ML031410528
| ML031410528 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 05/31/2003 |
| From: | Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| To: | |
| MASNIK M, NRR/DRIP/RLEP, 415-1191 | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML031410181 | List: |
| References | |
| -nr, -RFPFR NUREG-1437 S11 | |
| Download: ML031410528 (109) | |
Text
Appendix AComments Received on the Environmental Review
May 2003A-iiiNUREG-1437, Supplement 11 ContentsComments Received on the Environmental Review...........................A-1Part 1 - Comments Received During Scoping................................A-1A.1Introduction...................................................A-1A.2Comments Received During Scoping that are Applicable to this Environmental Review.........................................A-5A.2.1Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues................A-5A.2.2Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues....................A-8A.2.3Comments Concerning Human Health Issues.................A-9A.2.4Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues................A-11A.2.5Comments Concerning Terrestrial Resource Issues............A-11A.2.6Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues.....................................A-12A.2.7Comments Concerning Threatened or Endangered Species IssuesA-13A.2.8Comments Concerning Alternatives to the Proposed Action......A-14Part II - Comments Received on the Draft SEIS..............................A-16A.3Introduction.................................................A-16A.4Comments and Responses on the Draft SEIS.......................A-25A.4.1Comments in Support of the License Renewal Process..........A-25A.4.2Comments in Opposition to the License Renewal Process.......A-26A.4.3Comments in Support of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2...............A-27A.4.4Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues....................A-31A.4.5Comments Concerning Groundwater Use and Quality Issues.....A-31A.4.6Comments Concerning Surface Water Quality Issues...........A-33A.4.7Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues................A-33A.4.8Comments Concerning Terrestrial Ecology Issues..............A-36A.4.9Comments Concerning Threatened or Endangered Species IssuesA-36A.4.10Comments Concerning Human Health Issues.................A-38A.4.11Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues................A-41A.4.12Comments Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis....................................A-44A.4.13Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues.....................................A-45A.4.14Comments Concerning Alternatives to the Proposed Action......A-47 Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-ivMay 2003A.4.15Comments Concerning Issues Outside the Scope of the Environmental Review for License Renewal...................A-50A.4.16Editorial Comments.....................................A-59A.4.17 Other Comments....................................... A-71A.5 Public Meeting Transcript Excerpts and Comment Letters...............A-72A.6 Letters and E-Mails Received on the Draft SEIS....................... A-110 Appendix AMay 2003A-1NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Appendix AComments Received on the Environmental ReviewPart I - Comments Received During ScopingA.1 Introduction lOn February 28, 2002, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) published a Notice ofIntent in the Federal Register (67 FR 9333), to notify the public of the staff's intent to prepare aplant-specific supplement to the Generic Environmental Impact Statement for License Renewalof Nuclear Plants (GEIS), NUREG-1437, Volumes 1 and 2, to support the renewal application forthe St. Lucie operating licenses and to conduct scoping. The plant-specific supplement to theGEIS 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 outlinedby NEPA, the NRC initiated the scoping process with the issuance of the Federal RegisterNotice. The NRC invited the applicant; Federal, State, and local government agencies; localorganizations; and individuals to participate in the scoping process by providing oral commentsat the scheduled public meetings and/or submitting written suggestions and comments no laterthan April 30, 2002.The scoping process included two public scoping meetings, which were held at the CouncilChambers in Port St. Lucie, Florida, on April 3, 2002. Approximately 30 members of the publicattended the meetings. Both sessions began with NRC staff members providing a brief overviewof 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 orwritten statements that were recorded and transcribed by a certified court reporter. Thetranscripts of the meetings and the meeting summary were issued on May 7, 2002. Themeeting summary and transcripts are available electronically for public inspection in the NRCPublic Document Room or from the Publicly Available Records System (PARS) component ofNRC's document system, ADAMS, under accession numbers ML021160265, ML021160237,and ML021300604. In addition to the comments provided during the public meetings, four lcomment letters and eight e-mail messages were received by the NRC in response to the Notice lof Intent.At the conclusion of the scoping period, the NRC staff and its contractor(s) reviewed thetranscripts and all written material to identify individual comments. All comments andsuggestions received orally during the scoping meetings or in writing were considered. Each setof comments was given a unique identifier (Commenter ID number), so that each set of Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-2May 2003comments from a commenter could be traced back to the transcript or letter by which thecomments 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 numberassociated with each person
's set(s) of comments. The individuals are listed in the order inwhich they spoke at the public meeting and in alphabetical order for the comments received byletter or e-mail.Specific comments were categorized and consolidated by topic. Comments with similar specificobjectives 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 NRCenvironmental regulations related to license renewal. These comments address lCategory 1 or Category 2 issues or issues that were not addressed in the GEIS. They lalso 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 lcomments may or may not be specifically related to the St. Lucie license renewalapplication.
questions that do not provide new information specific comments that address issues that do not fall within or are specificallyexcluded from the purview of NRC environmental regulations. These comments ltypically address issues such as the need for power, emergency preparedness, current operational safety issues, and safety issues related to operation during the renewalperiod.Each comment applicable to this environmental review is summarized in this appendix. Thisinformation, which was extracted from the St. Lucie Scoping Summary Report, is provided forthe convenience of those interested in the scoping comments applicable to this environmentalreview. The comments that are general or outside the scope of the environmental review forSt. Lucie are not included here. More detail regarding the disposition of general or inapplicablecomments can be found in the summary report. The ADAMS accession number for thesummary report is ML021160348.This accession number is provided to facilitate access to the document through the PublicElectronic Reading Room (ADAMS) at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm.html.
Appendix AMay 2003A-3NUREG-1437, Supplement 11The following pages summarize the comments and suggestions received as part of the scopingprocess that are applicable to this environmental review and discuss the disposition of thecomments and suggestions. The parenthetical alpha-numeric identifier after each commentrefers to the comment set (Commenter ID) and the comment number.Table A-1. Individuals Providing Comments During Scoping Comment PeriodCommenters IDCommenterAffiliation (If Stated)Comment Source and ADAMSAccession NumberSL-AAndersonSt. Lucie CountyAfternoon Public Meeting (a)SL-BMascaraSt. Lucie CountyAfternoon Public MeetingSL-CMinskyAfternoon Public Meeting SL-DHallAfternoon Public Meeting SL-ESizemoreSt. Lucie CountyAfternoon Public Meeting SL-FCampbellMartin County Emergency ServicesAfternoon Public Meeting SL-GMillerAfternoon Public Meeting SL-HJerniganFlorida Power & Light CompanyAfternoon Public Meeting SL-IAbbatielloFlorida Power & Light CompanyAfternoon Public Meeting SL-JBangertConservation Alliance of St. Lucie CountyAfternoon Public Meeting SL-KBrownUnited WayAfternoon Public Meeting SL-LLeslieAfternoon Public Meeting SL-MGrandeThe President
's Council of Hutchinson IslandAfternoon Public MeetingSL-NPerryAfternoon Public Meeting SL-OOncavageAfternoon Public Meeting SL-PRootSt. Lucie County Economic Development CouncilAfternoon Public Meeting SL-QThompsonSystem Council U-4Afternoon Public Meeting SL-RSmilenAfternoon Public Meeting SL-SEganMarine Resources CouncilAfternoon Public Meeting SL-TDoyleAfternoon Public Meeting SL-UJerniganFlorida Power & Light CompanyEvening Public Meeting (b)SL-VAbbatielloFlorida Power & Light CompanyEvening Public Meeting SL-WO'KeefeAmerican Association of University WomenEvening Public MeetingSL-XHiottSt. Lucie Council of Social AgenciesEvening Public Meeting SL-YRowleyEvening Public Meeting SL-ZBarryEvening Public Meeting SL-AAVojcsikUnited Way of Martin CountyEvening Public Meeting SL-ABBaldwinSoroptimists International of St. Lucie CountyEvening Public Meeting SL-ACDavisSt. Lucie County Chamber of CommerceEvening Public Meeting SL-ADTheodoreEvening Public Meeting Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-4May 2003Table A-1. (cont'd)Commenters IDCommenterAffiliation (If Stated)Comment Source and ADAMSAccession NumberSL-AEDoyleEvening Public MeetingSL-AJCaseBroward Sierra ClubE-Mail ML021260520 SL-APLeslieE-Mail ML021330038 SL-AHOncavageE-Mail ML021330074 SL-AOOncavageE-Mail ML021190425 SL-AQOncavageThe Florida Chapter of the Sierra ClubLetter ML021260597 SL-AISmilanE-Mail ML021260542 SL-ALSmilanE-Mail ML021260502 SL-AGSouthardBoard of County CommissionersLetter ML021330016 SL-AFVogelThe School Board of St. Lucie CountyLetter ML021330021 SL-AMWoodfinLetter ML021330006 SL-ANWoodfinE-Mail ML021330078 SL-AKZiringE-Mail ML021260528 (a)The afternoon transcript can be found under accession number ML021160237.(b)The evening transcript can be found under accession number ML021160265.
Appendix AMay 2003A-5NUREG-1437, Supplement 11A.2 Comments Received During Scoping that are Applicable to this lEnvironmental ReviewA.2.1Comments Concerning Socioeconomic IssuesComment: While at the same time, time and time again, it has been involved in a lot of verygood efforts, both in terms of education and energy efficiency, and just in general, in terms ofthe plant and the employees in the plant, in terms of participating in local humanitarian type ofefforts. (SL-S-7)Comment: For the last five years on an average, they have been good corporate citizens andgood employees. They have donated on an average of over $103,000 a year for the last fiveyears. Not only have they donated their time and money, but they have given of all of theirenergies 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. Inaddition to providing hands-on science programs for schools, free workshops for teachers areoffered. The plant donated computers and supplies to local schools, and FPL has madesubstantial contributions to the Regional Sports Stadium and the St. Lucie County MarineCenter. (SL-AF-2)Comment: I am pleased to be a part of a group of FPL employees who contribute to local areaagencies through the United Way. (SL-V-2) (SL-I-2)Comment: The people of Hutchinson Island have asked me to let you know that the communityin the immediate vicinity of the power plant views the plant as a good neighbor and aconscientious 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 alsosupport the St. Lucie County Education Foundation in its scholarship program. (SL-V-3) (SL-I-3)Comment: FPL employees are also involved in helping the community through otherorganizations, such as Scouts, Little Leagues, civic groups, and church programs. (SL-V-4) (SL-I-4)Comment: The Plant
's (St. Lucie
's) information center, called the Energy Encounter, hostsabout 40,000 visitors each year, including 15,000 students who visit on educational field trips.(SL-V-5) (SL-I-5)
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-6May 2003Comment: I have found them (FPL) to be a very good neighbor, three miles away. They areinvolved in the community. (SL-W-5)Comment: The employees at the plant give very generously to local United Way campaignshere on the Treasure Coast. They contribute hundreds of thousands of dollars each year tolocal charitable organizations through their participation. (SL-AA-4)Comment: But more importantly our people do more than just work at the power plant. They
'reinvolved 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 anumber 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 ofMartin County, I personally know many of the employees at the St. Lucie Plant and I know howthey're involved in the community. And I know personally that they are involved with manyorganizations 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
'tknow as much about that, but I do know Rachel Scott and I do know her leadership for UnitedWay 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 BigBrothers, Big Sisters would not be the same. They
've worked for hundreds and thousands ofpeople 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, theEnergy Encounter plant that brings thousands of kids in each year to educate them aboutscience and electricity. (SL-G-6)Comment: That number of employees who have money and time participate actively in localcharities and support our local PTAs and schools in a number of ways that we just don
't see, butit happens all the time. (SL-F-2)Comment: They (FPL) do build houses for habitat for low-income families. (SL-W-2)
Appendix AMay 2003A-7NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Comment: I'm here to tell you about the good neighbor that I think that Florida Power and Lighthas 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 thecommunity and serve on various boards including the Education Foundation. (SL-AF-3)
Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal forSt. Lucie Units 1 and 2. Public services were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be aCategory 1 issue. Information regarding the impact on socioeconomic issues will be discussedin Section 4.0 of the SEIS
.Comment: Today I draw issues from an economic development point of view. St. Lucie PowerPlant 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 toour 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 toprovide services on which we depend. (SL-AA-5)Comment: The estimated economic impact of plant operation (St. Lucie) is more than 80 milliondollars annually. (SL-I-14) (SL-V-14)Comment: I'm here to speak about the economic health of St. Lucie County, of which theSt. Lucie Power Plant is a key contributor. (SL-A- 1)
Response: The comments are noted. Effects on the local economy due to license renewal areconsidered as a Category 2 issue in the GEIS and are, therefore, examined on a site-specificbasis 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 morethan 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, withover 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)
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-8May 2003Comment: There are 378 people at the plant who live in St. Lucie County and the payroll isabout 23 million dollars. (SL-P-3)Comment: If the St. Lucie Power Plant were to leave St. Lucie County, it would be difficult, wefeel, to have those twelve hundred jobs absorbed into our community, and also ourunemployment 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 areconsidered as a Category 2 issue in the GEIS and are, therefore, examined on a site-specificbasis 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 mentionthe 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 taxbase that drives our community. (SL-AC-5)Comment: The taxes paid here due to the St. Lucie Plant is approximately 20 million dollars ayear. (SL-P-2)
Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal andrelate to the socioeconomic benefits that the plant brings to the local communities. Effects onthe 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 theGEIS for St. Lucie license renewal
.A.2.2Comments Concerning Air Quality IssuesComment: The carbon emissions from the endless line of nuclear-laden security truck convoyswill surely contribute a little something. (SL-T-4)Comment: The St. Lucie Power Plant provides a source of clean energy. And it
's through ouroperations that we avoid production of greenhouse gases, which many scientists believecontribute to global warming. (SL-U-4) (SL-H-4)
Appendix AMay 2003A-9NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Comment: Another benefit in renewing the St. Lucie Plant licenses is our ability to continueproviding clean energy without using additional land for new power plants. In fact, nuclear powerplants prevent substantial amount of carbon emissions and other pollutants from going into theair we breathe. The positive impact on air quality will continue during the period of extendedoperation. (SL-V-12) (SL-I-12)Comment: When I look at the options that are out there, I
'm looking for the kind of electricitythat shows the least amount of pollution and I
'm very, very pleased to be able to say that wehave a nuclear power plant in St. Lucie County and that it
's got the controls against pollution thatit has. (SL-G-4)Comment: But I have always felt that the clean air has been tested by the national people, bythe state people. (SL-W-4)
Response: The comments are noted. These emissions are regulated through permits issuedby the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Florida. Air quality will bediscussed in Section 2.0 of the SEIS. The comments provide no new information and, therefore,will not be evaluated further
.A.2.3Comments Concerning Human Health IssuesComment: I believe that the St. Lucie Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement mustinclude careful analysis of the following factors, fully considering their impact throughout the20-year extension period: analysis of health and environmental effects of airborne and liquidradioactive waste the St. Lucie plant has released and is projected to release during itsoperating life. (SL-AN-11)Comment: My death and the possible death of countless peoples is acceptable to NRCregulations 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 theirallowable deaths per million ratio, but nuclear power, by the very nature of it, it
's acceptance andpromulgation among the very few governing and regulatory bodies, we don
't have a lot of peoplegiving input on this, just the NRC and FP&L. (SL-AE-3)
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-10May 2003 Response: The comments are noted. Radiation exposure to the public and workers fromroutine releases were evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a Category 1 issue. Thecomments provide no new information and, therefore, will not be evaluated further
.Comment: The company and outside agencies consistently monitor the air and water qualityaround the plant and surrounding communities, to ensure those strict environmental standardsare not only maintained, but upheld. (SL-Q-5)Comment: The company operates more than 30 different environmental monitoring stationsthat sample the air and the water, to ensure that they meet and do better than federal, state, andcounty 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 powerplants and the agency also, they sample new plant soil and other water to confirm that they
'retesting their findings. (SL-D-6)Comment: The State of Florida
's Department of Health, Bureau of Radiation Controlindependently monitors and tests radiation levels at locations surrounding St. Lucie Plant. Monitoring and testing includes sampling of air, water, shoreline sediment, fish, crustacea, broadleaf vegetation, and milk. These levels have consistently been comparable to those measuredthroughout 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 ofcontamination 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 pollutionreleased to the public in airborne and waterborne waste streams for St. Lucie Units 1 & 2. Thedraft SEIS needs to list this information for each of the previous 10 years and project radioactivepollution amounts for the 20 years of license extension. Since the GEIS was completed inApril 1996, the calculated exposure rates and the calculated adverse health effects havebecome woefully outdated. At a public meeting sponsored by the NRC in Homestead, Florida, itwas stated by a member of the NRC staff that the work on the GEIS began in 1992. The date ofApril 1996 for manuscript completion gives no assurance that the data and calculations werecurrent 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, yearby year, isotope by isotope. This would give independent scientists as well as industry scientistsan opportunity to use current data and calculations to improve the accuracy of findings of the Appendix AMay 2003A-11NUREG-1437, Supplement 11outdated GEIS in time to be included in the final SEIS. By hiding this data from the public, theNRC fosters the perception that publishing isotopic emissions data is something to be fearedand avoided at all costs. (SL-AO-13) (SL-AQ-13)
Response: The comments are noted. The requirements for monitoring and quantification ofroutine releases to the environment are beyond the scope of license renewal. The NRC requiresthe licensee routinely to conduct radiological monitoring of all plant effluents, as well as samplebiota and locally grown food-stuffs. Additionally, the State of Florida independently monitors theenvironment around the nuclear plant for radioactive contamination. The NRC alsocommunicates with permitting agencies that administer the Clean Water Act and the Clean AirAct, State radiological agencies, the Fish and Wildlife Service, and other organizations. Anypotential noncompliance of monitoring requirements is an operational safety issue, handledthrough the inspection and reporting process and is not within the scope of license renewal. Thecomments provide no new information, and, therefore, will not be evaluated further
.A.2.4Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology IssuesComment: The power plant itself has not been emitting pollutants of any kind that would havebeen damaging our marine resources. (SL-S-4)
Response: The comment is noted. The comment concerns a Category 1 issue: effects ofplant releases on aquatic biota near St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. Aquatic ecology will be discussedin Section 2.0 and environmental impacts of operation will be discussed in Section 4.0 of theSEIS. 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 mustinclude careful analysis of the following factors, fully considering their impact throughout the20-year extension period: analysis of bioaccumulated radioactivity in marine life at the outfallpipe and projected additional accumulation during the extended operating period. (SL-AN-12)
Response: The comment is noted. The comment concerns accumulation of radioisotopes inaquatic 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 bediscussed in Section 4.0 of the SEIS. The comments provide no new information and, therefore,will not be evaluated further
.A.2.5Comments Concerning Terrestrial Resource IssuesComment: And the fact that the plant takes up quite a bit of very prime real estate and leaves itin its natural state is a spectacular opportunity for us in terms of providing habitat that we couldnot afford to purchase these properties and maintain them in that natural state. (SL-S-5)
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-12May 2003 Response: The comment is noted and relates to terrestrial ecology Category 1 issues. Thecomment provides no new information; therefore, it will not be evaluated further
.A.2.6Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management IssuesComment: I believe that the St. Lucie Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement mustinclude careful analysis of the following factors, fully considering their impact throughout the20-year extension period: Costs of safely and securely storing high level nuclear wastes on sitefor at least 20 more years. (SL-AN-9)Comment: The cost impact analysis should include: Risks of accidental radiation release froma fuel transport and storage. (SL-AM-3)Comment: I believe that the St. Lucie Site-Specific Environmental Impact Statement mustinclude careful analysis of the following factors, fully considering their impact throughout the20-year extension period: Long term storage and transportation hazards of high level nuclearwastes, including analysis of land routes for the transportation of new fuel and spent fuel throughFlorida. (SL-AN-10)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 andenvironmental effects of a long-term storage of spent fuel onsite has been evaluated by the NRCand, as set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule, the NRC generically determined that suchstorage could be accomplished without significant environmental impact. In the WasteConfidence Rule, the Commission determined that spent fuel can be stored onsite for at least30 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. TheGeneric 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 notpermanent. The plant-specific supplement to the GEIS that will be prepared regarding licenserenewal 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 1issue. The conclusion regarding this issue in the GEIS included consideration of the long-termstorage of low-level waste onsite during the license renewal term. The comments provide nonew information; therefore the comments will not be evaluated further.
Appendix AMay 2003A-13NUREG-1437, Supplement 11A.2.7Comments Concerning Threatened or Endangered Species IssuesComment: The St. Lucie Power Plant is not only a place that produces clean, safe, low costelectricity, 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 smallportion of the total acreage on the barrier island site. So the rest of the acreage is left in itsnatural state and it
's maintained in a natural state, in fact enhanced in some areas, by removingexotic vegetation such as Brazilian Pepper and Australian Pine, and does provide habitat for atremendous diversity of life that
's on the barrier island, associated with the coastal area, about a180 or so species of plants and animals that are associated with the site, about 36 differentendangered 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 2issue, and will be addressed in Sections 2.2 and 4.6 of the supplemental EIS for St. LucieUnits 1 and 2
.Comment: The St. Lucie Plant, which looks out on the Atlantic Ocean, maintains a strongcommitment to sea turtle protection. Our (FPL) sea turtle program involves around the clockefforts, including scientific research and data gathering, participation in the sea turtle strandingand salvage program, participation in the sea turtle beach nesting surveys and our free guidedturtle walks for the public. (SL-I-9) (SL-V-9)Comment: The work they (FPL) do on local marine life and their specialized work with our seaturtle 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 seaturtles, that could be killed or injured in water intakes and things of that nature. Every effort ismade to protect them. (SL-S-6)Comment: The Turtle Beach nature trail mentioned here earlier, is open to the public to enjoyFlorida's natural beauty. The plant
's beaches provide one of the best nesting sites forthreatened 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 SpeciesAct, 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. LucieUnits 1 and 2
.
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-14May 2003A.2.8Comments Concerning Alternatives to the Proposed ActionComment: 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 towardsnuclear power. (SL-T-1)Comment: If the application is not renewed, he said it would take ten years to create analternate source of energy. And think about that. We
'd have to take ten years to find alternatesources of energy. What is the cost going to be? Where is it going to come from? Is it going tobe available? And now we have a plant we have to shut down. What
's the cost of shutting theplant down? What
's the cost going to be for jobs in the community if we have to shut the plantdown? And what are the other environmental costs that it
's going to take to get sources thatprobably 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 variousenergy conversion plants should be a part of the renewal process. This should include the totalcost per kW and total cost per kWh including any subsidies. These trades should include thosesources that would be substituted if the renewal license were denied and other energy sourcesmust be used in compensation. These should include coal, oil, natural gas, wind, solar, andother less likely forms such as biomass, wave and tidal energy. (SL-AP-1)
Response: The comments are noted. Impacts from reasonable alternatives for the St. Lucielicense 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 senatorarguing for the burning of city waste and incinerator plants, using the heat form that to generatemore energy, there are a lot of pollutants that are associated with human induced waste. Theaspects of mercury, lead, various heavy metals that are within the incineration system and haveto 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 inthe EIS scoping to include coal plants, oil fired plants, the natural gas plants that are far lower inpollution, 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, thefossil plants pollute at the rate of 30 to 45 percent and the nuclear plant, in comparison, about3 percent. (SL-J-3)
Appendix AMay 2003A-15NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Comment: They don
't burn fossil fuel, although we are concerned about where that spent fuelis going to go and what
's going to happen. There are other alternatives that always can beexplored and looked at. (SL-N-6)
Response: The comments are noted. Impacts from reasonable alternatives, includingalternative 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 ourgreatest focuses that we must do. The electricity consumed per customer has to decrease. Ihear that's been on the increase. (SL-AE-7)
Response: The comment is noted. Impacts from reasonable alternatives, includingconservation, 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
'squite a limitation. (SL-L-4)
Response: The comment is noted. Impacts from reasonable alternatives, including solar powergeneration, 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 ratedmarginal by FP&L. (SL-L-5)
Response: The comment is noted. Impacts from reasonable alternatives, including windpower, for the St. Lucie license renewal will be evaluated in Section 8.0 of the SEIS
.
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-16May 2003Part II - Comments Received on the Draft SEIS llA.3 Introduction llPursuant to 10 CFR Part 51, the staff transmitted the Generic Environmental Impact Statement lfor License Renewal of Nuclear Plants, Regarding St. Lucie Unit 1 and 2, Draft Report for lComment (NUREG-1437, Supplement 11, referred to as the draft SEIS) to Federal, State, and llocal government agencies as well as interested members of the public, requesting comments lby January 15, 2003. As part of the process to solicit public comments on the draft SEIS, the lstaff:ll placed a copy of the draft SEIS into the NRC
's electronic Public Document Room, its llicense renewal website, and the Indian River Community College Library in Fort Pierce,lFloridall sent copies of the draft SEIS to the applicant, members of the public who requested lcopies, and certain Federal, State, and local agencies ll published a notice of availability of the draft SEIS and opportunity for comment in the lFederal Register on November 1, 2002 (67 FR 66674) ll issued public announcements, such as advertisements in local newspapers and postings lin public places, of the availability of the draft SEIS ll announced and held two public meetings in Port St. Lucie, Florida, on December 3, 2002,lto describe the results of the environmental review and answer related questions ll issued public service announcements and press releases announcing the issuance of the ldraft SEIS, the public meetings, and instructions on how to comment on the draft SEIS ll established a website to receive comments on the draft SEIS through the Internet.
llDuring the comment period, the staff received a total of nine comment letters in addition to the lcomments received during the public meetings.
llThe staff has reviewed the public meeting transcripts and the nine comment letters that are part lof the docket file for the application, all of which are available in the NRC
's Electronic Public lDocument Room. Appendix A, Part II, Section A.4 contains a summary of the comments and lthe staff's responses. Related issues are grouped together. Appendix A, Part II, Section A.5 lcontains excerpts of the December 3, 2002, public meeting transcripts, the written statements lprovided at the public meetings, and the comment letters.
l Appendix AMay 2003A-17NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Each comment identified by the staff was assigned a specific alpha-numeric identifier (marker).
lThat identifier is typed in the margin of the transcript or letter at the beginning of the discussion lof the comment. A cross-reference of the alpha-numeric identifiers, the speaker or author of the lcomment, the page where the comment can be found, and the section(s) of this report in which lthe comment is addressed is provided in Table A-2. The speakers at the meetings are listed in lspeaking order along with the page of the transcript excerpts in this report on which the lcomment appears. These comments are identified by the letters "SLD" followed by a number lthat identifies each comment in approximate chronological order in which the comments were lmade. The written statements (from the public meetings) and written comment letters are also lidentified by the letters "SLD."llThe staff made a determination on each comment that it was one of the following:
l l(1)a comment that was actually a request for information and introduced no new information l
l(2)a comment that was either related to support or opposition of license renewal in general (or lspecifically St. Lucie Units 1 and 2) or that made a general statement about the license lrenewal process. It may have made only a general statement regarding Category 1 and/or lCategory 2 issues. In addition, it provided no new information and does not pertain to lsafety considerations reviewed under 10 CFR Part 54.
l l(3)a comment about a Category 1 issue that l(a)provided significant new information that required evaluation during the review, or l(b)provided no significant new information l
l(4)a comment about a Category 2 issue that l(a)provided significant information that required evaluation during the review, or l(b)provided no such information l
l(5)a comment that raised an environmental issue that was not addressed in the GEIS or the ldraft SEIS ll(6)a comment on safety issues pertaining to 10 CFR Part 54 l
l(7)a comment outside the scope of license renewal (not related to 10 CFR Parts 51 or 54), or l
l(8)a comment that was editorial in nature.
l Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-18May 2003Comment types 3, 4, 5, and 8 may have resulted in changes to the text.
llThere was no significant new information provided on Category 1 issues [(3)(a) above] or linformation that required further evaluation on Category 2 issues [(4)(a)]. Therefore, the GEIS land draft SEIS remained valid and bounding, and no further evaluation was performed.
l lComments without a supporting technical basis or without any new information are discussed in lthis appendix, and not in other sections of this report. Relevant references that address the lissues within the regulatory authority of the NRC are provided where appropriate. Many of these lreferences can be obtained from the NRC Electronic Public Document Room.
