Text

NUREG-1437 S11, {2:2} Appx a - End, Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Supplement 11 Regarding St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, Final Report
	ML031360706
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	05/31/2003
From:	Masnik M; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, Division of Regulatory Improvement Programs
To:	;
References
	-nr, -RFPFR NUREG-1437 S11
	Download: ML031360706 (227)
	v • d • e

Appendix A Comments Received on the Environmental Review Contents Comments Received on the Environmental Review ...........................

A-1 Part 1 -Comments Received During Scoping ................................

A-1 A.1 Introduction

...................................................

A-1 A.2 Comments Received During Scoping that are Applicable to this Environmental Review ...........

..............................

A-5 A.2.1 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues ..... ...........

A-5 A.2.2 Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues ..... ...............

A-8 A.2.3 Comments Concerning Human Health Issues ..... ............

A-9 A.2.4 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues ..... ...........

A- 1 A.2.5 Comments Concerning Terrestrial Resource Issues .... ........ A-i 1 A.2.6 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues .........

............................

A-12 A.2.7 Comments Concerning Threatened or Endangered Species Issues A-13 A.2.8 Comments Concerning Alternatives to the Proposed Action ...... A-14 Part II -Comments Received on the Draft SEIS ..............................

A-16 A.3 Introduction .A-16 A.4 Comments and Responses on the Draft SEIS .A-25 A.4.1 Comments in Support of the License Renewal Process .A-25 A.4.2 Comments in Opposition to the License Renewal Process .A-26 A.4.3 Comments in Support of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 .A-27 A.4.4 Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues .A-31 A.4.5 Comments Concerning Groundwater Use and Quality Issues A-31 A.4.6 Comments Concerning Surface Water Quality Issues .A-33 A.4.7 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues .A-33 A.4.8 Comments Concerning Terrestrial Ecology Issues .A-36 A.4.9 Comments Concerning Threatened or Endangered Species Issues A-36 A.4.10 Comments Concerning Human Health Issues ..A-38 A.4.11 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues .A-41 A.4.12 Comments Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis .A-44 A.4.13 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues .A-45 A.4.14 Comments Concerning Alternatives to the Proposed Action .. A-47 NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 May 2003 A-iii Appendix A A.4.15 Comments Concerning Issues Outside the Scope of the Environmental Review for License Renewal ...... .............

A-50 A.4.16 Editorial Comments ............

.........................

A-59 A.4.17 Other Comments ..............

.........................

A-71 A.5 Public Meeting Transcript Excerpts and Comment Letters ..... ..........

A-72 A.6 Letters and E-Mails Received on the Draft SEIS ...... .................

A-1 10 NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 A-iv May 2003 Appendix A Appendix A Comments Received on the Environmental Review Part I -Comments Received During Scoping A.1 Introduction On February 28, 2002, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a Notice of Intent in the Federal Register (67 FR 9333), to notify the public of the staff's intent to prepare a plant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1 437, Volumes 1 and 2, to support the renewal application for the St. Lucie operating licenses and to conduct scoping. The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS has been prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) guidelines, and 10 CFR Part 51. As outlined by NEPA, the NRC initiated the scoping process with the issuance of the Federal Register Notice. The NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State, and local government agencies; local organizations; and individuals to participate in the scoping process by providing oral comments at the scheduled public meetings and/or submitting written suggestions and comments no later than April 30, 2002.The scoping process included two public scoping meetings, which were held at the Council Chambers in Port St. Lucie, Florida, on April 3, 2002. Approximately 30 members of the public attended the meetings.

Both sessions began with NRC staff members providing a brief overview of the license renewal process and the NEPA process. After the NRC's prepared statements, the meetings were open for public comments.

Thirty-three attendees provided either oral or written statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter.

The transcripts of the meetings and the meeting summary were issued on May 7, 2002. The meeting summary and transcripts are available electronically for public inspection in the NRC Public Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component of NRC's document system, ADAMS, under accession numbers ML021160265, ML021160237, and ML021300604.

In addition to the comments provided during the public meetings, four comment letters and eight e-mail messages were received by the NRC in response to the Notice of Intent.At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractor(s) reviewed the transcripts and all written material to identify individual comments.

All comments and suggestions received orally during the scoping meetings or in writing were considered.

Each set of comments was given a unique identifier (Commenter ID number), so that each set of May 2003 A-1 NUREG-1 437, Supplement 1 1 Appendix A comments from a commenter could be traced back to the transcript or letter by which the comments were submitted.

Several commenters submitted comments through multiple sources (e.g., afternoon and evening scoping meetings, letters, or e-mail messages).

Table A-1 identifies the individuals who provided comments and the Commenter ID number associated with each person's set(s) of comments.

