ML17209A713

Forwards Proposed Preoperational & Operational Monitoring Programs for Unit 2.Requests Review & Comments by 810430

ML17209A713
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	02/27/1981
From:	Zeller H ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
To:	Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
4E-CP, NUDOCS 8103090562
Download: ML17209A713 (38)

Text

REGULATORYFORMATION DISTRIBUTION BY+M (RIBS)

ACCESSION 'NBRt8103090562'OC ~ DATE: 81/02/27 NOTARIZKDt NO DOCKET FACIL.'tSO 389 StB Lucfe PlantE Unf t 2~ Florida Pawer 8 Light Co; 05000389 AUTH' NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION ZELLERiH D ~ Envied onmenta1 Pr atectfon Agency

~

RECIP NAME<

~ RECIPIKNT AFFILIATION EISENHUT'~DE ~G Division of Licensing SUBJECT Forwards propased preapet atfonal.8 oper atfonel monftor-ing programs far Unit 2,Requests review 8 comments by 810430 CODE: C002S COPIES RECEIVED:LTR +ENCL SIZE) 'ISTRIBUTION TITLE': Ehvf r an ~ Comments".

NOTES!

RECIPIENT COPIES'TTR RECIPIENT'D COPIESTTR ID CODE/NAME( ENCL~ CODE/NAME ENCL' ACTUION t YOUNGBLOOD g B 17 7 '7 NERSESgV ~ 05 INTERNALt ACCIDNT KVAL ENV ENG BR HYDRO~GEO BR NRC PDR BR 09 02:

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

IEK'7 EF TREAT SYS BR HYD/GEO BR O

2 1

1 1

1 1

2" 0

RAD ASSESSMT BR 1 1 F ILE Oi 1 i SIT'NAL" BR 10 1- 1 TIl; FT CE BR 1 1 KXTERNAL: ACRS 1 0 LPDR 03 i.

NATL LAB 5 5 NSIC 00 1 1 TOTAL. NUMBKR OF COPIES REQUIRKDt LTTR 29 ENCL 27

0

~ ~

N 8 t ~ 4 1 I" )

f I" rt e W H

CW I(

y'ED S1q~

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION AGENCY PAP REGION IV 345 COURTLAND STREET 4E-CP ATLANTA.GEORGIA 30365 FEB 27 )88)

Darrell G. Eisenhut Director, Division of Licensing Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

!washington, D.C. 20555 Re: St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant NPDES Permit No. FL0002208'ear Mr. Eisenhut:

Enclosed is a copy of the proposed preoperational'nd operational monitoring programs for Unit 2 at the referenced facility as submitted by the permittee on January 27, 1981 'lso enclosed is a copy of page 15 of 16 of the NPDES permit which requires submission and implementation of these studies as well as on-going studies of Unit 1 operation (paragraphs L, M and J, respectively).

It is requested that you review these documents and provide us with your comments by April- 30, 1981. Comments should be provided to Mr. L. B. Tebo, Jr.

at the following address: (with a copy to this office) I U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Surveillance 0 Analysis Division Southeast Environmental Research Laboratory Bailey Road Annex Athens, Georgia 30613 Subsequent to evaluation of comments, modifications to the on-going study will be expeditiously implemented as required.

It is anticipated that a Draft EIS will be prepared by the USNRC during the Fall of 1981 with input from EPA. As a result of review of data available at that time, and comments received on the DEIS, further modifications to the on-going or future study plans may be made. However, it is our intent that any such changes will be held to a minimum and must be based on substantial reasons for change.

The following reports are available from the permittee on the on-going biolo-gical studies:

1. St. Lucie Plant, Annual Non-Radiological Monitoring Reports, 1977,

2. St. Lucie Plant, Annual Non-Radiological Monitoring Reports, 1978,

3. St. Lucie Plant, Annual Non-Radiological Monitoring Reports, 1979, and

4. Effects of Increased stater Temperature on the Marine Biota of the St. Lucie Plant Area (February 1979).

CoO~

5 82 6309 65@X (/i

41 4

"V

, II

~ =

=~

wl '

The Environmental Report for the Operating License'as recently been submitted to USNRC and will be, distributed by them, in the near. future.

Further, the Annual Non-Radiological Monitoring Report-, 1980, is scheduled for release in March 1980. By copy of this letter we are xequesting that the permittee distribute this report to each Agency when.

L it is available.

Should you have any questions,: feel free.'to contact, Mr. Charles H. Kaplan h

of my staff at 404/881-2328 (FTS/257-2328)" or Mr... L. 'B. Tebo,, Jr. at 404/546-2294 (FTS/250-2294). , " )

Sincerely yours, 4 t

i oward D. Zeller Acting Director Enforcement Division Enclosures (3) cc: Ronald L. Ballard, USNRC Washington, D.C.

