STP Nuclear Operating Company, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, 26838-26843 [2016-10429]

Download as PDF 26838 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Notices Power (Applicant) has filed an application for a COL with the NRC under Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and part 52 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Licenses, Certifications, and Approvals for Nuclear Power Plants.’’ Through the Application, which is currently under review by the NRC staff, the Applicant seeks to construct and operate an Economic Simplified Boiling-Water Reactor at the North Anna Power Station, which is located in Louisa County, Virginia. An applicant may seek a COL in accordance with subpart C of 10 CFR part 52. The information submitted by the applicant includes certain administrative information, such as financial qualifications submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.77, as well as technical information submitted pursuant to 10 CFR 52.79. These notices are being provided in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 50.43(a)(3). Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of April, 2016. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Ronaldo V. Jenkins, Chief, Licensing Branch 3, Division of New Reactor Licensing, Office of New Reactors. [FR Doc. 2016–10428 Filed 5–3–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499; NRC– 2016–0092] STP Nuclear Operating Company, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Draft environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact; request for comment. AGENCY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for public comment a draft environmental assessment (EA) prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and NRC regulations. This EA summarizes the results of the NRC staff’s environmental review, which evaluates the potential environmental impacts of issuing license amendments and granting regulatory exemptions in response to a request from STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC, the licensee) for Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–76 and NPF–80, for South Texas Project (STP), Units 1 and 2, respectively. The license amendments and regulatory exemptions would allow STPNOC to make changes to the STP asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:44 May 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 licensing basis to incorporate the use of both a deterministic and a risk-informed approach to address safety issues discussed in Generic Safety Issue (GSI)– 191 and to close Generic Letter (GL) 2004–02. DATES: Submit comments by June 20, 2016. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods (unless this document describes a different method for submitting comments on a specific subject): • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2016–0092. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this document. • Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration, Mail Stop: OWFN–12–H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555–0001. For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting comments, see ‘‘Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments’’ in the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Regner, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555– 0001; telephone: 301–415–1906, email: Lisa.Regner@nrc.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments A. Obtaining Information Please refer to Docket ID NRC–2016– 0092 when contacting the NRC about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain publiclyavailable information related to this action by any of the following methods: • Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC–2016–0092. • NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS): You may obtain publiclyavailable documents online in the ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ adams.html. To begin the search, select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 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 email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are provided in a table in the section of this notice entitled, Availability of Documents. • 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. B. Submitting Comments Please include Docket ID NRC–2016– 0092 in your comment submission. The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at https:// www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove identifying or contact information. If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove such information before making the comment submissions available to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS. II. Introduction and Background The NRC is considering a request to amend Facility Operating Licenses NPF–76 and NPF–80, issued to STPNOC for operation of STP, Units 1 and 2, located in Matagorda County, Texas, and to grant certain regulatory exemptions for STP, Units 1 and 2, in accordance with section 50.90, ‘‘Application for amendment of license, construction permit, or early site permit’’ and section 50.12, ‘‘Specific exemptions,’’ of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR), respectively. The license amendments and regulatory exemptions would allow STPNOC to resolve concerns associated with GSI–191, ‘‘Assessment of Debris Accumulation on PWR [PressurizedWater Reactor] Sump Performance,’’ and the associated GL 2004–02, ‘‘Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation during Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Notices asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Reactors,’’ issued on September 13, 2004. Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, ‘‘Criteria for and identification of licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments,’’ the NRC has prepared a draft EA summarizing the findings of its environmental NEPA review of this proposed action. The NRC concluded that the proposed action will have no significant environmental impact. Background The NRC established a general safety issue (GSI–191) to determine whether the transport and accumulation of debris from a loss-of-coolant accident in the PWR containment structure would impede the operation of the emergency core cooling system or containment spray system. A loss-of-coolant accident within the containment structure is assumed to be caused by a break in the primary coolant loop piping. Water discharged from the pipe break would collect on the containment structure floor and within the containment emergency sump. During this type of accident, the emergency core cooling systems and containment spray systems would initially draw cooling water from the refueling water storage tank. However, realigning the emergency core cooling system pumps to the containment structure emergency sump would provide long-term cooling of the reactor core. Therefore, successful longterm cooling depends on the ability of the containment structure emergency sump to provide adequate flow to the residual heat removal recirculation pumps for extended periods of time. One of the concerns addressed by the implementation of GSI–191 is that debris, such as insulation installed on piping and components, within the containment structure could be dislodged by a jet of water and steam from a loss-of-coolant accident. Water, along with debris, would accumulate at the bottom of the containment structure and would flow towards the emergency sump pumps. Insulation and other fibrous material could block the emergency sump screens and suction strainers, which in turn could prevent the ability of the containment emergency sump to provide adequate flow to the residual heat removal recirculation pumps (for more information, see NUREG–0897, ‘‘Containment Emergency Sump Performance,’’ Revision 1. The NRC issued GL 2004–02 to address this safety concern by requiring licensees of PWRs to: (1) Increase the size of their containment sump strainers, (2) replace fibrous insulation VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:44 May 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 inside containment, and (3) implement other compensatory measures in order to significantly reduce the risk of emergency sump strainer clogging. Subsequent to the issuance of GL 2004–02, the NRC staff identified another related concern with the potential for debris to bypass the sump strainers (even the new strainers) and enter the reactor core. This safety issue could result in the build-up of material on fuel assemblies, inhibit heat transfer, and prevent adequate cooling of the reactor core. Since 2004, the NRC and industry have conducted tests to gain more information on this concern. In 2012, the NRC staff developed three options for resolution of all of its debris concerns, which are discussed in SECY– 12–0093, ‘‘Closure Options for Generic Safety Issue 191, Assessment of Debris Accumulation on Pressurized-Water Reactor Sump Performance,’’ dated July 9, 2012.1 The three options for demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 50.46, ‘‘Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-water nuclear power reactors,’’ are summarized as follows. 1. Option 1 allows the use of approved models and test methods. 2. Option 2 allows the industry to implement additional mitigating measures until resolution is completed and take additional time to resolve issues through further industry testing or use of a risk-informed approach. Use of this option has two alternative methods. • Option 2A: Industry can perform more testing and analysis and submit a topical report for NRC review and approval. • Option 2B: Industry can develop a risk-informed approach to quantify the risk associated with this generic issue and submit a license amendment request for NRC review and approval. 