[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 17 (Wednesday, January 27, 2010)]
[Page 4426]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1648]



[Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251; NRC-2010-0025]

Florida Power and Light Company; Turkey Point Nuclear Generating 
Units 3 and 4; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant 

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering the 
issuance of an Exemption, pursuant to 10 CFR 50.12 and 10 CFR 50.60(b) 
from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.61 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix G 
for Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41, issued to 
Florida Power and Light Company (the licensee), for operation of the 
Turkey Point Units 3 and 4, located in Miami, Florida. In accordance 
with 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC prepared an environmental assessment 
documenting its finding. The NRC concluded that the proposed actions 
will have no significant environmental impact.

Environmental Assessment

Identification of the Proposed Action

    The proposed action would exempt the licensee from certain 
requirements of 10 CFR 50.61, ``Fracture Toughness Requirements for 
Protection Against Thermal Shock Events,'' and 10 CFR Part 50, Appendix 
G, ``Fracture Toughness Requirements.''
    The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's 
application dated March 18, 2009.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    The proposed exemption would allow the licensee to use an 
alternative method, described in Framatome ANP Topical Report BAW-2308, 
Revisions 1-A and 2-A (supplemental), for determining the adjusted 
RTNDT (reference nil-ductility temperature) of the Linde 80 
weld materials present in the beltline region of the Turkey Point Units 
3 and 4 reactor pressure vessels.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    The NRC has completed its environmental assessment of the proposed 
exemption. The staff concluded that the change would not significantly 
affect plant safety and would not have a significant adverse effect on 
the probability of an accident occurring. The proposed action would not 
result in an increased radiological hazard beyond those previously 
analyzed. There will be no change to radioactive effluents that effect 
radiation exposures to plant workers and members of the public. The 
proposed action will be performed inside existing plant buildings. No 
changes will be made to plant buildings or the site property. 
Therefore, no changes or different types of radiological impacts are 
expected as a result of the proposed exemption.
    The proposed action does not result in changes to land use or water 
use, or result in changes to the quality or quantity of non-
radiological effluents. No changes to the National Pollution Discharge 
Elimination System permit are needed. No effects on the aquatic or 
terrestrial habitat in the vicinity or the plant, or to threatened, 
endangered, or protected species under the Endangered Species Act, or 
impacts to essential fish habitat covered by the Magnuson-Steven's Act 
are expected. There are no impacts to the air or ambient air quality. 
There are no impacts to historical and cultural resources. There would 
be no impact to socioeconomic resources. Therefore, no changes or 
different types of non-radiological environmental impacts are expected 
as a result of the proposed exemption. Accordingly, the NRC concludes 
that there are no significant environmental impacts associated with the 
proposed action.
    The details of the staff's safety evaluation will be provided in 
the exemption that will be issued as part of the letter to the licensee 
approving the exemption to the regulation if granted.

Environmental Impacts of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action

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

Alternative Use of Resources

    The action does not involve the use of any different resources than 
those considered in the Final Environmental Statement for the Turkey 
Point Units 3 and 4, Docket No. 50-250 and 50-251, issued in 1972.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on January 6, 2010, the staff 
consulted with the Florida State official, Charles Hamilton of the 
Bureau of Radiation Control, regarding the environmental impact of the 
proposed action. The State official had no comments.

Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of the environmental assessment, the NRC concludes 
that the proposed action will not have a significant effect on the 
quality of the human environment. Accordingly, the NRC has determined 
not to prepare an environmental impact statement for the proposed 
    For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the 
licensee's letter dated March 18, 2009 (Agencywide Document Access and 
Management System (ADAMS) No. ML090920408). Documents may be examined, 
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR), 
located at One White Flint North, 1555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland 20852. Publicly available records will be accessible 
electronically from the 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 by telephone at 1-800-397-4209 or 301-415-4737, or send 
an e-mail to [email protected].

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 19th day of January 2010.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

Jason C. Paige,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2010-1648 Filed 1-26-10; 8:45 am]