License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level, Florida Power & Light Company, Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4, 20059-20070 [2012-7947]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices
September 7, 2010. Entered into force
September 7, 2010.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
Nicholas J. DiFrancesco,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 3–
2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012–7931 Filed 4–2–12; 8:45 am]
[Docket No. 50–374; 2012–0083]
BILLING CODE 4710–49–P
NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
National Science Board; Sunshine Act
Meetings; Notice
The National Science Board’s
Committee on Programs and Plans Task
Force on Unsolicited Mid-Scale
Research, pursuant to NSF regulations
(45 CFR part 614), the National Science
Foundation Act, as amended (42 U.S.C.
1862n–5), and the Government in the
Sunshine Act (5 U.S.C. 552b), hereby
gives notice in regard to the scheduling
of a teleconference for the transaction of
National Science Board business and
other matters specified, as follows:
DATE AND TIME:
Monday, April 16, 2012,
1–2 p.m. EDT.
(1) Chair’s opening
remarks; and (2) Discussion of a revised
draft of the final report of the NSB Task
Force on Unsolicited Mid-Scale
Research.
SUBJECT MATTER:
STATUS:
Open.
This meeting will be held by
teleconference at the National Science
Board Office, National Science
Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd.,
Arlington, VA 22230. A public listening
room will be available for this
teleconference meeting. All visitors
must contact the Board Office [call
703–292–7000 or send an email message
to nationalsciencebrd@nsf.gov] at least
24 hours prior to the teleconference for
the public room number and to arrange
for a visitor’s badge. All visitors must
report to the NSF visitor desk located in
the lobby at the 9th and N. Stuart Streets
entrance on the day of the
teleconference to receive a visitor’s
badge.
LOCATION:
Please
refer to the National Science Board Web
site www.nsf.gov/nsb for additional
information and schedule updates (time,
place, subject matter or status of
meeting) may be found at https://
www.nsf.gov/nsb/notices/. Point of
contact for this meeting is: Matthew B.
Wilson, National Science Board Office,
4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA
22230. Telephone: (703) 292–7000.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
UPDATES AND POINT OF CONTACT:
Ann Bushmiller,
Senior Counsel to the National Science Board.
[FR Doc. 2012–8062 Filed 3–30–12; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 7555–01–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
Exelon Generation Company, LLC;
Notice of Withdrawal of Application for
Amendment to Facility Operating
License
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC, the Commission) has
granted the request of Exelon
Generation Company (the licensee) to
withdraw its October 26, 2011,
application for proposed amendment to
Facility Operating License No. NPF–18
for the LaSalle County Station, Unit 2,
located in LaSalle County, Illinois.
The proposed amendment would
have revised license condition 2.C.(32)
to require the installation of NETCO–
SNAP–IN® inserts to be completed no
later than December 31, 2012. In
addition, license condition 2.C.(31)
would be revised to apply until March
31, 2012, and a new license condition
2.C.(34) was proposed to prohibit fuel
storage after March 31, 2012, in spent
fuel pool storage rack cells that had not
been upgraded with the NETCO–SNAP–
IN® inserts.
The Commission had previously
issued a Notice of Consideration of
Issuance of Amendment published in
the Federal Register on January 10,
2012 (77 FR 1514). However, by letter
dated January 6, 2012, the licensee
withdrew the proposed change.
For further details with respect to this
action, see the application for
amendment dated October 26, 2011, and
the licensee’s letter dated January 6,
2012, which withdrew the application
for license amendment. 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 20852. Publicly available
documents created or received at the
NRC are accessible electronically
through the Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(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 by email
to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day
of March 2012.
PO 00000
Frm 00065
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20059
[FR Doc. 2012–7949 Filed 4–2–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251; NRC–
2011–0259]
License Amendment To Increase the
Maximum Reactor Power Level, Florida
Power & Light Company, Turkey Point,
Units 3 and 4
Nuclear Regulatory
Commission.
ACTION: Final environmental assessment
and finding of no significant impact.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is considering issuing an amendment for
Renewed Facility Operating License
Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41, issued to
Florida Power & Light Company (FPL or
the licensee) for operation of the Turkey
Point (PTN), Units 3 and 4, to increase
the maximum power level from 2300
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2644 MWt
for each unit. The proposed power
increase is approximately 15-percent
over the current licensed thermal
power, including a 13-percent power
uprate and a 1.7-percent measurement
uncertainty recapture, and
approximately a 20-percent increase
from the original licensed power level of
2200 MWt. The NRC did not identify
any significant environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action
based on its evaluation of the
information provided in the licensee’s
application and other available
information, and has prepared this final
Environmental Assessment (EA) and
Finding of No Significant Impact
(FONSI) for the proposed action.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID
NRC–2011–0259 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of
information regarding this document.
You may access information related to
this document, which the NRC
possesses and is publicly-available,
using the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID NRC–2011–0259. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publiclySUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
20060
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The
ADAMS accession number for each
document referenced in this notice (if
that document is available in ADAMS)
is provided the first time that a
document is referenced.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
White Flint North, 11555 Rockville
Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jason Paige, Project Manager, Plant
Licensing Branch 2–2, Division of
Operating Reactor Licensing, Office of
Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S.
Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555–0001; telephone:
301–415–5888; email:
Jason.Paige@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment for Renewed
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR–31
and DPR–41, issued to FPL for operation
of the PTN, Units 3 and 4, for a license
amendment to increase the maximum
power level from 2300 MWt to 2644
MWt for each unit. In accordance with
Title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (10 CFR) 51.21, the NRC has
prepared this final EA and FONSI for
the proposed action. The proposed
power increase is approximately
15-percent over the current licensed
thermal power, including a 13-percent
power uprate and a 1.7-percent
measurement uncertainty recapture, and
approximately a 20-percent increase
from the original licensed power level of
2200 MWt. The NRC did not identify
any significant environmental impacts
associated with the proposed action
based on its evaluation of the
information provided in the licensee’s
application and other available
information. For further details with
respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee’s application dated October 21,
2010, as supplemented by letters dated
December 14, 2010 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML103560167), and April 22, 2011
(ADAMS Accession No. ML11115A114).
The NRC published a notice in the
Federal Register requesting public
review and comment on a draft EA and
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
FONSI for the proposed action on
November 17, 2011 (76 FR 71379), and
established December 19, 2011, as the
deadline for submitting public
comments. By letters dated December 9,
2011 (ADAMS Accession No.
ML11347A194), and December 12, 2011
(ADAMS Accession No. ML12027A023),
comments were received from FPL and
Mr. Steve Torcise, Jr., of the Atlantic
Civil, Inc., respectively. The FPL
comments provided new estimates on
the number of additional workers
needed to support the outage work
implementing the proposed Extended
Power Uprate (EPU) and revised the
projected outage times necessary to
implement the EPU. The FPL comments
have been incorporated into this final
EA with no change to the FONSI
conclusion. The Atlantic Civil, Inc.
comments have been incorporated into
this final EA with no change to the
FONSI conclusion and are summarized
in the ‘‘Summary of Comments’’
(ADAMS Accession No. ML12075A035).
Also, by letter dated January 12, 2012
(ADAMS Accession Number
ML12019A348), the Southeast Regional
Office of the U.S. Department of the
Interior’s National Park Service
provided comments on the draft EA and
draft FONSI. Since these comments
were received after the comment period
deadline of December 19, 2011, the NRC
will address these comments using
separate correspondence.
II. Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
The PTN site is located on 11,000
acres (ac) (4,450 hectares (ha)) in
Florida’s South Miami-Dade County
approximately 25 miles (mi) (40
kilometers [km]) south of Miami,
Florida. The nearest city limits are
Florida City approximately 8 miles (13
km) to the west, Homestead at
approximately 4.5 miles (7 km) to the
northwest and Key Largo at
approximately 10 miles (16 km) south of
the PTN site. The PTN site is bordered
to the east by Biscayne National Park
(BNP), to the north by the BNP and
Homestead Bayfront Park, and on the
west and south by FPL’s 13,000 ac
(5,260 ha) Everglades Mitigation Bank.
The PTN site consists of five electric
generating units. Units 3 and 4 at the
PTN site are nuclear reactors; Units 1,
2, and 5 are fossil-fueled units and are
not covered by the proposed licensing
action. Each nuclear reactor is a
Westinghouse pressurized light-water
reactor with three steam generators
producing steam that turns turbines to
generate electricity. The site features a
5,900 ac (2,390 ha) system of closed,
PO 00000
Frm 00066
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
recirculating cooling canals that are
used to cool the heated water
discharged by Units 1 through 4. Unit 5
has mechanical draft cooling towers for
the steam generation cycle using water
from the Upper Floridan Aquifer (UFA)
as makeup and routing cooling tower
blowdown to the cooling canal system.
The five units and supporting
equipment (excluding the cooling canal
system) occupy approximately 130 ac
(53 ha).
In June 2009, FPL submitted an
application for a combined construction
permit and operating license (COL) for
two Westinghouse Advanced Passive
1000 (AP1000) pressurized-water
reactors (PWRs) designated as PTN,
Units 6 and 7.
Background Information on the
Proposed Action
By application dated October 21,
2010, the licensee requested an
amendment to its license for an EPU for
PTN Units 3 and 4 to increase the
licensed thermal power level from 2300
MWt to 2644 MWt for each unit. This
represents an increase of approximately
15-percent above the current licensed
thermal power, including a 13-percent
power uprate and a 1.7-percent
measurement uncertainty recapture.
This change requires NRC approval
prior to the licensee implementing the
EPU. The proposed action is considered
an EPU by the NRC because it exceeds
the typical 7-percent power increase
that can be accommodated with only
minor plant changes. An EPU typically
involves extensive modifications to the
nuclear steam supply system contained
within the plant buildings.
The licensee plans to make extensive
physical modifications to the plant’s
secondary side (i.e., non-nuclear) steam
supply system to implement the
proposed EPU. These modifications
would occur during separate refueling
outages for each unit. The EPU-related
work for Unit 3 is scheduled for the
spring 2012 outage and Unit 4 during
the fall 2012 outage. The EPU, if
approved by the NRC, would be
implemented following each unit’s
refueling outage in 2012.
Approximately 800 people are
employed at PTN Units 3 and 4 on a
full-time basis with increases of
approximately 600–900 during refueling
outages. The licensee estimates that it
will need approximately 2500 workers
for implementation of the EPU resulting
in a potential maximum outage/EPU
workforce of approximately 3400 during
each of the EPU outages.
As part of the overall process to
obtain approval for the EPU, in
September 2007, FPL submitted a
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices
Petition to Determine Need for
Expansion of Electrical Power Plants to
the Florida Public Service Commission
(FPSC). The petition contained FPL’s
analysis for meeting the need for electric
system reliability, integrity, and
providing adequate electricity at a
reasonable cost; how the proposed EPU
is the most cost-effective alternative
available; and why there are no
renewable energy sources and
technologies or conservation measures
reasonably available to FPL that would
avoid or mitigate the need for the
proposed EPU. On January 7, 2008, the
FPSC issued a Final Order Granting
Petition for Determination of Need
approving the proposed expansion of
PTN Units 3 and 4 based on compliance
with conditions required by the state.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
The Need for the Proposed Action
As stated in the FPL’s application, the
proposed action is to provide an
additional supply of electric generation
in the State of Florida without the need
to site and construct new facilities. The
proposed EPU will increase the
electrical output for each unit by about
104 megawatts electric (MWe), from
about 700 MWe to about 804 MWe.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed
Action
As part of the original licensing
process for PTN Units 3 and 4, the NRC
published a Final Environmental
Statement (FES) in July 1972. The FES
contains an evaluation of the potential
environmental impacts associated with
the operation of PTN Units 3 and 4 over
their licensed lifetimes. In 2002, the
NRC evaluated the environmental
impacts of renewing the operating
license of PTN Units 3 and 4 for an
additional 20 years beyond its current
operating license. The NRC concluded
that the overall environmental impacts
of license renewal were small. This
evaluation is presented in NUREG–
1437, ‘‘Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plant, Supplement 5, Regarding
Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4’’ (EIS
Supplement No. 5 (SEIS–5)) issued in
January 2002 (ADAMS Accession Nos.
ML020280119, ML020280202, and
ML020280226). Additionally, in
October 2008, the State of Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP) completed a thorough and
comprehensive review under the
Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act
and issued a site certification to FPL
approving the proposed EPU for PTN
Units 3 and 4. In June 2009, FPL
submitted an application for a COL for
two AP1000 PWRs designated as PTN,
Units 6 and 7. The COL application
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
included an Environmental Report (ER)
with FPL’s analysis of the reasonably
foreseeable impacts to the environment
from the construction and operation of
the two new units along with an
environmental description of the
existing PTN site. The NRC staff used
information from the licensee’s license
amendment request for the EPU, the
FESs, SEIS–5 to NUREG–1437,
documents related to the FDEP site
certification process, and information
provided in the Turkey Point COL
Environmental Report to perform its EA
for the proposed EPU for PTN Units 3
and 4.
In order to implement the EPU,
significant modifications will be
required to the steam and power
conversion equipment located within
the buildings of PTN Units 3 and 4. Two
changes outside of the reactor buildings
including a change to the electric
switchyard to accommodate new
electrical equipment and construction of
a temporary warehouse for EPU-related
equipment would occur in developed
portions of the power plant site.
Modifications to the secondary side (i.e.,
non-nuclear) of each unit include the
following: Replacing the high-pressure
turbine, modifying condensate pump
operations, installing fast acting backup
automatic feedwater isolation valves,
replacing two feedwater heaters,
providing supplemental cooling for
selected plant systems, implementing
electrical upgrades, system
modifications to accommodate greater
steam and condensate flow rates, and
changing system setpoints and
associated software.
The sections below describe the
potential nonradiological and
radiological impacts to the environment
that could result from the proposed
EPU.
Nonradiological Impacts
Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts
Potential land use and aesthetic
impacts from the proposed EPU include
impacts from plant modifications at the
PTN site. While some plant components
would be modified, most plant changes
related to the proposed EPU would
occur within existing structures,
buildings, and fenced equipment yards
housing major components within the
developed part of the site. As previously
discussed, EPU-related modifications at
the PTN plant site would occur within
the developed portions of the power
plant site.
Existing parking lots, road access,
equipment lay-down areas, offices,
workshops, warehouses, and restrooms
would be used during plant
PO 00000
Frm 00067
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20061
modifications. Therefore, land use
conditions would not change at the PTN
site. Also, there would be no land use
changes along transmission line
corridors and no new transmission lines
would be required. The PTN Units 3
and 4 electric switchyard would be
expanded to accommodate new
equipment, which will be expanded on
previously disturbed or already
developed portions of the PTN site.
Since land use conditions would not
change at the PTN site, and because any
land disturbance would occur within
previously disturbed areas, there would
be little or no impact to aesthetic
resources in the vicinity of PTN Units
3 and 4. Therefore, there would be no
significant impact from EPU-related
plant modifications on land use and
aesthetic resources in the vicinity of the
PTN site.
Air Quality Impacts
Major air pollution emission sources
at the PTN site are regulated by the
FDEP’s Division of Air Resource
Management under the Prevention of
Significant Deterioration program.
