[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 4 (Friday, January 6, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 813-822]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-32]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389; NRC-2011-0302]


Draft Environmental Assessment and Draft Finding of No 
Significant Impact Related to the Proposed License Amendment To 
Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level: Florida Power & Light 
Company, St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Draft environmental assessment and finding of no significant 
impact; opportunity to comment.

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

DATES: Comments must be filed by February 6, 2012. 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 January 17, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Please include Docket ID NRC-2011-0302 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-
2011-0302. 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 November 22, 
2010, contains proprietary information and, accordingly, those portions 
are being withheld from public disclosure. A redacted version of the 
application for amendment, dated December 15, 2010, is available 
electronically under ADAMS Accession No. ML103560415.
     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-2011-0302.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tracy Orf, Project Manager, Plant 
Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, Office 
of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555-0001. Telephone: (301) 415-2788; 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-67 and NPF-16, issued to Florida Power & Light Company (FPL, the 
licensee) for operation of St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and

[[Page 814]]

2 (St. Lucie 1 and 2), for a license amendment to increase the maximum 
thermal power from 2,700 megawatts thermal (MWt) to 3,020 MWt for each 
unit. In accordance with 10 CFR Section 51.21, the NRC has prepared 
this draft Environment Assessment (EA) and draft Finding of No 
Significant Impact (FONSI) for the proposed action. This represents a 
power increase of 11.85 percent over the current licensed thermal 
power. In 1981, FPL received approval from the NRC to increase its 
power by 5.47 percent to the current power level of 2,700 MWt.
    The NRC staff did not identify any significant environmental impact 
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 February 6, 
2012.

II. Environmental Assessment

    Plant Site and Environs: St. Lucie Nuclear Plant consists of 
approximately 1,130 acres (457 hectares) in Sections 16 and 17, 
Township 36 South, Range 41 East on Hutchinson Island in unincorporated 
St. Lucie County, Florida. The St. Lucie Nuclear Plant is located 
between the Atlantic Ocean to the east and a tidally influenced 
estuary, the Indian River Lagoon, to the west. The plant is located on 
Hutchinson Island between Big Mud Creek to the north and Indian River 
to the south on an area previously degraded through flooding, drainage, 
and channelization for mosquito control projects. The nearest towns 
from the plant site on the Atlantic coast are Port St. Lucie, 
approximately 2.5 miles (mi) (4 kilometers (km)) southwest, and Fort 
Pierce, approximately 4 mi (6.4 km) northwest of the plant. The St. 
Lucie Nuclear Plant has two light-water reactors (Units 1 and 2), each 
designed by Combustion Engineering for a net electrical power output of 
839 megawatts electric. FPL fully owns St. Lucie Unit 1 and has 
operated it since March 1, 1976. FPL also solely operates St. Lucie 
Unit 2, which began operations on April 6, 1983, and is co-owned by 
FPL, Orlando Utilities Commission, and Florida Municipal Power Agency.
    The St. Lucie Nuclear Plant withdraws cooling water from the 
Atlantic Ocean through three offshore cooling water intakes with 
velocity caps. The ocean water is drawn through buried pipes into the 
plant's L-shaped intake canal to the eight intake pumps that circulate 
the non-contact cooling water through the plant. Two mesh barrier nets, 
one net of 5-inches (in) (12.7-centimeters (cm)) mesh size and the 
other of 8-in (20.3-cm) mesh size, and one rigid barrier located 
sequentially in the intake canal reduce the potential loss of large 
marine organisms, mostly sea turtles. Water passes through a trash rack 
made of 7.6 cm (3 in) spaced vertical bars and a 1-cm (\3/8\-in) mesh 
size traveling screen, against which marine organisms that have passed 
through the nets are impinged, and into eight separate intake wells 
(four per unit) where it is pumped to a circulating-water system and an 
auxiliary cooling water system at each unit. The majority of the water 
goes to a once-through circulating-water system to cool the main plant 
condensers. The system has a nominal total capacity of 968,000 gallons 
per minute (gpm) (61,070 liters per second (L/s)). The auxiliary 
cooling water systems for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 are also once-through 
cooling systems, but use much less water [up to 58,000 gpm (3,660 L/s)] 
than the circulating-water systems. Marine life that passes through the 
screens becomes entrained in the water that passes through the plant 
and is subject to thermal and mechanical stresses. The plant is also 
equipped with an emergency cooling water intake canal on the west side 
that can withdraw Indian River Lagoon water through Big Mud Creek, but 
this pathway is closed during normal plant operation.
    The heated water from the cooling water systems flows to a 
discharge canal and then through two offshore discharge pipes beneath 
the beach and dune system back to the Atlantic Ocean. One 12-foot (ft) 
(3.6-meter (m))-diameter discharge pipe extends approximately 1,500 ft 
(457 m) offshore and terminates in a two-port ``Y'' diffuser. A second 
16-ft (4.9-m)-diameter discharge pipe extends about 3,400 ft (1,040 m) 
from the shoreline and terminates with a multiport diffuser. This 
second pipe has fifty-eight 16-in (41-cm)-diameter ports spaced 24 ft 
(7.3 m) apart along the last 1,400 ft (430 m) of pipe farthest 
offshore. The discharge of heated water through the diffusers on the 
discharge pipes ensures distribution over a wide area and rapid and 
efficient mixing with ocean water.

