ML17229A626

Summary of 980120 Meeting W/Listed Representatives Re Endangered & Threatened Species Info & Developments at St Lucie Site.List of Attendees & Copies of Meeting Handouts Encl

ML17229A626
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	02/09/1998
From:	Wiens L NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
To:	NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned)
References
NUDOCS 9802240233
Download: ML17229A626 (46)

Text

~

~

~R R500

~a ty A.

ClO IV)

Cy

~O

+w*w+

UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

- WASHINGTON, D.C. 205554001 February 9,

1998 LICENSEE:

FACILITY:

SUBJECT:

Florida Power and Light Company St. Lucie, Units 1 and 2

SUMMARY

OF MEETING ON JANUARY20, 1998, REGARDING ENVIRONMENTALPROTECTION PROGRAM FOR SEA TURTLES-ST. LUCIE UNITS 1 AND 2 On January 20, 1998, a meeting was held between representatives of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), Nuclear Regulatory'ommission (NRC) and Florida Power and Light Company (FPL), licensee for St.

Lucie Plant, Units 1 and 2, to discuss endangered and threatened species information and

'evelopments at the St. Lucie site. This meeting was the initial meeting of planned biennial series of meetings to review the status of the environmental protection of sea turtles. This meeting was also an opportunity to discuss incorporation of the provisions of the NMFS Incidental Take Statement (ITS), which is part of the biological opinion issued by NMFS on February 7, 1997, into the Appendix B Environmental Protection Plan (EPP) of the St. Lucie operating licenses, as requested by NRC in a letter to FPL dated May 30, 1997.

Enclosure 1 is an attendance list for the meeting. includes copies of the meeting handouts.

The licensee presented an overview of the general cooling water systems and associated turtle protection features.

Data was presented and discussed concerning sea turtle captures, performance of the turtle net and monitoring of the condenser tube cleaning (Taprogge) system balls. Capture data indicated that the numbers of turtles entering the intake canal may be returning to lower levels after a significant increase during the past 2 years.

However, more data would be needed to confirm this trend. The licensee provided data to show that a new 5-inch mesh turtle barrier net (which the licensee installed between the intake headwall and the existing 8-inch barrier net) was performing very well in containing turtles after improvements in net monitoring were implemented.

The operation of the Taprogge condenser tube cleaning

, system was described, including the monitoring of the loss of cleaning balls used in the system.

The licensee indicated that as their experience in operating the system has increased, the number of lost balls had significantly decreased, but due to the nature of the system, could not be totally eliminated.

After these discussions, proposed changes to the terms and conditions of the NMFS ITS were presented by the licensee.

These changes fell into four categories:

(1) changes to the intake well inspection frequency; (2) changes to the reporting frequency; (3) definition of the phrase "causal to plant operation" (with respect to determination of sea turtle mortalities); and, (4) requirement for a study of turtle behavior at the intake structure.

~(m~'

)

The licensee stated that due to the performance demonstrated to date of the 5-inch barrier net to prevent turtle passage to the area of the intake wells, inspections of the intake wells at frequent intervals for the specific purpose of detecting turtles were unnecessary.

The licensee stated that inspections as part of routine operator (once per shift, or three times a day) and qsoaaeoa33 qs0209 PDR ADQCK 05000335 P

PDR li~"'.$ IKL~~ Ci'F~JEK.II:IIV IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII III.IIIIIIIIIIII'

February 9,

1998 security rounds (approximately every 2 hou'rs) were sufficient for the purpose of ensuring that an infrequent turtle entry would be identified. The NMFS and FDEP representatives indicated that although it was not necessary to include a required specific number of inspections per day in the EPP, a requirement was desirable that intake well inspections would be conducted.

It was agreed that the ITS would be modified to indicate that the licensee would have a program to inspect the intake well, with the details of the program, including the number of daily inspections, to be contained in plant procedures.

The licensee proposed to eliminate a required monthly report to FDEP on Taprogge condenser tube cleaning system ball losses and the results of barrier net inspections and maintenance.

