ML17273A041
| ML17273A041 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Saint Lucie  |
| Issue date: | 01/28/1982 |
| From: | Robert E. Uhrig FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO. |
| To: | Eisenhut D Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation |
| References | |
| L-82-33, NUDOCS 8202020389 | |
| Download: ML17273A041 (87) | |
Text
<<REGULATE INFORMATION DISTRIBUTION STiEM 0RIDS)
AGGRESSION NBR:8202020389 DOC ~ DA'TE: 82/01/28 NOTARI'ZED: NQ DOCKET
.FAGIL:50 389 'St. Lucie Plantg Unilt 2~ Florida Power 8 Light Cos 05000389 "AUTH~ NAME AUTHOR AFFILIATION UHRIGgR ~ E ~ Florida Power 8 'Light Co ~
(R EjC IP ~ NAME REC IP IFNT AF F ILIAT ION EISENHUTgD+G ~
Di-vision of Licensing
SUBJECT:
Responds,to NRC 820118 lltr requesti.ng addi info ne proposed
'third intake pi,peline.Question numbers Inev'ised per 820121 telcon ~
DISTRISUTION ZCODE: 'C0010 TITLE: Envir on ~ Repont Amendments iCORIES >RECEIVED:L'TR, 8
'ENCL.
Related iCarrespondence
/ SIZE:.
NOTiES:
RECIPIENT iCOPIES RECIPIENT COPIES ID .CODE/NAME l-'T,TR ENCL ID ~CODE/NAME LTiTR .ENCL ACTION: LIC BR P3 BC 18 1 1 LIC BR 03 LA 19 1 1 NERSESgV ~ 04 1 1
'NTiERNAL~ ELD 1 "0 IE 1'5 2 2 NRR/DE/AEAB 08 1 1 NRR/DE/EEB 06 1 1 NRR/DE/HGEB 1 NRR/DE/SAB 07 1 1 NRR 8 I/ETSB 1 1 NRR/DSI/RAB 09 1 1 1
EXTiERNAL: ACRS 20 LPDR 03 NRC PDR ~
02 1 1 NSIC -05 NT I' .1 1 lTOTAL NUMBER OF 'COPIES REQUIRED: L~TTR 20 ENCL 19
0
'll 4
)( I
~ 'II e
e ~
t I [
n I
~ 'l
P.O. BOX 529100 MIAMI,F L 33152 y>i'm
+/hnN FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY January 28, 1982 L-82-33 Office .of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Attention: Hr. Darrell G. Eisenhut, Director Division of Licensing U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D.C. 20555 BECE~e>O
Dear Nr. Eisenhut:
l 198~~ to Re: St. Luci e Uni t 2 C+gti ~+lPAQfjQ Q
Docket No. 50-389 7lQC Environmental Report Re uests for Additional Information Attached are Florida Power Im Light Company (FPL) responses to NRC staff requests for additional information which have been formally submitted on the St. Lucie Unit 2 docket via your letter of January 18, 1982. These responses will be incorporated into the St. Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report in a future amendment.
Please note that the question numbers have been revised per a tele-phone conversation with ter. V. Nerses on January 21, 1982.
Very truly yours, obert E. Uhrig Vice President Advanced Systems and Technology REU/RAK/ah Attachments cc: J.P. O'Reilly, Director, Region II (w/o attachments)
Harold F. Reis, Esquire (w/o attachments)
PPoI 020389 820128 PDR ADOCK A 0500038 PDR
.j PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE
I H RESPONSE TO NRC REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFO%STION ON THE PROPOSED THIRD INTAKE PIPELINE
' FOR THE ST. LUCIE PLANT UNIT 2 guestion 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?
Response: The actual cooling water flow rate requirements will remain constant for St. Lucie 1 and 2 assuming a design condenser A T of 24'. 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.
Qpestion 291.'12: Discuss recirculation of discharged water 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 which is only 4.35 percent of the original
'I 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 unit operation respectively. This is based on the assumption that the new intake pipeline will carry 1150 CFS and each of the two existing pipe-lines will carry 575 CFS. The addition of a new intake pipeline will not increase nor decrease
flow volume used for plant operation. There-fore 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. ocean water, which can range from 2'o 5 F.
Based on the above discussions it appears that the addition of a third intake pipe-line will not significantly reduce the separation distance between the intake and discharge pipelines nor will it increase the flow volume used for plant operation.
Therefore, it is concluded that the recirculation potential for three intake pipelines will not be sign'ificantly higher than, if not the same as~ that for two intake pipelines.
Question 291.13:
~
~ Page 10 of the Circulating Water System Modification document provides some flow velocities in the pipelines. Indicate if 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'n diameter and the new pipeline is to be 16'n diameter.
Response: The maximum calculated flow velocity of 10.18 fps through the two existing 12'ia'intake pipelines corresponds to the design requirement: supply a total flow of Q=2300
'nitial cfs "for 'two unit operation.
The maximum flow velocity of 6.8 fps through the proposed 16'ia third intake pipeline was developed for a calculated flow distribution of Q=1360 cfs through the 16'ipe and Q=470 cfs through each of the 12.'. pipes. This flow distribution results from the following assumed friction factors: f=0.02 .in, the
'proposed pipe and '5=0.07 in tthe 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).
Question 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: The flow distribution through the three pipes varies with the change in the friction factors as a result of marine fouling.
For the 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 &0.02 for the new 16 foot line (note: f=0.015 for a clean pipe, however, it takes less than 2 months for the friction factor to increase P
to 'f=0.02).
Xt is estimated that the pipes will be able to operate on a 7 to 8 year cleaning cycle with the flow velocities noted in Table 1."-Pleas'e note that the velocities in Table 1 are for two units operation. Velocities for one operation are 1/2 the values shown.
TABLE 1 Friction Factor Velocity Cap Vert. Pipe Sect. Pipe Flow Canal Fl.ow II gll Flow Velocity Flow Velocity Velocity Velocity FP8 FP Year 121 16'2'6'2'6'6'983 0.07 -
0.02 0. 368 1.00 1.18 6. 77 4. 16 6. 77 l. 0+
1986 0.115 0.07 0.401 0. 941 1 28
~ 6.34 4.54 6. 34 l. 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 l. (H.
Question .291.15: Describe the procedures for removing a pipeline from s'ervice and cleaning it.
Response: For 16'iameter intake line:
A. Remove line from service by closing the 16'ine sluice gate.
B. Place stop-logs into headwall C. Insert cleaning machine into intake structure D. Open sluice gate E. Cleaning machine is hydraulically 'forced through the ocean pipeline to effect cleaning.
F. Cleaning machine is removed, sluice gate closed, stop logs removed.
G. Line is placed into service by opening the sluice gate.
II. For 12'iameter intake line:
A. During a period of zero flow through either 12'iameter line, the cleaning machine is inserted into the pipeline and a cover plate is then installdd on the headwall.
B. Cleaning machine is hydraulically'forced"'through'he ocean pipeline to effect cleaning.
C. During a subsequent zero flow condition, the cover plate and cleaning machine are removed and the line restored to service.
Question 291.16: Indicate whether cleaning of any of the ocean intake pipe-lines will be attempted during two unit operation or whether cleaning be limited to outages.
Response: Normally, pipe cleaning will be scheduled during a unit outage. However, cleaning of 16'ntake pipe during two unit operation may be performed if warranted.
Question 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.
Response: Except for periods of cleaning, all three intakes pipelines will be in service during one unit operation.
Question 291.18: Verify that construction is still planned for February through December 1982.
Indicate if applicable the period of time construction activities will occur on a three shift per day basis.
Response: Mobilization has commenced and construction activity is presently scheduled for three shifts per day from February through December 1982.
Question 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 the decrease in turtle nesting due to recent construction of the second discharge structure.