Background Information on the Proposed Action

    By application dated November 22, 2010 (Unit 1), and February 25, 
2011 (Unit 2), the licensee requested an amendment for an extended 
power uprate (EPU) for St. Lucie Nuclear Plant to increase the licensed 
thermal power level from 2,700 MWt to 3,020 MWt for each unit, which 
represents an increase of 11.85 percent above the current licensed 
thermal power. This proposed change in core thermal level requires an 
NRC federal action to consider amending the facility's operating 
license prior to the licensee implementing the EPU. The NRC considers 
the proposed action an EPU 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.
    Although not part of the NRC federal action, changes from the 
current operations at St. Lucie Nuclear Plant would occur if the NRC 
approves the EPU. FPL plans to make the physical changes to the non-
nuclear plant components that are needed in order to implement the 
proposed EPU. The modifications are scheduled to be implemented for 
Unit 1 during the fall 2011 outage starting in November 2011 and are 
expected to be completed by the spring of 2012. Unit 2 modifications 
are scheduled to be implemented during the summer 2012 outage starting 
in June 2012 and are expected to be completed by the fall of 2012. The 
outage durations for both units are expected to be longer than for a 
routine 35-day outage. The actual power uprate, if approved by the NRC, 
constitutes a 12 percent power uprate and includes an additional 1.7 
percent measurement uncertainty recapture for each unit. As part of the 
proposed EPU project, FPL would release heated water with a proposed 
temperature increase of 2 degrees Fahrenheit ([deg]F) (1.1 degrees 
Celsius ([deg]C)) above the current discharge temperature through the 
discharge structures into the Atlantic Ocean.
    Approximately 800 people are currently employed at St. Lucie Units 
1 and 2 on a full-time basis. FPL estimates this workforce will be 
augmented by an additional 1,000 construction workers on average per 
outage during the proposed EPU-related activities with a potential peak 
of 1,400 additional construction workers. The increase of workers would 
be larger than the number of workers required for a routine outage; 
however, the peak construction workforce would be smaller than the FPL 
reported peak workforce for previous outages involving replacement of 
major components.

The Need for the Proposed Action

    FPL states in its environmental report that the proposed action is 
intended to provide an additional supply of electric

[[Page 815]]

generation in the State of Florida without the need to site and 
construct new facilities, or to impose new sources of air or water 
discharges to the environment. FPL has determined that increasing the 
electrical output of St. Lucie 1 and 2 is the most cost-effective 
option to meet the demand for electrical energy while enhancing fuel 
diversity and minimizing environmental impacts, including the avoidance 
of greenhouse gas emissions.

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action

    As part of the licensing process for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, the 
U.S. Atomic Energy Commission published a Final Environmental Statement 
(FES) in 1973 for Unit 1, and the NRC published an FES in 1982 for Unit 
2 (NUREG-0842). In the two FESs, the NRC staff considered the best data 
available to the NRC at the time to predict the environmental impacts 
that could result from the operation of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 over 
their licensed lifetimes. In addition, the NRC published an 
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) in May 2003 associated with the 
license renewal for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. The 2003 EIS evaluated the 
environmental impacts of operating the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant for an 
additional 20 years beyond its then-current operating license, 
extending the operational life of Unit 1 until 2036 and Unit 2 until 
2043. The NRC determined that the environmental impacts of license 
renewal would be small. The NRC staff's evaluation is contained in 
NUREG-1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License 
Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 11, Regarding St. Lucie Units 1 
and 2'' (Supplemental EIS-11 (SEIS-11)) [Agencywide Documents Access 
and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML031360705]. The NRC staff 
used information from FPL's license amendment request (LAR) (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML103560419) and SEIS-11 to perform this EA for the 
proposed EPU.
    FPL's application states that it would implement the proposed EPU 
without extensive changes to buildings or to other plant areas outside 
of buildings. FPL proposes to perform all necessary physical plant 
modifications in existing buildings at St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 or along 
the existing electrical transmission line right of way (ROW). With the 
exception of the high-pressure turbine rotor replacement, the required 
plant modifications would be generally small in scope. Other plant 
modifications would include installing a new digital turbine control 
system; providing additional cooling for some plant systems; modifying 
feedwater and condensate systems; accommodating greater steam and 
condensate flow rates; adjusting the current onsite power system to 
compensate for increases in electrical loading; and upgrading 
instrumentation to include minor items such as replacing parts, 
changing setpoints, and modifying software.
    FPL would use a vehicle and helicopter for transmission line 
modifications proposed along the existing overhead electrical 
transmission line ROW. The vehicle would transport personnel and a 
spool of overhead wire as a helicopter holds and moves the wire into 
place for the stringing activities. Although the modifications are part 
of the proposed EPU, this type and extent of activity along the ROW is 
included in existing maintenance permits and licenses.

Nonradiological Impacts

Land Use and Aesthetic Impacts
    Potential land use and aesthetic impacts from the proposed EPU 
include proposed plant modifications at St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. While 
FPL proposes some plant modifications, most plant changes related to 
the proposed EPU would occur within existing structures, with the 
exception of modifications along the electrical transmission line ROW. 
As described in the licensee's application, the proposed electrical 
transmission modifications would include the addition of subconductor 
spacers, an overhead wire, and replacement of relay protection 
electronics. The overhead wire would function as a ground for relay 
protection of the transmission lines. FPL would install these 
transmission line modifications via helicopter. The only land use 
activity FPL expects to occur on the ground along the ROW would be the 
periodic need to park a truck or trailer containing a spool of wire 
that would be strung but would not extend outside of the existing ROW 
area. The NRC expects little or no observable change in the appearance 
of the transmission lines as a result of the electrical transmission 
line modifications. Maintenance of the electrical transmission line ROW 
(tree trimming, mowing, and herbicide application) would continue after 
EPU implementation. The NRC does not expect land use or aesthetic 
changes for the proposed EPU along the transmission line ROW.
    No new construction would occur outside of existing plant areas, 
and no expansion of buildings, roads, parking lots, equipment lay-down 
areas, or storage areas are required to support the proposed EPU. FPL 
would use existing parking lots, road access, equipment lay-down areas, 
offices, workshops, warehouses, and restrooms during plant 
modifications. Therefore, land use conditions and visual aesthetics 
would not change significantly at St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, and the NRC 
expects no significant impact from EPU-related plant modifications on 
land use and aesthetic resources in the vicinity of St. Lucie Nuclear 
Plant.
Air Quality Impacts
    Because of its coastal location, meteorological conditions 
conducive to high air pollution are infrequent at the St. Lucie Nuclear 
Plant. The plant is located within the South Florida Intrastate Air 
Quality Control Region. In addition, the Central Florida Intrastate Air 
Quality Control Region and the Southwest Florida Intrastate Air Quality 
Control Region are within 50 mi (80.5 km) of the St. Lucie Nuclear 
Plant. These regions are designated as being in attainment or 
unclassifiable for all criteria pollutants in the U.S. Environmental 
Protection Agency's (EPA) 40 CFR 81.310.
    Diesel generators, boilers, and other activities and facilities 
associated with St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 emit pollutants. The Florida 
Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) regulates emissions from 
these sources under Air Permit 1110071-006-AF. The FDEP reported no 
violations at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant in the last 5 years. The NRC 
expects no changes to the emissions from these sources because of the 
EPU.
    During EPU implementation, some minor and short duration air 
quality impacts would occur from other non-regulated sources. Vehicles 
of the additional outage workers needed for EPU implementation would 
generate the majority of air emissions during the proposed EPU-related 
modifications. FPL plans to complete the construction activities 
associated with the EPU, if approved by the NRC, by the spring of 2012 
for Unit 1 and by the fall of 2012 for Unit 2. The outage durations for 
both units are expected to be longer than for a routine 35-day outage. 
The NRC expects air emissions from the EPU workforce, truck deliveries, 
and construction/modification activities would not be significantly 
greater than previous modification activities or refueling outages at 
the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. In addition, FPL would perform the 
majority of the EPU work inside existing buildings and would not result 
in changes to outside air quality. The NRC expects no significant 
impacts

