44666 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 

2017–0004, 3 items, 3 temporary items). 

Records include fingerprinting 

processing statements and invoices, 

fingerprinting processing reports, and 

memoranda of understanding for 

records related to tribal casino employee 

background checks. 

7. National Indian Gaming 

Commission, Agency-wide (DAA–0600– 

2017–0005, 8 items, 8 temporary items). 

Records include financial information, 

statements, final reports, cover letters, 

working files, and follow-up 

recommendations by agency auditors of 

Indian gaming operations. 

8. National Indian Gaming 

Commission, Agency-wide (DAA–0600– 

2017–0006, 5 items, 5 temporary items). 

Records include external tribal training 

materials, training catalogues, working 

files, and training statistical reports. 

9. National Indian Gaming 

Commission, Agency-wide (DAA–0600– 

2017–0007, 6 items, 6 temporary items). 

Records include payments, deposits, 

and statements related to gaming, 

fingerprinting and miscellaneous fees. 

10. National Indian Gaming 

Commission, Agency-wide (DAA–0600– 

2017–0008, 6 items, 6 temporary items). 

Records include approved, disapproved, 

and withdrawn management contracts, 

and background investigation reports, 

billing records, and background 

documentation for the review of thirdparty Indian gaming operations 

managers. 

11. Office of Personnel Management, 

Agency-wide (DAA–0478–2017–0009, 1 

item, 1 temporary item). Records of the 

Freedom of Information Act program, 

including guidance, procedures, 

internal job aids, and planning 

documents. 

12. Office of Personnel Management, 

Agency-wide (DAA–0478–2017–0011, 2 

items, 2 temporary items). Records of 

the Human Resources University, 

including user accounts and learning 

resources maintained for reference. 

13. Peace Corps, Office of Director 

(DAA–0490–2016–0007, 8 items, 6 

temporary items). Records of the Office 

of 3rd Goal, Returned Volunteer 

Services, and World Wise Schools 

including general administrative 

records. Proposed for permanent 

retention are high level program 

records, policy files, and program 

posters. 

Laurence Brewer, 

Chief Records Officer for the U.S. 

Government. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20393 Filed 9–22–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7515–01–P 

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

TIME AND DATE: 9:30 a.m., Tuesday, 

October 17, 2017 

PLACE: NTSB Conference Center, 429 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 

20594. 

STATUS: The one item is open to the 

public. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: 

56985 Aviation Accident Report: 

Impact with Power Lines, Heart of Texas 

Hot Air Balloon Rides, Balo ́ny Kubı ́cˇek 

BB85Z, N2469L, Lockhart, Texas, July 

30, 2016 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

News Media Contact: Telephone: 

(202) 314–6100. 

The press and public may enter the 

NTSB Conference Center one hour prior 

to the meeting for set up and seating. 

Individuals requesting specific 

accommodations should contact 

Rochelle McCallister at (202) 314–6305 

or by email at Rochelle.McCallister@

ntsb.gov by Wednesday, October 11, 

2017. 

The public may view the meeting via 

a live or archived webcast by accessing 

a link under ‘‘News & Events’’ on the 

NTSB home page at www.ntsb.gov. 

Schedule updates, including weatherrelated cancellations, are also available 

at www.ntsb.gov. 

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Candi 

Bing at (202) 314–6403 or by email at 

bingc@ntsb.gov. 

FOR MEDIA INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Weiss at (202) 314–6100 or by email at 

eric.weiss@ntsb.gov. 

Dated: Thursday, August 17, 2017. 

Candi R. Bing, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20504 Filed 9–21–17; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 7533–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–498 and 50–499; NRC– 

2010–0375] 

South Texas Project Nuclear Operating 

Company 

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. 

ACTION: Record of decision; issuance. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is issuing a record of 

decision for the South Texas Project 

(STP), located in Bay City, Texas. This 

notice provides the record of decision 

that supports the NRC decision to renew 

facility operating license Nos. NPF–76 

and NPF–80 for an additional 20 years 

of operation for the South Texas Project 

(STP), Units 1 and 2. 

DATES: The record of decision was 

issued on September 18, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID 

NRC–2010–0375 when contacting the 

NRC about the availability of 

information regarding this document. 

You may obtain publicly-available 

information related to this document 

using any of the following methods: 

• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and search 

for Docket ID NRC–2010–0375. Address 

questions about NRC dockets to Carol 

Gallagher; telephone: 301–415–3463; email: Carol.Gallagher@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 publiclyavailable documents online in the 

ADAMS Public Documents collection at 

http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/ 

adams.html. To begin the search, select 

‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and then 

select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS 

Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS, 

please contact the NRC’s Public 

Document Room (PDR) reference staff at 

1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by 

e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. 

• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and 

purchase copies of public documents at 

the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One 

White Flint North, 11555 Rockville 

Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tam 

Tran, Office of Nuclear Reactor 

Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission, Washington, DC 20555– 

0001; telephone: 301–415–3617; e-mail: 

Tam.Tran@nrc.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The text of 

the record of decision is attached. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day 

of September, 2017. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph E. Donoghue, 

Deputy Director, Division of License Renewal, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

RECORD OF DECISION 

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION DOCKET NO. 50–498 

AND 50–499 LICENSE RENEWAL 

APPLICATION FOR SOUTH TEXAS 

PROJECT, UNITS 1 AND 2 

BACKGROUND: 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) received an 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 44667 

1 61 FR 28467. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. ‘‘Environmental Review for Renewal 

of Nuclear Power Plant Operating Licenses.’’ 

Federal Register 61 (109): 28467–28497. June 5, 

1996. 

2U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1996. 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Washington, 

DC. NUREG–1437. May 1996. ADAMS Accession 

Nos. ML040690705 and ML040690738. 

3U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 1999. 

Section 6.3–Transportation, Table 9.1, Summary of 

findings on NEPA issues for license renewal of 

nuclear power plants. In: Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear 

Plants. Washington, DC. NRC. NUREG–1437, 

Volume 1, Addendum 1. August 1999. ADAMS 

Accession No. ML040690720. 

application, dated October 28, 2010, 

from STP Nuclear Operating Company 

(STPNOC or applicant), filed pursuant 

to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act 

of 1954, as amended (AEA), and Parts 

51 and 54 of title 10 of the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR), to issue 

renewed operating licenses for the 

South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2 

(STP). The renewed licenses would 

authorize the applicant to operate STP 

for an additional 20-year period beyond 

that specified in the current operating 

licenses. 