Response: As a test for 1981 construction effects (i. e. the second dis-charge pipeline), the number of nests occurring at the Plant Site (Area 4; Figure H-l, Applied Biology, Inc., 1980) 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 (Applied Biology, Inc.,
1982). The apparent cause of these discrepencies was the construction of intake pipelines (1975) and discharge pipelines (1975 and 1981) in t'e beach and nearshore environment. Con-struction 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. Nesting is expected to return to normal levels as was observed during years following nearshore construction in 1975.
References:
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.
Applied Biology, Inc. 1982. Florida Power & Light Company, St.
Lucie Plant, annual non-radiological environmental monitoring report 1981, AB-379. Applied Biology, Inc., Atlanta, Ga.
Question 291.20: Is there any intention of using chemical procedures or i
chemical coatings to control fouling in the new intake?
If so, give adequate detail for impact assessment.
Response: FPL has no intention of using chemicals to control fouling of the ocean intake pipelines.
question 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 with the other permitting actions. Specifically, provide copies of the comments of the USFWS and the NHFS submitted to the Corps of Engineers on theix permit.
Response: FPL submitted a Dredge and Fill permit application to the Corps'of Engineers on November 24, 1981. The Corps Permit //81D-1679 was signed by FPL 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 FPL 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 Cox'ps informed FPL that both agencies L
verbally advised the Coxps that they had no comments.
FPL applied for a modification to the St. Lucie NPDES Permit !/FL0002208 on December 3, 1981 to include the third intake pipe.
FPL petitioned the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation to amend the St. Lucie 2 Certification GAPA-24-02 on November 30, 1981 to include the construc-tion of the third intake pipe. At this time, the amend-ment is expected to be approved on January 26, 1982.
FPL applied for an easement with the Florida Department of Natural Resources for the third intake pipe on November 30, 1981. The easement II3177-56, will be granted on January 13, 1982.
November 30, 1981 Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner Executive Director Florida Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32303 RE: APPLICATION FOR EASEMENT ST. LUCIE POWER PLANT ST. LUCIE COUNTY THIRD INTAKE PIPELINE j
Dear Dr. Gissendanner:
Enclosed please find an Easement Application for a subaqueous cooling water pipeline extending approximately 1195 feet offshore from Hutchinson Island into the Atlantic Ocean. The foregoing application and attachments are being submitted on behalf of Florida Power and Light 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 ciI;Ipter 16$ -17.09 F.A.C. (Sovereignty Submerged Laods).
We request that you review the enclosures describing 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 information regarding our proposal on the aforementioned application and attachments for your convenience.
R'espectfully submitted this 30th day of November 1981.
Sincerel W. . Barrow, Jr anager En ironmental Pe mitting and Programs WJBj r/pc Attachments: Easement Application Map of Survey - Prospect No. 225 Permit Appraisal Biological Report Circulating Water System Modification cc: Victoria Tschinkel W/0 Attachments Hamilton Oven - W/0 Attachments PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE
November 30, 1981 Dr. Elton J. Gissendanner Executive Director Florida Department of Natural Resources 3900 Commonwealth Blvd.
Tallahassee, FL 32303 RE: APPLICATION FOR EASEMENT ST. LUCIE POWER PLANT ST. LUCIE COUNTY SUBAQUEOUS INTAKE PIPELINES
Dear Dr. Gissendanner:
Enclosed please find an Easement 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 describing 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 tl,e pertinent in-formation regarding our proposal on the aforementioned application and attachments for your convenience.
Respectfully submitted this 30th day of November, 1981.
Sincerel W. J. Barrow, Manager Environmental Permitting 6 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
4
~MSE~~aP'?PLICATXCN
~p enw %Ta Date Please ty."-a or print. Fill in the blanks for al'ppl'cable in ormation.
information requested is not applicabla, so indicate by placing N/A in tha blank.
INFORMATION AP P LICKS t Name Flori:da Power & Li ht Com an Add "ess P. O. Box 529100 Miami, FL Zia Cade Telephone Number: ( 5) 552 35 64 M. J. Barrow, Jr.
Manager, Environmental Permitting & Programs kid ess of Agent 2250 Palm Beach Lakes Blvd.
Nest Palm Beach, FL 33409 Zia Cade Telephone Number: (305) 684-8500
?raposed easement will be used for:
?>lie Utility .
(<X) Public Road Right-of-Way ( )
?r'vate Util.ity ( ) Private Road Rightmf-Hay ( )
Or".ar ( ) ~~ lain: Electric Gen Ocean Intake Pipeline for plant cooling water.
L CAT.CN:
Sect'on Townsh' 41 East County 16 St. Lucie'ity Range Ft. Pierce ilare body" affected by activity: Atlantic Ocean
?rajact is in an aquatic oreserva? Les ( ) No (X )
vas give preserve ncnher: N/A sr names and addresses of the riparian land owners of property on each s'de o f the pro j ect si te ~
Krantz, Christ. a Mary Lou North Boundary: Geo. 6 Mary Ann cean r. p t.
Jupiter, FL 33458 f
i South Boundary: Sand Dollar Villas Dev. Co.
rawe Stuart, FL 33494 Describe the ro osed activities in detail.
An ocean intake pipeline and cnannel extension to convey cooling water from the Atlantic Ocean into the intake canal is proposed. The 1515 foot pipeline has ar inside diameter of 16, feet and exten<1's 1195 feet offshore arid is to be buried beneath the dunes and ocean bottom. The pipe terminates with a velocity cap of precast reinforced concrete, supported on tremie concrete placed within a shectpiling enclosure below the ocean bottom. Dxedged materials include sands, silts and clay. Backfill material will be dredged sands.
The channel extension projects about 100 feet into the east slope of the existing intake canal.
- See supplemental sheet 1
-OVER-Jj ~1
~%
\
C v
0 1
I
~ ~
I : all ao"rovals o" centi ication re<iree Issuinc Aaencv Tyoe 0 A=o oval Nu&e" o" "".is ac
'Identi ica"ion iv'tv:
Date of Ao=lica"'on Da~e o~
A>> oval US NRC Construction Permit Docket 50-389 Hay. 2, 1977 State of Florida Site Suitability PA-74-02 June 10, 1975 Certificate U, .". COZ Dredge & Ffll 8lli-1679 ll/23/81 Pending Permit I R:-<~RKS: Any commen that you eel should be made in reca ds to "his appl'cation.
See Supplemental Sheet 2.
0 RE UZ~ INFORMATION SHOULD BE P~A~D 0 ~iXS APPLICATION TP~ APPLZCA.ZON ZS SUBMITTED.
pate: 1)ecember 30 1981 Signature of Applicant:
W. J. Barrow, Ji.'.
Manager Environmental Permitting 6 Programs j
~ ~ '
p1 ~ ~
e v
L".P i~ GF GURU't:"V FOR
{PLOB)GA POPEl:"IH AND L,)GAY CGLIPANV~ )NC.
ST. LUCIE UNIT +1 AND UNIT +2 SUBAQUEOUS INTAKE PIPE EASEMENT 4T, LUCIE COUHTY, P LORICA R T H 'PAST CEL A, So 11. Steat IT ~ 1 Ak (A5(w(11 Loo ~ 00 S((f Ia VIOIN SOI AN (1(lf)14 5USLOU(OUS I ~ Tlat ~ I ~ C Soa Slol loa rovtl I LICHf C01SAaf'5 5T ~ LOCI( ~ LIIT~ INC C(11(IL ILC Of VHICN 1$ NOL( SA ~ IICULA~ LT D(5CII ~ CO lS Sollov5T Cora(NC( aT 11(
ll14(
rolaf OS laftl5(CT)0 ~ Of Tr( Noafr Liat OS $ (CI)oa 14, lova511 ~ )I IOUTr, LI (ASI ~ 5T ~ LUC IC COUIII~ SLCIIOI, V(IN I>>( C(11(alla( OS 51LT( IOLD All l5 5>>ova So. Naoc ~ TA ~ 01 IH( STAT( OS SLOI III STAT( IOAO 0(SAITH(af TH[aCt 50UTN tt'04 lt (A51 ALOLC 5l)0 [(alta[la[
IIONT 0S VAT Nlr 5(CTIOI ao $ 40$ 1011 ~
~ ~
)lait IOAO lla !451.1) SttTS 1>>(a[(
HOIIN 40'5)' I'A51 t)l,l) S((f Sol lrt Solkl 01 (CllklaCI 'tr(HCC Coll)au( LOITN OS
~
SCOJ ~ TWR I ~ S. NIC.II I. 40'5)' le (AST 5101 00 S(CT lo 11( Soll( OS TCANI ~ AT)0 ~ Of 5llo (A5[r(kf, C01TAIIILC f0<at 0 ~ Covvtrftvtrf 440efoo SCULL( S(I I e 51AT( SLAN( COOIOINAI(5.
