STP Nuclear Operating Company; South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, 74450-74455 [2022-26387]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
74450
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2022 / Notices
Week of January 9, 2023—Tentative
There are no meetings scheduled for
the week of January 9, 2023.
CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:
For more information or to verify the
status of meetings, contact Wesley Held
at 301–287–3591 or via email at
Wesley.Held@nrc.gov.
The NRC is holding the meetings
under the authority of the Government
in the Sunshine Act, 5 U.S.C. 552b.
Dated: November 30, 2022.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Wesley W. Held,
Policy Coordinator, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2022–26428 Filed 12–1–22; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499; NRC–
2022–0206]
STP Nuclear Operating Company;
South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and
finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is issuing an
environmental assessment (EA) and
finding of no significant impact (FONSI)
under the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and NRC’s
regulations. This EA summarizes the
results of the NRC staff’s environmental
review, which evaluates the potential
environmental impacts of approving an
alternate disposal request in response to
a request from STP Nuclear Operating
Company (STPNOC) for Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses NPF–76 and
NPF–80 for South Texas Project, Units
1 and 2 (STP). Specifically, the alternate
disposal request, if approved, would
allow the licensee to dispose of verylow-level waste (VLLW) generated
during day-to-day operations at the STP
reactor site at Texas Class 1 or Class 2
industrial landfills.
DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in
this document are available on
December 5, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2022–0206 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may obtain publicly available
information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
ddrumheller on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:34 Dec 02, 2022
Jkt 259001
for Docket ID NRC–2022–0206. Address
questions about Docket IDs in
Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann;
telephone: 301–415–0624; email:
Stacy.Schumann@nrc.gov. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed
in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT section of this document.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly
available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at
https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/
adams.html. To begin the search, 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 provide in the
‘‘Availability of Documents’’ section.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents,
by appointment, at the NRC’s PDR,
Room P1 B35, One White Flint North,
11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852. To make an
appointment to visit the PDR, please
send an email to PDR.Resource@nrc.gov
or call 1–800–397–4209 or 301–415–
4737, between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.
Eastern Time (ET), Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dennis Galvin, Office of Nuclear Reactor
Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001, telephone: 301–415–6256, email:
Dennis.Galvin@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The NRC is considering the approval
of an alternate disposal request, dated
November 4, 2021, as supplemented by
letters dated December 3, 2021, August
19, 2022, and November 22, 2022, from
STPNOC for waste material containing
VLLW generated during day-to-day
operations at the STP reactor site,
located in Matagorda County, Texas, for
ultimate disposal at Texas Class 1 or
Class 2 industrial landfills.1 The August
19, 2022, STPNOC letter was in
response to the NRC request for
information, dated July 20, 2022. The
term ‘‘VLLW’’ is generally understood
as material created during the conduct
of NRC- or Agreement State-licensed
activities that contains some residual
1 Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial landfills refer
to landfills permitted to accept Class 1 or Class 2
waste as defined by Texas regulations in 30 Texas
Administrative Code 335 Subchapter R.
PO 00000
Frm 00060
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
radioactivity, including naturally
occurring radionuclides, that may be
safely disposed in hazardous or
municipal solid waste landfills. VLLW
represents a small fraction of the hazard
of waste at the Class A limits in Part 61
of title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR), ‘‘Licensing
Requirements for Land Disposal of
Radioactive Waste.’’
NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’
dated June 2013 (hereafter, the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement or
GEIS), Section 3.1.4.3, ‘‘Solid
Radioactive Waste,’’ addresses solid
low-level waste (LLW) as follows:
Solid [LLW] from nuclear power plants is
generated from the removal of radionuclides
from liquid waste streams, filtration of
airborne gaseous emissions, and removal of
contaminated material from various reactor
areas. Liquid contaminated with
radionuclides comes from primary and
secondary coolant systems, spent fuel pools,
decontaminated wastewater, and laboratory
operations.
Solid waste is packaged in containers to
meet the applicable requirements of
[Department of Transportation’s regulations
at] 49 CFR parts 171 through 177. Disposal
and transportation are performed in
accordance with the NRC’s applicable
requirements of 10 CFR part 61 and 10 CFR
part 71, respectively.
Solid radioactive waste generated during
operations is shipped to a LLW processor or
directly to a [10 CFR part 61] LLW disposal
site.
As noted in Supplement 48 to
NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental
Impact State for License Renewal,
Supplement 48: Regarding South Texas
Project, Units 1 and 2’’ dated November
2013 (hereafter, the Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement or
SEIS), the SEIS generated as part of the
STP license renewal process,2 a solid
waste processing system is maintained
onsite at STP designed to process,
package, and store solid radioactive
wastes generated by plant operations
until they are shipped offsite to a
vendor for further processing or for
permanent disposal at a 10 CFR part 61
LLW disposal facility.
The waste being considered in the
licensee’s alternate disposal request
includes dewatered sewage sludge, ion
exchange media, desiccant, ventilation
filtration media, and soil that originated
from the secondary side of plant
operations. Rather than disposal at a 10
CFR part 61 LLW disposal site, the
licensee is requesting approval to
dispose of the waste at Texas Class 1 or
2 The license was renewed on September 28,
2017.
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2022 / Notices
ddrumheller on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES
Class 2 industrial landfills in
accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002,
‘‘Method for obtaining approval of
proposed disposal procedures.’’
In accordance with NRC guidance
outlined in All Agreement States letter
Office of Federal and State Materials
and Environmental Management
Programs (FSME)–12–025,
‘‘Clarification of the Authorization for
Alternate Disposal of Material Issued
Under 10 CFR 20.2002 and Exemption
Provisions In 10 CFR,’’ dated March 13,
2012, and Regulatory Information
Summary–2016–11, ‘‘Requests to
Dispose of Very Low-Level Radioactive
Waste Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2002,’’
dated November 13, 2016, approval of
the requested action requires
authorization from both the NRC and
the State of Texas. In order to release the
waste from the NRC license and allow
it to be disposed in accordance with the
request, a review must be performed by
the NRC as the regulatory agency that
issued the license. Texas, which is an
NRC Agreement State, maintains the
regulatory authority over the Class 1 and
Class 2 industrial landfills being
considered for the disposal of the waste
in question and, thus, maintains
responsibility for approving the disposal
of the requested waste and ensuring that
the disposal actions are performed in
accordance with regulations described
in the Texas Administrative Code
(TAC).3
The requested action of releasing the
waste from the licensee’s authority is a
licensing action and, per NRC
requirements in 10 CFR part 51,
‘‘Environmental Protection Regulations
for Domestic Licensing and Related
Regulatory Functions,’’ this action
requires an evaluation of environmental
impacts associated with the requested
action. The NRC staff has prepared this
EA 4 in accordance with NRC
requirements in 10 CFR 51.21, ‘‘Criteria
for and identification of licensing and
regulatory actions requiring
environmental assessments,’’ and 51.30,
‘‘Environmental assessment,’’ and with
the associated guidance in NUREG–
1748, ‘‘Environmental Review Guidance
for Licensing Actions Associated with
NMSS [the Office of Nuclear Material
3 Specific regulations can be found at: https://
www.sos.state.tx.us/tac/.
4 In 10 CFR 51.14, ‘‘Definitions,’’ an EA is defined
as ‘‘a concise public document for which the
Commission is responsible that serves to: (1)
[b]riefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis
for determining whether to prepare an
environmental impact statement or a finding of no
significant impact; (2) [a]id the Commission’s
compliance with NEPA when no environmental
impact statement is necessary; and (3) [f]acilitate
preparation of an environmental impact statement
when one is necessary.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:34 Dec 02, 2022
Jkt 259001
Safety and Safeguards] Programs,’’ dated
August 2003, and the Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation (NRR) Office
Instruction LIC–203, ‘‘Procedural
Guidance for Categorical Exclusions,
Environmental Assessments, and
Considering Environmental Issues,’’
dated July 2020. This EA evaluates the
licensee’s requested action of releasing
the waste which is regulated by the NRC
and the connected action 5 of
transporting the waste for disposal at an
industrial landfill, which is regulated by
Texas.
