Florida Power and Light Company; St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, 53497-53498 [2011-21901]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2011 / Notices
ehd1.nrc.gov/EHD/, unless excluded
pursuant to an order of the Commission,
or the presiding officer. Participants are
requested not to include personal
privacy information, such as social
security numbers, home addresses, or
home phone numbers in their filings,
unless an NRC regulation or other law
requires submission of such
information. With respect to
copyrighted works, except for limited
excerpts that serve the purpose of the
adjudicatory filings and would
constitute a Fair Use application,
participants are requested not to include
copyrighted materials in their
submission.
If a person (other than USEC) requests
a hearing, that person shall set forth
with particularity the manner in which
his interest is adversely affected by this
Confirmatory Order and shall address
the criteria set forth in 10 CFR 2.309(d)
and (f).
If a hearing is requested by a person
whose interest is adversely affected, the
Commission will issue an order
designating the time and place of any
hearing. If a hearing is held, the issue to
be considered at such hearing shall be
whether this Confirmatory Order should
be sustained.
In the absence of any request for
hearing, or written approval of an
extension of time in which to request a
hearing, the provisions specified in
Section V above shall be final 20 days
from the date this Confirmatory Order is
published in the Federal Register
without further order or proceedings. If
an extension of time for requesting a
hearing has been approved, the
provisions specified in Section V shall
be final when the extension expires if a
hearing request has not been received.
A request for hearing shall not stay
the immediate effectiveness of this
order.
Dated this 17th day of August 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Leonard D. Wert, Jr.,
Deputy Regional Administrator for
Operations.
[FR Doc. 2011–21902 Filed 8–25–11; 8:45 am]
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
BILLING CODE P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:37 Aug 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2011–0194; Docket Nos. 50–335 and
50–389]
Florida Power and Light Company; St.
Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2;
Environmental Assessment and
Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from Title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations (10
CFR) part 50, Appendix G, Section
IV.A.2, for Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–67 and NPF–16, issued to
Florida Power and Light Company, et al.
(the licensee, FPL), for operation of St.
Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2,
located on Hutchinson Island in St.
Lucie County, Florida. Therefore, as
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
performed an environmental
assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC is
issuing a finding of no significant
impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve
an exemption for St. Lucie Nuclear
Plant, Units 1 and 2, from certain
requirements of 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix G, ‘‘Fracture Toughness
Requirements.’’ Specifically, the
licensee requests approval of an
exemption from the requirements of 10
CFR part 50, Appendix G, Section
IV.A.2, ‘‘Pressure-Temperature Limits
and Minimum Temperature
Requirements.’’
The methodology developed by
Combustion Engineering to calculate
reactor coolant system (RCS) pressuretemperature (P–T) curves, heatup and
cooldown limits and low temperature
overpressure protection (LTOP)
requirements is documented in topical
report CE NPSD–683–A (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management
System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML011350387). The staff noted in its
March 16, 2001 safety evaluation for
this report that: ‘‘The CE [Combustion
Engineering] NSSS [nuclear steam
supply system] methodology does not
invoke the methods in the 1995 edition
of Appendix G to the Code for
calculating KIM factors, and instead
applies FEM [finite element modeling]
methods for estimating the KIM factors
for the RPV shell * * * Except for
loading inputs, the staff has determined
that the KIM calculation methods apply
FEM modeling that is similar to that
used for the determination of the KIT
PO 00000
Frm 00101
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
53497
factors. The staff has also determined
that there is only a slight nonconservative difference between the P–
T limits generated from the 1989 edition
of Appendix G to the Code and those
generated from CE NSSS methodology
as documented in Evaluation No. 063–
PENG–ER–096, Revision 00. The staff
considers this difference to be
reasonable and should be consistent
with the expected improvements in P–
T generation methods that have been
incorporated into the 1995 edition of
Appendix G to the Code. The staff
therefore concludes that the CE NSSS
methodology for generating P–T limits
is equivalent to the current methodology
in the 1995 edition of Appendix G to the
Code, and is acceptable for P–T limit
applications.’’ The staff has extended
this conclusion to the Section XI,
Appendix G methodology of Code
Editions through the 2004 Edition.
