ML17241A400
| ML17241A400 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 05/21/1999 |
| From: | NRC (Affiliation Not Assigned) |
| To: | |
| Shared Package | |
| ML17241A399 | List: |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 9907080218 | |
| Download: ML17241A400 (13) | |
Text
~
~
s
~
~
SAFETY EVALUATIONBY THE OFFICE OF NUCLEAR REACTOR REGULATION RELATED TO AMENDMENTNO.
TO FACILITYOPERATING LICENSE NO. DPR-67 AND AMENDMENTNO.
TO FACILITYOPERATING LICENSE NO. NPF-16 FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHTCOMPANY ET AL.
ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT NOS.
1 AND 2 DOCKET NOS. 50-335 AND 50-389
1.0 INTRODUCTION
i(
In 1995, a Section 7 consultation under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 was initiated as a result of a large increase in the frequency of small green, turtles taken incidentally and occasionally killed by entrapment in the plant's cooling water intake canal.
The consultation was performed to consider the effects of the continued operation of the cooling water system at the plant on listed species of sea turtles. The licensee submitted.a biological assessment (BA) to the NRC in a letter dated November 20, 1995, which was reviewed by the staff and forwarded to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on February 7, 1996.
NMFS issued its biological opinion (BO) to the NRC in a letter date'd'I-ebruary 7 i7 997 The BO c.oncluded that continued operation of the plant may adversely affectbut is.nest likely to jeopardize, the continued existence of listed sea turtle species'under NMFS jurisdiction. An incidental take statement (ITS) was included in,the BO to establish lethal take levels for listed species of sea turtles. The ITS included terms and conditions necessary to monitor and minimize adverse impacts and the lethal takes of sea turtles NMFS<con'seers these terms and conditions to be reasonable,
'rudent, and necessa'ry.
Th',NRC"staff held a public meeting with the licensee and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) on May 7, 1997, to discuss a study regarding sea turtle entrapment required.by'a condition of the ITS. Other areas of the ITS that needed clarification or revision or both were identified by the licensee.
The NRC staff forwarded the BO to the licensee in atletter dated May 30, 1997, and requested FPL propose changes to the St. Lucis Units(1 and 2'Environmental Protection Plans (EPPs), located in Appendix B to Facility Operating Licenses DPR-67 and NPF-16 to implement the terms and conditions of the ITS. In a letter dated August 4, 1997, FPL proposed revisions to the EPPs.
In a letter dated October 6, 1997, the staff informed FPL that the NRC and NMFS disagreed with the proposed changes and requested that FPL make changes to the EPP consistent with the BO and the ITS.
Proposed amendments to the EPP were submitted by FPL to NRC in a letter dated December 1, 1997; however, FPL had several further questions concerning the terms and conditions of the ITS. The staff held another public meeting with the licensee and representatives from FDEP and NMFS to discuss these issues.
The meeting was held on January 20, 1998. Subsequent to the meeting, NMFS amended its BO in a letter to the NRC dated May 8, 1998. The NRC forwarded 99070802i8 99052f PDR ADQCK 05000335 p
I
~
I I
l r
P I
I the ITS amendments to FPL in a letter dated June 17, 1998, and requested that FPL amend the application for the EPP revisions.
FPL provided an amended application by letter dated August 26, 1998.
By letter dated October 8, 1998, the NRC forwarded FPL's revised proposed amendment, which included an intake well monitoring program and the proposed plan for the entrapment study, to NMFS for review and approval.
In a letter to FPL dated, February, 22, 1999, NRC endorsed NMFS's approval of the proposed study of turtle entrapment.
2.0 EVALUATION The proposed changes to Sections 4 and 5 of the EPP to incorporate the terms and conditions of the ITS are discussed below..lf there'is not currently a similar requirement for Unit 1, a note willbe made to that effect.
The Unit 1 EPP does not contain all of the environmental conditions'for the protection of sea turtles that are contained in the Unit 2 EPP.
FPL proposed to modify Sections 4',and 5 in the Unit 1 EPP to conform to Sections 4 and 5 in the Unit 2 EPP<+ This change would make the Unit 1 and Unit 2 EPPs identical. This change is acceptable.