II. Environmental Assessment
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action consists of the
licensee’s 10 CFR 20.2002 alternate
disposal request to release the VLLW
waste generated from STP waste
management operational activities and
disposing of it at an existing Texas Class
1 or Class 2 industrial landfill. Per
established procedures and in
compliance with NRC regulations, the
licensee would continue onsite
operations related to the processing,
packaging, and shipping of the VLLW
offsite, which are described in Section
11.4, ‘‘Solid Waste Management
System,’’ of the STP Updated Final
Safety Analysis Report. For example,
waste is held, pending transport, in the
STP Environmental Yard as described in
plant procedures for packaging and
shipment of waste materials, as
discussed in the STPNOC letter, dated
December 3, 2021. No additional
construction activities or operational
changes at STP are required to prepare
the waste onsite for transportation and
for ultimate disposal, as discussed in
the STPNOC letter, dated August 19,
2022.
The proposed action, which involves
annual shipments of approximately 51
cubic meters (m3) per year of material,
results in individual shipping volumes
ranging from 4.25 m3 to 10.2 m3 per
shipment depending on the number of
shipments. These volumes are minimal
relative to annual volumes being
disposed at Texas Class 1 or Class 2
industrial landfills. For example,
according to the STPNOC 2020 annual
radioactive effluent release report, the
licensee disposed of a total of 59.6 m3
of VLLW at the Blue Ridge Landfill. A
review of the Texas Commission on
5 Connected actions are actions that are closely
related and therefore should be discussed in the
same assessment. Actions are connected if they: (i)
Automatically trigger other actions that may require
environmental impact statements; (ii) Cannot or
will not proceed unless other actions are taken
previously or simultaneously; or (iii) Are
interdependent parts of a larger action and depend
on the larger action for their justification.
PO 00000
Frm 00061
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
74451
Environmental Quality (TCEQ) reports,
‘‘Municipal Solid Waste in Texas: A
Year in Review, 2019 Data Summary
and Analysis’’ and ‘‘Municipal Solid
Waste in Texas: A Year in Review, 2020
Data Summary and Analysis,’’ indicated
that the Blue Ridge Landfill received
and disposed of approximately
1,300,000 m3 of similar material in the
2020 reporting year.
The waste would be transported per
Department of Transportation
regulations to Texas Class 1 or Class 2
industrial landfills authorized to accept
the material. The material being
considered for disposal in the requested
action will be shipped from STP to the
industrial landfill in B–25 boxes or 55gallon drums on trucks or, in some
cases, vacuum trucks. Upon arrival at
the landfill, disposal actions will be
performed in accordance with
established procedures and consistent
with Texas regulations. Texas would
maintain oversight and regulatory
authority of the disposal actions related
to the proposed action.
Need for the Proposed Action
The purpose and need for the
proposed action are to authorize a safe
and appropriate method for disposing of
material containing VLLW generated
during operations at STP. The proposed
action would expand the licensee’s
options for dispositioning this VLLW,
allowing disposal at Texas Class 1 or
Class 2 industrial landfills, as well as at
a 10 CFR part 61 LLW disposal site.
Approval of the proposed action would
allow the specified waste generated
during operations to be sent to
industrial landfills permitted by Texas
to receive the waste for disposal and
allow STP to continue operation. The
proposed action would also satisfy the
regulatory requirements regarding the
disposal of VLLW in accordance with
NRC regulations as noted in the NRC’s
letter to STPNOC, dated August 10,
2021.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the NRC staff considered the noaction alternative in which the NRC
staff would deny the disposal request.
Denial of the request would require STP
to dispose of the VLLW at a 10 CFR part
61 LLW disposal site or submit an
alternate disposal request that considers
another option for disposing of the
material.
Affected Environment Including
Environmental Characteristics
The affected environment of the
facilities and processes associated with
the onsite waste management activities
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
ddrumheller on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES
74452
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2022 / Notices
at STP is described in Chapter 2,
‘‘Affected Environment,’’ of the SEIS.
The environmental characteristics
would be expected to vary among
approved Texas Class 1 or Class 2
industrial landfills due to their locations
and modes of operation. Texas is
responsible for approving the
construction of landfills within the state
and overseeing their operations.
Specifically, Texas regulations in TAC
Title 30 Chapter 330, ‘‘Municipal Solid
Waste,’’ which address siting,
construction, and operations of specific
landfills, consider the environmental
characteristics of individual landfills at
the time of permitting.
Ideally for the licensee, due to
increase cost for transportation and
radiological risk, the landfill selected for
disposal would be close to the STP site
in Matagorda County, Texas. Therefore,
the affected environment described for
the STP SEIS, specifically Chapter 2,
‘‘Affected Environment,’’ could be
similar to the selected landfill affected
environment. In addition, the NRC staff
considered the affected environment for
a landfill (1) located close to the STP
site in Matagorda County, (2) known to
have been used previously by STP (i.e.,
Blue Ridge Landfill), and (3) located
outside of Matagorda County.
If the licensee chooses a landfill that
is outside of Matagorda County, it
makes sense that the selected landfill
would be a short distance from STP in
order to minimize potential
transportation and radiological impacts.
In the past, STP has disposed of waste
at Blue Ridge Landfill located in Fresno,
Texas (Fort Bend County). In addition,
several neighboring counties
surrounding Matagorda County have
operating landfills (e.g., Fort Bend,
Brazoria, Wharton, and Jackson).
Several Federal and State agencies
have prepared environmental impact
statements (EISs) for their proposed
actions, which include a description of
the affected environment in these
counties, including ‘‘U.S. Department of
Energy W.A. Parish Post-Combustion
CO2 Capture and Sequestration Project
Final Environmental Impact Statement.’’
The W.A. Parish EIS describes the
affected environment of Fort Bend
County (which is where the Blue Ridge
Landfill is located) covering the
resource areas of air quality and climate
(Section 3.2); geology, soils, and land
use (Sections 3.4, 3.5 and 3.11); water
resources (Sections 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8);
ecological resources (Section 3.9);
cultural resources (Section 3.10); traffic
and transportation (Section 3.12); and
socioeconomics (Section 3.18).
Should STP choose a landfill besides
Blue Ridge Landfill which is located
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:34 Dec 02, 2022
Jkt 259001
outside of Matagorda County, the W.A.
Parish EIS also describes the previously
mentioned affected resources areas in
Jackson County, Brazoria, or Wharton
Counties.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
This section identifies and evaluates
the anticipated environmental impacts
associated with implementing the
proposed action. This includes
consideration of the actions performed
at STP, the transportation of the
material to the selected Texas Class 1 or
Class 2 industrial landfill, and impacts
related to the actions performed at the
industrial landfill.
The first part of the proposed action
considered waste management
operational tasks previously evaluated
and approved by the NRC as part of the
STP license renewal. Impacts to STP
from these waste management
operational tasks are documented in
Chapter 2, ‘‘Alternatives Including the
Proposed Action,’’ of the GEIS and
Chapter 4.0, ‘‘Environmental Impacts of
Operation,’’ and Chapter 6.0,
‘‘Environmental Impacts of the Uranium
Fuel Cycle, Waste Management, and
Greenhouse Gas Emissions,’’ of the
SEIS. Specially, these specific sections
discuss impacts of STP operational
activities, including waste management,
which impact the affected environment:
• Sections 4.1 and 4.11 of the SEIS
evaluate impacts to land use, geology,
and soils. The impacts would be small.
• Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the SEIS
evaluate impacts to water resources. The
impacts would be small.
• Sections 4.5–4.7 of the SEIS
evaluate impacts to ecological resources.
The impacts would be small.
• Section 4.2 of the SEIS evaluates
impacts to air quality. The impacts
would be small.
• Section 4.9 of the SEIS evaluates
impacts to socioeconomic issues
including to noise and visual aesthetics,
housing, public services, and historical
and archeological resources. The
impacts would be small.
