Text

Official Exhibit - FPL-035-00-BD01 - Turkey Point Units 3&4 Uprate Site Certification Application, Chapter 5 and Appendix 10.6 Cooling Canal System Modeling Report (January 13, 2008)
	ML16015A199
Person / Time
Site:	Turkey Point
Issue date:	01/13/2008
From:	; Florida Power & Light Co
To:	; Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel
	SECY RAS
References
	50-250-LA, 50-251-LA, ASLBP 15-935-02-LA-BD01, RAS 28505
	Download: ML16015A199 (44)
	v • d • e

TURKEY POINT UPRATE PROJECT SITE CERTIFICATION APPLICATION JANUARY 2008 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission Official Hearing Exhibit In the Matter of:

FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY (Turkey Point Nuclear Generating, Units 3 and 4)

ASLBP #: 15-935-02-LA-BD01 Docket #: 05000250 & 05000251 Exhibit #:

Identified:

Admitted:

Withdrawn:

Rejected:

Stricken:

Other:

FPL-035-00-BD01 1/4/2016 1/4/2016 FPL-035

January 2008 5-1 0738-7685 PTN 5.0 EFFECTS OF PLANT OPERATION The purpose of this chapter is to describe the environmental effects of operation of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 following completion of the Project.

5.1 Effects of the Operation of the Heat Dissipation System The Turkey Point Plant (Units 1-5) does not have an intake that withdraws from, nor a discharge into, surface waters of the U.S. or waters of the state. Therefore, no 316 demonstrations were required historically, and none are required for the uprated facility.

5.1.1 Temperature Effect on Receiving Body of Water The Turkey Point cooling canal system is a permitted wastewater treatment facility (see the FDEP Industrial Wastewater Facility Permit (NPDES/IWWF Permit) in Appendix 10.4); therefore state and federal water quality standards do not apply within it. Although the cooling canal system is not a receiving body of water in a regulatory sense, temperature effects within the system are described in this section because it is a refuge for the threatened (federal) / endangered (State) American Crocodile.

The expected changes in water temperatures within the cooling canal system are described in Subsection 3.5.1, and portrayed in Figures 3.5.1-1 and 3.5.1-2. Details of the analysis performed to predict these temperature changes are presented in Appendix 10.6. The maximum predicted monthly water temperature increase due to the uprate is about 2.5°F, an increase from 106.1 to 108.6°F, for heated water entering the cooling canal system. The associated maximum increase in the temperature of cooled water leaving the cooling canal system to return to the units is about 0.9°F, from 91.9 to 92.8°F. These changes are insignificant relative to the existing seasonal changes of up to 20°F between seasons at any given location in the system.

5.1.2 Effects on Aquatic Life 5.1.2.1 Impingement and Entrainment Effects The cooling canal system has no intake in waters of the U.S.; therefore, withdrawals of cooling water from the system will continue to have no impingement or entrainment effects. The Project will not result in increased effects on aquatic life.

January 2008 5-2 0738-7685 PTN 5.1.2.2 Effects of Increased Water Temperature on Marine Biota Effects of operation of the Project upon aquatic biota in the closed cooling canal system are expected to be negligible. The maximum predicted water temperature increase of approximately 2.5°F (1.4°C) for water entering the canal system and 0.9°F (0.5°C) for water exiting the system is not anticipated to result in any adverse impacts to the listed American crocodile.

At the Turkey Point Plant, cooling water is discharged into the northeast corner of the cooling canal system and flows south in the 38 westernmost cooling canals, resulting in a north-south temperature gradient in that portion of the system (Gaby et al., 1985). Cooling water is then routed northward through the seven eastern cooling canals and returned to the Units (see Figure 2.3.4-3).

The growth rate of crocodiles varies with food availability and temperature, and digestion is only efficient within a certain range of body temperatures. In ectothermic vertebrates, such as crocodiles, digestion is accelerated as temperature increases. Increased digestive efficiency results in greater energy assimilation for expenditure on maintenance, growth, and reproduction (Lang, 1979).

Crocodiles are able to regulate body temperature through basking on the edge of canals or on berms, resting within burrows, or alternating location within cooler/warmer canals. The maximum temperature increase resulting from the Project (2.5°C) is unlikely to result in any significant impact to crocodiles ability to thermoregulate.

Laboratory experiments indicate that prolonged high temperatures may be potentially stressful to hatchling crocodiles. Laboratory studies conducted by Mazzotti et al. (1986) showed that hatchling crocodiles showed signs of acute thermal stress (panting, pupil dilation, rapid eye blinking, jerky body movements, and attempts to climb out of aquaria) when cloacal temperatures exceeded 100.4°F (38°C) and water bath temperatures exceeded 104°F (40°C). Mass gain trials were also conducted and results indicated that hatchling crocodiles could not maintain mass at elevated temperatures (104.0°F / 40°C). Predicted temperatures above 104°F only occur in a portion of the cooling canal system, only during the months of June, July, or August for the pre-uprate case, and May through September for the post-uprate case (see Figure 3.5.1.1). During other months, temperatures within the cooling canal system are predicted to be lower. The maximum predicted temperatures occur at the inlet to the cooling canal system and decrease as water moves through the system (Figure 3.5.1-2).

January 2008 5-3 0738-7685 PTN Crocodile nests and hatchlings typically occur in the cooler parts of the system, the southern portion of the 38 western canals and the seven eastern canals (see Figure 5.1.2-1). Within the southern portion of the cooling canal system, the modeled increase in temperature ranges from 0.9°F (0.5°C) to 1.7°F (1.0°C) (Figure 3.5.1-2). Berms approximately 25-30 meters wide separate the cooling canals; these berms are used by female crocodiles for nesting. The most important requirements for crocodile nesting success are the presence of elevated, well-drained nesting substrate adjacent to relatively deep (> 1 m), intermediate salinity (10 to 20 ppt) water, protected from the effects of wind and wave action and free from human disturbance (ESE, 2000). Operation of the Project will result in a slight increase in salinity, approximately 6 percent or 2.5 to 3.6 ppt. The berms contain constructed freshwater ponds which provide important freshwater refugia for hatchling crocodiles.

