[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 182 (Wednesday, September 18, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49176-49178]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23906]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Docket Nos. 50-250 AND 50-251]


Florida Power and Light Company, Turkey Point Unit 3 and Unit 4; 
Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) is 
considering issuance of an amendment to Facility Operating License Nos. 
DPR-31 and DPR-41, issued to Florida Power and Light Company (the 
licensee or FPL), for operation of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 (TP), 
respectively, located in Dade County, Florida.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would allow the licensee to increase allowed 
core power level from 2200 Megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2300 MWt which is 
approximately a 4.5 percent increase in rated core power.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendment dated December 18, 1995, as supplemented on 
May 3, June 11, July 1, July 3, and August 22, 1996.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed action is needed to allow the licensee to increase the 
electrical output of each Turkey Point unit by approximately 30 MWe and 
thus provide additional electrical power to the grid which serves 
commercial and domestic areas on the Florida Power and Light grid. The 
thermal power uprate will result in direct displacement of higher cost 
fossil fuel generation with lower cost nuclear fuel generation.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The Commission has completed its evaluation of the proposed action 
and concludes that no significant change in the environmental impact 
can be expected for the proposed increase in power. The proposed core 
uprate is projected to increase the heat rejected to the environment by 
approximately 4.4 percent over the present power level but is 
insignificant when compared to the heat load from all four units and 
the incident solar radiation heat gain to the canal. The thermal 
loading on the canal from the units is approximately 14 x 10 \9\ 
British thermal units per hour (Btu/hr) and the heat duty increase 
associated with the uprate will be approximately .44 x 10 \9\ Btu/hr. 
This is expected to increase the temperature between inlet and outlet 
by a maximum of 0.7 deg.F over

[[Page 49177]]

