ML17229A549
ML17229A549 | |
Person / Time | |
---|---|
Site: | Saint Lucie ![]() |
Issue date: | 12/01/1997 |
From: | FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
To: | |
Shared Package | |
ML17229A548 | List: |
References | |
NUDOCS 9712080208 | |
Download: ML17229A549 (29) | |
Text
t
't. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 L-97-296 Attachment 1 Page 1
ATTACHMENT1 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED CHANGE 97i2080208 97i20i PDR ADOCK 05000335 P
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389
'L-97-296 Attachment 1 Page 2
Background
On May 11, 1995, based on the increasing number of sea turtles being removed from the St.
Lucie Plant intake canal, the NRC requested a formal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), and Florida Power Ec Light Company (FPL). The increasing number of sea turtles being removed from the intake canal was reported in the 1994 Annual Environmental Operating Report, Volume 1, for the St. Lucie Plant.
The scope and schedule for the ESA Section 7 consultation were discussed at meetings among FPL, NRC, NMFS, and FDEP on May 23, 1995, and October 20, 1995.
FPL letter L-95-309, dated November 20, 1995, submitted a Biological Assessment, "Assessment of the Impacts of the St. Lucie Nuclear Generating Plant on Sea Turtles Found in the Nearshore Waters of Florida," which, after review by NRC, was transmitted to the NMFS on February 7, 1996.
On February 7, 1997, the NMFS issued its Biological Opinion to the NRC with a request that the terms and conditions of the Incidental Take Statement be incorporated into the FPL license.
After a meeting at St. Lucie Plant on May 7, 1997, the NRC issued the NMFS Biological Opinion to FPL on May 30, 1997, and requested FPL to provide comments and proposed methods to incorporate the Biological Opinion and the Incidental Take Statement into the St. Lucie Plant Licenses.
On May 30, 1997, the NRC transmitted the February 7, 1997, Biological Opinion prepared by NMFS to FPL.
The Biological Opinion was the result of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Section 7(a) consultation regarding the continued operation of the circulating water system of the St. Lucie Plant.
The NMFS has concluded that the continued operation of St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species listed in the opinion under their jurisdiction.
The NMFS developed an Incidental Take Statement, which includes terms and conditions necessary to monitor and minimize the lethal take of sea turtles in the plant cooling water intake canal.
In a letter to FPL dated October 6, 1997, NRC requested FPL to submit proposed changes to the Environmental Protection Plan (EPP), Appendix B of the St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 operating
- licenses, within 60 days of receipt.
The proposed changes incorporate the Incidental Take Statement included in the Biological Opinion and provide assurance that reasonable and prudent
- measures, as detailed in the Incidental Take Statement, will be taken.
The Unit 1 EPP did not contain all of the environmental conditions for the protection of sea turtles as are contained in the Unit 2 EPP.
FPL proposes that the wording suggested for Sections 4 and 5 of the Unit 2 EPP also be included verbatim in Sections 4 and 5 of the Unit 1 EPP for consistency.
The proposed language that would appear in both EPPs is included in Attachment
- 5. The proposed deletion of the existing Section 4 in the Unit 1 EPP is included in Attachment 4.
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389
'L-97-Z96 Attachment 1 Page 3 Description of the Change St. Lucie Unit 1 The Proposed change deletes Section 4, "Environmental Conditions," of the EPP and replaces this section with new wording and adds a new Section 5, "Administrative Procedures,"
identical to the Unit 2 wording for these sections.
Section 4.1, "Unusual or Important Environmental Events," is replaced by a new section 4.1.
Section 4.2, "Light Screen to Minimize Turtle Disorientation," is replaced with the wording from the Unit 2 EPP, in a renumbered Section 4.2.3 for consistency.
