NRC-2025-1007, Comment (9) of Yue Jiang on Global Laser Enrichment, LLC; Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility; Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement
| ML25317A587 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | 07007033 |
| Issue date: | 10/02/2025 |
| From: | Jiang Y Breakthrough Institute |
| To: | Office of Administration |
| References | |
| 90FR42988 00009, NRC-2025-1007 | |
| Download: ML25317A587 (1) | |
Text
PUBLIC SUBMISSION As of: 11/13/25, 10:03 AM Received: October 02, 2025 Status: Posted Posted: October 29, 2025 Tracking No. mg9-vs80-kqh4 Comments Due: October 06, 2025 Submission Type: API Docket: NRC-2025-1007 Global Laser Enrichment, LLC; Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility, McCracken County, Kentucky; Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement Comment On: NRC-2025-1007-0001 Global Laser Enrichment, LLC; Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility; Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement Document: NRC-2025-1007-0010 Comment from The Breakthrough Institute on Global Laser Enrichment, LLC; Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility, McCracken County, Kentucky; Notice of Intent to Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement Submitter Information Email:joy@thebreakthrough.org Organization:The Breakthrough Institute General Comment Please see the attachment for the comment.
Attachments BTI Comment on Global Laser Enrichment EIS 11/13/25, 10:03 AM NRC-2025-1007-0010.html file:///C:/Users/BHB1/Downloads/NRC-2025-1007-0010.html 1/1 SUNI Review Complete Template=ADM-013 E-RIDS=ADM-03 ADD: Amy Minor, Mary Neely Comment (9)
Publication Date:
9/5/2025 Citation: 90 FR 42988
October 2, 2025
Subject:
Global Laser Enrichment, LLC; Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility; Notice of Intent To Conduct Scoping Process and Prepare Environmental Impact Statement ; [Docket ID NRC-2025-1007].
The Breakthrough Institute (BTI) appreciates this opportunity to comment on the scope of the environmental review for Paducah Laser Enrichment Facility (PLEF). We support the NRC staffs acceptance of the enrichment facility license application.1 BTI is an independent 501(c)(3) global research center that advocates for appropriate regulation and oversight of nuclear reactors to enable the new and continued use of safe and clean nuclear energy. BTI acts in the public interest and does not receive funding from industry.
The Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act (NEIMA) of 2019, the Accelerating Deployment of Versatile, Advanced Nuclear for Clean Energy (ADVANCE) Act of 2024, and four nuclear Executive Orders (EO) from the Trump Administration in 2025 all urge the NRC to modernize and streamline nuclear plant and fuel facility licensing, including environmental reviews. Specifically, the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 calls for environmental review reform, and the NRC published SRM-SECY-24-0046.2 The scope should be in line with the recently published SRM-SECY-24-0046, including analysis of choosing the appropriate level of review and no-action alternatives.
Global Laser Enrichment (GLE) CEO Stephen Long framed the PLEF as a potential facility for U.S.
domestic uranium conversion and enrichment in response to the Trump administrations request for additional nuclear fuel.3 It can produce 6 million separative work units of LEU annually and will be the first commercial laser enrichment facility in the world, following 3 U.S. Department of Energy, 9 Key Takeaways from President Trumps Executive Orders on Nuclear Energy, June 10, 2025, https://www.energy.gov/ne/articles/9-key-takeaways-president-trumps-executive-orders-nuclear-energy 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Staff Review of Global Laser Enrichment Paducah License Application -
Environmental Report Acceptance, ADAMS Accession No. ML25209A050, July 28, 2025.
1 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Acceptance of Global Laser Enrichment Paducah License Application, ADAMS Accession No. ML25202A201, August 4, 2025.
successful SILEX technology testing completed at its Test Loop facility in North Carolina.4 Licensing the PLEF efficiently will be a major step forward in enabling the expansion of nuclear deployment in Kentucky and across the U.S.5 It can speed energy developments by producing low-enriched uranium (LEU) for the existing and upcoming reactors. PLEF is also critically important for reducing reliance on foreign enriched uranium and enhancing U.S. energy security by strengthening the domestic uranium fuel supply chain. Without a secure domestic fuel supply, achieving 400 GW of nuclear capacity by 2050 will be unattainable.
Therefore, BTI encourages the NRC to consider the importance of timelessness of the environmental review process, preventing it from becoming a bottleneck in licensing. We commend the NRC staff for establishing clear milestones and estimated timelines in the acceptance letter and emphasize the importance of adhering to these commitments, particularly issuing the draft EIS in February 2026 and the final EIS in September 2026.
