1

PMSTPCOL PEmails

From: Kiesling, Russell W [rwkiesling@STPEGS.COM]Sent: Thursday, September 09, 2010 9:52 AMTo: Muniz, Adrian; Wunder, George; Muir, Jessie; Tonacci, Mark; Eudy, Michael; Kallan, Paul;

Plisco, Loren; Anand, Raj; Foster, Rocky; Lopas, Sarah; Smith, Lona I; Joseph, Stacy; Govan, Tekia; Tai, Tom

Subject: Transmittal of U7-C-STP-NRC-100205Attachments: U7-C-STP-NRC-100205 (DEIS).pdf

Please find attached a courtesy copy of letter number U7-C-STP-NRC-100205, which addresses NRC questions regarding comments they received during the Public Notice period for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS). The official version of this correspondence will be placed in the mail today. Please contact me at (361) 972-4716 if you have any questions concerning this letter. Thank you, Russell W. Kiesling, Sr., PMP Environmental Lead Regulatory Affairs STPNOC - Units 3 & 4 4000 Avenue F, Suite A Bay City, Texas 77414 (361) 972-4716 (office) (361) 972-4751 (fax) (979) 216-6246 (cell) rwkiesling@stpegs.com

Hearing Identifier: SouthTexas34Public_EX Email Number: 2366 Mail Envelope Properties (20A706591B736645936B55E5E6BA22F3257EDD6D10) Subject: Transmittal of U7-C-STP-NRC-100205 Sent Date: 9/9/2010 9:51:36 AM Received Date: 9/9/2010 9:54:33 AM From: Kiesling, Russell W Created By: rwkiesling@STPEGS.COM Recipients: "Muniz, Adrian" Tracking Status: None "Wunder, George" Tracking Status: None "Muir, Jessie" Tracking Status: None "Tonacci, Mark" Tracking Status: None "Eudy, Michael" Tracking Status: None "Kallan, Paul" Tracking Status: None "Plisco, Loren" Tracking Status: None "Anand, Raj" Tracking Status: None "Foster, Rocky" Tracking Status: None "Lopas, Sarah" Tracking Status: None "Smith, Lona I" Tracking Status: None "Joseph, Stacy" Tracking Status: None "Govan, Tekia" Tracking Status: None "Tai, Tom" Tracking Status: None Post Office: exgmb1.CORP.STPEGS.NET Files Size Date & Time MESSAGE 739 9/9/2010 9:54:33 AM U7-C-STP-NRC-100205 (DEIS).pdf 2728227 Options Priority: Standard Return Notification: No Reply Requested: No Sensitivity: Normal Expiration Date:

Recipients Received:

STI 32741499

September 9, 2010 U7-C-STP-NRC-100205

U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Attention: Document Control Desk One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738

South Texas Project Units 3 and 4

Docket Nos. 52-012 and 52-013 Additional Information Regarding Draft Environmental Impact Statement

References: Letter, Scott Head to Document Control Desk, “Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Statement” dated June 2, 2010. U7-C-STP-NRC-100122.ML101580094.

With this letter, STP Nuclear Operating Company (STPNOC) submits additional information regarding questions identified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) during the August 25, 2010 teleconference to discuss topics raised in public comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS).

Topics discussed in this meeting included:

Groundwater well spacing Disposal of sewage sludge Location of the Main Drainage Channel Habitat acreage clarification Mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional waters Width of rotating screens for the Reservoir Makeup Pumping Facility (RMPF) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP) clarification

Details regarding these topics are contained in the attachments to this letter.

U7-C-STP-NRC-100205Page 3 of 3

cc: w/o attachment except* (paper copy) (electronic copy)

Director, Office of New Reactors U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission One White Flint North 11555 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852-2738

Regional Administrator, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 611 Ryan Plaza Drive, Suite 400 Arlington, Texas 76011-8064

Kathy C. Perkins, RN, MBA Assistant Commissioner Texas Department of Health Services Division for Regulatory Services P. O. Box 149347 Austin, Texas 78714-9347

Alice Hamilton Rogers, P.E. Inspections Unit Manager Texas Department of Health Services P. O. Box 149347 Austin, Texas 78714-9347

*Steven P. Frantz, Esquire A. H. Gutterman, Esquire Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP 1111 Pennsylvania Ave. NW Washington D.C. 20004

*Jessie Muir Two White Flint North 11545 Rockville Pike Rockville, MD 20852

*George F. Wunder *Jessie Muir *Sarah Lopas Loren R. Plisco U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Steve Winn Joseph Kiwak Eli Smith Nuclear Innovation North America

Peter G. Nemeth Crain, Caton & James, P.C.

