ML17221A749

Annual Environ Operating Rept for 1987.

ML17221A749
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	12/31/1987
From:	APPLIED BIOLOGY, INC.
To:
Shared Package
ML17221A747	List: ML17221A746 ML17221A748 ML17221A749
References
AB-595, NUDOCS 8805030203
Download: ML17221A749 (228)

Text

SL2-ER-OL LIST OF'FFECTIVE PAGES NRC Questions

~Pa e Amendment l-l 1 2-1 1 2-2 1 3-1 1 4-1 1 4-2 1 4-3 1 5-1 1 6-1 1 7-1 1 8-1 1 9-1 1 9-2 1 10-1 1 10-2 1 10-3 1 240.1-1 1 240. 1-2 1 240. 2-1 1 240. 3-1 5 240. 3-2 5 240.3-3 5 240. 3-4 5 240.3-5 5 240. 3-6 5 240. 3-7 5 Fig 1 5 Fig 2 5 Fig 3 5 Fig 4 5 F240. 2-1 1 291. 1-1 291. 1-2 2 91. 1-3 291. 1-4 291.1-5 291. 1-6 291. 1-7 291. 1-8 291.1-9 291. 1-10 291. 1-11 2 91. 1-12 291.1-13 RNQ-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES NRC Questions Anendment 291. 1-14 291.1-15 291. 1-16 2 91. 1-17 291. 1-18 291.1-19 291. 1-20 2 91. 1-21 291. 1-22 291.1-23 291. 2-1 F291.2-1 F291. 2-2 291.3-1 291. 3-2 291.4-1 291. 4-2 F291.4-1 F2 91. 4-2 291.5-1 291. 6-1 291.7-1 291. 7-2 2 91. 7-3 291. 7-4 291. 7-5 291. 7-6 291. 7-7 291. 7-8 291. 7-9 291. 7-10 291. 7-11 291. 8-1 291.8-2 291. 9-1 291. 9-2 291. 9-3 291. 9-4 291. 10-1 291.10-2 291. 10-3 291.10-4 RNQ-2 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ERAL LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES NRC Questions (Cont'd)

Page Anendmen t 291.11-1 2 91. 12-1 291.13-1 291. 14-1 291. 14-2 291.15-1 291. 16-1 291. 17-1 291. 18-1 291.19-1 291. 20-1 2 91. 21-1 291.21-2 291.21-3 2 91. 21-4 291.21-5 291.21-6 291.21-7 291.21-8 2 91. 21-9 2 91. 21-10 291. 21-11 2 91. 21-12 291.21-13 291.21-14 291.21-15 291,21-16 291.21-16 291.21-17 291.21-18 291.21-19 2 91. 21-20 291.21-21 291.21-22 2 91. 21-23 2 91. 21-24 291. 21-25 291.21-26 291.21-27 291. 21-28 291.21-29 291.21-30 2 91 . 21-31 291.21-32 291.21-33 291. 21-34 RNQ-3 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL LIST OF EFFECTIVE PAGES NRC Questions (Cont'd)

Page Aaendment 291.21-35 5 2 91. 21-36 5 291. 21-37 5.

291. 21-38 291.21-39 5 2 91. 21-40 291.21-41 5 291. 21-42 5 291.21-43 5 2 91. 21-44 5 291.21-45 5 291.21-46 5 2 91. 21-4 7 5 2 91. 21-48 5 291. 22-1 5 F291.22-1 (Sh 1 of 2) 5 F291.22-1 (Sh 2 of 2) 5 2 91 .23-1 5 2 91. 24-1 5 2 91.25-1 5 291. 25-2 5 291.25-3 ,5 291. 26-1 5 2 91.2 7-1 5 291. 2 7-2 5 291.27-3 5 310.1-1 4 310.2-1 2 310 .3-1 2 310. 4-1 2 310.5-1 2 310.6-1 4 310.7-1 4 310.7-2 4 310 .8-1 4 310.9-1 2 310.10-1 2 310.11-1 2 310.12-1 2 310.13-1 2 310.14-1 2 470.1-1 3 470.2-1 3 470.3-1 3 470.4-1 3 470.5-1 3 470.6-1 3 RNQ-4 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

4 PROPERTY LINE N'LOOD PLAIN BOUNDARY AT MEAN WATER LEVEL BLIND CREEK OCEAN BOUNDARY AT MEAN SEA LEVEL STATE MANGROVE ROAD FLOOD PLAIN A1A ELEV 2 FT 2 ATLANTIC OCEAN 2 FT.

BIG MUD CREEK INDIAN RIVER I

SI. ISCHG.C SWITCHYARD PLANT ISLAND ELEV 16 FT.

2 FT 100-YR FLOOD BOUNDARY ELEVATION 7 FT.

2 FT INTAKE CANAL SCALE D

0 1/2 STATUTE MILE HERMAN BAY 2 FT.

ALL ELEVATIONS RELATIVE TO 1929 NGVD PROPERTY LINE FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 100-YR FLOOD BOUNDARY WITHIN I

FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT PROPERTY Amendment No. FIGURE 240.2-1 1, (4/81)

)

J +'l H

7

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

Xdentify your latest scheduled commercial operating date for St Lucie Unit 2.

~Res esse The present scheduled date for commercial operation of St Lucie Unit 2,is Shy, 1983. This date is based on the receipt of an operating license in November, 1982 followed by core load and low power testing.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

Ql-1 Amendment No. 1, (4/81)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

2. Discuss status of your proposed sale of 55 MW of St Lucie Unit 2 and your planned firm purchase of capacity from Tampa Electric Co in the 1985-87 timeframe. Is it a correct interpretation of Table 1.1-9 that the proposed sale has been deducted from capacity but the proposed purchase has not been added to capacity, and if so, why?

~Res oese It is a correct interpretation of Table 1.1-9 that FP&L's offer for sale of 55 MW to other utilities has been deducted from capa-C3.ty s The planned purchase from Tampa Electric was not contracted at the time of printing of this report, and therefore, could not be shown as an addition to generation capacity.

Subsequent to the data filed in the Environmental Report-Operating License, a joint motion by Justice Department, NRC Staff and FP&L was filed with the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board of NRC on September 12, 1980 in Docket No. 50-389A seeking the approval of a settlement agreement and proposed license conditions for St Lucie Unit 2.

Included in the license conditions is a provision for 16 certain utility systems to have an opportunity to participate in the ownership of St Lucie Unit 2 of up to 15.14557 percent in the aggregate. Additionally, in a separate agreement, the Company has offered Seminole Electric Cooperative a 6 percent ownership share.

Thus, should the Licensing Board implement the proposed license conditions, approximately 21 percent of St Lucie Unit 2 could be offered to the various participants. Based on the 802 MW rating of the unit, total participation shares to be offered would be ap-proximately 170 MW. One of the utilities included in the above, Orlando Utilities Commission, entered a participation agreement with FP&L for a 6 '8951 percent ownership share, and on January 13, 1981 an initial closing took place. Negotiations with some of the other potential participants are pending.

With respect to the capacity purchases from Tampa Electric Company, FP&L entered a unit power purchase agreement with TECO on September 10, 1979 regarding TECO's proposed Big Bend Unit 4. The unit with an anticipated rating of 417 MW is scheduled for oper-ation beginning in 1985. In accordance with the agreement, FP&L would be entitled to capacity and associated energy in the follow-ing amounts and timeframe: s Q2-1 Amendment No.l, (4/81)

SL2-ER-OL From A roximate MW In Service Date 12/31/85 70 292 1/1/86 12/31/86 50 209 1/1/87 12/31/87 25 104 No ER-OL revisions are required.

Q2<<2 Amendment No. 1, (4/81)

SL2-E R-OL Question No.

3. What reserve margin as a percentage=of peak load demand does FP&L vie+ as necessary to maintain minimum reliability conditions on its system in 1983-85 timeframe?

~Res ense For capacity expansion planning purposes, FP&L considers reserve margi.ns of 20 percent to 25 percent an acceptable range to insure an adequate and reliable system for its customers. These reserve margins are based on summer net continuous ratings and summer peak loads.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

Q3-1 Amendment No. 1, (4/81)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

4. For the year 1980 show (a) breakdown of electric energy gener-ated by FP&L by fuel (i.e., gas, oil, nuclear, etc) and (b) the average production cost (fuel and 0 & M) by fuel type. Identify any availability problems you anticipate may occur in the foreseeable future with respect to any of the fuels you are currently dependent on.

~Res ense f

~ s See attached tables for responses to (a) and (b) above.

While shortage of a specific quantity fuel, namely low sulphur fuel oil, may occur from time to time, FP&L does not anticipate encountering fuel supply availability problems with any of its operating electric generating plants (i.e., gas, oil, nuclear).

This statement is based on the experience to date that while fuel costs are high, availability is adequate.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

Q4>>1 Amendment No. 1, (4/81)

SL2- E R- OL TABLE 4-1 UYILIYY: FLORIDA POWER A LIUME COMPANY ENERGY SOURCES Actual Actual, ENERGY SOURCES 1979 1980 (i) ANNUAL ENERGY INTERCHANGE- GWH 592.3 1,885.4 (2) NUCLEAR GWH 11,615.1 13,439.8 (3) COAL GWH (4) RESIDUAL-TOTAL GWH , 24,491.8 24,159.3 (5) Steam GWH 23,869.3 23,421.8 (6) CC GWH 622.5 737.5 (7) CT GWH (8) Diesel GWH (9) DISTILLATE-TOTAL GWH 248.2 310.1 (10) Steam GWH (11) CC GWH 36.4 (12) CT GWH 248.2 273.7 (i3) Diesel GWH (14) NATURAL GAS-TOTAL GWH 8,394.9 8,655.4 (15) Steam GWH 7,818.7 8,041.9 (16) CC GWH (17) CT GWH 576.2 613.5 (i8) Diesel GWH (i9) OTHER GWH (20) NET ENERGY FOR LOAD GWH 45,342.3 48,450.0

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 4-2 FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT AVERAGE PRODUCTION COSTS (FUEL AND 0 & M)

NUCLEAR FOSSIL/STEAM+

OIL GAS Fuel Expenses $ 539359,115 $ 846,899,377 $ 88,122,595 Operation Expenses $ 25,143,062 $ 31,702,960 Maintenance Expenses $ 38,881,446 39,680$ 611 GAS TURBINE* COAL-OIL MIX+ OTHER+

OIL GAS OIL GAS

$ 21,168,203 $ 11,064 214 $ 13,888,283 $ 39,111,046 320 1,3045914 $ 11,565,737 $ 4,213,495

$ 6,356,569 $ 2,546,681

• Some Expenses By Fuel Type Not Available o

SL2-ER"OL Question No.

5. In Tables 1.1-2 and 1.1-3, -identify where actual values end and projections begin. If actual energy and peak load values only go thru 1978 or 1979, provide actual values thru 1980. Also, in Table 1.1-3 indicate whether the peak load values include the interruptible loads.

~Res ense See revised ER-OL Tables 1.1-2 and 1.1-3.

Q5-1 Amendment No. 1, (4/81.)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

6. Explain your assumption that a delay in St Lucie 2 will preci-pitate a delay in the Martin Coal Unit 3.

~Res esse Tne assumption was: if St Lucie Unit 2 was delayed for reasons of financial, environmental, regulatory, or political issues, then it would be reasonable to assume that a similar delay could occur for Martin Coal Unit 3.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

Q6-1 Amendment No. 1, (4/81)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

7. What percentage of St Lucie Unit 2 is currently completed (specifically, what portion of the $ 925 million estimated capital cost has been spent)?

~Res oose The January 1981 estimated capital cost for St Lucie Unit 2 is

$ 1.1 billion. Of this amount, $ 661,921,000 or 60.2 percent of the estimated cost has been spent to date.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

Q7-1 Amendment No. 1, (4/81)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

8. Provide assumptions and trace through the calculations per- formed in your conclusions in Subsection 8.1.2 that, "The operation St Lucie Unit 2 will result in an annual savings of an estimated 8.5 million barrels of crude oil per year. This annual saving translates into a dollar saving of $ 137 million per year (1978 delivered price)".

~Res esse The methodology used to calculate the fuel oil required to replace other types of generation is as follows:

bbls/yr= (Unit MWH rating/hr)x(24hrs/da )x(da s/ r)x(ca acit factor)

Fossil eq'. MWH/bbl Assuming:

St Lucie Unit 2 rating: 850 Nw'ross Capacity factor: .72 Fossil eq. MWH/bbl: .63 bbls/yr= (850 MWH/hr)x(24 hrs/da )x(365 da s/ r)x(.72)

.63 bbls/yr= 8.5 million This annual saving today translates into a dollar saving of $ 306 million per year (January 1981 fuel price of $ 36.00/bbl).

See amended ER-OL Subsection 8 '.2.

Q8- 1 Amendment No. 1, (4/81)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

9. Present a production cost analysis which shows the difference in system production costs associated with the availability vs unavailability of St Lucie Unit 2 for the years 1983 thru 1987 (first five years of proposed operation). Perform analysis assuming electrical energy demand grows at (a) FPSL's official forecasted growth rate, and (b) one-half FP6L's official forecasted growth rate. Show all underlying assumptions used in the production cost analysis, and identify sources of all replacement energy.

~Res ocse FP6L's current minimum system demand exceeds the capacity of its three existing nuclear units plus the addition of St Lucie Unit 2.

FPGL, therefore, intends to base load all of its nuclear units when available. This fact precludes the need to perform a cost analysis based on a 50 percent growth rate.

The following cost analysis of St Lucie Unit 2 was performed taking into account the offer for sale of 168 MW of its capability.

The operation of St Lucie Unit 2 will result in a annual fuel saving to FP&L of an estimated 6.3 million barrels of oil per year. This annual savings translates into a dollar saving to FP6L and its customers of an estimated $ 227 million per year (1981 delivered price).

Assumptions:

1. FPSL share of St Lucie Unit 2 ~ 634 MW

2. St Lucie Unit 2 capacity factor 72X

3. 'Nuclear equivalent conversion factor = 6.32 MBTU/BBL

4. System average fossil Heat Rate 10,000 BTU/KWH

5. Price of Oii $ 36.00 (19611 BBL

6. Fuel escalation rate = 8X Expected Average Annual 3.998x10 KWH Generation 8 72X 'Capacity Factor Q9- 1 Amendment No., 1, (4/81)

SL2-ER-OL Expected Average Annual 6.272x106 BBL Fossil Fuel Savings Expected Average Annual $ 227.78 million Dollar Savings (1981 Dollars)

See revised ER-OL Subsection 8.2.1.

Q9<<2 Amendment No. l, (4/81)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

10. Provide a compact updated table showing all environmental costs associated with operation (information should be of summary nature identifying the impact, unit of measurement, magnitude of impact, and evaluation of impact, (i.e., whether its negligible, or significant, etc.). This information is typically presented in tabular form in ER Chapter 11.

~Res ense Tne environmental costs associated with (plant) operation cannot be monetized because of the incommensurable nature of environ-mental costs. In the truest sense, only the costs for mitigating certain adverse environmental impacts can be monetized.

Operation of St Lucie Unit 2 will have insignificant environmental impacts on the surrounding area, which do not require any mitiga-tion costs. Plant components are designed to meet/surpass all applicable federal and state environmental regulations and/or standards, as shown in the attached table.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

Qlo-1 Amendment No. 1, (4/81)

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 10-1 Sheet 1 of 2 SUKiARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH OPERATION OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2

-Ma nitude with Units Im acted Area Evaluation I. Im acts on Water and A uatic Communities a) Circulating Water System i) Intake flow 520,000 gpm (Average) Atlantic Ocean Intake effects are negligible since flow is withdrawn and returned to Atlantic Ocean with insignificant consumptive use (Section 3.4.2)

- Entrainment 1.8 percent of offshore Atlantic Ocean Assuming 100 percent mortality of plankton entrained nearfield population through Unit 2, Loss of 1.8 percent will impose no significant adverse effect (Section 5.1.3.1.1)

- Impingement 160,000 finfish/yr Atlantic Ocean Projected biomass of impinged finfish and shellfish 60,000 shellfish/yr represent less than 0.04 and 0.005 percent, respectively, of the commercial catches in either St Lucie or Martin County. This overstates the adverse effects because species impinged do not correlate with typical, commercial and recreational species off Hutchinson Island (Section 5.1.3.1.2).

ii) Discharge - thermal For two (2) F isotherm:

- Atlantic Ocean Under worst condition, maximum temperature rise will Max. plume s ize 677 Ac res be 32 F. Maximum plume size and volume enclosed Max. volume - 1889 Ac- ft by a two (2) oF isotherm are as indicated.

Thermal effects on the receiving water body, the Atlantic Ocean, are 'insignificant (Section 5.1).

- Benthos Atlantic Ocean Thermal plume will not cause bottom scour (Section 3.4); operation will not induce any adverse effects on the Benthic community (Section 5.1.3.2.1).

- Plankton Table 5.1-17 lists thermal Atlantic Ocean Based on thermal tolerance and avoidance behavior of tolerance for plankton resident - species, and durations of exposure to thermal isotherms, no lethal responses in planktonic and nektonic species are anticipated (Section 5.1.3.2.1).

- Fish 25.5 Ac-ft plume for sum of Atlantic Ocean Same as above

'0 20 , 10o and5 F isotherms (Table 5.1-11)

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 10-1 (Cont'd) Sheet 2 of 2 Ma nitude with Units Im acted Area Evaluation I. Im acts on Water and A uatic Communities (Cont'd) b) Chemical and Biocide Waste Discharges Concentrations of constituents Intake canal Specifically, maximum total residual chlorine (TRC) are given in Table 3.6-1 and and Atlantic Ocean concentration of 0.08 mg/1 will meet EPA Effluent 5.3-1 (with dilutions) Limitations of 0.1 mg/1 at point of discharge (40CPR 423). Concentrations of other treated effluents also comply with Effluent Limitations and Florida state water quality standards. No significant effects on the receiving-water body (Sections 3.6 and 5.3) c) Sanitary Waste Discharges 17,000 gpd Intake canal Treated effluent will meet EPA Secondary Treatment Criteria (40CFR133) and Plorida state standard (PAC 17-6) and will be further diluted by some 10~

times prior to discharging to Atlantic Ocean (Section 5.4).

II. Radiolo ical Im act Man Dose rates: Effects are insignificant: i) predicated dose is 20 In-plant area-0.1 mrem/yr percent of the limits defined in Appendix I, 10CFR50,.

per individual and ii) natural background radiation and medical Within 50 mile radius 10 exposure result in doses exceeding 60,000 mrem/yr to mrem/yr per individual populations within a 50 mile radius (Section 5.2.5)

- Biota Total dose .rate for Effects are considered negligible because doses are Chelonia within comparable guide for man (Section 5.2.3) 2.0 mrem yr III. Other Im acts a) Transmission Lines None. Licensed in St Lucie Unit 1 stage (Section 5.5) b) Noise Maximum shift two (2) dB above Area within five (5) Maximum shift (less than five (5) dB) is not ambient mile radius considered significant. (.Table 5.6-2 and Section 5.6.2.6) c) Fogging Ten (10) hours/yr State Route AIA Low fogging potential based on maximum condenser discharge canal (temperature) rise of 32oF of Unit 2 operation area (Section 5 1 4)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

240.1 Descriptions of floodplains, as required by executive Order (2.4) 11988, Floodplain Management, have not been provided. The definition used in the Executive Order is:

inland and coastal waters including floodprone areas of off- shore islands, including at a minimum that area subject to a one percent or greater chance of flooding in any given year.

P

a. Provide descriptions of the floodplains adjoining the Atlantic Ocean, the Indian River and of all other water bodies, includ-ing intermittent water courses, within or adjacent to the site. On a suitable scale map, provide delineations of those areas that will be flooded during the one-percent chance flood in the absence of plant effects (i.e , pre-construction flood-plain).

b. Provide details of the methods used to determine the flood-plains in response to a. above. Include your assumptions of and bases for the pertinent parameters. used in the computation of the one-percent flood flow and water elevation. If studies approved by Flood Insurance Administration (FIA), Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or the Corps of Engineers are avail-able for the site or adjoining area, the details of analyses need not be supplied. You can instead provide the reports from which you obtained the floodplain information.

c. Identify, locate on a map, and describe all structures and topographic alterations in the floodplains.

r

Response

Development of the St Lucie site on Hutchinson Island was essen-tially completed before St Lucie Unit 1 became operational in 1976. Since Executive Order 11988 was promulgated in May, 1977, floodplain topography that existed then included the 16 foot elevation of the plant island, relative to National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD). Based on pre-construction U S Geological Survey topographic maps of the site area, floodplain elevations prior to construction varied between 2 and 5 feet.

Hutchinson Island, where the St Lucie,Plant is sited, is a coastal barrier island fronting the Atlantic Ocean between Stuart and Fort Pierce, Florida. It is separated from the Florida mainland by a tidal lagoon, the Indian River. The 23 mile long island is bounded to the north by Fort Pierce Inlet and to the south by St Lucie Inlet. Site topography is shown in Figures 2.3-1 and.2.3-2 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report - Operating License.

Q240. I- I Amendment No. l, (4/81)

SL2-ER-OL On the ocean side of the island, a long straight beach front extends between the two inlets, backed by a barrier dune with crest elevation varying from 10 to 14 feet along most of the island. Width of the barrier dune is relatively narrow and is less than 200 feet. Topography on the Indian River side 'sually of Hutchinson Island is more irregular. Along narrow sections, where mangroves are absent, the island width is generally 400 to 600 feet. Where the barrier dune is backed by mangroves, the width increases to more than a mile.

The 100-year preconstruction flood event would have inundated mangrove floodplain and the narrow sections of the island all'he along the Indian River up to the west side of the narrow barrier dune. On the ocean side storm surge elevation would reach 7 feet Mean Sea Level (apaproximately 8 1/2 feet Mean Low Water); At a 100-year flood event elevation of 7 feet above Mean Sea Level, most of the Hutchinson Island floodplain would 'be under 2 to 4 feet of water.

The basis of the 100-year flood level is a preliminary flood insurance study of St Lucie County, Florida, prepared by the Flood Insurance Administration (FIA) in 1978. Flood insurance maps were prepared from USGS topographic maps of the area. The 100-year flood boundary was established at 7 feet (NGVD) for both Indian River and Atlantic Ocean sides of Hutchinson Island.

The principal structures at the St Lucie Plant are the Reactor Building, Auxiliary Reactor Building and Turbine Generator Build-ing for St Lucie Units 1 and 2. These and auxiliary structures.

're shown in Figures 3.1-1 and 3.1-2 of the St Lucie Environmental Report Operating License. Topographic alterations are indicated for the various plant elevations, relative to the 4-foot mangrove elevation shown in Figure 2.4-15 of the St Lucie Plant Unit 2 Final Safety Analysis Report.

The area of landfill including the plant island is less than a 0.6 by 1.0 statute mile section of the floodplain between Big Mud Creek and Herman Bay. The plant island is at an elevation of at least 16 feet relative to NGVD. This elevation is at least nine feet above the FIA flood level for the 100-year event. Additional flood protection for St Lucie Units 1 and 2 is provided to more than 17.5 feet NGVD.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

9240.1-2 Amendment No. l, (4/81)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

240. 2 a. Discuss the hydrologic effects of all items identified in (5.0) response to Question 240.lc. Discuss the potential for altered flood flows and levels, offsite. Discuss the effects on offsite areas of debris generated from the site during flood events.

b. Provide the details of your analysis used in response to a.

above. The level of detail is similar to that identified in Question 240.1b.

~Res onse Hydrologic effects of floodplain modification at the St Lucie plant site were evaluated using a "displacement volume and equivalent rise" calculation. For this calculation, the. region of impact was defined as that segment of the Indian River extending from Statute Mile (SM) 965 of the Intracoastal Waterway near Fort Pierce Inlet to SM 988 at the St Lucie Inlet. The displacement volume for plant construction was defined as a 0.6 by 1,0 mile area of landfill for the St Lucie Plant and flood rise of 7 feet for the 100-y'ear event.

The displacement ris'e within the Indian River segment was calculated with the equation, Plant Area x Flood Rise ~ Region Area x Displacement Rise, where the region area was determined for an average width of the 23 mile segment of the Indian River. The average width was based on 22 measurements at one statute mile intervals from SM 975, opposite Herman Bay Point, extending north to the Fort Pierce Inlet and south to the St Lucie Inlet. The average width of the Indian River at Mean Low Water is 1.49 statute miles.

The displacement rise calculated with this approach was 0.12 feet. Figure 240.2-1 shows the 100-year flood boundary for Florida Power & Light St Lucie Site. The 100-year flood boundary contour is 7 feet relative. to NGVD.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

Q240.2-1 Amendment No. l, (4/81)

SL2-ER-OL Question No, 240.3 Calculate the radiological consequences of a liquid pathway (7.l) release from a postulated core melt accident. The analysis should assume, unless otherwise justified, that there has been a penetration of the reactor basemat by the molten core mass, and that a substantial portion of radioactively contaminated sump water was released to the ground. Doses should be compared to those calculated for the Liquid Pathway Generic Study (NUREG-0440, 1978) land-based coastal site. Provide a summary of your analysis procedures and the values of parameters used (such as permeabilities, gradients, populations affected, water use).

Response

An analysis of potential consequences of a liquid pathway release from a postulated core melt accident has been performed. The results are presented in the following report entitled "Comparability of St. Lucie Site And Liquid Pathway Generic Study from the Standpoint of Liquid Pathway".

No ER-OL revisions are required.

I 240. 3- 1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL COMPARABILITY OF ST LUCIE SITE AND LIQUID PATHWAY GENERIC STUDY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF LIQUID PATHWAY

l. Introduction This report presents an evaluation of the offsite radiological impacts wFpich are unique to a hypothetical accident that results in temperatures inside the reactor core which, are sufficiently high to cause core melting and 'subsequent penetration of the basemat underlying the reactor. Such an accident creates the potential for releases of radioactive material into the hydrosphere through contact with groundwater, which in turn may lead to external exposure to radiation and internal exposures if contaminated food or water is ingested. A discussion is also presented of engineered systems which could be effective in mitigating the impacts of such an accident by isolating the contaminated groundwater aquifer from the hydrosphere.

The penetration of the basemat of the Reactor Building can release molten core debris to the strata beneath the plant. Soluble radionuclides in this debris can be leached and transported with groundwater downgradient to surface water bodies used for aquatic food and recreation. In pressurized water reactors, such as the St Lucie Unit 2 plant, there is an additional opportunity for groundwater contamination due to the release of contaminated sump water to the ground through a breach in the containment.

An analysis of the potential consequences of a liquid pathway release of radioactivity for generic sites was presented in the "Liquid Pathway Generic Study" (LPGS).( ) The LPGS compared the risk of accidents

-involving the liquid pathway (drinking water, irrigation, aquatic food, swimming and shoreline usage) for four conventional, generic land-based nuclear plants and a floating nuclear plant, for which the nuclear reactors would be mounted on a barge and moored in a water body.