[[Page 816]]

to regional air quality from the proposed EPU beyond those air impacts 
evaluated for SEIS-11 including potential minor and temporary impacts 
from worker activity.

Water Use Impacts

Groundwater
    FPL has approval from the City of Fort Pierce and the Fort Pierce 
Utilities Authority to use freshwater for potable and sanitary 
purposes. Although this freshwater comes from groundwater sources 
pumped from the mainland, St. Lucie Nuclear Plant does not use 
groundwater in any of its cooling systems and has no plans for 
groundwater use as part of plant operations in the future. The plant 
currently uses approximately 131,500 gallons (498 m\3\) of freshwater 
per day and uses seawater from the Atlantic Ocean for noncontact 
cooling water. No production wells are present on the plant site for 
either domestic-type water uses or industrial use. FPL does not 
discharge to groundwater at the plant site or on the mainland, and the 
plant's industrial wastewater facility permit (IWFP) does not apply to 
groundwater.
    Under the EPU, FPL does not expect to significantly change the 
amount of freshwater use or supply source. With an average estimated 
increase of 1,000 workers supporting EPU construction activities, the 
NRC expects potable water use to increase during the outage and return 
back to the regular operating levels after EPU implementation. It is 
unlikely this potential increase in temporary groundwater use during 
the EPU construction activities would have any effect on other local 
and regional groundwater users. FPL has no use restrictions on the 
amount of water supplied by the City of Fort Pierce and the Fort Pierce 
Utilities Authority. The NRC expects no significant impact on 
groundwater resources during proposed EPU construction activities or 
following EPU implementation.
Surface Water
    The NRC staff evaluated the potential effects of releasing heated 
water with a proposed temperature increase of 2 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C) 
above the current discharge temperature through the discharge pipes 
into the Atlantic Ocean as part of the proposed EPU project. FDEP 
regulates the Florida Surface Water Quality Standards through an IWFP, 
which also establishes the maximum area subject to temperature increase 
(mixing zone), maximum discharge temperatures, and chemical monitoring 
requirements with limits specified.
    The plant injects chlorine in the form of sodium hypochlorate into 
seawater upstream of the intake cooling water system in regulated 
quantities to control microorganisms. Because FDEP regulates discharges 
and requires chemical monitoring, the NRC expects that the authorized 
discharges will not exceed the IWFP limitations after EPU 
implementation.
    In the IWFP, FDEP has issued the plant a temporary variance for a 
temperature increase of heated water discharge from 113 [deg]F (45 
[deg]C) above ambient temperature to the proposed thermal discharge of 
115 [deg]F (46.1 [deg]C) above ambient temperature after EPU completion 
for Units 1 and 2 on the condition that no adverse affects are found 
based on FPL study results. The proposed EPU will not result in an 
increase in the amount or rate of water withdrawn from or discharged to 
the Atlantic Ocean. FPL conducted a thermal discharge study for the 
proposed EPU-related increase in discharge water temperature (ADAMS 
Accession No. ML100830443) that predicts an increase in the extent of 
the thermal plume (mixing zone). The ambient water affected by the 
absolute temperature increase beyond the existing mixing zone would be 
less than 25 ft (7.6 m) vertically or horizontally for the two-port 
``Y'' diffuser and less than 6 ft (1.8 m) in any direction for the 
multiport diffuser.
    As part of its operating license renewal, FPL consulted with the 
Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) for a review of coastal 
zone consistency. Based on the information FDCA reviewed, it determined 
that the licensing renewal action would be consistent with the Florida 
Coastal Management Program (FCMP). FDCA, in partnership with the FDEP, 
administers the FCMP and has the authority to review the proposed EPU 
action for coastal zone consistency.

