STP Nuclear Operating Company South Texas Project Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4 Request for Exemption Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 67784-67788 [2010-27764]
Download as PDF
67784
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the
ACRS Subcommittee on AP1000;
Notice of Meeting
present oral statements can be obtained
from the Web site cited above or by
contacting the identified DFO.
Moreover, in view of the possibility that
the schedule for ACRS meetings may be
adjusted by the Chairman as necessary
to facilitate the conduct of the meeting,
persons planning to attend should check
with these references if such
rescheduling would result in a major
inconvenience.
Dated: October 28, 2010.
Antonio Dias,
Chief, Reactor Safety Branch B, Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
Wednesday, December 1, 2010—8:30
a.m. Until 5 p.m.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
The ACRS Subcommittee on AP1000
will hold a meeting on December 1,
2010, Room T–2B1, 11545 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to
public attendance with the exception of
portions that may be closed to protect
proprietary information pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 552b(c)(4).
The agenda for the subject meeting
shall be as follows:
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
The Subcommittee will review open
issues associated with the revisions to
the AP1000 Design Control Document
(DCD). The Subcommittee will hear
presentations by and hold discussions
with Westinghouse, the NRC staff, and
other interested persons. The
Subcommittee will gather information,
analyze relevant issues and facts, and
formulate proposed positions and
actions, as appropriate, for deliberation
by the Full Committee.
Members of the public desiring to
provide oral statements and/or written
comments should notify the Designated
Federal Official (DFO), Weidong Wang
(Telephone 301–415–6279 or E-mail:
Weidong.Wang@nrc.gov) five days prior
to the meeting, if possible, so that
appropriate arrangements can be made.
Thirty-five hard copies of each
presentation or handout should be
provided to the DFO thirty minutes
before the meeting. In addition, one
electronic copy of each presentation
should be emailed to the DFO one day
before the meeting. If an electronic copy
cannot be provided within this
timeframe, presenters should provide
the DFO with a CD containing each
presentation at least thirty minutes
before the meeting. Electronic
recordings will be permitted only
during those portions of the meeting
that are open to the public. Detailed
procedures for the conduct of and
participation in ACRS meetings were
published in the Federal Register on
October 21, 2010 (75 FR 65038–65039).
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting
transcripts are available on the NRC
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/acrs. Information
regarding topics to be discussed,
changes to the agenda, whether the
meeting has been canceled or
rescheduled, and the time allotted to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:21 Nov 02, 2010
Jkt 223001
[FR Doc. 2010–27823 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
Advisory Committee on Reactor
Safeguards (ACRS); Meeting of the
ACRS Subcommittee on Plant License
Renewal; Notice of Meeting
The ACRS Subcommittee on Plant
License Renewal will hold a meeting on
December 1, 2010, Room T–2B3, 11545
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland.
The entire meeting will be open to
public attendance.
The agenda for the subject meeting
shall be as follows:
Wednesday, December 1, 2010—1:30
p.m. Until 5 p.m.
The Subcommittee will review the
license renewal application for Salem
Nuclear Generating Station, Units 1 and
2 and the staff’s associated draft Safety
Evaluation Report (SER) with Open
Items. The Subcommittee will hear
presentations by and hold discussions
with PSEG Nuclear LLC, the NRC staff,
and other interested persons regarding
this matter. The Subcommittee will
gather information, analyze relevant
issues and facts, and formulate
proposed positions and actions, as
appropriate, for deliberation by the Full
Committee.
Members of the public desiring to
provide oral statements and/or written
comments should notify the Designated
Federal Official (DFO), Mrs. Kathy
Weaver (Telephone 301–415–6236 or Email: Kathy.Weaver@nrc.gov) five days
prior to the meeting, if possible, so that
appropriate arrangements can be made.
Thirty-five hard copies of each
presentation or handout should be
provided to the DFO thirty minutes
before the meeting. In addition, one
electronic copy of each presentation
should be emailed to the DFO one day
before the meeting. If an electronic copy
cannot be provided within this
PO 00000
Frm 00103
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
timeframe, presenters should provide
the DFO with a CD containing each
presentation at least thirty minutes
before the meeting. Electronic
recordings will be permitted only
during those portions of the meeting
that are open to the public. Detailed
procedures for the conduct of and
participation in ACRS meetings were
published in the Federal Register on
October 21, 2010, (75 FR 65038–65039).
Detailed meeting agendas and meeting
transcripts are available on the NRC
Web site at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/doc-collections/acrs. Information
regarding topics to be discussed,
changes to the agenda, whether the
meeting has been canceled or
rescheduled, and the time allotted to
present oral statements can be obtained
from the website cited above or by
contacting the identified DFO.
Moreover, in view of the possibility that
the schedule for ACRS meetings may be
adjusted by the Chairman as necessary
to facilitate the conduct of the meeting,
persons planning to attend should check
with these references if such
rescheduling would result in a major
inconvenience.
Dated: October 28, 2010.
Cayetano Santos,
Chief, Reactor Safety Branch A, Advisory
Committee on Reactor Safeguards.
[FR Doc. 2010–27811 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 52–012 and 52–013; NRC–
2010–0343]
STP Nuclear Operating Company
South Texas Project Electric
Generating Station, Units 3 and 4
Request for Exemption Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No
Significant Impact
By letters dated March 23, 2010
(STPNOC 2010a), and July 21, 2010
(STPNOC 2010b), STP Nuclear
Operating Company (STPNOC)
submitted a request for an exemption
from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Section
50.10: License required; limited work
authorization. The U.S. Nuclear
Regulatory Commission (NRC or the
staff) is considering issuance of this
exemption as it relates to STPNOC’s
application for combined licenses
(COLs) for South Texas Project Electric
Generating Station (STP) Units 3 and 4,
which is currently under review by the
NRC. The exemption would authorize
STPNOC to install two crane foundation
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices
retaining walls (CFRWs) prior to
issuance of the COLs. Granting this
exemption would not constitute a
commitment by the NRC to issue COLs
for STP Units 3 and 4; STPNOC would
install the CFRWs assuming the risk that
its COL application may later be denied.