This information would be included in the annual report submitted to NMFS, a copy of which the licensee would also send to FDEP.

FPL proposed that a significant Taprogge ball loss would be considered an unusual environmental event and would be reported to the NRC in a 72-hour report and a follow-up 30-day written report, with copies to NMFS and FDEP. The NMFS and FDEP representatives agreed that this was an acceptable change.

FPL proposed that a stranding of a turtle in the intake canal due to injury or illness not caused by plant operation not be counted against the authorized level of lethal takes in the ITS. The NMFS representative indicated that the limits in the ITS included consideration for turtle mortalities in the intake canal not causal to plant operations and that by doing so, provided authorization for all incidental takes up to the limitwithout the risk of subsequent reversal of an FPL determination of whether a mortality was indeed a stranding.

The licensee was concerned about the need for frequent changes to the lethal take limits in the license (should the limits be incorporated in the Appendix B EPP) as accumulated data dictates changes to these limits. It was agreed by all attendees that significant flexibilitywas needed to allow future updating of these limits. It was proposed that the limits not be directly included in the licensee, but rather be referenced, such that the limits can be revised as necessary by letter request.

The NRC representatives agreed to discuss the acceptability of this approach with the NRC legal counsel.

A condition in the ITS requires the licensee to propose a study at the intake structure on the behavior of sea turtles, and suggests a video study as an example.

The licensee proposed to defer a decision on the need for this study until the next biennial meeting in order to gather more data on turtle captures.

The NMFS representative indicated that there was a need for this study, even ifthe number of turtle captures returned to previous levels.

Responding to licensee concerns on the potential cost of implementing actions as a result of any study, and the cost and difficulties of a video study, he indicated that even ifthe study indicated ways to prevent turtle entry, such methods would be evaluated against costs, the number of turtles being captured, and the benefit of the scientific data gained by the turtle captures.

He also indicated that although a video study was cited as an example, other studies may be acceptable.

An analysis of existing FPL data on turtle captures was suggested by a FDEP representative as a possible alternative study. The FPL St. Lucie licensing representative stated that licensee management was strongly opposed to any further studies considering the activities already supported by FPL to protect and gather data on turtle in the intake canal.

V The NMFS representative stated that he would develop a'supplement to the ITS to reflect the changes to the intake well inspection requirements and the reporting requirements discussed above. After discussions with his management, he will include a revised schedule for the

I

~

~

I g

~

C J

~

~

3 February 9,

1998 submittal of a proposed study and any revision to the study scope agreed to by his management.

A tour of the intake head wall, barrier nets and intake canal concluded the meeting.

Allin attendance indicated that it was a very informative and useful meeting.

L. A. Wiens, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Projects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket Nos. 50-335 and 50-389

Enclosures:

1. Attendance List

2. Handouts cc: See next page

0

Florida Power and Light Company Senior Resident Inspector St. Lucie Plant U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 7585 S. Hwy A1A Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Joe Myers, Director Division of Emergency Preparedness Department of Community'Affairs 2740 Centerview Drive Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 M. S. Ross, Attorney

'lorida Power 8 Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, FL 33408-0420 John T. Butler, Esquire Steel, Hector and Davis 4000 Southeast Financial Center Miami, Florida 33131-2398 Mr. Douglas Anderson County Administrator St. Lucie County 2300 Virginia Avenue Fort Pierce, Florida 34982 Mr. Bill Passetti Office of Radiation Control Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services 1317 Winewood Blvd.

Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0700 Regional Administrator, Region II U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Suite 23T85 Atlanta, GA 30303-3415 H. N. Paduano, Manager Licensing 8 Special Programs Florida Power and Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420 ST. LUCIE PLANT J. A. Stall, Site Vice President St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 J. Scarola Plant General Manager St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Mr. Kerry Landis U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 61 Forsyth Street, SW., Suite 23T85 Atlanta, Georgia 30303-3415 Mr. T. F. Plunkett President - Nuclear Division Florida Power and Light Company P.O. Box 14000 Juno Beach, Florida 33408-0420 E. J. Weinkam Licensing Manager St. Lucie Nuclear Plant 6351 South Ocean Drive Jensen Beach, Florida 34957 Mr. David Bernhart National Marine Fisheries Service Southeast Region Protected Species Division 9721 Executive Center Drive North St. Petersburg, FL 33702 Ms. Barbara Schroeder National Marine Fisheries Service Office of Protected Resources Endangered Species Division 1315 East-West Highway'ilver Spring, MD 20910 Blair Witherington Beth Morford Florida Department of Environmental Protection 19100 SE. Federal Highway Tequesta,'L 33469

4 1'

EETING OF JANUARY20 1998 SUBJECT'NVIRONMENTALPROTECTION PROGRAM FOR SEA TURTLES LIST OF ATTENDEES NAME George Madden Gary Bouska Jonathan Gorham Melinda Malloy Claudia M. Craig I

Winifred Perkins David Bernhart Beth Morford Nick Whiting Len Wiens Dennis Fadden BlairWitherington

~**

FPL-LIC FPL-LU Quantum/FPL/LU NRC/NRR NRC/NRR FPL-Envir. Services NMFS FDEP

, FPL-PS NRCiNRR FPL-Services Manager FDEP Enclosure 1

~"

~r

SEA TURTLE MEETING JANUARY20, 1998 Enclosure 2

AGENDA FIRST BIENNIALSEA TURTLEMEETING JANUARY20, 1998 10:00 INTRODUCTION 10:30. UPDATES ON SEA TURTLE PROGRAM GENERAL SYSTEM AEGLANGEMENT 1997 SEA TURTLE STATISTICS BAKRIERNET MAINTENANCE TAPPROGE SYSTEM PERFORMANCE STATE PERMIT CONDITIONS RENEWAL DISCUSSION OF NRC LICENSE 11:30 PROPOSED CHANGES TO TERMS AND CONDITIONS 4.2.2.2(6)

INTAKEWELLINSPECTION CHANGES 4.2.2.2(7)

STUDY-HELDINABEYANCE

'.2.22(8)

CAUSALTO PLANTOPERATIONS 8'c DEFINITION 4.2.2.2(10)

CHANGES TO THE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

'12:30 LUNCH&, TOUR 2:00.

STUDY 3:00 SUh9viARY 8c CONCLUSIONS

~

~

FLORIDA GULF OF MEXlCO O

O LAKE OKEECNOBEE t

I 4Q y P~y F'4t@~

ST LUCIE PLANT 4~,,'.ttt $k~W (LKM$0425 Ff RO)

Figure 1. Location of the St. Lucie Plant on the east coast of Florida.

The plant is located on South Hutchirison Island, a

barrier island, and is about 7 miles (11.3 km) south of Ft. Pierce and about 7 miles (11.3 km) north of Stuart.

";;.F "'~j';-ilNDIANRIVER

INTAKE A+~<<.

vg ISLAND

,+y

@8Op<

"~,j-j;::wI~

Q:bl!:

<<g, g,cg.g; p',i4 p

'kgy~4STRUCTURES'-.~'

v~>>6 ~P PPp aP yQ UIDS BARRIER INTAKECANAL

%g 5$

.+A

.~f

~RxV.

.i (4)<gq,,

INTAKE HEADWALL NEW BARRIER l

NET IGiQ$$042$F24)

A1A BARRIER NET DRAWINGNOT TO SCALE Figure 2. Design of the St. Lucie Plant showing the relationship between Units 1 and 2 and the configuration of the cooling

~

water intake and discharge system with key features labeled.

0 r,,

%4 N

ST. LUCIE PLANT INTAKEVELOCITYCAPS SUPPORT COLUMNS UNDER SLAB 70TCC

~PTg Pl I

I I

I

\\

I I

19' I

SUPPORT 15'IPE COLUMNS UNDER SlAB 12'IPE FLOW FLOW LOWTIDE OCEAN LEVEL 51 1

',.r c,P,,

605

C PC

/P 4~

1' cC kHMV!:-:"

6'CAC'PC

<<d OCEAN BOTTOM I j~P,>>!

