ML17266A093

Requests That 790412 Proposed Amend to License DPR-67 Be Modified to Include ETS 4.2, Min Effective Chlorine Usage. Mod Eliminates Overlapping Regulatory Requirements

ML17266A093
Person / Time
Site:	Saint Lucie
Issue date:	09/10/1979
From:	UHRIG R E FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT CO.
To:	EISENHUT D G Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
L-79-248, NUDOCS 7909140353
Download: ML17266A093 (72)

Text

~C i lg FLQalOA PO"IQR c LIGHT Coti'BEANY Of f i ce of Nucl ear Reactor Regul ation Attention:

Nr.D.Eisenhut, Acting Director Division of Operating Reactors U.S.Nuclear Regulatory Commission 1Jashington, D.C.20555 September 10, 19/9 L-79-248

Dear fair.Eisenhut:

Re: St.Lucie Unit No.1 Docket Ho.50-335 Proposed Am ndment to Facility Operating License DPR-67 i~1y letter to you dated April 12, 1979 (L-79-88), requested the deletion of cer-tain Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS)for St.Lucie Unit ho.1 on'he basis of the ruling given in Yellow Creek (ALAB-515).

These ETS included limitations and monitoring requirements for non-radiological efflu nis which fell under the jurisdict'.on of the U.S.Environmental Protectioni Agency (EPA)under the Federal'I!ater Pollution Control Act (FlJPCA).A subsequen't;'review of'he St.Lucie 1 ETS has uncovered another specification which was inadvertently omitted from the April 12 submittal.

le request that this proposal be modified to include Specification 4.2,"Ninimu."

Effective Chlorine Usage." The existing National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit for St.Lucie 1, issued by EPA on Jure 14, 1978, (NPDES No.FL0002208) contains provisions dealing with this subject on page 2 of Part I.The aim of'his request, as with the earlier one, is to eliminate overlapping and duplicative regulatory requirements.

In accordance with"lJPCA, regula-tion of these matters falls to EPA.'He believe that the continuation of those ETS requirements for which we have requ sted deletion is not consistent with the guidance provided to the Commission in ALAB-515.1Je the.efore reiterate our earlier request for expedited consid ration.This proposed amendment has been reviewed by both the Company Environmental Re-view Group and the Company Nuclear Review Board of FPL, and hey have determined that the proposed amendmient is administrative in nature and will result in no adverse effects to the environment.

This request is.to be incorporated into our earlier request.The license amendment fee for that request has already been submitted.

Very truly yours, Robert E.Uhrig Vice President REU/dl h cc: Jlr.James P.O'ei 1 ly, Region I I flarold F.Reis, Esquire g$53 PCOPLF S-nviiwG i EOPLE APPENDIX B PROPOSED ST.LUCIE PLANT PREOPERATXONAL AND OPERATXONAL BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM'I.GENERAL The ecological baseline study of Florida Power 6 Light Company's (FPL)St.Lucie Unit, No.1 was designed and implemented by the staff of the Florida Department of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory.

Five offshore sampling stations were established (Figure 1), and sampling was conducted from July 19/1 to August 1974.The last portions of the data analyses and report preparation for this baseline study are being completed.

Following the sampling for baseline study, the Environmental Technical Specifications (ETS)for the operational monitoring program, contained.