The slight increase in cooling canal temperature and salinity will not affect the conditions within these freshwater refugia areas; therefore no adverse impacts upon breeding success or hatchling growth is anticipated as a result of the slight increase in cooling water temperature and salinity.

The Turkey Point cooling canal system provides ideal crocodile nesting conditions. FPLs crocodile management plan, including the creation of freshwater refugia upon berms, protection of nesting sites, prevention of human disturbance, and the availability of lower salinity canals nearby, have allowed the crocodile population within the cooling canal system to increase dramatically, with an average of 0.7 additional successful nests per year from 1978 to 1999 (Tucker et al., 2004).

Additionally, the number of hatchlings has increased at a rate of 13 (+/-2) per year at the Turkey Point Site (Tucker et al., 2004). The uprate Project will not significantly impact water temperature or salinity, therefore no adverse impact to the thriving crocodile population within the cooling canal system is anticipated.

5.1.3 Biological Effects of Modified Circulation The Project will not result in any change in flow rates in the plant cooling water systems. Circulation in the cooling canal system will not be modified.

5.1.4 Effects of Offstream Cooling The Turkey Point Plant, after the Project is completed, will continue to utilize offstream cooling in the cooling canal system. The cooling canal system does not produce fog or drift, and the Project will not change that condition.

January 2008 5-4 0738-7685 PTN 5.1.5 Measurement Program FPL performs field monitoring activities related to the cooling canal system in accordance with the Agreement between FPL and the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) dated July 15, 1983. A copy of this agreement is presented in Appendix 10.4 5.2 Effects of Chemical and Biocide Discharge Plant wastewaters are recycled to the cooling canal system. The existing cooling canal system is a permitted wastewater treatment facility (see the NPDES/IWWF Permit in Appendix 10.4). The Plant has a no discharge National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit and is thus a zero-discharge facility relative to the NPDES program. The NPDES/IWWF Permit states that the groundwater is classified as Class G-III and requires that any discharges to groundwater shall not cause a violation of the minimum criteria for groundwater in Rule 62-520.400 F.A.C and Rule 62-520.430 F.A.C. Miami-Dade County Water Quality Standards are codified in Chapter 24, Section 24-11(4), of the county code. Since the groundwater in the vicinity of the cooling canals is non-potable and is above 500 ppm chlorides, the Miami-Dade criteria for tidal salt water have been used for comparison purposes (see Table 5.2.0-1).

5.2.1 Industrial Wastewater Discharges There are no state or federal discharge regulations or surface water quality standards applicable to the Turkey Point Plant because it has no NPDES discharge. The Project will not cause any changes in the quantity or characteristics of industrial wastewaters generated by the facility; therefore, no change in that status due to the Project is expected.

5.2.2 Cooling Tower Blowdown The uprated units will have no cooling towers; therefore, they will produce no cooling tower blowdown.

5.2.3 Measurement Programs 5.2.3.1 Surface Water FPLs existing monitoring programs are adequate to ascertain compliance of surface water discharges with State of Florida surface water criteria. No additional monitoring is proposed.

January 2008 5-5 0738-7685 PTN The facilitys NPDES/IWWF Permit requires monitoring of internal outfalls I-001, comprising once-through cooling water, non-contact auxiliary equipment water, and other recycled wastewaters, and I-002, comprising process wastewaters and stormwater. Both outfalls discharge to the on-site closed loop cooling canal system.

Samples from I-001 are tested monthly for temperature; quarterly for total suspended solids (TSS),

pH, and Specific Conductance; and semiannually for total recoverable copper, iron, and zinc.

Samples from I-002 are tested monthly for pH; quarterly for Specific Conductance; and semiannually for TSS, total recoverable lead, copper, zinc, oil, and grease.

5.2.3.2 Groundwater FPLs existing monitoring programs are adequate to ascertain compliance of groundwater discharges with State of Florida surface water criteria. No additional monitoring is recommended.

5.3 Impacts on Water Supplies The consumptive water use after the Project is completed will remain unchanged, and the Turkey Point Plant will continue to use the existing water supplies, as described in Section 3.5.

5.3.1 Surface Water The Project will not cause any changes in hydrologic or water quality conditions due to diversion, interception, or additions to surface water flow.

5.3.2 Groundwater The Turkey Point Plant does not directly withdraw groundwater under its current operations and it will not do so as a part of this Project. Locally, groundwater is present beneath the Site in the surficial or Biscayne Aquifer and in deeper aquifer zones that are part of the FAS. The Project will have no effects on those deeper aquifer zones.

The Biscayne Aquifer is unconfined and occurs from just a few ft-bgs to a depth of nearly 200 ft-bgs in the Site vicinity. In the vicinity of the Site, saline water is found within this aquifer from depths of approximately 40 feet downward. FPL does not withdraw water for Plant use from this aquifer.

There are limited impacts to this aquifer from the Plant, such as seepage from the cooling canal system, surface water infiltration resulting from rainfall runoff, and the Plant Interceptor Ditch

January 2008 5-6 0738-7685 PTN system, which is designed to restrict the inland movement of seepage from the Plants cooling water canal system.

There is currently a net inflow to the cooling canal system from the saline Biscayne Aquifer beneath that system, and a body of hyper-saline groundwater extending about 15 feet below that system. The increase in evaporation from the cooling canal system will cause an increase in the net inflow of that saline water; however, that effect is confined to the non-potable portion of the aquifer. The depth of the hyper-saline groundwater directly below the cooling canal system is not expected to change as a result of the Project. Therefore, the Project is not expected to impact groundwater supplies.

5.3.3 Drinking Water The Uprate Project will not cause any change in the quantity of potable water used by the Plant.

Therefore, the Project will have no impacts on the local potable water supply system.

5.3.4 Leachate and Runoff The Project does not include materials that are stored on-site that can potentially generate leachate or runoff. Therefore, the Project will have no impacts on groundwater or surface water quality or on terrestrial or aquatic environments, due to leachate or runoff from such facilities.