3. Option 3 allows industry to separate the regulatory treatment of the sump strainer and in-vessel effects. The emergency core cooling system strainers will be evaluated using currently approved models, while in-vessel effects will be addressed using a risk-informed approach. STPNOC proposes to use Option 2B to demonstrate compliance with 10 CFR 50.46 through both plant-specific testing and a risk-informed approach (described in more detail in the following paragraphs). Since the use of a riskinformed approach is not recognized in the regulations, STPNOC requested an 1 On December 14, 2012, the Commission approved all three options for closure of this safety issue. PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 26839 exemption to 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1) for certain conditions associated with the treatment of debris. Additionally, STPNOC requested exemptions to appendix A to 10 CFR part 50, General Design Criteria (GDC) 35, ‘‘Emergency Core Cooling,’’ GDC 38, ‘‘Containment Heat Removal,’’ and GDC 41, ‘‘Containment Atmosphere Cleanup,’’ to allow its use of a risk-informed approach for certain conditions in the containment debris analysis. If approved, the proposed action would not result in modifications within the containment structure or changes to the emergency core cooling system. III. Draft Environmental Assessment Description of the Proposed Action The proposed action is to issue certain license amendments and to grant certain regulatory exemptions requested by STPNOC. The license amendments and regulatory exemptions would allow STPNOC to make changes to the STP licensing basis to incorporate the use of both a deterministic and a risk-informed approach to address safety issues discussed in GSI–191 and close GL 2004–02. If approved, no physical modifications to the nuclear plant or changes to reactor operations involving the emergency core cooling system would be required. The proposed action is in response to the licensee’s application dated June 19, 2013, and supplemented by letters dated October 3, October 31, November 13, November 21, and December 23, 2013 (two letters); January 9, February 13, February 27, March 17, March 18, May 15 (two letters), May 22, June 25, and July 15, 2014; and March 10, March 25, and August 20, 2015. The Need for the Proposed Action As the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–76 and NPF–80, STPNOC is expected to address the safety issues discussed in GSI–191 and to close GL 2004–02 with respect to STP, Units 1 and 2. Consistent with SECY–12–0093, STPNOC chose an approach which requires, in part, that STPNOC request that the NRC amend the operating licenses and grant certain regulatory exemptions for each unit. Plant Site and Environs The STP is located on approximately 12,220 acres (4,945 hectares) in rural and sparsely populated Matagorda County, Texas, approximately 70 miles (mi) [110 kilometers (km)] southsouthwest of Houston. Nearby communities include Matagorda, approximately 8 mi (13 km) south of the site; the City of Palacios, 11 mi (18 km) E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 26840 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Notices west of the site; and Bay City, 13 mi (21 km) north of the site. The STP power plant consists of two four-loop Westinghouse PWR units. The reactor core of each unit heats water, which is pumped to four steam generators, where the heated water is converted to steam. The steam is then used to turn turbines, which are connected to electrical generators that produce electricity. A simplified drawing of a PWR can be viewed at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/pwrs.html. The reactor, steam generators, and other components are housed in a concrete and steel containment structure (building). The containment structure is a reinforced concrete cylinder with a concrete slab base and hemispherical dome. A welded steel liner is attached to the inside face of the concrete shell to ensure a high degree of leak tightness. In addition, the 4-foot (1.2-meter)–thick concrete walls of the containment structure serve as a radiation shield. Additional information on the plant structures and systems, as well as the environmental impact statement for license renewal, can be found in NUREG–1437, Supplement 48, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 48 Regarding South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2.’’ Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action Radiological and non-radiological impacts on the environment that may result from issuing the license amendments and granting the regulatory exemptions are summarized in the following sections. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Non-Radiological Impacts No physical modifications to the nuclear plant or changes to reactor operations involving the emergency core cooling system would be required if the NRC were to issue the requested license amendments and grant the regulatory exemptions. Also, no physical changes would be made to other structures or land use within the STP site. Nonradiological liquid effluents or gaseous emissions would not change and therefore environmental conditions at the STP site also would not change. In addition, issuing the license amendments and granting the regulatory exemptions would not result in changes to the use of resources or cause any new environmental impacts. Therefore, there would be no nonradiological environmental impacts to any resource or any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:44 May 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 Non-Radiological Cumulative Impacts Since issuing the license amendments and granting the regulatory exemptions would not result in environmental effects, there would be no cumulative impact. Radiological Impacts Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents and Solid Waste The STP uses waste treatment systems to collect, process, recycle, and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that contain radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner within NRC and Environmental Protection Agency radiation safety standards. Issuing the license amendments and granting the regulatory exemptions will not result in any physical changes to the nuclear plant or reactor operations that would affect the types and quantities of radioactive material generated during plant operations; therefore, there will be no changes to the plant radioactive waste treatment systems. A detailed description of the STP radioactive waste handling and disposal activities is contained in Chapter 2.1.2 of Supplement 48 to NUREG–1437. Radioactive Gaseous Effluents The objectives of the STP gaseous waste management system (GWMS) are to process and control the release of radioactive gaseous effluents into the environment to be within the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1301, ‘‘Dose limits for individual members of the public,’’ and to be consistent with the as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) dose objectives set forth in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The GWMS is designed so that radiation exposure to plant workers is within the dose limits in 10 CFR 20.1201, ‘‘Occupational dose limits for adults.’’ Issuing the license amendments and granting the regulatory exemptions will not result in any physical changes to the nuclear plant or reactor operations; therefore, there will be no changes to the GWMS. The existing equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive releases to the environment will continue to be used to maintain radioactive gaseous releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1301 and the ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Radioactive Liquid Effluents The function of the STP liquid waste processing system (LWPS) is to collect and process radioactive liquid wastes to reduce radioactivity and chemical concentrations to levels acceptable for discharge to the environment or to PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 recycle the liquids for use in plant systems. The principal objectives of the LWPS are to collect liquid wastes that may contain radioactive material and to maintain sufficient processing capability so that liquid waste may be discharged to the environment below the regulatory limits of 10 CFR 20.1301 and consistent with the ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The waste is routed through a monitor that measures the radioactivity and can automatically terminate the release in the event radioactivity exceeds predetermined levels. The liquid waste is discharged into the main cooling reservoir. The entire main cooling reservoir is within the STP site boundary and the public is prohibited from access to the area. Issuing the license amendments and granting the regulatory exemptions will not result in any physical changes to the nuclear plant or reactor operations; therefore, there will be no changes to the LWPS. The existing equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive releases to the environment will continue to be used to maintain radioactive liquid releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1301 and the ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Radioactive Solid Wastes The function of the STP solid waste processing system (SWPS) is to process, package, and store the solid radioactive wastes generated by nuclear plant operations until they are shipped off site to a vendor for further processing or for permanent disposal at a licensed burial facility, or both. The storage areas have restricted access and shielding to reduce radiation rates to plant workers. The principal objectives of the SWPS are to package and transport the waste in compliance with NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 61, ‘‘Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,’’ and 10 CFR part 71, ‘‘Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material,’’ and the U.S. Department of Transportation regulations in 49 CFR parts 170 through 179; and to maintain the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1201, 10 CFR 20.1301, and appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Issuing the license amendments and granting the regulatory exemptions will not result in any physical changes to the nuclear plant or reactor operations; therefore, the waste can be handled by the SWPS without modification. The existing equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive solid waste handling will continue to be used to maintain exposures within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1201, 10 CFR E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Notices 20.1301, and 10 CFR part 50 appendix I. Occupational Radiation Doses The proposed action of issuing the license amendments and granting the regulatory exemptions will not result in any physical changes being made to the nuclear plant or reactor operations; therefore, there will be no change to any in-plant radiation sources. The licensee’s radiation protection program monitors radiation levels throughout the nuclear plant to establish appropriate work controls, training, temporary shielding, and protective equipment requirements so that worker doses will remain within the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20, subpart C, ‘‘Occupational Dose Limits.’’ Issuing the license amendments and granting the regulatory exemptions will not change radiation levels within the nuclear plant and, therefore, will have no increased radiological impact to the workers. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Offsite Radiation Dose The primary sources of offsite dose to members of the public from the STP are radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents. As discussed previously, there will be no change to the operation of the STP radioactive gaseous and liquid waste management systems or the ability to perform their intended functions. Also, there will be no change to the STP radiation monitoring system and procedures used to control the release of radioactive effluents in accordance with radiation protection standards in 10 CFR 20.1301, 40 CFR 190, ‘‘Environmental Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations,’’ and the ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Based on the previous statements, the offsite radiation dose to members of the public would not change and would continue to be within regulatory limits, and, therefore, issuing the license amendments and granting the regulatory exemptions will not change offsite dose levels and, consequently, the health effects of the proposed action will not be significant. Design-Basis Accidents Design-basis accidents at STP, Units 1 and 2, are evaluated by both the licensee and the NRC to ensure that the units can withstand the spectrum of postulated accidents without undue hazard to the public health and safety and the protection of the environment. Separate from its environmental review in this EA, the NRC staff is evaluating the licensee’s technical and safety analyses provided in support of VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:44 May 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 the proposed action of issuing the license amendments and granting the exemption requests to ensure that, following the proposed action, the licensee will continue to meet the NRC regulatory requirements for safe operation. The results and conclusion of the NRC staff’s safety review will be documented in a publicly available safety evaluation. If the NRC staff concludes in this safety evaluation that taking the proposed action will (1) provide reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) provide reasonable assurance that such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission’s regulations, and (3) not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, then the proposed action will also not have a significant environmental impact. The NRC will not take the proposed action absent such a safety conclusion. Radiological Cumulative Impacts The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and plant workers have been developed by the NRC and the Environmental Protection Agency to address the cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure to radiation and radioactive material. These dose limits are codified in 10 CFR part 20, ‘‘Standards for Protection Against Radiation,’’ and 40 CFR part 190. Cumulative radiation doses are required to be within the limits set forth in the regulations cited in the previous paragraph. Issuing the license amendments and granting the exemptions will not require any physical changes to the plant or plant activities, there will not be changes to in-plant radiation sources, and offsite radiation dose to members of the public will not change. Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that there would not be a significant cumulative radiological impact from the proposed action. Radiological Impacts Summary Based on these radiological evaluations, the proposed action of issuing the license amendments and granting the exemptions would not result in any significant radiological impacts. Therefore, if the NRC staff concludes in its separate safety evaluation that taking the proposed action will (1) provide reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) provide reasonable assurance that such activities will be conducted in PO 00000 Frm 00069 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 26841 compliance with the Commission’s regulations, and (3) not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of the public, then the proposed action will not have a significant radiological impact. Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action As discussed earlier, licensees have options in responding to GL 2004–02 and demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 50.46 to consider the impacts of debris on emergency core cooling system. Consistent with these options, as an alternative to the proposed action, the licensee could choose to remove and replace insulation within the reactor containment building. This would require the physical removal and disposal of significant amounts of insulation from a radiation area within the reactor containment building and the installation of new insulation less likely to impact sump performance. Removal of the existing insulation from the containment building would generate radiologically contaminated waste. STPNOC estimated that 4,620 cubic feet of insulation would be removed and stored onsite until disposal. The old insulation would require special handling and packaging so that it could be safely transported from the STP site. The licensee’s existing low-level radioactive and hazardous waste handling and disposal activities would likely be used to process and store this waste material. The old insulation would then be transported to a low-level radioactive or hazardous waste disposal site. Energy (fuel) would be expended to transport the insulation and land would be expended at the disposal site. The removal of the old insulation and installation of the new insulation would expose workers to radiation. In its application, STPNOC estimates that this would result in an additional collective radiation exposure of 158–176 personroentgen equivalent man (rem) over its baseline collective radiation exposure. The NRC staff reviewed NUREG–0713, Volume 34, ‘‘Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2012: Forty-Fifth Annual Report,’’ and determined that STPNOC’s average baseline collective radiation exposure is approximately 90 person-rem. This additional 158–176 person-rem collective exposure would be shared across the entire work force involved with removing and reinstalling insulation. In SECY–12–0093, the NRC staff attempted to develop a total occupational dose estimate for the work E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 26842 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Notices involved in insulation removal and replacement associated with GSI–191. Due to uncertainties in the scope of work required to remove and replace insulation at a specific nuclear plant and other site-specific factors such as source term and hazardous materials, the NRC staff was unable to estimate the total occupational dose associated with this work. However, dose estimates were provided by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) in a letter to the NRC dated March 30, 2012, based on information collected on occupational radiation exposures that have been, or could be, incurred during insulation removal and replacement. In the letter, NEI noted similar difficulties to those experienced by the NRC staff in estimating the potential amount of radiation exposure, but provided a ‘‘per unit’’ estimate of between 80 to 525 person-rem. The NRC staff ultimately concluded, given the uncertainties in the scope of work and other nuclear plant site-specific factors such as source term and hazardous materials, that there was no basis to conclude that the NEI estimates were unreasonable. Therefore, since STPNOC’s estimate of radiation exposure for insulation removal and replacement is within the NEI estimated range, the NRC staff considers STPNOC’s estimate of an increase of 158–176 person-rem over the baseline exposure to be reasonable. As stated in the ‘‘Occupational Radiation Doses’’ section of this document, STPNOC’s radiation protection program monitors radiation levels throughout the nuclear plant to establish appropriate work controls, training, temporary shielding, and protective equipment requirements so that worker doses are expected to remain within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1201. In addition, as stated in the ‘‘Offsite Radiation Dose’’ section of this document, STPNOC also has a radiation monitoring system and procedures in place to control the release of radioactive effluents in accordance with radiation protection standards in 10 CFR 20.1301, 40 CFR part 190, and the ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Therefore, radiation exposure to members of the public would be maintained within the NRC dose criteria in 10 CFR 20.1301, 40 CFR part 190, and the ALARA dose objectives of appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. Conclusion Based on this information, impacts to members of the public from removing and replacing insulation within the reactor containment building would not be significant. However, impacts