[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:
    <bullet> 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abe8cad9c4c785eccac7c7caccc3ced9ebc5d9c885ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d390b2a1bcbffd94b2bfbfb2b4bbb6a193bda1b0fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>.
    <bullet> 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#abdbcfd985d9ced8c4ded9c8ceebc5d9c885ccc4dd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="99e9fdebb7ebfceaf6ecebfafcd9f7ebfab7fef6ef">[email protected]</span></a>. 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.
    <bullet> 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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2f654e5c4041017f4e46484a6f415d4c01484059"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="db91baa8b4b5f58bbab2bcbe9bb5a9b8f5bcb4ad">[email protected]</span></a>.

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:
    <bullet> Conservative analytical techniques were used to establish 
the shielding requirements,
    <bullet> Conservatism in the original design basis reactor coolant 
source terms used to establish the radiation zones, and
    <bullet> 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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>