NRC has prepared this environmental
assessment (EA) for the exemption
request in accordance with the
requirements of 10 CFR 51.21. Based on
this EA, the NRC has reached a Finding
of No Significant Impact. The details of
the NRC staff’s safety review of the
exemption request will be provided in
the safety evaluation document
associated with that determination.
Environmental Assessment
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Background
By letter dated January 8, 2010, the
NRC notified STPNOC that installation
of the CFRWs was considered
construction under 10 CFR 50.10(a)(1),
therefore requiring issuance of a limited
work authorization (LWA) or COLs
before their installation (NRC 2010a). In
accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(b),
STPNOC has requested an exemption
that would permit the construction of
the CFRWs prior to the issuance of
COLs for STP Units 3 and 4 (STPNOC
2010).
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action, as described in
STPNOC’s request for an exemption to
10 CFR 50.10, would allow STPNOC to
install two CFRWs for STP Units 3 and
4, prior to issuance of COLs. According
to STPNOC, the CFRWs are non-safety
related, reinforced concrete walls that
would facilitate excavation activities by
retaining soil next to permanent plant
structures in the excavations. STPNOC
states that the CFRWs are required to
accommodate the reach of a heavy-lift
crane needed to place reactor
components into the excavations.
Installation of the CFRWs would
include the following activities:
• A full-depth and -width slurry
excavation would be made, with the
excavation maintained by the slurry;
• Reinforcing would be placed in the
slurry-filled trench;
• Concrete would be placed in the
slurry-filled trench from the bottom-up;
and
• Tiebacks and whalers would be
installed to stabilize the CFRWs, as
excavation for permanent plant
structures proceeds.
As construction of the permanent
plant structures proceeds, the CFRWs
would be abandoned in place following
crane use. After abandonment, the
CFRWs would have no function during
operation of STP Units 3 and 4.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:21 Nov 02, 2010
Jkt 223001
Need for the Proposed Action
In its exemption request, STPNOC
stated that the proposed exemption is
needed because installation of the
CFRWs must occur before excavation for
permanent plant structures, and
compliance with 10 CFR 50.10, i.e.,
obtaining an LWA, would result in
undue hardship or other costs that are
significantly in excess of those
contemplated during the 2007 LWA
rulemaking. According to the exemption
request, installation of the CFRWs is
needed to allow STPNOC to complete
certain on-site activities in parallel with
the licensing process, so that it can
begin construction promptly upon
issuance of COLs.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
This EA evaluates the environmental
impacts of STPNOC’s proposed
installation of the CFRWs, including the
non-radiological and radiological
impacts that may result from granting
the requested exemption. This
evaluation is based on STPNOC’s
exemption request, dated March 23,
2010, and on information provided by
STPNOC in support of its COL
application for proposed STP Units 3
and 4, primarily Revision 3 of the
environmental report (ER) (STPNOC
2009). According to STPNOC’s
exemption request, the environmental
impacts of installing the CFRWs are
within the scope of preconstruction
activities described in Chapters 3 and 4
of STP Units 3 and 4 ER. Certain
facilities, such as a concrete batch plant,
lay down areas, parking lots, and
temporary buildings, would be required
for preconstruction activities at the STP
site, and as such, are not exclusive to
the installation of the CFRWs. It is
expected that these facilities would
already be in place and supporting
preconstruction activities, and as such,
this EA does not include the
environmental impacts of such
facilities.
Description of the Site
The STP site is located in a rural area
of Matagorda County, Texas,
approximately 10 miles (mi) north of
Matagorda Bay, 70 mi south-southwest
of Houston, and 12 mi south-southwest
of Bay City. The proposed location of
STP Units 3 and 4 is within the site
boundaries of the existing STP Units 1
and 2, approximately 1,500 feet (ft)
north and 2,150 ft west of the center of
Units 1 and 2. The STP site comprises
12,220 acres (ac) immediately west of
the Colorado River, approximately 10
mi upstream of the river’s confluence
PO 00000
Frm 00104
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67785
with Matagorda Bay. The Main Cooling
Reservoir, a man-made impoundment
that is the normal heat sink for waste
heat generated by STP Units 1 and 2,
occupies approximately 7,000 ac of the
STP site, and about 1,750 ac are
currently occupied by Units 1 and 2 and
associated facilities. The remainder of
the site is undeveloped land or is used
for agriculture and cattle grazing. The
area that would be affected on a longterm basis as a result of permanent
facilities for proposed Units 3 and 4
would be approximately 300 ac. An
additional approximately 240 ac would
be disturbed for temporary construction
facilities.
Nonradiological Impacts
Land Use Impacts
Installation of each CFRW would
disturb an area approximately 890 ft
long by 13 ft wide, which is
approximately 23,140 square ft (0.54 ac)
for both CFRWs. This would be a minor
portion of the 12,220-ac STP site, and
would be located in an area that was
previously disturbed during
construction of STP Units 1 and 2. As
such, the NRC staff concludes that land
use impacts from installation of the
CFRWs would not be significant.
Surface and Groundwater Impacts
Installation of the CFRWs would have
insignificant impacts on groundwater
flow and surface water quality. While
the purpose of the CFRWs is for
building Units 3 and 4, they would
remain in place after construction and
could slightly reduce the permeability
of the affected area. The completed
CFRWs would each be approximately 3
ft wide, 890 ft long and 80 ft deep. In
the vicinity of the STP site, the Shallow
Aquifer’s base is between 90 and 150 ft
below ground surface (STPNOC 2009).
Because there would be a gap between
the bottom of the CFRWs and the top of
the Shallow Aquifer, groundwater flow
would not be significantly impacted.
Sediment carried with stormwater
from the disturbed areas could impact
surface water quality. STPNOC would
be required to implement environmental
controls specified in its Clean Water Act
Section 402(p) Texas Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (TPDES)
general permit for construction of STP
Units 3 and 4 (STPNOC 2009). In its
exemption request, STPNOC has stated
that it would employ best management
practices (BMPs) during installation of
the CFRWs in accordance with these
regulatory and permit requirements
(STPNOC 2010), which would limit the
impacts of ground disturbance to
surface water quality. BMPs would be
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
67786
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices
described in a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would be
submitted to and approved by the Texas
Council on Environmental Quality
(TCEQ) in accordance with STPNOC’s
TPDES general permit (STPNOC 2009).