) r.a.r. I S.O,T,
~
S.O.I. SAIC(L
)>>
Ill[(LA A
NOI TH
,ot),04).too
),015,144.4$
l,014ell4.)))
1
~AST
)L4,4)o.to)
I~ I ~ $ $ 0.014 LP cc" SO. SN. ale L 1.0.4. SIIC(L I I ~ 095.)I[.04$
5 1~ I1~ ~ SAIC(L ~ 1eoti ~ lal Ool 5
v floe'lL STLTc a(rta(OeCC VOHUV(rf oteaafeecwf or Taa>>5>>oararrre eaavakcwf III rr'LVI
~
I e.re Mr N(A1 NICN Va'fCI L)1C e>> 4 Oua( LINC ATLANTIC OCEAN I 40
~ 4 eh VOoe C
44 Cc" ae
~eo)>>
NORTH PARCEL. 8 A1 CA5(r(11 ~ 00,00 S((1 IN v[olr SOI I ~ IOSOSCO 5UILOU(OU5 I ~ Tla(
~ Ile I>>) el 100 IIO r 1 IS( SOI SLOIIOL rov(a I LICH f Corraaf'5 $ 1 ~ LUCI( Sllal, IHC C(NT(IL)k( OS VNICH 15 roa( SLITICULAILT O(5[ ~ I ~ (0 A5 SOLLOV51 Oae>>OeC SCIL( IW Sllf d Cora(LC( AT fa[ SOIHI OS Irl(~ Sf[IIOH OS IN( aoafN Lief OS 5(CI101 US l4e TOVk)HIS )I 50UTN ILLC( LI (ALT 51, LUC(l COUIIT SLOL IDL Vlfr 11( Clif(I[II(OS SILT( LOAD Ala A5 )Nova 01 frl 51LI( OS
~ ~ ~ ~
SLOIIOA 5IAT( AOAO D(SAITN(al IICVI~ Of ~ VAT>>ar 5(CIION 10, t ~ 0$ )011 TN(HC( SOUTH tt'04')t'LST ALOIC 5llo C(al(IL I ~ OS 5TATC IDAO AIA tftle)) S((TI IN(HCC kol'TN 40'5)'ll'ill loltea)
C SC(T SO ~ fr( Solll Of I(CI ~ 1(14; IH(NC( ho ~ IH Sre ~ 5 LS (AST ~
1414 00 S((l 10 TN( f0 11 Of 1(INIIAT)01 OS SA)0 II5(1( ~ I
~ 1 ~
CONTAIN[14 4 ~ 4 ~ 400 SOUAI( S((le IUUUU~L~
I. I(raahUCI)045 OS fr)5 5at 1[1 At( 111 S(T Sk.
VALID Uhl(1$ $ (LL(0 1111 Aa (1 ~ 0$ 5CO
$ UII(TDI'5 5[LL~ )0
!. Laao5 5eova r[alo ~ vtal aof AISTalcl(0 00'i SDI LICWTS Dr VAT ~ (A5(OI(115 OS L(COID ~ Oa Cva(LS>>lr, IUUlXKX5U~fJLIIElQAXE
), Sf ill>>45 SeeOVH>>la(oh LI( l((AT)V(
'oaf lo'ILL 5[Do(1IC 5Ua 1(f Iala51(15C N(I[lfoa~
Slolloa (lST !01(e Calo LOLIH 10 TH(
I eo~ v( N[a( ~ r Of )Ca I ~ (0 C(lllfI Saor(kit lrll I>>( ATTIC>>[0>>LS 15 I 1( Aao COIL(C'I
~
OS 5JITtf Or TH(
fo IN( ~ (51 DS Oul 1( ~ (Oa
~ ~ tl I 'I ~ 11015 5ravw <<( ~ (Dw ~ ~ C tl5(0 01 Iv(
aal(DLLL Cf0)(f1[ Tl ~ I ICll OL TUN 01 l Sit llo vlf(l, Iaov[(OC( Ako ~ (L I[1 A5 Sua'I('rlo III III( I l(LD uho(I cu ~ OII([IIOI 11 aov(>>I(l ltol. 1( SukTV(l Clll(ST 1>>ll fr[5 SUaftt 1(t15 IN(
Silo (L[VLIION5 al( IAS(0 01 ~
C(00( l)C $ UL'llf I( ~ [>>alla C)04, (Lt fallow If(oral Nl a)NUN I(CHIICAL 51aaOA ~ 05 S[l SOIIN 11 IN( t)HN ~ LOO ~ 1(0 ~ I TN( Slol)OA IOAIO DS [Lao SUIT(IDI5, SUISULNI To SLOIIOL SIATVI(5
~ $ 41'
~ Local(0 atai Toe( sloa fol rov(l I I!,011 ~ lr(A( I'l 10 Aloft Caovao (NCIOLCNN(1'15 011(l TaA ~
LICIT LOCI[i~ ~ OJ(a ~ LILT llflaC CANAL Lao '1105C Sr I, SUIJ(CT 0 IN( OUL lf1 I a5 ao)(0 Nl ~ (01.
5lal( Itao All~ 5'I LLCI( COUHTT, Sloalol 5, IOI( (L(TL IIOH Or r(la Oefcr VAI(~ LLO H(aa Lov vlr( ~ vl5 ocf(l>>laco ~ ~ L la(l ~ 4Y: ERIC 8.HOLI.Y INT( ~ ~ OLATIO~ IIIV[(1 0 ~ 5 ~ Ot ~ I ~ IN(al OS or Coca( ~ C(. La'lloa ~ L 0[(AWIC aaO alr05rrtl)C PROP E48IOHAL EAHO 4URY Y LDhla)$ 1aa llo ~ . LIT loll[ 0[llwIC SU ~ 'Slf f)CAL 5 ~
f LORICA REO)4TRATIOH 4840 I('LC>>aa ~ r5 ~ AS(0 Urol fe( )'140 I'111 NIT[OLLA I)ILL lrocr.
Tal Il)LL 4(1[>>alla) U5(0 L5 SOLLOVST SO ~ I al(LC(, SOUTH J(TTT lit 0(5[Ill(0
~e vI OATEOI ~
~e~e~/ ~
I(a[eraaa SI(LC( I (1145), Llllfvot IT LO ~ 4 I I Uo( lo')I ~
r(LIICIL OLIUN (LITLI I 0 ~ I 1 ~
I, ~ 1'l
)',
'11 ~ 1) lsorl 1IL1 wlcw
~ 'I O'I fowl[ CCOO(Tlh
~ I)) 1) e SOON~
111 r) aoor( a[ac LOV Vlf(I aeo 5(rlaolt 4+~
t,o'I'f.
5>>O ~ tS S[>>(rwaaa I ll~ I!) Lal ITUIJE !1 I) I' f14 oe ro. >>Ia.
LOLIIIUD( 10 ~ I'. I
~ fl[LL Jafur (Llvlffoa ~ .$ $
~
~ all IDHLL C(00(IIC
'lot)i
~
1),
11 I SIC. IS stC
, I)
It I Tl~)$
~ ~~ Sr ll e.