• Section 4.9.7 of the SEIS addresses
environmental justice. The NRC staff
has determined that there would be no
disproportionately high and adverse
impacts to these populations from the
continued operation of STP during the
license renewal period.
• Section 4.8 of the SEIS evaluates
license renewal impacts to overall
human health and concludes that the
impacts would be small to moderate.
However, as noted in the following
bullet, specific impacts related to waste
management activities were identified
as being small.
PO 00000
Frm 00062
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
• Section 4.11.1.1 of the GEIS and
Section 6.1 of the SEIS evaluate waste
management activities. The impacts
from LLW storage and disposal would
be small.
The NRC staff did not identify any
new or significant information related to
waste management operational activities
being performed at STP if the alternate
disposal request is approved, which
were not considered in the GEIS and
SEIS and which would result in changes
to the findings or conclusions of their
impact analysis.
Transportation of the waste for
disposal was evaluated as part of the
STP renewal in Section 4.11.1.1 of the
GEIS. In the GEIS, the impact of LLW
storage and disposal is considered
small. The waste in the GEIS is
transported from the nuclear power
plant to a 10 CFR part 61 LLW disposal
site. In this case, the nearest 10 CFR part
61 LLW disposal site would be over 500
miles away. Therefore, the impact
assessment of the GEIS would bound
the analysis of transporting from the
STP site to a local landfill in one of the
surrounding counties (i.e., the landfill
would be less than 500 miles). The
Department of Transportation
regulations govern the transport of
radioactive material by truck on public
highways. The NRC staff evaluated the
risk to human health from the
transportation of all radioactive material
in the U.S. in NUREG–0170, ‘‘Final
Environmental Statement on the
Transportation of Radioactive Materials
by Air and Other Modes,’’ December
1977). The principal radiological
environmental impact during normal
transportation by trucks is direct
radiation exposure to transport workers
and nearby persons from radioactive
material in the package. The average
annual individual dose from all
radioactive material transportation in
the U.S. was calculated as
approximately 0.005 millisievert (mSv)
per year (0.5 millirem (mrem) per year),
well below the 10 CFR 20.1301, ‘‘Dose
limits for individual members of the
public,’’ limit of 1 mSv per year (100
mrem per year) for a member of the
public.
Regarding the second part of the
proposed action (i.e., disposal at Texas
Class 1 or Class 2 industrial landfills),
Texas regulations permit Class 1 and
Class 2 industrial landfills to accept
waste exempt by rule for disposal. The
exempt waste is defined as waste with
radionuclide content that meets the
concentration or activity limits in 25
TAC 289.251(l)(1) and 25 TAC
289.251(l)(2), respectively, in
accordance with 25 TAC § 289.251(e)(1)
and 25 TAC § 289.251(e)(2). Since the
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2022 / Notices
permit provided by Texas for the
construction of landfills requires a
discussion of the total amount of
material that will be disposed of at the
landfill and consideration of the
construction of cells or facilities, there
would be no additional environmental
impacts or significant operational
changes when accepting exempted
waste. The proposed action would be
part of Texas permitted waste
management operational activities at the
landfill and if the disposal operator
complies with the Texas regulations,
there would be minimal impacts from
the proposed action. Specific impacts
related to the disposal of 5–12
shipments of VLLW from STP at Texas
Class 1 or Class 2 industrial landfills are
addressed in the following subsections.
ddrumheller on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES
Land Use, Geology, and Soils
Regulatory requirements related to
potential impacts to these resource areas
are overseen by TCEQ in accordance
with Texas regulations, including TAC
Title 30 Rule 330.61(g), ‘‘Land-use
map,’’ TAC Title 30 Rule 330.61(h),
‘‘Impact on surrounding area,’’ and TAC
Title 30 Rule 330.61(j), ‘‘General geology
and soils statement.’’ These regulations
discuss specific details an owner or
operator requesting a permit for a
landfill must include in their
application in order to identify potential
land use, geology, and soils impacts, as
well as how the landfill may impact
surrounding cities, communities,
groups, and individuals. Provided the
landfill permit is approved in
accordance with these regulations and
the landfill remains in compliance with
the operational regulations in TAC Title
30 Chapter 30 Subchapter D,
‘‘Operational Standards for Municipal
Solid Waste Landfill Facilities,’’ the
NRC staff does not expect the proposed
action to significantly impact land use,
geology, or soils.
Transportation
Offsite transportation impacts from
the shipment of VLLW to Texas Class 1
or Class 2 industrial landfills may vary
due to distances and routes travelled.
Transportation of VLLW would be in
accordance with Department of
Transportation’s regulations. Any onsite
transportation of VLLW at the landfill is
expected to be in accordance with Texas
regulations. Considering the number of
shipments (i.e., 5–12 per year), the
proposed action would have no
significant transportation impacts.
Water Resources
Regulatory requirements related to
potential impacts to water resources,
including surface water and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:34 Dec 02, 2022
Jkt 259001
74453
groundwater at industrial landfills are
overseen by TCEQ in accordance with
TAC Title 30 Chapter 330. These
include the regulation of drainage
options, liner system design and
operation, groundwater sampling and
monitoring, as well as closure and postclosure requirements. Therefore,
provided that the landfill remains in
compliance with Texas regulations, the
NRC staff does not expect the proposed
action to significantly impact water
resources on and around the site.
nearby residents and property owners.
In addition, Texas regulations in TAC
Title 30 Rule 330.61 require that
applicants requesting a permit for a
municipal solid waste landfill include
documentation of surrounding historical
structures and sites that may be
impacted by the existence of the landfill
or disposal operations that would occur
on the site. Considering the number of
shipments and small volume of VLLW,
the proposed action would have no
significant socioeconomic impact.
Ecological Resources
Potential impacts to ecological
resources from the proposed action at
Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial
landfills and associated lands are sitespecific as disposal site locations range
from urban to rural landscapes. Texas
permitting requirements, including TAC
Title 30 Rule 330.157, ‘‘Endangered
Species Protection’’; TAC Title 30 Rule
330.61(n), ‘‘Endangered or Threatened
Species’’; TAC Title 30 Rule 330.23,
‘‘Relationships with other Governmental
Entities,’’ (h), ‘‘Texas Parks and Wildlife
Department (TPWD)’’; and TAC Title 30
Rule 330.61(m), ‘‘Floodplains and
wetlands statement,’’ are considered by
Texas when approving the use of land
for a landfill. Therefore, provided that
the landfill remains in compliance with
Texas regulations, the NRC staff does
not expect the proposed action to
significantly impact the ecological
resources on and around the site. The
proposed action does not involve the
development or disturbance of
additional land. Hence, the NRC staff
has determined that the proposed action
will not affect listed endangered or
threatened species or their critical
habitat.
Waste Management
Air Quality
Regulatory requirements and
oversight of potential impacts from the
proposed action at the landfill are
overseen by Texas in accordance with
multiple rules identified in TAC Title
30 Chapter 330. Considering the number
of shipments and small volumes
associated with the proposed action and
provided that the landfill remains in
compliance with Texas regulations, the
NRC staff does not expect the proposed
action to significantly impact the air
quality on and around the site.
Socioeconomics
The regulations discussed in TAC
Title 30 Rule 330.57(d), ‘‘Required
Information,’’ ensure that the operation
of disposal sites permitted by Texas
pose no reasonable probability of
adversely affecting the health, welfare,
environment, or physical property of
PO 00000
Frm 00063
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Waste management activities at Texas
Class 1 or Class 2 industrial landfills are
conducted in compliance with TAC
Title 30 Chapter 330. Therefore,
considering the number of shipments
and small volume of VLLW, the
proposed action would not significantly
impact waste management activities at
the landfills.
Public and Occupational Human Health
The NRC staff does not expect the
proposed action to significantly impact
public and occupational health on or
near landfills. Texas landfill regulatory
requirements were established to
minimize exposures to workers and
members of the public. Doses calculated
using the proposed STP Administrative
Concentration Limits provided by the
licensee confirmed that doses associated
with the transport and disposal would
be less than 2 mrem per year. Therefore,
the proposed action would not
significantly impact public and
occupational health.