Richard Peña Kevin Pollo L. D. Blaylock CPS Energy

Groundwater Well Spacing U7-C-STP-NRC-100205Attachment 1

Page 1 of 1

NRC Question:

The NRC analyzed the impact of groundwater well spacing on the STP site assuming wells would be separated by at least 2,500 ft. This was believed to be a regulatory requirement from the Coastal Plains Groundwater Conservation District (CPGCD). However, this requirement only pertains to well spacing on adjacent land parcels and would not apply to additional wells on the STP site. NRC requested verification that on-site well spacing would be at least 2,500 ft and inquired as to whether there were any internal policies, procedures or requirements pertaining to well separation that required such spacing intervals.

STPNOC Response:

STPNOC does not have formal policies or procedures that dictate minimum spacing between groundwater wells. However, prior to installation of a new well, prudent engineering design activities would include analysis of the aquifer to ensure that design-specified pumping rates would not adversely affect the aquifer recharge rate and consequently, any other on-site wells.

While minimum spacing between wells is not dictated by policy or procedure, other spacing requirements are in place. For example, the Unit 1 and 2 UFSAR at Section 2.4.13.2.5 states:

No sustained pumping is permitted within a 4,000 ft non-pumping exclusion radius from the plant area. The 4,000 ft sustained pumping exclusion radius is to restrict the withdrawal of significant amounts of groundwater from directly beneath the plant area in order to minimize the potential for regional subsidence resulting from lowering of the groundwater level in the deep aquifer.

In addition, the Units 3 and 4 FSAR (Revision 3) at Section 2.4S.12.3.3, Plant Groundwater Use and Effects, states:

As with STP 1 & 2, it is expected that no sustained pumping will be permitted within 4,000 ft of the plant safety-related facility areas in order to minimize the potential for regional subsidence resulting from lowering of the Deep Aquifer zone potentiometric head.

Based on the spacing requirements discussed above, STPNOC selected a location for the new groundwater well that was in excess of 4,000 ft from plant safety-related facilities.

Disposal of Sewage Sludge U7-C-STP-NRC-100205Attachment 2

Page 1 of 1

NRC Question:

The NRC asked for additional details regarding STPNOC’s current disposal of sanitary sewage sludge.

STPNOC Response:

Sanitary sewage sludge was beneficially land applied on the STP site from March 1993 until March 2007 in an area permitted for that purpose north of the warehouses on the west side of the site.

When the proposed location for STP Units 3 & 4 was identified, the land application area was within the footprint for the new plants. It was determined that continued disposal of sewage sludge in this area should be discontinued. A review of the entire site concluded that there were no other accessible areas that could be used for land application that met the distance requirements between drainage ditches and surface waters required by the regulations.Consequently, offsite disposal was identified as the preferred option for sewage sludge management.

The last land application onsite was on March 21, 2007. The permit to land apply sludge onsite was allowed to expire on August 29, 2008. Sewage sludge is currently dewatered onsite and shipped offsite as a Texas Class 2 industrial solid waste to a permitted landfill operated by Republic Waste Services in Fresno, Texas.

Main Drainage Channel U7-C-STP-NRC-100205Attachment 3

Page 1 of 2

NRC Question:

The NRC asked for clarification regarding the current location of the Main Drainage Channel (MDC).

STPNOC Response:

STPNOC elected to relocate the MDC to support proposed pre-construction sequencing. After completing a jurisdictional determination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, STPNOC proceeded with relocation activities without infringing on any jurisdictional areas. Relocation activities began in the final quarter of 2009 and were completed during the first quarter of 2010.

COLA Part 3 Environmental Report (ER) indicates in Section 1.2.2 that preconstruction activities could include “removal and/or relocation of existing facilities in the new plant footprint.” The existing MDC was identified as such a facility within the construction footprint and was slated for relocation. Further, ER Section 3.9S.3.2 indicates: “The existing drainage ditch that runs east and west through the STP 3 & 4 footprint, north of the existing switchyard, will be relocated to accommodate the new units.” Finally, ER Section 4.3.1.1.1 specifies: “This ditch will be relocated 650-700 feet north of its present position, just north of the new power block….”