The South Texas Project is a two-unit 

nuclear powered steam electric 

generating facility located in Matagorda 

County, Texas, that began commercial 

operations on August 25, 1988 (Unit 1) 

and June 19, 1989 (Unit 2). The nuclear 

units are Westinghouse pressurizedwater reactors, producing a reactor core 

rated power of 3,853 megawatts-thermal 

(MWt). The gross electrical capacity is 

1,350 megawatts-electric (MWe) (1,250 

MWe net) each. The current operating 

licenses for STP (NPF–76 and NPF–80), 

expire on August 20, 2027 (Unit 1) and 

December 15, 2028 (Unit 2). 

On January 13, 2011, the NRC 

published a Notice of Acceptance and 

Opportunity for Hearing for South Texas 

Project, Units 1 and 2, in the Federal 

Register (76 FR 2426) and began the 

environmental and safety review of the 

STP license renewal application. As 

required by 10 CFR part 51, on January 

31, 2011, the NRC published a Notice of 

Intent To Prepare an Environmental 

Impact Statement and Conduct the 

Scoping Process for South Texas Project, 

Units 1 and 2, in the Federal Register 

(76 FR 5410). Section 102 of the 

National Environmental Policy Act of 

1969, as amended (NEPA), directs that 

a detailed statement be prepared for 

major Federal actions significantly 

affecting the quality of the human 

environment. By Commission 

regulation, the NRC prepares an 

environmental impact statement (EIS) or 

a supplement to an EIS (SEIS) for all 

renewed reactor operating licenses, 

regardless of the action’s environmental 

impact significance (10 CFR 

51.20(b)(2)). In this instance, the NRC’s 

major Federal action is to decide 

whether to issue renewed operating 

licenses for STP for an additional 20- 

year period beyond that specified in the 

current operating licenses. 

On March 2, 2011, the NRC held two 

public meetings at the Bay City Civic 

Center in Bay City, Texas, to obtain 

public input on the scope of the 

environmental review related to the STP 

license renewal application. The NRC 

staff reviewed the oral and written 

comments received during the scoping 

process and contacted Federal, State, 

Tribal, regional, and local agencies to 

solicit comments. A Scoping Summary 

Report was issued on November 14, 

2012 (Agencywide Documents Access 

and Management System (ADAMS) 

Accession No. ML11153A082). 

The NRC’s environmental review 

involved the preparation of a sitespecific SEIS, which is a supplement to 

the NRC’s NUREG–1437, ‘‘Generic 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants’’ 

(GEIS), in accordance with 10 CFR 

51.95(c). The GEIS documents the 

results of the NRC staff’s systematic 

approach to evaluate the environmental 

consequences of renewing the operating 

licenses of nuclear power plants and 

operating them for an additional 20 

years. 

The GEIS facilitates the NRC’s 

environmental review process by 

identifying and evaluating 

environmental impacts that are 

considered generic and common to all 

nuclear power plants (Category 1 

issues). For Category 1 issues, no 

additional site-specific analysis is 

required in the SEIS unless new and 

significant information is identified that 

would change the conclusions in the 

GEIS. The GEIS also identifies sitespecific issues (Category 2 issues) that 

could not be resolved generically. For 

Category 2 issues, an additional sitespecific review is required, and the 

results are documented in the sitespecific SEIS. 

A standard of significance was 

established for each NEPA issue 

evaluated in the GEIS based on the 

Council on Environmental Quality 

(CEQ) terminology for ‘‘significantly’’ 

(see 40 CFR 1508.27). Since the 

significance and severity of an impact 

can vary with the setting of the 

proposed action, both ‘‘context’’ and 

‘‘intensity,’’ as defined in CEQ 

regulations 40 CFR 1508.27, were 

considered. Context is the geographic, 

biophysical, and social context in which 

the effects will occur. In the case of 

license renewal, the context is the 

environment surrounding the nuclear 

power plant. Intensity refers to the 

severity of the impact in whatever 

context it occurs. Based on this, the 

NRC established a three-level standard 

of significance for potential impacts, 

SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE, as 

defined below. 

SMALL: Environmental effects are not 

detectable or are so minor that they will 

neither destabilize nor noticeably alter 

any important attribute of the resource. 

MODERATE: Environmental effects 

are sufficient to alter noticeably, but not 

to destabilize, important attributes of 

the resource. 

LARGE: Environmental effects are 

clearly noticeable and are sufficient to 

destabilize important attributes of the 

resource. 

The applicant, STPNOC submitted its 

Iicense renewal application and 

environmental report under the NRC’s 

1996 rule governing license renewal 

environmental reviews 1, as codified in 

the NRC’s environmental protection 

regulation, 10 CFR part 51. The 1996 

GEIS 2 and Addendum 1 3 to the GEIS 

provided the technical bases for the list 

of NEPA issues and associated 

environmental impact findings for 

license renewal contained in Table B–1 

in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR 

part 51. Therefore, for STP, the NRC 

staff initiated its environmental review 

in accordance with the 1996 rule and 

GEIS. Neither STPNOC nor the NRC 

staff identified information that is both 

new and significant related to Category 

1 issues that would call into question 

the conclusions in the GEIS. This 

conclusion is supported by the NRC 

staff’s review of the applicant’s 

environmental report and other 

documentation relevant to STPNOC’s 

activities; consideration of public 

comments received during the scoping 

process and the draft SEIS comment 

period; consultation with Federal, State, 

and local agencies as well as Tribal 

representatives; and the findings from 

the environmental site audit conducted 

by the NRC staff. 

On December 5, 2012, the NRC issued 

a draft site-specific SEIS for public 

comment in support of the STP license 

renewal application (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML12324A049). A 45-day comment 

period began on the date of publication 

of the U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) Notice of Availability (77 

FR 74479) and ended on February 22, 

2013. The comment period was to allow 

members of the public and agencies to 

comment on the results of the 

environmental review presented in the 

draft SEIS. On January 15, 2013, the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44668 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 

4 78 FR 37282. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. ‘‘Revisions to Environmental Review 

for Renewal of Nuclear Power Plant Operating 

Licenses.’’ Federal Register 78 (119): 37282–37324. 

June 20, 2013. 

5U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 2013. 

Generic Environmental Impact Statement for 

License Renewal of Nuclear Plants. Washington, 

DC. NUREG-1437, Revision 1, Volumes 1, 2, and 3. 