Aquatic Resource Impacts

    The potential impacts to aquatic biota from the proposed action 
could include impingement of aquatic life on barrier nets, trash racks, 
and traveling screens; entrainment of aquatic life through the cooling 
water intake structures and into the cooling water systems; and effects 
from the discharge of chemicals and heated water.
    Because the proposed EPU will not result in an increase in the 
amount or velocity of water being withdrawn from or discharged to the 
Atlantic Ocean, the NRC expects no increase in aquatic impacts from 
impingement and entrainment beyond the current impact levels: all 
organisms impinged on the trash racks and traveling screens would be 
killed, as would most, if not all, entrained organisms. FPL would 
continue to rescue and release sea turtles and other endangered species 
trapped by the barrier nets in the intake canal. In addition, FPL's 
IWFP requires FPL to monitor aquatic organism entrapment in the intake 
canal, and, if unusually large numbers of organisms are entrapped, to 
submit to the FDEP a plan to mitigate such entrapment.
    The predicted 2 [deg]F (1.1 [deg]C) temperature increase from the 
diffusers and increased size of the mixing zone because of the proposed 
EPU would increase thermal exposure to aquatic biota at the St. Lucie 
Nuclear Plant in the vicinity of the discharge locations. The thermal 
discharge study conducted for the proposed EPU predicts no increase in 
temperature higher than 96 [deg]F (35.5 [deg]C) within 6 ft (1.8 m) of 
the bottom of the ocean floor and within 24 ft (7.3 m) from the ocean 
surface because of heated water discharged from the multiport diffuser. 
The same study also predicts that heated water discharged from the 
``Y'' diffuser would not increase the ocean water temperature higher 
than 96 [deg]F (35.5 [deg]C) within 2 ft (0.6 m) of the bottom of the 
ocean floor and within 25 ft (17 m) from the ocean surface. Based on 
this analysis, surface water temperature would remain below 94 [deg]F 
(34.4 [deg]C). Thermal studies conducted for the St. Lucie Nuclear 
Plant prior to its operation and summarized in SEIS-11 predicted there 
would be minimal impacts to aquatic biota from diffuser discharges that 
result in a surface temperature less than 97 [deg]F (36.1 [deg]C). 
Because the NRC expects the surface water temperature not to exceed 94 
[deg]F (34.4 [deg]C) because of the proposed EPU, the NRC staff 
concludes that there are no significant impacts to aquatic biota from 
the proposed EPU.
    Although the proposed increase in temperature after EPU 
implementation would exceed the Florida Surface Water Quality Standards 
regulated by FDEP, FDEP is continuing to assess this action by 
requiring FPL to conduct studies as part of an IWFP variance. If the 
study results are insufficient to adequately evaluate environmental 
changes, or if the data indicates a significant degradation to aquatic 
resources by exceeding Florida Surface Water Quality Standards or is 
inconsistent with the FCMP, FDEP could enforce additional abatement or 
mitigation measures to reduce the environmental impacts to acceptable 
levels. If the NRC approves the proposed EPU, the NRC does not expect 
aquatic resource impacts significantly greater than current

[[Page 817]]

operations because state agencies will continue to assess study results 
and the effectiveness of current FPL environmental controls. FDEP could 
impose additional limits and controls on FPL if the impacts are larger 
than expected. If FDCA and FDEP review the study results and allow FPL 
to operate at the proposed EPU level, the NRC has reasonable confidence 
as discussed above that the increase in thermal discharge will not 
result in significant impacts on aquatic resources beyond the current 
impacts that occur during plant operations.

Terrestrial Resources Impacts

    The St. Lucie Nuclear Plant is on a relatively flat, sheltered area 
of Hutchinson Island with red mangrove swamps on the western side of 
the island that gradually slope downward to a mangrove fringe bordering 
the intertidal shoreline of the Indian River Lagoon. East of the 
facility, land rises from the ocean shore to form dunes and ridges 
approximately 15 ft (4.5 m) above mean low water. Tropical hammock 
areas are present north of the discharge canal, and additional red 
mangrove swamps are present north of Big Mud Creek. Habitat in the 
electrical transmission line ROW is a mixture of human-altered areas, 
sand pine scrub, prairie/pine flatwoods, wet prairie, and isolated 
marshes.
    Impacts that could potentially affect terrestrial resources include 
disturbance or loss of habitat, construction and EPU-related noise and 
lighting, and sediment transport or erosion. FPL plans to conduct 
electrical transmission line modifications that would require a 
periodic need to park a truck or trailer containing a spool of wire 
that would be strung. The NRC concluded in SEIS-11 that no bird 
mortalities were reported up to that time associated with the 
electrical transmission lines and predicted that FPL maintenance 
practices along the ROW would likely have little or no detrimental 
impact on the species potentially present in or near the electrical 
transmission ROW. Because FPL proposes a similar type and extent of 
land disturbance during typical maintenance of the electrical 
transmission line ROW for the EPU modifications, the NRC expects the 
proposed transmission line modifications would not result in any 
significant changes to land use or increase habitat loss or 
disturbance, sediment transport, or erosion beyond typical maintenance 
impacts. Noise and lighting would not adversely affect terrestrial 
species beyond effects experienced during previous outages because 
construction EPU modification activities would take place during outage 
periods, which are typically periods of heightened activity. Thus, the 
NRC expects no significant impacts on terrestrial biota associated with 
the proposed action.

Threatened and Endangered Species Impacts

    A number of species in St. Lucie County are listed as threatened or 
endangered under the Federal Endangered Species Act, and other species 
are designated as meriting special protection or consideration. These 
include birds, fish, aquatic and terrestrial mammals, flowering plants, 
insects, and reptiles that could occur on or near St. Lucie Units 1 and 
2 facility areas and possibly along the electrical transmission line 
ROW. The most common occurrences of threatened or endangered species 
near St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 are five species of sea turtles that nest 
on Hutchinson Island beaches: loggerhead turtles (Caretta caretta), 
Atlantic green turtles (Chelonia mydas), Kemp's ridley turtles 
(Lepidochelys kempii), leatherback turtles (Dermochelys coriacea), and 
hawksbill turtles (Eretmochelys imbricata). FPL has a mitigation and 
monitoring program in place for the capture-release and protection of 
sea turtles that enter the intake canal. The West Indian manatee 
(Trichechus manatus) also has been documented at the St. Lucie Nuclear 
Plant. Designated critical habitat for the West Indian manatee is 
located along the Indian River west of Hutchinson Island. The NRC staff 
assessed potential impacts on the West Indian manatee from St. Lucie 
Nuclear Plant in SEIS-11. No other critical habitat areas for 
endangered, threatened, or candidate species are located at the St. 
Lucie Nuclear Plant site or along the transmission line ROW.
    The following table identifies the species that the NRC considered 
in this EA that were not previously assessed for SEIS-11 because the 
species were not listed at that time.