The staff has advised licensees to
specify whether membrane stress
intensity factors due to pressure
loading, KIM, are determined by
obtaining a closed-form solution (per
the American Society of Mechanical
Engineers (ASME) Code, Section XI,
Appendix G) or determined by applying
finite element modeling methods (per
CE NPSD–683–A, Revision 6). Stress
intensity values, KIM, for St. Lucie,
Units 1 and 2 are calculated using the
CE NSSS finite element modeling
methods.
The Need for the Proposed Action
FPL is implementing the methodology
documented in Topical Report CE
NPSD–683–A to calculate the RCS
pressure-temperature curves and LTOP
limits for St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units
1 and 2. This methodology uses an FEM
calculation that, although similar to the
ASME Section XI requirements, is
slightly less conservative. Section
IV.A.2 of Appendix G to 10 CFR Part 50
states, ‘‘The pressure-temperature limits
identified as ‘ASME Appendix G limits’
in Table 3 require that the limits must
be at least as conservative as limits
obtained by following the methods of
analysis and the margins of safety of
Appendix G of Section XI of the ASME
Code.’’ Therefore, the use of the
methodology documented in topical
report CE NPSD–683–A requires an
exemption from 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix G, Section IV.A.2, in order to
implement that methodology with a
license granted under 10 CFR part 50.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
The NRC staff has completed its
environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption and has concluded
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
53498
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 166 / Friday, August 26, 2011 / Notices
that the proposed exemption from the
implementation of the requirements of
10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, Section
IV.A.2 would not significantly affect
plant safety and would not have a
significant adverse affect on the
probability of occurrence of an accident.
The proposed action would not result
in any increased radiological hazards
beyond those previously evaluated by
the NRC staff in the Safety Evaluation
Reports, dated November 8 and
November 7, 1974, related to operation
of St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2,
respectively. No changes are being made
in the types of effluents that may be
released offsite. There is no significant
increase in the amount of any effluent
released offsite. There is no significant
increase in occupational or public
radiation exposure. Therefore, there are
no significant radiological
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
The proposed action does not result
in changes to land use or water use, or
result in changes to the quality or
quantity of non-radiological effluents.
No changes to the National Pollution
Discharge Elimination System permit
are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the
plant, or to threatened, endangered, or
protected species under the Endangered
Species Act, or impacts to essential fish
habitat covered by the MagnusonStevens Act are expected. There are no
impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and
cultural resources. There would be no
noticeable effect on socioeconomic
conditions in the region. Therefore, no
changes or different types of nonradiological environmental impacts are
expected as a result of the proposed
action. Accordingly, the NRC concludes
that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with
the proposed action.
The NRC has previously determined,
as stated above, that methodology
documented in CE NPSD–683–A
provides similar results as those
produced by the methods in Appendix
G of 10 CFR Part 50. Although, in
practice, the exemption allows the
licensee to not meet the requirements of
Appendix G, the differences between
the two methodologies are small and the
health and safety of the public remain
adequately protected.
The details of the staff’s safety
evaluation will be provided in the
exemption that will be issued as part of
the letter to the licensee approving the
exemption to the regulation, if granted.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:37 Aug 25, 2011
Jkt 223001
Environmental Impacts of the
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the staff considered denial of the
proposed action (i.e., the no-action
alternative). Denial of the exemption
request would result in no change in
current environmental impacts. If the
proposed action were denied, the
licensee would have to comply with the
requirements of 10 CFR part 50,
Appendix G, Section IV.A.2. This would
cause unnecessary burden on the
licensee, without a significant benefit in
environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed
exemption and the ‘‘no action’’
alternative are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
considered in the Final Environmental
Statement related to the St. Lucie
Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, dated June 1973;
the Final Environmental Statement
related to the operation of St. Lucie
Nuclear Plant, Unit 2 (NUREG–0842),
dated April 1982; and, the plant-specific
Supplement 11 to NUREG–1437,
‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Power Plants,’’ (GEIS).