Section 4.1, "Unusual or Important Environmental Events"- FPL proposed changes to clarify the reporting requirements for unusual or important envjr'onmental events.! For Unit 1, the des'cription'of the exact "contents for a written report to NRC is deleted;" Fo'r both Units,-th' clarifications-included adding a state'ment that for any species protected by the Endangere'd Specie's 'Act 'a'nd statirig that moitalItI'es 'causally related to plant operation are included in the definItI'on of a unusu'al "omportant en'vii orimental eve'nt.- In addition, this s'ection states that the reporting requirement time frame is to'bfe consistent with f50.72 for environmental protection issues.
'Although this sentence was not originally proposed by FPL in its earlier requests, this sentence was'a'dded after telephone discus'sion between George'adden, FPL, and William Gleaves, NRC, on May 21, 1999. This"s'entence was inserted to clarify the timeliness for reporting of issues'th'at relate to'the environment; Thi's-mo'dification 'provides "clarifying info'rmation that did not'change the original n'o signtficantirh'a'zardsc'consideratIon" determination.
These changes are ac'ceptable.
9 I
~
}
C Section 4.2, "Terrestrial/Aquatic Issues" -,'There is a similar section designation but no similar requirem'ent in the current Unit 1 EPP (See discussion in Se'ction 4.2.4; below)
FPL proposed adding an introductory paragraph providing background on the St. Lucie consultation.
The introductory paragraph conveys that in May 1995, NRC initiated the formal consultation with NMFS resulting in an updated Sea Turtle BA submitted by FPL on November 20, 1995.
NMFS reviewed this assessment and in return issued a BO dated February 7, 1997. This change is acceptable.
t
Section 4.2.1, "Beach Nesting Surveys" -'Th'ere is no simila'r're'quirement in the current Unit I1 EPP; This section originally discussed the beach nesting surveys required for the early years of operation.
FPL has been conducting nesting studies as part of the St. Lucie reporting requirements for the U.S. Fish and WildlifeService (FWS) and the FDEP and is involved in providing data for long-term nesting index surveys.
FPL proposed relocating the requirements for nesting surveys to a new Section 4.2.2.2, Item 9.:::The survey's"required iri this section'of the EPP have been com'pleted and the-ongoing s'urvey's'are captured'un'der other'req'uIrem'e'nts.
Therefore, the staff agrees with"'deletiori"ofthis sectio'n.
FPL proposed a new Section 4.2.1, titled, "Reinitiation of Endangered Species Act Section 7 Consultation," to address the.::'criteria for reinitiating a Section 7 consultation.
The'criteria outlined in Section 4.2.1 for reinitiation,:'of'a'n" Endan'gered'Species A'ct Section 7 corisultation aie consistent with those outlined in the'tNMFS BO and, therefore, are acce'able.
Section 4.2.2, "Studies to Evaluate and/or Mitigate Intake. Entrapment" - Deleted.
This section originally discussed the requirements to have a program'to deteg.turtles from the plant intake structure and to perform studies to evaluate the effectiveness>of the, program in mitigating intake structure entrapment.
These studies,',::tItle'0;-"StiidIes to Evaluate-'andlor Mitig'ate-lritake Eritrapment," were completed in 1985 and the results weri provided to.the NRC in FPL letter dated April 18, 1985.
Because these studies are complete, and mitigation measures are discussed in the BO and terms and conditions of the, ITS, deletingvthe original Section 4.2.2 requirements is acceptable.
FPL proposed a new Section 4.2.2, "Incidental Take Statement," to address the background of incidental take statements and basis for,:th'e incidental take limits This is"'a'new requireiiient for both Units 1 arid 2; lt also'address'es" the basis foi'ot establishing a take limitfor the entrapment, captur'e,"and release'of any "specie's of turtle. These changes are acceptable.
Section 4.2.2.1, "Lethal Take Levels" -:,This is a-riew sectio'n for both Units'1 and 2;"This section discusses the basis for'the lethal take levels for sea turtles by species as specified in the ITS.
The numerical limits will,be establish'ed by NMFS in the current ITS arid included in plant procedures and willallow for'a case-by-case review and change in lethal take limits without a need for a license:amendment) /he lethal take levels are based on historical observed lethal takes, but provide~for an increase'in total numbers of lethal takes as entrapment levels increase.