See Attachment

('I I

e rl I

(* I V V

.I r'I V

C I 'I I\ V f (

I'r 4

I I, ~

'I I

VV V

I!

I! I I

LETTER ATTACHMENT Identical letters with enclosures are sent to:

Ronald Ballard, US NRC W. J. Barrow, FP6L Mickey Bryant, FDER Joseph Carroll, US FWS Darrell Eisenhut, US NRC John Hall, Nat'l Marine Fisheries Service Don Hankla, US FWS Lawrence Olson, FDER H. S. Oven, Jr., FDER William Stevenson, Nat'l Marine Fisheries Ser.

Walter Stieglitz, US FWS L. B. Tebo, EPA

~

age of ermit No. FL0002208

~

E. Steam generator blowdown may be discharged without limitation or monitoring requirements provided that secondary system feedwater chemistry specifications limit total solids to 2 mg/I and total iron and copper to 0.05 mg/1 each.

p This permit shall be modified, or alternatively, revoked and reissued, to comply with any applicable .effluent standard of limitation issued or approved under sections 301(b)(2) (C), and (D), 304(b)(2), and 307(a)(2) of the Clean Water Act, if the effluent standard or limitation so issued or approved:

or is otherwise more stringent than any (1) Contains different conditions effluent limitation in the permit; or (2) 'ontrols any pollutant not limited in the permit.

The permit as modified or reissued under this paragraph shall also contain any other requirements of the 'Act then applicable.

G. Plant stormwater which is uncontaminated by plant wastes may be discharged without limitation or monitoring requirements.

H. intake screen backwash may be discharged without limitation or monitoring requirements.

I ~ All environmental monitoring reports submitted to the U; S. Nuclear, Regulatory Commission shall be submitted to EPA (2 copies).

J Conformance with Sections 3.1.B, BIOTIC'.1, Entrainment of A untie

~Or anisms; and 4.3, Minimum Effluent ChIorine Usa e of Appendix B to Operating License No. DPR-67 shall constitute conformance with similar monitoring requirements deemed necessary by the Director, Enforcement Division. Changes in such programs which are underway on the effective date of this permit shall not be made without approval by the Director, Enforcement Division.

K. Permittee shall submit an NPDES Application for Permit to Discharge Wastewater, covering Units 1 and 2, to the Director, Enforcement Division not later than the date of submittal of the Environmental Report, Oper'ating License Stage for St. Lucie Plant Unit 2 to the U. S. Nuclear ReguLatory Commission.

L' Permittee shall implement an approved preoperational non-radiological aquatic monitoring program on water quality and biotic conditions in the Atlantic Ocean not less than two years prior to the scheduled date for Unit 2 fuel loading. Not less than six months prior to the scheduled date for implementation, the permittee shall submit to the Director,'nforcement Division for review and approval, a detailed monitoring plan. Reports shall be subm'ted annually, not more than three months following completion of the reporting period with the first report due 15 months after implementation of the program.

H. Permittee shall implement an approved operational non-radiological aquatic monitoring program by the date of commercial operation of Unit 2. Not less than six months prior to scheduled implementation date, the permittee shall submit to the Director, Enforcement Division for review and approval, a detailed monitoring plan. Reports shall be submitted annually, not more than three months following completion of the reporting period with the first report due 15 months after-implementation of the program. The program shall continue for a period of not less than two years after com-mercial'peration of Unit 2.

s, ~ )%f J n+ pFOl~'->> ~

~m:.~jI,(- "'.'.

l.."

JAN ~O FLORIOA POWER II LIGHT COMPANY 1

s

~~ ~

)

~~ ~GI09 I~

January 27, 1981 Sg~>TA, GA.

Mr. Charles D. Kaplan, Chief Water Enforcement Branch United States Environmental Protection Agency Region IV 345 Courtland Street, N. E.

Atlanta, GA 30308 Re: St. Lucie Plant, Biotic Monitoring Program

Dear Mr. Kaplan:

In a letter to NRC on October 27, 1980, Florida Power & Light Company requested deletion of the St. Lucie 1 Biotic Monitoring Program from the Environmental Technical Specifications. The request was based on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board's Yellow Creek decision (ALAB-515) in which the ALAB held that the NRC could not specify water quality restrictions in excess of those imposed by EPA. Coincident with the deletion, FPL requested that EPA assume jurisdiction over an ongoing comprehensive biological monitoring program which would serve as a preoperational and, with minor modifications, an operational program for St. Lucie Unit 2 under EPA jurisdiction upon issuance of a single NPDES Permit for St. Lucie Units 1 and 2.

Attachment I is a copy of the proposed Biological Monitoring Program for Florida Power 6 Light Company's St. Lucie Plant.

This proposed program was submitted to EPA on April 3, 1980, as an attachment to St. Lucie Unit No. 1 NPDES Application. At that time it was believed that the proposed program would serve as operational monitoring for St. Lucie Unit No. 1 and pre-operational and operational monitoring for St. Lucie Unit No. 2.