St. Lucie Unit 2 Section 4.1 - Unusual or Important Environmental Events The change replaces the generic term "NRC" with the specific NRC location, "NRC Operations Center," and specifies the use of the "Emergency Notification System described in 10 CFR 50.72" for the initial 72-hour report to the NRC. The changes clarify that follow-up reports be submitted in accordance with Section 5.4.2, "Nonroutine Reports," which standardizes the reporting time frame for all Nonroutine reports at 30 days for consistency.
Section 4.2 - Terrestrial/Aquatic Issues This introductory paragraph has been modified to discuss the NMFS Biological Opinion and the
'ncidental Take Statement.
The existing Section 4.2.1, "Beach Nesting Surveys,"
is being replaced by the condition in the new Section 4.2.2.2.(9) which requires sea turtle nesting programs and public service walks. The study required by Section 4.2.2, "Studies to Evaluate and/or Mitigate Intake Entrapment," was completed in 1985 and submitted to the NRC by FPL letter L-85-158, dated April 18, 1985.
The studies required by Section 4.2.3, "Studies to Evaluate and/or Mitigate Intake Canal Mortality," were discussed in the Biological Assessment, "Assessment of the Impacts of the St. Lucie Nuclear Generating Plant on Sea Turtles Found in the Nearshore Waters of Florida," which was submitted to the NRC by FPL letter L-95-309, dated November 20, 1995. The requirements of these sections have been deleted because the studies and actions are historical and have been completed or were incorporated into the conditions of the NMFS ITS.
Section 4.2.1 - Reinitiation of Endangered Species Act (ESA) Section 7 Consultation This section sets forth the conditions for reinitiation of the ESA Section 7 consultation that were specified in the NMFS Biological Opinion dated February 7, 1997.
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 L-97-296 Attachment 1 Page 4 Section 4.2.2 - Incidental Take Statement This new section provides the regulatory basis of the Incidental Take Statement in Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act. It also presents the basis for not establishing a take limit on entrapment,
- capture, and release of any species of sea turtles in the St. Lucie intake canal.
Section 4.2.2.1 - Lethal Take Levels This section establishes the specified lethal take levels for sea turtles by species.
These limits were taken from the Incidental Take Statement.
In addition, Section 4,3 provides the latitude for the NRC or NMFS to change the lethal take levels on an interim basis. This allows a case-by-case review and change in the lethal take limits for a species without the administrative burden of a temporary license amendment. This action is similar to the method used by the NRC in their letter dated October 6, 1997, which after consultation with the NMFS, increased the lethal take limit for green turtles from three to six for the calendar year 1997.
Section 4.2.2.2 - Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Statement This section includes the terms and conditions established to monitor the level of take and to minimize the adverse impacts of entrapment and the possibility of lethal takes. In addition, Section 4.3 authorizes NRC or NMFS, as appropriate, to modify the terms and conditions on an interim basis to ensure consistency between the EPP and the FDEP permits. The purpose of this exception is to provide a simplified process to change the terms and conditions on an interim basis to prevent a condition where FPL may be in compliance with the EPP, but in conflict with the FDEP permits.
Section 4.2.2.2.(1) establishes the requirement for FPL to install, inspect, and maintain the 5-inch mesh barrier net in the St. Lucie intake canal. This condition is consistent with Condition 1 of the NMFS ITS.
Section 4.2.2.2.(2) establishes the requirement for FPL to inspect and maintain the existing 8-inch mesh barrier net west of the new 5-inch mesh net. This condition implements Condition 2 of the NMFS ITS.
Section 4.2.2.2.(3) requires FPL to continue its current capture and release program in accordance with permits granted to FPL or FPL's contractor through FDEP.
This condition implements Condition 3 of the NMFS ITS.
Section 4.2.2.2.(4) establishes the conditions for capture netting in the intake canal and specifies the minimum number of hours and the conditions when increased netting activities are required.
It also permits reasonable deviations based on human safety considerations (i.e., severe weather).
This condition implements Condition 4 of the NMFS ITS.