APPROPRIATE LEVEL OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The NRC should consider the appropriate level of review in line with the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023, the ADVANCE Act, and SRM-SECY-24-0046. The recent Executive Order, Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy,6 also urges the NRC to streamline the environmental review process. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) amendments of 20237 have set a clear threshold for when to use an EA in Section 106(b):
An agency shall prepare an environmental assessment with respect to a proposed agency action that does not have a reasonably foreseeable significant effect on the quality of the human environment, or if the significance of such effect is unknown, unless the agency finds that the proposed agency action is excluded pursuant to one of the agencys categorical exclusions, 7 Public Law No. 118-5 (Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023), H.R. 3746, 118th Cong.,
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3746 6 White House, Exec. Order No. 14301, Reforming Nuclear Reactor Testing at the Department of Energy, May 23, 2025, Federal Register Volume 90, Issue 102, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/
reforming-nuclear-reactor-testing-at-the-department-of-energy/
5 Derek Operle, WKMS, Kentuckys Recently Taken Steps Towards Nuclear. Could Trumps Executive Order Take It to a Gallop?, May 28, 2025, https://www.wkms.org/energy/2025-05-28/kentuckys-recently-taken-steps-towards-nuclear-could-trumps-ex ecutive-order-take-it-to-a-gallop 4 World Nuclear News, GLE completes landmark laser technology demonstration, 16 September 2025, https://world-nuclear-news.org/articles/gle-completes-landmark-laser-technology-demonstration
another agencys categorical exclusions consistent with section 109 of this Act, or another provision of law. [Emphasis added].
The NRC staff should fully incorporate the intent of NEPA Section 106 to determine the appropriate level of environmental review - whether to use an environmental assessment (EA) versus an environmental impact statement (EIS). Historically, NRC has prepared EISs for enrichment facilities under 10 CFR 51.20(b)(1). However, the staff recently completed an EA and Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for Hermes 2, based on its similarity to Hermes 1 and its siting at the same location. The NRC granted exemptions from 10 CFR 51.20(b)(1), 10 CFR 51.25, and 10 CFR 51.75(a) to issue the EA and FONSI for Hermes 2. 8 These exemptions reflected the flexibility intended under amended NEPA, the ADVANCE Act, and SRM-SECY-24-0046. Therefore, using an EIS as the default will be unnecessarily conservative, as Hermes already set a precedent. Also, a couple of factors need to be considered to determine the appropriate level of NEPA review, like the PLEF is located next to the former Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, and a Final EIS9 was issued by DOE for converting uranium hexafluoride (DUF6) at the Paducah site already.
If the NRC decided to pursue an EIS, the scope of the EIS should include why the NRC decided to use an EIS and not seek an exemption from 51.20 to allow the use of an EA based on expected effect, and how that determination was reached. Streamlining the environmental review for PLEF will provide a replicable model for similar enrichment facilities and other innovative technologies. It will demonstrate that the NRC can thoroughly analyze the necessity of utilizing EIS and choose an appropriate level of reviews to match each case, fostering innovation while maintaining credibility.
THE NO-ACTION ALTERNATIVE The NRC staff must ensure the inclusion of the no-action alternative analysis in the environmental review to discuss reasonably foreseeable negative environmental impacts if the facility is not licensed, per NEPA section 102(2)(C)(iii). The National Environmental Policy Act 9 U.S. Department of Energy, Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for Disposition of Depleted Uranium Oxide Conversion Product Generated from DOEs Inventory of Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride, DOE/EIS-0359-S1 & DOE/EIS-0360-S1, April 2020, https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/04/f73/final-eis-0359-s1-and-eis-0360-s1-duf6-2020-1-summary
_0.pdf 8 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Kairos Power, LLC; Hermes 2; Environmental Assessment, Finding of No Significant Impact, and Exemptions, 89 FR 72433, September 5, 2024.
(NEPA) amendments of 202310mandate consideration of the negative impacts of the no-action alternative:
...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.[Emphasis added]
In the SRM-SECY-24-0046, it clearly states that 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. Therefore, the NRC staff does not need to analyze the other energy generation alternatives like before because that would be out of scope for NRCs agency proposed action. In doing so, it accurately reflects the NRCs regulatory authority and significantly reduces review time and staff and applicant resources, also setting a great example for upcoming similar applications to be streamlined as well.