5.3.5 Measurement Programs No new or modified measurement or monitoring programs are proposed for the Project.

5.4 Solid/Hazardous Waste Disposal Impacts 5.4.1 Solid Waste The Project will not increase the generation of solid wastes associated with power generation. No increase in municipal solid waste will occur as a result of the Project that would potentially impact municipal solid waste facilities. When the Project is completed, solid waste will continue to be handled in the same manner as discussed in Subsection 3.7.1.

5.4.2 Hazardous Wastes The Project will have no impact on hazardous waste handling and/or disposal at the Turkey Point Plant. Hazardous wastes will continue to be handled after the Project is completed in the same manner as discussed in Subsection 3.7.2.

January 2008 5-7 0738-7685 PTN 5.5 Sanitary and Other Waste Discharges The Project will not result in any increase of on-site staff, so it will not generate any additional domestic wastewater. The sanitary wastewater will continue to be handled after the Project is completed in the same manner as discussed in Subsection 3.5.2.

5.6 Air Quality Impacts 5.6.1 Impact Assessment The normal operation of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 does not create fossil fuel-related air emissions.

As described in Section 3.4, there are nine emergency generators associated with Units 3 and 4 that are authorized to operate under FDEP Title V Air Operation Permit Number 0250003-004-AV (see Appendix 10.4.1.4). While there are no operating limits for the emergency generators or diesel engines, the emergency generators normally operate only several hours per month for maintenance and reliability. NOx emissions are regulated under Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) requirements in Rule 62-296.570(4)(b)7 F.A.C., that limit NOx emissions to 4.75 lb/MMBtu.

The sulfur content of the diesel fuel is limited to 0.5 percent; 0.05-percent sulfur diesel fuel is used.

There are also recordkeeping and reporting requirements in the FDEP Title V Permit The air emission sources associated with Units 3 and 4 will continue to meet the applicable permit limits and there will be no change in the operation or emissions of the diesel engines resulting from the Project.

5.6.2 Monitoring Programs Monitoring and reporting under the FDEP-issued Title V Permit will continue to be performed.

5.7 Noise Impacts 5.7.1 Impacts The Project will not result in an increase of noise levels at the Turkey Point Plant. As discussed in Subsection 2.3.8, the daytime and nighttime noise levels that excluded short-term transient noise sources such as traffic (i.e., the L90, see discussion in Subsection 2.3.8) at monitoring sites near the Turkey Point Plant boundary were less than 50 dBA. The observed noise levels were obtained with all units operating. The Project will not change the noise profile of the Plant since all changes are being made within the existing buildings and structures. Noise levels of 50 dBA during the nighttime are generally recognized in many community ordinances as acceptable nighttime noise values for

January 2008 5-8 0738-7685 PTN residential communities. Since the nearest residential communities are many miles farther than the noise monitoring locations, the noise levels from the Turkey Point Plant will not be discernable over the normal background noise levels in these communities. As a result, the noise impacts associated with the Project are expected to fully comply with the Miami-Dade County nuisance ordinance.

5.8 Changes to Non-Aquatic Species Population 5.8.1 Impacts No adverse impacts to non-aquatic species are anticipated during the operation of the Turkey Point Plant following completion of the Project. All of the facilities being uprated will be located upon or within previously-impacted areas, which do not provide suitable natural areas for wildlife. The existing Site has been disturbed during prior construction of the existing facilities, including removal of vegetative communities, topographic grading, and hydrologic alteration. The Site does not provide critical habitat for wildlife; therefore, the operation of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 is not anticipated to result in the reduction of any populations of non-aquatic species after the Project is completed.

No adverse impacts to federal-or state-listed terrestrial plants or animals are expected during facility operations due to the existing developed nature of the habitat. No long-term change in the populations of any threatened or endangered species is anticipated as a result of operation of Turkey Point Units 3 and 4.

No changes in wildlife populations at the adjacent undeveloped areas are anticipated, including listed species. Noise and lighting impacts will not change; the Project is not anticipated to deter the continued use by wildlife of the undeveloped areas within the Turkey Point Plant boundary.

5.8.2 Monitoring Because no significant impacts to non-aquatic species populations are anticipated, no monitoring program is proposed.

January 2008 5-9 0738-7685 PTN 5.9 Other Plant Operation Effects 5.9.1 Operations Traffic No increase in operational personnel will occur as a result of the Project when completed in 2012.

The traffic analysis for the current traffic at three existing Miami-Dade County concurrency stations determined that there was sufficient road capacity to meet Miami-Dade County Concurrency Standards. Since operational traffic for Turkey Point Units 3 and 4 utilizes the traffic corridors evaluated and there will be no increase in operational staff, the Miami-Dade County Concurrency Standards will continue to be met after the Project is completed.

5.10 Archaeological Sites No sites of historic or archaeological significance will be impacted due to the operation of the Turkey Point Plant after the Project is complete. No sites listed or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places are on the Site. No direct or indirect impacts are anticipated from any operational aspect of the Turkey Point Plant.

5.11 Resources Committed There are no irreversible and irretrievable commitments of national, State, or local resources due to the Project because the Plant operation will not change.

5.12 Variances No variances from any applicable standards of any State, regional, or local government agency are being requested as part of this application.

January 2008 TABLE 5.2.0-1 PREDICTED WATER QUALITY WITH NEW UNIT 0738-7685 PTN ND indicates never detected Max Avg Max Avg Max Min No.

