[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 73 (Friday, April 15, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 22521-22523]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-08039]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Record of Decision for the Final Construction and Demonstration 
of a Prototype Mobile Microreactor Environmental Impact Statement

AGENCY: Strategic Capabilities Office (SCO), Office of the Secretary, 
Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Record of decision.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The DoD, acting through the Strategic Capabilities Office 
(SCO), is issuing this Record of Decision (ROD) for the Final 
Construction and Demonstration of a Prototype Mobile Microreactor 
Environmental Impact Statement (Final EIS). SCO has decided to 
implement the Proposed Action (the preferred alternative) as described 
in the Final EIS. The Proposed Action is to fabricate the prototype 
mobile microreactor and reactor fuel at existing off-site commercial 
facilities and demonstrate the microreactor at the Department of 
Energy's (DOE's) Idaho National Laboratory (INL) Site. The analysis in 
the EIS demonstrates that implementing the Proposed Action would have 
small environmental consequences that would not require mitigation 
outside of practices required by regulations, permits, or agreements.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding the 
prototype

[[Page 22522]]

mobile microreactor (Project Pele), the Final EIS, or the ROD, visit 
https://www.mobilemicroreactoreis.com; or contact Dr. Jeff Waksman, 
Program Manager; Phone: 703-812-1980; Mail: Strategic Capabilities 
Office, 1155 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC 20301-1155; Email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Inherent dangers, logistical complexities, and costs of sustaining 
power demands using diesel generators at U.S. Military Forward 
Operating Bases, Remote Operating Bases, and Expeditionary Bases 
constrain operations and fundamental strategic planning. Technologies 
under development, such as unmanned aerial vehicles, new radar systems, 
new weapon systems, and electrifying the non-tactical vehicle fleet, 
will require even greater energy demands. A Defense Science Board study 
recommended further engineering development and prototyping of very 
small modular reactors with an output of less than 10 megawatts of 
electrical power. Before this technology can be deployed, a prototype 
mobile microreactor must be tested to ensure it can meet DoD 
specifications and requirements.

Proposed Action

    The Proposed Action fabricates, at off-site commercial facilities, 
a small, advanced gas-cooled microreactor capable of producing 1 to 5 
megawatts of electrical power. Reactor fuel would be produced from DOE 
stockpiles of highly enriched uranium (HEU) located at the Y-12 
National Security Complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee, that would be 
converted from a metal to an oxide at the Nuclear Fuel Services (a 
subsidiary of BWX Technologies, Inc. [BWXT]) facility in Erwin, 
Tennessee, and down blended to high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) 
and fabricated into tristructural isotropic (TRISO) reactor fuel at the 
BWXT facility in Lynchburg, Virginia. The Proposed Action would use DOE 
technical expertise and facilities at the INL Site to demonstrate the 
mobile microreactor capabilities.

Demonstration Activities at the INL Site

    The proposed activities on the INL Site involve demonstrating that 
the proposed mobile microreactor can produce reliable electric power 
for an electrical grid that is separate from the public utility grid 
and that the mobile microreactor can be safely disassembled and 
transported. Activities at the INL Site include: Receiving the mobile 
microreactor and reactor fuel at the Materials and Fuels Complex (MFC); 
fueling the mobile microreactor at the Transient Reactor Test Facility 
(TREAT) or Hot Fuel Examination Facility (HFEF); startup testing the 
mobile microreactor at MFC or the Critical Infrastructure Test Range 
Complex (CITRC); disassembling and transporting the mobile microreactor 
from MFC to CITRC or at CITRC; assembling, operating, and disassembling 
the mobile microreactor at CITRC; transporting the disassembled mobile 
microreactor to temporary storage and temporarily placing it in storage 
at the Radioactive Scrap and Waste Facility (RSWF) or Outdoor 
Radioactive Storage Area (ORSA); and potentially conducting mobile 
microreactor and spent nuclear fuel post-irradiation examination (PIE) 
and disposition. Section 2.3 of the Final EIS details the evaluated 
activities.

Alternatives

    The EIS evaluated a Proposed Action (the preferred alternative) and 
a No Action Alternative, which serves as a basis for comparison with 
the Proposed Action. The INL Site was identified as the preferred 
location based on siting requirements for the demonstration of the 
mobile microreactor. Other sites, including the Oak Ridge National 
Laboratory (ORNL), did not meet the required siting criteria. 
Specifically, other sites lacked sufficient supporting infrastructure. 
In particular, the ORNL site does not have an independent electrical 
distribution system that can be isolated from the commercial power 
grid. The demonstration requires an independent, isolable electrical 
distribution system. The program for demonstration of the mobile 
microreactor is intended to demonstrate its operation under a wide 
variety of operational conditions. Demonstration of all these 
capabilities in a controlled environment requires the ability to 
receive power from an existing electric grid, as well as dispatch 
mobile microreactor-generated power to an isolated and locally 
controlled distribution system. Therefore, ORNL was not considered for 
further analysis.