llWithin each section of Part II of this appendix (A.4.1 through A.4.16), similar comments are lgrouped together for ease of reference, and a summary description of the comments is given,lfollowed by the staff
's response. Where the comment or question resulted in a change in the ltext of the draft report, the corresponding response refers the reader to the appropriate section lof this report where the change was made. Revisions to the text in the draft report are ldesignated by vertical lines beside the text.
llSome numbers were initially assigned to portions of verbal or written statements that were later ldetermined not to be comments. These items were removed from the table. As a result, not all lnumbers are sequential (see Table A-2.)
l lTable A-2. Comment Log lllNo.lSpeaker or Author lSourcelPage Number lSection(s) Where lAddressedlSLD-A-1lD. Anderson lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-44lA.4.11lSLD-A-2lD. Anderson lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-27lA.4.3lSLD-A-3lD. Anderson lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-51lA.4.15lSLD-A-4lD. Anderson lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-27lA.4.3lSLD-A-5lD. Anderson lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-28lA.4.3lSLD-A-6lD. Anderson lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-28lA.4.3lSLD-A-7lD. Anderson lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-47lA.4.14lSLD-A-8lD. Anderson lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-41lA.4.11lSLD-A-9lD. Anderson lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-42lA.4.11lSLD-A-10lD. Anderson lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-44lA.4.11lSLD-A-11lD. Anderson lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-28lA.4.3lSLD-B-1lB. Bangert lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-25lA.4.1lSLD-B-2lB. Bangert lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-25lA.4.1lSLD-B-3lB. Bangert lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-37lA.4.9lSLD-B-4lB. Bangert lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-28lA.4.3lSLD-C-1lR. Parrish lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-42lA.4.11lSLD-D-1lG. WilsonlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-42lA.4.11l Appendix AMay 2003A-19NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Table A-2. (cont'd)llNo.lSpeaker or Author lSourcelPage Number lSection(s) Where lAddressedlSLD-D-2lG. WilsonlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-28lA.4.3lSLD-D-3lG. WilsonlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-28lA.4.3lSLD-E-1lS.Wolfberg lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-28lA.4.3lSLD-F-1lD. DaniellAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-42lA.4.11lSLD-F-2lD. DaniellAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-52lA.4.15lSLD-F-3lD. DaniellAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-54lA.4.15lSLD-F-4lD. DaniellAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-54lA.4.15lSLD-F-5lD. DaniellAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-52lA.4.15lSLD-G-1lG. Cantrell lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-51lA.4.15lSLD-H-1lJ. MillerlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-42lA.4.11lSLD-I-1lD.Jernigan lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-25lA.4.1lSLD-I-2lD. Jerigan lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-25lA.4.1lSLD-I-3lD. Jerigan lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-28lA.4.3lSLD-I-4lD. Jerigan lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-29lA.4.3lSLD-I-5lD. Jerigan lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-51lA.4.15lSLD-I-6lD. Jerigan lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-29lA.4.3lSLD-I-7lD. Jerigan lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-37lA.4.9lSLD-I-8lD. Jerigan lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-31lA.4.4lSLD-I-9lD. Jerigan lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-44lA.4.11lSLD-I-10lD. Jerigan lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-42lA.4.11lSLD-J-1lT. Abbatiello lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-25lA.4.1lSLD-J-2lT. Abbatiello lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-25lA.4.1lSLD-J-3lT. Abbatiello lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-37lA.4.9lSLD-J-4lT. Abbatiello lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-51lA.4.15lSLD-J-5lT. Abbatiello lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-29lA.4.3lSLD-K-1lJ. Vojcsik lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-29lA.4.3lSLD-K-2lJ. Vojcsik lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-51lA.4.15lSLD-K-3lJ. Vojcsik lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-44lA.4.11lSLD-K-4lJ. Vojcsik lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-42lA.4.11lSLD-L-1lA. HalllAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-29lA.4.3lSLD-L-2lA. HalllAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-29lA.4.3lSLD-L-3lA. HalllAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-52lA.4.15lSLD-L-4lA. HalllAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-52lA.4.15lSLD-L-5lA. HalllAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-52lA.4.14lSLD-M-1lF. LeslielAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-25lA.4.1lSLD-M-2lF. LeslielAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-25lA.4.1lSLD-M-3lF. LeslielAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-48lA.4.14lSLD-M-4lF. LeslielAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-48lA.4.14lSLD-M-5lF. LeslielAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-48lA.4.14lSLD-N-1lB. RaatzlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-49lA.4.14lSLD-N-2lB. RaatzlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-49lA.4.14lSLD-N-3lB. RaatzlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-49lA.4.14l Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-20May 2003Table A-2. (cont'd)llNo.lSpeaker or Author lSourcelPage Number lSection(s) Where lAddressedlSLD-N-4lB. RaatzlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-55lA.4.15lSLD-N-5lB. RaatzlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-33lA.4.7lSLD-O-1lR. De Cristofaro lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-56lA.4.15lSLD-P-1lB. WellslAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-42lA.4.11lSLD-P-2lB. WellslAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-45lA.4.13lSLD-P-3lB. WellslAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-50lA.4.15lSLD-P-4lB. WellslAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-53lA.4.15lSLD-P-5lB. WellslAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-38lA.4.10lSLD-P-6lB. WellslAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-39lA.4.10lSLD-P-7lB. WellslAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-39lA.4.10lSLD-P-8lB. WellslAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-50lA.4.15lSLD-P-9lB. WellslAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-56lA.4.15lSLD-Q-1lH. FennlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-29lA.4.3lSLD-Q-2lH. FennlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-44lA.4.11lSLD-Q-3lH. FennlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-29lA.4.3lSLD-Q-4lH. FennlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-29lA.4.3lSLD-Q-5 (a)lH. FennlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lNAlNAlSLD-Q-6lH. FennlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-30lA.4.3lSLD-Q-7lH. FennlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-42lA.4.11lSLD-Q-8lH. FennlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-30lA.4.3lSLD-Q-9lH. FennlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-48lA.4.14lSLD-Q-10lH. FennlAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-30lA.4.3lSLD-R-1lM. Oncavage lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-26lA.4.2lSLD-R-2lM. Oncavage lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-27lA.4.2lSLD-R-3lM. Oncavage lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-52lA.4.15lSLD-R-4lM. Oncavage lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-46lA.4.13lSLD-S-1lL. Brumfield lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-48lA.4.14lSLD-S-2lL. Brumfield lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-27lA.4.2lSLD-S-3lL. Brumfield lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-46lA.4.13lSLD-S-4lL. Brumfield lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-47lA.4.13lSLD-S-5lL. Brumfield lAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-49lA.4.14lSLD-T-1lJ. RowleylAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-30lA.4.3lSLD-T-2lJ. RowleylAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-43lA.4.11lSLD-T-3 (a)lJ. RowleylAfternoon Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lNAlNAlSLD-U-1lD. Jernigan lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-25lA.4.1lSLD-U-2lD. Jernigan lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-25lA.4.1lSLD-U-3lD. Jernigan lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-28lA.4.3lSLD-U-4lD. Jernigan lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-29lA.4.3lSLD-U-5lD. Jernigan lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-51lA.4.15lSLD-U-6lD. Jernigan lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-29lA.4.3lSLD-U-7lD. Jernigan lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-37lA.4.9lSLD-U-8lD. Jernigan lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-31lA.4.4lSLD-U-9lD. Jernigan lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-44lA.4.11l Appendix AMay 2003A-21NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Table A-2. (cont'd)llNo.lSpeaker or Author lSourcelPage Number lSection(s) Where lAddressedlSLD-U-10lD. Jernigan lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-42lA.4.11lSLD-V-1lT. Abbatiello lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-25lA.4.1lSLD-V-2lT. Abbatiello lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-25lA.4.1lSLD-V-3lT. Abbatiello lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-37lA.4.9lSLD-V-4lT. Abbatiello lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-51lA.4.15lSLD-V-5lT. Abbatiello lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-29lA.4.3lSLD-W-1lV. BarrylEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-30lA.4.3lSLD-W-2lV. BarrylEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-30lA.4.3lSLD-W-3lV. BarrylEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-53lA.4.15lSLD-W-4lV. BarrylEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-53lA.4.15lSLD-W-5lV. BarrylEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-43lA.4.11lSLD-W-6 (a)lV. BarrylEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lNAlNAlSLD-W-7lV. BarrylEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-43lA.4.11lSLD-W-8lV. BarrylEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-30lA.4.3lSLD-W-9lV. BarrylEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-40lA.4.10lSLD-W-10lV. BarrylEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-30lA.4.3lSLD-X-1lL. Bullington lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-43lA.4.11lSLD-Y-1lK. KnapplEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-43lA.4.11lSLD-Z-1lC. Bogacki lEvening Meeting Transcript (12/03/02) lA-34lA.4.7lSLD-AA-1lB. WellslE-mail (01/04/03) lA-53lA.4.15lSLD-AB-1lG. HoguelE-mail (01/06/03) lA-71lA.4.17lSLD-AC-1 (a)lB. WellslE-mail (01/06/03) lNAlNAlSLD-AC-2lB. WellslE-mail (01/10/03) lA-45lA.4.13lSLD-AC-3lB. WellslE-mail (01/10/03) lA-50lA.4.15lSLD-AC-4lB. WellslE-mail (01/10/03) lA-53lA.4.15lSLD-AC-5lB. WellslE-mail (01/10/03) lA-38lA.4.10lSLD-AC-6lB. WellslE-mail (01/10/03) lA-39lA.4.10lSLD-AC-7lB. WellslE-mail (01/10/03) lA-39lA.4.10lSLD-AC-8lB. WellslE-mail (01/10/03) lA-50lA.4.15lSLD-AC-9lB. WellslE-mail (01/10/03) lA-56lA.4.15lSLD-AC-10lB. WellslE-mail (01/10/03) lA-56lA.4.15lSLD-AC-11lB. WellslE-mail (01/10/03) lA-55lA.4.15lSLD-AD-1lJ. JameslE-mail (01/11/03) lA-50lA.4.15lSLD-AD-2lJ. JameslE-mail (01/11/03) lA-47lA.4.13lSLD-AE-1lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-68lA.4.16lSLD-AE-2lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-68lA.4.16lSLD-AE-3lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-68lA.4.16lSLD-AE-4lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-68lA.4.16lSLD-AE-5lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-68lA.4.16lSLD-AE-6lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-62lA.4.16l Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-22May 2003Table A-2. (cont'd)llNo.lSpeaker or Author lSourcelPage Number lSection(s) Where lAddressedlSLD-AE-7lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-62lA.4.16lSLD-AE-8lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-62lA.4.16lSLD-AE-9lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-62lA.4.16lSLD-AE-10lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-68lA.4.16lSLD-AE-11lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-62lA.4.16lSLD-AE-12lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-62lA.4.16lSLD-AE-13lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-71lA.4.16lSLD-AE-14lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-60lA.4.16lSLD-AE-15lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-67lA.4.16lSLD-AE-16lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-62lA.4.16lSLD-AE-17lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-62lA.4.16lSLD-AE-18lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-68lA.4.16lSLD-AE-19lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-70lA.4.16lSLD-AE-20lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-68lA.4.16lSLD-AE-21lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-70lA.4.16lSLD-AE-22lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-67lA.4.16lSLD-AE-23lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-69lA.4.16lSLD-AE-24lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-69lA.4.16lSLD-AE-25lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-70lA.4.16lSLD-AE-26lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-60lA.4.16lSLD-AE-27lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-69lA.4.16lSLD-AE-28lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-64lA.4.16lSLD-AE-29lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-62lA.4.16lSLD-AE-30lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-62lA.4.16lSLD-AE-31lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-62lA.4.16lSLD-AE-32lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-63lA.4.16lSLD-AE-33lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-63lA.4.16lSLD-AE-34lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-64lA.4.16lSLD-AE-35lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-64lA.4.16lSLD-AE-36lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-63lA.4.16lSLD-AE-37lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-65lA.4.16lSLD-AE-38lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-63lA.4.16lSLD-AE-39lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-60lA.4.16lSLD-AE-40lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-65lA.4.16lSLD-AE-41lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-63lA.4.16lSLD-AE-42lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-65lA.4.16lSLD-AE-43lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-66lA.4.16lSLD-AE-44lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-32lA.4.16lSLD-AE-45lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-66lA.4.16lSLD-AE-46lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-66lA.4.16l Appendix AMay 2003A-23NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Table A-2. (cont'd)llNo.lSpeaker or Author lSourcelPage Number lSection(s) Where lAddressedlSLD-AE-47lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-63lA.4.16lSLD-AE-48lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-65lA.4.16lSLD-AE-49lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-61lA.4.16lSLD-AE-50lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-60lA.4.16lSLD-AE-51lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-59lA.4.16lSLD-AE-52lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-59lA.4.16lSLD-AE-53lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-59lA.4.16lSLD-AE-54lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-61lA.4.16lSLD-AE-55lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-59lA.4.16lSLD-AE-56lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-60lA.4.16lSLD-AE-57lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-60lA.4.16lSLD-AE-58lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-60lA.4.16lSLD-AE-59lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-60lA.4.16lSLD-AE-60lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-59lA.4.16lSLD-AE-61lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-64lA.4.16lSLD-AE-62lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-61lA.4.16lSLD-AE-63lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-60lA.4.16lSLD-AE-64lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-61lA.4.16lSLD-AE-65lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-60lA.4.16lSLD-AE-66lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-61lA.4.16lSLD-AE-67lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-63lA.4.16lSLD-AE-68lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-63lA.4.16lSLD-AE-69lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-63lA.4.16lSLD-AE-70lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-63lA.4.16lSLD-AE-71lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-67lA.4.16lSLD-AE-72lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-67lA.4.16lSLD-AE-73lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-69lA.4.16lSLD-AE-74lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-66lA.4.16lSLD-AE-75lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-69lA.4.16lSLD-AE-76lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-69lA.4.16lSLD-AE-77lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-69lA.4.16lSLD-AE-78lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-69lA.4.16lSLD-AE-79lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-70lA.4.16lSLD-AE-80lD. Jernigan lLetter (01/09/2003) lA-70lA.4.16lSLD-AF-1lM. Oncavage lE-mail (01/13/03) lA-57lA.4.15lSLD-AF-2lM. Oncavage lE-mail (01/13/03) lA-58lA.4.15lSLD-AF-3lM. Oncavage lE-mail (01/13/03) lA-56lA.4.15lSLD-AF-4lM. Oncavage lE-mail (01/13/03) lA-58lA.4.15lSLD-AF-5lM. Oncavage lE-mail (01/13/03) lA-58lA.4.15lSLD-AF-6lM. Oncavage lE-mail (01/13/03) lA-58lA.4.15l Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-24May 2003Table A-2. (cont'd)llNo.lSpeaker or Author lSourcelPage Number lSection(s) Where lAddressedlSLD-AF-7lM. Oncavage lE-mail (01/13/03) lA-58lA.4.15lSLD-AF-8lM. Oncavage lE-mail (01/13/03) lA-57lA.4.15lSLD-AF-9lM. Oncavage lE-mail (01/13/03) lA-54lA.4.15lSLD-AG-1lF. LeslielLetter (01/16/03) lA-25lA.4.1lSLD-AG-2lF. LeslielLetter (01/16/03) lA-44lA.4.12lSLD-AG-3lF. LeslielLetter (01/16/03) lA-40lA.4.10lSLD-AG-4lF. LeslielLetter (01/16/03) lA-58lA.4.15lSLD-AG-5lF. LeslielLetter (01/16/03) lA-56lA.4.15lSLD-AG-6lF. LeslielLetter (01/16/03) lA-48lA.4.14lSLD-AG-7lF. LeslielLetter (01/16/03) lA-45lA.4.12lSLD-AG-8lF. LeslielLetter (01/16/03) lA-26lA.4.1lSLD-AH-1lW. Dobbins lLetter (12/06/02) lA-43lA.4.11lSLD-AH-2lW. Dobbins lLetter (12/06/02) lA-30lA.4.3lSLD-AI-1lH. Mueller lLetter (01/15/03) lA-49lA.4.14lSLD-AI-2lH. Mueller lLetter (01/15/03) lA-49lA.4.14lSLD-AI-3lH. Mueller lLetter (01/15/03) lA-37lA.4.9lSLD-AI-4lH. Mueller lLetter (01/15/03) lA-38lA.4.9lSLD-AI-5lH. Mueller lLetter (01/15/03) lA-38lA.4.9lSLD-AI-6lH. Mueller lLetter (01/15/03) lA-35lA.4.7lSLD-AI-7lH. Mueller lLetter (01/15/03) lA-36lA.4.8lSLD-AI-8lH. Mueller lLetter (01/15/03) lA-33lA.4.6lSLD-AI-9lH. Mueller lLetter (01/15/03) lA-36lA.4.8lSLD-AI-10lH. Mueller lLetter (01/15/03) lA-33lA.4.6l(a)This comment was determined upon later review to either be combined with another comment or to be un-related to the scope lof the SEIS.
lll Appendix AMay 2003A-25NUREG-1437, Supplement 11A.4 Comments and Responses on the Draft SEIS llA.4.1Comments in Support of the License Renewal Process llComment: I want to express my appreciation to those who drafted this report, for including a lglossary of the acronyms used in the report. (SLD-B-1) llComment: The Alliance is also very impressed by the systematic and completeness of the lreport in evaluating the environmental consequences of renewing the licenses for the St. Lucie lFP&L Plants 1 and 2, for operation for an additional twenty years. (SLD-B-2) llComment: FPL strongly supports the openness of this process. (SLD-I-1) (SLD-U-1) llComment: I believe that this report has reflected a comprehensive assessment of the lenvironmental impact of license renewal. (SLD-I-2) (SLD-U-2) llComment: The supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the St. Lucie license renewal lprovides a thorough examination of ninety-two environmental issues addressed in the lregulations. This very broad approach has been thoughtfully designed and is intended to cover lthe wide spectrum of issues that might be raised by members of the public for governmental lreview agencies. (SLD-J-1) (SLD-V-1) llComment: The supplemental Environmental Impact Statement concludes that the lenvironmental impacts from operating St. Lucie for an additional twenty years, would be small.
lThis conclusion is based on the detailed analysis of the impact areas. I agree with this lconclusion. It is the same conclusion that was made in FPL
's environmental report prepared as la part of our application. (SLD-J-2) (SLD-V-2) llComment: I did read the SEIS, Supplement 11 and found it very interesting. And I especially lcommend that writers of that report for doing such a good job in the field of alternative energy.
l(SLD-M-1)llComment: And so, in looking at the work that has been done within Supplement 11, the lcomparison of small, moderate and large impacts on the environment, it appears to me that the lnuclear option is the best way to continue and I'm supporting that. (SLD-M-2) llComment: The use of SMALL, MODERATE, and LARGE impact on the environment qualifiers lis a good approach to focus on the effect rather than various quantities. (SLD-AG-1) llComment: Table 9-1 displays the SMALL impact of relicensing versus the other replacement lpower possibilities that range from MODERATE to LARGE impacts. License renewal thus l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-26May 2003appears to be the best action now, and in perhaps twenty years, other energy alternatives may lbe better suited and economic. (SLD-AG-8) llResponse: The comments are supportive of license renewal and its processes and are general lin nature.
The comments are noted and are consistent with the conclusions in this SEIS. The lcomments provide no new information; therefore, the comments were not evaluated further.
lThere was no change to the SEIS text
.llA.4.2Comments in Opposition to the License Renewal Process llComment: I raised eight public safety issues that needed to be included in the Draft lEnvironmental Impact Statement and not even one of those safety issues are in this draft study.
lApparently some individuals of the NRC have great difficulty relating safety and public concerns lto their Environmental Impact Statement. Also, I would like someone from the Office of the lGeneral Counsel to explain to me exactly which provisions of the National Environmental Policy lAct enable the NRC staff to ignore the tremendously dangerous issues that I raised at the lscoping meeting. No matter. There are forces at work here well beyond the control of the lNuclear Regulatory Commission and the nuclear industry. (SLD-R-1) llResponse: The comment is noted. The commenter states that the issues he raised during the lNEPA scoping process were not addressed in the Draft SEIS. The Staff determined in the lScoping Summary Report (ML021160348) dated July 8, 2002, which predated the October 2002 ldraft SEIS, that the issues raised by the commenter are not related to the environmental lconsequences of the Federal action (as prescribed in 10 CFR Part 51) to renew a license and lwill not be considered in the environmental review.
ll As characterized by the commenter, the issues raised are safety issues. NRC's safety lresponsibilities fall under the Atomic Energy Act, either associated with the current operation of lthe facility or with the continued operation should the license be renewed. The NRC safety lreview for license renewal is conducted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54 and is documented in a lsafety evaluation report, a separate document from this SEIS, in an inspection report, and in the lreview by the NRC's Advisory Committee for Reactor Safeguards. One of the principal lresponsibilities of the NRC is the protection of the health and safety of the public and any safety lissue that has a bearing on this responsibility is evaluated
. During the course of the lenvironmental review for license renewal, safety issues brought to the staff's attention are lreferred to the appropriate safety venue for consideration
.llThe commenter also requested an that the staff explain why beyond design basis accidents are lnot evaluated for potential environmental impact under the provisions of NEPA. The lenvironmental review mandated by the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) is subject to a lrule of reason and as such need not include all theoretically possible environmental effects l
Appendix AMay 2003A-27NUREG-1437, Supplement 11arising out of an action, but may be limited to effects which are shown to have some likelihood of loccurring. Environmental impact statements need not discuss the environmental effects of lalternatives which are deemed only remote and speculative possibilities. Additionally, NEPA ldoes not require the preparation of an environmental impact statement for hypothetical accident lscenarios based on remote and speculative events.
llThis comment provides no new information; therefore, the comment was not evaluated further.
lThere was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: International affairs show that nuclear electricity is too dangerous, too expensive,land too unreliable to have a meaningful future. (SLD-R-2) llResponse: The comment is noted. The comment is not sufficiently specific enough to provide la detailed response. The cost of power is outside the scope of license renewal. Reliability is lalso outside the scope. Operational safety matters are outside the scope of the NRC
'slenvironmental review. An NRC safety review for license renewal is conducted pursuant to 10 lCFR Part 54 and will be documented in a safety evaluation report separate from this SEIS. The lcomment provides no new information; therefore, the comment was not evaluated further.
lThere was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: You know, I really wish that nuclear power could work, but I don
't believe it
'slworking, for the very reasons that I get the willies when I drive by the power plant over on lHutchinson Island. (SLD-S-2) llResponse: The comment is noted. The comment is not sufficiently specific enough to provide la detailed response. The comment provides no new information; therefore, the comment was lnot evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llA.4.3Comments in Support of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 llComment: The St. Lucie Power Plant provides our industry with a reliable source of electricity.
lIn St. Lucie County, we
're not like other areas of the country where you experience brownouts or lblackouts. Our industry, as a diversified industry we have here now, relies heavily on a steady lsource of electricity and a reliable source. (SLD-A-2) llComment: The St. Lucie Plant is among the lowest cost producers of electricity in the FPL lsystem, and this helps keep our electric bills low. And that is one of the attractions to our area lfor industry. (SLD-A-4) llll Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-28May 2003Comment: Our power bills are more reasonable than most others in the country, in part lbecause of this plant, and we want to keep our power bills low and our quality of life high.
l(SLD-A-5)llComment: We want to keep the St. Lucie Power Plant as part of our future. The site is already lestablished. They
're continuing to operate
- the continuation of operating this facility means no lnew land would be disturbed to construct a new facility to replace this one. (SLD-A-6) llComment: The thing that impresses me most about the St. Lucie Plant is its reputation. I
'velheard about the good ratings the plant has received through the years from the NRC.
l(SLD-A-11) llComment: I cannot stress strongly enough our commendations for FP&L
's continuing efforts to limprove any areas that they find may be having a detrimental effect on the environment, on any lportion of their eleven hundred plus acres on the island adjacent to Plants 1 and 2, or along its ltransmission lines. (SLD-B-4) llComment: The employees at the power plant pose no problem for law enforcement. And they lare certainly, as Mr. Anderson pointed out earlier, a great neighbor for us to have here in lSt. Lucie County. (SLD-D-2) llComment: St. Lucie County Sheriff
's Office works closely with the security department out at lthe plant to ensure that all of those issues that of concern for a lot of people who live in the area lout there are taken care of, and that working relationship is a very strong relationship and one lthat we're very proud of. So on behalf of law enforcement in St. Lucie County, we are in support lof license renewal for the power plant. (SLD-D-3) llComment: We're here in support of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
's relicensing of lSt. Lucie's Unit 1 and 2. We have had a relationship with the power plant for over twenty-three lyears that during this time we
've been able to build a model partnership in relationships between lFP&L and the county, and the benefits going both way. We consider St. Lucie Power Plant a lpartner in our planning, our response and operating, and continuing education in emergency lservices as well as just good friends, partners and corporate partners. On behalf of Martin lCounty Emergency Services, again, we support the relicensing for Unit 1 and 2. (SLD-E-1) llComment: When I look at the evidence as presented in this supplemental Environmental lImpact Statement and other license renewal documents that have been submitted, I
'm assuredlthat the plant
's safety and a positive impact on our environment exists with these reports and lwhat's contained in them. I believe the case for continued operation of the St. Lucie Plant is lstrong. (SLD-I-3) (SLD-U-3) ll Appendix AMay 2003A-29NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Comment: The performance of our power plant is top notch, thanks to our employees, which lwe've got a couple here in the audience today. Their time, their effort, their dedication have lresulted in St. Lucie consistently being recognized as one of the safest and most reliable, and lmost efficient plants in the United States. Our employees have worked diligently through leffective maintenance programs to sustain the option for continued plant operation well beyond lthe initial forty year license. (SLD-I-4) (SLD-U-4) llComment: The St. Lucie Plant is among the lowest cost of electricity within the FPL system.
l(SLD-I-6) (SLD-U-6) llComment: The St. Lucie employees want to remain a part of this community. As your lneighbors, safe and reliable operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant is our top priority. We lbelieve license renewal makes good sense. It makes good business sense for both FPL and its lcustomers. And in light of the current situation in the world, we also believe that it is the right lthing to do for our country. (SLD-J-5) (SLD-V-5) llComment: I would like to add my voice to those today, who are supporting the license renewal lfor Florida Power and Light St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. (SLD-K-1) llComment: Some folks, a lot of folks have come before me today, to reiterate the reasons why lthey support Florida Power and Light. Why? Because the St. Lucie Plant is important to the lcommunity. The St. Lucie Plant benefits our local economy tremendously. The St. Lucie Plant lhas been an excellent partner and neighbor, be it community or in business. The St. Lucie has lconscientious, dedicated and well trained employees. (SLD-L-1) llComment: The St. Lucie Plant has been and has a good environmental record. (SLD-L-2) llComment: We were convinced after a few years that the power plant, Florida Power and Light lpower plant was a good entity in our county. Yes, they have questions about the power plant land there will always be questions about the power plant. (SLD-Q-1) llComment: I want to stop and have you to recognize that the plant does provide, as far as I
'mlconcerned, a safe, clean
- safe and clean electricity. (SLD-Q-3) llComment: I understand that the FP&L plant is among the lowest cost producers of electricity land that is good, because when the rate for electricity goes up too high, then we will suffer. I lwould like for the St. Lucie Plant to keep electric bills low. (SLD-Q-4) llComment: It is my understanding that, for more than one reason, that the power plant is here.
lSomeone was seeking a better way to provide electricity, other than the coal and the oil that we lwere living on at one time. And as a member of this community, I would like to see the power l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-30May 2003plant continue to be a part of our future. The location of the plant, we cannot do anything about lthat. I think now that we
're in a position that we could stop the increased number of units at the lplant, but so far as doing something about the plants that are already there, I don
't believe we lwill be able to that. (SLD-Q-6) llComment: I have been told by some authoritative sources that the power plant workers are lvery dedicated persons and well trained. I
'm going to live on that fact. (SLD-Q-8) llComment: I think this nuclear power plant is the best thing for our community environment, as lsome of you all have been saying. (SLD-Q-10) llComment: I can't worry about what
's going to happen all over the world, all over the United lStates, but I know FP&L here and our power plant, they look after our safety. (SLD-T-1) llComment: During that time we have relied on Florida Power and Light and the St. Lucie lNuclear Plant to supply us with low cost, safe and reliable electricity. They have never failed to lfulfill that responsibility. (SLD-W-1) llComment: We also have enjoyed great credits, by participating in the Florida Power and Light lon-call program. With this program our water heater and our air conditioning system are wired lsuch, that during peak loads Florida Power and Light can remotely disrupt our service for short lperiods of time. To date, if they have activated the system, we are unaware of it, and it has lcaused us no inconvenience. (SLD-W-2) llComment: Adding to their economic and civic achievements, the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant has lalways maintained a strong commitment to the environment. Their emphasis on the South lFlorida ecosystem have resulted in designing and maintaining a facility that compliments a lfriendly relationship of the two. (SLD-W-8) llComment: The twenty-five year history of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant has been excellent for the lcommunity, for the environment and its wildlife, and for the people. We have got something very lgood here and when you have something good you stick with it. (SLD-W-10) llComment: However, the most important economic impact of the St. Lucie Plant is the linexpensive consistent power which it provides to our area. In the past, business took those lpower for granted, however, with the recent events in California, and the potential for disruptions lto our oil supply caused by events in the Middle East, we are especially lucky to have the lSt. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant in our County. (SLD-AH-2) llll Appendix AMay 2003A-31NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 Response: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal at lSt. Lucie Units 1 and 2, and are general in nature. The comments provide no new information; ltherefore, the comments were not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llA.4.4Comments Concerning Air Quality Issues llComment: We [FPL] can continue to produce clean electricity without air pollution or lgreenhouse gases. (SLD-I-8) (SLD-U-8) llResponse: The comment is noted. Emissions are regulated through air quality permits issued lby the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the State of Florida. Air quality is discussed in lSection 2.0 of this SEIS. The comment provides no new information; therefore, the comment lwas not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llA.4.5Comments Concerning Groundwater Use and Quality Issues llComment: Page 4-33, line 1-22: In this paragraph, the NRC addressed groundwater use lconflicts (potable and service water; plants that use > 379 l/min [>100 gpm]) as an applicable lCategory 2 issue, citing the indirect withdrawal of groundwater at the St. Lucie site in excess of l100 gpm as the basis. This determination is not consistent with the scope of this issue as ldefined in the GEIS and codified by 10 CFR 51. NRC in GEIS Section 4.8.1," Groundwater lUse," states, "This impact could occur as a direct effect of pumping groundwater, -" (emphasis ladded). Furthermore, the specific concern for this issue is that the cone of depression lassociated with direct pumping of groundwater onsite could potentially extend beyond the plant lboundaries and impact offsite groundwater users. Section 4.8.1 of the GEIS limits the scope of lthis issue to the direct use of groundwater and acknowledges that the indirect use through lmunicipal supply is not of concern. Therefore, analysis of this issue should not be expanded to linclude indirect use. Accordingly, this section should state that there are no Category 2 issues lapplicable to St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 during the license renewal term. The statement on line 2,l"There are no Category 1 issues applicable to groundwater use and quality for St. Lucie Units 1 land 2 during the renewal term.
