential sites within the candidate areas, identifying candidate sites through the application of suitability criteria, and finally selecting a proposed site and alternative sites.
The results of the applicants siting process are summarized in section 9.3.1 of the ER.
Business objectives used to define the ROI included the following:
ability to meet the ARDP schedule ability to replace high-carbon energy in a high-carbon region or service area with carbon-free energy ability to provide energy storage in a region with a high penetration of renewable energy As a result, the applicants ROI was defined as the PacifiCorp service territory, based on proposed coal plant retirements and applicable renewable portfolio standards and because PacifiCorp is one of USOs partners in the project.
This process ultimately led USO to identify three reasonable sites for a more detailed environmental analysis. As a result, the following three sites moved forward for detailed analysis in the final EIS: the Naughton 19/20 site (i.e., the KU1 site), the Naughton 12 site, and the Jim Bridger 22 site.
7 For many resource areas, the Naughton 12 and the Jim Bridger 22 sites would have similar impacts to those of the proposed action. Specifically, both the Naughton 12 and the Jim Bridger 22 sites would require the disturbance of soils containing surface and subsurface archaeological resources and would generate several types of taxes benefiting the socioeconomic profile of the area and thus would have a MODERATE to LARGE impact to those resource areas. The Naughton 12 site would require filling a wetland and relocating an intermittent stream near the Naughton Power Plant, thereby potentially affecting water and aquatic resources and causing a MODERATE to LARGE impact to those resources.
iii.
Comparison of the Costs and Benefits of the Alternatives On the basis of the environmental impact assessments summarized in the final EIS, the review team concluded that constructing, operating, and decommissioning KU1 would have accrued benefits that would outweigh the economic, environmental, and social costs. This conclusion applies regardless of whether the project is sited at the KU1 site or at one of the two alternative sites.
CONSULTATION UNDER NHPA SECTION 106 NHPA section 106 consultation for the proposed action is documented in section 3.7 of the final EIS. The NRC staff determined that there would be no adverse effect on historic properties from the proposed undertaking.
By letter dated February 4, 2025 (ML25034A123), the NRC staff notified the WY SHPO of the following:
Based on a Class III Cultural Resource Inventory Report for the KU1 site (ML25049A292) and consistent with 36 CFR 800.5, Assessment of adverse effects, the NRC staff had determined that the undertaking (the proposed issuance of a CP for KU1) would result in adverse effects on historic properties, specifically, sites 48LN740 and 48LN8940.
Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(a) and 36 CFR 800.8(c)(1)(v), the NRC staff was consulting with the WY SHPO, Tribes, and the ACHP to solicit input to develop and evaluate alternatives or modifications to the undertaking that could avoid, minimize, or mitigate the adverse effects of the undertaking on historic properties.
If the adverse effects could not be sufficiently avoided or minimized, resolution of the adverse effects would be considered pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(b), and an MOA would be prepared consistent with 36 CFR 800.6(c).
In response (ML25044A095), the WY SHPO concurred that sites 48LN740 and 48LN8940 would be adversely affected by the undertaking as planned and recommended that the NRC staff develop an MOA, specifying the terms under which the adverse effects to the historic properties would be mitigated. By letter dated February 18, 2025 (ML25049A244), the ACHP separately notified the NRC staff that it did not believe that its participation was needed in the consultation to resolve adverse effects.
On March 4, 2025, USO notified the NRC of its intent to conduct additional archaeological testing to reinvestigate the site extent and eligibility and to determine whether adverse effects could be avoided at sites 48LN740 and 48LN8940 (ML25064A005). By letter dated
8 March 24, 2025, the NRC requested WY SHPO concurrence on USOs archaeological testing plan to further investigate sites 48LN740 and 48LN8940 (ML25073A136). Additional archaeological testing was conducted at the KU1 site from April 28 to May 1, 2025, by USOs cultural resources contractor, Tetra Tech, Inc., in accordance with Cultural Resource Testing Plan for Sites 48LN740 and 48LN8940 as part of TerraPower, LLCs Natrium Demonstration Project, Lincoln County, Wyoming.
Given the additional archaeological testing and survey at sites 48LN740 and 48LN8940, the NRC determined that the proposed issuance of a CP for KU1 would have no adverse effect on the historic properties present at the KU1 site. The NRC made this revised determination based on the following:
the results of the additional archaeological testing as documented in the testing report USOs plan to modify the parking lot construction to avoid and buffer (with physical barriers) the contributing portions of site 48LN740 USOs plan to move the utility corridor to avoid the contributing portions of site 48LN8940 USOs commitment to integrate the avoidance and management of site 48LN740 into its overall environmental management policies for the facility On August 6, 2025, the WY SHPO concurred that the undertaking would not adversely affect 48LN740 and 48LN8940 (ML25219A012).
MITIGATION MEASURES The NRC has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the proposed action. Constructing, operating, and decommissioning the Natrium reactor at the KU1 site would have small environmental impacts in all resource areas except for socioeconomics, terrestrial ecological resources, and historic and cultural resources. An Environmental Protection Plan is included as appendix A to the CP to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended, and to ensure that the Commission is kept informed of other environmental matters. The Environmental Protection Plan describes reporting requirements for potential impacts to protected environmental resources during construction activities and a provision that USO is committed to involving a Tribal monitor during one portion of construction, and that USO plans to include long-term management of archaeological sites as part of its sitewide environmental management policies for the facility. The Environmental Protection Plan is intended to be consistent with Federal, State, and local requirements for environmental protection.
