[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 184 (Monday, September 25, 2017)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44666-44673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-20372]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499; NRC-2010-0375]
South Texas Project Nuclear Operating Company
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Record of decision; issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing a
record of decision for the South Texas Project (STP), located in Bay
City, Texas. This notice provides the record of decision that supports
the NRC decision to renew facility operating license Nos. NPF-76 and
NPF-80 for an additional 20 years of operation for the South Texas
Project (STP), Units 1 and 2.
DATES: The record of decision was issued on September 18, 2017.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2010-0375 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may obtain publicly-available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2010-0375. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; e-mail: [email protected]. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public Documents'' and
then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by e-mail to [email protected].
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tam Tran, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-3617; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of the record of decision is
attached.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of September, 2017.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph E. Donoghue,
Deputy Director, Division of License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation.
RECORD OF DECISION
U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50-498 AND 50-499 LICENSE
RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR SOUTH TEXAS PROJECT, UNITS 1 AND 2
BACKGROUND:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an
[[Page 44667]]
application, dated October 28, 2010, from STP Nuclear Operating Company
(STPNOC or applicant), filed pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic
Energy Act of 1954, as amended (AEA), and Parts 51 and 54 of title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), to issue renewed operating
licenses for the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 (STP). The renewed
licenses would authorize the applicant to operate STP for an additional
20-year period beyond that specified in the current operating licenses.
The South Texas Project is a two-unit nuclear powered steam
electric generating facility located in Matagorda County, Texas, that
began commercial operations on August 25, 1988 (Unit 1) and June 19,
1989 (Unit 2). The nuclear units are Westinghouse pressurized-water
reactors, producing a reactor core rated power of 3,853 megawatts-
thermal (MWt). The gross electrical capacity is 1,350 megawatts-
electric (MWe) (1,250 MWe net) each. The current operating licenses for
STP (NPF-76 and NPF-80), expire on August 20, 2027 (Unit 1) and
December 15, 2028 (Unit 2).
On January 13, 2011, the NRC published a Notice of Acceptance and
Opportunity for Hearing for South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, in the
Federal Register (76 FR 2426) and began the environmental and safety
review of the STP license renewal application. As required by 10 CFR
part 51, on January 31, 2011, the NRC published a Notice of Intent To
Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement and Conduct the Scoping
Process for South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, in the Federal Register
(76 FR 5410). Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969, as amended (NEPA), directs that a detailed statement be prepared
for major Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. By Commission regulation, the NRC prepares an
environmental impact statement (EIS) or a supplement to an EIS (SEIS)
for all renewed reactor operating licenses, regardless of the action's
environmental impact significance (10 CFR 51.20(b)(2)). In this
instance, the NRC's major Federal action is to decide whether to issue
renewed operating licenses for STP for an additional 20-year period
beyond that specified in the current operating licenses.
On March 2, 2011, the NRC held two public meetings at the Bay City
Civic Center in Bay City, Texas, to obtain public input on the scope of
the environmental review related to the STP license renewal
application. The NRC staff reviewed the oral and written comments
received during the scoping process and contacted Federal, State,
Tribal, regional, and local agencies to solicit comments. A Scoping
Summary Report was issued on November 14, 2012 (Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML11153A082).
The NRC's environmental review involved the preparation of a site-
specific SEIS, which is a supplement to the NRC's NUREG-1437, ``Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants''
(GEIS), in accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c). The GEIS documents the
results of the NRC staff's systematic approach to evaluate the
environmental consequences of renewing the operating licenses of
nuclear power plants and operating them for an additional 20 years.
The GEIS facilitates the NRC's environmental review process by
identifying and evaluating environmental impacts that are considered
generic and common to all nuclear power plants (Category 1 issues). For
Category 1 issues, no additional site[dash]specific analysis is
required in the SEIS unless new and significant information is
identified that would change the conclusions in the GEIS. The GEIS also
identifies site-specific issues (Category 2 issues) that could not be
resolved generically. For Category 2 issues, an additional site-
specific review is required, and the results are documented in the
site-specific SEIS.
A standard of significance was established for each NEPA issue
evaluated in the GEIS based on the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) terminology for ``significantly'' (see 40 CFR 1508.27). Since the
significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the
proposed action, both ``context'' and ``intensity,'' as defined in CEQ
regulations 40 CFR 1508.27, were considered. Context is the geographic,
biophysical, and social context in which the effects will occur. In the
case of license renewal, the context is the environment surrounding the
nuclear power plant. Intensity refers to the severity of the impact in
whatever context it occurs. Based on this, the NRC established a three-
level standard of significance for potential impacts, SMALL, MODERATE,
and LARGE, as defined below.
SMALL: Environmental effects are not detectable or are so minor
that they will neither destabilize nor noticeably alter any important
attribute of the resource.
MODERATE: Environmental effects are sufficient to alter noticeably,
but not to destabilize, important attributes of the resource.
