[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 27, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59266-59267]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-29448]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-250 and 50-251]
Florida Power and Light Company; Turkey Point Plant, Units 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 the requirements of Title 10, Code of
Federal Regulations (10 CFR), section 50.44, and 10 CFR part 50,
appendix A, General Design Criteria 41, 42, and 43, 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 Plant,
Units 3 and 4, located in Miami-Dade County, 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 exemption would exempt the Turkey Point Plant, Units 3
and 4, from the requirements of 10 CFR 50.44; 10 CFR part 50, appendix
A, General Design Criteria 41, 42, and 43; and 10 CFR part 50, appendix
E, section IV; related to combustible gas control systems. The purpose
of the exemption request is to remove the requirements for the hydrogen
control systems from the Turkey Point Plant design basis. The staff has
reviewed the information
[[Page 59267]]
provided and concluded that the requested exemption for the hydrogen
recombiners and the post-accident containment vent system is justified
because special circumstances necessary to meet the criteria of 10 CFR
50.12(a)(2)(ii) do exist to justify the exemption from certain parts of
10 CFR 50.44 and General Design Criteria 41, 42, and 43. The staff will
act on the exemption request for the containment hydrogen monitors and
their associated Technical Specification revision by separate
correspondence. The proposed exemption is in accordance with the
licensee's application dated October 23, 2000.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The requested exemption to remove the requirements pertaining to
recombiners and the post-accident containment vent system would improve
the safety focus at Turkey Point during an accident and would represent
a more effective and efficient method of maintaining adequate
protection of public health and safety by simplifying the Emergency
Response Plan Procedures. In a postulated loss-of-coolant accident, the
Turkey Point emergency operating procedures (EOPs) direct the control
room operators to monitor and control the hydrogen concentration inside
the containment after they have carried-out the steps to maintain and
control the higher priority critical safety functions. These hydrogen
control activities could distract operators from more important tasks
in the early phases of accident mitigation and could have a negative
impact on the higher priority critical operator actions. An exemption
from the hydrogen recombiner and the post-accident containment vent
system requirements will eliminate the need for these systems in the
EOPs and, hence, simplify the EOPs. The staff still expects the
licensee's severe accident management guidelines to address combustible
gas control. Therefore, this simplification would provide a safety
benefit, and this action reduces unnecessary regulatory burden on the
licensee, which is one of the NRC's outcome goals of effective
regulation.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation of the proposed action and
concludes, as set forth below, that there are no significant
environmental impacts associated with the removal of the recombiners
and the post-accident containment vent system from the Turkey Point
Plant design basis.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types or
amounts of any effluents that may be released offsite, and 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 on the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
There are two alternatives to the proposed action. The first one is
the 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 denial of the action are similar. The second
alternative is to grant the exemption as requested by the licensee in
its submittal of October 23, 2000. The NRC does not endorse the second
alternative at this time. Nevertheless, the environmental impacts of
the second alternative and the environmental impacts of the proposed
action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
This action does not involve the use of any different resources
than those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement
for the Turkey Point Plant, Units 3 and 4, dated July 1972.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On September 18, 2001, the staff consulted with the Florida State
official, Mr. William A. 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 October 23, 2000. Documents may be examined,
and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's Public Document Room (PDR),
located at One White Flint North, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible
electronically from the ADAMS Public Library component on the NRC Web
site,
http://www.nrc.gov (the Public Electronic Reading Room). If you do not
have access to ADAMS or if there are problems in accessing the
documents located in ADAMS, contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-
800-397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or by e-mail at [email protected].
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 20th day of November, 2001.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Kahtan N. Jabbour,
Senior Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 01-29448 Filed 11-26-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P