A subsequent evaluation of the proposal resulted in additional monitoring stations being added into the sampling effort in order for the program to fully serve the operational phase of St. Lucie Unit No. 2. Attachment II outlines this additional effort.

PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

Mr. Charles D. Kaplan January 27, 1981 Page Two Florida Power Light Company requests that EPA evaluate the S

attached Biological Monitoring Program with the understanding that an application will be submitted for the St. Lucie Unit No. 2 NPDES Permit in the near future.

If there are any questions, please contact me at telephone 305/552-3561.

Sincerely, W. . Barrow, J Manager of Env'ronmental Permitting & Programs WJBjr:ADB:bjm Attachments

PROPOSED ST. LUCIE PLANT PREOPERATIONAL AND OPERATIONAL BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM I. GENERAL The ecol'ogical baseline study of Florida Power' Light Company's (FPL) St. Lucie Unit No. 1 was designed and implemented by the staff of the Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory. Five offshore sampling stations were established (Figure 1), and sampling was conducted from July 1971 to August, 1974.

These results have been reported as St. Lucie Plant baseline data prepared by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (References 4 through 12). The last portions of the data analyses and report preparation for this baseline study are presently being completed. Following the sampling for the baseline study, the Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS) for the operational monitoring program, contained in the operating license for St.

Lucie Unit No. 1 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC),

were written. These specifications delineated the biotic communities to be studied and stated that sampling was to be conducted at the same five stations established for the baseline study. The objective of the operational monitoring study was to gather data for comparison with data obtained during the baseline study.

In March 1976, sampling for the operational monitoring program was begun by Applied Biology, Inc. (ABI). In addition to .the five stations established for the baseline study, a near-shore site south of the plant was selected as a control station.

This control station was located distant from the plant and therefore away from possible influence from warm water discharges.

~0 0 00~ 0 '

0 00

~ 70 00

~ 000

~ 00 oooo oooo o 1 2

~ \0 SCALE

~

~

r>> ~ ~ ~ 00 000 ~

0 ~~ ~ 00

~ 000 0 I~ ~ ~ 0

~

00 e 7

00 0

~ e 0

0 ro

'-7.

Q

~

~

0

~ 70 ~

po ~

7 og ~

~ rr 0 0

0 ~0 00 77 0

~ r 00

~0 r0 ~

7 0

0

• 0 4 ~ 7 0 0

.gl r Q 0 00 0

0~Q

~

r. ~

~

~

0 J' 0 0 0 ~ \

0 ~0 Or

~ ~

L~

0 4 ~ Dischar e 0

2 z ~ 7

~

r Io'

.CO 0I St.Luct .O PJap..'g .;--':; ~Intake 0

~ I 7

~ ~

0

~0

~ I

~ ~

0 e

~~

rI 0 ~ ~

. ~

~ ~ ~

r 0+ ~0

~

0 r ~ 0>>

~ 0 0 r.

I' I'

0

\ 0

~0 '

~ ~

0~

Figure 1. Location of the five offshore sampling stations (1.-5) estab'Iishe for baseline study and the control (C) station designated for the operational monitoring study.

e 1 ~

2

In accordance with the ETS, collections were made to assess benthic organisms, plankton, nekton, macrophytes, water quality and migra-tory sea turtles. The results and analyses of these collections have been reported annually (Ref. 1, 2, 3, 16).

The five offshore stations were established by the Florida Department of Natural Resources (FDNR) before a comprehensive evaluation of the offshore currents was available'. More recently, water current data (Ref. 14) has been obtained which indicates that if the stations were relocated they could better evaluate the biological communities in areas of potential plume".impact.

As shown in'Figure 2, the predominant surface currents, and subse-quent plume orientation from. the point of discharge (Station 1),

are to the north. Based on water current, evaluation and the results of the biological monitoring program to date, FPL believes that certain revisions to the program prescribed in the ETS. and/or NPDES Permit, are appropriate. The program described herein reflects these revisions and would be used by both St. Lucie Unit No. 1 (operational monitoring) and St. Lucie Unit No. 2 (preoperational and operational monitoring).

In the regulatory scheme established by the Federal Water Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA),.33 USCA 55 1251't: seq.

the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was given jurisdiction over all water quality matters relating to non-radiological liquid r

effluents. In its Yel'low Cre'ek decision (ALAB-515), the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board held that the NRC may not specify water quality restrictions in excess of those imposed by

~ ~ ~

)

r epe I

~ ~

~ o

?.w.