Environmental Justice
Existing Texas Class 1 and Class 2
industrial landfills are located in a
variety of environmental settings,
including urban, suburban, and rural
locations. As previously noted, Texas
permitting regulations, TAC Title 30
Rule 330.61(h) require information
regarding how a landfill may impact
surrounding cities, communities,
groups, and individuals. In accordance
with this regulation, the NRC staff does
not expect the proposed action to have
a noticeable effect on populations near
Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial
landfills. Thus, because the Texas
regulations aim to minimize impacts to
human health and environment and
considering the number of shipments
(i.e., 5–12 per year), the proposed action
is not expected to result in
disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority or low-income populations
near these landfills.
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
74454
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2022 / Notices
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the NRC staff considered the noaction alternative in which the NRC
would deny the alternate disposal
request. The portion of the proposed
action performed at STP is part of the
current waste management operational
activities and thus, would not be
impacted by denying the alternate
disposal request. As previously noted,
since STP does not maintain the ability
to store this material onsite for a long
period of time and Texas does not have
the authority to approve the disposal of
material outside of their state, denial of
the request would require the licensee
to transport the material to a 10 CFR
part 61 LLW disposal site (e.g., Waste
Control Specialists LLC).
Multiple Class 1 and Class 2
industrial landfills are located in the
counties surrounding the STP site while
the nearest 10 CFR part 61 LLW
disposal site is located more than 500
miles from the site. Thus, pursuing this
alternative would change the location in
which the material is disposed, while
other factors related to the disposal of
the material would be expected to be
similar to the proposed action.
Cumulative Impacts
Section 4.13.11 of the GEIS evaluated
the cumulative impacts from STP waste
management operational activities and
found the impacts to be minimal.
Regarding disposal at the landfills,
given the occasional nature of these
activities, the small amounts of waste to
be disposed, and the expected limited
number of workers needed to perform
the disposal actions, the NRC staff
considers the cumulative impacts of
landfill activities, when added to
existing activities, to be minimal.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On November 17, 2022, the NRC staff
consulted with the TCEQ by providing
a draft of the EA for review and
comment. By email dated November 28,
2022, TCEQ provided comments
regarding the use of VLLW versus waste
that has been exempt by rule when
defining the waste being considered as
well as the NRC’s performance of dose
calculations when assessing impacts
related to the transportation and
disposal of the waste being considered
in the requested action. NRC staff
acknowledge the difference between the
two terms and modified the section in
the ‘‘Environmental Impacts of the
Proposed Action’’ to clarify the type of
material being discussed. Regarding the
comments related to dose calculations,
although an evaluation of doses to
members of the public is not required by
TAC regulations for exempted waste it
is the NRC’s policy to consider doses
associated with these exposure
scenarios when evaluating alternate
disposal requests.
As previously noted, the NRC has
determined that the proposed action
will not affect listed endangered or
threatened species or their critical
habitat. Therefore, no further
consultation is required under Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act.
Likewise, the NRC staff has determined
that the proposed action does not have
the potential to adversely affect cultural
resources because no ground disturbing
activities are associated with the
proposed action. Therefore, no
consultation is required under Section
106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
Based on the findings in this EA, the
NRC staff has concluded that the
proposed action would have no
significant environmental impacts and
that this request does not require the
preparation of an EIS. Accordingly, the
NRC staff has determined that a FONSI
is appropriate.
IV. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the
following table are available to
interested persons through one or more
of the following methods, as indicated.
ddrumheller on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES
Document description
ADAMS accession No./website
STP Nuclear Operating Company, ‘‘Response to End of Enforcement Discretion and Request for Approval
of Alternate Disposal Procedures for Very Low-Level Radioactive Material,’’ dated November 4, 2021.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, ‘‘Revised Response to End of Enforcement Discretion and Request for
Approval of Alternate Disposal Procedures for Very Low-Level Radioactive Material (EPID: L–2021–LLL–
0022),’’ dated December 3, 2021.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, ‘‘STPNOC Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding
Request for Approval of Alternate Disposal Procedures for Very Low-Level Radioactive Material (EPID: L
2021–LLL–0022),’’ dated August 19, 2022.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, ‘‘Clarification on STPNOC Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding Request for Approval of Alternate Disposal Procedures for Very Low-Level Radioactive
Material (EPID: L 2021–LLL–0022),’’ dated November 22, 2022.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, ‘‘Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision 20,’’ dated April 29,
2020.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, ‘‘2020 Radioactive Effluent Release Report,’’ dated April 19, 2021 .........
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ‘‘South Texas Project—Request for Additional Information—10 CFR
20.2002 Alternate Disposal Request (EPID: L–2021–LLL–0022),’’ email dated July 20, 2022.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ‘‘South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2—End of Enforcement Discretion Related to Alternate Disposal Procedures for Very Low-Level Radioactive Waste,’’ dated August 10,
2021.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants: Main Report,’’ Volume 1, Revision 1, dated June 2013.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Supplement 48 to NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
State for License Renewal, Supplement 48: Regarding South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2,’’ Final Report, dated November 2013.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, All Agreement States Letter, ‘‘Clarification of the Authorization for Alternate Disposal of Material Issued Under 10 CFR 20.2002 and Exemption Provisions In 10 CFR (FSME
12–025),’’ dated March 13, 2012.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Regulatory Information Summary 2016–11, ‘‘Requests to Dispose of
Very Low-Level Radioactive Waste Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2002,’’ dated November 13, 2016.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG–1748, ‘‘Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS Programs,’’ Final Report, dated August 2003.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:34 Dec 02, 2022
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00064
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
ML21308A603.
ML21337A126.
ML22231A469.
ML22326A296.
ML20133J932 (Package).
ML21110A153.
ML22206A014.
ML21180A195.
ML13106A241.
ML13322A890.
ML12065A038.
ML16007A488.
ML032450279.
05DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 232 / Monday, December 5, 2022 / Notices
Document description
ADAMS accession No./website
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office Instruction LIC–203, Revision 4 ‘‘Procedural Guidance for Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments, and Considering
Environmental Issues,’’ dated July 7, 2020.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG–0170, ‘‘Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of Radioactive Materials by Air and Other Modes,’’ Volume 1, dated December 1977.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, Annual Summaries, FY2020 ‘‘Municipal Solid Waste in
Texas: A Year in Review, 2020 Data Summary and Analysis,’’ dated September 2021.
U.S. Department of Energy, ‘‘U.S. Department of Energy W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2 Capture and
Sequestration Project Final Environmental Impact Statement.’’ Dated February 2013.
Dated: November 30, 2022.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dennis J. Galvin,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV,
Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2022–26387 Filed 12–2–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
President’s Commission on White
House Fellowships Advisory
Committee: Closed Meeting
President’s Commission on
White House Fellowships, Office of
Personnel Management.
ACTION: Notice of meeting.
AGENCY:
The President’s Commission
on White House Fellowships (PCWHF)
was established by an Executive Order
in 1964. The PCWHF is an advisory
committee composed of Special
Government Employees appointed by
the President.
Name of Committee: President’s
Commission on White House
Fellowships Mid-Year Meeting.
Date: January 20, 2023.
Time: 8 a.m.–5:30 p.m.
Place Eisenhower Executive Office
Building, 1650 Pennsylvania Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20500.
Agenda: The Commission holds a
mid-year meeting to talk with current
Fellows on how their placements are
going and discuss preparation for future
events.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Rosemarie Vela, 712 Jackson Place NW,
Washington, DC 20503, Phone: 202–
395–4522.
ddrumheller on DSK30NT082PROD with NOTICES
SUMMARY:
President’s Commission on White House
Fellowships.
Stephen Hickman,
Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 2022–26338 Filed 12–2–22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325–69–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:34 Dec 02, 2022
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory
Committee; Virtual Public Meeting
Office of Personnel
Management.
