ML24136A135
| ML24136A135 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 07/30/2024 |
| From: | Beverly Smith Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | Vistra Operations Company |
| Shared Package | |
| ML24136A131 | List: |
| References | |
| Download: ML24136A135 (13) | |
Text
1 RECORD OF DECISION U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION DOCKET NUMBERS: 50-445 AND 50-446 LICENSE RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR COMANCHE PEAK NUCLEAR POWER PLANT, UNITS 1 AND 2 BACKGROUND The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) received an application dated October 3, 2022 (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System Package Accession No. ML22276A082), from Vistra Operations Company LLC (Vistra) filed pursuant to Section 103 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended (42 USC 2011 et seq.) (AEA); Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 51, Environmental Protection Regulations for Domestic Licensing and Related Regulatory Functions; and 10 CFR Part 54, Requirements for Renewal of Operating Licenses for Nuclear Power Plants, for renewal of the renewed operating licenses for Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant (CPNPP), Units 1 and 2. CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, are two Westinghouse pressurized-water reactors located on approximately 7,700 acres (ac) (3,116 hectares (ha)) of land in Somervell County, Texas. Each reactor is designed to produce a nominal core power rating of 3,612 megawatts thermal (with power uprate). On October 31, 2022 (87 FR 65617), the NRC staff published in the Federal Register (FR) a notice of receipt and availability of the license renewal application, including the environmental report (ER).
The AEA specifies that licenses for commercial power reactors can be granted for an initial period of up to 40 years. The NRC regulations permit these licenses to be renewed beyond the initial 40-year term for an additional period, limited to 20-year increments per renewal, based on the results of an assessment to determine whether the nuclear facility can continue to operate safely during the proposed period of extended operation. There are no limitations in the AEA or NRC regulations restricting the number of times a license may be renewed.
The CPNPP Unit 1 facility operating license (NPF-87) and the CPNPP Unit 2 facility operating license (NPF-89) expire on February 8, 2030, and February 2, 2033, respectively. The renewed licenses would authorize Vistra to operate CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, until February 8, 2050, and February 2, 2053, respectively.
On October 3, 2022, the NRC accepted Vistras application and began the environmental review process (87 FR 76219 and 88 FR 10940). Section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA), directs that an environmental impact statement (EIS) be prepared for any major Federal action that has the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human environment. In accordance with 10 CFR 51.20(b)(2), the NRC prepares an EIS for all renewed reactor operating licenses, regardless of the actions environmental impact significance. The NRCs Federal action is to decide whether to issue renewed operating licenses for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, authorizing operation until February 8, 2050, and February 2, 2053, respectively, as proposed in the application.
2 On December 13, 2022, the NRC staff published a notice of intent to prepare a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS) and conduct scoping in the FR (87 FR 76219 and 88 FR 10940). In addition, Federal, State, and local agencies, as well as Tribal governments, were notified and asked to provide comment on and to participate in the environmental scoping process and review. On January 17, 2023, the NRC held a public webinar and on February 23, 2023, an in-person scoping meeting near the CPNPP site in Somervell County, Texas, to obtain public input on the proper scope of the NRCs environmental review of the CPNPP license renewal application. These scoping meetings took place after the NRC staff canceled the in-person scoping meetings scheduled for January 10, 2023, because of a local high level of Coronavirus Disease 2019 and subsequently extended the comment period. On October 17, 2023, the NRC issued a Scoping Summary Report (ML23289A201), cited in Appendix A of the SEIS.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT In accordance with 10 CFR 51.95(c), the NRC staff documents its environmental review of each license renewal application and publishes it as a site-specific supplement to NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants (License Renewal GEIS), as revised. Vistra submitted its license renewal application under the NRCs 2013 revised rule governing license renewal environmental reviews, as codified in 10 CFR Part 51. The GEIS documented the results of the NRC staffs systematic approach to evaluating the environmental consequences of renewing the licenses of individual nuclear power plants and operating them for an additional 20 years beyond the end of the current license term. The GEIS1 provides the technical bases for the list of NEPA issues and associated environmental impact findings for license renewal contained in Table B-1, Summary of Findings on NEPA Issues for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants, in Appendix B, Environmental Effect of Renewing the Operating License of a Nuclear Power Plant, to Subpart A, National Environmental Policy ActRegulations Implementing Section 102(2), of 10 CFR Part 51. In the GEIS, the NRC staff analyzed in detail and resolved those environmental issues that are considered generic and common to all nuclear power plants (Category 1 issues). For Category 1 issues, the SEIS does not need to include additional site-specific analysis unless new and significant information is identified. The GEIS also identifies site-specific issues (Category 2 issues). For Category 2 issues, an additional site-specific review is required, and the results are documented in the SEIS.