LARGE: Environmental effects are clearly noticeable and are
sufficient to destabilize important attributes of the resource.
The applicant, STPNOC submitted its Iicense renewal application and
environmental report under the NRC's 1996 rule governing license
renewal environmental reviews \1\, as codified in the NRC's
environmental protection regulation, 10 CFR part 51. The 1996 GEIS \2\
and Addendum 1 \3\ to the GEIS provided the technical bases for the
list of NEPA issues and associated environmental impact findings for
license renewal contained in Table B-1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10
CFR part 51. Therefore, for STP, the NRC staff initiated its
environmental review in accordance with the 1996 rule and GEIS. Neither
STPNOC nor the NRC staff identified information that is both new and
significant related to Category 1 issues that would call into question
the conclusions in the GEIS. This conclusion is supported by the NRC
staff's review of the applicant's environmental report and other
documentation relevant to STPNOC's activities; consideration of public
comments received during the scoping process and the draft SEIS comment
period; consultation with Federal, State, and local agencies as well as
Tribal representatives; and the findings from the environmental site
audit conducted by the NRC staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 61 FR 28467. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
``Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating
Licenses.'' Federal Register 61 (109): 28467-28497. June 5, 1996.
\2\ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1996. Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants. Washington, DC. NUREG-1437. May 1996. ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML040690705 and ML040690738.
\3\ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1999. Section 6.3-
Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for
license renewal of nuclear power plants. In: Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Washington,
DC. NRC. NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum 1. August 1999. ADAMS
Accession No. ML040690720.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On December 5, 2012, the NRC issued a draft site-specific SEIS for
public comment in support of the STP license renewal application (ADAMS
Accession No. ML12324A049). A 45-day comment period began on the date
of publication of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Notice
of Availability (77 FR 74479) and ended on February 22, 2013. The
comment period was to allow members of the public and agencies to
comment on the results of the environmental review presented in the
draft SEIS. On January 15, 2013, the
[[Page 44668]]
NRC held two public meetings at the Bay City Civic Center in Bay City,
Texas, to describe the results of the environmental review, respond to
questions, and accept public comments. All comments received on the
draft SEIS during the comment period are included in Appendix A of the
final SEIS (FSEIS).
On June 20, 2013, the NRC published a final rule revising 10 CFR
part 51, including the list of NEPA issues and findings in Table B-
1.\4\ A revised GEIS,\5\ which updated the 1996 GEIS, provided the
technical bases for the final rule. The revised GEIS supports the
revised list of NEPA issues and associated environmental impact
findings for license renewal contained in Table B-1 in Appendix B to
Subpart A of the revised 10 CFR part 51. The revised GEIS and final
rule reflect lessons learned and knowledge gained during previous
license renewal environmental reviews. Under NEPA, the NRC must
consider and analyze in the SEIS the potential significant impacts
described by the final rule's new Category 2 issues. If any new and
significant information is identified for the final rule's new Category
1 issues, then their potential significant impacts must also be
described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 78 FR 37282. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ``Revisions
to Environmental Review for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating
Licenses.'' Federal Register 78 (119): 37282-37324. June 20, 2013.
\5\ U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013. Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants. Washington, DC. NUREG[dash]1437, Revision 1, Volumes 1, 2,
and 3. June 2013. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13106A241, ML13106A242, and
ML13106A244.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, for the STP license renewal application, the NRC staff
also reviewed information relating to the new issues identified in the
2013 final rule and GEIS. Specifically, the staff reviewed geology and
soils; radionuclides released to groundwater; effects on terrestrial
resources (non-cooling system impacts); exposure of terrestrial
organisms to radionuclides; exposure of aquatic organisms to
radionuclides; human health impacts from chemicals; physical
occupational hazards; environmental justice; and cumulative impacts.
These issues are documented in Section 4.11 of the FSEIS for the STP
license renewal.
The NRC issued the FSEIS in support of the STP license renewal
application on November 18, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13322A890) and
a Final Errata on June 3, 2016 (ADAMS Accession No. ML16165A182). In
the FSEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the adverse environmental
impacts of license renewal for STP are not great enough to deny the
option of license renewal for energy-planning decision-makers.
On November 29, 2013, the EPA issued the Notice of Availability for
the FSEIS for the STP license renewal application (78 FR 71606). During
the 30 days following publication of the notice, the NRC received one
comment on the FSEIS from EPA Region 6 as discussed later in this
document.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102 and 51.103(a)(1)-(5), the NRC staff has
prepared this concise public record of decision (ROD) to accompany its
action on the STP license renewal application. In accordance with 10
CFR 51.103(c), this ROD incorporates by reference the materials
contained in the FSEIS.