Supplement 11 of the GEIS, issued on
May 16, 2003, addresses the renewal of
operating licenses DPR–67 and NPF–16
for St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, for an
additional 20 years of operation.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
on August 17, 2011, the NRC staff
consulted with the Florida State official,
Mr. William A. Passetti of the Bureau of
Radiation Control, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed
action. The State official had no
comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental
assessment, the NRC concludes that the
proposed action will not have a
significant effect on the quality of the
human environment. Accordingly, the
NRC has determined not to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
For further details with respect to the
proposed action, see the licensee’s
letters dated March 3, 2011 (ADAMS
Accession No. ML110660300), and
April 28, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML11119A136). Documents may be
examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the
NRC’s Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike
(first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
PO 00000
Frm 00102
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Publicly available documents created or
received at the NRC are accessible
electronically through ADAMS in the
NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/
reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who
do not have access to ADAMS or who
encounter problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS should
contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by
telephone at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–
415–4737, or send an e-mail to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th day
of August 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tracy J. Orf,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II–
2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011–21901 Filed 8–25–11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–352 and 50–353; NRC–
2011–0166]
Exelon Generation Company, LLC;
Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Impact Statement and
Conduct the Scoping Process for
Limerick Generating Station, Units 1
and 2
Exelon Generation Company, LLC
(Exelon) has submitted an application
for renewal of Facility Operating
Licenses NPF–39 and NPF–85 for an
additional 20 years of operation at
Limerick Generating Station Units 1 and
2 (LGS). LGS is located in Limerick,
Pennsylvania.
The current operating licenses for
LGS expire on October 26, 2024, for
Unit 1, and June 22, 2029, for Unit 2.
The application for renewal, dated June
22, 2011, was submitted pursuant to
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) part 54, which
included an environmental report (ER).
A separate notice of receipt and
availability of the application was
published in the Federal Register on
July 26, 2011 (76 FR 44624). A notice of
acceptance for docketing of the
application and opportunity for hearing
regarding renewal of the facility
operating license is also being published
in the Federal Register. The purpose of
this notice is to inform the public that
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
will be preparing an environmental
impact statement (EIS) related to the
review of the license renewal
application and to provide the public an
opportunity to participate in the
E:\FR\FM\26AUN1.SGM
26AUN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 166 (Friday, August 26, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53497-53498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-21901]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[NRC-2011-0194; Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389]
Florida Power and Light Company; St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2;
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an exemption from Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) part 50, Appendix G, Section IV.A.2, for Facility
Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and NPF-16, issued to Florida Power and
Light Company, et al. (the licensee, FPL), for operation of St. Lucie
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, located on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie
County, Florida. Therefore, as required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC
performed an environmental assessment. Based on the results of the
environmental assessment, the NRC is issuing a finding of no
significant impact.
Environmental Assessment
Identification of the Proposed Action
The proposed action would approve an exemption for St. Lucie
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, from certain requirements of 10 CFR part
50, Appendix G, ``Fracture Toughness Requirements.'' Specifically, the
licensee requests approval of an exemption from the requirements of 10
CFR part 50, Appendix G, Section IV.A.2, ``Pressure-Temperature Limits
and Minimum Temperature Requirements.''
The methodology developed by Combustion Engineering to calculate
reactor coolant system (RCS) pressure-temperature (P-T) curves, heatup
and cooldown limits and low temperature overpressure protection (LTOP)
requirements is documented in topical report CE NPSD-683-A (Agencywide
Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No.
ML011350387). The staff noted in its March 16, 2001 safety evaluation
for this report that: ``The CE [Combustion Engineering] NSSS [nuclear
steam supply system] methodology does not invoke the methods in the
1995 edition of Appendix G to the Code for calculating KIM
factors, and instead applies FEM [finite element modeling] methods for
estimating the KIM factors for the RPV shell * * * Except
for loading inputs, the staff has determined that the KIM
calculation methods apply FEM modeling that is similar to that used for
the determination of the KIT factors. The staff has also
determined that there is only a slight non-conservative difference
between the P-T limits generated from the 1989 edition of Appendix G to
the Code and those generated from CE NSSS methodology as documented in
Evaluation No. 063-PENG-ER-096, Revision 00. The staff considers this
difference to be reasonable and should be consistent with the expected
improvements in P-T generation methods that have been incorporated into
the 1995 edition of Appendix G to the Code. The staff therefore
concludes that the CE NSSS methodology for generating P-T limits is
equivalent to the current methodology in the 1995 edition of Appendix G
to the Code, and is acceptable for P-T limit applications.'' The staff
has extended this conclusion to the Section XI, Appendix G methodology
of Code Editions through the 2004 Edition.