June 2013. ADAMS Accession Nos. ML13106A241, 

ML13106A242, and ML13106A244. 

NRC held two public meetings at the 

Bay City Civic Center in Bay City, 

Texas, to describe the results of the 

environmental review, respond to 

questions, and accept public comments. 

All comments received on the draft SEIS 

during the comment period are included 

in Appendix A of the final SEIS (FSEIS). 

On June 20, 2013, the NRC published 

a final rule revising 10 CFR part 51, 

including the list of NEPA issues and 

findings in Table B–1.4 A revised GEIS,5

which updated the 1996 GEIS, provided 

the technical bases for the final rule. 

The revised GEIS supports the revised 

list of NEPA issues and associated 

environmental impact findings for 

license renewal contained in Table B–1 

in Appendix B to Subpart A of the 

revised 10 CFR part 51. The revised 

GEIS and final rule reflect lessons 

learned and knowledge gained during 

previous license renewal environmental 

reviews. Under NEPA, the NRC must 

consider and analyze in the SEIS the 

potential significant impacts described 

by the final rule’s new Category 2 

issues. If any new and significant 

information is identified for the final 

rule’s new Category 1 issues, then their 

potential significant impacts must also 

be described. 

Therefore, for the STP license renewal 

application, the NRC staff also reviewed 

information relating to the new issues 

identified in the 2013 final rule and 

GEIS. Specifically, the staff reviewed 

geology and soils; radionuclides 

released to groundwater; effects on 

terrestrial resources (non-cooling system 

impacts); exposure of terrestrial 

organisms to radionuclides; exposure of 

aquatic organisms to radionuclides; 

human health impacts from chemicals; 

physical occupational hazards; 

environmental justice; and cumulative 

impacts. These issues are documented 

in Section 4.11 of the FSEIS for the STP 

license renewal. 

The NRC issued the FSEIS in support 

of the STP license renewal application 

on November 18, 2013 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML13322A890) and a 

Final Errata on June 3, 2016 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML16165A182). In the 

FSEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the 

adverse environmental impacts of 

license renewal for STP are not great 

enough to deny the option of license 

renewal for energy-planning decisionmakers. 

On November 29, 2013, the EPA 

issued the Notice of Availability for the 

FSEIS for the STP license renewal 

application (78 FR 71606). During the 

30 days following publication of the 

notice, the NRC received one comment 

on the FSEIS from EPA Region 6 as 

discussed later in this document. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102 and 

51.103(a)(1)-(5), the NRC staff has 

prepared this concise public record of 

decision (ROD) to accompany its action 

on the STP license renewal application. 

In accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(c), 

this ROD incorporates by reference the 

materials contained in the FSEIS. 

DECISION: 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.29, a renewed 

license may be issued by the 

Commission if the Commission finds 

that actions have been identified and 

have been or will be taken with respect 

to (1) managing the effects of aging 

during the period of extended operation 

on the functionality of structures and 

components that have been identified to 

require review and (2) time-limited 

aging analyses that have been identified 

to require review, such that there is 

reasonable assurance that the activities 

authorized by the renewed license will 

continue to be conducted in accordance 

with the current licensing basis, and 

that any changes made to the plant’s 

current licensing basis in order to 

comply with this requirement are in 

accord with the AEA and the 

Commission’s regulations, and that any 

applicable requirements of Subpart A of 

10 CFR part 51 have been satisfied. 

In making its final decision on the 

proposed license renewal to authorize 

the continued operation of STP for an 

additional 20 years beyond the 

expiration of the current operating 

licenses, the NRC must make a favorable 

safety finding. The purpose of the NRC’s 

safety review is to determine if the 

applicant has adequately demonstrated 

that the effects of aging will not 

adversely affect any safety structures or 

components as specified in 10 CFR 54.4 

and 10 CFR 54.21. The applicant must 

demonstrate that the effects of aging will 

be adequately managed so that the 

intended functions will be maintained 

during the license renewal period. The 

detailed results of the NRC’s safety 

review are documented in a safety 

evaluation report (SER) to be published 

separately. Further, the Advisory 

Committee on Reactor Safeguards 

(ACRS) must complete its review and 

report in accordance with 10 CFR 54.25. 

The FSEIS, which is incorporated by 

reference herein, documents the NRC’s 

environmental review of the STP license 

renewal application, including the 

determination that the adverse 

environmental impacts of license 

renewal for STP are not so great that 

preserving the option of license renewal 

for energy-planning decision makers 

would be unreasonable, in accordance 

with 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5). 

PURPOSE AND NEED: 

As identified in Section 1.2, ‘‘Purpose 

and Need for the Proposed Federal 

Action,’’ of the FSEIS, the purpose and 

need for the proposed action (issuance 

of renewed licenses) is to provide an 

option that allows for power generation 

capability beyond the term of a current 

nuclear power plant operating license to 

meet future system generating needs, as 

such needs may be determined by 

energy-planning decision makers, such 

as State, utility, and, where authorized, 

Federal agencies (other than the NRC). 

This definition of purpose and need 

reflects the NRC’s recognition that, 

unless there are findings in the safety 

review required by the AEA or findings 

in the NEPA environmental analysis 

that would lead the NRC to reject a 

license renewal application, the NRC 

does not have a role in the 

energy-planning decisions as to whether 

a particular nuclear power plant should 

continue to operate. 

Ultimately, the appropriate 

energy-planning decision makers and 

STPNOC will decide whether the plant 

will continue to operate based on factors 

such as the need for power or other 

factors within the state’s jurisdiction or 

the purview of the owners. 

NRC EVALUATION OF 

ALTERNATIVES: 

Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA and the 

NRC’s regulations in 10 CFR part 51 

require the consideration of alternatives 

to the proposed action in the EIS. 

Consistent with these requirements, in 

license renewal environmental reviews, 

the NRC considers the environmental 

consequences of the proposed action 

(i.e., renewing the operating license), 

the environmental consequences of the 

no-action alternative (i.e., not renewing 

the operating license), and the 

environmental consequences of various 

alternatives for replacing the nuclear 

power plant’s generating capacity. 

Specifically, the proposed action is the 

issuance of renewed operating licenses 

for STP, which will authorize the 

applicant to operate the plant for an 

additional 20-year period beyond the 

expiration dates of the current licenses. 