The attached DEIS Figure 2-12 accurately depicts the location and configuration of the MDC prior to relocation. STPNOC has annotated the figure labels to clarify that the MDC has already been relocated.

Figu

re 2

-12.

Cur

rent

and

Fut

ure

Loca

tions

of t

he M

ain

Dra

inag

e C

hann

el (S

TPN

OC

200

9b)

Main Drainage Channel U7-C-STP-NRC-100205Attachment 3

Page 2 of 2

Relocated

Previous

Previous

Habitat Acreage U7-C-STP-NRC-100205Attachment 4

Page 1 of 6

NRC Question:

In response to a comment from Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD), NRC asked for a description of the habitat type of the approximately 56 acres of permanent impacts that are not outlined in the DEIS. In addition, TPWD requested that the category “Other” be defined as a specific habitat type(s).

STPNOC Response:

An analysis conducted by the NRC in the DEIS was unable to reconcile 56 acres of permanent impacts to site habitats. Rather than attempt to determine why the NRC analysis was unable to reconcile all habitat impacts, STPNOC is providing the actual acreages for each habitat type impacted either permanently or temporarily.

As engineering efforts proceed, STPNOC has continued to refine the site plot plan. This information has now been captured in geo-referenced format which allows for direct analysis when superimposed on the geo-referenced map depicting facility habitat types previously developed and submitted to the NRC in the 2008 report “Ecological Survey Report – Habitat Assessment” (ML090270986). This habitat map was recently updated to account for jurisdictional wetlands which had not been identified at the time the report was submitted.

The results of the habitat analysis using the updated site plot plan and updated habitat information are contained in the table below:

Habitats Impacted Temporarily Acres Existing Facilities 8.0 Maintained and Disturbed Areas 73.6 Mixed Grass Community 19.5 Scrub Shrub Communities 138.9

Sub-Total Temporary Impacts: 240.0

Habitats Impacted Permanently Acres Existing Facilities 130.0 Maintained and Disturbed Areas 79.4 Scrub Shrub Communities 90.6

Sub-Total Permanent Impacts: 300.0

Total Acreage Impacts 540.0

STPNOC previously addressed impact acreages in ER RAI 10.05S-03, which identified 540 acresfor the total facility footprint based on construction planning. Of that, 300 acres were identified as being permanently dedicated to the new units and their supporting facilities. The remaining 240 acres were identified as temporary construction-related impacts. Based on STPNOC’s updated habitat analysis, these numbers are confirmed.

Habitat Acreage U7-C-STP-NRC-100205Attachment 4

Page 2 of 6

Regarding TPWD’s request that the “Other” category be defined as a specific habitat type, the “Other” category originated from the 2008 AECOM habitat report and reflects approximately 759 acres of levee system associated with the Main Cooling Reservoir (MCR) and the Essential Cooling Pond (ECP). These levees are comprised of earthen materials covered by mowed grasses on the outside, asphalt or concrete on the top (for roads) and concrete on the inside of the levees. While “Levee” doesn’t truly describe a habitat type, it is more descriptive than “Other” and has been substituted for clarity.

To support the above discussion, the following figures are attached:

Figure 1. Facility Habitat Types Figure 2. South Texas Project Location Map Figure 3. South Texas Project Plot Plan – Units 1, 2, 3 & 4 Figure 4. South Texas Project Barge Slips and Proposed Expansion

FM 521

AustinHouston Metro Area

Corpus Christi

6504 Bridge Point Pkwy, Ste. 200Austin, Texas 78730Phone: (512) 329-8342 Fax: (512) 327-2453

Figure 1Facility Habitat Types

STP Nuclear Operating CompanyPrepared for: USACEJob No.: 100015798Prepared by: 18827

Scale: 1 in = 4000 ftDate: 8-06-2010

File: N:/Clients/U_Z/USACE/STPNOC/100015798/DEIS_Habitat_Assessment.mxd

Legend

±0 2,000 4,000

Feet

Map Location

Leased Agricultural Land (536 ac)

Main Cooling Reservoir (7000 ac)

Essential Cooling Pond (46 ac)

Forested Communities (53 ac)

Units 1 & 2 Construction Spoil Area (41 ac)

Bottomland Habitat (1,176 ac)

Dredged Material Disposal Area (133 ac)

Maintained and Disturbed Areas (468 ac)

Mixed Grass Communities (485 ac)

Wetlands (162 ac)

Site_Property_Boundary (12,220 ac)

Scrub Shrub Communities (970 ac)

Levee (759 ac)

