ML19337C862
| ML19337C862 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 12/10/2019 |
| From: | Mallecia Sutton NRC/NRR/DANU/UARL |
| To: | Benjamin Beasley NRC/NRR/DANU/UARL |
| Sutton M, NRR/DANU/UARL, 415-0673 | |
| References | |
| Download: ML19337C862 (6) | |
Text
-
December 10, 2019 MEMORANDUM TO:
Benjamin G. Beasley, Chief Advanced Reactor Licensing Branch Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation FROM:
Mallecia A. Sutton, Senior Project Manager /RA/
Advanced Reactor Licensing Branch Division of Advanced Reactors and Non-Power Production and Utilization Facilities Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
SUBJECT:
SUMMARY
OF NOVEMBER 15 AND 20, 2019, PUBLIC MEETINGS TO DISCUSS EXPLORATORY PROCESS FOR DEVELOPING AN ADVANCED NUCLEAR REACTOR GENERIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT On November 15 and November 20, 2019, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) held Category 2 public meetings with stakeholders and the public, to discuss the NRCs exploratory process for determining whether to proceed with developing an advanced nuclear reactor (ANR) generic environmental impact statement (GEIS). The meeting notice is available in the NRCs Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) at Accession No. ML19304B011 and the presentations slides are available at Accession No. ML19322A198.
The enclosure lists the meeting attendees and participants who joined via webinar.
The meetings began with a presentation by Mallecia Sutton and Jack Cushing. The NRC staff informed the stakeholders and the public that the NRC was gathering information on the potential environmental effects of ANR designs to determine whether to proceed with developing a GEIS. The purpose of the GEIS is to define and assess the scope and impact of the environmental effects of construction and operation of ANRs. The GEIS would identify and assess impacts that are expected to be generic and the impacts that need to be addressed in site-specific supplemental environmental impact statements (EISs).
The NRC staff asked a series of questions, including:
Should the scope of the ANR GEIS include reactors regardless of technology or be limited to specific reactor technologies?
What reactor sizes (footprint) and power levels should the NRC include in the scope of the ANR GEIS?
Should the NRC consider a set of bounding plant parameters when developing the scope of the ANR GEIS? If so, what parameters should be considered?
The NRC staff mentioned that it did have experience evaluating the environmental impacts using a plant parameter envelop (PPE) to bound a number of reactor types. For example, the NRC has issued EISs for early site permits based on a PPE that bounded a number of reactors.
For instance, the North Anna early site permit (ESP) PPE bounded large light-water reactors (LWRs) such as the ESBWR and the AP1000, the GT-MHR and the Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (a modular helium cooled, graphite moderated reactor). The EIS used the PPE approach to resolve the issues for the LWRs and the gas cooled reactors except for the fuel cycle impacts for the gas cooled reactors.
During the November 15, 2019, meeting, Jason Wright (Southern Company) asked if the NRC would like issues identified that may have been important for large LWRs but are not important for advanced reactors. The NRC staff responded that was the type of information needed.
During the November 20, 2019 meeting, Joe Giacinto (NRC) asked if the staff will consider Canadas environmental experience in reviewing advance reactors. Jack Cushing (NRC) replied that it was good suggestion and that the staff would consider Canadas experience as well as input from other stakeholders.
To facilitate the dialogue, the NRC staff asked and answered the following questions.
- 1. Why is the NRC conducting this exploratory process?
As explained in the presentation, the NRC is seeking to gather information needed to determine whether to develop a GEIS for the construction and operation of ANRs. That is also part of the NRCs efforts to align with the Nuclear Energy Innovation and Modernization Act ANR requirements.
- 2. How can the public help in this exploratory process?
Proponents and developers of ANRs can describe how the reactor will interact with the environment. Such as: how big is the nuclear plant? What materials will be needed to construct and operate the nuclear plant? What would the nuclear plant emit and/or release into the environment? Where would be the best location for the nuclear plants?
What additional infrastructure would be required?
- 3. How can the NRC evaluate the impacts from constructing and operating any type and size of ANRs to be located anywhere in the United States?
This is part of what is to be determined in this exploratory process. One approach is to create plant parameter envelopes (PPE) for different size and types of reactors, possibly one for micro-reactors and other small reactors. This is similar to the PPE used in ESP applications.
