56188 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Notices 

In accordance with 10 CFR Part 51, 

the Commission will also prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. Pursuant to 10 CFR 

51.26, and as part of the environmental 

scoping process, the staff intends to 

hold a public scoping meeting. Detailed 

information regarding this meeting will 

be included in a future Federal Register 

notice. 

Finally, the Commission will 

announce, in a future Federal Register 

notice, the opportunity to petition for 

leave to intervene in the hearing 

required for this application by 10 CFR 

52.21. 

A copy of the Southern Nuclear 

Operating Company ESP application is 

available for public inspection at the 

Commission’s Public Document Room 

located at One White Flint North, 11555 

Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, 

Maryland, and at the Burke County 

Library in Waynesboro, Georgia. It is 

also accessible electronically from the 

Agencywide Documents Access and 

Management System (ADAMS) Public 

Electronic Reading Room on the Internet 

at the NRC Web site, http:// 

www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html 

(ADAMS Accession No. ML062290246). 

Persons who do not have access to 

ADAMS, or who encounter problems in 

accessing the documents located in 

ADAMS, should contact the NRC Public 

Document Room staff by telephone at 1–

800–397–4209, 301–415–4737 or by email to pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 19th day 

of September, 2006. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

David B. Matthews, 

Director, Division of New Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 06–8221 Filed 9–25–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

[Docket Nos. 50–250 and 50–251] 

Florida Power and Light Company; 

Turkey Point Nuclear Plant, Unit Nos. 

3 and 4 Environmental Assessment 

and Finding of No Significant Impact 

The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (NRC) is considering 

issuance of an exemption from Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 

CFR) part 50, Appendix R, Subsection 

III.G.3, for Facility Operating License 

Nos. DPR–31 and DPR–41, issued to 

Florida Power and Light Company (the 

licensee), for operation of the Turkey 

Point Nuclear Plant, Units 3 and 4, 

respectively, located in Miami-Dade 

County, approximately 25 miles south 

of Miami, Florida. Therefore, as 

required by 10 CFR 51.21, the NRC is 

issuing this environmental assessment 

and finding of no significant impact. 

Environmental Assessment 

Identification of the Proposed Action 

The proposed action would exempt 

the licensee from the requirements of 10 

CFR part 50, Appendix R, Subsection 

III.G.3 for fixed suppression in the 

Mechanical Equipment Room and for 

detection and fixed suppression in the 

subsection of the Control Building that 

contains the Control Room Roof at the 

Turkey Point Nuclear Plant. 

The proposed action is in accordance 

with the licensee’s application dated 

December 27, 2004, as supplemented by 

letters dated May 23, 2005, January 13, 

2006, and July 12, 2006. 

The Need for the Proposed Action 

Fire protection features for assuring 

alternative or dedicated shutdown 

capability in the event of a fire are 

addressed in 10 CFR, part 50, Appendix 

R, Subsection III.G.3, which requires 

that fire detection and a fixed fire 

suppression system be installed in the 

area, room, or zone where equipment or 

components are relied on for the 

assured shutdown capability. 

The NRC approved the alternate 

shutdown capability proposed by the 

licensee for Turkey Point, Units 3 and 

4, for compliance with the requirements 

of III.G.3, in a safety evaluation dated 

April 16, 1984. The Control Room was 

one of the areas approved. However, the 

Mechanical Equipment Room and 

Control Room Roof, which are identified 

in the plant fire protection program 

report as part of the Control Room fire 

area, were not included. In February 

2004, during an NRC triennial fire 

inspection at Turkey Point, the 

inspection team reviewed fire protection 

systems, features, and equipment, and 

found that all fire zones supporting the 

alternate safe shutdown function for the 

Control Room do not provide fire 

detection and a fixed suppression 

system in accordance with the 

requirements of III.G.3, for both Turkey 

Point units. Specifically, the Mechanical 

Equipment Room does not have full area 

detection and fixed suppression. In 

response to this inspection finding, the 

licensee declared the detection and 

suppression inoperable for the 

Mechanical Equipment Room (and the 

Control Room Roof, which also fails to 

provide detection and fixed 

suppression) and established an hourly 

fire watch. The licensee proposed to 

install a fire detection system in the 

Mechanical Equipment Room and 

requested exemption from the 

requirements for fixed suppression in 

the Mechanical Equipment Room and 

for detection and fixed suppression on 

the Control Room Roof. The proposed 

action would restore system operability 

and eliminate the need to institute 

compensatory measures. 