~ ',

e )r 8 Si

~ ~

o r -': r ro

~ ~

~

-=" Q ot ae 1 ~

o~

\

h 'a ~ e>

~ )

) aaF o

\ hr e

~ ~

o oa, r

~o

~

a ~

e ~

e ~ ~

~

~o roe rr

~

~a o

'4 ~

e ~a e

ear )

~ ~ C-':

~ r ~

7" r OXO QF o

'a )'-

e g ~

\ 0'.'. a r~ ~ ~

~a

~

e

\

e

~ r St. L~ri=i~',

Q )F.

0 gr ~ ~

'I V,,

~ ~

a

.f: ~ ~

~ Me ~ ~

F

~)

Kea

+ e' a lo qQ r ~

re o

ea ea>

~,I, 6.goy

~ ~ ',

Figure 2. Frequency distribution of surface current direction in relation to operational monitoring sampling stations.

EPA. On t t the basis of ALAB-515, and the water quality effluent limitations and monitoring requirements contained in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by EPA pursuant to FNPCA for St. Lucie Unit No. 1, FPL has petitioned the NRC for the deletion of thermal and chemical monitoring require-ments contained in the ETS for St. Lucie Unit 1. However, this request to the NRC did not address the aquatic biological monitor-ing requirements also contained. in the St. Lucie Unit No. 1 ETS.

Xn order to remove this state of implicit dual regulation, FPL proposes to incorporate appropriate aquatic biolog'ical monitoring requirements into the NPDES -permit for St. Lucie Units 1 and. 2 and to request their'deletion from the Unit 1 ETS. (The NRC operating and accompanying ETS for St. Lucie Unit No. 2 have not yet 'icense been issued). The program described below is herewith submitted to.

EPA for that purpose.

II. PROPOSED BIOLOGXCAL MONITORING PROGRAM and benthic organisms of the Atlantic Ocean near the plant discharge to determine the extent that plant operations may be influencing the near shore ecosystem.

S ecification The biological conditions shall be assessed

1) in terms of abundance and composition of the marine biotic community, and 2) in terms of the relationship between certain chemical and physical properties of the waters and the abundance and composition of the biological community. Communities described below ar

S to be evaluated to determine potential alterations due to plant operation.

A. Benthic Or anisms Benthic organisms will be collected quarterly and inventoried as to kind and abundance.

B. Plankton Plankton samples will be collected monthly. Phytoplankton will be analyzed for kind and abundance. Chlorophyll "a" will be analyzed as an estimate of phytoplankton biomass. Zooplankton will be analyzed for kind and abundance. On a bimonthly basis, vital staining will be used to estimate mortality of selected zooplankters.

C. Nektonic Or anisms Samples will be collected by gill netting once per month during April through September and twice per month during October through March. Kind and abundance of organisms present will be determined.

, Analysis will be made on water samples taken at the surface level at the same time as the phytoplankton sample collection.

Parameters studied will be temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen content, turbidity and certain selected nutrients.

E. Re ortin Re uirements Results of the aquatic biological monitoring program prescribed

above shall be reported in an Annual Non-Radiological Environ-mental Monitoring Report to be submitted to EPA.

III. IMPLEMENTATION OF PROPOSED BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM A. INTRODUCTION The monitoring program study design originated and was imple-mented in 1971 by the Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory. The sampling regime was based on the ecological information available at the time. Sample locations were selected in relation to the predicted plume direction and areal extent (Ref. 4),

and the major macrohabitats known to exist off Hutchinson Island.

Stations 1, 2 and 3 were located in the projected thermal plume area while 4 and 5 were established to be north and south controls located in the same macrohabitats as Station 2 (Ref. 5).

Since 1972, extensive data on the biological communities near the St. Lucie Plant have been obtained (Ref. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, ll, 12, 16). Additional physical data has been gathered on winds (Ref. 13), currents (Ref. 12) and the thermal plume (Ref. 15).

These biological and physical studies indicate that effects of the St. Lucie discharge may be limited to surface areas near the point of discharge. The study design should therefore evaluate the biological conditions in the near-field area of potential plume impact. The proposed study design to implement the program described in II above is herein given.

B. Benthic Or anisms To assess the potential that there are thermal effects on the benthic community, quarterly samples will be taken at control station BC, Station Bl, and at a station (B2) to be located just north of.

the thermal plume's warmest spot (Figure 3). Four or more replicates will be taken. Station 2 of the current program will be retained as Station Cl to help integrate the modified program with the existing data. All other benthic sampling at the offshore stations established by FDNR will be terminated.