With these controls, the NRC staff
concludes that impacts to surface water
quality from installation of the CFRWs
would not be significant.
Terrestrial Resources Impacts
As stated above, the proposed action
would be a small portion of the 12,220–
ac STP site, and land disturbance for the
CFRWs would occur in previously
disturbed areas on the STP site.
Therefore, the staff concludes there
would be no impacts to terrestrial
species or their habitat associated with
the proposed action.
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Aquatic Resources Impacts
Impacts to aquatic resources from the
proposed action would occur from
erosion and sedimentation associated
with site stormwater management. As
stated above, as part of its SWPPP,
STPNOC would employ BMPs to
minimize impacts from stormwater
runoff to ditches and wetlands.
STPNOC plans to implement new
detention ponds and drainage capacity
to accommodate surface water runoff in
areas disturbed by site preparation and
construction activities (STPNOC 2009).
Impacts from any stormwater runoff
reaching ditches and wetlands would be
minimal and temporary. As such, the
staff concludes that impacts to aquatic
resources from installation of the
CFRWs would not be significant.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Impacts
Potential impacts to threatened and
endangered species from the proposed
action result from land disturbances to
terrestrial species. Two species listed as
threatened or endangered under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended, that occur on or in the
vicinity (within 10 miles) of the STP site
are the Federally endangered Northern
Aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis
septentrionalis) and the Federally
threatened American alligator (Alligator
mississippiensis). The Federally
endangered whooping crane (Grus
americana), a species of special concern
to Texas resource agencies and
environmental groups, has not been
observed on the STP site.
These birds may migrate through the
area and fly over the STP site, but are
unlikely to use the inland habitats
found onsite. Because no impacts are
expected to occur for terrestrial species
or their habitat, the proposed action
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:21 Nov 02, 2010
Jkt 223001
would have no impacts on the Northern
Aplomado falcon, the American
alligator, or their habitats. The staff
concludes there would be no effects on
federally threatened or endangered
species as a result of the proposed
action.
Cultural and Historic Resources Impacts
According to the environmental
report contained in STPNOC’s COL
application for STP Units 3 and 4, there
are no cultural and historic resources at
the STP site (STPNOC 2009). In support
of its COLs application, STPNOC
consulted with the Texas Historical
Commission and received concurrence
on its findings in January 2007
(STPNOC 2006, 2009). The NRC’s
independent review of cultural
resources in support of the
environmental review for STPNOC’s
COLs application also did not identify
any cultural and historical resources
that would be impacted by construction
and operation of proposed STP Units 3
and 4 (NRC 2010b). The area where the
CFRWs would be installed was
previously disturbed during
construction of STP Units 1 and 2, and
any resources that may have existed
prior to construction of Units 1 and 2
would have been destroyed during land
clearing and construction activities
(STPNOC 2010). Therefore, the staff
concludes that no environmental
impacts to cultural and historic
resources are expected from installation
of the CFRWs. STPNOC has procedures
in place to protect undiscovered historic
or archaeological resources if discovered
during site preparation and construction
activities, and such procedures would
apply to the proposed action (STPNOC
2008).
Air Quality Impacts
Installation of the CFRWs would
result in temporary impacts on local air
quality from vehicle and construction
equipment emissions, and fugitive dust
caused by earth-moving activities. As
stated in the ER for the COL application,
to minimize impacts to air quality,
STPNOC would implement mitigation
measures to minimize fugitive dust and
vehicle and equipment emissions,
including water suppression, covering
truck loads and debris stockpiles, use of
soil adhesives to stabilize loose dirt
surfaces, minimizing material handling,
limiting vehicle speed, and visual
inspection of emission control
equipment (STPNOC 2009).
Construction equipment would be
serviced regularly and operated in
accordance with local, State, and
Federal emission requirements
(STPNOC 2009). Emissions from
PO 00000
Frm 00105
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
activities associated with installation of
the CFRWs would vary based on the
level and duration of the specific
activity, but the overall impact on air
quality is expected to be temporary and
limited in magnitude. The staff
concludes that the proposed action
would not significantly contribute to air
quality impacts at the STP site.
Nonradiological Health Impacts
Nonradiological health impacts to the
public and workers from the proposed
action would include exposure to
fugitive dust, and vehicle and
construction equipment exhaust,
occupational injuries, and noise; as well
as the transport of materials and
personnel to and from the STP site.
Adherence to Federal and State
regulations regarding air quality,
construction worker health, and noise
would minimize nonradiological health
impacts. Mitigation measures, such as
operational controls and practices,
worker training, use of personal
protective equipment, and fugitive dust
and exhaust emissions control
measures, would further reduce impacts
from the proposed action. Based on the
number of shipments of building
materials and the number of workers
that would be transported to the STP
site for site preparation and
construction activities (STPNOC 2009),
the staff concludes that nonradiological
health impacts from transportation
associated with installing the CFRWs
would be minimal. STPNOC has
estimated that 75 workers would be
needed to install the CFRWs (STPNOC
2010). This would be a small fraction of
the 2,400 workers needed during peak
preconstruction activities. Accordingly,
the staff concludes that nonradiological
health impacts from the proposed action
would not be significant.
Nonradioactive Waste Impacts
Nonradioactive waste impacts from
the proposed action include impacts to
land, water, and air from storage of
excavated material, runoff to ditches
and wetlands, and emissions from
vehicles and construction equipment.
Excavated materials would be stored
onsite in borrow or spoil areas not to
exceed 240 ac for the entire STP Units
3 and 4 project (STPNOC 2009). Surface
water runoff from development
activities would be controlled by
implementation of a SWPPP (STPNOC
2010). Regulated practices for managing
air emissions from construction
equipment and temporary stationary
sources, BMPs for controlling fugitive
dust, and vehicle inspection and traffic
management plans, would minimize
impacts to air. With the above controls
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices
in place, the staff concludes that
impacts of nonradioactive waste from
the proposed action would not be
significant.