Parameters for the land-based sites were chosen to represent averages for a wide range of real sites and are thus "typical," but represented no real site in particular.

This report presents an analysis to determine whether or not the St Lucie site liquid pathway consequences would be unique when compared to land-based sites considered in the LPGS. The method consists of comparing key parameters which characterize the St. Lucie site and the "typical" land based ocean site evaluated in the LPGS. The parameters which are compared include groundwater travel tme, sorption on geologic media, surface water transport, aquatic food consumption and shoreline usage.

Doses to individuals and populations were calculated in the LPGS without consideration of interdiction methods such as isolating the contaminated groundwater or denying use of the water. In the event of surface water contamination, commercial and sports fishing, as well as many other water-related activities would be restricted. The consequences would .

therefore be largely economic or social, rather than radiological. In any 240.3-2 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL event, the individual and population doses for the liquid pathway range from fractions to very small fractions of those that can arise from the airborne pathways.

Comparison of St. Lucie Site to LPGS Figures 1 and 2 (taken from the St. Lucie 2 FSAR) present scaled diagrams of the relevant features of the site. The plant is located on liutchinson Island, a barrier island bounded along the east by the Atlantic Ocean and on the west by the Indian River which, in fact, is not a river but a tidal lagoon. The distance from the Reactor Building to the ocean is about 2500 feet. The distance to the closest water body (i,e., Big Hud Creek) is about 700 feet.

The plant grade around the structure is at elevation plus 18.5 feet mean low water (MLW). Xlxe facility is underlain by Class I, high grade, compacted fill to a depth of -60 feet HLW. The base mat beneath the Reactor Building is at elevation -25.5 MWL(

The groundwater study region beneath the Class I fill includes a shallow, non artesian aquifer and a deep artesian aquifer, The top of the deep aquifer is typically 600 to 800 feet beneath the surface and therefore is not considered further in this study( j.

The unconfined aquifer beneath the Class I fill is the Anastasia formation. This formation extends to elevation -135 to -155 feet and consists of grey slightly silty fine to medium sand with varying amounts of fragmented shells. It also contains discontinuous pockets of cements sand with shells and sandy limestone. Occasionally, discontinuous thin plastic clay lenses are found in the upper part of the formation.

The Anastasia formation is the relevent strata in the evaluation. It is divided into three zones. The upper zone which extends to about -60 feet is a loose to medium dense sand with small amounts of silt and clay and containing isolated pockets of shell fragments and limestone nodules. The intermediate zone begins at about -60 feet and extends to about -150 feet. It is denser than the upper zone, contains a greater percentage of fines and very few pockets of shells and limestone fragments. This zone would probably receive the melted core and sump water because the range of depths over which a molten core may penetrate.

it covers The characteristics of the intermediate zone are as follows:

Water Content 25%(4)

Dry Unit Wt 107 lbs per ft Wet Unit Wt 133 lbs per ft Specified Gravity Relative Density 77%(4)

Void Ratio 0.66(4)

Effective Porosity 40%(4)

Grain Size Sand (M0%) (.1 to .10 mm)(5)

Silt (~5%) (,1 to,001 mm)(

240.3-3 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Slope . 00016 ( t oward ocean)

Permeability 10-8 / (6)

Dispersivity 2 ft(7)

Distance to Ocean 2444 ft The groundwater gradient of .00016 towards the ocean is obtained from Figures 3 and 4. Figure 3 shows certain piezometer locations, originally installed in the initial subsurface investigation of the site. Figure 4 shows the range of piezometer levels and average level for the month of April 1968. Also shown on this figure is the slope of the groundwater towards the Atlantic Ocean. The piezometer used for this determination is found at approximately the depth the molten core may penetrate and therefore indicates the groundwater gradient at that elevation.

These parameters establish that the groundwater flows generally toward the ocean and would require about 1164 years to flow from a location immediately beneath the Reactor Building to the ocean.

There exists the possibility of an alternative pathway for contamination of surface water via ground water travel to Big Mud Creek. A phenomenon present on most islands is the presence of a fresh water lens in the water table which floats over the salt water. Extending the procedures presented in "Hydraulics of Groundwater" by Jacob Bear the following equation has been derived and is used to calculate the travel time to Big Mud Creek.

2 t =n >+~ L + d)2 -(L d)2 L-d (L L L N k where t = travel time (years) effective porosity = 0.40 (bs bf) /bf 40 Specific Gravity of Salt Water Specific Gravity of Fresh Water N ~ infiltration rate of precipitation = 0.33 (f t/year) k permeability ~ 5 x 10 cm/sec L ~ 1/2 width of island ~ 2000 f t.

d = distance of reactor from shore 700 ft.

Inserting the appropriate values into the equation, a travel time of 29 years is obtained.

The effective travel time of radionuclides which may contaminate the aquifer regardless of the flow path following a core melt through would be considerably greater due to absorption and ion exchange on the sand.

The distribution coefficients (Kd) for cesium and strontium, the critical radionuclides, and assumed to be 20 and 2, respectively. These values were taken from Table VII 3-7 of Appendix VII of WASH-1400 and are conservative when compared to values reported in the literature(

The calculated retention factors using these values for Kd, a porosity (n) of 0.4 and a bulk dry weight density of 1.7, are 86 for cesium and 9.5 for strontium. Using these retention factors, the travel time for 240.3-4 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Cs-137 and Sr-90 for transport to the Atlantic Ocean and Big Mud Creek are given in the Table below.

A comparison of the above parameters to those used in the LPGS is presented below:

St Lucie (towards St. Lucie (towards Parameter LPGS Atlantic Ocean) Big Mud Creek)

Groundwater velocity to surface water 6. 7 feet/day 0.00568 feet/day N/A Distance to surface water 1500 feet 2,444 700 Porosity 0.2 0.4 0.4 Sediment retention factor:

Sr-90 9.2 9.5 9.5 Cs-137 83 86 86 Time to Surface Water (yrs):

Sr-90 5.7 11,000 275 Cs-137 51 99,000 2500 Number of half lives to reach surface water:

Sr-90 0.2 380 10 Cs-137 1.7 3,300 83 Based on this comparison, the time for contaminated groundwater to reach a surface water location at the St. Lucie site is considerably greater than travel time which characterizes the ocean site in the LPGS.

Once the contaminated water reaches the ocean, it is reasonable to assume that dilution for St. Lucie site is represented by the LPGS since the standard land based ocean site in the LPGS is located on the east coast of Florida. Accordingly, dilution factors can be considered comparable. For example, the offshore current of 0.4 to 1.6 feet per second at the St.

Lucie site is comparable to the velocity used in the LPGS. The only comparison which remains is the fishery catch and shoreline usage factors.

The annual commercial and recreational finfish and shellfish catch within 50 miles of the St. Lucie site; including brackish inland waterways, is estimated to be the following (kg/yr)(

240.3-5 N

SL2-ER-OL 0-3 miles >3 miles Commercial Finfish 8,26 x 106 Shellfish 1.58 x 106 Recreational~ 9,55 x 106 6.84 x 106 The recreational use of the beaches within a 50 mile radius of the site has been estimated from the data presented in Table 2.1-26 in the St. Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report (O.L. Stage). Based on an annual per capita participation rate of 6.57 days for residents and 13 days, for tourists, assuming 3 hours3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> of beach activities per beach day, the annual beach usage by the year 2000 population is estimated to be approximately 3.3 x 107 user&ours.

I The following presents a comparison of the values to those used in the LPGS:

LPGS St. Lucie Fishery (kg/ha/yr) 0-5 Km 120 227 5-19 Km 7 ~ 3 30 19-80 km 1.1 Beach Activities 1.1 x 107 3.3 x 107 user hrs/yr user hrs/yr These results reveal that the usage factors for the St. Lucie site are somewhat higher than those used in the LPGS for a land based ocean site.

However, factoring in the transport time, the aquatic radiological impact of a core melt accident at the St. Lucie site is estimated to be less than the impact derived in the LPGS for a "typical" coastal land based site.

Thus, the St. Lucie site is not unique in its liquid pathway contribution to risk.

3. Mitigative Measures The minimum groundwater travel time from the St. Lucie site to the Atlantic Ocean and Big Mud Creek was estimated to be roughly 1164 and 29 years, respectively, and because of the filtering properties of soil the holdup of much of the radioactivity would be even greater. This would allow'amply time for engineering measures, such as slurry walls, to isolate the radioactive contamination near the source.

As means of isolating contaminated groundwater in the St. Lucie site area, the feasibility of constructing an impermeable membrane was investigated.

Alternate means, such as pumping or sheet piling were also considered.

• The recreational catch is based on the number of fish estimated in Referenced 9 and assuming an average of 0.43 kg/fish.

240.3-6 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Pumping a large volume of water would impose unreasonable treatment requirements. Sheet piles will corrode in the salt water. A slurry trench was thought to be the most efficient method of isolation for this site. Two types of slurry trenches are available, cement bentonite and soil bentonite.

Based upon previous experience, a cement bentonite slurry wall was investigated. Cement bentonite is used where slope support is needed for dewatering excavation sites and for groundwater control. The cement bentonite requires 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> to cure. The bentonite can either be installed into 2-3 foot wide trenches directly, or pumped by use of adapters to drive piles. Cement bentonite construction is a much slower and expensive process than for soil bentonite but provides added strengths Soil bentonite is more flexible and less expensive since the trenching soil is used in the backfilling. Soil bentonite is quicker to install but must be installed in a continuous fashion. 'Ihe native material can be used in the backfilling operation if it is sand, such as exists at St Lucie, preferably a poorly graded mixture. No curing time is required for the soil bentonite and dewatering can begin immediately after construction whereas cement bentonite requires 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> for curing prior to any dewatering measures.

Since the St. Lucie Site consists of fine sands, excavation in this material would be relatively easy and the excavated material could be mixed with the bentonite to produce a soil bentonite mixture, There is nothing at the St. Lucie Site that would preclude the use of this method of groundwater isolation.

References NUREG-0440 Liquid Pathway Generic Study. February 1978.

(2) See Figure 2.4-1 of FSAR (3) See FSAR Subsection 2,4.13.1 (pg 2.4-40)

(4) See Table 2.5-5 of the FSAR (pg 2.5-93)

(5) See Appendix 2.5.A of the FSAR (6) See Subsection 2.5.4.2.2 of the FSAR (7) See Subsection 2.4. 13. 3 (pg 2.4-45) o f t he FSAR (8) NUREG/CR-0912 Volume 1. Geoscience Data Base Handbook for Modeling a Nuclear Waste Repository. January 1981.

(9) Response to NRC Questions 291,8 and 291.10.

240.3-7 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

'l EAN oe i~

ce e m pC $

eee n IC Ce NT o Iti ew n.

TL IL QK%

~ ee p

3 er O an.

e x a.

ae ~ ee

'C ee.

ee ree n.

I

~ n ~-

I

)2 E y, C

0 ~ ~ c rr L n~ r C

I $

T

( '! dr rg J

] T I eP e ~

I n 'r e

~, ~e I r r 'a.

~-

.r' -4~'--

0/M I rr

'.)

r'.~r, r r cn r~

at thc Fixture Ihc NOTE.. Due to thc Scole Esdusion Areo Radius(097mi) ond Ihc Low

~ W PoputationZonc Ilmrl~ ) Arc Shown as YY.~ ~~-ep -.S 0 8<<ng the Sam>> Site.

) ' 0 (I ) Cee $

ew oe 0 I 2 I a y ~ ~ 'e pr

~" e

/ e.

X-o h'ee Ir

~

aw~ SCALE IN I

IIILES I I t ~

re(

S 0 e see e

oui rP c 0 r,S r AMENDMCNTNo.a Ialcsl ore )I eu FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY

5 r- -I TI TL=T a ~u ST, LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 THE AREA WITHIN 5 MILES OF ST LUCIE UNIT 2 FIGURE 1

j 0

Pl )~

T 366 UNOARY LINE 8

CONTAIIAIENTTO LIOUID RELEASE AREA VIA MULTI PORT DISPOSER ooe

~qO 1)1.39'M050 I+

e OP~

yQO yP~

p 614OPdr ~

BOUNDARY LINE go~ I PLANT

~

VENT yC PLANT SITE 5585 t 5661' t

UN I'1 NO. 2 MIN. DISTANCE VENT STACK SWITCHYARD TOBOUNDARY ST. LUCIE COUNTY "j T36S RAIE AREA 5251N9' 1132 I ACRES 0 1000 1000 BLIND CREEK SCALE ltt ftfT STSY I TO MAINLAND SHORE BIG MUD CREEK BOUNDARY LINE INDIAN AMENDMENTNO. 6 16/621 FLORIDA POWER 8. LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLAHT UNIT 2 PROPERTY PLAN FIGURE 2

ATLANTIC OCEAN

~ P11 A-1-A

~ ~

ROAD STATE P10

.eP7 hC CC O

0 D

U CQ tQ Z K

~ P9 UJ x

~ ~

~0 AMENDMENTNO. 5 (6/82) 800 1600 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 SCALE IN FEET P I EZOMET ER LOCATIONS FIGURE 3

z0 O~

N g I-LIJ g.

4g 6000 UJ BIG P7 P10 P2 P11 MUD CREEK ATLANTIC OCEAN 0

-20 40

-60

-80 I-

-100 R ANASTASIA O FORMATION I- -120

-140 Lll TOP OF

-160 HAWTHORN I z FORMATION p

2 ffl N

-i O z -180 p I z

o LEGEND:

C -200 rfI n

>3605 HI-3606 124 68 97 03/13/81 AAH-027 AAH-028 134.5 72.5 105 515 291. 1-5 Amendment No. 2, (6/Sl) SL2<<ER-OL Sheet 5 pf TABLE 291.1-1 MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cm - 1 SPECIES: Green (CheIonia ~mdas) SITE: FPL St. Lu~c1e P ant Intake Cana1 May 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL (cm) CM (cm) PL (cm) Mt (1bs) Comments 01/27/77 A>>6601 20 16. 3.8 A 01/31 415 27 22 A 02/10 A-6602 28.5 18 33 A 02/14 36 27 10 B,H,K 04/21 35 28 15 B,E,I 01/31/78 HI-2145 56.5 46 A 02/09 HI-2158 64 49 A 02/17. HI-2159 26.3 21.8 5 A 03/03 HI-2160 40 34.5 A 03/07 A-8288 26 21 5.6 A 05/26 34.5 30 B,C,F,H 02/04/79 HI-2295 30 24 23 A 04/13 B-l 35 29 29 12.9 ',E,G-2,I,K 06/21 HI-2353 93 70 71 A, (N) 02/04/80 A-8289 35.5 28 28 12 A 02/22 HI-3075 40.5 35 34 18 A 02/22 HI-3100 36 30.5 30 14 B,E,G-3, I 02/27 HI-3072 36 36.5 29 A 02/28 HI-3074 51.5 42.5 45 49 A 06/03 HI-3115 26 21 22 5 B,E,F,L,P 01/08/81 HI-3171 A-8300 30.5 24.5 25.5 8.8 01/13 8-2791 8-2792 25,2 19 21.8 5.1 01/13 8-2793 8-2794 28.8 23.4 7.3 Ol/13 8-2795 8-2796 28 23.5 24 5.7 01/13 8-2797 8-2798 27 21.5 22.5 5.5 . Ol/14 8-2799 8-2800 48.5 40 38 - 01/15 8-2803 8-2804 31 26.5 25.5 7.7 01/15 8-2805 8-2806 26 21.5 22 5.5 Ol/16 8-2807 8-2808 27 22.5 22.6 ~ 5.9 01/18 8-2809 8-2810 30 26.5 7.7 Ol/19 8-2815 HI-3623 53.5 43.5 Ol/19 8-2811 8-2812 24 24.5 8.1 A 291. 1-6 Amendment No. 2", (6/81, ~y SL2-ER-OL TABLE 291.1-1 Sheet 6 of 22 MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cm - 2 SPECIES: Green tChelnnia ~mdas) SITE: FPL St. Le~tie P ant Intake Canal May 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL (cm) CM (cm) PL (cm) Mt (1bs) Comments 01/19/81 8-2813 8-28l4 29 23.9 23.7 7.3 01/19 HI-3625 HI-3624 47.5 38 39.5 36 01/21 8>>2863 8-2864 37.5 28 30 12.1 . 01/21 8-2865 8-2866 28 24.5 24.5 7 5 Ol/21 8-2867 8-2868 30.5 26 25.5 7.9 01/21 8-2869 8-2870 31 25 26 8.8 A 01/27 8-2871 28.4 23 24.2 . 6.8 B,E.G-1, I,P 01/28 8-2872 8-2873 31 26 27.5 9.2 8-2876 8-2877 27 22.5 22.5 5.1 A 02/13 8-2878 8-2879 27 21.5 22.5 6.2 02/13 8-2880 8-2881 26.5 24.5 02/15 8-2882 8-2883 28.5 23 23.5 6.6 02/17 8-2884 8-2885 31.5 25 26.5 9.5 02/26 8-2886 8-2887 29 24 5.9 02/27 8-2888 8-2889 32 28.5 27.5 8.8 03/10 NNC-326 NNC-327 27.5 21.5 23 291. 1- 7 Amendment No. 2, (6/81) )1 I 4 f P 1 l I' E SL2-ER-OL TABLE 291.1-1 Sheet 7 of 22 MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cc - 1 SPECIES: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) SITE: FPL St. Lucie P~ant Intake Canal Nay 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL (cm) CW (cm) PL (cm) Wt (ebs) Comments 05/20/76 not tagged 05/26 not tagged 07/08 not tagged A 07/09 131 (3012) A 07/13 not tagged 80 60 A 07/14 302 A , 07/15 not tagged 61 45 A 07/16 303 63 55 A 07/27 B,C,F,H 08/03 307 56.5 51 08/04 308 53 46.5 09/23 not tagged 65 52 A 10/06 309 54 44 A 10/07 311 75 56 A 10/27 '312 63 54 A 10/27 313 70 60 A 10/27 314 61 55 A 10/28 315 61 ~ 51 A 10/29 316 104 76 A 11/18 315 61 51 A 11/23 317 59 50 A 11/24 61 51 76 B,I 11/29 60 53 B,C,F,H 11/29 88 66'5 12/10 not tagged 12/15 318 53.5 12/15 319 55 43.5 12/15 320 53 a9 12/15 321 60 50 12/15 323 60 53 12/16 324 54 47 12/16 325 60 51 73 12/17 315 59 50 73 01/18/77 401 71 60 A 01/18 403 64 55 90 A 01/18 404 52 a6 50 A 01/18 405 53 a8 55 A 01/18 406 52.5 61.5 90 A 291. 1-8 Amendment No. 2, {6/81) ~ 1 SL2-ER-OL TABLE 291.1-1 Sheet 8 of 22 MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cc - 2 SPECIES: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) SITE: FPL St. tunic PTant Intake Canal May 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL (cm) CW (cm) PL (cm) Mt (1bs) Comments 01/20/77 313 69 58 01/20 407 60 54 85 01/21 409 66 57 01/21 410 60 51 73 01/21 411 47 41 38 01/21 412 69 57 88 01/21 413 61 52 53 01/21 414 58 49 48 02/01 422 59 48 60 02/03 416 58 50 74 02/14 not tagged 02/14 417 71.5 61 145 02/17 419 69 60.5 02/17 421 66 57.5 A 02/27 423 60.5 50.5 55 A 02/28 49 39 35 B,C,F,H 03/02 '26 60 52 60 A 03/02 428 68 56 A 03/08 429 61.5 51.5 85 A 03/10 431 56.5 47.5 64 A 03/11 432 58.5 49.5 A 03/14 433 67 56.5 A 04/13 434 64 54.5 68 A 04/13 64 55 B,C,F,H 04/21 HI-1001 66 58 115 A 04/21 HI-1002 64 53 A 04/21 433 66.5 56 A 04/28 70 55 B,C,F,H 06/01 HI-1572 62 53 06/01 HI-1573 53 49 06/02 HI-1574 62 51 06/05 HI-1638 57 48 07/05 HI-1857 60 53 07/06 HI-1860 65 57.5 07/14 HI<<1870 58 46 07/20 HI-2012 105.5 81 08/17 HI-2074 65.5 08/23 HI-2069 59 52 08/23 HI-2070 72 61 291. 1- 9 Amendment No. 2, (6/81) SL2-ER-OL TABLE 291.1-1 Sheet 9 of 22 0 SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SPECIES: Loggerhead MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT (Caretta caretta) SL/Cc - 3 SITE: PPL St. Lucie PTant Intake Canal May 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL (cm) CW (cm) PL (cm) Wt (lbs) Comments 09/08/77 HI-1875 57 49.5 09/08 HI-2071 60 53 09/08 HI-2072 54 51 09/08 H!-2073 73 60.5 09/09 HI-1876 68.5 56.5 09/09 HI-1877 53.5 43.5 09/10 HI-2078 70.5 58.5 09/10 ,HI-2079 67 57.5 09/10 HI-2080 66 57.5 09/10 HI-2081 62.5 52.5 A 09/13 HI-2082 68 56.5 A 09/13 HI-2083 57 52 A 09/14 HI-2084 71 58 A 09/15 HI-2085 85 68 A 09/29 53 63. 5 84 B$ 1 10/03 85. 5 64 B,C,F,H 10/07 HI-2086 47 A 10/11 HI-2087 60 A 10/11 HI-2088 53 A ~ 10/11 HI-2089 74 A 10/ll HI-2090 63 54.5 84 A 10/13 HI-2091 57 47 59 A 10/20 HI-2092 64 57 A 10/27 HI-2093 59.5 49 A 11/08 HI-2095 62 50 11/08 HI-2096 54 44 11/09 HI-2097 66 54. 5 11/29 HI-2100 66.5 56 11/30 HI-2126 79.5 64 12/01 KI-2099 71 60. 5 12/02 not tagged 61.5 52 64 12/08 HI-2128 56.5 48 55 12/09 HI-2129 62 52 77 12/12 HI-2130 58 49. 5 01/01/78 not tagged 01/02 HI-2151 129(?) 121(?) 01/08 HI-2131 55 46 01/09 HI-2132 01/09 HI-2152 56 47 70 01/09 HI-2153 58 50 80 Amendment No. 2, (6/81) 291.1-10 SL2-ER-OL Sheet 10 pf 22 TABLE 291.1-1 MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE AT THE sT LUGIE PLANT SL/Cc - 4 SPECIES: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) SITE: FPL St. Lucie P~ant Intake Canal Hay 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL (cm) CW (cm) PL (cm) Wt (lbs) Comments 01/10/78 HI-2133 52.5 ,46 49 01/10 HI-2134 62 57 81 A 01/10 HI-2135 69 59 120 A 01/11 HI-2136 58 49 61 A 01/13 HI-2137 57 53 72 A 01/24 HI-2138 54 46 55 A 01/24 HI-2139 55 49 ~ 64 A 01/24 HI-2140 60 50 71 A 01/24 HI-2141 62 53.5 86 A 01/25 HI-2142 49 44 48 01/26 KI-2143 67 55.5 105 01/27 HI-2154 '59 52 01/27 HI-2155 50 49 02/01 HI-2146 63 53.5 A 02/02 HI-2147 60 50 A 02/08 HI-2156 59. 5 50. 5 A 02/09 HI-2157 68 59 A 02/13 125 114 B,C,F$ H 02/14 HI-2148 71 59.5 A 02/15 HI-2149 59 51 A 02/17 MI-2150 65 55.5 A '02/24 93 B,C,F,H 02/28 HI-2176 63.5 56 A 02/28 HI-2177 53.5 A 03/Ol 82 64 B,D 03/Ol HI-2178 69 57 A 03/01 HI-2179 62 54 A 03/01 HI>>2180 61.5 52.5 75 A 03/01 HI-2181 73 60 A 03/02 HI-2182 55 47.5 68 A 03/02 HI-2185 61.5 54.5 84 A 03/06 MI-2162 54 50 A 03/06 not tagged 64 54 A 03/07 93.5 68 B,D 03/07 HI-2186 65 53 90 A 03/08 HI-2163 78 62 A 03/08 HI-2164 65 53. 5 A 03/10 MI-2188 59 51.5 73 A 03/11 HI-2189 65 55 83 A 03/13 HI-2191 57.5 48 65 A 03/14 HI-2193 62.5 55 87 A 03/14 HI-2194 55 47 61 A 291.1-11 Amendment Np. 2, (6/81) SL2-ER-OL 1-1 TABLE 291. Sheet ll of 22 MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cc - 5 (Caretta caretta) SPECIES: Loggerhead SITE: FPL St. Lucie PTant Intra Canai May 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL (cm) CM (cm) PL (cm) Mt (lbs) Comments 03/15/78 HI-2175 03/20 HI-2166 72 62 03/21 HI-2195 62 51 69 03/21 HI-2196 64 56 88 03/21 HI-2197 73.5 65 03/23 HI-2198 67 54 90 03/23 HI-2199 74 61 03/23 HI-2200 61.5 54 77 03/31 HI-2172 75.5 61 04/06 not tagged A 04/12 HI-2202 60.5 5I 61 A 04/12 HI-2203 66 54.5 86 A 04/13 63 55.5 B,C,F,H 04/13 HI-2204 69.5 61.5 A 04/14 HI-2205 74 64.5 A 04/14 not tagged 67.5 56 85 A 04/18 70 58 B,C,F,H 04/19 70.5 58 04/19 71.5 61 04/20 HI-2207 49,5 42 42 'A 04/24 67 54 97 B,C,F,H 04/26 HI-2208 64.5 56 98 A 05/04 57 46 B,C,F,H 05/11 HI-2209 51. 5 71 A 05/16 HI-2210 63 52.5 85 A 06/07 HI-2226 72 62 06/13 HI-2212 61.5 48 63 06/13 HI-2213 67.5 57. 5 06/13 KI-2214 99 76. 5 06/15 HI-2215 67 56 95 06/15 HI-2216 58 45 57 06/23 HI-2227 58.5 51 76 06/28 HI-2217 90.5 68. 5 08/02 HI-2218 100 76 08/10 HI-2228 66. 5 57. 5 08/10 HI-2229 67 56. 5 08/10 HI-2230 62 53 85 08/10 KI-2231 67 56 97 08/ll HI-2251 60. 5 53. 5 79 08/15 HI-2219 88 70 291.1-12 Amendment No. 2, (6/Sl) SL2-ER-OL TABLE 291.1-1 Sheet 12 of 22 HARINE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cc - 6 SPECIES: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) SITE: FPL St. Lucie Plant Intake Canal May 1976 - Present Date Tag {s) CL {cm) CM {cm) PL (cm) Mt (lbs) Comments 08/22/78 HI-2221 83 66.5 A 08/22 HI-2222 47 '42 A 08/23 HI-2223 50 50 A 08/24 HI-2232 A 08/30 HI-2233 6) 51 83 A 09/01 HI-2235 58.5 51.5 80 10/18 HI-2224 66 55 A 10/18 HI-2225 63 53. 5 83 A 10/19 HI-2252 56 48 65 A 10/19 HI-2253 76 57. 5 A 10/19 HI-2254 72 61 A 10/19 HI-2255 55 50 70 A 10/19 HI-2256 81 67.5 A 10/20 53 .51 75 B,E,I 10/20 HI-2257 64 58 120 A 10/24 HI-2258 60 52 78 A 10/24 HI-2259 64. 5 55 89 A 10/24 HI-2260 70 58 112 A 10/25 HI-2261 57 49 65 A 10/26 HI-2262 56.5 48.5 63 A 10/26 HI-2236 56 50.5 63 A 10/27 HI-2237 75 57 5 130 A 10/31 65 57.5 87 B,D,I 11/02 63.5 52.5 B,C,F,H 11/02 72.5 57.5 11/10 76 64 11/14 HI-1004 91 65 A 11/16 HI-1005 65 55 A 11/17 75 B,C,F,H 11/17 11/17 HI-2238 63 55 81 A 11/17 HI-2239 56.5 48.5 57 A 11/17 HI-2240 77 65.5 130 A 11/17 HI-2242 67 54 98 A 1'1/28 B,C,F,H 11/28 HI-2243 57 51 67 A 11/30 65 56 87 B,E,I 11/30 HI-2244 58 51 77 A 291. 1- 13 Amendment No. 2, (6/81) SL2-ER-OL TABLE 291.1-1 Sheet 13 of 22 MARXNE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cc - 7 .SPECIES: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) SITE: FPL St. Lucie P~ant Intake Canal May 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL (cm) . CV (cm) PL (cm) Mt (1bs) Comments 12/01/78 HI-2246 51 68 12/05 Hl-2276 91 65 12/08 HI-2277 57 80 12/16 Hl-2278 67 56 95 01/04/79 Hl-2263 64 56 51 A 01/05 61 48 B 01/06 60 50 39 B Ol/10 Hl-2264 56 46.5 46. 5 68 A 01/10 HI-2265 54 47.5 40.5 62 A 01/10 HI-2266 60 54 48 83 A 01/10 HI-2267 54 '48 43 61 A 01/10 HI-2268 60 51.5 45 74 A 01/10 HI-2269 63 55 50.5 97 A 01/10 HI-2270 66.5 54 51 95 A 01/11 HI-2271 62 50.5 50 84 A 01/11 HI-2272 62.5 56 49 89 A 01/11 HI-2273 59.5 51 47. 5 76 A 01/11 HI-2274 68.5 58 52 105 01/12 62.5 48 45 01/12 HI-2275 57 47.5 48 60 01/12 HI-2279 71 59 54 ' 115 01/12 Hl-2280 71 61.5 56.5 133 01/31 not tagged 64 53 92 . 01/31 HI-2281 , 64.5 54.5 49 86 01/31 HI-2282 66 56.5 54.5 119 01/31 HI-2283 56 49.5 43.5 69 01/31 HI-2284 71.5 60.5 54.5 124 01/31 HI-2285 69.5 57.5 52 5 105 02/01 HI-2286 69 58.5 52.5 103 02/01 HI-2287 58.5 48.5 45 74 02/01 HI-2288 02/02 HI-2289 63.5 55.5 50 95 02/02 HI-2290 64 55.5 49. 5 90 02/02 HI-2291 62 53.5 47. 5 83 02/02 HI-2292 55.5 47 45.5 67 02/02 HI-2294 52.5 45 55 02/04 HI-2296 55.5 44 43 02/05 63 54.5 84 02/06 HI-2297 67.5 57 54 119 02/07 HI-2298 77.5 61 54 '50 02/08 HI-2299 71. 5 59 55. 5 120 02/12 HI-2300 63 55 50 95 02/13 HI-2302 89 64.5 65 291. 1- 14 Amendment No. 2, (6/Sl) SL2-ER-OL TABLE 291.1-1 Sheet 14 of 22 MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCXE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cc - 8 SPECIES: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) SITE: FPL St. Lucie Plant Intake Canal May 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL {cm) CW (cm) PL {cm) Wt (lbs) Comments 02/14/79 HI-2303 67 , 60 56 111 A 02/15 HI-2304 53 48 42.5 67 A 02/15 HI-2305 56.5 47.6 44.5 71 A 02/19 HI-2306 64 52 48 85 A 02/20 HI-2307 62 52.5 48 93 A 02/20 HI-2308 50 48 44 A ~ 02/21 HI-2309 68.5 58 53 115 A 02/22 HI-2310 55 47 44 66 A 02/23 HI-2311 69 58 53 A 02/23 HI-2312 59 50.5 47. 5 A 02/26 HI-2313 69 59 52 110 A 02/28 HI-2141 60. 5 52.5 50 88 A (2314') 02/28 HI-2315 60 50.5 46.5 87 02/28 HI-2316 66.5 55.S 52.5 118 03/01 HI-2317 54, 44 43 65 03/01 HI-2318 69 62 55 125 03/01 HI-2319 57 49 44 68 03/02 HI-2320 55.5 49 43.5 69 03/02 HI-2321 57 49 45 78 03/08 HI-2322 54 46 59 03/15 HI-2323 65. 5 64. S 50 89 03/28 KI-2302 94, 64.5 66 03/28 HI-2324 52.5 44 41.5 63 03/28 HI-2325 58.5 51 44.5 61 03/29 HI-2326 55 47. 5 45.5 70 04/03 HI-2327 63. 5 63.5 49.5 95 A 04/03 HI-2328 57 51 49.5 75 A 04/03 HI-2329 85 67. 5 63 A, {M) 04/03 HI-2330 52.5 47.5 43 45 A 04/04 HI-2331 62.5 49 A 04/04 HI-2332 53.5 48.5 43.5 .68 A 04/04 HI-2333 73.5 59. 5 55 120 A 04/04 HI-2334 64 50 46 82 A 04/04 HI-2335 64 55 51. 5 120 A 04/05 not tagged 62. 5 54 48. 5 95 A 04/05 not tagged 71 59. 5 54.5 125 A 04/05 not tagged 79.5 61 63 187 A 04/05 not tagged 62.5 52 49 81 A 04/09 not tagged 73.5 59 58 A 04/09 not tagged 83.5 65. 5 63 A,(F) 04/10 HI>>2337 84 64 65 A,'(F 04/10 HI-2338 67 55 53 105 A 291.1-15 Amendment No.2, (6/81) SL2-ER-OL TABLE 291.1-1 Sheet'.15, of 22 MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED 'b') ( AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE'DATA BASE SL/Cc - 9 SPECIES: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) SITE: FPL St. Lucie P~ant Intake Cana1 May 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL (cm) CW (cm) PL (cm) Wt (lbs) Comments 06/05/79 HI-2351 66.5 55.5 51.5 A 06/06 HI-2352 71 62 57 132 A 06/21 HI-2354 47.5 41 37 47 B,E,G-2,I,K,P 07/10 HI-2356 52 46.5 42.5 49 A 07/10 HI-2357 59. 5 48.5 48 63 A 07/10 HI-2376 71.5 60.5 55.5 130 A 07/10 HI-2377 59.5 49 45.5 75 A 07/10 KI-2378 65 53 48.5 87 A 07/10 HI-2379 59 48.5 45.5 A 07/10 HI-2380 61.5 51. 5 49.5 81 A 07/11 HI-2381 73.5 63.0 58.5 155 A 07/11 HI-2382 56.5 49.0 44.5 60 A 07/ll HI-2383 56 48 43 61 A 07/ll HI-2384 55 50.5 43.5 77 N,A on 7/17/79 07/12 HI-2427(?) 112 83 83 A,(F) 07/13 69 53.5 51.5 89 B, I,O. 07/16 11446(7) 56.5 49 44.5 75 A 07/17 HI-2385 51 44. 42 A 07/18 HI-2386 58 51 47 A 07/18 HI-2387 59 51 47 A 07/19 HI-2341 ,62.5'8 53.5 47.5 91 A 07/19 HI-2342 50 44.5 65 A 07/19 HI-2358 54 52 46 54 A 07/24 HI-2360 88.5 66. 5 68.5 A,(F) 07/24 'I-2359 63.5 " 55.5 48.5 79 A 07/25 HI-2341 65 53 47 92 A 07/26 HI-2342 B,F,H 07/27 not tagged 85.5 65.5 65 A,(F) 07/27 Hl-2468(~) 80 60 61 A,'(F) 07/31 HI-2343 68 58 52 107 A 08/01 Hl-2344 55. 5 47.5 44.5 69 A 08/02 HI-2345, 63 54.5 50.5 95 A 08/07 HI-2346 61 52.5 48.5 88 A 08/08 not tagged 59.5 51 46.5 80 A 08/08 HI-2363 70. 5 55 51 112 A 08/14 HI -2347 69. 5 58. 5 56.5 105 N,A on 08/28/79 08/15 HI-2361 67 57. 5 '5 113 A 08/16 HI-2362 53 45.5 42.5 57 A 08/17 HI-2314 61.5 52 72 B,C,H 08/21 H I-2365 75. 5 62.5 60 145 A 08/21 HI-2364 64.5 55.5 51 86 A 08/23 not tagged 97.5 75 69.5 300 A P 291. 1-1> Amendment No. 2, (6/81) ,SL2-ER-OL Sheet 16 of 22 TABLE 291.1-1 MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cc - 10 SPECIES: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) SITE: FPL St. Lucie PTant Intake Cana1 May 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL (cm) CW (cm) PL (cm) Wt (lbs) Comtnents 08/23/79 not tagged 100 73 71 A,(F) 08/24 HI-3050 63 54 48.5 90 A 08/24 HI-3049 60 54 47, 85 A-08/27 B,C,F,H 09/10 HI-2366 98 70.5 B,C,H,P 09/11 HI-2878(7) 94.5 72 71.5 222 A,(F) 09/17 09/18 HI-2247 HI-2349 71.5