- 4. How can you describe the environment? Are you going to use a bounding envelope case for the affected environment?
Not exactly, but perhaps a similar concept. For each resource area, the subject matter expert(s) preparing the GEIS would make assumptions about the affected environment and then analyze the impact of a surrogate reactor that fits within the bounds of the PPE on that environment. The NRC staff may have to address more than one surrogate reactor type and more than one affected environment scenario.
- 5. What happens if an application does not fit within the bounds of PPE or the assumptions made in the GEIS?
The applicant would need to demonstrate that they fit within the bounds of PPE and the assumptions about the affected environment. If the project does not fit within the bounds of both the PPE or the assumptions about the affected environment, then the application would have to provide supplementary information that would allow the staff to evaluate impacts that fall outside of the generic analysis.
- 6. What if a designer does not know the affected environment that their project could impact?
The NRC staff understands that a designer would like to be capable of siting a reactor in as many different settings as possible. However, we must make some assumptions about the affected environment. For example, if a plant were to use large amounts of cooling water (like a large LWR), then the designer could assume that the plant would be located where water availability is not an issue, such as at a coastal location.
The siting studies completed in the past for new reactors used a number of siting factors.
Some factors were safety related such as seismic, flooding, etc, while others were environmental such as water availability and avoidance of wetlands or endangered species. The importance of individual factors depends on site-specific conditions regarding how much of the resource would be used compared to how much is available.
- 7. Why should a designer or other party contemplating an application for an advanced reactor take the time to provide the NRC with information?
The more complete the information the NRC receives, the more informed the decision will be to determine if there is a benefit to proceeding with a GEIS. If the NRC then does proceed with a GEIS, it would be more likely to develop a GEIS resolving more issues generically and leaving fewer issues to be addressed in a supplemental EIS.
- 8. Is the approach you described the one you plan to follow if you do decide to develop a GEIS?
Not necessarily. We are looking for feedback and ideas from the advanced reactor stakeholders on this approach and if they can suggest another approach we should consider.
Enclosure:
As stated
- Via Email NRR-106 OFFICE NRR/DANU/BC NRR/DORL/LLPB/LA NMSS/REFS/PM NAME BBeasley DHarrison*
JCushing*
DATE 12/10/19 12/6/19 11/21/19 OFFICE NRR/DANU/PM NMSS/REFS/ERRB/BC NAME MSutton*
KErwin*
DATE 11/21/19 11/21/19 2
Attendance List for November 15, 2019 Meeting on Exploratory Process for Developing an Advance Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement NAME Affiliation Jack Cushing US Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)
Mallecia Sutton NRC Kevin Folk NRC Ken Erwin NRC Donald Palmrose NRC Laura Schwartz International Technology and Trade Associates (ITTA)
Mr. Masaharu Mogaki Japan Nuclear Regulation Authority (JNRA)
Mr. Shuntaro Matsuki JNRA Mr. Takuro Oguchi JNRA Ms. Mayu Konishi JNRA Ms. Hikari Hadano JNRA Ms. Chiho Horiuchi JNRA Ms. Chisa Kaji JNRA Mr. Eric Lundell ITTA Jeff Rikhoff NRC Nathan Hall Center for the Nuclear Waste Regulatory Analyses Kati Austgen Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI)
Robert Krsek NRC Jason Wright Southern Company
Enclosure Attendance List for November 20, 2019 Meeting on Exploratory Process for Developing an Advance Nuclear Reactor Generic Environmental Impact Statement NAME Affiliation Jack Cushing NRC Mallecia Sutton NRC Donald Palmrose NRC Mike Mazaika NRC Dale Fulton Southern Nuclear Steve Maheras Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL)
Bo Saulsbury PNNL Jeffrey Rikhoff NRC Nathan Hall CNWRA Andrew Kugler Nepatech Ben Beasley NRC Pet Gaillard Terrapower Richard Paese Westinghouse Electric Company Dave Goodman PNNL Nicholas Murray ClearPath Andrew Zach Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Steve Chanin Citizen Bruce McDowell PNNL Eva Hickey PNNL Laura Willingham NRC Kati Austgen NEI Joe Giacinto NRC Steve Kline Bechtel John Price Kairos