Nonradioactive emission sources at PTN
Units 3 and 4 consist of four 2.5 MWe
emergency generators, five smaller
emergency generators, and various
general purpose generators regulated
under a Florida Title V Air Operating
Permit. There will be no changes to the
emissions from these sources as a result
of the EPU.
Some minor and short duration air
quality impacts would occur during
implementation of the EPU at the PTN
site. The main source of air emissions
would come from the vehicles driven by
outage workers needed to implement
the EPU. However, air emissions from
the EPU workforce, truck deliveries, and
construction/modification activities
would not be significantly greater than
previous refueling outages at the PTN
site.
Upon completion of the proposed
EPU, nonradioactive air pollutant
emissions would not increase.
Therefore, there would be no significant
impact on air quality in the region
during and following implementation of
the proposed EPU.
Water Use Impacts
Surface Water
The PTN Units 3 and 4 are located in
the low-lying areas of coastal MiamiDade County on the western shore of
Biscayne Bay. There are no significant
freshwater surface bodies outside of the
PTN site (i.e., lakes, major rivers, or
dams), but there is a network of canals,
such as the Everglades National Park-
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
20062
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices
South Dade Conveyance System, in
addition to local drainage canals that
either control drainage from southeast
Florida to Biscayne Bay or provide
freshwater to the Everglades National
Park. The most significant surface water
body on the PTN site is the closed-cycle
cooling canal system (CCS), permitted
by the State of Florida as an industrial
wastewater facility, used for the cooling
of heated water discharged from the
main condensers and auxiliary systems
of PTN Units 1 through 4.
The CCS covers approximately 5,900
ac (2,390 ha) of the PTN site with a large
system of north-south aligned 168 miles
of interconnected earthen canals to
dissipate heat through surface
evaporation. The canals are a closed
recirculating loop that serves as the
ultimate heat sink for PTN Units 3 and
4. The CCS is operated under an
industrial wastewater facility ‘‘No
Discharge’’ National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit
from the FDEP (NPDES permit number
FL0001562) for water discharges to an
onsite closed-loop recirculation cooling
canal system. The seasonal temperature
of the canal water ranges from
approximately 85 °F to 105 °F (29 °C to
40 °C) for heated water entering the CCS
with cooled water returning to the
power plants at approximately 70 °F to
90 °F (21 °C to 32 °C). Additionally, the
CCS water is hyper-saline (twice the
salinity of Biscayne Bay) with seasonal
variations ranging from approximately
40 to 60 parts per thousand (ppt).
The CCS does not discharge directly
to fresh or marine surface waters.
Makeup water to replace water lost due
to evaporation comes from used plant
process water that has been treated,
incident rainfall, storm water runoff,
and from infiltration and exchange of
saline water with local groundwater and
Biscayne Bay. Because the PTN canals
are unlined, there is an exchange of
water between the PTN canal system
and local groundwater and Biscayne
Bay. An interceptor ditch is located
along the west side of the CCS. During
the dry season, when the natural
groundwater gradient is from Biscayne
Bay and Card Sound toward the
Everglades, water is pumped from the
interceptor ditch to the CCS to create an
artificial groundwater gradient from the
Everglades into the ditch. This process
is used to minimize the flow of hypersaline water from the CCS toward the
Everglades. Maintenance of the CCS
includes mechanical removal of
submerged, rooted marine plants on an
approximate 3-year cycle and removal
of terrestrial woody vegetation from the
canal berms on a 10-year cycle.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
Each nuclear unit discharges
approximately 5.35 billion British
Thermal Units (BTU) per hour of waste
heat to the CCS. Under the proposed
EPU, the quantity of waste heat
discharged by each nuclear unit to the
CCS would increase to approximately
6.10 billion BTU per hour. This results
in a net total increase of 1.5 billion BTU
in waste heat discharged by both
nuclear units. The licensee calculated
that the maximum change in water
temperature due to the proposed EPU
would be approximately 2.0 °F to 2.5 °F
(1.1 °C to 1.4 °C) for a total maximum
water temperature up to 108.6 °F (42.6
°C) for water entering the CCS and a 0.9
°F (0.5 °C) increase with a total
maximum water temperature up to 92.8
°F (33.8 °C) for the water returning to
the power plants. The licensee
calculated that the higher water
temperature will increase water losses
from the CCS due to evaporation
resulting in a slight increase in salinity
of approximately 2 to 3 ppt.
In accordance with the FDEP site
certification process for the proposed
EPU, FPL must meet state imposed
requirements contained in the
Conditions of Certification (CoC). The
CoC was developed based on
interactions by FPL with the FDEP and
other stakeholders, including
opportunities for public comment,
during the FDEP site certification
process. The inclusion of stakeholders’
recommendations into the CoC formed
the basis for FDEP recommending
approval of the site certification
application for the proposed EPU. The
CoC requires FPL to have a program to
monitor and assess the potential direct
and indirect impacts to ground and
surface water from the proposed EPU.
The monitoring includes measuring
water temperature and salinity in the
CCS and monitoring the American
crocodile populations at the PTN site.
The monitoring plan expands FPL’s
monitoring of the CCS’s ground and
surface water to include the land and
water bodies surrounding the PTN site
such as Biscayne Bay.
The implementation of the CoC
monitoring plan is an ongoing program
coordinated by FDEP. The results of the
monitoring will be publicly available
via a South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD) Web site. If the
proposed EPU is approved by the NRC,
the CoC monitoring plan would
continue to assess the environmental
impacts. The CoC allows FDEP to
impose additional measures if the
monitoring data is insufficient to
adequately evaluate environmental
changes, or if the data indicates a
significant degradation to aquatic
PO 00000
Frm 00068
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
resources by exceeding State or County
water quality standards, or the
monitoring plan is inconsistent with the
goals and objectives of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands
Project. Additional measures could
include enhanced monitoring,
modeling, or mitigation. Abatement
actions provided in the CoC include:
mitigation measures to comply with
State and local water quality standards,
which may include methods to reduce
and mitigate salinity levels in
groundwater; operational changes to the
PTN cooling canal system to reduce
environmental impacts; and other
measures required by FDEP in
consultation with SFWMD and MiamiDade County to reduce the
environmental impacts to acceptable
levels.
The field data on surface water
monitoring currently available are being
reviewed by FPL, FDEP, SFWMD, and
stakeholders for the development of a
water budget model. The data and other
documentation show that there is
indirect surface water communication
between the CCS and Biscayne Bay.
Approving the proposed EPU license
amendment is not expected to cause
significant impacts greater than current
operations because the monitoring plan
will provide data for FPL and state
agencies to assess the effectiveness of
current environmental controls and
additional limits and controls could be
imposed if the impacts are larger than
expected. Therefore, there would be no
significant impact to surface water
resources following implementation of
the proposed EPU.
Groundwater
Southeastern Miami/Dade County is
underlain by two aquifer systems; the
unconfined Biscayne Aquifer and the
Floridan Aquifer System (FAS). The
Biscayne Aquifer has been declared a
sole-source aquifer by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA). The Biscayne Aquifer underlying
the PTN site, however, contains saline
to saltwater in this area and is not
usable as a potable water supply. The
FAS underlies approximately 100,000
square miles (258,000 km2) in southern
Alabama, southeastern Georgia,
southern South Carolina, and all of
Florida. The FAS is a multiple-use
aquifer system in that where it contains
freshwater, it is the principal source of
water supply. Where the aquifer
contains saltwater, such as along the
southeastern coast of Florida, treated
sewage and industrial wastes are
injected into it.
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices
Recharge of groundwater at the PTN
site varies seasonally between surface
recharge during the rainy season and
saline recharge from the ocean during
the dry season. As a result, there is a
large seasonal variation in the salinity of
the groundwater near the surface at the
PTN site. However, below about 40 ft
(12 meters (m)) into the Biscayne
aquifer, relatively high salinity (greater
than 28 ppt) exists year round. Florida
classifies the groundwater in this area as
G–III based on its salinity. This
classification is used to identify
groundwater that has no reasonable
potential as a future source of drinking
water due to high total dissolved solids.
The current and proposed operations
at the PTN site do not require the
withdrawal of groundwater. The potable
water and general service water supply
at the PTN site are provided by MiamiDade County public water supply. This
potable water comes from the Biscayne
Aquifer, which occurs at or close to the
ground surface and extends to a depth
of about 70 ft (21 m) below the surface.
The PTN Units 3 and 4 use
approximately 690 gallons per minute
(2612 liters per minute (L/min)) of
potable water. The licensee is not
requesting an increase in water supply
under the proposed EPU. Therefore, no
significant impacts to offsite users of the
Miami-Dade public water supply are
expected.
As discussed in the surface water
impacts section, the FPL’s
implementation of the CoC monitoring
plan is ongoing and consists of an
integrated system of surface,
groundwater, vadose zone, and ecologic
sampling. Fourteen groundwater
monitoring well clusters at selected sites
have been constructed in accordance
with the monitoring plan and an
associated quality assurance plan. The
field data collected prior to
implementation of the proposed EPU
will be used to characterize existing
environmental conditions from current
PTN operations. The CoC allows the
FDEP to require additional measures if
the pre- and post-EPU monitoring data
are insufficient to evaluate changes as a
result of the EPU. If the data indicate an
adverse impact, additional measures,
including enhanced monitoring,
modeling or mitigation, would likely be
required to evaluate or to abate such
impacts.
Abatement actions provided in the
CoC include: (1) Mitigation measures to
offset such impacts of the proposed EPU
necessary to comply with State and
local water quality standards; (2)
operational changes in the cooling canal
system to reduce impacts; and (3) other
measures to abate impacts specified a
VerDate Mar<15>2010
17:51 Apr 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
revised CoC approved by the FDEP after
consultation with SFWMD and MiamiDade County.
Approving the proposed EPU license
amendment is not expected to cause
significant impacts greater than current
operations because the monitoring plan
will provide data for FPL and state
agencies to assess the effectiveness of
current environmental controls and
additional limits and controls could be
imposed if the impacts are larger than
expected. Therefore, there would be no
significant impact to the groundwater
following implementation of the
proposed EPU.
Aquatic Resources Impacts
The discharges of chemicals and
heated wastewater from PTN Units 3
and 4 have the potential to impact
aquatic biota from the proposed EPU.
Biscayne Bay and Card Sound are
shallow, subtropical marine waters
located between the mainland and a
grouping of barrier islands that form the
northernmost Florida Keys. These
waters contain a variety of marine life,
including seagrass, sponges, mollusks,
crustaceans, fish, sea turtles, and marine
mammals. The portion of Biscayne Bay
adjacent to Turkey Point is part of
Biscayne National Park, which includes
the mainland shore, the bay, the keys,
and offshore coral reefs. The Intracoastal
Waterway traverses Biscayne Bay and
Card Sound, and a barge passage runs
from the Intracoastal Waterway to the
fossil-fueled facility at the PTN site.
Biscayne Bay and Card Sound would be
unaffected by the proposed EPU because
FPL does not withdraw or discharge to
any natural water body.
Turkey Point’s cooling system
receives heated water discharged from
the two reactors as well as from the two
fossil fueled electric generating stations.
The cooling system spans about 5,900 ac
(2,400 ha) spread out over a 5 mi by 2
mi (8 km by 3.2 km) area of the site. The
heated water is discharged into a series
of 32 feeder channels that dissipate the
heat. The feeder channels merge into a
single collector canal that returns the
cooled water to the plants through a
main return canal and six return
channels.
Under EPU conditions, the cooling
canal system would increase in both
temperature and salinity. The licensee
predicts that discharged water would
increase a maximum of an additional
2.5 °F (1.4 °C), which would increase
the change in temperature as water
passes through the condensers from 16.8
°F to 18.8 °F (9.3 to 10.4 °C). Because
condenser cooling water discharges at
the northeastern corner of the cooling
canal system flows west, and then
PO 00000
Frm 00069
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
20063
south, the system exhibits a north-south
temperature gradient. Therefore, while
the northeast portion of the system may
increase by 2.0 °F to 2.5 °F (1.1 °C to
1.4 °C) under EPU conditions, the
temperature increase attributable to the
EPU would decrease as water moves
south through the system. The increased
discharge temperatures will cause
additional evaporative losses to the
cooling canal system. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection
predicted that an additional 2 to 3
million gallons per day (7,600 to 11,000
cubic meters per day) will be lost to
evaporation under EPU conditions. The
increased evaporation would, in turn,
increase the cooling canal’s salinity of
40 to 60 ppt by 2 to 3 ppt. Due to the
north-south temperature gradient,
evaporative losses would be greater in
the northern portion of the canal
system, and thus, salinity will also
demonstrate a north-south gradient.
The cooling canal system supports a
variety of aquatic species typical of
shallow, subtropical, hyper-saline
environments, including phytoplankton,
zooplankton, marine algae, rooted
plants, crabs, and estuarine fish. The
most abundant fish in the cooling canal
system is killifish (Family
Cyprinidontidae). The aquatic species
found within the cooling canal system
are subtropical or tropical and readily
adapt to hyper saline environments. The
aquatic populations within the cooling
canal system do not contribute any
commercial or recreational value
because the cooling canal system is
owner-controlled and closed to the
public.
Because aquatic organisms in the
cooling canal system are unable to travel
to or from Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, or
any other natural water body, changes to
the conditions within the cooling canal
system would not affect any aquatic
species’ populations in the natural
aquatic habitats. Therefore, the staff
concludes that there would be no
significant impacts to aquatic resources
as a result of the proposed EPU.
Terrestrial Resources Impacts
The PTN site is situated on low,
swampy land that was previously
mangrove-covered tidal flats. Mangrove
swamps extend inland approximately 3
to 4 mi (5 to 6.5 km), and undeveloped
portions of the site remain under 1 to 3
inches (2 to 8 centimeters) of water,
even during low tide. Of the 24,000-ac
(9,700-ha) site, approximately 11,000-ac
is developed for PTN Units 3 and 4, the
cooling canal system, and three FPLowned fossil fuel units.
The impacts that could potentially
affect terrestrial resources include loss
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
20064
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices
of habitat, construction and
refurbishment-related noise and lighting
and sediment transport or erosion.
Because all activities associated with
the EPU would occur on the developed
portion of the site, the proposed EPU
would not directly affect any natural
terrestrial habitats and would not result
in loss of habitat. Noise and lighting
would not impact terrestrial species
beyond what would be experienced
during normal operations because
refurbishment and construction
activities would take place during
outage periods, which are already
periods of heightened activity. Sediment
transport and erosion is not a concern
because activity would only take place
on previously developed land and best
management practices would ensure
that no loose sediment is transported to
wetland areas, tidal flats, or waterways.
The staff concludes that the proposed
EPU would have no significant effect on
terrestrial resources.
Threatened and Endangered Species
Impacts
Under Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA),
Federal agencies, in consultation with
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries
Service (as appropriate), must ensure
that actions the agency authorizes,
funds, or carries out are not likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of
any listed species or result in the
destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.
In order to fulfill its duties under
section 7 of the ESA, the NRC prepared
and submitted a biological assessment
to the FWS on September 9, 2011, in
order to determine the potential effects
of the proposed EPU on Federally listed
species. The following Table identifies
the species that the NRC considered in
its biological assessment.
TABLE OF FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES OCCURRING IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
Scientific name
Common name
ESA
status (a)
Aquatic Invertebrates
Acropora cervicornis .......................................................................
staghorn coral ................................................................................