" is incorrect. The issue "Groundwater quality degradation l(saltwater intrusion)
" is a Category 1 issue that is applicable to St. Lucie. NRC in GEIS lSection 4.8.2.1 characterizes this issue as Category 1 and discusses the potential for indirect limpacts of St. Lucie
's use of municipal supply, which uses groundwater as the source water.
lConsistent with other sections, the table presented in this section should identify this issue as an lapplicable Category 1 issue. The 10 percent threshold used in NRC
's discussion (lines 4-6) is lnot correctly applied given the discussion is relative to the Category 2 issue of groundwater use lconflicts. This threshold was specifically used by NRC in the GEIS for the impact significance of lgroundwater quality relative to saltwater intrusion (See GEIS Section 4.8.2.1). The GEIS does lnot provide such a threshold for evaluating impacts from the direct use of groundwater. This lsection should be revised to address the applicable Category 1 issues and state that there are l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-32May 2003no Category 2 issues applicable to St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. Accordingly, Table 4-8 should be ldeleted and it should be noted that the GEIS section cited for the Category 2 issue listed in this ltable should only be Section 4.8.1.1. GEIS Section 4.8.2.1 addresses the Category 1 issue lregarding saltwater intrusion. (SLD-AE-44) llResponse: The comments are noted. The staff agrees that groundwater quality degradation l(saltwater intrusion), a Category 1 issue, is applicable to the license renewal review for St. Lucie land the text and table in Section 4.5 of the SEIS have been revised.
llThe staff agrees that there are no Category 2 issues related to groundwater use and quality. In lthe draft SEIS, the staff identified as a Category 2 issue the issue of groundwater use conflicts l(potable and service water; plants that use >379 l/min [>100 gpm]). The value for potable and lservice water usage for the plant, given in Section 4.5, on page 4-33 of the draft SEIS was lincorrect. The correct value, given in Section 2.2.2 of the draft SEIS, is 4.98 X10 5 L (131,000 lgal) per day or 346 l/min (91 gpm). Thus, the potable and service water usage for the plant is, in lfact, less than 379 l/min (100 gpm). Therefore, this Category 2 issue is not applicable to the lSt. Lucie license renewal review.
llAlthough the groundwater use issue is not a Category 2 issue, it does constitute a Category 1 lissue. The staff considers that the Category 1 issue of groundwater use conflict (potable and lservice; plants that use <379 l/min [<100 gpm]) applies to St. Lucie because its potable and lservice water usage is 346 l/min (91 gpm). 10 CFR Part 51, Subpart A, Appendix B identifies lthis impact as SMALL. Plants using less than 100 gpm are not expected to cause any ground-lwater use conflicts. The SEIS has been revised to identify this issue as a Category 1 issue.
llThe staff notes that it disagrees with the commenter that the intent of the GEIS is to limit lconsideration of the issue of groundwater conflicts to only those facilities that withdraw the water ldirectly from the aquifer, and to exclude from consideration groundwater impacts for those lfacilities that obtain the water from a municipal water supply that withdraws the water from the lsame aquifer, as is the case with St. Lucie. The concern is not only the cone of depression in lthe immediate vicinity of the plant, although the drawdown at the plant perimeter is frequently lused as a metric of impacts on the regional groundwater flow pattern, but the overall reduction in lstability of the groundwater supply.
llIn summary, the staff has defined the groundwater use conflicts as a Category 1 issue for St.
lLucie and has included it in the SEIS along with the groundwater quality issue related to lsaltwater intrusion. The comments resulted in changes to the table and text of Section 4.5.
llll Appendix AMay 2003A-33NUREG-1437, Supplement 11A.4.6Comments Concerning Surface Water Quality Issues llComment: Applying herbicides and weed killers can impact surface and groundwater lresources. This is of concern at this site, since groundwater is generally very shallow there.
l(SLD-AI-8) llResponse: The comments are noted. As stated in the text, the applicant primarily uses lherbicides in the form of spot applications to prevent re-sprouting of trees that may interfere lwith the electrical conductors. Much less often, the applicant will use broadcast applications to lcontrol exotic grasses. The types, quantities, and application frequency depend on the particular lmaintenance problem at hand. Mowing and trimming are always the applicant
's preferred forms lof right-of-way maintenance. When herbicide use is required, the applicant buys, applies, and ldisposes of the chemicals in accordance with the label instructions for each product and with all lapplicable Federal and State regulations. These regulations are designed to protect human lhealth, as well as wildlife and surface or groundwater resources. All herbicide applications are lperformed under the supervision of licensed pesticide applicators to ensure compliance with lFederal and State regulations. The comment provides no new information; therefore, the lcomment was not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text.
llComment: Water Quality: Section 2.2.3 briefly discusses the NPDES status of the facility.
lRequirements for the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and Industrial lWastewater Facility permits should be outlined in the Final GSEIS. (SLD-AI-10) llResponse: The comment is noted. A brief description of the requirements of the NPDES lpermit has been added to the SEIS text. The comment resulted in modification of the SEIS text.
llA.4.7Comments Concerning Aquatic Ecology Issues llComment: I know that there were periodic discharges of radioactive water into Lake Erie. And I lremember, you know, there were always these reassurances that that
's no concern to the lhuman population. But I, you know, when I would see hundreds of dead fish wash up on my lbeach right after that, I was not reassured. And then just recently, you know, we
've heard about,lyou know, problems with that facility in Ohio. (SLD-N-5) llResponse: The comment is noted. The commenter was drawing an analogy between a lnuclear plant on Lake Erie and the St. Lucie plant. The comment concerns a Category 1 issue:
leffects of radiological emissions on aquatic biota near St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. The radiological lrelease standards for humans are sufficiently protective to ensure that non-human biota are not ladversely affected. The dead fish seen in Lake Erie were not due to radiological releases from lthe nuclear industry, but more likely due to cold shock, low dissolved oxygen, or possibly,lpollution. Aquatic ecology is discussed in Section 2.0, and environmental impacts of operation l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-34May 2003are discussed in Section 4.0 of this SEIS. There have been no fish kills related to radiological ldischarges at the St. Lucie plant. The comment provides no new information; therefore, the lcomment was not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: I just want to let you know the posted radioactive material settlement pond that is on lthe FP&L site outside of the radiation control area
- and FP&L is doing a great job on the lSt. Lucie site
- but I would like to see the settlement pond that is open to all the wildlife, have lsome attention to make this settlement pond de-posted as radioactive material area that is open lto the wildlife, and adhere to the environmental issues that may impact that. (SLD-Z-1) llResponse: The comment is noted. The comment is not within the scope of 10 CFR Part 51 lrequirements for the environmental review associated with the application for license renewal at lSt. Lucie Units 1 and 2. Nevertheless, the staff evaluated this issue in some detail because of lthe potential concern regarding the spread of radioactive contamination. The contamination of lthe sediment in the East Evaporation/Percolation (EP) Pond resulted from a spill of slightly lcontaminated water within the plant in 1977. In 1992, the NRC staff conducted an inspection of lthe pond and the licensee
's actions to minimize the spread of contamination from the pond. The lresults of that inspection are contained in inspection reports 50-335/92-15, 50-389/92-15,l50-335/92-22, and 50-389/92-22. These reports establish that no violations of NRC lrequirements were identified during the inspection
.llSubsequent to the December 3, 2002, public meeting on the draft SEIS for St. Lucie, during lwhich the commenter voiced his concern, the NRC staff determined that the pond was posted lproperly and controlled in accordance with NRC regulations and plant procedures. The East EP lPond is entirely within the station protected area and, as such, is inaccessible to members of the lpublic. Water in the pond is sampled for radioactive material periodically. Pond sediment lsamples have been taken infrequently and have always shown negligible amounts of radioactive lmaterial. In response to the staff
's inquiries, late in 2002, the licensee collected several samples lof pond sediment for evaluation on January 31, 2003. The results of the isotopic analysis lrevealed the presence of trace amounts of cesium-137 in the pond
's sediments. The levels in lthe pond sediment are below the effluent release limits stated in 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B,lTable B-2, under "Effluents," "Air," and "Water." These are applicable to the assessment and lcontrol of dose to the public from radioactive effluents. The effluent release concentrations for lwater are designed to provide a safe drinking water standard. The pond is not used for ldomestic water, there are no nearby groundwater withdrawal wells that are used for potable lwater, and there are no other uses of the pond that would create a pathway to members of the lpublic. llThe concern over wildlife and the spread of contaminants through groundwater and/or biota l(e.g., waterfowl species wading in the pond and becoming contaminated due to contact with the lsediments) was also investigated by the staff. Because the concentrations of the radionuclides l
Appendix AMay 2003A-35NUREG-1437, Supplement 11in the sediments are so low and it is likely that contaminated sediments will become buried by lsediment inflow from the site over time, the staff does not believe that transient biota using the lpond would be a significant pathway for the spread of contamination to uncontaminated areas laround the plant site. Radionuclide patterns of spatial/temporal distribution in the surrounding larea directly correlated to the contaminated pond have not been documented. No effort has lbeen made to remediate or remove contaminated sediment. However, the licensee has ladequate records and retention programs as required by 10 CFR 50.75(g)(1) to ensure that the larea will be identified during plant decommissioning
.llAt the time of decommissioning, the licensee is required to submit a License Termination Plan lwhich contains information on the types and quantities of radioactive materials on the site.
lDecommissioning will ensure that all areas of the site, including the settlement pond, meet the lsite release criteria specified in 10 CFR Part 20 prior to license termination.
llIn summary, the staff has determined that the East EP Pond is properly posted and does not lpose any immediate risk to public health and safety. The use of the pond by transient biota will lnot result in the unacceptable spread of contamination and the licensee has adequately lcharacterized the contamination in the pond. Lastly, there is assurance that the contamination lwill be appropriately remediated at the time of site decommissioning. The staff does not plan to lpursue the issue further unless new information is obtained that would bring into question the lstaff's conclusions.
llThe comment provides no new information; therefore, the comment was not evaluated further.
lThere was no change to the SEIS text.
llComment: Fish: We note the concerns regarding anoxic conditions at the bottom of Big Mud lCreek, where the water depth exceeds 40 feet. Fish kills have been reported in that area, and lthe Florida Department of Environmental Protection recommended that the creek be filled to a lmore environmentally-friendly depth (page E-8 of the document). Clarification should be lprovided in the Final GSEIS regarding the origin of the anoxic conditions mentioned, and the lplanned or implemented measures to avoid impacts to fish in the area. (SLD-AI-6) llResponse: The comment is noted. Big Mud Creek was dredged during plant construction to lprovide deep water access to the Intra-Coastal Waterway. When infrequent barge access to the lplant is needed the channel is measured for depth and actions taken as required. In addition Big lMud Creek provides water for the plant ultimate heat sink. Reported fish kills in the area of Big lMud Creek mostly occur east of State Road A1A (personnel communication with James R.
lDavid, Mosquito Control Director, St. Lucie County, Florida). The dredged area is west of State lRoad A1A. According to Mr. David, the fish kills that have occurred east of the highway are the lresult of wind-generated turnover of anoxic waters in the shallow areas of the creek. These lwind-generated turnovers do not appear to occur in the deep waters west of the highway. Fish l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-36May 2003kills have occurred in Big Mud Creek, west of the highway, caused by cold water in the creek lduring extremely cold weather. One the more popular sports fish species in this area is the lcommon snook (Centropomus undecimalis), which spawns primarily in summer and cannot ltolerate water temperatures below 15C (60F). Snook can tolerate wholly fresh or saltwater land is found in schools along the shore and in passes during spawning season. The cold water lkills in Big Mud Creek are not related to the operations of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 or the depth of lBig Mud Creek. The comment provides no new information; therefore, the comment was not levaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text.
llllA.4.8Comments Concerning Terrestrial Ecology Issues llComment: Herbicides: According to Page 2-15, Power Transmission System, herbicides are lused in the transmission right-of-way. The Final GSEIS should specify the types and quantities lof herbicides applied, and the alternatives to spraying plants with defoliants. Similarly, the lFGSEIS should include details regarding broadcast applications for weed control (types,lfrequency, quantities, alternatives to chemical applications, etc.). (SLD-AI-7) llComment: Applications of herbicides in and around residential areas could potentially impact lsensitive populations. In addition, some herbicides may also cause potential adverse impacts to lwildlife. (SLD-AI-9) llResponse: The comments are noted. As stated in Section 2.1.7 of the text, the applicant lprimarily uses herbicides in the form of spot applications to prevent re-sprouting of trees that lmay interfere with the electrical conductors. Much less often, the applicant will use broadcast lapplications to control exotic grasses. The types, quantities, and application frequency depend lon the particular maintenance problem at hand. Mowing and trimming are always the applicant
'slpreferred forms of right-of-way maintenance. When herbicide use is required, the applicant lbuys, applies, and disposes of the chemicals in accordance with the label instructions for each lproduct, and in accordance with all applicable Federal and State regulations. These regulations lare designed to protect human health, as well as wildlife and surface or groundwater resources.
lAll herbicide applications are performed under the supervision of licensed pesticide applicators,lto ensure compliance with these Federal and State regulations. The comments provide no new linformation; therefore, the comments were not evaluated further. There was no change to the lSEIS text.
llA.4.9Comments Concerning Threatened or Endangered Species Issues llComment: One of our [The Alliance
's] primary concerns in the past has been the offshore locean intake structures. The company, by installing and maintaining three barriers of these lintake structures to reduce potential loss of marine life, particular sea turtles, and to facilitate l
Appendix AMay 2003A-37NUREG-1437, Supplement 11their return to the ocean recognized our concerns. The addition and construction of a new lsmaller mesh barrier east of the larger mesh barriers, plus an active program, including recovery lof turtles from the intake canal, has greatly reduced any harm to entangled turtles. FP&L
'slprogram, which includes recovery of turtles from the intake canal and barrier nets, are monitored lseven days a week, eight to twelve hours a day, by Quantum Resources is exemplary.
l(SLD-B-3)llComment: And from an environmental standpoint, the St. Lucie Plant remains a guardian of our lnatural resources. Our outstanding sea turtle programs are recognized throughout the year by lthe Governor. (SLD-I-7) (SLD-U-7) llComment: FPL is proud of the work we do to preserve and protect the environment. The sea lturtle protection and preservation program will continue during the license extension period.
l(SLD-J-3) (SLD-V-3) lllResponse: The comments are noted. Sea turtles are protected under the Endangered Species lAct and are evaluated as a threatened or endangered species (a Category 2 issue) in Section l2.2 and 4.6 of this SEIS. The comments provide no new information; therefore, the comments lwere not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: We note that ederally-protected species are listed for the area by the U.S. Fish and lWildlife Service (FWS). EPA principally defers to the FWS regarding endangered species lassessments and encourages NPS to continue coordination with the FWS as appropriate.
l(SLD-AI-3) llResponse: The comment is noted. Managing impacts to threatened or endangered species at lSt. Lucie Units 1 and 2 is an ongoing process involving coordination among the NRC, FPL,lFWS, and NMFS. Both FWS and NMFS have responsibility for Federally-protected species that loccur at St. Lucie. Section 4.6 describes the staff
's actions related to compliance with Section 7 lof the ESA for Federally listed species. The NRC will continue to maintain its compliance with lthe ESA through consultation with State and Federal agencies through the operating life of the lSt. Lucie plant as appropriate. The comment provides no new information; therefore, the lcomment was not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text.
llComment: A March 6, 2002 letter on page E-8 of the document states that the Florida Fish and lWildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) [
sic] planned to review Big Mud Creek to determine lwhether additional manatee protection measures were warranted. FWC [
sic] stated that they lwanted to formalize a protocol with Florida Power & Light Company for the capture and recovery lof manatees entrained in the power plant
's intake canal. The DSEIS discusses past incidents lwhen manatees entered the intake canal on infrequent occasions and were rescued. As a lfollow-up to this issue, the Final GSEIS should include updated information regarding measures l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-38May 2003to protect the manatee in the vicinity of St. Lucie, and the outcome of any pertinent studies lregarding Big Mud. (SLD-AI-4) llResponse: The comment is noted. Information regarding manatees has been added to the text lof Section 4.6.1.2 of this SEIS in response to this comment. The comment resulted in lmodification of the SEIS text.
llComment: Due to the presence of threatened and endangered species in the area,lconsultations with the appropriate agencies will need to continue throughout the operating life of lthe facility, in order to avoid and mitigate impacts. (SLD-AI-5) llResponse: The comment is noted. The NRC will continue to maintain its compliance with the lEndangered Species Act through consultation with State and Federal agencies throughout the loperating life of the St. Lucie plant as appropriate. The comment provides no new information; ltherefore, the comment was not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text.
llA.4.10Comments Concerning Human Health Issues llComment: What class of individuals, what age, weight, sex or other attributes, working or living lno more than seven miles from the plant, has been determined to be the most vulnerable to so-lcalled normal plant radiation emissions?
llWhat is the difference between the population living within a fifty-mile radius of the site in the lyear 2000, and when the plants began operation, and what was the fifty mile radius population lpredicted for the year 2000, at the time of the first hearings? (SLD-P-5) (SLD-AC-5) llResponse: The comment is noted. It is not easy to identify the one most vulnerable group lbecause every individual is different (age, health, and a variety of other factors). However, the lNRC's regulatory limits for radiological protection are set to protect all workers and the public lfrom the harmful health effects of radiation on humans. The limits are based on the lrecommendations of standards-setting organizations. Radiation standards reflect extensive lstudy by national and international organizations (e.g., International Commission on Radiological lProtection [ICRP], National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, and National lAcademy of Sciences) and are conservative to ensure that the public and workers at nuclear lpower plants are protected. The NRC radiation exposure standards are presented in 10 CFR lPart 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," and are based on the recommendations in lICRP 26 and 30. Numerous scientifically designed, peer-reviewed studies of occupational levels lof radiation (versus life-threatening accident doses or medical therapeutic levels) have shown lminimal effects on human health, and any effect was from exposures well above the exposure llevels of the typical member of the public from normal operation of a nuclear power plant
.ll Appendix AMay 2003A-39NUREG-1437, Supplement 11When the Final Environmental Statements (FESs) for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 were completed in lthe early 1970
's, the 80-km (50-mi) population was over 300,000 and expected to be 446,000 by l1980, when Unit 2 was expected to come online. The FESs estimated that the 2000 80-km l(50-mi) population would be greater than 740,000. The 2002 FPL Environmental Report (ER) lstated that the 80-km (50-mi) population was 1,180,000 for the year 2000, or almost 40 percent lhigher than originally estimated in the FESs. Therefore, the difference between the population in l2002 (1,180,000) from that when the plant began operation (300,000) is 880,000 people. The lcomment provides no new information; therefore, the comment was not evaluated further.
lThere was no change to the SEIS text.
llComment: At the thirty year ago public hearings, concern was expressed over studies which lshowed the likelihood of a high concentration of radioactive iodine in the milk of nursing mothers land in milk goats living close to the plant, along Indian River Drive. Goats were said to have lseven times the concentration of that of milk cows. Have new studies been done to answer lthese concerns or have procedures been adopted for monitoring and/or notifying lactating lwomen or goat farmers? (SLD-P-6) (SLD-AC-6) llComment: Parents of St. Lucie County children, who seem to have a high incidence of tumors,lwere seeking answers a few years ago as to whether there was a nuclear plant emissions lconnection. Have these questions been resolved? (SLD-P-7) (SLD-AC-7) llResponse: The comments are noted. Numerous scientifically designed, peer-reviewed studies lof personnel exposed to occupational levels of radiation have shown minimal effects on human lhealth, and any effects were from exposures well above the exposure levels of the typical lmember of the public from normal operation of a nuclear power plant. The radiation effects of lnormal reactor operation on human health are Category 1 issues.
llThe State of Florida conducts a radiological environmental monitoring program in the environs of lSt. Lucie Units 1 and 2; as part of this program, samples of foods such as milk from dairy lanimals (cows and goats) are monitored for radioactive material. As part of the environmental lreview, the NRC staff reviewed reports from this program for the last several years. Based on ldata contained in these reports, there has been no indication of elevated iodine-131 or lstrontium-90 levels in cow or goat milk.
l lAt the request of Congress, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) conducted a study in 1990,l"Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities," to look at cancer mortality rates around l52 nuclear power plants, nine Department of Energy facilities, and one former commercial fuel lreprocessing facility. The NCI study concluded, "from the evidence available, this study has lfound no suggestion that nuclear facilities may be linked causally with excess deaths from lleukemia or from other cancers in populations living nearby.
" In addition, the American Cancer lSociety has concluded that although reports about cancer case clusters in such communities l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-40May 2003have raised public concern, studies show that clusters do not occur more often near nuclear lplants than they do by chance elsewhere in the population.
llBased on the analysis in the GEIS, the Commission made a generic determination that the lradiation effects of normal reactor operation during the renewal term on human health would be lSMALL. The staff has not identified any significant new information related to the radiation laspect of human health in the ER, the scoping process, its independent review, or in this lcomment that would call the conclusions of the GEIS in question. Therefore, the staff relies on lthose conclusions, as amplified by supporting information in the GEIS related to the radiation leffects of normal operation during the renewal term on human health. The comments provide lno new information; therefore, the comments were not evaluated further. There was no change lto the SEIS text
.llComment: They [the State of Florida] have continually found both the air and the water lsurrounding the plant meets their standards and those of the Federal Government. (SLD-W-9) llResponse: The comment is noted. The comment is supportive of license renewal at St. Lucie lUnits 1 and 2, and is general in nature. Any potential non-compliance of monitoring lrequirements is an operational safety issue, handled through the inspection and reporting lprocess and is not within the scope of license renewal. The comment provides no new linformation; therefore, the comment was not evaluated further. There was no change to the lSEIS text.llComment: Plant safety/security comments: Discuss and clarify recent USA Today stories labout a SANDIA report discussing offsite radiation release plumes of 500 miles extent rather lthan the 50 mile limit used in the Supplement. The radiation levels at varying distances must lhave great meaning. While the St. Lucie plant has clearing of a potential plume release by lwesterly weather winds, it also has easterly to southeasterly sea breeze winds that could send a lrelease plume across the state towards Orlando or Tampa. (SLD-AG-3) llResponse: The comment is noted. The staff assumes that the article referred to in the lcomment was the November 11, 2002 article in USA Today entitled "Study warns of 500-mile lradiation spread.
" The newspaper article refers to a "special report prepared by experts within lthe NRC and the Sandia National Laboratory.
" Actually, the report was prepared by the NRC lstaff with help from the Sandia, Argonne, and Idaho National Engineering and Environmental lLaboratory. The report is entitled Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at lDecommissioning Nuclear Power Plants (NUREG- 1738), and was published in February 2001.
lThe study determined that the risk from severe (i.e., beyond design-basis) spent fuel pool laccidents is low because of the very low likelihood of a zirconium fire (the scenario analyzed in lthe study) in the spent fuel pool. The study evaluated the consequences of such a spent-fuel-lpool accident in part using the MACCS2 computer code. The MACCS2 code models the ldispersion of radionuclides after a release and its consequences on the surrounding human l
Appendix AMay 2003A-41NUREG-1437, Supplement 11population. Input parameters for the MACCS2 code include radionuclide inventories,lradionuclide release fractions, evacuation and relocation criteria, and population density.
lAppendix 4 of NUREG-1738 provides a series of tables that summarize the mean consequences lfor a base case along with a number of sensitivity cases to evaluate the impact of alternative lmodel assumptions. These tables provide data on prompt fatalities and long-term fatalities for ldistances from 0 to 160 km (0 to 100 mi) and 0 to 800 km (0 to 500 mi) from the point of release lof the contamination. The long-term fatalities are derived from the collective dose calculated by lthe computer code to the surrounding population. A simple conversion of dose to cancer lfatalities was used to determine the long-term fatalities for each case for each different decay ltime. llThese calculations use the concept of collective dose, which assumes that a small radiation ldose spread among a large population would yield effects similar to a much larger dose among la much smaller population. This is a very conservative assumption. The Health Physics lSociety, www.hps.org, states:
"Below the dose of (0.1 Sv) ten rem, estimations of adverse lhealth effect is [sic] speculative. Collective dose remains a useful index for quantifying dose in a llarge population and in comparing the magnitude of exposure from different radiation sources.
lHowever, for a population in which all individuals receive lifetime doses of less than (0.1 Sv) l10 rem above background, collective dose is a highly speculative and uncertain measure of risk land should not be quantified for the purposes of estimating population health risks.