to plant workers and the environment from implementing this alternative would be greater than implementing the proposed action. Alternative Use of Resources The proposed action would not involve the use of any different resources (e.g., water, air, land, nuclear fuel) not previously considered in NUREG–1437, Supplement 48. Agencies and Persons Consulted In accordance with its stated policy, on April 7, 2016, the NRC staff consulted with the Texas State official, Mr. Robert Free, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The state official concurred with the EA and finding of no significant impact. asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES Title 18:44 May 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 The NRC is considering STPNOC’s requests to amend Facility Operating License Nos. NPF–76 and NPF–80 for STP, Units 1 and 2, and to grant exemptions for STP, Units 1 and 2, from certain requirements of 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, GDCs 35, 38, and 41. This proposed action would not result in changes to radioactive effluents or emissions to nuclear plant workers and members of the public or any changes to radiological and non-radiological impacts to the environment. Therefore, the NRC has concluded that implementing the proposed action would result in no significant environmental effects, and that a draft Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. The NRC’s draft EA, included in section III, ‘‘Draft Environmental Assessment,’’ of this document, is incorporated by reference into this finding. On the basis of the EA, the NRC concludes that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed action. V. Availability of Documents The documents identified in the following table are available for public inspection through the NRC’s Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) or by using one of the methods discussed in Section I.A, ‘‘Obtaining Information,’’ of this document. Date NUREG–0897, Containment Emergency Sump Performance: Technical Findings Related to Unresolved Safety Issue A–43, Revision 1. NRC Generic Letter 2004–02, Potential Impact of Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation During Design Basis Accidents at Pressurized-Water Reactors. NEI letter to NRC, Nuclear Energy Institute, GSI–191 Dose Estimates ..................... Commission SECY–12–0093, Closure Options for Generic Safety Issue–191, Assessment of Debris Accumulation on Pressurized-Water Reactor Sump Performance. Commission SRM–SECY–12–0093, Staff Requirements—SECY–12–0093—Closure Options for Generic Safety Issue–191, Assessment of Debris Accumulation on Pressurized-Water Reactor Sump Performance. STPNOC letter to NRC, STP Pilot Submittal and Request for Exemption for a RiskInformed Approach to Resolve Generic Safety Issue (GSI)–191. NRC letter to STPNOC, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2—Supplemental Information Needed for Acceptance of Requested Licensing Action Re: Request for Exemption for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolve Generic Safety Issue 191. STPNOC letter to NRC, Revised STP Pilot Submittal and Requests for Exemptions and License Amendment for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolving Generic Safety Issue (GSI)–191. STPNOC letter to NRC, Corrections to Information Provided in Revised STP Pilot Submittal and Requests for Exemptions and License Amendment for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolving Generic Safety Issue (GSI)–191. VerDate Sep<11>2014 IV. Draft Finding of No Significant Impact PO 00000 Frm 00070 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 ADAMS Accession No. 10/1985 ML112440046. 9/13/2004 ML042360586. 03/30/2012 07/09/2012 ML12095A319. ML121320270 (package). 12/14/2012 ML12349A378. 01/31/2013 ML13043A013. 04/01/2013 ML13066A519. 06/19/2013 ML131750250 (package). 10/03/2013 ML13295A222. E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1 26843 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 86 / Wednesday, May 4, 2016 / Notices Title Date STPNOC letter to NRC, Submittal of GSI–191 Chemical Effects Test Reports ......... STPNOC letter to NRC, Supplement 1 to Revised STP Pilot Submittal and Requests for Exemptions and License Amendment for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolving Generic Safety Issue (GSI)–191. STPNOC letter to NRC, Supplement 1 to Revised STP Pilot Submittal for a Risk-Informed Approach to Resolving Generic Safety Issue (GSI)–191 to Supersede and Replace the Revised Pilot Submittal. NUREG–1437, Supplement 48, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 48 Regarding South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2: Final Report. STPNOC letter to NRC, Response to STP–GSI–191 EMCB–RAI–1 .......................... STPNOC letter to NRC, Response to NRC Request for Reference Document For STP Risk-Informed GSI–191 Application. STPNOC letter to NRC, Response to NRC Accident Dose Branch Request for Additional Information. STPNOC letter to NRC, Response to Request for Additional Information re Use of RELAP5 in Analyses for Risk-Informed GSI–191 Licensing Application. STPNOC letter to NRC, Submittal of CASA Grande Code and Analyses for STP’s Risk-Informed GSI–191 Licensing Application. STPNOC letter to NRC, Submittal of GSI–191 Chemical Effects Test Reports ......... NRC Letter to STPNOC, Request for Additional Information, Round 1 ...................... NUREG–0713, Volume 34, Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2012: Forty-Fifth Annual Report. NRC letter to STPNOC, Request for Additional Information, Round 2 ....................... STPNOC letter to NRC, Second Submittal of CASA Grande Source Code for STP’s Risk-Informed GSI–191 Licensing Application. STPNOC letter to NRC, First Set of Responses to April, 2014, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSl–191 Licensing Application— Revised. STPNOC letter to NRC, Second Set of Responses to April, 2014, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI–191 Licensing Application. STPNOC letter to NRC, Third Set of Responses to April, 2014, Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP Risk-Informed GSI–191 Licensing Application. STPNOC letter to NRC, Submittal of Updated CASA Grande Input for STP’s RiskInformed GSI–191 Licensing Application. STPNOC letter to NRC, Description of Revised Risk-Informed Methodology and Responses to Round 2 Requests for Additional Information Regarding STP RiskInformed GSI–191 Licensing Application. STPNOC letter to NRC, Supplement 2 to STP Pilot Submittal and Requests for Exemptions and License Amendment for a Risk-Informed Approach to Address Generic Safety Issue (GSI)–191 and Respond to Generic Letter (GL) 2004–02. NRC letter to STPNOC, Request for Additional Information, Round 3 ....................... Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of April 2016. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Robert J. Pascarelli, Chief, Plant Licensing Branch IV–I, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. [FR Doc. 2016–10429 Filed 5–3–16; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590–01–P POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION [Docket No. CP2016–157; Order No. 3268] asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with NOTICES New Postal Product 10/31/2013 11/13/2013 ML13323A673 (package). ML13323A128 (package). 11/21/2013 ML13338A165. 11/2013 ML13322A890. 12/23/2013 12/23/2013 ML14015A312. ML14015A311. 03/17/2014 ML14086A383 (package). 01/09/2014 ML14029A533. 02/13/2014 02/27/2014 04/15/2014 04/2014 ML14052A110 (package, dacted). ML14072A075 (package). ML14087A075. ML14126A597. 03/03/2015 05/15/2014 ML14357A171. ML14149A354. 05/22/2014 ML14149A439 (package). 06/25/2014 ML14178A467 (package). 07/15/2014 ML14202A045. 03/10/2015 ML15072A092. 03/25/2015 ML15091A440. 08/20/2015 ML15246A125 (package). 04/11/2016 ML16082A507. comment, and takes other administrative steps. DATES: Comments are due: May 6, 2016. ADDRESSES: Submit comments electronically via the Commission’s Filing Online system at https:// www.prc.gov. Those who cannot submit comments electronically should contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section by telephone for advice on filing alternatives. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David A. Trissell, General Counsel, at 202–789–6820. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: AGENCY: Table of Contents ACTION: I. Introduction II. Notice of Commission Action III. Ordering Paragraphs Postal Regulatory Commission. Notice. The Commission is noticing a recent Postal Service filing concerning notice to enter into an additional Global Expedited Package Services 3 negotiated service agreement. This notice informs the public of the filing, invites public SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:44 May 03, 2016 Jkt 238001 I. Introduction On April 28, 2016, the Postal Service filed notice that it has entered into an additional Global Expedited Package PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 ADAMS Accession No. portions re- Services 3 (GEPS 3) negotiated service agreement (Agreement).1 To support its Notice, the Postal Service filed a copy of the Agreement, a copy of the Governors’ Decision authorizing the product, a certification of compliance with 39 U.S.C. 3633(a), and an application for non-public treatment of certain materials. It also filed supporting financial workpapers. II. Notice of Commission Action The Commission establishes Docket No. CP2016–157 for consideration of matters raised by the Notice. The Commission invites comments on whether the Postal Service’s filing is consistent with 39 U.S.C. 3632, 3633, or 3642, 39 CFR part 3015, and 39 CFR part 3020, subpart B. Comments are due no later than May 6, 2016. The public 1 Notice of United States Postal Service of Filing a Functionally Equivalent Global Expedited Package Services 3 Negotiated Service Agreement and Application for Non-Public Treatment of Materials Filed Under Seal, April 28, 2016 (Notice). E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM 04MYN1