The individuals are listed in the order in which they spoke at the public meeting and in alphabetical order for the comments received by letter or e-mail.Specific comments were categorized and consolidated by topic. Comments with similar specific objectives were combined to capture the common essential issues raised by the commenters.

The comments fall into one of several general groups. These groups include* specific comments that address environmental issues within the purview of the NRC environmental regulations related to license renewal. These comments address Category 1 or Category 2 issues or issues that were not addressed in the GEIS. They also address alternatives and related Federal actions.* general comments (1) in support of or opposed to nuclear power or license renewal or (2) on the renewal process, the NRC's regulations, and the regulatory process. These comments may or may not be specifically related to the St. Lucie license renewal application.

questions that do not provide new information

specific comments that address issues that do not fall within or are specifically excluded from the purview of NRC environmental regulations.

These comments typically address issues such as the need for power, emergency preparedness, current operational safety issues, and safety issues related to operation during the renewal period.Each comment applicable to this environmental review is summarized in this appendix.

This information, which was extracted from the St. Lucie Scoping Summary Report, is provided for the convenience of those interested in the scoping comments applicable to this environmental review. The comments that are general or outside the scope of the environmental review for St. Lucie are not included here. More detail regarding the disposition of general or inapplicable comments can be found in the summary report. The ADAMS accession number for the summary report is ML021160348.

This accession number is provided to facilitate access to the document through the Public Electronic Reading Room (ADAMS) at http/www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.

NUREG-1 437, Supplement 11 A-2 May 2003 Appendix A The following pages summarize the comments and suggestions received as part of the scoping process that are applicable to this environmental review and discuss the disposition of the comments and suggestions.

The parenthetical alpha-numeric identifier after each comment refers to the comment set (Commenter ID) and the comment number.Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment Period Comment Source and ADAMS A----- I- &I..-Commenters ID Commenter SL-A Anderson SL-B Mascara SL-C Minsky SL-D Hall SL-E Sizemore SL-F Campbell SL-G Miller SL-H Jemigan SL-I Abbatiello SL-J Bangert SL-K Brown SL-L Leslie SL-M Grande SL-N Perry SL-O Oncavage SL-P Root SL-O Thompson SL-R Smilen SL-S Egan SL-T Doyle SL-U Jemigan SL-V Abbatiello SL-W O'Keefe SL-X Hiott SL-Y Rowley SL-Z Barry SL-AA Vojcsik SL-AB Baldwin SL-AC Davis SL-AD Theodore St. Lucie County St. Lucie County St. Lucie County Martin County Emergency Services Florida Power & Llght Company Florida Power & Light Company Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County United Way The President's Council of Hutchinson Island St. Lucie County Economic Development Council System Council U-4 Marine Resources Council Florida Power & Ught Company Florida Power & Light Company American Association of University Women St. Lucie Council of Social Agencies United Way of Martin County Soroptimists Intematonal of St. Lucie County St. Lucie County Chamber of Commerce Aftemoon Public Meeting(a)

Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Aftemoon Public Meeting Evening Public Meetingr')

Evening Public Meeting Evening Public Meeting Evening Public Meeting Evening Public Meetng Evening Public Meeting Evening Public Meeting Evening Public Meeting Evening Public Meeting Evenina Public Meetina NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 I..uluw --1 ouuu sssiI. Wumue Atfill.01nn lf Of.#-Al May 2003 A-3 Appendix A Table A-1. (cont'd)Comment Source and ADAMS Commenters ID Commenter Affiliation (It Stated) Accession Number SL-AE Doyle Evening Public Meeting SL-AJ Case Broward Sierra Club E-Mail ML021260520 SL-AP Leslie E-Mail ML021330038 SL-AH Oncavage E-Mail ML021330074 SL-AO Oncavage E-Mail ML021190425 SL-AQ Oncavage The Florida Chapter of the Sierra Club Letter ML021260597 SL-AI Smilan E-Mail ML021260542 SL-AL Smilan E-Mail ML021260502 SL-AG Southard Board of County Commissioners Letter ML021330016 SL-AF Vogel The School Board of St. Lucie County Letter ML021330021 SL-AM Woodfin Letter ML021330006 SL-AN Woodfin E-Mail ML021330078 SL-AK Ziring E-Mail ML021260528 (a) The aftemoon transcript can be found under accession number ML021160237.(b) The evening transcript can be found under accession number ML021160265.

NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 A-4 May 2003 Appendix A A.2 Comments Received During Scoping that are Applicable to this Environmental Review A.2.1 Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues Comment: While at the same time, time and time again, it has been involved in a lot of very good efforts, both in terms of education and energy efficiency, and just in general, in terms of the plant and the employees in the plant, in terms of participating in local humanitarian type of efforts. (SL-S-7)Comment: For the last five years on an average, they have been good corporate citizens and good employees.