Socioeconomic Impacts and
Environmental Justice
Potential socioeconomic impacts due
to the proposed action include physical
impacts such as transportation,
aesthetics, and air quality, and social
impacts including demographics,
economy, infrastructure, and
community services. In its exemption
request (STPNOC 2010), STPNOC stated
that 75 workers would be needed to
install the CFRWs. The peak number of
workers required for preconstruction
activities at the STP site would be 2,400
(STPNOC 2009). The proposed action
would occur concurrently with other
preconstruction activities, and therefore
would not significantly affect the size of
the STP Units 3 and 4 labor force. Given
the small number of workers involved
in installation of the CFRWs, the staff
concludes that the proposed exemption
would not have measurable
socioeconomic impacts.
With regard to environmental justice,
due to the lack of significant
environmental impacts resulting from
the proposed action, the staff concludes
that the proposed exemption would not
have disproportionately high and
adverse impacts to minority and lowincome populations in the vicinity of
the STP site.
Summary
Based on the foregoing, the staff
concludes that granting the proposed
exemption that would permit
installation of the CFRWs prior to the
issuance of COLs would not result in
significant changes in nonradiological
impacts to land use, surface and
groundwater resources, terrestrial and
aquatic resources, threatened and
endangered species, socioeconomic
factors and environmental justice,
cultural and historic resources, air
quality, nonradiological human health,
and nonradioactive waste.
Radiological Impacts
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Radiological Health Impacts
Sources of radiation exposure from
existing STP Units 1 and 2 for
construction workers include exposure
from direct radiation and liquid and
gaseous radiological effluents (STPNOC
2009). In support of the environmental
review for the COL application, NRC
staff estimated the annual direct dose to
a construction worker would be
approximately 10 millirem (mrem),
assuming 2,080 hours worked at the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:21 Nov 02, 2010
Jkt 223001
STP site per year (NRC 2010c). The
maximum radiological dose to
construction workers from gaseous and
liquid pathways combined would be
approximately 9 mrem. Therefore, the
estimated annual dose to construction
workers would be approximately 19
mrem based on an occupancy of 2,080
hours per year (STPNOC 2009), which
is less than the 100 mrem annual dose
limit to an individual member of public
found in 10 CFR 20.1301. As such, the
staff concludes that radiological impacts
to construction workers as a result of the
proposed action would be minimal.
Accordingly, the staff concludes that
there would be no significant
radiological health impacts associated
with the proposed exemption.
Summary
Based on the foregoing, the staff
concludes that granting the proposed
exemption that would permit
installation of the CFRWs prior to the
issuance of COLs would not result in a
significant increase in occupational
radiation exposure. The staff concludes
that there would be no significant
radiological health impacts associated
with the proposed exemption.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed exemption (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). If NRC were to deny
the exemption request, STPNOC would
not be allowed to install the CFRWs
before the COLs are issued, and would
need to wait until a decision is made on
its COL application before installing the
CFRWs. Denial of the exemption request
would avoid the environmental impacts
discussed in this EA, unless NRC grants
the COLs, in which case the impacts
would be incurred but they would be
delayed until issuance of the COLs.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff consulted with a
number of Federal, State, regional,
Tribal, and local organizations regarding
the environmental impacts of granting
the COLs for proposed STP Units 3 and
4, which includes the environmental
impacts of installation of CFRWs and
other construction activities. A
complete list of organizations contacted
can be found in Appendix B of the draft
environmental impact statement (DEIS)
for COLs for STP Units 3 and 4 (NRC
2010c). A partial list of Federal and
State agencies contacted includes: U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers; Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation; U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(Region 6 and headquarters); National
Marine Fisheries Service; U.S. Fish and
PO 00000
Frm 00106
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
67787
Wildlife Service; Texas Commission on
Environmental Quality; Texas Historical
Commission; Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department; and Texas State Historic
Preservation Office. Comments from
these agencies regarding the overall
COLs action were incorporated into the
DEIS, and if they were applicable to
construction activities similar to
installation of the CFRWs, they have
been included in this EA.
Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff has prepared this EA
for the proposed action. On the basis of
this EA, the NRC staff has determined
that there would be no significant
environmental impacts associated with
granting the exemption, and an
environmental impact statement need
not be prepared.
Additional Information
STPNOC’s exemption request is
available electronically at the NRC’s
Electronic Reading Room at https://www.
nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From
this site, you can access the NRC’s
Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS). The
ADAMS accession number for the
exemption request is ML100880055.
The ADAMS accession number for the
EA is ML101580541. The ADAMS
accession number for the DEIS for STP
Units 3 and 4 (NUREG–1937, Vols. 1
and 2) is ML100700576. If you do not
have access to ADAMS or have
problems accessing the documents
located in ADAMS, contact the NRC
Public Document Room Reference staff
at 1–800–397–4209, or 301–415–4737,
or via e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day
of October, 2010.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
Scott Flanders,
Division Director, Division of Site and
Environmental Reviews, Office of New
Reactors.
References
STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC).
2006. Letter from S. Dannhardt,
STPNOC, to B. Martin, Texas Historical
Commission, dated December 12, 2006,
‘‘Subject: South Texas Projects Units 3
and 4.’’ ADAMS Accession No.
ML092100145.
STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC).
2008. Letter from M. McBurnett,
STPNOC, to NRC, dated June 9, 2008,
‘‘Cultural or Historical Artifact Discovery
During Construction.’’ ADAMS
Accession No. ML081640213.
STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC).
2009. South Texas Project Units 3 and 4
Combined License Application, Part 3,
Environmental Report. Revision 3, Bay
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
67788
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 212 / Wednesday, November 3, 2010 / Notices
City, Texas. ADAMS Accession No.
ML092931600.
STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC).
2010a. Letter from M. McBurnett,
STPNOC, to NRC, dated March 23, 2010,
‘‘Request for Exemption to Authorize
Installation of Crane Foundation
Retaining Walls.’’ ADAMS Accession No.
ML100880055.
STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC).
2010b. Letter from Scott Head, STPNOC,
to NRC, dated July 21, 2010, ‘‘Revised
Request for Exemption to Authorize
Installation of Crane Foundation
Retaining Walls.’’ ADAMS Accession No.
ML102070274.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
2000. Environmental Standard Review
Plan—Review Plans for Environmental
Reviews for Nuclear Power Plants.