Parameter Unit 1

pH SU 8.21 8.02 8.21 8.02 6.00 8.50 2

TSS mg/L 19 16 20 17 3

COD mg/L 2,100 1,650 2,245 1,764 4

BOD (5-day) mg/L ND ND ND ND not to cause DO non-compliance 5

Soluble BOD mg/L ND ND ND ND 6

Total Residual Chlorine mg/L 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86 7

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L 56,000 54,500 59,862 58,259 500 average, 1000 peak (Note 1) 8 Ammonia as N mg/L 0.16 0.16 0

0 0.50 9

Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 1.90 1.80 2

2 10 Nitrite as N mg/L ND ND ND ND 11 Nitrate as N mg/L ND ND ND ND 12 Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.110 0.097 0

0 13 Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 12.0 8.7 12.8 9.3 4.0 14 Total Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 10,000 10,000 10,690 10,690 15 Total Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 170 165 182 176 16 Nitrogen (total) mg/L 1.90 1.80 2

2 17 Fluoride mg/L ND ND ND ND 10 18 Chloride (Note 2) mg/L 33,000 30,000 35,276 32,069 10% above background 19 Iron Total mg/L ND ND ND ND 0.3 20 Magnesium mg/L 2,200 2,050 2,352 2,191 21 Calcium mg/L 760 720 812 770 22 Manganese mg/L 0.0089 0.0086 0.0095 0.0091 23 Sulfate mg/L 4,200 3,950 4,490 4,222 24 Temperature

°C 31.5 30.05 34 32 Shall cause no environmental damage 25 Antimony mg/L ND ND ND ND 26 Arsenic mg/L 0.0420 0.0295 0.0449 0.0315 0.0500 27 Beryllium mg/L ND ND ND ND 28 Cadmium mg/L ND ND ND ND 29 Chromium mg/L ND ND ND ND 0.05 30 Copper mg/L 0.0210 0.0175 0.0224 0.0187 0.4000 31 Lead mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.3500 32 Soluble Lead mg/L 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.3500 33 Mercury mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 34 Molybdenum mg/L 0.0180 0.0180 0.0192 0.0192 35 Nickel mg/L 0.0500 0.0395 0.0534 0.0422 36 Selenium mg/L 0.6700 0.3475 0.7162 0.3715 37 Silver mg/L ND ND ND ND 38 Thallium mg/L 0.0018 0.0011 0.0019 0.0011 39 Zinc mg/L 0.0190 0.0190 0.0203 0.0203 1.0000 40 Cyanide mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 41 Phenols mg/L ND ND ND ND 0.0050 42 Oil & Grease mg/L ND ND ND ND 15 43 Silica mg/L 0.61 0.52 0.65 0.56 44 Ortho-Phosphate mg/L ND ND ND ND 45 Alkalinity(Bicarbonate) mg/L 170 165 182 176 46 Total-Phosphate mg/L 47 Turbidity NTU 2.00 1.92 2

2 29 above background 48 Sulfides mg/L ND ND ND ND 1.0 49 Aluminum mg/L 0.017 0.014 0.018 0.015 50 Barium mg/L 0.080 0.073 0.086 0.078 51 Iron(Dissolved) mg/L ND ND ND ND 0.3 52 Potassium mg/L 690 680 738 727 53 Vanadium mg/L 0.0056 0.0040 0.0060 0.0043 54 Specific Conductance umhos per cm 100% above background Notes:

1 TDS limit of 500 ppm average is physically impossible in water with at least 500 mg/L of chloride 2 Existing canal is background Source: Golder, 2008.

All tested as total unfiltered.

Existing Cooling Canal Proposed Cooling Canal Miami-Dade County Standards Ch. 24-11 Tidal Salt Water (more than 500 ppm chlorides)

Table 5.2.0-1 Predicted WQ.xls

P:\\GIS\\PROJECTS\\07387685_FP_Nuclear_Uprates\\TURKEY_POINT\\MapDocuments\\07387685TPA22_CrocNests_Fig5.1.2-1 REV. 0 DESIGN LOCATIONS OF CROCODILE NESTS FROM 1978 THROUGH 2006 FIGURE 5.1.2-1 PROJECT No. 073-87685-1102 SCALE AS SHOWN PROJECT TITLE GIS REVIEW KK 01/03/08 CHECK TURKEY POINT UPRATE PROJECT KB KK RL 01/09/08 01/009/08 01/09/08 LEGEND

1. Crocodile Nests Locations, FPL, 1978-2006. Turkey Point Plant Annual Crocodile Report, Permit # TE092945-1. 2. Imagery, ESRI, 2006 REFERENCE

³ Crocodile Nest Locations 0

0.75 1.5 0.375 Miles

APPENDIX 10.6 COOLING CANAL SYSTEM MODELING REPORT

ii TABLE OF CONTENTS I.

INTRODUCTION...............................................................................................................................................1 II.

SCREENING MODELING............................................................................................................................3 A.

MODEL DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................................................3 B.

DATA INPUTS.................................................................................................................................................6 C.

MODELING RESULTS....................................................................................................................................7 D.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.........................................................................................................................8 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Predicted Water Quality with New Unit LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Turkey Point Cooling Canal System Figure 2 Aerial View Cooling Canal System Figure 3 Cooling Canal System Cross Section Figure 4 Existing Water Use Diagram Figure 5 Average Dry Bulb Temperatures Figure 6 Wind Speed Figure 7 Barometric Pressure Figure 8 Mean Dew Point Figure 9 Precipitation Figure 10 Percent Sunshine Figure 11 Historical Capacity Factors Figure 12 Measured Inlet Temperatures Figure 13 Predicted vs. Measured Cold Water Temperature 1998-2002 Figure 14 Predicted vs. Measured Cold Water Temperature 2000-2002 Figure 15 Cooling Canal and Biscayne Bay Salinity 1998-2002 Figure 16 Cooling Canal and Biscayne Bay Salinity 2000-2002 Figure 17 Regression Analysis of Salinity Data Figure 18 Proposed Water Use Diagram Figure 19 Predicted Temperatures 1998 through 2004 Figure 20 Temperatures within Cooling Canals June 1998

10.6 CCS Modeling Report.doc 1

FPL Turkey Point Uprate Project - Cooling Canal System Modeling Study I.

Introduction FPL plans to add about 200 MW (net) of electrical generation resources to its system at Turkey Point Units 3 and 4. The heat dissipation system for the existing Units 1 through 4 is the cooling canal system which is described in detail in SCA Section 2.3.4. The recently added Unit 5 utilizes an evaporative cooling tower, in the following configuration:

x Cooling tower makeup is water withdrawn from the Upper Floridan aquifer.

x Cooling tower blowdown is recycled to the inlet of the cooling canal system.

