[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 20059-20070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-7947]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251; NRC-2011-0259]
License Amendment To Increase the Maximum Reactor Power Level,
Florida Power & Light Company, Turkey Point, Units 3 and 4
AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
ACTION: Final environmental assessment and finding of no significant
impact.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC or the Commission)
is considering issuing an amendment for Renewed Facility Operating
License Nos. DPR-31 and DPR-41, issued to Florida Power & Light Company
(FPL or the licensee) for operation of the Turkey Point (PTN), Units 3
and 4, to increase the maximum power level from 2300 megawatts thermal
(MWt) to 2644 MWt for each unit. 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, and has prepared this
final Environmental Assessment (EA) and Finding of No Significant
Impact (FONSI) for the proposed action.
ADDRESSES: Please refer to Docket ID NRC-2011-0259 when contacting the
NRC about the availability of information regarding this document. You
may access information related to this document, which the NRC
possesses and is publicly-available, using the following methods:
Federal Rulemaking Web site: Go to http://www.regulations.gov and search for Docket ID NRC-2011-0259. Address
questions about NRC dockets to Carol Gallagher; telephone: 301-492-
3668; email: [email protected].
NRC's Agencywide Documents Access and Management System
(ADAMS): You may access publicly-
[[Page 20060]]
available documents online in the NRC Library at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. To begin the search, select ``ADAMS Public
Documents'' and then select ``Begin Web-based ADAMS Search.'' For
problems with ADAMS, please contact the NRC's Public Document Room
(PDR) reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 301-415-4737, or by email to
[email protected]. The ADAMS accession number for each document
referenced in this notice (if that document is available in ADAMS) is
provided the first time that a document is referenced.
NRC's PDR: You may examine and purchase copies of public
documents at the NRC's PDR, Room O1-F21, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland 20852.
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,
Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone: 301-415-5888; email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 FPL for operation of the PTN, Units 3 and
4, for a license amendment to increase the maximum power level from
2300 MWt to 2644 MWt for each unit. In accordance with Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) 51.21, the NRC has prepared this
final EA and 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. For further details with
respect to the proposed action, see the licensee's application dated
October 21, 2010, as supplemented by letters dated December 14, 2010
(ADAMS Accession No. ML103560167), and April 22, 2011 (ADAMS Accession
No. ML11115A114).
The NRC published a notice in the Federal Register requesting
public review and comment on a draft EA and FONSI for the proposed
action on November 17, 2011 (76 FR 71379), and established December 19,
2011, as the deadline for submitting public comments. By letters dated
December 9, 2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML11347A194), and December 12,
2011 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12027A023), comments were received from FPL
and Mr. Steve Torcise, Jr., of the Atlantic Civil, Inc., respectively.
The FPL comments provided new estimates on the number of additional
workers needed to support the outage work implementing the proposed
Extended Power Uprate (EPU) and revised the projected outage times
necessary to implement the EPU. The FPL comments have been incorporated
into this final EA with no change to the FONSI conclusion. The Atlantic
Civil, Inc. comments have been incorporated into this final EA with no
change to the FONSI conclusion and are summarized in the ``Summary of
Comments'' (ADAMS Accession No. ML12075A035). Also, by letter dated
January 12, 2012 (ADAMS Accession Number ML12019A348), the Southeast
Regional Office of the U.S. Department of the Interior's National Park
Service provided comments on the draft EA and draft FONSI. Since these
comments were received after the comment period deadline of December
19, 2011, the NRC will address these comments using separate
correspondence.
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 4.5 miles (7 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 FPL's
13,000 ac (5,260 ha) Everglades Mitigation Bank. The PTN site consists
of five electric generating units. Units 3 and 4 at the PTN site 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
Units 1 through 4. Unit 5 has mechanical draft cooling towers for the
steam generation cycle using water from the Upper Floridan Aquifer
(UFA) as makeup and routing cooling tower blowdown to the cooling canal
system. 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 PTN, 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 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 the NRC because it exceeds the typical
7-percent power increase that can be accommodated with only minor plant
changes. An EPU typically involves extensive modifications to the
nuclear steam supply system contained within the plant buildings.
The licensee 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 people are employed at PTN Units 3 and 4 on a
full-time basis with increases of approximately 600-900 during
refueling outages. The licensee estimates that it will need
approximately 2500 workers for implementation of the EPU resulting in a
potential maximum outage/EPU workforce of approximately 3400 during
each of the EPU outages.
As part of the overall process to obtain approval for the EPU, in
September 2007, FPL submitted a
[[Page 20061]]
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 about
104 megawatts electric (MWe), from about 700 MWe to about 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 thorough and
comprehensive 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
COL for two AP1000 PWRs designated as PTN, 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
The 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-
[[Page 20062]]
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 168 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 60 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, 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 process is used to minimize the flow of hyper-saline water
from the CCS toward the Everglades. Maintenance of the CCS includes
mechanical removal of submerged, 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, including
opportunities for public comment, 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 CoC requires 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 Floridan 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.