88. 5 '155.5 55 54;5 67.5 51.5 107 198 A

A 09/25 HI-2248 65.5 83 A 09/25 HI-3031 100 72 N,A on 11/27/79 09/25 HI-3030 63.5 51.5 78 A 10/01 73.5 60'2 23 B,F,H 10/04 HI-2631 103 B,F,H 10/05 HI-2367 ,62 48 A 10/10 HI-2389 71.5 56.5 53 123 A 10/10 HI-2350 72.5 58 54.5 96 A 10/12 HI-2393 56 44.5 45 58 A 10/16 HI-2368 69 59 57.5 112 A 10/17 HI-2371 62 52 48.5 62 10/17 HI-2370 73.5 61 56 105 "A 10/17, HI'-2369 62 53.5 49. 5 73 A 10/18 HI-2372 60 56 52 81'33 A 10/19 HI-.2373 74 65 59.5 A 10/25 76.5 60 ' 57.5 B,F,H 10/25 HI-3047 68 '6.5 53.5 97 A 11/01 HI-3048 52 46 42 61 A 11/03 HI-2396 75 61 58. 5 128 A 11/06 HI-3042 52 45 41 57 A 11/06 HI-2394 66 53 49 87 A 11/07 HI-2374 60.5 56 49.5 95 A 11/09 HI-3052 52 . 45 41 46 A 11/09 HI-3051 52 47.5 41 44 A 11/09 HI-3053 75 62.5 56.5 125 A 11/16 'I-2395 58 51.5 49 73 A 11/27 HI-2398 67.5 58 52.5 105 A 11/27 HI-2399 76.5 63.5 57. 5 155 A 11/27 HI-3031 95 68.5 69 255 A,(F), see 09/25/79 11/30 HI-3076 71 62.5 56 118 A 12/07 HI-3055 60.5 51.5 49 80 A 12/07 HI-3054 57 50.5 45 68 A 291. 1-j 7 Amendment No. 2, (6/S],) SL2-ER-OL a TABLE 291.1-1 Sheet 17 of 22 MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cc - 11 SPECIES: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) SITE: FPL St L.ucie PTant Intake Canai ~ May 1 976 - Present Date Tag ( s ) CL (cm) CM (cm) PL ( cm) Mt ( 1 bs ) Comments 12/07/79 HI-3056 56 45 43 ' 63 12/13 HI-2400 63 ' 54.5 50 104 12/13 HI-3055 61 51 ' 49 76 12/13 HI>>3057 70 60 ' ~ 54 105 12/14 HI-3058 70.5 59 55 118 12/18 HI-3077 71 58 52 ' 125 12/19 HI-3078 53.5 46.5 42 62 12/21 HI<<3059 57 ' 49 79 12/27 HI-3101 62 ' 52 46 ' 85 01/08/80 HI-3060 65 ' 55 ' 50 118 01/08 HI-3061 57 45 43 ' 66 01/08 KI-3062 53 ' 46.5 41.5 62 01/08 HI-3063 58 50.'5 47 85 01/09 HI-3064 63 51 ' 48 94 01/09 HI-3065 56 48 45 71 01/09 HI-3066 60.5 53 47.5 92 01/15 HI-3079 68.5 57.5 55 115 01/15 HI-3080 51.5 45. 5 41.5 52 01/18 HI-3081 73 62 59 134 01/18 HI<<3082 71 56 55 115 01/18 HI-3083 72 59 56 ~ 130 01/22 KI-3084 57 48 46 82 01/22 HI-3085 58.5 50 46.5 77 01/24 HI-3086 61 49 47 72 01/28 HI-3087 57.5 48 46 79 02/01 HI-3088 62 50.5 46 83 A 02/01 HI-3089 67.5 57 52 110 A 02/01 68.5 57.5 53 115 B,E,I 02/04 HI-3090 60 51.5 45 68 A 02/07 HI-3091 58 53 99 A 02/11 HI-3092 57 ' 49 ' 46.5 76 A 02/11 57 ' 49 44.5 56 B,D,I 02/14 HI-3093 60 ' 53 48.5 90 A 02/14 HI-3094 65 52 48 63 A 02/14 HI-3095 61.5 52 46.5 78 A 02/19 HI-3096 56 50 45 ' 81 A 02/19 HI-3097 52 51 47 69 A 02/21 HI-3098 71 58 55. 5 107 A 02/22 HI-3099 55 49 44 62 A 02/26 HI-3067 62.5 52.5 49 88 A 02/26 HI-3068 65.5 58 51 117 A 02/27 HI-3069 62.5 51 ' 48 79 A 02/27 HI-3070 74 58.5 56 124 A 291. 1- 18 Amendment No. 2, (6/Q] ) SL2-ER-OL TABLE 291.1-1 Sheet 18 of 22 MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cc - 12 SPECIES: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) SITE: FPL St. Lucia P~ant Intake Canal May 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL (cm) CW (cm) PL (cm) Wt (1bs) Comments 02/27/80 HI-3071 50 48 87 A 02/28 HI-3073 65 52 50.5 98 A 02/29 HI-3103 47 40.5 37.5 48 A 05/13 HI-3123 93 75 70 300 . 3125 05/16 HI-3126 86 64.5 66 235 A,(F) 05/20 HI-3152 87 65 70 275 A HI-3153 05/22 HI-3154 65 56 51 100 '5/28 HI-3155 HI-3127 HI-3128 '8.5 73 60.5 58 135 05/28 HI-3158 70.5 59.5 55 128 KI-3159 05/28 HI-3156 65.5 53.5 91 HI-3157 06/03 HI-3129 62 52.5 48 83 HI-3130 06/03 HI-3131 61 53 50 80 HI-3133 06/10 HI-3156 67 53 101 HI-3157 06/12 HI-3161 104 80.5 78.5 425 HI-3162 '6/16 HI-3134 58 51.5 46 72 B,C,K,P 06/17 HI-3165 65 55 54 101 B,C,K,P 06/17 HI-3163 A HI-3164 06/19 HI-3166 77 60 53 B,E,L,P 08/06 HI-3170 59.5 50 45.5 51 3172 '0 08/06 HI-3173 51 45.5 65 A 3174 08/06 HI-3175 51 46 71 3176 08/18 HI-3177 ~ 62.5 48.5 69 3178 08/27 HI-3179 52 46 72 3180 08/27 HI-3181 52 45 42.5 61 3182 08/27 KI-3183 60 53 47 73 3184 291.1- 19 Amendment No. 2, (6/81) SL2-ER-OL TABLE 291 '-1 Sheet 19 of 22 MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cc - 13 SPECIES: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) SITE: FPL St. Lucie Plant Intake Canal May 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL (cm) CW (cm) PL (cm) Wt (lbs) Comments 08/28/80 HI-3185 88 72 66 250 A,(M) 3186 08/28 HI-3187 76 58 59 147 A 3188 08/28 HI-3189 68 59 51 . 117, A 3190 ' 08/28 HI-3191 55 47 44 66 3192 08/29 HI-3195 59.5 52.5 47 70 A 3196 09/03 HI-3156 67 55 53. 5 85 A 3157 09/03 HI-2369 59 51" 47.5 65 3140 HI-3141 55 45.5 42 59 3142 09/04 HI-3143 60 49, 46.5 70 3144 09/04 HI-3146 53.5 43.5 42 51 3147 09/04 HI-3201 81.5 64. 5 63.5 192 A, (F) 3202 09/09 HI-3203 51 85 3204 09/19 HI-3205 51 44.5 40 45 3206 09/22 HI-3168 57. 5 49. 5 46. 5 65 3169 09/22 HI-3148 48. 5 46. 5 61 3149 09/22 HI-3150 61.5 51. 5 49.5 69 A 09/23 HI-3207 101.5 72 74.5 308 A, (F) 3208 09/23 HI-3209 70 58. 5 55.5 116 3210 09/24 HI-3211 57 52 44 55 3212 09/24 HI-3213 55.5 47.5 45 56 3214 09/25 HI-3215 57.5 50.5 46 70 3216 09/25 HI-3217 56 49. 5 44.5 66 3218 09/26 HI-3219 69.5 56.5 53.5 118 3220 291. 1-2O Amendment No. 2, (6/81) SL2-ER" OL TABLE 291.1-1 Sheet 20 of 22 MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cc - 14 SPECIES: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) SITE: FPL St. Lucie Plant Intake Canai May 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL (cm) CW (cm) PL (cm) Wt (1bs) Comments 09/29/80 HI-3126 86.5 66 67.7 220 A,(F) 3226 3227 10/01 HI-3228 84 69.5 215 A, (F) 3229 10/01 HI-3230 55.5 51 44.5 55 A ~ 3231 10/08 HI-3232 92 58 215 A, {F) 3233 10/10 HI-3234 55 47 58 N,A on 01/09/81 3235 I 10/14 HI-3261 67 54 49 86 N,A on 12/16/80 3273 10/14 HI-3263 69 59 54 100 N,A on 11/14/80 3274 10/27 HI-3156 67 55 53.5 85 A 3157 11/01 HI-3221 78.5 62 58 160 N,(F),A'on 3276 12/08/80 11/06 HI-3264 55.5 47 57 N,A on 12/11/80 3277 11/11 HI-3262 86 62.5 215 N,{F),A on HI-3275 11/14/80 11/24 HI-3236 46.5 39 39 37 N,A on 12/09/80 3237 12/01 HI-3222 51 43.5 N,B on 01/06/81, 3238 G-1 0 12/03 HI-3278 91 65 61 180 N,(MI,A on 3279 12/08/80 12/04 HI-3280 70 61 54.5 115 N,(M),A on 3281 12/12/80 12/05 HI-3282 61 , 47.5 44 56 N,A on 12/10/80 3283 12/08 HI-3284 52.5 44 41.5 50 A 3285 12/09 HI-3286 62.5 51.5 48.5 '82 A 3287 12/10 HI-3289 67 51.5 97' 3290 12/15 HI-3291 72.5 60 53.5 105 A,{M) 3292 '91.1-21 , Amendment No. 2, (6/81) 0 SL2-ER-OL 291.1-1 'ABLE Sheet 21 of 22 MARXNE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCIE PLANT SEFC SEA'TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cc - 15 SPECIES: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) SITE: FPL St. Lucie P~ant Intake Cana1 Nay 1976 - Pi esent Date Tag (s) CL (cm) CW (cm) PL (cm) Mt (1bs) Comments 01/05/81 HI-3239 61.5 51.5 47 85 A 3240 01/06 HI-3241 57.5 " 49.5 45.5 66 A 3242 01/08 HI-3243 60 50 48 78 A 3244 01/13 HI-3245 63 53.5 81 A 3246 01/14 HI-3247 ss as.s , 53.5 A 3248 01/14 HI-3249 46 41.5 37 41 A= 3250 01/16 HI-3296 70 60 56 112 A,(F) 3297 01/19 HI-3294 60.5 53.5 47.5 71 A 3295 01/21 HI-3601 51.5 45.5 41.5 51.5 A 3602 01/26 HI-3603 60 50.5 85 A 3604 02/04 HI-3607 63.5 55 . 49.5 76 3608 02/06 HI-3609 50 45 42 ~ 46 3610 02/12 HI-3315 64 55 51 '316 02/13 HI-3317 47.5 41 38 ao 02/17 HI<<3318 83.5 62.5 64 170 02/17 HI-3319 70.5 53 ~ 54.5 110 F 02/23 HI-3621 3622 60 51 45 65 ',D,F,P, A 02/25 HI-3321 S8 SO 48 3322 02/27 HI-3611 56 48.5 45.5 68 3612 02/27 HI-3613 52.5 45 40.5 49 3614 02/27 HI-3215 58 50.5 75 3216'AH-001 03/06 56.5 45.5 59 002 291 1-22 Amendment No. 2. (6/81) ~ ~ ) t~ I 'I I qt e ~ ~ C, I SL2-ER-OL TABLE 291. 1-1 Sheet 22 of 22 MARINE TURTLES COLLECTED AT THE ST LUCXE PLANT SEFC SEA TURTLE DATA BASE SL/Cc - 16 SPECIES: Loggerhead (Caretta caretta) SITE: FPL St. LucIe Plant Intake CanaI May 1976 - Present Date Tag (s) CL {cm) CM {cm) PL (cm) Mt {1bs) Comments 03/08/81 AAH-003 53 43.5 40.5 55 A 004 03/15 HI-3173 58 50 45 59 A 3174 03/15 AAH-029 65 55 51.5 96 A 030 03/30 AAH-006 62.5 52.5 49.5 77 A OD7 03/30 AAH-008 56 47 44 66 A 009 0 291. 1-23 Amendment No. 2, (6/SI) t I SL2-ERAL uestion No. 291.2 Describe in more detail the configuration of the velocity cap intake structure. Provide a schematic drawing of the velocity cap, one of more detail than that presented as Figure 3.4-2 in the CP-ER. Provide the free open area dimensions of the ports on the velocity cap and describe any mitigative measures taken to reduce entrainment of organisms in the CWS. ~Res onse-The ocean intake system for the St Lucie Plant was constructed during the St Lucie Unit 1 stage, and consists of two 12 foot diameter pipelines and two independent, but identical intake velocity caps. These velocity caps are located in approximately 20 foot depth of water about 1200 feet offshore. As shown in Figures 291.2-1 and 291.2-2, the velocity cap is an octagonal horixontal concrete slab, 15 inches thick, measuring 52 feet by 52 feet in plan. The cap is supported by 16 concrete columns (eight on the exterior periphery and eight on the interior) which extend from its underside into a 55 foot square concrete base. The base rises four feet above the ocean bottom. The center of this base is an open shaft, approximately 20 feet square, which conveys water from the velocity cap to the buried intake pipe. Each intake structure has eight rectangular openings. Four of these openings have a width of 24 feet each and the remaining four are 20 feet wipe. The depth of each port is eight feet. Gross open area is ((24 x 4) + (20 x 4)] x 8 ~ 1408 sq feet. The net (free). open area is 1246 square feet per cap, after deducting the cross-sectional area for the eight exterior columns. For an ocean water withdrawal rate of 1159 cfs per unit, a net entrance velocity of slightly less than a foot per second will result. The velocity caps at St Lucie Plant were designed with an approximate one fps approach velocity to reduce entrainment of marine organisms. No ERWI revisions are required. 291. 2-1 Amendment No. 2, (6/81) 4 l I F ~ VELOCITY CAP 80'ARNING BUOY TREMIE CONCRETE FILL SHEET PILING IEh12'<~re , MEAN LOW WATER EL 2 0.00 <2 ~ ~ INTAKE +' ~ ~ FLOW 1200'ROM CENTER TO SHORELINE P,MENDlNENT NO. 2 (6/Sll FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 OCEAN INTAKE STRUCTURE FIGURE 291.2-l (p 0 E 'I .) I~ 1 U VELOCITY CAP ATLANTICOCEAN MEAN LOW WATER EL 20.00 8'2L-20 00 2 (COVER) EL-34'.0 I INTAKE FLOW V ll n I TREMIE CONC. SHEET SHEET PILING PILING AMENDMENTNO. 2 (6/81) FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 SIDE VIEW OF THE OCEAN INTAKE STRUCTURE FIGURE 291.2-2 .~ ~ I J r Il 1 T I I 'f 4 ~ ~ 'l SL2-ERAL uestion No. 291.3 Provide records of any sightings of the West Indian Manatee from the St Lucie area. ~Res onse Florida Audubon Society, under contract with Florida Power 6 Light Company, has conducted an annual aerial census program for the endangered West Indian Manatee at various FPSL plants with once>>through cooling. The program began in December of 1977 and is on-going. The Audubon Society has submitted a final report for the first two-and-one-half years of the program( During the December 1977 March 1980 period, weekly surveys were conducted during the winter months (i.e. December-March) and biweekly flights were conducted during the spring, summer and fall months (April November). The flights were conducted in a Cessna 172 with one or more observers. Counts were made at airspeeds of 90-150 km/hr at 90-200 m altitudes. The.St Lucie Plant was one of the ten plants surveyed by the Florida Audubon Society. During the - first year of survey (December 1977 November 1978) no manatees were sighted in the ocean discharge of the plant or within an approximate five mile radius, of the plant, which would include segments of the Indian River. Therefore, surveys at this plant were discontinued. Based on this finding, it was concluded that the St Lucie Plant should not presently be considered a warm-water refuge for manatees(1). The Henry D. King (Fort Pierce) Power Plant discharge, approximately 15 km north of the St Lucie Plant and located on the Indian River, is considered a warm- water refuge with 44 manatees sighted in that area. Based upon one confirmed sighting of a known individual(2) it is inferred that manatees migrate past the St Lucie Plant using the Indian River as the migratory route. Movement is south from the Cape Canaveral area to areas that may include the Hobe Sound Region during the November-January period. The pattern is reversed during the March-May period. At this time, to quantify the numbers showing this pattern. it is not possible No ERAL revisions are required. 291.3-1 Amendment No. 2,'(6/81) SL2-ER-OL References

1. Rose, P.M. and S.P. McCutcheon, 1980. Manatees (Trichecus manatus) abundance and distribution in and around several Florida power plant effluents Report prepared for Florida Power 6 Light Company

~ contract 831534-86626, 128 p.