Unit 5 began serving customers in May, 2007.

The heat rejected to the cooling canal system includes 4 units with the following design operating characteristics:

Existing Post-Uprate Type of Condenser Cooling Closed-Cycle Closed-Cycle Megawatts 2,320 2,520 Circulating Water Flow (cfs) 4,250 4,250 Composite Delta T across Condenser (°F) 15.52 17.13 Heat Rejection Rate (Btu/Hr) 14.6 x 109 16.1 x 109 The units utilize a 5,900-acre closed-cycle cooling canal system, of which 4,370 acres is water surface, for condenser and auxiliary equipment cooling (see Figure 1). The cooling canal system receives tidal inflow from Biscayne Bay, and the saline aquifer beneath the bay, due to the exceptional porosity of the underlying rock. The system also sends tidal outflow to the saline aquifer beneath the Bay. Therefore, it has no intake or discharge system and does not require an NPDES permit, although it has a no discharge NPDES permit.

The cooling canal system is a closed system that carries warm water south of the existing plant and returns cooled water. The canal system does not directly discharge to fresh or marine surface waters; however, because the canals are not lined, groundwater does interact with water in the canal system. Makeup water for the canal system comes from process water, rainfall, stormwater runoff and groundwater infiltration to replace evaporative and seepage losses. Consequently, the water in the canals is hypersaline due to the effects of evaporation, with salinity concentrations approximately twice that of Biscayne Bay.

10.6 CCS Modeling Report.doc 2

Plant circulating water for Units 1 through 4 is pumped from a canal, shown on the top right of Figure 2, which draws water northward from the 7 easternmost canals, which are the cool side of the canal system. The water then passes through the condensers, where it picks up heat, and then is discharged to the northern end of the 32 westernmost canals. From there, it flows south in the 32 westernmost canals, is collected and flows east across the southern end of the cooling canal system, and then flows north in the 7 easternmost canals.

Measurements taken within the cooling canal system indicate that the water level within that system rises and falls with the tidal water level in Biscayne Bay. This is because the rock in which the cooling canal system was constructed is exceptionally porous. At the southern end of the cooling canal system, the water level is approximately equal to the water level in Biscayne Bay. As shown on Figure 3, the water level on the east or intake side of the cooling canal system is drawn down about 3 feet lower than the water level on the west or discharge side of the cooling canal system. The difference in water level between the western 32 canals and the eastern 7 canals, or the head difference as it is called hydraulically, is the driving force which causes the water to circulate through the cooling canal system. As it circulates, the water gives up heat through the mechanisms of evaporation, conduction, and radiation.

There is a body of groundwater under the cooling canal system that remains in place because it is warmer than the ambient groundwater. The depth of this cooling canal groundwater has been calculated from measured salinity in the cooling canal system. It extends to about 18 feet below sea level, or 14 feet below the bottom of the cooling canal system. Because the rock is so porous, this water acts as if it were part of the cooling canal system.

As shown on Figure 3, the water level on the east or intake side of the cooling canal system is always lower than that of Biscayne Bay, regardless of the tide, because of the action of the circulating water pumps of Units 1 through 4. For this reason, cooling canal water does not enter Biscayne Bay. As seen on Figure 4, there are flows back and forth between the cooling canal system and the saline groundwater that underlies Biscayne Bay. On the west side of the cooling canal system, there is a section of non-potable ambient groundwater between the cooling canal system and the L-31E Canal, as shown in orange on Figure 3.

This investigation has performed the following tasks:

1.

Perform screening modeling of the thermal performance of the cooling canal system in order to quantify its exchange of water with Biscayne Bay.

2.

Prepare a water balance for the proposed configuration under average flow conditions.

3.

Prepare estimates of the expected water quality of the cooling canal system under average flow conditions.

10.6 CCS Modeling Report.doc 3

II.

Screening Modeling This modeling was performed utilizing the EQTP model. This is a steady state energy balance computer model that was originally written in the 1970s, and documented in a paper presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the American Power Conference in April 1972. This model has since been used to analyze numerous cooling systems, including several in Florida.

A.

Model Description EQTP is a steady state energy balance computer model which simulates the expected thermal performance of a heated water body with respect to both temperature and evaporation effects.

The program assumes that heat transfer to and from a heated water body is a function of the water's equilibrium temperature. This model was originally described by Patterson, Leporati and Scarpa (The Capacity of Cooling Ponds to Dissipate Heat, Ebasco Services Incorporated, presented at the 33rd Annual Meeting of the American Power Conference, Chicago, Illinois, April 20-22, 1972.)

The problem of predicting the steady-state temperatures in a heated water body reduces to a quantitative determination of the energy transfer through a boundary between the atmosphere and the water. The processes involved in the heating and cooling of a water mass can be summarized as follows:

Heating Process Cooling Process

1. Absorption of short-wave radiation from the sun and the sky, Hs

1. Reflection of short-wave solar radiation by the water, Hsr

2. Absorption of longwave radiation from the atmosphere, Ha

2. Reflection of longwave atmospheric radiation by the water, Har

3. Heat rejected to the water by the plant, Hp

3. Longwave radiation emitted by the water, Hbr

4. Convection of heat through the bottom of the water body from the interior of the earth K

4. Conduction of sensible heat to the atmosphere, Hc

5. Transformation of kinetic energy to heat

5. Heat carried away by evaporation, He

6. Heating due to chemical processes

7. Condensation of water vapor In the heating process terms 4 through 7 are small in comparison with terms 1 through 3 and, therefore, can be neglected. Thus the following equation is solved within the steady state model:

Hs + Ha + Hp í Hsr í Har í Hbr í Hc í He = 0 Where:

Hs = Ho (0.61S+0.35)