PT
Acropora palmate ............................................................................
elkhorn coral ..................................................................................
PT
Birds
Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis ...................................................
Cape Sable seaside sparrow ........................................................
E
Charadrius melodus ........................................................................
Dendroica kirtlandii ..........................................................................
Mycteria americana .........................................................................
Polyborus plancus audubonii ..........................................................
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus ....................................................
Vermivora bachmanii ......................................................................
piping plover ..................................................................................
Kirtland’s warbler (b) .......................................................................
wood stork .....................................................................................
Audubon’s crested caracara (b) ......................................................
Everglade snail kite .......................................................................
Bachman’s warbler (b) ....................................................................
T
E
E
T
E
E
Fish
Pristis pectinata ...............................................................................
smalltooth sawfish .........................................................................
E
Flowering Plants
Amorpha crenulata ..........................................................................
crenulate lead-plant .......................................................................
E
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. Deltoidea ...........................................
Chamaesyce garberi .......................................................................
Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. Okeechobeensis ..........................
Galactia smallii ................................................................................
Halophia johnsonii ...........................................................................
Jacquemontia reclinata ...................................................................
Polygala smallii ...............................................................................
deltoid spurge ................................................................................
Garber’s spurge .............................................................................
okeechobee gourd (b) .....................................................................
Small’s milkpea ..............................................................................
Johnson’s sea grass ......................................................................
beach jacquemontia ......................................................................
tiny polygala ...................................................................................
E
T
E
E
T
E
E
Insects
Heraclides aristodemus ponceanus ................................................
schaus swallowtail butterfly ...........................................................
E
Mammals
mountain lion(b) ..............................................................................
T/SA
Felis concolor coryi .........................................................................
Trichechus manatus ........................................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Puma concolor ................................................................................
Florida panther ..............................................................................
West Indian manatee ....................................................................
E
E
Reptiles
Alligator mississippiensis ................................................................
American alligator ..........................................................................
T/SA
Caretta caretta ................................................................................
Chelonia mydas ..............................................................................
Crocodylus acutus ...........................................................................
Dermochelys coriacea .....................................................................
Drymarchon corais couperi .............................................................
loggerhead sea turtle .....................................................................
green sea turtle .............................................................................
American crocodile ........................................................................
leatherback sea turtle ....................................................................
eastern indigo snake .....................................................................
T
E
T
E
T
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
PO 00000
Frm 00070
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
20065
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices
TABLE OF FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES OCCURRING IN MIAMI-DADE COUNTY—Continued
Scientific name
Common name
Eretmochelys imbricata ...................................................................
Lepidochelys kempii ........................................................................
hawksbill sea turtle ........................................................................
Kemp’s ridley sea turtle (c) .............................................................
ESA
status (a)
E
E
Snails
Orthalicus reses ..............................................................................
Stock Island tree snail (b) ...............................................................
T
(a) E
= endangered; PT = proposed threaten; T = threatened; T/SA = threatened due to similarity of appearance.
(b) Species not previously considered in 2001 biological assessment for Turkey Point.
(c) The Kemp’s ridley is not listed by the FWS as occurring in Miami-Dade County. However, the species occurs in the neighboring Monroe
County and FPL has reported the species’ occurrence in Biscayne Bay and Card Sound.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
In the biological assessment, the NRC
concluded that the proposed EPU may
adversely affect the American crocodile
(Crocodylus acutus). The NRC
concluded that the proposed EPU would
not adversely affect the remaining 30
species listed in the Table above. The
NRC also concluded that the proposed
EPU may adversely modify the cooling
canal system, which is designated as a
critical habitat for the American
crocodile.
The FWS responded to NRC’s
biological assessment on October 25,
2011. In their letter, the FWS concluded
that the proposed EPU may affect, but
is not likely to adversely affect, the
American crocodile. The FWS also
noted that the proposed EPU is unlikely
to result in modification to designated
American crocodile critical habitat. This
letter fulfilled the NRC’s requirements
under Section 7 of the ESA.
Based on the FWS’s conclusions, the
NRC concludes that the proposed EPU
would not significantly impact
threatened or endangered species.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Historic and Archaeological Resources
Impacts
As reported in the SEIS–5, the NRC
reviewed historic and archaeological
site files at the Florida Department of
State, Division of Historical Resources;
the National Park Service Southeast
Archaeological Center; and at Biscayne
National Park; and confirmed that no
historic or archaeological and historic
architectural sites have been recorded
on the PTN site. As previously
discussed, EPU-related plant
modifications would take place within
existing buildings and facilities at PTN,
except for the expansion of the
switchyard on previously disturbed
land. Since ground disturbance or
construction-related activities would
not occur outside of previously
disturbed areas, there would be no
significant impact from the proposed
EPU on historic and archaeological
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
resources in the vicinity of PTN Units
3 and 4 and the switchyard.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Potential socioeconomic impacts from
the proposed EPU include increased
demand for short-term housing, public
services, and increased traffic in the
region due to the temporary increase in
the number of workers at the PTN site
required to implement the EPU. The
proposed EPU could also increase tax
payments due to increased power
generation.
Approximately 800 people are
employed at PTN Units 3 and 4 on a
full-time basis with increases of
approximately 600–900 during periodic
refueling outages. These workers reside
primarily in Miami-Dade County,
Florida. The licensee estimates that it
will need approximately 2500 workers
for implementation of the EPU resulting
in a potential maximum outage/EPU
workforce of approximately 3400 during
each of the EPU outages. The licensee
estimates that the outages to implement
the EPU will last approximately 160
days for Unit 3 and 130 days for Unit
4. As previously discussed, EPU-related
modifications would take place during
the spring and fall 2012 refueling
outages for Units 3 and 4, respectively.
Once EPU-related plant modifications
have been completed, the size of the
refueling outage workforce would return
to normal levels, with no significant
increases expected during future
refueling outages. The size of the regular
plant workforce is not expected to be
affected by the proposed EPU.
Most of the EPU-related plant
modification workers would be
expected to relocate temporarily to
Miami-Dade County, resulting in shortterm increases in the local population
along with increased demands for
public services and housing. Because
plant modification work would be shortterm and up to half a year, most workers
would stay in available rental homes,
apartments, mobile homes, and camper-
PO 00000
Frm 00071
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
trailers. According to the 2010 census
housing data, there were approximately
122,000 vacant housing units in MiamiDade County available to meet the
demand for rental housing.
Additionally, there are over 200,000
available public lodging
accommodations in Miami-Dade
County. Therefore, a temporary increase
in plant employment for this duration
would have little or no noticeable effect
on the availability of housing and public
services in the region.
The principal road access to the PTN
site is via East Palm Drive (SW 344
Street). East Palm Drive is a two-lane
road for approximately half of its length
from the PTN plant to Florida City,
where it intersects with U.S. Highway 1
approximately 14 km (9 miles) from the
PTN site. Increased traffic volumes
during normal refueling outages
typically have not degraded the level of
service capacity on local roads. The FPL
evaluation asserts that the projected
traffic will remain well within the
Miami-Dade County peak hour capacity.
Therefore, the roadways used by plant
workers and the public are expected to
operate at an acceptable level of service
as designated by Miami-Dade County.
However, the additional number of
workers and truck material and
equipment deliveries needed to support
EPU-related plant modifications could
cause short-term level of service impacts
on access roads in the immediate
vicinity of PTN. During periods of high
traffic volume (i.e., morning and
afternoon shift changes), work
schedules could be staggered and
employees and/or local police officials
could be used to direct traffic entering
and leaving the PTN site to minimize
level of service impacts on SW 334th
Street (East Palm Drive).
Tangible personal property
(principally business equipment) and
real property (namely land and
permanent buildings) are subject to
property tax in Florida as administered
by the local government. For 2007, FPL
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
20066
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
paid approximately $6.9 million to
Miami-Dade County and the MiamiDade school district in real property
taxes for PTN Units 3 and 4. Future
property tax payments could take into
account the increased value of PTN
Units 3 and 4 as a result of the EPU and
increased power generation.
Due to the short duration of EPUrelated plant modification activities,
there would be little or no noticeable
effect on tax revenues generated by
temporary workers residing in MiamiDade County. Therefore, there would be
no significant adverse socioeconomic
impacts from EPU-related plant
modifications and operations under
EPU conditions in the vicinity of the
PTN site.
Environmental Justice Impacts
The environmental justice impact
analysis evaluates the potential for
disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effects
on minority and low-income
populations that could result from
activities associated with the proposed
EPU at the PTN site. Such effects may
include human health, biological,
cultural, economic, or social impacts.
Minority and low-income populations
are subsets of the general public
residing in the vicinity of the PTN site,
and all are exposed to the same health
and environmental effects generated
from activities at PTN Units 3 and 4.
The NRC considered the demographic
composition of the area within a 50-mi
(80-km) radius of the PTN site to
determine the location of minority and
low-income populations and whether
they may be affected by the proposed
action.
Minority populations in the vicinity
of the PTN site, according to the U.S.
Census Bureau data for 2000, comprise
approximately 70 percent of the
population (approximately 2,170,000
individuals) residing within a 50-mile
(80-kilometer) radius of the PTN site.
The largest minority group was
Hispanic or Latino (approximately
1,465,000 persons or 47 percent),
followed by Black or African Americans
(approximately 670,000 persons or
about 22 percent).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau,
about 83 percent of the Miami-Dade
County population identified
themselves as minorities, with persons
of Hispanic or Latino origin comprising
the largest minority group (63 percent).
According to 2009 American
Community Survey census data 1-year
estimate, as a percent of total
population, the minority population of
Miami-Dade County increased
approximately one percent, with
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
persons of Hispanic or Latino origin
comprising the largest minority group
(82 percent) in 2009.
According to 2000 census data, lowincome populations comprised
approximately 98,000 families and
488,000 individuals (approximately 13
and 16 percent, respectively) residing
within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of the
PTN site.
The 2009 Federal poverty threshold
was $22,490 for a family of four with
one related child under 18 years.
According to census data in the 2009
American Community Survey 1-Year
Estimate, the median household income
for Florida was $53,500, with 11 percent
of families and 15 percent of individuals
determined to be living below the
Federal poverty threshold. Miami-Dade
County had a lower median household
income average ($42,000) than the State
of Florida and also had higher
percentages of county families (14
percent) and individuals (18 percent),
respectively, living below the poverty
level.
Environmental Justice Impact Analysis
Potential impacts to minority and
low-income populations would mostly
consist of environmental and
socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise, dust,
traffic, employment, and housing
impacts). Radiation doses from plant
operations after the EPU are expected to
continue to remain below regulatory
limits.
Noise and dust impacts would be
short-term and limited to onsite
activities. Minority and low-income
populations residing along site access
and the primary commuter roads
through Florida City, Florida (e.g., U.S.
Highway 1 and East Palm Drive) could
experience increased commuter vehicle
traffic during shift changes. Increased
demand for rental housing during EPUrelated plant modifications could
disproportionately affect low-income
populations. However, due to the short
duration of the EPU-related work and
the availability of rental housing,
impacts to minority and low-income
populations would be short-term and
limited. According to 2010 census
information, there were approximately
122,000 vacant housing units in MiamiDade County and approximately 20,000
vacant housing units in Monroe County.
Based on this information and the
analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this
environmental assessment, the proposed
EPU would not have disproportionately
high and adverse human health and
environmental effects on minority and
low-income populations residing in the
vicinity of the PTN site.
PO 00000
Frm 00072
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Nonradiological Cumulative Impacts
The NRC considered potential
cumulative impacts on the environment
resulting from the incremental impact of
the proposed EPU when added to other
past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions. For the
purposes of this analysis, past actions
are related to the construction and
licensing of PTN Units 3 and 4, present
actions are related to current operations,
and future actions are those that are
reasonably foreseeable through the end
of station operations including
operations under the EPU.
The application to build two new
nuclear units at the PTN site is
considered a reasonably foreseeable
future action that is considered in this
review. A COL application was
submitted by FPL to the NRC in June
2009, for the construction and operation
of two Westinghouse AP1000 units at
the PTN site along with the construction
of transmission corridors. It is expected,
however, that the proposed EPU, if
approved, would be completed prior to
the construction of the new units. Thus,
the cumulative impacts briefly
discussed in this section consider PTN
Units 3 and 4 operations (under the
EPU) combined with the environmental
impacts from the proposed construction
and operation of PTN Units 6 and 7.
It is important to note that submitting
the COL application does not commit
FPL to build two new nuclear units, and
does not constitute approval of the
proposal by the NRC. The COL
application will be evaluated on its
merits and after considering and
evaluating the environmental and safety
implications of the proposal, the NRC
will decide whether to approve or deny
the licenses. Environmental impacts of
constructing and operating PTN Units 6
and 7 will depend on their actual design
characteristics, construction practices,
and power plant operations. These
impacts will be assessed by the NRC in
a separate National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) document. The
cumulative impacts presented in this
EA may differ from those impacts
assessed for the COL.
For some resource areas (e.g., air
quality, water, aquatic, terrestrial
resources, and threatened and
endangered species), the contributory
effect of ongoing actions within a region
are regulated and monitored through a
permitting process (e.g., NPDES and
401/404 permits under the Clean Water
Act) under State or Federal authority. In
these cases, impacts are managed as
long as these actions are in compliance
with their respective permits and
conditions of certification.
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices
Units 6 and 7 of the PTN site would
be constructed on undeveloped land
immediately south of PTN Units 3 and
4. The EPU modifications to PTN Units
3 and 4 are expected to be completed
before the proposed PTN Units 6 and 7
are constructed.
Units 6 and 7 of the PTN site would
have a closed-cycle cooling system
utilizing cooling towers with makeup
water from Biscayne Bay and treated
wastewater from Miami-Dade County.
Waste water discharges are expected to
be disposed of by deep well injection.
Impacts to water resources for PTN
Units 3 and 4 and PTN Units 6 and 7
would occur separately, and any
potential cumulative impacts would not
be significantly greater than current
operations.
Units 6 and 7of the PTN site
transmission lines, and related
infrastructure improvements would be
constructed and operated according to
Federal and State regulations, permit
conditions, existing procedures, and
established best management practices.
Nevertheless, wildlife may be destroyed
or displaced during land clearing for
PTN Units 6 and 7. Less mobile animals,
such as reptiles, amphibians, and small
mammals, would incur greater mortality
than more mobile animals, such as
birds. Although undisturbed habitat
would be available for displaced
animals during construction, increased
competition for available habitat may
result in local population stresses. As
construction activities end, habitats
could be restored either naturally or
through mitigation activities.
Terrestrial species and habitat could
be affected by PTN Units 6 and 7
cooling system operations. As described
in the Environmental Report for the new
units, the primary source of makeup
water would be treated waste water
from the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer
Department. If not enough reclaimed
water is available to meet the needs of
PTN Units 6 and 7, then seawater would
be withdrawn from under Biscayne Bay
via radial collector wells. Because of
this situation, the operation of
mechanical draft cooling towers can
result in salt deposition (i.e., salt drift);
a greater risk of avian collision
mortality; and noise.
20067
Land needed for the proposed PTN
Units 6 and 7 has been surveyed for
historical and archaeological sites. The
survey identified no new or previously
recorded historic or archaeological
resources within or adjacent to the
proposed site.