'SI Lt'1 !Lf 1) I ~ Or( rile HICH VLT(~,
N) L401( Nial LOV vlf(l, THRSII LIC eoEJ 1~ II
)LL)~o'~
Io,at'),114
~ acraal 0 Iv
~ I 11' o. 5 ) ~ 1 ) I a.4. I .O. ~ ear.
I 1! t )
(a,l,v
~
0 )111) ~
~
~ (I ~ 4ov Vlf(l ~ I I[ [ Oe ) ll a) D. Sl De dBRP d r)SXCNXY,SAC Croov(Gl) 'VWVETT)RS 'LANTCRS STVMT, SLONDL aoeooetel SOS tlf I ~ I~
Sheet g 0) g Shee) ~
>>oiacr wo
FLORIDA POWER 8 LIGHT COMPANY No@ember 25, 1981 Ms. Victoria Tschinkel, Secretary Florida Department of Environmental Regulation 2600 Blair Stone Road Tallahassee, FL 32301 RE: St. Lucie Power Plant Unit No. 2 Modification of Conditions of Certification No. PA-74-02
Dear Secretary Tschinkel:
We are submitting this letter to request that the Florida Department of En-vironmental Regulation modify the conditions of the above-referenced certifi-cation for the St. Lucie Power Plant Unit No. 2 pursuant to g 403.516(1),
Florida Statutes, and g 10 of the General Conditions of Certification. As grounds for this requested modification, Florida Power 6 Light Company relies upon the material and information contained in the enclosed Joint Application Department of the Army/Florida Department of Environmental Regulation for Activities in Waters of the State of Florida and attachments. We have pro-vided the pertinent information regarding our proposal on the aforementioned application and attachments for convenience, since these same forms are being hand-delivered this date to the Department of Army/Corps of Engineers, Jackson-ville District. A copy of the cover letter sent to the Corps has also been attached.
We request that you review the enclosures describing Florida Power and Light's proposed modification, and that you amend and modify, the conditions of certifi-cation accordingly.
Respectfully submitted this 30th day of November 1981.
Sincerely, W. J. arrow, Jr., nager Environmental Perm tting and Programs WJB)r/pc
Enclosures:
- 1) Joint Application (2 pages)
- 2) Joint Application Supplement Sheet 81 (1 page)
- 3) Joint Application Supplement Sheet f/2 (2 pages)
- 4) Joint Application Drawings (6 pages)
- 5) Cover letter to Corps of Engineers (1 page)
- 6) Circulating Water System Modification (18 pages) cc: Hamilton S. Oven Copies of the foregoing letter and enclosures have been furnished to all of the individuals and entities listed on the attached service list.
PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE
I'.O. OOX 629100 MIAMI,F L 33152 a
FLORIDA POWER St LIGHT COMPANY November 30, 1981 TO N)jOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Attached for your information is an application to the Department of Environmental Regulation for Modification of Conditions of Certifica-tion No. PA-74-02 at Florida Power & Light Company's St. Lucie Power Plant Unit No. 2. Thi notification is- for the construction of a intake pipe which is explained in detail by the attached documents. 16'hird Respectfully submitted this 30th day of November, 1981.
Sincerely, N.
+4H4 g+
J. farrow, Jr j
Manager EnvironIaental Permitting 6 Programs NJBjr/os attachments PEOPLE... SERVING PEOPLE
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,'Florida 33402 2571 Executive Center Circle East Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Sam Shannon, Esq.
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Mr. James Dean Council Associate Post Office Box 396 Plant Siting Program Planner'ower 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
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
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 subIQitted 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, W.
/
J. farrow, Jr.
Manager Fnvironmental Permitting & Programs cc: Victoria Tschinkel,~ 'i>>rr re~
Secretary of Florida Dept. of Environmental Regulation WJBj r/os enclosures PEOPLE. ~ .SERVING PEOPLE
JOINT APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF THE ARiJIY/FLORIDA DEPARTfslENT OF ENVIRONMENTALREGULATION FOR ACTIVITIES IN YYATERS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA Refer to Instruction Pampfilet for explanation of numbered items and attachments required.
'I Application number (To bc assigned) 2. Date 3. For official use only 24 Nov. 1981 Oay Mo. Yr.
- 4. Name, address and zip code of applicant J. Barrow, Jr., Hanager Environmental Permitting and Programs Florida Power & Light Company P.O. Box 529100 Hiami, FL 33152 Telephone Number 305 684
- 6. Name, address, zip code and title of applicant's authorized agent for permit application coordination Hrs. Eisa A. Bishop
~
Associate Environmental Coordinator Environmental Permitting and- Programs Florida Power & Light Company P. 0. Box 529100 Hiami, FL 33152 Telephone Numbe~ 305 684 8500
- 5. Describe the proposed activity, its purpose and intended use, including a ocscription of the type of structures, if any, to be erected on fills, or pipe or fioat s<<ppor ted platforms, and the type, composition and quantity of materials to be discharged or dumped and means of igtake yipel)Ite an) ghannellextension ttI convey ~il~ljqg water fromm conveyance.'ni)ocean is 16 Kt inside diameter extends 1195 ft offshore and is buried beneaeII the dunes and ocean bottom. The pipe terminates into a velocity cap, a precast reinforced concrete structure, supported on tremie concrete placed within a a sheetpiling enclosure below the ocean bottom. Dredged soils will be sands, silts and clay. Backfill will be dredged sands.
The c)tannel extension prospects about 100 ft into ehe east alone of the exist ing intatte canal.. DrJfged/Excavated Filled/Depdsitcd Volume of Material:
- CY CY CY CY Waitrward or hindward ot Wsterward ot Lindwsrd ol
- See Supplement O.H.W. or M.H,W. O.H.W. or M.lt.'W. O.H.W. or M.H.W. O.H.W. or M.H.W.
sheet 3.
7, Proposed use Private [ ) Public [ ) Comrncrcial g) Other [ ) [Explaininremarks) 8, Name and address including zip code of adjoining property own.rs whom prope~ also adioins the waterway.
North Boundary: Barnete Winston, 720 Gilmore St., Jacksonville, Florida 32204 South Boundary: John R Hayer& Elizabeth H Johnston P 0 Box 617, Jensen Beach Florida
- 9. Location where proposed activity exists or will occur Street address N/A 80 W 27 21 Longitude N 14'ec
[It known) '
16 Rge. R 41E Florida St Lucie Pe P S'tata In City or Town Near City or Tovin
)0. Name ot waterway at location ot the activity Atlantic Ocean - IL ~
SAJ "FORH 983 Rl Jul 77
~P 1
(
I ~,.
~, (
~ <<(:\*st( g3.
4 1'I. Date activity's pronosed to commence Feb. 198?
Date activity is expected to be completed Fetb. ] 983
- 12. Is any portion of the activity for which authorization is sought now complete7 Yes [ j No [)j If answer is "Yes" give reasons in the remarks section. Month and year the activity was completed Indicate the existing work on the drawings.
- 13. List all approvals or certific tions required by other Federal interstate, state or local agencies for any structures, con.
struction, discharges, deposits or other activities described in this app!ication, including whether the prolect is a Oe.
velopment of Regional impact.
Issuing Agency Typeof Approval Identifica'.ionNo, Date of Application Date of 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 Easerment No 14, Has any agency denied approval for the activity described herein or for any activity directly related to the activity de scribed here in7 Yes [ ) No [g (If "Yeseaexpleininremarks)
- 15. Remarks (see Instruction Pamphlet for additional information required for certain activities)
See supplemental sheets entitled "Item 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 assurance or evidence to show that thc 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 for Inspectors from the environmental protection agencies for'the purpose of making preliminmy analyses of the site and monitoring permitted works, if permit is granted. I certify that I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and that to the best ot my knowled e and belief such informatio is true, complete, and accurate. I fur-ther certify thai I possess the authority,to und It c proposed activities/
Flof<id'ag tswe nd Light Comma y November 24, 1981 I Signature of Applicant Date W. J. Barrow, Jr., Manager, Enviroonten al Permitting and Programs 18 U.S.C. Section 1001 provides that: Whoever, in any manner witlim the jurisdiction or any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scl.erne, or device a material fact or makes any false, fictitious or frauduleht statements or representations or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, sliall be fined not more than 510.000 or gmprisoned not more than five years, or both.