ACTION: Notice.
AGENCY:
According to the provisions of
section 10 of the Federal Advisory
Committee Act, notice is hereby given
that a virtual meeting of the Federal
Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee
will be held on Thursday, December 15,
2022. There will be no in-person
gathering for this meeting.
DATES: The virtual meeting will be held
on December 15, 2022, beginning at
10:00 a.m. (ET).
ADDRESSES: The meeting will convene
virtually.
SUMMARY:
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL
MANAGEMENT
Jkt 259001
Ana
Paunoiu, 202–606–2858, or email payleave-policy@opm.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory
Committee is composed of a Chair, five
representatives from labor unions
holding exclusive bargaining rights for
Federal prevailing rate employees, and
five representatives from Federal
agencies. Entitlement to membership on
the Committee is provided for in 5
U.S.C. 5347.
The Committee’s primary
responsibility is to review the Prevailing
Rate System and other matters pertinent
to establishing prevailing rates under
subchapter IV, chapter 53, 5 U.S.C., as
amended, and from time to time advise
the Office of Personnel Management.
Annually, the Chair compiles a report
of pay issues discussed and concluded
recommendations. These reports are
available to the public. Reports for
calendar years 2008 to 2020 are posted
at https://www.opm.gov/fprac. Previous
reports are also available, upon written
request to the Committee.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00065
74455
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
ML20016A379.
ML022590355 (Package).
https://www.tceq.texas.gov/
permitting/waste_permits/waste_
planning/wp_swasteplan.html.
Retrieved September 30, 2022.
https://www.energy.gov/nepa/
downloads/eis-0473-finalenvironmental-impact-statement.
Retrieved September 30, 2022.
The public is invited to submit
material in writing to the Chair on
Federal Wage System pay matters felt to
be deserving of the Committee’s
attention. Additional information on
these meetings may be obtained by
contacting the Committee at Office of
Personnel Management, Federal
Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee,
Room 7H31, 1900 E Street NW,
Washington, DC 20415, (202) 606–2858.
This meeting is open to the public,
with an audio option for listening. This
notice sets forth the agenda for the
meeting and the participation
guidelines.
Meeting Agenda. The tentative agenda
for this meeting includes the following
Federal Wage System items:
• The definition of Monroe County, PA
• The definition of San Joaquin County,
CA
• The definition of the SalinasMonterey, CA, wage area
• The definition of the Puerto Rico
wage area
Public Participation: The December
15, 2022, meeting of the Federal
Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is
open to the public through advance
registration. Public participation is
available for the meeting. All
individuals who plan to attend the
virtual public meeting to listen must
register by sending an email to payleave-policy@opm.gov with the subject
line ‘‘December 15 FPRAC Meeting’’ no
later than Tuesday, December 13, 2022.
The following information must be
provided when registering:
• Name.
• Agency and duty station.
• Email address.
• Your topic of interest.
Members of the press, in addition to
registering for this event, must also
RSVP to media@opm.gov by December
13, 2022.
A confirmation email will be sent
upon receipt of the registration. Audio
teleconference information for
participation will be sent to registrants
the morning of the virtual meeting.
E:\FR\FM\05DEN1.SGM
05DEN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 232 (Monday, December 5, 2022)]
[Notices]
[Pages 74450-74455]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-26387]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499; NRC-2022-0206]
STP Nuclear Operating Company; South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Environmental assessment and finding of no significant impact;
issuance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing an
environmental assessment (EA) and finding of no significant impact
(FONSI) under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and
NRC's regulations. This EA summarizes the results of the NRC staff's
environmental review, which evaluates the potential environmental
impacts of approving an alternate disposal request in response to a
request from STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) for Renewed
Facility Operating Licenses NPF-76 and NPF-80 for South Texas Project,
Units 1 and 2 (STP). Specifically, the alternate disposal request, if
approved, would allow the licensee to dispose of very-low-level waste
(VLLW) generated during day-to-day operations at the STP reactor site
at Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial landfills.
DATES: The EA and FONSI referenced in this document are available on
December 5, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2022-0206 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may obtain publicly available information related to this document
using any of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Website: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2022-0206. Address
questions about Docket IDs in Regulations.gov to Stacy Schumann;
telephone: 301-415-0624; email: [email protected]. For technical
questions, contact the individual listed in the For Further Information
Contact section of this document.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may obtain publicly available documents online in the
ADAMS Public Documents collection at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, 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 [email protected]. For the convenience of the reader,
instructions about obtaining materials referenced in this document are
provide in the ``Availability of Documents'' section.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents, by appointment, at the NRC's PDR, Room P1 B35, One White
Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. To make
an appointment to visit the PDR, please send an email to
[email protected] or call 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, between
8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time (ET), Monday through Friday,
except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Galvin, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, telephone: 301-415-6256, email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The NRC is considering the approval of an alternate disposal
request, dated November 4, 2021, as supplemented by letters dated
December 3, 2021, August 19, 2022, and November 22, 2022, from STPNOC
for waste material containing VLLW generated during day-to-day
operations at the STP reactor site, located in Matagorda County, Texas,
for ultimate disposal at Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial
landfills.\1\ The August 19, 2022, STPNOC letter was in response to the
NRC request for information, dated July 20, 2022. The term ``VLLW'' is
generally understood as material created during the conduct of NRC- or
Agreement State-licensed activities that contains some residual
radioactivity, including naturally occurring radionuclides, that may be
safely disposed in hazardous or municipal solid waste landfills. VLLW
represents a small fraction of the hazard of waste at the Class A
limits in Part 61 of title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR), ``Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive
Waste.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial landfills refer to
landfills permitted to accept Class 1 or Class 2 waste as defined by
Texas regulations in 30 Texas Administrative Code 335 Subchapter R.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License
Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' dated June 2013 (hereafter, the Generic
Environmental Impact Statement or GEIS), Section 3.1.4.3, ``Solid
Radioactive Waste,'' addresses solid low-level waste (LLW) as follows:
Solid [LLW] from nuclear power plants is generated from the
removal of radionuclides from liquid waste streams, filtration of
airborne gaseous emissions, and removal of contaminated material
from various reactor areas. Liquid contaminated with radionuclides
comes from primary and secondary coolant systems, spent fuel pools,
decontaminated wastewater, and laboratory operations.
Solid waste is packaged in containers to meet the applicable
requirements of [Department of Transportation's regulations at] 49
CFR parts 171 through 177. Disposal and transportation are performed
in accordance with the NRC's applicable requirements of 10 CFR part
61 and 10 CFR part 71, respectively.
Solid radioactive waste generated during operations is shipped
to a LLW processor or directly to a [10 CFR part 61] LLW disposal
site.
As noted in Supplement 48 to NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental
Impact State for License Renewal, Supplement 48: Regarding South Texas
Project, Units 1 and 2'' dated November 2013 (hereafter, the
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement or SEIS), the SEIS
generated as part of the STP license renewal process,\2\ a solid waste
processing system is maintained onsite at STP designed to process,
package, and store solid radioactive wastes generated by plant
operations until they are shipped offsite to a vendor for further
processing or for permanent disposal at a 10 CFR part 61 LLW disposal
facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The license was renewed on September 28, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The waste being considered in the licensee's alternate disposal
request includes dewatered sewage sludge, ion exchange media,
desiccant, ventilation filtration media, and soil that originated from
the secondary side of plant operations. Rather than disposal at a 10
CFR part 61 LLW disposal site, the licensee is requesting approval to
dispose of the waste at Texas Class 1 or
[[Page 74451]]
Class 2 industrial landfills in accordance with 10 CFR 20.2002,
``Method for obtaining approval of proposed disposal procedures.''