DECISION:
Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.29, a renewed license may be issued by the
Commission if the Commission finds that actions have been identified
and have been or will be taken with respect to (1) managing the effects
of aging during the period of extended operation on the functionality
of structures and components that have been identified to require
review and (2) time-limited aging analyses that have been identified to
require review, such that there is reasonable assurance that the
activities authorized by the renewed license will continue to be
conducted in accordance with the current licensing basis, and that any
changes made to the plant's current licensing basis in order to comply
with this requirement are in accord with the AEA and the Commission's
regulations, and that any applicable requirements of Subpart A of 10
CFR part 51 have been satisfied.
In making its final decision on the proposed license renewal to
authorize the continued operation of STP for an additional 20 years
beyond the expiration of the current operating licenses, the NRC must
make a favorable safety finding. The purpose of the NRC's safety review
is to determine if the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the
effects of aging will not adversely affect any safety structures or
components as specified in 10 CFR 54.4 and 10 CFR 54.21. The applicant
must demonstrate that the effects of aging will be adequately managed
so that the intended functions will be maintained during the license
renewal period. The detailed results of the NRC's safety review are
documented in a safety evaluation report (SER) to be published
separately. Further, the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards
(ACRS) must complete its review and report in accordance with 10 CFR
54.25.
The FSEIS, which is incorporated by reference herein, documents the
NRC's environmental review of the STP license renewal application,
including the determination that the adverse environmental impacts of
license renewal for STP are not so great that preserving the option of
license renewal for energy-planning decision makers would be
unreasonable, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5).
PURPOSE AND NEED:
As identified in Section 1.2, ``Purpose and Need for the Proposed
Federal Action,'' of the FSEIS, the purpose and need for the proposed
action (issuance of renewed licenses) is to provide an option that
allows for power generation capability beyond the term of a current
nuclear power plant operating license to meet future system generating
needs, as such needs may be determined by energy[dash]planning decision
makers, such as State, utility, and, where authorized, Federal agencies
(other than the NRC). This definition of purpose and need reflects the
NRC's recognition that, unless there are findings in the safety review
required by the AEA or findings in the NEPA environmental analysis that
would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the NRC
does not have a role in the energy[dash]planning decisions as to
whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate.
Ultimately, the appropriate energy[dash]planning decision makers
and STPNOC will decide whether the plant will continue to operate based
on factors such as the need for power or other factors within the
state's jurisdiction or the purview of the owners.
NRC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVES:
Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA and the NRC's regulations in 10 CFR
part 51 require the consideration of alternatives to the proposed
action in the EIS. Consistent with these requirements, in license
renewal environmental reviews, the NRC considers the environmental
consequences of the proposed action (i.e., renewing the operating
license), the environmental consequences of the no-action alternative
(i.e., not renewing the operating license), and the environmental
consequences of various alternatives for replacing the nuclear power
plant's generating capacity. Specifically, the proposed action is the
issuance of renewed operating licenses for STP, which will authorize
the applicant to operate the plant for an additional 20-year period
beyond the expiration dates of the current licenses. Chapter 8,
``Environmental Impacts of Alternatives,'' of the FSEIS presents the
[[Page 44669]]
NRC staff's evaluation and analysis of alternatives to license renewal.
i. No-Action Alternative
The no-action alternative refers to a scenario in which the NRC
decides not to renew the operating licenses for STP and the licenses
expire at the end of their current terms: 2027, for Unit 1 and 2028,
for Unit 2. The environmental consequences of this alternative are the
direct impacts from nuclear power plant shut down. After shut down, the
nuclear plant operators will initiate decommissioning in accordance
with 10 CFR 50.82. As described in Chapter 7 of the FSEIS, the separate
environmental impacts from decommissioning and related activities are
addressed in several other NRC documents.
Assuming that a need currently exists for the power generated by
STP, the no[dash]action alternative would require the appropriate
energy-planning decision makers (not the NRC) to rely on alternatives
to replace the capacity of STP, to rely on energy conservation or power
purchases to offset the STP capacity, or to rely on some combination of
measures to offset and replace the generation provided by the facility.
Therefore, the no-action alternative does not satisfy the purpose and
need for the FSEIS, as it neither provides power[dash]generation
capacity nor meets the needs currently met by STP or that the
alternatives evaluated in detail would satisfy.
ii. Alternative Energy Sources
In evaluating alternatives to license renewal, the NRC considered
energy technologies or options currently in commercial operation, as
well as technologies not currently in commercial operation but likely
to be commercially available by the time the current STP operating
licenses expire. The current operating licenses for STP reactors will
expire on August 20, 2027, (Unit 1) and December 15, 2028, (Unit 2),
and, therefore, to be considered in this evaluation, reasonable
alternatives must be available (i.e., constructed, permitted, and
connected to the grid) by the time of license expiration.
To determine whether alternatives were reasonable, or likely to be
commercially available by 2027, the NRC staff reviewed energy relevant
statutes, regulations, and policies; the state of technologies; and
information on energy outlook from sources such as the Energy
Information Administration, other organizations within the U.S.