" Using alcollective dose at the extreme distances reported in NUREG-1738 significantly overestimates llong-term fatalities. In actuality, there would be no increase in long-term health effects lattributable to the release beyond 80 km (50 mi). Therefore, the use of a 50-mile radius in the lSEIS for St. Lucie to estimate population doses from routine and accidental releases is lappropriate. The comment provides no new information; therefore, it will not be evaluated lfurther. There was no change to the SEIS text.
llA.4.11Comments Concerning Socioeconomic Issues llComment: The St. Lucie Plant employees are leaders in contributions to the local area lagencies such as the United Way. They support the St. Lucie County Education Foundation in a lscholarship program. The employees are involved in youth development through Scouts, Little lLeagues, civic and church programs and activities. The employees volunteer for Habitat for lHumanity in building homes for low income residents. (SLD-A-8) llComment: The plant
's information center, the Energy Encounter, holds forty thousand visitors lannually. In addition to hands-on science programs for schools, the center offers free lworkshops to teachers for training credits and walk-in visitors are always welcome. The power lplant donates computers and school supplies to local schools. And FP&L has made substantial lcontributions to the county
's regional sports stadium, which is located in St. Lucie West. And the l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-42May 2003St. Lucie County Marine Center that features the Smithsonian Marine Eagle System exhibit, as lwell as many other community projects. (SLD-A-9) llComment: And we [The St. Lucie County Fire District] feel as though they
've been a great lcorporate partner in the enhancement of the training and the safety of the citizens of St. Lucie lCounty, and we support relicensing of the power plant. (SLD-C-1) llComment: And we're [The St. Lucie County Sheriff
's Office] happy to say that on all of those lfronts, FP&L is not a problem for us and in fact, it is a great benefit to the county and our efforts,las far as the safety and security at the plant, and also the impact that they have on our lcommunity from a crime basis. (SLD-D-1) llComment: There are many reasons the plant should continue operating. Part of it is the limportance to our community as was stated earlier, being a good neighbor, and it also has had a lgood environmental record as been pointed out. (SLD-F-1) llComment: I'm here today to speak as somebody who has lived here in this community for thirty lyears and seen the kind of partner and good neighbor that FP&L is to our community and our lfamilies here. And I
've seen that firsthand, both through the school system and all of the things lthat FP&L does, from the Energy Encounter, to training kids, to the supplies and materials that lthey donate, to the manpower that they donate, to school system committees, to the help, and lsupport, and resources they provide for community agencies such as Big Brothers, Big Sisters land United Way, so I truly support the license renewal. (SLD-H-1) llComment: But more importantly is a role that the people at the power plant have played in this lcommunity. Our employees are active in their churches, and scout organizations, and PTAs,land Little Leagues, and even in local government. (SLD-I-10) (SLD-U-10) llComment: I know personally, several of the employees at the plant, who donate their time and ltheir money to making our communities better places to live. They contribute hundreds of lthousand of dollars and volunteer hours each year to charitable organizations on the Treasure lCoast, including the United Way, and are making a huge difference in our communities.
l(SLD-K-4)llComment: I probably agree with practically all of the positive statements that were made by lvarious people who spoke before me today, that Florida Power and Light has been a good lneighbor, and they certainly contributed to the economy of the county. (SLD-P-1) llComment: It [the plant] has been a good neighbor. (SLD-Q-7) ll Appendix AMay 2003A-43NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Comment: They're good community partners, very active. Their employees are very active.
lTheir management is very active. They
've been involved in so many aspects of St. Lucie County land the counties around us. I feel it
's very important that they approve the operating license for lthe St. Lucie Power Plant. (SLD-T-2) llComment: The St. Lucie Nuclear Plant is a good neighbor, contributing aggressively to our llocal community, both economically and with countless civic activities. The plant and its lemployees are involved in everything, from Little League, to United Way, to Habitat for lHumanity, and impacts this community with more than eighty million dollars annually.
l(SLD-W-5)llComment: I recently became aware of the splendid programs that the St. Lucie plant Energy lEncounters Program conducts. These programs offer hands-on science programs for school,loffering free three day work shops to teachers for teaching skills and training credits, free lscience field trips for elementary and middle school children, as well as continually donating lcomputers and supplies to the local schools. (SLD-W-7) llComment: The Boy Scouts, Big Brothers, Hospice, United Way, is contributing from these lfellows and also many
- in the area, many hours put together for these gentlemen. (SLD-X-1) llComment: For many years now the folks at FP&L have played and continue to play and limportant role in the operation of our United Way. Year after year Florida Power and Light, and lthe IBEW Local 627 supports us by giving of their time and energy. FP&L allows their lemployees to help us in so many ways. They sit on governing boards of the United Way. They lallow their employees to become loan executives. They chair our United Way campaigns.
lVolunteers help us not only with their own campaign inside the nuclear plant, but they also help lus conduct many outside throughout the community. (SLD-Y-1) llComment The St. Lucie Plant is an important member of our business community. They lcontribute to many local non-profits, such as the St. Lucie County Education Foundation, The lUnited Way, The St. Lucie County Marine Center and the Economic Development Council of lSt. Lucie County. The St. Lucie Plant also has a major economic impact on our area, both ldirectly as one of the County
's largest sources of property taxes, and indirectly through the jobs lthat the plant provides. The St. Lucie Plant currently has 800 full-time employees, and these are lgood jobs for our community. I am told that the economic impact of the plant on our local lcommunity is $80,000,000.00 annually. (SLD-AH-1) llResponse: The comments are noted. The comments are supportive of license renewal for lSt. Lucie Units 1 and 2. Public services are evaluated in the GEIS and determined to be a lCategory 1 issue. Information regarding the impact of socioeconomic issues is discussed in l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-44May 2003Section 4.0 of this SEIS. The comments provide no new information; therefore, the comments lwere not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: If the St. Lucie Plant were closed, the loss of eight hundred full-time jobs in our lcommunity would be devastating to our economy. (SLD-A-1) llComment: The impact of the St. Lucie Plant on our local economy is more than eighty million ldollars annually. (SLD-A-10) llComment: We've [FPL] asked our neighbors and they
've told us that we
're an important leconomic factor in this community, one that they want to see remain as a viable contributor. The lpayroll for around eight hundred employees, the tax dollars, the property taxes, the purchases,lthe contributions to the local United Way agencies help in this area. (SLD-I-9) (SLD-U-9) llComment: As one of the largest employers in our area, the St. Lucie Power Plant is important lto our local economy. A business of this size would be very difficult to replace. (SLD-K-3) llComment: The importance of the plant to the community. Now, yes, we know that St. Lucie lCounty is one of the fastest growing counties in the State of Florida and maybe the nation, now lthat we have entities coming in that are supplying jobs and, of course, the Florida Power and lLight Company is employing something in the neighborhood of eight hundred to nine hundred lpeople. (SLD-Q-2) llResponse: The comments are noted. Effects on the local economy due to license renewal are lconsidered as a Category 2 issue in the GEIS and are examined on a site-specific basis in lSections 2.0 and 4.0 of this supplement to the GEIS for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. The comments lprovide no new information; therefore, the comments were not evaluated further. There was no lchange to the SEIS text
.llA.4.12Comments Concerning Severe Accident Mitigation Alternatives Analysis llComment: More emphasis upon the risk calculations is desirable to clarify the probability of lpossible events in the context of everyday risks such as driving to work. The public perceives lrisks to be far worse when they don
't choose those risks. As example, a mountain climber may lrail against the risk of a city street air pollutant or second-hand smoke, or joggers may choose to lrun alone and unarmed in mountain-lion country. (SLD-AG-2) llResponse: The comment is noted. Evaluation of risk is routinely used in evaluation of loperational safety consideration at nuclear plants. Such risk calculations are used routinely to lestablish maintenance frequencies, surveillance requirements, and the need to modify or lupgrade components important to safety. This SEIS is not the appropriate document to provide l
Appendix AMay 2003A-45NUREG-1437, Supplement 11a detailed discussion on environmental risk aversion by members of the public. The comment lprovides no new information; therefore, the comment was not evaluated further. There was no lchange to the SEIS text
.llComment: Catastrophic extremes (site failure core meltdowns) may have lower computed limpact costs than meteor strikes or tsunamis; Should we take action to preclude those and lsimilar events? (SLD-AG-7) llResponse: The comment is noted. Actions to avert risk are societal decisions that are often linfluenced by other considerations (risk is defined technically as the probability of an event loccurring times the consequences should that event occur). Clearly, actions could be and have lbeen taken to protect structures, systems, and components at nuclear plants from tsunamis lalong the west coast of the United States but not at a plant located in Nebraska, even though lthere is a calculated probability of occurrence of a tsunami impacting a nuclear plant in lNebraska. The probability is so low the possibility of its occurrence may be ignored. Likewise,lthe probability of occurrence of a meteor strike is sufficiently low that no actions are taken to limit lconsequences
.llSection 5.1.2 of the SEIS discusses severe accidents that could result in substantial damage to lthe reactor core. A licensee is required as part of the environmental review to evaluate lalternatives to mitigate severe accidents if they have not done so already. No analysis had been ldone for these facilities, so the licensee, as part of license renewal, submitted such an analysis lfor NRC review. The NRC staff has reviewed severe accident mitigation alternatives for St.
lLucie Units 1 and 2, and the results are presented in Section 5.2 of this SEIS. The analysis ldoes, in fact, make a cost-beneficial comparison of plant improvements versus cost in reducing lthe risk of core damage (see Section 5.2.5 of this SEIS). The comment provides no new linformation; therefore, the comment was not evaluated further. There was no change to the lSEIS text.llA.4.13Comments Concerning Uranium Fuel Cycle and Waste Management Issues llComment: Nuclear waste, particularly long lived spent fuel rods was to be removed within a lreasonable time by the Federal Government, therefore, the subject of nuclear waste was labeled lgeneric and could not be discussed in hearings for individual plants. However, instead of their lbeing removed, more spent fuel rods than had been planned to be contained on site, have been lplaced closer together in the cooling pool than was originally thought to be prudent. Thirty years llater, there is still no time set for removal of these wastes from our county.
llShould setting a date for beginning to remove wastes be a condition for approval of adding ltwenty years of producing radioactive waste? (SLD-P-2) (SLD-AC-2) l l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-46May 2003 Response: The comment is noted. Onsite storage of spent nuclear fuel is a Category 1 issue.
lThe safety and environmental effects of long-term storage of spent fuel onsite have been levaluated by the NRC and, as set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule (10 CFR 51.23), the NRC lgenerically determined that such storage could be accomplished without significant lenvironmental impact. In the Waste Confidence Rule, the Commission determined that spent lfuel can be safely stored onsite for at least 30 years beyond the licensed operating life, which lmay include the term of a renewed license. At or before the end of that period, the fuel would be lmoved to a permanent repository. The GEIS, NUREG-1437, is based upon the assumption that lstorage of the spent fuel onsite is not permanent. This supplement to the GEIS for St. Lucie lUnits 1 and 2 is also based on the same assumption
.llAlternative methods exist, other than storage in the spent fuel pools, for safe interim storage of lhigh-level waste onsite. Licensees can and have taken advantage of these alternative dry lstorage options. The comment provides no new information; therefore, the comment was not levaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: The nuclear industry may point to the congressional designation of Yucca Mountain las the repository site for high level waste as a victory. The costs for this facility will be lstaggering. Here
's a quotation from Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, speaking before the lHouse of Representatives, and I quote:
"The projected cost of this boondoggle is anywhere lfrom 56 billion dollars to 309 billion dollars. The Nuclear Waste Fund has 11 billion dollars. How lare we going to pay for this, raise taxes, dip into the Social Security Trust Fund? And once lYucca Mountain is full, then what do we do? After spending hundreds of billions of dollars, we lwill still be exactly where we are today.
" (SLD-R-4) llResponse: The comment is noted. The SEIS evaluates the environmental impact of license lrenewal, not the proposed high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The licensing process lfor Yucca Mountain will have its own environmental review. The comment provides no new linformation; therefore, the comment was not evaluated further. There was no change to the lSEIS text.llComment: As I understand it, the spent fuel from day one is still there, in the water or sump,land that's bothered me even before September the 11 th. (SLD-S-3) llResponse: The comment is noted. The commenter is correct in that the spent nuclear fuel lfrom plant operation is stored onsite in specially designed spent fuel pools. Onsite storage of lspent nuclear fuel is a Category 1 issue. The safety and environmental effects of long-term lstorage of spent fuel onsite has been evaluated by the NRC and, as set forth in the Waste lConfidence Rule, the NRC generically determined that such storage could be accomplished lwithout significant environmental impact. In the Waste Confidence Rule, the Commission ldetermined that spent fuel can be safely stored onsite for at least 30 years beyond the licensed loperating life, which may include the term of a renewed license. At or before the end of that l
Appendix AMay 2003A-47NUREG-1437, Supplement 11period, the fuel would be moved to a permanent repository. The GEIS, NUREG-1437, is based lon the assumption that storage of spent fuel onsite is not permanent. This SEIS is also lprepared based on that same assumption. The comment provides no new information; ltherefore, the comment was not evaluated further. There was no change to SEIS text
.llComment: And I do know that Yucca Mountain is a national political problem. But what even lworries me today and I said it earlier, I
've lost a lot of confidence in Federal agencies monitoring land policing. And the trend in Washington today is you do less of it, considerably less.
l(SLD-S-4)llResponse: The comment is noted. The SEIS evaluates the environmental impact of license lrenewal, not the proposed high-level waste repository at Yucca Mountain. The licensing process lfor Yucca Mountain will have its own environmental review. The review will address long-term lmonitoring activities at the facility. The NRC provides regulatory oversight of the nuclear power lindustry. The oversight includes inspection and when necessary, enforcement actions to assure lcompliance with the Commission
's regulations. The staff adjusts inspection effort periodically land believes that the current level of inspection is adequate to assure public health and safety land protection of the environment. The comment provides no new information; therefore, the lcomment was not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text.
llComment: My main opposition then and now to a nuclear plant is to the extremely toxic waste lbeing produced by the plant without safe storage for it, which was promised to the residents at lthe time of siting. (SLD-AD-2) llResponse: The comment is noted. Long-term storage of spent nuclear fuel is a Category 1 lissue. The safety and environmental effects of long-term storage of spent fuel were set forth in lthe Waste Confidence Rule. In the Waste Confidence Rule, the Commission determined that lspent fuel can be safely stored onsite for at least 30 years beyond the licensed operating life,lwhich may include the term of a renewed license. At or before the end of that period, the fuel lwould be moved to a permanent repository. The GEIS, NUREG-1437, is based on the lassumption that storage of spent fuel onsite is not permanent. This SEIS is also prepared based lon that same assumption. The comment provides no new information; therefore, the comment lwas not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text.
llA.4.14Comments Concerning Alternatives to the Proposed Action llComment: It is my understanding that replacing the two reactors with the equivalent electric lproducers such as oil, or gas, or coal, could have greater pollution and ecological impacts.
l(SLD-A-7)ll Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-48May 2003Comment: And certainly I don
't think any of us want to turn to fossil fuel. I don
't believe we do,lbecause you know the pollution we talked about that we do not want, that
's what we will find.
l(SLD-Q-9)llComment: But what about these coal fire plants? Well, I
've got a real problem there. And yet lcoal, from all indications, is the cause of much of the pollution around the United States in power lplants and factories. Gas is a little bit
- petroleum is a little bit better. Not as much as it claim,land gas probably is still a little bit better, but they
're all fuels that pollute badly. (SLD-S-1) llResponse: The comments are noted. Impacts from reasonable alternatives, such as coal or lnatural gas, for the St. Lucie license renewal are evaluated in Section 8.0 of this SEIS. The staff lconcludes in Section 9.2 of the SEIS that all of the alternatives would result in greater lenvironmental impacts than renewal of the OLs. The comments provide no new information; ltherefore, the comments were not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: There is a great difficulty within Florida to find a replacement source of energy,lsomething that is cleaner or better in some sense than the existing nuclear power plant.
l(SLD-M-3)llComment: There are difficulties with wind and solar. It
's a very diffuse energy, as opposed to lfuels. And as such, I tend to look at that as something that will become much more of use in lother areas of the nation. It
's not only the resource of wind and solar, but also the economics of lthe situation. (SLD-M-4) llComment: Florida enjoys relatively low costs for kilowatt hour, whereas others, which do have lwind and solar, may have very high costs. And that is an offsetting factor in installing wind lturbines or solar module farms. (SLD-M-5) llComment: Fossil fuel plants produce more air/water pollution than nuclear plants, but few are las concerned about non-nuclear pollution. Wind and solar-electric plants would require lextensive land areas due to the low energy density of the sources. Neither appears to be a lviable replacement for large base-load plants. Hydropower has limited resource in Florida and lenvironmental blocking objections, while ocean wave and tide energy appears to be uneconomic land environmentally problematic within the next twenty years. Oil is too precious a resource to lburn in fixed locations for heat. Transportation and chemical use must take priority. Biomass lcombustion produces pollution and CO2, which many believe contributes to global warming l(climate change). Municipal stream waste (MSW) contains heavy metals such as lead, mercury,land zinc that should no be incinerated. (SLD-AG-6) lll Appendix AMay 2003A-49NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Comment: As described in the DGSEIS, the environmental impacts of continuing or renewing lthe license for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 has fewer environmental impacts than the alternatives l(Chapter 8 and Table 9-1). The alternatives described in the document include using fossil fuel lpower generation process, constructing a new nuclear facility, using alternative fuel generation lmethods, purchasing power from other sources, or implementing the No-Action Alternative.
l(SLD-AI-1) lResponse: The comments are noted. Impacts from reasonable alternatives for the St. Lucie llicense renewal are evaluated in Section 8.0. The comments provide no new information; ltherefore, the comments were not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: If Florida Power and Light is given this mandate to continue to operate the older lfacility for thirty-four years, forty-one years for the newer facility, what inducement, what lincentive, impetus is there for them to ever seriously consider any other alternatives to nuclear lenergy, safer alternatives, renewable sources of energy? (SLD-N-1) llComment: And also, a real
- make a real effort at conservation education and, instead of lwasting energy like we do. (SLD-N-3) llComment: I notice you've got a little bit of conservation as a last item on your handout. Just a llittle bit, some after-thought. I'd really like to see you move it up to the first item. (SLD-S-5) llComment: EPA appreciates the utility-sponsored conservation methods outlined in lSection 8.2.5.11 to help user implement measures to reduce power consumption. (SLD-AI-2) llResponse: The comments are noted. Impacts from reasonable alternatives, such as lconservation, for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 are evaluated in Section 8.0 of this SEIS. NRC
'slresponsibility is to ensure the safe operation of nuclear power plants and not to formulate energy lpolicy or encourage or discourage the development of specific alternative power generation.
lThe staff's evaluation of alternatives is limited to an assessment of their environmental impact.
lThe comments provide no new information; therefore, the comments were not evaluated further.
lThere was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: So I guess I would have to be some of these
- maybe the sole person here who is lopposed to an extension of the operating license. I think it
's premature that we should focus on llooking at alternatives, and I know that
's not the, consistent with the national energy policy.
l(SLD-N-2)llResponse: The comment is noted. The staff must evaluate the environmental impact of lalternatives as part of the NEPA process. Impacts from reasonable alternatives, such as lconservation, for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 are evaluated in Section 8.0 of this SEIS. NRC
'sl Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-50May 2003responsibility is to ensure the safe operation of nuclear power plants and not to formulate energy lpolicy or to encourage or discourage the development of alternative power generation. The lcomment provides no new information; therefore, the comment was not evaluated further.
lThere was no change to the SEIS text
.llA.4.15Comments Concerning Issues Outside the Scope of the Environmental lReview for License Renewal llComment: During the past thirty years, has new equipment for improving nuclear plant safety lbeen developed, that might not have seemed cost effective to install at St. Lucie 1 or 2 for lforty years operating period, but that should be installed for an additional twenty year operation?
l(SLD-P-8) (SLD-AC-8) llComment: Please do not extend the life of the St. Lucie nuclear plant. Residents of the area lwere told at site hearings that they were built to last 40 years. Why and how has that changed?
lThe continuation of plants past their planned life-span increases the danger of accidents.
l(SLD-AD-1) llResponse: The comments are noted. The 40-year term was originally selected based on leconomic and antitrust considerations, not technical limitations. Once the license term was lestablished, the design of several system and structural components were engineered on the lbasis of an expected 40-year service life. When the first reactors were constructed, major lcomponents were expected to last at least 40 years. Operating experience has demonstrated lthat expectation was unrealistic for some major plant components such as steam generators at la pressurized water reactor. However, research conducted since 1982 and plant operating lexperience have demonstrated that there are no technical limitations to the plant life since major lcomponents and structures can be replaced or reconditioned. Thus, the plant life is determined lprimarily by economic factors. The safety requirements for the initial 40-year license are lcontained in 10 CFR Part 50. Safety matters related to aging are outside the scope of this lenvironmental review. An NRC safety review for the license renewal period is conducted lseparately. The comments provide no new information; therefore, the comments were not levaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: Citizens were told that an operating license would be limited to thirty years, because lthe metal end of their containers was expected to become brittle by forty years use and to crack.
lWhat new studies prove otherwise? (SLD-P-3) (SLD-AC-3) llResponse: The comment is noted. The staff is unable to respond to the specific issue raised lby the commenter since the location and function of the "containers
" was not specified.
lHowever, the staff can respond by stating the 40-year term was originally selected based on leconomic and antitrust considerations, not technical limitations. Once the license term was l
Appendix AMay 2003A-51NUREG-1437, Supplement 11established, the design of several system and structural components were engineered on the lbasis of an expected 40-year service life. When the first reactors were constructed, major lcomponents were expected to last at least 40 years. Operating experience has demonstrated lthat expectation was unrealistic for some major plant components such as steam generators at la pressurized water reactor. However, research conducted since 1982 and plant operating lexperience have demonstrated that there are no technical limitations to the plant life since major lcomponents and structures can be replaced or reconditioned. Thus, the plant life is determined lprimarily by economic factors. The safety requirements for the initial 40-year license are lcontained in 10 CFR Part 50. Safety matters related to aging are outside the scope of this lenvironmental review. An NRC safety review for the license renewal period is conducted lseparately. The comment provides no new information; therefore, the comment was not levaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: Florida energy demands are growing at about two percent annually. (SLD-A-3) llComment: The Economic Development Council is very supportive of it [the plant], from the lstandpoint that we need the power and we need electricity. Our charge is to help bring industry lto the community. We have to have a power source when they get here, that
's affordable in our ldealings with companies coming from throughout the country and looking at our community, our lpower rates are very favorably priced, relative to where they
're coming from. (SLD-G-1) llComment: Another fact to consider is our [FPL
's] ability to help meet Florida
's energy needs.
lAs we've stated, Florida is growing two percent a year and the St. Lucie Power Plant can help lsustain the economic growth and maintain our quality of life. (SLD-I-5) (SLD-U-5) llComment: The renewal of the St. Lucie licenses is important in meeting the energy needs of lSouth Florida. As been stated already in this meeting, our growth rate is about two percent a lyear and the electricity being consumed per customer is also increasing. (SLD-J-4) (SLD-V-4) llComment: Demands for energy in our communities on the Treasure Coast are growing lannually and we need power from this plant to meet the growing needs for low cost electricity.
lFlorida Power and Light has a good track record of not only providing the power we need, but loperating this plant safely and protecting the environment. (SLD-K-2) llResponse: The comments are noted. The need for power is specifically directed to be outside lthe scope of license renewal as required by 10 CFR Part 51.95(c)(2). The comments are in lsupport of license renewal at St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. The comments provide no new linformation; therefore, the comments were not evaluated further. There was no change to the lSEIS text.ll Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-52May 2003Comment: In March of 2001, cracks started being seen around the control rod drive lmechanisms at the top of some reactor pressure vessels. The NRC knew it had problems with lcracks, with boric acid oozing out and with corrosion. Instead of calling for immediate safety linspections, it delayed the inspections order until December 31st. One troublesome reactor,lDavis Besse, near Toledo, Ohio, wanted more delays. So rather than impede plant revenues,lthe NRC delayed the safety inspections again. When the inspection was finally done in March of lthis past year, a hole about as big as a football, was discovered in the reactor lid. Only a thin lpiece of stainless steel cladding kept the reactor contents from blowing out the corrosion hole.
lThat whole affair was mismanaged by the NRC, who truly endangered the public by putting utility lrevenues before safety. (SLD-R-3) llResponse: The comment is noted. The corrosion event at the Davis-Besse nuclear plant is an loperational issue and outside the scope of license renewal. The comment provides no new linformation; therefore, the comment was not evaluated further. There was no change to SEIS ltext.llComment: But none of these things would matter if the plant did not operate safely. And this is lsomething we
've come to learn through our office and through dealing with the people at the lplant, that they have our safety and concern at heart. Many of them are our neighbors. They llive in our community. They are just as concerned for their families as they are for anyone lelse's. (SLD-F-2) llComment: It is clearly evident that the employees of the St. Lucie Plant are dedicated to lmaking sure the plant is safe, not only for themselves, but for their families, friends and lneighbors. This agency, the St. Lucie County Department of Public Safety, supports the license lrenewal of the St. Lucie Plant. (SLD-F-5) llComment: The St. Lucie employees make our community a better place to live because of their lsafety record, and that
's what's so vitally important to me, the safety record. Because all those lwell trained individuals that meticulously
- they meet the performance standards set at the lhighest of quality levels daily. (SLD-L-3) l lComment: They [FPL employees] are dedicated to making certain that the plant is safe, not lonly for themselves, but for their families, friends and us, because we are their neighbors.
l(SLD-L-4)llComment: St. Lucie
's safety inspection record has been rated as one of the most reliable lnuclear power plants, not only of the U.S., but in the world. I strongly believe that the St. Lucie lPower Plant has a proven safety record and one with which the employees can continue to build lon in the future. (SLD-L-5) ll Appendix AMay 2003A-53NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Comment: With regard to safety and reliability, long before coming to Florida I was aware of the lexcellent reputation in quality that Florida Power and Light enjoyed and of the high standards lthey employed in their facilities. (SLD-W-3) llComment: There is no question in my mind that safety is the top priority at the St. Lucie nuclear lPlant and their safety record bears this out. (SLD-W-4) llResponse: The comments are noted. Operational safety matters are outside the scope of the lNRC's environmental review. An NRC safety review for the license renewal is conducted lpursuant to 10 CFR Part 54 and will be documented in a safety evaluation report separate from lthis SEIS. The comments provide no new information; therefore, the comments were not levaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: This is the reason [NRC staff ought] to carefully, double carefully consider extending loperating licenses of St. Lucie 1 and 2 (and all other plants) as we shall undoubtedly continue to lfind problems of rust, embrittlement, etc. in old plants. Wonder what the industry thinks stories land occurrences/events of this sort do to "public confidence?