   Table of Federally Listed Species Occurring in St. Lucie County Not
                     Previously Assessed in SEIS-11
------------------------------------------------------------------------
       Scientific name             Common name        ESA status \(a)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds:
    Calidris canutus ssp.     red knot............  Candidate.
     Rufa.
    Charadrius melodus......  piping plover.......  T.
    Dendroica kirtlandii....  Kirtland's warbler..  E.
    Grus americana..........  whooping Crane \(b)\  EXPN, XN.
Fish:
    Pristis pectinata.......  smalltooth sawfish..  E.
Mammals:
    Puma concolor...........  Puma................  T/SA.
Reptiles:
    Crocodylus acutus.......  American crocodile..  T.
    Gopherus polyphemus.....  gopher tortoise       Candidate.
                               \(c)\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(a)\ E = endangered; T = threatened; T/SA = threatened due to
  similarity of appearance; EXPN, XN = experimental, nonessential.
\(b)\ Experimental, nonessential populations of endangered species
  (e.g., red wolf) are treated as threatened species on public land, for
  consultation purposes, and as species proposed for listing on private
  land.
\(c)\ The gopher tortoise is not listed by the FWS as occurring in St.
  Lucie County. The core of the species' current distribution in the
  eastern portion of its range occurs in central and north Florida (76
  FR 45130), and FPL has reported the species' occurrence on the site
  and in the electrical transmission line right-of-way.
Source: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

    The NRC has consulted with the National Marine Fisheries Service 
(NMFS) since 1982 regarding sea turtle kills, captures, or incidental 
takes. A 2001 NMFS biological opinion analyzed the effects of the 
circulating cooling water system on certain sea turtles at the St. 
Lucie Nuclear Plant. The 2001 NMFS biological opinion provides for 
limited incidental takes of threatened or endangered sea turtles. 
Correspondence between the licensee, U.S. Fish and

[[Page 818]]

Wildlife Service, and NMFS in connection with the 2003 license renewal 
environmental review indicated that effects to federal endangered, 
threatened, or candidate species, including a variety of sea turtles 
and manatees, would not significantly change as a result of issuing a 
license renewal for the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. The NRC reinitiated 
formal consultation with NMFS in 2005 after the incidental take of a 
smalltooth sawfish (Pristis pectinata). The NRC added sea turtles to 
the reinitiation of formal consultation with NMFS in 2006 after the St. 
Lucie Nuclear Plant exceeded the annual incidental take limit for sea 
turtles. The NRC provided NMFS with a biological assessment in 2007 
(ADAMS Accession No. ML071700161) as an update regarding effects on 
certain sea turtle species up to that time. The NRC expects a 
biological opinion from NMFS in response to ongoing consultation, but 
does not expect the biological opinion to affect the conclusions in 
this draft EA.
    As described in the Aquatic Resources Impacts section, the expected 
temperature increase of plant water discharged to the Atlantic Ocean 
could increase thermal exposure to aquatic biota, including the 
threatened and endangered sea turtles found at the site. The NRC 
expects the FPL capture-release and monitoring program for sea turtles 
and NRC interactions with NMFS regarding incidental takes to continue 
under the terms and conditions of the new biological opinion. 
Therefore, the NRC expects the proposed EPU would not change the 
effects of plant operation on threatened and endangered species.
    Planned construction-related activities associated with the 
proposed EPU primarily involve changes to existing structures, systems, 
and components internal to existing buildings and would not involve 
earth disturbance, with the exception of planned electrical 
transmission line modifications. Traffic and worker activity in the 
developed parts of the plant site during the combined refueling outages 
and EPU modifications would be somewhat greater than a normal refueling 
outage. As described in the Terrestrial Resources Impacts section, 
electrical transmission line modifications may require truck use within 
the transmission line ROW. The NRC concluded in SEIS-11 that 
transmission line maintenance practices for the FPL license renewal 
would not lower terrestrial habitat quality or cause significant 
changes in wildlife populations. Because the proposed EPU operations 
would not result in any significant changes to the expected 
transmission maintenance activities evaluated for the operating license 
renewal, the proposed EPU transmission modifications also should have 
little effect on threatened and endangered terrestrial species. The 
effects of changes to the terrestrial wildlife habitat on the St. Lucie 
Nuclear Plant site from the proposed EPU should not exceed those 
potential effects on terrestrial wildlife evaluated in SEIS-11, 
including potential minor and temporary impacts from worker activity.

Historic and Archaeological Resources Impacts

    Records at the Florida Master File in the Florida Division of 
Historical Resources identify five known archaeological sites located 
on or immediately adjacent to the property boundaries for the St. Lucie 
Nuclear Plant, although no archaeological and historic architectural 
finds have been recorded on the site. None of these sites are listed on 
the National Register for Historic Places (NRHP). The NRHP lists 
sixteen properties in St. Lucie County including one historic district. 
The Captain Hammond House in White City, approximately 6 mi (10 km) 
from St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, is the nearest property listed on the 
NRHP.
    A moderate to high likelihood for the presence of significant 
prehistoric archaeological remains occurs along Blind Creek and the 
northern end of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant boundary. As previously 
discussed, all EPU-related modifications would take place within 
existing buildings and facilities and the electrical transmission line 
ROW, which are not located near Blind Creek or the northern FPL 
property boundary. Because no change in ground disturbance or 
construction-related activities would occur outside of previously 
disturbed areas and existing electrical transmission line ROW, the NRC 
expects no significant impact from the proposed EPU-related 
modifications on historic and archaeological resources.