Forested/Mixed Pastureland (91 ac)

Existing Facilities (300 ac)

Habitat Acreage U7-C-STP-NRC-100205Attachment 4

Page 3 of 6

FM 5

21

Mai

n C

oolin

g R

eser

voir

Exis

ting

STP

Uni

ts

1 &

2

Res

ervo

ir M

akeu

pPu

mpi

ng F

acilit

y

Prop

osed

STP

Uni

ts 3

& 4

Barg

e S

lips

Colorado

River

Mat

agor

da

Wha

rton

Braz

oria

Jack

son

6504

Brid

ge P

oint

Pkw

y, S

te. 2

00A

ustin

, Tex

as 7

8730

Phon

e: (

512)

329

-834

2 F

ax:

(512

) 327

-245

3

Figu

re 2

Sout

h Te

xas

Pro

ject

Loca

tion

Map

Prep

ared

for:

US

ACE

Job

No.

: 100

0157

98Pr

epar

ed b

y: 1

8827

File

: N

:/Clie

nts/

U_Z

/US

AC

E/S

TPN

OC

/100

0157

98/g

eo/fi

gs/D

EIS

_Loc

atio

n.m

xd

Scal

e: 1

in =

250

0ft

Dat

e: 8

-06-

2010

I0

2,50

05,

000

1,25

0Fe

et

Tran

smis

sion

Lin

e

Cul

vert

Loca

tion

Hea

vy H

aul R

oad

Coo

ling

Wat

er In

take

& D

isch

arge

Juris

dict

iona

l Stre

am

Juris

dict

iona

l Wet

land

Tem

pora

ry Im

pact

ed A

reas

Habitat Acreage U7--STP-NRC-100205Attachment 4

Page 4 of 6

FM 5

21

WET

017

WET

024

WET

026

WET

018

WET

023

WET

020

WET

021

WET

027

WET

007

WET

010

WET

003

WET

002

WET

029

WET

004

WET

008

WET

015

WET

006

WET

001

WET

016

WET

012

WET

022

WET

013

WET

019

WET

014

WET

028

WET

025

WET

009

WET

005

WET

011

CU

LVE

RT

A

CU

LVE

RT

C

CU

LVE

RT

D

CU

LVE

RT

B

CU

LVE

RT

G

CU

LVE

RT

E

CU

LVE

RT

F

Spoi

ls P

ileLa

ydow

n A

rea

and

Fabr

icat

ion

Are

aFa

b. A

rea

Tem

p.

Settl

ing

Pond

Layd

own

Area

Layd

own

Area

Layd

own

Area

Spoi

l Are

a

Soil

Mix

ing

Are

a

Layd

own

Are

a

Park

ing

&R

efue

ling

Park

ing

Park

ing

Con

cret

e B

atch

Pla

nt

Layd

own

Area

Fabr

icat

ion

Area

S002

S001

S023

S020

S017

Mat

agor

da

Wha

rton

Braz

oria

Jack

son

6504

Brid

ge P

oint

Pkw

y, S

te. 2

00A

ustin

, Tex

as 7

8730

Phon

e: (

512)

329

-834

2 F

ax:

(512

) 327

-245

3

Figu

re 3

Sout

h Te

xas

Proj

ect-

Plot

Pla

nU

nits

1, 2

, 3, &

4Pr

epar

ed fo

r: U

SAC

EJo

b N

o.: 1

0001

5798

Prep

ared

by:

188

27Fi

le:

N:/C

lient

s/U

_Z/U

SAC

E/ST

PNO

C/1

0001

5798

/geo

/figs

/DEI

S_S

ite_P

lan.

mxd

Scal

e: 1

in =

150

0ft

Dat

e: 8

-04-

2010

I0

1,50

03,

000

750

Feet

Tran

smis

sion

Lin

e

Cul

vert

Loca

tion

Hea

vy H

aul R

oad

Coo

ling

Wat

er In

take

& D

isch

arge

Juris

dict

iona

l Stre

am

Juris

dict

iona

l Wet

land

Exis

ting

Faci

litie

sPr

opos

ed F

acilit

ies

Perm

anen

t Im

pact

s (A

pprx

300

ac)

Prop

osed

Fac

ilitie

s Te

mpo

rary

Impa

cts

(App

rx 2

40 a

c)

Habitat Acreage U7-C-STP-NRC-100205Attachment 4

Page 5 of 6

Color

ado Ri

ver

Screen

Intake

Struc

ture

Siltatio

n Basi

n

FLOW

Exis

ting

Barg

eSl

ip

Rive

r Mile

14.