NUREG–1555, Washington, DC Includes
2007 updates.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
2010a. Letter from M. Johnson, NRC, to
M. McBurnett, STPNOC, dated January
8, 2010, ‘‘South Texas Project Nuclear
Power Plant Units 3 and 4 Request for a
Limited Work Authorization for
Installation of Crane Foundation
Retaining Walls.’’ ADAMS Accession No.
ML093350744.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
2010b. Letter from R. Whited, NRC, to M.
Wolfe, Texas Historical Commission,
dated March 19, 2010, ‘‘Section 106
Consultation and Notification of the
Issuance of the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for the South Texas
Projects, Units 3 and 4, Combined
License Application Review. ADAMS
Accession No. ML100490740.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).
2010c. Draft Environmental Impact
Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs)
for South Texas Project Electric
Generating Station, Units 3 and 4.
NUREG–1937, Vol. 1 and 2, Washington,
DC Accession No. ML100700576.
[FR Doc. 2010–27764 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
PEACE CORPS
Proposed Collection Renewal
60-Day notice and request for
comments.
ACTION:
The Peace Corps will be
submitting the following information
collection request to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
extension, without change, of a
currently approved information
collection. In compliance with the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
USC Chapter 35), the Peace Corps
invites the general public to comment
on the renewal, without change to the
Peace Corps Career Information
Consultation (CIC) Waiver Form (OMB
Control No. 0420–0531). This process is
jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:21 Nov 02, 2010
Jkt 223001
conducted in accordance with 5 CFR
1320.10.
Comments must be submitted on
or before January 3, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be
addressed to Denora Miller, FOIA
Officer, Peace Corps, 1111 20th Street,
NW., Washington, DC 20526. Denora
Miller can be contacted by telephone at
202–692–1236 or e-mail at
pcfr@peacecorps.gov. E-mail comments
must be made in text and not in
attachments.
DATES:
the burden of the collection of
information on those who are to
respond, including through the use of
automated collection techniques, when
appropriate, and other forms of
information technology.
This notice is issued in Washington, DC,
on October 28, 2010.
Garry W. Stanberry,
Deputy Associate Director for Management.
[FR Doc. 2010–27752 Filed 11–2–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6051–01–P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Denora Miller, at Peace Corps address
above.
Proposal
to renew a currently approved
collection of information:
OMB Control Number: 0420–0531.
Title: Career Information Consultation
(CIC) Waiver Form.
Type of Review: Regular—extension,
without change, currently approved
collection.
Respondents: Returned Peace Corps
Volunteers and professionals in specific
career fields.
Respondents Obligation to Reply:
Voluntary.
Burden to the Public:
a. Total annual reporting burden: 208
hours.
b. Estimated average burden response: 5
minutes.
c. Frequency of response: Annually.
d. Estimated number of likely
respondents: 2,500.
General description of collection:
Returned Volunteer Services needs this
information to update contact
information for individuals who
volunteer to share information about
their career field, their past or current
employer(s), and their career and
educational paths with current and
returned Peace Corps Volunteers. These
individuals voluntarily provide this
information in assisting with
employment re-entry for Returned Peace
Corps Volunteers. This is a service
outreach part of transitioning from the
Peace Corps to the business world. The
individuals who provide the
information are offering to assist,
mentor or network for jobs.
Request for Comment: Peace Corps
invites comments on whether the
proposed collection of information is
necessary for proper performance of the
functions of the Peace Corps, including
whether the information will have
practical use; the accuracy of the
agency’s estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the information
to be collected; and, ways to minimize
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
PO 00000
Frm 00107
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE
COMMISSION
[Release No. 34–63207; File No. SR–
NASDAQ–2010–134]
Self-Regulatory Organizations; The
NASDAQ Stock Market LLC; Notice of
Filing of Proposed Rule Change To
Adopt Additional Criteria for Listing
Commodity Stockpiling Companies
That Have Indicated That Their
Business Plan is To Buy and Hold
Commodities
October 28, 2010.
Pursuant to Section 19(b)(1) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934
(‘‘Act’’),1 and Rule 19b–4 thereunder,2
notice is hereby given that on October
15, 2010, The NASDAQ Stock Market
LLC (‘‘Nasdaq’’ or ‘‘Exchange’’) filed with
the Securities and Exchange
Commission (‘‘Commission’’) the
proposed rule change as described in
Items I, II, and III below, which Items
have been prepared by Nasdaq. The
Commission is publishing this notice to
solicit comments on the proposed rule
change from interested persons.
I. Self-Regulatory Organization’s
Statement of the Terms of the Substance
of the Proposed Rule Change
Nasdaq proposes to adopt additional
criteria for listing companies that have
indicated that their business plan is to
buy and hold commodities and to
provide transparency to the criteria
Nasdaq will apply in doing so.
The text of the proposed rule change
is below. Proposed new language is in
italic; proposed deletions are in
brackets.3
5101. Preamble to the Rule 5100 Series.
No change.
1 15
U.S.C. 78s(b)(1).
CFR 240.19b–4.
3 Changes are marked to the rule text that appears
in the electronic manual of Nasdaq found at
https://nasdaqomx.cchwallstreet.com.
2 17
E:\FR\FM\03NON1.SGM
03NON1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 212 (Wednesday, November 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67784-67788]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27764]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 52-012 and 52-013; NRC-2010-0343]
STP Nuclear Operating Company South Texas Project Electric
Generating Station, Units 3 and 4 Request for Exemption Environmental
Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
By letters dated March 23, 2010 (STPNOC 2010a), and July 21, 2010
(STPNOC 2010b), STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) submitted a
request for an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50, Section 50.10: License required; limited
work authorization. The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the
staff) is considering issuance of this exemption as it relates to
STPNOC's application for combined licenses (COLs) for South Texas
Project Electric Generating Station (STP) Units 3 and 4, which is
currently under review by the NRC. The exemption would authorize STPNOC
to install two crane foundation
[[Page 67785]]
retaining walls (CFRWs) prior to issuance of the COLs. Granting this
exemption would not constitute a commitment by the NRC to issue COLs
for STP Units 3 and 4; STPNOC would install the CFRWs assuming the risk
that its COL application may later be denied. NRC has prepared this
environmental assessment (EA) for the exemption request in accordance
with the requirements of 10 CFR 51.21. Based on this EA, the NRC has
reached a Finding of No Significant Impact. The details of the NRC
staff's safety review of the exemption request will be provided in the
safety evaluation document associated with that determination.