The application must be signed by the person who desires to undertake the proposed activity; however, the applica.
tion may be signed by a duly authorized agent if accompanied by a statement by that person designating the agent agfd agreeing to furnish upon request, supplemental information in supour t of the application.
FEE: Attach Checks/Money Orders on front Payable to Department ot Environmental Regulation S200 Standard form projects
$ 20 Short forms and Cnap:er 403 projects only
FLORIDA POWER 6 LIGHT COMPANY ST LUCIE PLANT JOINT APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF THE AD!Y/FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION FOR ACTIVITIES IN WATERS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ITEM 6 Volume of Material The table below has been prepared to delineate the volumes of dredge and fill material estimated for this proejct. The project has been divided into two parts. pipeline construction and channel extension.
VOLl&fE 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
FLORIDA POHER & LIGHT COMPANY ST LUCIE PLANT 1
JOINT APPLICATION DEPARTMENT OF THE ANY/FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION FOR ACTIVITIES IN WA1ERS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA ITEM 15 Remarks:
The proposed pipeline and channel extension is'art of the plant cooling water system. This system consists of subaqueous oc'ean intake and discharge pipe-lines extending into the ocean, canals on land connecting the ocean pipelines to the plant, and equipment and conduits in the plant area. Major 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 & 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 & 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 documents 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
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 construct'ion site (the Atlantic Ocean).
J The channel extension on 1'and, 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 will be constructed followed by the canal and dike construction modification.
Mater 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 or 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 exten"ion 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.
ORAMII 5T APPROVED:
Pg= kQ~
C'P.C.
CORRECT
!1 0. OATE REVISION OL CH AP REGI STEREO ERGIIIEER IIO. 2i050 I
R41E ST. LUCIE COUNTY yl 0CI /
I FT. PIERCE, LORIDA f 0 CI gl CO 27o. 22 CO
~l )) PROPERTY LINE
~54 I INTAKE CANAL
\ i CONSTRUCTED HUTCHINSON UNDER PERMIT ISLAND IC 56. '%21 I
I I II gl F P EI L CO. ATLANTIC ST. LUCIE
/ PLANT OCEAN
/~
/
cp DISCHARGE
~+ I CANAL 8 9 Cq.
) '
17 16' ALTERNATE SPOIL DISPOSAL l 5 FEET 'REA ABOVE MHW N I cn FORT
~c I P) PIERCE ~
O ~
g SPOIL DISPOSAL 0
v~ Pg PROPOSED OCEAN 16 15 INTAKE PIPELINE PROJECT (SEE SHT. NO. 2) (21 22 PROJECT 27o. 20 PROPERTY CO UJ ~o CI r
C K PLAN FROM NAUTICALCHART 11472, 19th ED.
INTRACOASTALWATERWAY
)
ST. LUCIE COUNTY f 0 1 h! ILE MARTIN COUNTY I SCALE STATUTE MILE ~
l ST. LUCIE I 1
INLET LOCATION SKETCH STUART PURPOSE: OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE CONSTRIJCTION DATUM: MEAN LOW WATER ATLANTICOCEAN AT ST. LUCIE PLANT.HUTCHINSON ISLAND ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS: COUNTY OF ST.LUCIE STATE OF F LORIDA
- 1. BARNETT WINSTON APPLICATION BY FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT CO.
- 2. J.R. MAYER 5 E.M. JOHNSTON SHEET 1 OF 6 DATE
DRAVII ST V. 5. 'PPROVED:
CORRECT DATE R EY SI I Oll DR'. CII AP REGISTERED GIIIEER RO. 21050 sv'+
PROPOSED VELOCITY CAP TRUE NORTH t EXISTING VELOCITY CAP PLANT NORTH L26o. 41 . 66 ~
I
~ EXISTING VELOCITY CAP I
ATLANTICPCEAN
+I <<70 192" I.D.
m PROPOSED INTAKE PIPELINE
~ DATUM MEAN LOW WATER ATLANTICOCEAN ELEVATION 0.0 EXIST INTAKE PIPELINES 144" I.D.
MHW LINE MLW LINE PROPOSED NEW HEADWALL AND CHANNEL DUNES EXISTING HEADWALL 84'A MANGROVE MANGROVE SWAMP SWAMP PROPOSED
- 1 WIDENING OF CANAL EXISTING INTAKE I ANAI.
40' 0 TOP PF DIKE ~ El EV, +1 0 100 200 300 600 FEET PLAN OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AT ST. LUCIE PLANT HUTCHINSON ISI.AND COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE STATE OF FLORIDA APPLICATION GY FLORIDA POWER 8c LIGHT CO.
SHEET 2 OF 6 DATE
DRAVR ST
'PPROVED'EGISTERED CORRECT IIO. DATE REVISIOII DR CII AP EIGIIIEKR NO. 21050 LANDWARD SEAWARD VELOCITY CAP INTAKE CANAL 320'+ 1200' NTS HEADWALL 800 (NTSI DUNES SURF ZONE DIKE 6' 0 COVER MLW EL 0.0 IMINI rr+)rrr ilaw 12' COVER MIN.
PIPELINE ISURF ZONE) OCEAN BOTTOM PROF I LE INTAKE PIPE 100 0 100 200 300 400 600 600 F 6 ET PIPELINE MLW EL 0.00 SHEET PILING TO BE REMOVED 12 FT. COVER SURF ZONE OCEAN BOT. 5 FT. COVER BEYOND SURF ZONE y r "r'ri r ~, te ~
~ ~ ~
~
~
~ ~
~
~ ~ ~
ignis, rr/re
~
~ ~
CLEAN SAND ;ca INTAKE PIPE BACKFILL
~
t ii
~
~ l ~
~ ~
~ ~
SHEET PILING SHEET PILING I~
TO REMAIN OR TO BE Iql ~ ~ ~ r REMOVED rr ii%
3'-0 +
PIPE O.D. + 6'-0
/
TYPICAL CROSS SECTION SUBAQUEOUS PIPE '0 0 20 40 FEF,T ~ '.
~ ~
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
DRAVII ST APPROVED:
CORRECT IIO. DATE REVISION DR CN AP
>~g k<~
RECI STEREO ERCIIIEER NO. 21050 CHANNEL HEADWALL PIPE'LINE EL+ 15.0 TOP OF DIKE EL+ 13 EL. +13.00 STOP LOG
'SHEET PILWG GUIDES TC CANAL MAIN SLUICE GATE % PIPE EL EL. -26,5 17.50'REMIE EI -27.5 Is I>
I I I I I)II II I~I CONCRETE
~
I I I III I I I I I gg LLl SECTION THROUGH HEADWALL& CHANNEL
/ r I
~ \ r
- I
'l I
~ I I N ~
r OCEAN INTAKE PIPEI. WE CONSTRUCTION AT ST. LUCIE PLANT HUTCHINSON ISLAND COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE STATE OF FLORIDA APPLICATION BY F LORIDA POIVER & LIGHT CO.
SHEET 4 OF 6 DATE
ORaMX eT 'PPROVED:
K.'P.r COXRECT
).