2. Shane, S.H. 1980. Abundance, distribution and use of power plant effluents by manatees (Trichechus manatus) in Brevard County, Florida. Report prepared for Florida Power Light Company contract S

061552-86540, 240 p. 291.3-2 Amendment No. 2, (6/81) SL2-ERAL uestion No. 291.4 Provide the estimated flow rate through the emergency water supply system from Big Mud Creek during test conditions. Provide a range of expected values of water quality withdrawn from Big Mud Creek specifically, but not limited to, total suspended solids, dissolved oxygen, salinity and temperature. Compare these values to values obtained from water withdrawn from the Atlantic Ocean. ~Res ense

1. Emer enc Water Su 1 S stem, To assure that the system is operational, routine tests of the two emergency valves are performed during normal plant operation. During the test, water is drawn into the intake canal from Big Mud Creek at a rate dependent upon the "head" differential between the canal and the creek. Figure 291.4-1 presents the head-discharge curve for each of the two 54 inch pipe/valve assemblies. As an example, for a head differential of four feet, a flow of approximately 63,000 gpm will pass through each valve.

Water quality of the Indian River including Big Mud Creek is influenced 'mostly by tidal exchange with the Atlantic Ocean through Fort Pierce and St Lucie Inlets. Some fresh water dilution occurs due to runoff from the Lake Okeechobee drainage system. Temperature and dissolved, oxygen measurements within the Indian River averaged 24.3o F and 6'4 mg/1, respectively(1~. The temperature data were collected at Indian River Station 34 (see Figure 291.4-2 for location) from June 1972 to March 1973. The dissolved oxygen average was calculated for Stations 19 and 22, located approximately four and 22 kilometers north of Fort Pierce Inlet, respectively, since no measurements were taken at Station 34. These measurements are in close agreement with the ocean data reported in Section 2.4.4 of the St Lucie Unit 2 ER-OL. 291.4-1 Amendment No. 2, (6/81) SL2-ERAL The average salinity calculated at Station 34~1~ is 28.1 ppt,, approximately seven ppt lower than the ocean average. This can be attributed to fresh water runoff into the Indian River. At a depth of 12-13 meters for Stations 1 and 2~2~ within Big Mud Creek, as shown in Figure 291.4-2, temperature was measured at 13-15 C, dissolved oxygen at 3.4-3.5 mg/1 and salinity at 31 ppt ~ For depths less than four meters at Stations 1 and 5 water temperature at 21o to 24o C, dissolved oxygen from 6..8 to 8.9 mg/1 and salinity ranging from 14 to 32 ppt are in agreement with values measured by the Harbor Branch Foundation~1~. Data for Stations 1, 2 and 3 are recollected data, since the original data were for all stations~2~ ranged from less than lost.'otal'particulates one to 25 mg/1 averaging about 7.5 mg/1. This average is comparable to the oceanic average total particulates of 6.65 mg/1 reported by Worth and Hollinger~3~. No ERAL revisions are required. References

1. Wilcox, J R and R G Gilmore, 1976. Some hydrological data from the Indian River between Sebastian and St Lucie Inlets, Florida. Tech Report 17, Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc, Fort Pierce> Florida, 104 pp.

2. Law Engineering Testing Company, 1980. Water quality analyses at St Lucie Nuclear Plant. Law Engineering Job No. MH 0143, Marietta, Georgia.

3. Worth, D F and M L Hollinger, 1977 Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchinson Island, Florida: 1971-1974 III, Physical and Chemical Environment. Fla Mar Res Publ No. 23, FLorida Dept of Natural Resources, St Petersburg, Fla.

291.4-2 . Amendment No. 2, (6/81) 10 -9 POINT OF MAXIMUMFLOW -8 -7 Z O Y Z I-0 I-Y LLJ ~~ 6 a.5 Q Z Y I-o5 Z4 x,' O I- 4 -2 CD 0.80 H ~ 0.053V2 Q ~ 159V BASED ON PLANT DATUM+1 FT. 100 110 120 130 140 150 160 170 180 190 200 210 220 FLOW PER VALVE(CFS) AMENDMENTNO. 2 (6/81) FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 HEAD DISCHARGE CURVE-54" PIPE/VALVE ASSEMBLY FIGURE 291.4-1 1 <~ SL2-ERAL uestion No. 291.5 Provide a chart of the bathymetry of Big Hud Creek and nearby Indian River to and including the. intercoastal (sic) waterway. ~Res onse Near the St Lucie plant site the Indian River is a long shallow body of water. The average width is about 1.5 statute miles based on NOS Nautical Chart 11472. The west shoreline topography is straight, whereas the east shoreline is irregular with scattered mangroves protruding into the river. Depths are generally less than six feet below Mean Low Water (MLW) except for the dredged channel of the Intracoastal Waterway, which is maintained to minus 10 feet MLW. Near Herman Bay.Point, the section of Big Hud Creek between State Highway A1A and the Point was dredged to a depth of approximately minus 45 feet MLW. A channel connecting the Intracoastal Waterway and Big Hud Creek, gs shown in Figure 291.4-2, was dredged to minus 12 feet MLW<1). No ER-OL revisions are required. Reference

1. Continental Shelf Associates, Inc, 1977 'athymetric survey of Florida Power and Light Barge Canal. Tequesta, Plorida.

291.5-1 Amendment No. 2, (6/81) t' T l ,, F 4 l 1I ~ 1 4 p ~t 'I lq V SL2-ERAL uestion No. 291.6 Indicate the maximum and average duration of flow through the Big Mud Creek intake during quarterly testing. ~Res oese Reference is made to the response to Question No. 291.4. The flow rate from Big Mud Creek through the valves would depend on the head" differential between the canal and the creek. As the opening and closing test is performed within a minute or two per valve, only 100,000 gallons or so would be withdrawn per valve. St Lucie Unit 1 Environmental Technical Specifications restrict annual water withdrawal to four million gallons from Big Mud Creek (see Section 5.5.2.9 of St Lucie Unit 2 Pinal Environmental Statement - Construction Permit Stage). This valve test is currently performed on a semi-annual basis'o ERAL revisions are required. 291.6-1 Amendment No. 2, (6/81) C I' SL2-ER"OL uestion No. 291.7 In addition to responses to other specifically requested information provide a summary and brief discussion in table form, by section, of differences between currently projected environmental effects of the nuclear power station (including those that would degrade, and those that would enhance environmental conditions) and the effects discussed in the environmental report submitted at the construction stage. ~Bes onse See Table 291.7-1 attached. No ERAL revisions are required. 291.7-1 Amendment No. 2, '(6/S].) ', ~ ~ K ~ I ll II II ll II II ll ll BLIND CREEK II DREDGED TO 12 FT. BELOW MLW STATE II ~ 04 ~ Il ROAD ~AIA ll MANGROVES II II II I II r ll Qs'I 40 HERMAN 2 Il BAY BIG UD II POINT GREEIT II 'L II BATHYMETRIC TRANSECT BY HARBOR BRANCH l EMERGENCY ST. MEAN LOW WATER COOLING WATER LUCIE fl CANAL UNITS ELEVATION ll 1&2 ISCHARGE -5 II II CANAL II II Il Il II EAST II SHORELINE II MLW INTAKECANAL ll INDIAN RIVER WATER QUALITYSTATIONS II II O~ HARBOR BRANCH FOUNDATION WEST II SHORELINE 'MLW II II HERMAN BAY g THROUGH 5 LAW ENGINEERING II DATUM IS MEAN LOW WATER (MLW) II -5 II II AMENDMENTNO 2 (6/81) INTRACOASTAL II WATERWAY (MAINTAINEDTO FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY II 10 FT BELOW MLW) , ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 II INDIAN RIVER BATHYMETRY 8 WATER QUALITY STATIONS FIGURE 291.4-2 S SL2-ER-OL Sheet 1 o f 10 TABLE 291.7"1

SUMMARY

AND DISCUSSION OF DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS PROJECTED IN ST LUCIE UNIT 2 ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - CONSTRUCTION PERMIT STAGE (ER-CP) AND THOSE SET FORTH IN ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT - OPERATING LICENSE STAGE (ERAL)

ER-CP ER-OL SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

COMMENTS SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

4.1 Site Pre aration and Plant Construction 4.1 Site Pre aration and Plant Construction 4.1.1 Summar of Plans and Schedules 4.1.1 Construction Schedule Major construction activities to be Maj or construction activities are completed in 1979. Peak manpower scheduled to complete by early 1981.

requirement: 1400 (12/77 - 12/78) Peak manpower requirement (1980): 2025 (Section 4.1.3.1) 4.1.2 Cut and Fill Areas 4.1.2 Descri tion of Site Pre aration St Lucie Unit 2 construction All St Lucie Unit 2 structures and related and Construction required only three (3) acres facilities are contained within a 300 acre of land (mangrove) not cleared area which was previously cleared and a) Permanent facilities including plant, previously during Unit 1 drained during St Lucie Unit 1 construction canals, roads, etc. (Units 1 and 2)- construction.

stage; approximately 100 of these acres were 166 acres anticipated for St Lucie Unit 2.

b) Disturbed areas for concrete storage 8

and fabrication, fill storage and fill m

borrow (Units 1 and 2) - 134 acres 0

B m

rt

SL2-E R-OL Sheet 2 of 10 TABLE 291.7-1 ER-CP ER-OL SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

COMMENTS Same headwall structure in discharge c) Additional mangrove swamp cleared Separate headwall will allow the canal is shared by Units 1 and 2 for a separate headwall more efficient St Lucie Unit 2 discharge pipelines. No addit.ional (Unit, 2) 3 acres diffuser to be used, whenever mangrove swamp will be cleared for possible, for one unit. operation St Lucie Unit 2. (see also Section 5.1.2 of ER-OL) ~

Total area affected by plant construction (Units 1 and 2)- 303 acres 4 ~ 1.3 Construction Force 4.1.3 Effects of Site Pre aration and Construction Construction force estimate in Minor burden on schools and public ER-OL is more accurate. Most of t4 services by work force (peak ~ 1400) 4.1.3 ' Of the total 2025 work force, only 304 the St Lucie Unit 1 construction I are immigrant workers. force was retained for St Lucie Unit 2 construction. Impacts to nearby communities are low.

4.1.6 Construction Effects on Wildlife 4.1.3.3 Effects on Terrestrial Ve etation Mosquito control is the Habitats and Wildlife responsibilities of the St Lucie Area between canals will be flooded 'Three acres of mangrove swamp cleared County Mosquito Control District.

for mosquito control. to accommodate St Lucie Unit 2 headwall (Section 4 .1 .2 and Figure 4 .1-2) were disturbed. No flooding or draining of this area for mosquito control.

SL2-E R-OL Sheet 3 of 10 TABLE 291.7-1 ER-CP ER-OL SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

COMMENTS 4.1.7 Effects of Dred in for Dischar e Pi es 4.1.3.3 Effects on Marine Biota Although the area affected and on the Offshore Benthic Pauna Offshore construction of St Lucie Unit 2 benthic displacement are greater Offshore construction of St Lucie Unit 2 discharge pipeline will disturb a surface in ER-OL, the impact will be discharge pipeline will disturb 17,600 m area of 56,690 m 2 , and displace temporary and projected to one and displace 16.4 x 10 organisms, based 8.9 x 10 8 organisms (Table 4.1"3). year after completion, based on on 100 percent mortality. observed substrate stabilization and recolonization subsequent to St Lucie Unit 1 discharge pipelzne constructzon 4.1.8 Chemical Releases Durin Construction Spent chemicals are routed to the settling basin or to neutralization basin if neutralization is required prior to discharge.

4.4 Radioactivit New section.

4.5 Construction Im act Control Program New section.

m o

8 ft 5.1 Effects of Heat Dissi ation S stem 5.1 Effects of 0 eration of Heat Dissi ation

. ~Sstem

SL2-ER-OL Sheet 4 o f 10 TABLE 29 1.7-1 ER-CP ER-OL SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

COMMENTS 5.1.1 Effect of Thermal Dischar e of Ocean 5 ~ 1.1 Effluent Limitations and Water alit T aaeratures Standards Reference is made to Section 3.4 for US EPA Effluent Limitations (40 CFR 423),

description of the "alternating" diffuser. and State of Florida Rules and Regulations The 12 foot diameter diffuser section will be Ch. 17-3 pertaining to water quality 1060 feet long consisting of 48 ports. The standards (s. 17-3.05, Thermal Surface ports, each 1.5 feet in diameter, will be Criteria) will govern the thermal effects mounted alternately on both sides of the from St Lucie Unit 2 discharge.

diffuser.

'V Based on 1150 c fs circulating water flow and 5.1.2 Ph sical Effects Table 5.1-1 (ER-OL) presents a I

Vl a maximum temperature rise of 24 Fy the St Reference is made to Section 3.4 qualitative comparison of the Lucie Unit 2 diffuser performances was for description of "offshore angled or performance between the analyzed for thermal impacts under conditions staged" diffuser. The 16 foot diameter "alternating and staged of Unit 2 discharge alone, and combined diffuser section will be 1416 feet long, diffusers. The state-of-the-discharges for Units 1 and 2. It did not with 58 ports. The ports, each about 18 art "staged" diffuser provides generate any "net offshore" momentum and inches in diameter, are oriented 25o a more efficient means of and exhibited "good" performance only under horizontally in an alternating manner. dispersing the thermal plume.

high ambient current situations. Plume computations were made for discharges With the present design, the from Unit 2 alone and combined discharges plant discharge is carried to from Units 1 and 2 for a maximum temperature deeper waters where more diluent rise of 32 F. This optimized diffuser flow is available, and potential generates "net offshore" momentum and for recirculation and exhibits "good" performance under all interference with Unit 1 plume o ambient current conditions. will be reduced.

SL2-E R-OL Sheet 5 o f 10 TABLE 291.7-1 ER-CP ER-OL SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

COMMENTS 5.1.2 Effects of Thermal Dischar e on A uatic Life Thermal plumes will have minimal effects on the aquatic communities.

5.1.3 Entrainment of A uatic Or anisms 5.1.3 Biolo ical Effects of St Lucie Unit. 2 0 eration Entrainment effects were calculated based 5.1.3.1 Intake Effects on offshore densities, and an assumption of Worst case estimate of 1.8 percent (3.6 percent Estimates in ER-OL are more 100 percent mortality. Daily entrainment rates for both units) of nearshore planktonic reliable because of St Lucie for phytoplankton and zooplankton are 13.5 community will be entrained through St Lucie Unit 1 operational experience.

kg/day and 9.14 x 10 3 kg/day, respectively. Unit 2, based on comparison of pre-operational Impingement is not considered significant. and operational monitoring programs conducted M

lO for St Lucie Unit 1.

I Based on average impingement rates observed during operation of St Lucie Unit 1 (1976-78 data), it is anticipated that impingement rates for St Lucie Unit 2 will be 82,000 (620 kg) finfish and 30,000 (197 kg) shellfish per year.

'Ihese rates represent less than .04 percent and 9 and .005 percent of the commercial catches of o

0 finfish and shellfish, respectively, for either g

A St Lucie or Martin Counties.

tt O

5.1.3.2 Dischar e Effects Because of the optimized "staged" diffuser design, the plumes will have no adverse CO

SL2-E R-OL Sheet 6 of 10 TABLE 291.7-1 ER-CP ER-OL SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

COMMENTS 5.1.3.2 (Cont'd) effects on the benthic community. If planktonic productivity is stimulated by surface temperatures, a resulting increase in benthic productivity may occur.

Based on thermal tolerances of resident

~ 0 planktonic and nektonic species and the plume size and temperature, no adverse I

effects are expected from operation of St Lucie Unit 2.

5.2 Radiolo ical Im act on Biota and Man 5.2 Radiolo ical Im act from Routine 5.3 ~oeration Reference is made to Section 3.5 and Reference is made to Section 3.5 for a The major system change is the Amendments 7 and 8 for a description of description of changes in radwaste systems. replacement of the Airborne the radwaste systems. Source terms and Releases are based on revised GALE code. Radioactivity Removal System releases are based on GALE code and doses Doses are based on updated site and (ER-CP), with a Low-volume based on site and meteorological data. meteorological data. Continuous Purge System (ERAL).

Reanalysis of releases and updated site date revealed no significant change that will affect doses.

0

SL2-ER-OL Sheet 7 of 10 TABLE 291.7-1 ER-CP ER-OL SECTION HEADING AND SENARY SECTION HEADING AND SVHMARY COHHEHTS 5.4 Effects of Chemical and Biocide Dischar es 5.3 Effects of Chemical and Biocide Dischar es 5.4.1 Chlorine 5.3.2 Effects on Water ualit of Atlantic Ocean Reference is made to Section 3.G for Reference is made to Section 3.6 for description of chemical and biocide description of chemical and biocide discharges. Gaseous chlorine will be used discharges and comparison with applicable for biocide control. 'Ihe maximum free federal effluent Limitations (Table 5.3-1).

residue chlorine concentration vas estimated Sodium hypochlorite (instead of gaseous to be less than 0.19 ppm at the discharge chlorine) will be used for biocide control, t4 canal. resulting in maximum total residue chlorine I concentration of 0.08 mg/I at point of CO I discharge.

5.5 Effects of Sanitar Waste Dischar e 5.4 Effects of Sanitar Waste Dischar e System design change considered Reference is made to Section 3.7 for Reference is made to Section 3.7 for the package-type treatment description of the treatment system, description of the package-type extended system more compatible for Septic tank vill be used to treat sanitary aeration treatment facility. This plant operation ana site use.

wastes. Treated effluent is disposed via treatment plant is capable of achieving a leaching field within the site, vhich 90 to 95 percent removal of both BOD5 meets all applicable site regulations. and suspended solids from the sanitary wastes. Treated effluent meets.EPA and state regulations. Treated effluent discharged into intake canal will be diluted 8.7 x 10 times by circulating vater flow O before discharging into Atlantic Ocean.

CO

SL2-E R-OL Sheet 8 of 10 TABLE 291.7-1 ER-CP ER-OL SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

COMMENTS 5.7 Other Effects 5.6 Other.Ef fects Effects of gaseous wastes from periodic 5.6.1 Land Uaa testing of emergency diesel generators Two-thirds of area within five miles of and of racoon population control are St Lucie Unit 2 is submerged.'otential considered insignificant. for residential development is limited.

5.6.2 Plant 0 eration and Maintenance Noise New section. Maximum shift is two (2) A shift less than five dB is dB above ambient within area of not, considered significant.

a five mile radius.

8.0 Economic and Social Effects of Plant 8.0 Benefits and Costs Construction and 0 eration 8.1 Value of Delivered Products 8.1.1 Primar Benefits The format utilized to present Plant size utilized: 850 MW(e)- Plant Size utilized: 802 MW(e) net data in the ER-CP for Chapters 8 nameplate Capacity factor: 72X and ll varies significantly from Capacity factor: 80X Amounts to 5.058 billion kWh/year the format outlined in NRC Reg.

Amounts to 5.978 billion kWh/year Year of Commercial operation: 1983 Guide 4.2. Rev. 2 utilired for Year of commercial operation: 1979 Productive life and analysis period: ER-OL.

Plant life and analysis period: 40 years 30 years Discount rate: 10.04X Discount rate: 10X

SL2-ER-OL Sheet 9 of 10 TABLE 291.7-1 ER-CP ER-OL HEADING AND

SUMMARY

COMMENTS SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

SECTION 8.2 Income 8.1.2 Secondar Benefits Total capital cost for developing Operation workers: 150 St Lucie Unit 2 will be $ 360 million Employment multiplier (for operational (in 1980 dollars) phase only): 1.72 Indirect employment effect (new 8.3 ~Elo nt jobs): 258 Operational workers: 25 Revenues (taxes and fees) during Revenues cited are categorized Employment multiplier, (construction operational phase: by type and jurisdiction in and operational phase): 0.65 $ 443.4 million (in 1983 dollars) Table 8.1-1 (ER-OL) ~

l4 Indirect employment effect (new jobs): 16 I

ED 8.4 Taxes 8.2 Costs Not determined 8.2.1 Internal Costs Capital costs of St Lucie Unit 2:

$ 925 million (in 1983 dollars) 11.0 Sunmar Benefit Cost Anal sis 11.0 Summar Benefit -Cost Anal sis Table 11.1-1 shows distribution of Reference is made to Sections 8.1 and 8.2. Net delivered energy excluded electrical energy (expected annual net Table 8.1-1 shows distribution of 8 percent transmission loss delivery in kilowatt hours) as follows: electrical energy (expected annual net 0

delivery in kilowatt hours) as follows:

CO

SL2-ER-OL Sheet - 10 o f 10 TABLE 291.7-1 ER-CP ER-OL SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

COMMENTS SECTION HEADING AND

SUMMARY

Industrial (8,5X) .468 x 109 Industrial (7.0X) .3257 x 109 Commercial (29.9X) - 1.595 x 109 Commercial (36.5X) 1.6986 x 109 Residential (50.7X) 2.788 x 109 Residential (49.1X) - 2.2849 x 109 Other (11.8X) .649 x 109 Other (7.4X) .3444 x 109 Total Delivered 5.500 x 109 Total Delivered 4.6536 x 109 Revenues from delivered benefits: Revenues from delivered benefits:

$ 103,000,000 (in 1971 dollars). $ 234,865,287 (discounted 1983 dollars).

SL2-ERAL uestion No.

291.8 Provide an estim'ate of the maximum probable yearly recreational harvest of finfish, shellfish and molluscs harvested from waters within a 50~ile radius of the station that potentially could be contaminated by radionuclides due to' maximum probable accident. The harvest estimates should be summarized by species and location of capture (water body segment) and provide an explanation of how the estimate was obtained..

~Res onse The'stimated total number of fish caught by marine recreational fishermen in Atlantic Ocean waters of Florida during 1979 was about 40 million(1). Dominant species were sea catfish (5 million); grunts (4 million); herrings (3 million); pinfish (3 million); dolphins (3 million); snappers (2 million); bluefish (2 million); spotted seatrout (1 million); sea basses (1 million); blue runner (1 million); and sheepshead (1 million). Forty percent of the estimated catch occurred within three miles of shore (in the Atlantic Ocean),

'and 24 percent of the estimated catch occurred in estuaries and embayments. November and December accounted for the largest portion of the estimated recreational catch (40 percent).

Marine recreational catch data presented by the US Department of Commerce (1980) cannot be reduced sufficiently to permit estimation of'catch within 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2.

However, most of the catch occurs in estuaries, lagoons, or in nearshore Atlantic Ocean waters, and availability of fishery facilities should be expected to bear a relationship to fishing activity and catch (assuming equal catch rates per stretch of coast). Based therefore on the percentage of fishing sites per county(2), it is estimated that between ten and 20 .,percent of the Florida east coast catch may be taken within 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2. Brevard County eight percent of the fishing sites enumerated in( ); Indian River County one'ercent; St Lucie County one comprised >>

percent; Martin County nine percent; and Palm Beach County 15 percent. Brevard and Palm Beach Counties are on the outskirts of the five county region, and only portions of these fisheries are within 50 miles of St Lucie Unit 2.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

291.8-1 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)

SL2-ERAL References

1. U.S. Dept. of Commerce'980. Marine Recreational Fisher Statistics Surve Atlantic and Gulf Coasts 1979. Natl. Mar. Fish.

Serv., Wash. D.C. Current Fish. Stat. No. 8063, Dec. 1980.

2. Deuel, D. 1981. National Marine Fisheries Serv.; Dept of Statistics, Wash., D.C. Pers. comm.

291. 8-2 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)

SL2-ERAL s"""""'

291.9 Using data from the last 5 years, provide an estimate of the maximum probable yearly commercial harvest of finfish, shellfish and molluscs harvested from waters within a 50 mile radius of the station that potentially 'could be contaminated by radionuclides due to a maximum probable accident. The harvest estimates should be summarized by species and location of capture (waterbody segment) and provide a generalized explanation of how the estimate was obtained.

~Res ense Portions of five counties are included within a 50 mile radius of St Lucie Unit 2. The US Dept of Commerce annual landings statistics( 4) are reduced to county landings only, thus a conservative estimate of fin and shellfish landings can be obtained from such statistics. Additional conservatism is built into the estimates because port of landing statistics do not necessarily reflect local fishery activity. Por instance, large portions of lobster and rock shrimp catches occur in

'eep waters outside of Plorida.

Table 291.9-1 provides catch data for the five county region from 1975 through 1980. Based on county landings, the average

'annual catch for these counties was estimated at approximately 18 million pounds of finfish and 3.5 million pounds of shellfish. Table 291.9-2 gives a breakdown of dominant species within county catches. It is shown that Spanish and king mackerel dominate the finfish catch, and hard blue crab, rock shrimp, and spiney lobster dominate the shellfish catch.

Calico scallop* comprises a large portion of the 1980 shellfish landings in Brevard County. ,This fishery exhibits wide year class fluctuations due to differential success of spat set(5). The'Brevard County landings account for 95 percent of the five county shellfish harvest and 40 percent of the Florida east coast harvest.

No ERAL revisions are required.

References

1. National Marine Fisheries Service, 1977, Florida Landings, Annual Summary, 1975. Current Fisheries Statistics No. 6919.

2. National Marine Fisheries Service, 1978, Florida Landings, Annual Summary, 1976. Current Pisheries Statistics No. 7219.

291.9-1 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)

SL2-ERAL

3. National Marine Fisheries Service, 1980, Florida Landings, Annual Summary, 1977. Current Fisheries Statistics No. 7517.

4. Michael, S. and T. Culbertson, 1981. Personal communication.

National Marine Fisheries Service, Miami, Florida.