Department of Energy, the EPA, industry sources and publications, and
information submitted by STPNOC in its environmental report. The NRC
staff also considered the generation capacity mix and electricity
production data within the Electric Reliability Council of Texas
(ERCOT) service area, in which STP is located. Within ERCOT, the
generation capacity mix includes natural gas, coal, wind, nuclear, and
other sources.
The NRC staff initially considered 18 alternatives or options to
the license renewal of STP; 13 of these were dismissed or eliminated
from detailed study because of technical, resource availability, or
commercial limitations that currently exist and that the NRC staff
believes are likely to continue to exist when the existing STP licenses
expire, rendering these alternatives not feasible or commercially
viable.
Alternatives considered, but dismissed, were:
Offsite Nuclear-, Gas-, and Coal-Fired Capacity
Energy Conservation and Energy Efficiency
Wind Power
Solar Power
Hydroelectric Power
Wave and Ocean Energy
Geothermal Power
Municipal Solid Waste
Biomass
Biofuels
Oil-Fired Power
Fuel Cells
Delayed Retirement.
Each alternative eliminated from detailed study and the basis for
its removal is provided in Section 8.6 of the FSEIS.
The NRC staff determined that five alternatives would be feasible
and commercially viable replacement power alternatives, including:
New Nuclear Generation
Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Generation (NGCC)
Supercritical Coal-Fired Generation (SCPC)
Combination Alternative of NGCC, Wind Power, and Energy
Conservation and Efficiency
Purchased Power.
For these five alternatives considered in depth, the NRC staff
evaluated the environmental impacts across the following impact
categories: Air quality; surface water resources; groundwater
resources; aquatic ecology; terrestrial ecology; human health; land
use; socioeconomics; transportation; aesthetics; historic and
archaeological resources; environmental justice; and waste management.
This section provides a summary of the environmental impacts of each of
the alternatives considered in depth, and compares those impacts to the
environmental impacts of license renewal.
New Nuclear Alternative
For the new nuclear generation alternative, the NRC staff assumed a
light-water reactor such as the Advanced Boiling Water Reactor (ABWR)
similar to what the NRC staff analyzed in its environmental analysis
for the proposed STP, Units 3 and 4. The FSEIS incorporates the results
from the final EIS for combined licenses for STP, Units 3 and 4 (ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML11049A000 and ML11049A001) because it provides a site-
specific analysis of new nuclear plants at the STP site. Thus, in its
analysis, the NRC staff assumed that two new reactors would be
installed on the STP site, allowing for the maximum use of existing
ancillary facilities (e.g., transmission lines and cooling systems).
Based on the analysis for STP, Units 3 and 4, the NRC staff estimated
that 540 acres (ac) (219 hectares (ha)) of land would be required for
the two new reactors. Water use would be similar to that of STP, Units
1 and 2. The NRC staff determined that the impacts to all resource
areas would be SMALL, except for Socioeconomics and Transportation.
Socioeconomic impacts in communities near the STP site could range from
SMALL to LARGE based on the estimated number of workers employed and
regional effects. Traffic-related transportation impacts during
construction could range from MODERATE to LARGE primarily from workers
commuting to the STP site and transportation of materials and equipment
to the plant site.
NGCC Alternative
For the NGCC alternative, the NRC staff examined NGCC-generation
built at the STP site because NGCC can operate with high thermal
efficiency (approximately 60 percent for some units) and is capable of
economically providing baseload power. Therefore, NGCC generation was
considered a reasonable alternative to STP license renewal. To replace
the 2,500 MWe power that STP generates, the NRC staff evaluated four
gas-fired units, each with a net capacity of 640 MWe. Approximately 312
ac (126 ha) of land would be needed to support an NGCC alternative to
replace STP, including land for a new 2-mile (mi) (3-kilometer (km))
pipeline. Facility operations would require much less cooling water
than STP and consumptive water use would be much less. The NRC staff
determined that the impacts to most resource areas would be SMALL,
except for Air Quality, Land Use,
[[Page 44670]]
Socioeconomics, and Transportation. Air quality impacts would be SMALL
to MODERATE based on noticeable increases in greenhouse gas emissions.
Overall land-use impacts could range from SMALL to MODERATE,
considering the additional offsite land needed for new gas pipeline
infrastructure and gas well and collection station development.
Socioeconomic impacts in communities near the STP site could range from
SMALL to MODERATE based on the estimated number of workers employed and
regional effects. Traffic-related transportation impacts during
construction could range from SMALL to MODERATE primarily from workers
commuting to the STP site and transportation of materials and equipment
to the plant site.
SCPC Alternative
For the SCPC alternative, the NRC staff considered new coal-fired
plants to be reasonable alternative to STP license renewal as the Texas
Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has granted permits to
several proposed coal-fired plants, despite regulatory efforts and
concerns to limit greenhouse gas emissions. To replace the 2,500 MWe of
power that STP generates, the NRC staff evaluated four coal-fired
units, each with a net capacity of 640 MWe. Facility construction would
require 353 ac (143 ha) of land with an additional 200 ac (81 ha) of
land area needed for onsite waste disposal; land would also be required
on site for frequent coal and limestone deliveries by rail or barge.