The NRC established a standard of significance for each NEPA issue evaluated in the GEIS based on the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations on how to evaluate significance (see 40 CFR 1508.27, Significantly). The term significantly, as used in NEPA, requires consideration of both of the following:
contextas in the geographic, biophysical, and social context in which the effects will occur intensityreferring to the severity of the impact in whatever context it occurs Since the significance and severity of an impact can vary with the setting of the proposed action, the NRC considered both context and intensity as defined in CEQ regulations at 40 CFR 1508.27. In the case of license renewal, the context is the environment surrounding the 1
NUREG-1437, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Revision 1, Volumes 1-3, issued June 2013 (ML13106A241, ML13106A242, and ML13106A244).
3 nuclear power plant. Based on this, the NRC established a three-level standard of significance for potential impactsSMALL, MODERATE, and LARGEas 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.
On October 31, 2023, the NRC issued a draft site-specific SEIS for public comment in support of the CPNPP license renewal application review (ML23299A252; 88 FR 75629 and 88 FR 78068). A 45-day comment period began on November 9, 2023, when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a notice of availability (88 FR 77308) of the draft SEIS to allow members of the public and agencies time to comment on the results of the environmental review. On December 7, 2023, the NRC conducted an in-person meeting near the CPNPP site in Somervell County, Texas, and on December 21, 2023, two public webinars to present the preliminary results of the environmental review, respond to questions, and accept public comments. The comment period ended on December 26, 2023.
On April 26, 2024, the NRC issued the final site-specific SEIS (FSEIS) in support of the CPNPP license renewal application review (ML24078A261 and 89 FR 35861). On May 3, 2024, the EPA published a notice of availability of this FSEIS (89 FR 36815). Appendix A to the FSEIS discusses all comments received during the draft SEIS comment period. After consideration of those comments and its independent review, the NRC staff did not identify any new and significant information that would call into question, with respect to the license renewal of CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, the applicability of the GEIS conclusions on Category 1 issues. In the FSEIS, the NRC staff concluded that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for CPNPP are not great enough to deny the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision-makers. This recommendation is based on (1) the analysis and findings in the GEIS, (2) information provided in the ER and other documents submitted by Vistra, (3) consultation with Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, (4) the NRC staffs independent environmental review, and (5) consideration of public comments received during the scoping process and on the draft SEIS.
After issuance of the FSEIS in April 2024, the staff identified new information with the potential to affect the NRCs environmental impact analyses presented in the FSEIS. The staff presents its review and consideration of this new and emerging information, and the determination as to whether this information is new and significant, in the Record of Decision (ROD) section titled Consideration of Comments on the FSEIS and Emerging Information. The staff determined that none of the information reviewed and considered is both new and significant, and therefore no supplement to the CPNPP FSEIS is required in accordance with 10 CFR 51.92(a).
Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.102(b) and 51.103(a)(1)-(5), the NRC staff has prepared this ROD to accompany its Federal action on the CPNPP license renewal application. This ROD incorporates by reference materials contained in the FSEIS, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(c).
4 DECISION Pursuant to 10 CFR 54.29, Standards for issuance of a renewed license, a renewed license may be issued if the Commission finds that, in part, any applicable requirements of Subpart A of 10 CFR Part 51 have been satisfied, including the completion of the ROD.
The FSEIS, which is incorporated by reference herein, documents the staff recommendation that the adverse environmental impacts of license renewal for CPNPP are not so great that preserving the option of [license renewal] for energy-planning decisionmakers would be unreasonable, in accordance with 10 CFR 51.103(a)(5). In the 1996 final rule amending 10 CFR Part 51 (61 FR 28467), the Commission explained the following:
Given the uncertainties involved and the lack of control that the NRC has in the choice of energy alternatives in the future, the Commission believes that it is reasonable to exercise its NEPA authority to reject license renewal applications only when it has determined that the impacts of license renewal sufficiently exceed the impacts of all or almost all of the alternatives that preserving the option of license renewal for future decision makers would be unreasonable.