Socioeconomic impacts from the
construction and operation of PTN
Units 6 and 7 would occur several years
after the EPU. The large construction
and operation workforces combined
with ongoing operation of PTN Units 3
and 4 under the EPU would have a
noticeable effect on socioeconomic
conditions in local communities from
the increased demand for temporary and
permanent housing, public services
(e.g., public schools), and increased
traffic.
Nonradiological Impacts Summary
As discussed above, the proposed
EPU would not result in any significant
nonradiological impacts. Table 1
summarizes the nonradiological
environmental impacts of the proposed
EPU at PTN Units 3 and 4.
TABLE 1—SUMMARY OF NONRADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Land Use ...................................................
Air Quality .................................................
Water Use .................................................
Aquatic Resources ....................................
Terrestrial Resources ................................
Threatened and Endangered Species ......
Historic and Archaeological Resources ....
Socioeconomics ........................................
Environmental Justice ...............................
Cumulative Impacts ..................................
The proposed EPU is not expected to cause a significant impact on land use conditions and aesthetic resources in the vicinity of the PTN.
The proposed EPU is not expected to cause a significant impact to air quality.
The proposed EPU is not expected to cause impacts significantly greater than current operations.
No significant impact on groundwater or surface water resources.
The proposed EPU is not expected to cause impacts significantly greater than current operations.
No significant impact to aquatic resources due to chemical or thermal discharges.
The proposed EPU is not expected to cause impacts significantly greater than current operations.
No significant impact to terrestrial resources.
The proposed EPU would not cause impacts significantly greater than current operations. No significant impact to federally-listed species.
No significant impact to historic and archaeological resources on site or in the vicinity of the PTN.
No significant socioeconomic impacts from EPU-related temporary increase in workforce.
No disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental effects on minority and
low-income populations in the vicinity of the PTN site.
The proposed EPU would not cause impacts significantly greater than current operations. To address potential cumulative impacts for water and ecological resources, a monitoring plan for the
PTN site has been implemented. The State of Florida has authority to impose limits on nonradiological discharges to abate any significant hydrology and ecology impacts.
The NRC staff has not identified any significant cumulative impacts associated with construction and
operation of Units 6 and 7; however, the NRC will prepare a separate Environmental Impact Statement documenting the potential impacts associated with the construction and operation of Units 6
and 7.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid
Effluents and Solid Waste
The PTN uses waste treatment
systems to collect, process, recycle, and
dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid
wastes that contain radioactive material
in a safe and controlled manner within
NRC and EPA radiation safety
standards. The licensee’s evaluation of
plant operation at the proposed EPU
conditions shows that no physical
changes would be needed to the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
radioactive gaseous, liquid, or solid
waste systems.
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents
The gaseous waste management
systems include the radioactive gaseous
system, which manages radioactive
gases generated during the nuclear
fission process. Radioactive gaseous
wastes are principally activation gases
and fission product radioactive noble
gases resulting from process operations,
including continuous degasification of
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
systems, gases collected during system
venting, gases used for tank cover gas,
and gases generated in the
radiochemistry laboratory. The
licensee’s evaluation determined that
implementation of the proposed EPU
would not significantly increase the
inventory of carrier gases normally
processed in the gaseous waste
management system, since plant system
functions are not changing and the
volume inputs remain the same. The
analysis also showed that the proposed
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
20068
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
EPU would result in an increase in the
equilibrium radioactivity in the reactor
coolant, which in turn increases the
radioactivity in the waste disposal
systems and radioactive gases released
from the plant. The bounding increases
in effluent releases estimated by the
licensee from the proposed EPU are 17.1
percent for noble gases, 17.6 percent for
gaseous radionuclides with short halflives, and 15.3 percent for tritium while
a higher secondary side moisture
carryover could result in a bounding
increase of 25.3 percent in iodine
releases.
The licensee’s evaluation concluded
that the proposed EPU would not
change the radioactive gaseous waste
system’s design function and reliability
to safely control and process the waste.
The projected gaseous release following
EPU would remain bounded by the
values given in the FES for PTN Units
3 and 4. The existing equipment and
plant procedures that control
radioactive releases to the environment
will continue to be used to maintain
radioactive gaseous releases within the
dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302 and the
as low as is reasonably achievable
(ALARA) dose objectives in Appendix I
to 10 CFR Part 50.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents
The liquid waste management system
collects, processes, and prepares
radioactive liquid waste for disposal.
Radioactive liquid wastes include
liquids from various equipment drains,
floor drains, the chemical and volume
control system, steam generator
blowdown, chemistry laboratory drains,
laundry drains, decontamination area
drains and liquids used to transfer solid
radioactive waste. The licensee’s
evaluation shows that the proposed EPU
implementation would not significantly
increase the inventory of liquid
normally processed by the liquid waste
management system. This is because the
system functions are not changing and
the volume inputs remain the same. The
proposed EPU would result in a 15.3percent increase in the equilibrium
radioactivity in the reactor coolant
which in turn would impact the
concentrations of radioactive nuclides
in the waste disposal systems.
Since the composition of the
radioactive material in the waste and
the volume of radioactive material
processed through the system are not
expected to significantly change, the
current design and operation of the
radioactive liquid waste system will
accommodate the effects of the
proposed EPU. The projected liquid
effluent release following EPU would
remain bounded by the values given in
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
the FES for PTN Units 3 and 4. The
existing equipment and plant
procedures that control radioactive
releases to the environment will
continue to be used to maintain
radioactive liquid releases within the
dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302 and
ALARA dose standards in Appendix I to
10 CFR Part 50.
Radioactive Solid Wastes
Radioactive solid wastes include
solids recovered from the reactor
coolant systems, solids that come into
contact with the radioactive liquids or
gases, and solids used in the reactor
coolant system operation. The licensee
evaluated the potential effects of the
proposed EPU on the solid waste
management system. The largest volume
of radioactive solid waste is low-level
radioactive waste (LLRW), which
includes sludge, oily waste, bead resin,
spent filters, and dry active waste that
result from routine plant operation,
refueling outages, and routine
maintenance. Dry active waste includes
paper, plastic, wood, rubber, glass, floor
sweepings, cloth, metal, and other types
of waste generated during routine
maintenance and outages.
The licensee manages LLRW
contractually and continues to ship
Class A, B, and C LLRW offsite for
processing and disposal.
EnergySolutions, Inc. (with a Class A
disposal facility located in Clive, Utah)
is currently under contract with FPL for
the processing and disposal of Class A
LLRW. Studsvik, Inc., is under contract
with FPL for processing, storage, and
disposal of Class B and C LLRW.
As stated by the licensee, the
proposed EPU would not have a
significant effect on the generation of
radioactive solid waste volume from the
primary reactor coolant and secondary
side systems since the systems functions
are not changing and the volume inputs
remain consistent with historical
generation rates. The waste can be
handled by the solid waste management
system without modification. The
equipment is designed and operated to
process the waste into a form that
minimizes potential harm to the
workers and the environment. Waste
processing areas are monitored for
radiation and there are safety features to
ensure worker doses are maintained
within regulatory limits. The proposed
EPU would not generate a new type of
waste or create a new waste stream.
Therefore, the impact from the proposed
EPU on the management of radioactive
solid waste would not be significant.
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
Occupational Radiation Dose at EPU
Conditions
The licensee stated that the in-plant
radiation sources are expected to
increase approximately linearly with the
proposed increase in core power level.
To protect the workers, the licensee’s
radiation protection program monitors
radiation levels throughout the plant to
establish appropriate work controls,
training, temporary shielding, and
protective equipment requirements so
that worker doses will remain within
the dose limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and
ALARA.
In addition to the work controls
implemented by the radiation protection
program, permanent and temporary
shielding is used throughout PTN Units
3 and 4 to protect plant personnel
against radiation from the reactor and
auxiliary systems containing radioactive
material. The licensee determined that
the current shielding design is adequate
to offset the increased radiation levels
that are expected to occur from the
proposed EPU since:
• Conservative analytical techniques
were used to establish the shielding
requirements,
• Conservatism in the original design
basis reactor coolant source terms used
to establish the radiation zones, and
• Plant Technical Specification 3.4.8,
which limits the reactor coolant
concentrations to levels significantly
below the original design basis source
terms.
Based on the above, the staff
concludes that the proposed EPU is not
expected to significantly affect radiation
levels within the plants and, therefore,
there would not be a significant
radiological impact to the workers.
Offsite Doses at EPU Conditions
The primary sources of offsite dose to
members of the public from PTN Units
3 and 4 are radioactive gaseous and
liquid effluents. The contribution of
radiation shine from plant buildings and
stored radioactive solid waste was
evaluated by the licensee and found to
be negligible. As previously discussed,
operation at the proposed EPU
conditions will not change the
radioactive waste management systems’
abilities to perform their intended
functions. Also, there would be no
change to the radiation monitoring
system and procedures used to control
the release of radioactive effluents in
accordance with NRC radiation
protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20
and Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Based on the above, the offsite
radiation dose to members of the public
would continue to be within NRC and
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices
EPA regulatory limits and, therefore,
would not be significant.
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Spent fuel from PTN Units 3 and 4 is
stored in the plant’s spent fuel pool and
in dry casks in the Independent Spent
Fuel Storage Installation. The PTN Units
3 and 4 are licensed to use uraniumdioxide fuel that has a maximum
enrichment of 4.5 percent by weight
uranium-235. Approval of the proposed
EPU would increase the maximum fuel
enrichment to 5 percent by weight
uranium-235. The average fuel assembly
discharge burnup for the proposed EPU
is expected to be approximately 52,000
megawatt days per metric ton uranium
(MWd/MTU) with no fuel pins
exceeding the maximum fuel rod
burnup limit of 62,000 MWd/MTU. The
licensee’s fuel reload design goals will
maintain the fuel cycles within the
limits bounded by the impacts analyzed
in 10 CFR Part 51, Table S–3—Table of
Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental
Data, and Table S–4—Environmental
Impact of Transportation of Fuel and
Waste to and from One Light-WaterCooled Nuclear Power Reactor, as
supplemented by NUREG–1437,
Volume 1, Addendum1, ‘‘Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for
License Renewal of Nuclear Plants,
Main Report, Section 6.3—
Transportation Table 9.1, Summary of
findings on NEPA issues for license
renewal of nuclear power plants.’’
Therefore, there would be no significant
impacts resulting from spent nuclear
fuel.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Postulated Design-Basis Accident Doses
Postulated design-basis accidents are
evaluated by both the licensee and the
NRC to ensure that PTN Units 3 and 4
can withstand normal and abnormal
transients and a broad spectrum of
postulated accidents without undue
hazard to the health and safety of the
public.
On June 25, 2009, the licensee
submitted license amendment request
(LAR) number 196 (LAR 196),
Alternative Source Term to the NRC, to
update its design-basis accident
analysis. In LAR 196, the licensee
requested NRC approval to use a set of
revised radiological consequence
analyses using the guidance in NRC’s
Regulatory Guide 1.183, Alternative
Radiological Source Terms (AST) for
Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at
Nuclear Power Reactors. On June 25,
2010, the licensee submitted a
supplement to LAR 196 to revise the
radiological dose consequence analyses.
The analyses for LAR 196 are applicable
for the power level in the proposed
EPU. The NRC evaluated the proposed
changes in LAR 196 separately from the
EPU.
In LAR 196, the licensee reviewed the
various design-basis accident (DBA)
analyses performed in support of the
proposed EPU for their potential
radiological consequences and
concluded that the analyses adequately
account for the effects of the proposed
EPU. The licensee states that the results
of the revised AST analysis were found
to be acceptable with respect to the
radiological consequences of postulated
DBAs, since the calculated doses meet
the exposure guideline values specified
in 10 CFR 50.67 and General Design
Criteria 19 in Appendix A of 10 CFR
Part 50.
The results of the NRC’s evaluation
and conclusion approving the proposed
changes submitted in LAR 196 are
documented in a Safety Evaluation
related to Amendment Nos. 244 and 240
for PTN Units 3 and 4, respectively
(ADAMS Accession No. ML110800666)
Radiological Cumulative Impacts
The radiological dose limits for
protection of the public and workers
have been developed by the NRC and
EPA to address the cumulative impact
of acute and long-term exposure to
radiation and radioactive material.
These dose limits are specified in 10
CFR Part 20 and 40 CFR Part 190.
The cumulative radiation dose to the
public and workers are required to be
within the regulations cited above. The
public dose limit of 25 millirem (0.25
millisieverts) in 40 CFR Part 190 applies
to all reactors that may be on a site and
also includes any other nearby nuclear
power reactor facilities. There is no
other nuclear power reactor or uranium
fuel cycle facility located near PTN
Units 3 and 4. The NRC staff reviewed
several years of radiation dose data
contained in the licensee’s annual
radioactive effluent release reports for
PTN Units 3 and 4. The data
20069
demonstrate that the dose to members of
the public from radioactive effluents is
within the limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and
40 CFR Part 190. To evaluate the
projected dose at EPU conditions for
PTN Units 3 and 4, the NRC staff
increased the actual dose data contained
in the reports by 15 percent. The
projected doses at EPU conditions
remained within regulatory limits.
Therefore, the NRC staff concludes that
there would not be a significant
cumulative radiological impact to
members of the public from increased
radioactive effluents from PTN Units 3
and 4 at the proposed EPU operation.
A COL application was submitted in
June 2009 to the NRC to construct and
operate two new AP1000 reactor plants
on the PTN site designated as Units 6
and 7. The FPL radiological assessment
of the radiation doses to members of the
public from the proposed two new
reactors concluded that the doses would
be within regulatory limits. The staff
expects continued compliance with
regulatory dose limits during PTN Units
3 and 4 operations at the proposed EPU
power level. Therefore, the staff
concludes that the cumulative
radiological impacts to members of the
public from increased radioactive
effluents from the combined operations
of PTN Units 3 and 4 at EPU conditions
and the proposed two new reactors
would not be significant.
As previously discussed, the licensee
has a radiation protection program that
maintains worker doses within the dose
limits in 10 CFR Part 20 during all
phases of PTN Units 3 and 4 operations.
The NRC staff expects continued
compliance with NRC’s occupational
dose limits during operation at the
proposed EPU power level. Therefore,
the staff concludes that operation of
PTN Units 3 and 4 at the proposed EPU
levels would not result in a significant
impact to the worker’s cumulative
radiological dose.
Radiological Impacts Summary
As discussed above, the proposed
EPU would not result in any significant
radiological impacts. Table 2
summarizes the radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed
EPU at PTN Units 3 and 4.
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents .................
Radioactive Liquid Effluents .....................
Occupational Radiation Doses .................
Offsite Radiation Doses ............................
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
Amount of additional radioactive gaseous effluents generated would be handled by the existing system.
Amount of additional radioactive liquid effluents generated would be handled by the existing system.
Occupational doses would continue to be maintained within NRC limits.
Radiation doses to members of the public would remain below NRC and EPA radiation protection
standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00075
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
20070
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 64 / Tuesday, April 3, 2012 / Notices
TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS—Continued
Radioactive Solid Waste ...........................
Spent Nuclear Fuel ...................................
Postulated Design-Basis Accident Doses
Cumulative Radiological ...........................