Environmental Assessment
Background
By letter dated January 8, 2010, the NRC notified STPNOC that
installation of the CFRWs was considered construction under 10 CFR
50.10(a)(1), therefore requiring issuance of a limited work
authorization (LWA) or COLs before their installation (NRC 2010a). In
accordance with 10 CFR 50.12(b), STPNOC has requested an exemption that
would permit the construction of the CFRWs prior to the issuance of
COLs for STP Units 3 and 4 (STPNOC 2010).
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action, as described in STPNOC's request for an
exemption to 10 CFR 50.10, would allow STPNOC to install two CFRWs for
STP Units 3 and 4, prior to issuance of COLs. According to STPNOC, the
CFRWs are non-safety related, reinforced concrete walls that would
facilitate excavation activities by retaining soil next to permanent
plant structures in the excavations. STPNOC states that the CFRWs are
required to accommodate the reach of a heavy-lift crane needed to place
reactor components into the excavations. Installation of the CFRWs
would include the following activities:
A full-depth and -width slurry excavation would be made,
with the excavation maintained by the slurry;
Reinforcing would be placed in the slurry-filled trench;
Concrete would be placed in the slurry-filled trench from
the bottom-up; and
Tiebacks and whalers would be installed to stabilize the
CFRWs, as excavation for permanent plant structures proceeds.
As construction of the permanent plant structures proceeds, the
CFRWs would be abandoned in place following crane use. After
abandonment, the CFRWs would have no function during operation of STP
Units 3 and 4.
Need for the Proposed Action
In its exemption request, STPNOC stated that the proposed exemption
is needed because installation of the CFRWs must occur before
excavation for permanent plant structures, and compliance with 10 CFR
50.10, i.e., obtaining an LWA, would result in undue hardship or other
costs that are significantly in excess of those contemplated during the
2007 LWA rulemaking. According to the exemption request, installation
of the CFRWs is needed to allow STPNOC to complete certain on-site
activities in parallel with the licensing process, so that it can begin
construction promptly upon issuance of COLs.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
This EA evaluates the environmental impacts of STPNOC's proposed
installation of the CFRWs, including the non-radiological and
radiological impacts that may result from granting the requested
exemption. This evaluation is based on STPNOC's exemption request,
dated March 23, 2010, and on information provided by STPNOC in support
of its COL application for proposed STP Units 3 and 4, primarily
Revision 3 of the environmental report (ER) (STPNOC 2009). According to
STPNOC's exemption request, the environmental impacts of installing the
CFRWs are within the scope of preconstruction activities described in
Chapters 3 and 4 of STP Units 3 and 4 ER. Certain facilities, such as a
concrete batch plant, lay down areas, parking lots, and temporary
buildings, would be required for preconstruction activities at the STP
site, and as such, are not exclusive to the installation of the CFRWs.
It is expected that these facilities would already be in place and
supporting preconstruction activities, and as such, this EA does not
include the environmental impacts of such facilities.
Description of the Site
The STP site is located in a rural area of Matagorda County, Texas,
approximately 10 miles (mi) north of Matagorda Bay, 70 mi south-
southwest of Houston, and 12 mi south-southwest of Bay City. The
proposed location of STP Units 3 and 4 is within the site boundaries of
the existing STP Units 1 and 2, approximately 1,500 feet (ft) north and
2,150 ft west of the center of Units 1 and 2. The STP site comprises
12,220 acres (ac) immediately west of the Colorado River, approximately
10 mi upstream of the river's confluence with Matagorda Bay. The Main
Cooling Reservoir, a man-made impoundment that is the normal heat sink
for waste heat generated by STP Units 1 and 2, occupies approximately
7,000 ac of the STP site, and about 1,750 ac are currently occupied by
Units 1 and 2 and associated facilities. The remainder of the site is
undeveloped land or is used for agriculture and cattle grazing. The
area that would be affected on a long-term basis as a result of
permanent facilities for proposed Units 3 and 4 would be approximately
300 ac. An additional approximately 240 ac would be disturbed for
temporary construction facilities.
Nonradiological Impacts
Land Use Impacts
Installation of each CFRW would disturb an area approximately 890
ft long by 13 ft wide, which is approximately 23,140 square ft (0.54
ac) for both CFRWs. This would be a minor portion of the 12,220-ac STP
site, and would be located in an area that was previously disturbed
during construction of STP Units 1 and 2. As such, the NRC staff
concludes that land use impacts from installation of the CFRWs would
not be significant.
Surface and Groundwater Impacts
Installation of the CFRWs would have insignificant impacts on
groundwater flow and surface water quality. While the purpose of the
CFRWs is for building Units 3 and 4, they would remain in place after
construction and could slightly reduce the permeability of the affected
area. The completed CFRWs would each be approximately 3 ft wide, 890 ft
long and 80 ft deep. In the vicinity of the STP site, the Shallow
Aquifer's base is between 90 and 150 ft below ground surface (STPNOC
2009). Because there would be a gap between the bottom of the CFRWs and
the top of the Shallow Aquifer, groundwater flow would not be
significantly impacted.
Sediment carried with stormwater from the disturbed areas could
impact surface water quality. STPNOC would be required to implement
environmental controls specified in its Clean Water Act Section 402(p)
Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) general permit for
construction of STP Units 3 and 4 (STPNOC 2009). In its exemption
request, STPNOC has stated that it would employ best management
practices (BMPs) during installation of the CFRWs in accordance with
these regulatory and permit requirements (STPNOC 2010), which would
limit the impacts of ground disturbance to surface water quality. BMPs
would be
[[Page 67786]]
described in a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that would
be submitted to and approved by the Texas Council on Environmental
Quality (TCEQ) in accordance with STPNOC's TPDES general permit (STPNOC
2009). With these controls, the NRC staff concludes that impacts to
surface water quality from installation of the CFRWs would not be
significant.