Chapter 8, ‘‘Environmental Impacts of 

Alternatives,’’ of the FSEIS presents the 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 44669 

NRC staff’s evaluation and analysis of 

alternatives to license renewal. 

i. No-Action Alternative 

The no-action alternative refers to a 

scenario in which the NRC decides not 

to renew the operating licenses for STP 

and the licenses expire at the end of 

their current terms: 2027, for Unit 1 and 

2028, for Unit 2. The environmental 

consequences of this alternative are the 

direct impacts from nuclear power plant 

shut down. After shut down, the nuclear 

plant operators will initiate 

decommissioning in accordance with 10 

CFR 50.82. As described in Chapter 7 of 

the FSEIS, the separate environmental 

impacts from decommissioning and 

related activities are addressed in 

several other NRC documents. 

Assuming that a need currently exists 

for the power generated by STP, the 

no-action alternative would require the 

appropriate energy-planning decision 

makers (not the NRC) to rely on 

alternatives to replace the capacity of 

STP, to rely on energy conservation or 

power purchases to offset the STP 

capacity, or to rely on some 

combination of measures to offset and 

replace the generation provided by the 

facility. Therefore, the no-action 

alternative does not satisfy the purpose 

and need for the FSEIS, as it neither 

provides power-generation capacity nor 

meets the needs currently met by STP 

or that the alternatives evaluated in 

detail would satisfy. 

ii. Alternative Energy Sources 

In evaluating alternatives to license 

renewal, the NRC considered energy 

technologies or options currently in 

commercial operation, as well as 

technologies not currently in 

commercial operation but likely to be 

commercially available by the time the 

current STP operating licenses expire. 

The current operating licenses for STP 

reactors will expire on August 20, 2027, 

(Unit 1) and December 15, 2028, (Unit 

2), and, therefore, to be considered in 

this evaluation, reasonable alternatives 

must be available (i.e., constructed, 

permitted, and connected to the grid) by 

the time of license expiration. 

To determine whether alternatives 

were reasonable, or likely to be 

commercially available by 2027, the 

NRC staff reviewed energy relevant 

statutes, regulations, and policies; the 

state of technologies; and information 

on energy outlook from sources such as 

the Energy Information Administration, 

other organizations within the U.S. 

Department of Energy, the EPA, 

industry sources and publications, and 

information submitted by STPNOC in 

its environmental report. The NRC staff 

also considered the generation capacity 

mix and electricity production data 

within the Electric Reliability Council of 

Texas (ERCOT) service area, in which 

STP is located. Within ERCOT, the 

generation capacity mix includes 

natural gas, coal, wind, nuclear, and 

other sources. 

The NRC staff initially considered 18 

alternatives or options to the license 

renewal of STP; 13 of these were 

dismissed or eliminated from detailed 

study because of technical, resource 

availability, or commercial limitations 

that currently exist and that the NRC 

staff believes are likely to continue to 

exist when the existing STP licenses 

expire, rendering these alternatives not 

feasible or commercially viable. 

Alternatives considered, but 

dismissed, were: 

• Offsite Nuclear-, Gas-, and Coal-Fired 

Capacity 

• Energy Conservation and Energy 

Efficiency 

• Wind Power 

• Solar Power 

• Hydroelectric Power 

• Wave and Ocean Energy 

• Geothermal Power 

• Municipal Solid Waste 

• Biomass 

• Biofuels 

• Oil-Fired Power 

• Fuel Cells 

• Delayed Retirement. 

Each alternative eliminated from 

detailed study and the basis for its 

removal is provided in Section 8.6 of 

the FSEIS. 

The NRC staff determined that five 

alternatives would be feasible and 

commercially viable replacement power 

alternatives, including: 

• New Nuclear Generation 

• Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle 

Generation (NGCC) 

• Supercritical Coal-Fired Generation 

(SCPC) 

• Combination Alternative of NGCC, 

Wind Power, and Energy 

Conservation and Efficiency 

• Purchased Power. 

For these five alternatives considered 

in depth, the NRC staff evaluated the 

environmental impacts across the 

following impact categories: Air quality; 

surface water resources; groundwater 

resources; aquatic ecology; terrestrial 

ecology; human health; land use; 

socioeconomics; transportation; 

aesthetics; historic and archaeological 

resources; environmental justice; and 

waste management. This section 

provides a summary of the 

environmental impacts of each of the 

alternatives considered in depth, and 

compares those impacts to the 

environmental impacts of license 

renewal. 

New Nuclear Alternative 

For the new nuclear generation 

alternative, the NRC staff assumed a 

light-water reactor such as the 

Advanced Boiling Water Reactor 

(ABWR) similar to what the NRC staff 

analyzed in its environmental analysis 

for the proposed STP, Units 3 and 4. 

The FSEIS incorporates the results from 

the final EIS for combined licenses for 

STP, Units 3 and 4 (ADAMS Accession 

Nos. ML11049A000 and ML11049A001) 

because it provides a site-specific 

analysis of new nuclear plants at the 

STP site. Thus, in its analysis, the NRC 

staff assumed that two new reactors 

would be installed on the STP site, 

allowing for the maximum use of 

existing ancillary facilities (e.g., 

transmission lines and cooling systems). 

Based on the analysis for STP, Units 3 

and 4, the NRC staff estimated that 540 

acres (ac) (219 hectares (ha)) of land 

would be required for the two new 

reactors. Water use would be similar to 

that of STP, Units 1 and 2. The NRC 

staff determined that the impacts to all 

resource areas would be SMALL, except 

for Socioeconomics and Transportation. 

Socioeconomic impacts in communities 

near the STP site could range from 

SMALL to LARGE based on the 

estimated number of workers employed 

and regional effects. Traffic-related 

transportation impacts during 

construction could range from 

MODERATE to LARGE primarily from 

workers commuting to the STP site and 

transportation of materials and 

equipment to the plant site. 

NGCC Alternative 

For the NGCC alternative, the NRC 

staff examined NGCC-generation built at 

the STP site because NGCC can operate 

with high thermal efficiency 

(approximately 60 percent for some 

units) and is capable of economically 

providing baseload power. Therefore, 

NGCC generation was considered a 

reasonable alternative to STP license 

renewal. To replace the 2,500 MWe 

power that STP generates, the NRC staff 

evaluated four gas-fired units, each with 

a net capacity of 640 MWe. 

Approximately 312 ac (126 ha) of land 

would be needed to support an NGCC 

alternative to replace STP, including 

land for a new 2-mile (mi) (3-kilometer 

(km)) pipeline. Facility operations 

would require much less cooling water 

than STP and consumptive water use 

would be much less. The NRC staff 

determined that the impacts to most 

resource areas would be SMALL, except 

for Air Quality, Land Use, 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44670 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 

Socioeconomics, and Transportation. 