existing plant operation. The impact on intake temperatures is 
estimated to be about 0.2 deg.F. There are no discharges to Biscayne 
Bay or Card Sound from the plant site since the units obtain their 
cooling water from and discharge to a closed cooling canal system. 
Therefore, the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 
permit does not place any operating limits on either flow or 
temperature. Technical Specification (TS) 3.7.4 limits intake 
temperature to 100 deg.F and this limit will continue to be in effect 
following the uprate. No changes to any federal, state, or local 
permits were required for the thermal uprate. Turkey Point has no 
specifically prescribed protective actions associated with endangered 
wildlife. FPL does have a monitoring permit to tag and count American 
crocodiles that is issued by both the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
and the State of Florida.
    The licensee concluded that the uprate will have no adverse impacts 
on the environment nor result in exceeding NPDES permit limits. There 
will be no significant increase in non-radiological impacts over those 
evaluated in the Final Environmental Statement (FES) and evaluations 
associated with the amendments to recapture the construction period in 
the license term (CP/OL recapture amendments) dated April 7, 1994. The 
staff considers that continued compliance with applicable Federal, 
State, and Local agency requirements relating to environmental 
protection will preclude any significant non-radiological environmental 
impacts associated with the proposed uprate.
    The licensee evaluated the offsite radiation exposure to the 
maximally exposed individual member of the general public for the 
proposed uprate. Section V.D. of the FES projected doses and 
anticipated annual release of radioactive materials released to the 
environment from routine operations of the two reactors. Table III-2 of 
the FES estimated a total annual release of radioactive material in 
gaseous effluent of 3650 curies/year/unit for noble gases. The latest 
actual releases in 1995 were <1 curie/year/unit. The FES estimate for 
iodines and particulates was 0.8 curies/year/unit and the 1995 releases 
were 0.1 curies/year/unit. Table III-3 estimated the annual release of 
radioactive materials in liquid effluents to be 27 curie/year/unit from 
steam generator blowdown and 1 curie/year/unit from waste disposal. The 
actual 1995 releases were 0 curies/year/unit for steam generator 
blowdown and 0.1 curie/year/unit for the waste disposal system. A 5 
percent increase in power does not necessarily result in any increase 
in effluents. Moreover, data for years prior to 1995 were reviewed by 
the staff and found to be well within the FES estimates, even if 
increased by 5 percent. Therefore, the staff concludes that the actual 
releases at the Turkey Point units will still remain well within the 
FES estimates.
    With respect to onsite radiation exposure, the licensee stated that 
the uprate is not expected to increase the day-to-day radiation 
exposures encountered by plant workers since the in-plant radiation 
levels will not change significantly compared to the evaluations in the 
FES and the evaluations associated with the CP/OL recapture amendments. 
The licensee has developed and implemented programs to maintain doses 
as-low-as-reasonably-achievable (ALARA). The annual average dose for 
the 3-year period from 1993-1995 was 159 person-rem per unit at Turkey 
Point. This is low compared to similar plants and the 1990-1992 Turkey 
Point average of 332 person-rem per unit. Considering a potential 
increase of 5 percent, onsite radiation exposure would still be low 
compared to peer groups. Therefore, the staff concludes that operation 
at the uprated power level will not significantly impact occupation 
exposures.
    Regarding radioactive waste production, the licensee stated that 
the annual volume of solid low level radioactive waste is not expected 
to increase significantly and the current disposal volume is well below 
the median value for similar facilities. The ALARA program includes 
maintaining the waste generated and waste released as low as 
reasonable. The existing design of the liquid and gaseous radwaste 
systems was based on a core power level of 2300 MWt; therefore, the 
ability of the systems to provide adequate processing and maintain the 
radioactive releases within regulatory limits is not impacted by the 
uprate. Therefore, the staff concludes that operation at the uprated 
power will not significantly affect the licensee's ability to handle 
radioactive waste production.
    TS 5.6.1 limits the storage of spent fuel to fuel assemblies with a 
maximum enrichment loading of 4.5 percent of U-235. No change in 
enrichment is necessary for the uprate condition. On November 14, 1984, 
the staff issued its ``Environmental Assessment and Finding of No 
Significant Impact,'' covering the storage of fuel with an enrichment 
loading of 4.5 percent U-235, which concluded that the proposed action 
will not have a significant effect on the quality of the human 
environment. Therefore, the environmental impacts of this aspect of the 
licensee's power uprate proposal has been previously evaluated and 
found acceptable by the Commission. TS 5.6.1.3 specifies the 
requirements regarding burnup of spent fuel for fuel storage. No 
changes were necessary to TS 5.6.1.3 to support the power uprate 
request.
    The proposed change will not significantly change the types or 
amounts or any radiological effluents over those that have already been 
evaluated and found acceptable in the FES and evaluations associated 
with the CP/OL recapture amendments, and there is no significant 
increase in the allowable individual or cumulative radiation exposure. 
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.
    The amendment does not significantly affect nonradiological plant 
effluents, has no other environmental impact, and continued compliance 
with applicable Federal, State, and Local agency requirements relating 
to environmental protection will preclude any significant non-
radiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed uprate. 
Accordingly, the Commission concludes that there are no significant 
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.

Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    Since the Commission has concluded there is no significant 
environmental impact associated with the proposed action, any 
alternatives with equal or greater environmental impact need not be 
evaluated. As an alternative to the proposed action, the NRC staff 
considered denial of the proposed action. Denial of the application 
would result in no change in current environmental impacts.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any resources not 
previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement dated July 
1972 for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on September 12, 1996 the NRC 
staff consulted with the Florida State official, Mr. Harland Keaton of 
the State Office of Radiation Control, regarding the environmental 
impact of the proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    Based upon the environmental assessment, the Commission concludes

[[Page 49178]]

that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the Commission has 
determined not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the 
proposed action.
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated December 18, 1995, as supplemented on May 3, 
June 11, July 1, July 3, and August 22, 1996, which are available for 
public inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, The Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the Florida International University, 
University Park, Miami, Florida 33199.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 12th day of September 1996.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Frederick J. Hebdon,
Director, Project Directorate II-3, Division of Reactor Projects--I/II, 
Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 96-23906 Filed 9-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P