Terrestrial Resources Impacts
As stated above, the proposed action would be a small portion of
the 12,220-ac STP site, and land disturbance for the CFRWs would occur
in previously disturbed areas on the STP site. Therefore, the staff
concludes there would be no impacts to terrestrial species or their
habitat associated with the proposed action.
Aquatic Resources Impacts
Impacts to aquatic resources from the proposed action would occur
from erosion and sedimentation associated with site stormwater
management. As stated above, as part of its SWPPP, STPNOC would employ
BMPs to minimize impacts from stormwater runoff to ditches and
wetlands. STPNOC plans to implement new detention ponds and drainage
capacity to accommodate surface water runoff in areas disturbed by site
preparation and construction activities (STPNOC 2009). Impacts from any
stormwater runoff reaching ditches and wetlands would be minimal and
temporary. As such, the staff concludes that impacts to aquatic
resources from installation of the CFRWs would not be significant.
Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts
Potential impacts to threatened and endangered species from the
proposed action result from land disturbances to terrestrial species.
Two species listed as threatened or endangered under the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended, that occur on or in the vicinity
(within 10 miles) of the STP site are the Federally endangered Northern
Aplomado falcon (Falco femoralis septentrionalis) and the Federally
threatened American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis). The
Federally endangered whooping crane (Grus americana), a species of
special concern to Texas resource agencies and environmental groups,
has not been observed on the STP site.
These birds may migrate through the area and fly over the STP site,
but are unlikely to use the inland habitats found onsite. Because no
impacts are expected to occur for terrestrial species or their habitat,
the proposed action would have no impacts on the Northern Aplomado
falcon, the American alligator, or their habitats. The staff concludes
there would be no effects on federally threatened or endangered species
as a result of the proposed action.
Cultural and Historic Resources Impacts
According to the environmental report contained in STPNOC's COL
application for STP Units 3 and 4, there are no cultural and historic
resources at the STP site (STPNOC 2009). In support of its COLs
application, STPNOC consulted with the Texas Historical Commission and
received concurrence on its findings in January 2007 (STPNOC 2006,
2009). The NRC's independent review of cultural resources in support of
the environmental review for STPNOC's COLs application also did not
identify any cultural and historical resources that would be impacted
by construction and operation of proposed STP Units 3 and 4 (NRC
2010b). The area where the CFRWs would be installed was previously
disturbed during construction of STP Units 1 and 2, and any resources
that may have existed prior to construction of Units 1 and 2 would have
been destroyed during land clearing and construction activities (STPNOC
2010). Therefore, the staff concludes that no environmental impacts to
cultural and historic resources are expected from installation of the
CFRWs. STPNOC has procedures in place to protect undiscovered historic
or archaeological resources if discovered during site preparation and
construction activities, and such procedures would apply to the
proposed action (STPNOC 2008).
Air Quality Impacts
Installation of the CFRWs would result in temporary impacts on
local air quality from vehicle and construction equipment emissions,
and fugitive dust caused by earth-moving activities. As stated in the
ER for the COL application, to minimize impacts to air quality, STPNOC
would implement mitigation measures to minimize fugitive dust and
vehicle and equipment emissions, including water suppression, covering
truck loads and debris stockpiles, use of soil adhesives to stabilize
loose dirt surfaces, minimizing material handling, limiting vehicle
speed, and visual inspection of emission control equipment (STPNOC
2009). Construction equipment would be serviced regularly and operated
in accordance with local, State, and Federal emission requirements
(STPNOC 2009). Emissions from activities associated with installation
of the CFRWs would vary based on the level and duration of the specific
activity, but the overall impact on air quality is expected to be
temporary and limited in magnitude. The staff concludes that the
proposed action would not significantly contribute to air quality
impacts at the STP site.
Nonradiological Health Impacts
Nonradiological health impacts to the public and workers from the
proposed action would include exposure to fugitive dust, and vehicle
and construction equipment exhaust, occupational injuries, and noise;
as well as the transport of materials and personnel to and from the STP
site. Adherence to Federal and State regulations regarding air quality,
construction worker health, and noise would minimize nonradiological
health impacts. Mitigation measures, such as operational controls and
practices, worker training, use of personal protective equipment, and
fugitive dust and exhaust emissions control measures, would further
reduce impacts from the proposed action. Based on the number of
shipments of building materials and the number of workers that would be
transported to the STP site for site preparation and construction
activities (STPNOC 2009), the staff concludes that nonradiological
health impacts from transportation associated with installing the CFRWs
would be minimal. STPNOC has estimated that 75 workers would be needed
to install the CFRWs (STPNOC 2010). This would be a small fraction of
the 2,400 workers needed during peak preconstruction activities.
Accordingly, the staff concludes that nonradiological health impacts
from the proposed action would not be significant.
Nonradioactive Waste Impacts
Nonradioactive waste impacts from the proposed action include
impacts to land, water, and air from storage of excavated material,
runoff to ditches and wetlands, and emissions from vehicles and
construction equipment. Excavated materials would be stored onsite in
borrow or spoil areas not to exceed 240 ac for the entire STP Units 3
and 4 project (STPNOC 2009). Surface water runoff from development
activities would be controlled by implementation of a SWPPP (STPNOC
2010). Regulated practices for managing air emissions from construction
equipment and temporary stationary sources, BMPs for controlling
fugitive dust, and vehicle inspection and traffic management plans,
would minimize impacts to air. With the above controls
[[Page 67787]]
in place, the staff concludes that impacts of nonradioactive waste from
the proposed action would not be significant.
Socioeconomic Impacts and Environmental Justice
Potential socioeconomic impacts due to the proposed action include
physical impacts such as transportation, aesthetics, and air quality,
and social impacts including demographics, economy, infrastructure, and
community services. In its exemption request (STPNOC 2010), STPNOC
stated that 75 workers would be needed to install the CFRWs. The peak
number of workers required for preconstruction activities at the STP
site would be 2,400 (STPNOC 2009). The proposed action would occur
concurrently with other preconstruction activities, and therefore would
not significantly affect the size of the STP Units 3 and 4 labor force.
Given the small number of workers involved in installation of the
CFRWs, the staff concludes that the proposed exemption would not have
measurable socioeconomic impacts.