II 0. OATE REVlSION OR'. CII AP REGISTEREO QI IXEER IIO. 2i050
. Q VELOCITY CAP MEAN LOW WATER EL 0.00
~EL ~ 5 JE FLOW FLOW EL. -16 OCEAN BOTTOM EL"18.0 +
EL FLOW 5 3ELOO'HEET PILING TREMIE CONCRETE 1
5 r
PZ32 SHEET PII.ING OR I r EOUAL TO EL -70.0 SECTION THROUGHT VELOCITYCAP r
r i
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
ORAVII ST APPROYFD:
COlBECT IIO. DATE REVISION Dtr. CII AP RECI STERED GOLGI IIEER 10. 21050 N
PLANT NORTH C0 +
NTS 36 9'4' 1" PLAN SHOWN WITH VELOCITY CAP PLAN S IOWN WITHOUT VELOCITY I/ 'gP CAP II
(( ,
I)
II I
I)
I (I
i ('
u h ~l 4, EXIST. PIPELINES 6, NEW PIPELINE Ui4 PROPOSED VELOCITY CAP EXISTING VELOCITY CAPS PLAN - OFFSHORE VELOCITYCAPS 10 0 10 20 30 40 60 60 70 80 FEET ~ I
~ ~ ~ ~
I ~
g
~ ~,,I OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE CONSTRUCTION AT ST. LUCIE PLANT HUTCHINSON ISLAND COUNTY OF ST. LUCIE STATE OF FLORIDA APPLICATION DY FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT CO.
SHEET 6 OF 6 DATE
FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ST LUCIE PLANT - UNITS 1 & 2 CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM MODIFICATION November, 1981
~
II CONTENTS Section Page la0 NEED FOR CIRCULATENG WATER SYST1Ã MODIFICATION 2.0 EXISTING CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM
'2 3.0 ECOLOGY 3.1 Terrestrial 3 ~2 ~Auatfc 4.0 THIRD INTAKE PIPELINE 10 5.0 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS 5.1 Ecolo ical Effects 12 5.1.1 Terrestrial- 12 5.1.2 Aquatic 13
CONTENTS (Cont'd)
Section Page 6.0 OPERATION EFFECTS 16 6.1 Ecolo ical Effects 16
- 6. 1.1 Entrainment 16 6.1.2 Impingement 17 6.2 Other Effects 18 6.2.1 Ae sthetics 18 6.2.2 Noise 18
1.0 NEED FOR CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM MODIFICATION Full flow operation of the Circulating Mater System (CMS) 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 r
operation, very high water levels occurred in the discharge canal, causing some flow over an emergency spillway'ecause 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 detemine 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
~
I~
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, I
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. Additionally, 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 1 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'peration, will adversely affect plant operations in that.
excessive headlosses through the intake pipelines could redye the intake canal water level such that minimum punp submergence requirements could
'2
not be met ~ Similarly, excessive headlosses in the ocean discharge pipeline'would 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 would reduce the volume of cooling water pumped through the plant such that plant temperature rise would exceed the original 24 F maximum and plant efficiency would be reduced.
In l978, the discharge canal dikes and the overflow spillway were raised to accommodate higher water levels in the discharge canal. Additionally, a periodic pipe cleani.ng routine was intitated for the 12 foot diameter I
ocean discharge pipeline. Finally, the St Lucre Unit 2 ocean discharge pipeline, which has been constructed, was increased in diameter to allow
/
for marine growth accumulations. These actions alleviated the problem on the discharge side. For the intake side, a third intake pipeline is proposed. This new pipeline will be constructed north of the existing twin intake pipelines. Environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of the third intake pipeline are addressed herein.
.060 PARTIAL PIPE CLEANING
{100-300 FT)
.055 SEPTEMBER 1977
.050 INTAKE PIPELINES II K .035 I
CD
~ .030 z
O P ARTIAL PIPE I CLEANING
.025 APRIL 197E Q
.025 UNIT 'I DISCHARGE P)PELINE
.020
.015 PIPE CLEANING
~ )x K
~ Ql gg I UNIT 1 DISCHARGE PIPELlNE CE. CO 0 INTAKE PIPEL1NES X~
IU g
1974 1976 1978, 1979 FLORIDA POSER 6 LIGHT COMPANY ST. LUCIE PLANT HYDRAULICPERFORMANCE MONITORING FOR INTAKE 5 DISCHARGE PIPELINES
2 0 EX ISI'ING CIRCULATING WATER SYSTEM The circulating water system for St Lucie Plant has been described in detail in Section 3.4 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report -
License. 'perating
3.0 SCOLCGY 3el TERRESTRIAL Terrestrial vegetation and wildlife in the Plant site area has been in detail in Section 2.2-1 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental
'escribed Report - Operating Licensing ~ The following description relates to the r
area where the proposed third intake pipeline is located ~
Beach and dune vegetation near the existing intake pipelines are characterized by dense stands of'aw palmetto (Sarenoa ~re ens) or sea grape (Coccoloba uvifera) end sandy open areas with 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 guianensis, lantana (Lantana involucrata) (1) and neckless pod (~go 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 mangle)t It includes scattered individuals of white mangrove (Laguncularia racemose) black mangrove (Avicennfa Senmfnans) and
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.
~ ~
4 CHAPTER 3: REFERENCES
- 2. Small, J K, 1933. Manual of the Southeastern Flora, Hafner Publishing Company, Nev York.
7
TABLE 3-1 COVER/ABUNDANCE ESTINATES FOR 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) 1 3 3 3 2 3 5 4 1 1 2 4 Helianthus debilis var debilis (aunflouer) 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 1 Croton punctatus Tucca aloifolia (Spanish bayonet) 5 5 Eattis naritina (bnattis) 2 5 5 2 2 2 Vitex trifolia 4 7 3 5 3 Cassuarins sp (Australian pine) 1 7 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 Note: Stations located contiguously along transect perpendicular to coastline. Stations 1-5 occur on east side of foredune; transect terninated on vest side of foredune at FP&L fenceline (road) ~ Each station is one aeter (3.3 feet) square. Observations recorded January 30, 1979. Voucher specinens identified at University of Miazi Nonenclature follovs Long and Lskela(I) ~ Cover abundance scale(3): 1 ~ solitary, cover less than 6 percent; 2 ~ feu,'cover lees than 6 percent; 3 ~ neerous, cover less than 6 percent; 4 ~ 6-25 percent cover; 5 ~ 26-50 percent cover; 6 ~ 51-75 percent cover; 7 ~ 76-100 percent coveri
TABLE 3-2 COVER/ABUNDANCE ESPIMATES FOR DUNE FLORA: AREA IMlKDIATELYNOHPN OF INTAKE PIPELIHES SPECIES =
STATIONS: I 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031 Uniola paniculata (sea oats) 6 7 Croton punctatus 2 3 Helianthus debilis var debilis (eeafloucr) 3 7 4 Cenchrus incertus (burgraas)
Coccoloba uvifera (sea grape) 7 7 7 Yucca aloifolia (Spanish bayonet)
Serenoa repens (sav paInetto) 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 4 6 Hyrsine guianensis I 5 3 1 7 7 6 Sophora tonentosa (necklese pod)
Lantana involucrsta (lantana) 7 5 Pa nicus rhixonatus Bare 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 Note: See note for Table 3-1 ~ Stations I"3 occur on east side of foredune.
4.0 THIRD IRCAKE 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 the velocity of flow squared (V 2 ) ~ For example, by adding a third 16 foot diameter pipeline, the maximum flow velocity would be reduced to
- two-thirds of the twin pipeline flow velocity (from approximately 10 fps, to approximately 6.8 fps); the headlosses would correspondingly be reduced by S4 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 will 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 ip 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.
10
As shown in Figures 4 l-l through 4.1-4, the pipeline vould begin at 'an E
offshore velocity cap structure located approximately 1200 feet from the Mean.Lov Mater line The velocity cap structure vould 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 vould enter the east end of the intake canal at a nev headwall structure. The headwall structure vould be of similar design to the one built for St
~ e Lucie Unit 2 discharge structure. h short sheetpile channel would be constructed from the headvall to the existing canal.