in the operating license for St.Lucie Unit.No.1 issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), were written.These specifications

~~~~delineated the biotic communities to be studied and stated that sampling was to be conducted at the same five stations established for the baseline study.The objective of the operational monitoring study has been to gather data for comparison with data obtained during the baseline study.Xn March 1976, sampling for the operational monitoring program was begun by Applied Biology, Inc.(ABI).In addition to the five stations established for the baseline study, a nearshore sate south of the plant was selected as a control station.This control station was located distant from the plant and therefore away from possible~~~influence from warm water discharges.

Xn accordance with the ETS, collections were made to assess benthic organisms, plankton, nekton,

~~YARDS Kl LO METERS 2000 1000 0 1 2 SCALE~g a r 1;,\a I Ve~,'\t~>~a a~ala+pm St.Luci Plaot." tI A'~r~~Figure 1.Location of the five offshore sampling stations (1-5)established for baseline study and the control (C)station designated for the operational monitoring study.

~~

macrophytes, water quality and migratory sea turtles.The results and analyses of these collections have been reported annually (Re'f.1, 2, 3, 16).~~The five offshore stations were established by the Florida Department of Natural Pesources (FDNR)before a comprehensive evaluation of the offshore currents was available.

More recently, water current.data (Ref.14)has been obtained which indicates that if the stations were relocated they could better represent the biological conditions in areas of potential plume impact,.As shown in Figure 2, the predominant surface currents, and sub-sequent plume orientation from the point of discharge (Station 1), are to the north.Based on water current evaluation and the results of the biological monitoring program to date, FPL believes that, 1 certain revisions to the program prescribed in the ETS are appropriate.

The program described herein reflects these revisions and would be used by both St.Lucie Unit No.1 (operational monitoring) and St.Lucie Unit No.2 (preoperational and operational monitoring).

Xn the regulatory scheme established by the Federal Nater Pollution Control Act of 1972 (FWPCA), 33 USCA 55 1251 et sece, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)was given jurisdiction over all water quality matters relating to non-radiological liquid effluents.

Xn its Yellow Creek decision (ALAB-515), the NRC's Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board held that the NRC may not specify water quality restrictions in excess of those imposed by

~~

h I, l t~~'I,;~~r~tt~t w t gO-~ogO KO 0%~'l h~h'tt At-'-" 0\1~r I t O(0'c.cP: 4~F L.I I', 0,'g I g S ,'Z 0: Ct-'Q)Kg rO..I-N-0 hO 0 I~I'0~~:,;II.etl\H+'0: L r~'t)St.Lucie'an I t't t'I Il A 6.5'vA\'Vh'OLO qO LO Figure 2.Frequency distribution of surface current direction in relation to operational monitoring sampling stations.

EPA..On the basis of ALAB-515, and the water quality effluent limitations and monitoring requirements contained in the National t t Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)permit issued by EPA pursuant to PWPCA for St.Lucie Unit No.1, FPL has petitioned the NRC for the deletion of similar conditions contained in the ETS for St.Lucie Unit l.However, this request, to the NRC did not address the aquatic biological monitoring requirements also contained in the St.Lucie Unit No.1 ETS.In order to remove this state of implicit dual regulation, FPL proposes to incorporate appropriate aquatic biological monitoring requirements into the NPDES permit for St.Lucie Units 1 and 2 and to request their deletion from the Unit.1 ETS.(The NRC operating license and accompanying ETS for St.Lucie Unit.No.2 have not yet been issued).The program described below is herewith submitted to~,~4 EPA for that purpose.I II.PROPOSED BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM populations of the Atlantic Ocean near the plant discharge to determine the extent that.plant operations may be influencing the offshore ecosystem.

S ecification

-The biological conditions shall be assessed 1)in terms of abundance and composition of the marine biotic community, and 2)in terms of the relationship between certain chemical and physical properties of the waters and the character of the biological community.

Communities described below are to

be evaluated to determine potent'al alterations due to plant operation.

A.Benthic Or anisms Benthic organisms will be collected quarterly and inventoried as to type and abundance of major taxonomic groups present.B.Plankton Plankton samples will be collected monthly.Phytoplankton will be analyzed for kind and abundance.

Chlorophyll"a" will be analyzed as an estimate of phytoplankton biomass.Zooplankton will be analyzed for kind and abundance.

During alternate collection periods, vital staining will be used to estimate mortality of selected zooplankters.

C.Nektonic Or anisms Samples w'll be collected by gill netting once per month during April through September and twice per month during October through Yiarch.-Types and numbers of organisms present will be determined.

Analysis will be made on water samples taken at the surface level at the same time as the phytoplankton sample collection.

Parameters studied will be temperature, salinity, dissolved oxygen content, turbidity and certain selected nutrients.

L.Re ortin Re uirements Results of the aquatic biological monitoring program pre-8 scribed above shall be reported in the Annual Non-Radiological Environmental Monitoring Report to be submitted to both EPA (2 copies)and NRC (as specified).

XIX.XMPLEMENTATXON OP PROPOSED BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PROGRAM A.INTRODUCTION The monitoring program study design originated and was implemented in 1971 by the Florida Department.

of Natural Resources Marine Research Laboratory.

The sampling regime was based on the ecological information available at the time.Sample locations were selected in relation to the predicted plume direction and extent (Ref.4), and the major macrohabitats known to exist.off Hutchinson Island.Stations 1, 2 and 3 were located in'the projected thermal plume area while 4 and 5 were established as, n orth and south controls located in the same macrohabitats as Station 2 (Ref.5).Since 1972, extensive data on the biological communities near the St.Lucie Plant have been obtained (Ref.1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16).Additional physical data has been gathered on winds (Ref.13), currents (Ref.14)and the thermal plume (Ref.15).These biological and physical studies indicate that effects of the St.Lucie discharge may be limited to surface areas near the point of discharge.

