[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 222 (Thursday, November 17, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71379-71389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-29718]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251; NRC-2011-0259]
Florida Power & Light Company, Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4; Draft
Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No Significant Impact
Related to the Proposed License Amendment To Increase the Maximum
Reactor Power Level
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Draft environmental assessment and finding of no significant
impact; opportunity to comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DATES: Comments must be filed by December 19, 2011. Any potential party
as defined in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 2.4
who believes access to Sensitive Unclassified Non-Safeguards
Information and/or Safeguards Information is necessary to respond to
this notice must request document access by November 28, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0259 in the subject line
of your comments. For additional instructions on submitting comments
and instructions on accessing documents related to this action, see
``Submitting Comments and Accessing Information'' in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document. You may submit comments by any
one of the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for documents filed under Docket ID NRC-
2011-0259. Address questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher,
telephone: (301) 492-3668; email: [email protected].
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.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Submitting Comments and Accessing Information
Comments submitted in writing or in electronic form will be posted
on the NRC Web site and on the Federal rulemaking Web site, http://www.regulations.gov. Because your comments will not be edited to remove
any identifying or contact information, the NRC cautions you against
including any information in your submission that you do not want to be
publicly disclosed.
The NRC requests that any party soliciting or aggregating comments
received from other persons for submission to the NRC inform those
persons that the NRC will not edit their comments to remove any
identifying or contact information, and therefore, they should not
include any information in their comments that they do not want
publicly disclosed.
You can access publicly available documents related to this
document using the following methods:
NRC's Public Document Room (PDR): The public may examine
and have copied, for a fee, publicly available documents at the NRC's
PDR, O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville,
Maryland 20852.
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): Publicly available documents created or received at the NRC
are available online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. From this page, the public can gain entry into ADAMS,
which provides text and image files of the NRC's public documents. If
you do not have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing
the documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC's PDR reference staff
at 1-(800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737, or by email to
[email protected]. The application for amendment, dated October 21,
2010, contains proprietary information and, accordingly, those portions
are being withheld from public disclosure. A redacted version of the
application for amendment, dated December 14, 2011, is available
electronically under ADAMS Accession No. ML103560167.
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Public comments and
supporting materials related to this notice can be found at http://www.regulations.gov by searching on Docket ID NRC-2011-0259.
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,
[[Page 71380]]
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-5888; fax number: (301)
415-1222; email: [email protected].
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 Florida Power & Light Company (FPL, the
licensee) for operation of the Turkey Point (PTN), Units 3 and 4, for a
license amendment to increase the maximum power level from 2300
megawatts thermal (MWt) to 2644 MWt for each unit. In accordance with
10 CFR 51.21, the NRC has prepared this draft Environmental Assessment
(EA) and draft Finding of No Significant Impact (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. The draft EA and draft FONSI are being
published in the Federal Register with a 30-day public comment period
ending December 19, 2011.
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 9 miles (15 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 FLP's
13,000 ac (5,260 ha) Everglades Mitigation Bank. The PTN site consists
of five electric generating units. PTN Units 3 and 4 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 all
five electric generating units. 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 Turkey Point, 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 extended power uprate (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 NRC because it exceeds the typical 7-percent power increase that can
be accommodated with only minor plant changes. EPUs typically involve
extensive modifications to the nuclear steam supply system contained
within the plant buildings.
FPL 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 operational people are currently employed at PTN
Units 3 and 4 on a full-time basis. FPL estimates an average of
approximately 1,000 construction workers per day would be required to
implement the EPU at PTN Units 3 and 4 during two separate refueling
outages. During periods of peak activity, approximately 1,400
construction workers would be at the PTN site. The number of workers
would be larger than the number of workers required for a routine 35-
day refueling outage.
As part of the overall process to obtain approval for the EPU, in
September 2007, FPL submitted a 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 104
megawatts electric (MWe), from 700 MWe to 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 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 combined
[[Page 71381]]
construction permit and operating license (COL) for two Westinghouse
Advanced Passive 1000 (AP1000) pressurized-water reactors (PWRs)
designated as Turkey Point, 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:
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-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 189 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 650 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, it is likely that 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 prevents the flow of hyper-saline water
from the CCS toward the Everglades. Maintenance of the CCS includes
mechanical removal of submerged,
[[Page 71382]]
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 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 purpose of the CoC is to require 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 Floridian 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.