They have donated on an average of over $103,000 a year for the last five years. Not only have they donated their time and money, but they have given of all of their energies to this community to make it a better place to live. (SL-K-3)Comment: I can attest that FPL has been an outstanding partner to our school district.

The plant's Energy Encounter hosts thousands of visitors annually, including many students.

In addition to providing hands-on science programs for schools, free workshops for teachers are offered. The plant donated computers and supplies to local schools, and FPL has made substantial contributions to the Regional Sports Stadium and the St. Lucie County Marine Center. (SL-AF-2)Comment: I am pleased to be a part of a group of FPL employees who contribute to local area agencies through the United Way. (SL-V-2) (SL-1-2)Comment: The people of Hutchinson Island have asked me to let you know that the community in the immediate vicinity of the power plant views the plant as a good neighbor and a conscientious advocate and friend of the fragile barrier island environment. (SL-M-1)Comment: Our (FPL) employees also mentor students and volunteer in local schools. We also support the St. Lucie County Education Foundation in its scholarship program. (SL-V-3) (SL-1-3)Comment: FPL employees are also involved in helping the community through other organizations, such as Scouts, Little Leagues, civic groups, and church programs. (SL-V-4) (SL-1-4)Comment: The Plant's (St. Lucie's) information center, called the Energy Encounter, hosts about 40,000 visitors each year, including 15,000 students who visit on educational field trips.(SL-V-5) (SL-1-5)NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 May 2003 A-5 Appendix A Comment: I have found them (FPL) to be a very good neighbor, three miles away. They are involved in the community. (SL-W-5)Comment: The employees at the plant give very generously to local United Way campaigns here on the Treasure Coast. They contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars each year to local charitable organizations through their participation. (SL-AA-4)Comment: But more importantly our people do more than just work at the power plant. They're involved in the community.

They're part of this community. (SL-H-3) (SL-U-3)Comment: The St. Lucie Power Plant is a good neighbor that participates or sponsors a number of educational, environmental, and civic activities. (SL-Z-4)Comment: The St. Lucie Plant is a good neighbor.

Speaking on behalf of the United Way of Martin County, I personally know many of the employees at the St. Lucie Plant and I know how they're involved in the community.

And I know personally that they are involved with many organizations that are making a difference in our quality of life in the community. (SL-AA-3)Comment: They're (FPL) good neighbors.

Good neighbors always contribute the economy.(SL-Y-4)Comment: Of course, many people spoke about how community-active they are. And I don't know as much about that, but I do know Rachel Scott and I do know her leadership for United Way here in St. Lucie County has been phenomenal this past year. (SL-AC-6)Comment: I see all the good involvement they have in the social services in this community.

United Way wouldn't be the same without them. Certainly our own personal experience at Big Brothers, Big Sisters would not be the same. They've worked for hundreds and thousands of people in this community every year. (SL-G-7)Comment: I can tell you all the things they're involved in, in the school system, in education, the Energy Encounter plant that brings thousands of kids in each year to educate them about science and electricity. (SL-G-6)Comment: That number of employees who have money and time participate actively in local charities and support our local PTAs and schools in a number of ways that we just don't see, but it happens all the time. (SL-F-2)Comment: They (FPL) do build houses for habitat for low-income families. (SL-W-2)NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 A-6 May 2003 Appendix A Comment: I'm here to tell you about the good neighbor that I think that Florida Power and Light has been over all of the years I've been in the community. (SL-G-1)Comment: FPL employees, led by Rachel Scott, External Affairs Manager, are active in the community and serve on various boards including the Education Foundation. (SL-AF-3)Response:

The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. Public services were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue. Information regarding the impact on socioeconomic issues will be discussed in Section 4.0 of the SEIS.Comment: Today I draw issues from an economic development point of view. St. Lucie Power Plant has a tremendous effect on St. Lucie County. (SL-P-1)Comment: The plant is also one of the largest employers in our area, and it's very important to our local economy. A business of this size would be very difficult to replace. The plant's payroll, purchases and property taxes supply our local governments with revenue which we need to provide services on which we depend. (SL-AA-5)Comment: The estimated economic impact of plant operation (St. Lucie) is more than 80 million dollars annually. (SL-1-14) (SL-V-14)Comment: I'm here to speak about the economic health of St. Lucie County, of which the St. Lucie Power Plant is a key contributor. (SL-A- 1)Response:

The comments are noted. Effects on the local economy due to license renewal are considered as a Category 2 issue in the GEIS and are, therefore, examined on a site-specific basis in Sections 2.0 and 4.0 of the supplement to the GEIS for St. Lucie license renewal.Comment: Florida Power and Light is the second largest employer in the county, with more than 800 full-time workers and contributes more than 80 million to the local economy. (SL-AF-4)Comment: We are one of the largest employers in the St. Lucie and Martin County areas, with over 800 full-time employees. (SL-H-2) (SL-U-2)Comment: There are about 800 or more employees that work at the power plant. (SL-D-5)Comment: FP&L is our, one of our major employers in this community. (SL-AC-4)Comment: St. Lucie Power Plant employs approximately, twelve hundred people. (SL-A-2)May 2003 A-7 NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 Appendix A Comment: There are 378 people at the plant who live in St. Lucie County and the payroll is about 23 million dollars. (SL-P-3)Comment: If the St. Lucie Power Plant were to leave St. Lucie County, it would be difficult, we feel, to have those twelve hundred jobs absorbed into our community, and also our unemployment rate would start going back up, it would go back up. (SL-A-3)Comment: FP&L has good paying jobs. (SL-A-4)Comment: A clean industry that brings 800 or so paying, high paying jobs to the local economy, is just a phenomenal asset to have in this area. (SL-F-1)Response:

The comments are noted. Employment factors related to license renewal are considered as a Category 2 issue in the GEIS and are, therefore, examined on a site-specific basis in Sections 2.0 and 4.0 of the supplement to the GEIS for St. Lucie license renewal.Comment: FP&L on the tax rolls brings a billion eighty million dollars in assess valuation.

That's the size of business that would be very hard to replace in St. Lucie County, not to mention the unemployment that could result if they were to leave. (SL-G-2)Comment: Their investments in property and facilities provide extremely strong part of our tax base that drives our community. (SL-AC-5)Comment: The taxes paid here due to the St. Lucie Plant is approximately 20 million dollars a year. (SL-P-2)Response:

The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal and relate to the socioeconomic benefits that the plant brings to the local communities.

Effects on the tax base due to license renewal are considered as a Category 2 issue in the GEIS and are, therefore, examined on a site-specific basis in Sections 2.0 and 4.0 of the supplement to the GEIS for St. Lucie license renewal.A.2.2 Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues Comment: The carbon emissions from the endless line of nuclear-laden security truck convoys will surely contribute a little something. (SL-T-4)Comment: The St. Lucie Power Plant provides a source of clean energy. And it's through our operations that we avoid production of greenhouse gases, which many scientists believe contribute to global warming. (SL-U-4) (SL-H-4)NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 A-8 May 2003 Appendix A Comment: Another benefit in renewing the St. Lucie Plant licenses is our ability to continue providing clean energy without using additional land for new power plants. In fact, nuclear power plants prevent substantial amount of carbon emissions and other pollutants from going into the air we breathe. The positive impact on air quality will continue during the period of extended operation. (SL-V-12) (SL-1-12)Comment: When I look at the options that are out there, I'm looking for the kind of electricity that shows the least amount of pollution and I'm very, very pleased to be able to say that we have a nuclear power plant in St. Lucie County and that it's got the controls against pollution that it has. (SL-G-4)Comment: But I have always felt that the clean air has been tested by the national people, by the state people. (SL-W-4)Response:

The comments are noted. These emissions are regulated through permits issued by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Florida. Air quality will be discussed in Section 2.0 of the SEIS. The comments provide no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.A.2.3 Comments Concerning Human Health Issues Comment: I believe that the St. Lucie Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement must include careful analysis of the following factors, fully considering their impact throughout the 20-year extension period: analysis of health and environmental effects of airborne and liquid radioactive waste the St. Lucie plant has released and is projected to release during its operating life. (SL-AN-1 1)Comment: My death and the possible death of countless peoples is acceptable to NRC regulations and FP&L procedures.

It's threatening and it's not worth it. (SL-AE-5)Comment: The nuclear industry presents a catastrophic scenario never before imaginable, and, besides the usual number of injuries and deaths in the energy field. (SL-AE-4)Comment: I do believe that all industries, coal-fired plants, oil burning plants, they all have their allowable deaths per million ratio, but nuclear power, by the very nature of it, it's acceptance and promulgation among the very few governing and regulatory bodies, we don't have a lot of people giving input on this, just the NRC and FP&L. (SL-AE-3)NUREG-1 437, Supplement 11 May 2003 A-9 Appendix A Response:

The comments are noted. Radiation exposure to the public and workers from routine releases were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue. The comments provide no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.Comment: The company and outside agencies consistently monitor the air and water quality around the plant and surrounding communities, to ensure those strict environmental standards are not only maintained, but upheld. (SL-Q-5)Comment: The company operates more than 30 different environmental monitoring stations that sample the air and the water, to ensure that they meet and do better than federal, state, and county standards. (SL-J-4)Comment: The State of Florida, Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation and Control, independently monitors levels at locations surrounding Florida Power and Light's nuclear power plants and the agency also, they sample new plant soil and other water to confirm that they're testing their findings. (SL-D-6)Comment: The State of Florida's Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Control independently monitors and tests radiation levels at locations surrounding St. Lucie Plant.Monitoring and testing includes sampling of air, water, shoreline sediment, fish, crustacea, broad leaf vegetation, and milk. These levels have consistently been comparable to those measured throughout the state for the last 25 years. (SL-AG-4)Comment: The NRC has a terrible track record as far as really addressing the problems of contamination of the environment. (SL-R-2)Comment: Plant Emissions.

