83 FR 23748 - Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 99 (May 22, 2018)

Page Range		23748-23749
FR Document		2018-10831

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Volume 5 of the plant-specific Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (FSEIS), Supplement 38 to NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (GEIS), regarding the renewal of the Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., operating licenses DPR-26 and DPR-64 (Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286) for extended plant operation for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2 and IP3). This volume of the FSEIS was issued as part of the NRC staff's review of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s request for extended plant operation beyond the initial period of 40 years. This volume incorporates new information that the NRC staff has obtained since the publication of Volume 4 of the FSEIS in June 2013.

Federal Register, Volume 83 Issue 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2018)

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 99 (Tuesday, May 22, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 23748-23749]
From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org]
[FR Doc No: 2018-10831]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286; NRC-2008-0672]

Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; Indian Point Nuclear Generating
Unit Nos. 2 and 3

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; issuance.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is issuing Volume
5 of the plant-specific Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement (FSEIS), Supplement 38 to NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental
Impact

[[Page 23749]]

Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants'' (GEIS), regarding the
renewal of the Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., operating licenses
DPR-26 and DPR-64 (Docket Nos. 50-247 and 50-286) for extended plant
operation for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2
and IP3).
This volume of the FSEIS was issued as part of the NRC staff's
review of Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.'s request for extended plant
operation beyond the initial period of 40 years.
This volume incorporates new information that the NRC staff has
obtained since the publication of Volume 4 of the FSEIS in June 2013.

DATES: Volume 5 of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact
Statement referenced in this document became effective on April 20,
2018.

ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2008-0672 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 http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2008-0672. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Jennifer Borges; telephone: 301-287-
9127; email: Jennifer.Borges@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 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 email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Supplement 38 to the GEIS and its supplements are available under ADAMS
Accession Nos. ML103350405, ML103350438, ML103360209, ML103360212,
ML103350442, ML13162A616, and ML18107A759, respectively.
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.
Local Libraries: The following local libraries have agreed
to make the final supplement available for public inspection:

-- White Plains Public Library, 100 Martine Ave. White Plains, NY 10601
-- Field Library, 4 Nelson Ave. Peekskill, NY 10566
-- Hendrick Hudson Free Library, 185 Kings Ferry Rd, Montrose, NY 10548

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. William Burton, Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6332, email: William.Burton@nrc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Discussion

The NRC received an application, dated April 23, 2007, from Entergy
Nuclear Operations, Inc., (Entergy), filed pursuant to Section 103 of
the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended, and part 54 of title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations, (10 CFR part 54), to renew, the
operating licenses for IP2 and IP3. The IP2 and IP3 site is located
along the Hudson River, approximately 24 miles north of New York, NY.
Renewal of the licenses would authorize the applicant to operate the
facilities beyond the initial 40-year period specified in the current
operating licenses. Possible alternatives to the proposed action
(license renewal) include no action and reasonable alternative energy
sources.
The NRC issued a plant-specific Final Supplemental Environmental
Impact Statement (FSEIS) as a supplement to the Generic Environmental
Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-
1437, regarding the renewal of Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-26
and DPR-64 for Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit Nos. 2 and 3 (IP2
and IP3).
As discussed in Section 8.2 of the FSEIS, the NRC staff determined
that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for IP2 and
IP3 are not so great that preserving the option of license renewal for
energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable. This
recommendation is based on: (1) The analysis and findings in the GEIS;
(2) information provided in the environmental report and other
documents submitted by Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.; (3)
consultation with Federal, State, local, and tribal agencies; (4) the
NRC staff's independent review; and (5) NRC staff's consideration of
public comments received during the scoping process and on the draft
Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement.