The staff has advised licensees to specify whether membrane stress
intensity factors due to pressure loading, KIM, are
determined by obtaining a closed-form solution (per the American
Society of Mechanical Engineers (ASME) Code, Section XI, Appendix G) or
determined by applying finite element modeling methods (per CE NPSD-
683-A, Revision 6). Stress intensity values, KIM, for St.
Lucie, Units 1 and 2 are calculated using the CE NSSS finite element
modeling methods.
The Need for the Proposed Action
FPL is implementing the methodology documented in Topical Report CE
NPSD-683-A to calculate the RCS pressure-temperature curves and LTOP
limits for St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2. This methodology
uses an FEM calculation that, although similar to the ASME Section XI
requirements, is slightly less conservative. Section IV.A.2 of Appendix
G to 10 CFR Part 50 states, ``The pressure-temperature limits
identified as `ASME Appendix G limits' in Table 3 require that the
limits must be at least as conservative as limits obtained by following
the methods of analysis and the margins of safety of Appendix G of
Section XI of the ASME Code.'' Therefore, the use of the methodology
documented in topical report CE NPSD-683-A requires an exemption from
10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, Section IV.A.2, in order to implement that
methodology with a license granted under 10 CFR part 50.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC staff has completed its environmental assessment of the
proposed exemption and has concluded
[[Page 53498]]
that the proposed exemption from the implementation of the requirements
of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G, Section IV.A.2 would not significantly
affect plant safety and would not have a significant adverse affect on
the probability of occurrence of an accident.
The proposed action would not result in any increased radiological
hazards beyond those previously evaluated by the NRC staff in the
Safety Evaluation Reports, dated November 8 and November 7, 1974,
related to operation of St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, respectively.
No changes are being made in the types of effluents that may be
released offsite. There is no significant increase in the amount of any
effluent released offsite. There is no significant increase in
occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there are no
significant radiological environmental impacts associated with the
proposed action.
The proposed action does not result in changes to land use or water
use, or result in changes to the quality or quantity of non-
radiological effluents. No changes to the National Pollution Discharge
Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the plant, or to threatened,
endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or
impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Stevens Act
are expected. There are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality.
There are no impacts to historical and cultural resources. There would
be no noticeable effect on socioeconomic conditions in the region.
Therefore, no changes or different types of non-radiological
environmental impacts are expected as a result of the proposed action.
Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
The NRC has previously determined, as stated above, that
methodology documented in CE NPSD-683-A provides similar results as
those produced by the methods in Appendix G of 10 CFR Part 50.
Although, in practice, the exemption allows the licensee to not meet
the requirements of Appendix G, the differences between the two
methodologies are small and the health and safety of the public remain
adequately protected.
The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in
the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee
approving the exemption to the regulation, if granted.
Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the no-action alternative). Denial
of the exemption request would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. If the proposed action were denied, the licensee
would have to comply with the requirements of 10 CFR part 50, Appendix
G, Section IV.A.2. This would cause unnecessary burden on the licensee,
without a significant benefit in environmental impacts. The
environmental impacts of the proposed exemption and the ``no action''
alternative are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those considered in the Final Environmental Statement related to the
St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, Unit 1, dated June 1973; the Final
Environmental Statement related to the operation of St. Lucie Nuclear
Plant, Unit 2 (NUREG-0842), dated April 1982; and, the plant-specific
Supplement 11 to NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement
for License Renewal of Nuclear Power Plants,'' (GEIS). Supplement 11 of
the GEIS, issued on May 16, 2003, addresses the renewal of operating
licenses DPR-67 and NPF-16 for St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, for an
additional 20 years of operation.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, on August 17, 2011, the NRC
staff consulted with the Florida State official, Mr. William A.
Passetti of the Bureau of Radiation Control, regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no
comments.
Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed
action.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letters dated March 3, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML110660300), and April 28, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11119A136).
Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public
Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public File Area
O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC are
accessible electronically through ADAMS in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have access to
ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents located in
ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by telephone at 1-800-
397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 18th day of August 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Tracy J. Orf,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-21901 Filed 8-25-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