Two lethal levels are specifiedi one is a fixed level of lethal takes per calendar year, while the
,r r'ther is a percentage of tPe'total number of entrapments per calendar year. The allowable take level willbe the,greatei of.the two numbers.
These take levels are consistent with the ITS and therefore, are acceptable.
Section 4.2.2.2, "Terms and Conditions of the Incidental Take Statement"
-; This is 'a new s'e'etio'n for both Units 1'and 2."'This 'section'dis'cusses the terms and conditions of the ITS. These'terms and conditions include ith'e"monitoring-of th'e'level of take and measures to-'mInImIze the impact of
'eknctrcap'meint and the pos'sibility-of takes. '.The'se measures are discussed in the BA and BO and lly fl p
B.r a""'""i ",ro~
FPL took exception to items 6, 7, 9, and 10.
In the May 8, 1998, letter from NMFS to the NRC, NMFS amended the BO with regard to these issues.
Each of the terms and conditions is discussed below.
~
~
Item 1 establishes the requirement and:b'a'sis-previsiei-is for FPL to install, inspect, maintain, and r'ep'aii the five-inch barrier net across the intake canal.
FPL shall inspe'ct,
'maintain, and repair the five-inch net on at least a quarterly"basis and promptly repair any hole or da'mage to nets-that are dIscoyered-oiitside of the reg'ular maintenance program.
Item 2'establishes the requirement and basis for FPL to insp'ect, "maintain, and repair rete'e the existing eight-inch barrier net as back up to the new five-inch net.
It also describes its basis for being a backup to the five-inch net.
FPL shall inspect, maintain and repair the eight-inch net on at least a quarterly basis" arid promptly repair any hole or damage to'nets that a'e discovered outside of the'regular maintenance program.
Item 3'establishes the requirement and basis proyIsIons for FPL'or'FPL's contractor to continue the current capture and release program for turtles in their intake carial in accordance with permits granted by FDEP.
/><+
Item 4 establishes the'method~teria for capture netting, in the intake canal.
It also specifically defines the minimum number of required hours, the conditions to increase netting activities, 'ari'd the"criteria for dev'iating from'these-requirements.
Item 5 directs capture efforts ifa turtle is observed west,of the eight-inch barrier net.
Item 6 requires FPL to implement a monitoring'program of'the intake wells for sea turtles and specifies the FPL staff responsible to 'conduct intake well monitoring and the t
.r provisions for notifying response personnehf a,turtle. is detected in the intake well.
8~
/i'.
r'c Item 7 requIres that FPL propose'a plan fo'r'a study of th'e'"effect of vario'us factors on turtle entrapment.
It'also'requires that the study be approved by NMFS. NMFS originally requested a st(tdy using remote videography or a similarly designed methodology that would not interfere with turtle behavior while the study is being performed.
Based on the meetings at the+site, NMFS and FDEP agreed with FPL that such a study was not feasible, however~a different type. of study would be acceptable.
On June 17, 1998, NRC issued a>letter to,FPL containing revisions to the ITS, including a discussion of a study to be performed to elucidate the effect of various factors on turtle entrapment.
After initiation of the study, FPL is to report quarterly on progress and provide a final report approximately one year after initiation. FPL submitted a request for proposal for the study in.letter dated August 26, 1998.
NMFS reviewed the request for proposal and determined that it.met the intent of the BO as indicated by letter dated February 22, 1999, from NRC'to FPI approving the study.
e Stranding and Salvage Network (STSSN) under FDEP authority and permits.
This is to assess any possible delayed lethal impacts of capture as well as to provide background data and health of local turtles. Stranded turtles will not be counted against the authorized level of lethal incidental takes for St. Lucie',
Item 9'requires that FPL continue."to conduct, under FDEP
'permit, the ongoing sea turtle nesting program and public service turtle walks.