Agencies

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26838-26843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-10429]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499; NRC-2016-0092]

STP Nuclear Operating Company, South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Draft environmental assessment and finding of no significant
impact; request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing for
public comment a draft environmental assessment (EA) prepared under the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and NRC regulations.
This EA summarizes the results of the NRC staff's environmental review,
which evaluates the potential environmental impacts of issuing license
amendments and granting regulatory exemptions in response to a request
from STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC, the licensee) for Facility
Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80, for South Texas Project
(STP), Units 1 and 2, respectively. The license amendments and
regulatory exemptions would allow STPNOC to make changes to the STP
licensing basis to incorporate the use of both a deterministic and a
risk-informed approach to address safety issues discussed in Generic
Safety Issue (GSI)-191 and to close Generic Letter (GL) 2004-02.

DATES: Submit comments by June 20, 2016. Comments received after this
date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission
is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this
date.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by any of the following methods
(unless this document describes a different method for submitting
comments on a specific subject):
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0092. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-415-
3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov. For technical questions, contact
the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this document.
Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey, Office of Administration,
Mail Stop: OWFN-12-H08, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC 20555-0001.
For additional direction on obtaining information and submitting
comments, see ``Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments'' in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Regner, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington DC 20555-
0001; telephone: 301-415-1906, email: Lisa.Regner@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Obtaining Information and Submitting Comments

A. Obtaining Information

Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2016-0092 when contacting the NRC
about the availability of information for this action. You may obtain
publicly-available information related to this action by any of the
following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2016-0092.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly-available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://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 email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. For
the convenience of the reader, instructions about obtaining materials
referenced in this document are provided in a table in the section of
this notice entitled, Availability of Documents.
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.

B. Submitting Comments

Please include Docket ID NRC-2016-0092 in your comment submission.
The NRC cautions you not to include identifying or contact
information that you do not want to be publicly disclosed in your
comment submission. The NRC posts all comment submissions at https://www.regulations.gov as well as entering the comment submissions into
ADAMS. The NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to remove
identifying or contact information.
If you are requesting or aggregating comments from other persons
for submission to the NRC, then you should inform those persons not to
include identifying or contact information that they do not want to be
publicly disclosed in their comment submission. Your request should
state that the NRC does not routinely edit comment submissions to
remove such information before making the comment submissions available
to the public or entering the comment submissions into ADAMS.

II. Introduction and Background

The NRC is considering a request to amend Facility Operating
Licenses NPF-76 and NPF-80, issued to STPNOC for operation of STP,
Units 1 and 2, located in Matagorda County, Texas, and to grant certain
regulatory exemptions for STP, Units 1 and 2, in accordance with
section 50.90, ``Application for amendment of license, construction
permit, or early site permit'' and section 50.12, ``Specific
exemptions,'' of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR),
respectively. The license amendments and regulatory exemptions would
allow STPNOC to resolve concerns associated with GSI-191, ``Assessment
of Debris Accumulation on PWR [Pressurized-Water Reactor] Sump
Performance,'' and the associated GL 2004-02, ``Potential Impact of
Debris Blockage on Emergency Recirculation during Design Basis
Accidents at Pressurized-Water

[[Page 26839]]

Reactors,'' issued on September 13, 2004.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.21, ``Criteria for and identification of
licensing and regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments,''
the NRC has prepared a draft EA summarizing the findings of its
environmental NEPA review of this proposed action. The NRC concluded
that the proposed action will have no significant environmental impact.

Background

The NRC established a general safety issue (GSI-191) to determine
whether the transport and accumulation of debris from a loss-of-coolant
accident in the PWR containment structure would impede the operation of
the emergency core cooling system or containment spray system. A loss-
of-coolant accident within the containment structure is assumed to be
caused by a break in the primary coolant loop piping. Water discharged
from the pipe break would collect on the containment structure floor
and within the containment emergency sump. During this type of
accident, the emergency core cooling systems and containment spray
systems would initially draw cooling water from the refueling water
storage tank. However, realigning the emergency core cooling system
pumps to the containment structure emergency sump would provide long-
term cooling of the reactor core. Therefore, successful long-term
cooling depends on the ability of the containment structure emergency
sump to provide adequate flow to the residual heat removal
recirculation pumps for extended periods of time.
One of the concerns addressed by the implementation of GSI-191 is
that debris, such as insulation installed on piping and components,
within the containment structure could be dislodged by a jet of water
and steam from a loss-of-coolant accident. Water, along with debris,
would accumulate at the bottom of the containment structure and would
flow towards the emergency sump pumps. Insulation and other fibrous
material could block the emergency sump screens and suction strainers,
which in turn could prevent the ability of the containment emergency
sump to provide adequate flow to the residual heat removal
recirculation pumps (for more information, see NUREG-0897,
``Containment Emergency Sump Performance,'' Revision 1.
The NRC issued GL 2004-02 to address this safety concern by
requiring licensees of PWRs to: (1) Increase the size of their
containment sump strainers, (2) replace fibrous insulation inside
containment, and (3) implement other compensatory measures in order to
significantly reduce the risk of emergency sump strainer clogging.
Subsequent to the issuance of GL 2004-02, the NRC staff identified
another related concern with the potential for debris to bypass the
sump strainers (even the new strainers) and enter the reactor core.
This safety issue could result in the build-up of material on fuel
assemblies, inhibit heat transfer, and prevent adequate cooling of the
reactor core. Since 2004, the NRC and industry have conducted tests to
gain more information on this concern. In 2012, the NRC staff developed
three options for resolution of all of its debris concerns, which are
discussed in SECY-12-0093, ``Closure Options for Generic Safety Issue
191, Assessment of Debris Accumulation on Pressurized-Water Reactor
Sump Performance,'' dated July 9, 2012.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ On December 14, 2012, the Commission approved all three
options for closure of this safety issue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The three options for demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 50.46,
``Acceptance criteria for emergency core cooling systems for light-
water nuclear power reactors,'' are summarized as follows.
1. Option 1 allows the use of approved models and test methods.
2. Option 2 allows the industry to implement additional mitigating
measures until resolution is completed and take additional time to
resolve issues through further industry testing or use of a risk-
informed approach. Use of this option has two alternative methods.
Option 2A: Industry can perform more testing and analysis
and submit a topical report for NRC review and approval.
Option 2B: Industry can develop a risk-informed approach
to quantify the risk associated with this generic issue and submit a
license amendment request for NRC review and approval.
3. Option 3 allows industry to separate the regulatory treatment of
the sump strainer and in-vessel effects. The emergency core cooling
system strainers will be evaluated using currently approved models,
while in-vessel effects will be addressed using a risk-informed
approach.
STPNOC proposes to use Option 2B to demonstrate compliance with 10
CFR 50.46 through both plant-specific testing and a risk-informed
approach (described in more detail in the following paragraphs). Since
the use of a risk-informed approach is not recognized in the
regulations, STPNOC requested an exemption to 10 CFR 50.46(a)(1) for
certain conditions associated with the treatment of debris.
Additionally, STPNOC requested exemptions to appendix A to 10 CFR part
50, General Design Criteria (GDC) 35, ``Emergency Core Cooling,'' GDC
38, ``Containment Heat Removal,'' and GDC 41, ``Containment Atmosphere
Cleanup,'' to allow its use of a risk-informed approach for certain
conditions in the containment debris analysis. If approved, the
proposed action would not result in modifications within the
containment structure or changes to the emergency core cooling system.