5. Allen, D. 1981. Personal communication. National Marine Fisheries Service. Miami, Florida.

291. 9-2 Amendment No. 2, '(6/81)

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 291.9-1 COKKRCIAL FISHERIES LANDINGS 1975-1980+

COUNTY BREVARD INDIAN RIVER ST LUCIE HARTIN PALN BEACH 1975 Total Pounds Finfish 3,463,644 2 >547,4 29 4, 760,026 3,043,802 1,925 >105 Total pounds Shellfish 4,087,586 6 1,173 15,904 2,864 79 >775 1976 Total Pounds Finfish 3,153,547 2 >667 >307 7,177,920 4,935,439 3 >089 >123 Total Pounds Shellfish 2,612,218 17,159 10,456 1,950 39,548 1977 Total Pounds Finfish 2 > 180>524 2,351,740 8>606,184 6,492,498 2>118 >537 Total Pounds Shellfish 3,749,286 24>950 13,320 1,487 35,135 1978 Total pounds Finfish 2,256,017 >491>532 6,271,737 4,203,935 1,541>736 Total Pounds Shellfish 3 >398 >933 150>255 10>553 2>752 22>523 1979 Total Pounds Finfish 1>621>858 875,550 5 >650,437 4,399,665 1,475 >645 Total Pounds Shellfish 1,431,557 3 >333 3,530 5,221 19,212 1980 Total Pounds Finfish 2>073,856 1 >478 >244 7 >583,345 7,247,389 2 >287,479 Total Pounds Shellfish 4 >608,084 195 26 1,595 4,000 76 >446 1975-1980 AVERAGE Pounds Fan ash 2,458,241 1,901,967 6>674,941 5,053,788 2,072 >938 Pounds Shellfish 3,314,611 42,844 52,560 3,046 45,440 Five Count Ayers ed Annual Total of Finfish (lbs): 18,161,875 A roximate Value: $ 8,717,700 Five Count. Averaged Annual Total of Shellfish (lbs): 3,485 >501 A roxrmate Value: $ 5,533,602

• Based on references 1-4.

SL2-E R-OL TABLE 291.9-2 DOMINANT FINFISH AND SHELLFISH (PERCENT RELATIVE WEIGHT) IN COMMERCIAL LANDINGS> 1975-1980" COUNTY 8REVARD INDIAN RIVER ST LUCIE MARTIN PALM BEACH 1975 Black Mullet (20Z) Menhaden (35Z) Spanish and King Spanish Mackerel (41Z) Span@ah and Krng Hard Blue Crab (51Z) Hard Blue Crab (95Z) Mackerel (77Z) Spiny Lobster (91Z) Mackerel (83Z)

Rock Shrimp and Hard Spiny Lobster (99Z)

Blue Crab (75Z) 1976 Black Mullet, Spanish Menhaden and King Spanish and King Spanish Mackerel (64Z) Spanish Mackerel (67Z) and King Mackerel Mackerel (62Z) Mackerel (84Z) Spiny Lobster (100Z) Spiny Lobster (95Z)

(53Z) Hard Blue Crab (53Z) Spiny Lobster (66Z)

Hard Blue Crab (60Z) 1977 Black Mullet (29Z) King and Spanrsh Spanish and King Spanish Mackerel (71Z) Spanish and King Hard Blue Crab and Mackerel (50Z) Mackerel (83Z) Spiny Lobster (100Z) Mackerel (73Z)

Rock Shrimp (72Z) Hard Blue Crab (93Z) Hard Blue Crab (61Z) Spiny Lobster (83Z) 1978 Black Mullet Spot Spanish and King Spanish Mackerel Spanrsh and Kxng Hard Blue Crab and Hard Blue Crab Mackerel Spiny Lobster Mackerel Rock Shrimp Hard Blue Crab and Spiny Lobster Spiny Lobster 1979 Black Mullet King Mackerel and Spanish and King Spanish Mackerel Spanish and King Hard Blue Crab Black Mullet Mackerel Hard Blue Crab Mackerel Hard Clam Hard Blue Crab Spiny Lobster 1980 Black Mullet No Dominant Spanish Mackerel and Spanish Mackerel K ing and Spanish Hard Blue Crab and Swordfish Unidentified Species Mackerel Calico Scallops Calico Scallops Spiny Lobster

• Where final landings data were not available, relative weight of dominant species could not be calculated.

SL2-ER-OL s'""'" short narrative of the fishery resources of the Big 291.10 Provide a Mud Creek and the Indian River in the vicinity of Big Mud Creek.

~Res ense The fish community of the Indian River is productive and diverse, particularly in the southern region where Big Mud Creek is located. Over 300 fish species have been collected in the southern portion of the Indian River lagoon(

Table 291.10-1 is a list of species caught in the Indian River in 1974-1975 . Big Mud Creek ranked highest in numerical abundance of fish (533,737, or 50 percent), but lowest in numbers of species (60). Anchovy (Anchoa mitchilli) dominated the Big Mud Creek samples (88 percent), and this dominance is reflected in species diversity values given in Table 291.10-2. Brevoortia smithi formed about six percent of the catch and ~Mu il curema formed another three percent of the il catch. Menhaden~Brevoortia smithi) and mullet (~Mu spp.)

are the dominant species of commercial value, although the commercial fishery of the Florida east coast near St Lucie Unit 2 is dominated by markerel, which were not collected in Big Mud Creek (see Response to Question 291.9).

No ER-OL revisions are required.

References

1. Gilmore, R G. 1981. Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc., Ft Pierce, Fla.

Pers. comm.

2. Jones, R S, R G Gilmore Jr., G R Kulezycki, W C Magley, and B Graunke. 1975. Studies of the fishes of the Indian River coastal zone. Harbor Branch Foundation, Inc., Ft. Pierce, Fla.

291.10-1 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)

Sheet 1 of 2 SL2-E R-OL TABLE 291.10-1 COMPARISON OF NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS FOR EACH SPECIES BETWEEN STATIONS. THE 49 SPECIES LISTED WERE CHOSEN FROM A RANK ORDER LIST OF ALL SPECIES ALL STATIONS COMBINED. SPECIES THAT SCORED LESS THAN 50 INDIVIDUALS WERE GROUPED IN A SINGLE "REMAINING SPECIES" CATEGORY. (FROM REFEREHCE 2 S ecies Sebastian Wabasso Link Port Jim Island Bi Mud Jensen Bessie Cove2 Totals Anchoa mitchilli 27>894 29,592 137,417 2,487 472,190 233,282 13,2 18 917,080 Brevoortia smithi 72 196 7 6 32,254 12 34 32,581 Anchoa nasuta 2 0 11,9 10 261 1,930 1>303 2,517 17,923 Anchoa cubans 66 0 0 2 0 8 >200 7,942 16,210 anchoa ~hn set s 503 646 1,447 2>461 714 91 9,817 15,681

~>area la Sensacolae 2,927 87 4,217 3,476 1,980 84 1,732 14,503

~Mu rl curema 146 962 41 32 12,968 118 34 14,301

~Dia terus ol sthosto s 54 2,858 791 1,318 2,821 856 1,212 9,910

~ia odon rho hordes 327 1,354 319 2>810 1,074 1,873 816 8,573 E cinosto s ~ar ante s 582 559 75 2,097 3,843 777 212 8 $ 145 Eucinostomus ~ula 303 629 191 584 1,253 286 401 3 >647 Sardinella anchovia 481 36 246 501 233 150 1,496 3 >143 Menidia ber llina 146 2,106 11 1 68 210 0 2,542 Sa'rdiella ~chr s ra 83 535 613 4 46 285 859 2,425

~ortho e se s~c'hx 'so t ra 106 575 82 158 45 124 130 1,220 Opisthon s ~ol 'nm 202 0 41 7 784 1 72 1 >107 Membras martinica 69 602 61 0 98 121 4 955 Anchoa la rotaenia 950 0 0 0 0 2 952 117 158 5 4 362 45 0 691 Haeim>lon yarrai 16 0 11 139 121 7 211 505

~lut an s ~sna ris 8 9 10 276 0 0 72 375

~Sh ra na barrac da 3 3 16 17 196 19 77 331 Trachinotus falcatus 68 7 140 90 0 3 312

~>tron 1 ra notate 17 68 29 72 62 29 23 300

~011 o 1 1 s sau s 5 17 10 17 166 22 8 245

~>notens scoselli 12 56 91 16 23 38 5 241-

~>eton 1 ta ti cu 6 9 13 61 39 50 46 45 223 195

~Elo s saurus 13 75 12 5 37 7 Albula ~vul es 3 0 1 0 159 19 12 194

$ d 1 s si 'lis 2 185 0 0 1 0 0 188

~toscton neb los s 32 44 13 5 9 38 18 159

~Iut'ao s anslis 5 2 1 123 1 5 16 153

~tur anus dirtse s 5 32 12 11 35 36 4 135 Dsnacanth s ~his idus 0 4 10 73 1 15 22 125

~aa neth s lou s ance 3 11 15 28 8 19 34 118 Gobiosoma robustum 2 65 21 8 4 10 2 112 5 24 9 6 43 19 3 109

~Mu il sp.

rundulus Srandis 36 0

8 89 4

0 41 0

5 0

1 0

0 0

95 89

Sheet 2 of 2 SL2-E R-OL TABLE 291.10-1 S ecies Sebastian Wabasso Link Port Jim Islandl Bi Mud Jensen Bessie Cove2 Totals

~Mil ~oe hal s 1 51 6 6 8 0 11 83 1 74 0 3 0 0 0 78

~oo eras ~oar s rtls 0 0 0 47 0 0 22 69 Hg>orham hus unifasciatus 37 10 8 3 0 5 1 64 Mac~rois Us >moses 1 56 0 7 0 0 0 ,64

~>o seep s spellers 0 22 7 0 9 26 0 64 Gobionellus smara dus 0 44 0 17 0 0 0 61

~carro oeos oaaeor alia 0 14 13 1 15 5 9 57

~>e rae a borealis 0 0 2 8 0 1 42 54 Gobionellus boleosoma 0 6 0 45 0 0 0 51 Subtotal Individuals 35,311 41,880 157,931 17>333 533,599 248,231 39,650 1,073,935 Subtotal Species 41 41 39 41 34 38 37 Remaining Individuals 30 159 44 201 138 97 1,655 2,325 Remaining Species 19 26 22 42 26 28 40 Total Individuals 35,341 42,039 157,975 17,535 533,737 248>328 41>305 1,076,260 Total Species 60 67 61 83 60 66 77 138 1 Two collections vere missed for this station.

2 - One collection was missed for this station.

0 oe o>

SL2-E R-OL TABLE 291.10-2

SUMMARY

OF STATION DATA FOR ONE YEAR OF SAMPLING From Reference 2 Area Total Mean Numbers Mean Weight Mean Species Sampled No. No. Weight Diversity Evenness Diversity Evenness Richness (m2) Species Individuals (kg) -(N') (J' (M') (J') (D)

Sebastian 13,932 60(47) 35>341( 21057) 61.95(14.55 0.87(1.62) 0.29(0.63) 1.36(1.59) 0.48(0.65) 2.28(2.89)

Wabasso 13,932 67(59) 42,039 (10,46 1) 79.09(47.23) 1.24(1.82) 0.38(0.59) 1.86(1.84) 0.57(0.60) 3.17(3.71)

Link Port 13,932 61(51) 157,975( 2,637) 92.64(26.51) 0.79(1.51) 0.27(0.57) 1.21(1.47) 0.42(0.57) 2.13(2.75)

Jim Island 1 1,610 83(72) 17,535( 8,255) 104.80(74.91) 1.56(1.66) 0.46(0.52) 1.74(1.61) 0.52(0.51) 3.78(3.50)

Big Mud 13,932 60(51) 533,737(10,671) 235.63(28.55) 0.46(1.51) 0.15(0.54) 1.11(1.69) 0.37(0.61) 1.96(2.82)

Jensen Beach 13,932 66(57) 248,328( 5,086) 73.18(19.60) 0.85(1.52) 0.27(0.53) 1.28(1.57) 0.41(0.55) 2.59(3.18) oI Bessie Cove 121771 77(66) 41~305( 4J430) 91.55(70.14) 1.32(1.78) 0.40(0.59) 1.62(1.30) 0.50(0.44) 3.34(3.67)

Totals for Indian River 94 041 138(125) 1~076~260(43~597) 738.84(281.49) 1,628.84 lbs. (620.57 lbs.)

I Note: Numbers in parentheses exclude the families Engraulidae, Clupeidae and Mugilidae.

8 Ct 0

CO

SL2-E R-OL estion 291. 11 The discussion of the difficulties experienced maintaining flows introduces uncertainty as to what the actual cooling water flow will be with two units in service. With the new intake in service what will the flow be through each unit? Will this be maintained by throttling back pumps? Apparently higher flows could be employed. At what reduced flow and corresponding elevated temperature rise will intake pipeline cleaning procedures be initiated?

~Res onse The actual cooling water flow rate requirements will remain constant for St Lucie Units 1 and 2 assuming a design condenser dT o f 24'F. Intake canal water level will be drawn down slowly to offset the increased pipe resistance in the ocean intake lines as a result of marine fouling. When the canal level has been drawn down to the lowest allowable limit, ocean intake pipe cleaning must be initiated to preclude a reduction in flow and a corresponding reduction in unit output.

lb ER-OL revisions are required.

291.11-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

291.12 Discuss recirculation of discharged ~ater to the new intake pipeline.

Response

The separation distance between the existing twin intake pipelines and the plant discharge diffusers is approximately 2300 feet. The addition of the third pipeline (located north of the existing pipelines) will reduce the separation distance by 100 feet, or about 4.35 percent of the original separation distance. The following discussion relates to recirculation of discharged water to the new intake pipeline as well as the existing pipelines:

1) There would be no recirculation for either individual or two unit operation under both stagnant and northward current conditions.

2) Under a southward current condition, there would be some possibility of recirculating discharge water to all three intake pipelines up to 30 percent of the time on an annual basis.

3) For the worst case conditions the plant intake water temperature rise due to recirculation would be 0.2'F and 1.2'F for one unit and two uni,t operation, respectively. This is 5 based on the assumption that the new intake pipeline will carry 1150 cfs and each of the two existing pipelines will carry 575 cfs. The addition of a new intake pipeline will not increase nor decrease flow volume used for plant operation.

Therefore recirculation potential for three intake pipelines is expected to be similar to that for two intake pipelines.

4) The temperature rises due to recirculation are relatively small as compared to the daily ambient temperature fluctuations of the 5'F.

ocean water, which can range from 2'o Based on the above discussions it appears third intake pipeline will not significantly that the addition of a reduce the separation distance between the intake and discharge pipelines, nor will it increase the flow volume used for plant operation. Therefore, is concluded that the recirculation potential for three intake it pipelines as, that will not for be significantly higher than, if not the same two intake pipelines.

See revised ER-OL Subsection 5.1.2.3.3.

291. 12-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

1 291.13 Page 10 of the Circulating Water System Modification document provides some flow velocities in the pipelines. Indicate iK these velocities are based on no pipe fouling or with fouling. Explain why the maximum flow velocity would be reduced to 2/3's of the twin pipeline flow velocity when the existing pipelines are 12 feet in diameter and the new pipeline is to be 16 feet in diameter. 5 J

Response

The maximum calculated flow velocity of 10.18 fps through the two existing 12 foot diameter intake pipelines corresponds to the initial design requirement: supply a total flow of 2300 cfs for two unit operation.

The maximum flow velocity of 6.8 fps through the proposed 16 foot diameter third intake pipeline was developed for a calculated flow distribution of 1360 cfs through the 16 foot pipe and a flow of 15 470 cfs through each of the 12 foot pipes. This flow distribution results from the following assumed friction factor: f=0.02 in the proposed pipe and f 0.07 in the existing pipes (the increased friction factor is a result of marine growth built up in the pipes since the last pipe cleaning performed in 1980).

No ER-OL revisions are required.

291.13-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

291.14 Provide estimates of flow velocities at the entrance of each velocity cap, each vertical pipe section of the velocity cap, each intake pipeline, and the intake canal under one and two unit operation and clean and fouled conditions.

Response

Flow distribution through the three pipes varies with the change in the friction factors as a result of marine fouling.

For tPe scheduled start of two unit operation in June 1983 the friction factors are assumed to be f~0.07 for the 12 foot pipes which were last cleaned in 1980 and f~0.02 for the new 16 foot pipe (note: f=0.015 for a clean pipe, however, it takes less than two months for the friction factor to increase to f=0.02).

It is estimated that the pipes will be able to operate on a seven to eight year cleaning cycle with the flow velocities noted in Table 291.14-1. Please note that the velocities in the table are for two units operation. Velocities for one unit operation are half the values shown.

See revised ER-OL Subsection 3.4.2.1.

291.14-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-E R-0 L TABLE 291. 14-1 CALCULATED HYDRAULIC CHARACTERISTICS FOR THREE INTAKE PIPELIK OPERATION Velocity Cap Vert. Pipe Sect. Pipe Flow Canal Flow Fric tion Fac tor Entrance Velocity Flow Velocity Velocity Velocity Year 1983

'2'g 0.07 f

II II 16'gl 0.02 12'III 0.368 (FPS) 16'8 1.00 12'5

1. 18 (FPS) 16 '9 6.7 7 (FPS) 12 'III

4. 16 16 'III 6.77 (FPS) 1.0+

1986 0. 115 0.07 0.401 0.941 1.28 6 '4 4. 54 6. 34 1.0+

1988 0. 145 0. 10 0.411 0.927 1.31 6.24 4.62 6.24 1.0+

1990 0. 175 0. 13 0.414 0.918 1.32 6.18 4.67 6.18 1.0+

Inside diameter of intake pipe.

Note: The above calculations are based on two unit operation.

291. 14-2 Amendment'o. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

291.15 Describe the procedures for removing a pipeline from service and cleaning it.

Response

I. For 16 foot diameter intake pipeline:

A. Remove line from service by closing the 16 foot line sluice gate.

B. Place stop logs into headwall C. Open sluice gate D. Insert cleaning machine into intake structure E. Cleaning machine is hydraulically forced through the ocean pipeline to effect cleaning.

F. Cleaning machine is removed, sluice gate closed, and stop logs removed .

G. Line is placed into service by opening the sluice gate.

II. For 12 foot diameter intake pipelines:

)5 A. During a period of zero flow through either 12 foot diameter line, the cleaning machine is inserted into the pipeline and a cover plate is then installed on the headwall.

B. "Cleaning machine is hydraulically forced through the ocean pipeline to effect cleaning.

C. During a subsequent zero flow conditions, the cover plate and cleaning machine are removed and the line restored to service.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

291.15-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-8R-0L uestion hb.

291. 16 Indicate whether cleaning of any of the ocean intake pipelines will be attemped during two unit operation or whether cleaning be limited to outages.

~Res oese

%rmally, pipe cleaning will be scheduled during a unit outage.

However, cleaning of the 16 foot intake pipe during two unit operation may be performed if warranted.

tb ERAL revisions are required.

291.16-1 amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL estion lh.

291. 17 Indicate whether all three pipelines will be used at all times or whether any pipeline will be blocked off during periods of one unit operation or kept on standby for any reason.

~Res oese Except for periods of cleaning, all three intakes pipelines will be in service during one unit operation.

ER-OL revisions are required.

291.17-1 t N 5 (6/82)

SL2-E R-0 L es t ion lb.

291. 18 Verify that construction is still planned for February through December 1982.

Indicate if applicable shift the period of time construction activities will occur on a three per day basis.

~Res ense Mobilization has commenced and construction activity is presently scheduled for three shifts per day from February through December 198 2.

See revised ER-OL Subsection 4.1.1.

291.18"1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL uestion Ib.

291. 19 On page 13 of the Circulating Water System Modification document a discussion of decreased turtle nesting due to initial intake and discharge construction is presented. Provide the magnitude of tne decrease in turtle nesting due to recent construction of the second discharge structure.

~Res oese As' test for 1981 construction effects of the second discharge pipeline, the number of nests occurring at the Plant Site (Area 4) were compared to the expected number predicted by a linear regression model.( ) These counts were within 14 percent of the estimate each year except 1975 and 1981, when the counts dropped to 50 and 65 percent, respectively, of the estimate. The apparent cause of these discrepancies was the construction of intake pipelines (1975) and discharge pipelines (1975 and 1981) in the beach and nearshore environment. Construction activity and lights on the construction pier at night, as well as localized beach erosion south of the structures, reduced nesting activity in this area. %sting is expected to return to normal levels as was observed during years following nearshore construction in 1975.

No ERAL revisions are required.

Re ferences

l. Applied Biology, Inc 1980. Florida Power & Light Company, St Lucie Plant, annual non-radiological environmental monitoring report 1979, AB-24. Applied Biology, Inc, Atlanta, Ga.

2. Applied Biology, Inc 1982. Florida Power & Light Company, St Lu cie Plant, annual non-radiological environmental monitoring repor t 1981, AB-379. Appl ied Biology, Inc, Atlanta, Ga.

291.19-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL ues t ion hb.

291.20 Is there any intention of using chemical procedures or chemical coatings to control fouling in the new intake'f so, give adequate detail for impact assessment.

~Res ense FP&L has no intention of using chemicals to control fouling of the ocean intake pipelines.

hb ER-OL revisions are required.

291.20-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

291.21 Indicate the status of other Federal and State permit actions related to the new intake. Where actions are complete, provide copies of the permits or approvals along with copies of any conditions or qualifications. Provide copies of all environmental impact appraisals and other environmental review documents prepared in conjunction wit the other permitting actions.

Specifically, provide copies of the comments of the USFWS and the NMFS submitted to the Corps of Engineers on their permit.

Response

FP&L submitted a Dredge and Fill permit application to the Corps of Engineers on November 24, 1981. The Corps Permit //81D-1679 was signed by FP&L on December 31, 1981, with stipulations for modification to the special conditions. The Corps has agreed that mangroves do not have to be transplanted but instead FP&L will plant seedlings. Because the area to be used for mitigation will be used during construction as a lay-down area, the Corps has agreed that mangroves will be planted within one year of issuance of the Dredge and Fill Permit. The Corps expects to sign the permit momentarily. No official comments were received from National Marine Fisheries Service or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Corps informed FP&L that both agencies verbally I5 advised the Corps that they had no comments.

FP&L applied for a modification to the St. Lucie NPDES Permit

/JFL0002208 on December 31, 1981 to include the third intake pipe.

FP&L petitioned the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation to amend the St. Lucie Unit 2 Certification //PA-24-02 on November 30, 1981 to include the construction of the third intake pipe. At this time, the amendment is expected to be approved on January 26, 1982.

FP&L applied for an easement with the Florida Department of Natural Resources for the third i,ntake pipe on November 30, 1981.

The easement /33177-56, will be granted on January 13, 1982.

See revised Table 12.0-1.

Note: At the time of issuance of this amendment, the above mentioned permits have been secured from the agencies on the dates noted:

l. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Dredge and Fill permit No. 81D-1679 January 29, 1982.

2. U.S. EPA NPDES Permit No. FL0002208 including approval of the third intake pipeli,ne-January 29, 1982.

291.21-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL

3. Florida State Department of Natural Resources Easement No. 26211(3177-56) February 1, 1982.

4. Florida State Department of Environmental Regulation Modification of Conditions of Certification January 27, 1982.

291.21-2 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL , >II!/y>

l"'" ij:~pgP~ 'r

)~>l ~ r~<<P ~ <At-Fl g~, I< gl '. < ...<'l'I. I November 24, 1981 Mr.. John Adams, Chief Regulatory Section U. S. Department of the Army Corps of Engineers P. 0. Box 4970 Jacksonville, FL 32201 RE: APPLICATION FOR DREDGE AND FILL ST. LUCIE POWER PLANT-ST. LUCIE COUNTY THIRD INTAKE PIPELINE

Dear Mr. Adams:

Enclosed please find a Joint Application Department of the Army/Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for Activities in Waters of the State of Florida and attach-ments. The foregoing application and attachments. are being submitted on behalf of Florida Power and Light in reference to its St. Lucie Power Plant Unit No. 2. These materials are being submitted in an effort to obtain a Department of Army Permit to perform works in or affecting navigable waters of the United States and to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. The foregoing activities are being conducted in accordance with the provisions of the Florida Electrical Power Plant Siting Act, 403.501 et seq., Florida Statutes, and therefore a modification of the power plant's certification is required for this proposed activity but said modi-fication procedures obviate the need for a separate Florida Department of Environmental Regulation dredge and fill permit. We are also, this date, submitting a request to the Secretary of the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for modification of the power plant certification, consistent with the enclosed.

Thank you for your assistance and cooperation in this matter.

Very truly yours, I W. J. arrow, Jr.

Manager Fnvironmental Permitting & Programs cc: Victoria Tschinkel, '~~ ~i~r ro~

Secretary of Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation WJB jr/os enclosures 291.21-3 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

SL2- ER>> OL JOINT APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY/FlORIDADEPARTfl1ENT OF ENVIRONMENTALREGULATION FOR ACTIVITIES IN WATERS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Refer to instruction Pampftfet fot explanation of numbered items and attachments required.

1 Application number (To be assigned) 2. Oate 3. For official use only 24 Nov. 1981 Day Mo. Yr.

4. Name, address and zip code of applicant W. J. Barrow, Jr., Manager Environmental Permitting and Programs Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 529100 Hiami, FL 33152 Telephone Nutnber 305 "84

6. Name, adrftess, zip code and title of applicant's authorized agnt for permit application coordination Mrs.. Eisa A. Bishop Associate Environmental Coordinator Environmental Permitting and Programs Florida Power & Light Company P. O. Box 529100 Miami, FL 33152 305-684-8500

5. Ocscribe the proposed activity, its purpose and intended use, including a oescription of the type of structures, if any, to be erected on fills, or'ipe or ffoat supported platforms, and the type, composition and quantity of materials to be discharged or dumped and means of conveyance.

is l6 Pjnycean iotake ~ipel/pe an) ghannellextension ttI convey ~yoljpg water Kt inside diameter extends 1195 ft frp dunes and ocean bottom. The pipe terminates into aandvelocity offshore is buried beneatII the reinforced concrete structure, supported on tremie concrete, placed cap, a precast within a a sheetpiling enclosure below the ocean bottom.

silts and clay. Backfill will be dredged sands. Dredged soils vill be sands, The cttannel t;xtension projects about 100 ing intatte canal.. Otetfgi</Excavated ft into the east sloop of the exist Filled/DepdsttecP Volume of Material:

• CY CY CY CY Watrrwertf ot Landward of Waterward ot tandvrvrd of

• St e Supplement sheet i Q.H.W. or M,H.W. O.H.W. or M.HW. O.H.W. or M.H.W. O.H.W. or M.H.W.

7. Proposed use Private ( ) Public [ ) Commercial )(.) Other I ) (Explain in remarks)

8. Name and address including zip code of adjoining property owners whose prope~ also adioins the watervvay.

North Boundary: Barnett: Winston, 720 Cilmore St., Jacksonville, Florida 32204 South Boundary: John R Hayer& Elizabeth M Johnston P 0 Box 617, Jensen Beach Florida

9. Location whete proposed activity exists or will occur Street address N/A Long tude itude W 27 21 (lf known)

Rge. R 41F Florida St Lucie ~

pt pi State County ln Ctty or Town Near City or Town

$ 0, Name ot watetway at location of the activrty Atlantic Ocean SAJ FGRM 983 21 Jul 77 r 291.21-4 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2- ER- OL

11. hate activity is prnnosed to cornrnence Feb. 1982 tgate activity it expected to be compt ~ ted Feb. 1983 Is any portion of the activity for which authorization is sought now complete) Yes [ j 12.