The study design should therefore evaluate the biological conditions in the near-field area of potential plume impact.The proposed study design to implement the program described in II above is herein given.B.Benthic Or anisms To assess the potential that there are thermal effects on the less frequently encountered species, quarterly samples will be taken at a control station, Station 1, and at a station to be located just north of the thermal plume's warmest spot (Figure 3).~Four or more replicates will be taken.Station 2 will be retained'to help integrate the modified program with the existing data.All other benthic stations.at the offshor'e stations established by FDNR will be terminated.

C.Plankton Ph toolankton Thre'e."replicates from five offshore stations will be collected monthly from surface and bottom depths for analysis of phytoplankton abundance and species composition.

Dao replicates from each station and depth will be collected for chlorophyll"a" analysis.Existing offshore stations will be relocated and concentrated in the immediate area of the offshore discharge.

Station locations, oriented with respect to plume configuration, will be.in the thermal plume's warmest spot (existing Station 1)and at 100 m and 450 m from this warmest spot in the plume (Figure 4).A control station will be located 200 m upcurrent from this warmest spot.Existing Station 2 will be retained to help integrate the modified program with the existing data.All other offshore phytoplankton stations will be deleted.5

I~~r~YARDS 2000 1 000 0 SCALE 2.3 KILOMETERS

,\~I~rr~0~1r'4*r GBa 0 Bl St.Luci Plapt.'-'fA'A 0B2.0 I rV 0 BC{CONTROL STATION)r~~r.I~~Figure 3.Location of benthic sampling stations

~~I~~~I~I'~~I I I~s~e~I~~s~I I~~~~~~~~~I~~~

Zoo lanktonZooplankton samples vill be collected monthly at five offshore stations (Figure 4).Two replicates vill be collected from surface and bottom depths at each station.One replicate-wi3.l be analyzed for taxonomic composition and abundance and the otherwill be examined using the vital dye technique to determine copepod.mortality during alternate collection periods'..Stations will be relocated in the plume and oriented.in relation to plume configuration at the time of sampling.Stations will be located in the thermal plume's warmest spot (existing Station l)and at 200 m and 450 m from this warmest.spot.A control station will be located 200 m upcurrent from the warmest spot.To maintain continuity betveen programs, existing Station 2 vill continue to be monitored.

All other offshore stations will be eliminated.

Vital dy'e tests will be carried out at the three plume stations and at the control station.D.Nekton The sampling program will consist of offshore gill netting.Two sampling stations will be established near the intake structure and three in the discharge area (Figure 5).The discharge station samples vill provide data on near, intermediate and distant effects of the plume on fish distribution.

Stations will be located in the thermal plume's varmest spot and 200 m and 450 m from this warmest spot.These stations will be sampled as follows: once per month during April through September when.the commercially important.

migratory species are generally not present offshore the St.Lucie ST.LUCI E POPOVER PLANT OlSCHAIlCE CANAL C r T ls~r I l I I~I I ILP I 4-\I I I l l 0 0.-NtACACQ Q<AfM Sl llVCl VAE I I I I I I THERlAAL PLUME I I NOTE: These stations will be oriented.as needed to maintain their positions relative to the plume.'6 C LNTAl(E CANAl..Il'I'<<SLR S6CG),~wraKE I S I l lVCTlJHE N 0 I A N Al V E A rl~'d Lm Figure 5.Location of gill net stations Plant;and twice per month during October through March, when these species are present.Also, Station 2 will be retained to~~~~help integrate the modified program with the existing data.E.Water Quality Samples for water quality analysis will be collected concurrently with phytoplankton samples.Physical and chemical parameters will be monitored only at the surface because offshore waters have been demonstrated to be homogeneous throughout the water column.Stations will be located in the immediate area of the offshore discharge.

Station locations, oriented with respect to plume configuration, will be in the thermal plumes warmest location (existing Station 1)and 100 m and 450 m from Station l.A control station will be located 200 m upcurrent from Station 1.Station 2 will be retained to help integrate the data with previous operational monitoring results~IV-SIGNIFXCAI'7T CHANGES FROM THE ETS NOHITORXilG PROGRAN The program proposed in II above differs significantly from that prescribed in the St.Lucie Unit.No.1 ETS in several respects.Xndeed, the ETS themselves contain a provis'on.for modification of the program based upon the data accumulated after two years of operation.

These changes and their.bases are described below.A.Plankton-Station locations and analytical techniques have been revised.13 Justification Except, for Station 1 in the immediate discharge area, no major~~differences in the plankton communities have been noted (Ref.3, page D-17).Stations should be relocated to assess-the degree of influence in the plume area.Station locations oriented in relation to the plume will provide data to make this assessment.

Statistical comparison of phytoplankton density at the offshore stations has generally shown significantly higher surface and bottom phytoplankton densities at Station 1.Chlorophyll"a."-concentration has also been generally elevated at Station 1 (Ref.3, page D-22).The increases may have resulted from phytoplankton from the discharge canal and/or enhanced phytoplankton growth due to increased water temperature.

Surfa'ce zooplankton densities at Station 1 have been significantly greater than those at Stations 0, 2, 3, and 4 (Ref.3, page E-15).Xt is likely that herbivorous zooplankters became concentrated through emigration into the area of Station-1 in response to in-creased phytoplankton abundance.

The proposed sampling stations in the discharge plume will facilitate assessment of possible thermal effects on the zooplankton community.

Zooplankton mortality has been estimated based on major.physical damage to the organisms.