With regard to environmental justice, due to the lack of
significant environmental impacts resulting from the proposed action,
the staff concludes that the proposed exemption would not have
disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income
populations in the vicinity of the STP site.
Summary
Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that granting the
proposed exemption that would permit installation of the CFRWs prior to
the issuance of COLs would not result in significant changes in
nonradiological impacts to land use, surface and groundwater resources,
terrestrial and aquatic resources, threatened and endangered species,
socioeconomic factors and environmental justice, cultural and historic
resources, air quality, nonradiological human health, and
nonradioactive waste.
Radiological Impacts
Radiological Health Impacts
Sources of radiation exposure from existing STP Units 1 and 2 for
construction workers include exposure from direct radiation and liquid
and gaseous radiological effluents (STPNOC 2009). In support of the
environmental review for the COL application, NRC staff estimated the
annual direct dose to a construction worker would be approximately 10
millirem (mrem), assuming 2,080 hours worked at the STP site per year
(NRC 2010c). The maximum radiological dose to construction workers from
gaseous and liquid pathways combined would be approximately 9 mrem.
Therefore, the estimated annual dose to construction workers would be
approximately 19 mrem based on an occupancy of 2,080 hours per year
(STPNOC 2009), which is less than the 100 mrem annual dose limit to an
individual member of public found in 10 CFR 20.1301. As such, the staff
concludes that radiological impacts to construction workers as a result
of the proposed action would be minimal. Accordingly, the staff
concludes that there would be no significant radiological health
impacts associated with the proposed exemption.
Summary
Based on the foregoing, the staff concludes that granting the
proposed exemption that would permit installation of the CFRWs prior to
the issuance of COLs would not result in a significant increase in
occupational radiation exposure. The staff concludes that there would
be no significant radiological health impacts associated with the
proposed exemption.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed exemption (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
If NRC were to deny the exemption request, STPNOC would not be allowed
to install the CFRWs before the COLs are issued, and would need to wait
until a decision is made on its COL application before installing the
CFRWs. Denial of the exemption request would avoid the environmental
impacts discussed in this EA, unless NRC grants the COLs, in which case
the impacts would be incurred but they would be delayed until issuance
of the COLs.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
The NRC staff consulted with a number of Federal, State, regional,
Tribal, and local organizations regarding the environmental impacts of
granting the COLs for proposed STP Units 3 and 4, which includes the
environmental impacts of installation of CFRWs and other construction
activities. A complete list of organizations contacted can be found in
Appendix B of the draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) for COLs
for STP Units 3 and 4 (NRC 2010c). A partial list of Federal and State
agencies contacted includes: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers; Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Region 6 and headquarters); National Marine Fisheries Service; U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service; Texas Commission on Environmental Quality;
Texas Historical Commission; Texas Parks and Wildlife Department; and
Texas State Historic Preservation Office. Comments from these agencies
regarding the overall COLs action were incorporated into the DEIS, and
if they were applicable to construction activities similar to
installation of the CFRWs, they have been included in this EA.
Finding of No Significant Impact
The NRC staff has prepared this EA for the proposed action. On the
basis of this EA, the NRC staff has determined that there would be no
significant environmental impacts associated with granting the
exemption, and an environmental impact statement need not be prepared.
Additional Information
STPNOC's exemption request is available electronically at the NRC's
Electronic Reading Room at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html.
From this site, you can access the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access
and Management System (ADAMS). The ADAMS accession number for the
exemption request is ML100880055. The ADAMS accession number for the EA
is ML101580541. The ADAMS accession number for the DEIS for STP Units 3
and 4 (NUREG-1937, Vols. 1 and 2) is ML100700576. If you do not have
access to ADAMS or have problems accessing the documents located in
ADAMS, contact the NRC Public Document Room Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or via e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of October, 2010.
For the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Scott Flanders,
Division Director, Division of Site and Environmental Reviews, Office
of New Reactors.
References
STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC). 2006. Letter from S.
Dannhardt, STPNOC, to B. Martin, Texas Historical Commission, dated
December 12, 2006, ``Subject: South Texas Projects Units 3 and 4.''
ADAMS Accession No. ML092100145.
STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC). 2008. Letter from M.
McBurnett, STPNOC, to NRC, dated June 9, 2008, ``Cultural or
Historical Artifact Discovery During Construction.'' ADAMS Accession
No. ML081640213.
STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC). 2009. South Texas Project
Units 3 and 4 Combined License Application, Part 3, Environmental
Report. Revision 3, Bay
[[Page 67788]]
City, Texas. ADAMS Accession No. ML092931600.
STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC). 2010a. Letter from M.
McBurnett, STPNOC, to NRC, dated March 23, 2010, ``Request for
Exemption to Authorize Installation of Crane Foundation Retaining
Walls.'' ADAMS Accession No. ML100880055.
STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC). 2010b. Letter from Scott
Head, STPNOC, to NRC, dated July 21, 2010, ``Revised Request for
Exemption to Authorize Installation of Crane Foundation Retaining
Walls.'' ADAMS Accession No. ML102070274.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2000. Environmental
Standard Review Plan--Review Plans for Environmental Reviews for
Nuclear Power Plants. NUREG-1555, Washington, DC Includes 2007
updates.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010a. Letter from M.
Johnson, NRC, to M. McBurnett, STPNOC, dated January 8, 2010,
``South Texas Project Nuclear Power Plant Units 3 and 4 Request for
a Limited Work Authorization for Installation of Crane Foundation
Retaining Walls.'' ADAMS Accession No. ML093350744.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010b. Letter from R.
Whited, NRC, to M. Wolfe, Texas Historical Commission, dated March
19, 2010, ``Section 106 Consultation and Notification of the
Issuance of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the South
Texas Projects, Units 3 and 4, Combined License Application Review.
ADAMS Accession No. ML100490740.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). 2010c. Draft Environmental
Impact Statement for Combined Licenses (COLs) for South Texas
Project Electric Generating Station, Units 3 and 4. NUREG-1937, Vol.
1 and 2, Washington, DC Accession No. ML100700576.
[FR Doc. 2010-27764 Filed 11-2-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P