Air quality impacts would be SMALL to 

MODERATE based on noticeable 

increases in greenhouse gas emissions. 

Overall land-use impacts could range 

from SMALL to MODERATE, 

considering the additional offsite land 

needed for new gas pipeline 

infrastructure and gas well and 

collection station development. 

Socioeconomic impacts in communities 

near the STP site could range from 

SMALL to MODERATE based on the 

estimated number of workers employed 

and regional effects. Traffic-related 

transportation impacts during 

construction could range from SMALL 

to MODERATE primarily from workers 

commuting to the STP site and 

transportation of materials and 

equipment to the plant site. 

SCPC Alternative 

For the SCPC alternative, the NRC 

staff considered new coal-fired plants to 

be reasonable alternative to STP license 

renewal as the Texas Commission on 

Environmental Quality (TCEQ) has 

granted permits to several proposed 

coal-fired plants, despite regulatory 

efforts and concerns to limit greenhouse 

gas emissions. To replace the 2,500 

MWe of power that STP generates, the 

NRC staff evaluated four coal-fired 

units, each with a net capacity of 640 

MWe. Facility construction would 

require 353 ac (143 ha) of land with an 

additional 200 ac (81 ha) of land area 

needed for onsite waste disposal; land 

would also be required on site for 

frequent coal and limestone deliveries 

by rail or barge. Operational cooling 

water demands would be similar to 

those of STP. The NRC staff determined 

that the impacts to most resource areas 

would be SMALL, except for Air 

Quality, Terrestrial Resources, Land 

Use, Socioeconomics, Transportation, 

and Waste Management. Air quality 

impacts would be MODERATE based on 

noticeable increases in air pollutants. 

Because of the potential for habitat 

disturbance and potential pollutant 

deposition, impacts to terrestrial 

resources would be MODERATE. 

Overall land-use impacts would be 

MODERATE since onsite land at the 

STP site would be converted for coal 

and limestone delivery and waste 

disposal. Socioeconomic impacts in 

communities near the STP site could 

range from SMALL to MODERATE 

based on the estimated number of 

workers and regional effects. Trafficrelated transportation impacts during 

construction could range from 

MODERATE to LARGE primarily from 

workers commuting to the STP site and 

transportation of materials and 

equipment to the plant site. 

Combination Alternative 

For the combination alternative, the 

NRC staff evaluated a mix of 

replacement power technologies 

including 640 MWe supplied by one 

NGCC unit at STP, 1,620 MWe supplied 

by wind energy projects, and 300 MWe 

of energy conservation and efficiency 

(also known as demand-side 

management). Because wind is an 

intermittent resource, the NRC staff 

assumed wind energy projects would be 

interconnected on the transmission grid, 

and the NGCC unit could be used, if 

needed, to provide baseload generation 

capacity. The impacts for the 

combination alternative would be 

SMALL for surface water, ground water, 

human health, and waste management. 

For Air Quality, the impacts would 

range from SMALL to MODERATE, 

primarily due to noticeable increases in 

greenhouse gas emissions. Because of 

potential habitat disturbance and 

noticeable impacts on aquatic organisms 

during construction and operation of 

offshore wind projects, impacts on 

aquatic resources would be SMALL to 

MODERATE. Impacts on terrestrial 

resources would be MODERATE as 

wind energy projects and construction 

of new transmission lines could have a 

noticeable impact on avian and bat 

communities because wind energy 

projects in the Trans-Gulf migratory 

route could result in increased mortality 

of migratory and resident birds and bats. 

Land use impacts would range from 

SMALL to MODERATE because the 

wind energy portion of this combination 

alternative would require a substantial 

amount of open land, although only a 

small portion would be used directly. 

Socioeconomic impacts during 

operations could range from SMALL to 

MODERATE as the STP site transitions 

to the new, single-unit NGCC power 

plant. Traffic-related transportation 

impacts during construction could range 

from SMALL to MODERATE depending 

on the location of the wind energy sites, 

road capacities, and traffic volumes. 

Depending on their location and 

surrounding viewsheds, the aesthetic 

impacts from the wind energy projects 

could be MODERATE to LARGE. 

Depending on the historical and cultural 

resource richness of the site chosen for 

the wind energy projects, the impacts 

could be SMALL to MODERATE. 

Purchased Power Alternative 

For the purchased power alternative, 

the FSEIS assumes STPNOC would 

purchase 2,500 MWe of electricity from 

other power generators. No new 

generating capacity would be built and 

operated by STPNOC. Purchased power 

is a reasonable alternative, as listed in 

the FSEIS, for the following reasons: 

• A wholesale electricity market 

currently exists in the ERCOT region. 

• ERCOT implements rules to anticipate 

and meet electricity demands and 

promote competition among 

electricity suppliers. 

• Most of ERCOT’s retail customers can 

choose a supplier to purchase 

electricity. 

The impacts associated with 

purchased power are bounded by the 

impacts of the purchased energy mix, 

ranging from new nuclear to wind. 

Construction impacts would be similar 

to those described in the analyses for 

the new nuclear, NGCC, SCPC, and 

combination alternatives, respectively. 

For example, impacts to (a) aquatic and 

terrestrial resources and (b) historical 

and cultural resources are likely to be 

greater due to land clearing of 

previously undisturbed areas associated 

with construction. For operation, 

impacts of existing coal- and natural 

gas-fired plants would likely be greater 

than the operations of new plants 

because older plants are likely to be less 

efficient and lacking modern emission 

controls. 

iii. Summary 

In the November 2013 STP FSEIS, the 

NRC staff considered the environmental 

impacts associated with license renewal 

and with alternatives to license renewal, 

including other methods of power 

generation and not renewing the STP 

operating licenses (the no-action 

alternative). The STP FSEIS concludes 

that the continued operation of STP 

during the license renewal term would 

have SMALL environmental impacts in 

all areas, except for electric shock 

(human health) that has impacts of 

SMALL to MODERATE. The FSEIS 

concludes that the overall 

environmental impacts of renewal of the 

operating licenses for STP would either 

be similar to or smaller than those of the 

five feasible and commercially viable 

replacement power alternatives that 

were considered. The FSEIS also 

concludes that under the no-action 

alternative, the act of shutting down 

STP would have mostly SMALL 

impacts, although socioeconomic 

impacts would be SMALL to 

MODERATE. However, as a result of 

shutdown should the option of license 

renewal be denied, the no-action 

alternative necessitates the 

implementation of one or a combination 

of alternatives in order to make up for 

the loss of power generation, all of 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 44671 

which have potentially greater impacts 

than the proposed action. Thus, the 

environmentally preferred alternative is 

the license renewal of STP. 

CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS ON 

THE FINAL SEIS AND EMERGING 

INFORMATION 

Comments on the FSEIS 

Following publication of the FSEIS, 

EPA Region 6 responded to the NRC by 

letter dated December 17, 2013 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML14002A262), and 

stated that it had reviewed the FSEIS, 

including NRC’s responses to EPA’s 

comments (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13071A059) on the draft SEIS 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML12324A049). 

Section A.2 of the FSEIS contains the 

NRC staff’s responses to EPA’s 

comments on the draft SEIS. The EPA 

observed that NRC’s FSEIS included 

updated information on topics EPA 

previously commented on including 

threatened and endangered species and 

consultation with the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (FWS). The EPA 

specifically requested that the NRC 

finalize Endangered Species Act of 

1973, as amended (ESA) Section 7 

consultation and include the FWS 

concurrence in the ROD and further 

requested that the NRC not issue the 

ROD until Section 7 consultation was 

complete. On May 15, 2014, the NRC 

responded to this EPA comment 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML14111A442). 

As part of the consideration of emerging 

information following publication of the 

FSEIS, the NRC staff has documented its 

completion of Section 7 consultation 

responsibilities as described below. 

The NRC received no other comments 

on the FSEIS from any source, including 

State or local agencies, other Federal 

agencies, Tribal governments, or other 

stakeholders such as members of the 

public who requested direct distribution 

of the FSEIS. Nevertheless, the NRC 

staff also considered emerging 

information as part of its completion of 

the environmental review for the STP 

license renewal application as discussed 

below. 

Updated Status of ESA Section 7 

Consultation 

In conjunction with reviewing the 

license renewal application, the NRC 

staff conducted consultations with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) and the FWS (collectively, ‘‘the 

Services’’) pursuant to Section 7 of the 

ESA. Following issuance of the draft 

SEIS, the NRC staff submitted letters to 

the Services (ADAMS Accession Nos. 

ML12286A010 and ML12285A415) 

requesting the Services’ concurrence 

with the NRC’s determinations related 

to the effects of license renewal on 

federally listed species and habitats. 

For species under the NMFS’s 

jurisdiction, the NRC staff concluded 

that there would be no effect on these 

species. The NMFS Southeast Regional 

Office stated in an e-mail dated January 

29, 2013 (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML13036A306), that it does not 

typically concur with ‘‘no effect’’ 

determinations by the staff. Thus, no 

further consultation between the NRC 

and NMFS occurred related to the 

proposed license renewal. 

For species under the FWS’s 

jurisdiction, the FWS Clear Lake 

Ecological Services Office contacted the 

NRC by phone in January 2013, to 

discuss NRC’s request for concurrence 

and to request additional maps of the 

transmission lines. The NRC provided 

the requested information via e-mail on 

January 31, 2013 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13036A305). On February 5, 

2013, the FWS and the NRC staff spoke 

again by phone, and the FWS noted that 

it was preparing additional information 

requests that it would send the NRC. 

The FWS sent these requests as well as 

additional species-specific information 

in an e-mail dated March 14, 2013 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML13077A117). 

The NRC updated its federally listed 

species and habitats effects analysis in 

the FSEIS as a result of the information 

provided in FWS’s March 14, 2013, email. Following issuance of the FSEIS, 

the NRC renewed its request for the 

FWS’s concurrence with its ESA effect 

determinations in a letter dated 

December 2, 2013 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML13177A041). The FWS provided 

its concurrence by letter dated March 

28, 2014 (ADAMS Accession Nos. 

ML14087A234). 

Since the NRC concluded its 

consultations with the Services, the staff 

has not identified any new information 

that would necessitate further 

consultation with either the NMFS or 

the FWS. Thus, the NRC has fulfilled its 

obligations under Section 7 of the ESA 

for the STP license renewal. 

Final Rule for Continued Storage of 

Spent Nuclear Fuel 

On August 26, 2014, the Commission 

approved a revised rule at 10 CFR 51.23 

and associated ‘‘Generic Environmental 

Impact Statement for Continued Storage 

of Spent Nuclear Fuel’’ (NUREG–2157, 

ADAMS Accession Nos. ML14196A105 

and ML14196A107). Subsequently, on 

September 19, 2014, the NRC published 

the revised rule (79 FR 56238) and 

NUREG–2157 (79 FR 56263). The 

revised rule adopts the generic impact 

determinations made in NUREG–2157 

and codifies the NRC’s generic 

determinations regarding the 

environmental impacts of continued 

storage of spent nuclear fuel beyond a 

reactor’s operating license (i.e., those 

impacts that could occur as a result of 

the storage of spent nuclear fuel at atreactor or away-from reactor sites after 

a reactor’s licensed operating life and 

until a permanent repository becomes 

available). As directed by 10 CFR 

51.23(b), the impacts assessed in 

NUREG–2157 regarding continued 

storage were deemed incorporated into 

the STP FSEIS for a license renewal 

application. The Continued Storage 

Rule (formerly known as Waste 

Confidence) and accompanying 

technical analyses were being 

developed as the STP FSEIS was being 

prepared for publication. Therefore, the 

STP FSEIS further indicated that the 

NRC staff would address any impacts 

from the revised rule by performing any 

appropriate additional NEPA review 

before the NRC makes a final licensing 

decision. 

In the Commission Memorandum and 

Order CLI–14–08 (ADAMS Accession 

No. ML14238A242), the Commission 

held that the revised 10 CFR 51.23 and 

associated NUREG–2157 cure the 

deficiencies identified by the court and 

stated that the rule satisfies the NRC’s 

NEPA obligations with respect to 

continued storage for initial, renewed, 

and amended licenses for reactors. 