Environmental Impacts of the Proposed 

Action 

The NRC has completed its safety 

evaluation of the proposed action and 

concludes that, based on the existing 

fire protection features, the proposed 

installation of new detection equipment 

in the Mechanical Equipment Room, 

low combustible loading, existing 

administrative controls for 

combustibles, and availability of nearby 

suppression equipment, there is 

reasonable assurance of adequate 

suppression capability in the affected 

fire zones. Also, in the event of a fireinduced failure of safety-related 

equipment resulting in a loss of Control 

Room heating, ventilation and air 

conditioning equipment, there is 

reasonable assurance that there would 

be adequate time to evacuate the Control 

Room, if necessary, and shut down the 

plant from the Alternate Shutdown 

Panel. Therefore, assurance of 

alternative or dedicated shutdown 

capability in the event of a fire is 

achieved. 

The proposed action is contingent 

upon installation of new area fire 

detection equipment in the Mechanical 

Equipment Room, maintaining existing 

or comparable separation and protection 

for redundant safe shutdown equipment 

on the Control Room Roof, the 

availability of manual fire fighting and 

associated fire fighting equipment, and 

maintaining existing or comparable 

administrative controls for 

combustibles. The details of the staff’s 

safety evaluation will be provided in the 

exemption that will be issued as part of 

the letter to the licensee approving the 

exemption to the regulation. 

The proposed action will not 

significantly increase the probability or 

consequences of accidents because the 

exemption is based on the existing fire 

barriers at Turkey Point, fire protection 

measures, availability of nearby 

suppression equipment, low 

combustible loading, existing 

administrative controls for 

combustibles, and installation of new 

fire detection equipment in the 

Mechanical Equipment Room. No new 

accident precursors are created by the 

proposed exemption and the 

consequences of postulated accidents 

are not increased. No changes are being 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 186 / Tuesday, September 26, 2006 / Notices 56189 

made in the types of effluents that may 

be released off site. There is no 

significant increase in the amount of 

any effluent released off site. There is no 

significant increase in occupational or 

public radiation exposure. Therefore, 

there are no significant radiological 

environmental impacts associated with 

the proposed action. 

With regard to potential 

nonradiological impacts, the proposed 

action does not have a potential to affect 

any historic sites. It does not affect 

nonradiological plant effluents and has 

no other environmental impact. 

Therefore, there are no significant 

nonradiological environmental impacts 

associated with the proposed action. 

Accordingly, the NRC concludes that 

there are no significant environmental 

impacts associated with the proposed 

action. 

Environmental Impacts of the 

Alternatives to the Proposed Action 

As an alternative to the proposed 

action, the staff considered denial of the 

proposed action (i.e., the ‘‘no-action’’

alternative). Denial of the application 

would result in no change in current 

environmental impacts. The 

environmental impacts of the proposed 

action and the alternative action are 

similar. 

Alternative Use of Resources 

The action does not involve the use of 

any different resources than those 

previously considered in the Final 

Environmental Statement for Turkey 

Point Units 3 and 4, dated January 1972, 

and Final Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (NUREG–1437 

Supplement 5) dated January 2002. 

Agencies and Persons Consulted 

In accordance with its stated policy, 

on August 7, 2006, the staff consulted 

with the Florida State official, William 

Passetti of the Bureau of Radiation 

Control, regarding the environmental 

impact of the proposed action. The State 

official had no comments. 

Finding of No Significant Impact 

On the basis of the environmental 

assessment, the NRC concludes that the 

proposed action will not have a 

significant effect on the quality of the 

human environment. Accordingly, the 

NRC has determined not to prepare an 

environmental impact statement for the 

proposed action. 