16'RAWING NOT TO SCALE ELEVATION IDlLNS042$ FBRO)

Figure 3. Diagram of the intake structures located 1200 feet (365 m) offshore of the shoreline at the St. Lucie plant.

1 ~

a I

~

~

~ 1 g r ~ 1 ~

~

a 1

r

~

~ r

~

~

\\

~ ~

~

~

~

~

~$0 SIS ~

0 ~ F

~ 0 ~

~ FJSS ~ Sl FJ ~I~ SPJ ~ 0

~

1 ~ 00 ~ a ~Slll

~ 0 ~ ~

~ 1 ~ 00 01

~ 0 ~'. ~I~ 0 ~ '

0 ~ Sa

~ 0' 0 ~ 0 ~ a ~I~ SF J ~

Pa ~ 0 ~ SFJSS ~ SPJS ~ 0 ~

1 $ 0 ~ 0 ~ PJ ~ 0 ~ Sa JI ~ 1 ~ ra

~I ~ 0 ~ ~ 10 ~\\

. ~ 0 ~St a000 ~

0$.$ $ $ $ 1

~ SSSPJSS

~ 0 JS ~ Sa

~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~Fal ~ 0 ~ PJ ~I~ 0

. ~ 1 ~ SFJ ~,

I

~I~ IFJ ~ 1 ~ 0 Jl ~ 00

~ 1 ~ SPJ ~ 0 ~ 0

~ S ~ SPJ0$ $0,$ $ $ 0 ~ al ~ 0 ~

~ 0 F 00 sw

~ila 1 ~ 0 ~I I~I~ Falss ~'.0 ~ 00 ~ al ~ 00 10

$ 0 ~ 0 ~

0 ~litJl ~I~ '

~ 0 ~Fili~ OP Ja 0 ~ ~Fal ~ 0 ~ PJ ~ 0 ~ P 00 ~ SFJ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ $ 10 ~

- 'iieop Jsslsa J ~lltialllpJloos

.a ~ 000 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ a JiSi ~'i~ SF J ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ J ~ 0 ~i. ~I~ 0$,0 ~ 'Si

~ ~ ~

~ 0 ~ 0 ~

,$ 0 ~I~ J ~ 0 ~ 0

$ 0 F 01'

~Slt ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ F

~ \\

. ~ 1 ~ 0 ~ ' ll ~ all ~ I ~

,~ $ 11 i ~ SSSFJSS

~ SPJ

~ 1 ~

~ ',0 F 001 0 ~ 0 ~

. ~ 0 ~ \\ ~ '

0 ~ PFJ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ J ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ J ~ 0 ~t

~0 ~ 0 ~ F ~ 0 ~ ~ ~'

~Slt all~itJ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ 0 ~

~ 0 ~ 0 ~ al ~ 0

~ Jesipisserisss

~Pass.raerrre

$0110'.Ssrrt rsssp..

~ 10p J ~ssti ~ 0 ~01Jsp J ~ $ 0 ~ 00

~ 0 ~ 0 ~ '

0 ~ sp Jl ~ ~ la JSIS

~I 1 ~ 0 ~ PJ ~ 0 ~ SPJF\\ ~0',I ~ 0 ~ ~ 00 ~ SP a ~ 0 ~ FJ JI ~ 0 ~.$ 00'St ~

~

~ 0 ~la Js ~1st $0$01'lsst ao1101 alss 000'll'llstaaas

, ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ 1 ~ 0 ~ 0.tJll ~ 00 ~Still~StJl ~ Ps.~ 00 ~ ~

~ ISSFJlll~ ~

~ 'i ~ 0 ~.1 ~ 00 ~ 0000FJS ~ SSF JS ~ SSP JS ~ 00..0 ~1st aassSP JS ~ 00

$ 0 ~.

