[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 131 (Friday, July 9, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41553-41554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15594]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389]


Florida Power and Light Company, et al., St. Lucie Plant, Unit 
Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 
Impact

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering 
issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and 
NPF-16, issued to Florida Power and Light Company, et al. (the 
licensee), for operation of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2, 
respectively, located in St. Lucie County, Florida. Therefore, as 
required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is issuing this environmental 
assessment and finding of no significant impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would increase the wet storage capacity of fuel 
assemblies at the St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2. A freestanding fuel 
storage rack module would be installed in the cask pit in each unit's 
fuel-handling building. The Unit 1 rack is being designed to augment 
storage capacity from 1706 fuel assemblies to 1849 fuel assemblies, an 
increase of 143 fuel assemblies. The Unit 2 rack design has closer 
assembly-to-assembly spacing than the Unit 1 rack and is capable of 
storing 225 fuel assemblies. The storage capacity of Unit 2 will 
increase from 1360 fuel assemblies to 1585 fuel assemblies, an increase 
of 225 fuel assemblies. The cask pit fuel storage racks will use Boral 
as a neutron absorbing poison.
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application for amendments dated October 23, 2002, as supplemented 
August 28 and December 11, 2003, and February 3 and March 25, 2004.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The St. Lucie nuclear plant has two pressurized-water reactors. 
Unit 1 commenced operation in 1976 and Unit 2 in 1983. Based on the 
current licensed capacity, current spent fuel inventory, and the 
projected discharges of spent fuel, Unit 1 will lose the capability to 
fully offload the reactor core by the year 2005. Unit 2 will lose the 
capability to fully offload the reactor core by the year 2007. To 
extend this capability beyond the above dates, the licensee has 
proposed license amendments to install a freestanding fuel storage rack 
module in the cask pit of each unit's fuel-handling building.
    The additional storage capacity provided by the cask pit racks will 
be used to store spent fuel to allow refueling outage fuel offloads and 
non-outage fuel shuffles. In addition, the Unit 1 cask pit rack will be 
used to temporarily store new fuel before an outage, prior to loading 
into the reactor core. The capability to remove, clean, and store the 
cask pit racks in an alternate location prior to any spent fuel cask 
loading operations will be maintained, because the cask pits will 
eventually be needed for loading fuel into transfer casks.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its evaluation and concludes, as set forth 
below, that there are no significant environmental impacts associated 
with the proposed amendments. The details of the staff's safety 
evaluation will be provided in the license amendments when they are 
issued by the NRC.
    During refueling outages, there may be a slight increase in the 
amount of heat that has to be removed from the combination of the spent 
fuel pool and the cask pit. The peak increase will be less than one 
percent, and the heat load from spent fuel storage is very small 
compared to the heat load from normal plant operations. Therefore, the 
overall increase in the amount of heat released will be quite small and 
insignificant.
    Even though additional boron poison will be introduced by the Boral 
panels in the storage racks in the cask pit, no significant increase in 
tritium production from the neutron capture by boron-10 is expected.
    The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability 
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of 
effluents that may be released off site, and there is no significant 
increase in occupational or public radiation exposure. Therefore, there 
are no significant radiological environmental impacts associated with 
the proposed action.
    With regard to potential nonradiological impacts, the proposed 
action does not have a potential to affect any historic sites. It does 
not affect nonradiological plant effluents and has no other 
environmental impact. Therefore, there are no significant 
nonradiological environmental impacts associated with the proposed 
action.
    Accordingly, the NRC concludes that there are no significant 
environmental impacts associated with the proposed action.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

    As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered 
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative). 
Denial of the application would result in no change in current 
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action 
and the alternative action are similar.

Alternative Use of Resources

    The action does not involve the use of any different resources than 
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement 
related to the St. Lucie Plant Unit 1, dated June 1973; the Final 
Environmental Statement related to the operation of St. Lucie Plant, 
Unit No. 2 (NUREG-0842), dated April 1982; and Supplement 11 to NUREG-
1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of 
Nuclear Plants Regarding St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2,'' dated May 2003.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    On May 19, 2004, the staff consulted with the Florida State 
official, William Passetti of the Department of Health, Bureau of 
Radiation Control, regarding the environmental impact of the proposed 
action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined 
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
action.

[[Page 41554]]

    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated October 23, 2002, as supplemented by letters 
dated August 28 and December 11, 2003, and February 3 and March 25, 
2004. 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 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically 
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) 
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, 
http://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 at 1-800-
397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of July 2004.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brendan T. Moroney,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of 
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-15594 Filed 7-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P