[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