Amount of additional radioactive solid waste generated would be handled by the existing system.
The spent fuel characteristics will remain within the bounding criteria used in the impact analysis in
10 CFR Part 51, Table S–3 and Table S–4.
Calculated doses for postulated design-basis accidents would remain within NRC limits.
Radiation doses to the public and plant workers would remain below NRC and EPA radiation protection standards.
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed
action, the NRC staff considered denial
of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ‘‘noaction’’ alternative). Denial of the
application would result in no change
in the current environmental impacts.
However, if the EPU were not approved
for PTN Units 3 and 4, other agencies
and electric power organizations may be
required to pursue other means, such as
fossil fuel or alternative fuel power
generation, to provide electric
generation capacity to offset future
demand. Construction and operation of
such a fossil-fueled or alternative-fueled
plant could result in impacts in air
quality, land use, and waste
management greater than those
identified for the proposed EPU for PTN
Units 3 and 4. Furthermore, the
proposed EPU does not involve
environmental impacts that are
significantly different from those
originally identified in the PTN Unit 3
or Unit 4 FES, and NUREG–1437, SEIS–
5.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of
any different resources than those
previously considered in the PTN Unit
3 or Unit 4 FES.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy,
the NRC staff consulted with the FDEP,
SFWMD, Miami-Dade County, BNP, and
FWCC regarding the environmental
impact of the proposed action and
specifically regarding the monitoring
and mitigation plan that formed the
basis of the Florida agencies
recommending approval to the FDEP for
the proposed EPU subject to the CoC
during the State of Florida site
certification process.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the details provided in
the EA, the NRC concludes that granting
the proposed EPU license amendment is
not expected to cause impacts
significantly greater than current
operations. Therefore, the proposed
action of implementing the EPU for PTN
Units 3 and 4 will not have a significant
effect on the quality of the human
environment because no significant
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:19 Apr 02, 2012
Jkt 226001
permanent changes are involved and the
temporary impacts are within
previously disturbed areas at the site
and the capacity of the plant systems.
Accordingly, the NRC has determined it
is not necessary to prepare an
environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day
of March 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jason C. Paige,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 2–
2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing,
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012–7947 Filed 4–2–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
NUCLEAR REGULATORY
COMMISSION
[NRC–2012–0078]
Biweekly Notice of Applications and
Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses and Combined Licenses
Involving No Significant Hazards
Considerations
Background
Pursuant to Section 189a. (2) of the
Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended
(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission (the Commission or NRC)
is publishing this regular biweekly
notice. The Act requires the
Commission publish notice of any
amendments issued, or proposed to be
issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make
immediately effective any amendment
to an operating license or combined
license, as applicable, upon a
determination by the Commission that
such amendment involves no significant
hazards consideration, notwithstanding
the pendency before the Commission of
a request for a hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all
notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from March 8,
2012, to March 21, 2012. The last
biweekly notice was published on
March 20, 2012 (77 FR 16271).
ADDRESSES: You may access information
and comment submissions related to
this document, which the NRC
possesses and is publicly available, by
PO 00000
Frm 00076
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
searching on https://www.regulations.gov
under Docket ID 2012–0078.
You may submit comments by the
following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID 2012–0078. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol
Gallagher; telephone: 301–492–3668;
email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
• Mail comments to: Cindy Bladey,
Chief, Rules, Announcements, and
Directives Branch (RADB), Office of
Administration, Mail Stop: TWB–05–
B01M, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory
Commission, Washington, DC 20555–
0001.
• Fax comments to: RADB at 301–
492–3446.
For additional direction on accessing
information and submitting comments,
see ‘‘Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments’’ in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Accessing Information and
Submitting Comments
A. Accessing Information
Please refer to Docket ID 2012–0078
when contacting the NRC about the
availability of information regarding this
document. You may access information
related to this document, which the
NRC possesses and is publicly available,
by the following methods:
• Federal Rulemaking Web Site: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov and search
for Docket ID 2012–0078.
• NRC’s Agencywide Documents
Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly
available documents online in the NRC
Library at https://www.nrc.gov/readingrm/adams.html. To begin the search,
select ‘‘ADAMS Public Documents’’ and
then select ‘‘Begin Web-based ADAMS
Search.’’ For problems with ADAMS,
please contact the NRC’s Public
Document Room (PDR) reference staff at
1–800–397–4209, 301–415–4737, or by
email to pdr.resource@nrc.gov.
Documents may be viewed in ADAMS
by performing a search on the document
date and docket number.
• NRC’s PDR: You may examine and
purchase copies of public documents at
the NRC’s PDR, Room O1–F21, One
E:\FR\FM\03APN1.SGM
03APN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20059-20070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7947]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251; NRC-2011-0259]
License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level,
Florida Power & Light Company, Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final environmental assessment and finding of no significant
impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is considering issuing an amendment for Renewed Facility Operating
License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41, issued to Florida Power & Light Company
(FPL or the licensee) for operation of the Turkey Point (PTN), Units 3
and 4, to increase the maximum power level from 2300 megawatts thermal
(MWt) to 2644 MWt for each unit. The proposed power increase is
approximately 15-percent over the current licensed thermal power,
including a 13-percent power uprate and a 1.7-percent measurement
uncertainty recapture, and approximately a 20-percent increase from the
original licensed power level of 2200 MWt. The NRC did not identify any
significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action
based on its evaluation of the information provided in the licensee's
application and other available information, and has prepared this
final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) for the proposed action.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0259 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may access information related to this document, which the NRC
possesses and is publicly-available, using the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to https://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2011-0259. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: Carol.Gallagher@nrc.gov.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-
[[Page 20060]]
available documents online in the NRC Library at https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public
Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For
problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to
pdr.resource@nrc.gov. The ADAMS accession number for each document
referenced in this notice (if that document is available in ADAMS) is
provided the first time that a document is referenced.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jason Paige, Project Manager, Plant
Licensing Branch 2-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5888; email:
Jason.Paige@nrc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of an amendment for Renewed Facility Operating License Nos.
DPR-31 and DPR-41, issued to FPL for operation of the PTN, Units 3 and
4, for a license amendment to increase the maximum power level from
2300 MWt to 2644 MWt for each unit. In accordance with Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 51.21, the NRC has prepared this
final EA and FONSI for the proposed action. The proposed power increase
is approximately 15-percent over the current licensed thermal power,
including a 13-percent power uprate and a 1.7-percent measurement
uncertainty recapture, and approximately a 20-percent increase from the
original licensed power level of 2200 MWt. The NRC did not identify any
significant environmental impacts associated with the proposed action
based on its evaluation of the information provided in the licensee's
application and other available information. For further details with
respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's application dated
October 21, 2010, as supplemented by letters dated December 14, 2010
(ADAMS Accession No. ML103560167), and April 22, 2011 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML11115A114).
The NRC published a notice in the Federal Register requesting
public review and comment on a draft EA and FONSI for the proposed
action on November 17, 2011 (76 FR 71379), and established December 19,
2011, as the deadline for submitting public comments. By letters dated
December 9, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11347A194), and December 12,
2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12027A023), comments were received from FPL
and Mr. Steve Torcise, Jr., of the Atlantic Civil, Inc., respectively.
The FPL comments provided new estimates on the number of additional
workers needed to support the outage work implementing the proposed
Extended Power Uprate (EPU) and revised the projected outage times
necessary to implement the EPU. The FPL comments have been incorporated
into this final EA with no change to the FONSI conclusion. The Atlantic
Civil, Inc. comments have been incorporated into this final EA with no
change to the FONSI conclusion and are summarized in the ``Summary of
Comments'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML12075A035). Also, by letter dated
January 12, 2012 (ADAMS Accession Number ML12019A348), the Southeast
Regional Office of the U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park
Service provided comments on the draft EA and draft FONSI. Since these
comments were received after the comment period deadline of December
19, 2011, the NRC will address these comments using separate
correspondence.
II. Environmental Assessment
Plant Site and Environs
The PTN site is located on 11,000 acres (ac) (4,450 hectares (ha))
in Florida's South Miami-Dade County approximately 25 miles (mi) (40
kilometers [km]) south of Miami, Florida. The nearest city limits are
Florida City approximately 8 miles (13 km) to the west, Homestead at
approximately 4.5 miles (7 km) to the northwest and Key Largo at
approximately 10 miles (16 km) south of the PTN site. The PTN site is
bordered to the east by Biscayne National Park (BNP), to the north by
the BNP and Homestead Bayfront Park, and on the west and south by FPL's
13,000 ac (5,260 ha) Everglades Mitigation Bank. The PTN site consists
of five electric generating units. Units 3 and 4 at the PTN site are
nuclear reactors; Units 1, 2, and 5 are fossil-fueled units and are not
covered by the proposed licensing action. Each nuclear reactor is a
Westinghouse pressurized light-water reactor with three steam
generators producing steam that turns turbines to generate electricity.
The site features a 5,900 ac (2,390 ha) system of closed, recirculating
cooling canals that are used to cool the heated water discharged by
Units 1 through 4. Unit 5 has mechanical draft cooling towers for the
steam generation cycle using water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer
(UFA) as makeup and routing cooling tower blowdown to the cooling canal
system. The five units and supporting equipment (excluding the cooling
canal system) occupy approximately 130 ac (53 ha).
In June 2009, FPL submitted an application for a combined
construction permit and operating license (COL) for two Westinghouse
Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized-water reactors (PWRs)
designated as PTN, Units 6 and 7.
Background Information on the Proposed Action
By application dated October 21, 2010, the licensee requested an
amendment to its license for an EPU for PTN Units 3 and 4 to increase
the licensed thermal power level from 2300 MWt to 2644 MWt for each
unit. This represents an increase of approximately 15-percent above the
current licensed thermal power, including a 13-percent power uprate and
a 1.7-percent measurement uncertainty recapture. This change requires
NRC approval prior to the licensee implementing the EPU. The proposed
action is considered an EPU by the NRC because it exceeds the typical
7-percent power increase that can be accommodated with only minor plant
changes. An EPU typically involves extensive modifications to the
nuclear steam supply system contained within the plant buildings.
The licensee plans to make extensive physical modifications to the
plant's secondary side (i.e., non-nuclear) steam supply system to
implement the proposed EPU. These modifications would occur during
separate refueling outages for each unit. The EPU-related work for Unit
3 is scheduled for the spring 2012 outage and Unit 4 during the fall
2012 outage. The EPU, if approved by the NRC, would be implemented
following each unit's refueling outage in 2012.
Approximately 800 people are employed at PTN Units 3 and 4 on a
full-time basis with increases of approximately 600-900 during
refueling outages. The licensee estimates that it will need
approximately 2500 workers for implementation of the EPU resulting in a
potential maximum outage/EPU workforce of approximately 3400 during
each of the EPU outages.
As part of the overall process to obtain approval for the EPU, in
September 2007, FPL submitted a
[[Page 20061]]
Petition to Determine Need for Expansion of Electrical Power Plants to
the Florida Public Service Commission (FPSC). The petition contained
FPL's analysis for meeting the need for electric system reliability,
integrity, and providing adequate electricity at a reasonable cost; how
the proposed EPU is the most cost-effective alternative available; and
why there are no renewable energy sources and technologies or
conservation measures reasonably available to FPL that would avoid or
mitigate the need for the proposed EPU. On January 7, 2008, the FPSC
issued a Final Order Granting Petition for Determination of Need
approving the proposed expansion of PTN Units 3 and 4 based on
compliance with conditions required by the state.
The Need for the Proposed Action
As stated in the FPL's application, the proposed action is to
provide an additional supply of electric generation in the State of
Florida without the need to site and construct new facilities. The
proposed EPU will increase the electrical output for each unit by about
104 megawatts electric (MWe), from about 700 MWe to about 804 MWe.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
As part of the original licensing process for PTN Units 3 and 4,
the NRC published a Final Environmental Statement (FES) in July 1972.
The FES contains an evaluation of the potential environmental impacts
associated with the operation of PTN Units 3 and 4 over their licensed
lifetimes. In 2002, the NRC evaluated the environmental impacts of
renewing the operating license of PTN Units 3 and 4 for an additional
20 years beyond its current operating license. The NRC concluded that
the overall environmental impacts of license renewal were small. This
evaluation is presented in NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plant, Supplement 5, Regarding
Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4'' (EIS Supplement No. 5 (SEIS-5)) issued in
January 2002 (ADAMS Accession Nos. ML020280119, ML020280202, and
ML020280226). Additionally, in October 2008, the State of Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) completed a thorough and
comprehensive review under the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting
Act and issued a site certification to FPL approving the proposed EPU
for PTN Units 3 and 4. In June 2009, FPL submitted an application for a
COL for two AP1000 PWRs designated as PTN, Units 6 and 7. The COL
application included an Environmental Report (ER) with FPL's analysis
of the reasonably foreseeable impacts to the environment from the
construction and operation of the two new units along with an
environmental description of the existing PTN site. The NRC staff used
information from the licensee's license amendment request for the EPU,
the FESs, SEIS-5 to NUREG-1437, documents related to the FDEP site
certification process, and information provided in the Turkey Point COL
Environmental Report to perform its EA for the proposed EPU for PTN
Units 3 and 4.
In order to implement the EPU, significant modifications will be
required to the steam and power conversion equipment located within the
buildings of PTN Units 3 and 4. Two changes outside of the reactor
buildings including a change to the electric switchyard to accommodate
new electrical equipment and construction of a temporary warehouse for
EPU-related equipment would occur in developed portions of the power
plant site. Modifications to the secondary side (i.e., non-nuclear) of
each unit include the following: Replacing the high-pressure turbine,
modifying condensate pump operations, installing fast acting backup
automatic feedwater isolation valves, replacing two feedwater heaters,
providing supplemental cooling for selected plant systems, implementing
electrical upgrades, system modifications to accommodate greater steam
and condensate flow rates, and changing system setpoints and associated
software.
The sections below describe the potential nonradiological and
radiological impacts to the environment that could result from the
proposed EPU.
Nonradiological Impacts
Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts
Potential land use and aesthetic impacts from the proposed EPU
include impacts from plant modifications at the PTN site. While some
plant components would be modified, most plant changes related to the
proposed EPU would occur within existing structures, buildings, and
fenced equipment yards housing major components within the developed
part of the site. As previously discussed, EPU-related modifications at
the PTN plant site would occur within the developed portions of the
power plant site.
Existing parking lots, road access, equipment lay-down areas,
offices, workshops, warehouses, and restrooms would be used during
plant modifications. Therefore, land use conditions would not change at
the PTN site. Also, there would be no land use changes along
transmission line corridors and no new transmission lines would be
required. The PTN Units 3 and 4 electric switchyard would be expanded
to accommodate new equipment, which will be expanded on previously
disturbed or already developed portions of the PTN site.
Since land use conditions would not change at the PTN site, and
because any land disturbance would occur within previously disturbed
areas, there would be little or no impact to aesthetic resources in the
vicinity of PTN Units 3 and 4. Therefore, there would be no significant
impact from EPU-related plant modifications on land use and aesthetic
resources in the vicinity of the PTN site.