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389
'L-97-296 Attachment 1 Page 5 Section 4.2.2.2. (5) requires directed capture efforts whenever a sea turtle is observed in the intake canal west of the 8-inch barrier net. This condition implements Condition 5 of the NMFS ITS.
Section 4.2.2.2.(6) requires visual checks of the gratings at each intake well for sea turtles at least eight times in 24-hours. It also establishes the directed efforts to be taken ifa turtle is sighted in an intake well. This condition is consistent with Condition 6 of the NMFS ITS.
Section 4.2.2.2.(7) This condition is marked as deferred. By letter dated October 6, 1997, NRC notified FPL that the NRC and NMFS recognize that the study originally requested in Condition 7 of the NMFS ITS requires additional time for NMFS, NRC, and FPL to conduct a further review of the proposal. Therefore, the NRC and NMFS agreed to delay implementation of this condition until other terms and conditions are implemented. At that time, Condition 7 of the NMFS ITS willbe reevaluated. The condition number was retained to keep the numbering system in this section of the EPP consistent with the conditions of the NMFS ITS.
Section 4.2.2.2.(8) requires FPL to continue to participate in the Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN), under proper permits and authority. This condition stated as a point of clarification that stranded sea turtles will not normally be counted against the authorized level of lethal incidental take in the NMFS ITS.FPL has clarified this in the proposed Condition 8 that stranded sea turtles on the beach or in the intake canal due to injury or illness not caused by plant operations are not counted against the authorized level of lethal take in Section 4.2.2.1 of this EPP. As part of the STSSN, strandings either on the beach or in the intake canal are reported to the FDEP. In addition for intake canal strandings, FPL will request that FDEP concur with its determination. The proposed rationale for determining whether sea turtle mortalities in the intake canal are causal to plant operation or intake canal strandings is provided in Attachment 2. This rationale will be incorporated into the appropriate plant procedures. This condition implements condition 8 of the NMFS ITS. The marine turtle monthly report required by Condition 10 (a) will provide the NMFS information on all sea turtle mortalities in the intake canal. This will include mortalities causal to plant operation and also sea turtle strandings in the intake canal.
Section 4.2.2.2(9) requires FPL to continue to conduct, under proper permits and authority, the ongoing sea turtle nesting program and public service turtle walks. The lead permitting agency for the turtle nesting studies and public service turtle walks is the FDEP.
Section 4.2.2.2.(10) requires FPL to submit several routine reports that are currently required by FDEP permits to NMFS. Subsection (a) establishes a condition to submit copies of monthly reports covering sea turtle entrapment, capture efforts, turtle mortalities, available information on barrier net inspections and maintenance, and the Taprogge condenser tube cleaning system operation and any sponge ball loss at St. Lucie Plant to the NMFS. Subsection (b) establishes the condition that FPL submit copies of the Annual Environmental Operating Report required by EPP Section 5.4.1 and that the annual report include a
discussion of the topics in Section 4.2.2.2.(10)(a). Subsection (c) establishes a condition to convene a meeting between FPL, NRC, and NMFS to discuss endangered and threatened species information and developments at the St.
Lucie Plant approximately every two (2) years beginning in January 1998. The wording of this
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389
'L-97-296 Attachment 1 Page '6 condition has been modified to clarify the reports and the submittal of copies of the reports to NMFS. The requirement for the annual report was changed to be consistent with the Annual Environmental Operating Report required by EPP Section 5.4.1.
Section 4.2.3 - Light Screen to Minimize Turtle Disorientation Section 4.2.4 has been renumbered as Section 4.2.3. In addition, the reference to Australian Pine was deleted and generalized into "suitable plants" for the light screen along the beach dune. The State of Florida has an ongoing program to remove non-indigenous species, like Australian Pine, and replace them with native varieties of plants.
Section 4.2.5 - Capture and Release Program Section 4.2.5 is deleted, The capture and release program is now covered by Section 4.2.2.2 Condition 3. Section 4.2.2.2.(3) establishes the condition for FPL to continue its current capture and release program in accordance with permits granted to FPL or FPL's contractor through FDEP. The FDEP is the lead permitting agency for the capture and release program.