~ ~ ~ '

0 ~ 0 ~

$ 0 ~StJlrlla ~ 01 ~ Sa J ~

$ 1 000 ~ FJlli~ a $ 0 ~ 0 ~', ~ 0 ~ 0 ~

~ 1 ~ 00 ~Stall ~ SP JSSSF $ 0 ~ ~Ia.stsltall ~ ~ P JS ~ 0 ~.SSSSF

~ SSSF ~ 0$ ~

~ is ~sstisssla Js ~ 00,00000,$ ~ 0 ~ Pass 0 ~ ~ Js0 ~ 1

~ 0 ~ 0 Pal ~I Itis ~I~I ~

1$ 0 ~ SFPJ ~ 0 ~ 0

$ 0 ~ 0 ~'0 ~Sltalelltilsll ~ 0 ~I~

~I~ital ~ 0 ~ PJ ~ 0 ~I~ 0 ~

1 ~ P JaJllll'liitaliISF'si ~ P JOSSSSSSSSPali

~ SPJiriitil~ P

~ 0 ~ a $0001 0 ~Srtall ~ Sta ~ 000 ~ JS ~ 0 ~

0 ~I~ PJ ~ 00 ~

J ~ ~ ~ V

~ 0'. ~ 0 ~ 0 ~ a ~lllpJs ~ 1st Jl lsd

~ ~ 0 ~ 1 ~ as ~ isa Js0 st. '

aa 1000P JSSSIP Jssst"JSSIS

~ 0 ~sl Jlist ~ J ~

~SPJ ~ 000

~ 0 ~sla Jl ~Il'

~Itailr

>a ~ 00 ~.$ 0 ~ FJ'.I ~ 00 ~ alS ~

%10'ltJF 0000a

~ 0 ~ 0$

~

~

~

~

~ a

~

~

260'5'QS.~L gKtNSOI2S FT.RO) 40'16" POLYPROPYLENE ROPE NET 8" SQUARE GRID FLOATS STAINLESS CABLE GOBLETS"~

ANCHOR BLOCKS Figure 7. Diagram of the turtle barrier net used in the intake canal of the St. Lucie Plant.

This net is located at the A1A bridge (see Figure 2)

~

'S a a

~

0 4

QQ~

e e

(4~1~

o

~

Q Q

QkTaQ'

~

i~~

t

~

~

i

)

~

~

~

~

e 4

e

~

~

~-

0

~

aR kc'3 s saaas m imari r

~ ~

(

,'5R I

I~II' I

CP

~

~

CANALCAPTURES 1976 - 1997 700 600 LOGGERHEAD

~GREEN 500 400-0 300 200 100 5,

~ r rg 8

/

R rk

~ r rga g ~ r 0

19-76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 YEAR

SEA TURTLES CAPTUREO AT PSL -1997 MONTH GREEN LOGGERHEAD KEMPS RIDLEY HAWKSBILL LEATHERBACK TOTAL MortalityLimitas per NMFS JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH APRIL MAY JUNE JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 6 or 1.5%, whichever is greater 25 (1) 26 16 (1')

29 12 30 (2) 12 13 (1*)

2 or 1.5%, whichever is greater 15 32 23 26 18 42 1 or 1.5%, whichever 1 or 1.5%, whichever 1 or 1.5%, whichever is greater is greater is greater 0

40 (1) 59 39 (1*)

55 30 72 (2) 18 18 16 17 (1')

NOVEMBER DECEMBER 13 TOTALTO DATE 191 (3) (2*)

188 382 (3) (2')

( ) MortaIities

(') Probably moribund when entrained into canal

BARRIER NET PERFORMANCE 15 0%

14.0%

~

13.0%

I-g 12.0%

IL 11.0%

IY 100%

m 90 0

8.0%-

g 70%')

6 0%

50%.