10.6 CCS Modeling Report.doc 4

Ho = the solar and sky short-wave radiation received on a horizontal surface of the earth during a cloudless day S = percentage of possible sunshine Ha = 4.15xl0í8(Ta + 460)4 (C+0.03l (ea)1/2 ) Btu / ft2 / day Ta = the ambient air temperature, °F C = Brunt coefficient determined from air temperature and the ratio of solar radiation and clear-sky solar radiation, dimensionless ea =

air vapor pressure, mm Hg Hbr = JwV(Ts + 460)4 Btu / ft2 / day Jw = emissivity of water = 0.97, dimensionless V = Stephan-Boltzman constant = 4.15 x 10í8 Btu / ft2 / day Ts = water surface temperature, qF He = (73 + 7.3W)(es í ea) Btu / ft2 / day W = wind speed measured 25 feet above ground-level, mph es = saturation vapor pressure determined from the water surface temperature, mm Hg ea = air-vapor pressure, mm Hg Hc = 0.26(73 + 7.3W)(Ts - Ta)(P/760) Btu / ft2 / day Ta = ambient air temperature, qF Ts = water surface temperature, qF W = wind speed, mph P = barometric pressure, mm Hg To determine the distribution of temperature throughout the water body, a heat exchange coefficient which describes the rate of heat lost across the air-water interface per unit area per unit temperature increase is calculated as follows:

Kf = Hp/[At(Ef-En)]

Kf = the forced heat exchange coefficient, Btu/ft2/day/qF At =

total effective area of the cooling water body, ft2 Hp = plant heat rejection rate, Btu/day Ef =

forced equilibrium temperature, qF En =

natural equilibrium temperature, qF

10.6 CCS Modeling Report.doc 5

For a closed-cycle water body, the temperature at the circulating water intake can be calculated as follows:

TiíEn = 'T/er - 1 Ti =

inlet circulating water temperature, qF

'T=

the condenser rise, qF En =

natural equilibrium temperature, qF r =

KfAt/UCpQp U =

density of water, lb/ft3 Cp = specific heat of water, Btu/lb/qF Qp = plant condensing water flow, ft3/day Once the inlet temperature has been computed, the temperature at any point in the water body may be calculated as follows:

TíEn = (Ti + 'T í En)/ er1 T =

the temperature at any point in the water body, qF r1 =

KfA/UCpQp A =

effective area between the circulating water discharge point and the point in question, ft2 The primary assumption of the model is that of the steady state energy balance. This assumption provides the limitation that the model time step has to be long enough for transient factors to be dampened out. For example, the diurnal variation in air temperature occurs too fast for a large body of water to follow; therefore, the minimum time step that is usually appropriate has been found to be 5 days.

The model derivation also assumes that the only mechanisms of heat transfer into the heated water body that need to be considered are the absorption of short-wave radiation from the sun and the sky, the absorption of longwave radiation from the atmosphere, and the heat rejected to the water body by the plant.

Model output includes the condenser inlet temperature and natural and forced equilibrium temperatures, heat exchange coefficients, and evaporation on a monthly basis.

10.6 CCS Modeling Report.doc 6

B.

Data Inputs Data inputs for the EQTP model include meteorological data, cooling canal system configuration data, and plant operating data.

Meteorological data for the period January, 1998 through December, 2002, were obtained from the National Climatic Data Center for Miami International Airport. These data include ambient air dry-bulb temperature, precipitation, dew point, wind speed, barometric pressure, and sky cover (which was utilized to estimate % sunshine). Graphs of monthly averages of these data over the period of record are included in Figures 5-10.

Cooling canal system configuration data were determined based on historical records. This information indicates that the cooling canal system water level closely follows the tidal water level in Biscayne Bay, and that the canal sides are essentially vertical. For modeling purposes, the cooling canal system water surface area was assumed to be a constant 4,370 acres, and the capacity was assumed to vary between 10,051 acre-feet at low tide and 14,421 acre-feet at high tide. It was estimated that tidal flux into and out of the cooling canal system averaged about 4,370 acre-feet per tidal cycle, or about 256,956 acre-feet per month.

Plant operating data input to the model included design values for megawatts and Delta T, and load factors. The nuclear units were assumed to operate at 100% capacity, and the fossil units were assumed to operate at actual historical capacities, which are shown in Figure 11.

The plant supplied 6-hourly operating data for water box inlet and outlet temperatures for each unit for January 1, 1999 through December 31, 2002. However, some of the data were problematic due to missing inlet temperatures or outlet temperatures that were less than the corresponding inlet temperatures. In addition, there were some large discrepancies in the Units 1 and 2 inlet temperatures, as shown in Figure 12. The lower (Unit 1) inlet temperatures were selected for calculation of historical cooling canal cold water temperatures for the period of record.

10.6 CCS Modeling Report.doc 7

C.

Modeling Results The EQTP model was run for a five-year period beginning with January, 1998, to simulate existing operation of the cooling canal system over the 60-month period to December, 2002 for which actual data are available.

Figure 13 compares actual and predicted condenser inlet temperatures for the period of record.

Figure 14 shows the same data for the period from January, 2000, until December, 2002.

Temperature correlation is reasonable, allowing for the assumption that Units 3 and 4 ran at 100% capacity factor. Based on the reasonableness of the correlation, the cooling canal system was judged to be operating with 100% effective area.

Cooling canal salinities were downloaded from the EPA web site for the period of September, 2000, through March, 2003 (a single value for each month). Salinity data for Biscayne Bay, in the plant vicinity were downloaded from the SFWMD web site for the period January, 1998, through December, 2002. Monthly averages were plotted for the Biscayne Bay data, although the data were not continuous over each month. The results are shown on Figure 15, for the 5-year period of record, and on Figure 16 for the period from September, 2000, through December, 2002. Regression analysis was performed on these data to derive a relationship between Bay salinity and cooling canal salinity (See Figure 17). A linear curve-fit was performed, with Y-intercept at 0, so that the slope of the line would be representative of the average cycles of concentration of bay water in the cooling canal system. The resultant average cycles of concentration was determined to be 1.6145.