Operational cooling water demands would be similar to those of STP. The
NRC staff determined that the impacts to most resource areas would be
SMALL, except for Air Quality, Terrestrial Resources, Land Use,
Socioeconomics, Transportation, and Waste Management. Air quality
impacts would be MODERATE based on noticeable increases in air
pollutants. Because of the potential for habitat disturbance and
potential pollutant deposition, impacts to terrestrial resources would
be MODERATE. Overall land-use impacts would be MODERATE since onsite
land at the STP site would be converted for coal and limestone delivery
and waste disposal. Socioeconomic impacts in communities near the STP
site could range from SMALL to MODERATE based on the estimated number
of workers and regional effects. Traffic-related transportation impacts
during construction could range from MODERATE to LARGE primarily from
workers commuting to the STP site and transportation of materials and
equipment to the plant site.
Combination Alternative
For the combination alternative, the NRC staff evaluated a mix of
replacement power technologies including 640 MWe supplied by one NGCC
unit at STP, 1,620 MWe supplied by wind energy projects, and 300 MWe of
energy conservation and efficiency (also known as demand-side
management). Because wind is an intermittent resource, the NRC staff
assumed wind energy projects would be interconnected on the
transmission grid, and the NGCC unit could be used, if needed, to
provide baseload generation capacity. The impacts for the combination
alternative would be SMALL for surface water, ground water, human
health, and waste management. For Air Quality, the impacts would range
from SMALL to MODERATE, primarily due to noticeable increases in
greenhouse gas emissions. Because of potential habitat disturbance and
noticeable impacts on aquatic organisms during construction and
operation of offshore wind projects, impacts on aquatic resources would
be SMALL to MODERATE. Impacts on terrestrial resources would be
MODERATE as wind energy projects and construction of new transmission
lines could have a noticeable impact on avian and bat communities
because wind energy projects in the Trans-Gulf migratory route could
result in increased mortality of migratory and resident birds and bats.
Land use impacts would range from SMALL to MODERATE because the wind
energy portion of this combination alternative would require a
substantial amount of open land, although only a small portion would be
used directly. Socioeconomic impacts during operations could range from
SMALL to MODERATE as the STP site transitions to the new, single-unit
NGCC power plant. Traffic-related transportation impacts during
construction could range from SMALL to MODERATE depending on the
location of the wind energy sites, road capacities, and traffic
volumes. Depending on their location and surrounding viewsheds, the
aesthetic impacts from the wind energy projects could be MODERATE to
LARGE. Depending on the historical and cultural resource richness of
the site chosen for the wind energy projects, the impacts could be
SMALL to MODERATE.
Purchased Power Alternative
For the purchased power alternative, the FSEIS assumes STPNOC would
purchase 2,500 MWe of electricity from other power generators. No new
generating capacity would be built and operated by STPNOC. Purchased
power is a reasonable alternative, as listed in the FSEIS, for the
following reasons:
A wholesale electricity market currently exists in the ERCOT
region.
ERCOT implements rules to anticipate and meet electricity
demands and promote competition among electricity suppliers.
Most of ERCOT's retail customers can choose a supplier to
purchase electricity.
The impacts associated with purchased power are bounded by the
impacts of the purchased energy mix, ranging from new nuclear to wind.
Construction impacts would be similar to those described in the
analyses for the new nuclear, NGCC, SCPC, and combination alternatives,
respectively. For example, impacts to (a) aquatic and terrestrial
resources and (b) historical and cultural resources are likely to be
greater due to land clearing of previously undisturbed areas associated
with construction. For operation, impacts of existing coal- and natural
gas-fired plants would likely be greater than the operations of new
plants because older plants are likely to be less efficient and lacking
modern emission controls.
iii. Summary
In the November 2013 STP FSEIS, the NRC staff considered the
environmental impacts associated with license renewal and with
alternatives to license renewal, including other methods of power
generation and not renewing the STP operating licenses (the no-action
alternative). The STP FSEIS concludes that the continued operation of
STP during the license renewal term would have SMALL environmental
impacts in all areas, except for electric shock (human health) that has
impacts of SMALL to MODERATE. The FSEIS concludes that the overall
environmental impacts of renewal of the operating licenses for STP
would either be similar to or smaller than those of the five feasible
and commercially viable replacement power alternatives that were
considered. The FSEIS also concludes that under the no-action
alternative, the act of shutting down STP would have mostly SMALL
impacts, although socioeconomic impacts would be SMALL to MODERATE.