The Generic EIS for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, NUREG-1437, fails to list the isotopes and isotopic concentrations for radioactive pollution released to the public in airbome and waterborne waste streams for St. Lucie Units 1 & 2. The draft SEIS needs to list this information for each of the previous 10 years and project radioactive pollution amounts for the 20 years of license extension.

Since the GEIS was completed in April 1996, the calculated exposure rates and the calculated adverse health effects have become woefully outdated.

At a public meeting sponsored by the NRC in Homestead, Florida, it was stated by a member of the NRC staff that the work on the GEIS began in 1992. The date of April 1996 for manuscript completion gives no assurance that the data and calculations were current as of April 1996. (SL-AO-12) (SL-AQ-12)

Comment: All studies on radiation health effects completed since April 1996 are being ignored.The draft SEIS needs to publish accurate historical data on St. Lucie radioactive emissions, year by year, isotope by isotope. This would give independent scientists as well as industry scientists an opportunity to use current data and calculations to improve the accuracy of findings of the NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 May 2003 A-10 Appendix A outdated GEIS in time to be included in the final SEIS. By hiding this data from the public, the NRC fosters the perception that publishing isotopic emissions data is something to be feared and avoided at all costs. (SL-AO-13) (SL-AQ-13)

Response:

The comments are noted. The requirements for monitoring and quantification of routine releases to the environment are beyond the scope of license renewal. The NRC requires the licensee routinely to conduct radiological monitoring of all plant effluents, as well as sample biota and locally grown food-stuffs.

Additionally, the State of Florida independently monitors the environment around the nuclearplant for radioactive contamination.

The NRC also communicates with permitting agencies that administer the Clean WaterAct and the Clean Air Act, State radiological agencies, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other organizations.

Any potential noncompliance of monitoring requirements is an operational safety issue, handled through the inspection and reporting process and is not within the scope of license renewal. The comments provide no new information, and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.A.2.4 Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues Comment: The power plant itself has not been emitting pollutants of any kind that would have been damaging our marine resources. (SL-S-4)Response:

The comment is noted. The comment concerns a Category 1 issue: effects of plant releases on aquatic biota near St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. Aquatic ecology will be discussed in Section 2.0 and environmental impacts of operation will be discussed in Section 4.0 of the SEIS. The comment provides no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.Comment: I believe that the St. Lucie Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement must include careful analysis of the following factors, fully considering their impact throughout the 20-year extension period: analysis of bioaccumulated radioactivity in marine life at the outfall pipe and projected additional accumulation during the extended operating period. (SL-AN-12)

Response:

The comment is noted. The comment concems accumulation of radioisotopes in aquatic biota, which was evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue.Aquatic ecology will be discussed in Section 2.0 and environmental impacts of operation will be discussed in Section 4.0 of the SEIS. The comments provide no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further.A.2.5 Comments Concerning Terrestrial Resource Issues Comment: And the fact that the plant takes up quite a bit of very prime real estate and leaves it in its natural state is a spectacular opportunity for us in terms of providing habitat that we could not afford to purchase these properties and maintain them in that natural state. (SL-S-5)NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 May 2003 A-11 Appendix A Response:

The comment is noted and relates to terrestrial ecology Category 1 issues. The comment provides no new information; therefore, it will not be evaluated further.A.2.6 Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues Comment: I believe that the St. Lucie Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement must include careful analysis of the following factors, fully considering their impact throughout the 20-year extension perod: Costs of safely and securely storing high level nuclear wastes on site for at least 20 more years. (SL-AN-9)Comment: The cost impact analysis should include: Risks of accidental radiation release from a fuel transport and storage. (SL-AM-3)Comment: I believe that the St. Lucie Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement must include careful analysis of the following factors, fully considering their impact throughout the 20-year extension period: Long term storage and transportation hazards of high level nuclear wastes, including analysis of land routes for the transportation of new fuel and spent fuel through Florida. (SL-AN-1 0)Comment: Why do you need a separate license for the pool expansion or dry cask storage?This should be planned along with the license to renew, to operate. (SL-T-3)Response:

Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel is a Category 1 issue. The safety and environmental effects of a long-term storage of spent fuel onsite has been evaluated by the NRC and, as set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule, the NRC generically determined that such storage could be accomplished without significant environmental impact. In the Waste Confidence Rule, the Commission determined that spent fuel can be stored onsite for at least 30 years beyond the licensed operating life, which may include the term of a renewed license.At or before the end of that period, the fuel would be moved to a permanent repository.

The Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG- 1437, is based upon the assumption that storage of the spent fuel onsite is not permanent.