NEPA Process

    The EIS and this ROD were prepared in accordance with the National 
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and Council on Environmental 
Quality (CEQ) NEPA regulations (Title 40 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations [CFR] Parts 1500-1508). The DOE participated as a 
cooperating agency in preparing the EIS.
    A Notice of Intent (NOI) to prepare an EIS was published in the 
Federal Register on March 2, 2020 (85 FR 12274). The public scoping 
period started with publication of the NOI in the Federal Register and 
was extended to April 30, 2020. All scoping comments were considered 
during development of the Draft EIS.
    On September 24, 2021, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA) published a Notice of Availability (NOA) in the Federal Register 
(86 FR 53054) announcing the availability of the Draft EIS and the 
start of a comment period with an end date of November 9, 2021. During 
the public comment period, Federal agencies, state and local 
governmental entities, Native American tribes, and members of the 
public were invited to submit comments via the project website, U.S. 
mail, or email. Additionally, SCO held two public hearings on October 
20, 2021, at the Shoshone-Bannock Hotel and Event Center in Fort Hall, 
Idaho. The public hearings were webcast to offer more opportunities for 
public participation. In total, SCO received 43 comment documents 
containing 197 comments. All comments were considered during 
development of the Final EIS. On February 25, 2022, the EPA published 
an NOA in the Federal Register (87 FR 10784) announcing the 
availability of the Final EIS.

Potential Environmental Impacts

    As described in the Final EIS, implementing the Proposed Action at 
the INL Site is expected to have small environmental consequences that 
would not substantially contribute to cumulative impacts. Except for 
the construction of two concrete pads and fencing, no land disturbing 
construction activities would be required for the Proposed Action. 
Therefore, the Proposed Action would have little or no impact on land 
resources, visual resources, noise, geology and soils, ecological 
resources, and cultural and paleontological resources. The analyses 
showed that there would be no significant impacts on air quality, water 
resources, socioeconomics, public and occupational health and safety, 
environmental justice, and transportation. The analysis showed that 
radiological and nonradiological hazard risks, as well as the 
associated exposures to workers and the public, would be low and well 
within regulatory limits and guidelines established by the DOE and the 
EPA. Broadly, workers and members of the public are protected from 
exposure to radioactive material and hazardous chemicals by facility 
design and administrative procedures. The construction modifications to 
existing facilities at the INL Site would have no

[[Page 22523]]

radiological impact on members of the public or workers. There are 
three phases of Project Pele demonstration that could result in 
radiological emissions: Startup testing, operational testing, and post-
irradiation examination prior to disposition of the mobile 
microreactor. The analysis showed that the annual radiological air 
emissions from the mobile microreactor during these phases are expected 
to be no more than the quantities emitted during normal INL Site 
operations, which, as stated previously, are well within regulatory and 
guidelines. As described in the Final EIS, the analysis of impacts is 
applicable to (i.e., bounds) whichever of the two candidate mobile 
microreactor designs is selected.

Environmentally Preferable Alternative

    The environmentally preferable alternative is the No Action 
Alternative. Under the No Action Alternative, prototype mobile 
microreactor construction and demonstration would not occur, resulting 
in fewer impacts than under the Proposed Action. However, the No Action 
Alternative would not meet the purpose and need for construction and 
demonstration of a prototype mobile microreactor.

Comments on the Final Construction and Demonstration of a Prototype 
Mobile Reactor EIS

    SCO posted the Final EIS and Comment Response Document on the 
project website https://www.mobilemicroreactoreis.com and EPA published 
a Notice of Availability in the Federal Register (87 FR 10784, February 
25, 2022). In response to these Notices, SCO received seven (7) 
comments related to the Final EIS, including comments wanting to know 
more about the project, requests from individuals wanting to be added 
to the mailing list, and comments expressing concerns with the 
potential impacts of the action. SCO considered all of these comments 
during the preparation of this ROD. SCO has concluded that none of the 
comments identified a need for further NEPA analysis.

Decision

    Subject to the availability of appropriations, SCO's decision is to 
implement the Proposed Action (the preferred alternative) as described 
in the Final EIS. The final design determination by SCO is being made 
through a competitive down-select review process between the two 
designs and will be announced publicly through other official channels. 
As described in the Final EIS, the analysis of impacts is applicable to 
(i.e., bounds) whichever one of the two candidate mobile microreactor 
designs is selected. All facility options considered at the INL Site 
are reasonable and have similar environmental impacts; therefore, SCO 
is not making decisions related to the INL Site facilities options to 
be used to (1) conduct mobile microreactor core fueling and final 
assembly (HFEF or TREAT); (2) conduct mobile microreactor startup 
testing (MFC or CITRC); and (3) temporarily store the mobile 
microreactor (RSWF or ORSA). These facility options are all encompassed 
within the preferred alternative decision and were fully evaluated in 
the Final EIS. Selection of facility options will not substantially 
change the findings discussed in this ROD. As bounded by the applicable 
analysis of impacts within the Final EIS, SCO's selection of facilities 
for the demonstration will be informed by the final design 
determination.

Basis for the Decision

    The Final EIS provided the SCO decision-maker with important 
information regarding potential environmental impacts of alternatives 
and options for satisfying the purpose and need. In addition to 
environmental information, SCO also considered public comments, 
statutory responsibilities, strategic objectives, technology needs, 
safeguards and security, cost, and schedule in its decision making.

Mitigation Measures

    No potential adverse impacts were identified that would require 
additional mitigation measures beyond those required by regulations, 
permits, and agreements or achieved through design features or best 
management practices. However, if mitigation measures above and beyond 
those required by regulations, permits, and agreements are identified 
to reduce impacts during implementation, they would be developed, 
documented, and executed.

Signing Authority

    This document of the DoD was signed on April 5, 2022, by Jay E. 
Dryer, Director, Strategic Capabilities Office, pursuant to delegated 
authority from the Secretary of Defense. The document with the original 
signature and date is maintained by DoD. For administrative purposes 
only, and in compliance with the requirements of the Office of the 
Federal Register, the undersigned DoD Federal Register Liaison Officer 
has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic 
format for publication as an official document of the DoD. The 
administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this 
document upon publication in the Federal Register.

    Dated: April 8, 2022.
Aaron T. Siegel,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 2022-08039 Filed 4-14-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-P