O 4p 3

0%'0%

1.0%

~

1995 PERCENTAGE MONTH

PERCENT RECAPTURES, INTAKECANAL1990 -1997 45 0%

40.0%

~

~

P-350%

O 30 0%

H 25.0%

LU 20.0%-

15 0%

a. 10.0%

O LK 50 00%

~ r sr r

~

e e 4 r

s+

r

~

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 YEAR

~CC

- +- CM

LOGGERHEAD STRANDING*ANDCANALCAPTURE DATA1988 -1997 120 400 100..

~ 350 O

o~

80 O

60" 40 20 ss

~s

~s iR' ss ss 4 0 es

~s a ~J

/

r r

300 O

O

- 250 Q

m 200

+o O

X

- 150 O

C:

100 m

. 50 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 YEAR 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

~CC strand zone 27 CCcanalcaptures

~ 0 r

'lorida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Marine Research Institute, Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network Database, January 9, 1998.

CM STRANDING*AND CANALCAPTURE DATA1988 -1997 200 700 180 160-Ow 140 z

120

~

~

100-80

~

60.-

40 20-r

~

~

r ~

l R

600

-- 500 400

- 300

~ 200 100 O

Q mz m

O z

I0

-I

à 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 YEAR 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

~CM strand zone 27

- e - CM canal captures

• Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Florida Marine Research Institute, Sea Turtle Stranding and Salvage Network Database, January 9.

1998.

1 7Tu I

N Ins ection A ivitie

1. Daily A. Surface Inspection and Debris Removal B. 20 Holes Repaired Along Top of Net C. Inspection Performed by Turtle Capture Personnel

2. Weekly A. Underwater Inspection B. 25 Holes Repaired C. Inspection Performed by Turtle Capture Personnel

3. Monthly A. Underwater Inspection B. 53 Holes Repaired C. Discovery of Sediment Buildup(Bottom of Net)

D. Algae Accumulation Discovered(Top and Middle of Net)

E. Land Utilization Inspection Program(LU-QI-11.046)

F. Performed by FPL Land Utilization Personnel

4. Other A. Biannual Winch Inspection and Testing B. Quarterly Cathodic Protection System Inspection C. Sediment Dredging and Algae Removal

a. Required 50 Man-hours of Underwater Work

b. Performed by FPL Land Utilization Personnel

r. ~

'k

,I

)

II

,I P

i)N-LINE Debris Filter Type PR-BN 800

~r' i)III list; Tube Cleaiiing System Type 02 Cleafenfi bela SpaeaCafty aateetaet INthe condenam rtrslgn and tube material Insure fleet every hfhns hept le an TAPROGGE Debris Filters keep tubes and tube sheets free from clogging ri'er TAPROGGE Tube Cleaning Systems keep tuhes free from fouling ariyi scaling I

I I

e v

o s

h

~

I fitly'.ig bag a jectvvt Qt Q bnehwasre rOte Q flexible seal atffir 6 debris Iheruealge vahe dll debda dfsctlsf go Iv'tw

9) permanently hfbdcated bovel uone to ra eat IVVIS'vg lan -I CC puce ltiVI().e Qj

~Itt'DllmaetpffJan!Iev ewv est vrhlevel Ipe tL'l11n V,.lsateeg ivvfef QC I &rlh'f&enVVV'Ieu,tyfehiherAI (Q tllllfch'Icesbtsvl ervaav IrposAKI I Qa tahe cuttectm rrf >arete, tref 'V

~ 'edean, ri III teI f51 f4) er

~

fi; I'P, WWggyraeeeye Offtarantfal prVSSIere monitoring cnrttnuous nvwiteah;q fei detvbfoa tolttwnt~hy Ihtfefanteal prese an mense a Ifeg aystfvIIWie I aute I mehc control ond tfuhtvnq deutca. n&rJn rage 'h ae VI a V 3!