However, as a result of shutdown should the option of license renewal
be denied, the no-action alternative necessitates the implementation of
one or a combination of alternatives in order to make up for the loss
of power generation, all of
[[Page 44671]]
which have potentially greater impacts than the proposed action. Thus,
the environmentally preferred alternative is the license renewal of
STP.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS ON THE FINAL SEIS AND EMERGING INFORMATION
Comments on the FSEIS
Following publication of the FSEIS, EPA Region 6 responded to the
NRC by letter dated December 17, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML14002A262), and stated that it had reviewed the FSEIS, including
NRC's responses to EPA's comments (ADAMS Accession No. ML13071A059) on
the draft SEIS (ADAMS Accession No. ML12324A049). Section A.2 of the
FSEIS contains the NRC staff's responses to EPA's comments on the draft
SEIS. The EPA observed that NRC's FSEIS included updated information on
topics EPA previously commented on including threatened and endangered
species and consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
The EPA specifically requested that the NRC finalize Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (ESA) Section 7 consultation and include the
FWS concurrence in the ROD and further requested that the NRC not issue
the ROD until Section 7 consultation was complete. On May 15, 2014, the
NRC responded to this EPA comment (ADAMS Accession No. ML14111A442). As
part of the consideration of emerging information following publication
of the FSEIS, the NRC staff has documented its completion of Section 7
consultation responsibilities as described below.
The NRC received no other comments on the FSEIS from any source,
including State or local agencies, other Federal agencies, Tribal
governments, or other stakeholders such as members of the public who
requested direct distribution of the FSEIS. Nevertheless, the NRC staff
also considered emerging information as part of its completion of the
environmental review for the STP license renewal application as
discussed below.
Updated Status of ESA Section 7 Consultation
In conjunction with reviewing the license renewal application, the
NRC staff conducted consultations with the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and the FWS (collectively, ``the Services'') pursuant to
Section 7 of the ESA. Following issuance of the draft SEIS, the NRC
staff submitted letters to the Services (ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML12286A010 and ML12285A415) requesting the Services' concurrence with
the NRC's determinations related to the effects of license renewal on
federally listed species and habitats.
For species under the NMFS's jurisdiction, the NRC staff concluded
that there would be no effect on these species. The NMFS Southeast
Regional Office stated in an e-mail dated January 29, 2013 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML13036A306), that it does not typically concur with ``no
effect'' determinations by the staff. Thus, no further consultation
between the NRC and NMFS occurred related to the proposed license
renewal.
For species under the FWS's jurisdiction, the FWS Clear Lake
Ecological Services Office contacted the NRC by phone in January 2013,
to discuss NRC's request for concurrence and to request additional maps
of the transmission lines. The NRC provided the requested information
via e-mail on January 31, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13036A305). On
February 5, 2013, the FWS and the NRC staff spoke again by phone, and
the FWS noted that it was preparing additional information requests
that it would send the NRC. The FWS sent these requests as well as
additional species-specific information in an e-mail dated March 14,
2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13077A117). The NRC updated its federally
listed species and habitats effects analysis in the FSEIS as a result
of the information provided in FWS's March 14, 2013, e-mail. Following
issuance of the FSEIS, the NRC renewed its request for the FWS's
concurrence with its ESA effect determinations in a letter dated
December 2, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. ML13177A041). The FWS provided
its concurrence by letter dated March 28, 2014 (ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML14087A234).
Since the NRC concluded its consultations with the Services, the
staff has not identified any new information that would necessitate
further consultation with either the NMFS or the FWS. Thus, the NRC has
fulfilled its obligations under Section 7 of the ESA for the STP
license renewal.
Final Rule for Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel
On August 26, 2014, the Commission approved a revised rule at 10
CFR 51.23 and associated ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
Continued Storage of Spent Nuclear Fuel'' (NUREG-2157, ADAMS Accession
Nos. ML14196A105 and ML14196A107). Subsequently, on September 19, 2014,
the NRC published the revised rule (79 FR 56238) and NUREG-2157 (79 FR
56263). The revised rule adopts the generic impact determinations made
in NUREG-2157 and codifies the NRC's generic determinations regarding
the environmental impacts of continued storage of spent nuclear fuel
beyond a reactor's operating license (i.e., those impacts that could
occur as a result of the storage of spent nuclear fuel at at-reactor or
away-from reactor sites after a reactor's licensed operating life and
until a permanent repository becomes available). As directed by 10 CFR
51.23(b), the impacts assessed in NUREG-2157 regarding continued
storage were deemed incorporated into the STP FSEIS for a license
renewal application. The Continued Storage Rule (formerly known as
Waste Confidence) and accompanying technical analyses were being
developed as the STP FSEIS was being prepared for publication.
Therefore, the STP FSEIS further indicated that the NRC staff would
address any impacts from the revised rule by performing any appropriate
additional NEPA review before the NRC makes a final licensing decision.