For further details with respect to the 

proposed action, see the licensee’s letter 

dated December 27, 2004, as 

supplemented by letters dated May 23, 

2005, January 13, 2006, and July 12, 

2006. Documents may be examined, 

and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC’s 

Public Document Room (PDR), located 

at One White Flint North, Public File 

Area O1 F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first 

floor), Rockville, Maryland. Publicly 

available records will be accessible 

electronically from the Agencywide 

Documents Access and Management 

System (ADAMS) Public Electronic 

Reading Room on the Internet at the 

NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/ 

reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who 

do not have access to ADAMS or who 

encounter problems in accessing the 

documents located in ADAMS should 

contact the NRC PDR Reference staff by 

telephone at 1–800–397–4209 or 301–

415–4737, or send an e-mail to 

pdr@nrc.gov. 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day 

of September 2006. 

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

Brendan T. Moroney, 

Project Manager, Plant Licensing Branch II–

2, Division of Operating Reactor Licensing, 

Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. 

[FR Doc. 06–8220 Filed 9–25–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590–01–P 

NUCLEAR REGULATORY 

COMMISSION 

Biweekly Notice; Applications and 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses Involving No Significant 

Hazards Considerations 

I. Background 

Pursuant to section 189a. (2) of the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amended 

(the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission (the Commission or NRC 

staff) is publishing this regular biweekly 

notice. The Act requires the 

Commission publish notice of any 

amendments issued, or proposed to be 

issued and grants the Commission the 

authority to issue and make 

immediately effective any amendment 

to an operating license upon a 

determination by the Commission that 

such amendment involves no significant 

hazards consideration, notwithstanding 

the pendency before the Commission of 

a request for a hearing from any person. 

This biweekly notice includes all 

notices of amendments issued, or 

proposed to be issued from September 

1, 2006, to September 14, 2006. The last 

biweekly notice was published on 

September 12, 2006 (71 FR 53715). 

Notice of Consideration of Issuance of 

Amendments to Facility Operating 

Licenses, Proposed No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

and Opportunity for a Hearing 

The Commission has made a 

proposed determination that the 

following amendment requests involve 

no significant hazards consideration. 

Under the Commission’s regulations in 

10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation 

of the facility in accordance with the 

proposed amendment would not (1) 

involve a significant increase in the 

probability or consequences of an 

accident previously evaluated; or (2) 

create the possibility of a new or 

different kind of accident from any 

accident previously evaluated; or (3) 

involve a significant reduction in a 

margin of safety. The basis for this 

proposed determination for each 

amendment request is shown below. 

The Commission is seeking public 

comments on this proposed 

determination. Any comments received 

within 30 days after the date of 

publication of this notice will be 

considered in making any final 

determination. Within 60 days after the 

date of publication of this notice, the 

licensee may file a request for a hearing 

with respect to issuance of the 

amendment to the subject facility 

operating license and any person whose 

interest may be affected by this 

proceeding and who wishes to 

participate as a party in the proceeding 

must file a written request for a hearing 

and a petition for leave to intervene. 

Normally, the Commission will not 

issue the amendment until the 

expiration of 60 days after the date of 

publication of this notice. The 

Commission may issue the license 

amendment before expiration of the 60- 

day period provided that its final 

determination is that the amendment 

involves no significant hazards 

consideration. In addition, the 

Commission may issue the amendment 

prior to the expiration of the 30-day 

comment period should circumstances 

change during the 30-day comment 

period such that failure to act in a 

timely way would result, for example in 

derating or shutdown of the facility. 

Should the Commission take action 

prior to the expiration of either the 

comment period or the notice period, it 

will publish in the Federal Register a 

notice of issuance. Should the 

Commission make a final No Significant 

Hazards Consideration Determination, 

any hearing will take place after 

issuance. The Commission expects that 

the need to take this action will occur 

very infrequently. 


pwalker on PRODPC60 with NOTICES