tfeeeraeteve i~lb (y t%

g et g rt ae g preg fammatete lOgIC control Qatn nf thn nft prettaclv ve I nw voyage foot tamp.arvf Celntfell eeprvato IJv u Ia ofed prefers srcllena Orlaelnd Sy.I<<n nWnio Witt rrveef vvvenl vteasel yeralfeva gaff collector, type Catt ttaa charge afvt Iev1 vev.et elfeeegll ffraefe OPeentng Pf I~

Intrgehtvef IIIYIerllenl fl ve Ia~rnta rrh~aervVV Safl redrcuta ting pump Merlerefecet rs at aml tutll e

raffeve eei hlrln

~ me,lorna rceaelgl vve e'r S I w

Cev Iineve er e

Iering Of lha nuenbrf ut feesv 1 clfcuhs vvl St IIA I iutvmtfr.

recirculating I nr qeaaalty nevi stofres Oleea lol 1.'u 3 arcnttortng ot ball rfuantlty N"

I

~ ~ else a

I, Irvvag I'llair Ireefwle llf uvtv atnh la elvfvatfnnfe WtfV eea nl VV arel

~ Ine v Isesnitceing ol baft dlnrnelrr

1996 ST. LUCIE PLANT CTCS

SUMMARY

MONT STRAINER BACK FLUSHES ESTIMATED BALLLOSS BALLS FOUND UNIT NIT 2 UNIT 1 NI 2

ON BEA January February March 0*

97*

63 63 April May June 63 1268 126 July August 9**

1 31**

633 September 0

October November December 10 12 179 135 102

+1 7***

423 63 35 Total 23 50 425 2948 System start-up on Unit 2.

System start-up on Unit 1.

• • • Net gain in inventory.

1997 ST. LUCIE PLANT CTCS

SUMMARY

MONT STRAINER BACK FLUSHES ESTIMATED BALLLOSS BALLS FOUND UNIT 1 UNIT 2 UN 1

UNIT2 N BEACH January February March 19 355 58 25 April May June July August September 9

12 23 40 12 57 12 135 83 90 39 101 October November December 6**

13 10 1 1**

29

+38%**

+63***

Total 53 79 664 378 Unit 2 system shutdown during refueling, 4/11 - 5/28.

Unit 1 system shutdown during refueling, 10/17 through the end of the year.

Net gain in inventory.

ESTl5IlATEDTOTALTAPROGGE BALLlOSS 1996 - 4997 1400 1200-1000-800.-

600 400 200 0

u 2

+

Q x

N 0

z St

~

~

C Ul CL e

+

~

m a

~~

a e

u

'2

+

~

~

a o)

Q 0

MONTH

PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS

EPP Section 4.2.2.2(6)

Intake Well Inspection Frequency Implements ITS Condition (6) requires visual checks ofthe gratings at each intake well for sea turtles at least eight times in 24-hours.

This was the frequency specified in our Biological Assessment performed at the time when their were a relatively high number ofmortalities found in the intake wells The FDEP permit is renewed annually. In the 1997 and earlier FDEP Permits the inspection was required.4 times in 24-hours.

The condition would also be evaluated, upon request, ifafter a period ofsix months followingthe installation ofthe new 5-inch'arrier net no turtles were recovered Rom the intake wells. No turtles have been recovered &om the intake wells since April 1997.

The application for renewal ofthe FDEP requests the removal of the condition for intake well inspection based on the performance ofthe 5-inch barrier net.

EPP Section 4.2.2.2(7)

Study at Intake Structure ITS Condition 7, requires the video study at the Ocean Intakes.

EPP Section 4.2.2.2(7) states the the study is deferred based on NRC consultation with NMFS. FPL was notified on October 6,.

1997 that the proposed study requires further review by FPL, NRC, and NMFS. Itwillbe discussed as part ofthe later agenda item.

4

EPP 4.2.2.2(8)

Causal to Plant Operation Definition ITS Condition 8 states FPL to continue to participate in the STSSN, under proper permits and authority. This condition stated as a point ofclarification that stranded sea turtles willnot normally be counted against the authorized level ofincidental take.