In accordance with NRC guidance outlined in All Agreement States
letter Office of Federal and State Materials and Environmental
Management Programs (FSME)-12-025, ``Clarification of the Authorization
for Alternate Disposal of Material Issued Under 10 CFR 20.2002 and
Exemption Provisions In 10 CFR,'' dated March 13, 2012, and Regulatory
Information Summary-2016-11, ``Requests to Dispose of Very Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Pursuant to 10 CFR 20.2002,'' dated November 13,
2016, approval of the requested action requires authorization from both
the NRC and the State of Texas. In order to release the waste from the
NRC license and allow it to be disposed in accordance with the request,
a review must be performed by the NRC as the regulatory agency that
issued the license. Texas, which is an NRC Agreement State, maintains
the regulatory authority over the Class 1 and Class 2 industrial
landfills being considered for the disposal of the waste in question
and, thus, maintains responsibility for approving the disposal of the
requested waste and ensuring that the disposal actions are performed in
accordance with regulations described in the Texas Administrative Code
(TAC).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Specific regulations can be found at: https://www.sos.state.tx.us/tac/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requested action of releasing the waste from the licensee's
authority is a licensing action and, per NRC requirements in 10 CFR
part 51, ``Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing
and Related Regulatory Functions,'' this action requires an evaluation
of environmental impacts associated with the requested action. The NRC
staff has prepared this EA \4\ in accordance with NRC requirements in
10 CFR 51.21, ``Criteria for and identification of licensing and
regulatory actions requiring environmental assessments,'' and 51.30,
``Environmental assessment,'' and with the associated guidance in
NUREG-1748, ``Environmental Review Guidance for Licensing Actions
Associated with NMSS [the Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
Safeguards] Programs,'' dated August 2003, and the Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation (NRR) Office Instruction LIC-203, ``Procedural
Guidance for Categorical Exclusions, Environmental Assessments, and
Considering Environmental Issues,'' dated July 2020. This EA evaluates
the licensee's requested action of releasing the waste which is
regulated by the NRC and the connected action \5\ of transporting the
waste for disposal at an industrial landfill, which is regulated by
Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In 10 CFR 51.14, ``Definitions,'' an EA is defined as ``a
concise public document for which the Commission is responsible that
serves to: (1) [b]riefly provide sufficient evidence and analysis
for determining whether to prepare an environmental impact statement
or a finding of no significant impact; (2) [a]id the Commission's
compliance with NEPA when no environmental impact statement is
necessary; and (3) [f]acilitate preparation of an environmental
impact statement when one is necessary.''
\5\ Connected actions are actions that are closely related and
therefore should be discussed in the same assessment. Actions are
connected if they: (i) Automatically trigger other actions that may
require environmental impact statements; (ii) Cannot or will not
proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously;
or (iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on
the larger action for their justification.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Environmental Assessment
Description of the Proposed Action
The proposed action consists of the licensee's 10 CFR 20.2002
alternate disposal request to release the VLLW waste generated from STP
waste management operational activities and disposing of it at an
existing Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial landfill. Per established
procedures and in compliance with NRC regulations, the licensee would
continue onsite operations related to the processing, packaging, and
shipping of the VLLW offsite, which are described in Section 11.4,
``Solid Waste Management System,'' of the STP Updated Final Safety
Analysis Report. For example, waste is held, pending transport, in the
STP Environmental Yard as described in plant procedures for packaging
and shipment of waste materials, as discussed in the STPNOC letter,
dated December 3, 2021. No additional construction activities or
operational changes at STP are required to prepare the waste onsite for
transportation and for ultimate disposal, as discussed in the STPNOC
letter, dated August 19, 2022.
The proposed action, which involves annual shipments of
approximately 51 cubic meters (m\3\) per year of material, results in
individual shipping volumes ranging from 4.25 m\3\ to 10.2 m\3\ per
shipment depending on the number of shipments. These volumes are
minimal relative to annual volumes being disposed at Texas Class 1 or
Class 2 industrial landfills. For example, according to the STPNOC 2020
annual radioactive effluent release report, the licensee disposed of a
total of 59.6 m\3\ of VLLW at the Blue Ridge Landfill. A review of the
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ) reports, ``Municipal
Solid Waste in Texas: A Year in Review, 2019 Data Summary and
Analysis'' and ``Municipal Solid Waste in Texas: A Year in Review, 2020
Data Summary and Analysis,'' indicated that the Blue Ridge Landfill
received and disposed of approximately 1,300,000 m\3\ of similar
material in the 2020 reporting year.
The waste would be transported per Department of Transportation
regulations to Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial landfills authorized
to accept the material. The material being considered for disposal in
the requested action will be shipped from STP to the industrial
landfill in B-25 boxes or 55-gallon drums on trucks or, in some cases,
vacuum trucks. Upon arrival at the landfill, disposal actions will be
performed in accordance with established procedures and consistent with
Texas regulations. Texas would maintain oversight and regulatory
authority of the disposal actions related to the proposed action.
Need for the Proposed Action
The purpose and need for the proposed action are to authorize a
safe and appropriate method for disposing of material containing VLLW
generated during operations at STP. The proposed action would expand
the licensee's options for dispositioning this VLLW, allowing disposal
at Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial landfills, as well as at a 10
CFR part 61 LLW disposal site. Approval of the proposed action would
allow the specified waste generated during operations to be sent to
industrial landfills permitted by Texas to receive the waste for
disposal and allow STP to continue operation. The proposed action would
also satisfy the regulatory requirements regarding the disposal of VLLW
in accordance with NRC regulations as noted in the NRC's letter to
STPNOC, dated August 10, 2021.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
the no-action alternative in which the NRC staff would deny the
disposal request. Denial of the request would require STP to dispose of
the VLLW at a 10 CFR part 61 LLW disposal site or submit an alternate
disposal request that considers another option for disposing of the
material.
Affected Environment Including Environmental Characteristics
The affected environment of the facilities and processes associated
with the onsite waste management activities
[[Page 74452]]
at STP is described in Chapter 2, ``Affected Environment,'' of the
SEIS.
The environmental characteristics would be expected to vary among
approved Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial landfills due to their
locations and modes of operation. Texas is responsible for approving
the construction of landfills within the state and overseeing their
operations. Specifically, Texas regulations in TAC Title 30 Chapter
330, ``Municipal Solid Waste,'' which address siting, construction, and
operations of specific landfills, consider the environmental
characteristics of individual landfills at the time of permitting.
Ideally for the licensee, due to increase cost for transportation
and radiological risk, the landfill selected for disposal would be
close to the STP site in Matagorda County, Texas. Therefore, the
affected environment described for the STP SEIS, specifically Chapter
2, ``Affected Environment,'' could be similar to the selected landfill
affected environment. In addition, the NRC staff considered the
affected environment for a landfill (1) located close to the STP site
in Matagorda County, (2) known to have been used previously by STP
(i.e., Blue Ridge Landfill), and (3) located outside of Matagorda
County.
If the licensee chooses a landfill that is outside of Matagorda
County, it makes sense that the selected landfill would be a short
distance from STP in order to minimize potential transportation and
radiological impacts. In the past, STP has disposed of waste at Blue
Ridge Landfill located in Fresno, Texas (Fort Bend County). In
addition, several neighboring counties surrounding Matagorda County
have operating landfills (e.g., Fort Bend, Brazoria, Wharton, and
Jackson).
Several Federal and State agencies have prepared environmental
impact statements (EISs) for their proposed actions, which include a
description of the affected environment in these counties, including
``U.S. Department of Energy W.A. Parish Post-Combustion CO2
Capture and Sequestration Project Final Environmental Impact
Statement.'' The W.A. Parish EIS describes the affected environment of
Fort Bend County (which is where the Blue Ridge Landfill is located)
covering the resource areas of air quality and climate (Section 3.2);
geology, soils, and land use (Sections 3.4, 3.5 and 3.11); water
resources (Sections 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8); ecological resources (Section
3.9); cultural resources (Section 3.10); traffic and transportation
(Section 3.12); and socioeconomics (Section 3.18).