C. Plankton Ph to lankton Three replicates from five nearshore stations will be collected monthly from surface and bottom depths for analysis of phytoplankton abundance and species composition. Two replicates from each station and depth will be collected for chlorophyll "a" analysis. The existing stations will be relocated and concentrated in the immediate area of the thermal discharge. On each sampling data, station locations will be oriented with respect to the plume configuration and will be located in the thermal plume's warmest spot (existing Station 1 ;Pl in Figure 4) and at 100 m and 450 m from this warmest spot in the plume (Figure 4 ; P2 and P3). A control station (PC) will be located 200 m upcurrent from this warmest spot. Existing Station 2 will be retained as station Cl to help integrate the data from the modified program with the existing data. All other phytoplankton stations will be deleted.

o ~~

o e

~ ~

o

~ ~ ~ ~

o ~ e

~ e 1 ~ ~ e o

t ARDS K>LO!WETERS coo o

e ~

e

~

~

2000 $ 00O Q

~ ~

4h 5 CA(.K

~ ~ o ~

oo ~ ~ oo ~

o ~~

e

'I ~ o o

~'

e o

e o

~ \o o

~o e o

o o 1~

~ 'h z

o ~

g r ~ ~ oo

~ ~

eoe o eo

~ o oo o o

a ~ ~

-..ggl.

~

rs s ~

~'

~ o '-.'-:

o~ Ck e

~

o ~ ,~ ~ 'h gl o

e \r A o or i F g o ~o~ e eQ e Q cl -x

~ ~ e

~ oo

' S o ~ ~ ~

-0 o Qe e

~ r h

~ 4

~

4 ~

~

St. Lust

-':~ O al ~

f

~

o r ~

Plart..--

~

rr" ~

r o

~ .o .o'

~ \~

~ ~

~o ~

o eio I.

O. BC (CQ "4TRO1 STATtQN) e ~

e oo ~ ~

r~

r o\ ~

~

e r

~ o rg ~~

~

~

e ~ ~

r o

~ ~ o o

ho ~ ~ r ~

~o

~ ~

e r ~

~ ~ ~ ~

Figure 3. . Location of benthic sampling stations 9

P'Phytoplankton .Z=Zoojlankton ROTE,'tations PC, P2, P3 and ZC, Z2, Z3 >rill be

. moved as needed to maintain their position relative to the thermal plume.

6'!

~!>> I

~8

)

(1!

~

Q! 5,z5/I T>>>>>>R>>>>>>I. Pt.l>>>>>>>>

)'I'1;

>>\ '.

Qpz P I50{AlCZCAHQ. SUBMERGEDi

~

I OiSCHu,h~E~-'TAXTur~C4l Qcl

<~

pt z~

I 5T.

. I lb't! >>~>>

o c

~

IOWUI gz 1>>,

C I~

II

>>!.: h.

Wl8l'CT4<f

~,I

~ l I

SUBMERGED .

INTAI<E M(4, STRUCTURE

~ ~

>

h!

h: '

II'>>

Figure 4, Examp)e of relative location of plankton sampling stations ~ ~

~

Zooplankton samples will be collected monthly at five nearshore stations (Figure 4). Two replicates will be collected from surface and bottom depths at each station. One replicate will be analyzed r

for taxonomic composition and abundance and the other will be examined using the vital dye technique to determine copepod mortality on a bimonthly basis. Stations will be relocated in the plume and oriented in relation to plume configuration at the time of sampling.

Stations will be located in the thermal plume's warmest spot Zl and at 200 m and 450 m from this warmest spot (Z2 and Z3). A control station (ZO) will be located 200 m upcurrent from the warmest spot.

To maintain continuity between programs, existing Station 2(Cl) will continue to be monitored. All other zooplankton sthtions will be eliminated. Vital dye tests will be carried out at the three plume stations and at the control station.

D. Nekton The sampling program will consist. of nearshore gill netting.

Two sampling stations will be established near the intake structure and three in the discharge area (Figure 5). The discharge station samples will provide data on near, intermediate and distant effects of the plume on fish distribution. Stations will be located in the thermal plume's warmest spot and 200 m and 450 m from this warmest spot. These stations will be sampled as follows: once per month during April through September when the commercially important migratory species are generally not present offshore the St. Lucie Plant; and twice per month during October through March, when these species are present. Also, Station 2(Cl) will be retained to help i:ntegrate the data from the modified program with the existing data.

~

~

~ ~

~

~

(

'lq

~ I

~ ~ II~ 'o

~

'I ~

I if:

/,'.

0 A'!.

~ ~

-It: I 0 'I J

I

~

I I I e'(

YHCFIMAL PLUME I~

" NOTE', These stations ail] be oriented

'K:

~ e I:,

as needed to maintain their Q F4 / / ~ positions relative to the jlume.

')SCHAtPA CNAt

,N" rII

~

~1 C

p~'!I(

Suhmerged Discharge Structure I O

~t c

5T. LVCtf POWM Pl.ANT "c II

~

p F2 eI;.

'6 F].. +"Submerged Intake Structure WTAXC CA'fAL ~

I IHDlA X Rl VF. 8 0 ,I lm c eI

.Figure 5, Location of. gill net stations

~,

~ ~

~~

E. Water Qualit Samples for water quality analysis will be collected con-currently with phytoplankton samples. Physical and chemical para-meters will be monitored only at the surface because nearshore waters have been demonstrated to be homogeneous throughout the water column.