III. Draft Environmental Assessment

Description of the Proposed Action

The proposed action is to issue certain license amendments and to
grant certain regulatory exemptions requested by STPNOC. The license
amendments and regulatory exemptions would allow STPNOC to make changes
to the STP licensing basis to incorporate the use of both a
deterministic and a risk-informed approach to address safety issues
discussed in GSI-191 and close GL 2004-02. If approved, no physical
modifications to the nuclear plant or changes to reactor operations
involving the emergency core cooling system would be required. The
proposed action is in response to the licensee's application dated June
19, 2013, and supplemented by letters dated October 3, October 31,
November 13, November 21, and December 23, 2013 (two letters); January
9, February 13, February 27, March 17, March 18, May 15 (two letters),
May 22, June 25, and July 15, 2014; and March 10, March 25, and August
20, 2015.

The Need for the Proposed Action

As the holder of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80,
STPNOC is expected to address the safety issues discussed in GSI-191
and to close GL 2004-02 with respect to STP, Units 1 and 2. Consistent
with SECY-12-0093, STPNOC chose an approach which requires, in part,
that STPNOC request that the NRC amend the operating licenses and grant
certain regulatory exemptions for each unit.

Plant Site and Environs

The STP is located on approximately 12,220 acres (4,945 hectares)
in rural and sparsely populated Matagorda County, Texas, approximately
70 miles (mi) [110 kilometers (km)] south-southwest of Houston. Nearby
communities include Matagorda, approximately 8 mi (13 km) south of the
site; the City of Palacios, 11 mi (18 km)

[[Page 26840]]

west of the site; and Bay City, 13 mi (21 km) north of the site.
The STP power plant consists of two four-loop Westinghouse PWR
units. The reactor core of each unit heats water, which is pumped to
four steam generators, where the heated water is converted to steam.
The steam is then used to turn turbines, which are connected to
electrical generators that produce electricity. A simplified drawing of
a PWR can be viewed at https://www.nrc.gov/reactors/pwrs.html.
The reactor, steam generators, and other components are housed in a
concrete and steel containment structure (building). The containment
structure is a reinforced concrete cylinder with a concrete slab base
and hemispherical dome. A welded steel liner is attached to the inside
face of the concrete shell to ensure a high degree of leak tightness.
In addition, the 4-foot (1.2-meter)-thick concrete walls of the
containment structure serve as a radiation shield. Additional
information on the plant structures and systems, as well as the
environmental impact statement for license renewal, can be found in
NUREG-1437, Supplement 48, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Supplement 48 Regarding South Texas
Project, Units 1 and 2.''

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

Radiological and non-radiological impacts on the environment that
may result from issuing the license amendments and granting the
regulatory exemptions are summarized in the following sections.

Non-Radiological Impacts

No physical modifications to the nuclear plant or changes to
reactor operations involving the emergency core cooling system would be
required if the NRC were to issue the requested license amendments and
grant the regulatory exemptions. Also, no physical changes would be
made to other structures or land use within the STP site. Non-
radiological liquid effluents or gaseous emissions would not change and
therefore environmental conditions at the STP site also would not
change. In addition, issuing the license amendments and granting the
regulatory exemptions would not result in changes to the use of
resources or cause any new environmental impacts.
Therefore, there would be no non-radiological environmental impacts
to any resource or any irreversible and irretrievable commitments of
resources.

Non-Radiological Cumulative Impacts

Since issuing the license amendments and granting the regulatory
exemptions would not result in environmental effects, there would be no
cumulative impact.

Radiological Impacts

Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents and Solid Waste

The STP uses waste treatment systems to collect, process, recycle,
and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that contain
radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner within NRC and
Environmental Protection Agency radiation safety standards. Issuing the
license amendments and granting the regulatory exemptions will not
result in any physical changes to the nuclear plant or reactor
operations that would affect the types and quantities of radioactive
material generated during plant operations; therefore, there will be no
changes to the plant radioactive waste treatment systems. A detailed
description of the STP radioactive waste handling and disposal
activities is contained in Chapter 2.1.2 of Supplement 48 to NUREG-
1437.

Radioactive Gaseous Effluents

The objectives of the STP gaseous waste management system (GWMS)
are to process and control the release of radioactive gaseous effluents
into the environment to be within the requirements of 10 CFR 20.1301,
``Dose limits for individual members of the public,'' and to be
consistent with the as low as is reasonably achievable (ALARA) dose
objectives set forth in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The GWMS is
designed so that radiation exposure to plant workers is within the dose
limits in 10 CFR 20.1201, ``Occupational dose limits for adults.''
Issuing the license amendments and granting the regulatory
exemptions will not result in any physical changes to the nuclear plant
or reactor operations; therefore, there will be no changes to the GWMS.
The existing equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive
releases to the environment will continue to be used to maintain
radioactive gaseous releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1301
and the ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.

Radioactive Liquid Effluents

The function of the STP liquid waste processing system (LWPS) is to
collect and process radioactive liquid wastes to reduce radioactivity
and chemical concentrations to levels acceptable for discharge to the
environment or to recycle the liquids for use in plant systems. The
principal objectives of the LWPS are to collect liquid wastes that may
contain radioactive material and to maintain sufficient processing
capability so that liquid waste may be discharged to the environment
below the regulatory limits of 10 CFR 20.1301 and consistent with the
ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50. The waste is
routed through a monitor that measures the radioactivity and can
automatically terminate the release in the event radioactivity exceeds
predetermined levels. The liquid waste is discharged into the main
cooling reservoir. The entire main cooling reservoir is within the STP
site boundary and the public is prohibited from access to the area.
Issuing the license amendments and granting the regulatory
exemptions will not result in any physical changes to the nuclear plant
or reactor operations; therefore, there will be no changes to the LWPS.
The existing equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive
releases to the environment will continue to be used to maintain
radioactive liquid releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1301
and the ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.

Radioactive Solid Wastes

The function of the STP solid waste processing system (SWPS) is to
process, package, and store the solid radioactive wastes generated by
nuclear plant operations until they are shipped off site to a vendor
for further processing or for permanent disposal at a licensed burial
facility, or both. The storage areas have restricted access and
shielding to reduce radiation rates to plant workers. The principal
objectives of the SWPS are to package and transport the waste in
compliance with NRC regulations in 10 CFR part 61, ``Licensing
Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste,'' and 10 CFR part
71, ``Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material,'' and the
U.S. Department of Transportation regulations in 49 CFR parts 170
through 179; and to maintain the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1201, 10 CFR
20.1301, and appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.
Issuing the license amendments and granting the regulatory
exemptions will not result in any physical changes to the nuclear plant
or reactor operations; therefore, the waste can be handled by the SWPS
without modification. The existing equipment and plant procedures that
control radioactive solid waste handling will continue to be used to
maintain exposures within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1201, 10 CFR

[[Page 26841]]

20.1301, and 10 CFR part 50 appendix I.