A more sensitive method is to use vital dyes.Vital dye tests should be made on zooplankters collected from selected stations during alternate collection periods.The proposed station locations and analytical techniques would.provide a more accurate determination of plant impact.B.Nektonic Or anisms-Collecting of samples by trawling and seining has been deleted and station locations have been revi.ed.Justification The ETS allows collection of samples by"trawling, seining, or other suitable method." Trawling and beach seining are sampling techniques that are highly selective for bottom dwelling and surf zone dwelling forms.During over three years of study, neither of these communities appears to be influenced by the thermal discharge (Ref.3, page B-40 and B-43)., Offshore gill netting obtains samples in the water column and is an effective methodology for collecting sport and commercial fish species.The proposed'schedule emphasize's collections during the period of the year when migratory species such as-bluefish, Spanish mackerel and king mackerel are in the vicinity of the St.Lucie Plant.Station locations re-located to the immediate plume area will better assess the influence of the plume on the movements of fishes in the area.vegetation has been deleted.Justification The highest diversity of algae, 88 species, was collected"-during the third year of the study.The.number of species collected was lowest, in early spring and highest in summer and early fall.

This seasonal pattern was typical for subtropical marine vegetation.

Diversity was higher near shore because drift (unattached) algae were the predominate forms and these were ca ried inshore by the prevailing winds'and currents (Ref.3, page F-4).~Vegetation distribution and growth at all offshore stations'urveyed seems to be limited by a lack of appropriate substrate for vegetation attachment.

Well developed macrophyte communities may occur on isolated offshore rock outcroping but the chances of the collecting dredge encountering these outcropings is remote.Because the offshore macrophyte community seems to be limited, it is probably not important as a food source or habitat for organisms living in the St.Lucie area.Since, based on the above, the sampling provides little useful data, there is no need for further~~monitoring of macrophytes.

D.Water Qualit-Collection of samples at the bottom and mid-depth levels has been deleted.Justxficatxon Data from the control station, located distant from the St.Luc'e Plant, were compared with results from station-specific water parameter analyses.Literature data for marine waters of nearshore coastal environments adjacent to the plant were also compared with the present, study.Data comparisons (Ref.3)indicated.

a.Nearly all parameters measured varied signif icantly during different months of the year.

I b.There were no significant differences in physicaland chemical parameters between offshore stations or at different depths.These results indicate that.the operation of the St.Lucie Plant has no significant effect on the selected nutrients in this study.Accordingly, primary monitoring for physical and chemical parameters should be required only at the surface.This will provide representative data which can be used to assess any relationship that might exist between the chemical properties of the water and the character of the biological community.

E.Ni rator Sea Turtles-Various requirements relating to the determination of species, numbers, nesting characteristics, effects~~~of the discharge thermal plume,and temperature stress, hatching and rearing factors for migratory sea turtles have been deleted.Justification The requirements of the specification have been satisfied.

Surveys of the species numbers and nesting characteristics of sea turtles that nest along PPL shoreline property and selected adjacent control areas in 1975 and 1977 were completed.

A report of this was prepared (Ref.2)and submitted to the NRC by PPL letter IL-78-109, dateQ Harch 30, 1978.This report also described studies performed to determine the effects of the discharge thermal plume on turtle nesting patterns anQ turtle hatchling swimming.Additionally, control studies on temperature stress, hatching and rearing factors conducted using turtle eggs from displaced nests were reported.The nesting studies showed the following:

l.There are three species of turtles nesting on E1utchinson Island.The most.common is the Atlantic loggerhead turtle, followed by the green turtle and the leatherbacj turtle.2.In 1975 a decline in crawl activity was observed near the St.Lucie Plant which was most probably due to the construction of the offshore intake and discharge systems, but nesting activities returned to normal patterns in 1977.3.Site specificity of nesting/renesting intervals, and timing of nesting appeared to not be affected by plantoperation during 1977.4.An estimated population of 1491 nesting females was determined for 1977.The results of the studies of turtle hatchlings show no evidence that potential offshore surface temperatures from the plant will cause permanent impairment or mortality (Ref.2).Based on the above, no apparent harm is being caused to sea turtles by the St.Lucie Plant.Therefore, the required studies and monitoring need'not be included.in the operational monitoring program.P.Entrainment of A uatic Or anisms (ETS 4.1)-Various require-ments relating to assessment.

of the effects on planktonic organisms of passage through the plant condensers have been deleted.'Justification The results of the ichthyopla'nkton and zooplankton sampling have been presented in the Annual Non-Radiological Environmental.

18

~v II Monitoring Reports for 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979 (Ref.1, 2, 3, 16).These studies show that the offshore waters in the vicinity of the St.Lucie Plant are not typical of a fish nursery area and have representative zooplankton populations.

Physical character-istics needed in a nursery=area are low or fluctuating salinities, silt-sand-mud-bottom, and extensive beds of rooted aquatic vege-tation.Chemically, the offshore waters in the St.Lucie Plant area are homogeneous throughout with little seasonal variations.

Physically, the offshore areas are characterized by the presence P of relatively constant salinities, shell-hash sediments and.the absence of significant macrophytic grassbeds.

Impo'rtant sport fish were not found to be spawning offshore in the area of the St.Lucie Plant.In general, low concentrations of fish eggs and larvae have been recorded in the intake canal which confirms that entrainment is not significant.

Zooplankton losses through entrainment are not significant.

Based on the above, the required Entrainment Studies need not be included in the operational monitoring program.19 vr v+I LITERATURE CITEDi.2.3~4~Applied Biology, Inc.1977.Ecological monitoring at the Florida Power h Light Co., St.Lucie Plant, annual report, 1976-Report to Florida Power 5 Light Co., tliami, Fla..1978.Ecological monitoring at the Florida Power g Light Co., St-Lucie Plant, annual report, 1977.Report to Florida Power 5 l ight Co., miami, Fla.Applied Biol ogy, Inc.1979-Florida Power 8 Light Company, St-Luci e Pl ant annual non-radi ol og i ca 1 environmental moni tori ng report, 1978.Yol-I'I and III.Biotic monitoring.