Should STP choose a landfill besides Blue Ridge Landfill which is
located outside of Matagorda County, the W.A. Parish EIS also describes
the previously mentioned affected resources areas in Jackson County,
Brazoria, or Wharton Counties.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
This section identifies and evaluates the anticipated environmental
impacts associated with implementing the proposed action. This includes
consideration of the actions performed at STP, the transportation of
the material to the selected Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial
landfill, and impacts related to the actions performed at the
industrial landfill.
The first part of the proposed action considered waste management
operational tasks previously evaluated and approved by the NRC as part
of the STP license renewal. Impacts to STP from these waste management
operational tasks are documented in Chapter 2, ``Alternatives Including
the Proposed Action,'' of the GEIS and Chapter 4.0, ``Environmental
Impacts of Operation,'' and Chapter 6.0, ``Environmental Impacts of the
Uranium Fuel Cycle, Waste Management, and Greenhouse Gas Emissions,''
of the SEIS. Specially, these specific sections discuss impacts of STP
operational activities, including waste management, which impact the
affected environment:
Sections 4.1 and 4.11 of the SEIS evaluate impacts to land
use, geology, and soils. The impacts would be small.
Sections 4.3 and 4.4 of the SEIS evaluate impacts to water
resources. The impacts would be small.
Sections 4.5-4.7 of the SEIS evaluate impacts to
ecological resources. The impacts would be small.
Section 4.2 of the SEIS evaluates impacts to air quality.
The impacts would be small.
Section 4.9 of the SEIS evaluates impacts to socioeconomic
issues including to noise and visual aesthetics, housing, public
services, and historical and archeological resources. The impacts would
be small.
Section 4.9.7 of the SEIS addresses environmental justice.
The NRC staff has determined that there would be no disproportionately
high and adverse impacts to these populations from the continued
operation of STP during the license renewal period.
Section 4.8 of the SEIS evaluates license renewal impacts
to overall human health and concludes that the impacts would be small
to moderate. However, as noted in the following bullet, specific
impacts related to waste management activities were identified as being
small.
Section 4.11.1.1 of the GEIS and Section 6.1 of the SEIS
evaluate waste management activities. The impacts from LLW storage and
disposal would be small.
The NRC staff did not identify any new or significant information
related to waste management operational activities being performed at
STP if the alternate disposal request is approved, which were not
considered in the GEIS and SEIS and which would result in changes to
the findings or conclusions of their impact analysis.
Transportation of the waste for disposal was evaluated as part of
the STP renewal in Section 4.11.1.1 of the GEIS. In the GEIS, the
impact of LLW storage and disposal is considered small. The waste in
the GEIS is transported from the nuclear power plant to a 10 CFR part
61 LLW disposal site. In this case, the nearest 10 CFR part 61 LLW
disposal site would be over 500 miles away. Therefore, the impact
assessment of the GEIS would bound the analysis of transporting from
the STP site to a local landfill in one of the surrounding counties
(i.e., the landfill would be less than 500 miles). The Department of
Transportation regulations govern the transport of radioactive material
by truck on public highways. The NRC staff evaluated the risk to human
health from the transportation of all radioactive material in the U.S.
in NUREG-0170, ``Final Environmental Statement on the Transportation of
Radioactive Materials by Air and Other Modes,'' December 1977). The
principal radiological environmental impact during normal
transportation by trucks is direct radiation exposure to transport
workers and nearby persons from radioactive material in the package.
The average annual individual dose from all radioactive material
transportation in the U.S. was calculated as approximately 0.005
millisievert (mSv) per year (0.5 millirem (mrem) per year), well below
the 10 CFR 20.1301, ``Dose limits for individual members of the
public,'' limit of 1 mSv per year (100 mrem per year) for a member of
the public.
Regarding the second part of the proposed action (i.e., disposal at
Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial landfills), Texas regulations
permit Class 1 and Class 2 industrial landfills to accept waste exempt
by rule for disposal. The exempt waste is defined as waste with
radionuclide content that meets the concentration or activity limits in
25 TAC 289.251(l)(1) and 25 TAC 289.251(l)(2), respectively, in
accordance with 25 TAC Sec. 289.251(e)(1) and 25 TAC Sec.
289.251(e)(2). Since the
[[Page 74453]]
permit provided by Texas for the construction of landfills requires a
discussion of the total amount of material that will be disposed of at
the landfill and consideration of the construction of cells or
facilities, there would be no additional environmental impacts or
significant operational changes when accepting exempted waste. The
proposed action would be part of Texas permitted waste management
operational activities at the landfill and if the disposal operator
complies with the Texas regulations, there would be minimal impacts
from the proposed action. Specific impacts related to the disposal of
5-12 shipments of VLLW from STP at Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial
landfills are addressed in the following subsections.
Land Use, Geology, and Soils
Regulatory requirements related to potential impacts to these
resource areas are overseen by TCEQ in accordance with Texas
regulations, including TAC Title 30 Rule 330.61(g), ``Land-use map,''
TAC Title 30 Rule 330.61(h), ``Impact on surrounding area,'' and TAC
Title 30 Rule 330.61(j), ``General geology and soils statement.'' These
regulations discuss specific details an owner or operator requesting a
permit for a landfill must include in their application in order to
identify potential land use, geology, and soils impacts, as well as how
the landfill may impact surrounding cities, communities, groups, and
individuals. Provided the landfill permit is approved in accordance
with these regulations and the landfill remains in compliance with the
operational regulations in TAC Title 30 Chapter 30 Subchapter D,
``Operational Standards for Municipal Solid Waste Landfill
Facilities,'' the NRC staff does not expect the proposed action to
significantly impact land use, geology, or soils.
Transportation
Offsite transportation impacts from the shipment of VLLW to Texas
Class 1 or Class 2 industrial landfills may vary due to distances and
routes travelled. Transportation of VLLW would be in accordance with
Department of Transportation's regulations. Any onsite transportation
of VLLW at the landfill is expected to be in accordance with Texas
regulations. Considering the number of shipments (i.e., 5-12 per year),
the proposed action would have no significant transportation impacts.
Water Resources
Regulatory requirements related to potential impacts to water
resources, including surface water and groundwater at industrial
landfills are overseen by TCEQ in accordance with TAC Title 30 Chapter
330. These include the regulation of drainage options, liner system
design and operation, groundwater sampling and monitoring, as well as
closure and post-closure requirements. Therefore, provided that the
landfill remains in compliance with Texas regulations, the NRC staff
does not expect the proposed action to significantly impact water
resources on and around the site.
Ecological Resources
Potential impacts to ecological resources from the proposed action
at Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial landfills and associated lands
are site-specific as disposal site locations range from urban to rural
landscapes. Texas permitting requirements, including TAC Title 30 Rule
330.157, ``Endangered Species Protection''; TAC Title 30 Rule
330.61(n), ``Endangered or Threatened Species''; TAC Title 30 Rule
330.23, ``Relationships with other Governmental Entities,'' (h),
``Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD)''; and TAC Title 30 Rule
330.61(m), ``Floodplains and wetlands statement,'' are considered by
Texas when approving the use of land for a landfill. Therefore,
provided that the landfill remains in compliance with Texas
regulations, the NRC staff does not expect the proposed action to
significantly impact the ecological resources on and around the site.
The proposed action does not involve the development or disturbance of
additional land. Hence, the NRC staff has determined that the proposed
action will not affect listed endangered or threatened species or their
critical habitat.
Air Quality
Regulatory requirements and oversight of potential impacts from the
proposed action at the landfill are overseen by Texas in accordance
with multiple rules identified in TAC Title 30 Chapter 330. Considering
the number of shipments and small volumes associated with the proposed
action and provided that the landfill remains in compliance with Texas
regulations, the NRC staff does not expect the proposed action to
significantly impact the air quality on and around the site.
Socioeconomics
The regulations discussed in TAC Title 30 Rule 330.57(d),
``Required Information,'' ensure that the operation of disposal sites
permitted by Texas pose no reasonable probability of adversely
affecting the health, welfare, environment, or physical property of
nearby residents and property owners. In addition, Texas regulations in
TAC Title 30 Rule 330.61 require that applicants requesting a permit
for a municipal solid waste landfill include documentation of
surrounding historical structures and sites that may be impacted by the
existence of the landfill or disposal operations that would occur on
the site. Considering the number of shipments and small volume of VLLW,
the proposed action would have no significant socioeconomic impact.