Air Quality Impacts
Major air pollution emission sources at the PTN site are regulated
by the FDEP's Division of Air Resource Management under the Prevention
of Significant Deterioration program. Nonradioactive emission sources
at PTN Units 3 and 4 consist of four 2.5 MWe emergency generators, five
smaller emergency generators, and various general purpose generators
regulated under a Florida Title V Air Operating Permit. There will be
no changes to the emissions from these sources as a result of the EPU.
Some minor and short duration air quality impacts would occur
during implementation of the EPU at the PTN site. The main source of
air emissions would come from the vehicles driven by outage workers
needed to implement the EPU. However, air emissions from the EPU
workforce, truck deliveries, and construction/modification activities
would not be significantly greater than previous refueling outages at
the PTN site.
Upon completion of the proposed EPU, nonradioactive air pollutant
emissions would not increase. Therefore, there would be no significant
impact on air quality in the region during and following implementation
of the proposed EPU.
Water Use Impacts
Surface Water
The PTN Units 3 and 4 are located in the low-lying areas of coastal
Miami-Dade County on the western shore of Biscayne Bay. There are no
significant freshwater surface bodies outside of the PTN site (i.e.,
lakes, major rivers, or dams), but there is a network of canals, such
as the Everglades National Park-
[[Page 20062]]
South Dade Conveyance System, in addition to local drainage canals that
either control drainage from southeast Florida to Biscayne Bay or
provide freshwater to the Everglades National Park. The most
significant surface water body on the PTN site is the closed-cycle
cooling canal system (CCS), permitted by the State of Florida as an
industrial wastewater facility, used for the cooling of heated water
discharged from the main condensers and auxiliary systems of PTN Units
1 through 4.
The CCS covers approximately 5,900 ac (2,390 ha) of the PTN site
with a large system of north-south aligned 168 miles of interconnected
earthen canals to dissipate heat through surface evaporation. The
canals are a closed recirculating loop that serves as the ultimate heat
sink for PTN Units 3 and 4. The CCS is operated under an industrial
wastewater facility ``No Discharge'' National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the FDEP (NPDES permit number
FL0001562) for water discharges to an onsite closed-loop recirculation
cooling canal system. The seasonal temperature of the canal water
ranges from approximately 85 [deg]F to 105 [deg]F (29 [deg]C to 40
[deg]C) for heated water entering the CCS with cooled water returning
to the power plants at approximately 70 [deg]F to 90 [deg]F (21 [deg]C
to 32 [deg]C). Additionally, the CCS water is hyper-saline (twice the
salinity of Biscayne Bay) with seasonal variations ranging from
approximately 40 to 60 parts per thousand (ppt).
The CCS does not discharge directly to fresh or marine surface
waters. Makeup water to replace water lost due to evaporation comes
from used plant process water that has been treated, incident rainfall,
storm water runoff, and from infiltration and exchange of saline water
with local groundwater and Biscayne Bay. Because the PTN canals are
unlined, there is an exchange of water between the PTN canal system and
local groundwater and Biscayne Bay. An interceptor ditch is located
along the west side of the CCS. During the dry season, when the natural
groundwater gradient is from Biscayne Bay and Card Sound toward the
Everglades, water is pumped from the interceptor ditch to the CCS to
create an artificial groundwater gradient from the Everglades into the
ditch. This process is used to minimize the flow of hyper-saline water
from the CCS toward the Everglades. Maintenance of the CCS includes
mechanical removal of submerged, rooted marine plants on an approximate
3-year cycle and removal of terrestrial woody vegetation from the canal
berms on a 10-year cycle.
Each nuclear unit discharges approximately 5.35 billion British
Thermal Units (BTU) per hour of waste heat to the CCS. Under the
proposed EPU, the quantity of waste heat discharged by each nuclear
unit to the CCS would increase to approximately 6.10 billion BTU per
hour. This results in a net total increase of 1.5 billion BTU in waste
heat discharged by both nuclear units. The licensee calculated that the
maximum change in water temperature due to the proposed EPU would be
approximately 2.0 [deg]F to 2.5 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C to 1.4 [deg]C) for a
total maximum water temperature up to 108.6 [deg]F (42.6 [deg]C) for
water entering the CCS and a 0.9 [deg]F (0.5 [deg]C) increase with a
total maximum water temperature up to 92.8 [deg]F (33.8 [deg]C) for the
water returning to the power plants. The licensee calculated that the
higher water temperature will increase water losses from the CCS due to
evaporation resulting in a slight increase in salinity of approximately
2 to 3 ppt.
In accordance with the FDEP site certification process for the
proposed EPU, FPL must meet state imposed requirements contained in the
Conditions of Certification (CoC). The CoC was developed based on
interactions by FPL with the FDEP and other stakeholders, including
opportunities for public comment, during the FDEP site certification
process. The inclusion of stakeholders' recommendations into the CoC
formed the basis for FDEP recommending approval of the site
certification application for the proposed EPU. The CoC requires FPL to
have a program to monitor and assess the potential direct and indirect
impacts to ground and surface water from the proposed EPU. The
monitoring includes measuring water temperature and salinity in the CCS
and monitoring the American crocodile populations at the PTN site. The
monitoring plan expands FPL's monitoring of the CCS's ground and
surface water to include the land and water bodies surrounding the PTN
site such as Biscayne Bay.
The implementation of the CoC monitoring plan is an ongoing program
coordinated by FDEP. The results of the monitoring will be publicly
available via a South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) Web
site. If the proposed EPU is approved by the NRC, the CoC monitoring
plan would continue to assess the environmental impacts. The CoC allows
FDEP to impose additional measures if the monitoring data is
insufficient to adequately evaluate environmental changes, or if the
data indicates a significant degradation to aquatic resources by
exceeding State or County water quality standards, or the monitoring
plan is inconsistent with the goals and objectives of the Comprehensive
Everglades Restoration Plan Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project.
Additional measures could include enhanced monitoring, modeling, or
mitigation. Abatement actions provided in the CoC include: mitigation
measures to comply with State and local water quality standards, which
may include methods to reduce and mitigate salinity levels in
groundwater; operational changes to the PTN cooling canal system to
reduce environmental impacts; and other measures required by FDEP in
consultation with SFWMD and Miami-Dade County to reduce the
environmental impacts to acceptable levels.
The field data on surface water monitoring currently available are
being reviewed by FPL, FDEP, SFWMD, and stakeholders for the
development of a water budget model. The data and other documentation
show that there is indirect surface water communication between the CCS
and Biscayne Bay. Approving the proposed EPU license amendment is not
expected to cause significant impacts greater than current operations
because the monitoring plan will provide data for FPL and state
agencies to assess the effectiveness of current environmental controls
and additional limits and controls could be imposed if the impacts are
larger than expected. Therefore, there would be no significant impact
to surface water resources following implementation of the proposed
EPU.
Groundwater
Southeastern Miami/Dade County is underlain by two aquifer systems;
the unconfined Biscayne Aquifer and the Floridan Aquifer System (FAS).
The Biscayne Aquifer has been declared a sole-source aquifer by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Biscayne Aquifer
underlying the PTN site, however, contains saline to saltwater in this
area and is not usable as a potable water supply. The FAS underlies
approximately 100,000 square miles (258,000 km\2\) in southern Alabama,
southeastern Georgia, southern South Carolina, and all of Florida. The
FAS is a multiple-use aquifer system in that where it contains
freshwater, it is the principal source of water supply. Where the
aquifer contains saltwater, such as along the southeastern coast of
Florida, treated sewage and industrial wastes are injected into it.
[[Page 20063]]
Recharge of groundwater at the PTN site varies seasonally between
surface recharge during the rainy season and saline recharge from the
ocean during the dry season. As a result, there is a large seasonal
variation in the salinity of the groundwater near the surface at the
PTN site. However, below about 40 ft (12 meters (m)) into the Biscayne
aquifer, relatively high salinity (greater than 28 ppt) exists year
round. Florida classifies the groundwater in this area as G-III based
on its salinity. This classification is used to identify groundwater
that has no reasonable potential as a future source of drinking water
due to high total dissolved solids.
The current and proposed operations at the PTN site do not require
the withdrawal of groundwater. The potable water and general service
water supply at the PTN site are provided by Miami-Dade County public
water supply. This potable water comes from the Biscayne Aquifer, which
occurs at or close to the ground surface and extends to a depth of
about 70 ft (21 m) below the surface. The PTN Units 3 and 4 use
approximately 690 gallons per minute (2612 liters per minute (L/min))
of potable water. The licensee is not requesting an increase in water
supply under the proposed EPU. Therefore, no significant impacts to
offsite users of the Miami-Dade public water supply are expected.
As discussed in the surface water impacts section, the FPL's
implementation of the CoC monitoring plan is ongoing and consists of an
integrated system of surface, groundwater, vadose zone, and ecologic
sampling. Fourteen groundwater monitoring well clusters at selected
sites have been constructed in accordance with the monitoring plan and
an associated quality assurance plan. The field data collected prior to
implementation of the proposed EPU will be used to characterize
existing environmental conditions from current PTN operations. The CoC
allows the FDEP to require additional measures if the pre- and post-EPU
monitoring data are insufficient to evaluate changes as a result of the
EPU. If the data indicate an adverse impact, additional measures,
including enhanced monitoring, modeling or mitigation, would likely be
required to evaluate or to abate such impacts.
Abatement actions provided in the CoC include: (1) Mitigation
measures to offset such impacts of the proposed EPU necessary to comply
with State and local water quality standards; (2) operational changes
in the cooling canal system to reduce impacts; and (3) other measures
to abate impacts specified a revised CoC approved by the FDEP after
consultation with SFWMD and Miami-Dade County.
Approving the proposed EPU license amendment is not expected to
cause significant impacts greater than current operations because the
monitoring plan will provide data for FPL and state agencies to assess
the effectiveness of current environmental controls and additional
limits and controls could be imposed if the impacts are larger than
expected. Therefore, there would be no significant impact to the
groundwater following implementation of the proposed EPU.
Aquatic Resources Impacts
The discharges of chemicals and heated wastewater from PTN Units 3
and 4 have the potential to impact aquatic biota from the proposed EPU.
Biscayne Bay and Card Sound are shallow, subtropical marine waters
located between the mainland and a grouping of barrier islands that
form the northernmost Florida Keys. These waters contain a variety of
marine life, including seagrass, sponges, mollusks, crustaceans, fish,
sea turtles, and marine mammals. The portion of Biscayne Bay adjacent
to Turkey Point is part of Biscayne National Park, which includes the
mainland shore, the bay, the keys, and offshore coral reefs. The
Intracoastal Waterway traverses Biscayne Bay and Card Sound, and a
barge passage runs from the Intracoastal Waterway to the fossil-fueled
facility at the PTN site. Biscayne Bay and Card Sound would be
unaffected by the proposed EPU because FPL does not withdraw or
discharge to any natural water body.
Turkey Point's cooling system receives heated water discharged from
the two reactors as well as from the two fossil fueled electric
generating stations. The cooling system spans about 5,900 ac (2,400 ha)
spread out over a 5 mi by 2 mi (8 km by 3.2 km) area of the site. The
heated water is discharged into a series of 32 feeder channels that
dissipate the heat. The feeder channels merge into a single collector
canal that returns the cooled water to the plants through a main return
canal and six return channels.
Under EPU conditions, the cooling canal system would increase in
both temperature and salinity. The licensee predicts that discharged
water would increase a maximum of an additional 2.5 [deg]F (1.4
[deg]C), which would increase the change in temperature as water passes
through the condensers from 16.8 [deg]F to 18.8 [deg]F (9.3 to 10.4
[deg]C). Because condenser cooling water discharges at the northeastern
corner of the cooling canal system flows west, and then south, the
system exhibits a north-south temperature gradient. Therefore, while
the northeast portion of the system may increase by 2.0 [deg]F to 2.5
[deg]F (1.1 [deg]C to 1.4 [deg]C) under EPU conditions, the temperature
increase attributable to the EPU would decrease as water moves south
through the system. The increased discharge temperatures will cause
additional evaporative losses to the cooling canal system. The Florida
Department of Environmental Protection predicted that an additional 2
to 3 million gallons per day (7,600 to 11,000 cubic meters per day)
will be lost to evaporation under EPU conditions. The increased
evaporation would, in turn, increase the cooling canal's salinity of 40
to 60 ppt by 2 to 3 ppt. Due to the north-south temperature gradient,
evaporative losses would be greater in the northern portion of the
canal system, and thus, salinity will also demonstrate a north-south
gradient.
The cooling canal system supports a variety of aquatic species
typical of shallow, subtropical, hyper-saline environments, including
phytoplankton, zooplankton, marine algae, rooted plants, crabs, and
estuarine fish. The most abundant fish in the cooling canal system is
killifish (Family Cyprinidontidae). The aquatic species found within
the cooling canal system are subtropical or tropical and readily adapt
to hyper saline environments. The aquatic populations within the
cooling canal system do not contribute any commercial or recreational
value because the cooling canal system is owner-controlled and closed
to the public.
Because aquatic organisms in the cooling canal system are unable to
travel to or from Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, or any other natural water
body, changes to the conditions within the cooling canal system would
not affect any aquatic species' populations in the natural aquatic
habitats. Therefore, the staff concludes that there would be no
significant impacts to aquatic resources as a result of the proposed
EPU.
Terrestrial Resources Impacts
The PTN site is situated on low, swampy land that was previously
mangrove-covered tidal flats. Mangrove swamps extend inland
approximately 3 to 4 mi (5 to 6.5 km), and undeveloped portions of the
site remain under 1 to 3 inches (2 to 8 centimeters) of water, even
during low tide. Of the 24,000-ac (9,700-ha) site, approximately
11,000-ac is developed for PTN Units 3 and 4, the cooling canal system,
and three FPL-owned fossil fuel units.
The impacts that could potentially affect terrestrial resources
include loss
[[Page 20064]]
of habitat, construction and refurbishment-related noise and lighting
and sediment transport or erosion. Because all activities associated
with the EPU would occur on the developed portion of the site, the
proposed EPU would not directly affect any natural terrestrial habitats
and would not result in loss of habitat. Noise and lighting would not
impact terrestrial species beyond what would be experienced during
normal operations because refurbishment and construction activities
would take place during outage periods, which are already periods of
heightened activity. Sediment transport and erosion is not a concern
because activity would only take place on previously developed land and
best management practices would ensure that no loose sediment is
transported to wetland areas, tidal flats, or waterways. The staff
concludes that the proposed EPU would have no significant effect on
terrestrial resources.
Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts
Under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(ESA), Federal agencies, in consultation with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (as
appropriate), must ensure that actions the agency authorizes, funds, or
carries out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any
listed species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of
critical habitat.
In order to fulfill its duties under section 7 of the ESA, the NRC
prepared and submitted a biological assessment to the FWS on September
9, 2011, in order to determine the potential effects of the proposed
EPU on Federally listed species. The following Table identifies the
species that the NRC considered in its biological assessment.
Table of Federally Listed Species Occurring in Miami-Dade County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA status
Scientific name Common name \(a)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic Invertebrates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acropora cervicornis........... staghorn coral......... PT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acropora palmate............... elkhorn coral.......... PT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis. Cape Sable seaside E
sparrow.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charadrius melodus............. piping plover.......... T
Dendroica kirtlandii........... Kirtland's warbler E
\(b)\.