Report to Florida Power 5 Light Co., tliami, Fla.Florida Power fm Light Co.1971.Hutchinson Island Plant Unit No.*1.Environmental report Docket No.50-335.20 Hay 1971.Flor-ida Power 8 Light Co-, Hiami, Fla.Florida Department of Natural Resources.

1972.Preliminary environmental studies of coastal waters near Hutchinson Island, Florida.Progress report to Florida Power 5 Light Co.tliami, Fla.6.Gallagher, R.tl.1977a.Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchinson Island, Florida: 1971-1974.

I.Rationale and methods-Fla.thar-Res-Pubs No.23: 1-5.1977b.Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchinson Is 1 and, F 1 ori da: 1971-1974.

I I.Sed iments.Fl a.tlar.Res.Publ.No.23:6-24.9~lforth, D.F., and tl-L-Hollinger.

1977.Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchi nson Island, Fl ori da: 1971-'1974.

'I I~Physical and chemical environment.

'Fla.Mar.Res-Publ.'fo.23:25-85.Futch, C.R., and S.F..Dwi nell.1977.Nearshore marine ecology at Hutchinson Island, Florida: 1971-1974.

IV.Lancelets and fishes.Fla.Mar-Res.Publ.i(o.24: 1-23., 10.Camp, D.K., N.H.Whiting,'nd R.E.Hartin.1977.tfearshore marine ecology at Hutchi nson Island, Florida: 1971-1974.

V.Arthropods-Fla.Har.Res-Pub'i~No.25: 1-63.Gallagher, R.N., N.L.Hol linger, R.fl.Ingle and C.R.Futch, 1972.t<ari'ne'urtle nesting on Hutchinson Island in 1971.Fla.Dept-Nat.Resour-, Har.Res.Lab.Spec.Sci.Rept.No.37: 1-11.12.Worth, D.F., and J.B.Smith.1976.Harine turtle nesting on Hutchinson Island in 1973.Fla.Mar.Res-Publ.Wo.18:1-17.13.Dames Hoore.1977.Graphical and tabular wind roses..St.Lucie, flutchinson Island, Florida, 1973.Report to Florida Power 8 Light Co.fliami, Fla.20 VA~L~

.LITERATURE CITED (continued) 14.Envirosphere Co.1976.St.Lucie Plant site ocean current analysis.Report to Florida Pokier 5 Light Co.Viiami, Fla.Envirosphere Co.1977.Thermal evaluation study.St.Lucie Unit 1 ocean diffuser.Report to Florida Power 5 Light Co.Miami, Fla.16.Applied Biology, Inc.1980.Florida Power 5 Light Company, St.Lucie Plant annual non-radiological environmental monitoring report, 1979.Vol.II and III.Biotic monitoring.

Report to Florida Power.8 Light Co,, Miami, Fla.

J FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT COMPANY-ST.LUCIE PLANT UNITS NO.1&2 LICENSE NUMBERS DPR-67&NPF-16 COMBINED SEMI-ANNUAL RADIOACTIVE EFFLUENT RELEASE REPORT FOR THE PERIOD JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989 P~TABLE OF CONTENTS DESCRIPTION PAGE EFFLUENT AND HASTE DISPOSAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION...

OFFSITE DOSE CALCULATION MANUAL REVISIONS.....

~I~~\SOLID HASTE AND IRRADIATIED FUEL SHIPMENTS......................

PROCESS CONTROL PROGRAM REVISIONS...........

LIQUID EFFLUENT: SUMMATION OF ALL RELEASES&NUCLIDE SUMMATION BY QUARTER UNIT¹1 UNIT¹2 8 10 GASEOUS EFFLUENT: SUMMATION OF ALL RELEASES&NUCLIDE SUMMATION BY QUARTER UNIT¹1 UNIT¹2 12 14 SOLID HASTE-SHIPMENT SUMMATION 16 ATTACHMENT

-A Uncontrolled Liquid Release I

EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 1.1 For Liquid Haste Effluents A.The concentration of radioactive material released from the site shall be limited to the concentrations specified in 10 CFR Part 20 Appendix B, Table II, Column 2 for radionuclides other than dissolved or entrained noble gases.For dissolved or entrained noble gases,,the concentration shall be limited to 2E-4 micro-Curies/ml total activity.B.The dose or dose commitment to a MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC from radioactive material in liquid effluents released, from each reactor unit, to UNRESTRICTED AREAS shall be limited to: During any calendar quarter to<=, 1.5 mrems to the Total Body and to<=5 mrems to any organ, and During any calendar year to<=3 mrems to the Total Body and to<=10 mrems to any organ.1.2 For Gaseous Haste Effluents:

A.The dose rate in UNRESTRICTED AREAS due to radioactive materials released in gaseous effluents from the site shall be limited to: For Noble Gases:<=500 mrems/yr to the total body and 3000 mrems/yr to the skin, and For Iodine-131, Iodine-133, Tritium, and all radionuclides in particulate form with half-lives greater than 8 days: 1500 mrems/yr to any organ.4B.The air dose due to noble gases released in gaseous effluents from each reactor unit, to areas at and beyond the, SITE BOUNDARY shall be limited to the following:

During any calendar quarter, to<=5 mrads for gamma radiation,and 10 mrads for beta radiation and, during any calendar year to 10 mrads for gamma radiation and<=20 mrads for beta radiation.

4C.The dose to a MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC from Iodine-131, Iodine-133, Tritium, and all radionuclides in particulate form, with half-lives>8 Days in gaseous effluents released, from each reactor unit to areas at and beyond the site boundary, shall be limited to the'following:

During any calendar quarter to<=7.5 mrem to any organ, and During any calendar year to<=15 mrem'to any organ.The calculated doses contained in a semi-annual report shall not apply to any STS LCO.The reported values are based on actual release conditions instead of historical conditions that the STS LCO dose calcuations are based on.The STS LCO dose limits are therefore included in Item 1 of the report, for information only.

I I'I" I fv' EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (Continued) 2.Maximum Permissible Concentrations Hater: As per 10 CFR Part 20, Appendix B, Table II, Column 2, except for entrained or dissolved noble gases as described in 1.1.A of this report.Air: Release concentrations are limited to dose rate limits described in 1.2.A.of this report.3.Average Energy of f ission and activation gases in gaseous ef f luents is not applicable.

4.Measurements and approximations of total radioactivity Where alpha, tritium, and listed nuclides are shown as zero Curies released, this should be interpreted as"no activity was detected on the samples using the Plant Technical Specification analyses techniques to achieve required Lower Limit of Detection (LLD)sensitivity for radioactive effluents.

A summary of liquid effluent accounting methods is described in Table 3.1.A summary of gaseous effluent accounting methods is described in Table 3.2.4.1 Estimate of Errors LIQUID GASEOUS Error Topic Avg.%Max.%Avg.%Max.%Release Point Mixing Sampling Sample Preparation Sample Analys is Release Volume 2 1 1 3 2 Total%9 5 5 5 10 5 30 NA 2 1 3 4 10 NA 5 5 10 15 35 The predictability of error for radioactive releases can only be applied to nuclides that are predominant in sample spectrums.

Nuclides that are near background relative to the predominant nuclides in a given sample could easily have errors greater than the above listed maximums'

/I r EFFLUENT AND HASTE DlSPOSAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (Continued) 4.Measurements and Approximations of Total Radioactivity (Cont.)4.1 (Continued)

B.(Continued)