Recharge of groundwater at the Turkey Point 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 Turkey Point site. However, below about 40 ft (12 meters (m))
into the FAS 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. PTN Units 3 and 4 use
approximately 690 gallons per minute (25121 liters per minute (L/m)) of
potable water. FPL 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
[[Page 71383]]
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 northern-most 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 Turkey Point 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 six return
channels.
Under EPU conditions, the cooling canal system would increase in
both temperature and salinity. FPL 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 the cooling canal system is unconnected to Biscayne Bay,
Card Sound, or any 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 Turkey Point 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, the majority 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 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 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.
[[Page 71384]]
Table of Federally Listed Species Occurring in Miami-Dade County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scientific name Common name ESA status \a\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammodramus maritimus Cape Sable seaside E
mirabilis. 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 Everglade snail kite E
plumbeus.
Vermivora bachmanii......... Bachman's warbler E
\b\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amorpha crenulata........... crenulate lead-plant E
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoid spurge...... E
Deltoidea.
Chamaesyce garberi.......... Garber's spurge..... T
Cucurbita okeechobeensis okeechobee gourd \b\ E
ssp. Okeechobeensis.
Galactia smallii............ Small's milkpea..... E
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 T
turtle.
Chelonia mydas.............. green sea turtle.... E
Crocodylus acutus........... American crocodile.. T
Dermochelys coriacea........ leatherback sea E
turtle.
Drymarchon corais couperi... eastern indigo snake T
Eretmochelys imbricata...... hawksbill sea turtle E
Lepidochelys kempii......... Kemp's ridley sea E
turtle \c\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snails
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orthalicus reses............ Stock Island tree T
snail \b\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
a E = endangered; 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 26 species listed in the Table. 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. Section
7 consultation with the FWS regarding the American crocodile and its
critical habitat is ongoing at this time, and results of the
consultation will be documented in the final Environmental Assessment.
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.
[[Page 71385]]
Currently, approximately 800 workers are employed at PTN Units 3
and 4, residing primarily in Miami-Dade County, Florida. FPL estimates
a peak workforce of 1,400 construction workers per day would be
required to implement the EPU for each unit with an average of
approximately 1,000 workers per day for approximately 60 days for each
unit. 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 during future refueling
outages. The size of the regular plant operations workforce would be
unaffected 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, 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 a short 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. 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 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. The tangible personal property taxes for PTN Units 3 and 4 in the
year 2007 were approximately $6.5 million. 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 TP 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
[[Page 71386]]
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.
PTN Units 6 and 7 would be constructed on undeveloped land
immediately south of PTN Units 3 and 4. EPU modifications to PTN Units
3 and 4 are expected to be completed before the proposed PTN Units 6
and 7 are constructed.
PTN Units 6 and 7 would have a closed-cycle cooling system
utilizing cooling towers with makeup water from Biscayne Bay and
treated wastewater from Miami-Dade County. Blowdown waste water
discharges would be disposed 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.
PTN Units 6 and 7, 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 7cooling 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 cooling towers can result in salt deposition (i.e., salt
drift); a greater risk of collision mortality; and noise.
Land needed for the proposed 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.
[[Page 71387]]
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
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 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 (DAW) that result from routine plant operation, refueling
outages, and routine maintenance. DAW 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
[[Page 71388]]
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 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. 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
[[Page 71389]]
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. FPL's 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.
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. Draft 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. A final determination to prepare an environmental
impact statement or a final finding of no significant impact will not
be made until the public comment period closes and the NRC addresses
the comments.
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's application dated October 21, 2010, as supplemented on
December 14, 2010 and on April 22, 2011.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 4th day of November 2011.
Douglas A. Broaddus,
Chief, Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating Reactor
Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2011-29718 Filed 11-16-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P