In the Commission Memorandum and Order CLI-14-08 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML14238A242), the Commission held that the revised 10 CFR 51.23 and
associated NUREG-2157 cure the deficiencies identified by the court and
stated that the rule satisfies the NRC's NEPA obligations with respect
to continued storage for initial, renewed, and amended licenses for
reactors. Therefore, the November 2013, STP FSEIS, which by rule now
incorporates the impact determinations in NUREG-2157 regarding
continued storage, contains an analysis for the generic issues of
``Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel'' and ``Offsite radiological
impacts of spent nuclear fuel and high-level waste disposal'' that
satisfies NEPA. As the Commission noted in CLI-14-08, the NRC staff
must account for these environmental impacts before finalizing its
licensing decision in this proceeding. To account for these impact
determinations, the NRC staff analyzed whether the revised rule at 10
CFR 51.23 and the associated NUREG-2157 present new and significant
information such that a supplement to the STP FSEIS is required in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.92(a).
As detailed in the NRC staff's evaluation (ADAMS Accession No.
ML15190A042), NUREG[dash]2157 and the revised rule do not constitute
new and significant information because they do not present a
``seriously different picture'' of the environmental impacts of the
proposed action (license renewal) as compared to the impacts analysis
presented in the STP FSEIS. By virtue of revised 10 CFR 51.23, the STP
FSEIS
[[Page 44672]]
incorporates the impact determinations in NUREG[dash]2157 regarding
continued storage such that there is a complete analysis of the
environmental impacts associated with spent fuel storage beyond the
licensed life for reactor operations and prior to disposal in a
geologic repository.
The NRC staff also considered whether the revised rule and NUREG-
2157 altered the NRC staff's recommendation in the STP FSEIS that the
adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for STP are not great
enough to deny the option of license renewal for energy planning
decision-makers.
As described in the NRC staff's evaluation (ADAMS Accession No.
ML15190A042), NUREG[dash]2157 analyzes continued storage of spent fuel
at-reactor and away-from-reactor sites during three timeframes: the
short-term timeframe (60 years beyond the licensed life of a reactor),
the long-term timeframe (an additional 100 years after the short-term
timeframe), and an indefinite timeframe. The analysis in NUREG-2157
supports the conclusion that the most likely impacts of continued
storage are those discussed for at-reactor storage. For continued at-
reactor storage, impacts in the short-term timeframe would be SMALL.
Over the longer timeframes, impacts to certain resource areas would be
a range (for historic and cultural resources during both the long-term
and indefinite timeframes the range is SMALL to LARGE and for
nonradioactive waste during the indefinite timeframe the range is SMALL
to MODERATE). In NUREG-2157, the NRC stated that disposal of the spent
fuel before the end of the short-term timeframe is most likely. There
are inherent uncertainties in determining impacts for the long-term and
indefinite timeframes, and, with respect to some resource areas, those
uncertainties could result in impacts that, although less likely, could
be larger than those that are to be expected at most sites and have
therefore been presented as ranges rather than as a single impact
level. Those uncertainties exist, however, regardless of whether the
impacts are analyzed generically or site-specifically. As a result,
these impact ranges provide correspondingly more limited insights to
the decision-maker in the overall picture of the environmental impacts
from the proposed action (i.e., license renewal).
The NRC staff concludes that when weighed against the array of
other fuel cycle impacts presented in Section 6.1 of the STP FSEIS, and
the more-likely impacts of continued storage during the short-term
timeframe in NUREG-2157, which are SMALL, the uncertainties associated
with the impact ranges for the long-term and indefinite timeframes also
do not present a seriously different picture of the direct, indirect,
and cumulative environmental impacts compared to the NRC staff's
analysis of the impacts from issuance of renewed operating licenses for
STP attributable to the uranium fuel cycle and waste management (which
includes the impacts associated with spent fuel storage).
In consideration of this information, the NRC staff concludes that
the revised rule and the impact determinations related to continued
storage in NUREG-2157 do not alter the NRC staff's recommendation in
the STP FSEIS that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal
for STP are not great enough to deny the option of license renewal for
energy planning decision-makers.
New Information on Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Change
On November 3, 2009, the Commission directed (CLI-09-21) \6\ the
NRC staff ``to include consideration of carbon dioxide and other
greenhouse gas emissions in its environmental reviews for major
licensing actions under the National Environmental Policy Act.'' In
order to comply with the Commission's direction in CLI-09-21, the NRC
staff considered greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from the nuclear
lifecycle and fossil and renewable energy sources in Chapter 6 of the
STP FSEIS. Chapter 4 of the STP FSEIS considers climate change impacts
on affected resources during the license renewal term.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Combined License Application for
William States Lee III Nuclear Station, Units 1 and 2) and Tennessee
Valley Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 and 4),
CLI-09-21 (ML093070689, NRC November 3, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following publication of the STP FSEIS in November 2013, the NRC
staff conducted a new and significant climate change information review
following publication of the U.S. Global Change Research Program's
(USGCRP) Third National Climate Assessment report in May 2014. The
USGCRP integrates and presents the prevailing consensus of Federal
research on U.S. climate change, as sponsored by thirteen federal
agencies. The NRC uses consensus information from the USGCRP to
evaluate the effects of climate change in its environmental impact
statements (EISs) for license renewal of nuclear power plants.