Section 4.3 - General Exceptions The final paragraph in Section 4 was designated Section 4.3, General Exceptions, and changed slightly to refer specifically to the Environmental Conditions of Section 4 and that the conditions are contingent upon FPL being able to obtain the necessary FDEP permits to take, handle, and experiment with sea turtles. The FDEP is the lead permitting agency for all the sea turtle permits.
This section also includes the authorization for the NRC in consultation with the NMFS to modify the lethal take levels on an interim basis. The terms and conditions may be modified on an interim basis to ensure consistency between the EPP and the FDEP permits.
Section 5.3 - Changes in Environmental Protection Plan Section 5.3 was modified slightly to authorize the NRC or NMFS to approve by letter interim changes to the take levels, or terms and conditions in section 4.2.2 to ensure consistency between the EPP and FDEP permits. Permanent changes will continue to be accomplished by the license amendment process.
Section 5.4.1 - Routine Reports A new Section 5.4.1.1, "Monthly Reports," was added to delineate the new monthly reports to NMFS required by Environmental Condition 4.2.2.2 (10).
The original Section 5.4.1 has been renumbered as Section 5.4.1.2, "Annual Environmental Operating Report." In addition the last'sentence of the first paragraph was deleted. It stated, what is now a historical fact, that the first report would cover the period from the date of the OL issuance until December 31, 1983.
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389
~L-97-296 Attachment 1 Page 7 A new subsection 5.4.1.2.(d) was added to require a discussion of the sea turtle entrapment, capture efforts, turtle mortalities, available information on the barrier net inspections and maintenance, and Taprogge cleaning system operation and any sponge ball loss in the Annual Environmental Operating Report.
Section 5.4.2 - Nonroutine Reports A clarification was added to this section that nonroutine reports be submitted to the NRC in accordance with 10 CFR 50.4. In addition, for other nonroutine reports that require reports to other Federal, State, or local agencies, the NRC shall be provided a copy of such reports within "30 days of the date" the report is submitted to the other agency in stead of "at the same time."
This allows time for the plant to process a submittal to the NRC with the appropriate NRC docket information.
St, Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389
'L-97-296 Page 1
Proposed Rationale for the Determining Whether Sea Turtle Mortalities in the Intake Canal are Causal to Plant Operation or Intake Canal Strandings The followingcriteria are proposed to allow the differentiation of sea turtle mortalities occurring in the intake canal system into the categories of: 1) mortalities causal to plant operation, and 2) mortalities not causal to plant operation (intake canal strandings). In cases where St. Lucie plant biologists determine that a mortality is not causal to plant operation, the concurrence of FDEP sea turtle biologists will be solicited.
Mortalities Causal to Plant Operation In general, sea turtle mortalities occurring in the intake canal system will be deemed to be causal to plant operation ifany of the following criteria are met:
1)
Any turtle, regardless of condition, found dead entangled in a capture net.
2)
Any turtle, regardless of condition, found dead clearly entangled below the surface of the water on the barrier nets or entangled in debris attached to the bottom of any part of the intake canal system.
3)
Any fresh dead turtle not meeting the criteria below for intake canal strandings found free-floating in the canal or impinged on the barrier nets at or below the water surface.
Mortalities Not Causal to Plant Operation (Intake Canal Strandings)
In general, sea turtle mortalities occurring in the intake canal system will be deemed to be not causal to plant operation ifany of the following criteria are met:
1)
Any fresh dead turtle found free-floating in the intake canal or impinged upon, but not entangled in, the barrier nets with extensive injuries clearly sustained outside the intake canal system( e.g. boat collision) such that a live turtle in that condition would have been unlikely to survive and would have been euthanized at a rehabilitation facility.