07'+
PROPOSED VELOCITYCAP TRUE NORTH 0, EXISTING VELOCITYCAP 20 PLANT NORTH L2go. 41'. gg i I iI
% EXISTING VELOCITY CAP l
II ATLANTICOCEAN
<<10 PROPOSED INTAKE PIPELI NE 192" I,D. ~ l DATUM MEAN LOW WATER ATLANTICOCEAN ELEVATION 0.0 I EXIST INTAKE PIPELINES 144" I.D.
I I I MHW LINE MLW I.INE PROPOSED NEW HEADWALL AND CHANNEL DUNES EXISTING HEADWALL MANGROVE MANGROVE SWAMP SWAMP PROPOSED
- 1 WIDENING OF CANAL 40' 0 EXISTING INTAKE CANAL P
S
~O TOP OF DIKE ~ ELEV. +13 P q 8a
~ g M 600 FEET g~
gl
~Q PLAN OCEAN INTAKE PIPELINE
e0'+ SS' 9" NTS tLAN SHOWN WITH VELOCITY CAP t LAN SHOWN WITHOUT VELOCITY CAP
'gP I
si o tl
~
I II H
I(
I(
gl II 't I II
)I II I II Iy
~ ~
C EXIST. tltELINES NEW PIPELINE PROPOSED VELOCITYCAP EXISTING VELOCITY CAPS PLAN ~ OFFSHORE VELOCITYCAPS 0 0 10 20 SO 40 50 00 70 80 FEET g
0 P ~
Qr is gr IR
Q VELOCITYCAP MEAN LOW WATER EL 0.00
~EL . 5.75 FLOW FLOW EI 18 OCEAN BOTTOM EL. -18.0+
EL -
FLOW 34.00'LM+
SHEET PII.ING TR EMIE CONCRETE PZ32 SHEET PILING OR EQUAL TO EL ~ 70.0 Q
I SECTION THROUGHT VELOCITYCAP glFLE a$
55 tel g
Eq 55 Pl
)R
CHANNEL HEADWALL PIPE LINE El. + 15.0 TOP OF DIKE EL+ 13 EL +13.00 STOP LOG SHEET PILING GUIDES TO CANAL MAIN SLUICE GATE 't PIPE EL. -25.5 EL-1780'REMIE EL -27.5 llllll Illll CONCRETE I ll 'I'I I
JJJJJJJLIJ, I I LJ LLL SECTION THROUGH HEADWALLEc CHANNEL
~ js tl 5.0 CONSTRUCTION EFFECTS 5.1 ECOLOGICAL EFFECTS Construction of the TIP will probably begin in February 1982 and will be completed by December 1982, before the operation of St Lucie Unit 2.
Ecological effects are temporary and impacts are primarily restricted to marine systems.
5.1. 1 Terre atrial Construction of the TIP will follow the sam'e practices for constructing the discharge pipelines which were addressed A
in Sections 4. 1 3.2 and 4.1.3.3 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report - Operating License.
Terrestrial impacts include (i) excavation of a strip of dune vegetation and sand less than 100 feet wide, and (ii) preemption of less than one half an acre of mangrove swamp immediately west of the storage area and north of the intake canal for an access road and canal widening (see Figure 4.1-1) ~
The dune area affected is characterized by dense stands of saw palmetto and more open areas providing habitat for plant species noted in Tables 3"1 and 3-2 ~ Dune flora is important for its role in soil stabilization, and for the assemblage of relatively uncommon plants of tropical affini,ty. Af ter contours have been restored to pre-construction 12
~ I conditions, the disturbed areas will be replanted with native dune-stabilizing species- >Jo longterm effects on dune flora diversity or abundance are anticipated. Removal of less than one half an acre of the mangrove swamp represents about one percent of the'angrove between the intake and discharge canals.
- 5. 1.2 Aq us tie Construction of a TXP during any part of the marine turtle nesting season (1 May to 1 September) will probably cause local, short-term impacts on marine turtles. Xn 1975, pipeline construction at the St. Lucie site apparently reduced the suitability for nesting of the beach near the Plant. Analysis of nesting data showed that nesting density near the Plant decreased to about 50 percent of the expected number of nests.
- 2) turtles that failed to However, nest in the Plant vicinity probably nested elsewhere on the island as evidenced by the higher than expected nest densities in areas to the north and south of the plant. The effects of construction should be limited to the nesting/ season during which construction occurs After construction ended in 1975, nest:numbers were near expected values.
Additional impacts associated with construction of the TXP may include the crushing and excavation of nests by construction equipment on the beach and nest losses resultng from beach erosion. A nest surveillance and relocation program will be instituted on those areas of beach potentially affected by construction activity, as described in. Section, 4 '.3.2 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report - Operating License.
13
I I ~
The pipeline sheetpiled trench will disrupt the littoral flow of sand that normally stabilizes beaches and, with time, could result in some changes in beach profiles near the construction site. During storms, the process is accelerated and nests in the affected area could be lost to erosion, flooding or additional accumulations of sand ~
In the marine environment, impacts due to construction of a TIP would be J
identical in nature to those discussed in Section 4.1.3.3 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report - Operating License. The sheetpile trench excavated for the TIP would be 364 m (1200 f t) long and 7.6 m (25 ft) wide. The total surface area disturbed would be 2782 m 2 (0.7 acre),
raising the total amount of disruption from 55640 m2 (14 acres for the 2
St Lucie Unit 2 discharge pipeline alone) to 58420 m (14.7 acres).
Thus, the temporary loss in numbers and/or biomass of benthic organisms would be five percent greater than that presented in St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report Operating License. Past history at the St Lucie site indicate that substrate stabilization and recolonization should occur rapidly following pipeline construction.
14
CHAFFER 5: REFERENCES I
- l. Applied Biology Incorporated ABI. 1978. Ecological'monitoring at the Florida Power & Light Co. St ~ Lucie Plant, annual report 1977.
2 vol. AB-101. Prepared for Florida Power & Light Co., Miami, Fla.
- 2. Applied Biology Incorporated. 1980. Nonmadiological environmental monitoring report 1979. vol. AB-244. Prepared for Florida Power &
Light Co., Miami, Fla.
~ ~ gA
~
6.0 OPERATION EFFECTS 6.1 ECOLOGICAL EFFE CTS Operational impacts of the TIP include entrainment and impingement, as described below.
- 6. 1.1 Entrainment Section 5.1.3.1.1 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report Operating License described impact of entraining planktonic organisms into the circulating water system. Use of three intake pipelines, rather than two, to convey the required 2320 cfs cooling water will not increase plankton entrainment. The types and concentration of planktonic organisms will also be similar among intake pipelines due to the fact that the TIP would withdraw water from the same source volume as that presently used.
Three intake pipelines, will have intake velocities lower than the 1.0 fps evaluated for the existing twin pipelines (Section 3.4.2.1 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Enviroaaental Report - Operating License). Thus, to the extent that entrainment is a species-specific function of intake velocity (ie, ability to resist or avoid intake currents), ictual losses of organisms for two unit operation may be less than that estimated in Section 5.1.3.1.1 of the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report - Operating License. An entrainment rate of 3.6 percent of the neaz field community was presented as a worst case for two unit operation in the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental ReportWperating License.
~ gb 6.1.2 Impingement Impingement effects of two unit operation at St Lucie were discussed in detail in Section 5.1.3.1.2 hf the St Lucie Unit 2 Environmental Report-Operating License. Conservative impingement rates for fish and shellfish were estimated to be 150,000 and 60,000 individuals/yr, respectively. These estimates assumed a 'linear increase in impingement with respect to capacity or velocity, and year-round operation of both units. The actual rate is likely to be lower, particularly for important bluefish which appear capable of III species such as Spanish. mackerel and avoiding entrainment into the pipelines. Impingement rates for two pipeline operation with average intake velocities of 1.0 fps should exceed those for three pipeline operation.