The staff's detailed analysis of potential new and significant
information contained in the USGCRP's Third National Climate Assessment
is documented in a memorandum to file (ADAMS Accession No.
ML16334A400). In summary, in its analysis, the NRC staff identified,
reviewed, and evaluated new information on climate change and related
impacts presented in the USGCRP's 2014 report as related to land use,
air quality, water resources, aquatic resources, terrestrial resources,
human health, socioeconomics, and historic and archaeological
resources. The evaluation did not identify new and significant
information that would change the conclusions in the STP FSEIS.
Therefore, with the completion of the climate change analysis by the
NRC staff (ADAMS Accession No. ML61334A400), which is incorporated by
reference herein, the NRC has determined that the FSEIS for the STP
license renewal application provides sufficient information on GHG
emissions and climate change to inform its decision and that no further
NEPA analysis is necessary.
Sensitivity Analyses for Severe Accident Mitigation Management
On May 4, 2016, the Commission issued a decision, CLI-16-07 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML16125A150), in the Indian Point Nuclear Generating
Units 2 and 3 license renewal proceeding stating that documentation was
lacking for two inputs (TIMDEC and CDNFRM) that are part of the severe
accident mitigation alternative (SAMA) analysis. The decision stated
that uncertainties in these input values could potentially affect the
SAMA analysis cost-benefit conclusions and directed the NRC staff to
perform additional sensitivity analyses using values specified by the
Commission. Based on this Commission decision, the NRC staff determined
that additional sensitivity analyses using the values specified by the
Commission should also be performed in support of the STP SAMA analysis
that is provided at Appendix F of the STP license renewal FSEIS.
In response to an NRC staff request for additional information
(ADAMS Accession No. ML16187A052) relating to CLI-16-07, STPNOC
performed a SAMA sensitivity analysis for STP using the values
specified by the Commission (ADAMS Accession No. ML16278A661) and
determined that the potential SAMAs, provided in Table F.6-1 of the STP
environmental report (ADAMS Accession No. ML103010263) did not change.
The NRC staff evaluated STP's SAMA sensitivity analysis and concluded
that no new SAMA
[[Page 44673]]
candidates were identified as potentially cost-beneficial based on this
additional analysis. Therefore, there are no changes to the conclusions
of the NRC staff's STP SAMA analysis provided at Appendix F of the STP
FSEIS.
Annual Updates to the STP License Renewal Application
As required by 10 CFR 54.21(b), each year following submittal of a
license renewal application, an amendment to the application must be
submitted by the license renewal applicant that identifies any change
to the current licensing basis that materially affects the contents of
the application, including the Updated Final Safety Analysis Report
(UFSAR) supplement. The NRC staff's review of STPNOC's submittals for
2014, 2015, and 2016, (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14308A073, ML15313A175,
and ML16190A135) found no new and significant information within the
context of 10 CFR 51.92(a)(2) that would change STPNOC's environmental
report or that would otherwise change the NRC staff's environmental
impact determinations as presented in the STP FSEIS.
In addition, on April 25, 2017, STPNOC submitted an update to the
environmental report portion of its license renewal application
comprising a revised summary of environmental authorizations for
current STP operations (ADAMS Accession No. ML17116A324). Based on its
review, the NRC staff finds that STPNOC continues to maintain valid
permits and related environmental authorizations governing its
operations and that the submittal does not constitute new and
significant information regarding STP's affected environment or
operations.
MITIGATION MEASURES
The NRC has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction
to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the proposed action
(license renewal). The FSEIS concludes that the continued operation of
STP would have SMALL environmental impacts in all resources areas,
except for electric shock, which is SMALL to MODERATE. Pursuant to 10
CFR 51.45(c), STPNOC has separately considered mitigation measures to
reduce or avoid adverse impacts of electric shock from its transmission
lines at STP with a combination of options, as described in Section
4.8.4 of the STP FSEIS.
The NRC is not imposing any license conditions in connection with
mitigation measures for the continued operation of STP. However, STP is
subject to requirements imposed by other Federal, State, and local
agencies. For example, the TCEQ-issued Texas Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (TPDES) permits issued to STPNOC imposes effluent
limitations and monitoring requirements as well as best management
practices to ensure that impacts to water quality and aquatic life are
minimized. The NRC is not requiring any new environmental monitoring
programs outside what is required for the TPDES permits or otherwise
required of the licensee under NRC's regulations, as described in the
STP FSEIS.
DETERMINATION:
Based on the NRC staff's independent review, analysis, and
evaluation contained in the license renewal FSEIS; careful
consideration of all of the identified social, economic, and
environmental factors, and input received from other agencies,
organizations, and the public; and consideration of mitigation measure
outlined above, the NRC has determined that the requirements of Section
102 of NEPA and 10 CFR 54.29(b) have been satisfied.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of September, 2017,
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Joseph E. Donoghue, Deputy Director,
Division of License Renewal.
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2017-20372 Filed 9-22-17; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P