2)
Any fresh dead turtle found free-floating in the intake canal or impinged upon, but not entangled in, the barrier nets in such condition due to disease or other illness (e.g.
fibropapilloma) that a live turtle in that condition would have been unlikely to survive and would have been euthanized at a rehabilitation facility.
3)
Any extremely decomposed carcass or partial remains found free-floating in the intake canal or impinged upon the barrier nets in a location where the daily surveillance of the canal is sufficient (east of the primary barrier net) that a fresh dead or moribund turtle could not have escaped notice long enough to become severely decomposed, and it is reasonable to presume the carcass or remains were entrained into the canal in that condition.
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389
'L-97-296 Page 1
ATTACHMENT3
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 L-97-296 Page 2 DETERMINATIONOF NO SIGNIFICANTHAZARDS CONSIDERATION The standards used to arrive at a determination that a request for amendment involves a no significant hazards consideration are included in the Commission's regulation, 10 CFR 50.92, which states that no significant hazards considerations are involved ifthe operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated; or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. Each standard is discussed as follows:
(1)
Operation of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
The changes are administrative in nature and would in no way affect the initial conditions, assumptions, or conclusions ofthe St. Lucie Unit I or Unit 2, accident analyses. In addition, the proposed changes would not affect the operation or performance of any equipment assumed in the accident analyses.
Based on the above information, we conclude that the proposed changes would not significantly increase the probability or consequences of an
~ accident previously evaluated.
(2)
Use of the modified specification would not create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
The changes are administrative in nature and would in no way impact or alter the configuration or operation ofthe facilities and would create no new modes ofoperation. We conclude that the proposed changes would not create the possibility of a new or different kind ofaccident.
(3)
Use of the modified specification would not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
As indicated in the discussion of Criterion 1, the changes are administrative in nature and would in no way affect plant or equipment operation or the accident analysis. We conclude that the proposed changes would not result in a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Based on the above, we have determined that the proposed amendment does not (1) involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated, (2) create the probability of a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated, or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety; and therefore, does not involve a significant hazards consideration.
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 L-97-296 Page 1
ATTACHMENT4 MARKUP OF THE UNIT 1 ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION PLAN
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389
~ L-97-296 Page 2 Note Proposed changes to the St. Lucie Unit 1 Environmental Protection Plan to incorporate the terms and conditions of the NMFS Biological Opinion and Incidental Talce Statement include the deletion of the current Section 4 (see below). This Section willbe replaced with the proposed changes to Section 4 and Section 5 of the St. Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Protection Plan. (See )
nment&60nditions
~~usual-or-important-Environmenta&Events I
~ p>>
I dt siyri6ee~mnrironmentaHmpaewausal+related-to-station-operatiormhai&~rde&and p Hdp p
Hm ddd d HPH~~
p, H mh day~crroutinmnonitoring-progratn~r~equirecHoimplemenN}~nditiobn-.
~h~rittarrePO~halbfa7deSeri~nalyZ~n~uatMh~en~hhelhhdingeXtentand magnitud~Hh~mpa~n~n~perati~~haraeteristies-,(b)<eseribM~~robable Ht'HH~"
I ~
d
", HH"d th~rreetiv~etiotMaken-to-preclude-repetitiot~Hh~ven~ncHcrprevenMimihr
'nvolvi~nHar-eomponen~~te~~ndge)wndieat~>e-tgeneies notHie&anckhe~re& nary-responses-.
bl I
h b d h
H'>>
HHPH&-,d d*t IIIPHH'H tt p'PH~
Hh~'I'
'~ hhdt~d pp I
b' I I'*"H:
W~ "P.PHP even~nsit~lanMmnim&diseas~utbrea~nor taHty-o~n Fang speeie~roteet~~h~~~ered&peei~M979-,unusua&6sl d
- p *d d PH I
d I
McrM-nrimt~urtl~isorientation PIHblHi Itd.
Pd ld HHHIIPHptlH beael&un&inMordern~>eylan~roperty-tmninimize-turtlMisorientation-.