[[Page 20063]]
Recharge of groundwater at the PTN 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
PTN site. However, below about 40 ft (12 meters (m)) into the Biscayne
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. The PTN Units 3 and 4 use
approximately 690 gallons per minute (2612 liters per minute (L/min))
of potable water. The licensee 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 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 northernmost 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 PTN 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 a main return
canal and six return channels.
Under EPU conditions, the cooling canal system would increase in
both temperature and salinity. The licensee 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 aquatic organisms in the cooling canal system are unable to
travel to or from Biscayne Bay, Card Sound, or any other 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 PTN 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, approximately
11,000-ac 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
[[Page 20064]]
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 on September
9, 2011, 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.
Table of Federally Listed Species Occurring in Miami-Dade County
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESA status
Scientific name Common name \(a)\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquatic Invertebrates
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acropora cervicornis........... staghorn coral......... PT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acropora palmate............... elkhorn coral.......... PT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Birds
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ammodramus maritimus mirabilis. Cape Sable seaside E
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 plumbeus. Everglade snail kite... E
Vermivora bachmanii............ Bachman's warbler \(b)\ E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fish
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pristis pectinata.............. smalltooth sawfish..... E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flowering Plants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amorpha crenulata.............. crenulate lead-plant... E
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chamaesyce deltoidea ssp. deltoid spurge......... E
Deltoidea.
Chamaesyce garberi............. Garber's spurge........ T
Cucurbita okeechobeensis ssp. okeechobee gourd \(b)\. E
Okeechobeensis.
Galactia smallii............... Small's milkpea........ E
Halophia johnsonii............. Johnson's sea grass.... T
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 turtle.. T
Chelonia mydas................. green sea turtle....... E
Crocodylus acutus.............. American crocodile..... T
Dermochelys coriacea........... leatherback sea turtle. E
Drymarchon corais couperi...... eastern indigo snake... T
[[Page 20065]]
Eretmochelys imbricata......... hawksbill sea turtle... E
Lepidochelys kempii............ Kemp's ridley sea E
turtle \(c)\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snails
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Orthalicus reses............... Stock Island tree snail T
\(b)\.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\(a)\ E = endangered; PT = proposed threaten; 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 30 species listed in the Table above. 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.
The FWS responded to NRC's biological assessment on October 25,
2011. In their letter, the FWS concluded that the proposed EPU may
affect, but is not likely to adversely affect, the American crocodile.
The FWS also noted that the proposed EPU is unlikely to result in
modification to designated American crocodile critical habitat. This
letter fulfilled the NRC's requirements under Section 7 of the ESA.
Based on the FWS's conclusions, the NRC concludes that the proposed
EPU would not significantly impact threatened or endangered species.
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.
Approximately 800 people are employed at PTN Units 3 and 4 on a
full-time basis with increases of approximately 600-900 during periodic
refueling outages. These workers reside primarily in Miami-Dade County,
Florida. The licensee estimates that it will need approximately 2500
workers for implementation of the EPU resulting in a potential maximum
outage/EPU workforce of approximately 3400 during each of the EPU
outages. The licensee estimates that the outages to implement the EPU
will last approximately 160 days for Unit 3 and 130 days for Unit 4. 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 expected during future refueling
outages. The size of the regular plant workforce is not expected to be
affected 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 and up to half a year, 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 this
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. The FPL evaluation asserts that the projected traffic will
remain well within the Miami-Dade County peak hour capacity. Therefore,
the roadways used by plant workers and the public are expected to
operate at an acceptable level of service as designated by Miami-Dade
County. 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
[[Page 20066]]
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. 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 PTN 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 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.
[[Page 20067]]
Units 6 and 7 of the PTN site would be constructed on undeveloped
land immediately south of PTN Units 3 and 4. The EPU modifications to
PTN Units 3 and 4 are expected to be completed before the proposed PTN
Units 6 and 7 are constructed.
Units 6 and 7 of the PTN site would have a closed-cycle cooling
system utilizing cooling towers with makeup water from Biscayne Bay and
treated wastewater from Miami-Dade County. Waste water discharges are
expected to be disposed of 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.
Units 6 and 7of the PTN site 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 7 cooling 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 draft cooling towers can result in salt deposition (i.e.,
salt drift); a greater risk of avian collision mortality; and noise.
Land needed for the proposed PTN 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.
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
The 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
[[Page 20068]]
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 that result from routine plant operation, refueling outages, and
routine maintenance. Dry active waste 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 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
[[Page 20069]]
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. The 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 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. The FPL 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.
[[Page 20070]]
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. 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.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of March 2012.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Jason C. Paige,
Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch 2-2, Division of Operating
Reactor Licensing, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 2012-7947 Filed 4-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P