" (SLD-AA-1) llResponse: The comment is noted. The commenter included a copy of a newspaper article lreferring to the reactor head corrosion event at the Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Plant. The NRC lstaff is concerned with public confidence. The staff believes that public confidence can be limproved by continuing to ensure safe operation of nuclear power facilities through fair,lcomprehensive, and timely regulatory oversight of the industry. The comment refers to loperational safety issues that are outside the scope of the environmental assessment for license lrenewal. The comment provides no new information; therefore, the comment was not evaluated lfurther. There was no change to the SEIS text.
llComment: First hearings predicted no population growth on Hutchinson Island near the plant.
lPopulation on Hutchinson Island was zero at the time. Now that many high rises, holding many lpeople, exist south of the plant, what different plan for population evacuation in case of severe laccident should be established, or additional traffic lanes or people transporters for evacuation lindicated by current and expected population? (SLD-P-4) (SLD-AC-4) llResponse: The comment is noted. The staff considered the need for a review of emergency lplanning issues in the context of license renewal during its rulemaking proceedings on 10 CFR lPart 54, which included public notice and comment. As discussed in the Statement of lConsiderations for the rulemaking (56 FR 64966), the programs for emergency preparedness at lnuclear plants apply to all nuclear power plant licensees and require the specified levels of lprotection from each licensee regardless of plant design, construction, or license date. The lrequirements of 10 CFR 50.47 and Appendix E to 10 CFR Part 50 are independent of the lrenewal of the operating license, and will continue to apply during the license renewal term.
l Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-54May 2003Through its standards and required exercises, the Commission ensures that existing plans are ladequate throughout the life of any plant, even in the face of changing demographics and other lsite-related factors. Therefore, the Commission has determined that there is no need for a lreview of emergency planning issues in the context of license renewal. The comment provides lno new information; therefore, the comment was not evaluated further. There was no change to lthe SEIS text.
llComment: But most important is their pro-active involvement in offsite and on site emergency lplanning. (SLD-F-4) llResponse: The comment is noted. Offsite and onsite emergency planning and operational lsafety matters are outside the scope of the NRC
's environmental review. An NRC safety review lfor license renewal is conducted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54 and will be documented in a Safety lEvaluation Report separate from this SEIS. The comment provides no new information; ltherefore, the comment was not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: Our office [St. Lucie County Public Safety Office] also receives timely briefings and lcorrespondence regarding in-place procedures and checks by an independent quality assurance lorganization, and that this ensures timely preventative maintenance is done. These reports lshow that St. Lucie Plant is committed to the safety of residents surrounding the plant.
l(SLD-F-3)llResponse: The comment is noted. Emergency preparedness and operational safety matters lare outside the scope of the NRC
's environmental review. An NRC safety review for license lrenewal is conducted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54 and will be documented in a Safety Evaluation lReport separate from this SEIS. The comment provides no new information; therefore, the lcomment was not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: On April 3, 2002, I presented oral comments, for the record, concerning scoping for lan EIS supplement on extending the license of the St. Lucie nuclear plant. The public safety lissues I presented were omitted by the NRC in publishing Supplement 11, Draft Report,lNUREG-1437. I have simplified the 8 issues that were embedded in the oral comments. These lissues, concerning public health and safety, need to be explained in substantial detail in the lFinal Report of Supplement 11, NUREG 1437 to be in compliance with the National lEnvironmental Policy Act. (SLD-AF-9) llResponse: The comment is noted. The commenter states that the issues he raised during the lNEPA scoping process were not addressed in the Draft SEIS. The Staff determined in the lScoping Summary Report (ML021160348) dated July 8, 2002, which predated the October 2002 ll l
Appendix AMay 2003A-55NUREG-1437, Supplement 11draft SEIS, that the issues raised by the commenter are not related to the environmental lconsequences of the Federal action (as prescribed in 10 CFR Part 51) to renew a license and lwill not be considered in the environmental review. Hence the comments were not addressed in lthe Draft SEIS.
ll As characterized by the commenter, the issues raised are safety issues. NRC
's safetylresponsibilities fall under the Atomic Energy Act, either associated with the current operation of lthe facility or with the continued operation should the license be renewed. The NRC safety lreview for license renewal is conducted pursuant to 10 CFR Part 54 and is documented in a lsafety evaluation report, a separate document from this SEIS, in an inspection report, and in the lreview by the NRC
's Advisory Committee for Reactor Safeguards. One of the principal lresponsibilities of the NRC is the protection of the health and safety of the public, and any safety lissue that has a bearing on this responsibility is evaluated
. During the course of the lenvironmental review for license renewal, safety issues brought to the staff
's attention are lreferred to the appropriate safety venue for consideration
.llThis comment provides no new information; therefore, the comment was not evaluated further.
lThere was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: Regarding the possibility of attack on our plants from the air, [I am] enclosing a lclipping regarding a rumor that a small plane had circled low over the plant site without being lintercepted. (SLD-AC-11) llResponse: The comment is noted. The licensee confirmed that a small private aircraft was in lthe vicinity of the St. Lucie nuclear plant on the morning of September 11, 2001. Both the llicensee and the FBI have been unable to identify the owner or operator. This is still being linvestigated. Each nuclear plant must have approved emergency and safeguards contingency lplans, as required by 10 CFR Part 50, that are revised periodically. Emergency and safeguards lplanning, which includes responses to threats of terrorism and sabotage, are part of the current loperating license and are outside the scope of the environmental analysis for license renewal.
lAny required changes to emergency and safeguards contingency plans related to terrorism and lsabotage will be incorporated and reviewed under the operating license. The comment provides lno new information; therefore, the comment was not evaluated further. There was no change to lthe SEIS text
.llComment: Most recently there
's concern about terrorist threats and how that affects nuclear lfacilities. And so, you know, I was, like everyone else, concerned about that. (SLD-N-4) llll l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-56May 2003Comment: My concern is one of safety. It
's not so much of an internal accident that may occur,lbut something that was thrust upon us on 9/11/2001, by a real threat of terrorism. (SLD-O-1) llComment: Does the predicted long term terrorism threat that the Federal Government is lplanning for, and with nuclear power plants labeled one of the most likely targets and with lSt. Lucie Plants vulnerable from air, land and water, should St. Lucie 1 and 2 be closed as soon las possible, instead of given an extended life? (SLD-AC-9)(SLD-P-9) llComment: When St. Lucie l and 2 were built, no one was thinking of the need for protection lagainst a deliberate airplane attack, and it doesn
't seem we are sure now that the plants are lredundantly safe from such. However, at this time, thinking the even more unthinkable, my lconcern is not for a Twin Towers type attack but for the dropping of a bomb onto the plants or lthe spent rod fuel assembly pools. Such an event would surely produce a catastrophic reaction.
lAnd while immediately after September 11, 2001, we were told that our plant would be guarded lfrom the air by military planes, that plan was soon abandoned, and as the incident referred to labove shows, the plants are unprotected from air, land, or sea missiles. (SLD-AC-10) llComment: The EIS needs to state the calculated time sequences leading to a zirconium fire as la result of sabotage or terrorist attacks. (SLD-AF-3) llComment: Video surveillance systems using software intruder-path detection and alarming lshould be employed to supplement the security forces alertness. These cameras may be lespecially useful in detection of boats and swimmers approaching the Lagoon side of the plant.
lElectric-field detection fencing is a first level of defense. Ultrasonic sensors in the barge lchannels are necessary to detect underwater swimmers. Consultations with the Sandai lIntrusion Detection Lab and Special Forces teams would help determine means of attack and ldefense. The plant security force members periodically should consider how they would attack lthe plant with their level of knowledge, and then help design the means to prevent such attacks.
lDo not downplay obscure or low-probability attacks. (SLD-AG-5) llResponse: The comments are noted. In a recent decision in another license renewal lproceeding, the Commission discussed the terrorism and sabotage issues raised in the lcomments. See Duke Energy Corp. (McGuire Nuclear Station, Units 1 & 2; Catawba Nuclear lStation, Units 1 & 2), CLI-02-26, 56 NRC 358 (2002). In that decision, the Commission found lthat NEPA imposes no legal duty on the NRC to consider intentional malevolent acts on a case-lby-case basis in conjunction with commercial power reactor license renewal applications. The lCommission concluded that the "environmental
" effect caused by third-party miscreants is simply ltoo far removed from the natural or expected consequences of agency action to require a study lunder NEPA
.ll l
Appendix AMay 2003A-57NUREG-1437, Supplement 11The Commission has also indicated that terrorism differs from matters ordinarily considered in lan EIS. An EIS may discuss, for example, such matters as likely effects on local water, air lquality, vegetation, wildlife, culture, and socioeconomic concerns. These effects are reasonably lcertain; an EIS can quantify them to a fair degree of precision. Terrorism, by contrast, comes in linnumerable forms and at unexpected times and places. It is decidedly not predictable, and it is lnot a natural or inevitable by-product of the granting of an application. For these reasons, the lCommission has stated that an EIS is not an appropriate format in which to address the lchallenges of terrorism
.llIn its recent license renewal decision, the Commission also noted that, particularly in the case of la license renewal application, where reactor operation will continue for many years regardless of lthe Commission
's ultimate decision, it is sensible not to devote resources to the likely impact of lterrorism during the license renewal period, but instead to concentrate on how to prevent a lterrorist attack in the near term at the already licensed facilities. Finally, the Commission ldetermined that there appears to be little practical benefit in conducting a license renewal lterrorism review
.llNevertheless, the Commission did indicate that its decision not to use NEPA as a vehicle for a lterrorism review does not mean that it is ignoring the issue. Rather, the Commission is closely lexamining the current security and protective framework and already has ordered interim limprovements at licensed nuclear facilities, including reactors. The Commission expects further limprovements as the internal comprehensive review moves forward
. The comments provide no lnew information; therefore, the comments were not evaluated further. There was no change to lthe SEIS text.
llComment: The EIS needs to state the results of the research program concerning St. Lucie,lsafety issues, and terrorism that was mentioned by NRC official, Jim Medoff, at the ACRS lmeeting in Florida City, FL on March 13, 2002. (SLD-AF-8) llResponse: The comment is noted. The NRC staff reviewed the transcript of the March 13,l2002, ACRS meeting in Florida City and found that the meeting focused on the license renewal lapplication for the Turkey Point nuclear plant. There was no mention by Mr. Medoff or anyone of la research program concerning the St. Lucie nuclear plant, no discussion of St. Lucie safety lissues, no discussion concerning terrorism concerns at either facility. The commenter was not lpresent at the March 13, 2002, meeting. The comment provides no new information; therefore,lthe comment was not evaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text.
llComment: The EIS needs to state the fatalities, the injuries, the economic loss, and the scope lof evacuation as consequences resulting from a worst case zirconium fire in a spent fuel pool at lthe St. Lucie nuclear plant. (SLD-AF-1) ll Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-58May 2003Comment: The EIS needs to state the probability of a zirconium fire occurring in a spent fuel lpool at the St. Lucie nuclear plant. The probability calculation needs to combine accidental fires,lsabotage fires, and terrorist caused fires. (SLD-AF-2) llComment: The EIS needs to state the consequences, the recalculated probability, and the lrecalculated time sequences of a zirconium fire at St. Lucie to assist emergency preparedness ladministrators in creating a new evacuation plan to assist members of the public in creating their lown personal emergency plans. (SLD-AF-4) llComment: The EIS needs to state what mitigation, if any, is available once a zirconium fire at lthe St. Lucie nuclear plant has started. (SLD-AF-5) llComment: The EIS needs to state the results and conclusions of all the research in the NRC
'slpossession related to extinguishing a zirconium fire in a spent fuel pool of a nuclear plant.
l(SLD-AF-6) llComment: The EIS needs to state the probability and consequences of a zirconium fire in a lspent fuel pool at St. Lucie, igniting a zirconium fire in the adjacent spent fuel pool. (SLD-AF-7) llComment: Since much has been made by antinuclear activists of the potential for zirconium lspent-fuel fires and release dispersion, a detailed study of possibilities of those fires (a fault tree lanalysis) should be made in a way as to fully inform the public as to how such risks are lcomputed. Loss of pool coolant and terrorist actions should be considered. (SLD-AG-4) llResponse: The comments are noted. Operational safety matters are outside the scope of this lreview. An NRC safety review for the license renewal period is conducted separately. With lregard to zirconium fires in the spent fuel pool, each nuclear plant must have approved lemergency and safeguards contingency plans, as required by 10 CFR Part 50, that are revised lperiodically. Emergency and safeguards planning are part of the current operating license and lare outside the scope of the environmental analysis for license renewal. Any required changes lto emergency and safeguards contingency plans that may be generated due to threats such as lterrorism and sabotage will be incorporated and reviewed under the operating license
.llLong-term storage of spent nuclear fuel is a Category 1 issue. The safety and environmental leffects of long-term storage of spent fuel were set forth in the Waste Confidence Rule. Although loutside the scope of this SEIS, the staff would like to provide the following brief response.
lNUREG-1738, Technical Study of Spent Fuel Pool Accident Risk at Decommissioning Nuclear lPower Plants provides an analysis of the consequences of the spent fuel pool accident risk.
lEarlier analyses in NUREG/CR-4982, Severe Accidents in Spent Fuel Pools in Support of lGeneric Issue 82 and NUREG/CR-6451, A Safety and Regulatory Assessment of Generic BWR land PWR Permanently Shutdown Nuclear Power Plants included a limited analysis of the offsite l
Appendix AMay 2003A-59NUREG-1437, Supplement 11consequences of a severe spent fuel pool accident occurring up to 90 days after the last ldischarge of spent fuel into the spent fuel pool. These analyses showed that the likelihood of an laccident that drains the spent fuel pool is very low, although the consequences of such laccidents could be comparable to those for a severe reactor accident. The staff performed a lfurther analysis of the offsite radiological consequences of beyond-design-basis spent fuel pool laccidents using fission product inventories at 30 and 90 days and 2, 5, and 10 years. The laccident progression scenarios that lead to large radiological releases following the drainage of la spent fuel pool require many nonmechanistic assumptions. This is because the geometry of lthe fuel assemblies and the air-cooling flow paths cannot be known following a major dynamic levent that might drain the water from the spent fuel pool. In addition, no credit is taken for lpreventative or mitigative actions and large uncertainties exist in the source term and lconsequence calculations. Because of these uncertainties, the staff developed bounding risk lcurves in NUREG-1738 that capture both frequency and consequences of a beyond-design-lbasis spent fuel pool drainage event (the risk curves are provided in Figures I-1 and I-2 of lNUREG-1738). The results of the study indicate that the risk is low because of the very low llikelihood of a zirconium fire even though the consequences from a zirconium fire could be lserious. The comments provide no new information; therefore, the comments were not levaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llA.4.16Editorial Comments llComment: Page 4-44, line 01:
"form" should be "from." (SLD-AE-51) llComment: Page 5-05, line 05: Change "safety analysis
" to "safety assessment.
" (SLD-AE-52) llComment: Page 5-13, line 01,02: Change the word "account" to "compensate.
" Insert the lword "apparent" before "non-conservatism.
" Delete the phrase, "This relatively small non-lconservatism notwithstanding,". Begin last sentence with "The Staff considers
-" (SLD-AE-55) llComment: Page 5-26, 3rd reference from bottom: The name is spelled "Gleaves." l(SLD-AE-60) llResponse: The comments are noted. The comments resulted in modifications to the SEIS text
.llComment: Page 5-07, Table 5-3: Footnote (b). Start the sentence, "The Unit 2 LOCA value,loriginally
-, was." The Unit 2 LOCA value needed correction and in turn effected a lmisstatement of the "Others" value. (SLD-AE-53) llResponse: The comment is noted and the proposed changes made to the footnote. The lcomment resulted in modification of the SEIS text
.ll Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-60May 2003Comment: Page 8-05, line 35: NUREG-0586 (NRC 1988) is cited in the text here, but not lincluded in the reference list in Section 8.4. (SLD-AE-63) llResponse: The comment is noted and the reference added to Section 8.4. The comment lresulted in modification of the SEIS text
.llComment: Page 2-35, line 22 and 41: The "a" designation on the reference citation,lU.S. Census Bureau 2000a, should be dropped as it is not consistent with that listed in the lreference section. (SLD-AE-14) llComment: Page 2-42, line 06: Reference citation USDA 2001a is inconsistent with that listed lin the reference list. Delete the "a" designation. (SLD-AE-26) llComment: Page 4-13, line 13: Reference citation (ASIC 1973) is not consistent with that listed lin the reference list and should be corrected to (AEC 1973). (SLD-AE-39) llComment: Page 4-40, line 06: Reference citation FPL 2001b is not the correct correspondence ldiscussed in this sentence. (SLD-AE-50) llComment: Page 5-21, line 23 and 37: Reference citation NRC 1997a should be corrected to lNRC 1997d. The correct source is NUREG/BR-0184 which is listed as NRC 1997d in the lreference list. (SLD-AE-56) llComment: Page 5-23, line 03: Reference citation NRC 1997b should be corrected to lNRC 1997d. The correct source is NUREG/BR-0184 which is listed as NRC 1997d in the lreference list. (SLD-AE-57) llComment: Page 5-23, line 11: Reference citation NRC 1997a should be corrected to lNRC 1997d. The correct source is NUREG/BR-0184 which is listed as NRC 1997d in the lreference list. (SLD-AE-58) llComment: Page 5-24, line 37: Reference citation NRC 1997b should be corrected to lNRC 1997d. The correct source is NUREG/BR-0184 which is listed as NRC 1997d in the lreference list. (SLD-AE-59) llComment: Page 8-10, line 18: The "a" used on the reference citation "FPL 2001a" should be ldeleted, as this designation is not used in the reference list. (SLD-AE-65) llResponse: The comments are noted and the citations changed to the correct reference. The lcomments resulted in modifications of the SEIS text
.ll Appendix AMay 2003A-61NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Comment: Page 5-09, line 11: Reference NRC 1988 is not provided in the reference list.
l(SLD-AE-54) llResponse: The comment is noted and the reference added. The comment resulted in lmodification of the SEIS text
.llComment: Page 4-40, line 06:
"Informal consultation with the FWS was initiated by FPL in lApril 2001
-" is not correct as only Federal agencies can initiate consultation. This sentence lshould be revised to read, "NRC initiated informal consultation in February 2002 with a request lfor information concerning which species are potentially
-." (SLD-AE-49) llResponse: The comment is noted and the suggested changes made. The comment resulted in lmodification of the SEIS text
.llComment: Page 8-04, line 28: This sentence states that the volume of low-level radioactive lwaste could vary greatly depending on the length of time it {the reactor} operated. However, the lNRC states in the GEIS (Section 7.3.2) that decommissioning waste volumes would be lessentially the same for a plant operated for 40 years as for a plant operated 60 years. Resolve lthe apparent discrepancy by deleting the phrase "the length of time it operated.
" (SLD-AE-62) llResponse: The comment is noted and the phrase was deleted. The comment resulted in lmodification of the SEIS text
.llComment: Page 8-07, line 33: The statement is made that the land west of the intake canal land south of the transmission lines could not accommodate a coal or new nuclear unit, but l"could potentially accommodate a completed natural gas combined cycle plant to replace lSt. Lucie Units 1 and 2.
" Several "obstacles" are mentioned, but one significant "obstacle" islomitted: the lack of an existing gas pipeline that could provide fuel to the site. This should be ladded to the other "obstacles" already listed. (SLD-AE-64) llResponse: The comment is noted. The text of the SEIS was changed to make reference to the lneed for a gas pipeline. The comment resulted in modification of the SEIS text.
llComment: Page 8-11, line 03: Sentence beginning with "Annual coal consumption
-" shouldlbe deleted as this information is given in the previous paragraph. (SLD-AE-66) llResponse: The comment is noted and the sentence deleted. The comment resulted in lmodification of the SEIS text
.ll Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-62May 2003Comment: Page 2-14, line 32: SEIS states, "The last 2.4 km (1.5 mi) of the right-of-way is lshared with three other 230 kV lines
-" should be corrected. There are four other 230 kV lines lentering the Midway Substation. (SLD-AE-6) llComment: Page 2-14, line 33: SEIS states
"-total right-of-way width is approximately l1080 feet.
" Although there is a short section of North-South leg that is approximately 1080 ft.,lthe majority of the right-of-way is approximately 800 feet. (SLD-AE-7) llComment: Page 2-15, line 06: Correct spelling of "right-or-way
" to "right-of-way.
" (SLD-AE-8) llComment: Page 2-17, line 02: It is not clear that the site no longer has a package plant.
lReword as follows: Period after "wastewater.
" Second sentence to read, "The treated lwastewater was previously discharged to the discharge canal. Now the site sanitary wastewater lis discharged to St. Lucie County
's South Hutchinson Island Water Reclamation Facility for ltreatment.
" (SLD-AE-9) llComment: Page 2-22, line 31-32: Sentence should read, "The whales are listed as lendangered by the Federal government and the State of Florida.
" (SLD-AE-11) llComment: Page 2-28, line 02:
"Habiats" should be corrected to "Habitats." (SLD-AE-12) llComment: Page 2-36, line 24: The value given for the peak demand per day, 5.8 M.D. is not lconsistent with that stated in the ER (5.4 M.D.). (SLD-AE-16) llComment: Page 2-37, line 9: Change "Solerno" to Salerno.
" (SLD-AE-17) llComment: Page 2-42, line 25-29: The 1999 tax assessment for St. Lucie 1 and 2 l($22,807,970) is 10.3% of the total property taxes ($221,893,569) and the 2000 tax assessment lfor St. Lucie 1 and 2 ($18,888,240) is 8.5% of total county property taxes ($222,310,596).
lThese results will change the average quoted on page 4-26 line 13. Correct table entries laccordingly. (SLD-AE-29) llComment: Page 2-42, Note (c): Should read "State of Florida data on migrant farm workers lwere not available.
" (SLD-AE-30) llComment: Page 2-43, line 17:
"-Brighton Seminole, located about 76 km (47 mi) to the east lof the St. Lucie plant
-" should be corrected by changing the word "east" to "southwest.
" l(SLD-AE-31) lll Appendix AMay 2003A-63NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Comment: Page 2-47, line 9-10: Change "before construction
" to "before operation.
" l(SLD-AE-32) llComment: Page 4-02, line 09:
"of" should be "to." (SLD-AE-33) llComment: Page 4-05, line 37-38:
"-and the ecological risk assessment study for the cooling lcanal system (Ecological Associates 2001).
" The referenced study was a survey report not a lrisk assessment for the cooling canal system. Also cited on page 4-6, line 24. (SLD-AE-36) llComment: Page 4-12, line 39:
"-impacts related to entrainment and no
-" should be lcorrected to read
"-impacts related to impingement
-." (SLD-AE-38) llComment: Page 4-17, line 27:
"licence" should be "license." (SLD-AE-41) llComment: Page 4-36, line 18: Change "are monitored
" to "are normally monitored.
" Thislreflects those times when monitoring is not possible or required by license condition.
l(SLD-AE-47) llComment: Page 8-11, line 17:
"Spent selective catalytic reduction (SCR) catalyst
" should be ldeleted from the list of wastes identified in this sentence since, as noted on page 8-17, line 21,lspent SCR catalyst would not be disposed of onsite. (SLD-AE-67) llComment: Page 8-23, line 25: NRC cites FPL
's ER as the source in listing design assumptions lfor the gas-fired alternative, including use of low-sulfur number 2 fuel oil as backup fuel. Delete lthis design assumption from the list, since FPL did not assume use of fuel oil as a backup fuel in lits ER. (SLD-AE-70) llResponse: The comments are noted and the proposed changes made. The comments lresulted in modification of the SEIS text
.llComment: Page 8-13, line 07: For Coal-Fired New Generation
- Environmental Justice was lquoted in Table 8-2 as "Small" and "Small to Moderate
" in Table 9-1. (SLD-AE-68) llResponse: The comment is noted and the table modified. The comment resulted in lmodification of the SEIS text.
llComment: Page 8-22, line 17, 18: For Natural Gas-Fired New Generation
- Environmental lJustice was quoted in Table 8-2 as "Small" and "Small to Moderate
" in Table 9-1. (SLD-AE-69) llResponse: The comment is noted and the table modified. The comment resulted in lmodification of the SEIS text
.l Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-64May 2003Comment: Page 6-06, line 37: Add the following text after "nuclear waste:
"Both the Senate land Congress subsequently voted to override a veto of the President
's selection of the Yucca lMountain site by the Governor of the State of Nevada.
" (SLD-AE-61) llResponse: The comment is noted. The proposed statement does not provide a meaningful lcontribution to the evaluation of the environmental impact of license renewal at the St. Lucie site.
lThe comment provides no new information; therefore, the comment was not evaluated further.
lThere was no change to the SEIS text
.llComment: Page 2-42, line 25-29: Property tax amounts paid to St. Lucie County for St. Lucie lUnits 1 and 2 for years 1996, 1998, and 1999 vary slightly from the dollar amounts presented in lthe ER. The amount in the ER for 2000 was an estimate and was reflective of the total FPL lproperty tax for St. Lucie County. To clarify the record, the ER value for the 2000 taxes to be lpaid for St. Lucie 1 and 2 only would have been correctly stated as $18.8 million. Also, in lline 29, "$18.888,240
" should be corrected to
"$18,888,240.
" (SLD-AE-28) llResponse: The comment is noted. The error in the 2000 entry was corrected. The comment lresulted in modification of the SEIS text
.llComment: Page 4-02, line 26 and 32: Altered Salinity Gradients is applicable to plants ldischarging to estuarine systems. Given that St. Lucie discharges to an ocean environment, this lissue is not applicable to St. Lucie. Eutrophication is an issue applicable to small stratified water lbodies. Given that St. Lucie discharges to a large oceanic water body, this issue is not lapplicable to St. Lucie. These issues should be removed from this table and added to lAppendix F. (SLD-AE-34) llResponse: The comment is noted. The comment resulted in modification of the SEIS text. llComment: Page 4-03, line 15: Delete this line. St. Lucie 1 & 2 use once-through cooling and lthe GEIS reference discussion relative to cooling system noise impacts is specific to cooling ltowers. It is incorrect to group the noise issue with the cooling system impacts. The GEIS laddresses plant noise beyond that associated with the cooling system. (SLD-AE-35) llResponse: The comment is noted. The comment incorrectly states that noise was addressed lin 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B, Table B-1 only as a function of cooling towers. This is not lthe case, as stated numerous places in the GEIS. The comment did not result in changes to the ltext.llll Appendix AMay 2003A-65NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Comment: Page 4-09, line 13-21: Delete these lines. See the comment above for page 4-03 lline 15. (SLD-AE-37) llResponse: The comment is noted. Table B-1 (10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix B) identifies lnoise from general plant operation, rather than noise just from operation of cooling towers, as lthe issue to be evaluated in supplements to the GEIS. There was no change to the text
.llComment: Page 4-37, line 13: This discussion is not up to date. It does not consider the letter lreprinted at page E-31, and does not consider FPL
's letter to the Staff clarifying whether a lconsultation is required. Add the following words following the sentence ending on line 13:
" Bylletter dated August 23, 2002, the NRC Staff requested reinitiation of consultation with NMFS lregarding the incidental capture of green and loggerhead turtles at St. Lucie Units 1 and 2. By lletter dated September 20, 2002, FPL informed the NRC Staff that it would cooperate with the lStaff's data request regarding the consultation process, but stated that there was no factual or llegal basis for the NRC
's reinitiating of consultation in this case.
" (SLD-AE-48) llResponse: The comment is noted and the text has been updated to reflect the current status of lthe NRC's effort to reinitiate consultation. Consultation was reinitiated because the NMFS lbiological opinion dated May 4, 2001 established an incidental take limit for mortalities due to lplant operation for green and loggerhead turtles. The limit which would reinitiate consulation lwas "greater than or equal to
" one percent of the annual total capture of green and loggerhead lturtles. In calendar year 2001, the licensee reported a total of 5 green and 1 loggerhead turtle lmortalities out of 592 recoveries. The comment resulted in modification of the SEIS text
.llComment: Page 4-14 and 4-16, line 34 and 22-31, respectively: Delete these lines. GEIS lSection 4.5.3 does not address on-site land use. (SLD-AE-40) llResponse: The comment is noted. As stated in Table B-1 of 10 CFR 51, Subpart A, Appendix lB, the issue of onsite land use applies to all aspects of license renewal. This was discussed in lthe GEIS, Section 3.2. The text of Table 4-3 was changed to address this issue
.llComment: Page 4-28, line 16-20: The Florida State Historic Preservation Officer has stated lthat renewal of the operating licenses for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 would not affect historic lproperties. Based on this finding, it is not clear why the DSEIS contains the wording at llines 16-20, particularly where no refurbishment activities will occur. This wording should be ldeleted. The current Environmental Protection Plan addresses the performance of lenvironmental evaluations. This statement bounds the requirements for environmental levaluations. The SEIS should not impose any new or additional environmental commitments.
l(SLD-AE-42) ll Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-66May 2003 Response: The comment is noted. The text in the draft SEIS does not impose commitments lthat do not already exist in FPL
's Environmental Protection Plans. There was no change to the lSEIS text as a result of this comment
.llComment: Page 4-33, line 06: The conversion of 35.3 M.D. should be corrected from 14.8 x l10 4 m 3/d to 1.34 x 10 5 m 3/d. (SLD-AE-43) llResponse: The comment is noted. The section for which this comment was addressed was lchanged in response to other comments, and the identified value was removed from the SEIS ltext. The comment resulted in modification of the SEIS text.
llComment: Page 4-35, line 37: Change the word "that" to "than" and strike the words "or equallto." (SLD-AE-45) llResponse: The comment is noted. The word "that" is correctly changed to "than." Thelcomment is incorrect with regard to NMFS limits on incidental take. NMFS in its letter dated July l30, 2002, clearly stated that reinitiation of consultation would have to take place if the number of lloggerhead and green turtles injured or killed as a result of plant operation were "greater than or lequal to" (emphasis consistent with July 30, 2002 letter) one percent of the total number of lloggerhead and green turtles taken by the end of said year. The comment resulted in lmodification of the SEIS text
.llComment: Page E-2, Table E-1: Third entry (FWS and NMFS)
- the FPL letters should not be lreferenced here. The letters from the FWS and NMFS providing the results of the consultation lshould be provided. The remarks for this entry should also be revised to discuss NRC
'slconsultation versus the correspondence FPL had with the agency. It is incorrect to say that FPL linitiated the consultation. If the FPL letters remain in the table, the second letter number should lbe corrected from PLL.-LR-02-0054 to PSL-LR-0054. (SLD-AE-74) llResponse: The comment is noted and Table E-1 has been revised. The comment resulted in lmodification of the SEIS text
.llComment: Page 4-36, line 10: Strike the words "met or." (SLD-AE-46) llResponse: The comment is noted. The comment is incorrect with regard to NMFS limits on lincidental take. NMFS in its letter dated July 30, 2002, clearly stated that reinitiation of lconsultation would have to take place if the number of loggerhead and green turtles injured or lkilled as a result of plant operation were "greater than or equal to
" (emphasis consistent with lJuly 30, 2002 letter) one percent of the total number of loggerhead and green turtles taken by lthe end of said year. There was no change in SEIS text
.ll Appendix AMay 2003A-67NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Comment: Page 8-26, line 20: NRC estimates spent SCR catalyst generated from operation of lthe gas-fired alternative to be 31 cubic meters per year. The source for this estimate is not lindicated, but in Section 8.2.2, Page 8-23, Lines 29-30, NRC indicates that, unless otherwise lindicated, assumptions and numerical values used throughout this section are from the FPL ER.
lFPL did not quantify the amount of spent SCR catalyst in its ER. It would be appropriate for the lNRC to provide a reference for this quantity. (SLD-AE-71) llResponse: The comment is noted and a reference to the amount of SCR catalyst generated lper year was added. The comment resulted in modification of the SEIS text
.llComment: Page 8-42, line 40-41: The DSEIS makes the following statement in regard to ladditional DSM to help to address the capacity that would be lost if the OL
's for the two St. Lucie lunits are not extended:
"While the DSM measures would have few environmental impacts, the loperation of the new natural gas-fired plant would result in increased emissions (compared to lthe OL renewal alternative) and other environmental impacts.