St, Lucie Units I and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 L-97-296 Page I ATTACHMENT5 MARKUP OF THE UNIT2 ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION PLAN
s a
St. Lucie Units 1'and 2
. Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 L-97-296 Page 2 Note The following are the proposed changes to Section 4 and Section 5 of the St.
Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Protection Plan to incorporate the terms and conditions of the NMFS Biological Opinion and the Incidental Take Statement.
Proposed changes and additions are provided by the use of redline and strikeout.
4.0 Environmental Conditions 4.1 Unusual or Important Environmental Events
-Any occurrence of an unusual or important event that indicates or could result in signiftcam environmental impact can~sall related to station operation shall be recorded and promptly reported to the NRC O'pera(ton's'!Caen'lbs.
within 72 hours8.333333e-4 days <br />0.02 hours <br />1.190476e-4 weeks <br />2.7396e-5 months <br /> viafEmeigenoy written report withi~~ays:.:".KS",-:.'deYcr'ib'e'd:: i'l'i~ASection,.'.;:5':42. No routine monitoring programs are required to implement this condition. Events covered by Section 3.2 of this EPP willbe subject to reporting requirements as defined in that section and not subject to these requirements.
The following are examples of unusual or important events:
excessive bird impaction events; onsite plant or animal disease outbreaks; mortalityr(oau's'atty~!relate'd!'~o':Stair'oh i~i"el'abi'i~i or unusual occurrence of any species protected by the Endangered Species Act of 1973; unusual fish kills; increase in nuisance organisms or conditions; and unanticipated or emergency discharge of waste water or chemical substances.
4.2 Terrestrial/Aquatic Issues s
jTliiF:::segttbntar'ddcrens'se's'i'thte!insane'i issues on endangered or threatened sea turtles raised in the Unit 2 FES-OL, and in the Endangered Species Biological Assessment (March 1982).
h~~w w~%we w ) <<J (+v/tJ~ uvsse'Ahwgts s( h
~ v~~w,v.vcmh.p%w we w,sgkn, ~wM~~~ hw by t4'8~fojlo'w'ii)'j",p'i'ogive'aliis".~l&~dressed-by-program~s-foHows-.
h4NB!h
~+. '.~.a"~NN~~eng 8 VgsSatgENSVNN?:".4~'a2N+4.cape'No'N'N".~~~vevk~a.
<e s".cert"ssN...,~, ago,;<~~~
~.: "eNg~~r, wg.":~s.+~i
V 1I (X
ry IP
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 L-97-296 Page 3 k
'k chiibiil,':::ltfabgtteat:."d'e'sett g'o'ati'e'd'stfil>tt',"iiiay'.,'.b'.': aaffegcataedlSj'(ttt'e,::t'dveeniIfi 4N!Q Iiiii'dek'ritual!'Take5tatem'eiii V VWAAA.
WAVk~ A>>mVA.
~
.I
"'"!"""v""Y-"'"'I"k" sc!ktegsiof'tasrtlae;:
Il!*-:,,:!asak-:,.! I!":,I!-':,:,;:%-":-,:,I::-I::...!!;:::5'-"!":,;-"!-:,:-"I
"","-e!!-:-;-I:--!-:--:Ik Fotigo'wta'gta'ririiiai::::trigctdedatal:fehtlia~iiakleLt'assis,.agrrie:."'es'tabtisfhed:
hhV I k(WVh
'h h hhhhY kh I Ih'IhV A>lh h>hl AAA Y>V>IAYAV>1>WAAYkWAWAWAWhYh&VAIYIV awing Y 'w 'I~a a
>A QA.
h!
wtt h
hk.