9 Below are mitigation measures described in table 6-2 of the final EIS for individual resource areas.
Land Use and Visual Resources USO plans to restrict heavy equipment and stockpiles to designated areas, to revegetate and stabilize temporarily disturbed land upon completion of construction activities in accordance with Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements, to minimize impacts to wetlands and streams through avoidance and established BMPs to control erosion and runoff, to develop and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) to minimize erosion and protect downgradient wetlands and surface waters, to retain and protect topsoil from excavation and trenches to be placed over subsoil when excavation or trenches are refilled, and to monitor revegetated areas to ensure that planting of native species is successful and that invasive species do not become established.
Air Quality USO plans to use dust suppression techniques and to employ equipment maintenance to reduce airborne emissions from construction activities. Construction activities would be phased to the extent practical to minimize peak emissions.
Hydrology and Water Resources USO plans to minimize impacts to wetlands and streams through avoidance and established BMPs to control erosion and runoff, to develop and implement an SWPPP to minimize erosion and protect downgradient wetlands and surface waters, and to develop and implement a spill prevention control and countermeasures plan to respond to spills.
Aquatic Ecological Resources USO plans to revegetate and stabilize temporarily disturbed land upon completion of construction activities in accordance with Wyoming Pollutant Discharge Elimination System requirements, to minimize impacts to streams through avoidance and established BMPs to control erosion and runoff, and to develop and implement an SWPPP to minimize erosion and protect downgradient surface waters. Fueling and equipment maintenance would be restricted to designated areas away from wetlands and waterbodies. Horizontal directional drilling would be used to reduce impact on waterbodies, and transmission lines would be sited to span waterways. Construction in rights-of-way would be performed when ground is dry and during the winter months. Detention ponds would be used to reduce turbidity of stormwater runoff. Natural drainage patterns would be maintained. When possible, streamside construction would be conducted during dry periods. Culverts would be installed at stream crossings to maintain natural water flow.
Terrestrial Ecological Resources Terrestrial mitigation measures include all of the measures described above under Land Use and Visual Resources, Air Quality, Hydrology and Water Resources, and Aquatic Resources and eight additional mitigation measures: (1) selecting the location and design of facility fences in consultation with the Wyoming Department of Transportation and Wyoming Game and Fish Department to reduce impacts on livestock and wildlife, (2) using noise dampeners or mufflers to reduce engine noise and staggering ground-impacting activities to reduce vibrations,
10 (3) cleaning vehicles and construction equipment before moving to a new location to minimize the transport of invasive plants, (4) scheduling construction activities in rights-of-way when ground is dry and during the winter months, (5) scheduling construction activities outside avian nesting season if possible, (6) conducting nest clearing surveys for migratory birds 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> before any ground disturbance during the nesting season, (7) using industry standards and BMPs to reduce avian collisions, and (8) reducing light effects on wildlife by turning lights off at night and shielding lights when possible.
Historic and Cultural Resources NHPA section 106 consultation is complete. The WY SHPO concurred that the undertaking would not adversely affect historic and cultural resources. USO has developed procedures to avoid archaeological sites and processes to follow when encountering inadvertent discoveries throughout the KU1 site.
Socioeconomics Communication with local government, planning officials, and media would be maintained so that adequate time is given to plan for significant workforce changes and use of impact assistance payments.
Public and Occupational Health Noise dampeners or mufflers would be used to reduce engine noise, and ground-impacting activities would be staggered to reduce vibrations; differing dust suppression techniques would be employed to reduce airborne emissions; workers would have adequate training and personal protective equipment to minimize the risk of potentially harmful noise exposures; first-aid capabilities would be provided at the construction site; construction contractors would be required to comply with safety regulations; a worker health and safety monitoring program would be implemented at the construction site; and construction worker arrival and departure times would be staggered to minimize congestion and impediments to smooth traffic flow.
Nonradiological Waste Management Dumpsters for general trash and for wood and paper recycling would be exchanged, on average, weekly for the duration of the project, and the owner would coordinate with suppliers to maximize material per container; equipment waste would be maintained at an onsite mechanic shop; drip pans and other containment systems would be used to contain any spillage; waste generated from portable toilets would be discharged through an approved and licensed subcontractor; wastewater generated from construction and commission testing would be used to support hydrostatic and other flushing requirements to the maximum extent possible; and BMPs, SWPPP, and other requirements from the Large Construction General Permit would be followed.
Transportation of Radioactive Material No mitigation measures are proposed.
Uranium Fuel Cycle and Radiological Waste Management No mitigation measures are proposed.
11 Postulated Accidents No mitigation measures are proposed.
DETERMINATION The NRC has determined that the standards for issuance of a CP related to the agencys regulations implementing NEPA have been met and that the requirements of section 102 of NEPA have been satisfied. This determination is based on the independent review, analysis, and evaluation in the final EIS; careful consideration of all the identified environmental, economic, technical, and other factors and input received from other Federal, State, and local agencies, Tribes, organizations, and the public; consideration of mitigation measures; and the mandatory hearing.
PREPARED BY Patricia Vokoun, Project Manager Environmental Project Management Branch 3 Division of Rulemaking, Environmental, and Financial Support Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards REVIEWED BY:
APPROVED BY:
Dan Barnhurst, Branch Chief Jeremy S. Bowen, Acting Deputy Director for New Reactors Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Signed by Bowen, Jeremy on 03/09/26