[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 131 (Friday, July 9, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 41553-41554]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-15594]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389]
Florida Power and Light Company, et al., St. Lucie Plant, Unit
Nos. 1 and 2; Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant
Impact
The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) is considering
issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-67 and
NPF-16, issued to Florida Power and Light Company, et al. (the
licensee), for operation of the St. Lucie Plant, Unit Nos. 1 and 2,
respectively, located in St. Lucie 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 action would increase the wet storage capacity of fuel
assemblies at the St. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2. A freestanding fuel
storage rack module would be installed in the cask pit in each unit's
fuel-handling building. The Unit 1 rack is being designed to augment
storage capacity from 1706 fuel assemblies to 1849 fuel assemblies, an
increase of 143 fuel assemblies. The Unit 2 rack design has closer
assembly-to-assembly spacing than the Unit 1 rack and is capable of
storing 225 fuel assemblies. The storage capacity of Unit 2 will
increase from 1360 fuel assemblies to 1585 fuel assemblies, an increase
of 225 fuel assemblies. The cask pit fuel storage racks will use Boral
as a neutron absorbing poison.
The proposed action is in accordance with the licensee's
application for amendments dated October 23, 2002, as supplemented
August 28 and December 11, 2003, and February 3 and March 25, 2004.
The Need for the Proposed Action
The St. Lucie nuclear plant has two pressurized-water reactors.
Unit 1 commenced operation in 1976 and Unit 2 in 1983. Based on the
current licensed capacity, current spent fuel inventory, and the
projected discharges of spent fuel, Unit 1 will lose the capability to
fully offload the reactor core by the year 2005. Unit 2 will lose the
capability to fully offload the reactor core by the year 2007. To
extend this capability beyond the above dates, the licensee has
proposed license amendments to install a freestanding fuel storage rack
module in the cask pit of each unit's fuel-handling building.
The additional storage capacity provided by the cask pit racks will
be used to store spent fuel to allow refueling outage fuel offloads and
non-outage fuel shuffles. In addition, the Unit 1 cask pit rack will be
used to temporarily store new fuel before an outage, prior to loading
into the reactor core. The capability to remove, clean, and store the
cask pit racks in an alternate location prior to any spent fuel cask
loading operations will be maintained, because the cask pits will
eventually be needed for loading fuel into transfer casks.
Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Action
The NRC has completed its evaluation and concludes, as set forth
below, that there are no significant environmental impacts associated
with the proposed amendments. The details of the staff's safety
evaluation will be provided in the license amendments when they are
issued by the NRC.
During refueling outages, there may be a slight increase in the
amount of heat that has to be removed from the combination of the spent
fuel pool and the cask pit. The peak increase will be less than one
percent, and the heat load from spent fuel storage is very small
compared to the heat load from normal plant operations. Therefore, the
overall increase in the amount of heat released will be quite small and
insignificant.
Even though additional boron poison will be introduced by the Boral
panels in the storage racks in the cask pit, no significant increase in
tritium production from the neutron capture by boron-10 is expected.
The proposed action will not significantly increase the probability
or consequences of accidents, no changes are being made in the types of
effluents that may be released off site, 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 of the Alternatives to the Proposed Action
As an alternative to the proposed action, the staff considered
denial of the proposed action (i.e., the ``no-action'' alternative).
Denial of the application would result in no change in current
environmental impacts. The environmental impacts of the proposed action
and the alternative action are similar.
Alternative Use of Resources
The action does not involve the use of any different resources than
those previously considered in the Final Environmental Statement
related to the St. Lucie Plant Unit 1, dated June 1973; the Final
Environmental Statement related to the operation of St. Lucie Plant,
Unit No. 2 (NUREG-0842), dated April 1982; and Supplement 11 to NUREG-
1437, ``Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of
Nuclear Plants Regarding St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2,'' dated May 2003.
Agencies and Persons Consulted
On May 19, 2004, the staff consulted with the Florida State
official, William Passetti of the Department of Health, 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.
[[Page 41554]]
For further details with respect to the proposed action, see the
licensee's letter dated October 23, 2002, as supplemented by letters
dated August 28 and December 11, 2003, and February 3 and March 25,
2004. Documents may be examined, and/or copied for a fee, at the NRC's
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible electronically
from the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS)
Public Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site,
http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. Persons who do not have
access to ADAMS or who encounter problems in accessing the documents
located in ADAMS should contact the NRC PDR Reference staff at 1-800-
397-4209, or 301-415-4737, or send an e-mail to [email protected].
Dated in Rockville, Maryland, this 2nd day of July 2004.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Brendan T. Moroney,
Project Manager, Section 2, Project Directorate II, Division of
Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 04-15594 Filed 7-8-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P