In making its licensing decision on the proposed Federal action to authorize the continued operation of CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, through February 8, 2050, and February 2, 2053, respectively, the NRC must make a favorable safety finding. The purpose of the NRCs safety review is to determine whether the applicant has adequately demonstrated that the effects of aging will not adversely affect the intended functions of any safety structures or components as specified in 10 CFR 54.4, Scope, and 10 CFR 54.21, Contents of applicationtechnical information. 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 staff documented the results of its safety review in Safety Evaluation Report Related to the License Renewal of Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Plant, Units 1 and 2, dated March 18, 2024 (ML24078A230). The Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards provided its independent review and report (ML24128A269) to the Commission in accordance with 10 CFR 54.25, Report of the Advisory Committee on Reactor Safeguards, regarding the application for renewal of the operating licenses for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2.
PURPOSE AND NEED The purpose and need for the proposed Federal action (issuance of renewed licenses for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2) is to provide an option that allows for power-generation capability beyond the term of the current renewed nuclear power plant operating licenses to meet future system-generating needs. Such needs may be determined by energy-planning decision-makers such as State regulators, utility owners, and Federal agencies other than the NRC. This definition of purpose and need reflects the Commissions recognition that, unless there are findings in the NRCs safety review (required by the AEA) or findings in the NRCs environmental analysis (required by NEPA) that would lead the NRC to reject a license renewal application, the agency does not have a role in energy-planning decisions as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. Ultimately, the appropriate energy-planning decision-makers and Vistra will decide whether CPNPP will continue to operate based on factors such as the need for power or other matters within the States jurisdiction or the purview of the owners. The issuance of a renewed license is just one of the items that Vistra must address to operate its nuclear power plant during the renewal term.
5 NRC EVALUATON OF THE PROPOSED ACTION AND ALTERNATIVES Section 102(2)(C)(iii) of NEPA, as amended by the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 (Public Law No. 118-5, 137 Stat. 10), requires the consideration in the EIS of a reasonable range of alternatives to the proposed agency action. The NRC implements NEPA through 10 CFR Part 51 and considers in the FSEIS the environmental consequences of the proposed action (i.e., renewing the operating licenses), the environmental consequences of the no-action alternative (i.e., not renewing the operating licenses), and the environmental consequences of reasonable alternatives for replacing the nuclear power plants generating capacity. FSEIS Chapter 2, Alternatives Including the Proposed Action, and Chapter 3, Affected Environment, Environmental Consequences and Mitigating Actions, present the NRC staffs evaluation and analysis of the environmental impacts of the proposed action and alternatives to license renewal. The evaluation considered environmental impacts of each alternative across the impact areas of land use and visual resources; meteorology, air quality, and noise; geologic environment; water resources; terrestrial resources; aquatic resources; special status species and habitats; historic and cultural resources; socioeconomics; human health; environmental justice; and waste management and pollution prevention.
As explained in the description of the purpose and need for the proposed Federal action, outside of the safety and environmental reviews, the NRC does not have a role in energy-planning decisions as to whether a particular nuclear power plant should continue to operate. Should the operating license not be renewed and the nuclear plant shut down at the end of its current license, the appropriate energy-planning decision-makers will decide how best to replace the nuclear power plants generating capacity. 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 operating licenses for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, expire. The NRC staff initially considered 16 alternatives to CPNPP license renewal. The NRC staff dismissed 13 alternatives because of technical, resource availability, or commercial limitations that currently exist and are likely to continue to exist when the existing CPNPP licenses expire, rendering these alternatives not feasible or commercially viable. This resulted in the three reasonable replacement power alternatives for in-depth evaluation, described in Sections 2.4.1-2.4.13 of the FSEIS. Chapter 3 of the FSEIS discusses the NRC staffs in-depth evaluation of these alternatives. The NRC staff also considered the no-action alternative (i.e., not renewing the CPNPP operating licenses) in Chapter 3 of the FSEIS.
Evaluation of Alternatives
- i.