Stations will be located in the immediate area of the thermal dis-charge. Station locations, oriented with respect to plume configura-tion, will be in the thermal plumes warmest location Pl and 100 m and 450 m from Station 1 (P2 and P3). A control station (PC) will be located 200 m upcurrent from Station Pl. Station 2 will be retained, as Cl to help integrate the data with previous operational monitoring results.

IV. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FROM THE ETS MONITORING PROGRAM The ETS contain a provision for modification of the program based upon the data accumulated after two years of oper'ation. The program proposed in II above differs significantly from that prescribed in the St. Lucie Unit No. 1 ETS in several respects. These changes and their bases are described below.

A.. Plankton Station locations and analytical techniqu'es have been revised.

. Justification Except for Station 1 in the immediate'discharge area, no major differences in the plankton communities have been noted (Ref. 3, page D-17). Stations should be relocated along the axis of the plume 13

to assess the degree of influence in the plume area and the proposed I

changes will provide data to make this assessment. Statistical comparison of phytoplankton density at the nearshore stations has generally shown significantly higher surface and bottom phytoplank-ton densities at Station 1. Chlorophyll "a" concentration has also been generally elevated at Station 1 (Ref. 3, page D-22). The increases may have resulted from phytoplankton from the discharge canal and/or enhanced phytoplankton growth due to increased water temperature.

Surface zooplankton densities at Station 1 have been signifi-cantly greater than those at Stations 0, 2, 3, and 4 (Ref. 3, page E-15).

It is likely that herbivorous zooplankters became concentrated through imigration into the area of Station 1 in response to increased phy-toplankton abundance. The proposed sampling stations in the dis-charge plume will facilitate assessment of possible thermal effects on the zooplankton community.

Zooplankton mortality has been estimated based on major physical damage to the organisms. A more sensitive method is to use vital dyes. Vital,dye tests should be made on zooplankters collected from selected stations during alternate collection periods. The proposed station locations and analytical techniques would provide a more

'accurate determination of plant impact.

B. Nektonic Or anisms Collecting of samples by trawling and seining has been deleted and station locations have been revised.

14

g Justification The ETS allows collection of samples by "Trawling, seining, or other suitable method." Trawling and beach seining are sampling techniques that are highly selective for bottom dwelling and surf zone dwelling forms. During operational monitoring, neither of these communities appear to be influenced by the thermal discharge 3, page B-40 and B-43) . Gill netting obtains samples in the I'Ref.

water column and is an effective method for collecting sport and commercial fish species. The proposed schedule emphasizes collections during the period of the year when migratory species such as bluefish, Spanish mackerel and king mackerel are in the vicinity of the St.

Lucie Plant. Stations moved to the immediate plume area will better assess the influence of the thermal discharge on the movements of fishes in the area.

vegetation has been deleted.

Justification The highest diversity of algae, 88 species, was collected during the third year of the study. The number of species collected was lowest in early spring and highest in summer and early fall.

This seasonal pattern was typical for subtropical marine vegetation.

Diversity was higher near shore because drift (unattached) algae were the predominate forms and these were carried inshore by the prevailing winds and currents (Ref. 3, page F-4).

15

~

'k

Vegetation distribution and growth at all near shore stations surveyed seems to be limited by a lack of appropriate substrate for vegetation attachment. Well-developed macrophyte communities may occur on isolated rock outcroping but the chances of the colle'cting dredge encountering these outcropings is remote. Because the attached macrophyte community seems to be limited, it is probably not important as a food source or habitat for organisms living in the St. Lucie area. Since, based on the above, the sampling provides little useful data, there is no need for further monitoring of mac-rophytes.

Q depth levels has been deleted.

'I Justification Data from the control station,. located distant from the St. Lucie Plant, were compared with results from station-specific water para-meter analyses. Data from the literature for marine waters of near-shore coastal environments adjacent to the plant were also compared with the present study. Data comparisons (Ref. 3) indicated:

a. Nearly all parameters measured varied significantly during different months of the year.

b. There were no significant differences in physical and chemical parameters between stations or at different. depths.

These results indicate that the operation of the St. Lucie Plant has no significant effect on the selected nutrients in this study.

16

Accordingly, monitoring for physical and chemical parameters should be required only at the surface. This will provide representative data which can be used to assess any relationship that, might exist between the chemical and physical properties of the water and the character of the biological community.

E. Mi rator Sea Turtles Various requirements relating to the determination of species, numbers, nesting characteristics, effects of the discharge thermal plume, and temperature stress, hatching and rearing factors for migratory sea turtles have been deleted.