The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS that will be prepared regarding license renewal for the St. Lucie Units 1 and 2, will be based on the same assumption.

Likewise, the matter of processing and storage of low-level waste is considered a Category 1 issue. The conclusion regarding this issue in the GEIS included consideration of the long-term storage of low-level waste onsite during the license renewal term. The comments provide no new information; therefore the comments will not be evaluated further.NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 A-12 May 2003 Appendix A A.2.7 Comments Concerning Threatened or Endangered Species Issues Comment: The St. Lucie Power Plant is not only a place that produces clean, safe, low cost electricity, it also is an environmentally friendly facility, that provides a home to dozens of rare, threatened or endangered birds and animals. (SL-Z-7)Comment: The plant itself, it's been mentioned, the nuclear plant doesn't take up but a small portion of the total acreage on the barrier island site. So the rest of the acreage is left in its natural state and it's maintained in a natural state, in fact enhanced in some areas, by removing exotic vegetation such as Brazilian Pepper and Australian Pine, and does provide habitat for a tremendous diversity of life that's on the barrier island, associated with the coastal area, about a 180 or so species of plants and animals that are associated with the site, about 36 different endangered species there, or threatened species that are on the site, too. (SL-N-2)Response:

The comments are noted. Threatened or Endangered Species is a Category 2 issue, and will be addressed in Sections 2.2 and 4.6 of the supplemental EIS for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2.Comment: The St. Lucie Plant, which looks out on the Atlantic Ocean, maintains a strong commitment to sea turtle protection.

Our (FPL) sea turtle progran involves around the clock efforts, including scientific research and data gathering, participation in the sea turtle stranding and salvage program, participation in the sea turtle beach nesting surveys and our free guided turtle walks for the public. (SL-1-9) (SL-V-9)Comment: The work they (FPL) do on local marine life and their specialized work with our sea turtle population fills a very important need for us. (SL-M-2)Comment: There's also a great deal of care for some of our lagoon residents, such as the sea turtles, that could be killed or injured in water intakes and things of that nature. Every effort is made to protect them. (SL-S-6)Comment: The Turtle Beach nature trail mentioned here earlier, is open to the public to enjoy Florida's natural beauty. The plant's beaches provide one of the best nesting sites for threatened or endangered sea turtles, and the overall facility itself is a place of quiet beauty.(SL-Z-8)Response:

The comments are noted. Sea turtles are protected under the Endangered Species Act, and are evaluated as Threatened or Endangered Species, which is a Category 2 issue.That analysis will be presented in Sections 2.2 and 4.6 of the supplemental EIS for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2.NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 May 2003 A-13 Appendix A A.2.8 Comments Concerning Alternatives to the Proposed Action Comment: I also feel that the NEPA, National Environmental Policy Act goes way back, too.That's all the way back to 1969. That's what a lot of this is being based on. I think it's a pro-nuclear bill. It's basically about the process to consider alternatives, which aiming right towards nuclear power. (SL-T-1)Comment: If the application is not renewed, he said it would take ten years to create an alternate source of energy. And think about that. We'd have to take ten years to find alternate sources of energy. What is the cost going to be? Where is it going to come from? Is it going to be available?

And now we have a plant we have to shut down. What's the cost of shutting the plant down? What's the cost going to be for jobs in the community if we have to shut the plant down? And what are the other environmental costs that it's going to take to get sources that probably aren't going to be in our own community?

Our community will suffer. (SL-AB-2)Comment: An environmental trade study comparing the estimated cost and pollution of various energy conversion plants should be a part of the renewal process. This should include the total cost per kW and total cost per kWh including any subsidies.

These trades should include those sources that would be substituted if the renewal license were denied and other energy sources must be used in compensation.

These should include coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar, and other less likely forms such as biomass, wave and tidal energy. (SL-AP-1)Response:

The comments are noted. Impacts from reasonable altematives for the St. Lucie license renewal will be evaluated in Section 8.0 of the SEIS.Comment: The other aspect of what Florida has is biomass, and in spite of our state senator arguing for the burning of city waste and incinerator plants, using the heat form that to generate more energy, there are a lot of pollutants that are associated with human induced waste. The aspects of mercury, lead, various heavy metals that are within the incineration system and have to be removed, some remaining to go into the air and water. (SL-L-6)Comment: There are aspects that should be compared for the non-license renewable aspect in the EIS scoping to include coal plants, oil fired plants, the natural gas plants that are far lower in pollution, but there's a lot of limit as to how much there is. It's all fossil fuel. (SL-L-3)Comment: I read somewhere, on a scale comparing fossil fuel plants with nuclear plant, the fossil plants pollute at the rate of 30 to 45 percent and the nuclear plant, in comparison, about 3 percent. (SL-J-3)NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 A-14 May 2003 Appendix A Comment: They don't burn fossil fuel, although we are concerned about where that spent fuel is going to go and what's going to happen. There are other alternatives that always can be explored and looked at. (SL-N-6)Response:

The comments are noted. Impacts from reasonable altematives, including altemative fuels, for the St. Lucie license renewal will be evaluated in Section 8.0 of the SEIS.Comment: Nowhere here tonight did I hear that we, must conserve.