FPL proposed to clarifythis Condition such that a stranding either on the beach or in the intake canal due to injury or illness not caused by plant operation is not counted against the authorized level oflethal take in Section 4.2.2.1.

A Stranding either on the beach or in the intake canal is reported to the FDEP. In addition FPL willrequest that FDEP concur with its determination ifnot causal to plant operation.

The proposed rational for determining whether a sea turtle mortality in the intake canal is causal to plant operation or an intake canal stranding, willbe incorporated into plant procedures.

In addition, MAFS willbe receiving the monthly sea turtle report required by condition 10. This report willinform WAAFS ofall mortalities either casual to plant operation or a stranding in the intake canal.

PROPOSED RATIONALEFOR THE DETERMINATIONOF SEA TURTLE MORTALITIESCAUSALTO PLANTOPERATION The followingcriteria are proposed to allow the diQerentiation ofsea 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 ofFDEP sea turtle biologists willbe solicited.

MORTALITIESCAUSALTO PLANTOPERATION In general, sea turtle mortalities occurring in the intake canal system willbe deemed to be causal to plant operation ifany ofthe followingcriteria are met:

1)

Any turtle, regardless ofcondition, found dead entangled in a capture net.

2)

Any turtle, regardless ofcondition, found dead clearly entangled below the surface ofthe water on the barrier nets or entangled in debris attached to the bottom ofany part ofthe 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.

MORTALITIESNOT CAUSALTO PLANTOPERATION (INTAKECANALSTRANDINGS)

In general, sea turtle mortalities occurring in the intake canal system willbe deemed to be not causal to plant operation ifany ofthe followingcriteria are met:

1)

Any &esh 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 &esh 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 ofthe canal is sufhcient (east ofthe primary barrier net) that a &esh 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.

EPP Section 4.2.2.2(10)

Changes to the Reporting Requirements h

FPL proposes to revise the Reporting requirements ofITS Condition 10. FPL has been discussing the usefulness ofthe required report for the Taprogge condenser tube cleaning system operation and any sponge ball loss at St. Lucie to the FDEP and MVB'S. In addition, the available information on the barrier net inspections and maintenance is reported monthly. The Annual Report also discusses these same issues.

These reports are a small administrative burden on FPL and limited usefulness to the FDEP. Discussions between FPL and FDEP have focussed on the type ofinformation and frequency ofsubmitting the reports.

FPL proposes that the reports be eliminated and the topics discussed in the Annual Report.

In addition, FPL proposes that plant administrative procedures willinclude guidance that a significant ball loss would be considered an unusual environmental event under EPP Section 4.1.

Accordingly, FPL willmake a 72-hour report and a 30-day written report.

Feb r y 9, 1998 Meetin Summa Dis ribu ion HARD COPY

>Docket File--

PUBLIC- -

StLucie Reading File OGC ACRS LWiens E-MAIL S. Collins/F.Miraglia B. Boger (RPZ)

J. Zwolinski F. Hebdon L. Wiens T. Martin (e-mail to SLM3)

M. Malloy C. Craig M. Tschiltz J. Johnson

A 9

February 9,

1998 submittal of a proposed study and any revision to the study scope agreed to by his management.

A tour of the intake head wall, barrier nets and intake canal concluded the meeting.

All in attendance indicated that it was a very informative and useful meeting.

original signed by L. A. Wiens, Senior Project Manager Project Directorate II-3 Division of Reactor Piojects - I/II Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Docket No. 50-335, 50-389

Enclosures:

1. Attendance List

2. Handouts cc: See next page DOCUMENT NAME: G:FSTLUCIE'IMEETGSUM.BIO To receive a copy of this document, indicate in the box:

"C" = Copy without attachment/enclosure "It" "-Copy with attachment/enclosure "N" = No copy OFFICE PD I I -3/PN NANE Lwiens:mw DATE 02/

/98

~ PDII-3/LA 8Cla ton 02/

/98 PD I I -3/D FHeMon 02/

/98 OFFICIAL RECORD COPY 02/

/98

4 It