6

Prev

ious

lyPe

rmitt

edBa

rge

Slip

500' x 60'

200' x 60'

20'

20'

Res

ervo

ir M

akeu

p Pu

mpi

ng F

acilit

y

Area

Ava

ilabl

e fo

rTe

mpo

rary

Lay

dow

n an

d S

tagi

ng

Mat

agor

da

Wha

rton

Braz

oria

Jack

son

6504

Brid

ge P

oint

Pkw

y, S

te. 2

00A

ustin

, Tex

as 7

8730

Phon

e: (

512)

329

-834

2 F

ax:

(512

) 327

-245

3

Figu

re 4

Sout

h Te

xas

Proj

ect

Bar

ge S

lips

& P

ropo

sed

Expa

nsio

nPr

epar

ed fo

r: U

SAC

EJo

b N

o.: 1

0001

5798

Prep

ared

by:

188

27Fi

le:

N:/C

lient

s/U

_Z/U

SAC

E/S

TPN

OC

/100

0157

98/g

eo/fi

gs/D

EIS

_Bar

ge_S

lip.m

xd

Scal

e: 1

in =

300

ftD

ate:

8-0

6-20

10

I0

300

600

150

Feet

Barg

e S

lip

Prop

osed

Exp

ansi

on

Dra

inag

e D

itch

Area

Ava

ilabl

e fo

r Tem

pora

ry

Layd

own

and

Sta

ging

Habitat Acreage U7-C-STP-NRC-100205Attachment 4

Page 6 of 6

Mitigation for Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters U7-C-STP-NRC-100205Attachment 5

Page 1 of 1

NRC Question:

During public review of the DEIS, TPWD requested that STPNOC supply a mitigation plan for impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with construction of the new units. The NRC requested that STPNOC provide an update regarding the status of mitigation in the pending U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Individual Permit application.

STPNOC Response:

Based on comments received during Public Notice for the DEIS and during Public Notice for the USACE Individual Permit application, STPNOC has proposed to provide mitigation for impacts to jurisdictional waters associated with construction of Units 3 & 4.

Based on a stream functional assessment, USACE determined that mitigation was warranted for impacts to relatively permanent waters. Their assessment, using the Unified Stream Methodology, indicated that 135 ft of stream credits were required to mitigate for impacts to the relatively permanent waters impacted by the proposed construction activities.

STPNOC has proposed a mitigation package that would include on-site creation of 1,445 ft of relatively permanent water (during the relocation of the Main Drainage Channel) and 135 ft of stream credits from the Mill Creek Mitigation Bank.

Efforts to finalize the mitigation requirements are part of the USACE Individual Permit application process and are ongoing.

RMPF Rotating Screens U7-C-STP-NRC-100205Attachment 6

Page 1 of 2

NRC Question:

NRC has requested that STPNOC verify that the width of rotating screens for the Reservoir Makeup Pumping Facility (RMPF) is 10 feet.

STPNOC Response:

During review of the DEIS, STPNOC noted that the figure used by NRC to depict the RMPF was from the STP Units 1 & 2 Construction Environmental Report. This drawing depicted 18 sets of 10 ft wide rotating screens. However, the STP Units 1 & 2 Operational Environmental Report depicts the correct configuration which was constructed and is currently in operation thatincludes 24 rotating screens. The width of the individual screens did not change. STPNOCsupplied a copy of the drawing depicting the 24 screens with their DEIS comments.

Attached is a revision of the figure previously supplied in STPNOC’s DEIS comment letter that indicates the screens are 10 ft wide.

SOU

TH T

EXA

S PR

OJE

CT

RE

SE

RV

OIR

MA

KE

UP

PU

MP

ING

FA

CIL

ITY

FIG

UR

E 3

.4-5

PLA

N

0

10

2

0

30

4

0

50

1

00 F

EE

T

CO

LOR

AD

O R

IVE

R

A

FLO

W

FIS

H B

YPA

SS

PIP

ETR

AS

H R

AC

KS

MO

BIL

ETR

AS

H R

AK

E

TRA

SH

RA

KE

PE

RM

AN

EN

TC

OFF

ER

DA

MC

ELL

PE

RM

AN

EN

TC

OFF

ER

DA

MC

ELL

TRA

SH

RA

KE

423’

-7”

RE

FUS

E P

ITTR

AS

H S

LUIC

ETR

AVE

LIN

G W

ATE

R S

CR

EE

N (T

YP.