No-Action Alternative At some point, all operating nuclear power plants will (1) permanently cease operations (shut down) and (2) undergo decommissioning. Under the no-action alternative, the NRC would not issue the renewed operating licenses for CPNPP and the units would shut down at or before the expiration of the current renewed licenses. The License Renewal GEIS describes the environmental impacts that arise directly from permanent plant shutdown. After permanent shutdown, plant operators will initiate decommissioning in accordance with 10 CFR 50.82, Termination of license. Chapter 4 of the License Renewal GEIS and Chapter 3 of this SEIS describe the incremental environmental impacts of license renewal on decommissioning activities.
6 Termination of plant operations at CPNPP would result in the total cessation of electrical power production by CPNPP, Units 1 and 2. Unlike the replacement power alternatives described below, the no-action alternative does not expressly meet the purpose and need of the proposed action because the no-action alternative does not provide a means of delivering baseload power to meet future electric system needs. Assuming a need currently exists for the power generated by CPNPP Units 1 and 2, the no-action alternative would likely create a need for a replacement power alternative.
ii.
Reasonable Power Replacement Alternatives Evaluated in Depth in the FSEIS The GEIS presents an overview of some alternative energy technologies but does not conclude which alternatives are most appropriate (reasonable). Because alternative energy technologies are continually evolving in capability and cost, and because U.S. regulatory structures have changed to either promote or impede the development of particular technologies, the analyses in the FSEIS rely on a variety of information sources to determine which alternatives would be available and commercially viable when the current licenses expire. Vistras ER discusses replacement power alternatives. In addition to the Vistras ER, the NRC staffs analyses relied on appropriate Federal, State, and industry information sources. The three reasonable alternatives selected for detailed evaluation in the FSEIS are briefly described below.
iii.
New Nuclear Alternative (Small Modular Reactors (SMR))
The NRC staff considers the construction of a new nuclear plant (i.e., six 400 megawatts electric (MWe) reactor modules) to be a reasonable alternative to CPNPP license renewal. In 2023, the Governor of Texas issued a statement to the Interim Chair, Public Utility Commission of Texas, to coordinate closely with the Governors office to develop a plan and recommendations by December 1, 2024, outlining how Texas will become the national leader in using advanced nuclear energy. In 2016, the NRC received the first design certification application for an SMR.
Following NRC certification, the SMR designs could potentially achieve operation on a commercial scale by 2026. Therefore, SMRs could be constructed and operational by the time the CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, licenses expire in 2030 and 2033, respectively.
The FSEIS assumes six 400 MWe reactor modules (scaled up from parameters of the generic SMR designs in the Clinch River early site permit EIS (NUREG-2226, Revision 0, Environmental Impact Statement for an Early Site Permit (ESP) at the Clinch River Nuclear Site: Final Report, issued April 2019)) with a total net generating capacity of approximately 2,400 MWe, or 98 percent of the electrical capacity that CPNPP provides currently. The reactors and associated plant facilities would be located at the CPNPP site, consisting of approximately 675 ac (273 ha) of land, consistent with the ER. The NRC assumes that the existing transmission line infrastructure would be sufficient to support the SMR alternative. Onsite visible structures could include cooling towers, intake and discharge structures, transmission lines, and an electrical switchyard.
The SMR facilities would use a closed-cycle cooling system with mechanical draft cooling towers (MDCTs), which require construction of a new intake structure, blowdown treatment facility (BDTF), discharge structure, and associated piping. This cooling system would withdraw approximately 80 million gallons per day (mgd) (300,000 cubic meters per day (m3/d)) of water and consume 55 mgd (210,000 m3/d) of water.
7 iv.
Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle In the FSEIS, the NRC staff consider the construction of a natural gas-fired combined-cycle (NGCC) power plant to be a reasonable alternative because it is and remains a feasible, commercially available option for providing baseload capacity. Baseload NGCC power plants have proven reliability and can have capacity factors as high as 87 percent. Natural gas represents approximately 47 percent of power production in Texas.
The FSEIS assumes four approximately 615 MWe natural gas units would be constructed and operated at CPNPP. The NGCC facility would generate approximately 2,460 MWe (2,830 MWe nameplate capacity with 87 percent capacity factor). Approximately 275 ac (111 ha) would be used to construct and operate the natural gas plant, including the MDCTs, with an additional 400 ac (161 ha) for the BDTF. Although some infrastructure upgrades may be required in association with the natural gas alternative, it is assumed that the existing transmission line infrastructure at the selected location would be adequate to support the alternative. The tallest NGCC structures would be the plant stacks and cooling towers; the plant stacks would be approximately 150 feet (46 meters) tall, and the MDCTs would be approximately 55 feet (17 meters) tall.