I think this is one of our greatest focuses that we must do. The electricity consumed per customer has to decrease.

I hear that's been on the increase. (SL-AE-7)Response:

The comment is noted. Impacts from reasonable altematives, including conservation, for the St. Lucie license renewal will be evaluated in Section 8.0 of the SEIS.Comment: The other aspect of renewable energy is also very difficult.

For Florida you'd think, well, it's the sunshine state, but we don't get as much as Arizona. We have sea breeze storms, cloud cover, roughly five hours on the average of sunlight, direct blue sky sunlight a day. That's quite a limitation. (SL-L-4)Response:

The comment is noted. Impacts from reasonable altematives, including solar power generation, for the St. Lucie license renewal will be evaluated in Section 8.0 of the SEIS.Comment: As much as I'm a wind energy fan, there's not a lot of wind in Florida. It's rated marginal by FP&L. (SL-L-5)Response:

The comment is noted. Impacts from reasonable altematives, including wind power, for the St. Lucie license renewal will be evaluated in Section 8.0 of the SEIS.NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 May 2003 A-15 Appendix A Part 11- Comments Received on the Draft SEIS A.3 Introduction Pursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the staff transmitted the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding St. Lucie Unit 1 and 2, Draft Report for Comment (NUREG-1437, Supplement 11, referred to as the draft SEIS) to Federal, State, and local government agencies as well as interested members of the public, requesting comments by January 15, 2003. As part of the process to solicit public comments on the draft SEIS, the staff:* placed a copy of the draft SEIS into the NRC's electronic Public Document Room, its license renewal website, and the Indian River Community College Library in Fort Pierce, Florida* sent copies of the draft SEIS to the applicant, members of the public who requested copies, and certain Federal, State, and local agencies* published a notice of availability of the draft SEIS and opportunity for comment in the Federal Register on November 1, 2002 (67 FR 66674)* issued public announcements, such as advertisements in local newspapers and postings in public places, of the availability of the draft SEIS* announced and held two public meetings in Port St. Lucie, Florida, on December 3, 2002, to describe the results of the environmental review and answer related questions* issued public service announcements and press releases announcing the issuance of the draft SEIS, the public meetings, and instructions on how to comment on the draft SEIS* established a website to receive comments on the draft SEIS through the Internet.During the comment period, the staff received a total of nine comment letters in addition to the comments received during the public meetings.The staff has reviewed the public meeting transcripts and the nine comment letters that are part of the docket file for the application, all of which are available in the NRC's Electronic Public Document Room. Appendix A, Part II, Section A.4 contains a summary of the comments and the staff's responses.

Related issues are grouped together.

Appendix A, Part II, Section A.5 contains excerpts of the December 3, 2002, public meeting transcripts, the written statements provided at the public meetings, and the comment letters.NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 A-1 6 May 2003 Appendix A Each comment identified by the staff was assigned a specific alpha-numeric identifier (marker).That identifier is typed in the margin of the transcript or letter at the beginning of the discussion of the comment. A cross-reference of the alpha-numeric identifiers, the speaker or author of the comment, the page where the comment can be found, and the section(s) of this report in which the comment is addressed is provided in Table A-2. The speakers at the meetings are listed in speaking order along with the page of the transcript excerpts in this report on which the comment appears. These comments are identified by the letters SLD" followed by a number that identifies each comment in approximate chronological order in which the comments were made. The written statements (from the public meetings) and written comment letters are also identified by the letters "SLD." The staff made a determination on each comment that it was one of the following:

(1) a comment that was actually a request for information and introduced no new information (2) a comment that was either related to support or opposition of license renewal in general (or specifically St. Lucie Units 1 and 2) or that made a general statement about the license renewal process. It may have made only a general statement regarding Category 1 and/or Category 2 issues. In addition, it provided no new information and does not pertain to safety considerations reviewed under 10 CFR Part 54.(3) a comment about a Category 1 issue that (a) provided significant new information that required evaluation during the review, or (b) provided no significant new information (4) a comment about a Category 2 issue that (a) provided significant information that required evaluation during the review, or (b) provided no such information (5) a comment that raised an environmental issue that was not addressed in the GEIS or the draft SEIS (6) a comment on safety issues pertaining to 10 CFR Part 54 (7) a comment outside the scope of license renewal (not related to 10 CFR Parts 51 or 54), or (8) a comment that was editorial in nature.NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 May 2003 A-17 Appendix A Comment types 3, 4, 5, and 8 may have resulted in changes to the text.There was no significant new information provided on Category 1 issues [(3)(a) above] or information that required further evaluation on Category 2 issues [(4)(a)].