Yi.ie>Ash> '
ex '<<44 v>L ' w'kg v ~ IaegsA v!v>I v+$+g+I4 v>w>AYhtvvavvev>csee>+t >s+vkkt (>kh t>Ysgskk~vAYhktsst>~a kh>tkYsssst>+kwkAvktstkskk>Y>kshewr>kkskaYAApv eengt'rda'pp'e'd,"'aat:,.'the)iiittaake::aCaasgnaai<"::iiliiCh~~ei::itS" j'rekaetwear:"';:
~A'hkvhvttvYh wwYhwhYI'hY4Y(AAVAAIYSNY h k Awhvwk X whYAYA&vA t>+>.aY7;x YAYh>x oases>Ykhe,,i Yvhk,, c wtkgY!>ais(.Pk',<+)fsgesYvihghlggvvsg%+?P>:vgl:>QYsg>g@
gt.h:cgs>Ak($gk; ege@P>:Eg>ws:ggvk
)>Y)egegt:vs'csh+gi@P>(c'Q:4?.<A K'eiip!'s'teed)l:eeii'tr'ip'p'e'd:::a't th',':iocatakek h'aeksbiTls:4'iitiaj
~
~
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 L-97-296 Page 6
BCRClffhlCSffff~ffBBICj&ff~&SPffffl~~fftff~HHB~lldhhfft~h bfbl&H Hti~hd-.'fh seaso~f~proxnnatciy-fnid-ApriMfroug)~ust-.
H I
fd dh I
Hbb t
tH l Hd I b dll,l I
bdbbIll~P d~
H'I WH'5~
dH ld IH phques-an&o~ristnfg-hndmarks-.
Ph
~d lid yd h
H d
d*d H ~
'd, il I ~bf d
ld
'Hd' by H
p I
Hh d d s~iR)c+cp~f~casof &8faffgcMn4caR&opograp~~
aff~hmuitabHityeHhMcaei&omfesting-.
udl~o Evduat~ffcVo~ttgat~fta~ltrapfncnt Ptf HB'f Hd~ h~
H induct~le-stud~Hi-deterfffiff~ith+aboratory-and-fid~erimentH&sound ancbb~h~iMCSQM~eductio~HotaHurti~ntrapmen~te-.
dyddlb 'Hl d
I I
H t
H I ~
f cquipmctfMnWtructurc~ssociatcd~iH~ffstructtof~MfttcHn experiment~)NHerfmnat~&fnontim+ater.Foumnonti~fte~h~ndusiorro&he P
I t
fh ~b H fhtfhdhh H
Ii~ d-H dfdbd'i)
BHPHFHf~
fHHIHPBPI I
Ht BPW M'~
b entrapmen~te-of-86%-or-greater-calf-bc-demonstrated
,using-the-deveioped-technology
~p~
fen permanent~nstanatiofroHhMcterrcf~tef~M&~mp}ete&anMunctioning~o+ater tifaf?+8 fYloffth~~h~gcf'lci~ffeurrcff~lMcstgt~&0~tud~~~k&nto aceouff &f~tgnHilcaffMflffuai variatiofHf&urH~fftrapmenmbservediMf~t-.
~duetiorroHurH~ntrapmen~nno&~rojectecH~Hhreeintstructures 6~l-interagency-tasMo~mposeM haH M8 d
H Hl 'd I~* 'fd f
aetio<Ho-fnitigat~mVo~ucc-turti~fftrapmenMrl~arrante+eq~udf-as-physical f W~td
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 L-97-296 Page 7 o-Evaluate"ai &oe+Htigat~>ta~nalMortaVity bl
- I d
f d
f I
P I
I PPH dHf I
d p
d 'I H bl d
ff p
bb dbHddd d'
b 4.2.I 4 Light Screen to Minimize Turtle Disorientation bpiblpl (I,
I d
I bib, figs, wild tamarind and others) shall be planted and maintained as a light Slcreen, along the beach dune line bordering the plant property to minimize turtle disorientation.