The NGCC plant would require specific cooling system components and features (intake structures, discharge structures, the BDTF, and connective pipelines) like those described for the new SMR alternative but scaled down for NGCC. This cooling system would withdraw approximately 14 mgd (53,000 m3/d) and consume 11 mgd (46,000 m3/d) of water. Because of the high overall thermal efficiency of this type of plant, it requires less cooling water than would be needed for the CPNPP units if their licenses were renewed.
- v.
Combination Alternative (Solar Photovoltaic, Onshore Wind, and New Nuclear (SMR))
The NRC staff has considered a combination alternative consisting of (1) solar photovoltaic (coupled with battery) (1,200 MWe), (2) onshore wind (400 MWe), and (3) new nuclear (SMR)
(2,400 MWe). The NRC staff considers the construction and operation of renewable facilities (solar photovoltaic and onshore wind) to be reasonable when combined with other generation sources. This is because Texas has adopted the 1999 Renewable Portfolio Standard, setting a rule called the Goal for Renewable Energy. As stated in the annual compliance report prepared by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, Texas had already reached the 2025 Renewable Portfolio Standard goal in 2009 and in 2017 had 26,045 megawatts (MW) of additional renewable energy capacity (24,381 MW of which was wind). Unlike concentrating solar power technology, solar photovoltaic cells can generate electricity whenever there is sunlight, regardless of whether the sun is directly or indirectly shining on the solar panels.
Solar Photovoltaic Portion of Combination Alternative The FSEIS assumes 24 standalone and utility-scale solar facilities (averaging approximately 125 MWe) would be constructed and operated, offsite of CPNPP, to provide a gross generating capacity of 3,000 MWe. Each of these offsite facilities would be paired with a 125 MW/500 megawatt hour (MWh) battery energy storage system. Assuming a 25 percent capacity factor, these solar units provide a combined net generating capacity of approximately 1,200 MWe. For standalone sites, solar photovoltaic facilities may require approximately 6.2 ac (2.5 ha) per megawatt. Each of the 24 collocated battery storage systems would require an additional 20 ac (8 ha). Therefore, a total of approximately 19,000 ac (7,700 ha) would be required to construct and operate the solar power installations needed under this alternative.
8 Not all this land would necessarily need to be cleared of vegetation and permanently impacted.
Solar photovoltaic systems do not require water for cooling purposes, but they do require a small amount of water to clean the panels and for potable water for the workforce.
Onshore Wind Portion of Combination Alternative The FSEIS assumes 12 wind farms averaging approximately 120 MWe each would be constructed and operated offsite of CPNPP, at locations within the region of influence, for a total installed capacity of 1,440 MWe. The average nameplate capacity of newly installed 2018 wind turbines in the United States was 2.4 MWe. Assuming the use of 2.4 MWe turbines, a total of approximately 600 wind turbines would be required for the 1,440 installed capacity. Each of these wind farms would be paired with a 120 MW/480 MWh battery energy storage system. The FSEIS assumes a 40 percent onshore wind capacity factor.
Utility-scale wind farms would require relatively large areas and would be installed at utility-scale facilities located in multiple sites scattered across the region of influence. Assuming 85 ac (34.5 ha) of land per megawatt of installed capacity, approximately 122,000 ac (49,000 ha) would be required for the wind farms. However, much of the overall land requirement associated with the wind farms would remain largely unaffected by operation of the wind turbines. Land disturbance was estimated to be (1) 1.7 ac of temporary disturbance per megawatt of generation (e.g., construction) and (2) 0.7 ac/MW of permanent disturbance (e.g., operation).
The battery storage systems supporting these wind farms would also result in an additional 240 ac (97 ha) of permanent disturbance. Therefore, the wind portion of combination alternative would result in approximately 2,450 ac (990 ha) of temporary land disturbance and 1,250 ac (500 ha) of permanent land commitment (disturbance). The FSEIS assumes a wind turbine hub would occupy a height of 312 feet (95 meters) and a rotor diameter of 328 feet (100 meters) for a maximum height of approximately 145 meters. Noise impacts would include aerodynamic noise from the turbine rotor and mechanical noise from turbine drivetrain components.