Therefore, the GEIS and draft SEIS remained valid and bounding, and no further evaluation was performed.

Comments without a supporting technical basis or without any new information are discussed in this appendix, and not in other sections of this report. Relevant references that address the issues within the regulatory authority of the NRC are provided where appropriate.

Many of these references can be obtained from the NRC Electronic Public Document Room.Within each section of Part II of this appendix (A.4.1 through A.4.16), similar comments are grouped together for ease of reference, and a summary description of the comments is given, followed by the staff's response.

Where the comment or question resulted in a change in the text of the draft report, the corresponding response refers the reader to the appropriate section of this report where the change was made. Revisions to the text in the draft report are designated by vertical lines beside the text.Some numbers were initially assigned to portions of verbal or written statements that were later determined not to be comments.

These items were removed from the table. As a result, not all numbers are sequential (see Table A-2.)Table A-2. Comment Log Section(s)

Where No. Speaker or Author Source Page Number Addressed SLD-A-1 D. Anderson Aftemoon Meefing Transcnpt (12/03/02)

A-44 A.4.11 SLD-A-2 D. Anderson Aftemoon Meeting Transcnpt (12/03102)

A-27 A.4.3 SLD-A-3 D. Anderson Aftemoon Meeting Transcrpt (12/03/02)

A-51 A.4.15 SLD-A-4 D. Anderson Aftemoon Meeting Transcnpt (12/03/02)

A-27 A.4.3 SLD-A-5 D. Anderson Aftemoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02)

A-28 A.4.3 SLD-A-6 D. Anderson Afternoon Meeting Transcrpt (12/03/02)

A-28 A.4.3 SLD-A-7 D. Anderson Aftemoon Meeting Transcript (12103/02)

A-47 A.4.14 SLD-A-8 D. Anderson Aftemoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02)

A-41 A.4.11 SLD-A-9 D. Anderson Aftemoon Meeting Transcrpt (12/03/02)

A-42 A.4.11 SLD-A-10 D. Anderson Aftemoon Meetng Transcript (12/03/02)

A-44 A.4.11 SLD-A-1 1 D. Anderson Aftemoon Meeting Transcrpt (12/03/02)

A-28 A.4.3 SLD-B-1 B. Bangert Aftemoon Meeting Transcrpt (12/03/02)

A-25 A.4.1 SLD-B-2 B. Bangert Aftemoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02)

A-25 A.4.1 SLD-B-3 B. Bangert Aftemoon Meetng Transcript (12/03/02)

A-37 A.4.9 SLD-B-4 B. Bangert Aftemoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02)

A-28 A.4.3 SLD-C-1 R. Parrish Aftemoon Meeting Transcrpt (12/03/02)

A-42 A.4.1 1 SLD-D-1 G. Wilson Aftemoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02)

A-42 A.4.11 NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I A-1 8 May 2003 Appendix A Table A-2. (cont'd)No. Speaker or Author SLD-D-2 SLD-D-3 SLD-E-1 SLD-F-1 SLD-F-2 SLD-F-3 SLD-F-4 SLD-F-5 SLD-G-1 SLD-H-1 SLD-I-1 SLD-I-2 SLD-1-3 SLD-1-4 SLD-1-5 SLD-I-6 SLD-1-7 SLD-I-8 SLD-1-9 SLD-1-10 SLD-J-1 SLD-J-2 SLD-J-3 SLD-J-4 SLD-J-5 SLD-K-1 SLD-K-2 SLD-K-3 SLD-K-4 SLD-L-1 SLD-L-2 SLD-L-3 SLD-L-4 SLD-L-5 SLD-M-1 SLD-M-2 SLD-M-3 SLD-M-4 SLD-M-5 SLD-N-1 SLD-N-2 SLD-N-3 G. Wilson G. Wilson S.Wolfberg D. Daniel D. Daniel D. Daniel D. Daniel D. Daniel G. Cantrell J. Miller D.Jemigan D.Jerigan D. Jerigan D. Jerigan D. Jerigan D.Jerigan D. Jerigan D. Jerigan D. Jerigan D. Jerigan T. Abbatiello T. Abbatiello T. Abbatiello T. Abbatiello T. Abbatiello J. Voicsik J. Vojcsik J. Voicsik J. Voicsik A. Hall A. Hall A. Hall A. Hall A. Hall F. Leslie F. Leslie F. Leslie F. Leslie F. Leslie B. Raatz B. Raatz R Raatz Source Aftemoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02)

Aftemoon Meeting Transcript (12/03102)

Aftemoon Meetng Transcript (12/03/02)

Aftemoon Meeting Transcript (12/03102)

Aftemoon Meetng Transcript (12103102)