TABLE'3.1 RADIOACTIVE LIQUID EFFLUENT SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS Liquid Source Sampling Frequency Type of Analysis Method of Analysis Each Batch Principal Gamma Emitters p.h.a.Monitor Tank 1 Releases Continuous Releases Monthly Compos ite Quarterly Composite Daily Grab Samples Trit ium Gross Alpha Sr-89, Sr-90,&Fe-55 Principal Gamma Emitters&I-131 for 4/M Composite Analysis Dissolved&Entrained Gases One Batch/Month Tritium Composite Monthly Alpha Composite Monthly Sr-89, Sr-90,&Fe-55 Composite Quarterly L.S.G.F.P.C.S.p.h.a.p.h.a.L.S.G.F.P.C.S.1-Boric Acid Evaporator Condensate is normally recovered to the Primary Hater Storage Tank for recycling into the reactor coolant system and does not contribute to Liquid Haste Effluent Totals.p.h.a.-Gamma Spectrum Pulse Height Analysis using Lithium Germanium Detectors.

All peaks are identified and quantified.

L.S.-Liquid Scintillation Counting C.S.-Chemical Separation G.F.P.-Gas Flow Proportional Counting 4/M-Four per Month

EFFLUENT AND WASTE DISPOSAL SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (Continued) 4.Measurements and Approximations of Total Radioactivity (Continued) 4.1 (Continued)

B.(Continued)

TABLE 3.2 RADIOACTIVE GASEOUS WASTE SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS Gaseous Source Waste Gas Decay Tank Releases Sampling Frequency Each Batch Type of Analysis Principal Gamma Emitters Method of Analysis p.h.a.Containment Purge Releases Plant Vent Each Purge 4/M Monthly Composite Quarterly Composite Principal Gamma Emitters Tritium Principal Gamma Emitters Tritium Particulate Gross Alpha Particulate Sr-89 8c Sr-90 p.h.a.L.S.p.h.a.L.S.G.F.P.C.S.p.h.a.-Gamma Spectrum Pulse Height Analysis using Lithium Germanium Detectors.

All peaks are identified and quantified.

L.S.-Liquid Scintillation Counting C.S.-Chemical Separation G.F.P.-Gas Flow Proportional Counting 4/M-Four per Month r

FLORIDA POHER 5 LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE UNIT 0 1 SEMIANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989 EFFLUENT&HASTE DISPOSAL-SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (CONTINUED) 5.Batch Releases A.Liquid 1~Number of batch releases: 2.Total time period for batch releases: 3.Maximum time period for a batch release: 4.Average time period for a batch release: 5.Minimum time period for a batch release: 6.Average dilution stream flow during the period: 31.0 14500.0 minutes 847 minutes 468 minutes 185 minutes 810,930 gpm All liquid releases are summarized in tables BE Gaseous 1.Number of batch releases: 2~Total time period for batch releases: 3.Maximum time period for a batch release: 4~Average time period for a batch release: 5.Minimum time period for a batch release: 20 4326 minutes 715 minutes 216.3 minutes 1 minutes All gaseous waste releases are summarized in tables 6.Unplanned Releases A.Liquid 1.Number of releases: 2.Total activity releases: 1,0 1.56E-03 Curies B.Gaseous 1.Number of releases: 2.Total activity released: 0 0 Curies C.See attachments (if applicable).for: 1.A description of the event and equipment involved.2.Cause(s)for the unplanned release.3.Actions taken to prevent a recurrence.

4.Consequences of the unplanned release.

FLORIDA POHER&LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE UNIT 0 2 SEMIANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30,1989 EFFLUENT 8r HASTE DISPOSAL-SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (CONTINUED) 5.Batch Releases A.Liquid 2.3.4 5.Number of batch releases: Total time period for batch releases: Maximum time period for a batch release: Average time period for a batch release: Minimum time period for a batch release: Average dilution stream flow during the period: 30.0 13565.0 minutes 847 minutes 452 minutes 185 minutes 810,930 gpm All liquid releases are summarized in tables B.Gaseous 1.Number of batch releases: 2.Total time period for batch releases:'.

Maximum time period for a batch release: 4.Average time period for a batch release: 5.Minimum time period for a batch release: 30 7532 minutes 755 minutes 251.1 minutes 49 minutes All gaseous waste releases are summarized in tables 6.Unplanned Releases A.Liquid 1.Number of releases: 2.Total activity releases: B.Gaseous 0 0 Curies 1.Number of releases: 2.Total activity released: C.See attachments (if applicable) for: 0 0 Curies 1.A description of the event and equipment involved.2.Cause(s)for the unplanned release.3.Actions taken to prevent a recurrence.

4.Consequences of the unplanned release.

FLORIDA POHER&LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE PLANTS UNITS 1&2 SEMIANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989 EFFLUENT AND HASTE DISPOSAL-SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION (Continued) 8.Offsite Dose Calculation Manual Revisions (ODCM): The ODCM was not revised during the reporting interval.I 9.Solid Haste and Irradiated Fuel Shipments:

No irradiated fuel shipments were made f rom the site.Common Solzd waste from St.Luce.e Units 1 and 2 were shipped jointly.A summation of these shipments is given in Table 3.9 of this report.10.Process Control Program (PCP)Revisions:

The PCP was not revised during the reporting interval.7.Assessment of radiation dose from radioactive effluents to MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC is provided on the end of year report.

FLORIDA POHER 8r LIGHT CONPANY ST.LUCIE UNIT SEMIANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989 TABLE 3.3.1 I IQUID EFFLUENTS-SUNHATION OF ALL RELEASES UNIT QTR¹l A.Fission and Activation Products QTR¹2 1.Total Release-(Not including Tritium, Gases, Alpha)2.Average Diluted Concentration During Period B.Tritium 1.Total Release 2.Average Diluted Concentration During Period C.Dissolved and Entrained Gases 1.Total Release 2.Average Diluted Concentration During Period D.Gross Alpha Radioactivity 1.Total Release E.Volume of Haste released (Prior to Dilution)F.Volume of Dilution Hater Used During Period uCi/ml Ci uCi/ml uCi/ml Liters Liters 1.06E-01 4.94E-02 3.10E-10 1.08E-10 1.19E 02 6'5K 01 3.48E-07 1.39E-07 4.43E-01 8.35E-03 1~29E-09 1~82K-11 O.OOE 00 4.44E-06 2.08E 06 1.17E 06 3.42E 11 4.58E 11 FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE UNIT¹1 SEMIANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989 TABLE 3.4.1 LIQUID EFFLUENTS NUCLIDES RELEASED UNIT Continuous Mode QTH¹1 QTB¹2 Batch Mode QTR¹1 QTR¹2 NA-24 CB-51 MN-54 FE-55 CO-57 CO-58 FE-59 CO-60 AG-110 SN-113 SB-122 SB-124 NP-239 BB-88 SB-89 SR-90 ZB-95 NB-95 ZR-97 NB-97 TC-99M BU-103 SB-125 I-131 TE-132 I-132 I-133 CS-134 CS-137 CS-138 BA-140 LA-140 CE-141 CE-144 TOTAL FOR (ABOVE)Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci PERIOD Ci O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O,OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O,OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O,OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 