Justification The requirements of the ETS have been satisfied. Surveys of the species, numbers, and nesting characteristics of sea turtles that nest along FPL shoreline property and selected adjacent control areas f in 1975, and 1977 and 1979 were completed. A report was prepared (Ref. 2) and submitted to the NRC by FPL letter IL-78-109, dated March 30, 1978. This report also described studies performed to determine the effects of the discharge thermal plume on turtle nesting patterns and turtle hatchling swimming. Additf.onally, control studies on temperature stress, hatching and rearing factors conducted using turtle eggs from displaced nests were reported.

The nesting studies showed the following:

1. There are three species of turtles nesting on Hutchinson I'sland. The most common is the Atlantic Loggerhead turtle, 17

followed by the green turtle and. the leatherback turtle.

2. In 1975 a decline in crawl activity was observed near the S't. Lucie Plant which was most probably due to the construction of the offshore intake and discharge systems, but nesting activities returned to normal patterns in 1977.

3. Site specificity of nesting/renesting intervals, and timing of nesting appeared to not be affected by plant operation during 1977.

4. A.. population of 1491 nesting females was estimated. for 1977.

The results of the studies of turtle hatchlings show .no evidence that potential nearshore surface temperatures from the plant will cause permanent. impairment or mortality (Ref. 2). Based on the above, no apparent harm is being caused to sea turtles by the St. Lucie Plant.

Therefore, the required studies and monitoring need not, be included in the operational monitoring program.

P. Entrainment of A uatic Or anisms {ETS 4.1) Various require-ments relating to assessment of the effects on planktonic organisms of passage through the plant condensers have been deleted.

Justification The results of the ichthyoplankton and zooplankton sampling have been presented in the Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Monitoring Reports for 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979 (Ref. 1, 2, 3, 16).

18

These studies show that the nearshore waters in the vicinity of the St. Lucie Plant are not typical of a fish nursery area and have representative zooplankton populations. Physical characteristics needed in a nursery area are low or fluctuating salinities, slit-sand-mud-bottom, and extensive beds of rooted aquatic vegeation. Chemically, the waters in the St. Lucie Plant area are homogeneous throughout with little seasonal variations. Physically, the nearshore areas are characterized by the presence of relatively constant salinities, shell-hash sediments and the absence of significant macrophytic grassbeds.

I Important sport fish were not found to be spawning offshore in the area of. the St. Lucie Plant. In general, low concentrations of fish eggs and larvae have been recorded in the intake canal which confirms that entrainment'is not significant. Zooplankton losses through entrainment are not significant.

Based on the above, the required Entrainment Studies need not be included in the operational monitoring program.

19

s

,LJTEPlLTURE CITED

1. Applied Biology, Irc- 1977-.,Ecological moni oring at the Florida Power 5 Light Co-, St. Lucie Plant, annual report, 1976- Peport to Florida Power E Light Co., tlizmi, Fla-20 - 1978- Ecological monitoring at the Florida

~

Power g Light Co., St- Lucie Plant, annual report, 1977. Report to Florida Power 5 Light Co., l'liami, Fla-

3. Applied Biology, Irc. 1979. 'lorida Pow r 5 Ligh Company, St.

Lucie . Plant annual non-radiol ogiczl environr;en'.al monitoring report, 1978. Vol II and III. Biotic monitoring- Report to

~

Florida Power 5 Light Co , fliami, Fla-Light.Co- 1971. Hutcninson Island Plant Unit flo-Florida e '1-Power &

Environmental report Docket llo. 50-335. '0 flay 1971- Flor- .

ida Power 8 Light Co-, fIiami, Fla-

... 5. Florida Department 'of f'fatural Resources. 1972. 'reliminary.

environmental studies of coastal v:zters rear Hutchinson Island, Florida- Progress report. to Florida Power 5Light Co. Hiami, Fla.

e Gallagher, P.-f1. 1977a. Nearshore marine ecol ogy at F',orida: 1971-1974. I.. P,ationale and rethods.

Hutchinson,'sland, Fla.

liar. Res. Publ. Ho. 23:1-5.

7- 1977b. Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchinson ~

'Isl,nd, Fl orida. 1971-1974. I I. Sediments. Fla- liar- Res.

Publ l.o 2 3: 6-24.

8. Worth, D-F., and'll-L- Hollinger- 1977- Nearshore marine ecology zt Hutchi nson Isl and, Fl orida: . 1971-1974- '

II. Physical and chemical environm nt. Fl'a. Hzr. R s- Publ- No- 23:25-85.

Fu!.ch, C.R.; and S-E. Dwinel1 - 1977. Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchinson Isl and, Fl orida: 1971-1974. IY. 'ancel ets and fishes. Fla. fIar- Res. Publ. Vo- 24:1-23;

10. Camp, D.K., N-H- Ilhiting, and R.E. fI;tin. 1977. fl arshore marine ecol ogy at Hutchi nson Isl and, Fl orida: 1971-1974. V.