10

ft w

idth

)S

CR

EE

N W

AS

H P

UM

P (T

YP.

)G

AN

TRY

CR

AN

E

HO

US

ING

FO

R E

LEC

TRIC

AL

EQ

UIP

ME

NT

SIL

TATI

ON

BA

SIN

EL.

(-) 1

4.0

SIL

TATI

ON

BA

SIN

EL.

(-) 2

1.0

WE

IR

131’

131’

- 4’2

”

108”

DIA

.10

8”D

IA.

GA

NTR

Y C

RA

NE

SE

RV

ICE

AR

EA

AU

XIL

IAR

Y TR

AN

SFO

RM

ER

ELE

CTR

ICA

LE

QU

IPM

EN

TR

OO

M

CO

NTR

OL

RM

.STO

R.

TOIL

BAT

TER

YR

OO

M

A

AC

CE

SS

RO

AD

AC

CE

SS

RO

AD

CH

AIN

LIN

KFE

NC

E

138K

V T

RA

NS

FOR

ME

R

108”

DIA

.

EL.

(-) 1

9.0

RIP

RA

P

EL.

(-) 2

1.0

EL.

(-) 1

0.0

EL.

(-) 6

.0C

UT-

OFF

WA

LLS

TOP

LOG

SLO

T

EL.

21.

0

GA

NTR

Y C

RA

NE

HO

US

ING

FO

RE

LEC

TRIC

AL

EQ

UIP

ME

NT

TOP

OF

WE

IRE

L. (-

) 2.2

EL.

(-) 1

4.0

EL.

(-) 1

0.0

STO

PLO

G S

LOT

GA

NTR

Y C

RA

NE

SC

RE

EN

WA

SH

PU

MP

TRAV

ELI

NG

WAT

ER

SC

RE

ENFR

EE

FIS

HPA

SS

AG

E

MO

BIL

ETR

AS

H R

AK

E

FIS

H B

YPA

SS

PIP

ETR

AS

H R

AC

KS

EL.

21.

0

12’

35’

124’

60’

12’

SE

CTI

ON

A-A

26.940GPM

26.940GPM

26.940GPM

26.940GPM

107.760GPM

107.760GPM

107.760GPM

107.760GPM

35’

SC

ALE

RMPF Rotating Screens U7-C-STP-NRC-100205Attachment 6

Page 2 of 2

Wastewater Treatment Plant U7-C-STP-NRC-100205 Attachment 7

Page 1 of 1

NRC Question:NRC has requested clarification regarding whether the two Sanitary Waste Treatment Systems on site will be replaced or upgraded.

STPNOC Response:

The DEIS indicated that both the West Sanitary Waste Treatment System and the Nuclear Training Facility (NTF) Sanitary Waste Treatment System would be replaced by newer systems to accommodate the proposed expansion. STPNOC, in its comment letter on the DEIS, requested that the NRC’s description be altered to state that the systems would be replaced or upgraded.

Based on the location of the proposed STP Units 3 & 4 circulating water discharge piping, the West Sanitary Waste Treatment System must be replaced by a new sanitary treatment plant located west of the existing facility. The existing treatment plant will then be removed. The NTF Sanitary Waste Treatment System may also be replaced in its entirety. However, engineering design has not been completed and STPNOC would like to retain the option to upgrade the facility if that would accommodate the expanded treatment needs in a more cost-effective fashion.

The STPNOC comment was offered to identify that options other than total replacement of both Sanitary Waste Treatment Systems are currently being evaluated. STPNOC does not expect impacts to be significantly different regardless of whether the NTF Sanitary Waste Treatment System is replaced or upgraded.

/ColorImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict > /JPEG2000ColorImageDict > /AntiAliasGrayImages false /CropGrayImages true /GrayImageMinResolution 150 /GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleGrayImages false /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 300 /GrayImageDepth 8 /GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /FlateEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages false /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict > /GrayImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict > /JPEG2000GrayImageDict > /AntiAliasMonoImages false /CropMonoImages true /MonoImageMinResolution 1200 /MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /OK /DownsampleMonoImages false /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 450 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict > /AllowPSXObjects false /CheckCompliance [ /None ] /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly true /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier () /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName () /PDFXTrapped /False

/Description >>> setdistillerparams> setpagedevice