New Small Modular Reactors Portion of Combination Alternative The FSEIS assumes one 400 MWe SMR unit, of the same type described for the SMR alternative, would be installed at Comanche Peak. Land requirements would be approximately 36 ac (14 ha) for one SMR. An additional 40 ac (16 ha) would be required for the BDTF. The discharge piping from the BDTF would extend offsite and disturb approximately an additional 81 ac (32 ha). The power block (cooling towers, intake and discharge structures, transmission lines, and an electrical switchyard) height would be the same as for the SMR alternative.
Similar to the SMR alternative, the SMR facilities would use a closed-cycle cooling system with MDCT, which requires construction of a new intake structure, BDTF, discharge structure, and associated piping. This cooling system would withdraw approximately 13 mgd (50,000 m3/d) and consume 9.2 mgd (35,000 m3/d) of water.
vi.
Summary In the FSEIS for CPNPP license renewal, the NRC staff considered the environmental impacts associated with license renewal and with alternatives to license renewal, including alternative power-generation technologies (replacement power alternative) and the impacts of not renewing the operating licenses for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, (the no-action alternative). The FSEIS concludes that environmental impacts of the proposed action (renewal of the operating licenses for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2) would be SMALL for all impact categories.
9 As summarized in Table 2-2, Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives, of the FSEIS (reproduced below as Table 1), each of the three reasonable replacement power alternatives has environmental impacts in at least four resource areas that are greater than the environmental impacts of the proposed action of license renewal. The replacement power alternatives could involve the environmental impacts inherent to new construction projects. If the NRC decides to select the no-action alternative and does not issue renewed licenses for CPNPP, energy-planning decision-makers could implement one of the three replacement power alternatives that are deemed reasonable and discussed in depth in Chapter 3 of the FSEIS. Based on the NRCs review of these three replacement power alternatives, the no-action alternative, and the proposed action, the staff concludes that the environmentally preferred alternative is the proposed action of license renewal. Therefore, in the FSEIS, the staff recommended that the NRC issue renewed operating licenses for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2.
Table 1 Summary of Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action and Alternatives (a)
There would be no disproportionately high and adverse impacts to minority and low-income populations.
(b)
A reduction in tax revenue resulting from the shutdown of Comanche Peak could decrease the availability of public services. Minority and low-income populations dependent on these services could be disproportionately affected.
(c)
Based on the analysis of human health and environmental effects presented in this SEIS, this alternative would not likely have disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations. However, this determination would depend on site location, plant design, and operational characteristics of the new power plant, unique consumption practices and interactions with the environment of nearby populations, and the location of minority and low-income populations.
Resource Area CPNPP License Renewal (Proposed Action)
No-Action Alternative New Nuclear Alternative (SMR)
Natural Gas-Fired Combined-Cycle Alternative Combination Alternative Air Quality SMALL SMALL SMALL MODERATE SMALL Noise SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE Groundwater Resources and Surface Water Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL Aquatic Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL MODERATE to LARGE Terrestrial Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE MODERATE to LARGE Human Health SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL Land Use SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL SMALL to LARGE Visual Resources SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to LARGE Socioeconomics SMALL SMALL SMALL to LARGE SMALL to MODERATE SMALL to LARGE Transportation SMALL SMALL SMALL to LARGE to MODERATE SMALL to LARGE Environmental Justice See note (a)
See note (b)
See note (c)
See note (c)
See note (c)
Historic and Cultural Resources See note (d)
See note (e)
See note (f)
See note (f)
See note (f)
Waste Management SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL SMALL
10 (d)
Based on (1) that no new ground disturbance, construction, or modifications are anticipated during the license renewal period; (2) State Historic Preservation Office input; and (3) Vistra procedures, license renewal would not adversely affect any known historic properties (Title 36, Parks, Forest, and Public Property, of the Code of Federal Regulations 800.4(d)(1), No Historic Properties Affected (36 CFR Part 800), or historic and cultural resources.
(e)
As a result of facility shutdown, land-disturbance activities or dismantlement are not anticipated because these activities would be conducted during decommissioning, and therefore facility shutdown would have no immediate effect on historic properties.
(f)
The potential for impacts on historic and cultural resources from construction and operation of a replacement power alternative would vary greatly depending on the location of the site. The impacts on historic and cultural resources could range from will not adversely affect known historic and cultural resources to may adversely affect known historic and cultural resources.