Intake operation will affect mostly subadult turtles because they may frequent nearshore waters more than adults. Adult turtles are found inshore only during the nesting season. Studies of turtle populations in Mosquito Lagoon, at the north end of the Indian River, showed that subadults were selectively inhabiting these inshore waters.
It is not known if turtles are attracted to the plant intake area or if they encounter the intakes by chance. However, turtles do seem attracted to underwater objects that appear to provide cover. Behavioral studies of immature loggerhead and green turtles showed that turtles seek out covered areas in which to rest. The existing two velocity caps and exposed. portions of the intake probably appear to turtles as suitable resting and foraging spots in an area. otherwise devoid of bottom 17
~ ~ ~
profile. Turtles may enter the intake pipes in response to the visual cue of the dark area under the velocity caps, or accidentally, vhile searching for food or svimming in the area when the vater is turbid.
The addition of a third intake structure may increase the entrapment rate of marine turtles. The percentage of turtles coming in contact vith the plant intake that actually enter the pipelines is not knovn, but a TIP will'increase the probability of a turtle dncountering a structure.
6.2 OTHER EFFECTS 6.2.1 Aesthetics Since the TIP is buried under the ocean and the beach dunes, operation of the TIP will offer no visual impacts-6.2.2 Noise Effects Operation of the TIP as veil as the existing tvin intake pipelines would not produce any noise.
18
Question 291.22: 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 pipe-line, headwall, and widening of the intake canal.
Response: See attached marked-up aerial photo.
c '4
~ ~'7& ~ b
~ s~k8~
t gPjvjfygq
.g 4 A%4
'r '$ (l yi
'ig
~~< dl, OIPrx'~v '
e
~
l>s t,
AA'46'Zdtfc IAAF'(Ci/Fdic rPggg g) 8c N'07~-'OC8r7/p'>r pErCEA)aid D 8Y CdZPS 6 F gW6'yu<-Wgg.
13
4
<'W j*~>>I)I.L'l$ A'((If *
~ p
-.~'PDfl 49~ ~ I
~{
)
f~ 9 >'u <
I.
'Jl;-.-':::=..
4'/p I VO, I ~
'pas/PZ:.'
I TLLL -4 V J
/Ai,.@Q 4
I Il jj.,b
'>>A.:.
4 pi Lf L" +I 7 I 7!
,I~)Pq g(I: '.-+{i "4{'-
I I:
vrlv 'q J
~)
I J 4V t r~g 91{6 l T .4'Lg, I 41,
'I J 4 g
pp~4f
'{)-.' ... ~
VI I'l
! ~ ~ L
',r ---.3 =.;-
II I CX
,, -',)'lN ilv e J ~ 4!I P(, Ii 4'y.+N
<
IJ err I - ~ Question ~ 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. Crops permit special conditions. Question 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. Question 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 date 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 Environ-mental 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=l; leatherback n=3; loggerhead n=132), maximum dimensions recommended were: square opening of 31.5 cm (12.5 in.) on a side or a diagnoal measurement of 44.5. These dimensions would exclude approximately 95% of the turtles. On July 24, 1978 this preliminary design was completed and reviewed by FPL. 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 'o 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 it was concluded that there was no difference between the two modes af operation. On June 8, 1978, Florida Power 6 Light Company contracted with Applied 3iology 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 (Applied Biology, 1980) 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 sun light. At night the bubble screen w'hs ineffective. Under 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 was 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-circuj.t 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, FPL 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 (Environmental and Chemical Sciences, 1981) was issued in December, 1981; and is being evaluated by FPL at the present time. The con-clusions of'he study are as follows:
- 2. Exposure to low voltage electric fields did not harm the turtles. Turtles did not exhibit learned behavior after repeated exposures to such fields.
- 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 indication that green turtles are more sensitive than loggerheads.
- 5. 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.
References:
Applied Biology, Inc. 1980. Turtle Entrainment Deterrent Study, AB-290, Atlanta, Ga.
Environmental and Chemical Sciences, Tnc. 1981. Avoidance responses by sea turtles exposed to electric fields, Atlanta, Ga.
I Question 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 effic'iency 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 Florida Power & Light Company, 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 in-cludes injections of antibiotics and vitamins by a local veterinarian if warranted.
- 3. Resuscitation techniques are used if the animal appears recently dead (a green was revived by mouth-to-mouth 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 fi.sh 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.
The following are methods which will be evaluated and/or employed to further reduce mortalities (emphasis on greens or other small turtles):
- 1. 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
fished there, while the heavier nets could be placed farther up the canal for the loggerheads.
Through practical experience as other ideas occur on on methods to reduce turtle netting mortality, they will be tested and, if effective, they will be incorporated into the procedures.
Question 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 estimate 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 1971, 1973, 1975, 1977, 1979, and 1981 conducted by the Florida Department of Natural Resources and Applied Biology, Inc.,
under contract with Florida Power& Light Company. 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 (Applied Biology, Inc., 1980, 1982).
R. Vitham of DNR reported 62 nests in 1978 (a non-survey year for FPL) (Applied Biology, Inc. 1980) ~ Loggerhead turtles had a range of 3000 4800 nests per year with a mean of approximately 4000 (these figures are whole island estimates based on extrapo-lations from transects)(Applied Biology, Inc., 1980, 1982) ~
Figure H-11 (Applied Biology, Inc. 1980) illustrates that greens predominantly 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. (Applied Biology, Inc. 1982).
Figure H-3 (Applied Biology, Inc., 1980) illustrates the nesting pattern of loggerheads in Area 4 (e.g. the Plant Site). In,1981 (Applied Biology, Inc., 1982), 65 nests were recorded in Area 4, compared to 124 nests observ'ed in 1979 when'no beach and'nearshore construction occurred.
Pritchard (1978) estimates the U.S. loggerhead population consists of about 15,714 adult females. An estimated 19,895 nests are dug in Florida each year by an adult female population estimated at 14,210 individuals.
Pritchard (1978) also estimates 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.
(1980), surveyed selected Florida beaches on the east coast (a total of 222.1 km), and 1isted actual green nest counts at f
281(Table 2). Counts for loggerhead nests during the same survey were 9448 (Table 2) ~ Comparison from 1979 and 1980 revealed two short-tean trends: loggerhead nesting decreased in 1980 and green turtle nesting increased in 1980.
References:
Applied Biology, Inc. 1980. Florida Power & Light Company, St. Lucie Plant, annual non-radiological environmental monitoring report 1979, AB-244 'pplied Biology, Inc.,
Atlanta, Ga.
Applied Biology, Inc. 1982. Florida Power & Light Company, St. Lucie Plant, annual non-radiological environmental monitoring report 1981, AB-379. Applied Biology, Inc.,
Atlanta, Ga.
References (Contd)
Huff, J. Alan, P. Ross Vitham Carol J. Gray, and Lou Fallon 1980. Summary of Marine turtle activity in.
Florida in 1980. Florida Department of Natural Resources, Marine Research Laboratory, St. Petersburg, Fl.
Pritchard, Peter C. H. (ed.) 1978. Rare and endangered biota of Florida, Vol. 3; 'Amphibians and Reptiles. University Presses of Florida, Gainesville, Fl.
Table 2 1980 Nest Survey -At'lantic Coast of Florida Actual Counts Location ~Count Caretta caretta Chelonia m das
- 1. Key Biscayne Dade 22 10
- 2. Miami Beach Dade 10
- 3. Deerfield Beach Broward 555
- 4. Boca Raton Palm Beach 127
- 5. Highland Beach Palm Beach '11 34
- 6. Lantana Palm Beach 10
- 7. Lost Tree Village Palm Beach 189 16 Beach
- 8. Juno Pier Palm Beach 384
- 9. Jupiter Island Hartin 1, 104 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. to Brevard 3,933 122 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 p