Occupational Radiation Doses

The proposed action of issuing the license amendments and granting
the regulatory exemptions will not result in any physical changes being
made to the nuclear plant or reactor operations; therefore, there will
be no change to any in-plant radiation sources. The licensee's
radiation protection program monitors radiation levels throughout the
nuclear plant to establish appropriate work controls, training,
temporary shielding, and protective equipment requirements so that
worker doses will remain within the dose limits of 10 CFR part 20,
subpart C, ``Occupational Dose Limits.'' Issuing the license amendments
and granting the regulatory exemptions will not change radiation levels
within the nuclear plant and, therefore, will have no increased
radiological impact to the workers.

Offsite Radiation Dose

The primary sources of offsite dose to members of the public from
the STP are radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents. As discussed
previously, there will be no change to the operation of the STP
radioactive gaseous and liquid waste management systems or the ability
to perform their intended functions. Also, there will be no change to
the STP radiation monitoring system and procedures used to control the
release of radioactive effluents in accordance with radiation
protection standards in 10 CFR 20.1301, 40 CFR 190, ``Environmental
Radiation Protection Standards for Nuclear Power Operations,'' and the
ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR part 50.
Based on the previous statements, the offsite radiation dose to
members of the public would not change and would continue to be within
regulatory limits, and, therefore, issuing the license amendments and
granting the regulatory exemptions will not change offsite dose levels
and, consequently, the health effects of the proposed action will not
be significant.

Design-Basis Accidents

Design-basis accidents at STP, Units 1 and 2, are evaluated by both
the licensee and the NRC to ensure that the units can withstand the
spectrum of postulated accidents without undue hazard to the public
health and safety and the protection of the environment.
Separate from its environmental review in this EA, the NRC staff is
evaluating the licensee's technical and safety analyses provided in
support of the proposed action of issuing the license amendments and
granting the exemption requests to ensure that, following the proposed
action, the licensee will continue to meet the NRC regulatory
requirements for safe operation. The results and conclusion of the NRC
staff's safety review will be documented in a publicly available safety
evaluation. If the NRC staff concludes in this safety evaluation that
taking the proposed action will (1) provide reasonable assurance that
the health and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation
in the proposed manner, (2) provide reasonable assurance that such
activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's
regulations, and (3) not be inimical to the common defense and security
or to the health and safety of the public, then the proposed action
will also not have a significant environmental impact. The NRC will not
take the proposed action absent such a safety conclusion.

Radiological Cumulative Impacts

The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and plant
workers have been developed by the NRC and the Environmental Protection
Agency to address the cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure
to radiation and radioactive material. These dose limits are codified
in 10 CFR part 20, ``Standards for Protection Against Radiation,'' and
40 CFR part 190.
Cumulative radiation doses are required to be within the limits set
forth in the regulations cited in the previous paragraph. Issuing the
license amendments and granting the exemptions will not require any
physical changes to the plant or plant activities, there will not be
changes to in-plant radiation sources, and offsite radiation dose to
members of the public will not change. Therefore, the NRC staff
concludes that there would not be a significant cumulative radiological
impact from the proposed action.

Radiological Impacts Summary

Based on these radiological evaluations, the proposed action of
issuing the license amendments and granting the exemptions would not
result in any significant radiological impacts. Therefore, if the NRC
staff concludes in its separate safety evaluation that taking the
proposed action will (1) provide reasonable assurance that the health
and safety of the public will not be endangered by operation in the
proposed manner, (2) provide reasonable assurance that such activities
will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and
(3) not be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health
and safety of the public, then the proposed action will not have a
significant radiological impact.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As discussed earlier, licensees have options in responding to GL
2004-02 and demonstrating compliance with 10 CFR 50.46 to consider the
impacts of debris on emergency core cooling system. Consistent with
these options, as an alternative to the proposed action, the licensee
could choose to remove and replace insulation within the reactor
containment building. This would require the physical removal and
disposal of significant amounts of insulation from a radiation area
within the reactor containment building and the installation of new
insulation less likely to impact sump performance.
Removal of the existing insulation from the containment building
would generate radiologically contaminated waste. STPNOC estimated that
4,620 cubic feet of insulation would be removed and stored onsite until
disposal. The old insulation would require special handling and
packaging so that it could be safely transported from the STP site. The
licensee's existing low-level radioactive and hazardous waste handling
and disposal activities would likely be used to process and store this
waste material. The old insulation would then be transported to a low-
level radioactive or hazardous waste disposal site. Energy (fuel) would
be expended to transport the insulation and land would be expended at
the disposal site.
The removal of the old insulation and installation of the new
insulation would expose workers to radiation. In its application,
STPNOC estimates that this would result in an additional collective
radiation exposure of 158-176 person-roentgen equivalent man (rem) over
its baseline collective radiation exposure. The NRC staff reviewed
NUREG-0713, Volume 34, ``Occupational Radiation Exposure at Commercial
Nuclear Power Reactors and Other Facilities 2012: Forty-Fifth Annual
Report,'' and determined that STPNOC's average baseline collective
radiation exposure is approximately 90 person-rem. This additional 158-
176 person-rem collective exposure would be shared across the entire
work force involved with removing and reinstalling insulation.
In SECY-12-0093, the NRC staff attempted to develop a total
occupational dose estimate for the work

[[Page 26842]]

involved in insulation removal and replacement associated with GSI-191.
Due to uncertainties in the scope of work required to remove and
replace insulation at a specific nuclear plant and other site-specific
factors such as source term and hazardous materials, the NRC staff was
unable to estimate the total occupational dose associated with this
work. However, dose estimates were provided by the Nuclear Energy
Institute (NEI) in a letter to the NRC dated March 30, 2012, based on
information collected on occupational radiation exposures that have
been, or could be, incurred during insulation removal and replacement.
In the letter, NEI noted similar difficulties to those experienced by
the NRC staff in estimating the potential amount of radiation exposure,
but provided a ``per unit'' estimate of between 80 to 525 person-rem.
The NRC staff ultimately concluded, given the uncertainties in the
scope of work and other nuclear plant site-specific factors such as
source term and hazardous materials, that there was no basis to
conclude that the NEI estimates were unreasonable. Therefore, since
STPNOC's estimate of radiation exposure for insulation removal and
replacement is within the NEI estimated range, the NRC staff considers
STPNOC's estimate of an increase of 158-176 person-rem over the
baseline exposure to be reasonable.
As stated in the ``Occupational Radiation Doses'' section of this
document, STPNOC's radiation protection program monitors radiation
levels throughout the nuclear plant to establish appropriate work
controls, training, temporary shielding, and protective equipment
requirements so that worker doses are expected to remain within the
dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1201.
In addition, as stated in the ``Offsite Radiation Dose'' section of
this document, STPNOC also has a radiation monitoring system and
procedures in place to control the release of radioactive effluents in
accordance with radiation protection standards in 10 CFR 20.1301, 40
CFR part 190, and the ALARA dose objectives in appendix I to 10 CFR
part 50. Therefore, radiation exposure to members of the public would
be maintained within the NRC dose criteria in 10 CFR 20.1301, 40 CFR
part 190, and the ALARA dose objectives of appendix I to 10 CFR part
50.