MITIGATION MEASURES The NRC has taken all practicable measures within its jurisdiction to avoid or minimize environmental harm from the alternative selected. Continued operation of CPNPP would have SMALL environmental impacts in all resource areas. The NRC is not imposing any license conditions in connection with mitigation measures. Additionally, the NRC is not requiring any new environmental monitoring programs. However, CPNPP is subject to requirements, including permits, authorizations, and regulatory orders, imposed by other Federal, State, and local agencies governing facility operation. For example, the Texas Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (TPDES) permit issued to Vistra imposes requirements to ensure that impacts to water quality and aquatic life are minimized. The Commission is not requiring any new environmental monitoring programs outside those required for the TPDES permits or otherwise mandated under NRC regulations, as discussed in the FSEIS.
CONSIDERATION OF COMMENTS ON THE FINAL SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT AND EMERGING INFORMATION Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 401 Water Quality Certification As summarized in Section 3.5.1.3 of the FSEIS, Vistra, as the NRCs license renewal applicant, is subject to various provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (i.e., the Clean Water Act of 1972, as amended (CWA; 33 USC 1251)), including the provisions of CWA Section 401.
CWA Section 401 requires that an applicant for a Federal license or permit, whose activities may cause a discharge of regulated pollutants into navigable waters, provide the Federal licensing or permitting agency with a certification from the State or appropriate water pollution control agency in which the discharge originates or will originate. This water quality certification implies that discharges from the activity or project to be licensed or permitted will comply with CWA requirements, as applicable, including that the discharge will not cause or contribute to a violation of applicable water quality standards. If the applicant has not received Section 401 certification, the NRC cannot issue a license or permit (including a renewed operating license) unless the certifying authority has waived the requirement.
In July 2020, the EPA published a final rule revising the procedural requirements for CWA Section 401 certifications at 40 CFR Part 121, State Certification of Activities Requiring a Federal License or Permit (85 FR 42210). The final rule became effective on September 11, 2020. In 2021, the EPA initiated a process to reconsider and revise that 2020 Rule (86 FR 29541). The EPA issued a final rule, 2023 Clean Water Act Section 401 Water
11 Quality Certification Improvement Rule, in September 2023, with an effective date of November 27, 2023 (88 FR 66558).
The Section 401 Water Quality Certification for operating CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, was originally issued by the Texas Water Quality Board, a predecessor of the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (TCEQ), on March 1, 1974. In a letter dated February 2, 2021, Vistra submitted a request for a Section 401 certification determination to the TCEQ (the CWA Section 401 certifying authority for the State of Texas) to support the issuance of renewed operating licenses for CPNPP. The TCEQ Water Quality Division responded to Vistras request for a certification determination by letter dated March 12, 2021. This correspondence is included in Vistras 2022 ER (ML22276A082), submitted with Vistras application to the NRC for the renewal of the CPNPP operating licenses.
Specifically, the TCEQ, in its March 12, 2021, response to Vistra, stated the following:
The Water Quality Division of the Office of Water is responsible for conducting Section 401 water quality certification reviews of federal permits and confirms that the previous 401 water quality certification issued on March 1, 1974 remains valid.
The TCEQs action in response to Vistras request occurred while the 2020 CWA Section 401 Certification Rule (85 FR 42210) was in effect. The revised provisions in 40 CFR Part 121, which became effective on November 27, 2023, do not apply retroactively to certification decisions made under the 2020 rule (88 FR 66558, page 66655). For this reason, the NRC was not required to and did not notify the EPA Regional Administrator of the application for renewal of the licenses for CPNPP Units 1 and 2, in accordance with the neighboring jurisdiction process set forth in recent revisions to 40 CFR 121.12, Notification to the Regional Administrator.
Based on the staffs review of this correspondence and applicable regulatory requirements in in effect at the time the TCEQ rendered its CWA Section 401 determination, the NRC considers the TCEQs action and response as affirmation that the existing 1974 water quality certification remains valid for continued plant operation. The TCEQ did not revisit the certification, request additional information, or determine that a new Section 401 certification was required.
Under the NRCs regulations at 10 CFR 50.54(aa), the renewed operating licenses for CPNPP remain subject to all conditions deemed imposed as a matter of law by CWA sections 401(a)(2) and 401(d). Therefore, Vistra, as the licensee for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2, remains responsible for complying with all terms and conditions associated with the 1974 Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
Therefore, the staff has determined that no further action is required by the NRC as the responsible Federal licensing or permitting agency as related to the CWA Section 401 certification process.