Socioeconomic Impacts

    Potential socioeconomic impacts from the proposed EPU include 
temporary increases in the size of the workforce at St. Lucie Units 1 
and 2, and associated increased demand for goods, public services, and 
housing in the region. The proposed EPU also could generate increased 
tax revenues for the state and surrounding counties.
    Currently, approximately 800 full-time employees work at the St. 
Lucie Nuclear Plant. FPL estimates a temporary increase in the size of 
the workforce during the fall 2011 and summer 2012 refueling outages. 
During the refueling outages, FPL expects the average number of workers 
to peak by as many as 1,400 construction workers per day to implement 
the EPU for each unit. The outage durations for both units are expected 
to be longer than for a routine 35-day outage. Once EPU-related plant 
modifications have been completed, the size of the refueling outage 
workforce at St. Lucie Nuclear Plant would return to normal levels and 
would remain similar to pre-EPU levels, with no significant increases 
during future refueling outages. The size of the regular plant 
operations workforce would be unaffected by the proposed EPU.
    The NRC expects most of the EPU plant modification workers to 
relocate temporarily to communities in St. Lucie, Martin, Indian River, 
and Palm Beach Counties, resulting in short-term increases in the local 
population along with increased demands for public services and 
housing. Because plant modification work would be temporary, most 
workers would stay in available rental homes, apartments, mobile homes, 
and camper-trailers. The 2010 American Community Survey 1-year estimate 
for vacant housing units reported 32,056 vacant housing units in St. 
Lucie County; 18,042 in Martin County; 23,236 in Indian River County; 
and 147,910 in Palm Beach County that could potentially ease the demand 
for local rental housing. Therefore, the NRC expects a temporary 
increase in plant employment for a short duration that would have 
little or no noticeable effect on the availability of housing in the 
region.
    The additional number of refueling outage workers and truck 
material and equipment deliveries needed to support EPU-related plant 
modifications would cause short-term level of service impacts 
(restricted traffic flow and higher incident rates) on secondary roads 
in the immediate vicinity of St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. FPL expects 
increased traffic volumes necessary to support implementation of the 
EPU-related modifications during the refueling outage. The NRC 
predicted transportation service impacts for refueling outages at St. 
Lucie Nuclear Plant during its license renewal term would be small and 
would not require mitigation. However, the number of temporary 
construction workers the NRC evaluated for SEIS-11 was less than the 
number of temporary construction workers required for the proposed EPU. 
Based on this information and that EPU-related plant modifications 
would occur during a normal refueling outage, there could be

[[Page 819]]

noticeable short-term (during certain hours of the day) level-of-
service traffic impacts beyond what is experienced during normal 
outages. 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 St. Lucie Nuclear Plant to minimize level-of-
service impacts.
    The St. Lucie Nuclear Plant currently pays annual real estate 
property taxes to the St. Lucie County school district, the County 
Board of Commissioners, the County fire district, and the South Florida 
Water Management District. The annual amount of future property taxes 
the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant would pay could take into account the 
increased value of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 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 St. Lucie County. 
Therefore, the NRC expects no significant socioeconomic impacts from 
EPU-related plant modifications and operations under EPU conditions in 
the vicinity of St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.

Environmental Justice Impact Analysis

    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 St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. 
Such effects may include biological, cultural, economic, or social 
impacts. Minority and low-income populations are subsets of the general 
public residing in the vicinity of St. Lucie Nuclear Plant, and all are 
exposed to the same health and environmental effects generated from 
activities at St. Lucie Units 1 and 2.
    The NRC considered the demographic composition of the area within a 
50-mi (80.5-km) radius of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 to determine the 
location of minority and low-income populations and whether the 
proposed action may affect them. The NRC examined the geographic 
distribution of minority and low-income populations within 50 mi (80.5 
km) of the St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 using the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) 
data for 2000. Although the 2010 census occurred, the data is not yet 
available in a format that provides the population information within a 
specified radius of the site.
    According to the U.S. Census Bureau (USCB) data for 2000 on 
minority populations in the vicinity of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, an 
estimated 1.2 million people live within a 50-mi (80.5-km) radius of 
the plant located within parts of nine counties. Minority populations 
within 50 mi (80.5 km) comprise 27 percent (274,500 persons). The 
largest minority group was African-American (approximately 135,250 
persons or 13.3 percent), followed by Hispanic or Latino (approximately 
111,000 persons or 11 percent). The 2000 census block groups containing 
minority populations were concentrated in Gifford (Indian River 
County), Fort Pierce (St. Lucie County), Pahokee (Palm Beach County 
near Lake Okeechobee), the agricultural areas around Lake Okeechobee, 
and Hobe Sound (Martin County).
    The NRC examined low-income populations using the USCB data for 
2000 and the 2010 American Community Survey 1-Year Estimate. According 
to the 2000 census data, approximately 11 percent of the population 
(111,000 persons) residing within 50 mi (80.5 km) of the St. Lucie 
Nuclear Plant were considered low-income, living below the 2000 federal 
poverty threshold of $8,350 per individual. According to the 2010 
census estimate, approximately 14.1 percent of families and 18 percent 
of individuals were determined to be living below the Federal poverty 
threshold in St. Lucie County. The 2010 federal poverty threshold was 
$22,050 for a family of four and $10,830 for an individual. The median 
household income for St. Lucie County was approximately $38,671 and 13 
percent lower than the median household income (approximately $44,409) 
for Florida.

Environmental Justice Impact

    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 well 
below regulatory limits.
    Noise and dust impacts would be temporary and limited to onsite 
activities. Minority and low-income populations residing along site 
access roads could experience increased commuter vehicle traffic during 
shift changes. Increased demand for inexpensive rental housing during 
the 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 housing properties, impacts to 
minority and low-income populations would be of short duration and 
limited. According to the 2010 census information, there were 
approximately 221,244 vacant housing units in St. Lucie County and the 
surrounding three counties combined.
    Based on this information and the analysis of human health and 
environmental impacts presented in this EA, the proposed EPU would not 
have disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental 
effects on minority and low-income populations residing in the St. 
Lucie Nuclear Plant vicinity.