" Delete the phrase, " While the lDSM measures
-impacts," and replace with, "Additional DSM that replaces nuclear capacity, in lpart or in total, will result in FPL
's existing fossil fuel units operating at higher capacity factors lthan they otherwise would, thus increasing total emissions from the FPL system. Start a new lsentence, "In addition, the operation of a new gas-fired
-." (SLD-AE-72) llResponse: The comment is noted. However, the comment does not contain sufficient lsupporting information. For example, load curtailment DSM (demand-side management) that lshifted energy loads from peak to off-peak hours (e.g., interruptible water heating) could lconceivably reduce operation of peak-serving natural-gas-fired turbines and increase operation lof coal-fired units with possible consequent increase in environmental impacts. However, DSM l(e.g., more efficient air conditioners) that resulted in absolute reduction in energy consumption lwould likely reduce the operation of base-load coal plants (and possibly gas-fired peaking units las well), thus reducing environmental impacts. There was no change in SEIS text
.llComment: Page 2-35, line 31-37: Note that the projected values for 2010 and 2020 are higher lthan that presented in ER and a different source is used. However, the growth rates are the lsame as presented in the ER for these years. In addition, the calculations for the annual growth lrates appear to be incorrect. For Martin County the values should be 12.8, 5.8, 2.6, 2.0, and 1.7,lrespectively for the years presented in Table 2-7; similarly the values for St. Lucie County should lbe corrected to 7.1, 7.2, 2.8, 2.2, and 1.8. (SLD-AE-15) llComment: Page 2-41, line 05-07: Growth rates provided for St. Lucie and Martin counties l(28% and 26%, respectively) are not consistent with values presented in Table 2-7. See earlier lcomment regarding corrections to this table. These growth rates should be corrected laccordingly. (SLD-AE-22) ll Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-68May 2003 Response: The comments are noted. The difference between the draft SEIS and the ER lregarding the projected population of Martin and St. Lucie Counties is indeed due to the use of ldifferent sources for the two documents. The comment is incorrect with regard to annual growth lrate calculations, however. Annual percentage growth is not the decadal increment divided by l10 and expressed as a percentage of the starting population size. Instead, it is the average lannual increment gain expressed as percentage, and is derivable from the equation N
[t] =lN[0]*(1+r)t, where N is population size, t is time in years, and r is the annual growth rate lexpressed as a decimal. The entries in Table 2-7 of the draft SEIS for the periods 1970 to 1980 land 1980 to 1990 are incorrect by between 2 and 4 percent, however, and were corrected. The lcomments resulted in modification of the SEIS text.
llComment: Page 2-08, line 31-34: Clarify by including information that FPL has dredged the lintake canal on several occasions, most recently in the fall of 2002. On one occasion, in the lmid-1990's, the dewatered sediments were sold as clean fill. (SLD-AE-5) llResponse: The comment is noted and information on dredging was added. The comment lresulted in modification of the SEIS text.
llComment: Page xviii, line 26: Delete "and chronic effects from electromagnetic fields.
" Addlperiod after "justice." FPL did not present an analysis of chronic effects from electromagnetic lfields. (SLD-AE-1) llComment: Page 1-07, line 28: Change the word "Westinghouse
" to "Combustion Engineering.
" l(SLD-AE-2) llComment: Page 2-01, line 35: Change "Juniper" to "Jupiter." (SLD-AE-3) llComment: Page 2-05, line 28, 31, 34: Change "Florida Aquifer
" to "Floridan Aquifer.
" l(SLD-AE-4) llComment: Page 2-21, line 01: The conversion of 236,146 lb of bluefish should be corrected to l107,000 kg. (SLD-AE-10) llComment: Page 2-37, line 20: Delete "and crosses I-95 near Fort Pierce.
" Add new sentence l"I-95 crosses to the west of the Florida Turnpike south of Stuart and crosses back to the east at lFort Pierce.
" (SLD-AE-18) llComment: Page 2-40, line 25:
"are" should be "is." (SLD-AE-20) ll Appendix AMay 2003A-69NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Comment: Page 2-41, line 37: The values for the agricultural land use for both St. Lucie and lMartin County should be corrected in accordance with corrections made in Table 2-9.
l(SLD-AE-23) llComment: Page 2-41, line 38: The reference for agricultural land use values should be lcorrected from Table 2-10 to Table 2-9. (SLD-AE-24) llComment: Page 2-42, line 24: Second column should be titled "Total Property Tax Levied for lall Property in St. Lucie County.
" (SLD-AE-27) llComment: Page 9-05, line 28, 29: Delete the phrase "except for the SAMA identified above.
" lPut a period after "warranted.
" (SLD-AE-73) llComment: Page E-2, Table E-1: Fourth entry (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers)
- the Authority linformation should be revised to read, "Rivers and Harbors Act (33 USC 403) and Clean Water lAct (33 USC 1344). [sic] (SLD-AE-75) llComment: Page E-3, Table E-1: Provide a note that the NPDES permit is the Industrial lWastewater Facility Permit. In Chapter 2 of the DSEIS it is mentioned several times as the lIndustrial Wastewater Permit. This would create a link for the reader. (SLD-AE-76) llComment: Page E-5, Table E-1: First entry
- The updated information is: 1) 56-01238-W lexpires 5/21/2009. (SLD-AE-78) llResponse: The comments are noted and the proposed change made. The comments resulted lin modification of the SEIS text
.llComment: Page E-4, Table E-1: Updated information for these annual FWCC permits is as lfollows: 1) 01S-018 has been replaced by 02R-018 and expires 6/30/2003; 2) TP#206 expires l1/31/2003; 3) TP#125 expires 1/31/2003; Last entry
- "next" should be corrected to "nest" in thelDescription column. (SLD-AE-77) llResponse: The comment is noted and the proposed changes made in part. The commenter is lincorrect with respect to the correct designation of the State issued marine turtle permit. The lNRC staff verified with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission information lconcerning permit TP#026, as correctly stated in the draft SEIS. As appropriate, the comments lresulted in modification of the SEIS text
.llll Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-70May 2003Comment: Page F-2, line 15-16: Groundwater quality degradation (saltwater intrusion) is an lapplicable issue to St. Lucie due to their indirect use of groundwater through the municipal lsupply for potable and service water. Therefore this issue should be deleted from the table and lappropriately discussed in Section 4.5. (SLD-AE-79) llComment: Page F-2, Table F-1: Groundwater use conflicts (potable and service water and ldewatering); plants that use >100 gpm should be added to the table as not applicable because lSt. Lucie Units 1 and 2 do not withdraw groundwater. (SLD-AE-80) llResponse: The comments are noted. Saltwater intrusion is indeed a Category 1 issue and lapplicable to St Lucie and has been deleted from Table F-1 and included in Section 4.5. The lstaff also agrees with the licensee that the issue of groundwater use conflicts (potable and lservice water and dewatering; plants that use >100 gpm), a Category 2 issue, should be added lto Table F-1 since the St. Lucie plant potable and service water usage is only 91 gpm. The lcomments resulted in changes to Table F-1.
llComment: Page 2-38, Table 2-9: Values presented in this table should be verified and lcorrected. Given the residential land use for St. Lucie County of 138 mi 2 is correct, the lconversion to km 2 should be corrected from 97 to 357. The sum of the land use values for lSt. Lucie County in mi 2 should be corrected from 542 to 641. If correct, the percent of total lvalues should be corrected. (SLD-AE-19) llResponse: The comment is noted and the appropriate conversion made. The comment lresulted in modification of the SEIS text
.llComment: Page 2-41, line 04: The value given for the population of Stuart, 14,633 is linconsistent with that stated in the ER (4,633). The number in the ER contained a typographical lerror and the value presented in the SEIS has been verified to be correct. (SLD-AE-21) llResponse: The comment is noted. In our letter of October 23, 2002, the staff requested that lthe licensee, Florida Power and Light Company, provide comments on the draft SEIS for lSt. Lucie. Corrections to the licensee
's ER can be made by the licensee by letter amending the ldocument. There was no change in the SEIS text
.llComment: Page 2-41, line 41: The number of farms in St. Lucie and Martin counties (805) is linconsistent with that presented in the ER (359). The value presented in the ER has been lverified to be correct for the number of farms that hire and the number presented in the SEIS lhas been verified to be correct for the total number of farms. Relative to the discussion of lmigrant farm workers, it would be more appropriate to use the number of farms that hire.
l(SLD-AE-25) ll Appendix AMay 2003A-71NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 Response: The comment is noted and the staff agrees that it is more appropriate to use the lnumber of farms that hire with respect to a discussion of migrant farm workers. The comment lresulted in modification of the SEIS text
.llComment: Page 2-32, line 27: This section, "Radiological Impacts
" is not appropriate in this lchapter. The conclusions regarding the effects and impacts of offsite emissions should be lmoved to the corresponding section in Chapter 4, Section 4.3. (SLD-AE-13) llResponse: The comment is noted. This section reports information obtained from the licensee lregarding the radiological environmental monitoring program (REMP) conducted by the utility.
lThe information provided in this section summarizes the findings related to the REMP. This linformation is used to evaluate the radiological impacts during the license renewal period ldescribed in Section 4.3. There was no change to the SEIS text
.llA.4.17Other Comments llComment: The Department of Interior has reviewed the referenced document. We have no lcomments to provide for your consideration. (SLD-AB-1) llResponse: The comments provide no new information; therefore, the comments were not levaluated further. There was no change to the SEIS text.
l Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-72May 2003 LD-A-1 LD-A-2A.5 Public Meeting Transcript Excerpts and Comment Letters llTranscript of the Afternoon Public Meeting on December 3, 2002, in Port St. Lucie, Florida ll[Introduction, Mr. Cameron]
l[Presentation, Mr. Dudley]
l[Presentation, Dr. Masnik]
l[Presentation, Ms. Hickey]
l[Presentation, Dr. Masnik]
llMR. CAMERON: Okay, great.
l lAnd thank-you, Mike and thank all of you for your attention during the presentations. The staff lfrom the NRC and also some of our experts will be available after the meeting if there
'slparticular subjects you want to discuss in further detail.
llAnd now it
's our opportunity to listen to you. And first of all, we
're going to have Mr. Doug lAnderson, who
's the County Administrator for St. Lucie County.
llWe have some other government officials, but next we
're going to go to Mr. Bob Bangert from lthe Conservation Alliance.
llMr. Anderson.
l lMR. ANDERSON: Good afternoon.
l lThank-you for letting me go first. I really appreciate this.
l lSt. Lucie County is one of the fastest growing economies in the State of Florida, if not the fastest lgrowing economy. We have gone virtually from last place in the State of Florida for percentage lof new jobs created, to almost number one. In fact, we may be number one, with recent lannouncements we
've just made.
llIf the St. Lucie Plant were closed, the loss of eight hundred full-time jobs in our community would lbe devastating to our economy.
llThe St. Lucie Power Plant provides our industry with a reliable source of electricity. In St. Lucie lCounty, we
're not like other areas of the country where you experience brownouts or blackouts.
lOur industry, as a diversified industry we have here now, relies heavily on a steady source of lelectricity and a reliable source.
ll Appendix AMay 2003A-73NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 SLD-A-3 LD-A-4 SLD-A-5 SLD-A-6 SLD-A-7 SLD-A-8 SLD-A-9Florida energy demands are growing at about two percent annually. Electricity from the lSt. Lucie Power Plant can meet the energy needs of more than one-half million homes. Each lSt. Lucie unit produces 839 million watts of energy.
llThe St. Lucie Plant is among the lowest cost producers of electricity in the FPL system, and this lhelps keep our electric bills low. And that is one of the attractions to our area for industry. The lhigh energy users come here, looking at utility rates is one of their objectives.
l lOur power bills are more reasonable than most others in the country, in part because of this lplant, and we want to keep our power bills low and our quality of life high.
llWe want to keep the St. Lucie Power Plant as part of our future. The site is already established.
lThey're continuing to operate
- the continuation of operating this facility means no new land lwould be disturbed to construct a new facility to replace this one.
llIt is my understanding that replacing the two reactors with the equivalent electric producers such las oil, or gas, or coal, could have greater pollution and ecological impacts.
llI have lived in St. Lucie County now almost eight years, I've lived and worked here, and I've lgrown to know the St. Lucie Plant and I have worked with the different people there, and they lare good neighbors.
l lI have some examples here of some of the things that they've done and they've worked very lclosely with the County administration.
llThe St. Lucie Plant employees are leaders in contributions to the local area agencies such as lthe United Way. They support the St. Lucie County Education Foundation in a scholarship lprogram. The employees are involved in youth development through Scouts, Little Leagues,lcivic and church programs and activities. The employees volunteer for Habitat for Humanity in lbuilding homes for low income residents.
l lThe plant's information center, the Energy Encounter, holds forty thousand visitors annually. In laddition to hands-on science programs for schools, the center offers free workshops to teachers lfor training credits and walk-in visitors are always welcome.
l lThe power plant donates computers and school supplies to local schools. And FP&L has made lsubstantial contributions to the county's regional sports stadium, which is located in St. Lucie lWest. And the St. Lucie County Marine Center that features the Smithsonian Marine Eagle lSystem exhibit, as well as many other community projects.
llI know a few months ago, we were putting together a financial package to purchase a mobile lcommand center to be used directly between the City of Fort Pierce Police Department, the l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-74May 2003 SLD-A-10 SLD-A-11 SLD-B-1 SLD-B-2Sheriff's Office, the Fire District and County Administration. I went to FP&L and asked if they lcould contribute towards this mobile finance center, because while we do have incidents in a lot lof cases they are also on site and they work with us to plan what action we have to take. Within la few weeks they called me back and they said yes, Doug, we will financially contribute, and lthey presented us with a check, and that
's a good neighbor.
llThe impact of the St. Lucie Plant on our local economy is more than eighty million dollars lannually. The thing that impresses me most about the St. Lucie Plant is its reputation.
llI've heard about the good ratings the plant has received through the years from the NRC, the lagency here today, that watches over your plants. I encourage the NRC to renew the license at lSt. Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2.
llThank-you.
l lMR. CAMERON: And thank-you very much, Mr. Anderson.
l lNext we're going to hear from Bob Bangert from the Conservation Alliance.
llMR. BANGERT: Good afternoon members of the U.S. Regulatory Commission. My name is lBob Bangert and I represent the Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County.
llIt's interesting before I start my presentation, my wife and I have traveled eleven thousand miles lthis summer, covering twenty-eight s, and the question was raised about alternate energy. We lsaw windmills all over. And when I got back, I investigated a little bit and to my surprise I found lout that one of the subsidiaries of FP&L group is the largest producer of wind power in the lUnited States and possibly the world.
llFirst of all, I want to express my appreciation to those who drafted this report, for including a lglossary of the acronyms used in the report. I sure saved a hell of a lot of looking back.
lWouldn't it be nice if all government agencies and all consultants did the same.
llThe Alliance is also very impressed by the systematic and completeness of the report in levaluating the environmental consequences of renewing the licenses for the St. Lucie FP&L lPlants 1 and 2, for operation for an additional twenty years.
l lTwo county parks with beach access, Blind Creek Pass Park and Walton Rocks Park lie within lthe property boundaries of FP&L, and have been included in an Adopt a Beach program l
Appendix AMay 2003A-75NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 SLD-B-3 SLD-B-4instigated this year through the Conservation Alliance, partnership with the Conservation lAlliance and the City of Fort Pierce and St. Lucie County. Quite a unique partnership.
llVolunteers have signed contracts to clean up the litter from these beaches at least once every ltwo months.
llOne of our primary concerns in the past has been the offshore ocean intake structures. The lcompany, by installing and maintaining three barriers of these intake structures to reduce lpotential loss of marine life, particular sea turtles, and to facilitate their return to the ocean lrecognized our concerns.
llThe addition and construction of a new smaller mesh barrier east of the larger mesh barriers,lplus an active program, including recovery of turtles from the intake canal, has greatly reduced lany harm to entangled turtles.
l lFP&L's program, which includes recovery of turtles from the intake canal and barrier nets, are lmonitored seven days a week, eight to twelve hours a day, by Quantum Resources is lexemplary. In addition to the entanglement nets which are used only during daylight hours lunder continued surveillance, plus turtles removed with the dip nets and in many cases, the ldivers go down and take them out bodily. FP&L constantly is evaluating the program to lminimize any trauma to captured sea turtles.
llOur Conservation Alliance honored one of these divers, a Michael Breshett (phonetic), at our lAnnual Awards Luncheon last May, for his work with entangled turtles while on the job, as well las his constant vigilance on his own time.
l lCaptured healthy turtles are tagged before being released back into the ocean and many have lshown up on distant lands, such as Costa Rica, Cuba, and many other places.
llAmong many of the turtles recently captured have been showing evidence of tumors on the soft lsections of their skin, the origin of which has not yet been determined. However, there is lgrowing evidence that intrusion of treated waste water from deep well injections in the area, may lbe linked to these tumors.
llThese turtles are sent to rehabilitation facilities determined by the Florida Fish and Wildlife lConservation Commission.
llI cannot stress strongly enough our commendations for FP&L
's continuing efforts to improve any lareas that they find may be having a detrimental effect on the environment, on any portion of ltheir eleven hundred plus acres on the island adjacent to Plants 1 and 2, or along its ltransmission lines.
ll Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-76May 2003SLD-C-1Now, if all of FP&L
's customers in St. Lucie County and the would be as diligent in their ltreatment and care of the environment, our future generations would be assured of enjoying this lspecial piece of paradise we call St. Lucie County.
llThank-you.
l lMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you very much, Mr. Bangert.
l lNow we're going to hear from a trio of government officials and then we
're going to go to Gary lCantrell and Judi Miller. But in terms of the government officials, we have Ron Parrish, Deputy lChief, St. Lucie Fire District, who
's going to start us off. And then we have Gary Wilson from the lSt. Lucie County Sheriff
's Office, and Steven Wolfberg from the Martin County Department of lEmergency Service.
llAnd this is Ron Parrish.
l lMR. PARRISH: Good afternoon.
l lAnd as he said, I
'm Ron Parrish. I
'm Deputy Chief of Administration for the St. Lucie County Fire lDistrict.llI'm here today to represent the Fire District as well as the Fire Chief, Jay Sizemore, and to talk a llittle bit about the collective efforts that Florida Power and Light and the Fire District have done lto enhance and improve the training for the safety of the public, the plant itself. This has been longoing for as long as I can remember.
llI've been directly involved with some very intense training with Florida Power and Light. And we lfeel as though they
've been a great corporate partner in the enhancement of the training and the lsafety of the citizens of St. Lucie County, and we support relicensing of the power plant.
llThank-you.
l lMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you very much, Ron.
l lLet's next go to Gary Wilson.
llMR. WILSON: Good afternoon.
l lAs it was said, my name is Gary Wilson. I
'm the Chief Deputy with the St. Lucie County Sheriff
'slOffice.ll Appendix AMay 2003A-77NUREG-1437, Supplement 11SLD-D-1 LD-D-2SLD-D-3 SLD-E-1I am here today representing the Sheriff
's Office and the impact that FP&L has on our county.
lAnd, of course, our interest is one of safety and security, and one that addresses the crime lissues that impact us every single day. And we
're happy to say that on all of those fronts, FP&L lis not a problem for us and in fact, it is a great benefit to the county and our efforts, as far as the lsafety and security at the plant, and also the impact that they have on our community from a lcrime basis.
llThe employees at the power plant pose no problem for law enforcement. And they are certainly,las Mr. Anderson pointed out earlier, a great neighbor for us to have here in St. Lucie County.
llFrom a safety and security standpoint, the St. Lucie County Sheriff
's Office works closely with lthe security department out at the plant to ensure that all of those issues that of concern for a lot lof people who live in the area out there are taken care of, and that working relationship is a very lstrong relationship and one that we
're very proud of.
llSo on behalf of law enforcement in St. Lucie County, we are in support of license renewal for the lpower plant.
llThank-you.
l lMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you very much, Mr. Wilson.
l lAnd we're going to hear from Steven Wolfberg and then, I neglected to mention Don Daniels,lwho is the emergency management coordinator for St. Lucie County.
llAnd this is Steven Wolfberg.
l lMR. WOLFBERG: Good afternoon.
l lSteven Wolfberg, Director of Martin County Emergency Services, which represents fire rescue land emergency management.
llWe're here in support of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
's relicensing of St. Lucie
's Unit 1land 2. We have had a relationship with the power plant for over twenty-three years that, my lcontemporary and myself, I
've been with the department. During this time we
've been able to lbuild a model partnership in relationships between FP&L and the county, and the benefits going lboth way. The relationship, the partnerships mature, it
's credible and it
's ongoing.
llWe consider St. Lucie Power Plant a partner in our planning, our response and operating, and lcontinuing education in emergency services as well as just good friends, partners and corporate lpartners.l l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-78May 2003 LD-F-1 LD-F-2 LD-F-3 LD-F-4On behalf of Martin County Emergency Services, again, we support the relicensing for Unit 1 land 2.llThank-you.
l lMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you very much, Mr. Wolfberg.
l lLet's go to Don Daniels.
llMR. DANIELS: Good afternoon.
l lMy name is Don Daniels. I
've been a resident of St. Lucie County for over thirty-seven years,land in the last twenty-eight years I
've been involved in emergency services of one type or lanother. I
've been with Emergency Management in the St. Lucie County Public Safety lDepartment for the last sixteen years. And I
'm here to fill in today for our Director, Mr. Jack lSouthern, Director of Public Safety and just to give you some of the comments from our agency.
llThere are many reasons the plant should continue operating. Part of it is the importance to our lcommunity as was stated earlier, being a good neighbor, and it also has had a good lenvironmental record as been pointed out. But none of these things would matter if the plant did lnot operate safely. And this is something we
've come to learn through our office and through ldealing with the people at the plant, that they have our safety and concern at heart. Many of lthem are our neighbors. They live in our community. They are just as concerned for their lfamilies as they are for anyone else
's.llThis office receives
- our office, Emergency Management receives a quarterly, on a quarterly lbasis, a report that indicates each and every day that this plant meets its performance lstandards.
llAnd, for example, our office also receives timely briefings and correspondence regarding in-lplace procedures and checks by an independent quality assurance organization, and that this lensures timely preventative maintenance is done. These reports show that St. Lucie Plant is lcommitted to the safety of residents surrounding the plant.
llBut most important is their pro-active involvement in offsite and on site emergency planning. Of lcourse, on site, meaning dealing with anything particular, at their particular plant facility. Offsite lmeaning, meaning our affected population, our population in our community.
l lWe have exercises on a regular basis and at least one a year. There are minor exercises during lthe course of the year. We are evaluated on, at our agency by Federal Emergency lManagement Agency, for our duties and responsibilities, and how we carry them out, and our lactions for offsite safety for citizens. And basically for Martin County and St. Lucie County, our l
Appendix AMay 2003A-79NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 LD-F-5 LD-G-1evaluations I know of over at least the last sixteen years, have been flawless. And we have lproved that we can help protect the citizens of our counties.
llWe also receive from the State of Florida
's Department of Health and Bureau of Radiation lControl, monitoring tests of radiation levels at locations surrounding the nuclear plant.
lMonitoring and testing include the sampling of air, water, shoreline sediment, fish, crustacea,lbroad leaf vegetation and milk. And these levels have consistently been comparable to those lmeasured throughout the for the past twenty-five years.
llIt is clearly evident that the employees of the St. Lucie Plant are dedicated to making sure the lplant is safe, not only for themselves, but for their families, friends and neighbors. This agency,lthe St. Lucie County Department of Public Safety, supports the license renewal of the St. Lucie lPlant.llThank-you.
l lMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you very much, Mr. Daniels.
l lNext two speakers is Gary Cantrell, who is the Chief Executive Officer of the St. Lucie Medical lCenter, and then we
'll hear from Judi Miller.
llMR. CANTRELL: Good afternoon.
l lMy name is Gary Cantrell. I
'm the CEO of St. Lucie Medical Center, but I
'm here representing lthe Economic Development Council of St. Lucie County. For me, the same reasons that you lheard from everybody else, we also support appeals, license application.
llThe Economic Development Council is very supportive of it, from the standpoint that we need lthe power and we need electricity. Our charge is to help bring industry to the community. We lhave to have a power source when they get here, that
's affordable in our dealings with lcompanies coming from throughout the country and looking at our community, our power rates lare very favorably priced, relative to where they
're coming from.
llSo we're very much in support of renewing their license and support their application.
llMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you, Gary.
l lWe're going to go next to Judi Miller, who
's with the St. Lucie County School Board, and then lwe're going to hear from Florida Power and Light.
llMS. MILLER: Good afternoon.
l l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-80May 2003 LD-H-1 SLD-I-1 I'm Judi Miller for the record. I
'm a member of St. Lucie County School Board and Executive lDirector of Big Brothers, Big Sisters. I
'm here not to speak on behalf of our school board, but to lspeak as an individual, and I am in support of the license renewal.
llI know that you all have heard reports from the safety and environmental impacts this afternoon,lpeople who are far more skilled in those areas than I am.
llI'm here today to speak as somebody who has lived here in this community for thirty years and lseen the kind of partner and good neighbor that FP&L is to our community and our families here.
llAnd I've seen that firsthand, both through the school system and all of the things that FP&L ldoes, from the Energy Encounter, to training kids, to the supplies and materials that they donate,lto the manpower that they donate, to school system committees, to the help, and support, and lresources they provide for community agencies such as Big Brothers, Big Sisters and United lWay, so I truly support the license renewal.
llThank-you.
l lMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you, Judi.
l lNext we're going to hear from Mr. Don Jernigan, who is the Site Vice-President at St. Lucie, and lthen we're going to hear from Tom Abbatiello, who is the environmental lead on the St. Lucie llicense renewal application.
llOkay, Don.
l lMR. JERNIGAN: Good afternoon, and thank-you, Mr. Cameron.
l lMy name is Don Jernigan and I am the Vice-president of Florida Power and Light Company,lSt. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you today about FPL
'slapplication for renewal of the St. Lucie operating licenses. Assisting me today is Tom Abbatiello,lour license renewal project environmental lead, who will also address more specifically, the lfindings contained in the draft supplement Environmental Impact Statement.
llBut I would also like to thank the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for arranging and holding this lmeeting today. FPL strongly supports the openness of this process.
llDuring the last two years, we have been involved in dialogue with the community surrounding lthe St. Lucie Plant. In fact, we have met with more than one thousand home owners, community lgroups and government officials. In those meetings, our purpose was to simply share linformation about what license renewal is about and about our plant operations.
ll Appendix AMay 2003A-81NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 SLD-I-2 SLD-I-3 SLD-I-4We believe that the community answers and priorities should be incorporated, not only into the lrenewal of our St. Lucie Plant operating license, but also into our overall plant operations.
lCommunity input is an integral part of the license renewal process.
llThe application that we have prepared consists of two parts, as was discussed earlier today, a lsafety analysis and an environment report. The application has been open to public review for lsome time and the NRC has requested on several occasions, comments from interested parties.