~~6apt~n~lease+rogram i~mitW~mMH+b~nduet~i~ntinui~~>e d
PH
- p b 'IHH H *,
I 'l d
d d
pp p Hd~p ~
b I H Hb p
PHHH IPIH Il PHH I
d H
PHIHHHI H p, ~b tdf pp p
released-baeMnt~h~eean
.Reeord~~unds,fresl~~l~n~ubjeetive judgeinenMirth~nditioim&H~urtle-(e-.g., bariiael~verage-,underweight)~iH-be maintained.Methods-of-obtaining-addition nH)iologied/physiological-data,suel~lood ana+~nd~arasite+md~m~ptured-sea-turtles-wiH-be-pursue~eaWe~urtles
~bjeetecH~ro~>eerops~7-fouinkn~~ndition-.
4.3 General Exceptions These environmental conditions of the EPP 3ec4p>i,;4 are contingent upon licensee or its contractors being able to obtain tit'e':::;."ne'cesseapr'y,'dF~5bP an endangered species permits to take, handle, and experiment with sea turtles. Iflicensee is unable,to obtain the necessary permits, then NRC shall be notified of alternatives by the licensee. The lethal take levels or the terms and conditions specified in Section 4 may be modified on an interim basis by the NRC or NMFS as appropriate.
5.0 Administrative Procedures 5.1 Review and Audit The licensee shall provide for review and audit of compliance with the Environmental Protection Plan. The audits shall be conducted independently of the individual or groups responsible for performing the specific activity. A description of the organization structure utilized to achieve the independent review and audit function and results of the audit activities shall be maintained and made available for inspection.
St. Lucie Units 1 and 2 Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389 L-97-296 Page 8 5.2 Records Retention Records and logs relative to the environmental aspects of plant operation shall be made and retained in a manner convenient for review and inspection. These records and logs shall be made available to NRC on request.
Records of modifications to plant structures, systems and components determined to potentially affect the continued protection of the environment shall be retained for the life of the plant. Allother records, data and logs relating to this EPP shall be retained for five years or, where applicable, in accordance with the requirements of other agencies.
5.3 Changes in Environmental Protection Plan Request for change in the Environmental Protection Plan shall include an assessment of the environmental impact of the proposed change and a supporting justification.
Implementation of such changes in the EPP shall not commence prior to NRC approval of the proposed changes in the form of a license amendment incorporating the appropriate revision to ttte Environmental Protection plan. tThe!NRC,::::::,or':;.",:NtMFS,:::,:otal,:apitroveibj::.:lettea cao'oisiktiiiay':."."'bete'eeiidiis:. BPP'~e'iILI",:.D'EP,."'pir'mit'i:=,
5.4 Plant Reporting Requirements 5.4.1 Routine Reports 5.4.1.1 Monthly Reports ahV@SOp' Xg(C')g@aa$ $9(@:A,.i VaA:<hlhvh,psIhv"VvVS>A@RAY~
~:h: hr P@WA. h,).avail
<<PIVVVahhe sg,eas X
he%a Xssssa Ae~
C Y$ ;ahate',,pa',yWWhY Aha PVhIAI'h V VAYYYWAAAVh Y
AIIaYp h'A
. A4VYAWPAaIWAVYIAVaYAYIYIVAYVaAVAIYWhWPAAAYVYWAIAIYAVhWIY,
'IVAYAIAW to. MME!tj 5.4.1.2 Annual Environmental Operating Report An Annual Environmental Operating Report describing implementation of this EPP for the previous calendar year shall be submitted to the NRC prior to May 1 of each year.Wie initi&repor~~~h~eriocHmiMhMat~&8bissuan~~eeembe~~983-.
The report shall include summaries and analyses of the results of the environmental protection activities required by Subsection 4.2 of this Environmental Protection Plan for the report period, including a comparison with preoperational studies, operational controls (as appropriate), and previous non-radiological environmental monitoring reports, and an assessment of the observed impacts of the plant operation on the environment. Ifharmful effects or evidence of trends towards irreversible damage to the environment are observed,
r
C.
l