Modeling results were analyzed to calculate the net amounts of makeup and blowdown (net meaning fresh inputs rather than recirculated cooling canal water that has moved out and then back in), and an empirical relationship was developed to determine the net makeup and net blowdown as functions of precipitation, and natural and forced evaporation. Based on these relationships, an average water balance was developed for the existing plant, and is shown on Figure 4. An average water balance was then developed for the post-uprate condition, and is shown in Figure 18.

Modeling results with respect to cooling canal temperatures over time are presented in Figure 19 for the existing (pre-uprate) and post uprate cases. The results indicate a slight increase at any given time in both the inlet and outlet water temperatures of the cooling canal system, as well as the temperature rise.

Based on the modeling, average cycles of concentration (relative to Biscayne Bay water quality) were estimated for the cooling canal system under existing and post-uprate conditions. The results are:

10.6 CCS Modeling Report.doc 8

Cycles of Concentration Relative to Biscayne Bay Existing Post-Uprate Cooling Canal System 1.653 1.767 Utilizing these concentration factors, levels of chemical constituents were estimated in the cooling canal system and in the cooling tower, based on grab sample analyses of the existing cooling canal water provided by FPL, and historic water quality data for the Upper Floridan Aquifer. The results are presented in Table 1.

D.

Additional Information In addition, analyses were performed to derive expected water temperature profiles within the cooling canal system. Although that system is not considered waters of the U.S., or the state, it is used as habitat by the American Crocodile. Figure 20 shows the predicted cold water temperatures within the cooling canal system for the June 1998 time frame, which is the one with the highest temperatures. The maximum predicted increase in heated water temperature entering the cooling canal system is about 2.5°F, from 106.1 to 108.6°F. The associated maximum increase in cooled water temperature leaving the cooling canal system to return to the units is about 0.9°F, from 91.9 to 92.8°F.

Table 1 Predicted Water Quality with New Unit ND indicates never detected Max Avg Max Avg Max Min No.

Parameter Unit 1

pH SU 8.21 8.02 8.21 8.02 6.00 8.50 2

TSS mg/L 19 16 20 17 3

COD mg/L 2,100 1,650 2,245 1,764 4

BOD (5-day) mg/L ND ND ND ND not to cause DO non-compliance 5

Soluble BOD mg/L ND ND ND ND 6

Total Residual Chlorine mg/L 0.80 0.80 0.86 0.86 7

Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) mg/L 56,000 54,500 59,862 58,259 500 average, 1000 peak 8

Ammonia as N mg/L 0.16 0.16 0

0 0.50 9

Kjeldahl Nitrogen mg/L 1.90 1.80 2

2 10 Nitrite as N mg/L ND ND ND ND 11 Nitrate as N mg/L ND ND ND ND 12 Total Phosphorus mg/L 0.110 0.097 0

0 13 Dissolved Oxygen mg/L 12.0 8.7 12.8 9.3 4.0 14 Total Hardness mg/L as CaCO3 10,000 10,000 10,690 10,690 15 Total Alkalinity mg/L as CaCO3 170 165 182 176 16 Nitrogen (total) mg/L 1.90 1.80 2

2 17 Fluoride mg/L ND ND ND ND 10 18 Chloride mg/L 33,000 30,000 35,276 32,069 10% above background 19 Iron Total mg/L ND ND ND ND 0.3 20 Magnesium mg/L 2,200 2,050 2,352 2,191 21 Calcium mg/L 760 720 812 770 22 Manganese mg/L 0.0089 0.0086 0.0095 0.0091 23 Sulfate mg/L 4,200 3,950 4,490 4,222 24 Temperature

°C 31.5 30.05 34 32 Shall cause no environmental damage 25 Antimony mg/L ND ND ND ND 26 Arsenic mg/L 0.0420 0.0295 0.0449 0.0315 0.0500 27 Beryllium mg/L ND ND ND ND 28 Cadmium mg/L ND ND ND ND 29 Chromium mg/L ND ND ND ND 0.05 30 Copper mg/L 0.0210 0.0175 0.0224 0.0187 0.4000 31 Lead mg/L 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 0.3500 32 Soluble Lead mg/L 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.0002 0.3500 33 Mercury mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 34 Molybdenum mg/L 0.0180 0.0180 0.0192 0.0192 35 Nickel mg/L 0.0500 0.0395 0.0534 0.0422 36 Selenium mg/L 0.6700 0.3475 0.7162 0.3715 37 Silver mg/L ND ND ND ND 38 Thallium mg/L 0.0018 0.0011 0.0019 0.0011 39 Zinc mg/L 0.0190 0.0190 0.0203 0.0203 1.0000 40 Cyanide mg/L ND ND ND ND ND 41 Phenols mg/L ND ND ND ND 0.0050 42 Oil & Grease mg/L ND ND ND ND 15 43 Silica mg/L 0.61 0.52 0.65 0.56 44 Ortho-Phosphate mg/L ND ND ND ND 45 Alkalinity(Bicarbonate) mg/L 170 165 182 176 46 Total-Phosphate mg/L 47 Turbidity NTU 2.00 1.92 2

2 29 above background 48 Sulfides mg/L ND ND ND ND 1.0 49 Aluminum mg/L 0.017 0.014 0.018 0.015 50 Barium mg/L 0.080 0.073 0.086 0.078 51 Iron(Dissolved) mg/L ND ND ND ND 0.3 52 Potassium mg/L 690 680 738 727 53 Vanadium mg/L 0.0056 0.0040 0.0060 0.0043 54 Specific Conductance umhos per cm 100% above background All tested as total unfiltered.

Existing Cooling Canal Proposed Cooling Canal Miami-Dade County Standards Ch. 24-11 Tidal Salt Water (more than 500 ppm chlorides)

Table 1 Predicted WQ.xls

Figure 4. Existing Water Use Diagram Average Flows in Acre-Feet Per Month Precipitation Evaporation 2,304 3,815 Net Blowdown Units 2,313 1 - 4 C.W.