Mycteria americana............. wood stork............. E
Polyborus plancus audubonii.... Audubon's crested T
caracara \(b)\.
Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus. Everglade snail kite... E
Vermivora bachmanii............ Bachman's warbler \(b)\ E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pristis pectinata.............. smalltooth sawfish..... E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amorpha crenulata.............. crenulate lead-plant... E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoid spurge......... E
Deltoidea.
Chamaesyce garberi............. Garber's spurge........ T
Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobee gourd \(b)\. E
Okeechobeensis.
Galactia smallii............... Small's milkpea........ E
Halophia johnsonii............. Johnson's sea grass.... T
Jacquemontia reclinata......... beach jacquemontia..... E
Polygala smallii............... tiny polygala.......... E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heraclides aristodemus schaus swallowtail E
ponceanus. butterfly.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Puma concolor.................. mountain lion\(b)\..... T/SA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Felis concolor coryi........... Florida panther........ E
Trichechus manatus............. West Indian manatee.... E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reptiles
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alligator mississippiensis..... American alligator..... T/SA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caretta caretta................ loggerhead sea turtle.. T
Chelonia mydas................. green sea turtle....... E
Crocodylus acutus.............. American crocodile..... T
Dermochelys coriacea........... leatherback sea turtle. E
Drymarchon corais couperi...... eastern indigo snake... T
[[Page 20065]]
Eretmochelys imbricata......... hawksbill sea turtle... E
Lepidochelys kempii............ Kemp's ridley sea E
turtle \(c)\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snails
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orthalicus reses............... Stock Island tree snail T
\(b)\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(a)\ E = endangered; PT = proposed threaten; T = threatened; T/SA =
threatened due to similarity of appearance.
\(b)\ Species not previously considered in 2001 biological assessment
for Turkey Point.
\(c)\ The Kemp's ridley is not listed by the FWS as occurring in Miami-
Dade County. However, the species occurs in the neighboring Monroe
County and FPL has reported the species' occurrence in Biscayne Bay
and Card Sound.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
In the biological assessment, the NRC concluded that the proposed
EPU may adversely affect the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus).
The NRC concluded that the proposed EPU would not adversely affect the
remaining 30 species listed in the Table above. The NRC also concluded
that the proposed EPU may adversely modify the cooling canal system,
which is designated as a critical habitat for the American crocodile.
The FWS responded to NRC's biological assessment on October 25,
2011. In their letter, the FWS concluded that the proposed EPU may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the American crocodile.
The FWS also noted that the proposed EPU is unlikely to result in
modification to designated American crocodile critical habitat. This
letter fulfilled the NRC's requirements under Section 7 of the ESA.
Based on the FWS's conclusions, the NRC concludes that the proposed
EPU would not significantly impact threatened or endangered species.
Historic and Archaeological Resources Impacts
As reported in the SEIS-5, the NRC reviewed historic and
archaeological site files at the Florida Department of State, Division
of Historical Resources; the National Park Service Southeast
Archaeological Center; and at Biscayne National Park; and confirmed
that no historic or archaeological and historic architectural sites
have been recorded on the PTN site. As previously discussed, EPU-
related plant modifications would take place within existing buildings
and facilities at PTN, except for the expansion of the switchyard on
previously disturbed land. Since ground disturbance or construction-
related activities would not occur outside of previously disturbed
areas, there would be no significant impact from the proposed EPU on
historic and archaeological resources in the vicinity of PTN Units 3
and 4 and the switchyard.
Socioeconomic Impacts
Potential socioeconomic impacts from the proposed EPU include
increased demand for short-term housing, public services, and increased
traffic in the region due to the temporary increase in the number of
workers at the PTN site required to implement the EPU. The proposed EPU
could also increase tax payments due to increased power generation.
Approximately 800 people are employed at PTN Units 3 and 4 on a
full-time basis with increases of approximately 600-900 during periodic
refueling outages. These workers reside primarily in Miami-Dade County,
Florida. The licensee estimates that it will need approximately 2500
workers for implementation of the EPU resulting in a potential maximum
outage/EPU workforce of approximately 3400 during each of the EPU
outages. The licensee estimates that the outages to implement the EPU
will last approximately 160 days for Unit 3 and 130 days for Unit 4. As
previously discussed, EPU-related modifications would take place during
the spring and fall 2012 refueling outages for Units 3 and 4,
respectively. Once EPU-related plant modifications have been completed,
the size of the refueling outage workforce would return to normal
levels, with no significant increases expected during future refueling
outages. The size of the regular plant workforce is not expected to be
affected by the proposed EPU.
Most of the EPU-related plant modification workers would be
expected to relocate temporarily to Miami-Dade County, resulting in
short-term increases in the local population along with increased
demands for public services and housing. Because plant modification
work would be short-term and up to half a year, most workers would stay
in available rental homes, apartments, mobile homes, and camper-
trailers. According to the 2010 census housing data, there were
approximately 122,000 vacant housing units in Miami-Dade County
available to meet the demand for rental housing. Additionally, there
are over 200,000 available public lodging accommodations in Miami-Dade
County. Therefore, a temporary increase in plant employment for this
duration would have little or no noticeable effect on the availability
of housing and public services in the region.
The principal road access to the PTN site is via East Palm Drive
(SW 344 Street). East Palm Drive is a two-lane road for approximately
half of its length from the PTN plant to Florida City, where it
intersects with U.S. Highway 1 approximately 14 km (9 miles) from the
PTN site. Increased traffic volumes during normal refueling outages
typically have not degraded the level of service capacity on local
roads. The FPL evaluation asserts that the projected traffic will
remain well within the Miami-Dade County peak hour capacity. Therefore,
the roadways used by plant workers and the public are expected to
operate at an acceptable level of service as designated by Miami-Dade
County. However, the additional number of workers and truck material
and equipment deliveries needed to support EPU-related plant
modifications could cause short-term level of service impacts on access
roads in the immediate vicinity of PTN. During periods of high traffic
volume (i.e., morning and afternoon shift changes), work schedules
could be staggered and employees and/or local police officials could be
used to direct traffic entering and leaving the PTN site to minimize
level of service impacts on SW 334th Street (East Palm Drive).
Tangible personal property (principally business equipment) and
real property (namely land and permanent buildings) are subject to
property tax in Florida as administered by the local government. For
2007, FPL
[[Page 20066]]
paid approximately $6.9 million to Miami-Dade County and the Miami-Dade
school district in real property taxes for PTN Units 3 and 4. Future
property tax payments could take into account the increased value of
PTN Units 3 and 4 as a result of the EPU and increased power
generation.
Due to the short duration of EPU-related plant modification
activities, there would be little or no noticeable effect on tax
revenues generated by temporary workers residing in Miami-Dade County.
Therefore, there would be no significant adverse socioeconomic impacts
from EPU-related plant modifications and operations under EPU
conditions in the vicinity of the PTN site.
Environmental Justice Impacts
The environmental justice impact analysis evaluates the potential
for disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
effects on minority and low-income populations that could result from
activities associated with the proposed EPU at the PTN site. Such
effects may include human health, biological, cultural, economic, or
social impacts. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the
general public residing in the vicinity of the PTN site, and all are
exposed to the same health and environmental effects generated from
activities at PTN Units 3 and 4.
The NRC considered the demographic composition of the area within a
50-mi (80-km) radius of the PTN site to determine the location of
minority and low-income populations and whether they may be affected by
the proposed action.
Minority populations in the vicinity of the PTN site, according to
the U.S. Census Bureau data for 2000, comprise approximately 70 percent
of the population (approximately 2,170,000 individuals) residing within
a 50-mile (80-kilometer) radius of the PTN site. The largest minority
group was Hispanic or Latino (approximately 1,465,000 persons or 47
percent), followed by Black or African Americans (approximately 670,000
persons or about 22 percent).
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, about 83 percent of the Miami-
Dade County population identified themselves as minorities, with
persons of Hispanic or Latino origin comprising the largest minority
group (63 percent). According to 2009 American Community Survey census
data 1-year estimate, as a percent of total population, the minority
population of Miami-Dade County increased approximately one percent,
with persons of Hispanic or Latino origin comprising the largest
minority group (82 percent) in 2009.
According to 2000 census data, low-income populations comprised
approximately 98,000 families and 488,000 individuals (approximately 13
and 16 percent, respectively) residing within a 50-mi (80-km) radius of
the PTN site.
The 2009 Federal poverty threshold was $22,490 for a family of four
with one related child under 18 years. According to census data in the
2009 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimate, the median household
income for Florida was $53,500, with 11 percent of families and 15
percent of individuals determined to be living below the Federal
poverty threshold. Miami-Dade County had a lower median household
income average ($42,000) than the State of Florida and also had higher
percentages of county families (14 percent) and individuals (18
percent), respectively, living below the poverty level.
Environmental Justice Impact Analysis
Potential impacts to minority and low-income populations would
mostly consist of environmental and socioeconomic effects (e.g., noise,
dust, traffic, employment, and housing impacts). Radiation doses from
plant operations after the EPU are expected to continue to remain below
regulatory limits.
Noise and dust impacts would be short-term and limited to onsite
activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site
access and the primary commuter roads through Florida City, Florida
(e.g., U.S. Highway 1 and East Palm Drive) could experience increased
commuter vehicle traffic during shift changes. Increased demand for
rental housing during EPU-related plant modifications could
disproportionately affect low-income populations. However, due to the
short duration of the EPU-related work and the availability of rental
housing, impacts to minority and low-income populations would be short-
term and limited. According to 2010 census information, there were
approximately 122,000 vacant housing units in Miami-Dade County and
approximately 20,000 vacant housing units in Monroe County.
Based on this information and the analysis of human health and
environmental impacts presented in this environmental assessment, the
proposed EPU would not have disproportionately high and adverse human
health and environmental effects on minority and low-income populations
residing in the vicinity of the PTN site.
Nonradiological Cumulative Impacts
The NRC considered potential cumulative impacts on the environment
resulting from the incremental impact of the proposed EPU when added to
other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. For the
purposes of this analysis, past actions are related to the construction
and licensing of PTN Units 3 and 4, present actions are related to
current operations, and future actions are those that are reasonably
foreseeable through the end of station operations including operations
under the EPU.
The application to build two new nuclear units at the PTN site is
considered a reasonably foreseeable future action that is considered in
this review. A COL application was submitted by FPL to the NRC in June
2009, for the construction and operation of two Westinghouse AP1000
units at the PTN site along with the construction of transmission
corridors. It is expected, however, that the proposed EPU, if approved,
would be completed prior to the construction of the new units. Thus,
the cumulative impacts briefly discussed in this section consider PTN
Units 3 and 4 operations (under the EPU) combined with the
environmental impacts from the proposed construction and operation of
PTN Units 6 and 7.
It is important to note that submitting the COL application does
not commit FPL to build two new nuclear units, and does not constitute
approval of the proposal by the NRC. The COL application will be
evaluated on its merits and after considering and evaluating the
environmental and safety implications of the proposal, the NRC will
decide whether to approve or deny the licenses. Environmental impacts
of constructing and operating PTN Units 6 and 7 will depend on their
actual design characteristics, construction practices, and power plant
operations. These impacts will be assessed by the NRC in a separate
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document. The cumulative
impacts presented in this EA may differ from those impacts assessed for
the COL.
For some resource areas (e.g., air quality, water, aquatic,
terrestrial resources, and threatened and endangered species), the
contributory effect of ongoing actions within a region are regulated
and monitored through a permitting process (e.g., NPDES and 401/404
permits under the Clean Water Act) under State or Federal authority. In
these cases, impacts are managed as long as these actions are in
compliance with their respective permits and conditions of
certification.
[[Page 20067]]
Units 6 and 7 of the PTN site would be constructed on undeveloped
land immediately south of PTN Units 3 and 4. The EPU modifications to
PTN Units 3 and 4 are expected to be completed before the proposed PTN
Units 6 and 7 are constructed.
Units 6 and 7 of the PTN site would have a closed-cycle cooling
system utilizing cooling towers with makeup water from Biscayne Bay and
treated wastewater from Miami-Dade County. Waste water discharges are
expected to be disposed of by deep well injection. Impacts to water
resources for PTN Units 3 and 4 and PTN Units 6 and 7 would occur
separately, and any potential cumulative impacts would not be
significantly greater than current operations.
Units 6 and 7of the PTN site transmission lines, and related
infrastructure improvements would be constructed and operated according
to Federal and State regulations, permit conditions, existing
procedures, and established best management practices. Nevertheless,
wildlife may be destroyed or displaced during land clearing for PTN
Units 6 and 7. Less mobile animals, such as reptiles, amphibians, and
small mammals, would incur greater mortality than more mobile animals,
such as birds. Although undisturbed habitat would be available for
displaced animals during construction, increased competition for
available habitat may result in local population stresses. As
construction activities end, habitats could be restored either
naturally or through mitigation activities.
Terrestrial species and habitat could be affected by PTN Units 6
and 7 cooling system operations. As described in the Environmental
Report for the new units, the primary source of makeup water would be
treated waste water from the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department. If
not enough reclaimed water is available to meet the needs of PTN Units
6 and 7, then seawater would be withdrawn from under Biscayne Bay via
radial collector wells. Because of this situation, the operation of
mechanical draft cooling towers can result in salt deposition (i.e.,
salt drift); a greater risk of avian collision mortality; and noise.
Land needed for the proposed PTN Units 6 and 7 has been surveyed
for historical and archaeological sites. The survey identified no new
or previously recorded historic or archaeological resources within or
adjacent to the proposed site.
Socioeconomic impacts from the construction and operation of PTN
Units 6 and 7 would occur several years after the EPU. The large
construction and operation workforces combined with ongoing operation
of PTN Units 3 and 4 under the EPU would have a noticeable effect on
socioeconomic conditions in local communities from the increased demand
for temporary and permanent housing, public services (e.g., public
schools), and increased traffic.
Nonradiological Impacts Summary
As discussed above, the proposed EPU would not result in any
significant nonradiological impacts. Table 1 summarizes the
nonradiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at PTN Units
3 and 4.
Table 1--Summary of Nonradiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use.......................................... The proposed EPU is
not expected to
cause a significant
impact on land use
conditions and
aesthetic resources
in the vicinity of
the PTN.
Air Quality....................................... The proposed EPU is
not expected to
cause a significant
impact to air
quality.
Water Use......................................... The proposed EPU is
not expected to
cause impacts
significantly
greater than
current operations.
No significant
impact on
groundwater or
surface water
resources.
Aquatic Resources................................. The proposed EPU is
not expected to
cause impacts
significantly
greater than
current operations.
No significant
impact to aquatic
resources due to
chemical or thermal
discharges.
Terrestrial Resources............................. The proposed EPU is
not expected to
cause impacts
significantly
greater than
current operations.
No significant
impact to
terrestrial
resources.
Threatened and Endangered Species................. The proposed EPU
would not cause
impacts
significantly
greater than
current operations.
No significant
impact to federally-
listed species.
Historic and Archaeological Resources............. No significant
impact to historic
and archaeological
resources on site
or in the vicinity
of the PTN.
Socioeconomics.................................... No significant
socioeconomic
impacts from EPU-
related temporary
increase in
workforce.
Environmental Justice............................. No
disproportionately
high and adverse
human health and
environmental
effects on minority
and low-income
populations in the
vicinity of the PTN
site.