Environmental Protection Agency Comments on the FSEIS On May 30, 2024, EPA provided its FSEIS comment letter for the CPNPP license renewal. EPA recommends that the NRC complete and incorporate further analysis of impact on environmental justice (EJ) populations in all environmental documents tiering from this Final Generic EIS [supplement] including the replacement power alternatives analysis. Replacement power alternatives should undergo environmental and safety reviews to ensure they meet
12 applicable Federal and state agency regulations and executive orders (EO), such as an environmental justice review, consistent with EO 12898 and 14096, to determine whether a proposed new power generating facility would have disproportionate and adverse human health and environmental effects (e.g., water and air quality) on minority and low-income populations and communities with environmental justice concerns. Section 3 (b)(i) of EO 14096 also directs the EPA to assess whether each agency analyzes and avoids or mitigates disproportionate human health and environmental effects on communities with environmental justice concerns when carrying out responsibilities under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, 42 USC. 7609.
Regarding EPA recommendation about EJ, the NRC would incorporate the analysis of impacts on EJ populations in all environmental documents tiering from the CPNPP FSEIS to the Generic EIS (NUREG-1437, Supplement 60), including replacement power alternatives if applicable to the requested licensing action. However, the NRC has no authority or regulatory control over replacement power alternatives and cannot ensure the selection of an environmentally preferrable replacement energy alternative in the future. The NRCs responsibility is to ensure the safe operation of nuclear power generating facilities.
Executive order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, February 11, 1994, directs Federal agencies to identify and address, as appropriate, the disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects of their actions on minority and low-income populations, to the greatest extent practicable and permitted by law. Although independent agencies, such as the NRC, were only requested, rather than directed, to comply with the executive order, NRC Chairman Ivan Selin, in a March 31, 1994, letter to the President, indicated that the NRC would endeavor to carry out the measures set forth in the EO [12898] and the accompanying memorandum as part of the NRCs efforts to comply with the requirements of NEPA.
Consequently, the Commission issued its Policy Statement on the Treatment of Environmental Justice Matters in NRC Regulatory and Licensing Actions, which states: The Commission is committed to the general goals set forth in EO 12898, and strives to meet those goals as part of its NEPA review process. (see 69 FR 52040)
In addition, EO 12898 does not create any right, benefit, or trust responsibility, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law and creates no right of judicial review. Independent agencies, like the NRC, are not required to follow the terms of EO 12898, but as previously noted, and are only requested to comply with the provisions of [the] order. EO 14096, Revitalizing Our Nations Commitment to Environmental Justice for All, April 26, 2023, Section 4(h) states, Independent regulatory agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order and to provide notice to the Chair of CEQ of their intention to do so. The Chair of CEQ shall make such notices publicly available and maintain a list online of such agencies. Given that the NRC is an independent regulatory agency, staff are awaiting Commission policy direction on addressing environmental justice in NRC NEPA reviews for licensing and regulatory actions in response to EO 14096.
Regardless, should an applicant seek authorization from the NRC to construct and operate a new replacement nuclear powered facility as an alternative to the continued operation of Comanche Peak, NRC staff would conduct environmental and safety reviews to ensure the proposed licensing action meets applicable Federal and state agency regulations and applicable executive orders including the analysis of impacts on environmental justice populations consistent with Commission policy.
13 DETERMINATION Based on the NRC staffs (1) independent review, analysis, and evaluation contained in the license renewal FSEIS, (2) careful consideration of all of the identified social, economic, and environmental factors, (3) input received from other agencies, organizations, and the public, and (4) consideration of mitigation measures, the NRC has determined that the standards for the issuance of a renewed operating license, with respect to the environmental matters as described in 10 CFR 54.29(b), have been met and that the requirements of Section 102 of NEPA, as prescribed in 10 CFR 51.103, Record of decisiongeneral, have been satisfied.
The NRC has determined that the adverse environmental impacts of issuing renewed operating licenses for CPNPP, Units 1 and 2 are not great enough that preserving the option of license renewal for energy-planning decision-makers would be unreasonable.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, on July 30, 2024, APPROVED BY:
/RA/
Brian Smith, Director Division of New and Renewed Licenses Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation OFFICIAL RECORD COPY