Negative Impacts of the No-action Alternative Instead of only considering the positive impacts11 of not building PLEF, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) must now also consider the negative impacts. Such direct impacts could include environmental pollution from the unused depleted uranium hexafluoride cylinders on Paducah sites. When a cylinder corrodes and leaks, DUF reacts with moisture in the air or soil to form hydrogen fluoride (HF), a highly toxic gas, and uranyl fluoride, a water-soluble uranium compound that can contaminate soil and groundwater.12 Removing toxic hydrogen fluoride (DUF6) from the compound and converting the uranium to an oxide or metal form is extremely costly. DOE has converted only about 11 percent of the DUF inventory to a stable oxide form and has estimated it would take an additional $11 billion to complete the conversion of the full 800,000 metric tons. 13 As there are still more than 40,000 13 U.S. Department of Energy, Audit Report on Depleted Uranium Hexafluoride Conversion Operations, DOE-OIG-23-04, November 1, 2022, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2022-11/DOE-OIG-23-04.pdf 12 Matthew L. Wald, U.S. Seeks Solution for Byproduct of Uranium, The New York Times, February 24, 1998, https://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/24/us/us-seeks-solution-for-byproduct-of-uranium.html 11 Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NRC Approves Updated Mission Statement, News Release No.25-005, January 24, 2025, https://www.nrc.gov/cdn/doc-collection-news/2025/25-005.pdf 10 Public Law No. 118-5 (Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023), H.R. 3746, 118th Cong.,
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/3746
remaining cylinders at the Paducah site, and PLEF will be able to access a portion of the cylinders, it presents a unique opportunity: it would both accelerate fuel enrichment and reduce the DUF stockpile. Because the material is already in the chemical form needed for enrichment, PLEF could shorten nearly a decade of conversion operations and avoid related costs. Without PLEF, DOE must continue the slow, expensive process of converting and transporting DUF for cleanup, imposing large economic and social costs.
In addition to its responsibilities under NEPA, the NRC also needs to consider the full breadth of impacts of the no-action alternative to meet the mandate in the Atomic Energy Act of enabling nuclear energy to make the maximum contribution to the general welfare.14 and to align with the NRCs updated mission for the benefit of society and the environment. Indirect negative impacts of no action would include greater reliance on fossil fuels to meet future electricity demand, leading to increased emissions and public health consequences. This outcome would run counter to the goals of improving general welfare and social benefit.
Meeting the Stated Purpose and Need The NRC should carefully define the stated purpose and need of the proposal in the PLEF environmental review. For example, it could be to provide an option for re-enriching portions of the Department of Energys (DOEs) inventory of depleted uranium hexafluoride (DUF) at the Puduach site to meet future fuel needs for the nuclear reactors in the United States. Once defined, the environmental must evaluate whether the no-action alternative can meet the purpose and need of the proposed action, mandated by FRA and SRM-SECY-24-0046.
Because SRM-SECY-24-0046 directs the NRC staff to implement Option 1.b, the range of alternatives is limited to the no-action alternative. Alternatives outside the NRCs regulatory authority, such as siting the facility elsewhere or relying on alternative energy sources (e.g., renewables, fossil fuels, or imported enriched uranium), do not need to be considered. This approach narrows the Alternatives section to a focused, technically and economically grounded comparison of whether the no-action alternative can fulfill the stated purpose and need. If the no-action alternative is determined not to meet the stated purpose and need, this finding must weigh into the NRCs final decision on the proposed action.
14 42 USC 2011(a). The ADVANCE Act reaffirmed that this mandate is part of the NRCs statutory responsibilities.
CONCLUSION The Breakthrough Institute appreciates the opportunity to express our support for PLEF and to comment on the scope of its environmental review. To meet the intent of the Fiscal Responsibility Act, the ADVANCE Act, recent Executive Orders, NRCs updated mission statement, and SRM-SECY-24-0046, the NRC should:
Ensure timeliness in review and adherence to milestones.
Carefully assess the appropriate level of NEPA review.
Fully analyze the no-action alternative, including the negative impacts and whether it meets the stated purpose and need.
An appropriately scoped and efficient review process will uphold the principles of good regulation. Ultimately, the enriched fuel produced by PLEF will maintain the current nuclear reactors and fulfill the need for new reactors to generate 24/7 clean and firm energy. The NRC must weigh the consequences of fossil fuel electricity or depleted DUF6 at the Puduach site, which could cause damage to the surrounding environment and general public welfare. BTI commends the NRC staff for their continued efforts to enable nuclear power for the public benefit and looks forward to commenting on the draft EIS in the near future.
Sincerely, Yue Joy Jiang Energy Innovation Analyst The Breakthrough Institute