Cumulative Impacts................................ The proposed EPU
would not cause
impacts
significantly
greater than
current operations.
To address
potential
cumulative impacts
for water and
ecological
resources, a
monitoring plan for
the PTN site has
been implemented.
The State of
Florida has
authority to impose
limits on
nonradiological
discharges to abate
any significant
hydrology and
ecology impacts.
The NRC staff has
not identified any
significant
cumulative impacts
associated with
construction and
operation of Units
6 and 7; however,
the NRC will
prepare a separate
Environmental
Impact Statement
documenting the
potential impacts
associated with the
construction and
operation of Units
6 and 7.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radiological Impacts
Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents and Solid Waste
The PTN uses waste treatment systems to collect, process, recycle,
and dispose of gaseous, liquid, and solid wastes that contain
radioactive material in a safe and controlled manner within NRC and EPA
radiation safety standards. The licensee's evaluation of plant
operation at the proposed EPU conditions shows that no physical changes
would be needed to the radioactive gaseous, liquid, or solid waste
systems.
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents
The gaseous waste management systems include the radioactive
gaseous system, which manages radioactive gases generated during the
nuclear fission process. Radioactive gaseous wastes are principally
activation gases and fission product radioactive noble gases resulting
from process operations, including continuous degasification of
systems, gases collected during system venting, gases used for tank
cover gas, and gases generated in the radiochemistry laboratory. The
licensee's evaluation determined that implementation of the proposed
EPU would not significantly increase the inventory of carrier gases
normally processed in the gaseous waste management system, since plant
system functions are not changing and the volume inputs remain the
same. The analysis also showed that the proposed
[[Page 20068]]
EPU would result in an increase in the equilibrium radioactivity in the
reactor coolant, which in turn increases the radioactivity in the waste
disposal systems and radioactive gases released from the plant. The
bounding increases in effluent releases estimated by the licensee from
the proposed EPU are 17.1 percent for noble gases, 17.6 percent for
gaseous radionuclides with short half-lives, and 15.3 percent for
tritium while a higher secondary side moisture carryover could result
in a bounding increase of 25.3 percent in iodine releases.
The licensee's evaluation concluded that the proposed EPU would not
change the radioactive gaseous waste system's design function and
reliability to safely control and process the waste. The projected
gaseous release following EPU would remain bounded by the values given
in the FES for PTN Units 3 and 4. The existing equipment and plant
procedures that control radioactive releases to the environment will
continue to be used to maintain radioactive gaseous releases within the
dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302 and the as low as is reasonably
achievable (ALARA) dose objectives in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents
The liquid waste management system collects, processes, and
prepares radioactive liquid waste for disposal. Radioactive liquid
wastes include liquids from various equipment drains, floor drains, the
chemical and volume control system, steam generator blowdown, chemistry
laboratory drains, laundry drains, decontamination area drains and
liquids used to transfer solid radioactive waste. The licensee's
evaluation shows that the proposed EPU implementation would not
significantly increase the inventory of liquid normally processed by
the liquid waste management system. This is because the system
functions are not changing and the volume inputs remain the same. The
proposed EPU would result in a 15.3-percent increase in the equilibrium
radioactivity in the reactor coolant which in turn would impact the
concentrations of radioactive nuclides in the waste disposal systems.
Since the composition of the radioactive material in the waste and
the volume of radioactive material processed through the system are not
expected to significantly change, the current design and operation of
the radioactive liquid waste system will accommodate the effects of the
proposed EPU. The projected liquid effluent release following EPU would
remain bounded by the values given in the FES for PTN Units 3 and 4.
The existing equipment and plant procedures that control radioactive
releases to the environment will continue to be used to maintain
radioactive liquid releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302
and ALARA dose standards in Appendix I to 10 CFR Part 50.
Radioactive Solid Wastes
Radioactive solid wastes include solids recovered from the reactor
coolant systems, solids that come into contact with the radioactive
liquids or gases, and solids used in the reactor coolant system
operation. The licensee evaluated the potential effects of the proposed
EPU on the solid waste management system. The largest volume of
radioactive solid waste is low-level radioactive waste (LLRW), which
includes sludge, oily waste, bead resin, spent filters, and dry active
waste that result from routine plant operation, refueling outages, and
routine maintenance. Dry active waste includes paper, plastic, wood,
rubber, glass, floor sweepings, cloth, metal, and other types of waste
generated during routine maintenance and outages.
The licensee manages LLRW contractually and continues to ship Class
A, B, and C LLRW offsite for processing and disposal. EnergySolutions,
Inc. (with a Class A disposal facility located in Clive, Utah) is
currently under contract with FPL for the processing and disposal of
Class A LLRW. Studsvik, Inc., is under contract with FPL for
processing, storage, and disposal of Class B and C LLRW.
As stated by the licensee, the proposed EPU would not have a
significant effect on the generation of radioactive solid waste volume
from the primary reactor coolant and secondary side systems since the
systems functions are not changing and the volume inputs remain
consistent with historical generation rates. The waste can be handled
by the solid waste management system without modification. The
equipment is designed and operated to process the waste into a form
that minimizes potential harm to the workers and the environment. Waste
processing areas are monitored for radiation and there are safety
features to ensure worker doses are maintained within regulatory
limits. The proposed EPU would not generate a new type of waste or
create a new waste stream. Therefore, the impact from the proposed EPU
on the management of radioactive solid waste would not be significant.
Occupational Radiation Dose at EPU Conditions
The licensee stated that the in-plant radiation sources are
expected to increase approximately linearly with the proposed increase
in core power level. To protect the workers, the licensee's radiation
protection program monitors radiation levels throughout the plant to
establish appropriate work controls, training, temporary shielding, and
protective equipment requirements so that worker doses will remain
within the dose limits of 10 CFR Part 20 and ALARA.
In addition to the work controls implemented by the radiation
protection program, permanent and temporary shielding is used
throughout PTN Units 3 and 4 to protect plant personnel against
radiation from the reactor and auxiliary systems containing radioactive
material. The licensee determined that the current shielding design is
adequate to offset the increased radiation levels that are expected to
occur from the proposed EPU since:
Conservative analytical techniques were used to establish
the shielding requirements,
Conservatism in the original design basis reactor coolant
source terms used to establish the radiation zones, and
Plant Technical Specification 3.4.8, which limits the
reactor coolant concentrations to levels significantly below the
original design basis source terms.
Based on the above, the staff concludes that the proposed EPU is
not expected to significantly affect radiation levels within the plants
and, therefore, there would not be a significant radiological impact to
the workers.
Offsite Doses at EPU Conditions
The primary sources of offsite dose to members of the public from
PTN Units 3 and 4 are radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents. The
contribution of radiation shine from plant buildings and stored
radioactive solid waste was evaluated by the licensee and found to be
negligible. As previously discussed, operation at the proposed EPU
conditions will not change the radioactive waste management systems'
abilities to perform their intended functions. Also, there would be no
change to the radiation monitoring system and procedures used to
control the release of radioactive effluents in accordance with NRC
radiation protection standards in 10 CFR Part 20 and Appendix I to 10
CFR Part 50.
Based on the above, the offsite radiation dose to members of the
public would continue to be within NRC and
[[Page 20069]]
EPA regulatory limits and, therefore, would not be significant.
Spent Nuclear Fuel
Spent fuel from PTN Units 3 and 4 is stored in the plant's spent
fuel pool and in dry casks in the Independent Spent Fuel Storage
Installation. The PTN Units 3 and 4 are licensed to use uranium-dioxide
fuel that has a maximum enrichment of 4.5 percent by weight uranium-
235. Approval of the proposed EPU would increase the maximum fuel
enrichment to 5 percent by weight uranium-235. The average fuel
assembly discharge burnup for the proposed EPU is expected to be
approximately 52,000 megawatt days per metric ton uranium (MWd/MTU)
with no fuel pins exceeding the maximum fuel rod burnup limit of 62,000
MWd/MTU. The licensee's fuel reload design goals will maintain the fuel
cycles within the limits bounded by the impacts analyzed in 10 CFR Part
51, Table S-3--Table of Uranium Fuel Cycle Environmental Data, and
Table S-4--Environmental Impact of Transportation of Fuel and Waste to
and from One Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor, as supplemented
by NUREG-1437, Volume 1, Addendum1, ``Generic Environmental Impact
Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Main Report, Section
6.3--Transportation Table 9.1, Summary of findings on NEPA issues for
license renewal of nuclear power plants.'' Therefore, there would be no
significant impacts resulting from spent nuclear fuel.
Postulated Design-Basis Accident Doses
Postulated design-basis accidents are evaluated by both the
licensee and the NRC to ensure that PTN Units 3 and 4 can withstand
normal and abnormal transients and a broad spectrum of postulated
accidents without undue hazard to the health and safety of the public.
On June 25, 2009, the licensee submitted license amendment request
(LAR) number 196 (LAR 196), Alternative Source Term to the NRC, to
update its design-basis accident analysis. In LAR 196, the licensee
requested NRC approval to use a set of revised radiological consequence
analyses using the guidance in NRC's Regulatory Guide 1.183,
Alternative Radiological Source Terms (AST) for Evaluating Design Basis
Accidents at Nuclear Power Reactors. On June 25, 2010, the licensee
submitted a supplement to LAR 196 to revise the radiological dose
consequence analyses. The analyses for LAR 196 are applicable for the
power level in the proposed EPU. The NRC evaluated the proposed changes
in LAR 196 separately from the EPU.
In LAR 196, the licensee reviewed the various design-basis accident
(DBA) analyses performed in support of the proposed EPU for their
potential radiological consequences and concluded that the analyses
adequately account for the effects of the proposed EPU. The licensee
states that the results of the revised AST analysis were found to be
acceptable with respect to the radiological consequences of postulated
DBAs, since the calculated doses meet the exposure guideline values
specified in 10 CFR 50.67 and General Design Criteria 19 in Appendix A
of 10 CFR Part 50.
The results of the NRC's evaluation and conclusion approving the
proposed changes submitted in LAR 196 are documented in a Safety
Evaluation related to Amendment Nos. 244 and 240 for PTN Units 3 and 4,
respectively (ADAMS Accession No. ML110800666)
Radiological Cumulative Impacts
The radiological dose limits for protection of the public and
workers have been developed by the NRC and EPA to address the
cumulative impact of acute and long-term exposure to radiation and
radioactive material. These dose limits are specified in 10 CFR Part 20
and 40 CFR Part 190.
The cumulative radiation dose to the public and workers are
required to be within the regulations cited above. The public dose
limit of 25 millirem (0.25 millisieverts) in 40 CFR Part 190 applies to
all reactors that may be on a site and also includes any other nearby
nuclear power reactor facilities. There is no other nuclear power
reactor or uranium fuel cycle facility located near PTN Units 3 and 4.
The NRC staff reviewed several years of radiation dose data contained
in the licensee's annual radioactive effluent release reports for PTN
Units 3 and 4. The data demonstrate that the dose to members of the
public from radioactive effluents is within the limits of 10 CFR Part
20 and 40 CFR Part 190. To evaluate the projected dose at EPU
conditions for PTN Units 3 and 4, the NRC staff increased the actual
dose data contained in the reports by 15 percent. The projected doses
at EPU conditions remained within regulatory limits. Therefore, the NRC
staff concludes that there would not be a significant cumulative
radiological impact to members of the public from increased radioactive
effluents from PTN Units 3 and 4 at the proposed EPU operation.
A COL application was submitted in June 2009 to the NRC to
construct and operate two new AP1000 reactor plants on the PTN site
designated as Units 6 and 7. The FPL radiological assessment of the
radiation doses to members of the public from the proposed two new
reactors concluded that the doses would be within regulatory limits.
The staff expects continued compliance with regulatory dose limits
during PTN Units 3 and 4 operations at the proposed EPU power level.
Therefore, the staff concludes that the cumulative radiological impacts
to members of the public from increased radioactive effluents from the
combined operations of PTN Units 3 and 4 at EPU conditions and the
proposed two new reactors would not be significant.
As previously discussed, the licensee has a radiation protection
program that maintains worker doses within the dose limits in 10 CFR
Part 20 during all phases of PTN Units 3 and 4 operations. The NRC
staff expects continued compliance with NRC's occupational dose limits
during operation at the proposed EPU power level. Therefore, the staff
concludes that operation of PTN Units 3 and 4 at the proposed EPU
levels would not result in a significant impact to the worker's
cumulative radiological dose.
Radiological Impacts Summary
As discussed above, the proposed EPU would not result in any
significant radiological impacts. Table 2 summarizes the radiological
environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at PTN Units 3 and 4.
Table 2--Summary of Radiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents..................... Amount of additional
radioactive gaseous
effluents generated
would be handled by
the existing
system.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents...................... Amount of additional
radioactive liquid
effluents generated
would be handled by
the existing
system.
Occupational Radiation Doses...................... Occupational doses
would continue to
be maintained
within NRC limits.
Offsite Radiation Doses........................... Radiation doses to
members of the
public would remain
below NRC and EPA
radiation
protection
standards.
[[Page 20070]]
Radioactive Solid Waste........................... Amount of additional
radioactive solid
waste generated
would be handled by
the existing
system.
Spent Nuclear Fuel................................ The spent fuel
characteristics
will remain within
the bounding
criteria used in
the impact analysis
in 10 CFR Part 51,
Table S-3 and Table
S-4.
Postulated Design-Basis Accident Doses............ Calculated doses for
postulated design-
basis accidents
would remain within
NRC limits.
Cumulative Radiological........................... Radiation doses to
the public and
plant workers would
remain below NRC
and EPA radiation
protection
standards.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff considered
denial of the proposed EPU (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in the current
environmental impacts. However, if the EPU were not approved for PTN
Units 3 and 4, other agencies and electric power organizations may be
required to pursue other means, such as fossil fuel or alternative fuel
power generation, to provide electric generation capacity to offset
future demand. Construction and operation of such a fossil-fueled or
alternative-fueled plant could result in impacts in air quality, land
use, and waste management greater than those identified for the
proposed EPU for PTN Units 3 and 4. Furthermore, the proposed EPU does
not involve environmental impacts that are significantly different from
those originally identified in the PTN Unit 3 or Unit 4 FES, and NUREG-
1437, SEIS-5.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the PTN Unit 3 or Unit 4 FES.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
In accordance with its stated policy, the NRC staff consulted with
the FDEP, SFWMD, Miami-Dade County, BNP, and FWCC regarding the
environmental impact of the proposed action and specifically regarding
the monitoring and mitigation plan that formed the basis of the Florida
agencies recommending approval to the FDEP for the proposed EPU subject
to the CoC during the State of Florida site certification process.
III. Finding of No Significant Impact
On the basis of the details provided in the EA, the NRC concludes
that granting the proposed EPU license amendment is not expected to
cause impacts significantly greater than current operations. Therefore,
the proposed action of implementing the EPU for PTN Units 3 and 4 will
not have a significant effect on the quality of the human environment
because no significant permanent changes are involved and the temporary
impacts are within previously disturbed areas at the site and the
capacity of the plant systems. Accordingly, the NRC has determined it
is not necessary to prepare an environmental impact statement for the
proposed action.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of March 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jason C. Paige,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 2-2, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-7947 Filed 4-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