Item 10,,".Ro'utine" Re'po'i'ts",re'quir'es"c'o'pies"'of. m'o'rithly"rep'pits"covering"'varIo'us"as'p'e'cts of the sea turtle program" b'e furnished to NIVIFS ""It'als'o're'quire's'that'FPL'"furnish th'
'a'nnu'al e'nviron'mental "ope'rating'report"which"in'eludes" informatio'ri 'related'to'he in'spe'ction" an'd "rnaint'e'na'rice"'of b'ar'rIe'r "n'ets-'a'nd'th'e o'peratIo'n'aprog'g'e "con'den's'er tube Clecariing"'S'ySterri'p" NMnFS;"'ThliS"S'eccCtIOlfoln-alSO"reqc'cui'rceS-biennial "mleetiri'gSl betWleenc'pL",
NRC,"'ari'd NMFS to dis'cuss': eridan'g'ered arid thr'e'atened's'p'ecie's" Irifor'ml"atIo'nl'an'd develo'pme'ntsl"at St l'L'ucie 'egInrilng"Ja'nuary'00 re I
I l
0 Items 1 through 10 listed above are consistent with the NIVIFS'BO:.dated,"May-8;"1998 an'd ITS.
Therefo're,,these ch'ange's afe.acceptable.
r.'ection 4.2.3, "Studies to Evaluate and/or Mitigate Intake Canal Mortality"-'There is"no'similar
'r'equirement:in"th'e"cu'rr'ent"Unit"I EPP. IThis"'s'e'ction is to be'deleted foi"'Unit'2. This section originally discussed the requirement to perform studie's"to evaluate and/or mitigate intake canal mortality. These studies were documented in FPL.letter dated November 20, 1995, and were discussed in the BA and resulting BO. Many of these "mitigation:measures are captured in separate sections of the EPP.
Because these original studies'were completed and mitigation measures are discussed in other sections,oYthe EPP~deleting this section is acceptable.
Section 4.2.4, "LightScreen to Mtnimtsa"Turtle;Dtsorientationu - This section has been renumbered to Section 4.2.3Iand'modifie'd.;:: The"St; Lucie'," Unit:1;-EPP'has"a'similar'Section'4;2, w'hich"'willalso'b'e'renumb'ered'to Section'-42.3, and'm'odiTied as "dis'cus'sed.
The State of Florida has an ongoing program to replace nonindigenous species of plants with native varieties of plants as light screens along the beaches<~The Australian pine is not a native plant species.
Therefore, the reference to".Australiar'i'pine" has been deleted and generalized to "suitable plants" for light screeri along'the beach dune.
The requirement for the shielding perimeter lights from Unit 1 LicenserCondition 2.I=,()) willalso transfer to Section 4.2.3 of the Unit 1 and Unit 2 EPP.
This'shielding"require'ment is-not 'cu'rren'tly"in the'Uriit"2'Lice'nse"and is b'eing moved-to gene'rate"c'o'risIstenc'y" betw'een th'e Unit'1-'a'nd Unit 2'L'ic'crise's 'and EPPs"." The's'e'charig'es are con'sistent with Infoscrgm'atio'n"Notice'97-."043;udated'July"1'1997,.
These changes are acceptable.
Section 4.2.5, "Capture and Release Program" -.:The're" is"n'o"simifa'req'ui'r'em'ent"Iri"th'e"c'ur'rent Unit 1 EPP;:- This "s'ectiori is'to be"delete'd"for'Unit 2! This section originally outlined the requirements of the capture and release program for sea turtles removal from the intake canal.
The section has been deleted in its entirety because the capture and release program is now covered by Section 4.2.2.2, Item;'3.
These changes are acceptable.
Section 4.3, "General Exceptions" -IThe're'is"'n'o" similar re'q'uir'em'ent'Ir'I"th'e'"c'urrerit'Unit 1 EPP,.
This section has been changed to highlight that the environmental conditions of the EPP Section 4 are contingent upon FPL obtaining the required FDEP permits to take, handle, or experiment with sea turtles. These changes are acceptable.
II Sectio'n" 5;O'Adiiiinistiative Pro'ceduies" - Thei'e is 'no similar require'm'ent'in" th' "curr'e'nt Unitj1 EPP:"'This'sectio'n is'ew"for Unit"1'"an'd'remain's the'same'as'th'e:
curre'nt"EPP for'Unit'2;""'This sectiori"'provides" re'quire'merits fo','th'e"review'."and "au'dit;of the'PP (Section 5.'1) re'c'ords retention'(Sectior'i'5.2) the pro'cess" for changing'h'e EPP '(Se'ctiori"5.3)-'an'd "plant"routirie rep'o'rting "(Sectio'n'5:4."and'Section"5 4;1):;- This'"cha'ri'ge"fo'r Unit"1"m'ake's-the"EPPs"for" b'oth'."uriits t'o'e con'sistent, 'therefore','h'e'se'hanges-"a'r'e"a'cce'ptable.