It answer is "Ycs" give resSonS in the remarks section. Month and year the activity was completed

. Indicate the existing work on the drawings.

con.

13. list all approvals or certific tions required by other Federal interstate, state or local agencies for any structures, described in this app!ication, including whether the prolect is Oe.

struction, discharges, deposits or other activities a velopment of Regional impact.

Issuing Agency Type of Approval Identification No. Date of Application Date ot Approval US NRC Construction Permit Docket 50-389 May 2, 1977 State of Florida Site Suitability PA-74-02 June 10, 1975 Certificate Fla DNR Ease rmen t No

14. Has any agency denied approval for the activity described herein or for any activity directly related to the activity de.

scribed hereint Yes ( j No [g (If "Yeseaexplaininremarks)

15. Remarks (see Instruction Pamphlet for additional information required for certain activities)

See supplemental sheets entitled. "Xtem 15 Remarks"

16. Application is hereby made for a permit or permits to authorize the activities described herein. I agree to provide any additional information/data that may be necessary to provide reasonable a55urance Or evidence to shotV that the pro.

posed project will comply with the applicable State Water Quality Standards or other environmental protection stan.

dards both during construction and after the project is completed. I also agree to provide entry to the projert site lor inspectors from the environmental protection agencie5 for the putpo5C ot making preliminaiy analyses of the 5ite and monitoring permitted works, if permit is granted. I certify that I am familiar with the intormation contained in this application, and that to thc best ot my knowled e and belief such intormatio is true, complete, and accurate. I fur.

ther certify that I possess the authortty.to undplt c proposed activities~

Plot.id'a~ uwe nd Light Comps y

.4. ~ c-.r=.~ November 24, 1981 Signature oi Appticane Date W. J. Barrow, Jr., Manager, Environaen al Permitting and Programs 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner within the jurisdiction ot any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsities, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scl:erne, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or fraudule'nt statements or representations or makes or uses any talse writing or docunient knowing seine to contain any false, fictitious or fraigdulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than S10.000 or imprisoned nnt mora than five years, or both.

The application must be signed by the person who desireS to undertake the proposed activity: however, the applica.

lion may be signed by a duly agithoiized agent if accoinpanied by a statement by that person designating the agent aiid agreeing to lurnish upon request, supplemental information in supoor t of the application.

FEE: Attach Checks/Money Oid rs on tront Payable to Department of Environmental R<<gulation S200 Stanrlasd form projects

$ 20 Short forms and Cnap:er 403 projects only 291.21-5 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER OL FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY ST LUCIE PLANT JOINT APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY/FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION FOR ACTIVITIES IN WATERS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ITEN 6 Volume of Material The table below has been prepared to delineate the volumes of dredge and material estimated for this proejct. The prospect has been divided into two fill parts. 'pipeline construction and channel extension.

VOLUME OF MATERIAL ITEM DREDGED/EXCAVATED FILLED/DEPOSITED Waterward Landward Waterward Landward of MHW of MHW of'MHW of MHW Pipeline Construction 37,700 cy 11,800 cy 25,100 cy 8,400 cy Channel Extension 31,400 cy 3,900 cy cy cubic yard SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET 1 291.21-6 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2>> ER-OL FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST LUCIE PLANT JOINT APPLICATION DEPARTS NT OF THE ARMY/FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION FOR ACTIVITIES IN WA1ERS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ITEM 15 Remarks:

The proposed pipeline and channel extension is part of the plant cooling water system. This system consists of subaqueous ocean intake and discharge pipe-

) ines extending into the ocean, canals on land connecting the ocean pipelines to the plant, and equipment and conduits in the plant area. Ma]or portions of this system were constructed with the first unit (St. Lucie 1) and have been in operation for about 5 years. The proposed intake pipeline is for both units (St. Lucie 1 6 2). Construction of St, Lucie 2 is authorized by a Construction Permit dated May 2, 1977 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Alternatives to the pipeline, such as cooling towers and cooling ponds were evaluated in the Environmental Report submitted to and reviewed by the NRC in the Final Environmental Statement, Docket 50-389 dated May 1974. The State of Florida Site Suitability Certificate was issued on June 10, 1975. The plan of development for the site is found in the Environmental Report.

The site for the St. Lucie Nuclear Power Plant consists of approximately 1132 acres on Hutchinson Island in St. Lucie County about half way between the cities of Fort Pierce and Stuart on the East Coast of Florida. The St Lucie plant is

~

sited near the center of a long, narrow island. To the east is the Atlantic Ocean. To the west, the island is separated from the mainland by the Indian River.

The site itself is generally flat. Much of it consists of swamp and, outside the mosquito control areas, the land is covered with a dense vegetation char-acteristic of Florida coastal mangrove swamps. At the ocean shore the land rises slightly in a dune or ridge to approximately 15 feet above mean low water.

Of the 1132 acres owned by Florida Power and Light Company, approximately 380 acres is occupied or modified by the plant (Units 1 6 2) and the plant facili-ties.

The effects of the construction of the pipeline and the water conveyed from the Atlantic Ocean into the plant were evaluated in the same'ocuments outlined above.

These documents state that the waters of the state will not be degraded by the proposed activity. Specific provisions designed to minimize the potentially adverse. environmental impact caused by construction are: a) construction of a temporary beach dune when cutting through the natural. dunes, b) use of sheet piling and/or silt screens around excavation work to limit turbidity to less than 50 Jackson Units, and c) the disposal of spoils in approved onshore dis-posal areas.

SUPPLEMENTAL SHEET 2 291.21-7 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Construction methods to be used for this project are anticipated to be as follows:

Material will be dredged from the Atlantic Ocean from within a sheetpile trench by a crane.

The pipe trench will be excavated from in situ soils. Material removed from within the sheetpile will be used to backfill other portions of the pipeline, or will be stockpiled temporarily on the ocean adjacent to the trench, or will be disposed of in approved onshore spoil areas. The ground profile along the pipeline will be restored to its original contour after construction. Con-struction equipment and materials will be brought to and removed from the site via truck transport or via barge. Barges may be off loaded at an existing barge slip located at the site on an appendage of the Indian River, or they may be moved directly to the construction site (the Atlantic Ocean).

The channel extension on land, behind the dune line, will involve clearing less than 1/2 acre of mangrove swamp. The concrete headwall structure will require dewatering and excavation within a cofferdam. After completing the structure, the onland portion of the pipeline vill be constructed followed by the canal and dike construction modification.

Water from the dewatering operation will be discharged into the intake canal.

Dredged material disposed of onland will be contained by dikes or other means as necessary such that any runoff will not contaminate the waters of the State.

Dredge water will be decanted and released to either the intake ot discharge canal. Rainfall runoff will not affect any part of this construction except where there are bare soil slopes during construction. Such slopes include the canal dike extension and spoil piles. Runoff from such slopes will not adversely affect the waters of the State.

The pipeline will be constructed with concrete pipe.

The proposed intake pipeline is sixteen feet inside diameter, four feet larger than the existing two twelve foot inside diameter pipelines previously installed in the ocean at this site. This increase in size is due to the effects of marine fouling experienced with the operation of the twelve foot diameter pipes. The marine fouling effects experienced are a heavy build-up of marine organism on the pipe wall. This build-up results in an increase in pipe friction and pres-sure drop, decrease in canal water level and a reduction in the flow of water through the system. To limit these adverse effects, the pipelines have been peri-odically "cleaned," a not inexpensive operation.

The sixteen foot diameter pipeline will greatly reduce the effects of marine growth. This reduction is due to the fact that pressure drop through the pipe-line is proportional to the square of the flow velocity. For the twelve foot diameter pipeline, with a design flow velocity of 10 feet per second (fps), the pressure drop was proportional to 100. For the sixteen foot diameter pipeline, with a maximum design flow velocity of approximately 6.8 fps, the pressure drop is proportional to 46. Therefore, the sixteen foot pipe results in a 54% reduction in pressure drop. This reduction is important as it will reduce the frequency of pipe cleanings necessary.

291.21-8 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2- E R- OL "c-'~'4 'ORYX KI/II.J r'IiI 'e aT '"'APPROVED:

C'., P,C.

CORRECT NO. DATE REVlSION Oa: CH AP REGI STEREO ENGINEER NO. 2i050 N

CD R41E ST. LUCIE COUNTY 0CI FT. PIERCE, FLORIDA 0 CD 27o. 22 CD CCI PROP E RTY LINE INTAKE CANAL CONSTRUCTED HUTC HINSON UNDER PERMIT ISLAND Cg IC 56. RO21 I

I il FP&LCO' ST. LUG IE ATLANTIC

\ PLANT OCEAN rr 11 8 9 C+ r l DISCHARGE CANAL 0/

~ ~

1716 ALTERNATE SPOIL DISPOSAL ' ~<

Q r j) r AREAS FEET y . 1 c ABOVE MHW c0 FORT A p+

vi8.Ct ~ps c

c0 PIERCE ~c I ~

I- ~

~

0 ~

0O ~

SPOIL o 0 DISPOSAL

'P~ PROPOSED OCEAN 16 15 INTAKE PIPELINE PROJECT ISEE SHT. NO. 2) (21 22 PROJECT 27o. 20 cn PROPERTY CD I

~o PLAN LINE 02 FROM NAUTICALCHART 11472, 19th ED.

A INTRACOASTALWATERWAY Pl ST. LUCIE COUNTY 0 1 h'I LE MARTIN COUNTY SCALE STATUTE MILK ST. LUCIE INLET LOCATION SKETCH STUART PURPOSE: OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION DATUM: h1EAN LOW WATER ATLANTICOCEAN AT ST. LUCIE PLANT HUTCHINSON ISLAND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: COUNTY OF ST.LUCIE STATE OF FLORIDA

1. BARNETT WINSTON APPLICATION BY FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.

2. J.R. MAYER & E.M. JOHNSTON SHEET 1 OF 6 DATE 291.21-9 Amendment No, 5, (6/82)

SL2- ER- OL ORATOR bY V. 5.

APPROYED:

~-P;~.

CORRECT OATE REVISION CII AP RECISTKREO GIREER RO. 2%050 sv +

PROPOSED VELOCITY CAP TRUE NORTH 0, EXISTING VELOCITY CAP PLANT NORTHL28o.41 .56" I 0 EXISTING VELOCITY CAP I

ATLANTICPAEAN 10 PROPOSED INTAKE PIPELINE 192" I.D ~ l DATUM MEAN LOW WATER ATLANTICOCEAN ELEVATION 0.0 1

I EXIST INTAKE PIPELINES 144" I.D.

l MHW LINE MLW LINE PROPOSED NEW HEADWALL AND CHANNEL DUNES EXISTING HEADWALL 84'4 MANGROVE MANGROVE SWAMP SWAMP PROPOSED

1 WIDENING OF CANAL 40' 0 EXISTING INTAKF- CANAL TOP OF DIKE - EI.EV. +13 0 100 200 300 600 FEET PLAN OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AT ST. LUCIE PLANT HUTCHINSON ISLAND COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE STATE OF FLORIDA APPLICATION GY FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.

SHEET 2 OF 6 DATE 291.21<<10 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL DRAGON bY APPROVED:

CORRECT ND. DATE REVISION Da CII AP REGISTERED DIGINEER ND. 21050 LANDWARD SEAWARD VELOCITY CAP INTAKE CANAL 320'+ 1200' NTS HEADWALL 400' 800 (NTSI DUNES SURF ZONE DIKE 6' 0 COVER MLW EL 0.0 (MIN)

~a<< r 12' COVER MIN.

PIPELINE (SURF ZONEI OCEAN BOTTOM PROFILE INTAKE PIPE 100 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 F E ET PIPELINE MLW EL 0.00 SHEET PILING TO BE REMOVED 12 FT. COVER SURF ZONE OCEAN BOT. 5 FT. COVER BEYOND SURF ZONE

~, . 1~ .

~

~

~

~ //+~+//Vt~< //jan ii///i//X CLEAN SAND INTAKE PIPE BACK FILL ~ ~

~

~

SHEET PILING SHE ET PILING TO REMAIN ~ ~

OR TO BE REMOVED iipgX+

PIPE O.D. + 6' 0 3'+

TYPICAL CROSS SECTION SUBAQUEOUS PIPE 0 20 40 60 FEET OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AT ST. LUCIE PLANT HUTCHINSON ISLAND COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE STATE OF FLORIDA APPLICATION BY FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT CO.

SHEET 3 OF 6 DATE 291.21-1]. Amendment No. g, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL DRAVR bY V,S APPROYED:

CORRECT RO. DATE REVISION CH AP REGI STEREO EI GI REER RD. 21050 CHANNEL HEADWALL PIPE'LINE EL+ 15.0 TOP OF DIKE EL+13 EL. +13.00 STOP LOG SHEET PILING GUIDES TC CANAL MAIN SLUICE GATE  % PIPE EL EL. 26.5 17.50'REMIE EI 27.5 III I(

<C II t'I II CONCRETE I

II I,, IIIIIII JJ JjfJP~I

(

LJ LLI.

SECTION THROUGH HEADWALL& CHANNEL OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AT ST. LUCIE PLANT HUTCHINSON ISLAND COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE STATE OF FLORIDA APPLICATION BY F LORIDA POWER 8I LIGHT CO.

SHEET 4 OF 6 DATE 291.21-12 Amendment No. 5 (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL DRAMN SY APPROVED:

c .PC.

CORRECT NO. DATE REVISION DR'. CH AP REGISTERED FJI INEER ND. 2i050 MEAN LOW WATER EL 0.00 EL ~ 6.76 F LOW FLOW EL. -16 OCEAN BOTTOM EL. 18.0+

)(~~L 4'~qW g IF

/

• I ~

EL FLOW 1 34.00'L~4 SHEET PILING TREMIE CONCRETE P232 SHEET PILING OR EQUAL TO EL ~ 70.0 S 4 SECTION THROUGHT VELOCITY CAP ~ ~

OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AT ST. LUCIE PLANT HUTCHINSON ISLAND COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE STATE OF FLORIDA APPLICATION BY FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO, SHEET 5 OF 6 DATE 291.21-13 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

I ~

SL2-ER-OL 0 RAVE 8Y V. S.

APPROVED:

CORRECT RO. DATE REYISIOII Dtr, CH AP REGISTERED GIREER RO. 21050 36' 0" 44' 1" NTS PLAN SHOWN WITH VELOCITY CAP PLAN SHOWN WITHOUT VELOCITY CAP I

~ I<

/I I 6 6 IJ gl I( 0 I( II I( I~

I( II I) I li (I P P P P

~l E, EXIST. PIPELINES 4, NEW PIPELWE

)I ~ II PROPOSED VELOCITY CAP EXISTING VELOCITY CAPS PLAN -OFFSHORE VELOCITYCAPS 10 0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 FEET OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AT ST. LUCIE PLANT HUTCHINSON ISLAND COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE STATE OF'LORIDA APPLICATION BY FLORIDA POWER 8I LIGHT CO.

SHEET 6 OF 6 DATE

,291.21-14 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ST LUCIE PLANT - UNITS 1 & 2 CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM MODIFICATION November, 1981 291.21-15 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL CONTENTS Section Page 1.0 NEED FOR CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM MODIFICATION 2.0 EXISTING CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM 3.0 ECOLCGY 3.1 Terre str i al 3 02 ~Auatia 4 0 THIRD INI'AKE PIPELINE 10 5.0 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS 12 5.1 Ecolo ical Effects 12 5.1.1 Terrestrial 12 5 F 2 Aquatic 13 291.21-16 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2>> ER- OL CONTENTS (Cont'd)

Section Page 6.0 OPERATION EFFECTS 16 6ol Ecolo ical Effects 16 6.1.1 Entrainment 16 6.1.2 Impingement 17 6.2 Other Effects 18, 6.2.1 Ae sthe ties 18 6.2.2 Noise 18 291.21-17 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2>> ER-OL 1.0 NEED FOR CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM MODIFICATION Full flow operation of the Circulating Water System (CWS) for St Lucie Unit 1 was attempted in January of 1976. At that time, the ocean portion of the system consisted of two 12 foot diameter intake pipelines and one 12 foot discharge pipeline. Separate intake and discharge canals on land conveyed the ocean cooling water to and from the plant ~ During initial operation, very high water levels occurred'n the discharge canal, causing some flow over an emergency spillway ~ Because of this, the system was shutdown. Subsequent testing of CW pumps performance in early February indicated that they were pumping about 15 percent above the design flow. However, throttling the punps with the discharge valves to the design flow still resulted in higher than expected water level in the discharge canal and hydraulic headlosses in excess of those expected in both intake and discharge pipelines. These conditions were determined to be the result of higher than expected ocean tides, and the formation of marine growth on the pipe wall, as described below.

A diver's inspection of the pipelines revealed the formation of marine growth on the pipe wall (several inches thick on the intake pipelines, about one inch thick on the discharge pipeline) along the entire length of these pipelines. Tests performed to determine the hydraulic characteristics of each pipeline indicated that the hydraulic headlosses in the ocean pipelines were high, and that the pipeline friction factor (Darcy-Wiesbach 'f') was determined to be 0.030 for the intake pipeline and 0.024 for the discharge pipeline, as compared with a clean pipe 291.21-18 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL friction factor of 0.015 or less. These higher friction factors were caused by marine growth on the pipe wall and added approximately three ft and two ft of hydraulic headloss to the intake and discharge pipelines, respectively, representing 50 percent and 30 percent increase in total headlosses for these pipelines.

To demonstrate that the marine growth seriously affected the hydraulic friction factor, the discharge pipeline was cleaned in September of 1976 to restore the friction factor to 0.016. A reduction of about two feet of headloss was realized'dditionally, periodic monitoring of the hydraulic performance of the ocean pipelines was initiated to determine changes in the friction factor. The results of this monitoring are shown in Figure 1.0-1.

Prom the monitoring program, it was concluded that marine growth on the pipe wall would require treatment either by periodic cleaning of the pipelines, or by some type of control or by physical modification of the system.

Since the two intake pipelines were designed to supply water for St Lucie Units 1 and 2, no operating problem was experienced for St Lucie Unit l on the intake side. However, when St Lucie Unit 2 becomes operational in 1983 the combined effects of headlosses, as indicated in tests simulating two unit operation, will adversely affect plant operations in that.

excessive headlosses through the intake pipelines could reduce the intake canal water level such that minimum punp submergence requirements could 291.21-19 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2- ER- OL not be met ~ Similarly, excessive headlosses in the ocean discharge pipeline vould result in high water levels in the discharge canal and possible spillway overflow to the mangroves north of the canal. Finally, the combined headloss increases vould reduce the volume of cooling water pumped through the plant such that plant temperature rise vould exceed the original 24 F maximum and plant efficiency vould be reduced.

In 1978, the discharge canal dikes and the overflov spillway vere raised to accommodate higher vater levels in the discharge canal. Additionally, a periodic pipe cleaning routine vas intitated for the 12 foot diameter ocean discharge pipeline. Finally, the St Lucie Unit 2 ocean discharge pipeline, vhich has been constructed, was increased in diameter to allow for marine grovth accumulations. These 'actions alleviated the problem on the discharge side. For the intake side, a third intake pipeline is proposed. This new pipeline vill be constructed north of the existing tvin intake pipelines. Environmental impacts associated vith the construction and operation of the third intake pipeline are addressed herein.

291.21-20 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2- ER-OL

.060 PARTIAL PIPE CLEANING I t100-300 FT)

SEPTEMBER 1977 INTAKE PIPELINE S Lt

.035 I

V

~ .030 R PARTIAL PIPE O

I CLEANING

.025 APRIL 1978 CC U

,025 UNIT 1

'020 DISCHARGE PIPELINE

.015 PlPE GLEANING~

K Ill Ill UNIT 1 DISCHARGE PIPELINE ggl Ill D MN n

INTAKE PIPELINES P-1974 1976 '978, 1379 YEAR FLORIDA POWER 8, LIGHT COMPANY ST. t.UCIE PLANT HYDRAULICPERFORMANCE MONITORING FOR INTAKE h DISCHARGE PIPELINES Figure. 1%=1.

291.21-21 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL 2.0 EX ISI'ING CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM The circulating eater s)rstem for St Lucie Plant has been described in detail in Section 3.4 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report-Operating License-291.21-22 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL 3.0 ECOLOCY 3 ' TERRESTRIAL Terrestrial vegetation and wildlife in the Plant site area has been described in detail in Section 2.2-1 of the St Lucie Vnit 2 Environmental Report - Operating Licensing. The following description relates to the

,r area where the proposed third intake pipeline is located ~

Beech and dune vegetation near the existing intake pipelines are char- cte.rized by dense stands of sau palmerto (Sererns ~re ens) or sea grape (Coccoloba uvifera) and sandy open areas uith sea oats (Uniola z

observed in this area along two sampling transects are noted in Tables 3-1 and 3"2 along with estimates of cover/abundance. Important species are sea oats, which stabilize the foredune against wind and storm erosion, and other species which are of tropical affinity and consequently of interest to botanists and naturalists. The latter include sea grape, Spanish bayonet (Yucca aloifolia), M~sfne uianensis, lantana (Lantana involucrats) and neckless pod (~So hors tomentosa) (2)

Land immediately north of the existing intake canal comprises of mangrove swamp, and an area used for storage of heavy equipment during manale) ~ It includes scattered individuals of uhite mangrove (Laguncularia racemose) black mangrove (Avfcennfa Sanmfnans) and 291.21-23 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER>>OL from marine and estuarine communities by State Route A1A, the intake and discharge canals, and a service road parallel to the beach.

3~2 AQUATIC Atlantic Ocean marine communities offshore Hutchinson Island which would be exposed to construction and operation of the circulating water system are described in Section 2.2.2 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report Operating License.

291.21-24 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL CHAPTER 3: REFERENCES

1. Long, R W and 0 Lakela, 1976. A Flora of Tropical Florida, Banyan Books, Miami, Florida.

2. Small, J K, 1933. Manual of the Southeastern Flora, Hafner Publishing Company, Nev York.

291.21-25 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

TABLE 3-1 COVER/ABUNDANCE ESTIMATES POR DUNE FLORA: AREA OF INTAKE PIPELINES SPECIES STATIONS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 Uniola paniculata (sea oats) 7 5 7 7 7 5 3 Coccoloba uvifera (sea grape) I 3 3 3 2 3 5 4 1 1 2 4 Helianthus debilis var debilis (sunflouer) 3 5 4 2 5 4 6 4 4 4 7 5 3 Cen-hrus incertus (burgrass) 6 3 5 3 5 3 4 3 4 I Croton punctatus Tucca aloifolia (Spanish bayonet) 5 5 Bat tie aaiitina (bnattis) 2 5 5 2 2 2 C)

Vltex trifolia 4 7 3 5 3 I

Csssuarina sp (Australian pine) I 7 I

Bare Sand 3 5 3 3 3 5 5 7 6 6 4 5 3 3 7 6 5 3 3 6 4 7 7 7 3'7 7 7 7 7 O t

Note: Stations located contiguously alon8 transect perpendicular to coastline. Stations 1-5 occur on east side of foredune; transect terninsted on vest side of foredune st FP&L fenceline (road) ~ Each station is one aeter (3.3 feet) square. Observations recorded January 30, 1979 Voucher specinens identified st Uniwrsity of Hlani. Nonenclature follovs Lory snd Lakela(I) ~ Cover abundance scale(>): 1 ~ solitary, cover less than 6 percent; Q 2 fev, cover less than 6 percent; 3 nuverous, cover less than 6 percent; 4 ~ 6-25 percent cover; 5 26-50 percent cover; 6 ~ 51-75 percent cover; 7 "76-100 percent cover.

C4 H

5 rr 0

TAELE 3-2 COVERIABUNDANCE ESFINATES FOR DUNE FLORA: AREh IMtKDlhTELY NORTH OF INTAKE PIPELINKS SPECIES STATIONS: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2S 29 30 31 Uniola psniculata (sea oats) 6 7 Croton punctatus 2 3 Helianthus debilia var debilis (aeaf lover) 3 7 4 Cenchrus incertus (burSrass)

Coccoloba uvifera (sea Srape) 7 7 7 5 5 Yucca aloifolia (Spanish bayonet)

IQ Serenoa repens (sav pslnetto) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 4 6 Io Hyrsine guianensis 1 5 3 1 7 7 6 I

Sophora tonentosa (neckless pod) 4 1 Lartana involucrata (lantana) 7 5 P

Panic@a rhimnatus hare Sand 4 3 2 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 4 5 7 C4 8

lD Note: See note for Table 3-li Stations 1-3 occur on east side of foredune.

O

~ ~

SL2-ER-OL 4.0 THIRD INTAKE PIPELINE The addition of a third intake pipeline (TIP) would reduce the hydraulic losses in the ocean intake pipelines because headlosses are a function of 2 third the velocity of flow squared (V ) ~ For example, by adding a 16 foot diameter pipeline, the maximum flow velocity would be reduced to two-thirds of the twin pipeline flow velocity (from approximately 10 fps,

.r to approximately 6.8 fps); the headlosses would correspondingly be reduced by 54 percent.

During the several years that the intake pipeline headlosses were monitored, and before the pipelines were cleaned, marine fouling continued to grow and the pipe wall friction factor increased. An upper limit for growth and friction factor were not established ~ Accordingly, it has been assumed that periodic pipe cleaning vill be necessary even with a TIP in service; however, the frequency of such cleanings can be greatly reduced, Cleaning of the TIP can be scheduled to coincide with refueling outage of one unit, without interrupting operation of the other unit ~ Therefore, by adding a TIP, operational reliability and flexibility of the Plant CWS systems would be greatly improved.

Construction of the 16 foot diameter pipeline would be within a sheetpiled trench and would be similar in all respects to the construction methods used for both the twin intake pipeline construction in 1973/74 and the Unit 2 discharge pipeline construction in 1980/81.

Construction methodology for the latter is described in Section 4.1 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report - Operating License.

291.21-28 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2- ER>> OL As shown in Figures 4.1-1 through 4.1-4, the pipeline would begin at an offshore velocity cap structure located approximately 1200 feet from the Mean Low Mater line. The veloci y cap structure would be of similar size and design to the existing structures. The pipeline would be buried for its entire length, both offshore and onshore. The pipeline would enter the east end of the intake canal at a new headwall structure. The

'headwall structure would be of similar design to the one built for St Lucie Unit 2 discharge structure. h short sheetpile channel ~ould be constructed from the headwall to the existing canal.

291.21-29 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL sr+

PROPOSED VELOCITYCAP TRUE NORTH 0 EXISTING VELOCITY CAP PLANT NORTH L2go. pter. E5 ~

I

( I

~ EXISTING VELOCITY CAP l

II ATLANTICOCEAN 10 PROPOSED INTAKE PIPELINE 192" I.O. ~ DATUM MEAN LOW WATER ATLANTICOCEAN ELEVATION 0.0 I EXIST INTAKE PIPELINES 144" I.D.