5.78E-05 0~OOE 00 0~OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O,OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 0~OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O,OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 1.63E-04 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 4.01E-05 1.23E-02 5'5K-04 2.33E-02 1.63E-05 2'2E-02 2.06E-03 1.01E-02 2,14E-03 1'8E-03 9'0K-05 2'2K-03 3.64E-05 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 2.24E-03 3.73E-03 3.48E-05 2.57E-03 2.10E-04 3'7E-04 1~45K-03 7'0E-03 4.04E-04 4'0E-04 1.32E-03 6'OE-04 7'5E-04 0~OOE 00 4.09E-06 8.65E-04 2.69E-05 O.OOE 00 7.60E-OS 1.48E-03 1.00E-03 1~11K-02 O.OOE 00 7.90E-03 1~80E-04 3'6E-03 1.02E-03 3'5E-04 1.52E-05 4.33E-03 O.OOE 00 4.91E-05 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 5.50E-04 1'7K-03 O.OOE 00 1.33E-03 O.OOE 00 3.84E-05 1.33E-02 1.70E-05 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 6.50E-04 8.20E-04 3.98E-05 O.OOE 00 2.63E-06 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 5.78E-05 1.63E 04 1.06E-01 4.94E-02 AH-41 KH-85M XE-131M XE-133 XE-133M XE-135 Total for Period Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci 0.OOE O.OOE O.OOE O.OOE O.OOE O.OOE 00 00 00 00 00 00 0~OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 3'7E-04 6.25E-05 2.70E-03 4.33E-01 4.10E-03 O.OOE 00 2.44E-03 4.43E-01 4.23E-05 O.OOE 00 O,OOE 00 8.15E-03 O.OOE 00 1.62E-04 8.35E-03 FLORIDA PONER 8r, LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE UNIT¹2 SEMIANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989 TABLE 3.3.2 LIQUID EFFLUENTS-SUMMATION OF ALL RELEASES UNIT QTR¹1 A.Fission and Activation Products QTR¹2 l.Total Release-(Not including Tritium, Gases, Alpha}2.Average Diluted Concentration During Period B.Tritium 1.Total Release 2.Average Diluted Concentration During Period C.Dissolved and Entrained Gases 1.Total Release 2.Average Diluted Concentration During Period D.Gross Alpha Radioactivity 1.Total Release E.Volume of Waste released (Prior to Dilution)F.Volume of Dilution Hater Used During Period uCi/ml Ci uCi/ml Ci uCi/ml Ci Liters Liters 1.06E-Ol 4.94E-02 3.10E-10 l.08E-10 1.19E 02 6.35E 01 3.48E-07 1.39E-07 4.43E-Ol 8.35E-03 1~29K-09 1.82E-11 O.OOE 00 4.44E-06 2.08E 06 1.17E 06 3.42E 11 4.58E 11 10 C i FLORIDA POWER 8r LIGHT CONPAHY ST.LUCIE UNIT¹2 SENIANHUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989 TABLE 3.4.2 LIQUID EFFLUEHTS NUCLIDES RELEASED UNIT Continuous Node QTB¹l QTR¹2 Batch Node QTB¹l QTB¹2 HA-24 CB-51 NH-54 FE-55 CO-57 CO-58 FE-59 CO-60 AG-110 SN-113 SB-122 SB-124 NP-239 BB-88 SB-89 SB-90 ZR-95 NB-95 ZR-97 NB-97 TC-99N BU-103 SB-125 I-131 TE-132 I-132 I-133 CS-134 CS-137 CS-138 BA-140 LA-140 CE-141 CE-144 TOTAL FOB (ABOVE)PERIOD Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE.OO 0~OOE 00 0 OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE OO 0~OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE Oo O.OOE 00 O,OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 4.01E-05 1.23E-02 5'5E-04 2.33E-02 1.63E-05 2.82E-02 2.06E-03 1.01E-02 2.14E-03 1.58E-03 9.10E-05 2.52E-03 3.64E-05 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 0~OOE 00 2'4E-03 3.73E-03 3'8E-05 2.57E-03 2.10E-04 3.67E-04 1.45E-03 7.90E-03 4.04E-04 4.70E-04 1.32E-03 6.00E-04 7.05E-04 O.OOE 00 4.0SE-06 8.65E-04 2.6SE-05 O.OOE 00 7.60E-05 1.48E-03 1.00E-03 1.11E-02 O.OOE 00 7.90E-03 1.80E-04 3.86E-03 1.02E-03 3.95E-04 1~52E-05 4.33E-03 O.OOE 00 4.91E-05 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 5.50E-04 1.27E-03 O.OOE 00 1.33E-03 O.OOE 00 3'4K-05 1.33E-02 1.70E-05 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 6.50E-04 8.20E-04 3.98E-05 O.OOE 00 2.63E-06 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 1.06E-01 4.S4E-02 AR-41 KR-85M XE-131M XE-133 XE-133M XE-135 Total for Period Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 11 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 3.57E-04 6.25E-05 2.70E-03 4'3K-01 4.10E-03~2.44E-03 4.43E-01 4.23E-05 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 8.15E-03 O.OOE 00 1~62E-04 8.35E-03 C

FLORIDA POWER 5 LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE UNIT¹1 SEMIANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989 TABLE 3.6.1 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS-SUMMATION OF ALL RELEASES A.Fission and Activation Gases UNIT QTB¹1 QTR¹2 1.Total Release Ci 3.47E 02 1.65E 03 2.Avg.Release Bate For Period uCi/sec 4.46E 01 2.10E 02 b.Iodines Total Iodine-131 I 2.Avg.Release Bate For Period C.Particulates Particulates T-1/2>8 Days 2.Avg.Release Hate For Period 3.Gross Alpha Radioactivity DE Tritium 1~Total Release 2.Avg.Release Rate For Period Ci O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 uCi/sec O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 1.91E-07 2.73E-08 1'6K 01 1.82E 01 uCi/sec 1.88E 00 2.31E 00 1.74E-03 2.24E-03 uCi/sec 2.24E-04 2.85E-04 12

FLORIDA POHEB 5 LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE UNIT¹1 SEMIANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989 TABLE 3.7.1 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS-GROUND LEVEL RELEASES Nuclides Released Continuous Mode QTR¹1 QTB¹2 Batoh Mode QTB¹l QTR¹2 1.Fission Gases AB-41 KB-85 KB-85M KB-87 KR-88 XE-131M XE-133 XE-133M XE-135 XE-135M XE-138 Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 3.04E 02 0~OOE 00 2'8E 01 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 9.89E 00 O.OOE 00 9.71E 00 O.OOE 00 1~34E 03 8.81E 00 1.03E 02 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 3.58E-Ol 0~OOE 00 2'1E-03 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 1.81E-01 1~67E 01 1.80E-01 9'8E-02 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 1.42E 00 O.OOE 00 8.29E-Ol 2.65E-02 5.24E-01 7.13E-01 1.57E 02 3.66E 00 1.55E 01 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 TOTAL FOR PERIOD 2.Iodines Ci 3.30E 02 1.47E 03 1.75E Ol 1.80E 02 I-131 I-132 I-133 I-134 I-135 Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci 1~74K-03 0~OOE 00 7.08E-03 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 2.24E-03 2.37E-02 2.18E-02 3.74E-02 2.57E-,02 TOTAL FOR PERIOD 3.Particulates SR-89 SB-90 Ci Ci Ci 8'2K-03 1~11E-Ol O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 13 r ,5;I FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE UNIT¹2 SEHIANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989 TABLE 3.6.2 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS-SUHNATION OF ALL RELEASES A.Fission and Activation Gases UNIT QTH¹1 QTB¹2 1.Total Release Ci 1.84E 03 1.39E 02 2.Avg.Release Hate For Period uCi/sec 2.37E 02 1.77E 01 b.Iodines 1.Total Iodine-131 Ci 6.72E-03 7.19E-04 2.Avg.Release Bate For Period C.Particulates 1.Particulates T-1/2>8 Days 2~Avg.Release Rate For Period 