l lJust as this process has been open in reviewing the environmental aspects of license renewal,lthe safety analysis is also following a parallel path. There are open public meetings and the lNRC is going through an intensive review of plant systems to ensure the safe operation of the lpower plant for an additional twenty years.
llA public meeting on the scoping of the NRC
's environmental review over license renewal lapplication was held here in this very room last April of this year. Today
's meeting continues lthat open process of seeking public input on license renewal.
llWe welcome this opportunity to gain additional community input on the environmental aspects of lour license renewal.
llI'd like to particularly thank the members of the community that are here represented today for ltaking time out of your busy schedules to share your views and ideas of this draft report with the lNRC, and I also appreciate the support that has been provided to us by the local communities.
llI'd also like to thank the NRC staff and members of the National Laboratory, their review team, in ltheir work of preparing the supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the St. Lucie llicense renewal. I believe that this report has reflected a comprehensive assessment of the lenvironmental impact of license renewal.
llAs the vice-president of St. Lucie, my first job and my primary focus is the health and safety of lmy family, the St. Lucie employees in this community, and their well being comes before lanything else. And when I look at the evidence as presented in this supplemental Environmental lImpact Statement and other license renewal documents that have been submitted, I
'm assuredlthat the plant
's safety and a positive impact on our environment exists with these reports and lwhat's contained in them.
llI believe the case for continued operation of the St. Lucie Plant is strong. And let me address lwhile I'm here, four areas:
llOne, our plant performance, the economics of the St. Lucie Plant electricity, our environmental lstewardship and community presence.
ll Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-82May 2003 LD-I-5 LD-I-6 SLD-I-7 SLD-I-8 SLD-I-9 SLD-I-10First, the performance of our power plant is top notch, thanks to our employees, which we
've gotla couple here in the audience today. Their time, their effort, their dedication have resulted in lSt. Lucie consistently being recognized as one of the safest and most reliable, and most efficient lplants in the United States. Our employees have worked diligently through effective lmaintenance programs to sustain the option for continued plant operation well beyond the initial lfour year license.
llNot only does the NRC monitor our performance, but there are other independent agencies that lhave also agreed that our operations are safe and they have no adverse impacts on the lsurrounding community. This includes the State of Florida
's Department of Health, which lconducts monitoring and sampling for the area around the St. Lucie Plant.
llAnother fact to consider is our ability to help meet Florida
's energy needs. As we
've stated,lFlorida is growing two percent a year and the St. Lucie Power Plant can help sustain the leconomic growth and maintain our quality of life.
llThis power plant is strategically located within the FPL generating system. And the St. Lucie lPlant is among the lowest cost of electricity within the FPL system. So we help keep the electric lbill low, and that
's good news for our customers.
llAnd from an environmental standpoint, the St. Lucie Plant remains a guardian of our
's naturallresources. Our outstanding sea turtle programs are recognized throughout the this year by the lGovernor. And in addition, we can continue to produce clean electricity without air pollution or lgreenhouse gases.
llFinally, what does St. Lucie mean to our community? Well, we
've asked our neighbors and lthey've told us that we
're an important economic factor in this community, one that they want to lsee remain as a viable contributor. The payroll for around eight hundred employees, the tax ldollars, the property taxes, the purchases, the contributions to the local United Way agencies lhelp in this area.
llBut more importantly is a role that the people at the power plant have played in this community.
lOur employees are active in their churches, and scout organizations, and PTAs, and Little lLeagues, and even in local government.
l lAnd as a testimony to our community role, many members of the local community have spoken lhere today and have spoken here in this very room in April
's public scoping meeting on the lenvironment review of our license renewal application.
llIn summary, I believe that the reviewing of the licenses of the Florida Power and Light St. Lucie lNuclear Power Plant is in the best interests of our community in continuing to provide safe,lclean, reliable, low cost electricity to our customers.
l Appendix AMay 2003A-83NUREG-1437, Supplement 11SLD-J-1SLD-J-2SLD-J-3SLD-J-4What I'd like to do is ask our license renewal project environmental lead, Tom Abbatiello, to give la little bit more detail on the FPL license renewal efforts and a little comment on the Draft lEnvironmental Impact Statement.
llTom?l lMR. ABBATIELLO: Thanks, Don.
l lGood afternoon everyone. It
's an honor to be here today to share my thoughts with you about lthe supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the St. Lucie license renewal.
llAs Don said, my name is Tom Abbatiello and I am the environmental lead for the St. Lucie llicense renewal project.
llThe supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the St. Lucie license renewal provides a lthorough examination of ninety-two environmental issues addressed in the regulations. This lvery broad approach has been thoughtfully designed and is intended to cover the wide spectrum lof issues that might be raised by members of the public for governmental review agencies.
llThe supplemental Environmental Impact Statement concludes that the environmental impacts lfrom operating St. Lucie for an additional twenty years, would be small. This conclusion is lbased on the detailed analysis of the impact areas. I agree with this conclusion. It is the same lconclusion that was made in FPL
's environmental report prepared as a part of our application.
llBut another reason I believe that St. Lucie should operate for an additional twenty years, is to be lable to continue the award winning conservation work that was initiated almost twenty years ago.
llFPL is proud of the work we do to preserve and protect the environment. We believe in our lresponsibility to operate in harmony with the environment. St. Lucie
's unique location lsuccessfully combines modern technology with a strong environmental commitment.
llAs Don alluded to in his talk on October 8th of this year, Governor Bush and the Florida Cabinet lpresented FPL with a 2002 Council for Sustainable Florida Environmental Award.
llThis award, which is on display out in the foyer, recognizes FPL
's program at the St. Lucie Plant lfor the preservation and education on endangered sea turtles. The sea turtle protection and lpreservation program will continue during the license extension period.
llThe renewal of the St. Lucie licenses is important in meeting the energy needs of South Florida.
lAs been stated already in this meeting, our growth rate is about two percent a year and the lelectricity being consumed per customer is also increasing.
l l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-84May 2003SLD-J-5 SLD-K-1 SLD-K-2 SLD-K-3 SLD-K-4Because of this increasing demand, FPL must plan and provide power plants to assure an lample supply of electricity. And to that end, a robust network of generation is best sustained by lthe use of diverse fuels.
llThe review of the St. Lucie operating
- the renewal of the St. Lucie operating licenses permits lFPL to continue to provide over 1700 megawatts of environmentally clean and low cost lgenerating capacity, free from dependence on foreign oil.
llThe St. Lucie employees want to remain a part of this community. As your neighbors, safe and lreliable operation of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant is our top priority. We believe license renewal lmakes good sense. It makes good business sense for both FPL and its customers. And in light lof the current situation in the world, we also believe that it is the right thing to do for our country.
llThank-you.
l lMR. CAMERON: Thank-you, Tom and Don Jernigan.
l lWe're going to hear from Jim Vojcsik now, from United Way of Martin County. And then we're lgoing to hear from Arlease Hall, and then go to Frank Leslie, Bill Raatz and Ralph DeCristofaro.
llMR. VOJCSIK: Good afternoon.
l lMy name is Jim Vojcsik and I am the Executive Director of the United Way of Martin County. My lwife, Donna and I, and our two children have lived in this area since 1999, and we care about lthe quality of life, about the safety and about the environmental health of our community.
l lI would like to add my voice to those today, who are supporting the license renewal for Florida lPower and Light St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant.
llAs has been stated, demands for energy in our communities on the Treasure Coast are growing lannually and we need power from this plant to meet the growing needs for low cost electricity.
lFlorida Power and Light has a good track record of not only providing the power we need, but loperating this plant safely and protecting the environment.
llAs one of the largest employers in our area, the St. Lucie Power Plant is important to our local leconomy. A business of this size would be very difficult to replace.
llThe St. Lucie Power Plant is a good neighbor. I know personally, several of the employees at lthe plant, who donate their time and their money to making our communities better places to llive. They contribute hundreds of thousand of dollars and volunteer hours each year to lcharitable organizations on the Treasure Coast, including the United Way, and are making a lhuge difference in our communities.
l Appendix AMay 2003A-85NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 SLD-L-1 SLD-L-2 SLD-L-3 SLD-L-4 SLD-L-5For all the reasons I mentioned, we should renew the license of the St. Lucie Power Plant for ltwenty more years.
llThank-you.
l lMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you, Mr. Vojcsik.
l lArlease Hall.
l lMS. HALL: Good afternoon.
l lMy name is Arlease Hall and I
'm back again. Again, it was my decision to support the license lrenewal of the St. Lucie Plant today and there are a myriad of reasons as to why the plant lshould continue to operate.
llSome folks, a lot of folks have come before me today, to reiterate the reasons why they support lFlorida Power and Light. Why? Because the St. Lucie Plant is important to the community. The lSt. Lucie Plant benefits our local economy tremendously. The St. Lucie Plant has been an lexcellent partner and neighbor, be it community or in business. The St. Lucie has contentious,ldedicated and well trained employees.
l lAnd what comes to mind to me sometimes, when I'm going to some QIQA
- another acronym
- lbut when you're looking at all of the power points, Florida Power and Light comes up, as being lone of those organizations that first implemented in being on line with QI in sterling criteria.
llThe St. Lucie Plant has been and has a good environmental record. The St. Lucie employees lmake our community a better place to live because of their safety record, and that's what's so lvitally important to me, the safety record. Because all those well trained individuals that lmeticulously
- they meet the performance standards set at the highest of quality levels daily.
llI feel very strongly about the things that I say to you this afternoon, because I work here and the lemployees live in this community. They are dedicated to making certain that the plant is safe,lnot only for themselves, but for their families, friends and us, because we are their neighbors.
l lSt. Lucie's safety inspection record has been rated as one of the most reliable nuclear power lplants, not only of the U.S., but in the world. I strongly believe that the St. Lucie Power Plant has la proven safety record and one with which the employees can continue to build on in the future.
l lI definitely support and again certainly speak for my friends and neighbors for the license lrenewal of the St. Lucie Plant, so let's keep it operating again for the next twenty years.
llThank-you.
l Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-86May 2003SLD-M-1SLD-M-3SLD-M-4SLD-M-5MR. CAMERON: Okay. And thank-you, Arlease, for those comments.
llWe're going to hear from Frank Leslie next and we
're going to go to Bill Raatz, and Ralph lDeCristofaro.
llFrank?l lMR. LESLIE: Good afternoon.
l lI'm interested in renewable energy in particular, and so I
'm somewhat focused on that. I did lread the SEIS, Supplement 11 and found it very interesting. And I especially commend that lwriters of that report for doing such a good job in the field of alternative energy.
llThere is a great difficulty within Florida to find a replacement source of energy, something that is lcleaner or better in some sense than the exiting nuclear power plant. I look at that from the lstandpoint that if this plant were to be replaced with the coal brought in by rail car, would it be oil,lwhich we certainly should save for transportation aspects, or would it be natural gas, which has la limitation itself.
l lThere are difficulties with wind and solar. It
's a very diffuse energy, as opposed to fuels. And as lsuch, I tend to look at that as something that will become much more of use in other areas of the lnation. It
's not only the resource of wind and solar, but also the economics of the situation.
llFlorida enjoys relatively low costs for kilowatt hour, whereas other s, which do have wind and lsolar, may have very high costs. And that is an offsetting factor in installing wind turbines or lsolar module farms.
l lThere are many aspects of solar and wind energy within Florida. It was alleged to be the lsunshine back in the twenties, but in fact, the amount of energy that we receive from the sun is lroughly about the same as in Wyoming. Unfortunately, in my way of thinking, Arizona should be lthe sunshine.
llSunshine is, of course, limited here by cloud banks coming in with the sea breeze. Solar energy lis blocked by these clouds. And so we only get about roughly 4.7 hours0.292 days <br />0.0417 weeks <br />0.00959 months <br /> per day of effective lsolar energy. It
's similar, very similar with wind energy.
llThere are frontal storms that come in from the northwest. We see those periodically for five day lperiods. But in terms of the sea breeze energy, it begins roughly about nine o
'clock, dies out labout five, five p.m. And as such, it may have some future as a peeking energy reduction.
ll Appendix AMay 2003A-87NUREG-1437, Supplement 11SLD-M-2 I'm not here to represent Florida Institute of Technology, but I
'll be teaching a renewable energy lcourse there. And we presently have an extremely small DOE grant to study wind and solar lunder sea breeze conditions. So we
're looking to establish what that is.
llMany years ago, the PNNL created a very extensive wind energy atlas, and they
're fairly large lsquares if you will, or rectangles in partial degrees of latitude and longitude, to which numbers lwere assigned. Those were based on existing airport weather station information and as such,lthey did a good job in covering the entire country with not only a wide view S map, but individual lmaps for the various s.
llWithin Florida we have the lowest level in the interior of the , Class 1 level, and we have Class 2 lin the coastal regions, purely because of that on shore breeze and winds there coming from lstorms offshore. That makes it very difficult. You can put the two of them together in a hybrid lsystem, but it
's a very small amount of energy in comparison with large base load plants,lwhether they
're coal, or oil, or natural gas fire, or whether they are nuclear.
llSo that puts Florida in a difficult situation. Their primary source of alternative energy would be lbio mass combustion. That requires large land areas, harvesting, transporting, processing, and lwhen you burn it, you get a little less CO2 out than you do with the fossil fuels, but it
's still allimitation.
llAnd so, in looking at the work that has been done within Supplement 11, the comparison of lsmall, moderate and large impacts on the environment, it appears to me that the nuclear option lis the best way to continue and I
'm supporting that.
llThank-you.
l lMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you, Frank, for that information on alternatives.
l lAnd let's now go to Bill Raatz.
llMR. RAATZ: Hello, my name is Bill Raatz. I don
't represent any group. I
'm just a concerned lcitizen and a resident of Port St. Lucie.
llI live approximately, well, within a radius of approximately two miles of the nuclear facilities.
l lAnd just found out about this forum yesterday and I felt compelled to come here and I didn
'tlanticipate speaking, I
'm not a public speaker. I feel very anxious about doing this, but I feel this lis too important an issue to just leave to the experts and to the vested interests that are lobviously represented here.
ll Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-88May 2003 LD-N-4SLD-N-5SLD-N-1 LD-N-2 LD-N-3And I think, like a lot of people, I presumed until fairly recently, that nuclear power was going to lbe phased out in this country, that there are too many problems with it, things that have been lraised by a lot of people. Just, you know, stressed facilities, disposal of nuclear waste, nuclear laccidents. Most recently there
's concern about terrorist threats and how that affects nuclear lfacilities. And so, you know, I was, like everyone else, concerned about that.
llAnd one thing I also want to mention, I used to live in Detroit and I had a cottage in Canada on lLake Erie, and from my
- I could look out across Lake Erie and see the Davis Besse facility in lOhio. And there were
- and I always thought like, jeez, what would happen to the Great Lakes lsystem if that facility or Fermi 1 or 2 had an accident, you know, would that totally destroy or lobliterate the Great Lakes water system. And there were, I know that there were periodic ldischarges of radioactive water into Lake Erie. And I remember, you know, there were always lthese reassurances that that's no concern to the human population.
llBut I, you know, when I would see hundreds of dead fish wash up on my beach right after that, I lwas not reassured. And then just recently, you know, we've heard about, you know, problems lwith that facility in Ohio.
l lI'm sorry if I'm rambling here, but as I said, I just hastily scribbled a few things down here. As I lindicated in my question, if Florida Power and Light is given this mandate to continue to operate lthe older facility for thirty-four years, forty-one years for the newer facility, what inducement,lwhat incentive, impetus is there for them to ever seriously consider any other alternatives to lnuclear energy, safer alternatives, renewable sources of energy.
l lSo I guess I would have to be some of these
- maybe the sole person here who is opposed to lan extension of the operating license. I think it's premature that we should focus on looking at lalternatives, and I know that's not the, consistent with the national energy policy, which I believe lis just - our government is just manipulating public fears about energy shortage in the future, so lI know that's not consistent with our national, current national energy policy, but I think we lshould focus on looking at those alternatives. And also, a real
- make a real effort at lconservation education and, instead of wasting energy like we do.
llI guess that's about all I have to say. Thank-you very much.
l lMR. CAMERON: And thank-you, Bill, for taking the time to come to the meeting and also to talk.
l lAnd Mr. DeCristofaro, do you want to come up here?
l lAll right.
l lMR. DE CRISTOFARO: Okay, my name is Ralph DeCristofaro and I'm just basically a lconcerned citizen and I'm a resident of the area.
l Appendix AMay 2003A-89NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 SLD-O-1 SLD-P-1I have a very short statement. This may or may not be the right forum for it, but I
'd like to get it lon the record.
llMy concern is one of safety. It
's not so much of an internal accident that may occur, but lsomething that was thrust upon us on 9/11/2001, by a real threat of terrorism, okay?
llI know I'm not alone on this, but my concern is that of a terrorist attack on any nuclear plant,lwhether it's a
- in the same way that they did with the Twin Towers in New York City. I really, I lguess what I'm looking for is reassurance that everything is being done for everyone's safety,lrelating to this.
llAgain, this may be the wrong forum, but I just wanted to get my thought on record. I thank you.
l lMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you very much.
l lNext we're going to hear from Betty Lou Wells and then Havert Fenn.
l lBetty Lou?
l lMS. WELLS: For a while there I was afraid I was going to be the only Grinch in the crowd, but it lseems like I have one or two similarly minded people.
llMy name is Betty Lou Wells. I reside at 1124 Jesmine Avenue, in Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County,lFlorida 34982.
llOver thirty years ago, I was a member of three community organizations, which attended NRC lpublic hearings on Florida Power and Light's request to build a nuclear power plant now known las St. Lucie 1, and followed by St. Lucie 2.
l lThe three organization were the League of Women Voters of St. Lucie County, the Conservation lAlliance of St. Lucie County, and CURE.
llAs a result of gathering and studying handouts presented at these first hearings, members of lthe League requested and received additional information from NRC, Florida Power and Light,land national organizations devoted to studying nuclear power. These materials were shared lwith the Conservation Alliance and a new group of Martin and St. Lucie County residents called lCitizens United Against a Radioactive Environment, or CURE.
l lAnd let me insert here that I probably agree with practically all of the positive statements that lwere made by various people who spoke before me today, that Florida Power and Light has lbeen a good neighbor, and they certainly contributed to the economy of the county, but today lfacts relevant to an extension of St. Lucie 1 and 2's operating licenses from thirty to fifty years
-l Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-90May 2003 SLD-P-2 SLD-P-3 SLD-P-4and by the way, I'm confused. Is it thirty years and if so, wouldn't that cut
- wouldn't that be l2006, and I've heard the figure 2016 as the cutoff of the thirty year?
llMR. CAMERON: Mike?
l lDR. MASNIK: Mike Masnik, NRC.
l lThe - it's forty year
- they have a forty year operating license, which will end on 2016. And what lthe licensee is requesting is an additional twenty years beyond 2016.
llMS. WELLS: Okay. So I realize that some of the things I'm preparing to say are not accurate. I lhad been under the impression all these years that we had a thirty year operating license for lthese two plants. So you're going to have to subtract or add ten years here somewhere.
l lThere are questions from those first hearings that I think need to be revisited. Please overlook lor point out any misuse of terms in my comments. I've been out of this loop for quite a while.
llI thank the Commission for its greatly expanded inclusion of questions and comments from the lpublic, and hope you will be tolerant of those of us who are concerned citizens, but not as lknowledgeable in the subject of nuclear power as we would like to be.
l lThese are the questions that I have already given to your staff and which I hope you will be able lto answer for us today.
ll1) Nuclear waste, particularly long lived spent fuel rods was to be removed within a reasonable ltime by the Federal Government, therefore, the subject of nuclear waste was labeled generic land could not be discussed in hearings for individual plants. However, instead of their being lremoved, more spent fuel rods than had been planned to be contained on site, have been lplaced closer together in the cooling pool than was originally thought to be prudent. Thirty years llater, there is still no time set for removal of these wastes from our county.
llShould setting a date for beginning to remove wastes be a condition for approval of adding ltwenty years of producing radioactive waste?
ll2) Citizens were told that an operating license would be limited to thirty years, because the lmetal end of their containers was expected to become brittle by forty years use and to crack.
llWhat new studies prove otherwise?
l l3) First hearings predicted no population growth on Hutchinson Island near the plant.
lPopulation on Hutchinson Island was zero at the time. Now that many high rises, holding many lpeople, exist south of the plant, what different plan for population evacuation in case of severe l
Appendix AMay 2003A-91NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 SLD-P-5 SLD-P-6 SLD-P-7 SLD-P-8 SLD-P-9accident should be established, or additional traffic lanes or people transporters for evacuation lindicated by current and expected population?
ll4) What class of individuals, what age, weight, sex or other attributes, working or living no more lthan seven miles from the plant, has been determined to be the most vulnerable to so-called lnormal plant radiation emissions?
l lWhat is the difference between the population living within a fifty mile radius of the site in the lyear 2000, and when the plants began operation, and what was the fifty mile radius population lpredicted for the year 2000, at the time of the first hearings?
l lThey say you should never ask a question you don
't know the answer to, and I don
't know the lanswer to that when it
's been a while and I know it
's a matter of record, but I am raising it at this lpoint.ll5) At the thirty year ago public hearings, concern was expressed over studies which showed the llikelihood of a high concentration of radioactive iodine in the milk of nursing mothers and in milk lgoats living close to the plant, along Indian River Drive. Goats were said to have seven times lthe concentration of that of milk cows.
llHave new studies been done to answer these concerns or have procedures been adopted for lmonitoring and/or notifying lactating women or goat farmers?
ll6) Parents of St. Lucie County children, who seem to have a high incidence of tumors, were lseeking answers a few years ago as to whether there was a nuclear plant emissions connection.
llHave these questions been resolved?
l l7) During the past thirty years, has new equipment for improving nuclear plant safety been ldeveloped, that might not have seemed cost effective to install at St. Lucie 1 or 2 for forty years loperating period, but that should be installed for an additional twenty year operation?
l lAnd the bottom question is, number 8), but perhaps most important, does the predicted long lterm terrorism threat that the Federal Government is planning for, and with nuclear power plants llabeled one of the most likely targets and with St. Lucie Plants vulnerable from air, land and lwater, should St. Lucie 1 and 2 be closed as soon as possible, instead of given an extended llife?l lThank-you.
l l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-92May 2003 SLD-Q-1 SLD-Q-2 SLD-Q-3MR. CAMERON: And thank-you very much for those specific issues, Betty Lou. And the staff lhas informed me that they are going to look at them in the evaluation of comments, but also that lthey're prepared to talk to you about them after the meeting, if you have time.
llAll right. Thank-you.
l lHavert?l lMR. FENN: Thank-you very much.
l lI do not represent any organization. I
'm just a retired senior citizen who
's interested in my lcommunity.
llI have on occasion served in the public in St. Lucie County, first as a City Commission for lFort Pierce and then a County Commissioner for fourteen years, and now I
'm in retirement. I still lhave the interests of St. Lucie County.
llWe've been, my family and I have been in St. Lucie County for over forty years period that Betty lLou Wells was speaking about a moment ago, we were involved in all of that.
llBut we were convinced after a few years that the power plant, Florida Power and Light power lplant was a good entity in our county. Yes, they have questions about the power plant and there lwill always be questions about the power plant. And certainly when we look on TV or we pick up lthe newspaper and see something that has happened at another power plant, such as the lnuclear power plant here, it does give rise to what might happen here.
l lBut I do have a few things that I would like to say relative to why I think the power plant renewal leffort should be given. I
'm not a scientific engineer, so I
'm not going to get into all of these other lthings some of the people can get into.
llSince we are all aware of why we are here, and I hope not be redundant in repeating all of that,lbut some of the good things that you
've said, I
'm saying I give my support to.
llThe - first of all, the importance of the plant to the community. Now, yes, we know that St. Lucie lCounty is one of the fastest growing counties in the State of Florida and maybe the nation, now lthat we have entities coming in that are supplying jobs and, of course, the Florida Power and lLight Company is employing something in the neighborhood of eight hundred to nine hundred lpeople.llI want to stop and have you to recognize that the plant does provide, as far as I'm concerned, a lsafe, clean
- safe and clean electricity. I want you to know that we
- that there are other lsources of electricity in this area, one being the Fort Pierce Utilities Authority Electric Plant, the l
Appendix AMay 2003A-93NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 SLD-Q-4 SLD-Q-6 SLD-Q-7 LD-Q-8 SLD-Q-9other being over on the West Coast of Florida, and there are some others, and I will not belabor lthose. But what I'm saying in the
- wherever we go, we're going to need electricity. It's one of lthe things we, we say now we cannot do without. Before we had it, we didn't know that.
llI understand that the FP&L plant is among the lowest cost producers of electricity and that is lgood, because when the rate for electricity goes up too high, then we will suffer. I would like for lthe St. Lucie Plant to keep electric bills low.
l lIt is my understanding that for more than one reason, that the power plant is here. Someone lwas seeking a better way to provide electricity, other than the coal and the oil that we were living lon at one time. And as a member of this community, I would like to see the power plant lcontinue to be a part of our future. The location of the plant, we cannot do anything about that.
lI think now that we're in a position that we could stop the increased number of units at the plant,lbut so far as doing something about the plants that are already there, I don't believe we will be lable to that.
l lIt has been a good neighbor. I have personally been involved with some of these products that lthe nuclear plant was involved in.
l lAnd you think in terms that someone mentioned a moment ago, about the Little League baseball lteams, yes. You forgot to mention one, the Pop Warner Football League, too. They were linvolved in that. And we did have Mr. Anderson to mention the South County Regional Sports lComplex, which they participated in; the United Way and some of the others that have been lmentioned.
lBut I want you to know from my standpoint, that they, that the power plant and its employees lhave been a good neighbor for us, for me, and as I said, I've been here over forty years.
llMoving right along here, I would like to say that if you cannot live within the realm of this facility,lnot knowing what is to happen, we just pray to God that nothing ever happens. I have been told lby some authoritative sources that the power plant workers are very dedicated persons and well ltrained. I'm going to live on that fact.
llThey have from time to time had electric emergency drills, so that if something is to happen, at lleast we'll have some direction, somewhere to go. Hopefully, as I said, that God forbid or lsomething happening, but I can see now the people over in the central part of the , Wachula,lyou know, Avon Park, Okeechobee and the rest of them, yes, they could look up and see a lwhole lot of people coming, but I pray to God that that will not happen.
l lAnd certainly I don't think any of us want to turn to fossil fuel. I don't believe we do, because you lknow the pollution we talked about that we do not want, that's what we will find.
ll Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-94May 2003 SLD-Q-10SLD-R-1So in my conclusion, I think this nuclear power plant is the best thing for our community lenvironment, as some of you all have been saying. And that as far as I know, it has been a lgood neighbor for the last twenty-five years. And I will support the renewal of the license for the lSt. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant.
llThank-you.
l lMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you, Mr. Fenn.
l lNext, we're going to go to Mark Oncavage, then Lloyd Brumfield, then Jane Rowley and Doug lAnderson.llMR. ONCAVAGE: Thank-you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Mark Oncavage.
l lAt the scoping meeting here in Port St. Lucie on April 3rd, I raised eight public safety issues that lneeded to be included in the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and not even one of those lsafety issues are in this draft study. Apparently some individuals of the NRC have great difficulty lrelating safety and public concerns to their Environmental Impact Statement.
llAlso, I would like someone from the Office of the General Counsel to explain to me exactly lwhich provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act enable the NRC staff to ignore the ltremendously dangerous issues that I raised at the scoping meeting. No matter. There are lforces at work here well beyond the control of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the lnuclear industry.
l l2002 was a bad year. Nuclear industry scandals broke out worldwide. British Nuclear Fuels lLimited is a privately run company that
's owned by the British Government. They reprocess lspent fuel into plutonium and uranium to fuel reactors. They have a sixty billion dollar liability for lthe nuclear waste and contamination problems that they
've created. They
're begging the British lGovernment for money, because technically, they
're bankrupt. Their liabilities far exceed their lassets.llThis company sold a load of reprocessed fuel to Japan. Japan found the fuel to be defective land demanded that the Brits take it back. On its way back, New Zealand and Caribbean Prime lMinisters told the ships to stay out of their waters because of the dangers of terrorist attacks,lcontamination and sinkings.