II. Matters Addressed in Supplement 2 to the FSEIS

This supplement includes the NRC staff's evaluation of revised
engineering project cost information for severe accident mitigation
alternatives (SAMAs), a summary of the results of additional
sensitivity analyses to address uncertainties in the SAMA cost-benefit
conclusions as directed by the Commission, newly available aquatic
impact information, and the additional environmental issues associated
with license renewal resulting from the June 2013, revision to Table B-
1 in Appendix B to Subpart A of 10 CFR part 51 and NUREG-1437. This
supplement also incorporates the impact determinations of NUREG-2157,
``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for Continued Storage of Spent
Nuclear Fuel,'' in accordance with the requirements in 10 CFR 51.23(b).
Additionally, this supplement describes the reinitiation of
consultation under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended (ESA), regarding the northern long-eared bat, the initiation of
a conference under Section 7 of the ESA for proposed critical habitat
of the Atlantic sturgeon, the staff's November 2017, request for the
National Marine Fisheries Service to amend the 2013 biological
opinion's Incidental Take Statement, and to provide its concurrence
with staff's effect determination with respect to the final designated
Atlantic Sturgeon critical habitat. The supplement also provides an
update on the status of the operating licenses for IP2 and IP3. In
addition, this supplement reflects the closure agreement signed in
January 2017, by the parties to legal proceedings related to the
renewal of the operating licenses for IP2 and IP3. The closure
agreement, among other things, resolves all litigation concerning
license renewal and calls for an early shut down of IP2 and IP3.

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 16th day of May, 2018.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Eric R. Oesterle,
Chief, License Renewal Project Branch, Division of Materials and
License Renewal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2018-10831 Filed 5-21-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P

23748 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 99 / Tuesday, May 22, 2018 / Notices

RADioactivity) to carry out the three steps With regard to the analytical procedures subsamples, and (3) using sub-samples of the
described above using the resident farmer being adequately described including the use same volume.’’ In its response to the request
scenario. RESRAD is commonly used to make of the phrase ‘‘TBD’’, as described in the (ADAMS Accession No. ML18009A456), the
regulatory decisions about residual director’s decision under Concern 3, the licensee clarified that the ‘‘composite’’
radioactivity levels at nuclear sites. This code licensee is not required to submit samples were all taken in essentially one
was used by the licensee, and reviewed by information on laboratory preparation location and a provision for taking 10 sub-
the staff, to assess radiation exposures of a methods beyond the information presented samples was included to ensure sufficient
human receptor located on top of soils in the Quality Assurance Plan (Annex 19 to sample volume was collected. Based on the
contaminated with DU. RESRAD allows users the Programmatic ERMP) (ADAMS Accession licensee’s clarification, the staff determined
to specify the features of their site and to No. ML16265A233). Also, the licensee is not that dilution is not a concern as the sub-
predict the dose received by an individual at required to submit environmental sampling samples are more representative of a single
any time over the next 100,000 years. procedures beyond the information presented sample than a ‘‘composite’’ sample.
RESRAD is particularly important because it in Annex 19 to the Programmatic ERMP. The Comment 7:
has been accepted for use by the NRC in licensee has made a commitment in its
making regulatory decisions and is freely application for License Amendment No. 1 The petitioner states that there are
available to the public. (ADAMS Accession No. ML16004A369) that: significant barriers to flow from the RCAs at
‘‘Each installation-specific ERMP will the PTA to the proposed sample collection
Comment 4: describe sampling in terms of sampling site, and that the staff should have used
The petitioner states that the use of objectives, sampling protocols, analytical objective programs to trace out surface flows.
NUREG–1301 is improper because it does not methods, and data quality assurance The petitioner states that the staff should
address stream sediment sampling. protocols. These descriptions will conform to mandate that the sampling location be
commonly accepted practices and reliable adjacent to the RCA, ‘‘not miles away with
Response 4: sources as described in the Multi-Agency an intermittent lava berm.’’
As stated in the director’s decision, while Radiation Survey and Site Investigation Response 7:
NUREG–1301 is not specific to DU in the Manual (MARSSIM) (NRC, DOE, EPA, DOD
The petitioner’s comments are directed at
form of spent rounds present in the 2000). Acceptable analytical methods include
a concern that was not accepted for review
environment, it is conservative for reviewing those commonly accepted from reliable
under the 10 CFR 2.206 process and is not
the licensee’s proposed sampling methods references, as presented in MARSSIM, Table
the subject of this director’s decision. The
and frequency because the expected risks 7.2.’’
basis for the rejection of this concern under
from the presence of DU at the PTA are The staff found this approach acceptable. In
the 10 CFR 2.206 process is described on