3.Gross Alpha Radioactivity D.Tritium 1.Total Release 2.Avg.Release Bate For Period Ci 3.72E-06 O.OOE 00 uCi/sec 4.78E-07 O.OOE 00 1.10E-07 3.82E-08 5.17E 01 2.75E 00 uCi/sec 6.65E 00 3.50E-01 uCi/sec 8.64E-04 9.14E-05 14 FLORIDA POHER 8r, LIGHT CONPANY ST.LUCIE UNIT 0 2 SEHIANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989 TABLE 3.7.2 GASEOUS EFFLUENTS-GROUND LEVEL RELEASES Nuclides Released Continuous Node QTBP1 QTB52 Batch Node QTBP1 QTB52 1.Fission Gases AB-41 KR-85 KB-85M KR-87 KR-88 XE-131M XE-1.33 XE-133M XE-135 XE-135M XE-138 Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 2.00E 01 O.OOE 00 3.01E 01 O.OOE 00 1.47E 03 1.85E 01 1.29E 02 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 2.84E 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 1.10E 02 O.OOE 00 1.68E 01 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 3.40E-01 5.98E-01 4.05E-02 O.OOE 00 4.36E-02 1,82E 00 1.62E 02 2.53E 00 3.00E 00 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 3.42E-01 O.OOE 00 3.06E-02 2.61E-03 1.18E-01 9.91E-03 8.02E 00 1.63E-01 5.49E-01 0~OOE 00 0~OOE 00 TOTAL FOR PERIOD 2.Iodines I-131 I-133 I-135 TOTAL FOR PERIOD 3.Particulates CO-58 SR-89 SR-90 Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci Ci 1.67E 03 1.30E 02 6.72E-03 7.19E-04 8.62E-03 1.32E-03 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 1.53E-02 2.04E-03 3.72E-06 O.OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 O.OOE 00 0~OOE 00 1.70E 02 9.24E 00 1

FLORIDA POWER&LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE PLANT SEMIANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989 UNITS 1 AND 2, TABLE 3.9 Solid Waste Shipped Off-site for Burial or Disposal b.Dry compressible M Waste (Note 5)Ci c.Irradiated M3 Components Ci d.Other M3 1.Non-Compres-Ci sible Metal (DAW)(Note 6)1.Type of Waste Unit a.Spent resin, M 3 Process filters Ci (Note 7)6.Mo.Period 1.506 E+1 1.105 E+2 1~277 E+1.148 E 0 1.025 E+1 1.149 E 1 2.Estimate of Major Nuclide Composition (By Type of Waste)Category a~Nuclides Co 60 Co 58 FE 55 Ni 63 Cr 51 Cs 137 Nb 95 Mn 54 Sb 125 Zr 95 Cs 134 Fe 59 4.65 E+1 1.71 E+1 1.20 E+1 6.45 E+o 4.93 E+o 2.53 E+o 24 E+o 2.21 E+o 1.52 E+0 1.32 E 0 8.02 E 1 7.51 E 1 b.H 3 Co 60 Cs 137 Fe 55 Cs 134 Co 58 Ce 144 Ni 63 Zr 95 Nb 95 Sb 125 Cr 51 Mn 54 2.31 E+1 2.26 E+1'.96 E+1 7.74 E+o 7 44 E o 7.27 E+o 3.02 E+o 2.54 E+o 1.57 E+o 1.56 E+o 1.07 E+o 1.06 E+o 1.05 E+0 16 r

Category Nuclides c~d.n/a Cs 137 Co 60 Cs 134 Fe 55 Co 58 Ni 63 Nb 95 Mn 54 Zr 95 Cr 51 n/a 3.68 E+1 2.80 E+1 1.41 E+1 93 E+o 4.85 E+o 2.87 E+o 2.85 E+o 1.74 E+o 1.64 E+o 1.08 E+o 3.Solid Waste Disposition Number of Shipments 31 Mode of Transportation Sole Use Truck Destination Barnwell, S.C.Number of Shipments 0 Mode of Transportation N/A Destination N/A N/A=Not Applicable 17 4 I FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ST~LUCIE PLANT SEMIANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989 UNITS 1 AND 2, TABLE 3.9 (CONT'D)Waste Class Total Total Volume Curies Cubic Ft.(Note 1)Principal Type of Radionuclides Waste (Notes 1 a 2)(Note 3)Category Reg-Guide 1.21 Type of Container (Note 4)Solidification A ent Class A 4508.1 1.15 N/A PWR Compactible Trash l.b Non-Specification Strong Tight Package None (Note 5)Class A 361.9 1.15E-1 N/A PWR Non-Compactible Trash l.d.Non-Specification Strong Tight Package None (Note 6)Class A 411'45.82 Cs137, Sr90, Ni63, Pu24lg TRU PWR Ion-Exchange Resin l.a.NRC Certified LSA>Type A None (Note 7)Class C 120.3 64.69 Co60, Csl37<I129, Sr90y Ni63, Pu241p TRU, Sum of Nuclides with T9<5 years.PWR Process Filters l.a.NRC Certified Type B None

'wk I FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT COMPANY ST.LUCIE PLANT SEMIANNUAL REPORT JANUARY 1, 1989 THROUGH JUNE 30, 1989 UNITS 1 AND 2 TABLE 3.9 (CON'T)SOLID WASTE SUPPLEMENT Note 1: The total curie quantity and radionuclide composition of solid waste shipped from the St.Lucie Plant, Units 1&2 are determined using a combination of qualitative and quantitative techniques.

In general, the St.Lucie Plant follows the guidelines outlined in the Low Level Waste Licensing Branch Technical Position (BTP)on Radioactive Waste Classification (5/ll/83)for these determinations.

The most frequently used techniques for determining the total curie quantity in a package are the dose to curie methods and the (concentration) x (volume or mass)calculations.

Where appropriate, engineering type activation analyses may be applied.Since each of the above methodologies involves to some extent qualitative parameters, the total curie quantity is considered to be an estimate.The composition of radionuclides in the waste is determined by both on-site analyses for principal gamma emitters and periodic of f-site analyses for other radionuclides.

The on-site analyses are performed either on a batch basis or on a routine basis using reasonably representative samples as appropriate for the waste type.Off-site analyses are used to establish scaling factors or other estimates for radionuclides such as 3H, 14C, 99Tc, 129I, TRU, 241Pu, 242Cm, 63Ni, 55Fe, and 90Sr.Note 2: "Principal Radionuclides" refer to those radionuclides contained in the waste in concentrations greater than.01 times the concentration of the nuclides listed in Table 1 or.01 times the smallest concentration of the nuclides listed in Table 2 of 10 CFR 61.Note 3: "Type of Waste" is generally specified as described in NUREG 0782, Draft Environment Impact Statement on 10 CFR 61,"Licensing Requirements for Land Disposal of Radioactive Waste".Note 4: "Type of Container" refers to the transport package.Note 5: The volume and activity listed for Dry Compressible Waste represent the quantity of material that to date has been sent to the Barnwell, South Carolina burial facility.This material was shipped to a contracted vendor f or volume reduction prior to f inal disposal at the Barnwell, South Carolina burial facility.During the reporting period, seven shipments of Dry Compressible Waste (6532 cubic feet, 1.306E+Curi es)were made from the St.Lucie Plant to the volume reduction facility.This material was shipped via"Sole Use Truck" in non-specification strong tight packages.19 4

t Note 6: The volume and activity listed for non-compressible metal represent the quantity of material that during the reporting period could not be recycled by the contracted vendor and required disposal.Note 7: During the reporting period, four shipments of dewatered secondary bead resin (2400 ft., 8.76E Ci)were made from the St.Lucie Plant to the volume reduction facility.Thus far none of the resin has been disposed of at the Barnwell, South Carolina burial facility.20

ATTACHMENT

-A Uncontrolled liquid Release Includes: Copy of Licensee Event Report dated May 17, 1989 and supporting documents relating maximum concentrations as a result of the release.

a