Conclusion

Based on this information, impacts to members of the public from
removing and replacing insulation within the reactor containment
building would not be significant. However, impacts to plant workers
and the environment from implementing this alternative would be greater
than implementing the proposed action.
Alternative Use of Resources
The proposed action would not involve the use of any different
resources (e.g., water, air, land, nuclear fuel) not previously
considered in NUREG-1437, Supplement 48.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on April 7, 2016, the NRC
staff consulted with the Texas State official, Mr. Robert Free,
regarding the environmental impact of the proposed action. The state
official concurred with the EA and finding of no significant impact.

IV. Draft Finding of No Significant Impact

The NRC is considering STPNOC's requests to amend Facility
Operating License Nos. NPF-76 and NPF-80 for STP, Units 1 and 2, and to
grant exemptions for STP, Units 1 and 2, from certain requirements of
10 CFR 50.46(a)(1), and 10 CFR part 50, appendix A, GDCs 35, 38, and
41. This proposed action would not result in changes to radioactive
effluents or emissions to nuclear plant workers and members of the
public or any changes to radiological and non-radiological impacts to
the environment. Therefore, the NRC has concluded that implementing the
proposed action would result in no significant environmental effects,
and that a draft Finding of No Significant Impact is appropriate. The
NRC's draft EA, included in section III, ``Draft Environmental
Assessment,'' of this document, is incorporated by reference into this
finding.
On the basis of the EA, the NRC concludes that the proposed action
will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human
environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the proposed action.

V. Availability of Documents

The documents identified in the following table are available for
public inspection through the NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and
Management System (ADAMS) or by using one of the methods discussed in
Section I.A, ``Obtaining Information,'' of this document.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title Date ADAMS Accession No.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUREG-0897, Containment Emergency 10/1985 ML112440046.
Sump Performance: Technical
Findings Related to Unresolved
Safety Issue A-43, Revision 1.
NRC Generic Letter 2004-02, 9/13/2004 ML042360586.
Potential Impact of Debris
Blockage on Emergency
Recirculation During Design Basis
Accidents at Pressurized-Water
Reactors.
NEI letter to NRC, Nuclear Energy 03/30/2012 ML12095A319.
Institute, GSI-191 Dose Estimates.
Commission SECY-12-0093, Closure 07/09/2012 ML121320270
Options for Generic Safety Issue- (package).
191, Assessment of Debris
Accumulation on Pressurized-Water
Reactor Sump Performance.
Commission SRM-SECY-12-0093, Staff 12/14/2012 ML12349A378.
Requirements--SECY-12-0093--Closu
re Options for Generic Safety
Issue-191, Assessment of Debris
Accumulation on Pressurized-Water
Reactor Sump Performance.
STPNOC letter to NRC, STP Pilot 01/31/2013 ML13043A013.
Submittal and Request for
Exemption for a Risk-Informed
Approach to Resolve Generic
Safety Issue (GSI)-191.
NRC letter to STPNOC, South Texas 04/01/2013 ML13066A519.
Project, Units 1 and 2--
Supplemental Information Needed
for Acceptance of Requested
Licensing Action Re: Request for
Exemption for a Risk-Informed
Approach to Resolve Generic
Safety Issue 191.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Revised STP 06/19/2013 ML131750250
Pilot Submittal and Requests for (package).
Exemptions and License Amendment
for a Risk-Informed Approach to
Resolving Generic Safety Issue
(GSI)-191.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Corrections 10/03/2013 ML13295A222.
to Information Provided in
Revised STP Pilot Submittal and
Requests for Exemptions and
License Amendment for a Risk-
Informed Approach to Resolving
Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191.

[[Page 26843]]

STPNOC letter to NRC, Submittal of 10/31/2013 ML13323A673
GSI-191 Chemical Effects Test (package).
Reports.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Supplement 1 11/13/2013 ML13323A128
to Revised STP Pilot Submittal (package).
and Requests for Exemptions and
License Amendment for a Risk-
Informed Approach to Resolving
Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Supplement 1 11/21/2013 ML13338A165.
to Revised STP Pilot Submittal
for a Risk-Informed Approach to
Resolving Generic Safety Issue
(GSI)-191 to Supersede and
Replace the Revised Pilot
Submittal.
NUREG-1437, Supplement 48, Generic 11/2013 ML13322A890.
Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants: Supplement 48 Regarding
South Texas Project, Units 1 and
2: Final Report.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Response to 12/23/2013 ML14015A312.
STP-GSI-191 EMCB-RAI-1.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Response to 12/23/2013 ML14015A311.
NRC Request for Reference
Document For STP Risk-Informed
GSI-191 Application.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Response to 03/17/2014 ML14086A383
NRC Accident Dose Branch Request (package).
for Additional Information.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Response to 01/09/2014 ML14029A533.
Request for Additional
Information re Use of RELAP5 in
Analyses for Risk-Informed GSI-
191 Licensing Application.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Submittal of 02/13/2014 ML14052A110
CASA Grande Code and Analyses for (package, portions
STP's Risk-Informed GSI-191 redacted).
Licensing Application.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Submittal of 02/27/2014 ML14072A075
GSI-191 Chemical Effects Test (package).
Reports.
NRC Letter to STPNOC, Request for 04/15/2014 ML14087A075.
Additional Information, Round 1.
NUREG-0713, Volume 34, 04/2014 ML14126A597.
Occupational Radiation Exposure
at Commercial Nuclear Power
Reactors and Other Facilities
2012: Forty-Fifth Annual Report.
NRC letter to STPNOC, Request for 03/03/2015 ML14357A171.
Additional Information, Round 2.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Second 05/15/2014 ML14149A354.
Submittal of CASA Grande Source
Code for STP's Risk-Informed GSI-
191 Licensing Application.
STPNOC letter to NRC, First Set of 05/22/2014 ML14149A439
Responses to April, 2014, (package).
Requests for Additional
Information Regarding STP Risk-
Informed GSl-191 Licensing
Application--Revised.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Second Set 06/25/2014 ML14178A467
of Responses to April, 2014, (package).
Requests for Additional
Information Regarding STP Risk-
Informed GSI-191 Licensing
Application.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Third Set of 07/15/2014 ML14202A045.
Responses to April, 2014,
Requests for Additional
Information Regarding STP Risk-
Informed GSI-191 Licensing
Application.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Submittal of 03/10/2015 ML15072A092.
Updated CASA Grande Input for
STP's Risk-Informed GSI-191
Licensing Application.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Description 03/25/2015 ML15091A440.
of Revised Risk-Informed
Methodology and Responses to
Round 2 Requests for Additional
Information Regarding STP Risk-
Informed GSI-191 Licensing
Application.
STPNOC letter to NRC, Supplement 2 08/20/2015 ML15246A125
to STP Pilot Submittal and (package).
Requests for Exemptions and
License Amendment for a Risk-
Informed Approach to Address
Generic Safety Issue (GSI)-191
and Respond to Generic Letter
(GL) 2004-02.
NRC letter to STPNOC, Request for 04/11/2016 ML16082A507.
Additional Information, Round 3.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 26th day of April 2016.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Robert J. Pascarelli,
Chief, Plant Licensing Branch IV-I, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2016-10429 Filed 5-3-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.