Section 5.4.1.1, "Monthly Reports" -[This se'ction is"new.for. Unit 1" an'd is.'m'odified for Unit'2. This section requirement that monthly reports on the sea turtle program be provided to NMFS. This monthly reporting requirement is also identified in Section 4.2.2.2, Item 10. The reporting requirements are consistent with the ITS and therefore are acceptable.
Section 5.4.1.2, "Annual Environmental Operating Report" This s'ection" is "n'w"for"Ur'iit"'1. This was Section 5.4.1 for Unit 2 and has been modified and renumbered.
It outlines what typ*es of information should be included in the annual environmental operating i'eport. Fg,'L'roposed deletion of the requirement referencing the initial annual repor Ycovering the, period of time from operating license issuance date to December 31, 1983."~T(e initial report has been completed.
FPL also added a new section, (d), which requires a summary of the monthly reports to NMFS be included in the annual environmental operating report. The annual environmental operating report should be furnished to NMFS and NRC. This"change:is.consistent with the ITS requirement to furnish NMFS an annual report;,'Therefore, these changes are acceptable.
Section 5.4.2, "Nonroutine Reports" -lThis-section is new for Unit 1. This section outlines the information to be included in the nonroutine event ieport Several editorial changes were made r'
to Section 5.4.2 to clarify reporting requiremerits, including providing reports to the NRC within 30 days of submitting a report to another agency and that'w'ritten"reports'shall'be in accordance with 10 CFR 50.4. Thes'e cha'ng'es are acceptabl; IC Il 3.0 STAFF CONCLUSION
. /(..
The"staff h'as" reviewe'd th'e'FPL 'proposed chaiig'e's'o.'the St: Lu'cie"Units'1'"and 2;"Op'eratin'g Lice'nse',"A'pp'eridix 8 '"Environ'me'ntal'Protectio'ri'Program"(Non'-"Radiolo'gical)
Technical Spe'cificatiions." The licensee's"prop'os'ed "addition's"'an'd"modifications'to"the"'cu'rrerit EPPs'i'e
'consisterit"w'ith"and meet'the"irit'ent "of'the"relevant r'eyie'w "c'rite'ri'a'an'd'th'e'i e'q'uii'e'm'e'nt's"'of the NMFS Incidental Take'Statement"and Biolo'gical'Opinions'that resulted from thSe'etio'n.'7 con's'ultatio'n'un'der'the" Eri'da'n'ger'e'd'Spe'cies'Act"of '1973:""The'refore,"th-p'roposed "modificatioris to"St L'ucie","Unit".1-'arid:2;".Op'crating".Lice'ns'e's',".'A'p'pendix" 8; is'acceptable.
s
lt lh I I'
V
4.0 STATE CONSULTATION
L By Letter dated March 8, 1991, Mary E. Clark of the State of Florida, Departtnent of Health and Rehabilitative Services, informed Deborah A. Miller, Licensing Assistant, U.S. NRC, that the State of Florida does not desire notification of issuance of license amendments.
Thus, the State official had no comments.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTALCONSIDERATION These amendments relate to changes in record keeping or administrative procedures or requirements.
The Commission has previously issued a proposed finding that the amendment
. involves no significant hazards consideration, and there has been no public comment on such finding (64 FR 6698, dated February 10, 1999). Accordingly, the amendments meet the eligibility criteria for categorical exclusion set forth in 10 CFR 51.22(c)(10).~ Pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be prepared in connection with the issuance of the amendments.
,) "
6.0 CONCLUSION
The Commission has concluded, based on the consideiations'discussed above, that: (1) there is reasonable assurance that the health and safety of the public willnot be endangered by operation in the proposed manner, (2) such activities will be conducted in compliance with the Commission's regulations, and (3) the issuance of'the amendments willnot be inimical to the common defense and security or to the health and safety of, the public.
Principal Contributors:
C. Craig, R. Jo)ly-"
Dated:
C l
J',