Net Makeup 3,087 737 Blowdown + Recycled Wastewater 28 1,312 Evaporation 603 Floridan Cooling Canal Under Biscayne Bay Ground Water Upper 5

Unit System Miami-Dade City Water

Figures5-10.xls Figure 5. Average Dry Bulb Temperature 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Jan-98 Apr-98 Jul-98 Oct-98 Jan-99 Apr-99 Jul-99 Oct-99 Jan-00 Apr-00 Jul-00 Oct-00 Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 Jan-02 Apr-02 Jul-02 Oct-02 Jan-03 Date Temperature (F)

Figures5-10.xls Figure 6. Wind Speed 0.0 2.0 4.0 6.0 8.0 10.0 12.0 Jan-98 Apr-98 Jul-98 Oct-98 Jan-99 Apr-99 Jul-99 Oct-99 Jan-00 Apr-00 Jul-00 Oct-00 Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 Jan-02 Apr-02 Jul-02 Oct-02 Jan-03 Date Wind Speed (mph)

Figures5-10.xls Figure 7. Barometric Pressure 754 756 758 760 762 764 766 768 Jan-98 Apr-98 Jul-98 Oct-98 Jan-99 Apr-99 Jul-99 Oct-99 Jan-00 Apr-00 Jul-00 Oct-00 Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 Jan-02 Apr-02 Jul-02 Oct-02 Jan-03 Date Pressure (mm of Hg)

Figures5-10.xls Figure 8. Mean Dew Point 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Jan-98 Apr-98 Jul-98 Oct-98 Jan-99 Apr-99 Jul-99 Oct-99 Jan-00 Apr-00 Jul-00 Oct-00 Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 Jan-02 Apr-02 Jul-02 Oct-02 Jan-03 Date Dew Point (F)

Figures5-10.xls Figure 9. Precipitation 0

2 4

6 8

10 12 14 16 18 20 Jan-98 Apr-98 Jul-98 Oct-98 Jan-99 Apr-99 Jul-99 Oct-99 Jan-00 Apr-00 Jul-00 Oct-00 Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 Jan-02 Apr-02 Jul-02 Oct-02 Jan-03 Date Precipitation (in)

Figures5-10.xls Figure 10. Percent Sunshine 0.00 10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 Jan-98 Apr-98 Jul-98 Oct-98 Jan-99 Apr-99 Jul-99 Oct-99 Jan-00 Apr-00 Jul-00 Oct-00 Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 Jan-02 Apr-02 Jul-02 Oct-02 Jan-03 Date Sunshine (%)

Figures11-up.xls Figure 11. Turkey Point Historical Capacity Factors 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Jul-97 Jan-98 Jul-98 Jan-99 Jul-99 Jan-00 Jul-00 Jan-01 Jul-01 Jan-02 Jul-02 Jan-03 Jul-03 Unit 1 Unit 2

Figures11-up.xls Figure 12. Turkey Point Average Monthly Inlet Temperatures 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 Oct-99 Jan-00 Apr-00 Jul-00 Oct-00 Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Oct-01 Jan-02 Apr-02 Jul-02 Oct-02 Jan-03 Apr-03 Degrees F.

Unit 1 Intake Temps Unit 2 Inlet Temps

Figs13-14.xls Figure 13. Predicted vs. Measured Cold Water Temperatures 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Dec-97 Jun-98 Dec-98 Jun-99 Dec-99 Jun-00 Dec-00 Jun-01 Dec-01 Jun-02 Dec-02 Jun-03 Degrees F.

Eqtp Run 1 Condenser Inlet Temperature Measured Plant Cold Water Temperatures

Figs13-14.xls Figure 14. Predicted vs. Measured Cold Water Temperatures 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Dec-99 Mar-00 Jun-00 Sep-00 Dec-00 Mar-01 Jun-01 Sep-01 Dec-01 Mar-02 Jun-02 Sep-02 Dec-02 Mar-03 Degrees F.

Eqtp Run 1 Condenser Inlet Temperature Measured Plant Cold Water Temperatures

Figures11-up.xls Figure 15. Cooling Canal and Biscayne Bay Salinity 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Nov-97 Feb-98 May-98 Aug-98 Nov-98 Feb-99 May-99 Aug-99 Nov-99 Feb-00 May-00 Aug-00 Nov-00 Feb-01 May-01 Aug-01 Nov-01 Feb-02 May-02 Aug-02 Nov-02 Feb-03 May-03 PPT Biscayne Bay Monthly Average Salinity Cooling Canal Salinity

Figures11-up.xls Figure 16. Bay vs. Canals Salinity 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Jun-00 Oct-00 Jan-01 Apr-01 Jul-01 Nov-01 Feb-02 May-02 Sep-02 Dec-02 PPT Biscayne Bay Monthly Average Salinity Cooling Canal Salinity

Figures11-up.xls Figure 17. Cooling Canal Salinity vs Biscayne Bay Salinity y = 1.6145x R2 = 0.6181 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 Biscayne Bay Salinity PPT Cooling Canal System Salinity PPT

Figure 18. Proposed Water Use Diagram Average Flows in Acre-Feet Per Month Precipitation Evaporation 2,304 4,079 Net Blowdown Units 2,313 1 - 4 C.W.

Net Makeup 3,351 737 Blowdown + Recycled Wastewater 28 1,312 Evaporation 603 Floridan Cooling Canal Under Biscayne Bay Ground Water Upper 5

Unit System Miami-Dade City Water

Figure 19 Predicted Temperatures 1998 through 2004 Figure 19.xls 0

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 Jan-1998 Jul-1998 Jan-1999 Jul-1999 Jan-2000 Jul-2000 Jan-2001 Jul-2001 Jan-2002 Jul-2002 Jan-2003 Pre-Uprate Temp Exiting CCS Pre-Uprate Temp Entering CCS Post-Uprate Temp Exiting CCS Post-Uprate Temp Entering CCS Pre-Uprate T Post-Uprate T

Figure 20 Temperatures within Cooling Canals June 1998 Figure 20.xls 90 92 94 96 98 100 102 104 106 108 110 0

437 874 1311 1748 2185 2622 3059 3496 3933 4370 Pre-Uprate Temperature Post-Uprate Temperature South End of Cooling Canals