significantly less than those associated with the SER for License Amendment No. 1 pages 3 and 4 of Enclosure 1 (ADAMS
radiological releases from an operating (ADAMS Accession No. ML16039A230), the Accession No. ML17279A082) to the NRC’s
nuclear power plant. Also, the fact that this staff found that, ‘‘. . . in accordance with 10 letter to the petitioner dated November 9,
guidance addresses sediment from [the] CFR 40.32(c) . . . that the Army’s proposed 2017 (ADAMS Accession No. ML17279A300
shoreline of surface water instead of stream equipment and procedures in the (Pkg.)), under the concern identified as
sediment does not affect the conservatism of programmatic RSP [Radiation Safety Plan] ‘‘Inappropriate Sampling Location.’’ As
applying the NUREG to environmental are adequate to protect health and safety and described in the staff’s Response 1, above, the
sampling at PTA. minimize danger to life or property.’’ Review licensee submitted a license amendment
of specific procedures are covered in the NRC application to the NRC to correct figure
Comment 5:
inspection process, not licensing. The staff sizing/scaling errors in the ERMP annex for
The petitioner challenges the staff’s may ask to review documentation regarding the PTA and two other sites. Because the
conclusions that the analytical methods in the analysis of sediment samples, such as petitioner’s concern regarding the sediment
the PTA ERMP are appropriate and that the laboratory procedures and methods and sampling location at the PTA is now under
laboratory preparation methods are sampling procedures, during NRC staff’s consideration as part of its review of
adequately described in the PTA ERMP. The inspections. this license amendment request, the 2.206
petitioner states that the analytical method
Comment 6: process is not appropriate for addressing that
selected, an alpha spectrometer, presumably
concern. The staff will inform the petitioner
cannot detect 235U unless very long counting The petitioner asserts that an Oak Ridge
of the outcome of this licensing review.
times are used. The petitioner states ‘‘an report (ADAMS Accession No.
overwhelming number of procedural ML13101A090) demonstrates that the [FR Doc. 2018–10840 Filed 5–21–18; 8:45 am]
descriptions are provided with the phrase, analytical methods used by the licensee are BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
‘TBD (to be determined)’’’ in Annex 17 and improper and that the proposed director’s
19. decision improperly ignores this report.
Response 5: Response 6: NUCLEAR REGULATORY
As stated in the director’s decision under As explained in the director’s decision
COMMISSION
Concern 3, the staff disagrees with the under Concern 5, as part of the staff’s review [Docket Nos. 50–247 and 50–286; NRC–
petitioner that the analytical methods are not of the petitioner’s concern regarding 2008–0672]
commonly used methods. Alpha composite sample dilution, the staff
spectrometry (US DOE HASL method 300) requested information (ADAMS Accession Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.;
and inductively coupled-plasma mass No. ML17297B403) from the licensee, Indian Point Nuclear Generating Unit
spectrometry (ICP–MS) are commonly used regarding how it intends to meet the 3-to-1 Nos. 2 and 3
methods for sample analysis to determine ratio of U–238 to U–234 in License Condition
uranium isotopic activity or mass and have 17 when compositing sediment samples. The AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory
sufficient detection capability to accomplish staff referred to the Oak Ridge Report Commission.
the stated objectives of the monitoring (ADAMS Accession No. ML13101A090) in its ACTION: Final Supplemental
activity. request letter (ADAMS Accession No.
Environmental Impact Statement;
Furthermore, the petitioner expressed ML17297B403), stating that ‘‘this guidance
issuance.
amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with NOTICES1

concerns about appropriateness of the indicates that a statistically-informed
analytical methods by raising the issue of the sampling regime should be followed if
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
long counting times for U–235. However, as composite sampling is used over an area (i.e.,
described in Concern 3, the licensee has not not just at one sample location). The detailed
Commission (NRC) is issuing Volume 5
proposed to count U–235, but instead plans guidance referenced above recommends (1) of the plant-specific Final Supplemental
to use the U–238 to U–234 ratio, as a retaining sub-samples in case further analysis Environmental Impact Statement
surrogate, as required by License Condition is needed, (2) establishing an adjusted limit (FSEIS), Supplement 38 to NUREG–
17. that would trigger analysis of individual 1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact

VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:47 May 21, 2018 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00124 Fmt 4703 Sfmt 4703 E:\FR\FM\22MYN1.SGM 22MYN1

Document Created: 2018-11-02 11:09:59
Document Modified: 2018-11-02 11:09:59

Category		Regulatory Information
Collection		Federal Register
sudoc Class		AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106:
Publisher		Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration
Section		Notices
Action		Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement; issuance.
Dates		Volume 5 of the Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement referenced in this document became effective on April 20, 2018.
Contact		Mr. William Burton, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-6332, email: [email protected]
FR Citation		83 FR 23748