Waste Management
Waste management activities at Texas Class 1 or Class 2 industrial
landfills are conducted in compliance with TAC Title 30 Chapter 330.
Therefore, considering the number of shipments and small volume of
VLLW, the proposed action would not significantly impact waste
management activities at the landfills.
Public and Occupational Human Health
The NRC staff does not expect the proposed action to significantly
impact public and occupational health on or near landfills. Texas
landfill regulatory requirements were established to minimize exposures
to workers and members of the public. Doses calculated using the
proposed STP Administrative Concentration Limits provided by the
licensee confirmed that doses associated with the transport and
disposal would be less than 2 mrem per year. Therefore, the proposed
action would not significantly impact public and occupational health.
Environmental Justice
Existing Texas Class 1 and Class 2 industrial landfills are located
in a variety of environmental settings, including urban, suburban, and
rural locations. As previously noted, Texas permitting regulations, TAC
Title 30 Rule 330.61(h) require information regarding how a landfill
may impact surrounding cities, communities, groups, and individuals. In
accordance with this regulation, the NRC staff does not expect the
proposed action to have a noticeable effect on populations near Texas
Class 1 or Class 2 industrial landfills. Thus, because the Texas
regulations aim to minimize impacts to human health and environment and
considering the number of shipments (i.e., 5-12 per year), the proposed
action is not expected to result in disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects on minority or low-income
populations near these landfills.
[[Page 74454]]
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
the no-action alternative in which the NRC would deny the alternate
disposal request. The portion of the proposed action performed at STP
is part of the current waste management operational activities and
thus, would not be impacted by denying the alternate disposal request.
As previously noted, since STP does not maintain the ability to store
this material onsite for a long period of time and Texas does not have
the authority to approve the disposal of material outside of their
state, denial of the request would require the licensee to transport
the material to a 10 CFR part 61 LLW disposal site (e.g., Waste Control
Specialists LLC).
Multiple Class 1 and Class 2 industrial landfills are located in
the counties surrounding the STP site while the nearest 10 CFR part 61
LLW disposal site is located more than 500 miles from the site. Thus,
pursuing this alternative would change the location in which the
material is disposed, while other factors related to the disposal of
the material would be expected to be similar to the proposed action.
Cumulative Impacts
Section 4.13.11 of the GEIS evaluated the cumulative impacts from
STP waste management operational activities and found the impacts to be
minimal. Regarding disposal at the landfills, given the occasional
nature of these activities, the small amounts of waste to be disposed,
and the expected limited number of workers needed to perform the
disposal actions, the NRC staff considers the cumulative impacts of
landfill activities, when added to existing activities, to be minimal.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On November 17, 2022, the NRC staff consulted with the TCEQ by
providing a draft of the EA for review and comment. By email dated
November 28, 2022, TCEQ provided comments regarding the use of VLLW
versus waste that has been exempt by rule when defining the waste being
considered as well as the NRC's performance of dose calculations when
assessing impacts related to the transportation and disposal of the
waste being considered in the requested action. NRC staff acknowledge
the difference between the two terms and modified the section in the
``Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action'' to clarify the type of
material being discussed. Regarding the comments related to dose
calculations, although an evaluation of doses to members of the public
is not required by TAC regulations for exempted waste it is the NRC's
policy to consider doses associated with these exposure scenarios when
evaluating alternate disposal requests.
As previously noted, the NRC has determined that the proposed
action will not affect listed endangered or threatened species or their
critical habitat. Therefore, no further consultation is required under
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. Likewise, the NRC staff has
determined that the proposed action does not have the potential to
adversely affect cultural resources because no ground disturbing
activities are associated with the proposed action. Therefore, no
consultation is required under Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
Based on the findings in this EA, the NRC staff has concluded that
the proposed action would have no significant environmental impacts and
that this request does not require the preparation of an EIS.
Accordingly, the NRC staff has determined that a FONSI is appropriate.
IV. Availability of Documents
The documents identified in the following table are available to
interested persons through one or more of the following methods, as
indicated.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Document description ADAMS accession No./website
------------------------------------------------------------------------
STP Nuclear Operating Company, ``Response ML21308A603.
to End of Enforcement Discretion and
Request for Approval of Alternate Disposal
Procedures for Very Low-Level Radioactive
Material,'' dated November 4, 2021.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, ``Revised ML21337A126.
Response to End of Enforcement Discretion
and Request for Approval of Alternate
Disposal Procedures for Very Low-Level
Radioactive Material (EPID: L-2021-LLL-
0022),'' dated December 3, 2021.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, ``STPNOC ML22231A469.
Response to Request for Additional
Information Regarding Request for Approval
of Alternate Disposal Procedures for Very
Low-Level Radioactive Material (EPID: L
2021-LLL-0022),'' dated August 19, 2022.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, ML22326A296.
``Clarification on STPNOC Response to
Request for Additional Information
Regarding Request for Approval of
Alternate Disposal Procedures for Very Low-
Level Radioactive Material (EPID: L 2021-
LLL-0022),'' dated November 22, 2022.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, ``Updated ML20133J932 (Package).
Final Safety Analysis Report, Revision
20,'' dated April 29, 2020.
STP Nuclear Operating Company, ``2020 ML21110A153.
Radioactive Effluent Release Report,''
dated April 19, 2021.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``South ML22206A014.
Texas Project--Request for Additional
Information--10 CFR 20.2002 Alternate
Disposal Request (EPID: L-2021-LLL-
0022),'' email dated July 20, 2022.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ``South ML21180A195.
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2--End of
Enforcement Discretion Related to
Alternate Disposal Procedures for Very Low-
Level Radioactive Waste,'' dated August
10, 2021.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG- ML13106A241.
1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear
Plants: Main Report,'' Volume 1, Revision
1, dated June 2013.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ML13322A890.
Supplement 48 to NUREG-1437, ``Generic
Environmental Impact State for License
Renewal, Supplement 48: Regarding South
Texas Project, Units 1 and 2,'' Final
Report, dated November 2013.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, All ML12065A038.
Agreement States Letter, ``Clarification
of the Authorization for Alternate
Disposal of Material Issued Under 10 CFR
20.2002 and Exemption Provisions In 10 CFR
(FSME 12-025),'' dated March 13, 2012.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, ML16007A488.
Regulatory Information Summary 2016-11,
``Requests to Dispose of Very Low-Level
Radioactive Waste Pursuant to 10 CFR
20.2002,'' dated November 13, 2016.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG- ML032450279.
1748, ``Environmental Review Guidance for
Licensing Actions Associated with NMSS
Programs,'' Final Report, dated August
2003.
[[Page 74455]]
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office ML20016A379.
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Office
Instruction LIC-203, Revision 4
``Procedural Guidance for Categorical
Exclusions, Environmental Assessments, and
Considering Environmental Issues,'' dated
July 7, 2020.
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, NUREG- ML022590355 (Package).
0170, ``Final Environmental Statement on
the Transportation of Radioactive
Materials by Air and Other Modes,'' Volume
1, dated December 1977.
Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, https://www.tceq.texas.gov/
Annual Summaries, FY2020 ``Municipal Solid permitting/waste_permits/
Waste in Texas: A Year in Review, 2020 waste_planning/
Data Summary and Analysis,'' dated wp_swasteplan.html.
September 2021. Retrieved September 30,
2022.
U.S. Department of Energy, ``U.S. https://www.energy.gov/nepa/
Department of Energy W.A. Parish Post- downloads/eis-0473-final-
Combustion CO\2\ Capture and Sequestration environmental-impact-
Project Final Environmental Impact statement.
Statement.'' Dated February 2013. Retrieved September 30,
2022.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dated: November 30, 2022.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dennis J. Galvin,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch IV, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2022-26387 Filed 12-2-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