Arthropods- Fla. Har- Res. Publ. llo. 25:1-63.,

Gal lagh r, R-ll-, N-L- Holi inger, R-H. Ingle and C.R. Fuich, 1972-fIarine turtle nesting on Hutchinson Island in 1971. Fla- Dept-Hat Resour-, lIar- Pes. Lab. Spec- Sci'ept- flo- 37:1 12 . Ilorth, D F., and J B. Smith. 1976. tlarine turt'le nesting on

~ Hutchinson Island in 1973. Fla. liar. Res. Publ. Ho-'18:l 13- Dames tloore- 1977-. Graphical znd tzbular wind roses- St. Lucie, Hutchinson. Isl and, Florida, 1973. Peport to F'lorida Pow r 5 Light Co. Hiami, Fla.

20

.Envirosphere Co 19~ St. t'"

ie Pi ant site oceagurrent analysis.

Peport to Flori8PPov( r k 1.ight Co. Miami, Fla.

- 15. Envirosphere Co. 1977. Thermal evaluation study. St. Lucie Unit 1 ocean diffuser. R port to Florida Poster 8 Light Co. tiiami, Fla..

l6. Applied Biolog;, Inc. 1980. Florida Po;e'er 5 Light Company, St. Lucie Plant annual non-radiological environmental monitoring.

Vol. II and III. Biotic monitoring. 'Report to Florida report,'979.

Pokier P Light Co., tliami, Fla.

~ s

~s 21

~ Ca

~ ~ ( .i)

ATTACHMENT XX.

St. Lucie Unit No. 2 Biolo ical Monitorin Pro ram 0 erational Phase Additions The following additions to the Biological Monitoring Program P

submitted to EPA on April 3, 1980, are recommended in order for to serve St,.'ucie Unit No. 2 in the operational mode.

the'rogram A. Benthic or anisms. S ecification Two additional sampling stations will be added in the vicinity of the Unit No. 2 discharge. These stations will be in close proximity to the discharge pipe with one north and one south of the pipe.

Stations will be sampled quarterly with four or more re-plicates collected to assess the taxonomic composition and abundance.

Justification The Unit No. 2 discharge pipe will extend 1875 ft further offshore than the. Unit No. 1 pipe. There is a habitat and sediment change from beach terrace gray sand near shore (e.g.

Unit 1 discharge) (area) to a shell hash substrate in the area of Unit 2 discharge. The ongoing monitoring program has shown these habitats to support somewhat different communities. These different communities may react diff-erently to a heated discharge.

B. Ph to lankton. S ecification An additional two stations will be located in the middle of Unit No. 2 thermal plume's warmest area and at a control station 200 m upcurrent from this warmest spot. These new stations will be located at

least 1,200 feet from the control and warm spot stations for, Unit No. 1. Collections will be the same as proposed for Unit No. 1 with three replicates collected monthly from surface and bottom depths at each station. Two replicates from each station and depth will be collected for chlorophyll "a" analysis.

Justification The Unit No. 2 discharge pipe extends. about 1,875 feet I

pas t the Unit No. 1 point of discharge. The warmest surface area from the diffuser section of the Unit No. 2 discharge pipe could be in a band parallel to the pipe and perpendicular to the predominant northerly current.

The freely drifting plankton will intersect this heated aria and the effects of the heated water on the community should be evaluated. The Unit No. 1 discharge characteris-ties are different from Unit No. 2 and, accordingly, are not.

directly comparable.

in the same locations as the new phytoplankton stations. Two replicates will be collected monthly from surface and bottom depths at each station. One replicate will be analyzed for taxonomic composition and abundance and the other will be examined using the vital dye technique to determine copepod mortality on a bimonthly basis.

'Justification The zooplankton community should be analyzed for the same reasons given for phytoplankton.

D. ,Nekton.. S ecification Two additional offshore gill net stations will be established in the thermal plume of Unit No. 2. One station will be in the middle of plume's warmest area and the other abobt 200 m from this warmest spot. The control station for Unit No. l should be adequate for Unit No. 2. The stations will be sampled once per month during April through September when the commercially important migratory species are generally not present offshore the St. Lucie Plant and twice per month during October through March when these species are present.

Justification The adult fish community in the discharge plume from Unit No.

2 should be examineQ to determine if attraction or exclusion hs occurring. The St. Lucie No. 2 discharge pipe will extend about l,875 feet past the Unit No. l point of discharge,and the discharged water may influence fish movement in the area.

will be collected at the same stations and frequency that the phytoplankton are sampled.

Justification Water quality determinations are made to support the plankton programs and should be taken concurrently with phy'toplankton. The possibility that changes in the water quality due to the discharge of Unit No. 2 should be examined.

This program will enable an evaluation of the impact of the Unit No.. 2 discharge to be made. The addition of these stations and sampling regimes takes into consideration -the option of directing the plant discharge through the St. Lucie Unit No. 2 diffuser pipe if one unit is down.