1 e MHW LINE MLW LINE PROPOSEO NEW HEADWALL AND CHANNEL DUNES I

EXISTING HEADWALL MANGROVE MANGROVE SWAMP SWAMP PROPOSED

1 WIDENING OF CANAL EXISTING INTAKE CANAI, 40' 0 I

Q

~O TOP OF DIKE ~ ELEV. +13 rg 8a 600 FEET fr PLAN OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE 291. 21-30 Amendment: No. 5, (6/82)

I ~ ~ $ J ~ 4

y~

SL2-ER>> OL PLANT NORTH 36' 0" AEt g tt PI.AN SHOWN WITH VELOCITY CAP PLAN SHOWN WITHOUT VELOCITY CAP II 4

II II I gP II II II I(

II I

II gl II II

~

)I I

Iy II h ql I

I II yl 4, EXIST.PIPELINES 4 NEW PIPELINE

,S e II I-f I PROPOSED VELOCITY CAP EXISTING VELOCITYCAPS I'LAN ~ OFFSHORE VELOCITYCAPS 0 0 10 30 30 40 60 60 70 80 FKKT g

ge gr 291.21-31 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Q VELOCITY CAP MEAN LOW WATER EL 0.00

~EL ~ E.T 5 FLOW FLOW EI lS OCEAN BOTTOM EL-le.O+

(x%vxqx g /

/

EL -

FLOW 3400'LM+

SHEET PILING TREMIE CONCRETE PZ32 SHEET PILING OR f

EQUAL TO L ~ 70.0 IE, SECTION THROUGHT VELOCITYCAP II

)R 291.21-32 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL CHANNEL HEADWALL PIPE LINE EL+ 15.0 TOP OF DIKE EL+13 EL +13.00 rl STOP LOG SHEET PILING GUIDES TO CANAL MAIM SLUICE GATE  % PIPE EL 1780'REMIE EL 27.5 I I g I I i I i I I I I II(

>>, <<IIIII I I I I I I CONCRETE I

pygmy/Jll Ig LJ LLl SECTION THROUGH HEAOWALLh CHANNEL I

g

<<g p <<g g

<:plained in detail by the attached documents. 16')Iird Res 'e-tfully submitted this 30th day of November, 1981.

Sincerely, Man~ ger Env i roIII'rental PerIni t ting 8 Programs HJHj r/os a t tachment s 291.21-42 Amendment Ho. 5, (6/82)

PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE

8 L2- ER- OL SERVICE SCHEDULE Mr. Hamilton S. Oven Martin County Conservation Administrator of Power Plant Siting Alliance State of Florida Department of c/o Martin Harold Hodder, Esq.

Environmental Regulation 1131 Northeast 86th Street 2600 Blair Stone Road Miami, Florida 33138 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 League of Women Voters of John C. Bottcher, Esq. St. Lucie County Deputy General Counsel c/o Mrs. Judith James State of Florida Department of Route 3, Box 423 Environmental Regulation Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Office of General Counsel 2600 Blair Stone Road Mr. Estes Whitfield Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Senior Governmental Analyst Office of Planning and Budgeting Arthur Canaday, Esq. Office of the Governor General Counsel The Capitol Florida Public Service Commission Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Room 207, Fletcher Building Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Citizens United Against Radioactive Environment Ms. Joan M. Heggen, Secretary c/o Harold H. Alder Department of Veteran and 304 St. Andrews Lane Community Affairs Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 2571 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Steve Walker, Esq.

South Florida Water Management C. Laurence Keesey, Esq. District Department of Veteran and Post Office Box V Community Affairs West Palm Beach,'lorida 33402 2571 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Shannon, Esq.

Treasure Coast Regional Planning Mr. James Dean Council Associate Planner Post Office Box 396 Power Plant Siting Program Stuart, Florida 33495 Bureau of Veteran and Community Affairs The Honorable Bob Graham 2571 Executive Center Circle East Governor Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Conservation Alliance of St. Lucie County The Honorable George Firestone c/o Mrs. Margorie Silver Alder Secretary of State 304 St. Andrews Lane The Capitol Fort Pierce, Florida 33450 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Jim Smith Attorney General The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 291.21-43 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2>> ER- OL The Honorable Gerald Lewis Comptroller The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Bill Gunter Treasurer The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32304 The Honorable Ralph D. Turlington Commissioner of Education The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 The Honorable Doyle E. Conner Commissioner of Agriculture The Capitol Tallahassee, Florida 32301 291.21"44 t N 5 (6/82)

SL2-ER- OL 8:

c. f855 Fl.(int()A I'< AAi . ~ I.<<; it t:i>t.:> rir.v November 30, 1981 Dry Elton J Gissendanner

~

Executive Director Florida Department of Natural Resources 39 00 Commonwealth Blvd.

Tallahassee, FL 32303 RE: APPLICATION FOR EASEMENT ST LUCIE POWER PLANT ST. LUCIE

~ COUNTY.

SUBAQUEOUS INTAKE PIPELINES

Dear Dry Gissendanner:

Enclosed please find an Easemcnt Application for two existing and one proposed intake pipeline extending approximately 1195 feet offshore from Hutchinson Island into the Atlantic Ocean. The two existing in-take lines were permitted by the Board of Trustees (TIIF) on March 22 1972 (Permit No. 253.123(2) (b)-1101). The foregoing application at-tachments are being submitted on behalf of Florida Power and Light Co in reference to its St. Lucie Power Plant. These materials are being submitted in an effort to obtain an easement across sovereignty lands of the State of Florida for public utility purposes, pursuant to Chap-ter 16Q-17. 09 F.A.C. (Sovereignty Submerged Lands) .

We request that you review the enclosures describin<~ the Florida Power and Light Company's proposed easement, and that you place this appli-cation before the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund at the earliest possible date. We have provided the pertinent in-formation regarding our proposal on the aforementioned application and attachments for your conveniences Respectfully submitted this 30th day of November, 1981

'incerel W. J Barrow,

~

Manager .,u Environmental Permitting & Programs WJBj r/os Attachments: Easement Application Map of Survey - Project No. 225 Permit Appraisal - Biological Report Circulating Water System Modification cc: Victoria Tschinkel - w/o attachments Hamilton Oven - w/o attachments 291 '1-45 Amendment No ~ 5, (6/82) r rue I r Cs:nil ~ Il Ic ~ 'DI g

SL2-ER-OL EASEwoi~ A?o~ CAT CN Date please type or prat. Fill in t'h e blanks .'or all applicable information.

information roqvosted is not applicablo, so indicate by placLng N/A in t..e bier~.

A??r ~~V. ZNFOB.{A IONg Florida power s Li ht <wm on Address P.. O. Box 529100 Miami. FL ia Cade Telephone Number: ( ) 55 3564 Name of Agent N J. Barrow, Jr.

Manager, Environmental Permitting b Programs kfd"ess of Agent 2250 Palm Beach Lakes Bl Nest Palm Beach, FL 33409 Telephone {~or. (305) 684-8500

?raccsad easement wil,l be used for:

?ubl'c C ility 0(X) Public Road Right-of-Nay ( )

?ramate Ctility ( ) ?rivets Road R'ghtmf-Nay ( )

Other ( ) Explains Flectric Oe Ocean Intake Pipeline for plant cooling water.

Sec on 16 Township Rarge 41 East County St. City Ft. Pierce Lucio'arer body affected by act'vity: Atlantic Ocean

?roject is in an a~atic oreserve? Yes ( ) No (X )

Tf "yos", givo preserve n~eri N/A

=.'st samos and addresses of tho riparian land owners of ?racer y on each side of the project sito.

Krants, Christ. C Mary Lou North Boundary: Geo. 4 Mary Ann cean r. pt.

Jupiter, FL 33458 South Boundary: Sand Dollar Villas Dev. Co.

rawe Stuart, FL 33494 Describe the ro oscd activities in detail.

An ocean intake pipeline and channel extension to convey cooling vatcr from the Atlantic Ocean into the intake canal is proposed. The 1515 foot pipeline has an inside diameter of 16 feet and extends 1195 feet offshore and is to be buried beneath tho dunes and ocean bottom. The pipe terminates Mith a velocity cap of precast reinforced concrete,'upported on tremie concrete placed Mithin a shectpiling enclosure belov the ocean bottom. Dredged materials include sands, slits and clay. Backfill material Mill be dredged sands.

The channel extension projects about 100 Eeet into thc east slope of thc existing intake canal ~

a See supplemental sheet 1 291.21-fi6 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL

' a~ 1 aQ ~

og a]s o>> cer i ication recu j ec <<or ~ 'ba js p>>>> v>> tv ~

Issuing e 0<< 'Ident'ca=ion Date of Da>>e oc Aoencv A"o oval Number Ao=lication A==rova'S NRC Construction Permit Docket 50-389 Hay 2, 1977 State of Florida Site Suitability PA-74-02 June 10, 1975 Certificate V. S. COE Dredge & Fill 816-1679 11/23/81 Pendin~

Permit R=-N~RKS: Any comment "Mat you feel should be made in rega"ds to his apocat'on.

See Supplemental Sheet 2.

A TFZ

': S.S OF RZ UI~ INFORMATION SHOUT APPLIM.ION IS SUBMZ~M.

BE A~AC'MD 0 ~~IS APPLICATIQN ~

Date: December 30 1981 Signature of Applicant.:

W. J. Barrow, Ji.

Manager Environmental Permitting & Programs 291'. 21-47 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2>> ER-OL f]P P Gt- GUPUHV FOR FLOE)GA POVZHii A WD LNGNY CGPIPANVz mNC.

ST. LUCIE UNIT +1 AND UNIT +2 SUSAQUEOUS INTAKE PIPE EASEMENT ST, LUCIS COUHTY, fLORIOA A R>fT H 'fA>TCSL

~0 sa sr>>ec o re. A~ taste( at ~ 00.00 >((I I ~ vlotr >ce ~ s (TI)II~ svllov(ous I'er ~ ~ I rtrf >he >Lhe loe >ov( ~

~ Llcef coe>aar'5 $1 Lvclt ~ I ~ af ~ 1st ctatteLI ~ t or velce ls seel re ~ ftcvLAILT 015(af>to AS >0\LOV51 coca(act AT 1st rota> or I ~ I( ~ stctlo'1 I> 1st soars List 0> $ (ctlo ~ 11. Tovesef ~ )I )ours, ease( ~ I tasf, )I ~ Luclt cove>r. >Lo ~ 104. VITA 1st c(AI( ~ Liat cr 51af( ~ oeo as ~ a5 5vove

>0 eaK ~ Ta ~ Oe 1st 5taf( Or >Los(os Start eoao Ot>A ~ I ~ t ~ I AICef I> VAT ea> $ ((floe eo, I ~ 05 lo>r

)'llts'll'11'elf AD fe(AC( Sou'fe alo ~ SA>0 C(AIC ~ Lfef C> 5tert ecao Afa >Is>.>) >It>I TI'teC(

ree ~

>le.> ~ Ter. Te s. Arc ~ I I.

~ ~I eoefe lo>>$ (451 1$ 1,1$ >(tf >Ce TVC >OI ~ I Cf I(CI ~ ~ I ~

~ I'5)'ll'a5T l>et.oo >t(T 10 Iet ~ 01 ~ 1 0> I(eel ~ Af le ~ I> SAIO te5fe(er.

ll 1st ~ Ct Coafraut ~ 0 ~ fe Costa l ~ IAC roIsf or covutsclvcaT 41>,lco scree( r((t.

)farl ~ Lae( Cooeofaa'f($

jesf

) r,a.s, 4 I ~ 4,410.10>

o ~,O,l, >AAC(L 1 ',550.0>4 e

~0 as ea>>L r.o.r, >~ e(tL A >11.0)>,110 O ACC 4 ~ .0 ~ I ~ >AAC(L I > ~ >,5'>1.11>

I 1.AT. ~ ((L ~ >el ~ >IS. ~ 11 1

r>>

a(lte(ecl voeuvter(can rcoe'ca ITA>c ot>>eervter 0> Teal>roe>a>toe >>Levee(ef

>> A>>I>

oc"eccc 1 I

rr>>>>r h(AA

~

VISV Vef(A (la(

0r .V ~ Oust Lfel r ATLANTIC OCEAN o

S STV r ~1 ce'ccv r

I ~

LIE)~XallllJ~I fA R C S L ' '

~ (as( ~ t ~ I ~ 10.00 >t(t:e vf)fe >C ~ I >~ 0>0$ (0 $ 1eecv(ou5 Iefa ~ t C(ef(e(fat Or VAICV IS ec ~ ( >aaTICCLA>L ~ 0()Cell(0 4) >OLLOV5>

4ea>>I>>C >CALI II>> >LCI Coca(ACl er re( >01 ~ t Cr Tert ~ $ !(floe Or fe( AIefe Lief 0> StCTTO ~

14, fove5sl>> ~ 50ufe, ~~ 'ICC 11 fa51, 1'VCI( COVAIT, >Loeloa, ult ~ fe( cteltelfat or seer( cao afa AS )seve ~ 0 ~ 1st )Taft of

~

>LO ~ Ioa STAT( OAO Ot>e tet ~ I ~ ICet Of ~ Var A> $ (CTIOS ~ I, sees 1011 fsl ~ (I 50vte fr>>04'l I'asl ~ Lo ~ c 5 ~ lo ct ~ ft ~ I I t 0>

~ ~

sflft eoao ala >>re,>) It(f4 fata(t ao ~ I ~ I ~ ~ $ )' I'a)1 lo)r,e) ~

>t(f >c fe( rofal 0> ~ (cl ~ ar ~ Ir fst ~ ct ~ clfs 5> ~ 1' 5 tasf 1414,00 >(1 I to 1st >01sT of lt ~ steafle ~ 0> sale I ~ $ (e( ~ I

~

~

coefalslac 44 ~,400 $ )vAI( I(CI~

S'IL>~l(IIS.S eel T(1 ra.

~ 0'ucflc ~ $ 0> TVI5 5>(lce A ( sef

'(>

~

eelfo vest ~ 5 stal(0 Vite Aa (s00$ 5(0 '

svee(rta'$5(AL, oo 1, L~ A>5 5 ~ vva e( ~ (I ~ e(et ~ 01 ~ ~ IT ~ Ac>to Ih ~ ercets >>1 aa ~

c> ~ ear, tas(s(at5 I> ~ tcoeo, oa e 'I ( e 5 e I r A)ULYLX5BLLJ'BLl E)CAI.C

). >>eefecs seove I( ~ toe ~ ~ t eflatfv( fo fe(

1 ~ >le'IAL $ 100(tfc )v ~ ~ ( ~ I ~ Ae'jv(asf e( ~ cares, o~ vt el ~ tl ~ ct ~ 11> ~ fear 1st ArfecI(0 sar 0> $ >re(i 0> Ie( et ~ (oe ILOAIOA fe5> fhe(, Ceto chafe,

~

0(Scat ~ (0 >co>( ~ rr Is I ~ 0( A ~ 0 oe ~ (cr >0 fe( ~ (5l 0> Ova I rllverlo' 5 Sehv ~ e( ~ fhe I ~ f Sas(0 Oe I'>>( Aaovrtocf aeo I(lllr as 5vertrto ls 1st >Itis vee( ~ cva or ~ (ctlo ~

eallce ~ I cto>trlc >tati(el carve of I ~ fr aa> la co>(" ~ tl lr ~ I ~ v( >us f via clair> 1 Ivat I ~ Il sv>fir e(It)re(

>>Alo tl( erie ~ 5 Ae( ~ A$ (0 Oa ~ At:Oa ~ L

~ ala:eve 1(ceercal Sfaeoe ~ c5 sll reefs Ie evs( flee ~ Aoo>1(0 I ~

c(oo(>le Sea ~ tr I(scuse ~ A c)1 ~ . (It >a>toe rht >Loelca los>0 I> Leal 51 ~ e(roe). >ue5u>ar 10 >so>Toe sralurls

~,'>5>', Lh(Alto 'I(ae re( >Lhe 10 ~ ~ Ov( ~ ~ ~ ~ >1,011 ~ fe(e( a ~ 1 ~ 0 a ~ ort caouao ( ~ c ~ 0 ~ erst sr) I'f ala lea ~

Lf>>ef AI'Cite ~ ~ OJ( ~ ~ Leer Iefae( Cecal > ~ 0 Iso)1 5>> va Su>J(cr I fht ove I>1 I e) aoIto e( ~ lce.

~

srafr etao ala. ss. La(It couerr. >Lcef) ~ .

s. 1st (St>etio ~ or h(ee rfce var( ~ aeo h(aa Lov va ~ (e va5 0(>(a ~ le(0 ~ r (le(A ~ ~ Yf SRIC S.HOLLY I'l1( ~ ~ OLA ~ loa ~ (1v((a V ~ 5, 0(>ea> I(ef I> 0 (0>>et ~ C(. ~ Lfrheel 0(tl ~ IC Aee ereo) ~ <<( ~ IC fROf SSSIOHAL

~~>>/

Cr LAHO OURY Y

>eel ~ Itreerfce. Aef losel 0(laeIC Sue>IT t>CAL f1 eCeee ~ rs IAS(0 V>0 ~ tet I140.11>1 ~ LIIOLAL ~>> f LORICA RS0 IS TRAT IOH ~ S,'1 0 ~

TLIIL ( ~ OCV.

1st l>>AL ~ 1 ~ Cee ~ eel VS(0 4 ~ 1 0(SC ~ I ~ 14 rr OATSO> ~

>CLLCVS> >1 ~ I ~

4(e(eeeee >I(1C( t fl>41), LAIT leo( t>>> I.T' Il ~ Cl. 50u're r(f fr loeCltvo( lo'I )', ~ Allo~ ~ 4 C(OOITIC I( TIC I latve tst >allo ~ >>.10't, ~ >) ss,

> ~

I.e ~ 'l.>>l e) Arorl e(ae ~ >ce vsfle,

~ ~

I h) AI0>( et ~ ~ Lov vef( I ~ 0 $ 1 ~ I ~ OL(

see I) Its(heave I (I ~ >1> LAIT>V)f 1>'If.o'>>

~

~

~,01't.>>

rocv~ ffa>> ~ ~0 I>>ee.

401Cffrll >I ~ 01 5', ~ Arl)eal CtoolrtC 'ITC I 1 A~S>>>>L

't or(

rl ttca( >ares ((tear:oe

~

>ass't sll s), >IC.II I ee'lI tl v.

~

~

1'I

>I es e> a ~ Or(

st

~ (AD SICV

'Lov var(a carte, lo Tsr.)40

>LC 11 Aec e>>t.f I

I ~ I~

J ef').I 4~ ~~

roc>I ~ AL>er>0 Ir 8>>>. ~ Iaiwov eat(a ~ '-I.of ( ~ I'.si ~ 'ei ee e e f> R (>e dEWY d ASXCC41ZT>>INC (A.I.V.O. 1>11). (I>oIH(LT) ~ )uevclr>s) ~ OLAIVIcss Sfuaer, >Loslas

~ I>>oec ' 'o I ' I >' 4 I I sf eat J of g s>IVVI~

291. 21-48 Amendment No. 5, (~5~~

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

291. 2 2 On an aerial photo such as provided on site visit (scale 1" 200',

taken 12/12/80) show the exact location for the third intake pipeline including detail for the on-land portion. Also show the details of the mitigation area to be provided as compensation for the destruction of mangrove swamp.

On the same photo, if appropriate, or on other photo identify boundaries of areas to be used for the disposition of dredge spoils resulting from the construction of the third intake pipeline, headwall, and widening of the intake canal.

Response

See attached marked-up aerial photo.

No ER-OL revisions are required'91.22-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

~

J i

7

~7 $

II i

)7

~

APPROXIMATE .

LOCATION OF SPOIL AREA I I

\

7

• +I

~t,) ~

PP< j pt, fI]p <<4ii i

O i)i, Ir l

+RELOCATED

. ACCESS ROAD \

7 I TOP CANAL DIKE l l.

-" @KP ri

<<.W <<<<~iT."~'I: i~W!<ra.

-'THIRD IN i!~ I ~ !Mia i as if@I

$ h jp ~

4 tea+

)NEW ~

)7 +

HEADWALL C 77

• i lb', ~

~

tttt AMENDMENTNO. 5 (6/82)

FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY 0

tt'" 0 ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2

'I I>

AERIAL PHOTO SHOWING LOCATION OF NOTE: THIRD INTAKE PIPELINE AND SPOIL AREA LOCATION OF MANGROVE MITIGATIONAREA SHEET 1 OF 2 TO BE DETERMINED BY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. FIGURE 291.22-1

a tv+

h

~? .~ fyi oI j 'PPROXIMATE .

LOCATION OF

< 'h, SPOIL AREA

~ ~

o r'p, 4"6, p +RELOG ATED t"'

S ROAD TOP CANAL DIKE "br t ~g

~le"~&%~9 ~.a&I~ NTAKE PIPEI INE ~ I92 Itl "THIRD INT I ~ ~ IMIII~ lip

~t ~~

h Q4$

NEW HEADWALL ~pp .

$ +~PeC' *+a C "4~%~+ W fEglg'll++" ~j~

g'.)

v

~C IQ YE

'I <<pHQJO j 'I~Kg lt g V.

'4%r"-',,'.',

(

AMENDMENTNO 5 k FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 AERIAL PHOTO SHOWING LOCATION OF NOTE: THIRD INTAKE PIP ELINE AND SPOIL AREA LOCATION OF MANGROVE MITIGATIONAREA SHEET 1 OF 2 TO BE DETERMINED BY CORPS OF ENGINEERS. FIGURE 291.22-1

2 It h( h)t "I

,It f'

4r "gt 2 v.$ .m-<<

r I ,.

~

~ t ~

,'t I

• r tig1

)'V h '

~ 4trtt) 4  !

~ I

() I ALTERNATE 4 (h k 'I<> <<

DISPOSAL AREA t

'j I

t ~ ~

,)

't

\

~

'! ~ ~ rh<<

<<,,'4 2 I . '-<<(()

I I rt.

4 ) ~ rh~ ~

I I

(.

~

i I

I I))

"hrk'

."','4.'<<'

r P 'l t

<<r

-1 II

't I

tf 1 I

~ ~

AMENoMENT NO. 5 (5/82)'LORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 AERIAL PHOTO SHOWING LOCATION OF THIRD INTAKE PIPELINE AND SPOIL AREA SHEET 2 OF 2 FIGURE 29122-1

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

291.23 Provide the following information:

a) The month the mangrove swamp mitigation action is to take place.

b) The kind of equipment used to perform the mitigation action (e.g., backhoe, dragline).

c) The names of the specific native species to be planted.

Response

a) The mangrove swamp mitigation will be completed by February 1, 1983.

b) Equipment to be used will be a backhoe to bring the lay down area elevation down to wetland elevation. Mangrove seedlings will be planted by either using a mechanical auger or by hand.

c) Mangroves (Rhizophora mangle) will be planted per the Crops permit special conditions.

See revised ER-OL Subsection 4.1.3.2.

291.23-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Qu es t ion No.

291.24 Conduct a survey of the mangrove swamp to determine whether any leather ferns are in area to be destroyed.

Response

A survey of the construction area has been conducted and no leather ferns were found.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

291.24-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

291.25 Provide a narrative of any present or future efforts that have been or will be taken to prevent marine turtle entrainment at the offshore intake structure.

Response

Efforts to understand and reduce turtle entrapment at St Lucie Plant dated back to May 1976, when Unit 1 began operation.

Monitoring of entrapped sea turtles began in 1976 (intermittent plant operation) when 33 loggerheads were handled. Monitoring of entrapped sea turtles continued in 1977 and 84 turtles (mostly loggerheads) were handled. After the 1977 entrapment data were reviewed for the annual non-radiological reports, the FPSL Environmental Department realized that turtle entrapment would be a continuing phenomenon and began a series of evaluations on potential methods to reduce it.

On April 5, 1978, a recommendation was made to the Power Plant Engineering Department that they investigate the feasibility of covering the underwater intake opening with a network of bars.

Based on carapace width of 140 turtles (four species: green, n~4; hawksbill n 1; leatherback n=3; loggerhead n=l32, maximum dimensions recommended were: square opening of 31.5 cm (12.5 in.)

on a side or a diagonal measurement of 44.5 cm. These dimensions would exclude approximately 95 percent of the turtles. On July 24, 1978 this preliminary design was completed and reviewed by FP&L. The design called for a cage-like structure with a network of bars on 30.5 cm centers to be hinged to the top of the velocity cap. The package included a description of the project, data sheets, material lists, and estimated costs. No further work was authorized on this design because of expected marine fouling and subsequent reduction of flow, costs, and because other methods to modify turtle behavior were under consideration.

An experiment to reduce turtle entrapment occurred in June, 1978, when one of the two intake pipes was plugged and Unit 1 operated off the other pipe, which had just been cleaned of fouling organisms. This action increased the horizontal approach velocity around the plane of the velocity cap to 30.5 cm/sec and doubled the water velocity 'in the pipeline (e.g., the design criteria when both units are in operation). The hypothesis being tested was that the lower approach velocity of 15.3 cm/sec was insufficient for turtles to detect and by operating at the design criteria, the turtles could sense this velocity and avoid being entrapped.

Turtle catch per effort during one pipe mode of operation (June 1-24) was compared to catch data during two-pipe operation and was concluded that there was no difference between the two modes it of operation.

291.25-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82~

SL2-ER-OL On June 8, 1978, FP&L contracted with Applied Biology Inc., of Atlanta, Georgia, to conduct a 28 month laboratory investigation on methods to minimize sea turtle entrapment at the St. Lucie Plant. Area of investigation included how light and mechanical devices would modify turtle behavior.

In August, 1980, a final report on this project concluded that under laboratory conditions, turtles readily sought out and utilized dark box habitats during resting periods in both night and day situations( ). Lights (100 watts) in the box habitats were a useful deterrent at night but were ineffective during the day when ambient solar light negated their results.

The study also concluded that a bubble screen was effective in excluding turtles from the box habitats during daylight hours.

The effects were more positive during bright light conditions probably due to increased visibility as the bubbles reflected the sunlight. At night the bubble screen was ineffective.

IJnder laboratory conditions, the combined installation of lights and a bubble screen in or around the velocity cap was felt to be promising methods to reduce turtle entrapment. Further testing of prototype designs were felt warranted, but a number of unknowns needed to be evaluated such as effects on other biotic communities and logistics of installing these devices in an ocean environment.

Based on the results of the above study, an evaluation was made on methods to determine if there was a day or night pattern of turtle entrapment. To monitor time of turtle entrapment, sonar and underwater closed-circuit television were considered for the velocity cap and an optical beam was considered for the headwall.

However, because of practical and logistic problems associated with the installation of this .equipment and other research work on electrical field about to begin, no further work using these monitoring methods was authorized.