Therefore, the November 2013, STP 

FSEIS, which by rule now incorporates 

the impact determinations in NUREG– 

2157 regarding continued storage, 

contains an analysis for the generic 

issues of ‘‘Onsite storage of spent 

nuclear fuel’’ and ‘‘Offsite radiological 

impacts of spent nuclear fuel and highlevel waste disposal’’ that satisfies 

NEPA. As the Commission noted in 

CLI–14–08, the NRC staff must account 

for these environmental impacts before 

finalizing its licensing decision in this 

proceeding. To account for these impact 

determinations, the NRC staff analyzed 

whether the revised rule at 10 CFR 

51.23 and the associated NUREG–2157 

present new and significant information 

such that a supplement to the STP 

FSEIS is required in accordance with 10 

CFR 51.92(a). 

As detailed in the NRC staff’s 

evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML15190A042), NUREG-2157 and the 

revised rule do not constitute new and 

significant information because they do 

not present a ‘‘seriously different 

picture’’ of the environmental impacts 

of the proposed action (license renewal) 

as compared to the impacts analysis 

presented in the STP FSEIS. By virtue 

of revised 10 CFR 51.23, the STP FSEIS 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
44672 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 

6 Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC (Combined License 

Application for William States Lee III Nuclear 

Station, Units 1 and 2) and Tennessee Valley 

Authority (Bellefonte Nuclear Power Plant, Units 3 

and 4), CLI–09–21 (ML093070689, NRC November 

3, 2009). 

incorporates the impact determinations 

in NUREG-2157 regarding continued 

storage such that there is a complete 

analysis of the environmental impacts 

associated with spent fuel storage 

beyond the licensed life for reactor 

operations and prior to disposal in a 

geologic repository. 

The NRC staff also considered 

whether the revised rule and NUREG– 

2157 altered the NRC staff’s 

recommendation in the STP FSEIS that 

the adverse environmental impacts of 

license renewal for STP are not great 

enough to deny the option of license 

renewal for energy planning decisionmakers. 

As described in the NRC staff’s 

evaluation (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML15190A042), NUREG-2157 analyzes 

continued storage of spent fuel atreactor and away-from-reactor sites 

during three timeframes: the short-term 

timeframe (60 years beyond the licensed 

life of a reactor), the long-term 

timeframe (an additional 100 years after 

the short-term timeframe), and an 

indefinite timeframe. The analysis in 

NUREG–2157 supports the conclusion 

that the most likely impacts of 

continued storage are those discussed 

for at-reactor storage. For continued atreactor storage, impacts in the shortterm timeframe would be SMALL. Over 

the longer timeframes, impacts to 

certain resource areas would be a range 

(for historic and cultural resources 

during both the long-term and indefinite 

timeframes the range is SMALL to 

LARGE and for nonradioactive waste 

during the indefinite timeframe the 

range is SMALL to MODERATE). In 

NUREG–2157, the NRC stated that 

disposal of the spent fuel before the end 

of the short-term timeframe is most 

likely. There are inherent uncertainties 

in determining impacts for the longterm and indefinite timeframes, and, 

with respect to some resource areas, 

those uncertainties could result in 

impacts that, although less likely, could 

be larger than those that are to be 

expected at most sites and have 

therefore been presented as ranges 

rather than as a single impact level. 

Those uncertainties exist, however, 

regardless of whether the impacts are 

analyzed generically or site-specifically. 

As a result, these impact ranges provide 

correspondingly more limited insights 

to the decision-maker in the overall 

picture of the environmental impacts 

from the proposed action (i.e., license 

renewal). 

The NRC staff concludes that when 

weighed against the array of other fuel 

cycle impacts presented in Section 6.1 

of the STP FSEIS, and the more-likely 

impacts of continued storage during the 

short-term timeframe in NUREG–2157, 

which are SMALL, the uncertainties 

associated with the impact ranges for 

the long-term and indefinite timeframes 

also do not present a seriously different 

picture of the direct, indirect, and 

cumulative environmental impacts 

compared to the NRC staff’s analysis of 

the impacts from issuance of renewed 

operating licenses for STP attributable 

to the uranium fuel cycle and waste 

management (which includes the 

impacts associated with spent fuel 

storage). 

In consideration of this information, 

the NRC staff concludes that the revised 

rule and the impact determinations 

related to continued storage in NUREG– 

2157 do not alter the NRC staff’s 

recommendation in the STP FSEIS that 

the adverse environmental impacts of 

license renewal for STP are not great 

enough to deny the option of license 

renewal for energy planning decisionmakers. 

New Information on Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions and Climate Change 

On November 3, 2009, the 

Commission directed (CLI–09–21) 6 the 

NRC staff ‘‘to include consideration of 

carbon dioxide and other greenhouse 

gas emissions in its environmental 

reviews for major licensing actions 

under the National Environmental 

Policy Act.’’ In order to comply with the 

Commission’s direction in CLI–09–21, 

the NRC staff considered greenhouse gas 

(GHG) emissions from the nuclear 

lifecycle and fossil and renewable 

energy sources in Chapter 6 of the STP 

FSEIS. Chapter 4 of the STP FSEIS 

considers climate change impacts on 

affected resources during the license 

renewal term. 

Following publication of the STP 

FSEIS in November 2013, the NRC staff 

conducted a new and significant climate 

change information review following 

publication of the U.S. Global Change 

Research Program’s (USGCRP) Third 

National Climate Assessment report in 

May 2014. The USGCRP integrates and 

presents the prevailing consensus of 

Federal research on U.S. climate change, 

as sponsored by thirteen federal 

agencies. The NRC uses consensus 

information from the USGCRP to 

evaluate the effects of climate change in 

its environmental impact statements 

(EISs) for license renewal of nuclear 

power plants. 

The staff’s detailed analysis of 

potential new and significant 

information contained in the USGCRP’s 

Third National Climate Assessment is 

documented in a memorandum to file 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML16334A400). 

In summary, in its analysis, the NRC 

staff identified, reviewed, and evaluated 

new information on climate change and 

related impacts presented in the 

USGCRP’s 2014 report as related to land 

use, air quality, water resources, aquatic 

resources, terrestrial resources, human 

health, socioeconomics, and historic 

and archaeological resources. The 

evaluation did not identify new and 

significant information that would 

change the conclusions in the STP 

FSEIS. Therefore, with the completion 

of the climate change analysis by the 

NRC staff (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML61334A400), which is incorporated 

by reference herein, the NRC has 

determined that the FSEIS for the STP 

license renewal application provides 

sufficient information on GHG 

emissions and climate change to inform 

its decision and that no further NEPA 

analysis is necessary. 