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 in the 
vicinity of St. Lucie Nuclear Plant. For the purposes of this analysis, 
past actions are related to the construction and licensing of St. Lucie 
Units 1 and 2, 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 NRC concluded that there would be no significant cumulative 
impacts to the resource areas air quality, groundwater, threatened and 
endangered species, historical and archaeological resources in the 
vicinity of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 because the contributory effect of 
ongoing actions within a region are regulated and monitored through a 
permitting process (e.g., National Pollutant Discharge Elimination 
System 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.
    Surface water and aquatic resources were examined for potential 
cumulative impacts. The geographic boundary for potential cumulative 
impacts is the area of the post-EPU thermal mixing zone. If the 
proposed EPU is approved and is implemented, St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 
are predicted to have a slightly larger and hotter mixing zone than 
pre-uprate conditions during full flow and capacity. The NRC 
anticipates that St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 will continue to operate post 
EPU in full compliance with the requirements of the FDEP IWFP. FDEP 
would evaluate FPL compliance with the IWFP.
    Proposed EPU-related modifications for the electrical transmission 
line ROW at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant could

[[Page 820]]

affect land use, aesthetics, and terrestrial species. Improvements and 
maintenance would be conducted according to Federal and State 
regulations, permit conditions, existing procedures, and established 
best management practices to minimize impacts to these resources. 
Nevertheless, terrestrial wildlife and habitat may be lost, displaced, 
or disturbed by noise and human presence during EPU-related work in the 
electrical transmission line ROW. Less mobile animals, such as 
reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals, would incur greater impacts 
than more mobile animals, such as birds. The proposed electrical 
transmission line modifications would neither change land use 
activities expected during current operations nor change the current 
aesthetic resources within view of the electrical transmission lines.
    The greatest socioeconomic impacts from the proposed EPU and 
continued operation of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 would occur during the 
fall 2011 and summer 2012 fuel outages. The increase in EPU-related 
construction workforces would have a temporary effect on socioeconomic 
conditions in local communities from the increased demand for temporary 
housing, public services (e.g., public schools), and increased traffic.

Nonradiological Impacts Summary

    As discussed previously, the proposed EPU would not result in any 
significant nonradiological impacts. Table 1 summarizes the 
nonradiological environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at St. Lucie 
Units 1 and 2.

        Table 1--Summary of Nonradiological Environmental Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Land Use..........................  Proposed EPU-related activities are
                                     not expected to cause significant
                                     impacts on land use conditions and
                                     aesthetic resources in the vicinity
                                     of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2.
Air Quality.......................  Temporary air quality impacts from
                                     vehicle emissions related to EPU
                                     construction workforce is not
                                     expected to cause significant
                                     impacts to air quality.
Water Use.........................  Water use changes resulting from the
                                     proposed EPU are not expected to
                                     cause impacts greater than current
                                     operations. No significant impact
                                     on groundwater or surface water
                                     resources.
Aquatic Resources.................  The NRC expects no significant
                                     changes to impacts caused by
                                     current operation due to
                                     impingement, entrainment, and
                                     thermal discharges.
Terrestrial Resources.............  The NRC expects no significant
                                     impacts to terrestrial resources.
Threatened and Endangered Species.  The proposed EPU would change
                                     impacts from those caused by
                                     current operations. The NRC expects
                                     a NMFS to issue a biological
                                     opinion on sea turtles and the
                                     smalltooth sawfish in the near
                                     future.
Historic and Archaeological         No significant impact to historic
 Resources.                          and archaeological resources on
                                     site or in the vicinity of St.
                                     Lucie Units 1 and 2.
Socioeconomics....................  No significant socioeconomic impacts
                                     from EPU-related temporary increase
                                     in workforce.
Environmental Justice.............  No disproportionately high or
                                     adverse human health and
                                     environmental effects on minority
                                     and low-income populations in the
                                     vicinity of St. Lucie Units 1 and
                                     2.
Cumulative Impacts................  The proposed EPU would not cause
                                     impacts significantly greater than
                                     current operations. To address
                                     potential cumulative impacts for
                                     surface water and aquatic
                                     resources, a NMFS biological
                                     opinion is expected with the
                                     authority to impose limits on
                                     nonradiological discharges to abate
                                     any significant water quality and
                                     ecology impacts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiological Impacts

Radioactive Gaseous and Liquid Effluents, Direct Radiation Shine, and 
Solid Waste
    St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 use 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 under proposed EPU conditions predict that no physical 
changes would be needed to the radioactive gaseous, liquid, or solid 
waste systems.
Radioactive Gaseous Effluents
    Radioactive gaseous wastes are principally activation gases and 
fission product radioactive noble gases resulting from process 
operations, including continuous cleanup of the reactor coolant system, 
gases used for tank cover gas, and gases collected during venting. The 
licensee's evaluation determined that implementation of the proposed 
EPU would not significantly increase the inventory of nonradioactive 
carrier gases normally processed in the gaseous waste management 
system, because plant system functions are not changing and the volume 
inputs remain the same. The licensee's analysis also showed that the 
proposed EPU would result in an increase (a bounding maximum, as 
expected, of 13.2 percent for all noble gases, particulates, 
radioiodines, and tritium) 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 licensee's evaluation concluded that the proposed EPU would not 
change the radioactive gaseous waste system design function and 
reliability to safely control and process the waste. 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 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix I.
Radioactive Liquid Effluents
    Radioactive liquid wastes include liquids from reactor process 
systems and liquids that have become contaminated. 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 an increase in the equilibrium 
radioactivity in the reactor coolant (12.2 percent), which in turn 
would impact the concentrations of radioactive nuclides in the waste 
disposal systems.
    Because the NRC does not expect the composition of the radioactive 
material in the waste and the volume of radioactive material processed 
through the system to significantly change, the current design and 
operation of the radioactive liquid waste system will accommodate the 
effects of the proposed EPU. The existing equipment and plant 
procedures that control radioactive releases to the environment will 
continue to be used to maintain

[[Page 821]]