On June 1, 1981, FP&L contracted with Environmental and Chemical Science (ECS) of Atlanta, Georgia, to perform a study on how electrical fields (AC and DC) could modify turtle behavior. The final report( ) was issued in December, 1981, and is being evaluated by FP&L at the present time. The conclusions of the study are as follows:

1. Marine turtles avoided both AC and pulsed DC electric fields of sufficient intensity.

2. Exposure to low voltage electric fields did not harm the turtles. Turtles did not exhibit learned behavior after repeated exposures to such fields.

291.25-2 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL

3. For a given peak voltage, sine wave AC fields were more effective than pulsed DC in repelling turtles. While there was some variability in the response of turtles to different DC pulse rates, pulse width and waveforms, no well-defined set of parameters appear to be superior.

4. There was considerable variation in the responses exhibited by individual turtles to electric fields. Size was important because the larger turtles are more sensitive. Species variations may exist as there were some indications that green turtles are more sensitive than loggerheads.

The field intensity experienced by the head of the turtle may be the most important electrical parameter determining behavior.

6. Under some conditions, turtles entered strong electrical fields and lost motor coordination. At the field intensity studied, the turtles recovered immediately when released from the field with no apparent damage and, again, no apparent learning.

The scope of work for the ECS contract was expanded on November 30, 1981, to allow a preliminary analysis on using sound to modify turtle behavior. This evaluation is underway at this time.

Future Efforts Until the electrical field and sound work is further evaluated on engineering, cost, practicality and safety criteria, the direction of future work is uncertain. Undoubtedly, further laboratory testing using scale models of the intake structure would be appropriate. Depending on a number of variables, lights, bubble curtains, electrical fields, and sound devices may all have potential for modifying turtle behavior and reducing turtle entrapment at St. Lucie Plant.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

References

l. Applied Biology, Inc. 1980. Turtle entrainment deterrent study, AB-290, Atlanta, Ga.

2. Environmental and Chemical Sciences, Inc. 1981. Avoidance responses by sea turtles exposed to electric fields, Atlanta, Ga.

291.25-3 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

291.26 Provide details on any refinements considered for the current procedures used to capture turtles in the intake canal.

Response

In April 1978, it was recognized that if the turtles -entrapped in the intake canal could be restricted to a small area by the headwall, then the efficiency of their removal could be improved.

Based on this reasoning, a request was made to the Power Plant Engineering Department to install a 12 inch square mesh barrier net (strand diameter 3/8") the entire width of the canal at the AlA bridge. This net was installed in the summer of 1978 and is still in place.

On May 3, 1977, Applied Biology, Inc., under contract with FPGL, prepared formal procedures on net placement, turtle removal, tagging, data recording, and turtle release. These procedures were updated in May 1979 and June 1981 and incorporated the following steps to reduce mortalities (not limited to greens):

1. The utmost care is taken in handling the animals to prevent injury and trauma.

2. Sick or injured turtles are treated and occasionally held for observation prior to release. Treatment includes injections of antibiotics and vitamins by a local veterinarian warranted.

if

3. Resuscitation techniques are used recently dead (a green was revived if themouth-to>>mouth animal appears by resuscitation in 1981).

4. Sport fishing in the canal has been prohibited (turtles have been found with hooks and monofilament line entangled or attached; however, this did not necessarily happen while they were in the canal).

5. Gill netting for fish monitoring has been deleted at a station by the headwall.

6. Plant personnel have home phone numbers of Applied Biology, Inc., personnel so they can be notified of sea turtle occurrences at irregular hours.

7. Plant and Applied Biology personnel are checking the tangle nets more frequently.

291.26-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL The following are methods which will be evaluated and/or employed to further reduce mortalities (emphasis on greens or other small turtles):

l. Use special nets which are lighter in weight, fish near the surface, and have finer mesh than presently used.

2. Modification in size, weighting or positioning of the presently used nets.

3. Discontinue use of one of the two currently used turtle nets during January through March when the majority of greens occur.

4. Check the nets more frequently during January through March.

5. Experiment with net positions and its effectiveness as a function of turtle behavior. For example, if the greens stay near the headwall the lighter nets could fish there, while the heavier nets could be placed farther up the canal for the loggerheads.

Through practical experience as other ideas occur on methods to reduce turtle netting mortality, they will be tested and, if effective, they will be incorporated into the procedures.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

291. 26-2 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL'2-ER-OL Question No.

291.27 Provide information on what percent of the Caribbean populations of green and loggerhead sea turtles nest in the area of the power plant. Also provide an estimte of the number of nesting turtles (both green and loggerhead) on Florida's east coast.. Fully document and reference your response.

Response

Data on green and loggerhead nestings on Hutchinson Island (i.e.,

the vicinity of the power plant) are based on six survey years:

l(71, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1979, an 1981 conducted by the Florida Department of Natural Resources and Applied Biology, Inc., under contract with FP&L. Further details of these studies are reported in the annual non-radiological monitoring reports for St. Lucie Plant including the 1982 report, which is in draft stages.

Green turtles over the six-year period had a 'range of 5 37 nests per year (actual count, but excluding the northern 10 percent of the island during the first five survey years) with a mean of 19 per year.( ) R Witham of DNR reported 62 nests in 1978'(

(a non-survey year for FP&L)'. Loggerh'ead turtles had a range of 3000 4800 nests per year with a mean of approximately 4000 (these figures are whole island estimates based on extrapolations from transects)( ). Figure H-ll illustrates that the greens predominately nest south of the St. Lucie Power Plant( ) (Area 4). However, in 1981 when 10 green nests were verified on Hutchinson Island, there was one nest recorded in Area 4(

Figure H-3( ) illustrates the nesting pattern of loggerheads in Area 4 (e.g., the Plant Site). In 1981, 65 nests were recorded in Area 4,< ) compared to 124 nests observed in 1979 when no beach and nearshore construction occurred.

Pritchard estimtes the U.S. loggerhead population consists of about 15,714 adult females(4). An estimated 19,895 nests are dug in Florida each year by adult females estimated at 14,210.

Pritchard also estimtes the current population of the Florida green as no more than 50 mature females, however, other data suggests this estimate is low. For example Huff et al. surveyed selected Florida beaches on the east coast( ) (a total of 222.1 km), and listed actual green nest counts at 281, as shown in Table 291.27-1. Counts for loggerhead nests during the same survey were 9448. Comparison from 1979 and 1980 revealed two short-term trends: loggerhead nesting decreased in 1980 and green turtle nesting increased in 1980.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

291.27-1 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Re ferences

1. Applied Biology, Inc., 1980. Florida Power 6 Light Company, St Lucie Plant, annual non-radiological environmental

~

monitoring report 1979, AB-244. Applied Biology, Inc ~,

Atlanta, Ga.

2. Applied Biology, Inc., 1982. Florida Power 6 Light Company, St. Lucie Plant, annual nonmadiological environmental monitoring report 1981, AB-379. Applied Biology, Inc.,

Atlanta, Ga.

3. Huff, J Alan, P (ed' Hitham, Carol J Gray, and Lou Fallon, Ross 1980. Summary of marine turtle. activity in Florida in 1980.

Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine Research Laboratory, St. Petersburg, Fl.

4. Pritchard, P C H ), 1978. Rare and endangered biota of Florida, Vol. 3, Amphibians and Reptiles. University Presses of Florida, Gainesvile, Fl.

291.27-2 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL TABLE 291.27-1 1980 NEST SURVEY-ATLANTIC COAST OF FLORIDA ACTUAL COUNTS Location Count Caretta caretta Chelonia mydas

1. Key Biscayne Dade 22 10

2. Miami Beach Dade 10

3. Deerfield Beach Broward 555 21

4. Boca Raton Palm Beach 127

5. Highland Beach Palm Beach 511

6. Lantana Palm Beach 10

7. Lost Tree Village Palm Beach 189 Beach

8. Juno Pier Palm Beach 384

9. Jupiter Island Martin 10104 23

10. Hutchinson Island St. Lucie 528 ll. Fort Pierce Beach St. Lucie

12. Fort Pierce Inlet St. Lucie 16

13. Sebastian Inlet Brevard & Indian R. 335

14. Indialantic Brevard 35

15. Port Canaveral S. Brevard 3,933 122 to Sebastian Inlet

16. Canaveral National Brevard 1, 261 33 Seashore & Kennedy Space Center

17. North of Brevard Volusia 392 County Line

18. Fort Matanzas St. Johns

19. Little Talbot Island Duval 32 0 TOTAL 9,448 281 Source: Reference 3.

291.27-3 Amendment No. 5, (6/82)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

310.1 The projections of age distribution for the year 2000 (Sections 2.1.2.1.6 and 2.1.2.2.8) are based on 1970 U.S.

data. However, it is the case that:

The data were about eight years old when used The U.S. population is "aging" as the postwar babies mature.

Florida has an older population than the U.S.

Florida's population grew by 28 percent between 1970 and 1977 (2.1.2.2.5) 90 percent of Florida's growth is attributable to net migration (2.1.2.2.5) more relevarit bases of age distribution exist such as U.S. Bureau of Census, Current Population Reports, Series P-25, No. 796, "Illustrative Projections of State Populations by Age, Race, and Sex: 1975 to 2000," U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 1979.

Present revised Tables 2.1-2 and 2.1-4 using a more appropriate age distribution base.

Response

Tables 2.1-2 and 2.1-4 are revised estimates of the age distribution of the projected population for the year 2000 between zero and ten miles and ten and fifty miles of St Lucie Unit 2. The new age distribution estimates were based on the projections for the State of Florida presented in the U.S Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census

~

publication entitled Illustrative Projections of State Population by Age, Race, and Sex 1 5 to 0 . e new factors used to estimate the age distribution in the year 2000 are as follows:

Age Group  % of Total Population Year 2000 0-11 14.4 12-18 9.4 19 and over 76.2 See revised ER-OL Tables 2.1-2 and 2.1%

310.1-1 Amendment No. 4, (3/82)

SL2-ER-OL uestion No.

310.2 In Table 2.1-3 footnote "+" refers to a place having a 1970 population of 5,772. However, there is no place listed with the "+" nor with the 1970 population of 5,772. Whet town does the "+" refer to7

~Res onse Table 2.1-3 has been revised (see attached table). The symbol

"+" refers to the Town of Gifford which had a 1970 population of 5,772 and an estimated 1976 population of 7,781.

See revised ERAL Table 2.1-3.

310.2-1 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)

SL2-ERAL 310.3 .Include the estimates of beach usage in Table 2.1-6, Transient Population: Attendance at Attractions and Events, while acknowledging "the lack of comprehensive data" concerning beaches. (2.1.2.3)

~Res ense Table 2.1-6 has been revised to include the beach usage estimates discussed in Section 2.1.2.3 of the text. See attached text and table.

See revised ERAL Table 2.1-6 and Subsection 2.1.2.3.

310.3-1 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)

SL2-ERAL uestion No.

310.4 The Tourists and Seasonal Visitors Section (2.1.2.3.1) contains no time element to indicate whether the estimates are for yearly, daily, etc. attendance rates. One may surmise that the data are daily based on Table 2.1-5. That information should be presented in the analysis as well as the table.

~Res oese Section 2.1.2.3.1 has been revised to indicate that the estimates for tourists and seasonal visitors are peak daily estimates. See attached text for revision.

See revised ER-OL Subsection 2.1.2.3.1.

310.4-1 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)

SL2-ERAL uestion No.

310.5 Peak daily class attendance estimates at colleges (2.1.2.3.4 and 6.1.4.2.3) appear to be about 13 percent of enrollment based on Table 2.1-7. Even if one assumes an equal distribution of daily attendance, the peak days would be 16 and 20 percent of enrollment assuming 6 day and 5 day school weeks, respectively. How was the peak attendance calculated'Res ense Table 2.1-7 and Subsections 2.1.2.3.4 and 6.1.4.2.3 have been revised to show the peak daily class attendance at colleges to be 20 percent of total enrollment. This is based on the assumption that there is an equal distribution of the total enrollment attending class over a five day week.

See revised ER0L Table 2.1-7 and Subsections 2.1.2.3.4 and 6.1.4.2.3.

310-5-1 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

310.6 The Hutchinson Island Residential Units Section (2.1.3.5.1) reports construction of a 203 unit apartment and 32 unit townhouse complex called Sand Dollar Villas to be completed in 1980. Sand Dollar Villas is 1.4 miles from the plant site.

The 1983 resident population forecasts (Figure 2.1-6, sheet 3 of 8) indicate 36 residents between 1 and 2 miles from the site in sectors SE and SSE. The 1983 peak daily and seasonal transient population (Figure 2.1-10, sheet 3 of 8) for the same sectors is.O. Reconcile the inconsistencies between the reported construction and the population forecasts for both resident and transient population within two miles of the plant.

Response

In 1981, Sand Dollar Villas contained 203 completed residential units. Discussions with the developer indicated that an additional 162 units would be completed by 1983, and another 144 units by 1986(1) Based on 1980 prelidinary census figures for St Lucie County, it was estimated that the

~

household size on Hutchinson Island is approximately 0.44 persons per dwelling unit. Thi.s factor was used to derive the following resident population figures for Sand Dollar Villas.

Transient population in Sand Dollar Villas will be composed of two components: 1) people who occupy their condominiums during the tourist season (winter); and, 2), visitors to friends and relatives. Together, these two components are expected to increase the population in Sand Dollar Villas by a factor of 3.6 times the resident population. The following table shows both resident and transient population for Sand Dollar Villas. Sand Dollar Villas is located in annular sectors SSE 1-2 and SE 1-2 ~

Annular Resident'opulation Transient Year Sector Population 1111 SSE 1-2 5 162 SE 1-2 45 162 1983 SSE 1-2 45 162 SE 1-2 116 418 19 86 SSE 1-2 108 389 SE 1-2 116 418 See revised subsection 2.1.2.1.1 of the ER-OL and revised Figure 2.1-10.

Reference Personal Communication, Sand Dollar Villas Sales Office, Stuart, Florida, May, 1981.

310.6-1 ~ Amendment No. 4, (3/82)

l 'ly ll

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

310.7 The ER-CP for St Lucie Unit No. 2 states that "studies conducted to date indicate that the land available for development on Hutchinson Island will be almost totally utilized by the end of this decade (by 1980)..." p. 2.2A Rev. 6-5/9/75.

Future residential development on Hutchinson Island "which falls within the five mile radius is expected to experience considerable development" (ER-OL 2.1.3.6 part b) .'he same section discusses the limited fresh water supply being a constraint to growth on the island. Are there plans to expand the supply of potable water to the island? If so, when and how would residential development of this island be affected'esponse There are plans to expand the water supply on Hutchinson Island. The Fort Pierce Utilities Authority (FPUA) plans to construct a 16 inch water main to a point approximately 3.5 miles south of St Lucie Unit 2(l) This water main is being

~

installed to serve Island Dunes, a 572 unit high rise development which is scheduled for completion by 1988. The.

first building of Island Dunes will be completed in December, 1982(2) . The FPUA water main serving Island Dunes is in addition to the 12-inch FPUA main already serving Hutchinson Island between St Lucie Unit 2 and the. southern boundary of St Lucie County.

Other plans to expand the water supply on Hutchinson Island involve the construction of deep wells to the Floridan Aquifer. These wells employ a desalinization process called "reverse osmosis" ~ They are being constructed by developers not served by public, water supplies. On Hutchinson Island, all planned developments, except for Island Dunes and those projects within the City of Fort Pierce, will be providing their own potable water with the reverse osmosis process.

This desalinization process is being encouraged by the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and at present there do not appear to be any constraints, other than cost, to providing potable water in this manner(3) ~ Furthermore, the SFWMD indicates that the reverse osmosis desalinization process "may soon become competitive with conventional treatment plants in terms of cost and reliability"(4) .

310.7-1 Amendment No. 4, (3/82)

SL2-E R-OL The above plans to expand the potable water supply on Hutchinson Island appear to be encouraging new development there. Current plans for new development on the Island are extensive. The response to Question 310.8 tabulates the new developments which have been constructed recently or are planned within 5 miles of St Lucie 2. A total of 763 residential units were constructed in this area between 1978 and 1981; plans exist to build another 1,628 units by 1988. Development elsewhere on Hutchinson Island, in Fort Pierce Beach and south of the five mile radius, is also occuring at a rapid pace.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

Ref erences (1) Personal communication, Fort Pierce Utilities Authority, Fort Pierce, Florida, May 12, 1981.

(2) Personal communication, Island Dunes sales office, Hutchinson Island, Florida, May ll, 1981.

(3) Personal communication, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida, May 15, 1981.

(4) South Florida Water Management District, Summary Status Re ort Up er East Coast, Water Use and Supply Development Plan, West Palm Beach, F orida, October, 1980.

310.7-2 Amendment No. 4, (3/82)

SL2-ER-OL Question No.

310.8 The FES-CP presents an estimated 1980 population for 0-5 miles of 1620 and from 5-10 miles of 61,000 (Figure 2.6). The ER-OL has estimates for 1980 of 12,291 and 70,594 for the 0-5 and 5-10 mile rings respectively. (Figure 2.1-6) While the 5-10 mile population estimates are only 15 percent off between the FES-CP and the ER-OL, the 0-5 mile estimates are over 650 percent different.

a. Are there any additional developments (besides Sand Dollar Villas and Oceans) under construction or being planned on Hutchinson Island? If so, give location, number of units, estimated date of completion, and revise resident and transient population e'stimates

'within five miles of the plant to be consistent with the available information.

b. Revise Table 2.1-12, Land Uses and Land Cover within Five Miles of St. Lucie Unit 2, to reflect t ese new developments.

Re sponse a~ There are several. new developments which have been constructed, are under construction or being planned within a five mile radius of St Lucie Unit 2. See revised subsection 2.1.2.1.5 of the ER-OL.

The resident and transient populations estimates within five miles of the plant have been revised to reflect the increased growth rate resulting from development activities on Hutchinson Island and the mainland within five miles of the plant. The revised resident and transient populations are given in Tables 2.1-1 and 2.1-5 of the ER-OL.

b) Table 2.1-12, Land Uses and Land Cover within Five Miles of St Lucie Unit 2, has been changed to reflect the new residential development which has occurred between 1978 and 1981 See revised Table 2.1-12 of the ER-OL.

310.8-1 Amendment No. 4, (3/82)

0 SL2-ERAL uestion No.

310.9 Tables 2.1-8 and 2.1-9 have references to the methodology in Sections 2.1.3.8.2 and 2.1.3.8 respectively. The tables contain data on transient populations using highways, air and rail. The sections referenced describe water use. Provide the correct references.

~Res esse Tables 2.1-8 and 2.1-9 have been corrected to cite the correct reference, Section 6.1.4.2.3.

See revised Tables 2.1-8 and 2.1-9.

310.9-1 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)

SL2-ERAL uestion No.

310.10 Explain why the 8 percent growth rate was used in projecting transient visitors for the years 1978 to 1985 and the 2.1 percent rate for 1985 to 2030; especially since the-8 percent figure is based on 1977-1978 data and the 2.1 percent rate is based on 1970-1978 data. (6.1.4.2.3)

~Res ense The Florida Division of Tourism had already developed tourist projection figures for the period 1977-1985. An analysis of these figures shows that an eight percent growth rate was used to make these short term projections. However, if the eight percent growth rate is used to project tourist visitors into the year of 2030, it results in an extraordinarily large number of tourists. Therefore, it was determined that the growth rates between 1970-1978 (based on the available Division of Tourism statistics) would be a more realistic growth rate for the tourist projections from 1985 to 2030.

No ER>>OL revisions are required.

310.10-1 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)

SL2-ERAL uestion No.

310.11 Provide an estimate of the average annual number of workers required for the operation of St Lucie Unit No. 2. State whether the workers are employees of PPL or contractors. Also provide an estimate of the average annual operating for the unit.

workers'ayroll

~Res onse The average annual number of workers required for the operation of St Lucie Unit 2 (over and above those required for St Lucie Unit 1) is as follows:

PP&L employees 150 Guard Force (contracted) 0*

Backfit (permanently contracted) 134 Backfit (temporarily contracted) 400-500~

• No additional guard force personnel are utilized for the two unit site than the present one unit site.

~ Contracted during refueling periods only; once every 18 months.

The average annual operating workers payroll is as follows:

PP&L employees $ 3.78 million Backfit (permanent) 4.05 million Backfit (temporary) 6 million No ER-OL revisions are required.

310.11-1 Amendment No..2, (6/81)

s

~

1 I

SL2-E R-OL estion No.

310.12 Local purchas'es of goods and services for a nuclear power plant operation may frequently have a significant impact on the local economy. (For these purposes local may be defined as either the host county or the host county and one or more contiguous counties.)

Please provide information on local purchases of goods and services expected to be made by the plant during a typical year of operation. To the extent possible, identify specific types and dollar amounts of these purchases. it If appears that there will be no significant local purchases, explain why.

~Res ense In order to minimize the cost of goods and services utilized in the operation of the numerous power plants that are owned and operated by FP6L, a Stores Department is maintained by the company to preclude the need for numerous local purchases, This department makes bulk centralized purchases that are used at each plant site in order to economize on large quantity purchases. The local area is defined as St Lucie and Martin Counties.

Based on the information available from the operation of St Lucie Unit 1 on a yearly basis, we expect that local purchases for the operation of St Lucie Unit 2 will be roughly equivalent. The table below summarizes these purchases.

Chemicals $ 1285000 Stationary 40,000 Lube oil 5,000 Miscellaneous 577 000 Total $ 750,000 No ER-OL revisions are required.

310.12-1 Amendment No. 2, (5/81)

I W

k L

SL2-ER-OL uestion No.

310.13 Construct a table containing dollar estimates of taxes attributable to St Lucie Unit No. 2, for the first five full years of operation. Provide the dollar estimates by type of tax, and by taxing jurisdiction.'hat percent of the jurisdictions'otal tax revenues are represented by the taxes attributable to St Lucie No. 2 plant'7

~Res ense When St Lucie Unit 2 is placed in service,.Florida Power &

Light Company will be paying both real and personal property taxes on the unit. Based upon projected taxable value and millage rates, and the current Florida laws, the estimated tax yield from St Lucie Unit 2 for the first year in service will be 5.5 million dollars.

The plant will be depreciated (straight-line) at a rate of approximately four percent per year for property tax purposes. New additions to the plant will be added to the tax base as they are completed. The additions, unless substantial, tend to offset depreciation to the extent that the 5.5 million annual projection should be forecast through 1988.

The actual amount of taxes paid will be based on the millage rated as authorized by the County Commission, School Board Members, etc. during the years the unit is energized for commercial use, and the evaluation established following project completion. For these reasons, the actual taxes received by the county may be either less or greater than the amount indicated above.

The authorized 1981 tax revenues for St Lucie County are:

collected $ 25,385,000 to be collected 2 500 000 total $ 27,885,000 Based on these values, the taxes collected attributable to the St Lucie Unit 2 plant amount to 19.7 percent of the taxes collected by St Lucie County.

NO ER-OL revisions are required.

310.13-1 Amendment No. 2, (6/81)

,l C

SL2-ERAL 310.14 The first paragraph in Section 2.1.2.1.5 confuses growth rates or compound interest and simple interest. It mentions of an "increase of 123.6 percent over the 52 year period, an average annual rate of growth of 2.4 percent". Actually, the annual growth rate of a 123.6 percent increase over 52 years is 1.56 percent.

Correct this and other population growth rates which were calculated by simple rather than compound interest.

~Res ense The text and supporting tables have been revised so that population growth rates are calculated by compound interst formula.

See revised ER"OL Tables 2.1-6, 2.1-8, 2.1-9, and 2.1-10 and Subsections 2.1.2.1.5, 2.1.2.2.5, 2.1.2.2.6> 2.1.2.2.7, 2.1.2.3.4 and 6.1.4.2.

310. 14-1 Amendment No. 2, {6/81)

SL2-ERAL 9"""

'70.1 Reconfirm the 1978 land use data in Table 2.1-11.

~Res onse To reconfirm the land use data presented in Table 2.1-11, a helicopter survey and ground survey was conducted 'in May 1981, encompassing the five mile area around St Lucie Unit 2. The results are presented in revised ERAL Table 2.1-11 and revised subsection 2.1.3.'4.

470.1-1 Amendment No. 3, (7/81) 5

~ V 4

i'

SL2-ERAL uestion No.

470.2 Provide updated information concerning the total meat (Kg/yr),

milk .(liters/yr), and agricultural (Kg/yr) production within an 80 km (50 mile) radius, if availableo

~Res onse Updated meat, milk and agricu1tural production data within 80 Ian of the plant site are presented in revised ERAL Tables 2.1-13, 2.1-14, 2.1-16, 2.1-17, 2.1-20 and 2.1-21 as well as in revised Subsection 2'.1.3.7.

470.2-1 Amendment No. 3, ( 7/81)

~ ~

SL2-ER-OL uestion No.

470.3 State the fraction of daily intake of cows derived from pasture during grazing season.

,~Re ence According to Dr Barney Harris of the University of Florida Dairy Science Department, the following fractions of daily pasture intake apply to milk and beef cattle in the vicinity of the plant:

Percent Feed Animal from Pasture Remainder dairy cows 15-20 X commercial feed beef cattle 90-100X commercial feed Typically dairy animals are confined to relatively small pastures whereas beef animals are allowed to roam over large areas for grazing.

No ERAL revisions are required.

47 0.3-1 Amendment No. 3, (7/81)

e SL2-ER-OL uestion No.

470.4 Provide information on the annual sport fish (Kg/yr) and updated information on commercial fish and shellfish (Kg/yr) caught and consumed annually.

~Has onse Updated information on annual sport and commerical fish and shellfish caught is presented in the responses to Questions 291.8 and 291.9 of Amendment No. 2 (6/81) of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report Operating License. Information on consumption is presented in Section 2.1.3.7.6 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report Operating License.

No ER-OL revisions are required.

470.4-1 Amendment No, 3., (7/81)

I SL2-ERAL uestion No.

470.5 Provide an estimate of the number of recreational saltwater users for the year 2000.

~Res ense ER-OL Table 2.1-26 provides an estimate of the number of recreational salt water users for the year 2000. Table 2.1-26 will be revised subsequent to responses to NRC Questions 310.6 through 310.8.

47 0.5-1 Amendment No. 3, (7/81)

0 0

SL2-ER-OL uestion No.

470.6 Tables 2.1-21, 2.1-22, and 2.1-23 do not contain information concerning vegetable production as stated in Assumption 2 of Table 5.2-22; clarify the information used in this analysis.

~Res onse ER-OL Tables 2.1-17, 2.1-18 and 2.1-19 contain vegetable production data, and have been revised per NRC Question 470.2. Table 5.2-22 has been revised to identify the appropriate tables.

470.6-1 Amendment No, 3 (7/81)

I

/

4 L

0:

I I 4

'