Sensitivity Analyses for Severe Accident 

Mitigation Management 

On May 4, 2016, the Commission 

issued a decision, CLI–16–07 (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML16125A150), in the 

Indian Point Nuclear Generating Units 2 

and 3 license renewal proceeding 

stating that documentation was lacking 

for two inputs (TIMDEC and CDNFRM) 

that are part of the severe accident 

mitigation alternative (SAMA) analysis. 

The decision stated that uncertainties in 

these input values could potentially 

affect the SAMA analysis cost-benefit 

conclusions and directed the NRC staff 

to perform additional sensitivity 

analyses using values specified by the 

Commission. Based on this Commission 

decision, the NRC staff determined that 

additional sensitivity analyses using the 

values specified by the Commission 

should also be performed in support of 

the STP SAMA analysis that is provided 

at Appendix F of the STP license 

renewal FSEIS. 

In response to an NRC staff request for 

additional information (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML16187A052) relating 

to CLI–16–07, STPNOC performed a 

SAMA sensitivity analysis for STP using 

the values specified by the Commission 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML16278A661) 

and determined that the potential 

SAMAs, provided in Table F.6–1 of the 

STP environmental report (ADAMS 

Accession No. ML103010263) did not 

change. The NRC staff evaluated STP’s 

SAMA sensitivity analysis and 

concluded that no new SAMA 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 184 / Monday, September 25, 2017 / Notices 44673 

candidates were identified as 

potentially cost-beneficial based on this 

additional analysis. Therefore, there are 

no changes to the conclusions of the 

NRC staff’s STP SAMA analysis 

provided at Appendix F of the STP 

FSEIS. 

Annual Updates to the STP License 

Renewal Application 

As required by 10 CFR 54.21(b), each 

year following submittal of a license 

renewal application, an amendment to 

the application must be submitted by 

the license renewal applicant that 

identifies any change to the current 

licensing basis that materially affects the 

contents of the application, including 

the Updated Final Safety Analysis 

Report (UFSAR) supplement. The NRC 

staff’s review of STPNOC’s submittals 

for 2014, 2015, and 2016, (ADAMS 

Accession Nos. ML14308A073, 

ML15313A175, and ML16190A135) 

found no new and significant 

information within the context of 10 

CFR 51.92(a)(2) that would change 

STPNOC’s environmental report or that 

would otherwise change the NRC staff’s 

environmental impact determinations as 

presented in the STP FSEIS. 

In addition, on April 25, 2017, 

STPNOC submitted an update to the 

environmental report portion of its 

license renewal application comprising 

a revised summary of environmental 

authorizations for current STP 

operations (ADAMS Accession No. 

ML17116A324). Based on its review, the 

NRC staff finds that STPNOC continues 

to maintain valid permits and related 

environmental authorizations governing 

its operations and that the submittal 

does not constitute new and significant 

information regarding STP’s affected 

environment or operations. 

MITIGATION MEASURES 

The NRC has taken all practicable 

measures within its jurisdiction to avoid 

or minimize environmental harm from 

the proposed action (license renewal). 

The FSEIS concludes that the continued 

operation of STP would have SMALL 

environmental impacts in all resources 

areas, except for electric shock, which is 

SMALL to MODERATE. Pursuant to 10 

CFR 51.45(c), STPNOC has separately 

considered mitigation measures to 

reduce or avoid adverse impacts of 

electric shock from its transmission 

lines at STP with a combination of 

options, as described in Section 4.8.4 of 

the STP FSEIS. 

The NRC is not imposing any license 

conditions in connection with 

mitigation measures for the continued 

operation of STP. However, STP is 

subject to requirements imposed by 

other Federal, State, and local agencies. 

For example, the TCEQ-issued Texas 

Pollutant Discharge Elimination System 

(TPDES) permits issued to STPNOC 

imposes effluent limitations and 

monitoring requirements as well as best 

management practices to ensure that 

impacts to water quality and aquatic life 

are minimized. The NRC is not 

requiring any new environmental 

monitoring programs outside what is 

required for the TPDES permits or 

otherwise required of the licensee under 

NRC’s regulations, as described in the 

STP FSEIS. 

DETERMINATION: 

Based on the NRC staff’s independent 

review, analysis, and evaluation 

contained in the license renewal FSEIS; 

careful consideration of all of the 

identified social, economic, and 

environmental factors, and input 

received from other agencies, 

organizations, and the public; and 

consideration of mitigation measure 

outlined above, the NRC has determined 

that the requirements of Section 102 of 

NEPA and 10 CFR 54.29(b) have been 

satisfied. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day 

of September, 2017, 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Joseph E. Donoghue, Deputy Director, 

Division of License Renewal. 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20372 Filed 9–22–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Product Change—Priority Mail 

Negotiated Service Agreement 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives 

notice of filing a request with the Postal 

Regulatory Commission to add a 

domestic shipping services contract to 

the list of Negotiated Service 

Agreements in the Mail Classification 

Schedule’s Competitive Products List. 

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 

U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): September 25, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States Postal Service® hereby 

gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 20, 

2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory 

Commission a Request of the United 

States Postal Service to Add Priority 

Mail Contract 360 to Competitive 

Product List. Documents are available at 

www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017–206, 

CP2017–314. 

Elizabeth A. Reed, 

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20416 Filed 9–22–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Product Change—Priority Mail 

Negotiated Service Agreement 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives 

notice of filing a request with the Postal 

Regulatory Commission to add a 

domestic shipping services contract to 

the list of Negotiated Service 

Agreements in the Mail Classification 

Schedule’s Competitive Products List. 

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 

U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): September 25, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States Postal Service® hereby 

gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 20, 

2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory 

Commission a Request of the United 

States Postal Service to Add Priority 

Mail Contract 358 to Competitive 

Product List. Documents are available at 

www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2017–204, 

CP2017–312. 

Elizabeth A. Reed, 

Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law. 

[FR Doc. 2017–20414 Filed 9–22–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

Product Change—Priority Mail 

Negotiated Service Agreement 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives 

notice of filing a request with the Postal 

Regulatory Commission to add a 

domestic shipping services contract to 

the list of Negotiated Service 

Agreements in the Mail Classification 

Schedule’s Competitive Products List. 

DATES: Date of notice required under 39 

U.S.C. 3642(d)(1): September 25, 2017. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth A. Reed, 202–268–3179. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

United States Postal Service® hereby 

gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 

3642 and 3632(b)(3), on September 20, 

2017, it filed with the Postal Regulatory 


asabaliauskas on DSKBBXCHB2PROD with NOTICES