llMeanwhile, the Irish and Norwegian Governments are complaining to the European Union that lradioactive wastes from this company
's reprocessing plant are contaminating their national lwaters and an accident could kill many of their citizens.
ll Appendix AMay 2003A-95NUREG-1437, Supplement 11The British Government recently deregulated their electricity market. They set up a private lcompany called British Energy and sold it sixteen of the best reactors that they had. Since lstarted deregulation, wholesale electricity prices have dropped thirty percent and now there
's altwenty-two percent over capacity in the system.
llBritish Energy is bankrupt. They
're losing seven and a half million dollars week selling nuclear lgenerated electricity. The government floated them a six hundred million dollar loan. British lEnergy said not enough, so the government raised it to one billion dollars due on November l30th, which was three days ago. British Energy said no, so the due date was moved to March l9th, 2003.
llBritish Energy also asked for an additional three hundred million dollars every year to cover its lwaste and contamination problems. The company
's capitalization value has dropped ninety-two lpercent since it was privatized in 1996. Obviously it
's looking for some new culpable investors.
llThe German Government has promised to close down all their nineteen reactors by the lyear 2020. the Germans are struggling with the problem of storing high level wastes for the next lfew million years. They said they
're going to put it deep below the water table.
llThe United States, at Yucca Mountain is planning to store their high level wastes above the lwater table. The Germans said they
're not going to put it in an earthquake zone or a volcano lzone. Yucca Mountain, our proposed repository, is in an earthquake zone and a volcano zone.
lDo the German scientists know something that we don
't?llThe Swedish Government has promised to close down all their nuclear power reactors. The lRussian Government is down to its last reprocessing plant. It
's the Chelyabinsk region of the lUral Mountains. This plan has suffered three catastrophic nuclear accidents and this lChelyabinsk region is considered to be the most contaminated place on earth, which includes lthe Chernobyl accident area. This plant lacks money as an endanger of precipitating a fourth lcatastrophic accident, when its liquid waste impoundment area bursts its banks, this would ldestroy the Pechora River all the way down to the Arctic Ocean.
llThe French Government is heavily into nuclear electricity. A poll completed this past September lby the French Union for electricity, shows that sixty-one percent of the French people polled,lsaid that they do not favor nuclear electricity, and sixty-two percent of the people said they would lpay higher rates, up to ten percent more, to abandon nuclear electricity altogether.
llThe Japanese nuclear utilities are being rocked by their biggest nuclear power scandal ever. It lseems they
've been falsifying safety inspections for the past twelve years and their reactor lbinding is riddled with cracks. They
've closed down twelve plants and have finally sent in some lhonest inspectors. One of the ways the Japanese Government responded to this crisis, was to lhand the names of the whistle blowers over to the utilities.
l Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-96May 2003SLD-R-2SLD-R-3Because of the safety in corporate government scandal, the Japanese are getting cold feet labout their plutonium fuel program, in which they buy a reprocessed plutonium fuel from British lNuclear Fuels Limited. This British reprocessor, with its sixty billion dollars liability in wastes and lcontamination, its defective fuel and its impending loss of the Japanese fuel contract, still lmanaged to find one million dollars to lobby the Bush administration this election cycle.
llThese international affairs show that nuclear electricity is too dangerous, too expensive, and too lunreliable to have a meaningful future. Now, let
's look at the United States.
llWe all should know that there has not been a new order for a nuclear reactor since Three Mile lIsland Number 2 destroyed itself in 1979. Three Mile Island Number 2 cost seven hundred lmillion dollars to build, but it was only three months old when the accident occurred. It incurred l973 million dollars in cleanup costs and will incur another 433 million dollars in retirement costs.
lThe utility also lost 425 million dollars when it canceled another plant that it was building. That
'slabout two and a half billion dollars up in smoke. The canceled plant was one of ninety-seven lplants that were canceled from this era.
llAnother debacle was the Shoreham plant on Long Island outside New York City. The plant was lbuilt for five billion dollars and never produced a single watt of electricity. It was deemed too ldangerous to operate, since the vast number of people living nearby could not be evacuated in lan accident. The State of New York bought in from Long Island Light Company just to tear it ldown.l lWashington Public Power Supply System wanted to build five reactors. When the cost lestimates reached 24 billion dollars, it defaulted on 2 1/4 billion dollars of municipal bonds, the llargest municipal bond default in history. Is there any question why the investment houses on lWall Street refuse to finance nuclear power plants?
llFlorida Power and Light recently purchased a controlling interest in Seabrook Number 1. They lpaid about fifteen cents on a dollar of the original plant cost of six billion dollars.
llPilgrim Reactor in Boston sold for a reported 50 million dollars. Three Mile Island Unit 1, the lundamaged one, sold for a reported 100 million dollars, but the fuel at the plant was valued at l77 million dollars, so the plant was only worth 23 million dollars, less than ten cents on a dollar.
lThis sounds like an industry in deep despair, because these are speculative prices.
llIn March of 2001, cracks started being seen around the control rod drive mechanisms at the top lof some reactor pressure vessels. The NRC knew it had problems with cracks, with boric acid loozing out and with corrosion. Instead of calling for immediate safety inspections, it delayed the linspections order until December 31st.
ll Appendix AMay 2003A-97NUREG-1437, Supplement 11SLD-R-4One troublesome reactor, Davis Besse, near Toledo, Ohio, wanted more delays. So rather than limpede plant revenues, the NRC delayed the safety inspections again. When the inspection lwas finally done in March of this past year, a hole about as big as a football, was discovered in lthe reactor lid. Only a thin piece of stainless steel cladding kept the reactor contents from lblowing out the corrosion hole. That whole affair was mismanaged by the NRC, who truly lendangered the public by putting utility revenues before safety.
llThe nuclear industry may point to the congressional designation of Yucca Mountain as the lrepository site for high level waste as a victory. The costs for this facility will be staggering.
lHere's a quotation from Congresswoman Shelley Berkley, speaking before the House of lRepresentatives, and I quote:
ll"The projected cost of this boondoggle is anywhere from 56 billion dollars to 309 billion dollars.
lThe Nuclear Waste Fund has 11 billion dollars. How are we going to pay for this, raise taxes,ldip into the Social Security Trust Fund? And once Yucca Mountain is full, then what do we do?
lAfter spending hundreds of billions of dollars, we will still be exactly where we are today."llThank-you for your time.
l lMR. CAMERON: Thank-you for that perspective, Mark.
l lWe're next going to Mr. Brumfield.
llMR. BRUMFIELD: Lloyd Brumfield. That
's really a hard act to follow.
llI'd say my name
's Lloyd Brumfield but right now it
's really Ebenezer Scrooge. And then I
'd saylI'm really Jekyll and Hyde, especially when it comes to energy and electricity, nuclear energy.
lAnd I say to myself, you know, I
'm not really the average person. I
'm different than the average lperson. I think on this subject, I
'm more average than the average.
llNuclear energy, even any kind of electric power today, is an emotional thing with me. I mean I lfinally will admit that. I was a teenage soldier, who went into Japan as an occupation troop,lrather than an invasion troop, because of the A bombs. And that time I'm, I'm really
- you know,lafter that, I panicked for the A bomb. Nuclear fission. And then when, early '50's, when the lSoviet Union had got it, I got shaky. Then, when it started advertising that nuclear power would lbe too cheap to meet her, and it took one up again, far as I can tell, it's probably the most lexpensive of all power.
llBut let me talk about these split personalities or multiple personalities of mine. Anytime I can ldrive by a power plant, I no longer look at it as an economic, or a practical, or comfort of living,leven though I really get aggravated when I can't turn on the light, run my computer, use my drill,l Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-98May 2003 SLD-S-1 SLD-S-2 SLD-S-3 SLD-S-4 LD-S-5I want to use electricity. But when I go by a power plant, nuclear power plant, I get the willies a llittle bit, just looking at it. Maybe that
's not the way it ought to be, but that
's the way it is.
llBut what about these coal fire plants? Well, I
've got a real problem there. I came from the coal lmine country. Members of my family today are in coal mines. I have a nephew that
's inlmanagement in a coal mine. And yet coal, from all indications, is the cause of much of the lpollution around the United States in power plants and factories. Gas is a little bit
- petroleum is la little bit better. Not as much as it claim, and gas probably is still a little bit better, but they're all lfuels that pollute badly.
llAnd what am I saying? You know, I really wish that nuclear power could work, but I don't believe lit's working, for the very reasons that I get the willies when I drive by the power plant over on lHutchinson Island. And I hear people say, gosh, that's a bad looking thing to me.
l lAnd then when I drive by a coal fire plant, I think one of the very dozens down in Riviera Beach lor somewhere, we, we've got a problem. I'm talking to you about the industry altogether.
llNow I have one real problem with this power plant, as I do with any. As I understand it, the lspent fuel from day one is still there, in the water or sump, and that's bothered me even before lSeptember the 11th.
l lAnd I do know that Yucca Mountain is a national political problem. But what even worries me ltoday and I said it earlier, I've lost a lot of confidence in Federal agencies monitoring and lpolicing. And the trend in Washington today is you do less of it, considerably less.
l lMost of the people here today are technicians, engineers, people who have been involved in it.
lBut I still think the average citizen is as paranoid as I am. We want the electricity. We don't like lthe pollution and the nuclear power plants scare us. And you folks that have all of this know-lhow probably can help us. But I still say what I said earlier, I notice you've got a little bit of lconservation as a last item on your handout. Just a little bit, some after-thought. I'd really like to lsee you move it up to the first item.
llThank-you.
l lMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you, Mr. Brumfield.
l lCould we have Jane Rowley, and then we'll go to Doug Anderson.
l lMS. ROWLEY: Well, I'm last, but not least, 'cause Doug Anderson went first.
l lMR. CAMERON: We're going to do this all again?
l l
Appendix AMay 2003A-99NUREG-1437, Supplement 11SLD-T-2SLD-T-1MS. ROWLEY: That
's it. See that? No, I can
't do that. I have a board meeting to go tonight.
llMR. CAMERON: Okay.
l lMS. ROWLEY: I am Jane Rowley. Whoops, excuse me. I really didn't
- I don't think I need a lmicrophone.
ll(Laughter.)
l lMS. ROWLEY: My husband told me that he can hear me in a room with three hundred people land I'm whispering, so it's a real problem in my life.
llI'm Jane Rowley and I'm the Director of Community Relations for St. Lucie West Development lCorporation. We're developers in St. Lucie County and throughout the State of Florida.
llMy remarks are simple. I'm a lay person. I pull the switch and I want my lights to go on, I want lmy computer to go on, and I want my well water to go on. I've been a resident of the City of Port lSt. Lucie for twenty-five years. I'm a former City Councilwoman for the City of Port St. Lucie.
lVery active in the community.
llI can't worry about what's going to happen all over the world, all over the United States, but I lknow FP&L here and our power plant, they look after our safety. They're good community lpartners, very active. Their employees are very active. Their management is very active.
lThey've been involved in so many aspects of St. Lucie County and the counties around us.
lThey're good community partners.
l lI feel it's very important that they approve the operating license for the St. Lucie Power Plant.
l lThank-you very much.
l lMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you, Jane.
l lAnd I think Jane is correct. She is the last speaker today.
l lAnd I'm going to turn this over to John Tappert in a minute to just close this off for this afternoon lsession, but I just want to remind people that we do have a lot of NRC staff here, a lot of experts lwho are helping us with this project. Take some time to talk to them after the meeting. We do lhave a representative of our Office of General Counsel here, as well as regional staff.
llAnd one person I did want to recognize, because of him
- NRC's presence the community and lat a particular plant is Thierry Ross, who's our senior resident here at St. Lucie and lives in the lcommunity, and looks after NRC's responsibilities on a day to day basis at the plant.
l Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-100May 2003And, John, do you want to say some final words?
llMR. TAPPERT: I just want to thank everyone for coming out and taking time out of their day to lcome out here today.
llChip does these meetings for us all over the country and this may be the most comments we
'velever gotten at one of these forums. So we appreciate your participation and I would encourage lyou to talk to one of the people with a name tag if you
'd like to, if you have some more questions lregarding the relicensing.
llAnd thanks for coming out again.
l l(Whereupon, at 4:30 o
'clock, p.m., the public meeting was adjourned.)
l Appendix AMay 2003A-101NUREG-1437, Supplement 11SLD-U-1Transcript of the Evening Public Meeting on December 3, 2002, in Port St. Lucie, Florida ll[Introduction, Mr. Cameron]
l[Presentation, Mr. Dudley]
l[Presentation, Dr. Masnik]
l[Presentation, Ms. Hickey]
l[Presentation, Dr. Masnik]
llMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you, Mike.
l lWe're going to start off the public comment segment of the meeting by hearing from Florida lPower and Light, and I
'd like to ask Don Jernigan to come up. Don is the site vice-president at lSt. Lucie. And then Tom Abbatiello is going to come up and talk to us, and Tom is the lenvironmental lead on the license renewal application.
llDon?l lMR. JERNIGAN: Thanks, and good evening. And again, thank-you, Mr. Cameron.
l lMy name is Don Jernigan. I
'm the vice-president of Florida Power and Light Company, lSt. Lucie nuclear power plant. I appreciate this opportunity to speak to you today about Florida lPower and Light
's application for renewal of the St. Lucie operating licenses, and assisting me ltonight is Tom Abbatiello, who is our license renewal project environmental lead, who will also laddress more specifically some of the findings contained in the Draft Supplement Environmental lImpact Statement.
llI'd also like to thank the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for arranging and holding this meeting ltoday.llFPL strongly supports the openness of this process, and in fact during the last two years we lhave been involved in dialogue with the community surrounding the St. Lucie plant. In fact, we lhave met with more than one thousand home owners, community groups and government lofficials.
llOur purpose was to simply share information about license renewal and plant operations. We lbelieve that the community interest and the priorities should be incorporated not only into our llicense renewal at the St. Lucie plant, but also into our overall plant operations.
l lCommunity input is an integral part of a license renewal process. The application that we lprepared consists of two parts, as discussed earlier, a safety analysis and an environmental lreport.l l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-102May 2003SLD-U-2SLD-U-3SLD-U-4The application has been open for public review for some time and the NRC has in fact lrequested comments and received comments from interested parties.
llJust as the process has been open in reviewing the environmental aspects of license renewal,lthe safety analysis is also following a parallel path. There are open public meetings and the lNRC is currently going through an intensive review of plant systems to ensure safe operation of lthe plant for an additional twenty years.
llA public meeting on the scoping of the NRC
's environmental review over license renewal lapplication was held here last April in this very room.
llToday's meeting continues that open process of seeking public input on license renewal, and we lwelcome this opportunity to gain additional community input on the environmental aspects of our llicense renewal.
llI want to thank the members of the community that are represented here today for taking time lout of your busy schedule to share your views and ideas of this draft report with the NRC.
lThey're very important. And we appreciate the support that has been provided to us by the local lcommunities.
llI'd also like to thank the NRC staff and members of the National Laboratory Review Team for ltheir work in preparing a Supplement Environmental Impact Statement for St. Lucie license lrenewal.llI believe that the report reflects a comprehensive assessment of the environmental impacts of llicense renewal. And as vice-president of St. Lucie, I want to state that my first and my primary lfocus is the health and safety of my family, my St. Lucie employees and this community, and ltheir well-being comes before anything else.
llWhen I look at the evidence that is presented in this Supplemental Environmental Impact lStatement and the other license renewal documents, I am assured of the plant
's safety and the lpositive impact on our environment. I believe that the case for continued operation of the lSt. Lucie plant is strong.
llLet me address four areas. I want to talk about our performance, the economics of St. Lucie lelectricity, our environmental stewardship and our community presence.
llThe first thing I want to talk about is that the performance of our plant is top notch, thanks to our lemployees, many of whom are actually here in this audience tonight to support this very limportant process. It is their time, their effort, and their dedication that have resulted in making lthe St. Lucie plant consistently recognized as one of the safest and one of the most reliable and lone of the most efficient plants in the United States.
l Appendix AMay 2003A-103NUREG-1437, Supplement 11SLD-U-5SLD-U-6SLD-U-7SLD-U-8SLD-U-9SLD-U-10It is our employees who have worked diligently through effective maintenance programs to lsustain this option for continued plant operation well beyond the forty year license period.
llNot only does the Nuclear Regulatory Commission monitor our performance, but there are other lindependent agencies who also agree that our plant operations are safe and that they have no ladverse impact on the surrounding community. This includes the State of Florida
's Department lof Health, which conducts monitoring and sampling of the areas surrounding the St. Lucie plant.
llAnother important factor to consider in this process is our ability to help meet Florida
's energylneeds. As we have talked about here today, Florida
's electric growth is averaging two percent a lyear. The St. Lucie power plant can help sustain the economic growth of our and maintain our lcurrent quality of life. This plant is strategically located in the FPL generating system.
llThe St. Lucie plant is among the lowest cost producers of electricity in the FPL system. So that lhelps keeps electric bills low, and that
's good news for our customers.
llFrom an environmental standpoint the St. Lucie plant remains a guardian of our natural lresources. Our outstanding sea turtle programs have been recognized throughout the . In fact,lthe Governor has recognized the St. Lucie plant for this environmental stewardship this year.
l lIn addition, we continue to produce clean electricity without air pollution or greenhouse gasses.
l lFinally, what does the St. Lucie plant mean to our community? So we asked our neighbors and lthey told us that we are an important economic factor in this community, one that they want to lsee remain as a viable contributor, payroll for around eight hundred employees, tax dollars,lproperty taxes, purchases, and the contributions to local United Way agencies help in this area.
llBut the most important part, more than the economics, is the role that our employees play in this llocal community. Our employees are active in their churches, in Scout organizations, in PTA
's,lLittle Leagues, Pop Warner football leagues, and even in local government.
llAnd as a testimony to our community role, many members of the local community have spoken lto us in support of the St. Lucie plant, not only this afternoon, but also last April during a public lscoping meeting on the NRC
's environmental review of our license renewal application.
llIn summary, I believe that renewal of the licenses of FPL St. Lucie nuclear power plant is in the lbest interest of our community in continuing to provide safe, clean, reliable and low cost lelectricity to our customers.
l lI would like to ask that our license renewal project environment lead Tom Abbatiello provide lsome additional details on FPL
's license renewal efforts and comments on the Draft lSupplemental Environmental Impact Statement.
l Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-104May 2003 SLD-V-1 SLD-V-2 SLD-V-3 SLD-V-4Tom?llMR. ABBATIELLO: Thanks, Don.
l lGood evening everyone. It
's an honor to be here today to share my thoughts with you about the lSupplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the St. Lucie license renewal.
llAs Don said, my name is Tom Abbatiello and I am the environmental lead for the St. Lucie llicense renewal project.
llThe Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the St. Lucie license renewal provides a lthorough examination of the ninety-two environmental issues addressed in the regulations. This lvery broad approach has been thoughtfully designed and is intended to cover the wide spectrum lof issues that might be raised by members of the public or governmental review agencies.
llThe Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement concludes that the environmental impacts lfrom operating St. Lucie for an additional twenty years would be small. This conclusion is based lon detailed analysis of impact areas.
l lI agree with this conclusion. In fact, it is the same conclusion that was made in FPL
'slenvironmental report which we prepared as a part of our application.
llBut another reason I believe that St. Lucie should operate for an additional twenty years is to be lable to continue the award winning conservation work that was initiated almost twenty years ago.
lFPL is proud of the work we do, preserve and protect the environment. We believe in our lresponsibility to operate in harmony with the environment. St. Lucie
's unique location lsuccessfully combines modern technology with a strong commitment to the environment.
llAs Don alluded to in his talk, on October 8th of this year, Governor Bush and the Florida Cabinet lpresented FPL with a 2002 council for sustainable Florida environmental award. This award,lwhich was on display in the foyer, recognizes FPL
's program at the St. Lucie plant for the lpreservation and education of endangered sea turtles. The sea turtle protection and lpreservation program will continue during the license extension period.
llThe renewal of the St. Lucie licenses is important in meeting the energy needs of South Florida,land as was previously mentioned, we are growing at about two percent a year and electricity lconsumed per customer is also increasing. Because of this increasing demand, FPL must plan land provide power plants to assure ample supply of electricity, and to that end, a robust network lof generation is best sustained by the use of diverse fuels.
l l
Appendix AMay 2003A-105NUREG-1437, Supplement 11 SLD-V-5SLD-W-1SLD-W-2SLD-W-3The renewal of the St. Lucie operating licenses permits FPL to continue to provide over l1700 megawatts of environmentally clean and low cost generating capacity, free from ldependence on foreign oil.
llThe St. Lucie employees want to remain a part of this community. As your neighbors, safe and lreliable operation of the St. Lucie nuclear plant is our top priority. We believe license renewal lmakes good business sense for both FPL and its customers, and in light of the current situation lin the world, we also believe it is the right thing to do for our country.
llThank-you.
l lMR. CAMERON: Thank-you very much, Tom, and thank-you, Don.
l lWe're going to go to Mr. Vince Barry now, who I believe is from Wonderful Wednesday.
llVince?l lMR. BARRY: Good evening.
l lMy name is Vincent Barry. My wife Lorraine and I have lived in Port St. Lucie for fourteen years,lmoving here from Lafayette, Indiana.
llDuring that time we have relied on Florida Power and Light and the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant to lsupply us with low cost, safe and reliable electricity. They have never failed to fulfill that lresponsibility.
l lOver the same period, I have checked the cost of electricity with our growing children living in lseveral other States, and have confirmed that Florida Power and Light and the St. Lucie Nuclear lPlant does indeed have economical rates.
l lWe also have enjoyed great credits, by participating in the Florida Power and Light on-call lprogram. With this program our water heater and our air conditioning system are wired such,lthat during peak loads Florida Power and Light can remotely disrupt our service for short periods lof time. To date, if they have activated the system, we are unaware of it, and it has caused us lno inconvenience.
l lWith regard to safety and reliability, long before coming to Florida I was aware of the excellent lreputation in quality that Florida Power and Light enjoyed and of the high standards they lemployed in their facilities.
l lI have long known of the stringent quality and safety systems demanded and employed by lFlorida Power and Light. However, it was not until my wife and I became involved in Vicky l
Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-106May 2003SLD-W-4SLD-W-5SLD-W-7 SLD-W-8LD-W-9SLD-W-10 Spencer's energy encounters and the Wonderful Wednesday program she administers, did we lrealize that those stringent standards were ratcheted up tenfold at the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant.
llI learned about the safety and the back-up systems, about the detailed procedures for every lprocess that must be followed and how the operators are trained and retrained to follow these lquality and safety procedures to the letter without deviation.
l lThere is no question in my mind that safety is the top priority at the St. Lucie nuclear Plant and ltheir safety record bears this out.
llIn addition to being a reliable supplier of safe, low cost electricity, the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant is a lgood neighbor, contributing aggressively to our local community, both economically and with lcountless civic activities. The plant and its employees are involved in everything, from Little lLeague, to United Way, to Habitat for Humanity, and impacts this community with more than leighty million dollars annually.
l lI recently became aware of the splendid programs that the St. Lucie plant Energy Encounters lProgram conducts. These programs offer hands-on science programs for school, offering free lthree day work shops to teachers for teaching skills and training credits, free science field trips lfor elementary and middle school children, as well as continually donating computers and lsupplies to the local schools.
l lAdding to their economic and civic achievements, the St. Lucie nuclear plant has always lmaintained a strong commitment to the environment. Their emphasis on the South Florida Echo lSystem have resulted in designing and maintaining a facility that compliments a friendly lrelationship of the two.
llThrough the twenty-five year existence of the plant, the State of Florida has monitored the lenvironmental conditions around the St. Lucie nuclear plant. They have continually found both lthe air and the water surrounding the plant meets their standards and those of the Federal lGovernment.
llIn conclusion, the twenty-five year history of the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant has been excellent for lthe community, for the environment and its wildlife, and for the people. We have got something lvery good here and when you have something good you stick with it.
l lFlorida Power and Light and the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant have more than proved they are worthy lto have their license renewed.
llI thank you for allowing me to voice my support for the St. Lucie Nuclear Plant license renewal land for sharing with you my views for that support.
ll Appendix AMay 2003A-107NUREG-1437, Supplement 11SLD-X-1SLD-Y-1MR. CAMERON: Thank-you very much, Mr. Barry.
llNext we're going to go to Mr. Larry Bullington.
llMR. BULLINGTON: Thank- you. I
'd just have some comments that I
'd like to make.
llFirst of all, thank-you to the NRC findings. I
'm a health physics technician at St. Lucie since all lthe way back January 10th of
'83. I have some years of experience.
llBut those that I
'm sitting around, or the reason I
'm here tonight, because they represent IBEW,land present, Rick Curtis, and these are my Union brothers.
llAs has been stated before, the Boy Scouts, Big Brothers, Hospice, United Way, is contributing lfrom these fellows and also many
- in the area, many hours put together for these gentlemen.
llSo I thank you. The ladies and gentlemen here are part of the neighborhood of St. Lucie,lMartin, Okeechobee and Indian County.
llMR. CAMERON: Thank-you, Larry.
l lNext we're going to go to Karen Knapp, United Way.
l lMS. KNAPP: Good evening.
l lMy name is Karen Knapp and I'm the President of the United Way of St. Lucie County, and it is lmy pleasure to speak on behalf of the Florida Power and Light Company, and the people it lemploys, and their relationship with the United Way.
l lThe United Way is the leader in charitable giving. Over the past forty years the local United Way lhas allocated millions of dollars to give to health and human service organizations to help people lin need right here in our community.
l lIn order for us to be successful in accomplishing our goals, we need helping hands, volunteers land the generosity of contributors. Volunteers govern the United Way. They help raise needed lfunds, and the volunteers review all requests for funds and make financial
- or final decisions on lwhere the dollars will do the most good.
llOur volunteers are a vital resource to our organization. For many years now the folks at FP&L lhave played and continue to play and important role in the operation of our United Way. Year lafter year Florida Power and Light, and the IBEW Local 627 supports us by giving of their time land energy.
ll Appendix ANUREG-1437, Supplement 11A-108May 2003 SLD-Z-1FP&L allows their employees to help us in so many ways. They sit on governing boards of the lUnited Way. They allow their employees to become loan executives. They chair our United lWay campaigns. Volunteers help us not only with their own campaign inside the nuclear plant,lbut they also help us conduct many outside throughout the community.
llThese volunteers go above and beyond and they give from the heart. They have never said no lto a request for help from the United Way, whether it be constructive huge goal signs in the lcommunity or sitting on decision-making panels. The company and its employees are dedicated lto improving the quality of life for those less fortunate in our community.
llThey have proven themselves to be good citizens of this community, the true friend to United lWay and an asset to our entire community and I would like just to take this opportunity to thank lMr. Jernigan and the employees here present for all that they do for the United Way.
l lMR. CAMERON: Okay, thank-you, Karen.
l lI believe that
's the last speaker that we had signed up.
llBefore we close, does anybody else have anything to say or any issues we can clear up for you?
lAny questions?
llYes, sir?l lAnd just please give us your name for the transcript.
l lMR. BOGACKI: My name is Charles Bogacki, and just to stay on the topic of environmental limpact, I just want to let you know the posted radioactive material settlement pond that is on the lFP&L site outside of the radiation control area
- and FP&L is doing a great job on the St. Lucie lsite - but I would like to see the settlement pond that is open to all the wildlife, have some lattention to make this settlement pond de-posted as radioactive material area that is open to the lwildlife, and adhere to the environmental issues that may impact that.
llMR. CAMERON: Okay. Thank-you, and if the NRC staff needs to clarify anything about that,lthey'll talk to you after the meeting, okay, just to make sure that we understand everything that lyou're saying on that.
l lAnybody else have a question or comment that they want to make before we close for tonight?
l l(No response.)
l lMR. CAMERON: I would just thank all of you for taking the time to be with us tonight and giving lus your comments.
l Appendix AMay 2003A-109NUREG-1437, Supplement 11Anybody?ll(No response.)
l lMR. CAMERON: All right. I
'm going to ask John Tappert, who
's our senior person here, to just lclose the meeting for us.
llJohn?l lMR. TAPPERT: Thanks again for coming. We appreciate all the comments that you gave us.
lThe NRC staff will remain after the meeting if you have any additional questions or comments.
llThank-you.
l l(Whereupon, at 8:55 o
'clock, p.m., the public meeting was adjourned.)
ll