radioactive liquid releases within the dose limits of 10 CFR 20.1302 
and ALARA dose standards in 10 CFR part 50, Appendix I.
Occupational Radiation Dose Under 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 of 12.2 percent. For the radiological impact 
analyses, the licensee conservatively assumed an increase to the 
licensed thermal power level from 2,700 MWt to 3,030 MWt or 12.2 
percent, although the EPU request is for an increase to the licensed 
thermal power level to 3,020 MWt, or 11.85 percent. To protect the 
workers, the plant 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, shielding is used throughout St. Lucie Units 1 and 
2 to protect plant personnel against radiation from the reactor and 
auxiliary systems. The licensee determined that the current shielding 
design, which uses conservative analytical techniques to establish the 
shielding requirements, is adequate to offset the increased radiation 
levels that are expected to occur from the proposed EPU. The proposed 
EPU is not expected to significantly affect radiation levels within the 
plant, 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 
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 are radioactive gaseous and liquid effluents. 
The licensee predicts that maximum annual total and organ doses from 
liquid effluent releases would increase by 12.2 percent. As discussed 
previously, operation under the proposed EPU conditions will not change 
the ability of the radioactive gaseous and liquid waste management 
systems 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 10 CFR part 50, 
Appendix I.
    Based on the previous information, the offsite radiation dose to 
members of the public would continue to be within regulatory limits and 
therefore would not be significant.
Radioactive Solid Wastes
    Solid radioactive waste streams 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, which 
includes bead resin, spent filters, and dry active waste (DAW) that 
result from routine plant operation, 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 states that 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 because 
system 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 process the waste into a form 
that minimizes potential harm to the workers and the environment. Waste 
processing areas are monitored for radiation, and safety features are 
in place 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 radioactive solid waste would not be significant.
Spent Nuclear Fuel
    Spent fuel from St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 is stored in a plant spent 
fuel pool. St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 are currently licensed to use 
uranium-dioxide fuel that has a maximum enrichment of 4.5 percent by 
weight uranium-235. The average fuel assembly discharge burnup for the 
proposed EPU is expected to be limited to 49,000 megawatt days per 
metric ton uranium (MWd/MTU) with no fuel pins exceeding the maximum 
fuel rod burnup limit of 62,000 MWd/MTU for Unit 1 and 60,000 MWd/MTU 
for Unit 2. The licensee's fuel reload design goals will maintain the 
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 fuel cycles within the limits bounded by the 
impacts analyzed in 10 CFR part 51, Table S-3, ``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, 
Addendum 1, ``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 St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 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 November 22, 2010, the licensee submitted the St. Lucie Unit 1 
EPU LAR to the NRC to increase the licensed core power level from 2,700 
MWt to 3,020 MWt. On February 25, 2011, the licensee submitted the St. 
Lucie Unit 2 EPU LAR to the NRC requesting the same increase in 
licensed core power level. Analyses were performed by the licensee 
according to the Alternative Radiological Source Term methodology 
updated with input and assumptions consistent with the proposed EPU. 
For each design-basis accident radiological consequence analyses were 
performed using the guidance in NRC Regulatory Guide 1.183, 
``Alternative Source Terms for Evaluating Design Basis Accidents at 
Nuclear Power Reactors.'' Accident-specific total effective dose 
equivalent was determined at the exclusion area boundary, at the low-
population zone, and in the control room. The analyses also include the 
evaluation of the waste gas decay tank rupture event. The licensee 
concluded that the calculated doses meet the acceptance criteria 
specified in 10 CFR 50.67 and 10 CFR part 50, Appendix A, General 
Design Criterion 19.
    The NRC is evaluating the licensee's LARs to independently 
determine whether they are acceptable to approve. The results of the 
NRC evaluation and conclusion will be documented in a Safety Evaluation 
Report that will be publicly available on the NRC ADAMS. If the NRC 
approves the LARs, then the proposed EPU will not have a significant 
impact with respect to the radiological consequences of design basis 
accidents.
Radiological Cumulative Impacts
    The cumulative impacts associated with the proposed EPU for St. 
Lucie

[[Page 822]]

Unit 1 are considered in conjunction with the operation of St. Lucie 
Unit 2, which is located next to Unit 1 on the site property. 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 codified in 10 CFR part 20 and 40 CFR part 190.
    The cumulative radiation doses to the public and workers are 
required to be within the limits of the regulations. The public dose 
limit of 0.25 millisievert (25 millirem) 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. No other nuclear power reactor or 
uranium fuel cycle facility is located near St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. 
The staff reviewed several years of radiation dose data contained in 
the licensee's annual radioactive effluent release reports for St. 
Lucie Units 1 and 2. The data demonstrate that the dose to members of 
the public from radioactive effluents is well within the limits of 10 
CFR part 20 and 40 CFR part 190. To evaluate the projected dose at EPU 
conditions for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, the NRC increased the actual 
dose data contained in the reports by 12 percent. The projected doses 
at EPU conditions remained well within regulatory limits. Therefore, 
the staff concludes that there would not be a significant cumulative 
radiological impact to members of the public from increased radioactive 
effluents from St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 at the proposed EPU operation.
    As previously evaluated, the licensee has a radiation protection 
program that maintains worker doses within the dose limits in 10 CFR 
part 20 during all phases of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 operations. The 
NRC expects continued compliance with regulatory dose limits during 
operation at the proposed EPU power level. Therefore, the NRC concludes 
that there would not be a significant cumulative radiological impact to 
plant workers from operation of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 at the proposed 
EPU levels.
Radiological Impacts Summary
    As discussed previously, the proposed EPU would not result in any 
significant radiological impacts. Table 2 summarizes the radiological 
environmental impacts of the proposed EPU at St. Lucie Units 1 and 2.

         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    Calculated doses for postulated
 Doses.                              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 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 was not approved for St. Lucie Unit 1, 
other agencies and electric power organizations may be required to 
pursue other means, such as fossil fuel or alternative fuel power 
generation, in order to provide electric generation capacity to offset 
future demand. Construction and operation of such a fossil-fueled or 
alternative-fueled facility may create impacts in air quality, land 
use, and waste management significantly greater than those identified 
for the proposed EPU at St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. Furthermore, the 
proposed EPU does not involve environmental impacts that are 
significantly different from those originally indentified in the St. 
Lucie Units 1 and 2 FESs, NUREG-1437, and SEIS-11.

Alternative Use of Resources

    This action does not involve the use of any different resources 
than those previously considered in the FESs or SEIS-11.

Agencies and Persons Consulted

    In accordance with its stated policy, on December 8, 2011, the NRC 
consulted with the State of Florida official regarding the 
environmental impact of the proposed action. The State official had no 
comments.

III. Draft Finding of No Significant Impact

    On the basis of 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 St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 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.
    For further details on the proposed action, see the licensee's 
application dated November 22, 2010, for Unit 1 and February 25, 2011, 
for Unit 2.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 28th day of December 2011.
Siva P. Lingam,
Chief (Acting), Plant Licensing Branch II-2, Division of Operating 
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-32 Filed 1-5-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P